Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-12
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 1 of 17
in this model.
to know.
That may be more than you wanted
Nol I think I followed
think I could give it
it.
it.
I don't
back to you as eloquently
as you did, but I think I followed
Do you know whether all of the
utili ties have
storage?
the same costs for the wet
m sure they don't.
Did you see any documentation of the
cost for wet storage in creating your model?
MR. SHAPIRO:
THE WITNESS:
Obj ect ion,
vague.
As a rule, I would
believe that is proprietary data to utilities who
are operating those plants, but we did have some
awareness of the cost that Connecticut, Maine,
and Yankee Atomic were bearing.
And we know they
weren't identical, but they were on the same
order of magnitude as our $8
million.
I don'
recall those numbers precisely, but I know they
vary.
BY MS. POWELL:
JABS REPORTING INC.
0158
202- 296-6102
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-12 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 2 of 17
Mr. Graves, did you test the
think
model.
Would you
one of your previous answers, you mentioned the
factor of ten would impact the
test the factor of ten sensitivity to the wet O&M
cost assumption?
MR. SHAPIRq:
THE WITNESS:
Objection, vague.
No, we never ran any
sensitivities with that extreme of variation in
numbers.
In fact, I wasn't offering that opinion
because of the empirical experience with the
model, but just because I can tell from the
structure of the model that that' s true.
BY MS. POWELL:
I think you answered this, but let me
make sure.
Then you also didn
I t
test your model
for like the $10 million instead of the
$8 million as listed here on line 51
MR. SHAPIRO:
THE WITNESS:
Obj ection , vague.
Correct.
Again, I can
tell that from the structural features of the
model, but I didn't run a simulation of the model
to allocate that.
JABS REPORTING INc.
202-296-6102
0159
. -
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-12
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 3 of 17
BY MS. POWELL:
Let me go on to the next line, dry O&M
costs per year.
Again, if you can just tell me
for the record what that represents?
This is the maintenance costs for an
ISFSI which is assumed to be the avoidable cost
of a full
that are part of the avoidable cost
faced by a fuel pool.
And where did you get this
$3. 5 million?
Again, Nuclear Assurance Corporation or
NAC, NAnd is your
if answer for number 6 - -
we were to change that value, the same answer
as you gave me for number 5, the $8 million, how
it would impact the results of your model?
Yes.
It would have
still
most.
denominator effects matter the
It'
predominantly full pools that won out in the
early years.
So they are the ones facing this
number.
But they have very small denominators of
So it would take a huge change
must -move fuel"
JABS REPORTING INC.
202-296-6102
0160
;'
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-12
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 4 of 17
' this
queue.
number to change that position of the
Let me ask a more general question,
Mr. Graves.
You said your last few answers have
been based on the structure of the
you run any sensitivities,
model.
Did
sensitivity analysis
on your model?
MR. SHAPIRO:
THE WITNESS:
Obj ection, vague.
Well, I don't think we
ran any in the sense of saying, well, now the
model is
done, now let'
s push it and tweak it in
different directions to see what
happens.
Instead, what happened is, over the
course of building the model , we didn't start off
with very good or specific estimates as some of
these numbers.
So we put in a place holder so
that the model would have the ability to solve
the problem and later get a better number.
So, for instance -- and I'll make this
up.
Let'
s imagine for sake of argument that we
thought the wet O&M costs per year were going to
be $6 million as a representative number and we
JABS REPORTING INC.
0161
202-296- 6102
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-12
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 5 of 17
BY MS. POWELL:
Well, again, staying in the non- breach
world, would one possible source of uncertainty
be the acceptance rate?
MR. SHAPIRO:
THE WITNESS:
Obj ection , vague.
Well , it matters what
time you' re talking about in the non- breach
world.
Once things are underway, uncertainty is
resolved.
People have more and more confidence in
the performance of the system, and they begin to
believe it'
s working.
It doesn't all go away,
but it changes over
time.
So there is
the
uncertainty has a personality of
BY MS. POWELL:
sorts.
world,
Well, again, in the non- breach
did you analyze the impact of alternative
acceptance rates?
MR. SHAPIRO:
THE WITNESS:
Objection, vague.
Well, in order to put a
price tag and a schedule into the damage
calcul~tions, we need to have a scenario that'
160
JABS REPORTING INC.
0162
202-296- 6102
. : ," ;
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-12
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 6 of 17
representative of what we think would happen in
the uncertain world.
So I could have run lots of
scenarios.
I would still have to choose one or choose the
average of a bunch of them to describe, in order
for Dr. Wise to calculate the damages that would
ensue from not being in that
world.
So, we have to get specific at some
point just so that as a matter of practice to be
able to do calculations of what damages
are.
And so what I'
ve done is take a value
that I think is illustrative of reasonable
performance and lacking any reason to believe
that there' s noise around that that would bias
it, I' would use that as my representative value.
BY MS. POWELL:
Okay.
I do understand your answer, but
recognizing that to prepare your report, you had
to become somewhat specific in choosing
acceptance rate.
My question was really whether
you analyzed the impact of alternative acceptance
rates in arriving at this -- your report?
161
JABS REPORTING INC.
202-296- 6102
0163
- -
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-12
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 7 of 17
handling and what fuel handling are you
talking about?
BY MS.
In order to
POWELL:
let'
start then with
the utility s ability to load the fuel into
either casks or
canisters.
Would the
fueling- handling
requirements that would be
needed for loading the fuel into casks or
canisters, would they have any impact on
DOE' s decision to approve or disapprove an
exchange?
MR.
SHAPIRO:
Objection.
I don't see
Vague.
THE WITNESS:
anything about swaps that makes fuel handling any harder than it is under OFF, so I don
I t
think it changes the fundamental character
the problem.
There has to be fuel- handling
capability, but that
ei ther case.
BY MS.
has to be there in
POWELL:
the fuel
Is it possible that
that
there would be a utility that would be
174
JABS REPORTING INc.
202- 296- 6102
0164
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-12
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 8 of 17
capable of loading their fuel in a cask and
another one that was not for whatever reason
capable of loading their fuel in a cask?
Wouldn't that affect DOE'
whether to
s decision as to
Obj ection.
approve or disapprove an exchange?
MR.
SHAPIRO:
Vague.
THE WITNESS:
I would think
would also affect
the utility I s interest in
fuel.
having a swap for the time frame when they
weren't yet ready to handle their own
They would swap in a fashion that mapped into
their ability to handle
BY MS.
the fuel on site.
POWELL:
Would different casks used or in use
at different sites change the desirability of
campaigns?
MR.
SHAPIRO:
Obj ection.
Vague.
THE WITNESS:
I guess my belief
is none of the results of an exchange
that
produced campaign- like schedules would be
surprises not known to the government in advance long enough for them to accommodate
175
JABS REPORTING INC.
202- 296- 6102
0165
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-12
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 9 of 17
them wi th logistical planning.
So I don'
think they aggravate those
BY MS.
POWELL:
problems.
I understand that you said that you
don I t
think it would be anything that
the
government couldn't solve, but I guess my
question was more basic as to whether ~t
would be impacted at
MR.
all.
Obj ection.
SHAPIRO:
Vague.
THE WITNESS:
I am not offering
an opinion that some swaps somewhere couldn
raise minor complications for the logistical
problems of the government and that all swaps
would have to be
approved.
Some could be
disallowed.
Sure, that'
s possible.
If they created intractable
short-run problems; I don' t think they would
have to be disallowed for very long, because
I don
I t think
those problems persist for very
long.
And if -- in many cases if they had to
it would be because the
be disallowed,
government could save even more money by an
176
JABS REPORTING INC.
202- 296- 6102
0166
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-12 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 10 of 17
alternative to the order that saved the most
costs for the utilities,
would have savings,
in which case they
to buy the
if needed,
utilities out of their swaps and still have net social savings from the program.
MR.
SHAPIRO:
Is this a good
time for a break?
BY MS.
POWELL:
One or two more questions.
YoU'
okay?
m fine.
How are the disallowances that you
just referenced reflected in your model?
I don 't model any
disallowances
because I don't model specific bilateral
swaps.
That is,
model.
I don' t know who swaps wi
whom in my
I know that there are net
buyers,
and the sellers are all the people
those time frames who had OFF rights
they didn
I t
that
need because it
wouldn
I t save
them any money
those purchasers who had
OFF rights in a given year that they did not
177
JABS REPORTING INc.
202- 296- 6102
0167
, '
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-12
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 11 of 17
CERTIFICATE OF NJrARY PUBLIC
I, Linda C. Marshall, a Notary Public
in and for the District of Columbia, before
whan
the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby
certify that the witness whose testinDny appears
in the foregoing
pa.ges was duly sworn
by ne;
that the testinDny of said witness was taken by
me in shorthand at the tine and place mentioned
in the caption hereof and thereafter reduced to
typewriting under
supervision; that said
deposition is a tnIe record of the testinDny
given by said witness; that I am neither counsel
for, related to, nor arployed by any of the
parties to the action in which this deposition
is taken; and, further, that I am not a relative
or arployee of any attorney or counsel arployed
by the parties thereto, nor financially or
otherwise interested in the outcane of the
action.
ccmnission expires:
November 30,
2005
0168
. "
''
Page 12 of 17
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-12
Filed 04/16/2004
COURT
UNITED STATES FEDERAL CLAIMS
OF
ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY, ONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER OMPANY, MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC
~E
OWER COMPANY,
) Docket Nos. :
Plaintiffs.
HE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
98- 126C 98- 1S4C 98-474C
Defendant.
ORAL ARGUMENT
ages:
1'
throug~ SO
lace:
'ate:
Washington, D. C .
August 6, 2001
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION
Official Reporters
1220 L Street, N. W. , Suite 600
Washington, D. C. 20005-4018 (202) 628-4888 hrc(g)concentric. net
0169
/ - '
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-12
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 13 of 17
THE
:.1
UNITED
STATES
, COURT
FEDERAL
CLAIMS
,e
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY, MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC
POWER COMPANY,
) Docket NoS. L
9 e-126C
Plaintiffs.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
98- 154C 98- 474C
Defendant.
Court room 6
Room 507
D . C.
National Courts Building
717 Madison Place, N.
Monday,
Washington
August 6, 2001 The parties met, pursuant to the notice of The
Court, at 2: 31 p. m .
BEFORE:
HONORABLE JAMES F. MEROW Senior Judge
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs:
JERRY STOUCK, Esquire ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, Esquire Spriggs & Hollingsworth 1351 I Street, N. W ., Ninth Floor Washington, D. C. 20005- 3305
(202) 898- 5839
1, .
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628- 4888
0170
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-12
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 14 of 17
APpEARANcES '
( Con t
hiued)
For the Defendant:
HAROLD D. LESTER, Jr.
Esquire
MARIAN E. SULLIVAN, Esquire S. Department of Justice Civil Division 1100 L Street, N. 20530 Washington, D.
(202) 307- 6288
C.
~ 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628 - 4888
0171
...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-12
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 15 of 17
possible.
However, with regard to
THE COURT:
Are you contemplating non- party
discovery?
MR .
LESTER:
Yes, Your Honor, and that is built
into the suggested -- the joint motion and order that the
7 ~
parties all' stipulated to.
' It provides' dates for service of
those subpoenas upon third parties.
It'
s likely that most
of that will be at least initially document requests, and subpoenas, and then we will determine whether
it' s
worthwhile to pursue any particular third party utilities
for any further depositions or proceedings.
Let me go into the second part of the schedule
issues, Your Honor; one where we think the discovery from
, 15
the utilities is essential to our
case.
And that is, with
regard to rebutting the Yankees' claims with regard to
priority for shutdown reactors and these exchanges which the
Yankees claims are heavily dependent upon, you know , those
19
exchanges are based upon and depend
upon, al though the
Yankees dispute this, the existence of other utilities that
would have traded with them or had entered into agreements
wi th
them.
We have not identified any yet that have done
s important for mounting a full defense
23 ,
so, but we think it'
to the Yankees ' claims that we fully exhaust those avenues
so that when we -- we understand that under the Court' s pre-
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628- 4888
0172
( .... ~
" ~~ '' .., " ,
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-12
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 16 of 17
trial order what we are supposed to submit to the Court is
our complete case for trial, for
a trial or further
proceedings; and that we think to do that we need to exhaust
'11
or complete the discovery in the coordinated proceedings.
THE COURT:
rq,
Okay.
Mr. Stouck?
MR. STOUCK:
Yes , Your Honor.
Let me start at the beginning of our
pos,ition
because I have got a number of things to say a~d a number
things in response to Mr. Lester, and I would like to start
at the beginning.
But to frame what I am about to say ~ you
may recall we w~re back here two or two and a half years ago
asking for
lots of wide-ranging discovery before we
,i
submitted our pre-trial submissions.
And the Court at that time, I would say, rather
1r:'
, 15
narrowly confined our discovery rights on what I understood
to be your understanding and interpretation of your pretJ'
trial orders as being intended to streamline discovery and
not to contemplate necessarily things like third
pa+ty.
they'
You know, the government, what they are-really
saying here is they need to ask someone else before
-u
find out what their position is, and I think it' s a little
strange.
But to take it from the top, as Mr. I,.e;:;ter said,
/' ?4
as soon as we got your order I sent them a letter suggesting
i I
that 75 days would an appropriate time, October 15th, to
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628- 4888
0173
; I
(~~~
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-12 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 17 of 17
REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE
DOCKET' NO~ :
,,
98-1260
Yankee Atomic Electric v. United States
CASE TITLE:
HEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
August 6, 2001
Washington~, DC
I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are
contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the
United States Court of Federal
Claims.
f'i
Date:
August 6, 2001
Theodore Fambro
Official Reporter
Heritage Reporting Corporation
Suite 600
ie;
0 1220 L Street, N.
- L
Washington, D.
C.
20005-4018
\I
(:34
itA
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628- 4888
0174