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

: )

. ..Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-6 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 1 of 17

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE REDACTED VERSION

APPENDIX A: . DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED

The Brattle Group

0061

~-;\ ":" , )

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 2 of 17

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE REDACTED VERSION
ExPERT REPORTS ,AND DIscussioNS

, Expert Report of Kenneth T. Wise, (1999).
, " :ExpCrt R~port'ofChristopher C. Barry of Price waterhouse Coopers (1999).

Expert Report ofF-rank C, Graves titled "Frank C, Graves Expert Witness Report" (1999).
Discussions with Yankee Atomic personnel. ,

DocuMENTS PROVIDED THROUGH DI$COy:ERY ,

, Yankee Atomic Budget EstlIDates (2003),
, Y imkee At9IDic Evaluation of Costs for Wet Fuel Storage, ISFSI Construction, and ISFSI Operations as

related to budget estimates (2003).
Yankee Atomic DecomiIDssioning Trust, Fee Analysis (2003).

X ankee Atomic supporting budget information for :rents arid leases , vehicles and tax audits (2003).

Yankee Atomic Budget Estimate (l999~.

, PuBllCLYAvAILABLEDoCUMENTS

The Wall Street Jownal (3/25(03)'

, U$. Treasury Bond Yield Curve (3/25/03)

Blue Chip Economic Indicators CONSENSUS Forecast (10/10/2002 3110/2003).

The Brattle Group

0062

. ..

..

. .

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 3 of 17

.- . I

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE REDACTED VERSION

APPENDIX B: RESUME OF KENNETH T. WISE

The Brattle Group

0063

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-6

Filed 04/16/2004
1;' "

",',",', , L

...

Page 4 of 17

KENNETH T. WISE

Principal

Dr. Kenneth yv~ has specialized in the application of econonllcs and statisticalt~hniques to analyze
complex issues in Connection with business and environmental litigation. He has developed expert ~yses
, of damages hi cOnneCti~n ~th toXic to~ breach of cOiltIact, and product liability matters. MUch of his

work has addressed da!ruigesor the allocation ofliabili~es aSsociated with envirOnmental problems. He has. ' presented economic~ statistical,' and financial testimony in state . and federal court, and before
, administrativ~,

law judges

~atory co~ions" arbitrators, and mediators. "

, Dr. Wise

bolds a B.S. inPhysics (~th~onors) ftomHarveyMudd eollegeand a Ph.D. in Econonllcs:ftom the Massachusetts Institute, of Technology.

TESTIMONY,
TeStimony on behalf of defendant ill United States of America v: illinois Power Company and Dynegy Midwest Generation, -Inc. United States District Court; Southern District of Illinois; No. 99-CV- 833-

, MJR: (Deposition tak;en.
Testimony on behalf of defendant in

Union Station Associates, LLC vs. Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

. United States

District Court; Western District of Washington; C01-O298P. (Deposition taken.

TestimOny on behalf of defendant in

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. , vs. Olin Corporation and Arch Chemicals, Inc. Civil ActionNo. A- 01-CA- 734- SS, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division (D~sition taken.
Testimony on behalf of defendant

inState of New Mexico, et al. vs. General Electric Company, et al'

, Case No. : CV 99-: 1118 BSJ/KBM,

Case No. : CV 99- 1254 BSJ/LFG in the District Court of N~w

Mexico. (Deposition taken.

Yankee Atomic EleCtric Company, Maine The United States, Case No. 98- 126C 98-474C , and 98- 154C in the United States Court ofFederalClaims. (Deposition taken.
Testimon,y on behalf of plaintiflS concerning darilages in

Yankee Atomic

Power Co. , qnd f:onnecticut Yankee Atomic P(Jwer Co~: v:

Testimony on

behalfofNew England Electric System as a 30(b)( 6) witness in

New England Electric

System, et al. v. Allianz Insurance Company, et aI. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court, Civil Action No; 99-O0467B.(Deposition taken.
Testimony on behalf of Union Pacific concerning alleged diminution of property values.

Gwendoly
District

Guillory, et al. v Union Pacific Corporation, et al. Court, No. 98- 5405. (Deposition taken.

State

of Louisiana, ParishofCalcasieu, 14th

The Brattle Group

0064

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

,'

, "

, "
"\

, '

, , ''

Document 791-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 5 of 17

KENNETH T~, WISE

'Principal

Testimony' on bebalf of Amoco Oil COIn.pany, Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc.; Chevron, UgAInc., Chevron USA Products ~mpatiy. BP ExploratiQn &00, Inc., ~tar Enterprise, and Shell Oil Products COmpany in Lynn, et al. v. Amoco Oil. (:ompany, etal. Civil Action No. 96- 940..N. ' (Deposition

taken.) "
GJSDGSD

Testiri1Ony on behalf

of Clark Refining & MaIketing concemmgilie
United States

economic
v.

benefit associated ~th
Marketing,

alleged non-compliance with Clean Air Act regulations. Inc.

Clark Refining

ill.

(Deposition taken.)
concerning alleged dimlliution of property values. MelodyBaker,

Testimony. on behalf of Motorola, ' Inc.

et al. v. Motorola, Inc. Superior Court, of the ' State of Arizona m and for the CountY of Maricopa, NQ. , , CV 92-02603. (Deposition taken.
TeStimony on ~haJi of Bay Metal, Inc. concerning allocation of remedial costs at the Metcoa
United States of America v.

radiation site:

Marvin P esses, et aT. United States District Court for theW estern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 90-0654. (Deposition taken.)
Testimony on behalf ofKochlndust:rieS, Inc. concerning the economic benefit associated with alleged nonUnited States of America a,nd The State of Texas , ~mpliance ,with Clean Water Act regulations. Koch Industries, Inc. : Koch Pipeline Co. , L.P. and Koch Gathering Systems, Inc. United States DistrictCourtfor~eNorthemDistrictofOklahoma, Civil Action No. 97CV687B(E). (Deposition taken.
TestimOliy on behalf of Koch Indusmes, Inc. concerning the economic benefit associated with alleged noncompliance with ,Clean Water Act regulati.ons. United States of America and The S,tclte of Texas

KochIndustries, Inc. , et al. United States District Court for the Southern Di~trlct of Texas Houston Division, Civil Action No. H 95- 1118. (Deposition taken.) ,
Testimony on behalf ofWCI Steel , Inc. concerinng the economic benefit associated With alleged noncompliance withRCRA regulations. v. WCI Steel, Inc. United States District United States of America Court for the Northem District of Ohio, No~ C.A. 4:98CVI082. (Deposition taken. Testimony on behalf ofNL Industries and Crown Cork & Seal concerning ' allocation issues at the Lipari Landfill site. United States of America andNew Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection RohmandHaasCompany, et al. v. John Cachinnate, et aI. United~tates District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage , Civil ActionNo. 85-4386 (lliR). (Deposition taken.

CityofNewburgh, New York, Electric Corporation United States District Court, Southem 'nistrict ofNew York, Index No. 95 CN. 3863 (CLB). (Deposition taken.
Testimony on behalf of the City of Newburgh concerning damage issues. v. Central Hudson Gas

- Testimony on
- compliance.

behalf of Borden Chemicals concerning the economic benefit associated with delayed Borden Chemicals Plastics Operating Limited Partnership v. Carol Browner as Administrator of. and the United States Environ"J-ental Protection Agency, United States District

The Brattle Group

0065

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 6 of 17

KENNETH T. WISE
Court, DistrictofLouisiana, Docket No. 944403~ consolidated

Principal
withCivilActionNo. 94-2592-

(Deposition taken.)

Testimony on behalf ofw CI Steel~ Inc. cOnceIning the ~ono~c benefit delayed compliance. $tt;ltes of Ame,rica vs. WCI Steel Inc. '-Case No.-4:95 CV 1442. ,(Deposition taken.

United

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
The Mis3PVlicatio~ of the BEN Model to Regulated Utilities, " Kenneth T. Wise, M. Generating Alexis Maniatis, and Marc Chupka. Environment Reporter March, 1
Property Impact Clainis," Kenneth T. ' Wise , Matthew A Barmack, and Paul Uu. " American Bar ASsociation, Section of Environment, Energy, and ResourCes, 8th SectionFatl Meeting, September 21 , 2000.
MoUlltams, and Molehills:
DecisionmUS. and Robert H. Fuhnnan. v. WCI Steel.Jnc.

In~

, 2002.

M~g

Departs From U.s. EPA' s ' BEN'Methodology. " KennethT. Wise
Litigation Strategy,

Environmental Compliance

February 2000.

A!J, Approach to Environmental' Civil
Alexis Maniatis. Environmental Compl~ance

Penalty Cases. Robert II. F1.ihnnan, Kenneth T. Wise, and M.
Litigation ~trategy,

January 1999.

Consideration of' Wrongful Profits' in Environmen tai Civil Penalty Cases;" Robert H. Fuhnnan, Kenn~th T. Wise, an~ M. Alexis Maniatis. Environment Reporter September 18 , 1998.

AllOcation of Orphan Shares in the Face of Economically Divisible Hann" K~eth T. Wise, M. Alexis Maniatis, and Gayle S. Koch. Chemical Waste Litigation Reporter May 1998

Economists, Orphans , and Superfund Allocation: Clearing Up the Controversy" Kenneth T. Wise, Alexis Maniatis , and Gayle S. ~och. Chemical Waste Litigation Reporter October 1997.
The Economic Benefit of Noncompliance: A Response" Robert II. Fuhnnan, M. Alexis Maniatis, and Toxics Law Reporter

, Kenneth T. Wise.

September 1997.
Public Utilities Fortnightly,

Insurance Recoveryfor Manufactured Plant Liabilities: Valuation, Optimization, and Settlement

Strategies

Gayle S. Koch, Kenneth T. Wise, and Philip Hanser.

April 1997.

Government Expands Economic Benefit Concept Using Flawed Theory in '
Kenneth T. Wise and M. Alexis Maniatis.

S.

v.

Dean Dairy'"

The Toxics Law Reporter February 1997.
Kenneth T. Wise

Allocating CERCLA Liabilities: The Applications and Limitations of Econollrics" M. Alexis Maniatis , and Gayle S. Koch. The Toxics Law Reporter January 1997.

The Brqttle Group

0066

.!~'"., ' "

" , '"

, "
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-6

',

"'

~,

,'

-'

,,

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 7 of 17

;KENNETH T. WISE

PrinCipal '

Breaking the Impasse: Structured Analysis to Mediate InsUrance Disputes" Kenneth T. Wise and' Gayle
, S. Koch.: Chapter in "Insurance

Coverage for E9-vironmental Claims" published by the Defense

, Insti~e in October 1995. ,
Correct E.stiJ1mtion of Stigma Damages: Avoiding the Pitfulls" Kenneth T. Wise imd-Sqsan j Gu1hrie. ' Mealey s Litigation RepQrts T~~c Property Damage

, September 1995:

.I;;~\ "c"

Tnre to Remodel: Challenging the .use omEN and ABEL in Environmental Litigation" Kenneth T. Wise Gayle S. Koch, ~d M. Alexis Maniatis. Hazardous Waste Strategi~ Update, fall 1995.

Estimating Natural ResoUrCe Damages with and without Contingent Val~on Kenneth T. Wise, Susan

Gutlirie; and Daniel L. McFadden. ,Presented at the 88th Managenient Association in June 1995:

Ann~ Meeting of the Air and Waste
Gayle S. Koch, M. Alexis Maniatis

The

~t Approach to EnVironmen

taJ' Compliance"

and Kenneth T. Wise.

Chemical Engineering,

FebrmlIY 1995.
Journal of Environmental Law

Paul R

Filling the GAAP: An Approach to Improve SEC DisclosUre of EnVironmental Liabilities" Kenneth T.
, Wise , M. Alexis Maniatis, Paul

Practice

September/October i 994
AmJnann, and Gayle S. Koch.

Controlling Costs and l;n1proving Performance: Strategic-Analysis ofLitigation Carlos Lapue~ Gayle S. Koch, Kenneth T. Wise, and Vincent Ga11ogly. .A CCA Docket Summer 1994.
The Enigma of Stigma: 1he CaSe of the Industrial Excess Landfill" Kenneth T~ Wise and Johannes P. Pfeifenberger. Analysis and Perspective, The Toxies Law Reporter May 1~94.

Evaluating Environmental Costs: Accounting for Uncertainties" Gayle , S. Koch, Paul R Annnann,' and Kenneth T. Wise. Chemical Waste Litigation Reporter Volwne 27 , Nwnber 3 , February 1994.

Estimating Conting~t Environmental Liabilities: An Approach to Achieve SEC Conipliance" Keimeth
, T. Wise, M. Alexis Maniatis,
Law

Reporter

December 1993.

Paul R AmJnann, and Gayle S. Koch. Analysis

and Perspective ,

The T

oxics

The

BrattleGroup

0067

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

' , ', '

'"

,, '" . , .

' "

,,

' :

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

. .-

,_. , ,

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM 4 .

Document 791-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 8 of 17
.- . -. A~"

IN TIlE UNITED STA1;ES COURT, OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

'YANKEE ATOMIC ELEC11UC COMPANY,

Plaintiff:
No. 98- 126

C, (Senior Judge Merow)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, .
Defendant. '

10HN W; BARTLETI EXPERT Wl-TNEsS REPORT
This report addresses plaintiff's contract with' the Department of Energy ("nOE"
for

the

, disposa1ofspentnucl~ fuel and
, ' , parties'

high-level

radioactive waste (tog~ther "spent

fuel"

). The'

contract is , one of approxi~ately 50 suchcontrac.ts with essentially the same terms

between the ~overnment and commercial nuclear u~ilities~ The basic contract Conn is frequently

referred toasa

Standard

Contract.

"I am aware that the Court has held that the government breached plaintiff's contract by ,

not beginning to dispose of plaintiff's sp~nt fu.eIbylanuary 31 , 1998. The contract does not
~pecify either the pace at which DOE would accept spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors

or the sequence in which DOE was supposed to be accepting plaintiff's spent fuel after DOE ,

commenced its acceptance of spent fuel not later ~an

January 31 ,

1998. I have been asked to

present my opinions , on what the proper pace and schedule should have and would have been had

the governmentnot breached its obligation to sfartaecepting spent fuel by Januaiy 31 , 1998. :
This report presents those opinions and my basis therefor togethe(withthe other information

'~loofor in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).

0068

.. - . " -' .... '
4.. Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-6 Filed 04/16/2004
U Page 9 .of 17

Opinions '~o be EXDressed a.ndthe B~isTherefor,

I offer the folJQwmg pOints as the opinions t9 which I ,expect to testifY at the trial of this

_er. ,I am outl~ In)' , reaso~ for reaching my conclUsions, ~ong ,with the ,conctusions '
themsel\;es~ In addition. ~y Qpi~orts' are based On my many years of eXp'erience in the field of,
spent fuel management (mclucUng three years as director of tJ,ie Office of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management"("OCRWMj in DOli) 8ndmyr~view of relevant documents.

My 'principle opinionsm:e : ~ (~ltows: '

(1) Had the government not breached its contract, it would have reasonablY tamped
up to the acceptanCe of 3,000 Me~c Tonnes

ofUrani~("MTU'jperyearof

spent fuel fro~ ~~~ct4tg utiii~es.

(2)

Had the govemme!lt not breached its, contract" it would have

followed a spent fuel'

, a~ptance sc~~ule: that would have taken advantage Qf swaps of acceptance ~lots ,
and acceptance campaigns.

Pace' ofSpent Fuel Acceptance
, The pace of spent fuela

~ce should be efficient ' In particular, the pace should

generally minimize the total cost to utilities ofstoriitg and di.sposi~g of spent fuel?

~s total

' activities under the Standard Contracts must be conducted in a safe manner. My opinions fully take this requirement into accOunt.

I The parties

, The govenunent has recently analyzed alteroati~e approa~hes to perfonning its , obligations under the Standard Contracts that focus on certain aspects of cost minimization that
are similar to thOS(f
presented in my report here. See Civilian Radioactive Waste Mt:magement

System Modular Design/Construction and Operation Options Report (December O~ , 1998) ("Operation Options Report"). The government' s report refers to the total cost to utilities as the "total societal costs. Id. at xii and 9- 14. Ai noted below, a complete list of documents I have considered is attached to this report.

Revision 02

0069

,)

- , " ,

",

.-'

."

. .. '

,,

" '. ,
- "

."" . , -~"

' ,

. ~-- .-._--...
. -.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 10 of 17

, cost can be diVided intotbree parts.

One isthepro~ coSt - the sum of the fees each
the goveCnment

contracting utiliiy

or win pay ~

for the ~ces

~ified in the ~tandard '
each contracting:

" Contracts. ,A second is ' at -rcactor.'~pent

fuel storage coSts

the sum of the 'costs

Utility baS or will incur storlitg 'sPent.fuet prior t? it being accepted by the govenunent. , A third is

loading costs - the sum o~ the ' ((Osts each contracting utility Will mcudoading spent fuel into .
:casks provided by the gOvernment PurSuant to the ~taildard ContraCts for tI:ansport to a ,

gove~eqt fac~ity.
The government should minimize these tofal;costs to utilities because the Standard

Contracts are "full cost recOvelj'" contracts. The full Cost recOvery structure of the "Standard

~ts e~ures that t4ecost' of providing the services. specified in the standard contract is not a
b~en for the government because the government may ~d lias paSsed all of ~ese costs onto
Contracting utilities. The fulleost
rec~very structure

,i\

of the Standard COntracts has, thus~

' provided the government with the flexibilitY to do whatever haS been necessary in order to

perfomi its contract obligations in an efficient, cost-effective manner so as to minimize the total

" Costs to utilities. DOE has long recOgruzed the desinibUity ofperfonniIig its contrac h.at
1 :'

See

Plaintiffs contract fourth

whereas paragraph and Art.

Mission Plan ,

defining "full cost recovery" at 423.

VIILA.4;seealso

1985

0070

,...'~....:

., ",, ,.'' " :.."
. , ' ', '

, ,

, ,"
g.,

'"

' " ,
' ("

.. . '

j;

' ," ...., .,

--.._..~ ,-.--, ,,::
,,'' -"' .'. ' :' , . ' .. - " '

,

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 11 of 17

obligations in a cost-effective mann~" DOE
uti1ities
at~reactor spent fuel
sto~e

has also r

~grrized the desii'abilittoffeducing

Co~.

, 1.

SufficienUo

A~t

"MUst-Move Fttel"

' CoriunerCiaI buclear reactors in the United States were ' designed to temporarily stQrC '

spent fuel "wet," in pools pending its 'removal from the plant site. In this aaangement, spent

fuel is stored under water

~t provides ~hielding so that the ,radiatio~i from the spent fuel ,does

not,hnp~tpoopl~

or~e en'Virqriment.' Spent fuel pOol~ are equipped Witti racks that hold the

spetit.ftieLGi~en apwcular rack~ement,any particular Pool can 'hold only asp~fied
amount of sPent fuel.: ' The operation of a $pcnt fuel pool requires utilities to bear' th~
maintenance, security, manage~ent and other ~sts
tabor, ' ,

of nu1ning the poo~~ " This co~ does no~ ,vary,

Significantlywitlitheamountofspenffuelinthe pool. Thestoragecapacityofa spentfu~lpoot ' '
~ be' increased to a limited extent. by "re-racking" the pool. In that process ad4i~0~1 ratb are
added to the spent fu~1 pool
or the existing racks are'replaced

with' ones having a more

~mp~ct,

See, e.

Mission Plan for

the

Ci,'ilian Radioactive Waste Management !,rogram~'

DOE/RW-OOO5 (DOE lune 1985) (" t985 Mission Plan ) ,at 6 ("Th~ program inust be conduct~" in, a cost-effective manner, with full cost recovery. ")and 15 The program must" be conducted in a finanCially. responsible, cost-effective manner and on the basis of fult cost recovery. Operations Options Report at 9 (explaining ' that the effectiveness of yarioUs operations optiQnS

were being studied by eight criteria: (1) the total amount of waste aCCepted, (2) the ~ouitt of ' waste stored in repository surface facilities , (3) the nwnbei of shutdown reactor sites with empty
pools, (4) the number of reactor sites where construction of new dry storage facilities Could be
,

avoided, (5) the nwnber of reactor site-years that spent fuel would poOls , (6) utility costs for post-shutdoWn ' storage anapool maintenance
cost and (8) societal
S See,

re~ at shutdown reactor
, (7) total sYstemlifecycle

costs.

1985 Mission Plan atl8; T~W~

Fuel Storage Requirements for NucleatUtilities

Management: Proceedings of the International Meeting at Las Vegas, Nevada,
12~
1990.

Wood (pacific Northwest Laboratory), Spent and OCRWM, 2 High Level Waste

AprifTopical8-

0071

, . " '

, ,

~..

. . .,.

..... ' .

- ...

. "

.-.

....

"""" ...- -,-, ' , -.-.. ~
Page 12 of 17

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-6

Filed 04/16/2004

design. RC-racking requires not' only ,the

purchase of the new

but ~o sigoificantlabor

involved in ih~.

~at1on ~~.~e new racks. fu addition, an oPerating nuclear reactor should
to aCco~~
all of tile spei1t fuel

have a spent ~elpOO,l With: suflicie~t unused ~acity

CuIrentli in..the reactor its~if:This
, J:'eSCrve ~

stom~e CapacitY

is frequently referred to as a ccfutl ~re'

Capacity. '

, Commercial nucl~ reactors can also store' spentnuclear'fuel in " dry" f~rin., Intbis:

:' ~gemen~ , s~nt fuel b m~~~iol.1l,the

s~nt futl pOolto containers which

are desi

to: ,

keep" iadi~ion froin ~e spent fuel from reaching the atmosphere.- These -containecs' are coStly to

purchase. 'In a4dition" the tnove~ent ofspent fuel.fromwet to dry storage is, e~pensive, as it
entailS ~u~stantiallabor costs. Once spent fuel is ,in dry- storage however,- the ongoing ~sts of
dJr 'Storage faci~ity
" , leSs
tJuui, those: ~f

foropetations, .maintenan~, labor,' s ~curitY ~d othe~ costs are slgni,flcantly ,

a spent fuel pool cO~taining a similar ,amount of sp~nt~el.
C6stof storing spent fuel-can rise precipitously in two eventS:

A utility' s

' (1)

if it is forced

to add to its at-reactor storage capacitY because its spent fuel pool fills up, and (2) if it is forced

to e,ctend at-reactor storage of spent fuel-after i~ reactor pennanently shuts down ,and all of the
spent fUel has' "

cooted" for a period of time. Thus, utilities have an economic inCentive to avoid

, ~sts ari~ing from ei~er of these types of events. Additions to at-reactor storage cap~~ities can
betnade through re-racking, the creation of a dry storage facility or additions to an existing dry

storage facility

all of ~ich
evC?nts can

entail significant cost 6 , 'fI;1e

amount of spent fuel ~at would

, ' trigger one oftbese

be thought of as " Must-Move" fuel in the sense that the spent fuel

6 A utility could theoretically also add to its at-reactor storage capacity by building

another spent fuel pool. The large cost for the constrnction of such a facility, bowever~ this from being an economiCally viable option. --

prevent

0072

.)",". ..' :)

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

.' g

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

- "-

. _.

..
' "

., --.- .,

.. -..

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 13 of 17

ust be moved in order to avoii

these sisDificant additional costs.

In the case of an

o~

~r, Must-Mov~ fue! w~uld

the ~~~:~f;spent fuel that would have to ~ moved from
;i-':

thC reactor site in order to a~oi4 ~e needtO-c;j~~ re';rack or create Ii dry storage facffiti
~ernlty th~ am~tint diS~1i8rg~ ftOln, th~

~cto~ core when the spent fuel pool is full. '

Spe~t fuel must "cooltt, in a ~nt fuel Pool for a period of time tdter it is discharged from

the reactor and before it can be moved ~tQ, il~ntahier' ~d storCd "dry." out of ~e spent fuel
po,oL 11te~fore, 'the spent fuel p~l,

~~'rated ~er the date of the last disclUu'g~

of

Spent '

~' ~el from t4~ reactor into the sPen~ f?el Wo.l ~d until that period ~f ti~e has elaps~~ ~
of

~e case

a shut down reactor~

~ntiltitatperio4luiS'

elapsed iloneofthe spent fuel in the spent-~eip i '

constitutes Must-:Movefu~t. Afterth~ r.~~~~, period of time has elapsed fro~Jhe date of the
~:1:f~:

. 18st disc~ge into

the spent ~eij)() ~l;'

iilt ~tm~, ~eactor s spent fuel constitutes Must-Mov~ mel

$ii1~ it woulq all have to be a~cep~d, b~:

~8~ ,

~n order to

avoid all of the, a~ditional ~sts of

storing'fue spent fuel-at the rC:8ctorsit~. ' Sin~ ~e S!andard Contracts call for spent fuel to

, ordinarily cool in a spent fuel pool for at least five years before being accepted

by

DOE ? all of

the spent fuel in a shut down reactor' s speriffuel pool becomes Must~Move fuel ~ve years after,

the cia~ when the last of that spent fuel is discharged from the reactor.
DOE' s spent fuel acceptance rate should accommodate as much of the utilities ' Must~

Move fuel as practicable give~ the fuU-perfonnance capacity of the system. ,After a (amp-up to a
full-performance level, an efficient spent fu~l acceptance rate should be relatively cOnstant so as

to make the fullest possible usepf

the spen~

fuel transportation and handling facilities developed

, to receive spent fuel. An acceptance rate that does not accommodate as much of the utilities
See, e.

Plaintiffs contract,

Appendix E, ,. 8.

0073

. , , ,

, "

:,

, , ,~~ ' ,"' '
.,
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-6 Filed 04/16/2004
of

,'

',

""";". . _._ ~ ':' ,

Page 14 of 17

Must-Move fuel as practicable would be inefficient in that it wouJdimpose avoicJable coSts for
, , the at-reactor 'sto~e

s~t fuel~n the" :!tilities that co~d
of

avoided' In addi.tion, the spent'

fuel acceptance rate should provide for the' acceptance
spent ~el
~ount of

more than the minimum amount

necessary to aCcept

all Must-~ov~ fuel anticipated ln CU1Tent

projections. Thi~ buffer

spent fUel acceptance is necessary to accommodate at least some 'unanticipate4

, inCreaseS in the need for spentfu,el ~ptanre withoutincreasiJ;lg-utilities' Spent fuelstotage

, CC?~ ~~~ DO~.

~lf~ long

the des ~bi1ity
'Of

C?~~lieving utiliti~ ~f ~t-

~~or ,

spent fuel storagepressures,particuiarly arouitd the time

the 1998 date for the cominencement '

ofgoveimnentacceptance.
The amounts and locati~ns ofMust~Mo:ve fuel can be p~jected
with reasonablecertainty~

Nuclear 'power plants discharge spent fuel at a fairly predictable rate. Since 1990, nu~lear power
plants have, in' tqe aggregate be~n discharging apPI:o~~atety 1 OOQ MTU per year. This" ,

~gregatearinua1' discharge rate is expected' to
decline ' as
culTcntly operating plants reach the end

contiD:ue fo ~

at least ' Ule next

fifteen years and then'
the cuiTent '

of

their licensed lives.'

In addition ,

See

1985 Mission Plan at 28.
1994

See, e. ; Spent Fuel Storage Requirements 1995) (" 1995 Spent Fuel Storage Report") at 4.

2042 DOFJRW-O431 Rev. J(June

' The govegynent lIas published a similar report

on rougWy an annual basis from 1978 through 1995.
. c,

0074

, "

' , ,'

, ,
,
. "

, "

. ,-

, ,

, :. ,

'

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 15 of 17

, capacity of each reactor s ,fuel pool is known. Also, the licensed life of each plant is knOwn, D()B bas iong mad~ projections of this sort itself:

. 2.

JWnpU~
rate should not and would not include a long ~p , up" for spent fuel

The acceptance

"~tattce between the CQminencement of spentfuelacceptance and the time when the

, acceptance rate reaches a reasonably effici~nt, ' full~pc;rformance, leve~~, Priot to the reqUired
laii~ 3 1, 1998 contm~nc;ement-date, DOEbad more than, fifteen Years in which to'

an the

neCessary ~po,~tion and storage facilities ~~ that DOE could work efficiently once ,

" perfonnante coinmenced. Moreover, the t!Sks at issue.,.. moving spent fuelftom reactor sites~ "

, iranspot:ting spent fu~l and pl~cing it in a storage facility are very familiar to DOB and t~ the '
nuclear energy industry both in the United Sta~s and abroad.

11 Furthemiore, DOE could and

w:ould, have done . aU the necessary planning and ~~tru~tionWork (of both storage facilities ,and

casks) to have been abl~to have. started accepting spent fuel in 1998. Giyen this eXp~rience, the

government should not and would not need more than three years to attain an efficient full

peifonnanceacceptance rate.

Although a plant may apply to the government to extend its licensed life, only, two utilities have initiated t4atprocess to date. Moreover, nuclear power plants ba,' c limited lives ~ue to th~irphysica1 structures and components. Therefore, it is reasonab~e for purposes projecting MUst-Move fuel at pennanently shut down reactors to assuq1e that, on aventge, cwrently operating reactors will be pennancntly shut-down at the end of their currently licensed

. 10

lives. ,

, II See, e. g., 1995 Spent Fuel Storage Report and preceding reports.
12 In addition to my own knowledge

report of Ivan Stuart as further support for this opinion.
0075

of this faet,I have considered the expert witness

...., , .

." :', . ,' : . ' ,,
' ' ' ,' . '

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

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

".' '-, , ,
',

., '

..- ,-..

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

.. - ..~-

""

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 16 of 17

, DOE itselfhaS reCently specified a conservative ramP Up for the spent fuel acceptmce '

rate hi its listing of req~ments fot a Po.sSl'te Centralized Interim Storage FaciJity ("CISp).

iype ~ffacility is indicativeOfihe
'-' . ba-Ve,

DOE should have and ~~d;have developed'

htetits obligationl(f~aCCCp~g$pentfuel by Jan~31;1998. '
, 3.
ACCCj)tmce Rate 'Conclusion
wet ~~jstent,with

An analysis of Must-Move

~y opwons :noted above has

b~ set out '

I,

ip-the ~JCPen' witness

report ofF~ C~qmvCs. This rqJOwshows that if DOE had started

~pting spent fuel in 1998 wit4 a
, acceptmce rate,

~~bl~ famp up to.a-3,OOO MTU per y~ar spent fuel.

DOE would have' been able to have eliminated the MUst~Mo~e fuel backlog
four years aft~r, l9.9.~~
I~

' ~thin appr()xi~,ately

Mr. ~ves ' also shows tha~ DOE would

subsequently have been ab1~' to

have a~ptedall ~dditional spent fuel as it attamett'MU$t-Move

Status. IS Hence, a t~onable ramp-tip, t~:a~~OOO MTU/Yeaf acceptmce rate, as refle~te4 in Mr. :
" Graves' report, would , have. been efficient~ ' This effiCient .:ate would have been the rate at ,

~ch

, DOE would have accepted spent fuel. Th~refore, the 3 000 MTIJper year acceptance rate with a

Radioactive Waste Management System Requirements Dol;ument Revision 05, DOEIRW-O406 (January 1999) at 13; Table 3, specifying a ramp up (in MTHM per year) of 1200 , 1200, 2QOO 2000, 2700

tJ

See ' Civilian

, 3000, :

14 See

E~pertWitnessRepoit of Frank C. Graves~

the fa~t ' , that nuclear reactors have been in the aggregate discharging approximately 2 000 MTU per year , of spent fuel. The annual spent fuel acceptance rate must be greater than this aggregate annUal
spent fuel discharge rate for DOE to have an ability to eliminate the backlog of at-reactor spent
~el waiting for acceptance by

tS A 3,000 MTU per year annual spent fuel acceptance rate is also consistent with,

DOE. '
0076

...'

, ,

'. '

" - , - . '

..

. "'
H . --.-,

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 791-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 17 of 17

ranipor 1200, 1200, 2000, 2000, 2700 is reasonable and appropriate for:the purposes ofMr~

~es' analy~~t6 B. ' ~ule for Spent Fuel Acceptance
" The sthedule for DOE' ' acceptance ' of spent fuel should be effi~ient. ,Th~ schedule
should permit and encourage

minimi7.atlon of utilities ; total coSts ofat~rea~r storage and

PaYmen~ tOr DOE s spe,nt filelprogram., .

wi~~t

to utilities

' storage cOsts, the schedule'

~1iouldtake ~~~, a~~t .t~e fact ~~t ~~t ~lpl~ts

bav.C(C9sts ,whicJicould,

avoided ifthc:ir

spent fuel wete:a~pted by DOE. ' As explained above, a.J.1tilitis Costs of stOMS spent ,fuel me
precipitously if the u~ility is forced either, to add ,at-reactor storage capacity or to ext~nd ,at-reactor. '
. $tOrage mor,e than five years after its plant-~nnanently

shuts down.

lnother words

a utilitY'

s'

, cdSts of storing spentfuei

ris~ ifit.

possesses MUst-Move fuel. The schedul~' should'ije nnit
fuel,

encourage plants (acitig these Costs to avoi4 the , costs, if possible, by have their, spent

aCcf?Pt~ ~

so~n as

possible after the jan~ 31 , 1998

C?~el'l~ment date for

DOE's

;acceptance of spent fuel from utili~ies. '

, :lnaddition~ the schedule should be efficient iItthat it should pennit

and e~coUrage

, Utilltiesto reduce their costs of delivering spent fuel to the government. Plaintiff's contract
requires plaintiff to load its spent fuel on to the transportation vehicles supplied by DaRI7 The
move!Rent of spent fuel from a spent fuel pool to the transportation vehicles can be accomplished'

more efficiently and less expensivelyifit is done in ~paigns in which relatively large volumes

16 I recognize that these aCceptance rate numbers are

approximations and do not contend

, that DOE would have aCcepted precisely these amounts of spent fuel each year.
17 See

Plaintiffs , Art. IV. 2~(a).

0077