Free Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 309

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 1 of 11

No. 98-614C (Senior Judge Merow)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, ALABAMA POWER COMPANY, GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW

OF COUNSEL: JANE K. TAYLOR Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 STEPHEN FINN HEIDE L. HERRMANN MARIAN E. SULLIVAN Trial Attorneys Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530

PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director HAROLD D. LESTER, JR. Assistant Director JOHN C. EKMAN Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 307-6288 Fax: (202) 307-2503 Attorneys for Defendant

September 28, 2005

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 309

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 2 of 11

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 I. THE ORIGINAL PROVISIONS OF THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S PROMULGATION OF THE "STANDARD CONTRACT FOR DISPOSAL OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND/OR HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE" THROUGH NOTICE AND COMMENT RULEMAKING IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A. B. C. III. IV. V. VI. The Proposed Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Public Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 The Final Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

II.

PLAINTIFFS' EXECUTION OF THEIR STANDARD CONTRACTS . . . . . . 15 ISSUANCE OF THE MISSION PLAN AND ITS AMENDMENT . . . . . . . . . . 15 THE 1987 AMENDMENTS TO THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT . . . 17 DOE'S ISSUANCE OF ANNUAL CAPACITY REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A. B. C. The 1987 Through 1990 Annual Capacity Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 The 1991 Annual Capacity Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 The 1992 Through 1995 Annual Capacity Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

VII.

PROGRAM DOCUMENTS REFLECT PLANNED ACCEPTANCE AT AN MRS FACILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A. Program Reassessment And 1991 Draft Mission Plan Amendment . . . . 23

i

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 309

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 3 of 11

B.

Preliminary Estimates Of The Total-System Life Cycle Cost For The Restructured Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

VIII. IX.

INDUSTRY SUBMISSION OF DELIVERY COMMITMENT SCHEDULES 26 THE APPLICATION OF THE TERMS OF THE STANDARD CONTRACT TO PLAINTIFFS' DAMAGES CLAIMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 A. In The "But For" World, Plants Hatch And Vogtle Required Additional On-Site Storage After January 31, 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 The Evidence Demonstrates That Georgia Power Seeks To Maintain A Single Full Core Reserve At Plants Hatch And Vogtle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Implementing A Two Full Core Reserve Policy Requires Additional Storage At Plants Hatch And Vogtle In The "But For" World . . . . . . . . 30

B.

C.

X.

THE EVIDENCE WILL ESTABLISH THAT PLAINTIFFS' INVESTMENT IN PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE DID NOT CONSTITUTE REASONABLE MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 I. PLAINTIFFS BEAR THE BURDEN AT TRIAL OF ESTABLISHING THAT THEIR CLAIMED COSTS WERE CAUSED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S DELAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 PLAINTIFFS CANNOT PROVE THEIR BASIC ASSUMPTION THAT DOE WAS OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT SNF AT AN ANNUAL RATE OF 3,000 MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 A. Plaintiffs Cannot Establish The DOE Was Obligated To Accept SNF At A Rate Sufficient To Preclude The Need For Additional At-Reactor Storage And To Accept Some "Backlog" of Utility-Stored SNF . . . . . . 35 Plaintiffs Cannot Rely Upon Program Planning Documents To Establish The Government's Obligation To Accept SNF At An Annual Rate Of 3,000 MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Plaintiffs Cannot Establish That An Annual Acceptance Rate Of 3,000 MTU Is Necessary To Satisfy The Requirements To Which Plaintiffs Contend DOE Obligated Itself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

II.

B.

C.

ii

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 309

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 4 of 11

III.

DAMAGES SHOULD BE MEASURED AGAINST THE ACCEPTANCE OBLIGATIONS DEVELOPED PURSUANT TO THE SCHEDULE MECHANISM IN THE CONTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 A. The Acceptance Schedule Was Established In The Dealings Between The Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Some Of The Decisions Issued Since The Government Filed Its Motion Regarding The Spent Nuclear Fuel Acceptance Rate Incorrectly Analyze The Standard Contract Schedule Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

B.

IV.

PLAINTIFFS CANNOT ESTABLISH THE NECESSARY CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN ALL OF THEIR CLAIMED STORAGE CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND DOE'S DELAY IN BEGINNING SNF ACCEPTANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 PLAINTIFFS' DAMAGES CLAIM AND THE EVIDENCE TO BE ADDUCED AT TRIAL SUPPORTS A FINDING THAT PLAINTIFFS' POLICY IS TO MAINTAIN A SINGLE FULL CORE RESERVE IN THE WET POOLS AT PLANTS HATCH AND VOGTLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 A. Georgia Power's Historic Operating Reserve At Plants Hatch And Vogtle Is A Single Full Core Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Contrary To The Arguments In Their Pretrial Brief, Plaintiffs' Damages Claim Is Predicated Upon The Existence Of A Single Full Core Reserve Policy At Plants Hatch And Vogtle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 To Award Damages Related To Alabama Power For Plant Farley At A 900 MTU Rate Of Acceptance, The Court Must Implement A Fungible Single Full Core Reserve Policy Per Pool At That Facility . . . . . . . . . . . 60

V.

B.

C.

VI.

PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO PROPERLY MITIGATE THEIR DAMAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 A. Plaintiffs Could Have Reasonably Avoided More Than $8.7 Million At No Cost To The Government By Installing The Second Bathtub Rack Licensed, Constructed, And Purchased For Plant Hatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Plaintiffs' Investment In Private Fuel Storage Was Not Reasonable Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

B.

iii

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 309

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 5 of 11

VII.

PLAINTIFFS CANNOT ESTABLISH THAT THE COSTS THEY ALLEGEDLY INCURRED FOR INTERNAL LABOR, OVERHEAD AND ENGINEERING SUPERVISION WERE INCREMENTAL TO DOE'S BREACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMED DAMAGES MUST BE REDUCED BY AT LEAST AN ADDITIONAL $1,221,477 BASED UPON LACK OF SUPPORT . . . . . . 72 PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM FOR THE COST OF CAPITAL GROSS-UP OF PAST COSTS SIMPLY IS A LEGALLY UNSUPPORTED ATTEMPT TO RECOVER PREJUDGMENT INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 PLAINTIFFS' DAMAGES ARE LIMITED BY THE DECISION IN INDIANA MICHIGAN AND BY THIS COURT'S APPLICATION OF THAT DECISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

VIII.

IX.

X.

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

iv

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 309

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 6 of 11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES

AES Tech. Sys., Inc. v. Coherent Radiation, 583 F.2d 933 (7th Cir. 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Alaska Pulp Corp. v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 400 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Autotrol Corp. v. Cont'l Water Sys. Corp, 918 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Aviation Contractor Employees, Inc. v. United States, 945 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Barrow Utils. & Elec. Co. v. United States, 20 Cl. Ct. 113 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Bel Pre Health Care Center, Inc. v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 495 (1991), aff'd, 980 F.2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (table) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Blackstone Consulting Inc. v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 463 (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Bluebonnet Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. United States, 339 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Boyajian v. United States, 423 F.2d 1231 (Ct. Cl. 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Branhill Realty Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 60 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1932) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 City of Tacoma, Dep't of Public Utilities v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Columbia First Bank v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 693 (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Commercial Metals Co. v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 343 (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

v

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 309

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 7 of 11

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 652 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 51, 52 Contel Advanced Systems, Inc., 384 F.3d at 1379 (citing Shaw, 478 U.S. at 321) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Convoy Co. v. Sperry Rand Corp., 672 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71, 72 Coyle's Pest Control, Inc. v. Cuomo, 154 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 David Nassif Assocs. v. United States, 214 Ct. Cl. 407, 557 F.2d 249 (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 54 Department of Energy v. Westland, 565 F.2d 685 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Dunn Appraisal Co. v. Honeywell Information Sys. Inc., 687 F.2d 877 (6th Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Fawick Corp. v. United States, 149 Ct. Cl. 623 (1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Freeport Sulphur Co. v. The S/S Hermosa, 526 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Gould, Inc. v. United States, 935 F.2d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Grynberg v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 71 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. Department of Energy, 88 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 40, 58 Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 88 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 51, 52 Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 639 (2004), aff'd, __ F. 3d __, 2005 WL 2173563 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

vi

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 309

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 8 of 11

Julius Goldman's Egg City v. United States, 697 F.2d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 814 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 KMS Fusion, Inc. v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 68 (1996), aff'd 108 F.3d 1393 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Koby v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 493 (Fed. Cl. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62, 63, 67 LaSalle Talman Bank, F.S.B. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 64 (1999) , rev'd on other grounds, 317 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75, 77 Massengill v. Guardian Mgt. Co., 19 F.3d 196 (5th Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Mays v. Trump Indiana, Inc., 255 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 McAbee Constr, Inc. v. United States, 97 F.3d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 McDonnell Douglas Corp., ASBCA No. 26747, 83-1 BCA ¶ 16,377 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Modern Sys. Tech. Corp. v. United States, 979 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Monessen Southwestern Railway Co. v. Morgan, 486 U.S. 330 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Myerle v. United States, 33 Ct. Cl. 1, 27 (1897) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 National By-Products, Inc. v. United States, 186 Ct. Cl. 546, 405 F.2d 1256 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Neeley v. Bankers Trust Co. of Tex., 757 F.2d 621 (5th Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

vii

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 309

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 9 of 11

Northern Helex Co. v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 862, 524 F.2d 707 (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Omni Corp. v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 585 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 PSEG Nuclear, L.L.C. v. United States, Misc. Docket No. 786 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 4, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Quiman, S.A. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 171 (1997), aff'd, 178 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Ridge Runner Forestry v. Veneman, 28 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Robinson v. United States, 305 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Roseburg Lumber Co. v. Madigan, 978 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 73 S.W. Eng'g Co. v. Cajun Elec. Power Coop., 915 F.2d 972 (5th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Saddler v. United States, 287 F.2d 411 (Ct. Cl. 1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. United States, 111 F.3d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Selman v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 675, 498 F.2d 1354 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Shann v. Dunk, 84 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Standard Federal Bank v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 265 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Sylvania Elec. Prods., Inc. v. United States, 198 Ct. Cl. 106, 458 F.2d 994 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

viii

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 309

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 10 of 11

Transamerica Equip. Leasing Corp. v. Union Bank, 426 F.2d 273 (9th Cir. 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 United Indus. Syndicate, Inc. v. Western Auto Supply Co., 686 F.2d 1312 (8th Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 618 F. Supp. 496 (CIT 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 United States v. The John R. Williams, 144 F.2d 451 (2d Cir. 1944) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 White v. Delta Constr. Int'l, Inc., 285 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Willems Indus., Inc. v. United States, 155 Ct. Cl. 360, 295 F.2d 822 (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Willred Co. v. Westmoreland Metal Mfg. Co., 200 F. Supp. 59 (E.D. Pa. 1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Wilner v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 241 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Wilson v. Marquette Elecs., Inc., 630 F.2d 575 (8th Cir. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. § 961.11, Art. II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim 28 U.S.C. § 2516(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 42 U.S.C. § 10132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 42 U.S.C. § 10133 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 42 U.S.C. § 10134 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 42 U.S.C. § 10135 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 42 U.S.C. § 10161. et. seq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 17, 18, 42, 49 42 U.S.C. § 10172(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

ix

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 309

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 11 of 11

42 U.S.C. § 10221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 15, 41 42 U.S.C. § 10222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 25 42 U.S.C. § 10242(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 48 Fed. Reg. 16590 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 13, 36, 40 48 Fed. Reg. 5458 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8, 11, 35 MISCELLANEOUS Am. Jur. 2d Damages § 416 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 211 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 350, cmt. b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 S. Rep. No. 100-152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 18

x