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

---"

---.
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