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

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 1 of 21
PNL- 1l43

UC-81Z
DISTRIBUTION

No. of

No. of
CoD1 es
Sand i a Nat i ona 1

Copies
OFFSITE
DOE/Office of Scientific and

laboratory

Division 6311

Technical Information

Albuquerque, NM 87105

ATTN: G. Hertel
A. Dennis

Office of Civil ian

Radioactive

Waste Management S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW

Roy F. Weston, Inc. 955 L' Enfant Plaza,

SW

Washington, DC 20585 ATTN: J. Carlson
R. Bl aney

AnN: N.

Washi n9too,

DC 20024

A. Brownstein W. Danker

Dayem P. Bolten J. DiNunno M. Conroy

M. Frei
Hale Head Isaacs Kouts Moon Pollog G. Ri 1 i ng R. Stein H. C. T. C. N. T.

E. R. Johnson & Associates, Inc. 10461 White Granite Dr.
Su i te

Oakton, VA 22124

204

AnN: B.

Cole E. Johnson N. McLeod

E. . Svenson
J. Wi 11 lams

Lawrence l ivermore National Laboratory
O. Box 806

Yucca Mountain Project Office S. Department of Energy O. Box 98518 Las Vegas, NV 89183- 8518

ATTN: l. Ballou
T. Cot ton

Livermore, CA 94550
M. Revell i

ATTN: M. Cloninger
G. Rodri quez

4801 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 402

Washington, DC 20016
Battelle, Pacific Northwest
laberatori es

370 l' Enfant Promenade,
Su 1 te

Oak Ridge National laboratory O. Box X

900

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Washington, DC 20024- 2115

AnN: G.

AnN: D.

Beeman C. MacKay S. Short T. Wood (30)

Joy W. McClain

Batte 11 e Columbus Liboratori es
OTSP Department

ATTN: D. Dippold

505 Ki n9 Ave. Columbus , OH 43201
A. Plummer

Distr.

OCR

0070

P A- 165088

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 2 of 21

No. of

Copies
ONSITE
DOE Richland ODerations Office
C. Collantes D. Jones

No. of
Copies
12

Pacific Northwest Laboratory
R. Heineman
M. Krei ter

R. McKee O. Payson H. Shay R. Smith Publishing Coordination

Technical Report Files (5)

0; str. 2

OCR

0071

P A- 165089

...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 783-7 Filed 04/07/2004 Page 3 of 21

Reproduced by NTIS
~o-oG)
1: ~.
CPU U m u.!
II.
!III'

I.

National Technical Information Service Springfield , VA 22161

cp.- .,
This report was
from nearly

... -0
I/) -3
E.-

!G) 0.- ,fA"

printed specifically for your ,order mil/;ot! titles lIVa;lable in , our collection.

r.!!
. G)

~e.e., .... Q.'-'Q)Q)

G) ~ .

For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast collection of technical reports. Rather , most documents are printed for each order. Documents that are not in electronic fonnat are reproduced from master archival copies and are the best possJblereproductions

available; If you have any questions concerning this document or any

Department at (703) 605-6050.
About.NTIS

order

you

have placed with NTIS, please call our 9ustomer Service

c.c=5
.... ILl....-

Cl)

NTIS collects scientific , technical, engineering, and business related

G) ~ CI) II.

~a:

~Q)OC
" m ~,
., Q. en

C... ~

Ei~8 Q) U 0':: 'D

infonnation in a variety of fonnats - from microfiche to online services. The NTIS collection of nearty 3 million titles includes reports describing research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their contractors; statistical and business infonnation; U. S. military publications; multimedialtraining products: computer software and electronic databases developed by federal agencies;. training tools; and technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide. Approximately 100, 000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS

infonnation - then organizes, maintains , and disseminates that

collection annually.
http://www. nti8. gov.

0 !. 5 U

G) ' Cen

U)~G:

en"" ca ns

-ocQ) =-0

0 -C.-

For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or 60s.s000 and request the free (703) NTIS PfOducts Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site

Z 0.-.-

! E-o ... VI C

NTIS
Your Indispensable resource

government-sponsored Information-U. S. and worldwide
for

OCR

0072

P A- 165090

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 4 of 21

us.

DEMMENT OF COltWfRCE
Jechaokvf

AdntisIY.
SeMce
003)

tIaIioId tedncIII WGrIIIIIion VA 221&1

11~lIlllg~IMIIIIMllllml~~11 "'DE9000445S'"

11111111111
"'8X'"

PAYMENT: NONE

SH I PTO: 1 *378563

BIN: M220 04-09-98 INVOICE:
578066

OCR

0073

PA- 165091

! (",;" " "~~: ,- -

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 5 of 21

~i,'

IN THE U. S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

- x
Y~KEE ~~IC ELECTRIC CO..
~INE ThN~E ~OMI C P~ER rn" : Q
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWE
CO. ,

Plaintiffs:
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

: No. 98- 126C

98- 474C
98 - 154C

Defendant.

Washington, D. C .
Tuesday, August 26, 2003

Deposition of:
DR. JOHN BARTLETT

called for examination by counsel for the

defendant, pursuant to notice and

agreement,

commencing at

9: 30 a. m., at

Department of

Justice,

1100 L Street N. W., before Virlana Kardash, RPR

CSR, a Notary Public in and for the District of

Columbia, when were present on behalf of the

respective parties:
~t ,
-\ I

i-'

1825 I Street ,,_
Washington. D-

1:\BS REPORTI;\G, I;\C
20006

\\\\\\ jabsreportin \!- com

(202) 296- 6102 (888) 805- 5227

0074

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 6 of 21

you interpret it in another way?

Well, at this point I can say no one ever expected OFF to be used as an actual implementation

method.
Before we go any further with that, let me

talk just

about what the contract

provides,

and then

m going to ask you

about tha t

Do you know whe ther the contract provides
any other sequence by

which spent
Obj ection.

fuel could be

accepted?
MR. SHAPIRO:

Vague.

BY MS. HERRMANN:

Do you understand the question?
I understand the question.
I believe it

does not.
m sorry.
Your answer was it does not?

I believe it does not specify any other

approaches.
m going to refer you now to article IV

BS of the contract, Roman Numeral IV.
Is that on page 10?

I believe that I s on page 10.
157

1825 I Street , N. Washington , D. C. 20006

JABS REPORTING , INe. rom www. i:!h"Tf'nortin!1

(202) 296- 6102 (888) 805- 5227

0075

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 7 of 21

In a sense, yes.
to commi t anybody.

Yes.

They are not meant

They were not a basis for
It was just widely

program action or anything.

recognized that this would be a very inefficient way
of doing things, and it would be far better to have

a system where you, well, frankly, campaigned and
made effective use of the resources of the

system;

but at the time it was all very qualitative, you

know, how should this system run, because it was
very premature to even think about those details

because we didn I

t have

an MRS.

We didn' t know what

it was going to look like or what the reactor fleet

was going to

do.

So really while you were director, you
didn I t

know one way or the other whether the OFF

method was going to happen?

That'

s right.

Did you do any studies or anything while

you were director, or were you responsible for any
studies as to whether the OFF system would work?

Specific studies, no.
General studies?
161

1825 I Street , N. Washington , D. e. 20006

JABS REPORTING , INe.
\11\1/\11 hcrpr"..rtino- ,..,.",.,

(202) 296- 6102 (888) 805- 5227

0076

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 8 of 21

Well, I mean there were no reports or
studies done.

It was qualitative discussion of the

inefficiency of the OFF system and an expectation

that implementation would in fact involve some kind
of a SWAPS system or something like that to make it
more effective.
, 7

Have you reviewed the administrative

record for standard contract rulemaking for this

contract?
No.
And I know you had already told me before
that you weren't involved at all in drafting the

contract?

right. All right.
Exhibi t 1,

That I S

m going to move now to the

next sentence in your report.
page 1.

m back on

And the next sentence is, I have

been asked to present my opinions on what the proper pace and schedule should have and would have been
had the government not breached its obligation to

start accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1991.

Are you wi th me?
162

1825 I Street , N. Washington, D. e. 20006

JABS REPORTING , INe. m..,.., ;~ h~rDnnrt;nn ,..nn1

(202) 296- 6102

(888) 805- 5227

0077

. ,

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 9 of 21

MR. SHAPIRO:
MR. MILLER:
MS. HERRMANN

I think you misread.

Yeah.

You said 191.

I apologize.

1998.

Thank

you for correcting me.
BY MS. HERRMANN:

Can you tell me what you mean by
proper pace

lithe

II in that sentence?
avoid inventories at

It I S a pace to
basically.

reactors that would force them to shut down
That would be the core issue, taking it
t t

fast enough so that the inventories don

build up

that the utilities have to add additional storage

capacity or shut down.

So " proper" in the broadest

sense is to avoid disrupting the operation and the
industry and generation of

power.

So when you say " proper, II you I re not
saying that that is required by the contract?

No.
Would you consider your opinions on what
is the proper pace expert opinions?

I think so, yes.
And on what do you base your expert
163

1825 I Street , N. Washington , D. e. 20006

JABS REPORTING , INe.
un,-n- :n Ln____

(202) 296- 6102

(888) 805- 5227

0078

~'--

- -- --.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 10 of 21

opinion on that?
relying on?

Essentially what expertise are you

My knowledge of and ability to deal with
system studies and this presumption, if you

will,

that the industry should not be disrupted as a

result of failure to remove spent fuel at an

adequate rate.

Q. .

When you say the industry should not be

disrupted -No shutdowns forced or reactors that are

already shut down prevented from going into

decommissioning.
Do you -- is part of your opinion

strike that.
Are you of the opinion that the standard
contract requires DOE to prevent reactors from
having to shut down?
MR. SHAPIRO:

Obj ection.

Vague.

BY MS. HERRMANN:

Do you understand my question?
I have no
I I m not

- - no sense of that. sure which part you I re answering,
164

18251 Street , N. Washington , D. e. 20006

JABS REPORTING , INe.
no____- '_

L_____

(202) 296- 6102 (888) 805- 5227

0079

, . '

-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 783-7 Filed 04/07/2004 Page 11 of 21

so I' m

going to make it more

clear.

Please.
Does the standard contract require DOE to
ensure that reactors will not have to shut down?
MR. SHAPIRO:

Obj ection.

Vague.

BY MS. HERRMANN

Do you understand my question?

II m sorry. Could
again?

you please repeat it

Of course.

Does the standard contract

require DOE to prevent reactors from having to shut
down ?
MR. SHAPIRO:
THE WITNESS:
MS. HERRMANN

Same obj ection.
Does it require it?

Yes.
I I m not
I don

THE WITNESS:

t t think

it

addresses it.
MS. HERRMANN

Okay.

BY MS. HERRMANN

You also mentioned for shutdown

reactors -- actually, why don't I ask you

again.
not
165

You gave me two reasons.

One had to do wi th

1825 I Street , N. Washington , D. e. 20006

JABS REPORTING , INe. m"",, ;'3 h~r"""""";rtn ~,.,~

0080

(202) 296- 6102 (888) 805- 5227

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 12 of 21

having to shut down early.
shutdown reactors.

The other aspect was for

Would you explain to me what the

issue is for shutdown reactors?

If the shutdown reactors are seeking to

decommission and they still have spent fuel, they
have to maintain the spent fuel storage

capability,

which is a very expensive proposition, and it
prevents them from effectively decommissioning the

site.

They can tear down the

reactor, perhaps

but

they have to maintain security

safety

operability

of the spent fuel storage facility at the
of course in each case

site.

And

it I S a pool,

and pool

maintenance is very expensive and
and security significant.

labor- intensive

Where do you get your knowledge of the
decommissioning requirements on utilities?

One of the

- - several of

the studies I did

while at SCNA for EPA and NRC were directed at

requirements for decommissioning reactor

plants.

Did you reference any of the material that

you accumulated while you were doing that study in

preparing thi s

report?
166

1825 I Street , N. Washington , D.

20006

JABS REPORTING , INC "n'" nmm' ;" hcrp nnrt;nn

296- 6102 (888) 805- 5227
(202)

0081

""~

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 13 of 21

THE WITNESS:

I f no one

made any

exchanges, you I re not necessarily left with the
OFF schedule.
BY MS. HERRMANN:

What are you left

with, sir?

Going to the reactors in accord with a

change in their need or desire for receipt as

opposed to using strictly the OFF

schedule.

They

don 1

t

have to exchange.

Does the standard contract provide for

what you' ve

just told me?

The standard contract provides wiggle

room on every

aspect.

It sets the OFF schedule as

a paradigm, as a baseline, but it provides for
swaps, it provides for shut- down reactors, et

cetera.
All of those possibilities are
Would you take a look at Exhibit

there.
No.

please, which is the contract, and point me to
where it provides for the system that you' ve

just

told me about, where DOE
look back at it

-- I' m

actually going to

again on the record.
383

1825 I Street , N. Washington , D. e. 20006

JABS REPORTING , INe. www j"hcrp"....rt;nn

(202) 296- 6102 (888) 805- 5227

0082

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 14 of 21

STANDARD CONTRACT ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS:
All OVIn~W IUId SItUtu

E. R.

David C. lone,,; Assoclares. Inc. 9302 Lee HiShway, Suite 700
Johnson

N~ s. MontgomCf)'
U.s: Depanment of EnerJy Office of Ovilian Radioactive
WISfC Management

BlUy M. Cole

Eo It. Johnson Associates. Inc.

Fairfax, VA 22031 (703) 359-9355

1000 Independence Ave.. SW Washinston. DC 20585 (202) 586-8320

9302 Lee Highway, Suire 700 Fairfax. VA 22031 (703) 359-9355

Abstract
The DepanmeRt of Energy has identified 35 Issues associated with the Standanl Contract for Disoosal of Spent Nuclear Puel and/or Hith-Level Waste (10 CfR Part 961) which need 10 be resolved to ensure that tho waste management system can achieve maximum efficiency while attemPting
to ensure equity unODg Ihc wast.c owners. This paper presents an OveMCW of these issues

NWPA mandated that the conuact set forth the which disposal services would be made avaUable many yem. and even decades. into the future. In essence. this contract was to establish the conditions for implell)enting a highly complex. teChnical
terms and conditions

ner

process Illhough very IlUlc Information existed

regantlng such essential clements u

the

prefemd geoloaic medium for disposal. or

even the basic componcms of 1hc waste
manqement system. Fur1her complicating this

and discusses the ongoing issue resolution
process.

challenge wu the need not only to establish such conditions in a contract. but abo DOE' decision to develop this contract IS part of the Code of Pc4cral Regulations. This process
incIudcc1 publishing a proposed role.

Backlfound
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. as amended (NWPA), assians Department of EneraY (DOE) Ihe responsibility of
providing for the pcnnanent disposal of spent
nuclur fuel (SNF) and hJah-level waste

considering public commcms. issuing a final rule. aDd signing a contract with every owner and generator of SNF in Ihc country.
On Febnwy 4. 1983. DOE published a Notice or Proposed Rulemakina for Ibis conaract. Over the next two months, DOE received nearly 700 pases of comments on this proposed contract from nuclear utilities. industry trade GSSOCiations, pubIc interat groups. public utility commissions. and individuals. The exfl:nt of these comments . was evide&n of the significance auachcd to die terms. condidons. and provisions contained in
the concract.

(fD..W). Specifically, SccIfon 302(1) of the NWP A aulhorized tho DOB 10 carer Into
colllJacts with !he owneis or generators

commcn:laI SNf and/or IU..W (primarily
"dUties) for disposal services. To be eligible
for Iheae disposal RlYiccs. these OWl1el'l or

gcOCl1lOIS we~ requi~ by June 30, 1983.

10 siiD the contract

'1be NWP A that this conlrld. like moa other contncts, include routine
Provlslcm concerning fees. terms of paywer.t,

~i~

On April 18. 1983. the

Standard

CUntriCi fOi Disoosal of Silent Nuclear Fuel

. lAd administrative proc:cdUIa. In addilion. Ihe
1$1

and/or HJlM.evei Waste (10 CPR Part 961)

HQOO10103

0083

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 15 of 21

aAOlOACIIVE "ASIB MAHAOEtoCeft'
W8$ iswCd
19'3

4IS . final rule. By Iho June 30, deadUne established In the NWPA. over

Priority RIIIkJn& (APi). how

10 separate CONradr had been IiSQed

1M newly IdendnCd wastes added to the ICCeptana:

udUdes and olhct owners and gCOCratOfS SNF and flLW. CurRndy, there arc 80

of

queue?
. Should

DO8 and other Pedend Agencfes be
IIIocatbt of

contraas (70 With utiUdes) repre&eI1dn, 66

ditremlt wurc
faciUde.s.

0"" (j6 uliJides) ancIlSI

. SboaId 1M

Tho StIndanf Ccnaact atabIlsheci tho

~tJfUdea of Cbe various panics in the
payment for dISPOsallervic:es.

for DO8 acceptance and disposal of SNF ancf HLW. It establishes the R4Uir=era ' and Opelldonal
of admlnlslradve marrec,. fees. ferms of'
WISft:

COlllrDClual medaanJsaa

determined by MTU, or by number of CIIIIJIers? Whco IbouIcIIILW bt-Irdaded In 1M priority nnkfnp and C8pIdIy aUocadons?
. What basis Ibould Pun:lwea Ute In

PaIdweq'1 ICCqItt.b CIpIdty (or HLW (patIallady colIIIDCn:faI HLW) be

treated fdendc:aJly as OCher

ind WlSfe ICCeprance procedura. The Sf8ndanI

ac:c:eptance criteria.

Sche4dea (DeS) and bow far into tho filbI~ should Puldwers predict lhelr
. Should tho Pun:hasca be IUbjcc( to

defermfnlna the quantity of waa to ldendfy on Chefr Delivery Commitment
DCSs1

provides (or the acqufsidon o( tide to Ihe SNP

Contnacr also

sancdons (or implOpedy described SNP
after the waste has

DOE (acUicie.s,

ancvor HI. W by DOE. its
and Its

II'aIISportadon to

subsequent disposal.

DOS?
condnuecf lncJusion

aI~y been accepted by
of

Is there a legidmate reason (or the
month.20 JICn:cnt tlcxiblUty dawe in Ibc Standard Conb1ct? . Are Ibc FInal Delivery Schedules (FDS) subject to Ibc exchange provisions or must aD exchanges be finalized before thc submittal of Ihe FDSs? . How lit DCS exclwtaes between

the Pun:hucn' 2

Standard ContraCt Issua

contncdng Pf'OOC&t

SCilI existed WheD these CCXWICts were signed.
recognized IIw the Sf&ndanf Contract

monlhs, many ouCSUndlna fssuca

Since Ihc NWPA required IIw die be completed within silt
DOB

in certaJn effectively implement the wUte acceptanoc

contained fnsufftclent

~I

Purdlasers aoina to be implcmcnttd? . Am die DCS (orms I1Itficfendy clear to Ihe

process. In the 1981 Mwlll Capacity
Report (ACR). DOE indiC4ted that many contractrelated issues Will n:quire resolution 10 diu Ihc waste management system can achieve maximum eftlciency while altempcing to assure
equity il.lDong mc waste owners.

Purdwers so that they will be tilled out U desi~ by
. How should DOE pursue " rounding" up or down to ensure shJpCnem o( full cast loads?

DOE?
I'CSpOnse time be

. Should

a mlXimwn

The list of 35 contracc-relatcd issues which n:qulre resolution prior to waste :1cceptance arc U follows:
. What ale the exceptions to the Oldestfirst (OFF) priority rankJng?

DOe' s proposed sChedules and the Inidi1don of negodadons1
. What would

spc:c:ified for a Purdwcr s reJecdon of

Fuel-

constitute an emergency requiring the inttnupdon of the rtguWty scheduled fuel shipments and how would these intenupdons be handled?

. Should

DOE consider another Scheduling basis besides OWl After mc Issuance of the Acceptance

Owwncn and

ellra8li bIG IP'Of:IMftI8 Ytilll DOe 8nct.W

of SNP 8IId HLW wIto

(or dispoallClYb8 lie Rfemld to II '

llaft paid

hri:tluen..

HOO01 01 04

0084

.....

- -- - -. .

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 16 of 21

733

!tAD(OACOVE WASTe MANAGEMENT

was issued as a finII1 rule. By chc June 30. 1983 deadUne established In the NWPA. over 10 scpmre conb3C1S had been signed by utiUdes and orher owners and lenenltOrs of

Priority Ranking (APR). bow are
queue?
. Should
.

~wly .

identified wastes added to the acceptaN:C

ooB IIIId other Federal Agencies be

SNF and IILW. Cunendy. the~ IW 80
conaias (10 with utilities) rqnsendnJ 66 dlffmnt waste owners (56 utUities) and 151 facliities.
The Standard Contract est2blished the contractuAl medwIisID for DOE w:epc:ance and disposal of SNF and IILW. It establishes

heated tdenliCIIly IS other Purc:huers Should the aUocadon of acapunce capacity for m.W (pIniculady commercial IILW) be determined by M'n1s or by number of
canisters? When should IlL W be InCluded

in the priority rankings and capacity allocations?
. What basis should Pun:hascn use In

the requirementS an4 opcnldonal

respomibiltties of the various pties in the of adminlsliative matters. fees. terms of mas payment for disposal services. waste accepcance criteria. and wastc acccpemcc
procedures. The Standard Conrtact also provides for the acquisition of tide to the SNF

determining the quantity of waste to idcnIify on their Delivery Commitment Schedules (DCS) and bow far info the future should Putdlasers predict their DCSs? Should the Purchasers be subject to sanctions for Improperly described 8m: after the waste has already been accepted
DOB?
. Is

and/or IlL W by DOB. its tran5pOlUlion to DOB facUlties, and its subsequent disposal.

there a legitimate reason for the conlinucd inclusion of the Purchasers ' 1
month-20 percent t1cxibiUty dause in the

Standard Contract Issues
Since the NWPA required contracting process be completed within six monlhs. many outstandinl issues still existed when these c:onIBdS we~ si&ned. DOE reoogniud that the StandanS Connc:t contained insufficient detail in ccnain areas to effectively implement the waste acceptance process. In the 1981 Annual Capacity Report (ACIl), DOE indicated that many conlJ'DCtrelated issues wilt RqUin: resolution so that the
&hat the

StandanI COnaacCl . Arc the Final Delivery

Schedules (IDS) subject to the exchange provlsioM or must aU exchan&es be finalized befo~ the submittal of the FDSs? . How an: DCS exchanges between Pulthasers going 10 be impiemedC4? . . Are Ihe DCS forms sufficieady dear to the .
Purdwcrs SO that they will be fUled oat IS

waste management sysrem can achieve

. How should DOE pursue " rounding" up or down to ensure shipment of ful1 cask I . Should a maximum ~spoNe time be

desired by DOB?
specified for a Purchaser s
DOE' s

maximum efficiency while attempting to assure equity among the waste owners.

rejection of

The list of 35 contraCt-relaled issues which mplin: resolution prior to wute acceptance are as follows:
. What are the exccpdons 10 the Oldest-Fuel.
FIJ'St (Off) priority ranking? . Should DOE. coru;ider anomer scheduling

. What would constitu~ an emcrgcncy .'

of negotiations?
requiringlhe Wenuption of tho ~ scheduled fuel shipments and how these tntenuptions be handled?

proposed schedules and the inld

Oncn and pacon or SNP 1114 HLW who
8paaa111 eftIInI iI\It)

wich DOE 8NJ/fIc _VI ....

basis besides After the issuance of the Acccpunce

for di8polll ta'\'ioG8

... nttm4 to u .Putd1a8111. '! o.

HOOO10105
81-:.

0085

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 17 of 21

CONTRAcr ISSUE IU!.SOUmON
. Should

139

priority be pVeft to reactOrs whim

. Can Nuclear WISte Fund monies be used to

have permanently shutdown?

.

shoUld Appcadix F be modified to include an ApPendix E based classification of Ihe SNF beinI described? Should Appendix F be submitted with the FDS for DOE approval?

pay for capital improvCIDCIUS at Purchaser sir.cs to upgrade shipping cast handling capabilities? . WhIch is the bindin, document - the
sipJed conuaas or the published ftnaIrule'l

Should efforts be made to riconcile Ihe

. ShoUld Ihe Appendix F submiUaJs
IIppI'Oval/conlinaadon 1

rcqu~

. How must nonCueI components be bated

~zadon RqUiremaus as a aiteria (or
approvin, FOSs?
. What an: Che definidOM of "routine" and

tWo? Should DOE use Rce1vlng fadUcy

.

.

.

and packaged 10 be aa:cpre4 tor disposal by DOE? How wUl pdodty (capacity) be allocated to ((or) nonfuel components? Does die Appendix E SNF clusificalion systclll need clarificalion? Should either class NS-2 or NS-5 of Appendix B be modified ro Include Ihe assembly hanI~ mlduaJs from rod consoUdadon? Will DOE accept SNF In dual purpose

incidental" cask maintelwtcc as used In lite
Standanl ContrlCt?

at-~r

casks for dJsposa11

. WUI DOE accept SNF. 1n mulli-element

scaled canistets (MESC) for disposal?
. WUI nonfuel components be IICCCpted
.
if

Basically. dIesc issues can be car.clorizcd into two distinct groups - equity and efficiency. The natuse o( these issues ranlcs from the need for simple clarificalion 10 complex analyses. although the end result. or rcc:om.mendc:d RSOtudon to each Issue win usually be based on economics. From Ihc DOE perspective. It Is Ihc ecoromlcs of manaaemcnr providing 811 cfftcicnt
system to IICCOmOdare the

.

they an: not integral to Ihe SNF1 Should DOE ptOIDullare canister specificadons and acceptance crireria for consolidarcd fuel canisters? Should DOE promulgate canlster specl.fk:adons and accepcance crir.cria for
failed fuel canisr.ers?

indusuy as a whole.

From the utilltics. perspective. it is Ihc economics of Individual day-to-clay operations. includinglmpW on power production and onsir.c spent fuel storaae.

. Under what

conditions (if any) win

ACR Issue Resolution Process
Through the ACR Issue Resolution Process. the Purchasers. I'Cpraenr.cd by the Edison Electric InsrilUr.c'S Utility Nuclear Waste and Transpoctation Program (EEI/UW ASTE) and the U.S. Council for &ern Awareness (USCEA). jointly represendng 64 of the 66 Ownetl or genentolS. established an ACR CoIDmlacc to Ihc Purchasers in staff. to-staff tec:hnlca1 exdw1ges willt DOE. The ACR commiaee is rqmcrued by an ACR Re$pODSe Team in its Intmcdons with DOE.

nonstandard fuel be accepted as St8Rdard

fuel?
. Should a clear

deftnidon of tailed fuel be provided in Appendix 8?

. Should 1M definiCion of A " yeat' as civen in

the Standard ConuIct be aIr.cred to conform with Ihc expected shipping year (i.e.. January I to December 31)1
. Should the Purc:base11 be

Indemnified by DOB aaainst claims (or public UilblUt)'

rep~

Irisin. out of or in conneclion with

cormaual activitiellt the Purchasers'
slft$?
. Should

DOE and Ihe Purchasers' repleSCfttldvcl

credits or pcnaIdes be established to enoourqe wasce pactagjng along DOE
lUide1ines?

inltiate4 a c:ooperalivc effort in 1987. In response to an offer by DOE. 10 address and ultimately develop recommendatioM (or

HQO01 01 06

0086

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 18 of 21

1(JJ
resolution of these Standarc1

IADIOACI'IVE W AS1E MAHAGBIENI'

Comnct-rel*d

issues. The dual objecdvcs of INs process to rer.aIn SNFIHLW mlnlllement flexibility and
equity amonglbe Pun:buea while providing for thO effccdve IDS cconoadc:a1 f'Uncdoains of

CoauDltmerx Schedules (DeS) by the Purmasen 1ndicadn8 1M SNP Intended to be

clcBY- lIafnst I liven
cKcbIn&ed (opdonal), (.)

IIlocadon. (3) Iho

submiUat of DCS 0xcIun&e IeqUCSCS

the waste manqemtllt SJSfem.

.

PwdIucII whcRby approved DCSs an be Ihe IllbadaaI of FInal
Delivtay Scbedulea (FDS) pmvicUa& additionat

PIaeOOy, DOl! expec:u co leek final
resolution on the mljority of these Issue8

Pun:buen widt IppIOYed DCSs. and ftnaIly (5)
the (lbysk:al cpcradoas

spcc:IftcIty

pl'-

deliveries b)'
die

through the public rulemaklna process. The
end aalt of INs wiD be mocWIcadOAt or

usodated wflb

ac:cepCInCe

of SNP fnxa a Pun:basers lite.

clAriftcadons made to the SClndlnS Ootmct

duouab nodc:es pdnred In tho Federal Reafscer. AJ such. DOE is workina dUJacndy to develop
its Positions to chcre Issues. 1bese DOE
Positions wililhen IeIVO IS Ihc basis for any

The ftnt ICIIc lDcIucIea tho annual publlc:adon by DOE of the Acccpfancc Priority RankIne (APR) and ACR as n:qund by the Standanl ContncL AI ChIs II In onJOing
pRJCCSS and

proposed c:hanaes to the Standard Contract which would then proceed throup the rulcmaking process.

acma II Ibe bull of 111

other

waste acccptInCC pllDIIInJ ICdvides. and as

To this end. the ACR Response Team has already submitted their consensus opinions on a number of Ihesc Issues (or DOB'
considentfon in the development

such. Is canady Iho molt pmmlneat aspect of Ihe ovenll WISIe accepunce pllDl1lnl process. DOE has placed a first priority OD die
RSOludon o( aI1 colllrlCt.celaied Issues
aft'cc:q or usociated wich Ibe establishment

the DOE Positions. Ie sbould be pointed out that DOE
of

of die priority rankina wille acceptanee
capacity aUocadons. DOE IS pllnl1in8 10

has the raponsibUity to IaGlvc all of Chcsc issues. wilb or wilbout utility input. In somc cases. cspcdaUy those suicdy deaIIn8 wfdt equity. the utilities posIdoM would most Ukdy DOE is usfna Ih1s udUty Input, as be weU AS the results of conlrlcfor analyses. in the development of its positions on these Issues.

pcvc:cod wilb public lUIemaking for Ihese fttst

priority Issues beaiMiDlln 1993.
The seaxId priority fwes

an: those

assocI~ wfthlhe DCSs and FOSs. As Ihc
ACR serves IS the basis (or the submittll of
DCSs (rom the Purd1asers. it would tIOt be

pNdcnt 10 attempt to tully

~vc

those issues

Status of Issue Resolution Process
prioritized the resolution of these DOE issues based on how they impact. or poccntially impact. the overall waste acccpUncc process which includes bodt the planning and physical activities assoc:iattd widt acc:epdng SNP from Pun:basers sileS. In Beneral. the waste acceptanee process can be broken down iIUo

assocfattd wfch Ihc DCSs and FDSs uncil all issues affecdnglhe AFBJACR process

completely moIved. AJ such. DOE has assigned as second priority Issues lOOse dealing of DCSs. IIIe subcnlual of wilb the submiual DCS exchange requests. and Ihc submittal of FOSs.

All

issues arc those associated

with Chc physical adivides relab:d to waste

several stages: (I) the establishment

of I

acceptance.

issues include the

priority nnldna for 111 SNF discharged from
commen:ialle3CfOrs and Ihe rmaltina annual

packaainl and tanh1er lpecificadoM for

various wlLUeS. as wen as issues associated

accepwtee allocations 10 Pun:hasers based on this ranking. (2) the submittal of Delivery

wich SNF c:lassiftc:adoos and verificadon upon

receipt. These issues have been categorized as

HQOO10107
_u_- -..

0087
AA"A"A

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 19 of 21

COHI1tACf IUtm

ItUOUmON
(ltu:lIIdilJl DOE and altlU:ut) It) be Iralltd oilier

161

third pdonty lssue& by 002 and. u sueh. will be the final set of issues fa be RSOIved.

Federal
of

14 umu

the

overaU WtUU tlCCtptiltJCf prtH:eIl'l

First Prioritlluues
As swed above. all contraCt-mated issues assoc:i_d with &he APR and ACR pIOCCSS have been liven fiat priority In Che ACR Issue
resoludon proceu. This seedon
the IIILQR and baclclround

willldckas

weD as d

~ssi",
1M

these Issues. as some of the c:oAtIcIendoas
of

and factors Inftuenclnl Iheir n:solulion.
What art

Alain. lids PosItion c:ombinea two of the 35 issues due to the similarity In their subject malter. The tOcus of tbls-Jsaae is Cbe addition of waste which WU hOt ~Yiousl1 ldeadfied to the ICCCptInCo pdodty It should be notc4 IIW Ihe APR Includes aU knovm SNP clisdqes from c:ommcldal ICICCOrs rqanlless of die owner (WlUdes. Pcdenl aaencies. eIC.) ancIRadell of whether or not I conaacc or fnrcn&caey
q~ent (or

dispoaI seIYIces has been

"cepdolll .10 tht OFF priority
DOE consider tJlIOlhu

executed. Funher. Ihe StancIanI ConInct
requlla owners of SNF to RpOrt such

raMltll tUId ,hould

tchtdulltr, btull btlltkl OFF1
Due to the similarity in the context of Ihcse two issues. they have been combined Into a
sinale issue. A$ requiRd by the S1andud
. Contract.

wastes 110 DOS on In &MUll basis. Tbe
questions lllen becomes: - How should SNP

wNcb was p~vfously disc:fwlcd but

Included In past APRs be added to the

DOt

the acceptance priority nnkinl for SNP is based on the dale it permanendy dlsdWJed. willi Che owners of the oldest SNP. on an Industry wide basis. given die highest priority. This approach js commonly n:ferml to as olclest fUel tint (OFF). Several citations in the Standa.cd
ConInlCt refer fa exc:cpdons 110 Ihc OFF

queue'" If ChIs SNP has not been included due eo an ovmiJht by the owner of the
SNP. Is It fair co add It Into Che queue based on its KbIII dischaIJe dale when this would adveael; Jmpltt all 0Cbet PIIa:bHen wbo have been property foUowlns 1l11he procedures and n:quIrcmems set foRb In 1he NWP A and StandanI Comnu? 1bis
Position wiD aeet to Ie8Olvo this Issue Ind

The n:soIution of lids issue will focus on cladfJlnl dIat the appIicadon of the OFF pdnciple Is usccI
acceptanCe priority.
only in cstabllshln, the acoepcanc:e priority

to emphasize IhIt while all SNP qualiftes for Inclusion In 1M APR. DOB wiD not provide disposal services !or SNP ldenlifted
In Che APR unless I

rankin,. and as such. there should be 110

dw1 OFF would n:suIt in inequtUble assignment of ~plm:e capacity amq the Pwdwcn. The Posidon beilla developed will also diSWSS further the opdons available to Wille owners in adJusdna IhcIr positions in the delivery queue. Additionally. It should
exceptions. Any basis OCher

llRelDent for disposal of the SNP Is in
place and all applicable fees paid.
. What would consdlllte an

comut or inIerqency

emer,etII:J

rtqulrllt, tht ltulrrupdoll 01
scheduled fuel shlpmenu a.J

reI""""
ul4bllshtd

Ihroulla tht

APRIACR prOCUI Gnd how

be noll:d ChIt the SNP deUvered to DOS
neccI not be the

would lhuc lMmIIpliolll bt h4ntlItJR
ArtIcle V.D of the Stlndud CoDtllCt providcl tha1 "emeqency deUveries of SNP and/or IlL W may be ICCeptaI by DOB before the elite provIdecIln the deliWI)' commitment schedule upon pelor wrluaa appcovIl by DOB: However. the StandanS Contnct does not define Che rena

basis for a liven Pluthasc(s acceptance
capacity aUocaIion. IInce IUOCIdons

paniadar SNP dIat wu

the

Purdwer spcc:iftc' I'IIhct dIan - fuel
1peclf'1C

How art lIewfJ4Icwtf/Itd WfJSIuJPruchattTl

HQO01 01 08

0088

- .- ..--- ---

------Document 783-7

...

- -----

-Page 20 of 21

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Filed 04/07/2004

162

RADlOAcnvB WAStE MAMMENPHI'

emergency" or specify under whit
. condIdons Chli clause "may" be IPPUccL

deltrmbdll, 1M qUlWlly of

WcUle ," IdtIIIf7

on lhelr DCSI tUId Mw fat' IIIItI the
mould I'urchau" predict Ihdr DCSst

Presendy. Ihe PosItion being developed by DOB to lids Issue fOCUSCl on d1c equitable ftaIJIIeftt of lit PurchueIs. Any emeqency delivery acc:eptccI by DOB may llpUk:andy
impact Che ICbeduled deliveries of

/u#Irt

Anide V. I of the SIIndaId Contract Pun_II 10 autaIt DCSs
WNdt shIU Ideadfy au SNF lI1dIor IILW the P\m:baser wIsbe8 to deliYer to DOB
bcJ1an1a163 1IIOaIbI1bereaab:t.
Ihere has been IOaIO confusIoa

SNF

baa III ocher

Pun:IIuen.

Olllldnl

emerpncy dellveIJ stIlUs for such
SNP SIOl18e space m~y result fA . 8reCDcndous number
ConditiON as a Ihoctqe of
requesC for

wi'" Ihe pIuueI . all SNP and/or JD.W- lid

a~~

8 AI

IDCII.c

ws-

to dellver. -

A &lvcnPun:buel'lll&J.

ea1C11c:ncy deliveries from Che

Purchase... All or Ibese facrol1 arc befna
considered by DOB In estabUsh1ng Irs
Posidon to ibis Issue. .
Should priority be ,111M 10 reactors
IuJV~ p~flftaMlllly

IheaI to a much smaller MTU quandt)'.
ftrst priority Issues. since the infdal Iavcat

willa to deUver aft of Its SNP even Ihoup theIr lllocadon for a panicular JCII' tabIas

lbJs Issue has been lncIudeclllt the let of
whkla

the lanauaae In Ibe Srandald Coaanct wu
that Ihe W&Ue quanddea IpCdfted In the ACB.. ICM U the basis for DCS submlUals. ThIs Posidon will clarify this In8ent and aim

s/uUdqw,.l Anicle VI. t(b) of 8hc StandanI ConIraCt provides Ihat "priority may be accorded any SNP'M from a civilian nuclear power reactor thaL.. has been shutdown permancndy for what ever cason. dtc Position bcinS developed by DOE to ChIs Issue

dJsc:uss how far InIO Che Mule udllties
should be pilMinS In the submittal of

" AI"

lheir

DCSs.

focuses OR the equitable tlealment of aU

waste acc:epuncc capuity AI in any given year win be limited. providing
Purchasers. for the priority acceptanCe of

SNP from

shutdown n:aaoll oUell 8hc potcndll for
slpUfic:ant impactS on tho sc:becIulcd

Should 1M dqillitloll old "yetU' 8 as glvelt In 1M SlIIlf/Jard COIUTtU:I bt mItred ttJ cot(Dm with the expected sltlppm, yetU' (I.e.. JdllUlll'J I 10 Deconbtr JI)l Anicle I. definition 20. of the SWIdard
Contract defines & year as Ihe period

deUveries from other Pua:lweI1as
establlshedduough Ihe APRIACB.. process.
However. the refUsal of DOE to allow for priority acceptance from shutdown- reac:cors may result In some reactOrs having to wait 20 to 30 yem to be decommissioned after they finish genclUdngicleclricity. This

which beJint on October I and ends on September 30. - the Federal fiscal year.
However. the ACR applies projec:ted annual
wasu: ACCepCanCe raJeS to the APR. resultina

would n:qul.re Ihesc rtactolS to maimin

In individual Pun:baser aUocadons (or Che fust ten calendar years following Ihe projected commencement of DOE facility
operalions. Thus. Ihe waste

their storage pools and any additional onsite storage capacity over this period of time which would result In die associated COStS incumd for rhese activities. This Position will addreu all of these factors while
emphasizing mat Che Pua:hasets also have

acxe~

planning process is based on calendar years. and PurclwelS are requimllD submit DCSs for each calendar year In which dley 11M an alloc:adon in Ihe ACR. ThIs PosItion wilt clarify the deftNdon of the tenD "year" in the Standard ConUlCt
How mull

the opdon o( tI1ding "rights" through the

DCS exchange process
What basis should I'wCMstrs rue

noll/rU' compO#lt,," 11M rtsldual

","crural COmpollt1lll

ill

from cotISQlid4ted
be

flul

be

trttlted and packtJ,td ttJ

accepted

HQOO10109

0089
A AftAftft

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-7

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 21 of 21

coN11tACf ISSUE ItESOU1ttON

'1.'

for

dispolal by

DOE1 HtJw

wUf

priMilY

(capadty) be allocattd 10 (for) nonjilel and SIructUtdl compoMlU$l
'nUs PosItion combines several related
Conrract provides that for

issues. Aitide VI.A.2(b) of the Standard
disposinJ of SNF undcr chis conuact
alsO ClfI:I1CIs 10 other 1han SUD1ard

DOE' s obUgarion .

fuel:

Appendix E ollhe Standard ColUrllCt

povlde$ flyc classes of nonstandard fuel indudinJ nonfuel componenrs and
COfdQlidated fuel. 1bJs Position

wiD

provide clarification on how nonfucl and
pictaaeel for acc:eptance by.

strUctUral compoRenu muSt be gelled and

DOE and on how these p3CkaJect components will be
tlUled in Che

APR and ACR process. TbJs Position has been included in the- set of fint priority issues sincc the addition ofnonfucl and $U1ICt1IP1 components Into the APR wilh the subsequent assisnment of an allocation can have slaniflcant impacts on the overall delivuy queue ~blished through the APR/ACR process. of Ihcse componenlS classify as Since many Class C or Oreater-1ban-CIus..c (GTCC) wale$, it is unclear whether DOE should be accepting such componenlS for disposal tmder the tenDS of 10 CFR Part 961. At a minimum. a bener definition of what components arc acceptable and how diey is needed. should be

p~ect

HQO01 011 0

0090
~n

A AnA"'"