Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 1 of 33
Exhibit 2
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 2 of 33
5/8/2002 Wood, Thomas (Plaintiffs Fact)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.
THE UNITED STATES,
98- 126C- 987
4C
Defendant.
Washington, D. C.
Wednesday, May 8, 2002
Deposi tion of THOMAS WOOD, a witness
herein ,
called for examination by counsel for
Plaintiffs Yankee Atomic, Maine Yankee and
Connecticut Yankee, in the above- ntitled matter
pursuant to notice, the witness being duly sworn by
CYNTHIA R. SIMMONS, a Notary Public in and for the
District of Columbia, taken at the offices of Spriggs
& Hollingsworth , 1350 I Street, N. W., Washington
C., at 2:00 p. m., Wednesday, May 8, 2002, and the
proceedings being taken down by Stenotype by CYNTHIA
R. SIMMONS, RMR, CRR , and transcribed under her
direction.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 3 of 33
5/8/2002 Wood , Thomas (Plaintiffs Fact)
Department of Energy agree with your assessment?
I think that they agreed with the
technical facts that the costs were
(Exhibi t No.
significant, yes.
2 was
marked for identification.
BY MR. KRNCEVIC:
ve handed you what' s been marked as
Exhibit 2, if you can just take a brief look at that
and let me know when you re ready.
Okay.
Could you please identify Exhibit 2?
Exhibi t 2 is a study entitled, Spent Fuel
Acceptance Scenarios Devoted to Shutdown
Preliminary Analysis.
Reactors:
I believe that this was done at the
request of Jeff Williams, if I remember
And Jeff Williams was?
DOE.
DOE , okay.
correctly.
And this was authored by you
and other members of PNNL?
Yes.
Do you remember your specific instructions
from Jeff Williams when you commissioned this study?
MR. LESTER:
THE WITNESS:
Obj ection to foundation.
I don t remember any detail.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 4 of 33
5/8/2002 Wood , Thomas (Plaintiffs Fact)
m sure that they were to better understand the
implications of a decommissioning priority for the system and the feasibility of the decommissioning
priority.
BY MR. KRNCEVIC:
I f you
that information?
know , why would they want to know
MR. LESTER:
Obj ection , foundation.
THE WITNESS:
Well , our previous work had
indicated that the cost associated with failure to
decommission in a timely fashion were substantial and
that it constituted a compelling reason to accept
fuel in something other than an oldest fuel first
pattern.
And so they wanted to understand how it
would work.
BY MR. KRNCEVIC:
Did they indicate to you what purpose they
might use a report like this for? Not beyond that general sort of
discussion, no.
d like to draw your attention to the
executi ve summary
which is on page Roman numeral
And as an executive summary will
III. do, it
summarizes two types of scenarios that were analyzed
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 5 of 33
Fact)
5/3/2002 Milner, Ronald Vol. 3 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY,
: (98-126C)
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY : (98-154C)
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY
: (98-474C)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
DUKE POWER, A Division of DUKE
: (98- 483C)
: (98-484C)
:ENERGY CORP. (98-485C)
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
: (98-486C)
: (98-488C)
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY,
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
: et
al., (98-614C)
: (98-621C)
: (99- 447C)
: (00- 440C)
: (00-697C)
:NEW YORK (00- 703C)
GPU NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY,
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
: (01-115C)
: (01-116C)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
: (01- 249C)
Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
Washj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
Friday, May 3, 2002 Continued Deposition of RONALD MILNER, a
witness herein, called for examination by counsel for
403
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 6 of 33
Fact)
5/3/2002 Milner, Ronald Vol. 3 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
it would have been.
BY MR. NESLIN:
Sitting here today can you think of a way
of which approving authority to shut down a reactor
would have adversely affected a system?
The federal system, I can not, no.
Any other reasons why the Department would
be unwilling to grant priority to a shutdown reactor?
MR. SHULTIS:
a 30(b) (6) witness.
Obj ection, Mr. Milner is not
Calls for speculation.
I can t think of
THE WITNESS:
any.
I can
In my
opinion, the chief one would be
think of any others.
equity.
(Milner Exhibit No. 5 9 was
marked for identification.
BY MR. NESLIN:
Mr. Milner, Exhibi t 59 is a report by S. R.
Rod, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, entitled, Cost
Estimates of Operating Onsite Spent Fuel Pools After
Final Reactor Shutdown.
Uh- huh.
Now I note on page HQR-025- 0904,
under the
distribution list,
this report.
you re listed as a recipient of
Do you recall this report?
No, I don t specifically recall this
477
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 7 of 33
Fact)
5/3/2002 Milner, Ronald Vol. 3 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
report.
Do you recall the Department or its
contractors looking at the cost of shutdown reactors
having to continue to operate on- site spent fuel
pools?
I do.
What do you recall about that?
In very general terms I do recall at least
one, probably more of our contractors looking at
estimating the cost.
their own estimate.
I vaguely recall one or two
estimates being prepared by a contractor, in essence
I seem to recall one or two
estimates prepared by the contractor pretty much
solely based on input from the utili ties.
Do you recall which contractors were
involved?
Beyond PNL,
no offhand I don
And this was work done at the direction of
the Department?
Correct.
Subj ect to the Department' s control and
input?
Well, subj ect
to the Department'
direction.
If we could turn to page HQR0250876?
478
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 8 of 33
Fact)
4/26/2002 Zabransky, David Vol. 4 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY; :
Case Nos. 98- 126C,
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER : 98-154C, 98- 474C,
COMPANY; MAl NE YANKEE ATOMIC
POWER COMPANY;
98-483C, 98-484C,
FLORI DA POWER &
98- 485C, 98-486C,
98-488C, 98-614C, 98-621C, 99- 447C,
LIGHT COMPANY; NORTHERN STATES
POWER COMPANY;
DUKE POWER
Di vislon 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 page two)
Deposi tion of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
By and through its designee
DAVID K. ZABRANSKY
Washington, D.
C.
Friday, April 26,
8:38 a.
Job No. : 11792-
2002
Pages 1 - 230
Reported by:
Joan V. Cain
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 9 of 33
Fact)
4/26/2002 Zabransky, David Vol. 4 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
document before you?
Yes, I do have it before me.
Have you ever seen this document
Mr. Zabransky?
before,
ve not seen it before
today.
Systems,
Are you
The bottom of this document indicates it
was prepared by Martin Marietta Energy
Inc., at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
aware whether Martin Marietta was one of the DOE
subcontractors as of 1991?
Well, it also says it was prepared by
Science Applications International Corporation,
and,
personally, I' m
of 1991.
not aware of the contractual
relationship between those two companies and DOE as
The document states that it was prepared
for the DOE Chicago Operations Office Transportation
proj ect Office
of OCRWM; is that correct?
No, it doesn t say that.
It does not say that it was prepared
in the middle of the page, the U. S.
for,
Department of
Energy Chicago Operations Office, Transportation
100
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 10 of 33
Fact)
4/26/2002 Zabransky, David Vol. 4 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
proj ect Office,
and the Office of Civilian
Radioacti ve Waste Management?
It says that.
It doesn t say " of the
ci vilian.
"
What is the Department of Energy Chicago
Operations Office, Transportation
I do not know.
proj ect Office?
Never heard of that designation?
I may have heard of
it.
I don t know what
it is or if it still
exists.
But this document was also prepared for the
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management; is
that correct?
That'
s what it says, yes.
Please take as much time as you would like
to review the document, and I' m going to ask you
some questions about page 6 of the
document.
After
you ve had a minute to review it, please let me
know.
Okay.
ve reviewed it in general.
So that we re clear on the record, we
now looking at page CTR-001-2199 of Zabransky
101
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 11 of 33
5/22/2002 Pollog, Thomas Vol. 3 (Plaintiffs Fact)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY
(98-126C) (Merow, S.
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY
(98-154C) (Merow, S.
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY
(98-474C) (Merow, S.
Plaintiffs,
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
Washington, D. C.
Wednesday, May 22, 2002
Continued deposition of THOMAS POLLOG, a
witness herein, called for examination by counsel for
Plaintiffs in the above- entitled matter, pursuant to
agreement, the witness having been previously
duly,
taken at the offices of Spriggs & Hollingsworth , 1350
I Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.,
20005-3305, at
9:40 a. m.,
Wednesday, May 22, 2002, and the
proceedings being taken down by Stenotype by JAN
WILLIAMS, RPR, and transcribed under her direction.
506
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 12 of 33
5/22/2002 Pollog, Thomas Vol. 3 (Plaintiffs Fact)
And that answer holds true for both
currently and back in the time period when the
systems rate studies were being done?
That' gi ve you
s true currently.
I feel I can
a good answer for the time period when the
systems rate studies were being done because it' s not
something I discussed on any regular basis with the
employees who were around then and working on
this.
And we have had great turnover since then and I don
know -- I just don t know what their opinions would
have been.
Fair enough.
How about the ' 90
, 91, time
period, would your answer hold true for that time
period?
Same answer.
There were a lot of people
that were working on this that I was not familiar
wi th what their views were and I would not feel
comfortable speculating as to what their opinions
were as to what rate we should be accepting
at.
answer
How about when you came back to work in
waste acceptance at the end of ' 96, does your hold true for the time period of ' 96 forward?
MR. CRAWFORD:
Obj ection to the extent it
calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
669
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 13 of 33
5/22/2002 Pollog, Thomas Vol. 3 (Plaintiffs Fact)
BY MR. SKALABAN:
Do you know why DOE wanted -- I assume a
contractor wouldn t prepare a report like this in
this Exhibit 30 without a request from DOE to prepare
a report like this?
True.
Do you know why DOE would want or wanted
information on cost estimates of operating onspent fuels after final reactor shutdown?
site
I don t know . why guidance was given to PNL
to prepare this
report.
I certainly had no advance
knowledge that they were doing it or was not asked to
provide any input as to whether we should or should
not do it.
Do you suspect any reason why PNL may have
been asked to prepare this report for DOE?
MR. CRAWFORD:
Obj ection to the extent it
calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS:
No.
Exhibi t 31 , can you please
MR. SKALABAN:
mark that.
(pollog Exhibit No. 31 was
marked for identification.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
Mr. Pollog, I'll represent to you that my
670
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 14 of 33
6/4/1999 Kouts , Christopher A. (Plaintiffs Fact)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY
Plaintiff,
Case No. 98-126C
Senior Judge
Merow
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
Washington ,
D.
Friday, June 4, 1999
Deposi tion of CHRISTOPHER A.
KOUTS, a
witness herein, called for examination by counsel
for Plaintiff in the above- entitled matter,
pursuant to notice, the witness being duly sworn
by MARY GRACE CASTLEBERRY, a Notary Public in and
for the District of Columbia, taken at the
offices of Spriggs & Hollingsworth, 1350 I
Street, N. W., Washington, D. C., at 10:00 a. m.,
Friday, June 4, 1999, and the proceedings being
taken down by Stenotype by MARY GRACE
CASTLEBERRY, RPR, and transcribed under her
direction.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 15 of 33
6/4/1999 Kouts , Christopher A. (Plaintiffs Fact)
were planning on developing the facility is that
we would build pads as we needed them in any one
year.
We would anticipate that and build the
pads ahead of time so we would have the casks --
the space available on the pads for the
casks.
Just to reiterate, these came right out of the
legislation.
This was something that we designed
the facility to based on what was in the
legislation or the proposed legislation.
MR. GREENE:
Do you want to take a
break?
MR. PETRIE:
Sure.
Okay.
THE WITNESS:
(Mr. Shapiro exits deposition room.
(Recess. )
(Kouts Exhibit No. 9 was
marked for identification.
BY MR. GREENE:
Have you seen this document
before,
what' s been marked as Exhibit 9?
I don t believe I have, no.
The cover page indicates that this was
prepared by the management and operating
contractor, and the date is August 17th, 1993.
Do you recall who the contractor was at that
115
--
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 16 of 33
6/4/1999 Kouts, Christopher A. (Plaintiffs Fact)
time?
It would have to be TRW.
Do you recall whether you were asked to
provide or actually did provide any information
that might have been used in this study?
At this
time, 1993,
my duties did not
really coincide with anything associated with
this report, so I don t remember providing
anything associated
any information associated
What were you doing at this time?
wi th it to the authors.
That'
s when I was working as a senior
person on strategic planning- related issues and
so forth.
Would the rate at which fuel was going
to be placed at the repository not be part of
strategic planning?
Not really,
no.
Not that I
recall.
Directing your attention to page
Roman numeral ix, the first paragraph of the
bullet point references the current discharge
rate of reactors.
Do you recall any studies or
data being done about the discharge rates of
reactors at any time while you were working at
the OCRWM?
116
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 17 of 33
6/4/1999 Kouts , Christopher A. (Plaintiffs Fact)
I don t recall any specific
studies.
My sense is that there were some studies that
were underway because we monitored the amount of
spent fuel that was through the RW- 859 forms that
were sent out to utili ties.
So my sense is that
analysis of that information was done
and,
therefore, there must have been some reports
wri tten about discharge rates.
Who would have supervised these reports
or commissioned the reports?
Probably our systems people or our
waste acceptance people and their contractor
support.
And at this time , who would that have
been?
Waste acceptance was still probably
Alan Brownstein.
Systems at that point in
time,
I would have to think about
that.
I can t place
the individual who would be working systems at
that point.
Do you understand what the term
throughput rate refers to?
Yes.
What does it refer to?
It refers to the amount of fuel that we
117
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Chri~topher
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 18 of 33
6/4/1999 Kouts
A. (Plaintiffs Fact)
would pick up and process through the waste
management system.
Do you recall any discussions or
conversations at OCRWM that talked about the link between the throughput rate and the discharge
rate for reactors?
Quite honestly,
no.
Well, the first paragraph that we were
referencing says that 2, 000
MTUs per year is
approximately comparable to the current discharge
rate of reactors and that a matching throughput
rate does little to catch up with and requires
many years of operation before SNF from shutdown reactors is picked
up.
In your experience, is
statement,
that a fair statement?
It seems like a reasonable
assuming that 2, 000 metric tons per year is
correct.
My recollection is that for a typical
PWR reactor, assuming that there is a residence
time of three years in the reactor, that you
replace about a third of the core a year, which
is roughly around 30 to 35 tons, depending on the
amount of reactors, PWRs and BWRs out
there,
that'
s probably a reasonable number to me.
But in terms of the premise that if
118
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - ---Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 858-3 Filed 09/20/2004 Page 19 of 33
6/25/2002 Morgan , Robert (Plaintiffs Fact)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
-- - -- X
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY, CONNECTICUT YANKEE
ATOMIC POWER COMPANY, MAINE
YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY, :
Plaintiffs,
No. 98-126C
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
98-154C
Defendant.
-- - - - - - X
98-474C
Eugene , Oregon
Monday, June 25, 2002
Deposition of ROBERT L. MORGAN , a witness
herein ,
called for examination by counsel for Plaintiffs
in the above- entitled matter, pursuant to notice, the
wi tness being duly sworn by DEBORAH SOLHEIM, Oregon
Certified Shorthand Reporter , at 9:25 a. m., June
25,
2002, and the proceedings taken down by DEBORAH SOLHEIM,
CRR, with computer- aided transcription and prepared
under her direction.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 20 of 33
6/25/2002 Morgan , Robert (Plaintiffs Fact)
recommendations for modifications to the standard
contract.
Okay.
I believe by April 9th of 1984 I was no
longer there.
Okay.
That was going to be one of my
questions.
Do you recall, during the time that you were
there, recommendations from Weston or from anyone else
about modifications to the standard contract?
No.
I don t recall.
Okay.
I think you told me earlier today that
you didn t recall that there were any changes to the
standard contract that were made.
That'
s correct.
And now this is a different question about
whether there were recommendations for
changes.
You
don t recall that either.
No.
All right. Let'
second.
s go off the record for one
(Discussion off the record.
BY MR. STOUCK:
This one I'
mark at all.
m not going to mark yet and may not
But take a look at
this.
This is a
document called Spent Fuel Storage Requirements, an
164
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 21 of 33
6/25/2002 Morgan , Robert (Plaintiffs Fact)
update of another document that'
s referenced there,
dated January 1983.
And my question for you is, do you know -- do
you recognize this document? Do you know what it is?
I do not recall this specific document.
Do you recall there being studies done by DOE
of the requirements of commercial utili ties
of their spent nuclear fuel on site?
for storage
Yes.
Evidently this was initiated by the
Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy as part of the
program.
If this thing is dated January
' 83,
it had to
be turned on before that.
under Shelby Brewer.
And that would be when it was
Right.
Why do you say evidently was initiated
by the Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy?
Because of the date.
Okay.
If the report came out in '
83, January ' 83,
somebody had to turn it on earlier; right?
Yes.
Do you know whether reports of this type
were prepared periodically?
I think that we used some of the field offices
and some of the information from the industry as to what the discharge rates were going to be from nuclear
reactors.
NAC Corporation in Atlanta was one, I think,
165
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 22 of 33
Fact)
3/19/2002 McDuffie, Patrick Vol. 2 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ) (98-126C) (Merow , S.
et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
full caption on page 187
DEPOSITION OF PATRICK MC DUFFIE
VOLUME II, PAGES 185 - 431
TAKEN ON
TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2002
VICTORIA MELEKIAN
CSR NO. 6996
185
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 23 of 33
Fact)
3/19/2002 McDuffie , Patrick Vol. 2 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
We talked a lot with Mary Lee
remember Nancy
Payton.
I don
Slater.
I don t remember.
You don t recall sitting here today for whom
that briefing was prepared?
No, I don
Time to move on, Mr. Mc Duffie, unless you
want to add to or comment on your answers?
Move on.
Let'
s have you review and have the court
reporter mark as Mc Duffie 26 a memorandum from you to
Mr. Langstaff and N. Montgomery dated April 13th, 1992.
(Mc Duffie Exhibit 26 was marked
for identification by the reporter
and is attached hereto.
THE WITNESS:
Could someone explain what'
s written
in here?
I can t read
it.
BY MR. TOMASZCZUK:
The handwritten language in the middle of the
first page appears to read copy of PNL proposed
contract changes.
Okay.
The title.
Proposed contract.
All
right. There they are.
1, 2 -- 24.
What is this document?
We had discussed over and over again how can
we resolve the 32 issues without a contract change and
309
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 24 of 33
Fact)
3/19/2002 McDuffie, Patrick Vol. 2 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
concluded in general a contract change would be
required and probably be shortest to go through the
rule- making
process rather than negotiate the changes
for each and every one of the contract holders.
Alan
asked if I would draft up a proposed contract
reflecting the changes and send it to him for staffing
and review.
Now , I don t know whose comments -- there
are handwritten comments throughout the
document.
don t know whose they
are.
It'
No.
s not your handwriting?
Mr. Brownstein asked you to prepare this
memorandum?
Yes.
Do you know why he s not identified as a
recipient of the memo?
No.
Because it went to Nancy Montgomery.
think she worked in Brownstein s office at that
time.
Do you know whether her married name is Nancy
Montgomery or Nancy Slater?
I have no
idea.
I just remember Nancy
Montgomery.
Yes.
d refer you to 1886, line 19.
It doesn
Does that look familiar?
I t say
high-level
waste, does it?
In line 19, there
s no --
310
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 25 of 33
Fact)
4/11/2002 Brownstein, Alan Vol. 3 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY
(98-126C) (Merow , S.
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY
(98-154C) (Merow , S.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
(98- 483C)
(Wilson, J.
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
(98-
4C) (Wiese,
DUKE POWER, A Division of
DUKE ENERGY CORP.
(98-485C) (Sypolt,
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
(98-486C) (Hodges, J.
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
(98-488C) (Yock, S.
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY,
et al.
(98-488C) (Yock, S.
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
(98-621C) (Hewitt, J.
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
(99- 447C)
(Allegra, J.
GPU NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED
467
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 26 of 33
Fact)
4/11/2002 Brownstein, Alan Vol. 3 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
(Brownstein Exhibit No. 50
was marked for
identification. )
BY MR. NESLIN:
A
Mr. Brownstein, you re being handed
what' s been marked as Exhibit 50 to your
deposi tion.
It'
s an August 30, 1988 letter from
Mr. B. M. Cole to Joseph Sutey with an attachment
ti tied, " Deli very Commitment Schedule
Processing, Approval , and Management Control
System " stamped as Bates Numbers PNL-098-1106
through 1126.
Are you familiar with these documents?
(The witness reviewed the document.
THE WITNESS:
I vaguely recall seeing
this.
BY MR. NESLIN:
Was this work undertaken at your
direction?
As I testified previously, PNL
did,
did a number of pieces of work, some at my
direction, and some that they pursued on their
own consistent with work tasks that we gave
them.
562
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 27 of 33
Fact)
4/11/2002 Brownstein , Alan Vol. 3 (Coordinated Plaintiffs
This was probably done at my
direction.
The upper right of the attached
document, there is a date August 30, 1988, and
then Rev
Would that to your mind refer to
Revision 4?
Yes.
Did you typically comment on different
drafts and revisions?
It could have gone one of two ways. It could have been because I commented on it and
went through it,
or because they went through
their internal reviews before it was presented
to DOE and went through
revs.
It could have been either way.
What was your practice as they were
preparing work that you requested them to do,
going through different drafts?
Was it your practice to provide input
to them to review drafts?
It depended on time associated with a
particular product.
If there was some time urgency, I
would review an early
draft.
563
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 28 of 33
5/8/2002 Wood, Thomas (Plaintiffs Fact)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.
THE UNITED STATES,
98-126C- 987
4C
Defendant.
Washington, D. C.
Wednesday, May 8, 2002
Deposition of THOMAS WOOD, a witness
herein, called for examination by counsel for
Plaintiffs Yankee Atomic, Maine Yankee and
Connecticut Yankee,
in the above- entitled matter,
pursuant to notice, the witness being duly sworn by
CYNTHIA R. SIMMONS, a Notary Public in and for the
District of Columbia, taken at the offices of Spriggs
& Hollingsworth, 1350 I Street, N. W., Washington,
C., at 2:00 p. m., Wednesday, May 8 , 2002 , and the
proceedings being taken down by Stenotype by CYNTHIA
R. SIMMONS, RMR , CRR , and transcribed under her
direction.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 29 of 33
5/8/2002 Wood, Thomas (Plaintiffs Fact)
I know this is a big document.
To assist
you I can limit the areas I' m going to ask you
questions about.
They ll all be in section 2 and
Okay. Okay.
I actually
lied.
I just wanted to
point out that under the acknowledgments they
recognize, this is Exhibit number 5, recognizes, T.
Wood who originally recognized the need for this
study and instigated its
initiation.
Are you familiar with this report at all?
Yes.
Could you just read the title of Exhibit
At-Reactor Spent Fuel Storage Requirements
Wi th
and Without Acceptance Rights Trading.
Were you involved at all in the
preparation of this report?
Not in the preparation.
I was involved in
the scoping or formulation of the problem that led to
this report.
When you say scoping and formulation of
the problem, what specifically does that entail?
The issues raised in summary fashion in
the earlier documents we discussed really were
analyzed in more depth
here.
I was consulted about
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 30 of 33
5/8/2002 Wood, Thomas (Plaintiffs Fact)
the moti va tion for the study and the essential
features of the problem when this study was being put
together.
Is this a study that PNNL undertook on its
own?
No.
Was it commissioned by the Department of
Energy?
Yes.
To what extent did you offer consultation
on this?
I don t remember the details of the
process.
I know that I was aware of the conduct of
the study and generally had access to the
authors.
Do you know what the motivation of this
study was?
MR. LESTER:
Obj ection, foundation.
I guess I had better since
THE WITNESS:
it was my idea.
The motivation was to understand
more thoroughly and more precisely how a market in
spent fuel acceptance rights would affect the
economics and logistics of the spent fuel management
problem at reactors and at DOE.
BY MR. KRNCEVIC:
Would it be fair to say that the
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 31 of 33
5/23/2002 McKee, Robert (Plaintiffs Fact)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
) No. 98- 126C
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
DEPOSITION OF ROBERT W. McKEE
Ma y
23, 2 002
Richland, Washington
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 32 of 33
5/23/2002 McKee, Robert (Plaintiffs Fact)
assigned to the Washington, D. C., office of
Battelfe in late 1985 through 1980 -- midway
through
' 87 .
I don t know.
April or May
something like
that.
So you were actually in Washington?
I was actually in Washington.
What was the time period again?
November ' 85 through April or May ' 87 , I believe.
And Tom Wood was the manager of that office at
that time, and I worked with Tom.
So Tom Wood is listed as one of the coauthors in
addi tion to you on this document.
Right.
Who is
Right.
J. M. Reilly?
Willy, he was a -- as I recall, an economist, but
I -- I really don t -- he s a -- listed as a
principal author.
Is that how you listed -- the order of the names
is by --
Well, unless they are alphabetical.
So you would be the second most important author?
Well -And who is M. R. LeBlanc?
I don t remember.
What does that mean
Controlled Distribution
"?
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 858-3
Filed 09/20/2004
Page 33 of 33
5/23/2002 McKee, Robert (Plaintiffs Fact)
Only
Wi thin -- it was a DOE
term.
And I don
t -- I
guess I don t really know.
I assumed it was for
closely held wi thin
document for?
I can
DOE.
Do you recall who in DOE you prepared this
I can t remember.
I can t -- I have --
I have an awful time at this age remembering names
in any context.
Okay.
No problem.
Well, why don t we turn to Page
Okay.
And in the introduction it talks about the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act --
Okay.
-- 1982.
And it states, you know, " The Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 establishes procedures
for siting, developing, and financing a permanent
disposal system for spent nuclear fuel and
high- level
radioactive waste.
Now, after the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, did
you conduct various studies on how it could be
implemented?
Yes.
And provided information to DOE
I s Office
of -- Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste?