Major Hazard Events Research Articles

Disaster Declarations and Major Hazard Occurrences in the United States*

This article examines the potential geographic inequities between major hazard events and U.S. presidential disaster declarations at the county level from 1965 through 2004. The previous literature suggests that the disaster declaration process is highly politicized and not necessarily based on need. We hypothesize that there is a spatial inequity between the receipt of disaster declarations and the distribution of major hazard events. The results indicate that the geographic distribution of disaster declarations is not totally explained by the spatial pattern of major hazard events. In some locales, state experience in submitting disaster requests and achieving success translates into more disaster declarations (holding everything else constant), providing further evidence of the political nature of the process.

Potential for BLEVE associated with marine LNG vessel fires

Recent LNG marine shipping hazard studies have discounted BLEVE hazards associated with LNG vessels. This exclusion of a potential major hazard event has been queried, particularly since a recent LNG truck BLEVE-like event in Spain. This paper reviews the physical factors associated with the Spanish LNG truck event and accepts that this had features of a classical BLEVE event and that there is no inherent property of LNG excluding BLEVE-like events, although US LNG trucks would be safer due to design features. Marine LNG vessels have differently designed tanks and it is demonstrated that the combination of physical barriers makes direct thermal input to the LNG inner tank more limited than hypothesized by some, but if it occurs these tanks cannot rise to a pressure sufficient to cause a large flash of liquid and consequent BLEVE event of a scale hypothesized in the literature.

Social and Cultural Aspects of Natural Hazards Perception and Response

ABSTRACTFocus groups conducted in two urban areas in New Zealand explored perceptions of natural hazards and disaster preparedness. The groups were structured by socio‐economic status, gender, age, and cultural background. Participants were generally aware of likely major hazard events but few maintained emergency kits or had prepared emergency plans. People held an optimistic attitude, believing they could cope with disaster. Differences amongst the groups included the inability of lower socio‐economic groups to afford emergency kits or insurance and evidence of strong supportive networking among Maori and Samoan groups.

Tourism impacts of Three Mile Island and other adverse events: Implications for Lincoln County and other rural counties bisected by radioactive wastes intended for Yucca Mountain

Whether the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository system will adversely impact tourism in southern Nevada is an open question of particular importance to visitor-oriented rural counties bisected by planned waste transportatin corridors (highway or rail). As part of one such county's repository impact assessment program, tourism implications of Three Mile Island (TMI) and other major hazard events have beem revisited to inform ongoing county-wide socioeconomic assessments and contingency planning efforts. This paper summarizes key research implications of such research as applied to Lincoln County, Nevada. Implications for other rural counties are discussed in light of the research findings.

Societal Response to Hazards and Major Hazard Events: Comparing Natural and Technological Hazards

ibid.; A. A. Atkisson and W. J. Petak, Seismic Safety Policies and Practices in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: A Three City Case Study (Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1981); Petak and Atkisson, National Hazard Risk Assessment and Public Policy, op. cit.; and T. E. Drabek, A. H. Mushkatel, and T. S. Kilijanek, Earthquake Mitigation Policy: The Experience of Two States (Boulder, Colo.: Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado, 1983). 7. Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO vs. American Petroleum Institute et al., U.S. Supreme Court 78-91, 2 July 1980, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 8. Ibid.