ML20065K342

Affidavit of Cole.* Discusses Issue of Whether Commonwealth of Ma School Teachers & Day Care Ctr Personnel Perform Roles Contemplated in Spmc

ML20065K342
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/02/1990
From:	Cole S MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW YORK, STATE UNIV. OF, STONY BROOK, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML20065K340	List: ML20065K337 ML20065K342 ML20065K345
References
OL, NUDOCS 9011270053
Download: ML20065K342 (5)

Text

_. . .- .

p~

. inst sosialJanalysis TEL Nb.5a6-638-7719 Nov 2,90 18183 No.001 P.02 l '

I 1

! l j

i i November 8,1990 ,

UN!?RD STATB8 OP AMERICA l

! before the

! i l ATONIC 8APRTY AND LICENSING DOARD l

1

) )

In the Matter of I j )

l d

PUBLIC SERVICS COMPANY OF ) Docket Mos. 60-443-OL-1 NSW RANPSEIRE, et. al. )

I 50-444-0L-3

) (Offsite Baergency

) (Seabrook station, Unite 3 and 2 ) Planning and safety

) leones) 1

) I j

AFFIDAVIT OF DR. STEPREN COLE  !

. i

! I, Dr. Gtephen Cole, being on oath, depose-and say as follows: I i )

i i

! 3.

I an a Professor of Sociology at the State University of New York at Stony

{

trook and Preefdent of Social Data Analysts, lue., a consulting company  !

conducting applied social research. .

I have conducted a substantlel amount of '

resserch on the adequacy of energency plano designed to protect the public during i

l potential radiologloal emergencies at nuclear power plants. Since I have I testified before this Licensing Board regarding the New Raspshire-Radiological Baergency Response P3an on issues of human _ behavior during emergencies, my l professions)'gualifications are a matter of record in this proceeding. A current i curriculum vita is attached as Appendix t. I J

8.

The purpues of this affidavit is to consider the-following Jesuei Will Massachusette nobool teachere and day care center pereoanel perform the roles contoaplated for them under the Seabrook Plan for Massaobusetts Communities l

(8PNC)?

l 9011270053 901102 PDR ADOCK 05000443 '

O PDR , )

i

,i nst social analysis TEL N0.516-632-77a9 Nov 2.9088t33No.001P.0hf i

l .

?

I 3. This offidevit is divided into four sectione. The first reviews the i

j relevant research which has been done on role conflict. The eeoond emotion i

j enelysee the type of role conflict which might affect school teachere in the l

Nossachusette section of the gPE and how this would influence the' safety of j children in those schools. The third section discusses the argument presented by

! New Hampshire Yankee witnese. Dr. Dennie 0. Mileti. In his affidevit of October

( ,

14. 1990. la the fourth section ! will present my concluetone on the scene addroceed in thle affidavit. 1 i nesenreb on mole conflict

4. In all complea societlev individuele simultaneously occupy many social .

1 positions. As a result of occupying these multiple poettione. individuals have {

role relationships with many other people. Thus, most people have work roles, r j fon11y roles, and other roles (for instance roles in religlove or other

• voluntary organisatione). Society has certain expectatione of how an individual is supposed to perfore each of these roles. The people with whom we interact  :

also have expectations for how we should behave in our roles. Since we often i

eloultaneovely must fulfill eeny roles. It to not unusual-for the obligatione or i

onpoctatione connected with one role to come into conflict with the obligations or expectations connected with another role. Sociologiste have used many' I different torne 'ncluding

• role conflict

• to describe variations of.thle familiar situation. Rols conflict is defined as the experience of incompatible obligations from two or more of a person's societal roles.

r l

6. One way in whleh people handle role conflict le to carry out the-responalbilities of one role and neglect those of the other. This solution le f

sometimes called

• role abandonment.' The abandonnent can be permanent or i

temporary. When commitment to both roles le high people may also try to resolve i role conflict either by attempting to perform both rolee'in some way, or by +

. - . _ _ . . _ , _ . . _ _ . . _ . . _ _. ~ . . _ _ _ .._ - _ _ _ __ ___ . - _ _ . . _'

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

---

T---,

' . _f I

}

l . inst social analusis TEL.No.5a6-632-77a9 Nov 3 90 18i23 No.001 P.04 .

I i

3 ,

i performing only part of their responelbilities to each role. This approach le often counterproductive, with the result that both roles are performed poorly, it  :

st all.

l It le also leportant to note that'the stress of severe role conflict \

affects concentration, activation, and attitude on the job. Thus, regardless of the ultlante resolution, the quellt-i of role performance le likely to be damaged by otrong role conflict. '

i 8.

There are many factore affecting the resolutions of role ' conflict.- (See Stephen Cole, Ihg,1gs;1olor', cal orientation, 2nd Ed.1970, p'p'. 61-88.) The most j

leportant factor, however, le the relative leportance, or

• dominance", of the roles at feeuw.

l It must be recognized that not all roles'that individuals occupy are equally laportant to them. When an individual faces a role conflict l

eituation in whleb it is necessary to make a cholos as to which role will take priority, the individual will be heavily influenced by the espectations and demands of the dominent role. The sociologloal literature demonstrates that in our society, {g M y roles tend to be the most laportant, people are taught from '

childhood that their roles as parents. and other faally roles are the most important.

Thus, family roles are likely to be dominant over virtually all othere.

7.

During a radiological emergency at the seabrook nuclear power station, school test. hare and day care center personnel who work within-the gPt and live in or close to the EPZ would experience role conflict. On the one hand they would be concerned for the safety of the children in their classes. On the other hand 4

they would feel a strong obligation to make sure that the seabere of their own ,

family, in many cases including young children or elderly parente, were safe.

Most of the research done.on the response of energency workere during disasters h, ehow that when ther emnerience role conflict between their enereener duties and 4

- ,y-, .--w,.., +..r-.,, -e..-+,.&,.<-~ . , . , . ,we,,,-~.+-,,vv, .E%. . . . . . , - , , w-.,d.-

l -

wy  :

. inst social analysis TEL Ne.516-638-7719 Nov 3 90 13:33.No.001 P.05

~ l

- l l  ;

i l

i ob11mation to their faallf ee substantial nortions of' emerenner workers almne briority on their family obilaations.

S.

!I One of the most firmly established findings in dienster research is that faallies tend to evacuate as a unit in emergency ettuatione requiring such protective action.

This concluelon hee been drawn by virtually all specialiste j

l in the area of emergency decleton asking and disaster planning. (See, for l

example Allen M. Barton, Communftfen in Dinaster! .

4 A Socioloalcal Analvais of  !

Co11metive stress situations. Rev York: Doubleday,1969. Thomes E. Drabok and l

Keith 8. Bogge, "Paallies in Disaster: Reactione and Relatives." Journal of i I harrikne and the Paally ID68: 30, pp. 448-51: Thomas E. Drabek, *?be Socle) l

, Process in Disaster: Pasily Evacuation," Social Problems, 1D49: 14, pp. $$4-8498 Reuben Hill and Donald A. Hansen, " Families in Disaster," in George W. Walker and 1

Dwight W. Chapman, eds., Nan and society in Dienster. New York: '

Beelc Books.

j 1968.) Ronald Perry, one of the leading researchers on disastere concludes:

With respect to evacuation, it is known that f ami!!se toad to evacuate as '

unite, and that separation of family members.often involves anxiety and attempts by evacueen to reunite families, sometimes by returning to the l previously evacuated area. (Ronald W. Perry " Incentives for Evacuation in ,

Natural Disaster: Research based on-Community Planning." American Plannine Association Jp3 Igg (1979),

V.

In 1968 Lewle-Killian introduced the concept of role conflict and utilized 4

evidence from studles of disasters to illustrate the concept.(Levie W. Killion.

"The Significance of Nultiple Group Membership in Dienster," Amerloan Journal of Sociolorv 57 (January, 1958), pp. 309-314.)

In his article. Killian presented l

l evidence from e study of the reactions of people in four Southwestern communities to physical diumeters. The study covered three tornado-struck communittee and the Texas city ship explosion disaster. Killian quoted'the report of a volunteer <-

fireman who " fought the fire by myself until the army got there to help me," and.

that *all the rest of the firemen had relatives that were hurt, and they stayed. i l with them. Naturally, they looked after them. If it hadn't been that my wife

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

i

! . inst social anaigsis TEL No.586-632-77a9 l

Nov .3 90 18:33 No.001 P.06 {

t i

{

was all right. this town probably would have burneil up. Millian concluded that l i

I

=

• the great nejerity of persons interviewed who were involved in such dileases  ;

! r resolved them in favor of the family..." (p. 311) There are many other studies  ;

i I of disaster whleh have reached the same conclueton. Por emaaple, charles Frits '

s states: 1 1 i Most people quickly resolve thle conflict in favor.of loyalty first to the 1 i

faelly or other intimates, and then only turn their attention to larger and  !

)

acre impersonal-social group loyaltier.. (Charles E. Frite. ' Disaster.* in i Robert R. Norton and Robert Njobot.ede.. Contemaerary toeial problene. Neo York: Marcourt Brace. 3963, p. 677.) 4 j Hill and Meneen state:

4 i

Not until all intimatte... within reach are safe, will an individual w1111hely lend his support and aid to other persons. . . . After impact. only ,

)

the rare person can do anything but' search until the fate of his loved ones le known. Usually he nuet actually see his loved ones face to face. LNot  !

p until then can he be depended upon to enter the general rescue work. (93

$11.,p.147)  ;

i

10. There le much recent research whlob suggeste that role confilet would be a f

serious probles during radiological energencies at nuclear power' stations. i There ,

are several studice which suggest that role conflict wee a probles during the 1

occident at 'm!. '.These studies are reviewed in the testimony. of Donald J.  !

1 teigler and James H. Johnson, Jr. on role conflict during the hearings on the New Hampshire energency plan for seabrook. September ~ 34, 1987, pp. 44-47). Studies which ! conducted in regard to the thereham' nuclear power station on Long toland i suggested that a majority of volunteer firemen and local' school bue drivere would first look to the safety of their faallies before performing any emergency duties. In a ruling in the shorehas licensing procedure an Atomic Safety and i Licensing Appeal Board (33 WRC 165 (1966)-ALAB 833) concurred with my position that the une!!!!ngness of trained energency workere such se volunteer firemen to perform their duties during a a radiological emergency suggeste that untrained j energency workers might. be even more -likely to abandon their emergency dutiest.

i h

n .

. i nst sosial analysis TEL No.516-633-7719 Nov 8,90 82:33 No 001 P.07 '

l 6  !

Stated in its elepleet terne, if a trained professar si emergency worker l I such as a fireman would put family obligatione aber of the disoberge of  :

) Shoreham energency duttee that alght be aselgaed to him or her, it is a j

fair inference that an individual not in such a line of ondeaver would I i

encounter at least se great role conflict. (p. 354)  ;

Another Atoale Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (89 NRC 847 '(1989)-ALAS-911)

~

m 1

d agreed it.at the survey 1 conducted of bus drivers was evidence that "some role l standonment on the part of 'reguler' school bue drivere suet be neoused and l

r,hould be acoounted for-in LILCO's energency planning." (p. 268) A study 3 ,

conducted on New Enapehire residents of the Seabrook EPE euggested that almost half of emergency workere living in the SPE would not report for their emergency

jobs before insuring the oefety of their reallies. James Johnson conducted e ,

4 study of school teachere working in the EPE eurrounding the Diablo Canyon nuclear poner station in California and found that a signifloant minority of them would i -

not perfora emergency work but look after the needs of their family. (See the Eelgler and Johnson tentlaony, pp. 48-80). In sua there le now a substantial body of research conducted over the last do years which suggeste that when emergency workere experience role conflict many of thes are likely to givo priority to their family roles.

New R==nehire Yeakee Plan for Manaaehusette -

s

, 11. The New Rampshire Yankee plan for evacuating school children from the Nessachusette section of the SP2 would create substantial' role conflict for ,

teachere and would undoubtedly result in many teachere not performing their roles contemplated'by the SPNC. There are several reasons why role conflict would be a particularly serious probles for this emergency plan. Whereas the plan for evacuating school ih!)dren from the New Nampshire section of the EP8 calle for i i school children and children in day care centere to be evacuated to four contere not far from the BPE, the SPNC calle for all studente to be evacuated to a single center at Holy Crose College. This alte le a alalaus of sixty alles from each:

l i

e w--,e-~~n-,re.,- ,-me--, - - , , -'-.,e,mos .,Yomwe

[ . i nst social analysis TEL No.5a6-632-7719 Nov 29018:33No.001P.ON I

7 -

l echool whloh nuet be evacuated. Also many of the buses involved in the l

evacuation will have to be driven into the gPE from a substantial distanoe.

Under the traffic conditions which are likely to exist during a radiologloal energency at Seabrook it le likely that to transport all studente to the school Most Facility in Worcester will take a substantial period of time.'

It will also l

j

! take parente a substantial length of time to get to.Noly Crone to pick up their

) children. This means that tesobers who go on the buses with the children to Roly Crose would face the posalbility of being separated from their families for a period of time of as such as 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />. This prospect of being separated froa their own faal11== for such a long time would activate many teachers to refuse to 30 on the buses and look af ter the needs of their own families. This problem was acknowledged by the Appeal Board in their september it. 1980 deciolon (see pp. 6-e) it.

Another important reason why many teachere would not go on the buses is that the temuhere have not accepted thle duty as their responalbility. Teachere have not been asked if they would cooperate in doing emergency work during a radiological emergency. The plan eksply useuses that a group of people who are experiencing severe role conflict will do what the plan administratore expect them to do.

Whether or not an eeergency worker will perfore effectively during an energency is beavily dependent upon whether that worker accepte it as his or her responalbility to conduct energency work, whether doing emergency work to part of the ordinary duttee of the individual and whether adequate training in 1

perforn'ns weergency work hee been given. On all these counto the 8PNC le Anadequate. 'fetchere are not anergency workers. It le true

f. hat tesobers are '

occaelonally involved in energencies auch as a student becoming ill or a fire in -

l the school. But these are rare occurrences and not part of the normal job of a' '

teacher. There le nothing either in the contracts of an t teachere or the s~--r v~o e ~-w,ee, m .v.,e- -~+w -, ye,-~..-,aw.-o-,-,,.~ve s -- e a e .w-w --a ,a n-4,w , s-n~ - - * - - - r" b

~

. inst soelal analysis TEL No.516-632-7719 Nov 3 90'12:23 N6.008 P.09 l -

l- 1 '

y

! I i

l expectations that they have for their jobs which suggest that accompanying children on a bus to Moly Cross College during a radiological emergency is part '

of their job.

It has been shown that even people who do deal with emergencies as i

su everyday part of their job, such as volunteer firemen, would experience severe '

role conflict during a radiologloal energency and eeny would abandon their roles '

as firemen to attend to the needs of their family. No training has been given to f school teachers in the Messachusetto gPE which would serve to prepare them to i

perform energency work during a radiological emergency.

13.

If school teachere did not acocepany children on the busee'it te very unlikely that adequate care for these children could be provided by the bus i

drivers and volunteers at Holy Cross College. It is difficult for bus drivers to maintain order on buses during the normal routine of taking children to and from school. If tesobero do not accompany the children on the buses it to quite ,

i likely that the well being of the children will be endangered. The long bus ride without superviolon under extremely stressful conditions would cause severe anlety among the children. Some children would undoubtedly be frightened and begin to cry; othere alght be unruly, creating hasardous conditions in the bus.  !

When these children arrived at Roly crose college the absence of teachere with whom the children are fealliar could contribute to the development of further fright and disorder. The assumption of the emergency plan that unknown l

volunteers will be able to effectively deal with these studente is simply based on wishful thinking rather than a tested and laplementable emergency plan.

The Nileti Affidavit '

14.

The opinione expressed in the affidavit oubaltted'on October- 19, 1990 by Dr. Dennis S. Niloti are beoed upon errore in interpreting the safeting disaster resoerch and ou failure to consider the particular circumstances c. tlw Massachusette plan which alght make concluelone free other disastere inapplicablo

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

1 ll

. inst social analysis TEL No.516-632-7789 Nov i.9082:23No.001P.1h3

. l l .

i

• I  !

1 Jn this case. In general. Dr. Niloti is highly selective =in his analyste of the  ;

1 l research on disasters and he has failed to consider how differences.in the type I l

l of disaster could affect the way energency workere respond to role conflict. l l

15. Dr. Nilots tries to explain the fact that poet studies have shown many exemples of role abandonnent by energency workers by claiming that in these casee .<

the energency roles were not "oertain,* This argument-je based primarily upon a j

steinterpretation of an unpubliebed 1968 ansters theels by Meda White, cited by j Dr. Mileti in his affidavit. White interviewed various energency workers about 1

what they had done during and after tornadoes. Of the 117 people she interviewed, sa percent contributed ~to disaster activity first, before attending to their faellies. Dr. Mileti argued that this le because the workers White l studied were "certain* of their energency roles whereas those studied by othere were people who were not certain of their energency ecles. This conclueton is insupportable and distorts White's work.

1 First. I have already pointed out that many of the energency workers previously reported to have abandoned their rsles 1

were in fact experienced energency workers, such me volunteer firemen who were

aware of their energency roles. Second. the basic problem in applying results from studies such as White's to the situation facing school teachere during a Soubrook energency concerne the nature of the disaster agent.

16. Disasters vary in the duration of the threat or Japact from brief in the case of tornadoes and earthquakes-to prolonged in the case of floods and radiation energencies. The duration of threat from a hurricane will generally be-longer than a tornado, but substantially shorter than a serious radiologloal.

energency at a nuclear power plant.. Djeesters also very in their lanact area.

1 from very narrow in the case of tornadoes to very broad in hurricanes, floods. I earthquakes, and radiation energencies. They also very in the' extent to which I the threat la visible. Noet natural disasters present vielble, threats while

alast social analysis TEL N6.516-632-7719 Nov 2.90 12:23 N9.001 P.11 i

I 1

10 i radiatlun danger is invisible without special equipment.- All of theos attributes of the disaster agent contribute to how emergency workers alght react to potential role conflict.

Because tornadoes, the disaster which White studied.

paso quickly and then are gone by the time on emergency worker had to perfora his or her emergency role the threat would have passed. Thus. It would be poselble for emergency workers to find out quickly if their fastly members had been affected by the tornado. If not then their fastly members would not be in~ i danger and they would 89.1 experience role conflict.

Dr. Allen Berton in his 1969' book. conaanities in Disaster, made a detailed analyels of the White study. He .

concluded: "

-I It must be emphaelsed that the finding of White's study is not that 'the great majority of people choose their organisational role over their feally l j

role' but that they will do ao under certain conditions. which prevailed in the three tornado disastere she studied. In other types of dienstere-- ]

exemplified by the 'fenas City exploolon-- the distribution of knowledae about the needs of the feally may be quite different. (p. 180) 17.

If we compare a potential Seabrook radiological emergency with the tornaduou studied by White and the Texas City ship disaster which was discussed  ;

by X1111an. I believe the situation at seabrook would be auch closer to the I istter. To understand thle conclusion. At is laportant to understand the situation to be faced by the school teachers. Linder the 8PNC they will be expected to accompany school children on buses while the radiolosteal threat le faminent or actually present in the gPZ where the schools in question are  !

located.

They are not being called on to perform their_ emergency duties mLit.t I

the danger has passed.

Thus, the teachere, many of whoa live in the gP1 and will have faelly members in or close to the RPE would have reason to be concerned  !

that their families would be in danger. BBS messages would be advising some or all EPt realdente to evacuate as soon as possible.

14. q In an ongoing radiological emergency requiring evacuation, the danger would l

be perceived as persisting, unlike.in White's tornado studies. It'le therefore i

.. . - - y

. inst social ena19sts TEL No.5$6-632-7719 Nov' 2.90,$2123I No.001 P.1 N : '

i ll highly likely that those school temohors with faallies would feel certain that

}

Weir family members needed their help, experience-intente role' conflict, and^ -i resola that conflict by giving priority to the family role. In short much of =!

the literature cited by Dr.-Niloti to support his point of view,' such as the White study, le not relevant to an analysis'of what school teachere would do in a l

Seabrook emergency, ytret. White studied emergency workers whon'she' described either as proteaalonale (full-time firemen, policemen, city officials, etc.) who work with energency situations regularly as part of their normal . jobs, or trained-  ;

volunteers who frequently perfors emergency functions'(such as volunteer firemen or Red Cross workers). The Seabrook school-teachers-fit into neither pf the'ee categories. Second, and perhaps most leportantly, the disaster agent ac White's 1

study was a tornado. Whereas. the emergency workers whieb White studien were i able to nacertain that the tornado, which had. passed and left, had not harmed-their family members: this would be difficult for school teachers to do.during an {

ongoing radiological emergency at Seabrook.

19. q Throughout his analysis Dr. Milett fails to distinguish between emergency )!

1 workers who have agreed to accept responsibility during an emergency such as '

policemen or Red Cross workers and people such as school teachers who do not normally deal with emergencies and have not in this case volunteered tc.do so.

There is a big difference between the SPNC requiring =an energency role for school 1

teachers, and these teachers actually agreeing to carry out such duties. In-other words,'even in the distorted sense in which Dr. Milett uses White's concept of " certainty" there is no evidence that such certainty exists for school teachers in thia case.

30. In past testimony and his current affidavit Dr. M11eti has argued that.

i i

" role certainty is a consequence of energency. planning and traaning." But given '

that no emergency trcining has been provided or is planned for school teachers in' t

i i

. . 1 inst social analysis ' TEL Nb.516-632-7789 J Nov L 90 12423 No.001' P.13f.

l 12 j.

j the Massacbusetty sector of the gPE,&lt is necessary for Dr. Mileti'to now argue- l that training it. not necessary for role certainty.. .In 39 NRC 24T (1989) cited 1 i

above, the Appeal Board concluded that evidence from LILCO's witnesses (including- 1 i

Dr. M11sti) anggeste that training 13 necessary to avoid role abandonments' '

Inasmuch as LILCO's own evidence indicates that a lack-of such training and i participation brings about role abandonment, it le fair:to assume that, i should a shorehan energency occur, at least some of the bus drivere will l react se predicted in their interviews (i.e. abandon their emergency  !

roles). p. 362 i

In the c'urrent affidavit Dr. N13eti uses the example of planning and training being w.nnecessary "to lead a teenaged baby sitter to perceive certainty in her role of responsibility for an infant' during an emergency, that role certainty exist,s by virtue of having assumed the role of baby sitter." An adequate energency plan for the evacuation of' school children should provide for more '

responelble care than that is provided by the average teeneged baby sitter. i St.- Dr. Kiloti consistently confuses the leone here by using examples from 1 emergencies.where there was no clear role conflict faced-by emergency workers.

For example, the fact that nursing'home residente have not been abandoned during a fire, would be irrelevant because's fire in the nursing home would not create a ~

role conflict for the workers there since that fire would not be likely.to effect their family members. If it did effect their faally members,.as in-the Texas City disaster described by Killian then role conflict would exist' and role-obandonment would take place. 'This la the primary problem with his case example of the overturn of a propane seu truck.. Dr. Mileti says that a "large"' area of the cosaunity was evacuated. But this turns out to have been only people within a one-fourth alle radius of the accident. (See p. 2 of Attachment A to Dr.

Milett's affidavit.) Since there is no evidence that any of the emergency workers had faally members living la this area and since.It would take=only a short time to evacuate faally members a distance of a quarter of a alle, thle

~

')

inst social. analysis- TEL No.516-632-7729- Nov 2.90'12i23 No 001LP.1d i

'13 -

situation did not present the energency workers with any serious role confliot, Thorsture, the fact that emergency workers did not abandon their roles 11n this case is-arrelevant in considering what' school teachers would do in a radiologics!

energency at Seabrook.

J

23. Dr. Mileti argues that " role certainty would prevail since it originates in -

the routine teacher-student role relationship which-exists independent of emergeuules, training, plan sponsorship and so on." (p. 4 of his affidavit) All:

roles have mores, or social rules, which define what the ob!!gations and responulbilities of the occupante are.. There are _ norms _ which define what a teacher is and is Dgt responalble for. For emaaple, it is not a. teacher's responalbility'to visit the home of a child who is not doing.well in his or her-class. A few alght do this but most would not. We have no evidence that toschere would define it as their responsibility to go with children on buses during a radiological emergency. During normal school days teachers are not required to go on buses with children. This is the job'of but drivers and not teachers. Because teachers have some responsibility for students in'their classes. Dr. Mileti is trying to argue that there are no limits on this respouvibility. This is especially difficult to believe when we consider. tim intense role conflict:that-most teachers would be under.

.23.

Dr. Mileti agrees that teachers might abandon their, roles if they

" perceived that the obligations and duties of their role relationship with students were adequately transferred to someone else." First, as I have already pointed out there is no evidence that teachers would perceive 11t-as_part of their responsibility to students to go on buses. Second. At is-quite likely that many teachers would perceive this job as being the responsibility of school l

administrators or the bus drivers. There would not-be enough administrators to l l  !

supervise the children and as I have pointed out above. It is unlikely that bus l 1

,. 3' _

y

.. Inst social analysis TEL No.516-632-??19 Nov 3 90'12:23 No'.001 P.15l 'l l , . j l

l 14 _q drivers. should they not abandon their roles, would be'able to provide adequate supervision. Without the teachere willing prior acceptance of this responsibility and some oriective prior training it is unwise to assume that teachere will perform this role.

34.

Dr. M11eti argues that emergencies serve the. function of changing "the

-i human character" and making people altruistic.- This le probably'true in most=

cases where role confllot le ag11nvolved. In other words'during an energency I alght give a pedestrian a ride in my car, an act which.I would'not ordinarily do, ~

j But in this exemple I as not faced with the choice between doing an altruletic.

act gt taking care of my family. :Thus. I experience no role cont)tet.

Conclueione 85.

Although it le true that many people act "altruletically' during disasters, there le a substantial body of literature which suggests that when an emergency.

worker le faced with a role confilet between taking. care of'his or her fon11y and 1

performing emergency duties that a substantial asjority will give priority to.the '

demande of the family role. Olven the nature of the disester agent in a '

radiological emergency and the failure of the emergency _ plan to provide for.the prior consent and training of school teachere. At is highly,likely that a significant portion will refuse to accompany school children on buses. This would make it imposelble to provide for the' safe evacuation of' school children and children in day care centere during a radiological emergency at'seabrook..

I i

IP

1

, . ::  ?

' inst _soctal analysis TEL No.5165 632-7719- . Nov _2.90 12:23 No.001 P,,16.3 - "'

. l 1.%

Dr. Steparen Cole- -f Suffolk County, New York. jlovember 3,'1990 The above' subscribed Dr. Stephen Cole appeared before me and made oath that he -!

had read the foregoing affidevit and that the statements set forth thereln are' true to best-of his knowledge. '!:

• . I, Before me, {,

ioAuAtHAMAN '

. m . . e, -

! w sa.477M74, tutsom <

Ilotary Public- '

\, . .s'., 5 g /,$erm ieres tem. 30, I Ity Commiselon-Bapires:- 'i s

g,-

,.......*..),

.,,,,,....%*9,p,,..-

...*,,** ] ,

i j

f r

i b

1

-1 l

l l

l e

y - ,,,- , . , , y .. , - - - .-

,,-,.en,, - - , , , , , . w..ew,,,, e ,. -,

ll o

VITA j

~

Stephen. Cole .

Birth Date: .]

i June 1, 1941 j Home Address.

161 Quaker Path Setauket, New York 11733 Phone: 516-689-7271- 1 office Address: l Department of Sociology State University of New York at Stony Brook l Stony Brook,JNew-York 11794  !

Phone: 516-632-7732' j l

Education: l B.A., Columbia College (majors in history:and sociology), 1962 Ph.D., Columbia University-(sociology), 1967 Academic ADDointments:

1964 Lecturer, Barnard College l 1965 Lecturer, Columbia University'. .

1966-67 Instructor of Sociology, Columbia University-1966-76 Research Associate,' Bureau of Applied _. Social Research, Columbia University 1967-68 Assistant. Professor,:DepartmentLof Sociology, Columbia UniversityJ  !

I 1968-70 Assistant Professor,' Department of, Sociology,

. State University of.New'.Yorkiat Stony Brook 1970-73 Associate Professor, Department of: Sociology State University of New York at Stony Brook

, 1973-Present Professor, Department of; Sociology, State

! University of!New-York at St'onyiBrook ^

1977-1988 Research' Associate, Center: forL the Social- 1 l

Sciences, ColumbiaLUniversity 1987 Visiting Professor, Institute of; Sociology, University of-Warsaw, Poland

' Honorary Societies and Awards:

1962 Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude,' Columbia 1 College . 1 1962 Honorary Woodrow~ Wilson' Fellow l l 1962-63 National Science Foundation-Fellow d L 1963-66 National Institutes.of Health, Public Health'.

Service Fellow L

l

.  ?

page 2  ;

1 Honorary Societies and Awards (continued.....) l 1963 Bobbs-Merrill Award l 1965-66 John W. Burgess Honorary Fellow of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University 1971-72 Ford Foundation Faculty Research Fellow 1976-Present Sociological Research Association.

1978-79 Guggenheim Foundation Fe11owship q 1978-79 Fellow, Center for Advanced. Study in the "

Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California 1980 Presented annual paper at Sociological Research Association Dinner 1984-Present SUNY Faculty Exchange Scholar. i Professional Activities:

I From 1966 throuch 1987 I participated in a large-number of applied sociological research projects. -Some of these projects are listed below:

J 1966-68 Social Welfare Research Council, CUNY ( a study of health care utilization'by welfare i recipients) 1973-87 Newsday (studies of public opinion) 1973-79 Committee on Science.and Public Policy.

(COSPUP), National Academy of= Sciences (study i i

of the peer review system at the National Science Foundation)'

1977 Brookhaven National Laboratories (study of l attitudes towards new sources of energy)-

l 1979 National Bureau of Economic Research (study of attitudes towards health)

! 1980 Columbia University School of' Engineering l (study of attitudes'towards.various energy sources) 1982-1988 Suffolk-County'(studies concerning the Shoreham Nu: lear Power Plant) 1987 Commonwealth of Massachusetts (study concerning  ;

the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant) i I have also served.on the editorial boards of-the following l Journals: Sociology of Education, Sociological Quarterly,. '

American Journal of Sociology, The American Sociologist.

R 1

'l Professional Activities (continued....) page 3 l 1

1 I-have served as a referee for more than a dozen other 1 journals, for the National Science Foundation, The. National Institutes of Health, the National. Institute of Education.-as j well as other public and private granting agencies. I Over the last fifteen years I have. presented more than 40 invited lectures at professional conferences and educational i institutions all over North America and in Europe, J Publications:

BOOKS 1969 The Unionization of Teachers: A' Case Study l of the UFT. New Yorks Praeger Press. '

1 (Reprinted by Arno Press,'1980);.-

1972 The Sociological Method, 1980, 3rd enlarged edition. New York: Harper and Row 1973 Social Stratification in ' Science' (with Jonathan R. Cole). . Chicago: The. University of Chicago Press. (Paperback edition published in 1981). .

Translated into Chinese ~byLGu'Xin, Light Daily Press, 1988 (with a new introduction).-

Designated a' citation classic by' Current Con ten ts - in ' 1989.

1975 The Sociological Orientationi 1979 2nd' enlarged edition. New York:' Harper and< Row.

1978 Peer Review in the National Science- Foundation:.

Phase I (with Leonard Rubin-and Jonathan R.

Cole). Washingt'n, o D'.C.:. National.AcademyLof Sciences.

'1981 Peer Review in the National .Sc'dence Foundation':

' Phase II (with Jonathan 'R'. Cole) . Washington, 1 D.C.: National Academy of_ Sciences.- h i

1991 Social Influences on Science.. Cambridge : l Harvard University Press. l(forthcoming);

i l

'l l

1

'1

^l

d E PAPERS page-4 l 1961- "The Charitable Impulse:in. Victorian England,"

King 's Crown Essays 9, 3-28.

l

=

1964 " Inventory of; Empirical and Theoretical Studies- j l

of Anomie" ~ (with. Harriet A. Zuckerman)'- In- l Marshall Clinard ' (Ed.:) , Anomie ~ and Deviant. .

Beha vior. New York:- Free Press,1pp. 243-313.

1967 " Scientific Ouput'and Recognition:' A Study in; the' operation of the Reward System in' Science". l (with Jonathan R. Cole),- American Sociologica1L Review 32, f 377-390. ~ Reprinted:as~a Bobbs ~ J Merrill Reprint and'as an*XIP Publication. l (Designated a Citation Classic by. Current l Contents in 1986) 1968 " Visibility and-the' Structural Bases of:

Awareness in Scientific Research"-(with, Jonathan R. Cole), American Sociological 1 Review 33, 397-413.

'l 1968 "The Unionization of-Teachers: " Determinants of y Rank-and-File . Support , " Sociology of -Educa tion - H 41, 66-87'. Reprinted in' Donald.:A.Erickson I (Ed.), Educational Organization and-Adminis tra tion. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1977.

1969 " Teacher's Strike: A Study of'the Conversion of Predisposition into Action," American Journal of Sociology 74', 506-520.- ' Reprinted in; l Warner Gerwin (Ed. ) , sThe Employment of. l l

Teachers, Some Analytical Views. - Berkeley:'

McCutchan Publishing Corporation ~, 1974.

1969 " Determinants of, Faculty. Support of1 Student Demonstrations" -(with Hannelore Adamsons),

Public Opinion Quarterly 34,c 389-394" 1970 " Professional Standing and the-Reception of Scientific: Papers," American: Journal ^of Sociology 76, 286-306. Reprinted'as Bobbs -

Merril1~ Reprint S-678. Reprinted"in'B.T.

Eiduson and L.;BeckmanL(Eds.), Science as a Career' Choice. New York: 1 Russell Sage:

- Foundation, 1973, pp. 499-512.

Reprinted in P.-Heingart (Ed.), ,

Wissenschaftssoziologie I. ' Athenaeum.Verlag, 1973, i

I

- ,. w -- --- -- . -,e. . , . - -,.e. . . - ~ -w y -, , - - .e-,, ,

P O ,

PAPERS (Continued) 'page 57 1971 " Measuring the? Quality of Sociological Papers" (with; Jonathan R. Cole),;American Sociologist 6, 23-29 1972 " Continuity and-Institutionalization in Science: A Case Study of Failure." In Anthony-Obserschall (Ed. ) , The Establishment; of Empirical Sociology. New york: . Harper and Row,.pp.73-129. Reprinted in Wolf-Lepennies (Ed.), Geschichte der Soziologie Suhrkamp.

Verlag (Frankfurt am Main),fvol. 4, 3 1 - 1 1 0 ,--

1981.

1972 " Illness and the Legitimation of. Failure"'

(with Robert-Lejeune), American Sociological.

Review 37,;347-356. Reprinted in Leo G. Reeder-(Ed.), Handbook of Scales and ' Indices- of Health.-

Behavior, 1977.. Reprinted-in Cary S. Kart (Ed.), Dominant Issues in, hadical Sociology..

(First edition). Reading, Mass . :: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1977. .(Second Edition), 1986' -1 Reprinted in Howard.Robboy and Candice Clark' (Eds.), Social Interaction, St'. Martin's.

' l Press, New York, 1986. '

1972 "The Ortega Hypothesis" .(with! Jonathan R..

Cole) , J Science 1978 (October),x-368-375.

-Reprinted in Eire'Gebhardt, Sociology of.

Science. New York: 'Seabury' Press,'1980, 1975 "The: Growth of Scientific Knowledgei . Theories of Deviance as a Case Study."' In Lewis Coser.

(Ed.), The Idea;of, Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton. 'New York:

Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich,.pp.; 175-220.

1976 "The Reward System of the Social Sciences" (with Jonathan R. Cole). LIn CharlesiFrankel (Ed.), controversies 'and Decis' ions:' The Social Sciencesband Public Policy. New York:

Russell 1 Sage, pp. 55-88. .:

J 1977 "PeerEReview in the'American Scientific Community".(with-Jonathan R.. Cole and Leonard Rubin), Scientific American J237, No.4

( October) , '34-41 ~.

q i

).

mi

1

-. N

. . i PAPERS (continued) page 6 l 1978 " Measuring the cognitive State.of Scientific :1 Disciplines" (with Jonathan R._ Cole and Lorraine Dietrich). .In Yehuda Elkana, Robert.

K. Merton, Arnold?Thackray,'and Harriet A.

Euckerman (Eds'.), Toward a Metric of Science:. ,

The Advent of Science Indicators. -New York:i 1 John Wiley.

l 1978 - " Scientific Reward'Systemst. A' Comparative-

~

Analysis."- InrRobert Alun Jones (Ed=), .

H, Research in ,the Sociology of, Knowledge, 1 ScJence, and Art. Gre?nwi ch , ' Conn .' : - Johnson-Associates, Inc, pp. 167-190.

1979 "

Which1 Researcher will Get the Grant?" (with'. q J.R. Cole), Nature. 279, 575-576'. l l

1979 " Comment on a paper by Michae1LOverington, I The American Sociologist 14 J (February)I,

• j 17-19. ,

1979 " Age and' Scientific Performance,"-American Journal of Sociology 84, 958-977'.

1980 " Comments-on ' Indicators of Scientific l Manpower ' , "- Scien tometrics, Vol 2,- lio . 5-6, pp. i 405-409.

Translated into Russian, 1987. j 1981 "The Functions of ClassicaliTheory in '

Contemporary SociologicaliResearch" (with K. Adatto).- .In F., Kuklick'and R.-Alun' Jones > l (Eds.), Research in ' the ' Sociology of Knowledge,

' Science and Art III. Greenwich, Conn.:

Johnson Associates,EInc..

[

1981 " Chance and Consensus in Peer < Review," (with1 J.R. Cole and G. Simon), Science'214, (20 November,. 1981)l, 881-886.

. 4 1982 "NSF Peer Review (continued)" (with,J.R.-Cole ;i L and Gary Simon) Sclence 215( 22 JanuaryF 1982 ) '

344-348.

i 1983 "The Hierarchy of.the Sciences?";American l Journal cf Sociology .89,,.111-139. . Translated; [

into Polish'in J. Niznika, ed' Rozwei nauki a l spolecznv'kontekst poznania Warsaw: Panstowowe i Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1987. . Translated into'. . j i

Russian and publishedoby Progress: Publishers, , ,

1988. i l ,

I

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

z - - --s. a. .e - es,- - -- ..n..-n. ., . . ~ - ~ + , . ~ .

. =!

4 PAPERS (continued) page 7 1984 Experts ' Consensus and Decision Making at the National Science Foundation," (with J.R. Cole) in Kenneth Warren, (ed.) Selectivity and i Information Systems: Survial of the Fittest, (New York: Praeger Science Publishers)..

1985 "Little Science,-Big' Science' Revisited,"

(with G.S. Meyer) Scientometrics= 7, 443-458, 1095 " Sex Discrimination and Admission to Medical 9 l

- School: 1929-1984,"' American Journal of'

- Sociology, 92 (549-567).

1987 " Testing the Ortega Hypothesis: Milestone:or Millstone?" Scientometries' (with J.R. Cole) 12, 327-335 (Entire issue. devoted-to examination of 1972 paper "The:Ortega-Hypothesis.")

1988 " Formation'of Public. Opinion--on' Complex Issues:

The Case of Nuclear Power," (with(Robert Fiorentine) in.H O'Gorman,'(Ed.), Surveying I Social Life: Essays in' Honor'of Herbert H.. l Hyman (Middletown, Conn.,<Wesleyan' University Press),-pp.- 301-327.

1988 "Do' Journal Rejection-Rates Index Consensus?fA ,

Reply to Hargens." American Sociological Review (with G. Simon andt J~.R. : Cole) 53; 152-156. I 1989 " Citations and the Evaluation of? Individual Scientists," Trends in Biochemical Sciences 14.

1989 "The Confusion of Outcomes with; Process: Reply to Gross." American-Journal of Sociology (with; R. Florentine), 94:~860-863.

1991 " Discrimination Against Women in Science:

! The Confusion of.Outcometwith-Process," (with R. Florentine),' in Harriet Zuckerman, Jonathan R. Cole and . John Bruer (Eds. ) ,. The Outer Circle Women in the Scientific Community. New York: .

Norton.-(in press)-

1990 "The Normative Alternatives: Theory of Gender Inequality: ' Explaining'WhyLFewer. Women ~Become Physicians" (with R. Fiorentine)~under review..

1 l

3 isi 4 , -v4 - , . .,4, ,w u, y , 5