Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 1 of 21
EXHIBIT
'"\
~'~
~"'
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 2 of 21
) ~'n i~
.;1' 0 . .
"W. ~ifJQ 4 . i..; i. , d l'f' (,
All' J
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,
Defendant.
- X
Washington, D. C.
Thursday, April 22, 1999
Continued deposition 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
Spriggs & Hollingsworth, 1350 I Street, N. W.,
Washington, D.
22,
C" at
2:10 p.
m" Thursday, April
1999, and the proceedings being taken down by
Stenotype by JAN A. WILLIAMS, RPR, and
transcribed under her direction.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(2021289- 2260 (800) FOR DEPO 1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005
""'
"'\
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 3 of 21
244
aware that the utility industry did not support
priori ty for shutdown reactors.
In fact, their
reactors.
stated consensus position was that priority
should not be afforded to shutdown
So it was not intended that the
delivery commitment schedule process be a gotcha
process?
A static process.
Right, that,
gee, you only requested
five ' and now,
even though we can accommodate 20,
you ve wanted all along to do 20, we re not going
to let you because you only asked for
was not the intention?
five, that
That'
s correct,
it was not our
intention to do
that.
this me just make sure it' s
clear,
And we might have covered
yesterday, but let
18 '
that the delivery commitment schedule was intended to indicate how much spent fuel the
2 0
utility wanted to deliver up to the limit of
their allocation?
21.
22 j
In part,
because recall that the
discharge date of the fuel earned you a slot in
the acceptance priori ty
ranking, but the fuel you
could actually deliver did not have to be
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(202)289- 2260
1111 14th ST., N. W.,
4th
FLOOR
the
(800) FOR DEPO
WASHINGTON ,
D.
C., 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 4 of 21
273
out its
scope.
I don
't
precisely recall which
section in the contract discusses the annual
capacity report.
If you want to turn to page 10,
the
paragraph above Article
Is that what you were
referring to?
Yes, because it establishes it as a
document for planning purposes only because
is a recognition that system capacity could
there
change up or down.
So the annual capaci ty
report was not
intended to be binding on the parties?
It was not intended to be absolute
the sense that again it'
s a planning document.
And DOE, and I distinctly remember saying
when I was on the utility
this
and I distinctly remember it being said to me
side,
DOE had always
stated that, if we were able to improve the system capacity, then the ACR would reflect improvements in system capacity.
And the APR would be used to readj
which utilities, when, and how much fue
1.
those
ust
So,
a planning document, planning documents are
subj ect to change.
And the ACR as I understood it was to
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(202)289- 2260
1111 14th ST., N. W.,
4th
FLOOR
(800) FOR DEPO
WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 5 of 21
274
communicate to the utilities what DOE believed
was the likely receipt rate at a repository,
likely acceptance
the
rate,
and to accept who was
likely to deliver during the first ten years of
system operation based on the APR.
What was the first ACR that you were
involved in?
Let'
, 91
s see.
I joined DOE in August of
and I don' t recall which ACR that was.
But
I would probably have been involved in the ACR starting on the ACR that was issued in ' 92.
Wha t would your role have been in
determining that amount that DOE was going to
tell utilities DOE was expecting
to
what they
expected the annual receiving rate for the
facilities to be, what would your role have been
in that?
None,
nothing.
the those receipt
Who would have made that determination?
I don t recall who precisely made
determination because I believe
rates were established in ACR' s prior to my
advent with the
program.
And there were no
changes in those receipt rates for this document
that I' m aware of.
1111 14th ST., N. W.,
So the document
the
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(202)289- 2260
4th
FLOOR
(800) FOR DEPO
WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005
"""""'
;~.:.
~~
Filed 07/14/2004
--Page 6 of 21
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-17
205
MR. SHAPIRO:
Why don' t we stop for the
day here and discuss where to go
next.
Thursday,
(Whereupon, at 4:50 p. m., the
depos i t ion adj ourned, to be April 22, 1999, at 2:00 p.
resumed on
Signature of the
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me
day 0
f ~~~~----------------
this -
~l%
My Commission
expires: t~~iQ~-QL~---
NOTARY PUBLIC
ALDERSON" REPORTL\'G CO~\'IPA:\'"Y , INC.
(2021289. 2260 (8001 FOR DEPO , , , 1 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR WASHINGTON ,
D.
C., 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 7 of 21
Page
ERRATA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRIPT OF:
Notice Date: 04/29/99 Yankee Atomic Electric Company v. The United States Case Name: Case Number: 98-126C
Dep. Date: Deponent: Place:
TS#:
04/21/99 /
78077
Nancy H. Slater Washlngton, DC
CORRECTIONS:
Page
Line
Now Reads
Should Read
Reasons Therefore
th:rn~
---Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson
--------Document 846-17
Washington , D.
Page 1
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 8 of 21
June 13
2002
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
- X
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY , MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC
yertifled COpy
: Case No. 98- 126C
: 98- 474C,
POWER CO. , and CONNECTI CUT
YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.,
Plaintiffs
98- 154C
(Senior Judge
Merrow)
UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA
Defendant
- X
Washington, D. C.
Thursday, June 13 , 2002
Deposition of NANCY SLATER THOMPSON, a
witness herein, called for examination by counsel
for the Plaintiff in the above- entitled matter
pursuant to notice, the witness being duly sworn
taken at the offices of Spriggs &
Hollingsworth,
1350 I Street, N. W., Washington, D. C., at 9:40
a. m., Thursday, June 13,
2002, and the proceedings
being taken down in Stenotype by DEBORAH
WILKINS, RPR , and transcribed under her direction.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
'----
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 9 of 21
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D.
Page 94
it calls for a legal conclusion.
Obj ection,
foundation.
I do not recall.
Isn 't
such a limitation inconsistent
with the language that we just focused on , all
spent fuel or all SNF and/or HLW the purchaser
wishes to deliver?
MS. SULLIVAN:
Obj ection,
argumentative.
Obj ection to the extent it calls
for a legal conclusion.
You may answer.
No, I don
I t believe
it is
inconsistent.
to deliver.
16
It'
s all fuel that you wish to
deliver within the bounds of what you are entitled
Q.
A little while ago you referred to the
17 I
ACR as a planning
document. What
did you mean by
that?
MS. SULLIVAN:
Obj ection.
The
documents speak for
themselves.
You may answer.
As we have discussed in my prlor
deposition and previously in this deposition, the
ACR represents a planning
basis. The acceptance
rates are subj
ect to influences by future budget
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 10 of 21
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D. C.
Page 95
1 f:onstraints, lack transportation
casks.
of a facility, unavailability of
For example, no one would have
contemplated at the time that I did these that we
would have an RSA , Regional Services Agreement,
that would in fact contract out with someone else to provide the transportation which would have
financial effects and could have scheduling and
capaci ty
effects. It'
s a planning document.
And
in fact when I sat on the utilities side of the
table the industry recognized that not only was
the ACR for planning purposes
only, but that in
fact their DCSs were for planning purposes , and
they filled DCSs out consistent with that planning
presumption because providing a range of discharge
dates which might be over a 10- year period
certainly doesn't permit a system to do more than
plan.
A couple sentences before the end of
your answer, you said it was understood by the
industry that both the ACRs and the delivery
commi tment schedules were for planning purposes
only.
By using the word " only, " did you exclude - - what did you mean to exclude?
That we viewed the DCSs as
mean to
fungible,
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 11 of 21
June 13
2002
Washington , D. C.
Page 96
1 t:nd we have been through that in prlor deposition
as well; that the industry recognized that in fact
they wouldn' t be providing us with specifics about
what they wanted us to accept until they submitted
a final delivery schedule; and the final delivery
schedule actually does represent the commitment on
their part to this reactor, this time, this amount
of fuel, this age fuel, so greater specificity
with the FDS , ball park with the DCS.
give us
It was important for the utili ties to DCSs because of their very fungibility.
DCS, you couldn I t exchange
If you didn't submit a
your slot in the cue, and given that those
exchanges were possible, I don t know how one
would perceive a DCS as anything other than for
planning purposes.
Let'
purposes only.
s go back first just to the ACRs
and the statement that they are for planning
When you say that ACRs were for
planning purposes only, does that mean that the
ACRs were not meant to be binding on the
Department of Energy?
MS. SULLIVAN:
Obj ection , vague.
Obj ection to the extent it calls for a legal
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
'-.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Nancy Slater Thompson
Washington , D. C.
Page 97
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 12 of 21
June 13 ,
2002
conclusion.
I can
I t speak
to that legal issue or
In my
speak for a contracting
officer.
estimation, that' s
ask someone
a question you would have to
else.
When you published the 1995 ACR , did
you understand that you were committing the
Department of Energy to accept the amount of spent
fuel noted in the waste acceptance proj
ections in
that document?
MS. SULLIVAN:
Obj ection to the extent Obj ection, the Obj ection, vague.
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
document speaks for
itself.
My understanding is entirely
consistent with the sentence at the bottom of page
1 in the - -
I guess this would be Exhibit 3, which
is the 1995 ACR.
As specified in the Standard
Contract, the ACR is for planning purposes
only,
and this is not contractually binding on either
DOE or the purchasers.
And so were I to reason
this out
have
and not make
legal decislon,
engineer my clear
would
to say as
simple
reading
that language
would say if
it I S
in the
25
contract, everyone, including be well aware of that.
the utility, 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
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 13 of 21
June 13 ,
Nancy Slater Thompson
Washington , D.
2002
Page 98
What about the delivery commitment
schedules?
Was it your understanding that those
similarly were for planning purposes only and not
contractually binding on either the utilities or
the department?
MS. SULLIVAN:
Obj ection to the extent
Obj ection
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
vague.
In my personal oplnlon , they were for
planning purposes only and in fact were completed
in such a way that not much but planning could be
done based on the information contained in them.
In addition, given the fungibility of the DCSs,
that'
s why there is a final delivery schedule
which is somewhat more than a planning
document.
And I do recall siting across the table from
numerous utility representatives, clearly
recognlzlng that the DCSs were planning
purposes,
and they in fact did not view themselves as
binding themselves to deliver specifically what
was described on the DCS.
During the time that you worked in the
waste acceptance division at the Department of Energy, do you recall anyone either within DOE or
~n in~stry
who
thought that the delivery
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson
Washington , D.
Page 99
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 14 of 21
June 13
2002
commi tment schedules were binding on either
industry or the department?
MS. SULL IVAN :
Objection ,
vague.
Obj ection to the extent it calls for a
legal
conclusion.
No, I don
It.
confused.
You said that the
You said something a minute ago that
guess has me a little
delivery commitment schedules are definitely for
planning purposes but they provided relatively
little information so you couldn
I t do
much
planning with them.
I may be getting your
language a little wrong, but what did you mean by
that?
The DCSs - - and
you need to put this
the DCSs,
ln the context of their fungibility
were they to remain as is, would provide you with
the location of the reactor to which you would
arri ve to pick fuel up,
fuel ,
DCS
so you know the type of
you can plan appropriately for the type of
cask to send.
Given that they have submi t ted
MTU,
one
for, let I s assume,
send.
you know how many
casks
The date on which you would show
up and schedule a pickup was not resolved
the FDS because that was actually done in
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111
until
14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 846-17 Filed 07/14/2004 Page 15 of 21
June 13
Nancy Slater Thompson
Washington , D.
2002
Page 109
ask you --
Conceptually.
Let I S focus on approved. eve that a delivery been proposed and commi tment schedule that'
Approved. Do you be
1 i
approved is binding
on any
party?
Obj ection to the extent
MS. SULLIVAN
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
You may answer.
In my personal oplnlon, I do not
binding because do not believe that how you could bind loss am at believe discharge yourself to anything ln a range dates. I am at a loss as to how you could bind yourself when it I S not final. So a utility wouldn I t even be binding
itself as to the total amount of MTU of spent fuel
that it ~ould be delivering to DOE in a particular
year?
MS. SULLIVAN:
Obj ection to the extent
Obj ection
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
vague.
I think it is possible that a utility
25
~s
in fact could deliver less than it indicated on
DCS for whatever
reason.
1111 14th
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 16 of 21
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D.
Page 110
Did you view an approved delivery
commitment schedule as binding a utility to not
delivering more spent fuel than is set out on that
delivery commitment schedule?
MS. SULLIVAN:
Obj ection to the extent
Obj ection
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
vague.
It' s not the DCS that establishes allocation. It' s simply a reflection.
What sets out the allocation?
The ACR; and that' s for planning
the
purposes only because that allocation could
change.
And is it fair to say then that the
allocations reflected on the delivery commitment
schedules are not binding because they are based in turn on the allocations set out in the Annual
Capacity Reports which say explicitly that they
are not binding?
MS. SULLIVAN
Obj ection.
Calls for a
legal conclusion.
I really think that
Isa
legal lssue.
We are really stepping beyond what I feel skilled
enough to answer.
MR. SHAPIRO:
Do you want to take a
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 17 of 21
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D.
Page 159
wi th a better understanding of how to complete the form. This was a cooperative effort , mutually agreed to by both sides. That I s why we took the
time once we had drafted instructions to go back
over and discuss the instructions with them and
get comments.
Q.
Did you Vlew the DCS instructions as
guidance to utilities as to how to fill out their
delivery commitment schedule forms or did you view
the instructions more directly as requirements for
how the forms must be filled out by utilities?
MS. SULLIVAN:
Obj ection to the extent
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
You may answer.
I view the DCS instructions as my
would take completing expectations for what these forms in order for approve a DCS. For example, told them, which did on page
section 7 , section E , that if they exceeded their
allocation I would disapprove the DCS , I view that
as an instruction.
Actually, that point is also made
24 The total quantity of SNF designated for delivery
25
clear on page 5 , item number 2.
, that says:
~st
not exceed the allocation in the
ACR.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson
Washington , D.
Page 160
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 18 of 21
June 13
2002
Exceeding the allocation will result in
disapproval of the DCS
(S).
This is Exhibit 10.
Do you recall whether you ever
disapproved a proposed delivery commitment
schedule for any reason other than the proposed schedule exceeding a utility s allocation of spent
fuel acceptance?
, I don I
I am not sure that
ask the question quite clearly
maybe I didn't
enough.
You don' t recall whether you did or
you recall that you didn't disapprove any for any
other reason?
I do not recall whether I disapproved
addi tional DCSs for reasons other than having
exceeded the acceptance
allocation.
commitment
We have been talking about you
approvlng or disapproving del i very
schedule forms submitted by utilities.
Technically, wasn t it the contracting officer who
was doing the approval or disapproval?
Yes, but as the contracting officer'
technical representative, it was my responsibility
by virtue of my signature to make a
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 19 of 21
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D.
Page 161
recommendation.
And as a practical matter , you were in
fact the person who was approving or disapproving;
wouldn I
t that
be a fair statement?
Well, I can' t make that statement.
That I s to
imply that the contracting officer had
no role whatsoever and did no
review.
Did the contracting officer ever
disagree with one of your recommendations
concerning the approval or disapproval of a proposed delivery commitment schedule?
Not that I
recall.
Did the contracting officer ever question one of your recommendations to approve or
disapprove a proposed delivery commitment
~ schedule?
17 I
Not that I recall.
Did tile contracting officer
in your role as COTR?
MS. SULLIVAN
ever
question any of your recommendations that you made
Obj ection.
Vague.
That I S a lot
of history and a lot of
time.
Unless you can be more specific, I am not
sure I can answer that question.
I am just asking for your
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
~~
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 846-17
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 20 of 21
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D.
Page 164
THE REPORTER:
MS. SULLIVAN
Reading and signing?
Yes, reading and
signing.
Off the
record.
4: 35 p. m., the
taking
(Thereupon, at
of the instant deposition was ceased.
Signature of the Witness
cQ $_
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
day of
' 200J...
\:j)lC1ufJ
t Wj
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Conunission Expires:
Feh-~
&'6 &CXJ,j
1111 14th Street ,
N~. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 846-17 Filed 07/14/2004 ERI-"... TA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRIP I OF:
Page 21 of 21
Notice Date: June 17 , 2002
Case Name: Yankee Atomic vs. United States Case Number: 98- 126C- 987 4C Dep. Date: June 13 , 2002 Deponent: Nancy Slater Thompson Washington DC
Place:
Ref. No. :
4269CORRECTIONS:
Page
Line
Now Reads
Should Read
Reasons Therefore
cJ,/
47
ky'f ;l(
h,,) 1m ~MP ffJ7
d ) el :u A) /K!R
blj,--- ~~/=r1
;&/un
,27
.3'
;1L ~~
;?HLt?;t/N
dd
r?MkJ57
33-
f2 tJ
/0/ I!)
/'LJ
~-LL
#I;~f5~ I
Ja.:l
tJ;;;:
/'1(,
IJ
UA.
!iJrb
IS-O tf
/57
~(!2~t$l: 'Wud
UZfl
l&Jd.
CIt