'j
.'
Alan Brownstein
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-18
McLean
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 1 of 13 Aprilll , 2002
Page 467
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY
(98- 126C) (98- 154C)
(Merow , S.
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY
(Merow , S.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
(98-483C) (Wilson , J.
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
(98-484C) (Wiese, J.
DUKE POWER , A Division of
DUKE ENERGY CORP.
( 9 8 - 4 8 5 C) (S
yp 0 1 t,
J.)
Certified Copy
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
(98-486C) (Hodges, J.
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
17
(98- 488C) (Yock ,
et ale
S. J.
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY
(98- 488C)
(98- 621C)
(Yock , S.
COMMONWEALTH EDI SON COMPANY
(Hewitt, J.
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
(99-447C) (Allegra, J.
GPU NUCLEAR , INCORPORATED
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 l- 800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
""""'""""""" """""
-----------------',',' """"","". """"',,.,.,.,.,."".",,. "", ' ,"",.,.".,.,.,.,. ,.,."".,.,.,.,." """" *"'"""""""""""""""'~ """"""" "";""""' ,'.""""""""".... "
- - Page 2 of 13 Aprilll 2002
Alan Brownstein
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-18
McLean,
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 468
(00- 440C)
(Bush , J.
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
(00-697C) (Merow , S. J.
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
(00- 703C) (Damich , (01- 115C)
(Bush , J.
J.
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
( 0 1 - 11 6 C) (S yp 01
t , J.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
(01- 249C)
(Bruggink, J.
Plaintiffs,
Discovery
THE UNITED STATES,
: Judge:
Defendant.
17
: (Judge
x S
yp 01 t )
McLean , Virginia
Thursday, April 11 , 2002
Continued deposi tion
of ALAN
BROWNSTEIN , a witness, recalled for examination
by counsel for Plaintiffs in the above- enti
tIed
matter, pursuant to notice, the witness being
previously duly sworn by CATHERINE S. BOYD , a Notary Public in and for the Commonweal th of
Virginia, taken at the offices of Shaw
""""~'h"""
Pittman,
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
,.,
""'
'" .,.,."""".""."",. """" ".,.""""""""."""".,"',
."""""",.""""""""",."""",."""""",""""" """.,.,. ;",."""
,
, """""""""""""""""",.",.""""""""""""""""'" """""""""""""""""""';";"";"",,,,,'" """""""""""""""""""...."""""",. " ,."""";""""" """""""", ;,.
"",,,
Case Alan Brownstein
1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-18
McLean
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 3 of 13
April
2002
Page 583 ~
opposed to contractual commi tment to avoid
addi tional
on- si
te storage.
BY MR. NESLIN:
As a goal , wouldn
I t the
mi sma tch
ii:
between those utili ties which had allocations
ill
and those utili ties
that needed addi
tional
storage, running into storage problems, would
not that mismatch frustrate that goal?
Do you understand my question?
I do.
MR. BANES:
Obj ection.
Calls for
tment
speculation.
THE WITNESS:
A contractual commi
In my mind is a higher priority than a
BY MR. NESLIN:
goal.
Q.
My question was simply would the goal
that you had identified, and understanding that
it is a goal and that
I s the form in which you '
speaking to it, wouldn
I t that
be frustrated by
the mismatch between those utili ties which have
allocations, annual allocations and those
utili ties which need addi tional
It certainly
storage?
ill
Okay.
And wouldn I
could.
t that
problem be
addressed by exchanges?
'""";,','""";",',""'X,.,.,."",."""",,,, ",,,',","""'x"~""",*"
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
""""
"'"""""""""",,,
" ',,,.,'," -- . ' """"",~""" """""";"""",," """"""
"""";""""".
""""""""',"".,.",."",."""""""",
',""',.,.
'". ,.,...". "
Case Alan Brownstein
1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-18
McLean,
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 4 of 13
April 11
2002
Page 584
Tha t
was
MR. BANES:
Calls for speculation.
ahead.
THE WITNESS:
That was certainly
something we were aware of, and it certainly
could be.
BY MR. NESLIN:
To your mind , wasn t that part of the reason for exchanges?
ill
MR. BANES:
Can we take a break for a
second?
(There was a pause in the
proceedings.
MR. BANES:
THE WITNESS:
m sorry, Dave.
m sorry.
Jus t to make
sure I accurately answer your question , can you
repea t
that?
MR. NESLIN:
Do you want to restate
that question?
THE REPORTER:
Question:
To your
mind, wasn t that part of the reason for
exchanges? "
THE WITNESS:
Need to go back to an
addi
tional
that was half a
THE REPORTER:
question.
My question
""""""""x""""x""""",, """"""""""""""";;""",.,."""",.",,"x"""""""""""""" N'~", x"""
Question:
"x.x"""""""'"""
X"""""" 'iW. "nX" 'X""
,.,.,.x"""""" X'X"'X"";"""
",x,~N,...
""""""";""""""""x.,x,"""""'"""""""
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
~"',"""""""",
,.,.
'",""""" """,,,' '
",,,;;,,,,,"",,,,,,,,;,, """""
"-...".,;;"";"";"""""""",,,,,,," ';""""""';"""""""'. , """"""
Case Alan Brownstein
1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-18
McLean
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 5 of 13
April 11
2002
Page 585 '
was simply would the goal that you had
identified, and understanding that it is a goal
and that'
s the form in which you re speaking to
it, wouldn t that be frustrated by the mismatch
between those utilities which have
allocations,
which
annual allocations and those utili ties
need addi tional storage?"
MR. BANES:
Obj ection -- lack of
My opinion is yes, and
foundation.
THE WITNESS:
the only caveat I have to that is that when
those terms of the contract -- you know
wasn
t wi
th the department, you know
originally, but in my
mind, that was -- that'
right.
BY MR. NESLIN:
Could exchanges, would exchanges be
beneficial to the operation of the waste
managemen t s ys tem?
MR. BANES:
Obj ect .
Calls. for
speculation.
THE WITNESS:
It could be.
BY MR. NESLIN:
Insofar as exchanges addressed
this
mismatch between those utilities which had
"x""""" 'x',.,.,.,. ix','x""" , ",.x';""" X".
x . .M."N,.x.,",.,.,x.,.,""""""':. ,~w"....;,.,",'ii,. " x/;;""""""",,'ii,",""',x' ,.x.";"",,,,;,',',' x" ,.x. ,
""x,'."'x'M,'""""""""""";,,,,,',.,." . . x""""""
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-18
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 6 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
I, Catherine S. Boyd, the Notary
Pub 1 i c
befo re whom the proceed
i ng occu r red,
pages
th rough
wi tness was duly
, do hereby certi fy that the sworn, that the test i mony of
sai d wi tness was taken by me and thereafter
reduced to th is
typewr it
ten t ransc
r i pt unde r my
supervision, that said transcript is a true
record of the testimony given by said
witness,
that I am nei ther counsel for, related to , nor
employed ~y any of the parties to
this
proceeding, and further, that I am not a
relative or ijn employee of any attorney or
counse 1 emp loyed by the pa
ties the reto, 0
financially or otherwise interested in the
outcome of the proceed
i ng, 0
r
any act ion
involved therewith.
Witness my signature and
seal:
~~ /J~
CATHERINE S. BOYD
Notary Publ ic
My commission expires:
in and for
The Commonwealth of Virginia
February 28,
2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Document 856-18 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Serving Washington, D. C. metro area
----------------------------------
TRANSC RIPT OF PR OC EEDIN GS
In the Uni ted States Court of Federal Claims
Yankee Atomic Electric
Company
: NO. 98-126C
United States of America
May 6, 2004
DEPOSITION OF:
Robert Campbell
a witness, called by counsel pursuant to
notice,
commencing at
9: 30 a. m., which
was taken at Spriggs
and Hollingsworth , 1350 Eye St., NW , Washington , DC
This transcript has been completely indexed for your convenience. It will help you locate the testimony
you want FAST. The index is located in the back
pages of this volume.
Overnile
Court Reporting Service
(301) 593- 0671
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 856-18 ROBERT CAMPBELL DEPOSmON Yankee Atomic v. USA
Page 117
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 8 of 13
May 6 , 2004
Page 119
A. No, I don t agree with that.
Q. Were you reviewing this for your own
2 interest?
Q. Can you explain why you don t agree with
3 that?
MS. HERRMANN: Objection , asked and
MS. HERRMANN: Same objections.
4 answered.
A. Any organization within DOE can propose 6 that something go to Yucca Mountain. That doesn 7 mean it could or would or will. It just means that 8 it was proposed. My understanding was that they were 10 attempting to summarize all the things that were
A. I don t remember. Q. Do you know for a fact what the purpose
7 was of including the GTCC
8 Yucca Mountain EIS was?
waste in the EIS, the
MS. HERRMANN: Objection , foundation
12 Q. Who had proposed GTCC for the Yucca 13 Mountain repository? 14 A. I don t know. 15 Q. Is the effect of including the
16 EIS -- including GTCC in a section of the EIS, does
11 proposed.
21 speculation , calls for a legal conclusion.
Page 118
20
17 that keep open the -- or otherwise reserve the 18 potential for GTCC being disposed of in the
MS. HERRMANN: Objection , foundation
19 repository?
18 Q. When you say document manager for the 19 Yucca Mountain EIS, what do you mean by that? 20 A. Under the National Environmental Policy
21 Act implementing regulations that the Department of
Page 120
1 Energy has ,
A. The document manager for the Yucca 17 Mountain EIS.
15 16
12 A. No. 13 Q. Who do you think would know the answer to
MS. HERRMANN: Speculation.
10 speculation, calls for a legal conclusion , asked and 11 answered.
14 that question?
A. No.
a document manager is assigned for every
Q. Why include it at all?
MS. HERRMANN: Same objections.
A. Environmental impact statement is a public 5 document and typically the Department tries to be 6 complete in its presentation of the issues , and I
7 believe my best guess as to why that was included is
8 an attempt to be complete.
Q. Complete in what sense?
2 environmental impact statement. 3 That' s the person who is responsible for 4 that document. That would be the most knowledgeable person 6 on that document and what was included in it. (Whereupon the proffered item was marked as exhibit number 48.
A. Complete in the sense that you have 11 discussed all the issues surrounding the 12 environmental impacts of Yucca Mountain.
1'J
10 A. I have not seen it before. I could read 11 the title for you. 12 15 16 Q. The fust page of this document
Q. Mr. Campbell , what is this document?
Q. Do you have any knowledge of whether GTCC,
Q. DId you have any involvement In preparIng
14 the EIS?
15 A. No. 16 Q. Did you have any -- did you do any work 17 with respect to GTCC into the EIS? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did you have any discussions with anyone 20 at OCRWM about why 21 A. Not that I remember.
13 the perfonnance assessment of GTCC in the Yucca 14 Mountain repository has been analyzed? A. No , I do not.
17 says: " This letter report presents the results of
GTCC was included in the EIS?
18 calculations to assess long tenn perfonnance 19 commercial spent nuclear fuel , US Department of 20 Energy spent nuclear fuel , high level radioactive ...... 21 waste and greater than class C radioactive waste and
Page 117 - Page 120
OVERNITE COURT REPORTING SERVICE Washington , D. C. (301) 593-0671
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
ROBERT CAMPBELL DEPOSITION
Document 856-18
May 6, 2004
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 9 of 13
Yankee Atomic v. USA
Certificate of Deponent
Page 201
I hereby certify that I have read and
examined the foregoing transcript, and the same
is a true and accurate record of the testimony
gi ven by me.
Any additions or corrections that I feel
are necessary I will attach on a separate sheet
of paper to the original transcript.
Signature
I hereby certify that the individual
representing him/herself to be the above named
individual, appeared before me this
day of
and executed the above
certificate in my presence.
Notary ublic
~~~N~
Overnite Court Reporting Service
Washington, DC Metro Area
(301) 593- 0671
Fax - (301) 593-8353
www. DCCourtReporters. com
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-18
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 10 of 13
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-18
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 11 of 13
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-18
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 12 of 13
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-18
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 13 of 13