--------------Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 783-8
Washington, D.
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 1 of 17
June 13
2002
;,;1""
Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
- X
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY, MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC
POWER CO. , and CONNECT I CUT
yertifled COpy
: Case No. 98 - 126C
: 98- 474C, 98-154C
YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Plaintiffs
: (Senior Judge
Merrow)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant
- X
washington ,
D. C
Thursday, June 13 , 2002
Deposition of NANCY SLATER THOMPSON , a
witness herein, called for examination by counsel
for the Plaintiff in the above- entitled matter
pursuant to notice, the witness being duly sworn
taken at the offices of Spriggs & Hollingsworth
1350 I Street, N. W., Washington, D.
, at 9:40
a. m. , Thursday, June 13, 2002 , and the proceedings
being taken down in Stenotype by DEBORAH
WILKINS, RPR , and transcribed under her direction.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
0091
,,
!" , .. ! .
_. "' , .
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 783-8
Washington , D.
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 2 of 17
June 13 , 2002
Page 148
strategic significance.
A government argument that I have
heard made at times, and I will ask if you
heard this before, not necessarily from government
counsel, have you ever heard an interpretation of
the contract that would say that the government
would meet its obligation by accepting one fuel
! 8
; 9
'0
element from one utility by January 31, 1998?
MS. SULLIVAN
Obj ection to the extent
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
, I
i .J. J.
I have never heard
that.
Has such an interpretation ever played
I ' 1.5
! 15
i ..It!
11
I ..
a role in your work in the waste acceptance
division?
MS. SULLIVAN
Obj ection , vague.
Obj ection, foundation.
I have never heard it, and I don
r t
! 18
1. 9
recall even considering
MR. SHAPIRO:
that.
That r S all
the questions
I have for you at this time , Ms. Slater Thompson.
I "
I appreciate your help.
?,I
I should note that there r s a
small
chance that we may seek to talk to you yet
again,
; 24
I'
L.._,.
there is an issue concerning some documents that
we may or may not get which may or may not address
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Snitf'. 400 l- ROO- FOR_ PO Washington, DC 20005
0092
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 783-8
Washington , D.
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 3 of 17
June 13 ,
2002
Page 149
issues that relate to
you.
I am sure we wi II have
to deal with Ms. Sullivan and the government on
that ,
but except for that possibility I don
r t
think we will have further questions for
I understand.
you.
Thank you.
I have a couple
MS. SULLIVAN:
questions.
EXAMINATION
BY MS. SULLIVAN
Ms. Thompson, do you recall your
testimony in response to some questions from Mr. Shapiro as to whether you had any knowledge as to
what the approved DCSs would be used for?
Yes, I do , and I believe I had
indicated to him that I didn
r t
have a real
knowledge of what others were using those
for.
Sitting here today, do you have an
understanding as to what aspects of the program
would use approved DCSs for planning purposes?
I think it would be safe to say that
the transportation group would probably find the
most utility in the DCSs.
Do you have or have you ever had
responsibility for transportation planning for the
program?
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR"DEPO Washington , DC 20005
0093
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 783-8
Washington, D.
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 4 of 17
June 13 ,
2002
Page 150
No.
Ms. Thompson, while you were in the
waste acceptance division , do you recall
disapproving delivered commitment schedules
delivered by utilities?
Yes.
Given your testimony that delivery
commitment schedules are largely for planning
purposes only, why would you disapprove a delivery
commitment schedule?
There could be multiple administrative
reasons like the DCS not signed, signed by a person not identified as having ability to
sign,
but primarily for exceeding their allocation for a
particular year.
And do you have an understanding as to
the effect of the utility'
Yes.
s failure to submit a
DCS in a year in which they have an allocation?
I believe it was always our
intent that if a utility failed to submit a DCS in that year that it would be a waiver of their
desire to deliver , and we would have reallocated
that capacity to the next utility or utilities in
the cue.
I believe Mr. Shapiro has asked you
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. ~1I 1tp AJ\O L~Oo_ FoR_ nFPO Washington, DC 20005
0094
~). \\'
------------------Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 783-8
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 5 of 17
March 13 , 2002
Mclean. VA
\T~'
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
- -x
245
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY
(98- 126C)
(Merow , S.
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY
(98-154C) (Merow , S.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
(98- 483C)
(Wilson, J.
CfErtlJu~~(E~) CO~)'i'
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
(98 -484C) (Wiese, J. )
DUKE POWER , A Division of
DUKE ENERGY CORP.
(98-485C) (Sypolt,
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
(98- 486C)
(Hodges, J.
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
(98 - 488C) (Yock ,
S. J.
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY,
et ale
(98 - 488C) (Yock ,
S. J.
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
(98- 621C)
(Hewitt, J.
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
(99- 447C)
(Allegra, J.
GPU NUCLEAR , INCORPORATED
0095
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14tH Street, N, w. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005
"\'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 783-8
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 6 of 17
March 13 , 2002
Mclean. VA
246
(00-440C) (Bush, J.
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
(00- 697C) (Merow, S.
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
(00 - 703C) (Damich, J.
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
(01-115C) (Bush, J.
NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
(01- 116C)
(01- 249C)
(Sypolt, J.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
(Bruggink , J.
Plaintiffs,
Discovery
THE UNITED STATES
: Judge:
Defendant.
McLean , Virginia
: (Judge
xSypo 1 t )
Wednesday, March 13, 2002
Continued deposition of BILLY M. COLE
a witness, recalled for examination by counsel
for Plaintiffs in the above-entitled matter
pursuant to notice, the witness being duly sworn
by CATHERINE S. BOYD , a Notary Public in and for
the Commonwealth of Virginia, taken at the offices of Shaw Pittman , LLP , 1650 Tysons
0096
Alderson Reporting Company, lnc, 1111 14th Street, N, W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 783-8
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 7 of 17
March 13 , 2002
Mclean. VA
480
draft.
No.
I wasn
r t
party to it, but
Do you know whether, during the course
of your involvement with the standard
contract,
whether certain utilities objected to DOE the
possibility that DOE would give priority to
shutdown reactors?
Yes, I do.
As part of the issue
resolution process, one of the issues, I can I
remember which number it was, should priority be
given to shutdown reactors?
And since that was an equity issue, we
tossed it across the table to the utility
representatives.
They took it and met with
- - sent
out to all utilities, and got a consensus back
to DOE on
it.
And the consensus was under no
circumstances will priority be given to shutdown
reactors.
issue --
That was their
And when you
finding.
say it was an equi
If I take fuel away from a shutdown
then I can't take one away from operating if
you
I ve only got so much capacity.
0097
Alderson Kepomng LolllpallY, Inc,
1111 14th Street, N. w. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
'"-
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 783-8
Mclean. VA
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 8 of 17
March 13 , 2002
481
From DOE' s standpoint, if it was fine
with the utilities, it was fine with DOE?
That' s right.
They don' t
care.
DOE are truck drivers.
That'
s right.
And there was a memo
that came back from DOE, I mean from the
utilities by the chairman of that committee
saying this is their position.
At that time,
Zabransky.
m going to hand
the chairman of that
committee is now a DOE employee, Mr. David
you
a memo dated
June 28th, 1991 , from Mr. McDuffie and Mr. Vance
to Mr. Brownstein and Mr. Langstaff, and its
subj ect is recommended DOE positions on 17
contract implementation
, Okay.
issues.
(The witness reviewed the document.
THE WITNESS:
Okay.
BY MR. MACDONALD:
In your testimony, testimony a moment
ago, you
referred to the issue resolution
process, and specifically the response that came
back from the utilities on the shutdown reactor
priority?
0098
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc, 1111 14th Street, N, w. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
:;/, "';-,
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 783-8
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 9 of 17
March 13 , 2002
Mclean. VA
482
That'
s correct.
Would you turn to the bot tom of page
, top of page 5?
Okay.
This appears to be ID No. 15 or Issue
No. 15, acceptance reactors?
Urn - hm.
priority for shutdown
And the position has two,
it has two
elements,
Phase 1 and Phase
Um- hm.
And Phase 1 says since this issue is
primarily an equity issue among the purchasers
an has no impacts on WMS performance or public
safety, DOE concurs with purchasers I consensus
view that no priority shall be afforded to
shutdown reactors during the start-up phase of
the WMS?
Correct.
What does that, the last phrase mean,
during the start-up phase of the WMS?
The first few years of
operation,
they'
re not going to sit there and impact the
operating reactors.
Once we get to them , you know , as the
0099
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc, 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 783-8
Mclean. VA
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 10 of 17
March 13 , 2002
483
next phase says, in the first line, as the
system matures, then we'll reconsider this thing where we can, we can start taking this stuff
from shutdown reactors.
And do you think that was, to your
knowledge, was that DOE' s position?
I don' t know if they wound up
formalizing that or not because these were recommendations to DOE, what we recommended be
done with those positions.
I don't know where, I don' t know
whatever happened to the resolve of most of
these.
I just don't know.
I can't remember.
And Phase 2 continues there and
says,
quote, when the WMS receipt rate exceeds the
aggregate purchasers' annual discharge rates and
all purchasers can be assured that they will not
need additional add reactor storage, DOE may
elect
allocate shutdown reactors
closure
That'
acceptance priority to
to facilitate the permanent
soon as possible?
those sites
true.
That was
recommendation , that they consider
that.
Did you have discussions with Mr.
0100
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N, W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005
" ,.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 783-8
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 11 of 17
March 13
2002
Mclean. VA
484
McDuffie or Mr. Vance while this recommendation
was being developed?
The development process was going on
prior to this date, yes.
We have had discussions on this many
times, and I don't remember , you know,
specifically on this date or this draft, but I r m
very familiar with this, and we have discussed
it, yes.
And it was, was it your view that once
the receipt rate or acceptance rate exceeded the
discharge rate, that priority could be given to
shutdown reactors?
It says, it says you may give
it.
The, the problem that' s
going to occur in that
is you have to wait until your system is well
along and fully matured and everybody is
comfortable and fuel is being moved for a
while.
Otherwise you with the shutdown
reactor ,
and some guy has got an operating
reactor and he' s got a right to ship some fuel
that year , he' s not going to want to give up his
rights for you to ship that fuel, not unless we
have emptied sufficient amount away from him the
previous years where he
t s not going to have a
0101
Alderson Reporting Company, me, 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
'-
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 783-8
Mclean. VA
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 12 of 17
March 13 , 2002
485
problem.
He' s going to be concerned about
continue operating, so you have to wait for the
system to mature well enough and everybody feels
comfortable that it'
s all, it'
s over all the
hiccoughs, it' s not going and it' s moving along.
to shut itself down
We just want a recognition that even
though the utilities came back and said under no
circumstances, as a consensus, should priority
be to shut down reactors, we felt we still need
to leave that door open and they may want to do that to help them in the decommissioning
process.
And when you say that the utilities
came back with that view, do you know if SMUD or
other shutdown reactors as of 1991 shared that
view?
, No, I
do not.
I would imagine the
owners of the shutdown reactors did not share
that view , but if you get a two- thirds
consensus, I can tell you 90 percent were
operating, and so it I S not surprising.
Also I know even though I was not at
those meetings, where they had
pri vate meetings
0102
Alderson Keponmg Company, Inc,
11 I 1 14th Street , N. w. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 783-8
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 13 of 17
March 13 , 2002
McLean. VA
486
with the utilities to go over these
have a friends.
things, I
I know that some of the things
that came out of those meetings.
They had trouble even figuring out
what was a consensus, and Commonwealth Edison
got up and made the statement we agree two
thirds should be consensus as long as we' re part
of the two thirds.
There'
s a lot of people involved in
this. Unfortunately, it I S not one contract.
Was oldest fuel first considered an
efficient way to deliver fuel?
No, not necessarily an efficient way
to deliver it.
It was the efficient way to allocate
capacity.
To try to find a way
- - you I
honoring the fact that the guys who have the
oldest fuel also have the oldest reactors and
been operating the longest period of time, so
they should have the first rights, so the age of
the fuel established the priority for
acceptance, not what fuel is going to be
taken.
Now in a perfect world , it would be a
nice way if you
didn I t
have to worry about
campaigning and things like that, age of the
0103
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc, 1111 14th Street , N, w. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
~'~ , ," (
- - - - - - - - - - - ....- - - .
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDBNTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TIlE PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-8
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 14 May 172002 of 15, n
Page 242
Washington , D.
;"~.o.i1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY, MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC
POWER CO., and CONNECTICUT
YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.,
CerIfted Copy
: 6ase No. 98- 126C,
: 98- 474C,
Plaintiff~,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
98- 154C
: (Senior Judge Merrow)
Defendant.
: VOLUME II
Washington, D . C .
Wednesday, May 15, 2002
Deposition of LAKE H. BARRETT, a witness
herein,
called for examination by counsel for Defendant in the above-entitled matter, pursuant to notice, the
witness being previously duly sworn, taken at the offices of Spriggs & Hollingsworth, 1350 Eye
Street, N. W .,
Washington, D. C.,
commencing at 9: 05
m., Wednesday, May 15, 2002, and the proceedings
being taken down by Stenotype by CAPPY HALLOCK
RPR- CRR, and transcribed under her direction.
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
0104
,)
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-8
Washington , D.
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 15 of 17
n
May 15,
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOWME
2002
Page 363
Is that a fair characterization?
Yes. Okay.
Number I, " Granting priority can
be shown to be lest costly to DOE' s waste
management system.
Do you believe that a shutdown utility
could make that showing?
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ection.
Speculation.
Possibly.
Okay.
Well, I mean the question is not
whether this would always be true, but whether --
the question included possibly.
Is it possible
that a shutdown utility could make that showing?
m not sure that " possibly "
is a fair answer to
that.
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection.
Speculation.
Asked and answered.
What was the question?
The question is could a shutdown reactor, is it possible that a shutdown reactor
could show that granting priority acceptance to it
would be less costly to DOE' s -- would reduce the
cost of the waste management system?
Yes.
And is it possible that granting
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
0105
, ".'
...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-8
Washington, D.
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 16 of 17
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE PROTECl1VE ORDER- VOLUME II May 15 2002
Page 364
priori ty acceptance -- this is Number 2 -- to a shutdown utility -- I I m paraphrasing -- could be
shown to involve small enough quantities of fuel
compared to the overall DOE acceptance rate so as not to jeopardize the timely removal of spent fuel
from other sites.
Is it possible that they could
make that showing?
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ection.
Speculation.
You use the word timely in an absolute
sense.
The answer is
no.
Okay.
So it is your opinion that
granting priority acceptance to a shutdown
reactor would necessarily involve a schedule
impact to some other utility or utili
ties?
system.
other words, there is no play in the
you got priority for one, somebody else would
necessarily have to move; is that your
understanding?
Yes.
And I take it you would agree that
granting priority -- this is a different question -- not whether the showing could be made, but I
take it you would agree that granting priority to a
shutdown reactor can be shown, at least in some
circumstances, to avoid the establishment of
,i
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
0106
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDEN11AL INFORMAll0N PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME II May 15, 2002
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-8
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 17 of 17
Washington , D.
Page 365
otherwise unneeded reactor site storage
facilities?
Yes.
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection.
Speculation.
And Number 4, " Granting priority can be
shown to be clearly cost-effective for consumers
from the, standpoint of timely
talked about that earlier.
MS. HERRMANN:
decommissioning.
I take it you agree with that?
Objection.
Speculation.
Yes.
All right.
about.
Okay~
And Number 5 is an overall
policy issue which I think we have also talked
I think we have exhausted that one, and
I just have a couple more questions for you about
your prior testimony and I hope we can wrap this
up.
So all my remaining questions, I believe, are
going to concern either Exhibit Number
100 or
Exhibit Number 97, which are the first two days of
your testimony in this deposition, so you might
want to have those handy.
Before we turn to those I do have one
other question.
Yesterday we talked about
something, and I believe, Mr. Barrett, it concerned
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
0107