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