ML20206M380
| ML20206M380 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1987 |
| From: | Luloff A SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206M223 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8704200098 | |
| Download: ML20206M380 (59) | |
Text
-
r-
'*W-
- @e-#
-ggs, < ; ; m,~__
- 7 l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~)
In the Matter of
)
)
DOCKET NOS. 50-443-OL
~
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY of
)
50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
)
OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING PLANNING (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF AL9ERT E.
LULOFF I, Albert E.
Luloff, depose and say as follows:
1.
I am Associate Professor of Rural Sociology, and Community Development Program Coordinator in the Department of f
Resource Economics and, Community Development at the University of New Hampshire.
I have been emp~1oyed at the University of New Hampshire since September, 1977, where my responsibilities are equally divided between teaching and research.
My research component has emphasized the study of the structure and impact of population redistribution and migration on New Hampshire communities.
As part of my research efforts, I have developed Qg and maintained one of the first, and largest, integrated data l
So$
jgg banks on minor civil divisions in the state, which provides me S*
a base of knowledge from which to do much of my work on
$5 gg community and population trends within New Hampshire.
I have o<
y published extensively in the area of migration and its impacts, om S$o and a statement of my professional background and qualifications is attached hereto and marked 'A."
f
)
2.
I have thoroughly examined Volume 6 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, focussing my examination on the population figures it contains and the methodology used to obtain those figures, and am able to state, based on my expertise, ongoing research, and specific knowledge of the seventeen New Hampshire communities in the Seabrook EPZ,
~
that very little or no con ~fidence should be placed on the accuracy of many of those figures, especially those which (1) are based on projections of the population growth rates of towns in the EPZ, (2) pertain'to the size of the special needs and other transit dependent population groups, and (3) pertain i
to the size of the peak transient population.
3.
Population Growth in EPZ
_ m Applicants contend that an adequate treatment of
+
1 growth in the seacoast area is accomplished in the KLD Report,
~ hich makes use of "mean annual growth rates over 4 years, for w
the New Hampshire towns.*
(Lieberman, TOH III)
In fact, such treatment may be biased in that it ignores the vital and dynamic changes that have occurred in southeastern New Hampshire, in general, and the seacoast in particular since the mid-1960's.
Rockingham County, which is the home of the seventeen New Hampshire communities in the EPZ, has experienced I
a greater than national and regional rate of growth since the i
decade of the 1950's.
For the period 1950-1980, it averaged a l
decennial rate of growth of 39.3% compared to the national average of 14.4% and regional average of 9.9% for the same time period.
Further, for the most recent decade (1970-1980),
l
~._ -.-.. -..-__..._,
F
?_
r..
Rockingham County alone accounted for more than lot.of the total New England population growth (51,400 of 501,000).
' '[
Lieberman's (TOH III) claim that a 4-year period is
~ used to generate the annual growth rates is in error since the
- compounded annual rates were calculated using state data for the years 1980 and 1985* (Lieberman, SAPL 34), which, in fact, represents a 6-year time frame.
Further, no justification is given for the use of the 1980 and 1985 dates in the first place, especially since other data for a longer time series is
.readily available.
ForprojActingsmallareapopulations,the general rule,1s to make use of as,much continuous information as available, unless a disjoint series presents itself, that is, unless a structural shift in population growth occurs.
..q
... u i..
~;.
-Thus, regardless'of wh6ther the 1780 to 1985 series used by z..
.. x, - ;~.---
lieberman is 4 years or 6 years in duration, the selection of
~~ the most'recent time span for generating average annual rates
~
of growti res~ults in a set of conservative predictions of population since it ignores the long term and uninterrupted dynamic of growth experienced by the seacoast area
'~
communities.
Indeed, for eleven of the seventeen communties,
~
the use of the 1980-1985 time frame produces the lowest average annual rate of growth and, therefore, the most conservative estimate of population size for these communities.
For similar reasons, it is not clear why Lieberman would use 1984 office of State Planning estimates of population as the base from which i
to apply the "most recent annual growth rate for each town *,
f (Lieberman, SAPL 34) in order to project 1986 town populations.
Since he was already in possession of 1985 data, and since 1984 is not a standard year, there appears to be no reason to use it as a baseline for projections.
Such a procedure undermines the logic of creating a 1980-1985 average annual rate.
And, that the final estimates were ' confirmed by local sources" (Lieberman,.SAPL 34) does not provide'any measure of validity despite the claim for same found in Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition on SAPL 34.
Validity is based on an assessment of the degree to which a data item measures what it,is designated to mea,sure.
The use of figures, drawn in large part from the local town offices and from a model developed by the Office of State Planning of New Hampshire (which in itself is based, in part, on a disaggregation of state and county growth models to the minor civil division level) does not provide an independent measure of validity.
Essentially, such an assessment is contaminated by the presence of an identity relationship, that is, confirmation is sought for numbers drawn in part from the.
suppliers of those numbers.
Similarly, the complaint of the Applicants that there is "no current regulatory requirement to project into the i
future when formulating ETE" (Lieberman, TOH 111) neither l
vitiates nor addresses the contention of SAPL 31, item 3, which i
raises the need for data on resident and employee growth over l
-the expected forty-year life span of the plant.
The use of
{
KLD's average annual rate (based on 1980-1985 data) would l
- L
.i result in an aggregate population of roughly 95,000 in 1990:
103,000 in 1995; and,112,000 in 2000.
A more realistic, and less conservative (but still not liberal) model, one which uses a fifteen-year time series, 1970-1985, to create the average annual rate of growth would result in estimates of 97,000 in 1990,107,000 in 1995, and 121,000 in 2000.
The early differences in these models, though quite small, become much larger as one moves further from the point of projection
, and, in all cases, small differences can have major impact s on several of the seventeen seacoast communities since these communities vary widely in population size, ranging in 1985 from a low of 651 to a high of 26,675 Thus, marginal increments in average annual rates of growth can cause large numericai' increases in population Sn several of the
~
communities.
~
By fixing on o'nly the last six years of the time series scquence,~a~s in the work of Lieberman, the average annual rate tends to decrease.
i Since steady growth has occurred over the long term, more net additions of individu l as to achieve a constant rate of growth is needed when u i
~
j s ng a chorter time frame, because the larger the initial population i
base, the more difficult it is to maintain high averag e annual i
rates of growth.
Moreover, the Applicants' claim that the Intervenors (SAPL 31) statement *(t)he area along the coast
'can be oxpected to have grown at a rate faster than the country (sic) wide average'... provides no basis of fact other than the intervanor's expectation" is in error since it disput es -
~
experiential evidence.
Further, there is ancilliary evidence to support the SAPL 31 claim.
For example, regardless of intra-county growth differentials, many of these seventeen towns continue to experience rapid growth, far exceeding national, regional, and state averages.,Indeed, several national planning organizations have targeted this area as one which will continue to experience growth, largely as a result
~
of its valued residential ambience, proximity to large metropolitan centers, and good highway access (especially Routes 95 and 495).
Similarly, data on both traffic counts and housing patterns support the Intervenors' contention (SAPL 31).
According to published New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NEDOT) information, traffic counts at five sites'in the area (Routes 1, IA, 501, 95 Toll Plaza, and 95 State border-Mass and NH) have increased by more than 364 between 1980 and 1986.
For example, counts at the 95 toll booths reveal an increase of 65% in average daily traffic (from 26,100 in 1980 to 43,300 in 1986); an 18% increase on lA in Seabrook (from 8,500 in 1980 to 10,000 in 1986); a 42%_ increase' on Route 1 in North Hampton (from 11,400 in 1980 to 16,300 in 1986); and a 494 increase on 101 in Stratham (from 13,000 in i
l 1980 to 19,300 in 1986).
Thus, on both the major interstate and state highways and on what is essentially a commercial and shopping route, traffic patterns have grown significantly since 1980.
Such data, in part, reflects the continued increases in population of seacoast area communities.
~~
Housing patterns in the seacoast area during the same time period also reflect continued growth.
.Between 1970 and 1985, the total number of housing units in the seventeen communities increased from 22,300 to 35,000, an increase of more than 50%.
This growth can be decomposed into increases in 1
single family, multi-family, and mobile home units.
Single family units increased from 14,600 to 23,500, multi-family units from 6,600 to 9,900, and mobile homes from 1,000 to 2,700.
This increase was not limited to just the early part of the 1970-1985 period.
Indeed, between 1980 and 1985, over 1,000 multi-family units, 500 mobile home units, and 2,200 single family units were added to the housing stock of this
~
region.
Further, between 1980 and 1987, more than 900 new condominium units have been-sold in the Seacoast area.
According to figures compiled by the State of New Hampshire, over 19,000 building permits were issued in 1985 statewide, an
~.
increase of over 11,000 permits from 1983.
Many of these permits were issued for construction in the seacoast area, which remains a popular residential choice for immigrants to New Hampshire.
Thus, the Applicants' contention that the Intervenors' statement is not based on factual or empirical evidence is incorrect (Lieberman, SAPL 34).
^
Further, a report by the Energy Management Department of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (May,1986) states that
" signs of weakening with regard to New Hampshire's above i
average performance are nowhere in sight."
According to the report, this performance, which the Energy Management..
Department labels *nothin'g'short of robust," points to several factors which have fueled New Hampshire's economy, and the
. report begins this list of factors with popu'lation growth.
It also mentions the state's low unemployment rates and personal income growth as key contributors to the state's booming economy.
It is important to note that Rockingham County, which contains the seventeen New" Hampshire communities in the 10-mile EP2, has greatly profited from this robust economy.
Numerous firms have relocated, expanded, or developed in this region, and the area continues to enjoy extremely low unemployment rates.
PSNH itself suggests that the state will experience a population growth rate "twice the rate of the region (New England) and nation in the next twenty years.*
Since the rational annual average rate of growth is about 14, then the state should enjoy about a 24 annual average rate, according to PSNH.
The state increase represents an aggregate movement of all ten counties; however, two counties, Rockingham and Hillsborough, accounted for almost 60% of the state's total population growth between 1970 and 1980, and Rockingham County alone accounted for 37% of the state's growth.
Thus, it is clear that Rockingham County's growth rate will far exceed New Hampshire's average annual rate of 2% and is in part a major driving force of that average.
What is further clear is that many of the seacoast communities will be playing important roles in driving the county average.
Thus, Lieberman's use of 1980 to 19854 average annual rates are conservative in that no fewer than 12 of the 17 communities experienced a growth rate o
of less than 2% per year, with 5 experiencing rates less than i
1% per year.
It would appear that if it is reasonable for PSNH to use forecasts based on a 24 per year population growth rate i-to forecast energy demand, then it cannot be unreasonable to 4
use the same 2% per year population growth rate to forecast resident population,in the seacoast area.
While the differences between Lieberman's estimates and a ' flat' 24 rate, or a modified average annual rate based on the 1970-1985 time l
?
series, will be small in the short time horizon (10-15 years),
these small differences become quite large, all other things being equal,.as you near the end of the 40-year expect'd life
~
e span of the Plant.
Thus, KLD's repeated statement in Volume 6 of the HERERP and in their responses to several of the i
Intervenors' contentions that their model for computing ETE's relies on a liberal interpretation is not correct with respect
~
to their work on resident population growth.
Similarly, Lieberman in his response to Town of Hampton III discusses the approach he used in projecting employment figures to 1986.
While he is correct in his limited discuss' ion
~ ~ "
of the difficulties associated with projecting employment figures, his modelling approach again differs from that adopted j
by the Energy Management Department of PSNH in its forecast of i
energy demand.
In the report by the latter group, nonagricultural employment in the state is forecasted to j
average about 2.2% between 1985 and 1995 and 1.8 4 between 1995 and 2005.
This is a state average; once again, Rockingham County has enjoyed a better than state average rate of 4
2 i.
m employment growth.
For the years 1980 and 1985 (based on second quarter data for each year), Rockingham County had 3,689 1
and 5,241 units or industries, and 55,223 and 74,700 employees, j
respectively, and thus experienced about a 64 average annual rate of growth for industries and a 5.14 average annual rate of f
growth for employees.
Lieberman's claim that he used "the mean
~
annual growth rate over 4 years, for the New Hampshire towns" 4
j is in error, since his rates were based on the 1980-1985 i
experience and, in any case, do not reflect the same level of' j
optimism found in the Electric Load Forecast Model of PSNH or i
in the employmen,t and industry figures developed by the N'4w i
Hampshire Department of Employment Security.
Finally, additional information on the relatively rapid 4
growth of the communities in the seacoast area is found in the j
changing patterns of land use in Rockingham County.
Between 1974 and 1982, the dates of the most recent U.S. Department of Agriculture' aerial photographs of the state which have been digitized and entered into a geographic information system,
{
significant land use shifts occurred.
The amount of land
)
classified as developed experienced an average annual rate of
~
increase of 6.884, with most of this land coming from idle land j
(land recently cut from forest or land formerly in agriculture but left fallow so that the natural process of reforestation occurs), forest land, and agricultural land.
The rates of i
change to developed land varied across the county as well as among communities in the EPZ.
In 1974, almost 21% of j
Rockingham County was developed; by 1982 nearly 36% was I
10
developed.
Among the seventeen EPZ communities the comparable figures were 29% developed in 1974 and 47% developed in 1982.
Thus, the seacoast region was slightly more developed in 1974 and significantly more developed by 1982 than the county as a whole.
Indeed, seven communities in the EPZ were more than 50%
developed in 1982, with Rye at 59%, Hampton at 60%, and Portsmouth at a 74% developed rate (i.e., developed land at a percentage of total' town land area).
These rates further underscore the continued growth of the communities in the EPZ.
4.
Special Needs and Other Transit Dependent Population Itisthecontentionofthehntervenors(TOHIV)that NHRERP Rev. 2 calculates the special needs population of the Town of Hampton based upon a suspect annual survey.
According to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of TOH IV, the asserted base of concern over the annual needs survey is disproved.
The claim for disproval is based on the Affidavit of Richard Strome (TOH IV) where it is state that 'an additional 50% of individual bus capacity (except school requirement) has been arranged in order to provide for the effective evacuation."
This response, however, begs the concerns of TOH IV as found in Section C (labelled special needs population).
The contention of TOH IV is that the annual survey conducted by the State of New Hampshire for the Town of Hampton resulted in only a 2% response rate.
No explanation of the survey results or of why a 50% multiplier was used, or of what the final total number of special needs people was is o
offered in the responses of Strome or the Applicants.
Whether TTd 691.,2 !!09 ~1eE3N39 Alle eW-1 Pr 91 LE-et-r3
3 i
or not enough emergency equipment is available to meet the needs of the special needs population is simply not accessible i
from the responses generated by the Applicants.
Similarly, KLD bases its trip generation information on a survey of adult heads of households conducted by First..
Market Research of Boston (Lieberman, SAPL 31).
The j
Intervenors (SAPL 31) question the survey results on the basis of potential bias.
The question is not answered in Lieberman's response.
Rather, he argues that the " sample of 1,300 responses is extremely robust.'
Statistically, robustness refers to a test's sensitivity to distortions, and is particularly difficult to evaluate whenever there are several distortions, or unmet assumptions, that apply simultaneously.
Thus, Lieberman's claim o'f robustness must be supported with data which can argue convincingly that no serious distortions.
exist.
Such data are not presented.
Instead, Lieberman's claim appears to rest on the size of the sample, not its adequacy.
Methodologically, one cannot use' size of sample to validate robustness since the number of people interviewed has little to do with the quality of the interviews or the representativeness of the resultant sample.
The survey used to generate the information was clearly biased in that no apparent efforts at call back were made -- either the head of the household responded or the number was apparently scratched from the list and replaced with one with the last digit of the phone number increased by one unit.
Such procedures are not common in phone survey methodology, primacily because of the great a
potential for response bias to be generated.
- Normally, multiple efforts (at least three) at staggered times (for example, weekend day, weekend evening, weekday evening) are used.
Further, no effort was made to identify whether or not the surveyed sample reflected any of the contextual parameters of the population living in the seacoast.
Thus, the results of the survey are questionable, and whether or not the actions of those employed in the EPZ are accurately represented by the survey remains unclear.
The position in SAPL 31 (Item 6) remains unaddressed by Liebe*rman (in his Affidavit on SAPL 31).
Similarly, in SAPL 31 a question is raised on the number of people requiring transit assistance as estimated by ELD.
Lieberman,. in response, does not address th,e question of valid (ty of estimated numbers, as posed in SAPL 31, but rather
~
refers to his argument on validity in response to Item 6 (the First Market Research Survey).
The two estimates are drawn from and speak to two different segments of the EPZ population.
The First Market Research survey is seriously flawed, and the NHCDA survey, which Lieberman also uses to compare the results of the KLD effort, suffered from extremely
+
low response rates (in Hampton only 2% responded).
Thus, on almost any basis, there is little independent support for the numbers generated by KLD, including the fact that the RAC rebutted KLD's numbers with national car ownership statistics.
It is curious and patently inconsistent that KLD would rebut RAC on the grounds that only " site-specific data are relevant,"
especially, since KLD uses a study in New York State to support the trip generation data.
Furthermore, that the number of people in the EP3 having no vehicles available and, therefore, requiring assistance is adequately addressed. tar arbitrarily doubling the KLD count from 2,240 to 4,495 remains unsupported despite the ci, aims of Lieberman, Strome, and the Applicants.
In Strome's response to SAPL 18, it is argued that the correct number of busea.needed to transport all transit dependent segments of each community is available.
He specifically states (Lieberman, SAPL 18) " current counts of school populations and other special facility populations, and the most recent results of the special needs survey, have.
I increased the maximum number required to 515.
This current number of maximum bus requirements does not impact on the suf'ficiency of resources."
Because the evidence to support
- Strome's response is not readily accessible and the survey is suspect, I am currently engaged in research which will provide me with a much more reliable basis that that used by KLD for estimating the size of the special needs and transit dependent population within the EPZ.
Early indications are that the size of these groups could be twice as large as that found by NHCDA in its survey, J,
Moreover,much[tKLD's basis for estimating need is drawn from data first developed by M. Kaltman which was published in February, 1981.
Serious oversights are present in the Kaltman report with respect to the various special facility populations; including schools, health support, and child care facilities.
With respect to educatonal facilities, 1
l only 24 institutions were identified by Kaltman in 1980-81.
A l
major contribution to the undercount present in the 1980 Kaltman report is the absence of sites in Brentwood, New
{
Castle, Newfields, and Portsmouth.
Our research in 1987 has I
i identified 39 institutions (public and private) with a total of l
12,077 students.
In 1980, the Kaltman report listed 12-day care facilities with 577 tahal children.
However, according to our research, there are at least 80 licensed day care facilities in 1987, not including church schools (such as Hampton Christian School, which has a church preschool day care with approximately 45 preschoolers and 15 day care) which accounted for 1,828 total children.
Thus, merely accepting the findings of the Kaltman report underestimates the number of
, facilities (day care plus educational buildings) by a minimum of 83 units and more than 3,000 students.
Despite the fac,t
'l that student enrollments in public schools have tended to decline in some communities in the region, there are many more facilities which were apparently overlooked by Kaltman in the initial report, and simply not counted by Lieberman in his use some five years later of the same report in calculating special needs population.
Moreover, these numbers do not reflect those day care facilities not licensed by the state in which five or fewer children are cared for in a private home, similar problems with the Kaltman report exist in its enumeration of health care facilities in the seacoast region.
Kaltman identified 6 total institutions in 1980 which accounted for 452 beds.
In 1987, we have identified 24 total _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
institutions with a total of 1,062 beds.
It is notable that the Kaltman report did not include one of the region's largest health care facilities, Portsmouth Hospital,(now Portsmouth Regional Hospital), and only included those facilities found in Hampton and Exeter.
Furthermore, Strome's Affidavit in response to SAPL 31 states that j
l l
l (a)t least annually, the Director of NHCDA will i
direct that a plan review is performed to ensure that the plan reflects current emergency preparedness status....
Further, it is stated:
Annually the Director of NHCDA will certify, by letter to FENA, complia'nce with the periodic requirements for the preceeding year.
I am informed that although they were asked during the discovery period, applicants presented no new information on the matter of special needs populations and, therefore, a question must be raised'as to whether the duties of the NHCDA Director have been appropriately carried out.
That the numbers first develope.d by Kaltman and pub,}ished in February o( 1981 continue to provide the core information for identifying this population group, despite the fact that the Kaltman numbers are more than 6 years old, suggests that a major undercount of needed transportation resources has occurred.
Such gaps in
~
the extant data set also calls into question Item 7 of Strome's Affidavit in response to SAPL 18 wherein he states, "It is my opinion that the New Hampshire State and local RERP's identif" and provide for the availability of transportation resources that simoiv exceed the capacity required for persons who may need transportation assistance at the time of an eyercency,"
.(emphasis added)..
~'**
In addition, Lieberman's suggestion in his Affidavit in response to SAPL 31 that the Intervenor's contention that there has been "significant growth" in seasonal accommodations in the EPZ over the past 5 years is unsupport'ed in any way is incorrect.
Data exist which documents an increase of over 1,100 condominium units in the Town of Hampton alone between 1980 and 1985, and ancilliary data on traffic counts, aggregate and multi-family housing units, and new campground and hotel / motel bed and breakfast / inn units also supports the claim by the Intervenors of significant growth in the seacoast region.
Further, a report by 'the New Hampshire Office of State Planning, Hampton Beach Chamber of Commerce, Arthur D. Little, Inc., and Kimball Chase company, published in 1984 and finalized in 1985 states that because of continued growth in
~
~
population and economic activity in the region, demand for parking - the key to KLD's and Lieberman's estimation procedure for the peak population - will continue to grow at an estimated 4
rate of one to three percent annually.
5.
Transient Population The KLD study attempts to estimate the size of the beach population in the EPZ by interpreting aerial photos of the beaches and their environs taken during periods of high use on summer weekends.
The final estimate given is based on a count of available parking places, multiplied by a factor relating numbers of automobiles to numbers of occupants.
Working together with William Befort, an aerial photo interpreter, I have confirmed that a great many photographs.
c were used in the course of the RLD investigation: a total of about 11,000 color slides, of which all but 1,000 or so were taken in 1979.
All were acquired using unspecialized 35mm camera systems with conventional non-photogrammetric lenses and conventional (non-serial) films, and were taken for the purposes of this inquiry.
It is difficult at short notice to assess the value of this archive, especially in the absence of coverage maps showing ths spatial layout of the photography.
Certainly the number of photographs is adequately large; complete coverage of the strip of EPs between Interstate Highway 95 and the ocean, atscaleslargeenoughtopermitcountingsuchcaisandparking spaces as may be seen from the air, could be obtained with fewer photos.
Non of the connecting links between the pictorial data and the reported numbers has been provideds in their absence, criticism must go partly by guesswork and any analysis is problematical.
There 'must have been some sort of data-recording form on which counts of cars or parking spaces in each photograph were compiled.
If these records were available, individual-photo counts might be sampled for verifications as it is, only the gross total for the entire area can be checked, which implies reinterpretation of the entire set.
Nor has sufficient background informttion been unearthed to permit even this laborious approach.
As far as can be determined from preliminary examination of the
.J 1
photographs, coverage of the beach and its environs is discontinuous despite the large number of exposures.
This raises various questions.
Was the intent to obtain complete coverage?
If so, how were the gaps accounted for?
If not, s
then the study is a sampling study rather than a complete enumeration; yet no information about sampling design or stratification accompaniep the photographs.
Without such methodological details, the aerial survey data belongs in the category of irreproducible results.
A disadvantage of,the 35mm slide format in aerial photo work is that it is too small to permit annotation at the original scale.
This can raise serious difficulties in any study involving counts.
Wherever two photographs overlap in their coverage, as many.of these do, standard practice demands that the interpreter carefully draw a line of separation between the object to be counted on one photo and the objects
,4 to b,,e counted on an overlapping photo.
This is easily done on large-format prints or on enlargements made from small negatives; on 35mm slides it is virtually impossible, and no such lines appear on the KLD photography.
Thus, it is.
difficult to guess how the interpreters avoided double-counting in cases of overlap, or how they knew where there were gaps in coverage.
Were all interpretations transferred to a master map of the area?
If so, it would be at least as valuable to have this map as to have the photographs.
If not, then how was it possible to avoid duplications and omissions between photos?
Within. individual exposures, similar difficulties. _. - _ _ _. _ _ _ _. - _ _ - - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
O arise.
Without annotation on the images, an outside analyst can only guess at how the interpreters kept track of their counts of cars or parking spaces.
Perhaps the slides were projected onto some erasable surface, and each item was marked off as it was counted?
Or perhaps not: Absent a complete recount, the photos themselves provide no evidence.
Aside from.these factors, which taken together make the photographic materials supplied nearly opaque to critical analysis, various other questions arise concerning the sufficiency of this photo data for this kind of inquiry.
It should be obvious that many of the actual cars and parking spaces in any such area are sheltered and concealed from aerial observation.
Can these be accounted for?
If so, do they.
represent a d1fferent population, with perhaps g different occupants-per-car ratio, than the autos visible in the open?
Again, nine-tenths of the photography dates f rom 1979, since
~
which time very substantial developments have taken place in coastal New Hampshire.
Are the comparatively few later photographs sufficient to ensure that data derived from the earlier photos are not obsolete, and what tests have been performed to ascertain that this is so?
William Befort and I are continuing our asseesment of these serial photos, and we hope to have further conclusions ready by the hearings this summer.
Meanwhile, there is additional reason to suspect that KLD's estimates of peak transient and total populations in the EP2 are in error.
For example, KLD relies on the Kaltman report for data on seasonal accommodations....
The Kaltman report contains the only detailed list of seasonal accommodations, including peak occupancies of the area's camp grounds, hotels, motels, inns, and bed and breakfasts.
Our ongoing verification of this data has revealed numerous omissions.
For example, we have identified six additional campground sites which increase the maximum capacity for this segment of accommodations to more than 7,400 (an increase of over 2,000 from the Kaltman report).
We have also identified 13 new hotels in the Hampton area, not counting facilities under construction (such as the large Portsmouth sheraton) and are in the process of tabulating total capacity for these units.
However, it.s clear that the Maltman report undercounted seasonal accommodations in the 1981 report, where approximately 3,.300 rooms in Hampton were identified.
Not included in thia ' study were the numerous cottages / bungalows located either in or abutting the Hampton Seasonal Business
- py tone.' ' This zone is betwee'n Ashworth Avenue and ocean Boulevard and generally runs from A Street to the seabrook Bridge, with-the heaviest concentration of seasonal residences beginning on G and H Streets and moving south towards Seabrook.
In addition,severalstreets(suchasAtlantic,$$ASen,[Epping, l
Dover, and concord) which abut the state park and run from Ocean Boulevard towards the Beach contain numerous' seasonal
~*
residences.
And, many streets running from Ashworth Avenue towards the marsh, including but not limited to Dow, Fellows, i
Tuttle, Bragg, Keefe, Perkins, Johnson, Auburn, River, t
Haverhill, and Mooring, also contain many seasonal residences.
The failure to include these units might account for the wide discrepancy in the number of units / rooms identified in the Maltman report for Hampton (approximately 3,300) and the estimate of 6,000 in 1987 from the Hampton Chamber of Commerce.
Purther, no effort was made to identify or include known special events which would raise peak population estimates of the EPI.
Suoh events would include among others, Market square Day, the stratham Fair, and the Phillips Exeter Academy commencement exercises.
Applicants Motion for Summary disposition'on TOR III and Lieberman's response to SAPL 31 both claim that several data collection methodologies were utilized in an effort to adequatelyaccountforboththepermaneitandtransient populations of both Hampton a'nd the EP3.
These methodologies include the use of beach surveys, on-site parking surveys, traffic counts, large-scale photos of the beach area (Hampton -
s taken July 4, 1983), and multiple sets of exter.sion aerial photographs taken of the regions.
Whether the counts generated f rom the "large-scale photos" were accurate cannot be assessed since they were not produced during discovery (apparently there are three of them, see page E-6, Volume 6, NHRERP).
Since a magnifying glass was used to help enumerate "... a total of 1,160 persons...onthebeachandontheabuttingsidewalk near the state facilities," opportunities for miscount of individuals clearly exist.
However, the true key to the estimates of KLD's transient population is based on their utilization of parking spaces.
It is argued in Volume 6 of the NHRERP (and in Lieberman's Affidavit on TOH III) that KLD " relied on empirical observation of the number of vehicles which can physically be accommodated within the beach area."
Since the counts alleged to be accurate by Lieberman, and supported by Strome and the Applicant, are the linchpins to the transient population count, this area is one which~neede a thorough examination.
I do not have the answers to the assessment of Lieberman's work at this point in my research, but by the hearings this summer, William Befort and I will be in a much better position to evaluate these critical numbers.
Further, since the number of people per car, as est'ablished in the "36 surveys of vehicle occupancy," is a critical factor in Lieberman's response to TOH III's. contention that inaccurate accounting,has occurred, it is quit's surprising that a survey of, vehicle occupancy did not occur on August 11, 1985 to coincide with the aerial mission flown on that date, a date KLD claims that the highest vehicle counts were made.
In the absence of ground truth on the day of that mission, we can only hypothesize that the patterning established in the ground vehicle surveys of August 28, 1985, September 1,1985, July 4,1986, and July 5,1986 are an accurate reflection of the peak day load of August 11, 1985.
Such treatment is highly questionable and not standard practice.
Moreover, there were only four days of surveys with multiple timest it is an exaggeration to speak of "36 surveys of vehicle occupancy" when it is 36 different times on these four days that is being referred to.
And, no explanation is,
~
.......... ~
.w.aw;n. -.~.. -.....w...a s.
. offered as to why the timing of counts on each of these days varies.
Repeated surveys of an area at randon times does not establish a reliable estimate of vehicle occupancies.
There is additional information available which addresses increased summer transient traffie flow along the major seacoast arteries and which helps to support the TOR III and SAPL 31 and 34 contentions that increased population growth has occurred.
For example, the average Ju..y-August 1986 daily traffic counts in Stratham on, Route 101 was 22,000 (30% greater than its average January-February daily couat), on Route 51 in Exeter it was 18,500 (684 greater than January-February s
average), on Route 1 in North Hampton it was 17,500 (394 greater than January-February average), rin Route 1A in Seabrook it was l'8,450 (2134 greater than the January-February. average),
on Route 95 at the state border it was 83,00,0 (904 greater than une vanuary-rooruary averages, ana as sne we coAA poosne se was 62,250 (994 greater than the January-rebruary average).
- Thus, increased traffic continues to be documented in the mid-winter versus summer comparison.
bud
///fYkY'h*?~
Mbert F,. Lulof f /f/
l April 14, 1987
, ss.
The above-subscribed Albert E. Luloff appeared before 'me and made oath that he has read the foregoing affidavit and that the statements set forth therein are true to the best of his knowledge.
Before me, s'&,
c Notary Public N j
f My commission expires /0/23/ 7/3
/
/
I i
l l
RESUhE NA>E: Albert Elliot Luloff HONE ADDRESS: 12 Tanglewood Drive Dover, NH 03820 PHONE:
(603) 742-2822 0FFICE ADDRESS: 316 James Hall Department of Resource Economics and Community Development University of New Hampshire
- Durham, NH 03824 PHDNE:
(603) 862-1700 BIRTH: June 22,1950 MARRIED, three children EDUCATION:
The Pennsylvania State University Maj or: Rural Sociology Minor: Theory: Rural-Urban Continuum Degree: Ph.D.
Date:
November,1977 Thesis
Title:
Community Adoption of Flood Insurance: A Study of Structural and Interactional Influences North Carolina State University MAj or: Sociology Minor: Engl ish Degree: M. S.
Da te:
J une, 1974 Thesis
Title:
Community Differentiation:
A Study of North Carolina Communities Cornell University Maj or: Rural Sociology Minor: Cmmunication Arts Degree B. S.
Date:
December,1971 Areas of Concentration:
A.
Cmmunity Theory and Development B.
Migration and Social Change C.
Rural Sociology D.
Methods and Statistics
2 POSITIONS AND EXPERIENCE:
Present Position - Associate Professor of Rural Sociology and Cmmunity Development (University of New Hampshire; 7/82 -
); Coordinator of Community Development Program (1979 -
).
Previous Position - Assistant Professor of Community Development (University of New Hampshire; 7/77 - 6/82).
Teaching:
CD 507 - Introduction to Community and Community Devel opment.
This course stresses the principles and methods of cmmunity development w ith emphasis pl aced on theoretical orientations to the study of cmmunity.
CD 508 - Appl ied Community Devel opment.
This course provides the student with an opportunity to engage in cmmunity action episodes through " hands-on" experience (field pl acement).
Cl ass discussions, assignments and readings are geared to the practice and utilization of community development theory and research.
CD 628 - Cmmunity Conf 1 tct and Consensus.
This course stresses the maj or theoretical approaches to conflict analysis.
Th rough actual cmmunity case study research the students apply these theories in an effort to understand the critical social relationships which are part of planned or anticipated social changes in the comunity.
CD 705 - Planned Change in Nometropolitan Communities.
This course focuses on the discussion and application of comunity dev elo pment theory and principles as used in social science research.
Emphasis is given to spirical research studies of major rural development phenomena.
RECO 803 Approach to Research.
This course introduces graduate students to the meaning of science and the application of logid in the Scientific Method.
Emphasis is placed on the principles and techniques of scientific research, experimental design procedures, organization of investigative work, probl em analyses, work pl ans, and scientific w ri ting.
Research Activities:
NE-149 Levels of Mortality and Econcmic/ Social Structure of Counties in the United States S-2 97 Community and Population Trends in New Hampshire S-3 07 Land-Use and Dmographic Change in New Hampshire
3 NEC-24 Northeast Rural Sociological Committee; Secretary 1979-81; 1983-1984; Vice President 1984-1986 PLELICATIONS:
Books and Monographs Pubi tshed:
Rural Pooul ation G row th i n New Enol and.
University Pa rk, PA:
The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development,1986.
(with T. E. Steahr).
The Directory of Rural Develooment Workers in the Northeast.
Univer-sity Park, PA:
The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, 1986.
The Structure and Imoact of Pooulation Redistribution in New Enoland.
University Park, PA: The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Devel opment, 1985.
(with T. E. Steahr).
Strateof es for Estimatino the Effects of Rural Community Devel ooment Pol icies and Programs.
Under contract to Icwa State University Press.
(with M. K. Miller and D. E. Voth).
Chapters in Books and Proceedings:
" Population Growth and Economic Development in New England." Pp. 71-78 in Jahr, Johnson, and Wimberley (eds. ) New Dimensions in Rural Pol iev :
Buil ding Uoon Our Heritage, 1986, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC; (with G. E. Frick).
"The Cultural Component of Rurality in the U.S. A. : Structural Stability Over Time." Pages 73-87 in R.C. Bealer, (editor), Rural Soci ol ogi st s at Work:
A Festsch ri f t for M. E. John. 1985, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania: Grove Press; (with M. K. Miller).
" Interpreting the Turnaround for Policymakers." Pp.17-26 in Wolensky and Miller (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference on the Small City and Recional Community, 1981, Stevens Point, Wisconsin:
Steven s Point Press; (with U n iv er si ty of Wisconsin L. E. Swanson, J r. ).
" Migration and Its Impacts on the Northeast."
Pp. 123-140 in Hugh C. Dav i s (editor) The Proceedings of the Northeast Agricul tural Leadershio Assembiv, 1979, Anherst, MA: Center for Environmental Policy Studies; (with T. E. Steahr).
Journal Articles:
"S oci al Conse rv ati sm :
Determinants and Structural Stabil ity Over Time." J ournal of Rural Studies 2(Number 1):
9-18, 1986; (with M. K. Miller and L. J. Beaulieu).
4 "Reconceptualizing Age and Retirement Status:
A Note."
Soci ol oaical Focus: 18 (August):
273-278,1985; (with L. E. Swanson, J r., and R. H. Warland).
"N onmetropol ita n Pa rtici pation in Programs of the Great Society."
Soci al Science Qua rterl y 65 (December):
1092-1103, 1984; (with K. P. Wilkinson and M. J. Canasso).
" Local Vol untarism in New Hampshire: Who, Why, and at What Benef it."
J our nal of the Comm u n i ty Dev el oom ent Soci etv 15 (Number 2):
17 -3 0, 1984; (with W. H. Chittenden, E. Kriss, S. Weeks, and L. Brushett).
"R u r al Industri al iz ati on:
A Logit Analysis."
Rural Sociol oav 49 (Spring): 67-88,1984; (with W. H. Chittenden).
" Tenure and Sati sf action as Indicators of
Attachment:
A Note. "
J ournal of the North eastern Acricul tural Economics Council 11 (Fall): 53-60,1982; (with L. E. Swanson, J r., and R. H. Warland).
" Anti urba ni sn and Nometropolitan Growth:
A Re-eval uation."
Rural Sociol oav 47 (Sunmer):
220-223, 1982; (with T. W. 11vento).
"Who is Rural ? A Typological Approach to the Examination of Rurality."
Rural Socioloav 46 (Winter):
608-625,1981; (with M. K. Miller).
" Response Bias in Population Surveys:
A Reply to Ryan and Lorenz."
J ournal of the Community Devel oament Soci ety 12 (Fall):
20-23, 1981; (with P. H. Greenwood and T. W.11vento).
"Responde nts, Nonrespondents, and Population Surveys." J ournal of the Comm un i ty Dev el oom e nt Soci ety 12 (Fall):
1-11, 1981; (with T. W.11vento).
" Migration and the Utility of the OfHS:
A Comparative Note." Rev iew of Public Data Use 7 (December): 62-65, 1979.
" Factors Influencing Willingness to Move: An Examination of Nonmetro-pol itan Residents. " Rural Sociol eav 44 (Winter): 719-735, 1979; (with L. E. Swanson, J r. and R. H. Warland).
" Inadvertent Social Theory:
Aggregation and Its Effect on Community Research."
J ournal of the Northeastern Aaricul tural Economics Council 8 (Spring): 44-47,1979; (with P. H. Greenwood).
"Pa rtici pation in the National Flood Insurance Program:
A Study of Community Activeness. " Rural Sociolcav 44 (Spring): 137-152, 1979; (with K. P. Wil kinson).
"Sociceconomic Impacts on Agricultural Land Use Changes in the North-east." J ournal of the Northeastern Acricul tural Economics Council 7 (Fall): 67-74,1978; (with D. E. Morris).
5 "Is Cmmunity Alive and Well in the Inner-City? A Cmment on Hunter's Loss of Community." American Sociol ogical Rev iew 42 (October):
827-828,1977; (with K. P. Wilkinson).
"A Note on Population Size and Community Differentiation in Normetro-pol itan Communities. "
Sociol oov and Soci al Resea rch 61 (July):
486-495,1977; (with C. S. Stokes).
" Historical Interpretations of Developments in American Sociological Theory : A Note." Indian Journal of Social Research 14 (Deceber):
194-209,1973; (with R. P. Mohan).
Agricultural Experiment Station Research:
" Land-Use Change:
Rockingham County, New Hampshire 1953-1982."
New Hampshire Agricul tural Experiment Station, Research Report No.
112; 1986; (with W. A. Befort, M. Morrone).
" Land-Use Change:
Straf ford County, New Hampshire 1953-1982."
New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report No.
111; 1986; (with W. A. Befort, M. Morrone).
" Population Growth and Change i n New H amp sh i r e. "
N ew Hampshire Agricul tural Experiment Station, Research Report No.107, 1985; (with G. W. Howe and S. G. Hutchins).
"The Senior Population of New Hampshire." New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report No. 104, 1984; (with E. F. Jansen, J r., N. L. LeRay, and Y. N. Pa rmel e).
"Tcwn Government Volunteers:
Their Characteristics, Motivation s, and Costs to the Community." New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Sta tio n, Research Report No.101, 1984; (with W. H. Chittenden, E. Kriss, S. Weeks, L. Brushett).
"New Hampshire's Experience with the Current use Program, 1974 to 1980."
New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report No. 99,1983; (with S. D. Smith, E. A. Fountain, P. H. Greenwood, and G. E. Frick).
"An Evaluation of Econmic Gains of Participants in the Hillsborough County's &TA Programs. "
New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report No. 95,1983; (with P. H. Greenwood).
" Industry in New Hampshire:
Changes in the Manuf acturing Sector, 1970-1978."
New Hampshire Agric ul tur al Experiment S ta ti o n, Research Report No. 93,1982; (with W. H. Chittenden and J. P. Marcucci).
6 "A Methodological Appraisal of the Follow Up Instrument Used in Evaluating Hillsborough County's CETA Programs. "
New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Sta tion, Bulletin No. 521, 1982; (with P. H. Greenwood).
"The Effectiveness of Wide Lath Spacing in Reducing the Handling of Short Lobsters in New Hampshire's Waters." New Hampshire Agricul-tural Experiment Stati on, Research Report No. 92, 1982; (with P. H. Greenwood, M. F. Grace, and the assistance of P. Tilton).
"N ew Hamp sh i re's Ch anging Popul ation."
New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report No. 87,1980; (with
- f. W.11vento and G. D. Israel).
" Definitions of Canunity:
An Illustration of Aggregation Bias."
New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 516, 1980; (with P. H. Greenwood).
" Migration and Its Impacts on the Northeast." New Hampshire Agricul-g tural Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 511,1979; (with T. E. Steahr).
"New Hampsh i re's Po pul ati on:
Trends and Characteristics."
New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report No. 73, 1978; (with K. T. Taylor).
"The Older Population of New Hampsh i re. "
New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report No..66,1978; (with N. L.
LeRay and J. G. Campbell).
Book Revtews, Newgjournals, and Reports:
"New England Economic Development:
A Pattern of Reindustrialization."
Ccmmissioned paper for the New England Leadership Program, Inc.,
J anua ry, 1987.
"The Starr Case, Tenure, and RSS - A Perspective." The Rural Socio-logist 6 (January): 34-38, 1986.
"W here the Surpl us Milk is Being Produced."
Hoa rd' s Dairvman 130 (Septenber): 1023,1985; (with G. E. Frick).
" Rural Community Developmer.t: The Preliminary Program for the 1985 RSS Meeti ngs. " The Rural Sociologist 5 (May):
163-190, 1985.
" Update on the Program for the 1985 Annual Meeti ng. "
The Rural Sociologi st 5 (March):
125-126, 1985.
"On the 1985 RSS Meeting." The Rural Socielogist 5 (January):
52-53, 1985.
'o "On Teaching Fall
'82."
The Rural Sociologist 3 (July): 278, 1983.
"The Rural Soci ol ogical Society:
A Professional Ca ri ca ture. "
Iha Rural Sociologist 3 (January):
23-27,1983; (with M. K. Miller).
" Book Review of Rural Community Devel oment:
A Procram. Pol icv, and Resea rch Model. " Rural Socioloov 48 (Summer): 332-334, 1983.
" Book Review of New Directions in Urban-Rural Micration: Th e Poou-lation Turnaround in Rural Anerica." Rural Sociol oov 47 (Sunmer): 405-408, 1982.
" Book Rev iew of Comm u n i ty and Soci al Ch ange in Am erica. "
Rural Sociol oav 46 (Spring):
157-159, 1981.
'Hillsborough County's TA Programs:
A Report Prepared for Southern New Harr.pshire Services."
Title IIB and D Foll ow-up Eval uation Project; December,1980; (with P. H. Greenwood).
Invited Paper:
"The Good Cmmunity: A Rural Sociological Perspec-tive." Newsline 8 (July):
44-48, 1980.
" Reply to comments on 'The Good Community:
A Rural Sociol ogical Pe rspecti v e. ' " Newsline 8 (July): 53-56, 1980.
Invited Renarks:
"A Comment on 'The Study of Small Towns in V i rgi ni a. '" Small Town 10 (January-February):
29-30, 1980.
" Book Review of Goal Settino for Community Devel coment:
Th e Ca se of Yuba Citv. Cal i f orni a. "
Rural Soci ol oov 44 ( Summer):
434-436, 1979.
" Identifying the Locus for Action: What Local Residents Say."
Small Tgga 9 (December):
11-14,'1978.
" Book Rev iew of Soci ol ogi cal Theorvt Its Devel oaments and Maior j
Pa radi an s. n Rural Socioloov 43 (Fall): 528-529, 1978.
Ci tiz ens Co nce rn s:
"What Local Residents Say. "
Rural Devel oornent V ol. 1, 1974 ; (w i th J. S. Th om so n, K. M. Pa r ti n an d J. P. Ma d de n ).
Papers Presented:
" Rural Land Use and Demographic Change in a Rapidly Urbanizing Environ-ment."
Paper presented at the Sustaining Agriculture Near Cities Conference, Novenber,1986; Boston, Massachusetts.
"Contenporary Issues in Northeastern Cmmunities."
Invited pre se nta-tion at the George D. Aiken Lecture Series, University of Vermont, Septanber,1986; Burlington, Vermont.
I 8
" Environmental Variables in Models of Agriculture," (with M. Fischer).
Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of Rural Sociol ogical Society, August,1986; Salt Lake City, Utah.
" Examination of the Relational Structure of Community Actions Using 0- Analy si s,"
(with C. Kassab ).
Paper presented at the Ann ual Meetings of the Rural Sociological Soci ety, August, 1986; Sal t Lake City, Utah.
"Maj or Issues Facing Rural Communi ti es, " (with L. E. Swanson,- J r. ).
Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August,1986; Salt Lake City, Utah.
" Identifying Canmunity Pcwer Actors and Structures." Invited presenta-tion at RULE Leadership, Inc., Workshop #4, Ma rch, 1986; State College, Pennsivania.
Session Presider and Panelist, " Rural Community Studies," Presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August, 1985; B1acksburg, Yf rginia.
"Agr icul tu ral Tech nol ogy :
Concerns for the Future II."
Seminar presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociol ogi cal Society, August,1985; Blacksburg, Virginia.
Session Organizer and Partici pa nt, " Pop ulation Redistribution and Migration in New Engl and. " Presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August,1985; Blacksburg, V irginia.
"The Demographics of Northern New En gl and. "
Invited presentation at Northern New England Rural Leadership Program, January, 1985; Bedford, New Hampshire.
"The Mature Region."
Invited presentation at The New England Rural Leadership Program, Decenber,1984; Fai rlee, Vermont.
"A Common Language in Communi ty Dev el opment:
Relattng Theory to Practice - A Critique." Invited discussant cm.ments for presen-tation at the annual meetings of the Community Development Society of America, August,1984; Louisville, Kentucky.
"An Examination of the Rural-Urban Continuum: A Factor Analysis of New Hampshire Municipalities," (with T. W.11vento).
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociol ogical Society, August,1983; Lexington, Kentucky.
Rountabl e Organizer, "The Changing Role and Function of Community in Modern Society."
Presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August,1983; Lexington, Kentucky.
=
o 9
"The Cultural Component of Rurality:
Prevalence, Determinant s, and Structural Stability Over a Decade of Change," (with M. K.
Mill er).
Paper presented at the M. E. John Symposium, August, 1983; University Park, Pennsylvania.
"Vol untari sm in New Hampshire:
Who Vol unteers and Why."
Paper presented at the workshop of the New England Resource, Conser-va tion, and Development Proj ect, September, 1982; Waterv ill e Valley, New Hampshire.
Section Ch ai rm a n, "Resul ts of the RSS Membership Survey."
Papers presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Soci ol ogical Society, September,1982; San Francisco, California.
Participant in NE-129 Panel " Improving the Distribution of Socio-economic Resources in Rural Areas:
Case Studies (Monroe and Lyma n,' N. H. )"
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, Septaber,1982; San Francisco, California.
" Rural Industrialization: A Model for Policymakers," (with W. H.
Chittenden). Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, September, 1982; San Francisco, California.
"A Research Agenda for Rural Community and Agriculture:
Impl ications from the Turnaround," (with L. E. Swanson, J r.).
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August,1981; Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
" Community Activists-Apathists:
A Brief Note," (with R. W. J. Smith and A.
A. Taranto).
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociol ogical Soci ety, August, 1981; Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
"A Critical Evaluation of: Beasley and Belyea, Rural-Urban Differences in Conmunity Structure; and Christenson and Taylor, Nonnative and Situational Components of Satisfaction with Common Public Serv i ces. " Discussant remarks for "Canmunity Studies Section," at the annual meetings of the Southern Sociological Soci ety, April, 1981; Louisvill e, Kentucky.
" Interpreting the Turnaround for Pol icymake rs," (with L.
E. Swanson, J r. ).
Paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference on the Small City and Regional Community, March,1981; Stevens Point, Wisconsin.
" Tenure and Satisfaction as Indicators of
Attachment:
A Reassessnent,"
(with L.
E. Swanson, J r., and Rex H. Wa rl and).
Pa per presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August, 1980; Ithaca, New York.
[
10 "Antiurbanism and Nonmetropolitan Growth: A Reeval uation," (with T. W. 11vento).
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August,1980; Ithaca, New York.
"Who is Rural ? A Typological Approach to the Examination of Ruralism,"
(with M. K. Miller).
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August,1980; Ithaca, New York.
Discussant of section " Rural Development:
Domestic Issues" at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August,1979; Burlington, Vermont.
Discussant of section "Agricul ture in Rural Development" at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August,1979; Burl ington, Vermont.
"The Good Community and Moral Density: A Perspective." Paper pre-sented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August,1979; Burlington Vermont.
"Retirment and Willingness to Move:
A Note," (with L.
E. Swanson, J r., and R.
H. Warl and).
Paper presented at the annual meetins of the Northeast Agricultural Economics Council, June, 1979; Newark, Del aware.
" Migration and Its Impact on the Nonmetropolitan Northeast," (with T. E. Steahr).
Invited paper prepared for the Northeast Agricul-tural Leadership Assembly, March,1979; Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
"Nigration to New Hampshire:
Preliminary Findings."
Paper prepared for New Hampshire Situation and Trends, Supplanent,1979; A Basis
=
I for Program Development, Cooperative Extension Service, University l
of New Hampshire.
h Discussant of " Explanations of Social Indicator Differentials," Section 25, at the Rural Sociological Society, August,1978; 3
San Francisco, California.
"Cri ti cal Information for Community Devel opment Pol icy Formaul ation:
Absentee Ownership Considerations," (with B. E. Lindsay).
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Community Develop-I ment Society of America, August,1978; Blacksburg, Virginia.
t 9
" Economic Opportunities and the Willingness to Move:
Th e Ca se of Nonmetropol i ta n Pe nn sy l va nt a n s, " (with L.
E. Swanson and R.
H. Warl and).
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August,1978; San Francisco, California.
" Socioeconomic Impacts on Agricultural Land Use Changes in the North-east," (with D.
E. Morris).
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Northeast Agricul tural Economics Council, June, 1978; Durham, New Hampshire.
~.
P
..w--
.-r--
11 "An Exploration of Social Structure of the Nonmetropolitan Ccinmunity,"
(with K. S. Ham). Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Anerican Sociological Association, Septaber,1977; Chicago, Ill inoi s.
"Communi ty Structure and Interaction:
A Synthesized Model of Fl ood Insurance Adopters."
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, September,1977; Madison, Wisconsin.
Section Chai nnan, " Attitudes and Values in Small Communities," annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, September, 1977; Madison, Wisconsin.
Discussant of " Rural Val ues and Consensus," in section:
" Rural ity :
Tests of an Idea," at the annual meetings of the Rural Socio-logical Society, August,1976; New York, New York.
" County as a Unit of Analysis:
Pennsylvania the Case in Point," (with K. P. Wil ki nson).
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August,1976; New York, New York.
"A Note on Population Size and Community Di f ferenti ati on,"
(with C. S.
Stokes).
Presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August,1975; San Francisco, California.
"Results of a Telephone Survey of Citizen Responses Related to Rural Dev el o pm ent, " Indiana Univer sity of Pe nnsyl va ni a,
- Indiana, Pennsylvania, May,1975.
RESEAR04 EXPERIENCE Extramural Funding:
A.E. Luloff, M. K. Mil l er, Co-principal Investigators; " Industrial ization, Anbient Air Poll ution, and Death from Respiratory Diseases in th e Northeastern United States."
Amount:
$10,000.00 Agency :
Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development.
Time Period: 7/ 1/86 - 6/3 0/ 87 L. A. Pl och, T. E. Steah r, Co-principal Investigators; "Persistencies and Ganges in Socioecononic Characteristics of Selected Northern New l
England Towns and Communities."
l Amount:
$12,993.00 Agency :
Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development.
Time Period: 7/ 1/86 - 6/3 0/ 87 A.E. Lulof f, Principal Investigator; " Rural People and Places: A Symposium on Typologies."
Amount:
$15,000.00 Agency:
Northeast Regicnal Center for Rural Development.
Time Period:
1/186 - 12/31/86 l
l l
12 A. E. L ul of f, T. E... Steah r, Co-principal Investigators; "The Structure and Impact of Population Redistribution in New England."
Amount $10,525.00 Agency :
Northeast Regional Center for Rural Devel opment. Time Period: 6/1/ 85 - 4/1/ 86 A. E. L ul of f, T. E. Steah r, Co-principal Investi gators; "R ur al Popula tion Gravth in New England."
Amount:
$8,016.00 Agency :
Northeast Regional Center for Rual Development.
Time Period: 9/1/85 - 5/31/86 P.H. Greenwood, A. E. Lul of f, Co-principal Investigators; " Title II Program Eval uation (CETA) Project."
Amount: $10,335.00 Agency : Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, Prime Sponsor (CETA).
Time Period: 6/15/79 - 3/25/80.
Additional Experience:
Director, " Levels of Mortality and Economic / Social Structure of Counties in the United States." Regional Research Project (NE-149) funded by the Agricul tural Experiment Station, Durham, New Hampshire, 10/1/ 83 9/30/88.
' Director, " Community and Population Trends in New Hampshire." State Station Project (S-297) funded by the Agricultural Experiment Station, Durham, New Hampshire, 10/1/84 - 4/30/88.
Co-Director, " Land Use and Demographic 01ange in New Hampshire."
State Station Prqj ect (S-307) funded by the Agricultural Experiment Station, Durham, New Hampshire, 10/1/84 - 9/30/88.
Di rector, " Improving the Distribution of Soci-Economic Resources in Rural Areas." Regional Research Project (NE-129) funded by the Agricultural 4
Experiment Station, Durham, New Hampshire, 10/1/79 - 9/30/83.
Director, " Impact of In and Out Migration and Population Redistribution in the Northeast. "
Regional Research Proj ect (NE-119) funded by the Agricultural Experiment Station, Durham, New Hampshire, 10/1/78 -
9/3 0/83.
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AND HONORS Signa Xi Al pha Kappa Del ta Ho-Nun-De-Kah -- Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Scholastic Honorary Member of the American Sociological Association (1974 to 1982); the Southern Sociological Association (1977 to present); the Community Devel opment Society of America (1978, 1980 to present); the Northeast Agricultural Econanics Council (1977 to present); the Rural Sociol ogical Soci ety t.1974 to present); the Population Association of America (1982 to present); the Southwestern Social Science Association (1982 to present).
i
-.,-r--
,.,me.,
,,m
-m--
,--,,,.,am,,...,
en n-,,..w-r
..--,,--..,-n--
--r e --
,..,-------,--,wv-r
e.
13 Service to Rural Sociological Society:
Membership Committee, 1979-80; Ch ai rman, 1981-82; Cochairperson Local Arrangements Committee, Ann ual Mee tings, B u rl i ngton, V erm ont, 1979; Member of R.S.S. Council (1981-82,1984-85);
Editorial Referee for Rural Socioloav (1977 to present); Associate Editor of Rural Socioloav (1982-1985); Program Chat rman,1985 Member of Community Development Society Journal and Editorial Com-mittee, 1983-1986; Ad Hoc Accreditation Committee, 1984-86; Research Committee,1984 to present Editorial Referee for Review of Publ ic Data User Human Oraanization Comm un i ty Dev el onm e nt Soci etv r J ournal of the Northeastern Aaricul tural Economics Council.
Vice-President of Northeast Rural Sociological Cemittee (Farm Foundation),1975; Secretary of NEC-24 (Northeast Rural Socio-logical Cemittee), 1979-81; 1984-1985; Vice-Chairman 1985-present Secretary, NE-119 (Population Redistribution in the Northeast, Regional Research Group), 1979-81 Secretary, NE-149 (Levels of Mortality and Economic /Focial Structure of Counties in the United States), 1986-88 V isiting Faculty, Department of Agricul tural Econmics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, Stumer,1981 Member of Computer Advisory Committee to Vice President for Academic Aff air s, University of New Hampshire, 1979-1980; Member of Academic Affairs Committee, College of Life Science and Agricul-ture, University of New Hampshire (1979-81), Vice Chai rma n (1979-1980); Member of Community Devel opment Resource ' Group (Cooperative Extension Service), University of New Hampshire,1980 to present; Member of the University of New Hampshire Advisory Cemittee to the University Press of New England,1980-present Member of Executive Committee, Institute of Natural and Environmental Resources, University of New Hampshire (1978-1981); Member of (luantitative and Statistical Committee (1978 to 1981), Chai rman (1978-1980); Member of Curricul um Cemittee, (1979-1981),
Chat rman, (1980-1981)
Community Development Program Coordinator, Institute of Natural and Environmental Resources, Department of Resource Economics and Community Development, University of New Hampshire,1979 to present Co-Advisor of the 1979 UM1 Ocean Projects (TEW 697) Drew Memorial Arard Winning Research Group "The Socioeconomic Response of Coastal Communities to the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976" Visiting Associate Professor of Rural Sociol ogy, Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, The Pennsylvania State University, January,1986-December 1986 r
,,-,e
,g...
14 REFERENCES Stan L. Albrecht, Dean, Family and Social Sciences, 9909tKT, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 84602 Daryl J. Hobbs, Professor, University of Missourt, Department of Rural Sociology, 812 Clark Hall, Col umbia, MO, 65201 Michael K. Miller, Associate Professor of Community Health and Family Medicine, Center for Health Policy Research, Box J-177, J. Hillis Miller Heal th Center, University of Fl orida, Gainesv ille, FL 32610 Thomas E. Steahr, Professor, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural Econmics and Rural Sociology, Storrs, CT 06268 Kenneth P. Wilkinson, Professor, The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Agricultural Econmics and Rural Soci ol ogy, 207 Weaver Building, University Park, PA 16802 6
i 4
e
-n
1 Oh4 REFERENCES
- Breo, D.
L.,
1979, Nuclear scare tests hospital's disaster plan, Hospitals, J.A.H.A.,
May 1:
33.
- Chenault, W.
W.,
G.
D.
- Hilbert, and S.
D.
- Reichlin, 1979, Evacuation planning in the TMI accident, Washington, D.C.,
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
- Demuth, W.
E.,
and J. J. Trautlein, 1979, The luck of Three Mile Island, Journal of Trauma 19:
792-794.
- Demuth, W.
E.,
and K.
L. Miller, 1982, A perspective on Three Mile Island, Continuing Education, December: 18-24.
- Erikson, K.
T.,
1982, Human response in a radiological accident, in The Indian Point book, Cambridge, Mass., Union of Concerned Scientists.
- Haglund, K.,
- 1979, At Hershey:
medical system near " failure" during Three Mile Island, New Physician 28:
24-25.
Henderson, O.
K.,
1981, Radiological emergency response planning in Pennsylvania, in Current nuclear power plant safety issues, pp. 331-341, Vienna: IEA.
Hohenemser, C., R. Kasperson, and R. Kates, 1977, The distrust of nuclear power, Science, 196 (April): 25-34.
- Johnson, J.
H., Jr., 1983, Reactions of public school teachers to a
possible accident at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, a
report prepared for the California Teachers Association, San Luis Obispo Chapter.
- Johnson, J.
H.,
Jr.,
- 1985, Planning for nuclear power plant accidents:
some neglected spatial and behavioral considerations, in Geographical Dimensions of Energy, eds., F.
J.
Calzonetti and B.
D.
- Solomon, pp. 123-154, Boston:
D.
Reidel.
- Johnson, J.
H.,
Jr.,
1985-86, Role conflict in a radiological emergency:
The case of public school teachers, Journal of Environmental Systems 15(1):
77-91.
- Kasl, S.,
R. F. Chisholm, and B. Eskenazi, 1981, The impact of the accident at Three Mile Island on the behavior and well-being part II: job tensions, psychological of nuclear workers
- symptoms, and indices of distress, American Journal of Public Health 71:
472-483.
l
- Killian, L.
M.,
- 1952, The significance of multiple group membership in
- disaster, American Journal of Sociology 57:
309-314.
l e
T
k 9 $~
- Kuntz, E.,-
- 1979, Hospitals-prepared radiation plans in wake of nuclear plant accident, Modern Healthcare 9:
16.
- Lathrop, J.
W.,-
- 1980, An open discussion of problems in nuclear accident preparedness, in Planning for rare events:
nuclear accident preparedness and management, ed., J. W.
Lathrop, pp.
13-44, Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Macleod,.G.
K.,
1981, Some public. health lessons from Three Mile Island:
a case study in chaos, Ambio 10:
18-23.
- Maxwell, C.,
1982, Hospital organizational response to the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island:
implications for future-oriented disaster-planning, American Journal of Public Health 72: 275-279.
18.
Pennsylvania National
- Guard, 1979, Three Mile Island nuclear 4
April
- 1979, after action
- report, accident 28 March Annville, Pa.: Department of Military Affairs, June 7.
- Slovic, P.,
B.
Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, 1979, Rating the Risks, Environment 21:
14-39.
- Slovic, P.,
B.
Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, 1980, Facts and fears understanding perceived
- risk, in Societal risk assessments how safe is safe enough?, ed., R. C. Schwing and W. A. Albers, pp. 181-214, New York:
Plenum Press.
- Smith, J.
S.,
and J.
H.
Fisher, 1981, Three Mile Islands the silent
- disaster, JAMA:
The Journal of the American Medical Association 245 (April 24):
1656-1659.
Social Data
- Analysts, Inc.,
1982, Attitudes towards evacuation:
reactions of Long Island residents to a possible accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power
- Plant, New York:
Social Data Analysts.
- Strohl, G.,
- 1979, Nuclear threats hospitals need to
- know, osteopathic Hospitals 23:
6, 8-9.
4
- Weidner, W.
A.,
et al., 1980, The impact.of nuclear crisis on a radiology department, Radiology 135: 717-723.
i
- Zeigler, D.
J.,
J.
H.
- Johnson, Jr.,
and S.
D. Brunn, 1983, Technological
- Hazards, Washington, D.
C.:
Association of American Geographers i
i I
$Q$
Resume DONALD J.
ZEIGLER Department of Political Science and Geography Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23508 Tel. (804) 440-3845 Home Address:
705 Barrison Way, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Tel. (804) 490-1060 Specializaticns Technological Hazards Evacuation Planning Urban and Social Geography Nuclear Power Energy & Settlement Systems Cultural Landscapes 9
Education Ph.D.
1980 Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 M.A.
1976 Univerity of Rhode Island Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 B.S.
1972 Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257 Present Position ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (since 1986)
Assistant Professor (1980-1986)
DIRECTOR OF THE GEOGRAPHY PROGRAM (since 1983)
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 23508 SELECTED COURSES TAUGHT Gecgraphy of the City Geography of Energy Economic Geography Hazards:
Natural and Technological (Team Taught)
Cartography and Cartography Practicum Seminar in Geography:
Applied Geography in the 1980s SELEC.TED COMMITTEE SERVICE Ph.D. in Urban Services Policy Committee, 1980-present Steering Committee for the Center for Regional Studies, 1986-present Steering Committee for the Institute for the Study of Minority Issues, 1985-present Chairman, Arts and Letters Scholarships & Awards Committee, 1984-1985 Chairman, Arts and Letters Instruction Committee, 1986-present f
c
%O 4
2 Other Experience CONSULTANT (1982-1984), Office of the Chief Executive County of Suffolk, Hauppauge, New York 11788 Worked closely with the County attorneys in a research capacity to evaluate likely behavioral responses to an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
SENIOR LECTURER (1984), Department of Political Science, Public Administration, and Geography, Christopher Newport College Newport News, Virginia 23606 Taught an upper-level elective, Geography of Cities.
RESEARCH ASSISTANT (1980), Center for Environmental Quality Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Assisted in organzing a
series of community and state level energy workshops, including preparation of the final reports for the Michigan Energy Administratien.
TEACHING ASSISTANT (1977-1979), Department of Geography Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Taught economic geography, assisted in field techniques in geography and in geography of environmental quality.
ARCHIVES ASSISTANT (1978 and 1979),
State of Michigan Archives Department of State, Lansing, Michigan 48918 Organized newly acquired archival record groups and manuscript collections; wrote finding aids to facilitiate public access to primary source materials GEOGRAPHER (1976-1977), Geographical Statistical Areas Branch Geography Division, U.S. Bureau of the census Washington, D.C.
20233 Analyzed statistical and cartographic data in order to prepare and revise census tract plans and other statistical areas in the South, in cooperation with local planning agencies.
INSTRUCTOR (1976), Department of Geography University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 Taught economic geography; directed a
tutorial in geographic education, and served as University College advisor.
Selected Publications BOOK Technological Hazards.
Resource Publications in Geography.
Washington, D.C.:
Association of American Geographers, 1983.
(Principal author; with J. H. Johnson, Jr., and S. D. Brunn)
%. O 4
3 ARTICLES
" Evacuation Decision-Making at Three Mile Island." In A. Blowers and D.
- Pepper, editors, Politics and Planning for the Nuclear State.
London:
Croom Helm, 1987. pp. 272-294. (With J. H. Johnson, Jr.)
"Modelling Evacuation Behavior during the Three Mile Island Reactor Crisis,'"
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 20 (1986): 165-171.
(With J. H. Johnson, Jr.)
" Evacuation Planning for Technological Hazards:
An Emerging Imperative." Cities 3 (1986): 148-156. (With J. H. Johnson, Jr.)
" Evacuation from Nuclear Attack:
Prospects for Pcpulation Protection in Hampton Roads."
Virginia Social Science Journal 21 (Winter.
1986):
22-31.
(Reprinted in The Virginia Gazette, October 11, 1986, p. 4)
"The Geography of Civil Defence."
In A. Jenkins and D. Pepper, eds.,
i The Geography of Peace and War.
London:
Blackwell, 1985.
pp.
148-162.
" Evacuation Behavior in Response to Nuclear Power Plant Accidents."
Professional Geographer 36 (May 1984):
207-215.
(With J.
H.-
Johnson, Jr.)
"A Spatial Analysis of Evacuation Intentions at the Shoreham Nuclear
+
Power Station."
In M. J. Pasqualetti and K.
D.'
Pijawka, eds.,
Nuclear Power:
Assessing and Managing Hazardous Technology.
- Boulder, Colo.:
Westview Press, 1984, pp. 279-301.
(With J.
H.
Johnson, Jr.)
" Distinguishing Human Responses to Radiological Emergencies."
Economic Geography 59 (October 1983):
386-402.
(With J. H.
Johnson, Jr.)
" Energy Change and Evolving Nonmetropolitan Land Use Patterns." In G.
Nacinko and R.
H.
Platt, eds.
Beyond the Urban Fringe:
Land Use Issues in Nonmetropolitan America. Minneapolis:
University i
of Minnesota Press, 1983.
pp. 305-312.
(With L. M.
Sommers)
J
" Evacuation from a Nuclear Technological Disaster."
Geographical l
Review 71 (January 1981):
1-16.
(Principal author; with S. D.
Brunn and J.
H.
- Johnson, Jr.)
This article was entered into testimony and accepted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 4, 1981.
" Changing Regional Patterns of Central City Credit Ratings:
1960-1980."
Urban Geography 2 (July-September 1981):
269-283.
" Human Settlements in Sparsely Populated Areas:
A Conceptual Overview."
In R.
E.
Lonsdale and J.
W. Holmes, eds, Human Settlements in. Sparsely Populated Regions.
New York: Pergamon Press, 1981.
pp. 14-52.
(With S.
D. Brunn)
Plus six additional articles in urban and cultural geography.
i
,e
,,m.
, _ _ _. _ ~ _ _. _ _ _ _ - - - _ -.. - -., _ -
.-_n..
% 0 4
REVIEWS Review of D.
- Clark, Post-Industrial America:
A Geographical Perspective (New York and London:
- Methuen, 1984) in the Professional Geographer 38 (November 1986):
434.
Revi'ew of M. R. Greenberg and R. F. Anderson, Hazardous Waste Sites:
The Credibility Gap (New Brunswick, N.
J.:
Center for Urban Policy
- Research, 1984) in the Professional Geographer 38 (May 1986):
206-207 Review of R.
W.
Perry, M. K. Lindell, and M. R. Greene, Evacuation Planning in Emergency Manacement (Lexington, Mass.:
D.C.
- Heath, 1981) in the Geographical Review 72 (July 1983): 425-427.
Review of D.
L.
Sills, C. P. Wolf, and V. B.
Shelanski, Accident at Three Mile Island:
The Human Dimensions (Boulder, Colo.:
Westview Press, 1982) in the Professional Geographer 34 (November 1982): 485-486.
REPORTS
" La f ayett e Shores
- Survey, Norfolk, Virginia."
Institute for the Study of Minority Issues, Old Dominion University.
Funded by the Urban League.
1986.
(With J.
Carr and C. Jones)
"Further Analysis and Interpretation of the Shoreham Evacuation Survey."
In Volume 3
of the Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan (Draft).
1982. (With J.
H.
Jchnson, Jr.)
Energy and the Adaptation of Human Settlements.
Edited by H.
E.
Koenig and L.
M.
Sommers.
East Lansing, Michigan:
Center for Environmental
- Quality, Michigan State University.
1980.
(Contributor:
pp. 6-19, 22-25, 28-40, 43, 123-129)
Final Report on a
Social Survey of the Three Mile Island Area Residents.
East
- Lansing, Michigan:
Department of Geography, Michigan State University. 1979.
281 pp.
(With S. D. Brunn and J. H. Johnson, Jr.)
Selected Professional Presentations "Public Perceptions and Intended Evacuation Behavior Around Virginia's Surry Nuclear Power Station."
Annual
- meeting, Southeastern
- Division, Association of American Geographers, Lexington,
- Kentucky, November 24, 1986.
(With J.
C.
Friberg and students)
"The Sizewell B Inquiry:
A Geographer's Participation in the United Kingdom's Nuclear Power Debate."
Annual meeting, Southeastern
- Division, Association of American Geographers, Chapel Hill, N.C.,
November 25, 1985.
- \\.%
s 5
L
" Evacuation from Nuclear Attack:
Prospects for Population Protec-tion in Hampton Roads."
Annual meeting, Association of American Geographers, Detroit, Mich., April 24, 1985.
" Beaches in the City:
Coastal Urbanization in Tidewater Virginia."
Conference on the Management of Developed Coastal Barriers, Virginia Beach, Va., January 15, 1985.
(With J. C. Friberg)
"A Model of Evacuation Decision-Making in the Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor Crisis."
Annual meeting, Institute of British 4
l-Geographers,
- Leeds, England, January 10, 1985.
(With J. H.
Johnson, Jr.)
" Preparing for Place Annihilation:
Civil Defense Evacuation Planning in the United States."
Annual meeting, Middle States
- Division, Association of American Geographers, West Chester, Pa.,
September 29, 1984.
" Human Responses to Radiological Emergencies."
Annual
- meeting, Association of American Geographers, Washington, D.C.,
April 25, L
1984.
(With J. H. Johnson, Jr.)
"The Evacuation Shadow Phenomenon:
Comparing Behavioral Responses to Nuclear Accidents."
Annual meeting, Southeastern Division, Association of American Geographers, Orlando, Fla., November ' 21, 1983.
(With J. H. Johnson, Jr.)
" Energy-Efficient Metropolitan Regions:
A Conceptual Model of Adaptations to a
High-Cost Energy Future."
Annual meeting, Southeastern
- Division, Association of American Geographers, Atlanta, Ga., November 23, 1981.
" Energy and the Transformation of a Metropolitan Landscape:
Con-trasting Contemporary and Future Settlement Geographies."
Annual 4
- meeting, National Council for Geographic Education, Pittsburgh, Pa.,
October 29, 1981.
(Available on microfiche as part of the ERIC document collection:
ED 214815)
"From Three Mile Island to Worlds End:
Evacuation from a Nuclear Technological Disaster."
Annual meeting, Pennsylvania Council for Geography Educaticn, Harrisburg, Pa., October 11, 1980.
i Testimony Testimony before the United Kingdom's Sizewell B Inquiry, Snape, Suffolk County, England, November 1984.
Testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Matter of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Licensing Hearings.
Riverhead, New York, January 1984.
4 io, 6
- Testimony' before the. Governor's Advisory Commission on the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
New York, New York, June 1983.
Testimony before the suffolk County Legislature in the Matter of the Shoreham Nucler Power Station Emergency Planning Proceedings.
Hauppauge, New York, January 1983.
Thesis and Dissertation
" Central City Credit Ratings:
Regional Patterns and Spatial Cor-relates."
Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, 1980.
(Advisor:
S. D.
Brunn.
Committee Members:
J. T. Darden and I. M. Matley)
" Selected Quality of Life Indicators and Demographic Characteristics i
of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States."
Unpublished M.A.
- thesis, Department of Geography, University of Rhode. Island, 1976.
(Advisor:
G.
H. Krausse.
Second Reader:
H. J. Warman)
Media Interviews Radio:
ODU
- Dialogue, on Evacuation from Nuclear Power Plant Accidents, 1985.
(Syndicated)
NBC-Radio, New
- York, N.Y., on the Shoreham Evacuation Survey, 1983.
(Nationally syndicated)
- WKAR, East Lansing, Michigan, on the Three Mile Island Survey, 1979.
Television:
- WAVY, Portsmouth,
- Virginia, on emergency preparations at the Surry Nuclear Power Plant, 1986.
- WTAR, Norfolk,
BBC-East
- Anglia, England, on the Sizewell B Inquiry, l
1984.
- WELM, East Linsing, Michigan, on the Three Mile Island Survey, 1979.
Professional Organizations Associaticn of American Geographers (since 1968)
Conference Participant, 1976, 1979, 1980, 1983-1986.
Session Chairman, Annual Meeting, 1983.
Member, Energy Specialty Group.
Member, Urban Geography Specialty Group.
Member, Coastal and Marine Geography Specialty Group.
J i
i 4
,--,,-,,.,,,,,,--,,,.,----.--,-,.,.,_,_-.,r,_,,-,
,-,--,,___,...._,,,,,-w.y
,y.
,-,,,,,-7-,-.,
io 7
Southeastern Division, Association of American Geographers (since 1980)
Conference Participant, 1980, 1981, 1983-1986 Discussant, Annual Meeting 1981, 1986 Virginia State Representative, 1986-1988 Member, Program Committee, 1987 Chairman, Audit Committee, 1984 l
National Council for Geographic Education (since 1967)
Conference Participant, 1981, 1984, 1986 Session Organizer, 1986 Chairman, 1990 Annual Meeting Committee, 1985-present Member, Awards Committee, Region VIII, 1982-1984 Chairman, Awards Committee, Region VIII, 1983-1984 l
I l
Virginia Geographical Society (since 1982) l President, 1985-present Editor, VGS Today, 1985 present Contest Coordinator, Annual Statewide Student Contest, 1984 l
Member, Executive Board, 1984-present Virginia Social Science Association (since 1984)
Conference Participant, 1983-1986 Member, Executive Committee, 1986-1987 North American Cartographic Information Society (since 1986)
Conference Participant, 1986 Gamma Theta Upsilon, Omicron Chapter (inducted 1970)
President, Omicron Chapter, 1971 Kappa Delta Pi (inducted 1971)
Personal Birthdate:
November 26, 1951 Birthplace:
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Married Two Children Travel:
United States, Canada, Western Europe
i o ROLE CONFLICT DURING NUCLEAR EMERGENCIES I, Donald J.
Zeigler, do depose and say as follows:
Along with my colleague, Dr. James H. Johnson of UCLA, I have been investigating human responses to nuclear power plant accidents and other technological hazards since 1979 when we conducted the first post-accident social survey around the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant.
As a social geographer, I have published extensively on behavioral issues surrounding nuclear power plant emergency planning.
I hold a Ph.D. from Michigan State University and am a tenured Associate Professor at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia.
A copy of my vita is attached.
It is my belief that role conflict among emergency personnel may seriously jeopardize the workability of emergency response plans designed to protect the public in the event of a nuclear power plant accident at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.
ROLE CONFLICT AMONG EMERGENCY PERSONNEL WITH ASSIGNED DUTIES WILL LEAD TO DELAYED RESPONSE AND NON-RESPONSE AMONG SOME WORKERS.
l Role conflict is a situation in which emergency workers are torn between multiple group membership loyalties; most commonly it takes the form of loyalty to the family versus loyalty to other obligations under emergency conditions (Killian 1952).
Role conflict generally results in either of two responses:
delayed 1
l A
- 1. o
- response, where the individual reports for duty only after ascertaining (either through direct or indirect contact) that family members are
- safe, and non-response, where the individual relocates family members from the danger zone and stays with them for the duration of the crisis.
DURING THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISLAND IN 1979, ROLE CONFLICT WAS DOCUMENTED AMONG MANY EMERGENCY WORKERS.
Contrary to most natural disaster studies, accounts of emergency personnel behavior in the Three Mile Island crisis suggest that role conflict may seriously encumber emergency response efforts if a
nuclear reactor accident occurs in the future (DeMuth and Miller 1982; Demuth and Trautlein 1979; Breo 1979; Haglund 1979; Strohl 1979; Maxwell 1982; Weidner et al. 1980, Macleod 1981; Kuntz 1979;
- Kasl, Chisholm, and Eskenazi 1981).
Describing the situation at area hospitals during the TMI accident, for example, Smith and Fisher (1981) 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."
Maxwell (1982, 276),
in another analysis and evaluation of hospital emergency planning during the TMI
- accident, stated that " the conflicting responsibility to family and work resulted in escalating staffing problems as the crisis continued."
Some of the local hospitals' personnel moved their families outside of the danger zone and returned to work for extended periods of time 2
i j
1o idelayed, response).
Others left the area and stayed away until the immediate crisis was over (non-response).
At one local
- hospital, for
- example, only six of the 70 physicians who were scheduled for weekend emergency duty reportedly showed up for work (Maxwell
- 1982, 278).
It should be noted that none of these hospitals were within the 5-mile evacuation zone and that even 25 miles away from the accident site, at the Lebanon Valley General
- Hospital, there was reported to be a shortage of physicians and nurses as a
result of evacuation.
On the basis of such observed behaviors, Maxwell concluded that, in case of another radiological emergency,
" administrators can expect significant absences from staff members who have family responsibilities and should anticipate a shortage of physicians as well" (1982, 276).
Hospital personnel were not the only group who experienced role conflict during the TMI crisis.
Problems of multiple group membership
- loyalty, especially between work and family obligations, reportedly also occurred among the Pennsylvania National Guard (1979) and TMI nuclear power plant workers (Kasl,
- Chisholm, and Eskenazi 1981).
In a
comparative study of the behavioral responses of supervisory and non-superivsory personnel at TMI and nearby Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Plant (40 miles away),
Kasl and colleagues noted "the greater conflict experienced and recalled by TMI workers:
they felt need to be in different places at the same time, the intrusion of work demands on their overall planning of how to react to the accident, and specific 3
- 1..
conflict with spouse over arriving at an agreed upon decision regarding the family's response to the accident." They estimated that 4
percent and 11 percent of TMI supervisory and non-superivsory personnel, respectively, evacuated during the crisis.
Most of those who left lived within 5 miles of the plant, the designated zone of selective evauation during the reactor crisis.
Additional empirical evidence to support the reality of role conflict during nuclear emergencies was provided by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in the Soviet Union where emergency workers were found to have abandoned their posts as a result of conflicting obligations to self or family (NYT, May 18, 1986, 18).
MANY EMERGENCY WORKERS LIVING BEYOND THE EVACUATION ZONE MAYL NOT REPORT TO DUTY STATIONS WITHIN THE EVACUATION ZONE.
Concern about personal safety and long-term health effects will discourage many people living beyond the 10-mile zone from entering the zone to take their duty posts in the emergency operation.
It is not likely that people within the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ (10-50 miles from the plant) will move themselves closer to the accident site when they sce large proportions of their neighbors moving farther away.
One of the reasons that emergency work roles have been reliably 4
l e o l
fulfilled during many natural disasters is that people feel they are helping to protect their families and their homes by fighting the disaster agent, or being ready to restore the community in its aftermath.
Nuclear disasters differ from natural disasters in this important
- respect, however.
There is little that an emergency worker can do to control the spread of ionizing radiation or to cleanse the environment of radioactivity.
It is therefore reasonable to expect that emergency workers living beyond the danger zone, even if they have been pre-assigned duty
- stations, will voluntarily put themselves at. risk to the ill effects of ionizing radiation when there is little to be gained from the experience.
Once again the accident at Three Mile Island lends credence to this projection.
In the early stages of the TMI accident the telephone communications system had to be greatly expanded at the site.
The local telephone
- company, however, had difficulty finding personnel willing to expose themselves to the hazards of venturing near the plant in order to install additional phone equipment.
Reluctance of this sort should be expected of other emergency workers as
- well, and some level of role abandonment should be anticipated.
5
i o o SOCIAL SURVEYS OF PERSONNEL WITH ASSIGNED EMERGENCY DUTIES INDICATE THE STRONG POTENTIAL FOR ROLE CONFLICT TO INTERFERE WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF A NUCLEAR EMERGENCY.
Further evidence of the extent to which role conflict is likely to be a
problem in a radiological emergency is derived from social surveys of school bus drivers and volunteer fire fighters within the vicinity of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant (Social Data Analysts 1982),
and of public school teachers in the San Luis Coastal Unified School district near the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (Johnson 1983, 1985-86).
The emergency response plans for the respective nuclear power plants assign these groups work roles which they are expected to perform during a
reactor accident.
In each of the three surveys, the respondents were asked:
"What do you think you would do first if an accident requiring a ful.1 scale evacuation of the population within 10 miles of the plant were to occur?"
Consistent with role conflict theory the behavioral options were (a) perform your emergency work role, (b) make sure your family was safely out of the evacuation zone, (c) leave the evacuation zone immediately to make sure you were in a safe
- place, or (d) do comething else.
The results of these three surveys (Zeigler,
- Johnson, and Brunn 1983) are summarized on the following page:
6
1 I4 l
BEHAVIORAL SCHOOL TEACHERS BUS DRIVERS VOL. FIREMEN i
INTENTIONS (n=232)
(n=246)
(n=291) i Perfom Emergency Work 67 24 21 Check on Family 24 73 68 Leave.the Area 1
3 1
11 Do Something Else 8
Clearly evident in the results is the importance of family ties or obligations in crisis situations.
Sixty-eight percent of the volunteer fire fighters and 73 percent of the school bus drivers in Suffolk County indicated that, if a major reactor accident were to occur at the Shoreham plant, family obligations would take precedence over their duties as emergency workers (Social Data Analysts 1982).
By contrast, less than one-fourth of the school teachers in San Luis Obispo County, California, would first help to evacuate school children from the designated danger zone.
A significant proportion of this group qualified their responses,
- however, by stating that participation would be (a) contingent upon being able to contact family members by telephone, (b) restrictd to the evacuation of their class only, or (c) limited to a
specified length of time.
These intangible or hard-to-quantify measures of intended behavior suggest that role conflict may be even more of a problem among public school teachers than the raw numbers in the previous table indicate for the following reasons:
- first, it is unlikely that teachers will be able to contact family members by telephone during a nuclear power plant accident.
. Telephone exchanges are likely to be overloaded, as in the TMI crisis when more than two million calls were attempted on a system designed to handle only half as many (Chenault, Hilbert, and 7
. y, 1
Reichlin 1979).
Under such conditions, it is not inconceivable that those teachers whose assistance is predicated upon being able to contact family members by phone would leave immediately, since
- rarely, if ever, have emergency personnel reported to duty without first contacting family members (Erikson 1982).
- Second, an efficient and effective evacuation of schools would require the cooperation of all parties involved until the last child is safely relocated outside of the designated danger zone and released to his/her parents or guardian (Johnson 1983).
Teachers who are willing to evacuate only their class, or to particpate for only a limited period of time could severely hamper and complicate evacuaton
- efforts, and thereby further endanger the
- health, safety, and welfare of the school children.
The results of these surveys are consistent with one another and similar to the actual behaviors of people at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
We 4
l therefore believe that these intended behaviors will materialize i
during a
nuclear power plant accident to hamper the emergency response effort.
ROLE CONFLICT AMONG EMERGENCY WORKERS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO MAKE EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT UNWORKABLE.
Emergency planners can expect some emergency personnel, in particular those with strong family ties who live within the plume exposure pathway zone (Henderson 1981; Lathrop 1980), not to be available immediately, if at
- all, to provide assistance and guidance in the event of a
radiological emergency.
In their 8
44.
J analysis of organization behavior in the TMI crisis, Chenault,
- Hilbert, and Reichlin (1979) concluded that, if a radiological emergency occurs in the
- future, administrators of institutions (hospitals, nursing
- homes, schools, day care centers, etc.) may opt to evacuate early to avert the staffing problems that are most likely to develop if they wait until an antici:ated official J
evacuation order is issued.
But they'also note that "early or premature evacuation of institutions can serve to trigger large movements by the general public."
Role conflict during nuclear emergencies will be a greater problem i
than during other emergencies because of the nature of the hazard
- agent, perceptions of the radiation threat, and high levels of distrust in the nuclear power industry (Hohenemser, Kasperson, and Kates 1976).
Unlike earthquakes,
- floods, and other natural disasters, radiation presents no visible evidence that damage to the human organism or environment is occurring.
Yet the radiation
- hazard, because it is potentially
- lethal, carcinogenic, and mutagenic, is. feared in the extreme (Slovic 1979, 1980).
Under these conditions emergency workers'will be much more anxious about their own well-being and their families' well-being than during I
more traditional non-radiological emergencies.
j 9
4 L~>.
/ntA W b 7esb l V v
0oJ DONALD J.
ZEIGLER April 13, 1987 The above described Donald J. Zeigler appeared before me and made oath that he had read the foregoing affidavit and that the statements set forth therein are true to the best of his knowledge.
Before me, ht/ i Y
[otaryPublic OMl
& h/YY 10
. =
_-