Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. United States
129 Fed. Cl. 135
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- Entergy Gulf States contracted with DOE under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act for DOE to take title and transport spent nuclear fuel starting in 2006; DOE breached by failing to begin pickups.
- Entergy built an on-site ISFSI and loaded 15 Holtec MPC-68 (HI-STORM 100) dry storage casks in 2005–2010; loading required fuel characterization under Holtec’s Certificate of Compliance.
- River Bend reactor produces high-burn-up (>45 GWd/MTU) and non-high-burn-up fuel; high-burn-up fuel poses greater cladding hydriding/brittleness risks and may require re-characterization before transportation.
- Plaintiffs sought $564,651 for fuel-characterization costs (including fuel sipping) incurred to verify assemblies were intact and met Holtec loading criteria.
- The Federal Circuit in System Fuels affirmed that storage cask loading costs are recoverable because storage casks cannot be used for transportation, but the trial court in ANO II only awarded characterization costs for high-burn-up fuel.
- This Court denied Entergy’s claimed fuel-characterization damages because Entergy did not load high-burn-up fuel during the damages period, and ANO II/System Fuels only support characterization recovery for high-burn-up fuel that would require re-characterization for later transport.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are fuel-characterization costs recoverable as part of cask-loading damages? | Characterization costs are part of storage cask loading and were covered by System Fuels. | System Fuels did not address re-characterization costs; Entergy would have incurred these in the but-for world and has not shown re-characterization will be required. | Denied. System Fuels/ANO II support characterization costs only for high-burn-up fuel; Entergy loaded only non-high-burn-up fuel during damages period. |
| Does System Fuels broadly include re-characterization costs for all fuel types? | System Fuels’ affirmation of cask-loading costs implies inclusion of associated characterization costs. | System Fuels affirmed ANO II, which expressly limited characterization recovery to high-burn-up fuel; it did not mandate characterization recovery for non-high-burn-up fuel. | Held that System Fuels does not authorize characterization costs here because ANO II’s limitation controls. |
| Does Vermont Yankee mandate denial of characterization costs here? | (implicit) Prior precedent should not bar recovery when record supports it. | Vermont Yankee denied characterization costs where plaintiff failed to show likelihood of required re-characterization upon DOE performance; this supports denial absent such proof. | Vermont Yankee does not create a blanket rule but supports denial when plaintiff fails to prove re-characterization will be required; Entergy failed to show entitlement here. |
Key Cases Cited
- System Fuels, Inc. v. United States, 818 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (storage-cask loading costs recoverable because storage casks cannot be used for transportation)
- ANO II (Sequoyah Fuels/Trial Ct.), 120 Fed. Cl. 737 (Fed. Cl. 2015) (awarded fuel-characterization costs only for high-burn-up fuel that would need re-characterization before transport)
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, 683 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (denied characterization costs where plaintiff failed to show likelihood DOE would require re-characterization upon performance)
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 678 (Fed. Cl. 2016) (earlier damages rulings and partial award; background to subsequent characterization dispute)