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

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein

Document 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 1 of 25
May 23 2002

Washington, D.

Page 245

Thank you.
(Whereupon, at

4: 25 p. m., the deposition

adjourned.

Signature of the Witness

of

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
L-t
-l20

flj

day

;2-

(21 7'

4u~Z;;

NOTARY PUBIl

My Commission expires:

-;I/j/a

dd6

1111

14th Street

~W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.

//~
';)..

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Filed 07/07/2004 OF: EF--. ATA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCR

Document 840-14

Page 2 of 25

Notice Date: May 28 , 2002 Case Name: Yankee Atomic VS. United Case Number: 98- 126C- 987 4C
Dep. Date: May 23

States

Deponent:
Ref. No. :

Place: Washington DC
4269Line
Now Reads

2002 Alan Brownstein (continued)

CORRECTIONS:

Page

Should Read

Reasons Therefore

;2..

tj7I'(J(/

(J, i/c.
~

I(?Dl'dVc.,A PCS.:, I
JJ
Lv) l/ e....s

1"/ ~ (,1(/

I' oJ

C!.

(r

:/I,c iT'c7

~20
;).. '3j

u.s

usevf
#-s ;rt~

q.n T h1 f'.t:l4

119kt'r Ad
..scJ/Q r-v1o4 7"

SGl1.r e
.z:.

I r7d

~t:

r...

(1y ~fI,(

Signature of Deponent
;~4.h,:

Date of Signature

.,.~ -..'

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Washington, D.

).

Document 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 3 of 25
June 14, 2002

Page 246

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

(98- 126C) (Merow, S.
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY

(98- 154C) (Merow, S.
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY

(98- 474C) (Merow, S.

C~RTjFIED

Plaintiffs,
THE UNITED STATES,

COil

Defendant.

Washington, D. C .
Friday, June 14, 2002

Continued deposition of ALAN BROWNSTEIN, a

witness herein, called for examination by

counsel for
sworn,

Plaintiffs in the above-entitled matter, pursuant to

agreement, the witness being previously duly

taken at the offices of Spriggs & Hollingsworth, 1350
I Street, N. W., Washington, D. C., 20005- 3305, at

8:40 a. m.,

Friday, June 14, 2002, the proceedings

being taken down by Stenotype by JAN A. WILLIAMS,

RPR, and transcribed under her

direction.

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 8oo-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein

Document 840-14
Washington, D.

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 4 of 25
June 14

2002

Page 423

legal significance of an approved DCS?
MR . CRAWFORD :

Objection to the extent it

calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS:
BY MR. STOUCK
Well, you

m not a lawyer.

re not a lawyer.

But at this

time you were working on the program and you were

working on these matters.
their jobs.
I don

And sometimes nonlawyers

have understandings of legal things that relate to
Maybe you did and maybe you didn' t, but
that that

I t know

I s responsive to my question.

At this time did you have an understanding of the
legal significance of an approved DCS?
MR . CRAWFORD :

Objection to the extent it

calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS:

Probably not, because I

don t recall having a discussion with anybody about

that.
BY MR. STOUCK

Okay.

What about at some subsequent time

prior to the time that you ceased working on these

matters?

I I m looking for my notes here.

I think it

was March 1995.

Did you have any discussions with

anyone that would have given you, Alan Browns tein, an

understanding of the legal significance of approved

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.

1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

'--Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein

Document 840-14
Washington , D.

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 5 of 25
June 14

2002

Page 424

DCSs?
MR . CRAWFORD :

Same objection.

THE WITNESS:
BY MR. STOUCK

Not that I

recall.
you have

And subsequent to

that, in ' 95,

had no such discussions; is that right or is that not

right?
MR . CRAWFORD :

Same objection.

THE WITNESS:

I think I testified earlier

that I may have reviewed a DOJ, you know, document, a

reply.
BY MR. STOUCK

In this litigation?

In this litigation.
Was that subsequent to the last time we
were here in this deposition room?

No.
It was

prior
prior

that?
to your

Yes.
Was

first

deposition?

Yes.
Do you know whether it was

prior

after the DOJ document was filed in court or was it a
DOJ document that was filed in court?
MR . CRAWFORD:

Obj ection to the extent it

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein

Document 840-14
Washington , D.

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 6 of 25
June 14, 2002

Page 425

calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS:

I reviewed it -- a draft DOJ

document.

And I testified to that before
BY MR. STOUCK

too.

Okay.

Again I really apologize.

Yeah. It I S been a long deposition, I just did

not recall that.
questions over.

I m not trying to ask you the same

And I believe, you know, that addressed
some of that

issue.

So that I s what

jogged my memory.

So based on that you have an understanding

or at least at the time you read this you had an
understanding of what DOJ I S current position about

the legal significance of this is?
MR . CRAWFORD:

Well, objection, asked and

answered and to the extent that that may have

mischaracterized anything he previously testified
THE WITNESS:

to.

There was discussion

about -MR . CRAWFORD:

And I'

m going to instruct

the witness not to reveal anything about any
discussions with any DOJ lawyers about any kind of

matter discussed with respect to this litigation at

25 all.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein

Document 840-14
Washington , D.

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 7 of 25
June 14, 2002

Page 426

THE WITNESS:

Okay.

Well, that I s fine.
Is

think somewhere in that draft there was, you know,
some views expressed about what the government

Department of Justice I s views were with respect to

the legal effect of the DCSs.
BY MR. STOUCK

I read those words.

Approximately when was that, do you
recall, within the last year?
MR . CRAWFORD :

Objection to the extent it

calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS:

Yeah, wi thin

a year, wi

thin

the las t year.
BY MR. STOUCK

Okay.

Can you place it any more

specifically than that in time?
MR . CRAWFORD :

Objection, asked and

answered.
THE WITNESS:
BY MR. STOUCK

No.

But, prior to reading that draft and prior

to whatever discussions grew out of that draft, you

had no understanding of the legal significance, you
had no discussions with anyone who would have given
you any other basis for having any understanding of
the legal significance of the DCSSi is that right?

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.

1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 8oo- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005

\..
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Washington, D.

Document 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 8 of 25
June 14 ,

2002

Page 427

That I S right.

And why I brought that up

is because, you know, my reaction was, well, that'

interesting, when I read that it was

interesting.
before.

never discussed it or thought about that

Directing your attention to the very last

sentence of Exhibit No.

109, I'

ll read it, it says

what liabilities and obligations on the part of both
parties are locked in by the DeS submittal and

approval process.
Okay.
Now, that' s a question that -- you know,

the words are different.

But it I S very similar to

this question about the legal significance, is that
right, do you agree with that?
I agree with your statement.

So, therefore, you had no understanding of

what liabilities and obligations on the part of both parties are locked in by the DeS submittal and
approval process contemporaneous with this document

in August of '

91

is that right?

That I S right.
And you had no understanding about those

matters as of the time you stopped working on waste
acceptance matters in March 1995?

That I S accurate.

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 8oo- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein

Document 840-14
Washington , D.

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 9 of 25
June 14 ,

2002

Page 428

And you had no understanding about those matters at least prior to the time that whatever
understanding you gained by reading this draft that
you just referred to?
Tha t'

s correct.

(Recess. )
BY MR. STOUCK

Do you know whether the standard contract
or any of these -- not these standard contracts but any of these individual waste acceptance contracts
wi th the utili ties were ever amended?
MR . CRAWFORD :

Well, object to the extent

of lack of foundation and to the extent it would call
for speculation.
Bu t go ahead.

MR . STOUCK :

m not asking for

speculation, I'

m just asking if he knows if any of

them were ever amended.
MR . CRAWFORD :

Then maybe my obj ection

is

more appropriately objection, vague.
THE WITNESS:

Yeah, I believe there were
It would be hard for me to
Bu t

some

tell
some

modifications made. you wha they were. modifications made.
BY MR. STOUCK

I remember there were

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 8oo- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein

Document 840-14
Washington, D.

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 10 of 25
June 14

2002

Page 440

have been correct had that said ACR instead of

contract.
MR . STOUCK :

Mr. Browns tein, you are done

for today subject to what I just told
THE WITNESS:
MR . CRAWFORD :

you.

Thank you.
'll reserve any further

questioning of the wi tnes~
MR . CRAWFORD :

until the time of

trial.

(Discussion off the record.

I will reserve the right to

ask questions should Mr. Stouck succeed as he states

that he intends to do in getting Mr. Brownstein

before him again.

But I will say that we will oppose

that.
MR. STOUCK:

Okay.
3: 30

Good.

Thanks

a lot.

(Wher~upon,

m., the takin~ of

the

instant deposition

ceased.

Signature of the Witness

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
of

tJ;wJ;

day

CI

17e

, 2

o.ft!.

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission expires:

~jf/ob

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N.'X"",~uite 400 1- 800-FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005

)..

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
ER~

fA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRIF

Document 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

JF:

Page 11 of 25

Notice Date: June 17 , 2002 Case Name: Yankee Atomic VS. United Case Number: 98- 126C- 987 4C Dep. Date: June 14 , 2002 Deponent: Alan Brownstein Washington DC 4269-45 Ref. No.

States

Place:

CORRECTIONS:

Page

Line

Now Reads

Should Read

Reasons Therefore

2" 3
;A Y

S't;/J

;"t

4'.$
/,j

:#,12..

SI(,,

;.A' rA

cz.

I r- ~t;I,. T"c/

(..VO'l" r.e

LV: It

;3.

OJ...

"7

It"

Ci

Co

T,t/e
if

C(

7;iJ
7/P

~3J
g-C;

t1(J

TTTJ/'n ~

11 ~ 7'..

/' e:Y" e, ,."

j tf

01/5 5- olt/I

ole. r/d/

(//'7 '
!: 5:oa--

393 tftJ(

oI/~ Te/.

issc,

011/ ~c-

Signature of Deponent
;0*-

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 12 of 25

EXHIBIT

"'"

, ~

j:.

. ,.

, ~

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 13 of 25
) i~ ~1i~ ~ J't " ~t .I.f " l'f./ ,- "W' b~j

!fJ~

\ \r

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 deposi tion 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
1350 I Street, N.

Spriggs & Hollingsworth,
Washington, D.

, 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.
2 3

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 14th ST., N.

(202)289. 2260 (800) FOR DEPO , 4th FLOOR WASHINGTON, D. C., 20005

'"' ""\

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 14 of 25

244
aware that the utility industry did not support priority for shutdown reactors. In fact, their

stated consensus position was that priority should not be afforded to shutdown reactors.

So it was not intended that the delivery commitment schedule process be a gotcha

process?
A static process.

Right,
five and now

that, gee,

you only requested

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?
That

five, that

intention to

S correct do that.

it was not our

And we might have covered
yesterday, but let

this me just make sure it' s

clear

that the delivery commitment schedule was intended to indicate how much spent fuel the

utility wanted to deliver up to the limit of their allocation?
In part, because recall that the discharge date of the fuel earned you a slot in the acceptance priority ranking, but the fuel you could actually deliver did not have to be the
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY , INC.
1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR

(202)289. 2260

(800) FOR DEPO

WASHINGTON ,

D.

C., 20005

""'\

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 15 of 25

273
out its

scope.

I don t precisely recall which

section in the contract discusses the annual
capac i ty

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 capacity report was not

intended to be binding on the parties?
It was not intended to be absolute in

the sense that again it'
And DOE,

s a planning

document.

and I distinctly remember saying

this

and I distinctly remember it being said to me

when I was on the utility

side,

DOE had always

stated that, if we were able to improve the system capacity, then the ACR would reflect those improvements in system capacity. And the APR would be used to readj ust
which utilities, when

and how much

fuel.

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
(800) FOR DEPO

1111 14th ST., N. W., 4th FLOOR / WASHINGTON, D. C" 20005

""'

-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 840-14 Filed 07/07/2004 Page 16 of 25

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'
1 0

s see.

I joined DOE in August of

, 91, 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,
What would your role have been in

determining that amount that DOE was going
tell utilities DOE was expecting to -- what they expected the annual receiving rate for the
facilities to
17

be, what would your

role have been

in that?

None,

nothing.
the those receipt

Who would have made that determination?
2 0

I don' t recall who precisely made

determination because I believe

rates were established in ACR' s prior to my
23

advent with the

program.

And there were no

changes in those receipt rates for this document
25

that I' m aware of,
1111 14th ST., N.

So the document

the

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY , INC.
(202)289. 2260 (800) FOR DEPO , 4th FLOOR / WASHINGTON ,
D.

C., 20005

"""'. ...-...

~~
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 840-14 Filed 07/07/2004

---

Page 17 of 25

2 05

MR. SHAPIRO:

Why don' t we stop for the

day here and discuss where to go
( Wh ere

up0

n ,

at

4: SO

next. p. m., the

depos i t ion adj ourned, to

be resumed on Thursday,

April 22,

1999, at 2: 00 p.

Signature of the Witness

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me

day 0

f ~~~~----------------

this -

~~:t~
My Commission
17

'1-

NOTARY PUBLIC

expires: ~~fl~i1QB__-

2 0

2 3

2 5

ALDERSON REPORTL\"G CO~"IPAXY , INC.
1111 14th ST. , N. W.,

12021289- 2260 /8001 FOR DEPO 4th FLOOR WASHINGTON ,

D.

C., 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 18 of 25

Page
ERRATA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRI PT OF:
Notice Date: 04/29/99 Case Name: Yankee Atomic Electric Company v. The United States Case Number: 98-126C

Dep. Date: Deponent: Place:
TS#:

04/21/99 /

Nancy H. Slater
WashJ.ngton, DC

78077

CORRECTIONS:

Page

Line

Now Reads

Should Read

Reasons Therefore

tZtr77vmf

----Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson

-- -

---Filed 07/07/2004 Page 19 of 25
June 13

Document 840-14

2002

Washington , D.

Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
- X

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY , MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC

yertffied COpy
: Case No. 98- 126C

POWER CO. , and CONNECT I CUT

YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.

Plaintiffs

: 98-474C, 98-154C
(Senior Judge

Merrow)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant
- X

Washington ,

D.

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 &
1350 I Street , N.

Hollingsworth,
, at 9:40

, Washington , D.

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 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 20 of 25
June 13 ,

2002

Washington , D. C.
Page 94

it calls for a legal conclusion.

Obj ect ion

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.
, I don' 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

17 ACR as a planning document. What did you mean by
tha t ?
MS. SULL IVAN :

Q.

A little while ago you referred to the

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 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 21 of 25
June 13

2002

Washington , D.
Page 95

constraints, lack of a facility, unavailability of

transportation casks.
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

I 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

By using the word " only, " did you exclude - - what did you mean to exclude?

only.

mean to

That we viewed the DCSs as

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 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 22 of 25
June 13 ,

2002

Washington , D. C.
Page 96

~nd we

have been through that in prlor deposition

as well; that the industry recognized that in fact
they wouldn

I 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
wi th the FDS , ball park with the DCS.

It was important for the utilities to

glve us DCSs because of their very

fungibility.
I t exchange

I f you didn' t

submi t a DCS, you couldn

your slot in the cue, and given that those
exchanges were possible, I don

15 would perceive a DCS as anything other than for 16 planning purposes.
Let I S go back
purposes only.
When you say that ACRs were for
planning purposes only, does that mean that the
first just to the ACRs

I t know how one

and the statement that they are for planning

ACRs were not meant to be binding on the
Department of Energy?
MS. SULLIVAN:

Obj ection, vague.

Objection to the extent it calls for a legal
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. I I I I 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 23 of 25
June 13 ,

Nancy Slater Thompson
Washington , D. C.

2002

Page 97

conclusion.
I can 't speak to that legal lssue or

speak for a contracting

officer.

In my

estimation, that I s a ask someone else.

question you would have to

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

it calls for a legal

document speaks for

conclusion. Objection , the itself. Objection , vague.

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
say as

legal decislon,
engineer my clear

would

simple

reading

that language

would say if

it'

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 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 24 of 25
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 opinion , 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
recognizing 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
ln industry who thought that the delivery
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005 1111 14th Street

./I

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson

Document 840-14

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 25 of 25
June 13

2002

Washington , D.
Page 99

commi tment schedules were binding on either

industry or the department?
MS. SULLIVAN

Obj ection, vague.

Obj ection to the extent it calls for a legal

conclusion.
No, I don't.

You said something a minute ago that I

guess has me a little

confused.

You said that the

delivery commitment schedules are definitely for

planning purposes but they provided relatively little information so you couldn 't do much

planning with them.

I may be getting your

language a little wrong, but what did you mean by

tha t ?

The DCSs - - and

you need to put this
the DCSs,

in the context of their fungibility

were they to remaln as is, would provide you with
the location of the reactor to which you would

arri ve to pick fuel up,
cask to

so you know the type of

fuel, you can plan appropriately for the type of

send.

Given that they have submitted one
s assume

DCS for,
casks to

let'

10 MTU, you know how many

send.

The date on which you would show

up and schedule a pickup was not resolved until

the FDS because that was actually done ln
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005 1111 14th Street , N.