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

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-7

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 1 of 13

STANDARD CONTRACT ISSUE RESOLunON PROCESS: IUfd Slllllls OVUV"W All

David C. Jones

N~ S. Montgomefy
S: Dcpanment of Energy
Office of avilian Radioactive

BlUy M. Cole

E. R. lotwon Associates, Inc.
9302 Lee IDghway, Suite 100 Fairfax. VA 22031 (103) 359.9355

E. R.loiwon Associates. Inc.
9302 Lee Highway, Suite 100 Fairfax. VA 2203 I (703) 359-9355

Waste Manasement 1000 Independence Ave.. SW Washinaton. DC 20585 (202) 586.8320

Abstract
The Department of Energy has Identified 35 issues associated widl die Srandanf Conuact for Disoow of SIlent Nuclear fuel andIor 8I1h-Level Waste (10 CFR Part 961) which need 10 be resolved to
en.wre Challho waste management system can

NWPA mandated that the conuact set forth Chc

achieve maximum efficiency while attemPting
to ensure equity Among the waste owners.

ThIs paper pments an overview of these issues
and disCusses the ongoing Issue resolution

process.

Backp'ound
The Nuctear Waste Policy Act of 1982. as amended (NWPA), assigns the Department of Energy (DOE) the responsibility of
providing for the permanent disposal of spent

terms and conditions under which dispow services would be made IvaUable many years, and even decades. Into Chc future. In essence. this contract was to establish the conditions for implementing a highly complex. teChnical process although very little information existed regarding such essential elementS as die preferred geologic medium for disposal. or even Ihc bas((i c:omponcms of me wISCC management system. Punher complicating dIIs challenge was the need not only 10 establish such conditions in a conttact. but also DOE' decision to develop lhis contract as put of the Code of Pe4eral Regulations. This process included publishing a proposed rule. considering public commenls, issuing a final rule. and signing a contract with every owner and generator of SNF In the country.

nuclw fuel (8m:) And bJp.level waste (HLW). Specifically, Scaion 302(1) of the NWP A aulhorizeclthe DOE to enter into conlnlcts widt the owneis or gcocl'llOn of commen:illl SNf and/or HLW (primuily
uliUtics) for disposal services. To be eligible

On February 4, 1983. DOE published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for this
conaraa. Over Chc next two months. DOE

received nearly 700 pages of commmlS on ChIs proposed conlract from nuclear utilities. industry IrIde associations. pubUc Interest
groups, public utility commissiom. and

(or these disposal services, these ownen or
generators were required 10 silO the contract

individuals. The extent of these commentS was

evidm:e of the significance
the contract.

attached to che

by June 30, 1983.

terms. condidORS, and provisions contained In

'1be NWP A required that. this contrlCt. like moa olber contncCS. include roudnc
provis1oos concemuur fees. tems

or niWieni.. .
151

CoraUiCi (ui Diii:iiiHl

. and administndve p~;I'CS. "" In addidon~ .be

Q~ and/or malt-Level Waste
On April 18. 1983. the

Standard
Nuclear Fuel

(10 CfR Part 961)

HQO01 01 03

0083

-----.. ,,---

-Document 780-7 Filed 04/06/2004
aADlOACI1VE 'NAS1B MANACiEMEHr
was issued as a final nile. 19B3 8y the June 30, deadline e.uabllched In the NWPA. over

- - .,
Page 2 of 13

- . - ,

.j

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Priority RanIdna (APR). how am
IdcnrUled wlStCS added to the

10 sepanre CONIIcCs had been

udUties and other owners and gCOCratOrs of

liped by

queue?
. Should

SNF and HLW. Cum:ndy. there arc 80
corttraas (70 wfrh utilities) replaentina 66
dlft'erenc WISfe OWlleq (J6

DOB and other fedenl Identically as odIer

Agencies be

facilities.

utilities) IIIcIISI

Should the lllocadon of

The Standant CcntrIct e.sttbIlshed tho
contrDCluaJ mechanisal
and dispoSal of

for HLW (padculady COlIIIIICn:iaI In.\\') dettnafned by MTUs or by aUlllbet of When 8houId ItLW
In 1hc priority

Pun:twu,"1 CIpIdty

be

the mpremenu ' and OpelldonaJ
~blUdes 01

(or DO8 acce(lClnce SNP and HLW. It establlshe.t
the various panies in the

afloeatfons?

nnkfnp and CIpIdty

~1Iduded

areas of lI4aainfstrldyO maarets. fees, terms

pa)'IDent for dlaposaJ rervic:es. wasre

of'

acceptance criteria. ind waste
ACCeptance procedures. The Standard Conbacr also
provides tor the acquisition of

and/or fa. W by DOE, its b'Wportadon to DOE facUlties. and its subsequent disposal.

dde to Ihe SNP

determfnlna the quandry of WIStc to ldenlfty on Ibefr Delivery CommllDlellt Scbec1dea (DeS) and bow tar Inro rho filCUre should Pun:f1asers predict their DCS.s? . Should tho Pun:fwcq be SUbject to sancdons for Impropedy described SNP after the waste hu already been ICCepttd by DOB?

. What basis Ibould Pun:twe.. WIe in

Is lhele a legldmue reason for the
condnued incJusioo of

Standard Contraet Issues
Since the NWPA ~ired contlilCdna proow be completed that the wiChin si~ monlhs. many outsUndins issues Still existed when . these COClUlCts were signed. DOE recognized Ihat the SIIndanI Contract conrained fnsutftcient deWlin cenain areas to effectively implement the waste IOCCptanoc process. In the 1981 Annuli Capacity Report (ACR). DOE IndiC4ted that many conlnlCtrelaud Issues will n:qulre resolution 10 WlISfe manaaement s)'Sb:m can achfeve rhu the

month.20 J)en:ent t1exiblUty clause in Ihe StandII'd Contract?
. Are Ihc FInal Delivery Schedule$ (FDS)

the Pun:hucn' 2

submittal of Ihc FDSs? . How are DCS exclw1ges between Pun:hascrs goinilO be implemcnrtd7 . Are the DCS (orms IUfticfendy clear 10 rhc

to 1he exchange provisions or aJJ exchanges be finalized be(o~ Ibc mUSt

su~

Pun:hue1S so that they desin:d bywill be tilled out as DOE?
. How should DOE pumIC " rounding
. Should

maximwn efficiency white attempcing to assure equity among the waste owners.

The list of 35 contracc-related issues which require resolution prior to waste :1cceptance Me as follows:
. What Ie the exccptiom to the Oldest. Should

of negodadons?
. What would

" up or down to ensure shipment of full cast toad.s? a maximwn response time be specified for a Pun:hascr s rejection DOB' s proposed schedules and the Initiation
constitute an emergency

requiring the intenupdon of the regularly
scheduled tUe.I sbfpments and how would these Interruptions be handled?

FuelFirst (OFF) priority ranking? DOE consider another Scheduling basis besides After die Issuance of the Acceptance

ellfaed ill8O lpet:menCS

Owners II1II Jeaauan or SNP and HLW 'WIto flaw fit'" DOE IIId,W have paid

(or dUpoal servioea are N(etnId to

u ' Pvldluets..

HOO01 01 04

0084

-..
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 780-7 Filed 04/06/2004 Page 3 of 13
1J3
was issued as a fiM1 Nle.

ItADtOACOVE W AS11t MANAGEMENT

By the June 30.
"

1983 deadUne established in the NWPA, over conuacts had been signed by 10 and IcocratOrs of utiUtics and od1cc SNF and HLW. Cunendy. there IW 80 conmas (70 with utilities) represcntinJ 66

se~

o~

Priority Ranking (APR). how are identified wastes added 10 the acccptaN:e queue? Should DOB and other Federal Agencies be
treated Idenlieally lIS other Pun:hasm

~wly .

" Should

IS different waste owners (56 utilities) and

the aUocadon of acceptance capacity for HLW (particularly commercial HLW) be
determined by M11Js or by number of

fadildes. The Standasd Conuaa established the contraCtUal medwUsm for DOE acceptance and disposal ofSNF ancI HLW. It establishes the requilUlentS and operalional
rcspoNibilities of Chc various parties in the

canisters? When should IlL W be InCluded

in the priority nntings and capacity
allocations?
. What basis should Purchasers use in

areas of admtnistiacive matters. fees. terms of pa~ent for disposal services. was~ ucepWICC criteria. and waste accepe.mcc
procedures. The StandanJ Conb'aCt also
provides for the acquisition of tide to Chc

determining me quantity of waste 10 Identify on their Delivery CommibRent schedules (DCS) mI how far into die fubJre should Pun:hascrs predict their DCSs?
. Should the Purchasen be subject to

SNF

and/or HL W by DOB. ilS tfWPOtUlion to DOB facUities, and ilS subsequent disposal.

sanclions for Improperly described Sm: accepted after die waste has already been DOB?

Standard Contract Issues
Since the NWPA n:quired IhU me contracting process be completed within six moolhs, many outstandinl issUes still existed DOE when these contI'IdS were sllfted.

rec:ogniud that the StU1dan1 eormct contained insufficient detail in cenain arcus to effectively implement the waste acceptance

Is dtere a legitimate reason for the conlinucd Inclusion of the Putthasers ' 2 month-20 percent flexibility dause in the Stu1dan1 COntnCa " Are the Final DelivCl)' Schedules (lIDS) subject to the exchange provlsioM or must aU exchanges be finalized before the submittal o( the FOSs? . How ale DCS exchanges between Purctwcrs going to be implememed'1 . - . Arc the DCS forms sufficiently dear to Chc ,

Pun:huers so that Chey

process. In the 1987 Annual Capacity Report
(ACR), DOE lndicaud that many contraCt. related issues will RqIIlre resolution so that the
waste management system can :tehieve

" How down 10 ensure shipment of full cask I
. Should Ik I11Wmum response time be

desired by DOE? or.r rounding" up should DOE pursue "
specified for a Pun:haser s
DOE' s
of negotiations?

will be IDled out u-

rejection of .

mnximum efficiency while attempting to assun: equity among the waste owners.

proposed schedules and the inld

The list of 35 contraCt-related issues which RqUire IUQlution prior to wute
ucceptmcc lie as follows:
. What are

. What would constitute an emergency :~

RqUiring the intenuptlon of tho re scheduled fuel shlpmenlS mI how

these intemJptions be bandied?

the exceptions to the Oldest-Fuel-

Fust (OfF) priority ranting?
. Should DOE consider aoother scl\eduUng

basis besides After the issuance of the Acccpunce

HOOO10105
at-

0085

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-7

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 4 of 13

CONTRACT ISSUE RESOlUTION
. Should

1S9

.

priority be siven to reactOrs which have permanently shutdown? shoUld Appendix f be modified to include an ApPendix E based classification of the SNF beina described? Should Appendix f be submiued wiCh the FDS for DOE approvll?
submittAls require
appro val/confi rmadon 7

. Can Nuclear

Waste Fund monies be used to pay for capital improvemeIUS at Purchaser

sites to upgrade shipping cast handling

capabilities?
. WhIch is the bindinl document - the

sipled eontraccs or the plblished ftn:II rute?

. ShOUld the Appendix f

Should efforts be made to ~nclle the two?
. Should DOB use R:ocivlng fac:iUey

. How mUSt nonCuel components be b'eatcd

.

and Pactaaed 10 be aa:epced for disposal by DOE? How will prlodty (capacity) be allocated to (for) nonfuel components? Does die Appendix E SNF clusificalion system need clarification? Should either class NS-2 or NSAppendix B be modified 10 include lite
assembly hardwan: raiduaJs from

optimi.zadon R:qUiremcnts as III criteria for approving FDSs7
. What In: Ihe definido~ of "routinew and

Incidental" cask maintenance as used In the
Standard Conb1Ct'l

aHeactor

rod consoUdadon?

DOE accept SNF in dull purpose casks for disposal? . Will DOB accept SNF in multi-element sealed canfstets (MESC) for disposal? . wUt nonfud componenrs be accepted if they m not integral 10 the SNFl . Should DOE pcomulraIC caniSter specificadOlLt and acceptance crireria for
. Will
comolidar.cd fuel anistelS?

BasicaJly, these issues can be C4teloriud into two distinct groups - equity and efficiency. The IWUm of Chcse issues moles (rom the need for simple ctariftcalion 10 complex analyses. although the end result. or rcc:ommended resolution to each issue win usually be based on economics. From the
DOE. perspective. it Is Chc economics of

providing an efficient waste manaaement
system to acc:omOdatc the industry as a whole.

. Should

.

DOE promulgate caniSter spccilicatiom and acc:epmnce criteria for failed fuel canisterS? Under what conditions (if any) wiU nomWldani fuel be accepted as standard
fuel?

From the ulilides ' perspective, it is the economics of individual day-IO-day operations, including impacts on power producdon and onsite spent fuel srorage.

ACR Issue Resolution Process
Throuah the ACR Issue Resolution Process. the Pun:hasers, represented by the Edison Electric Institute' s Utility Nuclear Wti1e and
Transportation Prognm (BEIlU\V ASTE) and the U.S. Council for &ern Awareness

. Should a clear

definidon of failed fuel be

provided in Appendix E.? . Should the definition of Ii w year" as liven in

Ihe Standard ContrIct be alrucd 10 conform with the expected shipping year (i.e., January 1 to December 31)7
. Should the Pun:hasen be indemnified by

DOE aaainst claims for public liability arising out of or in connection with c:oruaauai activities at the Pun:hasers' sites?
. Should credits or penaldes be established 10

(USCEA). jointly leplesenting 64 of the 66 owners or generators. established an ACR CommiUU to represent the Pun:lwcrs in staffto-staff tcchn1ca1 exchanges with DOE. The ACR commiuu is reprcsemed by an ACR
Re$pORSe Team in its interactions wiCh DOE.

DOE and Ihe Puldwers' repcacnwivel
initiated a cooperative effort in 1981, In aupoRse to an offer by DOE, 10 address and ultimately develop m:ommcndations for

encouraae waste pa.c:taging along DOB
auide1ines?

HQOO10106

0086
AA

"A"'"

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-7

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 5 of 13

16Q
resolution of these Stlndarc1

ItADIOAcnvE WASIE MANAGEMENT

ConttICt-R~

issues. The dual objecdves of INs process are to retain SNF/HLW management flexibility and equity among the Pun:hase11 while pcovidina (or the etfecdve and cc:onomJca1 f'Uncd0ain8 of
the waste management system.

Commitment Schedules (DeS) by the Purd\asc11 indicuin8 Ih8 SNP Intended to be deUvered l8ainst a given IIlocadon. (3) Iho subCDiUlli of DCS exdw1aC aequescs by
Pun:bucrI wbeICby

excb8nged (opdOnll), (4) Ihe subadUat affinal
DcUveay Scbcdulea (FOS) providiD& 8d4idOQlJ
sII'OpOIeCI delivedes by PurdweI1 widt J&IPCOVC'd DCSs. and finally ($) usocIat.cd wilh die the physical cperadoas accepCInOe of SNP fnm & PurcbaseIS site.
spcciftcIty reaanUaI

appmved DCSs CIft be

Presmly, DOE expec:tICO 8eCt flnaI resolution on die mljority of these Issues
through me public ru1ematln& process. The end I'C$Ult of lids wiD be mocWIcadorw or clarificadons made 10 the Stmbrd CoNnct tIuouBh nodces pdnrcd In tho Federal Recisccr. AJ such. DOE is workin& dll'aendy to ckvelop its Positions to Ihcse issues. 1bese DOE

The ftrst ltIIe lacIucIca

tho

arnW

public:ation by DOE of lite Accepfance PrIority
by Chc RantIna (APR) and ACR as Scanda1d Conbact. As this II an ongoing

Positions witllhcn serve IS the basis (or any
proposed chanacs 10 Chc StandanI Contract

which would then proceed through the rolcmaking process.

process an4 serves as the buis of all other WUIC accepWICC plannlnllCdvitlcs, and as

To this end, the ACR Response Team has atre:ldy submitted their consensus opinions on 11 number of these Issues for DOB' consideration in the development of the DOE
Positions. Ie should be pointed out that DOE
has the responsibility co R!SOlve aU of ChcSc
issues, wid\ or wilhout utility input. In some cases. espcciaUy those strictly dealing wiCh

such. Is currcody Iho moat pmmincnt aspect of the overall waft 8IXqUnf:.e pllmlnl process. DOE has placed a first priority on the
resolution of aU COtllrlCt-rdated Issues

affi:cq or usociated wida Ihe establishment of the priority ranking and the acceptance capacity aUocadons. DOE IS pllMin8 to first procccd wiCh public rulemaldng for priority Issues bcaiMinl in 1993.

equity, the utilities posIdorw would most tikdy be honored. DOE Is ustna dUs utiUty Input, lIS

The second priority Iwcs an: those assoclated wllb the DCSs and FOSs. As Ihe
ACR selVeS IS the basis for the submiU21 of

weU as the results of contnaor analyses. in Chc of Its positions on these Issues. development

DCSs from the PUJthuers, It would not be pNdent 10 attempt 10 Mly moIvc Chose Issues
associated wilh Chc DCSs and FOSs until all

Status or Issue Resolution Process
of these DOE tw prioritized Chc resolution issues based on how lhey Impact. or potentially

issues affec;dnllhe APPJACR process are completely resolved. As such, DOE has
assigned as second priority issues lOOse dealing

impact. Chc overall waste acceptance process

with the submittal of DCSI. the submittal of DCS exchange requests, and the submittal of
FOSs.
All rema.inJna issues are those associated

which includes both the planning and physical activities wodatd1 with acceptins SNF from Purchasers sitet. In general. the waste acceptance process can be broken down into
several stages: (I) the escabUshment of a

with the physical adividea relar.ed to waste

priority ranking for all SNF dtsclwgcd from commen:ial re3CIOrs and the resulting annual acceptanCe allocations 10 Putdwcrs based of Delivery this ranking, (2) the submiUal

issues Include the acceptance. packaging and tanister specificadorw for
various wasteS, as well IS Issues associared with SNF classifications and verification upon rteeipt. These issues ha~ been categorized as

HQOO10107

0087
"'n

AAt\A""

-- . .-.-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 780-7 Filed 04/06/2004 Page 6 of 13

COKIRAcr ISSUE ItESOLtTnON

161

third priority Issues by 002 md. u
be the final set of

such. will

issues to be resolved.

(lncilldi", DOE and otIJu Federal altllCitsJ to bt "~td 14 kmu of th~
overaU WCUk

tICC~ptaMt pr~IS'!

First Prioritlluues
As stated above, all conttact-adattd Issues associated with the APR aad ACR pnx:ess have been liven fiat priority in Ihc ACR Issue resolution pIOCW. This section wflllddlas rhc natuR: and backlround of these Issues. as
weU as d&scussm, JOllIe of Ihe COIUIcIenIicJM and f:JCtol$ lntIuenclnllhclr resolution.

Alain. lids Posidon combfnea CWO of the 35 issues due to. the similarity In tJldr subject matter. The of tbls-Jsaae is Ibe addition of waste wldch was not pmviously
ldend8ed to the &ccepCInco

priority rankJaa. It should be noted IbIt Ihe APR Includes aU
known SNP dischaqca from commcn:lal
red)rs aqardless of

the owner (udUda.
Dr

PcderII aaencica, efC.) and lelanlless

whelher or not a COIdIaC:t

What Me tilt ucepdolll _ID the OFF priority GIld ,lIould DOE consider tlfIOthu lchedllli", basil btsid~s OFF? Due to Ihc IlmilArity in die context of these two issues, they have been combined Into a
ranki",

lIr=uent for dispoal services hu been
executed. Further, the Standard Contnct rcqulRS ownen of SNF to RpOrt such wastes co DOE on an annual basis. The questions then becomes: "How should SNF
which was previously dischaqcd but not Included In past APRs be added to the

Inrcn&cacy

sinale issue. As required by Ihc SIIndanI
. Conb'lct, the

acceptance priority ranking for SNP Is based on the date it was pcrmanendy dlsclwJcd. wldl Chc owners of Ihe oldest SNP, on an Industry wide basis, given the highest priority. 1bis approach js commonly refemd 10 as oldest fuel first (OFF). Sevelll ciWions In the StmIaId
ConIraCt refer 10 excepdons to Ihc OFF
acceptance priority. The resolution

queuer If Ibis SNP has not been included due CO III oveniaht by the owner of the
SNP, is It fair 10 add It inIo the queue based
on its 8CbIaI d1sc:IwJe dale when this would

adversel; Imput all 0Ibet PuamtenI who
have been property foDowina all the procedures and rcquIrclDena: set foRb In the NWP A and Standard Comract7 'Ibis Posidon wiD aeet 10 cesolvo this issue and 10 emphasize that while all SNP qua6ftes for lncIusfon In eM APR, DOE wiD not provide cIisposaI services !or SNP idcndfted
In Ihc APR unless & COIC'ICt
or

of this issue will focus on cIadfyIn,1hat the applicadon of the OFF pdnclple II used only in establlshln, the acceptance priority rankin" and as such. there should be cxupdom. Any buis OCher dwI OFF would result In inequitable assignment of accepbJa apaclty IIDqlhe Purc:hasen. Posldon beinS developed will also

alrmDcnt for disposal of the SNP is in

inten&encY

place mt all applicable
What would consdnue

fees paid.

till

discuss further Chc opdons available 10 waslll owners In adjustina their positions in Ihc delivery queue. Additionally. it should be noted Chat Ihc SNP deUYmd ro DOS
need not be the p:u1icular SNP Chat wu

tlMr,ency

requlrlnl tht l4IerrupdolJ of re,u/Qrly

sch~du1t4 /llel shipmenu tU alabllshtd
through 1M APRIACR proeas and

IuJw

the

basis for a liven Pun:haser's acceptInCe
capacity aUoc:aIion. Itnce allOCIdons lie

would lhue IlllernlpliolUl be h4ntJ1tJJ1 Ardcie V,D of the Stlndard ContrlCt plOvidca tha1 -emeraency deUveries of SNP
and/or m.W may be

Pun:huer specUlc" tIIhet IIwI -fuel

SpecifIC

How af'

IIttIIIfJ~d wastuIPlucluu~"

before the date pcovIde4 In the deUmy commicmcnt schedule upon prior written approval by DOS.. However, the StandanS Contract docs not define the rum

IOOepted by DOS

HQOO10108

0088

- .- ...-. .-.

---.'-'

.. ---.. . -

... ...

-- -.---- .

~..

~- - -----

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-7

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 7 of 13

762

RAJ)IOACI'1VE WAStE MANAOEMBon'

emergency" or specify under whit . condidons this clause "may" be applied. Presendy, Ihe Position being developed by DOE fO chis Issue foc:usca on d1c equitable

dele""I111"! IIu

qUlWlly of WcUlt

10 IdtIurJ

OIlI#Ui, DCSIIUId hDw fat'
,hould PII1'CIuJM" predict

IIIID the

thdr

Ardcle V,
,.tra

l of the Standard Contract

DCS,1

/rI4lre

baIJDeRt of III Pun:huetI. AAy emeqency
delIvery accepf.ed by DOE may slJDiftcalldy
impact d1e SCbeduled deliveries of

Pwmaea 10 IUbmIt DCSs
whId1 shall ldendfy 111 SNP lDdIor IILW

SNF

from III odIor PwdweII. Ormdal

emerpncy delivery swus for such
condfdons IS a Ibortqe of SNP SfOl1Be

be"'"

die Pun:haser wIIhe8 to deliver to DOlt

space may result In a tremendous number of
requeu for eIIIeqcncy deliveries from Ihe Purchase... All or dae factoll are being considered by DOB In cstabUshlng Its Posidon to ibis Issue. Should priority Ita'!t be ,Iven 10 rtactors whlch perttltlMlClly $Juudqw,,? Anicle VI. l(b) of Ibe StandanI Conuaa

63 IIIOIIb.t dIereafter,. AI... c d1ete hu been some confusion widt die pIvua .all SNP and/or ID..W- lid

~'ed

wI_1O deliver,"

A alvcn PuIdwerIllaJ.

willi 10 deliver all of Its SNP even IfIouab IIIdr lllocadon for a pardc:ulu JCIf ft::SCrtcq
them to a much smaller MTU quantity.

ThIs Issue has been Inctudcclln the let of first priority issues. since the initial IntaIt of Ihe aanauace In the Sundani CorIIrIct wu
that Ihe waste quanddCl apcdftecl In the

provides tIW " priority may be accorded any
SNP'H from a civilian nuclear power reactor

ACR IeriC U die basil for DCS submiUala. 1bIs PosItion will clarify this Intent and 11$0
discuss how Car Into the future utilities
should be planning in the IUbmitta1 of lheir

what ever ~" Alain. Chc Position

tlw.H

been shutdown permanently

for

DCSs.
Should du! ckfinirlDIl of the Standard CDIUTlJCI b~

being developed by DOB to this Issue focuses on Chc equitable b=amcnt of aU Pun:h:ascrs. As WISCC DCCcpUnce capacity in any given Jur wIn be limited. providing
for

year as gl1'e1t ill mltrtd 10 corfom
year

with tht exp~clttllhlppllll January lID Dtcmrbtr

(I.

Chc priority DCcep(anCC of

SNP from

JI)1

shutdown ceaaolS oft'm the pocential for
sign1ficunt impaas on tho scheduled

AI1Icl~ I, ddWcion 20, of tho SWWSard
ConIrlCt defInes & year as the period

deUveries from olber Pun:1wcrs IS
established ctuough the APPJACR. process.

which beaim on October 1 and ends on September 30. - the Federal fiscal year.
However, the ACR applies projected annual waste aa:epcance riI!eS 10 the APR. resuttinl In individual Pun:haser aUocadons for the
rust

However, the refusal of DOE 10 allow for priority acceptanec from shutdown ' reactolS may result In some reactolS having to wait 20 to 30 yelllS to be decommissioned after
!hey fll1ish gencra.tingeleclricity. This

ten calendar years foUowing the

would require Ihesc reactol$ to maiJUin !heir storage pools and any additional onsite storage capacity over this period of time which would rault In the associated cOStS
incumd for

projected commencement of DOE facility
operations. Thus. the waste accepcance
planning process is based on caleOdar years. and Pun:haseC$ arc rcquimllO submit DCSs
for each cllendar year in which llley line

Chesc activities. ThIs Position

an allocation in Ihe ACR. 1bI1 PosItion
will darify the definition of the term "year"

will address 1111 of these factors while emphasizing that d1e Pun:hasers also have Chc option of trading " rights" through the DCS exchange process
. What basis should Purcluutrs

in the Standanl Conaact.
. How

ItUUI tIOlI/rUl compoMnlS 11M residual

we ;11

struCllUG1 COmpOMIIU from

collSOlidatld
10 bt acctptttl

flu' bt trtaud and patmgtd

HQO01 01 09

0089

.........

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-7

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 8 of 13

f.'"

coNTRACt ISSUE ItESOLunON

16'

lor dispol'" by DOE? (capacity) be allocaltdlO (for) lIon/Uel and
slrucllUdl compounul
issues. Aiticle VI.

H6W

war

pritWily

This POsttion combines several lelatcd

A.2(b) of Ihe Standard

Concract provides IhaI. - DOE"s obUgation' for disposing of SNF under this conuact also exrends 10 other 1han standard fuel. Appendix E of the Standard ConlnlCt

povldes five classes of nonstandard (uel including noofuel components and
consolidated fuel. 'ibis

Posidon wiD

povide clarification on how nonfuel and
suuauraJ c:omponems must be

lI'Cared and

p3ckaged for acccpcancc by, DOE and on how dtese p3Ckllled components will be (n:- in the APR and ACR process. This position has been incltJded In 1M' set of first

priority issues since the addidon of nonfuel
and stnICtW'aI components Into the APR \Vim the subsequent assignment of an
impactS on the overall dclivety

nccepcancc Dllocation can Mve significant

queue

esublished through the APRJACR process.

Since many of these components classify as Class C or Greater-Than-CIass-C (GTCC) wasleS, it is unclear wheChcr DOE should be accepting such components for disposal under the terms of 10 CFR Part 961. At Ii minimum, Ii bct1er dcfiaition of what components uc acceptable and how they should be p~kaged is needed.

HQO01 0110

0090
AAIH"'"

/,'

----- ---------Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson

Document 780-7
Washington, D.

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 9 of 13
June 13

2002

;l"'

Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
- X

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY, MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC
POWER CO., and CONNE CT I CUT

yertifled COpy
: Case No. 98- 126C
: 98- 474C,

YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.,

Plaintiffs

98- 154C

: (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. C.

, 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

,'

,\
,..

, ! " ;' \,... ! ) ,

~ "~ .p ! ,"., ,, ,' ~

.'

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson

Document 780-7

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 10 of 13
June 13 ,

2002

Washington, D.
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
I 8 i 9
1 J.

element from one utility by January 31, 1998?
MS. SULLIVAN

Obj ection to the extent

it calls for a legal

conclusion.

I have never heard

that.

Has such an interpretation ever played
a role in your work in the waste acceptance
! 1 LJ

division?
MS. SULLIVAN
Obj ection , vague.

! 15
I.
l t)

Obj ection , foundation.

I have never heard it, and I don'

recall even considering
MR. SHAPIRO:

that.
That'
s all the questions

! 20 I'

I have for you at this time , Ms. Slater Thompson.
I appreciate your help. I should note that there' s a small

I 22
L,_
..J
I ,,-,

chance that we may seek to talk to you yet

again,

there is an issue concerning some documents that

j r:

we may or may not get which may or may not address
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Snite 400 l- ~OO- F()R-nP,PO Washington , DC 20005

L.._..,.-

0092

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson

Document 780-7
Washington , D.

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 11 of 13
June 13

2002

Page 149

issues that relate to

you.

I am sure we will have

to deal with Ms. Sullivan and the government on
that, but except for that possibility I don I

think we will have further questions for
I understand.
MS. SULLIVAN

you.

Thank you.
I have a couple

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

I 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 780-7

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 12 of 13
June 13 ,

2002

Washington, D.
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. ~111tp LiOO L~oo_ pnlLnFPO Washington , DC 20005

0094

~'."~;" -/

."
,.. ., .

---------------Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole

~\

)",

Document 780-7

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 13 of 13
March 13 , 2002

Mclean. VA
:~~;i

245

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
- - - - -x

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

(98- 126C) (Merow ,

S .

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY

(98- 154C) (Merow, S.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
r'?, n"'":,,, r

r' r r= r\\
~ 7'. Ii

(98- 483C)

(Wilson, J.

tk. u .

~U~

ttJl ~
IT"

U Ii .

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY

(98- 484C) (Wiese, J.
DUKE POWER, A Division of
DUKE ENERGY CORP.
( 9 8 - 4 8 5 C) (Sypol

t,J.

INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY

(98- 486C)

(Hodges, J.

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

(98- 488C)

(Yock, S.

SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY

et al.
(98- 488C) (Yock ,
S.

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

(98- 621C) (99- 447C)

(Hewitt, J.

BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
(Allegra, J.

GPU NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED

0095
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc,
1111 14tI-iStreet, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEI'O Washington , DC 20005