ML20209G581
| ML20209G581 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1987 |
| From: | Zook H LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3294 86-533-01-OL, 86-533-1-OL, OL-5, NUDOCS 8705010019 | |
| Download: ML20209G581 (166) | |
Text
ya ata u ---
TIMNS 'I ~ , m.
U R N 4('
O OF PROCEEDINGS 2, niio, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h'h)a.. ct or S - a vict BffANC4 '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of: :
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY : (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, : (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL)
Unit 1) :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DEPOSITION OF HAROLD R. ZOOK Washington, D. C.
Thursday, January 15, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotuw Rqvrters 444 North Capitol Street p Washington, D.C. 20001 NJ (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 8705010019 870115 PDR ADOCK 05000322 T PDR
4 CR29487.0 ,
KSW/sjg 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 4 :
In the Matter of: :
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 5
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : (EP Exercise)
- (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL) 6 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, :
Unit 1) :
7 :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
DEPOSITION OF HAROLD R. ZOOK 9
10 Washington, D. C.
Thursday, January 15, 1987 11 12 Deposition of HAROLD R. ZOOK, called for examination pursuant to notice of deposition, at the law offices of Hunton and Williams, 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 9000, at 14 9:10 a.m. before KATHIE S. WELLER, a Notary Public within and 15 for the District of Columbia, when were present on behalf of 16 the respective parties:
JESSINE A. MONAGHAN, ESQ.
Hunton and Williams 18 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 19 Richmond, Virginia 23212 On behalf of Long Island Lighting Company.
20 i
21 MICHAEL S. MILLER, ESQ.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart l 22 S uth Lobby, Ninth Floor 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036-5891 On behalf of Suffolk County.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M -347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
(
2 i
i lj C_ O N_,T_ E,N T_ S, 2 WITNESS EXAMINATION 3 Ilarold R. Zook by Ms. Monaghan 3 4 -
5 6
E X._ E I,g I_ T,S_
7 ZOOK EXIIIBIT IDENTIFIED 8
Exhibit 1 14 9
10' 11 e 13j l
i 14' 15, l
16i 17.
18 19 20 21 22 -.
(hl
\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 22 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 23N
- - .. . . . ......a-.-..--. . . . . . . . . - .
29487.0 KSW 3 l
l 1 PROCEEDINGS 2
i Whereupon, l
3 d HAROLD R. ZOOK 4 l4 l was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, j
9 5 was examined and testified as follows:
6 ! EXAMINATION h
7l !
BY MS. MONAGHAN:
W 8 :I Q Mr. Zook, I'm Jessine Monaghan. I represent Long il f
9 j Island Lighting Company. I'm going to ask you questions this 10 ) morning. If you don't understand a question at any time or i;
11 ) you need it clarified in any way let me know, or if you need 8 12 II l
i to expand upon a prior answer you have given because it was 13 !c incomplete in some way please let me know. For the benefit 14 of the reporter, when you answer in the affirmative please l
i A nod of the 15 state yes and in the negative please state no.
i;!
n 16 ) head is not sufficient.
s 17 l Please state your name and address.
i 18 f A Harold Richard Zook, 2-o-o-k. My address is 10015 19 i Chicot Road, C-h-i-c-o-t, Little Rock, Arkansas 72209.
20 ;;
i Q Are you represented at this deposition by counsel?
21 7 A Yes, ma'am.
22 ) Q Please identify your counsel for the record.
$!h l J
- i I
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2 -., ~ _ m- .o -
I 29487.0 g KSW 4 1
ll A Mr. Miller, l
b 2l Q Did you bring any documents with you today?
!I 3] A No, ma'am, d
4] !
Q Did you meet with anyone in preparation for your 5 I deposition?
J 60 A Yes.
}
7 i{ Q Who was that person?
4 i
8 !! A Mr. Miller.
1, 9d Q Anyone else?
0 10 A No.
l ii 11 6 Q When did you meet with Mr. Miller to prepare for 8 12 ll
?
your testimony?
s 13 0 A Yesterday, d
14 fj Q For how long did you meet with him?
15
- A Approximately five hours.
16 Q No one else was present at that meeting; is that 1
- right?
18 I A No, ma'am.
19 ] Q Were you shown any documents to prepare you for 20 ; your deposition?
21 i A Yes, ma'am.
22 . Q Could you describe the documents that you have t ;
l 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j i mmne x ___ -- i
29487.0 KSW 5 i
1j reviewed to prepare for your deposition?
2 A The contentions, the post-exercise report, and one 3 g other. I don't recall what the other was at this point.
S 4f Q Do you know whether it was in the form of a letter i
5l i or pleading or do you remember anything about it at all?
6 A No, ma'am. I know there were possibly three 7 documents, but I don't recall what the other one was.
8 ; Q Did you review all three of those documents 9 yesterday?
10 ! A Superficially. Not in depth.
11 Q Had you reviewed the documents prior to your 8
g 12 )Fmeeting c
with Mr. Miller yesterday?
0 13 s A Yes.
l 14 l Q When did you do tha review?
i, 15 l A Within the last three weeks, possibly four weeks.
u 16 t Q How long would you say you spent reviewing the
)
17 0 documents?
a 18 9 A Approximately 20, 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br />.
19 Q That would include the five hours that you spent 20 j yesterday with Mr. Miller?
21 j A Yes. Now may I ask a question? You said in i
22 ! preparation for this deposition?
t !
4 il l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 - , . > - , _ _ ~~
i 29487.0 KSW 6 1 Q That's right.
2l A Yes.
3 Q Have you reviewed the documents, any other l
i 4 l documents, in connection with the testimony that you will N
5 ll give in this proceeding?
ll 6l A May I stop just a moment, please? Those 20 or 25 c
7 1 hours and those other documents that I have reviewed were not 8 k in preparation for this deposition. They were to give a Il 9] :
general overview of what the issue is.
10 j Q Okay, what other documents did you review in order
(!
11 !{ to give the general overview you have apparently given 8 12 a
! Mr. Miller?
13 j A Again, it was the contentions, the FEMA V
14 j post-exercise report, two parts out of the OPIP. There were 15 some other general documents but those are the basic I,
16 s documents that I reviewed. I can't identify each and every 4
17 document that I reviewed.
18 l Q Do you recall in any way some of the other 19 .I documents that you reviewed that you said were some general 1
20 i documents?
21 i A That's what I'm saying. I don't recall at this 1
1 22 ; point in time exactly what those were, but they were just 1 I i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l a o:ym me., ,m m, m o- ,
29487.0 t KSW l 7 (l l something to give some background and so forth into this 1 :)
f i
2 ; issue.
l 3 Q Do you know whether they were prior testimony in i
4 this proceeding?
r!
5 A There was some prior testimony in these i
6] proceedings. I'm not sure whether it was these proceedings.
I!
7 ! I read some documents relating to some prior testimony, i
8 >
Q Okay, do you know whether there were any pleadings li 9? t that were -- legal documents --
10 A Not to my knowledge.
Other than the testimony that you reviewed for 11 [ Q 8 12 !
i background and the contentions, post-exercise assessment and 13 parts of the OPIPs, do you recall whether there were any a
14 j!j other documents that you reviewed to prepare to give ii testimony?
15 ]
D 16 A Not at this time, no.
17 Q The 20 to 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> that you described earlier, was i
18 i that just to prepare for your deposition or did that include 19 the review of the documents in order to give a general idea i
20 of what the issues would be?
21 A The only time that was spent in preparation for l
l 22 this deposition was yesterday, approximately five hours.
1 i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i :- . , _m_ --
n 29487.0 KSW 8 I
1 ! Prior to that, it was review and study of documents that 1
2
)identifiedcertainissues in this case.
3 Q What issues did you identify during that review of i
4l the documents that you conducted?
O n
5 ) A It was a general overview of all of the 6 contentions. And I believe the document was dated August 1.
Il 7 ;' Q When you reviewed the August 1 contentions and the i
8 . post-exercise assessment and parts of the OPIPs that you ij li 9 ll reviewed and the prior testimony you reviewed, did you reach k
10 any conclusions about the testimony that you might be giving 11 in this proceeding?
8 12 l lr A This was a preliminary review. I was attempting l
13 : to gather data and information relative to the issues 1
il 14 :) involved in this case, and I don't believe at this point I ll s
15 could say that any firm decisions or opinions had been 16 [l formed.
?
17 1 Q Do you have any preliminary opinions or decisions?
18 .i A There were some; yes, ma'am, i
19 i Q What are those?
1 20 j A Well, I believe I would -- rather than state in 21 ] general I would probably need to review the contentions, and 22 then based on the contentions I could answer your question
$!h l i
a l la ACE-FEDEfML REPORTERS, INC.
n, ~ _ - _ --
29487.0 KSW 9 1 ; what those decisions or opinions were.
1 2 h Q Do you recall anything about the opinions that you i reached in the course of the preliminary review?
31 4l 9 A Would you state that again please?
5 Q Do you recall at all any of the preliminary 6[ opinions that you reached in the course of the review of the f
7 i.
documents that you did?
8
[
A As they related to a specific contention, I would t
9l have made some preliminary views on that, but none that I can b
10 j specify and identify at thic point without the documents.
il 11 i Q What do you understand the issues to be in this 8 12 l 4
0 proceeding?
13 ) MR. MILLER: The issues that Mr. Zook has been U
f 14 '
asked to review, is what your question goes to?
15 $ MS. MONAGHAN: Or if he has a greater i
16 understanding of what the issues are.
i 17 Let's start with the issues you are going to I
18 testify on in this proceeding.
19 i THE WITNESS: The issues that I'm going to testify 20 on have not been defined at this point in time. We're i
i 21 ! discussing several of them. It appears at this point in time i
1 22 >
that I will be addressing contentions number 15, 16, 21, 22 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, mm, m_m- . _ _
29487.0 d KSW D 10 1 l and 50. There may be more, and I may not provide testimony il 2I ,
in all those. I don't know at this point in time.
i 3 [! BY MS. MONAGHAN:
I 4 ! Q And what issues are contained in Contentions 15, II.
5 I! 1 6 , 21, 22 and 50? What subject matters will you be offering 1
6 '! testimony on?
7 A Probably dealing with the exercise itself, if 8 there was a sufficient sampling to make a judgment on the 1:
9 implementation of these contentions or of the program, in 10 view of keeping the public health and public safety assured I
11 for all of the people.
8 12 I
l
.l Q Anything else?
Not that I can think of at this moment. If I 13 ) A 0
could review the documents, probably I could explain it a 14 l i B*L 15 4 little bi.h 16 j Q Mr. Zook, do you expect to give expert testimony 17 in this proceeding?
18 ,
A I don't know, t
19 j Q Do you expect -- I'm sorry?
l 20 ,
A I think probably the decisioxi would be by the 21 l Court whether I would qualify as an expert.
22 Q Do you expect that you will be offered as an l
1 5
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
i w w.m s _ ,n c- n ,n :
l 29487.0 KSW j 11 1 j expert b'f counsel for suffolk County?
2 A Possibly.
3 Q Do you know why you were asked to testify in this 4[ proceeding?
5 A I would assume that it was due to my background as 6 li a career law enforcement officer. And I have been involved 7l in law enforcement training most of my career.
8l Q Do you know why you are being asked to testify on 9 . the particular contentions that you have listed for me or 10 ) that you may be asked to testify on those contentions?
l 11 A Only that I may have some knowledge or input which 8 12 !!
l would be helpful to counsel in this particular case.
13 h Q What do you understand the nature of that i
14 knowledge or input might be that counsel would be drawine on?
15 A At this point - as I said previously, we started I
16 our review for this deposition yesterday, so I think it is f
17 premature at this time -- I couldn't make that assessment at 18 ; this time.
i 19 >
Q So you are not sure why you were selected for the 20 l !
particular contentions that you think you will be asked to l
21 testify on; is that right?
l 22 '
A only that they might relate to certain law 4 :
i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i - ., ~ ~ < _ __
f 29487.0 KSW r 12 1 ; enforcement training functions or training functions and the 2 l performance of personnel in positions that could be related d
3 to law enforcement.
4[ Q Mr. Zook, have you spoken with anyone who has 5 already had their deposition taken in this proceeding?
l I
6 ;j A Concerning -- spoken to them concerning what?
N 7 Q Just spoken to them at all?
8 ] A Yes , -err . M A %M tG 1
9 Q Who would that have been?
- l 10 p A Dr. Colwell.
11 l Q What was the nature of your discussion with
- 12 h l
i Dr. Colwell?
13 A He and I are both teaching classes in II 14 counterterrorism, and he is a professor at the University of 15 I Arkansas in Little Rock, and I'm currently enrolled as a
+!
16 lI student at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. That 17 !
was the nature of our conversations.
i 18 j Q What did you talk about with Dr. Colwell?
i 19 ,
MR. MILLER: With respect to this case?
a 20 i BY MS. MONAGHAN:
21 . Q With respect to your discussions concerning this 22 1 case or your deposition. ;
1!h l l i
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
i m m., x _- m ,_ i
I I
29487.0 KSW 13 1h A I have discussed nothing with Dr. Colwell 2 concerning the deposition. The only contact I had with 3 d: Dr. Colwell was, I believe, December 4 or 5. I came to k
4 l Washington with Dr. Colwell to meet with counsel, and B
f Dr. Colwell told me that he had been advised by counsel that 5f I
6 1, he could let me read certain articles and certain contentions t
7 and this sort of thing to familiarize myself with what we
- p a
8 j were coming here for, and I did this on the airplane coming 9 in. The rest of the time I was with counsel and Dr. Colwell 8
10 for further explanation of it.
11 Q So you read those articles in the December 4 and 5
- 12 0 i
time frame; is that right?
13 jj A Yes, ma'am.
0 Do you remember what those articles were that 14
) Q h
15 ] Dr. Colwell gave you to read?
k 16 ! A It was the contentions -- I guess that's basically 17 what it was. I read it on the airplane coming in. I don't 18 think it was even the entire book of contentions. I think it 19 was just some selected contentions that he had had -- that he 20 had been given by counsel.
21 ,
Q Now, have you reviewed the contentions since you s
22 read them on the airplane with Dr. Colwell?
4 i
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, nn., ,-<- -
29487.0 -
KSW ' 14 1
A Yes, ma'am. Some of them.
2 ; Q I'm going to show you a copy of a resume provided n
3] by counsel for Suffolk County and ask that it be marked as I
4l Zook Deposition Exhibit Number 1.
f 5 j (Zook Exhibit 1 identified.)
9 6
6 ll BY MS. MONAGHAN:
If, 7 l Q Would you review this and let me know whether this t
8 accurately describes your education and employment 9 background?
A Yes, it does.
10 ]i 11 !! Q Are there any statements in this resume that are 8 12 j li not accurate as of the present time?
13 A Not to my knowledge.
14 j Q Are there any recent developments that are not
- i 15 ji included in this resume?
16 , A Relative to what?
S 17 !! Q Are there any recent developments at all that are 18 not included in this resume? Is it current and up-to-date or 19 is there something that should be added?
20 l A Well, the only thing I could think of at this 21 point would be a continuation of number 9 on page 4 or j 22 -
possibly beginning with number 10. I was a member -- of l
$ i i
(
i i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 mm s_ m m- _ _ . :
i 29487.0 KSW 15 1h course it states I was a member of the United States Police 0
2 f Training Delegation that went to the People's Republic of i
3 China, and since that tine -- I already have it in here where Q
4 k it says I was invited to return to China and present a course 5 of instruction at three Ministry of Public Security 3
i 6 Universities. That's what I had. I was going to add that.
7 j Q Have you ever testified before at a deposition?
I 8 A Yes, ma'am.
1 9 '
Q What was the nature of that testimony?
10 A It has been in civil and criminal cases. I 3
9 11 ) couldn't identify specifically, but it dealt with civil and 8 12 I
criminal cases.
13 l Q Was that testimony in the nature of testimony l
14 lj concerning training?
4 15 ) A Some of it was, yes. Not all, but some was.
16 lj Q Can you descriae for me briefly what the testimony 3
p 17 li you have given in the past concerning training has consisted 18 I of?
l 19 ] MR. MILLER: Just for purposes of clarification i
20 and perhaps to move along the record, Ms. Monaghan, I think 21 Mr. Zook has testified on a number of occasions on matters
- i 22 ) that could relate to training, and perhaps unless you have an ill> )
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
, _m., ,_ m c- --
29487.0 KSW 16 1y objection Mr. Zook will try to generally describe the nature s
2 i of what this testimony has been collectively on matters k
3 regarding training issues, because there's quite a few 4 fdepositions in cases he has been involved in.
!l 5] THE WITNESS: Much of the training I have been f
6j involved in in depositions have been identifying training 7y requirements within the State of Arkansas as it relates to u
8 basic police training, in-service and advance training. The ii 9 subject matter is a very broad spectrum. Most recently, my l
10 depositions have been involved in the use of deadly force, in 11 j the use of physical force in making an arrest or taking a 8 12 i
i person into custody, this sort of thing. That's been my 13 latest involvement.
II 14 !! BY MS. MONAGHAN:
15 Q Have those depositions and testimony concerned 16 evaluation, how one evaluates training, or has it concerned W
17 1 what ought to be included in a training program?
18 A What should be included in the training program 19 l and then measurement of performance.
20 Q Can you describe to me a little bit the type of 21 1 testimony that you gave in the past concerning performance l
22 measurement? j
$ i l; I
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
. m- x _ m- -- ,
t
29487.0 KSW 17 1 A Much of my responsibilities over the past seven 0
il 2l years has involved assisting law enforcement agencies within i
3 the state of Arkansas in developing task analysis for their 4 i agency. From the task analysis, we extract certain elements i
- 5) that are critical to the performance of the job, and then we 1
6 j prepare position descriptions. From those position li 7 descriptions, we extract those elements that are critical to 8 the performance of the job and develop a set of performance 9l standards. Once the performance standards have been 10 ( established, then I assist in the development of procedures t
for the measurement of that performance based on the 11 l j
8 12 5
I standards.
Can you describe for me how you would go about 13 ) i Q
14 l developing procedures for the measurement of performance 0
15 j after you have already established a performance standard?
9 16 A Would you repeat that again? I'm sorry.
k f 17 9 Q Would you explain for me how you go about 18 i developing procedures for the measurement of performance?
19 q You said first you would analyze the task and then prepare a 1
20 I position description. Once the performance standard has been 1
21 ,
developed you indicated that you are then consulted in order 22 '
1 to develop procedures for the measurement of performance.
l h )
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I ,: n ,, , - < - --
t
29487.0 KSW l 18 1 ; Can you tell me how one goes about the development of 2 q procedures for measurement of performance?
8 3 A Once the performance standards have been l
4 3$l established, I meet with the department head or person I'm 5 working with in the particular department, and we establish a 6 set of measurements of that performance. One of the issues 7 that we have is that these standards first must be 8 attainable. That's one of the key features in the project.
n 9
f! Also that that standard must be able to be exceeded.
I
\\
10 !! In law enforcement it differs quite frequently 11 from the private sector in that where a person may be 8 ll 12 i!
evaluated as a clerk-typist or in some administrative 13
$] function k'
that you could have as an acceptable level a 14 !s 20-percent or 10-percent error margin in typing or N
15 l administrative entries into ledgers, this sort of thing. In v
16 0 law enforcement, we don't feel that you can have a degree of s
'a 17 error in many of the fields that we get into. Some involve 18 ) the health, safety and welfare of the general public.
19 ! As an example, in the use of deadly force, we l
20 l can't build in a margin of error in the use of deadly force.
21 ,
So to specifically identify the methods by which we would ;
I 22 measure this performance, it would depend on the task itself
$ 1 j f i
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i :om., s_ m_ s._
i 29487.0 KSW 19 1 h and its severity or its relationship to public safety.
I 2l Q You have indicated that you look for attainable 3 ! standards and standards that are exceedable in developing a l
Is there anything else you 4
h performance measurement guide.
5 g look at in developing a performance measurement?
fi 6 A Trying to be certain that the performance 7 standards first of all are taken from the job descriptions.
)
l 8 g When we measure the standards of performance, we then apply 90 those standards to the probability of exceeding it. We do
} h 10 0 not and cannot accept error. I realize that that opens up a
) J 4
f 11 whole new concept, but when you are dealing in law 8 l 12 la enforcement -- as an example, in law enforcement, when you 13 h are dealing with the handling of abnormal persons or in c
f, life-and-death situations, we want to try to have a part of 14 ]
15 ) the performance that can be exceeded, in the realm of not Oi 16 committing acts or doing things which would cause injury, but
)
17 '.the restraint in being able to peacefully resolve an incident 18 : vithout using excessive force or deadly force. That can be 19 tle portion that can be exceeded within that scope.
20 Q Do you use some sort of rating form or format when l
21 ; you develop these performance measurement standards?
22 .
.A Yes, h a
! I i f j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 3 - .., s _m_ m. _ i
29487.0 S KSW f 20 I!
1 Q What would the nature of that be?
2 A We have two separate forms that are developed.
b 3l This is not a standard form applicable to all law enforcement 4l agencies in the State of Arkansas or anywhere else. The law h
5N enforcement agencies establish their own. I assist in the 1
6 : guidelines but we have two different types. One is -- three 7 j different types.
8 One is for the probationary law enforcement 9 l officer. We make a recommendation that a person who is in a 10 l probationary status be evaluated on a monthly basis, and this 1
11 l gives the supervisor the opportunity to sit down and talk to 8 12 I
the subordinate about matters relating to their job. We like 13 to think that the result is going to be positive to the
)$.
14 j effect you call a person in, you sit down, identify the 15 person, tell him you are doing a fine job, everything is 16 i progressing well as far as you are concerned. We see an area i
17 that might be a weakness. This is how we would like to have 13 j it corrected, and we offer them someone then to go to for 19 j assistance in correcting this. The total of those 12 20 counseling sessions or evaluation periods on probation -- the 21 4 total of those 12 would then be the first performance 22 j appraisal report for the year. That's the probationary h '
l i i i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 4 m- s -_ _ t
29487.0 KSW 21 1 ! person.
2 r The second element that we have is a 3 nonsupervisory performance appraisal, and this is where we 4l establish the fact that a person has certain standards to 5 follow. His performance is rated against those standards, i
6 j and they may be met and exceeded. The person is evaluated on k an annual basis.
7 i l
8 The third form that is used for performance l
j appraisal is for supervisory personnel, and of course there 9l l
10 l are elements of evaluation that differ considerably from the 0
1 11 lj probationary and nonsupervisory person, as do their job 8 12
]i l
descriptions.
J 13 {i Q When you develop these probationary, i
14 y nonsupervisory and supervisory personnel forms, do you list 15 h objectives, standards? If I was going to develop one using i
16 your methodology but not to rate the police department, but, 17 , for example, to rate the performance of an attorney, how 18 would I go about doing that?
19 A You would find first those elements -- if an 20 attorney would have a job description which outlines 21 specifically what your duties and responsibilities were, then l 22 you would identify those elements. The job description, if I 1lh '
s j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i i -., ___ __ t
29487.0 i KSW [ 22 1j may go back to basics on this thing -- as we interpret this, 2 the job description tells you what your job is. The 30 performance standards identify to what degree of proficiency 4 you will perform those tasks. So it depends on each y!
5] individual position. We don't have one generic-type job 0
6 ji description. If there's 50 positions within a department 7I that patrolmen fill, 50 different jobs, there would be 50 8 : separate job descriptions. The performance standards would 90 be based on that individual job description.
10 ; Q Okay, so you start out with a job description and
!l 11 il from that you develop performance standards; then what 8 12 F
)!r happens?
II 13 ,
A once the performance standards are developed, then l
14 j you or we prepare the format for the measurement of that 15 performance based on the job description. .
16 4 Q What would the format be?
i 17 A It would depend --
18 l Q Do you have a rating sheet, and you check off f 19 ; whether they met those standards --
'1 20 A Yes. There are several different methods. Some 21 agencies like to have a letter-type evaluation, A, B, C, D j I
22 i and E. Some agencies prefer to have a numerical system where i i
j . ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,
- u n, s _e mm 8 .o m. ,
29487.0 KSW 23 1 l, if a person's performance is rated -- we'll just take the
?
- 2) middle one, say they are rated satisfactory, and on a scale I
3 ffrom1to10--0to10, maybe O to 3 would be unsatisfactory Il 4 !{ performance in that particular task or skill. 4 to 5 may be i
5 ) satisfactory. 6 to 8 outstanding, and 9 and 10 superior. A 6 fpersoncanthenbeasatisfactoryemployeebutthenhewill 7 have a range from 6 to 8, 6, 7 or 8, that he could be 8 ;
evaluated on, and some agencies prefer that method. Some a i
9 combination of both. It depends on the agency itself and how
!i 10 il a
they want to administer the program.
11 l) What sort of formal training have you received in Q
y 12 lq how to do performance evaluations?
13 3 A By formal training -- would you define that for
~l 14 me, please? In a college or university?
i 15 , Q Start with a college or university.
A None.
16 l 17 Q Have you received any formal training through the i
18 , Arkansas police depar;tment with which you are associated?
4 19 i A Yes, ma'am.
20 Q What was that?
21 l A The development -- I received in-service training i
22 ; in the development of task analysis and these other issues.
$ 1 s .
4
) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.a n- ~ - c- - u.- \
l 29487.0 KSW i 24 1k In administrative training that I received from the Federal 0
0 Bureau of Investigation, from places of business that employ 2
3 j these similar-type techniques.
4 h Q What do you mean by " places of business that 5 l employ these similar-type techniques"?
6 A Utility companies as an example, a gas company, n
7 telephone company, where a person is given a specific job, if 8 he is a -- say a person is a line splicer for the telephone W
9 company, and has a job description, and I just give tihis as f
!i 10 an example, anything or any position whereby a person has a 11 job description, then we have sought out methods of how they lr Il 12 !! have done it, the mistakes they have made, the things that l
13 3 have not been effective for them, so we wouldn't make the 0
same mistakes.
14 ]
4 15 ll Q When you say we've " sought out," is that the 16 hl Arkansas police department with which you were affilir.ted?
k 17 2 A The Commission -- I was formerly the director of 18 j law enforcement standards and training with the State of 19 : Arkansas. Once it became necessary, or the Commission felt
\
20 i, that it was necessary, to start providing this service to law 21 ;
enforcement agencies in the state, I took it upon myself to 22 3 try to get as much information and as much training in this Il ii ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
-~ s-<_ .. _ ,
1
I I
29487.0 ,
KSW E 25 I
1( area as I could, and I went to several sources. As I said, W
H 2 i the FBI has a trainiEg course which gave me some insighting I
4 3 ) on it. From there I went to certain areas of industry.
4l Q Did you participate in training courses with the 5 j industry sources s or did you consult with them?
6*h A Just consulted with them.
'0 7 j Q What courses have you taken concerning how one 8 ,
does performance evaluations?
9$ A As far as formal, structured training, the only 0'
10 [ course that I can recall would have been'through the Federal i
- 11. .nureau of Investigation, in administrative procedures. That 12 was just a segment of the training, performance measurement.
I 13 i Q What were the other segments of the training?
l 14 A Administrative matters, budget' preparation, those i
15 ; things that are normally given to senior law enforcement i
16 9 executives.5 1
17 i Q When did you take the training with the' FBI? Do
(
18 you recall? t
]
19 A I don't recall when it was. It has probably been 20 six or seven years ago or within that range somewhere.
21 1 Q Can you describe for me what you did when you were i
22 i affiliated with the Arkansas Police Department in Little 1
a i; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- o:wm., s_ a, mmm s-
l 29487.0 KSW 26 Rock?
I 1
2l A I was a career law enforcement officer; started b
d 3 out as a patrolman and was assigned to the patrol division, l
i 4 ! I then was assigned to the traffic division and was assigned 5 as a motorcycle officer for about eight years. I then nade 6 sergeant, and I was a desk sergeant in the criminal 7 division. And then I was elevated to a field sergeant.
8h From there, I went into the training division and 9 ,
established and developed with the assistance of the FBI the I
i 10 training division for the Arkansas, or the Little Rock, t
11 Arkansas Police Department, which at that time was the only~
8 i
12 } -- and this would have been 19 -- in the mid to late '50s.
13 -
We were the only department at that time then'to have a 14 y training division assigned within a police department. We 0
15 provided training support to all aaencies within the State of' 16 f Arkansas.
17 h Q You were the only department within the State of
. I 18 Arkansas or within the nation? E 19 i A In the State of Arkansas.'
20 Q Okay --
8 .
21 ! A And as a sergeant, I stayed as the assistant i
22 ;
training officer for a period of about eight years, developed ,
h ;
- i i..
l 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ;
I mn., , _ m- -- :
r-J m
)
.' l 29487.0 KSW 27
't
,l'e' the training program independently. I did the training
~
1 . , . ,
7,1
[,' 2' program and implemented the training division within the 4.2 3 police department. From there, I was then promoted to ff
+
- (, -
T
+
- 4 ql,' lieutenant. I was then the commander of the police training i
S division for about four years. As a sergeant I was in 6 t' raining about seven years. As a lieutenant in the training
/
7 f, division, of course I was responsible again for conducting 8 all training and developing curriculum, presenting the
, r' .
9 training and supervising those persons who were presenting it
- 10 There was a period of time that we all --
li, under my command.
/t ill l all command personnel rotate from one division to another. I 12 f,cameoutoftraining,
'3 was then assigned as a shift commander 13 -- ;4 , with the Little Rock Police Department in the criminal
. a 14' division. I served in that position for a period of time.
- l t 15 !j Q Do you recall when you were the shift commander?
ii
'l
- 16 ) A In what years?
a
/ !! ,
'.1 1 [ Q Yes.
- 1) '
18 t A No, ma'am, I couldn't.
1 19 Q' Or approximately how long you were shift
?O i commander?
I 21 A About two years as shift commander. Then I went l
22 back into training as a lieutenant, was subsequently promoted s
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, nn ~ _ - - _
m 4
29487.0 KSW 28 1 .
to captain in the training division; and at that point, after W
2 faboutayear,yearandahalf, I retired from the Little Rock h
3 Police Department as commander of the training division to l
a 4 l accept an appointment with the Veterans Administration, 5 lll through the Department of Medicine and Surgery in I
6 I That's more or less the scope of my experience 7
klwithWashington.
Little Rock PD.
J 8 ) Q Was it during the time that you were affiliated I
9 q with the training division of the Little Rock Police c
10 k Department that you took the FBI course that you described h
11 0 earlier that had as part of it how one goes about engaging in
- 12 h h
performance evaluation?
13 4 .
A I believe it was later, during the period of time 3
14 il that I was employed by the Veterans Administration, or i
15 l possibly after I went back to Arkansas and became director of f
ti 16 ll law enforcement standards and training for the state.
17 Q Could you describe briefly what your job 18 j responsibilities were with the Veterans Administration?
i 19 i A I was first assigned as a regional security 20 ,
officer, and this entails having the responsibility of 21 supervision of law enforcement personnel. In my particular 22 region, I had 17 states and approximately 600 Veterans llk : ;
i
- 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ;
t
29487.0 KSW ! 29 0 1 i
Administration police officers under my direct control and That wAs HL l
2 ! supervision. 17 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
t 3 At this point in time, the FBI was charged with 4 responsibility of investigating all offenses or crimes on the 5 f federal reservation. Most of the cases that the FBI would i
6l have referred to them were either petty offenses or li 7 l misdemeanors. Offenses were being committed in Veterans i
8l Administration facilities throughout the United States.
9 The United States attorneys were giving I!
10 lI declinations or declining to prosecute simply because it was b
I 11 not feasible to assign two or three special agents to a case
- 12 0 I
i involving the loss of $1500 in theft or something of this 13 l nature. It then became apparent to the Bureau that they were 14 not going to be able to handle these types of cases on a 0
15 l regular basis, so in 1971 the Veterans Administration 16 ] developed a law enforcement capability.
1 17 i The primary duties and responsibilities that I had a
18 ; was to monitor all criminal activity in my area, in my 19 region, those 17 states and Puerto Rico. In those cases that i
20 i we felt that could be prosecuted. I had the responsibility l
21 then of appearing before the United States Attorney and going 22 before the U.S. Magistrate, bringing people forward on either h i i
i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 -.. s-<- _
l 29487.0 KSW 30 1 p complaint or warrant, whatever it may be, and prosecuting 2 those misdemeanor and petty offense cases. Those felony 3 cases that we would become involved in, we then coordinated 4 ,
those with the Drug Enforcement Administration or FBI or i
5 .! whatever law enforcement agency had jurisdiction. In that
$i 61 particular instance, we had three types of federal 7 jurisdiction, the exclusive federal jurisdiction, concurrent 4
8g and proprietary. We had to have our enforcement and our i
9 j processing in all three of these areas due to the i
10 } jurisdiction of the facilities. Veterans Administration E
11 l hospitals and regional officers would -- in some states may
- 12 h il have all three types of jurisdiction.
13 Some had exclusive federal. Those that were 14 j concurrent, we either tried the case in state courts or 15 0 federal, depending upon the offense, and those that were d
16 L proprietary we worked with the municipal agencies and i
17 municipal police departments and worked those type cases in 18 . their courts, l I 19 i Q Other than being the supervisor of that 17-state i
20 ; region, did you have any other responsibilities other than 21 regional security officer with the Veterans Administration?
22 A I was assigned at the same time, I had dual l llk i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i _ x_ m - s ._ 4
I 29487.0 d KSW ! 31 1 responsibility -- the Veterans Administration, recognizing 2 that they were developing a law enforcement organization, 3 made a determination that there was a need for law 4 enforcement training for VA personnel, police personnel. I E
5 l first attended a course of instruction with the Veterans 6 Administration which was conducted by the International 7 Association of Chiefs of Police in College Park, Maryland.
8 ,
At that time, the supervisor or the director of 9 ,
law enforcement activities with the Veterans Administration 5
10 l was a man by the name of James G. Fasone, F-a-s-o-n-e.
Mr. Fasone, during the period of time that I was in College 11 l
12 ( Park attending the course, had found that I was formerly ll 13 involved in training and so forth and asked or talked to me f
14 at some length and asked if I would develop a training 3
15 0 program and identify the cost that it would be and the amount
(
1 16 j of people that could be trained and so forth.
17 This I did, and subsequently I was asked if I 18 would -- I was given the assignment as chief of the Veterans 19 1 Administration Police Training Center. The training effort i
20 i was relocated from the D.C. area to Little Rock, Arkansas, 21 which is my home. Everything was moved there, and that was 22 in May; and in November we had the first class, and this was llh i !
! I i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 3 - ., - _ ,. ._ i
~
F 29487.0 KSW 32 0 1 N
1971. We had our first class in Little Rock. The National 2 l Police Training Center for the Veterans Administration Center i
3 still functions in Little Rock, and I was chief of that i
4 3 facility until I had a heart attack, had to have open heart 5 j surgery. And then I was not eligible for retention as a 6 federal law enforcement officer, so I had to resign my s
ii 7 E position. I didn't meet the physical standards. But during
?
8 ) that period of time, we provided training for all police i
9
{ personnel in the Veterans Administration Police Agency, i!
10 $ Q While you were chief of the police training S;
11 center, did you yourself provide any classroom training to 12 f the students at the police training center?
0 13 j A Yes, I did.
4 14 f! Q Generally what subjects did you teach?
h 15 L A Federal statutes, litle 18, Title 38. Some Title 16 ,
21 issues. Laws of arrest, search and seizure, firearms 1 i 17 1 training, unarmed defense, traffic control. I think that's the general scope of it. There may have been more.
18 ll 19 ,
Q As chief of the police training center did you i
20 help to develop the performance evaluation standards that i
21 were used?
i 22 1 A I assisted in the development of it; yes, ma'am.
8 i i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l r
, - s _ __ .-
29487.0 KSW 33 1 Q Who worked with you in -- who else worked with you l
2 i in the development of those performance --
(!
3 A Mr. James G. Fasone. He was the person charged 4l with the responsibility of developing the procedures. I l
assisted him, along with one more person.
5l i
6 i Q Who was the other person?
7 A It was Mr. Maynard, M-a-y-n-a-r-d; Enos, E-n-o-s; I
8 l Palo Alto, California.
Il 9 Q Was either Mr. Enos or Mr. Fasone an expert in Jl!
10 training evaluation? Was that their area of expertise?
'1 11 A Fasone was.
l 0
12 ! Q When you go about developing a performance 13 evaluation standard or performance measurement standard, are there any particular methods or systems or texts on which you 14 l 15 might rely to do that?
16 ,
A None specific. It would depend upon the -- I R
17 g don't understand the question,. Would you repeat it again for 18 l me, please?
I 19 1 Q When you go about developing a performance i
20 j appraisal or performance measurement standard, are there any i
21 texts on which you would rely or which you would consult?
22 i A No, not that I'm aware of.
8 '
I l '
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 - , , , m _ . <- ._
29487.0 KSW 34 1 Q Are there any principles that are generally 3
0 2 q recognized in the field of training that you would be 1
3 l applying when you would be developing those performance k
4 4 evaluation or performance measurement standards?
h 5 A Only those that would apply in the jurisdiction in 0 If it be the municipal police, there 6 ;; which I was working.
0 7 are certain requirements that municipal police have and 8 certain formats would be followed. The line of supervision i
9 !! differs between the municipal police and, as an exainple, a 10 l sheriff's department, the sheriff being an elected official.
l 11 The format would differ there. It would also differ in the
-]
/ 1 12 state police organizations, as it would differ with the
'l 13 $ assignments of the individual officers.
J 14 Q Do you know what a critical incident analysis is?
kl 15 3 A I would presume that a critical incident analysis i
16 l1 would be that, in the event of some type of emergency or 17 l unusual incident, that after it has been handled, it would be 18 j evaluated to determine those things which had been done 19 properly, those things which may not have been done properly l
20 i and what they could do to reassess and move forward in 21 , preparation for the next one.
22 ; Q What were your job responsibilities as the i !
L l
3 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. .
i m:- . s_ m__ __
j 4
29487.0 KSW 35 1 ! director of the State of Arkansas Commission on Law I
2 Enforcement Standards?
3 A I was responsible for the certification, for the 4 l review and certification of all training that was provided to k
~
S law enforcement personnel within the State of Arkansas in all 6 jurisdictions, that being state, county and municipal. In 7 i addition to that, once the training had been established I 8[ was responsible for monitoring the training programs to O
9h determine or to assure that the training that was being J
10 received by the law enforcement personnel was, in fact, hl 0
(~.'
11 !! within the limits of the proposals that had been submitted
! l 12 ) for approval. Quality of training.
13 Q Did you develop the proposals that were submitted 14 ! for approval?
l These would be prepared by the agencies who 15 ) A No.
16 ; were going to conduct the training.
17 1 Q As the director of the State of Arkansas 18 Commission on Law Enforcement you didn't actually conduct the 19 training; is that right?
l 20 ; A I did not conduct the training itself. I 3
21 4 monitored the training to assure that the training that was .
22 - being presented coincided with the proposals that had been 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 :o: w ~ s _ ua~. ~~~
D 1
29487.0
, KSW 36
~s 1 submitted for approval.
2 Q Were the proposals submitted by outside groups, 3 consulting groups, for example?
4 A There were'some that were individual contractors S who came in and would contract with a specific police 6 department to provide training. Before we would approve that 7 training to be conducted we would have to have a copy of the 8 curriculum, also a resume of the instructors to determine 9 that they were qualified in our opinion'to provide this
- 10 training to law enforcement officers in the State of 3 11 Arkansas.
/
12 If these were met, then we would approve the 13 course. By approving the course, once it is completed and an 14 examination is given, either a performance or written 15 examination, each officer who -- each police officer who i
16 attended that course of instruction would be granted the 17 number of classroom hours of training toward his total 18 training, which goes toward higher level certification, which i
l 19 l in most cases involves eligibility for promotions and
- i 20 ! incentive pay.
i-l 21 ; Q Did you have a staff at the commission on Law I
I
. 22 Enforcement that actually performed training, or was this all lll i i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 3_ . , ,m_& m _ ,o _
l 1
29487.0 KSW 37 0 1 h
l jobbed out to the various agencies that you were supervising?
2 A I and two other police officers conducted training 3 as it related to law enforcement standards. That was in each 1
4 i class of -- basic recruit class, at any level. There would I
5 i be times when we would be asked to assist in instruction in 6 certain other areas in which we had expertise.
g!
i 7 Q Were there actually classes conducted at the 1
8 i Commission? Was there a training academy?
l 9 ! ,
A Yes.
L 10 l Q I note on your resume that the training academy r '] 11 f and the Commission on Law Enforcement Standards were
. b 12 ( consolidated. When was that done?
0 13 ] A Why was it done?
!i 14 Q When.
l 15 ?q A In 1980 or '81. This was an effort on the part of l
16 the administration of the state to consolidate certain 4
r 17 -
agencies that had similar responsibilities. In this case, it 18 l didn't have similar responsibilities. The law enforcement 19 '
training academy in the State of Arkansas was a facility that 20 : we regulated; so in effect the decision of the governor to 21 ;
consolidate these two agencies put a regulatory agency within i
22 . an agency that it regulated. Therefore, there had to be a I .
4 4
3 ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 ,2 m n . , s _ ,1~ .,, m.mm ,
'49487.0 l KSW 38 1
g separation of responsibility, and as it states in my resume, t
2 j I was offered the position of director of the consolidated h
3 -
group.
4 But that would involve a permanent change of i
5 " residence to a town approximately 100 miles away from Little 6 Rock, and I was not willing to do that. Therefore, I 7 declined and was assigned then as deputy director for law 8
( enforcement standards. They then appointed a deputy director 1
9 for training who stayed at the academy, 100 miles away, il 4
10 h Q Mr. Zook, your resume lists on the second page a
{
C, 11 number of professional agencies and institutions attended.
12 : Can you list for me which of those would have been courses 13 ' that covered how one develops a training program or develops
)
14 performance evaluations?
s 1
15 ks A The United States Department of Justice, the j
16 j United States Department of Transportation, the Federal 17 l Bureau of Investigation, United States Army, the United 18 States Civil Service Commission, and I believe the 19 i International Association of Chiefs of Police. I'm not
- l 20 -i certain of that one, but I think it fell within that I i 21 .
category.
22 ; Q Can you describe for me briefly the course of 8 >
i I
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
- o: m,w s.,m - 4.o w o ,
l l
29487.0 k KSW 39 1 j study at the United States Department of Justice that would
,0 2 ll have dealt with the development of a training program or the
)
il development of performance evaluations?
3 4 A No, ma'am, I can't give you -- I can't respond to I
5 ! that in identifying the curriculum and type of training 6 involved there. This was -- all of these had a portion of 7 the elements of management, administration and supervision, 8 fandthiswasanintegralpartofallofthelawenforcement 9 management and administration training that I have had.
10 ; Q Were any of the courses taken at any of the 1
1
; 11 ; agencies or institutions that you have just listed for me as t
il 12 H being the ones where you received training on how to train li 13 other people and how to evaluate their performance, would any f
of them have been dedicated solely to teaching you about how 14 )
15 to train others and how to evaluate performance?
16 ;i A The training that I have received in this area has 17 , always been a part of a course in police administration, a 10 course in police management or in police supervision.
Have you ever testified before about the subject 19 l Q 20 of statistica?
21 ,
A No, I haven't.
4 I
22 >
Q Do you consider yourself to be an expert in l !
I I
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
k 2f t2 li'.17t t i \st lima ldc ( ov er,te 451116 f/W,
l 29487.0 i KSW 40 dlP
- 1 statistics?
2l A No. Well, what type of statistics' I nave l
3i testified relative to statistics as it relates to law 4 enforcement. The uniform crime report as an example. The l
5 utilization of statistics to be able to predict rather
.i 9
accurately the high crime-rate months, the hours of the day, 6]
7 ij the days of the week, that certain offenses will occur due to 0
8 statistics, but the involvement that I have relative to this 9
u) deals solely with law enforcement, and law enforcement 10 i offenses.
P j' ')'
11 l Q Would you have done the statistical analysis about
( ji 12 d which you testified or would that have been done by someone I
13 else?
]
14 t A I have done -- I have presented testimony on data 15 )! that I have assisted in the preparation of it. Not i.
16 ,
necessarily that I initiated it and completed it by myself, 17 i but I was a part of the team that did develop it, and again, 18 as it relates to criminal activity; and that's the limit of 1
19 1 my exposure to statistics.
20 j Q Now, have you been involved in planning for a 21 .
response to an emergency at a nuclear power plant?
i l
22 A Not in a nuclear power plant.
l ,
i I
I i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j 4 :c: m n., s _ m. o - - w,- ,
29487.0 i ~'
KSW 41
'lLJ ;
(
~1 Q .At any other facility?
2 A In the field of law enforcement, we've had several ,
3 exercises relative to -- well, as an example, we set up a 4 program in conjunction with a particular hospital, the 1
I 5 University of Arkansas Medical Sciences campus, and others,
- 6 simulating a bleacher collapse at a. major sporting event
- 7 whereby there were 100 or more casualties ranging from those 8 that would be killed or seriously injured on down to the-
-9 minor injuries, and then the preparation that went into this
- 10 from evacuation, the removal of the people from the scene, 11 coordinating with local health care facilities and so forth.
- 12 Q In the course of developing those emergency plans 13 for the possibility of a collapse of a bleacher at a sporting
- 14 event, did you develop written plans for that?
l l 15 A There were written plans. I was more directly; ,
16 involved in the implementation and evaluation of it, more so l
17 i than in the development of the plan.
i l
Were you evaluating the plan itself or were there 18 l i Q
I 19 i any drills or tests of whether the plan would work? .
! i ,
l 20 i A I was evaluating the performance of the people i
i
! 21 ! involved in it.
I i
[ 22 i Q Who were the people involved in it?
lO 4
t
! l,
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m ,_ ~ _ m- mos_
29487.0 KSW 42
() 1 A The primary players in this particular exercise 2 were the law enforcement officers who might first respond to 3 an incident of this type or who may have been on the scene at l
4 the time that it occurred. The communications process from
- 5 the stadium to the police department identifying that this l
6 incident had occurred and the approximate status of it, the i
! 7 police department's communications response then to the fire h
8 department, to ambulances and other elements necessary to
)
9 transport mass-injury persons to health care facilities for 10 evaluation and treatment, 11 Q Did you develop -- excuse me. Were you finished j
5 12 l with your answer?
k 13 A I could expand on that a little further if you 14 g would care to?
I Q Let me ask you some questions.
15 l I
16 j A Okay.
17 Q Did you develop a performance evaluation "tandard i
18 : to evaluate the performance of the law enforcement l
individuals who were involved in an exercise or drill, if you 19 l 20 will, of this simulated accident of the bleachers?
21 A Someone else had prepared the performance 22 l standards. This would have been done through the local 8 i l 1
l j ACE-EEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, - ~ _ . < _ . m m_.
29487.0 43
/] KSW u
1 emergency response coordinator or whatever the title may have 2 been at that time. He was in the city government, and this 3 person established the roles that each city agency would play i
4 in this program. The standards were identified and prepared 5 by someone else. The police department then was given our 6 assignment and our response, and I as an evaluator had the
~
7 duties and responsibilities of-the police department in 4
8 advance, because I could then set up and determine how I was 9 going to make my evaluations and what I was going to do, 10 [ referenced to what would be required to be done.
11 And I did this. And that would be the only .
I J,r~}
12 involvement that I would have, not in preparation but in g
13 evaluating the police personnel and others. As an example, 14 when we would transport people from the scene of the incident 15 there would be certain police officers -- until such time as 16 professional help arrived, certain police officers were l TkmqE 17 l establishing a triangit area, trying to make a determination 41=
1 f 18 ; of the degree of injury, those that the person would presume 19 to be dead, those who were walking injured, those who were 20 incapacitated.
21 ! And then the police officer, in the absence of any b
22 f other professional person, would then direct which patients 1 ,
i
> i l
- j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. , :- ~ _ n, - n_
r ~ . - . . . . _ _ , , . _ , , , _ _ , . . . - . , ,,,_.-.,,,_,.m. ..,,,__.,-___-_,,m__.
. = _ __ .. , , - - . -
29487.0 KSW . 44' 1 or which' persons would be transported to health care 2 facilities first. Upon the arrival of the professional 3 health care people, then the police. officers would assist' 4 them and be under their direction and control.. But our part 5 of it would be the individual officer's response to that 6 emergency.
I 7 Q Did you develop the performance evaluation
'j 8- standard that was used in order to eva,uate? 1
!- 9 A I didn't. It was prepared by another person.
1 i 10 Q So that you were then the evaluator who used the
{
11 performance evaluation checklist or critique form, if you 12 will, in order to evaluate the police officer's performance; 13 is that correct?
- 14 A That's correct.
i 15 Q Did you make an independent judgment about whether 4
16 the evaluation form was, in your judgment, an effective t
17 l method of evaluating police officers?
18 i A I did.
19 ; MS. MONAGHAN: Off the record.
I 20 j BY MS. MONAGHAN:
1 21 P Q Mr. Zook, other than the emergency planning for
- i l 22 the possible bleacher accident at the stadium, have you been i
O l c
! l
! I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. I mm ~ _ m- -
'29487.0 KSW 45
-h b
1 involved in planning for any other kinds of emergencies?
2 A We.had several emargency-type situations that we 3- went through in the city of Little Rock. As you may be 4 aware, we're in what they refer to as " Tornado Alley," and 5 ~ tornadoes are frequent in the State of Arkansas. We have had 6 certain towns in Arkansas destroyed by tornado, and numbers 7 of people killed and many numbers of people severely 8 injured.- We have gone through exercises relative to natural 9 disasters such as flood, tornado and this type of activity; 10 and then I was formerly a member of the National Guard Army 11 Reserve programs, and I was assigned as a supervisor in a
( 12 mobile Army surgical hospital and we would have casualty 13 exercises related to that, essentially all within the same 14 structure.
4 15 0 When you said you had exercises related to natural i 16 . disasters such as tornadoes and floods, was that when you 17 - were affiliated with the Little Rock Police Department?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Was it at any other time or just restricted to i
20 , when you were with the Little Rock Police Department?
i 21 A Those on natural disasters was when I was I
f 22 affiliated with the Little Rock Police Department.
}
- i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l x m. n., ame c.mmm mo -
29487.0 46 7-) KSW k_/
1 Q Was that when you were involved with training at 2 the Little Rock Police Department or when you were previously 3 involved in field activities?
4 A I was in the training division at the time I was 5 involved in these type exercises.
6 Q Were the exercises part of the training program 7 for the academy students?
8 A Not for the academy students. This was limited to 9' the Little Rock Police Department personnel only.
10 Q What was the nature of those exercises?
N 11 A As I previously mentioned, a disaster or an 12 incident that could occur relative to a sporting event or 13 something like this. We've had simulations of tornadoes, as 14 an example, another natural incident, and utilizing 15 ambulances; and Little Rock in particular is rather unique in 16 that there are only about five bridges across the Arkansas 17 River that will handle automobiles, and any time people are coming into the Little Rock area to the medical centers or i
18 l 19 l the medical center complex from the northern part of the a 20 '
state, they have to cross there.
21 This is a good interception point to intercept
)
22 ambulances and direct them or escort them to a health care I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
xmm s -ae n,_, m m-
-- -_ -, _ _ ,- . - . _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ . ,..,_m ..... _ .._ ,_ .. ...- - _ - _ - , . - _ _ - - , _ . _ . . - - _ _ . _ - _ . - . - . . . _ .
29487.0' KSW 47
.h o
i facility where certain allocations have been made and 2 prepared for the handling of casualties. So this was 3 something that occurred, I would estimate, on an annual 4 basis. We would have some type of this type of training each 5 year where the police department was involved or a part of l 6 the involvement.
7 Q At those exercises, did you participate as an 8 evaluator or as a participant or player in the exercise?
9 A Both. Prior to the time that I got into a 10 supervisory position, when I was a nonsupervisory police
/~5 11 officer, I was a participant in the program itself. After I 12 got into a position of supervision it was teaching some of 13 these aspects. Then I became an evaluator.
14 Q How would you go about writing an exercise as an 15 evaluator? Were you involved? The development of what would 16 take place?
l 17 j A No, ma'am. This wac done, as I said, by, I forget l
18 the title, but I think it would have been something like 19 emergency services coordinator, a civil defense coordinator 20 1 or some position within the city government whose 21 ! responsibility was to assess the city's capability to respond 22 h to emergency situations; and that person, whoever that may ll !
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tT2 347 DIl Natunw ide Cin crape N E L3 % f/4
29487.0 KSW 48 1 have been, would develop the scenario. There would be times 2 when -- of course, as a participant, we had no knowledge of 3 when the program was going to be implemented. It would be at 4 the decision of the entire program coordinator. It may be at 5 a football game at 8:00 at night. We've had them at night.
6 We've had them at 11:00 at night, at shift change, as an 7 example. We have done sone from morning to afternoon.
8 Q Did you know the date when it would occur or --
9 A As an evaluator, I did, but as a participant I 10 didn't. The only ones that would be used as an example, now, 11 let me give you another example of a type that we had. We 12 also have a Little~ Rock Air Force Base. We made preparations 13 for a long time on the event that an aircraft from the Little 14 Rock Air Force Base would crash in a populated area carrying 15 a nuclear device.
16 This actually happened, and we did have a B-52 17 disintegrate over a populated area, and we had a number of 18 , casualties. We had a number of fatalities. The crew, the l
19 i bodies of the crew were spread over various parts of town.
20 i This probably went as well as it could possibly have gone, 1
i 21 l based on the training that we had had in that and other )
! l 22 ,
issues in preparation for it, and this was an actual incident S j l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i mcm s _,mm em ~~
I 29487.0 t- .KSW 49 s
1 that occurred.
2 So it depends. The training that we would have 3 would depend on the type of incident that.would be identified 4 in the scenario, and we would either role-play or whatever 5 the circumstances would be in the implementation. The police 6 department segment of it -- the police department was not the 7 only ones involved in it. We were one agency out of a number 8 of agencies that had responsibilities to do certain things in 9 certain emergencies.
10 Q Did the other agencies that had the responsibility 11 to do other things participate in the scenario?
12 A Participate in the scenario development or --
13 Q Participate in the exercise.
14 A They participated in the exercise, yes.
15 Q Did all of them always participate?
16 A I can't say that all of them did all of the time.
17 As I recall, if my memory -- it was a what we classified as a 18 l " full participation exercise" in that we utilized those i
people that were on duty, the fire departments. We had some 19 l i 20 l of the mass casualties that we were removing -- we had trucks l
21 ' and trailers, borrowed trucks from certain companies. If we 22 had 150 people to move, an estimatioa was made of the 9 !
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-ne s m>,- o o,m . muw.
E 29487.0
- KSW 50
-/
(x 1 equipment necessary to move them and all of them physically.
2 If we needed three buses, if we needed 10 ambulances, two 3 tractors and trailers, they actually responded and reported 4 to the scene by police escort, and we got them there, got the 5 drivers, got the people there, and they actually reported.
6 That was part of the effectiveness of the j 7 program. We had physicians that in the preparation of this 8 -- all of our hospitals -- and I don't recall what the 9 project was called, but all of our hospitals were linked up 10 by radio communications with each other and with the police p 11 department. In the event of an emergency such as some of NJ' those that we have discussed this morning, the police 12 13 department would activate the alert system to the hospitals 14 l putting them on standby, advising them what we had coming, 15 and asked for their patient population load that they could.
16 f accept, and then the person, the dispatcher would say, okay,
\
St. Vincent's Hospital can receive 20, University of Arkansat:
17 )
18 l Hospital can receive 16, this, that and the other. Then the
' ! TA# ACE 19 police officers or those that were assigned in the trir.gle-NL 20 ! area would dispatch from the scene the driver, tell him where 21 )'
to go and how many patients he would have.
i 22 Q Would he actually have mock patients on his bus?
B
?
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m me ., s _ mmm. mo m
29487.0 KSW 51 1 A Absolutely. These were nursing students, young 2 ladies that were attending schools of nursing, and in the 3 _ exercise we got several moulage kits from the Army or from 4 military services, and if a person was diagnosed as having a 5 compound fracture of the right fenur, then there was a 6 moulage of a compound fracture of a leg and it would show --
7 they would put this on the person, tagged at the scene, any 8 medication that had been given by a physician or a 9 professional person. They had a tag ub them. They would be 10 tagged, the identification of the type of medication they had 11 been given and the time. If it was morphine or some type
% ./
12 depressant then they would mark it in some Merthiolate or i
13 something on their forehead, identifying what the substance 14 was and the time it was administered.
15 Yes, in this instance, I don't recall us ever
! 16 having an exercise that we didn't have full participation, i
17 because we had plenty of people that. could do it. Schools of l
I i l 18 j nursing personnel would have Army reserve units, National I i Guard persons who would be coming in for a drill or whatever
- 19 l 20 it may be. They would be the injured people.
l .
21 . The role-playing of those people, even, extended l
i 22 ; to the point that we had some who were physically impaired i
8 :
i !
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m m n., s>% a. mm,e se m
i 29487.0 KSW 52 l
i s i 1 l who were incapable of walking or immobile. We had some of
'l 2 N the scenarios even where they had persons who had gone into a l
ll 3 jj psychological state where they were uncontrollable, and we il 4l had some of the student nurses playing that role that k
54 actually assaulted some of the people. I mean it was that il 6[ realistic, li .'
7 ' Q When the hospitals participated in these 8h exercises, did they receive patients and then proceed to
'l 90 role-play in treating them or was the hospital's 10 participation more limited than that?
,f ~1. 11 j A The hospital participation on those that -- I was a
12 [ an evaluator. We got -- the scene where the simulated 13 I
bleacher accident occurred, as an example, was about eight 14 il blocks from one of the hospitals. We got the people started n
15 4 moving out and professional people got there and so forth. I 3
16 1 did my evaluation, and all, I felt, was appropriate. Then I l
17 went to the hospitals and saw the people as they were 18 admitted. ,
)
19 j The part of my evaluation was the police j i
20 department or the police officers were cnarged with the 21 responsibility of assisting the injured into the facility and 22 ; to -- in the event of unruly people or something, until i
, i
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- x m n., s_,,~. ~ ~ . , ,
m _
i ;
.. \ '
i ,
29487.0 KSW 53
't i 1 proper medical attention could be provided:they were to stay i 1 2 there to maintain order. j 3 . The people that would be brought in -- if a person 4 was determined that they were dyinef as an example, they j 5 would be set aside, and the'p.ersod who would have a compound
, 6 i fracture of the leg, th'e first' person that would see that -
7 person had they walked through the door, if it'be a 8 physician, would indicate type and c t>ss match, X-ray, so
.j ,
s 9 'f o r't h , and they actually went into,an area taxing theg
/ .
10 laboratory per'sonnel. In other words, if you have three lab
' I 11 technicians and 40 people, how long, doss it,take i to get the
[ pp M ATC% ' I, ',
(' ,
12[,typecrossmeehed, j o r'. are people dying knd so forth as a e
\ J. ,
13 , result of their inability to perform? They actually took <
14 . ! them into the X-ray unit. They didn't actually take X-rays, ll q 15 cf course, but hey got them to the point wbere,they,would
) l 16 receive,competen( medical attention,, and ,
that's the point of Q
titrmination
)
that'lwe had. Once they{' were out of our control 17 l ;
18 i av police dfficers and delivered into competent medical'
/ 4 19 authority, that',s where we terminated 'It. *
- 20 ! Q Did you ever have an exercise that called for the 21 ev.nchation ofsp populated area where y'ou could not use l
22 i persons to role-play the evacuees? '
Q u
. u. ,
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 _.n., s..>,-_,,.
.r; 29487.0 KSW 54 y U
1 A No ma'am. I don't believe I have ever been 2 involved in one where there's been a evacuation. I have been 3 involved in incidents where we had to physically evacuate 4 people in flood situations.
5 Q But that was a real-life incident?
6 A Yes. That was not a role-playing involvement, but 7 that is a very common thing in central Arkansas, because 8 we're more or less in a valley, and when people get a lot of l
9 rain from other places it overflows our streams and then we 10 get some rain and it creates a flood. We've had people 11 recently, I say recently, within the last three or four 12 years, who have actually' died as a result of not being able 13 to be evacuated.
14 Q Mr. Zook, when did you first learn that you might 15 be a witness in this proceeding?
16 A Sometime prior to December 5. I would say it 17 would be either -- as close as I could come to it would be 18 l sometime between the 1st and 5th of December. Maybe late 19 i November. I'm really not sure, but it would be late I
20 November, early December.
21 Q And who notified you that you were going to be a 22 witness?
lll )
i I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l i 21C-347 3700 Nationwide Cos crage 80tk336-6646
. _ . _ , , _ . _ _ - _ _ . _ . _ _ ._ _ _ _ - _ _ _ , . - , _ _ . . .- - ~ _ . - _ . _.
t 1 5
29487.0 l KSW ! 55 1 el A Mr. Miller. He contacted me and asked if I would h
2 l come, that he would like to talk to me. I wasn't advised at 3l i that time that I might be a witness. I believe that would 4 ) have been two or three days after the 5th. I was here on the 5 l Sth of December, and I believe it was two or three days i
6 following that that I was advised that I possibly may be 7 j called as a witness in this case.
8 ll Q When did you receive the documents that you have f
9l indicated that you reviewed, the FEMA report, the 10 i contentions, parts of the OPIPs?
, 11 j A It would, as best I can recall it, would have been l -
y 12 ! somewhere about the 10th or a little bit later of December, t
13 : after it had been determined that I had been considered.
h 1
14 Then I was given some data and materials to study, so it W
15 # would have been four or five days, I guess, after I was here.
o ii 16 1 Q At that time were you told that you would probably i
4 17 j be asked to testify on contentions 15, 16, 21, 22 and 50?
18 A No.
19 l Q Do you remember when you were told what 20 I contentions it was likely you would be asked to testify on?
21 A Yesterday afternoon.
Prior to yesterday you weren't sure what the l 22 ; Q l
lll 1 a
t I
! I j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 3 - s _ _- _ i
I .
29487.0 KSW fl 56 un 1 0 contentions were; is that correct?
3
.i 2 # A That's correct.
l, 3 i Q Did you know before yesterday afternoon generally 1
II 4 y what subject matters you might be asked to testify on? e h
5h il A I believe it may have been discussed that I would 6 be testifying on issues relative to law enforcement training i
7! or training and development of -- let's just say law 8 q enforcement training. I don't recall it being anything ll 9 beyond that. It was very general in nature.
]
4 10 l Q Have you written any articles or papers, published ii 11 T any articles or papers? Your resume does not indicate that N- l \
12 [ but I just wanted to be sure.
13 A I have written articles for certain law enforcement public tions; that has absolutely nothing to do 14 ]
!i 15 $ with the issues that we're dealing with. I'm a helicopter 16 i pilot, and I wrote some articles for the Arkansas law h $$serstT!ON 17 enforcement nrgani"n+ inns relative to the utilization of N1 18 j helicopter service in law enforcement, this sort of thing.
4 19 ; But it was all tactical, primarily.
20 3 Q So they would not be at all related to the issues 21 in this proceeding?
?
22 A Nothing that I have ever written -- most of the lll :
4 l
l
{
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ! {
i - s _- ._ : ,
29487.0 KSW . 57 1 a things I have written are tactical operations, countersniper 3
2 l tactics, recommendations for the use of sniper weapons, 3 a forensic science as it relates to sniper activities, II
!i 4 utilization of helicopters, counterterrorism tactics, of this l!
5 l nature.
- 6) !!
Q If you were to describe your areas of expertise 7 (i!! for me how would you describe them?
8 1; A Well, as I have previously stated, I have had 9 considerable exposure and experience in law enforcement h
h 10 training, and the measurement of the, or the evaluation of
]
11 that training that's been presented; and then personnel
(
~
12 performance based on the training that had been received,
]
i 13 l this type of activity. I would say in broad terms that I 14 d might have some expertise in law enforcement training and
?
15 evaluation of personnel and performance training.
I!
16 l Q We have been using the term " law enforcement l\
17 li training" quite a bit today. Could you define what you mean
)
18 by that term so I'm sure we have the same meaning for it?
19 -
A Law enforcement training, as I have used that term 20 today, deals with training in subjects that are related i
21 l directly or indirectly to the function of a police officer in t
22 :i the performance of his duty.
lll i, l
3 1
s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 m. , , _ m_ s_
29487.0 KSW 58 g~
iv )!
x 1 Q When you say "directly and indirectly," what do 2 you mean by things that would indirectly have an effect on 3 the performance of a police officer?
4 A As an example, some of the topics is the 5 recognizing and handling of abnormal persons, a person who 6 may be emotionally or mentally disturbed. That's not a law I
7 enforcement problem but that's a problem that a law 8 enforcement officer has to deal with until such time as he 9 can get competent medical personnel to take the person into 10- their custody or under their control or something like this.
j 11 Many times we have situations whereby -- in a
(>) 12 sniper situation, as an example, a police officer may be 13 hit. We identify procedures there on how to properly care 14 for that officer in case he gets a chest hit, and it is a 15 sucking wound into the lungs or so forth, what we can do to 16 protect that individual until he is transported or turned 17 over to competent medical authority. These are indirectly 18 related elements to enforcement of the law.
I 19 .
Q Mr. Zook, are you familiar with a document called k
20 h NUREG-0654?
1 21 , A Not that I recall. No, ma'am.
22 l Q Are you familiar with the Federal Emergency
< lll 8
- l i
k ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l OtC 347-3Nv) Nanonwide Coserage 8 0-33MM6
1 1
29487.0 KSW 59 1
1! Management Agency?
2 l A I have some knowledge of FEMA.
h 3 0 Have you ever done any work with FEMA?
Q 4 f A I have been to the FEMA facility in Gaithersburg, 5 or wherever the facility is, some 40 or 50 miles from here.
6 > I have been to that facility in a seminar.
7 i Q What did the seminar concern?
8 y A Natural disasters or incidents. FEMA was at one i!
9 time and still may be projecting information on an earthquake 10 area that has been projected, that an earthquake is going to
^) 11 occur in the south central part of the United States, a fault
- [a 12 f line which comes out of Missouri or possibly Illinois and 13 .! northeastern part of Arkansas, and this dealt with the law k
14 j enforcement officers' response and responsibility in this 15 type of incident should it occur or had it occurred. They l'
16 say it is going to occur.
l 17 j Q When did you attend that FEMA seminar?
18 A I believe it was in 1984 or early '85.
19 Q Have you had any other affiliation with or contact 20 1 with FEMA?
i i
21 A Not that I recall.
I 22 Q Do you have any knowledge of FEMA's
- llI ,
i 3
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
a :_ . , s_m _ ~~
29487.0 i KSW 60 41P i 1 l responsibilities concerning evaluation of off-site emergency
!l 2 ! response organizations for nuclear power plant emergencies?
t 3 fi A I had no concept of that until I started reading 6
4 l some of these documents and saw that FEMA was involved in e
il 59 4 it. Prior to that I had no knowledge of it.
h 6[ Q Are you familiar at all with FEMA Guidance I
7 }i Memorandum 17?
i:
8 )? A Not that I recall.
\
\
9 k Q I'm going to show you a copy of Guidance Manual n
3 10 j 17. Have you ever seen that document before?
11 A I don't recall ever seeing this document before.
^]' r,
~
12 If Nothing looks familiar at all to me.
Il 13 l Q Do you think you would be reviewing that document 1
14 j in order to prepare for the testimony you might be giving in 1
15 !! this proceeding.
'i 16 , A I possibly could be. I couldn't rule that out.
17 i Q Would you know what contention you might be 18 reviewing that document in connection with?
1 19 '
A I don't know. This document is unfamiliar to me.
i 20 I have never seen it before.
21 Q Are you familiar with another FEMA guidance i
22 memorandum known as EX-3?
Ill ,
l 1 l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ;
i m m. , s_ m m_ m._ >
29487.0
-KSW 61 7s 1 A No, ma'am. .Not to my knowledge anyway.
f 2 Q .Let me show you a copy of FEMA EX-3 and_let you 3 take a look at it, and you.tell me whether you have ever seen I
4 that document before.
5 A I don't recall ever having seen this document 6 before.
- 7 Q And the citle on the document that I have shown
} 8 you is " Conducting Pre-exercise Activities and Post-exercise 9 Meetings"; is that correct?
4 10 A. That's the title of this document, Guidance 11 Memorandum EX-3, " Conducting Pre-exercise Activities and 12 Post-exercise Meetings."
13 Q You have never seen that draft document?
14 A Not to my knowledge.
+
15 Q Nor the Guidance Memorandum 17 that I showed you
! 16 previously?
17 A I don't recall ever having seen it before either.
18 Q Are you familiar with the materials used in the 19 LILCO training program?
, 20 A What type materials are they? Maybe if you could 21 expand on that. The only thing that I'm primarily familiar 22 h with is the post-exercise document that FEMA prepared, and I lll 7 r ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147-37(O Nationwide Coscrage KO-33MM6
. . . . . . . ~ . - , . . . . . _ _ . - . . . . . , , . . . , - . _ - , . . .
i.
29487.0 7s KSW 62 l' l s_/
1 did a slight review of that, and then the contentions.
2 Q What do you understand the post-exercise document 3 to be?
4 A A document that evaluated the performance -- not 5 necessarily the performance, a document that evaluates --
6 well, let me start back again. Not even that. It is a 7 document that identifies the observations made by evaluators 8 of that particular exercise. That's my opinion as to what it 9 is.
- 10 Q Now is it your understanding that those evaluators
/ 11 were either FEMA employees or contracted to FEMA?
(
(
12 A I have no idea who the evaluators were.
13 Q Is it your understanding that the post-exercise 14 assessment contains FEMA's evaluation of the Shoreham 15 i exercise?
16 A There were -- as best I recall, there were some 17 paragraphs or something in there about deficiencies and I
18 incidents that required corrective action to be taken or 19 something along that line. If that's in that document --
l 20 l Q Would you consider those to be in a performance b
21 : evaluation?
! 22 f A Based on what I read, it would appear that those lllI 1
i r
i l \
l I l ACE-FEDERAL REPOIUERS, INC.
-m x_ c- ~~
l l
29487.0 KSW 63 f
1 were evaluations of performance or things they did well, i
2 things they didn't do well, whatever the observations of the 3 evaluators were.
4 Q You said earlier that you reviewed the OPIPs or 16 5 5 parts of the OPIPs. Do you know generally the subject 6 matters covered in the OPIPs that you reviewed?
7 ll A I believe it was portions of section 1 and 8 ; portions of section 3. That's all. I only had two sections 9 that I was given to review.
4 10 ll Q How long did you spend on your review of those two if ll 11 jj sections, do you recall?
(x / 1 i
12 ; A Probably an hour or so. It would be difficult to N
13 ! give -- it was not the majority of my review time.
W s
14 ll Q You said you did a slight review of the W
q 15 ;! post-exercise document. About how long did you spend 16 1 reviewing that document?
1 17 0 A Probably two or three hours.
i 18 Q Do you recall, you said you reviewed section 1 and 19 d section 3 of the OPIPs. Do you recall the subject matter of a
20 A section 1?
i 21 j A I think it dealt with position requirements or the
{
22 ; identification of certain positions that I guess were lll ! ;
i l
1 4 I:
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 3 20214717m Ltion NJe Cmerage 4n 33MMo .
29487.0 l KSW ! 64 involved in the exercise itself, 1
1[
h 2 i Q Do you recall what section 3 dealt with in terms i
3 of its subject matter?
4 4f A Not -- I couldn't accurately define that. No, S l ma'am. Possibly training. I'm not sure.
ii 6 f, Q You don't remember at all what section 3 covered?
7 ! A I would know if I could see it. I could identify i
i It was section 3, some numeral, 8 )l t,
it if I could see it.
9i something else. It had three numbers to it. It was a 10 t section 3, subsection of something else. I don't really l!
a
~
recall the exact number, but if I could see the document I
) 11 ]
12 ll could identify it as being the one that I reviewed.
1 13 Q Mr. Zook, you indicated to me that you spent about 0
two or three hours reviewing the post-exercise document and 14 ]
15 about an hour or so reviewing the OPIPs. You also indicated n
16 1 you reviewed the contentions. Do you know about how long you J
1 17 spent reviewing the contentions?
I 18 A I would say probably 14, 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br />.
lI 19 ; Q So the bulk of your time was spent reviewing the 20 l contentions; is that correct?
21 A That's correct. l 22 1 Q Did you review all of the contentions?
lll l l
l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2 -., s_ m- ,_
t
29487.0 RSW 65
- 1) A I read all of the contentions because at that
?
2 point in time, I assumed that I was given that to familiarize
'3 myself with what had occurred or taken place.
4 ,
Q Do you know whether -- did you assume that all of 5 the factual matters referenced in the contentions were a 6 Olcorrect description of what occurred the day of the exercise?
!I 7[ !!
A I was told by counsel that I could assume that the 8 ;e! information contained in the contentions and the references 0
9 l1 were factual.
f) In your review of the contentions, did you focus 10 Q 11 on any particular contentions more than others?
12 h A No. I started reading the contentions, and I (i
u 13 lI started trying to cross-reference some of these, and I was 3
14 l having a great deal of difficulty trying to identify the k
15 ] cross-references and how they related one to the other J
P 16 da contentions and this sort of thing. It took me -- I think 17 8 most of my time was spent trying to understand what was said 18 ] in the post-exercise document and its relationship to the 19 contention, and then trying to find the references that were 20 So most of my time was spent on the j! associated with it.
21 j contentions and trying to get an understanding of exactly l
22 l what occurred.
Ill i
)
i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
a :_ . , , _ c- --
n l l
)
I 29487.0-66 )
lllKSW l l
l' Q When you reviewed the contentions and there was a- !
2 reference to the post-exercise document, did you look that 3 reference up?
4 A In some instances, yes.
5 Q And when you compared the post-exercise document 6 with what was stated in the contentions, was it an identical 7 . match or were there some differences?
3 8 A I don't recall specifically any differences that I
, 9 detected.
10 Q Mr. Zook, have you reviewed any of the documents 11 that LILCO used to train its personnel to be part of this r')
%)
12 emergency response organization?
4 13 A Not to my knowledge. I reviewed several 14 documents, but I don't recall eeviewing any document that 15 identified what the requiremen. -- you are saying for the 4
16 role players, the parts that they would play and the i
j 17 participation they would have in the exercise?
18 Q That's correct.
l I
No, ma'am. I don't recall ever having seen that.
19 l A
- - 20 ! Q So you haven't seen any workbox, for example, that l
- 21 ! they might have used in order to prepare for their role in 22 the exercise?
0 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
' i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Nh3E6M6
29487.0 KSW 67 1 A Not to my knowledge, I haven't seen any.
2 Q Have you seen any videotapes?
3 A No videotapes.
4 Q Do you have any idea what kinds of materials were 5 used by LILCO to train its personnel to be part of the 6 emergency response preparation?
I 7 A There were periodic classes conducted for persons 8 in doing certain tasks, and the type of training -- I have 9 never seen the documentation -- the length of the training.
10 I have never seen that. I have no knowledge of it.
11 Q Have you seen any of the player or participant 12 documents generated during the exercise?
13 A No, ma'am, not that I recall.
14 Q Have you seen anything like a logbook that someone 15 may have made entries in during the exercise?
16 A No, ma'am.
17 Q Do you think that you would be reviewing any of those player documents that were generated during the 18 l 19 exercise in order to prepare for your testimony?
k 20 A I would think that probably I would, that if it l
21 would add substance to the material that I would need, then 22 I'm sure that I would.
( !
I i I l
- l . ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 :temtw Nationwide cmerage w33&wo
29487.0 l KSW l 68 1
4 Q Do you think that you would be reviewing any of i
2q the training materials that LILCO used to train its personnel 30 il in order to prepare your testimony?
il 4[ A I would hope that I could, if it is made available 5
lEto me, il 6 ,
Q Do you think that you will be reviewing any of the 7 i, critique forms that were used by the FEMA evaluators when D
8 1 they evaluated the performance of the personnel in order to 9 prepare for your testimony?
h 10 h A Probably would, yes.
9
^
11 fi; (Discussion off the record.)
i ll 12 f BY MS. MONAGHAN:
13 y Q Mr. Zook, at this time, other than the OPIPs, the i
14 post-exercise assessment document, the contentions, are there 15 any other documents that you expect you will be reviewing in 4
16 3 connection with preparing your testimony?
?
17 4 A I'm sure that there will be documents that I will i
18 j be reviewing, but I have no knowledge of what they are at i
19 ? this time.
20 ,
Q So you have not seen any other documents that you 21 ; might be reviewing to prepare to testify? l i
22 A Not to my knowledge.
I 1
! l
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i m n ., me c~m m. _ i
- v. - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
29487.0 KSW 69 Do you know who the other witnesses will be on the 1
4l Q l
2 ll contentions about which you are going to testify?
d 3l A 'I only know the identity of two.
s i
44 9 Q Who are those?
5 ;k A Dr. Lee Colwell and a Dr. Perrow, from Yale.
6 Q Have you had any discussions with either 7 ! Dr. Perrow or Dr. Colwell regarding the testimony that you
- i 8 will be preparing for this proceeding? ,
9 .
A No.
10 Q You indicated you had met with Dr. Colwell on or i
'~, 11 ( about December 5 in connection with this proceeding. Was
(. I .
k Dr. Perrow present at that meeting also?
12 h d
W 13 c A Yes.
14 N Q Did you discuss at that meeting the testimony that ,
0 15 ) was going to be given in this proceeding?
i 16 lls A I have not discussed the testimony that I will be 17 l giving with anyone up to this point in time.
18 / Q Do you recall generally what was discussed at the i
19 , meeting with Dr. Colwell and Dr. Perrow?
20 l A Well, it was with counsel, and -- l a
21 MR. MILLER: The only question is, do you recall.
22 ) THE WITNESS: Do I recall what was discussed?
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
, >: - . , ~ _ _ _ ,, - ,
29487.0
- KSW h 70 1
8 1 MR. MILLER: Yes.
2 TH3 WITNESS: Not really, because the discussions 3 -- I was separated from the other two, and I don't know what 4 was discussed between them, but there was nothing discussed 5 relative to this, in my presence, with counsel.
6 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
7 Q When you met on the 5th of December, who was 8 present at the meeting? Was it --
9 A Mr. Miller, Ms. Letsche, Dr. Colwell, Dr. Perrow 10' and myself.
, 11 Q You said that you were separated from Dr. Colwell 12 and Dr. Perrow. Who did you meet with at the time you were 13 separated?
14 A Mr. Miller.
4 15 Q Did you observe the FEMA exercise that was held on 16 February 13?
17 A Did I observe it?
18 I Q Yes.
19 ; A No. .
20 4 Q Did you speak with anyone who has observed the 21 ! FEMA exercise that was conducted on February 13?
l 32 i A No.
<~1 l
(_/ >
r I
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 3 C-347-3'01 Nanonwide Cm erage FG336-6M6 l
k 29487.0 I KSW 71 0 b MR. MILLER: Does your cuestion include counsel?
1 j N
2 ] MS. MONAGHAN: No. With the exception of 1
3 counsel.
?
4 i THE WITNESS: No.
i 5 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
6 Q Mr. Zook, do you have an opinion about the issues l
7 raised in Contentions 15 and 16?
[i 8 A Could I see the contentions?
l!
l 9 ! Q Do you recall at all what issues are raised by i
0 10 q those contentions?
r 11 l A I think that the issues that are raised in 15 and c
/ i
~/ y 16 concern the sampling of the exercise being insufficient to 12 h 13 $ draw a conclusion that the health and safety of the general k
14 j public could be assured.
H u,
15 q Q Do you agree --
4 a
16 A That's from memory.
]
17 l Q All right, and I understand that you were only 18 ) !
informed yesterday of the contentions on which you think you 19 , will be testifying?
20 A That's correct.
\
21 , Q Do you agree that the sample size was too small?
22 . A Based on what I read in the contentions, that 1 -
l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i mm m., ~_m_ _
. 1 l
I i k
29487.0 KSW 72 l 3' !
1 l would be my assumption.
2 Q What facts are you relying on for your statement l
? I 30 that the sample size was toc small? l
! 1 1
4 ! A The facts that are contained in the contentions, r
0 l 5j Q Well, can you give me some examples of what those i
6! are?
7 ! MR. MILLER: Ms. Monaghan, the witness has t
8 ! indicated a preference to see the contentions. I would not 9
l see the purpose to be served through testing his memory in t
10 fj this regavi. I would like to request that the witness be l
~. 11 l permitted to see the contentions.
/ ) y
/ 4 12 l MS. MONAGHAN: Well, Mr. Zook has offered an h I'm just 13 j opinion today that the sample size is too small.
b 14 i trying to elicit the facts that he is currently relying on i
15 ; for his opinion. He may later look.at the contentions, If 16 } you can tell me from'your memory --
h 17 :i MR. MILLER: He says the facts set forth in the 18 .,
contentions.
1 19 1 .. MS. MONAGHAN: What facts are those?
20 MR. MILLER: If you recall, Mr. Zook, you may 21 answer.
22 THE WITNESS: I'm not certain that the things I'm 1
l; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ;
m m., s_ m_ __ ,
29487.0
-KSW 73 1 concerned with now are contained in 15 or 16, but the 2 response -- the requirement for a certain number of 3 ambulances and ambulets, the number of bus drivers that were 4 required and tho number of buses that actually reported, and 5 then the performance of those drivers once they did show or 6 report to the scene.
7 Another issue that I recall -- and again I don't 8 recall without seeing it, I don't recall whether this is in 9 15 or 16 or even another contention -- but something that I 10 was concerned with was the fact that WALK radio apparently 11 was a nonparticipant in the exercise, and as I understood it, 12 they were required to be one of the primary communication 44% dead Ha.
13 facilities to alert the general public of an incident.
14 The absence of state, county or municipal police 15 in the involvement. The limited response, if any, of the 16 United States Coast Guard. Also within the 10-mile range, I
- 17 I believe that the State of Connecticut was involved in the t
. 18 : exposure part of this, but yet there was no participation 19 i from the State of Connecticut.
20 The traffic guides who were to report, I I
21 funderstandsomereportedandsomewereinterviewedby 22 l evaluators and were not certain of all of their duties and I(2) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(12- 347-37t h Nationwide COscTdge MXk33MM6
,, , , - _ . , . . . -- --- ., , . . . - - - . - - - - ~ , , - , , . , . - = -
29487.0 KSW 74 l
1 responsibilities; and again, either, I believe, it was a bus 9
2 ldriveror--Ibelieveitwasabusdriver,hadindicated i ti i 11 3 that the assembly area or the point where they would be 4 taking people -- he wasn't sure or didn't know where that 5 l area was. I recall seeing a statement someplace where a 6 traffic guide, I believe it was a traffic guide, had 7{ indicated that he would question the authority of his 8 f supervisor should he be directed to do something relative to 9 h this.
?
10 ,
These are the type things that in my preliminary i
11 ) review have caused me to determine at this point that 12 whatever was done was not sufficient to assure that the 13 g public safety and the lives of the people in that area would 0
14 'l be protected; and again, this is based solely upon the i 15 ! contentions that I have read, and using this as a basis, and
'16 that's what would lead me to that preliminary conclusion.
17 b Q That the sample size was too small?
18 i i A Yes.
19 ) Q Do you know why there was an absence of state, 20 , county or municipal police? <
21 i A I believe I was told, and I don't know by whom, I
22 that -- I believe I was told that they had withdrawn from e !
1 4
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l l nun ~-+- ~ n- ,
i 29487.0 75
= 74 KSW 1 participation in this exercise. I don't believe I was told 2 why.
3 Q Did that surprise you, that they had withdrawn 4 from participation?
5 MR. MILLER: Objection to the relevance of the 6 question for a number of reasons. I'm not sure if you are
- 7. asking if it is surprising to Mr. Zook. It is completely 8 irrelevant to any contentions admitted by the Board, 9 contentions opposed by LILCO itself. There's no basis for 10 you to ask about contentions that you opposed admission-of.
s j 11 MS. MONAGHAN: You may answer the question,
- k. .
12 Mr. Zook.
13 THE WITNESS: Not knowing all of the facts which 14 led to that decision not to participate, I wouldn't want to 15 make a statement based on partial information or not all of 16 the facts that are available.
17 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
Mr. Zook, is it your opinion that the FEMA 18 l Q 19 ! exercise held on February 13, 1986, of the off-site response ,
20 organization for the Shoreham plant was so limited that it l
?
21 could no yield a meaningful result?
22 MR. MILLER: Once again I'm going to object to
($)
a i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347-370) Nanonwide Coserage NB3EtM6
29487.0. ,
KSW 76 1 your tactics of asking this witness questions that are 2 obviously drawn from the contentions without permitting him 3 to see the contentions. You have a limited amount of time 4 here t0 day, so I would suggest you use it by showing Mr. Zook 5 th, contentions.
6 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
7 Q Mr. Zook, do you have an opinion about that, and 8 what is that opinion?
9 ,
A Would you please restate the question?
10 Q I would be glad to restate the question. Is it 11 your opinion that the FEMA exercise held on February 13 was
)
12 so limited that it could not yield meaningful results?
13
- A If by meaningful results you are referring to the 14 assurance that the lives and public safety of the citizens of 15 that area had been protected, I would say I would agree that 16 they were insufficient to provide that degree of protection.
17 Q What was insufficient about the exercise?
15 A I gave examples previously of some of the things I
19 k that I recalled having read either in 15, 16 or some other 27 e document which would indicate to me the lack of participation i 21 by some key personr.el involved in this thing: the 22 ; notification, the fact the sirens were not activated, the
- lll i s
a i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3Rh) Nationwide Caseragr 800-336W46
. _=- - _. .
29487.0 KSW 77 1 fact that a small number of ambulances and so forth, that I 2 have just defined as my observations; and the other materials 3 that I may have read in the contentions would lead me to that 4 preliminary conclusion.
5 Q Is it your opinion that every aspect of an 6 off-site emergency response organization must be tested in 7 order to be sure that one would have meaningful results from 8 a FEMA exercise?
9 A I would say, in my opinion, that weighing the 10 significance of the protection of the health and public l ff') 11 safety of the people, if it was relevant to that, I would say O
12 yes, that should be tested.
13 Q How would you go about determining whether it was 14 relevant to the health and safety of the public in order to 15 determine whether it should be tested?
16 A Well, again, it would -- I would need to see the 17 requirement and make a determination as to its relevance to i
18 I maintaining public safety. Just to pick a -- I can't answer b
19 the question in that manner. I'm sorry.
20 f Q Would you rely on FEMA's assessment of what was 21 >
important to be tested in making your evaluation of what k
i 22 l should or should not have been tested the day of the
. ($) !
i i
l 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage ML346M6
29487.0 KSW 78 1 exercise?
2 A I would use that as a part of the overall review 3 that I might conduct, but not solely.
4 Q What.else would you look at?
5 A Well, all of the allied documents that are 6 associated with that exercise. You hhve indicated some 7 documents that I never heard of. I couldn't make an 8 assessment like that until such time as I would have an 9 opportunity to review and evaluate those, and certainly I 10 would not go specifically on FEMA's evaluation.
11 Q Why wouldn't you rely on FEMA's evaluation of what g']
(/
12 was important?
13 MR. MILLER: He said solely rely upon FEMA's 14 evaluation.
15 THE WITNESS: To the exclusion of all other data 16 and materials. I would certainly use that as a component of 17 f the overall evaluation sprocess, but I would give that no more I
10 l weight than I would any other document or any other piece of I
19 information relative to the performance of persons and the 20 evaluation itself.
21 ! I BY MS. MONAGHAN:
I 22 '
Q Is it your understanding that FEMA is the federal
< ($)
L i
! l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I mmm x_ c_, -m m
e 29487.0 KSW 79 1 agency charged with making an evaluation of off-site 2 emergency response capabilities for nuclear power plants?
e 3 A I have been told that thit is their 4 responsibility.
5 Q Do you have any reason to believe that they are 6 not effective in caring out their responsibility in that 7 area? 6 8 A I have no reason to believe that they would be 9 ineffective, at least at this point in time. I have seen 10 nothing that would make a glaring accusation to that effect.
11 Q So your review of the FEMA post-exercise
, 12 assessment wouldn't lead you to believe that they were 13 ineffective in making their evaluation?
! 14 A I wouldn't believe what? Would you repeat that, 15 please?
16 Q Your review of the FEMA post-exercise assessment 17 wouldn't lead you to believe that FEMA had been an 18 ineffective evaluator?
- I
- 19 [ A I wouldn't say that I would accept that document 20 l as fulfilling the requirements of a successful evaluation.
21 Q Why wouldn't you accept it as fulfilling the 22 ; requirements of a successful evaluation?
^
() !
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-W-3'm Nationwide Cos erage 8443hM
29487.0 KSW 80 1 A Because it is only one document in a. number of 2 documents that are available to draw a conclusion from, and I 3 haven't seen those documents. I would give it its proper 4 weight and consideration as a part of the overall evaluation 5 process, but I would not accept FEMA's or any other single 6 document as being all-inclusive as to the effectiveness of 7 the exercise.
8 Q Is it your understanding that the post-exercise 9 assessment is indeed FEMA's evaluation of the effectiveness
'10 of the exercise?
11 A That's my understanding at this time.
12 Q Now in order to have an effective exercise of an 13 off-site emergency response organization, is it your opinion 14 that all persons and organizations who would be needed to 15 mount a response must be mobilized and notified; mobilized, 16 sent into the field and evaluated?
17 A That all persons?
Q All persons and organizations that would be 18 l 19 necessary to mount an off-site response.
I 20 l A I wouldn't say that 100 percent of all personnel i
21 ; would be required to be present at that time for an effective i
22 ! evaluation. I would say that there would have to be a (2) l k
i
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I mm s_ m c_. -
a
< t t i 29487.0 KBW 81 I significant sampling of the peopie present to show that it 2 could effectively-accomplish the task that's required to be i
3 accomplished, whatever that figure may be. And I can't give y'4 you that figure. ,
f s S Q How would you go'about determining what a Y,
significant sampling would be? '
~
6 7 A Well, if I may, let me respond to this in a way 8 that might be foreign or strange to you. If I am providing 9 instruction to a police officer, and we're in a combat shooting cotkrse, and he has 50 rounds of ammunition, and I 10 11 call a target and he fires two rounds on that target, and.
12 both of them are in the X ring, egactly where it is supposed 13 to be, I have no assurance that the next 48 are going to be 14 there. If he puts 10 rounds in out of the first 10 rounds, I 15 have a little better feeling, but I don't have any assurance 16 _that the other 40 will be there. If he does 35 of them and 17 they are all in that ring, I have reasonable assurance that
, i at least the majority of the rest of those rounds are going 18 l i
19 l to be there.
20 t It is difficult for me to try to give a number of 21 hroundsthatitwouldtakeformetomakethatassurance, and 22 ! the same thing would apply here. It would be very difficult l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I mumm, s_ c- ~_
29487.0
- r,sw 82
(_)
1 for me to attempt, and I can't do it. I can't give you a 2 number of bus drivers that should be there with buses in 3_ order to say that the bus routes have been run, the 4 evacuations have taken place, at the hospitals, nursing homes 5 and schools, but that would be the way I would define that, 6 if that's acceptable.
7 Q I'm not asking you to put a number on it at this 8 t.ise. What I'm asking you is how you would go about figuring 9 c9t what that number, if it is a number, might be.
10 $ I would have to evaluate -- I would have to first
/"N 11 find out what the task was that was to be performed. Then, k_
12 as the sampling began -- let's take bus drivers. If it is 13 required that 300 buses -- and I just use that figure, I 14 don't know that that's even within the range of the number of 15 buses that are required -- but if 300 buses were required to 16 perform the task of evacuating ambulatory patients out of 17 hospitals, nursing homes, schools, those who couldn't be 18 ! notified in other ways but going through residential areas, 19 if that number is 300, I think in order to measure the 20 l effectiveness of it would be to see that there was a 21 sufficient number to man at least all of the routes; maybe if 22 ! you got five buses on one route, not necessarily five buses
([) !
1 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-347-37to Nationwide Cos eraze 84346M6
t 29487.0 KSW -
83 1 but at least one, to show that that can be staffed, it can be 2 manned and that they are capable at that point of 3 accomplishing their task.
4 Again, that would be only a portion of it. Once 1
5 they responded and once they got their buses, their 6 performance in what they did with their bus and the
- 7 proficiency-that they demonstrated in doing what they are 8 assigned to do would be the determining factor as far as I'm 9 concerned.
10 Q Mr. Zook, have you reviewed any other FEMA
. j/') 11 post-exercise assessment reports?
\_J 12 A other than this Shoreham?
13 Q Other than the Shoreham February 13 exercise 14 report.
15 A Not to my knowledge.
16 Q Do you intend to review other exercise reports 17 prior to preparing your testimony?
s 18 l A I wouldn't exclude the probability, but I don't 19 think so at this time. But I wouldn't rule out the l
20 ! probability that it could occur.
l 21 ' Q At this time, do you know what your testimony will 22 be on Contention 21?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage M&3% %46
--. _ - . . , _ - . . , . - . . . . . - , _ _ . . . . . . _ _ , . _ . - . . - - - . ~ . _ . . - , ._ . . _ . . , . - . _ _ - . - -,_...._, ,.
29487.0 KSW 84 1 A At this time, I have no idea what my testimony 1
2 would be on Contention 21, because I was just advised 3 yesterday afternoon that that would be one of the areas that 4 I would be considered in. -l 5 Q What about in Contentions 15 and 16, dealing with l-l 6 the scope of the FEMA exercise?
7 A No, ma'am.
8 Q How about Contention 22?
9 A The only thing I recall about contention 22 was 10 subparagraph F. I believe it is 22-F that I was asked to
(
I 11 look at; and again, without the document I couldn't recall
{ 12 from memory what 22-F is. I have seen so much of this and 13 read so much of it that without something to give me as a 14 guide, I can't go from memory on it.
15 Q Do you know what your testimony will be on 16 Contention 50, which deals with the training program on this 17 , issue?
l 18 A No, ma'am. Again, I was advised yesterday 19 afternoon that I would be considered for that. I'm not 20 ! really certain that a final decision has been made on that.
21 If it has I still don't know what my testimony would be as of 22 l right now.
O i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8tG336-f446
m
.29487.0
,5 KSW 85
)
1 Q Prior to yesterday afternoon, you were unsure of 2 even what' issues you would be dealing with; is that correct?
3 A That's correct. I reviewed the entire document.
4 Q Meaning the contentions?
5 A Yes, ma'am.
6 MS. MONAGHAN: Off the record.
7 (Discussion off the record.)
8 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
9 Q Please continue.
10 A I would like to clarify one point, if I may. I 11 believe you asked or I believe I stated that the first time v
12 that I had been told that I would be involved with 15, 16, 13 21, 22 and 50 was yesterday. At some point in time in late 14 December, mid-December, when I got the material, the 15 contentions and the FEMA report and other things, I was told 16 that I should look at 15, 16 -- I can't ask him anything. 18 17 -- four or five others.
i 18 j In other words, I think there was 10 areas that I h
19 should review, with specific enphasis on 10 areas. I can't 20 tell you what those 10 are because I just don't have that
\
recall. I was told, and I did this. I reviewed those 10 21 l 22 areas. I would say no more specifically than I did the rest O
l N_/ !
j !
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
XC.147-170) Nationwide Coserage WXb33M44
. _. . . . _ . _ . . , , _ . , . . - _ . . . . - . . _ _ , , _ . - , . . , . . . . .. . , , ~ . _ - , - . . _ . . _ , - ~ .
29487.0-f- g KSW' 86 1 of-it, but I was told yesterday afternoon 15, 16,.21, 22 and 2 50,-possibly. But I think that was the instructions that was 3 given me when I first got the document, that I should direct-i
~
4 my interest in these 10 areas.
! 5 Q Did those 10 areas include the contentions on 6 which you now believe you are going to be providing 7 testimony?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Mr. Zook, previously you had indicated that 10 yesterday was the first day which you knew which are.as you
-11 would be providing testimony on in this proceeding. Now you 12 have told me that you recall in late December having been 13 instructed to review approximately 10 areas. Why has your 14 testimony changed on this point?
15 A It has not. I was told yesterday that I would be 16 asked to provide testimony probably on these five that I just 17 identified to you. That's the first time testimony has ever f
18 l been mentioned to me.
19 MR. MILLER: Ms. Monaghan, the testimony Mr. Zook 20 has given is consistent in every way. All he is saying is 21 that prior to yesterday he was given an indication by counsel
- o 22
,i of particular contentions to focus on. Yesterday he was
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 1700 Nationwide Coscrage $n316-6M6
29487.0
_n KSW 87
- 1. advised for the first time it is likely he will provide 2 testimony on particular contentions. The two are not 3 inconsistent.
4 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
5 Q Mr. Zook, in connection with your testimony on 6 Contention 21, which deals with whether the sample size was 7 adequate, the sample size that FEMA used in assessing the 8 performance of the LILCO organization in the February 13 9 exercise, in connection with the testimony that you will 10 render on that contention, do you intend to do any kind of 11 statistical analysis of what would be the appropriate sample 12 size?
13 A No, ma'am, I don't feel that I'm qualified to do 14 that.
15 Q Do you intend to do any kind of statistical 16 analysis at all, whether it be geared to what's an i
17 appropriate sample size or not?
18 l A At this point in time I don't anticipate doing i
19 k this.
20 Q Will there be some sort of numerical analysis?
21 A I'm not aware of any at this time. I don't know.
22 !'
Again, I was advised only yesterday afternoon, so I have had
([)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(x1 Nationwide Cm erage 80lL3346M6
29487.0
-s KSW 88
\_-
1 no time to make any preparation or even discuss it with 2 counsel.
38 Q Mr. Zook, have you seen anything that.might be 4 characterized as a summary disposition motion on any of the 5 contentions that you may be offering testimony on?
6 A Not to my knowledge, no.
7 Q You haven't seen anything that might be 8 characterized as testimony, have you?
9 A I believe I have seen two documents that were 10 identified as testimony from two police officers in New
- 11. York. I'm not sure of that, but I believe that I have seen w
12 the documents.
13 Q Were those police officers' names Cosgrove and 14 Fakler?
15 A That's correct, yes.
16 Q Do you know whether that was testimony that's 17 ,
a lready been given in this proceeding or a similar l
18 l proceeding?
l A I have no idea. As best I recall it was dated 19 l I
20 ! 1984. I'm not sure of the date but I believe it was in that 21 l range.
l 22 l Q I take it that you have not begun to prepare (2) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37fo Naiionwide Coserage 8ic-33MM6
.29487.0 KSW 89 Ns 1 testimeny at all in this proceeding?
2 -A- Absolutely nothing.
3 Q Mr. Zook, in evaluating performance , if you don't 4 have an adequate sample size, are you able to generalize in 5 any way.about the remainder of-the population?
6 A Would you state that again, please?
4 7 Q If you don't have an adequate sample size, are you 8 able to generalize in any way about the remainder of the ,
9 population?
10 A I don't.believe I would.
11 Q Is it your opinion that FEMA had no basis or
)
4 12- insufficient data to support its conclusions in the report 13 that certain exercise objectives were met or partially net?-
14 A The only thing I based my decision on was the 15 information contained in the contentions, and only then i
t 16 because I was told that I could assume that those were 17 accurate and factual.
18 Q So do you agree or disagree with the statement J l 19 ! that FEMA did not have a basis or sufficient data to support 4
20 ; its conclusion that some of the objectives were met or 21 l partially met?
I 22 l A Again, based on the contentions that I have read, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347.)?( 0 Nationwide Cos etage 80h33MM6
, , , . ~ . - - - , - - , - . - -,- ,,.. - ---- - ,- , ----.,-+ ,.,.v.,, , ,, ,..---- n c - n c . . , , , - - - - - . - - - , , , . .
29487.0 KSW 90 1 I would in the preliminary-review of this say that FEMA did 2 not have sufficient data to draw the conclusions that they 3 drew in some of the issues, and I can't be more specific 4 because again, I'm trying to go from memory and I just don't 5 have that recall.
6 Q Now, as I understand it from things you have said 4 7 earlier, you will be providing testimony on Contention 22-F; 8 is that correct?
9 A I'm not certain that it will be limited to 22-F.
10 I was told initially that 22-F, only subsection F, would be 11 the area that I should direct some attention to.
12 Q So at this time, it is your understanding that of 13 the subparts of Contention 22, only 22-F is what you ought to 14 be directing your attention to in preparing to testify?
15 A I have been told nothing to the contrary at this i
16 , particular time on section 22.
- l 17 f Q All right, is it your opinion that the exercise 18 ) players should not have assumed that members of the public i
l i
19 ! would follow the protective action recommendations made by 20 i LERO?
MR. MILLER: From the best of your memory, 21 l
? I l 22 l Mr. Zook, you can try to answer all these questions.
l ($) l i l i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~y_ c~,--- ,, _ - . .- . - . . . .
29487.O KSW -91 h
C 1 THE WITNESS: Would you restate the question, 2 please?
3 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
4' Q Is it your opinion that the players at the FEMA 5 exercise should not have assumed that members of the public 6 would follow the protective action recommendations made by 7 the LERO organization?
8 A If I were making that assessment I would assume 9 that the general public would not wait until such time as 10 they were given directions on what to do from FEMA or any 11 other organization when their lives and personal safety is 12 affected by it. I think they would move based on their own 13 decisions in the protection of themselves and their families, 14 and so I just, based on that, don't believe that the general 15 public is going to sit and wait for FEMA to tell them what to 16 y do insofar as an evacuation is concerned or leaving the area l
! 17 or whatever.
18 Q Is it your understanding that FEMA would be 19 telling them when to leave?
20 l A No, my understanding is that LILCO would be the 21 ' ones who would make the initial notification, would be k
22 f required to give the information to the press or to the O i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I mcmm ~_ m c- ~~
29487.0 l
, ~s KSW 92 1 radios for announcements and this sort of thing; and as a 2 matter of fact, I don't even recall what FEMA said about Q
3 that, but I do recall having read that it was presumed that 4 these people would sit by and wait until they were given 5 instructions on what to do and how to do it.
6 Q What's the basis for your opinion that the public 7 would not sit by and wait to receive instructions?
8 A I have been a police officer for some 37 years 9 prior to the time that I retired last year. I have worked 10 ,
numbers of actual emergency situations involving traffic
/')
s_/
11 control, floods, tornadoes, air crashes and so forth in the 12 areas that we're involved in; and the people are frightened.
13 And there's nothing more unpredictable than a l You can't predict their behavior.
14 ; person who is frightened.
i 15 ( You can't assume that they are going to -- that a person I
16 ;j that's frightened is going to sit there and wait for somebody l
17 l to tell them what to do when they feel that their lives and I
18 ,
the lives of their family may be placed in jeopardy. And I d
19 . go back to, I guess, 37 years' experience as a police officer ,
20 1 .and actually involving actual emergency situations. It just 21 don't happen, or in my experience I have never seen it 73 22 '
happen.
(
s_-
) !
L i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m-,, _m- s,_
r 29487.0 g- KSW 93
. U);
1 Q Are you familiar with any of the literature that's 2 been developed concerning how the public responds to 3 disasters, be they natural or otherwise?
4 A Not that I recall.
5 Q Have you yourself conducted any research or 6 written any reports that deal with the question of how the 7 public reacts to disasters?
8 A No, I haven't.
9 Q Have you studied the response of the public to the 10 nuclear accident at Chernobyl?
11 A I have not.
(//
w ')
12 Q Is it your opinion that the public response to the 13 nuclear accident at Chernobyl demonstrates that voluntary 14 evacuation would occur in the event of an accident at 15 Shoreham?
I' 16 A I would presume there would be a voluntary 17 evacuation regardless of what other protective measures may be implemented. People who are frightened are not going to 18 l i
19 ! stay there in the area, and I'm not limiting that to this i
20 f particular issue that we're talking about. Any time that a i 21 ! person or the public is involved in a disaster or in an
! I 3 22 incident where they feel their life or their safety of i
G l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C-347-3?(C Nationwide Coserage NO346M6
w 29487.0 -
g- KSW 94 V
1 themselves and their family is involved, they are going to do 2 those things that they feel is the appropriate thing to do.
3 It may be wrong, but the public for the most part, I don't 4 believe, would sit back once they have been notified that a 5 nuclear accident has occurred and sit and wait for somebody 6 to tell them what to do. I think voluntary evacuation on an 7 individual basis is what would happen.
8 Q In your opinion, is there any way in which an 9 organization such as LERO could limit a voluntary evacuation?
10 A I wouldn't be able to respond to that without OM $2.
' }
v' 11 first having available all of the training materials aadr E v n t.v h Tro.) g 12 cv;1ritions and so forth that is available to make that i
13 conclusion. I can't answer that.
14 Q So you think there would possibly be ways in which 15 LERO could limit a voluntary evacuation?
16 MR. MILLER: He just said he couldn't answer that 17 , question.
f 18 8 MS. MONAGHAN: Different question, Mr. Miller.
19 If you can answer the question I posed for you 20 ! now, Mr. Zook, please do so.
- 21 ,
THE WITNESS: Would you please restate it for me?
I 22 l MS. MONAGHAN: Would you read the question back?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447-37(A) NdliOin% idC CO\ CfdgC NIO-31466M
7 j -
I 29487.O KSW 95 q
U 1 (The reporter read the record as requested.)
4 2 THE WITNESS: I don't think based on the 3 information I have now, incomplete information, I don't think 4 that LILCO could prevent voluntary evacuation to some 5 degree. Totally. I just don't think it can be done.
6 p BY MS. MONAGHAN:
7 Q Do you think there's a way in which, although they a could not prevent it from occurring, they could limit its 9 scope?
10 A Based on the location of that facility, p 11 geographically, and with the limited knowledge that I have C/
12 geographically -- I have never been there -- I don't feel 13 that it would be possible for anybody to eliminate voluntary 14 I evacuation.
l 15 ! Q I think you have already stated that, Mr. Zook, 1
16 that you don't think it can be eliminated. My question is t
17 l whether it can be limited in scope in some way.
'!i 18 ) A I wouldn't think so based on the information that 19 I have at this time.
- 1 20 $ Q What is your knowledge about the geographical 21 location of the Shoreham plant?
22 ,
A All I have seen is a chart in one of the documents k
f i
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 3,m , ~ _ m- s,o _
r 29487.0.
KSW 96 1 that I read, which shows the 10-mile area and the 50-mile 2 area.
3 Q Have you had any discussions with anyone about the 4 geographic location of Shoreham and how that might impact t
5 planning for an emergency?
6 A I think I had a conversation with counsel 7 concerning some of the issues-that would be necessary in 8 order to evacuate that area. Am I permitted to discuss --
9 MR. MILLER: No, you are not.
10 MS. MONAGHAN: You are instructing the witness not 11 to answer what his understanding is of what limitations there 12 might be on evacuation?
13 MR. MILLER: No. He was asking if he is permitted 14 to discuss his conversations with me; and my answer is no, he 15 is not.
16 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
17 Q What is your understanding about the limitations 18 ! on evacuation of the Shoreham area?
i 19 A The major arteries, if I have understood it 20 i correctly -- and again I have no basis for verifying what I'm 21 saying, if I have understood this correctly -- the facility l
i 22 l is located approximately in the center of Long Island, that O i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cowrage $h 3%6646
29487.0
, 7, KSW 97 l l i
\ s) l 1 there are major arteries from there south or from there west, l 2 and I think, if I recall, there may be three, maybe four, 3 possible routes of evacuation. That would be -- I don't feel 4 as though you could limit or restrict people's voluntary 5 evacuation in those areas. T h e p'i o b l e m t h a t I w o u l d s e e i n 6 that particular area is going to be incoming emergency 7 i equipment. I don't know what the plan is.
8 Again, I can't really respond to it because I 9 don't know what the plan is. If you are going to convert 10 some of those freeways instead of two lanes east and two 11 lanes west in evacuation time -- if notice has been given I
12 that there will be four lanes west, it would further compound 13 the problem of voluntary evacuation.
14 I don't think you could, based on my experience I 15 don't think that you can limit voluntary evacuation, because l
16 l when a person is told that there's been a nuclear accident, 1 17 ;
my impression is that they are going to react to it and put 1
18 as much distance between them and that facility as they can 19 ,
put. Where they are going to go, I have no idea, i
20 . Q Would you identify -- first, is it your opinion l
21 1 that the exercise demonstrated that LILCO's training program 22 has been ineffective in instructing LERO personnel to
() )
?
i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202147 PtU Nationw ide Cowrage Nuk336(M 6
29487.0 KSW 98 1 implement and follow the LILCO plan and procedures?
2 A Based on the data contained in the contentions and 3 the performance that was measured by both FEMA and some of 4 the statements made by LILCO, I would agree at this point in 5
ftimethatthat'sacorrectassessment.
6 Q What statements made by LILCO are you referring 7 to?
8 A That when they needed 300 -- again, I'm trying to 9 go from memory, and I am having difficulty doing it, but if 10 they needed 300 bus drivers and four show up -- I think they 11 admitted or made a statement or I saw it someplace where a 12 statement was made that there was a sampling of the bus e
13 drivers there. Again, even though four or five or whatever 6
14 the amount was that showed, was their performance after they 15 showed sufficient; and I think there were statements made in 16 something that I read, it may not have been by LILCO, that 17 l one of the bus drivers didn't even know what route he was i
18 going to be on or didn't drive it or drove it in his personal 19 ! car or something to this effect.
I 20 ' So with those types of measurable performances, I 21 f think that very definitely they failed to demonstrate that i
22 l the health and public safety of those citizens could be O !
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(1) NJtionwide Coverage mk3%6646
29487.0
-s KSW 99 (vh 1 ,
assured and maintained.
2 Q Do you know what the procedures are that personnel 3
were to follow during the exercise? Have you reviewed them 4 at all?
5 A Some. Again, I go back to the contention where a 6 person was assigned as a traffic guide. They drove to a 7 particular intersection and stopped at that intersection 8 where they could observe it and this sort of thing, and at 9 some point in time some of them were possibly approached by 10 an evaluator and asked certain questions relative to what 11 they were required to do under certain circumstances. And
(~
V}'
12 j some of the information, as I recall, was partially correct, i
13 l: correct or partially correct, and some was not acceptable as 14 fulfilling their performance assignment.
15 i Q Would you expect in doing such an evaluation if 16 you were an evaluator that you would get perfect performance 17 from everybody that you evaluated?
3 18 , A I wouldn't expect we would get perfect performance 19 4 from everybody we evaluated, but I think in this particular 0
20 ) instance those persons who were evaluated, that the majority I
l of the evaluation, and again you are asking me to recall from 21 -
, 22 : memory, but I think the majority of the contentions that I (i) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i -- ~ _ . _ -- ,
29487.0 100 g-( KSW
(_J 1 read in conjunction with the post-exercice report of FEMA 2 indicated more deficiencies and more corrective actions 3 required than they did successful performance.
l 4 Q Do you know whether FEMA separately calls out 5 whether there's successful performance or do they just call 6 out whether there are deficiencies in ARCAS, A-R-C-A-S?
7 A In some of the material that I have read, there 8 are three, I believe, three classifications. There was a
- 9 response to the observations made, some which were J
10 acceptable, some which had been fully met, possibly, and some 11 that were deficient; and then the fourth category would be 12 those that corrective action would be required. So I think
'l 13 it gave a broad spectrum of the overall evaluation or 14 observations.
4 15 Q Do you know what events you are going to rely on j 16 for your opinion that the exercise demonstrated that LILCO's 17 training program has been ineffective in instructing its 18 personnel to follow and implement the LERO planning 19 procedures?
f 20 A I have no idea at this point in time the documents 21 l or materials that will be reviewed to make that conclusion.
22 l Q Do you know what factual incidents you may rely on w i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2fC4347 Nationwide C owraic NXk3%-6646
__- . ~ . . . . - . . _ _ ._.,.--...-._.m.-
-, _ -3700. - - _ _ . , _ - - - , - - - _ - - - . , _ - _ .-~ _ - , - - . m--..- - ~... .--
29487.0 101 f3 'KSW
(_)-
1 to support that opinion?
2 A Not at this time, no, ma'am.
3 MR. MILLER: Some are noted in the contentions, 4 but since the witness can't be shown the contentions I 5 suppose his memory is not sufficient to cite what those may 6 be. I fail to see the purpose of this memory test but it is 7 your time. Go right ahead. I think you have a wasted 8 record. What Mr. Zook can remember and what he can't 9 remember is just not that important. He is here to talk 10 about the contentions. I would think you would use this 11 opportunity to ask specifically about the contentions.
12 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
13 Q Mr. Zook, at this time you don't recall specific 14 facts on which you will rely for your opinion that LILCO --
15 the LERO training program did not effectively train personnel 16 to implement their planning procedures; is that correct?
! 17 A No, ma'am, at this time I do not.
18 Q Is it yor.r opinion that the LERO training program 19 0 is not successfullf or effectively training personnel to 20 communicate necessary and sufficient data and information?
i 21 ! A Based on my review of the contentions, I would 22 i make a preliminary assessment that they were unable to do
< O.
t !
I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
MC 347-37(U N.ltiof1 wide Coverage Rn 3M 6646
29487.0 t
KSW 102 1 that or did not do this at the exercise.
2 Q Can you identify any facts on which you are going 3 to rely for that opinion?
4 A Those facts that are contained in the contention 5 dealing with this issue, the fact that WALK radio was not 6 utilized, the fact that the emergency alert siren was not 7 tested or was not used in the exercise. I believe there was 8 about five, six, seven or eight other radio stations that- _
[
9 were to be utilized that were'not utilized. So using that as 10 a basis for my assessment of that, those would be part of the 11 documents and part of the reasons that I would identify.
12 Q And at this time, without the benefit of reviewing 13 the contentions themselves, those are all of the facts that 14 you can recall that you will rely on for your opinion that 15 the training program has been ineffective in training 16 personnel to communicate necessary and sufficient data and 17 information?
18 A At this particular time, yes.
19 Q Is it your opinion that the training program is 20 not efft.ctively training personnel to exercise independent 21 judgment in dealing with situations presented during an i
22 I emergency?
(2) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3740 N.itionwide Courage M33MM6
29487.0 ,
- -g KSW 103
,) .
1 A Again, based on what I have found in the
, 2 contentions, I would agree with that.
3 Q What facts are you going to rely on for that 4 opinion?.
- 5 A Again, the facts as identified in the contentions.
f.
6 0 . Ih3 you have any independent recollection or
, 7 knowledge of facts on which you are going to rely?
y 8 A Not at this time.
l 9 Q So absent reviewing the contention, you cannot 10 recall any facts that you are going to rely on for that i
- 11 opinion?
i i 12 A That's correct.
! 13 Q What documents did you review in order to form 14 that opinion?
15 A The contentions that have been provided me dated i
16 August 1.
17 Q Is it your opinion that the training program is 4
18 l not effectively training LERO personnel to provide timely, l
l 19 accurate, consistent and nonconflicting information to the 20 public through the media during an emergency?
5 1 21 A Yes, and for the same reasons that I identified j 22 previously, based on the contentions that I have read.
4 f
t
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTEPsS, INC.
312J47 37(v) Nationwide Coserage 443M 6M6
_ . , _ . - - . _ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . . ., _ _ _ ._-.__. ..._,,._, ,._-,__-....._,..,,,.._.,, .,. -_,_,_. .,_m , ,. ._ -., _ . . . _ _ . _ _ , . . . - . _ . . _ , . . _ . _ _ .
29487.0 104 (v.s) KSW 1 Q Do you know what facts you are going to rely on to 2 support that opinion?
3 A Not at this time, no. Again, I make that 4 assessment based on what I read in the contentions only.
1 5 Q Is it your opinion that LILCO has failed to 6 provide training to persons and organizations relied on to 7 implement the plan?
8 A I'm unable to make a determination on that at this 9 , time because I have not seen -- I have never seen anything l
10 relating to the training that's been provided to personnel, r~s 11 so I couldn't make an assessment until I have had sufficient 12 time to review it.
13 Q Do you know whether training has been provided?
14 A My understanding is that training has been 15 provided for approximately a three-year period.
16 f Q Do you know whether LILCO has provided training to 17 the off-site organization -- the non-LILCO personnel that it 18 , is going to rely on to implement the planning procedures?
t 19 A I have no information relative to that. I don't 20 know, i
21 4 Q Is it your opinion that the LERO training program i
22 is deficient in the area of dosimetry training?
O L. -
l P
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. :
- n ., s ,_ me.me ,o mm.
29487.0 3 KSW 105 1 A- Only by, again, using as a basis for this judgment 2 the contentions that certain persons who were charged with 3 the responsibility of monitoring the rate of exposure were 4 not or did not review the instruments they had available to 5 determine the level or class of radiation. I believe it was.
6 required that they be reviewed every 15 minutes. I recall 7 information from somewhere that this was not done, that e decontamination points had been established, and that some of 9 the persons who were involved in rating of exposure were not 10 familiar with where the decontamination points were; and 11 again, I'm trying to go from memory, but that's the general 12 concept of my making that preliminary assessment.
i l 13 0 Is it your opinion that LERO training was 14 deficient in the area of exposure control, and do you ,
15 differentiate that from dosimetry?
16 A I have not been provided specific information 17 relative to the dose control --
l 18 Q Exposure control.
4 i
- 19 A Exposure control. Other than -- somewhere I 20 recall having seen or heard that the methods of measuring the 21 exposure was not sufficient to determine if exposure had in i
i 22 I fact reached its maximum level, and a person who has reached
- (2) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. -n., ~ _ m <m_ ,, _
29487.0
% KSW 106
\
[O 1 that level would report, I presume, as I recall, to a 2g supervisor that they had reached that particular level. The 3 supervisor then would be the only person that would have the 1
4 authority to relieve that person and send them to a 5 decontamination area or to authorize them to stay in an area 6 in which they had already received a lower dosage.
7 Q I don't recall. You may have already stated, but 8 is it your opinion that the training program was deficient in 9 the area of exposure control?
A Based on what I have seen, and what I have read, I 10 l T 11 don't believe that at this point that I possess sufficient
., )
12 knowledge to make an or to give an opinion on that.
13 Q Is it your opinion that the training program was l
14 deficient in the area of potassium iodide?
15 l A I would say that applies with the same -- it would
. l 16 be in the same category as the previous question.
17 Q As the exposure control question?
f 18 A Yes.
- 4 3
19 j Q Okay, is it your opinion that the exercise i
20 $ demonstrated that the training program was deficient in the 21 area of providing an understanding of radiation terminology?
22
)4 A I don't recall even seeing that in any of the U l I
a
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- w w.m s.--ac c nm m-
29487.0 m~ KSW 107 I
\ >\
1 materials that I have studied or read. I have no opinion on 2 that.
3 Q Do you know whether you will be asked to render an 4 opinion on that?
5 A I don't know. Possibly I may. Again, as I said, 6 I have not been given specifically the areas that I would be 1
7 asked to contribute -- or at least I have been told those 8 five areas that I previously mentioned, 15, 16, 20, 21 and 9 50, but I guess I can presume that certain portions of that I 10 will be providing support documentation, but not necessarily
) 11 the entire -- say, like in 50, I'm not sure -- I have never (Q
12 been told whether I will be asked to support or sponsor every 13 subsection in 50. That's not been discussed.
14 Q Have you read all of the subparts of Contention 15 50?
16 A No.
I Of the subparts that you have read -- have you 17 [ Q 18 i read some of the subparts of 50?
19 A Very briefly. Very briefly.
20 t Q When you read those subparts, did you have any reaction as to whether you would be able to provide opinion 21 .d 22 !! testimony on those subparts?
($) 1 a
1; s
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 2tCA 47-3'm Nation ude Co erage vtk34 fM6
29487.0 KSW 108 1 .A Possibly in some of them, but again, without 2 something to refresh my memory, I just can't respond to that.
l 3 Q Are you familiar at all with LILCO's proposals to 4 modify the training materials or the procedures to correct 5 -flaws revealed by the exercise?
6 A No, I'm not.
7 Q So you couldn't render an opinion at this time as
' 8 to whether those might or might not be effective in remeding 9 the flaws revealed by the agency?
3- ,
10 A I have seen no documents or anything relative to 11 that, to my knowledge.
12 MS. MONAGHAN: Let's take a five-minute break.
13 (Recess.)
14 MS. MONAGHAN: Let the record reflect that l.
15 Mr. Zook has been given a copy of the December 4, 1986 16 -
portion of the contentions by Mr. Miller. The copy he has 17 has highlighted portions in them, but they have been given 18 without any objection on the part of LILCO's counsel.
19 -
BY MS. MONAGHAN:
i 20 ! Q Mr. Zook, I would ask you first of all, is this i
21 i the version of the contentions that you have reviewed?
I 22 i A No, it is not.
l 4
(2) !
i
. i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-~ ~ _ c- -
.29487.0 KSW 109 1 MR. MILLER: I would explain to Mr. Zook the.
2 differences between this version of the contentions and the 3 August 1 version which he has reviewed, however, is basically 4- organizational changes.
5 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
6 Q Mr. Zook, I would ask you to look at Contentions 7 15 and 16, which I understand' you may be providing testimony 8 on. Those contentions have been consolidated in this 9 version. I would ask you to tell me whether you believe that 10 every single item listed in contentions 15 and 16 and those 11 parts which have been consolidated with 15 and 16 needed to 12 be tested in order for the FEMA exercise to have been a i
13 full-participation exercise?
14 A Each and every item?
- 15 Q Yes.
I
.; 16 I MR. MILLER: I take it you are asking Mr. Zook to 17 go through each subpart and say whether that should have been q,
18 ftestedforittobeafull-participationexercise?
t i
19 i BY MS. MONAGHAN:
20 f Q Is it your understanding that all items in 15 and i
21 3 16 would have had to be tested in order for it to be a full 22 participation exercise?
O <
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 2t12 347-17to N ationwide Cos era):e Nat3.W u e
t
'29487.0 KSW 110 3
1 A I would have to look to see what those items are.
2 Q Do you know what a full-participation exercise is?
3 _A A full-participation exercise, as I would define 4 it, would be an exercise of sufficient scope where 5 conclusions could be made as to its being properly conducted J 6 and whether the standards of public health and safety had 7 been maintained. That would be my --
8 Q Do you know whether there is any legal definition 9 associated with the term " full-participation exercise"?
10 A I'm not able to quote a legal definition.
j _
11 Q So your opinion on Contentions 15 and 16 would be 12 limited to your understanding of what full-participation 13 l exercise might be?
14 A That's correct.
4 4
15 (Discussion off the record.)
THE WITNESS:
16 I have seen the definition l
17 ' identified in the Code of Federal Regulations on a l -
(
i 18 full-participation exercise, but I cannot quote that.
l' Il i 19 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
l l 20 i Q Do you recall at all what the nature of that I
i said in it?
21 definition was or anything that wa.
i i
22 l A No.
O !
I i
i I l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I mc.no s _ ,m_. m.~.m
I 29487.0 KSW 111 f _.(
U 1 Q Is it your understanding that the definition in 2k the Code of Federal Regulations outlines the particular 3 objectives that are to be tested in an exercise?
4 A All I recall is that I was shown very briefly the 5 definition of a full-participation exercise, and at this 6 point in time I do not recall that definition nor how it l
70 might apply. I'm just trying to be honest. I just don't 8 recall.
9 Q We hope you are going to be honest. That's fine.
10 l If you don't recall, you don't recall.
h 11 A Right.
12 0 Mr. Zook, do you think that you will be employing 13 the NRC definition of what constitutes a full-participation 14 exercise in rendering your testimony on Contentions 15 and i
16?
15 i
16 i!
A If I'm asked to define a full-participation 17 exercise, I would use the definition in the Code of Federal lj 18 3 Regulations.
19 Q Would you rely on anything else in defining a l
full-participation exercise?
20 ]
i 21 J A only as it would relate or be contained in any l
22 other documents that I may at some time have access to.
]
o y I
/
l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
J 2H2 14 L 1'on Lu.'nwiJe ( oset ige m14tMA
29487.0 KSW 112 1 Q When you say "other documents," do you mean I
2 i something like the contentions, the post-exercise report --
i 3 A Yes, ma'am.
Q Would you rely on your own judgment of what 4) 5 constitutes a full-participation exercise? Earlier this 6 afternoon you indicated to me what you thought a
, l
. 7 full-participation exercise was.
8 A I wouldn't rely on that until I was certain what i
9 the legal definition of a full-participation exercise was, 10 and then I would make my assessments based on my i
11 understanding of that legal definition.
12 f Q At this time, do you have any understanding of I
13 ! what the legal definition of a full-participation exercise i
14 ! is?
l 15 !' A I do not at this particular moment have that 16 I recall.
17 Q And am I correct in saying that your testimony on fi 18 -
15 and 16 would be based on what your understanding would be 19 of the legal definition of a full-participation exercise?
20 A It would be a portion of the material that would 21 j be necessary for me to come to a conclusion.
I i
22 1 Q What else would be necessary for you to reach a C) i .
s s4
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l w,-,, ,_ .< - . . , _ .
29487.0 KSW 113 f3
{}
1 conclusion?
2 A Any other material that may be available that 3 would address the question as it may be presented. I don't
,4 know at this time, but I would not preclude anything else 5 being added.
6 Q What's your understanding of the issues being 7 presented in Contentions 15 and 16?
8 A That the sampling of this exercise was 9 insufficient to assure the safety and protection of the 10
people in the area, the general public. There was not sufficient data to make an assessment from, Q 11 b
12 Q When you say the sampling was insufficient and that there was insufficient data, can you define for me more 13 l 14 k fully what you mean by that in connection with Contentions 15 l
15 and 16?
l 16 ; A The only thing I could say on that would be what I
17 l is specifically contained in the contentions and the FEMA 10 post-exercise report, the data that may have been generated 19 j from either one of those twc or both documents.
20 Q Why was that insufficient? Why is that data 1
21 j insufficient?
22 A The information contained in the contentions has O i l !,
i
! ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 .w m n., s,~m . . , .. . .o um,
29487.0 KSW 114 O
1 indicated that_there was insufficient participation to make a 2 determination, or at least that's what I recall having read.
3 Q Do you agree with the contentions when they say 4~ there's insufficient data or information?
5 A Based on what I have read in the contentions and 6 the FEMA report, yes.
7 Q Why do you think it is insufficient?
8 A Again, we get to this sampling, of the issues that 9 I have identified before, that based on what was done, the 10 response of the people that were the role players, or 11 whatever their positions may be, and their larfm mance af ter 12 they reported, in my opinion, is insufficient to make a -- to 13 come to a conclusion that the public safety and public i
14 interest has been protected.
15 : Q In 15 and 16 are you relying on the performance of 16 ! people during the exercist to render your opinion?
17 .
A As a portion portion of it, yes.
I 18 l Q In 15 and 16, are you relying on the sample size l
19 of the field personnel that were evaluated in rendering your l
- 20 opinion?
l !
1 21 l A In part, and their performance after those who did I i participate came in and what their performance was. That's
- 22 l
!(:)
- u
- ?
- I
! i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i I mem s.,, _im ~, m m ,o,
29487.0 KSW 115 1 an additional area that I am concerned with.
2 Q Mr. Zook, let's look at the subparts of Contention 3 15. If you look at contention 15.5, beginning on page 3, is 4 it your opinion that the facts _ outlined in Contention 15-A is 5 a necessary part of a FEMA exercise to make it a 6 full-participation exercise?
7l A Yes, I think it should have been included.
8 Q What do you base that on?
9 A Because notification of the general public was 10 involved with the utilization of the siren or the lack of 11 utilization of the siren to alert the persons, the Emergency 12 Broadcast System, the lack of participation of WALK radio, 13 and these other radio stations that may have been involved.
14 Q Do you know whether they could have been tested at i 15 a separate time?
l 16 ; A I don't recall it being identified in either FEMA
- i l
or the FEMA report or the contentions, but I'm basing 17 l
! )
j 18 ; everything I have on, right at this moment, on the FEMA l [
19 post-exercisereportandthecontentionswhichhavebeen l
( 20 filed.
l r 21 Q If they were tested at a separate time, in your
! 22 >
opinion would that have been sufficient when looked at as a i
1 O ,
l c ;
! l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I x mn., s_,we r.n mg witw, p.
29487.0 KSW 116 73
(_) l 1 whole, the separate testing plus the FEMA exercise, to render l
2 j the FEMA exercise a full-participation exercise?
3 A I would have to see the scope of the testing, the i
4 type of testing and the results of testing before I could 5 make that conclusion.
6 g Q Is it possible that it could be sufficient to make 1
7 ,
it a full-participation exercise?
8I I A only if it fulfilled the requirements of the l
9l exercise.
i 10 f Q What are the requirements of the exercise?
I 11 A I'm not aware -- I have never seen FEMA's 12 I requirements or LILco's requirements, or wherever it is I
13 l located. The only documents that I have seen that I have I
14 l made my assessments from is the FEMA post-exercise report and 0
15 l these contentions.
16 Q liow do you know that the cample wasn't big enough 17 t if you don't know what the requirements of the exercise were?
18 A I'm assuming that the data and information 19 ) contained in the contentions are factual and correct.
20 Q Well, even if we assume that the data contained in 21 ,
the contentions is factual, all of the things that the I
i 22 contentions alleged were not exercised were in fact not O
i 4
a i
j f I 1
( ace-Fl!DERAl. REPOKn!RS, INC.
i x om., s .. _ u . . . . .. . , o mu,
29487.0 KSW 117 O
a 1 exercised, if you don't know the requirements of an exercise 2 how can you actually say what was done was insufficient.
3 A If there's a requirement for the notification of 4 the public and it was not accomplished, then I don't see how l
that could even be considered to be acceptable.
5f 6 Q Do you know whether there was a requirement for 7 notification of the public as part of the FEMA exercise?
8 A Based on the FEMA report and the contentions, it 9 indicates in this that it was a requirement, or at least that 10 the public be notified of the simulated emergency or 11 accident, whatever it may be.
12 Q What is your understanding of how that requirement i
13 ! would be met, the requirement of public notification?
14 l A As it states again in the contention, that 15 information would have to be given or communicated to the 3
16 i general public, giving them certain information as to what 17 ) had occurred and what protective measures that whoever makes k
18 j that decision would recommend to the general public.
l 1
{
19 Q Do you know whether FEMA would require that all of lJ
\
20 ]
the participating radio stationc participate?
i 21 A I don't know whether they would require that all 22 radio stations participate, but I think there should -- and I O ;
1
! Acti-FlioliRAL RITORTliRS, INC. ~ , , , ,n ~.w l :,,: w n., ~-w-,,,,
29487.0 KSW 118 1 don't know whether it was or was not, but I would think that i
2l all of the radio stations would -- should have been 3 contacted, and should have been placed on alert and indicated 4 the message given to them.
5 Q Why do you think that should have been the case,
. 6 that the radio stations should all have been contacted?
i 7 A In order to utilize the facilities that are f
8 available for public communication of an incident or an 9 accident.
10 Q Do you know whether those radio stations routinely i
11 test their Emergency Broadcast System capabilitles?
12 f A I don't know whether they do. I have an l
13 f understanding, and I have no basis for this, that the 14 ! Emergency Broadcast System is periodically required to be Ii 15 f tested on air. I have heard emergency broadcasting systems 16 l being activated and actually tested, and this is a common
- I j 17 [j occurrence, at least in our part of the country, where they i
la do this routinely and regularly.
19 i Q Are you familiar with a document called " FEMA 43"?
I t
20 A Not that I'm aware of.
! 21 ) Q Ate you aware of a document called " FEMA Rep 10"?
l 22 A That does not sound familiar to me.
- O :j ,
b i
Aa ,FEDl!RAl.
x w n.
RiiPORTI!RS, INC.
.. , _m - m . . , n,. .
29487.0
. 119 n" KSW i l
1 Q Do you know whether FEMA has a system for 2 evaluating the effectiveness of a prompt notification system?
3 A l'm not aware of it.
4 Q Would you turn to Contention 15-B on page 6? Is 5 it your understanding that the items outlined in Contention 6 15-B are necessary for an exercise to be a full-participation 7 exercise?
8 MR. MILLER: You are asking it only the items in 9 15-B are necessary for full-participation exercise?
10 MG. MONAGilAN: If the absence of those items from 11 an exercise would prevent it from being a full-participation 12 exercise.
13 l Tile WITNESS: Utilization of the Coast Guard for 14 l notification, yes, I would say that would be a vital part of I
15 that exercise. And its lack of participation would -- I L
16 would say that that would not make this a complete exercise, 4
17 4 without their participation and involvement.
i 10 BY MS. MON AGil AN :
19 Q What do you rely on for that opinion?
20 A I guess background and experience as a law 21 enforcement officer. In some of these particular areas, you 22 l have commercial shipping, you have pleasure craft that may be ;
i l ACE-1;EDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 1 x,..m., .. ., _ - , , , . _ l
I 29487.0 KSW 120 1 in this 10-mile area, and some way, somebody is charged with 2 the responsibility of identifying the nature of an incident 3 to these people who are totally unaware of it. I'm not sure 4 what th9 requirements are. In some states, the state police 5 ,
have some authority and jurisdiction in the waterways. If 6 they don't, then the Coast Guard does, as long as it is a 7 navigable waterway.
0 l Q Why would it be necessary for the Coast Guard to 9 participate in an exercise for it to be a full-participation 10 exercise?
11 A They have certain duties and responsibilities to 12 fulfill in the notification and possibly evacuation of people 13 who may be on the eastern end of the island, and without their participation I don't think it could be presumed that 14 l a
15 l those persons who were in the water area or those people who 16 may be contained on the eastern part of the island could be i
17 j properly evacuated.
\
18 Q Do you know whether the Coast Guard is charged 19 ) with any evacuation responsibilities under the LILCO plan?
20 i A I'm not sure whether it is contained in the LILCO l
21 l plan, but I have read someplace in these document 1 where the 22 I Coast Guard possibly has entered into and made a commitment O 1 l
i l 1
ace-FEDERAI. REPORTERS, INC. j i :m: n., s ., _ m . _ ,,,,n,,,. ,
I j 29487.0 g KSW 121 l
1 G
1 to support and assist in the evacuation, in the event of an l
l l 2! emergency, as a part of their duty and responsibility.
1 j 3 Q Do you know what the Coast Guard did the day of l
4 the Shoreham exercise?
5 A I do not.
6 Q Mr. Zook, would the answers that you gave in I
l 7l connection with contention 15-D be the same with respect to
! O contention 15-11?
l l 9 (Discussion off the record.)
I 10 4 MR. MILLER: Do you recall the question?
I 11 Tile WITNESS: I will read this first. Would you 12 l repeat the question, please?
13 14 S . MONAGilAN: Yes.
t l
14 (Discussion off the record.)
15 i MS. MONAGilAN: Back on the record.
16 l DY MS. MONAGilAN:
17 i Q During the break, I asked Mr. Zook to review l
10 4 contention 15-11 and 16-D. My question to you is would your ,
19 "
answer with respect to contention 15-11 and 16-0 be the same 20 as the answers you have given generally to contention 15-D? ,
21 MR. MILLER: I would ask that you clarify that.
22 There are a number of questions and answers on 15-8. I'm not O 4 i
1 Acit-l;i:.olil<A1. Riti>ol< 1 til<s, INC. I l *"m" '~~~"~ """" I o__
29487.0 KSW 122 1 sure which ones you are now referring to.
I 2( BY MS. MONAGHAN:
3 Q Do you need to have the question clarified?
4 l A Yes, ma'am, please.
5 Q Is it your opinion that the items outlined in 6 l Contention 15-11, subpart 15-H, are a necessary part of the 1
7 full-participation exercise?
O .
A May I discuss something with counsel?
9
[ MR. MILLER: You can always discuss something with 10 l j counsel.
1 11 (Discussion off the record.)
12 l Tile WITNESS: Dased on 15-11, I think my response k
to that would be -- may I ask a question for clarification?
13 l I
14 DY MS. MON AGil AN :
15 l Q Sure. You certainly may.
1 4
16 <
A Each of these subparts simply support what I have i
17 said concerning 15. Now, are we going -- do you want me to i
a la , respond individually to each of these subparts as to whether i 19 1 I agree or disagree with the contention? What the content of l
20 .i it --
i 21 1 Q Let me start some questions over, and maybe we can
?
22 ) clarify what seems to be some confusion on this.
i l t
- ace-[,<lilx!RAI. REi>oRTERs, INC. l;
, x..m.. m._.._._ ..,,,.,_ .
29487.0 KSW 123 1 A Fine.
2 Q What is your understanding of the issue that is 3 being presented by the , collective group of contentions and 4 :
subparts now known as 15 and 167 5 A Well, that the scope of the exercise was so Il 6g limited that it could not, and did not, yield valid I
7 meaningful results on implementation capability.
j O Q That's the beginning text of the proper log, if l
9 you will, to the subparts of the contention; is that right?
10 A That's correct.
11 Q Now, Mr. Zook, is it your opinion that each one of 12 the subparts, or the items described in the subparts, of contentions 15 and 16, and anything that's been subsumed in 13 l i
14 ']those, needed to be part of the exercise in order for it to 15 5 be a full-participation exercise?
16 j A I would say at this point, yes.
j 17 l 0 Could any of the subparts have been absent for any 1
la j of the items discuaned in the subparts been absent and the 19 exercise still be a full-participation exercise?
20 l A In my opinion, no.
I 21 Q Let me just ask you what you base that opinion on, 22 ) the two opinionn that you rendered; that it needs to be O i
}
3 3
l Acii-Fi:Dlil4Al Rii1>cmilil<s, INC.
i w e n., s -. m . .- ..,,...,-
29407.0 KSW 124 1
O 1 everything, and that you could not leave out anything and 2 still have a full-participation exercise. By "anything," I 3 ! mean the items described in 15 and 16 subparts and anything l
4 subsumed therein.
5 A If these are measurable parts of the exercise i :
6 itself, and these are factors t' Tat must De considered in 7 deternining whether or not it was a successful exercise, then 0l if these are elements that noud to be .neasured to make that i
9 determination, then the determination cannot be made unless l
1 I
10 these items are here and conpleted.
11 Q When you are using the term " full-participation 12 exercise" in the opinions that you have just given, how are
, i you using : hat term? Is it in the legal sense of the term 13 l i
14 l" full-participationexezeise"?
l' 15 A I have iden'.ified previously that I do not recall '
16 l the legal definition of f111-participation exercise.
17 Q Is it your und.'rstanding that all of the items I 10 1 discuoced in the subparts of Contention 15 and 16 would have 19 ! to be part of an exercise in order for it to come within the
}'
l 20 legal definition of a full-participation exercise?
21 i A That's my under: standing. j i 22 Q I ask you to turn now to contention 50.
O I l I !
Aci:-FloliRai . RimoRTliRs, INC. l
\ :m . , m., s.. , ,, ~ ,s . . ~ - .
29487.0 KSW 125 1 Mr. Zook, if you look at Contention 50-A, you notice that the 2 term " unanticipated and unrehearsed situation" is used in 3 that contention. Can you tell me what that term means, in 4 your opinion? It is in Part 50-A. It begins on page 90.
5 A Was your question would I --
6! Q What is your understanding of the term I
- 7) i
" unanticipated and unrehearned situation" as that term is ,
a used in Contention 50-A?
i 9 A It would be something that once the scenario was 10 j in place, that an incident or a circumstance would take place 11 that is not contained in the scenario, and that the players i 12 and the persons involved in the exercise itself had no 13 knowledge that there was going to be something injected, and 14 l that they had not had previous knowledge of it and had time 1
15 l to prepare for it.
l 16 ! Q Do you understand the meaning of the term " free 5
17 d play message"?
1 r
i 10 A Somewhat. I understand it.
19 Q What is your understanding of what that term 20 means?
21 h A That free play would be the following of a
.I
, 22 ) scenario, but the individuals taking certain parts in the I
($) I
! r Aci!-FliDlil(Al. RIsl>olmil<s, INC.
,.,,m., ... _ m. m , , , ..,i,.,.
29487.0 KSW 126 1 scenario would have the latitude of making certain decisions 2 on their own, based on the information they have, that they 3 can iniict this and have no -- or that they would have the 4 right to inject their thoughts, instructions or participation 5l I into this without any objection.
6 Q I got a little confused in there as to who "they" 7 are. When you are referring to "they would have the right to 0 inject their thoughts," who are you referring to?
9 A The people that are -- the players. That the 4
10 Ji players would have the opportunity to add something to the 11 scenario that they would feel would be more appropriate, to 12 ! make decisions and implement those decisions in the 13 ! operation.
I 14 ! Q Do you know whether free play messages were used l
15 on the day of the February 13 exercise at Shoreham?
I 16 j A My understanding from reading these documents that 17 3 I have read, that there was probably one or two free play i
10 mousages injected.
19 Q Do you know who injected those messages?
20 A I think probably it was FEMA. I'm not sure.
I 21 ( Q What are the one or two free play messages to
}
22 ' which you refer?
O 3 a
i i
4 Aci -Finia<AI. Riacimu<s, INC. l l e m n., u_,e....<,- , , , i i,. ,,. . i
i 29487.0 KSW 127 U
1 A one, that there was a traffic impediment at an 4
4 2 intersection, involving a gravel truck and involving three 1
3 automobiles, I believe, which was blocking traffic. That's-1 J
4 the only one I can recall at this time.
l 5 i Q Now, your detinition of the term " unanticipated l 1
)
6 and unrehearsed situation" would include a free play message; i
7 is that right? !
O A That's my understanding.
l 9 Q Would it be limited to free play messages, or
] 10 k would it include other things?
l 11 A I don't think it would be limited to that. I i 12 can't respond to that, because other than tha fact that I would not think it would be limited to it, I don't know.
i 13 l 14 f Q Well, what events are you going to rely on for ;
1 i i i i 15 i, your opinion that you rendered earlier today that the i i
! 16 training program was ineffective in training people to deal -
i 4
17 with unanticipated and unrohearned situations? r 10 '
A The FEMA post-exercise report and the material i 1 l
) 19 ! i that's contained in the contention. (
} l 20 Q What specific factual situations do you consider 21 exampics of unanticipated and unrehearned situations? If you 22 wish to look at the contentions, you certainly may.
1 i
O 1 i
I i !
, i Acti-1;lii >iiRAI. Riti>oRTi Rs, INC.
Il
,e m r ., s ,_ . . m . . , m. ,m,, ;
29487.0 KSW 128 1 A I'm not sure I understand the direction we're i
2 going.
3 Q My question to you is, what events or factual 4 i situations constitute unanticipated and unrehearsed I
5l situations, as that is described in contention 50-A.
i 6 -
MR. MILLER: The Contention 50-A cross-references 0
7 ! a number of other contentions, t
0 MS. MONAOllAN: It he needs to look at the other 9I contentions to refresh his memory as to what facts he will 10 ,
rely on for his opinion that the training program did not f
11 train personnel to deal with unanticipated and unrehearned 12 ' situations, he certainly is free to do that.
13 l Tile WITNEGG The examples -- let me see if I am I
14 ! understanding this correctly. The fact that a vehicle was I
15 l dispatched, one vehicle was dispatched to the scene of the i
16 i impediment where four vnhicles were directly involved in it, i
17 and one vehicle would not -- one wrecker or whatever the i
10 3 vehicle was, would not be aufficient to clear four vehicles l
19 and restore traffic to its normal flow, is that what --
20 i ilY MS. MONA0llAN
}
J 21 i Q If that's an example of --
22 A Yes, that would be an example.
O i i
j I
$ l 1
1 Aci:.-l;ioliicsi Ri!!',ol<Tiil<s, INC. ;
.:,,+.,
- ..... ....+,, ..,,,,,,~.. t
1 29487.0 i KSW 129 1 Q Are there any other examples?
2 A Not that I can think of at this time.
3 Q Now, Mr. Zook --
4 MR. MILLER: That answer was given without looking 5 at the cross-referenced contentions. I want the record to be ,
t 6 clear on that.
7 MS. MONAGilAN: That's right.
t 0 ! DY MS. MON AGil AN :
l Mr. Zook, is it your understanding that it would 9l Q 10 I be necessary to cicar the entire roadway in order to 11 reestabilsh some trattic flow, using the gravel truck 12 ; impediment as an example? !
13 A For trattic to flow, those vehicles which would be ,
i 14 in the tratticway should be removed so that the normal flow 15 ! of traffic could be restored, even it by nothing more than l
16 , pulling them to the side of another street.
17 l Q Would it be ponsible to 1emove come but not all of i
10 j the vehicles and still rentore adequate trattic Clow?
i
}
19 } A In an emergency situation, I don't think no. !
]
20 j Q Why not?
21 A Ilocause you are going to have reduced flow of i
22 l tratric, and it you are reducing onn lano -- two lance of O l l
4 (
l Aci.-FlinitI<A1. Ritiole il!I<s, INC. n,. m i x..n., ,, _ , _ ,, , .
29487.0 KSW 130
{
I 1 traffic down to one, you are going to have a backlog of 2 traffic back behind it that's going to interfere with cross 3 traffic, and you not only have to have your feeder arteries 4 ,
4 L clear so that persons could be in an evacuation process, but 5 also your crossroads that come into your feeder, and anything 1
6 that's backed up and stopped on the freeway will affect other 7 cross traffic as well as traffic that may be involved in the i
8l evacuation process.
i 9 Q Do you know whether it was a major artery which f
10 was blocked by this gravel truck impediment?
't 11 A My understanding is that it was.
12 l Q Mr. Miller noted that you had not reviewed the 13 g cross-reference contentions in giving your response as to W
14 j what constitutes an unrehearned and unanticipated situation.
O 15 e Would a review of those enable you to provide me with other 16 factual examples of what might be involved?
- r 17 A Probably they would.
c
, 18 j M3. MON AGil AN : I would ask you at this time to r I !
] 19 ) take a quick look at the other contentions and see if that 20 i refreshes your memory at all. I have a copy of the August 1 l
21 a contentions here if that will make the cross-referencing I
22 : eauler for Mr. Zook.
($) 4 ,
1 !
t -
Acit-FlioliRAI m,. s ..
R1!.luRTiiRs, INC.
. om m ...m,m ,
1
29487.0 KSW 131 l
1 MR. MILLER: That's fine.
2 MS. MONAGHAN: I will tell you that the yellow 3 tabs only indicate the number of contentions, and there are 4 h no other marks in here. The tabs may help you find what you are looking for.
5l i 6 ! (Discussion off the record.)
7 ,f BY MS. MONAGHAN:
8 Q Mr. Zook, do you consider yourself to be an expert l
9j on how one deals with the news media during an emergency?
10 j A I don't consider myself to be an expert o'n ilealing i
11 and relating to the news media.
12 q Q Let's go back to the question that was preriotirly l
13 on the table. I have asked you to tell me what other factual 14 events or other events, situations you are going to rely on 15 as an example of unanticipated and unrehearsed situations in 16 % rendering an opinion you may be giving on 50-A. You were I
17 j reviewing the cross-references in order to provide me with 1
18 other situations.
i 19 < A At this point in time, I'm confused in what I'm 20 ) trying to find and trying to develop. The only thing I can 1
21 say at this point is that based on a further study and review i
22 of these documents, an in-depth study and review of thesc l
O. l l
i Acti-FEDliRAl. REPORTERS, INC.
- ,,: w n ., s , _ w . . . ., ...,,,.,,....
29487.0 KSW 132 1 documents, only then could I identify what I may or may not j 2 use.
3 Q Well, how are you able to give me an opinion, 4 then, that the LERO training program was ineffective in 5 training its people to deal with unanticipated and i 6 unrehearsed situations?
5 7 A I'm using as a basis for that statement what I 8 have read in the FEMA report and what I have read in the 9 contentions, i 10 Q But the only example of what you consider to be an 11 unanticipated and unrehearsed situation that you can give me l 12 now is the gravel truck?
l l~ 13 ,
A At this particular time, yes.
1 14 Q Would you be better able to give me other examples
} 15 if I gave you a copy of the FEMA post-exercise assessment to 1
16 look at?
17 A I possibly might. I'm not familiar with this 18 report and the FEMA report sufficiently to turn -- when a l
j 19 l question is asked, to turn and get an immediate response and i 20 give you an immediate response on it.
l 21 :
MR. MILLER: The problem I think is one of time, r
j 22 l and just with respect to Contention 50-A, there are a number i O I !
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
._ m . , s _m._ ,,o _
29487.0 KSW 133 1 of cross-reference contentions, many of them very long 2 contentions, and if you are asking Mr. Zook to read 3 page-by-page all the cross-referenced contentions, we can do 4 that, but it is your time and it will take some time.
5 BY MS. MONAGHAU:
a 6 Q At this time, Mr. Zook, your opinion -- the only 7 example that you can give me is the gravel truck example for 8 what constitutes an unanticipated and unrehearsed situation; 9 is that right?
10 A That's an example that I have given, yes, off the 11 top of my head.
12 Q Do you have any other examples?
13 A Not that I can recall.
14 Q Do you need to review the contentions to come up 15 with other examples?
16 A I would have to.
17 Q Then please do so.
i 18 i MR. MILLER: We may as well go off the record.
{
19 l There's about 50 pages of cross-referenced contentions.
20 MS. MONAGHAN: Do not go off the record.
21 MR. MILLER: Just start reading Contention 38.
22 ! THE WITNESS: May I have something to write on?
() !
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 wc.m ~.c -. a c.,n.- -a un
29487.0 3 KSW 134 1 MR. MILLER: Take your time. Here's some paper.
2 And take as long as it requires.
3 THE WITNESS: I'm giving an example of a
4 unanticipated and unrehearsed incidents.
5 MR. MILLER: Start reading.
6 I would note that it is approximately 1:00. The 7 time for this deposition is abour, up. I would suggest, 8 Ms. Monaghan, if you have further questions you be thinking 9 of them because we're not going to be here much longer.
10 MS. MONAGHAN: One of the purposes of discovery is 11 to discover the opinions and facts on which an expert will
, O-12 rely for his opinions, and since Mr. Zook is unable to 13 remember any other facts, other than the gravel truck,
- 14 without reference to the other contentions, and since you 15 previously urged me to permit him to look at the contentions, 16 I'm now complying with your request. By permitting him to i
17 look at the other contentions, to refresh his recollection as i
18 ;
to what facts he relies on for the opinions he intends to i
19 render in this proceeding --
20 [ MR. MILLER: My complaint is that we started this 21 deposition at approximately 9:00 this morning. It was e
22 approximately 12:15 when Mr. Zook was first shown the 1[]) !
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34?-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80tk336-eM6
. _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , - ._, ._ , - . _ , _ . - _.-,._.,m.. . . ,
29487.0 4 KSW 135 1 contentions. This day has been wasted. We're now at the end
- 2 of the deposition and you.ask him to read the contentions; 3 and we're talking pages and pages of-reading and we're about 4 out of time. I would have structured this deposition 5 differently; but now that we're out of time, we're not going 6 to rush this process. We'll give you what examples we have 7 given the limited amount of time that is left to do so.
8 MS. MONAGHAN: It becomes difficult to establish 9 the opinions of your witnesses and the facts on which they 10 will rely when they are only notified of the contentions on 11 which they may give opinions the day before their deposition 12 is to take place.
13 MR. MILLER: That's not quite accurate as to what 14 Mr. Zook testified to.
15 MS. MONAGHAN: He testified that it was only 16 yesterday when he was notified of the five contentions out of 17 the group of 10 on which he expects he may be rendering 18 l testimony. I believe that's an accurate representation of
, ! -s 19 what you said, Mr. Zook, is it not?
20 li THE WITNESS: I believe I stated that originally'I 21 ) had been given 10 areas that I should~ review and look into.
22 , Yesterday afternoon, I was told there would be five specific
~ C) i. >
u ACE-lfEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
? 2(C-347-370ti Nanonwide Coscrape Rn3%tM6
, . ~ - -. . . ,. .- - . - . - ,- . - - . . - - . . - , . - - - . . , - , _ , . - - - - -
29487.0 KSW 136 1 areas that I might be asked to testify in. I was also told 2 that those remaining five had been incorporated into other 3 contentions. That's why there are now only five.
4 MR. MILLER: I will represent for the record that 5 of the area Mr. Zook was originally asked to focus upon, to 6 my knowledge, he is still on those exact same areas. The 7 only difference is that the board reorganized the contentions 8 so there are fewer contentions for him to testify about. For 9 example, there's no longer a separate Contention 18, 10 contention 18 has been subsumed within Contentions 15 and 16, 11 1 I believe. Originally, Mr. Zook was asked to look at
. 12 contentions 15, 16 and 18. He will still offer testimony on 13 -Contention 18, but it has been subsumed within other 14 contentions.
15 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
16 ,
Q You previously stated your review of the 17 assessment was a preliminary review?
l 18 A That's correct.
19 i Q Is it true, you stated previously, you spent most 20 of your time reviewing the contentions themselves?
i 21 3 A As opposed to the rest of the materials.
22 i Q And that you spent approximately 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> O l t
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '
1 ,_ m c~m ,_ l
29487.0 KSW 137 1 reviewing the contentions; is that right?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q And that you spent about two to three hours 4 reviewing the post-exercise assessment; is that correct?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q And that you spent maybe an hour reviewing the 7 OPIPs; is that right?
8 A That's correct.
9 MR. MILLER: What's the point? I deposed, on 10 Tuesday of this week, Mr. Behr, a LILCO witness who told me
(~s 11 he had been told the day before he was first going to be in
. \ ,]
12 Contention 50 and had not even read it.
13 Don't play games with my witnesses about what they
- 14 have or have not done.
! 15 MS. MONAGHAN: If you recall, Mr. Behr was able to
- 16 answer your questions concerning the specifics about the l 17 training program itself, which is the gist of what 50 was 18 i about.
19 MR. MILLER: He was being offered as a witness on 20 l a contention he had never read.
21 ! BY MS. MONAGHAN:
' i s
22 j Q Could you please complete your review of the
- (1) :
i
! l i
, i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j [ 202- W-37m Niior wide Cmerage Muk33 M 646
1 29487.0
.KSW
- 138.
1 contentions, so you can answer my question about what facts 2 you rely on for the unanticipated and unrehearsed 3 situations?
4 MR. MILLER: I know the arguments are more 5 interesting than the reading, Mr. Zook, but you have to 6 read.
7 This process is not going to work. I hope you 8 under?tand that. We're in Contention 38-B. That's the first 9 contention cross-referenced in Contention 50-A or whatever it 10 is we're talking about. We don't have enough time to 11 complete the process you are now asking this witness to do 12 after having sat here all morning without showing him the 13 contentions.
14 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
l i 15 Q Mr. Zook, let me ask you another question. In 16 rendering your opinion that the training program was 17 ineffective in training LERO to deal with unanticipated and e 18_l unrehearsed situations, could you give that opinion just l 19 based on what happened with the gravel truck, or would you j 20 need other events to support that opinion?
. i 21 A I would use that incident involving the gravel
(
i I 22 truck as one incident. Whether I will be able to find what f
!O l
! ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. > x. m x-m c- s_
. .. , ~ .
i 29487.0
- KSW 139 t
if 1 we're looking for in this thing, I don't know.
2 Q About you -- you couldn't just rely on what 3 happened with the gravel truck to say that the training 4 program as a whole was ineffective in training --
5 ; A That incident would be one incident. I would not 6 preclude the utilization of more, but --
7 s Q My question to you is, would that one incident be 8 a sufficient basis on which to base your opinion?
I would say that one incident -- I say that's a 9
fl A 10 critical incident, and I say yes, anything else would be to 11 support that.
12 Q If you would continue your review, please.
t 0
13 n (Discussion off the record. )
14 THE WITNESS: What we're looking for actually in 15 this, then, is another incident of an unrehearsed and 16 unanticipated incident?
17 [ BY MS. MONAGHAN:
k 18 ;! Q Any other incidents that you believe comes within
- i 19 ) the definition of unanticipated and unrehearsed situations as 20 you described that to me, and as that is used in Contention 1
4 21 50-A.
)
1 g 22 ; (Discussion of f the record. )
U >
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
< mmn., s __, . m.o -
29487.0
, KSW 140 t 8 V
THE WITNESS: You are concerned with everything 1l a
2 j that I may use, or want to use, as contained in this 3 document; is that correct?
4 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
5f Q I want any other examples of what you believe are 6k events that would be unanticipated and unrehearsed II 7 situations. I would assume that it may not be an exhaustive 4
8 list.
!i 9 ; A Another example -- I can give you another example 10 l then of what would be a consideration. The fact that the 11 relationship with the press and the notification of the
('~')
U 12 issues that have been identified here in the FEMA report, as 3
13 jl best I recall, and some of the contentions here indicate that a
if this was unanticipated, dealing with the real press.
14 l b
15 Q And they didn't know they would be dealing with 16 ; the real press, is tMat your understanding?
17 l8 A No, that the relations they had with the press did 18 I not fulfill the requirements of what the press should have --
. 1 19 should not fulfill the requirements of proper notification by
- 20. LILC3 to theJnedia.
21 1 Q I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that, i
n 22 #
Mr. Zook. Can you explain a little further?
i I
j i a
0 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j
. -~ - m c_ ._ ,
29487.0g
,s KSW 141
( \
U l
1 MR. MILLER: Let me make sure I understand. The 2 question is another example of --
3 MS. MONAGHAN: I think the question has been on 4 the table for a while.
5 MR. MILLER: I want a clarification --
6 MS. MONAGHAN: I'm asking --
7 MR. MILLER: Stop interrupting me. I'm asking if 8 it goes to unanticipated and unrehearsed or both?
9 MS. MONAGHAN: It has, and consistently has gone 10 to both.
11 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
(~/}
\_ ;
12 I Q Did you understand that it was both unanticipated d
13 f and unrehearsed situations?
l 14 A That was my understanding.
l 15 Q Then we're on a consistent basis of 1
16 ! understanding.
4 1
17 j A Again, all I can say is the reference made to 18 h)LILCO's reaction and response to the press with providing 19 them with whatever information they were required to have. I 20 ' haven't found it in here at this point in time, but it seems 21 4 to me I recall, it appears as though there was some confusion 22 i relative to the media representation, which would have been l (3) \
l\
! 5 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mc. m s.,, _ ae c<,,mue ,,o-
29487.0
-KS9 142 1 unrehearsed and probably unanticipated.
2 Q When you say you have not found it in here, have 3 you completed your review of some of the subparts of 4 Contention 38?
5 A Some of them, yes.
6 Q Have you completed your review of subpart 38-A?
7 A Yes.
8 Q So you don't think that that would be one of the 9 things you would consider an unanticipated and unrehearsed 10 situation?
11 A That's what I indicated.
12 Q This is what you are referring to?
13 A Yes.
14 Q What about 38-B?
15 A Well, it still relates to the press and the media.
16 Q How about about 38-C?
17 A As long as it still relates to the media 18 association, this is in broad scope what I was referring to, 19 l with the relations between the agency and the press as being l
2 20 ! what I have understood here to be less than acceptable.
4 i !
21 l Q What about 38-D?
l 4
22 ? MR. MILLER: Let me make sure I understand. Are
- ([) l
! 9
- i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
x.m.m , _ m <- --
t ,
. . _ _ _ _ . _-. . _ _-. - . - _ _ _ m. .
29487.0 I 143
)~KSW 1 you testifying that these matters in 38 are further examples 2 to support 50-A or are not?
3 THE WITNESS: They are.
1 4 MR. MILLER: Thank you.
i 5 THE WITNESS: What was the next one?
J j 6 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
4 7 Q 38-D.
8 A I'm not sure whether insufficient copying 9 capabilities would be unrehearsed and unanticipated. It 10 would appear at that point in time they knew what the 11 capabilities would have been on reproduction of materials and 12 so forth. That was not something that was unanticipated.
13 Q How about 38-E?
14 A Possibly.
15 MR. MILLER: Are you saying E is possibly a 16 further example?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes. A further example.
18 How many more shall we go?
19 ! BY MS. MONAGHAN:
i
}
- 20 i' Q Let's look at Contention 50-B, as in " boy," which 21 is back on page 90 of this other document here. Now, you i
22 i said that it was your opinion that the exercise demonstrated i'
() !
i i
i i l
- I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,
I num,, ~_ c-, -
~ .. . . - . . . = - . - _ _ . _ . - . . _ ...-- -
29487.0
- KSW 144 1 that LILCO's training program has been ineffective in
, 2 instructing LILCO personnel to follow and implement the 3 plans; is that correct?
4 A That's correct.
- _ 5 Q Can you tell me what facts you are basing that on?
6 A The facts that are contained again -- the data 7 that's contained in the contention itself.
8 Q When you say "the contention itself," are you 9 referring to Contention 50-B?
10 A Yes.
]
1 11 Q Can you recall any of the specific events on which l.
12 you are going to rely?
i 13 A None of the specific events. We would have to go l
l 14 through it.
i 15 Q It 5.ould require you, at this time, to tell me in 1
16 order -- to tell me to go through each contention
]
17 cross-referencni in 50-B, to let me know whether or not 4
h 18 f that's one of the things on which you will rely?
I 19 j A Let me see if this will help. At this point, I I k l 20 i would rule out nothing that would be used, or could be used, f ;
j 21 ftofurtherthedevelopmentofthecontention. I may or may i ;
4 22 i not use any or all of these, but I don't want -- I don't feel (2) !
i
. I i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '
- c:mm, ,_ m c~. _
29487.0 KSW 145 1 comfortable in attempting to identify something that I will 2 or will not use at this time.
3 Q Mr. Zook, how can you render the opinion that the 4 training program has been ineffective in instructing LERO 5 personnel to follow the planned procedures unless you can 6 give examples where that was true?
7 A The examples where I made this conclusion were 8 contained -- examples were contained in the FEMA report and 9 with the instructions from cornsel that I could be assured 10 that the contents of the contentions were factual and l
11 accurate.
12 Q Well, do you have any examples? I'm not sure I '
13 know what you mean by the fact that the exercise demonstrated 14 that LILCO's training program was ineffective in training its 15 personnel to follow the planned procedures.
16 A I can go through these specific subsections, and 17 ! those that have been incorporated into it, and attempt to l l f 18 l identify it.
l I 19 I Q Have you previously, in preparing for your
- 20 i deposition or otherwise, reviewed the contentions that are ,
i
! 21 c cross-referenced in contention 50-B?
l 22 - A Not to the extent that I have the recall as to i (2) :
! i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! 202 30 Um %tionwide Coverage N n 34%:6
c 29487.0 KSW 146 1 what they are.
2 Q Did you go through the exercise of looking at 50-B 3 and then going back through the cross-referenced contentions 4 to determine on your own whether or not you thought they 5 supported the statement in Contention 50-B?
6 A Yes, I did, but I don't recall at this point the 7 specifics in 33, 35, 39, 41, 42, 45, 49, and the three lines 8- of FEMA conclusions. I just do not have that instant recall.
9 Q Do you recall whether, at the time you reviewed 10 those cross-referenced contentions, whether you thought all 11 of the parts or some subparts of those contentions supported 12 the allegations in Contention 50-B?
13 A Those that I reviewed and studied, in my opinion, 14 would support the fact that the training had been ineffective 15 in that particular instance.
16 Q Ineffective in training personnel to implement the 17 ; planned procedures; is that correct?
I 18 A That's correct.
19 l Q So in doing that, one of the things that's 1
20 ! cross-referenced here is Contention 38-D, which we looked at l
21 just a few moments ago, in which it described insufficient t
22 l copying capabilities. Is that one of the things on which you (2) i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202- 47 3'to Nationa kte Ca eraye MK3WeM6
29487.0 KSW 147 V
1 rely for the fact that the program was ineffective for your 2 opinion that the program was ineffective in instructing 3 personnel to implement the plans and procedures?
4 MR. MILLER: The cross-reference is to 38, not 5 38-D.
6 Il BY MS. MONAGHAN:
78 Q Did you review all of 38?
8l A That's correct.
}
9 ! Q Do you recall whether or not you were going to 10 h rely on 38-D for your opinion on 50-B7
, 11 A As a supporting element, only because if there's 12 insufficient -- the way I viewed this, if there's 13 ll insufficient reproduction capabilities or copying W
14 capabilities, that this was something that would have been l
I 15 ! identified long before this operation was ever -- or before i
16 this scenario was ever placed in operation.
17 Q How does the fact that there were insufficient p!
i 18 fcopyingcapabilitiesdemonstratethattheprogramwas
- l 19 insufficient in training the personnel in implementing the 20 plan and procedures?
21 !, A The manner in which the copies would be reproduced 22 ll would be submitted to the players, to the press, the media or j
4 I
i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i - . , , _m. <- ._ i
29487.0 KSW 148 1 whatever it may be. If it was necessary to have reproduction 2 capabilities, if it were necessary to do that, and the 3l capabilities were not there or those that were there were 4 insufficient, then it would have a direct relationship on the 5 effectiveness of the ability to provide information to the 6 people that needed to be provided to.
7 Q How does the insufficient copying capability show 8l that the training program, which is what we're talking about, 9 whether the training program was effective, and does it show a
10 whether the training program was effective in training the 11 personnel to implement the plans and procedures?
12 A If the reproduction machine and the materials 13 reproduced were to provide information and instructions to 14 ! the general public, the media, to employees, actors, i
15 whatever, then it would have a direct relationship to it.
f i
16 l Q To what?
17 f A To their training ability.
N Q Would you look at Contention 50-C? I believe 18 l 19 earlier you stated it was your opinion that the LERO training b
20 ' program has not successfully trained personnel to communicate 21 ( necessary and sufficient data and information. Is that a l\
22
] correct statement?
O i ,
i l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
1 ze: - , s_ - ~ i
29487.0 KSW 149 7\
b 1 A That's correct.
2 Q So that is your opinion?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Now, can you identify for me the facts on which I
5 ! you rely for that opinion?
h 6 A Again, I rely upon the data and information 7 contained in the FEMA post-exercise report and the facts f
8 contained in this contention, in that I have been advised 9 l that the information contained here is, in fact, accurate and 10 factual.
I 11 I Q Well the facts contained in this contention are 12 merely a series of cross-references in contentions in the 13 FEMA report. Did you review those other contentions when you 4
14 l reviewed Contention 50-C?
15 A I reviewed those until I was satisfied that, in 16 , fact, what they were saying -- what the contention said was 17 f in fact true, but to go back and again extract from 34, 36, 10 ,
38, 39, 41, 42, 45, and in again 2-1/2 lines of FEMA 19 conclusions, I reviewed those until I was sufficiently 20 satisfied that the statement was, in fact, supportable. To 21 h go back through these and give you a specific instance, I
, 7s 22 1 could do this; but it is going to take time.
( 9 1
h.l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, ww~ ~_m wca . . n ,-
29487.0 3 KSW 150 i
1 Q Do you recall at the present time any specific 2 instance on which you rely for your opinion that the training 3 program has been ineffective in training personnel to 4 communicate sufficient data and information?
'S A Probably the information that's been contained in 6 communication again from the LILCO group to the employees and 7 to the personnel on what their duties and responsibilities 8 are or should be, and the performance of them, their 9 performance. Based on this, it appears that they have failed 10 to communicate in this particular area, and again I go back 11 to the basic references, the FEMA post-exercise report, and 12 l the contentions that are identified here and the 13 ,
cross-references.
14 j Q Is there anything that you can -- any other event 15 i oc fact that you can think of now, in addition to what you 16 - have already told me, that supports your opinion on 50-C?
i A No, but I would not exclude the probability of 17 {i 18 ) going through and identifying others, or identifying the 19 specifics that we're trying to identify at this time.
l 20 ] Q Is it your opinion that the exercise demonstrated 21 ) that LILCO's training program wt.s not successfully or i
22 i effectively training LERO personnel to follow directions O ;
I
! i n t
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I
\ :o: w no s _ u-a ~ - , I
29487.0 KSW 151 V
1 given by superiors in an emergency?
2 A Yes.
3 Q What do you base that opinion on?
4 A The fact that, and again, this is just one l
5 i example, that when a person -- I believe one of the traffic 6 control point workers, questioned whether he would follow the 7 instructions of supervisory personnel if given specific 8 instructions to do something -- if a question arises about 9 whether they will or whether they won't follow the 10 instructions, I think then that a problem is present.
11 Q In rendering your opinion on Contention 15-D, is U(~N 12 the example that you have given me sufficient in and of 13 itself as a basis for that opinion?
I 14 ! A I would say that with other supporting information 15 and documentation would qualify and we would have to go l
16 through.
17 b Q So you would not be able to rely just on that 3
18 l specific incident but would need others to support your J
l 19 ] opinion; is that correct?
1 20 0 A That's correct.
21 Q At this time, are there any other incidents that 22 you can recall that you are relying on for the opinion that b
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
, wcm s_m-m, s1 ~m I
29487.0
, KSW 152
[_s\
'x.)
1 you have given?
2 A Not without going into each of these subsections.
3 Q When you reviewed Contention 50-D, did you review 4 the cross-referenced subsectione in that contention?
5 A I reviewed those until I was satisfied that the 6 contention could be supported ty me.
7 Q Would you look at Ccntention 50-E? Previously you 8 stated it was your opinion that the training program had not l
9 effectively trained personnel to exercise in judgment, or l
i 10 fgoodjudgmentorcommonsense, in dealing with situations in 11 an emergency. Is that a correct recap of the opinion you 12 previously gave?
13 A That is.
14 Q What events or facts do you rely on for giving 15 that opinion?
16 l A The fact that, and again, there were instructions 1
17 ! given to certain workers that were incomplete or inaccurate s
i 18 in that a person would be told to r eport to a particular 1
19 j place, and I use this as an example, a bus driver was to 20 ) report at a certain location with a bus, and he was to run i
the bus route and was to go to another designated place.
21 l J 22 } If I recall it correctly, the bus driver reported,
($) l 1
0 i i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i m ir n., s,-,m m m,mx o is -
29487.0 KSW 153 1 got in his personal car and drove a portion of the route, and 2 either came back -- I don't know what his disposition was, 3 where he went from that point, but he didn't follow the 4 instructions that were given him, and I think that would be a ,
5 matter of judgment, his exercising independent judgment on 6 whether he could or could not implement his part of the plan.
7 Q Are there any other factual situations that you 8 recall at this time that you would be relying on for your 9 opinion in 50-E?
10 A Not that I can rely on at this time.
11 Q At the time that you reviewed 50-E -- did you 12 review the contentions cross-referenced in 50-E?
13 A I reviewed the contentions cross-referenced in 14 50-E to the extent that I was satisfied that I could support f 15 that contention.
16 l Q Is it your opinion, and this is what is the 17 allegation of Contention 50-F, that the training program does not effectively train personnel to develop timely, accurate, l 18 l 1 l l 19 ! consistent and nonconflicting information to the public l
I
! 20 ! through the media during an emergency? >
l l 21 ! A Yes.
I i
! 22 ! Q What do you base that opinion on, what facts or O i i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3,s m. ~ _ m m- m_
29487.0 KSW 154 1 events? i 2 A Those facts that would be contained in the FEMA 3 post-exercise report, and the data that's contained in the 4 contentions along with the cross-references, i
5 Q Can you recall at this time any specific facts l 6 without reviewing the cross-referenced contentions and the 7 FEMA report? j 8 A Not at this time.
9 Q Did you review the cross-referenced contentions at .
10 the time that you reviewed Contention 50-F? i 11 A Repeat that, please.
12 Q Did you review the contentions that are I
13 cross-referenced in Contention 50-F?
L 14 A Yes.
15 Q Were you satisfied when you reviewed those 16 I cross-referenced contentions that the facts or events '
17 described in those contentions supported Contention 50-F? <
18 l A Yes. I had also been previously told that they i
19 l were factual and accurate.
i 20 Q At any time, did you check the facts alleged in l
[ [
the contentions against the FEMA report or any other !
21 )
22 document? -
C:) - !
I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,
__-..-_.__.__~_,,--__--.-,-mu
- ew m s_ ac c
.. n n
__ - -,,-_.-----_~
i 29487.0
) KSW 155
! 1 A Randomly. ,
1
! 2 Q When you made that check - what document did you i !
i 3 use to make that check of the contentions?
l l 4 A What contention did I use?
5 Q What document did you use to check whether the 7
6 facts alleged in the contentions were correct?
i l 7 MR. MILLER: The question was, were they correct .
8 as alleged in the FEMA report, so I assume the document was i 9 the FEMA report.
10 MS. MONAGHAN: I think I said "other documents."
11 THE WITNESS: Other documents? I used basically ;
I 12 two. There's only two documents that I used: the FEMA '
l
{ 13 post-exercise report and this document. And the 4 .
14 contentions.
! 15 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
l 16 Q You were satisfied when you cross-referenced the l
17 segments that you did that the contentions accurately l! I reflected the FEMA report; is that correct?
j 18 I 19 , A I had been informed that the contentions were --
\ ,
4 j 20 i that I could presume that they were accurate and factual.
21 ; Q Mr. Zook, you previously stated that you agreed l
- i
(
! 22 f with the conclusion that is given in contention 50-0, that i
() .
i l
? l l
i 1 !
f t
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
. mm,, s_ m., _ mo _
. - . - ~ . , , , , . _ _ -
29487.0 3 KSW 156 1 LILCO failed to train persons and organizations relied on for 2 implementation of the plan; is that correct?
3 A Yes.
l 4 Q What facts or events do you base your opinion on?
5 A Again, the contentions, the post-exerc.8.se report 6 from FEMA and the cross-references contained or identified in 7 i this document.
8 Q Do you know whether school bus drivers have 9 received training in dosimetry or the use of potassium iodide 10 or excessive exposure control?
11 A As best I recall, it was identified that some had 12 not had any training or had limited training, and were unable 13 ! to identify the places to go for decontamination.
14 l Q Do you think that's one of the things that you i
15 will rely on for your testimony in Contention 50-G, which is 16 the one we just reviewed?
f 17 j MR. MILLER: Is what one of the things he will be f
IP '
relying upon?
19 MS. MONAGHAN: Whether or not all school bus 20 drivers have received training. Is that one of the things 21 you will be relying on?
22 ; MR. MILLER: That's the substance of Contention (2) !
s i
,i l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
- o ,c. m., , _ _ _ .. _ l
29487.0 KSW 157
(, l v
1 27.
2 I'm tired of playing this game of yours. It is 3 now 1:30. If you want Mr. Zook to look at the 4 cross-referenced contentions, he will do so, but let's not 5 have little games with the witnesses. It is a waste of 6 everyone's time; and I care about my time, and I care about 7 Mr. Zook's time. We're already a half an hour beyond what I thought this testimony was going to go in terms of the length 8l 9 of this deposition. My patience is wearing thin.
10 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
11 Q Mr. Zook, do you recall the question on the table?
12 A Would you restate it, please?
13 f Q Yes. Will you be relying in your testimony on I
14 Contention 50-G, on the events that we just talked about i
I 15 concerning school bus drivers?
16 l A If that's a portion of that contention, I would 17 # not rule it out or exclude it from being a part of it.
18 ! Q If you would look quickly at Contention 50-H, 19 ! which deals with whether the program was effective in 1
20 '
training personnel in the area of dosimetry and exposure 21 control, I believe you previously stated that it was not.
22 can you recall at this time any facts on which you rely for i
i
[ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
S :- n , s _ m .,, m o u. ~.
- e_ - .
l'
, 29487.0 KSW 158 l
1 that opinion?
2 A Again, it would be the facts contained in the FEMA
, 3 post-exercise report and the contentions. I believe an 4 4 example of that might be that there is a requirement that the i
1 5 persons monitor or using their equipment monitor and look at i
- 6 an instrument every 15 minutes to determine the amount of 1
1 i 7 exposure they may or may not have had. It appears that in 8 instances this was not done. There were other incidents 9 similar to that which led me to draw this conclusion.
l
. 10 Q At this time, do you recall what those other I
'11 incidents were?
} 12 A No, I don't.
1 13 Q Now, when you reviewed Contention 50 -- do you i
j 14 recall when it was that you reviewed contention 50 and the i
l 15 contentions cross-referenced in that contention?
16 A In 50?
I l 17 Q Yes.
18 A In its entirety?
. t 1
! 19 < Q Yes. Well, if it was different for different l l l !
} 20 l subparts, please indicate. >
l 21 l A Probably three weeks, two weeks ago. ,
E l j 22 I Q When you reviewed contention 50, did you also >
($) ) l I
i i i
i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I
- o: m n., s .o. .,-.u n._ , s o= ,
I
- --~- ,--- - - --- --,--, .,--
29487.0 KSW 159 1 examine the portions of the post-exercise assessment 2 cross-referenced in the subparts of contention 50?
3 A In some instances, yes.
4 Q Do you recall when you did that review?
5 A Approximately within that same period of time.
6 MS. MONAGHAN: I have no further questions.
7 (Discussion off the record.)
8 MR. MILLER: I have no questions.
9 MS. MONAGHAN: This deposition is adjourned.
10 MR. MILLER: My only comment is that this 11 deposition is completed. This witness has been produced. He 12 has been here far beyond the time that was estimated for his 13 deposition. It is not adjourned. It is completed. This 14 deposition will be seen next by Ms. Monaghan at trial.
15 MS. MONAGHAN: I have a further comment which you 16 can either stay for or not. That is that the deposition for 17 my purposes has been adjourned; that it is now 1:40; that I i
18 had earlier estimated I would be completed at approximately 19 1:00; that we have run 40 minutes over the t!~.ne that I 20 l originally estimated but not beyond that. The witness has 21 i indicated today that his review of the materials in order to 22 prepare for giving testimony is only preliminary at this
() <
i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, , - > ~ s_ m- __
3 i
9 29487.0 KSW 160 1 time. That he was unable because of the preliminary nature 2 of his review of the materials to answer a number of 3 questions that I posed today, and for that reason I have 4 asked that the deposition be adjourned.
5 MR. MILLER: You have the prerogative to make that 6 request. I'm simply stating that your request will be 7 opposed by us if it was ever carried to fruition, and I can 8 make exactly the same comment about the various LILCO 9 witnesses that the county has been deposing in the last few 10 weeks. None of them seem to know anything about anything.
Q 11 MS. MONAGHAN: I think I would differ with V
12 Mr. Miller's characterization of the knowledge of the LILCO 13 witnesses about what was asked. That's more appropriately 14~ discussed with counsel in pleadings. Off the record.
15 (Whereupon, at 1:42 p.m. , the deposition was 16 adjourned.)
1 xYeD2oY 19 20 yem oM gg$
.l 21 J0L
- est O
j
! D ;j, g* M commi,,,,es l j m
- i 1 l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, - ,a,m, ~ ~ . m- o-
- - - - - , , , , , . , _ - - - . ._.n- .n.-_-, _ _ , , , _ , _ . _ _ _ , , ,,
_ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . ~
i CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC & REPORTER 161 i
O I, KATHIE S. WELLER , the officer before whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that, the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken in shorthand and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under
{
~
my direction; that said deposition is a true record of the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this j
- I deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel-O employed by the parties hereto, nor financially -
or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action.
I
/ \
dAbj) JONktJ N6tary Public in and for the l District of Columbia l I
My Commissicn Expires 11/14/89 i l
O ;
I i
e
._,-,_._---__,.---w-. , _ , - , .- - . - - - , , - _ . - - - - -
i e . ? **EXH8str 0 _ /
{ __
e RESUME Harold Richard Zook 10015 Chicot Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Residence and Business (501) 562-0610 Obiective General Information Emolovment:
1943 - 1947 Agency - United States Navy Active Duty Position - E-5 Reason for Leaving - Honorable Discharge 1949 - 1971 Agency - Little Rock, Arkansas Police Department
(]) Position - Captain Reason for Leaving - Retired /22 years service 1971 - 1978 Agency - United States Government
- Veterans Administration ,
i Department of Medicine & Surgery, l Washington, D.C.
Position-Regional Security Officer / Chief, Police Training Center 1980 - 1981 Agency - State of Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards Position-Executive Director Reason for Leaving - The Commission on Law En-forcement Standards and the Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy were con-solidated. Director's position was offered on the condition of permanent change of residence to East Camden, Arkansas. Position was declined. Appointed Deputy Director for the Standards Division.
O 1981 - 1986 - Agency - State of Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training Position-Deputy Director, Standards Division Reason for Leaving - Retired
. m , ,
v -
v , .
1986 - Retired. Continuing to serve as a consultant.in l Frasient Law Enforcement Administration'and Management, '
remaining active as local, national and inter-
"l - national Criminal Justice Training Coordinat6r. ,
Professional Oreanizations: !
. Member: Arkansas Municipal Police Association
- Member: Arkansas Law Enforcement Officers' Association Member: ' International Association of Chiefs of Police Member: National Association of State Directors of Law Enforcement Training; Past President i
Member: Advisory Board - College of Liberal Arts
, University of Arkansas at Little Rock l
Member International Asscciation of Bomb Technicians and Investigators A Former Member: International Association of Hospital Security Regional Vice President Former Member: Association of Federal Investigators 4
Educa'tional - Professional Aaencies and Institutions Attended:
United States Department of State United States Department of Justice Um '
United States Department of Transportation Federal Bureau of Investigation United States Bureau of Prisons United States Army United States Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Agency United States Civil Service Commission s . University of Arkansas
- l (]) college of the Ozarks, Arkansas Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Washington,' D.C.
Institute of Municipal Police Administration International Association of Chiefs of Police Little Rock Police Academy s
Missouri National Aquadic School L__
f Education - Fore 11 Central High School Little Rock, Arkansas 1940 - 1942 Little Rock Junior College
- (Now the University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1947 - 1948 College of the Ozarks Clarksville, Arkansas 1980 - 1981 Phillips County Community College Helena, Arkansas 1982 - Spring Semester Arkansas State University Jonesboro, Arkansas .
1982 - Fall Semester
(}
University of Arkansas
- Little Rock, Arkansas 1984 - Present Criminal Justice Major i Other Sionificant Facts and Exoerience
- 1. Assisted in development and implementation of the Little Rock, Arkansas Police Training Division. Served 12 years I
with the Little Rock Police Department in training capacity, retiring as Captain and Commander of the Little Rock Police Department's Training Division.
- 2. For eight years served at Little Rock Police Department as a bomb technician and officer in charge of identifying, trans-
, porting and disposing of improvised explosive devices, com-mercial chemical and military explosives.
- 3. As Chief of The Veterans Administration Police Training Center, supervised approximately 500 Veterans Administration police officers in 17 states and Puerto Rico. Developed, implemented and relocated the Veterans Administration National Police Training Center from Washington, D.C. to North Little Rock, Arkansas. The Center provides law enforcement training to Veterans Administration police
- O officers and investigators from all facilities in the United i States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
i,
- ,.---,,.-ww w, + - . - . , - - - - , , ---,--_.~.,-w-,,vm ,,w..-- . ,,----.--..,,,,,.-,w,,,.-.-----ww_eww-..-.v. -r+w------<
6
. mo.
- 4. Served as Project Director for the United States Department of Justice and National Association of State Directors of Law Enforcement Training in the delivery of National Train-ing Programs in witness assistance training, executive development, child abuse and neglect and general victimology to police officers in all 50 states.
- 5. Currently serving the United States Department of State, Office of Counter Terrorism, as Coordinator and Instructor in VIP security, K-9 operations, SWAT operations and i
rendering safe improvised explosive devices. The training is provided to foreign law enforcement executives and j operational personnel.
- 6. Have been appointed by the United States Department of Transportation Safety Institute as an Associate Staff Member in providing counter terrorism training to foreign national
' law enforcement officers. Provide instruction in hostage situations, personal protection of heads of State and other
' dignitaries, improvised explosive devices in the areas of airports and ports and harbor security. Developed counter ambush, counter assassination procedures for Presidential and Prime Ministers protective units of foreign nations.
, 7. Assisting in coordination and development of exclusionary Q
rule training program sponsored by the Attorney General of i
the United States. Training will be provided to law erforcement officers of all 50 states.
- 8. Previously employed as Executive Director of the Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement Star.dards and Training. In 1982 was elected to the Executive Boards in 1985 was elected President of the National Association of State Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (NASDLET). NASDLET membership consists of the Executive Director or his designee from each of the 50 states. The 50 members of NASDLET have the statutory authority to regulate and control all employment, training and certification or licensing of every sworn State, county and municipal law enforcement officer in the United States.
- 9. Was a member of the United States Police Training delegation that traveled to The Peoples Republic of China in November 1986 for the purpose of participating in a technical exchange with Chinese police officers from the Ministry of Public Security. Was invited to return to China and present courses of instruction at three Ministry of Public Security Universities in Peking, Wuhan and Canton.
O
- - , - -. - . - . . . . --_ =L_ _-.--- -