ML20199L026
| ML20199L026 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1986 |
| From: | Arvey R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., MINNESOTA, UNIV. OF, MINNEAPOLIS, MN |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-893 OL, NUDOCS 8607090294 | |
| Download: ML20199L026 (116) | |
Text
ORIGINAL 1
96MM&**#MWL%
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s.
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Z!%go 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD 4
N ~7 pg ;gg
@;[kcg 5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x B
MVICI 6
In the matter of:
Docket 50-456 O C 7
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 50-457 d L 8
[Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, 9
Units 1 and 2]
lo
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 11 Grey, Plante, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett 12 3400 City Center Building 13 33 S.
6th Street 14 Minneapolis, Minnesota 15 May 16, 1986 16 Deposition of:
RICHARD D. ARVEY 17 called for examination by Counsel for Licensee, Commonwealth 18 Edison, pursuant to notice, taken before Pamela Briggle, 19 a Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia, when 20 21 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
22 1625 I Street, N.W.
293-3950 Washington, D.C.
9 WesN i
in'%88M!!88at57 0 'k PDR
2 1
were present on behalf of the respective parties:
s_/
2 3
APPEARANCES:
4 For the Licensee Commonwealth Edison Company:
5 MICHAEL MILLER, ESQ.
6 MICHAEL GILL, ESQ.
7 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 8
Three First National Plaza 9
Chicago, Illinois 60602 10 11 For the Intervenors BPI, et al.:
12 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
13 109 North
Dearborn,
Suite 1300 14 Chicago, Illinois 60602 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 O
. - - ~.
1 CONTENTS s_,/
2 3
Witness:
Examination by:
Page:
4 RICHARD D. ARVEY Mr. Miller 4
5 6
7 EXHIBITS Page:
8 EXHIBIT NO. 1:
73 9
A document entitled, " Class Outline, 10 General QA Criteria", dated 7/17/84.
11 EXHIBIT NO. 2:
74 12 A printed form, NRC Form 3, entitled,
[
" United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 13 l
14 Notice to Employees."
I' 15 EXHIBIT NO. 3:
76 l
16 A blank L.K. Comstock weld inspection 17 checklist.
i 18 EXHIBIT NO. 4:
76 19 A safety related cable pan installation 20 inspection checklist.
21 22 O
l
4 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
[1:05 p.m.]
3 Whereupon, 4
RICHARD D. ARVEY, 5
after being duly sworn under oath, was examined and testified 6
as follows:
7 EXAMINATION 8
BY MR. MILLER:
9 Q
Would you state your name for the record, please?
10 A
Richard David Arvey.
11 Q
And what is your business address, Dr. Arvey?
12 A
I'm in the Management -- well, I work at the 13 Industrial Relations Center at the University of 14 Minnesota. It's on the fifth floor of the Management and 15 Economics Building.
16 Q
Dr. Arvey, I believe it was yesterday or the day 17 before I asked Mr. Guild, counsel for the Intervenors, to 18 request that you bring any documents with you that you had 19 consulted or reviewed in connection with your prefiled 20 testimony in the Braidwood proceeding.
Was that request 21 transmitted to you?
22 A
Yes.
O l
i.
= ~ - - -
1 5
1 Q
And have you brought those documents with you?
/N 2
A Yes.
3 Q
Could I see them, please?
4 MR. MILTER:
If it's satisfactory, I'm going to just 5
identify these for the record, and outside of a very few, I 6
think I won't need copies.
7 The documents that Dr. Arvey has handed me include a 8
copy of his prefiled testimony dated May 2, 1986; that of 9
Dr. McKirnan, also dated May of 1986; testimony of Dr. Ilgen, 10 dated May of 1986; a copy of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B; a 11 copy of a memorandum from Mr. DeWald to Mr. Mennecke, dated 12 January 2, 1985, which is identified as DeWald Deposition 13 Exhibit No. 17, and I believe it is also an exhibit in 14 evidence in the proceeding at this point in time.
There are 15 numbers of attachments to that document.
16 There is a single-page document which appears to 17 bear a stamp number of 15744 in the upper right-hand corner 18 and appears to be the March 1984 vita of an individual named 19 Irwin L. Goldstein.
There is also prepared testimony in the 20 Comanche Peak operating license proceeding, apparently written l
21 by Dr. Goldstein.
22 There is then a copy from a page from the brief O
6 1
submitted by Commonwealth Edison Company in the Braidwood
()
2 proceeding dated April 1986, page 31; pages 78 to 83 of the 3
deposition of Richard Snyder in the Braidwood proceeding; a 4
copy of Snyder Deposition Exhibit No. 5; pages 86 to 93 of the 5
deposition of Danny L. Holley in this proceeding; pages 82 to 6
85 of the deposition of Larry Perryman in this proceeding; a i
7 copy of a document that bears the Bates stamp number in this i
8 proceeding, the Braidwood proceeding of A0010790 to A0010910, 9
the first page bei::q entitled "Braidwood Good News Story, 10 L.K.
Comstock & Company, Inc."
j j
11 The next is a brochure with the logo of BPI on the 12 front of it and a BPI newsletter from the fall of 1985.
[
13 MR. GUILD:
Michael, just for the record, there are 14 excerpts from the Good News story.
It's not the complete 15 document.
16 MR. MILLER:
I see.
i 17 MR. GUILD:
They are just several chapters that bore l
18 on manpower and organization.
19 MR. MILLER:
I see.
Thank you.
j 20 Next appears to be a statement of the subcontention 21 item dealing with harassment and intimidation in this 22 proceeding, to which is attached an April 5, 1985 memorandum O
4
7 1
from Charles H. Weil of Region III of the NRC to Charles 2
E. Norelius; a March 29, 1985 memorandum from Messrs. McGregor 3
and Schulz to Messrs. Warnick and Weil; and a March 29, 1985 4
memorandum from Messrs. McGregor and Schulz to Messrs. Warnick 5
and Williams.
All those individuals are employees of the 6
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III.
7 Next is a reprint, or a Xerox copy, actually, of an 8
article by Dr. Arvey and Allan B. Jones, entitled "The Use of 9
Discipline in Organizational Settings: A Framework for Future 10 Research."
And finally, a Xerox copy of an article entitled 11 "Use of Discipline in an Organization: A Field Study."
12 Richard D. Arvey, Gregory A. Davis and Sherry N. Nelson appear 13 to be the authors.
14 At a break I will make copies of those documents 15 that I don't have.
Actually, Dr. Arvey, why don't you hang on 16 to the copy of your testimony that is in that file since we 17 will be referring to it during the rest of the deposition.
18 BY MR. MILLER:
19 Q
Attached to your testimony, Dr. Arvey, is your 20 statement of qualifications.
It's marked Arvey Exhibit 21 No.
1.
Is that vita accurate and correct as of today?
Are 22 there any changes or additions we should make to it?
O
l 8
1 A
It is up to date.
2 Q
The articles that are still shown as being in press 3
or in preparation are still in that status?
i 4
A Well actually, not true.
The Fossim, Arvey and 5
Paradise article, in terms of the publications -- I don't know 6
what page it would be on.
7 Q
Is that Modeling the Skills Obsolescence Process, i
8 the Psychological and Economic Integration, in the Academy of 9
Management Review?
I 10 A
Yes.
That is currently published, as well as the q
4 11 Gordon-Arvey article on the next page, the next reference.
i 12 Q
Perceived and Actual Ages of Workers, Journal of i
13 Vocational Behavior?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Dr. Arvey, about three pages further on in your vita l
16 there is a statement of the court cases in which you l
17 apparently have appeared, and I would like to ask you a few i
18 questions about those.
The first case is Kilkaski v. the 19 Psychology Examining Committee.
20 First of all, was that a judicial or an 21 administrative case?
22 A
It was the Superior Court in California.
O c
i
9 1
Q And were you deposed in that proceeding, sir?
.)
2 A
No.
3 Q
Did you testify?
4 A
I did testify.
5 Q
I don't know how the Superior Courts in California 6
are identified.
Was there a district number, or in what city 7
was it located?
8 A
It was in San Francisco.
9 Q
And by whom was Mr. or Ms. Kilkaski represented?
i 10 A
He was representing himself.
It may be helpful if I 11 just describe that case for you.
12 Q
Certainly.
(
}
13 A
He failed his psychological licensing exam as a 14 psychologist and took the State to court.
My testimony 15 involved the reliability and validity of the licensure 16 interview procedure, and he represented himself.
17 Q
I see.
Do you know if the transcript of the trial l
18 was ever written up?
19 A
I do not believe it was.
20 Q
The next one is Carter v. Gallagher, in which you 21 were an expert witness for the City of Minneapolis, which is j
22 identified as an additional defendant.
Was Mr. Gallagher a l
10 1
city official at the time?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
And in that case, who was counsel for the City?
4 A
I think they represented themselves, or the City 5
lawyers were representing themselves.
6 Q
Do you remember the name of the individual in the 7
Corporation Counsel's office or elsewhere?
8 A
No, I don't.
That role was relatively minor.
This 9
particular case has been rolling around in the courts for a 10 number of years.
I think it started in 1971.
My testimony 11 was a very minor component of that case as it unfolded, having 12 to do with the legitimacy of a particular kind of validation 13 strategy.
14 Q
Okay.
It is described as your testimony involved 15 the appropriateness of content validity strategy for selection 16 purposes.
Am I correct that this, therefore, involved an 17 employment selection case of some sort?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Was there a claim of discrimination involved?
20 A
Yes, there was.
21 Q
Was it race?
22 A
It was a race discrimination case.
O
11 1
Q And did you in fact give testimony in that 2
proceeding?
3 A
I did give testimony, right.
4 Q
And approximately what date did you give your 5
testimony?
6 A
I really couldn't tell you.
7 Q
Was it close to 1979?
8 A
It was in '79 sometime.
'9 Q
The next case you have identified is Mireles 10
- v. Arthur Brothers, Inc., and where was that case tried?
11 A
That was tried in Corpus Christi, Texas.
12 Q
By whom was the plaintiff represented, if you 13 recall?
14 A
The Texas Rural Aid Commission.
15 Q
Is that a state body?
16 A
I think it was state supported.
I'm not really 17 sure.
18 Q
Do you remember the name of the attorney that
'19 handled the case for Mireles?
20 A
His last name was Williamson, and I don't remember 21 his first.
22 Q
Is he located in Corpus Christi?
O L
12
'l A
He was located in Brownsville.
I don't know whether 2
that agency still exists.
3 Q
Do you remember Mr. Williamson's first name, by any 4
chance?
5 A
I 'm sorry, I don't.
6 Q
I take it you actually presented testimony in court?
7 A
Yes.
This was in a Federal court.
It again 8
involved discrimination for promotion purposes against 9
Hispanics.
My testimony was at the front end of this case 10 where I began to review the statistics that had been used that 11 the plaintiff, other psychologists had develcped.
I was 12 simply helping to present some of the statistics.
i 13 As it turned out, the judge in this case did not 14 allow my testimony to unfold.
15 Q
On what basis, do you recall?
16 A
I have no idea.
17 Q
In other words, you showed up in court one day, i
l 18 there were objections made to your testimony, and --
19 A
No, I was actually on the stand, and the judge said l
20 that he didn't believe in statistics in this particular 21 situation and threw me off.
22 Q
Without even listening to your presentation?
O l
_~__,-,,,.-.-------w-v
13 1
A Yes.
It was really interesting.
(
2 Q
What is Arthur Brothers, Inc.?
What sort of an 3
organization is that?
4 A
It was the labor supply company for Celanese.
5 Q
I see.
Do you recall the name of the attorney who 6
represented Arthur Brothers?
7 A
No, I don't.
8 Q
Did you give a deposition in that case?
9 A
I don't think I did.
10 Q
The next case you list is EEOC v. Western Electric.
11 Where was that case, sir?
12 A
That was in Houston. Again, this involved a Title 13 VII case.
The plaintiff was arguing that the Western Electric 14 had discriminated against females, older females, in this 15 context.
16 Q
Do you remember the name of the attorney at the EEOC 17 who was responsible for your testimony?
18 A
Sidney Chesman.
19 Q
And where is he located?
20 A
He was with the EEOC, currently in Texas, I believe.
21 Q
By whom was Western Electric represented; do you 22 recall?
I I
14 1
A One of the majors down there.
I 2
Q It was in Houston?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Vincent and Elkins?
5 A
No.
It was the other one.
6 Q
Baker, Botts?
7 A
There is the fellow who represented Nixon?
8 Q
Leon Jaworski?
9 A
I believe it was Jaworski.
10 Q
And did you in fact testify on this occasion?
11 A
In that case I did, yes.
12 Q
And did you also give a deposition?
13 A
I did.
14 Q
Was that case concluded?
15 A
That was concluded.
16 Q
And with what result; do you recall?
17 A
The ruling was against the EEOC, or for the 18 defendant.
19 Q
In addition to the cases that are listed in your 20 vita, there is a reference in your testimony at page 3, the 21 bottom of answer 3, where you state that you served as an 22 expert witness recently for a defendant organization in a case
15 1
dealing with sexual harassment.
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
And what is the name of your client in that case?
4 A
Burlington Northern.
5 Q
And where is that case being held?
6 A
It's being held here in Minneapolis.
7 Q
Is it currently -- has it been concluded?
8 A
It is currently under way.
I don't know what the 9
correct legal term would be.
10 Q
It is being tried to a judge and not to a jury?
11 A
Right.
12 Q
The plaintiff is whom, again, the EEOC?
13 A
The plaintiff is -- no, the EEOC is a party, an 14 interested party, but the plaintiffs are represented by 15 another local firm.
It's a class action suit.
16 Q
I see.
What is the name of the attorney at the 17 Burlington with whom you are dealing?
18 A
I worked with the oppenheimer law firm, and the 19 individual there was Michael Chase.
20 Q
Is that a Minneapolis firm?
21 A
St. Paul.
22 Q
Thank you.
Have you given a deposition in that
16 1
case?
2 A
I did.
3 Q
And have you testified?
4 A
I did not testify in this case and don't plan to.
5 Q
I see.
6 Now, at page 1 of your testimony you identify a 7
number of consulting clients.
The first is Ford Motor 8
Company.
What is the nature of your consulting work for Ford 9
Motor Company?
10 A
Ford Motor Company is a client I had back in 1971, 11 almost 15 years ago.
In that situation I was involved with 12 exploring reasons for their college graduate turnover.
It was 13 a very short project.
14 Q
You were just recently out of school at that point 15 in time; is that right?
16 A
That's correct.
17 Q
Since 1971, you have had no further engagements bye 18 Ford?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
The next one that is listed is Southwestern Bell 21 Telephone Company.
What is the nature of that?
22 A
That particular consulting job, which took place
17 1
several years ago, involved my reviewal of their selection i
2 procedures in the Houston area, and providing a summary of the 3
insights and opinions I had regarding their recruiting and 4
selection pract4.ces, and a set of recommendations for their 5
office to entertain.
6 Q
Was there concern about potential discriminatory 7
practices in their selection?
8 A
That was one of the concerns.
We were more 9
concerned about the efficacy of the procedure.
10 Q
The next client you have listed is the American 11 Petroleum Institute.
What is the nature of that assignment?
12 A
For that client I used an existing data base which 13 was derived from a job analysis inventory, and my objective or 14 task in this context was to use some statistical techniques 15 to derive a performance appraisal format for companies to help 16 sponsor that institute.
17 Q
Were the employees for whom you derived this 18 performance appraisal technique hourly employees, managerial 19 employees?
20 A
Essentially non-exempt hourly types, operators, 21 technicians.
22 Q
And when did you do that work, sir?
l
18 1
A I think it was 1981.
Let's see.
1982.
During the 2
summer.
3 Q
Did you work with an attorney on the project?
4 A
No.
It was just sponsored out of the Human 5
Resources Management System there.
6 Q
Do you remember the name of the person with whom you GP 7
dealt directly?
8 A
His name was Mr. Carron, and I don't remember his 9
first name.
If you contact him, don't tell him that, though.
10 Q
Okay, I won't.
11 Control Data Corporation is the next one you have 12 listed.
What was the nature of your consulting work for that 13 corporation?
14 A
For this organization I am working on or did work on 15 a project dealing with professional skills obsolescence.
My 16 colleague and I essentially reviewed the literature associated 17 with this concept and formulated a model and derived some i
18 research propositions for that organization.
i 1
19 Q
Is that work under way?
Thgfhasbeencompleted.
Essentially the major part 20 A
21 of the technical report is contained in that skills 22 obsolescence article that I referred to earlier.
l l
19 1
Q I see.
The one that was just published.
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
Thank you.
4 The next client that you list is Exxon.
5 A
The Exxon work was conducted in 1979, and my 6
assignment there was to help develop a job analysis inventory.
7 Q
What is a job analysis inventory?
8 A
It is a questionnaire or inventory which seeks to 9
get at the types of tasks, duties, responsibilities, as well 10 as the requisite knowledge, skills and ability needed to 11 perform a job.
12 Q
And was this, again, for hourly-type workers?
13 A
That was for managerial ranks, managerial and 14 professional ranks.
15 Q
The next one you have listed is Shell 011 Company.
16 A
That project was conducted in 1983.
That was a 17 relatively minor project -- 1982 -- of looking at differences 18 between operating units and employee characteristic groups 19 with regard to their perception of employee discipline, 20 disciplinary practices in the organization.
21 Q
Did the work for that client provide the basis for 22 the article that you wrote about a field study?
20 1
A No, that did not.
This was an add-on or 2
supplement.
In this particular project, the organization 3
wanted me to go forward with some further analyses and 4
reporting of that data, and they paid me on a consulting basis 5
for that.
6 Q
But it was, in fact, Shell Oil Company that was the 7
sponsor of the research work that showed up in the article?
8 A
That is correct?
9 Q
Is that report for Shell Oil Company proprietary to 10 Shell or would it be possible for you to make a copy available 11 to us?
12 A
It was never in report form.
13 Q
You just delivered the conclusions orally?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
The next one that you list is Wells Fargo Bank.
16 What was the nature of your asrignment there?
17 A
My assignment there was to review some of the data 18 that had been generated in an employee opinion survey which 19 the company wished to have interpreted.
This was a relatively 20 minor assignment.
21 Q
Had you developed the survey yourself?
22 A
No.
21 1
Q Now, that sentence ends up with the words "among i
2 others."
Are there other industrial companies for whom you 3
have done consulting work besides those listed on pages 1 and 4
2?
5 A
Well, there are quite a few.
6 Q
Maybe I have missed something in your resume.
7 A
My resume lists these.
8 Q
I see.
I beg your pardon.
9 I believe that you also have done work under grants 10 from the Department of the Navy; is that correct?
11 A
That is correct.
12 Q
And what is the nature of that work?
13 A
The grant to which you are referring is the work 14 that was sponsored with Shell 011 or by Shell 011 Company.
15 That project had to do with attempting to learn about the way 16 supervisors discipline their employees and its impact on 17 morale and other employee variables.
18 Q
Now, Dr. Arvey, again your vita gives a quite 19 complete rundown on your employment and educational 20 background.
In addition to what is listed in the vita, have 21 you ever worked on a construction site?
22 A
No.
22 1
Q Have you ever had any involvement prior to your k
2 engagement for the Intervenors in this proceeding with nuclear 3
power plants?
4 A
No.
5 Q
Have you ever acted as a quality control inspector 6
or reviewer in any capacity?
7 A
I don't know whether you want to include graduate 8
student papers, but in general, no.
9 Q
Has any of your experience involved the analysis of 10 the effect of labor-management disputes on the workplace 11 environment?
12 A
No.
13 Q
In your occupation, Dr. Arvey, have you ever been in 14 the situation in which there were pressures on you to perform 15 a task within a given period of time?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
What were some of those instances?
18 A
Well, throughout my career, both as a formal, 19 full-time consultant as well as the academic work in which I 20 do consulting also, there are a number of deadlines that are 21 always preeminent.
In the consulting capacity, my first two i
22 years out of graduate school, there were a number of client
23 1
projects that had to be done, and my bosses and so forth would
(
2 make it very clear that the work had to be done by a 3
particular point in time.
I guess this happened both in an 4
academic setting as well as in the consulting capacity.
5 Q
In any of the instances that you can recall, did the 6
time pressures that were imposed on you cause you to 7
compromise the quality of your effort?
8 A
I would have to think about that a little bit.
I'm 9
sure there are things when the quality of my work could have 10 been better if I had had more time, 11 Q
Did you make that known to the people who had 12 imposed the deadlines on you?
13 A
I'm not sure.
You are talking about a situation 14 where I am acting directly for a superior; is that correct?
15 Q
Well, where someone has imposed a time constraint on 16 you, and the question is did it affect the quality of your 17 performance?
18 A
I can't think of any specific situations where that 19 might have occurred, where I informed the client.
20 Q
Can you recall any where in fact the quality of 1
21 your work suffered?
22 A
Let me think about that.
24 1
[ Pause.]
2 MR. GUILD:
Off the record.
3
[ Discussion off the record.)
4 A
I would say a recent experience has been an article 5
that I am currently writing, or revising.
I don't think it's 6
listed here.
I was working with a colleague.
We wanted to 7
get an article out and in the mail.
We got it out.
Another 8
revision might have been quite helpful.
As a result, that 9
article was rejected and we are revising that.
I think that 10 it could have been done with a higher quality and passed.
11 Q
At page 2 of your prepared testimony, you state at 12 the very bottom, "My research and publications have also 13 addressed issues specifically relating to the effects of 14 punishment, discipline and harassment in organizations."
I 15 would like to focus on the word " harassment."
16 As used in that sentence, sir, how do you define 17 that word?
18 A
In terms of my past here, I am referring to the work 19 on the sexual harassment context.
I think I would also, 20 however, be more broad and talk about aversive conditions in 21 jobs in general and not just constrain it to sexual harassment 22 kind of issues.
25 1
Q Let me see if I understand.
As you use " harassment" 2
in this sentence, it means any aversive condition in the job 3
environment?
4 A
I'm going to say yes, for now.
5 Q
Okay.
And in that sense it is really a synonym, is 6
it not, for punishment as used in that sentence?
4 7
A Well, I think that punishment is a fairly limited 8
context of aversive or unpleasant aspects of jobs.
9 Q
And harassment is?
i i
10 A
Similar.
I 11 Q
Similar but broader?
12 A
Similarly narrow.
It's a part of what I would call 13 aversive components or unpleasant aspects of jobs.
14 Q
How would you differentiate punishment from 15 harassment?
16 A
Punishment, in my view, here is something that is 17 done after a particular act is committed on the part of an 18 employee.
That is, it is response to a particular kind of 19
, behavior.
Harassment, in my view, is something that could be 20 done or applied somewhat indiscriminately.
It does not have 21 to be in response to a particular behavior on the part of an 22 employee.
1
,., -., - -., - - - - - -, -.. -.. - - -. - - - - - - - - - ~ - --- --~
26 1
Q The sentence says, "My research and publications 2
have also addressed issues relating to the effects of, among 3
other things, harassment in organizations."
Could you 4
identify those, first the publications, for us?
5 A
I believe they are listed on the following page.
6 Q
The first two references on page 3 of your prepared 7
testimony are, in fact, the articles that were reprinted or 8
Xeroxed and that were identified as some of the documents that 9
you referred to in preparing your testimony; correct?
10 A
These are the last two documents.
The first 11 document is not in there.
12 Q
I'm going to show you another Xerox copy of an 13 article that is entitled " Punishment in Organizations, A 14 Review, Propositions, and Research Suggestions."
That is the 15 third of the articles to which you refer; correct?
16 A
That's correct.
17 Q
My first question is, without taking a lot of time, 18 can you refer me to anyplace in any of these three articles 19 where the word " harassment" is used?
20 A
Are you looking for the specific word " harassment"?
21 Q
Yes, sir.
22 A
I don't think I can.
~
27 1
Q The sentence we have been looking at in your k
2 prepared testimony says that your research has addressed 3
issues relating to the effects of harassment.
Could you 4
describe that research for us?
5 A
Again, you are talking about harassment?
6 Q
Yes, sir, specifically.
7 A
I would have to say that t44t is perhaps an 8
incorrect statement at this time.
'With the -- well, I don't 9
know how you want to consider this.
I am currently doing a 10 review of the literature on the sexual harassment studies, so 11 that is work in progress.
I don't know whether you want to 12 note that or not.
13 Q
Does the work on sexual harassment -- is it limited 14 to sexual harassment?
15 A
At this point, yes.
16 Q
When you use the term " sexual harassment," is there 17 a definition that you commonly apply to activities in an 18 organization and characterize them as sexual harassment?
19 A
Are you looking for my definition or the formal 20 definition?
How do you want me to do this.
Precisely what do 21 you want?
22 Q
Let's get them both.
Let's take your definition L
J
28 1
first.
I 2
A Let's take the EEOC definition first.
3 Q
All right.
4 A
The EEOC formal definition has to do with behaviors 5
-- it's gender related, of course -- behaviors that indicate a 6
conditional arrangement with more particularly a female, where 7
you promise a reward or you withhold some element of 8
employment based on sexual favors.
Another component of that 9
definition is the creation of an intimidating, uncomfortable 10 or hostile work environment.
Those are the sort of formal 11 elements that are involved with sexual harassment issues.
12 Q
Okay.
Does your definition differ from that which 13 you have just described?
14 A
I think my definition of harassment itself is, again 15 going back to the earlier statement, is uncomfortable, 16 unpleacant, undesirable events in the working context that are 17 typically performed by supervisors or management towards i
18 employees.
They are not necessarily gender based.
19 MR. MILLER:
Could I have the last answer read back.
20 please?
21 (The reporter read the record as requested.)
22
29 1
BY MR. MILLER:
2 Q
Let me just test the definition for a second.
In 3
other words, if I'm feeling grouchy in the morning and snarl 4
at my secretary, is that harassment?
5 A
Well, okay.
I would say that if that is done 6
repeatedly over long periods, over periods of time, that 7
probably would be harassment, one form of harassment.
8 Q
In your judgment, does harassment have to have or 9
have to be directed towards a particular form of behavior?
10 That is, is it a behavior-modifying act?
11 A
Not necessarily.
12 Q
The answer "not necessarily" suggests that sometimes 13 it is and sometimes it isn't.
I take it, therefore, that 14 harassment comprises both unconfortable, unpleasant and 15 undesirable events in the working context performed by a 16 supervisor with the aim of modifying a subordinate's behavior, 17 and those uncomfortable, unpleasant, undesirable events in the 18 working context performed by supervisors directed towards 19 employees which do not have.
20 A
That's true.
It could encompass both kinds of 21 situations.
22 Q
So that a definition which stated that it was an i
a
,n,..
-.---,,=.-,.e.,-.
,--.,m.,,..
n,.
_,,,,.--.-----_.----n_..._,-,---,.-,n.
30 1
action by a supervisor intended to modify the actions of an 2
employee for the purpose of impeding the proper performance of 3
his work is just one portion of your definition of harassment.
4 A
That is true.
5 Q
And in your testimony you refer a number of times to 6
harassment in your answers; and is the definition of 7
harassment that you have expressed here just a little earlier, 8
is that what we are to understand harassment means when it is 9
used in your testimony?
10 A
I'm going to say yes, for now.
I think that's true.
11 Q
Is there something that might make you change your 12 mind later on?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
And what would that be?
15 A
At the time that I was doing this, I had not 16 precisely defined harassment or derived any kind of formal 17 definition, and I am using it in a fairly generic sense here.
18 Q
Now, one last set of questions on your vita.
You 19 have published quite a number of books and papers, Dr. Arvey.
20 Looking at them quickly, can you tell us, in addition to the 21 one that we previously identified, the field study that you 22 undertook on behalf of the Department of the Navy and Shell
31 1
Oil, which other ones involved field studies as opposed to i
\\
2 experiments?
3 And I'll tell you what.
Let's try and cut this off 4
at some reasonable time period, and if you would just identify 5
the ones in the last -- oh, let me cut it off at 1978.
6 MR. GUILD:
Do you mean after 1978?
7 BY MR. MILLER:
8 Q
Yes, 1978 and afterwards.
9 A
The work that I did in 1981 with Mosholder on 10 vocational interests actually involved a field study that is 11 in the Journal of Vocational Behavior.
The Wheeler and Arvey 12 in 1981 was data that was derived on a field study basis.
13 Q
That's the division of household labor in the 14 family?
15 A
That's true.
16 Q
The work with R.L. DeBois in 1979 in the Journal of 17 Vocational Behavior was a field study.
That's it.
18 A
And all the rest of them were, in fact, 19
. experimental?
20 A
They were either reviews, experimental work, 21 computer simulations.
22 Q
Dr. Arvey, when were you first contacted by
32 1
Intervenors or their counsel in this proceeding?
I 2
A February?
I don't know.
3 Q
And do you recall the name of the individual who 4
first contacted you?
5 A
It was Mr. Guild here.
6 Q
I take it the contact was on the telephone?
7 A
That's correct.
8 Q
And approximately how long did the conversation 9
last?
10 A
About five minutes.
I was dashing out the door to 11 another meeting.
12 Q
And I take it you then had a subsequent conversation 13 with Mr. Guild?
14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
How soon after February?
16 A
I think it was the following day.
17 Q
And Mr. Guild described the nature of the proceeding la and his interest in your services?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
Okay.
And did you agree at that point in time to 21 act as an expert witness?
22 A
No, I didn't.
33 1
Q You wanted to review some materials before you made 2
a decision?
3 A
That's correct.
4 Q
Did you ask Mr. Guild for certain materials or did 5
he volunteer that he would supply you with what he, in his 6
judgment, believed were appropriate materials?
7 A
I can't remember.
I think what we did is I think he 8
sent me some materials, I had some questions about the kind of 9
testimony he was looking for, I had some reservations about 10 the timeframe that we were talking about.
I think our 11 conversations took place maybe over a two or three-week 12 period.
13 Q
All right.
And then ultimately those issues were 14 satisfactorily resolved and you agreed to provide testimonyt 15 correct?
16 A
That's correct.
17 Q
Was this soretime in March 1986?
18 A
It was, I think, very close to the official deadline i
19 for the documents to be submitted.
March 17th or something 20 like that.
21 Q
The identification of you as a witness?
22 A
Right.
34 1
Q Up to that point in time had you met Mr. Guild in i
2 person or had all of this been done on the telephone?
3 A
I had never met him.
It was all on the phone.
4 Q
Mr. Guild sent you some materials, correct, in this 5
interim before you agreed to serve as a witness?
6 A
That's correct.
7 Q
Of the documents that you brought here today, which 8
ones did he send you prior to the time that you agreed to 9
become a witness?
10 A
I think this is one.
11 Q
All right.
Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
12 A
This is one.
13 Q
The vita and testimony of Irwin L. Goldstein.
14 A
And I believe this is one.
15 Q
Although I will point out to you that it bears on 16 its face April,
'86.
17 A
All right.
Obviously that's incorrect.
This must 18 have come later.
So I guess that's it.
19 Q
Did he send you the statement of the contention and 20 the --
21 A
Oh, yes.
This is it.
22 Q
And I take it subsequent to your agreeing to serve i
l
35 1
as an expert witness, Mr. Guild supplied you with the excerpt 2
from the Edison brief of April, 1986 and the deposition 3
extracts; correct?
4 A
That's correct.
5 Q
Now, your testimony was submitted May 2, 1986.
6 Prior to that time, did you have any communications with 7
Dr. Daniel Ilgen concerning the subject matter of your 8
testimony?
9 A
No.
10 Q
I take it you know Dr. Ilgen.
11 A
That's correct.
i 12 Q
Have you ever collaborated with him on any sort of a i 13 project before?
14 A
No.
15 Q
Were you informed by Mr. Guild or anybody else as to l'6 what the content of Dr. Ilgen's testimony was going to be?
\\
17 A
I was informed somewhat briefly about that content.
18 Q
By Mr. Guild?
19 A
Yes.
t 20 Q
Do you know a man named David McKirnan?
21 A
No.
22 Q
Did you have any communication with him prior to the I
i
-. - - - _.,,,. ~ _ - _ - -. _ - - _.. -. -. - _,. - -...
36 1
time you submitted your testimony?
I' 2
A No.
3 Q
Since your testimony was submitted, you have brought 4
with you copies of Dr. Ilgen's and Dr. McKirnan's testimony.
5 Have you had occasion to read their testimony since May 2, 6
19867 7
A Yes, somewhat cursorily.
8 Q
You didn't take a lot of time with it.
9 A
That's correct.
10 Q
Now, since Mr. Guild first contacted you in February 11 of this year, could you give us an estimate of approximately 12 how much time you spent in reviewing the materials that you 13 brought with you and in preparing your testimony?
14 A
Including today?
15 Q
Yes, sir.
16 A
Oh, I would think about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
Let me change 17 that.
Make it 16.
18 Q
I take it that you met with Mr. Guild this morning 19 prior to this deposition.
20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
Did you meet with him last night as well?
22 A
No.
37 1
Q What time did you get together this morning?
I 2
A 10:30.
3 Q
I would like to ask you a little bit about how the 4
prepared testimony was actually put together.
Did Mr. Guild 5
submit to you a list of questions?
6 A
I read the testimony by Dr. Goldstein, formulated a 7
set of questions that was related to the line of inquiry that 8
I was going to be dealing with, and submitted a question and 9
answer context myself.
10 Q
So you both prepared the questions and the answers?
11 A
No, I did, on the first draft, and then we were 12 under a timeframe.
I sent these materials to Mr. Doug Cassel 13 and he made some suggestions, which were not substantial, and 14 I modified them and sent him back another draft.
15 Q
And that was the draft that was ultimately --
16 A
I think we might have done one more iteration on it.
17 Q
But basically editorial changes and not substantive 18 changes; correct?
19 A
Right.
20 Q
Other than your look at Dr. Goldstein's testimony, 21 do you have any knowledge of the events that took place at the 22 Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant?
38 1
A No.
I 2
Q In your prepared testimony you say that you have 3
reviewed some documentary materials prior to the time you 4
prepared your testimony, and I think we can identify quite 5
easily the statement of the contention and the extract from 6
Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50.
All I want to do for the record 7
is establish that when you refer to the extracts of 8
depositions, you are talking about the extracts that you 9
brought with you today.
10 A
That's correct.
1 11 Q
Do you remember when you reviewed this memorandum 12 from Mr. DeWald to Mr. Mennecke that you brought with you?
13 A
I think I looked at this -- I really don't.
14 Q
Do you remember studying it at all?
15 A
I read it.
16 MR. GUILD:
Mike, just for clarity, I don't think 17 that Dr. Arvey's testimony makes a reference to relying on 18 extracts from deposition.
He in fact had those, but I don't 19 think -- I'm looking at page 3 and 4 of his testimony where it 20 asks what have you studied.
21 MR. MILLER:
Oh, yes.
You are quite right, Bob.
22 Thank you.
39 1
MR. GUILD:
It may be referenced later, but I don't 2
recall.
3 MR. MILLER:
I thought it was.
4 MR. GUILD:
You may be thinking about one of the 5
other sets of testimony where there is such a reference.
6 BY MR. MILLER:
7 Q
Well, Mr. Guild is quite right.
Your testimony 8
does in fact state that you really just reviewed the Braidwood 9
harassment and intimidation subcontention items and the 10 supporting documents.
11 It says including the two NRC staff memoranda dated 2
12 March 29th and one dated April 5th, 1985.
That suggests there 13 were other documents that you reviewed.
Do you recall whether 14 or not you did look at these extracts from the depositions 15 prior to the time you prepared your testimony?
16 A
The enes that you just showed me?
17 Q
Yes.
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Are you being compensated for your work as an expert 20 witness in this proceeding?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
At what rate, sir?
40 1
A My charge for my work is $2500.00.
2 Q
And I take it that includes not only the preparation 3
of your testimony and the deposition today, but the appearance 4
at the proceeding as well?
5 A
That's correct.
6 Q
Between now and the time you testify, Dr. Arvey, do 7
you have any present plans to review any other written 8
materials relating to the harassment subcontention?
9 A
No.
10 Q
Now, I would like to get some additional definitions 11 besides the one that we have already discussed with respect to 12 harassment.
Some of them, I am sure, just reflect my 13 ignorance of your discipline.
14 You have defined harassment for us.
How, if at all, 15 does that differ from intimidation as you use it in your 16 testimony?
17 A
Like I said, I was viewing these rather 18 generically.
If I were to reflect on this at the moment, I 19 would view intimidation as having a specific purpose on the 20 part of a supervisor.
21 Q
That is, intimidation is somewhat more limited than 22 your definition of harassment?
41 1
A Yes.
2 Q
Would you agree that it involves threats, either 3
overt or covert?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
And they may be threats of physical violence or 6
threats of job-related sanctions?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
Now, the last line of page 2 of your prepared 9
testimony, the sentence begins, "I've studied the impact of l
10 punitive behavioral styles," and really just focusing on 11 the word " punitive," what does that refer to, sir?
12 A
There I am referring to the research I conducted as 13 part of that Navy grant where I develop some statistical 14 measures of the manner and styles by which supervisors 15 discipline'their employees, and one of the several kinds of 16 factors or dimensions that emerged were what I called punitive 17 styles.
18 Q
Could you describe those in words for us?
19 A
One of the kinds of styles might be the kind of i
20 consistency that a supervisor might apply in disciplining 21 employees or punishing employees; that some supervisors may be 22 quite consistent across a number of employees, or in other
42 i
1 words, they would deliver the same sanction for the same I
2 behaviors across a number of employees.
Another kind of 3
element there is consistency over time, that employees would 4
perceive their supervisors as having a relatively consistent 5
or inconsistent style.
That is one dimension.
6 Another dimension might be -- oh, I forgot what I 7
have called it here.
8 Q
Abusive?
9 A
I have called another style just a general 10 disciplinary style having to do with the appropriateness of 11 the way discipline is applied, whether it is applied in a 12 chaotic, childish fashion or whether it is, in fact, 13 appropriate at the time and not abused in terms of the spirit 14 of the law and so forth.
15 Q
Spirit of the law or spirit of the organization?
16 A
Both.
Well, let's call it the spirit of the law for 17 this particular framework I am talking about here.
That some 18 supervisors are perceived as being relatively just and fair in 19 the way they apply discipline, whereas others are rather 20 chaotic and inappropriate and harsh and so forth in the way 21 they apply a disciplinary practice.
22 Q
And that latter type of behavior you would i
43 1
categorize as punitive; is that correct?
I 2
A Well, I would call all of these types of punitive 3
styles, or disciplinary styles may be a more appropriate title 4
or label for that.
5 Q
You mean where you use the word " punitive" in your 6
testimony?
7 A
Right.
8 Q
In a previous answer you said the spirit of the 9
law.
Which law were you referring to?
10 A
I'm talking about a conceptual framework here, the 11 spirit of the law in the sense that people may have some 12 perceptions of what is just and what is right and what is fair 13 in an organization, and that cuts across all organizations, 14 really.
15 Q
Page 4 of your prepared testimony.
Three lines up 16 from the bottom there is a reference to longitudinal methods 17 relying on archival data.
If you would tell me what that 18 means?
19 A
This is a technique in behavioral sciences where 20 organizationa] data, typically file data, data that is 21 archived somehow, financial records, employee records, 22 production records and so forth are studied either from the
44 1
present point on forward or occasionally they will go 2
backwards in time, starting at a particular date and tracing 3
it forward.
4 Q
So longitudinal means simply over time, and archival 5
data means what a lawyer might call business records, that is, 6
records of regularly-conducted activity within an 7
organization?
8 A
That's true.
9 Q
On page 6, in discussing the survey approach, the 10 first full paragraph, and actually the first full sentence in 11 that paragraph, there is a reference to statistical estimates 12 and your expression of opinion that the statistic estimates 13 would be shaky or imprecise.
What statistical estimates are 14 you referring to there, sir?
15 A
In most survey research there is usually a mean or a 16 proportion or percentage of people who agree or disagree to a 17 particular kind of statement.
In this context I am referring 18 to that estimate, whether or not that is an accurate estimate 19 or not.
The imprecision has to do with that estimate.
20 Q
Okay.
Did you mean to include other, somewhat more 21 sophisticated statistical measures such as correlations 22 between variables and so on?
45 1
A I would go forward with that, too.
For example, you 2
could correlate parts of the questionnaire or you could ask 3
people to forecast particular kinds of events that might 4
happen or indicate a relationship on the questionnaire itself 5
and use those data.
6 Q
Now, quite a bit of your prepared testimony 7
expresses some reservations about the use of a survey 8
methodology in the situation at Braidwood as you understand 9
it; correct?
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
Would you agree that the same problems that you 12 foresee with respect to the use of survey methodology also 13 apply to testimony from quality control inspectors that may 14 be presented to the three administrative law judges who are 15 gong to be hearing this?
16 A
I would think so, yes.
17 Q
I take it that in your judgment, the fact that a 18 witness, as you just were, is sworn to tell the truth doesn't 19 necessarily improve the accuracy or reliability of that 20 witness' responses?
21 A
That's correct.
22 Q
And the fact that the witness' testimony is being
46 1
taken down, as yours is, verbatim by a court reporter, that 2
too doesn't add to its accuracy or reliability, as far as you 3
are concerned?
4 A
I believe you are correct.
5 Q
And the fact that a witness in a trial-type setting 6
is appearing before three individuals who are designated 7
judges,_that, too, does not add to the accuracy or reliability 8
of the testimony; is that right?
9 A
I think you are correct.
I,might add that that is a 10 hypothesis.
It would be interesting to see whether or not 11 there is greater accuracy under those kinds of conditions.
I 12 doubt it, though.
I think you are correct.
13 Q
So you are neither more nor less likely to get 14 accurate, reliable answers in the course of a judicial or 15 administrative trial-type preceeding than you are if you were 16 to conduct the type of survey that is described in your 17 testimony; is that right?
18 A
Well, there is one advantage to a survey methodology 19 that you don't have through the physical appearance of a 20 witness.
That is, survey data is by intent gathering data 21 from a larger group of people, so you have a broader 22 representation.
- - ~ - - - -
47 1
Q In order to be accurate and reliable, does the I
2 survey have to have 100 percent response?
3 A
Not necessarily.
You could sample, and you will 4
have subsections of that sample, too.
You understand the 5
point I'm making.
6 Q
I may understand it, but let me make sure that I do 7
for the record.
That is, I take it it is your position that a 8
statistically-designed sample program for a survey would 9
provide one with accurate and reliable data.
10 A
Let me qualify that.
A reason that somebody might 11 go forward with a survey as opposed to witnesses per se may be 12 that you are gathering additional information from a wider 13 variety of sources.. The degree of accuracy of either 14 technique is still questionable, under both kinds of i
15 conditions'.
16 I think your question was is one better than the 17 other or are they about the same, and at this point I have i
18 never conducted a study to determine whegher one is more 19 reliable or valid under one situation or another, so I 20 personally don't know, but I suspect that the same kind of 21 fsllacies and problems and distortione and so forth that go 22 into a questionnerre would also be inherent in the personal
48 1
appearance.
i I
2 Q
The testimonial process.
3 A
Exactly.
4 Q
I see.
And let me just run through some of the 5
problems that you set forth in your testimony beginning at 6
page 6.
I take it that an individual who was appearing as a 7
witness would be sensitized to the issue, as you described 8
in the first paragraph on page 6; is that correct?
9 A
That is certainly true.
10 Q
And that since the individual is testifying to 11 events that may have occurred as long ago as two years, that 12 his memory might not be very good, so the retrospective nature 13 of his testimony makes it suspect; correct?
14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
And also that since they have been sensitized to 16 this issue when they are testifying, they may define 17 harassment or its effects differently than if that 18 sensitization process hadn't taken place?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
Okay.
And would you agree that the same problem of j
l 21 representativeness occurs in the judicial setting unless you 22 have the entire universe of individuals appear as witnesses;
49 1
correct?
I 2
A That's true.
3 Q
And I take it again in the testimony situation there 4
is the same problem with consistency of response that you 5
refer to on the bottom of page 7; that is, a witness may 6
testify one way one time and another the other time; correct?
7 A
Correct.
8 Q
And I think the most important point that you make 9
on page 8 is also applicable to testimony by the witnesses, 10 that is, whether the response is a reflection of reality or is 11 so distorted by the witness' perception that it does not 12 reflect reality.
13 A
That's correct.
14 Q
In addition to the fact that there is an oath, a 15 court reporter, and three individuals designated as judges, 16 does the existence of the adversarial process offer auty 17 greater expectation of accuracy and reliability in a iudicial j
18 setting as opposed to a survey?
19 A
I really don't know.
I mean you are asking me about i
20 information for which I have never really studied.
I have 21 never compared the validity or reliability of information 22 gathered through a survey versus the courtroom kind of
50 1
context.
2 Q
Okay.
Well, turning to the survey, Dr. Arvey, I 3
gather that it is your opinion that in order to enhance the 4
effectiveness of the responses that you get from the survey, 5
that it is necessary that the respondents be totally anonymous 6
and that their confidentiality be maintained under all 7
circumstances; correct?
8 A
I don't think it is necessarily under all 9
circumstances.
When you are dealing with issues that are 10 quite sensitive in which there is culpability -- that's not 11 the correct word -- involved or damages and so forth, then I 12 don't think you are going to get the same kind of responses 13 that you might have when you are dealing with relatively 14 innocuous kind of materials.
15 Q
Okay.
Well, let's focus in on issues of quality 16 control inspections at Braidwood, and I think you testified 17 that it is unlikely that people will self identify failure to 18 follow inspection procedures; correct?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
So in such a situation, then, anonymity would be --
21 A
I think very important'.
22 Q
Very important.
Now, anonymity means more than just
51 1
keeping the names confidential.
2 A
That's correct.
3 Q
Thus any clues from the survey responses that might 4
lead to identification of the individual would have to be 5
masked; correct?
6 A
Correct.
7 Q
In your experience, is the identity of the 8
individuals being surveyed in such a situation maintained 9
confidential to solely the individual who is taking the 10 survey?
11 A
Could you repeat that, please?
12 Q
Well, all I'm trying to find out is how wide is the 13 circle to whom the identity of the respondents to the survey 14 can be disclosed without compromising the --
15 A
Well, I don't know the answer to that, but the 16 typical way that a behavioral scientist might proceed is to j
17 guarantee anonymity and reveal those data to nobody, and that 18 is more of an ethical position rather than an empirical 19 question of how much information can you reveal.
20 Q
So in other words, if you were to conduct a survey 21 among quality control inspectors at Braidwood, you would 22 guarantec, in order to enhance the accuracy and reliability of
i 52 1
the data, you would guarantee them anonymity and would hold I
2 the information to yourself.
3 A
That's correct.
Or even more than that, there is 4
what we call some double blind conditions where the I
5 information would go to a totally neutral source, the data 6
would be coded, and then that data would be supplied to a 7
researcher so that the researcher didn't know who the people 8
were.
9 Q
In such a circumstance as a survey of the QC 10 inspectors at Braidwood, would disclosure to representatives 11 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who agree to maintain 12 the information confidential, be consistent with the anonymity 13 that you have been describing earlier?
14 A
The disclosure of the individual responses?
15 Q
Yes, sir.
16 A
I don't think that would be consistent.
17 Q
So in other words, to maintain the integrity of the 18 survey, it would just be the industrial organization or 19 psychologist who would have the information.
20 A
You are talking about the information rather than 21 the names?
22 Q
Well, the source of the information.
That is, who l
I
53 1
provided the information or any clues to who provided that 2
information.
3 A
Under the kind of condition that I'm talking about 4
or we are talking about is where nobody would get the 5
information in terms of the individual's name or the source of 6
the information except for the researcher.
7 Q
Correct.
8 A
And I agree with that.
9 Q
What sort of information, then, would be available 10 to the public or to persons other than the researcher at the 11 end of this process?
12 A
Well, you could use the data to form summary 13 statistics and supply that information.
14 Q
And the statistics would be of the nature that of 50 15 QC inspectors surveyed, 34 disclosed that they compromised the 16 quality of their inspections because of perceived harassment 17 and intimidation.
18 A
or something of that sort.
19 Q
I see.
And in order to determine where in the power 20 plant these people did not perform proper inspections, we 21 would have to do something else than rely on the survey data; 22 right?
I
(
l
54 1
A Well, you are asking me sort of design questions 2
here, and I haven't thought much about them.
I guess one of 3
the things that occurs to me is maybe you could get people to 4
identify, somehow get them to identify where there may be some 5
faulty inspections.
I'm not quite sure how to do it, but 6
maybe they could provide a list of six seals and have them 7
identify one of them as a verification or something like 8
that.
But in general, I think that is a very difficult bit 4
9 of information, and I don't know how you are going to get that 10 information through a survey procedure.
11 Q
Let me ask just one more question about surveys.
I 12 take it that the necessity for anonymity and so on also 13 refers to the in-depth interviews that you discuss.
14 A
Exactly.
15 Q
And the output of those interviews would be the same 16 type of what I will characterize as generalized statistical 17 data that we talked about earlier.
18 A
Well, that's true.
It is conceivable that an j
19 interviewer who is highly, highly skilled may engender i
20 sufficient trust to get people to divulge some of this 1
21 information and that he or she could provide the double-blind i
22 elements to know where these defective seals or welds may be.
4
55 1
The problem with that is -- I'm just thinking off the top of 2
my head -- is that if you found the weld, it could ultimately 3
be traced back to the individual, I think.
So even that kind 4
of thing may not work.
5 Q
If there is a survey that is distributed, I take it 6
that a researcher relies on the voluntary response of the 7
individuals who are being surveyed.
8 A
Most of the time.
9 Q
That is, compulsion to answer the survey might 10 distort the results; correct?
11 A
In this case, yes.
12 Q
When you say in this case, you mean in the case of 13 the Braidwood QC inspectors.
14 A
Yes.
At least that is my belief.
15 Q
Let's suppose just as a hypothetical that a survey 16 is sent out, say, to 100 inspectors and only seven of them 17 respond.
What, if anything, does that --
18 A
What was the percentage, the numbers you gave me' 19 Q
Approximately 100 sent out, and seven respond.
20 What, if anything, does that tell you about the efficacy of 21 the survey technique?
22 A
I think it weakens it considerably.
56 1
Q In your experience, what does a low response to a I
2 survey by the respondents indicate?
3 A
It could mean a number of things.
Number one, that
)
4 they simply weren't going to volunteer, and they could have 5
been frightened or intimidated by a questionnaire and the i
6 possibility of the information being leaked.
The second thing 7
is that the data generated by the seven people may be 8
selective in the sense that you don't typically know -- not KIwayEI, but you don't typically know whether the people who 9
10 responded are the ones who were more or less affected by the 11 particular, in this case, the intimidation, I suppose.
And 12 you don't really know quite how to check that out, so there is 13 a real possibility of distortion and incorrect conclusions 14 being drawn by that sample.
15 The third thing is that sample size is not large 16 enough to really for= any O& mucn in the way of precise 17 estimates because of the variability that is inherent in such 18 small samples.
19 Q
In a survey instrument, what is an adequate sample?
20 A
Well, it sort of depends, as most social scientists 21 would say.
If you have a large sample, in the thousands and 22 thousands, you might be able to get by with 200 or 300 people, l
l l
57 1
which still may only be 5 percent of your population.
The 5
2 important thing is the degree to which you have 3
representative 1y sampled from the larger population from which 4
you have drawn the sample.
5 The sampling techniques here are quite complex and 6
thorny.
Even small samples can be useful if they are indeed 7
random samples.
8 Q
When you sr.y random sample, you mean random as used 9
by statisticians.
10 A
That's correct.
Personally, at least from my 11 experience, I am not very comfortable with response rates that 12 are lower than 20 percent 13 Q
Dr. Arvey, your reference to intimidation and 14 harassment at page 4 of your prepared testimony, I take it 15 from Answer 5, although you don't say it expressly, that 16 perceived harassment and intimidation is as significant as 17 actual harassment and intimidation; correct?
18 A
I will say yes to that.
19 Q
Now, perceptions are just that.
That is, what is 20 perceived as harassment by me is perceived as an off-the-cuff l
21 remark having no significance by you.
22 A
That's correct.
m c-
58 1
Q And in fact, I think you make that point, both in 2
your testimony and in one of your articles, about 3
punishment: that what one person may regard as punishment, 4
particularly a supervisor, the subordinate might regard as not 5
an aversive technique but as one that is actually consistent 4
6 with his, that is, the employee's, wishes.
7 A
That's correct.
8 Q
So in the context of the Braidwood QC inspectors, 9
what might seem like an innocuous comment from a supervisor to 10 me, let's say, somebody just makes an off-hand comment, "We've 11 got a lot of inspections to do," might be perceived by someone 12 else as urging that inspector to hurry his inspections; is l
I 13 that right?
14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
Or stressing quantity over quality; is that correct?
i 16 A
That's correct.
17 Q
Overlook defects that he observed during the course 18 of his inspection activities.
That is, it could be a 19 perceived harassment.
l 20 A
Right.
21 Q
And I think we have also talked about the fact that i
22 it is extremely unlikely that any inspector will self report I
i
59 1
his own failure to follow inspection procedures and properly 2
report all discrepant conditionse correct?
3 A
That's correct.
4 Q
Is it also correct that, given -- have you ever been 5
on any large construction site, quite apart from a nuclear 6
power plant?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
Do you have any estimate -- well, what was it?
9 A
Let's just say an oil refinery.
10 Q
okay.
Approximately how many employees?
11 A
Three thousand people.
12 Q
Three thousand people.
That is roughly comparable.
13 Is it correct that, given the dynamics of a 14 construction site, with many people interacting on a daily 15 basis between inspectors and their supervisors, that there 16 might be widespread effects on performance from perceived 17 harassment and no one is going to know about it?
Isn't that 18 right?
19 A
You mean in terms of the performance?
20 Q
Yes.
21 A
That could be true.
22 Q
I think that you conclude your testimony by
60 1
suggesting that, in your last sentence, "I recommend the data 4
2 concerning the work itself be ascertained prior to reaching a 3
conclusive determination."
Page 13 of your testimony.
4 What sort of data are you recommending be 5
ascertained?
6 A
Well, the data that -- since I haven't done any 7
on-site or intensive study of this site, I don't know, but my feeling is that we are talking about welds for the most part 8
9 here and that some kind of welding inspection, a reinspection 10 process, might be done.
Whatever the unit is that is in 11 question here besides welds.
12
[ Pause.]
13 BY MR. MILLER:
14 Q
Now, you have previously testified that you were 15 provided some data by BPI, the contention and the memos that 16 are attached to it, and I think we have established that you 17 looked at those deposition extracts and so on.
Have you 18 reached any opinion as to whether or not, based on the 19 materials that you have reviewed so far, that there was 20 pressure applied by supervisors directed to the inspectors to I
21 increase the quantity of their inspections and to overlook 22 deficiencies in work?
i i
61 1
A I have not.
t 2
Q Based on the materials that you have reviewed, do 3
you have an opinion as to whether there was not any such 4
pressure?
5 A
No, I have no opinion at this point.
6 Q
Can you tell, Dr. Arvey, from the material that you 7
have reviewed whether or not there were any productivity 8
standards set for the QC inspectors?
9 A
I made no determination of that sort.
t 10 Q
In your judgment, is it harassment, as you have 11 defined the term, to set productivity standards for QC 12 inspectors?
13 A
No.
14 Q
Do you have any experience in setting productivity i
15 standards for -- let me see if I can get back to one of the 16 consulting assignments.
In your assignment for the American 17 Petroleum Institute, I think you said you were using j
l 18 statistical techniques to derive performance appraisal 19 criteria for hourly employees.
Did that involve the, as I 20 have been using the term, the setting of performance standards 21 for these hourly employees?
22 A
Well, not necessarily.
The performance appraisals i
l
I l
62 1
were more forms for measuring year end performance, a series I
2 of rating scales that supervisors might evaluate and rate 3
their employees on after a certain period of time, six months 4
or a year.
So this assignment did not involve projecting 5
particular wo k goals or objectives.
6 Q
I see.
In the rating system that you devised for 7
American Petroleum Institute, was one of the criteria for 8
evaluation quantity of output?
9 A
I don't think it was in that term, but something of 10 that sort.
i 11 Q
How about efficiency?
12 A
I know what you tre talking about.
13 Q
Was there any criterion for quality of output?
14 A
I just don't recall.
15 Q
Okay.
16 Now, have you had any experience professionally in i
17 setting productivity standards for any of your clients, your 18 students, or in any other context?
19 A
Yes.
I will set objectives for my students to have 3
20 by certain deadlines and certain times.
21 Q
I take it from your previous answer you don't regard 22 that as harassing your students to set such standards.
l i
i l
m
__,7m..
63 1
A I don't think I included production standards as 2
part of harassment, as being defined as harassment.
3 Q
In the documents that you reviewed, the April 5, 4
1985 NRC memorandum attributes a statement to an inspector as 5
follows: "Comstock emphasized inspection quantity first, not 6
inspection quality."
Now, do you regard that, if true, as 7
evidence of harassment?
8 A
Well, I'm going to say this.
The setting of 9
production standards in and of themselves doesn't necessarily 10 constitute harassment or intimidation, to me.
What I do thin 11 could represent harassment is the ways in which supervisors 12 will push for those production standards to be met, the kind 13 of behaviors they exhibit: do they intimidate the employees, 14 do they threaten their employees, do they promise rewards, do, i
15 they withhold rewards?
16 Q
You mean if the production standards aren't met.
17 A
That's true.
And that's how I'm viewing this 18 context.
19 Q
So you would have to find a punishment for not 20 meeting production standards or a reward for meeting or 21 exceeding production standards in order for that to constitute 22 harassment?
64 1
A Yes, in addition to a set of aversive or undesirable 2
kind of behaviors that are unleashed on an employee with the 3
objective of trying to get that person to fulfill those 4
standards.
5 Q
Is it harassment to discipline an employee for, for 6
lack of a better word, for loafing?
7 A
I guess I would say not.
8 Q
Is it harassment to discipline an employee for 9
chronic absenteeism?
10 A
No.
11 Q
one way of measuring whether somebody is loafing is 12 to compare their output with that of others who were 13 comparably employed; isn't that right?
14 A
I don't know whether I would call it loafing, but 15 that is one method you could use.
16 Q
To determine whether somebody is working or fooling 17 around.
I don't know any other way to say it.
18 A
Well, you could look at the production rates and 19 establish whether or not people are producing at different 20 levels of performance.
Whether they are loafing or whether 21 they are ill or what the reason behind the low production rate 22 is could be due to a variety of factors other than or in 1
,n.-
-m
65 1
addition to loafing.
2 Q
Now, would you regard a threat of physical violence 3
to an inspector for following established procedures -- that 4
is, not shortcutting those procedures -- as harassment or 5
intimidation?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Would you regard a statement to an inspector to not 8
concern himself about an activity carried on by another 9
contractor as harassment?
That is, the inspector observes an 10 apparently discrepant condition in the work of some contractor 11 other than Comstock and is told: Stay within the scope of your i
12 own j ob.
Would you regard that as harassment?
i 13 A
Not necessarily.
14 Q
Let's suppose further that the inspector nonetheless 15 writes a memorandum to his bosses telling them about this 16 discrepant condition and it is through channels gotten to the 17 other contractor and the condition is fixed.
Now, the 18 subsequent events that I have just described, do they have any 19 effect on whether there is actual or perceived harassment by 20 that QC inspector who first identified the condition?
21 A
Let me see if I can restate it.
I'm not sure I 22 understand.
You are saying a QC inspector sees a defective
66 1
unit of some other contractor.
It is subsequently repaired or 2
fixed.
3 Q
He reports it.
He is told to mind his own 4
business.
He nonetheless reports it to his management, and 5
his management sees to it that the other contractor fixes it.
6 A
So the element here is the fact that the supervisor 7
gave an inappropriate directive?
Is that we are saying?
8 Q
Let's assume that for purposes of my question.
9 A
I wouldn't say that is harassment, no.
I don't see 10 anything physically abusive or mentally abusive.
11 Q
In the situation which we talked about a few minutes 12 ago in which there was a threat of physical violence, let's 13 assume further that the individual making the threat of 14 violence is terminated from his job as a supervisor and barred i
15 not only from the Braidwood site but from every other 16 Commonwealth Edison Company site, and that Commonwealth Edison 17 Company makes a recommendation to the contractor, Comstock, 18 that the individual not be employed on any safety-related 19 activity.
20 What effect, if any, does that subsequent chain of 21 events have on the perception or actual harassment that the 22 individual who was threatened experienced?
67 1
A I don't know.
I 2
Q Is it, in your judgment, an immaterial factor?
3 A
Well, it is actually an empirical que'stion.
I could 4
speculate about it some of the reactions.
5 Q
Well, based on your professional experience, would 6
you agree that, to the extent the inspector who was the 7
subject of the threat knew that this individual had been 8
fired, that he had learned, if you will, that attempted 9
harassment and intimidation would not be countenanced by 10 management and -- are you familiar with the term 11
" observational learning"?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
And the other inspectors who learned of that would 14 also have a set of facts presented to them in which attempted 15 harassment and intimidation was not countenanced by 16 management; correct?
17 A
Correct.
18 Q
Is it correct that most individuals who are eSpl'oyed 19 attempt to do their job properly, just as a kind of --
l 20 A
I will grant you that, yes.
l 21 Q
In other words, human beings generally in their 22 occupations attempt to perform their job correctly?
l
68 1
A Yes.
1 2
Q Does that factor mean that they are more likely or 3
less likely to resist directions -- harassment, if you will --
4 from a supervisor which is directing them to perform their job 5
improperly?
6 A
Can you restate the question?
7 Q
Is that a factor which one should take into account, 8
that is, the fact that most people want to do their job 9
properly, is that a factor that we should take into account in 10 assessing the effect of any perceived or experienced 11 harassment?
12 A
The fact that prior to the harassment, or even 13 during, they are trying to do the best job they can?
14 Q
Right.
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
Is it also correct that, to the extent individuals 17 are satisfied with their job, they attempt to do well, perform 18 well in it?
19 A
Do well, or attempt to do well?
20 Q
Well, attempt to do well.
21 A
You are getting into an area where there is a good 22 deal of debate here: that is, what is the relationship l
I
69 1
between job satisfaction and performance.
The data show that 2
the relationship is not as strong as you might think, and 3
there is a relatively weak relationship between job 4
satisfaction and actual performance.
5 THE WITNESS:
Could we take a break?
6 MR. MILLER:
Sure.
7
[Brief recess.]
8 BY MR. MILLER:
9 Q
Even though you have no direct experience with 10 nuclear plants, would you agree that the quality of their 11 construction is extremely important, not just to the operators 12 of the plant, but to the public at large?
13 A
Very much.
14 Q
Do you have any reason to doubt that the inspectors 15 at a nuclear plant site under construction are not fully aware 16 of the health and safety implications of their work?
17 A
No.
i 18 Q
Would that be a factor, that is, their knowledge of 19 the safety significance of their activities, which would cause 20 them to be more conscious rather than less conscious in 21 the performance of their inspection duties?
22 A
one would think so.
From the perspective of I
70 1
industrial psychologists, there are some potentially 2
overriding immediate concerns that could compromise the 3
quality of inspections in this case, and it could be the 4
immediate environment, the supervisor, again, the kind of 5
contextual environment in which people are working could 6
indeed override a generalized safety concern, particularly in 7
this -- I have not studied the nuclear power situation 8
specifically.
9 My hunch is that people might forget they are in 10 that plant or that their awareness of the repercussions or 11 consequences of a blow-up might be eroded over time.
12 Q
Familiarity breeds contempt?
13 A
Something of that sort.
This is speculation on my 14 part.
I have not studied this issue.
15 Q
Dr. Arvey, do you have any knowledge of the training 16 that quality control inspectors undergo before they are 17 permitted to perform inspections?
18 A
No.
19 Q
Do you know whether there are any educational and 20 experience requirements for those inspectors?
21 A
Only in a generalized sense.
22 Q
Will you accept my representation that there are
71 1
such educational and experience requirements, that each I
2 Comstock inspector has an one hour lecture on general quality 3
assurance principles, eight hours of lectures on how to do the 4
specific inspection in which he is going to be certified, 40 5
hours of on-the-job training, and both written and practical 6
examinations which he must pass before he is permitted to do 7
inspections on his own.
8 Accepting my representation of the training program, 9
is that a factor which would lead inspectors to do a more 10 conscientious job than if that training didn't exist?
11 A
I would cgree with you.
12 Q
The answer to my question is "yes?"
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
I think you talked about the immediate job context 15 that would perhaps, as you speculated, provide pressures on an 16 individual that would overcome his more generalized awareness 17 that he was working on a nuclear power plant site.
18 Do you know whether or not the Nuclear Regulatory 19 Commission -- what do you understand the function of the 20 Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be?
21 A
I would think it is a broad protective agency, 22 designed to ensure the full range of construction, activation,
72 1
quality control, production of nuclear energy.
I'm not sure 2
it is just constrained to nuclear energy plants.
3 Q
You are quite right.
For our purposes, let's limit 4
it to commercial nuclear power plants.
5 Do you know whether the Nuclear Regulatory 6
Commission has a continuous presence at nuclear power plants 7
that are both under construction and in operation?
8 A
I don't really know.
9 Q
To the extent that pressures are placed in QC 10 inspectors to overlook deficiencies in construction, does the 11 existence of representatives of Government agencies, the NRC, 12 at the site, provide them with an alternative outlet for 13 expressing their concerns?
14 A
Do you mean if there is somebody there at the site 15 from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, they can complain or 16 take a grievance to them and so forth?
17 Q
Yes.
18 A
I think so.
19 Q
That would make them less likely to be responsive to l
l 20 any pressure to overlook safety concerns; wouldn't it?
l 21 A
I think so.
22 MR. MILLER:
I would like to have this marked as I
t l
73 1
Arvey Deposition Exhibit No. 1 for identification.
It is a 2
document that is entitled " Class Outline, General QA 3
Criteria."
It bears the date in the lower lefthand corner, 4
7/17/84.
5
[Arvey Deposition Exhibit No. 1 6
was marked for identification.]
7 BY MR. MILLER:
8 Q
Let me represent to you this is an outline for a 9
training session that is given to all Quality Control 10 inspectors at Comstock, with respect to general QA principles.
11 Are you familiar, sir, with what 10 CFR Part 21 12 involves?
13 A
I think that's the one -- at least I reviewed part 14 of that, didn't I?
15 Q
This is Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
It is a 16 different regulation.
17 A
It's a Government document that has various 18 regulations and criteria, I suppose.
19 Q
In fact, it requires that individuals report 20 discrepancies in equipment that could have safety 21 consequences.
You will see there is a reference there to 10 22 CFR Part 21; correct?
74 1
MR. GUILD:
In fact, it provides the directors of I
2 Commonwealth Edison Company or corporate officers to report 3
safety defects to the NRC.
4 MR. MILLER:
The corporate officers or directors of 5
Commonwealth Edison Company or any utility are not at the job 6
site, so you rely on individuals.
7 I would like to have this marked as Arvey Deposition 8
Exhibit No.
2.
It is a printed notice that says " United 9
States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Notice to Employees."
10 It is NRC Form 3, down in the lower lefthand corner.
11
[Arvey Deposition Exhibit No. 2 12 was marked for identification.]
13 BY MR. MILLER:
14 Q
Dr. Arvey, I am going to represent to you that is a 15 document which is a part that is shown to the inspectors 16 during this one hour general quality assurance lecture.
I 17 call your attention to the fact that there are references in 18 that document to the willingness of the NRC to receive 19 complaints regarding quality from employees at a nuclear plant 20 site under construction.
21 There is a description of the NRC's duties and it is 22 expressed as a responsibility of the workers to report h
I
75 1
violations of the requirements.
The requirements, among other 2
things, indicate that nuclear facilities, including power 3
plants, are constructed to high quality standards and 4
operating in a safe manner.
5 It gives instructions on how one can contact the NRC 6
and it talks about whether they can be fired for talking to 7
the NRC and so on.
8 To the extent that inspectors are informed of their 9
rights of access to NRC personnel and are told it is their 10 responsibility to report violations of those requirements, 11 does that make it more likely they will resist pressures that 12 may be placed on them by their immediate supervisors to 4
l 13 overlook quality defects?
14 A
Then if they were not in place?
15 Q
Yes.
16 A
I would presume so.
17 Q
Are you familiar with the provisions of Section 210 18 of the Energy Reorganization Act?
19 A
No.
20 Q
Which prohibits any retaliatory treatment of any 21 person raising quality concerns at a nuclear power plant site.
22 A
I am not familiar with that.
4 e
76 1
Q I represent to you that notices about that statute e
2 and an individual's right under that statute are posted around 3
a construction site.
Does knowledge of the existence of that 4
legal remedy make it more likely that inspectors would resist 5
any pressures which might be placed on them by their 6
supervisors to overlook quality defects?
7 A
Compared to no document or no policy, I agree with 8
you.
9 Q
Do you have any knowledge as to how inspections are 10 in fact conducted by Comstock at the Braidwood site?
11 A
No.
12 Q
Do you know whether the inspections have to be 13 documented?
14 A
I believe they do.
15 MR. MILLER:
I would like to have this marked as 16 Arvey Deposition Exhibit No.
3, a blank L. K.
Comstock and 17 Company, Inc. weld inspection checklist.
It is Comstock form 18 number 19.
I would like to have this marked as Arvey 19
, Deposition Exhibit No.
4, a safety related cable pan 20 installation inspection checklist.
It carries over on the l'
21 back side of the page.
That is Comstock form number 17.
22 l
77 1
[Arvey Deposition Exhibit Nos. 3 & 4 2
were marked for identification.]
3 BY MR. MILLER:
4 Q
I would like to show you two documents that have 5
been marked Arvey Deposition Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4.
I am sure 6
you have not seen them in the past, from your prior response.
7 I represent to you these are the forms that are filled out by 8
inspectors as they conduct their inspections.
9 First of all, does the fact that the inspections are 10 documented make it more likely that an inspector will resist a 11 supervisor's efforts to have him overlook deficiencies in 12 construction?
13 A
Compared to --
14 Q
If there was just an oral --
15 A
I agree with that.
16 Q
Does the fact that an inepector has to sign his name 17 increase the likelihood that he will resist a supervisor's 18 efforts to get him to overlook quality problems?
19 A
I would think so.
20 Q
Is the checklist format in which an inspector -- it 21 is either a "go" or "no go" situation and the opportunity for 22 exercise of judgment over an inspection characteristic is
,.-,-w,w
-,r-,,
,-.-------,m--
e-m--
,,y
78 1
limited, does that increase the likelihood that an inspector 2
will withstand an effort by a supervisor to cause him to 3
overlook defects in construction?
4 A
Compared to if there were no --
5 Q
Just a discursive --
6 A
Right; I agree with that.
7 Q
Do you know whether there are any checks of the 8
inspector's work that is done after he fills out one of these 9
inspection checklists and turns it in?
10 A
I don't know.
11 Q
I want to give you a series of facts.
These men who 12 perform these inspections are called Quality control 13 inspectors.
There is in addition a department of 14 L. K. Comstock which is called the Quality Assurance 15 Department, which conducts audits of both the documentation 16 and the field work of the QC inspectors.
17 In addition, there is an organization called 18 Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories, Inc., a separate corporation, 19 which performs a ten percent randomly selected 20 over-inspection.
In other words, a re-inspection of the 21 inspector's work.
In addition, Pittsburgh Testing 22 Laboratories, Inc. performs what are called unit concept
79 1
inspections, in which they go into an area of the plant and i
2 inspect all components and equipment in it, electrical, 3
mechanical, structural, and so on, of Comstock and other 4
contractors.
5 Assume further that Commonwealth Edison Company has 6
its own Quality Assurance Department which through audits and 7
surveillances checks both the documentation and the actual 8
field inspections.
Finally, that the Nuclear Regulatory 9
Commission staff conducts its own series of inspections which 10 check again both the documentation and the quality of the 11 inspection itself.
12 I am giving you a long list of further reviews.
13 Inspectors know these activities take place.
Does 14 the existence of these further checks on their work make it 15 more likely that they will resist any effort by a supervisor 16 to have them overlook defects in construction?
17 A
I am going to agree with you but I want to comment 18 here that every step of the scenario you are giving me are 19 hypotheticals and I have no actual data to support these 20 contentions.
21 Q
I understand that.
You should understand my 22 questions as being simply my representation of the facts.
You
80 1
are under no obligation to accept them as true.
I 2
Are you familiar with the name Richard Saklak?
3 A
He is one of the individual supervisors.
4 Q
Correct.
He is the individual who threatened -- I'm 5
not asking you to accept it as a fact, but assume he is the 6
individual who made the threat of this physical violence 7
against the one inspector and was terminated as a result.
But 8
he was employed as a supervisor for, I think, over two years 9
prior to his termination.
10 Assume that Mr. Saklak had no power to fire or to 11 set the compensation of any of the inspectors.
Does that 12 fact, based on your expert opinion, make it more likely that 13 the inspectors would resist any effort by Mr. Saklak to cause 14 them to overlook defects in the construction?
15 A
I am going to say in the abstract, yes; but I think 16 there are situations in which a supervisor does not have those 17 powers that you referred to and yet could produce a good deal 18 of fearful reactions on the part of supervisors -- on the part 19 of inspectors.
20 Q
Assume also that Mr. Saklak made threats of 21 termination, having an individual fired, and was never able to
~
22 do it.
What would that indicate to the inspectors, or would
81 1
that be a factor which would make it more likely that an 2
inspector would resist any attempts by Mr. Saklak to have them 3
overlook construction defects?
4 MR. GUILD:
Mike, I don't want my silence to be
~
5 taken as suggesting that I agree with your recitation of the 6
facts.
Understanding this is a discovery deposition, I won't 7
object that those statements of fact are not grounded in the 8
record.
I believe that last one is not.
9 MR. MILLER:
I forgot where we are.
Would you read 10 the last question?
11
[The reporter read the record as requested.)
12 THE WITNESS:
Again, in the abstract, yes.
13
[ Pause.]
14 I think I'm going to make a further comment here, 15 and that is that individuals or supervisors can produce a lot 16 of emotional reaction on the part of an employee simply 17 through their verbal behavior and their explosiveness and 18 their delivery, in addition to or even independent of any 19 formal sanctions that they may have available to them in an 20 organization.
21 In a sense, then, they could be viewed as quite 22 powerful people in the organization even though they don't
82 1
have formal firing and hiring power, as you referred to.
I 2
BY MR. MILLER:
3 Q
You will have to accept my representation that 4
Mr. Saklak was, in fact, loud, profane, he is a large man.
5 A
So he could produce some of those types of 6
reactions.
7 Q
Yes, sir.
He would certainly produce them in me.
4 8
The question is have you ever observed the 9
interaction between supervisors and employees of any sort in a.
10 construction milieu?
11 A
Have I personally?
12 Q
Yes, sir.
13 A
I think I indicated I had in a refinery.
14 Q
And did you observe rough language being exchanged?
15 A
Oh, personally?
Over my life history, I have.
I 16 don't think you want me to go into that.
17 Q
No, but can we agree that at a construction site, 18 rough language, loud talking is more likely to occur between 19
, supervisor and subordinates than in a law office or a 20 professor's office?
21 A
That's true.
Agreed.
22 Q
Have you ever observed efforts by some employees to a
83 1
deliberately provoke supervisors to shouting matches?
k 2
A Not that I can recall.
3 Q
In the April 5, 1985 memorandum that was supplied to 4
you by counsel, there is a recitation of a group interview 5
that was conducted by two NRC inspectors of some 24 or so 6
Comstock QC inspectors who came over to discuss their 7
grievances.
First of all, based on your professional 8
background and experience, is a group interview a way of 9
obtaining reliable and valid information, as opposea to 10 individual?
11 A
Well, I have never really studied that question.
I 12 think in the abstract, a large interview of that sort may 13 provide some what I would call psychological safety to 14 the members who are forming the complaint because they are 15 there in number.
In terms of the form of the complaint and 16 the potential implications, performance implications and so 17 forth, the disadvantage of a group in the abstract is that you 18 may not get precise and specific information.
So it has 19 advantages and disadvantages.
As to the validity or the 20 reliability of the information across the two mechanisms, I 21 can't tell you.
22 Q
In a group situation, is there peer pressure that
+
l
84 1
may be perceived by individuals in the group to conform with 2
statements made by other members of the group?
3 A
I think I would agree with that statement.
4 Q
At this group meeting, one individual stated, 4
5
" Inspector productivity overrides the quality of the 6
inspection.
(At that point, a show of hands was done.
The 7
resident NRC inspectors" -- that is, who were conducting this 8
group interview -
" indicated that the Comstock inspectors 9
agreed 100 percent with that statement.)"
10 As an interview technique, is a statement of a 11 proposition by one of the respondents in a group interview and 12 then asking for a show of hands as to who agrees with it a 13 technique that will give you reliable and accurate 14 information?
15 A
I haven't studied the document.
I have looked it 16 over and I haven't formed any opinions about the information 17 that was revealed in that context.
I am going to stick with 18 my statement that I think that kind of representation, a show 19 of hands, is an indication of a form of a complaint and that 20 there is a problem, but it is not particularly diagnostic in 21 terms of what is meant by quality or quantity, and I would 22 agree with you that the showing of hands is perhaps not a very
85 1
precise indicator of individual or consensus agreement here.
2 Q
And of course, in the show of hands, to the extent 3
that there is peer pressure, it is going to be felt.
4 A
Yes.
But on the other hand, I would not at all 5
dismiss this datum at all.
It seems like it is really 6
important information.
7 Q
Assume that approximately four months prior to this 8
event, there had been a hotly-contested election with respect 9
to whether or not a union would represent these quality 10 control inspectors and that Comstock management had been 11 opposed to the Union coming in, an election was held, and the 12 Union was, in fact, appointed as the bargaining agent for the 13 QC inspectors.
14 Assume further that in the period since the Union 15 was certified as the bargaining agent up till the date of this 16 meeting, that there had been negotiations over wages and other 17 benefits that had not reached agreement at all.
18 What account, if any, would an industrial 19 organizational psychologist such as yourself take of that 20 factor in assessing the comments made to the NRC in this i
21 meeting?
22 A
Were any of those concerns raised in those meetings?
i
86 1
Q I'm sorry?
2 A
Were any of the concerns about compensation and 3
bargaining strength, whatever you were talking about, some 3
4 issues that were lingering here, were any of those raised in 5
.the meeting?
6 Q
With the NRC?
7 A
With the complaint group.
8 Q
I don't usually do this.
I don't usually answer 9
questions.
But let me look.
10 (Pause.)
11 There were complaints about overtime, but there was nothing directly related to the union negotiations.
12 i
l 13 A
Well, in the abstract, as an industrial 14 psychologist, if I had that knowledge about those bargaining 15 issues being at issue, I would view this group meeting in that 16 form or substance or whatever at least to gather more 17 information to find out whether that was one of the underlying 18 issues.
I mean it's a hypothesis that you are framing here 19 that the Union labor bargaining issues could have been some of 20 the underlying dynamics of this group meeting.
That is all it 4
21 is, is a hypothesis, and additional data has to be gathered to 22 confirm or disconfirm that information.
l 1
87 1
Q And to the extent that the underlying data disclosed 2
that the Union-management dispute underlay some of these 3
complaints --
4 A
But see, then an alternative hypothesis is why 5
didn't they just do that directly through the Union 6
mechanisms?
I mean that's another alternative hypothesis.
7 Q
But you see, they hadn't agreed.
There was no 8
agreement between the' Union and Comstock at this point in 9
time.
10 A
So they had no formal mechanisms?
11 Q
I believe that to be the case.
12 A
These are issues that would be involved in that kind 13 of determination.
(
14 Q
So in other words, you would have to investigate 15 this because the existence of this Union-management dispute 16 might be a possible what you would call a confounding factor 17 in determining the existence of harassment and intimidation?
18 A
In the context in which you described it, yes; but, 19 you know, I think the earlier statement I said stands, that we 20 are talking about a complaint, and it needs more work, needs 21 additional data to be gathered in terms of the specifics here 22 other than that broad form that is extended.
l l
88
{
1 Q
In any event, in your work you would regard an 2
investigation into this aspect of the relationship between the 3
inspectors and their management as something that ought to be 4
looked into in investigating claims of harassment and 5
intimidation at this time; correct?
6 A
I guess I would agree with that.
It also would 7
remain to be determined whether that kind of conflict had any i
8 impact on quality.
So you could even broaden the kind of 9
variables that could influence the change in productivity and 10 quality inspection.
11 Q
From the standpoint of assessing --
12 A
You know, that's an interesting point.
Since you 13 bring this up -- I have not been instructed to review these 4
14 things.
I hadn't thought about that.
But if we begin to 15 enlarge the kind of events that could indeed impact on the j
16 quality of the inspections that are made and we start to think 17 about the Union-management kind of conflict, indeed then you 18 have a whole other set of variables that could impact, at i
19
,least in terms of a hypothesis, the kind of quality of the 20 inspections that are made.
21 Q
And we have to take account of all the factors that i
22 you and I talked about just within the last hour, as well.
l i
89 1
A Right.
I 2
Q Now, would it also be of significance in assessing 3
the complaints that were made at this meeting with the NRC to j
4 know that one of the inspectors who voiced his complaints had 5
an alcohol problem and had been absent from work because of 1
6 that problem on a number of occasions?
7 A
One of the --
8 Q
One of the inspectors making these complaints.
9 A
If we think of this group of people who have come 10 forward as a sample of the larger population, which it is, the 11 question is is this a representative sample or not?
And to 1
12 the extent you have people who have alcoholic problems and 13 they are somehow poor performers or have a history or track 14 record, whatever, that might be an important variable to look 15 at in terms of the representativeness of this group.
On the 16 other hand, it may be totally representative.
17 Q
That is, this individual was --
18 A
Not the individual, but the group.
19 Q
The group is self-selected, so why would you --
20 A
Probably not a random sample, but the question you
}
21 are asking me is does one individual out of a self-selected f
22 group, would that make me have any kind of qualifications in I
I i
i
,----,~.-,.-r
. _,..,, -,.,.,, ~ - - - - - -. -.,,.. _, -.,,, - - -.,.,, - -.... -. - - -. _ -.
90 1
terms of how I might weigh that evidence here --
2 Q
Weigh the evidence from that individual.
3 A
From that individual?
But we don't have the data 4
from that individual.
We have the group vote.
5 Q
Oh, I'm sorry.
I have absolutely switched from the 6
show of hands to specific comments that are made by 7
individuals.
8 A
Oh, okay.
9 Yes, I would take those individual factors into 10 account and the kind of data that is provided.
11 Q
I take it your answer would be the same to the 12 extent that an individual had a history of chronic absenteeism 13 and had received warnings because of the absenteeism?
14 A
Yes, but it is also possible that these same factors 15 influence the quality of their inspections, absenteeism and 16 alcoholism and so forth.
The issue here, and maybe I am 17 incorrect, but the issue is maybe they are articulating 18 intimidation and harassment and these factors contribute to 19 maybe false claims, but those same factors may also produce 20 quality decrements, too.
You have kind of a compound between 21 the two variables.
22 Q
Do you know what, if anything, the NRC staff did
91 1
after they received these complaints from the inspectors?
2 A
No.
3 Q
There were promises that these complaints would be 4
investigated and promises of confidentiality, which have, to 5
the best of my knowledge, been kept.
6 MR. GUILD:
There is a substantial dispute about 7
that latter point.
A witness in a deposition yesterday asked 8
whether or not the inspectors understood they were being given 9
confidentiality and some say yes and some say no.
NRC says 10 no.
Some inspectors say yes.
The record remains rather murky 11 on that point.
12 BY MR. MILLER:
13 Q
In any event, the fact that the NRC conducted an 14 investigation would make it more likely that the inspectors 15 would withstand any efforts by their supervisors to cause them 16 to overlook defects in the construction of the plant.
17 A
After the investigation.
18 Q
The fact that they knew an investigation would take 19 place.
20 A
I would agree with that.
21 Q
Earlier, Dr. Arvey, we talked about the articles you 22 have written on punishment.
I take it it is your professional
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - = _.
4 92 1
opinion that punishment is an effective modifier of behavior.
(
2 A
Yes.
l 3
Q Would you agree that punishment also has an effect 4
on others, that is, a deterrence effect?
If I see one of my 1
5 colleagues being punished, it may modify my behavior as well.
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Is this again an example of observational learning, 8
as we talked earlier?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
I am again going to give you some facts which I am 11 going to ask you to accept for the purposes of answering the 2
12 question.
Assume that a Quality Control inspector was found 13 during the course of a quality assurance audit with a bunch of i
14 these Form 29's, Arvey Deposition Exhibit No.
3, essentially i
15 in the form that I have presented them to you, with one 16 exception, that he had checked off the " accept" column, had j
17 xeroxed multiple copies and was then going to do his 18 inspections where he would fill in the other identifying 1
j 19 information.
j 20 Assume further that individual was immediately
(
21 relieved of his inspection responsibilities, that his 22 certifications to perform inspections were revoked.
He was i
I d
1
,__._.__.__..._,._____4.
.___,__,,__,.,,,,.,._,..m-
___,,~.,.,,,,y.
. _ _ =.
93 1
given a job that was more medial than an inspection function, I
2 it was a document review kind of activity.
3 Can we agree that the set of facts that I have 4
spelled out constitutes punishment of the individual for an 5
activity?
l 6
A Yes.
7 Q
Would you also agree based on what you know about 8
inspections at a nuclear power plant, that the punishment was e
9 directed not to cause him to overlook flaws in construction, 10 but rather to conduct his inspections properly?
11 A
I think I understand what you are saying; yes.
12 Q
Can we also agree that the effect of this person j
13 having his certifications to conduct inspections withdrawn 14 sent a message, if you will, to the other inspectors?
15 A
Yes.
j 16 Q
That message was we expect, in essence, for you to 17 follow procedures and not fill out your inspection forms 18 before you actually go out and look at the works correct?
19 A
Correct.
Let me talk a little bit about that 20 phenomenon.
The particular event you are describing and the 21 punishment and the potential message that is communicated to 22 others sometimes is not as straightforward because it is t
i i
i
?
... _ -. _,. -,. _ _ -. ~ -. - -.
94 1
embedded or can be embedded in an organizational milieu, if 2
you will, that has a number of features associate d with it 3
that might diminish the effectiveness of that procedure.
4 For example, suppose you are working in an 5
organization in which this kind of punishment occurs very, 6
very rarely, like one in one thousand inspections.
The 7
message may be that it is very, very rare.
Secondly, a 8
situation in which there may be more positive features 9
associated with xeroxing than actually conducting or 10 falsifying your records may be quite strong.
I don't know 11 what they would be this case, but there is potential, some 12 awards, you can learn from the literature in the theft area 13 that people will continue to steal in the context of fairly 14 severe repercussions.
The same kind of dynamics might be 15 involved here.
16 There may be reward features that 1t sort of a 17 calculated sense override the kind of punish. tent that might 18 occur here, given it is a rare event.
19 Another kind of feature associated with that 20 environment may be that the punishment or that event may occur 21 on some kind of schedule.
Suppose a supervisor is under some 22 gun to have a quota of reprimands and they have to have like
95 1
an officer ticketing someone, a certain number or they will
. li wait a certain amount of time and will start to ticket.
2 3
Employees may learn what times a week or a month or even a 4
year they are more exposed than others in terms of when they 5
may be more likely reprimanded or punished.
6 The schedule in which a punishment is delivered has 7
a message associated with it, too, other than simply the 8
reprimand, the overt message that organizations are trying to 9
transmit.
j 10 All I am saying is the extract here is very clean, 11 but embedded in an organization, they are quite complex.
12 Q
These are other facts that you would have to look 13 at?
4 14 A
Right.
15 Q
I think you started off your further explanation by l
16 saying that you would want to know whether this was a rare 17 occurrence.
Were you referring the falsification of the 18 inspection document?
19 A
No; the actual punishment.
i 20 Q
You assumed that the falsification of the inspection i
21 document is fairly widespread?
22 A
Right.
I don't know.
It is just a factor.
For I
i
96 1
example, the utility that the organization or the supervisors 2
are using here and I am thinking of a refinery in Houston, 3
there was an operating room.
There was a policy that you had 4
to have your eyes riveted on this dial, much like the nuclear j
5 regulatory kind of thing.
You are maintaining attention.
6 These jobs turn out to be very boring over the long run.
The 7
dials change molecularly.
Even in that context, a mistake or 8
an error there is potentially very harmful.
9 Yet the operators became so bored that they ended up 10 trying to do a lot of -- they ended up doing things that were 11 against policy, like reading.
They would read books and 12 newspapers and so forth.
The supervisors would tolerate I
13 that.
In other words, they would tolerate the behaviors 14 occurring up to a certain point.
l 15 What I am saying in technical terms is there was a 16 relatively high base rate of the infraction that was never 17 punished but observed by the supervisor.
18 Q
I appreciate your comments.
The color of ink in 19 which these inspections reports are to be filled out is 20 specified, so that a xerox copy will be apparent to a person 21 looking at an inspection checklist or more apparent than if 22 black ink, for example, was used.
i f
i I
97 1
I appreciate your comments as to the facts that 2
ought to be looked into.
3 A
Given that hypothetical, it strikes me as somewhat 4
' surprising that somebody would do that, given the fact that 5
they know it would be detected fairly easily.
The hypothesis 6
that comes to my mind is that might be -- for somebody to do 7
that, it may be some standard practices in that organization, 8
regardless of whether they are contradictory to the company 9
policy.
10 Q
I understand your point.
I could give you further 11 facts but I am not sure it would advance the examination.
12 In your article, " Punishment Organizations, A 13 Review, Propositions and Research Suggestions," you set forth 14 a number of propositions, hypotheses, if you will.
15 Proposition three is as follows; " punishment procedures are 16 more effective where the agent administering the punishment 17 has relatively close and friendly relationships with the 18 employee being punished."
19 Since you wrote that article, has there been any 20 research which you are aware of that either proves or 21 disproves that propc11 tion?
22 A
I remember reading something that somebody was l
1 I
l l
l l
l r
98 1
submitting.
I can't recall it specifically.
It remains to be 2
a hypothesis.
3 Q
You do not have a professional opinion one way or 4
the other on that proposition?
5 A
No.
6 Q
I am now going to turn to your article "Use of 7
Discipline in Organization Field Study."
At page 453 of that 8
article, you refer to a factor that you examined which you 9
designate " misuse of discipline."
I would like for you to 10 explain for the record, first of all, what a " factor" is as 11 used in that article?
12 A
A " factor" is a statistical extraction.
We use a 13 particular method called factor analysis, which examines the 14 intercorrelations of the items involved in the survey and 15 tries to determine which items would be more closely related 16 to other items.
The ones that stick together a little bit 17 more closely, we typically would call them a factor, using 18 this particular technique.
19 In this case, I had a number of statistically 20 developed factors that developed out of that.
21 Q
You attempted to correlate those facters one with 22 another?
v
s.
% ~
99 1
A Yes.
I 2
Q Misuse of discipline is a factor that can be 3
correlated with the other factors that you examined?
4 A
That's correct.
5 Q
I take it that misuse of discipline, what you would 6
measure there was how abusive and inconsistent a supervisor 7
was in the administration of punishment; is that correct?
8 A
Items on this particular factor have to do with 9
things like a supervisor abusing punishment, for example, to 10 weed out employees, using discipline as a form of retribution 11 to get even with an employee or to punish people he or she 12 didn't like rather than apply it consistently.
13 Q
What other factors that you studied did you relate 14 that factor to, misuse of discipline?
15 A
Most of the other factors.
Actually this took place 16 in several phases.
Not all of the data are reported in this 17 particular article.
The misuse of discipline was correlated 18 with all of the factors that are summarized in table two on 19 page 454.
The correlations that are reported between misuse 20 of discipline and some of the other factors, not all of them, 21 are reported in table four.
22 There is some missing correlations, but most of them i
/
100 1
are in table four.
2 Q
Is there a correlation between disciplinary behavior 3
and-job performance by the subordinates?
4 A
We didn't have any information about job performance 5
in the study.
6 Q
There is, however, a correlation between 7
disciplinary behavior by a supervisor and job satisfaction?
8 A
That's correct.
9 Q
By the subordinate?
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
That indicates a relatively low correlation, as I 12 recall, between those two factors; correct?
13 A
It's relatively low to the correlations reported in 14 this table, but it is highly significant and fairly strong in 15 the context of most of the kinds of correlations that are 16 reported in this kind of research.
17 Q
I think you previously testified, Dr. Arvey, that as 18 you sit here today, you really do not have an opinion as to 19 whether or not there was harassment and/or intimidation of QC 20 inspectors by Comstock supervision at the Braidwood site.
21 A
That's correct.
22 Q
And is that because you vould need to make further
101 1
investigation before you could reach any conclusions one way I
2 or the other on that?
3 A
That's part of the reason.
4 Q
What is the other reason?
5 A
That wasn't my charge.
6 Q
Oh, I see.
Well, do you believe that the 4
7 information that was supplie.d to you by Mr. Guild was 8
sufficient for you to reach a conclusion with respect to that 9
issue?
10 A
The information provided by Mr. Guild here would 11 help me to form a hypothesis about this relationship.
12 Q
Well, let me ask the question this way.
As you sit 13 here today, do you think it is highly probable that the facts 14 that you know about lowered the QC inspectors' thresholds for 15 approving work?
16 A
I will say yes to that.
17 Q
It is highly probable?
18 A
No, I didn't say highly probable; I said probable.
19 Q
What is the difference between probable and highly 20 probable?
21 A
It is a statement of the type of relationship.
I 22 will say it is probable that there is a relationship.
I don't l
102 i
1 know the nature of the relationship or whether it was a 2
one-to-one relationship or what.
Now, I want to qualify this 4
3 here because I have not really reviewed this stuff in major 4
depth.
I have not studied this information.
I don't really 5
know other than a broad kind of review of the nature of the 6
data.
I intentionally didn't look at it very carefully 7
because I didn't want that information to be involved in the 8
kind of opinions I was going to make.
9 So I don't feel prepared to make a statement.
10 Q
Based on your review of the data, you prefer not to 11 make any expression of opinion; correct?
12 A
That's true.
13 Q
So you don't have any opinion as to whether or not 14 the facts that you have reviewed resulted in an actual adverse 15 shift in performance by the QC inspectors?
o 16 A
I'm going to say I don't at this point.
l 17 Q
Now, I have told you about Mr. Saklak.
We talked 18 about Mr. Saklak, that he was perceived as abusive and so on 19 by his subordinates, and that there came a point in time when, 20 because of threat of physical violence to a QC inspector, he i
21 was terminated and he wasn't on the site anymore.
1 22 You talk on the last page of your testimony about l
l
--.,--.,y--
-,,r
103 l
1 data concerning the work itself be looked at.
Do you have an I
2 opinion as to whether or not there would be a difference in 3
the number of defects in construction that were reported by 4
the QC inspectors before and after Mr. Saklak's termination?
5 A
No, I have no information about that.
6 Q
Well, I'm not asking you to express an opinion, but 7
is that a measurement, would that be a statistic you would 8
want to look at?
i 9
A That would be one kind of data that I think would be 10 informative.
11 Q
And we have looked at some complaints about quantity 12 over quality.
Again,.once the supervisor who was putting the 13 pressure on was removed, would you want to investigate whether 14 there was any change in the rate at which inspections were 15 performed?
16 A
Yes, I would.
l 17 Q
If you were doing such a look, over how long a 18 period of time before and after would you need to compare to 19 make some sort of a valid comparison?
20 A
Well, really it turns out to be a rather difficult 21 question to answer because the number of observations, the 22 amount of time and so forth and the precision to which you
104 1
might be able to make a judgment here has to do with the i
2 number of -- what's the word I'm thinking of? -- errors or 3
defects, number of defects, and more precisely, the standard 4
deviation around the defects and the variability; so the 5
variability you observe over these time periods will determine 6
to some extent how many observations you will need or how many 7
timeframes you will need.
It's a technical question.
8 Q
I see, but a statistician could answer it for us.
9 A
You could work it out.
It would be actually kind of 10 an interesting design.
11 Q
And it is that sort of data that you recommend 12 ultimately be looked at.
13 A
Right.
14 Q
I take it from your earlier statement that the type,,
15 of reinspection that you suggest ought to be performed is 16 contingent upon someone else establishing that in fact 17 harassment and intimidation of these QC inspectors has taken 18 place, because you haven't formed an opinion on that.
19 A
Yes, that's the assumption I'm going on.
20 Q
Okay.
Now, I actually just have a very few more 21 questions and we will be able to wrap this up.
22 Are you familiar with the Minnesota Multiphasic
105 1
Personality Test?
I'm sure I've misstated it.
i 2
A No, that's correct.
Yes.
3 Q
Do you have an opinion as to whether or not that is 4
a useful tool in assessing how individuals might react to a 5
situation in which a supervisor was putting pressure on them 6
to do something contrary to their training and to establish 7
standards for their behavior?
8 A
Yes.
I think you can tell whether a person is crazy 9
or not using the MMPI, and people who are crazy may not react 10 well to pressure by supervisors.
11 Q
I see.
Can you give us any further clues beyond 12 that rather gross --
i 13 A
I'm really not going to comment on that.
I'm not a 14 clinical psychologist.
Well, I tend to think the MMPI is a 15 good instrument, and I don't know whether it is in place at 16 this particular facility.
It could be valuable for a number 17 of reasons other than just that episode that you are 18 describing.
Whether or not it has any predictive ability to 19 forecast how somebody might react to a supervisor, I don't 20 know.
21 Q
Does it essentially give a snapshot of the 22 individual's personality at the time the test was l
106 1
administered?
o 2
A Yes.
3 Q
Is that snapshot at all retrospective?
That is, 4
does it not only tell you what the individual is like at the 5
time he is tested but what he was like a year or two earlier?
6 A
That is a reliability question.
The data on the 7
MMPI is that it is somewhat changeable over time.
The further 8
the time period between the administrations, the lower the 9
correlations.
I don't know what the year-to-year kind of 10 thing is.
11 Q
We talked a little bit about perceptions of 12 harassment earlier, and I just want to pick that up and ask 13 one further question about it.
You talked about this site 14 that you visited, this refinery complex with approximately 15 3000 individuals.
I take it from your earlier testimony that r
16 at any given point in time on a site with that many workers, 17 there is going to be someone who is perceiving that they are 18 harassed.
19 A
I would agree.
l 20 Q
And given the unlikelihood of their self-reporting 21 the effect of that perceived harassment, it essentially goes 22 undetected.
107 1
A Yes.
I 2
Q To the extent that one has the further reinspections 3
and overinspections that I described when I was describing the 4
Comstock and Pittsburgh testing laboratory and Edison and NRC 5
activities, the likelihood of finding inspection deficiencies 6
is increased, that is, an empirical way of finding out whether 7
the guy did his job or not.
8 A
Right.
9 MR. MILLER:
If Mike and I could have just a second, 10 I may be finished.
11
[ Recess.]
12 BY MR. MILLER:
13 Q
Let me just ask you two last questions.
When a
- 14 lawyer says that, hold on to your chair.
15
[ Laughter.]
16 The last consulting assignment you indicate is for 17 the City of Milwaukee, where you were developing selection 18 procedures for police sergeants.
Did any of that work involve 19 developing techniques to assess how these individuals would 20 react to stressful situations, let's say?
21 A
I would have to say yes.
Some of them were l
l 22 developing interviews where we are trying to obtain
,.m--
,v--,---_
,--y
- + -
ev--r-
-w--
108 1
information about how people might react to events that would 2
create stress, or one of the selection techniques involves 3
showing a videotape of a scenario of a confluence of factors 4
designed to have some stress effects and assessing how people 5
might react under those circumstances.
6 Q
If such a technique were used at Braidwood, would it 7
have any retrospective value?
8 A
Well, I had not thought about that, using a 9
selection test to test whether something has happened in the 10 past.
An interesting idea.
11 Q
As you state the proposition, it sounds improbable.
12 A
You know, the old proposition in psychology is that 13 the best predicter of future behavior is past behavior, and 14 you are sort of reversing it.
15 (Laughter.)
16 MR. MILLER:
I think that means it is probably the 17 worst predicter of past behavior.
18 I have no further questions.
19 MR. GUILD:
No questions.
20 MR. MILLER:
Dr. Arvey, thank you very much.
21 (Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m. the taking of the 22 deposition was concluded.]
109 1
CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT
+
-2 3
I, RICHARD D. ARVEY, do hereby certify that I have read 4
the foregoing transcript of my deposition testimony and, with 5
the exception of additions and corrections, if any, hereto, 6
find it to be a true and accurate transcription thereof.
7 8
(M
),
b 9
RICHARD D. ARVEY 10 b//{f$b 11 12 DATE 13 14 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 15 Sworn and subscribed to before me, this the
[
16 day of
/1 19 b.
17 l
l l
18 19 4M 20 N
ARY PUBLIC AND FOR y -.
..__ --= -, -
r ROSE M. BLIXT 21 My commission expires:
norm evinc-=~mora ANOKA COUNTY
,yy_.
e..missio_n expires Feb. 18,1969 _'!
l l
1
110 1
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 2
3 I, PAMELA BRIGGLE, the officer before whom the foregoing 4
deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the witness whose 5
testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn 6
by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken by me and 7
thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under my direction; 8
that said deposition is a true record of the testimony given 9
by the witness; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor 10 employed by any of the parties to the action in which this 11 deposition was taken; and further, that I am not a relative or 12 employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties 13 hereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome 14 of the action.
15 16
[mfM _Mm/p
- - cir 17 PAMELA BRIGGLE 18 Notary Public in and for the 19 District of Columbia 20 21 My Commission expires:
May 14, 1990.
22
..--.._,_m m
,_m_
. m
.a
\\
v CLASS OUTLINE GENERAL QA CRITERIA 1.
10 CFR 50 APPENDIX B Review the full 18 point criteria 2.
10 CFR PART 2(
Reporting of defects and noncompliances.
3.
SHOW TRANSITION FROM FEDERAL SrJCS TO LKC a.
LKC 1.0.1 vs. 10CFR50
,s b.
LKC 3.1.3 vs. Part 21 c.
LKC 4.1.3 vs. ANSI 45.2.6 d.
LKC 4.13.1 vs. ANSI 45.2.9 - (D-1) explain good document practices
\\
5.
REVIEW NRC INVOLVEMENT 6.
REVIEW DIFFERENCE IN NCR/ICR - PROCEDURES 4.11.1 and 4.11.2 w
7.
QUESTIONS 8.
TEST LGS /tdr 07/17/84 k
In% s-is-se
g.*,
.JNITED STA1ES NUCLLAH HLGULAIONY COMMISSION f. ' *s s,,**
Waalitnestn. D.C. 20665
! W,i NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES 4
M' '/ s STANDAHOS 7OR PROTECTION AGAINST RAD 4ATeON iPART 20). NOTICES. INSTRUCTIONS AND
- ee.'
etLPO8 TIS To woRetERS.INSrECisO#es if AllI lui.EMPLOVEE PHOTECTION Wet AI 15 I HE NuCL E AM WHAT is MY RESPONSIBILITY 7 MAY I GET A flECOHO OF
.adwie comkinene.,oa ma, rui mi sa WHAT FOHMS OF DISCRIMINA-WHAT CAN THE LA8OR set d.UL AIO64Y COMus5540N7 MY RADIATION EXPOSURE 7
.a*pec..en ve., regons she.ad be flON AHE PROHIBITEDP DEPARIMENT D07 g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
r,,,~,-
.,=,,i~,~,,,=,,,,,cg
,y,,.
. e
., e... e.
na e.em a.e, ~, e.6.a,.m...
o.m..
e e ~..
....a a.n...
..........caa..
e..
.m.
.a m.
..a.av.
a en.
........e.~,.e
.C..
. mea.......e...
.e.
ena e m.,in.m. is eu en w meneemas en*e as=* um s.=m we a n NaC se +i nua
. swie ene sas..e m.eu.yee me em
-. se u.a.s.o.s ea.s.a.s ues a cuar e nn 34.a a v
w.mm.sa wm es es ~ ee,a,eawan,,ew she 4d espere nednesas ar,m.s eerda,We seen e. se NRC.
g%
ee.. e me.e.
- mem, eas.n.ea es,cor leh m s.4.=*.uoa.
ggow 00 g CONTACT Tile NRC7 HOW AM I PROTECTED FROa4 easdeva na wa8**8 ", *eaaamses*
it.seAI DOES T84E NHC DOP HOW DO I REPORT VIOLAllONS7 ene, ugons team..w empse,er a Needv sa NRC pusa en w w <We DISORIMINA flONF
- d*' ***. ***
- ew v se se sea wa,.e as,m., en e a a
- e -.e n..~. e.,-.- e.
- c.c,=, cl,=ly,,,;, ;
~.e
~.,~
- ,'l"a,r:,';;
e',:,,:~, e e
-e
.N.C.
.o.C...,.e
,,,m e, e..
...e a~ eu..
.~a,e-e,-
....e.
e
.m a
=.e. ~,.a
.......... - ~,..e
,e.e,..,,,,,,,,,,_a,,,e,,,,,,,e,
- s. in. N AC., #nsy Ide e temgWeeg.gn
.. we e. a.aan..w, er mm.e yo..h upwa mem amaweauty se your ItOW AHE VIOLATIONS OF NRC mparu of s.crawel wi.ame. mah a ~
ehe U S Depwimens of Lemer. vma com-WHAT WILI. THE NRC DOP
....... e ns.:.ea v.e.n.e 6==
, se,
eni.e.e snee ae.g ie HEOUlHEMENIS IDENTIFIED 7 e=*hi, *' <* ate 8.c84*a e' ee**heas se p a,a.,n ame.a.e.i% e.a, e, e w.
a..
'~ a,c ~;. ;.,:,':1,=
4
.u
,.,..ea aae e
.a e ai.e..
.e.4....
..ma
...m.C
,,,,C,.a
.....w sea.a
~.
a m...
~
m,,a
.m.e.a e use aan Ine e4MC een es a..ns NeeC Ase ea.s Osage, eg.n.,.
e,.mpe e,nNnc CAN I EtE FIRED FOR TALKING
. e se.u e.a m u.y..en nne eunu
..,. a g.
.,* aie m f 4a. to e. C..n es 6 oe.
fi. ves.ea.110 WHAT IF 1 WORK IN A no, eae.. sa sehn.en.,yo.e empse,er TO THE N.RCF Sand sompiecu se-sedewome.n em.,m s.ae.w.
No F.dnas 14.,sen.t a sa emspo,n Gnu of me Aemaeusew
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,na,,,,,,,,,
RADIAllON AMEA?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,u,,,,g,,.
menea se ene Ce==.u a As.o. as Cr o n..ao.a.4ea.n ee se a s.u.
wes.
w
- 8"*
- y one Hour D. com
.g.mH e.8 8' **"m*.*m**g.*ag*""e*n'*,d*8 es,
.es. n s,s.eus e sneaw.sa. er sa eneae,e a.e pesawe my ie.snas se..
hnC r o e*re
.*e ee t n,
,ua e,,c w,,, n, aor e na en een fee coa.
Emole,mene Seene.es. Adm.m. sues.ea er.et A1 54i SFor45stsaLiI Y DOES e ese enea tceaucheel pu, Sne eme.as el taende.ase e p.e m., e de.a u nc m.,
. n.e.,,u
,,, d u
ec MV EMrLOVER HAVE7 sa+s**a essa.we **a you **, 6.ya, c anmas poucw.en see a # eemas enea.
- *** '* ",* *'y*a W N ",C Q,D',8*y"* *'.L **"
,a,,
aa. was, w, coaa.cu me.s.n MAY YALK WITH AN NRC ta* m ye :
200 Cea.s. eve.ea A.a e. N w
'*"'****'"""'****'*"*8C nu.* e sun.wd h, ~ NAC. The Sun.u em w ** pea.0 C.20210
,y,,,,,C * "* * **
- 7a(7g'3,','2I b.e.e a e
INSPECTORF e a* sne NRC se sa8eru au sein span.:
... awe s., sae NaC m e sempi,..e
- w. siaC no.aea a... e saa te ha'.e me Cees es esans n.pmea. e40 C7n vn ye,empie,u.a.,aos,,ewa:,
enie.,w.
er ea, sece on.ce.e me Depoimeae.e w s.ac...
a..
p. w..
a s
L**" ** *** "* e 0 4 ea Cnnt,e a
. 9n "enaw,".aen u 5. c mameas 2c wnde in.w e.e she me.wa.m one eas s.o een, menNac.a.,aem an.s e emu 8, m sa NAC peesud 8-
- "'a*'***"***'*8.*a****'d8' w
.e., e.-.
.e.ie..e n oe,.e e
.u.,w em
,e, m voie e no.ee.*m.n.a - e a-is
~-
. e..
P's*sem'a*s es eme.ana se the NRC abe=t d
senmas ve em e,c a we s.n.cn senc awa.is se as ~su.eaenev ocne.amas."
"**h""'8 a..q
.m.au v., se ve.,
,n me
.eneau.
- m e e mac n i4
. w.esa a MAY I REOUEST AN INSPECTION 7 e we an e se em se, e u:ne,. sies,.
eseanepw innaNAC pu.eems
~6*.d e,useise4d me* *e sea **eam.
,,,,,,,e,,i.e.e,%,,,,,,e,a,,,,,.,a.,
conease eLenen..a amas umosee.cas UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE LOCATIONS A.
eaan... e. ene N.us nee.a.ie,ye--....-- un be aixi.4 m in. s.n
.de.nu eam us.,h.ao noma The n.,eaes on.a n me.,e seu.ci me.,hene use s.em esapanyees wa e n es eepseer se.n, seine es senseene ehe.e seesteeut mee6 a. eend.s.eas se enhee menses sege'**e seme.eaes sh Comm acea e nes and e.pdes eat s
Reg.enel Offices AEGeoes Appaass igter.eos e a
eumo u s.se n e ca., c
... m a e
W y
sa.ae e.es p.a a etas.4 e,
I g
R:C0 ir se a
ea ie.ae g4 ea se use n
c_
Of
.a ea Fe e
a.
.o4 2 e em
.u i
en
- s. m w.s.m.3ees lie we na 460ed n ses as
,g c,o., y i
sa assas g,
s.
]
e v a'
en uae n
,c R.e a na 333 390 $500 e.av,a a l
((.. g VIA(pN I5 let M w.*. A e
- e e.
s sa,. L esias v.
e p(h e
ew u s sm m.o
, c.a Os.6
.6 a.
sinse0esos es e a,.svm 0..m. s sees sit Gion w
~..
j A.*r** " "
ng gion,,
u s.e
, p.e
,, c
- I59 33300 w
a.e.. v wwm.e c.e t. s = 3ie e na.ac
. ca eeses 86[C 70444 3 ee ee.
eg eg g
, g,g g
g-A
-a A h.h A a -
- ^
h=m
-=a
- l 2i
/ I 1_
7..
g Un
L. K. COMSTOCK O COMPANY. INC.
B:~aidV00d h 5 3 QA SEc' L. K. Comstock & Company, Inc.
WELD INSPECTION CHECKLIST 3.1 WIR No.
DWGS.
REY.
Welder No.
ITEM / TYPE No. of Welds ITEM / EQUIPMENT NO.
Inspected LOCATION FCR/ECN, ADI, ETC.
DETAILS INSPECTED ACC.
REJ.
N/A 3.2 WELD WAS SUFFICIENTLY CLEANED AS NOT TO IMPAIR VISUAL 4
INSPECTION, PER PARA. 3.2
[]
[]
[]
3.3 FILLET SIZE / THROAT, GEOMETRY OR PROFILE CONFORM TO MINIMUM PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS AND DRAWING DETAILS PER PARA. 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11
[]
[]
[]
3.7 CRACKS, THE WELD HAS NO VISIBLE CRACKS PER PARA. 3.7
[]
[]
()
3.8 THOROUGH FUSION EXISTS BETWEEN WELD METAL AND BASE METAL, PER PARA. 3.8, 3.14
[]
[]
[]
3.12 SURFACE POROSITY IS WITHIN MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LIMITS PER PARA. 3.12
[]
[]
[]
3.13 ARC STRIKES ARE WITHIN. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OR REPAIRED AS NECESSARY PER PARA. 3.13
[]
[]
[]
3.18 FIT-UP COMPONENTS IS WITHIN ALLOWABLE REQUIREMENTS PER PARA. 3.18.1 AND 3.18.2
[]
[]
[]
3.19 SURFACES AND EDGES OR BASE METAL ARE WITHIN MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR NICK, GOUGES, CUT EDGES, OR OTHER SURFACE IMPERFECTIONS PER PARA. 3.11, 3.15, 3.19
[]
[]
[]
REMARKS:
?.
Signed
/
Reviewed by
/
Lcvel II Inspector Date Level II Inspector Date
/1R paE=AnED AP roved REve5ED TITLE ORic. D ATE REVISION FCAM=
RAB RVS ATS PROCEDURE 05/26/SO 02/10/86 19 c A s.
L. K. COMSTOCK G COMPANY. INC.
Braidwood h.8.5 OA SECT SAFETY RELATED CABLE PAN INSTALLATION INSPECTION CHECKLIST Cable Pan No.
Installed by:
Foreman Dwg. No.
Rev.
ECF, FCR, ADI
}
81dg.
Elev.
Col.
Associated Hangers Inspection: [ ] In-process [ ] Final ACC.
REJ.
N/A 3.1.1 Cable Pan Identification Completed and Per Dwg.
[]
[]
3.1.2 Cable Pan Clean and Free of Foreign Material
[]
[]
3.1.3 Cable Pan Free of Damage
[]
[]
3.1.4 Sharp Edges or Projections Inside of Pan Removed
[]
[]
3.1.5 Alterations to Pan Surfaces Touched Up
[]
[]
[]
3.1.6 "H" Clips Installed
[]
[]
[]
3.1.7 Roll-Outs and/or Edge Protection Properly Installed
[]
[]
[]
3.1.8 Pan in Contact w/ Supporting Member
[]
[]
[]
3.1.9 Hold Down Bolts Per S&L Dwgs, Properly Tightened
[]
[]
[]
7 t
3.1.10 Splice Plate Installed Per Drawing
[]
[]
[]
3.1.10.1 Splice Plate Bolts Pr'operly Tightened
[]
[]
[]
3.1.10.2 Splice Plates Welded, Inspection Stamps / Form 19 Verified Yes [ ] N/A []
3.1.11 Cap Screws Properly Tightened
[]
[]
[]
Torque Wrench No.
Actual Torque Applied I
Calibration Due Date 3 1.11.1 Cap Screws Correct Type ASTM
[]
[]
[]
l 3.1.12 Grounding Complete
[]
[]
[]
3.1.13 Horizontal Location and Vertical Elevation Per. Dwgs.
[]
[]
3.1.14 Cable Pan Installed Per Latest S & L Drawings
[]
[]
3.1.15 Pan Weld Insp. Stamp / Form 19 Verified YES [ ] N/A [ ]
l 3.1.16 Separation Maintained (l") SNF No.
[]
[]
3.1.17 Separation Maintained (3") SNF No.
[]
[]
4 3.1.18 Separation Maintained (12") SNF No.
[]
[]
3.1.19 Clearance Maintained (3")
CNF No.
[]
[]
d paranato appuov t o at vist o virtc oaic, oavt aEvisioN Fonu a 1
r l
RAB RVS HRW PROCEDURE 07/16/80 03/03/86 17 l
Braidwood 4.M.)
UAhtEl L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY,INC.
REMARKS:
INSPECTED BY:
/
REVIEWED BY:
/
QC Inspector Date QC Level II Date I
-