Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

, ...

., ,. '

'-

.. .

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
, e

Document 791-8

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 1 of 16

. IN 'tHE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Plaintiff,
No. 98- 126C

(Senior Judge Merow)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

IVAN F. STUART EXPERT WITNESS REPORT
This report addresses matters relevant to the contract entered into by Yankee Atomic
Electric Company (" Yankee Atomic
) with the

government for the acceptance of spent nuclear
This contract is one of

fuel and high-level radioactive waste (together "spent fuel").
approximately 50

such contracts with essentially the same tenns between the government and

commercial nuclear utilities. The form of each such contract is sometimes referred to as a
Standard Contract. I am aware that the Court has held that the government breached Yankee
Atomic s contract by not beginning to accept spent fuel from Yankee Atomic by January 31,
1998.

Neither the terms of Yankee Atomic s contract nor those of the Standard Contracts
speCify either the pace at which the Department offfnergy ("DOE") should accept spent fuel

from the contracting parties or the schedule on which DOE was required to accept spent fuel'

from Yankee Atomic after the government commenced acceptance. John W. Bartlett has
submitted an expert report in this matter addressing the pace and schedule on which the
government , sn.oiildhavffbeen accepting , spent fuellT.oniY.aiikee. A1oniic - ana other contracting.

0093

'- ~, ' ...

..-, '' ..

. Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-8 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 2 of 16
utilities after JanumY 31, 1998 pursuant to the parties ' contract. In his report;
Dr~ Bartlett

l'-

concludes that if the government had fulfilled its contractual obligations, it would have accepted

spent fuel from contract holders at the rate of3000 MTU per year and would have facilitated

swaps of acceptance allocations amongst contracting utilities. I have been asked to present my
opinions on the ability of DOE to implement a spent fuel acceptance schedule with a reasonable

ramp up to 3000 MTU and that would accommodate swaps of acceptance allocations amongst

contracting utilities. This report presents those opinions and the bases therefor, together with the
other information called for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).

Opinions to be Expressed and the Bases Therefor I offer the following points as the opinions to which I expect to testify at the trial of this

matter. I present my reasoning for reaching my conclusions along with the conclusions
themselves. My opinions are based on my over 35 years of experience in the field of spent fuel
management, particularly in the area of spent fuel transportation and storage. My opinions are

also based on my review of relevant documents.
My principal opinions are as follows:

The acceptance of3 000 MTU per year by DOE with a reasonable ramp up beginning in
1998 would have been readily achievable if appropnate planning and prepar~tions had started
sufficiently in advance of the January 31 , 1998 deadline set by the Yankee Atomic contract and

the Standard Contract. Sufficient advance work was clearly possible iIi view o(the large body of
experience in the transportation of spent fuel gathered by and/or available to DOE prior and

subsequent to 1983. Adequate planning and preparations would have ensured the availability of

0094

,=,.. ~ ' "',-

".

-,
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-8

..
Page 3 of 16

'.'.

,. --- ......

Filed 04/16/2004

,t,

i:-

a,sufticient number of casks to transport the spent fuel, aswell as the availability ofan efficient
transportation net\yor~ This network could have been used for the acceptance of spent fuel in

campaigns" (defined below), and w~uld have been flexible enough to accommodate exchanges

of acceptance allocations amongst contracting utilities. There are no site specific conditions that
' would have prevented DOE from utilizing acceptance campaigns to

transport spent fuelftom

Yankee Atomic. In sum, the spent fuel acceptance schedule contemplated by Dr. Bartlett in his
report is technically and logistically reasonable.
DOE' s experience in transporting spent fuel

Over the course of many years , starting long before the Standard Contracts were
formulated , a great deal of experience in the transportation of spent fuel was developed. This

experience was developed by and/or available to DOE, and could have easily been drawn upon
and expanded upon to enable the development of a national program that by January 31 , 1998

would have begun the systematic transport of spent fuel from reactor sites to one or more
storage/disposal locations in the United States.
Commercial nuclear power has been used for many years in the United States, and

throughout this long history of use significant quantities of spent fuel have been shipped from

reactor sites to co~ercial

and

g~vemment facilities. These shipments have been for various
fuel examination; and

purposes , including: testing storage technologies; P9St-i~diation

reprocessing. Exhibit 1 to this report lists some of the spent fuel shipments that have been

conducted for the government and for nuclear utilities. Altogether, since the early 1960'
enough commercial spent fuel has been shipped by road and rail in the United States to fill (or

0095

. .~.,..' -, ~,-.. . y ,.

, . . ...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-8

.. ..

,,

,..
Page 4 of 16

" ..,

. .. . ~

Filed 04/16/2004

i~;;~::)
i,

empty) the cores o f twenty commercial nuclear reactors.
There is also -~ substantial body of exp~ence in transporting spent fuel in foreign
countries. Outside the United States,

spent fuel shipments are more coInI1lonplace than they n:e

domestically. Most of these shipments are made tram reactor sites to spent fuel reprocessing
." . centers in Britain, France, Japan and Russia. Through 1998, more than 100

000 MTUof spent

fuel has been shipped by road, rail and sea outside the United States. This is greater than the

total amount of spent fuel projected to be discharged frOnT
the course of their licensed lives.

all

domestic commercial reactors over

Thus, had the government started to commence acceptance of spent fuel by January 31,
1998 , there was a wealth of experience that DOE could have drawn and expanded upon prior to

1998 in order to have a suitable spent fuel transportation plan ready for impl~mentation by
January 31 ,

1998.

The availability of casks to transport spent fuel
There were spent fuel transportation casks available well before 1998 to support the

acceptance of3000 MTU per year with a reasonable ramp up beginning by January 31, 1998. In
fact, as early as the 1970s , at least two types of casks were ayailable for, and used in, the

transportation of spent fuel by rail. One ofthose
today. In 1995 ,

casks ,

the General ElectricIF-300, is still in use

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") licensed a cask for the dual
can

. purposes of storage and transportation of spent fuel. Thatcask, the NAC- STC,

accommodate 26 pressurized water reactor assemblies , including the assemblies used at Yankee

Atomic.

0096

, " ..,

.. ,. '

",

'..

, "

., ."

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

." ~ -

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-8

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 5 of 16

If existing casks were determined to be insufficient, DOE could have readily developed a
tIan$portation cask in ,time to commence the performance of its contractual obligationS in 1998. ,

For example, Nuclear Assurance COlporation ("NAC") was able to obtain an NRC license for the

NAC-STC within five years of the time NAG started work on that cask. This amount of time
:' reflected extra licensing time required because the NAC- STC was the first dual-purpose cask to'

be licensed by the NRC.
DOE would not have needed to obtain a large fleet 'Of casks to establish a receipt rate of

3000 MTU per year. The following example illustrates this point:
Using the mass of a standard fuel assembly as a reference, the

NAC- STC' s capacity is equivalent to about 10 MTU.t Therefore
300 cask trips per year would be required to establish an
acceptance rate of 3 000 MTU. To make a complete cycle with a

cask between utilities on the East Coast and an acceptance facility ,
in Nevada, for example , would require about a one-month

turnaround time. Given a one-month turnaround time , and
allowing for two months per year of down time for maintenance,

one cask could transport 100 MTU per year. Thus , in this scenario.
as few as 30 casks would have been required to meet the 3000
, MTU acceptance rate.

0097
i-

The Westinghouse 17 x 17 fuel assembly is considered to be a standard fuel assembly.

,..".,., .' ." .'. ~ ' ..

- ,

"", , ,

."

"'

, .. ..

.......

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-8

Filed 04/16/2004

, o. .

Page 6 of 16

Of course, the government could have procured a greater number of casks than called for in the

example above, which would have made it even easier to meet the 3000 MTU acceptance rate.
. Regardless of the particular cask model selected, DOE could easily ha\'e designed , built,
and licensed the requisite number of casks if it had started this process in the early 1990's.

In the,

example given above, it would have taken approximately 24 months to fabricate the necessary

number ofNAC- STC casks. Each cask would 4ave cost between $2 and $2.5

million dol1ars;

thus , thirty or more NAC- STC casks could have been purchased with a smal1 portion of the Nuclear Waste Fund. , Had DOE initiated this process early enough, DOE could have procured a

large enough fleet of suitable casks to be available on January 31, 1998, to accept 3000MTU
with a reasonable ramp up and in an efficient sequence.

Moreover, the " non-standard" fuel, faile4 fuel , and Greater Than Class C (" GTCC"
waste generated by the contracting nuclear utilities would not have been a barrier to DOE'

acceptance of spent fuel in a timely manner. With sufficient advanced planning, DOE could also
have developed a ~ask or casks for non-standard fuel , failed fuel , and GTCC waste, obtained the

necessary license from the NRC , and procured enough such casks in time to accept these
materials from Yankee Atomic in a timely manner. The use of shipping campaigns
DOE' s transportation performance in fulfillment of its obligation~ under the Yankee

Atomic contract and the Standard Contracts should have included acceptance campaigns.

Acceptance campaigns are the movement of a relatively large amount of spent fuel from one
location to another using personnel and equipment in a repetifive maimer. Shipmeuts of spent

0098

'"--",. ." ,. ";:' ~,

,

. '

, .. . . - ., '.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-8 Filed 04/16/2004

, ..

, .., ... ,

, '-- - -,

.. '

Page 7 of 16

fuel should be conducted. in campaigns in order to achieve efficient operations, and the

government should harve done so in this case.

There are several advantages to shipping camp~jgns versus moving only a small number

of assemblies at a time. Perhaps the biggest advantage is that efficiencies in transportation
" operations can be realized ~

Repetitive operations such as cask handling, loading,

.. decontamination, receipt and turnaround all see reduced time per cycle in a campaign.

The value of shipping campaigns is evidenced by the fact that DOE has encouraged the use of campaigns in the spent fuel transportation services for which it has contracted. In the
, I

1980' , DOE contracted with NAC to move spent fuel from Taiwan to the United States. This

project included shipping campaign sizes of up to 11 casks. Additionally, acampaignsize of8
casks has been used in the past -- and continues to be used -- byNAC in the government'

ongoing program to return spent nuclear fuel from research reactors in foreign countries. NAC is
transporting the research reactor fuel pursuantto a contract with the government. In both of

these cases, NAC was encouraged by the government to use shipping campaigns to provide for
the efficient transportation of the spent fuel at issue.
Sufficient transportation resources were available to , or could have been obtained by,

DOE prior to 1998 to implement the type of acceptance campaigns called for to efficiently accept

.. 3000 MTU per year. Returning again to the example cited earlier:
30 NAC- STC casks making 300 cask trips would have been

required to transport 3 000 MTU per year, If each shipment

consisted of 5 casks , and shipments to the acceptance facility were
, 7

0099

,..", .

, . , -

. , . ...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-8

- .., " ,

' "

"'" " ..

" "

. .' . . .. ;"'

..' """--

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 8 of 16

to

be conducted by rail, 60 rail shipments would have been

involv~ or about 1 shipment per week.
Based on my experience supervising the transport

of spent fuel from reactor sites and my

knowledge

of

the transport and receipt

of

other heavy equipment, I believe that adeq~ate heavy-

haulvehicles and mobile cranes were available, or could readily have been made available
DOE prior to 1998 to support thisJevel of

spent fuel transport from reactor sites~
of

This level

of

spent fuel transport would represent a-very small fraction

the current rail

system capacity. Union Pacific Railroad alone owns more than 6 900 locomotives in the United
States. I estimate that a spent fuel shipment of5

casks carrying approximately 50MTU

of

spent

.-C)

fuel as defined above would require

two

locomotives. Therefore ,

1 spent fuel shipment on rail

each week would constitute a fraction

of

one percent

of

Union Pacific Railroad' s locomotives.

It should be noted that although the example I have provided features rail transportation
of

spent fuel ,

my conclusions regarding the technical feasibility ofshipping

3000

MTU per year

would not change

if

truck transportation was included in the

DOE

transportation system. Based
of

on the experience I have cited above, I believe that a sufficient number
transporters could readily have been made available to DOE prior to

truck casks and
3000

1998 to support a

MTU acceptance schedule

if

a mix of rail and truck transport was used for the DOE

transportation system.

0100

provided simply for illustrative pwposes.

course , numerous rail lines in the United States that could be used for spent fuel shipments alone or in combination with other rail lines. The example of Union Pacific is
There are
of

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

..
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

.'

, " , .. '" "

' ," , . .',

"., ..

-. .......

Document 791-8

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 9 of 16 0.
, , . 0 ..

The ability to accommodate swaps of acceptance allocations
There would b.e no technical barriers to swaps of acceptance allocations amongst

contracting utilities ~der the transportation progranl described above. The level
transportation resources necessary to establish the 3000 MTU per year acceptance schedule is

" largely independent of the sequence in which spent fuel is to be accepted from the contract
holders. Moreover; there could be eIiough

flexibility in the program- in terms of the number of
to

. casks, the availability of heavy-haul equipment to handle casks, and rail system capacity accommodate changes in the sequence of spent fuel removal.
Site Specific Conditions for Y

~ee Atomic

Based upon my experience in various aspects of the transportation of spent fuel, it is my

opinion that DOE would have faced no significant logistical impediments to accepting all of the

spent fuel contained in Yankee Atomic s spent fuel pool within one year from the

commencement of acceptance. After the requisite license ~as obtained from theNRC, shipment
would likely begin with heavy-haul vehicle shipment from the reactor site to the nearest rail
access point at the Hoosac tunnel about 7 miles from the site. At this point the casks would be

transferred to rail cars. The list of rail routes that could be used to move the train to Nevada, for
example, is provided in Exhibit 2. Other potential destinations can be reached by a similar array
of rail routes.

0101
9.

",..

, '

-,
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

, ' ..

' ",

'" .

, ',

-,.... "

'------.-, . ....
. ~

Document 791-8

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 10 of 16

ata or Information Considered in Formi

inions

Data and o~et: information I considered informing my opinions is listed in EXhibit 3 to
this report.

In.

Qualifications

My qualifications to offer the opinions included in this report, including a list of all
publications I have authored within the preceding ten years, are set out in herein and in EXhibit 4
, to this report.

IV.

Compensation

NAC is being paid $250 per hour for my time working on this matter.

0102

"' ' '
. '

'" "

..,..,--._,-, ,, ' - - .,-...

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-8

Filed 04/16/2004
oo "

Page 11 of 16

coo

Other

E~rt

Testimony
testified as an

have 'not

expert at trial or by deposition in any other cases within the

. preceding four years.

1';
Dated: June 30, 1999
Ivan F. Stuart

'If

0103

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-8

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 12 of 16

0104

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

....

.' '.""..' ~:!

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-8

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 13 of 16

r.
NAC Historical Spent Fuel Shipments Through April 1999

Shipments by Truck

Number of
0 rigiq
PhDadelphla Electric Peach Bottom 2

Destination
INEL
GE- V allecitos .

Assemblies

Shipment Date'
1977

Number of Shipments

PublicServie Electric & Gas
Hope Creek RoChester Gas and Electric
R.E. GiDna
~E. Ginna RE. Ginna

5 rods

1993
1973 1974 , 1976 1985 1986

NFS NFS NFS'

NFS NFS South Carolina Electric & Gas
C. Summer

RE. Ginna
RE. Ginna

AECL-Chalk River
AECL-Chalk' River

6 rods .

c. Sumnier

1990 1995
1976 1977 1978 1980

f

' jthem California Edison
Onofte 1

.l Onofte 1

SanOnofte 1,
San Onofte 1

MSF MSF MSF MSF
AECL- ChalkRiver
Battelle Co.
6 rods

Union Electric Callaway Virginia Electric Power Co.

1991

Suny
WISconsin Electric Power Co. Point Beach 1
Point Beach 1

1983

Point Beach 2 Point Beach 1 Point Beach 2 Point Beach 2 Point Beach 2 Point Beach 2 Point Beach 1

NFS MSF MSF MSF Battelle Co. MSF MSF* MSF
PNL **

1 + 16 rods 1 + 16 rods

1974 1975 1975 1975 1976 1976 1976 1977 1978

~First shipped to Battelle Columbus Laboratories , then to EMAD.

rst shipped to NPS, then to PNL.

0105

.".

,.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-8 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 14 of 16

NAC

Hi~torical

Spent Fuel Shipments Through

April 1999

shipments by Truck

Number of

Origia
WISconsin Electric Power Co.

. Destination

Assemblies

Date
1983 1983 1984

Shipment Number
Shipments .

MSF NFS NFS

MSF

Point BCach l'

Point Beach 1 Point Beach 1 Point Beach 1 Point Beach 1 PNL

101

101

1984.
1985

0106

. ,.

-

.'
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

,,"
Document 791-8

'. . , . - .,
. -

,.
Page 15 of 16

- , ",

.,.,..

. . ., :..

Filed 04/16/2004

0.

. 0

NAC Historical Spent Fuel ShipmentS Through April 1999

Shipments by Truck

Number of
Destination
B&W-Lynchburg AEeL-Chalk River
Battelle Co. , Calvert Cliffs

Origia .
Arkansas Power and Light
.ANO I

AssembUes

Shipment Date
1987 1990
1981

Number,

ShIPmentS

ANOI
Baltimore Guand Electric CalveItCliffs
:Battelle Co.

6 rods 7 rods
rodst , *

rodst, *19841N
LI-l/2 Calvert Cliffs PNL rods t, *1985 INLI- 1I2 Calvert Cliffs AECL-Chalk River 6 rods 1990 INLI.. 1I2 Carolina

INEL

Power and Light

bwick2
Ibinson 2

Battelle Co.

Robinson 2 8 rods*
10 rods

AECLt
NFS NFS Battelle Co. INEL Battelle Co.
Zion 1

1981 1986

Commonwealth Edison
Dresden 1 Dresden 1

120

DreSden 2
Dresden 1
Zion 1

Battelle Co.
Zion 1

1 + rods

Battelle Co.
Zion 1

, Battelle Co.

NFS
Quad Cities

Dresden 2/3

Byron Dresden 2
Quad Cities

B&W-Lynchburg AECL- Chalk River

1973 1974 1976 1978 1982 1983 1983 1984 1985 1986
1991 1992 1993

B&WLynchburg
GE- V allecitos

5 rods 6 rods 6 rods

ABCL = Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. B&WLynchburg = Babcock & Wilcox , Lynchburg, VA Battelle Co. == Battelle , Columbus , OR E= Combustion Engineering Nevada Test Site Vallecitos = General Electric, California Research Facility ... ~L = Idaho National Engineering Laboratory MSF = General Electric-Midwest Storage Facility, Morris , IL NFS':: ~t1clear- FueIServices , West VaUey, , PNL ::' Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories

* Shipment of rods not equal to an assembly
Un1moWn number of rods shipped

t First shipped to INEL then to AECL

0107

...~~, ' ,. , . ;:' ,

.~,

) ., ",

'.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-8

.."

, .

" .,
Page 16 of 16

--.'

Filed 04/16/2004

NAC Historical Spent Fuel Shipments Through April 1999
SbipmeDts by Truck

Number of
Destination
B&W-Lynchburg AECL-Chalk River
Battelle Co. Calvert Cliffs
AssembUes

Origin"
ArkanSas Power and Light

Date
1987 1990
1931

Shipment

Numberof
Shipments

ANOI ANOI
~al~ore Gas and Electric

6 rods 7 rods

~Ue (A

Calven Cliffs

rodst,. *19841N
rodst,
LI- i/2 Calvert Cliffs PNL rods t, *1985

INEL'

lNLI- 1l2 Calvert Cliffs ABCL-Chalk .
River 6 rods 1990 INLI- 1I2 Carolina

Power and Light
. ,e

msWick 2 - jbinson 2

Battelle Co.

Robinson 2 8 rods*
10 rods

AECLt
, NFS NFS Battelle Co. INEL Battelle Co.
Zion 1

1981 1986

Common\vealth ' Edison
Dresden 1 Dresden 1

120

Dresden 2 Dresden 1
Zion 1

Battelle Co.
Zion 1

1 + rods

Battelle Co.
Zion 1

Battelle Co. NFS
Quad Cities

Dresden 213

Byron
Dresden 2
Quad Cities

B&W-Lynchburg AECL- Chalk River B&W Lynchburg
GE- Vallecitos

1973 1974 1976 1978 1982 1983 1983 1984 1985 1986
1991 '1992

5 rods 6 rods 6 rods

1993

AECL = Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. B&W Lynchburg = Babcock & Wilcox , Lynchburg, VA Battelle Co. = Battelle, Columbus , OH
C~~= Combustion Engineering

* Shipment of rods not equal to an aSsembly t Unknown number of rods shipped t First shipped to INEL then to ABCL

Nevada Test Site, ..../ Vallecitos = General Electric, California Research Facility
;)D =
.a.. . .dL

= Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

MSF = General Electric-Midwest Storage Facility, Morris, IL NFS' = Nuclear Fuel-Services West V1ilt -NY PNL = Battelle, Pacific Northwest Liiboratories

0108