ML20212Q043
| ML20212Q043 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2833 OL-5, NUDOCS 8703170180 | |
| Download: ML20212Q043 (180) | |
Text
OllG $ A_
Uh11EU STATES O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-5 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 (EP EXERCISE)
O~
LOCATION:
HAUPPAUGE, NY PAGES:
946-1125 DATE:
FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 1987
. of 0\\
ACE-FFDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O>
Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)34~-3 00 f CH60 G70313 F DF 05000322 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE f
1230 11 01 946
'*JW/sw 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 {G 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
X 5
In the Matter of:
6 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 7
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,:
(EP Exercise) 8 Unit 1) 9
X 10 Court of Claims, State of New York 11 State Office Building 12 Third Floor Courtroom 13 Veterans Memorial Highway 14 Hauppauge, New York 11788 15 Friday, March 13, 1987 16 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 17 reconvened, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 a.m.,
18 BEFORE:
19 JOHN H. FRYE, III, Chairman 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
21 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Bethesday, Maryland 20555 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1230 11 02 947 1
JW/sw 1
OSCAR H.
P1,RIS, Member 2
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 3
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
Bethesda, Maryland 20555 5
FREDERICK J. SHON, Member 6
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7
U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8
Bethesda, Maryland 20555 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 11 03 948
~*JW/sw 1
APPEARANCES:
1(J 2
On Behalf of Long Island Lighting Company:
3 LEE B.
2EUGIN, ESO.
4 KATHY E. B. McCLESKEY, ESO.
5 Hunton & Williams 6
707 East Main Street o
7 P. O. Box 1535 8
Richmond, Virginia 23212 9
On Behalf of Suffolk County:
10 MICHAEL S. MILLER, ESO.
11 P. MATTHEW SUTKO, ESO.
12 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart
(
13 South Lobby, 9th Floor 14 1800 M Street, N. W.
j 15 Washington, D. C. 20036-5891 i
16 On Behalf of the State of New York:
17 RICHARD J.
ZAHNLEUTER, ESO.
18 Special Counsel to the Governor 19 Executive Chamber 20 Room 229 21 State Capitol 22 Albany, New York 12224 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 11 04 949 1,r'"'JW/sw 1
On Behalf of FEMA:
C/
2 WILLIAM R. CUMMING, ESO.
3 Federal Emergency Management Agency 4
500 C Street, S. W.
5 Washington, D. C.
20472 6
On Behalf of the NRC:
7 ORESTE RUSS PIRFO, ESO.
8 U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
7735 Old Georgetown Road 10 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 11 12 7
\\_/
13 14 15 l
16 17 18 19 l
20 1
21 22 l'
23 24 b{x 25 l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 11 05 950 1 r"'JW/sw 1
CONTENTS L) 2 Direct Cross Redirect Voir Dire 3
EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN 951 4
JOHN A. WEISMANTLE 1071 1079 1088 5
WALTER F. WILM 1099 1103 (Recross) 6 (Resumed)...........
7 EXHIBITS 8
FOR IDENTIFICATION ADMITTED 9
Suffolk County Exercise 10 Exhibit Number 15...........
988 1006 i
11 Suffolk County Exercise 12 Exhibit Number 16...........
989 1006 13 Suffolk County Exercise 14 Exhibit Number 17...........
992 1006 15 RECESSES 16 A.M.
RECESS, 9 : 4 5 a. m...................... Pa g e 1002 l
17 NOON PECESS, 11:45 a.m.....................Page 1068 18 P.M.
- RECESS, 2:10 p.m......................Page 1099 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
_ ~ _
..n,,
1230 01 01 951 1
'JW/sw 1
PROCEEDINGS a
2 JUDGE FRYE:
Let's go on the record.
Good 3
morning. Do you want to pick up on page 20 with cross 4
examination of this panel?
5 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
Are we going to discuss 6
the motions to strike at some point?
7 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
And we will come back and I
8 l rule.
9 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I did my review of the 10 remainder of the testimony, and I still remain confident 11 that we are going to get through this today.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
Good.
I 13 CROSS EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 15 0
We are going to jump around a little bit to help l
16 expedite that, but I will keep people informed as to where I 17 am.
18 Mr. Weismantle, I would like to start with you, 19 actually, on page 29 of your testimony.
l 20 A
(Witness Weismantle)
Page 29?
21 0
29.
Let me ask you, Mr. Weismantle, there is a 22 statement that goes on for a full paragraph, and then 23 another sentence about the training program that has been 24 utilized by LILCO since the exercise.
Do you see that?
~
/ )'s I
25 A
You are talking about the statement that --
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1230 01 02 952 1,r*JW/sw 1
O First full paragraph on the page.
'.]
2 A
Say's these plan and procedure revisions.
Startu 3
with that?
4 0
Yes, sir.
And then it goes on to describe the 5
various training revisions since the exercise, is that 6
right?
c 7
A That is correct.
8 0
And you are the sole spo.nsor of this answer, are 9
you not, Mr. Weismantle?
10 A
Yes.
11 0
So, I assume you have some knowledge about the 12 various statements made in your testimony on page 297 7
(._)
13 A
Well, let me clarify something.
For this l
1 14 paragraph, I am the sole sponsor.
Mr. Lieberman picks up in l
15 I the -- at the bottom of the page for the same question.
i 16 With an answer to the same question.
l l
l 17 l 0
Okay.
Now, is it fair to say then that you have 18 knowledge about the statements made in this paragraph on 19 page 29?
20 A
Yes, I do.
21 O
And the same would be true of the following l
l 22 sentence, is that correct?
23 A
That I have knowledge of it?
l 24 0
Yes, sir.
/~
(._.)T l
25 A
Yes.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 1700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6616
1230 01 03 953 1 'JW/sw 1
O Now you have a statement at the end of the J
2 paragraph about the drill scenarios that have been used 3
since the exercise, do you see that statement?
4 A
Yes.
5 0
Are these the same drill scenarios you told me 6
yesterday you had not seen since the exercise?
7 A
What I said yesterday is I did not have knowledge 8
of the precise scenarios other than the one I played in in 9
December, of course, that we used in the training drill, 10 since the exercise.
11 That is right.
I didn't know the details of it.
I did, of course, know that impediments were going to be 12
(,
(J 13 part of the scenarios; I.didn't know exactly what type, and 14 the precise parameters of it.
15 0
And what was your knowledge based upon if you had 16 not seen the drill scenarios themselves?
17 A
I knew that there were training program revisions 18 that we committed to shortly after the exercise to FEMA and 19 that part of the revisions were to include impediments in 20 them.
l 21 In fact, I was involved in discussions within two 22 or three weeks of the exercise.
Conceptual discussions as 23 to what our approach would be to handle what we knew because 24 of FEMA's verbal comments the day after, and the day after l
[ ')
xs 25 that after the exercise, in the public meeting, they felt ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1230 01 04 954 l ~'JW/sw 1
were areas of improvement.
f91 2
O So, you were involved in deciding, at least in 3
part, the types of road impediments that would be used in 4
training drills following the exercise?
5 A
Not the types, but the fact impediments and major 6
impediments would be included, yes.
And in the decision to 7
add the traffic engineer, for instance, to the LERO 8
organization.
9 0
And I gather, Mr. Weismantle, if you will follow 10 along with me into the next sentence of this page, that you 11 rely in part at least on these training drill scenarios and 12 their inclusion of roadway impediments to s'upport your
()
13 statement that training since the exercise should eliminate 14 response delays observed during the exercise?
15 A
Yes.
16 MR. MILLER:
Now, at this point, Judge Frye, I 17 would like to again go back to Suffolk County Exercise 18 Exhibit No. 12, and I think that is the right number, from 19 yesterday, which is the June 6, 1986 drill report.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
IMPELL Corporation.
21 MR. MILLER:
The IMPELL Corporation, yes, sir.
22 We have additional copies if people did not bring them with 1
23 them.
24 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 25 0
And one other background question, Mr.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 I
1230 01 05 955 1, ^JW/sw 1
Weismantle.
I believe it was dednesday of this week when I,
~
2 pursuant to the Board's instructions, with respect to 3
possible exhibits.that may be used in this case, provided a 4
file to counsel and you and counsel reviewed that file, 5
isn't that correct?
6 A
I looked over Lee's shoulder very briefly while 7
he was leafing through some of the materials, but that 8
didn't constitute a review by me.
9 0
Did you see the June 6th drill report in that 10 file that I handed to Mr. Zeugin?
11 A
Not that I recall.
I saw a lot of internal LERO 12 messages for that portion of what he was leafing through.
I
(/
13 was looking ove.r his shoulder.
14 0
Have you reviewed this drill report since we left 15 the room yesterday?
16 A
Not since we left the room, no.
17 0
It is still your testimony that you never seen it 18 before?
19 A
I think what I said was it may have passed my 20 desk.
I may have physically seen it.
I didn't review or 21 read it before.
22 0
Is it still your testimony, Mr. Weismantle, that 23 based upon the performance of LERO in training drills since 24 the exercise, you believe that LERO can eliminate the
\\_/
25 response delays observed during the exercise by FEMA?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1230 01 06 956 I
";JW/sw 1
MR. ZEUGIN:
Objection, Judge Frye.
It seems to f'O 2
me we are wasting a lot of time going back over ground we 3
covered yesterday.
The witnesses yesterday, I think, 4
explained very clearly that they are unaware of the 5
specifics of results of drills that have taken place 6
subsequent to the exercise.
7 I think the language that Mr. Miller has seized 8
upon now on page 29, to attempt to go back and do that, in 9
the sentence he just misquoted simply says, and it is a very 10 general conclusion, that viewed in their entirety, these 11 plan and training provisions should eliminate.
12 Mr. Miller has now changed the focus of that
()
13 statement.to suggest a very specific conclusion.by l
14 Mr. Weismantle.
I don't that is what that sentence says at 15 all.
16 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I am willing to explore f
17 that with Mr. Weismantle.
But he has testimony here that l
l 18 discusses drill scenarios since the exercise.
He relies at 19 least in part, as I said, on those drill scenarios, l
20 according to his testimony, for his conclusions about how 21 LERO should be able to handle impediments in the future.
22 That is what I would like to explore with 23 Mr. Weismantle.
24 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I don't think Mr.
l 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 01 07 957 1<-7JW/sw 1
Weismantle has ever said anywhere that he relies on the U
2 drill reports as the basis for those statements.
3 MR. MILLER:
Well, I think it speaks for itself.
4 JUDGE FRYE:
He says here relying on the plan and 5
training revisions.
Isn't that included?
6 MR. ZEUGIN:
I think he is referring to the c
7 revisions in general.
I think that is what he just answered 8
when he described the conceptual changes he just talked 9
about.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, I think I am going to permit 11 the c:uestion, and we will go down this line a while and see 12 where we go.
(
13 MR. MILLER:
It will be brief, Judge Frye.
14 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 15 O
Mr. Weismantle, we are looking at what has been 16 marked as Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 12, which is 17 identified as the June 6, 1986 drill report for LERO, and 18 apparently was prepared by IMPELL Corporation.
19 Would you identify for me IMPELL Corporation?
20 A
(Witness Weismantle)
Well, they are a consulting 21 firm who have supplied people in the past, and I assume 22 continue to do so up to this day to help run our training 23 program, either as instructors, or drill controllers, and 24 that sort of thing.
25 0
Is it fair to say that IMPELL is a long ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
~=
__~__n
.x
_=,- __ _ _ _ _ _
1230 01 08 958 1
JW/sw 1
standing LILCO consultant?
2 A
Yes.
They have been involved since the beginning 3
of LERO, that is correct.
4 0
And would you agree with me Mr. Weismantle, that 5
it appears that IMPELL Corporation prepared this drill 6
report?
o 7
A Well, an individual from INPELL, I am sure 8
prepared it.
9 0
And, Mr. Weismantle, I direct your attention to 10 certain passages in this drill report, and then ask you your 11 opinion about whether you still believe the training drill 12 since the exercise has demonstrated LERO's ability to
)
13 respond to roadway impediments?
14 MR. 2EUGIN:
I don't think that is what 15 Mr. Weismantle has previously testified to.
I don't think 16 he has said anything about whether any subsequent 17 performance is acceptable or not.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
Let him answer.
If that is the 19 case, I am sure he will tell us.
20 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
My testimony talks about the 21 plan and training revisions should eliminate the response 22 delays.
Yesterday, I testified to the performance in 23 December of Mr. Wilm, myself, Mr. Lieberman, and others.
24 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 25 0
Let me back up, Mr. Weismantle.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 01 09 959 1
A That is the only point I touched upon actual IgggJW/sw 2
drills.
3 0
Is it your belief that'in training drills since 4
the exercise, LERO has demonstrated an ability to handle 5
simulated roadway impediments?
6 A
In the December drills, yes.
As I said yesterday c
7 repeatedly, I am not knowledgeable about the performance in 8
the other drills, with the other shifts.
9 I wasn't a participant.
I wasn't responsible for 10 running it.
11 0
Now, Mr. Weismantle, are you, therefore, telling 12 me that it may be that in traini,ng drills from the exercise GkJ 13
, up th' rough December LERO was not able to demonstrate the 14 ability to respond to roadway impediments?
[
15 A
As I repeatedly say, I am not knowledgeable of 16 l the --
f I
17 JUDGE FRYE:
He doesn't know.
l 18 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
I don't know.
19 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 20 0
Mr. Weismantle, would you look please at the 21 first page of this exhibit?
You see in the second paragraph 22 a statement that the scenario used in June was essentially 23 the same as was used during the FEMA-graded exercise on 24 February 13th?
O
\\/
25 A
I see the sentence that says that.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
1230 01 10 960 1
JW/sw 1
O Now, do you see, Mr. Weismantle, at the bottom of 2
the page, "arious bullets, and you see the statement that as 3
a result of the exercise on February 13th, the following 4
specific additional objectives and tests were added to the I
'5' drill scenario?
6 A
Yes, I see that statement.
7 0
Do you see the very first remark, two impediments 8
to evacuation were simulated to test the communications 9
within LERO and LERO's response to the impediments, namely 10 rerouting of traffic and public notification of the 11 impediment?
12 A
I see the statement, yes.
(
13 O
And at the bottom of the page, sir, doesn't it 14 state that the traffic engineer was tested in his new 15 position?
16 A
Yes.
17 0
Now, if you would go, Mr. Weismantle, to page 4 18 of this document, we have a statement in paragraph 21 about 19 the two road impediments.
20 It says that the handling of the first 21 impediment, the gravel truck, was generally done in a well 22 organized and expeditious manner.
The second road l
23 impediment, the fuel truck, was confused and response was l
24 delayed.
Do you see that statement?
25 A
That is correct; I see these two statements.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
f 202-347-3700 Na ionwide Coverage 800-336-6646
t 1230 01 11 961 1
JW/sw 1
0 And do you see a whole array of problems thet 2
were noted during the drill, Mr. Weismantle, relating to the 3
handling of the road impediments?
4 They start at the bottom of page 4 and go over to 5
page 5, 6
A Yeah, I see statements about them.
Not having 7
read this, not knowing if, in fact, they are supported by 8
the facts of the day of the exercise, I do not think I can 9
characterize them.
10 0
Let me just ask, Mr. Waismantle.
Do you have 11 some reason to doubt the accuracy of this drill report that 12 was prepared by LILCO's consultant, IMPELL Corporation?
/
1 J
13 MR. ZEUGIN:
Objection.
Mr. Weismantle has 14 testified numerous times now that he wasn't involved in the 15 whole process, so I don't see how he can even begin to draw 16 any kind of such conclusion.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
I agree.
I don't'see how he can 18 answer that question.
This has been admitted, hasn't it?
19 MR. MILLER:
It has not been admitted, Judge 20 Frye, because yesterday there were objections to it.
I am l
21 not seeking to admit this document.
1 I
22 MR. ZEUGIN:
I guess, Judge Frye, I said 23 yesterday, and I will say again today if it helps, LILCO 24 will present a panel on Contention 50 that will be able to
(~')
kJ 25 discuss this document and any other post-exercise drill
/\\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80(> U6 /M6 l
lj
.1230 01 12 962 h
.' l J /sw I
critique lhat Mr. Miller may want to talk about.
2 JUDGE FRYE:
My recollection was that this was 2,
I
3 admitted.
4 MR. MILLER:
I don't believe so, Judge Frye.
I 5
-don't believe it was admitted.
I Would move it into the I
6 record, now, Judge Frye, and we can come back to it in c.
7 Contention 50, and it will be an exhibit already in the i
E proceeding.
9, MR. CUMMING:
Judge Frye, FEMA would object to q
M'"
10 ts adctission for a very specific reason.
We think that 11 with respect to this exercise litigation as being
'12 precedential.'
We understand that all parties may wish to j;
l 13 introd ce @ost-exercise material, and we believe that the t i 14 Board should focus on that,-and to the extent possible, if 13 dt decides to generically allow the admission of l
16
/ post-exercise matarial for whatever purpose, an example l
37 might be that FEMA has produced a guidance memorandum which
'18 might be favorable to the intervenors or it might be 10' favorable to the applicant.
20 For example, that might be something that they 21 would,want to-introduce, depending on which party was 22 involved and the nature of the document.
It would be 23 helpful to us so that we would understand how exercise 24 litigation In Futuro would proceed, that we would understand l
j5 what the standards.of admission of post exercise materials i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
\\
i
.n.._.
1230 01 13 963 2
"JW/sw 1
are from this Board.
v 2
Now, it might be, and we would have no objection
.3 if the Board wants to introduce -- have this introduced at 4
this time, the IMPELL Report, but we think it might be 5
important for you to have some filing by the parties on that 6
point, so that you could, in fact, issue a Bench Ruling for c
7 the record so that everyone would understand the groundrules 8
in the future, because we think this is not -- although this 9 l is the first time a specific post exercise document has 10 sought to be entered, that in the future you will see a Il number of. post exercise documents and materials, and it 12 might be very useful to have in the record a focal point as
(
(,)
13 to y'our decision as to --
14 JUDGE FRYE:
I don't think this document is a good example to follow that course with, because there are i
15 i 16 j going to be witnesses coming along who can testify regarding 1
17 this document.
l 18 MR. CUMMING:
FEMA would assume that just a 19 general standard of relevancy would apply, but in the t
20 context of what was done tha day of the exercise, there is a 21 substantial question in FEMA counsel's mind as to what is 22 relevant as to what occurred the day of the exercise.
23 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, it must be recognized 24 though by the Board, and I am sure the Board does recognize, g
k
25
.that post-exercise matters are going to come here before ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cosernge 800-336-6M6
1230 01 14 964 o
1[~]JW/sw
.1 this Board.
The post-exercises fixes are all throughout the
\\_/
2 LILCO testimony.
They will be discussed in the County and 3
the State testimony.
4 It is going to have to be addressed.
I would 5
move this document into the record at this time.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
Why now rather than later?
Why does 7
it make a difference?
8 MR. MILLER:
Well, it is here, Judge Frye.
I 9
don't see why not put it in the record now, and we can just 10 refer back to it at the time when we get to it, whenever we 11 want*to discuss it.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
If it comes in later, you will be
+
O(_/
13 able to do it the other way.
14 MR. MILLER:
I guess it has been used --
15 JUDGE FRYE:
You have identified it, you have l
16 used it, and let's just hold it until the witnesses that 17 know about it come along, and then
'- you know, I don't see 18 how that prejudices you, assuming that it is admissible.
l 19 If it is admissible and is admitted, I don't see 20 how it is going to make much difference one way or the 21 other.
22 MR. MILLER:
Okay, we will leave it identified as 23 Suffolk Exercise Exhibit 12.
Will it be bound in the record l
l 24 though, Judge Frye, at this point?
l w/
25 JUDGE FRYE:
No.
Exhibits aren't generally.
y ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6686
..-...,.......-,,..,o..,
.,.m
_y
1230 01 15 965 1
JW/sw 1
They are in a separate file.
2 MR. MILLER:
Okay.
I would like to ask just one-3 last question, Judge Frye, on the document, and it's 4
relevant to testimony by Mr. Weismantle I think yesterday 5
and the day before.
6 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 7 0
Mr. Weismantle, would you look at page 5 of this 8
document, and the top of the page discusses the EBS message, 9
and it says that EBS message took almost 45 minutes to issue 10 after the event, the impediment occurred.
In addition, this 11 important piece of information was included with the entire 12 EBS message and might have been missed by the general 13 public.
A special EBS message should have be,en issued.
14 Do you see that statement, Mr. Weismantle?
15 A
(Witness Weismantle)
Yes, I do.
16 0
Is it still your testimony that during the 17 exercise holding up the issuance of an EBS message regarding 18 the roadway impediments for an hour was a proper act on 19 LILCO's behalf?
20 A
Absolutely.
21 MR. ZEUGIN:
Objection.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
Overruled.
23 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) l 24 0
Your answer was, " Absolutely?"
n'J 25 A
Yes.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
1230 02 01 966 1r'"JW/sw 1
0 Gentlemen, if you would go back to page 20 of
(_J 2
your testimony, there are a few questions.
This is Mr. Wilm 3
and Mr. Weismantle sponsoring this answer.
4 There is a statement, Mr. Wilm, at the last part 5
of that big paragraph about evacuation route coordinators 6
actions not being inconsistent with his procedures.
Do you 7
see that?
8 A
(Witness Wilm)
Yes, I do.
9 O
Isn't it true, Mr. Wilm, that during the exercise 10 the procedure that controlled the evacuation route 11 coordinators actions required among other things that the 12 evacuation route coordinator relay information regarding n
(_)
13 traffic flow, blockage to t'he road logistics coordinator, 14 and to the traffic control point co'ordinator, as well as 15 keep the traffic control coordinator apprised through 16 periodic status reports?
j 17 A
(Witnesses confer.)
This sentence, as it is 18 written has to do with the action of the evacuation route 19 coordinator in choosing to verify the impediments before he 20 passed that information on.
21 I believe he should have passed on the 22 information.
I think we said that before.
If that was more 23 timely, he would have done his job better.
24 0
But is it your testimony, Mr. Wilm, that the
, [)
l 25 evacuation route coordinator's actions were not i
i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i
l
1230 02 02 967 l -qJW/sw 1
inconsistent with LILCO - LERO procedures?
g
'RA 2
A One moment, please.
(Witnesses conferring.)
He 3
treated that impediment, both impediments, as I said 4
before, suspected impediments, as far as what he is to 5
communicate, he should have communicated even the suspected 6
impediments.
7 0
So, he did violate LERO procedures, didn't he?
8 A
I can't get into the man's mind.
I would say 9
that he could have done a better job communicating.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Wilm, in that sentence where you 11 state his actions were not inconsistent with his 12 procedures.
His is equivalent to "LERO's?"
()
13 WITNESS WILM:
.Yes, sir.
That woul'd be LERO's 14 procedures.
I 15 l JUDGE FRYE:
I see.
16 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 17 0
Let's move on, gentlemen.
At the bottom of the -
1B page there is a statement about -- I suppose it is fair to 19 say, Mr. Wilm, that you are criticizing FEMA in the way 20 FEMA introduced the free play messages at the exercise, is 21 that correct.
I 22 A
(Witness Wilm)
Yes, I am.
l l
23 0
Now, let me ask you, Mr. Wilm, isn't it true that l
24 in other FEMA-graded exercises, FEMA introduces road 25 impediments?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 02 03 968 1
- 1
/sw 1
A I don't have knowledge of what FEMA does in other 2
scenarios with other utilities.
I just knew what I was facd 3
with.
4 0
Do you have any knowledge, Mr. Weismantle?
j 5
A (Witness Weismantle)
I have general knowledge, 6
yes.
7 0
Would you agree with my statement?
8 A
They have introduced impediments into other 9
exercises.
10 0
Now, isn't it true, Mr. Weismantle, that at other 11 exercises where road impediments were introduced, FEMA 12 generally follows the same procedure at other sites as it 13 did on the day of the exercise at the Shoreham Plant?
14 A
I don't have direct knowledge of that, because I 15 believe that in our exercise, for instance, they separated 16 controller, evaluators, observers.
Separated the people who 17 were there, the controllers, evaluators, and observers, and 18.
I don't think they did that at other exercises, to the best 19 of my knowledge.
20 And second, we were faced in our exercise with 21 the mobilization of our entire field force as opposed to a 22 very small sample --
23 0
Excuse me, Mr. Weismantle.
My question though --
24 focus on my question, please.
25 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I believe that was in ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
_.C
1230 02 04 969 1
JW/sw 1
reply.
2 MR. MILLER:
No, it wasn't at all, Judge Frye.
3 JUDGE FRYE:
I have a problem with this.
What is 4
your basis of knowledge as to what FEMA does?
5 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
My basic of knowl. edge is in 6
reading past assessments of drills, and attending some 7
drills myself, and discussing it with people at LILCO who 8
are full time emergency preparedness experts who deal with 9
FEMA, attend drills, attend industry meetings, and so forth.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
And your question had to do with --
11 MR. MILLER:
My only question, Judge Frye, is 12 isn't it a fact that in other exercises graded by FEMA where O
s_/
13 road impediments are simulated, those impediments are 14 introduced into this scenario under the same procedures us'ed 15 at the Shoreham site on February 13, 19867 16 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
To my knowledge they are 17 introduced as free play messages by a controller.
But that, 18 in my mind, is not equivalent to the same circumstances.
19 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 20 0
Mr. Weismantle, don't focus on the person who 21 hands in the message.
Focus on where the message is handed 22 to.
Doesn't the message get introduced at the command 23 center at other sites during FEMA exercises?
24 A
I don't know that.
I do not know.
O s/
25 MR. CUMMING:
Judge Frye, the Board might want i
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 02 05 970 1, CJW/sw 1
to take judicial notice of a General Accounting Office
^
2 Report issued in August of 1984.
I believe it is styled, 3
Improving Emergency Preparedness Around a Fixed Nuclear 4
Power Station or Power Plant.
5 It describes the history of the interjection of 6
free play messages not as specific source on place in which 7
they are injected, but in fact, Region II was the first 8
region to use free play messages, and the Report discusses 9
that in detail and makes a recommendation that that be 10 adoped nationwide, and it might be of some utility to the 11 Board.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
If this is relevant, I assume your
(~b
_)
13 witnesses will be able td address the issue.
t 14 MR. CUMMING:
That is correct.
15 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 16 O
Let me just ask one last follow-up on this point, 17 Judge Frye.
Mr. Weismantle, assuming that FEMA generally 18 inputs road impediment messages, free play messages, at 19 command centers, is it your belief that FEMA should have 20 followed a different procedure at the Shoreham exercise and 21 input the messages with field personnel?
l 22 A
(Witness Weismantle)
It would have been a better 23 simulation.
l 24 JUDGE FRYE:
That, I take it, is a "yes?"
/~s()
25 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
Yes.
ACEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 l
1230 02 06 971 1
JW/sw 1
BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 2 0
And the basis, Mr. Weismantle, for your belief 3
that FEMA should have followed a different procedure for 4
LILCO than it does with other sites, what is that basis?
5 A
(Witness Weismantle)
Again, I don't know what 6
they do for other sites in that detail.
7 0
I asked you to make an assumption, and you made 8
that assumption.
Now, I am asking you why it is that you 9
feel FEMA should have followed different procedures for 10 Shoreham?
11 A
Under the hypothetical?
Because it would have 12' better simulated the real world.
(-
()
13 0
Now, on page 21 gentlemen, you have a discussion 14 about -- I suppose we will call it the real world, and how 15 if impediments would have been input at field locations, 16 that would have somehow improved LERO's responses.
Is that 17 a fair characterization?
Mr. Wilm?
18 A
(Witness Wilm)
Yeah, I would say so, yeah.
That 19 is what it is intended to show.
20 0
Now, Mr. Wilm, let's just take one of your 21 examples.
On page 21, you state that for the gravel truck 22 impediment among others, two route spotters would have 23 passed the scene of the accident.
Do you see that?
24 A
Yes, I do.
/~';
(._J 25 0
Now, isn't it true, Mr. Wilm, that if two route ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
972 1230 02 07 I -]JW/sw 1
spotters, let's take one route spotter, passes the scene of fU 2
the accident, that the flow of communications under the LERO 3
procedures would be from route spotter to radio back to a 4
communicator at the EOC, who would then have to pass that 5
information to the evacuation route coordinator at the EOC7 6
Is that correct?
o 7
A That is correct.
8 0
So, the evacuation route coordinator would have 9
been involved in that process, correct?
10 A
That is correct.
11 0
And the FEMA message was given to the evacuation 12 route coordinator, correct?
()
13 A
That is correct.
14 0
Now, if you take a traffic guide, Mr. Wilm, who 15 you also mention on page 21, the flow of communications for 16 a traffic guide passing the scene, would that be from 17 traffic guide via radio to staging area via telephone or 18 radio to EOC communicator up the chain to the traffic point 19 coordinator?
20 A
Not up the chain.
From the communicator over to 21 the evacuation -- to the -- what was the last part?
22 0
Traffic point coordinator.
23 A
Traffic control point coordinator, correct.
24 0
And if that traffic control point coordinator,
()
25 Mr. Wilm, needed additional information, isn't if fair to ACE-FrDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
,., _ s 3,.3 7., -.
...,.,,3 r..
-. -.r. r m.
m -
1230 02 08 973 1
JW/sw 1
say that that flow of communications gets reversed back from 2
traffic point control coordinator to EOC communicator, to 3
staging area, and then eventually to traffic guide?
Is that 4
a fair statement?
5 A
That is one way.
The second way is the traffic 6
control point coordinator could go over, and he could also 7
make radio contact directly.
8 Now, in your previous question about how the 9
traffic control point guide would call in, we also have 10 monitored that radio frequency in the EOC.
11 Now, that could have been picked up that way, and 12 we also could have the ability to communicate down to those c) 13 people.
14 0
Mr. Wilm, your procedures call for the flow of 15 information to be as I described though, isn't that correct?
16 l A
The normal way.
But we can go the other way, 17 too.
I just wanted to point out both ways.
18 JUDGE PARIS:
When you are using the term, "EOC 19 Communicator," do you mean evacuation support communicator?
20 WITNESS WILM:
Yes.
l 21 JUDGE PARIS:
Okay, thank you.
22 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 23 O
Now, Mr. Wilm, further down on page 21, you have l
24 a statement in the real world he, and I believe you are l
' (,)
25 referring to the Middle Island transfer point ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 l
1
,. ~ _
1230 02 09 974 1-]JW/sw 1
coordinator, would have come upon the accident, referring to
\\,J 2
the gravel truck, minutes after it had occurred, and could 3
have immediately used his radio to inform the EOC of the 4
accident, do you see that?
5 A
Yes, I do.
6 0
This entire discussion, Mr. Wilm, of field c
7 personnel, what they could have done and should have done 8
and might have done, it assumes certain facts, isn't that 9
fair to say?
10 A
It assumes that they were plugged into the 11 impediment, and that they saw something as they passed by 12 the scene.
(o,)
13 0
And it assumes that their radios would work,' and 14 it assumes they would have taken the routes that you assume 15 they would take, isn't that correct?
16 A
As far as assuming that the radio would work, if 17 the radio didn't work, they would go to a phone and make the 18 call that there was an impediment.
19 0
Isn't it true, Mr. Wilm, that the very example 20 you used, this Middle Island transfer point coordinator, on l
21 the day of the exercise, his radio failed, and he had to be 22 send a new radio?
23 A
(Witness Weismantle)
I think I can address j
24 it. He had to be sent a new radio.
It is not clear whether 25 his radio failed or not, because it is clear that he ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1230 03 01 975 1
continued to communicate back to the staging area, so we can 1
fW?sw 2
assume the radio was weakening, or in worst case, that he 3
just went to a phone, as Mr. Wilm indicated, and 4
communicated in that fashion.
5 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I will not explore this 6
any further.
I will just direct the Board's attention to 7
Attachment D-6 of the LILCO testimony, and I think the 8
attachment speaks for itself.
9 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 10 0
Now gentlemen, you also rely upon bus drivers to 11 pass along information that would have been seen in the real 12 world about accidents, is that right, Mr. Wilm?
/
(-)
13 A
(Witness Wilm)
That is correct.
14 0
Your bus drivers do not have radios in their 15 vehicles, do they?
16 A
That is correct.
17 0
Now, if you look please, sir, at the last 18 paragraph on Page 21.
There is a statement about the FEMA 19 evaluator, and the implication clear is that he was not 20 readily observable, do you see that?
21 A
Yes, I do.
22 O
And right above that, there is a statement about 23 the FEMA evaluator not having been where the free play 24 message indicatged he would be, do you see that statement?
25 A
Yes, I do.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 m
.,,..,..1
1230 03 02 976 2
JW?sw 1
O Isn't it correct, Mr. Wilm, that the free play 2
message said nothing more than the LERO responder to the 3
site of this impediment, meaning the gravel truck 4
impediment, should locate the FEMA evaluator, who will be 5
wearing a colored arm band?
Is that what the statement 6
says?
7 A
It said that, but he should have been where the 8
impedimant was.
9 0
Mr. Wilm, I am asking you what the statement, the 10 actual free play message said, and it said, locate the 11 evaluator, correct?
12 A
Correct.
()
13 0
One last question on this page, gentlemen.
The 14 very end of the last full paragraph, Mr. Wilm, it says if 15 FEMA controllers injected appropriate replies in this chain i
16 !
of LERO workers, each impediment would have been confirmed 17 at an earlier time.
18 I suppose I should ask Mr. Weismantle, since you 19 are familiar.
Are you aware of any other site where FEMA 20 does what is suggested here in this paragraph?
21 A
(Witness Weismantle)
I have no direct knowledge 22 one way or the other, but again we exercised the whole 23 organization.
24 0
Mr. Weismantle, excuse me.
My question is what o
25 you have to answer.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1230 03 03 977 1
JW?sw 1
JUDGE FRYE:
He answered it.
He said he didn't 2
know of any.
3 MR. MILLER:
I just don't want the speeches, 4
Judge Frye.
We have a lot to cover, and I am going to get 5
through it today.
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 i
22 23 24 O
2s l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6
1230 04 01 978 1r"JW/sw I
0 Do you understand, Mr. Weismantle, the definition V
2 of " deficiency" as used by FEMA?
3 A
(Witness Weismantle)
I believe they define it in 4
their assessment.
I haven't read it recently, but it's the 5
most serious level of criticism of the three levels they 6
use.
7 0
Do you have a copy of the FEMA report, 8
Mr. Weismantle?
9 A
I think we have one here.
Basically, the 10 indication is that corrective action should be taken soon.
11 O
On Page 9, Mr. Weismantle, of the FEMA report --
12 A
No.
We thought we had it but -- yeah.
Here it 13 is.
Okay.
14 0
I'm sorry.
Page 8 of the FEMA report states:
15
" Deficiencies are demonstrated and observed inadequacies 16 that would cause a finding that off-site emergency 17 preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable 18 assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken 19 to protect the health and safety of the public living in the 20 vicinity of a nuclear power facility in the event of a 21 radiological emergency."
22 Do you see that definition, sir?
23 A
That's in the middle of the paragraph?
24 0
Yes, sir.
25 A
Okay.
Yes, I think you quoted it accurately.
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6 4
1230 04 02 979 1
O And, FEMA found LERO's response to both 1.(gJW/sw 2
impediments during the exercise to constitute a deficiency; 3
is that correct?
4 A
Yes.
5 0
If you look, gentlemen, we are now moving onto 6
your Question 11.
You agree, Mr. Weismantle, that 7
Contention 41.A allegations regarding reporting levels as of 8
9 o' clock is correct; is that right?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
And, those reporting levels were one road crew 11 member had arrived at Riverhead, none at Patchogue, and none 12 at Port Jefferson staging area; is that correct?
(
13 A
I would have to refer to the Appendix, Attachment 14 A rather, to refresh my memory.
You are talking about at 9 15 a.m.?
j 16 O
At 9 a.m.?
17 A
Yeah.
I'm trying to find it in the attachment.
18 Here it is.
Yeah, we accepted that statement in the 19 contention as a fact.
Yes.
20 0
Okay.
Now, Mr. Weismantle, you go on and you 21 state that, however, by 9:40, which was about the time of 22 the declaration of a general emergency, five road crew 23 members had reported to the Riverhead staging area, none to 24 Port Jefferson and four to Patchogue.
25 Do you see that statement, sir?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
1230 04 03 980 1 eJW/sw 1
A Yes.
(.)
2 0
I'm correct that somewhat less than 25 percent of 3
your road crew personnel then were present as of 9:40; is 4
that right?
5 A
You mean, 25 percent of the total number --
6 0
of road crew members.
7 A
-- of road crew members, members in the 8
organization or needed to fully man the spots?
9 That's about right.
10 0
Now, you state at the bottom of the page, 11 Mr. Weismantle, that the LILCO plan provides for the 12 dispatching of 12 road crews to respond to roadway
()
. 13 impediments.
14 A
Yes.
l i
15 0
And, then you say, "This number is far in excess 16 of the number of crews needed to respond to the four minor l
17 accidents that have been predicted to occur during an l
18 evacuation of the entire Shoreham EPZ."
19 A
That's right.
20 0
This prediction is the LILCO prediction that you 21 are referring to?
Whose prediction, LILCO's prediction?
l 22 A
I think Mr. Lieberman sponsored it in the l
l 23 extensive litigation on the plan, yes.
l 24 0
And, Mr. Weismantle, we have discussed this I
()
25 believe the first day.
Under the plan, where you have an ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6M6
-1230 04 04 981 1
evacuation of the entire EPZ, the plan requires dispatching lgggJW/sw 2
all 12 road crews, correct?
3 A
The plan provides for that.
And, that's the 4
procedure.
As we testified, we believe that's an overkill 5
situation but, yes, the plan provides for dispatching them.
6 O
And, is it true that for each road crew with 7
responsibility for road impediment removals, there would be 8
two members per crew?
9 A
There are two individuals in each vehicle, yes.
10 0
I'm going on to Page 23, gentlemen.
You state in 11 the first sentence, "Thus, it is not essential that all road 12 crews be mobilized and dispatched at the moment an order to 13 evacuate is given in order to realize the evacuation time 14 estimates contained in the LILCO plan."
15 ~
Do you see that statement, Mr. Weismantle?
16 A
That's correct.
17 O
Is it a fair statement to say that the LILCO plan I
18 is based upon all road crews being in place to minimize i
l 19 response times and to best insure that sufficient equipment 20 and personnel are available?
l 21 A
No.
I don't think that's a fair statement.
22 0
That's not a fair statement?
Okay.
l 23 JUDGE PARIS:
Could I ask a question at this 24 point, Mr. Miller?
O 25 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
14CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 04 05 982 Ir*JW/sw 1
JUDGE PARIS:
Mr. Weismantle, you seem to place a 2
fair amount of confidence in your -- or at least, you base 3
your conclusion that you won't need all of your road crews 4
early on because the number of accidents you expect in the 5
evacuation would be a total of four minor accidents during 6
the whole evacuation.
7 But, would it not be reasonable to expect that 8
accidents that might occur early on in the evacuation before 9
traffic builds up and when traffic is still able to move at 10 high rates of speed might be much more serious and result in 11 road blockage that would seriously impede the buildup of the 12 oncoming traffic?
(">
%)
13 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
Statistically, there is a 14 certain probability of that.
I think Mr. Lieberman though 15 could, you know, elaborate on that.
16 JUDGE PARIS:
Mr. Lieberman, would you elaborate 17 on that please, sir?
18 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
Yes.
Certainly, that's 1
19 possible.
One has to look at what is a reasonable 20 expectation in terms of the number and severity of such 21 accidents.
l 22 We estimated the four accidents based upon national statistics, using as the exposure measure the 23 l
l 24 vehicle miles of travel which is a reliable exposure
('8
(_/
25 measure.
Our estimates were, in fact, confirmed by the ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
1230 04 06 983 IgqJW/sw 1
Suffolk County police testimony which gave us statistics 2
that they had obtained for the Sixth Precinct.
And, if you 3
normalize it with respect to the time frame over which the 4
evacuation activities took place, it works out to be 5
somewhere between two and three accidents could be expected 6
based upon this empirical data.
7 So, our estimates, based on nationwide 8
statistics, were confirmed empirically.
9 MR. MILLER:
We are going to come back to that, 10 Judge Paris, and I think we will show M::. Lieberman is 11 inaccurate in that regard.
12 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
Now, in terms of the number 13 of accidents that might be expected within a narrow window 14 of time, you might have one or two as a reasonable 15 expectation.
Certainly, if they were left unattended for 16 long periods of time you might have problems.
17 But, sir, you have to keep in mind that at that 18 point in time, before the emergency takes place, clearing 19 out those accidents are the responsibility of the Suffolk 20 County police.
Presumably, they are still doing their jobs.
21 So, it's reasonable to expect that they would 22 respond in the normal fashion and remove these impediments.
23 JUDGE PARIS:
If you are going to come back to 24 it, I will wait.
25 MR. MILLER:
We will definitely come back to it, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1230 04 07~
984 1
W/sw 1
Judge Paris, I assure you.
2 JUDGE PARIS:
Thank you.
3 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 4 0
Mr. Weismantle, just one little follow-up, 5
thbugh.
Could you cite me -- I'm sorry, Mr. Lieberman, 6
could you cite me to any treatises or studies that support 7
the testimony you just gave to Judge Paris?
8 A
(Witness Lieberman)
I --
9 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I will object to that 10 question, and the reason for this -- and I don't want to 11 correct, Judge Paris, either -- is that the whole issue of 12 the expected accident rate during an evacuation was 13 litigated in great detail before the prior Board.
And the 14 prior Board accepted the value of four and rejected a much 15 higher value that Suffolk County's witnesses suggested at i
that point in time.
16 i 17 I think it's a point that has already been j
18 resolved.
19 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, the prior Board made an 20 assumption.
And this is my only question.
I just want some 21 citations, if there are any, to some treatises or studies f
22 that support the statement that Mr. Lieberman just made to 23 Judge Paris.
l 24 That's my only question.
25 JUDGE FRYE Okay.
I will permit that question, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l l
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
1230 04 08 985 1
JW/sw 1
but I am concerned that we are getting, it seems to me, 2
fairly far beyond --
3 MR. MILLER:
That's my only question.
4 JUDGE FRYE:
-- the exercise.
Go ahead.
5 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 6 0
I just want to know, Mr. Lieberman, are there any 7
published treatises or studies that you can cite that
(
l l
8 support the comments that you just made to Judge Paris?
9 A
(Witness Lieberman)
Okay.
I made two comments, 10 one having to do with nationwide statistics.
Those are 11 reported on an annual basis.
They are fully available to 12 the public.
()
13 O
A report by whom, Mr. Lieberman?
14 A
The National Safety Council.
The other reference 15 to empirical data are those that you have submitted as part 16 of your testimony.
We have discussed it during my 17 deposition, and on another contention.
18 And, that will be in the record I'm sure.
19 0
If you would look, Mr. Weismantle, at the first 20 full paragraph on Page 23, there is a discussion about the.
21 mobilization of the road crews during the exercise.
I want 22 to refresh our definitions.
23
" Mobilization," we will use as road crews getting 24 to the staging areas.
" Dispatch" will be road crews going 25 from the staging areas to their predesignated field ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
.,.o
l 1230 04 09 986 l
' 1 JW/sw 1
locations.
And, " deploy" will be road crews going from 2
their field locations to the scene of the impediment.
l 3
Is that acceptable?
4 A
(Witness Weismantle)
Okay.
Yes.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Is that consistent with the way you 6
use the terms in your testimony?
e 7
WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
I'm not -- we didn't use 8
" deploy" in our testimony.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
But, otherwise it's 10 consistent?
i l
11 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
I think so.
12 JUDGE FRYE I just want to avoid confusion.
13 WITNESSWEIbMANTLE:
Yeah.
" Dispatch" is
()
14 consistent.
l 15 MR. MILLER:
I think the problem, Judge Frye, is 16 that " dispatch" is used by the testimony for both getting 17 personnel to their field locations and then also from field 18 locations to the scene of the impediments.
19 So, I'm just trying to distinguish.
i 20 JUDGE FRYE I see.
No, I'm not quarreling with 21 that at all.
I just wanted to be sure we were consistent in 22 our use of the terms.
23 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 24 0
Now, Mr. Weismantle, your first statement is that
(
25 nine two-man road crews were ready to be dispatched into the i
/\\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M4 w--.-..._--
._~...&,
.,,n.
,.4
.o
.-,,-.,,,.......-..r.y...,
1230 04 10 987 1/~'JW/sw 1
EPZ at 10:24.
Do you see that?
(.)
2 A
Yes.
3 0
And, 10:24 was the time that the order to 4
evacuate was made during the exercise, correct?
5 A
That's right.
6 0
Then, you say that, "Four road crews left the c
7 staging area for the field locations at 11:00; four more 8
left at 11:28; and two more left at 11:58."
9 l Do you see that statement?
10 A
Yes.
11 0
So, is it fair to say that as of approximately 12 noon, 10 of your 12 road crews had been sent from the O
13
. staging areas out into the field?
14 A
That's correct.
15 0
Now, is it also correct, Mr. Weismantle, that 16 the four road crews dispatched at 11 o' clock all came from 17 the Riverhead staging area?
18 A
Yes.
19 0
And that the four that were dispatched into the 20 field at 11:28 all came from the Patchogue staging area?
21 A
Yes.
22 0
And that the two that left at 11:58 both came 23 from the Port Jefferson staging area?
24 A
Yes.
25 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I'm handing out a ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
1
- 1230 04 11 988 1(~"JW/sw 1
one-page document which I would like marked for
\\-]
2
, identification as Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 15.
It is 3
identified by handwriting at the very top that says 4
"6540444."
Underneath that, "This is a drill."
It's a LERO 5
message form, dated 2/13/86 at -- it looks like 10:45, 6
perhaps 10:46.
7 (The document referred to is marked as 8
Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit Number 9
15 for identification.)
10 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 11 O
Mr. Weismantle, did --
12 JUDGE FRYE:
This is going to be 15, is it not?
)'
13 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
14 BY MR. MILLEh:
(Continuing) l 15 0
would you agree with me, Mr. Weismantle, that according to this LERO document the order to dispatch road 16 17 crews from Patchogue went out at about 10:45 on the day of 18 the exercise?
19 A
The order from the EOC to Patchogue apparently 20 was sent at 10:45, yes, if that's what you said.
21 0
Now, do you believe, Mr. Weismantle, that the 22 order to dispatch the road crews from the Port Jefferson 23 staging area also went out at about 10:45 on the day of the 24 exercise?
25 A
I would have to check.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
T 1230 04 12 989 l
1 r JW/sw 1
MR. MILLER:
Okay.
I have a document.I will hand
~
2 out.
It's -- we will mark this as Suffolk County Exercise 3
Exhibit 16.
It's identified at the top, "This isia drill,"
4 in handwriting, Number 87 in handwriting, circled.
- And, 5
it's from the Road Logistics Coordinator to the Lead Traffic.
}
6 Guide at the Port Jefferson staging area, 2/13/86 at -- it's 7
either 10:45 or 10:46 I think.
8 (The document referred to is marked 9
as Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 10 Number,16 for identitication.)
11 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 12 0
Now, Mr. Weismantle, you have scen both of those,
13 documents we have marked as Exhibits 15 an'd 16.
14 Would you agree that it appears from these i
I 15 j documents that the order to dispatch road crews from both 16 the Patchogue and the Port Jefferson staging areas were 17 issued at about 10:457 18 A
Yes, it does.
19 0
Do you know why, Mr. Weismantle, in the case of 20 the Port Jefferson staging area it would have taken about an 21 hour2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes for road crews to be dispatched into the 22 field from the time the order was given to the staging area 23 to dispatch those personnel?
24 A
I think so, yes.
It was a matter of priorities
,y J
25 at Port Jefferson.
We had issued an order to pre-stage come ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Courage 8003%>#43
. j. -- _
fk
!1230.0'4 13 990
- 1
/sw 1
of th'e transfer points.
In addition, the traffic guides 4'
' also were being;.given dosimetry and briefed.
And, I suspect I2 3'
they took. priority over the road crews for I think good p
.s e
4 reason.
/
g 5
In general, I believe that was the case.
. ~ < -
Q,l 6
O Thank you.
Now, Mr. Weismantle, when you state 7
at the end of the first full paragraph, "Thus, more than 8
enough road crews were always in place to respond to
)
9 expected impediments," the "enough road crews" refers to the i
10 10 that were dispatched by about noon the day of the 11 exercise; is that right?
t 12-1 A
No.
What I'm referring to here really is given 13'l
.both what we would expect in the number of accidents and,
..14' actually the accidents, impediments, the day of the 1
l 15 exercise, we didn't need 10.
We didn't need anything like 1
)
16 that number.
l 17 0
okay.
But, Mr. Weismantle, on the --
18 A
Let me just finish this sentence.
And, the i
l 19 equipment and the men who could handle the equipment, as we 1
20 indicate, we had nine of them at the staging areas at the j
21 time the evacuation order was given.
And, that's more than j
22 enough.
i 23 0
They didn't go out, Mr. Weismantle, until as late 24 as noon on the day of the exercise.
O 25 A
Well, our testimony speaks for itself.
Four went ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
h 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646 1
_, -. ~, _, -..
-,m___-.
,_.,,,_,._.,-.,,-,-..__-...._r_.
1230 04 14 991 1
out at 11, four more at 11:28, et cetera.
IgggJW/sw 2
'O Okay.
Now, Mr. Weismantle, though, when you 3
state that :. ore than enough road crews were always in place, 4
by approximately noon you had 10 of the 12 which are 5
provided for by the LILCO plan in place?
6 A
By in place, I didn't mean at their preassigned 7
locations.
The sentence could have been worded better.
8 We had the equipment and men available at the 9 i time the order to evacuate was given.
As far as I know, our 10 plan is the only one that actually pre-stages, that is, puts 11 road crews out in the field at predesignated areas.
12 That goes beyond what everybody else does.
K _)
13 0
'Mr. Weismantle, would you agree with me that by 14 about noon on the day of the exercise 10 road ' crews had been 15 dispatched from the staging areas, whereas the plan provides 16 for 12 to have been dispatched by that time?
17 A
The plan doesn't set up a specific time at which o
18 they have to be dispatched.
19 0
Okay.
Fine.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
But, you don't quarrel with the fact 21 that 10 of 12 had been dispatched by noon?
22 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
That's correct.
I said that 23 befora, yes.
24 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
k-25 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 02-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
1730 04 15 992 1r~]JW/sw 1
O From the Patchogue staging area, Mr. Weismantle, k_/
2 where you have stated that four had left as of 11:28, are 3
only four road crews dispatched from the Patchogue staging 4
area?
5 A
Yes.
6 MR. MILLER:
I'm handing out a document, Judge o
7 Frye.
Perhaps we can identify this as Suffolk County 8
Exercise Exhibit 17.
And it's identified by a handwriting, 9
"This is a drill," at the top.
It's a message from the Lead 10 Traffic Guide at Patchogue to the Road Logistics Coordinator 11 at the EOC, 2/13/86.
The time is 12:49.
12 (The document referred to is marked as
()
13 Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit Number 14 17 for identification.)
15 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 16 O
Now, would you agree with me, Mr. Weismantle, 17 that this appears to be a LERO message form from the day of 18 the exercise which, as of 12:45, requested that the 19 remainder of the road crews be dispatched?
20 A
No, it doesn't appear to request that they be l
21 dispatched.
22 O
It says:
" Remainder of road crews and gasoline 23 tank crews dispatched as of 1243 hours0.0144 days <br />0.345 hours <br />0.00206 weeks <br />4.729615e-4 months <br />."
Is that what it l
l 24 says?
25 A
Yes.
But, that's not a request.
That appears i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 04 16 993 1r 7JW/sw 1
0 Okay.
U 2
A
-- to be a report.
3 0
Okay.
Now, you just told me that as of 11:28, 4
all the road crews from Patchogue had been dispatched.
5 A
That's right.
6 0
Can you explain the difference here?
7 A
Well, let me just refer back to Attachment E, 8
E.5, for a second.
9 (The witness is looking at a document.)
10 If you look at E.5 -- if you look at Attachment 11 E.5 to our testimony, the report from Patchogue at 11:28 12 was, "All road crews have been dispatched and gas tank
(
13 crews, 3002 and 3003.
When gas tank crew 3004 is 14 dispatched, Patchogue will notify."
15 0
I see that, Mr. Weismantle.
16 A
Now --
17 0
Can you explain to me why there is a difference 18 of --
19 A
I'm trying to.
20 0
Okay.
21 A
I think the difference is, apparently some time 22 between 11:28 and 12:45, and probably close to 12:45 --
23 possibly close; I don't know -- that additional gasoline 24 tank crew was dispatched.
25 0
Well, Mr. Weismantle, let's read the message, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 e
1230 04 17 994 1
-l JW/sw 1
Exhibit 17, " Remainder of road crews and gasoline tank crews 2
dispatched as of 1243."
It seems to say that other road 3
crews from Patchogue went out some time over an hour after 4
11:28 on the day of the exercise, doesn't it?
5 A
Well, that's one way to interpret it.
To make --
6 O
That's fine, Mr. Weismantle.
7 A
Well, can I finish?
To make the two consistent, 8
which they may not be, it is possible that it was poorly 9
worded and he simply was reporting the last gasoline tank 10 crew that at 11:28 had reported -- he had reported had not 11 been dispatched.
12 0
Mr. Weismantle, were you unaware of what we have
}
13 marked as Suffolk County Exercise" Exhibit 17 up until just 14 now?
15 A
Yeah.
This, I believe, is the first time I've I
seen it.
I don't recall seeing that or I would have looked 16 17 for more detail -- excuse me, other documents.
18 JUDGE PARIS:
The message form that is Suffolk 19 Exhibit 17 says that it's in response to Message Number 20 RLC-2.
Maybe we could get an explanation with Message 21 RLC-2.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
That is Suffolk County Exhibit 15.
23 JUDGE PARIS:
15.
24 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
All right.
That was 25 probably the original request to dispatch road crews and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336- % *6
1230 05 01 995 1("JW/sw 1
gasoline trucks.
V 2
JUDGE PARIS:
Yes, it was.
3 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
Attachment E.5 also is in 4
response to RLC-2.
5 JUDGE PARIS:
I see that.
6 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
I would just have to see if 2
7 we had any other documents to clear up what could be a 8
discrepancy.
9 MR. MILLER:
Okay.
That 's fine, Mr. Weismantle.
10 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 11 0
Now, Mr. Weismantle, from Port Jefferson where 12 two road crews were dispatched into the field at 11:58, it's kl 13 true, isn't it, that four road crews *come out of the Port
~
14 Jefferson staging area?
15 A
There are four assigned to it; and, yes, four 16 would be dispatched if the evacuation order called for that 17 configuration.
18 0
Can you tell me why only two were dispatched as 19 of 11:58 on the day of the exercise?
20 A
I believe that two at the same time were sent to 21 Brentwood as part of the backup procedure to pick up 22 vehicles that they hadn't brought to Port Jefferson when 23 they reported to Port Jeff originally.
24 0
I want to make sure I follow this, r~
(x-25 Mr. Weismantle.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1230 05 02 996 I
GJW/sw 1
A Okay.
c 2
0 Isn't it true that two road crews showed up at 3
the Port Jefferson staging area, having neglected to bring 4
their vehicles with them as they are required to do?
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Let's divide that into --
6 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
Yeah.
c 7
JUDGE FRYE:
Did two show up having neglected to 8
bring their vehicles?
9 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
They didn't bring their 10 vehicles but that --
11 JUDGE FRYE:
Were they required to bring them?
12 -
WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
They personnaly, no, were
( )
13 not required to.
14 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
15 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 16 0
Mr. Weismantle, under the LILCO plan are road 17 crew personnel assigned to pick up the vehicles used in the 18 performance of their duties prior to reporting to staging 19 areas?
20 A
Generally, no.
What happens at Port Jefferson is l
21 during the call-out, the phone chain that calls these road 22 crews out, a certain number of them -- and it's done not by 23 individual name but by individual location relative to 24 vehicle location so, therefore, it could be different every t>(,)
25 time -- are supposed to be asked to bring vehicles.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
-~
1230 05 03 997 1
JW/sw 1
Apparently, that part of the phone message was 2
left out by the caller, at least to the extent that he only 3
got two vehicles when he should have gotten four.
/
4 0
Now, when those personnel -- there were four road 5
crew members that showed up at Port Jefferson without 6
vehicles to put them in; is that correct?
o 7
A There were a lot of road crew members that showed 8
up at Port Jefferson.
Only two vehicles showed up.
There 9
should have been four vehicles, but I don't want to assign 10 them to individual names because that's not the way the 11 system works.
'12 0
Okay.
Now, when only two vehicles were there,
!,)
13 what you are telling me is that four road crew members were s
14 sent from the Port Jefferson staging area to Brentwood to 15 pick up two vehicles?
l A
That's correct.
16 17 0
And, in fact, Mr. Weismantle, if you will look at 18 what we have marked for identification as Suffolk County 19 Exercise Exhibit 13 --
20 A
We may not have marked that.
Can you describe it 21 further?
22 0
It's the one that we had discussion about 23 yesterday regarding the Stone and Webster evaluation of the 24 EOC duties of the traffic group on the day of the exercise.
,,(,)
25 A
I think we have to search a bit before we can ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 05 04 998 1
JW/sw 1
find it.
Okay.
2 MR. MILLER:
Does the Board still have the --
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
4 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 5 0
Now, Mr. Weismantle, if you will look at the last 6
page of that exhibit, the very first entry:
"Two road crew 7
vehicles failed to be obtained on call-out and were not 8
brought to Port Jefferson staging area by arriving road 9
crews."
10 Do you see that?
11 A
Yes.
12 0
This is what you were just describing to me,
()
13 isn't it?
14 A
That's correct.
15 0
Now, Mr. Weismantle, one of the road crews -- in 16 fact, I think both road crews that had to be sent to 17 Brentwood, they were road crews 2011 and 2012; is that 18 right?
19 A
Subject to check, I will accept that.
20 0
And, road crew 2011 is the road crew that 21 eventually was dispatched to the fuel truck impediment 22 during the exercise, correct?
23 A
That's correct.
24 0
And, if I recall correctly, that dispatch to the
()
25 scene of the fuel truck impediment, actually deployment to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1230 05 05 999 1
JW/sw 1
the scene of the fuel truck impediment, was at about 1:50 on 2
the day of the exercise?
3 A
That's correct.
4 0
Now, isn't it true, Mr. Weismantle, that the 5
reason that road crew was not deployed sooner to the scene 6
of the fuel truck impediment is because the vehicle was not 7
available until shortly before that time?
8 A
I would like to confer for a second.
9 (The witnesses are conferring.)
10 No.
I don't agree with that.
11 0
Do you know, Mr. Weismantle, what time personnel 12 arrived at Brentwood to pick up the vehicles they used 7
(_)
13 during the exercise, including this road crew 20117 14 A
I can give an approximation.
If they were l
l dispatched from Port Jefferson at 11:58, it probably took 15 16 ;
them about 25 minutes, half an hour, to get to Brentwood.
17 0
So, your guess would be about 12:30?
18 A
That's my best estimate.
19 0
Now, do you know what time they left Brentwood 20 with their vehicles?
21 A
I assume they left almost immediately.
You know, 22 they obtained the vehicle, got in it, and they went towards 23 their road crew locations in the field.
24 0
Do you know what time road crew 2011 arrived at
{~\\
\\
(_)
25 his deployment location in the field?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
1230 05 06 1000 le'JW/sw 1
A I don't know what the exact time was.
I don't
()
2 think I have that information with me either.
3 JUDGE SHON:
Excuse me a moment, Mr. Miller.
4 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
5 JUDGE SHCN:
This Stone and Webster document, 6
evaluation, that you have here and the paragraph you were 7
talking about on the page numbered 13, does it not then end 8
with the phrase "... vehicles successfully obtained in a 9
timely manner?"
I think manner is misspelled or it's at 10 least a different kind of manner.
11 Are those the vehicles that we are talking about 12 that were not available at first?
I mean, we have been
(
(_,1 13 talking about when they got there.
If those are ths 14 vehicles, indeed, then at least the evaluator thought that 15 they were timely obtained, didn't he?
16 MR. MILLER:
The evaluator, Judge Shon, was at 17 the EOC.
The vehicles were obtained from Brentwood.
18 I have no idea actually, to tell you the truth.
19 I think I'm going to show that they were not timely 20 obtained.
21 MR. ZEUGIN:
I think, so that everyone is clear, 22 the EOC and Brentwood are one in the same place.
MR. MILLER:
I'm sorry.
23 24 JUDGE SHON:
Okay.
p
(_
25 MR. MILLER:
If I can continue, Judge Shon, I l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 05 07 1001 1('JW/sw 1
think it's going to become clear that the vehicles were not LJ 2
timely obtained.
I don't know what the evaluator was 3
thinking when he wrote that.
4 JUDGE SHON:
Very well.
Go ahead.
5 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 6 0
I think, Mr. Weismantle, I had asked you if you 7
could tell me what time road crew 2011, which is one of the 8
road crews that had to go down to get these vehicles from 9
Brentwood, arrived at his deployment location in the field 10 on the day of the. exercise.
11 A
I think I said I don't have a record of that 12 time, the precise time.
I.t's possible it's in the exercise
,y
,(-)
13 data someplace, but he certainly arrived in his field 14 location before 1350 when he was first called out to go to i
l 15 i the site at that accident.
1 16 j' O
Well, he certainly had to be there by 1350, but 17 you say he certainly had to arrive before that time?
18 A
Yeah.
19 0
And, how do you know that?
20 A
Well, if we assume that he received a call at the 21 location at 1350, I think it's reasonable to assume he was 22 there.
It would be very unlikely he had arrived at 23 precisely the same point that he got the message.
Plus, you 24 know, knowing the distances involved from Brentwood to 2011.
O
'\\
/
25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 06 01 1002 1
JW/sw 1
O Is it not true that Foad Crew 2011 was dispatched 2
as late as it was on the day of the exercise to respond to 3
that fuel truck impediment, because that road crew was not 4
available until shortly before 1:507 5
A (Witness Weismantle)
No.
I disagree with that 6
statement.
7 MR. MILLER:
That is fine, Judge Frye.
The 8
record will speak for itself.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
Let's take a fifteen 10 minute break at this point.
11 (Recess taken at 9:45, to reconvene at 10:10 12 a.m.,
this same day.)
~
(_)
13 JUDGE FRYE:
I promised you rulings with regard 14 to the three motions to strike filed by LILCO.
I will make 15 them very brief.
/
16 We deny the motion to strike the testimony on i
17 Contention 34.
The significant issue raised in that one was 18 whether the decision LBP 8512 had decided that there was no 19 need for backup notification within a particular time.
We 20 do not believe that it decided that.
21 We believe that it decided only that there was no 22 need for backup notification within a fifteen minute time 23 period.
24 If you will look at the last sentence of FO
(_)
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
..,.., - ~.
1230 06 02 1003 1
JW/sw 1
paragraph VI A.5, at 21 NRC 759, and the Contention which is 2
reprinted at 21 NRC 999 to 1,000, you will find that they 3
were dealing with a contention that asserted that backup 4
notification was due in 15 minutes.
5 We, therefore, view the rest of the holding there 6
as being dicta, and not a holding.
o 7
Paragraph 2 raised a question with regard to 8
whether the 45 minute allegation of the Contention -- or of 9
the testimony was an af ter the f act attempt to expand the 10 contention, and we do not view it as such.
11 The rest of it, paragraphs 3 through 7, we think 12 are appropriate background information.'
(
13 We also deny the motion to strike the portions of 14 the testimony on Contention 40, We viewed paragraphs 1 to 3 15 as essentially being frivolous.
We viewed paragraph 4 as 16 providing background information, but I would note that we 17 will consider only the scenario that was exercised on 18 February 13, and not some other scenario.
19 Paragraph 5, we believe that the testimony there 20 is relevant to Contention 40, in that that contention 21 alleges that traffic guides were too late to provide i
22 effective assistance to evacuees.
23 Paragraph 6, we view as appropriate background.
24 Paragraph 7, while the testimony there does allude to bs/
25 matters which were previously litigated, it is necessary ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 06 03 1004
-9JW/sw 1
background to understand Suffolk's position.
That it is 1(d 2
necessasry that traffic guides be promptly posted, and that 3
the exercise failed to demonstrate that this was 4
accomplished.
5 As I indicated, we are not going to review any 6
conclusions already reached concerning the adequacy of o
7 LILCO's traffic control plans.
8 Paragraph 8, we believe that the testimony may 9
properly take issue with FEMA's conclusions, and I might 10 note parenthetically this morning we certainly reviewed 11 testimony of LILCO's that seemed to do the same.
Our 12 decision will address the question of what constitutes a ks) 13 fundamental flaw.
14 In regard to the motion to strike portions of the 15 testimony on Contention 41, we grant the motion as to the 16 first -- as stated in the first paragraph.
We view that 1
l 17 testimony as being speculative, and dealing with matters l
18 that have already been litigated, and not necessary 19 background to understand the County's position.
20 The rest of that we deny.
21 Paragraphs 3, 4, 6,
7, 10, 11, and 12 all appear l
22 to be appropriate background.
Paragraph 5 states Suffolk's l
23 opinion on the consequences of delays, and we view that as l
24 being appropriate.
We view the matters stated in 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
.. -, -., - -....,, ~ - _. ~. _. - -. _. ~..
1230 06 04 1005 1r CJW/sw 1
paragraph 8 as being relevant to contention 41, as also the LJ 2
matters stated in paragraph 9, or objected to in paragraph 3
9.
And paragraph 13, which was the last one we think, 4
simply states Suffolk's opinion, which is legitimate for 5
testimony to do.
6 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, is it my understanding 7
that the one portion that the Board decided to strike was 8
page 21, line 3, beginning with the word, "although,"
9 l through line 12, ending with the word, " field?"
10 JUDGE FRYE:
That is correct.
In the testimony 11 regarding Contention 41.
12 MR. MILLER:
Thank you.
Judge Frye, what we have p)
(
13 done in past practices, we will at the time we submit the 14 testimony, I think the court reporters will need about ten 15 copies of the testimony, we will just simply take a pen and 16 line out those particular portions that the Board has l
17 1 decided to strike.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
I wouldn't redact it, but if you 19 will indicate it is lined out --
20 MR. MILLER:
That is all we will do.
Also, Judge 21 Frye, I would like to move in at this time Suffolk County's 22 Exercise Exhibits 15, 16, and 17.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
Any objections?
24 ;
MR. ZEUGIN:
No objections.
(3
\\l 25 MR. CUMMING:
None.
l l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
1230 06 05 1006 1
JW/sw 1
MR. CUMMING:
No objection.
2 JUDGE FRYE:
So ordered.
3 (Suffolk County Exhibits 15, 16, and 4
17, previously marked for identifica-5 tion, are admitted into evidence.)
6 MR. MILLER:
And, Judge Frye, during the break we c
7 discussed with Mr. Zeugin the matter regarding the Saricks 8
deposition from yesterday, it seems that both we and LILCO 9
finally agree on something, and that would be that we should 10 put in the entire transcript deposition of Mr. Saricks.
It 11 is very hard to put it in context otherwise, and so we 12 would suggest to the Board that we just put in the entire ri)
~13 transcript.
s 14 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
But when you do, I want 15 each of you to mark the portions that you think are 16 relevant.
17 MR. MILLER:
All right.
We will come to some 18 understanding.
We will mark them in colors --
19 JUDGE FRYE:
You mark the portions you think are 20 relevant, and he will mark the portions he thinks are 21 relevant.
22 MR. MILLER:
Right now, Judge Frye, we have 23 marked the Saricks excerpts as Suffolk County Exhibit 11.
I 24 guess what we can do is just -- we will revisit it next week
/^;
(__/
25 after we have had a chance to mark it up, but I think we are ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
._s.
1230 06 06 1007 1
JW/sw 1
going to have to do something to straighten that out.
2 MR. PIRFO:
It is not in as far as I know.
3 JUDGE FRYE:
It is not in, and I think it is 4
perfectly appropriate just to leave it as it is, and give 5
the deposition itself a new number.
6 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 7 0
Gentlemen, we are back on page 23 of your 8
testimony.
In fact, let's go over to page 24, gentlemen.
9 You have at the top of that page a statement that you agree 10 that the evacuation route coordinator did not specifically 11 include in his messages to the evacuation support 12 communicator the fact that the gravel truck accident was a
)
13 multiple vehicle accident.
14 Do you see that statement?
15 A
(Witness Weismantle)
Yes.
16 0
Now, Mr. Weismantle, there are other facts that 1
17 {
were not communicated to the evacuation support 18 communicator, isn't that correct?
19 A
Yes.
20 0
And those facts would include that the gravel 21 truck was loaded, that it had a broken drive shaft, that it 22 was upright but turned sideways in the road, that it was 23 blocking both shoulders of the road, that the impediment was 24 in the vicinity of Traffic Control Post 124, isn't that
(~)
(J 25 correct?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
1230 06 07 1008 1/~7JW/sw 1
A Yes, I believe so.
O 2
0 Now, you also mention the fact that the 3
evacuation route coordinator did not specifically include in 4
his message to the evacuation support communicator the fact 5
that the fuel truck impediment involved the possibility of 6
fire or was blocking both shoulders of the road, is that the 7
statement?
8 A
Yes.
9 0
And again, other facts were omitted, including 10 the fact that the impediment was in the vicinity of Traffic 11 Control Post 41, that the fuel tank was ruptured, and the 12 fuel was leaking, isn't that correct?
(
13 A
Yes, I believe so.
14 0
In all the information, Mr. Weismantle, that I 15 have just stated regarding both impediments, was given by i
16 FEMA in writing, directly to the EOC, through the evacuation 17 route coordinator, is that right?
18 A
That is right.
19 0
Now, at the bottom of the page, Mr. Weismantle, f
20 you state that information about the blockage of both 21 shoulders was more important to EOC decision-making, i.e.,
22 the need to reroute, than it was to the field response, do 23 you see that?
24 A
Yes.
25 0
Isn't it true, Mr. Weismantle, that the
(
/\\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6 l
1230 06 08 1009 1
JW/sw 1
information about the blockage of both shoulders was not 2
conveyed to the EOC decision-makers by the evacuation route 3
coordinator?
4 A
As I believe Mr. Wilm testified, when he went to 5
the evacuation route coordinator and questioned him about 6
impediments, he was shown the message, so in that way at c
7 about 12:13 or so he conveyed that information.
8 0
But prior to the FEMA prompt --
9 A
Oh, prior to the FEMA prompt, certainly Mr. Wilm 10 had no information the impediments.
11 0
But beyond Mr. Wilm, isn't it true that the 12 evacuation route coordinator did not convey the information g
(_)
13 regarding the blocked shoulders to any EOC decision-makers?
14 A
As far as we know, that is correct.
15 0
Let's go to page 25, please.
Now, we are i
16 beginning your discussions where I think it is fair to say 17 you take exception with the contentions, and the subparts of 18 Contention 41, and in the first full paragraph on page 25, 19 Mr. Weismantle, we are talking about the transportation 20 support coordinator?
21 A
Yes.
22 0
Now, the contentions are attached to your 23 testimony, and you are discussing, on page 25, Contention 41 24 B 2a, is that correct?
[';
k>
25 A
Yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 06 09 1010
,1(G~1JW/sw 1
O And isn't it true, Mr. Weismantle, that that 2
subpart of the Contention refers only to the gravel truck 3
impediment?
4 A
Little Subpart A refers only to the gravel truck 5
impediment.
6 0
Now, you state that exercise documents flatly 7
contradict this assertion, referring to the fact that the 8
transportation support coordinator was not informed about 9
the impediments and their potential effects on bus routes 10 until 12:40, do you see that?
11 A
That is right.
12 O
And you use as your contradiction the fact that
(
13 at 11: 35 the~ transportation support coordinator l'nformed the 14 bus dispatcher at the Riverhead Staging Area about the 15 gravel truck impediment.
Do you see that statement?
I 16 A
Yes.
17 0
Isn't it true, Mr. Weismantle, that as of about 18 11:35, the time you rely upon, the transportation support 19 coordinator was providing information regarding the wrong 20 location of the impediment site?
21 A
well, he was providing information that referred I
22 to the impediment site as east of -- fifty yards east of the 23 caution light at the intersection of Yaphank - Middle Island 24 Road and Main Street.
Whether that was right or wrong, 25 obviously that was the way he understood it at that point, l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
l i
1230 06 10 1011 If "JW/sw I
and we have gone into great detail about the confusion that U
2 existed on it's location.
3 0
Would you agree with me, Mr. Weismantle that it 4
was at least 12:40 before the transportation support 5
coordinator knew or had information regarding the location 6
of the impediment as being north of that intersection?
7 A
I would have to refer to the materials.
8 l JUDGE FRYE:
Don't we have this already --
9 MR. MILLER:
Well, it is in the attachments.
The 10 record will speak for itself on this, Judge Frye.
11 JUDGE FRYE:
I thought we had gone through this 12 and established the times in which various people were aware
\\-)
13 of the location, but maybe I am mistaken.
14' MR. MILLER:
Actually, it is very hard for me to 15 remember which ones we have discussed.
I am prepared to let i
16 L the record speak for itself on this point.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
It is in the attachments, you say?
18 MR. MILLER:
I think so, yes.
19 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
The attachments show when l
20 the note was written.
I can't be sure when he precisely 1
21 learned of it.
Certainly by the time of the note.
22 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 23 0
Now, at the bottom of the page, we are talking 24 now about the fuel truck impediment, Mr. Weismantle, and it k
25 says that during discussions it was decided that two steps ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
' 1230 06 11 1012 1
had to be completed before a tow truck needed to be
' l (v~'*,JW/sw 2
dispatched, do you see that statement?
3 A
Yes.
4 0
And the two steps were to contact the fire 5
department, and to see to it that the tank was unloaded, and 6
into another tanker, do you see that statement?
7 A
Yes.
8 0
And it is true isn't it, Mr. Weismantle, that the 9
road crew in fact was dispatched prior to any acticn being 10 taken to off load the fuel into another tanker?
11 A
Yes, it was actually dispatched, I believe, 12 fifteen to twenty minutes before Hess was contacted.
(/ -
\\
s_
13 0
Now, if you go over to page 26 of your testimony, 14 I want to discuss this EBS message in your testimony in that 15 regard.
16 You state that Interveners content that there was 17 no EBS broadcast or 6ther public dissimination of 18 information about the impediments until 13:45, do you see 19 that?
20 A
Yes.
21 O
Is if fair to sa'y, Mr. Weismantle, that you 22 disagree with our contention because you say the public 23 would have received information about the impediments when 24 they came upon the impediment scenes, and were rerouted?
4 25 A
In part.
In large part, the public that needed ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
- -.. ~,,
1230 06 12 1013 1r]JW/sw 1
to know, while they may not have gotten precise information C
2 about the impediments, their nature, et cetera, that wasn't 3
necessary.
What was necessary is that we reroute the 4
traffic and in that way they got that information so they 5
could facilitate their evacuation.
6 0
So, you are saying that the public dissimination 7
of information about the impediments, that portion of our 8
contention you disagree with because the public would have 9
had some dissimination of infcrmation since eventually they 10 would have come upon the scene of the impediments and have 11 been rerouted?
12 A
Well, that small subpart of the public that in g
(_)
13 any way, shape, or form had their evacuation affected by 14 these accidents.
That is the portion of the public that is 15 important, not the general message be broadcast to the rest 16 of the public.
17 And of course, many of those people wouldn't have 18 reached the scene of the impediment has been discussed 19 previously, because of traffic queueing up, and then the 20 rerouting.
21 0
And we have discussed previously, 22 Mr. Weismantle, that some portion of the public could have 23 been queued up to an hour behind these impediments, is that 24 correct?
I)
L/
25 A
I am not sure about the hour.
I don't think we ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
1230 06 13 1014 1
testified to an hour.
2{}JW/sw 2
0 Well, okay.
We will let the testimony speak for 3
itself in that regard, too.
4 Now, Mr. Weismantle, I am just trying to 5
determine the basis for your disagreement with the subpart 6
of our contention regarding the EBS message.
7 If you look at the contention, which is attached 8
to your testimony, there it simply states in one sentence, 9
there was no EBS broadcast --
10 A
Could you give me a reference?
11 O
Page 3.of Attachment A of your testimony.
The 12 very top of the page.
There was no EBS broadcast, or other 13 public dissimination of information about the impediment, 14 until 1:45.
15 A
Yes.
16 O
Now, it is fair to say that you are disagreeing 17 with that statement in your testimony, aren't you?
18 A
And the linkage back to Exhibit 41 B on the top 19 of 2, which says -- claims we were incapable of responding.
20 I mean it is in that context.
21 0
In the context, Mr. Weismantle, of the statement 22 that there is no EBS message broadcast until 1:45, are you 23 disputing that statement?
24 A
Oh, no.
Our testimony is clear.
We agree if 25 there was no EBS broadcast until 1:45, I disagree with the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 06 14 1015 1(~}JW/sw 1
part of the sentence that states public dissimination of v
2 information.
If you mean no member of the public would have 3
known about the impediments, and I disagree with the 4
contention which asserts we are incapable of responding to 5
these major road impediments because of the lack of an EBS 6
broadcast, or the delay in an EBS broadcast.
7 0
Tell me if you would, Mr. Weismantle, why you 8
included information about the impediments at all in your 9
EBS message?
10 A
We thought it was a helpful thing to do.
As I 11 testified ov'er and over, we don't believe it is necessary.
12 We don't believe there is any FEMA requirement for it, and I
/~)
(_)
13 think what.we did went beyond what was needed.
14 0
You thought it would be helpful though, is_that 15 right?
16 A
We thought it could be helpful, but again, not 17 necessary --
18 0
I understand, Mr. Weismantle.
You thought it 19 would be helpful.
20 A
I wouldn't hurt I guess is a better way I could 21 put it.
And I think that is the way I put it in my original 22 cross examination.
23 0
Would it be better, Mr. Weismantle, to have 24 information broadcast by way of an EBS message as compared
^
(
\\
KJ 25 to having the public come upon the scene of the impediment ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
1230 06 15 1016 Ir 1JW/sw I
and being rerouted around that impediment?
(-)
2 A
I don't think it most cases it would make a 3
material difference.
4 0
would it be better, Mr. Weismantle?
5 A
It might be an increment better, and it depends 6
on the circumstances, too.
c 7
0 Now, at the very end of this paragraph, -- well, 8
let's go on.
Let's look at the bottom of the page, 9
gentlemen.
10 We are talking now about Subpart B, 3, which in 11 again on page 3 of Attachment A to your testimony.
And it 12 says that LILCO's response, once it finally begun, was
)
13 inadequate with respect to both simulated impediments, and' 14 it specifies in the subparagraphs why.
15 Your first part of this testimony, 16 Mr. Weismantle, addresses the gravel truck and you state in 17 this case we strongly disagree with FEMA's evaluation.
18 Do you see that?
19 A
Yes.
O The evaluation by FEMA being that the response of 20 21 a single tow truck to the scene of the gravel truck 22 impediment was not an adequate response by LERO, is that 23 what you disagree with?
24 A
Essentially, yes.
25 0
And you state at the bottom of the page this, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1 1
1230 06 16 1017 1r'7JW/sw 1
referring to the impediment, involving the gravel truck and
%)
2 the three vehicles, three cars, could probably have been 3
accomplished by removing a single car from the roadway.
A 4
task that could easify have been acccmplished by 'the 5
responding vehicle.
6 Is it fair to say, Mr. Weismantle, this is your o
7 best guess?
~
8 A
I think so.
Aga'in, all that would have been 9
needed would be to open a path to allow evacuating traffic i
10 out.
s 11 0
You.made certain assumptions.in coming'to that 12 conclusion, is that fair to say?
13 A'
Yes.
We didn't have a real~accidhnt there.
We 14 had a simulated one.
You would have had t'o havs known the 15 precise geometry of the accident, moveabiliy of the cars, et 16 cetera.
17 We think it is a reasonable assumption t,o make.
18 0
You made certain assumptions, Mr. Weismsns,le, 19 about the impediment, and I take it is fair to say-that 20 those assumptions were based upon incomplete information 21 since you didntt know about the shoulders being blocked, and 22 the gravel truck being loaded, and things of that sort, is 23 that a fair statement?
24 MR. ZEUGIN:
Objection.
I think he is O-25 mischaracterizing remarks that were made no more than thir.ty ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nat;onwide Covemge 800 336-6M6
\\
1230 06 17 -
1018
.1 minutes ago when Mr. Weismantle clearly stated that Mr. Wilm 1(/~lJW/sw
/
2 was handed the message.
All the facts were in there.
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Repeat your question.
4 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 5 O
My question is, Mr. Weismantle stated they made 6
assumptions in responding to gravel truck impediment.
My 7
question is:
Is it fair to say that you made those 8
assumptions based upon incomplete information?
9 JUDGE FRYE:
I think that is an appropriate 10 question.
/
11 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
Could I ask that that be 12
.rea'd back so I am sure I got it.
~
f').
(_<
13 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 14 0
I am doing it rinht now, Mr. Weismantle.
n
'i
'15 j
'A Say it again, then.
16 0
Is it fair to say that the assumptions you made 17 aboubhowtorespondtothegraveltruckimpedimentwere 18
. based upon incomplete information?
s 19 A
Yes, in terms of how many road crews were needed.
j 20 0
Thank you.
If you will go to page 27.
Now, this thirty minute removal time you seem to take exception with.
21 22 It is cited in the contention.
Isn't it true Mr. Weismantle
' 23 that that thirty minute time estimate was provided to the i
24 FEMA evaluator at the scene of the gravel truck impediment O~
25 by LILCO's road crew?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
i.
J/
"1120 07 01 1019 t.
1(~'JW/sw 1
A Yes, as it says, though, to remove all four L) 2 vehicles, not to just open a path to allow traffic --
3 JUDGE FRYE:
But it was provided by LERO's 4
people.
5 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
By LERO's road crew that 6
responded.
7 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing)
B 0
Now, if you look down a little bit further on the 9
page, you now take exception with the need for the scraper 10 truck and you state that the need was an invention of the 11 FEMA evaluator in the field.
The free play message did not 12.
mention gravel in the roadwaye Indeed, the message noted
(~)
l sr 13 that the truck was upright, suggesting that little or no 14 gravel would have been spilled.
15 Do you see those statements?
16 A
(Witness Weismantle)
Yes.
j 17 0
Le,t me ask you, Mr. Wilm, do you believe it would
\\
18 have been more prudent to have 4LS'.,atched a scraper or i
19 bucket loader, to the scene ci th-gravel truck impediment?
20 A
(Witness Wilm)
No, I don't.
21 0
Let me ask you, Mr. Wilm, if gravel had, in fact, 22 been spilled on the roadway, would it not have required a 23 vehicle such as a scraper or a bucket loader to remove that 24 gravel?
I 25 A
I have no idea.
How much gravel are we talking ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 & 6646
1230 07 02 1020 1(~7JW/sw I
about?
We testified before that it was a compressor truck
\\/
2 that came out there, it was an underground lines truck.
It 3
is equipped to move gravel.
There are shovels on it.
4 There was no mention made of gravel.
If we 5
needed a bucket loader, or we needed some piece of equipment 6
to move gravel, they would have to get it out the Patchogue 7
Staging Area.
And we would have done so.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
Excuse me.
The compressor truck was 9
equipped to move gravel?
10 WITNESS WILM:
The compressor truck has air.
I 11 am not trying to make an issue out of that particular truck, 12 because it could have been a wrecker, a five ton or ten ton 13 wrecker.
It was just by chande that day that a compressor
~
14 truck was there.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
I see.
16 JUDGE PARIS:
When you said, " shovels," you meant 17 hand shovels?
18 WITNESS WILM:
Yes, sir.
19 JUDGE PARIS:
Let me ask a question.
In New 20 York State, are gravel trucks required to be covered?
21 WITNESS WILM:
I think on the major highways, 22 like on Route 495 or the Long Island Expressway, they are 23 required to be, but I am not sure about elsewhere.
24 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 25 O
There is this last sentence, Mr. Wilm, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364 646
1230 07 03 1021 1(~'JW/sw 1
A Where are you now?
'w) 2 0
On page 27.
That if such a request had been 3
made, a request that a scraper truck be sent, LILCO has 4
numerous scraper trucks that could have responded.
Do you 5
see that statement?
6 A
I do.
7 0
Now, I have two questions about that statement.
8 I think maybe the only time I see the word, "LILCO" in this 9
testimony -- are you distinguishing here between LILCO and 10 LERO?
11 A
We would use a LILCO truck, a LILCO scraper to
- 12 satisfy a LERO requirement.
()
13 0
Okay.
Now, you say L'ILCO has numerous scraper 14 trucks that could have responded.
Can you tell me the 15 answers to any of the following:
How many scraper trucks, 16 located where, where were they on the day of the exercise, 17 how long would it have take the scraper trucks to have 18 gotten to the scene of the impediment?
2 19 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I think it may be more 20 fruitful to take those questions one at a time rather than j
21 have a list of about seven items.
I 22 JUDGE FRYE:
Do you know how many LILCO has?
23 WITNESS WILM:
I would be guessing.
24 JUDGE FRYE:
Do you know where they are located?
O-25 WITNESS WILM:
Patchogue has these vehicles, you ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 2.02-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1230 07 04 1022 1/~'JW/sw I
are talking about bucket loaders, Riverhead would have V
2 them.
Brentwood would have them.
3 JUDGE PARIS:
By, " bucket loaders," you mean 4
front loa ~ds?
5 WITNESS WILM:
Front end load, sir, right.
6 We also have snow plows, but I don't know where they would o
\\
7 be located.
Let's go back to the bucket loaders.
We have 8
them in Hicksville, Hewlett, Greenlawn, Bridgehampton.
9 Major operating centers we have these.
10 The closest one to sites, to get a bucket loader 11 over to this site would be Riverhead and Patchogue.
Either 12 one 'of those could have supplied these loaders.
\\
13 They are usually mounted on trailers, but I am 14 not aware of whether they were on or off trailers in the 15 yards that day which sort of addresses the time question, if 16 you ask me, but usually we keep them on the trailers so that j
17 you can move them to the job site.
18 So, the logistics of moving a bucket loader from 19 Patchogue or Riverhead to this site would have been hooking 20 up a truck to the trailer, and bringing it out there and off 21 loading it, if there was a substantial amount of gravel.
22 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 23 0
Now, Mr. Wilm, do you differ at all between a 24 scraper truck and a bucket loader?
(
25 A
I am using the FEMA word.
I don't know what a i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
1230 07-05 1023 l7JW/sw I
scraper truck is.
If it is something to push gravel off a V
2 road, a scraper truck could be a snow removal-type truck, it 3
could be a bulldozer, it could be a front end loader.
4 I think we are just talking about generically the 5
equipment.
6 0
The use of the term in your testimony, you used o
7 that term because FEMA used that term?
8 A
Correct.
9 0
Now, next discuss Subpart B, little 3 of the 10 Contention, which is again on page 3 of Attachment A of your 11 testimony.
And you state that with regard -- and I am 12 looking at the end of the paragraph, Mr. Wilm, with regard 13 to the road crew, interveners failed to state that the road 14 crew was instructed to report to the scene of the fuel 15 truck impediment at 13:50.
See Attachment C.19.
It's 16 response time of ten minutes was hardly timely.
17 Do you see that?
18 A
Yes, I do.
19 MR. ZEUGIN:
Just so the record is clear, I think 20 the last word was, " untimely" rather than timely.
21 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 22 0
I am sorry.
Hardly untimely.
23 A
I missed that.
24 0
I missed it, too, Mr. Wilm.
It wasn't a trick.
C) 25 (Laughter.)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
.. ~
1230 07 06 1024 hggpJW/sw 1
BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 2 0
If you doubled the ten minutes, would that be 3
untimely, Mr. Wilm?
4 A
(Witness Wilm)
I think in the context you are 5
asking me, if it was a half hour it wouldn't matter, because 6
the truck was sent there to stand by.
c 7
We had rerouted traffic, as the previous 8
testimony showed.
They weren't being sent there to remove 9
the impediment; they were being sent there to stand by.
10 0
Now, Mr. Wilm, so a half hour would not have made 11 a difference either, right?
12 A
In this particular case, I don't believe so.
( -
13 0
Would you look at Attachment C-18.
If it wa's 14 just being dispatched to stand by, this road crew, can you 15 explain to me why the lead traffic guide at the staging area 16 at 13:45 on the day of the exercise communicated with the 17 road logistics coordinator, and stated that a road crew was 18 needed?
19 A
This is a -- as you recall in this testimony, we 20 said that the road crew was brought to the scene either as a 21 result of discussions that were taking place in the EOC, or 22 from the Port Jefferson Traffic Guide.
23 Now, the reason why we are unclear about this is 24 that I was discussing the tow truck, and the need for a road O
25 crew, and where they are at, and where is the impediment.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
1230 07 07 1025 1/~'JW/sw 1
And it was reasoned why leave them at their Q
2 site.
Why not bring them down to the impediment site to 3
stand by.
4 They have a radio, they could be of assistance.
5 I don't think they could have moved an overturned fuel truck 6
with a five ton tow truck.
7 Now, then the message came from Port Jefferson.
8 I don't have a record of how Port Jefferson was fed into 9
this loop.
I just know that Port Jefferson asked us about 10 it, and I am not sure how they became aware of this.
11 0
Do you know what the lead traffic guide at Port 12 Jefferson meant when he sta'ted that a road crew was needed?
(
13 A
I do not.
I don't know where he got his
]
14 information.
If it didn't come from us, I don't know where 15 it could have come from, except for FEMA.
16 JUDGE PARIS:
The lead traffic guide is stationed 17 at the staging area?
18 WITNESS WILM:
That is correct.
And we have no l
19 message of asking him.
This is unique because it appears as 20 though we are getting a prompt from the Port Jefferson area, 21 and we were already discussing that, whether or not to move 22 the road crew from where it was, to -- closer to the 23 impediment.
24 JUDGE FRYE:
And they actually accomplised that?
Ak-25 WITNESS WILM:
Oh, they did go, yes.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-M46
1230 08 01 1026 1(']JW/sw 1
O Mr. Wilm, you just used one of my favorite words, 4
i/
2 s
2
" prompt."
Have you ever attempted to count the number of 3
prompts that were utilized in LERO's response to these two 4
impediments on the day of the exercise?
5 A
(Witness Wilm)
That was a wrong choice of words, 6
what I used.
But, prompting as you are talking about prompt 7
from FEMA, I know of one.
And, that's when I was asked to 8
go over and look into the traffic control group and that 9
message.
10 0
And, that was the one about 12:13?
11 A
Yes.
12 0
That's the only one you know about?
13 A
That's the only one I considered to be a prompt.
14 0
The message at 11:04 which specified the location i
15 of the evaluator at the gravel truck impediment, did you not 16 consider that a prompt?
17 A
That's a prompt to fix a FEMA deficiency, in my 18 judgment, not a prompt to us.
They were telling us where to 19 find this guy who wasn't where he was supposed to be.
20 0
Did it help you find that person?
21 A
Apparently, it didn't.
Our road crew missed him 22 after we got the prompt.
And, we still weren't sure where 23 he was.
24 0
Now, if you look at the bottom of the page,
()
j 25 Mr. Wilm, with regard to the route spotter -- and we are ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1230 08 02 1027
-"...it is true 1(~}JW/sw 1
referring still to this subpart B(iii) xs 2
that his dispatch could have been more expedited."
3 Do you see that statement?
4 A
Yes, I do.
5 0
And then I believe your testimony basically says 6
that that delay was due to the cryptic nature of the 7
communciators message to the staging area.
Is that a fair 8
statement?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
Now, if you turn over to Page 28, you've 11 got, "Given the time constraints imposed by the exercise 12 scenario, the Lead Traffic Guides correctly chose to brief m
13 and dispatch Traffic Guides before briefing. Route Spotters."
14 Do you see that statement?
15 A
Yes.
16 0
And, you are talking about the Lead Traffic 17 Guides at the Port Jefferson staging area?
t 18 A
Yes.
19 0
Is there more than one Lead Traffic Guide at the l
20 staging area?
21 A
There's more than one.
22 (The witnesses are conferring.)
23 0
If there's more than one, I just --
24 A
Yes.
25 0
And, that was true under Revision 6 of the plan; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6616
1230 08 03 1028 Ic^?JW/sw 1
is that right?
%,/
2 A
Yes.
3 0
Is it fair to say, Mr. Wilm, that the Lead 4
Traffic Guide has responsibility for dispatching traffic 5
guides, road crews and route spotters?
6 A
Yes.
7 O
Does he also dispatch the route alert drivers?
8 A
Yes, he does.
He handles them all.
9 (The witnesses are conferring.)
10 0
For the Port Jefferson staging area, if you were 11 fully mobilized --
12 A
Just -- I will leave the answer as yes.*
(~)
\\/
13 0
For the Port Jefferson staging area, if you were 14 fully mobilized for a full-scale 10-mile evacuation, could 15 you just give me your best estimate of the number of persons 16 l that would constitute traffic guides, road crew members, 17 route spotters, route alert drivers?
18 How many people are we talking about?
19 A
I would have to defer to John.
20 0
I'm not looking for an exact number, 21 Mr. Weismantle.
22 A
(Witness Weismantle)
I know it, but I would have 23 to refer to some information.
24 (The witness is looking through documents.)
O l
25 JUDGE PARIS:
While you are looking it up, could
/\\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6 i
1230 08 04 1029 1/~*JW/sw I
someone tell me what a route alert driver does?
9) 2 WITNESS WILM:
An alert driver is used when -- in 3
case there is a siren failure and we want to notify people 4
in a particular area that would be affected by the siren, we 5
would then send out a specially equipped vehicle with a loud 6
speaker to ride the area and inform them what was happening.
7 JUDGE PARIS:
Okay.
Thank you.
8 WITNESS WILM:
Tune to your radio.
9 JUDGE PARIS:
Okay.
10 (The witnesses are conferring.)
11 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
Okay.
There's about 109, 12 not including the three Lead Traffic Guides.
So, there are 13 three Lead Traffic Guides at Port Jefferson.
14 MR. MILLER:
Okay.
15 j BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) l 16 l 0
The 109 are the --
17 A
(Witness Weismantle)
The route alert, traffic l
18 guides and evacuation route spotters and road crews.
19 0
Okay.
Thank you.
i l
20 JUDGE FRYE:
Those are not individuals but crews 21 and --
i 22 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
No, those are individuals.
l 23 I'm sorry.
Those are individual people.
l i
24 JUDGE FRYE:
Individuals.
And, that's everybody I
25 that they have to --
i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202447 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 08 05 1030 1
WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
That's correct.
ygpJW/sw 2
BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 3 0
Mr. Weismantle, you sponsored the answer 4
beginning at the bottom of Page 28.
Is it fair to say that 5
the, as you put it, the extensive revisions to OPIP 3.6.3 6
have been made as a result of the exercise?
o 7
A Yes.
s 8
0 Is it fair to say that the expansion of job 9
descriptions that you reference at the bottom of the page 10 have been made as a result of the exercise?
11 A
Yes.
12 0
Let's go to Page :29, please.
Is it fair to say 13 that the specific rerouting instructions that have been 14 added to the Evacuation Coordinator's procedures have been 15 added as a result of the exercise?
16 MR. PIRFO:
Judge Frye, at this point I want to 17 interpose, not really an objection -- I probably should have l
18 made it earlier, but the only problem I'm having is with the 19 language "as a result of the exercise."
20 And, the answer -- I'm not sure what that means 21 in this context, as a result of findings that FEMA made in 22 its post-exercise assessment or as a result of the exercise 23 meaning things that LERO saw that were areas for i
24 improvement.
(
t 25 I just think there is a danger in having ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
1230 08 06 1031 1(']JW/sw 1-testimony saying that these were made as a result of the
%,?
2 exercise, period -- or, question mark, and not knowing what 3
was meant by the language "as a result to the exercise."
4 I should think to that extent, I do have an 5
objection in the sense the question is vague.
But, I would 6
like that clarified if counsel could do so in his questions.
7 JUDGE FRYE:
Do you have any problem with that?
8 MR. MILLER:
I have no problems.
I think we have 9
been focusing on the problems that were identified during 10 the exercise.
11 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 12 O
Mr. Weismantle, is that the way you have been 13
. understanding my questions?
14 A
I've been understanding it as a result of the 15 assessment of the exercise.
Obviously, that assessment l
wouldn't exist without the exercise.
16 17 0
And, that assessment showed that there were 18 problems in the way the road impediments were handled?
19 A
Yes.
Clearly, in FEMA's opinion there were 20 difficulties.
21 0
Now, with respect to those problems, 22 Mr. Weismantle, is it fair to say that the revisions to the 23 OPIP 3.6.3 and the descriptions of jobs being expanded and 24 the specific rerouting instructions having been added to the 25 Evacuation Coordinator's procedures were all a result of the kCE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
i 1230 08 07 1032 y
fJW/sw 1
exercise and the problems demonstrated during the exercise?
2 A
They were the result of the FEMA report on the 3
exercise which focused on our performance on the 4
impediments.
1 5
0 Including the problems demonstrated by LERO in 6
responding to those impediments, correct?
o 7
A Including those problems, yes.
i 8
0 Now, the statement at the top of Page 29, 1
9 Mr. Weismantle, consulting with Traffic Engineer, getting 10 detailed reports from field personnel, informing the i
11 Transportation Support Group should bus rerouting be l
,12 necessary, informing the Public Information Group of the 13 need to prepare an EBS message, none of these was required 14 as of the time of the exercise; is that correct?
15 A
Well, yes, with one clarification and that is, j
16 the Evacuation Coordinator was in the procedures at the time 17 of the exercise to have gotten field reports up through the l
l 18 ranks.
But, that didn't happen in the exercise obviously 1
l 19 initially until after he was prompted.
20 0
Okay.
Now, looking further down the page, 21 Mr. Weismantle, did --
)
l 22 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, we will explore these l
l 23 training matters later.
I think that we've gone through 24 that.
O 25 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) i
/\\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 316-6M6
1230 08 08 1033 1(JW/sw 1
0 Let me get to you, Mr. Lieberman.
At the bottom V
2 of the page you sponsor your response to the answer -- I'm 3
sorry, to the question that's stated on Page 29.
And, you 4
say that, "Having served as the Traffic Engineer in drills 5
following the exercise, I believe this addition to the EOC 6
staff has improved the LILCO plan."
7 Do you see that statement?
8 A
(Witness Lieberman)
I do.
9 0
And, then you refer to a trained traffic 10 engineer.
Do you mean trained under the LILCO plan?
11 A
In part.
But, I'm using it in the more general 12 sense that people are trained in evacuation plannin'g and 13 they are trained as professional traffic engineers.
14 0
Okay.
So, you mean in both senses?
15 A
I mean in the general applicable sense, yes.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
I didn't catch your last --
17 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
Yes.
In the general 18 applicable sense.
19 JUDGE PARIS:
In other words, you are talking 20 about professional traffic engineers who have had training 21 in managing evacuations; is that right?
Or, experience in 22 evacuation planning?
23 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
Well, yes, sir, but beyond 24 that we have also trained other emergency management 25 personnel and police personnel.
We have set up the ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage MA336-6M6
1230 08 09 1034 IggpJW/sw syllabus for training these personnel on emergency 1
2 evacuation at the FEMA facility in Emmitsburg.
I think it's 3
fair to say that we probably have the most capable traffic 4
engineers in this area available.
5 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 6 0
Mr. Lieberman, and you have participated in more 7
than one training drill under the LILCO plan since the 8
exercise?
9 A
My recollection is that I have participated in 10 two of them.
I know of one that I can remember with great 11 clarity.
I have a more fuzzy memory but I think I 12 participated in another one as well.
k' 13 0
Do you recall the time of either of those 14 training drills?
15 A
Well, one was in the Summer and the other one, 16 which is more fuzzy in my mind, I think was one of the 17 December training drills.
18 0
Mr. Weismantle, do you know the date of the first 19 one that Mr. Lieberman was at?
20 A
(Witness Weismantle)
No, I don't.
21 0
okay.
22 A
I know the second one, which was December 2nd.
23 0
Now --
24 A
(Witness Lieberman) I can tell you, it wasn't the 25 one that you referred to earlier where the Traffic Engineer ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 08 10 1035
~'JW/sw 1
was concerned about the crown in the road.
1(J 2
Q But, that was a member of your staff, 3
Mr. Lieberman?
4 A
That was the first exposure that this backup 5
member had, right.
6 0
Was it a member of your staff?
7 A
Yes, it certainly was.
8 Q
Now, Mr. Lieberman --
9 JUDGE PARIS:
Does he know better now?
10 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
I should certainly hope so.
11
( Laughte r. )
12 BY MR., MILLER:
(Continuing)
,O 13 0
Mr. Lieberman, is it fair to say that of the.
14 traffic engineers under the LILCO plan, they are all from KLD and they all report to you?
15 i I
16 A
That's a fair statement, yes.
17 Q
You told me that was a fair statement?
f 18 A
Yes.
19 Q
At the other drill you are a little fuzzy on, 1
l 20 Mr. Lieberman, about the timing of it, was it the drill t
l 21 where there was criticism rendered because the Traffic I
l 22 Engineer failed to determine evacuation time estimates in a 1
f 23 timely manner?
24 A
I can't answer that.
25 Q
Well, if that criticism had been made of a i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 l.
1230 08 11 1036 lJW/sw 1
position that you were performing, would you not be aware of V
2 that criticism today?
3 A
I recall that in the post-exercise debriefing or 4
summary, I don't recall any such criticism at that time.
5 0
Do you recall any criticism of your performance 6
during the training drill that you are referring to?
7 A
I don't recall any that stands out in my mind as 8
being particularly meaningful.
9 0
Well, give me any that you recall?
10 A
I just don't.
11 0
You just don't recall any?
12 A
No.
I recall that the review was generally
'J 13 positive in the way that I responded to the notification of 14 impediment, in the way I set about identifying diversion 15 points and in the way I also went to the maps.
I identified 16 the bus routes.
I sent out a message to inform the Suffolk 17 County Police Department.
i 18 All of these come to mind.
i 19 0
Do you recall, Mr. Lieberman, having to be 20 prompted to develop revised evacuation time estimates based t
j 21 upon the way traffic had been rerouted around simulated I
22 impediments?
23 A
I don't recall that, no.
24 0
Mr. Lieberman, are you testifying that what I O
25 just asked you, in fact, did not happen?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 08 12 1037 1
GJW/sw 1
A I gave you that answer.
I said I don't recall.
O)
\\_
2 O
Okay.
Let's go to Page 30, gentlemen.
- Now, 3
Mr. Lieberman, earlier today there was a discussion with 4
Judge Paris in which you seemed to take some comfort in the 5
numbers of traffic accidents reported to the Suffolk County 6
Police Department and attached to I think the Suffolk County C
7 testimony in Contention 41; is that right?
8 A
Well, you used the phrase "taking comfort."
I 9
don't think that's appropriate.
10 0
Well, did you rely upon those figures, sir, in 11 explaining why you believe an estimate of four accidents 12 during an evacuation of the EPZ is reasonable?
13 A
I cited them as confirmatory data, yes..
14 O
Now, let's look particularly at your testimony on 15 Pages 30 and 31, Mr. Lieberman.
In the middle of the page, 16 you state that the population of the Sixth Precinct is about 1
17 I one and a half times the population of the Shoreham EPZ.
18 Do you see that?
19 A
Right.
20 0
What is the source of your data?
21 A
Well, the way this was done was to determine the 22 area covered by the Sixth Precinct, plot that on a map, use 23 estimates I believe compiled by the County on population 24 distribution in the general area, and on that basis came up 25 with this conclusion.
{}
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6 L
1230 08 13 1038 1
GJW/sw 1
The Sixth Precinct, as you know, extends beyond n
2 the western boundary of the EPZ.
That area is fairly 3
densely populated, much more so than the area in the eastern 4
portion of the EPZ which lies outside the domain of the 5
Sixth Precinct.
6 0
Now, Mr. Lieberman, do you feel confident that 7
your 1.5 times the population of the Shoreham EPZ estimate 8
is a correct estimate?
9 A
I didn't do those calculations, but I'm confident 10 in the ability of the person who did do it.
11 0
Okay.
And it does impact the way you do your 12 recomputation of the Suffolk County police figures, doesn't
[}
13 it?
14 A
I don't know what you mean by recomputation.
15 0
Well, that's what you've done on Pages 30 and 31 16 of your testimony.
17 A
Well --
l 18 0
We will explore that.
l 19 A
It was used as a -- the 1.5 was used as a l
20 normalizing factor so as to identify that portion of the 21 statistics provided by the police which could be relevant to 22 the area within the EPZ.
23 0
Now, you are aware, Mr. Lieberman, of the fact i
24 that the -- maybe to make this more clear --
- ( )
25 MR. MILLER:
If the Board has the Suffolk County ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1230 08 14 1039 1
GJW/sw 1
testimony on Contention 41, Attachment 13 to that testimony 2
-- I'm sorry, Attachment 14 to that testimony is the study 3
which Mr. Lieberman and I are going to discuss.
4 The first page is dated 5/26, and it just 5
basically says that:
Attached is a motor vehicle accident 6
survey for the period, February 6th through February 20, C
7 1986.
And, in particular the study is broken down into a 8
gross Precinct reporting on the first page after the cover 9
and then there are six pages which have more detailed 10 figures, and the last page is the Sixth Precinct.
11 Unfortunately, the Sixth got cut off in the 12 xeroxing, but it says Precinct.
And at the very top of the
()
13 page, the first line, the numbers would be -- that would l
14 have been typed in would be 5232323.
I i
15 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 16 0
Mr. Lieberman, I've just tried to summarize in 17 shorthand f ashion this study and identify it for the Board.
i 18 Would you disagree with what I've done in terms of l
19 identifying this study?
20 A
Well, your identification is correct.
21 Q
Okay.
Thank you.
Now, let's go back to your 4
22 testimony on Page 30, and I want to keep out a copy of this 23 study of the Suf folk County police so we can follow this j
24 along.
f()
25 On Pago 30, Mr. Lieberman, you state tha t it was Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
~ 1230 08 15 1040 1
GJW/sw 1
reported accidents, and the rate was on average 22 accidents O)
\\_
2 per day as reported by the Suffolk County police; is that 3
right?
4 A
Right.
5 Q
And, you realize, Mr. Lieberman, that under New 6
York law accidents need to be reported when property damage 7
exceeds $600 or there is personal injury involved.
Are you 8
aware of that?
9 A
I know there is a lower threshold for PDO, 10 property damage only, accidents.
11 0
Do you believe it's fair to say, Mr. Lieberman, 12 that some traffic accidents go unreported?
13 A
I think that's true.
You get these minor.
' (}
14 accidents and the parties -- if you have bumpers kiss and 15 the parties glare at each other and then drive away, those 16 are not reported.
I 17 0
Have you ever attempted, Mr. Lieberman, to 18 determine how many accidents go unreported as compared to 19 reported?
20 A
It's a fairly good amount, because most accidents 21 are very light accidents and people don't like to report 22 them because it sends their insurance rates up.
- And, 23 generally those ddn't need a tow vehicle so they just drive 24 off.
25 MR. PIRFO:
Again, Mr. Chairman, I have a
()
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-%M
~. ~.... ~.... -
.~. - --,~.
1230 08 16 1041 1
GJW/sw 1
definitional problem here.
Are we using the term " accident" 2
to mean something that exceeds the $600 threshold that 3
Mr. Miller has mentioned, or are we talking about when any 4
two vehicles touch each other?
j 5
JUDGE FRYE:
In this last question, it has been 6
simply a question of unreported --
O 7
MR. MILLER:
That's right.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
-- which would be, as I understand 9
it, under $600 and involving no personal injury.
10 MR. MILLER:
If people follow the law, that's the 11 definition that applies, yes, Judge Frye.
12 MR. PIRFO:
That's the definition of an accident,
^
()
13 not simply as Mr. Lieberman said when two --
14 MR. MILLER:
No, no.
I think what Mr. Lieberman 15 And I are discussing is the fact that there were 22 16 !
accidents reported on average during the period of February 17 6th through the 20th according to the Suffolk County Police 18 Department, but that there are, of course, accidents that 19 are not reported.
20 MR. PIRFO:
That exceed the $600 threshold?
21 MR. MILLER:
There are accidents not reported.
22 MR. PIRFO I'm aware of that, but accidents 23 below the $600 threshold, not involving property damage or i
24 personal injury rather, are not required to be reported.
()
25 So, I don't understand the distinction of l
/(CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Ntionwide Coverage 80M36-6M6
1230 08 17 1042 1
GJW/sw 1
reported versus unreported and the definition of accident.
'N-2 I mean, quite candidly, an accident is any time 3
two vehicles touch under New York State law.
That is 4
considered an accident.
I mean, only because -- well, I 5
won't get into the personal reasons for knowing that but I 6
just want a definition of what we are talking about.
7 (Laughter.)
8 JUDGE FRYE:
Do you have a definition?
9 MR. PIRFO:
I'm not trying to be difficult.
I 10 just want to know --
11 JUDGE FRYE Excuse me one moment.
Do you have 12 a definition that you customarily use?
./"T 13 yITNESS LIEBERMAN - No.
I guess Webster's g
14 dictionary would be,as good a source as any.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
16 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
I would like to make -- there l
17 is another term that traf fic engineers use, and that's 18 called incident.
19 JUDGE FRYE I see.
20 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
An accident is a special form i
21 of an incident.
In other words, there are more incidents l
22 than there are accidents.
23 For example, if someone has a flat tire that's 24 considered an incident but it is not an accident.
(])
25 JUDGE FRYE It sounds as if an accident is a ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
1230 09 01 1043 1
GJW/sw 1
little more serious matter than an incident.
2 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
That's correct.
An accident 3
could also be, for example, if a car hits a tree or a 4
utility pole.
You don't have to have an involvement of two 5
vehicles in order to have an accident.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
Thank you.
7 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 8 0
Mr. Lieberman, it sounds like from what you are 9
saying, you and I should stick to the term " accident" for i
10 this discussion.
11 A
Well, I don't know where you are going.
- But, 12 let's just move along.
(])
13 0
I'm going to follow what you've done with the 14 information that was reported by the Suf folk County Police 15 Department as set forth in your testimony on Pages 30 and 16 31.
I want to make sure you know exactly where I'm going i
i 17 and you can follow it.
18 Do you understand what I'm trying to do here?
19 I'm going to explore your testimony.
l 20 A
Well, let's move it.
21 0
Excuse me?
i l
i 22 A
Let's move along.
23 MR. PIRFO:
Well, I guess my problem is, I guess 24 it's something in the way of voir dire on the attachment to
]
l (])
25 the Suffolk County testimony which, of course, we don't have ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
1230 09 02 1044 1
GJW/sw I
their witnesses here unless counsel --
I)
N' 2
JUDGE FRYE:
Why?
3 MR. PIRFO:
Candidly, I mean, I don't know what 4
accident means in that context.
Are those accidents that 5
are reported that exceed the $600 limit?
There are many 6
accidents reported that do not exceed the $600 limit, as are 7
many accidents that do exceed the $600 limit.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
What's the relevance to this 9
testimony?
He is talking about accidents in his testimony.
10 MR. PIRFO:
I don't know the relevance to his 11 testimony.
That's the problem I'm having.
I don't where he 12 is going, and I just want a definitional foundation at the
({ )
13 start.
14 JUDGE FRYE:
Let's find out where we are going, 15 and then we will worry about whether we need a definition.
16 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, all I'm trying to do is 17 explore Mr. Lieberman's testimony in the way he took the 18 information reported by Suffolk County police and then drew 19 assumptions that are set forth in his testimony.
20 That's all I'm doing.
So, I will continue with 21 Mr. Lieberman.
22 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 23 0
Mr. Lieberman, would it be fair to say that the 24 number of accidents that occur in a February or winter month
()
25 would generally be less than accidents that would occur ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
N '
t N
l 1230 09 03 1045 O
l'N JJW/sw 1
during say,Isor example, the peak summer f)nw?
2-JUDGE FRYE:
I think you are asking about rate of 3
acciden,ts or something of that nature?
4 MR. MILLER:
l'm talking about the number'af 5
accidents, Judge Frye, the gross basis.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Okay.
a
,s 7
WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
I won't jump t6 that.
I 8
would like to see the! statistics.
I 9
BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) i 10 0
Okay.
So, you are not sure if during peakOsummor 11 traffic-months you would have more or less traffic accidents 12 than du, ring a month like February?,
(}
13 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I will, object on grounds 14 of relevance.
What Mr. Lieberman has done in this testimony I
L 15 is take Suffolk County's own accident data.
16 Had they wanted to use aummer numbers they could j
l 17 just as easily have included those in their testiinony, too.
18 He is just responding to what was in the contentton i
19 essentially.
j j
20 MR. MILLER:
Judge Fr:ye, what the Suf folk County 21 Police Department did 'is, they Nock the period of he 22 exercise, February 6th to February 20th, a week on either 23 side of it just s.o it could be as fair as it could be.
l (]}
24 Mr. Lieberman is trying to imply from his I
i 25 testimony that you can somehow play with these numbers no
/\\CEJFEoeRAL REPORTERS, INC.
.02 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 % 336-6646 l
,, - _ _ _., -. _ _ _. _,,, _ _. _. _ _. _.. ~.,. _.
_...,___.__._.m__
Y 1230 09 04' 1046 1
GJW/sw 1
that they support, in fact, his previous analyses about
- r 2
numbers of accidents.
3 An accident at the Shoreham plant could occur at 4
any time.
Therefore, I think it's appropriate that I find 5
out from Mr. Lieberman whether it isn't true that accidents 6
during winter months could be less than accidents during 7-other times of the year.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, he has already answered that 9
question.
He --
j MR. MILLER:
Well, that's --
10 I
11 JUDGE FRYE:
-- said that he wouldn't necessarily 12 subscribe to that without seeing the figures.
/' ')
13 l MR. MILLER:
Okay.
Then, I'm ready for my.next 14 question.
.i 15 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing)
I 16 !.
O Mr. Lieberman, do you know -- well, let me just 17 ask you.
Isn't it, in fact, true that during the entire 18 year of.1986 there were less accidents reported to the 19 Suf folk County police during February than any other month 20 of the year?
21 A
I don't know that.
22 i 0
Did you make any inquiry in that regard?
23 A
No.
I just looked at the numbers you provided 24 me.
T'];
QS J"DGE PARIS:
Can I get a quick question in here?
{
u-ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 s
l
~
1230 09 05
'v 1047 1
GJW/sw 1
MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
/~T
\\~)
2 JUDGE PARIS:
Mr. Lieberman, what do the tours 1, i
3 2, 3 refer to?
Is that time of day?
In other words, police 4
shifts?
5 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
Yeah.
I didn't explore that 6
in great detail.
I assume that tnere are three eight-hour a
7 tours.
I don't know the time of day associated with each 8
tour.
9 He did try to talk to the Suf folk County police.
10 They wouldn't answer us.
They referred us to Lockhart.
So,
{
11 I just dropped it.
{
12 MR. MILLER:
It's Kirkpatrick and Lockhart,
(~)
13 Mr. Lieberman.
V 14 WITNESS LIELERMAN:
Sorry.
15 JUDGE SHON:
Just out of curiosity, Mr. Miller, 16 is it possible that the reason for the sparsity of accidents 17 in February is that it's the shortest month?
18 MR. MILLER:
It could well be, Judge Shon.
19 (Laughter.)
20 MR. MILLER:
I think, though, that the studies 21 demonstrate,.at least in Suffolk County, that the winter 22 month accidents are less than summer months because of the 23 increased traffic during the summer on Long Island.
24 JUDGE SHON:
I think that's what Judge Frye meant
()
25 when he asked whether you were talking about accident rate.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
1230 09 06 1048 1
GJW/sw 1
JUDGE FRYE:
He was not.
(m.
N 2
BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 3 Q
Now, let me ask you, Mr. Lieberman, you did not 4
attempt to determine what the numbers 1, 2, 3 meant on these 5
6 JUDGE FRYE:
No, he did.
He just said he did.
7 But, he was unable to get an answer.
8 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
You are not with me.
9 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 10 0
Did you try to do that, Mr. Lieberman, and --
11 A
Sure did.
Yeah.
12 O
Mr. Lieberman, would you please let me ask my
(}
13 question, and then you can give me your answer.
And, you.
14 are going to have to do it this way.
15 Now, did you try to make that determination on 16 !
your own or through counsel?
l 17 A
No.
I tried to make it on my own.
[
l 18 0
Did you ask counsel for LILCO to make that 19 determination, to make that inquiry for you?
20 A
No, it wasn't that important.
I'm just looking 21 at total numbers of accidents here.
22 Q
Now, Mr. Lieberman, let's go to Page 31 of your 23 testimony.
Looking at the date of the exercise, 2/13, you 24 looked at the number of total accidents and that's 22; is
()
25 that right?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 09 07 1049
'l GJW/sw 1
MR. ZEUGIN:
I'm sorry, Mr. Miller, perhaps I'm 2
confused.
I thought you referred him to Page 31 and said 3
total accidents of 22.
I don't see it on this page.
4 I don't know if you are referring to Page 30 or 5
6 JUDGE FRYE:
I can't find it either.
7 MR. MILLER:
I'm sorry.
I'm still on Page 30, at 8
the bottom of Page 30.
9 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 10 0
At the bottom of Page 30, Mr. Lieberman, if we 11 take the reported accident rate of 22 accidents per day -,
12 do you see that statement?
13 A
.Yes.
{}
14 O
And, you got that information from this last page 15 of the Suffolk County Police Department study which I've 16 referenced; is that right?
17 A
That is correct.
18 O
Now, Mr. Lieberman, on the next page, Page 31, 19 where you talk about the 17 accidents that were report 9d the 20 day of the exercise, only one of them requiring a tow truck 21 response, where did that information come from?
22 A
That's on the last page which we discussed 23 earlier that represented the Sixth Precinct.
You will 24 notice that under the column " Tow, Yes/No" for February
(}
25 13th, we have the Number 1.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1230 09 08 1050 1.,GJW/sw 1
O Yes, sir.
Now, it looks to me like the total
\\ J.
2 accidents -- this is a small point, but the total accidents 3
looks to be 18 for the date of the exercise; is that right?
4 A
You are right.
I picked up the 17.
It should 5
have been 18.
6 0
Okay.
So, it was 18 accidents that day.
- Now, 7
would you look -- let's look at the next day, Mr. Lieberman, 8
February 14th, the day after the exercise.
9 How many total accidents were reported that day?
10 A
Thirty-three in the entire Sixth Precinct.
11 Q
In the entire Sixth Precinct.
Now, how many of 12 those involved a tow truck response?
13 A
In that case, there were six.
(}
14 0
Now, look at the day of February the '7th.
How 15 many total accidents did you have that day?
16 A
Well, you can select individual days --
17 Q
Mr. Lieberman, my question --
18 A
All right.
19 0
-- is very specific.
How many total accidents 20 did you have the day of February the 7th?
21 A
It appears to be 47.
And there were 10 the day 22 before.
23 Q
Excuse me, Mr. Lieberman.
I'm asking the l
24 questions.
You answer the questions, okay.
You answer the
()
25 questions.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 10 01 1051 1
GJW/sw 1
MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I will proffer,
((y>
2 represent to the Board, that these tours one, two, and 3
three, are in fact the three shift tours of the Suffolk 4
County Police Department.
5 And that Shift 1 is midnight to 8:00 a.m.,
Shift 6
2 is 8:00 a.m, until 4:00 p.m.,
and Shift Three is 4:00 7
p.m.,
until midnight.
That is what the numbers represent.
8 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 9 0
Now, Mr. Lieberman, let's back up again to the 10 day of the exercise, the 13th of February --
11 JUDGE PARIS:
On the basis of what are you making 12 that statement?
13 MR. MILLER:
I represent the Suffolk County -- I
(}
14 represent Suffolk County, Judge Paris.
I have worked with 15 the Suf folk County Police Department for five years.
16 JUDGE PARIS:
Oh, this is from your own personal 17 knowledge.
18 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
19 MR. PIRFO:
I am sorry, Mr. Miller.
Could you 20 repeat those tours again?
Twelve midnight to --
21 MR. MILLER:
Twelve midnight until eight; eight 22 until four p.m.,
four p.m. until midnight.
23 MR. PIRFO:
I thought I heard a seven in there 24 the first time.
25 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing)
(}
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 10 02 1052 1
GJU/sw 1
Q Mr. Lieberman, if you will look at the day of the f
2 exercise, on the second shift, which would be the 8 a.m.,
to N
3 4 p.m.,
shift, how many accidents were reported during that 4
eight hour period?
5 A
(Witness Lieberman)
A total of 175.
6 Q
Now, I am looking the day of the exercise, the 7
13th of February.
8 A
I was totaling the whole thing.
That is ll.
O That is 11.
And if you have 11 reported 9
10 accidents in an 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> period, dosn't that come out to about 11 1.375 accidents per hour reported?
12 A
On the average, yes.
13 0
And if you have a five. hour exercise evacuat, ion f~/
w 14 such as you had on the day of the exercise, that comes out 15 to approximately seven accidents that would have been 16 reported, is that correct?
l 17 A
I don't think so.
Let me get my calculator, i
18 O
Well, 5 times 1.375.
19 MR. ZEUGIN:
I am sure Mr. Lieberman knows how to 20 do the calculation.
He just asked if he could get out his 21 calculator.
22 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
Right.
6.9.
23 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 24 A
And I said approximately 7.
And i we go back to
(])
25 February 7th, Mr. Lieberman, which was the day when 47 ACE FEDERAL' REPORTERS, INC.
l l
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 e
y e
a : r a
i r-
1230 10 03 1053 1
GJW/sw I
accidents were reported, is it reflected that 26 accidents (m
(-)
2 were reported during the 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> period between 8 a.m., and 4 3
p.m.?
4 A
That is correct.
5 0
And in an 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> period, 26 accidents comes out 6
to somewhat over three accidents per hour, is that right?
C 7
A That is correct.
8 0
So, in a five hour exercise period, you would 9
have somewhat over fif teen accidents reported, is that 10 correct?
11 A
That is correct.
i 12 0
Now, Mr. Lieberman, given all this, do you still 1
13 feel that your analysis of the Suffolk. County Police
{}
14 Department study in which you conclude that during a five l
l 15 hour1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> evacuation only 3.05 divided by 5, or 0.61 accidents i
l 16 per hour would be predicted?
17 A
No, it is actually less than that.
Now that I 18 know which the tours are, it works out to be
.21.
19 If you take the 145 -- I am sorry, it is actually 20 less than that.
It is 30 divided by 175 -- it works out to 21 be 0.17.
l l
22 0
Actually, we are looking at the day of the l
23 exercise, February 13th.
Please explain to me what you are 24 doing.
I am looking at the day of the exercise, sir.
I 25 A
No, you weren't.
You went from the day of the --
(}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
1230 10 04 1054 1
GJW/sw 1
Q I am looking at the day of the exercise.
2 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, that was not 3
Mr. Miller's question.
4 JUDGE FRYE:
Your question had to do with totals, 5
as I understood it.
6 UITNESS LIEBERMAN:
Right.
C 7
MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I am looking at his 8
testimony.
Let me start again, Mr. Lieberman.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
Where are you in his testimony, 10 because I am kind of lost.
11 MR. MILLER:
Well, I am just trying to show, 12 Judge Frye, that you can do a lot of things with numbers.
13 JUDGE FRYE:
I can't find out where you are.
Can
)
w ).
14 you tell me.
15 MR. MILLER:
Let me just ask the question.
16 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing)
I 17 0
Mr. Lieberman, based upon the day, just the day 18 of the exercise is what we are looking at here, using your 19 means of calculation, but focusing on the shift that is most 20 appropriate to the time of the exercise, how many accidents I
21 would you calculate would have been reported?
Can you do 22 those numbers for me?
23 A
About 4.6.
24 0
Can you tell me how you just did that, sir.
(~l 25 A
I took the second tour, which I am sure is the LJ l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 E
~
.-a-
= _,
1230 10 05 1055 1
GJW/sw 1
one you are looking at.
A total of 11 accidents in the
(_)
2 second tour.
I divided by 8 to give me the value per hour, 3
which is the same you gave, 1.375.
4 I then divided by 1.5, so that I normalized the 5
real estate to limit it within the EPZ, and then I 6
multiplied by 5.
7 That gave me 4.58.
8 0
4.58.
9 A
of which less than one would require a tow 10 vehicle.
I can give you that fraction if you like.
11 0
No.
What I would like for you to do, sir, is to 12 tell me your understanding of the duration of the exercise 13 on February 13th in terms of time?
d(%
14 A
Well, let me just ask you.
Isn't it true that it 15 started at about 5:30 in the morning and ended at about 4:30 16 in the afternoon.
Does that sound right, Mr. Weismantle?
g 17 A
(Witness Weismantle)
I guess that does from the 18 point of the initial message was input into the power plant.
19 0
So, that is about an 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> period.
- Now, 20 Mr. Lieberman, do you have some way of factoring in the 21 additional three hours into your calculations from the 22 Suffolk County Police uepartment Study?
23 MR. ZEUGIN:
Objection on grounds of relevance.
24 The only relevant time is the time of the evacuation 25 process itself.
We have now skipped outside the evacuation
['}
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 10 06 1056 1
GJW/sw 1
process to the time of the exercise.
The testimony talks b) 2 about the evacuation process, which is a relevant inquiry, 3
because that is when road crews would respond, and be 4
required to respond.
5 MR. MILLER:
It depends on the assumptions you 6
are going to make, Judge Frye.
I tell you, I think the 7
points that I want to make I have made.
I am ready to move 8
on.
9 JUDGE PARIS:
I would like to ask a few questions 10 of Mr. Lieberman.
Mr. Lieberman, Tour 1 seems to have --
11 well, let's see, yes.
Tour 1 has fewer accidents than Tours 12 2 and 3, does it not?
(~'
13 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
That is correct.
That is L)s 14 because there are fewer cars on the highway, but you will 15 notice, sir, they are of much heavier severity.
16 You notice, for example, that in Tour 1, you have if you look at the bottom right hand corner, there are 17 18 fifteen out of 34 accidents required a tow vehicle.
19 JUDGE PARIS:
Yes.
20 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
I think that is an important 21 point, sir.
l 22 JUDGE PARIS:
I agree that is an important point, 23 but in calculating the -- or obtaining an estimate of 24 accidents per hour during the evacuation by using an average
/")
25 number of accidents per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, are you not biasing your
\\J l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
1230 10 07 1057 1
GJW/sw 1
estimate downward for day time evacuation by including that
()
2 Tour 1, those Tour 1 data?
Wouldn't it be more realistic to 3
base your estimate on Tours 2 and 37 Or just Tour 2.
4 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
Sir, if I had known what the 5
tours were, if the police had told me that information, and 6
I knew which hours each tour covered, I would have done 7
that.
8 But without that information, I had to average it 9
over the day.
That is the reason I didn't.
10 To answer your question, I agree we should look 11 at the period of time during which the exercise took place, 12 and I think if you do that, sir, you will find that the 13 probability of having an accident which required some form (q
U 14 of response on the part of the LERO organization would be a 15 fraction of 1, and a small fraction at that.
16 I think the issue here is impediments, and a car 17 involved in an accident which can drive on its own is not an 18 impediment.
It might be a momentary impediment, but it is 19 not a long lasting impediment, which requires action on the 20 part of the LERO response teams.
21 JUDGE PARIS:
You are basing that upon the total 22 yes or no columns?
23 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
Yes, sir.
24 JUDGE PARIS:
Okay.
(~
25 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
.,,....s
--r~---.--..-----
-~
- - - ~ -
1230 10 08 1058 1
GJW/sw 1
O Is your understanding, Mr. Lieberman, that all
)
2 tow vehicle response to reported accidedents would be 3
reflected in this study by the Suffolk County Police 4
Department?
5 A
(Witness Lieberman)
Can I have that again, 6
please?
7 O
Is it your understanding that all tow vehicles 8
that would have responded to these accidents would have been 9
reflected in this Suffolk County Police Department study?
4 I
10 l A
Yes.
I assume that the Suffolk County Police 11 Department is able to keep it's records straight.
I 12 0
Is it your assumption that all tow trucks report l
l 13 i to the Suf folk County Police Department when they tow a i
I
~
14 vehicle?
15 A
I don' t know if that in true.
I am just working 16 with the statistics that you gava me.
h JUDGE FRYE:
I think you are really going to have 17 i' to elicit that from the police department.
18 19 l MR. MILLER:
I hope we do that, Judge Frye, and I 20 want to also state again that the inquiry f rom Mr. Lieberman 1
21 to the Suffolk County Police Department was not made through 22 counsel.
23 If it would have been made through counsel, it 24 would have been responded to.
25 l JUDGE FRYE:
Right.
We understand that.
7_.
s.J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 10 09 1059 1
GJW/sw 1
JUDGE SHON:
Mr. Lieberman, I have about two 2
questions I would like to ask you.
One of them may be more 3
complex than the other.
4 The first is quite simple and direct, and that 5
is, why did you normalize to population on page 29 -
pardon 6
me, on page 30.
7 That is, you assumed that the accident rate per 8
unit population is a constant when you went from the one 9
geographic area to the other.
10 What is the justification for that?
It isn't 11 people that are colliding, it is cars.
12 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
That is quite right.
The 13 reason I didn't do a better exposure measure, I just didn't
'~'
14 have the data.
Another exposure measure, for example, would 15 be the number of vehicle miles of travel.
16 One that perhaps is not that good is the number f
of registered drivers.
Lacking that kind of detailed data 17 i
18 for the area of interest, I fell back on population, i
19 l reasoning that car ownership is fairly uniform over that 20 area.
Given that mileage per car is not distinctively 21 different outside the EPZ than it is within the EPZ, and so 22 I fell back on information that I could estimate.
23 JUDGE SHON:
My other question is a little more 24 complex.
That is this:
We have heard several times in your 25 !
testimony and Mr. Weismantle's, that you are greatly 7,.
C l
/\\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
4 1230 10 10 1060 1
GJW/sw 1
oversuppli'ed in a sense with these vehicles that could
()
2 assist in an accident.
3 That is, the amount available is far above what 4
would be required.
But we have talked only about average 5
requirement.
Judge Paris touched upon the fact that the 6
hourly rate of accidents is a function of the hour.
7 It is also a function of the day of the week I 8
should think, and the month, and a number of other things.
9 Uhat we have here is a sort of an average over a couple of 10 weeks in February.
11 It may be, that there are times in the year when 12 all of these factors; hour of the day, day of the week, 13 month of the year combine to drive this rate up very O
14 considerably from.the average which you have calculated.
l Do you have any idea what the statistical limits 15 16 1 of this thing is?
Can you give me a standard deviation or 17 something so that one could say with a reasonable assurance 18 that you are covered for ninety percent of the accidents if 19 you handle ten of them during this kind of hourly period.
20 Do you see what I mean?
21 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
Yes, Judge Shon, I see what 22 you mean, and in fact, that is the reason we have twelve 23 road crews.
We estimated as you recall, approximately four 24 accidents within the EPZ over the period assuming the entire 25 EPZ were evacuated.
We have twelve.
Furthermore, there is l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
'~~ -
?
~-
1230 10 11 1061 1
GJW/sw 1
no limitation that a particular road crew need be detained
)
2 at an accident at a particular point for an extensive amount 3
of time.
4 For example, if an accident required pushing the 5
vehicle off the roadway, that is a few minutes; and that 6
same road crew is then available to take care of any other 7
accidents.
8 So, it seems to me that even if you doubled the 9
average, let's say you had eight, let's say you had ten, in 10 an extreme condition, you still have twelve tow trucks 11 available over a period of five hours, and I am not willing 12 to accept the premise that you are going to have much more 13 beyond the average.
N]
14 Statistically, anything is possible.
But I added 15 l
another paragraph to my testimony which documented the fact 16 j that in urban areas where you have high volumes of traffic a
17 l
moving at low speeds, the severity of the accidents are much l
18 lower there than they are in rural environments where you 19 have low volumes and high speeds.
20 So, that is another factor which should be 21 considered in the Board's evaluation.
I believe that we are 22 well staffed to handle any incidents that could happen.
23 i
JUDGE SHON:
I recognize that much of this was 24 !
covered in the earlier hearings, of course.
Thank you for 25 your clarification of that.
73
(
)
w-l
/\\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
1230 10 12 1062 1
GJW/sw 1
BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) g
()
2 Q
Mr. Lieberman, do you consider the Plan's 3
provisions for having twelve -- a maximum of twelve road 4
crews to be planning for the worst case?
Is that a fair 5
summary of what you are saying?
6 A
(Witness Lieberman)
I figure it actually goes 7
beyond what you could reasonably expect to be a worst case, 8
yes.
9 Q
You have gone beyond the worst case.
Okay.
- Now, 10 Mr. Weismantle, on page 31 at the bottom, you talk about the 11
, insertion of the two free play messages imposed by FEMA were 12 designed to place the maximum demand on LERO's resources, do 13 you see that?
g-U 14 A
(Witness Wiesmantle)
Yes.
15 0
Are you telling us that the maximum demand 15 !
possible was faced by LERO on the day of the exercise?
17 A
No, I am not saying maximum demand possible.
18 What I intended to convey here is a demand far in excess of 19 what we think is realistic for all the reasons we have 20 testified to.
21 Perhaps " maximum" was a poor choice of words.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
Maximum expected demand be more 23 accurate?
24 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
Perhaps.
That would have
<~g 25 been better any way.
(J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
,n..
1230 10 13 1063 1
GJW/sw 1
BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing)
I]
2 Q
Mr. Weismantle, you state at the end of 31, and v.-
3 continuing over, FEMA constructed each impediment to 4
obstruct totally all passive movement, thus requiring LERO 5
not only to respond to each impediment, but also to reroute 6
traffic and broadcast an appropriate EBS message.
C 7
Now, are you telling us at this part of your 8
testimony, Mr. Weismantle, that the broadcast of the EBS 9
message was required?
10 A
(Witness Weismantle)
I am not using the word 11
" requiring" here in the same way as I spoke before.
I don't 12 believe it was necessary to broadcast the me,ssage.
I think 13 probably FEMA felt it was appropriate.
As I indicated.
,e i
'~'
14 earlier, I don't believe FEMA criticized us for broadcasting 15 the message, or criticized any aspect of the message, 15 including its timeliness in their assessment.
i 17 !
O But, Mr. Weismantle, I am asking you not about I
18 necessary or appropriate, but about required.
Are you 19 saying in this part of the testimony that the broadcasting 20 of the EBS message was required?
21 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I think Mr. Wiesmantle 22 just answered that.
I think he explained how he used the 23 word, " required.
24 MR. MILLER:
He did not.
JUDGE FRYE:
Well, I missed it then.
I may have 25 j
,fs L,)
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 y -.. _.
1230 10 14 1064 1
GJW/sw 1
missed it then.
(')
2 MR. MILLER:
I missed it also, Judge Frye.
3 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
Okay.
This sentence, I can 4
see why it caused a little confusion, because I -- certainly 5
it is required -- it required LERO to respond to the 6
impediment physically, and that is what is meant by respond 7
to the impediment in the first part of that second phrase in 8
the sentence.
9 It led to the broadcast of a message.
I am not 10 quite sure if FEMA expected us to broadcast it; as I have 11 stated before, I don't think it is required by FEMA or was 12 required to provide an adequate response to these 13 impediments.
b' 14 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 15 0
Was it required by the LILCO Plan?
15 A
(Witness Weismantle)
It certainly wasn't
?
17 l
required by the LILCO Plan as the plan stood the day of the l
18 exercise.
It wasn't envisioned by the LILCO Plan, as we l
19 indicated in our testimony earlier.
20 It was something where an initiative was taken by 21 Mr. Wilm, in this case, after the rerouting took place.
22 Q
At the end of this page, Mr. Weismantle, on page 23 32, you complain that PEMA imposed the two free play 24 messages in a manner which required EOC personnel to
)
i
/\\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6W3 y
~
1230 10 15 1065 1
GJW/sw 1
respond simultaneously to both impediments.
Do you see that t
)
2 statement.
3 A
Yes.
But it wasn't a complaint.
It was a 4
statement of fact.
5 0
Mr. Weismantle, isn't it also a statement of fact 6
that the only reason EOC personnel had to respond 7
simultaneously is because the impediments were not handled 8
timely in the first instance, thereby requiring the prompt 9
from FEMA?
10 A
No, I don't agree completely with that statement.
11 Q
One message was interjected at 10:40 a.m.,
12 correct Mr. Weismantle?
13 A
Yeah.
,7
,'~'
14 Q
The other message was interjected at 11:00 a.m.,
15 is that right?
16 h A
That is right.
1 17 i O
Do you consider that to be simultaneous?
13 A
No, but I think the response --
19 Q
Do you consider it to be simultaneous, yes or no, 20 Mr. Weismantle.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
He saidk, no.
22 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 23 Q
Given that answer, Mr. Weismantle, is it still 24 your testimony that the messages were interjected by FEMA in I
25 a manner which required EOC personnel to respond
(
)
ws l
24CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 10 16 1066 1
GJU/sw 1
simultaneously to both impediments.
2 A
Yes, because the -- there would have been an v
3 overlap in response.
4 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I think this completes 5
my cross examination.
6 I would like to, if we could break for lunch 7
here, and just skim through my notes, I think I am through.
8 I think the other parties shottld be alerted to that, and 9 l likely we will start with someone else doing the i
10 l questioning, but I would just like to look through my notes 11 l during the lunch break.
i 12 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
This is a good time to take a 13 lunch break, and assuming that.is the case, Mr. Zahnleuter, 73 t' ':
14 I think you will be up next.
15 MR. 2AHNLEUTER:
I am prepared.
16 h
JUDGE FRYE:
Followed by -- do you anticipata 17 j
very much?
18 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Ten or fifteen minutes.
19 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Followed by Staff and FEMA.
20 Do you anticipate --
21 MR. PIRFO:
FEMA and Staff.
How much time do you 22 anticipate?
23 MR. PIRFO:
Maybe two questions.
24 MR. CUMMING:
Fifteen minutes.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
Redirect?
7\\O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646
1230 10 17
~1067 1
GIU/sw 1
MR. ZEUGIN:
Very short at this point, Judge x_/
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Let's take our usual hour and 4
a half then, and be back at 1:15.
5 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, before we go off the 6
record, I guess -- it somewhat bothers me today that we came C
7 today, this morning, expecting to spend a full day with this 8
panel.
9 It seems to me if we finish with this panel at 10 2:00 or 2:30, we could always start with the Police Panel.
11 I am willing to go forward and do that today.
I think we 12 are wasting time by simply quitting roughly early afternoon 13 today, when we have until 4:00.
~.
t i
14 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, we are talking about a 15 maximum, perhaps, of an hour and a half.
Is the police 16 panel available.
0 17 MR. MILLER:
Number one, they are not available, 18 and number two, Judge Frye, I don't even see why we are 19 talking that much time.
If we are coming back from lunch --
20 with the estimates I have heard, and then I assume there 21 will be some redirect, we may be talking an hour, but I gave 22 my best estimate.
I was consistent all the way through.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes, you were.
We will go to lunch 24 now.
25
, - ~.
Gi ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336- % 46
. ~,
1230 11 01 1068 1
GJW/sw 1
(Whereupon, luncheon recess was taken at 11:45 2
a.m.,
to reconvene at 1:15 p.m.,
this same day.)
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 0
14 15 16 l
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
..._g.-.,,.
..,~.. -
..c.
1230 01 01 1069 marycimons 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2
(1:20 p.m.)
3 Whereupon, 4
JOHN A. WIESMANTLE 5
UALTER F. WILM 6
and 7
EDWARD B.
LIEBERMAN 8
were recalled as a panel of witnesses and, having been 9
previously duly sworn, were further examined and testified 10 further as follows:
11 JUDGE FRYE:
Shall we go back on the record?
12 Any more cross, Mr. Miller, or are you through?
13, MR. MILLER:
. Judge Frye, I have concluded my
/
)
14 cross-examination.
I would ask,that at this time if 15 appropriate we just have the witnesses identify the 16 materials we talked about the other day.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
The materials they relied upon?
i 18 MR. MILLER:
The materials they have had with 19 them at the witness table.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
Right. I think that would be 21 appropriate.
22 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
I can speak for the panel 23 and summarize what we've had.
24 We have each had copies of our own depositions.
25 We have had traffic control point maps with us,
,-U ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
1230 02 02 1070 m2rycimons 1 various plans and OPIP sections that related to our
/
l 2
testimony.
As 3
We have had a copy of Suffolk County testimony 4
on Contention 41.
5 We have had various exercise documents which I 6
believe all have been made available to Suffolk County now 7
and most of them had been available prior to this panel 8
coming up.
9 We have had a cooy of NUREG 0654.
We have had a 10 Suffolk County Street Atlas.
11 We have had miscellaneous photographs of the 12 impediment areas and we have also had various training 13 materials.
14 MR. MILLER:
Thank you, Mr. Weismantle.
15 Judge Frye, I understand from the Zeugin that I
15 with the exception of the photographs which I think Mr.
17 Lieberman just took a few days ago, all of these materials 18 had previously been made available to Suffolk County.
19 So I would have no objection to the fact that 20 the witnesses have had these materials available to them 21 during the cross-examination.
I think that that's 22 understandable given the nature of the testimony.
23 MR. ZEUGIN:
I would just note that that is a 24 correct representation.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
Thank you.
O v
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
... ~... -
.7..
1230 02 02 1071 marycimons 1 Mr. Zahnleuter.
[)
2 CROSS-EXAMINATION s-3 BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
4 0
Mr. Weismantle, I'm going to ask you a series of 5
questions and I would appreciate it if you would answer yes 6
or no, and if you are unable to answer yes or no, I would 7
like you to tell me that.
8 Could you turn to page 29 of your testimony.
9 (Uitness complies.)
10 I would like to refer you to the portion that is 11 sponsored by Mr. Lieberman, and specifically I would like 12 to ask you if you agree with Mr. Lieberman's testimony that 13 a trained traffic engineer can bring new. insights to.the 73 O
14 decision-making process?
15 A
(Uitness Weismantle)
Yes, as a general l
16 statement I agree with that.
17 0
Do you also agree with his testimony that 18 members of KLD associates have better understandings than 19 other members of the EOC staff of traffic flows?
20 A
Yes.
21 0
And potential sources of congestion?
22 A
Yes.
23 0
And the computer projections of evacuation 24 traffic flow?
25 A
Yes.
O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 02 02 1072 mnryaimons 1 O
Do you agree with his testimony that the traffic
,-()
2 engineer should help LER respond more quickly and with 3
confidence to roadway i.npediments or unexpected traf fic 4
problems?
5 A
I agree.
6 O
Mr. Wilm, do you also agree with that testimony?
C 7
A (Witness Wilm)
I do, yes.
8 Q
Now, Mr. Weismantle, you met with Mr. Uilm and 9
approved the traffic rerouting scheme, didn't you?
10 A
(Witness Weismantle)
On the day of the 11 exercise.
12 0
And that was with regard to both the gravel 13 truck impediment and the fuel truck impediment, correct?-
c~
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
And that meeting and your approval occurred at 16 12:39?
l 17 !
A Approximately 12:39, yes.
18 Q
For the gravel impediment, your approval 19 actually came after the fact of the rerouting scheme, 20 didn't it?
21 A
Well, the message was initiated to the field, 22 and I can't recall the precise time the rerouting scheme 23 was implemented.
24 0
Well, if you could look at page 10 of your 25 testimony I would call your attention to the third ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 7 -..
1230 02 02 1073 mrryaimons 1 paragraph where the lead traffic guide supposedly received
~
2 a message at 12:20.
So it is correct, isn't it, that your 3
meeting with Mr. Uilm and your approval occurred after the 4
fact?
5 A
Well, yes, I agree with that, that the rerouting 6
scheme was probably implemented by 12:39. }his statement 7
you refer to indicates' the traffic guides h'ad been infarmed
/
8 of the rerouting mess 3ge and it wouldn't have taken them 9
but a few minutes to have implementec the rercuting af ter i
10 that.
11 O
And prior to your approval did you consider the i
12 effect of rerouting on evacuation time estimateb?;
'y sayini yes in a 13 A
-nell, let me answer that o
(
)
14 general wap.because I had, as I described, by looking over l
15 Mr. Uilm's shoulder.really literally.while he was at this i
l 16 map that we used the other day recognized the. type of i
17 rerouting that was being considered ar,ii had raertally drawn i
l 13 a preliminary conclusion as to the impact on evacuation 19 times as not being very significant.
20 0
Specifically did you consider the effect that 21 rerouting would have on traffic flows, and this is prior to 22 your approval?
23 A
In general I think it was evident what effect it 24 would have, not to the specific number of cers, but 25 qualitative effect given the limited areas affected by each t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3XO Nationwide Coserage MU-336-6646
i f"'
- i.
l 1074 1230 03 02 '.
l
,p
,~.
'nbsyaimons 1
,df these impediments.
()
2 Q
Did you consider potential sources of congestion 3
on the routes that would be receiving the diverted traffic?
4 A
Well, those routes would be congested to begin 5
with.
I'm not sure I understand your question.
~ 6 0
Did you consider that prior to your approval?
7 Was that actually in your mind prior to your approval?
8 A
(les, in a general way.
If I can explain, I 9
realized thc.t the routes that traffic would be diverted to 10 would'become congested and people would end up on the end il of queues, and to that extent I considered it.
~ 12 Q
And how did that relate to your opinion about 13 evacuation time ' estimates?
Os 14 A
Recognizing that and the fact that we were 15 af fecting a very small portion of the total number of 16 0 evacuees from the zone, I drew the conclusion that was
!ultimatelyconfirmedbyMr. Lieberman that we were talking 17 18 probably about something of less than an hour, about an 19 hour2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br /> being an outside impact.
20 0
Now keeping in mind my questions are restricted 21 to prior to your approval, did you actually consider the i
22 evacuation time of one hour?
23 A
I had a general conclusion along those lines.
24 Mr. Uilm identified where the impediments were prior to him s
25 coming to me at 12:39.
I had gone over there and looked at O*
ACE FEDERAL REPOP,TERS, INC.
l 202347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6616
e 1230 02 02 1075
.maryaimons 1 where they were on the map over his shoulder as he was (q
2 discussing it with his staff and, based on my knowledge of
_j 3
the overall evacuation flows, had drawn a general a
4 conclusion about its impact.'
5 Q
Did you also consider prior to your approval 6
computer projections of evacuation traffic flow?
7 A
No.
My considerations were based on my l
understanding of the results of the computer simulations 8
i 9
i that were both in the materials at the EOC and had been 10 testified to at great length by Mr. Lieberman on panels 11 that I was involved in the emergency planning litigation 12 over the last couple of years.
13
~
0 Prior to your approval, did you actually inspect f3 s /
14 those computer simulations?
I r
i A
No, we did not have the computer simulations per 15
'l 16 se at our fingertips there.
He did have the results of 17 I
them in Appendix A and in I think one other procedure.
In 18 other words, I was familiar with the overall evacuation 19 time estimates and familiar with the types sensitivity of
/
20 those estimates on deviations from the precise traffic 21 plan, and I based my conclusions on that knowledge.
22 O
So prior to your approval am I correct in 23 understanding that you did not consult any specific 24 document, but that you used your general knowledge of 25 evacuation time estimates?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-4 6
1230 02 02 1076 maryaimons 1 A
That's right.
I didn't make specific l' )
2 consultations with specific documents.
3 g
Now you called Mr. Lieberman at approximately 4
1:20 correct?
5 A
That's right.
6 0
Uhy didn't you call Mr. Lieberman before you 7
approved the rerouting scheme?
8 l
A I didn't feel it was necessary.
I still don't l
i 9
feel it was necessary that I call Mr. Lieberman when I did, 10 but I thought it was a reasonable thing to do.
It also, 11 going along with the demonstration of the flexibility of 12 our plan is something which would demonstrate that.
13 Q
But now the' Manager of Local Response is
'~
14 required to consult the traffic engineer prior to' approval; 15 is that correct?
15 l
A Uell, the traffic engineer is required, so to 17 i
speak, to participate in the decision-making process that l
ultimately has to be approved by the manager or director 18 i
19 under our current procedures.
I 20 0
Are you saying that the Manager of Local 21 Response is not required to consult with the traffic 22 engineer prior to approval?
23 A
I think I'm saying that, but I wanted to be more 24 specific.
The current procedures have the consultation 25 done really between evacuation coordinator and traffic 7-s/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-4 46
1230 02 02 1077 mnryaimons 1 engineer and then it flows up to the Manager or Director m
2 for an approval.
3 I mean the Manager is responsible for the 4
implementation and the Director is responsible for the 5
decision-making on protective action recommendations.
6 0
The Manager is responsible for the C
7 implementation, but in this case isn't it correct that the l
implementation was carried out prior to your involvement in 8
9 the process to begin with?
l 10 :
A That's right.
Again, our procedures did not 11 specify the specifics of how decisions were made on 12 i rerouting.
Our plan did not include that as we testified.
13 1
0 Mr. Uilm, you have direct responsibility fo,r the 14 implementstion of the traffic portions of the evacuation 15 '
recommendation, correct?
1 16 A
(Uitness Uilm)
I did.
l 17 0
Uhy didn't you contact Mr. Lieberman prior to t
l meeting with Mr. Weismantle?
18 19 A
I didn't feel that was required of me.
20 0
In other words, it wasn't a mandatory act and so 21 you did not do it?
22 A
I felt comfortable with what I was doing.
23 Q
Did you consult with the traffic engineer or any f
simulated computer documents prior to your decision?
24 l
25 l A
No, I didn't.
'm ?
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
1230 02 02 1078 marycimons 1 Q
I should correct that.
If the evacuation route f ')
2 diagram would be within your definition of those items, I v
3 looked at that.
4 0
Is that something that is similar to the 5
exhibits that we've seen during Mr. Miller's cross?
6 A
Yes, the exhibit we had.
We've all used that 7
exhibit, yes.
8 MR. ZEUGIN:
Just to clarify the record, that is 9
LILCO Exercise Exhibit 2.
10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Thank you.
11 I have no other questions.
12 MR. PIRFO:
Chairman Frye, I ask the Board's 13 indulgence in allowing counsel for FEMA, FEMA being a non-14 party, as a matter of courtesy and convenience, to conduct 15 his cross-examination now.
16 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I would just note that I
17 the County does not agree that FEMA. is a non-party to this 18 proceeding.
19 JUDGE FRYE:
The Board would note that it's the 20 first time anyone has asked permission for FEMA Lo do 21 something.
22 (Laughter.)
23 MR. PIRFO:
Well, I wanted to set some 24 precedent.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
In any event, we are very happy to
,f-g
\\-)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-326-6646
~ ' n_
- 1.,
~"
~
1230 02 02 1079 marycimons 1 have counsel for FEMA cross-examine.
()
2 MR. PIRFO:
Thank you.
3 MR. CUMMING:
I think it's appropriate that FEMA 4
does ask a few questions because essentially the position 5
of FEMA is that the testimony of the LILCO witnesses has 6
basically been adverse to the conclusion of FEMA with 7
respect to its findings on the impediment.= in Contention 8
- 41. So that it's appropriate that LILCO's counsel have a 9
chance to in fact on direct follow FEMA.
10 CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. CUMMING:
12 O
There is one basic question I have for the panel gg that I would like to have you all agree to on,the record.
13 LJ 14 However the term " deficiency" is defined, the panel 15 disagrees with the fact that the handling of the l
16 4 impediments on the day of the exercise was deficient?
I 17 !
A (Witness Weismantle)
Ue would like to confer.
I 18 (Pause while the Witnesses confer.)
19 A
(Witness Weismantle)
Can I confer with counsel?
20 JUDGE FRYE:
I think not.
21 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
I'm just concerned there 22 may be some legal implications with the term " deficiency."
23 JUDGE FRYE:
Does counsel have an objection to 24 this question?
25 MR. ZEUGIN:
Given the witnesses' concern, I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 02 02 1080 marycimons 1 think the testimony points out essentially where the s
)
2 witnesses believe there was less than perfect performance 3
on LERO's part.
To the extent I have a problem with the 4
question and to the extent that Mr. Cumming is asking the 5
witnesses for a legal opinion as to whether or not 6
something was deficient and whether those actions amount to 7
a deficiency as FEHA defines that term, I'm not sure it's 8
really a fair question.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
But he very pointedly said, 10 however, you define deficiency in the preamble to his 11 question.
12 MR. ZEUGIN:
Then I'm not sure I know the 13 materiality I guess or the relevance of the question
~'
14 because it seems to me then that you are really asking them 15 to define deficient however they may want to define that 15 term, and that may be totally unrelated to the way FEMA may 17 want to do it.
i 18 l
JUDGE SHON:
That was exactly the point I wanted 19 to find out more about.
I had the feeling that by couching 20 your question in just those terms, Mr. Cumming, you had 21 specifically asked them to tell whether their handling was 22 deficient however you would define deficiency, and that 23 makes it very difficult to answer I think.
24 If it's possible and if their counsel does not 25 l object on grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion, I l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 02 02 1081 m;rycimons 1 would rather hear them answer the question do they think it
(}
2 constituted a deficiency in the sense meant by the 3
definition given in the FEMA post-exercise assessment.
s 4
I don't think that is necessarily a legt.1 5
definition.
It may well be a technical definition.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
Do you have any problem with that, 7
Mr. Cumming?
8 MR. CUMMING:
I have no objection to the 9
question as restated by Judge Shon.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
All right, let 's pose that 11 question.
12 JUDGE SHON:
Did it constitute a deficiency as 13 deficiency is defined in the FEMA post-exercise O
14 assessment?
Did your entire handling constitute a 15 deficiency?
16 l MR. PIRFO:
Are the witnesses referring to page 17 8 of the FEMA report?
l 18 UITNESS UEISMANTLE:
Yes, that is what we are 19 looking at, the definition of deficiency as indicated on 20 page 8.
21 (Pause while the witnesses review the document 22 referred to.)
23 UITNESS UEISMANTLE:
I think we would take issue 24 with it being not adequate to provide reasonable assurance 25 that protective action measures can be taken to protect the ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
1230 02 02 1082 maryaimons 1 health and safety of the public.
(~)
2 I'm a little uncomfortable because I think FEMA t-3 of course has the responsibility for defining deficiency 4
and I can only interpret their definition or their 5
description of it on page 8.
6 JUDGE SHON:
You don't think it was a deficiency c
7 in that sense; is that right?
8 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
That's right.
I don't 9
think it was a deficiency.
10 BY MR. CUMMING:
11 0
And do the other panel members agree with Mr.
12 Weismantle?
13 A
(Witness Wilm)
I agree. -
14 A
(Witness Lieberman)
I agree.
15 0
With respect to the panel's disagreement with 16 l respect to the FEMA conclusion as stated on the page you've 17 just been reading or pages that have been identified by 18 counsel earlier with respect to the impediment, is your 19 disagreement premised on your disagreement with the facts 20 upon which FEMA based its conclusion, or is it with in fact 21 the conclusion itself and basically you feel there is no 22 disagreement with respect to the facts?
23 A
(Witness Weismantle)
There is a minor 24 disagreement with respect to the facts, and I think we 25 pointed that out in our testimony.
It's the interpretation ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
.~
1230 02 02 1083 m:ryaimons 1 of the facts, the significance of the facts that one draws 2
where I think we disagree with FEMA.
In other words, the 3
conclusion as to how serious was this area.
We all agree 4
there could have been improvements.
It's a question of how 5
serious the problems were.
6 0
With respect to Mr. Wilm and Mr. Weismantle, to C
7 your knowledge, did FEMA during the course of the exercise 8
change the impediment message as transmitted to whoever in 9
any substantive respect, and to the extent you have memory 10 could you tell me how that was changed?
11 We have had sone testimony on the location of 12 the impediment, but I'm actually talking,about the text.
13 In other words, was there more than one text every
,7-14 transmitted?
15 A
(Witness Wilm)
The original free play message i
16
,' was never changed, if that was your question.
I d
l 17 O
So the clarification was all with respect to i
18 further supplementation of what was in the free play 19 message rather than its text?
20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
Is that understanding, too, Ms. Weismantle?
22 A
(Witness Weismantle)
Well, yes.
The only 23 qualifier I would add is that scrapper truck which I think 24 conflicted with the text, and that evidently was raised by 25 the field observer.
So to that extent the message was U
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
.m
1230 02 02 1084 murycimons 1 changed, the need for a scrapper truck.
2 0
Mr. Lieberman, with respect to the site of the l
impediments, in your expert judgment do you believe that 3
4 they were representative of types of impediments which 5
might occur during an emergency evacuation?
6 A
(Witness Lieberman)
I guess the key word in C
7 your question is the word "might," and if the 8
interpretation you give that word is that it's within the 9
realm of possibility, then I would say yes, almost anything j
10 could happen within the realm of possibility.
11 If you're including in your interpretation of 12 that word something on the order of reasonable expectation, 13 I think that the severity of these accidents in the sense 14 that they occurred within a very short time frame within a 15 short radius of one another and to the extent that they 16
!i completely blocked both avenues shoulder to shoulder, it's 17 my opinion you are way out on the tail of the distribution I
18 l
of probabilities and I think FEMA may have overreached I
19 itself in that respect.
20 MR. CUMMING:
Judge Frye, I ask your leave.
I 21 did not examine the witnesses on voir dire, but I do have 22 two questions for Mr. Lieberman.
The relevance goes to a 23 further question I want to ask him, and with the leave of 24 the Board I would ask him those two questions now.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
This is voir dire?
,3
(
)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
l 1230 02 02 1085 l
mCrycimons 1 MR. CUMMING:
It's essentially voir dire.
(s) 2 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, before Mr. Cumming does 3
that, I think the record may be confused unless I am 4
confused because I believe Mr. Cumming's last question went 5
only to the site of the accident and whether that was 6
representative, and I think Mr. Lieberman just responded in 7
terms of the gravity and severity of the accidents.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
I got a little confused on that 9
myself.
You did say with respect to the site, and I wasn't 10 sure ---
11 MR. CUMMING:
That's correct.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
You were thinking the site was 13 typical?
O
14 MR. CUMMING:
The site of the accidents.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
The kind of accidents.that were 16 postulated are the kind of accidents that might occur at 17 those sites; is that ---
18 MR. CUMMING:
Representative of what might occur 19 at those sites.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
Would that cause you to change your 21 answer, Mr. Lieberman?
22 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
It's very hard for me to 23 separate the elements that I spoke of from just 24 considerations of the site.
I'll try to do that now if 25 possible.
3 b
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
..n..
1230 02 02 1086 marycimons 1 In terms of the gravel truck, you have a
.(m) 2 situation where you are in a speed zone of 10 miles an 3
hour.
I find it very dif ficult to believe based upon my 4
observation of traf fic moving through that area, plus this 5
sign indicating that you are in a school zone, that you 6
have a curve and that you have a placard or a plate that 7
says 10 miles an hour.
I just don't think there is enough 8
momentum to take any vehicle, whether it's a gravel truck 9
or otherwise, swing it around 90 degrees in such a way that 10 you're blocking the highway curb and the curb edge and 11 involving three additional passenger cars.
12 I never like to say that something is 13 impossible.
I think you are so close to it in that case s
)
14 that it really is reaching.
It's not what I would call a 15 reasonable expectation.
15 In terms of the fuel truck, once again I think I 17 l testified that you are on an approach to a signalized i
18 !
intersection and approach speeds are not excessive.
I 19 could understand a fuel truck jack knifing on wet pavement 20 in the course of a rapid deceleration or making a sharp 21 turn and turning over on its side.
It takes an enormous 22 accelerative force to cause a fuel truck to do that at a 23 location such as that.
24 So there again I would have severe doubts that 25 such a thing could happen.
Impossible, no, of course not, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
..-.,,7_.-..,,..,,-,..._.-.,..,
-...~,..-r,_.,_
1230 02 02 1087 m2rycimons 1 but again you're way out on the tail of the probability
/
2 distribution.
3 MR. CUMMING:
I believe Judge Paris may have a 4
question.
5 JUDGE PARIS:
Mr. Cumming, could I interrupt for 6
just a brief question?
7 MR. CUMMING:
Certainly.
8 JUDGE PARIS:
Mr. Lieberman, is it your 9 !
experience that most vehicles in the New York State and in i
10 particular trucks observe the speed limit?
11 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
I think I just testified 12 that my observation of traffic either today or the other
,s
.13 day that these vehicles do travel faster than 10 miles an 14 hour1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> in the zone indicated, but they were not driving at 15 the kinds of speeds, as I observed them, to reasonably 16 cause the kind of accident described with the gravel truck 17 l where there are three cars plus a truck involved in a I
18 single event.
19 I noticed that the gravel trucks came from a 20 gravel pit just north of that point.
Therefore, it follows 21 that these truck drivers are familiar with that area.
You 22 do have a horizontal curve with a wide intersection and 23 stop signs in various directions.
It just seems so 24 l
unlikely that I would classify it as an unreasonable 25 expectation.
U,s ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 NMionwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1230 02 02 1088 carycimons 1 JUDGE PARIS:
Your hypothesis is that they would
()
2 be braking in anticipation of the Y intersection; is that 3
right?
4 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
If not braking, at least 5
slow so that they could maneuver that complex intersection 6
safely.
A Y intersection is not a desirable e
7 configuration.
There are many what are called topics 8
programs to upgrade geometric configurations of that type 9
so that they more nearly approximate right angle 10 intersections.
11 JUDGE PARIS:
Okay.
Thank you.
12 Thank you, Mr. Cumming.
13 JUDGE FRYEi You have no objection to the voir D
14 dire I take it?
15 MR. ZEUGIN:
No objection.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
Go ahead, Mr. Cumming.
17 !
VOIR DIRE 18 BY MR. CUMMING:
19 0
Mr. Lieberman, were you once a contractor with 20 the Federal Emergency Management Agency?
21 A
(Uitness Lieberman)
Yes.
22 O
But you are no longer a contractor with the 23 Federal Emergency Management Agency?
24 A
That is correct.
He are now a subcontractor to 25 Battelle finishing up one more feature on a piece of O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
......... 1.,.,
..._..s....
1230 02 02 1089 C ryaimons 1 software, in fact, the IDYNEV Model.
Battelle, in tu rn, is 2
a contractor to FEMA.
He have no direct contractural 3
relationship with FEMA.
4 Q
Have you ever personally been involved or 5
requested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 6
design or simulate traffic impediments for evaluation of 7
emergency exercises?
8 A
No, not for exercises.
9 0
You had discussed several days ago that several 10 factors are taken into account in determining whether and 11 how to relocate or reroute traffic, and you were discussing 12 that in the terms of Mr. Wilm having done or automatically t
13 l
taken into account several of those factors.
The one that 7-
'~'
14 comes to my mind was that you tried to reroute or relocate 15 I
with respect to the same class of road.
16 l
Could you now tell me what other factors, to the i
17 l
extent that you can itemize them now, should be taken into 18 account in determining whether or not to reroute traf fic?
19 A
Within the context of an emergency evacuation or 20 in general?
21 0
In the context of an emergency evacuation.
22 A
Well, I'll try to walk through that.
I think I 23 mentioned that one factor to be considered is the need to 24 intercept traffic along the path to the impedance, but 25 preferably not in the immediate vicinity of the impedance, 7,
N)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
1230 02 02 1090 maryaimons 1 the interest being that you have more opportunity to divert m
traffic upstream because there are more alternatives to the 2
3 routes.
Bartlett Street plus Route 25 represent two 4
alternatives relative to essentially one alternative in the 5
immediate vicinity of the impedance, and I'm speaking now 6
of the gravel truck.
7 Another reason why diversions away from the 8
impedance has to do with a human factors response of i
9 l drivers which is generally given the name of rubber-10 necking.
I think this was discussed a couple of years ago, 11 but rubber-necking is the process whereby drivers are 12 distracted from their driving task in order to view an 13 unusual scene or happening within his line of sight, which
,s
~
14 is off the highway.
15 The particular location of the gravel truck was i
16 !
such that the alternative of sending them on to Walters h
f 17 Street required them to pass within about 150 feet of the 18 l accident, and I think if you reconstruct the scene in your 19 mind you have a gravel truck that is straddling the roadway 20 and you have three cars in disarray splattered over the 21 landscape.
This is going to distract drivers at a time 22 when they have to also make a left turn onto Walters 23 Street.
24 Studies have shown that the rubber-necking can 25 reduce the flow rate by as much as half, which means that 7s
)
o ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
1230 02 02 1091 maryaimons 1 the rate of egress of the entire traffic stream originally 2
headed for that area, which is well over 3,500 cars, if my 3
memory serves, is going to experience the effects of this 4
rubber-necking situation.
In my view, that was not the way 5
to handle it.
6 Every policeman I've talked with is aware of the 7
hazards associated with the rubber-necking phenomenon.
The 8
police themselves don't like to guide traffic in that 9
situation because it's hazardous for them as well.
10 I'm still looking at factors here.
11 I've already talked about keeping them on the 12 same class of highways.
13 There is also the factor of minimizing the
'~
14 maneuvers that have to be undertaken for the diversion 15 route.
You would like to limit the number of turns because 16 people can become disoriented if they are constantly l
17 l turning.
l 18
{
I recall the police testimony said, yes, you 19 have to put people here and people there to make sure that 20 they don't get routed in the wrong direction.
They are 21 perfectly correct in that respect.
22 The routing that was implemented by Mr. Wilm 23 involved sending traffic through instead of making a left 24 turn on Route 25.
It meant sending traffic to the right 25 branch of a fork in the road instead of a left branch in
,-~s
(
)
v ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 02 02 1092 marycimons 1 the fork in the road on Route 25A.
Those kinds of 2
maneuvers are consistent with good practice when providing 3
detours.
4 Those are the factors that come to mind.
5 0
This is again for Mr. Lieberman.
Were any of 6
those factors violated, in your expert judgment, in the 7
rerouting scheme utilized on the day of the exercise?
8 A
No, I don't believe they were.
Both rerouting 9
schemes were identified by diversion points which were well 10 removed from the scene of the impediment.
Both diversion 11 schemes, to the extent possible, kept the traffic flowing 12 on the same class of roadways from whence the came.
13 The only possible exception there was Bartiett
,cs 14 Street, which is a lower class of road than Yaphank-Middle 15 Island, but you had to flush those people out and it didn't 16 matter whether they went to Bartlett Street or the found i
17 l the Walters Street bypass.
In either case they would have 18 to go to a lower class.
19 But the incoming stream which contained the vast 20 majority of vehicles who were impacted, they stayed on the 21 same class of road.
22 O
Again for Mr. Lieberman, to your knowledge, has 23 FEMA in any evaluatica over entered any sort of critique 24 based on there not being a trained traffic engineer in the 25 EOC?
,7 x
\\
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 02 02 1093 maryOimons 1 A
On my knowledge, the answer is no.
In my reading of 0654 and CR-1745, it makes no mention of the nee 2
3 for a traffic engineer in the EOC.
4 The idea of putting a traffic engineer there was 5
not mine.
It was LERO's, and I think it was a good idea.
6 I believe very strongly that the int
,q s if a traffic 7
engineer can be very useful in the LJC if he of course is 8
familiar with emergency planning and the evacuation studies 9
and so forth.
10 I didn't use the word " insights" in my testimony 11 loosely.
If I can give an example referencing the police 12 testimony.
In their testimony they argue that North 13 Country Road was very congested.
The answer was it was not 7,
14 congested and it was not an evacuation route.
That is one 15 example of how an engineer who is familiar with evacuation l
routing may possibly have influenced the police in making 16 l
17 the decision that they purport to make in their testimony.
18 Knowing the routes and know where the evacuation 19 traffic is moving and being aware of the connection between 20 rubber-necking and its impact on evacuating movements, 21 these are insights which I think are very helpful.
22 0
I understand that insights could be improved, 23 but in your expert judgment and based on your knowledge of 24 the scenario and the events on the day of the exercise, was gS 25 there in fact a necessity for a trained traffic engineer to
(~
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 c.
~,
1230 02 02 1094 marycimons 1 be located in the EOC in order to make the judgments
()
2 necessary?
3 A
Obviously not because I concurred with the 4
judgments that were made.
5 0
I just have several more questions.
6 Mr. Wilm, for you, you described several days 7
ago a huddle that FEMA evaluators and controllers went into 8
to discuss the issue of the information that had been 9
furnished on the impediment, and I believe the gravel truck 10 impediment.
11 Do you have any knowledge as to whether that 12 huddle was determine what response to make or whether to 13 respond at a.ll to your question?
O 14 A
(Witness }illm)
It was definitely where -- they 15 were going to clarify where the impediment actually was l
16 !
because that's the issue or the question that was posed to 17 them.
18 O
This is for Mr. Wilm and Mr. Weismantle.
19 JUDGE FRYE:
Are you moving to another question?
20 MR. CUMMING:
Yes, this is a new question.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
I don't think you got an answer and 22 I would kind of like to hear it.
23 Do you know when the FEMA people huddled whether 24 the question they were discussing was whether they should 25 answer your question at all, or whether they were O
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646 7,....
..,-,...,....s
.-..r..
-.,-,,.3..
1230 02 02 1095 muryaimons 1 determining where the accident or the impediment was?
m 2
WITNESS WILM:
I didn't hear their discussion.
3 I know what they came back to me with.
4 BY MR. CUMMING:
5 0
This is a hypothetical now for Mr. Wilm and Mr.
6 Weismantle.
7 Assuming that FEMA wanted to locate the 8
impediment at a certain location through its introduction 9
of a free play message and in essence to interject the 10 impediment at a given time and place, how best, in your 11 judgment, could FEMA have inserted that message in the 12 field as opposed to the EOC, and would that in fact be 13 possible?
~.
14 I realize those are two questions.
15 A
(Witness Weismantle)
I think they could have 16 i
inserted it in the field either by virtue of an individual 17 FEMA controller instructing anyone of a number of people 18 that an impediment exists at this location and the best way 19 to do it perhaps would be an evacuation route spotter to 20 say, okay, now an impediment exists here and here is what 21 it is.
22 An alternate way would be any one of our other 23 field people, traffic guide, transfer point coordinator, 24 road crew or even bus driver.
,f s 25 Q
On the day of the exercise -- Mr. Wilm, do you O
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage M)0-336-6646
1230 02 02 1096 carygimons I have something to add?
()
2 A
(Witness Wilm)
When he's through.
3 A
(Witness Weismantle)
Another possible way is to 4
do it through the ENC.
A rumor coming in from reports to a 5
radio station, which frequently happens, you know, on Long 6
Island, you get a traffic report over the radio.
7 Another way would have been to insert it through 8
Suffolk County Police or the Suffolk County Executive 9
representative in the EOC.
10 There are lots of ways.
11 A
(Witness Wilm)
The big thing I would say, too, 12 is that if it was, just to elaborate on what Mr. Weismant,le 13 just said, if it was from a recognized source, as you just
. C).
14 mentioned, the traffic guide, it could have been inserted 15 into the EOC just so he would know that he didn't have to 16 verify it.
If it said right across the top, this is a 17 verified message, you know, something to make it clear that 18 it's real and you don't have to take steps to authenticate 19 it.
I think that might have made a difference.
20 0
On the day of the exercise were there any field 21 individuals in the LERO organization that were identifiable 22 as either route spotters or traffic guides?
23 A
(Witness Weismantle)
Sure, all of them.
Now 24 let me say this.
You would have been at a staging area to 25 know who they were.
I mean if you saw a LERO individual in O
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3'00 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-MW3
1230 02 02 1097 carycimons 1 a private vehicle on the road, you probably couldn't even
( ))
2 identify him as a LERO individual.
But FEMA did have many 3
controllers at the staging areas who, as I understand it, 4
did accompany LERO individuals to the field.
They had a 5
number of them anyway that accompanied an individual 6
traffic guide or an individual route alert driver and so C
7 forth.
8 0
Mr. Wilm, do you have something to add?
9 A
(Witness Ullm)
The messages referred to traf fic 10 control points.
We knew about those and they could have 11 been inserted through the traffic control point guide with 12 the FEMA controller standing right beside him and giving
- 13 him the information.
That would have been I think a good O
14 test of the whole system all the way on through, and then 15 the answers, the feedback would have been coming from 16 someone on the site to check on.
I 17 I
MR. CUMMING:
I have no further questions.
18 JUDGE FRYE Let me ask just one question that 19 is as much personal interest as much as anything else.
20 would it have been effective if the FEMA 21 evaluator say who was associated with the gravel truck 22 impediment had parked his car at the point at which the 23 impediment was supposed to be -- now wait a minute, there 24 is more to it than just that, and then at the time the g
impediment was supposed to have occurred had stepped out 25 U
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 02 02 1098 cr.rycimons 1 and put up a sign that said traffic impediment and then
-~
2 been prepared to hand out descriptions of that impediment 3
to any LERO people who came by?
4 WITNESS WILM:
Yes, sir, plus a placard on the 5
car since the weather was cold and in one case we missed 6
the FEMA controllers because they were in a car for 7
understandable reasons, and we have that by the route 8
spotter that tried to reach them.
So if there was 9 j something on the car that would identify it as a simulated 10 impediment.
Even the bus drivers that weren't plugged into 11 this, as they passed by this vehicle that said impediment, 12 that could have been built into the script that if you saw 13 this anywhere on your route call that back in.
That might 7-14 have induced a lot more realism into this.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Does the staff have questions?
16 MR. PIRFO:
The staff has no questions.
17 l
JUDGE FRYE:
Redirect?
18 MR. ZEUGIN:
Yes, I have a few questions, Judge 19 Frye.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
Do you want a break before we get 21 to redirect or do you want to go straight ahead.
22 MR. 2EUGIN:
If you could give me a couple of 23 minutes, that would be fine.
24 l JUDGE FRYE:
Well, why don't we take a 15-minute 25 break.
-s()
ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1230 02 02 1099 marycimons 1 (Recess taken from 2:10 p.m.
to 2:25 p.m.)
/
2 JUDGE FRYE:
Shall we go back on the record, 3
please.
4 Mr. Zeugin.
5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 6
BY MR. ZEUGIN:
7 O
Mr. Wilm, I would like to start with you.
Do 8
you recall be asked I think at several points over the last 9
few days whether you had any recollection of information 10 about the time at which the route spotter met with the FEMA 11 evaluator at the scene of the gravel truck impediment?
12 A
(Witness Wilm)
Yes, I do.
13 0
would you at this time like to supplement your 14 prior responses?
15 A
Well, at the time I wasn't aware of any i
i 16 documentation that would establish the time of arrival at 17 the impediment site or at the place where the FEMA I
18 controller was, and in the last few days in reviewing the 19 documents for my testimony I found Suf folk County Exercise 20 Exhibit No. 11, the Deposition of Christopher Saricks, and 21 on page 90 of that exhibit or deposition Mr. Saricks 22 establishes the arrival time of the LERO route spotter at 23 11:40.
This would fit in on page 9 of my testimony in the 24 beginning of the third full paragraph, it could be inserted 25 in front of "At approximately 11:50 route spotter 1004 7s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
1230 02 02 1100 marycimons 1 having met," et cetera.
2 0
Thank you, Mr. Wilm.
3 Mr. Weismantle, let me turn next to you.
Do you 4
remember this morning, and I guess maybe this is actually 5
you, Mr. Wilm, I thir.k I probably remembered the wrong 6
person, this morning there was a discussion you had with C
7 Mr. Miller about page 21 of your testimony, and during that 8
discussion Mr. Miller asked you whether bus drivers had 9
radios in their buses, and I believe your answer to that 10 question was no.
Do you remember that question?
11 A
Yes, I do.
12 O
Let me ask you, Mr. Wilm, whether you 13 considered, and'I'll leave this also to Mr. Weismantle cs
(
)
' ~ '
14 since really both of you are listed on this particular 15 answer, whether you considered that fact in preparing the 16 4 answer that appears on page 21?
17 A
(Witness Wilm)
Yes.
18 A
(Witness Weismantle)
Yes, we did.
19 0
And I take it you would have considered it with 20 regard to the statement toward the bottom of the carryover 21 paragraph where you state "As many as 49 bus drivers would 22 have seen the accident; is that correct?
23 A
(Witness Weismantle)
That is correct.
24 0
And could you just briefly explain to me how the 25 fact that bus drivers would have no radios factored into 73 t'
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6 I
l
i i
1230'02 02 1101 1
marysimons 1 that particular number?
' O)-
(_
2 A
Yes.
The bus drivers would have seen the 3
accident in two wnys.
Some of them would have see'n it 4
driving to the transfer point from a distance to the west
.,/
5 along Route 25A towards Miller Pl' ace-Yaphank Avenue And r
J 6
then making a left turn at the l'ntarsection o'f 25A and
.c Miller Place-Yaphank, Avenue and proceeding u's about 75 7
8 yards.and turning into the transfer. point.'
9 Many of the drivers arrived at around the time 10 of the accident or shortly thereaf ter and they would have t
11 seen the fuel truck which'was 75 yards east of that-12 intersection.
13 some of the other drivers who had already
(
s 14 arrived were being dispatched from 10:59 and thereafter h
~
15 would have seen it as they left the transfer point and-
'~
j turned.right on Miller Place-Yaphank Roid and headed down 16 17 to that intersection of 25A and Miller-Yaphank Place Road.
18 Despite the fact they didn't have radios, in either case 19 they could have done one of two things, and probably the 20 thing that would be clearly, the thing to do for the drivers
~
21 arriving would be to simply inform the transfer point 22 coordinator of it.
He had a rad'io and would have then 23 radioed it back to the stag'ing area,for transmission back
/
24 to the EOC.
25 The otnar possibility would be simply to use a ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nadonwide Coserage 800 336-6646 x.,o : ;. : I
4
- 1230 02 02 1102
.mcrycimons 1 local phone to call it back to either the staging area or r
I, 2
the EOC.
s 3
Q Just so the record is clear, Mr. Weismantle, at 4
several points in your answer you referred to the transfer
- i.
5, point.
I I<
6 A
It's the Miller Place Shopping Center transfer 7
point which lies on the northwest corner of the 8
. intersection of 25A and Miller Place Yaphank Road.
9 0
Thank you.
10 Mr. Weismantle, as I recall several days ago Mr.
11
' Miller asked you a question, and I will try and phrase it 12. ;
as best I can recall, it whether in your opinion field l'3 personnel should make their own decisions about rerouting, l
()
li 14 and I believe your answer to that was no.
Do you recall 15 that colloquy?
16 l
A Yes.
17 Q
Could you please explain why you said no?
18 A
It's because we want rerouting decisions to be 19 made'at the EOC to ensure they are coordinated and to 20 ensure.that the people who have the overall information 21 about traffic posts and evacuation patterns are the ones 22 who make the decision rather than the field people.
4 r
23 MR. ZEUGIN:
Thank you, Mr. Weismantle.
24-I have no further questions, Judge Frye.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
Gentlemen, thank you very much for 4
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
.1 ' '. -,, -. -
J 2...-.-
1230 02 02 1103 cnrycimons 1 your patience.
J 2
MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, excuse me.
I assume I 3
have a chance for recross-exanination.
4 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
5 HR. M, ILLER:
I think it will be relatively 6
brief.
7 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 8
BY MR. MILLER:
9 Q
Mr. Weismantle, you are familiar with the 10 deficiencies that were found by FEMA as a result of the 11 Shoreham exercise; is that correct?
12 A
(Witness Weismantle)
Yes.
13 0
Am I correct that there were five deficiencies 14 found?
15 l A
I think there were five, yes.
l d
16 0
In your opinion, Mr. Weismantle, did any of the 17 findings by FEMA of deficiencies in your mind fall within 18 the definition of deficiency as set forth on page 8 of the 19 FEMA report?
20 MR. ZEUGIN:
Objection on grounds of relevance.
21 I think the one that is relevant Mr. Weismantle has already 22 answered about, which is the one that deals with the 23 impediment.
I don't think Mr. Miller has established that 24 the other deficiencies relate to the subject matter of this 25 contention.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 02 02 1104 carycimons 1 MR. MILLER:
Nor do I think they have to, Judge
,,(j 2
Frye.
This witness has offered his opinion that a 3
particular deficiency relating to the road impediments 4
should not have been found to be a deficiency by FEMA.
I s
5 would like to explore with this witness whether he thinks 6
any of the FEMA findings of deficiencies were findings that l
7 should have been so constituted by FEMA?
8 It's a broad question, but I wanted some basis l
of comparison by this witness as to whether he agrees or 9
10 disagrees with the FEMA report and the findings in that 11 report regarding a deficiency.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
And you pose it to him I suppose 13 because of his position in the LERO organization?
V 14 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
We'll let him answer.
16 WITNESS UEISMANTLE:
In going to have to just 17 refresh my memory on the other four deficiencies by looking 18 at the FEMA assessment if I could have a couple of moments.
19 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, just so I can be 20 clear ---
21 JUDGE FRYE:
So we're all clear.
22 MR. ZEUGIN:
--- the one I'm kind of curious 23 about, and I just want to make sure I understand whether 24 Mr. Miller included it in his counting or not, is that as a 25 result of FEMA's review of Rev. 7 and 8 of the LILCO plan, s
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 u_ - ' _2 : ~
1230 02 02 1105 marysimons 1 one of the original deficiency ratings was changed to an
/
2 area requiring corrective action as I understand it.
3 I don't know if you want that as one of the ones 4
Mr. Weismantle will address or not because it is not 5
currently a deficiency.
6 MR. MILLER:
I want all the deficiencies that 7
were noted by FEMA as a result of the exercise as set forth 8
in the FEMA post-exercise assessment report.
l 9
JUDGE FRYE:
Regardless of what might have been 10 their disposition later on?
11 MR. MILLER:
That's right.
12 MR. CUMMING:
Just for the record, that has been 13
. marked as PEMA Exercise Exhibit No.
1, but it has not been
-,sV lt entered.
15 j JUDGE FRYE:
I understand.
Are these summarized in here at some point?
16 o i
17 l
MR. CUMMING:
There is a narrative summary in 18 the beginning, aut there is also a chart in the back.
I 19 believe it's indexed.
Page 120.
The deficiencies are not 20 segregatep from the ARCA's but they are all listed.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
Thank you.
22 (Pause while the witnesses confer and review 23 documents.)
24 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Judge Frye, while the witnesses 25 are conferring, I would like point out that FEMA Exhibit 1
( ]J ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage S00-336-6M6
1230 02 02 1106 marysimons 1 actually never has been identified in the record as an I
I J 2
exhibit.
3 JUDGE FRYE:
I think it has.
4 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Well, my memory is that it has 5
not, and it does not appear in the tran, scripts.
6 MR. ZEUGIN:
I thought it was identified but not 7
admitted.
8 l
MR. CUMMING:
That is correct.
It was marked I
9 but not admitted.
10 l MR. PIRFO:
I don't think there is any problem 11 with the exhibit.
We all know what it is.
12 MR. MILLER:
I think it is being brought up
(~)
13 because we understand from the court reporters that it was w/
14 not formally identified for the record.
15 MR. PIRFO:
I see.
16 MR. MILLER:
So we may want to do that for the 17
- record, i
i 18 l JUDGE FRYE:
I think I remember what happened.
19 It was identified, but not formally identified in the 20 record because Mr. Cumming's witnesses are going to 21 authenticate it.
That's why it doesn't appear in the 22 transcript.
23 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
I have reviewed the four 24 other deficiencies and my position would be that I don' t (Oi 25 think any of them should be deficiencies in the way that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
f 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 01 02 1107 m;rycimons 1 FEMA defines deficiencies.
fl 2
BY MR. MILLER:
%/
3 O
Now, Mr. Weismantle, to make sure that I'm 4
clear, the four other deficiencies, one regarded the 5
deployment of traffic guides, one concerned bus drivers 6
taking too long to get to their transfer points and getting 7
lost on their routes, one involved the dissemination of 6
information at the ENC and the fourth involved bus drivers 9
not being dispatched for some period of time.
10 A
(Witness Weismantle)
I wouldn't have I
11 characterized them in that way.
I think those are not I
12 quite what was reported to have happened.
j 13
- O Okay.
We'll let the FEMA repo.rt speak for b
14 itself, but none of those should have been identified as 15 deficiencies by FEMA?
16 A
No.
I don't think any of them were serious 17 enough to merit that conclusion.
I think all of them we 18 could stand improvement on and we have responded to all of 19 them along those lines, but not deficiencies, no.
20 0
Well, not withstanding that opinion, Mr.
21 Weismantle, is it possible for you to tell me of the five 22 areas found to be deficiencies by FEMA the one in your mind 23 that was most serious from the standpoint of how it was 24 addressed and handled by LERO during the exercise?
25 MR. ZEUGIN:
I'll object to that, Judge Frye.
I 7_s U
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80N36-6M6
... - - - -,,... ~. - -.,,.,,. - -.. - _...,,.... _,. - -
- - - -,.. ~...
1230 02 02 1108 mnrycimons 1 really don't see the relevance of that question of this i
)
2 particular contention.
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Nor do I.
4 BY MR. MILLER:
5 0
Mr. Lieberman, would you agree with me that 6
accidents can occur at random locations?
G 7
A (Uitness Lieberman)
Not perfectly random.
8 There are some locations that are the scenes of a higher number of accidents than others.
9 10 0
My question is accidents can occur at random 11 locations.
Do you agree or disagree?
12 A
No, I disagree.
I think in the strict sense of 13 the word it's not random.
14 JUDGE SHON:
Mr. Lieberman, would you agree that 15 the occurrence of accidents is of the nature of a 16 stochastic process?
17 UITNESS LIEBERMAN:
Yes, indeed.
18 BY MR. MILLER:
19 0
Do you think, Mr. Lieberman, that there are 20 sites within the EPZ where the kinds of accidents described 21 in the FEMA free play messages could in fact occur?
22 A
(Uitness Lieberman)
I have already testified 23 that such accidents are within the realm of possibility.
24 O
Mr. Cumming asked you, Mr. Lieberman, about 25 services provided to FEMA with respect I think to writing fm.
\\
L.J ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
.-...c.
1230 02 02 1109 m rycimons 1 simulated impediments for other exercises and you said you-()
2 had not done that?
3 A
That is correct.
4 Q
Have you prepared or written simulated roadway 5
impediments for FEMA in any context?
6 A
We may have done that as part of the classroom 7
training at Emmetsburg, but I can't be sure.
See, the 8
model as the capability of simulating road blockages.
We 9
covered a lot of elements in the model during these 10 courses, and I can't tell for sure whether that was 11 included or not.
12 O
Do you know if in your model, Mr. Lieberman, you 13 ever simulated a blockage of an entire roadway section?
14 A
I don't believe so.
15 0
Is it possible for you to be any more definite 16 about that answer?
You just don't know or you just don't 17 believe so?
18 A
During the previous testimony we did in fact 19 conduct sensitivity tests which included blockages, and the 20 way we simulate a blockage is by specifying capacity 21 reductions.
22 My best recollection at this time is that these 23 capacity reductions did not go all the way to zero.
I 24 don' t believe that was the case.
I think we cut capacity 25 by some significant amount, 50 percent or more, for O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
.~......,...
...~. -. -
1230 02 02 1110 mnrysimons 1 specified lengths of time, and that's the way we went about
,,,(,)
2 it.
3 Q,
Now, Mr. Lieberman, in your discussion with Mr.
4 Cumming I believe you mentioned that there was a 5
diversionary route in the immediate vicinity of the gravel 6
truck impediment.
Am I correct that the route you are 7
referring to would be the Walters-Everett Street detour?
8 A
Right.
I think I was referencing the County 9
testimony on this contention.
10 0
And that diversionary routing around the gravel 11 truck impediment was in the immediate vicinity of the 12 gravel truck?
13 A
I would describe it as such because the gravel O
14 truck itself was within easy line of sight of the 15 evacuating traffic.
16 O
So would you agree with me, sir, that that 17 impediment would have been within somewhere 150 and 300 18 feet of the Walters Street and Yaphank-Middle Island Road 19 intersection?
20 A
I think it was near the lower limit.
21 Q
Now did you tell Mr. Cumming, Mr. Lieberman, 22 that one of the factors arguing against the use of the 23 Walters-Everett Street route would have been that traffic 24 would have been required to make a left-hand turn?
25 A
Well, they actually would be required to make ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
,c.,,
n.
- y..
1230 02 02 1111 mnrysimons 1 several turns.
The first turn off Yaphank-Middle Island
,m
-()
2 Road onto Walters Street is in fact a lef t turn, yes.
3 Q
Now under the scenario, Mr. Lieberman, there 4
would be no traffic going north up Yaphank-Middle Island 5
Road because of the impediment itself; isn't that correct?
6 A
That is correct.
My concern was the driving c.
7 task and not that there was oncoming traffic, but that to 8
maneuver the vehicle you have to turn the wheel and look 9
where you're going as your line of sight changes.
10 Q
Do you consider making a left-hand turn a 11 difficult traffic maneuver?
12 A
No, it's not a difficult traffic maneuver, but 13 it requires some care.
7-V 14 Q
Thank you.
15 Now, Mr. Lieberman, is it your testimony that i
16 ij utilizing the rerouting of Walters-Everett Street around 17 the gravel truck impediment would have been a dangerous 18 rerouting scheme to implement?
19 A
No, I wouldn't characterize it that way.
I 20 think it would be a relatively slow maneuvering process.
21 Q
Do you think it would be dif ficult?
22 A
I think it would require more manpower than was 23 there at the time that the impediment took place.
24 Q
Now, Mr. Lieberman, if you had a traffic guide 25 at the intersection of Walters and Yaphank-Middle Island s-ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
... 7 -
.n.
9
.,c.
1230 02 02 1112 marycimons 1 Road and a traffic guide at the intersection of Walters and 2
Evorett, do you think it would require more manpower than y j 3
that to implement the rerouting scheme around the gravel 4
truck impediment?
5 A
I think it would be useful to have another guide 6
at the intersection of Everett Drive and Main Street c
7 because that's a "T"
intersection and they could have 8
turned either way.
9 Q
Do you expect, Mr. Lieberman, undcr your 10 calculations and the LILCO plan heavy traffic flow on Main 11 Street at that point?
12 A
No.
13 0
So, Mr. Lieberman, isn't it. true that you could 14 implement the Walters-Everett rerouting scheme with the use 15.
of two traffic guides at the intersections that I l
16 described?
l A
Yes.
It's a viable path.
17 18 Q
Let me ask you, Mr. Lieberman, on another 19 question.
Have you ever attempted to calculate the impact 20 on evacuation time estimates if the Walters-Everett 21 rerouting would have been utilized during the exercise?
22 A
No.
I've conducted no computer studies.
23 0
Any calculations?
24 A
Nothing on paper, but I have done it in my head.
25 0
I want to know about calculations, sir.
,s N,]
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
1230 02 02 1113 marysimons 1 A
I asked myself what would be the service rate
()
2 under the conditions of a rubber-necking situation with the 3
guidance of police.
I would.say that somewhere in the 4
neighborhood of 600 vehicles per hour was about right.
I 5
can't offer you any empirical justification for that, 6
except to say that 600 is about half of 1200 and 1200 0
7 vehicles per hour in a left turn with no opposing traffic 8
is about right.
You can look that up in the capacity 9
manual.
10 So if you take 600 vehicles per hour and you 11 divide that into, and I think it's 3800 vehicles, you come 4
12 out with a time of about six and a half hours, and that's 13 just to get through that intersection.
There still remains O
14 the travel from there to the EPZ boundary.
15 O
Mr. Lieberman, are you telling me that if the 16 Walters-Everett Street rerouting was used it would have 17 taken six and a half hours to get traffic around that 18 impediment?
19 A
After it got set up, right, and after you've 20 moved the personnel to that location.
l 21 Q
And under the rerouting scheme utilized by LILCO 22 what were the hours that you calculated?
23 A
I calculated that for the folks impacted by this i
24 impediment it would in the neighborhood of an hour longer.
25 0
Well, I'm trying to compare your six and a half l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
- - ; r g,,.
~.-v.. -.p.-
1230 02 02 1114 marynimons 1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> to the hours.
So give it to me in the same terms.
(
)
2 A
I would say about five and half hours the way 3
LILCO diverted it versus six and a half hours the other 4
way.
5 Let me say a little more.
6 Q
That's the answer I want, Mr. Lieberman.
C 7
A Well, I'm not sure.
Let me help you.
I'm 8
trying to give you a physical picture of what would 9
happen.
The six and a half may be a little high.
10 When traffic encounters a long queue along 11 Yaphank-Middle Island Road, say back at Route 25, it is 12 reasonable to expect that people who would otherwise go 13 south on Yaphank-Middle Island Road might of their recourse z,.
)
7' 14 continue through on Route 25.
So that in actual fact you 15 may not be servicing the entire 3800.
There is flexibility 16 in the system.
17 0
Have you attempted, Mr. Lieberman, to make the 18 latter type of calculation?
19 A
No.
20 Q
But what you're telling me is that, and it seems 21 obvious to me, but maybe it's not, that for every bit of 22 that 3800 vehicles that goes off and doesn't head down 23 Yaphank-Middle Island Road the time would therefore lessen 24 to reroute the traffic using Walters-Everett?
3 25 A
I think that's a real possibility, that it would lb i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l l
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage S00-336-6646
1230 02 02 1115 maryaimons 1 actually take less than six and a half hours.
j 2
O Now, Mr. Lieberman, do you consider yourself s
3 more knowledgeable about the EPZ roadways than the Suffolk 4
County Police Department?
5 A
I really don't know how to answer that.
6 0
You can't answer it?
7 A,
Well, I've traveled that area quite a bit in the 8
last several years and I think I know it fairly well.
I 9
can't offer any guidance that every policeman within the 10 Sixth Precinct, regardless of tenure, knows it better than 11 I do.
12 O
Let me try to narrow the question then.
Are you 13 familiar with any members of the panel on behalf of the 7,
t 14 Suffolk County Police Department that will be testifying on 15 Contention 41?
16 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I'm going to object to 17 i this line on relevance grounds.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
Is this relevant to any' redirect?
19 MR. MILLER:
Yes, Judge Frye.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
What redirect?
21 MR. PIRFO:
I'll object on the grounds of 22 competency.
He can't know what the Suffolk County 23 policemen know even if he knows some of these men 24 personally and women personally.
rw 25 MR. MILLER:
Mr. Lieberman testified that i
-V ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i l
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
~.... _...
1230 02 02 1116 marysimons 1 portions of the Suffolk County Police Department testimony
()
2 was inaccurate.
He referred specifically to the 3
congestion, for example, along North Country Road.
I now 4
want to determine his experience and his knowledge vis-a-5 vis members of the Suffolk County Police Department.
I 6
will limit my questions to members of the Suffolk County 7
Police Department who are sponsoring testimony on 8
Contention 41 whom I think Mr. Lieberman knows.
9 MR. PIRFO:
I still have the same objection on 10 competency grounds.
This witness isn't competent to 11 answer.
12 MR. ZEUGIN:
I would expand my objection to the 13 point that Mr. Miller asked the question generally to begin
(-)
\\J 14 with whether Mr. Lieberman had more knowledge of the 15 roadway network within the Shoreham EPZ.
If he wants to 16 ask about the traffic flow on North Country Road during an 17 evacuation, then he needs to ask the question a lot more l
18 specifically than he has asked it because that's really 19 what Mr. Lieberman's answer went to was the traffic volume 20 on that road during an evacuation.
21 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I think I'm entitled to 22 explore the basis for Mr. Lieberman's comments about the 23 testimony that has been offered by members of the Suffolk 24 County Police Department.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
What was his comment?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
- : c,-
2.
i i
1230 02 02 1117 marycimonc 1 MR. MILLER:
Excuse me?
)
2 JUDGE FRYE:
What was his comment?
3 MR. MILLER:
If I recall, I think Mr. Lieberman 4
said that the Suf folk County Police Department testimony is 5
wrong and one of the things he mentioned was the traffic 6
flow on North Country Road.
7 JUDGE FRYE:
Being too heavy or too light?
8 MR. MILLER:
The police saying it being I
9 -
congested, and Mr. Lieberman saying it would not be.
10 MR. ZEUGIN:
During an evacuation I would note.
11 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
No, sir.
What I said was 12 that North Country Road is not an evacuation route and that 13 they are wrong in saying that it would be congested during
~s
)
14 and evacuation.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Because it is not an evacuation 16 i
route.
I 17 l
WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
That is correct, sir.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
Sustained.
19 BY MR. MILLER:
20 0
Mr. Lieberman, then let me clarify.
Your 21 opinion that is being of fered regarding the congestion in 22 that area of North Country Road is based upon the LILCO 23 plan and the assumptions made in the LILCO including the 24 evacuation time estimates; is that correct?
25 A
(Witness Lieberman)
No.
It's based upon the
,f 3 L.,)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1230 02 02 1118 m2rycimons 1 guidance which is given to the residents in that area and
()
2 to the traffic routing approaching that area in the LILCO 3
plan.
These are not assumptions.
4 0
There are assumptions made in the LILCO plan, 5
Mr. Lieberman, for example, that evacuees would obey the 6
routing prescribed by the LILCO plan; isn't that correct?
C 7
MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I'll object.
We are 8
getting way off what happened during the exercise and now 9
getting into the earlier issues.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
Sustained.
11 BY MR. MILLER:
12 Q
Do you consider yourself more experienced, Mr.
13 Lieberman in rerouting traf fic than the four members of the.
m
.]
14 Suf folk County Police Department who are offering testimony 15 on the County's behalf on Contention 41?
16 MR. PIRFO:
Objection.
17 MR. CUMMING:
Objection.
18 MR. ZEUGIN:
I will object also.
19 JUDGE FRYE:
More experienced?
20 MR. MILLER:
More experienced in rerouting 21 traffic, Judge Frye.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
Sustained.
23 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, let me explain my 24 basis.
Mr. Lieberman is criticizing the rerouting scheme f-25 that has been offered by these four gentlemen of the C
Acs FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 7-
1230 02 02 1119 marysimons 1 Suffolk County Police Department.
It seems to me that I'm c
,)
2 entitled to explore his experience in rerouting traffic vis-3 a-vis the members of the Suffolk County Police Department 4
that will be testifying before this Board.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
His qualifications are stated.
We 6
had voir dire and we're going to have the qualifications of 7
the police officers when their testimony is presented.
I 8
don't see where are going to get anything useful out of 9
that.
10 MR. MILLER:
I wasn't questioning his 11 qualifications.
I was asking him to compare his 12 qualifications to those of the Suffolk County Police 13 - l Department.
es i
l 14 MR. PIRFO:
'My objection stands, and I think it 15 has been sustained.
16 l MR. ZEUGIN:
I just don't see how that's a 17 proper question.
I mean I think that's a question 18 ultimately for the Board on the weight it's willing to give 19 each person's testimony.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
It's sustained.
21 BY MR. MILLER:
22 0
Mr. Lieberman, have you ever physically 23 personally rerouted traffic around an impediment?
24 A
(Witness Lieberman)
I've never been out on the 25 street to do that.
-m fkJ ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-66M
1230 02 02 1120 mnryaimons 1 Q
Mr. Weismantle, one of the offers that you have g) s_
2 suggested now about how FEMA should have done its job 3
during the exercise was to suggest that the impediments 4
could have been interjected at the ENC, is that correct?
5 A
(Witness Weismantle)
That was one of the 6
possibilities that I think would have made it a better 7
simulation.
We can't tell FEMA how they should do their 8
job.
I think I just suggested that there were ways to do 9
it better.
10 Q
Do you believe, Mr. Weismantle, or is it fair to 11 say that in your opinion interjecting the free play message 12 at the ENC would have more realistically have tested LERO's 13 ability to respond to traffic impediments?
~
14 A
I think in general it would have been better in 15 the sense that it would have been a more real way for a 16 report of a possible traffic impediment to get back to the 17 EOC.
18 0
Now, Mr. Weismantle, isn't it fact that during 19 training drills in December that you participated in that 20 road impediments were in fact interjected at the ENC?
21 A
I think one of them might have been.
There were 22 a number of road impediments that were dealt with.
To my 23 memory I think perhaps one of them was.
24 O
And isn't it a fact, Mr. Weismantle, that the 25 impediment that was interjected at the ENC was mishandled
{}
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
1230 02 02 1121 merycimons 1 by LERO, miscommunicated by LERO and there was a delayed
()
2 response by LERO to that impediment?
3 MR. ZEUGIN:
Objection.
This is outside the 4
scope.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Sustained.
6 BY MR. MILLER:
7 Q
Mr. Weismantle, are you testifying on behalf of 8
LILCO on Contention 50 regarding training?
9 A
(Witness Weismantle)
Yes, I'm one of the 10 witnesses on a rather large panel.
11 O
We'll talk about the December drill at that 12 time.
13 The suggestion, Mr., Weismantle,.that has been gsb 14 made that there were other ways for FEMA to have notified 15 or advised LERO about these impediments, and I think Judge 16 Frye stated one possibility of putting a sign out by the i
17 car and handing out written messages to people as they 18 drove by, to your knowledge, Mr. Weismantle, from your 19 review of other exercise reports, has FEMA done anything 20 like that at any other site?
21 A
Not to my knowledge, no.
22 Q
But you think it would have been a good idea to 23 do it for LILCO?
24 A
Well, I think it would be a good idea to do that 25 sort of thing every place.
I think that would be an S
J ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
-m.
... ~ ~
7, n., ~.-.'~ _:--
- 7.. _~
- :~- -
1230 02 02 1122 maryaimons 1 improvement over the way they do it now and make it a more
_J 2
realistic test.
3 0
Mr. Lieberman, I think you have also testified 4
that one of the reasons you would not have rerouted traffic 5
down Walters and Everett is because that is a residential 6
area; is that your testimony?
7 MR. ZEUGIN:
Objection.
I don't believe that 8
was an area that Mr. Lieberman addressed subsequent to Mr.
9 Millc.'s cross-examination.
10 MR. PIRFO:
I would have the same objection.
11 That's totally outside the scope of cross.
12 MR. MILLER:
I don't recall, Judge Frye, but I 13 thought that Mr. Lieberman did state that he considered rc) 14 that a residential area.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Someone did, but several days ago.
16 So I think I've got to sustain that objection.
17 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I think it came up 18 during the cross-examination by Mr. ---
19 JUDGE FRYE:
Did anybody mention the fact that 20 that's a residential area in redirect?
21 MR. PIRFO:
Today?
22 MR. MILLER:
No, not in redirect.
I think in 23 response to some questions by Mr. Cumming.
24 JUDGE FRYE:
You did not, I'm pretty sure, Mr.
(^3 25 Lieberman, did you?
L,)
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1230 02 02 1123 merysimons 1 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
No, I did not.
7~s
(,)
2 JUDGE FRYE:
And the questions weren't put to 3
either Mr. Wilm or Mr. Weismantle.
4 WITNESS WILM:
No.
5 WITNESS WEISMANTLE:
No.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
The objection is sustained.
7 MR. MILLER:
I have no further questions, Judge 3
Frye.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
Judge Paris has a question.
10 JUDGE PARIS:
Mr. Lieberman, could you turn your 11 road diagram around there so we could look at it.
12 If an impediment of the sort that occurred with 13 the fuel truck accident had occurred down on LIE or Sunrise 14 Highway say at about William Floyd Parkway, would it not 15 have had a much more profound effect on total evacuation 16 time than up where it did occur?
17 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
It would have that 18 potential, but those roads are far more open.
In other 19 words, William Floyd Parkway is a four-lane arterial, 20 partially access controlled, which means that there are 21 overpasses at Sunrise, Long Island Expressway and Route 22 25.
The two lanes in each direction are separated by a 23 wide median and there are wide shoulders on both outer 24 edges.
(^S 25 Therefore, there is more opportunity to retain U
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6686
1230 02 02 1124 m rysimons 1 traffic movement on that same arterial perhaps at a
()
2 somewhat lower value of capacity.
The same comments apply 3
to the other two expressways.
Long Island Expressway is 4
three lanes in each direction, with wide shoulders on the 5
left and a very wide median.
It would be very easy, much 6
easier there for a crew to push the gravel truck clear of 7
the roadway surface than in the more confined areas of 8
Yaphank-Middle Island.
I 9
So the answer is the impact on traffic flow i
10 !
would have been greater, but I think the extent of that i
11 impact wotid be for a shorter duration because it would be 12 easier to clear.
l
(~ w 13 JUDGE PARIS:
Okay.
Thank you.
N-]
14 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, if I may follow up 15 l
because Mr. Lieberman restricted his answer to the gravel 16 L truck.
17 What about the fuel truck, Mr. Lieberman, if you 18 have that on one of those major highways?
19 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
The fuel truck is another 20 matter.
21 JUDGE PARIS:
Well, I thought I asked about the 22 fuel truck, although I did hear you say the gravel truck.
23 Would what you just said not apply to the fuel truck?
24 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
No.
The fuel truck is r']
25 another matter.
Because of the simulated spill of a highly
%J ACE FEDERAL REPORT 9RS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
J 4
1230 02 02 1125 1
volatile and inflammable material, I would not traffic to frysimons 2
come anywhere near that place.
So you would have to divert 3
traffic in some way, and I would say the impact in that 4
situation would be greater.
5 I would also venture to say it doesn't matter 6
how fast you get a crew there, that situation is going to 7
remain as a' blockage I think over the duration of the 8
evacuation.
It's a very dangerous thing and you have to 9
down-load the fuel, you have to hose down the pavement to 10 make sure that nothing is left which could catch fire from 11 a tailpipe dragging and throwing off a spark.
That's a 12 lengthy process.
()
13 JUDGE PARIS:
Thank you.
14 MR. MILLER:
Thank you, Judge Frye.
15 MR. PIRFO:
No questions.
16 MR. MILLER:
I would like to thank the witnesses 17 for their patience in being here all week.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
Gentlemen, thank you very much.
19 You've been very patient and very forthcoming in your 20 testimony and we appreciate it.
21 We will stand adjourned until 9 a.m. Tuesday 22 morning.
23 (Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m.,
the hearing in the 4
24 above-entitled matter recessed, to reconvene at 9:00 a.m.,
()
25 Tuesday, March 17, 1987.)
l l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80tk336-6M6
,.e,,.n_-
---.---,--r.-
,,-n-n
-- -,--,