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

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 856-7

Filed 09/03/2004

Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT 6

...;.....--.".""

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 856-7

Filed 09/03/2004

Page 2 of 4
kfl

206
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
- X

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY

Plaintiff

Case No. 98-126C
Senior Judge

Merow

THE UNITED STATES,
De f endan t .
- X

Washington, D. C.
Thursday, April 22, 1999

Continued deposi tion

of NANCY

SLATER, a witness herein , called for examination

by counsel for Plaintiff in the above-entitled
matter, pursuant to

agreement,

the witness being

previously duly

sworn, taken at the offices of
at 2:10 p. m., Thursday, April

Spriggs &

H~llingsworth, 1350 I Street, N. W.,

Washington, D. C. ,

1999, and the proceedings

bein'g taken down by

Stenotype by JAN A. WILLIAMS, RPR, and

transcribed under her direction.

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,

INC.

(2021289- 2260 (8001 FOR DEPO 1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005

'--

.."'\
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 856-7 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 3 of 4

229

that'

s Yankee Atomic Electric Company,

requested
31, 1998,

to deliver more spent fuel in the first few years
of the program start ing after January

than was provided for in their allocation in
annual priority report?

the

Yes,

I do.

And do you recall there was a number of
pieces of correspondence back and forth between

DOE and Yankee Atomic on that issue?

Yes.
What was your role in that process?
I was responsible at the time for

performing an initial

review,

higher level review
I would have

of the DCS' s when they came

in.

been responsible for communicating to

the

utility,

drafting the letter that would go back

to the utility that would explain why their DCS

was being rej ected. A specific basis for that rej ect ion would have been provided. Those let ters would have been reviewed

by the contracting officer.
who signed the

And I don

' t recall

letters.
invol ved in
INC.

Who else would have been involved in
that process?

Our M&O would have been
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,

(2021289- 2260 (8001 FOR DEPO WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005 1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 856-7

Filed 09/03/2004

Page 4 of 4

v.'

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) ss.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

, JAN A. WILLIAMS, the officer before whom the foregoing
deposition was taken , do hereby certify that the witness whose
testimony appe~s in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me;
that the testimony of

said witness was taken by me to '

the best

of

ability and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction; that

I am neither counsel for ,

related to

, nor

employed by any

of

the

parties to the action in which this deposition was taken , and further

-J'

that I am not a relative or

employee

of

any attorney or counsel

employed by the parties thereto , nor financially or otherwise interested
in the outcome of

the action.

otary Public

in

and for

the District of

Columbia

My commission expires: 03/14/2002