-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Washington , D.
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 1 of 27
June 13 ,
2002
Page 152
Yes.
Who were those
those conversations?
who was involved in
Conversation was with Dave
Zabransky.
And when was your conversation with
Mr. Zabransky?
At least a year
exactly when.
ago.
I don 't remember
Did you have one conversation on this
topic or multiple ones?
I I ve had multiple conversations with
Mr. Zabransky, but I believe we only talked about
this one time.
And what did he tell you about putting
nuclear utility activated metal GTCC into the
backfill spaces?
MS. HERRMANN:
THE WITNESS:
Objection, hearsay.
He simply said it could be
done.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
And was he talking from a technical point
of view, capacity point of view, or both?
MS. HERRMANN:
THE WITNESS:
Obj ection, speculation.
Both.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
II11 14th Street ,
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPOWashington, DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Washington, D.
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 2 of 27
June 13 ,
2002
Page 153
Did you and Mr. Zabransky talk about any
other aspects of placing nuclear utility activated
metal into the Yucca Mountain repository?
Not that I remember.
Have you talked to him just generally
about this subj ect, other than this one
conversation, about the backfill
spaces - - utilizing
the backfill spaces?
Have you
had conversations with him generally about
incorporating GTCC into the repository?
The other conversations I I ve
had with him
were -- had more to do with the logistics of
packaging, transport to the repository, not
placement in the repository.
So you have had conversations with
Mr. Zabransky about the logistics and
transportation aspects of taking nuclear utility
activated metal GTCC to the repository?
Yes.
And why were you discussing with him the
logistics and transportation aspects of taking
nuclear utility activated metal GTCC?
The reasons for the conversations were
determining whether the spent nuclear
fuel/high- level
waste repository was a reasonable
IIII 14th Street ,
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 3 of 27
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D.
Page 154
disposal site for Greater- 1han- Class C and how that
could -- you know, how that could be
implemented.
And what did he say to you regarding the
logistical and transportation aspects of taking
nuclear utility GTCC to the repository?
MS. HERRMANN:
THE WITNESS:
Objection, hearsay.
Basically, you know, if the
activated metal is packaged in a similar fashion to
the fuel, then there' s very little difference in
handling fuel canisters as opposed to activated
metal canisters and that he saw
- - he didn't
see
anything that would make that difficult to do in
the same fashion that you would handle the
fuel.
We were speaking only in terms of the
physical and technical, not the administrative, you
know, political, legislative aspects
just purely
the physical and technical issues
BY MR. SKALABAN:
involved.
So with Lespect to the physical and
technical issues, he told you that logistically and
technically the GTCC, if packaged like spent
fuel,
could be handled and transported without problems?
MS. HERRMANN:
THE WI TNES S :
Objection, hearsay.
The GTCC activated metal,
yes.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111
14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
",)
--
-Page 4 of 27
June 13 ,
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell.
Document 846-5
Washington, D.
Filed 07/14/2004
2002
Page 156
option.
I was looking to see if there were
physical or technical issues that would
prevent/cause problems with that as -- as a
disposal option as opposed to administrative
issues, which, as I state in this paper, everything
got an administrative issue associated with
it.
So Mr. Zabransky told you from logistical and transportation issues, it would not be a
problem and from capacity and performance of the repository, it would not be a problem to put it in
the backfill spaces
is that correct?
MS. HERRMANN
Obj ection, hearsay.
I believe everything you
THE WITNESS:
said was correct.
I don
I t recall
if we discussed
repository performance aspects.
I just
we may
have talked about that.
BY MR. SKALABAN
I don' t remember.
Did you talk about anything else other than what I just mentioned about placing GTCC in
the repos
i tory -No.
with Mr. Zabransky?
Not
that
recall.
you had
after
your feeling, that
talked to him what
was
would
fair
say
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111
14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington ,
DC 20005
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
-Filed 07/14/2004 Page 5 of 27
June 13 ,
Document 846-5
2002
Washington , D.
that your feeling was it'
s not a problem from a
physical and technical point of view to take the
nuclear utility activated metal and dispose of it
in Yucca Mountain?
From a physical and technical point of
view, yes, that' s
resul ted in
correct, the conversation
that that would not be a problem.
Did you explore with him at all
administrative roadblocks to Yucca Mountain for
GTCC waste?
We may have discussed
it.
ve had a
number of conversations with him on a variety of
topics.
Since he works in RW, it would all be
related to this
issue.
I do recall now that we did have
someone had suggested had requested in a
I do
an issue where it was a
that the NRC might
- - or someone
letter to the NRC that they reclassify
Greater- Than- Class C as high- level
waste.
And we
had a conversation in preparing the response
- - the
technical response to that and what would that
entail.
It would then become RW' s
if it was high- level waste ,
responsibility, commercial high- level
waste, that would fall within their realm of
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111
14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Washington, D.
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 6 of 27
June 13
2002
Page 161
understanding it'
Yes.
s nuclear utility activated metal?
And the backfill spaces will be adequate
to dispose of the 1850 cubic meters that I s
estimated?
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection, speculation.
I don't know the answer to
THE WITNESS:
that.
We discussed
it.
Mr. Zabransky did not
indicate there was a capacity problem, but we did
not discuss exactly how much backfill space there was versus how much nuclear utility activated metal
there was.
But my memory of the conversation is
that that -- because it didn't come up, my memory
is that I believe there
I s going to be more backfill
space than activated metal.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
Which is why you put it
in the paper?
- - recognize
Yes.
If there was a problem with only a
limited amount, yeah, I wouldnl t have recommended
it.
In fact, 1850 cubic meters -- what' s your
sense, is that a large volume of material or
relatively a fairly small volume of material?
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection, vague.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111
14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Washington , D.
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 7 of 27
June 13, 2002
THE WITNESS:
It'
s small compared
spent nuclear fuel and high- level
that will be placed in the
BY MR. SKALABAN:
repository.
Can you take the paragraph that reads
storage of nuclear utility activated metal?
still on page HQR092- 0049.
It'
ve read the paragraph.
Okay.
Are you familiar with the report
to Congress required by the Public Law 99- 240?
Yes.
Do you understand in that report, DOE
committed to accepting GTCC for storage when
needed?
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ection, best evidence,
calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS:
The report makes this
statement similar to that, yes.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
So that -- I mean, that' s what you wrote
here on this page, correct
- - you wrote the
the Department
Department committed - - quote,
needed?
committed to accepting GTCC for storage when
Yes, that'
s what I wrote.
1111
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Washington, D.
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 8 of 27
June 13 ,
2002
Page 163
And that I s your
understanding of the
report?
Yes, it
is.
Let'
s make the record
MR . SKALABAN :
clear, I would like to make as Campbell Exhibit 2 a
February 1987 report to Congress.
(Campbell Exhibit No.
was marked for
identification.
BY MR. SKALABAN
My question for you is, is this the
report that you' re referring to here in this issued
paper, Exhibit I?
MS. HERRMANN
Let I S wait until you get
it.
THE WITNESS:
MR . S KALABAN :
Yes.
Can you read back the
on the record?
question so it I s clear
THE REPORTER: " Question: My question for
you is, is this the report that you' re referring to
here in this issued paper Exhibit
BY MR. SKALABAN:
I?"
Exhibit 2 is the paper referred to in the
section of Exhibit 1 that we' ve just been talking
abou t ?
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
IIII
14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington ,
DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Washington , D.
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 9 of 27
June 13 ,
2002
Page 165
you agree that the Department is obligated for the
final disposal of GTCC waste?
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection, calls for a
legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS:
You sort of paraphrased
there, but in terms of the Department is not
obligated for the final disposal of GTCC
waste,
yes, I agree with
BY MR. SKALABAN:
that.
negative,
I was trying to avoid a double
but thank you.
What do you mean here when you say a reasonable approach would be that utilities are currently required to store their spent nuclear
fuel until the Department begins to accept it at
Yucca Mountain.
At that point, EM could have
identified and established a storage facility to
accept and store nuclear utility activated metal
until such time as a disposal option is
available,
such as placement in a geologic repository for
SNF /HLW .
The intent of those sentences was that up
until the time that the Department begins accepting
spent fuel, we ve got until then to come up with
some sort of an answer to this nuclear utility
IIII
14th Street ,
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 10 of 27
June 13, 2002
Washington , D.
Page 166
activated metal question.
If we have not solved it by then, then utilities are then storing the activated metal and
theyl re
not storing spent fuel any
longer.
I think that would be an unreasonable or
an untenable situation, that we should have been
able to solve the problem by then, such that
particularly a decommissioned utility could then
finally close out as opposed to having to
store this Greater- Than- Class C activated metal.
So it I S important
for the Department to
have a solution in place by the time the nuclear
by the time the spent fuel is being removed from
the site -- a solution for the GTCC waste?
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ection, foundation,
vague.
Go ahead.
THE WITNESS:
I think it'
s -- I think
it I S important, yes.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
And it' s important -- tell me the reasons
why you think that' s important.
MS. HERRMANN
Asked and answered.
Well, first of all, the
THE WITNESS:
amount of Greater- Than- Class C activated metals
compared to spent nuclear fuel is
small.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 11 of 27
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D.
Page 167
al though you could disagree with
this, the impact
of the utility storing that while they have to
store their spent fuel is smaller than the impact
of having to store the spent fuel.
So given that situation, storing the
activated metal while they store the spent
fuel, is
not an unreasonable situation in -- from my point
of view.
Once the spent fuel is gone, though, then
youl ve -- I think that creates a problem.
The
Public Law 99- 0240 was amended in 1985, an estimate
of the opening of the repository is approximately
2015.
I f we'
ve not come up wi th some kind of
answer for that by 2015, I just think that leaves
the Department in an untenable
I don
situation.
I t know
how you explain to anybody
why they still have to store their waste at that
point.
BY MR. SKALABAN
So the urgency to have an off-site
when I say off-site, I mean off-utility site, so
the urgency to have an off -site me start again.
- I' m
sorry.
Let
So the urgency to have an off-site option
available becomes much greater once the spent fuel
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111
14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Washington , D.
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 12 of 27
June 13 ,
2002
Page 168
is being removed from the utility reactor sites?
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection,
mischaracterizes the prior
THE WITNESS:
testimony.
Yes, once the fuel is
left,
the urgency would
BY MR. SKALABAN
increase.
And is it important to have an off-site
option available once the spent fuel has left the utility site in order to allow for timely
decommissioning of the facility?
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection, foundation,
Yes.
vague.
THE WITNESS:
It I S certainly
important to the utilities, but I think in terms of
DOE providing a solution to this problem
, it' s also
important.
BY MR. SKALABAN
So from a policy perspective, in your
view, it'
s important to have an off- site option
available once the spent fuel is removed so
reactors can complete their decommissioning?
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection, foundation,
I don
vague.
THE WITNESS:
I t know
from a policy
point of view.
I mean, to have a policy that -- to
IIII
14th Street ,
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Washington , D.
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 13 of 27
June 13 ,
2002
Page 175
which says in the absence of specific
requirements,
in thi s
part.
Yes.
Is it your understanding that GTCC waste
must be disposed of in a geologic repository unless
proposals - -
unless a proposal for disposal of such
waste in a disposal site licensed by the NRC is
approved by the NRC?
MS. HERRMANN:
legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS:
BY MR. SKALABAN
Obj ection, calls for a
Yes.
What 1 S your understanding of the timing
of that?
When is
when must the GTCC go into a
geologic repository?
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ection, calls for a
legal conclusion, foundation , speculation.
THE WITNESS:
BY MR. SKALABAN
I don
I t know.
Take a look at Bates page HQR092- 0052,
the very last page, attachment
In the very last sentence, it says DOE
did not meet its commitment to begin accepting GTCC
waste for storage by February 1989.
Do you agree with that statement?
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111
14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 14 of 27
June 13 ,
2002
Washington, D.
Page 176
Yes.
What was the purpose of offering, putting
together this issue paper?
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ect
ion, asked and
answered.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
What was it used for?
MS. HERRMANN
Same obj ections,
speculation.
THE WITNESS:
I would
I wrote this
issue paper to give my management information on
what the Greater- Than- Class C waste was and what
the issues surrounding it they used it
were.
I do not know what
for.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
Now, was there a specific question or
a specific question or event that was on the table
that caused you to draft this issue
Exhibi t I?
paper, this
I don't recall.
Typically, if there s a
specific question or issue, I would have included
that in the first couple of paragraphs because that
would have been the genesis of the issue
paper.
didn't.
It'
s more of a general information paper.
So I don I t know - - I don t recall the
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 15 of 27
June 13 ,
2002
Washington, D.
Page 204
from that point of view.
So the - -
in other words, the waste form
is the same as material that
- - I' m sorry.
Let me
ask a more precise question, and let me start
over.
The activated metal, the nuclear utility
activated metal GTCC is the same material that has
already been analyzed in the repository performance
models?
Yes.
So assuming that material gets licensed
to be put into the repository, it would
be,
presumably, easy to get the same material, the GTCC
waste, also licensed for the repository?
MS. HERRMANN:
THE WITNESS:
Obj ection, speculation.
I was not addressing
licensing issues.
What I was saying is if you can
dispose of spent nuclear fuel in the repository
from a technical performance basis, then you can
also dispose of activated metal because spent
nuclear fuel is activated metal plus
fuel.
So one is a component of the other.
Therefore, if it can perform for one, it will
perform for both because they' re the same
BY MR. SKALABAN
thing.
Did you give consideration to licensing?
1111
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Washington, D.
Page 205
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 16 of 27
June 13 ,
2002
I understand what you were saying
- - the answer
you
just gave me, but did you also give consideration
to licensing -- getting licenses for activated metals and spent fuel, presumably it would be easier to -- or easy to get licensing for activated
metal as GTCC?
I wasn
I t discussing
that in this
particular paragraph, but I -- I agree with that
basic statement, that I don
I t foresee
a licensing
issue.
If the NRC was going to issue a license for
the one, I don't know.
From a performance standpoint in terms of
how the metal I s going to perform in the repository,
I would be surprised if they would have an
objection to it on that basis.
Because they'
Yes.
re one and the same?
You go on to say the additional volume is
small
inslgnificant
Why did you
when compared to the volume
SNF and HLW planned for the
repository. first include that
all,
let me
ask you this:
The additional volume you'
referring to, the additional volume of material
that is nuclear utility activated metal, that would
be included into the repository?
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111
14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
. '
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 17 of 27
June 13 ,
2002
Washington, D.
Page 206
Yes.
And why did you include this statement
that the volume is small to insignificant when compared to the volume of SNF and HLW planned for
the repos
i tory?
I included that to point out that it
would not be a major undertaking and that it would
not significantly affect the planning for the
repos i tory.
And was it your understanding that the
addi t ional volume
required to add the nuclear
utility activated metal GTCC in the repository
would not create a capacity problem at the
repository?
MS. HERRMANN:
THE WITNESS:
Objection, speculation.
That'
s correct.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
Now, Option Number 4, this is an
evaluation of other existing disposal facilities
that are currently in existence that are used to
disposal of waste forms that are greater than
low- level waste; is that right?
can you correct what I just said?
Or if Il m
wrong,
Well, I list them out, I said evaluation
of other existing disposal
facilities.
It would
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
../
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 18 of13 , 2002 June 27
Washington , D.
Page 242
estimates.
periods.
It also gave estimates over time
And this , as far as I can tell by
glancing at this document , I can' t tell over what
time period or over what part of the report they
took that number from.
And I also don't recall
So I really don
what ACA stands for.
I t know
why
they picked that number.
MS. HERRMANN
Off the record.
(Whereupon, at 5: 15 p. m., the taking of
the instant deposition adjourned.
fl/d(J
Signature ' of the Witness
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 I- S00- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 19 of 27
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D.
Page 243
AND SWORN TO before me this -Jt- day of
11:
co~ission e~ires,
NOTARY PUBtc
O~f/~
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
IIII 14th Stt~N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
-g~
).,
+y p
Page 20 of 27
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 846-5 Filed 07/14/2004 ' TA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRII ' OF: ER :
Notice Date: June 17 , 2002 Case Name: Yankee Atomic vs. United States Case Number: 98- 126C- 987 4C Dep. Date: June 13 , 2002 Deponent: Robert Campbell Washington DC
Place:
Ref. No. :
4269CORRECTIONS:
Page Line
Now Reads
Should Read
Reasons Therefore
"6 er(\C\ \
"k-e c-
!\e,o
!l
1\ 0
D~J-l\-E'S
tyro
+ypo
Cj 0\.
UJ1,tt~, (4
/l
~L.
377-0
Ib JY~ll\~0
~Y~l~0
10V\J
J-f () i YeA ~ Ol
1 t: eJ\
tf- U
~5
2L-
lc~ io
Eel e (\ C
&( e call
~OJ't s fIJ
C\/\
UcJ\A S 0 ,I\.
A c-t/\O,,- =t-,
eJD (loJ"d
Tyf
-typo
A \~/\.Ct -=t~
L~oi'd
OJo
(22L 5fL Q~ CJ
+r~
i?fO
O~~CV\
C1/\
1(\
2L
(5r-brA!\
~C)
A0:AC\
keA~
ct!\
C;S: l
6~
At a ~ponenl
ZJXJL
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 846-5 Filed 07/14/2004 THE TRANSCRL OF: ER. TA SHEET FOR Notice Date: June 17 , 2002 Case Name: Yankee Atomic VS. United Case Number: 98- 126C- 987 4C Dep. Date: June 13 , 2002 Deponent: Robert Campbell Washington DC Ref. No. : 4269-
Page 21 of 27
States
Place:
CORRECTIONS:
Page
Line
Now Reads
Should Read
Reasons Therefore
JFA~SS(fA
AI:tA c/t
~-=v\ S :50
b-k~1 50
/\
~\jP
' J
A WI Ct~
5U~
i"-'
SO/\ cloSUrL
I CJo
1;r iy(jJ
UJt
t1/tow
l.jQ5
1~
'~t
17fd
/\OT
1t~
"J'-.;
)61
CA -te~
sidL
rJ-
D\t
fJQudtd~
'"R Ef1-)l
lV\. UIlC W'/\
I ).;1
Jil
C)-
lA.J
tlt 0
Vvi~
t1 /\btv-/)
avJ Jh.
~ ~tt'd
~ht'$
M ~~
a~
wn1/eJ\
!lM (J
Signat e of Deponent
J!) y
(t 200 'C
Date of Signature
,""
- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - --- -
-------
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 22 of 27
June 14
2002
Washington , D.
Page 244
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY, MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY,
~f!
CEL~TlirFb~UJ
?J"
Plaintiffs,
98- 474C
CASE NO.
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
98- 126C 98- 154C
Defendant,
Washington, D. C ,
Friday, June 14,
2002
Continued Deposition of ROBERT ALLEN CAMPBELL,
a witness herein, called for examination by counsel
for the Plaintiffs in the above-entitled matter,
pursuant to recess, the witness having been
previously duly sworn, taken at the offices of
Spriggs & Hollingsworth, 1350 I Street, N.
Suite 1010, Washington, D. C, at 9:33 a. m, on
Friday, June 14, 2002, and the proceedings being
taken down by Stenotype by CINDY L, SEBO, and
transcribed under her direction.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc,
1111
14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 I- SOO- FOR- DEPO Washington ,
DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 23 of 27
June 14
2002
Washington , D.
Page 285
regulatory mission then is hampered if it
there I S no ability
to dispose of GTCC waste?
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ection, foundation,
speculation, calls for a legal
THE WITNESS:
conclusion.
The particular things I had
stated are hampered.
where disposal doesn
Their overall - - anywhere I t affect their regulatory
It is only
framework ,
no, it doesn' t hamper them.
in the areas where disposal plays a
BY MR. SKALABAN:
role.
Now, in addition to public safety and
health and properly maintaining their regulatory
framework, would you also agree it' s undesirable,
just from a sound nuclear management perspective,
if waste that needs a home doesn' t have a home,
that is unsound nuclear management practice?
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection, vague,
foundation, speculation,
THE WITNESS:
I believe the regulatory
framework is the nuclear management foundation , so
I don' t think my answer changes,
BY MR, SKALABAN:
Well , how about promoting timely
decommissioning, is that also a factor why the
existing status quo is not an acceptable state of
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc,
IIII
14th Street , N. W, Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. CampbelI
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 24 of 27
June 14
2002
Washington, D.
Page 286
MS. HERRMANN
Objection, vague,
foundation, speculation.
THE WITNESS:
The Congress of the United
States determined that there should be disposal for
Greater- Than- Class
C waste, and they directed the
Department of Energy to make it
happen.
Therefore,
it I S undesirable if it' s not happening, because it I s the policy of the Government of the United
States to dispose of Greater- Than- Class C waste.
BY MR. SKALABAN
Are you familiar at all, in any of your
conversations or discussions within EM or with the
NRC, of the concept that' s reflected here, that NRC
staff considers DOE derelict in not having taken
action on the GTCC issue already?
MS. HERRMANN
Obj ection, assumes facts
not in evidence,
foundation, speculation.
m sorry.
THE WITNESS:
Could you
repeat that?
MR. SKALABAN
Can you read the question
back, please?
THE REPORTER:
Question: Are you
familiar at all, in any of your conversations or
discussions within EM or with the NRC, of the
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
IIII
14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
-Page 25 of 27
June 14 ,
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
2002
Washington, D.
Page 287
concept that I s reflected
here, that NRC staff
considers DOE derelict in not having taken action
on the GTCC issue already?"
THE WITNESS:
BY MR, SKALABAN
Yes.
And can you tell me about those
conversations?
How has that
how has that issue
come up that NRC staff considers DOE derelict in
not having taken action?
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ect ion,
vague,
foundation, speculation.
THE WITNESS:
In a meeting discussing
this issue with the NRC, they expressed
management was explaining why we were unable to do
certain things.
And they expressed - -
what
I s the
word I'
m looking for
- - a certain
amount of
amazement that 15 to 17 years had gone by and we
weren I t
well on our way to developing disposal.
And this meeting you
BY MR. SKALABAN:
re referring to
between DOE and NRC staff
when did this meeting
occur that you just referred to?
It would have been the 2001 time
frame.
And who from the NRC was at that meeting?
I was tied in on a conference call, so I
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell Washington , D.
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 26 of 27
June 14 , 2002
Page 396
BY MR. SKALABAN:
Okay.
Let'
s assume that the Yucca
Mountain repository was available in
1998, and in
1998 nuclear utility spent fuel had begun to be
removed to that
site.
In that scenario, is it your opinion that
the Department should then have had a disposal path
identified and available for GTCC waste?
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ection, speculation,
relevance.
THE WITNESS:
Yes, I think there was
ample time between 1985 and 1998 for DOE to
determine what disposal path they
wanted, had -
- if
the repository was available, then -- you know,
based on the suitability of that repository to
dispose of Greater- Than- Class C waste, yes, a path
should have been in place,
BY MR. SKALABAN
Do you think
putting aside politics
and funding, from a technical and engineering point
of view, is a 13 - year period from 1985 to
1998, is
that ample time to identify and develop and have
available a storage or disposal path for nuclear
utility activated metal Greater- Than- Class C waste?
MS. HERRMANN
Obj ection , speculation,
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Robert L. Campbell
Document 846-5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 27 of 27
June 14 ,
2002
Washington, D.
Page 415
activity or if Congress didn't appropriate the
funding for that activity.
Can you think of any other policy
justification other than
funding, licensing
Objection, speculation,
incapabilities and legislation?
MS, HERRMANN
relevance.
THE WITNESS:
BY MR. SKALABAN
No, I can't think of
any,
In your various conversations and
dealings with the NRC, has the NRC ever given you
any indication that it would be an acceptable or a
desirable policy to leave Greater- Than- Class C
waste at the site of decommissioned reactors once
the spent fuel has been removed?
MS. HERRMANN
Objection, vague.
THE WITNESS:
BY MR. SKALABAN
No.
Has anyone in any of the conversations
you ve ever been involved in with the Department of
Energy - - and
about - -
we' ve talked about many of them, but
m not limiting it to the ones we ve talked
have any of the conversations that you'
been involved with with members of the Department
of Energy, has anyone ever expressed to you that it
IIII 14th Street ,
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. N. W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005