ML20214M550
| ML20214M550 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1810 OL, NUDOCS 8612030392 | |
| Download: ML20214M550 (116) | |
Text
ORIG'NAL 0
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DJCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
Q LOCATION:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES:
17892 - 18008 DATE:
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1986
/gu,0
,f)
D \\.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 a 6 i E O.". I'u
.m rd !,1 a 4 PDP
'00045e T
PCP NATIONWIDE COVERACE
17892 i
'x s 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
_ _ _ _ ; _ 7. _ _ _ ; _ ; _ _ ; _ ;x 5
In the Matter of:
6
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 8
and 2)
_ _ ; _ _ _ _ _ _ ; ; _ _ _ _ _ ; _x 9
10 Pages 17 892 - 1800 8 11 United States District Courthouse Courtroom 1743 s
I
'T 12 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois' 60604 13 Monday, November 24, 1986.
14 15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 16 at 2:00 P. M.
17 BEFORE:
18 JUDGE HERBERT GRGSSMAN, Chairman 19 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D.
C.
21 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 22 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
23 JUDGE A.
DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, 24 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 4
25 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17893 L.)
1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of the Api,licant:
3 MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ.
PHILIP P.
STEPTOE, III, ESO.
4 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza 5
Chicago, Illinois 60602 6
On behalf of the NucleLr Regulatory Commission Staff:
7 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESO.
8 ELAINE I. CHAN, ESO.
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 10 On behalf of the Intervenors:
11
[ s]
ROBERT GUILD, ESO.
12
'u
/
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 till 2,
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17894
(~
f 1
EXHIBIT INDEX Marked Received 2
Intervenors' Exhibit No. 193 17994 17995 3
Intervenors' Exhibit No.194 17998 4
5 TESTIMONY OF CHARLES LEE HULIN 6
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MILLER:
17895 7
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION i
8 BY MR. GUILD:
17900 9
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. MILLER:
17908 10 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 11 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
17911 12 Prefiled testimony of x_
Charles Lee Hulin 17924 13 CROSS EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. GUILD:
17925 15 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MS. CHAN:
18002 16 i
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 17 BY MR. GUILD:
18003 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 lili 2,
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17895 p.
G 1
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 95th day of hearing.
3 Do we have any preliminary matters before we get to 4
the next witness, Mr. Miller?
5 MR. MILLER:
None from Commonwealth Edison, 6
sir.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild, nothing?
8 MR. GUILD:
No, sir.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Berry, nothing?
10 24R. BERRY:
No, sir.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Miller, will you please
{
12 call your next witness?
k 13 MR. MILLER:
At this time we call Dr. Charles 14 Hulin.
15 Dr. Hulin, will you take a seat up in the witness
)
16 box, please.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Would you remain standing, 18 please, and raise your right hand.
19 (The witnes. was thereupon duly sworn.)
l 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Please be seated.
21 Mr. Miller?
22 CHARLES LEE HULIN
,i 23 called as a witness by the Applicant herein, having been 24 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
25 DIRECT EXAMINATION Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 17896 (V
1 BY MR. MILLER:
2 0
Would you state your name for the record, please?
3 A
My name is Charles Lee Hulin.
4 MR. MILLER:
Dr. Hulin, I think there is a 5
microphone in front of you.
You can flick it on.
6 THE WITNESS:
I just turned it on.
7 MR. MILLER:
Thank you.
8 BY MR. MILLER:
9 0
What is your business or occupation, sir?
10 A
I'm an industrial psychologist.
11 Q
By whom are you currently employed?
'T 12 A
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
[b 13 0
Dr. Hulin, do you have before you a 40-page document?
14 Your copy may have a two-page certificate of 15 service, but the title page of the document itself is 16 marked "Braidwood Hearings, Rebuttal Testimony of I
17 Charles L.
Hulin"?
i 18 A
Yes.
l 19 0
And do you also have a 10-page document entitled " Vita" 20 that contains the legend in the upper right-hand corner l
21 of the first page, "Hulin Exhibit 1"?
l l
22 A
Yes, I do.
23 0
Turning first to the 40-page document which ir your l
rebuttal testimony, by whom were the answers to the 24
(
j 25 questions that are found in that document prepared?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17897
~N 1
A By me.
2 O
All right.
3 Dr. Hulin, are there any changes to the prefiled 4
testimony that you'd like to make at this time?
5 A
Yes.
6 On Page 11,11 lines f rom the bottom, it reads 7
"there is more within agreement within units," and the 8
first "within" should be stricken.
9 0
All right, sir.
10 Any others?
11 A
Yes.
12 On Page 18 --
O 13 MR. GUILD:
Hold on one second, please, Dr.
14 Hulin.
15 11 lines from the bottom, what are the first words?
16 MR. MILLER:
"There is more."
17 MR. GUILD:
The correction should read?
18 THE WITNESS:
It should read after correction 19 "there is more agreement within units."
20 MR. GUILD:
Thank you.
21 A
(Continuing.)
On Page 18, seven lines from the top, 22 the "three" should be a "six."
23 It should read " Quality Control Manager," comma, rx 24 "and six of the quality."
Then four lines below that,
,/
25
" Control supervisor," period.
"I spent time with these Honntag_Heporting Service, Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134 I
(312) 232-0262
17898 1
six Quality Control Inspectors."
2 BY MR. MILLER:
3 0
Any others, sir?
4 A
Yes.
5 At Page 30, five lines from the bottom, the first 6
line reads "19."
It should read "9," a typographical 7
error.
8 MR. GUILD:
Excuse me, sir.
9 On Page 30, "19" should read "9"?
10 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
11 MR. GUILD:
Thank you.
12 A
(Continuing.)
On Page 37, the last two lines just 13 before Question 20 should read "Intervenors," comma, "we 14 would expect this effect to show up" -
"show" got 15 scratched out or eliminated -
"in behavioral trace 16 measures reflecting," I-N-G, instead of " reflective."
17 MR. GUILD:
Could you read it as corrected, 18 please?
19 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
As corrected the whole 20 sentence reads, "If Saklak had the effect hypothesized 21 by the Intervenors," comma, "we would expect this effect 22 to show up in behavioral trace measurco reflecting their 23 performance."
24 BY MR. MILLER:
(
25 0
Dr. Hulin, I'd like you to turn to Page 16 of your Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ueneva, Illinois bu134
. -0262 (312) 232
17899
, ~.
l
)
Av/
1 prefiled testimony, Question and Answer 17, sir.
2 Dr. Hulin, we served your testimony on October 16th 3
of this year.
4 When was this question and answer -- that is, 5
Question and Answer 17 -- prepared by you?
6 A
I believe it was prepared right after I came back from 7
vacation, so it would be the first of August.
8 0
All right, sir.
9 Since the time that you prepared this answer, have 10 you had occasion to review any other materials beyond 11 those that are listed in Answer 17?
j,,)
12 A
Yes, I have.
L,!
13 0
Would you describe them briefly for the Board and 14 parties?
15 A
I read the letters written by Archambeault, and I read 16 his -- I believe it was his testimony.
I read summaries 17 of the testimony of the QC Inspectors that was presented 18 here.
19 In addition, I interviewed seven of the second 20 shift cable pulling QC Inspectors down at Braidwood.
21 0
All right, sir.
22 And do you recall the approximate date when you 23 interviewed those seven inspectors?
i 24 A
No, sir, I don't.
It would be in my log.
It was, you 25 know, very, very shortly after his letter appeared.
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
17900 1
could -- the log I used to record my time is in my 2
briefcase.
3 JUDGE COLE:
Shortly after Archambeault's 4
letter?
5 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
6 Would you like me to get that?
7 MR. MILLER:
No.
I think that's sufficient 8
identification for when it occurred at this point in 9
time.
10 BY MR. MILLER:
11 0
With those additions and corrections, Dr. Hulin, is your I
12 prepared testimony accurate and correct, to the best of N-~
13 your knowledge and belief?
14 A
Yes, it is.
15 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, at this point I ask 16 that Dr. Hulin's testimony be incorporated into the 17 record as if read.
18 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman --
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild?
20 MR. GUILD:
-- may I voir dire, please?
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
22 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 Q
Dr. Hulin, I refer you to Page 18 of your testimony of 25 the corrections that you just recited; that is, the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois 6u134 (312) 232-0262
17901 g
]
v 1
number three from six -- rather, the number six from 2
three, suggesting that you talked with six Quality 3
Control Inspectors and observed six Quality Control 4
Inspectors perf orming their work.
5 Is that the change you meant to make to your 6
testimony?
7 A
Those are the same six.
I mean, I talked to and 8
observed a total of six OC Inspectors.
9 0
I see.
10 And when did you interview and observe -- or talk 11 to -- excuse me -- and observe the three that were pT 12 mentioned in your original testimony at Page 18?
\\_.)}
- r 13 A
June.
14 0
When did you do the other three?
15 A
They were done on the same two days.
16 0
I see.
l 17 They were all done at the same time?
18 A
The same two days, yes.
l 19 0
Do you recall me asking you that question in substance 20 when I interviewed you --
21 A
Yes, I do.
l l
22 0
-- last week?
l l
23 A
Yes.
24 0
Do you recall telling me that you spoke with and h
25 observed three or four inspectors?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 17902 1
A Yes.
2 0
Was that incorrect?
3 A
Yes.
4 0
I see.
5 And now you recall having talked to and observed 6
six inspectors?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
And what prompted your improved recall since the time I 9
asked you this question?
10 A
I went back and reviewed the logs that I had kept track 11 of my time on.
12 0
I see.
13 And do you have those logs available to you now?
14 A
No.
15 0
Where are they?
16 A
At home.
17 0
I'm sorry?
18 A
At home.
19 0
I see.
20 So you went home and consulted those logs, 21 refreshed your recollection, changed your testimony from 22 three to six, but left those logs at home?
23 A
Yes, sir, just the list of the names.
24 Q
Can you recall who those persons were --
25 A
Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ueneva, Illinois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
17903 O
1 0
-- the three to six?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
And who are the six?
4 A
Mr. Shields.
5 0
Do you know his first name, sir?
6 A
No.
7 Mr. King.
8 Q
Do you know his first name?
9 A
No.
10 Sean Dooley, S-E-A-N Dooley, Kevin Connor, Daryl 11 Landers and a man named John, last name unknown.
12 JUDGE COLE:
Is that because you can't
(
13 remember his name?
14 THE WITNESS:
It's because I didn't write it 15 down, yes.
It was noisy, and I didn't want to make an 16 issue of it.
17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 Q
Now, I asked you the same question when I interviewed l
l 19 you the other night, and you could recall none of the 20 names at that time.
l 21 A
(Indicating.)
22 0
You have to answer yes or no.
23 A
I'm sorry.
24 I believe that's correct, yes.
l t
l 25 0
All right, sir.
1 1
Sonntag_Repor_ ting _Servica. rra.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17904 v
1 And I take it, then, you've refreshed your 2
recollection since I asked you those questions?
3 A
Yes.
4 0
And how did you do that, sir?
5 A
I went home and looked at my log, using the term very 6
loosely, in my study.
7 0
Notes that you made?
8 A
There were no notes.
There was just a list of the names 9
and what I had done.
10 0
But they were your notes of the names of the persons 11 that you observed?
I 'N 12 A
Yes, yes.
13 0
All right, sir.
14 Did you find any further notes or memoranda 15 reflecting what you observed or what you were told by
)
16 these persons?
17 A
No, sir, I did not take notes on it.
18 0
Have you identified anything, since I asked you the 19 questions the other evening, that would refresh your 20 recollection as to the substance of what was told you 21 and what you observed of those six inspectors?
22 A
I'm not sure exactly of the substance -- I mean, the 23 total amount of the substance of our conversation on 24 Monday.
(
25 My notes were simply the people that I talked to.
N-Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17905 v
1 0
All right, sir, I understand you don't remember our 4
2 conversation precisely, but my question really was more 3
focused.
4 Have you identified any further matters that would 5
refresh your recollection as to the substance of what 6
was told you and the substance of what you observed with 7
respect to the six inspectors you now listed?
8 A
No.
9 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I have no objection 10 to Dr. Hulin's testimony as corrected being received, 11 with the exception of testimony that appears at Page 30 12 of Dr. Hulin's testimony.
There Dr. Hulin apparently 13 makes reference to an NRC inspection report.
I believe 14 that's the significance of the reference to 8203.
15 I believe that is a document that was offered in 16 evidence by -- or excerpts from which the material 17 portion on this issue were offered in evidence by 18 Applicant during the proceeding last week, if you 19 recall, the examination by Mr. Gallo of Mr. McGregor.
I 20 believe that's the document in question.
21 The Board has already ruled that that document, 22 that inspection, is beyond the scope of the hearing for 23 reasons I won't re-argue; but I would ask that Dr.
i 24 Hulin's testimony that essentially contains his i
25 interpretation of that document also be excluded.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l i
17906 i
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
So all we have is one 2
sentence that's disputed here, and that's the one that 3
starts with " note" and ends with that numbered 4
inspection report.
5 Is it correct that we ruled out the inspection 6
report?
7 MR. MILLER:
Well, that is correct, your 8
Honor.
However, this sentence really indicates one of 9
the bases for Dr. Hulin's opinion.
10 Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, matters that 11 are relied upon by an expert as bases for his opinion 12 need not themselves be admissible into evidence.
km 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, we've already ruled on 14 those matters that we' re not going to -- well, let me 15 just --
16 MS. CHAN:
Mr. Chairman?
17 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman?
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- see how that applies.
19 Yes?
20 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, it's Staf f's 21 recollection that this matter came up last week in 22 connection with Mr. Gallo's questioning of Mr. McGregor, 23 and there was a discussion on this.
24 Staf f took the position that the matters reflected 25 in Inspection Report 8203 were beyond the scope of the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17907 O
\\s_
1 proceeding.
There was some discussion.
The parties 2
took opposing views in different degrees.
3 I believe the resolution of the issue was that Mr.
4 Gallo withdrew his questioning on this score, withdrew 5
the document.
If it was offered into evidence, the 6
offer was withdrawn; and the matter -- it didn't come to 7
the point where the Chairman was required to make a 8
dispositive ruling on that.
9 So as it stands now, we have the document not in 10 evidence.
There is no --
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But it wasn't rejected by
[T 12 the Board; is that what you' re saying?
13 MR. BERRY:
Excuse me?
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But it was not rejected by 15 the Board; it's just not in evidence?
16 MR. BERRY:
Right, that's correct.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The way I read this 18 sentence, Mr. Miller, the witness was not relying on 19 this document for his expert opinion anyway.
All he 20 does is note that that report was consistent with his 21 opinion, but it certainly does not indicate that that 22 report led him to his opinion or formed any basis for 23 it.
So that certainly is not appropriate to use that 24 particular justification.
25 All he's doing here is bringing in the report, (j
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17908 v
1 which is something that we didn't do, and it's not in 2
evidence.
He is not forming his opinion on the basis of 3
that.
4 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I read it as simply 5
buttressing his opinion, and I don't believe it is a 6
basis.
7 I agree with Mr. Miller, f rankly, on the point that 8
if indeed it is a basis for his opinion, whether it's 9
admissible or not, I'm entitled to challenge that basis 10 for his opinion whether that's admissible.
11 of course, the record reflects I supported the 12 receipt of what was identified as Applicant's Exhibit 13 185.
But I believe it's a satisfactory resolution if 14 it's simply understood that the witness does not rely on 15 that report but notes it as what he views as 16 corroborating evidence and it's struck because it's been 17 previously ruled out.
18 MR. MILLER:
May I ask the witness a question 19 or two on voir dire?
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Certainly.
21 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. MILLER:
23 Q
Dr. Hulin, do you have your testimony open to Page 30?
24 A
Yes.
b( )
25 0
Immediately after the reference to 8203, there is the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IlliMiT-6ul34 (312) 232-0262 1
17909 (A) v 1
sentence that says, "Neither source of data alone is 2
convincing."
3 I ask you what the two or more sources of data that 4
4 are referred to in that sentence comprise.
5 A
"The two or more sources"?
6 0
I'm being too vague.
Let me rephrase the question.
7 The sentence reads, "Neither source of data alone 8
is convincing."
The next sentence reads, "Both of them 9
together," referring apparently to the sources of data.
10 I'd like you to identify on the record which two 11 sources of data specifically you're referring to in n()
12 those two sentences.
13 A
My interviews and the reports of the interviews with the 14 nine inspectors that were summarized in 8203.
The two 15 of them together buttress each other very well.
16 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I believe that Dr.
17 Hulin's responses indicate that 8203, even though not 18 separately admissible, was, in fact, a basis for the 19 opinions that are expressed in that page of his 20 testimony.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, let me review it.
22 Who had offered 8203?
Was that your offer, Mr.
i 23 Guild?
l (x
24 MP. GUILD:
No, sir.
k _,)
25 MR. MILLER:
No, sir.
S onnta g _E e po r_ ting._S e rric e, f & d -
Geneva, Illinois 60134
_.~-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _..-- _,_ _.____ 312)_ 232,0262_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(
17910
,r-1 MR. GUILD:
I supported Applicant.
It was 2
Applicant's 185.
That's the document.
It's identified 3
as Applicant's 185.
4 MR. MILLER:
It's marked at Transcript 17483.
5 JUDGE COLE:
My notes indicate that there was 6
a request that it travel with the record as an offer of 7
proof.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Now, whose offer of proof 9
was that?
10 MR. MILLER:
Well, it was --
11 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Gallo's.
f}
12 MR. MILLER:
-- Mr. Gallo'c.
It was v
13 Applicant's offer.
Let me just check the transcript and 14 see whether, in fact --
15 JUDGE COLE:
Mr. Miller, what page did you 16 tay that that was offered initially?
17 MR. MILLER:
Well, I'm up to 17503, where it 18 appears that the discussion was closing in on the 19 admissibility of the exhibit.
At 17503 Judge Grossman 20 indicated that he was unable to --
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, yes, but I want the 22 discussion.
23 Can someone --
24 MR. DERRY:
It's right about here.
(
)
25 (Indicating.)
v Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gon wa7 TlTihDTB 60lT4 (312) 232-0262
17910
(
)
1 MR. GUILD:
I supported Applicant.
It was 2
Applicant's 185.
That's the document.
It's identified 3
as Applicant's 185.
4 MR. MILLER:
It;s marked at Transcript 17483.
5 JUDGE COLE:
My notes indicate that there was 6
a request that it travel with the record as an offer of 7
proof.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Now, whose offer of proof 9
was that?
10 MR. MILLER:
Well, it was --
11 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Gallo's.
f 12 MR. MILLER:
-- Mr. Gallo's.
It was
(
'~'
13 Applicant's offer.
Let me just check the transcript and 14 see whether, in fact --
15 JUDGE COLE:
Mr. Miller, what page did you 16 say that that was offered initially?
17 MR. MILLER:
Well, I'm up to 17503, where it 18 appears that the discussion was closing in on the 19 admissibility of the exhibit.
At 17503 Judge Grossman 20 indicated that he was unable to --
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, yes, but I want the 22 discussion.
23 Can someone --
24 MR. DERRY:
It's right about here.
25 (Indicating.)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
GencVa, 11TiWois 60174
)
(312) 232-0262
17911 l/-~~)
V 1
MR. MILLER:
Then on the next page there was 2
an offer of proof, and it was accepted as -- the 3
inspection report itself was accepted as an offer of 4
proof.
i 5
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We'll take a short recess.
6 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 7
the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Let's go back on the record.
9 I'd like some voir dire on this.
10 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 11 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
12 0
We're dealing now with Subparagraph 5 here, entitled 13
" Lack of organizational power by Saklak," is that 14 correct, on Page 30?
15 A
Yes.
16 0
And you're relying now on two matters, one of them being 17 a report which was dated July, 1982?
18 A
I believe that was true, yes -- I believe that is true.
19 0
And that related to organizational power by Mr. Saklak?
20 A
That was my interpretation of it, yes, sir.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Can someone refresh my 4
22 recollection of when Mr. Saklak took his position?
23 My belief was that it was after that date.
24 MR. MILLER:
I think you're correct.
(s k,/
25 The witness looks like he wants to change his s
l Sonntag_ Reporting _Servica,_itd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17912 O
1 answer; I'm not sure.
2 MR. GUILD:
The report, Mr. Chairman, 8203, 3
reflects an inspection June 1 through 4,
'82.
My 4
recollection is Mr. Saklak didn't achieve his 5
supervisory position until July.
6 THE WITNESS:
That is correct.
The statement 7
was not that precisely oriented toward Saklak.
It was 8
oriented toward the organizational procedures.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I fail to understand 10 that.
11 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
b) 12 0
How does that report have anything to do with the power
(
13 manifested by Mr. Saklak subsequent to the report?
14 A
The lack of power that I interpreted Mr. Saklak to have 15 was consistent with the organizational structure that I 16 gathered existed from these documents.
17 0
Well, what did these people tell you that related 18 directly to the organizational structure as affected Mr.
19 Saklak?
20 A
I asked them who had the authority to grant vacations, 21 to give overtime, to assign -- to recommend punishments 22 like firing and so forth.
23 0
I see.
24 Now, what in the report had to do with who could do (s
(,/
25 all those things?
What was there in the report that S o nn t a g _R e po r ting _S er_v.ic eu._Ltd-l Geneva, Illinois 60134
{
(312) 232-0262
l 17913 1
suggested that --
2 A
I would have to read the report again, sir.
3 0
Do you have that report with you?
4 A
Not with me, no, sir.
5 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to 6
share it.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
8 MR. GUILD:
It was offered by Applicant --
9 the relevant excerpts f rom the report were Applicant's 10 185 for identification.
11 MR. MILLER:
Do you mind if I read over his
\\
12 shoulder?
That's the only copy.
v 13 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, you'll recall that 14 Inspection Report 8203 was a CAT team inspection report, 15 of which Mr. McGregor was a member of that CAT team.
16 I believe Mr. McGregor's involvement in this 17 particular area with respect to this report was he 18 interviewed a number of Quality Control Inspectors for 19 all the contractors to ascertain, I guess, their state 20 of mind and morale existing at the site at the time.
21 I believe in the report itself, which was not 22 received in evidence, he asked a number of questions of 23 the various inspectors and received answers and compiled 24 a listing of those answers in the report.
O 25 I believe some of those answers reflect on the S onn ta g _R e po r. ting _S e rvic a,_Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17914 i
r-s s-1 broad subject matter of organizational freedom and
^
2 authority to stop work and things of that nature.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But what did that have to 4
do, though, with the office that Mr. Saklak assumed l
5 three months after the report?
6 MR. BERRY:
Well, again, Mr. Chairman, the 7
report is not in evidence, and there was not extensive 1
8 discussions on it.
My knowledge of it is based from 9
talking with Staff, Staff members and reading the report 10 itself.
11 But that report was not -- that inspection was not 12 undertaken specifically with respect to Mr. Saklak or j
13 any individual but more as a part of a CAT team effort 14 just to, I guess, explore and probe f rom the inspectors 15 on the site just their general perceptions as to the 16 working conditions, job environment.
17 It was not focused particularly on L. K. Comstock j
18 or Phillips Getschow or anyone or any particular 19 individual manager but just generally as part of a CAT l
20 team effort.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, what you're saying now 22 is that it related in general to the morale of the 23 individuals there.
But now the witness seems to suggest i
24 that it related to the organizational structure; in 25 particular, to the office that Mr. Saklak assuined some 4
Sonntag_ Reporting _ Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17915
)
1 three months after the inspection.
2 MR. BERRY:
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that for 3
that part of the report, Mr. McGregor interviewed, as I 4
said before, a number of inspectors from a number of 5
contractors at the site.
6 I believe his purpose was -- and I believe it's 7
documented in the report itself, but his purpose was to 8
ascertain from them their feelings, their perception and 9
their ability to do the job.
10 I believe a number of the questions that he asked 11 dealt with morale of inspectors, their freedom, their l
}
12 organizational freedom to report and document J
13 deficiencies, their ability to get along with 14 management.
15 I don't believe it was directly or specifically 16 focused on any particular aspect of that; but it was 17 part of an effort, an information-finding effort, on the 18 part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to understand 19 better exactly the comfort level, I guess, of the 20 inspectors.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Pine.
I understand what 22 you're saying about the report.
23 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
24 0
But now the question to the witness is:
Ilow in 25 particular did that report reinte to the position, the i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 111Tridi a 60174
~
(312) 232-0262 j
l 17916 1
V 1
organizational position, that Mr. Saklak assumed or to 2
Mr. Saklak himself?
3 A
I think it would probably be a fairly narrow 4
interpretation.
5 I made the statement, "It is also apparent that 6
suspensions were not used as a weapon to beat greater 7
quantity of production out of the inspectors.
8
" Question 4:
Is there a sense of intimidation 9
based on the need requirement to keep up with 10 construction?
44 out of 44 say no.
11 "Is there a reluctance to make adverse findings
)
12 if they impact on cost or schedule?
44 out of 44 said 13 no."
14 It's a fairly narrow issue relating to the 15 organizational power to, you know, harass and beat more 16 production out of the QC Inspectors.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I want to say right now that 18 what the witness in reading into the record is not 19 evidence because we're not going to let it in in some 20 other guise.
21 Now, my understanding is that the allegations we 22 have here relate to the period subsequent to Mr. Saklak 23 assuming his position.
ex 24 We at this stage certainly do not wish to go back x_,)
25 into prior periods to talk about morale at that time or Sonntag_ Reporting Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17917 f~~\\
v 1
the feelings of the inspectors as to whether or not they 2
had any production pressures.
3 If we're going to do that, we're going to have 4
another few months of hearing here relating to the 5
period before July of 1982, and there's no purpose for 6
it.
7 I don't see how this last portion of the paragraph, 8
these last three sentences, have anything to do with a 9
lack of organizational power by Mr. Saklak.
All they do 10 is relate to -- all they do is refer to that report, 11 which relates to morale back in the period of May of 12 1982, which we don't have before us.
13 I don't think what happened in that period 14 corroborates anything that the witness has to offer us 15 as far as the period that we're concerned about.
16 So I don't think we want to get into that at this 17 late stage in the proceeding and perhaps admitting 18 another contention, which is what it amounts to.
19 I assume, Mr. Guild, that would not be unacceptable 20 to you?
21 MR. GUILD:
No, sir.
In fact, it's our 22 position, of course, that what happened in the period 23 referred to is relevant and has been referred to.
24 I guess my interest is satisfied if I simply know 25 what the target is I have to shoot at here.
It indeed i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geheva~~TITf6iii e 601T4 (312) 232-0262
17918 bh 1
the testimony stands, it stands on whatever foundation, 2
shaky or firm, that the testimony is based on.
I can 3
deal with that to the extent it's not already been 4
established.
5 But if it's struck, then I know what target I have 6
to shoot at otherwise.
7 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor --
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, it doesn't seem to me 9
that it offers anything but some way of getting in a 10 portion of a report that deals with a period that we're 11 not involved in.
)
12 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, it seems to me that 13 it's fair for the witness to compare what he perceives 14 is the organizational process and procedures in the time 15 period prior to Mr. Saklak's arrival and the time period 16 during.
That's what I understood the thrust of the 17 statements were.
18 MR. GUILD:
Of course, Mr. Chairman, that is 19 true at least to the extent that if Applicant's whole 20 rebuttal case is built on the thesis, including this 21 witness' testimony, that one can compare before and 22 after, if the period that establishes the demarcation of 23 what's bef ore is July of 1982, that presumes that you' re x
24 using the same data base for before.
It also presumes
(_,)
25 you're going to measure after.
Sonntag_Repotting_Serviccdtd.
}
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
17919 OV 1
I think that in fairness what we have done in this 2
proceeding to date -- obviously the evidence has been 3
more detailed where it's more recent.
That has more to 4
do, f rankly, with people's memories, the extent of their 5
recollection and perhaps the limits of the documentation i
6 that's been maintained at the site.
7 But I really would ask the Board to be cautious in 8
making a ruling that says that anything that happened 9
before July of '82 is not relevant, because it certainly 10 has been discussed in this record by all parties.
11 My concern right now is that a specific document v}
12 that I understood was offered both by Applicant and 13 Intervenor was rejected, and now I see another witness 14 wanting to rely on it.
15 If I'm not obligated to deal with that document 16 that in not in evidence except as a basis for this 17 expert witness' opinion, then I know what my target is.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I wasn't suggesting 19 that we're going to rule out carte blanche anything that 20 happened before July of 1982.
21 But all we see being offered now is a witness' 22 paraphrasing or summarizing of a report that dealt with 23 morale back in May of 1982, and we're not concerned with 24 that.
It seems to me as though there's nothing that's
. b()
25 of any probative value that the witness is offering with Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6UIT4 i
(312) 232-0262
\\
f 17920 km I
his reference to this report.
2 Why don't we take five minutes to caucus here, and 3
we'll be back.
4 MR. BERRY:
Before you do that, Mr. Chairman, 5
may Staff just point out that, in response to the 6
statement Mr. Guild just made, it's our understanding 7
that the Board has not ruled and has never ruled in this 8
proceeding that evidence relating to events taking place 9
prior to Mr. Saklak's arrival are irrelevant and 10 inadmissible.
11 The Staff and the Board, I believe, has agreed it's
)
12 taken the position there has to be some connection, some 13 nexus, between pre-July, 1982, and one of the items in 14 controversy here.
15 To the extent it's just evidence of something that 16 happened before Mr. Saklak's arrival for the sake of 17 showing what happened before Mr. Saklak's arrival, that 18 is not relevant.
19 But to the extent you can connect it up and 20 demonstrate some relationship to something that is 21 relevant in this proceeding, I believe the Board has 22 ruled consistently that that is admissible.
23 When this matter first came up and the Staff 24 objected to the introduction of Applicant's Exhibit 185, l
25 we did so on the basis that it was not apparent to us on Sonntagleportinglenices Lta-Geneva, Illinois 60134
~ _ _ _ _., (312) 23_2-0262___ _
17921 Ob 1
1 the face of it that that report had any connection to 2
any of the items that were in controversy in this 3
proceeding.
4 I don't believe there was ever a showing --
5 certainly not to the Staff's satisfaction -- that there 6
was, and that was the basis of our objection.
7 With respect to the witness, what we have here is 8
still not aparent to the Staff.
What is the connection 9
between pre-July,1982, and post that period which ties 10 it in to some matter in controversy here, other than 11 that there was, I guess, lack of power in 1982 and lack f'T 12 of power af ter Mr. Saklak had arrived there.
13 It's not clear to the Staff that there is a 14 relationship between the two, and it's for that reason 15 that the Staff is taking the position that we really 16 believe that the probative value of this witness is far 17 outweighed by its capacity to extend the proceeding and 18 take up time unnecessarily.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
We'll take five 20 minutes now.
21 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 22 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
The Board doesn't see any 24 nexus between that report and either Mr. Saklak himself V) 25 or the position that Mr. Saklak subsequently occupied.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17922 pd 1
So on that basis, we would strike the end of Page 30, 2
beginning with " note."
3 Now, Mr. Miller, if you can establish that the 4
report had some -- or that the witness saw some 5
connection in the report, something specific, with the 6
office that Mr. Saklak assumed, we might reinstate that 7
portion.
8 But from what we've heard about the report, the 9
general findings which related primarily to morale, it's 10 dubious to us that there could be any reference in the 11 report that there was anything pertaining to the f
12 specific office that Mr. Saklak assumed.
13 But if you can show that connection on further 14 examination, then we'll reconsider our ruling.
But as 15 of now, we'll strike starting with " note."
16 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I would like to, if 17 I may, reserve on the question of any further 18 examination of Dr. Hulin on this point until I've had an 19 opportunity to look at the document in some detail 20 myself.
But I'll certainly let the Board and parties 21 know first thing tomorrow morning.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
Fine.
23 I might add we really do not want to litigate 1982 24 and the years before that, and we think that one way of (j
25 getting into that is to have references to inspection Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17923 1
reports f rom those earlier dates and allow cross 2
examination on those reports.
Then we'd have an 3
entirely new hearing starting up.
4 We have no intention of doing that.
5 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I would just note 6
for the record that I may have argued -- in reference to 7
this point in argument when Mr. Gallo first offered the 8
document, you will recall that we took Mr. Keppler's 9
deposition in discovery prior to the filing of the 10 amended QA contention.
I asked Mr. Keppler about this 11 report in deposition, and he made some very critical 12 comments about that.
13 I don't mean this as evidence.
I mean only to make 14 the statement that we would offer to demonstrate that 15 Mr. Keppler stated in that deposition this was a very 16 poor effort and he was disturbed that this didn't 17 indicate the problems that were later found in 8205 and 18 8309.
19 So we have a position on this matter if this matter 20 is relevant and included in the record.
I don't want my 21 silence to suggest that this report would cut against 22 Intervenors, because I don't think it does at all.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
24 Mr. Miller?
25 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, that concludes my Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17924 0
1 examination of Dr. Hulin.
He's available for cross 2
examination.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
We didn't admit the 4
testimony, which we will do at this time, minus that 5
portion that we just indicated on Page 30.
That would 6
include Dr. Hulin's Exhibit 1.
7 The Reporter, I take it, has a copy.of that, also.
8 MR. MILLER:
I'll make certain that she does.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
10 MS. CHAN:
Your Honor, the Staff does not 11 accept Mr. Guild's interpretation of what Mr. Keppler 12 said in his deposition, and it's not evidence in this 13 proceeding.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
15 l
16 17 18 l
19 20 21 k
l 22 23 l
24 4
25
\\
~
t Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 1e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter Of:
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Station, Units 1
)
50-457 and 2)
(
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rebecca J. Lauer, one of the attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company, certify that copies of the attached BRAIDWOOD HEARINGS REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF CHARLES L. HULIN have been served in the above-captioned matter on
()
those persons listed in the attached Service List by United States mail, postage prepaid, this 16th day of October, 1986.
N-Rebecca J( Lauer ISHA!!, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 DATED:
October 16, 1986 7x
\\_)
+
SERVICE LIST Herbert Grossman, Esq.
Mr. William L. Clements Chairman Chief, Docketing and Services Administrative Law Judge United States Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission l
Board Office of the Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Bridget Little Rorem 117 North Linden Street Dr. Richard F. Cole P.O. Box 208 i
Administrative Law Judge Essex, IL 60935 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board United States Nuclear Regulatory Robert Guild Commission Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
1 Washington, DC 20555 Timothy W. Wright, III B?I 109 North Dearborn Street Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Suite 1300 Administrative Law Judge Chicago, IL 60602 102 Oak Lane TN 37830
()OakRidee, Charles Jones, Director
~
Illinois Emergency Services i
Stuart Treby, Esq.
and Disaster Acency i
Elaine I. Chan, Esq.
110 East Adams j
Office of the Executive Legal Springfield, IL 62705 j
Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission William Little, Director Washington, DC 20555 Braidwood Project Region III United States Nuclear Regulatory
-Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Panel 799 Roosevelt Road United State,s Nuclear Regulatory Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Janice A. Stevens j
(For Addressee Only)
Atomic Safety and Licensing United States Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Panel Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory 7920 Norfolk Avenue j
Commission Phillips Building
)
washington, DC 20555 Bethesda, MD 20014 1
George L. Edgar, Esq.
O Thomas A. Schmutz, Esq.
Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 "L"
Street, N.W.
Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036
~
UNIITD STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter Of:
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Station, Units 1
)
50-457 and 2)
)
BRAIDWOOD HEARINGS REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF CHARLES L.
HULIN O
4
e
(_/
10/16/86 BRAIDWOOD HEARINGS REEUTTAL TESTIMONY OF CHARLES L. HULIN Q.1 Would you state your name and address please.
A.1 My name is Charles Lee Hulin.
My address is 603 East Daniel Street, Champaign, Illinois, 61820.
Q.2 What do you do for a living?
A.2 I am a professor of psychology in Liberal Arts and Sciences and in the Aviation Institute at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
My speciality within the general field of psychology is
()
Industrial / Organizational Psychology.
Q.3 Would you briefly describe what industrial / organizational psychology is?
A.3-Industrial / organizational psychology is a specialty within the general field of psychology that is concerned with the behavior of individuals in organizations.
This is generally taken to mean that we study the behavior of what would be regarded as normal human adults in business and related organizations.
The overall field of I/O psychology, as it is generally called, is concerned with everything from organizational theory to individual differences--differences among individuals that influence their attitudes and behaviors at work.
There are many O'
subspecialties within I/O psychology.
My subspecialties are applied measurement (measurement of differences among
<h Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 2 individuals), motivation (the process by which individuals are motivated to perform an act and those characteristics or events that lead individuals to behave in certain ways), job attitudes (the process by which individuals acquire positive and negative attitudes towards their work and how these attitudes become translated into behaviors), and individual differences (those characteristics that differentiate among individuals and have relevance for their behavior in organizations).
(
Q.4 Please describe you educational and professional background.
A.4 I was graduated from Northwestern University in 1958 with a BA degree in psychology.
I received my MA degree in 1960 from the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell and my PhD in Psychology with a minor in mathematical statistics in January, 1963, also from Cornell University.
From 1962 through the end of the 1985-86 school year, with the exception of sabbatical leaves at Berkeley in 1968 and at the University of Washington at Seattle in 1975, I have been on the staff i
of the Psychology Department and the Institute of Labor f
and Industrial Relations at the University of Illinois at
()
Urbana-Champaign.
I am currently a professor of
4 4
- (~'N Braidwood Hearings
\\ml Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 3 psychology at the University of Illinois in Liberal Arts and Sciences and in the Aviation Institute's Aviation Research Laboratory.I was a member of the Center for Advanced Study at the University of Illinois in 1976.
For seven years, from 1975 to 1982, I was the Associate Editor of the Journal of Applied Psychology.
Before that I was a masthead editor for that journal for about two years.
I am currently a masthead editor of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
The remainder of my professional and scientific accomplishments are listed in my vita, a copy of which I
)
have attached as Exhibit 1 to this document.
Q.5 What issues have you been asked to analyze in connection with the Braidwood licensing proceeding?
A.5 I have been asked to examine documents, testimony, interview inspectors and supervisors, and comment on whether the harassment and intimidation of quality control inspectors, as alleged in the intervenor's contention of August 1, 1985, may have adversely affected the quality of work of the quality control inspectors at Braidwood.
Q.6 Could you tell us what in your background or experience
~
qualifies you to do the type of analysis called for in this case?
t
s Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 4 A.6 Nearly all of my professional career has been spent studying environmental, organizational, and individual characteristics that influence the behaviors of individuals at work in complex organizations.
Much of my research has involved population of blue-collar workers.
Among these studies have been analyses of the motivations and attitudes of individuals who work in the temporary work industry, antecedents of turnover in a variety of populations of workers; analyses of motivations of employees of printing companies, the Illinois National
(}
Guard, employees (and residents) of a company town in northwestern British Columbia; cross-cultural studies of work attitudes; and I am currently writing two chapters for the Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 2nd Edition, one on the antecedents of commitment and withdrawal among workers.
An important aspect of these studies is their diversity.
Also, whenever possible, I learn as much as I can firsthand about the populations I study.
When I studied the temporary work industry, I " shaped-up" at the local Manpower office and was sent out three days to work as a blue-collar worker unloading moving trucks and working as a day laborer.
When I have worked as a consultant in
)
different industries, I have tried to spend one or more
i.
f'N Braidwood Hearings
\\_)
Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 5 days on the shop floor learning about the jobs.
I spent two days underground in a coal mine in southern Illinois observing the work of a crew at the coal face and talking to them as much as I could.
I have worked as a laborer on construction jobs, driven a liquid propane truck, worked on an assembly line in Michigan in the automobile industry, and as a laboratory technician for a chemical company.
When I was in graduate school my chairman insisted that everybody who worked with her must have as much firsthand knowledge as possible about the people we
()
studied before we began our formal research.
This meant that we had to spend a great deal of time talking with these workers (not just interviewing them) in one-on-one situations to learn about their beliefs, perceptions and attitudes quite divorced from our formal studies.
I think this is important because during this process I have been exposed to workers and working conditions that have ranged from white-collar sales personnel to construction workers and miners.
There is not much that will surprise or shock me anymore about a site.or a shop floor or any work situation one might reasonably expect to encounter in the United States.
i
==
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 6 Q.7 What research methods do you normally use in your research?
A.7 My research methods are tailored to fit the hypotheses I am testing or the consulting job being done.
I generally favor field studies over laboratory experiments for the kinds of research I do, although I have done both.
I try to use multiple research methods in my studies because each of these research methods, if used individually is going to be flawed.
By using different methods with different kinds of independent flaws, we can usually be pretty sure that our results are not due to method bias
'()
that influences results based on only one source of data or method of generating data.
Whenever possible, I combine interview, questionnaires, analyses of behavioral 4
trace measures, examination of production records, analyses of absenteeism or quit rates, and, where possible, experimental procedures.
In short, I use all sources of data that will give us a handle on the likely causes of the behaviors of the workers and that are relevant to the questicia we are asking and on which reliance can be placed.
We must recognize that all methods of obtaining data about the behavior of individuals are biased and flawed to one degree or i
another.
However, if all of these flawed methods, with O
their different and independent sources of bias, give us f
f i
(
Braidwood Hearings
- ^
Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 7 the same conclusions or support the same general set of findings, then confidence in the strength and validity of the findings is increased.
Any finding that is supported 1
by only one source of data is suspect until it receives independent verification.
Q.8 Would you describe the basic theoretical orientation you normally use to analyze the antecedents of the behaviors of the workers you have studied.
What factors influence worker' bahaviors in the workplace--in their work organizations?
A.8 I think it is fruitful to view workers' behaviors in work organizations as a series of behavioral choices.
They choose from a very large number of possibilities to maximize their subjective expected utility.
Utility is a technical term that can be used here as equivalent to anticipated total (overall) satisfaction they expect to experience as a result of a series of acts or the
. outcomes from a single act.
The approach is called General Expectancy Theory or Subjective Expected Utility Theory.
No general theory in this area is without flaws nor can any general theoretical model account adequately for t
all of the varieties of behavior we encounter in organizations.
This general approach, if augmented by propositions from other areas such as work values or
()
individual differences, seems'to be the soundest l
l l
(
=
tD
\\_/
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 8 theoretical explanation of the behavior of individuals at work in organizations currently available.
In the current applications of this theory to organizational behavior, workers are assumed to know what contingencies or relationships (technically, conditional probabilities) exist between their acts (or behaviors) and the products of their acts.
They also know the relationship between these products and the evaluations they receive.
They know the contingencies there are between the evaluations they receive and their personal outcomes.
This complete set of contingencies tells them what rewards or punishments they can expect to receive as a result of their acts or behaviors.
Contingencies may be thought of, without oversimplifying too much, as a series of beliefs that relate behaviors to products, relate products to evaluations, and relate evaluations to organizational outcomes.
Individuals are assumed to act as if they were aware of what products they could expect as a result of commitments of differed.t levels of time and effort, what kinds of evaluations they might expect from their supervisors and co-workers as a result of these products, and what outcomes they might expect to receive as a
\\
v s
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 9
)
result of the different evaluations.
Workers' personal outcomes directly determine their utilities or satisfactions.
Q.9 How do workers learn about these contingencies or relationships that link their behaviors to their outcome?
A.9 They learn about these contingencies by 1) firsthand experience, 2) observing others in the situations, 3) being told what the contingencies are, and 4) comparing their present work situation to other situations they have seen in the past.
()
Q.10 Could you expand on what specifically you mean by an organizational contingency?
Are they established by the organization or are they more subjective in nature?
A.10 Contingencies are both the subjectively perceived and objective connections between actions (what to do) and what we produce, between our products and the evaluations i
others have of us and between these evaluations and what organizational outcomes we personally receive.
These connections are stochastic or probabilistic rather than functional relations.
That is, they only describe probabilities of things happening, not completely defined l
and known hard connections.
An analysis of the relevant contingencies that l
~ influence the bahaviors of individuals becomes i
complicated very rapidly.
Any action we undertake i
I
i I
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 10 a
generally has a number of products associated with it.
Each of these products can lead to a different i,
evaluation. To further complicate things, any given product is likely to be evaluated by several different people in the organization--subordinates, co-workers, supervisors--and by individuals not even connected with the organization--our families, regulatory commissions, members of the legal profession.
The extent to which an individual's behavior is influenced by the evaluations of different people is largely a matter of the power the
{}
differant evaluators have to translate their evaluations i
into outcomes that the individual values or wants to I
avoid.
r Q.11 Is there any research that would support the theory that individuals in organizations learn about and respond to these contingencies.
A.11 Yes.
Our assumptions about how individuals in i
.j organizations learn about these contingencies seem reasonable because when we ask individuals to describe the contingencies that link behavior to evaluations and outcomes in their organizations, they can do it.
Further, these contingencies can be used to describe differences between organizations in what is often called i
organizational culture or organizational climate.
The important point, however, is that these descriptions of 1
I
]
/
Braidwood Hearings
\\
Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 11 4
1 contingencies differ across organizations and even across departments within organizations in predictable and theoretically meaningful ways.
Perceived contingencies within organizations and within departments in organizations show expected patterns in terms of the agreement levels among individuals.
That is, individuals 1
within one organization have less variance in their descriptions of organizational contingencies than do individuals from different organizations; individuals within departments show less variance than do individuals from different departments.
These two conditions are 1
important and show that the organizational employees are i
learning similar contingencies within organizations and i
there is more within agreement within units where there i
should be agreement about what the organizational contingencies are and less agreement where there should i
i be less agreement. There are also mean differences
{
between organizations in terms of these descriptions of f
organizational contingencies.
Organizations involved in dangerous work or with dangerous working conditions and where there are constant safety campaigns and sanctions i
for unsafe behaviors will have employees who report relatively strong contingencies between unsafe behaviors and (negative) outcomes.
Individuals from service i
I i
i.
i.
)
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 12 organizations not involving dangerous work or working i
conditions will be less likely to report contingencies between unsafe behaviors and outcomes.
Members of production and R&D or legal departments will report different contingencies between conservative or i
risky / innovative behaviors and evaluations even within j
the same organization.
Q.12 Are there other factors that influence workers' behaviors.
j A.12 These contingencies are powerful in shaping the behaviors of individuals in organizations--or anywhere else for l ()
that matter.
However, just as workers are influenced by
)
their immediate organizational environments and l
perceptions of contingencies, they are also influenced by the values and interests they bring with them, by work values they have acquired during the course of their j
lives, by societal norms and standards, and by all of the accumulated learning that has gone in their lifetime.
Most studies of any set of theoretical propositions control or randomize the effects of variables that are extraneous to the theory.
This has been the case with this particular theory also.
Thus, from studies done on i
l the theoretical propositions relevant to this theory, we
]
know about how variables of this theory influence behaviors but we may not know how these theoretical i
J
l ()
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 13 variables interact with other variables extraneous to the theory, such as norms and values, to influence behaviors jointly.
Values and norms are important, however, because they often regulate the limits of the influence of the immediate organizational environments and perceptions of organizational contingencies.
In other words, individuals in organizations behave with respect to what they find in the organizational environment and what they bring with them to the organization.
As organizational theorists, however, we sometimes get carried away with the influence of organizational variables and forget about these other limiting factors in the form of individual differences in work values and societal norms on employees' behaviors.
l Q.13 What determines which, from among the many products and the many evaluations, are the ones that influence our behaviors?
A.13 To simplify it a great deal, it comes down to who do we perceive as having a right to evaluate what we do and who has the power to translate their evaluations of our i
behaviors and products into positive and negative outcomes?
The two questions are quite independent.
For instance, our families' evaluations of us influence what we do even though these evaluations may not carry any T
l
\\
weight of official or even unofficial sanctions.
)
x/
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 14 Co-workers' evaluations are important to the extent that we-value their friendship and value memberships in informal work groups.
Supervisors' evaluations may be important because of their power to have their evaluations translated into organizational rewards or punishments--although rewards seem to do a much better job than punishments in the long run.
Q.14 What happens when different individuals who may evaluate our products are in conflict with each other?
That is, what if one person evaluates an act or a product positively while another evaluates it negatively?
A.14 It would depend on the perceived legitimacy of the two O-evaluators, their relative power, and the extent to which their evaluations were in conflict with our own values and beliefs about what is right (in some abstract sense).
The theory is mute with respect to which course of action people will take when external pressures brought on us by some supervisor or evaluator are in conflict with our personal values.
It is very difficult, however, to get people to violate their own norms and standards in significant ways in work situations because of pressures from supervisors.
In the laboratory, where the experimenter has control over all sources of information, it is a different story but in organizations
()
where we are familiar with the rules and the general
73
(_)
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 15 norms, we are unlikely to violate strongly held beliefs or values about what is right or what should be done.
Q.15 What determines if a supervisor who may evaluate our work has power so that their evaluations of what we do influence what we will do in the future?
A.15 Does he have power, granted to him by managers in the organization, to administer punishments for behaviors he does not evaluate positively and does he have the power to cause rewards to be given to us that are based on his positive evaluations of our behaviors?
There may be other elements of this reward power but these would seem
()
to be the main ingredients.
Q.16 How do individuals in organizations come to know who has the power to translate their contingencies into outcomes that influence the utilities or satisfactions of the workers?
That is, how do they learn who has power to translate their evaluations into rewards and punishments?
A.16 Mainly through experience in the organization.
We should expect that every organizational manager will have a slightly different set of expectations for the behavior of their employees.
Workers are able to learn if the managers can translate these expectancies into official or o'ven unofficial contingencies that say to a worker "If you want to get this, then you should do that."
If a manager can translate their contingencies into i
1 1
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 16
{}
organizational outcomes, then the managers' evaluations should influence behaviors.
i Q.17 What have you~done to allow you to make a determination whether the alleged intimidation and harassment or undue production pressure claimed to exist by the intervenors in fact influenced the quality of the work of the Comstock quality control inspectors?
A.17 I have read the following materials:
a) the internal, Con; stock memos written about the incident involving Richard Saklak and Richard Snyder that occurred in late March, 1985, b) the internal, Comstock memos relating to the discharge of Worley Puckett and the transfer of John
()
- Seeders, c) the prefiled testimony of Richard Arvey and David McKirnan, experts for the intervenors, d) the deposition of David McKirnan, e) the report (82-03) detailing earlier investigations into supposed harassment, f) the NRC memos of March 29, 1985 and of April 5,
- 1985, g) 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B and 10 C.F.R. part 50.7, h) the opening statement of Mr. Guild, attorney for the intervenors, 4
i) the testimony of Martin Frankel, George Marcus, Irving DeWald, Robert Seltmann, and James Gieseker.
O
/
6 7^
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 17 I have also examined in detail both the BCAP reinspection data and the PTL overinspection data as well as the results of statistical analyses of those data carried out by Martin Frankel.
These BCAP reinspection data and the PTL overinspection data were examined particularly with regard to the data reflecting the qualify of work of the QC inspectors before and after July 1, 1982, the date Richard Saklak was hired, before and after August 1,
- 1983, the date Irving DeWald was hired, and before and after April 1, 1985, the date Richard Saklak was
()
fired (the BCAP data ended for work done as of June 30, 1984).
These dates were chosen to test hypotheses, using the best available behavioral trace measures, that were relevant to the intervenors' contention.
If, as alleged by the intervenors, these individuals were part of a pervasive climate at Braidwood that stressed quantity of work over quality of work by the QC inspectors, then we should see differences in the quality of the work of the QC inspectors coinciding with those dates.
In other words, if we accept the contention of the intervenors at face value, we should see the effects of the hiring and discharge of i
l
Braidwood Hearings y)
(_
Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 18 these instruments of the pervasive influence.
These effects should coincide roughly with the dates of their hiring and termination.
In addition, I spent two days at the Braidwood construction site talking with the quality control manager, the quality assurance manager, the assistant quality control manager, and three of the quality control inspectors who are working there now and who were working on the job when Saklak was quality control supervisor.
I spent time with these three quality control inspectors observing their work on
()
the job and learning about their jobs.
While doing this, I also talked with production employees and their immediate supervisors.
Q.18 Have you reached an opinion concerning whether the alleged harassment, intimidation, and applications of
" undue" production pressure by Comstock management affected the quality of its quality control inspectors' work?
A.18 Yes.
Before I elaborate on this answer, I want to stress that there is no single piece, or even set, of data that is definitive in this matter.
This is consistent with nearly all scientific research on the behavior of individuals in organizations.
The conclusion that is more likely true is the conclusion that is supported by all of the different, independent pieces of evidence. Any
{
. n Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 19 one piece of data or evidence is likely to be flawed.
Any conclusion that is supported by only one piece of data or evidence is suspect.
If all of these independent pieces of evidence point to the same conclusion, then it is overwhelmingly likely that the conclusion is correct even though no one piece of evidence is crucial or definitive.
On the basis of the multiple pieces of evidences that I have reviewed, it seems highly unlikely that the alleged harassment and intimidation and undue pressure by Comstock management adversely affected the quality of the work of the quality control inspectors.
Q.19 What is the basis for your opinion?
This is going to be a very long answer so I will A.19 provide an outline of it first and then go back and take The up the points one by one and elaborate on them.
bases for my overall opinion can be divided into three major components and several sub-parts.
I de not list these in order of importance because I think that all of the parts of the data support the same general conclusions; to separate one factor or another for special consideration would not be consistent with the
)
preponderance of the evidence and the consistent
(
conclusion the data suggest.
4
s
'{T Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 20 A.
Organizational, interpersonal, and psychological factors.
1.
The degree of harassment and intimidation by Saklak of the QC inspectors.
2.
The safeguards built into the system by the NRC and by the Quality First Program at Braidwood.
3.
The nature of the work of the QC inspectors, the relative subjective / objective standards they use, the training they receive, and the general quality climate at the site.
4.
The lack of hard and fast production standards for QC inspectors.
5.
The leck of organizational power possessed by Saklak.
6.
The conclusions i~ndicated by application of a general theory of organizational behavior to understand the behavior of the QC inspectors.
B.
The impact of values and norms of society and the inspectors on their on the job behaviors.
C.
The overinspection and reinspection data generated by BCAP and PTL that reflects on the quality of work of the QC inspectors.
I shall discuss these factors and sub-factors one at a time.
b l
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 21 A.
Organization, interpersonal, and psychological factors.
1.
The degree of harassment and intimidation by Saklak of the QC inspectors.
This must be judged within the framework of a factor that is difficult to quantify or express precisely.
This is related to the expected role behaviors of supervisors and inspectors (or production employees) at any construc-tion site or production plant.
Basically, supervisors are expected to exert some pressure on employees to keep
{}
busy, to be productive; employees are expected to offer l
certain amounts of resistance to these pressures.
Behaviors that fall within these role expectations are
{
generally regarded as part of the background noise of a production or construction site; they would be more i
noticeable if they were absent than if they occur.
People really only attend a very few of the nearly infinite number of stimuli that impinge upon them.
They respond to even fewer.
Those stimuli that are important for biological survival, that are unusual, that are especially salient, that rise about the background noise level, and that are life threatening are attended and responded to.
Most others are not.
In this context,
()
,w.
w-w w-w-,
--,v,-,
,-w-,
e-,
m--,
n
,m-,-
+-m-
_wp--
---,>+-w--~-
-e
-m
s r
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 22 J
out-of-role-behaviors by the supervisor are much more likely to be attended to than expected role behaviors.
The language used by Saklak in his behavior toward j
his subordinates falls within this area of expected role behaviors.
It was rough and profane and was occasionally out of line with the language used by many other super-visors at any construction site.
An example, identified by the intervenors as being extreme was the "if beating were legal" statement.
One can still question if this statement was likely to have much lasting effect on the
(}
working behavior of quality control inspectors.
It was above the noise level and was noticed but beyond that, it i
may not have elicited much of a response.
Without the f
other events going on at the site, the inspectors may not t
j have brought Saklak's behavior to the notice of the NRC inspectors.
I would certainly not advocate such language in general by supervisors.
It is not clear, however, that his language would directly influence the work behavior of the QC inspectors.
The statements of Saklak to Snyder can be considered extreme.
We can all agree he should not have made them and this is not the type of behavior we want in a supervisor at a construction site.
We can still search in vain for any theoretical reason to expect an influence
)
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 23 on the behavior of the inspectors, absent a demonstration or an expectancy of a substantial amount of organiza-tional power on the part of Saklak, or any empirical evidence that such influence occurred.
His language, when viewed within the framework of expected ~ role behaviors, would be noticed by most quality control inspectors at a construction site but expecting it to cause any consistent responses, to have any long term effects on the work behavior of adult, QC inspectors is not consistent with what we know about experienced workers.
O Words are strange symbols.
I have worked with support groups at the Prairie Center for Substance Abuse and at LW's Place, a private, not for profit substance abuse center.
I once had one of the people I was working with ask me if I wanted him "...to hurt him (an administrator whose behavior I was complaining about) a little."
I have no doubt that the administrator was in more danger from being " hurt a little" by this person than Snyder ever was from Saklak.
2.
Safeguards built into the system by the NRC and the Quality First Program at Braidwood.
The safeguards built into the system permitting
/~N access of the quality control inspectors (as well as the V
production employees) to the NRC and Quality First
- 7..V Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 24 Program, the posted phone numbers for calling and reporting incidents that might affect construction quality adversely, the knowledge of the production employees that their work was to be inspected, the knowledge of the quality control inspectors that their work was to be overinspected or reinspected on a random or quasi-random basis, the professionalism of the employees and the general awareness of the inherent dangers of poor quality work in nuclear power stations all come together to generate a work climate in which the O
safety of the resulting structure seems uppermost in the minds of most of the employees.
[There was even a belief expressed several times while I was at the site that if a certain percentage of the welds or terminal a QC inspector approved were rejected on overinspection, then 100% of his work would be reinspected instead the 10% or 35% (both figures were mentioned) of the inspections that were normally reinspected.)
In addition, we must remember that the QC inspectors observed on at least one dramatic occasion that the safeguards worked.
Once Saklak " threatened" Snyder, he was summarily dismissed.
Whatever the cause of the
()
dismissal alleged by the intervenors, the QC inspectors observed an immediate response by Comstock, Edison, and
1 1,,
e B::aidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 25 l
the NRC after the incident.
This would seem likely to convince them the system of safeguards worked.
3.
The nature of the work of the QC inspectors.
The nature of the inspectors work is such that there are few shortcuts that can be taken.
There are relatively few purely subjective judgments that must be made in the course of their work.
The inspectors further know that a certain percentage of their work is going to be overinspected by PTL, NRC and/or the various Quality i
Assurance departments.
They also have to sign the inspection reports, which should increase their feelings of responsibility.
If their work was largely subjective, they could easily respond to any perceived pressures by doing sloppy work and later argue that it was a judgment call and that the PTL or other inspectors were using much too stringent standards.
Thus, the Braidwood QC inspectors knew they could not execute sloppy work because, except for a few of the weld attributes, the criteria for accepting or rejecting an installation are objective and can be applied consis-tently by independent inspectors.
Few of them want to have their work considered unacceptable.
They know it l
may be reinspected (at least part of it) and eventually i
i(}
sloppy work will be detected.
This in itself, loss of
ED Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 26 respect from one's co-workers, could be considered a negative outcome they would not want to incur.
4.
Lack of hard and fast production standards for QC inspectcrs.
Hand-in-hand with the general belief that quality was important was-the perception that there were no hard and fast production standards they had to meet to keep supervisors off their backs.
I asked every inspector, production worker, and supervisor I talked to about this and was told by every one they they knew there was some j
pressure for them to complete inspections because production would be delayed if they did not complete the inspections in a timely fashion.
None, however, expressed concern about excessive pressure and all confirmed that the production standards that did exist I
were flexible and informal.
That pay was not tied to production but rather was tied for a time to the number of areas in which an inspector was qualified also speaks to the official organizational contingencies between inspector qualifications and pay along with no organizational' contingencies between sheer production and pay.
This does not imply there were no standards for performance among the inspectors.
It was clearly understoed that you O
1 l
. c, s
.. 4c; ' '
\\
.. jn C;
Braidwood Hearings i
1 Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 27
)
l can be disciplined for sleeping on the job, for regularly performing so few inspections per day that you are basically not putting forth any effort, or for excessive absenteeism.
The important points are that there were
~
safeguards built into the system to catch unsafe performance and there were no organizational contingencies that would encourage production at the expense of quality.
The transfer of John Seeders from tool inspections to a' clerical job in engineering and the termination of
(}
Worley Puckett that are alleged by the intervenors to be a part of this overall, pervasive stress on production at the expense of quality can be interpreted in two ways.
A worst case scenario is provided in the opening statement of Mr. Guild.
A different and very plausible account may a
be obtained from a reading of the internal memos and testimony regarding these actions.
This second inter-pretation would suggest that John Seeders was at best a marginal employee in the tool inspection area.
He did not issue ICRs or NCRs whenever a tool was found to be out of tolerances.
Thus, work may have been done with defective tools and not redone as required.
In spite of repeated directives to produce a report detailing the
()
existence of such work and how it had been corrected, c.
i
~
-,---31
-,-.v.,.
-,,_..,,,,-v--.
--._,---..,cy
..()
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 28 Seeders did not produce the report.
Worley Puckett was hired to be the first Comstock site level III weld inspector.
This position was created in response to previously identified concerns with Comstock's welding program.
Puckett was hired to conduct an overall review of the program, including welding procedures, welder qualification procedures and records and weld materials control.
The Level III position required familiarity with and ability to interpret the pertinent codes, specifications, and procedures.
Puckett's abilities in this regard were apparently marginal since his only D,
\\>
recommended solutions to problems he identified were to stop work.
Other experienced weld engineers determined, with Puckett's apparent concurrence, that the most significant step work recommendation was inappropriate and unnecessary, but he persisted in an even more sweeping recommendation that all work be stopped, again based on misinterpretations of the applicable codes.
I should add that I have no independent expertise in those codes, but am relying on the testimony of witnesses sponsored by CECO and the NRC for this assessment of Puckett's capabilities.
Moreover, Puckett was repeatedly unable to pass his level III field tests that would qualify him to be a level III inspector, a degree of O
)
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 29 qualification required for his job.
Neither.the termination of Puckett nor the transfer of Seeders can be unambiguously attributed to the alleged pervasive pressure for quantity of production over quality.
Just as important as what the objective record seems to indicate is what the other employees at the Braidwood site interpreted the cause oi;,the transfer and the termination to be.
It is agaif;,not clear that the QC inspectors would interpret these hetions as part of the pervasive influence for quantity ovir quality.
Testimony seems to suggest that in Seeders' casei he was regarded O
as being responsible for the tool inspection records being in a mess and as deserving of a transfer if not termination.
In Puckett's case, while many ofsthe NN inspectors regarded him as knowledgeable, one character-ized him as a " talker" rather than a " doer" and all regarded his replacement, Tony Simile, as a highly competent individual who had improved the Comstock welding program.
Similarly, although many inspectors characterized Puckett's termination as having taken place because "he made too many waves", his subsequent success-ful resort to Department of Labor procedures was known to other QC inspectors.
Those inspectors described Puckett's
{
settlement of the Department of Labor proceeding as 4
1
()
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 30 winning against Comstock management.
Thus, there should be a perception that the safeguard system worked.
5.
Lack of organizational power by Saklak.
Interviews with the quality control manager, assistant manager, and quality assurance manager indicated that Saklak had very little real organizational power to translate his verbal threats, if we can indeed call them threats, into any real outcomes.
He did not decide on pay raises.
He could not unilaterally assign suspensions.
He could only recommend vacation time; these all had to be decided by the quality control manager.
It is also apparent that suspensions were not used as a weapon to beat greater quantity of production out of the inspectors.
These statements of organiza-tional procedures were repeated by the inspectors that I talked with and are reflected in the deposition testimony.
They seem to know who has power and who does not.
Note that these impressions gained from two days of interviews are completely consistent with the reports of 19 inspectors summarized in 82-03.
Neither source of data alone is convincing.
Both of them together, being
-obtained for different purposes by different individuals at different times, suggest the validity of the non-harassment conclusion.
i
)
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 31 6.
Conclusions suggested by applications of a f
general theory of organizational behavior.
Applications of a Generalized Expectancy or a Subjective Expected Utility theory to the behavior of the inspectors at Braidwood supports the lack of effects of Saklak's behavior on the quality of the inspectors' work because his evaluation of their work products had few, if j
any, impacts on their organizational outcomes.
There were essentially no organizational contingencies between production (quantity) and organizational outcomes.
Further, there were no generally perceived contingencies between sheer volume of inspections and organizational outcomes.
There were some contingencies between sleeping
.I j
on the job and negative outcomes just as there were some levels of performance that were so far below standards that they would cause questions to be asked and actions j
l to be taken.
Performance standards, however, in any organization, no matter how sensitive the work is, are a 4
reasonable expectation.
They are necessary.
Industries that expose thousands of individuals everyday to life threatening dangers, such as the air transportation industry, must have some production standards or they i
would not be in business.
As long as the organizational emphasis is on safety and quality and not on production
(}
i
l fs
(_)
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal '.?estimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 32 per se, the priority among the work standards is reasonable.
Once again, the informal picture of the perceived contingencies that existed at Braidwood for the QC
~inspectors is borne out by an inspection'of the record of terminations for cause at Braidwood by the Comstock management.
Individuals were disciplined for excessive absenteeism, for' sleeping on the job, and in one case for performance so far below the norms established by the other inspectors as to be out of line in any organization.
There is no evidence that the objective
~
~'
organizational contingencies were between quantity of inspections and organizational outcomes.
All of these factors together suggest that the QC inspectors would correctly perceive the on the job behaviors that produced organizational outcomes did not include sheer volume of inspections carried out.
B.
The impact of the values and norms of society and the workers on their on the job behaviert.
The factor of the general performance of normal human adults is relevant.
Adults have learned the values and norms of our society and of the industry for which they work over a long period of time.
These are general
(}
principles that serve to guide our behaviors in many
4 Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 33 different arenas.
It takes a significant force applied over a long period of time to alter the general trend of these behaviors, although random factors from day to day may ceuse a substantial amount of random variation around the general trend line.
Organizational contingencies that consistently rewarded certain types of behavior applied for a significant period of time would be such a force.
It would be unusual if the behavior of one supervisor or even a manager were to alter significantly the behaviors of a large group of individuals over a significant period of time, particularly if these V
interpersonal factors were not accompanied by other organizational events, such as changes in objective contingencies between behaviors and outcomes.
These general work values that the inspectors might be expected to bring with them could be described as middle class work values:
You are what you do.
To do nothing is to be nothing.
To do poor work is to be a poor person.
Work in America has been described as the test bed in which a person obtains their identity.
It takes significant and long term applications of contingencies that are counter to our work values to change them significantly.'
O
)
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 34 This conclusion of very limited effect of Saklak on the behavior of the QC inspectors is also consistent with the general findings that the influence of leaders, although very popular in the media and non-scientific literature, is hard to document empirically with any consistency.
By this I mean that in laboratory settings where we have a great deal of control over many variables that influence behavior of individuals, we can rather easily demonstrate that leaders with certain characteris-ties influence the behavior of their followers in systematic ways.
It is much more difficult to demonstrate that leaders' characteristics in real organizations have the same systematic and significant effects on the overall level of, say, the production of workers.
C.
The data on the overinspection and reinspection programs.
These data will be broken into two distinct sets for purposes of discussing the results.
However, both data sets were treated similarly for the purposes of analyses and hypothesis testing.
For the purposes of this i
analysis, I essentially accepted the intervenors' contention at face value and used this characterization
()
of the Comstock operation at Braidwood to generate i
I
)
ys Braidwood Hearings
's,)
Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 35 hypotheses about the expected effects of such an atmosphere on the behavior of the QC inspectors and the timing of anticipated changes in their work behaviors as a result of changes in the makeup of the managerial staff of Comstock.
That is, if one accepts the contention of the intervenors as providing a theory of Comstock as an organization and a place to work, then we can formulate hypotheses about behavior, based on this theory of the organization.
These hypotheses can be tested using the available data generated by the BCAP reinspection program f
and the PTL overinspection program.
This is identical to what is done in normal scientific studies of organiza-tions regardless of the sources of the hypotheses.
All statistical analyses were carried out by Dr. Martin Frankel.
The general hypotheses were generated by the intervenors' theory of the organization.
The work quality records of the quality control inspectors as a group were analyzed to detect differences in their work quality or breaks in the overall trends that are linked to the arrival of Saklak, the arrival of DeWald or the later departure of Saklak.
Other events that might influence quality of work were also used to generate specific hypotheses about the work behaviors of l
(~J)
N-Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 36 the QC inspectors.
No evidence was found that would support the hypothesized effects on these work behaviors.
The reinspection data generated by the BCAP program was available for work completed through the second quarter of 1984.
This reinspection data was examined in two ways.
A measure of agreement between the QC inspectors and the BCAP inspectors was used to evaluate the QC inspector's overall performance.
A second measure focusing specifically on weld inspections was also derived.
Both of these measures were examined to determine if there were any differences in the agreement rates before and after July 1982, the arrival date of Saklak as QC supervisor and before and after August 1983, the arrival date of DeWald as QC manager.
There were no significant differences in the agreement rates before and after any of these two dates.
These essentially constant rates of agreement indicate very clearly that neither DeWald nor Saklak had the effects on the behaviors of the QC inspectors that have been hypothesized by the intervenors " pervasive influence" argument.
The PTL overinspection data exist from July 1982 to the present.
These data show a very slight linear trend
()
over time in the agreement rates between the Comstock QC
c
}
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 37 inspectors and the PTL inspectors.
This linear trend I
accounts for a very small amount of the variance in the overall performance / agreements of the inspectors.
It can f
be attributed to any of a number of causes.
However, whatever the cause of the trend, it is important to note that there are no discontinuities in i
the trend line at a third important date, April 1985, the 9
date Saklak was terminated.
The linear trends in the data'for the 19 months before Saklak was terminated and the 15 months after his termination were.119 vs..120 with R squared of.020 and.018.
These dates demonstrate C,J another trend with no discontinuities.
Again, whatever the reasons for overall trend, Saklak had no observable effects on the trends in quality of the QC inspectors' work.
If Saklak had the effect hypothesized by the intervenors, we would expect this effect to up in i
behavioral trace measures reflective their performance.
i Q.20 How can you account for the visit of the 24 QC inspectors j
to the NRC office except as it was caused by Saklak's intimidation and harassment?
A.20 There are a very large number of factors simultaneously influencing the behaviors of workers at a construction site or in any complex organization.
Of I
these factors, it is very likely that only a few were i
i I
-, _...,... ~.... -,
- -. - -... _,.. - ~
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 38 instrumental in precipitating the visit to the NRC office.
Among the candidates for important precipitating events or factors wou'1d be:
a) the unionization drive, campaign, certification election, and the'resulting lack of effects the union election had on the workplace; b) Saklak was a profane and aggressive supervisor and probably not well-liked by the QC inspectors; c) some inspectors may have seen the visit as an opportunity to harass Saklak; d) the inspectors may have had a complaint about Saklak but not a grievance in any contractual or legal sense of the term; e) social pressure and social 9
conformity, such as demonstrated in the Asch and Sheriff Effects in social psychology may have translated the complaints of one or two or three inspectors into a visit by 24 of them even though not all of the 24 would have the same complaint--or even any complaint; f) some combination of one or more of the above.
With all of the events and factors going on simultaneously at Braidwood, it would be on very questionable scientific basis for us to attribute the visit of the 24 QC inspectors to any one or even two or three factors.
Many were likely happening.
Singling out Saklak as the cause is simply not warranted on the basis of evidence.
O
E,
>"N Braidwood Hearings (g)
Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 39 Q.21 Don't all of these other factors that you have suggested may have caused the QC inspectors to go to the NRC, and all of the apparent unhappiness of the QC inspectors over the pay system, also raise questions about the quality of the inspections of the QC inspectors?
A.21 No.
The relationship between job satisfaction and morale has been studied for approximately 50 years by 1/0 psychologists and researchers in related fields.
The overwhelming conclusion that we must reach on the basis of these many studies done in many different industries and organizations is that there is no relationship between job satisfaction and preductivity--quantity or quality.
Nor is there any theoretical reason to expect such a relationship.
Workers who are very dissatisfied
/
on a job may be expected to engage in behaviors that they perceive as leading to a more satisfying job.
They may be absent if they can do more pleasurable things while absent and not lose their job.
They may be more likely to quit if they think they can find a better job.
They may do other things to increase their job rewards.
But the empirical data from more than 50 years of studies is convincing that they do not reduce their job performance.
Q.22 Are there additional data you would like to see, such as more thorough reinspections or overinspections, before you would feel confident in your conclusions?
e
\\
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of Charles L. Hulin Page 40 A.22 No scientist is ever willing to conclude that he or she has enough data to be completely satisfied.
- However, we also recognize that the probability of an hypothesis being true is often so large that the likelihood of a sufficient amount of contrary data being found is essentially zero.
All of the data reviewed in this case seem to suggest that the alleged harassment and intimidation had no significant effect on the work of the quality control inspectors.
None of the data support the opposite conclusion.
At this point it seems that the null hypothesis of no effects should be accepted, even with all of the inherent difficulties of accepting any null hypothesis, and we shculd regard the incident as an incident and not a cause for concern about the safety of the Braidwood Units.
Q.23 Does this conclude your testimony?
A.23 Yes.
SNmm
~
HULIN EXHIBIT 1 i
LJ VITA Name: Charles L. Hulin Born:
Flint, Michigan; April 4,1936
)
Marital Status: Harried Frances Cuthbert,1958; two children Educational History: Michigan Public School System. High School diploma from Farwell Rural Agricultural High Scnool, Farwell, Michigan, June 1954.
B.S. with departmental honors in Psychology, Northwestern University, June 1958.
M.S., New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University, June 1960.
Ph.D. in Psychology, Cornell University, January 1963. Doctoral Dissertation: A Linear Model of Job Satisfaction, January 1963. Elected to Sigma X1, 1962.
O Professional Hi story: Assistant Professor of Psycnology in LAS and Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, University of Illinois, September 1962-1966; Associate Professor, 1967-1968; Visiting Associate Professor, University of California at Berkeley, 1968-1969; Associate Professor, University of Il li noi s, 1969-197U; Prof essor of Psychology in LAS and ILIR, 1971-1986.
Professor of Psychology in LAS and Institute of Avi a t i o n, 1986-p res ent. Associate Head, Department of Psychology,1973-ft.
1975; Visiting Scholar, University of Washington, 1975; Associate Member,
~
Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois,1976.
Publications: See attached list.
Professional Associations:
American Psychological Association Society of Organizational Behavior National Council on Hental Evaluation i
Professional Activities:
Editorial Board 11 ember of Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (now Organizational Benavior and Human Decision Processes), 1972-1980, 1982-present.
Member of Scientific Aff airs Committee of Division 14 of the APA, Choi rma n, 1973-197b.
Editorial Board 11emDer of Journdl of Applied Psychology, 1974-1975.
Associate Editor of Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976-1982.
Henber of APA Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessments,1979-(,\\
1982 Chdirman,1981.
y
6
~'
s
,"o
~
2 s,
)
PUBLICATIONS Books Smi t h,
P.C.,
Kendall, L.li., & Hulin, C.L.
(1969).
Heasurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Robe r t s, K. H., Hulin, C.L.,
a Rousseau, D.
(1978).
Toward an Interdisciplinary Science of Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, J.P., Daft, R.L., & Hulin, C.L.
(1982). What to Study: Generating and Developing Research Questions. Beverly Hills, Cal.: Sage.
i Hulin, C.L., Dras gow, F., & Pa rsons, C.K.
(1983).
Item Response Theory:
Applications to Psychological Heasurements.
Homewood, Ill.: Dow-Jones.
f I
1 I
4 5
3 Chapters Huli n, C.L.
(1971).
Individual dif ferences and job enrichment:
The case against general treatments.
In New Perspectives in Job Enrichment, J.
Haher, (Ed.). New York: Van Nostrand.
Joray, P. A. & Hulin, C.L.
(1974).
The temporary worker and the temporary service in the United States.
In Zeitarbeit in der Modernen Gesellschaf t (Temporary Work in Modern Society), G.ll.J. Veldkamp (Ed.), Brussels, Belgium:
Institut Internationale de Travail Temporaire.
Joray, P. A. & Hulin, C.L.
(1978). A survey of the socio-economic aspects of temporary work in the United States.
In Tenporary Work in Hodern Society, A Comparative Study, Part II, W. Albeda and G.M.J. Veldkamp (Eds.), The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Huli n, C.L.
& Rous s eau, 0.11.
(1980). The study of infrequent events: Once you find them your troubles begin.
In Problems of Data Aggregation in the Social Sciences, K. Roberts and L. Burstein (Eds.),
San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Huli n, C.L. & Triandis, H.C.
(1981).
Motives for and satisfactions from working.
In Handbook of Urganizational Design, Vol. II.
P.C. Nystrom and W. Starbuck, (Eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.
Hulin, C.L.
(1981). The individual and organizations:
Joint influences on behavior. In Virginia Tech Symposium on Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. I.
J. Sgro (Ed.), Lexington, liass.:
Lexington Books.
Hulin, C.L. & Roznowski, it. A.
(1984).
From individuals to organizations:
Technology's influence on organizations' characteristics and individuals' responses.
In Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7 B. Staw and L.L. Cummings, (Eds.), New York: Academic Press.
Huli n, C.L.
(1984).
Suggested directions for defining, measuring, and con-trolling absenteeism.
In Absenteeism, P. Goodman and R. Atkin and as.sociates (Eds.), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hulin, C.L. & Roznowski, H.
(1984).
Productivity and the organization.
In P roducti vi ty:
Confronting the crisis.
J.W.C. Chow, J.R. Dewald, and M.J.
Hopkins (Eds.), Edmonton, Alta:
Decho (Canada).
t
4 Huli n, C.L.
(In Press).
Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations.
In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organizational Psychology, 2nd Edition, Wiley.
Drasgow F.D. & Hulin, C.L.
(In Press).
A guide to item response theory:
Practical and theoretical perspectives on modern measurement.
In M.D.
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd Edition, Wiley, bi V
4
5 s,
Articles Hulin, C.L. & Haber, B. A.
(1959). Changes in attitudes toward law and jus-tice concomitant with imprisonment. Journal of Criminal Law, 50, 245-248.
Landsberger, H. A. & Hulin, C.L.
(1961).
A problem for union democracy:
Officers' attitudes toward union members.
Industrial and Labor Relation Review, 14, 419-431.
Locke, E.A. & Hulin, C.L.
(1962). A review and evaluation of the validity studies of Activity Vector Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 15, 25-42.
Hulin, C.L.
(1962).
The measurement of executive success.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 42, 303-306.
Hulin, C.L.
(1963).
A second look at the motivation of industrial supervisors. Personnel Psychology, 16, 249-2b4.
Hulin, C.L. & Smith, P.C.
(1964).
Sex differences in job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 88-92.
Locke, E. A., Smith, P.C., Kendal l, L.it., Huli n, C.L., & Miller, A.M.
(1964).
Convergent and discriminant validity for areas and rating methods of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 313-319.
Huli n, C.L. & Smith, P.C.
(1965).
A linear model of job satisf action.
Journal of Applied Psycnology, 49, 209-216.
Huli n, C.L.
(1966). The effects of community characteristics on measures of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 18b-192.
Huli n, C.L.
(1966).
Job satisf action and turnover in a female clerical populdtton. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 280-285.
- Ewen, R.B.,
Smith, P.C., Huli n, C.L., & Locke, E. A.
(1966). An empirical investigation of the Herzberg two-factor tneory.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 544-550.
Blood,It.R. & Hulin, C.L.
(1967). Alienation, environmental characteristics, and worker responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 284-290.
Hulin, C.L. & Smith, P.A.
(1967). An empirical investigation of two implica-tions of the Two-Factor Theory of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 396-402.
Hulin, C.L. & Blood, it.R.
(1968). Job enlar9ement, individual differences, and worker responses.
Psychological Bulletin, 69, 41-55.
Huli n, C.L.
(1968).
The effects of changes in job satisfaction levels on turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 122-126.
tiikes, P.S. & Hulin, L.L.
(1968).
The use of importance as a wei hting 9
component of job satisf action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 394-398.
6 Graen, G.B. & Hulin, C.L.
(1968). Addendum to "An empirical investigation of two implications of the Two-Factor Theory of job satisf action." Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 341-342.
Hulin, C.L.
(1969). Sources of variation in job and life satisfaction:
The role of community and job-related variables.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 279-291.
Dachler, H.P. ( Hulin, C.L.
(1969). A reconsideration of the relationship between satisf action and judged importance of environmental and Job characteristics.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 252-266.
Fo911.
L., Hulin, C.L., 6 Blood, M.R.
(1971). The development of first level behavioral job criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, SS, 3-8.
Huli n, C.L. & Waters, L.K.
(1971).
Regression analyses of three variations of the Two-Factor Theory of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 211-217.
Alvares, K.li. & Hulin, C.L.
(1972).
Two explanations of temporal changes in ability-skill relationships:
A literature review and a theoretical analysis. Human Factors, 14, 295-308.
Herman, J.B. & Hulin, C.L.
(1972).
Studying organizational attitudes f rom individual and organizational frames of reference. Organizational Benavior i
and Human Performance, 8,82-103.
Inn, A., Hulin, C.L., & Tucke r, L.R.
(1972).
Three sources of criterion variance:
Static dimensionality, dynamic dimensionality, and individual dimensionality. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 58-82.
Hulin, C.L. & Herman, J.B.
(1973). Managerial satisfactions and organiza-tional roles:
An investigation of Porter's need deficiency scales.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 118-124.
Alvares K.li. & Hulin, C.L.
(1973). Changes in ability measures as a func-tion of complex skill acquisition.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 169-185.
Huli n, C.L.
(1973).
Comment on Schuler's communication.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 26, 853-8S5.
Herman, J.B., Dunham, R.B., & Hulin, C.L.
(1975). Organizational structure, demographic cha.racteristics, and workers' responses.
_ Organizational Behavior and Hunan Performance, 11, 206-232.
Hulin, C.L., Smith, F.J., & Scot t, K.
(1977).
Trends in job related at-titudes of managerial and professional employees.
Academy of lianagement Journal, 20, 454-459.
Adams, E.F., Laker, D., & Huli n, C.L.
(1977). An investigation of the in-fluence of job level and functional specialty on joo attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 335-343.
7 1-
) Y"t Huli n, C.L.
(1977).
Job attitudes.
In International Encyclopedia of Neurology, Physiology, Psychiatry, and Psychology.
B. Wolman (Ed.).
Hom, P.W., Katerberg, R., & Hulin, C.L.
(1979). A comparative examination of three approaches to the prediction of turnover.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 280-290.
Miller, H.E., Katerberg, R.,
& Hulin, C.L.
(1979). Evaluation of the Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth model of employee turnover.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 509-517.
Katerberg, R., Hom, P.W., & Hulin, C.L.
(1979).
Effects of job complexity on the reactions of part-time employees. Organizational Behavior and Human, Performance, 24, 300-317.
Hulin, C.L.
(1982).
Some reflections on general performance dimensions and rating error. Journal of Applied Psfchology, 67, 165-170.
Huli n, C.L., Dras gow, F., & Komocar, J.
(1982).
Applications of item response theory to problems of attitude scale translations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 818-825.
Hulin, C.L., Lissak, R.I., & Drasgow, F.
(1982). Recovery of two-and three-parameter logistic item characteristic curves:
A Honte Carlo study.
Applied Psychological lieasurement, 6, 249-260.
Parsons, C.K. & Hu li n, C.L.
(1982). Differentially weightina linear models in organizational resedrch: A cross-validation comparison of four methods.
_0_rganizational Behavi_of and Human Performance, 30, 289-311.
Parsons C.K. & Hulin, C.L.
(1982). An empirical comparison of item response theory and hierarchical factor analysis in applications to the measurement of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 826-834.
Erez,11., Earley, C.P., & Hulin, C.L.
(1985).
The impact of participation on goal acceptance and performance: A two step model. Academy of Management Journal, _2_8, 50-60.
Roznowski, H. & Hulin, C.L.
(1985).
Influences of functional specialty and job technology on employees' perceptual and affective responses to their jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 36,, 186-208.
Hulin, C.L., Roznowski,11., & Hachiya, D.
(1985). Alternative opportunities and withdrawal decisions:
Empirical and theoretical discrepancies and an integration.
Psychological Bulletin, H. 233-250.
Rosse, J.G. & Hulin, C.L.
(198b).
Adaptation to work:
An analysis of employee health, withdrawal, and change. Dryanizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 3_6 324-347.
f
- Kanfer, R.
& Hulin, C.L.
(1985).
Individual differences in successful job search following layoff.
Personnel Psychology, 38, 835-847.
8 h
Hulin, C.L. A liayer,'L.J.
(1986). Psychometric equivalence of a translation of the JD1 into Hebrew. Journal of Applied Psychology, H, 83-94. -
Huli n, C.L.
(under review).
Psychometric theory of item and scale trenslations:
Equivalence across languages.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Candell, G. & Hulin, C.L.
(in press)
Cross-language and cross-cultural comparisons in scale translations:
Two sources of information about item non-equivalence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
- Ono, K., Tindale, R.S., Hulin, C.L., & Davis, J.H. (in press).
Intuition vs.
deduction:
Some thought experiments concerning Likert's Linking-Pin Theory of organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
Morrill, P.K. & Hulin, C.L.
(Under Review). Job search behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology.
't,.
9 Technical Reports Hulin, C.L. & Alvares, K.fi.
(1971). An evaluation of three possible explana-tions of the temporal decay in predicting pilot proficiency.
AFHRL Technical Report, TR-71-5.
Hulin, C.L. & Alvares, K.li.
(1971). Three explanations of temporal changes in ability / skill relationships:
Liter'ature review and theoretical analysis. AFHRL Technical Report, TR-71-6.
Hulin, C.L. & Alvares, K.M.
(1971). fffects of.the man on the task in complex man-machine systems. AFHRL Technical Report. TR-71-7.
Roberts, K.H. & Hulin, C.L.
(1974). Responses, responding units, and set-tings:
Basic ingredients in organizational research. Technical Report No.
5, ONR Grant N000314-69-A-0200-1054.
Inn, A. & Hulin, C.L.
(1976).
The perceived structure of organizations.
Technical Report 76-1, ONR Contract N00014-75-0904, NR 170-802.
Herman, J.B., Hulin, C.L., & Dunham, R.B.
(1976).
Developing a response relevant typology of organizations.
Technical Report 76-2, ONR Contract N000 14-75-0904, NR 170-802.
Oy' Katerberg, R. Ham, P.W., & Hulin, C.L.
(1978). Relationships between job complexity and responses by organizational members:
A test of moderating effects.
Technical Report 78-1, ONR Contract N000 14-75-0904, NR 170-802.
Hom, P.W., Katerberg, R., & Huli n, C.L.
(1978). The prediction of employee turnover in a part *1me military organization. Technical Report 78-2, ONR Contract N000 14-75-0904, NR 170-802.
Adams, E.F. & Hulin, C.L.
(1978). A multivariate study of subordinate per-ceptions and attitudes of minority and majority manoyers. Technical Report 78-3, ONR Contract N000 14-7b-0904, NR 170-802.
Katerberg, R. & Hulin, C.L.
(1978). The effects of organizational function on responses:
The mediating role of technology and job characteristics.
Technical Report 78-4, OhR Contract N000 14-75-0904, NR 170-802.
Hom, P.W. & Hulin, C.L.
(1978). A comparative examination of four different approaches to the prediction of organizational withdrawal.
Technical Report 78-5, ONR Contract N000 14-7b-0904, NR 170-80%.
Hiller, H.E., Katerberg, R., & Hulin, C.L.
(1979).
An evaluation of the Nobley, Horner, and Hollingwsorth IAodel of employee turnover:
Validation data and suggested modifications. Technical Report 79-1, ONR Contract N000 14-75-0904, NR 170-802.
Hiller, H.E., a Hulin, C.L.
Organizational and non-organizational influences on Job attitudes of part-time and full-time employees.
Technical Report 80-1, UNR Contract N000 14-7b-0904, NR 170-802.
.'/
10 t
Parsons, C.K. & Hulin, C.L.
(1980). An empirical comparison of latent trait theory and hiearachical factor analysis in applications to the measurement of job satisfaction. Technical Report 80-2, ONR Contract N00014-75-0904, NR 170-802.
Hulin, C.L. & Rousseau, D.H.
(1980). Analyzing infrequent events: Once you find ths.n your troubles begin. Technical Report 80-3, ONR Contract N000 14-75-0904, NR 170-802.
Parsons, C.K. & Hulin, C.L.
(1980). Differentially weighting linear models of behavior: An empirical comparison of six methods. Technical Report 80-4, ONR Contract N000 14-75-0904, NR 170-802.
Hulin, C.L. Drasgow, F., & Komocar, J.
(1980). Applications of item response theory to analysis of attitude scale trdnslations. Technical Report 80-5, ONR Contract N000 14-75-0904, NR 170-802.
Hulin, C.L., Roznowski,11., & Kanfer, R.
(1983). A multidimensional scaling
.of 14 ratings:
Input for predicting affective responses. Technical Report 1A 83-1.
Candell, G., Hulin, C.L., & Roznowski,11.
(1984).
Economic and technological influences on reenlistment intentions. Technical Report TR 84-1.
k
17925 0
1 JUDCE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild?
2 MR. GUILD:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3 Good afternoon, Dr. Hulin.
With those 4
preliminaries, let's look at what's been received by way 5
of your prefiled testimony.
6 CROSS EXAMINATION 7
BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q
Now, I take it that what you undertook as your charge 9
involved testing a hypothesis; that is, the hypothesis 10 advanced by Intervenors that there had been harassment, 11 intimidation and production pressure which had an effect 12 on the work performance of Comstock Quality Control 13 Inspectors.
14 A
Yes.
15 0
All right, sir.
16 And I believe you make direct reference to 17 accepting that hypothesis for purposes of performing 18 your analysis at Page 35 of your prefiled direct 19 testimony.
20 Do you see that, sir?
21 A
Yes.
22 0
"That is, if one accepts the contention of the 23 Intervenors as providing a theory of Comstock as an 24 organization and a place to work, then we can formulate i
25 hypotheses about behavior, based on this theory of the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, III1nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17926 (G
1 organization.
These hypotheses can be tested using the 2
available data," et cetera.
3 Now, can we agree that in testing that hypothesis, 4
one would look first to empirical measures of work 5
performance; that is, the effect aspect of the equation i
6 that says that harassment, intimidation and production 7
pressure produces an effect; that is, work performance 8
effects?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
All right, sir.
11 And I take it that it's f air to say that you have 12 not made an empirical evaluation of the work performance 13 of L.
K. Comstock Quality Control Inspectors?
14 A
I have relied on the results of the BCAP and the PTL 15 programs that address the quality of the work of the 16 Quality Control Inspectors.
17 0
Indeed.
18 And, of course, you didn't perform the BCAP 19 inspection; you don't make any claim to have done that.
20 That isn't your work, is it?
21 A
No, it's not.
22 0
Nor did you perform or have responsibility for 23 performing the PTL overinspection?
24 A
No.
25 0
I take it that you have not derived independently t
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
GeHBV8, Illinois 601J4 (312) 232-0262
17927 O
1 yourself any empirical mee.sures of the work performance 2
of Quality Control Inspectors?
3 A
No.
4 Q
All right.
5 Now, the empirical measure of work performance that 6
was provided you -- that is, the BCAP results and the 7
PTL results -- those were provided in the form of 8
agreement rates; is that correct?
l 9
A-That is correct in part, yes.
10 Q
All right, sir.
11 And have you made any empirical evaluation of 12 whether agreement rates are an appropriate and effective 13 measure of work performance of Quality Control 14 Inspectors at Comstock?
15 A
I don't understand your question.
16 You mean is it my impression that agreement rates 17 between independent inspectors are a reasonable measure 18 of the performance of the inspectors?
19 Q
No, that's not what I mean nor is that my question.
l 20 My question is:
Have you performed any empirical 21 evaluation of agreement rates as a measure of Comstock 22 inspector work performance?
l 23 You have not, have you?
24 A
I have difficulty understanding how I would conduct such 25 an empirical study; but since I have not done anything Sonntag._ Reporting _Sarv)ce, Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17928 1
like that, I would have to say no, I have not.
2 0
All right, sir.
3 Well, in fact, you have in other settings, at least 4
one other setting, attempted to establish an empirical 5
measure of work performance, have you not?
6 A
I have attempted to do that in a number of settings.
7 0
Well, sir, I want to direct your attention to one 8
setting in particular that you discussed with me the 9
other night:
Page 6 of your vita, which has been 10 received in evidence.
11 I'm looking at a paper -- excuse me.
Let me see.
12 This is an article in Organizational Behavior and Human 13 Pe rf ormance, 197 2.
The authors appear to be I-N-N, 14 Hulin and Tucker.
15 That's your work, is it not?
16 A
Yes.
17 0
It's entitled, "Three sources of criterion variance:
18 Static dimensionality, dynamic dimensionality, and 19 individual dimensionality."
20 That's the title; right?
21 A
That's the title.
22 0
Now, in this case in that article you were studying the 23 means of empirically measuring the work performance of' 24 airline ticket agents?
25 A
Airline reservation -- yes, airline ticket agents.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
=.
r t
17929 1
That's close enough.
2 0
All right, sir.
3 And isn't it true that in that study you concluded 4
that no single empirical measure effectively served as a 5
measure of all of the complex attributes that made up 6
work performance for those airline ticket agents?
7 A
I believe our conclusion was that the -- no single 8
dimension of human -- of perf ormance would adequately 9
account for all of the theoretically interesting 10 variants in that criterion.
1 11 0
Translating that into English, you concluded that you 12 couldn't use a scale of 1 to 10 or zero to 100 to 13 measure all of the interesting or important variables in 14 airline ticket agent work performance?
l 15 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, really, Mr. Guild's 16 comment about " translating that into English" is 17 unnecessarily --
18 MR. GUILD:
It's not meant to be pejorative.
Rx 19 It's just meant to interpret the witness' last answer.
20 But I'll withdraw it, Mr. Miller, if it troubles l-21 you.
4 23 0
Do I understand correctly that that means, as you s
. 24 explained to me the other night, that you simply can' t 25 translate all of those' interesting aspects of ticket
. 3 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
,/
(312) 232-0262
I 17930
'N 1
agent work performance into a simple quantitative 2
measure?
3 A
That would depend on your purposes, sir.
4 0
Well, you couldn't in order to capture all of those 5
interesting aspects of work performance?
6 A
In that article, given those purposes, we concluded that 7
we could not.
8 0
And what were those purposes, just so we can be 9
absolutely certain about how your answer should be 10 understood in the record?
11 A
Those purposes were to explore all of the subtle
'}
/
12 dimensionality of the ticketing activities of these 13 reservation agents.
14 0
And what in particular were the subtle dimensionalities 15 that ycu were trying to explore; that is, the 16 interesting aspects of the ticket agent work performance 17 that were unexplainable by the single measure?
18 A
I would like, if I could, to give a little amplification 19 of where we seem -- I mean, of my answer in an attempt 20 to keep us from misleading each other.
21 0
Well, sir, I'd just like you to answer the question 22 directly, and I'll be happy to tell you if I don't 23 understand what you're saying.
You can be sure that 24 I'll let you know.
(
)
25 A
Okay.
%/
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois bu134 (312) 232-0262
17931 V
1 It's a very complex statistical issue.
Whenever 2
you measure many, many characteristics of an 3
individual's performance, it is highly unlikely that you 4
can explain all of the theoretically interesting 5
variants in that data set using one dimension alone.
6 It is also true that you can extract what we call 7
technically the first principle component.
That first 8
principle component is a very useful, practical measure 9
because it will explain more of the variants of that 10 matrix than any other single dimension.
11 0
I see.
I) 12 A
Now, if our purposes are for exploring the theoretical O
13 performance base, we normally would rely on a very 14 complex set of dimensions.
15 If our purposes were trying to extract the one best 16 measure of performance for reasons of decision-making --
17 like hiring, firing, retention, promoting and so forth 18
-- then we always have to rely on the one best dimension 19 that we can get out.
That one best dimension would be 20 whatever the data suggested.
21 Q
All right, sir.
That's helpful, and I did understand 22 that, I think.
23 In the case of an airline ticket agent, there may 24 be some aspects of performance, such as dollar volume of 25 sales and custom satisfaction --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17932 1
A Yes.
2 0
-- which are not captured by a single measure of 3
performance.
4 Would you agree with that?
5 A
They might not be, yes.
6 Q
All right, sir.
7 And did you find that to be the case in the study 8
that you looked at that's referred to in Inn, Hulin and 9
Tucker?
10 A
We did not measure customer satisfaction.
11 Q
You told us hang-up rates?
I}
12 A
Disconnect rates.
b 13 0
The rate at which the ticket agent accidentally 14 disconnected the customer.
15 That was something you looked at?
16 A
I believe it was, sir.
17 O
And one measure might not capture both the dollar volume 18 of sales and the disconnect rate, two aspects of ticket 19 agent performance?
20 A
That's -- again, the study was done 14 years ago, but I 21 believe that's correct.
22 0
All right, sir.
23 And your conclusion f rom the study, you believe, 24 was a conclusion that is generally applicable to O( )
25 measurements of work performance?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17933
,.b l
1 A
I believe it is generally true that there will be 2
variance in the total set of performance assessments 3
that is not always well captured in any one measure, 4
yes.
5 0
And that same conclusion is applicable to the same 6
example of Comstock Quality Control Inspectors.
7 You believe that's true, isn't it?
8 A
I don't know that it's true, but I would have to believe 9
that it were true.
10 0
All right, sir.
11 Now, do you know whether or not the measure of I N 12 inspector work performance that you've relied upon --
U 13 that is, the measures supplied you from the CSR and PTL 14 results -- whether they capture all important aspects of 15 Quality Control Inspector work performance?
16 A
Do I know if they do capture all of those important 17 aspects?
18 0
Yes.
19 A
No, I don't know that.
j 20 0
Do you know, for example, whether they capture the 21 productivity rates of Comstock Quality Control 22 Inspectors?
23 A
No.
24 0
You know that they don' t, don' t you?
O)
(
25 A
I don't believe they do, that's correct.
1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17934 1
Q All right, sir.
2 Do you know whether or not those measures of work 3
performance capture even the accuracy with which the 4
Comstock Quality Control Inspector performed his or her 5
initial Quality Control inspection?
6 A
Within the limits of my understanding of the program in 7
that it was an independent reinspection or 8
overinspection of the work done by a previous QC 9
Inspector, I would have to believe that they did a 10 reasonably good job of capturing the accuracy of their 11 performance.
12 Q
Do they reflect the accuracy of the original inspector's l
13 work performance?
14 Let me be more precise.
15 Is it an effective measure?
That is, are agreement 16 rates an effective measure of the accuracy of the 17 original Quality Control Inspector?
18 A
Other things being equal, yes.
19 Q
What other things do you have in mind there, Dr. Hulin?
20 A
The base rate of errors.
(
21 Q
That's the error of the craft that does the work?
l 22 A
Well, whether it's the error of the craft or something 23 else, but --
24 Q
The incidence of errors in the work that's being 25 inspected?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17935 1
A Yes, yes.
2 Q
That being equal.
3 What else being equal?
4 A
I think agreement rates among independent inspectors, 5
other things being equal, do a pretty good job of 6
capturing the quality of the reinspections of the QC 7
Inspectors.
8 0
You've identified one.
That's the base rate of the 9
errors inherent in the work.
10 What else being equal?
11 A
I'm really -- I think that captures -- I think that one
(~'
(N) 12 I named is the most important one.
13 Q
Have you done a study of the question of whether 14 agreement rates effectively measure Quality Control 15 Inspector work performance?
16 A
Have I done a study of that?
17 0
Yes.
18 A
No, sir.
19 0
You assume that they do for purposes of your testimony; 20 correct?
21 A
Yes.
22 O
Now, you described generally your theoretical approach 23 to understanding behavior in the workplace, and let me c~s 24 see if I understand that approach.
)
q,,/
25 You believe that a useful source -- useful Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312 ).
232-0262
17936 "N
I analytical approach is reflected in General Expectancy 2
Theory?
3 A
Yes.
4 O
All right, sir.
5 But I think you make the point, do you not, that no 6
single general theory is without flaws, and you also 7
look beyond General Expectancy Theory to such things as 8
values of the persons under study and the climate in the 9
workplace?
10 A
Yes.
l 11 Q
All right.
)
12 On Page 7 of your prefiled testimony, at the bottom 13 of the page, "This general approach, if augmented by 14 propositions f rom other areas such as work values or 15 indicidual differences, seems to be the soundest 16 theoretical explanation of the behavior of individuals 17 at work in organizations currently available."
l 18 I take it that that's the approach that you 19 employed when you tried to understand the circumstances 1
20 of Comstock Quality Control Inspectors?
l 21 A
Yes.
l i
22 0
And I take it that's the approach you took when you 23 tested Intervenors' hypothesis?
24 A
Intervenors' hypothesis seemed to me to be a fairly l
l simple hypothesis that did not require a complete 25 I
i l
l Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 I
(312) 232-0262
17937 C\\
U 1
theoretical analysis of all of these contingencies in a 2
situation.
3 So I did not apply that theory to examine all of 4
the attitudes and beliefs of all of the people in the 5
organization.
6 0
I see.
Well, then, perhaps I misunderstood your 7
testimony.
8 You applied Intervenors' simple hypothesis, as you 9
refer to it, then, only in the context of yoJr testimony 10 at Page 35; that is, in testing the hypothesis against 11 the data supplied you f rom the BCAP CSR and PTL 12 overinspection programs; is that true?
13 A
Sir, excuse me.
I think we have again a slight 14 miscommunication here.
15 I normally use the propositions from Subjective 16 Expected Utility Theory or Expectancy Theory as a source 17 of parameters, variables and so forth and as a source of 18 information about what we should be looking at in any 19 specific organization.
l 20 Now, that would mean in this case that we are i
21 conceptualizing -- I would conceptualize the behavior of l
22 the individual QC Inspectors as a result of 23 contingencies that they have learned exist in the 24 situation.
25 That is what I mean when I say that I apply SEU l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
17938 a
1 Theory, Subjective Expected Utility Theory, in assessing 2
their behavior.
3 0
I have a hard time understanding whether the answer is 4
yes or no after hearing that explanation.
Let me see if 5
I can express it more directly.
6 The only place in your prefiled testimony where you 7
mention Intervenors' hypothesis is at Page 35.
That is 8
the portion of your testimony where you are evaluating 9
the data given you; that is, the CSR and PTL 10 overinspection data.
11 Do you follow me that far, sir?
12 A
Yes.
13 0
My question to you, sir, is:
Is that the portion of 14 your analysis wherein you tested Intervenors' 15 hypothesis?
16 A
That would be the only portion of the analysis wherein 17 the Intervenors' hypothesis was tested empirically.
18 0
I see.
19 A
However, we can do -- we can do theoretical analyses of 20 the situation based on these hypotheses using a l
21 classical SEU Theory.
22 Q
All right, sir.
Now I'm a little clearer.
23 So you tested Intervenors' hypothesis empirically 24 only in the portion of your testimony appearing around i
s,/
25 Page 35, but otherwise you used your theoretical sonntag neporti ng service, r+ a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.(312),
17939 1
approach of the General Expectancy Theory, as modified 2
in your testimony, to perform the rest of your analysis?
3 A
Yes.
4 0
All right, sir.
5 Now, let me ask you to turn to Page 20 of your 6
testimony.
This is the second page of which you called 7
your very long answer, Dr. Bulin, and this is right 8
helpful.
I appreciate it.
On Page 20 you give us an 9
outline of where you're going to go.
10 Do you have that outline?
11 A
Yes, sir.
-~,
12 0
That's an outline of the basis for your opinion stated I
13 in the preceding page, Page 19, is it not?
14 A
That is an outline, yes, of the bases -- that's the 15 plural -- for my opinion, yes.
16 0
Those bases are grouped in three major categories:
A, B
17 and C.
A is entitled " Organizational, interpersonal and 18 psychological factors"; B, "The impact of values and 19 norms of society and the inspectors on their on-the-job 20 behaviors"; C, "The overinspection and reinspection 21 data, BCAP, PTL."
I'm paraphrasing.
22 That's how you broke down the bases; correct?
23 A
Yes.
24 0
All right, sir.
25 Now, am I understanding correctly that it's C that Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 17940 OU 1
is the portion of your analysis that is the empirical 2
testing of Intervenors' hypothesis?
True?
3 A
Sir, in terms of my normal usage of the word 4
" empirical," yes, because I like to reserve " empirical" 5
for quantitative --
6 0
Yes.
7 That's where you do quantitative evaluation of 8
Intervenors' hypothesis?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
All right, sir.
11 B,
"The impact of values and norms of society and 12 the inspectors on their on-the-job behaviors" -- that is 13 the aspect of your general approach to understanding 14 behavior in the workplace that, can we agree, is other 15 than the General Expectancy Theory?
16 A
Yes.
17 0
All right, sir.
18 And A is what's left, and that's your General 19 Expectancy Theory --
20 A
Yes.
21 0
-- correct?
22 All right.
Let's start with A.
23 Now, Item 2 you characterize as "the safeguards 24 built into the system by the NRC and by the Quality b
25 First Program at Braidwood."
( )
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-=
17941 0
1 That is one of the bases for your conclusion, is it 2
not?
,3 A
Yes.
4 O
All right.
5 Now, did you perform an evaluation of the 6
effectiveness of Commonwealth Edison Company's Quality 7
First Program at Braidwood?
8 A
My data consisted of asking the QC people if they knew 9
about the Quality First Program, if they knew what it 10 was, if they had ever accessed it, if they had ever used 11 it -- I'm sorry -- if they would have any reluctance to 12 use it, would they have any reluctance to use it even if 13 they weren't going to remain anonymous and so forth.
14 If that's what you mean by did I conduct an 15 analysis of the effectiveness of it, then yes.
16 0
All right, sir.
That's helpful.
17 You're referring now to your interviews of Quality 18 Control Inspectors?
19 A
Yes.
20 0
So those interviews and the understanding of what you 21 were told in those interviews forms the basis for your 22 conclusions about the effectiveness of the Quality First 23 Program; true?
24 A
Yes.
25 0
All right, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
17942
/N b
1 The same question now about the NRC:
Did you 2
perform any evaluation of the effectiveness of the NRC 3
as a safeguard, as you use that term in your testimony?
4 A
In the same sense that I did for the Quality First, yes.
5 Q
Indeed, you asked inspectors some questions on that 6
subject, and it's what they told you that's the basis 7
for your conclusions on the effectiveness of the NRC as 8
a safeguard?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
All right, sir.
That's helpful.
We'll return to those 11 interviews in a bit.
12 Now, Item 3 on your list of bases for your opinion 13
-- that is, within the category of A, your General 14 Expectancy Theory -- reads, "The nature of the work of 15 the QC Inspectors, the relative subjective / objective 16 standards they use, the training they receive and the 17 general quality climate at the site."
18 Now, in part was your evaluation of those matters 19 founded upon your interviews with the Quality Control 20 Inspectors?
21 A
Yes.
22 0
In part was your evaluation of those matters founded 23 upon your interviews with management at L. K. Comstock?
24 A
To a lesser extent.
25 0
I see.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
^
(312) 232-0262
17943
]
1 In that context -- that is, interviews with 2
management -- you interviewed Mr. DeWald, did you not?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
All right, sir.
5 And how much time did you spend with Mr. DeWald, 6
Dr. Hulin?
7 A
I'm -- I'm trying to recall.
8 Q
Approximately?
9 A
It was certainly more than 15 minutes, and it was 10 probably less than two hours.
It was -- 45 minutes 11 would be a good guess.
12 0
I take it that you did not make any notes of your 13 interview with Mr. DeWald?
l 14 A
(Indicating.)
15 0
You have to answer orally.
l 16 A
I'm sorry.
No.
l 17 Q
Nor did you -- was there a verbatim transcription made 18 of your interview with Mr. DeWald?
19 A
No.
20 0
Were the Commonwealth Edison Company counsel present l
l 21 during your interview with Mr. DeWald?
22 A
Becky Lauer was.
23 0
Was any representative of Commonwealth Edison Company 24 management present?
t 25 A
You mean other than the person I was talking to?
(j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17944
[ ~)
U 1
Q Other than Mr. DeWald.
2 A
No.
3 Q
George Marcus of Edison Quality Assurance was not 4
present for that interview?
5 A
No.
6 Q
No?
7 A
No, he was not.
8 Q
All right, sir.
9 Now, you interviewed Mr. DeWald.
10 Did you form an opinion as to Mr. DeWald's 11 capabilities as a manager of Quality Control Inspectors?
12 A
No.
That was not the purpose of my interview.
13 0
Well, why don't you tell me?
What was the purpose of 14 your interview with Mr. DeWald?
15 A
The purpose of my interview was to find out his 16 perceptions of the way the QC Department was being 17 managed.
18 0
Was what?
19 A
The way the QC Department was being managed.
20 Q
He's the manager, of course?
i 21 A
Yes.
22 0
All right, sir.
l l
23 And did you form an opinion as to whether or not 24 Mr. DeWald was a good manager of the QC Department?
25 A
Again, that was not the purpose of my interview.
I l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ueneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17945 1
really have no basis for making that determination.
2 Q
Did you form an opinion on that question?
3 A
No, I didn't really.
4 I mean, I talked to him about the reporting chain 5
of command.
I talked to him about who had power to do 6
what.
I talked to him about, you know, the procedures 7
for terminations, layoff s and so forth.
8 But I really -- I had -- I mean, to make a 9
determination of his quality as a manager would take --
10 would be a much different kind of interview.
It would 11 take me much longer,
(N 12 0
Well, I understand your reluctance to be definitive on t
13 the question, given the scope of your interview in terms 14 of time.
15 But I ask you again:
Did you form an opinion as to i
16 Mr. DeWald's capabilities as a Quality Control Manager?
l 17 A
No.
l 18 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I believe the 19 question has been asked and answered, l
20 MR. GUILD:
I think the answer was no.
21 THE WITNESS:
The answer was no.
22 MR. GUILD:
All right, sir.
23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 O
Did you form an opinion as to Mr. DeWald's attitude
)
25 towards quality in terms of quality of inspection work, i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17946
(%
N 1
quality of underlying electrical work, as contrasted 2
with, say, contrary considerations such as quantity or 3
production?
4 A
Yes, sir, to a -- I was -- those interviews that I 5
conducted with DeWald and other people were very early 6
in this process, and I was down there essentially 7
looking for problems that would convince me that I 8
didn' t want anything to do with this hearing, as an 9
expert witness for CECO.
10 0
You're here, so I gather --
11 A
So I was looking for problems, and I did not find any
(
12 problems that would convince me that he had real 13 negative attitudes toward quality and he wanted to get 14 out production, come hell or high water.
15 0
That's helpful.
They weren't so bad that you declined 16 your task as a witness in this proceeding.
That helps.
17 But did you form an opinion on the subject of Mr.
18 DeWald's attitudes toward quality versus quantity in the 19 course of your interview with him?
20 A
I don't recall sitting there saying to myself, "Well, I 21 think he feels this about quality."
22 I think I came away from the interview thinking 23 that he was running the Quality Control Department for 24 the purposes for which it was established, which is 25 Quality Control.
v Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17947 (O
1 Q
Well, okay.
2 So you formed an opinion that he was performing his 3
job consistent with the objectives of the department, 4
and that was controlling quality?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
All right, sir.
7 Did you form an opinion that he would not sacrifice 8
quality -- Mr. DeWald -- for cost or schedule 9
considerations within the scope of his authority as the 10 Quality Control Manager?
11 A
If I understand your question, I did not form an opinion
~'h 12 that he would sacrifice -- consistently sacrifice (d
13 quality for quantity, no, sir, I didn't form that 14 opinion.
15 Q
I didn't put the word " consistently" in there.
16 A
I'll take it out.
17 Q
Did you form the opinion he would do it under any 18 circumstances, sporadically, occasionally or once in a 19 blue moon, even?
20 A
Certainly once in a blue moon.
I can't rule that out on 21 the basis of a 45-minute interview.
22 Bu: on the basis of that interview, I did come away 23 with the impression that he was running the QC 24 Department for the purposes for which it was 25 established.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17948 s
)
s 1
Q All right, sir.
2 Did you form an opinion, on the basis of your 3
interview with Mr. DeWald, as to whether he was a strong 4
manager who was likely to stand up to the pressure from 5
Production -- the cost and schedule pressure f rom the 6
Production Department, if such pressure existed?
7 A
I'm trying to think.
8 I did not come -- okay.
I do not mean to be 9
evasive on this, but I did not come away certainly with 10 the impression that he was a wimp that would be run over 11 by somebody who was saying, you know, "Get this stuff s
12 out."
13 0
You didn't?
14 A
No.
15 0
All right, sir.
So we exclude that you opined Mr.
l 16 DeWald to be a wimp.
17 A
No; that I did not --
4 18 Q
Exactly.
You did not find him to be a wimp, in your 19 opinion.
20 Now, can you be a little more direct in responding 21 to my question?
22 Did you form an opinion as to whether Mr. DeWald 23 was likely to stand up to production pressure f rom the 24 construction side?
k 25 A
Beyond that impression, again that was not my purpose SQnntag Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
d 17949 O
1 and no, I really didn't get any more specific than that.
J 2
0 Well, really, I'm asking for a very general opinion.
3 I'm asking for any opinion you have, not necessarily a 4
4 specific one.
5 Did you form an opinion that Mr. DeWald was a 6
strong manager?
7 That's a pretty general conclusory aspect.
8 A
I would have very little confidence in my answer.
9 0
Why is that, sir?
10 A
Because it wasn't the purpose of my interview.
11 0
I see.
f\\
12 So you didn't set out to form an opinion as to
, G 13 whether Mr. DeWald was a strong or a weak manager of the 14 Quality Control Department?
15 A
No, sir.
16 0
You didn't set out to form an opinion whether Mr. DeWald 4
17 would stand up or not stand up to production or cost or 18 schedule pressure?
19 A
That I think would -- was part of my impression that I 20 thought he was running the QC Department for the 21 purposes that it was established for.
22 0
I heard you say that, but I didn't hear you say directly i
23 that you had any opinion on the question of whether he i
24 would stand up to cost or schedule pressure.
O)
(
25 Do you now have an opinion on that subject?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17950 0
1 A
I think my answer addressed that because.I think if he 2
did not stand up to those kinds of pressures, he 3
wouldn't be running the QC Department for the purposes 4
for which it was established.
5 0
Well, let me be more direct about it and just ask you 6
that question clearly so that there's no 7
misunderstanding about what you mean.
8 Did you form the opinion, upon talking to Mr.
9 DeWald, interviewing Mr. DeWald, that he would likely 10 stand up to cost and schedule pressure from the 11 Production Department?
12 A
I'm trying to answer your question and still reflect the 13 purposes of the interview.
14 0
Well, I'm really not asking you to take your purposes 15 into account.
I'm asking you to simply respond to my 16 question, sir.
{
17 Now, on the basis of whatever information you got i
18 from the DeWald interview, did you form an opinion that i
i 19 Mr. DeWald would likely stand up to cost and schedule j
j 20 pressure?
)
21 Dr. Hulin, it's either, it seems to me, sir -- and 22 please tell me if I'm misunderstanding -- it's either 23 you formed no opinion at all or you have an opinion one 24 way or the other on the subject.
Those seem to be the i
25 possibilities.
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois eulse (312) 232-0262 i
17951
(
l A
You see the world much more simply than I do, I guess.
2 I see many shades of opinion one could reach regarding 3
another human being in his execution of a very difficult 4
office.
5 Q
Do you have an opinion?
6 That's my first question.
7 Do you have an opinion on the question, based on 8
your interview, whether it was your purpose to form an 9
opinion of that sort or not; that is, an opinion as to 10 whether Mr. DeWald was likely to stand up to cost and 11 schedule pressure?
r
(
12 A
I certainly did not form an opinion that he would buckle 13 under to cost and production schedules.
Now, that means 14 I guess I did form an opinion.
15 0
All right, sir.
16 Now, was that opinion that Mr. DeWald was likely to 17 stand up to cost and schedule pressure?
18 A
That's as precise as I could get.
I didn't think he 19 would buckle under from pressure easily.
20 0
Now, what exactly from your DeWald interview left you 21 with that opinion, Dr. Hulin?
22 A
The content of the 45-minute discussion when we talked 23 about what happens when procedures are violated and what 24 happens when the first-line supervisors recommend 25 sanctions and so forth.
l
...Sonntag Report {no Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
_ (312) 232-0262
, _j
17952 N
1 Q
Did you ask Mr. DeWald in substance whether or not he 2
ever had buckled under --
3 A
No.
4 0
-- to production pressure?
5 A
No, I did not.
6 0
Did you ask him whether in substance he felt free to 7
stand up to cost and schedule pressure?
8 A
No.
9 0
Did you ask him how he assured in the performance of his 10 job that cost -- excuse me -- that Quality Control 11 activities under his direction were sufficiently free of
[N 12 cost and schedule pressure?
13 Let's leave it at that.
14 A
Yes.
I asked him very specifically if there were either 15 formal or informal quotas about the number of 16 inspections that each QC Inspector was expected to 17 execute per shif t.
2 18 0
All right, sir.
19 What did he tell you on those scores?
20 A
He said no.
21 Q
No informal or formal quotas, no expectations of numbers 22 of inspections per unit of time?
23 A
Yes.
24 0
All right.
25 A
I asked him if supervisors -- excuse me -- if QC Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
[
17953 ps 1
inspectors could be terminated because, you know, they 2
were consistently slipping below the standards.
3 He said, "Well, there are no standards."
He did 4
indicate one person whose performance was so far below 5
the expectations that it seemed a little bit -- I mean, 6
it just seemed off the scale.
7 0
According to you or to Mr. DeWald?
8 A
Well, according to me and -- I'm sorry -- according to 9
Mr. DeWald and according to me when I talked to the 10 other QC Inspectors and found out what their daily 11 performance was.
)
12 I asked him what were the reasons for terminations, (V
13 and he went through a list of people who had been caught 14 sleeping on the job.
He said, you know, excessive 15 numbers of four-day weekends.
16 There seemed to be a number of negative sanctions 17 that were applied for behaviors, but none of them seemed 18 to reflect production, except for the one that was off 19 the scale.
20 Q
Did you ask him about the termination of Mr. Worley 21 Puckett?
22 A
I'm not sure.
23 0
You are aware, of course, of Mr. Puckett's termination?
24 You refer to it in your testimony.
25 A
Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17954 p
1 O
But you don't recall clearly having asked Mr. DeWald 2
whether or not that was an example of an instance of a 3
termination due to sacrificing quality for production 4
considerations?
5 A
No.
I had a much -- that's one of those questions that 6
I didn't think I really needed to ask because I thought 7
I knew what the answer was because I had all the memos, 8
you know, and other things that had been circulated.
9 0
I see.
10 But did you ask him whether or not the John Seeders 11 transfer reflected an adverse personnel action that was 12 accounted for by sacrificing --
13 A
No.
14 0
-- quality considerations for cost pressure?
15 A
No.
16 0
You didn't.
17 For the same reason?
18 A
Again, I don't recall asking him directly, and again I 19 think my impression at the time was that I had a much 20 better data source.
21 Q
Now, sir, you asked him about quotas and about how 22 people were terminated.
23 What else did you ask Mr. Sewald that formed the 24 basis for your opinion about his adherence to quality
)
25 over quantity, in effect?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. _ =. - -
O I
17955
[T V
1 A
I believe I asked him such things, such general things, 2
as whether there are weekly meetings that are held 3
between -- with the inspectors as a group.
4 I believe -- it was not him, but I asked come 5
member of the QC management group, and he said yes.
I 6
think he referred to them as "our Monday morning 7
meetings."
8 I asked him to what extent production records 9
formed the basis for that, and he said, "Very little."
10 Q
So you asked him about the meetings.
11 What else did you ask Mr. DeWald that was the basis
(N 12 for your opinion about his dedication to quality?
\\
13 A
I think that pretty well covers it.
14 Q
All right, sir.
15 Now, I'm looking at the instrument or questionnaire 16 that you used for Quality Control Inspector interviews.
17 I'm going to return to this in a moment, but look at 18 Section D,
" Production Pressure /QC Inspection,1.
Have 19 you at any time been unable to perform a proper 20 inspection because of production pressure?
Examples?"
21 Did you ask that question of Mr. DeWald?
22 Of course, I recognize that he didn't do actual 23 inspections, but did you ever ask him if he had been 24 unable to perform his Quality control managerial duties N
()
25 because of production pressure?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17956 G
1 A
No.
2 0
"Have you ever approved or accepted an inspection that 3
should not have been accepted?
4 "Do you know of any inspections that were 5
improperly accepted?"
6 Did you ever ask Mr. DeWald whether he knew of any 7
improperly accepted inspections or if he had ever 8
performed any of that sort, sir?
9 A
No.
10 Q
"Do you have any feelings that cost and/or schedule 11 override quality?
If yes, give examples."
12 You didn't ask Mr. DeWald that?
13 A
No.
14 0
"Are inspection criteria, inspection procedures, and 15 inspection instructions sufficiently clear to perform 16 your job properly?"
17 If you asked that question with the words "the job i
i 18 of the Quality Control Department properly," did you ask 19 that question in substance of Mr. DeWald?
l 20 A
No.
21 Q
"Have you ever been instructed or discouraged from 22 documenting non-conforming conditions on the proper 23 forms?"
24 In substance did you ever ask Mr. DeWald whether or 25 not he had ever been instructed or discouraged from I
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois 60144 (312) 232-0262
17957
,C 1
documenting non-conforming conditions?
2 A
No.
3 0
I take it those were questions that you felt were 4
important to ask Quality Control Inspectors?
5 A
Yes.
6 0
Now, can you recall any other information that Mr.
7 DeWald provided you, questions you asked him or 8
information he gave you that formed the basis for your 9
opinion about Mr. DeWald?
10 A
Yes.
I asked him, for instance, if pay rates were tied 11 to production.
He said no.
f}
12 0
He didn't tell you about the cross-certification xd 13 program?
14 A
Oh, he did tell me about that --
15 0
I see.
16 A
-- but that was not production; that was training -- I 17 mean, that was competence.
18 0
I see.
All right, sir.
19 You didn't understand, when he told you that, that 20 there was a relationship between cross-certification and 21 performance of multiple-inspection disciplines?
22 A
I don't understand your question.
23 0
Well, did you understand, from Mr. DeWald's comments 24 about the cross-certification program, that inspectors 25 were given cross-certifications so that they could be Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
17958 lG' 1
more efficient in producing more inspections?
2 MR. MILLER:
I have an objection to the form 3
of the question.
I don't believe that there's any 4
foundation for the premise in the question.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, can you restate it 6
without stating that as a fact?
7 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q
My question really was about your understanding.
10 Did you understand f rom Mr. DeWald that the 11 cross-certification program was adopted to increase the 12 efficiency of inspections?
13 A
I don't think he used the word " efficiency."
i 14 My interpretation of it would be that it was 15 cross-certification -- pay being tied to the 16 cross-certifications was for purposes of increasing the 17 competc.nce and the training base of the QC Inspectors, 18 and certainly it would add to the flexibility of the QC 19 Depa r tment.
20 0
Certainly.
I 21 With multiple certifications, you could perform 22 multiple work assignments; correct?
23 A
You can only perform one at a time.
24 0
Well, that's not necessarily true, is it?
Do you know?
25 A
No, I don't know.
q 1
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
17959 O
V 1
Q For example, an inspector could be a configuration and 2
welding inspector and perform those inspections at the 3
same time if he had both certifications.
4 Do you know that to be the case?
5 A
I do not know that to be the case.
6 Q
In any event, you asked Mr. DeWald -- or he told you 7
about the cross-certification program.
You had asked 8
him about pay tied to numbers of inspections or 9
inspection output.
10 What else did you ask him or what else did he tell i
11 you that was the basis for your opinion of Mr. DeWald?
12 A
I think we've pretty well covered -- we've at least 13 exhausted my memory.
14 Q
Fine.
15 Did you interview the Commonwealth Edison Company 16 Project Construction Superintendent, Mr. Shamblin?
17 A
No.
18 Q
Did you interview the L. K. Comstock Construction 19 Manager, Mr. Rolan?
20 A
No.
21 Q
Did you interview anyone else in Comstock's construction 22 management organization?
23 A
No.
24 Q
Did you interview anyone on the construction side --
I (O
25 yes, sir?
I
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 17960 OV 1
A I talked with -- while I was out on the site, I 2
accompanied one of the welding QC Inspectors and I 3
talked to some craft foremen.
4 Now, if you mean by that -- I mean, if they're part 5
of the management, yes, then I talked to some of the 6
management at LKC Construction.
7 0
I see.
All right, sir.
8 But aside from craft foremen, those are the only 9
representatives of the production side that you spoke 10 to?
11 A
And some craf ts people, some craf t people at the same f~'}
12 time, but nobody above that.
1
%/
13 0
I see.
All right, sir.
14 And was it the interview with -- was it those 15 interviews, the interviews with management, that formed 16 in part the basis for your conclusions with respect to 17 A.4. on Page 20; that is, the lack of hard-and-fast 18 production standards for Quality Control Inspectors?
19 A
Only in part.
20 0
What was the other part?
21 A
My interviews with the QC Inspectors themselves.
22 0
I see.
23 So it was interviews both of management and the l
l 24 inspectors that formed the basis for your conclusion on
)
25 that subject?
I l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262 L
17961
/"N I
I LJ 1
A Yes.
2 0
All right, sir.
3 I take it you didn't review production records 4
yourself, did you?
5 A
No.
6 0
The lack of organizational power possessed by Saklak --
7 did you interview Mr. Saklak?
4 8
A No.
9 Q
Did you form your conclusions on that factor on the 10 basis of interviews with management and the QC 11 Inspectors you talked to?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Now, are there any other bases for your conclusions on 14 that subject, aside from those interviews?
15 A
I've read a lot of depositions and so forth, but I think 16 my main information came from -- on that issue came from 17 those interviews.
18 Q
By " depositions," you mean the abstracts that were given 19 you?
20 A
I think I read some complete depositions.
21 0
Oh, I see.
22 Which ones did you read, sir?
23 A
Back there in the box.
24 (Indicating.)
25 0
You're pointing.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17962
,O
' v 1
A They're back there in the box in the first row of seats.
2 0
Those are the depositions that you reviewed?
3 A
Yes.
I reviewed depositions by a number of people, and 4
they're in that box.
5 0
Are those all the depositions that you reviewed or --
6 A
I believe so.
I'm not sure what's in the box.
That's 7
what I sent up here.
8 0
That's your box of what you relied on; is that what 9
you're saying?
10 A
Yes.
i 11 MR. GUILD:
Perhaps at the next recess you 12 could refresh your recollection as to which depositions 13 you read, if you would, please.
14 THE WITNESS:
If it's necessary, yes.
15 MR. CUILD:
Well, I would ask you to do that.
16 Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the witness consult.
17 I could ask him to do it now if it would be preferable.
18 I'd just as soon save time and have him do it at the 19 break.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, did you review all 21 those depositions in there or some of those?
22 THE WITNESS:
There were some materials that 23 were sent to me that I did not read, but I believe I 24 read most of the materials that are in that box.
1 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, at the next recess, V
]
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
3 ueneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17963 1
could you review that and see which ones you have read?
2 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q
Now, I'm still looking at Page 20 of your testimony, and 5
I believe we've focused on what the bases were for your 6
conclusions on A.l. through 6.
i 7
B is the impact of values and norms of societies 8
and the inspectors on their -- I guess it's supposed to 9
be their job performance.
10 Now, was your conclusion on that subject based in 11 whole or in part upon your interviews with the Quality
)
12 Control Inspectors?
13 A
In part.
14 0
In part on your interviews with management?
15 A
No.
16 Q
Not at all?
17 A
No.
18 Q
All right, sir.
19 Then what else, aside f rom the interviews with the i
20 QC Inspectors, was the basis for your conclusion on that 21 subject?
l
~
22 I'm just really looking for references now.
23 A
The general writings in the area of industrial i,
24 psychology on work values of crafts, semi-professional l
25 people.
i f
i Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
-0262 (312) 232
17964 1
Q All right, sir.
So you had some general understanding 2
based on the literature.
3 Now I'm asking really in particular:
With respect 4
to the Comstock Quality Control Inspectors, aside from 5
interviews with them, what else was the basis for your 6
conclusions on that subject?
7 A
On this specific group of people?
8 0
Yes.
9 A
It would be the interviews with them and the consistency 10 of those interviews with my other knowledge of the 11 field.
12 0
All right, sir.
t 13 Now, I take it, then, that Item C -- that is, the 14 data -- that's the empirical data, the numbers, if you 15 will.
16 The interviews with inspectors and management were 17 not a basis for your conclusions on C, the evaluation of 18 that data?
19 A
That's correct.
l 20 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, this would be an 21 appropriate time to take a brief recess.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Why don' t we take 10 23 minutes.
l l
24 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which l
R
!(
)
25 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
l NJ l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
i 17965 O
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild?
2 MR. GUILD:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q
Dr. Hulin, let me direct your attention to Page 19 of 5
your prefiled testimony.
There you state your ultimate 6
opinion.
7 I quote, "On the basis of the multiple pieces of 8
evidence that I have reviewed, it seems highly unlikely 9
that the alleged harassment and intimidation and undue 10 pressure by Comstock management adversely af!fected the 11 quality of the work of the Quality Control Inspectors."
12 That's your opinion, is it not?
t 13 A
Yes.
14 0
All right, sir.
15 Now, you use the words " highly unlikely" and 16 "seems," and you condition that opinion on the basis of 4
17 the pieces of evidence that you have reviewed; correct?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Now, is it fair to understand, therefore, that that 20 opinion is not an opinion that one -- that you are 21 expressing with a quantifiable degree of certainty, such 22 as a given mathematical confidence level or level of 23 reliability?
24 A
No, sir.
I could not attach a probability significance O
25 to any number of decimals on that.
g j
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17966 4
1 Q
All right, sir.
2 And I take it that you would acknowledge that when 3
you use a word such as "seems" in expressing an opinion, 4
that that, too, is -- conveys the sense that the opinion 5
is not an absolute, does it not?
6 A
Yes.
7 0
All right.
8 Further, you state that your opinion is that the 9
matter is " highly unhikely."
10 I take it that, too, suggests that your opinion is 11 not absolute?
j 12 A
Yes.
13 0
And finally -- did you complete your answer?
14 A
Yes.
15 0
Okay.
16 And finally, when you state that your opinion is l
17 based on the evidence that you've reviewed, that, too, j
18 suggests that in this case the opinion is dependent on 19 the validity of the evidence that you reviewed?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
All right..
22 There certainly might be evidence that you didn't 23 review, and you can express no opinion based on that, I l
24 take it.
i 25 A
That's correct.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ueneva, Illinois 00134 l
(312) 232-0262
17967 a
1 Q
And if the evidence that you did review is 2
misinterpreted, misunderstood or misapplied, that, too, 3
would affect the conclusion which is made on the basis 4
of that evidence?
5 A
Well, yes, and I would like to expand on that if I 6
could.
7 0
"Yes" will do just fine for now, Dr. Hulin.
8 (Laughter.)
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Miller can ask the 10 expansion on redirect.
11 BY MR GUILD:
12 Q
All right, sir.
13 Now, I understood you to say that your general 14 approach to understanding behavior in the workplace 15 makes reliance upon what I'll characterize as hands-on 16 observation and experience.
17 Is that a correct understanding?
18 A
In terms of what I did in this case or in terms of my l
19 theoretical research?
l 20 I'm sorry.
21 0
Well, I just read your testimony, and I guess it would 22 be helpful to understand where you're talking theory and i
23 where you' re talking what you actually did in this case.
24 Let's start with theoretically.
25 Do I understand correctly that it's your belief l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 17968 O
1 that for you to undertake an understanding of behavior 2
in a workplace, it's helpful to obtain hands-on 3
experience and understanding of that workplace through 4
observation?
5 A
Yes.
6 0
All right.
7 And in part you've done that in the past when 8
you've undertaken research projects by getting some 9
hands-on experience in the workplace yourself?
10 A
I try to when it's possible.
11 0
All right, sir.
12 In your testimony you make reference to getting 13 that hands-on experience.
Let's look at Page 5.
"I 14 have worked as a laborer on construction jobs, driven a 15 liquid propane truck, worked on an assembly line in 16 Michigan in the automobile industry, and as a laboratory 17 technician for a chemical company."
18 Now, Dr. Hulin, those work experiences were work 19 experiences you had when you were doing summer jobs when 20 you were in school and not in the context of performing l
21 any research; isn't that correct?
22 A
That's correct.
23 0
The hands-on experience that you obtained in this case 24 that forms the basis for your opinion here you obtained
)
25 in the course of a two-day visit to the Braidwood site; Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois eu144 (312) 232-0262
17969 1
correct?
2 A
Yes, yes.
3 0
You returned, of course, later for two evenings where 1
4 you conducted the interviews with the additional Quality 5
Control Inspectors?
6 A
Yes.
7 0
All right.
8 In the two days that were the basis for your 9
hands-on experience at Braidwood that's the experience 10 reflected in your testimony, you also interviewed all of 11 the management people that you interviewed; correct?
12 A
I interviewed three of the management people.
13 0
I see.
3 i
i 14 And you spoke with six Quality Control Inspectors?
15 A
Yes.
16 0
All right.
17 Did you use the term -- you used the term " spoke 18 with," I believe.
19 You didn't interview them formally, did you?
l 20 A
Well, I didn' t sit them down across the table f rom me 21 and say, "I would like to interview you now about 22 such-and-such."
23 Q
Right.
24 A
For two of them, that was the situation.
1 1
25 Three of them I talked to in the QC trailer, I I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17970
/
g P
4
\\m /
I think it was; and then we -- af ter they explained to me 1
2 what they were doing and I talked to them some more 3
about the situation the QC found themselves in, we went 4
out onto the site and in one case we looked at the 5
calibrations that were going on, talked to the people, 6
talked to the people that came up to the toolroom -- I 7
guess that's what the technical name of it would be --
8 the terminations.
We went and we found the terminal 9
box, and the welding was about the same.
10 0
All right.
11 Who were the two inspectors, then, that you had the
(N 12 more formal interviews with of the six during the first 13 two days?
14 A
King and Shields.
15 Q
And what kind of inspection work do they do?
16 A
I believe they were both in welding.
Now, I know one of 17 them was.
I believe they rere both in welding.
18 0
Do you know how long Mr. King or Mr. Shields -- I take 19 it they're both men; is that right?
20 A
Yes.
21 0
-- how long they had been employed at Comstock at 22 Braidwood?
23 A
They had both been there while -- they were at least --
24 I'm sorry.
I'm phrasing this badly.
)
25 They have both been there when Saklak was there, so Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L
17971 1
they went back that far at least.
2 0
That's what they led you to understand?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
All right, sir.
5 How did you select Mr. Shields and Mr. King for the 6
questioning on this occasion?
7 A
I asked for a chart of the QC Department, showing --
8 listing the names of the QC Inspectors.
I asked which 9
ones were recent hires, and I eliminated them.
10 I said, "Okay.
I would like to talk to this 11 individual if he has been here more than" -- I forget --
12 "two or three years" or "two years" or whatever the term 13 was.
I picked them.
14 0
You picked them?
15 A
Yes.
16 0
All right.
17 And who did you ask for the information about how 18 long they had been there?
19 A
Somebody not -- it was not DeWald or Seltmann, but it l
20 was somebody from the office -- I don't believe it was 21 the secretary, but it may have been -- who had some idea 22 of their tenure in the organization.
23 Q
All right, sir.
24 Did you observe Mr. Shields or Mr. King in the i
25 performance of their work?
~_
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 1
(312) 232-0262
17972 1
A No.
I interviewed them first so that I wouldn't go out 2
in the field and, you know -- Eo that I would know 3
something about the process before I went out into the 4
field and fell over a cable or something.
5 0
All right.
6 And you made no record of your interview with 7
either of those gentlemen?
8 A
No.
J 9
0 okay.
10 How long did you spend interviewing Mr. Shields and 11 Mr. King each?
12 A
Again, fairly short interviews:
half an hour, 45 13 minutes.
14 0
Taken together or separate?
15 A
Separately.
16 0
All right, sir.
17 Then who was the termination inspector that you 18 accompanied to the field?
19 A
It was one of the two Irish people.
It was either 20 Dooley or -- it was either Sean Dooley or Kevin Connor.
21 Q
And had either of them worked for Mr. Saklak?
22 A
That I don't recall.
23 0
And you observed the one who was the termination 24 inspector performing a termination inspection?
(O) 25 A
Yes.
J Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17973
'v' 1
0 And how much time did you spend doing that, observing 2
that inspector's work performance?
3 A
From the time he started pulling papers and records and 4
stuff out and looking at them and me asking him what he 5
was doing and why until the time we walked out and found 6
the panel -- I believe it was a terminal box -- and he 7
told me what he was doing and showed me the stuff he was 8
looking at, it was probably an hour.
9 0
An hour, okay.
10 A
Now, it may have been 45 minutes; no less.
11 Q
And did you conduct an interview with him as you were
(T 12 observing him perform his work over this hour?
V 13 A
Well, again, if you -- if you will allow that kind of a 14 running conversation to constitute an interview, yes, I 15 did.
16 0
Well, it's a question of substance.
17 What did you ask him?
18 I'm not interested in the weather.
I'm asking you 19 whether you asked hiin something that you relied on in 20 your testimony.
21 A
I asked him about his work as a QC Inspector.
I asked 22 him about the production quota.
23 0
What did he tell you about his work as a QC Inspector?
24 A
I can't tell you for sure.
It was certainly nothing 25 startling one way or the other.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17974 O
1 Q
It doesn't stick in your mind at this time?
2 A
It was an interesting job.
He, you know, seemed to like 3
it.
He seemed to find it occupied his mind while he was 4
doing it.
It wasn't routine work.
5 Q
How about the question of quotas?
Did you ask him about 6
quotas?
7 A
Yes.
8 0
What did he tell you?
9 A
He told me there were none.
10 0
Did he tell you that there were any average expected 11 levels of performance?
- ~'N 12 A
No.
He didn't even use those terms.
13 0
Did he use a term of any sort that suggested that there 14 were expected units of work per unit of time?
15 A
He suggested that there were levels of performance that 16 were so low that no reasonable inspector would be doing 17 that and still be doing his job.
18 0
I see.
19 And what levels were those, Dr. Hulin?
20 A
He didn't put a number on them.
21 He said, "Look.
Everybody knows who this" --
22 cleaning up the language, "Everybody knows who the 23 screw-offs are; and if you get down to one or two a day, 24 you' re going to be in trouble."
)
25 0
He said "one or two a day"?
d Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17975
(
1 A
Yes.
2 0
He's talking about termination inspections, now?
3 A
Inspections.
4 0
You don't know what kind of inspections he was talking 5
about?
6 This is the terminations inspector that we' re 7
talking about that you accompanied.
8 A
I went through the same sort of interview procedure with 9
all of them.
10 0
with all of who, Dr. Hulin?
11 We' re now talking about the first time you went to
(
12 the site, you said that you did interviews with two.
13 Now you say that you accompanied this one to the field.
14 I asked you, "In the course of watching him do his 15 work, did you do an interview?"
You said, "If you call 16 that talking with him, asking him questions, yes, it's 17 an interview."
18 Now I'm asking you what he told you, sir, that was 19 the basis for your opinion evidence.
20 A
As I started to explain, I went through the same process 21 with the two Irish people, Sean and Kevin; and John, 22 last name unknown; and Daryl Landers.
I went through 23 the same process with all of them.
24 I asked them all about the existence of quotas.
I j
25 asked them all about, "What is it like working around 4
Sonntag_Repor ti ng servi ce r.ta.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
_ _ _ 31,2)__,232-0262
(
i 17976 O
1 here?
Do you feel a lot of pressure to get stuff done, 2
to get it out?"
I asked them all the same general line 3
of questions.
4 0
Well, let's be a little more precise now.
5 Who did the gentleman who took you to the field to 6
do terminations tell you he worked for?
Who was his 7
immediate supervisor?
8 A
I don't know.
9 0
Who was Mr. Connor and Mr. Dooley's immediate 10 supervisor?
11 A
I don't know.
/~'}
12 Q
Did you ask either of those three gentlemen whether they
/
j 13 had ever been to the NRC7 l
i 14 A
I believe I did, yes.
15 0
Can you recall what their answers were?
i 16 A
Their answer was no.
17 0
None of those three went to the NRC, as you recall?
18 A
None of those -- I don't recall them telling me that 19 they had been to the NRC with a quality problem.
i l
l 20 That's what I would have asked them, you know:
21 "Did you go to the NRC because of a quality problem here 22 that you did not think was being addressed or resolved?"
23 JUDGE COLE:
This is for all six?
24 THE WITNESS:
This was for Landers, j
25 Connolly --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ueneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
t 17977 1
MR. GUILD:
Connor?
2 THE WITNESS:
-- Connor, Dooley and John, 3
last name unknown, and I believe Shields and King.
I 4
believe I would have asked that question of everybody.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 0
All right, sir.
Well, you asked each one of those 7
people whether they had ever been to the NRC.
8 Did any of them tell you they had been to the NRC?
9 A
I don't believe they did.
10 0
Did you ask them whether they had ever been to Quality 11 First?
f~}
12 A
I believe I would have asked that question of everybody, V
13 yes.
14 0
And which ones of these six told you they had been to 15 Quality First?
16 A
I don't believe any of them did.
17 0
You don't recall whether they said they had or not?
18 A
I don't specifically recall them telling me they had 19 been.
20 0
Did you ask them whether or not they knew of any 21 inspections that had been improperly accepted?
22 A
I think I would have phrased it much more gently than 23 that; like, you know, did they know of any borderline, 24 marginal work that may have been accepted.
25 0
I'm using it as you phrased it in your questionnaire.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17978 (D
V 1
It says, "Do you know of any inspections that were 2
improperly accepted?"
3 A
I realize that, but that was a formal interview.
This 4
one was an informal interview.
5 I'm quite sure I would have phrased it in keeping 6
with the work situation:
" Hey, did you ever know of 7
anything that ever sort of slipped by or was maybe 8
marginal?"
9 0
And to that informal framing of that question, did you 10 get any affirmative response?
11 A
No, I did not.
I did not get an affirmative response to I
/~'h 12 that question.
b 13 0
No one acknowledged that they knew of work that had been 14 improperly accepted?
15 A
That's correct.
16 0
You recall asking that question in one form or another?
17 A
I am sure that I did ask that question, yes.
18 0
All right, sir.
That's helpful.
19 Now, did you ask these six gentlemen whether they 20 were ever under any production pressure?
21 A
Yes.
22 0
And did any of them acknowledge that they were under any 23 production pressure?
24 A
They -- to the extent that they said, you know, "If you
)
25 did one or two a day, you know, you may get some Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17979 O
1 questions raised," to the extent that they realized that 2
they couldn't dope off completely all day long, they
{
3 were not under production pressure.
4 0
And that's what they indicated to you?
5 A
Yes.
)
6 0
So other than that, they gave no indication of having 7
been under production pressure, as you recall?
8 A
That's correct.
9 0
All right, sir.
10 Did you ask any of them whether or not they were 11 aware of any other inspectors who had been the victims
[~'N 12 of harassment or intimidation?
13 A
Yes -- that is certainly a question that I asked some of l
14 them.
Whether I asked all of them or not, I don't know.
15 0
Did any of them acknowledge that they were aware of I
16 inspectors who had been subject to harassment or i
17 intimidation?
18 A
Several of them did.
i 19 0
Several of the six did?
20 A
Yes.
21 0
And who did respond affirmatively to that of the six?
i i
22 A
I don't know.
f 23 0
You can't recall at this time?
I I
24 A
Right.
25 0
And who did they identify as having been the subjects of I
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 j
i (312) 232-0262
17980 Ob 1
harassment or intimidation?
2 A
Rick Snyder.
3 0
That's one.
4 Any others?
5 A
They seemed to identify some pressures that had occurred 6
between craf t and the QC Inspectors that led to some 7
conflict not from QC management but from craft foremen 8
that were arguing with the Oc people about slowing them 9
down and so forth.
10 They said those typically get resolved by the Oc 11 man saying, "I want to do my job."
12 0
Did they identify any inspectors in that regard?
13 A
No.
14 0
No?
15 A
No.
16 0
Any other instances of harassment or intimidation, any 17 other persons who were identified as being subject to 18 harassment and intimidation?
19 A
I'm sure at least one of them mentioned Seeders.
20 0
John Seeders?
21 A
Yes.
22 0
Who mentioned John Seeders?
1 23 A
I don't know.
I'm sure that the name came up at some 24 point during the interviews.
(v) 25 Q
Did you raise it?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ueneva, 1111nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17981 OU 1
A No.
2 0
How about the name Worley Puckett?
3 A
I don't believe it did, no.
4 0
I take it you didn't raise it?
5 A
I did not raise it.
6 0
All right, sir.
7 How about the name Rick Martin?
8 A
I'm having trouble here because Rick Martin's name 1
9 surfaced at so many different points in so many l
10 different documents and so many different interviews 11 that I really can't say for sure that one of them did l
12 bring up Rick Martin or did not.
i 13 0
One of the six?
I l
14 A
One of the six.
15 0
And you have no record --
l 16 A
That's correct.
l 17 0
-- to memorialize whether they did or not?
18 A
Right.
19 Q
All right, sir.
20 Did you ask these six whether any inspectors had 21 been the subject of retaliatory transfer because they 22 had inspected too close, issued too many ICR's or NCR's 23 or otherwise impeded production in the performance of 24 their Quality Control duties?
25 A
I don't think so, because most of them had just gotten Sonntag_ Reporting Service, Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
17d82 J
O 1
done telling me that there was none of this pressure or 2
harassment.
3 So it would not be a reasonable follow-up question i
4 then for me to say, "Well, do you know of anybody who 5
got transferred because they didn't go along with the j
6 harassment?"
7 Q
You don't recall asking that question?
8 A
I'm quite sure I did not.
j 9
0 All right, sir.
10 Do you recall any of the first six that you talked 11 to that were the basis for your prefiled testimony 12 volunteering in any context that they were aware of 13 persons who had been transferred because of inspecting 14 too close, writing too many ICR's or NCR's or production 15 pressure?
16 A
I don't believe they did.
17 0
Did you ask these inspectors in substance what they
(
18 thought of Mr. DeWald's performance as the Quality 1
1 19 Control Manager?
20 A
I don't know if I would have phrased it exactly like 1
j 21 that, but I did ask them about their job.
I asked them l
22 about their Quality Control work.
I asked them about 23 the job on this site, which I guess was a general way of l
24 encompassing questions about specific management.
(
25 I don't think I asked them specifically, " Hey, what i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l UEneva, Illinois cu134 (312) 232-0262
17983 (v
/
1 do you think of Irv DeWald as a manager?"
2 0
Did you elicit any opinion from any of these six above 3
Mr. DeWald in any way?
4 A
I obtained some opinions.
5 0
All right, sir.
Well, let me ask the first question 6
first.
7 Did you ask for any opinions about Mr. DeWald?
9 8
A I don't believe so.
9 0
Now, I take it you obtained some because they 10 volunteered opinions in some other context, other than i
11 you asking directly?
12 A
(Indicating.)
13 0
You have to answer yes or no.
14 A
I'm sorry.
I keep doing that.
15 Yes.
16 0
All right, sir.
17 And who of the six volunteered an opinion about Mr.
18 DeWald?
19 A
I don't know.
l 20 0
You can't recall at this time?
21 A
I can't recall.
22 0
All right, sir.
23 What opinion did they, one or more of those six, 24 volunteer about Mr. DeWald?
25 A
It revolved around the fact that he was from the i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
(
l 17984 p
\\
1 military and was, you know -- kind of ran things like a 2
military operation to a certain extent, kind of by the' 3
book, by the chain of command; not a whole lot beyond 4
that.
5 0
Did they volunteer any opinion about Mr. DeWald's
{
6 performance as a Quality Control Manager, aside from 7
referring to his military background?
8 A
I think they -- I received a couple of opinions about I
9 his performance as a manager per se --
10 0
Yes.
11 A
-- but as far as a Quality control overseer, no.
1 12 0
What was the opinion about his performance as a manager, 13 DeWald's?
j 14 A
He was kind of military, you know.
That's an opinion.
f 15 Q
He was militaristic?
16 Is that how you understood the answer?
17 A
I don't think they used that word.
18 0
What did they say in substance, Dr. Hulin?
19 A
We were -- we were talking while they were on the job.
20 I think by then they had figured out that I had at least 21 been on a construction site and I wasn't asking too inany 22 really stupid questions.
23 They said, "You know how the military runs things.
24 They kind of do it by the book, and he shows his O
25 military training."
Sonntag Renorti ng Servi ca. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
__312) _232-0262 j
(
l 17985
, 0 1
0 In the sense that he does it by the book; is that how 2
you understood it?
3 A
That seemed to be what they were saying.
4 0
He was precise and ordered in his approach?
5 A
This was, as I said, purely in terms of his managerial 6
style --
7 0
Yes.
8 A
-- not in terms of his technical competence.
9 Q
Well, that's another question.
10 But you understood their opinion to be that Mr.
11 DeWald was regimented, orderly, disciplined in the sense C'
12 of having a military style to management?
13 A
That his managerial style would be more like the 14 military than it might be like an R & D lab.
15 Q
"R & D"?
16 A
Research and development.
17 Q
Right.
I've got you.
18 Now, did you understand -- did they volunteer an 19 opinion or give an opinion on Mr. DeWald's technical 20 competence ?
21 A
I don't recall that.
22 O
Okay.
23 Did they provide any other opinion to you about Mr.
24 DeWald, aside f rom the one you stated?
25 A
Not that I recall.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 t
17986 1
Q All right, sir.
2 Now, what did these six understand your purpose was j
3 in speaking to them and following them around at the 1
4 site during this time?
5 A
I described my role quite honestly as a consultant for 6
the law firm that was representing Commonwealth Edison 7
in some hearings that were ongoing and that I wanted to 8
find out what was going on on the QC side.
9 0
Did you tell them that you were gathering information 10 for expert testimony in the NRC proceeding?
11 A
I don't think I would have used that term because if I 12
- say, "I'm gathering data for expert testimony," they 13 might think, you know, "Some goddamn expert down here 14 from the University," and it might cool off the 15 interview very quickly.
So I'm sure I did not use that 16 term.
17 0
Well, what did you lead them to understand your purpose 18 was in gathering this data?
19 A
That I was getting -- trying to find out -- I was a 20 consultant for -- just what I told you:
I was a 21 consultant for the law firm and that I was trying to 22 find out about, you know, their job, their perception of 23 the job, their work and so forth.
24 0
All right, sir.
25 You clearly didn't say to them that you were going Sonntag Renorting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262 (312)
i 17987
)
i 1
to testify in this licensing case based on what they 2
told you?
That you' re certain of ?
3 A
That I'm certain of.
4 0
Otherwise, you left it to them to interpret what work 5
you were performing as a consultant for the Edison law 6
firm; fair enough?
7 A
To the extent that they didn't believe what I said, yes, 8
they could interpret it that way.
9 0
No, sir.
I thought I captured what you told me that you 10 told them; that is, that you were a consultant working 11 for Commonwealth Edison's law firm.
1 12 A
Yes.
i 13 Q
Did you give them any other information about what ycu 14 were doing that would have provided them a basis for 15 understanding what your work was to be?
16 A
I told them I wanted to talk to them about their job, 17 the work they did, the production quotas and so forth l
18 and that I wanted to go out and watch them do a job.
I 19 Q
On behalf of Edison's law firm --
20 A
Yes.
l 21 0
-- in your capacity as a consultant?
22 A
Yes.
23 0
You didn't tell them you were a professor f rom the 24 University of Illinois, I take it?
O l
25 A
No.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 17988 O
1 Q
You didn't tell them you were an industrial 2
psychologist, I take it?
3 A
No.
4 0
All right.
5 Aside from the --
6 A
Some of them asked me.
7 Q
Pardon me?
8 A
I don't want to leave the wrong opinion -- or 9
impression.
Some of them asked me specifically what I 10 did.
11 Q
Did you tell them?
)
12 A
Yes.
13 0
What did they ask and what did you tell them in 14 substance?
15 A
It was sort of, "What do you do," and it was -- I always 16 phrase it, "I'm at the University."
That way if they 17 want to assume I'm something other than a professor, 18 they can.
Once they followed it up, I'd say, "I'm a 19 professor of industrial psychology at the University."
20 As soon as you say " psychologist," you sometimes 21 get a little bit of a reaction.
So I say, "I'm an 22 industrial psychologist."
23 Q
They're looking for the couch?
24 A
Yes.
25 Q
Did anyone ask a question that elicited a confession Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i i
17989
,-,O 1
that you were a professor at the University?
2 A
I wouldn't classify it as a " confession," but yes.
3 0
Did the question go beyond that you told them you were a 4
professor at the University?
5 A
In this case, probably not.
6 0
of the six?
7 A
No.
8 0
Was there anyone else present, aside f rom the specific 9
Quality control Inspector with whom you were talking, 10 during these initial contacts with the six?
11 A
Yes.
12 0
And who else was there?
13 A
Becky Lauer.
14 0
Ms. Lauer accompanieo 'rou to the field?
15 A
Yes.
16 0
Now, Ms. Lauer is a member of the law firm of Isham, 17 Lincoln & Beale and is a lawyer for Commonwealth Edison 18 Company.
19 Are you aware of that?
20 A
At least she works for Isham, Lincoln & Beale, not 21 Commonwealth Edison.
(h) 22 0
She's a lawyer for Commonwealth Edison Company.
23 Were you aware of that?
24 A
No, I was not.
I thought she worked for ILB.
t 25 0
You understand that ILB is the law firm for Commonwealth Sonntac Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 17990
([S) 1 Edison Company?
2 A
Yes, I understand that.
3 0
All right, sir.
4 And did Ms. Lauer identify herself -- introduce l
5 herself in your presence to the six?
6 A
Yes.
7 0
How did she introduce herself?
8 A
As Rebecca Lauer, a lawyer for Isham, Lincoln & Beale, 9
the firm representing Commonwealth Edison.
10 Q
And did she sit in on the interviews that you had with 11 the two gentlemen?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
And did she accompany you to observe the termination 14 inspection with the other gentlemen?
15 A
She accompanied me on all of the field -- on all three 16 of them, yes.
17 0
Let me see.
I think I left a couple out.
18 You mentioned that you observed a termination i
19 inspection?
20 A
Yes.
21 0
And you can't recall who that was, but one of the six?
22 A
It was one of the six.
23 Q
And you observed a calibration -- the-work of a i
24 calibration inspector, I take it?
)
25 A
Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 t
17991
/~'N 1
Q And that was at the toolroom?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
And can you recall who that was?
4 A
I believe that was Sean Dooley.
5 0
Okay.
6 And then?
7 A
And the calibration one I believe would be Kevin Connor.
8 Q
Now, you've confused me there.
9 Calibration was Mr. Connor?
10 A
I'm sorry.
Calibration was Sean Dooley.
Terminations 11 was Kevin Connor.
I~'N 12 0
Understood.
N~s 13 A
Welding was John, last name unknown.
14 0
All right.
15 And was it John, the welding inspector, whose weld 16 inspection work you observed?
17 A
Was it John?
18 0
Yes.
19 A
Yes.
20 0
Was it his welding inspection work?
21 A
Yes.
22 0
Okay.
23 Now, wastherEotherfieldworkthatyouobserved?
24 We've got three types:
calibration, termination 25 and welding by John.
( j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17992 0
1 A
The only other fieldwork I observed would be incidental 2
to those observations.
3 Q
Fine.
All right, sir.
4 And Ms. Lauer accompanied you on the observations 5
that you performed?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Now, you prepared your testimony in the early August 8
time f rame?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
Is that right?
11 A
I believe it is, yes.
l I~'N 12 Q
Was it complete at that time, aside f rom the -- was it 13 in the form in which it's been filed in this proceeding 14 at that time?
15 A
Yes.
16 0
All right.
17 You added nothing to it since then, except the 18 corrections you made today?
l 19 A
I believe that's correct.
I 20 0
All right, sir.
21 And then at some point in time after you had made 22 this testimony available in August, it got filed, and 23 that was in October?
l 24 A
Yes.
25 0
All right.
(
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois eu144 (312) 232-0262
17993 1
N 1
Now, do you know why the testimony was not 2
distributed, filed in this proceeding, between August 3
and October, August when you prepared it in its present 4
form and October when it finally was circulated?
5 A
No.
6 0
Well, you do know, don' t you, Dr. Hulin, that af ter you 7
prepared your testimony, Gregory Archambeault and Rich 8
Martin presented testimony in this case, don't you?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
All right.
11 And you know that happened and caused your 12 testimony not to be filed?
You know that to be the 13 case, don't you?
14 A
I know that Greg Archambeault's allegations caused a 15 delay, yes.
16 0
All right, sir.
17 And it caused you to undertake to interview 18 additional Quality Control Inspectors, did it not?
19 A
Yes.
20 0
All right.
21 And those interviews were conducted for the purpose 22 on your part of determining whether any corrections, i
23 additions or modifications were necessary to your 2
1 24 prefiled testimony?
25 A
Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
17994 7-s 1
Q And you have made no corrections, modifications or 2
additions to your prefiled testimony on the basis of 3
your interviews with those additional inspectors?
4 A
That's correct.
5 0
All right.
6 Now, the only corrections, of course, are the ones 7
that you made this morning?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Now, I want to show you a document that you made 10 available to me when we spoke the week before last --
11 last week, I think it was, actually.
This is entitled
/"'N 12
" Quality First Interview of LKC QC Inspectors."
13 (Indicating.)
14 Now, is this the document -- does this reflect the 15 questions which you used in performing the interviews 16 that you performed after you prepared your prefiled 17 testimony but before today?
18 A
This is the outline of the interview form that I would 19 use, yes.
20 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that the 21 document " Quality First Interview of LKC QC Inspectors" 22 be marked for identification as Intervenors' Exhibit 23 193.
24 (The document was thereupon marked
(~'N()
25 Intervenors' Exhibit No.193 for Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
^
l 17995
()
l I
1 identification as of November 24, 1986.)
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 0
Now, Dr. Hulin, Mr. George Marcus of Commonwealth Edison 4
Company's Quality Assurance Department assisted in the 5
preparation of these questions, did he not?
6 A
He assisted in the preparation of the initial draft of 7
the questions, yes.
8 0
All right, sir.
9 And you reviewed these questions and you reviewed 10 the draft that was prepared by Mr. Marcus and agreed to 11 the questions in the form in which they appear --
12 A
Yes.
13 0
-- on the document we've marked as Intervenors' 193?
14 MR. GUILD:
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would ask at 15 this time that Intervenors' Exhibit 193 be admitted.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Any objection?
17 MR. MILLER:
No objection.
18 MS. CHAN:
No objection f rom the Staff.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Received.
20 (The document was thereupon received into 21 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No.
22 193.)
23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 Q
Now, sir, the heading on the document reads " Quality
(~sg 25 First Interview of LKC QC Inspectors."
( )
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 17996 m
1 Now, these were not Quality First interviews which 2
you conducted, were they?
3 A
No.
4 Q
When you approved this draft of the outline of questions 5
to be used in the interviews, you understood what the 6
Quality First Program was, didn't you?
7 A
Yes.
8 0
And you understood that you were not going to be 9
yourself conducting Quality First interviews with these 10 inspectors, didn' t you?
11 A
Yes.
12 O
- Now, "A,
==
Introduction:==
Explain purpose of the 13 interview, which is to" -- I'm reading the first bullet 14
" determine the type of relationship that exists with 15 management and the production departments and QC 16 Inspectors."
Second bullet:
" Determine if QC 17 Inspectors have freedom to report concerns."
Third 18 bullet:
" Determine if any quality concerns exist."
19 Now, your purpose was to see whether or not your 20 testimony prefiled in this proceeding required 21 correction or addition or modification.
22 You didn't state that as a purpose for your 23 interview to these inspectors, did you?
24 A
No.
25 0
The third bullet says, " Determine if any quality Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17997 1
concerns exist."
6 2
Now, if you would, sir, turn to Page 3 of your 3
outline, Item F,
" Conclusion."
In parentheses it says, 4
"(Complete the Concern Disclosure Statement, CDS)," end 5
parentheses.
6 I read the text:
"The purpose of the Disclosure
]
7 Statement is to document whether or not the person being 8
interviewed has any concerns requiring formal 9
investigation."
10 When you conducted these interviews, you did not 11 employ a Concern Disclosure Statement, did you?
12 A
No.
i 13 Q
Now, you performed these interviews during the evening 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> -- well, during the afternoon and evening hours of 15 September 15th and 16th, 1986, did you not?
16 A
I'm not sure on the dates.
I am sure on the time.
17 0
Were they in the afternoon and evening hours?
18 A
Yes.
l 19 Q
All right, sir.
20 And you maintained notes -- you nade notes of the 21 interviews, did you not --
l 22 A
Yes.
23 0
-- in your own hand, copies of which you made available 24 to me; correct?
i s
l 25 A
Yes.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17998 (q
1 0
That is a copy of the notes.
2 (Indicating.)
3 Now, you did not offer nor provide assurances of 4
anonymity or confidentiality to the persons that you 5
interviewed, did you, Dr. Hulin?
6 A
No.
7 0
Nor did anyone else who was present during those 8
interviews, did they?
9 A
I don't believe -- no, I don't believe so.
I don't 10 recall.
I don't think they did.
11 MR. GUILD:
I ask that the document be marked
(
12 as Intervenors' Exhibit 194.
13 (The document was thereupon marked 14 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 194 for 15 identification as of Ncvember 24, 1986.)
16 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, the document that 17 I've placed before the witness, which I've had marked 18 for identification as Intervenors' 194, reflects the 19 identities of the persons interviewed.
Generally 20 they're in the upper left-hand corner of the document.
21 You will recall that at the time we moved to compel 22 the production of the transcripts of these interviews, 23 there was an assertion made by Applicant that the 24 interviews were conducted confidentially or with some k,)
25 assurance of anonymity or confidentiality.
s Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262
.(312)
l 17999
)
('~)h
\\
r,_
1 No such assurances were made, to my knowledge, and 2
I've reviewed the transcripts in part of those 3
interviews, nor do I understand that any such assurances 4
were offered.
5 I therefore would ask that this document, 6
Intervenors' Exhibit 194, be received on the public 7
record.
I don't believe there's any basis whatsoever 8
for protecting these names, since they're clearly known 9
to Dr. Hulin; and I will establish in a moment that they 10 are known to Commonwealth Edison Company as well.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Any objection?
12 MR. MILLER:
Well, your Honor, I agree with 13 Mr. Guild's characterization of.the confidential nature l
14 of the document and have no objection to the discussion 15 on the public record of the names that are involved.
l 16 In terms of the admissibility of this document, it l
l 17 seems to me that it can be used only to cross-examine l
18 Dr. Hulin on the bases for his opinion.
These are his 19 notes, and they form the information that he recorded 20 when he interviewed these witnesses.
i 21 However, they contain assertions of fact that are 22 hearsay as to Commonwealth Edison Company, and I do not 23 believe it is proper to admit the document for the truth
(
24 of the matters stated in the interviews as such.
( )
25 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that you Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
18000 pb 1
simply reserve judgment on that question for the time.
2 I do mean to offer it and will offer it at this time.
3 I clearly want to use the document for the limited 4
purpose that Mr. Miller suggests, and that is in my b
5 cross examination of Dr. Hulin.
I do intend to offer it 6
more generally, but I believe that its offer should
~
7 await the conclusion of my full examination of the 8
witness.
9 I don't offer it for all purposes at this time.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, let's reserve judgment 11 on your offer, then, since you don't have to offer it in 12 order to use it for impeachment.
13 MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir.
That would be my 14 preference.
15 MS. CHAN:
Your Honor, I would like to ask 16 the witness a couple questions on voir dire about this 17 document.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Any objection to that, Mr.
19 Guild?
20 MR. GUILD:
Yes, I do object at this time.
I 21 don't offer it at this time for any purpose, and 22 since --
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
You're just going to use it 24 for impeachment?
25 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
I don't know what Miss j
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111nois 60134 4
(312) 232-0262
l 18001 s
\\s l 1
Chan's questions may be, but --
2 MS. CH AN :
May we approach the bench, your 3
Honor?
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Certainly you may.
5 Do you wish the witness to be excused?
6 MR. GUILD:
Let's do it if we can, Mr.
7 Chairman.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
9 Could you please step out in the hallway, sir.
10 (Witness excused.)
11 MS. CHAN:
I wanted to determine how Dr.
12 Hulin selected these individuals to be interviewed.
13 If he obtained the names from Greg Archambeault, we 14 have on the record that Mr. Archambeault wanted to 15 protect the identity of the people he discussed his 16 survey with.
17 If that is the source of these names, I think we 18 should keep them off the record to conserve Mr.
l 19 Archambeault's promise of confidentiality so we don't l
20 accidentally bring those out.
I 21 MR. GUILD:
Ironically, the persons 22 interviewed are interrogated at length about whether 23 they got a survey from Mr. Archambeault and whether they 24 filled it out and, if they acknowledged that they filled
)
25 it out, whether this is theirs and, if they acknowledge l
l l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
18002 f^\\
>V 1
that this is theirs, what they meant by Answer A, B and 2
C.
3 So there's certainly no effort made by Mr. Hulin 4
and the others present to protect the confidentiality of 5
those who responded to the questionnaire.
6 My understanding -- and I'll elicit this f rom the 7
witness -- is that he sought to interview all second 8
shift cable pull inspectors.
He didn't interview all of 9
them, for reasons that I'm not absolutely clear about, 10 but it wasn't a selected list; it was the universe of 11 persons that fit that description.
f~'h 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, why don't we allow 13 some voir dire on how he selected the persons?
14 MR. GUILD:
That would be fine on that 15 subject.
I have no problem.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
So the person closest 17 to the door, Miss Chan --
18 MR. MILLER:
Mr. Steptoe is.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, okay, fine.
20 Dr. Hulin, Miss Chan will ask you some questions.
21 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
22 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 23 BY MS. CHAN:
24 Q
Dr. Hulin, can you tell us how you selected the
}
25 individuals to interview?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
18003 h
1 A
Yes.
My original intent was to interview all of the QC 2
Inspectors, the cable pulling, second shift; and we 3
essentially started on the 15th and took the people as 4
they were -- if they were at work that day and if they 5
were not in the middle of a hot pull or something.
6 I had to drive from Urbana up to Braidwood, and I 7
didn't always get there right at the start of the shift.
8 So they had to be at work, and they had to not be doing 9
something crucial at the moment.
10 My intent was to survey all of them.
At the end of 11 the second night, I concluded that the information I was 12 getting was sufficient to reassure me that the opinions 13 I had expressed originally did not need to be modified, 14 so I quit.
15 0
Whose suggestion was it that you interview all of --
16 A
Mine.
17 0
-- the individuals on the second shift?
18 A
I'm sorry.
It was mine.
l 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Miss Chan, I think that l
l 20 resolves the question.
l i
21 MS. CH AN :
Thank you.
1 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
Mr. Guild, you may continue.
I 23 MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir.
l 24 CROSS EXAMINATION f~'
(
25 (Continued)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
18004 l
1 1
BY MR. GUILD:
2 0
Now, I asked you about these interviews when we met 3
Monday last -- if not, the week before that, Dr. Hulin.
4 You responded with reference to your notes describing, 5
to the best of your recollection, what information 6
certain inspectors gave you in response to questions 7
that you asked.
8 Do you recall that?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
All right, sir.
11 Now, at the time that I -- and we spent several 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> talking about the subject, did we not?
13 A
Two.
14 0
"Two" sounds fine.
15 Now, during the time that we discussed these 16 interviews that you conducted, you didn't tell me that 17 you weren't alone with these inspectors when you 18 conducted these interviews, did you?
19 A
No.
20 0
I didn't ask you?
21 A
That's correct.
22 0
But you didn't tell me.
23 In fact, Joe Gallo was there, wasn't he?
24 A
Yes.
b 25 0
And, in fact, Peter Thornton was there, another lawyer d
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 50134 (312) 232-0262
18005 s.
x 1
for Commonwealth Edison Company?
2 A
I know he was there for one night.
I don't know if he 3
was there for both nights or not.
4 0
All right.
5 And in addition, George Marcus, a manager in 6
Commonwealth Edison Company's Quality Assurance 7
Department, was also present?
8 A
Yes.
9 0
Now, did I miss anybody?
Was anybody there other than 10 the interviewee and you and the two lawyers and Mr.
11 Marcus?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Who did I miss so far?
14 A
And the Court Reporter.
15 0
And the Court Reporter, all right.
Thank you.
16 And when I talked to you for the two hours about 17 your interviews, not only didn't you tell me that you 18 weren't alone with the interviewees; you didn't tell me 19 that in addition to your notes, which are rather scanty, 20 that there was a verbatim transcript made of these 21 interviews, did you?
22 A
No.
23 0
Again, I didn't ask, did I?
l 24 A
No.
25 Q
Foolish me.
All right, sir.
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
4 18006 b
1 Now, the notes that you made are scanty, are they 2
not?
3 A
Compared to the transcript, yes.
4 Q
Yes, indeed they are scanty compared to the transcript.
5 For example, for an interview that lasted two 6
hours, 7:45 to 9:45 on the 15th of September -- that is, 7
the interview of Norm Kimball; it's the second to the 8
last page -- you only have one piece of paper, one page 9
of notes.
10 Ile talked a lot during those two hours, did he not?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
A lot more information than you could put down on a 13 scanty single page of notes?
14 A
A lot more information; not all of it was certainly 15 relevant, but it was for my purpose.
16 Q
Right.
17 For your purpose, which was to decide whether or 18 not your testimony already prefiled -- it wasn't 19 prefiled, as a matter of fact -- already prepared but 20 not yet prefiled required modifications or additions or 21 corrections, for your purpose you picked and chose what 22 was relevant out of those interviews; correct?
23 A
I recorded, I believe, all of the answers that were 24 given to the questions that were in the prepared outline
((~)
25 of the interview form.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
18007 s
1 My purpose in that interview was not to find out 2
how good things were.
My purpose was to find out if 3
there were any problems that would cause me personally 4
agony if I did not change the testimony.
I was looking 5
for problems, so I did not record every time they said 6
something nice, that's correct.
I picked and I choosed 7
-- chose.
8 0
All right, sir.
9 And your personal standard of agony, Dr. Hulin, 10 might just not exactly be a standard that captured even 11 all of the complaints that these inspectors had, all of 12 the concerns that they had in these notes?
13 A
Again, I was not there trying to find their complaints 14 or their concerns about the amount of communication 15 among management and the QC Inspectors.
I was not there 16 to find out how happy they were with the overtime they 17 were getting or how it was assigned.
18 I was there to find out about Quality control 19 issues and harassment and intimidation.
20 0
okay.
21 So I take it, then, that aside f rom the agony 22 standard, you also took notes of the things that were 23 important that bore on Quality control issues?
24 A
Yes.
(O) 25 0
And you took notes of all those things that were
%./
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
18008 N
1 important that bore on Quality Control issues?
2 A
I just told you I did not take -- I was there looking 3
for problems, and I was much more likely to write down a 4
problem than a non-problem.
5 0
All right, sir.
6 And did you fairly summarize those problems in your 7
notes, the problems told you?
8 A
I hope so.
9 MR. GUILD:
Well, sir, we'll talk about that 10 in some more detail later.
11 Mr. Chairman, the hour appears to be 5:00 o' clock,
()
12 and I would suggest it would be an appropriate time to 13 recess for the evening.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Let's go off the 15 record.
16 (There followed a discussion outside the 17 record.)
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Back on the record.
19 We'll adjourn until 9:00 o' clock tomorrow morning, 20 then.
21 (WHEREUPON, at the hour of 5:00 P.
M.,
the 22 hearing of the above-entitled matter was 23 continued to the 25th day of November, 24 1986, at the hour of 9:00 o' clock A.
M.)
l 25 i
Sonntag_Repor. ting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER b
.\\/
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
DOCKET NO.:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS DATE:
MONDAY, NOVEMBER.24, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt) m (TYPED)
GLENN L.
SONNTAG Official Recorter ACE-FEDERAL' REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O
V
.