ML20206M707

Affidavit of Dj Zeigler Re Human Behavior in Radiological Emergencies.Public Outside of Evacuation Zone Would Evacuate Even Though Advised Not to

ML20206M707
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/13/1987
From:	Zeigler D HAMPTON, NH, OLD DOMINION UNIV., NORFOLK, VA
To:
Shared Package
ML20206M356	List: ML20206M353 ML20206M558 ML20206M707 ML20206M776 ML20206M815 ML20206M838 ML20206M864
References
OL, NUDOCS 8704200159
Download: ML20206M707 (42)

Text

_ _ _.

~"

.,-.. e:n=- _ co

-r== %.

HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCIES I, Donald J. Zeigler. do depose and say as follows:

l Human behavior in radiological emergencies is measurably different from human behavior du, ring other emergencies.

It is therefore dangerous to predict how people will respond to nuclear power plant accidents on the basis of what we know about how they respond to natural hazards such as hurricanes and earthquakes.

I have arrived at these conclusions over the past eight years, during which time I have devoted a large part of my academic life to the study of nuclear emergencies and other technological hazards.

1 have published extensively in this area and have testified on nuclear power plant licensing issues in both the 4

United states and the United Kingdom.

I hold a Ph.D. from Michigan State University and am a tenured Associate Professor of Geography at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia.

A copy of my vita is attached.

A.

Empirical Evidence Dr.

James H. Johnson, Jr., of UCLA, and I investigated first-hand the evacuation decision-making process and response to the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979.

We followed up on that research with an investigation of the behavioral intentions of the Long Island population in the event of a 1

R704200109 B70415 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G

PDR

possible accident at the shoreham nuclear power station.

These two major investigations, along with others which have been done over the last eight years by other researchers, enable us to make some predictions about likely human behaviors during a radiological emergency.

1.

The Three Mile Island Accident Planning for future nuclear power plant accidents needs to proceed from the empirical evidence on human behaviors assembled in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

The TMI experience provides the best analogy for predicting the likely human response to an accident at the Seabrook nuclear power station.

Generalizing about future nuclear emergency behavior on the basis of the actual events at Three Mile Island is certainly more logical than generalizing about future nuclear emergencies from non-nuclear ones.

Three Mile Island provided social scientists with their first opportunity to observe human behavior in response to a nuclear power plant accident which triggered the declaration of a general emergency and the issuance of an evacuation /shelterins-advisory by the Pennsylvania Governor.

Dr. James Johnson (UCLA),

Dr.

Stanley D. Brunn (University of Kentucky), and I constituted the team which conducted the first survey of 2

^ c

-l. -E 10:;-

-MA ATTv GENERA. 6021 ::766 50-o, southcentral Pennsylvania residents in the aftermath of that accident.

We published our findings in the Geographical Review (1981) and have based numerous additional articles on those findings.

What we found in response to the accident at Three Mile Island was a

pattern of human behavior that was different in the extream from behavior during other emergencies, a fact since acknowledged by other leading experts in the field (Perry

1983, 1985; Lindell and Perry 1983).

The protective action advisory issued by the Governor at Three Mile Island should have precipitated the evacuation of only 3,400 people pregnant women and pre-school children within 5 miles of the plant (Goldhaber and Lehman 1983).

Post-accident surveys revealed instead that an estimated 200,000 people with a l

25-mile radius of the malfunctioning reactor, and some from as i

far as 40 miles

away, actually left their homes for safer, l

more distant destinations (Barnes et al.,

1979;

Brunn, Johnson, and Zeigler 1979; Flynn 1979).

My co-investigators and I

termed this tendency for people beyond the officially designated evacuation zone to evacuate even though they have j

not been advised to take such action the evacuation shadow i

phenomenon.

The extent and intensity of the evacuation shadow at Three Mile Island could not have been predicted on the basis of what was known about human behavior in other i

non-nuclear crisis situations.

l i

3 i

.c

-5 ;, tty swr, e:22 n766 n;x

c.,

What was different about the Three Mile Island evacuation was its geographical extent.

Never before had such a limited evacuation advisory resulted in such a

geographically widespread response.

Virtually everyone who was advised to evacuate did so, but,so did tens of thousands more.

In fact, the number of people who actually evacuated was over 50 times 1

(

the number to whom the evacuation order applied.

Furthermore, i

those who left put a med,ian distance of 100 miles (Flynn 1979) between themselves and the threatening

reactor, the longest-distance evacuation on record.

While the primary

[

public evacuation center was established only 10 miles away t

from TMI, half of all evacuees fled more than ten times that

[

distance (Zeigler and Johnson 1987).

f k'

i

.t..

2.

The shoreham Nuclear Power Station C*^

1.'.

Id In 1982 Suffolk County, New Yorke sponsored a social survey of f_

j Long Island r.

households to determine how the public was likely y,

to respond to a

potential accident at the Shoreham nuclear h

power plant.

Dr. James Johnson (UCLA) and I were participants pa in that survey and published several articles based on its e6 L

results (Johnson 1984, 1985ab, Johnson and zeigler 1983, 1984, i

1986abr zeigler and Johnson 1984).

Sample households in Nassau and Suffolk counties were asked to respond to three j

increasingly serious scenarios:

Scenario I asked what they 4

I

4 if everyone within 5 miles of the plant were advised would do indoors in response to an accident; Scenario II asked to stay would do if the evacuation / sheltering advisory were what they at Three Mile Islandr Scenario III identical to that issued asked what they would do if a 10-mile evacuation were ordered.

4 I, no one yas advised to evacuate, but 25 percent In scenario said they would leave; in scenario II (the of all households 34 percent said they would leaver in scenario III, TMI case),

only 3.6 percent of Long Island's population should have but half the total indicated their intentions to

evacuate, While the population of 'the island said they would leave.

proportion of households decreased with increasing distance from the plant, the evacuation shadow covered the entire actual number of intended evacuees increased

island, and the Intended evacuation rates were with each additional mile.

within 10 miles of the plant, and in none of the three highest they fall below 40 percent of the population in scenarios did that zone.

f The intended behaviors of the Long Island population in a possible accident at the Shoreham nuclear power i

i response to

plant, closely parallel the actual behaviors of the southcentral Pennsylvania population in response to the accident at Three Mile Island.

In

addition, research behaviors are the best predictors of indicates that intended behaviors so long as behavioral intentions are specific actual 4

5

r and so long as they do not change between the time a survey is conducted and the time the behavior has a chance to assert 1

itself (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Fishbein and Ajsen 1975).

3.

The Seabrook Nuclear Power Station i.

The behaviors that I

have identified in southcentral Long Island would also be typical of the i

Pennsylvania and on coastal areas of New Hampshire and Massachusetts should an accident occur at.the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.

Complicating evacuation at Seabrook, however, would be several unique characteristics of the local environment.

I have seen first-hand the heavy concentration of population near the 1

l Seabrook site and the inadequate road network that serves that population.

I have also lived in coastal New England and can testify to the problems that changeable New England weather could impose upon evacuation efforts.

It is particularly l

dangerous to assume that it will be possible to forecast a i

downwind sector in the event of an accident.

Because of the rapidly changing wind patterns, it is therefore unrealistic to j

hope that a

sectoral evacuation would either be advisable or l

1 workable.

What is most worrisome about the site, however, is the size of the beach population during the summer

months, and i

particularly on hot summer week-ends.

Given the concentration i

1 i

6

2

,,c

,_ em a,e:

-e.

.94 of the beach population it would be difficult to stage an evacuation effort that would allow them to flee the beach in a short enngh time to escape a passing radioactive plume.

In

addition, many of these people would find themselves without any shelter and would thus be at maximum risk to the radiation threat.

B.

Theoretical Evidence l

t Theoretical evidence amassed even before the accident at Three Mile Island should have led behavioral scientists to predict dramatically different behaviors during radiological f

emergencies than during other emergencies.

In

essence, e,

behaviors will differ because the threat of ionizing radiation 3

l is different from other hazards, and perceptions of the threat fI are difforent.

i 1.

The Nature of the Nuclear Threat t

I i

L-l While ionizing radiation is known to be potentially lethal, I-t carcinogenic, and mutagenic, it is neither visible nor l

otherwise sensible except in very large doses.

In the event of an

accident, it is therefore difficult for the public to define the geographic extent of the threat and equally as difficult to define its time of onslaught and its duration (Erikson 1982).

At the same time it is extremely important 7

j

.,n-

.,.,-c

O that they be able toprotect themselves from such a severe hazard.

2.

The History of the Nuclear Threat Lifton (1976) relates the fear of nuclear power to the

" terrible death" imagery associated with the use of nuclear weapons.

Looming large in the public consciousness are the deaths and human suffering caused by bombing of Hiroshima and h'

Nagasaki (Finch 1981; Thurlow 1982).

Furthermore, the federal

(

government since World War II has failed in its responsibility "to protect the public from the adverse effects of the nuclear i

h activities it was promoting" (Cook 1982).

Recent studies have k

[

related abnormally high cancer incidence in Nevada to below i

ground weapons tests conducted there after the war (Lyon et p,

al.

1979; Wasserman and Solomon 1982).

There has not been a history of responsible management of nuclear technology in the f

i United States.

F 6

l e

[

h 3.

Perceptions of the Nuclear Threat h

rc V

k, comparative hazards research by Slovic and colleagues (Slovic et al.

1979, 1980, 1983) has shown that nuclear hazards are perceived as involuntary, unknown, uncontrollable, unfamiliar, potentially catastrophic,

severe, and dreaded.

In a factor analysis of risk perceptions among laypersons, nuclear 8

_m..._

I hazards were found to be in a classby themselves along the dimensions of dread and unfamiliarity.

Because the public perceives the threat of ionizing radiation differently it encourages behavior that is different.

When the reality and history of radiation hazards are combined with their public pere,eption, it is no wonder that pecple decide to "over-react" in the face of evacuation / sheltering advisories.

This over-reaction does not represent irrational decision-making; it represents peoples' attempts to protect themselves and their families from an invisible, yet deadly, hazard agent.

These perceptions and behavioral tendencies have undoubtedly been affirmed by the 1986 Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union which, as Lifton (1986) aply put it, showed that " nuclear disasters can readily destroy or radically disrupt the lives of millions of i

people."

Summary of Implications for Seabrook J

I the research that I have done around other nuclear power Based on plant sites and on my knowledge of the Seabrook location, it is my belief that even the best evacuation plans will not assure the safety of the population in nearby New Hampshire and i

Massachusetts.

?

)

i

04-14-8" 10:25 ~-MA A & GENE %. 8222 3766 P25 i

1.

Evacuation from a

nuclear power plant accident will not be limited to the area advised or ordered to evacuate; evacuation will occur from the entirety of the 10-mile EPZ no matter how small the officially-designated evacuation zone.

2.

The level of spontaneous evacuation within the 10-mile EPZ but outside any officially-designated evacuation zone is.likely to be well in excess of 50 percent of the population, as it was at Three Mile Island.and as it was in the shoreham survey of intended behaviors.

I cannot envision any scenario in which it would be as low as 25 percent, nor can I find any evidence to support such an estimate.

3.

There is neither empirical nor theoretical evidence to support an assumption that evacuation from an accident at Seabrook will be possible in two temporally displaced stagea.

It is not reasonable to assume that the beach population will i

evacuate first and the rest of the EPZ population 25 minutes l

later.

Not only will local residents see people moving off l

the beaches in large numbers, but these residents will be hearing the same EBS messages as the beach population.

Everyone will be trying to leave the area simultaneously.

4.

Evacuation will occur from well beyond the 10-mile EPZ and the i

evacuation shadow could be intense enough to interfere with i

the outward flow of people from the evacuation zone.

Even l

though the proportion of evacuees will decrease with 10

.,n-a,, - -, - - - -

._--------,----7,,e--

.,; _ e m m

increasing distance from the plant beyond 10

miles, the

)

absolute numbers are likely to increase with distance.

The Quality of Information in Radiological Emergencies It has been suggested that extreme public behavior will be

~

minimal, if it occurs at all, in a nuclear emergency primarily because people within the vicinity of nuclear power plants will have been exposed to two types of information:

pre-emergency information distributed by the utility companies and emergency notification messages issued at the onset and during a reactor crisis.

It is unreasonable to assume that these two sources of emergency information will minimize or eliminate extreme public behavior, especially the propensity of households to spontaneously evacuate, in the event of a radiological emergency (Johnson 1985a).

Pre-emergency information dissemination programs required of utility companies by federal regulations will fail to stiffle the propensity to spontaneously evacuate for the following reasons:

1.

Licensees are not required to distribute pre-emergency education information in communities where many spontaneous are likely to originate, that is, outside the 10-mile evacuees EPZ.

j 11

2.

Even if such information were widely disseminated, previous research has shown that special programs designed to educate people about low probability /high risk events have not been particularly successful in changing pre-existing perceptions, l

beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral pre-dispositions.

3.

With respect to nuclear power, the evidence suggests that where public opposition is widespread, emergency education information most likely will be rejected or dismissed, characterized as inaccurate, erroneous, or unrepresentative (Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein 1980).

Even if carefully worded and

repeated, emergency notification e

messages will be unsuccessful in stiffling the; propensity of people to spontaneously evacuate for the following reasons (Zeigler, Johnson, and Brunn 1983):

1.

Recent surveys conducted within the vicinity of several nuclear power plants indicate that a substantial proportion of the households would have little or no faith in emergency information issued during a real radiological emergency.

l l

broadcast messages would be only one of many sources 2.

Emergency of information, often conflicting, which would be part of the informational matrix it which people found themselves during a nuclear reactor accident.

12

3.

It is unrealistic to assume that the next nuclear reactor accident will be any easier to diagnose or bring under control Three Mile Island or Chernobyl,'primarily because it than was is the unexpected chain of events i: hat will lead to catastrophe.

i A

//

1. 8 DONALD J. ZE2GLER i

I

~ ~ -

f COMMONWEALTU OF VIRGINIA

~_

p April 13, 1987 It'l The above subscribed Donald J. Zeigler appeared before me I

and made oath that he had read the foregoing affidavit i'

and that:the statements set forth therein are true to the i'

best of his knowledge.

Before me M J. 75ab~ -

'?

Notary Public

[

& O,i f w 7 " 7' O 4

13

.o l

l l

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I.,

and M.

Fishbein, 1980, Understanding attitudes and predictina social

behavior, Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall.

t

Barnes, K.,

et al., 1979, Responses of impacted population to the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accidents an initial assessment, New Brunswick, N.J.:

Rutgers University.

Cook, E.,

1982, The role of history in the acceptance of nuclear power, Social Science Quarterly 63:

3-15.

Erikson, K.

T.,

1982, Human response in a radiological accident, in The Indian Point book, pp. 55-59, Cambridge, Mass.:

Union of Concerned Scientists.

Finch, S.

C., 1981, occurrence of cancer in atomic bomb survivors, l

in The final epidemic:

Physicians and-scientists on nuclear

war, eds.,

R.

Adams and S.

Cullen, Chicagos Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science.

Fishbein, M.,

and I. Ajzen, 1975, Belief, attitude, intention and behavior An introduction to theory and research, Reading, Mass.:

Addison-Wesley.

Flynn, C.

B.,

1979, Three Mile Island telephone survey:

Preliminary report of procedures and findings, Washington, D.C.:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Goldhaber, M.,

and J. Lehman, 1982, Crisis evacuation during the Three Mile Island nuclear accident:

The TMI population

registry, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Montreal, Canada (updated 1983).

Johnson, J.

H.,

Jr.,

1984, Planning for spontaneous evacuation during a radiological emergency, Nuclear Safety 25:

186-194.

Johnson, J.

H.,

Jr.,

1985a, Planning for nuclear power plant accidents:

Some neglected spatial and behavioral considerations, in Geographical Perspectives on Energy, eds.,

F.

J.

Calzonetti and B. D. Solomon, pp. 123-154, Boston:

D.

Reidel.

Johnson, J.

H., Jr., 1985b, A model of evacuation decision-making in a

nuclear reactor emergency, Geographical Review 75:

405-418.

/

14

1

Johnson, J.

H.,

Jr.,

and D.

J.

Zeigler, 1986a, Evacuation planning for technological hazards:

An emerging imperative, Cities 3:

148-156.

Johnson, J.

H.,

Jr.,

and D.

J.

Zeigler, 1986b, Modelling evacuation behavier during the Three Mile Island reactor crisis, Socio-economic Planning Sciences 20:

165-171.

Lifton, R.

J., 1986, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Hiroshima, New York Times, May 18:

25E.

Lindell, M.

K.,

and R.

W.

Perry, 1983, Nuclear power plant emergency warnings how would the public respond? Nuclear News 26:

49-53.

Lyon, J.

L.,

et al.,

1979, Childhood leukemias associated with fallout from nuclear testing, New England Journal of Medicine 300:

397-402.

Perry, R.

W.,

1983, Population evacuation in volcanic eruptions,

floods, and nuclear power plant accidents:

Some neglected comparisons, Journal of Community Psychology 11:

36-47.

Perry, R.

W.,

1985, Comprehensive emergency management evacuating threatened populations, Greenwich, Conn.:

JAI, Press.

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 assessment:

How safe is safe enough?, eds., R. C. Schwing and W. A. Albers, pp. 181-214, New York:

Plenum Press.

i i

Slovic, P.,

and B.

Fischhoff, 1983, How safe is safe enough? in Too hot to handle, eds., C. A. Walker et al., pp. 112-150, New Haven, Conn.s Yale University Press.

i

Thurlow, S., 1982, Nuclear war in human perspective A survivor's report, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 54:

638-645.

t Wasserman, H.,

and N.

Solomon, 1902, Killing our own, New York:

Delacorte, i

Zeigler, D.

J.,

S.

D.

Brunn, and J.

H.

Johnson, Jr., 1981, Evacuation from a nuclear technological disaster, Geographical i

keview 71:

1-16.

i

Zeigler, D.

J.,

J.

H.

Johnson, Jr.,

and S.

D. Brunn, 1983, j

Technological

hazards, Washington, D.

C.:

Association of 1

American Geographers.

i j

15 l

04-14-E 12: n T"#,r,m GENERr,- 8022 :766 %

4

zeigler, D.

J., and J. H. Johnson, Jr., 1984, Evacuation behavior in response to nuclear power plant accidents, Professional Geographer 36:

207-215.

Zeigler, D.

J., and J. H. Johnson, Jr., 1987, Evacuation decision-making at Three Mile Island, in Pflitics and planning for the nuclear

state, eds., A. Blowers and D.

Pepper, London:

Croom Helm.

l I

16

E-M " '

u - u-87 10: 3 T-S NiTY GENE " ' * **7 P5 Resume DONALD J. ZEIG'2R 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 Specializations Evacuation Planning Technological Hazards Urban and Social Geography Nuclear Power Cultural Landscapes Energy & Settlement Systems Education Michigan State University 48824 Ph.D.

1980 East Lansing, Michigan Univerity of Rhode Island02881 M.A.

1976 Kingston, Rhode Island I

Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania 17257 B.S.

1972 Shippensburg, Pennsylvania Present Position ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (since 1986)

Assistant Professor (1980-1986) DIRECTOR OF TH 23508 Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia SELECTED COURSES TAUGHT Geography of the City Geography of Energy Economic GeographyNatural and Technological (Team Taught)

Hasards:

Cartography and Cartography PracticumApplied Geography in the 1980s Seminar in Geography:

SELECTED COMMITTEE SERVICE Ph.D. in Urban Services Policy Committee, 1980-pre t

Steering Committee for the Institute for the Study of Minori 1984-190 Chairman, Arts and Letters Scholarships & Awards Issues, 1985-present

04-14-8" 12:25 T-r1f, TJTY GENERR. 8222 *:766 P16 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 Administration.

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.

i Selected Publications BOOK Technolooiesl Hazards.

Resource Publications in Geography.

Washington, D.C.:

Association of American Geographers, 1983.

i (Principal author; with J. H. Johnson, Jr., and S. D. Brunn) i l

l -

- - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - ' ^ '

c s -69 14:36 T-f% r.TT1 GENE %_ 5022 ::766 P17 3

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. B. Johnson, Jr.)

"Modelling Evacuation Behavior during the Three Mile Island Reactor j

Crisis,"

Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 20 (1986): 165-171.

(With J. H. Johnson, Jr.)

l

" Evacuation Planning for Technological Hazards:

An Emerging 1

Imperative." Cities 3 (1986): 148-156. (With J. H. Johnson, Jr.)

~

" Evacuation from Nuclear Attack:

Prospects for Population Protection in Hampton Roads."

Virginia Social Science Journal 21 (Winter 1986):

22-31.

(Reprinted in The Virginia Gazette, October 11, 1986, p. 4) i "The Geography of Civil Defence."

In A. Jenkins and D. Pepper, eds.,

The Geography of Peace and War.

London:

Blackwell, 1985.

pp.

148-162.

" Evacuation Behavior in Response to Nuclear Power Plant Accidents."

l Professional Geographer 36 (May 1984):

207-215.

(With J. H.

Johnson, Jr.)

"A Spatial Analysis of Evacuation Intentions at the Shoreham Nuclear i

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."

f Economic Geography 59 (October 1983):

386-402.

(With J. H.

i Johnson, Jr.)

" Energy Change and Evolving Nonmetropolitan Land Use Patterns." In G.

Macinko and R.

H.

Platt, eds.

Beyond the Urban Prince:

Land Use Issues in Nonmetropolitan Amer;.ca. Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press, 1983.

pp. 305-3.2.

(With L. M.

Sommers) v i

)

" Evacuation from a Nuclear Technological Disaster."

Geographical J

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.

l

" 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.

1 w---

-,-,n,--. -. -.. ~ ~. - - - -

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.

Review 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 Management (Lexington, Mass.:

D.C. Heath, 1981) in the Geographical Review 72 (July'1983): 425-427.

i Review of D.

L. Sills, C. P. Wolf, and V. B. Shelanski, Accident at l

Three Mile Island:

The Human Dimensions (Boulder, Colo.:

Westview Press, 1982) in the Professional Geocrasher 34 (November 1

1982): 485-486.

REPORTS t

" Lafayette Shores

Survey, Norfolk, Virginia."

Institute for the i

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. Johnson, Jr.)

i Energy and the Adaptation of Human Settlements.

Edited by H. E.

Koenig and L.

M.

Sommers.

Best 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, Machigan 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.

5 Prospects for Popdlation Protec-Attacks

" Evacuation from Nuclear Annual meeting, Association of American in Hampton Roads."

tion 24, 1985.

Geographers, Detroit, Mich., April Coastal Urbanisation in Tidewater Virginia."

l

" Beaches in the City:

Conference on the Management of Developed Coastal Barriers, 15, 1985.

(With J. C. Friberg)

Virginia Beach, Va., January in the Three Mile Island Decision-Making "A

Model of Evacuation Annual meeting, Institute of British j

Nuclear Reactor Crisis."

Geographers,

Leeds, England, January 10, 1985.

(With J. R.

i Johnson, Jr.)

" Preparing for Place Annihilation:

Civil Defense Evacuation l

Planning in the United States."

Annual meeting, Middle States

Division, Association of American Geographers, West Chester, i

f Pa., September 29, 1984.

l

" Human Responses to Radi'ological Emergencies."

Annual meeting, Washington, D.C., April 25, Association of American Geographers, 2984.

(With J. H. Johnson, Jr.)

Comparing Behavioral Responses j

"The Evacuation Shadow Phenomenont Annual meeting, Southeastern Division, to Nuclear Accidents."

Orlando, Fla., November 21, Association of American Geographers, 1983.

(With J. R. Johnson, Jr.)

l

" 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.

Con-the Transformation of a Metropolitan Landscape: Annual Contemporary and Future Settlement Geographies." Geo

" Energy and trasting

meeting, National Council for (Available on microfiche as part of the Pa.,

October 29, 1981.

ERIC document collection:

ED 214815)

Evacuation from a Nuclear "From Three Mile Island to Worlds End Disaster."

Annual meeting, Pennsylvania Council Technological 11, 1980.

for Geography Education, Harrisburg, Pa., October I

Testimony before the United Kingdom's Sizewell B Inquiry, Snape, Testimony Suffolk County, England, November 1984.

i l

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, I

January 1984.

j 4

04-14-E~ 12:4; T-MA A TY GENERA., 6021 3766 C2O

\\

)

6 Testimony before the Governor's Advisory Comedesion on the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.

New York, New York, June 1983.

Testimony before the suffolk County Legislature in the Matter of the l

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."

Unpubl.ished Ph.D.

dissertation, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, 1980.

(Advisor:

S. D.

Brunn.

Committee Members:

J. T. Darden and I. M. Matley)

Quality of Life Indicators and Demographic characteristics

" SelectedStandard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States."

~

of Unpublished M.A.

thesis, Department of Geography, University of 1

Rhode

Island, 1976.

(Advisor:

G. H. Krausse.

Second Reader H. J. Warman)

Media Interviews Radio

WNIS, Hampton Roads, Virginia, on the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident, 1986.

ODU

Dialogue, on Evacuation from Nuclear Power Plant Accidents, 1985.

(Syndicated)

NBC-Radio, New York, N.Y., on the Shoreham Evacuation i

l 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,

Virginia, on the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident, 1986.

BBC-Bast

Anglia, England, on the Sizewell B Inquiry, l

I 1984.

WELM, East -Lansing, Michigan, on the Three Mile Island Survey, 1979.

Professional Organizations Association 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.

l l

I i

e_. -5 m ai :-v e--

3 Esser,_ acz; =756 22:.

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, ragram Committee, 1987 Chairman, Audit Comunittee,1984 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 Virginia Geographical Society (since 1982)

President, 1985-present Editor, VGS Today, 1985-present Contest Coordinator, Annual Statewide Student Contest, 1984 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 i

Birthplace:

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Married Two Children l

Travel:

United States, Canada, Western Europe l

1

= - -

04-14-87 10:43 T-t'A Am GENERAL 8022 u?66 P*~

a..

t 4

o.

l ROLE CONFLICT DURING NUCLEAR EMERGENCIES I, Donald J. Zeigler, do depose and say as follows:

P 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 i

post-accident social survey around the Three Mile Island nuclear i

power plant.

As a social geographer, I have published extensively e

f on behavioral issues surrounding nuclear power plant emergency I

planning.

I hold a Ph.D. from flichigan State University and an a lr 4

g tenured Associate Professor at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, y

Virginia.

A copy of my vita is attached.

b y

It is my E

belief that role conflict among emergency personnel may 6

6 seriously jeopardise the workability of esmrgency response plans

{

designed to protect the public in the event of a nuclear power b

i plant accident at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.

e

[

1 fy W

ROLE CONFLICT AMONG EMERGENCY PERSONNEL WITH ASSIGNED DUTIES WILL b

LEAD TO DELAYED RESPONSE AND NON-RESPONSE AMONG SOME WORKERS.

i Role conflict is a situation in which emergency workers are torn between multiple group membership loyalties; most commonly it l

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

i 4

f

respocae, 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 i

relocates family members from the danger sone and stays with then for the duration of the crisis.

i DURING' THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISLAND IN 1979, ROLE CONFLICT WAS DOCUMENTED AMONG MANY EMERGENCY WORKERS.

j Contrary to most natural disaster studies, accounts of emergency I

personnel behavior in the Three Mile Island crisis suggest that l

l role conflict may seriously encumber emergency response efforts if l

a nuclear reactor accident occurs in the future (DeMuth and Miller i

j 1982; Demuth and Trautlein 1979; Breo 1979; Haglund 1979; 8trohl l

j 1979; Maxwell 1982; Neidner'et al. 1980, Macleod 1981; Runts 1979;

Kas1, Chisholm, and Eskenazi 1981).

Describing the situation at area hospitals during the TMI accident, for example, emith and

{

Fisher (1981) noted that "during the [ hospital emergency response]

planning

process, a

new problem arose

-- the exodus of people i

t included physicians,

nurses, and technicians required to staff l

i both the short term and long term medical facilities."

Maxwell i.

(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 l

danger zone and returned to work for extended periods of time

04-14-87 10:46 T-P% 4*TY GENERA, 8022 2766 F24 (delayed response).

Others left the area and stayed away until l

the immediate crisis was over (non-response).

At one local

hospital, for

example, only six of the 70 physicians who were i

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 i

staff members who have family responsibilities and should anticipate a shortage of physicians as well" (1982, 276).

j 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 l,

obligations, reportedly also occurred among the Pennsylvania l

National Guard (1979) and TMI nuclear power plant workers (Kasi, I

Chisholm, and Eskenazi 1981).

In a

comparativa study of the behavioral responses of supervisory and non-superivsory personnel i

at TMI and nearby Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Plant (40 miles l

away),

Kasi and colleagues noted "the greater conflict experienced and recalled by TMI workers:

they felt need to be in different l

i places at the same time, the intrusion of work demands on their overall planning of how to react to the accident, and specific 3

L

co-le-E.

c:.:-

m,. em...... _.

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 Most of those who left lived within 5 miles of the plant, crisis.

the designated zone of selective evauation during the reactor crisis.

Additional empirical evi'dence to support the reality of role conflict during nuclear emergencies was provided by the 1986 plant accident in the Soviet Union where Chernobyl nuclear power emergency workers were found to have abandoned their posts as a conflicting obligations to self or family (NYT, May 18, result of 1986, 18).*

NOT WORKERS LIVING BEYOND THE EVACUATION ZONE MAY MANY EMERGENCY REPORT TO DUTY STATIONS WITHIN THE EVACUATION ZONE.

and long-term health effects will Concern about parsonal safety 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 see large proportions of their neighbors moving farther away.

that emergency work roles have been reliably One of the reasons 4

fulfilled during many natural disasters is that people feel they are helping to protect their femilies 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 clean'se 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 i

stations, will voluntaril'y 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 lands 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 i

j 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.

i l

l 5

.--.. -.-~,..---, _ - -, - -, - - -

_.-.__m.

,..,7,__

, _ _.. ~ _ -..

_ _.=_

c_. -s 2: e

-n., -: - :2asa-._ ceu =',ce er SOCIAL SURVEYS OF PERSONNEL WITH ASSIGNED EMERGENCY DUTIES INDICATE THE STRONG POTENTIAL FOR ROLE CONTLICT 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

.i 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 j

roles which they are expected to perform during a

reactor i

accident.

j i

In each of the three surveys, the respondents were asked:

"What 1

do you think you would do first if an accident requiring a full l

scale evacuation of the population within 10 miles of the plant i

were to occur?"

Consistent with role conflict theory the behavioral options were (a) perform your emergency work role, (b) i make sure your family was safely out of the evacuation sone, (c)

J leave the evacuation zone immediately to make sure you were in a i

safe

piece,

'or (d) do something else.

The results of these three d

l surveys (zeigler,

Johnson, and Brunn 1983) are summarized on the following page 4

5 I

i r

,--- - - -- - ~ -., -

,,,,,,-,--,------.-e

.-,-,n.--n-..,--,.,,,-.,nn,,----,--,.w.

--.,-,---,,------------.n,---

.c:.

J.- v sss g;,

Em oss GE o

1 BEHAVIORAL SCHOOL TEACHERS BUS DRIVERS VOL. FIREMEN INTENTIONS (n=232)

(n=246)

(n=291)

)

Perfom Emergency Work 67 24 21 Check on Family 24 73 68 Leave the Area 1

3 1

Do Something Else 8

11 Clearly evident in the results is the importance of family ties or obligations in crisis ~ situations.

Sixty-eight percent of the l

volunteer fire fighters and 73 percent of the school bus drivers I

1 i

in suffolk County indicated that, if a major reactor accident were f

to occur at the Shoreha's plant, family obligations would take 4

I precedence over their duties as emergency workers (Social Data I

I Analysts 1982).

By contrast, less than one-fourth of the scaool

[

{

teachers in San Luis Obispo County, California, would first help.

\\

(.

to evacuate school children from the designated danger sone.

A L,

[

significant proportion of this group qualified their responses,

however, by stating that participation would be (a) contingent e

s upon being able to contact family members by telephone, (b) b t

restrictd to the evacuation of their class only, or (c) limited to fi i

a specified length of time.

These intangible or hard-to quantify

[.;.

(

I measures of intended behavior suggest that role conflict may be 4

k even more of a problem among public school teachers than the raw f

j numbers in the previous table indicate for the following reasons:

h P.

l

first, it is unlikely that teachers will be able to contact family R

members by telephone during a

nuclear power plant accident.

l Telephone exchanges are likely to be overloaded, as in the TMI crisis when nare than two million calls were attempted on a system designed to handle only half as many (Chenault, Hilbert, and 7

I i

Reichlin 1979).

Under such conditions, it is not inconceivable that those teachers whose assistance is predicated upon being able i

to contact family members by phone would leave inanediately, since j

rarely, if ever, have emergency personnel reported to duty without i

first contacting family members (Erikson 1982).

Second, an j

efficient and effective evacuation of schools would require the 1

l cooperation of all parties involved until the last child is s'afely t

i.

relocated outside of the designated danger zone and released to his/her parents or guardian (Johnson 1983).

Teachers who are i

willing to-evacuate only their class, or to particpate for only a limited period of time could severely hamper and complicate i

evacuaton

efforts, and thereby further endanger the

health, I

j

safety, and welfare of the school children.

The results of these a

surveys are consistent with one another and similar to the actual i

l behaviors of people at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

We therefore believe that these intended behaviors will materialise during a

nuclear power plant accident to hamper the emergency response effort.

ROLE CONFLICT AMONG EMERGENCY WORKERS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO MAKE i

EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT UNWORKABLE.

l 1

Emergency planners can expect some emergency personnel, in particular those with strong family ties who live within the plume j

exposure pathway zone (Henderson 1981; Lathrop 1980), not to be i

available immediately, if at all, to provide assistance and

}

guidance in the event of a

radiological emergency.

In their 8

1 analysis of organisation behavior in the TMI crisis, Chenault, I

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 to evacuate early to avert the staffing problems that are most opt likely to develop if they wait until an anticipated official evacuation order is i*ssued.

But they also note that "early or premature evacuation of institutions can serve to trigger large movements by the general public."

conflict during nuclear emergencies will be a greater problem Role than during other emergencias because of the nature of the hasard

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

hasard, because it is potentially

lethal, carcinogenic, and mutagenic, is feared in the extreme (Slovic 1979, 1980).

Under conditions emergency workers will be much more anxious about these their own well-being and their families' well-being than during more traditional non-radiological emergencies.

9

e.

l1 W

o O 6-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, p.ry,o m o E% 7-nv7 y

I s

4 e

10

c -; -s

e

-s ;.-

3EsEA;,_ 6021 :: 65 : 1 0.

i REFERENCES

Breo, D.

L.,

1979, Nuclear scare tests hospital's disaster plan, Hosnitals, J.A.H.A., May 1:

33.

Chenault, W.

W.,

G.

D.

Hilbert, and S.

D.

Reichlin, 1979, Evacuation Dlanning in the TMI accident, Washington, D.C.,

1 Federal Emergency Management Agency.

I

Demuth, W.

E.,

and J. J. Trautlein, 1979, The luck of Three Mile i

Island, Journal of Trauma 19:

792-794.

Demuth, W.

E., and K. L. Miller, 1982, A perspective on Three Mile Island, Continuing Educa*. ion, December: 18-24.

i l

Erikson, K.

T.,

1982, Humtn response in a radiological accident, in The Indian Point book, Cambridge, Mass., Union of Concerned Scientists.

4

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 Dower plant safety issues, 4

j pp. 331-341, Vienna: IEA.

i Hohenemser, C., R. Kasperson, and R. Kates, 1977, The distrust of j

nuclear power, Science, 196 (April): 25-34.

Johnson, J.

H., Jr., 1983, Reactaons of cublic school teachers to a

nossible accident at the D:,ablo Canyon nuclear power plant, l

a report prepared for the Cal;.fornia Teachers Association, San Luis Obispo Chapter.

Johnson, J.

H.,

Jr.,

1985, Planning for nuclear power plant l

accidents:

some neglected spatial and behavioral j

considerations, in Geographical Dimensions of Enerov, eds., F.

l J.

Calsonetti and B.

D.

Solomon, pp. 123-154, Boston:

D.

Reidel.

Johnson, J.

H.,

Jr.,

1985-86, Role conflict in a radiological l

emergency:

The case of public school teachers, Journal of Environmental Systems 15(1):

77-91.

i

Kaal, S., R. F. Chisholm, and B. Eskenazi, 1981, The impact of the i

accident at Three Mile Island on the behavior and well-being l

of nuclear workers part II: job tensions, psychological

symptoms, and indices of distress, American Journal of Public Health 71:

472-483.

Killian, L.

M.,

1952, The significance of multiple group membership in

disaster, American Journal of Sociolony 57:

309-314.

.+....

O*

Kunts, E.,

1979, Hospitals prepared radiation plans in wake of i

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 manseement, ed., J. W. Lathrop, pp.

i 13-44, Oxfords. Pergamon Press.

Macleod, G.

K.,

1981, Some public health lessons from Three Mile Islands a case study in chaos, Ambio 10:

18-23.

Maxwell, C., 1982, Hospital organisational response to the nuclear accident at Three Mile Islands implications for future-oriented disaster planning, American Journal of Public Realth i

72:.175-279.

NYT, 1986, Moscow says some at Chernobyl panicked and abandoned post, New York Times, May 18:

18.

Pennsylvania National

Guard, 1979, Three Mile Island nuclear 4

April

1979, after action

report, accident 28 March Annville, Pa.: Department of Mi;.itary Affairs, June 7.

81ovic, P.,

3.

Fischhoff, and 8. Lichtenstein, 1979, Rating the Risks, Environment 21:

14-39.

Slovic, P.,

B.

Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, 1980, Facts and fears understanding perceived

risk, in Societah risk asses-me?t how safe is safe enouch7, ed., R. C. Schw:,ng and W. A. A13ers, pp. 181-214, New York:

Flenum Press.

Smith, J.

8.,

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, Actitudes towards evacuations reactions of Lono Island ress, dents to a possible accident at the S torehan

'Quclear Power

?lant, New York:

Social Data l

Analysts.

j

Strohl, G.,

1979, Nuclear threats hospitals need to

know, t

Osteopathic Hoenitals 23:

6, 8-9.

l l

Weidner, W.

A.,

et al., 1980, The impact of nuclear crisis on a radiology department, Radiolocy 135: 717-723.

l

seigler, D.

J.,

J.

B.

Johnson, Jr.,

and 8.

D. Brunn, 1983, Technoloeical

Hazards, Washington, D.

C.:

Association of American Geographers i

l i

c.e

.e::::

.. s,-

- 3E,E;;,

6011 : s ::,-

S.

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 Specializations Technological Hazards Evacuation Planning Urban and Social Geography Nuclear Power Cultural Landscapes Energy & Settlement Systems Education Ph.D.

1980 Fuchigan 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 Geography 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 SELECTED 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 Minorit!

Issues, 1985-present Chairman, Arts and Letters Scholarships & Awards Committee, 1984-1985 Chairman, Arts and Letters Instruction Committee, 1986-present

04-14-87 12:US 4-MA ATTY GENERA. 8C22 #766 CH e.

7 Other Exoerience 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), Depar M nt of Political Science, Public Administration, and Geography, Christopher Newport College Newport News, Virginia 23606 Taught an uppar-level elective, Geography of Cities.

RESEARCN ASSISTANT (1980), Center for Environmental Quality 48824 Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan Assisted in organsing a

series of community and state level workshops, including preparation of the final reports energy for the Michigan Energy Administration.

TEACHING ASSISTANT (1977-1979), Department of Geography48824 Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan economic geography, assisted in field techniques in Taught i

geography and in geography of environmental quality.

ARCNIVES ASSISTANT (1978 and 1979),

State of Michigan Archives 48918 Department of State, Lansing, Michiganrecord groupd and manuscript l Organised newly acquired archival collectioner wrote finding aids to facilitiate public access to primary source materials CEOGRAPNER (1976-1977), Geographical Statistical Areas Branch Geography Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census Washington, D.C.

20233 statistical and cartographic data in order to prepare Analysed revise census tract plans and other statistical areas in,

and the South, in cooperation with local planning agencies.

INSTRUCTOR (1974), Department of Geography 02881 University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island economic geography:

directed a

tutorial in geographicI Taughteducation, and served as University College advisor.

i l

Selected Publications SOOK Techro10eical Masards.

Resource Publications in Geography.

D.C.:

Association of American Geographers, 1983.

Tassington, (Principal author; with J. H. Johnson, Jr., and S. D. Srunn)

r 04-1*.-87 ;* 01 T-MA ATir GENERA. E m =?ce ye 3

ARTICLES

" Evacuation Decision-Making at Three Mile Island." In A. Blowers and editors, Politics and Planntne for the* Nuclear State.

D.

Pepper, London:

Croom Nelm, 1987, pp. 272-294. LWith J. R. Johnson, Jr.)

"Modelling Evacuation Behavior during the Three Mile Island Reactor Crisis,'"

Socio-Economic Plannine Sciences 20 (1986): 165-171.

(With J. B. Johnson, Jr.)

" Evacuation Planning for Technological Hazards:

An Emerging Imperative." Cities,3 (1986): 148-156. (With J. H. Johnson, Jr.)

" Evacuation fro's Nuclear Attack:

Prospects for Population Protection in Hampton Roads."

Vireir ia 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.,

The Geeeraphy of Peace and War.

London:

Blackwell, 1985.

pp.

148-162.

" Evacuation Behavior in Response to Nuclear Power Plant Accidents."

Professioral Geocracher 36 (May 1984):

207-215.

(With J. H.

Johnson, fr.)

"A Spatial Analysis of Evacuation Intentions at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station."

In M. J. Pasqualetti and K.

D.* Pijawka, eds.,

Nuclear Power:

Assessine and Manasine Masardous Wchaoloav.

Bou;, der,

Colo.:

Westview Press, 1984.

pp. 279-301.

LWit3 J. R.

Johnson, Jr.)

" Distinguishing Numan Responses to Radiological Emergencies."

Econeele Geoermohv 59 (October 1983):

386-402.

(With J. M.

Johnson, Jr.)

" Energy Change and Evolving Nonmetropolitan Land Use Patterns." In G.

Macinko and R.

M.

Platt, eds.

Beyond the Urban Frinee' Land Use Issues in Menmetropolitan America. Minneapolis:

Un;versity of Minnesota Press, 1983.

pp. 305-312.

(With L. M.

Sommers)

" Evacuation from a

Nuclear Technological Disaster.",

Review 71 (January 1981):

1-16.

(Principal author; w Brunn and J.

M.

Johnson, Jr.)

This article was entered into and accepted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board testimony of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 4, 1981.

" Changing Regional Patterns of Central City Credit Ratings:

1960-1980."

Urban Geoeraphy 2 (July-September 1981):

269-283.

" Human settlements in Sparsely Populated Areas:

A Conceptual overview."

In R.

E.

Lonsdale and J.

W. Holmes, eds, jgggg Settlements in Soarselv Populated Recions.

New York: Pergamon Press, 1981.

pp. 14-52.

(Wita S. D. Brunn)

Plus six additional articles in urban and cultural geography.

(

a

-- ~ ' -r-ATT 7 E E R GC22 W66 P r

~ ' ~ ~ "

~

~ " ~

=

4 REVIEWS Review of D.

Clark, Post-Industrial America:

A Geographical Perspective (New York and London:

Professional Geographer 38 (November 1986):Methuen, 1984) in the 434.

[

Review of M. R. Greenberg and R. F. Anderson, Hazardous Waste Sites:

t The Credibility Gap (New Brunswick, N.

J.:

Policy Research, 1984) in the Center for Urban I 1986):

206-207 Professional Geograoher 38 (May h Review of R.

W.

Perry, M. K. Lindell, and M. R. Greene, Evacuation b Planning in Emergency Management I

1981) in the Geographical Review 72 (Lexington, Mass.:

D.C. Heath, (July 1983): 425-427.

L. Sills, C. P. Wolf, and V. B.

g Review of D.

Three Mile Shelanski, Accident at [c[

Island:

• The Human Dimensions (Boulder, Colo.:

gi Westview Press, 1982) 1982): 485-486.

in the Professional Geographer 34 (November W

h(i REPORTS

" Lafayette Shores

Survey, Norfolk, Virginia."

Institute for the hi Study of Minority Issues, Old Dominion University.

Urban League.

(With J. Carr and C. Jones)

Funded by the 1986.

gg "Further Analysis and Interpretation of the Shoreham Evacuation kk Survey."

In volume 3

of the Suffolk County Radiological hT4 Emergency Response Plan (Draft).

1982. (With J. R. Johnson, Jr.)

FM' Energy and the Adaptation of Human Settlements.

Edited by H. E. h'l Koenig and L.

M.

Sommers.

East Lansing, Michigan:

Center for ril g'.

Environmental

Quality, Michigan State University.

1980. [yJ (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:

Michigan State University. 1979.

De 281 pp. partment of Geography,(With S E

J. R. Johnson, Jr.)

l Selected Professional Presentations j,y%

.5

.{

"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.

students)

(With J. C. Friberg and "The Sizewell B Inquiry:

A Geographer's Participation in the United Kingdom's Nuclear Power Debate."

Division, Annual meeting, Southeastern i

Association of American Geographers, Chapel Hill, N.C,

j November 25, 1985.

~~

/

l

__.__=

5

" Evacuation from Nuclear Attack:

Prospects for Population.Protec-tion in Bampton Roads."

Annual meeting, Association of American Geographers, Detroit, Mich., April 24, 1985.

" Beaches in the City:

Coastal Urbanisation in Tidewater Virginie."

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 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, 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. R. Johnson, Jr.)

" Energy-Efficient Metropolitan Regions:

A Conceptual Mods 1 of Adaptations to a

High-Cost Energy Future,"

Annual meeting,,

Southeastern

Division, Association of American Geographers, Atlanta, Ga., November 23, 1981.

the Transformation of a Metropolitan Landscape Con-

" Energy and Annua 3 tresting Contemporary and Future Settlement Geographies."

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 Nuclea:

Disaster."

Annual meeting, Pennsylvania Counci:'

Technological for Geography Education, Harrisburg, Pa., October 11, 1980.

i Testimony 4

t Testimony before the United Kingdom's Sizewell B Inquiry, Snape Suffolk County, England, November 1984.

l Testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of th j

Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Matter of the Shoreha j^

Nuclear Power Station Licensing Hearings.

Riverhead, New York January 1984.

i

/

l

s 04-14-87 11:05 T-MA ATTY GENERA,_ 8023 's766 P39 p.

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.

Mauppauge, New York, January 1983.

Thesis and Dissertation

" Central City Credi*

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)

Quality cf Life Indicators and Demographic Characteristics

" SelectedStandard Metropoli. tan Statistical Areas in the United States." [,

,r '9 j of Unpublished M.A.

thesis, Department of Geography, University of

• l Rhode. Island, 1976.

(Advisor G. H. Krausse.

Second Reader:

H. J. Werman)

Media Interviews Radio

WNIS, Hampton Roads, Virginia, on the Chernobyl Nuclear :

Accident, 1986.

ODU

Dialogue, on Evacuation fromNuclearPowerPlantj' Accidents, 1985.

(Syndicated)

,c NBC-Radio, New York, N.Y., on the Shorehem' Evacuation,

Survey, 1983.

(Nationally syndicated) c Lansing, Michigan, on the Three Mile Islandg

WKAR, East

, survey, 1979.

Television:

WAVY, Portsmouth,

Virginia, on emerger.cy preparations [

at the Surry Nuclear Power Plant, 1906.

WTAR, Norfolk,

Virginia, on the Chernobyl Nuclear.

Accident, 1986.

{

BBC-Bast

Anglia, Ingland, on the Sizewell B Inquiry,;

1984, t

WELM, East Lansing. Michigar on the Three Mile Island [

a Survey, 1979.

i i

hl t'

Professional Organizations Association 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.

l

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 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 Virginia Geographical Society (since 1982)

I President, 1985-present

(

Editor, VGS Today, 1985-present i

Contest Coordinat6r, Annual Statewide Student Contest, 1984 l

Member, Executive Board, 1984-present e

Virginia Social Science Association (since 1984) i Conference Participant, 1983-1986 i

Member, Executive Committee, 1986-1987 j

North American Cartographic Information Society (since 1986)

Conference Participant, 1986 p.

Gamma Theta Upsilon, Omicron Chapter (inducted 1970)

I President, Omicron Chapter, 1971 r

I.

Kappa Delta Pi (inducted 1971) h b

l Personal l

g E

l Birthdate:

November 26, 1951 E

l Birthplace:

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania E:

Married k

Two Children

[

Travels United States, Canada, Western Europe g

e-W

\\

v e

g--

g--m-p m--

m yeir

+ -,

a-

---

-