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

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 1 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OP PEDERAL CLAIMS

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Plaintiff
No. 98- 126 C

(Senior Judge Merow)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant.

APPENDIX TO YANKEE ATOMIC' S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PRIORITY FOR SHUTDOWN REACTORS

JERRY STOUCK Spriggs & Hollingsworth 1350 I Street , N, W'1 Ninth Washington , D. c. 20005 (202) 898- 5800 (202) 682- 1639 - Fax

Floor

Counsel for Plaintiff YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

Of Counsel:
Robert Shapiro

Peter J. Skalaban, Jr.

SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH
April 06 , 2004

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 2 of 26

INDRX TO APPRNDIX

Description

Pa2:e

Yankee Atomic s Response to Defendant' s July 3 2003 Interrogatories , Request for Admission and Requests for Production Documents (Excerpts)..
Deposition Transcript of Robert L. Morgan (3/21/02 3/22/02) (Excerpts).......

0001

0010
0013

Picture of Yankee Atomic s Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)..
Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition of Susan Klein (4/18/02)....................

0014

Deposition Transcript of Susan Klein (4/25/02) (Excerpts)....................................... . 0020
Spent Fuel Acceptance Scenarios Devoted to Shutdown Reactors: A Preliminary Analysis , September 1989 (PA- 165043 to PA- 165091)............................... .... 0025

Deposition Transcript of John W. Bartlett (8/26/03) (Excerpts)................................... 0074
Standard Contract Issue Resolution Process: An Overview and Status

(HQOOI0I03 to HQOOI0118)................................................................. 0083
Deposition Transcript of Nancy Slater- Thompson (6/13/2002) (Excerpts).......
0091

Deposition Transcript of Billy M. Cole (3/13/2002) (Excerpts).................... ............ .... 0096
Deposition Transcript of Lake H. Barrett (5/15/2002) (Excerpts)................................ . 0104

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 3 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COlyfP ANY

Plaintiff

: No. 98- 126C

: (Semor

Judge M~ow)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant.

YA.NK:tE ATOMIC' S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT' S JULY 3, 2003 INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND UESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to RCFC 26 , 34 and 36 arid the Court' s August 29 , 2003 Orde~~ Yankee Atomic
Responses to Defendant' s July 3 , 2003 Interrogatories , Requests for Admission and Requests for

Production of Documents responds as follows:

General Res onses and Ob ections
The following general responses and objections to the requests are incorporated by
reference into each of Yankee Atomic s responses set forth below. Yankee Atomic s answers to
. interrogatories ,

responses to requests for adm~ssion and production of documents are subject to

these general objections regardless of whether Yankee Atomic agrees in individual responses
. below to answer interrogatories or produce documentS notwithstanding additional objections

noted in such individual responses.

. Yankee Atomic objects to the defendant's instruction at page 1 , which purports to

require Yankee Atomic to supplement its responses to the Interrogatories and Requests "ftom
time to time, but not later than 1 0 days after such additional information has been obtained.

0001

""
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

. ..

""

""
Filed 04/06/2004 Page 4 of 26

Document 780-3

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
State whether you contend that DOE has an obligation to give priority in the

allocation of acceptance slots for, orin the acceptance of: SNF and/or HL W to Standard Contract
holders that shut down any or all of their nuclear reactors.
State whether you contend that DOE would ever have a duty to accord priority in
the allocation of acceptance slots for, or in the acceptance of, SNF and/or HL W to Standard

Contract holders that had shut down any or all of their nuclear reactors.
. State whether you contend that any Standard Contract holder that has already shut
down any or all of its nuclear reactors is entitled to priority in DOE' s allocation of acceptance

slots for, or in the acceptance of, its SNF andlor HL W.
State whether you contend that DOE would ever have an obligation to refuse to

grant priority in the allocation of acceptance slots for, or in the acceptance of: SNF and/or HL W
Standard Contract holders that had shut down any or all of their nuclear reactors.

OBJECTIONS:

Yankee Atomic objects that the phrases "an obligation to give priority,
have a duty to accord priority,
grant priority," and " the

would ever

entitled to priority,

would ever have an obligation to refuse to

allocation of acceptance slots" are vague.

ANSWER:

Notwithstanding the objections noted above , Yankee Atomic states as follows: The
answer to subparts A and D is no.

Regarding subparts B and C , Yankee Atomic contends that

DOE would have had a duty to accord priority in the acceptance of spent fuel and HLW ftom"

utilities that have permanently shut down reactors , if such priority were necessary to avoid a
situation where the utility would otherwise have to store spent fuel and HL Won-site for an

0002

~,',; ' j

,'

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 5 of 26

extended period of time. In

its damage claim; Yankee Atomic contends that if DOE had

performed its. obligations to accept SNF and HL W at a reasonable rate starting in 1998 , utilities
with. shut down reactors would have been able to have exchanged acceptance allocations such

that the gran,t of priority in the acceptance of spent fuel would not have been necessary. Yankee

Atomic contends further that if the market for exchanges of acceptance allocations would not
have sufficiently developed in the non-breach world to enable such prompt removal, DOE would

have granted priority acceptance to utilities with permanently,si!ut down reactors to the extent
necessary to ensure such prompt remov~l.

0003
17a .

,.

. .

""
Document 780-3 Filed 04/06/2004 Page 6 of 26

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

To the extent that plaintiff contends that DOE would have a duty to grant priority in the
allocation of acceptance. slots for

, or in the acceptance of, SNF and/or. HL W to. Standard Contract

. . holders that have permanently shut down any or all of their nuclear reactors, or to the extent that
plaintiff contends that any Standard Contract holder that has already shut down any or all of their
nuclear reactors is entitled to priority in DOE' s allocation of acceptance slots for, or in the.
acceptance of: its SNF and/or HL W, explain in detail all the legal and factual bases upon which

you base this contention, making sure to:

identify any and all documents that support, or detract from, your contention;

identify all persons with knowledge regarding plaintiffs contention and regarding
priority for Standard Contract holders with shut down reactors; explain the source of each person s knowledge regarding this contentipn; and identify all documents that support and/or relate to your response to this
. interrogatory.

OBffiCTIONS:

Yankee Atomic objects that the phrases "duty to grant priority,

entitled to priority,"
that support

allocation of acceptance slots;" "explain in detail all the legal and factual bases

or detract Rom " and "that support and/or relate to your response" are vague. Yankee Atomic

also objects that subparts a. and. d. are unduly burdensome.
ANSWER:

Notwithstanding the objections noted above, Yankee Atomic states as follows:
Yankee Atomic s contention regarding priority is setout in its answer to Interrogatory No. 17.

The bases for this contention are as follows. At the time of formation of the parties ' contract , the

0004

. .

,.

, . ""

,",

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 7 of 26

parties intended that after January 31 1998, Yankee Atomic would not have to incur addttional
costs for on-sit~ storage of spent fuel and HLW. . The parties ' contract provides , in Article

B.l.(b), for priority acceptance by DOE of spent 'fu6landJor HL W removed from a
. COItimercial' reactor that is permanently shut down. At the time offonnation of the parties

,?ontract, the parties understood and intended that DOE would implement this article, if and as

n~sary to enable DOE to avoid ~mposing on utilities incremental and avoidable costs for onsite storage of spent fuel and HLW. Indeed, when it drafted the parties ' contract, DOE rejected
requests by certain utilities to omit this article, explaining "(t)his type of priority is necessary to
. prevent reactors ftom waiting 20 or 30 years to be decommissioned after they finish generating
~lectricity."
policy. This policy

48 Fed. Reg. 16590 ,
is

16593 (April 18 , 1983). DOE has never departed ftom this

consistent with DOE' s obligation ftom the full cost recovery nature of its

spent fuel and HLW removal program to conduct that program in an economically efficient

manner. Provision of priority acceptance to permanently shutdown reactors is also consistent
with the use of acceptance campaigns for the acceptance of spent fuel. See also

Yankee

Atomic s response to Interrogatory No. 19 of "Yankee Atomic s Responses to Defendant'

Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Served on September 4 2001."
a. and d.

Documents with the following Bates Nu~bers: ADM-00I- 0961, PNL-001- 1324, CTROO02657-

CDBO06105CTROO02660b. and c.

, HQOOI5562-

, CTROO02716-

, CTROO02662- 715

, CTROO02642- 56.

Loring Mills (who represented the nuclear utility industry when DOE

drafted the parties ' contract), John Buchheit and Rudolph Grube (who represented Yankee

Atomic when DOE drafted the parties ' contract). . Ivan Stuart will discuss the advantages of
acceptance campaigns as set out in his expert witness report.

0005
18a

:~. . )

, :"!

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 8 of 26

INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

To the extent that plaintiff contends that DOE would ever have an obligation or the right
if

to refuse to grant priority in the allocation of acceptance slots for, or in the acceptance of, SNF

~dlor HLW to Standard Contract holders that had shut down any or all of their nuclear reactors
explain in detail all of the legal and factual bases upon which you base this contention, making
sure to:
a.,

identify any and all documents that support, or detract ftom, your contention; .
identify all persons with knowledge regarding your contention;
explain the source of each person s knowledge regarding this contention; and

identify all documents that support and/or relate to your response to this
interroga!ory.

ANSWER:
Yankee Atomic makes no such cOntention. '

0006

-,

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 9 of 26

INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
DeScribe in detail the terms for any obligation that you contend. that DOE has to. grant

priority in the allocation of acceptance slots for, or in the acceptance at: SNF and/or HLW if a
Standard Contract holder chose to , or has , permanently shut down any umt or all of its plant,
making sure to:
explain the analysis that leads to your concluSion;'

identify the schedule that you contend DOE is obligated to follow, if different
from that identified in your response to Interrogatory Nos. 1 , 2, and 3, above;
identify aU documents that provide the basis for your analysis , in particular

regarding scheduling;
d. .

identify all persons with knowledge regarding these contentions; .
explain the source of each person s knowledge regarding these contentions;

identify any assumptions upon which you base your contentions;
identify any documents that support and/or relate to your contentions;
identify the factual and/or, legal basis for any assumptions (as identified in

subparagraph f of this interrogatory) that you made.
OBJECTIONS:

Yankee Atomic objects that the phrases "describe in detail
obligation,

the terms of any
schedule " and

allocation of acceptance slots," "explain the analysis

scheduling" are vague.
ANSWER:
Notwithstanding the objections noted above , Yankee Atomic states as follows: Yankee

Atomic s contention regarding the terms of DOE' s duties and obligation to accord priority

0007

. :, ,,

g.,

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 10 of 26

. acceptance ~f spent fuel and HL W to utilities with permanently shut down reactors is set out in

response to Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 18, above.
See IntelTogatory Nos. 17 and 18 above. If DOE would have started accepting

spent fuel at a reasonable rate in 1998 but a market for the exchange of acceptance allocations

did not develop sufficiently to enable prompt removal ofSNF and HLW from permanently shut
down reactors, absent priority acceptance, Yankee Atomic would have had to store its spent fuel
for a significant amount of time.

See, e.

Acceptance Priority Ranking dated March 1995
the

showing Yankee Atomic s last di~charge at a cumulative industry total of23 630 MfU. At

acceptance rates set out in Frank Graves' expert witness report , with no exchanges or priority,
Yarikee Atomic s spent fuel would have been accepted in approximately 2007. As shown by the

expert witness report of Ken Wise, Yankee Atomic would have incurred substantial avoidablecosts storing its spent fuel for this period~ As set out in Frank Graves ' expert witness report , in
the non-breach world, DOE would have accepte4 1200 MTU of spent fuelin 1998. Thus, DOE

would have had ample capacity to accept Yankee Atomic

s 122.4 MTU: of spent fuel in 1998.

DOE was otherwise accepting spent fuel but a market for exchanges of spent fuel acceptance
allocations did not develop sufficiently to enable utilities to arrange the timing of DOE'

. acceptance of their SNF and HLW in an efficient manner, DOE would haveoidered the acceptance of spent fuel from utilities in some reasonably efficient manner that would have
permitted the use of acceptance campaigns. See

Expert Witness Reports ofIvanStuart and John

Bartlett. Consistent with its policy of not having spent fuel andhigh-Ievelradioactive waste
remain at the sites ofpennanentlyshut down reactors for an extended period as noted at 48 Fed.
Reg. at 16593 , DOE would have accepted Yankee Atomic s spent fuel on a campaigned, priority

basis.

0008
2la

. )

,.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 11 of 26

Yankee Atomic s contentio~ regarding scheduling are limited to its contentions

regarding when DOE would have accepted its spent fuel absent the breach consistent with a

reasonable acceptance rate. If the market for exchanges of acceptance allocations did not
develop sufficiently to enable prompt acceptance of spent fuel and HL W from permanently shut
down reactors in the non-breach world as otherwise set out in the expert witness report of Frank

Graves, DOE would have accorded priority acceptance to Yankee Atomic s spent fuel such that
it all would ,have been accepted by the end of 1998.
c. and g.

. The documents relevant to Yankee Atomic s contentions on this issue are

hot different than those listed on Yankee Atomic s exhibit list submitted on March 28, 2003.

particular, Yankee Atomic relies on the documents listed in subpart a. above, t4e documents
listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 18. a. and 19a. and the documents considered by Yankee

Atomic s expert witnesses , Mr. Graves , Dr. Bartlett and Mr. Stewart.

0009
2lb

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 12 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES ' COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

: rt
YANKEE ATOMI C ELECTRI C COMPANY

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
NORTHERN STATES POWER C_OMPANY
DUKE , POWER, A Qivision of DUKE ENERGY CORP.

INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY

et al.

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
BOSTON EDI SON COMPANY
GPU NUCLEAR

INCORPORATED

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT

NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Plainti f f

UNITED STATES

Defendant.
DEPOSITION OF ROBERT L. MORGAN

March 21 ,

and 2~

2002
0010

Volume

Pg 213 - 330

c&;
Cnurt

541/485-0111 .1ll.l!aStlimAvenue. l:\ugene Oregon97401
nr""

""'" ~n'" - ~.., -.. Ion-

nn",' ~.

CERTIFIED COpy

(;)

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 13 of 26

R. Morgan / Neslin

314

shutdown reactors

" is necessary

to prevent

reactors from waiting 20 or 30 years to be
decommissioned after they finish generating

electricity.
Does that -- Would you agree with

that?
, 7

Did you agree with that at the time?

Yes.
What did you mean,
il

necessary to

prevent them from waiting 20 t6 30 years
We didn I t want to hold up D and D of

a reactor site.
liD and D"
referring to?

Decommissioning and - - what I s
- 14

the --

I t remember reactor.
I don

th~ acronym.

Shutting down the

Was that one of your object

ives,
Vague.

avoid -MR. BANES:

Obj ection.

BY MR. NESLIN:

to avoid holding up
A utility from D and D?

Yes.

Decommissioning.

We didn I t

want to

d9 that.
That was an

obj ective

of yours?

C & C COURT REPORTING 0011

541/485- 0111

:,." : .

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 14 of 26

R. Morgan / Nesl in
, 1

315

Yes.

Not to.

Now if we could turn to

page 16602.
Yes.
The bottom of the first column,
Article VI.

1(b).
page?
Yes.

Do you see that at the

bottom of the

This is the provision that allows a

priority for
a legal

shu~down reactors.
MR. BANES:

Correct?

Obj ection.

Calls for

conclusion.
I bel ieve that' s correct.

BY MR. NESLIN:

Did you have -- Strike

that.

How

did you expect the Department of Energy to apply
this provision?

MR. .BANES:

Objection.

Calls for

speculation.
BY MR. NESLIN:
Do you understand my questi6n?

Unless faced with the issue, I can't
tell you how we would resolve

it.
in mind

Did you have any cri teria

for when priori ty would have been accorded to a

C & C COURT REPORTING 0012

541/485-0111

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 15 of 26

0013

,.

.'

, .

, )

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004
, EXHtBIT
1fAi

Page 16 of 26

lL-U If' ),-L/'O 'I;:"

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (98- 126C) (Merow, S.1. CONNECTICUTY ANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (98- 154C) (Merow , S. MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMP ANY (98-474C) (Merow , Sol. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (98-483C) (Wilson, J. NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (98- 484C) (Wiese, J. DUKE POWER, A Division of DUKE ENERGY CORP.

(98-485C) (Sypolt, 1)
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMP ANY (98-486C) (Hodges, J. SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (98-488C) (Yock, S.
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY,

et aI

(98- 614C) (Merow, Sol. COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (98-621C) (Hewitt, J. BOSTON EDISON COMPANY '(99- 447C) (Allegra, J. GPU NUCLEAR, lNCORPORA TED
(OO-44OC) (Bush, J.

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CaMP ANY . (OO-697C) (Merow , Sol. , POWER AUTHORITY OF THE ST ATE OF NEW YORK (00- 703C) (Damich , J. OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT (Ol- 115C) (Bush, J. " NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT (Ol- 116C) (Sypolt, J. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY . ' (Ol- 249C) (Broggink, J.

Plaintiffs

THE UNITED STATES
Defendant.

) , Discovery Judge:
(Judge Sypolt)

"' J
0014

__h'_-"--" Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 17 of 26

OTICE OF DEPOSITION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of
Federal Claims and the Order of the Discovery Judge dated Marett 25, 2002, counsel for the above-referenced Utility Plaintiffs will take the deposition of Defendant' s designated

representative at 9:30 a.m. on WedneSday, April 24 , 2002, at the law offices of Jenner & Block

601 Thirteenth St., NW, Suite 12~ South, Washington, DC 20005. The deposition will be
recorded by stenographic means "arid
will

continue day to day until completed.

.. Defendant' s designated representative wilt be examined with respect to the matters set

forth in the attached exhibit.
Dated: Apri118, 2002
RespeCtfully submitted,

AlexD'

gJI-

SHAW PITIMAN LLP "
1650 Tysons Boulevard McLean, V A 221024859 Telephone: 703. 770. 7940
Fax: 703. 770. 7901

/fF

" J!

Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs Florida Power & Light Company, Northern States Power Company, Duke Power, Indiana Michigan
Power Company, Boston Edison Company, GPU

Nuclear, Inc., Power Authority of the State of New York, Omaha Public Power District, and Nebraska Public Power District

OF COUNSEL:
JayE. Silberg..
Devon E. Hewitt,

Daniel S. Herzfeld

Jack Y. Chu

SHAW PITTMANLLP
2300 N Street, N. Washington , DC 20037- 1128

0015

, \

)!. ,/
Document 780-3

. ~~~ . , ., /,
,,
. . ,

"(~. , - '()(.. ! . '-~

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 18 of 26

M. Stant1 d Blanton ingham, LLP Balch' 1710 Sixth Avenue North Binningham, AL 35203 Tel: (205) 251- 8100 Counsel of Record for Plaintiff:

, v

IfF

00

, South em Nuclear Operating Company, etal.

~c.
Jenner & Block

Richard C. Johnson
601 13
111 Street

4gJ
.tJ.

, N.

Suite 1200 South
Washington, D. C. 20005 Tel: (202) 639-6075 Counsel of Record for Plaintiff: Commonwealth Edison Company

Richard Wo a.Wet

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue~ 40th FIoor Seattle, WA 98101- 3099 Tel: (206) 583- 8419 Counsel of Record for Plaintiff: Wisconsin Electric Power Company

MelvinC. Garbow

Arnold & Porter
555 12th
Street

, N.

" Washington, D. C. 20004- 1206

Tel: (202) 942Counsel of Record for Plaintiff: Sacramento Municipal Utility District

5666

W.

' o

0016

" ~
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 780-3 Filed 04/06/2004 Page 19 of 26

Peter K. Shea
Office of General Counsel

S4-~

Tennessee Valley Authority'
400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902- 1401 Tel: (865) 632- 7319 Counsel of Record for Plaintiff: Tennessee Valley Authority

0017

-'--..""'-..'..,.-., ~. ~

,.. ' - ....:....

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 20 of 26

EXHIBIT
s deCision

3. DOE' s responses to DCS forms submitted by the utility plaintiffs, includingDOE'

to stop approving such DCS forms. .

5. DOE' s

consideration ofits obligation to accept Greater-

Than-Class-C waste.

, 7. The date that DOE currently believes that it will begin accepting fuel under the Standard
Contract and the acceptance rate that DOE is planning to use once acceptance begins.

9. The role

and purpose of the provision on priority for shutdown rellctors in the performance of the Standard Contract.

0018

" - .... '

..

-. -.. , .--- ""'... ---"-'-" ...--... ..-. - ... ..... .-.

~~~
Document 780-3 Filed 04/06/2004 Page 21 of 26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

\ .

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

. I hereby certify that on this 18th day of April 2002 , I caused a copy of the foregoing

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION to be served by facsimile and by U. S. mail , postage prepaid , on:

Harold D. Lester, Jr.
Assistant Director

Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division United States Departinent of Justice Washington, D. C. 20530
Attention:

Classification Unit th Floor, \.100 L Street, N.

Document II: 1180086 v.

0019

~. '' ; ':-:.::' .,-

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 22 of 26

Susan Klein (vol
.fI.

Page 275
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

(98- 126C)

(Merow, S~J.

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER . COMPANY

(98- 154C) (MerOW, S. J . )
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY

(98- 474C) (98- 481C)

(Merow, S.

FLORIDA POWER &. LIGHT COMPANY
(Wilson, J.

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY

(98- 484C)(Wiese, J.
DUKE POWER, a Division of DUKE ENERGY CORP.

(98- 485C)(Sypolt, J.
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY

(98- 486C)

(Hodge~, J.
(Yock, S.

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

(98- 488C)

~:1 11 '":..-'

SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, et

(98- 614C)
(98- 621C)

ale

(Merow, S.

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
(Hewitt, J.

BOSTON EDISON COMPANY (99- 447C) (Allegra, J.
GPU NUCLEAR , INCORPORATED (00- 440C) (Bush, J.

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY

: VOLUME

(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

Discovery
: Judge: : (Judge

(01- 116C) (01- 249C)

(Sypolt, J.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
(Bruggink, J.

Plaintiffs,

Sypolt)
: PAGES

:275 - 533

Esquire Deposition Services

0020

800-441

~33 7 6

.-.' ',

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 780-3 Filed 04/06/2004 Page 23 of 26

Susan Klein (vol
Page 276

THE UNI.TED STATES"

Defendant.
~- - - - - - - - - - X

Deposition of Susan Klein
Washington, DC

T~ursday, April 25, 2002

Reported by:
JOB NO.

Denise Dobner Vickery, RMR, CRR

144540
0021

Esquire Deposition Services

800-441-3376

--y

--:-

''

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 24 of 26

Susan lOeio (vol
Page 516
Under the standard

contract; that. s

correct.

Und~r othe standard contract.

And so DOE' s

consideration of granting priority at this time is --

would you describe it as being premature?

, I guess it'
everybody

s just that we reserve the right to

do it if we had a hu~e repository and we ~ould meet
s need and it might seem to be a reasonable
So, I mean, we may determine once we'

, thing to do. operational.
f;o

You haven'

t prejudg.

ed and foreclosed the,
say?

possibility; is that fair to

That'

s fair to

say.
not harm operating

If , the

repository were operating at such a

rate that, granting priority would
shutdown reactor.

utilities, DOE would consider granting a priority to a
Is that also fair to say?

I think that' s fair to say, yes.

MR. MACDONALD:

48.

(Thereupon, the reporter marked for

identification Deposition Exhibit
BY MR. MACDONALD:

No. 48.

Ms. Klein, I'
Esquire Deposition Services

ve handed you a document marked
0022

800- 441-3376

-:-.. ,

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 780-3

Filed 04/06/2004

Page 25 of 26

Susan Klein (vol
Page 524
::..J

My question

is:

Was the reason this
shutdown

provisiori was included, the prio~ity

provision, that is because it was necessary to prevent

reactors from waiting 20 or 30 years to be

decommissioned?
A.

Yes.
And DOE included this provision despite the

.B

fact that four commenters recommended
the prov

-the deietion of

is ion?

A.

Yes, that'

s correct.

And as you explained I believe earlier,

acceptance of fuel from a shutdown reactor would allow

that reactor to go to green fields I believe is the
word that you used

is that correct?
Yes, it would.

In .ost cases, it would allow

them to go to ' green

fields, yes.

If DOE had begun accepting fuel in 1998 at a

000 MTU rate or a ramp-up, a reasonable ramp-up to

000 MTU rate, do you have an opinion as to whether
DOE could have given priority to shutdown reactors

without harming or prejudicing the rights of operating

utilities.
Esquire Deposition Services

0023

800- 441-3376

. ,.. )
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 780-3 Filed 04/06/2004 Page 26 of 26

SUsan Klein (vol 2)
Page 525

MS. POWELL:

Object to beyond the

scope,

but you can answer.

. THE WITNESS:

It could have

given.

think that would be policy considerat~ons that would be

looked at, but .i,t . would make
BY MR. MACDONALD:

it certainly --

Would have ~ade it easier?
Much eesier, yes.
(Discussion off the record.

(Thereupon, the

repo\rter' marked for

identification Deposition Exhibit No. 50.
BY MR. MACDONALD:

Ms. Klein, I'

ve just marked -- had marked for

you Exhibit 50, which is a memo dated June 28, 1991
from P. N. McDuffie and S. A. Vance to D. C. Langstaff
and A. B. Brownstein.

Do you have that ~here

before

you?
Yes, I do.

I believe we discussed earlier Mr. Vance,
Scott Vance, who you know; is that right?

That. s

correct.

. And Mr ~ A. B. Brownstein is Alan Brownstein;
Esquire Deposition Services

0024

800-441-3376