ML20205F090
| ML20205F090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-432 OL, NUDOCS 8608190084 | |
| Download: ML20205F090 (165) | |
Text
,
ORIGINAL O
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
BRAIDWOOD STATION 50-456/457-OL UNITS 1 a 2 COMMUNWEALTH EDISON O
O I.OCATION:
J0LIET, ILLINDIS PAGES:
10261 - 10421 DATE: TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1986 TR.Oi L f E.-(2AuJ /17'-E t\\\\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 (02 W M gocel'f "~'}l SC,9N5 : 5 eon m
-- ena y,,,csy,g,ccys,,c,
f 10261 0
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
__________________x 5
In the Matter of:
6
- - Docket No. 5 0-4 56 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 50-457 7
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 8
and 2)
__________________x 9
10 Page: 10,261 - 10,421 11 College of St. Francia 12 500 North Wilcox O-Joliet, Illinois 60431 13 Tuesday, August 12, 1986 14 15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened 16 at 9:00 A.
M.
17 BEFORE:
18 JUDG E HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman 19 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D.
C.
21 JUDG E RICH ARD F.
COLE, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 22 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
23 J UDG E A.
DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, 24 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
()
25 Washington, D.
C.
S o n n t a g_R e go r_t i n g _S e r v i c_e,_L t d._
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10262 (n
(
o
~1 APPEARANCES:
I 2
On benair or the Applicant:
3 MICHAEL I. MILLER, E SQ.
JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ.
n D
4 ELENA Z.
KEZ ELIS, E SQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 5
Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 6
7 On benait or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Statf:
8 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
9 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road 10 Bethesda, Ma ryland. 20014 11 On behalt ot the Intervenor:
12 ROBERT GUILD, E SQ.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 i
20 21 22 l
23 24 25 Sonntag-Reporting ServJ.ce,_Ltd; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10263 AG 1
EXHIBIT INDEX MARKED RECEIVED 2
Applicant's Exhibits Nos.
109 through 115 10277 10392 3
Applicant's Exhibit 4
No. 116 10419-10420 i
5 TESTIMONY OF DAVID JAMES MC KIRNAN 6
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD:
10266 7
CROSS EXAMINAIT0N 8
BY MR. MILLER:
10273 9
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRY 10393 10 BOARD EXAMINATION 11 BY JUDGE COLE 10402 12 BOARD EXAMIKATION Os BY JUDGE CALLIH AN 10409 13 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. GUILD 10413 15 16 17 I
18 19 20 21 22 23 i
24 C:)
2s 4
Sonntag_ Reporting _ Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10264
(~)
V 1
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Tne hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 51st day ot hearing.
3 We were notified off the record, I guess, yesterday 4
morning that Mr. Schulz is not going to appear today as 5
we expected, and I understand from Mr. Guild now that 6
his understanding is that there were personal reasons 7
that prevented Mr. Schulz trom appearing.
8 I think that Mr. Schulz is a critical witness, 9
since he was the NRC Inspector at Braidwood for a. good 10 part or the time that's in issue here, and there have 11 been some intimations that he did not fully agree with 12 the final position taken by the NRC, and so we do think 13 that he ought to be here to testity; and if there is 14 anything but personal reasons that has prevented Mr.
15 Schulz from being here this morning, we hope that's not 16 going to preclude him from appearing some time in the 17 future.
18 I don't think we ought to go up to the wire on this 19 and then find out that Mr. Schulz doesn't intend to 20 appear, because then we're just going to have to move 21 the wire back and/or forward, whatever the case may be, 22 and keep the record open until he does appear.
23 Mr. Berry, do you have any knowledge that we don't 24 have?
()
25 MR. BERRY:
Your Honor, I represented to the So nn t a g _ R e p o rtin g _S e rv.i c e,_Ltd :
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10265 V
1 Board when I spoke to Mr. Schulz last week tnat he 2
indicated to me that he would be available this week, so 3
all of this comes as a surprise to the Statf Counsel as 4
well.
5 I can assure the Board and the parties that 6
certainly there's notning the NRC -- the Agency has done 7
to preclude Mr. Schulz from'testitying or to discourage 8
him from testifying.
9 My only information is that, yea, there were some 10 personal problems tnat arose at the last moment that 11 prevented him from being here this morning, but I 12 understand that he would appear, I guess, during the 13 next hearing session; but my information about this, I 14 guess, was -- shortly after you found out about it, I 15 talked to Mr. Treby.
I wasn't aware of it until then; 16 but my understanding is it appears to be a one-time 17 personal -- his personal problem.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
W ell, that's fine.
19 We certainly will accept that assurance from Staff.
20 I'm glad Mr. Treby did catch up with you so you 21 could prepare for this morning's testimony.
.i 22 Are there any preliminary matters before we go on 23 to the witness?
24 (No response.)
()
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I see there are none.
l Sonntag_Repor_ ting _ Service,_Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L
\\
f 10266
. O 1
So, Mr. Guild, would you please call your next 2
witness.
3 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
Intervenors would call-Dr.
4 McKirnan as our next witness.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Dr. McKirnan, would you 6
stand, please, and raise your right hand.
7 (The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Please be seated.
9 DAVID JAMES MC KIRNAN 10 called as a witness by the Intervenors, having been first 11 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
12 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 Q
Dr. McKirnan, would you state your full name and your 15 business address for the record, please?
16 A
David James McKirnan, University of Illinois at Chicago, 17 Department of Psychology, Box 4348, Chicago, Illinois.
18 Q
Thank you, sir.
(
19 Did you cause to be prepared a document entitled f
20
" Testimony of David J. McKirnan," which bears a date of j
[
21 May 2, 1986, prefiled testimony, with an attachment 22 consisting of your statement of professional 23 qualifications, for filing in this proceeding?
24 A
Yes, I did.
()
25 Q
All right, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Serv. ice,_Ltd; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l.
3 10267 r
u 1
And I believe you have a copy of that before you, 2
do you not?
3 A
Yeah.
4 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that that 5
document be marked for identification as Intervenors' 6
Exhibit 89 I believe is our next number.
7 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, tha t's sr>mewhat 8
inconsistent with the practice we've been '4ollowing with 9
prefiled testimony.
10 What has been accepted has just been bound into the 11 record as if read.
12 MR. GUILD:
That's fine.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Actually, I think it would 14 be beneficial to your case to have it done the way we've 15 been doing it --
16 MR. GUILD:
Fine.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
so that it goes along 18 with the transcript rather than having to search through 19 the e xhibits.
20 MR. GUILD:
That would be fine, Judge.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
So we will then bind it into 22 the transcript and we will not give it an exhibit 23 number.
24 MR. GUILD:
I would ask that it be bound in
()
25 as if read.
Sonntag_ Reporting _ Service,_Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
M,ay 2, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF DAVID J. MCKIRNAN 01:
Please state your name, address and occupation.
A1:
My name is David James McKirnan.
I am an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
02:
Describe briefly your field of study.
A2:
I hold a Ph.D. from McGill University, Montreal, Canada, in l
Clinical and Social Psychology, as well as a B.A. degree in i
L Psychology from Lake Forest College, Illinois.
I am a member of the American Psychological Association and of the Canadian Psychological Association, and a Guest reviewer for the American Journal of Community Psychology and the European Journal of Social Psychology, among other journals.
I have also conducted research and published numerous professional papers in the fields of clinical and social 1
e
-J
.-_e-
psychology.
One of the central issues addressed in my
()
research has been the operation of social norms and values.
My professional qualifications are more fully set forth in my vita, attached as McKirnan Exhibit I hereto.
03:
What is the purpose of your testimony?
A3:
I have been asked by counsel for Intervenors to comment, from the perspective,of a social psychologist, on the evi-dence of harassment a' d intimidation of Quality Control n
inspectors employed by the L.K. Comstock Company at the
' ' Braidwood nuclear power plant, and on the likely effect of such harassment and intimidation on inspector performance.
In particular, I will address the psychological processes whereby an organizational climate is likely' to affect employees' values and work performance.
i I
Q4:
Have you reviewed relevant' materials?
A4r Yes.
I have reviewed the applicable NRC Ouality Assurance criteria, the Intervenors' contention with respect to harassment and intimidation of OC inspectors at Braidwood and supporting documents, including the three NRC staff memoranda (dated March 29, March 29 and April 5,1985) attached to Intervenors' July 15, 1985 filing with this Board, and excerpts of various depositions of Comstock OC inspectors at Braidwood.
I have also read the prefiled testimony of Dr. Daniel Ilgen.
()
2
i 05:
Does your p,erspective as ~a social psychologist differ from "T
(O the perspective presented by Dr. Ilgen, namely organiza-tional and industrial psychology?
AS:
In discussing learning and incentive mechanisms in the workplace, Dr. Ilgen is relying on particular applications of basic, well established psychological mechanisms recogn'ized by behavioral scientists generally, and well supported by scientific research.
These principles apply to learning and the selection of behavior in general, not just within organizations.
In addressing the issues in this case
~
there are some areas where I would want to elaborate on the basic processes he described.
06:
In what respects?
( )
A6:
Of particular importance, from the perspective of social psychology, is the role of observational learning, that is, learning a response not through trial and error with its concomitant rewards and punishments, but through simple observation of someone else.
As Dr. Ilgen points out, such
(
learning can be direct -- as when we imitate another person l
-- or indirect, as when we read an instruction manual or set l
of regulations or have a procedure described to us.
07:
Why is observational learning important in the workplace?
A7:
Social psychological research indicates that this form of learning is critical, on two levels.
First, it is l
l pervasive.
Both research and common sense dictate that it l O r
l 3
1
would be dramatically inefficient for us to learn complex,
(-)~
important responses through trial and error: learning to
(
drive a car would be both time consuming and dangerous through trial and error.
Second, observational learning.is very subtle and complex.
One important feature of observational learning, that has been demonstrated in many research studies, is that it facilitates not only the learning of discrete behaviors, but of the values that underlie that behavior.
A child who imitates his father in speaking a ceriain way or~ waving a flag in a parade not only
' ' learns a gesture, but a value system.
This process is directly relevant to the learning of organizational values in the workplace.
Such value learning is critical: when people enter a system they seek out not simply rote behaviors to model themselves around, but larger vilues to guide subsequent. behavior.
Thus, when an employee is instructed in a particular kind of job performance he or she not only takes away a learned set of specific behaviors or procedures, but a set of values or a larger approach.
These values will influence performance standards by " anchoring" the employee's criterion for good or bad work.
They also will influence the employee's motivation or incentive for quality work, via the process described in Dr. Ilgen's testimony:
if an employee l
has a personal value (e.g.,
for a certain level of quality) that is not rewarded or shared elsewhere in the workplace, the incentive for adhering to that value decreases.
(
)
v 4
L he
Q 8 :
Are some sources of observational learning more important
(-)
than others?
A8:
Yes.
Psychological research also addresses the focus of observational learning: we tend to model ourselves around those who contr'o1 resources, or in other ways have power in the immediate setting.
Here rewards reenter the picture: we respond most strongly to those who appear to control the environment and, potentially, our own eventual rewards and punishments.
09:
How does this principle apply to observational learning in organizations?
A9:
In applying this principle to organizations, it is important to note that modelling will be strongest around those who actually have control, not necessarily those who are supposed to have control.
Most organizations have informal power networks that may or may not match the formal organizational chart: the former, not the latter, will be most telling.
Finally, the causes that we attribute a person's behavior to will strongly affect our reaction to that person.
If we deduce that a person is acting a parti-cular way for reasons that are specific to that person -- a psychological quirk, a transient state of mind -- we will be far less influenced than if we view the behavior as widely shared or as dictated by the exigencies of the larger situa-tion.
Thus, in learning organizational culture or values,
{}
we will be far more influenced by a supervisor or manager 5
..\\ _.
whose behavior appears to embody the values of organiza-
'd tion, than by, say, a coworker who seems unusual, unrepre-sentative or inconsistent.
m 010:
could you summarize your discussion of observational le~arning thus far?
A10:
In summary, in any social setting people learn both concrete behavior and larger values by observing the behavior of others, particularly those who are both powerful and embody a larger culture or valu'e system (these two factors of ten go together).
Value learning is important to work settings insofar as tasks are not automatic or rigidly specified: if an employee must "think
)
for himself" the local values will provide a framework for that thought.
Values may be in conflict: company policy or manuals may express one value, the employee may begin with another, and the actual, immediate work environment may j
impose yet another.
The latter will be influential insofar as employees view that environment as exercising direct control over them.
Value conflicts are often very stress-ful, which points up another feature of observational learning: we of ten learn two conflicting approaches or value systems
(" honest" vs. " dishonest", quality orienta-tion vs. quantity orientation) and, while we may conscious-ly disown one of them, our concrete behavior is of ten steered toward which ever one fits the process described
(}
above.
6 1
j k.
\\ /
Oll:
How does the foregoing analytical framework apply to this case?
All:
One way to state the question in this case is whether the work environment at the Braidwood plant would dispose quality control inspectors toward work behavior or values that emphasized production quantity over quality, despite formal company directives to the contrary.
In evaluating whether harassment ahd intimidation in the workplace lowered inspectors' thresholdc for approving welds and other work, such that production was increased at a cost of quality, the relevant questions are:
1)
Was there a model for the behavior or values in question: did one or several people communicate, either O
directly through behavior or indirectly through verbal statements, directives, etc., a definable work or value orientation that was inconsistent with the values or approaches ostensibly promulgated by the company?
l 2)
If these values were evidenced, were they viewed as l
stemming from or representative of the larger organizational culture -- that is, were they an integral part of the work environment -- or were they seen as transient, arbitrary or caused by the i
l idiosyncrasies of one or several people?
i 3)
Were those people who embodied these values or
- approaches perceived to have formal or informal power, such that: (a) the person (s) in question could directly
{}
l
I.
(~N affect the rewards or punishments administered to V
employees or; (b) conformity to the target values would generally increase positive outcomes while deviance would decrease rewards?
012:
Can you give examples of the type of models for behaviors
~
or values described in subparagraph (1) of your Answer ll?
A12:
Yes.
Such a model would be provided if, for example, there was a common understanding among inspectors that a super-visor had performed an inordinately large number of inspec-tions in a short period of time.
This would convey the message that speed was valued more highly than thoroughness Alternatively, such a model might be suggested by or care.
l ()
statements from a supervisor encouraging inspectors to follow such an example.
The model might likewise be provided by a supervisor's discouraging inspectors from identifying and documenting quality concerns because of cost or schedule considera-tions.
The model is even more direct in cases where super-visors harass or intimidate inspectors for emphasizing quality concerns over production.
Common knowledge of such harassment or intimidation could be expected to have a powerful effect in modifying values and affecting inspector behavior.
O 8
==
013:
Can.you give examples of evidence that such models were
(~%
(_/
perceived as representative of the larger organizational culture, and not merely of the idiosyncrasies of particular persons, as described in subparagraph (2) of your Answer 117 A13:
Yes.
A general belief among inspectors that management regards inspection quantity as more important than quality would be evidence that such a value was viewed as represen-tative of the larger organizatiodal culture.
From the
~
perspective of individual inspectors, the evidence of such values can be both dffirmative and negative.
Affirmative evidence would include, for example, representatives of different levels of management expressing such values.
It would also include ratification by management of retalia-tions~against those who express quality concerns.'
Examples of negative evidence of such values would include failure by management to respond to repeated complaints about production pressure and quality concerns.
014:
Can you give examples of evidence that the persons embodying these values were perceived to have formal or informal power, as described in subparagraph (3) of your
~
Answer 11?
A14:
Yes.
The ability of managers expressing such values to bring about the termination, transfer, denial of overtime or of other opportunities for pay or promotion, or other adverse employment effects, would evidence such power.
9
--]-
=
= - -
L.
1 3 1
Conversely, the power of such persons to administer rewards
()
(_/
in the workplace would lead to the perception that they wield such formal or informal power.
015:
Based on your review of documents in this case, do you have an opinion with respect to the three factors identified in your Answer 11 as applied to this case?
A15:
Yes.
The evidence I h' ave reviewed indicates that there were models for valuing production over quality, that such models were viewed as representative of the larger organizational culture,-and that the people who embhdied them were perceived as having formal-and informal power.
d 016:
Do you have an opinion as to whether the harassment, intimidetion and production pressure evidenced in'the documents you have reviewed had an adverse effect on inspector work performance?
A16:
Yes.
I think it is highly probable that the conditions of the workplace significantly affected the quality control inspectors' values and attitudes toward their job,'as well as their thresholds for hpt roving work.
Of course, the extent of any actua; 4pc 2 3 shift in performance standards is an empirical question that would have to be determined by a rigorous evaluation, using both behavioral science and engineering approaches, of whether there was, in fact, such an adverse effect.
However, the evidence I have seen to date leads me to O
10 a.
- -. ~.
_ _ em
...m.-s-c-
---u-n-
--e
',4
+
'I strongly recommend that such an investigation or evaluation -
)
be undertaken, given the' high probability, in my judgment, that such an adverse shift in performance standards actually occurred. eI understand that Dr. Richard Arvey's testimony will address questions related to how such an Svaluation might be conducted.
017:
Have you reviewed deposition testimony of Comstock QC inspectors suggesting that they had not personally approved deficient work and denying personal knowledge of other inspectcrs having done so?
A17:
Yes.
018:
Do you have any comments from the perspective of behavioral sciende on suAh statements?
A18:
From both a psychological and common sense perspective I would say that these people would be strongly motivated, given both the context within which the question was asked and the form of the question, to present themselves and I
their co-workers in a favorable light.
So I certainly would consider it highly unlikely for an individual in that position to admit to actions that would both reflect very badly on his or her performance standards and might actually endanger his or her job, or be perceived by the individual as exposing him to legal liability.
In addition to the possibility that inspectors simply denied that they had personally approved deficient work, a 11
~
h.,
more subtle process may'be operating.
That is, I would anticipate that the quantity over quality" values in the workplace might lowe'r the performance standards of the quality control inspectors generally, such that the norms differentiating " good" from " bad" work may become less clear.
This is the " anchoring" effect I spoke of earlier.
While no inspector may' identify a piece of work as defi-cient yet pass it, inspectors may generally understand that the standard of quality for passable work is becoming lower.
This could give rise to their having a widespread sense that quality control inspectors generally are;being pressed toward accepting lower quality work -- hence their appeal to the NBC -- without any specific inspector feeling that he or she had knowingly approved a deficient piece of work.
4 e
o O
12
, + _..., _.... _ _. -. - -.
-,~._-----7.
_h
MCKIRNAN EXHIBIT 1 CURRICULUM VITAE Name:
David James McKirnan Date of Birth:
July 10, 1950 Education 1973 B.A. (psychology), Lake Forest College, Lake Forest Illinois U.S.A.
1978 Ph.D. (clinical and social psychology), McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Professional Experience Teaciting Positions 1972-1973 Teaching Assistant, philosophical foundations of psychology Lake Forest College.
1973-1975 Teaching Assistant, basic issues in psyc' ology, McGill University.
h 1975-1978 Teaching Associate, social psychology, McGill Univarsity.
Presently Associate Professor, University of Illinois at Chicago,.
Chicago, Illinois.
Research Positions i
1970-1973 Research assistant, Lake Forest College, department of psycitology.
l 1975-1976 Principal investigator: " Community attitudes toward alcohol abuse", project funded by I.N.R.S. Sante, St. Jean de' Dieu Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
1976 Research associate for field project asschiated with Canada Secretary of State Multiculturalism project (J. Berry, R. Kalin
& D.M. Taylor, principle investigators).
1977-1978 Principal investigator (with D.M. Taylor & L.M. Simard): " Field study of alienation in an industrial setting".
l 1978 Principal investigator (with D.M. Taylor & L.M. Simard): " Field study of attitude change in an industrial setting".
presently Principal investigator: "The identification of alcohol abuse in three Chicago communities".
,,-m-,
-v--
-r McKirnan, D.J.
()
Clinical Positions 1971 Para-professional counselor for the Juvenile Probation Department of the Waukeegan Illinois Department of Corrections.
1972-1973 Staff trainer for community based crisis intervention center, funded by Lake County Illinois Department of Mental Health.
1973-1975
.Psycholo8y intern, Ville LaSalle Community Psychiatric Center, affiliated with the out-patient Department of the Douglas Hospital, Verdun, Quebec, Canada.
1976-1977 Psychologist, Mental Health Section, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
1975-1977 Guidance Counsellor, Concordia University Guidance Department, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Presently Clinical supervisor, Office of Applied Psychological Services, University of Illinois at Chicago, Dept. of Psychology.
Academic Awards 1973 Elected to Sigma Chi National Psychology Honorary Society.
1978 Dean's list for Doctoral dissertation, McGill Un'iversity.
I O
I
=
0
=
j t
~
t.
l McKirntn, D.J.
l Research Publications McKirnan, D.J.
A community approach to the recognition of alcohol abuse: The drinking norms of three Montreal communities. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1977, 9_, 108-122.
McKirnan, D.J.
Deviance and the community: Some factors in the definition of alcohol abuse. American Journal: of Community Psychology, 1978, 6, 219-238. -
Taylor, D.M. & McKirnan, D.J.
Cultural insecurity, multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes. Canadian Journal of Ethnic Studies, 1979, IJ., 19-30.
i Giles, H., Llado, N., McKirnan, D.J. & Taylor, D.M.
Social identity in Peurto Rico. International Journal of Psychology, 1979, 14, 185-201.
McKirnan, D.J.
The identification of deviance: A conceptualization and an initial test of a model of social norms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1980, J.O., 75-93.
McKirnan, D.J.
The second Rand report and controlled drinking as a treatment
]
goal. Alcohol and Drug Abuse Newsletter,198,0, J., 3-6.
McKirnen, D.J.
Community differences in conceptions of deviant behavior: An exploratory study of attitudes toward alcohol related help sources.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 1980,,8_, 637-654.
McKirnan, D.J. & Hamayan, E.V.
Language norms and perceptions of ethno-linguistic
-group dive.rsity. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, Social Psychlological Perspectives.
Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1980.
Pp. 161-169.
1 McKirnan, D.J.
The recognition of alcohol abuse: Socio-economic status differences in social norms.
In D. Taylor & J. Bellerose (Eds.),
Social Psychology: A Cognitive - Group Approach. Boston: Ginn Pub., 1981.
~
Taylor, D.M. & McKirnan, D.J.
A stage model of intergroup conflict and change. In D. Taylor & J. Bellerose (Eds.), Social Psychology: A Cognitive - Group Approach. Boston: Ginn Pub., 1981.
l Taylor, D.M., hieger, D., McKirnan, D.J. & Bercusson, T.
Interpreting and coping with threat in the context of inter-group relations. Journal of Social Psychology. 1982, 117_, 257-269.
.a McKirnan, D.J.
Review of R. Scollon & S.B.K. Scollon, Narrative, Literacy and Face in interechnic Communication. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1983,
.,4_, 93-98.
Taylor, D.M., Simard, J.M., McKirnan, D.J. & Bellerose, J.
Anglophone and Francophone perceptions of differences in approaches to work. Canadian l
Journa: of Beha rioral Science,1982, J.4,144-151.
McKirnan, D.J., Smith, C. & Hamayan, E.V.
A sociolinguistic approach to the belief-similaetty model of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psycholony, 1983, 19, 434_447, O
i McKirnan, D.J.
Review of C. Fraser & K.R. Scherer (Eds.), Advances in the Social Psychology of Language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1983, 4_ (4).
t
=-
e McKirnan, D.J.
Research Publications (cont.)
McKirnan, D.J.
The identification of alcohol problems: Socio-economic status di*ferences in social norms and causal attributions. American Journal of Community Psychology,1984, M, 465-484.
McKirnan, D.J. & Hamayan, E.V.
Social norms and perceptions of ethno-linguistic diversity: Toward a conceptual and reacarch framework.
European Journal 'of Social Psychology', 1984,
_1,4,, 161-168.
4 McKirnan, D.J. & Hamayan, E.V.
Social norms and attitudes toward outgroup members: A test of a model in a bicultural context. Journal of Social Psychology and Language. 1984, 3_ (1), 21-38.
McKirnan, D.J.
The role of social norms in adolescent alcohol use: A test of a model within a stress-vulnerability framework. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, (accepted for publication pending current revision).
1 Rosenzweig, L.H., McKirnan, D.J. & Sameroff, A.
Daily life stressors and the psychopathology of everyday life: The development and test of a scale.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, In review.
McKirnan, D.J.
Measuring adolescents' approach to alcohol: The reliability of alcohol norm, attitude and consumption indicies.
Addictive Behaviors. In review.
Taylor, D.M. & McKirnan, D.J.
A five-stage model of intergroup chan80.
/
British Journal of ' Social and Clinical Psychology, In Press.
Ruderman, A. & McKirnan, D.J.
The develppment of a restrained drinking scale:
A test 6f the abstenence violation effect among alcohol users. Behav mr Addictive Dehaviors, 1985,.9_, 3'5-371.
I Review of: Alcohol, Drug abuse and Aggression, E. Cottheil et al. (Ed.),
Contemporary Psychology., 1985, 30, (3), ~189-191.
McKirnan, D.J. & Johnson, T.
Alcohol and Drug Use Among " Street" Adolescents.
Addictive Beliaviors, In Press,1985.
McKirnan, D.J. & Johnson, T.
The limits of Self-help: The Birth and Death of an Ex-Mental Patient Self Help and Advocacy Organization. To be submitted to American Journal of Community Psychology. (In preparation).
McKirnan, D.J.
Alcoholism. Medical and Health Annual,1985.
Encyclopedia'
, Britannica Inc, Chicago, 1985.
15p. 190-194 McKirnan, D.J.
Drinking norms among young adults: A stress - vulnerability
. approach. Addictive Behaviors, In Press,1985.
S l 0
=
~,.
McKirntn. D.J.
3 i.o/
O Papers Presented at Professional Meetings McKirnan, D.J.
A community approach to alcohol abuse. _ Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, June, 1976.
McKirnan, D.J.
The definition of alcohol abuse in three Montreal communities.
Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, 1977.
McKirnan, D.J.
Some thoughts on the " unit of analysis" in social psychology.
Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, June, 1977.
McKirnan, D.J. & Hamayan, E.V.
Language norms and percept!ons of ethno-linguistic group di f ferences.
Paper presented to the British Psychological Society, Social Psychology Section, International Conference on Social Psychology and Language, Bris tol, England, July, 1979 (Invited paper).
McKirnan, D.J.
Invia.ed discussant: Socio-emotional Development and Childhood i
Bilingualism. Conference on Childhood Bilingualism: Aspects of Cognitive, Social and Emotional Developmune. New York:
June, 1982.
McKirnan, D.J.
Social Norms and Cross Cultural Factors in Alcohol Abuse.
Ini:ernational
' Conference oh' Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Jerusalem, Israel, August,- 1981 j
(participation declined due to lack of travel funds.)
McKirnan, D.J.
A Social Psychological Model of the Identification of Alcohol Abuse.
International Conference on the Addictions. Grand Canyon, New Mexico, November, 1981.
- McKirnan, D., Hamayan, E. & Morrow, J.
A Belief - Similarity Approach to Language use in Interacial Contexts. International Conference on Language Problems and Policy, Cancun. Mexico, December, 1981.
Morrow, J. & McKirnan, D.J.
Ethnic Identity and Conflicting Speech Norms.
International Conference on Language Problems and Policy, Cancun, Mexico, December, 1981.
McKirnan, D.
Socio-economic Status Differences in the Identification of Deviance.
Midwestern Psychological Association Annual Meeting, May, 1981.
McKirnan, D.J.
Language and Language norms as determinants of Percieved Belief-Similarity. American Psychological Association Annual Meeting, August, 1982.
Ruderman, A. & McKirnan, D.J.
Binging and Bending: A test of the Restrained Drinking Hypothesis. American Psychological Association Annual Mooting, August, 1982.
ei ve m wy w w m a.
==e
.e s...-se.v m = =
x
- =,4== m w
- s. a, y qs _
g.
m +
g.
-..w.e
.n.
w t..
iw
- pr+.1 m.~ n h..
.7 McKirnan. D.J.
Professional Papers (continued)
Hamayan, E.V. & McKirnan, D.J.
The Importance of Being Fluent: Non-native l
Speech and Interpersonal Parceptions. Invited address; Third annual Language Assessment Institute, Chicago Ill., June,1983.
"Hamayan, E. & McKirnan, D.J.
Non-native speech: A conceptual and research framework of language norms. Annual TESOL convention, Toronto, March,1983.
McKirnan, D.J. & Hamayan, E.V.
Speech norms and intergroup perceptions: A test of a model in a bi-cultural context. 2nd. International Conference on I
Social Psychology and Language, Bristol, England, July, 1983.
McKirnan, D.J. & Hamayan, E.V.
Speech style and attitudes: The role of cultural inferences and causal attributions. 2nd International Conference on Social Psychology and Language, Bristol England, July, 1983.
Hartman, D. & McKirnan, D.J.
Risky decisions in depression: Sad schemas produce l
unexpected utility values. Annual Convention of the American Psychological Assceistion, Anaheim California, August, 1983.
McKirnan, D.J.
Models of Speech Norms in Social Interaction. Invited address, to be given at International Conf erence on Psychology, Language and Ethnic l
Group Relations, University of Tasmania, Hobart Australia, August, 1985.
McKirnan, D.J.
Guest Symposium Convener: Language and Social Group' Norms.
3rd. International Conference on Social Psychology and Language, Bristol, England,1987. (Specific title to be announced.)
4 McKirnan, D. J. & Johnson', T.
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Among " Street" Adolescents:
An Exploratory Study. Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles CA, August, 1985.
e i
e i
l O
,__g,
.. - -.. -. ~
McKirnan. D.J.
1 O
Professional Review Activitics Guest reviewer: Journal of Abnormal Psychology American Journal of Community Psychology Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics European Journal of Social Psychology Grant reviews: University of Illinois licalth Sciences Center Intramural Grant Program i
Professional Organization Memberships Americal Psychological Association Canadian Psychological Association Society of Psychologists in Substance Abuse 9
O 1
k i
I I
i
(,
O e
, m,g8'S e aee.
.m.
=
10269-
/'
\\~
l BY MR. GUILD:
2 0
I would ask if Dr. McKirnan at this time would briefly 3
summarize his testimony for the Board.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
By the way, have we gotten 5
'any objections?
6 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, there is a pending 7
motion to strike Dr. McKirnan's prefiled testimony.
8 At this time I'd like to defer argument on the 9
motion until I've completed my Cross Examination of Dr.
10 McKirnan.
11 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Okay.
So we're asked to 12 have it bound, but we will rule on striking the j
13 pertinent portions, if any, even though the entire 14 prefiled testimony will be bound in.
15 So we'll reserve judgment on that until after Cross 16 Examination and arguments on that.
17 Is that agreeable to you, Mr. Berry?
18 MR. BERRY:
That's fine, your Honor.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, fine.
20 So let's proceed.
21 THE WIINESS:
Should I respond?
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Was there a -- I'm sorry.
l 23 Yes.
24 MR. GUILD:
There was, Judge.
()
25 I'd asked the witness to summarize his testimony i
So_nntag Reportin.g_S.e rvice,_Ltd.,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10270 l
)
'\\_/
1 briefly.
2 A
I was asked by Mr. Guild to discuss some of the 3
psychological principles that might be involved in 4
learning and the work place, particularly learning a set 5
of procedures that might be relevant to a case like 6
this, and more specifically how an employee or a Quality 7
Control Inspector may learn a set of procedures that 8
deviate from those that are explicitly set forth in a 9
document such as a company manual or procedures that are 10 described in a training procedure, so, in a sense, I was 11 asked to discuss some of. the principles that might 12 control informal learning in the work place or learning
}
13 of the ropes, as it were, in the work place, as opposed 14 to stipulated or specified procedures, and in doing 15 so -- I'll be very brief -- I basically said that there 16 are three principles that overlap considerably, but are 17 worthwhile to separate out that might operate.
18 The first being that there has to be a clear model 19 for a set of behaviors, so given that a set of 20 procedures were specified in some document or training 21 procedure, it's possible that other procedures may be 22 learned in a work place insofar as there are clear 23 examples of that or clear instruction or whatever; and 24 generally social psychologists talk about that in terms
()
25 of modeling, examples that people provide through their Sonntag_ Reporting Serv. ice,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10271.
O; 1
behavior or through the way that they reward and punish 2
other people.
3 So the.first point I made was that, in order for 4
this sort of informal learning to operate in the work 5
place, there has to be a clear model, there has to be a 6
clear example, of the behavior offered by somebody.
7 The second point I made, in discussing this sort of 8
learning, was that the model or the exemplar or. the 9
person who was demonstrating the behaviors has to be 10 seen not as deviant in some way, not as unusual or 11 idiosyncratic, but as reflecting a larger process,.
}
reflecting larger company sanctions or whatever.
12 13 So it could be very concrete if a supervisor or a 14 foreman or whatever is modeling some sort of behaviors, 15 is showing a set of procedures, and an employee will 16 learn those insofar as the foreman or the supervisor is 17 not seen as deviant, as psychopathological or highly 18 idiosyncratic or in some other unusual way, but, ra the r, 19 if the supervisor or the foreman -- here I'm speaking 20 about learning generally that may apply here or may 21 not, but as a basic psychological principle, that we 22 model ourselves as people who we see as reflecting a 23 larger environment or reflecting procedures that are 24 shared by many people or standards that are shared by
()
25 many people.
SonntaLRepo r ting _Se rvice,_Ltd..
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10272 1
So first there has to be a model 'that has to be an 2
exemplar of behavior; second, this model or exemplar has 3
to be seen as typical in some way or has to be seen as 4
part of a larger system rather than idiosyncratic or 5
highly unusual.
6 The third point that I made -- and is to some 7
extent consistent with the second -- is that we learr. --
8 and this is very similar to one of the major points that 9
Dr. Ilgen made in his testimony that I have read, so I 10 will overlap here in this point -- that we learn very 11 much through reward and punishment; that models that 12 have some control over our behavior that can sanction us
}
13 in some way are those that we will attend to most 14 strongly, we'll pay attention to those people and we 15 will learn most strongly through their examples by 16 observing their behavior.
17 Those are the guts of the points I made.
18 That third one becomes relatively subtle because 19 of ten we learn -- or we respond most strongly to models 20 that we anticipate can have control over us.
So often 21 our expectation that we can be rewarded or punished by a 22 person is sufficient to make us pay attention to their 23 behavior and Icarn from them rather than our actually 24 experiencing rewards and punishments from them.
()
25 So the actual ways that these relatively i
Sonntag Reporting _ Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. - _ - _ _ _ - = -. _.
10273 O
1 straightforward principles operate can be.very complex 2
and subtle in different settings; and so much of'the 3
question that would be relevant here is the extent to 4
which these principles operated in this particular 5
context.
6 So I made those basic points -- and these are very 7
simple, straightforward psychological principles that 8
can be found in any textbook -- and then was asked to 9
evaluate some evidence, basically in the form of NRC 10 memos, three NRC memos, regarding the -- or that 11 summarize the statements of various Quality control
(}
Inspectors f rom the Braidwood plant that may or may not 12 13 bear on those basic points, and then I was asked to give 14 an opinion as to whether the statements made by the 15 Inspectors would fall under each of these basic points, 16 whether or not they had seen models or had been given 17 some sense of a set of procedures that may have diverged 18 f rom what was stipulated by the company, and whether or 19 not those appeared to stem from larger company processes 20 and the extent to which the people who appeared to 21 enforce those standards had some power over them that 22 could exercise some sanctions.
23 And f rom the evidence that I saw, again, consisting 24 primarily of those NRC memos -- although some
()
25 transcripts as well, some depositions -- it appeared Sonntag_ Reporting _ Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 10274 1
that those principles were operating-in this setting, 2
and I gave that opinion in my prefiled testimony.
3 So basically that has been my role, to describe 4
some of the very basic psychological principles that 5
might affect learning in the work place and to give an I
6 opinion as to whether one set of statements seem to 7
conform to those.
8 (Indicating.)
9 MR. GUILD:
Dr. McKirnan is available for 10 examination by the Board and parties.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Miller.
12 MR. MILLER:
Thank you, Judge Grossman.
{}
13 Dr. McKirnan, good morning.
14 THE WITNESS:
Good morning.
15
. MR. MILLER :
I'm Mike Miller, one of the 16 attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company.
17 CROSS EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. MILLER:
19 Q
Dr. McKirnan, first I have just a few brief questions on 20 your background.
21 It's correct, is it not, that you've never worked 22 as a Quality Control Inspector; is that right?
23 A
That's correct.
24 Q
And is it also correct that you have not worked at a
()
25 nuclear power plant?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10275 g
V 1
A That is correct.
2 Q
Turning to the vitae that is attached to your prefiled 3
testimony, at your deposition we went somewhat 4
laboriously, I'm afraid, through your publications.
5 Is it fair to say that none of the publications 6
reflects any research on the determinants of behavior in 7
the work place?
8 A
Well, that's actually not correct.
9 I've done one research project examining alienation 10 in a work setting at Bell Canada that was a number of 11 years ago; and actually I'm not the first author on some 12 of the work that came out from that, but I've
}
13 participated in that research.
14 Q
That was a study, was it not, of management personnel 15 and an exploration of the reasons for their feelings of 16 alienation and hostility towards the corporation?
17 A
flostility might be overstating it, but, yes, basically.
18 Q
But these were not construction or --
19 A
Oh, no.
20 0
-- blue-collar workers?
21 A
Tha t's correct, tha t's correct.
22 0
And it's also f air to say that most of your research has 23 been directed to the issues of alcohol abuse as that is 24 perceived by different socioeconomic groups and how
()
25 dif ferent ethnic groups view their status vis-a-vis one Sonntag_Repor. ting _ Service,_Ltd ___
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10276 1
another; is that correct?
2 A
Well, yes and no.
3 The major interest I have in my research concerns 4
social norms, and I have examined those in different 5
settings, and I've been interested in applying questions 6
around social norms to things like alcohol abuse, 7
deviant behavior generally and then perception of 8
language use, but my interest has been in how people, in 9
a sense, decide what is right and wrong and how that 10 modulates their behavior.
11 So that is the larger psychological process I'm 12 interested in.
{}
13 The places where I've examined it, alcohol use and
}
14 abuse, have been the primary one where I've examined 15 that, yes.
16 (Indica ting.)
17 0
In the summarization that you gave of your testimony, 18 you said that you were asked by Mr. Guild to discuss the i
19 psychological principles that are applicable to learning 20 in the work place, and that assignment is spelled out a 21 little bit more concretely in Answer 3 in your prepared 22 testimony, is it not?
23 A
That's correct.
24 0
And as I understand it, your assignment was to look over
()
25 certain documents that were provided by Mr. Guild and Sonntag_Repor. ting _ Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10277 O
xs 4
1 see if the evidence in those documents would support or 2
not support a particular kind of learning in the work 3
place, observational learning; correct?
4 A
That's right.
5 Q
Now, Answer 4 on Page 2 of your prefiled testimony 6
recites the documents that you looked at --
7 MR. MILLER:
At this point, I'd like to mark 8
as Applicant's Exhibits the documents that were provided 9
to us at your deposition.
10 I'd like to makr as Applicant's Exhibit 109, a copy 11 of a March 29, 1985, memorandum from Messrs. McGregor 12 and Schulz to Messrs. Warnick and Weil that bears some
}
13 notes of Dr. McKirnan, also; 14 As Applicant's Exhibit 110, a memorandum from Mr.
15 Well for Mr. Norelius dated April 5, 1985.
It bears 16 some notes of Dr. McKirnan; 17 As Applicant's Exhibit lil, a memorandum from 18 Messrs. McGregor and Schulz to Messrs. Warnick and 19 Williams, also dated March 29, 1985, and has some notes 20 by Dr. McKirnan on it.
21 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, the record should 22 simply reflect at this point, taken together, 23 Applicant's 109, 110 and 111 are in evidence as 24 Intervonor Exhibit 42 and accept whatever handwritten
()
25 notations --
Sonntag_ Reporting _Serylce,_Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10278 O
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, I understand that, tha t 2
the presence of the notes is the motivating purpose for 3
having these exhibits marked separately.
4 MR. MILLER:
As Applicant's Exhibit 112, an 5
extract from the deposition of Danny Holley, Pages 86 6
through 91, again with some notations on it; 7
Applicant's Exhibit 113, an extract from the 8
deposition of Mr. Perryman, Pages 82 through 85, and I 9
represent -- excuse me -- that the last page of this 10 exhibit is the reverse side, I believe, of Page 82, and 11 it bears Dr. McKirnan's, I believe, handwritten notes; 12 As Applicant's Exhibit 114, an extract of the 13 deposition of Rick Snyder, Pages 78 to 83, and a copy of 14 Snyder Deposition Exhibit 5; 15 And finally, as Applicant's Exhibit 115, an extract 16 from the deposition of a QC Inspector named Tim Stewart, 17 and that's Pages 41 through 57 from that deposition.
18 Mr. Reporter, I'll give you a chance to put 19 stickers on them, if you wish.
20 Tile REP 0HTER:
Thank you.
21 (The documents were thereupon marked 22 Applicant's Exhibits Nos. 109 through 23 115 for identification as of the 12th day 24 of August, 1986.)
O 2s or aR. attteR Sonntag Reporting Serv. ice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10279 O]
L-1 Q
Dr. McKirnan, at your deposition you stated that, in 2
addition to these materials which I have marked for 3
identification as Applicant's Exhibits 109 through 115, 4
you had looked over some prefiled testimony from the 5
Comanche Peak proceeding by Dr. Goldstein; is that 6
correct?
7 A
That's correct.
8 0
And that you weren't quite certain, but you may have 9
read the entire transcript of the depositions of Mr.
10 Snyder and Mr. Perryman; is that correct?
11 A
That's right.
12 Q
Now, approximately how much time did you spend reviewing
{^}
13 the documents which we've marked as Exhibits 109 ' through 14 115 and in your review of the other written materials?
15 A
It's hard to estimate.
A number of hours:
Five, six 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />, perhaps.
Not a large block of time; but I read 17 them relatively thoroughly.
18 Q
All right.
19 Now, your deposition was taken on May 22nd of this 20 year.
21 Since that time, have you conducted any further 22 review of deposition transcripts or testimony that has 23 been presented at this hearing?
24 A
No.
()
25 0
!! ave you looked at any other documents besides Sonntag._ Reporting Servi.ce,_.Ltd.. _
Genova, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10280
,6 L-]
1 transcripts?
2 A
No, I haven't.
3 Q
Have you reviewed the transcript of your own deposition?
4 A
My own transcript, yes.
5 Q
Have you discussed the subject matter of your testimony 6
with any person?
7 A
Well, I discussed my upcoming testimony -- this 8
testimony -- yes, with Mr. Guild.
9 Q
All right.
10 Did you discuss that with Dr. Ilgen or Dr. Arvey?
11 A
No.
I haven't met them.
(~}
12 0
Now, I believe that you stated that, when you were U
13 summarizing your testimony, it is basically the three 14 NRC memos -- what we've marked as Applicant's Exhibits 15 109,110 and 111 -- that are the basis on which you 16 conducted your analysis of whether there was 17 observational learning taking place among the Comstock 18 QC Inspectors at the Braidwood site; correct?
19 A
Yes, they were the most important parts.
20 0
And they, therefore, are the basis for whatever 21 assessment you made of the likely ef fect of such 22 harassment and intimidation on the Inspectors' 23 pe rf ormance ?
24 A
Well, my opinion regarding the effect of harassment or
()
25 intimidation is based on my understanding of basle Sonntag _ Reporting _ Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
10281 a
1 psychological principles and is not derived from an 2
examination of the NRC memos.
3 Rather, you know, the three points that I laid out 4
are those that a psychologist would look at in this or 5
any other setting in trying to understand that behavior.
6 My opinion regarding whether there was such an 7
effect in this setting was based on my examination of 8
the NRC memos.
9 0
Just so the record is clear, when you looked at, for 10 example, the extract from Mr. Ilo11ey's deposition, 11 Applicant's Exhibit 112, you didn't request to see any
(~T 12 other portions of the transcript of his deposition g
13 testimony in order to determine the context in which the 14 statements which are found in Pages 86 through 91 were 15 made?
16 A
I don't recall specifically whether I read larger parts 17 of Mr. Ilo11ey's or others of these; but with, I believe, 18 Mr. Perryman's and Mr. Snyder's, I had the entire 19 deposition available and read around these areas to 20 examine the context.
21 I can't recall whether or not I did so with Mr.
22 Holley.
23 0
can we agree that the three memoranda, Exhibits 109, 110 24 and 111, represent events that took place at a moment in
()
25 time when the Inspectors visited the NRC office and Sonntag_ Reporting. Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 m
10282 1
recounted their. complaints about Comstock management?
2 A
That's correct.
3 Q
All right.
4 And it's correct, is it not, that you made no 5
review of the training that these QC Inspectors received 6
during the course of their employment as Inspectors at 7
Comstock ?
8 A
The training specifically?
9 No, I'm not familiar with that.
10 Q
And that prior to your deposition, you were not aware of 11 the fact that there were NRC Resident Inspectors 12 available to Comstock QC Inspectors to listen to and
}
13 respond to their grievances if they had any?
14 A
I was given, along with these materials, a copy of the 15 NRC regulations regarding the work performance of the 16 Inspectors, and I believe in there -- and Mr. Guild also-17 made it clear to me that there were dif ferent layers aof 18 Inspectors -- that these people did, in fact, have 19 recourse to other people to discuss their work 20 performance or grievances with.
21 So if I understand the gist of your question, I was 22 aware of the fact that there were other people that they 23 could turn to, 24 I was not then, and I'm still not completely
()
25 apprised, as to how the dif ferent levels of that system Sonntag Reporting-Service, Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I i
10283
-n v
1 actually operate.
2 Q
It's also correct, is it not, that until the deposition, 3
you did not know what the status of Mr. Saklak was 4
following the March 29, 1985, meetings, except that he 5
had been put on administrative leave as reflected in the 6
memorandum ?
7 A
Tha t's correct.
8 Q
However, it's correct, is it not, Dr. McKirnan, that, as 9
a social psychologist, it's your opinion that, to 10 understand the causes for behavior, you have to look not 11 at just isolated events, but must attempt to put them in
)
the context of the overall value system of an 12 13 individual?
14 A
That's right.
15 Q
Moving along to Answer 6 in your prepared testimony 16 It's your basic point, is it not, that the behavior 17 is learned by observation of what values are' rewarded or 18 punished in an organization such as the Comstock Quality 19 Control Inspectors' force?
20 A
Tha t's right.
0 But other than the document review of five to six hours 21 22 that you testified to, you have made no further inquiry 23 into the context in which these complaints by the 24 Inspectors were mader correct?
()
25 A
By " context," you mean what exactly in the --
Sonn tag _Repor ting _Se rvice,_Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 10284
,O v
1 Q-The factual context in which these complaints arose.
2 A
I'm not sure I understand your question exactly; but in 3
general, no, I don't have extensive knowledge of the 4
history of the Braidwood work place, other grievances 5
that may have been operating or whatever.
I am not 6
aware of those.
7 Q
Now, we can agree, can't we, that some behaviors do not 8
constitute harassment and intimidation?
9 For example, the establishment of performance 10 standards for Quality Control Inspectors is not 11 harassment unless the numbers of inspections are set
("
12 unreasonably high; is that right?
U}
13 A
I would agree with that.
14 0
And do you have an opinion as to whether or not 15 performance standards were set for the comstock QC 16 Inspectors based on the research that you have done?
17 A
Well, if you mean, by " standards," that Comstock had 18 stipulated certain criteria for approving or 19 disepproving welds, certainly there were.
20 There was a training program, there were presumably 21 manuals that said what to do.
22 0
I'm sorry, I misspoke; and I was really speaking about 23 numbers of inspections to be performed, t
24 A
Do you mean wha t --
()
25 0
A certain number of -- do you know whether or not i
Sonntag_ Reporting Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
10285 O, N 1
Comstock established a certain number of inspections 2
that were to be performed by a QC Inspector in the 3
course of a given time period, a day, a week?
4 A
Well, they would literally say, "We need 5 a day," or.
5 "10 ten a day," or whatever.
I'm not aware of any i
6 specific number.
7 Certainly the gist of the statements of those that 8
went to the NRC was that the number that was desired of 9
them was higher than they felt that they could produce, 10 so that's a standard of sorts; but I'm not aware of any 11 specific number that was stated by anybody.
12 (Indica ting.)
{}
4 13 Q
So, therefore, I take it that you do not have any 14 opinion as to whether or not the quantity of inspections 15 that were deemed excessive by the Inspectors was, in 16 fact, unreasonably high?
17 A
Unreasonably high, in some objective sense, that they 18 wer e --
19 0
Yes, sir.
20 A
-- to make that number of inspections?
21 I'm not sure how one would evaluate reasonableness 22 in this.
23 I suppose that if I take it from the perspective of 24 a set of experts who are on the site performing the
(])
25 inspections, if they feel it to be unreasonable, that is Sonntag_Repor_ ting _ Service,_Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
'j.
10286
.s
(~'s L)
'N 1
one definition of unreasonableness, and that would 2
7 appear to obtain.
3 So in that sense, I would venture an opinion and say in a sense the customer is right.
4 l
5 If a set of these people felt that the job demands u.
t' 6
were too great, that that would seem to be strong 7
evidence that, in fact, they were.
8 (Indica ting.).
9 In terms of some obj ective criteria -- that is to 10 say, if an Inspector is asked to make more than 10 a i
'll day -- is it physically impossible for him to do it r~
12' competently, I don't know of any actual objective.
k_']
33 standard of that sort.
7 l' (Indicating.)
15 0
Are you aware whether there were any goals set for 16 numbers of inspections for groups of Inspectors as 17' opposed to goals set for individual Inspectors?
18 A
No, I'm not aware of that as a. distinction.
19 I'm aware of the f act that different -- at 20 different times it was understood by Inspectors that 21 there was a very large backlog of inspections that had 22 to be done by the entire Inspector group.
23 I don't know if you would see that as constituting 24 a goal in the sense of a directive handed down; but it
()
25 certainly would have that effect on behavior, that it So nn t a g _ R e p or. tin g _S erv.ic e,_L tdc Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10287 QU 1
would indicate to them that they should do them.
2 More particularly, I'm not aware of any -- again, a 3
specific objective number that was written down some 4
place as a goal for them.
5 (Indicating.)
6 Q
And in your judgment, is the notification to the 7
Inspectors that such a backlog exists a form of 8
harassment?
9 A
Simply the statement that a backlog exists?
10 No, I don't see that as harassment.
11 Q
If an Inspector were disciplined for not meeting a 12 certain number of iespections per period, per day, per
{
4 13 week or so on, would that, in your judgment, constitute 14 harassment?
15 A
Simply the fact that a person was disciplined for not 16 meeting the number of inspections by itself would not 17 constitute harassment.
18 If, for example, the person were not meeting his 19 quota or performance goals because he was taking a 20 two-hour lunch or whatever, I would see it as perfectly 21 reasonable that he be disciplined.
l 22 So I would have to ask there what the conditions 23 were under which the discipline was administered.
l 24 If it was a matter of the person being disciplined
. ()
25 because they were following a set of standards that 1
l l
SonntaglepariingJerrtce,_ktd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 I
(312) 232-0262
10288 O
1 should have adhered, that reasonably would have adhered, 2
then perhaps you start moving toward an area of 3
harassment there.
4 (Indicating.)
5.
Q Now, we were talking about -- I started off by asking if 6
there are some behaviors that probably do not constitute 7
harassment.
8 It's also correct, is it not, that coarseness of 9
language alone, particularly at a construction site, 10 does not constitute harassment?
11 A
No, I don't think so.
12 0
And that in evaluating words or behavior that constitute
' {}
13 harassment, the intention of the person uttering the 14 words is one of the factors that must be taken into 15 account in evaluating those words and conduct?
16-A Certainly the intention, as imputed by.the recipient of i
17 the language, will be primary in determining whether 18 they feel harassment existed, yes.
19 Q
And speaking a little bit more generally, there's a l
20 level of interaction between superiors and subordinates l
l 21 which involves friction but does not constitute 1
i 22 harassment; isn't that right?
23 A
Certainly.
24 Q
And that's because there's just normally an adversarial
()
25 component built into that relationship?
Annntag_ Reporting Spruice, r+a l
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l.
(312) 232-0262 l
10289 Ob 1
A Tha t's right.
2 Q
Dr. McKirnan, Answer 7, the beginning of -- well, it 3
begins at the bottom of Page 3 of your prepared direct 4
testimony and continues on for a couple of pages, 5
elaborates on your analysis of observational learning, 6
and on the first full paragraph towards the bottom of 7
Page 4.of your prepared testimony, you use the term 8
" anchoring the employee's criterion for good or bad 9
work."
10 I think it would be helpful for the record here 11 today if you would define " anchoring" as you use it in 12 that paragraph.
{)
13 A
Okay.
When a person evaluates something or even 14 perceives something in the physical world, that thing, 15 whether it be performance or a physical sensation or 16 whatever, is evaluated in terms of some scale or 17 another, something is good or bad relative to something, 18 and the relative scale -- the relative scale that's used I
19 is anchored by a larger context, by other events that 20 take place.
21 The example I use in my classes when I teach on 22 this and send the students home to demonstrate this l
23 is -- this, actually, was given by John Locke many years 24 ago -- where you take three pans of water, one of which
()
25 is very hot, one very cold and one tepid, and put one i
i Son n t a g_R_ ego r_ti n g_S e rv i c e,._L td_.
(
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
10290 O
1 hand in either, and then when you put both hands in the 2
tepid water, the hand that's coming from the cold will 3
feel hot, the hand that's coming from the hot will now 4
feel cold.
5 Even our physical-sensations are anchored in that-6 way, that our evaluation of sensations that we are 7
perceiving at any one time are anchored by the previous 8
context that we have; and much the same thing happens 9
with attitudes.
Our attitudes or our evaluation of 10 ourselves or other people are anchored by the context in 11 which they operate.
12 So the definition of liberal versus conservative,
{}
13 for example, has shifted dramatically in the last 10 or 14 15 years.
15 Nowadays it's very easy to appear liberal.
16 In 1966, one had to go to great lengths to appear i
17 unusually liberal; and yet we still use that scale.
I 18 We still can talk about people as being more or 19 less liberal or conservative, but the values on that 20 shifted.
21 The same thing happens in evaluating performance, 22 in meeting or not meeting standards; that our criteria 23 for saying that something is good or bad or adequate or 24 inadequate shift depending upon the anchors we have that
()
25 illustrate to us what the definition of good is, what l
Sonntag_ Reporting Se rvica; LFA:
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
)
10291
,~m
.. (-[
1 the definition of bad is.
2 (Indicating.)
3-Q All right.
4 Putting it more specifically in the context of a 5
Quality Control Inspector, his values that he brings to 6
the job will be anchored, if you will, on a scale, for 7
purposes of your testimony, of good quality work, good 8
quality inspections, versus poor quality inspections; 9
correct?
10 A
That's right.
11 Q
And there are various factors at work that will
/~s 12 determine where,' on that continuum, his behavior fits;
(_)
13 correct?
14 A
Or where his criteria is going-to fall in deciding that 15 something is on the good or bad part of the scale that 16 he's observing.
l 17 (Indica ting. )
18 Q
All right.
(
19 Now -- excuse me -- it's a fact, is it not -- I 20 think it's implied in your last answer -- that these 21 anchors can shif t over time?
22 A
That's right.
23 0
That certainly in the work place setting, they are 24 initially established by the previous experience that
()
25 the worker brings to the job experience; correct?
l Sonn ta g_Repo r_ ting._Se rv ine,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10292 1
A That's right.
2 Q
And to the extent, for example, that a QC Inspector had 3
previous experience at another nuclear power plant site 4
as such an inspector, he would bring that set of values 5
as an anchor to the Comstock job; correct?
6 A
I would expect that.
7 Q
All right.
J 8
And as you sit here today, you don't know whether 9
any of the QC Inspectors were, in fact, previously 10 employed elsewhere as Quality control Inspectors in the 11 nuclear industry, do you?
/~s 12 A
There are different statements that I've seen, and I d
13 would -- I'd have to take some time to actually find 14 them where people explicitly made contrasts between t
15 the -- if we can call it quality control environment of 16 a previous site and the one that they were at in this 17 setting, so, in fact, that's not the case; but, in 18 general, most of the anatements here are not contrastive 19 in this sense, but are simply described in the Braidwood 20 site, but they are not without those references.
21 Q
When you say -- you are, again, talking about your 22 review of Applicant's Exhibits 109, 110 and 111?
There 23 are statements in those documents that refer to 24 experience of other sites?
l ()
25 A
I'm not sure which are.
Sonntag_ Reporting __ Servi ca, Ltd; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10293 O
1 Those are the NRC --
2 Q
Yes, those are the NRC memos.
3 A
No.
I was talking about the entire gamut of documents 4
that I reviewed.
5 Q
I see.
6 Well, did you do any. research or inquiry into the-7 nature of the experience of these QC Inspectors at other
.8 power plants?
9 A
Not systemically, no.
10 0
It's also correct that the formal training one receives 11 at a jobsite provides an anchor; isn't that right?
12 A
Certainly.
{
13 A high degree of formal training that stressed-14 performance standards very strongly would communicate 15 not only concretely or obj ectively what the standards 16 are, but that adhering to those standards is important.
17 It may communicate a value, so certainly that could 18 be important.
19 Q
Can you describe for the Board what your understanding 20 is of the training that the Quality control 21 Iaspectors -- the formal training that the Quality 22 Control Inspectors at Comstock undergo?
23 A
I'm not familiar with the training, no, specifically.
24 0
I'd like to turn to Answer 9 on Page 5, continuing with
()
25 this analysis of anchors.
l Sonntag_ Reno _r_ tins Se rvice,_L td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10294
)
1 I take it that the reference in Answer 9 to 2
informal power networks is another source of anchors for 3
the criteria that QC Inspectors might adopt in the 4
performance of their work; is that right?
5 A
Well, indirectly.
6 What I'm referring to there is the point about a 7
model or a person who's communicating standards being 8
taken seriously in a setting.
9 If a person is communicating a set of standards but 10 is seen as not having power or not being an important 11 figure in the site, then that communication is going to
}
be less effective than if, in fact, they were seen as 12 13 having power.
14 And what is meant by " power" here is actual power 15 to af fect the rewards and punishments of the worker, 16 whether that's stipulated in a company manual or not, so 17 this is where informal power structure comes in.
18 If a supervisor -- and, again, I'r speaking in the 19 abstract, and whether that applies in this case is a 20 question -- but in the abstract, if a supervisor or a 21 foreman may not have stipulated power in a setting, but 22 actually can weigh, and very strongly, in things like 23 transferring or job promotion or vacation or whatever, 24 then that person is taken much more seriously than if
()
25 that's not the cas t, independent of what the company Sonntag_ Reporting-Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.~
10295 V
1 manual says, so that's an informal power structure.
2-(Indicating.)
3 Q
W ell, in the answer you just gave, you said you were 4
speaking in the abstract, and the reason that you are 5
speaking in the abstract is because you haven't reviewed.
6 the Comstock situation to determine whether such an 7
informal power network exists; isn't that right?
8 A
By viewing the Comstock situation -- if by that you mean 9
reading some of these depositions -- it appears to me 10 from reading those that -- and I assume that we're 11 talking about some particular supervisors that were seen 12 as obj ectionable by people -- it certainly was the 13 perception of different of these Inspectors that the 14 supervisors they had above them did have power, whether 15 that is formal or informal, and the precise degree of 16 that power is something that I could only form an 17 opinion on.
18 I don't actually have enough evidence to be 19 definitive about that.
20 (Indicating.)
21 Q
Well, Dr. McKirnan, at your deposition, you were 22 referring to that centence, and I refer you to Page 23 11 -- 111 -- sorry -- and you then go on to say that 24 most organizations have informal power networks and so O
25 en.
Sonntag_Repo r_ tins _se rvice, Ltd..
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10296
'l "On what do you base that statement?
2 "A
Well, organizational psychologists have written 3
for a generation about that.
Any organizational 4 ~
textbook will devote a chapter to that.
5 "Q
You haven't made any effort to study the 6
Comstock quality control organization at Braidwood in 7
order to determine whether or not this sentence fits 8
with what actually occurs at the site there, have you?
9 "A
No.
That would be an empirical question as to 10 whether it fits there."
4 11 Were you asked those questions and did you give 12 those answers?
{}
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
And by "an empirical question," as you used it in your 15 deposition, you mean that you would have to conduct some 16 further research to determine whether, in fact, these 17 informal power networks actually ~ existed; correct?
18 A
In an elaborate sense, yes.
19 In the sense that we're talking about specific 20 Inspectors perceiving that specific supervisors had 21 power over them, I would say that these depositions are 22 full of that sort of comment, but I wouldn't -- were I 23 to be -- wanted to make an empirical statement that I 24 would publish or whatever, I would want to go do more
(')
25 research about that, certainly.
Sonntag_Repo r H n g_ Serv i cm,_.Ltd ;
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-10297
[v~')
1 (Indica ting. )
2 Q
Now, one of the other factors that bears on 3
observational learning is the existence or non-existence 4
of any consentual process among the Quality Control 5
Inspectors themselves as to what their expected behavior 6
is; isn't that right?
7 A
I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at with that.
8 Q
W ell, isn't it true that one of the determinants of 9
behavior is -- please excuse my inelegant words -- what 10 your peers, what your buddies expect --
11 A
Certainly.
'l 12 0
-- is appropriate behavior?
13 A
Certainly.
14 Q
And I believe we can agree, can't we, that that is one 15 of the factors that could be expected to guide a Quality 16 Control Inspector's behavior in the work place at 17 Comstock?
18 A
The norma shared by his fellows?
19 Q
Correct.
20 A
Certainly.
21 Q
And that factor is not mentioned in Answer 9 as one of i
22 the factors that bear on observational learning, is it?
23 A
In my discussion of it?
24 Q
Yes.
()
25 A
Well, I state here that we have to view the behaviors Sonntag Reporting Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.10298 O
~
1 widely shared oridictated by ' exigencies of. the 4 -
2 situation, so here we're. talking about the learning from 3
a model provided by some specific' other person.
4 In general, we respond to other people more-5 strongly if we see that behavior as shared,.if.we see-1 1
6 that behavior as not idiosyncratic;.so in that sense, 7
this consentual validation or this need to find
~
8 consensus is part of what is going'to operate.
9 What I was addressing in,these three points with 10 observational learning was ' observational learning, j
11 observing some specific other model, i
12 There certainly are other sources of learning in 13 the work place beyond just this mechanism.
4 14 (Indicating.)
15 Q
Well, let-me see if I.can be a little bit more specific.
i 16 The sentence towards the bottom of Page' 5, the one l
17 that begins, "If we deduce tha t," and so. for th --
18 A
Uh-huh.
19 Q
-- the last phrase in the sentence, "Ne will be," says, i-l2 0 "We will be far less influenced than if we view the i
21 behavior as widely shared or as dictated by the i
22 exigencies of the larger situation."
23-The behavior that you are referring to in that 24 portion of the sentence is the behavior of the
()
25 supervisors, isn't it?
1 Ronntag_Repor t-i ng Rn rv i ce,_Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 1
(312) 232-0262
10299
.f) v 1
A That's correct.
2 Q
All right.
3 My question is:
4 Don' t you also have to take into account the 5
behavior of the Inspector group in order to determine 6
whether there is some sort of consentual process among 7
the Inspectors themselves as to what type of behavior is 8
acceptable?
9 A
Yes, certainly.
10 0
And can we agree that that is a factor that's in 11 addition to the ones that are specifically set out in 12 Answer 9?
{}
13 A
Sure.
14 Q
Now, when we get to Answer 11, which is found at Page.7, 15 Dr. McKirnan --
16 A
Uh-huh.
17 0
-- I take it that that is an application of your 18 statement of observational learning theory as well as an 19 analysis of the anchors that were available to the 20 Comstock QC Inspectors as determinants of their behavior 21 in the work place; correct?
?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
Now, if you turn to what we've marked as Applicant's 24 Exhibits 109, 110 and 111 --
()
25 A
I have different markings.
Sonnta g__R ep or_ ting _S_e rvi c e,_ At d_.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
10300
- v 1
Could you refer to --
2 0
I'm sorry.
I 3
A
-- 1 through 77 4
Q Yes.
It's Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.
It's the three NRC 5
memoranda.
6 A
Okay, okay.
7 Q
It's correct, is it not, that you went through these 8
memos and marked down marginal notes with numbers that 9
correspond to the numbered paragraphs in Answer ll?
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
All right.
/~i 12 Now, I'd like to ask you about a number of the d
13 comments in these memoranda, and I'd like to start with 14 what's marked as Applicant's Exhibit 110.
It's 15 Deposition Exhibit No. 2.
16 On the second page, right at the top paragraph, 17 there's a statement in the memorandum, "None of the 18 allegers requested confidentiality and euch agreed his 19 identity could be used if necessary," and there are two a
20 vertical lines and an exclamation point.
21 Those are your marks; is that right?
22 A
That's correct.
23 Q
And that was a sign to you, was it not, that there was 24 no fear of retaliation to these Inspectors because they
()
25 did not request confidentiality and that was a positive Sonntag Reporting _ Service Ltd; r
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10301
,V 1
indication that they felt free to bring these grievances 2
to the NRC; isn't that right?
3 A
W ell, I actually was -- what I had in mind when I marked 4
that was not so much the issue of retaliation-as the 5
strength of their grievances, that they were willing to 6
do that, so I guess I had in mind that they are willing 7
to brook whatever retaliation might occur in order to go 8
to the NRC.
9 Q
But you also saw it as reflecting a lack of fear of 10 retaliation, didn't you?
11 A
No, not necessarily.
~
12 I'm trying to recall what specifically I had in
}
13 mind; but I was more struck they were -- with their 14 willingness to do that than with any notic a that they 15 felt wholly safe in going to the NRC.
16 0
Okay.
17 Dr. McKirnan, again turning to your deposition of j
18 May 22, 1986, at Page 151, I referred you to that same 19 passage, and then asked you the question, "Is that an l
l 20 indicaticn to you that they did not fear retaliation?
l 21 "A
I saw it as reflecting that to some extent.
I 22 also saw it as reflecting the depth of their grievance 23 that they were willing to do that."
l 24 Were you asked that question and did you give that i
O 25 enswer2 l
l l
So n n_t a g_Repo rti ng_ S e rv i c e.,_ Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
e 10302 O
1 A
Yes, I'did.
2 Q
Now,.I'd like to back up to Exhibit 109,'which is your 3
Deposition Exhibit No.1.
4 There is some underlining on the very first page, S-including the recitation of a threat by Mr. Saklak to an 6
Inspector who is identified by Inspector X.
7 And I think you testified earlier that, until your 8
deposition, you were unaware of what Mr. Saklak's fate 9
was except that he had been put on administrative leave?
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
All right.
}l I represent to you that he was-terminated, although 12 13 the way it was stated in his papers was that he was laid 14 off, but, in any event, he never appeared at Braidwood 15 again, and that he was barred from any safety-related 16 position at Commonwealth Edison Company nuclear. power 17 plant sites.
18 Would that be, in-your professional opinion, an-19 indication that management had responded positively to t
20 expressions of concern by employees with respect to the 21
. quality of their inspection activities?
22 A
Well, it certainly could be taken as that.
23 It is a concrete action regarding a supervisor that 24 was evidently seen by many people as abusive and
()
-25 violating some standards in the work place, so certainly Sonntag_Repo rting__ Serv _ica, r+a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10303 ja.
C/
1 it's an example of a concrete action.
2 I guess I would -- in trying to determine how that 3
was actually received -- or perceived by people on the 4
site, I want to ask people what they made of that; 5
whether, for example, they saw that someone like Saklak 6
only gets removed af ter a large set of people go to the 7
NRC and it takes that extreme an action to get somebody 8
removed, you know, or exactly what the causal 9
attributions were made for, why, in fact, was he 10 removed?
11 Was he just too egregious or was this, in fact, the
{}
sign the company took their complaints seriously?
12 13 I'm not sure simply his being removed unequivocally 14 supports one or the other of that.
15 Q
I take it that in your testimony you say that one of the 16 issues that bear on observational learning by employees 17 such as the comstock QC supervisors is whether the --
18 excuse me -- the model that is held up is deviant or is 19 seen as reflecting some larger organizational values?
20 A
Right.
21 Q
You've described Mr. Saklak, based on your review of the 22 documents, as abusive and threatening and so on.
23 Do you know whether that was a characteristic that 24 he shared with the other comstock supervisory personnel?
()
25 A
Specifically verbal abusiveness and the like?
Sonntag_ Reporting _ Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10304 a
1 0
Yes, sir.
2 A
No, I'm not aware of others that were specifically 3
flagged as doing that.
4 (Indicating.)
5 Q
Do you know whether any other Comstock supervisory 6
personnel has ever threatened an Inspector?
7 A
Threatened in the sense of this statement of Saklak's --
8 Q
Yes.
9 A
-- physical harm?
10 No, I'm not aware of any such thing.
11 Q
To the extent that Mr. Saklak was regarded as different 12 than the other supervision because of what's been
{}
13 described as his boisterousness, his abusiveness, his J
14 use of his size, for example, and he was terminated, f-15 lef t the site, after this physical threat, do you have i
16.
an opinion as to how that would be perceived by the QC i
17 Inspectors?
18 A
Well, again, the principle is going to be what.they 19 attribute the cause of Saklak's behavior to, so if i
l 20 Saklak's behavior is seen as due to something within l
21 Saklak, his just being crazy or his being -- I don't i
22 know -- getting up on the wrong side of the bed every 23 morning or whatever, and that this is not typical of 24 supervisors, this is not typical of any company policy, l ()
25 this is not typical of any real exigencies in the work I
l Sonntag_Repor_tingJervi ca,_ LtA i
Geneva, Illinois 60134 r
(312) 232-0262
10305 1
place, this is just some crazy guy that we have been 2
burdened with, then his behavior is not going to have --
3.
his behavior is not going to be a substantial influence 4
on the behavior of the employees other than to make them 5
aggravated, make them want to get rid of him, whatever.
6 So in that sense, if he is deviant -- and that's 7
the sense in which I use the word deviant -- if Saklak's 8
behavior is seen as reflecting some larger process that 9
Saklak is reflecting the values of the organization, the 10 organization has him as their abusive front man or 11 whatever, then even if he's the only one who does it,
{J he's going to be seen as having some power, he's going T
12 13 to be a more potent model, he's going to have more of an 14 influence on behavior, because he's not seen as highly 15 idiosyncratic in that case.
He's not seen as there's 16 something wrong with Saklak.
Rather, he's seen as a 17 conduit through which some other set of values or 18 inperatives is conveyed.
19 So that's the question.
That's the causal 20 attribution question you have to ask in trying to figure l
21 out how people understood Saklak's behavior.
22 Q
And once again, that's an empirical question, that at l
23 least as far as you are concerned, would have to be 24 resolved by further research or inquiry of some sort; O
2s cerrece2 l
l l
So nn t a g_Ite po r_t_i ng_S e r v i c e,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 10306 g
b 1
A W ell, there are statements 'through these depositions and 2
some of these NRC memos that indicate that at least some 3
of these people saw his behavior as reflecting a larger 4
process.
5.
There~are -- you know, in my little marginal notes, 6
there are lots of times where I seem to -- where I felt 7
that seemed to be the case, so I wouldn't say that there 8
is no evidence bearing on. that at all; but as a social l
9 scientist, I would be more satisfied in actually going 10 in and doing a more systematic study to answer that i
11 question.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me.
[ }-
13 I don't think you were responsive to Mr. Miller's 14 earlier question.
15 I think you missed the emphasis of what he was 16 asking.
17 He asked --
i 18 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
{
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- about what your opinion I.
20 was of the fact that he was terminated after having i
21 exhibited these qualities --
t 22 THE WITNESS Uh-huh.
23 JUDCE GROSSMAN:
-- and I think you only --
24 MR.
MILLER:
Your honor --
] ()
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Am I wrong?
1 Sonntag_ Reporting _Sarvice, r,ta, Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
10307 p.V, 1
Than I'll withdraw my comment.
2 THE WITNESS:
W ell, I'll be glad to talk on 3
that more if you like.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
No.
I'm not going to take 5
over Mr. Miller's questioning.
6 That's fine.
7 MR. MILLER:
W ell, if there's some question 8
in the Chairman's mind, I think we ought to have it out 9
on the table.
10 BY MR. MILLER:
11 Q
I did ask you what your opinion was, and I think you 12 said it could be seen in one of two ways; is that not 13 correct, Dr. McKirnan?
14 A
That's right; and that's something that I would want to 15 go in and actually ask people, 16 It appeared -- if I were to put money on one way or 4
17 the other, I would say that Saklak was seen as finally 18 being fired after a whole set of people went to the NRC, 19 so in that sense I would expect -- and there is no l
20 systematic evidence bearing on this, but I would expect i
21 that people would see that his behavior simply became 22 too egregious and he became too much of an embarrassment i
23 to the company rather than the company deciding that his 24 behavior was inappropriate.
()
25 I think that's an important distinction in terms of i
Somtt a g_R ego r_t i ng_S e rv i c_e,_L_t d,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10308
. q'
\\w I
how the Inspectors would respond to -- respond to his 2
behavior; but I have to take -- I mean, I have to take a 3
conservative approach and say, in fact, nobody has done 4
that attitude. study to actually see how the people 5
understood this, so in that sense, we don' t, in fact, 6
know.
7 (Indicating.)
8 Q
Now, further down on the second page of what we have 9
marked as Applicant's Exhibit 109, there's a reference 10 to the -- it's an underline -
"They just give him a new 11 title or transfer him to another area."
(V^)
12 Do you see that?
-13 A
On which?
14 Again, with my numbering, which one are we on?
15 Q
It's No. 1.
16 A
We're on No. 1.
Okay.
17 Q
And then there's a marginal note with a No. 2 in your 18 handwriting.
19 What's the marginal notation?
20 A
It says, " Larger company policy."
It refers to my 21 second point of determining whether an action is 22 representative of some company policy or is 23 idiosyncratic or unusual.
24 0
But, in fact, by cutting down Mr. Saklak's
()
25 responsibility, the company itself took steps to cut i
Sonntag Reporting Jiervice,__Ltd; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 10309 1
back hic perceived and perhaps actual power as welli.
2 isn't that right?
i
{
3 A
Well, I saw that as reflecting a lack'of -- the 4
perception on the part of another individual here that
?
5 the company has not adequately responded to this as 6
explicitely, "Five guys that'he has jumped on and 7
nothing gets done.
He just gets a new title or transfer i
8 him-to another area."
9 I saw that as reflecting the' fact that Saklak 10 himself was not sanctioned for, as this fellow puts it, i
i 11 jumping on five other guys, so that's how I construed 12 that statement, although they saying they have cut his-2 13 responsibility down to four areas can perhaps be P
14 construed as the company clamping down,.to some extent, l
15 although then the fellow goes on to say, "Yet he's only 16 certified in one of them," so it's a mixed response.
17 But the gist that I see here is that they just gave l
18 him a new title; that this is a very superficial 19
- response, e'
20 Q
Well, isn't one reason for the reading of this 21 representation about the cutback in Saklak's i
j 22 responsibility that people here in 'the Comstock 23 organization objected to at least something in Saklak's j
24 performance?
O 2s a
we11, ehee geoe1e aisaer ue ia ehe co e av gro81e-L Sonntag lepor_ ting _ Servi.ce,_Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 3
10310 v
1 here, yes, so in a sense, I would agree with that.
2 And, again, we just have to impute what the company 3
has in mind here.
That doesn't seem to be the way that 4
this fellow, who is making the statement here, reads 5
tha t.
6 I wouldn't feel confident in characterizing his 7
remarks that way; and, in fact, again, I would -- and 8
I'm speculating, but I would speculate.that what he 9
means by this is that the company, yes, sees this as 10 being a problem.
11 So in that I agree with you, but that their
(^
12 response to it is superficial or inadequate.
They just
(
13 give him a new title.
That's what this means to me.
14 0
Well, putting it in terms of your numbered paragraph 2 15 on Page 7 of your prepared testimony, to the extent that 16 his power was cut back by having his areas of 17 responsibility shrunk to four --
18 A
Uh-huh.
19 0
-- the exercise of power prior to that time was not 20 stemming from or representative of a larger i
21 organizational culture; isn't that right?
22 A
Well, in that sense, the compan~y is, yes, cutting back 23 and saying, "We don' t want you to do this as much. "
24 (Indicating.)
()
25 Q
Now, a little further down on the same page, you Sonntag Reporting _ Service,_Ltd; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
p 10311 1
/~')
'LJ l
underlined a sentence that says, "I know he got 2
blank" -- it's excised in this version -
"out of 3
there," and then there are marginal notes, in your 4
handwriting, "No. 3, power. "
5 And you interpreted this passage as indicating that 6
the individual's transfer -- the person who's identified 7
a' an Inspector removed from his job -- was not related 8
to poor work performance by the Inspector; correct?
9 A
Oh, now, let me be clear on what you are asking.
10 You are asking me if this indicates that the person 11 was removed for reasons independent of work performance,
()
not that Saklak had power to remove him?
Is that what 12 13 you are asking?
14 Q
Well, I've confused it. -Let me start over.
15 You have underlined the sentonce, and it's an 16 indication to you, evidently, of Mr. Saklak's power to 17 transfer somebody out of a job; correct?
18 A
At least as perceived by this person.
19 I saw this as, yes, indicating that this person at 20 least perceived that Saklak had power, yeah.
1 21 (Indica ting. )
22 Q
Now, can you tell from this extract whether the removal 23 of this Inspector from the job that's recited in this 24 Exhibit 109 occurred because of the performance by that
- ()
25 Inspector in his job?
Sonntag Reporting _ServicerLtd; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10312 t
1 A
From this extract, obviously, not.
L
.2 It's clear that there was some performance-issue 3
involved, because the concept of messing up is entered 4
in there, the entire department is messed up, so there 4
5 is an implicit recognition that things are going awry 6
some place in that -- you know, that part.of the 7
jobsite; but certainly from this, the perception of this<
8 individual is that it didn't have to do with his 9
performance specifically, but had to do with a grudge or 10 whatever.
11 Certainly I can't determine whether objectively 12 there was inadequate performance on the part of that
{}
13 Inspector.
1 14 Q
Okay.
15 Well, the Inspector who made these representations i
16 to the NRC has testified before this Board.
He's 17 testified, in substance, that the quality records -which 18 were the responsibility of the Inspector who's i
19 identified as having been removed from his job were, to 20 use his words, e mess; that he would -- that he, the 21 Inspector, would have disciplined his predecessor by 22 moving hin out of the position; and that he made no 23 mention of this aspect of the prior Inspector's work i
24 performance at the meeting at the NRC because the
()
25 meeting was about Saklak, not about the Inspector who 1-j So_on_t a.g_ Rep _o rling_S e rv i c.e,_L td_,
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10313 (3
%.)
1 was removed from his job or transferred.
2 Now, accept my representation that those are facts.
3 What, if anything, does that tell you about the 4
Inspector's perception as to why this individual was --
5 his predecessor was removed from his job?
6 MR. GUILD:
Obj ection.
7 It's simply not an accurate statement of what-the 8
record reflects about what the witness said.
9 It leaves clearly the improper impression that the 10 Inspector recanted testimony that appears to be 11 reflected in this statement that wasn't his fault.
12 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Mr. Guild, that's
{}
13 overruled.
14 That's a hypothetical that's put to the expert 15 witness, and he can answer as though that's correct --
16 MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- and so we're overruling 4
18 the obj ection, Mr. Guild; and we' re not going to 19 continue arguing the way we did last week.
20 We'll make our ruling, and if you find that, on 21 this particular item, the hypothetical misrepresents the 22 record, you are certainly entitled to brief that.
23 Now, the witness will answer the question, and if 24 we have to, we'll have it reread to him.
()
25 THE WITNESS:
I recall the question.
Sonntag_ Reporting _ Service 4td:
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10314 gs
\\]
1 A
Certainly that would directly contradict -- the 2
implication that's given by this individual here is 3
that -- and would indicate that. -- that there were work 4
performance reasons that are independent of Saklak 5
imposing unreasonable demands and that the person was 6
reasonably removed from the job.
7 BY MR. MILLER:
8 Q
- Okay, 9
Beyond that conclusion which one could draw from 10 the hypothetical that I posed to you, would the fact 11 that an Inspector was transferred for poor work 12 performance indicate that there was an orientation
}
13 towards quality work on the part of Comstock management?
14 A
If, by being transferred for poor quality, you mean that 15 the Inspector had, for example, approved welds that 16 shouldn't have been approved --
17 0
Well --
18-A
-- then, yes, that certainly would be a quality
^
19 orientation.
20 Q
All right.
21 It did not happen to involve a weld inspection --
22 A
Well, okay, i
23 0
-- but the failure to maintain records in a certain 24 prescribed way also is a quality function.
()
25 A
Oh, okay.
Sonntag_R_epo r_ti_ng Se rvice.,_Ltd_.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10315 O
1 I mean, the reason I came back with that is that I 2-would -- I'd want to know what the criteria was for the-3 person's. transfer or removal; that there are, you know, 4
a variety of criteria that will communicate differenti, 5
things to the worker.
6 Certainly, if one important part of quality control 1
7 is keeping adequate records, and somebody fails to do 8
that and then is transferred for that reason explicitly, 9
that would reflect a quality orientation on the part of 10 the company, certainly.
11 (Indica ting.)
(~)
12 Q
Now, on the next page of this exhibit -- the pages are
%.)
13 not numbered.
This is Applicant's Exhibit 109 --
14 there's a reference to the paragraph, "They are going 15 through our status reports now and the word is out now 16 that they are going to weed out three Inspectors and 17 that what they are basing it on is the number and not 18 the quality," and your marginal notes are Nos.1 and 3, 19 again referring to Page 7 on your testimony.
20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
And then would you read into the record your little note 22 under the numbers?
l 23 A
Yes.
It says, " Direct model that results in concrete f
24 outcome."
(
25 0
All right.
l l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.L
10316 A%)
1
' And the concrete outcome you refer to in the note 2
is the termination of three. Inspectors?
3 A
Right.
4 Q
Do you know whether, in fact, three Inspectors were 5
terminated?
6 A
No, I don't..
7 Q-All right.
8 Do you know whether or not there was a 9
readily-available pool of Quality Control Inspectors or.
3-10 persons qualified to be Quality Control Inspectors on 11 whom Comstock could draw during this time period for its
{ }'
12 needs?
13 A
So that if they were weeded out, three could easily 14 replace them?
15 Q
Correct.
16 A
No, I don't know what the labor pool was like.
17 Q
If, in fact, three employees were not fired, that would 18 be inconsistent, would it not, with a value or an anchor 19 that emphasized the quantity of inspections over the 20 quality of inspections; correct?
21 A
If three employees were not fired under what conditions?
22 0
Well, what did you understand the reference here in this 23 paragraph to be to, "They are going through our status
.(
5 D d you understand the function of the status S on n_t a g_Re go r_t i n1S_e_rv i c e,_ L td_,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10317
,n L.)
l 1
reports?
2 A
I assumed that that is a record of the number and nature 3
of the inspections that they performed.
4 Q
And it was obviously the belief of the individual who 5
made the statements that they were going to weed out 6
three Inspectors based on the number of inspections done 7
and not the quality; correct?
8 A
That's what I drew, yeah.
9 Q
All right.
10 Time passes and there are no firings, 11 What, if anything, does that tell, at least the 12 individual who made this observation and the other
(~)%
\\_
13 Inspectors who heard it, about the quality versus 14 quantity orientation of Ecuagement?
15 A
W ell, tha t, taken by itself, would communicato a quality 16 orientation, I presume.
17 MR. MILLER:
Mr. Chairman, I've come to a 18 reasonable break point, if you want to take a short 19 break now.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, fine.
21 Why don't we take a 10-minute break.
22 Do you have an estimate of how long?
23 MR. MILLER:
I hope to be finished around the 24 lunch hour.
()
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's fine.
Sonntag_Repor. ting _ Service, r+ a ;
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) '232-0262
10318 Od 1
Okay.
10 minutes.
2 (WHEREUPON,'a recess was had, after'which 3
the hearing was resumed as follows:)
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Why don' t we continue, then.
5 BY MR. MILLER:
i 6
Q Dr. McKirnan, just continuing on what we marked as 7
Exhibit 109 -- it's your Deposition Exhibit 1 -- on that 8
same page, there are a number of notations half-way down 9
the sheet.
10 Those refer, do they not, to your analysis of 11 whether or not craft-personnel, as opposed to Comstock
}
quality control supervisory and management personnel, 12 13 were the subject of complaints by the QC Inspectors; 14 right?
15 A
Tha t's correct.
16 Q
And you satisfied yourself that, in fact, they were not?
17 A
Tha t's right.
18 0
On the very next page, there's a reference, opposite the 19 Inspector E comment, and there's a reference to --
20 there's a No. 2, which, again, refers back to numbered 21 Paragraph 2 on Page 7 of your prepared testimony; 22 correct?
23 A
That's correct.
24 0
I take it that without further investigation, a general
()
25 statement like this doesn't really offer very much in Sonntag Reportin_g_ Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10319 J
1 terms of providing any insight into attitudes or.what 2
was influencing behavior among the QC Inspectors?.
3 A
Oh, I wouldn't agree with that.
L 4
I would say that it indicates that at least for-5 this Inspector, that Saklak was not seen as unique or --
6 Q
I see.
unrepresentative; and to the contrary, that'there's 7
A 8
more than one supervisor or. Lead, which, I assume, to be 9
a comparable position, that was engaged in this 10 behavior.
~
~11 Q
What did you understand the word " intimidation" to mean i
12' as it's used in that statement from the Inspector?
{}
13 A
That the -- well, I was understanding intimidation in 14 its common-sense meaning, that interactions ' involved 15 aggressiveness, threats, sanctions for modifying 16 behavior; generally a work environment that is l
17 unpleasant for the Inspectors.
That's how I understood 18 intimidation.
19 (Indicating.)
20 I should note -- and I'm not sure if this is
[
21 exactly what you are asking or not, but I saw the 22 context of this statement as being that of this quality 23 versus quantity orientation and the extent to which l
24 supervisory -- Quality Control Inspectors are being
()
25 pushed toward one or the other; whether they are being, i
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10320 O
V 1
in essence,. pushed around to approve more than they want 2
to, 3
That's where I saw references to intimidation
'4 consisting of and how I understood it in this statement 5
as well.
6 0
In that sense, you really didn't differentiate 7
intimidation from harassment, then ?
8 A
No, not in a -- in a very systematic way, no.
9 (Indicating.)
10 Q
Let's go back to Applicant's -- what's been marked as 11 Applicant's Exhibit 110, which is your Deposition 12 Exhibit No. 2.
It's the April 5, 1985, memorandum --
{}
13 A
Uh-huh.
14 0
-- and on the very first page, you have a reference to 15 the 93 hanger inspectiona containing 1,100 to 1,200 16 welds and so on.
17 And, again, there's the No. 1 in the margin with 18 your handwriting; correct?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
Now, on what basis do you consider this a model for 21 behavior or values by management to the QC Inspectors?
22 A
Well, it's contained, actually, in the statement itself, 23 that it was too many inspections to make without the 24 quality of them suf fering; the f act that 1,100 to 1,200
, ()
25 welds were signed off on, and presumably there was no Sonntagl eporting_ Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10321
(~~
1 dire consequence of this.
The person wasn't fired for 2
this, or -in some other way made to understand that this 3
was an' inordinately large number.
4 I would see that as reflecting a certain work
.5 orientation.
6 Q
Do you know how much time, prior to April of 1985, these 7
inspections that are referenced in this document were 8
supposed to have taken place?-
9 A
You mean specifically when the inspections were made?
10 Q
Yes.
11 Was it months earlier, days earlier, years earlier?
12 A
I don't know the details of this set of welds, no.
(}
13 Q
Do you know whether or not any member of management or 14 Comstock supervision held up these hanger inspections, 15 in which 1,100 to 1,200 welds were signed off in one 16 day, as an example to the Inspectors of how to achieve 17 productivity ?
18 A
Or, you mean, actually as a positive example in the 19 sense of this is what you should do?
20 0
Correct.
21 A
No, I'm not aware of any statement like that.
22 Q
All right.
23 Now, again, you will have to accept my 24 representations, but I'm going to ask you a hypothetical
()
25 question.
__Sonntag_Repor. ting Service.,_Ltd; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10322 r~
(Nl' 1
Assume that members of - the QC Inspector force who 2
were employed as Inspectors in April of 1985 had been 3
employed as such for four to five years, and that in the 4
early stages of their employment,1the inspection 5
technique was that the Inspectors would record the 6
results of their inspections in a small spiral notebook 7
' Hiat they carried with them, accumulate their inspection 8
results over a period of days, _ and then write up one 9
formal document, which recorded their inspection results 10 on the appropriate forms, and then would turn _that in, 11 and that these Inspectors knew that inspecting a
{
thousand to 1,200 welds in a day simply didn't take 12 13 place.
14 Assume further that other Inspectors who saw this 15 document in which a thousand to -- 1,100 to 1,200 welds 16 were signed off in a day have stated that they regarded 17 it as a joke; that they didn't believe that anyone could 18 inspect a thousand welds in a day.
I 19 Would that indicate that this statement did really
.l 20 not have an anchoring effect on the Inspectors' 21 behavior?
22 A
Okay.
It was a complex, compound question, so let me i
23 take pieces of it here.
(
24 As far as the statement 1,100 welds are a joke or
()
25 1,100 inspections are a joke or whatever the actual Sonntag_ Reporting _SerXic_e,_Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
~
p 10323 O
1 statement was, I guess I would _want to ask what, in
'2.
fact, was meant by "is a joke."
3 If by that the person means, "Look. how shoddy this 4'
procedure is.
How can. they get away with this," which 5
is one way that-people may say is a-joke, then I would 4
4 6
say that that would be very serious.
7 If, in fact, what they meant by this was, "No, _ 'it 8
never took place" -- if.that's what they meant by "as a 9
joke," I would -see that in a sense as invalidating this.
10 So I'm not sure how I would evaluate "is a joke,"
11 you know, that combination of words, because certainly
.{}
one way that expression is used is to indicate contempt 12 13 for something or disgust or another way~ of saying it's 14 not serious.
1 15 So I don' t know what the context of that statement 16 would be, and I would interpret it differently depending 17 on that.
18 In terms of the use of a formal document or 19 protocol that represents a summary of 1,100 welds that 20 are kept in other -- some other sort of notation, or as l
21 you put it, spiral notebook, not knowing specifically 22 what the procedures are for evaluating welds, I can't 23 really make a judgment whether that allows for an 24 adequate inspection.
. ()
25 I would speculate and I would strongly assume it to Sonntag_Repocling_Sarv i ca,_Ltd :
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10324 k.
1 be the case, that the formal documentation is used to 2
insure relatively rigid performance standards on the 3
part of the Inspectors; that by following a formal 4
document, you are forced to make certain judgments in a 5
certain order by certain standards, and that that's the 6
whole point of all the paper work, and by deviating from 7
tha t, you at least allow for the possibility of not 8
following some formal protocol such that a spiral 9
notebook procedure may suffer substantially because you L
10 are not bound by this very rigid document.
11 So that would be -- you know, were I to be just 12 coming in as a consultant on the job and saying, "Is
{
13 that a good way to do it," that would be -- my first 14 question is, "Does the spiral notebook allow you to take 15 such shortcuts or use a shorthand that would, in fact, 16 allow the quality of the inspection to suffer?"
17 Again, I say that in general terms because I don't 18 know specifically what that document had.
(
19 Q
B ut --
l 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I'm not sure the witness has 21 finished his answer.
22 MR. MILLER:
I'm sorry.
I didn't mean to cut l
23 you off.
24 THE WITNESS:
(Indica ting. )
()
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, you have, Doctor?
l t
Sonn t ag_R e po r_ ting._.S c ry ice,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
10325
[)
\\
l-THE WITNESS:
Yes, I'm done.
2 MR. MILLER:
That was a helpful answer.
3 BY MR. MILLER:
4 Q
But in terms of the Inspectors' perception of.what the 5
meaning was of having signed off 1,100 to 1,200 welds in 6
a single day --
7 A
Uh-huh.
8 Q
-- assuming that at least some Inspectors knew that that 9
didn't mean that those inspections had taken place in a 10 day, but were simply recorded on a single sheet, 11 wouldn't that indicate, at least to those Inspectors,
{}
that there was no anchor which emphasized the inspection 12 13 of-1,100 to 1,200 welds in a single day, quite apart 14 from the merits of the earlier procedure in which they 15 recorded their inspections in these informal documents?
16 A
Oh, well, certainly, yes.
I mean, just baldly, "Can 17 1,100 be done in a day," if it was recognized that these 18 was not inspections, but sign-offs that happened in one 19 day, yes, of course; but in terms of communicating 20 something about the quality of the inspections 21 th emselves, I think that's a larger issue and is not I
22 addressed in your question.
23 Q
Correct.
l 24 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
By the way, I understand,
()
25 Mr. Guild, that you do object to the facts stated in the Sonntag Reporting Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10326 A
N-]
f 1
hypothesis, and because of my prior ruling, you are not 2
going to keep voicing your obj ection, and that's 3
understood, and that will come out on the briefs?
4 MR. GUILD:
Thank you, Judge.
5 BY MR. MILLER:
6 Q
Now, I'd like, again, to ask a hypothetical question.
7 I've stated to you what the prior inspection 8
practice was, the use of the spiral notebooks and the 9
recording of the data on these more formal inspection 10 documents after a period of several days had elapsed.
11 Assume with me, also, that the inspection practice 12 was changed at the instance of Mr. Saklak and his 13 superior, Mr. DeWald, and that instead of accumulating 14 these results in this informal document and then 15 transferring them to the formal inspection reports, that l
16 the Inspectors were directed to take a single; sheet of 17 the formal inspection report out to the field, fill it 18 out for each individual hanger and return it at the end 19 of the day.
20 What, if anything, does that indicate to you about 21 the anchor for the quality of inspections?
22 A
Taken by itself, I would imagine that the Inspectors 23 would see that as pushing them toward quality rather 24 than -- rather than away from it; as tightening up the
()
25 procedures.
So n n t a g_Re po r_t i ng _S e r v i c.e,_ L td...
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10327 OV 1
Q Now, turning to Page 2 of this Exhibit 110, down at the 2
bottom of the page, there's a reference to someone 3
losing his job if he did not hurry up and produce more 4
inspections, and your marginal notations are Nos. 2 and 5
3.
6 Now, assume that the threat is made that the 7
Inspector does not hurry up and produce more 8
inspections, but that he continues to be employed to 9
this very day.
10 What, if anything, does that say about the 11 Inspectors' perception of the values that were expressed
(~}
12 in the statement that was made to them about hurrying up V
13 and producing more inspections or they will lose their 14 job?
15 A
Yes.
In the absence of any other sanctions -- you know, 16 in the absence of his whatever, being transferred or 17 given a smaller office or something -- simply if he was 18 threatened with firing and that didn't happen or 19 perceived that firing could happen and then that didn't 20 hap pen, then that would indicate, I presume, tha t 21 quality was valued.
22 0
All right.
23 Similarly, on the next page, Page 3, there's a 24 reference, about a third of the way down the page, to a
()
25 base metal reduction.
Sonntag _ Reporting _ Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 10328 1
Do you see that?
I 2 ~
A Uh-huh.
3 Q
Okay.
e 4
And then there's a little vertical line and then 5
the word " threat," is it, in your handwriting --
6 A
That's correct.
c 7
Q
-- No. 3?
8 once again, assume with me that, in fact, the 9
Inspector wrote a memorandum about the base metal 10 reduction that he observed; that it was processed to the 11 other contractor, who is responsible for that scope of 12 work by his supervision; and that, again, he did not q\\_-
13 lose any overtime.
14 Again, what, if anything, would that tell you about 15 the values, as perceived by the Inspector, that were at 16 work in the Comstock Inspector work place?
17 A
Yes.
18 Well, you know, if you put these two examples 1
toge ther, they tell me two things.
19 4
20 One is that, consistent with the gist of your 21 question, they are not suffering substantial negative 22 sanctions for adhering to quality values.
23 The other being that adhering to quality values
{
24 puts them in a sort of siege mentality where they are
()
25 always concerned with losing overtime, being I
i So nn t a g _R e po r.t i ng_ S.e r.v i ce, _L t d.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10329
(~%
G 1
transferred, losing their job if they do this.
2 In fact, they may not; and that's the -- I don't 3
know if it's hypothetical or actually the case that they 4
didn' t lose the overtime, but assuming that -they didn' t, 5
it' doesn't actually transpire, but certainly there is 6
the sense that this is the cost -- or this is the 7
potential cost of adhering to quality value.
8 So, you know, I see both elements operating there; 9
but certainly if it -- if people are not -- don't suffer 10 negative sanctions, at least that form of communication 11 is not operating.
{}
(Indicating.)
12 13 Q
Now, I'd like you to assume that Mr. Saklak ordered an 14 Inspector to sign off a quality document, an Inspection 15 Correction Report; got very abusive, pointed his finger 16 at the Inspector and told him to sign it off; made no 17 threats, but was attempting to be overbearing in his 18 approach to the Inspector --
19 A
Uh-huh.
20 0
-- and the Inspector's response was, "If you think it 21 should be signed off, you sign it off."
Saklak's 22 response to that was, "I'm not certified in the area and 23 I can't sign it off."
The Inspector thereupon shrugged l
24 his shoulders and walked away without signing off the O
25 documene.
Sonntag Reporting Service,-Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10330 0
1 Again, if there were no consequences to that 2
Inspector for not having acceded to Saklak's demand that 3
he sign of f the Inspection Correction Report, what, if 4
anything, does that indicate about company endorsements, 5
if you will, of quality orientation?
6 A
Well, again, they are in a negative sense supporting the 7
Quality Control Inspector in that nothing bad happens.
8 Again, I would give my compound answer and say, 9
"But look what the poor guy has to put up with in order 10 to maintain that quality."
He's got to listen to this 11 Saklak.
(G~)
12 And I guess I would -- as a third response, would 13 say that both common sense and lot of psychological 14 research indicates that people learn best or they are --
15 they both learn best and are best motivated by positive 16 rewards, not the absence of negative sanctions; and I 37 don't see any evidence that these Quality control 18 Inspectors are actually rewarded for standing up for 19 their values.
Ra the r, they manage to, in your examples, 20 not get fired.
21 Q
I see.
22 You haven't reviewed the personnel files of any of f
23 these Inspectors to review the evaluations of their 24 performance that was provided by their supervision and
, ()
25 management, have you?
S o nn t a g_Re po r t.i ng_ S e r v i ce,_ L_td.,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10331 1
A No, I haven't.
2 Q
Now, do you know how long Mr. Saklak was employed as a 3
quality control supervisor at the Braidwood site?-
4 A
Altogether?
5 Q
Yes.
6 A
No.
7 I don't think he was there --
4 8
Q Well, accept my representation it was approximately 9
August of 1982 to April of 1985.
4 10 And do you know how many Quality Control Inspectors 11 there were.at the Braidwood site over that period of
("3 12 time ?
U 13 A
Altogether?
14 No, I don't know.
15 0
Well, accept my representation that there were as many 16 as a hundred.
17 over that period of time, do you regard the 18 incidents that are set forth in the three NRC memoranda 19 as evidencing unremitting abusiveness and unpleasantness 20 on the part of Mr. Saklak?
5 21 A
Well, when you say there are a hundred Inspectors, how 22 many Inspectors would, in fact, be employed at any one 23 time?
24 0
Up to 100.
()
25 A
Up to 1007 S onn tag _ R e po rting __S e rvice,._Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10332 O
V 1
Q The inspection force grew from approximately 30 or so in 2
1982 to approximately 100, and there was, of course, 3
turnover during that time period as well; Inspectors 4
came and went.
5 A
Yes.
6 Again, I'm, you know, in the realm of speculation 7
here, but I guess I would say two things.
8 One is that in -- the 1 meeting consisted of 24 9
Inspectors, so I take it, from your representation, tha t 10 that's one-quarter --
11 Q
Appro xima tely.
12 A
-- of the people.
()
13 I would also -- and I would regard that as a 14 relatively high proportion.
15 I would see that as a high proportion, given -- and 16 that is my assumption, but given that the threshold for 17 actually going to the NRC to make a formal complaint is 18 relatively high, that this is not something that's taken 19 lightly, this is not something that's done very 20 f r equen tly.
21 So that if en Inrpector is willing-to, in fact, 22 walk over to the NRC office, this is difficult; this is l
23 something that requires some real momentum; and at best i
24 to have one-quarter of the work force do that, I would
()
25 say, given a relatively high threshold for making such a l
Son n t ag_ Rep o r t i.ng_Se ry_i c e,_L td.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262 i
10333 1
complaint -- I, again, in my speculative space here, was 2
impressed by that.
3 Q
How do you know that?
4 A
I would see that as indicating --
5 Q
How do you know it was a high threshold for going to the 6
NRC?
7 A
That's an assumption that I am making.
8 I don't, in fact, know that.
9 Q
Do you know whether or not any of these NRC Inspectors 10 had gone to representatives of the NRC with grievances 11 prior to March 29th?
12 A
Well, there's a reference to -- oh, before March 29th?
No, I don't know.
13
]
14 Q
Do you know how it came to pass that 24 of them, in 15 fact, went over on the afternoon of March 29th?
16 A
You mean specifically how --
1 17 0
Yes, sir.
18 A
-- they were mobilized to come over?
19 Q
Yes.
20 A
Well, I understand this was a series of events that were 21 widely perceived, that many people knew about, that were 22 seen as very unusual or very serious, primarily 23 involving this Saklak, and that they were in a sense r
i 24 mobilized by the first six who came over, but I don't O
25 knew eevend thae.
i Sonntag Reporting Service,_Ltd, l
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 10334 1
O 1
(Indicating.)
2 Q
Well, assume with me that the' NRC Resident Inspectors 3
specifically invited individuals who wished to talk to 4
them about Mr. Saklak lar any other grievance to come 5
over.
6 Is that a factor that ought to be taken into 7
account in evaluating the significance of the fact that 8
24, in fact, came over?
9 A
Well, I understand that it is NRC policy that any 10 Quality Control Inspector can go to an NRC 11 representative at any time to discuss any matter, and 12 that this is what is -- this is in place to assure that
(}
13 they are unhampered in their inspections, and that this 14 is what is stipulated in various documents, one of which 15 I was given to read, so I understand that to be the 16 case.
17 What I was saying by that was a high threshold for 18 actually going and talking to the NRC, I didn't mean 19 that it was stipulated that they could not or that they 20 would be violating some regulation or law, but that, in 21 fact, psychologically it was very difficult to do; that 22 this was seen as a very serious or extreme action; that 23 that was the consensus or the social norm in that 24 setting.
()
25 So I would see here -- here I would see the Sonntag_ Reporting. Service,_Ltd.__
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I-10335
/]
V 1
perception of how serious it is to go to the NRC as 2
perhaps different from what is actually stipulated in 3
some document about how -- you know, what the threshold 4
people should have for talking to the NRC.
5 Q
Yes, sir.
6 But my question was:
7 In this instance, at least in the afternoon meeting 8
where 24 appeared, there was a specific invitation from 9
the NRC resident Inspector that was communicated to the 10 QC Inspectors by the individuals who had gone over in 11 the morning that they come over in the afternoon, if
{}
they wished, to discuss anything else.
12 13 Is that something that ought to be taken into 14 account -- that is, the specific invitation -- in 15 determining the significance of the number of Inspectors 16 that appeared in the af ternoon?
17 A
I suppose it would in the sense that it would indicate 18 to them that the NRC was -- or that particular NRC 19 office was -- was willing to speak to any and all of 20 them.
21 I don't know that such an invitation would j
22 substantially decrease the, in a sense, negative 23 pressure to not talk to the NRC; and I guess I would see 24 that as, again, a sort of empirical question about how
()
25 serious it is to go to the NRC, and that's what I would i
Sonntag Repor. ting Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10336 V
1
- say, 2
(Indicating.)
3 Q
The copy of the memorandum that you have before you does 4
not identify the Inspectors by name to whom these 5
statements are attributed.
6 Again, accept my representation that many fewer 7
than 24 Inspectors actually spoke at the af ternoon 8
meeting.
9 What, if anything, does that say about the 10 significance of the number that went over?
11 A
That only some -- that some emerged as spokesmen and f'T 12 some did not.
U 13 Q
Maybe some were just gawkers; didn't have anything to 14 say at all?
15 A
Well, that, of course, is a possibility.
16 I would regard that -- I mean, common sense 17 dictates that that's highly unlikely -- or st least my 18 common sense does.
19 From the experience I've had in work sites, both as 20 a psychologist and as a worker, one doesn't go and lodge 21 formal complaints as a gawker, or informal complaints, 22 so I would -- I guess I would see that as unlikely, tha t 23 people would go just to gawk, I would say.
24 If I was trying to explain why only some people
()
25 would talk, it certainly -- certainly when I have 24 Sonntag_ Reporting _ Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10337 qv 1
people in a room, but even when you have 4 people in a 2
room, it is almost invariably the case that 1 or several 3
people emerge as spokes persons for them, in the 4
collective sense, and they do most of the talking, so 5
tha t's how I would understand that, 6
(Indicating.)
7 Q
Now, do you agree, to the extent that Inspectors 8
attempted to provoke Mr. Saklak into an outburst, that 9
that would indicate that he did not have any power, at 10 least as perceived by the inspectors, to harm them?
11 A
W ell, that's kind of hard to evaluate, but I guess I
{}
would agree with that, to some extent, that if they --
12 13 if they see his outbursts as amusing in some way, tha t 14 that indicates that they aren't completely terrified of 15 him; that they don't see him as being able to exercise 16 all of his threats.
17 (Indicating.)
18 Q
Well, Mr. Perryman has testified that he observed Mr.
19 Saklak shaking his finger at another Inspector and then 20 he and Saklak walked off to another location together 21 and Perryman said to Saklak, "If you ever shake your 22 finger at me, I'll tear it off and make you eat it."
23 Now, what, if anything, does that indicate to you 24 about how at least Mr. Perryman perceived Mr. Saklak's
()
25 power in terms of intimidation and harassment?
Sonntag Reporting Serv. ice,_Ltd.. -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10338
- r~s 1
A W ell, it indicates that at least Perryman wasn't 2
substantially concerned about this, at least in that 3
context.
4 It also certainly indicates that waatever 5
relationship he had with Saklak was laced with this sort 6
of interaction.
He didn't have a pleasant relationship 7
with Mr. Saklak, that was clear, but at least as far as 8
that goes, that would -- taken by itself, that seems to 9
reflect that Perryman wasn't intimidated at least at 10 that moment.
11 Q
That episode appears in Mr. Perryman's deposition as 12 well.
{}
13 Do you recall having read that when you reviewed 14 the materials that were supplied to you?
15 A
I don't recall specifically that statement, no.
16 0
It kinds of stands out, at least in my mind.
17 But --
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Like a sore thumb, you might 19 say.
20 MR. MILLER:
Exactly.
21 (Laughter.)
22 BY MR. MILLER:
23 Q
Returning to Exhibit 2, Applicant's Exhibit 110, towards 24 the bottom of the page, there's a statement, "Constan tly
()
25 intimidated by Saklak.
Saklak lied to get him fired, Sonnta g_Repo tting _ Serv i.ce,_L td..
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- ~. -. -
-i 10339 i
G
. u l-l 1
blank fired, written statements," so on, and there's a l
2 No.:3 next-to that, and then above that is'the 3
notation -- what is that?
2 4
A "Saklak power,"~it says, I believe.
5 Q
-All~right.
6
'Again,,I would like you to accept the 7
representations I'm about.to make as factual for
.8 purposes of the question.
?
9 Assume that this particular Inspector came into the i
10 office one day and said he had lost his tape measure.
i 11 A
Okay.
12 Q
Saklak began to berate him, and when the Inspector
{)
i l
13 protested, Saklak sat down at a desk, pulled out papers j
14 and purported to write out termination documents to fire 1
r 15 this Inspector.
!l 16 The Inspector thereupon went to two of his j
17 Inspector colleagues who had observed this and. asked 18 them if they would speak to Saklak's superior about i
19 this.
l 20 Saklak and the Inspector he had been berating had 21 an interview with the Quality Control Manager in which j
22 Saklak said in the vernacular, after the Inspector had 23 made his explanation, " Smoke him."
In other words, it 4
i j
24 was interpreted by the Inspector as fire him.
( ])
25 Thereafter, the two other Inspectors who had I
l Sonntag_ Reporting _ Service,_Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10340 O-,
1 observed this incident went in, talked to the manager, 2
and the first Inspector did not lose his job, but 3
continued as a QC Inspector.
4
'What, if anything, would that tell you about the 5
power of Mr. Saklak as perceived by the Inspectors who 6
participated in this incident?
7 A
Well, that's a -- it makes Saklak look -- it makes 8
Saklak look like a sort of irrational fellow, actually.
9 I suppose I would see Saklak there as, in fact, 10 having some power, because it took the intervention of 11 two other Quality Control Inspectors to keep the first
(}
fellow from being fired.
12 13 If, in fact, that's how the sequence of events went 14 and that this guy had to have his peers come in and 15 intervene for him to stave off an action that Saklak had 16 initiated, and in particular -- and I don't know the 17 larger context of this tape measure or whatever --
18 losing a tape. measure seems like a pretty trivial reason 19 to be fired.
20 Presumably there taust have been something else 21 going on; but whether there was or not, I would think 22 that if Saklak can fire somebody over something that 23 trivial, that he personally would have a lot of 24 power -- that's how I would read that -- rather than the
()
25 person violating some unequivocal company guideline, in Son n t a g_Re po r t i ng _S.e r v i ce,_ Lt d..
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10341 eNU 1
which case that sense of power is irrelevant.
If you do 2
X, you are fired, then it doesn't -- Saklak has little 3
personal power in that decision because the person has 4
violated a guideline.
5 I assume that the company does not have a guideline 6
that you are fired if you lose your tape measure; so if 7
Saklak can actually initiate a firing procedure over 8
something like that, that would reflect to me that 9
Saklak has quite a lot of power insofar as he can use it 10 that arbitrarily, and then, you know, that has to be 11 staved off by two people coming in and intervening.
12 So just talking the bald facts, you know, that you
,}
13 have given me, if I were to hear about that on my way 14 into a work place, I would want to steer clear of this 15 Saklak.
16 Q
Now, what, if anything, does the fact that Saklak's 17 unequivocal assertion that this man was fired be in 18 effect countermanded on the representations of two of 19 Saklak's subordinates say to those Inspectors with i
20 respect to his power?
I 21 A
Well, that his power is not absolute, and, yes, 22 certainly it says that Saklak can't simply say, " Smoke 23 him," and the fellow is gone for -- gone unequivocably; 24 but, you know, again, this is my interpretation, so --
()
25 but the fact that this seems like such a trivial I
i Sonntag_ Reporting _Servico,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-c~
\\
E 10342 t
u
'l~
incident and that it requires the intervening of two 2
people to keep somebody from being fired over -- my tape 3
measure costs $15, it's not a big deal -- that indicates
.4 to me that this fellow has a substantial influence on 5
the job environment of these people; that they have to 6
go to that much trouble to keep their jobs o' er v
7 something that trivial.
8 (Indicating.)
9 0
All right.
10 Now, one of the deposition extracts that you looked 11 at. was the deposition of Mr. Holley.
4 12 A
Uh-huh.
{}
13 Q
Mr. Holley was also threatened with job loss by Mr.
14 Saklak for not performing certain inspections, and in 4
15 his deposition, he said that he regarded that threat as 16 an idle threat; an idle threat were the words he agreed 17 were a proper characterization of Saklak's behavior.
18 Do you recall whether you read that portion of Mr.
1,9 Holley's deposition?
5 20 It appears in his deposition at Page 84, which is 21 just two pages prior to the extract that we've marked as 22 Applicant's Exhibit 112.
23 A
Well, I do recall several -- I don't recall specifically 24 whether I read the beginning of this Holley deposition.
! ()
25 I do recall several that I read where firing was Sonntag Repor. ting _ServJ,ce,_Ltd.
1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10343 im h
1 discussed and the person was not, in fact, fired, so.
2 that is something that I have seen in this -- in these 3
materials.
4 Q
The fact that they characterized it as an idle threat, 5
what, if anything, does that -tell you about the 6
perception of the QC Inspectors -- either QC Inspectors 7
of Mr. Saklak's power?
8 A
Well, Saklak could be doing two things by threatening to 9
fire somebody or beginning firing procedures.
10 One could be that he is, in fact, intending to fire 11 somebody and wants this person to leave the site.
12 The other could be that Saklak is trying to clearly
[}
13 indicate to somebody that he has the power to fire them 14 and that he is beginning -- that he is pulling out a 15 termination document, in a sense to wave i'c in front of 16 the person rather than to actually fill it out and have 17 it enacted.
18 Somebody that is saying that that is an idle threat 19 could pertain to either of those uses of the waving of 20 such a document, and without looking at the larger 21 context of that statement, I couldn't really evaluate 22 it.
23 Certainly, it's often the case that people will, in 24 acrimonious negotiations with subordinates, put a
()
25 resignation form on the desk, say, "If you don't like Son n_t a g_ReRo tt i n g_S erv i.c e,_L t d,
t Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
a 10344 j
,(S) l 1
it, here."
They don't, in fact, mean the person to fill 2
it out, but they are indicating that, "I have this 3
power."
4 You know, I can't really evaluate which one Saklak 5
is doing.
6 If what Holley meant -- consistent with the gist of 7
your question, if what Holley meant was that Saklak i ?!'
8 actually began a firing procedure, actually intended for 9
him to not be on this job, and there is no way that that 10 could have been actualized, that, consistent with your 11 coloments, indicates that he had no real power.
12 0
'His deposition testimony goes on to say that at no time
{
.13 was he in fear of losing his job.
14 It would be consistent with the conclusion that you 15 just expressed; correct?
16 A
Well, could actually be consistent with either of them; 17 but it's certainly consistent with the one you like me
-18 to reach, yes.
19 Q
You do understand that I'm talking about two separate 20 incidents; the tape measure, on the one hand, and Mr.
'21 Holley's, on the other?
c 22 A
Oh, yes, I underctand that.
23 0
Okay.
24 To the extent that over a period of time Saklak
()
25 makes these threats about firing individuals publicly Ronntag_ Reporting _ Service, r& d,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10345 1
1 and they are not fired over a period, do the Inspectors 2
who observed this or who know about it form a perception 3
about Mr. Saklak's power to actually carry through with 4
any of these threats?
5 A
Well, as far as firings, if, again, Saklak is making 6
serious firing threats as opposed to just waving this 7
document, and they are not actualized, then that's going 8
to communicate something to the workers about his power 9
in that specific domain, yes, 10 I wouldn't wonder, also, whether his powers over 11 these peoples' work lives are just limited to hiring and
}
firing; whether he has other ways of making things 12 13 uncomfortable or unpleasant that actually would come to.
14 pass, and perhaps had less effect on whether they are 15 actually fired.
16 But to go with your question specifically, over l
17 time, again, insofar as the threats were real or were 18 intended by Saklak to be actualized, and they didn't 19 become actualized, that would communicate something, 20 yes.
That 'would communicate that he couldn' t l
l 21 arbitrarily fire them.
22 (Indicating.)
23 Q
Now, again, there was an incident involving a QC 24 Inspector who was found to have premarked certain
(')
25 inspection checklists, Xeroxed them and then to have i
l So n n ta g_.Reportin g _Re rvi ce,_ Lt d.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10346 g3 O
1 gone out into the field and simply filled in some of the 2
unique identifying information on the document, signed 3
it and turned it in.
4 That man was disciplined and his certifications to 5
act as an Inspector were withdrawn for a period of time.
6 What, if anything, does that tell you about the 7
quality versus quantity orientation of Comstock 8
supervision and management?
9 A
Well, again, my answer, reflecting my. social 10 psychological approach, is going to be that it depends 11 upon how that is understood by the other people in the 12 work site.
{}
13 Similar to the answer that I would give you about 14 Saklak's being laid off, that insofar as that is seen as 15 a genuine concern that the company had about procedures 16 being followed, presumably not using the documents 17 individually, they deviate from procedures or there's 18 the possibility of deviating from procedures, insofar as 19 the company were to sanction an employee out of genuine l
20 concern over those issues, that's going to communicate l
21 something to the rest of the employees.
That's going to j
22 make it clear that the company takes very seriously the 23 quality cf these inspections, insofar as the company 24 response to that, because it is a very public example of
()
25 something, because it is something that simply can't be l'
S onn ta g _R ep o r. ting _S ervice,__Lt?
1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10347 O
V 1
ignored, and in a sense, the company's hand is forced to 2
discipline somebody, because, af ter all,.he's been 3-caught at the Xerox machine.
1 4
Then I would see that it's going to be a matter of 5
what's communicated is -- concerns getting caught rather -
6 than actually doing it, so -- and so in a sense, the 7
perception that the people are going to have is going to 8
depend upon how that's construed, what they see the 9
company being motivated by there; and I would see both 4
10 of those as highly plausible in this situation.
11 Q
To the extent that the Inspector who Xeroxed the reports
_ {
was quickly restored to his former status, that would 12 13 indicate that it fit your second hypothesis; that is, 14 that because he was publicly caught, they had to make an 15 example of him; isn't that right?
16 A
And that -- you are saying that that would fit my 4
17 hypothesis about the --
18 0
of not being a genuine quality concern, but just the j
19 fact that that individual had been publicly exposed and i
20 action had to be taken.
21 A
Oh, that's a tough one, because his -- I mean, if I was 22 in the position of the company and had to save face and 23 was not concerned about quality, but simply wanted to 24 save face because this guy had done something
()
25 egregiously wrong, I would get rid of him altogether;
.J Sonntag Reportirig Service, Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10348 1
and letting him come back later on would tend to make me 2
look a little hypocritical there, so I'm not sure I 3
agree with you on that one.
4 Q
Well, from the standpoint of the other Inspectors, to 5
the extent that this individual was removed from his 6
inspection function and was given semi-clerical, menial 7
tasks, what would that communicate in terms of the 8
company's orientation towards quality?
9 A
Certainly one thing that it could communicate was that 10 they had a quality orientation.
11 That certainly is one thing that could be 12 communicated.
{}
13 Q
Now, continuing on with your E.thibit No. 2, on Page 4 of 14 that exhibit, there is a reference to, " Hangers aren't 15 even being inspected; just as-built."
16 That's the April 5 th memorandum.
17 A
Oh, the 5 th memorandum.
18 This is Perryman's?
19 Q
Pardon me?
20 A
It's not sure which one.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Exhibit 2 to your 22 deposition.
23 THE WITNESS:
Oh, I'm sorry.
24 MR. MILLER:
Exhibit 2 to your deposition.
.()
25 THE WITNESS:
All right.
Sonntag-Reporting _ Service,_Ltd:
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-. ~...
10349 1
And we're on Page 4 of that?
2 MR. MILLER:
Page 4; right.
3 BY MR. MILLER:
4 Q
" Hangers aren' t even being inspected; just as-built. "
5 Do you see that?
6 A
Uh-huh.
7 Q
And you marked the No. 2 next to it and then there's a 8
notation.
9 Could you read that into the record?
10 A
" Company," abbreviated as CO, period -- I think that's 11 going to say, "Collabo ration, " o r, "Collabo rated, " o r 12 something to that effect.
{3
~)
13 0
What does that signify, sir?
14 A
Well, what I see this as referring to is the fact that 15 rather than there being a specific set of drawings that 16 hangers have to be in conformance with so that the 17 drawings exist before the hangers do and the hangers are i
18 inspected to insure that they conform to those 1
19 drawings -- rather than that, the hangers as built or as 20 they are existing are taken as okay, independent of any 21 quality concerns, and then the drawings come afterwards 22 to reflect what's already on the site, and in this --
l 23 given that drawings are being made in a post hoc l
24 fashion, if that's what, in fact, this refers to -- if
()
25 drawings are made in a post hoc fashion, that indicates l
So n n t a a R eg_o_r t i n_g_S e rv i c e,_L td.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10350 t'y
( _/
l-a wider set of people who are ignoring quality concerns, 2
because presumably the Quality Control Inspectors don't 3
have control over the drawings.-
They don't, in fact, 4
make the drawings.
5 Another whole decision -- or set of people or trade 6
is going to be involved here in ignoring quality 7
concerns.
8 That's how I understood that.
9 Q
Well, once again, let me give you a set of facts in the 10 form of a hypothetical question.
11 I'd like you to assume with me that the process
{'}
that is being described here is,.in fact, the follow-up 12 13 to the identification of a non-conforming condition with 14 the hangers; 15 That the Comstock QC Inspectors involved in this 16 project were asked to accompany engineers from Sargent &
17 Lundy, who was responsible for the design of the power 18 plant, to look at these hangers and to determine whether 19 they, in fact, deviated from'the approved drawings.
20 It was what was called a configuration inspection.
21 That the Comstock QC Inspectors were asked to fill 22 out a form, and that they objected to signing the form 23 because, if their judgment, it might signify that they 24 had, in fact, accepted the hanger as being in accordance
()
25 with the drawings and specifications and, in fact, the 4
Sonntag Reporting._ Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10351 j
i
/~'}
l
/
l 1
inspection was not intended to signify that.
2 A
Uh-huh.
3 Q
Assume further that they withheld their inspection forms 4
until their management agreed to change the form so that 5
it could not be interpreted as signifying an acceptance 6
of the hanger in its as-built condition.
7 A
Okay.
8 Q
All right.
9 No. 1, what, if anything, does that set of f acts 10 tell you about the power of-Comstock management to -
11 influence Inspectors to compromise the quality of their
/~T 12 inspections for one reason or another?
(J 13 A
Well, compromise and non-compromise didn't seem to be 14 part of that.
I didn't hear that in your set of facts, 15 any pressure toward signing off on this; I mean,.
16 assuming the gist of it is that the Inspectors felt the 17 need to and the power to withhold approval of something 18 that they didn't feel should be approved.
l 19 Q
So to that extent, their independent anchora, with 20 respect to the quality of their inspection, were strong l
21 enough to resist any contrary pressures that may have 22 been exerted?
l l
23 A
In the example you gave, yeah, certainly.
24 Q
Okay.
l ()
25 Now, you talked about the negative sort of rewards 1
f Son n_ tag _Rego r t in g_S e.rxi_c e,_L td.,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 t
4 4
10352 O
1 or inducement that were evidenced by the fact.that QC 2
Inspectors were threatened, nothing happened, and so 3
that was at least a negative indication that Comstock 4
management did not support the threat or punitive action 5
that was before them.
6 There are, in fact, some additional positive 7
inducements towards quality, and that's what I want to 8
turn to now.
9 A
Okay.
10 Q-Would you agree that the fact that Inspectors operate 11 with documented inspection checklists which require them 12 to signify in writing what the inspection attribute is
[}
13 that they are looking at and what its condition is is an -
j 14 anchor towards higher quality work?
15 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, again, I assume 16 these are all hypothetical facts put before the witness.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I'm sorry ?
.8 MR. GUILD:
I assume these are all intended 1
19 as hypothetical facts put before the witness.
i 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
They certainly arc, l
21 and to the extent that they differ from what the actual 22 facts are, you will have your opportunity to brief that; I
l 23 and I understand you have your standing objection to all 24 these hypotheticals as not representing actual fact.
()
25 MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir.
l Sonntag_Repor. ting _ Serv i ce,_Ltd:
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-10353 OV 1
A W ell, insofar as,.if I understand your question, an 2
inspection checklist or protocol is specific and is 3
detailed and requires unique identification of an 4
Inspector, and has those sorts of attributes that will 5
communicate to them that inspection is taken very 6
seriously and that the company is concerned about this 7
job --
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me.
9 Mr. Guild, you know, you also have a chance at 10 redirect here --
11 MR. GUILD:
Indeed.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- in which you can vary the
{
13 facts stated by Mr. Miller and do what you believe to be 14 the actual fact or facts of record.
15 Mr. Miller.
16 MR. MILLER:
Thank you.
17 THE WITNESS:
I don't know if I addressed --
18 MR. MILLER:
Well, I think so, but let me 19 just make certain.
20 BY MR. MILLER:
4 21 Q
Let me give you two extremes.
22 One is the Inspector must go out into the field i
23 with the inspection checklist or document and record his 24 observations of the physical condition of the piece of
()
25 equipment or weld that he is inspecting, and he does it.
l Sonntag Reporti_ng Service, Ltd, l
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10354 O
1 The other extreme is that an Inspector is simply -
2 told to go out and report back orally whether the welds 3
look okay or the equipment seems to be in' place or 4
otherwise satisfactory.
5 Would you agree that where there is a document 6
checklist, that that is a positive indication of 7
commitment to quality on the part of management?
8 A
Sure, certainly.
9 Q
And can we also agree, to the extent that an Inspector 10 is required to sign each inspection checklist for 11 inspections that he performs, that that is an 12 inducement, if you will, towards higher quality
{}
13 performance than if the inspection checklist were simply 14 anonymous?
15 A
Yes.
I mean, insofar as the Inspectors are -- insofar 16 as it's communicated to the Inspectors that they are i
17 personally responsible and are respected for that 18 responsibility, that is an indicator of a quality 19 orientation.
20 (Indica ting. )
4 21 Q
Now, at your deposition, I laid out for you a series of 4
22 inspections, audits and NRC inspections, and I'd like to 23 run through those again now.
24 Again, I'd like you to assume that, for weld
()
25 inspections, since Comstock's scope of work has been Sonntag ReportingJervice, Ltd; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10355 O
1 going on at Braidwood, there has been an independent 2
organization, known as Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories, 3
which, over the years, has conducted what's called an 4
overinspection of the Comstock QC Inspectors' work.
5 They don't do all of it, they don't overinspect all of 6
it, but they look at no less than 10 percent of the work 7
on a month-to-month basis.
8 In addition, this same organization, Pittsburgh 9
Testing Laboratories, conducts what are called unit 10 concept inspections, 'in which they go into an area of 11 the plant and review the conditions that they find there t
{}
and note any deviations.
12 13 In both instances, if Pittsburgh Testing l
14 Laboratories finds a deviation -- that is, if they do 15 not accept an item, either in their overinspection.or 16 unit concept inspections -- that item is returned for 17 reinspection by Comstock, and Pittsburgh Testing i
18 Laboratories' judgment is determinative as to whether or 19 not a reinspection takes place, and Inspectors at 20 Comstock know that if the Pittsburgh Testing 21 Laboratories rejects an item that they have accepted, it 22 will have to be reinspected.
23 Assume further with me that there is a Quality-24 Assurance Department at Comstock that performs periodic
()
25 audits, spot checks, of both the documents -- inspection Sonntag_RRRo tting_Se mice,_Ltd.,
1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10356 O
1 documents -- and hardware that has been accepted by QC 2
Inspectors --
3 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, let me interrupt at 4
this point.
5 I apologize; but I gather this is going to be a 6
series of what are, I hear, rather independent sets of 7
facts, and, of course, by their nature, hypotheticals 8
oftentimes require a somewhat compound series of facts, 9
but I just would suggest that it becomes more difficult 10 for a witness to intelligibly respond to a set of 11 bypotheticals when they are really independent sets of
{
hypotheticals, and only at the end of a long series he's 12 13 asked to express an opinion.
14 MR. MILLER:
Well, I'll break it up.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, not only that; but, i
16 you know, if one of your facts happens to be off, your 17 hypothetical isn't worth too much.
18 So I think it's to everyone's benefit, not just the 19 witness', to have shorter hypotheticals.
20 MR. MILLER:
All right.
Let's cut it off 21 after Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory.
22 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
23 BY MR. MILLER:
24 Q
Does the existence of overinspections and unit concept
()
25 inspections that I have described have any effect on the Sonntag_ Reporting _Ser_vica, Ltd; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10357 O
1 anchors for performance of the Quality Control 2
Inspectors' work?
3 A
So what you are describing is a situation where an 4
independent body comes in and either samples some 5
inspections that have already been performed by Comstock 6
people or goes through an entire area and reinspects 7
everything?
Is that --
8 Q
Well, they are not mutually exclusive.
9 They are actually -- maybe I ought to break it up 10 further.
11 Let's just talk about the overinspection function
(
12 by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory.
13 A
Okay.
14 Q
On a sample basis, they come in and look at no less than 15 10 percent of the inspections that have been accepted by 26 Comstock QC Inspectors.
17 If the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Inspector 18 believes that the piece of hardware or weld does not 19 meet the requirements, that inspection has to be redone 20 by Comstock.
21 A
Uh-huh.
22 Q
Now, what, if anything, does that tell the Inspectors 23 about the anchors for their performance?
24 A
Well, it indicates some longer-term accountability.
()
25 I would hope that Inspectors on a nuclear plant So n nt ag_Re po rti ng_S e r vine,_L t d..
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10358
(~h'
- LJ l
would feel some long-term accountability on other 2
dimensions, but certainly it indicates that bad work on 3
their part can catch up with them; that there is 4
somebody else in the system that's going to be examining 5
what they do.
6 I guess in evaluating the effect of an independent 7
body on the standards or work performance of the QC 8
Inspectors, I would want to know how independent the 9
body actually is; whether that 10-percent sample was 10 actually adequate -- I mean, those sorts of questions --
11 but just the fact that there's another body, which I 12 assume is the gist of your question -- the fact that.
{}
13 somebody else comes in later on would indicate that 14 quality is taken seriously.
15 Q
And does your conclusion also rest on the fact that the 16 Inspectors know that this -- I mean, it's not done 17 secretively or anonymously; they know that Pittsburgh f
18 Testing Laboratory is going to be conducting a review of 19 a portion of the inspections that have been done at any 20' particular time period.
21 A
W ell, certainly that knowledge would be important if 22 they know that there was another body.
23 It also -- to give a more compound answer would 24 depend upon what they know this inspection to be.
()
25 If they know this to be highly rigorous or if they Sonntag Reporting _Servico,_Ltd; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10359 O
1 know it to be a brief walkthrough -- I mean, those are 2
going to be a major dimension, which, along with their 3
kn owled ge, is going to af fect their work.
14 0
I think in the previous answer, Dr. McKirnan, you said 5
that you hoped there would be some longer-term 6
accountability by Inspectors.
7 Was that because of their understanding of the 8
critical nature of the safety-related work at a nuclear 9
power plant?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Do you have any reason to believe that they don't have a 12 keen awareness of that?
{}
13 A
Oh, no, none whatsoever.
14 I wasn't presuming anything of that sort.
15 MR. MILLER:
.Now, if I might have just one 16 second.
17 BY MR. MILLER:
18 Q
Turning now to the PTL unit concept inspections that I 19 described to you, in which PTL comes into a space and 20 looks not just at the electrical scope of work, but at I
L 21 all installations within that space:
(
22 Again, would that indicate to you that there would 23 likely be a perception of a quality orientation on the 24 part of the Quality Control Inspectors of Comstock who l( )
25 knew of this program?
_Sonntag_Re po r ting _S e rvic e, _ Lt d.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10360 4
1 A.
Yeah.
Again, my answer is going to be similar in 4
2 insisting that the understanding of the Inspectors -- it 3
would be the perception that the Inspectors-have of what 4
this final inspection represents is what's_ going to be 5
critical in determining their behavior.
6' If they see this as a rubber stamp, that may
~
7 certainly not -- only not improve their standards, it 8
may make them even more cynical.
9 If they see this-as a very serious inspection, that 10 will communicate to them that quality is taken very 11 seriously.
)
So consistent with the gist of your question, that, 12 13 at least,. has the possibility. of substantially raising l
14 their standards, yeah.
l 15 (Indica ting.)
j.
16 Q
Now, assume that there is an organization within l
17 Comstock that's known as the Quality Assurance 18 Department, which has the function of periodically 19 auditing, among other things, the quality control l
20 function; that it looks, again, at a sample -- I don't l
21 represent it's necessarily a random sample, but it's a l
22 sample of hardware inspections and documentation and 23 documents its findings and requires that those findings 24 be closed out by the Quality Control Department.
()
25 Again, would that indicate, to the QC Inspectors Sonntag-Reporting-Service,- Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10361 A
(_)
I who were involved in closing out those audit findings, 2
that there was, in fact, an anchor --
3 A
Yeah.
4 0
-- which promoted quality ?-
5 A
By " closed out," do you mean --
6 Q
They have to respond to the finding and make it right 7
one way or another.
8 A
Yeah.
Well, I'm going to be consistent in my answer 9
here.
10 You know, these different levels of quality control 11 or quality assurance sound very tight.
12 Insof ar as they have teeth, they are going to 13 communicate both to the workers and the general public i
14 that these are -- that quality is taken very seriously.
15 Insofar as they are not seen as having teeth or 16 being taken seriously all the way up the system, th'y 17 are going to arose cynicism.
18 So it is a matter of how they actually are enacted; 19 but, again, consistent with your question, there is the 20 distinct possibility of raising standards there by 21 having these multiple layers of inspection.
22 (Indicating.)
23 Q
Just returning for a second to the PIL overinspections 24 example:
()
25 An Inspector, Mr. Klatchko, testified as Son n ta g_ Rep _o r_ tin g_Se rvi c e,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10362 E
1 follows
-- this is at Page 105 of his deposition --. he 2
says, "See, we have an overview group over there, and 3
you -- when you are doing welding inspections.-- PTL is 4
the overview group, and they go over and check your:
J 5
welds just like you were checking them.
6 "Now, if the Inspector's falling down and not doing 7
his inspections, he gets gigged -- what we call ~ gigged 8
for -- he gets nailed for it, and comes back with a 9
report, and your inspection report, your name on it, 10 saying, 'Look, you missed this.
We found something 11 here.'
12 "Q
Talking about PTL?
{}
13 "A
I'm talking about PTL, the overview. "
14 Now, this extract that I have just read to you, i
15 does that indicate to you that the Comstock Quality -
16 Control Inspectors take this PHa overview inspection 17 seriously and are not happy, if you will, when they get 4
18 nailed by PTL for not performing their original 19 inspection?
20 A
Yes, that is clear that being gigged is not a desirable i
21 state there.
22 Q
Now, in addition to the Comstock Quality Assurance 23 Depa r tmen t, there is, in fact, a Commonwealth Edison 24 Quality Assurance Department, which conducts the types l ()
25 of audits that I just described to you, and, again, Sonntag Reporting Service _Ltd.
r Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 10363 ry D
1 issues written reports of its findings and observations, 2
which require the Comstock QC Inspectors to close them 3
out.
4 And I take it that your answer would be the same 5
with respect to whether the existence of those audits 6
and findings were perceived by the Comstock Inspectors 7
as being an anchor which tended towards higher quality 8
performance on their part?
9 A
Yeah, I would give, you know -- again, it would depend 10 upon whether they actually had teeth and so forth; but 11 tha t, again, is consistent with your question, that by 12 building accountability into the system, a quality
)
13 orientation would be inculcated.
14 Q
All right.
15 Earlier today I asked you some hypotheticals about 16 the individual who was transferred because his 17 records -- I described them as being a mess.
18 Do you recall that?
l 19 A
Uh-huh.
20 Q
Assume with me that the original finding, with respect 21 to the quality of that Inspector's record keeping, 22 emanated from a Commonwealth Edison Company quality 23 assurance audit.
24 Would that be an indication to you that the
()
25 process, in fact, as you said, had teeth and was son ttt a g_Re po r ting _S e rv i c e,_ L td_,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
,_ ~. _ -. _ _. ~.. _ _
10364 O
1 perceived by the Inspectors as something that indicated 2
a quality orientation?
3 A
Yeah, that would -- that would suggest' that.
4 Q
Finally, assume-with me that the NRC, in addition to its 5
Resident Inspectors who were there on the site full 6
time, has Inspectors at its regional office in Glen 7
Ellyn, and, indeed, f rom its home office in Bethesda, 8
2aryland -- that periodically inspections are conducted 9
of, among other aspects of the work there, Comstock's 10 work.
Again, both documentation and hardware is 11 reviewed, written findings are made, and Commonwealth 12 Edison and Comstock are accountable to the NRC for 13 responding to any findings made in these inspection 14 reports.
15 Now, to the extent that Inspectors knew of the NRC 16 inspection activities, would that indicate a quality 17 orientation?
18 A
Well, yeah, just to keep playing the same string, again, 19 it's going to be -- it's going to depend upon what role 20 the NRC is playing; whether they are seen as, in fact, 21 making tough inspections or are under the same sort of 22 production pressures that they themselves feel 23 themselves to be under.
24 So, you know, if the -- I mean, if the NRC is seen
()
25 as -- or any level of inspection -- any level of Sonnta g _Re po r_ ting _S ervice, __Ltd :
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10365 t'y O
1 inspection is seen as experiencing pressure toward 2
getting the thing completed versus getting the thing 3
completed that particular way, and if the inspection 4
that they perform is seen as reflecting one or another 5
of those movements, then that's how the workers will 6
understand these things to be operating.
7 So, again, my answer is pretty much the same to all 8
of these different levels of inspection that you have 9
been specifying:
10 That they certainly -- there certainly is the 11 possibility that they are construed by the workers as a 12 quality orientation, and that certainly is one possible 13 interpretation the workers may make, and is a likely one 14 the way you are describing them.
15 (Indicating.)
16 Q
Have you seen any evidence that the NRC Staff is simply 17 interested in the quantity of inspections or getting the 18 plant done in a certain time period or anything like 19 tha t?
20 A
What, f rom these documents?
21 Well, these documents don't really bear on that, 22 so --
23 0
Well, in fact, they represent an interest of the NRC in 24 getting the fullest possible area of the Inspectors'
()
25 complaints, don' t they?
Sonntag_R_epor_ti_ng Se rvice,_Ltd.,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10366 O
1 A
I would say I would agree with that.
2 MR. MILLER:
Mr. Chairman, this would be a 4
3 convenient time.
4 I do believe I'll be able to finish up in an hour 5
or less, perh aps.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, fine, 7
We'll break until 1:15.
p 8
(WHEREUPON, the hearing was continued to 9
the hour of 1:15 o' clock P.
M.)
10 11 12 C) 13 14 15 16 i
17 18 19 l
20 21 22 l
23 24
()
25 l
l Sonntag-Reporting Service _Ltd.
r l
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10367 7-Q) 1
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLE?.R REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' BOARD 4
5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _x 6
In the Matter of:
- Docket No. 50-456 OL 7
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 50-457 OL 8
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2) 9 x
10 Met pursuant to recess.
11 Tuesday, August 12, 1986.
12 1:15 P.
M.
g3
'w )
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Are we ready to resume?
14 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
15 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
17 Before we go back to the witness, we still have a 18 piece of evidence that is hanging from last week, where i
19 Mr. Gallo offered a few pages into evidence of a 20 deposition; and it may not be as fresh in the party's 21 minds as it is in mine, because we had some dispute 22 about that.
23 There are five pages of deposition that Mr. Guild 24 assented to having in evidence.
(~N 25
\\-
By the way, I do want to take a few minutes to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 t
10368 L.)
1 review the ruling on that; and I will still stick by my 2
ruling there.
3 My understanding is -- and let me refer to Rule 32 4
of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 613 (b) of the 5~
rules'of evidence and Rule 801 (b) (1) of the rules of I
6 evidence; and the way I read these, if someone is 7
reading into evidence a document that is admissible, an 8
adverse party may require him to introduce any. other 9
part which ought, in fairness, to be considered.
10 Here we are talking about a deposition, and one 11 being offered in evidence by itself; and I believe this r
12 refers primarily to admissions.
13 Referring to the rules of evidence, the sections I 14 pointed out, basically, are those that refer to-15 impeaching statements; and those are not just read into 16 evidence as extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent 17 statement but they are used to question the witness in a 18 form of impeachment; and then the other side is afforded 19 an opportunity to interrogate and I would assume of like 20 kind.
21 The rules are hazy here, but that would also be 22 primarily through direct questions with regard to the 23 material; but, of course, if that doesn't suffice, there 24 is also that you can resort to actually reading the
()
25 matters in as rebutting an express or implied charge of Rnnntag Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10369
(_)
1 recent fabrication, which is found in Rule 801.
2 I don't say that the rules are absolutely clear.
3 Now, as to what happened on Friday, I did not 4
authorize Mr. Gallo to read into the record those 5
statements.
The Board's ruling was that he ought to
.6 question on those statements, and he began reading those 7
in.
8 If Mr. Guild had appealed the procedures, as I 9
thought he was going to do, we would have had further 10 discussion.
11 I am not sure that the Board's direction was all 12 that clear to Mr. Gallo.
I am not criticizing him on 13 that score; but, instead, Mr. Guild then withdrew his 14 objection and let it all in; and that's where we are 15 now.
16 So what we do want is an exhibit with those five 17 pages.
18 Now, the reason I allowed the witness to read the 19 testimony, which was Mr.~ Guild's main objection, was 20 that it was my understanding from the representations 21 made by Mr. Gallo that the matters that Mr. Guild had 22 not read in were interwoven with the part that he had 23 let in; and when the witness read his deposition, he is 24 entitled to read the entire context, in the Board's
()
25 opinion.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 66134 (312) 232-0262
'i 10370 3
%-.- )
c.
[%/.
1 Now, if it went outside the scope of what was 2
referred to in Mr. Guild's examination, I was prepared 3-to limit the scope,~so that we only had what was part of 4
the same matter that Mr. Guild ~had interrogated on.
5 Now, I don't believe that the rules of evidence and 2
g
= 6 the rules of procedure are crystal clear on this whole-matter;-but I believe that the Board's interpretation is 7
s 8
the best one that fits under the rules as I have 9
referred to now.
10 If there is anything further that anyone wants to 11 say, I-will listen to a short statement; but that's fg 12 about it.
U
. I don't mean to re-argue the 13 MR. GUILD:
14 point, Judge.
15 The only point of fact that I would like to raise 16 is I did not. mean to withdraw my objection at all.
I 17 meant to simply suggest that I was reserving my 18_
objection, since my objection had been ruled adversely 19 on.
My objection had been overruled.
i 20 It seemed to me to be appropriate, in light of that 21 objection being overruled, to simply save time and allow-l 22 the reading.
23 I did not mean to be heard to withdraw my objection 24 at the time.
()
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
I understand that, t
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
{
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
_-,,.,,,,.,,.wy
10371
/^Y
.i g 1
too; and you certainly preserve your right on appeal or ' '
2 even in briefing.
3 You certainly reserve your exception to the Board's 4'
ruling, which was that the witness could have read the 5
entire context of what was involved and, also, your 6
objection to having any of that used by Mr. Gallo.
7 Fine.
So we set tL6 record straight and we will 8
just wait for further word from Applicant about having 9
that in the form of an exhibit.
10 MR. MILLER:
Thank you.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Now we will-proceed to the r%
12 witness.
O 13 BY MR. MILLER:
e 14 0
Dr. McKirnan, your prior testimony indicates that you 15 mainly relied on the three NRC Staff exhibits as a basis 16 for the opinion that you express in your testimony.
l, 17 Those are the ones that have been marked Applicant 18 Exhibits 109, 110 and 111.
They correspond to McKirnan 19 Deposition Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.
20 Dr. McKirnan, did you make any effort to datermine 21 whether the statements which are found in theae exhibits i
l l
22 are accurate?
l L
23 A
No, I didn't.
I -- I am not accurate in what sense, in l
24 the sense of being truthfully reported to the NRC or in 25 the --
l l
l i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 I
(312) 232-0262
(
- D;.
~
~
ti, n
10372
-/~m N-] -
1 Q
Well, I want to use it in both senses.
That's a useful 2
clarification.
3 First, did you make any effort to' determine whether 4
what is represented as having been the statements of 5
certain individuals was, in fact, what they said or the 6
substance of what they said to the NRC on March :29, 7
1985?
8 A
No.
I took the NRC summaries and_their direct quotes as 9
being accurate representations of what the people had
-10 said.
11 Q
Did you make any. effort to ascertain whether the fy 11 2 statements made by the inspectors themselves were V
13 accurate?
i 14 A
Again, describing what happened.on the work site?
15 Q
Yes, sir.
16 A
No.
17 0
I am correct, am I not, that there are some, if you 18 will, techniques by which one can ascertain whether what 19 is being relayed is an accurate perception of the event 20 or is, in fact, an exaggeration?
l 21 A
Yes, there certainly are ways that you can try and 1
j 22 determine that.
23 Obviously, you can never determine that absolutely 24
-- we are always dealing with perceptions -- unless
()
25 somebody videotaped the events or whatever; but, I
I Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L
10373
_)^
1 certainly, you could use some methods to try and get a 2
better sense of what had happened.
3 Q
That is, that an extremely bleak, pervasive perception 4
may, in fact, reflect an exaggeration of the actual 5
events rather than an accurate representation of what-6 was occurring?
7 A
That's possible.
8 Q
And there is something called, in the jargon of, 9
perhaps, psychologists, postdecisional dissonance; is 10 that correct?
11 A
-That's what it's called.
rg 12 0
Maybe you ought to describe that for the record.
V 13 A
Again, in an area, that is generally called cognitive 14 dissonance theory.
15 It has ' been generated through a variety of 16 experiments that people want their attitudes, their 17 values and their behavior to be consistent with each 18 other; and we want, furthermore, to feel as though we 19 have done the right thing.
20 In a cognitive dissonance situation, one will try 21
-- after a postdecisional dissonance, one variation on 22 this theme, is a situation where one has made a decision 23 among competing alternatives that are not unequivocally 24 clear one way or the other; and having made a decision
-( )
25 one way, rather than the other, will try to realign Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10374
~,
(O 1
attitudes, values, memories to support the decision that 2
was made rather than the alternative.
-3 Q
So in the situation of the QC Inspectors going to 4
complain to the NRC, having-made the decision to go and 5
complain, the phenomenon of postdecisional dissonance 6
might cause them to' adjust their perceptions, attitudes 7
and beliefs to conform-to the complaints that they 8
voiced at the session with the inspectors;-have I 9
characterized that correctly?
10 A
Yes, that's-an adequate characterization.
11 So they.will tend to emphasize behavior that is g-12 consistent with -- previous events that are consistent U-13 with their behavior rather than those that are not.
14 Q
Can we agree that Applicant's Exhibits 109 and 110 are 7
15 kind of pervasively bleak in the picture that is painted 16 of QC supervision at the Comstock site?
17 A
Again, I haven't got the same numbers.
18 Q
Excuse me.
Deposition Exhibits 1 and 2, Exhibits 1 and i
19 2.
20 A
Well, they represent the complaints that are being 5
21 raised, so in that sense they are explicitly intended to 22 present those issues.
23 I don't know that they actually address the overall F
24 bleakness of the work site.
Ce rta inly, reading through
()
25 them, one gets a bleak feeling; but I don't think that i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10375 O
v 1
they are intended -- so, you know, in that sense, of 2
course,.you are correct.
3 In the sense that they reflect a perception that 4
everything on the work site is bl.eak,.I wouldn't -- I 5
wouldn't agree with that.
6 0
Well, can we agree that there is no mention in these two 7
memoranda of the more positive quality' indicators, some 8
of which I have characterized to you in a hypothetical 9
question that I posed before the noon break?
10 A
No, those are not described here.
11 MR. GUILD:
Again, counsel's question 12 presumes hypothetical facts of those so-called more g3 v
13 positive indicators.
14 As long as I am continued to understand to have an 15 objection to counsel's characterization.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, that is fine.
Your 17 objection is noted.
18 BY MR. MILLER:
19 Q
Inspectors have testified here that they were, in l
20 effect, angry at Saklak because of his threat to Mr.
21 Snyder and his other behavior.
22 In those circumstances do you believe, based on 23 your experience, that they were likely to present a 24 balanced view of the situation in the Comstock QC t()
25 Inspector force when they went to the NRC?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10376-
.,s k) 1 A
Balanced in the sense of presenting some countervailing 2
practices on the work site that were not as negative?
3 0
Correct.
4 A
No.
I would assume, as is the case in any grievance 5
procedure, that it is the grievan.ces that are salient 6
and they are the issues that are going to be cited.
7 0
Would you agree, in simply taking the representations 8
that are found in Exhibits 109 and 110, that is 9
Deposition Exhibits 1 and 2, that one should lx3 a-little 10 bit wary as to whether or not these representations may, 11 in fact, be an exaggeration of the conditions that were (S
12 being experienced by the inspectors?
\\_/
13 A
There are two ways in which these could be an 14 exaggeration.
15 One would be if they were seen as the only things
-16 that characterized this work site and the other would be 17 if these statements are themselves fabrications or 18 exag ge ra tions.
19 As for the latter, I can't really evaluate that; 20 and I have no reason to think that these people are p
21 actually lying about the extremity of some of the 22 behaviors they describe.
23 And as for whether they are an exaggeration in the 24 sense that they are taken as the only things that j ()
25 characterize the work site, I,
in reading this myself, l
l Rnnntag Reporting Rorvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10377 (d.
.J' 1
didn't assume that these documents were taken as a 2
review of everything that happened on the work site.
3 So in a sense the positive side would be 4
inappropriate to this document.
5 If these were taken as characterizing all that ever 6
happened on the work site, then, yes, I assume that that 7
would be an exaggeration of what the conditions were 8
like.
9 Q
The interviews that took place were, in fact, a group 10 inte rview?
11 That is, the inspectors weren't interviewed by the 12 NRC Staff separately?
They all sat in a room and 13 talked?
14 A
Yes.
15 0
There is, in fact, a detriment, is there not, to the 16 group interview technique, in that the norms of the 17 group kind of surface during the interview and may 18 shape, in fact, the attitudes and beliefs of the 19 individuals even as they are sitting there and 20 expressing themselves to the NRC inspectors?
i 21 A
I would assume that that would be the case.
22 I would think that the fact that the people walked l
23 into the NRC office would be seen as -- would require a 24 certain attitude just to get them in there.
()
25 So I would not think that group pressure while in Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
10378 m
~
1 the office would actually create the sense of grievance 2-that they felt but rather the sense of grievance _is what 3
would get them there in the first place.
So in that 4
sense I don't agree with you.
5 I:do, of course, agree with you in the sense that 6
group pressures, emergent group norms are going to 7
affect the verbal behavior of people; and many studies 8
demonstrate this, that in a group, people's behavior 9
becomes more uniform, more regulated by concerns about 10 other people and so forth.
So, certainly, that would 11 occur.
(g 12 0
-That is, an individual who might wish to express a
\\-l 13
. dissenting view, if you will, who would say, "Oh,Saglak 14
.really wasn't so bad," or, "His bark was worse.than his 15 bite," or something like that, might be inhibited from 16 saying that because of the fact that these comments are 17 being made in the presence of a grcup of his peers?
18 A
That is a possibility, yes.
19 Q
Finally, were you aware that there was an ongoing 20 dispute between the Comstock QC Inspectors and Comstock 21 management relative to a union election, grievances over 22 pay and collective bargaining, the conception of 23 collective bargaining, at the time that this interview 24 took place?
()
25 A
I had understood that there was some issue of that sort 4
f Ennntag Reporting Snrvice. Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
10379 m
b 1
but I really know little about it.
2 0
The existence of a labor dispute would, in fact, create 3
an atmosphere of animosity and conflict that would 4
contribute to the feelings that are expressed in these 5
two memoranda, wouldn't they?
6 A
Well, that is possible.
Again, I am speculating; and on 7
a speculation level, certainly that is possible.
8 I would think that workers in many industries have 9
very ' low threshold for complaining about salary or work 10 conditions and wouldn't necessarily have to disguise 11 those concerns in this form if that's the implication of 12 your question.
13 That the concerns would come out in terms of their 14 complaints about Saklak instead of their complaints 15 about their salary or something, I would be somewhat 16 surprised at that.
17 Q
Assume with me that the organizational effort to have a 18 union local recognized among the Comstock QC Inspectors 19 began in the summer of the preceding year, in the summer 20 of 1984; that there was an election held in November at 21 which the Union was recognized as the bargaining agent 22 for the QC Inspectors but that management appealed that 23 election to the N.
L.
R.
B. and that as of March 29th 24 that decision had not been -- a decision had not been 25 reached.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
h 10380
.J 1
A-Uh-huh.
2' Q
. That is, the process had been protracted 'and there had 3
been some conflict, if'you will, between management',--on 4
the one hand, and the Linspectors on the other with
.5 respect to this issue.
6 Would that sort of a dispute create an atmosphere 7
of animosity that would contribute'to these feelings or 8
. beliefs that'were expressed by the inspectors at-the 9
meeting with -the NRC in March of 1985?
10 A
Well, it certainly is plausible that the sense -
- and, 11 a ga in, I am dealing wholly on a hypothetical ~ level here.
.-y s
.12 But it certainly is plausible that the Quality
'V 13 Control Inspectors could have a-. sense that management l
F 14 didn't care about them, was exploitive toward them, 15 whatever; and that that would af fect their perceptions 16 generally of their work environment.
17 It is equally plausible that the sense of grievance f
18 they had around the issues in these memoranda helped 19' fuel the fire toward unionization.
That, in fact, could 20 cut either way.
21 So --
22 (Indicating.)
{
23 Q
Now, I would like to turn, Dr. McKirnt', to Answer 16, 1
24 which is found at Page 10 of your prepared testimony.
l ()
25 It's correct, is it not, that in the answer to Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 e
m
10381 mQ l'
Question 16 all that you are actually responding.to is 2
whether there is an issue here that should be; explored?
3 All you are saying is that it's highly probable 4
that there is an issue worth responding to?
5 A
By, " issue worth responding to,".you mean that further 6
evidence should be gained, whatever, that there is --
7 Q
That's correct.
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And, in fact, based on what you have done so far, you-10 can't -- well, I am sorry.
Let me strike that.
11 Based on your review of the evidence that you.
12 considered, these memoranda and the depositions and the 13 extracts and so on, the extent of any adverse shift in 14 performance standards is one that would have to be 15 determined; is that correct?
16 A
That's correct.
17 I feel myself I am, again to go back to, you know, 18 the res gestae for my even testifying, specifying some 19 principles that may operate and evaluating what I 20 understand to be the tip of the iceberg of the evidence 21 that has been presented on this as to whether any of the 22 events on that work site would fit those processes 23 rather than giving some definitive opinion about what 24 has actually gone on there.
()
25 Q
So, in fact, the yes answer that begins Answer 16 is, Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
~
Geneva, Illinois 60f34 (312) 232-0262
10382 l
O.
therefore,; inappropriate, in-that whether or'not the 1
2 inspectors 1actually shifted their standards is something 3
.that you can't determine from the ' evidence that you have 4
seen; correct?
5 A
That's correct.
6 Q
Now, your overall evaluation of the inspectors going ~to 7
the -NRC. on March 29th, and based on your reading of the 8
memoranda,-is that the workers had personal values-9
-towards doing quality work;'isn't that correct?
10 A
I impute that from what I have read in both the NRC and 11 the pe rsonal depositions.
.12 Q-And that the inspectors saw or perceived those values as 13 not being supported in the workplace; correct?
14 A
That's correct.
15 0-And they saw that. fact of these personal values toward 16 doing quality work were being opposed as objectionable 17 to them; correct?
18-A Well, what they -- I am not sure exactly what you are 19 asking there.
20 Certainly, they see the conditions of their work 21 environment as objectionable around these quality 22 issues.
23 If you mean to imply that their standards or values 24 never shifted during this period, I wouldn't want to
()
25 agree with that.
Sonntag Reporting Servicb_,Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-10383
- h 1
Certainly, they ~do see the -- those who have 2-articulated their concerns, which I und"rstand to be 3
about a quarter of the employees, they see' the --
4 quality-oriented values that.they had expected in the 5
work site not being upheld by management.
6 Q
And rather than --
7 A
And they dislike this.
8 Q-But it's apparent that they simply didn't wave:off or 9
disregard their own personal sentiments toward -doing a 10 quality job?
11 A
That seems clear, yes.
12 0
They found it objectionable enough to actually walk into
.O-13 the NRC and, in effect, file a. complaint about Mr.
14 Saklak and other aspects of the job environment that 15 they objected to?
16 A
That's right.
17 0
This set of circumstances that you glean from your 18 review of the NRC memoranda was not taken into account 19 by you when you prepared your Answer 16, was it?
20 A
I am not sure what you are asking.
21 0
Well, you just testified that on the basis of reading 22 the NRC memoranda, you discerned that the workers had 23 personal values towards doing quality work that they 24 believed were not being supported in the workplace; that
()
25 they found that lack of support objectionable; that they Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10384
(~'s
\\_f 1
did not simply wave off or submerge their own personal 2
sentiments but found it suf ficiently objectionable to go-3 into the NRC and complain about it?
4 A
So -- and -- and --
5 0
Yes.
And that set of facts is not something that you 6
took into account when you formulated the answer to 7
Question 16?
8 A
So you are implying then that these people did not shift 9
their values of their work performance prior to going 10 into the NRC?
Il Q
No, sir.
I am still not being clear.
12 You have testified to what your analysis of what i
13 these memoranda show in terms of the inspectors' 14 behavior.
15 My only question to you is whether you took that 16 set of facts into account when you formulated your 17 answer to Question 16?
18 A
Well, yes, I did.
19 0
Well --
20 A
I mean, I see the fact that they have walked in as an i
21 expression of the depth of their grievance.
22 0
Well, at your deposition, Dr. McKirnan -- and, perhaps, 23 it's the way I have asked the questions here today -- at 24 Page 178 I asked you a series of questions about what
( ).
25 you took into account when you created the answer to Sonntag Reporting _SCIV.iccu Ltd_.
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10385;
/-
V 1
Question 16.
2 In response to a question that begins at the bottom 3
of Page 177, which question was:
4 "O
Is that a factor that you took into account in 5
reaching the conclusion that you expressed, 6
that it is highly probable.that the conditions 7
of the workplace significantly affected the 8
Quality Control Inspectors' values and 9
attitudes?"
10 Your answer was, 11 "A
I am not sure exactly what you are asking es 12 there.
U 13 "The strong sense I have from reading 14 these three documents" -- those are the NRC 15 memoranda -
"is that the workers had personal 16 values toward doing quality work and saw those 17 values as not being supported in the workplace 18 or actually being opposed and saw that as 19 objectionable.
20 "It didn't simply wave off their own 21 personal sentiments and say,
'I will do it any 22 way they want me to'; but, to the contrary, 23 they saw it as objectionable enough to 4
24 actually walk into NRC and file a complaint.
()
25 "I don't know if that is what you are Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
w-.-
-+-m-.ee-e+--i-,
--w.e-y------,w-
,w,,m.
g
--r we+a--
g W^+--+--w W
10386 7y t.
l' 1
asking.
2 "Q
I don't think that is quite responsive to my.
3 question, which was:
4 "Did you take that circumstance or that 5
condition that you have-just described into 6
account in reaching your conclusion that it 7
was highly probable that the conditions of the 8
workplace significantly affected the Quality 9-Control Inspectors' values and attitudes?
10 "A
I wasn't thinking of that specifically when I 11 formulated that answer to the question no."
12 A
Well, neither in that round nor in this round do-I 13.
understand what you are getting at.
14 0
Well, my question is really quite a basic one; and that 15 is:
16 When you answered Question 16, did you have in mind 17 that-the inspectors did not let the diminution of 18 quality orientatica as they perceived it simply overrun 19 them but objected to it and went to the NRC?
20 Did you take that, that circumstance, into account 21 when you expressed your answer to Question 16?
22 A
Well, I mean, I guess my answer would be consistent, 23 that, as I said before, not specifically; but the fact 24 that they have walked in indicates, again, as I
()
25 mentioned before, I was assuming a relatively high Sonntaa Renorti na.._Se rv1CE, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262 l
10387 1
threshold for doing something like walking into the NRC.
2 So I, in a sense, took it into account in that 3
sense, that I see this as, obviously, a shared
'4 perception of a very serious situation if 24 inspectors 5
are willing to walk en masse into the NRC.
So in that 6
sense I did.
7 In a sense what I was responding to in saying, 8
"IIave these things shifted," obviously, there I am 9
responding to the catalogue of events that occurred in 10 the workplace, not their walking in but the evidence 11 about what happened in the workplace, because that is 12 what that question is directed toward:
Do the O
i 13 conditions in the workplace lead to a certain outcome?
14 In evaluating that, of course, I looked at evidence 15 as to what had happened in the workplace, not their 16 walking into the NRC.
17 0
The fact that they were able to themselves walk into the 18 workplace was one of the anchors for their values that 19 they brought to their behavior on the job; isn't that j.
20 right?
21 A
That they -- I am not sure what you mean.
22 The fact that they were able to walk into the NRC 23 did you mean?
24 0
The fact that the inspectors had the belief, which they
! ()
25 translated into action, that they could walk into the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60TT4 (312) 232-0262
10388
. (~)/
i, 1
NRC if they felt that there wasn't the proper quality 2
orientation being expressed by their management is one 3
of the anchors, as you have used that term, which shapes 4
their behavior on the job; isn't that right?
5 A
Well, I see that as the outcome of a long series of 6
events that has, perhaps, shaped their behavior on the 7
job.
8 To respond to the larger implication of your 9
questioning, certainly, their walking into the NRC 10 indicates that they have not just thrown up their~ hands 11 and said, "I will do anything they want me to"; but 12 reading the catalogue of events that led up to this over 13 a period of years, I would -- it certainly is clear that 14 walking into the NRC is not something that they do each 15 day, that they feel as though that's just one of the 16 features of their job that always will be there so that 17 they can exercise their quality orientation.
18 So in that sense I don't agree with you, no.
19 Q
The last question and answer, Dr. McKirnan -- it's 20 actually the last two, Question 17 and Question 18, 21 found on Page 11 -- deal with your observation of the --
22 really, your evaluation of the testimony of certain QC 23 Inspectors, that they had not personally approved 24 deficient work and so on.
()
25 Your evaluation of these comments is based on the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd, l
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
10389 f.
l
.l' deposition extracts that you read and in which.they are
~2:
contained.
l 3
Have you met any of the Quality control Inspectors?-
4 4
A
-No, I' haven't.
5' Q
Can we-agree that the connotation of a communication is l
'6' often carried not by the utterance that you see on a i
7 printed'page but rather by the manner in which it is
~
8~
delivered, the. body language, the forthrightness. of the 9
' response and so on?
10 A
Ce rtainly.
t j
11 Q
In that sense the Licensing Board, who has sat and I
.12
. observed the inspectors and seen their responses, is in 1
i l
13 a better position to judge the, oh, voracity, if you 1
14 will, of the witnesses than you are on the basis of your 4
-15 review of transcript?
16-A I would agree with that to a great extent, yes.
17' Q
In fact, in your own work you sometimes rely on 18 interviews with subjects which are more or less 4
19~
ope n-end ed, in which questions are asked that elicit i-20-narrative responses from the subjects of the interview; I
i
~
21 isn't that right?
f 22-0 That's right.
I 23 0
In other situations, however, you find useful in your 4
i 24 own work to pose what are known as leading' questions to
(])
25 lawyers, that is, those which are intended to elicit a 4
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
l 10390 "T
(U 1
yes -or no answer?
2 A
Well, we, generally, in social sciences avoid yes or no 3
or what we would call leading questions, although we, 4
perhaps, just cloak that in another language; but we 5
generally use what are called closed-ended questions, 6
where people give a numerical response or some other 7
very concrete response that can be quantified and used 8
in statistical analyses.
9 So often I will ask how many times something 10 happened or what do you feel on a scale of whatever 11 rather than what I understand a leading question to be.
12 0
All right, sir.
You responded to a number of questions 3
s /
13 by saying that these are empirical issues that have to 14 be determined by review beyond that which you have made.
15 Would you expect, Dr. McKirnan, that there would be 16 a relationship between the specific incidence of what 17 has been designated as harassment and intimidation that 18 you reviewed in these NRC memoranda and elsewhere and 19 numbers of inspection misses, for example, by the QC 20 Inspectors?
21 A
I would expect that that might occur.
22 0
And that when there was no apparent harassment or 23 intimidation, that one, again, could see a shift in 24 performance standa rds?
f ()
25 A
That might happen.
EOnntag Roporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10391-iu 1
MR. MILLER:
If I might have just a; minute, 2
your Honor.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Sure.
4 MR. MILLER:
.Your Honor, I have no further 5
questions at this point in time.
6 I would like to move into evidence Exhibits 109 7
through 115.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
You are getting a lot of 9
exhibits in.
10 Do you really need these?
11 MR. MILLER:
Well --
fg 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I thought whatever points
%-)
13 you had to make you made on examination.
14 MR. MILLER:
That is true; and, actually, I 15 didn't examine the witness at all on the deposition 16 extracts.
17 They were really identified and I moved them in 18 simply to show the number of pages and the content of 19 the pages that this witness used as the basis for 20 forming his opinion.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, is there any i
22 objection, Mr. Guild?
23 MR. GUILD:
That's not exactly what the i
24 witness said, of course.
I think it was part of the
()
25 basis for his opinion.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6~6TT4 l
(312) 232-0262
10392 V,o 1
I have no objection to receiving them in evidence.
2 MR. BERRY:
No objection.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
We will admit the 4
documents, that is 109 through --
5 MR. MILLER:
I believe it's 115.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- 115.
7 MR. MILLER:
Thank you, your Honor.
8 (The documents was thereupon received into 9
evidence as Applicant's Exhibits Nos.109 10 through 115.)
11 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I have a pending 12 request that the witness's prefiled testimony be 13 accepted into the record as if read.
14 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I am going to 15 withdraw my objection and motion to strike the prefiled 16 testimony.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
18 Mr. Berry?
19 MR. BERRY:
No objection to the admission of 20 the testimony.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, fine.
That is 22 admitted then and bound into the record as we have 23 indicated earlier.
24 For the new Reporter, the one who was here this
()
25 morning already has our instructions on that.
Sonntag Reporting _ Service,_Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
10393 1
MR.' GUILD:
Mr. Chairman,-excuse me.
2' Before counsel proceeds, may I ask.for a brief 3-recess?
n
~4 I have to make a phone call.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Sure.
6 We will take ten minutes : before we proceed to Mr.
7 Berry's Cross Examination.
8 (WHEREUPON,_a recess was had, after which 9
the hearing was resumed as follows:)
10
-JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We will resume.
{
11 Mr. Berry, your Cross Examination.
12 MR. BERRY:
Good afternoon, Dr. McKirnan.
O 13-My name is Gregory Berry.
I represent ~the Nuclear 14 Regulatory Commission.
15 I have a few questions for you and your testimony..
16 CROSS EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. BERRY 18 Q
First, Dr. McKirnan, can you tell us if you have ever 19 testified as an expert in any other proceeding?
20 A
No, I never have.
21 Q
In response to a question by Mr. Miller on Applicant's 22 Exhibit 110, which is your Deposition Exhibit No. 2, on j
23 Page 2 of that exhibit, the last sentence in the first 24 paragraph, I believe you stated that, upon reading that, l ()
25 it indicated to you the gravity or the seriousness in i
f Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10394
(~h x_/
1 which the grievances were held by the inspectors.
2 Would you agree that if there is another social 3
psychologist who reads the same sentence, he could 4
conclude that it indicated that the inspectors didn't 5
fear reprisal or retaliation?
6 A
Yes, that's a possible reading of that.
7 That's not, in fact, the way I took it; but I could 8
certainly read it that way.
9 Q
Does that happen often, that social psychologists 10 disagree over the same set of facts, reach differing 11 conclusions on the same set of facts?
r~g 12 A
Well, over something like this, since we are talking V
13 about, you know, substantially over-interpreting one 14 sentence on a transcript, then, yes, certainly, there 15 could be disagreement over that.
16 0
I was wondering about this.
17 You testified and you described ' earlier in your 18 testimony the phenomena, I guess, the anchoring, in 19 effect, or the interpretation that you reached upon 20 reading this sentence that I just directed your 21 attention to.
22 For example, could that be an example of an 23 anchoring effect, an example of your anchoring effect?
24 A
I am really not sure how to respcnd to that.
()
25 Perhaps, we are stretching this notion of the Ronntag nnpor tingle.rstlcitdtd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 4
(312) 232-0262
l
.10395 O
\\_/
1 anchoring effect to cover all of the evidence that we 2
are reviewing here.
3 What the anchoring effect actually refers to are 4
people shifting their judgment scale around, so that 5
what previously is considered dark is now considered 6
light, what is previously considered heavy is now 7
considered light, what is previously considered good 8
work is now bad, whatever.
9 That is an example of an anchoring effect where a 10 judgment scale gets shifted and that is the kind of 11 phenomenon that I am talking about in here with rw 12 examplars and that whole routine.
U 13 Now, what you are looking at here is their attitude 14 toward the NRC:
What do they think about the NRC? _Do 15 they see this as an actual source of redress of 16 grievances?
17 And, certainly, if this reflected confidence that 18 they could go to the NRC with no reprisals, that would 19 be an indicator of a positive attitude toward this one 20 source of quality assurance.
21 Q
Perhaps --
22 A
Let me just continue, to complete the thought here.
23 Whether that actually would shift the scale that 24 they use in evaluating the quality of a weld, you know,
()
25 that's a kind of a long linkage there.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6 Tilt 4 (312) 232-0262
r 10396
~4 1
So I feel it important to make it clear that this 2
anchoring effect is the shift of a scale here; and some 3
of these other things may affect it in an indirect 4
fashion.
5 0
Well, that is helpful, because I thought I had 6
unde rstood it; but, apparen tly, I misunde rstood.
7' I understood that a person woul6 view things and 8
filter them through their own personal set of values; 9
and anything that a person's attitude or experience 10 were, that might color his perception of what the 11 meaning of a particular event was or something.
('S 12 That's what I understood the anchoring effect is.
\\_)
13 A
Well, it's -- that's part of an anchoring effect.
I 14 mean, that 's part of, you know, part of the context that 15 we bring to evaluating any action.
16 So if my expectation is that a -- if my -- well, 17 for example, walking into this room, my expectancy is 18 that in a normal hearing people speak in a very formal l
19 speech style, so if somebody were to use an obscenity or 20 slang, even a mild version of that, I would be taken 21 aback.
That's because my anchor is very high in this 22 situation.
23 Whereas, if I am on, well, to use as an example, a l
24 construction site or if I am on the play lot and
(])
25 somebody says a four-letter word, I don't respond to l
Bonnt.ag Reporilng_Sary_ ice,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
g 10397 O
V 1
that, because, in a sense, I am filtering, as you say, 2
this event through my expectancies of what is happening 3
in the situation.
4 So an anchoring effect in terms of a judgment scale 5
you can think of as one example of that larger process 6
that you are describing, which is simply that any event 7
has meaning in terms of our larger attitudes, values, 8
expectancy about that situation.
9 0
I believe you testified that among the materials that 10 you reviewed in preparation of or preparing your 11 testimony was a copy of the Intervenors' -- the fs 12 harassment contention itself; am I correct?
(-)
13 THE WITNESS:
By that you mean what s
14 specifically?
15 MR. BERRY :
The Bill of Particulars that the 16 Intervenors developed to represent the items that we are 17 litigating in this proceeding.
18 THE WITNESS:
Could you show me a copy of 19 that, so that I can actually identify it or not identify 20 it?
21 MR. GUILD:
Was that a deposition exhibit?
22 MR. MILLER:
I don't know.
23 MR. GUILD:
It's not attached to my copy.
l 24 THE WITNESS:
Well, I don't mean to slow
()
25 things down here.
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. l
g.
L 10398 w
L' hh,
+ s,.
.1 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Berry, I have got a copy'that 2
the Judge made available.
3 MR. BERRY:
.Thank you.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
.Let me show'it to:Mr. Berry, 5
also.
I am'sorry.
I just --
[,6 MR. BERRY:
Yes.
That's it.
)
7 A
Yes, I recall seeing this; but I don't -- I know that I 8
don't have it with the materials that I have kept
~
-*9' consistently on this.
10 So I, perhaps, had read it and given it back to Mr.
11 Guild.
I am not sure.
12 BY MR. BERRY:
~g C
13 O
Well, do you --
Id JUDGE GROSSMAN:
And we are referring to the 15 QC harassment contention.
[
16 MR. BERRY:
Yes.
t L
'17 BY MR. BERRY:
O Do you recall discussing that contention, the matters 18 i
19 reflected in that document, with Mr. Guild?
20 A
Oh, yes.
21 Q
I take it Mr. Guild showed you some other documents, 22 excerpts of depositions and NRC memorandum?
23 A
Yes.
24 0
I believe you testified that what is Applicant's Exhibit O
25 11o or vo"r oen ettio" s'at't' ". 2, for example, Sonntag Reporting Service,_Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10399 O
1 appears to contain a number of grievances of the 2
inspectors to the NRC.
3 I believe it's also fair to say that it doesn't 4
represent a balanced picture, of, I guess, the total 5
unive rse of life at the Braidwood site?
6 A
At the site, certainly, it doesn't, nor did I think that 7
it did.
8 Q
Now, what effect, if any, or what significance, if any, 9
there is does it have, that is, to your conclusions that 10 most of the information that you received was 11 grievances, complaints and concerns and not a balanced 12 or a total picture of the site?
{v~}
13 I mean, did that have any significance to the 14 conclusions that you have reached?
15 A
Well, the -- I am not sure exactly how to answer that.
16 The conclusion that I have reached is-that the 17 grievances or the gross real list of complaints that I 18 have been exposed to would fit this model I have of how 19 work -- you know, learning in the workplace may occur 20 sufficiently to justify looking into this matter as a 21 possible problem.
22 So in that sense I didn't evaluate any of this 23 evidence as presenting a balanced picture of the work 21 site but rather as whether there had been enough -- a
()
25 large enough backlog of instances that, in fact, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 601 T4 (312) 232-0262
10400
\\._/
1 people's attitudes or judgment scales may shift.
2 So the conclusion that I have reached is that 3
would want to loo'k into this matter, because there 4
reason to suspect that there is an issue; and I would 5
stay with that conclusion, given even, you know, the 6
nature of the evidence that I have seen.
7' Q
Finally, Dr. McKirnan, I would like to refer your 8
attention again to your Deposition Exhibit No. 2, which 9
is Applicant Exhibit 110, on Page 3 of the exhibit, this 10 would be the third paragraph from the bottom.
11 Do you have that before you, Dr. McKirnan?
12 A
The paragraph that begins, " Constantly intimidated"?
13 0
Yes, that's correct.
14 I believe you were asked the question by Mr. Miller 15 and I believe you stated in response to the question by 16 Mr. Miller that that paragraph indicated to you that Mr.
17 Saklak had power to -- power to terminate or to punish 18 the inspector.
19 Do you recall that?
20 A
I recall the questioning, yes.
21 Q
Have I fairly summarized your answer?
22 I don't mean to mischaracterize your answer.
23 A
Well, the answer more specifically is that this 24 inspector perceived that Saklak was able to terminate
()
25 him or terminate, actually, some other person, I guess Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 10401
,,U 1
it is.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Just to get the record 3
straight, he said Mr. Saklak didn't have absolute power 4
to terminate.
5 MR. BERRY:
Yes, you are correct, Judge.
6 BY MR. BERRY:
7 Q
I was wondering, Dr. McKirnan, is it possible to read 8
that statement and also conclude that -- I mean, 9
conclude the opposite, that Mr. Saklak didn't have, that 10 there was no power to punish or to punish this 11 inspector?
r 12 A
Because he had to lie to get him fired, is that what you b'
13 are responding to there?
14 I am not sure..
15 0
Well, that he wasn't fired.
He wasn't fired.
16 A
Well, you see, I am not sure who is being fired in this 17 paragraph.
You know, Person X is making the statement, 18 may be describing the fate of Person Y in this 19 statement.
20 Do you see what I am saying?
21 I read this as one person saying that Saklak lied i
22 to get somebody else fired.
That's how I understood 23 this to read.
l 24 So I -- or am I not answering the question?
(])
25 0
That's fine.
Just so I am clear.
t Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10402 (v; -
1 In the copy before us, Applicant's Exhibit 110, the 2
names are blacked out.
3 They were blacked out at the time that you saw this 4
material?
5 A
Yes.
I don't know the names.
6 That's why I am not sure whether they are the same 7
people or two different people being referred to in this 8
paragraph.
9 Q
All right.
10 A
But I should say that in addressing my point No. 3 of 11 whether Saklak had power, I was not basing that 12 specifically on this paragraph but on my reading of '
13 statements throughout these documents to that.
14 MR. BERRY:
Those are all the questions I 15 have of Dr. McKirnan.
16 Thank you.
17 THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
18 JUDGE COLE:
Just one or two questions, Dr.
19 McKirnan.
20 BOARD EXAMINATION 21 BY JUDGE COLE 22 Q
Are you familiar with the Lead Inspector sy2 tem they 23 have at the plant?
24 A
Well, I have had it described to me in general terms;
()
25 but I wouldn't describe myself as really familiar with Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10403
(/
1 it, no.
2 Q-All right, sir.
Did you give any serious thought to who 3
were or are the real role models for the QC Inspectors 4
at Braidwood?
4 5
A (No response.)
6 Q
I mean, was it the supervisors, was it the people they 7
worked with, was it the leads, was it the people who 8
trained them, for example?
9 A
Yes, I have, actually; and from the amount of' evidence 10 that I have seen, it would be difficult to really mnke 11 those dete rminations.
12 It seems as though they certainly have looked
~'
13 upward to see if quality values are or are not 14 supported.
15 I mean, it comes through clearly here that when 16 they look -- or it seems to me, at least, in many of 17 these statements that when they look -- upward, they 18 don't see that sort of orientation and that this is an.
19 issue to them.
20 It also -- and, again, I am speaking very generally 21 because I can't recall specifically what has led me to 24 this.
23 It also seems as though they have been concerned 24 about the fate of various of their pee rs, that they
()
25 appeared to have a lot of respect for as well.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10404 (a
1 So it is likely the case that there were some 2
important role models on a peer level there that they --
3 that would have inf]uenced their perspectives, also.
4 I think that's -- and I think your question goes to
-5 the heart of the matter of exactly where do they anchor 6
their sense of what is right or wrong on the work site?
7 And it's clear that they -- it's clear from here 8
that they -- are concerned with the sort of modeling 9
that they are getting from above.
10 The relative importance of that is more difficult 11 to determine, although, again, I guess I am -- two
(-}
things make me feel as though this is important.
12 v
13 First, the people who are above them appear to have 14 power over them; and whether or not they would serve as 15 role models in the sense of somebody they respected, 16 they would serve as role models in the sense that they 17 are people that have power over them.
18 So that's salient, and there is a fair amount of 19 social science research and -common sense that indicates 20 that that is an important factor.
21 The importance of their supervisors as standard 22 setters or role models is also attested to by the very 23 fact that they have raised these grievances, that this 24 is seen as an objectionable situation for them.
()
25 So I saw in these documents evidence that looking l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10405
(').
V 1
upwa rd, up. the system, is important to them.
2 0
.All right, sir.
You also read some of the depositions 3
of certain of the inspectors, sir.
4 Did you come to any conclusions as to the integrity 5
and/or independence of these Quality Control Inspectors 6
whose depositions you read?
7 A
Yes, actually, I did.
8 I had the sense that -- and I should note that my 9
reading of these har been superficial relative to the 10 volumes that have been collected.
11 Q
I unde rstand that, sir.
12 A
But I had the sense from those that I read that those 13 are people of personal integrity that are objecting to a 14 situation that they see as leading to a deterioration of 15 their work performance.
16 Q
All right, sir.
I believe the Item No. 2 you described 17 among your three principles -- I don't know whether I 18 have that accurately characterized in my notes, but I 19 wrote it down as the principle being a non-deviant l
20 provider of the model for behavior.
I 21 I don't know whether that is accurate; but looking
(
22 at Mr. Saklak, for example, and based upon what you have 23 read in this case, what is your opinion as to whether l
24 the Quality Control Inspectors -- how the Quality
()
25 Control Inspectors considered Mr. Saklak?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10406
,,N'%
l
.1 Did they consider him a deviant?
2 A
Yeah, yeah.
3 Well, it seems clear that they saw Saklak as 4
unusual in some respects.
That he was more -- he was 5
more of a heavy than other supervisors were.
That seems 6
to come through here, although they certainly don't see 7
him as unique.
8 So in that sense, there is a deviant quality to 9
him, although at the same time they seem to -- and, 10 again, I keep -- I don't want to make it sound like a 11 cop-out; but to a great extent these are empirical 12 questions that are beyond the scope of the evidence that 13 I have in front of me; but they do seem to view him as 14 reflecting or as a conduit for some company policy or 15 sentiment or approach to work.
16 So in that sense, you know, while he may be seen as 17 unusually harassment oriented or unusually heavy-handed 18 for other supervisors, he is not seen -- his behavior is 19 not attributed wholly to some quirk within himself as I 20 read these.
That his behavior is attributed to some 21 la rge r company approach.
22 That, I think, is an important point; and that is 23 the one -- that's the point that, from a social 24 psychological point of view, is important.
()
25 Given that you see this guy acting in a particular Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 10407
,O 1
way, what do you understand is the cause of that 2
behavior?
3 Well, to some extent, his behavior is caused by 4
some issues within himself.
He is just not a nice guy, 5
it seems; but to some extent, also, his behavior is 6
caused by what the company wants him to do; and that-7 seems to come through as well, that people see him as 8
reflecting something there.
9 So I don't know if I have really --
10 0
What do.you think --
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me.
r-~g 12 Just to clarify the record, you started off your
(_)
13 answer with, " Yeah, yeah," while you were digesting the 14 question.
15 I understood that to mean that you were recognizing 16 what the question meant rather than that as being part 17 of your answer.
I just want to make sure.
18 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
My, " Yeah, yeah," was:
19 That's a central question; that's a key question.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
All right.
l l
21 BY JUDGE COLE:
22 O
You weren't answering yes, that he was, in fact, a 23 deviant?
24 A
No.
I was answering whether he is deviant is an l ()
25 important question.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
10408 l'
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
All right, sir.
2' BY JUDGE COLE:
3 Q
Do you think that most of the Quality control Inspectors 4
would view him that way or-just some of them thought 5
that he was a' departure from reality?
6 A'
Well, by, "that way" --
7 Q
I mean the way you described.
8 A
I would expect -- and, again, it's -- I assume you have 9
asked them.
You have been testifying here for so long.
10 I would expect that most of the inspectors would 11 see him as personally an extreme fellow, you know, so
.l
-12 deviant in that sense but would not attribute their
~Os 13 conflicts with him wholly to his personality, you know, 14 would see that as reflecting a larger work environment 15 that was --
16 Q
If that wasn't the case, the company would have gotten 17 rid of him or moved him somewhere?
18 A
or he would not have raised the objections in these 19 people 's minds, that he would not have led them to go to 20 the NRC, if he just was this crazy guy.
21 That, you know, maybe one day he will be 22 transferred and we will be done with him.
If that was 23 the attribution they made about this guy, I wouldn't 24 have expected all of this, all of these kinds, the
()
25 amount and nature of these statements that people have Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10409
,~
- :Q l
made.
2 So it's --
3 JUDGE COLE:
All right, sir.
Thank you very 4
much.
5 That's all I have.
6 BOARD EXAMINATION 7
BY JUDGE CALLIHAN 8
Q My colleague just inquired about your reactions to 9
integrity of those who had prepared depositions, which 10 you, in turn, had read or. looked at.
11.
A Uh-huh.
3 12 Q
Were you referring in your response to the inspectors, J
13 the victims, if I may say, of the so-called alleged 14 intimidation or the perpetrators, because I th' ink there 15 are depositions from both sides of that action?
16 Which were you speaking to?
17 A
I have seen the depositions of the victims.
18 Q
Just the victims, all right.
I have no knowledge of 19 what you had seen, of course.
20 Could one look to Mr. Saklak for a moment, since he 21-has been prominent in these discussions, as a person who 22 has a job to do, maybe not a very easy job, a simple 23 job, a tasteful job; but, as you implied a moment ago, 24 the company hired him to do something and he did it,
()
25 presumably in his own way.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10410
(~)N 1
Now, do you look at his actions, those things of 2
which he is accused, as being his way of doing the job 2
3 that was assigned to him and for which he was getting 4
paid?
5 A
Well, that certainly would be his perspective, I am 6
confident.
7 Certainly, I don't see that as the perspective of 8
the people who have made the statements here.
9 I see the --
10 0
These are the inspectors; is that correct?
11 A
That's correct.
f-12 I mean, I see them as saying, "Yes, Saklak O) 13 personally was a heavy; but, no, this is not just 14 because Saklak was a heavy, this was not just-Saklak 15 having his own idiosyncratic approach to the job but :
16 that this reflected a much larger process, a much more 17 important process."
18 That's what I read in these statements.
19 0
Well, do you believe that he, nonetheless, was doing his 20 job, so to speak, and doing it probably in his own way 1
21 and those whom he supervised and those upon whom he cast 22 his criticism just didn't like his manner?
23 Is that a possibility?
24 A
Well, of course, that's a possibility.
()
25 I don't see that as very probable, because part of l
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10411'
(')
L/
1 the. conflict is over what the job is; and I see these 2
inspectors as saying that their job is to ensure quality 3
at any cost; whereas, what they are saying is that'the 4
job that Saklak did was to ensure quantity at any cost 5
and that that is a different job.
6 And that is where much of the conflict came in, and
'7
'that Saklak was aggressive toward them when they would 8
try to insist on a quality, not a quantity orientation; 9
whereas, he had the-opposite orientation.
10 So in that sense -- and that is why I -- again, 11 from the limited evidence I have, that's why I -- feel 12 that they did not perceive Saklak simply as a 13 heavy-handed foreman but they perceived him as not only
-14 having a set of values but actively promulgating a set 15 of values that was contrary to what they thought they 16 were hired to do.
17 That's what I see coming through here, so in that 18 sense I would disagree with that characterization.
19 Q
Now, early on you remarked to Mr. Miller that, in fact, 20 your experience in nuclear power plants is somewhat 21 limited.
22 A
Yes, reasonably.
23 0
I would like to broaden that a little bit and ask this:
24 In your experience have you encountered this sort
()
25 of thing before?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. =
10412 u.
1 I will detail it in this manner:
Have you ever-2 found yourself in a position -- well, let me start it 3
this way:
4 Have you ever engaged in an activity for your 5
living that was anywhere parallel to the inspectors - in - a -
6 labor force of some kind?
7 A
(No response.)
8' Q
~ I will take a yes or no for that answer.
9 A
Yes.
10:
O Did you have any experiences here with a supervisor --
l 11 and I presume in that position you had a supervisor --
rs
-12 where you felt you were being imposed-upon or being d.
13 discriminated against; and :do you have any experience in 14 this field, this subject, on which you can base your 15 conclusions in your analysis and so forth?
16 Now, in your position as a professional --
17 A
You mean do I have pe rsonal experience in --
18 0
Yes.
19 A
I don't know if I could say that I have got -- I have 20 had personal experience of this sort of harassment,
- 21 other than -- no, I would have to say that I haven't had 22 personal experience of this sort of harassment.
23 Certainly, I have had experience of having to make 24 difficult decisions about whether to opt for quality or
(])
25 quantity in producing something.
You know, that sort of Sonntag Reporting Se rvice Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10413 1
conflict I have certainly experienced; but. in terms of 2
harassment, intimidation, I haven't really experienced 3
that.
4 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
Thank you.
5 I have no more questions.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild.
7 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 9
BY MR. GUILD 10 Q
Dr. McKirnan, Mr. Miller asked you a line of questions, 11 essentially focusing on the point, as I understood it, 12 that just the fact of going to the NRC for these 124 13 inspectors seems to suggest that they had not so much 14 shifted their values about quality, that they weren't 15 willing to stand up for quality.
That's, obviously, a 16 paraphrase.
17 You testified that you saw what appeared to be a 18 range of complaints about quantity versus quality 19 complaints over a period of time embodied in these NRC 20 memos.
21 Do you know what prompted the inspectors to finally 22 go to the NRC in March of 1985?
23 A
Well, as I understand, this one incident was very 24 important; but no, specifically, really, I don't.
()
25 Q
The one incident, are you referring to the Saklak threat Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
~
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 10414 m
1 that preceded the complaints the day before --
2 A
Yes, yes.
.3 0
-- as documented in these NRC papers?
4 A
Right, right.
5 0
What is your opinion, Dr. McKirnan, about the likelihood 6
that these inspectors would have gone to'the NRC and 7
aired these wide-ranging, work-quality grievances had 8
that event not preceded the day before?
9 A
That's an interesting question, 10 Well, it certainly seems as though there was a lot 11 of -- a very strong sense of there being scmething wrong 12 in the work site, so that there was a widely-shared 13 sense of grievance and willingness to do something about 14 it.
Simply, the fact that there were 24 people involved 15 seems to indicate that.
16 It may well be that this one dramatic confrontation 17 that Saklak had was the event that all these grievances 4
18 could coalesce around and, in a sense, was a catalyst, l
19
,in the absence of which they might not have actually 20 walked in en masse, although it seems to me from reading 21 these that the grievances they brought in certainiy went far beyond that one incident, that they weren't simply 22 23
. coming in to get redress for that one thing but that the 24 threat thus, at most, was a catalyst to get them in the l- ()
25 doorway.
Ronntag Reporting S@rvice Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10415 6
Absent that catalyst and were it, indeed, a catalyst, 1
Q 2
the preceding incident with Saklak the day before,.
3 might, in your opinion, the : inspectors have not aired 4
these grievances at all to the NRC as you' read the-5 documents?
4 6
A Well, that certainly is possible.
7 It seems as though they went for a while 8
experiencing quite a few of these grievances and did
~
'9 not, in fact, show up at the NRC.
10 So it certainly is plausible that without some sort-i 11 of catalyst-like event, some sort of agent that 12 motivated them all or gave them a common ground for 13 walking in, that they might not have actually gone in.
14 Q
All right, sir.
You are aware generally, are you not, 15 that these QC. Inspectors were employed in observing 16 quality standards at a nuclear power plant?
17 A
Right.
18 0
And I take it you are aware, generally, that there are 19 itaportant safety considerations that are invG1ved and 20 affect on the public health and safety in the quality of i
21 construction of a nuclear power plant?
22 A-Yes.
23 O
If you assumed that these inspectors themselves were e
24 aware of the critical quality of their work atid the I ()
25 critical aspect of their work as it affects the public l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,~ Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262 i
~..
10416
. (-
-V 1-health and safety, what impact, if any, do you believe 2
that awareness would have on anchoring their attitudes 3
toward quality versus quantity?
4 A
Well, in one sense, obviously, their knowledge that they 5
are working on a very important construction project, 6
that if there are quality problems, could have 7
disastrous effects, presumably, that is going to make 8
them somewhat more cautious, as well as simply the 9
publicity that is generated around these things.
10 Although, by the same token, one of the interesting 11 affects on attitudes and -- how shall we say? -- fear or
^s 12 concern is that very high levels -- people tend to'not (O
13 respond to very dramatic, abstract possibilities.
14 People respond in their altitudes and their values 15 to things that are somewhat more concrete and on a 16 day-to-day basis; and this is in social psychology -- I 17 don't want to bore you with the social psychology of it 2
18
-- but in social psychology it is called a fear arousal 19 curvilinear ef fect.
20 If you want to change some of these attitudes or 21 values, if you leave them entirely relaxed, they don't 22 change their attitudes; but if you. scare the dickens out 23 of them, they don't change their' attitudes, either, 24 because we simply can't deal with that very frightening
()
25 abstract information, rather some moderate levels of I
RnnnFng Roport i ng Ro rv { ce. T.t d _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10417 1
fear or arousal most ef fectively change people's 2
attitudes or values.
3 Just as the American Cancer Society no longer shows 4
you a picture of rotten lungs to try to stop you from 5
smoking but they tell you that your girl friend won't 6
like you if you smell too bad, that we can relate to.
7 That is a moderate level of fear; whereas, something 8
that is very dramatic is something that we can't relate 9
to and doesn't have a substantial impact on our 10 attitudes often.
11 That is a common finding in social psychology.
12 Whether it applies in this setting, again, I don't know;
(-)
v 13 but I would hypothesize in these people's approach to 14 their labor, work, the large catastrophic question of 15 whether this thing will melt down or blow up or whatever 16 weighs less in their mind than of the more day-to-day 17 events:
whether they will be transferred to a more
~
18 undesirable setting or whether they will gain whatever 19 job advancement that they have coming or whatever, that 20 those events will weigh more strongly than the more 21 abstract, dramatic, although -- so, I mean, that is what 22 a fair amount of literature in social psychology would 23 lead me to hypothesize.
24 Simultaneously, of course, their whole level of
()
25 concern may go up a notch; but, certainly, that more Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10418 n
V.
1 dramatic event is less important; and more dramatic 2
abstract concerns are less important than more concrete, 3
sort of day-to-day: issues.
4 Q
So, in application, the thought'that a weld in 5
particular might fail and cause a failure of the plant 6
with public health and safety' consequences'might weigh.
7 less strongly in the mind of an inspector than the 8
day-to-day experience of harassment?
9 A
I would expect that, yes.
10 I would expect that if you were to go to an 11 inspector and say to him directly, "Are you concerned 12 about the public safety of this plant," that they'would, 13 of -course, say yes; that people would not deny any sense 14 of concern over that.-
15 But, at the same time, I would expect that what is 16-actually going to modify their behavior are not. going to 17 he those fa r-of f, abstract consequences but are going to 18 be the more day-to-day events that are going to' occur in 19 the workplace.
That is what is going to affect their 20 attitudes and their behavior.
l 21 MR. GUILD:
Thank you very much.
[
22 I have no further questions.
i-23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Miller.
24 I don't think the scope is very wide, to begin
- -( )
25 with.
Sonntaa Reoortina Service, Ltd.
~
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 y+
=------
- we--+,,&
yem.---+
-m s.-vey+ywv.,r.:-.evyey-g-,-=,ye~
,-+g.-we-g.-nas, y+.
i,--%y---
g.
-,yve
.-y w-wy
-,-,---,um.
<-emw-rew-ur-2-w-r aa e
- r,.-w-@
C'
1 i
10419
/~sd 1
MR. MILLER:
No, it's not.
2 No questions.
3 MR. BERRY:
No questions.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, thank you very:much, 5
Dr. McKirnan, for. coming and giving your expert i
6 testimony here.
7 You are excused as a witness.
8 (Witness excused.)
9 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, before we break, we 10 have the five pages of Mr. Shewski's deposition that we 11 could ma rk - as Applicant 's Exhibit 116.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Why don't we mark that?
13 MR. MILLER:
The exhibit consists-of Page 1 14 of the deposition and --
15 MS. KEZELIS:
1 through 4.
16 MR. MILLER:
1 through 4, I beg your pardon, t
17 of Mr. Shewski's deposition, taken on Wednesday, 18 Novembe r 13, 1985, and then an extract of Pages 185 19 through 190 of that deposition.
20 (The document was thereupon marked 21 Applicant's Exhibit No. 116 for 22 identification on August 12, 1986.)
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
This exhibit was admitted -in 24 the abstract and now is admitted as an exhibit to make
()
25 it clear for the record and the Reporter.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
= _.
s-'
~
l 10420 I
(
5 1
(The document was thereupon ' receive'd into 2
evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No. 116.)'
3 MR. MILLER:
Before we break, Mr. Gallo has a i
[
4 brief statement.
5 MR. GALLO:
The Board may, recall that during 6
Mr. Shewski's examination, he alluded to a stop. work i
7 order that he said he had signed himself.
I l
8 Then upon direction of the Board we-are seeking to 9
find that stop work order to make 1: available to Mr.
10 Guild and the parties.
j 11.
We have determined.that Mr. Shewski was mistaken in 12 his.-recollection.
i 13 I would propose, with the leave of:the Board and
[
14 the parties, to recall him for the limited purpose of 15 explaining that1particular matter tomorrow after lunch,-
16 if that is ' acceptable.
"17 MR. GUILD:
.I will just accept ~a stipulation 18 that he was mistaken.
4 l
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I was going'to say'that.
l 20 If-it's only to say that he was mistaken, we will p
i 21 accept, as Mr. Guild will, that stipulation.
22 1[f it's to further explain it, that would be fine.
23 MR. GALLO:
Yes, I think it would be 1
24 preferable if he gave testimony and was able to just
[
()
25 explain it.
i f
Sonntaa Recortina Jervice. Ltd.
(
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L-
}
10421 (3
V 1
I don't believe it will take too long.
I think it 2-would be preferable for him to.do it.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's fine.
4 Mr. Guild.
5 MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir.
6 Upon the admission of Dr. McKirnan's testimony and 7
the conclusion of examination on that testimony, 8
Intervenors have determined not to call Dr. Ilgen to 9
testify.
10 Staff has informed me that they are prepared to go 11 forward tomorrow morning with their first witness, Mr.
12 Neisler, and we are prepared to begin our Cross O(~N 13 Examination as soon as he is tendered as a witness.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Could Staff refresh my 15 recollection as to whether there is _ any prefiled 16-testimony?
17 MR. BERRY:
Yes, there is.
18 I believe there is also a motion to strike as well.
[
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, fine.
We are recessed 20 then until 9:00 o' clock tomorrow morning.
21 (WHEREUPON, at the hour of 3:00, p.
m.,
22 the hearing of the above-entitled matter 23 was continued to the 13th day of August, 24 1986, at the hour of 9:00 A. M.)
(J~h 25 l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60131
( 3,12) 232-0262
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER pd This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
BRAIDWOOD STATION UNITS 1 6 2 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY DOCKET NO.:
50-456/457-OL PLACE:
JOLIET, ILLINOIS C
DATE:
TUESDAY, AUGUST 12,.1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear l
Regulatory Commission.
i (sigt) Y %
(TYPED)
Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation l
-,,.-.,n.-,,.,..-__n.,
r-n-_,,
.