Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 1 of 29
EXHIBIT
-"""'....
"':...
.. ..
~. -,
~, ,
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 2 of 29
co' .
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
- X
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
THE UNITED STATES,
Case No. 98-126C
Senior Judge
Merow
Defendant.
- X
Washington ,
D. C.
Wednesday, April 21
1999
Deposition of NANCY H. SLATER, a
witness herein,
called for examination by
counsel
for Plaintiff in the above-entitled
matter,
pursuant to agreement, the witness being duly
sworn by JAN A. WILLIAMS, a Notary Public in and
for the District of
Columbia, taken at
the
offices c ~ Spriggs & Hollingsworth
1350 I
Street, N. W., Washington , D. C., at 10:10 a. m.,
Wednesday, April 21, 1999, and the proceedings
being taken down by Stenotype by JAN A. WILLIAMS,
RPR , and transcribed under her
direction.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(202)289- 2260 (800) FOR DEPO 1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR / WASHINGTON .
D.
C., 20005
~ .---
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 3 of 29
Whereupon,
NANCY H. SLATER
was called as a witness by counsel for
and having been duly sworn by
was examined and testified
Plaintiff,
the Notary Public, as follows:
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL
FOR PLAINTIFF
BY MR.
SHAPIRO:
Would you state your name for the
record, please.
Nancy
re here for your
Slater.
deposition.
Have you
Ms. Slater, my name is Robert Shapiro,
eve r
had your deposition taken before?
No.
Do you have some understanding
what' s going to happen today? Yes.
2 0
What do you
understand is going to
happen today?
I understand that I'
2 3
m going to be a
factual deponent and that you
re interested in
24
2 5
asking me questions about my knowledge of the
waste acceptance area during the time I was in
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY , INC.
(202)289- 2260 (800) FOR DEPO 1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR / WASHINGTON. D. C., 20005
----
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 4 of 29
waste acceptance.
And let me
tell
you
just briefly
ll be asking
procedurally how it will work.
you a series of questions and you will be
expected to answer the questions.
As we
discussed even before we went on the record,
court reporter is taking everything down and
we' ll get a written transcript of everything
the
that'
s said
today.
Do you understand that?
Yes.
And it
will also be helpful for the
court reporter' s
purposes so we get a clean
transcript if you will respond as you just did.
Verbally.
A nice verbal answer , yes or no or
whatever the appropriate response might
I understand.
be.
Also I would ask
if
you
don'
if you
understand ~ne
what I'
of my questions, you re not sure
m asking in one of my questions
would please ask me to rephrase it rather than
trying to answer a question you re not sure what
the question is.
Will do.
I appreciate
that.
Where do you work?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY , INC.
(202)289- 2260
1111 14th ST. ,
N.
(8001 FOR DEPO
, 4th FLOOR
WASHINGTON, D.
, 20005
-. '
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 846-10 Filed 07/14/2004 Page 5 of 29
A.
At the U. S. Department of Energy in
the
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
in the Regulatory Coordination
What' s your job
Team leader.
Division. title there?
of?
And what are you a team leader
The entire division
lieu
of a deputy division
basically. I serve director. And we
the
deal with the regulatory concerns between
National Academy of Science, and
program and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
the EPA
dealings with the Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board.
When you say you deal with regulatory
agencies, what do you do on a day-to- day basis vis- vis
concerns of EPA , NRC, and the other
the NRC?
Let'
20
s see,
a typical example would be
the fact that we are involved in developing
safeguards and security policy guidelines for the
eventual acceptance and disposal
of a variety
waste forms.
2 3
And those policy guidelines will be
translated into actual waste acceptance criteria
by another
2 5
group.
And the waste owners will then have
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP~~'Y , INC.
(202)289- 2260 (800) FOR DEPO 1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR i WASHINGTON, D.
, 20005
:.... ,\,,\ .....-
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 6 of 29
An 0 f
f ice, rig h t
of?
I think they may have
What office would it have been part
I don' t know,
called it the waste acceptance storage and
transportation office. But things ike that to memory.
up.
again I don' t commit
I feel there are
organization Charts that I can go pull to look
And, between 1991
Yes.
and 1993,
Mr. Brownstein was the branch
chief?
And after 1993 Mr. Brownstein became
i :
division director?
Director.
And, between ' 91 and
' 93 do you
recall
who was the division director?
Jim Carlson.
And then who was the office director
above Mr. Carlson?
Ron Milner.
What were your duties in this 1991 to
1993 period when you
were an industrial
specialist?
I was involved in the preparation
the annual capacity report,
(202)289- 2260
1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR
the acceptance
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY , INC.
(800) FOR DEPO
WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005
. ' , ;..
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 7 of 29
ranking, answering questions both
internal and external about the terms and
conditions of the contract.
Let'
s see.
And
whatever else may have arisen at the
time.
I know, when we came in , we were on the
tail end of a rulemaking, net versus gross, as
sold was that
clarification.
So I wrapped part
of that up.
ma terial or
I believe I terminated a couple of
nonutility contracts at the contract holder'
request because they either no longer had
the
had,
in fact,
in one case I believe
sold it to the government.
Do you remember any other issues
you
I think we began to discuss
worked on during that period?
91 to ' 93,
Would that be about
delivery commitment schedules at that point.
right?
That would be about
right.
That would also have included exchange
of approved delivery commitment
schedules?
Actually my recollection is that we
discussed exchanges not concurrently, because
there was the opportunity to do that a little
later.
And it
was more important given the
timing requirement in the contract to have that
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY , INC.
(202)289- 2260 (800) FOR DEPO 1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR / WASHINGTON ,
D.
C., 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 8 of 29
guidance issue. And guidance as to what to do wi th delivery commitment schedules themselves?
How to fill them
the
believe,
if I' m not incorrect,
And you
out, instructions.
that that' s
an OMB
reviewed form.
to complete the
know that process,
that
takes time and there must be instructions on how
form.
What was the time
concern?
I believe the contract requires
delivery commitment schedules to be submitted by
the purchaser 63 months in advance of the year in
which they have an
from 1998
allocation.
So back it out
and they would have been submitting in
, 92
late ' 92.
Are there any other
issues that
you
recall working on in the
' 91 to ' 93 period?
And nothing else
Let'
s see.
I know we addressed
priority for shutdown
reactors.
comes to mind right now.
What about the period
issues did you
' 93 to ' 95, what
I believe
work on?
During that time
period,
worked on del i very commi tment
many of the same things from
exchanges, ' 91 and ' 93, the
schedule
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY , INC.
(202)289- 2260 (800) FOR DEPO 1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR / WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 9 of 29
acceptance, priori ty ranking,
report, DCS review and
the annual capaci
approval.
We began conversations about
final
delivery schedules and what would be included in
those,
safeguards and securi ty, and that was
policy development.
I know that I worked on
numerous reviews of system baseline
documents,
kept
system requirements documents primarily from a
waste acceptance standpoint. And I know we working on priori ty for shutdown reactors.
Let me ask you to clarify what you
mean
by just a couple of these
categories.
Safeguards
and security, what was involved with safeguards
and security?
NRC regulations require that a licensee
have in place a safeguards and security
system.
And that means physical security as in physical
protection.
And that physical protection
based on the attractiveness of the material
would someone want to steal it to make a bomb.
They also require as another subelement
material control and
if you as a utility tell me that
accounting.
That is
that,
you
giving me
ten MTU,
you have to provide me with some
that you
documentation to give me confidence
are;
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY , INC.
(202)289- 2260 (800) FOR DEPO 1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005
---
....---....
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 10 of 29
137
reorganization. But otherwise it'
group?
Yes.
s basically the same
I do believe there was a separate
transportation program at the time that UNWMG
existed.
And I do not recall the name of the law
firm that managed that , but I believe that was
consol ida ted wi th UWASTE.
If you could turn to page 761 in the
compilation.
Do you see the first issue listed
as being of a priority to DOE was whether or not
there should be any exceptions to the oldest
first priority
ranking; do you
recall that
fuel issue?
Yes.
give you
The issue there was do I have to
my oldest
fuel.
And, from the utility
perspective,
in the lower
I have fuel in my
pool,
I have fuel
forty.
I would prefer to give
you
the newer fuel which is in my pool and free up
space the.ce,
2 0
m not interested
in giving
you
the
stuff I' ve
already
canned.
So, if my oldest fuel is what earns me
a place in the ranking based on its discharge
2 3
dates, must I give that you fuel that earned the
ranking.
2 5
And the answer was no.
Bu t
That fuel earns
you a space in the ranking.
on your DCS you
ALDERSON REPORTING CC:\IPAc'N , INC.
(2021289- 2260 (8001 FOR DEPO 1111 14th ST., N. W.. 4th FLOOR WASHINGTON, D.
, 20005
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 846-10 Filed 07/14/2004 Page 11 of 29
138
tell us that you want to give us a range of
fuels; and, as long as it
meets those minimum
conditions, five- year-old being the biggest one. So that' s what OFF was about, because
it could have been interpreted
utility perspective.
this was the
It could have been
interpreted to mean that I had to give you the
precise fuel that earned me the slot in the
ranking.
I think I unders tand.
Let me point
your attention to particular language in the
middle of that column.
Right about in
the
middle,
it says the resolution of this issue will
focus on clarifying that the application of the
OFF principle is used only in establishing the
acceptance priority
ranking,
and as such
there
should be no exceptions.
Then the next sentence says, any basis other than OFF would result in inequitable
assignment of acceptance capacity among
the
purchasers.
in the queue?
Why would that be if you just said
that utilities,
they
ve already earned their
spot
in
I think you'
re not reading tha t
the proper
context.
What they re saying is that
ALDERSON REPORTING CO:\:IPANY, INC.
(202/289- 2260 18001 FOR DEPO 1111 14th ST., N. w., 4th FLOOR WASHINGTON, D.
, 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 12 of 29
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 it ion
adj ourned, to
be resumed on
April 22, 1999,
at 2: 00 p.
Signature of the
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me
day 0
f ~~~----------------
this -
~L0;-IMy Commission
expires:
t~~iQfu_6L~__-
NOTARY PUBLIC
ALDERSON REPORTL\'G CO!\'1PA~Y , INC.
(2021289- 2260 (8001 FOR DEPO
1111 14th ST. ,
N.
, 4th FLOOR
WASHINGTON ,
D.
, 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 13 of 29
Page
ERRATA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRI PT 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
Nanc~ H. Slater Wash~ngton, DC
CORRECTIONS:
Page
Line
Now Reads
Should Read
Reasons Therefore
tZvn
, S~gnature 0
Date o
OZ -tJ;J
Slgnature
.. ": "~;
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 846-10 Filed 07/14/2004 Page 14 of 29
-,;,
~~~1i ~~~JJ: rl
4,')
t~ I
;r J
206
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
- X
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 98-126C
Senior Judge
Me row
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. C., at 2:10 p. m., Thursday, April
22, 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 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 15 of 29
284
Let' s focus on Yankee Atomic perhaps as an example. Was it really expected that DOE would
pick up from Yankee Atomic 9. 9 MTU in the first
year or at least as you get closest to a
full
cask that'
s 9. 9 MTU and then it would stop in the
first year and come back in year two, come back
for another 10. 1, year three come back for 9.
year four come back for 8.
and then do nothing
in year five and then have to come back yet again
in year six for 9. this chart?
4 strictly as it'
s indicated on
Yes, that would be my
strict
the
understanding of this table, yes.
But was that also how DOE expected
program to work?
My understanding of how the program
would work again
if you accept the premise of
the round up or round down for full cask
loads,
might mean that in any given
year,
again the
following year is debited for the additional
amount, that you might actually complete pickup
ahead of schedule if you made the optimistic
assumption that you were always rounding up.
There was some discussion about
campaigning.
Do you understand what I mean by
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(202)289, 2260
(800) FOR DEPO
1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR / WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005
~.~
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 16 of 29
285
campaigning?
I think I do.
it for the
But if you could explain
record.
Campaigning would be that we might like
to select rather than the first year as the basis for delivery the first three years and in large
chunks work off three years of fuel for one
utility, work off three years of fuel for the
next.
And this was subject to negotiation
with the utilities obviously because this is not the unilateral right as I understand it of DOE to
do this.
And in the second year accept the
first
year and the second year and the third year from
another utility.
This was discussed with the utilities
and it was discussed as a matter of fact when
was part of the utility
industry.
And the
utilities were not averse to considering
that
because again it'
for them.
s an operational consideration
Do I want you to come to my facility
every year and disrupt my operations because
won t be doing anything while we re loading
I rather say don' t come the first
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(202)289- 2260
(800) FOR DEPO
fuel year,
1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR / WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 17 of 29
286
show up the second year and take my first year
my second year, and maybe my third year.
So that was discussed when I was in the
industry.
And I don
t know where tha t
went after
that.
So I have a recollection that the precise
schedule laid out in
here,
alterations to that
schedule were discussed by the
utilities.
in part I
And the campaign was premised
think as you said on the notion that it would be
more efficient for utilities to have pickups done
in larger amounts than in a series of smaller
amounts?
In fewer years actually,
years,
in fewer
so that you weren' t showing up every year
with the consequent interruption of operation.
And it was
17
I think it was DOE'
s understanding that
it would result in -- might result in efficiencies for the DOE transportation system
2 0
well.
So my recollection is that there were
discussions on both sides about efficiencies
2 2
2 3
for
both sides by campaign.
But I' m
not the expert
on campaigning and you would have to talk to the
transportation folks about
24
2 5
that.
that
Let me ask a couple questions on
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(202)289- 2260
(800) FOR DEPO
1111 14th ST., N. W.. 4th FLOOR / WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 18 of 29
287
just so I make sure I understood what you were
saying.
The efficiency from DOE' s
campaigning would be, once you got
transportation campaign
perspective to the
going,
it was more
efficient to keep it going at one time than to
stop it and start it five different times or a
number of different
times,
it doesn
't
have to be
five?
I don
't
recall the
details.
I do
recall that some of the efficiencies included
not
having to retrain personnel on the specifics of that site three years in a row because you might not have the same personnel at the same site
again.
So there were efficiencies to be
obtained from that.
And that' s the one that
really sticks in
my mind.
m sure there were
others, but again I' m expert.
2a
not the transportation
Do you recall discussions of this
notion of campaigning after you got to DOE?
I am aware that the issue was
evaluated, but I evaluations. So
was not part of those
I have no knowledge of what was
involved in the evaluation
inputs, outputs,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(202)289- 2260 (800) FOR DEPO 1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR / WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 19 of 29
289
such consideration of campaigning?
I don
't
recall who specifically was
the transportation group at that
time.
In fact,
I really
m having a tough time recalling who the
transportation division director was.
don t know.
Going back to this table 2 in Slater
Exhibi t 23,
other than the notion of
campaigning,
do you recall any other ways in which DOE or
utilities for that matter might have expected
that actual acceptances of spent fuel might occur
in an order different than what is depicted on
this table?
plus or minus 20 percent
campaigning, DCS exchanges, occurred, al though the amount
that year would.
rounding, because, if exc hange
wouldn t change,
the individual utility that would be serviced
So that would have represented
a departure from what' s published in
here.
And it
was generally anticipated
that
there would be some amount of DCS exchanges?
Yes, I did anticipate that there would
be some amount of DCS
exchanges.
You said that was your
expectation.
what extent did you understand that that
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(202)289- 2260
1111 14th ST. ,
N, W"
(800) FOR DEPO 4th FLOOR / WASHINGTON, D. C.,
20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 20 of 29
312
don '
t
know.
I know that the receipt rates were I have a vague knowledge of the
established,
bas is for their establ
ishment,
and I know why
changed from 1998, 1999, to year one and year
two.
But I don t think that I can speak to
the
question you ve just asked me.
BY MR. SHAPIRO:
And the reason you changed again from
spec i f ic
years, calendar years,
to year one, year
two, was that you weren t sure when acceptance
would start?
Yes.
MR.
SHAPIRO:
That' s all we have.
We cons ider Ms.
MS. SULLIVAN:
Slater
deposition to be
closed.
(Whereupon, at 5:10 p. m.,
the instant deposition ceased.
the taking of
~QZL~
Signature of the Witness
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me
this -C-Yof
day of
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission expires:
GA!f--
~QCil-
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(202)289- 2260 (800) FOR DEPO 1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR / WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 21 of 29
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#:
04/22/99 /
78180
Nanc~ H. Slater Washlngton, DC
CORRECTIONS:
Page Line
Now Reads
Should Read
Reasons Therefore
t/v
Mvlik5
, Slgn '
, lire 0 :ep
~-..2
ent
Date o
t?J2 Slgnature
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 22 of 29
June 13
2002
Washington , D.
Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
- X
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY, MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC
POWER CO., and CONNECTI CUT
yertifled COpy
: Case No. 98- l26C
: 98- 474C,
YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.,
Plaintiffs
-vUNITED STATES OF AMERICA
98- 154C
(Senior Judge
Merrow)
Defendant
- X
Washington ,
D. C
Thursday, June 13, 2002
Deposi tion 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.
, Washington , D.
, at 9:40
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 846-10
Washington , D.
Page 5
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 23 of 29
June 13, 2002
cover wi th
you today.
What 1S your current position? I am the acting division director of
the regulatory coordination division.
How long have you been in that
position?
I have been in that position since
January of
2001.
What was your position before that
one?
Team leader in the regulatory
coordination division.
How did your duties change when you
moved from the team leader position to the acting
director position?
In the ma1n, I believe that most of
the technical and policy-related duties that I had
been performing didn 't change, but I have now
assumed responsibility for personnel
actions.
Are there any other teams in that
division other than the one in which you were team
leader?
No, there are not.
How many people are in that division?
There are ,
including details, four in
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 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 24 of 29
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D.
addition to myself, and one pending for a
secretary.
Did someone resign from the division
director position?
Is that how you became the
acting division director?
Not a resignation.
moved on to other
Alan Brownstein
duties.
When did you start in the
regulatory - -
when did you start in the team
leader position?
We would have to check my personnel
actions, but I believe it was about December of
1987.
m not
sure.
Let me ask the question
differently.
The team leader in the regulatory division , when
did you start that?
That would have been immediately upon my advent in that division , so I moved from the waste acceptance division , I moved right into the
regulatory coordination division.
My recollection is that when I last
deposed you your current position at that time was
that team leader position in the regulatory
division.
Is that -Yes.
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
-Filed 07/14/2004
Washington , D.
........
Document 846-10
Page 25 of 29 June 13 2002
Page 8
What about the 1995 ACR?
When I say
let me explain, I am
referring to the ACR that was published in March
of 1995.
Did you have a role in the development
of that -Yes.
ACR?
You did not have a role in the
development of the ACRs prior to the one in 1992?
I don' t
believe so.
t
think you
Prior to that ACR, you don '
could have had a role in the development of those
ACRs because you were not within DOE at that time?
MS. SULLIVAN:
Obj ection.
DOE in Augus t
Vague.
Joined the
But you
1991.
were working in the nuclear
industry looking at some of those same issues from
private industry' s point of view, weren t you?
MS. SULLIVAN
Obj ection.
Vague.
During what time period are you asking
the question?
During the time period when the
earlier ACRs, the ones earlier than 1992 , came
In.
I recall dealing with ACR- related
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 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 26 of 29
June 13
2002
Washington , D.
Page 112
That you would have been involved.
You just don't recall
it?
Correct, I don' t recall.
Let'
s change subj ects to something
that was also mentioned just briefly a few minutes
ago, the provision in the contract providing for
exchanges of approved del i very commitment schedules. What was your understanding of
purpose of such exchanges?
MS. SULLIVAN:
the
Obj ection to the extent
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
My understanding of provision for
exchanges was to provide the utilities with flexibility in terms of altering their position in
a cue.
Would it be fair to say that the
exchange provision was intended to enable
utilities to optimize the scheduling of their
delivery of spent fuel to DOE?
MS. SULLIVAN:
Obj ection.
Vague.
I think I would have to have a
better
definition of the word
in what sense?
optimize.
I mean, optimize
Let me show you a letter which has a
context and see if that helps illuminate
you.
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 846-10
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 27 of 29
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D.
Page 125
practicable is a very broad word, but
if, for example, a utility wanted to exchange with
another utility with exactly the same age fuel
the same type fuel, reasonably close
locations,
the same number of MTU, I would say that would be
practicable.
department'
I don't think it was the
s intention , nor mine, to hinder that
process.
Would it be reasonable to say that the ~
department intended to minimize the number of
proposed exchanges that it would have to
disapprove?
MS. SULLIVAN:
I don
Obj ect ion , vague.
we had a specific
I think it was
I t think
intention to minimize or maximize.
our intention to accommodate, to the extent
17 I practicable, all reasonable requests to exchange 18 --- Q. Let' s switch subj ects to failed fuel,
something that I think you mentioned briefly
before.
I believe that you mentioned before that
you had at least a vague recollection of an
understanding that acceptance by the department of
failed fuel might be
that correctly?
delayed.
Am I remembering
Correct.
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 846-10
Washington , D.
Filed 07/14/2004
Page 28 of 29
June 13 ,
2002
Page 164
THE REPORTER:
MS. SULLIVAN
Reading and signing?
Yes, reading and
signing.
Of f the record.
(Thereupon, at 4: 35 p. m., the
of the instant deposition was ceased.
taking
Signature of the Witness
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
day of
Gt-u.~
cQ .$--
200l...
~jl(JkIfJ
t Wj
NOTARY PUBLI C
My Commission Expires:
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
IIII 14th Street
&'6,
aCXJ3
, N~. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
/$~ (,.
p?~
~~~~ '"
Page 29 of 29
States
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 846-10 Filed 07/14/2004 ER~,,'\ TA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRIP I OF:
Notice Date: June 17, 2002 Case Name: Yankee Atomic VS. United Case Number: 98- 126C- 987 4C Dep. Date: June 13 , 2002 Deponent: Nancy Slater Thompson Washington DC : 4269Ref. No.
Place:
CORRECTIONS:
Page
Line
Now Reads
Should Read
Reasons Therefore
r2t/
15
klcl'f i/jjJlJj,~ ~~/wzd
-1-
3 ha
"nMPAJ7
x! ld
ff)1p ;;~l'
=t
~:u ~:1:;
AJ r!./? /K!R
~ :::/ km7
4HLt?~~
31-
OJ tJ
/0/
LLJ
/S'
j /.LL
/ C,
I)-U//.
rh
#/;~/f~ I /#l
l&Jd
Cfw.1-/e
/~:J.
/'1(,
IS-a l/
/57
~~~d
lJw.t
~t
$!l
UZ5l