Free Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

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