Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 1 of 75
No. 98-484C (Senior Judge Wiese)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director OF COUNSEL: JANE E. TAYLOR Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 ALAN J. LO RE ANDREW P. AVERBACH STEPHEN P. FINN Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 October 10, 2006 HAROLD D. LESTER, JR. Assistant Director HEIDE L. HERRMANN Trial Attorney Department of Justice Civil Division Commercial Litigation Branch Attn: Classification Unit 1100 L Street, N.W., 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-3315 Facsimile: (202) 307-2503
Attorneys for Defendant
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 2 of 75
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 I. THE ORIGINAL PROVISIONS OF THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A. B. C. III. IV. V. VI. The Proposed Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Public Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 The Final Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
II.
NSP'S EXECUTION OF ITS STANDARD CONTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ISSUANCE OF THE MISSION PLAN AND ITS AMENDMENT . . . . . . . . . . 11 THE 1987 AMENDMENTS TO THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT . . . 13 DOE'S ISSUANCE OF ANNUAL CAPACITY REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A. B. C. The 1987 Through 1990 Annual Capacity Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 The 1991 Annual Capacity Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The 1992 Through 1995 Annual Capacity Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
VII.
PROGRAM DOCUMENTS REFLECT PLANNED ACCEPTANCE AT AN MRS FACILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 3 of 75
A. B.
Program Reassessment And 1991 Draft Mission Plan Amendment . . . . 18 Preliminary Estimates Of The Total-System Life Cycle Cost For The Restructured Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
VIII.
INDUSTRY SUBMISSION OF DELIVERY COMMITMENT SCHEDULES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 NSP DECIDES TO BUILD AND OBTAINS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR A DRY STORAGE FACILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
IX.
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 I. NSP BEARS THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING ALL ELEMENTS OF ITS CLAIM, INCLUDING LIABILITY, CAUSATION, FORESEEABILITY, AND REASONABLE CERTAINTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A. B. NSP Has The Burden Of Proving All Elements Of Its Case . . . . . . . . . . 25 NSP Must Prove That Its Damages Were Directly Caused By The Government's Breach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Regardless Of Whether NSP Characterized Its Damages As "Mitigation Costs," NSP Bears The Burden Of Establishing That Its Costs Were Incurred As A Result Of The Breach And Would Not Have Been Incurred In The "But For" World . . . . . . . . . . . 27 The Damages Available To NSP For Breach Of Contract Are Limited To Those That Are Foreseeable As The Probable Outcome Of The Breach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 NSP Must Prove Its Damages With Reasonable Certainty . . . . . . . . . . . 32 After Establishing The Legal And Factual Predicates To Damages, NSP Must Demonstrate That Its Action Mitigated Those Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
C.
D.
E. F.
II.
THE RATE OF ACCEPTANCE TO BE APPLIED TO THE STANDARD CONTRACT IS IRRELEVANT FOR TH E PURPOSES OF DETERMINING CAUSATION AND DAMAGES THROUGH 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 4 of 75
III.
TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE RATE OF ACCEPTANCE SHOULD BE DEFINED IN THIS LITIGATION, REGARDLESS OF ITS EFFECT UPON DAMAGES, NSP CANNOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROVING THAT DOE WAS OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT SNF AT AN ANNUAL RATE OF 3,000 MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 A. NSP Cannot Establish That DOE Was Obligated To Accept SNF At A Rate Sufficient To Preclude The Need For Additional At-Reactor Storage And Some "Backlog" Of Utility-Stored SNF . . . . . 35 NSP Cannot Rely Upon Program Planning Documents To Establish The Government's Obligation To Accept SNF At An Annual Rate Of 3,000 MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 DOE's Acceptance Obligations Should Be Determined Pursuant To The Schedule Mechanism In The Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 1. The Acceptance Schedule Was Established In The Dealings Between The Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Some Of The Decisions Issued Concerning The Rate Of Acceptance Incorrectly Analyze The Standard Contract Schedule Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
B.
C.
2.
IV.
NSP CANNOT ESTABLISH THE NECESSARY CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN CERTAIN OF ITS CLAIMED DAMAGES AND DOE'S DELAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 A. NSP Would Have Built A Dry Storage Facility Regardless Of DOE's Delay In Accepting SNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 The Damages Sought By NSP For Costs Resulting From State Legislative Mandates are Unforeseeable, Consequential Damages, Unrecoverable As A Matter Of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 NSP's Investment In The Private Fuel Storage Venture Was Unforeseeable As A Matter Of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 NSP Is Precluded As A Matter Of Law From Recovering Any Of Its Claimed Costs Prior To 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
B.
C.
D.
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 5 of 75
E.
NSP's Claim For The Cost Of Capital Is A Legally Unsupported Attempt To Recover Prejudgment Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 NSP Cannot Establish Causation For Certain Costs It Allegedly Incurred For Internal Labor And "Overheads" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Additional Adjustments Must Be Made To NSP's Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
F.
G.
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 6 of 75
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES AES Tech. Sys., Inc. v. Coherent Radiation, 583 F.2d 933 (7th Cir. 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Alaska Pulp Corp. v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 400 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 26 Autotrol Corp. v. Cont'l Water Sys. Corp., 918 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Aviation Contractor Employees, Inc. v. United States, 945 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Barrow Utils. & Elec. Co. v. United States, 20 Cl. Ct. 113 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Bel Pre Health Care Center, Inc. v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 495 (1991), aff'd, 980 F.2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (table) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Bell v. United States, 404 F.2d 975 (Ct. Cl. 1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Bluebonnet Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. United States, 339 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 29 Bluebonnet Savings Bank, FSB v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 231 (Fed. Cl.), appeal docketed, No. 06-5024 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Bohac v. Department of Agric., 239 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Boyajian v. United States, 423 F.2d 1231 (Ct. Cl. 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Branhill Realty Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 60 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1932) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 7 of 75
California Fed. Bank v. United States, 395 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 28 City of Tacoma, Dep't of Public Utilities v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Commercial Metals Co. v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 343 (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 652 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 48 Coyle's Pest Control, Inc. v. Cuomo, 154 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 David Nassif Assocs. v. United States, 214 Ct. Cl. 407, 557 F.2d 249 (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 50 Department of Energy v. Westland, 565 F.2d 685 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 DPJ Co. v. FDIC, 30 F.3d 247 (1st Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Fawick Corp. v. United States, 149 Ct. Cl. 623 (1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Fraas Surgical Mfg. Co. v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 820, 571 F.2d 34 (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Glendale Fed. bank, FSB v. United States, 239 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Honeywell, Inc. v. United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 591, 661 F.2d 182 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 In re Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 501 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 8 of 75
Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. Department of Energy, 88 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 88 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 48 Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. United States, 422 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim J.D. Hedin Const. Co. v. United States, 456 F. 2d 1315 (Ct. Cl. 1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Jetco, Inc. v. United States, 11 Cl. Ct. 837 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Julius Goldman's Egg City v. United States, 697 F.2d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 814 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Koby v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 493 (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 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) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Landmark Land Co. v. Federal Deposit Insur. Corp., 256 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. v. United States, 225 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth. v. United States, 129 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Massengill v. Guardian Mgt. Co., 19 F.3d 196 (5th Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Mays v. Trump Indiana, Inc., 255 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 McAbee Constr, Inc. v. United States, 97 F.3d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
McDonnell Douglas Corp., ASBCA No. 26747,
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 9 of 75
83-1 BCA ¶ 16,377 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Modern Sys. Tech. Corp. v. United States, 979 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Myerle v. United States, 33 Ct. Cl. 1, 1800 WL 2024 (1897) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 32 National By-Products, Inc. v. United States, 186 Ct. Cl. 546, 405 F.2d 1256 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Nebraska Public Power District v. United States, No. 01-116C (Fed. Cl.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Neeley v. Bankers Trust Co. of Tex., 757 F.2d 621 (5th Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Northern Helex, 207 Ct. Cl. 682, 524 F.2d at 713 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 33 Northern States Power Co. v. United States, 128 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Omni Corp. v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 585 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 PSEG Nuclear, LLC v. United States, No. 05-5162 (Fed. Cir.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Prudential Ins. Co. v. United States, 801 F.2d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Ramsey v. United States, 101 F. Supp. 353 (Ct. Cl. 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Rapid City Indian Health Advisory Bd. of Directors, ASBCA No. 26641, 83-1 BCA ¶ 16,311 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Ridge Runner Forestry v. Veneman, 28 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Robinson v. United States, 305 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 10 of 75
Roseburg Lumber Co. v. Madigan, 978 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 32 SAB Constr., Inc. v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 77 (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 S.W. Eng'g Co. v. Cajun Elec. Power Coop., 915 F.2d 972 (5th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Saddler v. United States, 287 F.2d 411 (Ct. Cl. 1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 San Carlos Irrig. & Drainage Dist. v. United States, 877 F.2d 957 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. United States, 111 F.3d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Selman v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 675, 498 F.2d 1354 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Shann v. Dunk, 84 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Sylvania Elec. Prods., Inc. v. United States, 198 Ct. Cl. 106, 458 F.2d 994 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Tennessee Valley Authority v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 515 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Thomas W. Yoder Co., VABCA No. 997, 74-1 BCA ¶ 10,424 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Transamerica Equip. Leasing Corp. v. Union Bank, 426 F.2d 273 (9th Cir. 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 355, 676 F.2d 622 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 618 F. Supp. 496 (CIT 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 11 of 75
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 32 White v. Delta Constr. Int'l. Inc., 285 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Wickham Contracting Co. v. United States, 12 F.3d 1574 (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Willems Indus., Inc. v. United States, 155 Ct. Cl. 360, 295 F.2d 822 (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Willred Co. v. Westmoreland Metal Mfg. Co., 200 F. Supp. 59 (E.D. Pa. 1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Wilner v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 241 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Wilson v. Marquette Elecs., Inc., 630 F.2d 575 (8th Cir. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United States, No. 98-126C (Merow, S.J.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 2516(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 42 U.S.D. § 10101 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5 42 U.S.C. §§ 10132, 10134, 10135 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 42 U.S.C. §§ 10133, 10161-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 42 U.S.C. § 10139 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 42 U.S.C. § 10161(b)-(c) (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 42 U.S.C. § 10162(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 42 U.S.C. § 10168(d)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 45 42 U.S.C. § 10172(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 12 of 75
42 U.S.C. § 10221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 40 42 U.S.C. § 10222(a)(1) (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 42 U.S.C. § 10222(a)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 42 U.S.C. § 10242(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 28 U.S.C. § 2516(a) (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 10 C.F.R. § 961.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim 48 Fed. Reg. 16590 (Apr. 18, 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 37, 39 48 Fed. Reg. 5458 (Feb. 4, 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7, 8, 9, 37 Minn. Stat. § 116C.83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 On January 7, 1983, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 ("NWPA"), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5 S. Rep. No. 100-152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 MISCELLANEOUS Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 211 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 344(a) (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 350, cmt. b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 351, cmt. a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 352 cmt. a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Am. Jur. 2d Damages § 416 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 13 of 75
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS __________________________________________ ) NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 98-484C ) (Senior Judge Wiese) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW Pursuant to this Court's order dated September 14, 2005, defendant, the United States, respectfully submits the following memorandum of contentions of fact and law. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This case involves a damages claim by plaintiff, Northern States Power Company ("NSP"), for approximately $172 million in costs that it allegedly has incurred through December 31, 2004, at its Prairie Island and Monticello nuclear power plants, associated with the storage of spent nuclear fuel ("SNF"). NSP's claim includes costs for, among other things, the design, licensing, and fabrication of a dry storage facility at the Prairie Island nuclear plant. NSP also seeks damages for various actions that it was required to take by the Minnesota legislature, and for amounts paid in the 1990s for the yet-to-be-constructed Private Fuel Storage ("PFS") facility in Utah. NSP contends that the Government is liable for all of these costs because the need for additional storage was caused by the Government's failure to begin accepting SNF from commercial nuclear reactors on January 31, 1998, pursuant to the "Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste" ("Standard Contract") between the Department of Energy ("DOE") and NSP.
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 14 of 75
At trial, NSP bears the burden of proving that its damages were foreseeable, were caused by DOE's partial breach, and are reasonably certain. As part of that legal obligation, NSP must establish that it properly has accounted for costs that would have been incurred had DOE performed beginning in 1998. NSP also must show that its actions were actually intended to mitigate its damages. This legal burden is real, and NSP must do more at trial than simply identify costs that it has incurred in connection with the storage of SNF and shift to the Government the burden of disproving foreseeability, causation, and reasonable certainty. NSP apparently intends to characterize all of its claimed costs as "mitigation efforts" in an attempt to place the burden on the Government to disprove their reasonableness, without ever establishing as an initial matter that the need for these efforts was actually caused by DOE's delay and would not have been necessary in the "but for" world. It has no basis for avoiding its own need to meet its own burden of proof. NSP's claim requires significant adjustment based upon NSP's inability to establish its burden of proof. First, NSP cannot establish causation for many of its claimed costs. The vast majority of NSP's damages are based upon the assertion that, but for DOE's delay in acceptance of SNF, NSP would not have had to build a dry storage facility. However, the evidence will show that NSP would have had to build its dry storage facility regardless of DOE's breach. Second, NSP cannot recover costs that were not foreseeable at the time of contracting. These costs include those associated with various requirements imposed upon NSP by the Minnesota legislature. Indeed, at the time of contracting, the Government had no reason to know that the Minnesota legislature would even be involved in NSP's operational decisions with regard to the storage of its SNF. Certainly DOE could not have foreseen that the legislature
2
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 15 of 75
would impose upon NSP millions of dollars of mandated payments, for which NSP would ultimately seek reimbursement from the Government. Likewise, NSP's attempt to recover amounts paid in connection with the Private Fuel Storage ("PFS") facility in Utah is flawed because the PFS venture was not foreseeable at the time of contract formation and did not constitute reasonable mitigation. These costs were for a highly speculative venture that had little chance applying foresight at the time that the decision to invest in PFS was made of providing NSP with an appropriate or available alternative option for the storage of SNF. See Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. United States, 422 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming this Court's finding that amounts paid to PFS did not constitute reasonable mitigation because the investment was speculative and the cost unforeseeable). Although NSP may be entitled to compensation for certain costs associated with the storage of SNF that it incurred after 1998, the trial evidence will show that its damages claim is grossly in excess of the costs that it actually incurred as a result of DOE's partial breach of the Standard Contract. NSP must be held to its burden of proof so that only foreseeable damages, directly caused by the Government's breach, are included in the amount of damages recovered.1
As the Court is aware, the DOE contracting officer, in 1997, made a preliminary determination that DOE's delay was unavoidable under the "Unavoidable Delays" clause of the Standard Contract. That provision states that "[n]either the Government nor Purchaser shall be liable under this contract for damages caused by failure to perform its obligations hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the party failing to perform." 10 C.F.R. § 961.11, Art. IX.A (emphasis added). Included in the excusable bases for a failure to perform are delays in the scheduled delivery, acceptance, or transport of SNF arising out of causes beyond the "reasonable control of . . . [the Department of Energy (`DOE')]," including "acts of Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity:" Id. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that DOE's delay in accepting spent nuclear fuel constitutes a "[f]ailure to perform." Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. v. United States, 225 F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, following the contracting officer's issuance of her preliminary determination, the United States Court of 3
1
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 16 of 75
STATEMENT OF FACTS I. THE ORIGINAL PROVISIONS OF THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT
On January 7, 1983, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 ("NWPA"), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2201 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 10101-10270 (1982)), was enacted. In its statement of the statutory purposes underlying the NWPA, Congress identified the following four objectives: developing repositories to ensure the protection of the public and the environment from the hazards posed by SNF and high level radioactive waste ("HLW"); establishing Federal
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a writ of mandamus, ordering DOE "to proceed with contractual remedies in a manner consistent with NWPA's command that it undertake an unconditional obligation to begin disposal of the SNF by January 31, 1998." Northern States Power Co. v. United States, 128 F.3d 754, 760 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The D.C. Circuit, after barring "DOE from concluding that its delay is unavoidable on the ground that it has not yet prepared a permanent repository or that it has no authority to provide storage in the interim," held that the "Unavoidable Delays" clause, "insofar as it is applied to DOE's failure to perform by 1998, is inconsistent with DOE's statutory obligation to assume an unconditional duty" and issued its writ to preclude DOE from relying upon that provision. Id. at 760-61. We have consistently argued, most recently in briefing before the Federal Circuit in PSEG Nuclear, LLC v. United States, No. 05-5162 (Fed. Cir.),and this Court in Nebraska Public Power District v. United States, No. 01-116C (Fed. Cl.), that the D.C. Circuit overstepped its jurisdiction and authority in issuing this writ of mandamus (given that the judicial review provision of the NWPA, 42 U.S.C. § 10139, does not permit the D.C. Circuit to review contract administration matters) and, further, that the "Unavoidable Delays" clause in the Standard Contract was wholly appropriate and legal. The D.C. Circuit has eliminated one of the central provisions of the Standard Contract that governs the parties' liability in the event of delays in SNF acceptance. With this clause, DOE would have had the ability to present an absolute defense to liability in this case. The effect of the D.C. Circuit's elimination of at least a portion of this contract clause from the Standard Contract, 14 years after the contract was entered, has a staggering effect upon the United States: rather than excusing DOE's liability for the course of the unavoidable delay, DOE now faces billions of dollars in damages claims. The writ of mandamus wholly changes the nature of the Standard Contract, essentially and inappropriately creating a contract (one without an "Unavoidable Delays" clause) between the parties to which DOE never agreed, further bringing into question the appropriateness of a liability finding here. Nevertheless, because the D.C. Circuit's writ of mandamus is continuing, we are currently barred from attempting to invoke the "Unavoidable Delays" clause. 4
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 17 of 75
responsibility and policy for the disposal of SNF and HLW; defining the relationship between the Federal Government and state governments regarding SNF and HLW disposal; and establishing a Nuclear Waste Fund, financed by the utilities, to pay for the costs of the DOE program. Id. § 10131(b). The NWPA defines a specific process by which the Secretary of Energy, the President of the United States, and the United States Congress would determine a site for a repository for the permanent deep geologic disposal of SNF. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 10132, 10134, 10135. Congress also included in the NWPA provisions allowing the Secretary to study the possibility of creating Monitored Retrievable Storage ("MRS") facilities, with Congress finding that "long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel in monitored retrievable storage facilities is an option for providing safe and reliable management of such waste or spent fuel." 42 U.S.C. § 10161(a)(1) (1982).2 In addition, the NWPA authorized the Secretary to enter into contracts with the owners and generators of SNF of domestic origin for "the acceptance of title, subsequent transportation, and disposal of such [SNF]." 42 U.S.C. § 10222(a)(1) (1982). The contracts had to "provide for payment to the Secretary of fees . . . sufficient to offset expenditures" described elsewhere in the statute. Id.
By July 1, 1985, the Secretary was to "complete a detailed study of the need for and feasibility of, and shall submit to the Congress a proposal for, the construction of one or more monitored retrievable storage facilities for high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel." Id. § 10161(b)(1). 5
2
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 18 of 75
II.
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 A. The Proposed Rule
On February 4, 1983, the Department of Energy ("DOE"), in furtherance of its obligations under the NWPA, published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, proposing terms for the Standard Contract. See 48 Fed. Reg. 5458 (Feb. 4, 1983). The proposed Standard Contract provided a mechanism for determining the order in which, and the rate at which, the contract holders' SNF would be accepted. As for the order of SNF acceptance, the Standard Contract proposed that DOE would issue an "acceptance priority ranking" ("APR") of SNF and/or HLW, through which SNF and/or HLW would receive acceptance priority based generally upon its age. Id. at 5464 (Art. VI.B.3). Although the proposed Standard Contract did not identify a specific rate by which DOE would accept contract holders' SNF, it provided for DOE's issuance of documents for planning purposes to assist in the eventual definitization of the specific rate and order of SNF acceptance and disposal. Id. at 5463 (Art. V.B.5 & Art. V.B.6). The proposed contract further provided that, following DOE's issuance of planning documents, rates of SNF acceptance, as well as the specific order of SNF acceptance from particular contract holders, would be defined through the contract holders' submission, and DOE's approval, of delivery commitment schedules ("DCSs"). Id. at 5462. The proposed Standard Contract also provided for the contract holders' submission of Final Delivery Schedules ("FDSs"), which would take the annual allocation defined in an approved DCS and refine it to reflect as closely as possible the month(s) and day(s) upon which acceptance of particular SNF would occur. Id. at 5463 (Art. IV.C). The term "DOE facility" in the proposed Standard Contract referred to a 6
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 19 of 75
permanent repository for disposal of the SNF and/or HLW. Id. at 5462 (Art. I.11). The proposed rule provided for written comments to be submitted by March 7, 1983. Id. at 5458. B. Public Comments
DOE received numerous comments in response to the proposed rule. A number of the comments recognized that the Standard Contract did not establish a specific rate at which DOE must accept SNF, and sought to have such a rate included. The Edison Electric Institute ("EEI"), an association of the nuclear power industry to which NSP belonged, requested as follows: The contract should include a recognition that DOE will design its facilities with the capacity to receive SNF/HLW at a rate commensurate with the amount of SNF/HLW then being generated together with the accumulated backlog of SNF/HLW. We believe that DOE should be able to take delivery of SNF/HLW equal to that year's generation plus a reasonable share of the backlog. While the contract may not be the appropriate place to commit DOE to a specific numerical receiving rate, DOE should recognize, at least qualitatively, the need to have adequate annual receiving capacity to handle industry needs.
DX 2.34, Attachment A at 2 (ARC0010334). Other utilities submitted similar comments seeking firm commitments regarding the rate of SNF acceptance. For example, Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA") submitted a comment, stating that "a commitment to do no more than start accepting deliveries by 1998 is empty and meaningless without setting forth some reasonable minimum rate of acceptance which corresponds to the purposes of the Act." DX 2.63 at 5 (ARC0010537). Although TVA recognized that, "under the priority ranking system in the draft contract, it would be difficult at the time contracts are executed to give each Purchaser assurances of delivery acceptance at any specific rate," it suggested that "[t]his could, however, be done on an industry wide basis." Id.
7
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 20 of 75
TVA suggested that DOE add a contract provision to provide that "DOE shall start accepting delivery of SNF or HLW not later than January 31, 1998, at not less than the annual rate [at which] SNF and/or HLW is then being produced from civilian nuclear power plants covered by contracts . . . ." Id. DOE also received comments seeking a commitment for DOE to accept SNF at the rates set forth in the Mission Plan that DOE was to prepare in accordance with statutory requirements for ultimate submission to Congress, for its review and consideration. For instance, Florida Power & Light Company, expressly stated that DOE should create a mandatory obligation that would require DOE to accept SNF and HLW at the rates identified in the Mission Plan, once that plan was approved by Congress. DX 2.43, attachment 1 at 1 (ARC0010439). NSP submitted its comments to DOE on March 3, 1983. DX 2.12. Like many other utilities, NSP endorsed EEI's comments upon the draft Standard Contract. EEI also suggested that "[t]he definition of `DOE Facility' (Article I.11) should be broadened to include destinations other than the repository." DX. 2.34, Attachment A at 4 (ARC0010336). EEI stated that "[t]he contract does not recognize the possibility that DOE might send SNF/HLW to an intermediate location (such as a monitored retrievable storage facility) before it goes to a repository" and, "[t]o accommodate this, the definition of `DOE Facility' should be broadened." Id. at 5 (ARC0010337); see DX 2.14 (ARC0010180) (change to contract language "would implicitly recognize DOE's option to reprocess SNF or to utilize Monitored Retrievable Storage prior to permanent disposal"); DX 2.69 (ARC0010625) ("[t]his change would recognize the possibility of DOE shipping SNF/HLW to an intermediate storage facility such as a monitored retrievable storage facility").
8
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 21 of 75
C.
The Final Rule
On April 18, 1983, DOE issued the Standard Contract as a final rule. The final rule, as promulgated, made certain modifications to the Standard Contract as set forth in the proposed rule. Although the proposed rule provided that "services provided to the Purchaser by DOE under this contract are related to disposal of SNF," 48 Fed. Reg. at 5462, that "disposal" was defined as emplacement in a permanent repository, id., and that such "disposal" services would begin by January 31, 1998, id., the final Standard Contract eliminated any requirement for DOE to begin SNF "disposal" in a permanent repository by January 31, 1998. Instead, the final Standard Contract only required DOE to begin SNF acceptance by January 31, 1998, after the commencement of "facility" operations. 10 C.F.R. § 961.11, Art. II. The "facility" to which the final Standard Contract refers is either a permanent repository to be constructed pursuant to the NWPA or such other facility to which SNF might be shipped by DOE prior to its transportation to a permanent repository. Id. § 961.11, Art. I.10. As the preamble to the final rule expressly recognized, the final Standard Contract would not obligate DOE to have an operational permanent repository by January 31, 1998: The definition of "DOE facility" (Article I.10) was expanded to expressly state, in accordance with the Act, that there may be an interim storage facility (or facilities) which DOE may utilize prior to emplacement in a repository. 48 Fed. Reg. 16590, 16591 (Apr. 18, 1983). DOE did not adopt the suggestion of EEI and many of the utilities to incorporate into the contract a requirement that DOE accept SNF at a rate equal to the annual generation rate plus some additional amount to reduce the accumulated backlog. The Government will show at trial that DOE determined it could not obligate itself to satisfy such a commitment because the 9
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 22 of 75
number of uncertainties concerning the development of the program, the development of the contemplated disposal facilities, and the potential capabilities for accepting SNF that could be developed by 1998. Accordingly, DOE specifically declined to create any commitment to accept SNF beginning in 1998 at a specific minimum rate or based upon any mandatory minimum criteria. Instead, the contract provided that the acceptance rate would be developed later through the promulgation of the 1991 ACR. The utilities acknowledged that DOE rejected their requests regarding the inclusion of a qualitative description of the acceptance rate in both internal memoranda and correspondence with DOE. For example, TVA noted that its request regarding the acceptance rate term had been rejected: DOE did not accept TVA's suggestion that DOE should start accepting delivery of SNF and HLW in 1998 at a rate not less than that which they are being produced by the civilian nuclear power industry as a whole. DX 32, Attachment 2 at 3 (TV1471) (TVA memorandum, dated May 24, 1983); see also DX 39 at 1 (Yankee Atomic memorandum, dated January 20, 1984). Similarly, in a letter to Robert Morgan of DOE, EEI complained that the Standard Contract as promulgated lacked "standards or milestones for DOE's performance . . . ." DX 34, Attachment 1 at 1 (SN011049).3 Finally, the Standard Contract contained an integration clause, which precluded reliance upon any representation, promise, or condition not expressly incorporated into the contract:
DOE likewise did not adopt Florida Power & Light Company's request that DOE add a contract clause obligating DOE to accept SNF and/or HLW under "the schedule and capacities detailed in the approved 1984 DOE Mission Plan . . . ." DX 2.43, Attachment 1 at 1 (ARC0010439). 10
3
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 23 of 75
This contract, which consists of Articles I through XXII and Appendices A through G, annexed hereto and made a part hereof, contains the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Any representation, promise, or condition not incorporated in this contract shall not be binding on either party. No course of dealing or usage of trade or course of performance shall be relevant to explain or supplement any provision contained in this contract. 10 C.F.R. § 961.11, Art. XXII.4 III. NSP'S EXECUTION OF ITS STANDARD CONTRACTS
On June 20, 1983, NSP executed three Standard Contracts with DOE, which covered the SNF generated at the Prairie Island nuclear plant, the SNF generated and stored at the Monticello nuclear plant, and the SNF generated at the Monticello nuclear plant that was subsequently shipped to the General Electric Morris facility. These three Standard Contracts contained essentially the same terms and conditions as the final rule promulgated by DOE on April 14, 1983. See DX 1. IV. ISSUANCE OF THE MISSION PLAN AND ITS AMENDMENT
In June 1985, DOE issued and submitted to Congress the Mission Plan, in accordance with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 10221, which was to "provide an informational basis sufficient to permit informed decisions to be made in carrying out the repository program and the research, development, and demonstration programs required under this chapter." 42 U.S.C. § 10221(a). In the 1985 Mission Plan, DOE projected for informational purposes that an initial permanent repository would begin operations in 1998 and that a second permanent repository
The Standard Contract also included a "Disputes" clause that provided a mandatory administrative mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising under the contract. 10 C.F.R. § 961.11, Art. XVI.A. 11
4
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 24 of 75
would commence operations in 2006. DX 45, Volume 1 at 25-26 (HQR0031129-30). The schedules contained in the Mission Plan projected annual SNF generation rates from utilities nationwide of approximately 3,000 MTU in 1998 and increasing by 2007 to over 4,000 MTU per year. Id.5 The Mission Plan noted that these schedules were "only an approximation of how the system may operate and is subject to considerable variation. The DOE will further define and specify the system acceptance parameters as the program progresses." DX 45 at 29 (HQR0031133). The Mission Plan further advised: Under the terms of the contracts for disposal services that have been signed between the DOE and the utilities, an annual capacity report with projected annual receiving capacities and rankings will be issued by the DOE beginning in 1987. In 1991, the DOE will begin to publish firm waste-acceptance schedules for individual reactors, including shipment allocations. Id. In the 1987 Mission Plan Amendment, submitted to Congress in June 1987, DOE recommended deferral of the date contemplated for operation of the first repository from 1998 to 2003, with the second repository becoming operational by 2023. The Mission Plan Amendment reflected DOE's recognition that acceptance beginning in 1998 could not begin at a permanent repository. DOE explained that its recommendation was based upon experience gained in the program, a budget decrease for Fiscal Year 1987, and budget uncertainty for Fiscal Year 1988. However, DOE noted that it could nonetheless begin waste acceptance in 1998 at an MRS facility.6 DX 53 at 6 (HQR0031634). The 1987 Mission Plan Amendment acknowledged the
5
Today, utilities discharge approximately 2,000 MTU of SNF per year.
The ability to start accepting waste in 1998 at an MRS facility was dependent upon congressional authorization. See 42 U.S.C. § 10161(b)-(c) (1982). 12
6
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 25 of 75
importance of the Annual Capacity Report that would be issued in 1991 namely, that it would be used as the basis for the DCS process. DX 53 at 60 (HQR0031687). V. THE 1987 AMENDMENTS TO THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT
On December 22, 1987, after DOE submitted the 1987 Mission Plan Amendment, Congress amended the NWPA "to redirect the program for the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste under the [NWPA]." S. Rep. No. 100-152, at 1 (Sept. 1, 1987). The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported, in considering legislation to amend the NWPA, that "[t]he schedules included in the NWPA have proven to be overly ambitious" and that "[t]his has been largely due to the need to provide additional time for completion of necessary technical work and additional time for public participation." Id. at 5. The committee reported that, "[i]n the four and a half years since passage of the NWPA, it has become clear that the program laid out in the Act will take longer to complete than was anticipated and that completion will be at much greater cost." Id. It further reported that, "[i]n addition to cost and schedule considerations, a number of other circumstances have changed since passage of the NWPA," including that, "as we approach major decision points in the nuclear waste program, there will be great potential for political opposition . . . ." Id. The 1987 amendments to the NWPA directed DOE to characterize a single site, at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, for development of a permanent repository and to terminate activities at all other sites. 42 U.S.C. § 10172(a). The 1987 amendments also authorized the Secretary to site, construct, and operate one, but only one, MRS facility. 42 U.S.C. § 10162(b). However, the 1987 amendments provided that "construction of [the MRS] facility may not begin until the
13
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 26 of 75
Commission has issued a license for the construction of a repository under section 115(d)." 42 U.S.C. § 10168(d)(1). Finally, they also provided that "the quantity of [SNF] at the site of such facility at any one time may not exceed 10,000 metric tons of heavy metal until a repository under this Act first accepts [SNF]." Id. § 10168(d)(3).7 VI. DOE'S ISSUANCE OF ANNUAL CAPACITY REPORTS A. The 1987 Through 1990 Annual Capacity Reports
Beginning in 1987, in compliance with the NWPA and the language of the Standard Contract, DOE issued an "Annual Capacity Report." As each of these ACRs expressly stated, "[a]s specified in the Contract, the ACR is for planning purposes only and thus is not contractually binding on either DOE or the Purchasers." DX 52 at 2 (HQR0012713), DX 63 at 1 (HQR0012617), DX 87 at 2 (HQR0012494) ("projections in this initial report are based on current plans and best available information; they are not contractually binding"). Further, each of the ACRs from 1987 through 1990 contained the following, or substantially similar, language: Beginning in 1991, the ACR acceptance ranking will be converted into an Annual Priority Ranking for receipt of SNF/HLW. In 1992, based on this priority ranking, the Purchasers will submit to DOE for approval, Delivery Commitment Schedules identifying the SNF/HLW that Purchasers propose to deliver to the DOE waste management system (WMS). Once approved, these schedules will become the basis for Final Delivery Schedules to be submitted by the Purchasers not less than 12 months before the date of DOE's anticipated acceptance of title to the SNF/HLW and subsequent transport to a DOE facility.
The 1987 amendments to the NWPA also established the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator. 42 U.S.C. § 10242(a). That office was to seek to enter into negotiations with states and Indian tribes to "attempt to reach a proposed agreement" with them through which a state or Indian tribe "would agree to host a repository or [MRS] facility with such State or reservation." Id. § 10243(a). The authorization for that office expired in 1994, id. § 10250, without any agreements with any states or Indian tribes. 14
7
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 27 of 75
DX 52 at 2 (HQR0012713), DX 63 at 2 (HQR0012618), DX 87 at 2 (HQR0012494). B. The 1991 Annual Capacity Report
In December 1991, DOE issued its "Annual Capacity Report" for that year, DOE-RW331P. DX 108 at 1-2 (HQR0020797-HQR0020798). The 1991 ACR was significant because it was the last ACR that would be issued before the contract holders were to begin submitting DCSs beginning January 1, 1992. See 10 C.F.R. § 961.11, Art. V.B.1. In that regard, the 1991 ACR provided that, "[b]eginning in January 1992, the Purchasers may submit Delivery Commitment Schedules (DCS) to DOE identifying the range of SNF that the Purchasers propose to deliver to the Federal Waste Management System (FWMS) beginning sixty-three months thereafter." DX 108 at 2 (HQR0020804). It also stated that "[t]he Purchasers' allocations for each delivery year are presented in Tables A.1 through A.10 in Appendix A, and should be used as the basis for submitting DCSs." Id. at 2, 7. As dictated by the Standard Contract, the 1991 ACR specified the rate of acceptance for the first 10 years of the DOE program, beginning in 1998. Specifically, the 1991 ACR specified the following acceptance rate:
15
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 28 of 75
TABLE 2.1 Projected Waste Acceptance Rates for Spent Nuclear Fuel Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL SNF (MTU) 400 600 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 8,200
DX 108 at 5 (HQR0020807). This rate was created with the knowledge that no permanent repository would be available by January 31, 1998. Id. at 4 (HQR0012365). Instead, "the waste acceptance projections used in this ACR are representative of a FWMS [Federal Waste Management System] configuration authorized by the NWPA, which includes a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility." Id. In particular, the rates were "consistent with the 10,000 MTU storage capacity limit contained in the NWPA for an MRS facility before a repository starts operation." Id. DOE noted, however, that the schedule assumed that the schedule linkages between the MRS construction and repository construction authorization would be eliminated. Id. In a memorandum dated December 20, 1991, Ronald A. Milner, Associate Director for Storage and Transportation, stated in a memorandum to John Bartlett, Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, as follows:
16
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 29 of 75
The 1991 ACR assumes that FWMS [Federal Waste Management System] operations commence in 1998 and the system configuration is that authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, specifically a Monitored Retrievable Storage facility with a 10,000 MTU storage limit prior to repository operations. The 1991 ACR differs from previously published ACRs for two reasons. First, while the information in the ACR has traditionally been used for planning purposes only, the allocations in the 1991 ACR will also serve as the basis for submission of Delivery Commitment Schedules (DCS) by the Contract holders. These DCSs, which will provide planning information for waste acceptance activities, may be submitted to the Department as early as January 1, 1992. DX 112. The utility industry recognized the importance of the 1991 ACR in the determination of delivery commitments for performance beginning in 1998. See, e.g., DX 113 at 2 and 3 (SN169910) (UWASTE memorandum explaining that the ACR and APR "are necessary to properly complete the DCS forms"); DX 114 at 2 (SN170373) (same); DX 54 at 8 (YDK038298) (UNWMG memorandum describing the 1991 ACR as "contractually binding"). C. The 1992 Through 1995 Annual Capacity Reports
The 1992 ACR, which was issued in May 1993, contained the same acceptance rates as the 1991 ACR. DX 128 at 4 (HQR 0012324). The 1992 ACR also provided that, "[d]uring the first ten years following projected commencement of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System (CRWMS) operation, the total quantity of SNF that could be accepted is projected to be 8,200 MTU." DX 128 at v (HQR 0012319). It stated that "[t]his is consistent with the storage capacity licensing conditions imposed on an MRS facility by the NWPA." Id.
17
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 30 of 75
In 1995, DOE issued a combined APR and ACR, to "establish[] the order in which the Department allocates the projected acceptance capacity for commercial [SNF]" and to appl[y] projected nominal acceptance rates for the system to the priority ranking in the APR, resulting in individual allocations for the owners and generators expressed in metric tons per uranium (MTU)." DX 163 at 1 (HQR-029-0676). The 1995 ACR contained substantially similar SNF acceptance rates as the 1991 and 1992 ACRs, identifying a projected nominal waste acceptance rate of 8,200 for the first 10 years of SNF acceptance. Id. at 4 (HQR-029-0681). The 1995 ACR also contained the following statement: The ACR (see Appendix B) applies a 10-year projected nominal waste acceptance rate to the APR, resulting in individual capacity allocations. In the previous ACR, the projected nominal acceptance rate was based on the assumption of SNF acceptance beginning in 1998 at a Monitored Retrievable Storage facility prior to repository operations. Due to the uncertainty associated with the date of commencement of operation of the waste management system, the annual nominal waste acceptance rates are presented by year(s) of operation of the system rather than by specific calendar year(s). The projected nominal acceptance rates also reflect the capacity limit imposed by the Act on such a storage facility prior to repository operations. These projected nominal waste acceptance rates are presented in Table 1. The Department will continue to process DCS submittals on an annual basis. Id. at 3-4 (emphasis added). The 1995 ACR further provided that the capacity allocations listed in the ACR "form the basis for the Purchasers' submittal" of DCSs. Id. at 1. VII. PROGRAM DOCUMENTS REFLECT PLANNED ACCEPTANCE AT AN MRS FACILITY A. Program Reassessment And 1991 Draft Mission Plan Amendment
In November 1989, the Secretary of Energy submitted a report to Congress regarding DOE's reassessment of the program. In this report, DOE stated that it would be unable to begin
18
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 31 of 75
operations at a permanent repository until 2010, because there was insufficient time to perform the scientific investigation necessary. DX 76 at vii-ix (DB0001448-50). However, DOE also stated that it planned "to work with Congress to modify the current linkages between the repository and the MRS facility and to embark on an aggressive program to develop an integrated MRS facility for spent fuel." Id. at ix-x (DB0001450-51). DOE further advised that, "if the linkages [were] modified, it [was] likely that waste acceptance at an MRS facility could begin by 1998 or soon thereafter." Id. In September 1991, DOE issued another Draft Mission Plan amendment, which provided further details upon the "action plan" set forth in the Secretary's 1989 Reassessment. DX 102 at HQR0030799. In accordance with the 1989 Reassessment, the 1991 Draft Mission Plan Amendment reaffirmed DOE's plans to begin performance in 1998 at an MRS. To achieve the objective of timely and adequate waste acceptance, we plan to develop an MRS facility that is to start waste acceptance in 1998. To make this possible, the President's legislative package for the National Energy Strategy includes a provision to repeal the schedule linkages established in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments of 1987 (Amendments Act). This could also be achieved by congressional enactment of a negotiated siting agreement reached through the efforts of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator. Id. at 18 (HQR0030825). The schedule set forth in the 1991 Mission Plan Amendment showed acceptance by DOE up to the 10,000 MTU limit upon the MRS until the repository began operations in 2010. Id. at 205-206. B. Preliminary Estimates Of The Total-System Life Cycle Cost For The Restructured Program
DOE's anticipation of performance at an MRS was also reflected in the cost analyses that it performed around the time of the 1991 ACR to support the adequacy of fees collected for the 19
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 32 of 75
Nuclear Waste Fund. The fee paid by utilities, 1 mil per kilowatt hour, was established by Congress in enacting the NWPA. 42 U.S.C. § 10222(a)(2). Pursuant to the NWPA, DOE is required annually to assess whether the fees collected pursuant to statute are adequate to fund all of the efforts necessary to implement the NWPA. 42 U.S.C. § 10222(a)(4). The Secretary is to advise Congress if the fee is found to be inadequate. Id. To determine whether the fee is adequate, DOE first prepares a Total System Life Cycle Cost report, in which it projects the total cost of the program. This total system cost projection is based upon the projected number of years that the program is estimated to operate, projected transportation requirements, projected interest rates, and other factors. The current program plans, including acceptance rate projections, type and location of receiving facilities, and scope of the transportation program, are the basis for the total cost estimate. In its Preliminary Estimates of the Total System Life Cycle Cost For The Restructured Program: An Addendum to the May 1989 Analysis of the Total Life Cycle Cost for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, December 1990 ("1990 PETSLCC"), DOE utilized a schedule that was explicitly based upon acceptance starting at an MRS. DX 88 at A-1. The first ten years are identical to the ACR schedule, with the exception of the second year of acceptance, where the 1990 PETSLCC contemplates that 400 MTU rather than 600 MTU of SNF would be accepted. Id. This schedule also shows what DOE anticipated the transition from a repository to an MRS would look like. Id. In year eleven and year twelve of acceptance, 900 MTU would be accepted at a permanent repository. In years thirteen through seventeen 1,800 MTU would be accepted. And only in year eighteen (2015) would the system accept 3,000 MTU. Id.
20
Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Document 271
Filed 10/10/2006
Page 33 of 75
VIII.
INDUSTRY SUBMISSION OF DELIVERY COMMITMENT SCHEDULES
By letter dated March 4, 1992, the DOE contracting officer issued a letter to NSP and other utilities, along with the instructions for the submission of DCSs. DX 116 and 117. The contracting officer stated that "[t]he allocations in the 1991 Annual Capacity Report (ACR) should be the basis for the DCS submittals." Id. The accompanying instructions provided that purchasers could "begin submitting to the Department of Energy (DOE) Delivery Commitment Schedules (DCS) that identify all spent nuclear fuel (SNF) the Purchasers plan to deliver to DOE beginning 63 months thereafter." DX 117 at 4 (SN172070). The instructions stated that "[t]he DCS provides the Purchasers with the opportunity to inform DOE of their plans for utilizing their allocations of projected Federal waste management system (FWMS) acceptance capacity." Id. They further provided that, "[f]or each allocation listed in the 1991 ACR (or subsequent ACRs, as appropriate), a Purchaser must submit at least one DCS for that allocation at least 63 months prior to the date that the allocation occurs (e.g., if a Purchaser has an allocation in 1998, a DCS must be submitted for that allocation by September 30, 1992)." Id. The instructions also required that the utilities list upon the DCSs the method of delivery to DOE (truck, barge, or rail) and fuel handling crane capacities. The DCS instructions were developed with the full participation of the nuclear industry. See, e.g., DX 99 (Minutes of Standard Contract Task Force meeting, during which members met with DOE to discuss and provide comments upon the