Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-16
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 1 of 23
May 7 , 2002
Ronald A. Milner
"'" L
Washington , D.
Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY
(98- 126C) (Merow, S. J. )
COMPANY
CeRTIFIED COP
) Volume I
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER
(98 - 154C) (Merow, S. J. ) (98 - 474C) (Merow, S. J.
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY) Washington, D.
) Tuesday
Plaintiffs,
THE UNITED STATES,
) May 7, 2002
Defendant.
Deposition of RONALD A. MILNER , a witness
herein ,
called for examination by counsel for
Plaintiffs in the above- entitled matter, pursuant to
agreement, the witness being duly sworn by CHERYL
LORD, a Notary Public in and for the District of
Columbia, taken at the offices of SPRIGGS &
HOLLINGSWORTH , 1350 I Street , N.
, Washington , D. C.,
at 3:48 p. m., Tuesday, May 7,
2002, and the
proceedings being taken down by Stenotype by CHERYL
A. LORD, RPR, CRR, and transcribed under her
direction.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-16
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 2 of 23
May 7 , 2002
Ronald A. Milner
Washington , D.
Page 40
speculation.
m certainly not an expert in that
but I don' t know of
area,
any.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
And having worked in the office of storage 1
and transportation in OCRWM and now as its chief
operating officer, have you ever heard anyone express
the opinlon that within OCRWM that failed fuel
couldn I t
to move?
be moved or would be technically infeasible
No.
Are you aware of any current OCRWM plans
to defer the acceptance of failed
MR. SHULTIS:
fuel?
Obj ection , calls for a legal
conclusion.
I guess my understanding of the current
situation -- and I think that I s provided for under
the standard contract - further in the queue.
that the failed fuel is back
BY MR. SKALABAN
Okay.
Maybe we can take a look at
that.
And
If you could please take out Milner Exhibit in particular, article six on Milner Exhibit
criteria for disposal, page 16602, if you could take
a look at article 6 A , 2 B.
1111 14th
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-16
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 3 of 23
May 7 , 2002
Ronald A. Milner
Washington , D.
Page 42
fuel for purposes of the
schedule.
BY MR. SKALABAN
Whether it would be technically feasible
to accept that spent fuel?
~ 5
On the currently agreed- to schedule.
Do you have an understanding of what would
happen if the department thought it wasn
technically feasible to do it at that point in time
on the currently agreed-to schedule?
MR. SHULTI S :
Objection, vague, calls for
(b) (6)
a legal conclusion.
Mr. Milner is not a 30
witness.
I guess ln my oplnlon if the department
determined that it wasn t technically
feasible on the schedule and since we' ve already
stated that we would accept it, it would move back in
the queue.
BY MR. SKALABAN
Well, does this read to you more like just
a basic operational provislon, whereas the department
lS going to look at the individual case , if it can
accommodate it at that
back a little bit?
time, it'
s going to move it
That'
s the way I would read
it.
MR. SHULTIS:
Asked and answered.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 856-16 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 4 of 23
May 7 , 2002
Ronald A. Milner
Washington , D.
Page 43
BY MR. SKALABAN
This doesn' t suggest to you that failed
fuel is going to be put back years later in the
queue, does
i t?
MR. SHULTIS:
Obj ection, asked and
answered, calls for a legal conclusion.
I couldn't say on
that.
It would depend
on the nature of the fuel.
BY MR. SKALABAN
Well , assuming that there was an
NRC- licensed container for that failed fuel, would
the department then accept it upon the currently
agreed schedule?
MR. SHULTIS:
Obj ection,
calls
for speculation , asks for a legal
conclusion.
I guess in my opinion , if for that specific failed fuel, if there were an NRC-
container, the NRC
certified said, yep, that particular fuel is
fuel. You can
okay to move in that container, then , yes.
There I S all kinds of failed
have a fuel rod that goes
the cladding is
slightly unzipped, or it can have it totally
failed and a bunch of pellets laying at the
bot tom of the
pool.
That'
s the extreme
case, of
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th
Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-16
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 5 of 23
May 7 , 2002
Ronald A. Milner
Washington , D.
Page 44
course.
BY MR. SKALABAN
And in the extreme case, do you
know whether or not the technology has been
developed to put that into a safe, licensed
container?
MR. SHULTI S :
Obj ection , calls for a legal
conclusion.
I don' t know.
That would be a utility
operation responsibility in any
BY MR. SKALABAN
event.
But it'
s possible that that kind of
situation would be dealt with?
As an engineer, I 1 ike
that most things are technically
to think
feasible.
And you have no reason to bel ieve
that it wouldn' t be technically feasible
to develop a safe, NRC- licensed
container to
handle that extreme situation you
posited?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, calls for a legal
conclusion.
I can' t think of
any.
MR. SKALABAN
Can we go off the record a
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
::
, /.,
course.
:? /
(-.
. " """"' ' .,
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A. Milner
Document 856-16
Washington , D.
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 6 of 23
May 7 , 2002
Page 42
Page 44
fuel for purposes of the schedule. BY MR. SKALABAN: Whether it would be technically feasible
to accept that spent fuel?
Q.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
Q. ' And in the extreme case , do you
know whether or not the technology has been developed to put that into a safe , licensed container? MR. SHULTIS: Objection , calls for a legal conclusion. A. I don t know. That would be a utility operation responsibility in any event. BY MR. SKALABAN: But it's possible that that kind of situation would be dealt with? As an engineer, I like to think that most things are technically feasible. Q. And you have no reason to believe that it wouldn t be technically feasible to develop a safe , NRC- licensed container to handle that extreme situation you posited? MR. SHULTIS: Objection , calIs for a legal conclusion. A. I can t think of any. MR. SKALABAN: Can we go off the record a
A. On the currently agreed- to schedule. Q. Do you have an understanding of what would happen if the department thought it wasn technically feasible to do it at that point in time on the currently agreed- to schedule? MR. SHULTIS: Objection , vague , calls for a legal conclusion. Mr. Milner is not a JO(b)(6) witness.
A. I guess in my opinion ifthe department
Q.
detennined that it wasn t technically feasible on the schedule and since we ve already stated that we would accept it , it would move back in the queue. BY MR. SKALABAN: Q. Well , does this read to you more like just a basic operational provision , whereas the department is going to look at the individual case , if it can accommodate it at that time , it' s going to move it back a little bit? A. That' s the way I would read it. MR. SHULTIS: Asked and answered.
A.
F""Page 43
Page 45
BY MR. SKALABAN: This doesn t suggest to you that failed fuel is going to be put back years later in the queue , does it? MR. SHULTIS: Objection , asked and answered , calls for a legal conclusion. A. I couldn t say on that. It would depend on the nature of the fuel. BY MR. SKALABAN: Q. Well , assuming that there was an NRC- !icensed container for that failed fuel , would the department then accept it upon the currently
Q.
second?
~Ct
t2
YJ'
(Whereupon . at 5:08 p. , the taking of the instant deposition adjourned.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
20~, I :)/~;kiZ.,
:#a
ry Public 7:'
Signal11re of the Witness :dr;!;'
day of
agreed schedule?
13 My Commission Expires:
MR. SHULTIS: Objection , calls for speculation , asks for a legal conclusion. A. I guess in my opinion , if for that specific failed fuel , ifthere were an NRC-certified container , the NRC said , yep, that particular fuel is okay to move in that container, then, yes. There s all kinds of failed fuel. You can have a fue! rod that goes -- the cladding is slightly unzipped , or it can have it totally failed and a bunch of pellets laying at the bottom of the pool. That' s the extreme case , of
Ie-
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
I11I 14th Street ,
N. W, Suite 400 1- 800-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
~~$:
---------------Ronald A. Milner
\,.. '.. '
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-16
Washington, D.
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 7 of 23
May 8 , 2002
.,.If
Page 47
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY
(98- 126C) (Merow, S.
J. )
Volume II
Washington, D . C .
COMPANY
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER
(98- 154C)(Merow, S. (98- 4 74C) (Merow, S.
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY) Wednesday
) May 8, 2002
Plaintiffs,
THE UNITED STATES,
De f endan
CERTIFIED ~v~.
'r fl
t.
Continued Deposition of RONALD A... MILNER,
a witness herein, called for examination by counsel for Plaintiffs in the above-entitled matter, pursuant
to agreement, the witness being duly sworn by CHERYL
A. LORD, a Notary Public in and for the District of
Columbia, taken at the offices of SPRIGGS &
HOLLINGSWORTH, 1350 I Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.,
at 9: 20 a.
, Wednesday, May 8, 2002 , and the
proceedings being taken down by Stenotype by CHERYL
A. LORD, RPR , CRR, and transcribed under her
direction.
Alderson Reporting Come..any,
Inc,
111114th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1-8oo-FOR""VEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A. Milner
Document 856-16
Washington, D.
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 8 of 23
May 8 , 2002
Page 53
It'
do.
s hypothetical.
I don t know.
You
have to know what the situation was to say what you
But if there was an NRC canister system
that was fully licensed to transport that failed
fuel, you would still anticipate that there be could a problem with accepting the waste on an agreed-upon
schedule?
I think there s a potential of that , yes,
again, depending on the nature of the failure, what
it looks like.
And that I s based
on disposal problems?
Well, it I S based on
the ability to move
that fuel from the transport pack ~- transport cask
to a waste package and then place
example
it.
You know, for
if the requirement was that you had to
physically put this in a hot cell and deal with
it,
that'
s a different matter than unloading a standard
fuel assembly.
How likely do you think that kind of a
situation may arise, that you would have a failed fuel assembly that the NRC has blessed in effect for
transportation in a licensed canister that you would be technically unable to dispose of it in a
repository?
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
111114th Street , NoW. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
Ronald A. Milner
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-16
Washington, D.
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 9 of 23
May 8 , 2002
Page 54
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, calls for
speculation.
I don t think I said that we were
technically unable to dispose of
it.
It was a
question of, do you handle that in the normal queue,
or do you have to make provision for special handling
of it.
To me it' s not a question of whether
you re disposing of
it. It' s
it.
just a question of~ you
have to delay receipt of that until you make special
arrangements to handle
BY MR. SKALABAN
Is the department making any plans at the
current time to handle failed fuel at the disposal
facility?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection. Mr. Milner is
not a 30(b) (6) witness, calls for -- I think it also
calls for a legal conclusion.
Again, I guess in my opinion , if you had
failed fuel that was not badly failed -- not a very good term of art -- but it probably would not require
heroic special handling, and if you do, then I think
you re going to have to be able to deal with that on
a case u
by case.
Certainly it would be sufficient for
handling that, but again depending on the nature of
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Ronald A Milner
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-16
Washington , D.
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 10 of 23
May 8, 2002
Page 55
the failure, does that bring your receipt line to a
stop, for example, to handle that one particular
piece of fuel.
So, yes, the repository would be able to
handle failed fuel, but what does that do to the
receipt system.
And I don t know that we have -- we
have certainly asked the utilities in -- I believe we asked the utilities in the RW 859 form something
about failed
fuel. fuel,
I don t know that we -- the department --
have a very, very good handle on all the failed
the nature of the failed fuel.
m not sure even the
utilities themselves would know exactly what they
have in the way of failed fuel in their pools until
they do an in- depth
Who I s
check.
BY MR. SKALABAN:'
looking at the failed fuel, the
integrating failed fuel into the acceptance and
disposal system at DOE?
Well, that would be part of the overall
design effort that' s being done by our M and 0
contractor.
I mean, is it fair to say that for the -in general you re envisioning that most failed fuel
would be accepted and taken without
problems, but
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. Wo Suite 400 1- 800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A Milner
Document 856-16
Washington, D.
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 11 of 23
May 8 , 2002
Page 56
there may be a few exceptions that would require an
individual careful study?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, mischaracterizes
the prior testimony.
MR. SKALABAN
m not trying to
mischaracterize. understand it.
I just want to make sure I
MR. SHULTIS:
Calls for speculation.
I mean, I just simply don ' t know, because
I don
t feel that I have a handle on how much failed
fuel is out there, what are the nature of the
failures.
If you have a fuel assembly that has one
or more pins that have pinhole leaks in
them, that I s
ve got very
14 ' not necessarily a
large problem.
I f you
badly unzipped cladding, that could be a
BY MR. SKALABAN
problem.
And how so?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, asked and
answered.
Again, you know, this is pure speculation,
.. 21
because I don
t know the nature of the failed
fuel.
BY MR. SKALABAN
Sure.
But I guess I I m just
in your mind you
trying to explore --
I re drawing
a distinction between
Alderson Reporting Company, Inco 111114th Street , No Wo Suite 400 1- 800-FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005
...j
Ronald A Milner
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-16
Washington, D.
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 12 of 23
May 8 , 2002
Page 59
And I believe you testified earlier that
that was -- even though the MPC program had been
canceled, that that was a positive that came out of
it, is that industry did look and develop this
technology?
In my opinion, that was a positive, yeah.
And I mean, if it I S not going to be
compatible with the waste management system that RW
is developing, then that wouldn t be a positive,
would it?
That would be a negative.
, 13
TQat I S right.
And so I mean as you sit here today, are
you aware of any DOE plans to cut off that kind of technology from the system and not integrate it into
the system?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, asked and
answered.
I think the department is certainly
considering that it may have to open those canisters.
BY MR. SKALABAN
So at this point in
time, there I s
possibility in your mind that the DOE is not going to
integrate multipurpose canisters into its system?
I think that
We I re
I s a mischaracterization.
be able to integrate and
certainly
going to
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
, n
Ronald A Milner
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-16
Washington, D.
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 13 of 23
May 8 , 2002
Page 60
handle multipurpose canisters.
The decision as to
whether or not that canister gets disposed of in the
repository is not the department
I s decision.
I s decision.
Tha ti
the Nuclear Reg~latory Commission
I see.
Again, I'
m not trying to
mischaracterize.
Yeah.
m trying to understand.
And again - ~ so if I understand correctly,
I mean, it I S your
of canisters.
understanding, I mean, as COO of
OCRWM, that the system is going to accept those kind
It I s just
a matter of whether or not for
disposal the NRC will let you dispose of them as is
or in an overpack, I guess?
Correct.
You I re not planning to go just cut that
technology off and kind of leave the utilities
hanging so to speak?
No.
MR. SKALABAN:
I I d like to mark as Milner
Exhibit 96 the 1992 annual capacity
BY MR. SKALABAN
report.
And Mr. Milner , if you can look at this,
and also Milner 51, which is the 1995 annual capacity
report, and Milner
42.
So the numbers are 42, 51,
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A Milner
Document 856-16
Washington, D.
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 14 of 23
May 8 , 2002
Page 61
and 96.
(Milner Exhibit No.
was marked for
identification.
BY MR. SKALABAN
And Mr. Milner, before we start on these
documents 1 I want to ask you a followup about what we just talked about. And I understand your, testimony
to be it I S not
the department' s intent to not accept
this kind of multipurpose canister technology that'
being implemented by utilities.
It plans to accept those kind of waste
packages?
That'
s correct.
MR. SHULTI$:
Objection, calls for a legal
conclusion.
BY MR. SKALABAN
And if you weren' t going to do that, that
would potentially create some very serious problems
for the industry, wouldn t it?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, calls for
speculation. I f we
were not going to accept
multipurpose canisters, I think it would certainly
cause some problems for the utili
ties.
They would
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
111114th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
..,
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Ronald A Milner Document 856-16
Washington, D.
P..n-e 106
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 15May23 2002 of 8 ,
Is that a fair characterization?
Yeah.
I think that' s probably fair,
saying that if the contract w:~re amended and
that
amendment somehow affected the method by which
priority was granted -- or allocation was granted,
then, yeah, the schedule would
chanqe.
And so my question is, after telling
Yankee Atom1C that there s going to be a rule making
and that that rule making may affect its DCSs or its
schedule, then what is the effect if the department
doesn
t follow through with what it told Yankee
Atomic it' s going to do and have a rule making?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, calls
for..
speculation, asks for a legal
conclusion.
Yeah.
be, because to do
I can t judge what the effect would
so, I' d
say have to judge -- at
least make some projection as to what the outcome of
the rule making would
be. ,
The outcome of the rule
making may ultimately end up with no effect, or it
may have some
effect.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
Now, on page 2 in the last paragraph, it
says:
If an acceptable year one DCS is not received
within 30 days, the contracting officer will issue a
decis10n regarding the status of Yankee Atomic to
Alderson Reporting Company, loco
111114th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Ronald A Milner
Document 856-16
Washington , D.
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 16 of 23
May 8 , 2002
Page 139
BY MR. SKALABAN:
Well, what language would you think would be required to change these provislons on OFF and
shutdown that we
I ve just been looking at little part
A, little part B?
What change would be needed for the
department to have the ability if it wanted to grant
priority?
MR. SHULTIS:
Same objection.
Ob j ection
,
calls for speculation, asks for a legal
asked and answered.
I don '
conclusion,
t know.
I would have to spend some
time looking at the language and conferring with the
contracting officer, attorneys, et
BY MR. SKALABAN:
cetera.
Now, going back to the document we were
origlnally talking about , Milner 62 , the letter from
you dated June 16,
1994, in the very last paragraph
of the attachment under the heading, question No.
and again , the ending Bates No. 0327, this letter
,- 21
from you states:
While article six , B 1 , B of the
standard contract provides that the department may
and may is underscored -- grant priority acceptance
to shutdown reactors, when you said this
that -- isn
here, isn
t that indicating that the contract as it
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
111114th Street, N.W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
.....
.. -.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Ronald A Milner
Document 856-16
Washington, D.
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 17 of 8 , 2002 23 May
Page 203
assumption would be that if a utility for whatever
reason needed to move itself up in the queue, it
would need to do that regardless of whether the
department began accepting in '
" 5
98 or in 2010.
BY MR. SKALABAN
But if the utilities were considering
exchanging amongst themselves, wouldn
t it be very
important for them to know whether the department was
going to be begin in 1998 or 2010?
MR. SHULTIS:
Same objection.
I I ve always held
the personal belief that
it was important that the utilities have the best
estimate available as to when we would start
operation.
BY MR. SKALABAN
Well , different utilities might have
dramatically different storage needs in 1998 and
2010.
Isn I t
that a fair assumption?
Yeah, I think that would be
So if there
fair.
that
I s uncertainty whether the
98 or 2010, '
department is going to perform in '
willing to swap, don t you think?
Potentially, m- hm.
could have a large effect on whether they would be
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 4001-S00-FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005
...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Ronald A Milner Document 856-16
Washington, D.
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 18 of 23
May 8 , 2002
Page 207
there was no adverse effect, and I wouldn t limit
that to the need or not need -- or no need for
building additional storage, just a general, if
everybody agreed that, yes, it was demonstrated that
there was no adverse effect whatsoever in anyone '
mind, then, yeah, that would have made
I don
sense.
t -- I can recall of nothing that
was ever said, demonstrated, whatever , that went
along those lines.
I think it remains the position
of quite a number of utilities to this day that any priority for shutdown reactors would adversely affect
a utility.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
Well, wouldn
t the answer to the question
on whether there would be an adverse impact to other
purchasers -- wouldn t that be influenced to a very
large extent by how great the acceptance rate is if
the -- if, for example, there
I s a steady state rate
of 3, 000 MTUs, as opposed to, say, 400 MTUs, there
would be a lot less need to build or to allow for
additional storage at operating reactor sites?
Do you agree with that?
MR. SHULTIS:
Calls for speculation.
I would agree with a part of the statement
that said, if you -- well , if you up the acceptance
111114th Street, N.
Alderson Reporting Company, Int. Suite 400 1- 8oo-FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-16
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 19 of 23
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-16
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 20 of 23
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-16
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 21 of 23
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-16
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 22 of 23
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 856-16
Filed 09/03/2004
Page 23 of 23