Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 1 of 34

APPENDIX

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 2 of 34

INDEX TO THE APPENDIX Document Letter from M. Detmer,Contracting Officer, to RonaldG. Cocherell, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, dated March4, 1992, attaching Instractions for Completing the Appendix C Delivery Commitment Schedule .............. Excerpt of Trial Testimonyof Christopher Kouts in YankeeAtomic Electric Co. v. United State~, No. 98-126C, August 2, 2004 ............................ Excerpt of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Requirements Document, Rev. 05, January t999 ................................................ Excerpt ofH.R. Rep. No. 108-212, "Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2004," July 16, 2003 .......................................... Order, TennesseeValley Authority v. United States, No. 01-249C, August 12, 2004 .............................................................. PlaintifFs Supplemental Disclosures mad DamagesSchedules .......................... Pages

1

10

15

18

20 21

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 3 of 34

Department of Energy Washington. 20585 DC

Mr. RonaldG. Cocherell Southern Nuclear Operating Company P.O.Box 1295 Birmingham, 35201 AL Dear Mr. Cocherell: The StandardContractfor ~ispo~alof Spent N~cle~rFuel and/or Hieh-Level Radioactive Waste(10 CFR Part 961) provides that,beginning JanuaryI, 1992, Purchasersshall submit to the Departmentof Energy (Department) Delivery Commitment Schedules (DCS).The DCS provides the Purchaser withthe opportunity to informthe Department plansregarding of its allocation projected of Federal waste acceptancecapacity.This info~ationwill assist the Departmentin meeting its contractual wasteacceptance responsibilities in the development and of the Federal wastemanagement system(FWMS). The allocations the Iggl AnnualCapacityReport(ACR) shouldbe the basis in for the DCS submittals.An allocationis a specifiedacceptancecapacity (measuredin metrictons of uranium)in a particular year for an individual Purchaser. The 1991 Acceptance Priority Rankinghas been used as the basisfor the allocation wasteacceptance of capacity specific to Purchasers the 1991 in ACR. Thesereportshave beenrecently issuedby the Department sent to all and Purchasers. Oncea Purchaser an allocation, equivalent has any quantity spent of nuclear fuel {SNF)ownedby the Purchaser can be designated delivery for within the limitsof that allocation. Purchaser A may submitDCSs for as many of their allocations theychoose, as throughout 10 yearperiodidentified the ACR. the in The Department requests thatthe Purchasers submitDCSs for as many allocations as possibleto assistin the Department's planning the FWMS. The enclosed of DCS instructions intended assistthe Purchaser completing DCS. are to in the The Standard Contract provides thatPurchasers shallsubmitDCSsto DOE at least 63 monthspriorto delivery. Department The recognizes thatboth the Purchaser's and Department's abilityto committo a specific delivery date over 63 months in the futureis limited. Therefore, Department the suggests thatthe Purchasers designate onlythe yearof delivery the DCS.The actual on date of delivery will be proposed the Purchasers theirFinalDeliverySchedule by in submittal. Two entrieswere addedto the DCS forth,identification numberand contactperson, to allow the Department communicate to more effectively with the Purchaser concerning theirDCS submittal. Aftera DCS has beenapproved, Purchasers eitheruse the DCS as the reFRrence may documentfor submittal the Final DeliverySchedule,which is required12 of monthspriorto delivery, use the DCS as-thebasisfor exchanges or with other Purchasers. Specific guidelines for submission exchange of requestsare under development, willnot havean impacton the submission DCSsfor approval. but of

HQ0002065

HQR-001-2066

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 4 of 34

The enclosed DCS form will be submitted ~he Officeof Management Budget to an~ (OMB)for approval shortly. The Department will transmit the Purchasers to the OMB approved DCS form as soon as possible. If you have any questions concerning thes~instructions, please.contactNick Grahamof my staff on (202) 586-9634or Alan Brownstein the Department's of Office'of Civilian Radioactive WBsteManagement (202)5B6-4973. on

M. Detmer Contracting Officer Officeof Placement and Administration Enclosure

HQ0002066

HQR-001-2067

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 5 of 34

U. S, DEPARTHENT ENERGY OF IHSTRUCTIOHS COHPLETIMG APPENDIX DELIVERY FOR THE C COMHITHENT SCHEDULE GENERAL IHBTRUCTIOHS 1. PURPOSE USEOF DATA AND The Standard ContFact for Disposal of Sp~nt ~uclear Fue].,,and/or HiqhLevelRadioactive Waste(I0 CFR Part 961) statesthat,beginning JanuaryI, 1992,Purchasers may beginsubmitting the Department to ef Energy(DOE)Delivery Commitment Schedules (DCS)that identify all spent nuclearfuel (SNF)the Purchasers plan to deliverte DOE beginning monthsthereafter. The DES providesthe Purchasers wlth the opportonity te informDOE of theirplansfor utilizing theirallocations of projected Federalwastemanagement system(FWMS)acceptance capacity. This information will assistDOE in meetingits contractual waste acceptance responsibilities in develeping and the FWHS. WHO SHOULDSUBMIT The DES shouldbe submitted all Purchasers by with allocations the in 1991 AnnualCapacity Report(ACR){or subsequent ACRs,as appropriate) as specified ArticleV.B. of the Standard in Contract for Di.sposal of SpentNuclear Fuel a~d/orNiqhoL~v~l Radloactiv~ waste. WHEN TO SUBMIT Beginning JanuaryI, 1992,Purchasers shallsubmitDCSs at least 63 monthspriorto requested delivery. this time, DOE suggeststhat the At Purchasers designate only the appropriate delivery year(calendar year), recognizing that both the Purchaser's the Department's and abilityto committo a specific date over 63 monthsin the futureis limited. For each allocation listedin the I991ACR(or subsequent ACRs, as appropriate), Purchaser a must submitat leastone DCS for that allocation least63 monthspriorto the date that the allocation at occurs(e.g.,if a Purchaser has an allocation 1998,a DES must be in submitted for that allocation September by 30, 1992). WHERETO SUBHIT Purchasers shallforwardthe completed DeS and one copy to: U.S. Department Energy of DOE Contracting Officer Officeof Placement and Administration PR-322,] 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, 20585 DC cc: U.S. Department Energy of Chief,Logistics and UtilityInterface Branch OFficeof Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement RW-432 1000Independence Avenue, S.W." Washington, 20585 DC

2.

3.

4.

HQ0002044

HQR-O01-2045

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 6 of 34

AUTHOB]TY Data on the DCS are collected under the authority of the Nuclear Waste Policy of 1982,as amended, U.S.C. Act (42 10101 seq.)andArticle eL osalof SpentNuclear V.B of the Standard C~tract Pi~p for Fueland/or HiqhLevelRadioactive PROVISIONS RE~ARDING CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFOPJtATION Databeing collected theDCSarenotconsidered be confidential. on to BACK6ROUND INFORI(ATION Priority Ranking (APR) established order the (a) The1991Acceptance in which FWMSacceptance capacity allocated the1991ACR. is in As required theStandard by Contract~ priority the ranking is basedon the datethe SNFwaspe~anently discharged, the with owners theoldest of SNF~on an industry-wlde basis, giventhe highest priority. 1991ACR The applied IO yearprojected a waste acceptance to the 1991APR planning rate for purposes, resulting in individual Purchaser allocations. Purchasers' The allocations foreachdelivery year(fpra 10 yearperiod) presented the are in 1991ACR arethe basis and for Purchasers submitting to DOE DCSs for approval. to thelimited Due annual acceptance capacity ef theFWMS, onlyDCSssubmitted Purchasers an allocation by with in thedelivery yearwillbe considered approval for (e.g., order in fora Purchaser havea DCSconsidered approval delivery to for for in 1998, thePurchaser havean allocation IggB.) must in has any (b) Oncea Purchaser an allocation, SNFownedby thePurchaser canbe designated delivery for against thatallocation. DCS The doesnotrestrict Purchaser deliver specified that the to the SNF wasthebasis fortheallocation alsoItem7.(h)}. (see

(c) Theannual acceptance rates the19g]ACRprovide in an
approximationtheFWMSacceptance of capacity areforplanning and purposes. process The described herein assumes thattheFWMSwill be ableto accept Purchasers' beginning IggBaccording the SNF in to theacceptance reflected theIgglACR.In theevent rate in thatsuchcircumstances change, DCSspreviously all approved by DOEmayneedto be reevaluated DOEandthePurchasers. by Overthe]0 yearperiod which for the 1991ACR allocated FWMS acceptance capacity, Purchasers qualify a specific may for number of allocations (from0 through IO).Beginning January in 1992, Purchasers submit may DCSsforanyor allof their allocations, up through yearI0.Early submission DCSswillfacilitate of the exchange approved of DCSsbetween Purchasers, allowed as by Article V.E. theStandard of Contract.

(e) Theactual number DC~ssubmitted a Purchaser vary of by will

according thenumber allocations havein theACRand to of they thenumber DCSstheychoose submit eachallocation. of to for A DCSshould submitted onlyonedesignated be for delivery site, onlyonefueltype(BWR, PWR,or Other) onlyonedelivery end 2

HQ0002045 4 ~

HQR-001-2046

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 7 of 34

year. Therefore, a Purchaser if splits allocation an between two or meredelivery sites between er fueltypes, merethanoneDCS willhe reqoired. There no limitto thenumber DCSsthat is of canbe submitted eachallecation, longas thetotal for as metric toes uranium of (ITIIJ} requested nutexceed Purchaser's does the tetal MTUallocation that for year. Unless specifically requested otherwise, willevaluate DOE all DCSssubmitted against single a allocation period independently. If a Purchaser prefers DCSssubmitted all against single a allocation to be.conslderedonepackage, year as thisshould be communicated DOEat thetimeof submission. evaluating to When theDCSsas a package, oneUCSis disapproved allDCSsfor if then thatperiod willbe disapproved returned thePurchaser and to for resubmittal.

{g) Waste acceptance capacity allocated Purchasers expressed to is in

ter~sof MTU.The MTUallocation notnecessarily does limitthe oumber assemblies can be delivered. DCS is designed of that The to cover given a quantity SNFas measured MTU,not of in assemblies. realizes DOE thatthe number assemblies of associated withan allocation varyaccording theactual will to SNF designated delivery. appropriate for The entryfortheblankon theDCSlabeled "Number Assemblies" discussed moredetail of is in below theSpecific in Instructions Completion DCS. For of

the the of (h) Since DCSdoesnotrequire identificationthespecific fuelto be delivered, DCSis assumed be forStandard each to Fuel, Class or Class $1 $2,as defined Appendix of theStandard in E Contract. approved should be interpreted a An DCS not as commitment DOE to accept by other thanstandard fuel. The Contract makes specific provisions delivery other for of than standard fuel. a Purchaser If intends deliver to othe~than standard fuel, thePurchaser submit must proposed handling/shipping procedures DOEforevaluation to and confirmation to thetechnical as feasibility accepting of the delivery the schedule theapproved on in DC$.Submittal these of proposed handling/shipplng procedures notrequired is until after the DCShasbeenapproved. theacceptance otherthan If of standard cannot accon~nodated, Purchaser theoption fuel be the has to deliver standard fuelon theschedule theapproved or in DCS exchange approved withanother the DCS Purchaser, provided contractual limitations be met. time can DCS PROCESS Uponreceipt byDOE, eachDCS willbe datestamped. shallapprove DOE or disapprove DCSwithin months receipt. the 3 of Suchapproval willbe confirmed signatures theDOEContracting by of Officer DOETechnical and RepresentativetheDCSreturned thePurchaser. theDCS is on to If incomplete if theDCSdoesnotreflect or delivery rights available to thePurchaser, DCSwillbe disapproved returned the the and to

ro HQ000~.04 5 !

HQR-001-2047

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 8 of 34

Purchaser. The Purchaser wtll then have 30 days to resubmit the revised OCS.DOE shall approveor disapprove the revised DCS within 60 days of receipt. If the revised DCS disapproved, DOE is will submit to the Purchaser reasons forsuch disapproval, andproposedalternative DOS(s) for their consideration.thisDoE-proposed If alternative is not DCS acceptable thePurchaser, parties to both shall promptly seekto negotiate acceptable schedule(s).

If youhaveanyquestions require or moreinformation completing . for the DCS,please contact Mr. Alan Brownstein at (202) 586-4973, or Hr. Nick Graham (202) 586-9634, Please direct all correspondence DOE at to Contracting Officer, Office Placement Administration, of and PR-322.1, 1000Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20585.

HQ0002047

HQR-001-2048

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 9 of 34

SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS CONPLETIONDCS FOR OF The followlng specific are instructions completing DCS.Each for the indicated entry theDCSshould filled wlththeinformation of be in as described below. Requests information for which havebeendetermined not to be currently needed DOEhavebeenprefilled "NotRequired" the by with in attached DCS. NUHBER: ]2-diglt A unique identification number I.i OCSIDENTIFICATION having formYY-RRID-NNNN-SS, the where YY - thelast-two digits the Proposed of Delivery Year RRID= RW-859 reactor Identification number thedesignated of delivery site NNNN- thelastfourdigits the contract of number associated with theSNFbeing designated delivery, for and code identlfythe DCS SS - a twodigitsequential to uniquely within thisPurchaser's annual allocation. As an example, suppose Electric Power Company (Contract Number DE-CROI-83NEI2345) submits DCSto deliver from'Unit (RW-Bsg a SNF I Number 8BOI)in the yearlOgO.Assume thatthisis thethirdDCSthat Electric Power Company plansto submit under thisallocation. The unique identifier thisDCS would 9g-SBOl-2345-03, the for be Type number thetopright-hand on corner the DCS,If the Purchaser of elects notto insert identifying an number, willbe assigned DOEupon one by receipt theDCS. of CONTACT PERSON: Enter the nameandtelephone number theperson of the Department should contact there if arequestions concerning DCS. the CONTRACT NUMBER: Enter the number theContract of underwhich the disposal feeswerepaidforthe SNFdesignated thisDCS.For on Purchasers multiple with Contracts, entry the relates theContract to number associated theSNFdesignated delivery maydiffer with for and fromtheContract number theSNFwhich of qualified Purchaser the for theallocation theContract or number associated thedesignated with delivery site. 1.4 REACTOR/FACILITY INFORMATION: Enter the nameof the designated delivery sitewheretheSNFwillbe delivered DOE.The facility differ to may fromthefacility thatgenerated SNFthatqualified Purchaser the the fortheallocation. Enterthestreet address (notmai]ing address) thedesignated delivery site. 2.1 TYPEOF CASKREQUIRED: Indicate tons)themaximum (in ]oaded cask lifting weight (weight thehookincluding on lifting equipment water and in thecask) thatyouintend useat thedelivery to location indicated In Item1.4.If youplanto upgrade caskhandling the capacity this at facility prior shipment, upgrade to this should reflected the be in maximum lifting weight. Thisinformation to be usedby DOEfor is 5

HQ0002048 7 ~

HQR-001-2049

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 10 of 34

planning purposes and does not imp]y any co~itment by DOE the or Purchaser. The identification of the specific cask will be determined during Final the Delivery Schedule (FDS) process. LOTNUHBER: ("NotRequired" beenentered.) shipping has A lot 2.2 SHIPPING is a specified quantity SNFdesignated delivery a specific of for on date. Sincea DCSshould identify specific not a datefordelivery, assignment a shipping number of lot would premature thistime. be at 2.3 PROPOSEI) 5~IIPPING NODE: Checkthe appropriate box for: (a) Truck, (b)Railor (c)Barge, indicating proposed your shipping mode. Purchasers should indicate modeof carriage the thatthecaskidentified in Item2.1willbe delivered DOEat thePurchaser's to gate, f.o.b. carrier. entry "Truck" An of willindicate DOEthatthePurchaser to proposes deliver caskon a truck to tBe trailer, entry ~Rail" an of will indicate delivery a tallcar,andan entry "Barge" on of willindicate thatthePurchaser proposes deliver cadkto a barge. to the Selection of shipping modeis independent casktypeandonlyindicates of the carrier mode.Final selection of.the shipping modewillbe determined during FDSprocess. a Purchaser the If intends upgrade facility to a fromtruck railaccess, to ~Rail" should indicated theDCS. he on Similarly, a facility elther if has railor barge access the but Purchaser plans deliver truck, to by "Truck" should indicated the be on DCS. PROPOSE]) DELIVERY DATE: Enter theappropriate delivery date(year) for theSNFto be delivered accordance yourallocation in with (listed in theACR).Theactual datewillbe determined during FDS process. the DOEASSIGNED DELIVERY COMMITMENT DATE: Thisentrywillbe completed by DOE. RANGE DISCHARGE (Earliest to Latest): Enter the range OF DATES discharge dates fromwhich theSNFwillbe selected delivery. for Purchasers encouraged be as specific possible. example, are to as For thePurchaser knowthatthere certain thattheyprefer to may is SNF not deliver under thisDCS(e.g., in drystorage) exclude SNF and thatSNF fromthe range discharge of dates. Purchaser Include A may other than standard in therangeof discharge SNF dates, although confirmation of thetechnical feasibility delivery theother of of thanstandard on SNF theagreed schedule to willbe required prior submittal an FDS. to of Canistered nonfue] waste should be included thisentry this not in at time. 2.7 NETRIC TONSOF URAHIIJH (Initial}: Enter theMTUforthisproposed delivery. several If DCSsaresubmitted oneallocation for period, the total quantity SNFdesignated delivery of for mustnotexceed the allocation theACR;exceeding allocation result in the will in disapproval theDCS(s). of (Discharged) Required" beenentered. Contract "Not has The makes provisions allocation on thebasis Initial content. for only of HTU

t4Q0002049 8

HQR-001-2050

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 11 of 34

2.8

BUHBER A$$EHBLIES--BWR/PWR/Other: the number SNFassembliBs OF Enter of corresponding to the Hetric Tons Uraniumindicated in ]tom 2.6 in the appropriate b]ank For BWR, or Other (e.g., HT6R,TRIGA).If the SNF PHR in the designated range oF dtscha~je dates encompasses assemblieswith a widerange W/U/assembly, themaximum of state number assemblies of that may be delivered. Sincetheactual number assemblies be delivered of to mayvaryaccording thespecific selected delivery, te SNF for adjustments thenumber assemblies be madeduring FDS to of will the process.

An duly to 3.0 CERTIFICATIONS:individual authorized bindthe Purchaser mustsignthe DCS,certifying thePurchaser thelegal that has right to deliver suchSNFto DOE.Insert appropriate the slgnatory's titleand date. ~OTIFICATION DOE OF APPROVAL: signatures of DOE'sTechnical The Representative theContracting and Officer willindicate thattheDCS hasbeenapproved.

HQO002050 9

HQR-O01-2051

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM
BSA
Page3378

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005
Page33Bg

Page 12 of 34

YankeeAtomic Electric v U.S NQs.: 98-126C, 98-154C, 98-474CAugust 2, 2004
IR~IiE gttlTED STATES COURT FEDERAL OF CLAIHS

Pag~3379

Page33B1 PROCEED IRGS V~.STOUCK: YourHonor. TIIE OOURT: Yes.

IO

Heritage RepoSing Corporation

(202) 62B-4888

Page33781oPage3381

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM
sea (t) (2) (3) t4) (st (?)

Document 181-3
98-126C,

Filed 03/11/2005
98-154C,

Page 13 of 34

Yankee Atomic Electric v U.S Nos.: Page 3450 A Yes,they do. Q Andwhat those reports represent? do A Theyrepresent viewsandpositions ol the the M&O contraclor onthose issues. O Are lhese repodedeIIverables undertheir A Yes, they are.

(9} deltverebles? (11) they- if webelievethe( theyappropriately (13) the repot, yes.

(16) (le)

Q 8y accepting the report, doesDOE accept the A No.

(20) or statementsof DOE? (~.) ownlederhead,it wouldhavean RW number,

XM~(191te] 98-474C August 2, 2004 Page 3452 (1) lrem a businessstandpointas a businessjudgment that (2) it doesnot w~nt commit acceptms,orielsat the to to of capability, it youw~l, ot our (3} amount the rnaximum Ihasematerials, (,~) ability to receive (5) So, depending how the Depadment on views it lrem a business tat how wantsto operatethe program if it ha (7} perspective, youw=el, could differentthan (9) what total recefplrale andthe total c~pab~iiy the be (9) of thereceiptratewould of our facilities, Q Couldthere be other constrainls on the (lO) rate? (11) acceptance (12) A Potentially there could ba issues associated howwewantto deployfaci]illea andhowwewant (13) wgh the (14) fo essenfletiypracess fuel rate? (15) Q Ara youfamgiarwtih th~ termremp-up (15) A Yes. lam. Is rate? (17) Q What ramp-up (181 A It's standard practice, when you'regoingIo (19) start upa~ykthd of foolery, inoisdingnuclear (2O) facility, andI would especlegy nuclear say a (91) facility, that youdon1 to start out at a want (22) maximum Youdon't wentto tax your fac~tiies rate. tale (23) to their maximum unlg youhada [earningcurve, (2,1) if youwtiL (25} Sothe ramp-up that wetypically hadIn rate

Page3451 (1) areas. (9) Q Thankyou. Mr. Kouta, are youfamiliar wilh (3) the termreceipt rate? A Yes, lam. H} is (5) Q What the receipt tale? (6) A The receipt rate, as weuseg in the is capabitityof ourfacilili~s {7} program, the technical (e) to receive materials andprocess themthroughthe (9) syslem. (Io) Q Are youtam~iarwith the termacceptance (11) rate? (12) A Yes,lain. [s rate? (13) Q What the acceptance rate (14) A Theacceptance is the contractualr~le has to (15) at whichthe Department committed receive (la} melerialefromthe contract haldars. (1~ Q Where the acceptance is rate set forth? A Theacceptance tale is set forih in the (18) pdodtyrenking and the AnnualCapacity (19) acceptance {90)Report, the taleandtheacceptance (21) Q Could rece{pt (~J role different? be (23} A Yes,they could. (e4) Q Why? can (25) A Essentially, the Department determine

Page3453 (1) our technlcal baselinedocumenta a step-byostep is (2) approach try to workus up to our maximum that to ~ta allowus the ability to learnas wego and1o (3) would capabgily a in (4) bring oncapability - addigonal fashion as opposed trying to do a maximum to (5) measured (e) amount day one. on Q Thank you. Mr. Kouls, are you familiar with (7) (8) the MRS Ihat DOE designingto be able to accepl was (at '~aste in 19957 (10) A I'm famgiar with the vadous designsthat for (11) werebeingconsidered that, yes. Q Whet type of facility did DOE plan to build? (12) (13) A That wasa bare fuel handling storage only rc-ceivematerials from (1~} facility that could trar~sportagon casks, youwill, fromulilities and if (15} (16) fromutility sites, andslore it onsite by removing (17) maledals olthose casks, out of those out (18) transportationcasksand putling them into vadous (19) storagedevioes. Q And do you knowwhat lheestimated cost for (20) (;Zl} that facility was? (22} A Depending the type of storage technology on (23) 10 be used,the life cycle cost welookedat somewhere 1.7 (24) between and$2.7 bUIion. Q Thankyou. Can wehave Plaintiffs' Exh~II (25)

HeritageReporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

Page 3450 to Page 34b3

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM
Yankee Atomic EElectria Page3454(1) (2) (3f (4) (5) (6} (;3 (8) (9) (lO} (11) (12) (13)

Document 181-3
98-126C, 98-154C,

Filed 03/11/2005
98-474C August 2, 2004

Page 14 of 34

v U.S Nos.:

254? MS. SULLIVAN: MayI approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. MS. SULUVAN: Honor, would you like e Your copy? THECOURT: can use {his. I MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. BY MS. SULLIVAN: Q Mr. Kouls, what's beenput up on the screen andI providedyou a paper copyof has beenmarked as Plaintiffs' Exh~i1254. yourecognize Do this document? A Yes, I do.

(1 } an understanding to what{he source thoserates as of (2) was? (3) A Yes, (4) MR. STOUCK: Your Honor, can I interpose [5) ebjeclionfor ~herecordhere, I don't mean to (6) inlerrupI unduly,But Mr. Koutswasdisclosed(n (B) (9) (~0) (~1} (~2} (13) (14) (15) (16) (1~ (18) (19) ~~0) AndI just wantto make record onthat. Andwecan a deal w[~ ~e consequences later. ~e first one, OO~s plans to beg~nwasteacceptance 2010. ~e in secondwasIhe fact ~at the Yuc~Mountainrepos]~o~ is not being des(~edto accept GTCC waste, SoI just wanted h~ve~at on ~e record, to ~d, ag~n, we~nde~wi~queslionsaboutwhe{her this is beyond oncewesee~[ it li~s up. ~at you like me~ address MS. SU~IVAN: Would ~a5 Your Hono~ ~E COURT:If you wish. MS. SU~VAN: shall I just continue? Or Your Honoh ~b~speci~cally [n ~[s chadare ~a

(~) SoI believe was it raised Plaintiffs' c~se. in (24) Andalso, fudher quas~ons make wgl cl~ar

(t} (2) (3) (4) (5)

Page 3455 o~cein (Is wasle acceptance func~on? A Essentially, it gives us guidance - in te termsel what{he receipt rate of the ayslem would be, It also gives variouspolicy guidance the program to as a whole.

Page 3457 THECOURT: Okay. Go forward. it) is) MS, SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honor. (3) BY MS. SULLIVAN: (4) Q Mr. Kouls, what was - do you have an (5) understanding the source {he rates werefor what of (6) the facili~P-s lhat were torth In this document? set (7) A Yes. (B) Q Andwhatwasyour ur~arstanding?

{2o)

Q What type of fac~i[y d[d DOE plan to build

Page 3454 to Page 3457

(202) 628-4888

Heritage Reporting Corporation

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM
asA

Document 181-3
98-126C,

Filed 03/11/2005
98-154C,

Page 15 of 34

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (5) (9) (lO} (11) (12} (12) (14) (15) (15) (17) (is) (19} Texas. f20) QWas facility, the centralized interim the (21) storage taeility eel forth onthis page ever (22) consthJCled? (23) A No,it was not. (24} Q Whynot? end (25) A Theleg[station wasneverpassed the

Yankee Atomic Electric v U.S Nee.: Page3458 storage taciltiy al, potentiallyth Nevada, to next where Yucca the Mountain sile is right now° there And werealso other optionsin termsof where that taciltiy couldbed~ployed. Q How wasthe centralized Interim slorage taciltiy different f=-om MRS the designed DOE the by th early '80s - in the 1980s early'g0s? and A In lhe mid-'B0s,we werelooking at a tac~ity that hada grealdeal mare capab~tiy. (I wasonethat baslcally hadpackaging capabi[tiy that would essentJaltydosome the packaging of thaf a rapnstiorytypically would havedone. It also hadrod consolidation, also had tt the gex~iltiy le devetap disposal-ready canislers for anyel the threesites that weware considering at thatlime, whichwerethebasaltstfeinHanford, Washing(an, luff site, t-u-f-f, vo~can[c age the tuff in Nevada, else the DeafSmgh and bedded sati site in

98-474C August 2, 2004 Page 3450 (1) A There have been various considerations (2) CapilolHill as to intitalives that would Hems(and use (3) Securityfundsto essentiallyfund the reactorsto put (4) their - th~ pool- the materialsthat they're now (5) managing the pools, the high-level waslemsferials, in (5) the spentfuel into dry sloragecasks, andundertake (7) that Intitagve. QMr. Kouta,are you familiar with the (8} (s) matedalknown Grealer ThanCtass G radtaactive as (lO) waste? (11) A Yes. (12) Q Do you understand that GTCC Fadioactive Is by nuclearutiltiies? (13) waste generated commercial (14) A Yes. Q Is GTCC radioactive waste one of the waste (15) that DOE acceptpursuantto the w~l {ls) mate~ata i(17) standardcontract? (ls) A No. (19) Q Is DOE designing the repository to accept radioactive wastegeneratedby commercial nuclear (20) GTCC (21) facl]ittas? (22.) A No, ti is not. (23) Q Could DOE accept GTCC radloac~lw waste at (24) th~ repository? (25) A Theoreticallyitcould. II would require, I

Page 3459 never received anyauthodZalionsto {1) Depadmenl on (z) proceed ti, f3} Q CouIdthere be a simitar congressional

Page 3461 (1} hal(ave,a change tagislalien fo allow less than in

(5) yes.

Heritage

Reporting

Corporation

(202) 628-4888

Page 3458 to Page 3461

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 16 of 34

Yankee Atomic Electric v U.S Nos.:98-126C, 98-154C, 98-474C August2,2004 Page 3462 Page 3464 mated~ls, (I) will, of the repasgory. (1) materials, the high-level wa~ta (2) Andas such, wewouldnot wantto reducethe (2) Let mea]ea addwe'reta the plaea~ng on EeaentiaJly we're what 13) capaciliesof thosefaciliges In order ta dealwkh (3) back[((ling the reposgo~,. (4) other wastematedals. (4} doing [s placing the wastepackages. We're eat with anykind of materiels. (5) Q Could DOE place GTCC the beskt~l spaces in (5) fifiing upthe repesilory (a) it's been theorizedin the pastwewould take (6) of the repository? ~7) pulvedzedtafforvotcanlcmatedalsaedbeskfiliit. ~) MR, STOUCK: we watch the leading Can (8) queations here an this, YourHonor? Therehavebeana (8) We're planning doingthat, That'snot part of not on to aboutthis GTCC issue, and (91 series o| leading questions 13) the current plan lo demonstrate the Nuclear (10) f ed]est thet baele. on (10) RegutatotyCommissionthaithissileeaniealala Well, you could rephrase. (11} maledaL {11} THECOURT: MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. (t2) (12) SotherelsKt a lot of space the dr(Its in (13) BY MS. SULUVAN: (13) to addadditional mate~als. mysenseis what So (14) Q Mr. Koute, when use the term beskl~l I (14) wouldhaveto happan there wouldba additional Is {15) spaeas,do youknow whetI'm talkthg about? (15) ddfls or tunnelslhat w~uld have{o bedrtlled out theea materials wouidbe placed. (16) A Yes. (16) where (17) (17) Q Could ~heaebeskfill spacesTHECOURT: What ff you would package the (18) MS. SULLIVAN: don't understandquite how I {1~) GTCC exes~ythe same th iypa of container that the is whether (lg) this Is leading.T~nis a dkeatquestiea, (19} fuel assemblies put in? are In THEWITNESS: could do that. I would We (20) or not they couldplaceGTCC the pack(ill spaces. (20) (21) Would like meto try ta rephrase,YourHonor? you (2t) also indieate that eachof the wastepackagea costa (o~.) MR.STOUCK: can explain whyit's leading, I (~2) roughly about hall a mlilion dollars. TIla|'e a very (23) YourHonor.Sheaskedif they could put GTCC the in {23) expensive packag~ low-level wastematerials. for (34) repeailory. Andhe said no. Thatwouldhavebeen the (24) Theremlghtbe more efficient, more el{active ways ta (eel plaoeta mengor~ hal, rather than havecounsel why {25) dothat. ButI think when analyze we this in our

2~SA

XM~X(Z~Z~)

Page 3463 (1) lead himta the explanation. MS. SULLIVAN: He's provided somereasons. (2) other reasons, I'm helping and (3) I think there are some (,~) himTHECOURT: reoord rel~ecta that - you The (5) (e) may answer qeastEon. overrdlethe obIectIon. the RI (7) MS. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THEWITNESS: Okay. As simplisticallymy {8) is, el'what's in Greater (9) senea frommyunderstanding (101 Than ClassClow-level wesle,i don't think wecould (11) iust simply these pul reatarialsin backli]l or th (12) various spaces the ddfts, ~f youwill, the In (13) underground teaeals,It youwill, th the repository, k(ed of packag(ng assurance and thai (~4) wkhoutsome not (15) thesematerialswould get out so that il would the (le) affect our ab~ity to meet very stringent EPA (17) standards. (le) SowhatI alludedto ead[erwasthe fact to (19) that wedohaveI0 do a variety of aealytlcal work (30) determine best these materials wouldhaveto ~ bow be (21) wouldbe p[aeadth the repeailory, whatthey would (~) placedin, whatkind of canisters, whattype of westa (23] packages they wouldbe in. Andwithout that

Page ~465 (1) environmental impactatatamenls,as wehadta leak al {oreeaeable allematives, whatwedid (2} reasonably (3} analyze~nd eeaenga[ly take these materiels andput (4) themin these packages evaluate themas pad of and (5) the EISprocess. (6) That wasthe opgonwelook because was it any I72 expedient,andwedidn'l wentto expend additional (8) anelygcal work.It wes kind of an outer bound of (9) what we mighldo. (10) "THECOURT: Wouldthat solve the fee problem (11) too, because coufd chargethe samefee as SNF? you WITNESS: might help ~Mf, h the fee. That (1~) THE of (13) Wewouidhave to leak aL you know,what amount new lunnetswould caused be by" (14) ddf~s,ff youwilt, new (13) this. There were-In the EIS, as { remember, ther'e (16) wereroughly 2,000cubic metersof these matad~Js (17) that were idenlilied In the EIS. You translatethat cobio (18) to cubic yards. That'sroughlyabout2600 (~9) yards. Sothat's goingto bequite a few waste and haveta (2o) packages quite e few ddffs that you weald i| (2.1) develop, youw~(,ir~ orderta put thesematerials (23) in there. (23) THECOURT: Okay. Ms, Sullivan, (2,~) MS. SULUVAN: Thank you, Your Honer.

Page 3462 to Page 3465

(;~02) 628-4888

Heritage

Reporting

Corporation

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 17 of 34

Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Requirements Document Revision 05 (,~oooooooo-oo811.17o8-oooo~)

January 1999
U, S. Depat'~nen! Energy of Otfica of Cirri~an Radloact]vt Waat~ ManEgement

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 18 of 34

Ttfle: Civilian R~dioaetive Waste Managemenr. System Requirements Document DI: A00O00000-00811-1708-00(X)3 1LEV

Page: 14

Wast~Acceptanceand Transportation Elementshall accomplish planning and scheduling according to the provisions of the Standard Contract (10 C'b"RPart 961) and the F.M/RW and NNPP/'RW MOAs. Integrated plans for CRWMS ~ctivities shall be developed and updated ~ needed to respond to changeddata and operating eonditious. Planning involv~ allocating system "capacity, evaluating schedule ~:luests, and establishing the CRWMS operations schedule. IC Rr2ord~validation shall be initiated uponreceipt of Purchaser/Produaer/Custodian forr~ dezcdbingthe SNF/I"ILW be delivered. to L. Wtst~Acceptance Transportationshall validate title and/or Warmfer responsibility and of and custody documentation from the Purchasera/Producer-w'Custodians. 3.4 MGR ELEMENT REQUI_REMEIWfS

1-his secdoncont,.ins the requirementsallocated to the MGR Element. The MGR shall be de.signed to be capable of a~ommodating total inventory of SNF the and HLW documentedin Planning Consideration 2.4.C) eousistent with current (as disposal concepts (e.g., HLW/DOE co-disposal). However, until the second SNF repository is app'mvedthe MGR operational cap~ity shall be limi,,'d to 70,000 ~ or equivalent of SNF IqLW. and B. Thewast~packagesshall be designed such that substantially completecontainment the of wast=can be demonstrated forat least 1,00(9 ycarz. The monitoredgeologic repository concept shall allow the repository to be closed as early ~ 10 years afu:r emplacement the last waste packageor to be kept open for at of least fIX) years from initiation of w~steemplacement. design shall not preel,ide the The ability to keepthe repository open, with appropriate maintenance monitoring,for 300 ~nd yea.,x after initiation of waste emplacement. Future generations will makethe ultimate decision on whetherit is appropriate to continue to maintain the repository in an open, monitored condition or to close the repository, I~ased on development their own of crlt~ia and level of certainty regm'ding ultimate repository performance. 3.5 CISF ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS If a CISF app~ved,the followingallocated requirementsshall be met. is A. The CISF shall be d:.signed mexpedite aporatious by using a phased approach with Phase 1 having the capability to receive and store licensed dual purpose and multip,.upose systems only and Phase 2 having the capability to receive and store SNF in licensed dual purposeand malti-purposesystemsand as individual assembliesat the rates indicated in Table3.

HQO.19990112.0001.0025 '1 16

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 19 of 34

Title: Civilian Radio~dve Waste Management System R~quirerr~nts DI: A00000000-~811-1708-00003 REV 05

Document

~ Tz~o.~e CISF 3. ReceiptRales (in M'i'HM EqulvaJenVYeer) or Year of Operation I ! 2 5 I[ TEID2 = Commen=la!SNF 120o 1200 2700 Government ManagedNu~Jear Matedml~ T~D3 TBD3 T~D4 TBD4 TBDa 1"~D4

B. The CISF shall have a m/nimumstorage capacity of I0,000 ivlTH2Mof SNF, C. The CISF shall have a I~LWstorage capacity of CI'BD 6). D. The CISF shall be capable of preparing SNF and HLW oH-site transport. for 3.6 INTERFACE REQIJI]~M~ENTS

section id~ntifies the interface requirements betw~n CRWMS system elements. Acceptanc~ criteria for nuclear martials ar~ documental in the Waste Acceptance System Requir~mcn~ Document (WA-SRD) (DO.E/RW-035 IP). 3.6,1 Waste Aceeptauc~ and Trvamportation Requirements - Government Agency Interface

Waste Acceptance and Transportation ~halt in~rfacc with appropriate federal, stat~, tribal, and local government agencies to meet legal, regulato~ and operational requirements for scceptancc and transportation of S/qF and HLW,such as mute selection, approval, scheduling and notification, emergency planning and response, and security.

Rm:cipt n=c:sin thi= table u'= onlyapplicable CISF approved. if= i~ This could include MOX in Pht~ IL SNF

HQO.19990112.0001.0026

17

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 20 of 34

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIAT[ONS BILL, 2004

REPORT

The CommiLtee AppropriaL£osasubmit.~ on explanation o~ Lh~a¢companyin~ bill making 30, 2004, and for oLher purposes.

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 21 of 34

I30 DOg he~dqu~rs, $7,?~4,000 ~ Tech~c~] ~n~tlon m~nt; and S1,020.000 for Ener~ ~e~h ~alyses. The requ~ for prog~md~ecti~nfor ge]d o~ces w~ reduced by $3,720~000 and the ~ountt~nsferred the Safeguards Sccurlty to and line. ~e control levelfor fiscalyear 2004 ]s at the pro~ama~ount levd ofScience Prog~mDirect~om ~e Committee recommendation ~ncludes offsetof 84,383,000 an for the s~e~ards and security ~argef~r reimbursable wsrk,ns ~rop~sed the b~dgetScience general request. A sf as be~nin applied the to accouna reduct~sn NUCLE~ WA~E DISPO~h

~he Fed~a]government has a clears~tuto~respon~bflRy s~ed by u~n~ess ~n ~e Nuclear ~VnsteP~licy Ac~ of i98~ amended, provide t~ fsr the permanent dispssal spentnu~ear of fuel a~d h~gh*level ~d~acfive waste.The Depa~men~ Ener~ ~f d~spesalbe~nningon Janu~w3~, 1998, ,nd enteredin~

financial l[ab]l~ty tha~tie,lure. C~urt Federal over The of C

Chronic funding shvAfalls, howsver, have s~ed the program of

19

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 22 of 34

IN THE UNITEDSTATES COURTOF FEDERAL CLAIMS No. 01-249-C (Filed: Augustt2, 2004)

TENNESSEE VALLEYAUTHORITY, Plaintiff,

UNITEDSTATES, Defendant.

ORDER Thegovernment's motionfor reconsideration, filed on August 2004,respecting this i0, Court's decision reported at 60 Fed. CI. 665 (2004), proceedson erroneouspremises. First, contrary to the govermnent's motion, the Court madeno "finding that TVA could receive damages beginningin 1995." Def.'s Mot. at 12. Rather, the Court explicitly found that "DOE breachedits obligation to act on TVA's in goodfaith," 60 Fed. CI. at 674, andthat initially DCSs occurred in 1997. Second,causation is an elementof proof regurdingdamages, the Court and specifically denied TVA'smotion for summary judgmentrespecting damages. 60 Fed. CI. at See 675-76. Defendant's motionfor reconsideration is denied. It is so OR.DER~D. s/Charles F. Lettow Charles F. Lettow Judge

2O

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 23 of 34

1N THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, Plaintiff, No. 00-697C (Senior Judge Merow)

THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

PLAINTIFF'S

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES AND DASIAGES SCHEDULES

Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"),and this Court's Orders of November 2002 and November 2004, Plaintiff 8, 24, Wisconsin Electric PowerCompany ("WE") hereby produces to the Defendant its supplemental disclosures and damagesschedules.1 In accordance with the direction provided by the Court's above-referencedorders, WE farther presents the basis for the "items and figures" (cost schedules) documentation provided in the damagesschedules discussed in this pleading and in the documentsbeing producedto the Government this same day. I. Introduction In 1983, WE entered into Contract No. DE-CR01-83NE44425 ("Standard Contract") with the Departmentof Energy("DOE") disposal of spent nuclear fuel ("SNF")generated for at Point BeachNuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 ("PBNP").Article II of the Standard Contract between WE and DOE required DOE begin accepting SNFby January 31, 1998. to However,DOE not accepted any of WE'sSNFand has repeatedly represented instead, has

~ WE's responses the Goverrm~ent's to interrogatories andrequests for production of documents filed duringthe coordinated discovery proceedings satisfied its initial disclosure obligations under RCFC and the Court's above-referenced 26 orders.

21

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 24 of 34

that performance its SNF of disposal obligation will commence 2010. Se__~eOrder in in Southern Nuclear O19eratin~Co. v. United States, No. 98-614C(Fed. Ct., Dec. 20, 2004). October8, 2004, the Court of Federal Claimsentered a ruling establishing DOE's liability for partial breach of WE's Standard Contract and the case is nowin the damages phase. DOE's failure to perform under WE'sStandard Contract has caused, and will continue to cause, WE incur significant costs. ThroughSeptember30, 2004, WE currently to has identified approximately$42,369,000in costs incurred arising from DOE's contract breach2WE expects to continue to incur costs and damagesfor SNF storage until such time as no SNFexists at Point Beach except for what wouldhave remainedon site had DOE not breached its contract. Future damages,as well as would-have-been costs, and the time-value of money costs, will be the subject of WE'sexpert damagesreport disclosed in accordance with the Court's pretrial schedule. WE currently intends to use personnel ~omThe Kenrich GroupLLC its damagesexperts. as The information that is contained in WE'sincurred cost schedules was compiledwith the assistance ofpersormel from the Kenrich GroupLLC.In addition, WE employees David Weaverand Paul Farron, and former WE employeeIone Straub, provided source support for damagesitems. Source support was also provided by Jim Becka and Linda Fencil of the Nuclear Management Corporation ("NMC"). NMC operates PBNP pursuant to a contract with WE. WE'sincurred cost schedules and support are in the form of hardcopydocuments grouped according to the 19 categories of WE'spast cost elements discussed below. Each of the categories of documents subdivided by four tabs - summary, are detailed accounting

2 In this submission, amounts basedon nominal are dollars for costs alreadyincurred. Nominal dollars are actual dollars spent or expected be spent in egchof the relevant years. The to dollars will be present-valued expertreport submissions for ~'ial. in and

-2-

22

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 25 of 34

data, invoices, and purchase orders - and cover costs incurred by WE through September 2004. This summary provides below additional detail regarding the documents'contents and the past cost elements coveredby the schedules. II. WE'sIncreased Costs Resulting from DOE'sBreach of Contract The following are the costs that WE incurred due to the DOE's has breach of the Contract. A. Organization Of Supporting Documents

Each category is organized in the following manner. 1. Summary

Thefirst tab for each groupstates the title of the cost categoryat issue and contains a summary spreadsheet of the costs that WE incurred in this cost category by year and has month.The summaries based on the data included in the other sections of the category are and total all costs incurredfor the particular cost category. 2. Detailed Accounting Data

The WE AccountingReport contains schedules that provide moredetail regarding the types of costs and the monthsin which they were entered into the accounting records. The WE Accounting Report extracts entries from WE'sConsolidated General Ledger. The Consolidated General Ledgercontains general ledger entries relating to SNFstorage and planning costs arising from the operation of PBNP. general ledger has been subject to The financial statement audit by WE's independentauditors. Further, financial statements prepared based on these general ledger entries have been submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Cmmlaission. WE subject to is regulation by the Public Service Commission Wisconsin("PSCW") well as the of as Michigan Public Service Commission.

-3-

23

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 26 of 34

The "Invoice Provided" and "CheckProvided" colunmsin these reports indicate which line entries are accompaniedby supporting documentation. These columnswere addedfor this submissionfor the purpose of ease of review. 3. Invoices

This section contains copies of invoices paid to outside vendors for expensesrelated to the management storage of SNFfor entries greater than $5,000. When invoice and an could not be located, a note wasincluded. The supporting invoices are organized chronologically. Someentries on the accounting report are accruals. Given the nature of accrual accounting, no support is providedfor these individual line entries. This section also contains copies of canceled checks which correspond to the invoices. Checksare not generally provided prior to 1997because such checks are not available due to WE'sdocumentretention policy. The supporting checks are located behind the correspondinginvoice. 4. Purchase Orders

This section contains copies and printouts of sections of purchaseorders issued to outside vendors for work related to SNFstorage and management. someinstances, In contracts and specifications are included with the respective purchaseorders. B. Summary Past Cost Elements Of

WE established several project accounts to collect costs associated with the storage and management SNF. The following are the categories in which WE currently of has identified past costs that it wouldnot have incurred but for DOE's breach. Theaccount description was established on a contemporaneous basis by WE.A review of the costs and supporting documentation indicates that certain costs captured in a particular account (i.e., NRC fees included in the NRC Inspection AndApplication Fees (1200033)) do necessarily include all costs associated with that particular subject. 0qRC fees are also

-4-

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 27 of 34

included in the Additional Spent Fuel Storage Account.) The accounting reports have not been adjusted to group costs in any mannegdifferent than WE on a contemporaneous did basis. Thetotal past costs are approximately$42,369,000. 1. 3 Additional Spent Fuel Storage ~9500203/33664)

AccountN9500203/33664 established by WE capture the costs incurred in was to analyzing alternative spent fuel storage options, including dry storage. WE beganincurring costs against this account in 1988. This cost account includes the cost to analyze alternative storage options, the PSCW IndependentSpent Fuel Storage Installation ("ISFSI") application and related party costs incurred in accordancewith Wisconsin state law, certain NRC fees, as well as costs associated with the design, licensing and the construction of the ISFSI and related plant modifications. Costs were incurred under this account until t997 and totaled approximately $12,638,000. 2. General Spent Fuel Attorney Fees 4 (31644/1300545/1300946)

Account31644was established by WE capture certain legal costs incurred by WE to in the four-year PSCW application proceedingsand related litigation as well as the development of WE'sRequest For Equitable Adjustment that was submitted to the DOE dated August 21, 1998. The total an~ount incurred by WE through 1998 is approximately $664,000. 3. Dry Cask Storage - O&M Activities (1203430)

Account1203430was established by WE capture certain operation and to maintenancecosts of the ISFSI beginning in 1996 whenthe ISFSI becameoperational.

3 This account wasopenedunder WE's prior accountingsystem as No. 33664.Underan updatedaccountingsystem, a newaccount number,N9500203, assigned. was 4 This accountalso includes chargesto two successoraccounts, 1300545 1300946. and

-5-

25

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 28 of 34

Thesecosts include the expenses for maintaining the ISFSI and related equipment,the labor associated with the operation of the ISFSI, equipment purchases, contractor services, and any minormodifications to either the ISFSI or the dry storage system. Costs were captured in this category until 2001 when, pursuant to a contract with WE,NMC becamethe operator of the PBNP.Costs were charged to this account totaling approximately $3,855,000. 4. NRC Inspection and Application Fees (1200033)

Account1200033was established by WE capture certain Nuclear Regulatory to Commission ("NRC")costs incurred by WE NRC for licensing and other regulatory reviews of the ISFSI. The total amountincurred by WE from 1996 through 2004 captured in this specific account is approximately $150,000. 5. Loading Of Casks (1203402)

Account1203402wasestablished in 1996to track certain costs associated with the loading of SNF into dry storage casks and the transporting of those casks to the ISFSI. These costs include operational, maintenance,system engineering, security, and health physics personnel costs as well as contractor expenses. Costs were tracked in this account until 2001 whenthe NMC becamethe plant operator. The costs incurred in this account total approximately $1,320,000. 6. Casks 1 - 8 (N9600018)

AccountN9600018 established in 1996to capture the costs of the first eight dry was storage casks, whichare VSC-24 casks. This account includes costs related to the purchase of the first eight VSC-24 casks as welt as WE support to the manufacturer, Sierra Nuclear, for development these casks as well as the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance of by NRC. Costs were incurred to this account uritil 1999 in the amountof approximately $2,055,000.

-6-

26

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 29 of 34

7.

Casks 9 - 12 (N9600009)

AccountN9600018 established in 1996 by to capture the costs of VSC-24 was casks nine through twelve. This account includes costs related to the purchase of the VSC-24 casks as well as WE'ssupport to the manufacturer, Sierra Nuclear, for development these casks of as well as the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance the NRC. by Costs were incurred under this account until 2001 in the amountof approximately$1,133,000. 8. Casks 13 - 16 (3.0009)

Account3.0009 was established in 2001 to capture the costs of VSC-24 casks 13 through 16. This account includes costs related to the purchase of these VSC-24 casks, WE's support to the manufacturerfor cask development with regard to issuance of Certificate and of Compliance the N-RC.It also includes certain ISFSI operations and maintenancecosts by charged by NMC. Costs were incurred to this account until 2002 in the amountof approximately $1,365,000. 9. Modifications For Metal Dry Fuel Storage (1205835, 1205836, 1205837)

Accounts 1205835,1205836, 1205837were established in 1998 to capture the costs related to the development the TN-32casks. This account includes costs related to WE's of support of the manufacturer, Transnuclear, in cask development in obtaining issuance of and a Certificate of Compliance the NRC. by Costs were incurred through 2001 in the amountof approximately $3,607,000. 10. Metal Dry Cask Storage (3.0019) Account3.0019 was established in 2001by WE capture the costs related to the to developmentof the TN-32casks after NMC becamethe plant operator. These costs include all expenses related to WE'ssupport of the manufacturer, Transnuclear, in cask development and in obtaining issuance of the Certificate of Compliance the NRC well as other TNby as

-7-

27

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 30 of 34

32 cask-related costs. Costs continue to be charged to this account and, through September30, 2004, total approximately $1,439,000. 11. Casks 17 -30 (3.0182) Account3.0182 was established in 2001 to capture the costs of casks 17 through 30, whichare TN-32PT casks. This account includes costs related to the purchase of these TN32 PT casks, WE'ssupport of the manufacturer, Transnuclear, for cask developmentand in obtaining issuance of Certificate of Compliance the NRC, various operations and by and maintenanceISFSI costs charged by NMC. Costs in this account are ongoing and, through September30, 2004, total approximately $9,174,000. 12. NUHOMS Modification Design Work (3.5051)

Account 3.5051 wasestablished in 2003to capture the additional costs related to the developmentof the TN-32PT casks. These costs include professional engineering services to provide field support for modifications at PBNP related to the implementationof the TN32 PT casks. Costs in this account are ongoingand, through September30, 2004, total approximately $772,000. 13. Transportation License For VSC-24 (3.5055) Account3.5055 was established in 2004to capmye costs related to transportation the licensing of the VSC-24 casks. Costs in this account are ongoing and, through September30, 2004, total approximately$85,000. 14. Tri-Lifter Truck (3.5027) Account3.5027 wasestablished in 2002 to track the costs associated with the modification of the VSC-24 spent fuel cask transfer equipmentto enable this equipmentto transfer the TN-32PTdry storage casks. These costs include operational, maintenance, systemengineering, personnel and contractor costs. Thecosts in this account total approximately $278,000.

-8-

28

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 31 of 34

15. Dry Cask Storage Recovery (N9600004/46752) AccountN9600004/46752 established in 1996 to track certain costs associated was with the resolution of regulatory and technical issues raised by the NRC with regard to the VSC-24 spent fuel casks. This account includes engineering costs, contractor costs, testing and inspection costs, and manufacturersupport costs. Thecosts in this account total approximately $1,703,000. 16. High Level Waste Solutions (N46082/1200036) AccountN46082/1200036 established in 1995 by WE capture certain costs was to related to investigation of alternative storage options for SNF.Thesecosts include consulting service costs and funding of participation in alternative storage options. Costs were charged to this account until 1998 in the amountof approximately $981,000. 17. Strategic Issues Administration (1200039) Account1200039 established in 1996 to capture certain costs related to was investigation of alternative storage options for SNF.Thesecosts include consulting costs and PSCW paid for approval to store SNFat the ISFSI. Costs were incurred to this account fees "until 2001and total approximately$460,000. 18. Nuclear Waste Program (1200038) Account1200038 established in 1996to capture certain costs related to was investigation of alternative storage options for SNF.Thesecosts include the cost of consulting services to conducta viability study for an interim dry fuel storage facility. Costs were incurred to this account until 2000and total approximately$104,000. 19. Manage High Level Waste (3.0001-67-0055) Account3.0001-67-0055 established in 2001to capture certain costs related to was investigation of alternative SNF storage options. Thesecosts include consulting services,

-9-

29

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 32 of 34

training activities, inspection services and workon fuel specification amendment issues. Costs were incurred to this account until 2004 and total approximately$586,000. C. Summary Fnture Cost Elements Of

With the assistance of the Kenrich GroupLLC,WE will develop estimates of the projected costs for future SNFstorage and management events and activities. In some

instances, these future costs will be estimated based on the analysis of historical costs incurred by WE similar activities. Thesefuture costs will be the subject of WE's for expert damages report that will be filed in accordance with the Court's November 2004Order. 24, D. Summary Would-Have-Been Cost Elements Of

With the assistance of the Kenrich GroupLLC,WE will develop the costs of activities that wouldhave been incurred by WE DOE honoredits obligation under the if had Standard Contract to begin SNFacceptance by January 31, 1998. In some instances, these future costs will be estimated based on analysis of historical costs incurred by WE similar for activities.

-I0-

3O

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 33 of 34

Oncedetermined, these cost elements will be an offset in calculation of WE's damages. These would-have-beencost elements will be the subject of WE'sexpert damages report that will be filed in accordancewith the Court's November 2004Order. 24,

Dated: February 14, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

Of Counsel: Martin P. Willard Donald J. Carney Perkins Coie LLP 607 Fourteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 434-1635

Richard W. Oehler Perkins Coie LLP 1201Third Avenue,40tl~ Floor Seattle, Washington98101-3099 (206) 583-8419

Attorneysfor Plaintiff WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY

-11-

31

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 181-3

Filed 03/11/2005

Page 34 of 34

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify under penalty of perjury that, on February14, 2005, the foregoing "Plaintiffs Supplemental Disclosures and Damages Schedules" was served on counsel for the defendant by hand delivery to: Kevin B. Crawford, Esq. Conm~ercialLitigation Branch Civil Division U.S. Deparm~ent Justice of Room 12128 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC20530

Donald

J.

~ey

/