Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:99-cv-00447-CFL

Document 297-2

Filed 05/04/2007

Page 1 of 75

EXHIBIT A

Case 4/5/2007 Zabransky, David 1:99-cv-00447-CFL
1 2 3 4 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Plaintiff 5 vs. THE UNITED STATES 6 Defendant __________________________ 7 ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION CO., 8 vs. 9 THE UNITED STATES Defendant 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Reported by: JOB NO. 180239 Bonnie L. Russo Deposition of David Zabransky Washington, D.C. April 5, 2007 Plaintiff : : : : : No. 99-447C : No. 03-2626C : : : IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 2

APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff Boston Edison Company BRADLEY D. WINE, Esq. ERIN L. WEBB, Esq. DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO, LLP 1825 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 202-420-2235

For the Defendants JOSHUA GARDNER, Esq. PATRICK BRYAN, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 202-307-0226

: 13 : 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1

3

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Pursuant to notice, before Bonnie L. Russo, Notary Public U.S. Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. Deposition of David Zabransky held at: April 5, 2007 9:00 a.m.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 4 5 2 3 EXHIBITS 1

C O N T E N T S EXAMINATION OF DAVID ZABRANSKY BY MR. WINE BY MR. GARDNER PAGE 5, 215 214

Plaintiff Boston Edison Company's Motion for Leave to take a Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Contract Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Standard Contract Fax/Letter dated 7-13-99 Westlaw Cases

40

42 84

146 176

(Exhibits included with transcript.)

2

4

Case 4/5/2007 Zabransky, David 1:99-cv-00447-CFL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q. P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S DAVID ZABRANSKY, being first duly sworn, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF BOSTON EDISON COMPANY BY MR. WINE: Mr. Zabransky, good morning. We met

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 3

government's understanding of my questions and appropriate responses thereto. I will typically take a break about every hour or so. If you need to take a break

before then, for any purposes whatsoever, feel free to ask. The only thing I ask you is that

if there is a question pending you answer my question before we take a break and go off the record. Let me see if there is anything else preliminarily that I want to make sure we are clear on before I move forward. Are there any -- is there any reason you can't testify fully and honestly here today? Any kinds of medications you are on or

in the hall just a minute ago, but for purposes of the record allow me to introduce myself. name is Brad Wine. Erin Webb. With me is my colleague, My

We are with the law firm of

Dickstein Shapiro and we represent Boston Edison in this matter. Appreciate your time today and you are here for a limited purpose today, and that is to testify as a 30(b)(6) designee on behalf of the government for a set of seven, as I count them, limited topics. Is that consistent with your understanding?

anything like that? A. Q. No. I take it you are represented by

counsel today? A. Q. correct? I guess so. Yes.

That's Mr. Gardner and Mr. Bryan,

5

7

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

A. Q.

Generally, I believe so, yes. Okay. I'm going to dispense with a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A. Q.

That's correct. Now, let's get a little bit of the

good number of the instructions that I would ordinarily give a witnesses. As I understand,

background information out of the way. Can you give me a rough estimate of the number of times in the SNF matters that you have given deposition testimony before today? A. I don't really know. More than a

you have gone through this exercise multiple times before in spent nuclear fuel cases, correct? A. Q. Yes. But I will -- there are a couple of

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

dozen, I guess. Q. And you have also testified at trial

items that I will for purposes of Bonnie and for our record make sure just to remind you of, you will need to give audible answers that the reporter can record. No head shakes or nods.

in the SNF matters as well? A. Q. That's correct. I have reviewed some of your

deposition testimony and you have given an extensive background of your work history, so I don't want to belabor that. But I just ask

We will try to refrain from "uh-huhs" and "uh-uhs" because those can be interpreted in multiple ways subsequent to today's deposition. But most importantly, if you don't understand any of the questions that -- or if you don't understand some of the questions I ask you, please ask me to restate them. be happy to do so. I will

that you kind of give me your current title and work responsibilities, then we will try to work back a little bit so we avoid some duplication. A. Okay. Currently I am a nuclear

industry specialist, nuclear utility specialist -- I'm not sure of the exact title -- in the Office of Civilian Radioactive

I want to make sure we have

a clear reflection of your understanding, the

6

8

Case 4/5/2007 Zabransky, David 1:99-cv-00447-CFL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 me. A. I have been a nuclear utilities Waste Management, DOE. Q. What are your responsibilities in

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 4

Q.

Anything else about your job

responsibilities that has changed since you gave your deposition on June 5, 2002 in the coordinated discovery process? A. June 5th, 2002. I'm not sure

that position? A. I work in the waste management

office and do a number of technical things with -- relating to spent fuel acceptance and design of spent fuel containers. And also act

exactly when I became contracting officer. Might have been in July 2002. Q. I want to make this other point by

as contracting officer for the standard contract. Q. Okay. With respect to the latter

way of just kind of ground rules for today. None of this is meant to be a memory test. at any time you can't remember, feel free to let me know that and we will see if we can do our best to refresh your recollection. But I don't want to seem as if today we are quizzing you about anything. I just If

10 11 12 13 14

point that you raise, the position as contracting officer, is that for a set number of utilities or is that for all standard contracts? A. Q. For all the contracts. Okay. Now, how long have you been

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

want to get the government's position on certain key issues related to this litigation. As I said earlier, this is a 30(b)(6) deposition. Your testimony is not

in that position? A. Q. Which position? The position you just described to

just personal as to you but with respect to the government's position on key issues related to this case. And so in order to get an

specialist since I came to DOE.

9

11

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Q.

Okay.

Give me -- what is your

1 2 3 4 5

understanding of the testimony that you are going to offer, I would like to get some information about you about how you prepared for today's deposition. Can you describe to me the preparations you undertook to be deposed here today? A. I had some meetings with counsel and

official title at DOE presently? A. I believe like I said, nuclear

utility specialist and nuclear industry specialist. Q. Okay. And that was the position

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

that you held when you gave your prior deposition particularly in coordinated discovery in 2002? A. Q. position? A. No, we don't. We just work for Yes. Do you have a staff in that

some discussions with counsel and some former DOE employees. And I reviewed some documents

that I was shown by counsel. Q. counsel. Let's start first with meetings with And when we talk about this area of

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Mr. Kouts and we have a group of people that work together. Q. And how many people work together in

your preparations, I do not want to obtain from you the substance of conversations you had with counsel. We deem those to be privilege, as I And so we

your group? A. Eight and Mr. Kouts I believe is the

know your counsel does as well.

don't want to get into the substance of those communications. But tell me, if you will, when did you meet with counsel? A. I don't know the exact dates. Over

right number. Q. Mr. Kouts? A. That's correct. You are a direct report to

22

10

12

Case 4/5/2007 Zabransky, David 1:99-cv-00447-CFL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A. the last several weeks. Q. meetings? A. meetings. Q. A. Q. meetings? A. One was a couple hours. Another was And which counsel did you meet with? Mr. Bryan, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Lo Re. And how many -- how long were these I believe there were two or three Okay. And have there been several

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 5

of the contract. Q. Okay. Did he have any recollection

of any discussion regarding the assignment of provisions of the standard contract? A. Q. I don't believe so. Did you have any discussion with

Mr. Morgan regarding, let's see here, the intent of the parties at the time of the contract in regard to future on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel? A. discussed. Q. Did you have any discussions with I don't recall that was an item we

just a phone conversation so. maybe an hour or so. Q.

Another was just

Now, you mentioned that you had Who

conversations with former DOE employees. was that? A. Q. A. Former and current, I guess. Okay. Mr. Morgan, Mr. Rosselli,

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Mr. Morgan regarding his understanding of cost or potential cost to the nuclear industry regarding alternative means of temporary fuel storage associated with DOE's failure to begin acceptance of SNF on January 31, 1998? A. that. Q. Likewise, did you have any I don't recall that we discussed

Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Cavanaugh. Q. Why don't we take those in turn. When did you speak with Mr. Morgan? I don't know the exact date. A

conversation with Mr. Morgan regarding the

13

15

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

couple of weeks ago. Q. Did you have an in-phone or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

government's estimated potential liability related to the delayed acceptance of SNF under the standard contract? A. Q. Not that I recall, no. Any other conversations with

in-person conversation with Mr. Morgan? A. Q. That was over the phone. And describe for me the substance of

your conversation with Mr. Morgan. A. With counsel we discussed the issues

Mr. Morgan regarding your deposition testimony here today that we haven't previously covered? A. Q. Not that I recall. Were there any documents that you

related to this deposition. Q. Okay. And in particular, what did

you discuss with Mr. Morgan? A. His recollection as to the

discussed with Mr. Morgan -A. Q. itself? A. Q. Not that I recall. What about Mr. Rosselli? When did No. -- besides the standard contract

circumstances around the promulgation of the standard contract. Q. Any specific aspect of the standard

contract that you discussed with Mr. Morgan? A. Specifically we discussed the

you speak with Mr. Rosselli? A. I am trying to think -- that was

assignment provisions. Q. What did Mr. Morgan inform you about

probably a couple of days after that, after Mr. Morgan. Q. A. Q. Was that by phone as well? Yes, it was. Okay. What was the substance of

the assignment provisions of the contract? A. Mr. Morgan informed me that he had

very little recollection about that being a major item of discussion during the formulation

14

16

Case 4/5/2007 Zabransky, David 1:99-cv-00447-CFL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 your conversation with Mr. Rosselli? A. It was very similar to the

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 6

A.

It was very similar to the ones with It was an

Mr. Rosselli and Mr. Morgan.

discussion with Mr. Morgan. Q. provision? A. Q. That's correct. What was Mr. Rosselli's recollection Primarily on the assignment

assignment provision of the contract and DOE's thoughts at the time of the drafting of the contract with respect to the assignment provision. Q. Did he have any better recollection

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

of the assignment provision? A. It was very similar to Mr. Morgan's,

of the assignment provision than Mr. Rosselli or Mr. Morgan? A. Q. No. Aside from the assignment provision,

that it was not an issue that anyone focused on. It was in the contract because it was in

the act, and there wasn't a lot of discussion about it. Q. Any discussions other than the

did you discuss any other aspects of the standard contract with Mr. Lawrence? A. I don't recall that we talked about

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

assignment provision of the standard contract with Mr. Rosselli? A. Q. Not that I recall, no. Okay. Any discussions of any

anything outside really the scope of the assignment of provisions. Q. No discussions with Mr. Lawrence

regarding the intent of the parties at the time of contract regarding future on-site storage of SNF? A. Q. No. No discussions with Mr. Lawrence

documents other than the standard contract with Mr. Rosselli? A. Q. No. How about Mr. Lawrence?

17

19

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

A.

That was the same day we talked to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

regarding the government's understanding of the cost or potential costs to the nuclear industry regarding alternative means of temporary fuel storage associated with DOE's failure to begin accepting SNF on January 31, 1998? A. Q. No. Likewise any discussions with

Mr. Morgan, so I'm not sure what day that was. Q. A. Q. Okay. No. Also by phone? He was in town.

Is Mr. Lawrence a current employee

of the Department of Energy? A. Q. A. No. Retired? I believe he is retired from the He works for Patel P and L now. Who elected to contract How did you

Mr. Lawrence regarding estimated potential liability regarding delayed acceptance? A. Q. No. Okay. Do you know where

department. Q.

P and L?

these individuals, first of all?

Mr. Lawrence lives now? A. No. I believe it's probably in

choose these four people to call or talk with? A. talk to. Counsel provided names of people to These are the fellows that were

Washington State since he works in Washington State. Q. You said he was in town. Do you

involved with the original promulgation of the contract. Q. So did you ever work with

understand why he was visiting Washington, D.C. when you met with him? A. Q. No, I do not. Did you discuss any documents with

18 19 20 21 22

Mr. Lawrence when he was a DOE employee? A. Q. No. What was the substance of your

Mr. Lawrence other than the standard contract? A. Not that I recall.

conversation with Mr. Lawrence?

18

20

Case 4/5/2007 Zabransky, David 1:99-cv-00447-CFL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q. Were there any documents shown to Mr. Lawrence during this meeting, do you recall? A. Q. A. Not that I recall. What about Mr. Cavanaugh? I had a phone conversation with

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 7

Q.

Okay.

I neglected to ask you if

Mr. Rosselli is a current employee of the Department of Energy or if he is retired. A. Q. resides? A. Q. No, I don't. Do you know if he is working for I believe he is retired. Do you know where Mr. Rosselli

Mr. Cavanaugh sometime after the other conversations. Q. And this was likewise an individual

anyone other than -- or anyone else or if he is just in full retirement? A. Q. I have no idea. Was this your first interaction with

identified by counsel to contact? A. He was one of the four individuals

that were part of the original drafting team, yes. Q. Okay. Is Mr. Cavanaugh currently

these four individuals? A. No. I talked to Mike Lawrence over

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

employed by the Department of Energy? A. He is employed by the National

the years about different issues but unrelated to this topic. And I have worked with Jay

Nuclear Security Administration which is a part of the DOE. Q. Describe for me the substance of

Cavanaugh before. Q. you -A. trials. Q. Funny how paths cross in the context I met Mr. Morgan before at different Now, you had mentioned when I asked

your conversation with Mr. Cavanaugh. A. It was focused just like the others

on the development of the assignment provision

21

23

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

of the contract. Q. Any documents discussed with

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

of litigation. Now, you mentioned as part of your preparation you reviewed documents. which documents you reviewed. A. I looked at the final version of the And I reviewed Tell me

Mr. Cavanaugh with the standard contract? A. Q. No. What did Mr. Cavanaugh tell you

about the assignment provisions of the standard contract? A. Very similar to the others. That it

dry cask storage study.

Mr. Morgan's testimony in the Northern States power case. And beyond that there were

8 9 10 11 12

was a provision that was because it was required by the act and there wasn't a lot of thought put to it. act. Q. Any of these individuals tell you It was basically out of the

different documents that counsel and I discussed. I don't recall specific documents

at this point. Q. documents. You have identified three classes of Let's take them in order. The dry cask storage study. Describe for me why you reviewed that document. A. It was a study that was done by DOE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

how they understood that provision of the standard contract to work or to operate? MR. GARDNER: THE WITNESS: about that specifics. BY MR. WINE: Q. Discussions were limited solely to Objection. No. Vague.

We didn't talk

in '89 at the direction of Congress to determine the costs or evaluate cost of alternative on-site storage mechanisms or approaches. Q. What did you learn from your review

the genesis of the clause? A. Yes.

of that document?

22

24

Case 4/5/2007 Zabransky, David 1:99-cv-00447-CFL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 '89. A. That DOE wrote a report that looked at the potential costs of different types of storage, utility sites. Q. And which 30(b)(6) topic did you

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 8

representative on behalf of the government? A. His recollection of the development

of the standard contract. Q. Okay. Any aspects with respect to

review that in conjunction with? A. Q. I am not sure. Can you generally classify what

assignment of the standard contract that he testified to? A. Q. No mention. How about the intent of the

subject matter, what purpose you reviewed that for in relation to today's testimony? A. I believe there was a discussion of

standard -- of the parties with respect to future on-site storage of SNF? Did you review

a topic along the DOE's understanding of on-site storage costs. I'm not sure that that

anything with respect to that in his testimony? A. There were discussions in his

document, though, is directly related to DOE's delay. It's just DOE's study of on-site

testimony about his expectations on that topic, yes. Q. What were his specific expectations

storage costs. Q. 1989? A. I believe the final version was in It was created as a result of direction And this was a report created in

that you reviewed in his testimony? A. I believe his testimony -- again, But my

18 19 20 21 22

his testimony speaks best for itself.

recollection is his expectation was that even had DOE begun performing in 1998, utilities would still have required some amount of on-site storage.

in the '87 amendments. Q. Now, you say that you also reviewed

Mr. Morgan's testimony in the Northern States

25

27

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

case.

Why did you review that -- well, before

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Q.

Did you read any other statements by

we move on to Mr. Morgan's testimony, the dry cask storage study from 1989 that you reviewed, is that a document that you chose to look at or were you instructed to review that by counsel? A. It was one that I was aware of, and

Mr. Morgan from the early 1980s in your preparation for today's testimony? A. Q. Not that I recall. Any comments or statements that he

made to industry groups? A. Outside of what was in his

counsel agreed I should look at it. Q. All right. Now let's move to Why did you review

testimony, no. Q. Likewise anything in his testimony

Mr. Morgan's testimony.

Mr. Morgan's testimony in Northern States? A. Q. testimony? A. Q. I believe I did. Was this his trial testimony or the I was asked to by counsel. Did you read the entirety of the

in Northern States regarding the intent of the NWPA and the requirements of the Department of Energy pursuant to the end of NWPA? A. I believe his testimony discusses

14 15 16 17 18

his views on the intent of the NWPA. Q. Discussions with respect to

deposition he gave in the Northern States case? A. testimony. Q. Mr. And what in particular about I believe it was his trial

qualitative obligations of DOE? MR. GARDNER: THE WITNESS: speaks best for itself. Objection. Vague.

Again, his testimony I'm not sure that it

19 20 21 22

Morgan's testimony in Northern States were

serves a purpose for me to try to recall his testimony from memory, but he does speak in his testimony about his beliefs as to what DOE's

you reviewing with respect to the topics you have been identified as a 30(b)(6)

26

28

Case 4/5/2007 Zabransky, David 1:99-cv-00447-CFL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q. obligations were which was to begin in 1998 and the fact that there was no firm -- there was no rate or schedule contained in the contract nor in the NWPA. BY MR. WINE: Do you recall him testifying We'll look at his

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 9

A.

Again, there were various documents.

We spent maybe 30, 40 minutes going over a stack of thing. I don't think we focused on

specifics for any length of time. Q. Okay. Did you review the

legislative history of the NWPA in preparing for your testimony here today? A. Q. No. Did you review expert reports that

about -- strike that. testimony later.

Now, the third class of documents that you mentioned earlier were various documents provided by counsel. gave that testimony -A. Q. Yes. -- this morning? And you have no recollection of what those documents were? A. They were different drafts and You recall you

have been authored in this litigation? A. Q. No. Besides Mr. Morgan's trial testimony

in Northern States, did you review any other deposition -- any other transcripts? A. Q. No. Aside from the four individuals that

you identified, did you have any other meetings or discussions with individuals regarding today's deposition? A. Q. No. Did you do anything else to prepare

studies that were prepared by various contractors. right now. quickly. Q. Drafts and studies prepared by I don't recall the specifics We just went over things very

22

for your deposition here today that we haven't

29

31

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

contractors on behalf of the DOE? A. They were DOE contractors. It's not

1 2 3 4

covered already? A. Q. No. Now, we talked a bit about And again, this is not a memory

always clear that they were doing things at the direction of DOE. Q. Okay. And what were the subject of

assignment. test.

5 6 7 8 9 10

But what I would like to do is get your

these drafts and studies? A. Generally they were subjects with

understanding sitting here today as to what areas you're here designated on and to testify about on behalf of the United States government. Can you provide me with that information? MR. GARDNER: I will actually object If you

respect to storage costs. Q. And these are storage costs for

on-site storage? A. Yes. And for some interim storage.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

I think they work both ways. Q. Do you know if those documents have

that it does call for a memory test.

been produced in the context of this litigation? A. Q. I don't know. Do they have a Bates number on them,

want to show him the 30(b)(6) notice and can look at it and identify for you what topics he is prepared to talk about. MR. WINE: You can answer my

do you recall? A. Q. I believe most of them did, yes. Okay. Aside from drafts and studies

question to the best of your ability. THE WITNESS: ability to do that. memorizing the list. BY MR. WINE: I don't have the

I didn't focus on

prepared by contractors, were there any other documents that were provided to you by counsel?

30

32

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David Case 1:99-cv-00447-CFL

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Q.

You understand that you are going to

government prepared with respect to Boston Edison. MR. WINE: Is that consistent with

give testimony about the assignment provision of the standard contract, correct? A. Q. I guess so, yes. Is it also your understanding that

your understanding, Mr. Gardner? MR. GARDNER: That is. I'm sorry.

you are going to provide testimony on behalf of the government regarding the intent of the parties at the time of contract regarding future on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel? MR. GARDNER: objection. I will lodge an

If you have the deposition topic to present to Mr. Zabransky, I could probably be more efficient. I believe the Topic 6 limits it to I believe you are right

Pilgrim in July 1999.

about 2 G, I believe it is, 2 H. BY MR. WINE: Q. And with respect to 5, Topic No. 5

Mr. Zabransky will talk about DOE's He is not here to talk about

understanding.

any other instrumentality of the government's understanding. THE WITNESS: And I guess if that's

contained in the deposition 30(b)(6) notice to the government, it's with respect to the government's understanding, not just DOE's understanding of the cost or potential cost of the nuclear power industry. Is that consistent with your understand, Mr. Zabransky? MR. GARDNER: Are you asking him if

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

one of the topics on the list, I'm prepared to talk about it. the list per se. BY MR. WINE: Q. Okay. Another topic you have been I don't recollect what was on

designated for, Mr. Zabransky, is Topic 5 of the 30(b)(6) topics that Boston Edison

that's consistent with what you propounded? MR. WINE: And what he is here to

33

35

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

propounded to the government, and that is the government's understanding of the costs or potential costs of the nuclear power industry and to Pilgrim in particular of alternative means of temporary fuel storage associated with the DOE's failure to begin accepting SNF as of January 31, 1998. Is that consistent with your understanding of what you are here to testify today about? MR. GARDNER: I just will object to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

testify about. MR. GARDNER: Then I will object.

We made Mr. Uleck from the NRC available on that same topic and he testified as such as to the NRC's understanding. MR. WINE: With respect to No. 5? I believe No. 5.

MR. GARDNER: MR. WINE: letter. MR. GARDNER: just be 2 H. MR. WINE:

Let's look at Pat's

I'm sorry.

It might

the extent that the court's order limited the scope of that 30(b)(6) topic. MR. WINE: Let's see. I believe it limited

Yeah.

And It's my understanding Mr. Uleck was designated at his deposition for 2 H, but then when he was asked questions about 2 H, a decision was made at that deposition to designate Mr. Zabransky on that topic. MR. GARDNER: No. No. I think what

MR. GARDNER:

it to Pilgrim as of 1999. BY MR. WINE: Q. It did -- Mr. Gardner is correct.

It does label -- limit it as to time, July 13, 1999, when Boston Edison sold the Pilgrim Plant. But I don't believe that the topic is

happened was Mr. Uleck expressed the NRC's understanding that they had no understanding because that's not something they do, but we indicated that Mr. Zabransky could talk about

limited just to any analysis that DOE or the

34

36

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David Case 1:99-cv-00447-CFL

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

DOE's understanding. MR. WINE: appreciate it. Understood. Okay. I

A. Q. A. Q.

This litigation? Yes. No. Not that I'm aware of.

I just want to make sure what

we are going to ask him questions about. MR. GARDNER: know. BY MR. WINE: Q. And then the final topic I will ask It's confusing. I

Do you have an understanding of what

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

this litigation in the Boston Edison case is about? A. Very cursory. I mean I haven't

focused on it at all. Q. What is your understanding of the

you questions about, Mr. Zabransky, is the government's estimated potential liability related to the delayed acceptance of SNF under the standard contract including the government's potential liability to Boston Edison. And I believe there is an area where Mr. Gardner had previously discussed that has been limited to any analysis of Boston Edison -- liability owing to Boston Edison. Is that consistent with your understanding of what you are here to testify about today? MR. GARDNER: Through July of 1999,

litigation? A. I believe it's called one of the I'm not sure that's

diminished value cases.

even correct, but that's the extent of my knowledge. Q. I would now like to ask you some

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

specific questions about the 30(b)(6) topics for which you have been designated. And the

topics that I'm going to ask you questions about now are Topics 2 B, 2 D, and 2 E. For purposes of the record, and I apologize that I can't hand it -- well, you know what, it's been modified -- it's been

37

39

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

correct. MR. WINE: July 1999. With the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 That's correct. Now, I should ask you, you are not 14 15 16 17 Other than my normal 18 19 20 21 22

since modified by way of the court order, but what I am going to do is give you a document that contains at least I think a pretty accurate description of those. (Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.) BY MR. WINE: Q. If you will turn -- Mr. Zabransky,

THE WITNESS:

clarification, then, on the issue of spent fuel storage costs in general is DOE's understanding. BY MR. WINE: Q. A. Q. As opposed to other agencies? That's right. Okay. And point of fact, you have

you have just been handed a document that has been marked Zabransky Exhibit 1 for purposes of your deposition here today. The document is

not discussed these topics with anyone other than either current or former DOE officials, correct? A. Q.

"Boston Edison's Motion for Leave to Take a 30(b)(6) Deposition." And if you will turn to page 4 of that document, you will see enumerated on that page a list of topics that are related to today's testimony and where they have been narrowed by court order, either your counsel or I will so advise you. And I'm sure that will

being compensated for your appearance here today, are you? A. No.

compensation. Q. Have you ever spoken with anyone

become hopefully abundantly clear as we move through the topics. But again, what I would like to ask

from Entergy or any of their attorneys regarding this litigation?

38

40

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David Case 1:99-cv-00447-CFL

Document 297-2
1 2

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

you questions about for the time being are 2 B, 2 D, and 2 E. MR. WINE: And for the record, that

MR. WINE:

For the record, it is the

standard contract between the Department of Energy, Contract No. DE-CR 01-83 NE 44368 and Boston Edison dated June 17, 1983. The

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

is the standard contract entered into between the Department of Energy on behalf of the United States and Boston Edison Company dated June 17, 1983, including. And B is the

document that I provided you has been Bates stamped ENGC\BECO DOE 1ST RFP-12-2 through 12-62. BY MR. WINE: Q. I ask you to review that document, And when you have done that, if

formulation of the terms of the standard contract. And on this subject the court has limited my examination of you to the formulation of the terms of the standard contract related to the assignment provision. And I will limit my questions to you solely to that aspect of the contract. 2 D is the terms and requirements of the standard contract except for the provision on priority for shutdown reactors, which is part of the April 18, 2002 notice served on the government as part of coordinated discovery. And like 2 B, 2 D has been narrowed to the assignment provision. And 2 E, which is

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Mr. Zabransky.

you could tell me if you are familiar with this document? MR. GARDNER: I note there appears

to be some handwriting on Bates labeled page DOE 1ST RFP-12-8 that would not be part of the original standard contract. contract. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. WINE: Q. You have had a chance to review the That's right. It's page 7 of the

document, Mr. Zabransky?

41

43

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

the provision of the standard contract which permitted Boston Edison to assign its rights and duties pursuant to the standard contract. And since all three of those topics really are cumulative and kind of overlap each other, the examination that I'm going to engage in with you now is focused on all three of those topics. We will try to do them all three

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

A. Q. A. Q.

Yes. Have you seen this document before? This particular copy, no. Okay. Aside from this copy of the

document, are you familiar with this contract? A. contracts. It seems to be one of the standard I'm not sure I am familiar with the

Boston Edison contract specifically. Q. As a contracting officer for DOE

at the same time. Now, in order to facilitate this discussion, let's go ahead and give you a copy of the standard contract between the Department of Energy and Boston Edison Company. We'll mark that as an exhibit as well. (Deposition Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.) BY MR. WINE: Q. Mr. Zabransky, you have just been

responsible for the standard contract, was one of your jobs to become familiar with various standard contracts entered into between the Department of Energy and various utilities? A. Q. Generally, yes. And was the Boston Edison contract

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

one of the ones that you reviewed in order to become familiar with those contracts? A. one. Q. I don't recall if I reviewed this I'm sure I did, but I don't recall. With the exception of the

handed a document that has been marked Zabransky Exhibit 2 for purposes of today's deposition.

handwritten notation in the margins on page 8 of the contract identified by counsel, does

42

44

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David Case 1:99-cv-00447-CFL

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

this appear to be a fair and accurate representation of the standard contract entered into between the Department of Energy and Boston Edison? A. Q. It appears to be. Okay. Now, much of the examination

Q.

As the standard contract contracting

officer, how does Article 14, the assignment provision of the standard contract, operate? MR. GARDNER: Same objections. It's

vague and it calls for a legal conclusion. You can answer. THE WITNESS: I mean again, the

that I would like to pursue with you now is going to be focused on Article 14 of the contract on page 26. If you could turn to that This is

assignment provision was put in to allow a purchaser to assign or transfer -- rights and duties with the transfer of title for the SNF. So the provision tells him how to do that. BY MR. WINE: Q. Okay. It's fair to say as the

page which is Bates labeled 12-27.

what we have been referring to as the "assignment provision." You have reviewed this provision of the contract in preparation for today's deposition, correct? A. Q. That's correct. Now, what is the government's

contracting officer responsible for the standard contract over the Department of Energy, you have to have a pretty good understanding of how this thing worked, correct? MR. GARDNER: Which "thing"? BY MR. WINE: Objection. Vague.

understanding as to why this provision was included in the standard contract? A. Again, from my discussions with

those who were here at the time or there at the time, it was included in the contract because

45

47

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

the NWP required that an assignment provision be put in the contract. Q. All right. And describe for me how

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Q. A. Q. A. Q.

The standard contract? Yes. And its clauses? Yes. And if a utility calls you up and

this provision of the contract operates. MR. GARDNER: Object to the extent

it calls for legal conclusion. BY MR. WINE: Q. You can answer. MR. GARDNER: vague. THE WITNESS: It operates as okay. operate? BY MR. WINE: Q. You are the contracting officer, How does it operate? I mean how does it I also object it's

says they're selling or want to assign their standard contract, do you advise them how to do that? A. Q. Generally, no. Have you ever had to deal with this

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

provision of the standard contract before as a contracting officer? A. Q. A. Yes. When? Over the years people have assigned So

Mr. Zabransky, currently over the Department of Energy for the standard contract. You have to

portions by assigning fuel to other people. I have received notices to that effect. Q. Do you understand what the function

have an understanding of this contract, correct? A. Q. A. Yes. And its terms and provisions? Yes.

of this provision of the standard contract is? MR. GARDNER: THE WITNESS: Objection. Vague.

20 21 22

Again, are you asking

me as a function -- what function is that

46

48

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David Case 1:99-cv-00447-CFL

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

allows the purchaser who may assign his rights and duties transfer of the SNF. BY MR. WINE: Q. occur? A. It would occur, and again, in the Okay. In what situations would that

A.

My discussions with him, he

discussed having conversations with members of Congress and with staffers. And there was

no -- as I recall, there was no -- there were differences in the Senate and the House version and ambiguities. And there was no conference

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

context of what has happened since '83 or in the context of '83? Q. A. Context of '83. In '83 speaking to those who were

report, so there was no clear insight as to why this provision was there. Q. Now, you asked me earlier when I

asked you questions about the function or the mechanics of this provision whether I was asking you about 1983 or later. Is there a time in which DOE's understanding of the function of this article of the standard contract changed? A. I don't think it changed. It's just

involved, it would have in their minds occurred if somebody was going to send this fuel out to be reprocessed. Q. A. Explain to me what you mean by that. Again, it says that the assignment It's of the fuel. So

is not of the reactor.

that if a utility was going to send fuel off to the reprocessing facility to have it reprocessed under contract, whoever received it would have the rights to have that high-level waste disposed of. Q. And in 1983 it's your understanding

that circumstances changed between '83 when the contract was formulated and what has happened today that the gentleman forming the contract didn't consider. Q. A. What is that? I think the sale of nuclear power

49

51

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

that reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel was permissible in the United States? MR. GARDNER: Objection.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

plants. Q. So it's the position of the

Department of Energy that in 1983 no one within the Department of Energy foresaw the sale of nuclear power plants? A. Based upon the discussions I had

Mischaracterizes Mr. Zabransky's testimony. THE WITNESS: was. I believe by then it

Mr. Reagan overrode the prior Ford But whether it was possible or

prohibition.

with the individuals involved, that was not something they were considering at the time. Q. Okay. What about any other -- are

not, it was something that they contemplated could be done again. And the contract was

written to allow for it. BY MR. WINE: Q. Did DOE endeavor to take any steps

you aware of any documents that articulate the position as to the understanding of DOE regarding the functioning of this provision in the standard contract in 1983? MR. GARDNER: vague. THE WITNESS: Other than what is in I will object as

to determine why Congress included or mandated the inclusion of an assignment provision in the standard contract? A. I believe that Mr. Morgan in my

discussions with him said they tried to figure out why certain things were in the NWPA and were unsuccessful ferreting out why this was in there. Q. What endeavors did Mr. Morgan

the administrative record, I'm not aware of any documents. BY MR. WINE: Q. Okay. What is in the administrative

21 22

record on this provision? A. I don't believe there is anything in

describe to you to do that?

50

52

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David Case 1:99-cv-00447-CFL

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

the record on this provision. Q. So you can't point me to any

to testify here today, correct? A. yes. Q. Is it fair to say if you hadn't With respect to the formulation,

documents that articulate or expound about the position that you have just taken here today regarding the function of the assignment provision of the contract? A. No. Other than discussions with

spoken to any of those four individuals, you would not be able to testify completely and accurately here today? A. Q. That's correct. Okay. Describe for me a bit more

those involved, no. Q. Okay. Is it your position that

you're the best source of information on behalf of the government for the assignment provision -- the function and the purpose of the assignment provision in the standard contract? MR. GARDNER: speculation. You can answer if you can. THE WITNESS: question. BY MR. WINE: Q. Is Mr. Morgan a better authority on I can't answer that Objection. Calls for

the position of the Department of Energy as to the time of contracting in 1983 the circumstances under which the assignment provision was intended to be utilized. MR. GARDNER: answered. You can answer it again. THE WITNESS: Well, again, as I Objection. Asked and

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

answered earlier, I mean there was not much thought. The part of -- the gentleman I spoke

to didn't really think about this provision. All they could postulate was it was they said a reprocessing issue, and they were not quite

this subject than you are?

53

55

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q. Q. know.

MR. GARDNER: speculation. THE WITNESS:

Objection.

Calls for

1 2

sure what the useful purposes this provision would have. BY MR. WINE: Q. Did they specifically exclude the

I don't know.

I don't

3 4

BY MR. WINE: Is it fair to say you had to go to

5 6 7 8 9 10 Is he in a 11 12 13 Calls for 14 15 I can't answer that. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

possibility of the sale of a utility? A. I think we had a discussion that

Mr. Morgan and ask him questions in order to be able to testify here today? A. I went to Mr. Morgan and others to

they didn't even think of that at the time. Q. Did they take the position that at

the time -- strike that. Did any of the gentlemen that you spoke to take the position that the sale of a nuclear plant in 1983 was not permissible? A. No. I think you mischaracterize They didn't --

ask them questions. Q. What about Mr. Rosselli?

better position to provide information on this subject matter than you are? MR. GARDNER: speculation. THE WITNESS: I don't know. BY MR. WINE: It's fair to say, though, that you Objection.

what I said. Q. anything. A. Q.

I'm not trying to characterize

They didn't even think about that. Okay. Were they aware of Congress

considered that in developing the NWPA? MR. GARDNER: speculation. THE WITNESS: As I said earlier, Objection. Calls for

identified him as well as three other individuals as information or individuals that you needed to speak to in order to be competent

54

56

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David Case 1:99-cv-00447-CFL

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

they -- my understanding from my discussions was they had no discussion they had with Congress illuminated why this was here. BY MR. WINE: Q. I think you testified that

MR. WINE: Mr. Zabransky.

Answer my question,

And if you need it read back, I

can ask Bonnie to do that. THE WITNESS: Please read it back.

(The record was read as requested.) THE WITNESS: I had no discussion

Mr. Morgan endeavored to have some conversations with staff members in Congress about the purpose of this provision and other provisions of the standard contract; is that correct? A. Q. That's correct. And did Mr. Morgan specifically ask

with Mr. Morgan about that specific question. BY MR. WINE: Q. A. Q. A. question. Didn't ask him the question? No. Why not? I didn't think of asking that His discussion was that they had --

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

members of staff in the House and Senate about the sale of nuclear power plants? MR. GARDNER: object. 30(b)(6). I'm going to now

he had no recollection of any discussions on this topic at all. Q. What did Mr. Rosselli, Mr. Lawrence

We are now beyond the scope of the Judge Lettow expressly excluded

or Mr. Cavanaugh say about the potential sale of the nuclear plant in 19 -- the knowledge of DOE regarding the potential sale of a nuclear plant in 1983? A. issue. They had no statements on that

Topic 1 from inquiry which is the government's understanding of the history and development of the nuclear industry. The impact of the

Nuclear Policy Act on the industry. To the extent you are now asking

57

59

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

about Mr. Morgan's conversations with members of Congress to understand the NWPA, that topic was disallowed by the court. BY MR. WINE: Q. No. I am talking specifically about

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 no.

Q. A.

Okay.

Did you ask them?

My discussions with them were as to

why this provision was there and what it was there for. And they had very little input or

insight as to why it was there other than it was in the act, so no. Q. And in asking them what -- why it

Topics 2 B, the formulation terms of the standards contracts; 2 D, the terms and requirements of the standard contracts; and 2 E, the provision of the standard contract which permitted Boston Edison to assign its rights and duties pursuant to the standard contract. MR. GARDNER: I know you purport to

was there and what it was there for, did you ask them specifically any questions about the sale of a nuclear power plant? A. Did not ask them those questions,

13 14 15 16 17 18

Q.

Okay.

Did you ask Mr. Morgan any

ask that question, but, in fact, you are asking about the development of the passage of the NWPA by asking about Mr. Morgan's conversations with members of Congress about the intentions of the NWPA. MR. WINE: Are you going to instruct

questions about the sale of the nuclear power plant? A. I believe during discussions it was

discussed that that was not something contemplated by him in '83, yes. Q. Is Mr. Morgan the only individual

19 20 21 22

the witness not to answer my questions? MR. GARDNER: beyond the scope. No. I object it's

that you spoke with who articulated that position? A. I believe that's the only area it

58

60

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David Case 1:99-cv-00447-CFL

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

came up, right. Q. How did it come up in the context of

recollection and that statement, what is the Department of Energy's position regarding whether or not a utility could anticipate -whether or not the Department of Energy anticipated the nuclear plant could be sold from one party to another? MR. GARDNER: answered. THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any Objection. Asked and

your conversation with Mr. Morgan? A. Q. I don't recall. Did you specifically pose a question

to him about the sale of a nuclear power plant? A. I don't know if it came up as a

result of a question or in discussion as to what had happened versus what was going on in his mind in '83. Q. And that's because Mr. Morgan

other departmental position on that. BY MR. WINE: Q. Did you engage in a review of

brought it up in your conversation with him that you discussed that, but neither Mr. Rosselli, Mr. Lawrence or Mr. Cavanaugh raised the subject of the sale of a nuclear power plant in their conversation with you? MR. GARDNER: Objection.

documents to determine whether, other than Mr. Morgan's statement to you, the Department of Energy had a position on that? A. Q. A. Q. documents? No. Why not? I'm not aware of any such documents. Did you ask the government for such Did you ask the Department of

Mischaracterizes Mr. Zabransky's previous answer. THE WITNESS: No. Mr. Morgan had

20 21 22

the greatest depth of discussion about this topic. The other three fellows didn't have

Justice for such documents? A. I'm not aware of any documents other

61

63

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

recollection at all about discussing the assignment provision. BY MR. WINE: Q. Now, I believe, and it's not my So if I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

than this is related to the contract and the discussions were related to the formulation of the contract. Q. Do you know why Mr. Morgan was

intent to characterize your testimony. inaccurately characterize what you have

unable to conceive the possibility of a nuclear plant being sold from one party to another in 1983? MR. GARDNER: speculation. THE WITNESS: And again, I think to Objection. Calls for

previously testified to, please correct me. But I believe you previously testified that when the standard contract was promulgated and signed in 1983 that it did not -- that the Department of Energy did not anticipate that nuclear plants -- strike that. Let me ask you a different way. When DOE signed the standard contract in 1983, did it anticipate that nuclear plants could be sold from one party to another? A. All I can respond to is in my

clarify, I said he said it wasn't something he considered. That's all I can say. what he thought or speculated. BY MR. WINE: Q. Do you understand you are here to I don't know

testify on behalf of the Department of Energy, correct? A. Q. That's correct. And provide the institutional

18 19 20 21 22

discussions with the director at the time, which was Mr. Morgan, he did not -- he stated it was not something he considered. Q. Aside from Mr. Morgan's personal

knowledge of the entire department with respect to the topics that you have been designated

62

64

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David Case 1:99-cv-00447-CFL

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

for, correct? A. Q. Correct. Okay. Is there any reason sitting

of Energy simply didn't think about whether or not a utility could sell a plant from one party to another? A. My position is that with respect to

here today why the Department of Energy could not have anticipated or planned for the sale of a nuclear plant from one party to another at the time of drafting the standard contract? MR. GARDNER: Objection. speculation. If you can possibly answer that question, feel free. THE WITNESS: I don't know. I mean Form. Objection. Vague.

development of the standard contract, those individuals involved with that, no one identified that that was something they considered. Q. Okay. But I asked you a slightly

Objection.

Calls for

different question. I understand with respect to the development of the standard contract. I am

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

asking at the same time, 1983, anyone within the Department of Energy, institution, individuals or whatnot, consider, plan for, think of the sale of a plant from one party to another, nuclear power plant? MR. GARDNER: objections. I have a couple of

there are many things that -- I can't answer why someone couldn't have planned for something they hadn't thought of. BY MR. WINE: Q. So the Department of Energy, the

entire Department of Energy responsible for regulating the energy industry in the United States at that time in 1983 had made no plans for, never thought of or anticipated the

You continue to ask questions

outside the formulation of the standard contract. You are now beyond the scope of the

30(b)(6) deposition.

65

67

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

potential sale of a nuclear plower plant from one party to another? MR. GARDNER: Objection.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

If you continue asking him whether anyone in 1983 at DOE had any foresight into sales of nuclear power plants, I will object because it calls for speculation. asking him for DOE's position. With those objections, Mr. Zabransky, if you can answer the question. THE WITNESS: I don't have any You are

Mischaracterizes Mr. Zabransky's testimony. Objection to the fact that the Department of Energy regulates the energy industry I would object to. If you can answer that question. THE WITNESS: Again, the department

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q. Q.

information on that topic. BY MR. WINE: Why not? MR. GARDNER: Objection. Beyond the

doesn't regulate the nuclear industry. BY MR. WINE: Q. A. Q. The NRC does, correct? That's correct. The NRC is a subagency or subentity

scope of the 30(b)(6) deposition. BY MR. WINE: Well, Topic 2 F for which you have

within the Department of Energy? A. Q. A. Q. No. It's an independent agency? Yes. So the Department of Energy has no

been designated for which we will get to in a minute, also asks you to testify regarding the expectations of the government at the time the standard contract was signed, but only insofar as the parties' expectations in 1983 concern the assignment provision. So I am getting to the expectation

knowledge -- aside from my characterization of regulation of the nuclear industry, is it your position here today that in 1983 the Department

66

68

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David Case 1:99-cv-00447-CFL

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

of the parties not in the drafting or formulation of the contract, but what DOE expected at this time in 1983. A. And with respect to those involved

Q.

Did you ask for any documents that

dealt specifically with these topics for which you have been designated? MR. GARDNER: Objection. Vague.

with signing the contract, I have expressed that position. Q. Okay. But you have not endeavored

Are you just limiting that question to Question 2 B, D, and E? MR. WINE: No. So any of the topics?

7 8 9 10 11 12 Q.

to find out anything other than the four people you talked to? A. I have not checked with people who

MR. GARDNER: BY MR. WINE:

Any of the topics you've been The seven topics you have been

are not responsible for the signing of the contract. Q. Anyone else within the Department of

designated on? designated on? A.

13 14 15 16 17 18

I believe, like I told you earlier,

Energy then at the time regarding issues pertaining to the administration of the standard contract let's say, for example? MR. GARDNER: Objection. Vague. THE WITNESS: BY MR. WINE: Q. Why did you limit your review or Clarify what you said. Objection. Form.

I asked for the dry cask storage study because I knew it existed. With respect to the others,

the administrative record was reviewed, nothing was found. involved. Q. Okay. So your review of documents And we talked to the individuals

19 20 21 22

was limited to the documents that you had personal knowledge of? MR. GARDNER: Objection.

your preparation for today to those people

69

71

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

responsible for signing this standard contract? MR. GARDNER: Objection to the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mischaracterizes Mr. Zabransky's previous answer. THE WITNESS: asked about. Those are the ones I

extent it mischaracterizes Mr. Zabransky's preparation for this deposition. You can answer. THE WITNESS: They were the

I couldn't ask for things I had Counsel provided me with

no knowledge of.

other documents they found that were responsible. BY MR. WINE: Q. Did they provide you with any

individuals that were responsible for developing the contract and executing it. were the ones who understand what the department's position was. I believe Mr. Morgan at that time reported to the secretary. department's position. BY MR. WINE: Q. Did you review any of Mr. Morgan's He expressed the They

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

documents discussing or analyzing the sale of nuclear power -- the contemplation of the sale of nuclear power plants in 1983 from one party to another? MR. GARDNER: facts not in evidence. foundation. You are assuming the existence of which. You may as well ask the direct Objection. Objection. Assumes Lack of

work papers or any other files that he maintained at that time? MR. GARDNER: THE WITNESS: BY MR. WINE: Q. A. Did you ask for them? No. Objection. No. Form.

18 19 20 21 22

question. THE WITNESS: I'm not sure any exist. BY MR. WINE: I saw no documents.

70

72

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David Case 1:99-cv-00447-CFL

Document 297-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Q.

Did you ask for any?

Did you ask if

MR. GARDNER:

Objection.

Beyond the

any existed? A. Q. No, I did not. Okay. Do you know sitting here

scope of the 30(b)(6) deposition. THE WITNESS: I don't know the

current state in '83, what the state of Agnes was or what West Valley was. West Valley was

today whether any exist? A. I don't know that any exist.

shut down at that point in time. BY MR. WINE: Q. Did the NWPA permit the transfer of

Mr. Morgan who worked on it told me he never contemplated it. Q. today? MR. GARDNER: speculation. THE WITNESS: counsel. BY MR. WINE: Q. Okay. Maybe I will. You have to ask Objection. Calls for Why isn't Mr. Morgan testifying here

waste for purposes of reprocessing? MR. GARDNER: scope. Objection. Beyond the

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Mr. Zabransky is not here to talk about

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. THE WITNESS: does. I don't know what that

The contract permits it. BY MR. WINE:

Q.

The contract permits it, but -- and

Other than the sale of a nuclear plant, how would a purchaser transfer title to SNF or high-level waste? MR. GARDNER: Objection to the

you never assessed what the statute does? MR. GARDNER: Objection. Beyond the

scope of the 30(b)(6) deposition. THE WITNESS: BY MR. WINE: Q. Have you ever looked at whether or No, I did not.

20 21 22

extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection. Outside the scope of the 30(b)(6)

73

75

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

deposition. THE WITNESS: example earlier. BY MR. WINE: Q. Describe for me in further detail I think I gave you an

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

not the statute -- political statutory provisions permit the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel? MR. GARDNER: Objection. Beyond the Object to

scope of the 30(b)(6) deposition.

the example that you gave me earlier. MR. GARDNER: THE WITNESS: Same objections. A purchaser could

the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. THE WITNESS: I believe that the

NWPA provides guidance with respect to how one would handle reprocessing spent fuel. BY MR. WINE: Q. What is that guidance as you

contract with a third party for reprocessing and transfer title that way. Could

theoretically contract with a third party for storage and long-term disposal and transfer title that way. But it specifically allows the transfer of title to the fuel, not with the reactor. BY MR. WINE: Q. The facilities that -- say

understand it? MR. GARDNER: Objection. Beyond the Objection.

scope of the 30(b)(6) deposition. Calls for a legal conclusion. THE WITNESS:

The NWPA provides

17 18 19 20 21 22

guidance as to how to calculate the equivalent amount of SNM or MTU of intact fuel or high-level waste resulting from reprocessing. BY MR. WINE: Q. In the drafting process of the

reprocessing facility in the first scenario, the hypothetical you provided, were you aware or are you aware sitting here today of any facilities so available in 1983?

standard contract, are you aware of alternative

74

76

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David Case 1:99-cv-00447-CFL

Document 297-2
1 2

4/5/2007 Filed 05/04/2007 Zabransky, David of 75 Page 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

wordings proposed to the Department of Energy regarding Article 14? MR. GARDNER: facts not in evidence. foundation. BY MR. WINE: Q. Then let's stop. Let's start with a Objection. Objection. Assumes Lack of

A. Q.

I did not. You relied on counsel to review the

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

record for you, correct? A. Q. That's correct. What specifically were you advised

regarding the record? A. My recollection is that there was no

foundation. You are familiar with the process by which the standard contract was promulgated, correct? A. Q. A. Q. A. The notice of comment rule making? Correct. Yes. Describe for me that process. My understanding is that the

discussion of this provision in the contract, in the discussions of utilities. Q. And what is the basis of your

recollection? A. Q. A. counsel. had. MR. WINE: Why don't we go off the It's a recollection. What is the basis of it? I believe -- discussions I had with I believe that's the discussion I

12 13 14 15 16 17

department published a draft contract in February of 1983 and received comment. In

18 19 20 21 22

record and take a break. (A short recess was taken.) BY MR. WINE: Q. Mr. Zabransky, does the government

response to the comment, published a final contract in April of 1983. Q. In preparing for today's deposition,

did you review the notice and comment record

have a position as to whether or not the

77

79

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

4/5/2007 Zabransky, David

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

for the standard contract? A. I did not review the record

1 2 3 4 5

assignment provision of the standard contract prohibits the sale of a nuclear power plant from one party to another? MR. GARDNER: Object to the extent

entirely, no. Q. review? A. Other than the general terms of it, What part of the record did you

it calls for a legal conclusion. THE WITNESS: I don't believe the

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q. Q.

I didn't go back and review the administrative record at this time. Q. What do you mean by the general

government has a position like that, no. BY MR. WINE: Okay. Are you aware of any other

terms of it? A. Q. The dat