ML20206Q838
| ML20206Q838 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1986 |
| From: | Dormer R, Mcguire P, Eric Michel SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3145 OL-5, NUDOCS 8704220048 | |
| Download: ML20206Q838 (164) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. $l45 TIMNBCRIF1 RGRAL <DF PRDCEEDNGS 2l ng:io o O 0FFICE U 3'M !^'# ERVICI-DOCKETNg"4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of: Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (EP Exercise) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL) Unit 1) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x AL) DEPOSITION OF EDWIN J. MICHEL, PHILIP McGUIRE, and RICHARD DORMER Yaphank, New York Wednesday, December 17, 1986 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. StenotypeP vrters 4 444 North Ca ~O w>esi"ste BitolStreet .c.2ooot (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 8704220048 861217 { PDR ADOCK 05000322 i T PDR
- i + w g. 1 n N.O. <12/17/86 1 UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA Joe Walsh-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3- ~
X 4
.In the Matter of-5 ~LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
~ (EP Exercise) 6 (shoreham Nuclear Power Station,1: Unit 1)
- (ASLBP No'. 86-533-01-OL) 7
X 8
' DEPOSITION OF EDWIN J. MICHEL,' PHILIP McGUIRE, RICHARD-DORMER 9 Yaphank, New York 10 1986 Wednesday,-Decembercl7', 11 A'. ) 12 _ Deposition of EDWIN J. MICHEL,; PHILIP;McGUIRE, and 13 RICHARD DORMER, called for examination pursuant to notice, 14 at the Police Headquarters, Yaphank, New York, at 2:40 p.m., '15 before GARRETT'J. WALSH, JR., a Notary Public in-and for the-16 Commonwealth of Virginia at Large, when were present on 17 behalf of the respective parties: 18 LEE B. ZEUGIN, ESQ. STEVE MILLER, ESO. 19 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 20 P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 21 On behalf of the Applicant, the Long Island Lighting Company 22
-n-e e a g. / t + -hs-APPE'RANCES: (Continuing)_ l' A 2 ll '3.
- MICHEL MILLER,.ESQ.
l P. - MATTHEW SUTKO, ESQ. j 4 Kirkpatrick &-Lockhart- [ . South' Lobby'- 9th Floor = 5
- ~1800 M Street, N.W.
u ll Washington, D. C. 20036-5891 6 __On behalf of the Intervenor, the County of Suffolk-8 g-S 9 i 4 s t: 10-11 0 12 r 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20 21 22 O i
. ~. J S 4 1. 2 - '3-s /% 1 :3 !y - 1- ' C_,0_ N.T_.E _N_ _T _S t 2 Witnesses Direct ' Cross ~ Edwin J. Michel[; . 3_ . Philip ~McGuire.) 4 Richard 1 Dormer -)- L4 141: 5 c 6 ? 7 8 .E, X_ H, I, B, _1 T_ S_ 9 For Identifica'ti'on 10 Dormer Deposition Exhibit Number 1 Page'.10 ~ ~ Dormer Dep'osition sxhibit N' umber.21 Page-'27 - 11 ,-O 'h'd 4 12 DormerL Deposition Exhibit Number '3 Page'39 13 Dormer Deposition Exh bit Number:4i (Page'48-4_ - 14 Dormer Deposition Exhibit Number.5 Page' 60 4 15 . 16 g7 18 19 I 20 l 21 ( 22 4 O
r 4 i s 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 Whereupon, 3 EDWIN J. MICHEL, 4 PHILIP McGUIRE 5 and 6 RICHARD DORMER 7 were called as a panel of witnesses and, each having first 8 been duly sworn, were examined and testified as follows: 9 DIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. ZEUGIN:- 11 Q Gentlemen,'my name'is Lee Zeugin. I am from the n 12 law firm of Hunton and Williams, representing Long Island \\/ 13 Lighting Company in this proceeding. Today, I am going to 14 ask you a series of questions that really will focus on two 15 areas, the first being your observations and actions on the 16 day of the February 13th exercise. The other part of my 17 questioning will be focused more on the contentions to which 18 you have been identified as potential witnesses on behalf of 19 Suffolk County. 20 We have agreed to take you as a panel. I think 21 this is probably the most efficient way for all of us to 22 proceed. Let me basically describe some of the ground rules G x_
m 1 5 ,~ f I %j' that -I-.think= Mike Miller ~and. I -agreed tx) earlier,:and that I 2 is that in some of the earlier part of the~ questioning ~when ~ 3 I'm going to'goLover a little bit of'your resumes and back-4 ground, I will direct those questions :specifically to the 5 person'whose resume I will be talking about. 6 When~we get to the area of the contentions, I.think 7 it is probably best if one of the three of.you begins t'o field 8 the answer,'and to the extent others agree you can either-9 simply say: I agree with'that. Or, alternatively I will 10 ' assume if.you don't add anything.to a given answer that I've 11 basically posed to you'as,a' group;that'you basically concur tb-12 with the answer whoever has: spoken has given. ^ 13 Does that seem fair 'tx) all of'you?' 14 A (Witness Michel) Yes. 15 MR. M.' MILLER: Before we start, let me just state 16 that your representation, we have agreed to take these 17 witnesses as a panel, I want to make clear _for the record j-f l 18 that I certainly don't disagree with your willingness to 19 take this group as a panel. I want to make clear for the 20 record that these witnesses have been offered separately 21 to be deposed, and we certainly would be willing to make l 22 them separately available for the deposition if you would g
3 'a!. ~ 7 '. ( 6-u,q ~.(4 1 i-J.1. care to do.that; J V 1 J' 2 : ' In this' case, I..have no problem going forward: 3 with. these~ gentlemen, ithough',. as a ' panel. z '4 MR.. ZEUGIN: Just'so the' record is clear, Mr. .5 . Miller isDabsolutely correct. That was.always my understand-: a. 6' ing.' BY MR..ZEUGINi- ~ (Continuing) ' 7 E -8 Q. Gentlemen,:let me have-each of you in turn" state. your full name and business address for'the. record,:please. 9l 10 A (Witness ' Dormer) Richard Dormer, Inspector,
- 1'l-Suffolk County Police: Department, Yaphank 'iven~ue, Yaphank',
[p ^ ~ V 12 New York.11980'. 4
- 13' (Witness"Michel)' EdwinJ.[Mibhel', Deputy 14 Inspector, Suffolk County Police Department, Yaphank Avenue, 15 Yaphank New York 11980.
16 - (Witness McGuire) Philip McGuire, Inspector, Yaphan', New York. k 17 Suffolk County Police Department, 18 Q Gentlemen, are you represented by counsel at 19 this deposition? ~ b 20 A (Witness Michel) Yes. 1 21 (Witness McGuire) Yes. a 22 (Witness Dormer) Yes, we are. o a W w- --w-w. 3-ow,+w-- .-w,,y.-e.- rwv,-rww..wwym.<-ym--,e.-y,y,c.,---e-w--,-,a-, ,ew,,,,,,,--w-+ -~3...re,,m,- ,,-%fyy,++ ,e-e-~%, m.-+,---,we--,,,-s-,,e-
A 7-g' U .1 .Q - 'Could you please identify your counsel for the 2 record? 3 A: (Witness Michel) Yes. Mr.-Mike Miller. 4 0 ' Gentlemen, did you review any documents or other 5 material in preparation for this deposition? ^ 6 A (Witness Michel) Yes. 7 (Witness Dormer) Yes. 8 (Witness McGuire) Yes. 9 Q Could I please have you identify the material you 10 reviewed in preparation? 11 Why don't.you start, Inspector Dormer? g. . 'J-12 A (Witness Dormer) Yes. The FEMA report, the LILCO' 13 response to Suffolk County admissions,1the contentions. In 14 my case, :particularly Contention 21.E and F, 22.I, 40 and 41. s 15 0 Any other documents, Inspector' Dormer? 16 A (Witness Dormer) No, sir. 17 (Witness Michel) I would basically say the same, 18 adding Contention 45 and 50. And, in addition I have review-19 ed other documents including the LILCO plan, Appendix A, 20 the OPIPs. 21 Q Let me ask you, Inspector Michel, have you 22 reviewed any documents that may have been generated by LERO
8 1 players on the day of the exercise? 2 A (Witness Michel) I'm not certain about that. I 3 have seen the free play documents that were introduced by 4 FEMA into the exercise, and I'm aware that there were-player 5 documents as well. 6 And, I have discussed them with the attorneys. 7 0 But, you have not physically inspected player 8 documents? 9 A I don't'think that I've seen them, no. 10 0 okay. Any other documents, Inspector Michel? 11 A I'm not certain. There may have been others.
- But, p
\\ " I wouldn't think that that is a tot'al and complete list. 12 13 0 Okay. Inspector McGuire? 14 A (Witness McGuire) Basically, the same contentions 15 Inspector Dormer mentioned, plus 42 and 50. 16 MR. M. MILLER: You are referring there to the 17 contentions, Inspector McGuire, when you say 42 and 50? 18 WITNESS McGUIRE: I'm sorry. Yes, Contentions 19 42 and 50, 20 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 21 Q In preparing for this deposition, did any of you l 22 look at transcripts of earlier proceedings of the Shoreham t ) i
9
- v..
1 proceeding or earlier testimony that may have been. presented 2 in this proceeding? 3 A (Witness McGuire) You are saying in preparing for 4 today? 5 Q Yes. e A (Witness McGuire) No. 7 (Witness Michel) My answer would be no; however, 8 I have previously reviewed transcripts of earlier proceedings, 9 not in preparation specifically for this deposition. \\ 10 (Witness Dormer) No. 11 Q Let me start I guess, then, with Inspector Dormer. /3 \\#l 12 I will show you a copy of a resume that was provided to 13 LILCO by counsel for Suffolk County. 14 A Thank you. 15 MR. ZEUGIN: And, I would like to have this docu-16 ' ment marked -- I guess we might as well call it Dormer 17 Exhibit 1. 18 Let's go off the record for a second. 19 (O f f-the-record. ) 20 MR. ZEUGIN: Okay. 21 22 r"N
10 s m 1 (The document referred to was 2 marked as Dormer Deposition 3 Exhibit Number 1 for identifi-ind xx 4 cation.) 'S BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 6 O Does that accurately describe your education and 7 employment background? 8 A (Witness Dormer) Yes, sir, it does. 9 Q Are there any statements in this resume that 10 aren't accurate at the present time? 11 A No, sir. rN s 12 0 So, there have been no more recent developments 13 that you would need to include in this resume? 14 A No, sir. 15 0 Inspector Dormer, have you ever testified before 16 in court or any administrative or disciplinary proceeding? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q Could you just briefly -- you don't have to list 19 them all for me, but just briefly describe the types of 20 testimony you may have previously given. 21 A well, 1 ve testified in traffic court on numerous 22 occasions. I've been involved in disciplinary hearings within /~'s V
11 0 1 the Police Department, and I've testified as the investigat-2 ing officer. I can't think of anything else at this point, 3 Q Okay. To the best of your recollection, Inspector 4 Dormer, was any of that testimony relevant to issues that may 5 come up in this proceeding? And, I don't mean factually ( 6 identical because obviously there has only been one exercise 7 at the Shoreham plant, but have they all related to emergency 8 planning, traffic control, response to accidents? 9 A No, sir, i 10 0 I would like to go now rather rapidly through 11 your resume, Inspector Dormer. What I would like to do is O 12 to kind of track your employment with the Suffolk County 13 Police Department, and I would like to have you for each entry I'I kind of very generally describe for me your responsibilities, 15 and in particular what I'm looking for are past experiences 16 that are relevant to what you are now being asked to testify 17 on. 18 In other words, mobilization of emergency workers, responses to accidents, et cetera; training matters, to the 20 extent on Contentions 21.E and F you were going to testify 21 about the size of samples that were examined. 22 I take it from your resume that you were first O
12 0 1 employed by the Suffolk County Police Department in July of 2 1963; is that correct? 3 A Yes, sir, that's correct. 4 O Could you briefly describe your responsibilities 5 as a police officer with the Fourth Precinct? 6 A Well, at that time it was very basic police work. 7 I was just out of the Police Academy, and it was foot patrol. 8 I really wasn't involved in any extensive or complicated 9 police work at that point. k 10 0 Could you just briefly describe for me where the 11 Fourth Precinct is located? O 12 A That is in the Township of Smithtown. 13 Q Okay. I take it from 1963 to '65 you left the 14 Suffolk County Police Department'to -- 15 A Yes, sir. I was drafted into the U.S. Army. 16 Q Could you briefly describe for me what you did in 17 the Army for those two years? 18 A Well, it was approximately one year in an infantry 19 company state-side, in Washington State, and onc year -- 20 approximately one year as a military police officer, motor 21 cycle patrol, motor cycle detail. 22 O Okay. As a military policeman, did you perform any 9
F -( O, 13 1/~~N! sQ duties that'gave you.some background or expertiseEto-talk ~ 2 'about responses to roadway impediments;or. analysis'of' .3 emergency planning activities?~ 4: A Yes, yes. Part of.my duties as a motor cycle ~ ~5 officer was to run convoys, military convoys through civilian. 6 roadways, on civilian roadways, and it was a traffic detail. 7 You had-to be: concerned with the safe and proper mov' ment 8 of these military vehicles. '9 0 Did you do any preplanning for that, or were your 10 activities largely actual. traffic direction on the day-that 11 you moved the convoy? i '12 A No. The-only preplanning that I was involved in 13 would be a briefing. -My rank didn't-involve planning for ~ 14 the operation at that time.- 15 0 All right.- I-take it you next returned to the 16 Suffolk County Police Department,~and from 1965'through 17 January of 1970 was a. police officer" assigned to the.Second 18 Precinct; is that correct? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 -Q Could you briefly describe your duties during 21 that time? 22 A Well, during that time I was assigned to a sector O
f. 14 .J 1 car which is regular patrol duties. I responded to all kinds 2 of incidents, normal police type incidents, auto accidents, 3 burglaries, robberies, missing children, normal run-of-the-4 mill-police duties. 5 Q Okay. Were any of your duties during that period 6 involved in planning for large scale activities, be it a 7 demonstration or something like that, where you would.have 8 to have a traffic control plan or more detailed kind of 9 planning? 10 A No, sir. No, sir, not at that point. 11 Q All right. From the period January '70 to April (~~N ( / 12 of 1972, is it correct that you were at that point a 13 Sergeant with the Suffolk County Police Department assigned 14 to the Fourth Precinct? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 0 Could you describe for me briefly your activities 17 during that period? 18 A I was the immediate Supervisor for a squad of 19 patrol officers who were involved in the normal day-to-day 20 police duties of uniformed officers. 21 Q Again, during that period were any of your re-22 sponsibilities related to the planning activities as compared ( f
1 -15 V 1-tol normal day-to-day police activities? 2 A As a supervisor -- as a' supervisor, there was '3 types of planning for traffic details.-.To the. extent -- i b it wouldn't be a formal headquarters type planning. It would 4 5 be on a day-to-day operation, very low level'. 6 But I would call it planning. As a supervisor, 7 .you were required to plan. 8 Q From the period of April '72 through September of 9 1975, I take it you were assigned as a Sergeant in the 10 Highway. Patrol Bureau? 11 A Yes, sir, that's correct. t) 12 O could you basically describe your. activities 13 .during that period? 14 A Well, I was,specifically assigned as a Supervisor 15 of uniformed officers in the Highway Patrol'B'ureau, which 16 was specifically charged with traffic;related police work 17 within the police district. Is Q And, did that. job. include,many planning activities 19 other than the kind of planning activities you just described 20 to me in your previous job with the Fourth Precinct? 21 A No. It would be the same type planning, but now 22 we were going to get involved in a lot more of this. I mean, (1
Y j 16 p L). 1 ~ I was involved in traffic related police work. So, there 2 was a lot morelof the.smallLscale planning as a supervisor. 3 Q Your next: assignment was from September'1975 '4 through September 1976. During this period,'were'you assigned 5 as a Lieutenant to the First Precinct?- h 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Could you briefly describe what you didlduring - 8 this period? 8 A' I worked us the Administrative Lieutenant directly 10 under the Precinct Commander in.the' office, in the Precinct. ' Il Q I note on this particular entry, Inspector b. 12 Dormer, it says, "handl~ing training ' requirements." 13 Could you briefly describe what that means for 14 me? . 15 A I was~ designated as'the. training officer in the 16 Precinct, and I had the... responsibility of seeing that all of 17 the officers receive'd their mandat'ed' training for police 18 related work. 19 Q Did you have to evaluate their performance? 20 A Yes, I did. 21 Q From the period of September 1976 through August 22 of 1978, were you assigned as a Lieutenant to the Internal
y 217 (] 'l Affairs Section? s 2 A Yes, sir, I.was. Q- ,Could you briefly describe what-you did'dsring 3 4 'this' period? 5 A During my period in Internal Affairs,lI investigat-6 ed police officdr"-- improprieties. alleged;against police 7 officers, and I prepared the cases for administrative hearing 8 in the Police Department. And, I testified at thise hearings'. 9 Q So,-I take it-during this period.you were fairly; 10 removed from traffic type related activities? o 11 A-Yes, sir, that's correct. 12 Q The planning activities we talked about previously? la A Yes, sir.. 14 -Q From the period of August 1978 through September-15 of 1979, were-you assignedias(Detective / Lieutenant to the ' 16 Commanding Officer of the Second Squad? 17 A 'Yes, sir. 18 Q Could you help.me out a little bit and explain to 19 me the difference between'a sqdad and a'section in'the 20 Suffolk County Police organization? 21 A Well, it's just a terminology that we use.
- Really, 22 a section can be smaller or bigger than a squad.
It's just (
18. g ) m 1 the terminology that's used. I really can't tell you the 2 difference between the two right now. 3 But, in this case, a detective squad is assigned 4 to an area, in this case the Township of Huntington, and 5 responsible for investigating all felonies and certain mis-6 demeanors committed within that area. 7 Q So, again I take it that during this period of 8 time your contacts with basically traffic related activities 9 were very limited if not nonexistent? 10 A Well, the only contact I had with traffic related 11 incidents were fatal motor accidents,. motor vehicle acci-(~) k# 12 dents. The detectives were involved because there was a 13 death involved. 14 Q Okay. From September of 1979 through January of 15 1981, were you assigned as Detective Lieutenant to the 16 Commanding Officer of the First Squad? 17 A Yes, sir. And -- excuse me. 18 0 During that period, were your activities basically 19 the same as they were for the Second Squad, or were there 20 differences? And, if there were differences can you please 21 explain them to me? 22 A No, they were much the same as in the Second Squad. A m
19 1 Q Okay. From January 1981 through January of 1984, 2 were you' assigned as Deputy Captain to the Chief of the 3 Detectives' Office? 4 A Yes, sir. That was Detective Captain. 5 Q Sorry. Could you please explain to me what your 6 responsibilities were during that period? 7 A Well, at that time I was the Executive Officer of. 8 the General Service Bureau. And the six detective squads 9 assigned to the Police Department or the Police District 10 reported through me to my boss to the Chief of Detectives. 11 Q During that period, did you have many contacts with g. \\ 4 12 traffic related functions or was it still largely detective 13 related in crime -- 14 A Yes, detective related. 15 O Okay. From January 1984 through July of 1986, 16 did you hold the position of Deputy Inspector, Commanding 17 Officer of the Highway Patrol Bureau? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Could you please describe for me your activities 20 during that time period? 21 A Well, I became very much involved in traffic 22 related -- in the traffic related area of police work while v
n-20 \\ ^ %_,/ l' I was the Commanding Officer of the Highway Patrol Bureau. 2 I -- this involved administrative duties. I was responsible 3 for the complete running of the Highway Patrol Bureau, re-4 ported to the Chief of District. 5 In my unit, there were sections. We had -- if you 6 would like me to list them? 7 Q Go ahead. 8 A I don't know if it's necessary. I was involved 9 with the driving while intoxicated enforcement. And, I was to involveo in the planning and directing of that. It was a 11 Suffolk County effort, not just a Department effort. ,7 i \\~' We had a Motor Carrier Safety Unit which is in-12 13 volved with the transportation of hazardous materials and 14 the trucking enforcement on the roadways of Suffolk County. 15 We had an Expressway Enforcement Unit or Section, 16 and this unit was involved with the safe movement of traffic 17 on the Long Island Expressway, Route 495, and' Route 27, 18 Sunrise Highway. 19 We also had a Breath Test Section which is respon-20 sible for the administering of breath tests to DWI operators, 21 which is driving while intoxicated, within the Police District f 22 This unit was also involved in training and testing of other
21 , - ~ \\_/ 1 police officers or other agencies within Suffolk County. 2 We had a Motor Cycle Unit. This unit enforced 3 traffic laws.- It was involved in escort duties within the 4 County. s' Q As part of your responsibilities during this 6 period, Inspector Dormer, were you responsible for preparing 7 traffic plans for various types of activities that may be 8 occurring within your jurisdiction? 9 A Yes, sir. k '10 0 Could you briefly describe for me some of your 11 planning activities? nU 12 A Well, we had myself, of course, and my staff. We 13 worked on plans for selective enforcement on the DWI program, 14 which involved high accident locations. You have to review 15 statistics on accidents, and it was a written plan made up 16 which was submitted to my Chief. And, it was acted on. 17 The major roadways in Suffolk County, particularly 18 Route 27 which is Sunrise Ifighway and Route 495 which is Long 19 Island Expressway, there were plans for enforcement action on 20 these roadways because of the high death rate and the high 21 accident rate on the highways. I was involved in that. 22 I was involved in emergency planning for the n v l
22 0; 1 removal of accident incidents from the Long Island. Expressway, 2 particularly involving trucks. 3 I:know there were.others.- I can't remember right 4 now. 5 Q Let me move on to your present job. At present, 6 are you an Inspector assignedEto_the Chief of District's 7 Office? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 -Q Would_you please describe to me your current to responsibilities? 11 A .I am at -- at this point, I am administratively Gkl responsible for three bureaus. One of then is the Highway 12 13 Patrol Bureau, which I at one time commanded; the_Special 14 Patrol Bureau and the Marine Bureau. 15 0 Could you describe for me the responsibilities of 16 the Special Patrol Bureau? 17 A Well, the Special Patrol Bureau has sections, has 18 four sections, assigned to that Bureau.- There is the Aviation 19 Section, which is helicopters; a Canine Section, which is the 20 dogs; the Emergency Service Section, which responds to emergency situations within the Police District and sometimes 21 22 outside the Police District which would include traffic, O
4 r 23 1 traffic.' problems, chemical. spills, accidents where there were 2
- chemical spills,-' fuel leaks.
They also respond to-sniper 3 incidents. _They-respond-to the Hostage' Team. 4 And, then the fourth Section within that Bureau.is 5 the Crime -- I always,get this mixed up. 6 (Witness McGuire). CrimeLScene Section. 7-(Witness Dormer). Crime' Scene Section.. And, their a duties -- they are involved with responding to criminal o incidents which runs the gamut from fatal auto accidents to- ~ 10 burglary, and they collect evidence, physical evidence, at 11 the scene for the detectives and submit it to the laboratory 12 for analysis. 13 0 I take it the Marine Bureau is responsible for 14 patrolling the water areas? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Let me ask you a couple of general questions, 17 Inspector Dormer, about your history with the suffolk County 18 Police Department. 'During your time with the'Suffolk Count'y ~ 19 Police Department, have you had an opportunity to, in your 20 mind, gain fairly good familiarity with=the area of Suffolk 21 County within the Shoreham 10-mile emergency planning zone? 22 A Yeah, I have a fairly good idea of the area. I may O I
24 (~% G 1 not know all of the street names, but generally I have an 2 idea of the area, have a good idea of the area. 3 Q Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong. It was my under-4 standing that the Sixth Precinct of Suffolk County roughly 5 corresponds with the Shoreham EPZ? 6 A Yes, that's correct. Yes. 7 0 Could you explain to me how you gained your 8 familiarity with the area? 9 A Well, when I was assigned to Highway Patrol as a 10 Sergeant, my duties -- I covered the whole County. When I 11 worked as a Supervisor, Highway Patrol had only one or two O k/ 12 supervisors on at each tour. Most of the time it was one 13 supervisor, and you covered the whole County, what we call 14 the Police District, which included the Sixth Precinct. 15 I've been in the area of the Sixth Precinct a 16 number of times as a Supervisor in Highway Patrol. As a 17 Detective Supervisor in the Chief of Detectives' Office, as 18 a Detective Captain, I visited the Sixth Precinct, as I did 19 the other precincts, on a regular basis. That was part of 20 my duties. 21 I've responded to crime scenes within the Sixth 22 Precinct. As a Deputy Inspector in charge of Highway Patrol, O v
25 %,) 1 I have visited the Sixth Precinct, as I have the other 2 precincts. I have responded to incident scenes within the 3 Sixth Precinct. As a Deputy Inspector and as an Inspector, 4 I am assigned by the Commissioner on District Commander duty, 5 which is a tour of night duty that every Deputy Inspector, 6 Inspector and Chief participates in. And, once a month I 7 visit every precinct and sometimes every section and bureau 8 in the Police District. 9 So, I am familiar with most -- with all of the 10 precincts in the Police District. 11 Q Let me ask you a very general question, Inspector O \\~J 12 Dormer. In your opinion, what parts of your experience gained la in the Suffolk County Police Department particularly qualifies 14 you to testify on the Contentions 21.E and F, 22.I, 40 and 41 15 that you have been asked to testify on in this proceeding? 16 A Well, I think I would have to say the whole 23 17 years. I couldn't really -- you know, I know I've had diverse 18 duties as a police officer, but I've gained experience -- 19 administrative and management experience in each job.
- And, 20 I really couldn't pick out one over the other.
21 I think I've grown in each job, and I think they 22 have all contributed to my experience and my judgment.
26 ,y Nm/ t Q Lot ne perhaps be a little clearer in my question. 2 I guess what I am groping around for is to really ask the 3 question, whether you view your expertise is as a police 4 officer for the past 23 years and the observations and ex-5 perience you have learned over that period, or whether there o are some other, perhaps educational courses you have taken, or 7 areas you may have specialized in? 8 For example -- I will throw this out as an example, 9 a traffic engineer, and you studied civil engineering and to traffic engineering for.four years in college so that also 11 qualifies you, in your mind, as an expert. 12 Is what you really rely on for your expertise your 13 experience as a police officer? 14 A Yes, sir, really my experience as a police officer. 15 0 I will leave you alone for awhile, Inspector 16 Dormer. 17 A Yes, sir. 18 MR. ZEUGIN: I would like to have marked as 7 19 Dormer Exhibit 2 the resume of Edwin J. Michel. l 20 REPORTER: Sir, do you mean Dormer Exhibit 27 21 MR. ZEUGIN: Yes. I think for convenience sake, 22 we are going to name them all Dormer. f
27 A A indsxx 1 (The document referred to was 2 marked as Dormer Deposition 3 Exhibit Number 2 for identifi-4 cation.) 5 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 6 Q Inspector Michel, I have presented you a copy of 7 a resume that was provided to us by counsel for Suffolk 8 County. I would ask you, does this resume accurately describe 9 your education and employment background? 10 A (Witness Michel) Yes, it does. It includes the 11 highlights of my career as far as my employment and background 0 \\- 12 is concerned. 13 I have served in some other assignments for some 14 short periods of time that are not reflected on this resume, 15 but they were for less than, I would say, a three-month 16 period of time. 17 Q Okay. Are there any statements in the resume that 18 are not accurate as of the present time? 19 A No, there are not. 20 Q I take it, there.are no recent developments that 21 you may want to include in there? 22 A No, there are not. O V I
3 ~ 28-4 i d (_I Rather than take you endlessly through t 0 Okay. 2 every area you spent with the Suffolk County Police Depart-3 ment, Inspect'oF Michel, I would like to focus only on the 4 . period probably since when we last spoke -- A Okay. 5 6 0 -- which'my, guess is the '84 '85 time period. So,. a what I would like to do is simply have you describe for me, 7 8 I think probably the last four entries on the first page and 4 9 briefly describe for me your' activities with-regard ~to each to of those. .i 11 Let's start with the entry that is marked February 12 6th, 1984 and has the notation, " Designated commanding officer 'of the Communications Section." 13 i 14 A. Okay. 15 0 Could you describe for me your duties in that 16 role, in that position? 17 A okay. At that point in my career, I was designat-18 ed a Commanding Officer, had already been a captain. So, P 19 that's why it reflects the word " designated" rather than promoted, because although'it's somewhat of a promotion in l 20 S 21 this Department to become a Commanding Officer it's.the same 22 rank that I had been. () I 1
29 / t N. t I became responsible for the Communications, the l 2 overall administration of the Communications Section, which 3 includes approximately 180 employees. It includes all of 4 the emergency and complaint operators who handle the 911 calls, 641 5 the police dispatchers who dispatch the police calls. We have 6 a Technical Service Unit of approximately 25 employees who 7 maintain -- actually design and maintain -- our entire police a radio system, including our own police microwave system, our 9 own tower system. 10 There is also the Teletype Section, which is 11 approximately 16 employees, who maintain 11aison with the f'T 'l New York State Polico, the police information network, liaison 12 13 with NCIC. It's all part of the communications function with 14 the Police Department. 15 0 Was this your first assignment really to the 16 Communications Section or having any dealing with that parti-17 cular Section? 18 A Yes, it was. 19 Q Let's look at the next entry which is rebruary 18th, 20 1985. You were promoted to Detective Captain. Could you 21 describe for no your activities at that point? 22 A Yes. I was assigned as the Executive officer, O
30 /~ L)J t which is the second person in charge of the General Services 2 Bureau which supervises the Detective Squads in each of the 3 six precincts. 4 One of my primary duties there at the time that I 5 was assigned the General Services Detectives had just taken e over fatal accident investigation from the liomicide Squad as 7 a primary responsibility, although they were always involved 8 in the fatal accident investigation. For the first time, it 9 had become their primary responsibility. Itomicide Squad was to no longer going to investigate them. 11 We have close to 200 fatal accidents a year, or I O(/ 12 would say almost an average of 200 fatal accidents a year, 13 here in Suffolk County. And, one of my duties there was to 14 set up a procedure for obtaining telephonic search warrants 15 with cooperation with the District Attorney's Office, judges, to to set up a procedure to call out District Attorneys on a 17 call-out basis so that we could get telephonic search warrants 18 quickly in the event of a fatal accident, in the event that 19 we needed to get a blood sample for evidence. That was one 20 of my responsibilities. 21 And, in addition to that, I was charged with 22 basically the administrative responsibility for the General O
31 O V 1 Servi'ces Detective Bureau. 2 0 In your time with the General Services Bureau, a and particularly dealing with fatal accidents did you ever do 4 any work that would have analyzed either the Police Department 5 or ambulance companies or tow truck responses to the scene of 6 such an accident? 7 or, was your responsibility much more in trying to 8 determine the reason for the accident and whether there was 9 criminal liability attached? 10 A Actually, I wasn't involved in the investigative i 11 end at that particular point in my career. I was involved k-12 more in the administration of it. 13 I'm not sure what you are driving at, Mr. Zeugin. 14 You know, maybe you could be just a little cicarer. 15 0 I'm trying to figure out exactly when that sureau 16 was assigned fatal accident investigation -- 17 A Yes. 18 0 -- 1 guess what I'm really looking for is, what 10 is it you were investigating? Or, what part icular aspects 20 of fatal accidents -- 21 A Okay. The Detective Division comes into an f 22 accident somewhat after the fact, although while there is i O
32 g ,Y t still a scene present. Once the Patrol Division receives a 2 call of a fatal accident and responds and determines that it 3 is, in fact, a fatal, the detectives are then called. If it's 4 after 1 a.m. In the morning, they are called from their home 5 and their response is a little bit slower. If it's before 6 1 a.m. in the morning, they are called from wherever they are 7 at the time, whether it be in the Squad or out on the road on a another assignment, and the response is more quick. 9 But, they do become involved while the accident is to fresh. It's not something that they do as a follow-up days 11 later, although some of the investigation may go on for days 12 in interviewing people who perhaps had seen someone before the 13 accident and could testify to their sobriety or something 14 along that line. 15 0 So,'the main purpose of the investigation is to really to determine the cause of the accident rather -- 17 A And criminal liability. 18 0 -- than a response organization's response to that 19 accident; is that fair? cnd TlA 20 A At that point in my career, that's correct. 21 0 At another point in your career, did you work in 22 a section that was more concerned about what I've been just
33 ~h (V 1 asking you -- 2 A Absolutely. 3 0 -- about which was basically the response? 4 A Yes. 5 0 could you identify that? 6 A My experience as'a Patrol Supervisor in the 7 precincts, as a Patrol Sergeant, and my experience in !!ighway 8 Patrol as a Uniformed Lieutenant. 9 Q They were basically your earlier experiences? 10 A Yes. It Q okay. The next entry you have is July 22nd of 12 1985. The notation is, " Designated Executive Officer of 13 Major Crime Bureau." 14 A Yes. 15 0 could you briefly describe your responsibilities? 10 A At that point, I was transferred to another bureau 17 in the Police Department within the Investigative Division, 18 responsible for major crime investigations. That included 10 the !!amicide Squad, the Narcotics Squad, the Sex crimes Squad, i 20 the Arnon Squad, the Marine Theft Bureau and the Robbery Squad, 21 and another unit called the Property Recovery Unit. 22 I was again the Executive officer. I was in second f
34 {~') v 1 command of that particular bureau at the time, although my 2 daily responsibilities really had me in chargo of overything 's except narcotics and homicido. The Commanding officer pretty 4 much looked after narcotics and homicido and I kind of took 5 care of the rest. 6 0 Basically, I guess, the job was fairly well removed 7 from the traffic area that you had worked in previously, or 8 little or no traffic? D A For that particular point in my career, I would to say yes, that's true. 11 0 okay. On the final entry, April 21st of this year, 12 I take it at that point you woro promoted to Deputy Inspector 13 and assigned to the commanding officer of the Communications 14 and Records Bureau; is that correct? 15 A Yes. And my responsibilities here are pretty much to the same as I described as the Commanding officer of Communi-17 cations except now I'm in charge of the entire Bureau which 18 also includes contral Records which includos approximately 19 another 70 employcos; that's the contral repository for all 20 the polico records, 21 0 I spoko this morning oarlier with Chief Roberts 22 about a serios of analysos that woro done with regard to O
35 (~)' G I traffic accidents that occurred from February 6th through 2 February 20th of this year. I take it that documents that 3 support that are in the Records Bureau or I guess Records 4 Section within your Bureau; is that correct? 5 A Probably not, e 0 okay. Could you onlighton me? I'm not trying to y trap you at all. I'm just trying to figure out how the whole a Suffolk County organization works. 9 A okay. That particular document, which I happened to to have soon, I was just showing it the other day, it's my 11 understanding that it was prepared at Chief Robert's request r~S kJ by the Commanding officer of the Sixth Procinct, but I'm 12 13 not cortain of that. 14 And, it's not the kind of record that would nocos-15 sarily be filed in contral Records. It's not -- it's not an 16 official department form, in that it's not a -- it is an 17 of ficial departmont forms lot mo correct myself. It's what is we can an internal correspondence, to nut, it's not the type of record that would normally 20 ond up in contral Records unless it was assigned a contral 21 complaint number and bo on a supplomontary report or a 22 continuation report or a field report that's normally filed. O 4
4 36 (~S LJ t If it's not assigned a contral complaint number, 2 I doubt that it's in our Records Bureau. If it is assigned 3 a contral complaint number, perhaps it is. I'm not sure if 4 it is. 3 0 okay. I think part of the fault may be mino, o Inspector Michol, because of an unclear question. What I guess 7 I was really getting at is whether the accident reports that a form the basis for that particular summary are the kind of a documents that are kept by the Records Bureau? 10 A Absoluto1y. 11 0 okay. I was unclear. O k/ 12 A okay. 13 0 I havo only one or two more general questions for 14 you, Inspector flichol. Wo have boon told in some later 15 correspondence and some recent correspondonco with counsel to for suffolk County that you are probably expected to testify 17 on contention 45 which has now boon included with Contention 18 50 tar litigation in this proceeding; is that correct? 10 A That's my understanding. 20 0 All right. In your experiences with tho Suffolk 21 County Polico Department, havo you in the past performed any 22 kind of training activition? O l
i 37 L '~~' i A I would say very definitely. Training has boon 2 an important part of my responsibilit10s over since I've boon 3 a polico supervisor which goes back to January of 1970. 4 0 Could you briefly describe for me the training 5 activitics? o A I think it's an ongoing process that occurs 7 practically overy day. A polico supervisor is responsible a for continually training the personnel that work for him. 9 Q llavo you, during that period, over attempted to 10 develop an ovaluation system to test whether or not your it training was accomplishing its desired goal? r 12 A Yes, I did, as a matter of fact, develop an ovalua-l wut.w,y cowv'in dT da snThrt.S o tion system for omorgencles and complaint operatfo/I a formal $0g is l 14 ovaulation system in my capacity as the Commanding officer 15 of the Communications Section, to nut, I think as a polico supervisor you constantly 17 go through an ovaluation process, a self-ovaluation, to 800 is if you are in fact nuccessful as a supervisor, if you are to getting the point across to the poopio who aro working for 20 you and are successful as a trainer. I think it's a rather 21 continuous ovaluation procons. 22 0 Did any of the coursos you took that aro identified (~% L-) 1 f
38 7V 1 on the following page of your resume in any way kind of 2 preparo you to do that ovaluative function or prepare that 3 ovaluativo program? 4 A Without sitting here with a transcript in front of 5 me, it's almost 10 years ago since I graduated, my under-a graduato degroo, I really -- I'm not prepared to go through 7 ovary courso that I took. 8 If you have somothing in mind, I would be glad to o respond to it. For examplo, if you wore to say, did I tako go statistics, yes, I did. It 0 I guean I was kind of scarching. I cortninly don't O kl want to go over ovary class you havo taken and figure out 12 13 what your grado was. 14 A No. is 0 I guons I was just kind of curious as to what to you thought was particularly helpful in your background, either 17 in the Polico Dopartment or educationally, to preparo you to is prepare tho kind of ovaluativo program you just described to 10 me. 20 A I think it's a combination of education and ox-2i porienco. I've boon a polico supervisor sinco 1970. I 22 cortainly wasn't an export the day I was promoted to Sorgonnt. )
39 (aD i But you learn by your mistakes and you got botter 2 as you go along. And you add some education and you got even 3 better. 4 0 I tako it from your resumo, Inspector Michel, that 5 you've never boon assigned to the Suffolk County Polico o Training Soction. I may have the wrong name thoro. 7 A Okay. Polico Academy? a O Right. i o A No, I have not boon. to O All right. Inspector McGuiro, lot no show you a gg resumo that was provided to us by counsol for Suffolk County. 12 A (Witnous McGuiro) Yos. 13 MR. ZUUGIN: I would like to havo this marked as 14 Dormer Exhibit Number 3. (The document referred to was indexx 15 marked as Dormor Doposition ) to 17 Exhibit Number 3 for identifi-is cation.) 19 BY MR. ZnUGIN: (Continuing) 20 0 I would ank you, doos this resumo accurately 21 doncribo your education and employment background? 22 A (Ultnenn McGuiro) No. f 1
40 n ~' 1 Q Okay. 2 A I wasn't asked to put educational background on here. 3 4 0 All right. Fino. Could you briefly just describe that for me? 3 A Yes. I graduated from Babylon liigh School with 6 ANO / 7 an academic,$n school diploma, was accepted as a day student 8 at flofstra University, completed one somastor. And then, 9 of courso, took coursos in the Polico Department if you are io interosted in thoso. Thoro have boon dozens of thoso. 0 All right. Are thoro any statomonto in this resumo nkJ that are not accurate at the present timo? 12 g3 A I didn't typo it. When I wroto it, it was 14 accurato. If you would like me to road it now, I will. g3 0 With that cavant, annuming the typint is correct -- is I didn't noe anything too ntrango to me an I road through it, 17 are thoro any recent developments that would not bo included is in this renumo? 19 A No, nir. 20 0 Innpoctor McGuire, an with Innpoctor Michol, I 21 would 11ko to go over only the mont recont developmento since 22 t'm nuro we havo gono over thone in gory dotnil onco hoforo. ('T G
41 I' 1 I would refor you to the second page of your 2 resumo and ask you to describe for me your responsibilities following your transfer to the Office of Chief Inspector as 3 the Executivo Officer of that offico. 4 A You want just the stuff that is relevant to what 5 wo are talking? 6 7 Q I guess really what I would liko is the kind of a general description and than specifically what is rolovant to g what wo are talking about horo? 3o A Okay. Well, the Chief Inspector is the highest in ranking polico officar in the Department and has responsibilit3 () administratively and directly over all of the Dopartment. 12 i3 with a few oxceptions like Criminal Into111gonce and Internal 34 Affairs, and a few organizational units that the Commissioner takes direct control of. 33 in Evorything also is within the purview of the Chief 17 Inspector's Offico, and I annist him. is 0 What exactly doon the Exocutivo Officor do? to In other words -- 20 A Let'n take it -- in my annignmont, it's difforont 21 now. When thono two gentlemen annworod an Exocut ivo officorn 22 they did what their bonn did when their bonn wann't thoro, !( a
42 p V 1 right. But, I'm not an Assistant Chief Inspector. I -- 2 certain of his duties I do when he's not there, certain others 3 have to wait until ho gets back. 4 A part of my responsibility is running certain 5 units directly under that Offico. Instead of just organiza-6 tionally, we have planning and research -- a Planning and 7 Roscarch Section which I oversoo, and MIS which is Management 8 Information Systems, which I oversoo moro directly than 8 administrativo1y. to Q And I take it you have hold that position since Il 1984 -- since January of 1984 to the present timo, and that OV 12 tho only real chango during that period is your chango in is titio so that you are now an Inspector? 14 A I haven't changed positions, but there has boon to some organizational changos. For instanco, Planning and 10 Roscarch war not under our offico until January of the follow-17 ing year, and a few moves liko that. 18 0 Could you describo what you mean when you say 38 Planning and Rosonrch, what thoso functions are? 20 A Woll, it's almost exactly what it sounds like. Thos 21 do short and long rango planning for the Polico Dopartment, 22 both for field operations and relations with other governnontal O v i
43 y 's_/ agencies and entities. I don't know what to add to that. 2 O Okay. A They are the planning arm of the Police Department, 3 4 the formal planning arm. 5 Q Now, as I understand again a recent communication from counsel for Suffolk County, you are expected to provide 6 7 testimony on Contentions 21.E, F, 21.I, 40 and 41 and also 8 Contentions 42 and 50; is that correct? 9 A Yes, sir. to Q Let me ask you much in the same way I asked Inspector Michel to describe for me the relevant aspects of 11 p) your experience with the suffolk County Polico Department K-12 that relato to training of follow officers or the -- and/or 13 14 the evaluation of their performance? g3 A Do you mean the ovaluation of their performances to as it reintos to the training I gave them? 17 Q Yes. is A Woll, much the same as Inspector Michol, it's my 19 fooling that from the timo I became o Sergeant and you start i 20 training peoplo, and you don't know if you've taught it 21 right until you ovaluate their performance. So, that is 22 t-continual thing just about since 1964, I think I was, '63. O 1 l
44 I) Occasionally at higher' rank you ask the Police 1 2 Academy to target certain training to certain areas. For 3 instance, when I was in Internal Affairs we would see a need 4 for training, and we would collaborate with the Police Academy 5 to make it specific. And, of course, the results of that were 6 always measured in some way, whether formally or just to see 7 if it corrected the situation or caused the results that we 8 were looking for, 9 Q Were you ever assigned to the Police Academy as to a trainer? 11 A No, sir. 12 O In your years of experience with the Suffolk County 13 Police Department, have you ever prepared any type of formal 14 evaluation system to test the training function? 15 A No, I haven't prepared -- no. The only thing I 16 had close to that was in the Inspection Bureau, as it was 17 called at the time, to -- when we had discrepancies or allega-18 tions of actions that we thought were lack of training, we to would check back to see if the people were actually trained 20 right, if it was a training problem or their problem. 21 Q Okay. Gentlemen, let mo move on now to the events 22 that occurred on the day of the exercise. Inspector Dormer, <-)
.? 45 p k t I may be able to dispose of you very quickly. I take it -- 2 A (Witness Dormer) You mean I can leave? 3 Q No, only on this portion. 4 (Laughter.) A Okay. 5 6 Q I take it you did not have any role as a monitor -- 7 gentlemen, let me stop for a second and explain how I will a use that term. To avoid confusion, I agreed earlier this 9 morning with Chief Roberts to try and use the word " monitor" to when referring to any Suffolk County police personnel or 11 representatives for Suffolk County who may have been present C) 's_/ 12 observing activities that occurred on February 13th, so that 13 you have that clear from FEMA observers or evaluators or 14 LILCO observers or evaluators. is I will try to use the word " monitor" when I refer 16 to Suffolk County personnel or representatives. 17 Inspector Dormer, did you have any responsibilities 18 as a monitor on the day of February 13th at the FEMA-graded 19 OXercise? 20 A (Witness Dormer) No, sir. 21 0 All right. Inspector Michel, did you have 22 responsibilities -- O V
46 ( 1 A (Witness Michel) Yes, I did. 2 Q could you please' describe what those responsibili-ties were? 3 4 A Primarily, I was assigned to monitor the drill from the helicopter and spent most of the day in a helicopter 5 6 with a photographer. 7 Q Inspector Michel, when were you first made aware 8 of the. fact that you would be asked to be a monitor in the 9 activities you just described for us? 10 A I don't recall exactly. It was some time before 11 February 13th, 1986. r~ kN Q A few days? 12 f 13 A No, probably more like a month. But, I'm not -- 14 I don't recall exactly. 15 Q Do you remember who requested you to be involved 16 in observing the exercise? 17 A Probably it was Chief Roberts, but I'm not 18 absolutely certain of that. 19 Q Before the day of the exercise, did you have dis-20 cussions with anyone concerning your responsibilities on the 21 day of the exercise? 22 A Yes. O
m ~ s-47 .r'3-V. ~ l' O Could^you describe for me those meetings -- first, 2 .how many meetings were there?;E A" Again, I don't recall' specifically. I know that 3 ~ Mr. Mi1ler was here from Kirkpatrick,.and Chief Robertszwas 4 Present as well.as Deputy Commissione2 Mutz. We met in this 5-6 room. And, I'm not saying for certain that it was the day 7 before the exercise, but it was shortly before the exercise. 8 And,' as a result of those meetings, my assignment 9 was'given out to me. 10 Q Was that the only meeting or telephone conference 11 that you remember on that before the exercise?
- n
\\/ A I would say certainly not. From time to time, 12 13 I've.been involved'with LILCO planning for the last several 14 years, and_there have been phone' calls when I've received-15 revisions to the plan; and there has been phone' calls when events are about to occur, and meetings. 16 17 I know that _there was a~ meeting prior..to February l. 18 13th. I know that Mr.-Miller was there. There'may have been 19 more than one; I'm not certain. 20 Q Let me show you a-document -- 21 A Okay. 22 MR. ZEUGIN: I will have it marked as Dormer .' ) \\ e
48 %. s Exhibit 4. 1 2 (The document referred to was 3 marked as Dormer Deposition 4 Exhibit Number 4 for identifi-indnxx cation.) 5 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 6 7 Q I will ask you, Inspector Michel, do you recognize 8 this document? 9 A Yes, I do. 10 Q Could you describe for me' wha ~t this document is? 11 A This is a document that was prepared on February ,y c 1 12 13th, 1986 by Detective Dave'Schaffer, who is a photographer 'm/ 13 assigned to our Identifications Bureau. He was present with .14 me all day that day and prepared this document at my direction 15 to record the series of photographs that were taken that day. 16 Q I take it then from your answer, Inspector Michel, 17 that you basically began your activities at approximately is 7:09 on February 13th when you left Headquarters? 19 A Actually, I was here earlier that morning. Exactly 20 what time, I don't recall, but probably as much as at least 21 an hour earlier than that. 22 Q I take it then that you were physically in the p
49 helicopter when all of these photographs were.taken? I 2 A That's correct. 0 Until the end'of the' day? 3 A Yes. t 4 5 Q All right. p cN-p b A We were not in the air the entire time. We down 6 7 in between, but any time indicated on this log I was physical-a ly present at the time that that photograph was taken. 9 0 Okay. Inspector Michel, were these photographs 10 taken^-- these particular photographs, these specific photo-11 . graphs -- taken at your direction? 7 '\\ ') A Yes, I would say that they were although I was 12 13 receiving some direction from my superiors as to the~ parti-14 cular locations that I was directed to observe. 15 Q Who would that be? Who would have been your 16 superiors giving you direction? 17 A At that point, it would have been primarily Chief 18 Roberts. 19 0 Was his instruction basically to go to a certain 20 area to observe what was going on there, or would it be more 21 specific than that, such as go there and take X number of 22 photographs? m
-50 V 1 A No. It was understood that I was to take photo-2 graphs' basically of anything that I thought appropriate. I 3 had no specific instruction to: photograph anything specifi-4 cally,.although I was directed during the day to go to 6 5 specific locations. 6 And when I got there, I pretty much directed what 7 I wanted photographed. 8 Q Did you have any overriding philosophy or plan to 9 decide things you wanted.to photograph as to things you 10 didn't want to photograph on the day of the exercise?. 11 A No, not really, other than the fact that to take
- (-)
as many photographs as possible for any possible purpose 12 later on. The opportunity to photograph on the day of the 13 14 drill was only there at that particular time and once it was over it would be lost forever. 15 16 So, if in doubt, shoot a picture. 17 Q You weren't -- you didn't, for example, make la some decision ahead of time'to photograph,.for example, the l 19 Patchogue' staging area every 15 minutes from the air? 20 A It may have been decided the day before that we 21 would photograph the Patchogue staging area ea'rly in the 22 morning. That might have been part of the discussions. I [ ,a [ \\-] l E
3, 51 _s L1 don't recall specifically. ~ 2 _Q But it wa's -- and I don't want to mis' characterize 3 your-testimony -- -1 c 4
- A'-
Okay. 5 Q-but-it was essentially a fairly, general instruc-tion that you had to go take-photographs, and you were allowed ~
- 6 -
7 a fair amount of. discretion as to wha't you actually'took a photographs of; is that a fair statement? 9 A Yes. I would say-that that's a fair statement,. 10 although, as.I said,-from time to time'throughout-the-' day I 11 - was_given direction to respond to particular locations..- i _ w I For.' example, at one point there was.a report of ~ 12 13 someone demonstrating on the Exit 58 overpass. :And I.think e 14 it was probably most convenient-that we take a look at it, because we were already in the air land not too far from that 15 16 area. -And, we responded there and took-pictures. L 7 Q Inspector Michel, from-your observations throughout 1 18 the day on_ February 13th, were you able to draw any conclu-~ 419 sions in your own mind about the performance of LERO players 20 -on the~ day of the exercise? l 21 A-Not really. 1 i L 22 Q Have you reviewed the photographs that were taken O
52 ( \\ v I-on the. day of the exercise subsequent to the exercise? 2 A Sure. 3 Q Do those photographs in your opinion.give you 4 evidence to draw conclusions about thetperformance of LERO 5 players on the day of the exercise? 6 A They lead me to believe that there was a total 7 absence of traffic that day as compared to the scenario of the 8 exercise itself. It's kind of hard to put it in words, but 9 these masses of people theoretically were being evacuated from to an area and yet the roads were completely empty. 11 In a particular incident, there was a traffic 1\\l 12 impediment, I think is the correct word, introduced right 13 over here at Yaphank Avenue or Main Street in Middle Island, 14 Yaphank Road. We happened to be nea'rby in the' hel~icopter at 15 the time that I was informed of that, and we responded to 16 that area. 17 And, quite honestly, from my police experience I 18 expected to see a response vehicle arriving shortly and I 19 figured I would take a picture of it. As it turned out, it 20 didn't arrive. So, to correct myself, yes, I could develop 21 an impression of the LERO performance from that, because from 22 my police experience I expected to see a response vehicle l (O .__J
53 v -1 arriving, I expected to see'a LILCO tow truck-or some response 2 vehicle pulling up. We left that area and I think sn3 flew east from 3 4 there. If I referred to the, log, it would tell me exactly where we went. We took some more pictures. And some time 5 a later we came back again to see if there was a response vehicle 7 there, and it still wasn't there. 8 And, I was a little bit surprised by that. So, 9 yes, I drew a conclusion then that there was pretty ineffi-10 cient response. 11 Q Could a response vehicle have come and gone in (~) the interim period between when you first observed the scene 12 13 and when you came back some time later? 14 A Perhaps it,could have; however, from the knowledge i 15 that I had, that had got occurred. And the knowledge that 16 I have in subsequent discussion with the attorneys and review-17 ing any of the contentions and the information that supports 18 the contentions, that's not the case. 19 Q Let me now take you to after the end of your time . 20 in the, helicopter. This would probably be some time after 5 21 2:44 in the afternoon of February 13th as I read your 22 Exhibit 4. I ') v
x 54 O 1 A That would be'corre'ct,':2:44 p.m. 2 Q After thatftime, did you have a meeting with.anyone 3 to describe.what you observed the day of'the exercise, either 4 that day or subsequent.-days? t 5 A Yeah, I think so.. I'm sure at that particular time 6 I came back to this particular room which is where we were 7 basically'rundi'ng.our operations from'on that day. 8 Q Do:you. recall'who you may have met at that. time? 9 A Not every individual. I think Mr. Miller.was
- 10. present, Chief Roberts; someiof.the other monitors may have e
~ been coming in by that time. 11 /~N 12 O Were you debriefed as to what you saw or what you~ r 13 didn't see on the day of the exercise? 14 A I would refer to it in more general terms as a 4 15 discussion rather than a debriefing, a formal debriefing. 16 We perhaps discussed it, yes. 17 0 IInvo you had any subsequent discussions af ter 18 February 13th about your observations on that day? 19 A Oh, sure. 20 Q-Who have you had those discussions with? 21 A Again, Chi ~ef Roberts,'Mr. Miller, various members .22 of the Police Department.
W 55
- G' 1
Q Have youthad' discussions'either.with Inspector ~ Dormer,orInspectorMcGireabbut'yourobservationsonLthe 2 ~3 _ day of the exercise? 4 IL _Yes. 5 0 . When would'you ha've'ihadLthose; discussions? 6 A Certainly in the last couple of' days and' prior to 7. that I'm really not certain. I:may have discussed'it. .I 8 really can't be sure.. 9 Q Was counsel for Suffolk County present-~at all of- ~. those discussions with"either' Inspector Dormer or Inspector-10 11 McGuire? p d.. ' A Counsel for Suffolk County was present yesterday 12 13 uat a meeting and again'today at a~ meeting, yes.- 14 Q Were'there~any discussions you may have'had with 15 -Inspector Dormer or Inspector McGuire at'which' counsel were 16 not present? 17 A That's possible. I couldn't say for sure. 18 Q You don't remember any clearly? 19 A No, not right now, no. end Tl 20 Q Inspector Michel, did you prepare yourselfrany 21-notes, either on the' day of the ex'ercise or subsequently, 22 about your a5tTVIl'ies on February 13th? O
~..- ..~_ ~ 56
- k)s -
1 A-I don't re' call preparing any on'the 13th. Subse-it quently,_I don't recall anything specific'to;thef13th that'-
- 2 3
- I may have prepared, no. I would say_not.. 4 Q Have you prepared any documents. subsequent to the exercise date relating in.any wayito the'exerc'ise?o 5 'A Not that I recall' spec'ifically, no. 6 7 Q -Okay. Nere you asked to review the FEMA 1 post-8 exercise report by: counsel for-Suffolk County?. 9 A Yes, I was. lo ,0. Were you1 asked to prepare'a' memorandum based on 11 -your observation'-- based on your review of'that document?- Q- \\d A No, I was not. 12 i. 13 Q. You did not prep'are any'such memorandum? ~ 14 A Based on the review of-the FEMA report?- 15 Q. Yes. f 16 A No, I have not. 17 0 Were you able to draw any judgments in your review 18 of the FEMA report as to its correctness or omissions based 19 on observations you may have made'on February 13th? 20 A My review of the FEMA report is somewhat cursory-21 - and primarily in its relationship to the contentions that 22 I've read, and -- would you repeat that question? t'~% U e- .e-,, ,.---,:--,,,..--,.,e ..w,. g- -,.v. ,v.,,.w., e - ,, - - ~,g,_-,--,n--n,
r -57' ~ (v* ) x<, 1 0-Yes. I;. guess what I'm really asking you is, could 2 -you draw'-- because:you observedethe exercisefon the.13th, to 3 at.least some-degree'-- 4 A Right. 0 -- could you draw any conclusions as to the correct-5 nessorincorrectnesso'ftheFEMAreh~ortand-whatFEMA 6 7_ observers observed based on your own ob'servations of the 13th? 8 A Well, certainly with regard to.the response to 9 the impediments, I would say1that the report is, in. fact, 10 quite accurate. 11 0-Were there any inaccuracies that you were able to 12 identify? s 13 A Not that I noticed, no. 14 MR.. ZEUGIN: Off the' record one second. (Of f-the-record. ) 15 16 BY fir. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 17 0 Inspector McGuire, did you observe the FEMA-la exercise? 19 A (Witness McGuire) I guess I would have to say 20 I monitored it, if that's -- 21-0 Could you please describe for me your monitoring -22 activities of that day?
r 58 ? 1 A 'Yes. The actual monitoring started at the 2 Patchogue staging area some-time shortly before 8 o' clock and ran until noonish, shortly after noon, and then was on 3 the various evacuation routes until -- I don't recall what 4 time -- possibly'4:30 or 5 o' clock. I think you probably 5 have a record of when that concluded. 6 7 Q Let me make sure I completely understand. 8 A Okay. 9 Q I don't want to trip you up. I'm just a little bit confused based on a Suffolk County -- based on a response to 11 by Suffolk County counsel about your activities on that day. (ol And I think what I really need to have clarified 12 is after 12 o' clock. I take it that what you did after that 13 14 time was to drive around in a patrol car until roughly 4 o' clock or 5 o' clock? 15 16 A Well, an unmarked police vehicle until what time, 17 whatever it was, 5 or something, with Mr. Miller. 18 Q You never got in the' helicopter and went around 19 with Mr. Miller? 20 A No. 21 MR. M. MILLER: There is some confusion about the 22 time. I will represent for the record that Inspector McGuire ( ) w/
59 7 ( i x> and I rode around for roughly an hour, as we stated in our I 2 discovery responses; and then I, but not Inspector McGuire, 3 boarded the helicopter with Mr. Michel. 4 MR. ZEUGIN: Okay. 5 WITNESS McGUIRE: I never boarded the helicopter. 6 MR. ZEUGIN: Thank you, Mr. Miller. 7 MR. M. MILLER: Our discovery responses,-I think, 8 set it out pretty clearly. 9 MR. ZEUGIN: Yeah. I know you got in the heli-10 copter. I just assumed Inspector McGuire was with you. 11 WITNESS McGUIRE: No, I didn't. A/ 12 MR. ZEUGIN: Okay. 13 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 14 0 were there any particular routes you drove from 15 the period of 12 to 1 or the hour or so you were driving 16 around? 17 A (Witness McGuire) Any particular -- 18 0 Yes. Where did you particularly drive to? 19 A I can't recall the itinerary exactly but roughly 20 from Patchogue to Shoreham. We tried to spot some traffic 21 guides. 22 0 What did you observe during that drive? OO
r: 60 , (') a 1 A Well, specific to.the incident, sometimes we 2 . spotted -- in'several instances, we spotted cars with persons 3 with yellow slickers onlinside which,we; assumed to be traffic 4 control guides. Other times we went to the ' posts and saw 5 nothing. Other times, we went to these posts and saw people, 4 1 .6-you know, not stationed closely and not in the slickers and ~ 7 so forth which we didn't-knowLif they were guides' or not. ~ 8 And, I don't know if that's a complete answer. 9 What was the question again? 10 0 I had asked you,- I guess, generally what you had 11 observed while you drove around within the EPZ in.the hour O 12 period I.-guess after 12 o' clock? 13 A That's it. 14 g All right. Inspector McGuire, let me show you a .15 document -- 16 A Okay. 17 .MR. ZEUGIN: I will have this marked Dormer 18 Exhibit Number-5. 19 (The document referred to was 20 marked as Dormer Deposition 21 Exhibit Number 5 for identifi-indexx 22 cation.) O
m 61 -h 1 -BY MR..ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 2 Q And I ask you if you can'iden~tify that document ~ .3 .for me? 4 A. Yes. That's'a copyjof my notes from that day. 5 LQ Were these.the entirety of your notes from that day, Inspector McGui;re? - 6 7 .A . Yeah, I believe.they were.< 8 Q If I. read your notes -- and I grant you, it's 8 rather hard to read because'it was obviously on yellow paper ~ 10 that didn't xerox very well'-- the final entry is at about 11 10:50. Does.that' correspond with you'r recollection'of.when O ~12 the last time was that you~may-have taken a note on that 13 day? 14 A-Yes, sir. 15 0 Inspector McGuire, I would kind of like-to quickly 16 go through these various entries to make sure I understand 17 what you noted at the various times. 18 Could you briefly describe for me what you were 19 observing at the first entry which~is 7:55? 20 A Yeah. That was -- I believe that was the' persons 21 being issued their dosimetry units in the rear of the 22 Patchogue staging area. I think'that's what that was. If it O
7 62 i ) v 1 doesn't say that further down, that's where it was then. 2 That was it. Q All right. Let me ask you about the second line 3 4 of that where it says ---I think I can read your writing. It 5 says: " disinterest - filling out paper work during instruc-tion." 6 7 A Right. It was a man standing up in front explaininc a these two types of units and how they were going to protect 9 your life, and it was almost like surrealistic because he was talking and there were other people filling out paper to work and asking each other, what goes in here, and there was 11 a few people explaining to the people sitting next to them 12 what went in there. And he just kept going on with his talk. 13 14 And I guess they finished about the same time. That was one thing that turned out all right. But, when he 15 asked for any questions, there were no questions. You know, 16 17 it just didn't seem like -- I know it wasn't a real drill, is but it didn't even seem like a real exercise to me at that 19 time. 20 0 okay. Could you explain to me your kind of three-l 21 word question, " decontamination facility where?" Nhat does 22 that mean? (u.>
63 h - \\._) = d[ t A Yeah. ne' mentioned that if your -- however it 2 reads, if.your radiation level goes over whatever, you have 3 to.get to the decontamination facility. And nobody cared-where that was.- 4 5 0 Do you think they may have,already been trained and / knew where it was since,-- 6 7 A No, not with that large a. group of people. My 8 experience in trying to get information to'a'large group like I o that is -- it's always two that didn't get the word. 10 0 .okay. could you' explain to me your next series of entries? -I think they may be'the'same. If they are not, you i it can explain them to me separately. 12 The first one'looks like, "If you feel sick, et 13 14 cetera," and " health coordinator?" i 15 A I thought that's what I -- is that health'coordi-l 16 nator? I'm not sure what that was. But that's about what 17 I meant when he explained that, you know, if you start feeling 18 ill. I thought that meant the Coliseum. Perhaps it was i 19 health coordinator and nobody ha'd any questions about that. 20 0 I take it " question 0" meant that no one had any 21 questions? 22 A For the whole period of time, i 4 () 4 i c l . ~ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _. _. -
64 Q All right. And I take~the entry, "approximately-t 2 15 minutes" refers to,the, length of the dosimetry briefing? 3 A The whole procedure, yes, sir. 4 0 Okay. The next entry is 8:15 -- 5 A Which' my observation was~ at: the time, if it had 6 been real and they were asking questions and concerned about 7 their health, there is no way that.they would have had a completed it in that much time. 9 Q I take it 8:15, " main area" simply means that you 10 then returned to the main area -- 1 11 A Returned to.the main area in the approximately ,r) (_/ 6 by 9 taped off box that they had indicated we must stay 12 13 in. 14 MR. ZEUGIN: Let's go off the record a second. 15 (Off-the-record.) 16 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 17 Q Inspector McGuire, the next entry is 8:40. I 18 think I read that to say, " walk not working." Is that 19 correct? 20 A That's what it say. But, frankly I assume I 21 must have meant WALK. Where I got that information from, 22 I don't recall. O
65 g Q Okay. The entry under that says 0820 to 0840 -- 2 A It was either -- you know, the'more I think, either WALK, if we received information that they were not 3 coopera"ing or it wasn't working or -- let's see. Yeah, I 4 don't want'to speculate on that any further. 5 Q Okay. The next entry, it'says: "outside PA 6 vehicles." 7 8 A Yes. I went outside with Mr. Miller and observed g LILCO employees attempting to' install: equipment on their personal vehicles. !!aybe sometimes company vehicles and some-39 times personal vehicles. 11 ,3 (_) 0 So, PA stands for public address or Patchogue 12 Area? 13 14 A No, public address and I think some radio equip-15 ment, too, some of them with great difficulty. 16 Q Okay. The next entry is -- 17 A Deputy County Exec. They nade the announcement 18 I think at that point that the simulated Deputy County 19 Exec did something or said something. I probably did that 20 just for time keeping. But, it means nothing to me now. 21 Q Okay. The next entry is 0830, it says: " Release." 22 A There was an announcement that there was a release O
66 of radioactive material at the Shoreham plant. 1 2 0 Okay. The next entry is 0926. It says, " Road 3 crew, 'first one' tanker." 4 Am I reading.you correct or not? A You are reading as well as I am, but I don't 5 recall what that meant. 6 7 0 Okay. And then the final entry is 1050, "Confu-a sion both sides of room, crowding in central walk, yelling." g A They were starting to lose the handle on the thing. It became a mob scene. Some of the employees were getting 3o frustrated standing around and pushing. It was a bottleneck 11 (- (/ apparently down at the dosimetry unit and people -- then, 12 they started talking louder than the gentleman that was in 13 34 the front of the room that was giving directions and they 15 were, you know, starting to miss it and so forth. 16 0 Okay. I take it the next entry which is " Staff 17 Car" merely refers to the number of the staff car you had; la is that correct? 19 A Where is that? 20 0 Down one line. 21 A Oh, okay. That's correct. That's my call numbers. 22 Q Okay. Following your drive around the EPZ with O
67 '~ g Mr.-Miller, what did'you do after that time of the day on 2 February 13th? A I know I continued to drive around but how late 3 4 it was -- my recollection was, I know it wasn't dark outside. I would say 4 o' clock or something like that, and then return-5 ing to !!eadquarters. 6 7 0 And what did you do during that period from, say, 8 1 o' clock to 4 O' Clock when you drove around? Did you again 9 observe -- A Yes. 10 0 -- activity in the EPZ? 11 C'\\ U A Yes. 12 13 0 Do you have any particular recollections of your 34 observations during that period? A No one thing stands out in my mind. 15 16 0 Okay. After that, did you return to Police !! cad-g7 quarters here in Yaphank? 18 A Yes. 19 O Did you meet with anyone at that point? 20 A No. My recollection is that things were a little 21 up in the air then, and we were just instructed to return 22 the next day.
68 I ') v 1 Q Did you return the next day? 2 A Yes. 3 0 Who did you meet with that day? 4 A Mr. Miller, other members of his firm, Chief 5 Roberts and other members of the Police Department. 6 Q During that, did you discuss your. observations on 7 the day of the exercise? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Were you asked to prepare any kind of summary of to your observations on the day of the exercise? 11 A I never did, so I assume'that I wasn't asked to s 12 do it. 13 Q All right. I take it'from your earlier response, 14 Inspector McGuire, that you reviewed the -- you have is subsequently reviewed the FEMA report of the exer ~cise? 18 A Post-exercise? 17 Q Yes. 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q In your review of that report, were you able to 20 draw any conclusions about its correctness or inadequacies 21 based on your own observations, both of the Patchogue staging 22 area and then later in the field? O) \\~ I i
i 69 O 1 'A Yes.- 2 0 What wereithose~ conclusions? 8 3 A There were certain assumptions made"in it.that I ~ 4 don't -- I can't believe that they were supported, in. fact. 5 0 Such as? 6 A Well, in various areas'where they say that things t t 7 were demonstrated, I don't'think~they were Memonstrated, some 1 8 by direct observation.and some by.the assumption on my part ~ i 9 that the others were' demonstrated /in the same manner', that 1 to the conclusions very possibly were'not correct. 11 0 Are there any particular conclusions that come to-12 mind that you'may have' felt were incorrect? 13 A No, not -- I don't'know. If you want me to think i 14 a minute, I will. i 15 Most of them, if I -- you know, when' we, or if we, r look at the contentions my memory might.would be refreshed. 16 17 But, no, nothing specific. I 18 With that, you mean within the 20, 21 and so forth, 19 right? No, just except -- like I say, the flavor of it and 20 the confusion and so forth, I don't believe that the drill 21 proved much or enough.to support FEMA's assertions. l' 22 0 Subsequent to the exercise, have you discussed your [ i
70 i observations on the day of the exercise with other members 2 of the Suffolk County Police' Department? A Yes. 3 4 0 Who have you had those discussions with? A Probably anybody involved with -- you know, any 5 ) of the assigned people on the day of the exercise and -- since, 6 7 it was nothing privileged, to anybody that wanted to discuss it. a 9 0 In each case you discussed matters relating to ( 10 your observations on February 13th, were counsel for Suffolk 11 County present? q U A No. 12 13 0 What can you remember'as to meetings at which 34 Suffolk County counsel were not present? A Not meetings. You said discussed it. In other 15 16 words, I might have met somebody from the Riverhead staging 17 area who, you know, talked about it, from anything to what he 18 observed to what he had for lunch or, you know, whatever. 19 I'm not trying to mislead you. 20 0 Let ne ask you then very generally what you remember 21 of those discussions at meetings at which Suffolk County 22 attorneys were not present? C) V
71 ,r.() A What do -- 1 2 Q What do you remember of the discussions at which 3 members of the -- counsel for Suffolk County was not present? 4 A I don't know what you mea'n; it's too broad a 5 question. 6 Q Okay. I take it that subsequent to the' exercise, 7 your discussions would fall-into cne of two categories, either a discussions at which counsel for Suffolk County were present 9 and as well as some discussions -- 10 A I would call that a~ meeting, all right. 11 Q Okay. (~N 12 A Those were meetings. 13 Q Okay. Now, I want to focus -- 14 A The other was like chance encounters. 15 0 All right. What do you remember of your discus-16 sions with those chance encounters? 17 A I do remember nobody had a very strong contrary 18 opinion to mine, you know, just in general flavor. I gave 19 my opinions sort of like I did now, and I don't remember 20 anybody disagreeing with it or giving an opposite opinion. 21 Q To the best of your recollection, Inspector 22 McGuire, what were the observations, your observations that O
72 \\ / 1 you would have told the other people? 2 A Well, as I just'said, similar to what I just 3 enumerated, that it had no realism and people were just. going 4 through the motions in some cases, in some cases not going 5 through the motions. 6 And it didn't give me any confidence that if it 7 was ever put into action that it would work. 8 Q Anything else, or is tha~t pretty much all you 9 recall? 10 A Of what, sir?' 11 0 Of those discussions we have been speaking about? in t\\~'I 12 A Yes. 13 O Subsequent to the exercise, have you prepared any 14 kind of summary of your observations on the day of the 15 exercise? 16 A No, sir. 17 MR. ZEUGIN: Mr. Miller, just so the record is 18 clear and so that we -- I think it probably will be, but I 19 have not purposely inquired into the actual discussions that 20 occurred at any meetings at which counsel for Suffolk County 21 were present, primarily because it is my understanding that 22 with regard to any such question you would instruct the (
i 73 ( '~' I witnesses not to answer based both on attorney-client and 2 work product privileges.- Is that a proper assumption? 3 4 MR. M. MILLER: Any question you ask these witnes-ses that ask them to discuss the substance of any conversa-5 tions where I or any member of my law firm were involved, I 6 7 would instruct them not to answer on the basis of attorney-g client privilege and on' the basis of work product privilege; 9 that's correct. MR. ZEUGIN: All right. Why. don't we take a 10 five minute break? 11 I'N \\j (Whereupon, a recesb is taken at 4:15 p.m., to 12 reconvene at 4:32 p.m., this same day.) 13 14 MR. ZEUGIN: All right.~ BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 15 16 0 Gentlemen, at this point I would like to focus 17 on the contentions on which you have been identified as 18 witnesses for Suffolk County. Let me give each of you 19 selected pages from a larger set of contentions that was, 20 I guess, the most recent set of contentions that was compiled 21 by Kirkpatrick & Lockhart based on the Board's ruling on 22 contentions. O V
L ~ 74 ,3. !( ) s_- I have not tried to exclude from.that batch of 1 2 contentions any particular part to surprise you. I tried to select'though~the important pages', issues on which'you have ~ 3 4 been identified'as witnesses.- Tha't is largely true but'not 5 totally true because, Inspect'r.Michel, I.will need to talk-o 6 to you a little bit about Contentions 45 and-50, which you 7 .will not find in that packet; and in your case, Inspector 8 'McGuire,.I want to talka?little. bit at the'end'about-Contentions 42 and 50'Lwhich~also'.are not~in.that packet. 9 10 But I think from that packet,.weican'certainly 11 talk about. Contention's-21, 22, 40 and'41.' tmk'l Let me have.you each. focus; first 'on ' Contention-21 12 13 and ask you jointly whether it -is, your understanding that you 14 are only going to testify ~on Subpart E and F of that conten- ~ 15 tion? 16 Is that correct? ~ 17 A (Witness Dormer) That is correct. 18 (Witness Michel)' I think that is gen ~erally true,. '19-but I don't think we are' definitely locked into just.that. 20 Q Let me ask you a general question then to start ~ 21 with. And, I will cite you to the preface where I am going to 22 come up with this particular question. On Page 25 of that
75 e 1 packet that.I gave you, toward the end of the first sentence 2 in that preface there~is the phrase, "The samples whi'ch 3 FEMA reviewed were much too small to permit valid generaliza-4 tions or to support FEMA's' conclusions concerning these 5' objectives." 6 My question specifically is, have any of you attempt - 7 ed to identify with regard to any of the subparts of Contentior 8 21 what you would consider to be a valid sample for FEMA to 9 have looked at? 10 A (Witness Michel) I think that with respect to the 11 response of traffic guides, considering that this was a graded n s 12 real. type exercise, from my experience from my years of 13 police supervision, I would have had some type of evaluation 14 that would have included inspecting all of the traffic guides 15 to make sure that each and every one of them through'a system 16 ,of supervisors was, in fact, on his post and properly equipped 17 and wearing the proper gear. 18 Certainly, anything that I've ever handled as a 19 police administrator in the'way of any important event, if I've 20 d'esignated and planned for people to be on traffic posts in s 21 advance of an incident, and then the incident occurs, I 22 expect those people to be there. And I make darn well sure ("). \\,/
'~ 76 x 1 that my supervisors are out and that the people are in place. 2 And I check each and every one of them. 3 I'm not saying that that necessarily would have to 4 be the~' case here, but that would be the way I would do things 5 as a police officer. 6 Q Would that be true, Inspector Michel, with regard 7 to each of the various observations identified through here? 8 A I think we would have -- 9 MR. M. MILLER: Let'me just note an objection, 10 Inspector, for the record that the relevancy of this question 11 I object to. ,e 12 This panel of witnesses is here to testify about 13 the FEMA exercise and the' concl'usions they-can draw from 14 that exercise. They are not here to testify about whethe~r 15 FEMA should have done things differently and how FEMA could j 16 have done things differently, nor are they here to testify 17 about whether LILCO could have done things differently or 18 how LILCO could have done things differently. 19 With that objection noted, the panel is free to 20 answer the question that is pending if they are able to do 21 so. 22 WITNESS MICHEL: And the question was? I' ) 'w /
77 k _/ N 1 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 2 Q With regard to each 'of the elerients 'in Contention k 3 21, is it basically your position, consistent with the' comment i you just made with regard to traffic. guides in particular, 4 5 that -- 6 A I think -- 7 Q -- FEMA would have been best served to review the 8 entire group rather than a component of that group? = 9 A I -- 10 MR. M. MILLER: ,Mr. Zeugin, you are asking this 6 panel now to address contention subparts.that they have'not 11 (3 \\~ pres'ently been identified as expert witnesses upon; is that 12 13 correct? 14 MR. ZEUGIN: Well, certainly Inspector Michel suggested to me in an earlier answer that he may testify on 15 16 other parts of Contention 21 beyond E and F. 17 I am merely inquiring generally, because that is 18 the answer I received earlier from Inspector Michel. 19 MR. M. MILLER: I think what the Inspector was trying to say is that at this time they have presently been 20 21 identified as witnesses on particular contentions. 'And, your 22 question more or less was, are these the only contentions. O v
( 78 pl- . u, 1 And, he was'just basically saying there could be 2 o ther s.' 3 ' WITNESS MICHEL:- That is what I' intended to say. 4 MR.11.. MILLER: ' I don't think-that necessarily ~ 5 means other subparts of' Contention'21, for that matter. It 6 could be other contentions.' 7 But your question now goes to all of Contention 21; 8 is that correct? 9 MR. ZEUGIN: That's correct. A 10 WITNESS MIChiEL: In, order for me.to answer,that,. 11 I~think I need the time to review all the subparts of O 12 Contention 21,-perhaps~go throughfthem individually,.if you 13 want to take the time:to do.that.. 14 MR. M. MILLER:' ThereEis no present contention H 15 to offer these witnesses for any subparts of Contention'21 16 other than Subpart E'and F. 17~ MR. ZEUGIN: Okay. Based on that question, Mr. 18 Miller, let me withdraw my question so that we can proceed 19 on and hopefully not'be here all night. 20 I certainly don't want to take you through an 21 exercise that is going to require you to do a lot of research 22 on contentions you aren't going to testify on. I
79 C 1 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 2 Q With regard to Subpart E of Contention 21, which 3 you will find on Page 31, Inspectors Dormer and McGuire, do 4 you basically agree with Inspector liichel's view-that -- 5 well, let me not ask that specifically. 6 llave you drawn any kind of conclusions as to how 7 large a sample group FEMA should have reviewed, in your view, 8 of traffic guides? 9 A (Witness Dormer) Specifically you mean me? 10 Q Yes, sir. 11 A Well, based on my experience as a police adminis-('% i r 12 trator and traffic manager, from what I see'in the report, 13 21.E, it certainly wasn't a sufficient sample. I wouldn't 14 be happy with that as a police manager. 15 Q Do you have any idea, Inspector Dormer, what size 16 sample you would have found acceptable? 17 A No. I really haven't determined that. I really 18 wasn't interested in that. 19 Q Could it have been less than all of the traffic 20 guides? Could a number smaller than all the traffic -- 21 would a number smaller than all the traffic guides have -- 22 A Well, I'm not sure. I really don't know. I would (_3 .f )
.. = 80 .l(OD' 1, have to really -look at this a lot more thoroughly from -that 2 point of view. 3 I couldn' t say at.thi's time. 4 Q Inspector McGuire? 5 A (Witness McGuire)~ What I ha've troubl~e with, 6 they are watered down already because~they don't do'anything 1 7 when they get there, so then.to'not even make them all go 8 there I don't really-think'this' proves anything. i 9 It would'maybe.have had more validity if they were 10 all assigned and they all were observed, but it still would 11 not mean'that they would be able to do'the job when they got 12 there.. 13 - Q Let me try. and clarify 'your respo'nse, Inspector 14 McGuire. Is it your understanding.that LERO traffic, guides 15 manned all 130 traffic control points with'the full comple-J 16 ment of 165 traffic guides? i 17 A Do I think that they did-that? 18 Q Yes. 19 A No. 20 0 What is your understanding of what happened on ~ 21 the day of the exercise with regard to LERO manning of i 22 traffic points? O i s -w,- --,.-,,,,v.,,,,,,-,,,,,-r-,-,-,,,--,,----,--.,,,,,-,...----,,,,,---,,rn-----,
i 81 (O '\\./ 1 A It's outlined in here, and I. expect.that to be^ 2 factual. 3 0 I'm sorry. Could you, point me to wha ~t it-is you 4 are referring to? 5 A All right. Where'do you-want to start? During 6-the' exercise, FEMA observed only a total of 27. guides, or 7 27 posts manned by 32, guides'.- 8 Q I guess my question -- and-I don't want to trip 9 you up, Inspector McGuire, my question didn't focus on the 10 posts that FEMA observed. What I asked you is, is it your 11 understanding, or what yourl understanding wasLwith regard fT '/ to_the number of posts that'LERO people physically manned, 12 13 independent of.whether or not FEMA 1 reviewed those. posts. 14 A Oh, no. I'm talking about -- the unknown, I don't 15 know. Of the ones tha't n'obo~dy~ observed, I don't know.if 16 they were manned or they weren't_ manned.- 17 Q Gentlemen, let me ask'you generally with~ regard 18 to Contentions 21.E and 21.F'what the facts are on'which 19 you will base your testimony on thes~e two subparts as well as 20 what the opinions are you are likely to draw with regard to I 21 each of these subparts? 22 A (Witness Michel) I think the contentions speak ( i )
82 / ) relatively well in'and of themselves~, assuming that the 1 material that is presented is factual, that FEMA's' report 2-is correct, that the.information that the'se are based on 3 from the players' reports is correct..The contentions speak 4 f r themselves. 5 0 So, badcany what is in W 'contendons wm for 6 the most parts be the' facts and opinions you will draw in 7 your testimony on those contentions? 8 9' A I would say that's, generally the substance of ~ what our' testimony will consist of, yes. 3g (Witness McGuire).Nell, and facts known to us. 31 If you want to call them opinions,.I don't know what your 12 terminology is. I mean, certain traffic control-principles . 13 which I know and the'other. two men know I'm sure,.that until 14 Proven otherwise we' accept'as facts may not be:in here. 15 Or, an intersection of two 2-lane highways, I 16 know for.a fact can't be controlled -- I know for a fact it 17 la can't be controlled by one or two people. Now, whether i 19 that's in here or not, it's still a fact. 20 Q Let me direct this to you again as a panel, and 21 let me try and do this in a way that hopefully can save us 22 a lot of questioning later on with regard to Contentions 40 lC d
83 (). 1. and 41, and I will ask the question,gener' ally. If you 2 don't understand it, we 'can;go - through the' ' individual detail 3 if you want.- 4 And that is, your basis for -- at this point -- 5 your knowledge of the facts that you are likely to present 6 in-your testimony; and that is, are the primary facts as they 7 are set forth in the contentions -- I agree with'you in many 8 cases, Inspector Michel, the contentions speak for themselves, 9 but have.you-attempted.to verify those facts independently at 10 this time that are presented in Contentions 21, 40, 417 1 11 A (Witness Michel) I'm not sure wha't you mean by .(~)~ 12 verify except.that some of whatiis' stated in the' contentions 13 I've also seen stated in the FEMA report. If that's a veri-14 fication -- 15 0 That is. 16 A Okay. Then, I've attempted to verify it. Or, 17 I have seen it stated in two places, both in the contention 18 and in the FEMA report. 19 At this point, I haven't reviewed players' docu-20 ments, although I have seen the FEMA -- what do they call 21 them -- the free play messages. I have seen them.
- But, 22 I'm assuming that the contentions reflect an accurate review O
I
84 q i,i 1 of those documents. 2 Q Is that generally true? 3 A (Witness McGuire) Basically that, plus the' list 4 of admissions we were shown. 5 Q Is that true for you also, Inspector Dormer? 6 A (Witness Dormer) Yes.- 7 Q All right.. Gentlemen, do you intend to look at 8 other documents between now and the time that you draft your 9 testimony on any of these contentions -- 10 A (Witness Michel) Very possible. 11 Q -- to verify the fact, be it the~LERO player logs O t\\> or message forms? 12 13 A (Witness Michel)' It's very possible. 14 (Nitness McGuire) It's not~my intention, although 15 I will'-- you know, if somebody brings something to my 16 attention I will. But, it's not my intention now to look 17 for further verification. 18 0 liow about you, Inspector Dormer? 19 A (Witness Dormer) I really don't know if I will 20 look at other documents. At this point, I don't know. cndT2A 21 Q Okay. Itave you requested an opportunity to look 22 at the LERO logs or other documents? i ' l i
85 1 A (Witness Michel) Not'specifically. 2 (Witness McGuire) No, sir. 0 Gentlemen, let me have you look at Contention 3 4 21.F which is on Page 33. The first sentence of that contention alleges'that during the exercise FEMA chose only 3 two locations to observe LILCO's ability to deal with 6 7 impediments to evacuation. 8 My question is, at this time is it your testimony 9 that that, that two impediment locations,was an insufficient number of locations to hypothesize on the day of the exer-to cise? 11 (~kbJ A (Witness McGuire) Yes, that's my opinion.- 12 (Witness Michel) I don't think they did very 13 14 well on these two. I don't see how they could have hypothe-sized anything considering that on the two they totally 15 failed. When both of them occurred in the vicinity of a 16 17 traffic control post that should clearly have been known to 18 the LERO players when they have been practicing and rehears-19 ing this plan for some two and a half or three years, I 20 certainly don't think that two was an example, particularly 21 when they didn't do very well with the two that were selected. 22 Q Assume with me for a moment, Inspector Michel, l') V
86 ,ry \\ ) that LERO had performed perfectly with regard to each of the I 2 two impediment locations, in your view would that have been a suf ficient sample to draw conclusions about LERO's ability 3 to deal with roadway impediments? 4 A Clearly, that's not the' case. And I really haven't 5 considered that. 6 (Witness McGuire) My opinion is if they had per-7 formed perfectly, that would not be an indication of their 8 9 ability to perform at the time of an emergency. Q Is that because not enough accidents were hypothe-10 sized? 11 A Partially, yes, 12 13 0 flow many would you have liked to have seen hypo-14 thesized? MR. M. MILLER: Objection to the relevancy. 15 i BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 16 17 Q You may answer. 18 A (Witness McGuire) I don't have a definite number, 19 But I know in these type of operations, four accidents at the same time are harder to handle, nore than twice as hard 20 to handle as two accidents. Do you follow me? It doesn't 21 22 take too many before you start losing a handle on it, and O
87 -n. V 1 two is easy, especially even that far apart. When you start 2 getting closer in proximity, it makes it even harder. 3 Q Inspector Dormer, since I haven't heard from you 4 I assume, based on our earlier assumption, that you have 5 nothing further to add to the~ views I've already heard? 6 A (Witness Dormer) No. I would just like to add 7 that two accidents is not enough to base any judgment on, 8 however they handled it. 9 0 How many would you like to have seen? 10 MR. M. MILLER: Objection to the relevancy. 11 WITNESS DORMER: Yeah. I don't know at this time. \\-) I would have to do more research and look at a lot of other 12 la variables before I could make'a decision like that. 14 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 15 0 What would you look at? What would some of those 16 variables be? 17 MR. M. MILLER: Objection'to the relevancy. 18 WITNESS DORMER: I really couldn't say at this 19 time. I would have to sit down and think about it. It 20 would be a lot of variables. 21 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 22 Q Gentlemen, on the bottom of Page 33 and on the top O
88 -Q 1 of Page 34, Contention 21.F essentially alleges that FEMA 2 improperly concluded that a number of objectives were met, 3 that -- and basically those conclusions were'without basis 4 'and-were, therefore, invalid; and that five reasons identified 5 on 34 are there to support those basic arguments. 6 At this time, are there any other facts that you 7 would add to that list of five items there as indicating that 8 FEMA reache'd an improper conclusion with regard to LILCO's 9 meeting certain objectives? 10 A (Witness Michel) I think the key words in your 11 question are "at this time" and I would say at this time no, 12 but that wouldn't -- I wouldn't want to lock myself out or 13 preclude the possibi'11ty of reviewing more documents in the 14 future or adding to these conclusions, is 0, At this point, Inspector Michel, short of looking to at further documents or different documents than what you have 17 looked at, nothing comes to mind as an additional reason? 18 A Not offhand. 19 (Witness McGuire) I fool I would liko to possibly 20 study it more with the information given and como up with 21 further -- for instanco, because lt know that's our languago 22 here; but simulated traffic obstructions,now I don't know if O
89 ry / 1 that comes from FEMA language. There were no simulated 2 traffic obstructions. There was just a word that there was. 3 It was almost like a rumor that there'was. That's not a valid 4 description of what took place or was supposed to have taken 5 place. 6 So, it gives less credence'in my mind. 7 0 Last chance, Inspector Dormer. I'm going on. 8 A (Witness Dormer) Give me the question again, o please. to 0 I, guess my question is, the testimony draws -- 11 the contention draws a conclusion at this point that certain (~) \\- 12 objectives that FEMA concluded were met, those were improper 13 conclusions and the reasons for that are the five reasons 14 identified on Page 34.~ 13 At this point, to the best of your knowledge of to the documents you have read and the information you have read, 17 are there any other facts that you would add to this list is of five? to A No, not at this time. I don't know of anything. 20 0 All right. Let me have you turn to Page 35, 21 And I would direct your attention to the last sentence of 22 the carry over paragraph where it says basically: Furthermore, O
I 90 O~V t the two locations actually chosen for the. impediment demon-2 strations during the exercise are virtually the only loca-3 tions on the evacuation routo' chosen for the impediment mes-4 sages which would allow easy rerouting of evacuation traffic 5 around the traffic impediment. 6 I-guess I would likeEto start by asking you as a 1 group to define for me how you would define the term " easy a rerouting?" 9 A (Nitness Michel) okay. With regard to the gravel i 10 truck incident that occurred right hero on Middle Island, 11 Yaphank Road and Main Stroot, just north of Main Stroot,' 12 I don't have a IIagstrom in front of me, but there is an 13 . intersection just north of that with a T intersection to the 14 cast and it intersects with a road that intersects Main 15 Stroot, and it's just a simplo matter to divert traffic. to (Witness McGuiro) In my opinion, it would almost 17 automatically reroute itself, not initially but as soon as 18 thoro was a little pilo'up. The'only placo'you can turn is 19 left, and then the only way you could turn is right then 20 you would got back to whoro you woro stopped from going. 2n Q Lot mo ask you,gentlemon a little more generally 22 how you, as exports on traffic direction, would defino a O
91 s V t rerouting that was both difficult as compared to one that was 2 easy? What's the difference, just generally? 3 A (Witness Michel) A rerouting that is difficult 4 would be all three lanes of the Long Island Expressway 5 blocked in an area where there are no service roads. That a would cortainly be difficult. 7 Q Would you characterize most locations in the EPZ 8 as presenting difficult rorouting situations? I 9 MR. M. MILLER: Most locations on any road in the 10 EPZ? 11 MR. ZEUGIN: Ye s. - o k/ 12 WITNESS MICllEL: You know, that's kind of -- there 13 are a lot of highways in the EPZ, and really that's kind of 14 a very broad -- 15 WITNESS McGUIRE: And, do you maan only during the to timo of a drill or any -- in other words, those roads are 17 thoro now, 4 la BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) to 0 Lot me ask you generally, how do you interpret -- 20 or, is it going to ho your testimony that, in fact, the two 2t locations chosen for impodiment demonstrations on the day of 22 the exorciso are virtually the only locations on ovacuation l )
92 ~ t routes chosen that would allow easy rerouting of traffic? 2 MR. M. MILLER: Let me just state that earlier today in Chief Roberts' deposition, that I think your question 3 4 mistates the contention. 4 WITNESS MICilEL: Are we talking about a location on 5 a particular road? For examplo, let's deal with the Middle 6 7 Island /Yaphank Road simulated accident. 8 Is your question, are thero other places along g Middle Island /Yaphank Road where it would be easior to divert traffic? Is that what I am to understand fron your question? to BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 11 n 12 0 Lot me ask you generally to explain to me how you 13 interpret that part of Contention 21.F7 14 A (Witness Michol) My interpretation of it is that on that particular evacuation route, Middle Island /Yaphank g3 Road, that this location is a relatively easy location to to 37 divert traffic, is 0 llave you studied a number of other locations is along that ovacuation route to make some datormination in your 20 own mind whether they would be comparably easy or more dif-21 ficult at which to accomplish rorouting? 22 A (Witness ficGuire) fiany are noro difficult. 11ut -- (~b %-)
~ 93 (3 \\_/ t was that directed to him? I'm sorry. 2 (Witness Michel) Yeah, I would basically agree 3 with Inspector !!cGuire. There are probably spots that are 4 much more difficult. That spot just stands out and strikes 5 me as being relatively easy. 6 Q llave you prepared any kind of study that shows that, 7 or is it_morely your own familiarity with the roads? 8 A I have lunch in the park across the street from 9 that location almost ovaryday. to Q Ilow about Route 25A, the fuel truck accident? 11 A I'm loss familiar with that location. 12 0 !! ave any of you looked 'in general at the evacua-13 tion routes that are depicted in the LILCO plan to datormine 14 where accidents may present more difficult rorouting situa-15 tions than in other locations? 16 A (Witness McGuiro)' Well,' lot mo answer. It goes 17 back to saying there woro only two accidents and something 18 of what I alleged beforo. When you put one accident on a to road with no other problems, it has a cortain degree of 20 difficulty to polico. But, if you throw another one in down 21 the road or trap people in betwoon the two accidents, thoro 22 is no comparison to the degroo of difficulty.
94 ,m ( ) x.s 1 Q Inspoctor Dormor? 2 A (W!.tness Dormor) With respect to the'two locations 3 in the FEMA report -- 4 MR. M. MILLER: Inspector, before you answer, I want to recall the question that is on the table. I think a the question on the table is, havo you tried to look at maps 7 to determine whether there are -- 8 IIITNESS DORt1ER: I'm sorry. I was on the other 9 question. I'm sorry about that. to No, I haven't looked at maps to datormino that 11 informatior. 12 WITNESS !!ICIIEL: I'm fairly familiar with the high-13 way system in the EPZ, and as I stated before cortainly an 14 accident o:t the Long Island Expressway within the EPZ in an 15 area where thoro are no service roads stands out to me as le probably oto of the most difficult locations. 17 I notico in both of those froo play exercisos, it 18 was stated that the entire onstbound and westbound or north-19 bound and nouthbound lanos, including tho shoulders, woro 20 blocked. I have to wondor why that was introduced in that 21 mannor on a road that's, in my opinion, a minor ovacuation 22 routo an compared to a major evacuation routo such as tho
95 mb i Expressway or the William Floyd Parkway, because if something 2 of that nature were to occur on one of those major evacuation 3 routes, particularly with a leaking fuel truck, it would bo 4 a much greater problem. BY HR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 6 0 Let me just ask you specifically, Inspector 7 Michel, whether you have attempted to quantify or attempted a to do some kind of detailed study that analyzes potential o accident locations to qualify or to classify whether or not to that is an easy or hard rorouting situation? 11 A (Witness Michol) Quantitativo study, no. A lot tb '~' 12 of.polico experience, yes. 13 Q Okay. Gentlemen, lot me have you turn to Contenticr i 14 40, which I think you will about midway through your packet. is A (Witness Michel)- Page 67. 16 0 okay. All' right'. It kind of skips about. 17 A You said 407 18 0 Right. to A Page 67. 20 0 Right. I would ask you what the substanco of the 21 facts are that you will rely on for your testimony on that 22 contention as voll as what opinions you will draw with regard () 4 m
96 O _] 1 to that contention? 2 A Once again, I'm going to say that I think the ~ 3 contention speaks for itself. It clearly states that the 4 traffic,guidos were not in place, although the EDS messages 5 were saying that they woro in place. And the facts are o supported apparently by the LERO player reports, by the FEMA 7 report and other documents. 8 Q Just so I'm clear, Inspector Michel, I tako it 0 with regard to the specific facts of how many people manned to or woro at given staging areas at given timos, you have not 11 attempted at this point to independently verify based on 12 rostors that may have boon kept on the day of the exorciso 13 or anything oiso? 14 A That's correct. l$ Q In the first sentonce of Contention'40, it states 16 that the exerciso demonstrated a fundamental flaw in the 17 LILCO plan and that the plan failed to provido any traffic 18 assistanco or guidanco for ovacucos -- and thoso are the key 10 words I want you to focus on - until long after they aro 20 likely to bo on the road attempting to ovacuato. 21 Gentlemon, have any of you attempted to quantify 22 what you mean by the words "until long after?" O
97 j l I (~) 'v 1 A (Witness McGuire) Well, as soon as they,gave the 2 order to evacuato the' schools the roads would start jamming a up and that was long before the order was given to post the 4 traffic guidos.' 5 And liko real lifo, as soon as word got out of 6 the plant that thoro was a problem, wo fool -- or, I fool 7 like that some ovaucation would start and traffic guidos a would bo nooded. 9 (Witnoss Michol) I hasically concur. It's cicar to that there woro earlier EDS notifications to alert the public 11 that a roloaso of radiation had occurred, to alert the public 12 that dairy animals should be fod stored food; those typos of things are. going to causo people' $cavo. la 14 I don't think that you have to be a brain surgeon to to figuro that out. I think it's common sonso. to 0 Lot no ask you then generally, if I understand 17 both of your comments, Inspector McGuire and your comment, is Inspector Michol, that it will bo your testimony essentially to that for LILCO's rosponso to have boon timely in your view 20 than LILCO traffic guidos should havo boon manning their 21 posts at the timo tho first -- and I will uso the word 22 " voluntary evacuco" becauso I think you both have identified O
l 98 ?- ( 1 for me' incidents before a strict order to evacuato is given 2 to the public, that at that point you both feel traffic 3 _guidos should be at their pont. 4 A (Witness McGuire) That's not what I think -- 5 (Witness Michel) I think that that's much too o narrow. I think you are really characterizing our testimony 7 in a manner that wo didn't intend. I think the probl'om is a much broador than that. 9 I'm not Suro -- to Q Ilow would you defino " timeliness," Inspector it !!ichol? !!ow would I know whether LILCO traffic.guidos manning s/ their posts did so in a tinoly manner or not? 12 13 A I don't think it's our purpose to tell you how 14 to writo your plan. I think that cortainly from the facts is presented in this contention that that was not timely. to O Are you tolling no that thoro are no objectivo 17 standards on which you can judge timoliness? You just is simply know -- to A (Witnenn McGuiro) !!y responso -- 20 0 -- untinoly when you noo it? 21 A You anked un to zoro in on the first nontonco, 22 and it doonn't say anything about timo in horo. It junt nayn O
r 99 (%-) I long after -- you know, they will be there after the fact. 2 And in the kind of scenario you are painting now, it's very 3 unlikely that anybody could got in there before the fact. 4 (Witness Michel) Cortainly, the sooner that they 5 were there the botter things would bo. But, I'm not saying that that would mako it work. 6 7 0 What is the fundamental flaw that you are attempting a to idontify in the LILCO plan? o What in your testimony going to be as to what the to fundamental flaw -- 11 A I'm not nuro yot just what our tontimony is going \\' to bo. Wo haven't writton it, and I would like to make it 12 g3 oloar that wo didn't writo thono contentions, although wo 14 basically agroo with them. 33 0 Well, lot mo mako ouro the record in cicar on 16 that point for all throo of you. 17 A
- Okay, is Q
In it true that nono of the throo of you woro to involved in tho drafting of thono contentions, and thono 20 contentionn I will allow to refor to any contontion on which at you havo boon noticed an a potential witnenn? 22 A I did not havo anything to do with drafting the A(-)
100 ts tv i contentions.' 2 (Witness McGuire)~ When you say have anything to do with that, I don' t know what I had to do with it.
- Like, 3
wo discussed areas of it; we reviewed material that was I 4 think used in the preparation. 5 But, what Lt. Michel said is, he did not writo it. 6 7 I did not writo it either. 8 Q Did you over review a draft of the comments and -- 9 A Sir? no Q At any timo, did you review a draft of the comments 11 and perhaps recommended -- 12 A I might have. I have reviewed a lot of material. I can't honestly specifically say I reviewed Contention 40 13 14 and mado comments on it. I may have. is 0 Inspector Dormor, did you -- 16 A (Nitness Dormor) No, I didn't participate in the 17 drafting of the contentions. 18 0 Lot no ask you generally when it was you first 19 roccived the contentions, oither this vorsion or an earlier 20 version, because thora have boon a number of versions of those 21 contentions? 22 A (Nitnoss McGuiro) You want to break and talk,
101 m (f I because you know, I don't want.to lie'on it. 2 (Witness Michel~) I don't think -- 3 MR. M. MILLER: If you know. I don't want a lie 4 either. 5 WITNESS McGUIRE: I don't want to say anything that 6 is going to be interpreted -- 7 MR. M. MILLER: If you don't recall, your testimony 8 is you don't recall. You don't need to provide a date if 9 you don't know the date. There is no reason to break. 10 WITNESS MICIIEL: I think the' answer is that it is 11 different for each of us, and I don't think we'can answer that (n) 12 as a panel, and you directed it to us as a panel. 13 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 14 Q Why don' t you take it one at a time, then? 15 A (Witness Dormer) I received it approximately four 16 weeks ago, three to four weeks ago. 17 0 Did you review it at that time? 18 A No, not at that time. No.. It was some time after to that. I think about two weeks ago I looked at it and started 20 studying it. 21 Q okay. 22 A (Witness Michel) I received it Monday morning, O
rf. e I 102 ..,5 si L x; 1 fthis;past" Monday.. 2 'Q. December 15th? ~ 3 .A Yes'.' -4 Q That's the:first time'you saw the'.~ contentions? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Inspector McGuire?. 7-A (Witness McGuire) I think we have;to talk because 8 we'are perceiving things differently here. 9 MR.'M. MILLER: Let me'just make-sure. The 10 question, as ILunderstand it, that is on1the table is when' P 11 did you first receive the' contentions.' 12 WITNESS.McGUIRE: We had~some contentions now. 13 MR. M. MILLER:: Let's just take'a short break. P cndT2 14 .(off-the-record.) 15 BY MR.'ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 16 Q Inspec' tor McGuire, I think the pending question 17 for you is, when did you first receive 'the ' contentions? 18 A (Witness McGuire) In this form, some time last i 19 week. 20 0 Was that the' first time that you reviewed them? 21 A I don't recall that. -22 0 Gentlemen, have any of you reviewed the actual EBS r I 1 -_,._.k., ,___,,..,..,._m. .m.,_m__..,_.-.,_. .._,m,-
{:. 103 i { %j-1 . messages that wereitransmitted or simulated to be' transmitted i 2 'on the day of the exercise? 3 A~ (Witness McGuire) No,-I didn't. 4 .(Witness Michel) I'm'not certain. 5 4 (Witness Dormer) No. 4 ~ 6 Q Let me.make sure, Inspector Michel, we don't leave 7 something negative ou,t there on the' record. Is the reason t*you are not sure because you have seen'some' messages; you 8 just\\ don't know whether those may or may not be.'the EB'S~ 9 t s to messages to whi'ch I'm referring? r4 Af 11 A (Witness - Mich'el) I've'seen a lot of reference'to q f) - \\' the-EBS messages in both'the contentions and in the FEMA 12 13 . report, and I've also,got.a ream of paperfon~my desk about 14 thi's high, and I may have' read an~EBS message in that ream of - 15 paper but I'm.not certain.' 16 Q That'cyfakrenough. Gentlemen, in Contention ~40.A, thereareanu$beroffactsalleg'edwithregardtovarious x 17 18 manning levels,at'given-times-during the~ exercise at:the' n, 19 three staging areas. And, I take'it from;your earlier 20 testimony that you have not~indepen'dently verified those o 21' levels based on rosters.that may have been kept on'the' day 'm 22 of the exercise by LERO, but may in fact have looked -- or k. g s a 9
104 %J 1 have gotten some indication of the manning levels based on 2 the FEMA report;' is that correct? 3 A (Witness Dormer) Yes, that's correct. 4. (Witness Mi'chel) Yes.- 5 Q Now, my question is, ha~ve any of you prepared perhaps independently any' kind of timeline with regard to the 6 7, staffing of traffic guides for the various staging areas that 8 perhaps goes outside this area or even at the times they 9 arrived at their traffic control post? 10 A (Witness Dormer) No. 11 (Witness Michel) I'm not sure I understand the 7-k/ question. 12 13 O Okay. Have you attempted, Captain Michel, to,go 14 beyond the' simple facts that are represented here in Contention 40.A with regard to the' mobilization of LERO 15 16 traffic guides? 17 A (Witness Michel) No. 18 (Witness McGuire)' I found no nee'd to do.that 19 either. 20 Q In Contention 40.B, in the second sentence of that ~ 21 subpart there is the statement that subsequent to being 22 dispatched it took substantial amounts of time before traffic /~. 'w
105 t )- N,,,/ 1 guides arrived at their. post. At this time, what is the basis for your testimony in support of tha~t statement? 2 Is it the two items that ~are identified subsequent - 3 is it anything other than the two items identified subseauent 4 to -- 5 A (Witness Michel): I would say once again,.primarily 6 the contention speaks for itself and goes on to explain. 7 However, once'again we may have occasion to review 8 other information between now and the time that we prepare g testimony. 10 Q Do you intend to do that?. 11 7 ~. (-) A I don't know at thi's point. 12 0 When do you think you may decide whether or not 13 14 you will? A I don't know that either. 15 0 All right. Let me direct your attention to 16 Contention 40.C. In the next to the:last sentence of that g7 18 subpart, there is a statement that this information was false, and as I read the prior parts of'that contention, this infor-19 mation relates to the information contained in the EBS 20 21 message. 22 A Concerning the traffic guides being in place. [3 's
1 L' ~ 106 e ( 1 Q- . Right. My question is,'have any of you attempted. 2 to verify whether or not~ the' EBS mes' sage was false short i 3 of' accepting the' facts as they are' presented'here in 4 Contention 40.C?- 5. A-I have not at this' point.1 6 (Witness McGuire)' I read the admissions. 'I'm' 7 not sure now if they were included in that. 8 Q But that would be theonly other basis you would 9 have, would be the admissions, whatever is in the~ admissions? .( 10 .A-No, sir, in the FEMA report. 11
- Q-
.Okay.- - \\- 12 A (Witness Dormer) And thesame for me. 13 Q~ Item'40.E -- 14 A (Witness Michel) If I can just on this -- I'm 15 not comfortable with this answer. Once again, I would like 16 to say tha't I would not.want to be precluded'from reviewing 17 something in the future before I prepared testimony in this 18 matter. 19 MR. M. MILLER: You won't be precluded, Inspector, 20 I can assure you. 21 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 22 Q At this point, Inspector Michel, you can rest ~ <t
3e 107 y\\ V 1 assured I am merely.trying.to ascertain your basesfat this- .t point'in time. ;I am aware.they' may well change. 3 A (Witness Michel)- Okay. 4' Q ~ On Contention 40.E, let me.ask you, generally .5 whether any of you-have' reviewed -- I do not believe'in the 6 list of items you gave me' earlier of the. things.you may have 7 ' reviewed, have any of'you had a chance'to rev'iew' Revision 57-or 8 to,the 'ILCO emergency' plan which'I'will representLto you: L 8 -9 'contains LILCO's " fixes" - to. wha ~t it believes' FEM found to " 10 be probl' ems in that plan?- 11 -Have any of you reviewed.tho'se~cha'nges at all?- p 's/ 12 A (Witness Dormer') No, I-ha~ven't. 13 (Witnes s ' Miche~1) I've. looked them over as-I 14 inserted them1into my book. But, quite' honestly,-I haven't 1 15 reviewed-them in any. depth.- i 16 (Witness McGuire)' I can't answer that.1.You refer-17 red to~40.E. I've just now ha'd a cha'nce:to read it,' so I'm L l-la not equipped to give you an answer on 40.E. i 19 Q So, in other words, none'of you are rea'lly familiar i 20 at this point with the' changes' that LILCO has proposed? l 21 A I can't answer that. If you would like me to. read 22 40.E, I will. P h-
E 108 C l s 1 Q I'm sorry, Inspector McGuire, maybe that isn't 2 real clear on the record. I take it that'-- 3 A We are at a disadvantage. When you refer to a 4 contention -- and I saw Inspector Michel read it while you 5 continue to talk, I thought if he read I would listen, and 6 it's like coming at us too fast. 7 And I will answer anything you want, but I want to 8 _give you honest answers and answers I can live with. 9 MR. M. MILLER: I think maybe you need to repeat 10 your question. 11 MR. ZEUGIN: Sure. ,,x 12 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 13 Q My question, Inspector McGuire, is, Contention 14 40.E deals'with a "fix" that LILCO has proposed to deal with 15 the problem of mobilization of traffic guides. 16 My question is, have you reviewed Revision 7 and 8, 17 at this point, of the LILCO plan to determine in the first 18 instance what that fix is, or what the proposed fix LILCO 19 has implemented in its plan is? 20 A (Witness McGuire) I haven't reviewed the~whole 21 revisions, no. I don't at this point know what the fix war. 22 0 Okay. That's my question. /~T U
r ~ '109 p ' \\,j - 1 'A. (Witness Michel) Well,_I think I have knowledge. 2 of what the.fix:is, and I think'it involves' putting a -3 traffic engineer at the'EOC. 'And if that's the~ case, I th. ink 4 we would have to do a l lot more research before we.would be ~ 5 prepared to make an opinion as to whether.that fix would be 6 at.all effective. 7 Q Do you think putting a traffic engineer at the EOC-8 will improve the~ plan,' putting aside for the moment the 9 question of whether or not the'fix'is the: problem we'are 10 talking about? 11 Is that an improvement in ' your view of the plan? (~ 12 A T don't think it will make~a difference.' 13 Q Do you have ~any. view on that,. Inspector-Dormer.cn 14 McGuire?' 15 A (Nitness McGuire)' I think it could hurt'the~ plan 16 in some respects, dep~ending on how'much authority -- I do 17 recall the fix now. Dep'ending on how much" authority this ~ 18 person would have, I can't seewhe~re it.would do any good 19 and probably would have a potential for harm. 20 Q Why is that? 21 A Well, the traffic control: methods are already 22 fixed. And the head traffic contro11 guide -- I think that's LO
^' -110 f. E. ). ~ 1 .the term, I-. don't recall, the' head traffic coordinator or-y. ~ 2 something,:you are lacing him with-'an engineer. I mean, eng'ineering is a certain concep't and directing traffic and 3 4 emergency measures.are.someth'ing else.. ~ 5 And if it did improve:it,.you are talking about 6 improving what? We are saying it's an unworkable plan, you ~ 7 know.. Would it be less unworkable? I wouldn't even give you 8 that on it. 9 Q All right.. Inspector' Dormer, have you drawn any conclusions with regard to whether the add'ition of'a t'raffic-10 11 engineer.to the EOC~ improves' the plan? 12 A (Inspector Dormer) No, I have'no conclusions on 13 it at this time. 14 Q Gentlemen,.let me return I ho~pe fairly briefly to 15 one point on Contention 40. And I think my question really 16 goes to my trying to understand what are the bases for your ~ 17 testimony. And that is -- well, first, do you agree with me ~ 18 that one'of the assertions of this contention is tha~t.on 19 the day of the exercise, LERO traffic guides did not arrive 20 at their. posts in.the field as soon as you would have liked 21 to have seen them arrive'.there? 22 A (Witness Michel) I think that's stating it very Cus
111 [ %~ t simplistically, and I think:it's more' complex than that. 2 Q Could you state it for me'the'n, Inspector ~Michel? A People would evacuate' sooner than the time that 3 4 they are told officially to evacuate. We feel rather strongly .that that would occur. 5 The traffic guides would not be ther~e to assist 6 7 them the way the plan is written, or in the' way it actually 8 occurred on the day of the~ exercise. g And, in fact, they would be ther'e much later. ( 10 .Therefore, they would be'of no value.to those people who were 11 trying to evacuate earlier. Let me try and isol'te then two'different 12 O Okay. a 13 ideas for you, and just so I understand your position on 14 this contention. One is, I take it from your last answer that people 15 Will attempt to evacuate -- or, it is your belief that people 16 17 will attempt to evacuate even before they are ordered.to 18 evacuate as part of an EBS message; is tha't correct? 19 A That's part of it, absolutely. 20 Q Okay. And that with regard to those voluntary 21 evacuees, it is your position -- let me back up. 22 I take it it is also your belief based on your Av-l \\
r-
- yyz, 4
1 112 l('{ \\s i k'nowledge of the LILCO plan that. traffic guides'are not 2 sent to their. posts until after.that order-to evacuate-is' ~ '3 given.to the, general public; is-that correct?- 4 A That's basically _my under~ standing, yes. 5 Q And-so I take it, putting those~two things together, o that part of your opinion,on this particular contention is 7 based on the fact that there will' be 'this voluntary evacuation 8 prior to the order.to.ev'acu' ate'and that since LERO traffic. 9 guides were not dispatched at tha~t time on' the day of the-10 exercise,. therefore,. their response would not have been 11 effective had it bee ~n a.real. emergency?; fT 12 A No -- 13 MR. M. MILLER: Excuse ~-me. I'm not trying,to 14 be difficult. I think your term " voluntary evacuation" 15 'could eventually become a confusing term for the' record. 16 Voluntary evacuation in the past has been~ used to describe 17 the shadow phenomenon. 18 MR. ZEUGIN: Okay. Why~ don't'-- 19 MR. M. MILLER: And now we are using voluntary 20 evacuation I think in a very different context. [ 21 MR. ZEUGIN: Okay. Would it help you, Mr.- Miller, L 22 if I used the word "early evacuee?" l l t
i ,7; i- ~ 113 g I % e. 1 MR. M.' MILLER: -I think what.you are asking. 2 these gentlemen to discuss are' evacuees who would simply evacuate for whatever. reason prior to the official LERO 3 4, announcement to do so'. MR. ZEUGIN: Okay.- 5 MR. M. MILLER:- Is that -- 6 7 MR. ZEUGIN: That's correct. 8 MR.. M. MILLER: -- your understanding? 9 .MR. ZEUGIN: That's correct. That is what I meant to by the term " voluntary ev'acuees." If it has a word-of-art it in other places, please-ignore'that.- That is exactly what 12 I meant. 13 WITNESS MICHEL: That is part of the reason.- But,. 14 clearly ' from the details-that are presented in this' contention, the response of the traffic' guides'was slow in.getting to 15 16 their posts anyway. The' response'of'the~ traffic guides in 17 getting to the staging areas was slow. 18 WITNESS'McGUIRE: -And, what we are alleging is ~ 19 that it was not enough information to draw the' conclusion ~ 20 that they. met.their objective, not the fact that they weren't 21 there was the rea'lly bad part. The bad part was, they 22 weren't there and other conclusions were drawn tha~t they O
ij e > i., l.14 ,. ~, ( F 1 could do or they had done their job.. 2' WITNESS MICHEL:' And,' also even tho' ugh it was slow 3 - during.th'e' exercise, it would be'even. slower in~a real' event ~ 4 because'there was no traffic during the' exercise. And, yet it still-took an inordinate amount of time for people to ~ 5. 6 get.to their posts. ~ BY MR.1 ZEUGIN: (Continuing) ' 7 8 Q-Okay. Inspector Michel,'I think you've hit on the 9 other part of this contention that I want to just briefly exP ore with you. 'And that is,.let's put to Lthe' side the l 10 11 correspondence essentially of when people may be' evacuating [T. sb and when traffic; guides'may be-arriving at their posts and -12 I. 13 merely.look at the actual mobilization.of the LERO traffic (. 14 guides on the day of. thefexercise. I'5 I take it from your prior comment that in your ' oP nion those traffic, guides'were, nurter one, slow in get-i 16 I 17 ting to the' staging area's; and, number.two, slow in-getting '18 to their individual posts;'is that correct? L l 19 A (Witness Miche'l) Yes. 20 0 In your opinion, were'they unacceptably slow? I 21 A Absolutely. f l 22 Q All right. Now, let me ask you to describe for me O 1 1 e
i 115 i 1 w/ 1 basically the criteria that you used in drawing that conclu-2 sion,- that they were unacceptably slow, first in getting to 3 the staging areas and then, second, unacceptably slow in 4 getting to their field location? 5 A I think once again the contention is the basis for 6 my feeling, and the contention speaks for itself. 7 Q How long would you have allowed traffic, guides to -8 take to get to the staging area' for their response not to 9 have been slow? 10 MR. M. MILLER: I obj'ect to the relevancy of this 11 question. Inspector, you-may answer. ,o, 12 WITNESS MICHEL: I can't put a time on it.. I 13 really haven't developed an opinion as to what would be the 14 appropriate response time. ~ 15 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 16 Q I take it that's also true of the' time:it took 17 for them to reach their posts-in the field once they had 18 arrived at the staging area? 19 MR. M. MILLER: Same objection. 20 WITNESS MICHEL: Same feeling, yes. 21 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 22 Q Is that true for both'of you? ,m, l
116 v 1 A (Witness McGuire) I just want to answer that, the 2 fact that they knew about it the' day ahe'ad of time makes it 3 the more unacceptable, how long it took them. And I'm not 4 talking about certain employee's performance. 5 The fact that they' couldn' t get there in time to 6 do any good is why this part of the plan won't work. You 7 know, whether the man did 60 miles an hour or 20 miles an 8 hour, or whatever, he was not at the staging area in time 9 to get out. 10 0 Is there anything you want to add, Inspector 11 Dormer? I,i \\/ 12 A (Witness Dormer) No. I would just like to add 13 that from reading the~ rep ~ orts that I have seen and looking 14 at the~ times, the response times -- and I'm not saying that 15 these' people could have done any better, I don't know if 16 they could or not, my opinion is that the response was 17 inadequate. 18 Q And I take it the basis for your opinion is your 19 experience over the years with the Suffolk County Police ~ 20 Department? 21 A Right, in responding to emergencies. 22 Q Gentlemen, let me have you turn to Contention 41.
- O
'w]
4 117
- L:
1 Gentlemen, let me again ask you to describe for~me the sub-2 stance of the facts and opinions to which'you expect to 3 testify on this contention in this proceeding. 4 And, let me just say I would like each of you to 5 go ahead and take your time in reviewing it, but go ahead and 6 also review Subpart 21.I, which I think will now be' litigated 7 as part of Contention 41. 8 You will see it kind of at the back of-41. 9 MR. M. MILLER: I think you are' referring to 10 Contention 22..I. 11 MR. ZEUGIN: I'm sorry, 22.I, yes. I don't know (-'l 12 what I said, but 22.I is correct. 13 (The witnesses are 'looking at the document.) 14 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 15 0 Gentlemen, I believ'e ~the ' question that is pen ~ ding 16 is, I asked you generally about the' substance 'of the ' facts and 17 the opinions to which'you expec't to testify on this conten-18 tion, and by this contention I mea'n Contention ~41 along 19 with Contention 22.I that has now been added as a basis for 20 Contention ~41, on the day of the exercise -- I mean, in this 21 proceeding. 22 A (Witness Michel)- Okay. Once again, I think the (,/ I
C l:. y /- i 118 e s-~ 1 contention speaks :for itself and. the' facts Lare fairly well-2' set forthJin the'~ contention. ' 3 -Again, it's the FEMA report,..the free play; 4 message and the-player ~s memos.' 5 Q And, I take it your opinions with reg'ard to this contention will basically be.to support the' fact'that;the' 6 exercise demonstrated a fundamental flaw in the'LILCO plan 7 8 and in LILCO's ability to control and manage-an orderly 9 OVacuation of the EPZ pursuant to that plan, in that it fails to demonstrate'that roadway impediments will not be removed ~ 10 until long after evacuation has begun? 11 And I really just rea'd the first sentence..I'm 12 13 not trying to trick you. 14 A I thought you were testifying there for.a' minute. I just want.to clarify that last sentence you'just read. 15 Impediments will not be removed until after' evacuation has 16 17 begun nor would impediments that occurred during evacuation 18 be capable of being removed either'. 19 Q Not hearing anything, I assume both of you agree 20 with that? 21 A (Witness McGuire) Well, what the exercise did 22 not support -- the ex~ercise did not support FEMA's conclusion, O
119 -( ) L/ 1 is the real thrust of it I believe. 2 Q Okay. Let me-first, before we delve into thi's.a 3 little deeper, have you look at Pages 78 and'79 which are 4 really some of the facts that are' alleged in Contention 22.I. 5 This morning I discussed with Chief Roberts a 6 report that was prepared for him by Lt. Weber who was then 7 the Commanding Officer of the Cen' tral Records Section with a regard to a motor vehicle accident survey from the period of-9 February 6th through February 20th. { 10 Are any of you aware'of that report or the contents 11 of that report? A 12 A (Witness Michel) I've seen it. 13 (Witness Dormer) Ye s', I.'ve seen it.. 14 (Witness McGuire) I know it exists. I haven't l 15 studied it at great length. 16 Q Okay. Let me,. for your information, merely provide 17 you with a copy of that report which we have previously 18 identified as Roberts' Exhibits 2 and 3. 19 I will represent for you that Chief Roberts noted 20 that the longer breakdown by day was merely the'more detailed 21 information that went into the cover memo. 22 A (Nitness Michel) I'm sorry. Would you repea~t AU
w 120 I 1 v 1 that,' Mr..Zeugin? 2 O Yes. I think the~y are really all part of one 3 report rather than -- well, there'are two scparate documents. 4 Chief Roberts represented today that they are really all part-5 of the same work that Lt. Weber did for him. 6 A Okay. 7 (The witnesses are'looking at the documents.) 8 Q Gentlemen, to the~ best of your knowledge, is this 9 the report.the basis for the allegations contained on Pages 10 78 and 79 with regard to the -- well, the facts contained on 11 Pages 78 and 79 with regard to the accidents that occurred I) \\' 12 during the two-week period, from February 6th through February 13 20th? 14 A (Witness Michel) To the best of our knowlege, we 15 have been informed that it is. 16 Q Okay. 17 A Again, we didn't write these contentions,-just to 18 clarify for the record. 19 Q Gentlemen, let' me just have you each briefly 20 look at the second page of the memorandum, the internal 21 memorandum, which presents a summary of accidents that 22 occurred in the two-week period. And you can also, if you 's (0
~ OO J 'f
- 121
- v.
1 .want, refer to any othe'r. documents in'theLgroup that I just -2 gave you.to answer the' question. 3 My question is, essentially in your experien~ce as 4 Suffolk County police' officers, is the rate of a~ccidents that 5_ you see during this two-week period,'either on a cumulative 6 basis or on a daily basis,' fairly' typical for the' time'of 7 year that we'are observing? 8 A I couldn't.-- I wouldn't be able'to begin to answer 9 that without reviewing accident rates over a long period of to time. 11 (Witness Dormer) I don't~really understand the 12 question. Could you repeatit, please? -13 0 Okay. I, guess what I am asking is that in your 14 many years of experience,.both at the precinct level and also-15 the Highway Department, whether the' accident rates tha't are 16 noted in these'various reports are fairly typical' accident 17 ~ rates for this time of yea'r? 18 In other. words, had I looked at the same ' period 19 in 1985 or the same period in 1984, would I have see~n roughly 20 the same amount of accidents? Is this a " fairly normal" 21 accident rate? 22 A Based on my experience, I would say yes'. O
122 / ( .,) s-1 (Witness Michel) I would have to compare.them. 2 Q Okay. Gentlemen, let me~take you back to the 3 earlier pages on Contention 41. Let me begin by asking you 4 a very general question. A (Witness McGuire) Excuse me, what page? 5 Q Page 71. And I really don't focus on any page in 6 7 this question. 8 Gentlemen, at this point in time in drawing your-g conclusions about whether or not LERO responded properly to 10 the two roadway impediments, have you -- let me start with 11 probably a more general question. I don't want to get it so (/ complicated. 12 13 What is your basis for the conclusion that LILCO 14 responded improperly to the two roadway impediments? 15 A (Witness Michel) My police experience, police 16 supervisory experience, since 1970 over the last 16 years t7 or so, tells me that whe~n there is a report of an accident at 18 a particular location, within a couple of minutes you would 19 expect to see a response vehicle arriving. And that didn't 20 happen; therefore, it was inadequate. 21 (Witness McGuire) You said improperly. I thought 22 inadequately was -- or, they didn't respond at all. So, O%)
123 (_) ' I whether you can call that ina'deq'uate or improper,.no response 2 I think that was our conclusion in one instance. 3 (Witness Dormer) When I look at the FEMA report 4 and.the contentions, in my opinion the reponse was very 5 inadequate for the simulated impediments that were described e in the report. 7 Q What is your reason for believing it was inade-t 8 quate? Becauselof the' amount of time it took or other 9 reasons? 10 A Well, yes, time is very important in removing an 11 impediment. And, then the' equipment dispatched to the' scene 12 in the situation as described is also very important.' 13 And the equipment that was dispatche'd wasn't 14 adequate to ha~ndle the situation as described. 15 Q Let's take'them one at a time. And, again I 16 would direct this to any of you. 17 Let's talk about the equipment that was dispatched 18 to the gravel truck impediment. I take it, each,of you are 19 familiar with the facts surrounding the hypothesized accident? 20 A (Witness Michel) Yes. ~ 21 (Witness McGuire) Yes. 22 (Witness Dormer) Yes. O
124 ( t Q Why, in your opinion, was the equipment. inadequate 2 to respond to that particular -- taking only -- let's only talk now about the equipment. 'Let's not worry about how long .3 4 it took it to get there. Let's only talk about the equipment. A (Witne.ss Michel) My understanding is that a single 5 tow truck at some point in time ultimately arrived. We are. 6 talking about a loaded gravel truck, three' cars, completely 7 blocking both the northbound and southbound lanes of an a evacuation route, including the' shoulders, involved in an 9 accident. 10 I don't think a single tow truck dispatched to 11 k,')s that type of incident would be adequate. t 12 (Witness McGuire) I know it wouldn't be adequate. 13 14 0 What kind of equipment would you believe would have been adequate to respond to that particular type of 15 accident based on your experience?- 16 A (Witness Michel) Certainly at the very least g7 you've got to make some type of plan to remove that truck 18 19 and that gravel. And even a heavy-duty wrecker isn't going to remove a loaded gravel truck. It's one of the heaviest 20 21 things on the road. We cite them for overweight all the 22 time. And you are not going to remove that with any -- I AQ) i
125 4 ,y,/ 1 don't think you would remove it with a tank mover without 2 making some provision to unload it if it's loaded, or if it 3 has already spilled its: load certainly a wrecker isn't going 4 to be able to move it either. s 0 Are any of you aware of what actual equipment was 6 sent to that impediment, the equipment that actually arrived 7 there? 8 A The basis that we'are going by is what's in the 9 FEMA report and the contentions, It is my understanding that to it was a single tow truck. 11 (Witness McGuire) The same. [ 12 (Witness Dormer) I agree'with that. \\ 13 Q Let's now look at the' fuel truck. Is it each of 14 your testimony that the equipment that was sent to the fuel 15 truck location was inadequate? 16 A (Witness Michel) I'm not sure what was sent to 17 the fuel truck. 18 (Witness McGuire) I'm not sure either. 19 (Witness Michel) I don't know that anything ever 20 got there. The last I remember very late in the day no one 21 had gotten there yet on the day of the exercise. 22 (Witness McGuire) Except I saw no reference to v
e 126 xj 1 a fire department or any other equipment in the fuel truck 2 in anything that I recall reading. 3 0 I take it, you would have sent a fire truck and 4 because you didn't see a fire truck, do I infer from that that ~ 5 you would have felt it proper to have sent a fire truck to 6 that location? 7 A (Witness Dormer) Defininitely. 8 (Witness McGuire)' From the information that it 9 spilled its load and there was a cha'nce of it igniting, to that would be a good place to have a fire truck. 11 Q okay. Any other equipment you would have sent (. 'LJ 12 there? 13 A Possibly requesting sanding equipment. Sometimes 14 we do wash downs. That time of the year, I think it might 15 have been too cold to do a wash down. I don't know. 16 In fact, environmental considerations, sometimes 17 we don't. But a wash down -- you had to have the fire is department there anyway so the wash down aspect of it 19 wouldn't really count. 20 In that scenario, I don't think it said whether 21 there were injuries or not, but the first arrivers would 22 be the ones that call for an ambulance. But, I would say (~~I v
127 p. immediately a tow truck,,omebody to' police'the scene, in 1 2 other words.to direct traffic and'-[to divert traffic, and 3 .the fire department should have been sent. 4 (Witness Michel) Someone'to'make provisions to 5 remove-the-fuel from the' overturned tank truck.- You.are.not 6 . going to be able to right it with the fuel on it. 7 Q Anything.else?. 8 A (Witness Dormer) Well, as a traffic manager, I. 9' think the one important thing is information ba'ck from.the \\ 10 scene of the incident requesting the' type of assistance 11 that you require. I'think that's important.' 12 And in reading any of these reports, I-can' t 'see 13 any communication on what the situation was.. So, it's 14 really hard to really know what was going on at the' scene. 15 0 Okay. Let's focus now on-the element which I 16 think, if I interpret' correctly the silence of the other.two-17 members of the panel, to Inspector Michel's comment that this 18 was too slow a response to both of these' impediments, if 19 there even was a response it was too untimely. 20 My question is, have you attempted -- have any of 21 you attempted to identify the particular breakdown, the 22 specific breakdowns, that may have occurred within LERO's O
128 ? I t/ 1 response to those impediments that' caused the. delays in the 2 response? A (Witness flichel) Some of'them are identified in 3 4 the contention and in the FEMA report.- Aside from that, no. (Witness McGuire) No. Since they didn't respond 5 or they got there too late, it doesn't. support.the' conclusion 6 7 that there was inadequate response. The why is, in my opinion, almost immaterial. 8 9 Q Gentlemen, on page 72 at the top of the page which 10 is the preface to Contention 41, there is a statement that in the first part reads that the exercise revealed that LILCO's 11 () (/ proposal for the removal of impediments to evacuation is 12 13 inherently unworkable. 14 At this time, what testimony do you contemplate Presenting to support that assertion, that as I take'it says 15 that the LILCO plan's provisions for the' removal of impedi-16 g7 ments are inherently unworkable? 18 A (Nitness Michel) Once again, I think the facts 19 speak for themselves. The plan has been in place. It has 20 been rehearsed over a period of years. 21 These things are clearly provided for in the plan, 22 and yet on the day that the whole world was watching you O GJ
129 r s '~ couldn't do it. 1 cnd T3A 2 Q Any dif ferent response? - (Pause.) 3 Should I'take the' silence -- 4 A (Nitness McGuire)~ 'No. I was considering it. 5 o. A pu M c utility is not set up to do this kind of work. 6 And a plan that tries to usually do this kind of work, in my 7 8 opinion, is not a workable plan. And I think that exercise did not prove it to me -- 9 it was known to me, but it helped reinforce what I believe. 10 O Inspector Michel, the question I asked you just 31 before this previous one, I asked you whether or not you 12 have yet attempted to. identify the specific breakdowns that 13 may have led to the untimely response of LILCO road crews 34 to the two impediments. 15 My question is, do you feel it is important to 16 dentify those particular breakdowns in order to draw the 17 conclusion that we just talked about which was essentially 18 that the LILCO plan is inherently unworkable? 19 Is it important to you that you know the specific 20 things that didn't work to be able to draw a conclusion 21 22 about whether or not the plan is workable? O
+ 130' ,c i \\ l' A (Witnes's Michel) I,think.it might be moreim- , s,. 2 ,portant.to.LILCO,to';Nnow~.;iI(,think'you'have to -- as-I stated 3 before, the. years of rehe~arsa1 a'nd the. fact tha't these ~ 4 situations were expected and'provided for1in?the' plan, on the 5 day that the test was,given-.there'was.noLreason to fail. .And, 6 whatever the' specifics were, they'are really immaterial. They 7 are inexcusable. 8 'It shouldn't have happened. 9 Q Do you intend to try and identify the specifics to as part.of your testimony on thi~s contention? 11 A Possibly. 12 Q Inspector Do~rmer? 13 A (Witness Dormer). Could I have the original 14. question again? 15 Q I guess -- I take it, maybe incorrec'tly so, I've p 16 assumed your silence over there was basic agreement to 17 Inspector Michel's answers. 18 I think the~ point we' are 'at now is whether you ^ 19 intend as part of your testimony on this' contention to identif: r 20 the specific breakdowns that may have occurred that were the 21 ultimate cause -- tha't were the root'causes essentially -- of 22 LERO's untimely response to the~se impediments? l l
3 d 131 ,rx 6:b0 P.M' 1 A I don't know at this time. EVEN. SESSION 2 Q Doryou intend to inquire into them, Inspector 3 McGuire? 4 A (Witness McGuire) Your asking that question 5 probably increased the likelihood. But, I don't know at this 6 time. 7 Q On Page 71, in the third sentence of the preface, 8 there is a statement that LILCO's inability to deal with. 9 such irapediments, meaning the two roadway impediments, will 10 cause delay in the implementation of protective actions and ~ 11 preclude LILCO from managing an orderly evacuation of the g \\./ 12 EPZ. 13 Gentlemen, my question to you is, have any of you 14 attempted to ascertain the'effect-on' evacuation time estimates 15 that LILCO's delay in responding to the two impediments would 16 have had? 17 A (Witness Michel) I think this goes back to a 18 criticism that we had of the en' tire ' plan from the beginning, 19 and that's that it didn't provide'for alternative routing 20 in the event that somethi~ng along this line'anyway occurred. 21 So, without that provided for, I think it's 22 almost impossible to make an evaluation like that. i r^s k) s
~ k ~ ..s '132 I [' = \\_/ ~ 1, -Q. ' You haven' t under'taken. to do any kind. of quantita-' 2 tive evaluation? a 3
- A I think it would'be virtually'impossiblef
.It. 4; would.certainly bottleneck traffic and; del'ayfit, because. ' ~ A.' 5' fthere.~is no alternative ~. ~ 6 (WitnessLMcGuire)i No"opin, ion'in; hours?or: minutes, =- 7 no. ~ 8 .Q - Let.me ask you whether'you'are~ familiar.withJthe; 9 - rerouting lthat took~ place around eachfimpediment?- ~ 10 JA .(Witness. Dormer;). No, I'm not. 11 (Witness Michel')- No, I'm.not. 12 ~ (Witness McGuire) It's-my understanding thati at ~, 13 the~'.'one where nobody arrived, I = don' t think th'ere was re-- - L 14 routing.- I speculated on some rerouting and I'm'not'sure-if 15 it would have'a factual' basis or not.- I don't'want you to sp(eculate. '16 MR; M. MILLER:J 17 . WITNESS McGUIRE: Right. So,.I would have to say l .- 18 I' don't think I saw the' material. 19 MR. ZEUGIN: Just so the' record is clear, perhaps 20 my question is a little' ambiguous and I want-to make'sure-'it's ~ 21 real' clear. 422
133 ) v 1 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 2 Q At this point in time, none of you are' aware'of 3 ~the fact whether or not LERO even attempted'to reroute 4 traffic around either of the~ impediments; is that correct? 5 A (Witness Michel) I'm not specifically aware'of 6 that, no. 4 7 (Witness McGuire)' Wel'1, they weren't directing any 8 traffic so I don't know what you mean. Do you mean, were 9 there instructions that changed? 10 Q Yeah. Did the~y simulate a rerouting around either it impediment to the best of your knowledge? ,9 12 A To my knowledge, they didn't, no. 13 (Witness Dormer) I don't.know. 14 (Witness McGuire) Can I add to that? In the one, 15 I think I'm aware that the' message didn't go out on one of 16 the impediments until long after it happened, so I would have 17 to assume that traffic wasn' t rerouted around it. 18 MR. ZEUGIN: Why don't we.take a five minute break? 19 (Whereupon, a recess was taken at 6:03 p.m., to 20 reconvene at 6:12 p.m., this same day.) 21 22 b'l 5) 1
u. 134 'N t 'BY MR. ZEUGIN:- (Continuing) 2 Q Captain Michel, let me ' start with you. ; On-Contention ~--- 3 4 MR. M. MILLER-You guys'h' ave besn demoted and pr moted so-many-times. (; 5 WITNESS MICHEL: I notice'that. 6 MR.-ZEUGIN: I'm sorry; it' 'just forceJof. habit. 7 8 I apologize, Inspector Michel.' J g BY MR. ZEUGIN:. (Continuing) l' ~ 10 Q-Have you had a chance-at this. point to review -11 - Contention 45? A' (Witness Michel)- Let me just look at.it. 12 13 .Q
- Unfortunately, it's not in the packet'that.you 14 have.
15 .A I believe I have. I'm,getting just a little' con-- fused on the numbers. "If I see~it, I will know if I saw it. 16 g7 0 Okay. Let me show it to you, then. .I will-18 represent for you that it has now been appended to Contention 19 50. And what I am presenting you with are the pages of 20 Contention 50 at which you now see 45 appear. 21 (Mr. Zeugin provides the witness with a document.) 22 MR. ZEUGIN: Off the record. O
135 rx 1 ' _/ j 1 (Of f-the-record. ) j 2 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 3 Q Can I ask you, Inspector Michel,.when it was that ~ 4 you read this contention - for :the -first time? 5 A (Witness Michel) Some time since Monday morning, 6 the 15th,.and now. 7 Q Okay. Inspector Michel, could I~ask you to 8 describe for me the substance of your testimony or expected 9 testimony on Contentions 45 and-507 10 MR. M. MILLER: Your question is on Contentions 11 45 and 507 ,,\\ e \\ 12 MR. ZEUGIN: Yes.- 13 WITNESS MICHEL: Okay. My understanding is that 14 45 has been merged with 50 and that my expected testimony on 15 this contention will be limited to that which was contained 16 within 45. 17 That's my understanding at this time, so that I 18 would not be preparing testimony on 50. l 19 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 20 Q Just so I -- 21 A With the exception of that part of 50 that is 22 included in what was 45. n ? j \\_/
136 1 Q Just so I'm clear, Inspector Michel, the -- 2 A We are talking about the communication issues? 3 Q That's right. Contention'45 relates to communica-4 tion issues. And I take'it,. Inspector-Michel, as you 5 currently contemplate your testimony it would be to support 6 the various allegations that are contained in Contention 45.-- 7 A Concerning communication issues. 8 Q -- and it would not be focused instead on the LILCO 9 training program and how that program may have failed? 10 A That's correct. 11 MR. M. MILLER:' Mr. Zeugin, I think that statement r~N t i 12 is correct. That's my understanding at the present time as 13
- well, 14 I think if there'is any confusion,~it's that when 15 Ewe identified Inspector Michel-in Contention ~45 and when we.
l 16 identified Inspector McGuire in Contention 42, I don't be-17 lieve we specifically mentioned tho'se contentions. We ~ l 18 mentioned Contention 50 -- 19 MR. ZEUGIN: That's correct. 20 MR. M. MILLER: -- because of the' fact tha't those 21 other two contentions, Contentions 42 and 45, had bee ~n r l 22 subsumed within 50. But, it is our present intention not to i n. i i O
-137 LJ 1 offer'either. Inspector,.McGuire'or-Inspector Miche~1'on 2 'formerly wha't was Contention ~50. Instea~d,.they.will be 3 -offered to. testify on wha ~t was formerly Contentions.42'and 45, 1 4 'respectively. 3 5 I am sure that confuses the' rec ~ord. 6 (Laughter.) 7 MR. ZEUGIN: It makes it perfectly muddy, I'will 8 tell you. 9 BY MR..ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 10 .Q Just'so the record is clear, Inspector Michel, 11 have you previously reviewed ~any training material that was O \\- 12 provided to the LERO workers as part of their training programi 13 A (Witnes's Miche'l)- Yes.- 14 Q What do'you remember reviewing?. 15 A It's a long time ago, and I'm not'really certain ~16 at this point. 17 Q In Contention 45.A ~- it appears I guess on Page ~ 18 95 of what I've provided you, Inspector Michel'-- ~ ~ 19 MR. M. MILLER: I'm sorry to interrupt.- But, are 20 you through with everything except Contentions 42 and'45? 21 MR. ZEUGIN: Tha~t's correct. .22 MR. M. MILLER: Well, perhaps -- I only have at i
r .) 138 -/~'N O 1. this point one question ~that I was contemplating asking. We 2 may be able to let Inspector ~ Dormer' leave'if you are'thriough: 3 with your questions and maybe I can just ask out of turn'my 4 one question,_because.he won't be involved in these'other ~ 5 two contentions. 6 MR. ZEUGIN: Let me quickly look.to makesure I 7 don' t have any general questions. I would -like to.ask. 8 - (Pause ~. ). 9_ I think there'are a couple'of general questions I 10 would like to ask Inspector' Dormer. I have no -- 11-MR. M. MILLER: Would you object to doing that?L (' ' ' ' '12 MR.-ZEUGIN: -th). I'wouldn't mind-at-all taking-13 that out of sequence'if it would help Inspector: Dormer,-to 14 get him out of here. 15 MR.-M. MILLER: Tha'nk you. 16 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 17 Q Inspector Dormer, did you meet with Mr. Miller or 18 'anyone else in preparation for thfs deposition? 19 A (Witness Dormer) I met with Mr. Miller. i 20 Q Okay. When-did you meet with Mr. Miller? 21 A I met with Mr. Miller on Monday of this week. 22 O Is that the only time ~you met with Mr. Miller 6\\-) i a
139 v. i concerning this deposition? 2 A No. No. I had met with -- I had a brief meeting a with Mr. Miller approximately three~or four weeks ago, I 4 don't know the exact date, and he discussed the possibility 5 of me being a witness in this case.; 6 Q When, in your -- 7 A There were a couple of other people with Mr. Miller 8 at that time. 9 Q Could you plea'se' identify those' people? ~ 10 A It was another attorney with Mr. Miller. I be-11 lieve her first name was Tip. Chief Roberts was at that-('s \\~ 12 meeting. I'm not sure who else was at the' meeting. I can't 13 remember right now. 14 Q As far as you are concerned, Inspector Dormer, 15 when was it clear to you that you would be a witness on these 16 contentions? 17 A At that time, I had a pretty good idea I was 18 going to be a witness. 19 0 This was at the meeting two or three weeks ago? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q All right. I won't ask you if it was a direct 22 order or not. Were you shown any documents during those /~N, LJ
140 %J 1 meetings? 2 A No, sir. 3 Q Have you at any time -- 4 A Excuse me. You said meetings? 5 Q Yes. You mentioned to me -- 6 A Yes. 7 Q -- the first one being two weeks ago with Mr. 8 Miller and Ms. Letsche -- 9 A More than two weeks. 10 Q Okay. Two or three weeks, and the other one being 11 last Monday. r^s t'- J 12 A Yes. Yeah, we went over some documents on 13 Monday. 14 Q What documents were you shown? 15 A Well, I believe'it was the FEMA report, the 16 contentions and the response from LILCO. I'm not sure of 17 the terminology, but -- 18 0 Request for Admissions. 19 A -- Request for Admissions, yes. 20 0 Was that the first time you had seen the FEMA 21 report or the responses to the Request for Admissions? 22 A On Monday, no. I had seen it before that. l b s-l l l
141 ~/T 4 1 MR. ZEUGIN: Okay. Tho'se are the only questions 2 I have for Inspector ~ Dormer.. 3 MR. M. MILLER: Let' me just ask one ' general 4 question. indexx 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. M. MILLER: 7 0 I am directing this to the' panel. ,Mr. Zeu' gin has 8 asked a few questions about the LERO response during the 9 exercise to the fuel truck '~ impediment,n and I.want to clarify 10 the record I think on this: issue. 11 Is it your understanding that there was no LERO <y J response to the fuel truck impediment on the day of.the 12 13 exercise? 14 That's directed to anyone. 15 A (Witness Michel)- It's our understanding that the 16 response was so late that the FEMA evaluator had left the 17 scene before the response' occurred. I don't know if it was 18 after the exercise had already officially ended or not. 19 (Witness McGuire) In other words, it was so late 20 that I discounted it as a response. 21 MR. M. MILLER: That's my only question. And 22 unless you all have got questions -- O v
142 MR. ZEUGIN: No, I have none. t WITNESS DORMER:..Thank'you very much. 2 MR. ZEUGIN: Thank you, Inspector Dormer. 3 4 - (The~ witness, Inspector Dormer, was excused.) MR..-M. MILLER: Thank'you. I appreciate that. 5 MR. ZEUGIN: No problem. 6 BY MR. ZEUGIN:' (Continuing) 7 8 0 okay. Inspector. Michel, I think'we were getting ready to talk about Contention 45.A. That contention g essentially alleges that.the'two free play impediment messages 10 involve _ serious communication failures and then proceeds to 11 8 ,(-) provide six specific examples in support of that general 12 statement, 13 To.the best of your knowledge, are those the g4 six actual statements on whi'ch you will rely for your testi-15 mony on this subpart? 16 17 A (Witness Michel) There'again, those and any others that I may have occasion to review between now and the time 18 to that I prepare written testimony. ~ 20 0 I take it though at this point you are not aware 21 of any others, other than the six that are listed? 22 A That's correct. fg
143 .J 1 Q And I take it, at this point you also have not 2 verified for yourself the factual accuracy of these six 3 . specific examples but are rather relying -- 4 A -Relying on the examples as they are presented in 5 the contentions and what I've read in the FEMA' report. 6 Q I take'it with regard to your review of the facts 7 supporting the allegations in Subpart B.which deals with the 8 Ridge' Elementary School mes' sages and Subpart C which deals 9 with LERO's ability to notify the FAA and the Long Island to Railroad, Subpart D whi~ch deals with communication with 11 regard to the release of data,and dose projection, Subpart E i.,) 12 which relates to actions by the LERO director and the' EOC, 13 Subpart F which deals with~ communication basically within 14 the EOC and public information in general, and Subpart G which 15 deals with communicationsoat the staging areas, Subpart H 16 which deals with' communications between the EOC and the stag-17 ing areas regarding the assistance of the suffolk County 18 Police Department during the exercise -- and that's all the 19 subparts -- with regard to each of those subparts, I take it 20 that at the current time you cannot add any additional facts 21 to support those kind of. general assertions that are contained 22 in each of those, save for the facts that already appear in [v) ies e
r 144 r^N : V-1 tho~se[ contentions;-is that correct? 2 A ' That's correct. 3
- 0.-
And'again you have not, at.this time, verified 4 those particular facts but'instead are relying.on the' state-15 'ments' contained in the conten'tions'and the FEMA report to-6 the' extent _.it may or may not support some of those facts? 7 A And the discussions that I've had with attorneys s 8 for the County and their review of the players memos during 9 the' exercise. 0 And, again just'so.the record is perfec~tly clear 11 on this point -- I may>have.'aske~d this question before -- it ' 12 is your understanding that your testimony on this now very 13 _large Contention 50 will focus only on those subparts we 14 just talked about in Contention 45? 15 A That's correct. 16 Q Inspector McGuire, ha~ve 'you had a chance now - to 17 review Contention 427 18 A (Witness McGuire)' Cursory, yes. 19 Q Have you reviewed tha't contention previously? 20 A Yes. 21 Q When did you previously review it? 22 A Last week for sure, and possibly previous to that O
145 4 e < 1 1 .but I don't know. .2 0 Have you at any time previously'in this proceeding had a. chance to review the training material or the training .3 4 program.that was provided for the' LERO workers?' 5 A No. 6 0 ~I take it, Inspector-McGuire, that at this point 7 it is your' understanding that your testimony on Contention 50 ~ 8 will focus specifically on the' specific components of. i-Contention 42 and-not some ofEthe more,' general assertions 9 ~ that are contained in the subpartsLof Contention'507 10 l A That's my understanding, yes. 11 I \\ '12 0 Let me try and make thisiquick. Contention 42 alleges very broadly, as I interpret it -- and-if you interpre t 13 it differently, please correct me -- that various events 14 during the exercise demonstrated tha~t LERO personnel ~weren't 15 able to respond.to surprising or unknown situations.' 16 Is that how you' interpret the general gist of 17 l 18 this contention? i 19 A Yes,' sir. 20 0 And that the specific subparts are' factual evidence l 21 supporting that, general hypothesi's; is that correct? 22 A Yes, sir. L O-i
146 ,rx \\,_, 1 -Q At this time, Inspector Michel, can you identify 2 any particular factual incident that would support the a general hypothesis other than those'that are identified in 4 the Subparts A through G? 5 A (Witness Michel) You addressed that to me. Did 6 you intend to? 7 Q I'm sorry. It's getting late. Inspector McGuire. 8 A (Witness McGuire) Yes. Would you repeat it? 9 Q Sure. My question is, Inspector.McGuire, at to this point in time,.have~you identified any factual occurrence 11 on the day of the exercise which ' supports the general (' ') 12 hypothesis.that LERO players were unable to respond to un-13 expected or surprise situations other than those that are 14 specifically mentioned in Subparts'42.A through G?' 15 A I don't recall any right now. 16 Q Ilave you at this time, Inspector McGuire, verified 17 for yourself the facts that are identified in Subparts A 18 through G? 19 A llave I Verified? Other than what we have said, 20 reading the FEMA report, the admissions -- 21 Q And what is stated in the contention itself? 22 A And information given to me by Mr. Miller I think
147 ,n, i would be the total. 2 Q Could I ask you to explain to me what.you mean by 3 information provided to you by Mr. Miller? 4 IIas he given you specific -- let me make 'it more 5 specific. IIas he given you specific documents to review? 6 A No, sir. 7 Q So, it is merely oral representations that may a have been made to you by Mr.- Miller? 9 A or an explanation of where'information came from. 10 Q You have not specifically looked at the sources 11 that Mr. Miller may have identified for you? 12 A No. 13 0 Gentlemen, I think I'm almost done. Let'me go 14 back to.the very, general questions I asked at the end of 15 Inspector Dormer's questions, la Gentlemen, did you meet with Mr. Miller or anyone ~ 17 else in preparation for this deposition? 18 A (Witness Michel) Yes. 19 (Witness McGuire) Yes, sir. 20 0 Could you please identify for me when those 21 meetings took placo and who was in attendance at them? 22 A (Witness Michel) I met with Mr. Miller and his
148 g' Lj i assistant on Monday of this week and again today, briefly 2 this morning, briefly in between our breaks here thi's after-3 noon. Chief Roberts was also in atten' dance on Monday, also 4 in attendance this morning. 5 0 11ad you met previously to Monday with -- to discuss your deposition? 6 7 A No. We have talked on the phone a couple'of times a previous to Monday. 9 Q Could you describe who you mean by "we?" to A Mr. Miller and I have talked on the telephone. 11 0 No one else was involved on the telephone? /') (> A No. 12 13 Q Inspector McGuire? 14 A (Witness McGuire) Bas'ically the same answer, 15 yes. 16 0 Again, the only meetings were the~ones' Monday and 17 then the other meeting in preparation for'today? There were la no prior meetings? 19 A Not in meetings. Mr. Miller has been in town, and 20 we've had like conversations in the hall. But I think what 21 you mean a meeting regarding the hearing we've covered today 22 would be Monday and Friday, and this morning.
149 /- su 1 Q Okay. Were~you shown any documents during those 2 discussions? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q What were those documents? 5 A In addition to the ones that we have been enumerat-6 ing to you? Would you like for me to go over them again? 7 Q Why don't you summarize them for me? 8 A The post-exercise FEMA report, the contentions, 9 this draft of the contentions, a copy of my notes, a copy of to the admissions, a copy of the free play -- two of the free 11 play messages. -l 1 12 (Witness Michel') Everything that you have shown 13 us here today, my log, the' copy of the survey that was pre-14 pared by Lt. Weber, perhaps others that we don't recall. 15 Q Have either of you ever looked at the' actual 16 scenario for the exercise? 17 A Only as it's written in the FEMA report. 18 (Witness McGuire) The same. 19 (Witness Michel) And that was a brief review. 20 MR. ZEUGIN: That's all my questions. Thank you 21 very much. 22 MR. M. MILLER: I have no questions. O uj
150 l n ( ) 1 AND FURTHER.THE DEPONENTS SAITH NOT. 2 (Whereupon, the ~taking of the' deposition was 3 concluded at 6:35 p.m., Wednesday, December ^ 17, 1986.) Subscribed and swont to betbre me 4 this day of. M/>M jg{7 ll / L& Y 5 &--~-a 1 ' L/ y,MT t. 6Wh y EDNIN J. fiICHEL ncTARY N T C'8"
- No.52 72'.595 8 hi 6
My Commiccion Expiros Te m U Pt%5 i f 7 Subscribed and om to before me-this,[I ay of k LW,1gN d 1 HENRY JOHNSON 9 9?o; ry Public N YoE*E l p les SurroLE Vy C miccion pires ' T" **""" " p. ry 'B6 Subscribed and swo to before me 7[ 11 this 7 day of d4eew _. 19H ,~ ;-' gg p ,f .1H0r N' a Ai'- / / k-y:4 . RICHARD DOPliER 12 52 No;;.ry[Public //fN R /9/.g gg gh My Commission Expiros j 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
~ 151 1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 2 3
- I,-\\ GARRETT'J. WALSH, JR., the officer before wh'om the
' foregoing deposition was taken, Pages' 1 through[150, do 4 hereby certify that the witness whose testimony appears in 5 6 the' foregoing deposition'was-duly sworn by me; that!the1 7 tes'timony of said. witness was taken by me and the~reafter . reduced to typewriting by me or under my direction;~that said! 8 D deposition is a true record of the testimony;given by the 10 witness;' that I am neither, counsel for,.related to nor employed by any of the parties to the" action in which this 11 D deposition was taken; and further,.that I am'not a relative k-12 13 or employee of any attorney or. counsel employed by the ~ 14 parties hereto, nor financially or.otherwise interested in ~ 15 the outcome of the action'. 16 17 ff GARRETT gj/WALSH,1JR. j/ Notary Public in and for the 19 Co'mmonwealth of Virginia 20 21 My Commission Expires: January 9, 1989 22 'I i ~~r ,,.n,n. -,.--.-,,..-.,.,.e ,--.r n-,, n,., ,.,,,--.,.,,n-
P D$NGS 7 k) RESUME OF RICHARD DORMER PERSONAL DATA: Born: January 19, 1940 Married, 4 children Excellent Health 5'11", 170 lbs. EDUCATION: New York Institute of Technology B.S. in Criminal Justice, June 1976 M.B.A. in Management, June 1981 PROFESSIONAL TRAINING: Certificate of Training from the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control, March 1968 Certificate from the Criminal Justice Center John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Police Management, June 1976 Certificate from the American Academy for Professional Law Enforcement, Inc., and John Jay College of Criminal Justice of (' the City University of New York in the ( )S " Allocation of Police Resources: Implica-tions for Reordering Priorities", May 1977 Certificate of Training in Advanced Manage-ment Skills, from State of New York, Depart-ment of State, December 1978 Certificate of Achievement in Criminal Justice Education from the University of Virginia, Division of Continuing Education, June 1979 Graduate, F.B.I. National Academy, Quantico, Virginia, June 1979. EMPLOYMENT: Suffolk County Police Department, Yaphank Avenue, Yaphank, New York 11980 July 1963 - October 1963 Police Officer, Fourth Precinct Foot Patrol October 1963 - October 1965 Active Duty U.S. Army, one year Infantry Duty and one year Military Police Duty as a Motor Cycle Officer escorting Military Convoys. (O kJ October 1965 - January 1970 Police Officer, Second Precinct, per formed general police patrol duties which included traffic accident investigating and Sector Car Patrol.
p y) Page 2 January 1970 - April 1972 Sergeant, Fourth Precinct, supervised a Uniformed Patrol Squad of 8 Police Officers who were assigned to general patrol duties. April 1972 - September 1975 Sergeant, Highway Patrol Bureau, supervised Uniformed Patrol Officers on the Long Island Expressway and other major highways within the Suffolk County Police District with special emphasis on traffic related problems. September 1975 - September 1976 Lieutenant, First Precinct, Administrative Officer, worked directly under the Precinct Commander handling training requirements and general administrative duties. September 1976 - August 1978 Lieutenant, Internal Affairs Section, responsible for the investigation of serious disciplinary incidents involving Suffolk County Police Department Officers and the preparation and presentation of such cases before a Hearing Officer. () August 1978 - September 1979 Detective Lieutenant, Commanding Officer Second Squad, responsible for the management of approximately 40 Detectives and four Sergeants who were responsible for the in-vestigation of all serious crimes within the area of their respective precinct. l September 1979 - January 1981 Detective Lieutenant, Commanding Officer First Squad, responsible for the management of approximately 55 Detectives and four Sergeants who were responsible for the in-vestigation of all serious crimes within the respective precinct. January 1981 - January 1984 Detective Captain assigned to the Chief of Detectives' Office as Executive Officer of i the General Service Bureau. I was respon-sible for the Staff Administration of six Detective Squads within the Police District. These squads investigated all serious crim-inal incidents within the Suffolk County Police District, and reported to the Chief of Detectives through my office. O N_)
l5 p ~s Page 3 ) ~_- January 1984 - July 1986 Deputy Inspector: Commanding Officer of the Highway Patrol Bureau. I had overall respon-siblity for the management of 110 Police Officers,15 Sergeants, 3 Lieutenants and 1 Captain. The Highway Patrol Bureau is involved exclu-sively in the management of traffic related Police activity which includes the following units: A. Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Enforce-A special unit which concentrates ment. exclusively on arresting and prosecuting drunk drivers. B. Motor Carrier Safety Unit (MSCU) - This unit is involved in the enforcement of the laws relating to the transportation of Hazard-ous Materials within the Police District. C. Expressway Enforcement Unit - This unit concentrates on the safe and efficient move- ,-'s ' (_) ment of traffic on Rt 495 (Long Island Ex-pressway) and Rt 27 (Sunrise Highway). D. Breath Test Section (BTS) - This unit is responsible for administering Breath Tests to persons arrested for Driving While Intoxi-cated. This unit also conducts Breath Test Training for Suf folk County Police Officers and officers from other police agencies. E. Motor Cycle Unit (MCU) - This unit is responsible for the enforcement of the traffic laws within the Police District and conducts escort duty for funerals, dignitaries, etc. July 1986 - Present Inspector: Assigned to the Chief of District's Office in Police Headquarters. I am respon-sible for the Staf f Administration of the following Bureaus: A. Highway Patrol Bureau B. Special Patrol Bureau C. Marine Bureau t'N MEMBERSHIPS: Suffolk County Superior Officers Association x_,) Suffolk County Police Benevolent Association Suffolk County Detectives Association New York State Association of Chief's of Police Police Holy Name Society F.B.I. National Academy Associates
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ()) (~ <wn e !.!i 2 ""J'.i."$M" "j *,'",c.;,= s o s. POLICE DEPARTMENT RESUME EDWIN J. MICHEL, DEPUTY INSPECTOR Prepared November 20, 1986 Commanding Officer Communications and Records Bureau Suffolk County Police Department POLICE SERVICE EXPERIENCE 7/22/63 Appointed as Probationary Patrolman - Suffolk County Police Department 9/24/63 Assignet to the Patrol Division, Third Precinct 1/5/70 Promoted to Sergeant, remained assigned to the Third f>3 Precinct 9/22/75 Promoted to Lieutenant, assigned to First Precinct 2/21/77 Transferred to Highway Patrol Bureau as O.I.C. of radar and cycle enforcement 1/19/81 Promoted to Captain, assigned to Chief of patrol Division's Office 3/30/81 Transferred to Highway Patrol Bureau as Executive Officer 2/6/84 Designated Commanding Officer of Communications Section 2/18/85 Promoted to Detective Captain, assigned as Executive Officer of General Services Bureau 7/22/85 Designated Executive Officer of Major Crime Bureau 4/21/86 Promoted to Deputy Inspector, assigned as Commanding Officer of Communications and Records Bureau AV YAPHANK AVENUE, YAPHANK, NEW YORK 11980 ISISI 296 5000
I 4 November 20, 1986 Page two of two pages .O EUCATICINE BACKGROUND June, 1959 Graduated from Islip High School January, 1977 Graduated Magna Cum Laude from New York Institute of Technology Majors in Behavioral Science and Criminal Justice June, 1982 Graduated from the F.B.I. Academy, Quantico, Virginia; accredited by the University of Virginia PERSONAL Age: 45 Height: 5'9" Weight: 170 Health: Excellent Marital Status: Married since July 20, 1963 to June D. Michel; one child Teri Ann, age 18 Resident of Suffolk County and Town of Islip since 1949 0 4 i { l C) i
0SAfPN g POLICE DEPARTNENT COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, NEW YORK O INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE v To: Commissioner DeWitt C. Treder O ATE :21 Nov.,1986 FROM: Ir%Ivr Philip McGuire, Executive Officer COPY TO: Office of the Chief Inspector, Command 2000
SUBJECT:
Resume of Service Name: Philip McGuire Date of Birth: May 15,1934 Address: 32 Thornhedge Road Bellport, New York 11713 Telephone No.: (516) 286-0933 The undersigned was appointed to the Babylon Town Police Depart-A ment on August 1,1956 and served in the capacity of Patrol Officer and V Desk Officer until the inception of the Suffolk County Police Department' on January 1,1960 at which time he was assigned to the First Precinct. Af ter performing patrol duties and administrative duties at the First Precinct, the undersigned was promoted to Sergeant in October,1963 and assigned to the Second Precinct. He was assigned to the First Precinct during 1963 and then promoted to Lieutenant in January,1969 and performed the duties of a Platoon Com-mander, supervising the activities of a squad of approximately seventy (70) men. l In May,1972, he was promoted to Captain and assigned as the Execu-tive Officer of the First Precinct, he continued in that assignment af ter having been promoted to Deputy inspector in January,1974. In January,1973, he was assigned as the Executive Officer of the Legal and Inspection Bureau until February,1977 when he was assigned as an assistant to the Chief of District. In February,197a, he was assigned as the Commanding Officer of the Special Patrol Bureau. This assignment entailed the administration and direction of the Emergency Service Section, the Aviation Section, the Canine Section, the Crime Scene Section, and the Courts Section. O L) P DCs. 2041 l
i TO: Commissioner D.C. Treder FROM: Inspector P. McGuire (vj Page 2 21 November,1986 In January,1984, he was transferred to the Office of the Chief Inspector as Executive Officer. As Executive Officer, his duties are to assist the Chief Inspector:
- 1. In exercising line and staff command over all personnel and operations in the Police Department;
- 2. In performing management services required to insure the De-gartment performs its operations in an efficient and effective manner
- 3. Overseeing the Department's current and long-range budgetary needs, administrative functions, planning, research, developments and statistics;
- 4. Other administrative services and supervision as the Police Commissioner may assign.
This office is also responsible for keeping the Police Commissioner informed of all important matters. In addition, the supervision of the District Commanders and Police Chaplains are a function of this office. In February,1985, he was promoted to Inspector and continued his assignment as Executive Officer in the Office of the Chief Inspector. The undersigned has attended various schools and seminars dealing with Police Operations, Ethics, Investigations and related subjects given by the F.B.I., New York State, the IACP, New York City Police Depart-ment and the Suffolk County Police Department. Respectfully submitted, Philip McGuire Inspector Executive Officer Office of the Chief Inspector Command 2000 PMcG:Jd (O v
O WA Y 4 ,,an ri8'Ta Of fnii &, 80,c yei.s 3 0hiti L3J ltJl14 CCn. TON 9L. C
- ,e d iptfeA'SWtJ.tCT h,.a ; M w m s 4/,.,,r,
.a [m.f. p,.,,,,, t ) a-888'8 8t** g
- /
. i. T1sts IT:"DL'T h.eL* 'und4. *'br/jn e 308 72 4.e 3 VfAINCR ct/.44 /c s IN7' 8 Td'(**' Willest e4 3tm.c44, CCas9tA!rAnf & AsettSS: go.,. = g 8 ' 3(f tstasi 8 A9.=9t.tSS. > IE i P }i O T O * ' *.i i m etscastries se:7..cg ,,,ggi .h;0909A6 b. . 4 crT* Afd. sagse vm kyt.,,r gag
- ~
e
- Mo'!/3
/ La ** / L Ae rewaaue esee. see, gary ~ ye .2 ' ~ P.rs a s u e L* L s. Fne,a.iry J f4 rt w. c..r L,6 t. ,eA L,& e fy
- f
'l , ],gye.g. s d L. L%. Fannen 1 ' ra s*, s r, k .g-
- rau.s e
- L. s. s e v
O t@LA LL PA s, s,ry FAr$Lnis l _ _ uo * &a rp= [ ' 07/4f
- )'
d*lOrcHoGv4 L*L ee A*M c L s TY* orCAAL L F. e * .atoc1.r_ _ h or,t ! 9 Poai 7h!detie.e eos eo %.lan A.aus-Pamiea n re. ' ~ ap j era 4An aits4 r44xa., t.7 i k _8 k ee ere44 u Pa usa <, tets 6 5 %.9 .m a r a, a.r. T - i % L\\ ~y s'12 c t.t es't uss. ?"*Na~s lors I ].l( } ~ ~ ' ~ , n.,
- a. A u.. an n.<,-
04) c... ~ .MV s..- an i. .n -, sun w-r-1 5y %* .z. _. a uaa va s e a ne s , u-,. ,,,.e~ .n. ,c.,. 4G .[ ) ,u. - m c, r, m i ~ ~ ' \\,,,n i f- -w~.m n T( _ __. l. c-
- 9.,
..u. n., y 1_
- u. men <. t e.
,r...e.,r uY 8 1reta m a ssecfu rssoe.orv Yh gro
- _cggf,
T s nuor.ft 00sv2.ta.F A.re DrareastTsorse.*
- dan w !A. {
sno'
- Tn.oJ.,, so isor se omrass s%
\\ l 0903 t/ sdr,7.s r craet Ave.r e,* d.r c e A 1, m
- r. om m-m,- a a QL
! om 3 sr a \\ k'L, u-sur.vo w. Ran L*3 %Y
- to s I or ro.a.raear pu.,,.
.,1 @ E I E fA4eddenser PLauf ned.., 64 rt RT 2 s 4 j*o0 # {k 2 ~
- 4. =
.t r v, E. 3 su.., e,a r.r Rr h*a ,I103V a/ M A s4 W kIM A m# '.easassa j e sr'O N O W F.N TIA L .~ e m ~ w s m.-.a v &8 ". . n.m
==* epa. ,..m-.
s-M
- e wI s rs SF f a ita e ys/,,7. a,.1 DA70 cht/s.9/st4 CC8. C'ONP(, i
- gpist gg SW8 JECT sress cons T Asts BT!
- 398+
WCAUCR
- ggma,
-~ t%> Tur.e er .a. air oeur.- CCMPL1! EAST & AteRESSC o e
- s.. '
D(f EsCART 8 A00R.t33 'I ME iPHOTO*
- ITEN
***'"8 ssa cc sanct Rd t. "1. p Snesm A PLAur o JtA.n u. .s H rA H<k us ,., tosf= J" d Th u ge 7ta., P e semeu.. weir / ~. - ? So*e nenen has. s* o atsa u. ?ssouet f $**maan** JAt % .n_y) 1 sm e ranu_ pe s o r la ut,m suo * + pg,. to poC Jtfrit.so,* LsLa.. hwak M.* r coe ' a g,e wa u.., 12 fas t Taf f&ue J
- l f3 PorY Moonso-t
/ </ Art Tantpenos-p yy. is~ ? 1%e,7l rwa <. ton Late a r%cs na~ r too
- NoLL" Y toso I
Mat.w on Am sr.e i.e sa.c t%r nnr.e.io.~ rran e ) 5'* * ' 1 .1 .sa e fo ac Jrsn< se ~ s ym r.e-) 1,. Anotwo o o att sine,m r r g 1 new n a eve. 574r./ec.rrre{%7 2rmutteo srsned s~6 a * ,g y itT' I/J A n Co**ny ~~l. e sa 91 feou ' L, Jt. 11 A 4** C.s7s R e.* O 83 (, tr o* L se n e s u~ n %a A) , /#iY 9 ' 27'* //1 ef-D - ddie4te Rosa a4 s** # ~ ')ATJ: Mag of* Ls Lt.0 i'A r.* Lo 7f 600 ' , jg_ g _.. ~.. i_ 9 /a stM e 4 v / , i g 40 $4 Te se 4 ve'
- , l __
8 7 4
- J Pr_u s a s h" I
IA /d rt see (, e' ] o im <-
- s s4 Par.,* e t a.en Losco 72s.. r N ll40 I?
P4 rtN eL uc LsLee 7,e e, L o 7's 4 00 ' 3 bLLI.$" I ) J.fl.L. I !I%.*" - ^**** rr l Mm " 00'< r.!"> Rb' Sbo ' %i_ 1 YAf14*N#C. Hoe 37- ._1%o * .1d 11L a 3 .s EArr k,a Gmr*or sanasaar suan im L.1*. 6 Sh e ' _Y EA17 I.w M 3 G a.."'43 0 'w* Lk oolon elLe f b y l 1, 8lL i _s EAC* beus 51 s t* OE wee 4I4M St.d 0VO 19 L=[d b'd Q ' .y. l.11 C 'lov cn* ** $4 0Lance erns a t. rv 600 ' 9 Ross exens is s ** p.se r t i n boo' . etaansse .{ e f'." ' '~
- R % T Y l
1 e ~ }_ .s r.. ...&.*.*=... l b- ...m - r.v.. .m -.,,,, s,, g #,, 4 btc - -.m 4. .,...r . c=.w z.n u e.r s s e h n -o ao o - --
m
- con s ts at te tts e CS O $3,l68 CCO. C'OM91,. *
- ci):sst.ts'sesJECT
= armis etese fuga,7 e3 fast.s tT Sge. vfATNCR l k ~Lo*1Tient teserLA:sAnf & AsestSt e ' 3(itattsf 8 ADes.t33 S 'IME 1 PHOTO- 'ITm otscsertion oista.cc sincts . _Reti8:s. ' tlb.E - 8 Ro e stM4A D LoLt.o FAaogoly 4 ge
- s r
-= 9 ff)f Covow '~nts4s /// A*4 L. 2" a: .ro e ' ~ 10 co u.ovs "laeu err L.,e L
- E. 6.
Cbo ' . _IIS L // k ) itneb st)* A A. L. L 4l'. Coe ' _yg j,1
- 1. o Z. at.
I, 4*2 7' 'aboba 6 Leaset ' Cua
- j
//2 *? 13 w rLLs A n* 9tL*Ya Puey
- AsettTo/ Ar L, r. c fu e '
s/ sucLLIAne SLa.o f f) /g eu r 10wne 'A r L.C.f $9e
- t(aft g r A G. P.4 N A n k.
- c.. '
im .ge a'i h ar-k a r a n ~ <. n.- 13 / G / Ana,,,.cr A ru YA f* Annat Mob D Lg CfL4 A Sh. yW4AaK CD
- 2.
- sa nno rr ano 14fes**ot tornur 2Lrt s~s n wWs <.
Cle o ' n i9 3 FMMAsk Non aas 1rt.A-su n e A*o ~34tTLETV RD A*30LF ZYLenee .90' 13.8 e
- /
ScHeal 30J TJt4Att See Med *KT1r Ann fa*=sn4*r Aehdet MLM$ "Eh be
- I tJ1 o f
Icasar % raA~tferr Ms=e ntiJrk Ya/n s.ac **raast Osa~s as. (r.=* %) sto ' L C. Mr /!1 5 27dr ce4Aa, frA e ~rs.*su ) roa ' 1 cou., u,m. .a 8 (,g w n 83 Ar* Rr sin Ares **** (dea cawa) , Qe
- t12h 4
RT224 se=*% Preca rner LA. Nivo~*
- D aet Yu e)
A*' o 1 o11 4 to . ET.tra me Artu.m pase.2 'll'b Ar.uan Pross ibe' (f S S 7__lI t%r JrMaue s A *sc e sLaA An or Cao ' /1 7e(T JrN'arAieas 4,&ca ,h I\\ ?*A T 'hrH f.** L o L t. e [gjo # ,1Q_ lN Adr m ao LoLLe osssa osaser Coo' l Aa'L "'7 t !.d/.,_. I 1 /J M i SMouwAa, ssar-6aa ' 1 1 ii f.) ) rTT J'IA AMb AMMTW Cav trey *1t O. 14 a n arnedm. foe
- t e$f3
_q RT,1s*M Anos Angry teausan, la .sotaatuses, \\ .i*45 0
- {
27 olb" f,n3 Leon L.nar CL4eyD _ nt o O 4 e' feea' It'M_ Pe rL WeC sar* l.o Le. FAgo L o M SOC ' 4 C Par n Aae leL Ce co o r.re ! -lj 'l fA tt.,onar vi Le L t e o%. * '1 P e is sn et,sa* Lol e a fe.' l, /YOG 'I PA r stol s,ar-LsLes f,e c so11, 90' e 1 l 4 11 to suitle.' m u. .rwaa ur rto ' _]f t! 11 f *'
- A LA ?
M LL f t'** *llf f SL*
- t888820 e
e l c s.. . ~. --.s;,. nwumm . mamn. --- a ~ ~- s--
m. -~ =a N.ere s ta st ra ggs, DATCt o.a//a/Bc Cfs. COMPT. 8 - r Clpt'di'sufJECT = stair steras --~~~. I Tists Its
- 390.
VfitittR NN t Pl".'1" < CCMPLA:sAst & A004tSS 9 Dif(sC1st 8 A004t13 'I KE I NiOTO- ' ITEM otsainios cina.ct ointerio. Re U. *y.. /W( /A 64rr p.47-Ses "fitA44, ps,t A. 7-p' /W/G J3 E42r M r bu TnLA unet _ PS T* , /Vsg _ Ret.L"S , sf.2./ / Roremmas, 3ac;rea pary o sr.u-n.. e ' a $ti e.>to<t'sa > 1 o e. ru A. s *!ahrt a.o $7 Zs-J Too ' .iU-- 3 tou&toten o 1.s L <. s p a s. s.*rta .rs. * 'l Que.n ode s L a <. s e J.ss.s. h aw' e //24 5 Ro vress e a s Li t. c. o Mo rd ne ' s 43.t C j sua N o-A h va Assue < n m L. T. a-go, ' ~ /4)J ) svaar's Ruo. w~mA-M A 6 f.. T. c. ac' p4is. g saosatas are Anou L. T. t rsum vs n.w Ceo' 113 i q wra u nwd A~s L T.e. ^**~**
- u t
&co' s v]c to 84anewaver* LA4 s arv s'vo =. /43 y aj ' Ba.x u a***** t.s e tory sno' a \\ gg Ja~e er H. e. Huss~r. a~s securc l t -? I s 1 ~
- l t
4 .J l 4' n t so - T stesst2r ?! 4 s'.%ym.*=r. s~., { wsi . th ua - % .........w... a s ea_n,s.w _,g--- ... ~. ' r--~-
- en -. = ',. ~
n. g mmm~.
-s.. E d.... $..,. . p,. - w. p i g .+ .,._.. c., n. v.n. y..~. ~., +. e,.... ~ ,m -.,* *-4.*9 .ag...<a.3.. ) .....~..x y., ~ h d
- :,..-; ),. *
^ I. Y,,' r.:., v 8-*.---?--**?--"-"-".m--*** r. . ;s ;; to .-e.r ey .y. -=-y*-------,-..y----y, . Y; y- ~g '., s t R=,, Yml A *:_._. *-~--...,,.--...'-.-.f,i,- - en y ..w.; s
- g..f_f'f'.,..
'a.' n ' _ __._. Q i. AQ. R 1,I,,, .M p...., .g
- e
=,,.y..h'Y.. .h - ^ G ? & W N W k {' b $ $ g& /, 7e4 - - -_. ~ .~ . &$y51&&$-h h &. .5._ .Y y gg g, yg g s: - Y.m* _.-
- _.x 9 x
5 f h L. 3 ..l%?8$$$0fk(hWWWN.YW e..._.., ,f a.. ._ _,,..-. f --m _ ?q. u. w Y..: sY.b 54 *Y$Yf.f..s.h' h _hb.?' .?i.'- i c ' ' t;;
- .4.,i.J.... +; /-3-...."s.,.,. W,.s -
yJI'h..m,.M*
- _.- gr.a h,a.. u. 3?:;,.1.wh ? !.?,f.E?!..
S .d <.r. v=WW <1 a ~- n.
- ,g m:,,,5, :r q. [+.c w p..<a,. x ?,.
. :_ v:,;:qhfy,- L Y, s,n . i.. ;W, .c =: * ~ i,.,..ll, t Q_} ~3. AAAn,s N..- / ,v. +m q /.. [ s..g.s.n,... w Of.W. a;Yf' %h. s o\\gQN..* N. W b. ? Q <t d S.,'.. .s. ....is 'j p.= y- ' 5< .y...' gGy.y.. .p. W
- -- --=4
- =rt.-,%..3
- '.A v* r-~*'k.- %--
t-
- A. 'd[.'f"vi**
kl.G.*>.,&'M 'r sh-d=
- t.**n d,+4.,e-M $,c',,
s &.~~ ' y't.%. % A me *.=ro.h W. a WW ' - ;. :.'m &.. :,... s'.pps; i- . sks u y my t.- a rs H ~ n 0; dW M2W8 $,gg,y :hxw.k,v.. '.,T?' i. 7 ' 9'%....;.; ;-;~m
- _.
- .'..... ;p/* Q'! t! ' %
wies. .g . wq.r x... g
- - m -
M_M > y. 0 W.-.','r d.
- Wleg;n,"KM.--.~i- - % '-...,~.
w 'a. .Q Tip ML.e. M ab o d /,d'-
- -w
's WME ns c.2I-M,3D', w;. . 2 ,.,mn -~ k$ f - x ?~% p m # n: M &.& &.E.,E O WM-M.MMW6 dV n -'~ ' mn.~ ~-m.<=~--- ~~-%n~. nn ,. MN' m-- a.c A-4wn'yN-. Mm w: - M Na$ A+2 N YS db. n
- w. M M,k w.&. u&. % n..=-W@y:
6 % w. W;. d 5 ;.: &.....,_ M a .x .:. =.. m n W n n n#M.. WWG g-g,. 'h ( 's sr. .i 4 y, 4,;
- _'.Y, ft,["s'..
bfg, * #, " s *.., s' ,..r. .g,. g,ej,,/...a.m... _,... . *...,s/ I.4~. _. _., e. ;, M,.y -
- g ae 4, s,5 Why *
\\ ', . n...= p \\h4.',3..p; ..d'.4( ,. - - i, 4a,.u.%u.,.p,*[.g'- f'!. *' l"-l**-6,- + , t f - pcAf.,.g- .%,.,4.e, ,e.. t< 1 ..... a q.,_ i ~ m l h -fh6"dsh-- SN I M M.,4,d,p,[y.,g$. N'. --~.l)$.O.-4-s?"Y N8 E @t we~ 4M,i t,,, T wa-4. -- Y- - -{ g'I.C ' *"*t9C fs*! 4 W !p" S fE L-N;j' T, M', d.. }*C.. b T2^ %' 4._ @. g' Q.f,6r'f,,% E a.i ... -.t..M..,2. J.. '..,d"M b , M,A. D.. S. &w..n_,.. w. e.~ . q'..- :,$. $ A . w..:. w.,. - J* .. r?... rj ..r.:.. ..us g ;.. ;. %--..; .-r.; K;; :e..;w.p.. sp. -.- + w.-1,. -. 1.- ~ w - -- ~ . $,. g e . ~~-. .y .t.. r +- e w"$ A., w.h, m -? I* n.u ~-
- 't o
~ ..,~. 1 ... a / O..;,.. a.s*.'.("O",. -.'. 3.:-n-.'.... f. *n. ~,. - - - ~.,. - - . ' ~l ,. ?. ^^ ^
- i.* G * **.-
.V . ~.. 7 k ~s( [. ,yh m--*' ..w s m:=--m m-e - -.:.q-e - -
- - m m~ ;:
'.. ; 3.,.. g -- p. .y:,x u n.-,. m. - 9 a.;.e.. - r g -. m..-sy.-e ~ ..,---n. .w b 9 l,. !.. - ' ' .-C . g<.... ...m.., S 6- .4 l ..s. ' n'.h
- -6 s.se.--w..,..-.,.
,.[.. 9 f.Y .,S.....e.*..- s.. . *
- Y.
".:.:* : s :a: a~f 0'.$ s \\ ..~. p l .... ;a ;. ~., . =. a ~ i. 4 E i = A s *}}