Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-9
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 1 of 6
Exhibit 7
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-9
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 2 of 6
Fact)
4/18/2002 Zabransky, David Vol. 2 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY;
Case Nos. 98- 126C,
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER
COMPANY; MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC
POWER COMPANY;
98-154C, 98-474C,
98-483C, 98- 484C,
FLORI DA POWER &
98-485C, 98-486C, 98-488C, 98- 614C,
LIGHT COMPANY; NORTHERN STATES
POWER COMPANY;
DUKE POWER
98- 621C, 99- 447C,
Di vision of DUKE ENERGY CORP.
00- 440C, 00- 695C, 00- 703C, 01- 115C,
01-116C, 01-249C
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY;
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY
(Caption continued on the next
page)
Continued Deposition of DAVID ZABRANSKY
Washington, D.
Thursday, April 18, 2002
9:44 a.
Job No. : 112597-2
Pages 227 through 459, Volume 2
Reported by:
Diane Gomez , RPR
227
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-9
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 3 of 6
Fact)
4/18/2002 Zabransky, David Vol. 2 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
out to be failed fuel?
MR. OLSEN:
Obj ection to the extent it
calls for a legal conclusion, and obj ection, vague.
Well, the DCS per the instructions assumes
the delivery of standard
fuel. So we submitted these,
we basically told the department we were going to
submi t, provide standard fuel in these quanti ties and
this range.
It would have been our obligation
pursuant to the contract to let them know if we were going to have to submit nonstandard fuel pursuant to
Appendix E and provide in accordance wi th the contract -- basically Article 6. 2. B of the contract
covers what a purchaser does if it needs to deliver
other than standard fuel.
I think you testified yesterday that you
were involved in the early nineties in the ACR issues
resolution process?
Did I Bay that right?
Yes.
Let me show you what' s been marked as
Exhibi t 31.
(Deposition Exhibit Zabransky 31 was marked
for identification and was attached to the
256
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-9
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 4 of 6
Fact)
4/18/2002 Zabransky, David Vol. 2 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
transcript.
MR . BLANTON:
Give one to counsel.
Do you recognize that document?
Not specifically,
no.
Does this appear to you to be a DOE
documen t ?
Gi ven the text in the third paragraph on
the first page, it appear to me to be a document
crea ted by the
M&O at the
time.
Okay.
Tha t would be DOE' s M&O?
DOE' s contractor.
And M&O means what?
Management and operating.
Okay.
The first sentence of that document
says " The
standard disposal contract which defined the
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste
acceptance process was unfortunately developed in such
a way that the terms and conditions contained numerous
omissions, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and
contradictions. "
Did you ever hear anybody describe
the standard contract that way in the course of the
ACR issues resolution process?
257
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-9
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 5 of 6
Fact)
4/18/2002 Zabransky, David Vol. 2 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
I don t recall the specific use of all
those words that way.
Any of them?
I think there was a -- it' s fair to say
that a discussion of the contract was one that
required interpretation and
review.
You had to look
at it; you had to understand
it.
But it wasn t a
simple contract.
It also -- but it was no more
complicated than many other nuclear fuel
contracts.
Were you ever in the presence of DOE
officials when anybody discussed the contract and the
gist of the conversation
was, Gee, we read the
contract, and we can t tell exactly what happens?
I don t recall that conversation -- a
conversation like
that.
Who was DOE' s M&O contractor in
Okay.
December 31 of 1991, do you know?
I believe that would have been what was TRW
Environmental and Safety Systems, TESS.
Okay.
What does an M&O contractor do with
respect to the spent nuclear fuel program?
They provide technical and management
258
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-9
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 6 of 6
Fact)
4/18/2002 Zabransky, David Vol. 2 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
support.
Do you think that the standard contract has
any omissions that needed to be filled in through the
ACR issues resolution process?
m not sure I would find any
omissions.
It has a lot of -- for both parties, a lot of clauses
that give discretion to each party on different
issues, and it would be nice to know how parties
intended to use discretion, and that' s an omission.
How about inconsistencies?
The only term that I would classify from
memory as an inconsistency could be or would be the provision that allows a trading of a DCS I believe up
to six months prior to delivery as opposed to someone
wi th an FDS or exchange provision of the
contract.
Could you explain?
And I feel like you
were trying to start and wanted to look at the
contract, which is fine, but could you explain to me
how that' s inconsistent?
I said it appears to be an inconsistency.
Purchaser shall have the right to determine -- Article
5. E of the
contract.
I won t read it, but it gives
259