Free Memorandum - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

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?