ML20154E900
| ML20154E900 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1988 |
| From: | Lanpher L, Latham S, Zahnleuter R KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6326 OL-3, NUDOCS 8805230023 | |
| Download: ML20154E900 (298) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _
y [j3 2 3 '!
N:
COLMETED .
05NRC l May 13lM956Y 17 P6 :21 0F51 Ct. e il W t U-n ! l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CKEliNG A E^Vid. :
, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRANCH Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board i i
4
) !
, In the Matter of )
J )
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning) 3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) .
- Unit 1) ) l
) ;
i i
t GOVERNMENTS' RESPONSE TO "SUPPLEMENT TO LILCO'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENTS' APRIL 13 OBJECTION AND MOTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO COMPEL DISCOVERY" ,
l !
On May 2, 1988, LILCO-served a Supplement to LILCO's l Response to Governments' April 13 Objection and Motion in the .
i- f
[ Alternative to Compel Discovery ("LILCO Supplement"). In !
accordance with the Board's oral order at the Prehearing 7 i :
Conference on May 10, 1988 (Tr. 19,382), as amended by the !
l i
l Board's Memorandum and Order issued May 11, 1988, the Governments (Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of f Southampton) hereby respond to the LILCO Supplement.
LILCO's Supplement raises two issues. First, LP.CO urces j that the legal authority contentions (Contentions 1-2, 4-8, and
- 10) should be dismissed due to the Governments' alleged failure
!R DO h2 fpD
o to present a "positive" case regarding their "best efforts" response to a Shoreham emergency, as allegedly required by this Board's Orders of February 29 and April 8, 1988. Second, LILCO moves to compel additional discovery, seeking to require the Governments to respond to certain interrogatories and to make certain persons available for further depositions.
The first issue -- the dismissal of contentions -- has been dealt with extensively in prior filings. LILCO's Supplement presents few new arguments. We accordingly discuss that matter only briefly in Section I below. The second matter -- the need for more discovery -- represents the main issue raised in the LILCO Supplement. We deal with that in detail in Section II.
I. LILCO's Motion to Dismiss the Legal Authority Contentions Must be Denied The Governments have already filed two legal memoranda responding to LILCO and NRC Staff arguments that the legal authority contentions should be dismissed.1/ The Governments' May 2 and May 6 filings set forth in detail why it would be unlawful for this Board to dismiss the legal authority conten-tions. Those two filings, together with the Governments' April 13, 1988, Objection to Portions of February 29 and April 8 Orders in the Realism Remand and Offer of Proof, establish that 1/ Egg Governments' Response to LILCO's April 22 Request for Dismissal of the Legal Authority Contentions, dated May 2, 1988
("Governments' May 2 Response"); Governments' Reply to NRC Staff's April 28 Request that the Governments be Held in Default, dated May 6, 1988 ("Governments' May 6 Reply").
l
the proffered testimony of County Executive Halpin and State of New York Commissioner of Health Axelrod is admissible and that dismissal of the legal authority contentions would be improper.
The Governments will not belabor the arguments which already have been made; we rely instead on the above-referenced filings.
However, we do wish to underscore one matter.1/
LILCO's "best efforts" Testimony submitted on May 6, 1988, constitutes LILCO's "prima facie case" on the legal authority contentions. In accordance with the April 8 Order (Egg page 28),
this Board must conduct a hearing to determine whether LILCO has borne its burden on the legal authority contentions. Put another way, the Board stated that the burden of going forward would shift to the Governments only if it was determined that LILCO had submitted a prima facie case and had made a sufficient presenta-tion to have "answered questions previously raised by the Board or Commission in its remand decision." Egg April 8 Order at 28.
Even if the Board were te deny admission of the Governments' proffered testimony (an action which the Governments submit would 3/ LILCO also urges dismisal of the contentions due to the Governments' alleged "obstruction" of discovery. LILCO Supp. at 36-37. First, as do'cumented in Section II below, there has been no obstruction. Second, in the event the Board were to decide that some relevant discovery has not yet occurred, the less severe "sanction" of allowing the discovery to proceed is clearly what the Board is required to order. LILCO has made no showing at all that the sanction of contention dismissal would be appropriate.
j
O constitute clear legal error), there would be no basis to dismiss the legal authority contentions. In the absence of admissible County and State testimony, LILCO would be entitled to a judgment on those contentions only if it is demonstrated that LILCO has met its initial burden as described in the February 29 and April 8 Orders. As the Board stated, LILCO must first establish an "evidentiary foundation" for its claim that it satisfies regulatory requirements. April 8 Order at 27. Until there has been a hearing to test the adequacy and sufficiency of LILCO's prima facie case, there can be no such evidentiary toundation or basis to find that LILCO has established a prima facie case. Egg l Governments' May 2 Response at 12-13, 17-18; Governments' May 6 Reply at 7-8, 9-10.
- II. LILCO's Discovery Motion l The main subject of the LILCO Supplement is LILCO's motion to compel additional discovery. Given the Board's oral orders on
! May 10 regarding further Axelrod and Halpin depositions (Tr. 19,381) and the Board's determination that emergency plans for other facilities and for other kinds of disasters are rele-vant (Tr. 19,382),3/ only a portion of the LILCO motion remains l
l l
{ 3/ The Governments object to the Board's procedure of having ruled on these discovery matters on May 10 without giving the i Governments any opportunity to contest LILCO's motion to compel l and without providing bases for its rulings. Once the Board's
! bases are made available (Tr. 19,386-87), the Governments will 4 exercise their right to respond to LILCO's motion by seeking d
reconsideration.
4
)
l to be resolved.d/ We address the remaining interrogatory and
- deposition matters in Sections II.A and II.B below. That discus-i sion makes clear that there have been no improper limits placed I
on LILCO's-ability to obtain relevant discovery and, accordingly, that LILCO's discovery motion must be denied. In short, there I has been ample discovery on these contentions. It is time now to I
get on to the hearing.
Before addressing the specific items, however, two comments j are required. First, LILCO itself has demonstrated that it believes no additional discovery is needed. LILCO filed its prima faqiq case on May 6 in the form of pre-filed testimony on the legal authority contentions. LILCO has not taken the posi-tion that it was unable to file its case; to the contrary, it has i'
made clear its view that its "case " -- the LILCO Testimony --
l satisfies all requirements and justifies a ruling favorable to i
LILCO on the merits. Egg Letter from LILCO counsel to James P.
- Gleason, May 6, 1988, at 1 ("LILCO's crima facie case satisfies NRC requirements"). Thus, LILCO's own words undercut its alleged l "need" for discovery. Absent a particularized showing of need for additional discovery -- a showing which LILCO has not even l attempted to make -- the Governments submit that no further i
! discovery at all is appropriate.
A/ The effect of the Board's May 10 rulings is to require no response by the Governments to the following portions of the LILCO Supplement: pages 7-11 (through line 7); 14-26 (through 1 1); and 40-42 (until S B).
t 4
Second, LILCO raises a "non-issue" when it argues that "the details of Intervenors' response to a Shoreham emergency and the
] resources available for such a response are relevant." LILCO Supp. at 42-43. The Governments do not deny such relevance and !
to the extent such details are available, the Governments have provided them. However, the Governments reiterate that they i
cannot create "details" and listings of "the resources available for such a response." Egg Governments' May 2 Response at 3-5.
i These "facts" or "details" are not known, and LILCO makes no ,
- showing -- nor could it make any showing -- that the answers which have been provided'in the previous discovery are anything j but truthful. The Board cannot compel production of inf(trmation
- which does not exist. Indeed, it is clear that a "do not know" answer is an adequate response under the NRC rules. Egg Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-l 82-116, 16 NRC 1937, 1945 (1982) ("Assuming truthfulness of the
,i statement, lack of knowledge is always an adequate response."). l l
l Egg also Pennsylvania Power & Licht Co. (Susquehanna Steam Elec.
t l
I Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-18, 11 NRC 906, 911 (1980) (an '
f answer that a party does not have the requested information t 1
fulfills obligation to respond to interrogatories),
f A. Interrocatories In view of the Board's May 10 rulings, there now is little if anything -- left to be ruled upon with respect to the i
5 h
E
outstanding interrogatories. To the extent that there arquably is something left to be ruled upon, LILCO has failed to comply with the NRC rules and precedents. Thus, the motion must be denied.5/
First, the Board on May 10 ruled that LILCO had sought relevant data when it asked for information about plans for nuclear sites within and near New York State other than Shoreham and when it sought data relating to non-nuclear emergencies.
This ruling has the effect of granting LILCO's motion to compel answers to the following interrogatories to the extent that the Governments possess the requested data or information: 50-64, 67-74, 76-83, 85,87-105, 108, 112-13, 115-118,cl20, 122-123.
Accordingly, these interrogatories will not be addressed further in this filing.
Second, Interrogatories 18, 27, 34, 39, and 44 sought plans and procedures the State and County would use in performing certain functions. The Governments answered these interroga-5/ LILCO's Supplemtnt is misleading regarding the Governments' interrogatory responses. LILCO suggests that the Governments answered only 10 of LILCO's 116 interrogatories. LILCO Supp. at 4, 6. In fact, the Governments answered far more. For example, while they objected to Interrogatories 10 and 11, they still supplied complete answers, supplying all of the data known to them, including, where appropriate, truthful d! don't know" answers. Similarly, many other interrogatories are fully answered as well. leg Answers to Interrogatories 9, 12-49, 65-66, 75, 84, 106-07, 109-11 114, 119, 121. Finally, wnile LILCO noted that the Governments answers initially were not verified (LILCO Supp. at 12), verif. cations have now been supplied by the County and are being supplied by the State.
tories fully by stating that no plans or procedures had been identified which would be used in responding to a Shoreham emer-gency. These answers are complete and truthful and consistent with the Halpin and Axelrod testimony. Thus, there is no answer to compel.
Third, LILCO states no complaint about the answers provided by the Governments to Interrogatories 11-12, 21-23, 32-33, and
- 43. LILCO Supp. at 11-12. Thus, those interrogatories require no briefing by the Governments.
Fourth, LILCO complains that the Governments' answers to Interrogatories 106, 110, 111, and 119 are "nonresponsive."
LILCO Supp. at 12. However, beyond quoting the answer to Inter-rogatory 119 (see LILCO Supp. at 12), LILCO never explains why it believes the proffered answers are nonresponsive. The rules provide that LILCO must include "arguments in support of the motion." 10 CFR S 2.740(f)(1). Further, the case law makes clear that LILCO's motion is inadequate for failing to discuss each interrogatory individually and for failing to provide .
detailed bases for the motion. For example, in the Catawba proceeding, the Board stated:
i Palmetto's motion to compel is required under the rule to set forth detailed bases for Board action, includino 'arcuments in support of the motion.' 10 CFR 2.740(f). This means that we will only grant relief against a party resisting further discovery when the movant gives carticularized and eersuasive reasons "or it. Generalized claims tnat answers are
' evasive' or that objections are
' unsubstantial' will not suffice. Examples '
will not suffice. The movant must addrqag each interroaatory, includina consideration of the obiection to it, coint by tedious coint.
Our insistence on this individualized approach is not merely or primarily for the Board's convenience. An objection to an interrogatory on relevance grounds requires the intervenor to explain in concrete terms why the question may lead to relevant evidence. This approach should eventually have the beneficial effect I of clarifying what an intervenor means by broad or ambiguous parts of contentions.
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP 116, 16 NRC 1937, 1950 (1982) (footnote deleted; emphasis supplied). Since LILCO has made no argument. and clearly has failed to comply with the Catawba guidance construing Section 2.740(f)(1), its motion must be denied.
Fifth, LILCO does not even mention a number of interroga-tories, except to list them in Attachment 14 to the Supplement.
These are Interrogatories 8, 10, 24-26, 28-31, 47, 65, 75, and l 84. One must assume, therefore, that in the absence of even a mention of these interrogatories, LILCO does not complain about
! these answers. Accordingly, no briefing is required.
l Sixth, LILCO notes that Interrogatory 86 was never answered.
LILCO Supp. at 6, n.7. This was an oversight. This !nterroga-f tory will be addressed in further answers.
l
o Finally, LILCO complains that the Governments responded to some interrogatories (Interrogatories 9, 13-17, 19-20, 35-38, 40-42, 45-46, 48-49, 66, 107, 109, 114, 121) with the following answer:
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstanding this objec-tion, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan, or otherwise trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency.
Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Supp. at 11. However, LILCO never argues why in the
, context of the particular interrogatories this answer was improper. Indeed, it is clear that despite an objection, these interrogatories were answered. Further, contrary to Catawba, i
LILCO does not address the interrogatories individually. Thus, i one is left to guess what, if anything, LILCO complains about with respect to particular answers. This is another instance where LILCO has failed to comply with Section 2.740(f)(1) and Catawba and thus, its motion (assuming that it is moving to compel) must be denied.
l B. Depositions f
l Aside fecm the Halpin and Axelrod depositions, LILCO also l
l moves to compel: (a) further depositions of Messrs. Petrone, Roberts, and the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group ("REPG") panel (Messrs. Papile, Czech, and Baranski); and (b) depositions of Messrs. Harris and Regan. We address in separate sections below each of these alleged deposition "needs."
LILCO's basic complaint is that it did not have sufficient time to depose various persons. We demonstrate below that in each instance, there was sufficient time to have covered all relevant matters, particularly if LILCO had not wasted time on irrelevant questions or on questions that had been covered in previous depositions. Indeed, the evidence is clear that the time limits were generally adequate, since LILCO was able to complete the depositions of Messrs. Guido, Minor, Sholly, Hartgen, and DeVito within the time limits. Thus, LILCO is actually complaining that in about one-half of the depositions of the Governments' personnel, it did not complete questioning and that the time limits were so abbreviated that it is entitled to a further deposition opportunity.
It must be emphasized that it was necessary and appropriate to establish deposition time limits. In any large scale litiga-tion - and in this case for over 6 years -- it is necessary to establish limits for depositions. Thus, the times for depost-tions are set with respect to allowing time for reasonable preparation, allcwing persons to meet other schedule require-ments, and the like. There have been many instances over the years when the parties knew that a witness had to leave by a particular time. In those instances, the interrogators proceeded with such depositions by emphasizing first what was most important, mindful that there may not be time to ask every conceivable question. That simply is a reality in litigation, including the Shoreham case.
Nonetheless, LILCO would have this Board believe that the time limits applicable to the legal authority contentions were somehow unique or arbitrary. That is not the case. The situa-tion facing the parties was how to get all depositions completed within the finite deposition period specified by the Board (i.e.,
by April 29, the completion date specified by the Board in the April 18, 1988, conference call). The parties did well to get so many depositions completed. The schedule which was actually carried out was as follows:
f f
i I
l 1
i April 19 Halpin April 20 5 LILCO witnesses April 21 Minor, Sholly April 22 Hartge.1, Axelrod April 25 Guido, Petrone April 26 Roberts, Boursy April 275/ none April 28b! none April 29 DeVito, REPG panel Thus, 18 persons were deposed in 12 separate depositions over seven business days. Only Messrs. Harris and Regan could not be scheduled. It was clear in the circumstances of such a compressed schedule that reasonable time limits had to be estab-lished.1/
It is the Governments' impression that LILCO made no serious effort to complete several of the depositions or even to ask its most important questions prior to the specified termination times. Rather, LILCO proceeded with depositions with the I f/ These open dates were caused by the need to prepare for and present the April 28 Appeal Board oral argument on LILCO's appeal of LBP-87-32.
1/ For instance, to accomplish the Guido, Petrone, and Roberts depositions on April 25 and 26, counsel needed to prepare Commissioner Guido and Chief Roberts early on April 25, defend Commissioner Guido's deposition on April 25, prepare and then defend Mr. Petrone later on April 25, and then defend Chief Roberts on April 26. At the same time, other counsel were preparing Mr. DeVito and the REPG panel for depositions later in the week.
arrogant view that it could take as much time as it chose. That defies the customs of litigation practice. LILCO has only itself to blame for its present situation.
We also must stress at the outset that LILCO has made no showing to justify any depositions beyond the Halpin and Axelrod depositions (the Governments do not concede that those deposi-tions should proceed). Messrs. Halpin and Axelrod are the Governments' witnesses. They are the persons mest knowledgeable about the Governments' "best efforts" response. And they are going to be deposed further, unless the Board later grants reconsideration. In these circumstances, there are no bases at
- this time for the Board to order yet another round of depositions of non-witnesses before LILCO has even taken the depositions of Messrs. Halpin and Axelrod, i
Finally, turning to the particular deposition requests, we demonstrate that LILCO has failed to present a case for further depositions even if Messrs. Halpin and Axelrod are not going to l
be deposed again.
l
- 1. REPG Decosition l
l l
l LILCO moves to compel the REPG panel to appear for further 1
- deposition. That panel was available for deposition for over 4 i
i l
l l
14 -
l l
t
, hours on April 29, 1988.8/ This deposition followed after almost 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of deposition of Donald DeVito, the Director of the New York State Emergency Management Office ("SEMO"). During the DeVito deposition, LILCO had pursued questions on a wide range of topics, including such matters as SEMO's role in responding to radiological emergencies in New York State, the existence of SEMO facilities on Long Island, and similar matters. LILCO concluded the DeVito deposition in somewhat less than 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.
LILCO states that it seeks further deposition of the REPG panel in order to pursue questioning on several matters: the February 1988 affidavit prepared by the REPG panel in opposition to LILCO's summary disposition motion; the details of the New York Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan; plans for other plants in or affecting the State; information requested in
{ LILCO's interrogatories about which LILCO believes the deponents
- are likely to have knowledge; and unspecified "other matters."
1 Egg LILCO Supp. at 27, 38. For reasons discussed below, the request for further deposition should be denied.
LILCO has failed to provide any reasons (aside from bald assertions) why it needs the additional deposition. LILCO quotes extensively from portions of the REPG deposition. Egg LILCO
, 8/ One witness, General Papile, was required to leave after 3-1/2 hours of questions due to a medical appointment. *he other two REPG witnesses stayed for the remainder of the deposition.
LILCO identifies no alleged prejudice due to General Papile's departure.
l 15 -
Supp. at 28-32. That quotation, however, provides no support for i
the need for an additional deposition. The objections which were
- interposed at those pages were proper objections in each i
instance, as permitted under 10 CFR S 2.740a(d). LILCO does not argue that any objection failed to comply with that regulation.
Indeed, LILCO does not even cite that regulation and thus does
- not even deal with the applicable legal standard. For this reason alone, LILCO's motion is without basis. Further, the objections in no instance led to an instruction that the witness not answer the question; to the best of the witnesses' ability, the witnesses did provide answers.
f j What becomes clear with respect to the REPG witnesses is that LILCO's real complaint is that the REPG witnesses did not have the answers that LILCO sought. But such a "complaint"
- provides no basis for a motion to compel. For instance, LILCO's i counsel inquired about how these witnesses or other State j personnel would respond in the event of a Shoreham emergency.
- E o., REPG Tr. 27-28, 85-86, 87-88, 115-16, 119-22, 129-31, 146-47, 161.9/ As these witnesses made clear, however, they do not
- know how the State would respond since the State has not prepared I
j a plan for a site-specific Shoreham response. Absent such a plan, the witnesses simply -- and truthfully -- could not provide an answer to the LILCO questions. That is a proper answer. Egg l Catawba, 16 NRC at 1945. It would be a pointless exercise for i
9/ All cited REPG Transcript pages are contained in Attachment 1 hereto.
the Board to compel a further deposition so that witnesses could state again that they do not know the answers to LILCO's f questions.
With respect to the specific areas which LILCO identifies as '
needing to probe further in depositions, the fact is that LILCO I did probe these areas when it wanted to. For instance, LILCO questioned the REPG witnesses concerning the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan on multiple occasions.
Egg REPG Tr. 8-11, 36, 37, 49-64, 71-85, 88-89, and 114-115. If LILCO did not ask all of the questions it wanted to, that is simply a failure by LILCO's counscl.
i Similarly, with respect to the REPG affidavit, LILCO's motion is again mistaken. The REPG affidavit was identified as an exhibit at page 19 of the REPG deposition. Except for some minor questioning at pages 20-25, 35-36, and 40, however, LILCO
- did not get around to asking questions on this allegedly critical document until page 155 -- that is, the last several minutes of I
the deposition, well after General Papile had left. There is only one conclusion that can be reached: LILCO's counsel made a i
- conscious decision not to pursue questioning earlier, despite knowing that General Papile would leave at 4
- 30 p.m. and the
- deposition would end at 5 p.m. (in fact, the State's counsel permitted the deposition to proceed until 5
- 09 p.m.). That was a i
i
! tactical decision by LILCO's counsel. It provides no basis for a l I
motion to conipel. The fact that LILCO put off such questioning raises substantial question just how critical further questioning might be. Further, as in other instances, LILCO's Supplement does no more than make a broad allegation that LILCO needs to ask more questions about the REPG affidavit. However, LILCO's counsel already has asked many questions about that affidavit (agg REPG Tr. 155-66) and identifies no other specific questions that it needs to ask. Absent particularized identification of the specific areas that need to be probed, this Board is left again with a naked LILCO allegation of the need for further discovery but LILCO has provided no particularized bases for this allegation. This does not comply with tye regulations. Egg 10 CFR S 2.740(f)(1); Catawba.
LILCO also states that it needs an additional deposition to seek "information requested in LILCO's interrogatories about which the deponents are likely to have knowledge." LILCO Supp.
at 28. However, LILCO never identifies which particular inter-rogatories it seeks to pursue, the nature of the informatien sought, and why that information allegedly is critical or important such that a further deposition is required. Once again, LILCO has made naked allegations but provided no support therefor.
Finally, LILCO's ccunsel clearly wasted substantial time during the deposition -- time that could have been devoted to i
these other allegedly critical areas of inquiry. The best example of such a waste of time was the extensive questioning concerning the so-called Indian Point Rockland County Interim Compensating Plan. The REPG witnesses made clear that they had little to do with that Compensating Plan and that the degree of their present knowledge concerning that Pian was limited. REPG Tr. 23, 90, 91-92,98-100. Nevertheless, LILCO's counsel pursued 25 pages of questioning -- almost 1/6 of the entire deposition --
concerning numerous matters related to the Rockland County Plan.
Egg REPG Tr. 23,89-114. This clearly constituted a waste of time by LILCO's counsel.10/
In sum, LILCO has made no showing that the more than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of time for the original REPG deposition was insufficient.
Rather, LILCO has made broad allegations, unsupported by any detailed argument. And the record demonstrates that LILCO asked questions on the matters it now wants to pursue again and that LILCO devoted extensive time to irrelevant matters. The motion to compel must be denied.
10/ LILCO's counsel also pursued irrelevant questioning about a LILCO-prepared emergency plan for Suffolk County that was reviewed to some extent by the State Disaster Preparedness Commission in 1982. REPG Tr. 15-17, 133-41. There has been no suggestion in this proceeding that that "plan" would ever be relied upon by anyone in the event of a Shoreham emergency.
LILCO's counsel also pursued irrelevant questions about the interpretation of regulations regarding the required frequency of ingestion pathway exercises (REPG Tr. 28-31, 68-70) and regarding the requirements of the New York Executive Law, Article II.B.
REPG Tr. 37, 38-40, 40-41, 42-45.
- 2. Roberts Deposition LILCO also moves to compel a further depositlen of l Richatd C. Roberts, Assistant Chief Inspector of the Suffolk County Police Department. Chief Roberts was deposed for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> on April 26, 1988. The Roberts deposition on April 26 followed a 2-hour deposition of Suffolk Police Commissioner Guido, which had >
occurred the previous day (and which had been completed within the prescribed time limit). Accordingly, LILCO has already deposed Suffolk County police officers for more than 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
l Nonetheless, LILCO urges that a new Roberts deposition (but not a Guido deposition) is necessary because the County "arbitrarily limited (the] time." LILCO Supp, at 26. LILCO's motion must be rejected.
LILCO purports to specify certain "reasons" that a contin-uation of Chief Roberts' deposition is necessary. Thus, LILCO states:
1 LILCO had more questions to ask of Mr. Roberts. In particular, LILCO wished to purstte detailed questions on Mr. Roberts' affidavits which were submitted with the intervenots' opposition to LILCO's summary disposition motions; the nature of a SCPD
! response, if the SCPD were directed by the l County Executive to respond to an emergency at Shoreham and to use the LILCO plan; and the relationship between the SCPD and the State police.
] Mr. Roberts, Assistant Chief Inspector for the a SCPD and a long time expert for Suffolk County i ;
4 4
on Shoreham matters, is likel' to have infor- t mationconcerningtheavailabflityofCounty resources, the SCPD's knowledge of the plan, ,
LILCO'F ability to communicate with responsi-ble County officials in an emergency, issues ,
- concerning LILCO's traffic control plan, the
- adequacy of police resources and the flexibil-ity of lts response plans -- all areas recog- ,
nized by the Board as germane. [
LILCO Supp. at 27, 38. As demonstrated below, however, there is 1 '
no basis for LILCO's alleged "need" to pursue further questioning i
of Chief Roberts.
First, a primary reason why further questioning is not called for is that LILCO has already deposed Chief Roberts for 4 l hours and could have covered all of these matters had it not i r conducted extensive examination on irrelevant matters or matters
! which already had been covered. For example, at pages 7-32, 35-1
! 36, and 74-78 of the Roberts deposition, LILCO's counsel pursued
) a tedicus examination of the organization of the Suffolk County !
Police Department, its bureaus, its number of officers, its jurisdictional relationship with varicus towns, and the number of precincts covered by the department. While some of this material l
l may have been "new," in fact a great deal of this information had j been covered in previous depositions of Chief Roberts. For i
l instance, LILCO's December 17, 1986, deposition of Chief Roberts
- in the Exercise proceeding covered such matters as Chief Roberts' responsibilities as a Deputy Inspector and the make-up of precincts, his responsibilities as an Assistant Chief Inspector, i the peracnnel bureau organization, the communications and record I
bureau organization, Suffolk County geography and an explanation of the precincts. That prior deposition also covered such matters as the daily shifts of the Suffolk County Police Depart-ment, a matter which was covered in detail again in the present deposition. Pages 8-15 and 44 of the prior December 1986 deposi-tion are Attachment 2 hereto. We also attach the pages from the present deposition.11/ Finally, the County's February 27, 1988, testimony in the Exercise proceeding contained additional details on the Suffolk County Police Department. Egg Attachment 4 hereto. In short, LILCO's counsel pursued a line of questioning which took far too long and could have been largely avoided if
, LILCO's counsel had properly prepared by reviewing the prior j deposition and testimony of Chief Rcberts.
j l In addition to the fact that much of the questioning covered i matters which already were known to LILCO, LILCO's counsel also pursued a host of questions that were clearly irrelevant or
- unanswerable. For instance, LILCO pursued the following l questions regarding the Grucci fireworks factory explosion which
} occurred several years ago
\
i l Q. In what location -- are you familiar with I
s the Grucci --
l A. G-r-u-c-c-i.
- O. You are obviously familiar with it. --
1
'ireworks factory blowup of a few years ago?
l 1
11/ All pages cited herein from the April 26, 1988, Roberts' deposition are included in Attachment 3 to this Response.
i t
I I A. That was in Bellport, New York, just !
- south of what we call Montauk Highway. f Q. Was that within the jurisdiction of f Suffolk County? !
I i j A. Yes, it was.
Q. Now, was it within the jurisdiction of j the Suffolk County police district?
! A. Yes, it was.
I
- Q. Is that one of these towns or is that a
- village that has opted into the police
! district?
) A. The Village of Bellport. The Grucci site 1
was outside of the village limits but was in j the hamlet of Bellport.
l We really have a very difficult scenario j here as far as identifying specific -- when j you say Be11 port, most people say Village of
- Be11 port. That is not true. We have school I district boundaries, we have municipality i boundaries, there are postal zones, there are
{ fire district zones, and a number of other things.
l But to my recollection, the Grucci site i for that experience is located outside of the l Village of Bellport which is within the Town of Brookhaven.
60 1 Tr. 27-28. There is/possible relevance to this line of 1
l Interrogation.
l l Similarly, at pages 91 and 92 of the Roberts deposition, I
LILCO's counsel asked as follows:
l I
! Q. You don't know whether anyone in Suffolk j County, or do you know whether anyone in
- Suffolk County, in the Police Department, has l been trained with respect to any tyaruation which might have to take place in Suffolk i
l 1
County by virtue of an accident at Indian Point or Millstone Point?
Mr. Miller: Excuse me, Ms. Stone. Your question goes to whether there has been training for the possibility of having to evacuate Suffolk County because of an accident at the Indian Point olant?
Ms. Stone: Yes.
The Witness: Or Millstone.
Q. You understand the question?
A. I do.
Q. What is your answer?
A. I'm not aware of any.
-(emphasis supplied). The question is clearly not relevant or even plausible: no one has ever -uggested in this proceeding that an Indian Point accident -- more than 50 miles from Suffolk County -- could require evacuation in Suffolk County.
Next, LILCO counsel asked:
Q. If Joe citizen realizes that an atomic bomb just went off near him and he saw a mushroom cloud and he wants to find out what the County Executive is doing about it, how would he go about doing that if his first impression was to call 911?
Tr. 135-36. Again, this is not a serious question. LILCO's counsel was wasting time with irrelevant questions. LILCO has nothing but its own counsel to blame for the fact that 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> was "insufficient" for the questioning.
Turning now to the specific areas which LILCO states it must pursue in further examinar!;a, the Board will find that in fact there is no basis for LILCO's "need" for such additional examina-tion. First, LILCO states that it "wished to pursue detailed questions on Mr. Roberts' affidavits that were submitted with intervenors' opposition to LILCO's summary disposition motion."
LILCO Supp. at 27. LILCO never particularizes its bases, as required by Section 2.740(f)(1). Further, if this was such an important area to be examined, then why didn't LILCO pursue such questions? LILCO did mark the Roberts' affidavit as an exhibit (Roberts Tr. 81) and did pursue some questions thereon. Roberts Tr. 81-82, 92-96. However, LILCO's counsel then left that exhibit and pursued lines of irrelevant questions. There was no reason that LILCO could not have pursued these matters if it wanted during the deposition -- and if there were really a "need" l
l for such questions. In the instant motion, LILCO never explains why these "detailed questions" are necessary for it to present
! its case on the realism issues. In short, LILCO has asserted a 1
"need" but has not demonstrated either why it did not pursue l
those questions when it had Mr. Roberts available or why those questions are now necessary.
Second, LILCO next seeks to ask Chief Roberts about "the nature of a SCPD response, if the SCPD were directed by the County Executive to respond to an emergency at Shoreham and to
! use the LILCO plan." LILCO Supp. at 27. The short answer to l
l
this "complaint" is that LILCO has already asked those questions.
Indeed, LILCO asked questions relating to such a "direction" at pages 101-09 of the Roberts deposition. Chief Roberts answered those questions and made clear that he believed that no adequate response pursuant to that plan could take place but that if he were "ordered" to do so, he would attempt to carry out that order. If there were other questions that LILCO wanted to pursue at that time, it should have asked. However, from all appearances, LILCO has already pursued that line of questioning in its entirety.
o Third, LILCO states that it wishes to ask about "the l relationship between the SCPD and the State police." LILCO Supp.
- at 27. This is no more than a bald assertion of a "need" to pursue that "relationship." LILCO never sets forth why it needs to pursue that "relationship" or what probative, reliable, rele-vant evidence LILCO hopes to identify by pursuing that line of l questioning. In short, LILCO again has made an allegation of a need to pursue questioning but has not attempted to inform the 1
l Board in any detail why such questioning is necessary. This does l not comply with Section 2.740(f)(1).
l Fourth, LILCO seeks to pursue questions about "the SCPD's knowledge of the (LERO) plan." LILCO Supp. at 38. LILCO has already done this. Roberts Tr. 61-64, 79-80. LILCO never explains why more questions must be asked.
Fifth, LILCO states that it seeks "information concerning the availability of County resources" and the "issues concerning LILCO's traffic control plan." LILCO Supp. at 38. Again, however, LILCO has pursued such questions already. Roberts Tr. 35-39, 41-56, 69-74, 87-89, 91, 96-97,98-101, 145-50, 156-58.
Sixth, LILCO seeks data regarding "LILCO's ability to commu-nicate with responsible County officials in an emergency." LILCO Supp. at 38. LILCO pursued such questions. Roberts Tr. 59-60, 117-26, 130-33, 134, 135, 136-44.
LILCO has presented no argument or other bases to demon-strate that it has not obtained full discovery of Chief Roberts.
Further, the record demonstrates that LILCO wasted substantial time during the deposition. Therefore, for the foregoing l reasons, Chief Roberts should not be required to appear for l
l further deposition.
l
- 3. Petrone Decosition l
LILCO seeks to compel Suffolk County to produce Mr. Petrone l
for further deposition. The entirety of LILCO's "reasons" or l
\ l "argument" for requiring further deposition of Mr. Petrone is as follows:
Mr. Petrone, as the County Executive Assistant and as the former Director of FEMA Region II, l
. -- . - . . - - - - , . - . - -_- ...-..- . .. ._. - . ~ . . . . . . . . . - . . - .-
is likely to have information about the same matters, especially State and County's ability to respond to an emergency at Shoreham, plans for other nuclear facilities in Region II, and the training, drills and exercises that have taken place.
Tr. 38. Beyond LILCO's assertion of what it thinks is "likely,"
LILCO's motion never sets forth why LILCO believes it needs further questioning of Mr. Petrone. LILCO presents no argument beyond bald assertions on why it "needs" further questioning of Mr. Petrone. Thus, LILCO sets forth no bases to believe that the Governments in any way interfered with LILCO's questioning of Mr. Petrone on April 25. In short, what this Board is faced with l is naked speculation, supported by no analysis, argument, or i
bases, that Mr. Petrone must be produced for further deposition.
t l As described earlier in this Response, LILCO has the burden 1
in a motion to compel situation to present aroument on why it i requires the grant of an order compelling further discovery. To assert only that questioning was "arbitrarily" concluded (LILCO Supp. at 26) without presenting detailed argument regarding what questioning LILCO believes it was precluded from pursuing and why such questioning is important to LILCO's already-filed crima facie case makes a travesty of the requirement that the l
proponent of a motion support its motion with adequate bases.
LILCO has plainly failed to do so with respect to Mr. Petrone.
Eeg Catawba. Given that fact, no further discussion is even necessary.
Nonetheless, in the interest of finally resolving this matter, the Governments offer additional reasons why LILCO's motion must be denied. First, according to LILCO (LILCO Supp. at 38), LILCO hopes to explore Mr. Petrone's memory of planning at other nuclear sites. That is no basis for a further deposition.
Mr. Petrone was forced to resign from FEMA over two years ago.
His testimony on such matters would therefore be of questionable value, particularly since as the Regional FEMA Director, he did not have intimate knowledge of planning at each site. If LILCO really had been interested in such discovery, it should have deposed current FEMA Region II personnel.
Second, during the deposition, LILCO's counsel in fact did cover many of the areas that it now wants to pursue again. Thus, LILCO's counsel covered a wide variety of matters, including:
the County's planning for hazardous wastes; the County's planning for making food available in emergencies; the existence and location of various County departments; the nature and existence l of a County civil defense plan; the nature of a County response l
to a Shoreham emergency; training of County workers; Mr. Petrone's familiarity with Indian Point and other plans for other nuclear facilities; Mr. Petrone's familiarity with the LERO emergency plan; planning for Brookhaven National Laboratory; planning in general; the LERO siren system; the use of an EBS system; coordination with the Department of Energy; the existence l of various resources at the County's disposal; emergency plans l
l l l
for various towns on Long Island; and planning for hurricanes.
In short, LILCO's counsel pursued an almost unlimited list of questions. No showing is made why the questions already pursued were not sufficient to cover any legitimate discovery matters.
Third, Mr. Petrone does not have relevant data concerning a "best efforts" Suffolk County response. He testified: "I'm not charged with the responsibility for a response for an emergency in this County." Petrone Tr. 74. Thus, there is no basis to believe that Mr. Petrone possesses data important to this "best efforts" proceeding.ll/
In sum, LILCO provides no reason why it could not have completed the full questioning of Mr. Petrone during the deposi-tion which was conducted or why further questioning would result in important new data. Thus, LILCO has totally failed to provide l any bases for resumption of the Petrone deposition.
l l
11/ Mr. Petrone stays current on Shoreham matters in his role working with the County's attorneys on litigation matters.
Petrone Tr. 4-5. Thus, he stated:
My day-to-day activities basically are keeping in contact with counsel, keeping basically in contact with anyone in the County that is requested of -- either by our counsel or by counsel to LILCO -- for various pieces of information or, in fact, requested by LILCO themselves through their management, any information or any type of material, and I am l the person who would coordinate any of those requests.
Tr. 6. This does not mean, however, that he has any available data which would justify further deposition.
- 4. Depositions of Messrs. Harris and Recan The final aspect of LILCO's discovery motion is that LILCO seeks to compel the depositions of Suffolk County Health Director Dr. David Harris and Suffolk County Division of Emergency Preparedness Director William Regan. The motion should be denied.
On Monday, April 18, 1988, the Board directed the Govern-ments to make people available for deposition by the close of discovery on April 29, 1988. This order was made during a non-transcribed conference call. During that conference call, the undersigned counsel for Suffolk County represented that the County would do its best to make the people available, but that he did not know whether individual schedules would so permit.
Suffolk County made all of its personnel available, except Messrs. Harris and Regan. LILCO was advised on April 21, 1988, via telecopy, that these individuals were not available during the discovery period. LILCO did not seek an extension of the discovery period, even though it was within LILCO's power to do so. Instead, LILCO waited until after the discovery period had ended and then moved to compel the appearance of these persons.
LILCO's motion must be denied.
l
First, as noted above, LILCO knew on April 21 that these persons were not available during the discovery period. LILCO knew that the discovery period was brief. Yet, for reasons known only-to LILCO, it did not pursue the obvious remedy -- a timely application to the Board for an extension of the discovery period. Having slept on its rights, LILCO should not now be heard to complain.
Second, LILCO asserts that the Governments somehow defied the Board's order by not making these individuals available for discovery. LILCO Supp. at 3. That is untrue. Suffolk County made clear during the referenced April 18 conference call that it would make the individuals available by April 29 if they in fact were available. It turned out that both Dr. Harris and Mr. Regan were not available. Mr. Harris was occupied on prior business obligations; Mr. Regan was occupied attending to the needs of one of his children who is handicapped. In no sense of the word, can Suffolk County be said to have "defied" any Board orders.
i LILCO's allegations are unseemly.
I I
Finally, LILCO makes no detailed show.'ng ir. its Supplement of why it needs the depositions of Messrs. Harris and Regan.
With respect to Dr. Harris, LILCO states only that it needs the deposition because "[i]n other New York counties, the Health Commissioner typically has primary responsibility for making protective action recommendations to the County Executive and t
32 -
L
t LILCO knows of nothing that distinguishes Suffolk County on this score." LILCO Supp. at 38-39. LILCO's basis thus rests on speculation about Suffolk County. This is hardly a particularized showing as required for a motion to compel. With respect to Mr. Regan, LILCO merely states that he "has under his control the County EOC." Id. at 38. Again, this is no "argument" or particularized basis for compelling discovery.
LILCO has already had the depositions of many other Suffolk County personnel. It does not argue that its "realism" case is deficient for failure to have those particular depositions.
Indeed, an explanation of why these persons are "crucial" (LILCO Supp. at 3) is nowhere to be found. LILCO again has baldly asserted a need but given no detailed reasons. Thus, this is yet another example of how LILCO in its Supplement has made naked allegations of "need" totally unsupported by facts. This does not comply with Section 2.740(f)(1) or Catawba. Accordingly, the motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, E. Thomas Boyle l Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 1
1 1
4 Herbert H. Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County
/4 u[ .
Fabian G. Palomino
!d Y Richard J. Zahnleuter Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York l
a Stephen B. Latham f
Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O. Box 398 33 West Second Street '
Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of
, Southampton 1
34 -
l 1
Attachments Attachment 1: Excerpts from April 29, 1988, REPG Deposition Attachment 2: Excerpts from December 17, 1986, Deposition of Richard C. Roberts Attachment 3: Excerpts from April 26, 1988, Deposition of Richard C. Roberts Attachment 4: Excerpts from February 27, 1987, Direct Testimony of Assistant Chief Inspector Richard C. Roberts, Inspector Richard Dormer, Inspector Philip McGuire, and Deputy Inspector Edwin J. Michel .
Regarding Contention EX 40 l
l t
l l
i I
l l
[
i l
Attachment 1 4
a 1
i a
l l
l 1
1
.--,nn-- -w,',-wwm.-r-m<
1 8 2 reporter to mark as Exhibit 1 to this 3 deposition a document entitled "Notice of A Deposition" dated April 27, 1988. It is a 5 notice of deposition issued by Long Island 6 Lighting Company for this deposition.
7 (Document marked REPG Exhibit i for 8 identification, as of this date.)
9 MR. SISK: Gentlemen, have any of 10 you seen this document beforo?
MR. CZECH: Yes, I have.
11 12 MR. BARANSKI: I have.
13 MR. PAPILE: Very late yesterday. I 14 would like that'to be on the record, 15 please.
16 MR. LANPHER: Off the record.
17 (Discussion off the record) 18 MR. SISK: On the record.
19 General Papile, what is your 20 position?
21 MR. PAPILE: At the current time, I 22 am the director of the Radiological 23 Emergency Preparedness Group.
24 MR. SISK: Does the Radiological 25 Emergency Preparedness Group, or do you, as i
D0YLE REPORTING, INC.
f w - - . - + -r-- +- .,- - ---- w-si we -, - ----v-----w-w y y-aw w-y +>.--------t-v-w--,-
1 9 2 director of the Radiological Emergency 3 Preparedness Group, have a true copy of the 4 current New York State radiological 5 emergency preparedness plan? Do you have 6 such a document?
7 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 8 question. What do you mean by true copy?
9 MR. PAPILE: First of all, I was 10 going to say, do I have a copy? Do I have 11 a copy with me?
12 MR. SISK: Do you have a copy in 13 your office or does anyone in your office 14 have a copy?
15 MR. PAPILE: Yes, we do.
16 MR. SISK: And do you have a copy of 17 the current and ef f ective version of that 18 plan?
19 MR. PAPILE: I have the latest 20 opdate of that plan.
21 MR. SISX: To the best of your 22 recollection, what is the latest update of 23 that plan?
24 It is fine to consult.
25 (Discussion off the record between DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1e 10 2 between Mr. Czech and Mr. Papile) 3 MR. PAPILE: I would like to ask you ,
4 a question, please. What do you mean by 5 state plan, first?
6 MR. SISK: I am ref erring to the 7 document ref erred to in item No. 1 of this 8 deposition notice, the New York State 9 radiological emergency preparedness plan.
10 MR. PAPILE: That is not correct in 11 the statement, because the correct 12 definition of the state plan would be a 13 state portion with seven appendixes to it.
14 MR. SISK: And what are those seven 15 appendices?
16 MR. PAPILE: Seven county plans for 17 the seven nuclear counties.
18 MR. SISK: When you say "seven 19 nuclear counties," which counties are you 20 referring to?
21 MR. PAPILE: The four counties and 22 Indian Point, which would be Westchester, 23 Putnam, Orange and Rockland, the twelve 24 counties, Ginna, which would be Wayne and 23 Monroe and the one county at Nine Mile, i
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
_. -- . . . -_- __ . . _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ , , _ , . . . _ . - . .m,--___ . _ _ , _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ , . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ - - - ~ . - - - - -
1 11 2 which would be Oswego.
3 MR. SISK: Thank you.
4 General Papile, do you have -- do 5 you or does anyone within your office have 6 a copy of the current New York St at e 7 disaster preparedness plan? And that's the 8 document referred to specifically, j ust the 9, New York State disaster preparedness plan, 10 which is the first clause in item 2 of this 11 depos2 tion notice?
12 MR. PAPILE: I don't really know.
13 MR. SISK: Do you know whether there 14 are any portions, appendices, attachments 15 or exhibits that involve that New York 16 State disaster preparedness plan that 17 pertain to Suffolk County?
18 MR. PAPILE: I do not know.
19 MR. SISK: Mr. Czech, do you know 20 whether such document exists?
21 MR. CZECH: New York State disaster 22 preparedness plan?
23 MR. SISK: Any portion of that plan, 24 attachment or appendix that involves or 25 pertains to Suffolk County.
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 15 2 first, within REPG, has a copy of any of 3 the document s ref erred to there, to your 4 knowledge?
5 MR. PAPILE: I do not.
6 MR. BARANSKI: I do not.
7 MR. CZECH: I do not.
8 MR. SISK: Do you know of anyone 9 within REPG who does have a copy?
10 MR. PAPILE: No, I do not.
11 MR. CZCH: No, I do not.
12 MR. BARANSKI: No, I do not.
13 MR. SISK: Have any of you reviewed 14 any such documents referred to in item 57 15 MR. CZECH: I have reviewed portions 16 of documents referred to in question 5.
17 MR. BARANSKI: I have reviewed 18 portions referred to in question No. 5.
19 MR. PAPILE: To the best of my 20 knowledge. I did not review anything of 21 question No. 5.
22 MR. SISK: Now Mr. Czech, what 23 documents, to the best of your 24 recollection, have you reviewed at some 20 point which are encompassed within question i
I t
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
l
1 16 2 No. 5?
3 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 4 question. This is entirely irrelevant.
5 This is -- this pertains to matters of 1982 6 or 1983 and a different plan completely 7 than is presently in litigation. I think 8 it is a waste of time.
9 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I have the same 10 obj ect ion.
11 MR. SISK: Can you answer the 12 question?
13 MR. CZECH: I reviewed Portions of a 14 plan prepared, if I remember right, by 15 LILCO for Suffolk County which would have 16 been about in 1981, 1982 vintage. What 17 specific portions I looked at, I don't 18 remember at this time, but there were 19 certain portions I locked at.
20 MR. SISK: Mr. Baranski.
21 MR. BARANSKI: My answer would be 22 essentially the same as Mr. Czech's. I do not recall which sections I reviewed, but 24 it was a very early portion of the LILCO Plan that was ceing provided for Suffalk l
i DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
t 1
I
& 17 County. '81. '82. l 2
\
3 MR. SISK: To the best of your l 4 recollection. Mr. Baranski, did you and Mr.
5 Czech work together in that review of some 6 portion of the prior version of the LILCO 7 plan?
8 (Discussion off the record among the 9 witnesses) 10 MR. BARANSKI: We worked together in 11 the same office, so if you are inferring 12 . that that is working together, that is 13 true. On the review.
14 MR. SISK: Do you recall consulting 15 with each other with respect to that 16 review?
17 MR. BARANSKI: I don't remember.
1B MR. SISK: General Papile, did you 19 review any documents in preparing for this 20 deposition.
21 MR. PAPILE: Yes. I did.
22 MR. SISK: What documents were they?
3 MR. PAPILE: My affidavit. 1987. Dr.
24 Axelrod's af fidavit. and a paper written by 2
Governor Cuomo, and also the deposition by DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
i 1 19 2 certain contentions. I don't know what the 3 contentions were, b ut I looked at some 4 interrogatories.
MR. PAPILE: I was there also, the 5
6 same ones that Larry did.
7 MR. SISK: And Mr. Baranski?
MR. BARANSKI: Essentially my answer 8
9 would be the same as these two gentlemen.
! Now, I hand the reporter 10 MR. SISK:
11 and ask him to mark as Exhibit 2 to this 12 deposition, a document entitled "Affidavit 13 of James D. Papile, James C. Baranski and 14 Lawrence B. Czech."
15 I will ask the reporter to mark that 16 and hand it to you and see if you can 17 identify it.
18 (Document marked REPG Exhibit 2 for 19 identification, as of this date.)
I General Papile, do you 20 MR. SISK:
21 recognize this document?
22 MR. PAPILE: I do.
23 MR. SISK: Is that the affidavit 24 that you referred to Previously?
23 MR. PAPILE: That is the affidavit I DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
.. =__ _ _ _.
l i
1 20 l 2 referred to as testimony, true.
3 MR. SISK: Is the information l 4 contained in that affidavit, to the best of 5 your knowledge and belief, still true and 6 accurat e t oday?
7 MR. PAPILE: As far as I am 8 concerned, yes.
9 MR. SISK: And is that the same 10 answer for you, Mr. Czech?
11 MR. CZCH: Yes.
12 MR. SISK: And Mr. Baranski?
13 MR. BARANSKI: That is correct.
14 MR. SISK: Now, General Papile, hoH 15 was this affidavit prepared?
16 MR. PAPILE: To the best of my 17 recollection, again, this was prepared 18 in -- with counsel for the state, and 19 basically a question and answer period that 20 we went through.
21 (Discussion off the record between 22 Mr. Baranski and General Papile) 23 MR. SISK: I would simply note that 24 Mr. Bar er.sk i and General Papile were 25 consulting quickly.
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
J k
1 21 2 Is there anything to add?
MR. BARANSKI: No, sir.
3 1
4 MR. PAPILE: No.
5 MR. SISK: General Papile, when was 6 the Radiological Emergency Preparedness
)
7 Group formed?
8 MR. PAPILE: February 22, 1980, to I
i 9 the best of my knowledge.
- 10 MR. SISK
- And have you been l 11 involved with the REPG since that time?
i 12 MR. PAPILE: Since April 28, 1980.
l 13 MR. SISK: What was your position 14 with them at that time?
15 MR. P AP ILE-: I was a planner, an 16 associate P lanner.
17 MR. SISKt How long did you maintain 18 that position?
19 MR. PAPILE: I was an associate 20 planner from that date until sometime in 21 the fall of 1985. I think November --
22 October. November. Sometime in '85.
MR. SISK: General Papile. I will 24 note that the first paragraph of this 25 affidavit states in the last sentence. "In L D0YLE REPCRTING, INC.
l l
l 1
l
1 22 2 my seven years with REPG, I have helped 3 write and/or review numerous radiological 4 emergency response plans."
3 General Papile, what - can you tell 6 me specifically what radiological emergency
}
7 response plans you have helped write?
8 MR. PAPILE: Westchester County.
9 Monroe County. Wayne County, Oswego 10 County. Mainly. Those are the main 11 counties I had under my responsibility at 12 -
one time or another.
13 MR. SISK: Can you describe for me 14 your role in writing those plans?
15 MR. LANPHER: I would like to obj ect 16 to this whole line of questioning. This 17 will be a standard obj ection as irrelevant.
18 MR. SISK: Very well.
19 MR. PAPILE: My role was more or 20 less as the liaison between the REPG 21 director in the county and the emergency 22 manager in each county, in developing plans 23 for the specific county, insuring that we 24 kept compliance with the federal l 1
2" regulations. l DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 l
1 23 1
2 MR. SISK: Can you tell me what you 1
3 mean by REPG director within a county? j 4 MR. PAPILE: I said a liaison 5 between the REPG director.
6 MR. SISK: I see.
7 MR. PAPILE: At that time, the REPG 8 director and the county emergency managers.
9 MR. SISK And who was the REPG 10 director at that time?
11 MR. PAPILE: Mr. Donald Davidoff.
12 MR. SISK: General Papile, did you 13 have any -- let me ask you this.
14 Did you help write all or any 15 portion of an interim compensating plan for 16 Rockland County?
17 MR. PAPILE: I had nothing to do 18 with the Rockland County plan.
19 MR. SISK: Would you describe for 20 me. generally, how you went about helping 21 to write a radiological plan for the 22 counties you described? Just the process 23 that was involved? General terms?
24 MR. PAPILE: Well, the process was 25 that -- the questions would be asked for r
! DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
s Ihmm-
1 24 2 interpretation of certain items or we would 3 go through the 0654 and check the 4 criterion -- or criteria, rather. of 0654, 5 Newreg 0654, and we would insure that those 6 criteria were adhered to in the plan.
7 MR. SISK: Did you become involved 8 in traveling to those counties and working 9 with the county Personnel in preparing the 10 plan?
11 MR. PAPILE: Absolutely.
12 MR. SISK: Does REPG generally play 13 that type of role in a situation -- with 14 counties with preparing radiological 15 emergency response plans?
16 MR. PAPILE: I insist on it.
17 MR. SISK: And why do you insist on 18 it?
19 MR. PAPILE: The only way you can 20 work with the county is to get down there, 21 set in the trenches, as they say, and get 22 with the people who need the help.
23 MR. SISK: Now Mr. Baranski, on page 24 2 of this affidavit, it states that, among 25 other things, you currently are exercise i
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
. hm.-
1 25 l 2 director for REPG and that you have held I
3 that position since January 1985.
4 Can you tell me what your duties and 5 responsibilities are as exercise director?
6 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 7 question. This has been gone through in 8 previous depositions. I think we are 9 wast ing t ime.
MR. BARANSKI: As exercise director, 10 11 I am responsible for coordinating with 12 FEMA, the licensees and the local 13 governments, the conduct of federally 14 observed exercises and nonfederally 15 observed exercises.
16 This includes scenario preparation, 17 activities to be demonstrated and 18 obj ectives to be demonstrated.
19 MR. 3ISK: Mr. Baranski, to youe 20 knowledge, has there ever been an exercise 21 of any radiological emergency response plan 22 involving any nuclear plant and also 23 involving Suffolk County or any officials 4 therein?
3 MR. BARANSKI: Please restate that DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 27 2 let me ask you this: Are you aware of any 3 exercises involving Suffolk County with 4 respect to the Millstone plant?
5 MR. BARANSKI: No, sir, I am not.
6 MR. SISK: To your knowledge, has 7 there been any training of any Suffolk 8 County personnel with respect to the 9 ingestion pathway response for the 10 Millstone power plant?
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would like to 12 . obj ect at this point because we are beyond 13 qualifications and background and I think 14 this is an irrelevant inquiry.
15 But you may answer.
16 MR. BARANSKI: I have no basis to 17 answer that question.
18 MR. SISK: Do you know whether there 19 has been any training of Suffolk County 20 personnel?
21 MR. BARANSK! I do not know.
22 MR. SISK: Has there been any 23 training, to your knowledge, of state 24 personnel with iaspect to any ingestion 25 pathway response for the Millstone plant?
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
a bmm-
1 28 2 (Discussion of f the record among the 3 witnesses) 4 MR. BARANSKI: I am not aware of any 5 training that was conducted for the 6 specific resporose to the Millstone plant.
7 MR. SISK: Can you tell me what 8 exercises have been conducted within the 9 State of New York with respect to ingestion k 10 pathway responses for any nuclear power 11 plant?
12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would like a 13 continuing obj ection to these matters about 14 other power plants.
15 I won't mention it again.
16 MR. SISK: I understand.
17 MR. BARANSKI: Since I became 18 exercise director in '85, we have conducted 19 ene federally evaluated ingestion pathway 20 for the Regina facility.
21 MR. SISK: And when was that 22 conducted?
23 MR. BARANSKI: October of '87.
24 MR. SISK: To your knowledge, in 2'* your capacity as exercise director for DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
U bhm-
1 29 2 REPG. is such an ingest 11on pathway 3 exercise required for other power plants 4 located within the State of New York?
5 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect to the I, 6 characterization of requirements.
7 Can you e>: plain what requirements 8 you are talking about?
I 9 MR. SISK: Can you answer the i
j 10 question?
11 MR. LANPHER: I have the same 12 obj ect ion. I think it's vague unless you 13 define the terms.
14 MR. BARANSKI: I think I need more 15 definition. Maybe you can restate the 16 question again.
17 MR. SISK: To your knowledge, in 18 your capacity as exercise director for 19 REPG. is there any federal requirement for 20 an exercise of ingestion pathway responses 21 for other nuclear power Plants. other than 22 Regina, in the State of New York ?
23 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect. It calls 24 for a legal conclusion. The question is 23 also vague. You have not given sufficient DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
] bhu
t 1 30 2 details.
3 There has been a lot of litigation 4 over this, Mr. Sisk, as you know.
5 Are you talking about NTOL plants or 6 operat ing plant s?
7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Same obj ect ion.
8 MR. SISK: Can you answer the j 9 question?
10 MR. BARANSKI: According to 0654, 11 there is a state responsibility to conduct 12 ingestion pathway exercises once every six 13 years.
14 MR. SISK: Does that requirement 15 apply to each operating nuclear power plant 16 in the State of New York?
17 MR. LANPHER: Same obj ect ' an.
18 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Same obj ect ion.
19 MR. BARANSXI: I will go back to 20 what I just said, that once every six 1
I years, the state is required to conduct an s
ingestion pathway exercise.
23 The logic and prudent exercise 24 conduct would be to say you wouldn't do it 25 I at the same unit, each site.
l DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
l 1
)
l
I J
& 31 I
O MR. SISK: By each site, what do you J
! \
l 3 mean, each six years?
4 MR. BARANSKI: Each six-year period.
5 MR. SISK: To your knowledge, an 6 exercise director for REFG, is the 7 requirement for all plants in New York 8 State, that you j ust referred to, met by an 9 exercise at a single facility?
10 MR. BARANSKI: For the operating 11 plants in New York State, according to 12 Newreg 0654, a satisfactorily conducted 13 ingestion pathway once every six years 14 would satisfy that requirement.
15 MR. SISK - General Papile, could you 16 describe for me -- I'm sorry, do you need 17 to consult?
18 (Discussion off the record among the 19 witnesses) 20 MR. SISK: General Papile, c e" you 21 describe for me how the REPG fits 2
organizationally with the New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission?
24 I would like for you to j ust tell me 25 in your own words how the organizational DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
s bb.
1 35 2 would do that by telephone.
3 MR. SISK: Who is in charge of the 4 command room in the --
5 MR. PAPILE: The governor, if he is 6 there, or his representative.
7 MR. SISK: Is the chairman of the 8 Disaster Preparedness Commission in charge 9 in the absence of the governor?
10 MR. PAPILE: Absolutely.
11 MR. SISK: And in that event, I 12 believe you stated you, General Papile, 13 would report directly to the chairman of
.14 the DPC?
15 MR. PAPILE: I do. I would like to 16 explain one thing there.
17 Militarily, that term is correct.
18 but I do go through individuals to get to 19 Dr. Axelrod sometimes because he does have 20 deputies and so forth, but for military 21 sake, ww say directly.
22 MR. SI3K: Mr. Czech, on page 2 of 3 the affidavit which has been marked as
" Exhibit 2, there is a statement that you are responsible for, quote, "the
' DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
A 36 2 preparation, maintenance, revision and 3 oversight of the state portion of the New 4 York State emergency response plan."
5 Let me ask you, to the best of your 6 knowledge, what is t he cur s' ent and 7 effective version of I'... . sere portion of 8 the New York State emergency response plan?
9 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Is your question 10 seeking the date of the last revision?
11 MR. SISK: Yesi the date of the last 12 revision which is currently in effect.
13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Is your question --
14 when you say "state radiological emergency 15 plan," does that question include the 16 appendices?
17 MR. SISK: The affidavit refers to 18 the state portion.
19 I will let the witness respond based 20 on what is stated here.
21 MR. CZECH: From my recollection.
22 the most current revision date on the state 23 Portion of the state radiological emergency 4
preparedness plan was September of '87.
3 I am now handing the MR. SISK:
i I
l t
l DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
J Ihmm l
L
1 37 2 reporter a document which I will ask to be 3 marked as Exhibit 3 t o this deposit ion.
1 4 It is a document entitled. "Article l 5 2-B State and Local Natural and Manmade 6 Disaster Preparedness."
7 I will vouch for the record this is 8 a copy of Article 2-B of the New York State 9 Executive Law.
10 (Document marked as REPG Exhibit 3 11 for identification, as of this date.)
12 . MR. SISK: Gentlemen. this is a 13 question for the panel.
14 Are you familiar with that st at e 15 statute?
16 MR, BARANSKI: I am aware of the 17 state statute.
18 MR. PAPILE: I am aware of it.
19 MR. CIECH: In general terms. I am 20 aware of it.
21 MR. SISK: Mr. Czech, in preparing 22 and revising and overseeing the state 23 portion of the New York State emergency 24 response plan, do you make reference to 25 Article 2-B of the Executive Law?
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
) km
1 39 2 MR. LANPHER: Can I ask for 3 clarification? What do you mean by "make 4 reference"? Review that law?
5 I obj ect to the question as vague.
6 MR. SISK1 Can you answer the 7 question?
8 MR. CZECH: Can you j ust restate it 9 and I will give it a stab.
10 MR. SISK: Yes.
11 In preparing and revising and 12 overseeing the state portion of the New 13 York State emergency response plan, do you 14 make reference to Article 2-B of the 15 execut ive --
16 MR. CZECH: The state radiological 17 emergency preparedness plan has a reference IB of appropriate stat utes, et catera, in 19 Article 2-B as referenced in there. That's 20 correct.
2I MR. SISK: General Papile, let me 2
ask you to refer to Section 20 of this 23 stat ute and part icularly to Sect ion 20, 24 Subdivision 1, portions C and E.
23 "Those state and local natural i
l I
i i
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
Ihm
1 l l
1 39 2 disaster and emergency response functions 3 shall be coordinated in order to apply 4 fullest protection and benefit to the i 5 people," and Subsection E says. "State and 6 local plans, organizational arrangements ;
7 and response capability required to execute 8 the provisions of this article shall, at 9 all times. be the most effective that 10 current circumstances and existing 11 resources allow."
12 General Papile, is this Portion of 13 the state law followed by the REPG in its 14 involvement in radiological emergency 15 response plans?
16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect to the use 17 of that term "followed." It's vague.
iB MR. SISK: Can you answer the 19 question?
20 HR. PAPILE: Well, I would rather 21 defer to my counsel because it's a legal 22 conclusion.
3 I am really not sure whether I 24 should answer that question or not because 25 it takes, I think, a legal interpretation.
DDYLE REPORf!NG. INC.
J bhm-
1 40 2 MR. SISK: Mr. Czech, can you answer 3 that question?
4 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Well, the question l
5 you are asking is the came quest ion that 6 Mr. Paptle j ust answered?
l 7 MR. SISK: That's correct.
8 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I still obj ect 9 because it's vague and it calls for a legal 10 conclusion.
11 MR. CZECH: I can't mak e a --
12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: As Mr. Pap 11e has 13 stated, it calls for a legal conclusion, so 14 I obj ect. You are asking for Mr. Czech's 15 answer.
16 MR. CZECH: I am not sure if I 17 understand what you mean by "followed" the IB sect ions you ref erred to.
19 MR. SISK: Mr. Czech, you have
'O
' stated in the affidavit that you are 21 responsible for preparation, maintenance 22 revision and oversight of the st ate port ion 23 of the New York State emergency response 24 Plan.
2:
Now, in performing those functions.
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 1
41 I 1
2 do you follow this Provision of the New !
3 York State Executive Law?
4 MR. CZECH: I do not.
5 MR. SISK: What do you make 6 reference to in preparing, maintaining.
7 revising and overseeing the state portion 8 of the New York State emergency response 9 plan?
10 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 11 question. It's vague.
12 You use tha term "what do you make 13 reference to." It assumes that he makes 14 some specific reference to something in 15 this law and you haven't established that.
16 MR. SISK: Can you answer the 17 question?
IB MR. CZECH: If I understood your
" question correctly. the primary is Newres 0 0654, 10-CFR, Part 50 and 44-CFR. Part 350.
I Now, specifically for Article 2-B, 22 the areas of interest would be 29-C, 23 "Radiological Preparedness," and areas 24 dealing with Section 24. "The Local State 25 of Emergency." and Section 28. "State DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
- - - - - - - - r- -"5
1 42 2 Declaration of Disaster Emergency."
3 MR. SISK: Let me ask this question 4 of you, Mr. Czech.
5 Do county plans exist for, in the 6 State of New York, for each of the counties 7 located within the 10-mile EPZ's of each 8 operating nuclear power plant?
9 MR. CZECH: For the plant s at Ginna, 10 Nine Mile Point. FitzPatrick and Indian 11 Pointo there are such county plans within 12 . the 10-mile EPZ.
13 MR. SISK: Now, can you tell me, to 14 the oest of your ability, why do those 15 plans exist?
16 MM. LANPHEh! I obj ect. This is so 17 terelevant and it really is a waste of 18 time.
19 MR. CZECH: I am not sure I even 20 know.
21 MR. SISK: Let me ask you to refer M
to Section 22 of the New York Executive 23 Law.
24 The section states, "The commiswien shall prepare" -- Section 22. "The DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
J Ihmm-
9P 43 3
. commission." which refers to the State Disaster Preparedness Commissioni "shall 3
4 prepare a state disaster preparedness
- plan."
MR. CZECH: What section?
? MR. SISK: 20, item 1.
3 MR. PAPILE: Page C5. Larry.
9 MR. SISK: And continuing --
. MR. LANPHER: Listen to the
.. question.
G MR. S154: -
"and submit such plans 3
to the governor for approval no later than H
one year following the ef f ect ive date of
. 1 this act."
Nowe Mr. Czechi to your knowledge.
- =
in your capacity as the chief of nuclear l
Prot ect ion planning f or REPG, has the state
.4 Portion of the New York State emergency response plan been prepared in response to this mandated state law, to your knowledge 7 a hR. CZECH: No. that's not correct.
- g MR. SISK
- Why has the state P l an 3
DO Prepared?
hR. LANPHER: Same obj ect ion.
D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
1 44 2 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: The question was 3 why has the state Plan been prepared? -
4 MR. SISK: Yes.
5 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: To the best of Mr.
6 Czech's knowledge?
7 MR. SISK: That's correct.
O MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect on 9 vagueness grounds.
10 MR. SISK: Can you answer the 11 question?
12 MR. CZECH: There was a state 13 radiological plan in existence prior to 14 Article 2-B and the state radiological plan 15 evolved subsequent to Three Mile Island 16 with the publishing of Newreg 0654. so that 17 the state radiological plan -- actually the IB state radiological emergency planning goes 19 back before the operating sites to probably 20 the early sixties and it has been an 21 evolutionary process.
22 MR. SISK: Do you know why that 23 planning process was begun and why those 4 plans exist?
I MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect. These DOYLE REFORTING. INC.
J Nku
i l
1 45 2 questions aren't very relevant to any real l
3 issue that we have before us. It's a waste l 4 of time.
5 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect also because 6 it calls for specul at ion going back to the 7 early 1960's.
8 MR. CZECH: I can say. I was not 9 then and am not in a policy position to 10 make those k inds of determinations.
11 I was the doer and had a j ob to do.
12 That's all.
13 MR. SISK: Fair enough.
14 Do any of the other panel members 15 have anything to add to that?
16 MR. PAPILE: No. I was in Vietnam 17 then.
18 MR. SISK General Papile. let me 19 just ask you t his quest ion.
20 Based on your experience and 21 expertise in emmagency planning, and I want 22 to ask this question as a general matter.
23 if we assume that the Possibility of a 24 disaster is unavoidable and that the 5 possibility simply exists, in your opinion.
D0YLE REPORTING, INC.
J bhs
l 1 49 l
2 by a memorandum which indicates it is from l l
3 James D. Papile. Director. REPG. dated 4 September 1. 1997.
5 It is on the letterhead for the New 6 York State Disaster Preparedness 7 Commission. Its subj ect is "Revised New 8 York State Plan."
9 (Dccument marked as REPG Exhibit 4 to for identification, as of this date.)
11 (Recess taken) 12 MR. SISK Back on the record.
13 MR. SISK: General Papile, do you 14 recogni:e that document?
16 MR. SISK: Can you identify it for 17 me?
18 MR. PAPILE: It is the updated --
19 updated complete to include all pages of 20 the state portion of the New York State 21 radiological emergency preparedness plan.
22 We had been requested by FEMA to 23 submit all pages in the f ut ure, so when 24 they review it, they won't have to insert 25 the changits.
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
) b.
l 1 50 2 That's why it was done in this l
2 fashiont otherwise we would have j ust 1 4 submitted changes.
5 MR. SISK: Let me ask you this: Has 6 this revision of the state portion of the 7 plan, has it been approved by the DFC7 8 MR. PAPILE: The DPC will approve 9 it.
10 We have submitted this to FEMA.
11 FEMA has made comments on it, specifically 12 they asked us to include Appendix K. which 13 had ingestion in preparation for the 14 exercise.
15 Our comments have been submitted 16 back to FEMA. Soon as they're approved, we 17 will makn the changes to the plan 18 accordingly and submit it to the DPC. That 19 has been our normal procedure.
20 The original of the plan was 21 approved by the DPC. Since then, we have 22 been making changes. It is because FEMA 23 requires us to make changes with guidance 24 memorandum and other Paraphernalia.
25 MR. SISK: General Papile, will DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
J bw
1 51 2 there be further revisions to this document 3 before it is submitted to the DPC for 4 approval?
5 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 6 question. Calls for speculation.
7 MR. SISK: If you know.
8 MR. PAPILE: I can't answer that 9 question. I don't know.
10 Things may happen.
11 MR. SISK: Are you aware of any 12 changes that you intend to make to this 13 document before submitting it to the DPC 14 for approval?
15 MR. PAPILE: Yes, there are.
16 because, as I have j ust stated, we 17 submitted comments to FEMA for their 18 approval.
19 If they approve those comments, we 20 will make changes accordingly. If they 21 don't buy our comments. they may ask us to 22 do other things.
23 MR. SISK: Has this plan been used 24 in any recent exercise for nuclear 25 facilities inside or outside the Stata of DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 92 2 New York?
3 MR. PAPILE: Other than Shoreham?
4 MR. SISK: Other than Shoreham.
5 MR. PAP!LE: Yes. That's why we 6 wrote Appendix K. because FEMA required us 7 to because of the ingestion pathway ,
8 exercise at Ginna.
9 MR. SISK: Was the state involved in 10 an ingestion pathway exercise for the 11 Yankee Rowe Plant recently?
12 MR. LANPHER: At this point. I can't 13 recall if I had a standing obj ection to 14 other power Plants, but if I didn't. I want 15 ene for Yankee Rowe.
16 MR. SISK: I understand. Those are 17 preserved, in any event.
18 MR. PAPILE: We voluntarily 19 participated at the request of FEMA region 20 1 in an exercise for Yankee row.
21 MR. SISK: When was that conducted?
22 MR. PAPILE: Wednesday. Wednesday of 23 this week.
l 24 MR. SISK: And in doing so, what l
25 planning document did you use for that l
l DOYLE PEPORTING. INC.
A N.
1 53 2 participation?
MR. LANPHER: I object. I don't 3
4 know what you mean by a planning document.
MR. SISK: Let me ask you this: Did 5
6 you use the procedures in Procedure K in 7 this document that has been marked Exhibit 8 47 9 MR. PAPILE: I would Itke to defer 10 to Mr. Czech because we were away when he 11 ran it.
12 MR. SISK: That 's fine.
13 MR. CZECH: The Yankee Rowe was 14 what -- in the current regulatory jargon, 15 is what is referred to as a partial participation exerciset and Procedure K. I 16 17 will characterize as being the basis for 10 ingestion pathway.
19 However, there are other internal 20 documents alerting us, et cetera, that 21 various st ate agencies would have that --
22 would also be brought to bear that are not 23 formally part of this document.
24 MR. SISK Would these include 23 additional documents that are prepared and DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
J bw .
n ..
1 54 2 maintained by REPG?
3 MR. CZECH: They are not.
4 MR. SISK: What other stat e agencies 5 would that include?
6 MR. CZECH: Hold on a second.
7 (Discussion off the record among the 8 witnesses) 9 MR. CZECH: The agencies involved 10 were the Radiological Emergency 11 Freparedness Group, the State Emergency 12 Management Office, the State Department of 13 Health, the Department of Agriculture and 14 Markets, the Department of Transportation.
15 and the Division of State Police.
16 MR. SISK: Were any other 17 radiological emergency response plans used IB or relied upon in that exercise insofar as 19 the State of New York participation was 20 concerned?
21 MR. CZECH: Do you mean procedures 22 or --
23 MR. SISK: I am talking about -- any 24 radiological emergency response plan. For 25 example, did you use or implement any DQYLE REPORTING, INC.
s bw
1 55 2 procedures in a plan for Yankee Rowe?
3 (Discussion off the record between 4 Mr. Pap 11e and Mr. C:ech) 5 MR. CZECH: As far as I know, and I 6 am trying to interpret the question. !
7 would say no. there were no other plans.
8 MR. S!SK: Does any other member of 9 the panel have anything to add to that?
10 MR. PAPILE: No. I know of no other 11 specific plans, no.
12 MR. SISK: Mr. Czech, referring to 13 the document that has been identified as 14 Exhibit 4. has this document been -- well, 15 ist me j ust ask you this.
16 What regulatory criteria do you rely 17 upon in structuring and in revising this le state portion of the state plan?
19 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect. It has
( 20 already been testified to.
I i
21 MR. SISK: Did you previously 22 testify that you relied upon various 23 federal regulations. 10-CFR, Part 50. for 24 example?
23 MR. CZECH: And 44-CFR part 350. and .
1 i
i l
D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
.) N
1 1 50 2 first and foremost. a guidance document. 1 I
3 Newres 0654.
4 MR. SISK: General Papile. in j 5 assisting counties with the preparation of 6 their radiological plans for operating 7 Plants in the State of New York, do you 8 similarly rely upon those federal 9 regulations?
11 MR. S!SK: And is it your j ob, then.
12 to ensure that those county plans with 13 which you are involved comply with those 14 federal regulaticns?
15 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect. Calls for a 16 legal conclusion about what compliance 17 means.
18 MR. SISK1 Let me rephrase it.
19 That those plans follow the 20 structure that is outlined in the federal 21 regulations.
22 General Papile, was the answer yes?
23 MR. PAP!LE: No, my answer was that 24 we comply with the county plan the same as 23 we did with the state portion of the plant D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
i d k
l 1 57 2 we comply with 0654, those items listed in 3 0654 4 MR. C2ECH: May I add a little bit?
5 MR. SISK: Sure.
6 MR. CZECH: That radiological 7 emergency preparedness plan is patterned 8 after the overall disaster preparedness 9 plan as outlined in Article 28. and I 10 believe we go further than 0654 in that we 11 also addressed. if you will, a prevention 12 mitigation or preparedness section as well 13 as the response which 0654 is geared to.
14 MR. PAPILE: Good answer.
15 MR. SISK: And does that same answer 16 apply to your involvement with the various 17 county plans?
18 MR. PAPILE: Yes. it does. We have 19 prevention mitigation as well as the 20 introduction to the plan itself, which is 21 not necessarily required by 0654.
22 MR. SISK: Mr. Czech, does the state 23 portion of the RERP -- let me ask you this.
24 You have told me that there are some things 25 in the state portion of that plan which are D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
1 59 2 somewhat beyond the requirements of the 3 federal regulatory structure.
I 4 Now, are the provisions of that plan 5 in any fashion inconsistent with the 6 federal regulatory structure?
7 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 8 question. Calling for a legal conclusion.
9 These gentlemen aren't lawyers.
10 MR. SISK: I didn't ask a legal 11 question.
12 MR. LANPHER: You are asking if the 13 RERP is inconsistent with legal 14 requirements.
15 MR. S!SK:. I am asking f or your 16 understanding as a planner.
17 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Same obj ect ion.
18 MR. PAPILE: We would have to go by 19 review process by FEMA region 2 and the 20 assistance committee that supports region 21 2. and although there are some revisions 22 and modifications. I don't know of anything 23 that we vary from the intent or desires of 24 0654.
25 MR. SISK: In fact. FEMA has to l
l
[
{
l
{ DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 A Nu
1 50 2 approve this state plan, does it not?
3 MR. PAPILE: That's true.
7 4 MR. SISK: And FEMA has approved 5 this state plan?
6 MR. PAPILE: It has approved the 7 state portien of the plan insofar as it 8 goes for two sites, that would be for the 9 Nine Mile and Fit zpatrick plants in Oswego 10 County and for the Ginna facility in Wayne 11 and Monroe. We have not received a 12 so-called 350 approval for Indian Point.
13 MR. SISK: Has FEMA reviewed this 14 state portion of the radiological emergency 15 response plan?
16 MR. PAPILE: They have. But it's my 17 understanding that typically, for purposes 18 of 350, it 's reviewed as the state port ion.
19 in confunction with any local plans for 20 that site, so that the approval comes on a 21 site basis as opposed to the state portion 22 versus the local portion.
23 MR. SISK: I understand.
24 Is that correct. General Papile?
23 MR. PAPILE: That is absolutely l
t D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
sd bw
1 60 2 correct.
3 MR. SISK: General Papile, to your 4 knowledge, is there a Procedure I for this 5 document?
6 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: You are referring ,
7 to dxhibit 4. right?
8 MR. S!SK: I am referring to Exhibit 9 4.
10 I note that on the table of 11 contenta, there is a Procedure H and a 12 Procedure J. Is there a Procedure !?
13 MR. PAPILE: No, there is not. And 14 one of our changes we --
15 MR. CZECH: If I may. the reason the 16 Procedure I is not listed there is because 17 a capital I can be confused with a Roman 18 numeral 1.
19 MR. SISK: That's what I suspected.
20 Now Mr. Czech, can you refer to page 21 Roman numeral I-9. bottom right-hand corner 22 of that page. it says "Rev. 10/85."
23 MR. LANPHER: Excuse me. Mr. Sisk. I 24 don't know where you are.
23 MR. SISK: It's in the first part of DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
l
- hm.
1 61 2 the document. i 3 MR. LANPHER: Oh, O.K. Roman 4 numeral I dash what?
5 MR. SISK: Dash 9.
6 MR. SISK: The bottom of the page 7 contains a reference. "Legal authorities O and reference documents " and that contains 9 a reference to New York St at e Execut ive Law 10 Article 2B.
11 Mr. Czech, is this the reference you 12 ref erred to earlier as to legal authorities 13 within the state plan?
14 MR. CZECHI That looks like the 15 section. I thought there was a tabulation.
16 This is probably it.
17 MR. SISK: Mr. Czech, let me ask you 18 to refer to Procedure K. page A-2. There 19 is a paragrapn j ust past the middle of that 20 page that makes reference to technical 21 federal support?
22 MR. CZECH: Yes. I see it.
23 MR. SISK: And that paragraph also 24 makes ref erence to support from the U.S.
25 Department of Energy radiological
[
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
Nw 1
1 1 62 l
2 assistance Plan, or RAP, and states that, 3 "Technical expertise with sophisticated 4 monitoring sampling and laboratory analysis 3 capability will be provided from the 6 Brookhaven area of fice with U.S. DOE and 7 Brookhaven National Laboratory staff."
8 Mr. Czech, can you describe for me 9 the involvement of the DOE / RAP in the 10 ingestion pathway procedure that we are 11 ref erring to? Can you elaborate on that 12 for me?
13 MR. CZECH: Yes. I think I can.
14 The DOE radiological assistance plan 15 or program, depending what you want to 16 refer to it as, would provide additior,a1 17 technical expertise, environmental 18 laboratories, sampling capability, staff to 19 support and complement off-site response by 20 the state and local authorities.
21 MR. SISK: Does the State of New 22 York depend upon DOE / RAP to provide 3
radiological monitoring teams in that 24 capacity?
MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 63 2 question. I don't know what you mean by 3 "depend upon."
4 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Depend upon in what 5 way?
6 MR. SISK: Can you answer the 7 question?
8 MR. CZECH: I will have to go back 9 to the question of depend. We use them in 10 support of that initial response in our 11 system for the current operating reactors, 12 we rely upon field monitoring teams from 13 the county government. Then as we would 14 set into, for example, the longer range 15 problem like ingestion pathway, which this 16 is referring to, then we are referring to 17 , state resources and supplemented by what we 18 can get from the federal government through 19 DOE and the FERMAP plan.
20 MR. SISK: General Papile, do each 21 of the county governments that have 22 radiological plans for nuclear plants in 23 New York have their own radiological 24 monitoring teams?
23 MR. PAPILE: Yes, they do.
i l
DOYLE REPG,tTING, INC.
.d
1 64 2 MR SISK: Do those teams consist 3 of county personnel employed full time by 4 the county?
5 MR. PAPILE: No. Some counties 6 have full-time employees, other counties 7 have people that they have trained as 8 volunteers.
9 MR. SISK: Do any of the counties 10 use the DOE / RAP monitoring teams?
11 MR. PAPILE: Usually only through a 12 request through the Hwalth Department or if 13 the EOC is then organized through the EOC.
14 State EOC.
15 (Recess taken) 16 MR. SISK: Mr. Baranski, j ust for 17 clarification, is this version of the state 18 plan, that's the September i version, is 19 that the one that was employed for the 20 Ginna exercise in October of 19877 21 MR. BARANSKI: That's correct.
22 MR. SISK: Now, before the break. I 23 had asked some questions about county l 24 radiological monitoring teams.
I 3 General Papile, are those county l
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
J k
1 68 2 Rensselaer County was the one that had 3 asked for a notification call.
4 MR. SISK: Does that describe the 5 extent of the county's involvement in that 6 exercise? l 7 MR. CZECH: Rensselaer County did 8 some internal call-ups putting in place j 9 some of their procedures. But to the 10 extent that was done, I don't know. This 11 was a partial participation. It was a 12 limited scope exercise.
13 MR. SISK: What do you mean by 14 partial participation?
15 MR. CZECH: It was -- the closest I 16 could probably come to it would be that for 17 New York State's participation, it was more 18 of a table top.
19 MR. SISK: 0.K.
l 20 Mr. Baranski, I wanted to return to 21 one question I asked earlier about the 22 Ginna ingestion pathway exercise.
23 And I will ask you this question not 24 as a legal question but as your 3 understanding as the exercise director for i
I DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
sd bw l
w 1 69 l
2 REPG.
3 Does that Ginna exercise satisfy the 4 six year exercise requirement that you 5 referred to, for each and all of the county
. 6 plans for nuclear plants located in the 7 State of New York?
8 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect. It is 9 calling for a legal conclusion, thus it is 10 an improper question. I also think it is 11 vague.
12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Same obj ect ion.
13 MR. BARANSKI: The ingestion pathway 14 exercise that was conduct *d for Ginna was 15 conducted with the intent to satisfy the 16 six year requirement. We do not yet have 17 the FEMA post-exercise assessment report 18 that says that we have fulfilled that 19 requirement. Until we receive that 20 document, it still could be in limbo.
21 MR. SISK: I understand, b ut was it 22 your intent in conducting or participating 23 in that exercise, on behalf of REPG, that 24 that exercise would satisfy the 25 requirements for any ingestion pathway l
J DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
sd bw
1 70 j 2 exercise for all of the Plants located in 3 the State of New York and all of the county I
{ 4 Plans for those plants?
{ 5 MR. LANPHER: Are you including 6 Shoreham?
7 MR. SISK: I am including Shoreham.
8 MR. BARANSKI: To the best of my 9 knowledge, that is my understanding, that 10 if we conducted, or if we did conduct a 11 successful exercise, that would satisfy 12 FEMA's six-year requirement for the state.
13 MR. SISK: Were any counties other 14 than those within the 50-mile pathway of 15 Ginna involved in that exercise?
16 MR. LANPHER: I would like a 17 clarification. I don't know what you mean 18 by involved. Actually employed players?
19 MR. SISK: Were they players in that 20 exercise? I will accept that correction.
21 KR. BARANSKI; There were players in 22 the Ginna ingestion pathway exercise.
23 MR. SISK: And were they from county 24 governments?
25 MR. BARANSKI: Yes, they were.
l l
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
A Nw t
1 71 2 MR. SISK: Which county governments?
3 (Discussion off the record among the 4 witnesses) 5 MR. BARANSKI: There were thirteen 6 counties involved in the Ginna ingestion 7 pathway exercise.
8 MR. SISK: Are you now mak ing 9 reference to a portion of the state plan?
10 (1R . BARANSKI: I'm going from the 11 conduct of the exercise. And in the 12 preparation for that exercise, we worked 13 with thirteen counties.
14 MR. SISK: And can you describe for 15 me, either list them or describe for me 16 generically, which counties were involved?
17 MR. BARANSKI: Yes, I can.
18 MR. SISK: And what document are you 19 now referring to?
20 MR. BARANSKI: I am referring to 21 page K-19 Rev. 87, Attachment 6. "Ingestion 22 exposure pathway alc,t and notification 23 procedure for Ginna."
24 MR. SISK: Are all of those counties 23 listed at the bottom of that page?
i D0YLE REPORTING, INC.
sd k 1
l
I 1 72 2 MR. BARANSKI: That's affirmative.
3 MR. SISK: Are all of those counties 4 within the 50-mile ingestion pathway of the 5 Ginna plant?
6 MR. BARANSKI: All or portions of 7 these counties are within the 50-mile 8 ingestion pathway for Ginna.
9 MR. SISK: Mr. Baranski. let me ask 10 you to flip back a few pages on that 11 procedure to page K-9. which is a map. It 12 has an indication in the upper right-hand 13 corner. "Attachment 1." and in the lower 14 right-hand corner. "Rev. 8/87."
15 In the upper -- t urning that page 16 sideways, in the upper lef t-hand corner, 17 there is a legend on the map which 18 indicates that the area shaded in dots 19 constitutes the 50-mile EPZ for various 20 plants that are located or depicted on that 21 map.
22 I will direct your attention 23 specifically to the shaded area in the 24 50-mile circle around the Millstone plant.
23 Mr. Baranski, does that 50-mile EPZ DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
sd Es
1 73 2 for Millstone encompass all or part of 3 Suffolk County, New York? Can you tell 4 from looking at this?
5 MR. BARANSKI: I can't really tell 6 from this particular map how much of 7 Suffolk County is involved in Millstone 8 EPZ.
9 MR. SISK: Does it appear that some 10 portion of Suffolk County is involved in 11 the Millstone 50-mile EPZ?
12 MR. BARANSKI: It does appear that 13 some is.
14 MR. SISK: Mr. Czech, can you 15 elaborate on that at all since I gather you 16 have been primarily responsible for this 17 document?
18 MR. CZECH: That's correct.
19 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 20 question. I don't think you have a 21 question. You are asking him to talk about 22 this page. I think there should be a 23 proper question.
24 MR.'SISK: Can you tell from looking 25 at this page or from your knowledge of what l
l l
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
sd bw
1 74 2 this page contains, that the 50-mile EPZ 3 around Millstone encompasses all or some 4 portion of Suffolk County, New York?
5 MR. CZECH: I know that it includes 6 at least some portion of Suffolk County. I 7 don't know if it includes all of Suffolk, 8 the 50-mile EPZ.
9 MR. SISK: Now, has the st ate REPG 10 conducted any training for a response i
11 within Suffolk County and within the 12 50-mile ingestion pathway for Millstone?
13 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 14 question. He already testified to that and 15 he said no. It is repetitive.
16 MR. SISK: I apologize, I thought I 17 o fined it to the county earlier, but let's 18 be clear. Has the state conducted any 19 training or been involved in any training 20 with respect to such a response?
l 21 MR. CZECH: Not for Suffolk County 22 or Shoreham. Or -- I am talking for state 23 people in the Shoreham Suffolk County area.
24 There has been no training.
23 MR, SISK: Let me j ust be sure.
l l
l l
l DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
.d bhm
1 75 l
l '
2 There has been no training of state l
i r 3 personnel for such a response with respect ;
l 4 to Millstone?
l 5 MR. CZECH: That's correct.
6 MR. SISK: And let me j ust be sure.
l 7 I believe that you testified earlier 8 there has similarly been no exercise with 9 respect to a state response in the 10 ingestion pathway for Millstone?
l 11 MR. CZECH: That's correct.
t 12 MR. SISK: Let me note for the 13 record that I do have a number of questions 14 with respect to the state plan for these 15 witnesses.
16 I am going to ask a few of those at 17 this j uncture, and if there is time at the 18 end of the deposition. I will return to it.
I 19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Let me caution you 20 that Mr. Pap 11e must leave at 4:30. so I 21 would suggest that you keep that in mind.
22 MR. SISK: That was stated earlier.
3 Mr. Czech, with respect MR. SISK:
24 Section 3 of this plan, which is to Part 1, 25 entitled. "Response," it --
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 76 a
2 MR. LANPHER: Do you have a page 3 number. Mr. Sisk?
4 MR. SISK: It is Section 3 of Part 5 1. and the pages are numbered accordin51 Y 6 with Roman numeral III in front of them.
7 MR. LANPHER: 0.K.
8 MR. SISK: Can you tell me. Mr.
, 9 Czech. are the provisions of this section i
10 designed -- are they based primarily upon i 11 following the federal regulations and 12 guidelines that you referenced earlier?
I i 13 MR. LANPHER: Can I have that read 14 back, please?
15 MR. SISK: Do you understand the 16 question?
17 MR. CZECH: That's why I was trying i 18 to fc mulate --
19 MR. SISK: Let me withdraw the 20 question.
21 (Discussion off the record between l 22 Mr. Papile and Mr. Baranski) l l 23 MR. SISK: General Papile and Mr.
1 24 Baranski are conferring. Let me withdraw 25 that question and try again.
l DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 77 2 MR. SISK: Can you tell me what 3 regulatory requirements, if anyi you have 4 relied upon or the REPG has relied upon in 5 preparing and updating this specific 6 section e# the st ate plan?
7 ( Discussion off the record between 8 Ms . Papile and Mr. Czech) 9 MR. CZECH: When we undertook the 10 initial j ob of putting together the 11 radiological emergency preparedness plan.
12 one of the approaches we were supposed to 13 take was to pattern this plan, since it is l
14 supposed to be an appendix to the overall l 15 disaster preparedness plan, in a similar l i i
16 fashion.
i l
i l 17 That's why you will see the sections 18 are named the same. The responsibilities t
i 19 and so on of state agencies are followed.
20 what their normal legal responsibilities 1 .
21 would be and, again, patterned after the
(
22 disaster preparedness plan. so that's how
(
l 23 the plan was formulated.
24 Then, of course, we had to make sure l
23 that the elements of Newreg 0654 would fit i
I l
1 ;
l DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 78 2 into that structure.
3 I hope that's what you are asking.
4 MR. SISK: Let me ask you to refer 5 specifically to the executive summary.
6 Page 1. It is near the very beginning of 7 the document.
8 The second paragraph under 9 "Back groun d" makes reference to Federal 10 Rules including 10-CFR 50, which I assume 11 is 10-CFR Part 50. is that correct?
l 12 MR. CZECH: That would be correct.
l 13 MR. SISK: Now. let me ref er you to 14 specifically the next paragraph which 15 states, and I am reading the second 16 sentence. "The REPG is responsible for 17 developing comprehensive Plans and l l 18 procedures for prompt reactions to l I 19 potential emergencies at nuclear power 20 plants in New York or in boidering states."
21 Have I read that correttly?
22 MR. CZECH: That's ccerect.
23 MR. SISK: Mr. Czech. does that 24 sentence apply to the Shoreham nuclear 25 power plant?
i i
I 4
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 79 2 MR. CZECH: Since I didn't write it.
3 I really guess I don't knew. I believe the 4
intent at that time was wit h strictly the 5 operating plants.
6 MR. SISK: Would that apply to 7
Shoreham, if Shoreham were operating?
8 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 9 question. Calls for a speculistion.
10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I aise obj ect.
11 MR. CZECH: From my poitit of view.
12 it is a policy decision that I wouldn't be 13 privy to make.
14 MR. SISK: General Papile, can you 15 answer that question?
16 MR. PAPILE:
I use the same answer.
i
! ! 17 MR. SISK: Let me ask you to refer l 6 l
, 18 to page 2 of the executive summary. The 19 paragraph at the top states as follows:
20 "The federal rules required several 21 provisions be included in the development
! 22 of a radiological plant a uniform accident 23 classification system consisting of four 24 emergency action classes created to assist 25 in prompt emergency notification, and the l
l DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1
1 80 2 concept of emergency P lanning seasons or 3 L PZ's which define two specific radiation 4 pcthways for each power facility and was 5 adopted to improve response activity 6 efficiency."
7 The next paragraphs refer to the 8 10-mile and 50-mile EPZ's.
9 Two paragraphs further down it 10 states, "These aforementioned requirements l 11 are contained in this NYSREPP on February i
12 1, 1985 the generic state plan received 13 federal approval from FEMA."
I 14 Now. Mr. Czech, does this plan then l
15 employ the uniform accident classification l
16 system as set forth in the federal rules?
17 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect. The 1 !
l 18 question speaks for itself on that.
l I
19 MR. SISK Is that correct?
l 20 MR. CZECH: That's correct.
21 MR. SIGK: And by that, I want to be j 22 sure, are you responding to my question?
l 23 MR. LANPHER: Or to me?
24 MR. CZECH: There are four classes.
25 The notification of an unusual event.
l l
i I
l DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 81 2 alert. site area emergency and site 3 emergency are used in this plan.
4 MR. SISK: Those are the four 5 classifications that are set forth?
6 MR. CZECH: That is correct.
7 MR. SISK: Now this document also 8 indicates that FEMA approved the generic 9 st at e plan.
10 When we say "generic state plan "
11 does that refer to this, what we have 12 called the stated portion of the New York 13 State radiological emergency Preparedness 14 plan?
15 MR. CZECH: That 's the state Port ion 16 or the state agency portion of it, but I 17 still think I am correct and this is. I ,
f 18 believe, an incorrect st at ement that the 19 plann are on a site-by-site basis.
20 This February 1, 1985 was for 21 Oswego. I did not write this part.
22 Thank you for calling it to my 4
23 attention.
24 MR. SISK: General Papile?
{ 23 MR. PAPILE: I agree with Larry.
I I
i I
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 82 2 MR. SISK: Now Mr. Czech, referring 3 now to Part 1, Section 4 of the document 4 which begins on page Roman numeral 4 dash 5 1. "Recovery" -- it's entitled "Recovery,"
6 what regulations or guidelines were used to 7 structure this portion of the generic state 8 plan?
9 MR. CZECH: This portion of the 10 state plan was structured before I became 11 responsible for maintenance by the state 12 plan, so I am not totally sure, other than 13 the state's disaster preparedness plan and 14 any portions of Newreg 0654, that may 15 pertain to recovery.
16 MR. SISK: Does the New York State 17 disaster preparedness plan contain le regulatory requirements that apply to site 19 specific disaster plans or county plans?
20 MR. LANPHER: Could I have that 21 question read back, please?
22 (Record read) 23 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 24 question as calling for a legal conclusion 25 about what constitutes a regulatory DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 83 2 requirement.
3 I also think it's vague.
4 MR. SISK: I would ask the question 5 to you. Mr. Czech, in your capacity as 6 the -- as a member --
7 MR. CZECH: My answer is going to be 8 and still is that I am not a lawyer, but I 9 don't believe that the disaster 10 preparedness plan is a regulatory document.
11 It's a generalized planning document or 12 concept of operations for responding to a 13 broad range of disasters.
14 MR. SISK: Now Mr. Czech, let me ask 15 you to turn back to the executive summary 16 of this document on page 2.
17 Under the caption l
18 "Prevention / Mitigation." I believe you 19 stated earlier --
20 MR. LANPHER: Wait. Just a second.
21 please.
22 MR. SISK: Have you found that 23 portion. Mr. Czech?
24 MR. CZECH: I have.
25 MR. SISK: I believe you stated l
l l
l l
D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
1 l
[ 1 84 l 2 earlier that prevention mitigation is a l
3 provision of this plan, which goes beyond 4 the instructural requirements of Newreg 5 0654, is that correct?
I 6 MR. CZECH: My interpretation of 7 Newreg 0654 is that it's primarily a 8 response guidance, whereby the very nature 9 of the title of the document talks about 10 response plans.
11 And you will notice that the New 12 York State plan is very deliberately 13 referred to as radiological emergency 14 preparedness plan trying to dif ferentiate l
, 15 the fact that we talk about, we think, a 16 little bit more than j ust the actual 17 response phase.
18 So that the interaction of 19 governments and the training and so on, as 20 far as the Prevention might --
is a vital 21 part of the process.
l l
22 MR. SISK: I will note again under I
l 23 that section, there is a reference to the 1
24 policy of the state as set forth in Article 25 2-B. Mr. Czech.
l l .
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 85 2 Is that another one of the 3 references that you were thinking of 4 earlier?
5 MR. CZECH: That's correct.
6 MR. SISK: In the interest of time, 7 I am going to depart from my questioning on 8 this document and its details for a moment 9 and return to it later, if there is time.
10 Let me ask this general question.
11 General Papile, does this generic portion 12 of the state plan identify any state l
13 resources that could be -- and I am not l
14 asking that in a legal sense -- I am asking 15 that in a practical sense -- does this i
16 document identify any state resource that
( 17 could be employed in responding to a l
18 radiological accident at the Shoreham 19 plant?
l l 20 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect. I obj ect l 21 because that document speaks for itself and l
22 the question pertains to Shoreham. It 23 calls for speculation. ,
24 MR. SISK: Can you answer the 25 question. General Papile?
l l
l DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 86 2 MR. PAPILE: Well, my counsel 3 presented it real well.
4 I think it's asking for speculation 5 and I can't speculate because I don't know 6 what we really have and so forth and so on.
7 I can't speculate.
8 MR. SISK: General Papile, let me 9 get down to this a little bit on a nuts and 10 bolts level.
11 The state does have a Radiological 12 Emergency Response Group, doesn't it?
13 MR. PAPILE: Who does?
14 MR. SISK: What's the title of your i
15 agency?
i
. 16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: We covered this. I l
l 17 think this is a repetitive inquiry.
18 We are wast ing time.
19 MR. PAPILE: Which agency, sir?
20 MR. SISK: REPG.
21 MR.~PAPILE: The Radiological 22 Emergency Preparedness Group?
23 bh at 's the quest ion?
24 MR. SISK: Your agency.
25 MR. PAPILE' What was the question?
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 87 2 MR. SISK: The question is -- and I 3 don't mean to be cute: You do exist, don't 4 you?
5 MR. PAPILE: Yes, we do.
6 MR. SISK: Isn't there a State 7 Department of Health?
8 MR. PAPILE: Yes, there is.
9 MR. SISK: In fact, there are a 10 number of state agencies that are set forth 11 in Article 2-B. are there not?
12 MR. PAPILE: Yes, there are.
13 MR. SISK: And the heads of those 14 various agancies have positions on the 15 Disaster Preparedness Commission, don't 16 they?
17 MR. PAPILE: Yes.
18 MR. SISK: Ignoring legal questions 19 whict lawyers can debate at a later date.
20 and focusing on practical questions, would 21 it be possible for any of those agencies to 22 respond in any capacity to a radiological 23 accident at Shoreham?
24 MR. PAPILE: No. It is not 25 possible.
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 88 2 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect to this l 1
I 3 question because it's impossible to ignore l
4 the legalities of any situation.
5 I also obj ect because it calls for 6 speculation, and the witness has already 7 answered.
8 MR. SISK: General Papile, why is it 9 not possible?
10 MR. PAPILE: There is no plan.
11 MR, SISK: Does that complete your 12 answer?
13 MR. PAPILE: For now.
14 MR. SISK: When you said. "there is 15 no plan. " can you .t ell me what you mean?
16 MR. PAPILE: There is no plan for 17 that situation.
18 MR..SISK: Meaning that there is no 19 Shoreham specific radiological emergency 20 response plan?
l 21 MR. PAPILE: Agreed.
22 MR. SISK: Now I will ask you -- let 23 me ask this question of Mr. Czech.
24 Will you turn to Page Roman numeral 25 III-18 of this document. Section III-18.
D0YLE REPORTING, INC.
a 89 2 There is a subsection which states.
3 which refers to "State implementation of a 4 county's Plan in those instances where a 5 county does not implement the Plan itself."
6 Mr. Czech, to your knowledge, how 7 long has this section been contained in the C New York State generic plan?
9 MR. CZECH: I don't remember the 10 dat e, but I do remember that this was 11 specifically put in to address the Rockland 12 County situation.
13 MR. SISK: Tell me what you mean by 14 the Rock land County situat ion.
15 MR. CZECH: At some t ime in the 16 past, officials in Rockland County decided 17 to withdraw from the plannin9 Process for 18 the commercially operating plants at Indian 19 Point.
20 MR. SISK: And what , if anything.
21 did REPG do in response to that situation?
22 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 23 question.
24 This is irrelevant to the current 25 situation at Shoreham and the subj ect DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 1 90 2 matter of this proceeding.
3 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I agree.
4 MR. SISK: Can you answer?
5 MR. CZECH: In some general terms.
6 since I was not directly involved with the 7 Rockland situation --
8 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect also because 9 it calls for speculation.
10 We don't have the right witness.
11 MR. SISK: Can you answer the 12 question to the best of your ability, and 13 then I will refer this to other members of 14 the panel as well.
15 MR. CZECH: The situat ion that 16 existed was that we had a state plan, state i
17 portion of the plan, if you will.
18 We had county plans in existence 19 from three of the counties within the New 20 York planning zone, Westchester, Orange and 21 Putnam and Rockland, which initially had a 22 plan and then choose to withdraw.
23 And the state was directed to 24 develop a compensating plan to protect the 3 citizens of Rockland County using -- and I l
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 91 2 must say that the Rockland County officials 3 allowed the state People to use their 4 resources, basically their EOC staff, et 5 cetera, to prepare for a drill at Indian 6 Point.
7 MR. SISK: General Papile, did you 8 have any involvement in this process?
9 MR. PAPILE: I had none.
10 MR. SISK: And Mr. Baranski, did 11 you?
12 MR. BARANSKI: Yes, sir, I did.
i 13 MR. SISK: Can you describe the role l .
I 14 in the situation that was described 1 that 15 is, specifically with respect to the 16 preparation of an interim compensating plan 17 for Rockland County?
18 MR. LANPHER: May I ask for a 19 clarification?
l 20 Is the question what Mr. Baranski's 21 role was, if any, in the preparation of 22 such a plan?
23 MR. SISK: Yes.
1 l 24 MR. BARANSKI: That preparation was 23 primarily confined to DOE's assessment and D0YLE REPORTING, INC.
A 92
! 2 the field monitoring team activities.
}
3 MR. SISK: Did you actually write 4 some portions of that Rockland County 5 compensating plan?
6 MR. BARANSK!: I specificall.y recall 7 reviewing portions of it.
8 Whether I actually put in the paper 9 to write specific words. I don't remember.
10 MR. SISK: Was the interim 11 corapensat ing plan for Rockland County 12 prepared by people who were on the REPG 13 staff?
14 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: If you know.
15 MR. SISK: If you know.
16 (Discussion off the record among the 17 witnesses) 16 MR. BARANSKI: Some of the REPG 19 staff were involved in the preparation of 20 that plan.
21 MR. SISK: To the best of your l
22 recollection, what People on the REPG 23 staff, what individuals, were involved in 24 l that process?
23 MR. BARANSKI: Well. I have already l
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
l _ . _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ . - _ .
, 1 1 93 2 identified myself.
3 Employees that are no longer with I
4 REPG were involved and interf acing with the 5 Lieutenant Governor's Task Fo"ce that was, 6 in effect, camrodding the proj ect.
7 MR. SISK: What do you mean by 8 "ramrodding the proj ect"?
9 MR. BARANSKI: He was appointed by 10 the governor to take charge of this 11 situation and develop s plan and i
i 12 successfully implement the plan, and he l
l 'l direct involvement with that.
14 MR. SISK: Who was that?
15 MR. BARANSKI: Lieut enant Governor 16 Al Del Bello.
17 MR. SISK: Can you give me the names 19 of the individuals, if you recall, who were l
l 19 on the REPG staff at the time, who were l
20 involved in preparing that interim 21 compensatins plan?
2 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect.
Can you give any way how this is l
l 24 i
relevant at all, Mr. Sisk?
{ 23 MR. SISK: Let me j ust say, my l
l DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
l
t 1 94 2 question stands.
3 MR. LANPHER: Well, my obj ect ion 4 stands.
5 MR. SISK: I understand.
6 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object on the 7 grounds that the names of individuals is e not relevant to Shoreham or even this 9 inquiry.
10 I think that the Positions that they 11 occupied may be remotely relevant, but the 12 namcs are certainly not -- the names are 13 certainly not relevant and we are occupying 14 wasteful time in this deposition.
15 MR. SISK: Let me say, I don't know 16 how this proceeding will turn down the road 17 and the witness can tell me the names.
IB MR. B AR ANS,K I : In addition to 19 myself, we had J.R. Dillenbeck and Robert 20 Howard.
I MR. SISK: General Papile, do you 2
have anything to add 7 23 MR. PAPILE: No. I am asking him 24 rather than him asking me.
D I wasn't involved, but I knew what DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o
a 95 2 was going on.
3 MR. BARANSKI: Those are the only 4 ones that I am sure of.
5 MR. SISK: Was a Mr. - and I'm 6 sorry. I don't know the full names. Ned 7 Smith involved in that proj ect?
8 MR. BARANSKI: I can't r ec'a l l 9 whether he was directly involved with the to Rockland compensating plan, 11 MR. SISK: Has Mr. Ned Smith left 12 REPG7 13 MR. BARANSKI: To the best of my 14 recollection. Ned Smith was never a part of 15 REPG.
16 MR. SISK: Do you recognize his name 17 in any respect?
18 MR. BARANSKI: I do recognize his 19 name.
l l 20 MR. SISX: Do you know what position i
21 he held'at the time that the Rockland 22 County plan, interim compensating plan, was 23 being prepared?
l 24 MR. BARANSKI: I don't know what his D position was.
l l
l DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
, _ , _ - ' - ~ ~
& 9@
2 I do know that he had previously 3 retired from state service.
4 MR. SISK: Prior to the time that 5 this plan was prepared --
{
6 MR. BARANSKI: That 's af f irmat ive.
7 MR. SISK: Now I am going to hand 8 the reporter and ask him to mark as I i 9 believe wa are up to Exhibit 5 in this 10 deposition, a document entitled.
( 11 "Radiological Emergency Response Interim l
( 12 Plan for Implement ing Compensat ing Measures l
l 13 for Rockland County."
1 14 It is dated June 30, 1983. It bears 15 the name New York State Disaster l 16 Preparedness Commission on the front cover.
17 (Document marked as REPG Exhibit 5 18 for identification. as of this date.)
19 MR. SISK: Let me ask this question 20 of the panel.
21 Ccn you identify this document?
22 MR. LANPHER: Are you asking whether 23 they are personally familiar with the 24 document, other than reading the title?
j 23 MR. SISK: Let me ask this of the l
l l
l l
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
a 97 2 panel.
3 Have you seen this document before?
4 MR. PAPILE: I have.
5 MR. BARANSKI: Yes. I have.
6 MR. SISK: Mr. Czech?
7 MR. CZECH: The cover doesn't look 8 familiar, but I know, at one time or 9 another, I have seen the Rockland 10 compensating plan.
11 MR. SISK: Do you recall naving seen 12 this particular version of it dat ed June i
13 30, 19837 14 MR. CZECH: I can't recall.
i
- 15 MR. SISK
- New General Papile. what 16 is this document?
l 17 MR. PAPILE: Well. from the title, j 18 it's an interim plan for implementing i
i 19 compensating measures for Rockland County l 20 radiological emergency response.
21 MR. SISK: Mr. Baranski, can you 22 take a look at that document and can you 23 tell me whether that appears to you to be a 24 copy of the interim compensating plan for r
25 Rockland County that was prepared by the l
l l
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
L
a 98 2 REPG7 3 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 4 question on multiple grounds. First of 5 all. it was not established that the REPG 6 Prepared this plan at all.
7 Second, for him to answer that 8 question would require him to take a great 9 deal of time to go through this entire 10 plan. Which is approximately one inch 11 thick, double-sided copy.
12 MR. SISK: Mr. Baranski, was an 13 interim compensating plan for Rockland 14 County prepared by the REPG7 15 MR. BARANSK!: Negative.
! 16 MR. SISK: Can you tell me wha 17 prepared the plan that you have in front of IB you?
19 MR. LANPHER: If you know.
20 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: If you know.
I MR. SISK: If you know.
MR. LANPHER: Are you asking who 23 prepared Exhibit 57 24 MR. SISK: Yes.
D MR. BARANSKI: To the best of my l
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 99 2 recollection, it was Prepared under the 3 Lieutenant Governor's Task Force. and I 4 don't remember the names of the individuals 5 that were responsible for consolidating the 6 various portions of this.
7 MR. SISK: To the best of your 8 knowledge, was this interim compensating 9 plan prepared by employees of the State of 10 New York?
11 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 12 question.
13 He has already testified that he 14 doesn't know who, on the task force.
l 15 prepared it or had the role. thus you are 16 asking him to speculate about whether those 17 people that he can not identify were New 10 York State employees.
" MR. BARANSKI: I cannot identify whether they were employees of New York 11 State that prepared this document. I j ust D
don't know.
4 Do you know who prepared MR. SISK:
it the document?
D MR. LANPHER: I obj ect. He ham l
l l
i i
! D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
l 2
l l
1 100 2 already testified that he doesn't know.
3 MR. SISK: Do you know of anyone who 4 had any role in preparing the document?
5 MR. BARANSKI: Well, I j ust 6 testified earlier that I did have a 7 recollection of reviewing portions of the 8 document.
9 I did also testify that I did not 10 recall whether I had actually put pen and 11 paper in the preparation of this document.
12 MR. SISK Mr. Czech, do you know 13 who prepared this document?
14 MR. CZECH: No, I don't.
15 MR. SISK: Mr. Baranski, do you know 16 who would know who prepared this document?
17 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: If you know, Mr. _
IB Baranski.
19 MR. BARANSKI: Well, I could 20 certainly suggest that you get ahold of the 21 former Lieutenant Governor and see what his 2 directives were in preparation of this 23 document. That would be the top individual 24 responsible for this Plan.
D Mr. Czech, do you have MR. SISK DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
a 101 2 any idea who prepared this document?
3 MR. CZECH: No, I don't.
4 MR. LANPHER: He already answered.
5 MR. SISK: I meant to ask: Do you 6 know who would know, other than the former 7 Lire ut enant Governor?
8 MR. CZECH: I would tnink that's the 9 best source.
10 MR. SISK: Mr. Baranski, is the 11 cover to this document. and particularly 12 the legend at the bottom of the first Page, 13 "New York State Disaster Preparedness 14 Commission," is that familiar to you?
l
- 15 MR. BARANSKI
- Yes.
16 MR. SISK: Is that the official 17 legend of the New York State Disaster 19 Preparedness Commission?
19 MR. LANPHER: I would like a 20 clarification.
21 You mean the circled thing with the 22 "State of New York"?
3 MR. SISK: Logo.
MR. BARANSKI: This logo appears to 2
be consistent with other DPC documents.
l l
l l
l l
l l
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
& 102 2 that I am aware of.
3 MR. SISK: Let me ask this question 4 of the panel, if any member of the panel 5 knows.
6 Did the Federal Emergency Management 7 Agency review this interim compensating 8 plan for Rockland County in a federally 9 graded exercise?
10 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect. Calls for 11 the panel to speculate.
12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: If you know.
i 13 MR. BARANSKI: FEMA did review this 14 one.
15 MR. SISK: Did FEMA review this 16 other than in a federally graded exercise?
17 MR. BARANSK!: Yes, they did.
IB MR. SISK: Did FEMA approve that 19 plan in a federally graded exercise?
20 MR. BARANSKI: They don't evaluate a l
21 plan during an exercise.
2 The plan is one evaluation and 3 exercise is a separate evaluation.
l MR. SISK: Did FEMA approve the 23 exercise of the plan.
l l
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
a 103 O MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 3 question.
4 1 don't know what you mean by 5 "approve" by FEMA.
6 MR. SISK: Can you answer the 7 question?
8 MR. BARANSKI: Post-exercise 9 assessment report for the interim exercise 10 concluded basically that the plan and the 11 exercise could protect the public health 12 and safety.
13 MR. SISK: Now let me ask the 14 reporter to mark this documents which I am 15 about to hand him, as Exhibit 6 to this 16 deposition.
17 It bears the title. "Post-Exercise IB Assessment, Federal Emergency Management U Agency. August 24-25, 1983. Exercise of the 9
State of New York Radiological Emergency 21 Response. Interim Plan for Implementing 22 Compensating Measures for Rockland County."
D (Document marked as REPG Exhibit 6 It for identification, as of this date.)
h MR. SISK: Off the record.
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
a 104 2 (Discussion off the record) 3 MR. SISK: Mr. Baranski. is this a 4 copy of the post-exercise assessment that 5 you j ust referred to?
6 MR. BARANSK!: Yes. sir.
7 MR. SIOK: And is the FEMA finding 8 that you just referred to summarized at the 9 top of the summary after page numbered B in 10 small Roman numerals?
11 MR. BARANSK!: Yes.
12 MR. SISK: General Papile, have you 13 ever seen this document before?
14 MR. PAP!LE: I have seen the 15 document, but I don't think I have ever --
16 I won't speculate.
17 I don't think I have ever read it, 19 but I have seen it.
19 MR. SISK: Andi Mr. Czech, have you?
20 MR. CZECH: Yes.
21 MR. SISK: Are you familiar with it?
22 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 3 question.
28 What do you mean by "familiar? Has he ever read it?
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 105 2 MR. SISK: Have you ever previously 3 reviewed this document?
l 4 MR. CZECH: A long time ago. I know l
l 5 the documenti but without reading it, I l
6 wouldn't know what's in it specifically.
7 MR. SISK: Did you have any 8 involvement in the exercise of the Rockland 9 County interim compensating plan?
10 MR. CZECH: I am trying to l 11 recollect, because back in this time frame.
12 . I was functioning as the exercise director.
f 13 However, we were running exercises on an t
14 annual basis at each site and I don't 15 remember doing the scenario f or this one,
- 16 because I think I was doing one upstate at l
l 17 the same time.
IB I would think -- I may have done it, 19 but I don't remember.
l 20 If we could go to OL-3 or OL-5. I am 1
21 sure we could find it in there.
2 Do you have any MR. SISK:
recollection of who would have been responsible for that exercise if you were i
absent at the time?
l l
l I :
l i
l l
[
i i
I DOYLE REPORTING. INC. !
l l
1
I 1 100 2 MR. LANPHER: 1 obj ect to the 3 question.
4 What do you mean, who would have 5 been responsible 7 6 MR. SISK: Let me ask.
7 Do you have any recollection of who 8 was responsible for that exercise if you 9 were not there?
10 MR. LANPHER: You are asking who?
11 Let me obj ect. Who was responsible 12 from the REPG point of view?
13 MR. SISK: Yes. from REPG.
14 MR. CZECH: As exk.-cise director?
15 MR. SISK: Yes.
16 MR. CZECH: During this time frame.
17 most of the exercises were my 19 responsibility.
19 However, because of the large number I
20 we were doing, not only of federal 21 reevaluated exercises, but also preexercise 22 drills, we had to split the load up and I
(
23 believe, at this time, some of those were 4
done by Bruce McQueen.
D MR. SISK: Who is Bruce McQueen?
l l
1 1
l l
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
i l
l A 107 2 MR. CZECH: Currently the executive 3 officer in REPG.
4 MR. SISK: What are his l 5 responsibilities. to the best of your l
l 6 knowledge?
l 7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Are you asking now 8 at this time or as of 19877 9 MR. SISK: I am asking now.
10 MR. CZECH: I would rather defer 11 that to General Papile.
I l 12 MR. PAP!LE: He is my assistant and 13 he takes care of funding and Personal 14 matters for me, takes care of allocation of 15 space. equipment and communications.
16 purchasing and procurements.
17 MR. SISK: I will now hand to the IB reporter and ask him to mark as Exhibit 7.
19 a document entitled, "Affidavit of John D.
20 Leonard, Jr." It's a document filed by l
21 LILCO in this proceeding dated December 10.
D 1987.
3 (Document marked as REPG Exhibit 7 for identification, as of this date.)
2 MR. SISK: General Papile, have you D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
r
1 108 0 ever seen this document before?
3 MR. PAPILE: Never.
4 MR. SISK: Mr. Baranski. Have you?
5 MR. BARANSKI: I have not.
6 MR. SISK And Mr. C:ech?
7 MR. CZECH: No. sir. I have not.
8 MR. SISK: Let me ask you to take a 9 few moments to review the content of this 10 document.
11 MR. CZECH: Any specific parts you 12 would like us to start out with?
13 MR. SISK: I would simply like for 14 you to review the document. It's fairly 15 short, f our pagers, and perhaps this would 16 be a good time for at least the reporter to 17 change his tape.
18 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would like to I9 note for the record, please, that it will O
take more than a few moments to read this I document. It may take indeed 10, 15 minutes.
23 It's a document that these witnesses 24 I have never seen before. It has no D
relationship to their Prior activities.
)
D0YLE REPORTING. INC. l l
l
1 109 2 I think they are entitled to take 3 whatever t ime they need to study this 4 thing. if that's what, indeed, you are 5 asking.
6 If you are indeed asking them to 7 study this document. which I will counsel 8 them to do, your time is running short and 9 I note that it's about 3:40 and Mr. Papile 10 does have to leave. and this deposition 11 does have to end at five o' clock.
12 MR. SISK: Well. let me j Jat say 13 that it's fairly short, easy to read.
14 Let's see if he we can accomplish it 15 in the next five minutes or so.
16 (Recess taken)
, 17 MR. SISK: Back on the record.
IB I will ask this question of each M member of the panel in t urn.
20 Mr. Czech. have you reviewed the I affidavit of plaintiff Leonard?
D MR. CZECH: Yes. I have.
D And can you tell me MR. SISK:
h whether, to your knowledge. the facts h
contained therein and specifically the i
D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
1 110 C facts in paragraphs No. 5 through the end 3 of that affidavit are accurato?
4 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect.
5 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect . There 6 has been no foundation for the fact that 7 what's in this affidavit is fact.
8 Also I obj ect to the use of an 9 affidavit filed by a LILCO employee as a 10 means of questioning the state witnesses 11 from REPG.
12 . Proper questioning would entail 13 probing of their knowledge of things within 14 their understanding. It is not proper to 15 present them with a LILCO affidavit and ask 16 them to comment on whether what's in it is 17 fact.
18 MR. SISK: I think thu question was 19 framed appropriately. taking that into 20 account, but the obj ection is noted.
21 Can you answer the question. Mr.
22 Czech?
23 MR. CZECH: Can you repeat it.
" To your knowledge, are MR. SISK:
the facts contained in paragraphs 5 through l
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 113 2 the end of that affidavit accurate?
3 MR. CZECH: To the best of my 4 knowledge, thcre appears to be some, I 5 won't characterize it as errors, but some 6 statements in here that are news to me that 7 I tend to doubt.
8 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: You know --
9 MR. LANPHER: I am going to obj ect 10 before we go any further. These witnesses 11 have already testified to their very 12 limited involvement, if at all, in the 13 Indian Point compensating matter.
14 To probe their memories concerning a 15 LILCO affidavit is not going to lead to any 16 kind of probative evidence whatsoever. I 17 obj ect.
IB MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I also have a 19 f urther obj ect ion. I have perused, for 20 example, fact No. 10, or whatever it is, I No. 10 which says that "As vice president 2
of engineering, Mr. Leonard was personally D involved in recruiting Power Authority 24 employees to fill these positions."
h I think it is improper to ask these l
l D0YLE REPORTING, INC.
l l
1 112 2 witnesses if that is a fact, because they 3 are not competent to know what Mr.
4 Leonard's involvement might or might not 5 have been. They are not Mr. Leonard.
6 That goes back to what I said before 7 about these people being state workers.
8 They certainly don't have whatever 9 knowledge a LILCO employee might attest to 10 in an affidavit. -
11 For example, fact No. 11 says, "To 12 the best of my knowledge, these witnesses 13 are not competent to testify as to whether 14 it is true or not" --
"true as to whether i
15 or not Mr. Leonard's statement is true, to l
16 the best of his knowledge."
i 17 This is an improper line of 19 questioning. It is not going to produce j
19 probative evidence. It is also a waste of 20 time.
1 21 MR. SISK1 For the record, as was 22 the obj ection.
l l 23 Let me ask you, General Papile, to 4
your knowledge, were any employees o f the
',I New York State Power Authority or l
l l
, f No, INC.
& 113 2 Consolidated Edison authorized by the state 3 to participate as traffic guides and in the 4 other capacities reflected in Mr. Leonard's 5 affidavit in the exercise of the Rockland 6 County plan?
7 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 8 question. Authorized by whom?
9 MR. SISK: By the State of New York.
10 MR. LANPHER: There is.no evidence
, 11 at all that the State of New York 12 authorized any person to do anything.
13 MR. SISK: Can you answer the 14 question, General Pap 11e7 Do you have any i
l 15 knowledge concerning that subj ect ?
I
! 16 MR. PAPILE: Well, based on i
l 17 counsel's obj ect ion, I would like to say 18 that I don't know who authorized him. I do 19 not know of anything in this document l
20 except that I did know that there was talk 21 about bus drivers being used as backup.
22 That's the only knowledge I have.
j 23 MR. SISK: Mr. Baranski, do you have
" any knowledge concerning these facts that I 2D have j ust posed to General Papile?
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
& 114 2 MR. BARANSKI: I would like my 3 response to the fact that I did know that 4 Power Authority personnel participated as 5 field monitoring team members.
6 MR. SISK: And Mr. Baranski, is that 7 the extent of your knowledge with respect 8 to the facts set forth in this affidavit?
9 MR. BARANSKI: That's correct.
10 MR. SISK: Very briefly. General 11 Pap 11e. I don't recall whether I asked you 12 this question in the beginning. but let's 13 go back to the New York State radiological 14 plan.
l 15 I believe that was Exhibit 3.
16 MR. CZECH: 4.
17 MR. LANPHER: 4.
19 MR. SISK: I apologize. Exhibit 4 to 19 this deposition.
20 General Papile. is that your 21 signature or initial on the cover 22 memorandum to that document?
23 MR. PAPILE: I think it is.
l 24 MR. SISK: Do you have a list of the 20 recipients of the New York State l
l DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 l
1 115 2 radiological plan?
3 MR. PAPILE: My office does.
4 MR. SISK: Who in your office 5 maintains that list?
6 MR. PAPILE: One of my secretaries.
7 MR. SISK: Are there recipients on 8 that list who are located on Long Island?
9 MR. PAPILE: To the best of my 10 knowledge, no.
11 MR. SISK: Did the recipients of 12 - this document include various personnel 13 within various state agencies, such as the 14 Department of Health.
15 MR. PAPILE! The agencies that 16 occupied the EOC.
17 MR. SISK: The agencies that 18 occupied the state EOC7 19 MR. PAPILE: Correct.
20 MR. SISK: Was this sent, to the 21 best of your knowledge, to any of the 22 government employees within the various 23 counties for operating nuclear plants in 24 the state?
25 MR. PAPILE: I don't really know.
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
l l
1 16 2 n3: ! 't went to the seven counties.
3 61SK: General Papile, referring 4 cack briefly to the procedure that we 5 alluded to earlier on page Roman Numeral 6 3-18. and that is the provision entitled 7 "State Implementation of a County's Plan."
8 in those instance where a county does not 9 implement the plan itself, General Papile, 10 could that portion of the stato plan be 11 used to implement an emergency response to 12 an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power 13 plant?
14 MR. PAPILE: It could not.
15 MR. SISK: Why not?
16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect to these 17 questions because it calls for gross 18 speculation, as I have stated many times 19 before.
20 Mr. Papile, you may answer.
21 MR. SISK: Why could it not be used?
22 MR. PAPILE: Well. I agree with my 23 counsel. It is speculation. It will not 24 ti usud because the highest authority in 25 the state said it would not be used.
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
l 1
1 119 2 briefly -- that during the deposition of 3 Mr. Halpin, Mr. Lanpher corrected a 4 response that had been given previously to 5 the same fact by witness Halpin four timw..
6 It was subsequently modified by witness 7 Halpin.
8 I will stand on the answer 9 previously given and reflected in the 10 transcript by General Papile. It is not my 11 recollection that that was his answer. And 12 I will leave it at that.
13 General Papile, would the state, 14 would the Disaster Preparedness Commission 15 and the REPG be able to respond to an 16 emergency at the Shoreham nuclear power 17 plant in the absence of an approved Suffolk 18 Ccanty radiological emergency Preparedness 19 plan?
20 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect. I don't 21 know what you mean by "respond."
22 Do anything or do something that 23 would be adequate?
24 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would like to add 25 to that, "be able to" is also vague.
D0YLE REPORTING, INC.
1
1 120 2 MR. SISK: I will accept a portion 3 of Mr. Lanpher's correction.
4 Would the state be able to do 5 anything?
6 MR. PAP!LE: It in pure spuculation.
7 I don't know.
8 MR. S!SX: General Papile, can you 9 tell me what resources. departments.
10 agencies or instrumentalities of the state 11 you would be able to direct if the governor 12 .
ordered you to respond to an emergency at 13 the Shoreham nuclear power plant?
14 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect. One of 15 the grounds f or my obj ection is you 16 included in your question or statement.
17 "you would be able to direct." Now that's 18 a vague instruction, because I am not sure 19 if that means Mr. Pap 11e as a person, as a 20 general, as director of REPG. in whatever 21 capacity he may have.
22 I also obj ect , as we have said over l
l 23 and over again here today, that relates to I
l 24 the implausibility of this hypothetical and l
l 25 the fact that it calls for speculation.
l l
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 12) 2 MR. LANPHER: I also obj ect because 3 I don't believe it has been established 4 that REPG has any direction responsibility 5 in the event of a radiological emergency.
6 1 believe that's Dr. Axelrod or the 7 governor, those are the people who direct.
8 not REPG.
9 MR. SISK: Can you answer?
10 MR. PAPILE: I have no director 11 responsibility. I would have to take 12 orders from higher up.
13 MR. SISK: In your capacity as the 14 head of the REPO and given the knowledge 15 that you have obtained in that capacity.
16 can you tell me what state resources, and 17 by that I mean departments, agencies.
18 personnel, the governor could direct to 19 respond to an emergency at the Shoreham 20 nuclear power plant if he choose to do so?
21 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect . calling for 22 speculation about what the governce would 23 do or Dr. Axelrod would do as designee.
24 MR. SISK: I have asked what 25 resources they could use.
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 122 2 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I have the same 3 obj ect ion.
4 MR. PAPILE: Without a plan. it 5 would be pure speculation. I wouldn't want 6 to answer that without a plan.
7 MR. SISK: By without a plan, do you 8 mean without a Suffolk County approved 9 plan?
10 MR. PAPILE: With any plan. As of 11 this time. I see no plan.
12 MR. SISK: Would a plan other than a 13 plan approved by Suffolk County suffice?
14 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect on the 15 Scounds of vagueness of that question. It 16 has no limits or bounds othet* than a county 17 plan. I think you need to define that 10 question before it can be answered 19 intelligently.
20 MR. SISK: Can you answer the 21 question?
22 MR. PAPILE: I can't answer the 23 question.
24 MR. SISK: General Papile. is the 25 state, and by that I mean the EPC and the DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 1 129 2 MR. SISK: Have you reviewed any 3 Portion of the LILCO Plan in a prior 4 revision?
5 MR. PAPILE: As previously stated, 6 those parts that were given to me by 7 counsel.
8 (
MR. SISK: Was that Revision 8, of 9 the plan ?
10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: If you know.
11 MR. PAPILE: I don't know.
12 MR. SISK: When did you conduct this 13 review?
14 MR. PAPILE: I don't really know.
15 It is over a year, I think.
16 MR. SISK: Let me ask you, General 17 Papile, and I --
let me simply state for 18 the record, I know there will be multiple 19 obj ections to this question. I know what 20 the obj ections are and they are all 21 preserved.
22 The question is assumin<j the 23 following hypothetical: If the Shoreham 24 plant were licensed to operate, the plant 25 war.t into full power operation, an accident DOYLE REFORTING, INC.
1 130 2 occurred at the plant, LILCO notified the 3 governor and the chairman of the DPC that 4 an accident had occurred. And if further 5 the governor ordered you to implement the 6 LILCO plan to respond to that emergency, 7 based on your limited review of the prior 8 version of the LILCO plan, could you 9 implement or assist in the impleme".tation 10 of that plan?
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect to this 12 -
hypothetical. I have to say that it is 13 directly contradictory to what the governor 14 has said, which is that LILCO's plan will 15 not be implemented by the State of New 16 York. Any hypothetical that includes that 17 in direct contravention to the governor s 18 statement is absolutely unintelligible and 19 defective. .
20 MR. SISK: Let me state for the 21 record that the NRC rule assumes that the 22 plan be implemented in the absence of 23 another procedure, and that the state has 24 changed its mind previously on this issue.
25 Could you answer the question?
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
a 131 2 MR. LANPHER: Are you asking in 3 essence, putting aside the hypothetical 4 part, do you feel as if you are familiar 5 now? Is that really what you are asking?
6 MR. SISK: That's what I am asking.
7 Could you implement the LILCO Plan based on 8 the review that you have conducted?
9 MR. LANPHER: I have the same 10 obj ection.
11 MR. PAPILE: No way.
12 MR. SISK: Why not?
13 MR. PAPILE: There is so much to a
! 14 plan that we haven't seen, I have no way of 15 even surmising what I am missing. Ne way, 16 and I want to be emphatic.
17 MR. SISK: And that is because you 18 have not reviewed the Plan and you are not i
19 sufficiently familiar with it to know 20 whether you could.
21 .MR. PAPILE: I don'" even know there 22 is a plan.
1
! 23 MR. SISK: General Papile, have you l
l 24 been directed not to review that LILCO 25 plan?
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 133 2 to the best of my knowledge, not to review 3 it.
4 MR. SISK: What time frame did that 5 occur?
6 MR. PAPILE: In the early time 7 frame, I can't remember, but long before I 8 became the director. About 1983.
9 MR. SISK: General Papile, I will 10 now hand to the reporter and ask him to 11 mark as Exhibit 8a document which bears a l
12 cover of a letter dated March 24, 1982.
13 This is a letter to Mr. L. Czech from Mr.
14 C.A. Daverio of LILCO. It is on LILCO l
15 letterhead.
16 (Document marked REPG Exhibit 8 for 17 identification, as of this date.)
l l 18 MR. PAPILE: I do not recognize that 1
l l
19 document.
20 MR. SISK: Mr. Czech, do you 21 recognize this document?
22 MR. CZECH: Not otfhand. I see it 23 was directed to me.
24 MR. SISK: Mr. Baranski, do you 25 recognize the document?
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 l
l l
1 134 ,
1 I
2 MR. BARANSKI: No. sir, I do not. j 1
l 3 MR. SISK: Mr. Czech, were you i 1
4 involved in a review of a Plan such as this l I
5 one submitted by the Long Island Lighting 6 Company to the State DPC?
7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect on 8 relevancy grounds.
9 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect also, Mr.
10 Sisk, because you said. "a plan such as 11 this one."
Does this exhibit contain a plan? I 12 13 haven't read it enough. I see it talks 14 about scenarios and obj ectives. Is this a 15 plan? Is this purported to be a plan?
16 MR. SISK: Item 2 on the cover 17 letter states "Addressed" --
18 MR. LANPHER: That doesn't establish 19 that this const it ut es a plan. Your 20 question assumes that this is a Plan. I am 21 not sure thet that's established, so I 22 obj ect to the question.
23 MR. ZAHNLEUYER: Is there a question 24 pending?
23 MR. SISK: I have asked Mr. Czech l
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 135 0 whether he was involved in reviewing any 3 plan submitted by Long Island Lighting 4 Company to the DPC in 1982.
5 ME. LANPHER: Th..t's a different 6 question. I would j ust note from the 7 record what you asked before.
8 MR. CZECH: I was involved in 9 reviewing portions of the Suffolk County 10 plan as prepared by LILCO and/or their 11 contractors. This particular doc ume.n t , as 12 far as I know, was never reviewed against 13 an 0654 checklist, and was not included in 14 the state portion of the disaster 15 preparedness plan.
16 MR. SISK: When you say "this l
17 document," are you referring specifically 1
1 18 to this exhibit?
19 MR. CZECH: Exhibit No. 8. That's 20 correct.
21 MR. SISK: Was any version, to the 22 best of your recollection, of such a plan 23 submitted by L?LCO, reviewed against Newreg 24 06547
- 23 MR. CZECH: Similar to Exhibit 87 DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
I i 136 2 MR. SISK: Yes.
I 3 MR. CZECH: To the best of my 4 knowledge, it was never evaluated by anyone 5 at REPG against 0654. ]
6 MR. SISK: Do you know whether ;
7 anyone within REPG made any recommendat ion 8 to the State DPC concerning approval or 9 disapproval of a plan submitted by LILCO 10 for Suffolk County?
l 11 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to your 12 question because I think it's vague.
13 I don't know what you mean by I
i 14 "approval" or "disapproval."
15 If you could clarify those terms, it 16 might not be obj ect ionable.
17 MR, SISK: Do you understand the 1,8 question?
19 MP. CZECH: Yes.
l 1 20 As far as REPG was concerned, I do 21 not know of any recommendation for approval 22 or disapproval of any plan submitted by 23 LILCO for Suffolk County.
l 24 hP. SISK: Do you know of any 1
25 recommendation for approval or disapproval l
l l
l 1
l l
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 1
1 137 2 of such a plan by any part of the DPC, the 3 DPC staff, for example?
4 MR. CZECH: That. I couldn't speak 5 to.
6 All I can do is tell you we provided 7 a checklist of how we thought the plan 8 stacked up against 0654. Period.
9 There was no approval or disapproval 10 or recommendation. What happened after 11 that, I have no idea.
12 MR. SISK: By "we," are you 13 ref erring to REPG?
14 MR. CZECH: That's correct.
15 MR. SISK: Let me ask you this.
16 Do you recall whether one such 17 review was conducted or whether there were 18 multiple reviews?
i 19 MR. CZECH: There was at least --
20 (Discussion off the record among the 21 witnesses) 22 MR. CZECH: I believe that there was 23 only one review and I think it may have 24 been of a second or third revision of a 25 plan, but as far as I know, there was one
1 139 2 review.
3 MR. SISK; I j ust have one final 4 document before General Papile leaves.
5 This is a document that I am asking 6 the reporter to mark as Exhibit 9 to this 7 deposition.
8 (Document marked as REPG Exhibit 9 9 for identification, as of this date.)
10 MR. SISK: It is a document 11 entitled, "Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of 12 Obj ections and Point of Law." which I will 13 vouch, for the record, was filed by the New 1
14 York State Attorney General on or about 15 December 9. 1982 in a legal proceeding in l 16 the Supreme Court of the County od Albany.
l l 17 It includes as a portion, and I l
18 apologize, one page of this is missing, the l
19 first page of a document which constitutes 20 a motion to dismiss.
21 It also contains an affidavit by 1
l 22 Donald B. Davidoff which states that Mr.
23 Davidoff is the director of the 24 Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group 25 of the New York State Disaster Preparedness DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
i 1 139 2 Commission.
3 General Papile, have you ever- seen 4 this document or any part of it before?
5 MR. PAPILE: To the best of my 6 knowledge, no.
7 MR. SISK: Mr. Baranski?
8 MR. BARANSKI: I have not.
9 MR. SISK: And Mr. Czech?
10 MR. CZECH: I don't believe I have 11 seen the part that was filed by Robert 12 Abrams.
13 I may have seen the affidavit by l
14 Donald Davidoff, but it's a long time ago.
l 15 MR. SISK: Was Mr. Davidoff, in l
l 16 fact, the director of REPG at this time, 17 that is, roughly December 9, 19827 18 MR. CZECH: That's correct.
19 MR. SISK: Did you assist in any way 20 in preparing this affidavit with Mr.
l 21 Davidoff?
l 22 MR. CZECH: I did not.
23 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 24 question.
25 He has already said he doesn't have DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 140 2 any specific recollection of the affidavit.
3 MR. SISK: Agains the record will 4 reflect what it reflects.
5 Now, General Papile, I realize you 6 have to leave fairly shortly. Let me j ust 7 ask you this question.
8 When Mr. Davidoff directed you not 9 to review or continue to review any plans 10 submitted by LILCO relating to Shoreham, 11 did he tell you why you should not review 12 it?
13 MR. PAPILE: I would like to answer 14 that by. he directed not only me. but the l 15 group.
16 We did know -- whether he told us or 17 not, I don't know, but because of the i
! 18 publicity being received, the newspapers 19 and so forth, we knew there was litigation l
l 20 pending.
21 And I am not sure whether he told l
22 us. whether I read it, or whether it came 23 through the fifth hole or.whatever. I am 24 not sure. But we did know there was 23 lit igat ion Pending.
l l
I l !
l l
DOYLE REPORTING, INC. '
l-
1 141 2 MR. SISK: And did Mr. Davidoff give 3 you any further exP lanation as to why REPG 4 should cease using the Plan?
5 MR. PAPILE: I am really not sure.
6 MR. SISK: You j ust don't recall at 7 this time?
8 MR. PAPILE: I don't recall.
9 I am sure he may have said more, but l 10 I don't know.
l l
l 11 MR. SISK: At this note, it's 4:30.
1 l
12 I do, in all honesty, have l
l 13 additional questions for General Papile.
f 14 MR. PAPILE: You can take my place.
15 (Discussion off the record) 16 MR. SISK: I will simply note for 17 the rscord, I do hava some additional j
18 questions for General Papile, and Mr.
l 49 Zahnleuter, I am sure, will make the 20 appropriate pronouncements at the end of l
21 the deposition as to what that may or may 22 not entail.
23 I understand you have to leave.
l l
24 (Whereupon, Mr. Papile left the t
25 deposition room.)
l l
nnviF RFPnRTfNG. INC.
1 106 2 well, for radiological emergency response 3 exercises for the various plans?
4 MR. BARANSK!: Could you be more 5 specific with the type of communication?
6 MR. SISK: The communication lines 7 specifically within the state EOC and the 8 county EOC.
9 If it depends on the plan, j ust tell 10 me that.
11 MR. LANPHER: But the first part of 12 the question -- I lost it. Who maintains 13 whatever equipment exists? Is that it?
14 MR. SISK: Let me put it this way.
15 By "maintains," I mean who operates 16 equipment? Who has control of it?
17 MR. LANPHER: Oh, O.K.
18 MR. BARANSKI: In accordance with 19 the plan at the exist ing operat ing power 20 plants, we have what is known as the RAC 21 action line that is in existence between 22 the operating plants and the state EOC in 23 Albany.
24 MR. SISK: Mr. Baranski, in the 25 event of an actual emergency at the DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 147 2 Shoreham plant, would it be physically 3 possible, in your opinion, to deploy state 4 personnel to, for example, the state office 5 b ui l d i.19 in Hauppauge on Long Island and 6 direct a -- well, let me put it this way, 7 in an effort to respond to a radiological 8 emergency at Shoreham and maintain 9 communications with the state EOC7 10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Obj ect ion on 11 speculation grounds. Also failure to l 12 specify.
13 What state personal are you talking
- 14 about. Mr. Sisk, because obviously there l
15 are state personal in the state office l 16 building in Hauppauge on a regular basis.
17 MR. LANPHER: I think the question 18 got very confusing. I obj ect on that 19 ground.
20 MR. SISK: Can you answer the 1 21 question?
22 MR. BARANSKI: No, sir, I can't l
l 23 because without a plan, I would j ust be f 24 speculating on what communications are 1
25 available.
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
i 155 2 gentlemen. Referring back to your 3~ affidavit, the affidavit which I believe 4 was marked as Exhibit 2 to the deposition, 5 it contains headings referring to "Ingested 6 Pathway Responses" and "Recovery and 7 Reentry."
8 I recognize you have stated you have 9 haven't reviewed the LILCO plan in its 10 entirety.
11 Have you reviewed the LILCD plan l 12 insofar as it relates to those two areas, 13 that is, ingestion pathway and recovery and 14 reentry?
15 MR. BARANSKI: I have not.
16 MR. CZECH: Neither have !.
17 MR. SISK: Have you reviewed 18 portions of the plan that relate to
! 19 ingestion pathway and recovery?
20 MR. CZECH: I have not.
21 MR. BARANSKI: Neither have I.
22 MR. SISK Now, let me continue with 23 the affidavit.
24 Mr. Czech, refer to the bottom of 25 page 3 of that document. The last sentence l
{
1 l
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 156 2 states, "New York State Plan" --
"The New 3 York State Plan is, in fact, site-specific 4 for recovery and reentry activities and for i
5 all activities, including ingestion 6 pathway, but does not work and could not 7 work as LILCO postulates."
8 Can you explain for me why that is 9 the case?
10 MR. CZECH: I will have to try to ,
l 11 remember all the material preceding this, l
12 but the recovery and reentry, I believe the 13 LILCO allegat ion was very generic and it 14 was a state responsibility.
15 And I believe if you really look at 16 the plans in Article 2-B, that 17 recovery / reentry is primarily the I
18 responsibility of the local government 19 first, with support from the state 20 government, not the other way around.
21 MR. SISK: Now, Mr. Czech, this 22 sentence st ates that the New York St at e 23 plan is, in fact, site-specific for 24 recovery and reentry activities.
25 Have such site-specific plans been DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
& A57 2 exercised for all of the operating nuclear 3 Power plants in the State of New York.
4 specifically with respect to recovery and 5 reentry activities?
6 MR. CZECH: Elements of recovery and 7 reentry have been exercised at all of the 8 sites, but there is currently no guidance 9 for what constitutes an adequate recovery /
10 reentry response.
11 So apparently. I guess we have not 12 really gotten full credit or we ar e not 13 really sure what they are looking for in 14 terms of recovery and reentry.
15 MR. SISK: Now I will ask vou to 16 refer to the bottom of page 4 of this 17 affidavit.
18 At the bottom of page 4. the last 19 sentence states, "As a result, the state 20 could not adequately respond to a Shoreham 21 emergency without a detailed Shoreham 22 specific of f-site plan appended to the 23 state generic plan, without the training of 24 state and local personnel concerning those 25 specifics, without the development of DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1* 158 2 internal agency procedures and withcut the 3 evaluation of state and local personnel 4 during exercises and drills."
5 Let me ask you first. Mr. C:ech.
6 what does the word "adequately" mean at the 7 beginning of that sentence?
8 MR. CZECH: My definition would be 9 to insure the health and safety of the 10 population.
11 MR. SISK: Does this sentence mean 12 that the state's response would be 13 better -- the state's response to a 14 Shoreham emergency would be better if these 15 specifics that are delineated in this 16 sentence were provided and the training 17 delineated therein occurred. than without 18 those spacifics and without that training?
19 MR. LANPHER: Can I have that i
20 question read back. plean9.
21 (Record read) 22 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the
! 23 question.
24 I think it's very confusing. these l
25 words "responsibilit ies" --
l l
l l
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
I i
1 159 2 MR. SISK: Do you understand the 3 question?
4 MR. CZECH: After I heard it read 5 back. I am not so sure. )
1 6 Absent planning and training and 7 testing, I have no idea what, if any, 8 response there would be.
9 So I don't know how I could to characterize if it's going to be better or 11 worse or not. I don't know if there will 12 be a response.
13 With these things, I think we have 14 shown that as we have gone along in 15 improving plans, cont inuing training, doing 16 drills and exercises, I think a review of 17 the post-exercise assessments for the 18 various operating plants would show that we 19 have improved.
20 And FEMA is saying we are doing a 21 pretty good j ob and they are comf ortable in 22 saying that we can insure the safety of the l
! 23 residents that live within the limits of 24 the emergency planning zone.
25 MR. SISK: This sentence says l
l l
l gl DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
& 160 2 unequivocably, does it not, that the state 3 could not adequately respond without a 4 detailed Shoreham specific off-site plan 5 and training and a number of other l
I 6 specifics?
7 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect . The i
8 sentence says what it says.
9 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: That's true. You
(
j 10 are asking for something else. Mr. Sisk.
l l 11 MR. SISK: Is that a correct 12 characterization of what the sentence says?
l 13 MR. CZECH: The sentence is as it's I 14 written.
15 MR. SISK: My question is, since the
! 16 sentence says that the state could not
(
l 17 adequately respond without the specifics 18 delineated in the sentence, does that mean 19 that a response to a Shoreham emergency l 20 would be enhanced by providing for those l
l 21 specifics?
22 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect.
l 23 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect. Calling for i 24 speculation.
25 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: This has been asked DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
l l
1 161 2 and answered also.
3 MR. SISK: Can you answer the 1 4 question?
l 5 MR. CZECH: Not any better than I 6 did before.
j 7 MR. SISK: Let me refer you to the
- 8 fifth page of the affidavit. page 7. I'm 9 sorry, the fifth page of the affidavit, i 10 Paragraph 7.
11 There is a reference in the second l
l 12 sentence of that Paragraph to the support 13 role of counties in the ingestion pathway 14 phase.
15 Now. Mr. Baranski, does Suffolk 16 County play a support role in the ingestion 17 pathway phase for the Millstone plant in 18 Connecticut?
19 MR. BARANSKI: Without a plan. I 20 can't speculate on what Suffolk County 21 would do.
l 22 MR. SISK: I am asking whether 23 Suffolk County plays a support role in the
{ 24 ingestion pathway phase for'the Millstone 25 nuclear power plant.
l l
l l
l DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
g
. - . ~ . - - -.
1 162 2 MR. LANPHER: And Mr. Baranski 3 answered that precise question.
4 MR. SISK: Does it have a support 5 role in any plan for the Millstone nuclear 6 power plant.
7 MR. BAhANSKI: Since I haven't 8 reviewed any plans for Millstone, I can't 9 answer that.
10 MR. SISK: Does Nassau County play a l 11 support role in the ingestion pathway phase 1
! 12 for the Indian Point power plant?
I 13 MR. BARANSKI: By the very nature'of I
14 an ingestion pathway problem and looking at 15 the Indian Point site, we have not dealt l 16 with Nassau County for an ingestion 17 pathway.
18 MR. SISK: The New York State 19 plan -- I'm sorry, the New York State plan l 20 does not deal with Nassau County as far as 21 ingestion pathways?
22 MR. BARANSKI: No, sir, I am not 23 saying that at all.
i
! 24 If you looked at the maps and you 25 showed us the maps and Nessau County is DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 163 2 involved partially with the 50-mile EPZ of 3 Indian Point -- now we have not stressed 4 Nassau's involvement in an ingestion 5 pathway exercise to date at Indian Point.
6 MR. SISK: Well, my question to you 7 makes specific reference to the statement 8 in the affidavit of -- and I believe and I 9 will j ust note this for the record, that 10 the map contained on page K-9 of the state 11 plan appears to encompass a large portion 12 of Nassau County in the Indian Point 13 50-mile EPZ.
14 My question is, does Nassau County 15 play a support role in the ingestion 16 pathway phase or any plan for the Indian 17 Point plant?
i 18 (Discuar, ion off the record between 19 Mr. Baranski and Mr. Czech) 20 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: While the witnesses 21 are conferring, Mr. Sisk, it's five 22 o' clock.
l 23 I will allow the questioning to l 24 continue for a few more minutes, but I 25 suggest that you begin to wrap up this DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 164 2 deposition.
3 MR. BARANSKI: By the very 4 definition of the plan and the areas that 5 are affected within the 50-m11e EPZ. if 6 there were an ingestion problem in Nassau 7 County, they would be in a support role.
8 MR. SISK: Can you refer me to any 9 document which sets forth that support 10 role?
11 MR. BARANSKI: Not right offhand.
12 MR. SISK: How would they be 13 involved in a support role?
14 MR. BARANSKI: In the event of an 15 ingestion pathway situation, j ust like it 16 was at the Ginna exercise, we may call upon 17 the counties to support us in the various 18 activities that are involved in the 19 ingestion pathway problem.
20 MR. SISK: Does the state have any 21 specific plans or agreements with Nassau 22 County to play that specific type of 23 cupport role?
24 Do you know, Mr. Czech?
25 MR. CZECH: As far as I know, at DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
g
1 165 2 this stage, we have not developed those 3 with Nassau County.
4 MR. SISK: Now let me refer you to 5 Page 6 -- I'm sorry, it's the bottom of 6 page 5 and the top of page 6 of this 7 affidavit.
8 There is a passage in paragraph 8.
9 In the interest of time. I won't read that i
10 into the record.
11 I will ask you to simply review that 12 very quickly.
13 MR. LANPHER: All of paragraph 8 or 24 j ust some portion of it?
l 15 MR. SISK: Yes, all of paragraph 8.
16 Now, with respect to that paragraph, 17 there is a particular area -- the second j 18 sentence of that paragraph refers to l
19 experience at other sites in New York l
2C State.
21 Let me ask once again whether this 22 statement means that, and if it doesn't 23 mean it, tell me so.
24 But does this statement mean that 25 planning, training and drilling enhance i
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 166 2 site-specific response capabilities for 3 radiological emergencies?
4 MR. CZECH: I would say, yes.
5 MR. BARANSKI* Yes.
6 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: With that, Mr.
7 Sisk, the time for this deposition has 8 expired.
9 It's after five o' clock, probably 10 seven or eight minutes af ter five o' clock, 11 so this deposition must conclude.
12 MR. SISK: 0.K.
13 I will note for the record that, as 14 with certain previous depositions. I have 15 attempted to conduct as much questioning as 16 I can on an issue-by-issue basis.
17 Of course, counsel can have 18 disagreements as to issues which -- ones I l 19 believe are relevant and ones the other ,
l l 20 side believe are not.
21 I have tried to stick to issues 22 which I believe, to LILCO, are quite 23 relevant to this proceeding. ,
24 I do have have a number of 25 questions, as I noted earlier, about the DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
gg
Attachment 2 l
l l
l l
i I
L
' ' ~ ' ' ~ ~ , - - - , _ _ _ , , "*W'-Pwgy , _
8 i
i resume, I would only like to focus on the developments, I 2 guess, since 1985. Really, I guess your promotion to 3 Deputy Chief Inspector in the Of fice of Chief of District, 4 and your most recent promotion.
5 Can you describe for me briefly your duties as 6 Deputy Chief Inspector in the Office of Chief of District?
7 A Well, as I indicated on Page 2, I assisted the 8 Chief of District in Staff Supervision in coordination of 9 uniform patrol functions within the Police District. The to Police District is comprised of some five hundred and some 11 odd square miles in the County of Suffolk, and we are 12 responsible for the Uniform Patrol function.
13 We have six precincts. They are normal average ;
14 complement of uniform personnel assigned to the several 15 bureaus and the uniform precinct, which number somewhere in is the vicinity of sixteen to eighteen hundred men. The law 17 enforcement function is multi-faceted, and requires 18 considerable ef fort and coordination.
19 The Chief of District's Office also performs l
20 inspections, surveys, manpower analyses, and reporting 21 criteria. I assisted in that function.
22 0 Is it fair to say that your job in the office of i
9 1
Chief of District was probably more of an administrative 2
nature in administering all of these various uniform 3
patrolmen, as comapred to, say, -- and then is what I re ally 4
want to kind of focus on -- expertise that is relevant to 5
your testimony -- such as planning or testing of these people o
to see if they properly do their job?
7 A During staff function, and the conduct of 3
inspections and visits to the several commands, most 9
normally in a supervisory capacity, you are conducting to inspections, evaluations, and analysis of the function of 11 the personnel during the course of those visits, and you do 12 plan for special events that you have advance warning of 13 and, of course, you are constantly reviewing with 14 subordinate commanders the appropriateness of existing 15 plans for those which occur spontaneously.
I 16 So, there is a planning supervision, coordination, 17 liaison. The function can't be described as a nine to five 18 task.
l 19 Q In the extent you function in Gvaluating the 1
l 20 performance of people underneatn you in the organization, I
21 how do you really go about that evaluative prccess?
22 A You review reports that are submitted by i _
10 i
g personnel. You review the circumstances that surround a 2 particular incident or time frame. You interview and review 3
reports of other personnel who had taken part in these 4 same set of circumstances in that activity or reviewed the 5
activity, and you arrive at decisions, or conclusions.
e O And I take it in April of this year you lef t th at 2 job to take the job of Assistant Chief Inspector, is that a correct?
9 A Yes, sir, I was reassigned, to O Could you explain to me generally your it responsibilities as Assistant Chief Inspector?
12 A Well, I now work in the of fice of Chief of 13 Headquarters. That staff function is responsible for, as 14 I have indicated on page 2, the units that provide support 15 servicas to the Department, and the department has approx-16 imately twenty-seven to twenty-eight hundred sworn personnel, l
i 17 pro tably eight hundred or more civilian personnel, and the 18 subordinate units include supply and procurement, fleet 19 management , which is beyond the normal transpotation and 20 mainter.ance unit of our own that supports our police 21 depa rtmen t . That is the county -wide service of fleet 22 man age:aen t. The property clerk's office. The personnel
11 1 bureau, and the communications and records bureau. ,
1 2 O Let me ask you to help me a little bit to l 3
understand this organization.
4 A Yes.
5 0 Two of the bureaus I am most interested in is 6 first the personnel bureau. Can you describe for me a little 7 bit of what their functions are?
8 A The personnel bureau in which Inspector Cosgrove 9 is assigned as Commander, has subordinate units; the to personnel section, the evaulation section, the Police 11 Academy Section, -- the Police Academy has the fire- arms 12 training unit, the audio-visual unit, the recruit training uni t, the in-service training unit. They a.1,so have a 13 14 research and development unit that is within the Academy 15 staff.
l le We have an employee -- I am trying to find the 17 proper phrase, an appropriate one -- they review prospective 18 candidates for the police department, do extensive backgroun d is investigations, and coordiate that effort with outside l
l 20 agencies, conduct interviews concerning the candidate's l
l 21 character, trustworthiness , and medical capacity.
i 22 In addition to which recently there was
12 1
developec anc will ce on board for the long term, the 2
recruitment unit, a police recruit recruitment unit.
All of these units come under Deputy Inspector
- 3 4
Cosgrove in the personnel bureau.
3 Q Can you also describe for me the responsibilities 6
of the Communications and Records Bureau?
7 A The Communications and Records Bureau, they 8 are two --
9 Q Two dif ferent bureaus? ,
10 A Two separate functicns, but within the same 11 bureau. Cummunications per se is the technical aspects of racio and telephone communication. They have a technical 12 la service unit. They are responsible for the purchase, j
i 14 installation , and upkeep of all of our radio communica-15 tions.
16 They have a telephone technical service unit 17 which coordinates our demand for services with the New York i
is Telephone Company and maintans certain internal telephone 19 communication s .
20 They also with our cmergency complaint opera tors 21 and our dispatch section, commanications duty of ficer, these f
22 people are all on a twenty-four hour basis. That comes i
hhm 1
13 1 under the communications bureau as well.
2 They are responsible for, and maintain, all of 3 the communcations towers and satellite dishes that are 4 throughout the county, some of which extend beyond the 5 county, on a cooperative and coordinating basis with other 6 law enforcement and State and County agencies.
1 The central records bureau is the respository a for all of the records that are maintained -- completed and 8 maintained by the police department pertaining to the i
< 10 activities of the police department.
11 Q So, I take it that includes both records dealing 12 with criminal activities within the County, as well as 13 things like traf fic accidents cnd various other reports.
14 A Those are many of the records that are there, 1 15 yes, sir.
16 Q I take it -- and we will get into this later --
17 but the material that serves as the basis for the memorandum l
F
! 18 -- I don't know the position of Mr. Webber, to you, were I
18 based on records that were maintained by that Bureau, is 20 that correct?
21 A Right. Copies of all vehicle accidents that l
22 are responded to and investigated by members of this
14 t department -- 104-A's, are maintained in the Central Records 2 Bureau, and Lt. Webber was, at the time of my request, 3
the Commanding Of ficer of that Bureau.
4 Q In your new f unction as Assistant Chief Inspector, 5
do you have many responsibilities that get you into the 6
planning area as you did say when you were the Deputy q Chief Inspector, or have some of those responsibilities now 8 gone because you have a dif ferent group of people you are 9 supervising?
go A You are right. It is less, right.
11 Q Do you do any kind of planning activities now?
12 A I haven' t been called upon to support that 13 planning effort in the last few months.
14 Q You have or have not?
15 A Have not.
16 Q Okay. Mr. Roberts, 7. would like --
l 11 A Excuse me. You know, every day administrative 1y is we are planning for the ef ficient operation of our units.
19 We are in a support capacity. If you could understand the 20 up-front, on the line type, that is the chief patrolling i
l 21 distri ct -- that is the uniform force from which I came in 22 April.
I 15 l
1 1
But in order to satisfy those needs, whether they 2 are to be planned for, or spontaneous, we are always in this constant administrative effort to support whatever the 4 district requires, okay? ,
5 And to the extent it might require some level e of planning, yes; I am involved in it, on a continuum, as 7 well as relating to the subordinate commanders in the a headquarters division on a continuum, to maintain their 9 contribution levels so that their responses would be 10 ef ficient and timely or spontaneous events.
. 11 In other words for the plans which we have on the 12 shelf, so to speak, in which we would grab for in an j 13 unforeseen incident.
14 So, it isn't that I am not planning planning. It 15 is of a lesser level, yes, in my mind, only because uniform to force is the front line. The demands are greater for those 17 people, 18 Q Chief Roberts can you identify for me the I i ,
19 contentions you believe you will be testifying on in this j 20 proceeding?
l 21 A I believe that I wiS1 be testifying on l
l l 22 20.E, 21.I, 40, and 41, and I believe it is 20.E and F.
A Nm-t
44 1 are Lt. Webber's response to your request, is that correct?
2 A This is what he produced to me.
3 0 Okay. Chie f Roberts , I would like to briefly go
- 4. over each of these documents so that I understand what they 5 are.
6 If I can have you look at page 2 of Roberts 7 Exhibit No. 2. The first column, which is entitled, Precinct ,
8 I take it that there are six precincts that cover all of l
9 Suf folk County, is that correct?
1 to A No, sir. Suffolk County is probably nine hundred 11 and twenty square miles. The p.olice district comprises only 12 some five hundred and forty square miles of that entire 13 geography. Generally described as the five western towtaships 14 within Suf folk County. From Nassau County line to the 15 easternly Riverhead, Southampton, Brookhaven town lines.
le Riverhead, Southampton, and eas t to the points , orient t.nd 11 Montauk are separate and distinct police jurisdictions within is each down or incorporated village therein.
. 19 So, when you say there are six precincts, there 1
20 are six Suffolk County Police Department Precincts in the 21 Suf folk County Police District, which comprises the five 22 we s te rn townships .
w d b i
_ _ _ _ _ _ ___. , - _ -_.. _ ___= ~ , _ - . . , . . . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _
Attachment 3 t
4
)
I r
p 4
)
v f
1 1
1
]
1 i.
l i
f
]
s b
1 1 .
I I i
i I
1 l
i )
8 4
i 1
f' ' ' ' ' ' ~ - - - - . . - . . , , , ,_ ' "N" * 'f'Nw>gmw%, _
1 7 Rob 0rto 2 detectives?
3 A. My position is the assistant chief of 4 detectives.
5 Q. Assistant chief of detectives?
6 A. I provide staff and line supervision 7 to some -- to a division that is composed of three 8 bureaus and has the better part of 375 sworn 9 officers performing investigative functions.
10 MS. STONE: Mark this as Exhibit 2.
11 (Document marked Roberts Exhibit 2 12 for identification, as of this date.)
13 Q. Chief Roberts, to whom do you 14 currently report within the Police Department?
15 A. My immediate superior is Chief Arthur 16 Feldman. He is the chief of detectives. In his i
17 absence, it would be the chief inspector who is i
18 Peter Murray.
19 Q. I show you what has been marked as 20 Exhibit 2 to this deposition and ask if you 21 recognize this document?
22 A. That is an organizational chart that 23 was -- that had an effective date of July 31, 24 1985. Since that period of time there have been 25 some modificat ions to the organizational structure we--.
1 8 Robcrto 2 and there is currently another organizational 3 chart in place, but basically, as far as the three 4
divisions ar e concerned which I think would be the 5 focus of your inquiry, it is in fact the 6 investigation division, the patrol division and 7 the headquarters division.
8 Q. You referred to a new organizational 9 chart.
10 Do you know when that became 11 effective or available?
12 A. I'm going to say 1987.
{
13 Q. The beginning of 1987 or the end of f
i
{
14 19877 15 A. During 1987.
16 MS. STONE: We will follow up in 17 writing but we hereby make a demand for the i
18 newer organizational chart.
19 MR. MILLER: I think you may have 20 that chart, Ms. S t or.e . Of course, if you 21 do not, I'll be more than happy to provide 1
22 it b ut I believe it was filed in connection l
l 23 with the exercise litigation during 1987, l
24 perhaps in connection with the testimony 25 rendered by Chief Roberts and others in the I
1 9 Roberts 2 Suffolk County Police Department in 3 connection with contention 40 and 4 contention 41.
5 MS. STONE: If it has been filed, 6 then we will find it. Since we don't have 7 it today --
8- Q. Would you take a blue pen and 9 indicate for me, if you will, any changes to this 10 chart. to the extent that you can, to reflect the 11 new way that the department is organized? If that 12 is impossible, let me know and let me know why.
13 A. It is not impossible but it is
- 14 extremely time-consuming. It -- changes are in 6
15 areas that are outside of my present province of 16 responsibilities. I could tell you this, if you 17 give me two minutes. I could go get one.
18 Q. Why don't we do that, that is fine.
19 (Recess taken) .
l 20 MS. STONE: Let's mark this as 21 Deposition Exhibit 3.
22 (Document marked Roberts Exhibit 3 l
23 for identification, as of this date.)
24 Q. Chief Roberts, I show you what has 25 been marked as Deposition Exhibit 3 and ask you if l
e
1 10 Roberto 2 this is the organizational chart to which you j ust 3 referred as being the most recent one that became 4 effective at some point in 19877 5 A. That is.
6 Q. O.K. Can you take a pen for me, i f 7 you will, and circle the j ob t h at you currently 0 have?
9 A. Yes.
10 (Witness complies) 11 MS. STONE: For the record, he
(
12 circled it in blue ink, "Detective 13 Division, Office of the Chief of 14 Detectives."
15 Q. You are the assistant chief of 16 detectives?
17 A. Yes, ma'am.
18 Q. And the chief inspector is whom?
i 19 A. Peter Murray.
I 20 Q. And then to whom does Peter Murray?
I 21 -
A. He would report to the commissioner i
22 of police.
23 Q. Directly to the commissioner?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. O.K. Can you describe for me 1
4
i 11 Robcrto 2 generally what types of responsibilities fall 3 within the j urisdiction of the chief of detectives 4 as opposed to the chief of patrol or the chief of 5 headquarters?
6 A. The chief of detectives insures staff 7 and line supervision over those members assigned 8 by the commissioner to the investigation division.-
9 The investigation division is charged with the 10 responsibility to investigate all felonies, sex, 11 vice and gambling incidents and to conduct any 12 other investigations in cooperation with the 13 uniformed patrol force er as directed by the 14 commissioner of police.
15 Q. Do you have authority over un i f ormed 16 patrol officers that are not detectives?
l
- , 17 A. We have some silver shields, uniform.
- 18 We have some police officers.
1 19 Q. As opposed to detectives?
20 A. That's right. In other words, police 21 officer is a grade. Detective is a grade. We do, 22 yes, have some police officers assigned to the I
23 detective division.
24 Q. What does the office of the chief of l
25 patrol have authority over in the Suffolk County l
l t
.. e .we .m e e- 'e **
- M - . . - - - - - = .
1 12 Robcrte 2 Police Department?
3 A. The chief of patrol is charged with 4 providing uniformed patrol to all areas of the 5 police district and in order to enhance that 6 iunction, he also has within the division a 7
highway patrol bureau which is -- which has patrol 8 function on the Long Island Expressway, concurrent 9
patrol effort on the Sunrise Highway, and they 10 have specie). enforcement groups that patrol areas 11 throughout the police district on an as-needed 12 basis.
13 There also is a special patrol bureau 14 which is comprised of a crime scene unit, an 15 aviation unit, an emergency services unit, and 16 those people supplement and enhance the patrol 17 effort on an ap-needed basis.
1B Q. I see a category on this chart and I j 19 believe it is the category you j ust ref erred to as 20 the energency service section?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. What is the responsibility of that 23 section?
24 A. Could I give you the other bureau 25 within the patrol division first?
1 13 Roberts 2 Q. Sure. I'm sorry. I thought you were 3 finished.
4 A. No.
5 Q. Go ahead.
6 A. The other bureau is the marine 7 bureau. To the north and south we are surrounded 8 by water. Long Island Sound and the Atlantic 9 Ocean, and we have a tremendous amount of 10 waterways along the barrier beach, between the 11 barrier beach, Fire island, and the mainland south 12 shore.
13 The marine bureau is responsible to i
14 staf f marine vessels for the purpose of patr cling 15 and enforcement of the beating public as well. '
- 16 They have assigned sectors of patrol on the l 17 barrier beach, physically, to which the marine
- 18 bureau has people that they assign to that on a i
i 19 24-hour basis.
20 Those are the three bureaus within 21 the patrol division.
22 Q. Now. this emergency service section 23 under the special patrol bureau under the office 24 of the chief of patrol, what is it responsible 25 for? '
.--.-m-,---. - , _ _ . - - - - _ _ - , - _ . _ . - _ _ _ , - - . . _ - - - - - - - , - - - -,_ , . _ . . _ , , - . . - - _ - - - . , , _ , _ - - - - - - - - - . -
1 14 Roberts 2 A. The emergency services section is a 3 group of approximately 25 offiches, which includes 4 their supervisors, and they have specially 5 equipped vehicles for response to crisis scenes.
6 And when I say crisis scenes, it 7
could be a serious motor vehicle accident with a 8 passenger or driver pinned in there. They have 9 the extricating equipment where they could violate to the vehicle and remove.
11 They have heavy weapons response in 12 the event of hostage or barricaded subj ect 13 scenarios.
14 They also respond to hazardous 15 material spills and provide a safe area until the 16 arrival of New York State Department of 17 Environmental Conservation, the County Department i
18 of Health and representatives of the prosecutor's 19 office.
20 Q. Who is the chief of patrol at the l 21 present time?
22 A. It is Acting Chief, Assistant Chief i 23 Joseph Monteith.
24 Q.
l Who is the head of the sPeCial Patrol l 25 bureau at the present time?
L
l g 15 Robceto 2 A. Captain Arthur Houde.
3 Q. And who is in charge of the emergency 4 service section at the present time?
5 A. That would be Lieutenant -- the 6 first name escapes me, could be Thomas -- Woods.
7 Q. Does this emergency service section 8 carry with it or have within its auspices any 9 special type of equipment?
10 A. They do.
11 Q. What do they have assigned to them?
12 A. I would be leaving things out. If 13 you could be specific, I'll say yes or no.
14 Q. Do they have any special types of 15 vehicles such as mobile vans, tow trucks?
16 A. They don't have t ow trucks.
17 Q. No tow trucks?
19 A. No. They have a bomb trailer.
19 Q. What is a bomb trailer?
20 A. O.X. That is a flatbed vehicle which 21 has a concrete steel reinforced basin and you take 22 a suspect item or known explosive device and you 23 can secure it into that container on the flatbed 24 and transport it to a safe location and there.
25 detonato it.
1 16 Roberts 2 . When you say special vehicles, vans, 3 they are enclosed vehicles to the extent that they 4 are bigger than vans.
5 n. Are you referring to the bomb trailer 6 or are you referring to some other kind of 7 vehicle?
8 A. I'm talking about the vans. You said 9 do they have vans. They have vans, they are 10 larger vehicles than what I consider to be a van.
11 Two- or four-door sliding door. These are back i
12 entrance vehicles, they have compartments 13 apecially designed by them to carry whatever 1
14 pieces of equipment they might need. Rappelling
( ,
15 ropes, costuming, special uniforms for the j ,
16 protection of themselves while they are at any l 17 given scene. Bullet proof vests.
18 Q. Is there a radio in these vans?
l , 19 A. Oh, yes.
l 20 Q. Are there loudspeakers on these vans, 21 either on the top or inside the car?
22 A. I don't know. .
23 Q. Does that division have portable 24 loudspeakers or sirens?
l 25 A. I'm sure they are accessible to them.
l l
l
1 17 Roberts 2 Q. Are there sirens in the vans?
3 A. There are sirens on the vehicles.
4 Q. Do you know how many such vans there 5 are?
6 A. I would say three.
7 Q. Where are they garaged normally?
8 A. Their focus point of operation and 9 their office is located at MacArthur Airport, in ,
10 the Town of Islip.
11 Q. Is there any kind of central garage 12 there or are other vehicles also parked there?
13 A. Well, within the special phtrol
,14 bureau you also have response vehicles that are 15 used by crime scene technicians when they are on i
16 duty. They may have five or six of the smaller 17 type vans which have that equipment that is 18 necessary to respond to a burglary, homicide d
i 19 scene, in order to develop and recover, trace 1
20 evidence. Things of that nature.
21 Q. What are the responsibilities of the 22 chief of headquarters?
23 A. He provides those auxiliary services 24 which are vital to provide the linkage and the 25 patrol capability: communications, which would l
l . . - _ . - _ _ . __ - ._
1 18 Roberts 2 include radio as well as teletypewriter, he 3 Provides radio installation and maintenance.
4 He has the central records bureau 5 wherein copies of the departments records are 6 maintained.
7 He maintains the supply and 8 Procurement section which is in essence a 9 quartermaster unit and works through the county 10 offices of purchasing to procure those items of 11 equipment which are necessary to sustain the 12 operation of the Police Department.
13 He also has the property clerk's 14 office which is a rather large facility and is 15 responsible for the care and custody of any
- 16 physical evidence or properties which come in to 17 the possession of the Police Department from i
18 whatever source, either found or recovered.
19 Q. Under the education and community
[
20 support bureau. I see on Roberts Exhibit 3a 21 reference to a "Civil Defense Section."
l 22 A. Uh-huh.
23 Q. Who is in charge of that section?
l 24 A. I believe there is a Sergeant Hayden, l
25 who is presently assigned as liaison from this l
l l
l l
i T'% N % $$ P P P f O f Y T . DO I0
i 19 Roberts 2 department.
1 3 Q. Who does the sergeant liaison with?
4 What do you mean by liaison?
5 A. With the County Department of 6 Emergency Preparedness.
7 Do you want to go through that other 8 bureau?
9 Q. I'm sorry. Did I cut you off again?
10 I apologize. You have such a nice, slow tempo.
11 A. Also included in that educational and
', 12 community support bureau, also there is the Police '
13 Academy which provides the basic and in-service 14 training.
\ .
15 In addition to the state statutes, 16 responding to needs of the several units within
,17 the department.
\
18 In addition, you have the community 19 services section which includes the j uvenile 20 service section as well as the community relations 21 unit and the community service unit. Those are 12 the people who interface with organizations within t3 the several communities in the police district and
!4 provlde the liaison and interface between the 5 public and the Police Department.
- - , - L -- .... ...-
t 1 20 Roberts 2 3. Who is the chief of headquarters at 3 the present time?
4 A. We have an acting chief and that 5 would be Assistant Chief Philip McGuire.
6 Q. Who is in charge of the education and 7 community support bureau?
8 A. That would be Deputy Inspector Gerald 9 Marcoe.
10 Q. Who is the chief inspector at the 11 present time?
12 A. Peter Murray.
13 Q. O.K. Back to this civil defense 14 section that Sergeant Hayden is in charge of, what 15 exactly are the responsibilities of that section, 16 if you know?
l 17 A. He supervises the accomplishment of 18 training requiremen+s for the several auxiliary 19 police units that exist within the five towns 20 which comprise the police district of Suffolk 21 County.
22 Could I help you in this regard?
23 Q. Sure.
24 A. Suffolk County is 920 square miles.
25 It is cont iguous to Nassau County and flows to the t - - . . . - - - - - - . . . . - . . . -
1 r 1
21 Roberts 2 east. At the apex of the river in Riverhead, and 3 Peconic Bay is formed, there is a north and south 4 fork that extend north to Orient Point and leaps 5 over to Shelter Island which stands out there in 6 the middle of L ong Island Sound and on the south 7 fork, it extends easterly to Mont auk Point and 8 from there it is a short hop to Ireland.
9 Way back in 1959, the county decided 10 to charter form a government and all of those l
l 11 other things. In that proposal at the t ime was 12 the county Police Department. There was 13 fragmented law enforcement efforts over a period 14 of time and it was an attempt to bring things 15 together, not solely in the law enforcement area, i 16 the administrative agencies of the county as well.
17 The county was under a tremendous growth pattern 18 at that time.
l 19 As to the law enforcement effort, l
20 however, there was a proposal that in order for a 21 township. O.K., to become part of a police l 22 district within the county, it -- a township had 1
23 to be contiguous to another af firmative voting 24 township.
l 25 It resulted in the five western 1
l l
l l
l
g 22 Roberts 2 towns, the county has 10 towns, probably 20 3 some-edd village entities within several towns, 4 but there are 10 towns.
5 The five western towns voted 6 affirmatively to form a police district. They are 7 Babylon, Huntington, Islip. Smithtown and 8 Brookhaven, Brookhaven b.eing the furthest east in 9 the district and extends from Great South Bay, 10 Atlantic ocean, north to Long Island Sound. The 11 five townships to the east, Riverhead, South 12 Hampton, which are immediately cont iguous to 13 Brookhaven, didn't vote to become part of the 14 police district, thus barring East Hampton on the 15 south shore, South Hold and Shelter Island on the 16 north shore, from becoming part even if they 17 want ed to.
18 So if you back yourself back 120 19 square miles back into the police district, we 1
i 20 probably have 540 square miles, five townships, a 21 multitude of village entities, governmental 22 structures within those five townshipsi some by 23 far much smaller law enforcement entities within 24 some of the villages, not all of them. some of 25 those villages.
n-vi e ecenew,ue ,ur
- l
ll g 23 Roberts 2 Q. All right.
3 A. That is where we are.
4 Q. So you have j urisdict ion over 5 Pabylon. Huntington. Islip. Smithtown and 6 Brookhaven?
7 A. Well. when you say j urisdict ion. the 8 county Police Department being a county agency has 9 concurrent j urisdiction throughout the county.
10 However, because there is law enforcement effort 11 in the five eastern towns. they maintain stability 12 and have grown somewhat over the years since 1960 13 their own law enforcement effort within the towns i
14 and the designated villages out there.
15 The patrol division. 0.K.. is
- 16 responsible and has the initial jurisdiction for
- 17 the police patrol. effort within the police 11 8 district and that is the five western towns. the 11 9 towns you j ust mentioned. However, the patrol 20 effort would not include those village entities 21 wherever they may co-exist within the five towns 22 who have organized police forces.
13 Q. You could patrol there but you choose
!4 not to because those villages are already l5 patroled?
I F" 1
1 g 24 Roberts 2 A. They did not opt to become -- they 3 had the option to become. because they were 4 governmental entities. Some did opt. Some never 5 had police other than the town police. They 6 contracted with them. so the assumption carried 7 over into the county.
g Q. What is the extent of your 9 jurisdiction in those towns and villages that 10 opted out of the police district these many years 11 ago?
12 A. Opted not to become part of --
13 Q. The police district within or without 14 the police district boundaries. Tell me as to 15 each.
16 A. O.K., as to each we do it on an 17 on-call-as-needed basis. That would be for 18 anything in the five eastern townships.
19 Q. Only if they call you do you come in 20 and do something?
21 A. That's right. In the patrol effort.
22 That's right.
23 Now, within the Police district 24 formally, five western townships, for those 25 agencies like Northport, Amityville, Village of e
i g 25 Roberts 2 Asharoken, there are probably seven or eight of 3 them out there. elected not to become part of an 4 organized police district. They have their own 5 Police force. Thiry number anywherw from 3 to 15, 6 3 t o 18, whatever their strengths may be.
7 Depending on their size. Amityville and Northport 8 being the two largest far to the west. Northport 9 in the Town of Hutitington and Amityv'111e in the 10 Town of Babylon.
11 Q. I may have not --
I followed you 12 except for one thing. I'm confused about what 13 your -- what the difference is batween your legal 14 authority over villages and towns within the I
15 district physically that are not part of the 16 police district and those that are physically 17 outside the police district and therefore not
! 18 directly covered by the police district?
l 19 A. O.K. Within the police district, if 1
l 20 they had an organized police force in one of those 21 village entities, we would not perform on a l
- 22 regular basis the uniformed patrol function.
23 Q. Is that j ust a practice or is that l
24 because you do not have the authority to actually 25 enter and perform police functions in those 1
g 26 Roberte 2 villages? 1 3 A. I look at it in a different light.
d 4- We have a county charter, we have a county Police 5 Department. We have a police district which 6 Performs those patrol functions necessary for the 7 protection and health and safety of the citizens.
O We have never seen fit to exert ourselves so I 9 don't know what would be the answer.
10 Q. Suppose --
11 A. Could we move in and take over the 12 territory, Village of Amityville which has a staff 13 of 25 sworn officers? I don't kncw. Never b6en i 14 brought to mind.
l 15 Q. Has it come up in a situation where 16 you are chasing a speeder through, and I apologize 1
i 17 for my knowledge of geography, but you chase a l
18 speeder through Babylon and he, knowing the 19 boundaries of the police district, darts off into 20 the Village of Amityville, wh ir:M you say is not 21 covered.
22 Can you follow him into there to 23 arrest him?
24 A. State law provides that if he passes 25 safely through the Village of Amityville, we will
j f**
1 1
g 27 Roberts 2 take him into Pennsylvania.
3 Q. You can take him anywhere?
4 A. Close pursuit.
5 Q. Hot pursuit, close pursuit?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. O.K. But that is only the type of 8 circumstance that you can think of that has come 9 up, you haven't had the need to go in and exert 10 your police power in any other j urisdict ion?
l l 11 A. I know of no circumstances, no.
12 Q. In what location -- are you familiar 13 with the Grucci --
14 A. G-r-u-c-c-i.
l 15 Q. You are obviously familiar with it.
, 16 -- fireworks factory blowup of a few 17 years ago?
18 A. That was in Bellport, New York, j ust 19 south of what we call Montauk Highway.
20 Q. Was that within the j urisdiction of 21 Suffolk County?
22 A. , Y,e s , it was.
23 Q. Now, was it within the j urisdiction 24 of the Suf folk County police district?
2:1 A. Yes, it was.
l l
mee m emempW9h 8M #8 8M
,[
1 28 Roberts 2 Q. Is that one of these towns or is that 3 a village'that has opted into the police district?
4 A. The Village of Bellport. The Grucci 5 site was outside of the village limits but was in 6 the hamlet of Bellport.
7 We really have a very difficult l 9 scenario here as far ar identifying specific --
9 when you say Be11 port, most people say Village of l 10 De11 port. That is not true. We have scher,1 l
l 11 district boundaries, we have municipality l
boundaries, there are postal zones, there are fire 12 13 district zones, and a number of other things.
14 But to my recollection, the Grucci 15 site for that e t"lence is located outside of the .
1 16 Village of Be11 port which is within the Town of 17 Brookhaven.
l 19 Q. But it is in something called the 1
19 hamlet?
20 A. Of Be11 port.
21 Q. Of Be11 port.
22 Now, is that hamlet part of the 23 Suffolk County police district?
24 A. It is because it is part of the Town 25 of Brookhaven.
6
aF i
29 Roberts 2 Q. Within Suffolk County, the boundaries 3 of the county itself, how many different police 4 forces are there?
5 A. Within the county itself?
6 Q. Within the county, aside from your 7 own Police Department, how many other police forces, departments, divisions?
9 A. Who perform similar functions?
10 Q. Who perform similar functions.
1 11 A. My answer would be very misleading 12 because I think too many conclusions could be 13 drawn from it. Let me suggest to you, though, 14 that with every attempt to respond to it, O.K.,
15 appropriately for your purpose, I'm going to say 16 that within the police district which is the five 17 western towns, O.K., we have a county Police 18 Department. That takes care of the towns. So
, 19 they are off the board.
1 20 Now, how many village entities out l 21 there have and still maintain their own law 22 enforcement agency? This is purely speculation.
l 23 I've seen it. I've read it in the book, I know it 24 is in the directory, I didn't look at a directory 25 today, yesterday or some other time. If you -~
I 1 30 Roberts 2 Q. What directory?
3 A. It is a directory of associated law 4 enforcement agencies. O.K. There are some 5 Professional gro up s , so that you can interface 6 appropriately, and phone listings.
7 Q. Is this a New York State Publicat ion?
8 A. I'm sure they have one. No, it 9 isn't. It is locally produced.
10 Q. O.K.
11 A. O.K. I can give you my best guess.
I 12 Q. Why don't you do that?
l 13 A. Good. They even have -- let me l =
1 14 preface it with this. On Fire Island -- are you 15 familiar with the toPo9raphy?
16 Q. Yes?
17 A. There are two police departments on 18 Fire Island. Two villages there opted to have 19 their own Police Department. That is it.
20 Saltaire to the west has one man, so you see I'm 21 going to give you some figures now, numbers of 22 agencies, but they begin with one.
23 Then you have the Village of Ocean 24 Beach which is somewhat to the east of Saltaire 25 along Fire Island and they may have four full-time
1!
g 31 Roberts 2 officers, may supplement themselves. Very 3 favorite. spot for tourism during the summer. They 4 may have a half dozen seasonal officers to provide 5 supplemental services. On that same strip of land 6 there, you have the National Seashore. What their 7 staffing is I really don't know, but it is not a a hell of a lot. Their interests are drawn 9 specifically to that sandy barrier and that .. it.
10 Q. You were going to guess as to how 11 many --
12 A. Within the district?
13 Q. No, within Suffolk County.
14 A. But I wanted to start with the 15 district.
16 Q. Within the district, O.K.
17 A. There is another village with only 18 one guy.
19 Q. Not the number of people?
20 A. Belle Terre, B-e-1-1-e, T-e-r-r-e.
9 21 I'm going to say six, seven.
22 Q. What i s your working relationship 23 with those --
24 A. Profound.
25 Q. What does profound mean?
1 4
g 32 Robcrto 2 A. Extremely close.
J 3 The east end. O.K., there are no I 4 village entities within the Town of Riverhead. In 5 the Town of South Hampton on.the south fork, three 6 villages that have organized police departments.
7 Town of East Hampton. East Hampton Village has an 8 or9anized police department. Back over on the 9 north shore. Southhold, the Village of GreenPort 10 has an organized police department. Then sticking 11 out there in Peconic Bay is Shelter Island and l
l 12 they have a police force. Four men.
13 Q. That covers SuHolk County?
14 A. Yes, ma'am.
15 Q. When you 'were describing the profound 16 relationship that you have with the other law 17 enforcement agencies within your district, you 18 mean a sense of cooperation exists between you?
l l
19 A. Extremely solid.
l 20 Q. How about the law enforcement 21 entities outside of your district, what is your 22 relationship with them?
23 A. Whenever the opportunity for 24 interaction presents i tself, it goes off well.
l 25 That is on an as-needed basis.
i O ne m emMMMW 949M 9%8M
, __ W -w ww-ww F " - - " ~ - - .__
___ m __ --__ - -
g 35 Robsrto 2 this question since we have not been 3 Provided any verification to the answers to 4 the interrogatories. You didn't obj ect to 5 it in the answers to the interrogatories.
6 MR. MILLER: I believe there are 7 obj ections stated to the interrogatories 8 that were served separately and those -
9 obj ect ions go to all of your to interrogatories so the obj ection has been 11 stated, I think. Obviously, I don't l 12 believe any of these questions you have 13 been asking Chief Roberts are relevant.
! 14 MS. STONE: I'm sorry, could you 1
15 read back my question.
16 (Record read) 17 MR. MILLER: My obj ection i s on the 18 record.
19 You can se ahead, Chief Roberts.
, 20 A. To the best of my recollection, the 1
21 department has authorized budgeted positions in 22 the area of 2800. We don't have that many on l 23 board.
l 24 Q. How many sworn officers do you l
25 actually have on board at this time?
,_v. _ ,__m _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
ISf 4 .
g 36 Roberts i 2 A. Last report I saw referenced 2625.
9 3 MR. MILLER: I think you mean 26 or 4 2500?
5 A. Do you want me to put zeroes on it?
6 MR. MILLER: For the record, yes.
7 sir. Those numbers go together.
e Q. 2625.
9 A. What I was reaching for really was 10 what came after 26. I wanted to be as reasonably 11 correct as I could.
12 Q. So approximately 2625 officers. O.X.
13 A. Not all of those are really present 14 for duty either.
15 Q. Where are they if they are not 16 present for duty?
17 A. Well, some of them are on extended 18 leave due to either j ob-incurred or personal 19 inj uries of serious consequence.
20 Q. How many would you say are out for l 21 those?
22 A. If you took them in a bundle, j 23 probably upwards of a hundred.
24 Q. During the daytime, approximately how 25 many of these officers -- and I'm talking about l
l --u. - e - - - n , . .- ...-
i J4%
t i 37 Roberts 2 sworn officers at this point -- are actually on 3 duty in Suffolk County? I'm also going to ask you 4 to define daytime, if you have shifts.
a 5 A. That is perfect because I just wanted s
to do that for you.
~
6 7 Q. O.K. What are your shifts?
8 A. We do - there are standard shifts, 9 traditional that the department holds to. Let me 10 say that the underlying tour chart is_ midnight to 11 8:00 a.m. in the morningt and then 8:00 a.m. in 12 the esenir g until 4:00 p.m. in the afternoont and 13 then 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon until midni~ght 14 that night, so that covers the 24-hour period.
15 There are, because -- that is the 16 basic uniformed patrol chart. On that chart there 17 are 22 squads for staffing purposes and they 18 rotate and fluctuate throughout the 365 days.
19 There are other charts that are apropos to a day 20 tour. Some may begin at 6:00 a.m. in the morning, 21 some may begin at 7:00 a.m. in the morning, some 22 may begin at 9:00 a.m. in the morning. And then 23 more often than not, the tour charts provide for 8 24 hours of labor on the clock so you can fit the 25 24-hour time frame.
(
l ; 6?
I I 1 38 Robcrts 1
2 Your question?
3 Q. My question was, starting with the 4 daytime shift. O to 4, and I recognize that some 5 shifts may run 9 and some may start earlier.
6 approximately how many of the sworn officers are 7 on duty in Suffolk County during, say the 8 weekdays?
9 A. Right. I was j ust going to ask you 10 what day of the week.
I i 11 Q. Let's pick Wednesday.
12 A. Wednesday. Uniformed officers --
13 Q. Not necessarily uniformed officers.
14 Sworn officers.
15 A. Sworn officers?
16 Q. Yes, becc.use your detectives are not 17 necessarily uniformed.
18 A. They are not uniformed and there are 19 other sworn of ficers besides detectives who are 20 not required to be in uniform.
21 Q. So j ust your sworn of ficers.
22 A. I don't know. That would be 23 speculation on my part. You know, really, it 24 would.
25 Q. Would you say there were fewer or h
- . . . - - - - - - . . . ...~
h i
1 y 4r w g 39 Roberts j 3, 2 more than a hundred people on duty during a given y time?
4 A. During the day, Wednesday?
1 t
Q. Yes.
l 5 i 6 A. Well, there would be more than a 7 hundred officers during the day on Wednesday.
O Q. Are your -- is your work force 9 lighter on weekend days. Saturdays and Sundays?
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. Are there any other days of the week 12 when it is lighter than the Wednesday date we have 13 chosen?
14 A. It would droend on the character of 15 the day, particular holiday.
16 Q. Weekdays otherwise are f airly 17 standard?
18 A. Oh, yes. That is because of the 19 level of interaction between many of the day 20 workers, not necessarily in uniform, who perform 21 interface with other governmental entities.
22 Q. Chief Roberts, did you participate in 23 the government's answers and additional obj ections 24 to LILCD's second set of interrogatories regarding 25 contentions 1 through 2, 4 through 8, an d 10, if
1 41 Roberts 2 ask you if you recognize this document? And feel 3 free to look through it.
l 4 A. Thank you.
l l 5 (Pause) l 6 I've never seen this document before.
7 Q. O.K. I realized earlier you told me 8 that you could not verify how many officers there 9 were on any given shift. but I want to ask you 10 further --
11 A. No ma'an, I don't want to get picky.
12 but we left it at a day shift Wednesday.
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. O.K., then you said would your 15 staffing -- I understood your s ubse quent comments 16 to be would the staffing be less on a weekend or 17 any single day of the week and I said depending on 1
! 18 the character of the day, if it was within the 19 week or what have you, 20 I'm sorry to interrupt you.
21 Q. My question is I'm trying to figure 22 out on any given day approximately how many of l 23 these 2600 sworn officers are actually on duty 24 daytime, as opposed to evening time, as opposed to 25 the graveyard shift, and that is what I'm trying
1 42 Roberto 2 to find out. We chose Wednesday as a standard 3 date.
4 A. Right.
5 MR. MILLER: Ms. Stone, why don't 6 you show the witness the response to the 7
interrogatories which I've stipulated for 8 the record certain of those responses came 9 through Chief Roberts.
10 You are taking a lot of time. If 11 you are testing Chief Roberts' memory, I 12 don't see the purpose of it.
13 MS STONE: I was trying to get the 14 answer out if you let me do it.
15 Q. The answers to the interrogatories i
i 16 indicate that there are approximately 185 17 officers.
18 MS. STONE: I have the right to 19 probe this witness' memory.
1 20 MR. MILLER: You have the right to 21 waste everybody's time for four hours so go 22 ahead and do so.
23 Q. Does that refresh your recollection?
24 A. What you've shown me on 22 discusses 25 uniformed officers assigned to vehicles for patrol m- s ,. -----n....,- . . . -
m
- - - - -w-
y- - - -. - -__-,_-%_,
1 43 Robcrto 2 Purposes.
3 Q. My question is broader than that. I 4 j ust thought that might refresh your recollection.
5 A. It may. Let me read it. Please.
6 Q. O.K.
7 (Pause) 8 A. This doesn't -- I can't do it really.
9 Q. Why don't we do it first with to uniformed, if that is easier for you?
11 A. This doesn't -- this is not your 12 question (indicating).
13 Q. I agree. But your counsel wanted mm 14 to show you the document so I've shown you the 15 document to see if it refreshes your recollection.
16 I have two questions. I want to 17 know, on any given shift, how many sworn officers 18 of these 2600 are on duty, aPProximately, and then 19 I'm going to ask you the exact same thing for the 20 uniformed of ficers which these answers to 21 interrogatories indicate you have 1.750 such 22 officers, or at least I believe so. It is sort of 23 ambiguous. Maybe -- let me ask you the question 24 first.
25 Of these 2600 that you've described
- - . - --l---...- ...-
1 '3
?
l q 1 44 Robcrto
^
2 that are sworn police officers, how many are 3 uniformed?
4 A. Well, because of the several 5 services, you know, when you look -- when you look 6 at this organizational chart, your 3, you would 7 have to see, as I indicated, that even in the 8 detective division, we do have a complement of 9 sworn officers.
i 10 Q. Right.
11 A. We do in fact have sworn police l
12 officers. O.K., which takes away from any figure l
I 13 that you may see or reflect upon that says "police 14 officers," whatever document that might be.
15 Of the several sworn police officers, 16 all right, who would in any other position be in 17 uniform but are not, two of them do report to us 18 in uniform, each of the five days they work, 19 because of the nature of their function, O.K.
20 Q. If they were assigned to any other l 21 division they may not --
they might regularly wear 22 uniforms, but because they work for the detectives l
23 bureau, they don't wear their uniform?
24 A. That's right. That other number --
l
! 25 right.
^
, . 5 i i L
.o~
45 g Roberts 2 Q. You still have two PeCP l e reporting t 3 to your division that wear uniforms?
a j 4 A. Yes, ma'am.
5 Q. How many, approximately, in the 6 Patrol division?
7 A. O.K., well, that is --
8 Q. How many are uniformed?
9 A. Each precinct has a crime control 10 unit who functions in a street level investigative 11 status and they wear every-day clothing, anywhere 12 from dungarees to a dress suit with a t ie, 13 depending on the nature cf their assignment. The 14 current extremity of each of those several units, 15 I don't know exactly, but I'm going to guess --
16 Q. I'm interested in the uniformd ones.
17 A. I understand but --
! could tell you l
l 18 for instance, there are 1740 sworn officers 19 assigned to the patrol division. Now. what are 20 you going to do with that figure? That is what l
l 21 I'm trying to say.
22 Q. O.K.
23 A. They are not all uniforned.
24 Q. Is the answer that you don't know 25 or --
- <4 j 'f3 i Np 3 46 Roberts i -
! 2 A. I can give you a figure you don' t y 3 understand, but I don't want to mislead you 4 either.
1 5 Q. I'm looking for approximation. I 6 realize on some day some one person may or may not 7 show up in a uniform. I'm looking for some 8 approximate figure of how many police officers 9 wear uniforms in Suffolk County at any given time.
10 how many are on duty wearing --
11 A. Even the guys who ride the boats in 12 the middle of the bay have a uniform on.
13 Q. That is what I'm interested in.
14 A. That is the f unction we would expect 15 them to be performing, so --
16 Q. We have a Wednesday daytime shift, 8 17 to 4. How many police officers in Suffolk County l 18 in your district under the auspices of l
19 Commissioner Guido are wearing uniforms?
l 20 A. Speculative.
l 21 Q. More than a hundrede fewer than a 22 hundred?
23 A. More than a hundred.
24 Q. More than 2007 25 A. More than 200.
M
--- - - - - - - - - <, - - - , - , - - - - - ,--- ,r,-,--
g 47 RobGet0 2 Q. More than 300?
3 A. More than 300.
4 Q. More than 4007 5 A. More than 400.
6 Q. Should I skip two categories. More 7 than 6007 8 A. Functioning throughout the entire 540 9 square-mile district, yes.
10 Q. About -- more than 6007 l
11 A. No. Definitely not. Not to my 1
( 12 knowledge.
13 Q. Between 500 and 6007 r
l l 14 A. Well, now you are getting queasy.
i .
15 I'm queasy to begin with, but I'm going to say, a 16 lot of people are spread out out there, not all i
17 performing a patrol function. l I
j 18 Q. That doesn't matter. Wearing a '
l l 19 uniform?
l l 20 A. Anything in that area would be total i
21 speculative on my part. I can give you a 1 22 staffing --
l 23 Q. Who would know, Chief Roberts?
l 24 A. In uniform? Because it embraces the l l'
25 whole department, because there are a number of l
l t
l
- -- .- - . _ .---..,,y
1 i
1 48 Roberts 2 auxiliary services, for instance, which I might 3 consider administrative support, all right, supply 4 and procurement, quartermaster, property clerk, 5 transportation and maintenance, they are in 6 uniform. They are in some class of uniform.
7 Q. Does it help you to say within the
- 8. Patrol division how many uniformed officers are on 9 duty on our hypothetical Wednesday shift?
10 A. Daytime?
( 11 Q. Daytime shift.
12 A. I might be able to give you something 13 on that.
14 Q. O.K.
l 15 (Pause) 16 A. This is only in the patrol division?
17 Q. Only in the patrol division, is the 18 question here.
19 A. About 250.
20 Q. O.K. Are these -- of these 21 individuals, how many on our hypothetical daytime 22 Wednesday are in vehicles actually out on patrol?
l 23 A. Do you want to consider the barrier l
24 beach?
25 Q. Sure -- well, let's exclude Fire
y *T 1 49 Roberts
'z Island.
3 A. SPecial enforcement efforts vary from 4 day to day.
l 5 Q. How many people are involved in that 6 activity?
7 A. Depending on the day of the week, it 8 could run through either Saturday or Sunday, that 9 is why I say it varies.
10 Q. How many people are involved in that 11 area?
12 A. Could be 25 people.
13 Q. All right. Let's exclude them from 14 this number.
15 A. Patrol, patrol -- to dissect it in 16 the fashion in which I know you are trying to get, 17 however, the methodology we are employing here is 18 difficult. 175, 180.
19 Q. And in how many vehicles, is that 20 with approximately one person per vehicle or two 21 per vehicle?
22 A. To my knowledge, I know of 11 23 double-sector units so you would have to back out 24 12 from whatever, 175 or 180.
25 Q. O.K. So that leaves about --
i 50 Roberts 2 A. Those are authorized mobile units.
3 Depending on circumstances arising during any 4 given tour, day, evening, weekend, holiday, the 5 platoon lieutenant in every one of the six 6 precincts, plus highway patrol in their effort to 7 perform whatever the level of, as far as is 8 required to mix and match.
9 Q. But the rest of them --
10 A. Statically it is 127 assigned sector 11 units. 11 of which are double units when they are 12 in service.
13 Q. How many vehicles does that p ut out 14 during our hypothetical Wednesday daytime shift?
15 A. 12 from 175 or 180, whichever figure i
16 you want to lay out.
17 Q. Approximately 160-ish, 165, 170-ish?
18 A. Whatever it comes out to.
19 Q. O.K. How does the staffing differ if i 20 we shift from our hypothetical daytime shift to 1
21 the 4-to-12 shift on a given Wednesday evening?
22 A. It should not significantly vary.
23 Q. How abcut the graveyard shift, the 24 12-to-8 shift, how does your staffing differ?
25 A. For a number of years, there was Y =
t l
l 1 51 Roberts I l
2 employed, because of manpower shortages, what we l I
l 3 call on overlay concept. We would merge sectors 1 '
l 4 of patrol. The criteria was constant but its I 5 application would vary depending on what precinct 1
6 you were in and you might, because of the chart i 7 now, the chart, all right, provides for those men ;
8 specifically assigned to an active patrol effort 9 in the Precinct commands. It is about a charted 10 one-fifth reduction of manpower availability.
11 Q. Approximately one fifth less than the l 12 daytime and evening shift charted?
l l 13 A. However, at the present time, the l 14 department has, for the last few months, been l
l 15 staffing the midnight tour without significant i
16 variance from the 8-to-4 or 4-to-12 solely on the l 17 patrol effort.
l l
18 Q. How long is that expected to 19 continue?
20 A. I have no idea. That is strictly l
l 21 budgetary. I have no idea.
22 Q. How does your Saturday and Sunday 23 staffing differ from the Wednesday which we have 24 taken as typical of Monday through Friday?
25 A. Significantly.
1P l I
3 52 Robcrto l 2 Q. How? Greater or lesser?
3 A. Much less. l 4 Q. How much less is charted?
1 I
5 A. You are talking department?
6 Q. Uniform. In the patrol area.
l 7 A. O.K., you see you did it yourself.
8 Q. You've asked me to. You told me it 9 was simpler to figure it out this way.
10 A. I understand. I can give you the l
11 figure, but there has to be an understanding what 12 it represents, and you j ust did it.
13 Q. I'm asking you specifically, 14 uniformed --
15 A. Madam,~let me say this to you, l
l 16 please. I can sit here the better part of this 17 day and lay down figures for you to the best of my 18 recollection with a sincere interest in being 19 honest with you, but unless we have a common 20 understanding what the figure relates specifically 21 to, I will not be party to giving you what you
(
1 j 22 will later construe to be an attempt on my part to 23 misconstrue or mislead that will never be my 24 intent.
l 25 Q. Chief Roberts, I have no interest in l
l l
l l
i hr l
1 53 Roberts l
l 2 that at all.
l l
3 A. Good, then we are on the same 4 foundation. I certainly hope so because I came 5 here today with that view in mind.
6 G .- Nothing --
7 A. Let me suggest to you now, you 8 said --
9 Q. I have a very specific question.
10 A. Are you going to let me finish? As 11 pertains to your question --
, 12 Q. I don't want a speech. I want an l
l 13 answer.
14 A. You said uniform and then you said I 15 patrol. They are two different things.
l 16 Q. You told ma this figures as I l
17 understood it, that we have been talking about, l
18 the 170 to 80 that is out on the street during the 19 daytime shift, we are talking about uniformed 20 patrol officers in the patrol division.
21 A. I did not say we had 180 out on the j 22 street on a daytime shift. You asked me how many l
23 vehicles were operated in a patrol mode on a l 24 daytime shift and I said it would be 175 to 180, 25 less those double units, which was 11, take 12 l
1 l
l
. __..... = =
- - - .-- - _ - - - , _ -- _ , , - - - - ~ . -
qn 1 54 Roberts 2 away from 175 or 180.
3 Q. If it was not clear before, I want it '
4 clear now, I'm looking to see how that category of 5 officers changes for the Saturday and Sunday 6 shifts, and I'm sorry you didn't understand that I 7 was moving within the same category.
8 A. You asked me for uniformed officers.
9 The numbers of those vehicles may vary. From the 10 vehicles you can get the numbers of men.
11 Q. Right. How many vehicles in that 12 category that we have j ust discussed where you've 13 given me an estimate of --
14 A. 175 to 180.
15 Q. 175 to 1807 l 16 A. Less the double units.
l l 17 Q. What happens on weekends with respect l
l 18 to the number of those vehicles and attendant --
19 occupants?
20 A. With the current patrol effort--
21 Q. Does that current patrol effort 22 differ from the chart that you've ref erred to?
23 A. Well, the current patrol effort goes 24 beyond the chart to the extent that on the 25 midnights, it would provide for nonutilization of
l l
, 55 Roberts
.p{.*
-4 g
an overlay and bringing in additional people to
^2 complement for the failure of the chart to 3
( ,
4 provida.
i Q. All right. Why don't you t ell me the 5
6 charted figures first?
A. So on the weekend -- well, I guess 7
8 that it would be approximately one fifth less on 9 the midnight tour.
10 Q. For the daytime Saturday and Sunday 11 effort?
12 A. Right, 13 Q. Now --
i 14 A. No, no, for the midnight tour.
15 Approximately one fifth less, the chart provides, 16 but the current police effort is to staf f without 17 significant variance on a 24-hour basis so as many 18 vehicles as you see in an active patrol mode, 19 patrol division, every effort is maintained --
l 20 every effort is expended to maintain that level of 21 staffing for that mode of operation on a 24-hour 1 22 basis. That would be 7 days a week.
, 23 Q. 7 days a week. O.K.
24 A. Now, depending on the character of 25 the day, either occurring midweek or weekend, that
1 N$,
t i 56 Roberts y' 2 effort could be increased .
i 3 Q. On weekends?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. O.K.
6 A. Utilizir.g people in an overtime 7 status.
8 Q. On a given Sat urday. then, we can 9 take it that the figure is about the same, 10 approximately 175 vehicles are patroling in your 11 area, a few of which are staffed with two people 12 instead of one person. i s that fair and accurate?
13 A. That would be my estimate. That is 14 the entire police district, yes.
! 15 Q. Yes. What=is your department, what 16 is the organizational relationship between the 17 Suffolk County Police Department and the 18 Department or Division of Fire, Rescue and 19 Emergency Services?
20 A. Lateral.
21 Q. What do you mean by lateral?
22 A. We communicate laterally.
l 23 Q. Who or what entity is that department 24 under the auspices of?
25 A. The Department of Fire Safety and e m e * = =
1 :'
l 59 Roberts maintains a communications dispatch capability for v
.2 w
>* those units as well where none is provided at the l
w 'e 3 4 local level.
5 Q. Chief Roberts, do you routinely carry 6 a paging device, a beeper?
7 A. '
ies. I have another one, too.
g Q. You have two? One was a gun. You -
9 routinely carry that with you?
10 A. Yes, ma'am.
11 Q. And --
12 A. When 1'm on call.
, 13 Q. Who has knowledge of that number, who 1
14 within the Police Department?
15 A. Communications duty officer.
16 Q. Who is the communicat ions duty 1
17 officer?
1G A. That varies. They work different 19 chaats to provide a 24-hour coverage.
20 Q. And under whose auspices is that
- 21 communications duty officer?
i l 22 A. The commanding officer of the i
j 23 communication and records bureau.
24 Q. That is under the chief of 25 headquarters?
I
l
, <5 g 60 Roberts
+.
. 2 A. It falls within his purview. ,
l 3 Q. Where is this person located?
4 A. Which one? I 1
g Q. Physically, the communications duty 6 officer 7 7 A. He is in this building. ,
l Q.
8 Is there one person on duty at all 9 times with that responsibility?
10 A. Yes, ma'am.
l 11 Q. And does that position maintain a i
12 list of all of the telephone numbers, home l
.I 13 addresses?
14 A. There is a roster available to him.
15 Q. Who keeps that roster?
16 A. When you say "who keeps" it --
17 Q. Is it kept in that office where.--
18 A. He has a printout. I don't know how 19 often that printout is published. He has a 20 printout. It is probably published on a bimonthly 21 basis or something and -- by the county. He has 22 it available to him.
23 MS. STONE: We are about an hour and 24 a half through. This would be a convenient 25 time.
. _ _ _ ,,o_ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
j ;g 61 Roberts s
~. MR. MILLER: Yes.
l}. 2 3 (Recess taken) 4 MS. STONE: Would you mark this as 5 5.
6 (Document marked Roberts Exhibit 5 7 for identification. as of this date.)
e BY MS. STONE:
, 9 Q. Chief Roberts, you are familiar with to the LILCO plan relating to an emergency at 11 Shoreham, are you not?
12 MR. MILLER: We do have a relevant
{ 13 question, in my opinion, at 11:16 in the e
14 morning.
15 Go ahead, Chief Roberts.
16 A. I am familiar with the plan.
i 17 Q. Have you reviewed the entire plan or 18 simply portions of it?
19 A. I would say portions of it.
20 Q. Do you know what portions you've 21 reviewed?
22 A. My interest was really drawn to the 23 evacuation effort as it pertained to movement of 24 traffic. l l
25 Q. Do you have a copy of the entire plan I
l l
. ... - - - . . . ,-...- ..a
_ _w. _.
5.
ll a if 1 62 Roberts 2 or j ust of that provision, the evacuation effort?
3 MR. MILLER: Does Chief Roberts have 4 a copy?
l 5 MS. STONE: Yes. l 6 A. I don't have a copy personally.
1 7 Q. Personally. Have you ever had a )
8 copy?
9 A. I've had a copy made available to me.
l 10 Q. Who has made this available to you?
I 11 A. The county and counsel at varying l
12 times in the last -- how many years, five years.
13 Q. Do you know how many people within i
14 the Suffolk County Police Department have copies 15 of some or all of the LILCO emergency plan?
l 16 MR. MILLER: Presently have copies?
17 MS. STONE: Yes.
18 A. To my knowledge, nobody has a copy, 1
19 when you a say person, but there is a copy in the 20 possession of this department.
21 Q. Who has custody of that?
l 22 A. Right now it is in an office on that 23 side of the Duilding (indicat ing) . When you say 24 who has custody of it, it is in a bookcase.
(
25 Q. So people can borrow it when they l
)
l l
l
~
\
1 91 0 3 i9 1 + 1 63 Roberts b '
2 want to look at it, is that what you mean?
3 A. They could.
4 Q. Do you have -- have you actually got 5 in your possession, though, a copy of an excerpt 6 of it, I don't mean in your possession here today, 7 b ut --
9 A. No, I don't have any copies of 9 excerpts of the LILCO plan, no.
10 Q. You use this volume that is on the 11 bookshelf when you want to look at a portion of 12 the plan?
13 A. It is more than one book. Yes.
14 Q. O.K. Do you know what revision of i
l 15 the plan is the one that is on the bookshelf that 16 you've j ust referred to in the Police Department?
17 A. I heard a few renths ago that there 18 is a revision 9 to the plan. Whether or not that j 19 has been correlated into that c urrent copy, 20 three-volume, four-volume mass. I really don't l
l 21 know.
22 Q. Have you had an opportunity as of 23 today's date to review or evaluate revision 9 of 24 the LILCO plan?
25 A. Not in its entirety.
t l
l l
l l
.c _ . __. -
)
- 64 y 4 g Robcrte
?
2 Q. What portions of revision 9 of the d
3 plan have you reviewed?
4 A. I was made aware of some changes 5 contained in there which would indicate the 6 establishment of additional hierarchy in the LERO 7 organizat an and provide for the response of one 8 or more people to county agencies during an 9 evacuation mode.
10 Q. Did you learn of this by actually 11 looking at portions of revision 9 or did you learn 12 it because you were told by somebody of the 13 changes?
14 A. My rricollection. I think I actually 15 looked at some pages which were part of revision 16 9.
17 Q. Have you discussed these aspects of 18 revisj on '/ with anyone else at the Suffolk County 19 Polic e Department?
20 A. Not presently employed.
21 Q .- Anyone who is a former employee of 22 the department?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Who is that?
25 A. Former Commissioner James Caples.
n__ _
- Y2 " E C C ^ ? l ,'? C I Cr,
g 69 Roberts the police in such an environment. I gave him a 2
3 copy of that. y 4 Q. Did you discuss with him, though, law 5 in Suffolk County with respect to participating in 6 an emergency plan for a nuclear plant?
7 A. That may well have been part of my a conversation.
9 Q. To the best of ycur recollection.
10 what did you say to him and what did he say to you 11 with respect to that?
12 A. I can't really recall. I may have 13 said, but that would be may, it would be 14 conj ecture right now.
15 Q. You don't have any recollection of 16 what you said to him and he said to you with 17 respect to that?
18 A. Specific? No. Not really.
19 Q. Are the police officers in Suffolk 20 County trained to direct traffic. Chief Roberts?
21 A. Yes, they are.
22 Q. What kind of training do they 23 receive?
24 MR. MILLER: I will go back. Ms.
25 Stone. Your last line of questions 1 D O h b E -,E' N N O D W II 'N ee OIOb-.e
i i
f.
i !
< :g 1'42
"# Roberts
') 3 70
- t. >
v 2 thought were relevant questions. If you h 3 are going to continue this line of 4 questioning regarding training of the 5 Suffolk County police, which I assume you 6 will, in order to disrupt your time as 7 little as possible, we will go back to my 8 standing obj ection on relevancy grounds and i 9 if you get back to another relevant line of l
I 10 questions. I'll note that for the record.
1 11 MS. STONE: 0.K.
12 Q. I believe my question was what was 13 the nature of the training for police officers in 14 Suffolk County with respect to traffic direction?
15 A. I know that it is part of their 16 qualifying educational requirements which goes on 17 for several months at the police academy.
18 Q. Where is the police academy?
l 19 A. It is at Westhampton, New York.
20 Q. Who is in charge of that?
21 A. Captain Charles Reisinger.
22 Q. Are there standard materials that are 23 issued in connection with the training of police 24 officers from this academy?
25 A. I'm sure that there are a lot of l
l l
nnVI C OCDnDTTMm. TNF
rE3%
'## 71 Roberts 1
'A )
4 -
2 classroom training as well as practical exercises 1
3 that the trainees are .sut through over a period of f
j 4 time. J l &
c 5 Q. To the best of your knowledge, does k 6 this training include the blocking of lanes on the )
1 7 roadway?
8 A. I would think it would. l
' l 9 Q. Controlling access to roads? l 10 A. I would think it would. ,
i 11 Q. Turning a road into one-way flow?
12 A. I would think it would.
j 13 Q. Are there any materials relating to 1 J 14 traffic direction located within the Police l
15 Department of Suffolk County?
l 16 A. You mean written materials?
l 17 Q.- Written.
I 18 A. I don't really know.
l 19 Q. Is there a library -- I say that, l
20 obviously we are sitting in a law library?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is there a library of police-related l
23 matarials available to the police of ficers of l l i 24 Suffolk County? I l
25 A. Those adj uncts that the academy might j l
l l
l i
I
! ...a
- g 72 Roberts
- ..[ig. 2 use in its instructional courses, I'm not fully
, 3 aware of.
4 Q. Are there any types of resources.
5 resource material generated by the academy or any ti 6 other law enforcement entity, that are available y 7 for the use of police officers or their g supervisors with respect f
t =
~
9 A. I really wouldn't know the answer. I
, 10 would be guessing. It would be guessing on my 6
11 part. I don't routinely perform the function so I 12 don't relate to it on a regular basis.
1 13 Q. Are police officers given training,
} 14 either in the academy or here, with respect to 15 individual intersecticn diagrams, is that part of 16 the training?
17 A. I don't fully understand the question 18 but let me give you an answer how I perceive the 19 question.
20 The control of motor vehicles 21 approaching an intersection and who should be
( 22 given the right-of-way or what traffic should be l
23 directed to proceed first, either en a priority or 24 other, basis, yes, I'm sure that is all part of 25 their training.
l I
l l
l nnVI C OCOnOT T him . T klF . - - -
, g 73 Robert 5 2 Q. What authorization need does a given a
}3 police officer need to reroute traffic in Suffolk
'4 County?
't 5 A. The needs and his discretion. The i
i 6 vehicle and traffic law of the State of New York 7 Provides that he determines those issues.
g Q. What type of instructions need to be 9 given to an individual officer if there is a l 10 decision from headquarters to reroute traffic 11 because of an accident or any other event?
12 A. He can take action on his own 4 13 initiative.
t 14 Q. Suppose a police officer is not on 15 the scene of an accidente there is a very large 1
16 accident, and you are sending a number of police 17 vehicles to the area, what types of instructions 18 do you give under those circumstances?
19 A. It might well be appropriate for a l
1 20 suparvisor in charge to direct other responding 21 units to approach lateral intersections or l
l 22 perimeter road. character designs and detour, 1
l 23 reroute and direct traffic away from the accident l 24 scene, which would also include a road closure if 25 it becomes necessary.
l o g = *
- g
f l IN' h,*
y c 1 74 Roberts b'
3 2 Q. Are the officers in Suffolk County 3 familiar with traffic intersection diagrams?
4 4 A. You mean if you had a booklet of 5 fore 19n traffic intersection designs which might d
be characteristic of an intersection, they might 6
7 encounter somewhere within the police district?
8 Q. Well, my question --
9 A. They wouldn't need a booklet. If --
10 most of our patrol officers are assigned to a 11 certain patrol sector. They quickly learn and 12 adapt to what co-exists in their sector during 13 their tour of duty. Tomorrow they will be coming 14 back to the same place. The intersections, they 15 read them very well.
16 Q. Because they work with them every 17 day?
18 A. Those days.
19 Q. They have them co'smitted to memory?
20 A. Those days they are working, yeh.
21 Q. You referred earlier to precincts.
22 How many precincts are there within the Suffolk 23 County Police Department?
24 A. There are six.
25 Q. How are they geographically defined?
.- m nnvie oeonovton. Yur
f g
75 Roberts 2
A. Well, they are precincts.
j" 3 Q. Let me back up before I get a long 4 answer that has boundaries and all of that.
5 Are they approximately the same size, 6 geographically spaced across the geographical
, 7 area, under your authorization?
i
^ O A. No , and they really weren't in 1960 l l
l
[ $ 9 either. At that time, 1960, the county has l
10 evolved and the evolution is to the east. The
- 11 Town of Brookhaven is the largest land mass e 12 municipality in the State of New York. There are I
! 13 two precincts in that township. One on the south 14 shore and one on the north shore.
15 Q. By -- l 16 A. So you take a number of factors into )
17 consideration when they first put them in. You 18 not only had to consider the populous and the l i
19 nature of the environment, business coupled with 20 residential, commercial, those aspects, but you I
21 also had to be concerned with land mass. How long 22 does it take ' ou to get to a particular scene.
23 So the inherent considerations were l
24 for the development of sectors, in other words, 25 patrol sectors. We do not in all instances l
i l
l
\
d J 1 76 Roberts 1
2 relieve at the end of a tour at a station house.
3 Most of our relief points are away from the 4 station house and during the course of that 5 assigned tour, the supervising officer visits each 6 of his assigned subordinates once or more during 7 that tour.
8 Q. O.K. The precincts are 9 geographically defined. Does each precinct have a 10 precinct headquarters of some type?
11 A. They have a precinct building, four 12 of which are similar in design and the other two 13 are designed differently, but of similar design to 14 each other.
l 15 Q. Are there any other police buildings l
16 within these precincts?
1 17 A. Several.
l i 18 Q. What are they?
19 A. Well, the marine bureau iacility, for 20 instance, is based on Timber Point. county land on l 21 the south shore. They have a rather large i
22 facility. They can do indoor repair work on more l
l 23 than one boat at one time, and it also provides 1
24 classroom space for training and whatever needs l 25 there may be. Storage of particular specialized l
, __ nnv, e nen-n .me ,u-
t I
r* *
-+
g 77 Roberts N
J.$ 2 equipment for that type of a function.
o 3 The emergency services unit, crime 4 scene unit, aviation unit, they are housed at the 1
l 5 MacArthur Airport and they have a hangar for i
M 6 storage of their aircraft.
- y Q. What is --
e A. And other facilities.
f 9 Q. What is the station house that you 1 10 j ust referred to?
- \
j 11 A. Station house would be a precinct.
l l
, 12 Q. O.X.
13 A. That would be professional slang, i
14 jargon.
15 Q. Do you use traffic intersection 16 diagrams within the Police Department, and I 17 realize they are familiar, but do you have them?
l 18 A. In a training scenario I'm sure they 19 do. Every day, officers on patrol sketch 20 intersectional and roadway characteristics when 1
21 they file motor vehicle accident reports.
22 Q. Do you have diagrams posted anywhere?
23 A. Of what?
24 Q. Of intersections?
25 A. They would have to be of such
. 1 79 Roberts 2 ,
A. They are.
~
3 3 Q. Have you reviewed the individual i ,
- 3 4 intersection diagrams of the Shoreham plan?
5 MR. MILLER: Excuse me. Ms. Stone, I 6 am familiar with the LILCO plan and to my 7 knowledge there are no traffic 8 intersactions or diagrams of intersections 9 included within the LILCO plan.
l 10 MS. STONE: Let me ask the witness.
l 11 Q. Have you reviewed any intersection 12 plans or diagram intersection plans that are l
13 related to the Shoreham/LILCO plan?
14 A. In the plan there are highlighted.
15 some portions of the roadways for highlighting. I 16 guess that is the purpose of them being in the 17 plan, there really aren't that many. which 18 highlight the intention of the planner to 19 recharacterize the roadway for the purpose of 20 movement of vehicles. As in one-way traffic 21 design, continuous flow. A few circumstances like 22 that. That is my recollection of the plan as 23 opposed to you may be talking about the envelopes 24 that have a nice picture --
l 25 (Pause) l t
1 nnvir_nnnnnerun..rur.
1N i 80 Roberts 2 Q. I am referring to the individual 3 diagrams, traffic plans that are not a part of the 4 plan but are related to the plan and I believe you 5 have reviewed them in connection with your prior 6 testimony here? Correct me if I'm wrong.
7 A. O.K.
8 A. I'm sorry to take advantage of you, 9 correct me if I'm wrong, are those the ones that 10 are in the envelopes and would be handed out at a l
11 mobile site and handed out --
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. Because the supervisor may not have 14 been there on a prior occasion. I know they 1
15 exist. I've never looked at them. I never had i
16 access inside one of those envelopes. I know --
17 I've read that this packet is delivered to the 18 supervisor at the mobilization staging area.
19 Q. Has anyone at the Police Department 20 looked at those diagrams in the envelopes?
21 A. Not to my knowledge.
22 Q. Has anyone told you what they look l 23 like?
24 A. What they --
25 Q. What those --
l 1
_ , ~ , _ _ nnvir prpnRTTNn. TNF.
i 4
) i
, , 1 81 Roberts
,. 2 A. Diagrams look like?
Y 3 Q. Yes.
f 4 A. No. I was told there was a diagram 5 in this envelope along with some other data and an 3
i i
6 equipment list or something like that.
l 7 Q. I want to direct your attention --
l 8 let me show you first, I'm not sure if we ever 9 showed this to you f or identification. Exhibit 5 to which is entitled "Affidavit of Richard C.
11 Roberts " and ask you if you've ever seen that 12 document before?
13 MR. MILLER: For the benefit of the 14 record, I assume we are now going to pursue 15 a line of questions concerning Chief 16 Robert's February 1988 affidavit and if so i
17 I would consider that line of questioning 18 relevant to this proceeding. We are doing 19 this exactly backwards, of course, but it 20 seems to take less time this way.
21 A. I have seen this before.
22 Q. O.K. I want to direct your attention 23 to paragraph 5 of that affidavit. In particular, 24 I want to direct yo'ur attention to page 2, the 25 botton,three lines where you state: "Nor would Je nnv;e eeenettee. von
g 82 Roberts
^
2 they have been trained how to respond to a t
4 3 radiological emergency at Shoreham."
?Z
- 4 And I believe that the "they" in that i quote refers to the members of the Suffolk County 4 5
['
PoliC#*
, 6 7 Are Police officers in the Suffolk 1 t i
( a County Police Department trained to respond to an l
( 9 emergency at the Brookhaven National Laboratory?
10 MR. MILLER: Obj ection on relevancy l %
11 grounds. Go ahead, Chief.
l ',
1 12 A. Specifically to a radiological 13 emergency occurring at Brookhaven National l
14 Laboratory?
15 Q. No, that was not my question. My l 16 question is what about an emergency at the l
. 17 Brookhaven National Laboratory.
19 A. An emergency?
l l
19 Q. An emergency.
20 A. D.K. Yes.
I 21 Q. What is the nature of that training, 1
i 22 if you know?
l 23 MR. MILLER: I'll go back to my 1 24 standing relevancy obj ect ion on this line 1
l t
l 25 of questions.
l l
l l mmui e n - a - m r * . ia * . ia l - _._. __. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ - . _ - _ -, ._ --____ _ _ . . - .
i 1
- i. 2
- 2 4'
1 87 Roberts 2 Shoreham, at any location other than 3 Shoreham, without the implication.that 4 anything has happened at Shoreham.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. For what type of radiological 7 emergency have the police been trained?
8 A. Well, the level of involvement would 9 indicate that our greatest concerns at this point 10 in time are to those hazardous materials, spills, 11 those premises, industrial, who have storage of 12 toxic materials et al., whatever substance.
13 Q. What training has there been in these i
14 areas?
15 A. The academy has that responsibility 16 and there is classroom and then -- what do you l 17 call it, what is a good word -- they would 18 exercise a particular site location and 19 supervisors would have to react to the scenario as 20 described.
21 Q. Do you know any Particular sites as 22 to which officers are trained at the acacemy?
23 MR. MILLER: You mean trained to 24 respond to a particular site?
25 MS. STONE: Yes.
1 L
E 1
88 Roberts
- A. No. Without specific reference to l7 4 3 any particular site, no.
4 Q. O.K. Let's go back a couple of l 5 9uestions to where -- the one that started have 6 the Suffolk County police officers been trained in 7 connect ion with pot ent ial radiological and see if 2
8 you can find that question.
2
- 9 (Record read)
't j 10 MS. STONE: Read the answer too.
l l
11 (Record read) l 12 Q. I want to go back to potential
, 13 radiological emergencies anywhere else.
14 Have the Suffolk County police been 15 trained with respect to potential radiological t
l 16 emergencies at anyplace aside from the Shorkham 17 plant?
18 A. Well. --
19 Q. Or I'll say anywhere and you can l 20 say -- and you can answer.
21 A. Yes, they have. They would respond 22 to a radiological erergency occurring within the l 23 County of Suffolk.
1
, 24 Q. They would?
l 25 A. Yes.
--v,e e r e - e ,....- u-
89 Roberts l
- h g i'! 2 Q. No matter where that radiological
]5) 3 emergency occurred? i 4
, 4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What training has been done with 6 respect to radiological emergencies within the y County of Suffolk occurring within the County of G Suffolk or occurring outside but having an, affect 9 on the County of Suffolk?
?
'g to A. To my knowledge, it is not site E
- 11 specific. O.K.
U f 12 Q. O.K. What is the nature of the
$ {
13 l training that has been given? ;
't l
l 14 A. I'm not fully aware of the totality 1
15 of the training that is afforded to the officers I 16 at the Police Academy and/or the in-service that 17 may be afforded them with specific assignments, i
18 1.e., emergency service response personnel. 1 19 They go away to special schools. i 20 They go to Huntsville, Alabama, they go to New '
1 21 Jersey, and those people are the up-fronters, so 22 to speak. They are our uniformed personnel, and I 1
23 could be mistaken, but generally are instructed to 24 establir.h a perimeter and once that has been '
l l 25 established. then they wait for the emergency 4
i l
n .,yt r- n - n n e . ...- ,s.-
'q T 1 91 Roberts 2 Q. And these are the people you say who 3 have been trained in Alabama and New Jersey with 4 respect to radiological emergencies?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. How many people are employed in that?
7 A. I believe 25 would be a f air number.
8 They work off a 22 squad chart. There are three 9 supervisors that I'm aware of.
10 Q. Have these individuals been trained.
11 to your knowledge, with respect to pathway 12 operations relating to any action that might have 13 to be taken in connection with the Indian Point 14 nuclear plant or the Millstone Point plant?
15 MR. MILLER: Excuse me, is the 16 question about pathway operations?
17 MS. STONE: Ingestion pathway 18 operation.
19 A. I don't have any knowledge of that.
20 Q. You don't know whether anyone in 21 Suffolk County, or do you know whether anyone in 22 Suffolk County, in the Police Department, has been 23 trained with respect to any evacuation which might 24 have to take place in Suffolk County by virtue of 25 an accident at Indian Point or Millstone Point?
- - . - ----- .... ...n
i 92 Roberts j 2 MR. MILLER: Excuse me, Ms. Stone.
- N j{ 3 Your question goes to whether there has 1
,4 been training for the Possibility of having 2 5 to evacuate Suffolk County because of an I
_ 6 accident at the Indian Point Plant?
I 7 MS. STONE: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: Or Millstone.
l 9 Q. You understand the question?
10 A. I do.
11 Q. What is your answer?
12 A. I'm not aware of any.
?
3 13 Q. Could there be such training to the a .
14 People from emergency services that you are j ust 15 not aware of?
16 A. There could be.
17 Q. You state in paragraph 5 that in your 18 opinion, it cannot be assumed that police -- let l 19 me give you the quote. "It cannot be i . sumed that 1
20 polics participation would provide effective 21 preparedness during such a maj or undertaking as 22 asserted by LILCO."
23 Why is that your opinion?
24 A. Well, although it is not specifically l
l 25 taid there, what I'm saying is, is that police l
[
I DnYi p RcPnRTTNO. TNr.
g 93 Robcrto
,2 Participation to the extent that they would do 3 that function which has already been assigned to 4 LERO workers, I don't believe that we could T J5 Provide effective preparedness. In addition to 6 which I do not believe that our people have been I 7 trained and exercised to perform under those
's 3 8 conditions to the magnitude with which the plan 9 would' require them to perform.
10 Q. O.K. Let's go back to your first 3 11 basis for your opinion, which is that they would 12 not perform -- and correct me if I'm wrong about j 13 what I understand your testimony to be -- but what h 14 I understand is you say your police of ficers would 15 not perform these functions because the function 16 was also assigned to someone who is not a sworn 17 police officer? 18 A. No. 19 Q. All right, why don't you clarify that 20 for me because that is the way I underst ood it. ' i 21 MR. MILLER: Before you clarify iti 1 22 Chief Roberts. so we can leave the record 23 as clear as possible, I did find your last ! 24 question relevant and so long as you 25 continue this line of questioning. I 1
- l
_ nnvLF RCDnRTTNA- TNF l
l 1 94 Roberts 2 believe these questions are relevant. But [3 you have. I think. misstated Chief Roberts' l d ( 4 testimony. 5 MS. STONE: I didn't understand his T 6 answer. That is why I worded it that way. i l 7 A. What I'm trying to say here is that I l 8 don't believe that without the proper training and 9 exercising to determine the level of expertis l 10 developed and then solely to the extent that the 11 plan would proscribe where the people would be 12 put. all those factors, all taken into 13 consideration. 14 Q. I'm confused. 15 A. I don't then believe that we could { l 16 provide an effective preparedness for such an l l 17 emergency. 18 Q. What training is it that your people 19 don't have? 20 A. Well, I've never really been in 21 charge of such -- what I consider to be a maj or 22 scenario or occurrence. and to be very frank with 23 you, without an appropriate period set aside for 24 planning and gross consideration,'I don't t h i n'k l 25 really that I'm prepared to answer that. l l _. nnvie cennoTTMm. TMF
1 95 Roberts 2 Q. O.K. I would like to go back and s3 read his initial answer --
\ d
' A.
2 4 Aside from getting into a car and
- t. :)
T5 driving somewhere. S M b MS. STONE: Let's go back to the 7 Cri91nal answer when I gave the quote from E 8 Paragraph 5 of the affidavit. Read the 9 answer. h to You can give the question and answer , A 11 if counsel wants it, but I want to focus in
, 12 on a particular portion of your answer and II g 13 set you to expand on it because I think we 14 have gotten away from it, and it is the 15 Port ion that I attempted to characterize 16 ar.d charact erized improperly and I want to 17 go back and focus on that and have you is explain to me what you mean by it.
19 (Record read) 20 Q. What did you mean by that portion of 21 your answer where you said that the police 22 participation to the extent that they would do the 23 f unct ions assigned to LERO of ficers poses a 24 problem in terms of police response during a maj or 25 emergency at Shoreham? l , l
L g 96 Roberts 2 A. I think it goes beyond j ust those few y 3 things that we have very recently discussed, in 4 other words, t r 'a i n i n g , exercising to insure that 5 the training has been appropriate and satisfies 3 6 the need. 7 My feelings also attach themselves to l 8 Port ions o f the plan which say LERO workers are I 9 assigned in this number to respond to these 10 locations and perform those functions. I don't 11 think we have ever agreed that, at least from the 12 Police department's standpoint, that we totally 13 agree with the LILCO plan and the number of 14 restricted, our conversation is now solely to 15 traffic guideposts. O.K., that we agree that there 16 should only be 135 Assigned traffic posts, nor do 17 we believe, nor have we said even if we did 18 believe 135 was adequate, that the numbers of 19 people assigned to staff all of those described I 20 traffic posts would be sufficient to handle 21 evacuat ing the public f or an extended period of 22 time. 23 Of course there are other factors. 24 The movements through certain described 25 intersect ions that have been made part of the Plan DOvlF .t F P O R T T N G , TNC.
g 101 Roberts S' 2 of unknown substance and it is giving you a good
? 3 Rich on the electronic device, that is site 4 specific.
6 1: [ 5 We are talking about, in my b 6 estimation, an area, depending on wind drift and i 3l l 1 7 other f actors that come into play, that creates an 8 imagery in my mind of a rather large, expansive 9 area and 1 never have thought that the staffing 10 Provided for in the LERO plan was anywhere near 11 appropriate and adequate to insure preparedness. 12 Q. O.K. But assuming your police 13 officers were directed to provide access control 14 along given geographical boundaries, would.they 15 understand the concept of access control? l l 16 A. I'm sure they would. 17 Q. If you were directed to do so by the 18 commissioner of police, would you direct the
'I 19 police officers under your control to follow the 20 LILCO plan with respect to its provisions for 21 access control?
22 MR. MILLER: You are asking the 23 witness to speculate, but with that 24 understanding. Chief Roberts, you may 25 answer.
, . , nnvip pronRTTNr. TNr.
1 l
. I} $ I I M U ,
, y@ 1 102 Roberts l
'.9
; 2 A. You are asking me to speculate and l
'3 all of the information I have available to this l
1 L^ 4 point in time indicates to me that the LILCO/LERO I i 5 plan would not be followed, so you are asking me 6 to speculate un whether or not I would do it if my 7 commissioner said "follow thoss directions that 8 are in the LERO plan."
)
9 Q. I'm not asking you what ydur police 10 officers would do, I'm asking you -- 11 A. What I would do. 12 Q. If you were ordered by your 13 commissioner, ordered by your commissioner, to 14 direct your officers, to order your officers to 15 follow a certain behavior, including the I.ILCO i ) 1 16 plan, would you carry out that order from your 17 commissioner? 18 A. It would have to be a lawful order 19 and knowing what I know, the circumstances would 20 have to change. 21 Q. What are the circumstances that would 22 have to change for you to carry out that order? 23 A. I j ust indicated that to you. All of 24 the information I have available to me at this 25 point in time indicates that county agencies will r . _ _ _ . _ _ _
g 103 Roberts 2 not, will not follow the LILCO/LERO plan. 3 Q. That is not my question. My question 4 is you said that you would only carry out a lawful
'5 order. Is it your opinion that such .an order from f6 your commissioner would be something you would not 7 follow out under the present circumstanceo if this O happened this af ternoon as we are sitting here?
9 A. Under the present circumstances. I , i
} 10 have the highest level of regard and faith and 11 re5Pect for my superiors. Yes, I would follow the 12 order.
.{ 13 Q. You would follow the order?
+
14 A. I would. 1 l 15 Q. Despite -- 16 A. Because I wouldn't expect him to give 17 me an unlawful one. 18 Q. That is in spite of the local laws 19 that have been passed with respect to 20 participation in emergency planning preparedness? l l 21 A. I'm not going to place my j udgment or 22 the level of my knowledge above hiss I know what 23 currently exists. If those circumstances changed 24 and I don't know it, but the man gives me an 25 order, I will perform it.
.s-
, i 104 Roberts 2 Q. Is that the same with respect to
..' 3 other aspects of the LILCO plan, if you were "J. ;i 4 directed, ordered to tell your relice of ficers to
' ?
~
5 direct traffic in accordance with tne LILCO plan,
'h l
6 would you do so? l l 7 MR. MILLER: I want to understand l l 8 your hypothetical. You are talking about 9 an order given today that under current 10 county law would be an unlawful order but 11 would be coming from the commiosioner to 12 Chie f Robert s, would he carry it out. l 13 MS. STONE: My hypothetical doesn't 14 consider whether the present law makes it 15 lawful or unlawful. That is a question for 16 greater minds than yours or mine. The 17 hypothetical is as the law stands today, in l ! 18 light of all of the circumstances that are 19 present today in terms of the laws, he has 20 already said that he would obey an order 21 from the commissioner with respect to 22 access control. It was a very limited question. I'm ! 23 24 asking if that same reasoning applies with l 25 respect to other aspects of the LILCO plan. l 1 l I l 1 e m ,, - - - - - e . , , ,e ...e
- g. 105 Roberts e 2 Q. If you were directed to tell your g3 police officers to act in compliance with the 4 LILCO plan in other areas, would you also do so on j 5 the direction of your commissioner?
A - p 6 A. Yes, I would. And at the same time 7 that I was doing it, you can rest assured that I 8 would be telling him that I didn't believe it e
^j 9 would work.
Y 10 Q. But you would do it? 11 A. Yes, ma'am. 12 Q. Now, given the training that your 13 police officers already have and the experience 14 that they have, do you think that they could 15 follow the directions in the LILCO plan? My 16 question is not whether it would be effective or 17 not, because you've given me your answer on that. 18 My question is could your officers physically 19 follow your order if you followed your 20 commissioner's order and directed them to carry 21 out functions under the LILCO plan. 22 MR. MILLER: That question is l 23 grossly overbroad. It is vague. It asks 24 if officers could follow any kind of an 25 order relating in any way to the LILCO 1 l l 1 _ , , - - ,, , -w--, . - - - - - -
\ l l t 106 Roberts 2 plan. It calls for speculation by the
%' 43 witness. I do not see how Chief Roberts N -$ '
l 4A - 4 can answer that question. ! t h 5 If he believes otherwise, he may )1
- 6 answer. ,
l [ 7 A. I can attempt to answer it in my own l 1 8 way. j; 9 Q. Go ahead. Yf 3 10 A. It is not a yes or no. The plan
> l 11 outlines certain actions on the part of LERO ;
12 workers. It assumes a response by the public to 13 those directions at all. Assuming that those ti 14 circumstances co-exist, our people are' trained, 15 yes, they could do it. 16 Q. Assuming everything else in the LILCO 17 plan -- 18 A. Is true. 19 Q. -- went as outlined, your police 20 officers would be able to respond in the manner 21 described in the LILCO plan, is that your 22 testimony? 23 A. That's right, but you know, the 24 qualification to that answer is I haven't seen i t. 25 We have reviewed exercises conducted under the
~
w- - _
- .--------=ge- - - - - ----TP=T--T- -----A- -v-- - - " * - - ~ *- " - ' - " " -
- _ . . , , , - , w w wm
' l 107 Roberts LERO plan and they would indicate that it is not g workable in many areas and that the Plan itself is j
inherently flawed. 1 5 Q. That is the effectiveness of the 6 Plan? 7 A. The quest ions you are ask ing go back 5 .' ' 8 to -- and I can't. like a blackboard, erase it out 9 of my mind and have you say.-- I know my people
, 10 can direct traf fic and they will direct traffic l
i 1 11 under the most trying conspiracy, but they have to 12 be assured that what they are doing is wha'c should 13 be done and that at a point in time, whatever time 14 that effort should be modified, changed or other 15 people made available to assist in the same 16 functions that are making their task almost 17 impossible to perform. that it is available to 18 them, and these are all ramificat ions and as -- 19 you know, as a police supervisor. I j ust wouldn't l 20 want to put people out on a post and you go there. l 21 you go there, you go there, you do this and then 22 have it all fall flat on its face. 23 Q. But if you were directed to do so -- 24 A. If it is not going to work, and 25 nothing has been shown to me to this point in time nn... e --en--...- ..-
. . , _ . - - . _ ,__._---c.. - - - . . . , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ . _ . . , , , . , _ _ _ _ _ . , - - .
5' i 108 Roberts 2 that it will work, then why would I do it in the 3 first instance? 4 Q. But you would do it if you were 5 directed to do so, you would direct your officers 6 in accordance with the LILCO plan? 7 A. Sure. Sure. 8 Q. If you referred -- 9 A. I can't imagine anybody telling me to 10 do it. 11 Q. You mado a reference to Fe0Ple making 12 it impossible for your police of ficers to do their i 13 job. What did you mean by that? i 14 A. No, I'm saying that if in fact the 15 plan's assumptions are not what will be the real 16 world scenario, then you could give out all of the 17 diagrams and instructions you want and it is not 18 going to work. It is not going to work. I don't 19 care if you have 1 officer or 7 officers out l 20 there. 21 Q. Do you have any specific reason to 22 believe that your officers would not follow your 23 instructions? 24 A. I have none. 25 Q. If you gave them as an order? 1
4 4 l Jg' { 1 109 RoberYo l J K q r 2 A. I have none, so long as they are ' t 3 physically able to perform, yes. Some officers I l 4 have indicated that that would be actions or 5 attitudes before they repaired for duty. Our 6 PeoP l e respond in a totally responsive and caring 7 way. 8 (Pause) 9 A. I hope you grabbed that last portion 10 of my statement, and that was to the extent that 11 no, that would be premobilization. If they come, 12 they will do it. I don't know how many will come, 13 but it never has been proposed. We have never had 14 the mobilization efforts to the scale or extent 15 that we believe the manpower requirements would be 16 in such a scenario, but -- 17 Q. What is the largest number of men 18 you've tried to mobilize at any given time for an 19 emergency? 20 MR. MILLER: Obj ection on relevancy 21 grounds. 22 MS. STONE: Fine. 23 A. There have been scenes, back in the l l 24 60's, early 70's, there were some. scenes of civil 25 disobedience. l nnvie oeeneT t um . TMc l . l
I 1 117 Roberts 2 MR. MILLER: Ms. Stone, if you are k g 3 going to ask about communications 4, W
".4 3 4 capabilities of the Police Department --
?S l
,!t h 5 MS. STONE: I'll j ust ask him about 6 communication systems. I won't limit it in S
Y 7 any way. I was trying to give him a hint k
. - 8 as to where I was going.
'i 9 MR. MILLER: I understand but your 10 question implies that the RECS system is 11 Part of the police communication system.
12 MS. STONE: I delete any reference 13 to the nature or topic of what the v 14 questions are to follow. I'll j ust ask the 15 question. 16 Q. Are you familiar with the term RECS 17 system? 18 A. I believe I have a familiarity with 19 it. 20 Q. Do you have such a system in Suffolk 21 County, if you know? 22 A. Not to my knowledge. 23 Q. What is your understanding of what an 24 RECS system is? 25 A. That is a conference type scenario. I i i l
l I g 118 Roberts 2 y u Pick up a phone and it automatically rings at 3 certain designated locations and when the phones 4 are picked up, there is a roll call and then a 5 conversation ensues and acknowledgment of the 6 information translated read back and the 7 conversation ceases, the phones are hung up. 1 a 8 It could activate from any one of 9 several sites. Lt i [ 10 Q. Do you know whether there has ever ik 11 been an RECS line or system hookup between the 12 Shoreham plant and the Suffolk County Police
. 13 , Department?
m 14 A. I don't have any knowledge. 1 15 Q. You don't have any knowledge as to 16 whether there ever has been one, is that what you 17 are saying? l l 18 A. That was the question. l l 19 Q. Yes. Are you familiar with the 1 20 term -- excuse me, who would know, is there 21 someone who would have more knowledge about this 22 type of communication system than yourself? 23 A. To my knowledge, there is -- there 24 isn't any. There has been movement in that 25 bureau, Communications and Records Bureau, 1 a nnVI C OCDnOTTNA. TNF. W
p 119 Roberts Probably there has been a change of commanding 2 3 officer at least twice, maybe three times, in the 4 last five years. 5 Q. Who is.the current commanding 6 officer? 7 A. Philip Robilotto. g Q. Do you know for a f act that there is 9 not an RECS system between the Shoreham plant of
$ lo the Suffolk County Police Department or do you
?
11 j ust not know whether there is or not such a l 12 system? l 13 A. I don't know that there is such a 3 14 system. 15 Q. You don't know whether or not there * ! , 16 is, there could be one, for all you know? 17 A. I depend -- no, I don't believe there 18 is one because in the last couple of years. there 19 have been declared unusual incidents at the site 20 and they have come through either on the outside 21 line or 911. so I would suspect that if there was l l 22 RECS. it would be easier to go the other route. l 23 Q. Have you ever heard any discussion l l 24 within the Police Department of the advisability l 25 of having an RECS line with Shoreham? l l l l nnvir oconoTtNn. tur - l ' ~ ~ '
l 4
;- 1 120 Roberts 1
A. 2 I've read it in the plan. 3 Q. Has there ever been any discussion , 4 within the Police Department that you know of with l ( y} 5 respect to an RECS line to Shoreham? l 6 A. I'm not privy to it. I 7 Q. Do you think that that would be a _8 good thing to have? 9 MR. MILLER: Calls for speculation. 10 A. If that plant ever went on line, it 1 11 would. [ 12 Q. I'm not talking about in connection 13 with the plant being on line or not. Just talking l 14 about for emergencies such as the ones you've 15 described like bomb scares? 16 A. You could have people lined up the 17 road and pass the message orally. If we are 18 designated to perform a response mode, the 19 quickest that we could get the message, it would 20 give us time to put out the call. I'm not against 21 it, that is for sure. 22 Q. Are you familiar with the term NAWAS7 23 A. No. 24 Q. What kind of communication system 25 does the Police Department use to communicate with
l ! g 121 Rcberts 2 other police dep.artments in the Suffolk County 3 area? i 4 MR. MILLER: I obj ect on the
.. 5 relevancy grounds. As long as we continue 6
on this line. I'll ask for a standing l
b 7 obj ection on relevancy grounds.
l J f8 l A. Radios and telephones. 9 i i G. Are you in radio communication with
,! ?
i 10 A^ ! the other law enforce. ment offices that you { 11 l 1 described earlier. both within the district and 12 outside the district? c 13 A. No. ! 1 ! 14 Q. Is there no countywide radio system 15 to reach all law enforcement entities within l 16 Suffolk County? 17 A. I can't say with a certainty that 18 they all have that capability. 19 Q. If you wanted to reach the police 20 department in a town outside your district like 21 East Hampton. would you reach it by radio or by 22 telephone? 23 A. Telephone. 24 Q. Are there dedicated lines between 25 this office and that? nnV1 C QConRTfNn. TNF ~ l
i g 122 Roberts 2 A. I've never heard of it. 3 Q. Do you know what. if any, dedicated
, 4 lines there are within the Suffolk County Police 5 Department phone system?
6 A. I don't know if the dispatcher in an s 7 ideal situation, if -- there is more than one ( 8 dispatcher in the communication dispatch aspec_t, I
.. C 9 don't know if the respective dispatchers if they S f g 10 are on precinct frequencies can j ust pick up a
.; 11 phone and it will automatically ring down at the
't 12 desk, for instance, at the respective precincts.
i 13 I know he has the capability of using a land line 4 14 for that purpose. 15 I'm almost sure we have the 16 capability of picking up a phone and communicating 17 laterally with fire safety dispatch. Those are 18 the only dedicated lines that I'm aware of. 19 Q. How about with New York? 20 A. When you say New York -- l 21 Q. If you were going to reach the New 22 York Police Department. 23 A. I would call them on the phone. l 24 Q. Could you describe for me, to the l 25 best of your knowledge, the radio system you have l l
..__DOvlE REPORTING. TNC.
i 123 Roberts 2 within the Suffolk County Police Lepartment for 3 internal communications. s i 4 (Pause) l n c
@ *5 MR. MILLER: For the record. I J
3 6 consulted with Chief Roberts for the 4 f
,e . 7 Purpose of instructing him not to get into 6
i '; 8 specifics regarding communicatiens
. ~;
-r a capabilities of the Police Dupartment. We E
l 10 went through this issue some t ime ago and
+h
i
. 11 Chief Roberts will not answer questions 12 with respect to particular frequencies and
;~4 13 the use of those frequencies although I a,
14 have no trouble with him generally 15 describing the communication system of the 16 Police Department. l 17 MS. STONE: 0.K. 10 Q. If you would indicate for me when 19 there are different frequencies and when people 20 are on -- entities are on the same frequency 21 without. revealing what that frequency is, I would 22 appreciate it. 23 A. We have a communications capability, 24 multifrequency communications dispatch system. 25 Q. Where is it located, where does its l nnu, e nnnnovrun tur )
l 1 124 Roberts f j c 2 central function take place? \ ? t 3 A. For the purposes of our conversation, 4 I would say Yaphank. , t-
< 5 Q. Who is in charge of this system? .c a '
j 6 A. We have a communications director. 7 Q. What is his name? 8 A. Vincent Stile. l 9 Q. How is this system staffed here in 10 Yaphank? l 11 A. You have 24-hour staffing of an 12 emergency complaint operator crew who receive 13 complaints and process then through to the radio 14 dispatch section, similarly staffed on a 24-hour 15 basis. 16 Q. Are these the 911 operators? 17 A. The ECO's are 911. 18 Q. Is there any other way to access 19 them? 20 A. You can call them from a police 21 Phone. 22 Q. All right. The complaints come in to 23 these operators and they are then farmed out to 24 the dispatchers? 25 A. Uh-huh.
g 125 Roberts 2 Q. How many dispatchers are located here
,3 in Yaphank at any given time?
4 A. Do you have a day of the week? 5 Q. Does it vary with the day of the M6 week, before I pick a day of the week?
; 7 A.
I don't want to make it difficult. I
) 8 would say there i s a minimum of five dispatchers 9 9 on duty.
e
. 10 Q. Are they --
t ( 11 A. At a given point in time.
?
q 12 Q. Is there a dispatcher per precinct or 13 do -- or does each dispatcher dispatch regardless 14 of precinct boundaries? 15 A. Each of them have similar 16 capabilities. They can dispatch by precinct or 1 17 they can dispatch countywide. l 1B Q. What authority do these dispatchers l 19 need to get before they respond to a complaint 20 that has been passed along to them by the i 21 operator? 22 A. None. It is called for service. You 23 would have to be an idiot to say what about this. 24 You don't do these kinds of things. We have 25 supervisors on the floor where the ECO's are so .p - -w _.-y_- - - y ---m_---- ,,,m,-,-9 ,.,,-y -
4 h! u ,
'- 1 126 ~,9
{ i Roberto b 2 t when it gets to the dispatcher, it goes boom, pow, 3 that is it. 4 When.I say the dispatcher can go 5 i 1 precinct or countywide, that is our units. Our 6 units. It doesn't t ak e away from your prior 7 question with espect to communicating with 8 outside agencies. 9 Q. Let me go back to a question I didn't 10 ask earlier and that is your authority. l 11 Assuming you are not in hot pursuit 12 of some speeding motorist but you have some other 13 1 type of emergency situation, do you have authority 14 to make arrests, carry out general pclice l 15 functions in any of the towns and villages that 16 are not l specifically within your police district 17 but are in Suffolk County? 19 A. Yes. 19 Q. Is that -- 20 A. 1 Depending on the nature and 21 seriousness of the offense. 22 Q. So it is tied to an emergency type of 23 sit uation rather than, however you defined 24 emergency, as opposed to simply Patroling? 25 A. It is an observed violation. 1 DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
i g 130 Roberts 2 If you care to answer that question, s Chief Roberts, you may. If you don't care 4 to answer it, don't. l 5 MS. STONE: I withdraw the question. 6 Q. Do you have dispatchers anywhere 7 besides in this building? 8 A. There may be one -- no, not for the i f . l 9 purpose of dispatch, no. There may be one or two
" 10
. monitoring stations that have the capability of 11 communicating outside of their office but probably
+
12 with no greater ease than if you picked up a 13 portable radio and did the same thing. 14 Q. In the event of an emergency, what 15 procedures are there for you to reach other 16 supervisory people in the Police Department? 17 A. On or off duty? 18 Q. Off duty. i 19 MR. MILLER: Ms. Stone, you are 1 i l 20 talking about any kind of an emergency? 21 MS. STONE: Yes. 22 MR. MILLER: Talking about within 23 this police department how would Chief 24 Roberts reach other supervisory personnel 25 off duty? I l _.L - - . . . - - - - - - - . . . - ...-
l l l l l 4 131 Roberts 1 f 2 MS. STONE: Yes. 3 A. Each of us has a call sheet for 4 respective supervisors in your sphere of 5 responsibility, so to speak, as well as lateral 6 and hierarchy. If you want to direct your inquiry 44 3 I t l '.'7 to a specific individual, you call him by phone. 8 Q. Do you carry such a list with you? f , I 9 A. I do. 10 4. You do. Who is on the list that you 11 carry with you? 12 A. The hierarchy and my lateral. 13 Q. Everyone above you? 14 A. Oh, yes. 15 Q. Is that what you are saying? 16 A. Yes. If ym; are in the field and -- 17 there are certain requirements for notification ! 18 and you are best advised to do it. 19 Q. Suppose you were trying to reach 20 Commissioner Guido, how would you go about doing 21 that? 22 A. I would communicate through the duty l 23 officer. 24 Q. You would call from your home to the 25 duty officer who then would contact Commissioner p
g 132 Roberts
. 2 Guido?
s, Y 3 A. Uh-huh. 4 j 4 Q. Could you call him directly if you 5 wished to do so? o {, o A. I could but I - you go through the 7 duty officer first. You save time. He may not be 8 where I'm calling to begin with and he will pick 9 him up somewhere. 10 Q. Is it customary that a supervisor 11 like the commissioner would leave his 12 whereabouts -- inf ormat ion about his whereabouts 13 with the duty officer? 14 MR. MILLER: You are asking the 15 witness to speculate. Commissioner Guido 16 has been hot- for two weeks. I don't think 17 that custom has been established for the 18 commissioner. 19 MS. STONE: I will rephrase the 20 question. 21 Q. Is there any policy or practice 22 within the Police Department with respect *o 23 notification to the duty of ficer about your 24 whereabouts when you are of f duty? 25 A. Not unless you are on call. mme p mmm mmw e *m S t #M N -
133 Roberts
$ 1 2 Q. Is that true with respect to the
( k o 3 commissioner? 4 A. He promulgates the rules. I'm sure g 2 5 that he makes himself available to the duty 6 officer during those periods of time when he knows 7 certain other members of his staff will not be 8 available, so if in 4act he were not available. 9 all right, your call reference would be made to 10 the next lesser rank and you would pick up a guy 11 quickly. 12 Q. Is it your practice to notify the l 13 duty of ficer as to where you are at all times? 14 A. When I'm on call. 15 Q. How often are you on call? 16 A. As often as I'm delegated that 17 responsibility. l 18 Q. You don't deem yourself to be oli call 19 at all times? 20 A. 24 hours a day? 21 Q. Yes. 22 A. If I were there whwn the phone rang, l 23 I would respond to whatever direction I was given. 1 24 Theoretically, there are always responsible people 25 who are designated on call during whatever period l
1 1 135 Roberts 1 2 question. 3 Q. If you are calling from home and you 4 want to reach the duty officer, how do you reach 5 the duty officer? 6 A. I dial his phone number. 7 Q. Directly? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. If someone within the Police 10 Department wanted to reach the county executive, 11 they would call the duty of ficer directly at his 12 number and it would go up. Suppose you could not 13 remember the number of the duty officer, could you 14 reach the duty officer throush 9117 15 A. I could, in an emergency. 16 Q. If someone needed to reach the county 17 executive and called to 911, what would the 18 procedure be, if you know, for reaching the county 19 executive through that number? 20 MR. MILLER: Your question would be 21 if anyone, Joe Citizen wants to reach the 22 county executive? 23 Q. If Joe Citizen realizes that an 24 atomic bomb j ust went off near him and he saw a 25 mushroom cloud and he wants to find out what the l
3 l 1 d' i 136 Roberts I 2 county executive is doing about it, how would he 3 go about doing that if his first impression was to 4 call 9117 5 A. He can call 911 but he is not going 6 to talk to the county executive. 7 Q. What would happen to his call if it 8 came in? 9 A. The information would be recorded, it 10 would be given to a responsible supervisor in the 11 field to check out and the call then would be 12 disconnected from 911. 13 What you don't do with the 911 lines, 14 you don't tie them up. You t ake the inf ormat icn 15 and you get off. There is stacking capability. 16 Q. Is there a warning point located 17 within Suffolk County? 18 MR. MILLER: Could you define what 19 you mean by "warning point"? 20 MS. STONE: Let me see if the 21 witness is familiar with the term "warning 22 point." 23 A. I know what it is generally used as. 24 Q. Have you ever heard the term "Suf folk 25 County warning point"?
I
, i 137 Roberto 2 A. Yes.
F 3 Q. What ts your understanding of that 4 4 - 4 term? k A. I believe that the warning point is
'4 5
*g located in the Department of Emergency
, + 6 J
7 Preparedness. O Q. Of the Division or Department of 9 Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services? 10 A. The correct terminology or 11 identification of Mr. Davis' group over there, the 12 department is the Department of Public Safety, to 13 my knowledge, and he is the department head. In 14 that organizat ional structure, there is an Office 15 of Emergency Preparedness. 16 Q. What is the organizational 17 relationship between the Suffolk County Police 18 Department and this Suffolk County warning point? 19 MR. MILLER: Well, year question 20 assumes that such a warning point exists. 21 I don't believe that is the testimony 22 offered by this witness. 23 MS. STONE: I believe he said it is 24 located a block away from here in that 25 division.
T i 138 Roberts 9 2 Q. Am I wrong? 3 A. I didn't say it was -- where it was 4 located but I said in the last three or four 5 questions that in the structure of the Department 6 of Firo Safety is the Office of Emergency 7 Preparedness and that there is an Office of 8 Emergency Preparedness and that I believe that the 9 warning point is located at the Office of l 10 Emergency Preparedness. l l 11 O. So it exists, you believe it exists? 12 A. It is not a block away. It is down ( 13 the street. l 14 Q. Do you know the street? I thought 15 you pointed in this direction. l 16 MR. MILLER: We have to make sure we l 17 have an understanding on the record of what 18 you are talking about. Are you talking 19 about some Suffolk County warning point as 20 specified in the LILCO plan or some other 21 kind of Suffolk County warning point? 22 MS. STONE: I'll ask the witness. 23 Q. Are you familiar with the existence 24 of such an entity, office or organization 25 independent of such an entity being described in 1
i
-Y t 129 Roberts D "B 2 the LILCO plan?
3 . A. Noi l'm not. I know from past j 4 attendance in a meeting here or there discussions 5 with people over the years that the Office of 6 Emergency Preparedness interfaces with concerned 7 state agencies and things like that, yes. I know, 9 so I'm going to say the total of my knowledge is 9 that would be where the warning point is. l 10 Q. O.K. Well. let me ask another 11 question about that. 12 A. But they are not staffed on a 24-hour l 13 basis. 14 Q. Is there a warning point office, 15 division or something that has current employees, 16 to your knowledge, within the Department of Public 17 Safety? 18 A. I don't think there is an office of 19 warning point. I think the warning point is the 20 responsibility of the Office of Emergency l 21 Preparedness and I say to you that I Personally 22 don't know that they are staffed 24 hours a day, l 23 I don't believe they are. 24 Q. Are there any people assigned to this l 25 thing called a warning point. to your knowledge?
l 1 140 Roberts ss
] 2 A. There are employees in the Office of 3 Emergency Preparedness, I know that.
4 Q. That are assigneo to t'he warning g 5 point? 6 A. I don't know that they are assigned 7 to a warning point. I mean warning point creates 8 in my mind a need for a 24-hour message receipt 9 system, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and my 10 last interface with that agency, that particular 11 o,fice, they are not there 24 hours a day. 12 Q. Do you know what, if any, function 13 the warning point has? I p 14 A. I'm sure it is to notify tne county 15 executive of receipt of information that there is 16 an impending or an actual sit uat ion exist ing whi.ch 5, 17 would raise concerm7 for the public health or 18 safety. I 19 Q. Do you know anything else about how g 20 it is supposed to operate or does operatc? 21 A. How it is supposed to operate -- 22 there are People that -- 23 MR. MILLF.R: The question, Chief, is 24 s? you know. 2? Do you know how it is supposed to I
i
.f, 1 141 Roberts 2 operate?
J A. To the extent that I do I can tell { 4 yL J. 5 Q. Sure. Tell me your understanding of i ~ 6 how it is supposed to operate. 7 A. It is my understanding that certain 8 designated county department heads, upon 9 notification, would respond to that location and 10 there assist the county executive in his direction 11 toward protecting the public health and safety. 12 Depending upon the nature of the incident. Who 13 knows. 14 Q. It is your understanding that that is 15 'something that exists right now to respond in the 16 event of an emergency or to facilitate -- 1 17 A. Not any emargency but an emergency, 1 i 18 yes. 19 Q. Do you know what the procedure is for 20 the notification to individuals in the event of en l 21 emergency? 22 A. From? 23 Q. From the warning point. 24 A. No. 25 Q. Do you know what authority rests with nnvie eeenottue ne
, i 142 Roberts 9
-- 2 the warning point?
T
.7 3 MR. MILLER: I --
M With the office in charge of that l
~$ 4 Q.
\ ?" [I" 5 warning point.
, 6 MR. MILLER: I don't understand what 7 authority.
l l 8 Q. What authority in the event of an l 9 emergency rests with the office in charge of the 10 warning point? 11 MR. MILLER: I don't understand the 12 quest ion. What authority lies with the 13 warnitig point? l l 14 M5. STONE: Yes. 15 Q. What authority rests with the 16 individuals who would be called to the warning 17 point in the event of an emergency? 18 MR. MILLER: I don't think the 19 warning point can have authority. l MS. STONE: I withdraw the question. 20 I 21 Q. How is your 911 number at the Police l } l l l 22 Department staffed? MR. MILLER: Lest there be any 23 l l 24 doubt, my continuing relevancy obj ect ion is l 25 still in force.. l l
i 143 Roberts 2 Q. You may -- l 'i 3 MR. MILLER: Go ahead. Chief l
- Roberts.
( 4 s, 911. there are rotating shifts of 1 1 5 A. l l , 6 civilian wmployees with job descriptions of 7 emergency complaint operators. There also is a l l 8 small contingent of uniformed sworn officers'that l l 9 assist that group in that particular function. 10 911. They supe,' vise the teleserve aspect. 11 Q. Those operators are located in this 12 building? 13 A. They are. 14 Q. And how many operators are assigned 15 at any given time, if you know? 16 A. I' m going to guess. Probably no less 17 than seven or eight at any one given point in 10 time. On occasions there may be one or two more. 1 l Are the 911 operators only authorized l 19 Q. l l 20 to transfer calls to dispatchers or wre they also 21 authorized to transport -- translate, transfer 22 those complaints to other members of the Euf f olk 23 County Police Department? 24 A. I' ve hece d of the conversation 25 describing call switching. Now, I don't knv.4 if f l l i l l . I J
)
1 N7 1 144 j Roberts 2 3 each of the stations in there has that capabilit y but if you call 911. that 4 is a continuing educational process as 5 far as the general populace is concerned.
"Please don't call 6
an emergency." 911 unless it is It 7 is done in every police j urisdic t ion. 8 It really ties up the system. 9 So whether or not they presently have this call switching capability. 10 if they can take a nonemergency number 11 and switch it over to a noncelegated line, 12 calls. generally no, they do not take T' hey take complaints. 13 Q. 14 Has the Suffolk County Police Department conducted or had conducted 15 request at their any analysis or 16 informal or formal report of the 911 procedure, 17 to your knowledge? A. 10 I wouldn't know. Q. 19 Does the Police Department have any 20 analyses or reports relating to traffic fl ew or the capacity of the roads 21 in Suffolk County? A. The Police Department? . 22 knowledge. Not to my ! ! That ( l 23 Safety -- that is a function of the Traffic 24 is the responsibility of Traffic Safety, an arm of the Suffolk 25 Count y government. Q. What equipment and procedures does DOYLE REPORTING. INC. W
~ - - - - - - - - - - - ~
1 1 9! 1 144 Robcrto 09 I p 2 each of the stations in there has that capability
, 3 b ut if you call 911, that is a continuing 4
educational process as far as the general populace 5 is concerned, "Please don't call 911 unless it is 6 an emergency." It in done in every police 7 j urisdict ion. It really ties up the system. 8 _ So whether or not . hey presently have 9 this call switching capability, if they can take a 10 r:onemergency number and switch it over to a 11 nr.nrelegated line, generally no, they do not take 12 calls. T' hey take complaints. 13 Q. Has the Suffolk County Police 14 Department conducted or had conducted at their 15 request any analysis or informal or formal report 16 of the 911 procedure, to your knowledge? 17 A. I wouldn't know. 18 Q. Does the Police Department have any 19 analyses or reports relating to traffic flow or 20 the capacity of the roads in Suffolk County? 21 A. The Police Department? Not to my 22 knowledge. That is a function of the Traffic 23 Safety -- that is the responsibility of Traffic 24 3afety, an arm af the Suffolk County government. 25 Q. What equipment and procedures does DOYLE REPORTING _. INC,
i i 145 Roberts 2 Suffolk County have for the removal of traffic 3 e impediments which occur within Suffolk County? 4 MR. MILLER: I assume you are 5 limiting your question to the Suf folk 6 County Police Department, not Suffolk 7 County? 8 MS. STONE: My question was Suffolk 9 County. 10 MR. MILLER: Chief Roberts can't 11 speak for Suffolk County. 12 MS, STONE: I thought you were 13 referring to the end of my question, not to 14 the beginning of my question. I thought 15 I -- I will restate the question j ust in 16 case you are right about the way I first 17 asked it. 18 MR. MILLER: I'm right. 19 Q. Does the Police Department have --
, 20 excuse me. Strike that.
21 What equipment ce procedures does the 22 Police Department have for the removal of traffic
! 23 impediments in Suffolk County?
I i 24 A. As a general rule, the Police 25 Department. based on the licensing authorities
--v,- - - - - - . . . - . . . -
--. .~ _ - .
1 i hl i
, o I i 146 Roberts I
i 2 within the five townships that comprise the police 3 district, use the services of private towers. 4 Q. Does the Police Department have any 5 tow trucks of its own? 6 A. Some. 7 Q. APProximat ely how many? 8 A. I'm told 11. _ 9 Q. Is it the Police Department's 10 practice and policy to use those 11 tow trucks for 11 removing traffic impediments? 12 A. No. 13 Q. What are those tow trucks to be used 14 for under the procedure of the Police Department? 15 A. For the Purpose of picking up a 16 disabled police unit, laterally to assist another 17 county agency in taking one of their county 18 vehicles off the roadway. Very few circumstances 1 1 19 involved there. l 20 By far, mostly their function is to 21 respond and remove vehicles which are of an 22 evi dent ial nat ure. 1 23 Q. Where are these tow trucks located? 24 A. One or more may be satellite from the 25 garage but we have two garages. One is in l
l 1 147 Roberts 7 2 Yaphank, the other one is in Hauppauge. ( 3 Q. Is the procedure to call one of these 4 contracting tow companies when a traffic I l 5 \ impediment is discovered by one of your officers? I 6 A. Yes, that vendor service, the ) 7 respect ive ordinances require rotat ing lists of 8 assignment. You have two classifications. One is 9 disability and the other is MVA. 10 Q. . Do these -- 11 A. In one or more of the townships, in 12 order to tow from an accident scene, you have to 13 have the capability to repair that vehicle when 14 you get it to your place of business, so that is 15 why they have two lists. DM and MVA. l l 16 Q. Do these companies only tow cars at 17 the directior, of the Police Department or is there 18 some standing arrangement with some of these 19 companies to remove cars that are, for instance, 20 illegally parked, without obtaining specific prior t 21 approval'of the Police Department? 22 A. They don't tow nor do we tow 23 illegally parked vehicles. I j 24 Q. I guess my question is, do they have 25 to call to get advance Authorization before the l 1
I I l I
, i 1 148 Roberts 2 removal of any car or are there circumstances j 3 under which the tow companies are authorized to j P
4 remove without getting specific authority from a 5 Police officer 7 l 6 4. They go cut and conduct a normal 7 course of business. They certainly woulo not -- 8 that would be considered unauthori:ed use of a 9 motor vehicle or whatever if you go out there and i 10 hook onto a car because it is parked of f the ) 11 shoulder of a public roadway. 12 Q. Are there any circumstances under 13 which ut ilit ies or other organizat ions within ; 14 Suffolk County are authorized to remove vehicles
, i 1
15 that arm impeding their work? 16 MR. MILLER: Authorized by whom? 17 MS. STONE: The Police Department. 18 A. That are impeding their work? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. There is provision in the state law i 21 that you can move an illegally parked vehicle to a 22 legally parked position so as to f acilitate the 23 movement of traffic. I'm not aware of anything
, 24 that says that a utility truck can either push or 25 tow a vehicle from the base of a pole because they
4 , I ( Roberts
#; 1 149 l l
2 want to change a transformer. They would have to l
)
3 call the local authorities. 4 Q. But there are circumstances under i ( 5 which a utility would be permitted to move an 1 6 impediment. 7 MR. MILLER: Are you asking a 8 question? 9 MS. STONE: Yes. 10 MR. MILLER: Now your question is 11 whether a utility would be permitted, l 12 Q. Do you envision circumstances under 13 which a utility would be authorized under the law l 14 or practices of Suffolk County to remove a vehicle I i 15 which was impeding its work? 16 MR. MILLER: Authorized by whom? 17 MS. STONE: Suffolk County Police 18 Department. 19 A. Well, the police officer has. I guess 20 it goes back to common law, he has the
. 21 discretionary authority to remove impediments from l
22 a public roadway. I guess he can commandeer and 23 direct utilization of appropriate equipment 24 without maliciously or intentionally causing 25 damage to a particular piece of equipment. J
H5 t I i 1 150 Roberts 2 Q. Not my question. My question is if a 3 water main has burst. and there is a car sitting 4 over the manhole, does the company that is there 5 trying to repair it have to seek Permission or 6 have there ever been circumstances in your 32 7 years in Suffolk County where the utility of its 8 own initiative and at its own expense removed the 9 car? 10 MR. MILLER: Excuse me, that was not 11 your question before. 12 MS. STONE: That is my question now. 13 I've reworded it. 14 MR. MILLER: Now you are back to 15 permission and not authority. 16 MS. STONE: You may characterize it 17 however you wish. 18 MR. MILLER: The words speak for 19 themselves. I 20 Chief Roberts? 21 THE WITNESS: I have the impression l 22 that I answered. 1 23 MR. MILLER: Don't talk to me. 24 Q. I'm listening. 25 A. I had the impression I answered it. l d
1 156 Roberts i 2 Population in that district or in that l 3 precinct. 4 A. That area covers, the Sixth l 5 Precinct -- it is a big precinct. A hell of a l 1 6 land mass. You are not talking about an immediate 7 neighborhood or community. That is a big land 8 mass, I would like you to understand that. 9 The capabilities, probably call 10 several fire departments and tell them to set off 11 their fire sirens, those that have them. The 12 other one would be call the public radio station 13 and notify them and ask for their cooperation in 14 putting out public information bulletins. 15 I can't imagine even a Grucci 16 incident affecting that large a portion of oua 17 population over such a vast geographical area, so. 18 I mean, it is speculative. 19 The other methods quite obviously are 20 you enlist the cooperation of fire service members 21 and your own personnel that are available and you 22 go knockin? on doors, drive up and down the 23 streets, blow your horn, shout out the window. 24 Q. If you were directeJ by the 25 commissioner of police to respond following a i
-- v, e eeeme,,un ,u-s-
)
l li 1 157 Roberts 2 radiological emergency, respond f ellowirig the 3 announcement of a radiological emergency at 4 Shoreham, would you use the LILCO siren system 5 that is in place? 6 MR. MILLER: New we have gotten back 7 to a relevant question which Is of course, B will permit th_e witness to answer but I 9 obj ect to the question on different , 10 groundst that it calls for speculation by l l 11 this witness. 12 Your question also implies that 13 Chief Roberts would be in the position to 1 14 make a decision as to whether LILCO sirens 15 should be act ivat ed. He is not in that f 16 position. 17 If you think you can answer that 18 question, Chief Roberts, please do so. 19 A. I have to tell you, that is -- that 20 wouldn't be part of my j ob. 21 Q. Assuming that you were assigned the 22 responsibility for notif ying the public in the 23 event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, 24 would you use the LILCO installed siren system? 25 MR. MILLER: Calls for gross i
1 s 9 g 1 158 Roberts a 2 speculation by the witness. 3 A. Assuming the magnitude of the 4 seriousness of the consequences of an incident 5 occurring at Shoreham? And those facilities were 6 there and they were operational, it would t 7 certainly seem to be in the best interest to use 8 those sirens in tandem with any other methods of 9 notification that we could develop and imploment. l 10 Q. O.K.
- l. A. We would have to know where the 11 12 switch is or however else you do it.
- 13 MS. STONE: One minute.
14 (Pause) 15 (Recess taken) l
, 16 BY MS. STONE:
4 17 A. Excuse me, in furtherance of those l 18 sirens and utilization of other things that are 19 out there in the environment, like the fire 20 sirens, you know, today, and for as long as I've 21 been living out here, the fire siren is notice to 22 the volunteers to come to the house, as opposed to 23 public. "You better get in your car, call your 24 husbande get out of here " so if you are going to 25 use those things you have to have some -- they
Attachment 4 I I l I
l l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board l
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) )
-)
l i DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ASSISTANT CHIEF INSPECTOR ! RICHARD C. ROBERTS , INSPECTOR RICHARD DORMER, ! INSPECTOR PHILIP McGUIRE, and DEPUTY INSPECTOR EDWIN J. MICHEL l r ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY l REGARDING CONTENTION EX 40 -- MOBILIZATION, DISPATCH, AND STAFFING OF i TRAFFIC CONTROL POSTS DURING THE FEBRUARY 13, 1986 , SHOREHAM EXERCIS" l February 27, 1987 l l i l
0 Plocso briofly oxplain tho genorcl org:nization and structure of the Suffolk County Police Department, so that your respective positions within the Department can be placed in perspective. A. The Suffolk County Police Department consists of approximately 2600 officers, of whom approximately 1800 are assigned to the Patrol Division. There are three Divisions in the Department -- Patrol, Investigation, and Headquarters. The Patrol Division is responsible for providing day-to-day police service to the five western townships of Suffolk County. These five townships are spread over 540 square miles, with over 1.3 million residents. The Investigation Division handles investigations of major crimes (e.o., homicides, narcotics, arson and other felony offenses). In addition to the Major Crimes Bureau, the Investigation Division also includes the General Services and Special Services Bureaus. The Headquarters Division provides equipment and logistical support services to the Department and includes the Operations, Communications and Records, and Personnel l l Bureaus. An organizational chart of the Suffolk County Police 1 Department is appended to this testimony as Attachment 5. Within the Patrol Division, there are six Precinct Commands, l together with the Highway Patrol Bureau, Marine Bureau and Special Patrol Bureau. The Highway Patrol Bureau has about 125 officers and is charged with patrolling the Long Island Expressway and the Sunrise Highway, and with providing traffic enforcement on l l i ' a
selected roadways within the six Precinct Commands. The Marine Bureau has about 65 officers and is assigned responsibility for patrolling selected becches and the harbors and waterways adjacent to Suffolk County, including the Long Island sound. The Special Patrol Bureau has about 90 officers and exercises command over Sections such as the Canine, Aviation, and Emergency Services - Sections. The Special Patrol Bureau also is responsible for performing special services for the Department; its personnel are l issued special weapons and equipment and are specially trained in emergency preparedness and response. The Sixth Precinct provides police service to the Shoreham plant site and the surrounding area, including almost all of the ! LILCO 10-mile EPZ. The Sixth Precinct's area of responsibility covers 176 square miles in northern Brookhaven township; more than 225,000 persons reside within this area. Approxinately 250 i officers are assigned to the Sixth Precinct, which is divided into l 21 patrol sectors. The other five Precinct Commands are similarly divided into patrol sectors and are responsible for providing police service to the rest of the Suffolk County Police District. I i __$4
1 __A ___A _
! J ; ! ! ji ! .! .i i ,! !
~
~!
I !!,
!!! II I! ll1 !!
=i= =i= ,- T =i= =i=
I h! r-
'I
=i=
', g O ' '
=== === ===
=== ==a t l.-,
'I [
. .I s.i -II I I 5 I ljI.1- __
ti f 11 li f Il
--'-l! .li } 1) 1.1 !!I il
! f((
1r; [l i !!! m 3 h ' A
,,--1 ,- -r
== == == == == == === === =
! .I I i i l! .I !
~
l .I ! ri l ii! 15 b '
!I' ,! !!i in I!I T =i= ,-
g! Ii =i= , Ii =i= !!i ILi
=i=' ,-
;!! Ih -
ji i
!!i r-i 1
.g l
~
! 5[:s l
I Pg i c , , g 2 m , , , , iA i 9
! ! ! ! ! .i il i!. 3 i l !
i !$!- k(! e [f i
!jl
!.I g,I
.si
!!b .!:if lii! ! !!
i nau
!!! i!.
i 1. t ik!Ijlig!! < i g!! i n I,' 77 e i zyI
, erI n
1 'i n in n
,p, i
- 2il' .!!.
'~ '~
i.[!. !.ij! iil' !!
,. i!!. !.ij!
3, i s t, , i
- s. ig ,
ma , _. A A is I.!- I li : r s .i .s W. iill !.I, ,i
,I t v v : {! !
.g1n il j;f
- !r1 !! g,i;l it!
si .a gli it .. 61
~
)1 i: k : ' '
- ili ! _ J- '
2 ' I A i
; : . i i ,e a i ,e lIji __
gl,g .!I! !!,'I.!.g!!.!!.!.g'I,!!.!.!.!.! l il i il ! 1 v( , ,
. i.
- _ m .
l 1 ! lli I
~
I 1 .I
..i :n__ a_i
_ _t_!! iue! 4.=!= 1 1 -i ! i -T 9 <
. m i
1 i!i si r ..! ,i r., si ,i i
.li i
ll,i s i r, a1-g) 'i.l . li
=-
l i=i= 1 11 7-i 1 ili ,- 1 11:
,lli I.--
E :
!; J hq.
< -i ___
. . 1 .1 il Ii i i s Qll ll -l{t-i glg lg 1 li 9 ,;g jg j .f la
- d f!! p, i li; si !!; sai -
h **:* d}=- ' 7~ i i 7~ 7- l~@}jj~j.j i i ! i y!N,.17 1 3d. I
!!! !!! 11! !!!
ill ill - t . 4 2*,
, e,< .
1
y c' t 00LKEiU > U3NFC l hav 13, 1938
'88 MY 17 P6 :21 UNITED STATES OF A.VERICA -
NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION [0C EPAhch b bl. Defore the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board i
)
In the Matter.of ) ,
)
LONG I!iLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning) ,
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) I o CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Governments' Response to "Supplement to LILCO's Response to Governments' April 13 i Object:.on and Motion in the Alternative to Compel Discovery" have been served on the following this 13th day of May 1988 by U.S. mail,1!irst class, except as otherwise noted. 8 James F. Gleason, Chairman
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 513 Gi!.moure Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline* William R. Cumming, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Spence W. Perry, Esq. , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel ! Washington, D.C. 20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency ;
0 C Street, S.W., Room 840 '
Weshington, D.C. 20472 i
I 1 i Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.** Richard J. Zahleuter, Esq. Hunton & Williams Special Counsel to the Governor P.O. Box 1535 Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 707 East Main Street State Capitol Richmond, Virginia 23212 Albany, New York 12224 Joel Blau, Esq. Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq. Director, Utility Intervention General Counsel N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Long Island Lighting Company Suite 1020 175 East Old Country Road Albany, New York 12210 Hicksville, New York 11801 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq. Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi, Clerk Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Legislature Bldg. 158 North County Complex Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Office Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W. Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20555 Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq. Hon. Patrick G. Halpin Assistant Attorney General Suffolk County Executive New York State Department of Law H. Lee Dennison Building 120 Broadway Veterans Memorial Highway Room 3-118 Hauppauge, New York 11788 New York, New York 10271 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger New York State Energy Office Edwin J. Reis, Esq. Agency Building 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Empire State Plaza Office of General Counsel Albany, New York. 12223 Washington, D.C. 20555
(,.. 5 David A. Brownlee, Esq. Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500-Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W. 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 Douglas'J. Hynes, Councilman Mr. Philip McIntire Town Board of Oyster Bay Federal Emergency Management Town Hall . Agency Oyster Bay, New York 11771 26 Federal-Plaza New York, New York 10278 Adjudicatory File Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docket U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 0-2 Lawrence Coe Lanpder ' KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W. South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891
- By Hand
** By Federal Express (5/16 delivery)
.= . . - - . ., . . . . -}}