Free Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 846-18

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 1 of 20

EXHIBIT

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald Milner

Document 846-18
McLean, V A

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 2 of 20
May 3 , 2002

Page 403

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

(98 - 126C) CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY

(98- 154C)
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (98 - 4 74C) FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

(98 - 483C) NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (98 - 484C) DUKE POWER, A Division of DUKE ENERGY CORP. (98- 485C) INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY (98 - 486C) SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

(98- 488C)
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, et al., (98- 614C) COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

(98 - 621C)
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY

(99- 447C)
GPU NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED

(00- 440C)
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY,

(00- 697C)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (00- 703C) OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT ( 01- 115C) NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT ( 01- 116C) TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

(01- 249C)

Plaintiffs,
Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Washington, D.
""/1/1

Friday, May 3 , 2002 Continued Deposition of RONALD MILNER, a witness herein , called for examination by counsel for
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.

1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Ronald Milner

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 846-18
McLean , V A

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 3 May 3, 2002 of 20

Page 574

Department goes and prepares an APR, all the

allocations for the fifth year will be different than
they were originally in the ' 90s?
Yes, okay.

5,,forecasts?

Okay.

So a utility that submitted a DCS

for an allocation based on the rates in the early

'90s may have a different allocation under current
MR. SHULTIS:
THE WITNESS:

Calls for speculation.
I would assume, yes.

BY MR. TOMPKINS:

Okay.

Do you know what the Department

is,

or the program OCWRM is currently planning on doing
about the fact that the allocations may be different
wi th the DCS forms?

Are they going to go

back and

have utilities prepare a new DCS form based on these

ra tes?
Actually we' ve not addressed that yet. MR. SHULTIS:

Obj ection.

BY MR. TOMPKINS:

Haven't addressed

it.

Would it be

reasonable to assume that utilities will have that

option?
MR. SHULTIS:

Objection, calls for

25 ~peculation.

Mr. Milner s not a 30

(b) (6) witnes

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald Milner

Document 846-18

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 4 of 20
May 3 , 2002

McLean , V A

Page 575

THE WITNESS:

The Department simply has
We decided we should

not addressed that yet.

probably focus our efforts on getting a site first
and then work out the details.
BY MR. TOMPKINS:

I'd like to turn your attention back to

Milner Exhibit 43 which are the DCS

instructions.

Under the general instructions which start

on page one and go on page two, item 7C, we had
discussed this yesterday but I just want to now apply
this to the situation we ve just been talking

about.

It states that in the event that such circumstances
change, all DCS' s previously approved by DOE may need

to be reevaluated by DOE and the purchaser.

Would this type of change of allocation be
the type of event that may implicate this instruction?
MR. SHULTIS:

Obj ection, calls for a legal

conclusion and also speculation.
THE WITNESS:

In my opinion it would.

BY MR. TOMPKINS:

One final question on this DCS form and
believe you testified about this earlier

too.

Instruction 7B states that once a purchaser has an

allocation, any SNF owned by the purchaser can be
designated for delivery against the allocation.

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 846-18

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 5 of 20

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) ss.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA)

, CYNTHIA R. SIMMONS, RPR, CRR the officer before whom the
foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the witness whose testimony

appears in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said
witness was taken by me to the best of my ability and thereafter reduced to

typewriting under my direction; that I am neither counsel for , related to , nor
employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken , and

further that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by
the parties thereto , nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of the

action.

Notary Public in and for
the Commonwealth of Virginia

My Commission expires: 11/30/2004

,'~: ," ,

---------------Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 846-18 Ronald A. Milner

- )

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 6 of 20 May 7 , 2002

m: L

Washington , D.
Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

(98-126C) (Merow, S.
COMPANY

CeRTIFiED COP
) Volume I

f,f

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER

(98-154C) (Merow, S.
(98- 474C) (Merow, S. J.

MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY) Washington, D. C.
) 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. W., 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 Ronald A. Milner

Document 846-18
Washington , D.

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 7 of 20
May 7 , 2002

Page 28

department I s position

at the time that the delivery

commitment schedule submitted by purchasers had to be

based upon the waste acceptance schedule reflected
here on page 5?
MR. SHULTIS:

Obj ection.

The document

speaks for itself, Mr. Milner is not a 30(b) (6)

wi tness, and

calling for a legal

conclusion.

In my opinion, that' s what this

states,

yes.
BY MR. SKALABAN

And then also, sir, if you could please
take out Exhibit

43.

And on page - - for

the record,
s entitled,

Exhibit 43 is the DCS

instructions. It'

uni ted States

Department of Energy instructions for

completing the appendix C delivery commitment
schedule general instructions.

And item two, it says, who should

submit.

And it states there, the DCS should be submitted by
all purchasers with allocations in the 1991 annual
capaci ty

report.
And that further suggests, does it

not,

that the department was requirlng the purchasers to use this waste acceptance schedule here on page 5 of
the -- of Milner 42 as well as the individual

25 breakdown of allocations which appear on page 9 of
1111

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 846-18
Washington , D.

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 8 of 20
May 7 , 2002

Ronald A. Milner

Page 29 ,

the 1991 ACR?
MR. SHULTIS:

Objection.

The document

speaks for itself, calls for a legal

conclusion.

In my opinion, that' s what it states.
BY MR. SKALABAN

And if I could turn your attention to the

specific instruction portion of this document, Milner

43 of the DCS instructions, there I s a paragraph
entitled, 2. 7, on page

And if you could just take

a moment to read paragraph 2. 7 .

Okay.

This paragraph says - - or comma, it states, quote:

- I I m sorry.

In the second sentence of this paragraph after a
The total quantity of SNF

designated for delivery must not exceed the

allocation in the ACR,
MR. SHULTIS:
the documen

semicolon, exceeding the

allocation will result in the approval of the DCS.

Obj ection, mischaracterizes

t.
MR . S KALABAN :

, I' m

sorry.

Okay.

Thank you, counsel.
BY MR. SKALABAN

Exceeding the allocation will result in

the disapproval of the DCS.

And doesn I t

this part 2. 7 further confirm

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A. Milner

Document 846-18

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 9 of 20
May 7 , 2002

Washington , D.
Page 30

that the department will require the purchasers to follow the waste acceptance schedule in page 5 and
page 9 of the 1991 ACR?
MR. SHULTIS:

Obj ection.

The document
(b) (6)

speaks for itself, Mr. Milner is not a 30
witness, calls for a legal

conclusion. In my opinion, that I s what it

says

indicating here.
BY MR. SKALABAN

And is therefore, assuming that purchasers
followed the instructions and submitted DCSs on the

basis of the 1991 ACR -- the delivery commitment
schedules would then be based upon a waste acceptance

schedule that was not consistent with the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act?
MR. SHULTIS:

Obj ection, calls for a legal

conclusion and - -

objection , calls for a legal
(b) (6)

conclusion, and also Mr. Milner is not a 30

witness.
MR. SKALABAN

Specifically to give you further clarification, I mean the Nuclear Waste Policy Act

schedule linkages between the MRS and the
MR. SHULTIS:

repository.

Same obj ections.

BY MR. SKALABAN

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

: ."'

"'-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A. Milner

Document 846-18

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 10 of 20
May 7 , 2002

Washington , D.
Page 31

The DCSs were

- - do you

understand my

question?
No, I don

It.

I mean, assuming then, that the purchasers

followed the instructions and submitted DCSs based on

the schedules in the 1991 annual capacity

report,

then the DCSs would be based upon a waste acceptance

schedule that was inconsistent with the statutory
linkages in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act?
MR. SHULTIS:
legal conclusion.
You I re talking schedule linkage?

Obj ection.

It calls for a

BY MR. SKALABAN

Yes, sir.
Well, I just don

I t view

it as inconsistent

in the sense that certainly in my opinion at the time

there was a possibility of that schedule linkage
be ing

removed.
But it was -- but the schedule linkage was

there?
Yes.
And so as the law then existed and as it exists now, because I don

I t believe - -

scratch that.

As the law then existed, the DCSs were

25 based on a waste acceptance schedule that was
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 846-18
Washington , D.

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 11 of 20
May 7 , 2002

Ronald A. Milner

inconsistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy
schedule linkages as they existed at this time?

Sitting here today looking at that, that

would be my opinion.
And to your knowledge, the schedule

I inkages have never been

changed.

There' s - -

I Im

sorry.
Let me ask a more artful question.

There hasn I t been

a change in the law

removing those schedule linkages?

No, there has not.
Mr. Milner, if you could just give me a

general overview of how

as the chief operating

officer of OCRWM, how you envision the actual overall

process of waste acceptance, transportation, disposal
unfolding when it begins in approximately
as you

anticipate in 2010, an overview, just kind of a
general overview of the

process.
I I m sorry.

How do you envision that working?
MR. SHULTIS:
MR. SKALABAN

Which process?

The process of the

well,

let I S say

the real logistical process of sort of

waste acceptance, transportation,
BY MR. SKALABAN

disposal.

How do you envision that happening in

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A. Milner

Document 846-18
Washington , D.

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 12 of 20
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?

course.

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. SHULTIS: Objection , vague , calls for a legal conclusion. Mr. Milner is not a 30(b)(6) witness. I guess in my opinion if the department detennined that it wasn t technically
feasible on the schedule and since we ve
already

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. SHULTIS: Objection , calls for a legal conclusion. 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

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 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? That s the way I would read it. MR. SHULTIS: Asked and answered.

feasible. 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 , calls for a legal conclusion. I can t think of any. MR. SKALABAN: Can we go off the record a

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. 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?

:~Cl'
/)lI
ryPublic My Commission Expires:

second? (Whereupon , at 5:08 p. , the taking of the instant deposition adjourned.

Signature of the Witness
/d2IJ.- day of

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
t:.1:1:

/2 ~~/
::J I '/Ir-

MR. SHULTIS: Objection , calls for speculation , asks for a legal
conclusIOn.

I guess in my opinion , if for that , if there 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
specific failed fuel

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 bottom of the pool. That' s the extreme case , of

12 (Pages 42 to 45)
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.

1111 14th Street , N~~ Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

---------------Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A. Milner

(~

-'-'

Document 846-18
Washington , D.

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 13 of 20
May 8, 2002

Page 47

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

(98- 126C)
COMPANY

(Merow, S.

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER
) Volume II
(Merow, S.

(98- 154C) (98- 474C)

) Washington, D. C .

MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY) Wednesday
(Merow, S.

) May 8, 2002

Plaintiffs,
THE UNITED STATES,

CERTIFiED ~Uii

rT)\ F"") \~

Defendant.
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. m., 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 Com r.any, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR-,pEPO Washington , DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A. Milner

Document 846-18
Washington, D.

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 14 of 20
May 8 , 2002

Page 155

schedule at that point.

It did not disapprove

it.

It just did not act on it, did not approve
BY MR. SKALABAN:

it.

Was the department intending to convey to
purchasers at this time that the DCS and final

delivery commitment schedule process had been in
effect suspended?
MR. SHULTIS:

Objection.

The document

speaks for itself, calls for a legal conclusion, and
Mr. Milner is not a 30

(b) (6) witness.

Well, I guess in my opinion, the -- when

you got to the point of final delivery schedules, you

then specified specific

dates.

Since the department

didn

t have a facility in operation, it felt that it
approve or disapprove final schedules since

couldn I t

we didn

t know when a facility would be in
BY MR. SKALABAN

operation.

20
25 I

Well, would DCSs in your view be binding

19 t if no final delivery schedule had been finalized?

MR. SHULTIS: Objection, calls for a legal

conclusion.
I guess my understanding of the process of

the contract is that, no, if a final delivery
schedule had not been approved, then nothing in the
DCS binds either party to accept or deliver waste on

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 846-18
Washington , D.

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 15 of 20
May 8, 2002

Page 156

specified date.
BY MR. SKALABAN:

So if no final delivery commitment

schedules had been approved for Yankee Atomic, Maine

Yankee, or Connecticut Yankee, there would be no
binding commitments on either party?
MR. SHULTIS:

Objection, calls for a legal

conclusion.
BY MR. SKALABAN:

Either DOE or Maine Yankee, Connecticut
Yankee, on Yankee Atomic?
MR. SHULTIS:

Objection, calls for a legal

conclusion.
I don t understand the question.

BY MR. SKALABAN:

Well, if I -- following up on your last

answer and if I understood it, what you just
testified to was that if an FDS had never been
approved, there wouldn t be a binding commitment
between Yankee Atomic and the department, and I'

asking, would that hold true for Connecticut Yankee

and Maine Yankee if they never had a final commitment
delivery schedule approved for the department?
MR. SHULTIS:

Objection, calls for a legal

conclusion ,

asks for speculation.

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 846-18
Washington, D,

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 16 of 20
May 8 , 2002

Page 2g4

Page 286

which fuel the utility shipped to us.
Q, How so
f\.

Utilities verbally n I don t recall

3

MR, SHULTIS OITthe record, MR, SKALABAN: We are concluded, (Whereupon . at 6:02 p, m" the taking of
the instant deposition ceased,

anything in writing -- but I think utilities verbally
indicatcd to us that i I' they placed fuel in dry

storage. they would more likely give us fuel out of spent fuel pool than pull it out of dry storage, Q, I see. I 1'1 can call your attention to Bates No. HQ 0013570 , and it' s a page entitled , dry
storage requirements, 1998 to 2002. Yes. In the I guess the third paragraph, it says: Therc are eight shutdown reactors prior to

; 1~re
10 1\

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

2t~
;;)7/;/
V'

day of

1)1

I::

A. Q,

12

U;j
(J

20

Vr":bli
~:;ir

/ ,J/,

.J,k, .2:'1(/
All.

1998. No additional reactors shut down during the period 1998 to 2002. The annual maintenance cost at each of these reactors is assumed to be 4.5 million. Do you know where the 4, 5 million figure
came from? A. No, specifically I don
t. 1 vaguely recall at some point in time that utilities were

: ~ My commiss

basically asked what their costs were. Whether that

is the basis of this figure, I don t know, Q, Okay. Do you have any reason to believe s -- or it s an accurate estimate? I mean , do you believe it' s an accurate

Page 285

Page 287

estimate at the time

A, I don t know, Q, Just don t know,

Why was the department looking for this information about the number of shutdown reactors and the annual maintenance cost of those reactors? MR, SHULTIS: Objection , asked and answered.
A, The department was interested in the

4I
II

CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA , CHERYL A. LORD , the reporter before whom the foregoing deposition was taken , do hereby certify that the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken by me in machine
shorthand and thereafter transcribed by

10 status of reactors and storage, and certainly we had

II been interested in utility cost.

12 13

10 computer-aided transcription; that said deposition is
a true record of the testimony given by said witness;

BY MR, SKALABAN:

Q. And part of your interest in utility cost

16 17A, 18 19 20 21 23 2'1 25

14 was to help promote efficiency in the overall system 15 and at the individual reactor sites

Yeah,

MR. SHULTIS: Asked and answered, A, It had been a goal of the department to minimize those costs to the extent possible, looking at the industry as a whole. MR, SKALABAN: Mr, Milner , I have no further questions THE WITNESS: Okay. MR, SHULTIS: I don t have any redirect. MR, SKALABAN: Great.

12 that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor 13 employed by any of the parties to the action in which 14 this deposition was taken; and , further , that I am 15 not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel 16 employed by the parties hereto, or financially or 17 otherwise interested in the outcome of this action.
CHER YL A. LORD Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia My Commission expires April 30 , 2006

6\ (Pages 284 to 287)

11I1 14th Stree~.

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 846-18

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 17 of 20

EXHIBIT

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 846-18

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 18 of 20

III
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY

Plaintiff
No. 98- 154C (Senior Judge Merow)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant.

DEFENDANT' S WITNESS LIST
Pursuant to the Court' s pretrial order issued ~ovember 4 , 1998 , as amended by
subsequent orders , defendant submits the following list of witnesses. This list does not contain

witnesses that the defendant may choose to use for impeachment. Defendant reserves the right to
amend this list as described in the Court' s rules. , Defendant also reserves the right to call all

witnesses listed on plaintiffs witness list.

Fact Witnesses
Government. Contractor or former Government employees
Christopher S, Bajwa Thermal Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville , Maryland 20852- 2738

Mr. Bajwa will testify concerning the licensing process and requirements for fuel storage
and transportation,

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 846-18

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 19 of 20

Lake Barrett 7805 Potters Mill Court Derwood , Maryland 20855

Mr. Barrett , fonner Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

will provide testimony concerning the Government' s implementation of the Standard Contract
including acceptance rates , priority for shutdown reactors , the Annual Capacity Report (" ACR"

issue resolution process conducted with industry representatives , the issuance and content of the
ACRs , the issuance and content ofthe Acceptance Priority Rankings ("APR" ), delivery

commitment schedules , schedule negotiations , exchanges , and other relevant matters,
Edward Benz
IAI Corp.
955 L' Enfant

Plaza

Suite 8000
Washington D.

Mr. Benz , based upon his position as a contractor for DOE , will testify about the

technical aspects of the Standard Contract , including the ACR issue resolution process conducted

with industry representatives and the technical and legal basis for acceptance rates contained in
the ACRsl

APRs,

Alan Brownstein Senior Policy Advisor Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management United States Department or'Energy RW1000 Independence Ave. , SW Washington, DC 20585

Mr. Brownstein will provide testimony concerning the Government's implementation of
the Standard Contract , including acceptance rates , priority for shutdown reactors , the ACR issue resolution process conducted with industry representatives , the issuance and content ofthe

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 846-18

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 20 of 20

ACRs, the issuance and content of the APRs , delivery commitment schedules
negotiations , the exchange approval process , and other relevant matters.

, schedule

Patrice Bubar Deputy Assistant Secretary Integrated Safety Management & Operation Oversight Office of Environmental Management United States Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave. , S.
Washington D. c. 20585

Ms. Bubar will testify regarding the development of DOE' s plans to accept " greaterclass- C" low- level radioactive waste fTom commercial utilities pursuant to the

than-

Low Level

Radioactive Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1985 and other relevant matters.
J ames Carlson 4008 Glenrose St. Kensington , MD 20895

Mr. Carlson , former Director of the DOE Waste Acceptance and Transportation Division,
will testify about the implementation of the Standard Contract , including transportation issues
, well as other relevant matters.
, as

Billy Cole Senior Consultant
JAI Corp.

11350 Random Hills Road
Suite 440

Fairfax , VA 22030

Mr, Cole , based upon his position as a contractor for DOE , will testify about the

Government's implementation of the Standard Contract , including the ACR issue resolution
process conducted with industry representatives and the technical and legal basis for acceptance
rates contained in the ACRs/ APRs , the exchange approval process

, and other relevant matters.