Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-11
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 1 of 17
THE WITNESS:
It would shift the
order a little bit amongst the others because
Yankee Atomic in
particular, whb buys some
the early rights, would no longer buy them
for that peribd.
6.
They would ~ai t
a while to
buy.
They would probably sell rights for
that period and buy more in 2001.
connecticut and Maine would
all of
sell
their rights in the early
years.
other parties could get out a little bit
sooner if
those three were unable to get out
as soon as they
could.
BY MS. POWELL:
, Q.
Changing the hypothetical
slightly,
and now the assumption would be that all of
the plants, not just the -- all of the
participants, not just the three Yankee
plants, would need a ten- year
cooling period.
Hdw would that affect the results of your
analys
is?
MR. S KALABAN :
Obj ection.
Vague.
Foundation.
319
JABS REPORTING INe.
0141
202- 296- 6102
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-11
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 2 of 17
THE WITNESS:
I haven't done
so I can
that analysis
formally, obviously,
only talk about the qualitative
effects.
But
generally that would make any shutdown
facility wait longer to become a Must-Move
facility,
five years
longer.
So it would push back their
demand for acceptance
slots.
They would
still have the OFF acceptance slots that they
would have otherwise partially used for their
. own purposes.
So they would release those
sooner.
So basically full pools would gain
more priority in the economic
priority
re-orde~ing than they now
have.
So a lot more full pools would
be served than since most -- I think there
only -- since no one builds an ISFSI,
probably wouldn 't change the full- pool
Must- Move situation.
It probably won't
change the rate at which any full pools get
out.
I would have to analyze that more
carefully, but it would delay the shutdown
'320
JABS REPORTING INe.
0142
202-296- 6102
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-11
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 3 of 17
pools and might not accelerate the
full
pools.
BY MS. POWELL:
What would happen to the price of
slots ~n this hypothetical with the cooling
time for all utilities being ten years, not
five?
MR . S KALABAN :
Obj ection.
Vague.
THE WITNESS:
It'
s pretty hard
to be precise about this, again having not
run that analysis, but I would guess
the
price would fall in the early years and
in the later
rise
years.
I t depends
on whether there was
still Must- Move slack later on when the
deferred shutdown pool~ started to become
eligible for Must- Move.
. BY MS. POWELL:
And staying with the same
hypothetical of ten years cooling time for
all the utilities, what would happen to the
321
JABS REPORTING INC.
202- 296- 6102
0143
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-11
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 4 of 17
uti lit i e
s'
a t - re
a c
to r
s to rag
e
cost s
MR. SKALABAN:
THE WITNESS:
BY MS.
POWELL:
Obj ection.
For all utilities?
Yes.
MR. S KALABAN :
Obj ection.
Vague.
THE WITNESS:
Some would change
s too broad to
and some wouldn't.
I guess it'
POWELL:
-- I don't know what you
BY MS.
re getting at.
time
If all utilities had a cooling
of
ten years, not five, wouldn't it be
logical that their at-reactor storage costs
would increase because they had to hold onto
the fuel longer?
MR. S KALABAN :
Obj ection.
Vague.
Foundation.
THE WITNESS:
Anyone who was in
shutdown mode would continue to bear
unavoidable O&M costs for five years longer
than they would have
with a five- year
322
JABS REPORTING INe.
0144
202-296- 6102
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-11
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 5 of 17
cooling period. So have been higher.
BY MS.
their but- for costs would
POWELL:
And if the utilities had to hold
onto their fuel for five more years,
more years than what your model
five
assumes,
would their damages
then fall?
Obj ection.
MR. S KALABAN :
Vague.
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
The approach
we' re taking of damages compares the damages
incurred in the breach to the avoidable
in the -- it is based on the avoidable
costs costs
the
in the but- for world relativs to the breach
world.
If the avoidable costs go up in
no~- breach world, the difference goes down.
BY MS. POWELL:
So in this hypothetical of a
ten- year
cooling
time,
the damages would
fall
because both the s~ap prices would fall at least in the early years and the at-reactor
storage costs would
increase?
323
JABS REPORTING INC.
202-296- 6102
0145
./
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-11 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 6 of 17
MR. S KALABAN :
Obj ection.
Vague.
Form.
Can you read that back?
(Reporter read record as requested.
THE WITNESS:
I don't know what
the net effect of the swap prices would
be,
because some of the utilities do buy
the current
swaps in
analysis,
and they might be able
to buy them for a lower price in the
hypothetical analysis. later , conceivably at a
They would buy . them
lower price.
So that wou~d actually raise
damages, because the but- for world would be
cheaper.
On the other
hand, they would have
had to bear five years of wet O&M in the
meantime, so I suspect the net effect would'
be that the damages would be
BY MS.
POWELL:
lower.
Mr. Graves, do you know wha t type
and by "type" I mean model and manufacture of
casks or canisters Maine Yankee is going
use at ISFSI?
MR.
S KALABAN :
Obj ection.
324
JABS REPORTING INC.
202-296- 6102
0146
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-11
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 7 of 17
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Deborah Larson Hommer, RPR, the officer
before whom the foregoing depositiDn was
taken, do hereby certify that the witness
whose testimony appears in the foregoing
deposition was duly sworn by me; tha t
the
testimony of said witness was taken by me in
stenotype and thereafter reduced to
typewriting under my direction;
that ' said
deposi tion is a true record of the testimony
given by said witness; that I am neither counsel. for, related to, nor employed by
of the parties to the action in which
deposition was
any
this
taken; and, further,
that I am
not a relative or employee of any attorney or
counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor
financially or otherwise interested in outcome of the
the
action.
Notary Public in and
for
My Commission Expires:
August 31 , 2003
the D
i s t r i c t
0 f Co 1 u mb i
0147
JABS REPORTING INC.
442
202- 296- 6102
~:: : ,.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-11
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 8 of 17
UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY,
t(Q)rP1f
: No. 98-126 C
vs.
Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
(Senior
: Judge Merow)
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER:
COMPANY,
vs.
Plaintiff,
: No. 98- 154 C
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
(Senior
: Judge Merow)
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER
COMPANY,
vs.
Plaintiff,
: No. 98-474 C
(Senior
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, De f endan t .
: Judge Merow)
VOLUME I I I
~:ftM;.
PAGES 445 - 605
Deposition of Frank C. Graves
Washington, D.
Wednesday, November 14 , 2001
Reported by:
Deborah Larson Hommer ' RPR
445
. JABS REPORTING INC.
0148
202- 296- 6102
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-11
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 9 of 17
On page
14 of your report, the
second full paragraph, the last sentence in
there says, "A market that performs in
this
of
manner could be implemented by a last bid
auction procedure or .
could be the result
active, visible bilateral trading.
What do
you mean by " active, visible bilateral
trading"
That could be trading that
facilitated by '
something
like a web- based
bulletin board to let parties interested in
trading post bids and asks for
swaps.
could include information about past
It could actually perform an auction
trades.
itself.
So some sort of informational mediation of
what I S happening in the market is all that
required to get a pretty efficient
MS. POWELL:
solution.
Could you read back
. his answer?
(Reporter read record as requested.
BY MS.
POWELL:
Are you saying that an auction could
573
JABS REPORTING INC.
202- 296- 6102
0149
. ", \./ .
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-11 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 10 of 17
occur wi thin a bi la teral
MR.
trade?
m sorry?
Vague.
SHAPIRO:
Obj ection.
No.
THE WITNESS:
What I'
~aying is that
sort
of
an exchange mechanism
could be created whereby sellers and buyers
would submit willingness-to- buy and
willingness-to-sell bids,
software could be run
imitates an
and a piece
which,
in effect,
auction, and rank-orders their
them.
willingness -- their relative willingness to
pay to create marriages between
And then afterwards it noti f ies
them of
who married whom.
And people who
participate in that mechani sm could agree to
all pay the price of
the last couple that got
married or they could agree to some other
pricing mechanism.
But they would end up
with bilateral rights exchanges, but they
would enjoy centralized information and
competi tion for the rights.
That sort of
thing happens
for
instance,
in electric transmission rights or
574
JABS REPORTING INe.
202- 296- 6102
0150
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 791-11 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 11 of 17
did for a while before there was
early days of
in the
open access.
BY MS. POWELL:
It'
s no t an
uncommon mechanism.
Does your model assume that every
bilateral trade occurs at what you define
the market-clearing price?
MR.
SHAPIRO:
Obj ection.
Vague.
THE WITNESS:
I have quantified
swap prices to my clients as though they
acquired their rights at the marke~-clearing
rice.
And because they weren
1 t
always the
marginal bidder,
often qui te
although they were actually
close,
I ve assumed that
that
would be a feature avail~ble to other bidders
as well.
For purposes of
setting the
out
dates at which my clients would get
managing their
20
pools,
it wouldn' t matter
whether they paid their own bid or paid
the
market- clearing price.
So in terms of
dates
the
575
r.,. ...,j
JABS REPORTING INe.
0151
202- 296- 6102
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-11
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 12 of 17
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
I , Deborah Larson Hommer, RPR,
the of f icer
before whom the foregoing deposition was
taken,
do hereby certify that the witness
whose testimony appears in the foregoing
depos i tion was duly sworn by me; that the
testimony of said witness was taken by me in
stenotype and thereafter reduced to
typewriting under my
direction;
that said
deposition is a true record of the testimony
gi ven by said wi tness;
that I am neither
counsel for
related to, nor employed by any
of the parties to the action in which
this
deposition was
taken; and, further
that I am
not a relative or employee of any attorney or
counsel employed by the parties hereto,
financially or otherwise interested in
nor
the
outcome of the
action.
Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia
August 31,
JABS REPORTING INC.
My Commission
Expires:
2003
603
202-296- 6102
0152
-'.'. ~, )
------------------~. - -
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-11
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 13 of 17
IN THE U. S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
10-.
0:;:-
; ;L ~C - C CERTtfflED MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.,
~~~E -
COpy
vs.
Plaintiff,
98- 126C 98- 474C 98- 154C
UNITED STATES,
Defendant
Washington ,
D. C
Thursday, January 3, 2002
Deposition of:
FRANK C. GRAVES,
~l.
~i'
the witness, called for examination by counsel for
the defendant, pursuant to notice and
agreement,
commencing at 9:30 a. m., at 1100 L Street, N. W.,
Washington, D.
C., before Linda C. Marshall , RPR, a
Notary Public in and for the District of
18 .
Columbia,
when were present on behalf of the respective
parties:
JABS REPORTING INC.
0153
202-296- 6102
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-11
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 14 of 17
down .
That is,
if
you' ve had your fuel removed
so not permanently shut
and taken over by the - -
down, shut down by the power plant.
And how did you derive this $8, 000, OOO?
Where did you get the $8, 000, 000 from?
Well, we interacted extensively with
NAC experts on this to get a sense of
what is an
appropriate number to use for wet O&M
costs.
And
we may have related it to internal budgets as
well.
source.
There I S a footnote saying that that is the
I would be a little loathe to rely on
that as a fact because the
have been prepared early in the process
that footnote may
developing the spreadsheets and not ultimately
consistent with what our best sources for the
data were.
I believe the 8 million is more of
generic number than an attempt to represent the
costs for those three specific
facilities.
Is it the annual O&M costs to run a
spent fuel facility for one year?
JABS REPORTING INe.
202-296-6102
0154
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-11
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 15 of 17
here, item 5, wet O&M cost refers to item 3 in my
input table.
And there, the footnote refers to
the expert report of James Malone.
I f the - - again, if thi s
overall result of your model?
number were to
change, the $8 million, would that impact the
Well, we have to be careful about terms
as to what we mean by overall generalize a little bit from
results. I f you your questions, it
you.
may help formulate other questions for
The big driver of the order in which
pools are accepted from " must-move" removal is
the volume of waste that is " must-move" at each
si te.
That can range from a very small number.
If, for
instance, it I S a full
pool and
it only needs to have one core picked up to stay
in operation.
So in that case, the pool might
only have 10 to 50 metric tons of waste that has
to be removed.
Conversely, if it' s a shut down pool,
it could have 500 to a thousand tons of
waste.
So, potentially, 10 to a hundred times as much
JABS REPORTING INC.
202-296- 6102
0155
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-11
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 16 of 17
waste as other kinds of " must-move"
facilities.
So, you recall plants are ranked in
terms of the ratio of their avoidable cost to
the ratio of that number to the amount of volume
that is " must-move"
So that it' s both the numerator and
denominator matter to the
ordering.
The dominator varies by -- as I just
mentioned by about two or more orders of
magni tude across the plants in the sample.
Unless the costs were to vary by a
couple orders of magnitude as well and the
uncertainties surrounding those it
could not
have very much effect on the
outcome.
So, for instance, if we changed this
number to, let' s say, $10 million of wet O&M cost
per year, it would have very, very little effect
on the results in terms of rank order of who gets
ou t
when.
It would have no effect on how soon
everybody gets out, because the program has the
capacity to remove all of the -- to get ahead of
JABS REPORTING INC.
0156
202-296- 6102
,~'
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 791-11
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 17 of 17
the " must-move"
requirements by
2002.
So that would still be
true.
And the
rank order of who got out first would probably be
unchanged by changing this number.
Unless you
thought you - -
that you were going to change it
from 8 million to say 80
million.
I f you
change
it by a factor of 10 or 15 to get more because
you think there'
s that much noise in it, then
costs start to matter a
lot.
We'
But in fact that' s implausible.
told by Mr. Pennington that
all likelihood
percent,
maybe
these costs vary by only a few
15 percent plus or minus these numbers across
almost all the pools in the United
States.
So if you' re within shouting distance
of $8 million, changing that inside of the
plausible range will have almost no effect on my
model.
Mathematically, if you were to change
it by a factor of ten, that would make a huge
difference, but that is
implausible.
So as the
rule, the dominator effects dominate the results
JABS REPORTING INC.
202-296- 6102
0157