Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-13
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 1 of 15
EXHIBIT 1
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-13
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 2 of 15
EXHIBIT
Plaintiff's Counter Designations to Defendant' s Counter Designations
VICTOR TREBULES
April!? 2002
59:18- 60:14
106:14- 107:6
124:2-
151:11- 152:10 161:12- 162:9
-- --- - - - - - - -- ---- --- - - -- --- ----- -- - -- -- - - -. )
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-13
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 3 of 15
Victor W. Trebules, Jr.
t~~
Page 1
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. J. )
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY
(98- 474C)
(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.
(98- 485C)
(98- 486C)
(Sypolt, J. (Hodges, J.
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT ( 98 - 488 C) (Y oc k , S. J SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, et
(98- 614C)
(98- 621C)
ale :
(Merow, S.
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COM~ANY
(Hewitt, J.
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY (99- 447C) (Allegra, J. GPU NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED (OO- 440C)(Bush, J. WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (OO- 697C) (Merow, S. POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
: VOLUME
(00- 703C)
(Damich, J.
(Bush, J.
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
(01- 115C)
NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
(01- 116C)(Sypolt, J.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Discovery
: Judge: : (Judge
(01- 249C)
(Bruggink, J.
Plaintiffs,
: Sypolt)
: PAGES
:1 - 241
Esquire Deposition Services
800-441-3376
--- - --- ------- ---- - - -- - - -- - - - - - --- -- -----Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 856-13 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 4 of 15
Victor W. Trebules, Jr.
Page 2
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
Deposi tion of victor W. Trebules ,
Washington, DC
Jr.
Wednesday, April 17, 2002
Reported by:
JOB NO.
Denise Dobner Vickery, RMR , CRR
144458
800- 441-3376
Esquire Deposition Services
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-13
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 5 of 15
Victor W. Trebules, Jr.
Page 59
m sorry.
You had said that you recall
there being discussions regarding whether or not
accepting one spent fuel element in 1998 would comply
with the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act.
My question was whether or not you personally reached a conclusion as to whether or not accepting
only one spent fuel element in
the act?
1998 would comply with
MR. SHULTIS:
THE WITNESS:
Same objection.
m not quite sure how to
answer that because at the time I was, you know, a
fairly low level staff person.
I was given an
assignment.
So I I m not sure if my conclusion would
have mattered much.
frivolous, but I don
I mean, I I m not trying to be I t know that I consciously thought
time.
I mean --
of the implications of that at the
BY MR. EIDUKAS:
Have you -- I I m sorry.
I was going to ask
you whether or not you have since come to such a
conclusion or thought about the implications.
MR. SHULTIS:
Same objections and
relevance.
Esquire Deposition Services
800-441-3376
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-13
Victor W. Trebules,
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 6 of 15
Jr.
Page 60
I think I would personally
THE WITNESS:
feel that one could argue since the Act was not
specific, if we only accepted one fuel assembly, you
know, we met the intent of the words.
However, I also
would be sympathetic to the additional phrase in here
that where it
says, " However,
we did not believe that
that meets the intent of the Act.
I believe the intent of the Act was for
the government to develop the facilities to solve the
nuclear waste problem, which isn I t
accepting just one
assembly, and we were to develop the
facilities.
And
we were trying to do that as expeditiously as we
could,
you know, to really deal with the overall problem of
the accumulation of spent
BY MR. EIDUKAS:
fuel.
Okay.
And was there ever a schedule or plan
developed that called for only receiving one spent fuel
element in 1998?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, calls for
speculation.
It I S vague.
THE WITNESS:
I don
I t ever
remember
developing a schedule that only called for one assembly
Esquire Deposition Services
800-441-3376
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-13
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 7 of 15
Victor W. Trebules, Jr.
Page 106
and not have them generate or not have them have to add
any on-site storage.
I think you said when you started, someone gave you that language or told you that
you know who it was?
MR. SHULTIS:
THE WITNESS:
language.
Object.
I don
I t remember
specifically, but it ' s
BY MR. EIDUKAS:
similar to what, you know,
appeared in that other exhibit.
Robert Morgan?
And that became sort of a program -- again, it
was a program objective that we were trying to
meet.
Okay.
Do you know why that was a program
objective?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, calls for
speculation.
THE WITNESS:
Yeah.
I would be
speculating.
I mean, I I m inclined
to answer and say
that, you know, we were trying to accommodate the
utili ties, who
are in fact our customers.
That I s what
the program was designed, you know, to deal with, which
Esquire Deposition Services
800- 441-3376
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-13
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 8 of 15
Victor W. Trebules , Jr.
Page 107
is the spent fuel being generated by nuclear power
plants.
And we knew it would be a financial burden
for them to add on-site
storage.
So we were trying to
develop a program, again, to accept waste in 1998, but
again with all the caveats that that was optimistic and
success oriented.
BY MR. EIDUKAS:
Okay.
And just again while we were comparing
the acceptance schedule in Exhibit 4, the December 1983
draft, and the waste acceptance schedule in Exhibit
the 1984 draft, you said the ramp-up rate was revised
down between Exhibit 4 and Exhibit S, but the steady
state rate or the maximum rate is 3, 000 in both
documents, correct?
That I S correct.
Okay.
Steady state rate is 3, 000 in both documents.
So that remained a constant at this point in
time as to what was planned for the repository '
acceptance rate to be?
That I S my recollection, that I s
right.
the
Okay.
Focusing on Exhibit
S, it I s like
Esquire Deposition Services
800- 441-3376
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-13
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 9 of 15
Victor W. Trebules, Jr.
Page 124
wanted to make sure we could accommodate
that.
rate,
,.-2
Okay.
To your knowledge, was the objective
of having a rate that would meet the generation
did that objective ever change over time?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, asks for a legal
conclusion.
THE WITNESS:
I think we tried to malntain
that as an objective and that sort of became
institutionalized with this 3, 000 metric tons per year,
you know, acceptance capability for one repository, and
again when the second one would come online with an
additional 3, 000
metric tons, then we
d be able to
reduce the backlog.
That remained a planning
objective or assumption for a number of years but got
seriously set back when Congress I believe in 1987
pretty much put the second repository program on
hold.
So, at that time we sort of had to regroup and figure
out what we were going to
BY MR. EIDUKAS:
do.
Looking again at the schedule in Exhibit S, it
provides for schedules for the first and second
reposi tory, but there s no acceptance schedule in this
Esquire Deposition Services
800-441-3376
...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-13
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 10 of 15
Victor "V. Trebules , Jr.
Page 241
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES
1020 19TH STREET, NORTHWEST
SUITE 620
WASHINGTON, D. C.
20036
ERRATA SHEET
Case Name:
Yankee Atomic Electric Co., et al. V.
The United States
witness Name:
Job No.
vi~tor W.
Trebules, Jr.
2002
Depos i tion Date:
April 17,
Change
144458,
Line No.
Page No.
Page 13, line
17, change " Fish" to " Fission
; Page 14, Line 11,
to
change " Fish" to Fission ; Page 15, Line 4, change " Whitewater "
Light Water ; Page 17, Line 19, change " technical"
to " executive
Page 33, Li ne
1, change to read ~
one whi ch was our.. ~; Page 33,
Line 3, place a period after " thaL" , delete " where , start new
sentence with "
Page 64, Line
; Page 56, Line 11, change "
field" to " fuel"
would
16, change " Al" to " Alan
; Page 82, Line 11, change
" to " and" ; Page 98, Line 3, change to read "
more
than. . . ; Page 102, Li ne 10, change "
" to " were ; Page 117,
Line 5, change II ground" to " round" ; Page 126, Line 17, change overview " to II for review ; Page 138, Line 12, change 11 199411 to 1984" ; Page 153, Line 14, change " change ll to II changed" ; Page 168,
Line 4, delete " fold" ;
Page 205, Line
Page 192, Line I, change " 1995"
to " 1985"
15, change " 50, 000" to " 15, 000" ;
Page 226, Line 16,
change " When "
to " Then
ll and delete " in
here
(Cont' d on 241a)
I 22
Signa ture
\J~- C0.
Date
z o-()
Esquire Deposition Services
800~441- 33 76
..,
~~.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
.";
VICTOR W. TREBFLS, .Jr.
Document 856-13
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 11 of 15
ERRATA SHEET (CONTINUED)
Page 241 a
\Vitness Name: Victor \'1. Treb-ules, Jr.
Page 226, Line 17 and 18 ,
bring Line 18 up to Line 17 , should be incorporated as
same p~ragraph , should read as " ... Waste Negotiator. 'Nnen Congress created..
Page 236, Line 13 ,
change " WIP" to " WIPP" ; Page 188 , Line 10 , delete " past or
Page 188 ,
Line 16 change " " to " not"
Date
S--;!-o
S igriature
07.-
...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-13
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 12 of 15
Victor W. Trebules, Jr.
Page 15t
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, calls for legal
conclusion.
Document speaks for
THE WITNESS:
itself.
My recollection is just as
we wrote
it.
We had developed some program
objectives, you know, which we felt would be responsive
to insure that we meant to implement the provisions in
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
We tried to summarize
them in these five key areas that are identified on
this page
BY MR. EIDUKAS:
Okay.
Did you understand the objectives of
the program to be different than what the Act required?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, calls for legal
conclusion, speculation.
THE WITNESS:
My understanding was that
the objectives we wrote that we established would be
responsive to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Again,
the primary one was to construct the repository as
indicated here.
We also had the authority to make a
proposal to Congress for a monitored retrievable
storage facility.
One of our targets, as I indicated
before, was to begin the system by 1998 to begin to
Esquire Deposition Services
800-441-3376 '
\..
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 856-13 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 13 of 15
Victor W. Trebules, Jr.
Page 152
accept spent fuel.
There was a provision for at-reactor
storage if that was determined to be
needed, and the
fifth one, we felt we had a responsibility to
efficiently manage the resources of the program,
particularly the money from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
We highlighted those.
We said those were our main
program objectives, and if we did these efficiently, we
would ?e responsive to the provisions of the
BY MR. EIDUKAS:
Act.
Earlier in your testimony, you testified that
the language that you wrote in the sections that you
worked on in the mission plan had to be approved by
your supervisor.
Is that an accurate restatement of
what you had testified to earlier?
Yes.
Okay.
you
recall having
strike that.
Could you say, again,
the time you wrote
this chapter of the mission plan who was your immediate
supervisor?
Was that Charlie Head at this time or was
this -- I have the name in my notes -- Mr. Easterling
at this time?
Esquire Deposition Services
800-441-3376
~ .....
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Victor
Document 856-13
W. Trebules,
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 14 of 15
Jr.
Page 161
plants, other than, you know, it talked about the
environmental problem that had to be resolved with
nuclear waste in general.
You know, it said that it'
going to be the policy of the nation to deal with that
and that. s why they
Act.
BY MR. EIDUKAS:
passed the Nuclear Waste Policy
Okay.
There may have been a reference to continuing
the orderly operation of nuclear power plants.
I just
don t remember one.
Okay.
I guess maybe what I' m re err1ng 0
the part that talks about continuing to dispose of the
waste.
Was it your understanding that the Act didn
just require that the Department of Energy begin
accepting waste in 1998 and then stop; that there had
to be continuation of waste acceptance until all the
waste was accepted?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, calls for a legal
conclusion.
THE WITNESS:
It was my understanding that
the Act was intended to deal with the problem and the
Esquire Deposition Services
800-441-3376.,j
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-13
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 15 of 15
Victor W. Trebules, Jr.
Page 162
problem is not just to begin, but, you know, to resolve
the problem, which is why we focused on the waste
acceptance schedules we did, which had beginning, you
know, as an objective in 1998 in trying to reach a
level that would, as I said before, preclude the
utili ties from
having to add additional storage and
already --
ultimately reducing the backlog that ' was
that would have already been accumulated until it was
all placed in, you know, in a repository.
BY MR. EIDUKAS:
Okay.
the page 17.
Why don t we go on and let' s turn to
This is Section 2. 3 The Improved
Performance Plan.
Is this ~he section that you were
referring to earlier that Mr. Isaacs' authored that you
had referred to earlier in your testimony?
Yes.
Okay.
And, again, could you explain what --
strike that.
And, again, this is an addition or a change
from the April 1984 draft mission plan that we looked
at earlier, correct?
Yes.
Esquire Deposition Services
800-441-3376