---"
---.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 1 of 25
McLean , VA
April 9 , 2002
Page 151
facility began operations in 1
98, then the
contract lays out a process ~- ACR, APR, DCSs,
3 ,
final DCSs.
And that S, that S,
they would have,
I s that
how we would implement terms and
condi tions of the contract.
If a facility did not begin
commencement of operations in 1 98, whether it
was in 1 99 or whether it was in
2009, I'
m hard
pressed to believe a DCS submitted and approved
by the department, in whatever year that
specified, 1992,
that given that the changes to
the system and changes to the utili ties, the
utilities in fact would not have a desire ten
years later or that we would not have a desire
ten years later to modify
I s That
that.
You referred
what I'
I S That
m trying to explain.
Okay.
helpful.
to, in your earlier answer, if I wrote it down
right, as to final DCSs.
Is that a term that is used in the
contract somewhere?
Yes, it
is.
Can you point me out or point me to
where in the contract that term is used?
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
McLean, VA
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 2 of 25
April 9, 2002
Page 242
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
I, Catherine S. Boyd, the Notary
Public before whom the proceeding occurred,
pages 1 through 241,
do hereby certify that the
witness was duly sworn, that the testimony of
said witness was taken by me and thereafter
reduced to this typewritten transcript under my
supervision, that said transcript is a true
record of the testimony given by said witness,
that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor
employed by any of the parties to this
proceeding, and further, that I am not a relative or an employee of any attorney or
counsel employed by the parties thereto, or
financially or otherwise interested in the
outcome of the proceeding, or any action
involved therewith.
witness my signature and seal:
CATHERINE S. BOYD
Notary Public in and for
The Commonwealth of Virginia
My commission
expires:
February 28, 2006
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 840-13
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 3 of 25
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
I, Cather
Pub 1 i c
i ne S. Boyd.
the Notary
befo re whom the proceed
i ng occu r red,
pages
th rough
, do hereby cert i fy that the
wi tness was duly sworn, that the test i mony of
sai d wi tness was taken by me and thereafter
reduced to th is
typewr it
ten t ransc
r i pt
under my
supervision, that said transcript is a true
record of the testimony given by said
witness,
that I am nei ther counsel for. related to . nor
emp loyed
by any of the par ties
to th
proceeding, and further. that I am not a
relat i ve 0 r an employee of any atto rney 0
counsel employed by the part i es thereto.
financially or otherwise interested in the
outcome of the proceed
i ng. 0
r
any act ion
involved therewi th.
Wi tness
my signature and seal:
IS
CATHERINE S. BOYD
Notary Publ ic
My commission
in and for
The Commonwealth of Virginia
expires:
February 28. 2006
-..."-"" --' -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
McLean , V A
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 4 of 25
April 10 ,
2002
Page 242
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.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
(98-483C) (Wilson, J.
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
(98-484C) (Wiese, J.
DUKE POWER, A Division of
DUKE ENERGY CORP.
(98-485C) (Sypolt, J.
Certified Copy
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
(98-486C) (Hodges, J.
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
(98-488C) (Yock, S.
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY,
et al.
(98-488C) (Yock , S.
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
(98-621C) (Hewitt, J.
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
(99-447C) (Allegra, J.
GPU NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED
I I I I 14th Street , N. W.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. Suite 400 I- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
""
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
McLean , V A
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 5 of 25
April 10 ,
2002
Page 243
(00-440C) (Bush, J.
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
(00-697C) (Merow, S.
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
(00-703C) (Damich, J.
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
(01- 115C)
(Bush, J.
NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
(01-116C) (Sypolt, J.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
(01-249C) (Bruggink, J.
Plaintiffs,
Discovery
THE UNITED STATES,
: Judge:
Defendant.
McLean, Virginia
: (Judge
xSypolt)
Wednesday, April 10, 2002
Continued deposition of ALAN
BROWNSTEIN, a witness, recalled for examination
by counsel for Plaintiffs in the above- entitled
matter, pursuant to notice, the witness being
previously duly sworn by CATHERINE S. BOYD, a
Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of
Virginia, taken at the offices of Shaw
Pittman,
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
I I I I 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 I- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
'--Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 6 of 25
April 10 ,
McLean , V A
2002
Page 376
MR. BANES:
Obj ection.
Mischaracterizes the instructions, and calls for
a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS:
A lot has occurred in
the last seven
years.
I would think the person responsible
now would want to review what we did, why we did
it, and how we did it, and to see, you
know, the
applicabili ty in sum or in part as to how
they
re going to proceed.
I wouldn t purport to say that they
should take these and throw them out or take
them and adopt them in
total.
I don t think a responsible manager
would use this as input in helping make a
decision.
BY MR. TOMASZCZUK:
Changed circumstances might warrant
reviewing and revising these to reflect those
circumstances, is that fair?
I think that
22
is.
If the, as I understand these
instructions, if the ACR on which the DCSs are
based is a planning document, which I understand
it to be, are the DCSs also planning documents?
Ill! 14th Street ,
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 7 of 25
April 10 ,
McLean , V A
2002
Page 377
MR. BANES:
legal concl
Obj ection.
Calls for a
us ion.
In my mind, they
THE WITNESS:
are.
In order to get, if we can just set aside a
specific date for a second, in order to get the
government wi th the right equipment to be able
I to get through the gate of the utili ty
place.
at the
right time, there has to be planning that takes
For example, we need to know years in
advance how many BWR and PWR casks we should
make sure are available through whatever means.
We ought to know how many truck
and how many rail casks we ought to have
casks
available.
In order to do that, we need to
understand whose fuel we re going to accept, so
there has to be communication between the
utilities and us years in advance in order
to allow that marriage to occur at the
irrespective of the
to,
end,
date.
but I believe
I believe -- as you know, I did not
negotiate this contract in ' 83,
that was the intent of the process that was laid
which we have talked about the ACR, the APR , the
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc,
1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 8 of 25
April 10 ,
2002
McLean , VA
Page 378
DCS s and the FDS s .
I think that, in that
planning arrangement.
sense, that'
s a
Tha t ' s a way to respond
to your question, but I think that is
responsi ve.
MR. TOMASZCZUK:
Okay.
Mr. Brownstein, did you have a
role to play in the preparation of what I'
refer to as the TSLCC reports -- total system
life cycle cost reports?
No.
Again, I may
have, consistent
wi th, I may have reviewed drafts, you know , as
my responsibili ties as a division director or as
a branch chief, but in terms of its preparation,
no.
Okay.
Same question wi th
respect to
fee adequacy reports -- did you have a role to play in the preparation of those?
At one time in the
organization, for
one short period of time, I did, but under the
time that I had that responsibility, I don
recall that we actually issued it during that
time period.
Can you put a year on that activity
for me?
II I I 14th Street , N. W.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. Suite 400 I- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
McLean , VA
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 9 of 25
April 10 ,
2002
Page 467
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
I, Catherine S. Boyd, the Notary
Public before whom the proceeding
occurred,
pages 242 through 466, do hereby certify that
the wi tness
was duly sworn, that the testimony
of said witness was taken by me and thereafter reduced to this typewritten transcript under my
supervision, that said transcript is a true
record of the testimony given by said
witness,
that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor
employed by any of the parties to this
proceeding, and further ,
that I am not a
relative or an employee of any attorney or
counsel employed by the parties thereto, or
financially or otherwise interested in the
outcome of the proceeding, or any action
invol ved therewi th.
Witness my signature and
seal:
CATHERINE S. BOYD
Notary Public in and for
The Commonweal th of
Virginia
My commission expires:
February 28,
III I 14th Street ,
2006
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 840-13
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 10 of 25
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
I. Catheri ne S. Boyd, the Notary
Pub 1 i c
befo re
whom the proceed i ng occu r red.
pages ---- through ---- '
do hereby cert i fy that
rn,
the wi tnes s was duly swo
that the tes t i mony
of sai d wi tness was
reduced'
taken by me and thereafter
to this typewritten transcript under my
supervision. that said transcript is a true
record of the testimony given by said
witness,
that I am nei ther counsel for, related to. nor
employed by any of the part
i es to the
proceeding. and further, that I am not a
relative or an employee of any attorney or
coun se 1
employed by the pa r ties the
reto.
0 r
financially or otherwise interested in the
outcome of the proceeding, or any action
i nvo 1 ved the
rewi th.
Witness my signature and
seal:
t~
11;
CATHERINE S. BOYD
in and for
Notary Publ ic
My commission
The District of Columbia
expires:
August 31, 2002
:~ ' - :-
.'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
.--
Document 840-13
Washington , D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 11 of 25
May 23, 2002
1,7.;,
Page I
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.
Plainti~fs, CERTIFIED CO PY
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
Washington, D . C .
Thursday, May 23, 2002
Deposition of ALAN BROWNSTEIN, a witness
herein, called for examination by counsel for
Plaintiffs in the above-entitled matter, pursuant to
agreement, the witness being duly sworn by JAN WILLIAMS, a Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia, taken at the offices of Spriggs &
Hollingsworth, 1350 I Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.,
20005- 3305,
at 8:40 a. m.,
Thursday, May 23, 2002, the
proceedings being taken down by Stenotype by JAN
1~
WILLIAMS, RPR, and transcribed under her
11'
direction.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1 I 11 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
Washington , D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 12 of 25
May 23, 2002
Page 152
overbroad.
THE WITNESS:
BY MR. STOUCK
I really don
I t
know.
You don I t know one way or the other?
No.
Okay.
Well, do you believe that the
Department of Energy -- or do you know whether the
Department of -- let me ask it this
way, without
regard to whatever position the Department of Justice
has taken, do you know whether the Department of
Energy has an obligation under the standard contracts
to accept spent fuel that is not described in an
approved delivery commitment schedule?
MR. CRAWFORD:
Obj ection to the extent it
calls for a legal conclusion and foundation since
he 1 S not
a 30
(b) (6) witness. THE WITNESS: That I S an issue
in question.
I always viewed that both parties had to do the steps
required in the contract.
The DCSs are -- there
another step in the process which is the final
delivery commitment schedules.
So you re asking about DCSs.
Where I 1 m
going to ask you for clarification is you re asking
me about what happens if there s an approved DCS but
there never is an approved FDS.
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 840-13
Washington, D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 13 of 25
May 23, 2002
Page 153
BY MR. STOUCK
I believe you testified that is the
situation we re in, correct?
Yes.
There are no approved final del i very
commi tment
schedules that I I m aware of.
There are not to my
Are you
aware of any?
knowledge.
Okay.
So do you know whether --
well, I
Bu t
don t know if that clarifies the
question.
question is, with respect to spent fuel, commercial
spent fuel, utility spent fuel that
I s out in the
world somewhere in the United States that is not
described in a delivery commitment schedule that has
been submitted by a utility and approved by the
Department of Energy, okay, you agree there is such
spen t fuel out there?
Yes.
Okay.
Wi th respect to that spent fuel
that I S not
described in a delivery commitment
schedule that has been submitted to the Department of
Energy and approved by the Department of Energy, do
you know whether or not DOE is obligated under the
standard contract to accept that spent fuel for
disposal at some point in time?
The question does
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 840-13
Washington , D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 14 of 25
May 23 , 2002
Page 154
1 , not involve a time frame of when they are obligated
to accept it, just whether they are obligated to
accept it?
MR. CRAWFORD
Objection to the
foundation; objection to the extent it calls for a
legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS:
I m going to try to ask a
clarification.
BY MR. STOUCK
Sure.
Are you saying -- let me try this Are you saying, if there is an approved DCS,
irrespective of anything else, do we have an
obligation, does the department have an obligation to
accept that fuel?
Is that what you
again.
I re asking
me?
Actually the question I just asked was
about all of the fuel that' s not described and
approved.
Okay.
The fuel that I s not
described in an
approved DCS, do you have an obligation under the
contract as DOE to accept that spent fuel for
di sposa1 ?
MR . CRAWFORD:
Same obj ections .
I really don
I t
THE WITNESS:
know becau
::,J
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
11 I 1 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
Washington , D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 15 of 25
May 23, 2002
~at I S a si tuation that we never looked at.
Page 155
You
know, the expectation is that both sides would
complete the contractual requirements for both the
delivery commitment schedules and then final delivery
schedules, you know,
I don
as we did the dance to the waste
acceptance -- you know, to actual waste acceptance.
I t recall
ever addressing the question of what
happens if,
you know, a utility did not do
that.
the answer is I don
I t know.
BY MR. STOUCK
So would it be fair based on that answer
to say that, during your tenure at RW, when you had
responsibi1i ty for these waste acceptance matters
which as we
I ve said or I have said many times I think
is from 1985 to March of ' 95, during that time you
did not have any understanding one way or the other
about whether or not DOE was obligated under the
standard contract to accept spent fuel that was not
described in an approved delivery commitment
schedule; is that right?
I thought you said you
never thought about it.
Yeah.
As I recall my assumption was that
both sides would do
no t
it.
What happens if somebody did
I t
do it?
I don '
t -- I don
believe we ever really
had that discussion.
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 840-13
Washington , D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 16 of 25
May 23, 2002
Page 165
And then I'
m going to follow that up with a question
about what you knew at the
time.
I s a legal
Well, today,
I mean to me that
call, you know, in light of the court decision
you know, occurred after my responsibilities.
which,
that I S a legal
clear record.
question.
At the time --
Let me ask the question just so we have a At the time you were working on waste
95, did you
acceptance matters at RW from ' 85 to '
have an understanding with respect to the spent fuel
that is described in an approved delivery commitment
schedule whether or not DOE had a binding obligation
to accept that spent fuel pursuant to the standard
contracts?
MR . CRAWFORD :
Obj ection to the extent it
calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS:
First of all at the time I
and I believe the department viewed the obligation as
a conditional obligation.
del i very
commi tmen t
Now, putting that
The final
aside,
the contract required other steps.
fuel was often not
schedule, because the specific described, you know, in the
tmen t
approved del i very commi
under the instructions.
schedules which was
fine
So, with those two
caveats, no,
if we
III I 14th Street, N. W.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
---"
\...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
Washington, D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 17 of 25
May 23, 2002
:agel66
didn'
t have a facility, with respect to the firs
caveat; with respect to the second, what would happen
if they had an approved DCS but took no action to
submit an FDS, we never really addressed
that, I
never really addressed
that.
know, whether
You know, every stage -- you
it was the APR or the DCSs, I know in correspondence
we urged -- we told the utili ties this was consistent
with the contract, but we never said -- well, we
never did the what- if questions.
BY MR. STOUCK
So you didn I t have
the DCS, but you don
any understanding one
way or the other about my question which is you have
I t have
anything subsequent, you
just never thought about it, never focused on it; is
that fair?
MR. CRAWFORD :
Same
obj ections .
my first
THE WITNESS:
did not think we had a
binding
obligation with
respect
caveat
which is because the commencement of facility
operations.
We never really addressed the second
caveat situation, where we had that and it
BY MR. STOUCK
stopped.
You never formed that understanding?
No.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. I I 11 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
Washington , D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 18 of 25
May 23, 2002
Page 167
You agree with my statement, never
an unders tanding?
Yes.
And you expected that utilities, you
expected them in the course of the processes
discussed in the standard contract, that at some
point in time utilities would submit final delivery
schedules, that'
s the way you thought about it?
I had every reason to expect that
utilities, you know, participated, if you will, in
both the ACR, in the development of the APR, and in responding to our instructions on the DCS.
Okay.
So you did expect that there would
be FDSs for all spent fuel described in a DCS?
I did.
And do you know whether it would be
possible for DOE to accept spent fuel from a utility
if that utility had submitted a DCS to DOE, proper
DCS, completely filled out, but had not submitted an
FDS?
And, just to amplify my question, is there
enough information specified in the DCS to allow DOE
to accept spent fuel for disposal even if DOE does
not subsequently get the additional information
specified in the FDS?
MR . CRAWFORD:
Objection, compound, vague,
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
.-'"
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
Washington , D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 19 of 25
May 23, 2002
Page 214
Okay.
Were there ever similar or
comparable instructions given to the purchasers regarding completion of final delivery schedules?
There were not.
Why is that? At least through March of ' 95, we were
just in the DCS process, in the very -- I mean in the
very early stages of addressing FDS
issues.
Do you know whether subsequent to your
leaving FDS instructions were finalized and given to
the purchasers?
MR. CRAWFORD:
Objection, calls for
speculation.
THE WITNESS:
To the best of my knowledge,
they were not.
BY MR. STOUCK
17
Okay.
Now, on page 27 C of these
instructions please, Exhibit 34, take a look at that
for a moment.
Yes.
Okay.
It says in the second sentence the process
described herein assumes --
well, strike that.
up to 7A and take a look
Let I S go actually
at 7A for a minute.
last sentence.
I ve got a question about the
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005
---..
"---...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
Washington , D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 20 of 25
May 23, 2002
Page 215
Okay.
In this last sentence, quote, due to the
1imi ted annual acceptance
Yes.
capacity of the FWMS,"
federal waste management system that stands for?
Continuing on,
reading, only DCSs
submitted by purchasers with an allocation in the
delivery year will be considered for
approval,
parentheses, e. g., in order for a purchaser to have a
DCS considered for approval for delivery in
1998, the
purchaser must have an allocation in
1998, correct?
Yes.
Okay.
Must have an allocation as shown in
the ACR, APR, current at the time of submittal of a
delivery commitment schedule, is that what this
means?
In the APR, yes.
Well, in one of those
documents, yes.
Right.
at the time?
Okay.
Whichever one was current
Yes.
Okay.
And so here, in C now, it
says, in
the second sentence, the process described herein
assumes that the FWMS will be able to accept the
purchasers' SNF beginning in 1998 according to the
Alderson Reporting Company. Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington. DC 20005
.--....
\..
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
Washington, D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 21 of 25
May 23, 2002
acc~tance rate reflected in the 1991 ~R
A. Yes.
, ri~t?
Page 216
Okay.
Next sentence, in the event that
such circumstances change,
the purchasers.
I do.
all DCSs previously
approved by DOE may need to be reeval ua ted by DOE and
Do you see that?
Those circumstances have changed, right?
Yes.
Okay.
In other words, DOE did not -- was
not able to or in any event did not begin accepting
purchasers' SNF beginning in 1998, right?
Yes.
And it follows that then that DOE did not begin accepting fuel in 1998 according to the
acceptance rate reflected in the ' 91 ACR, right?
Yes.
Okay.
So, in light of those changed
circumstances, do you have an opinion whether DCSs
previously approved by DOE need to be reevaluated by
DOE and the purchasers?
This sentence says may.
asking you whether in your view they need to be?
MR. CRAWFORD:
Objection to the extent it
calls for a legal conclusion; objection, asked and
25 answered.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
IIII 14th
Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005
..,-
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
Washington , D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 22 of 25
May 23, 2002
Page 217
THE WITNESS:
I would think both sides
BY MR. STOUCK
I would think that we would, would want to do that.
Okay.
We I re
Why would you think that?
going to jump from the time period
we I re talking about to today, for example?
Let I S not
do thi s year by year.
Let I S talk
about the
utili ties.
If the utilities had submitted and gotten
approved DCSs, and let
I s say they were very specific
about the fuel that they wanted to
deliver. Their
And it seems to
situation and views on what they want to deliver to
us could have substantially
changed.
me that that should give you -- we should in my
opinion give the utilities another opportunity to
review and see if that
I s same
fuel.
And I especially feel that way because the department has not, you
know, procured casks.
example.
I may
feel differently if casks had been purchased based on
that information as an
Okay.
As an example would you agree with
the categorization that that would be a kind of
updating of the DCS information to deal with current
circumstances?
MR. CRAWFORD:
IIiI...
Objection, vague.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
11 I 1 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
Washington, D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 23 of 25
May 23, 2002
Page 218
THE WITNESS:
I think both sides --
MR. CRAWFORD:
for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS:
And to the extent it calls
I think both sides should
have the opportunity to update that
BY MR. STOUCK
information.
And you gave me an example of a reason why
utilities should be given the opportunity?
Right.
Can you give an example of reasons why DOE
should be given the opportunity to update that
information to deal with current circumstances?
The department may have better information
on the rate or the timing, both of which I would
think would influence utilities I decisions.
Right.
excuse me, the ' 91
Well, you recall that the
' 91 --
ACR -- do you recall the rate in
the ' 91
ACR?
No.
This has been previously marked as Exhibit
30.
It'
s the
' 91 annual capacity report.
I have a
copy for you and your
counsel.
You know where to
look for the rate, right?
Yes.
Page 5.
This was the so-called or I I 11
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 840-13
Washington , D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 24 of 25
May 23, 2002
Page 219
1 ~a11
rate
it 400
600
900
and then 900 steady state
right?
Right.
And so that is not the acceptance rate
that is specified in DOE I S current planning
documents; is that correct?
MR. CRAWFORD
Obj
ection
vague.
THE WITNESS:
BY MR. STOUCK
I believe you re accurate.
Okay.
The current planning documents for
the program indicate an acceptance rate that ramps up
to a steady state of 3 000
tons per MTU per year?
MR . CRAWFORD:
Obj ection.
I don
THE WITNESS:
rampup rate is
I t recall
what the
but the steady state I believe is
000.
BY MR. STOUCK
Okay.
your testimony earlier today
And so presumably
according to
those current planning
documents are DOE I S current best estimate of what the
acceptance rate will be when the program actually
tarts
correct?
MR. CRAWFORD:
Objection, vague; and
obj ection to the extent it mischaracterizes prior
25
(estimOny.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
11 I 1 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Document 840-13
Washington. D.
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 25 of 25
May 23, 2002
Page 220
THE WITNESS:
BY MR. STOUCK
I believe that I s accurate.
proj ected
Okay.
And so that change in
acceptance rates, is that another reason why in the
language -- why in your view, in the language of
paragraph 7C of the instructions, Exhibit 34, all
DCSs previously approved by DOE need to be
reeva1 ua ted?
MR. CRAWFORD:
Obj ection to the
foundation; objection, asked and answered;
objection,
vague.
THE WITNESS:
So I agree.
BY MR. STOUCK
I use that as an example.
Okay.
as an example?
You used the acceptance rate change
Yes.
We have now got it in more detailed form
on the record.
That' s fine.
Do you expect that others in RW would
share your views about this need to reevaluate
previously approved DCSs in light of changed
circumstances as the instructions contemplate?
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