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

:~

/)/
Filed 07/07/2004

---

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

Document 840-16
Washington , D.

Page 1 of 9
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.

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

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 30(b)(6) witness. A. I guess in my opinion if the department determined that it wasn t technically
feasible on the schedule and since we ve already

Q.

A.

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.

handle that extreme situation you

posited? MR. SHULTIS: Objection , calls for a legal conclusion. A. I can t think of any, MR. SKALABAN: Can we go off the record a

r-Page 43

Page 45

BY MR. SKALABAN:

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.

Q. This doesn t suggest to you that failed

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

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- licensed container for that failed fuel , would the department then accept it upon the currently

Signature of the Witness
SUBSCRJBED AND SWOJN to before me this

F /21t:/
,2

.2r;lf

day of

L1d-:

~iZu
. 0

12

ryPublic ::J

agreed schedule?

l3 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 fue! , 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 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)

11/1 14th Street ,

N~ Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.

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

;~

Document 840-16
Washington, D.

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 2 of 9
May 8 , 2002

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.
(Merow, S.

J. )

MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY) Wednesday

(98- 474C)

) May 8, 2002

Plaintiffs,

CERTIFiED
THE UNITED STATES,

fr:.rr 13\'
~'LJu

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~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 840-16
Washington, D.

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 3 of 9
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, couldn t approve or disapprove final we didn t know when a facility would
BY MR. SKALABAN:

it felt that it

schedules since

be in

operation.

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

25 j

DCS binds either party to accept or deliver waste on

Alderson Reporting Company, Ine, 111114th Street , N, W, Suite 400 1- 800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005

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

Document 840-16
Washington, D.

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 4 of 9
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:

Obj ection, 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 840-16
Washington , D.
Page 2M

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 5 of 9
May 8 , 2002

Page 286

which fuel the utility shipped to us. Q. How so? A. Utilities verbally -- I don t recall anything in writing -- but I think utilities verbally
indicated to us that i I' they placed fuel in dry

3

MR. SHULTIS OtTthe record. MR. SKALA BAN: We are concluded. (Whereupon , at 6:02 p. . the taking of the instant deposition ceased.

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.

1~re 9.h
2i~

9 SUBSCRIBED
10 II

AND SWORN to before me this

Or!)

day of

A. Q. In the I guess the third paragraph , it

12
13

f1/
(J

, 20

, jJ

says: Therc are eight shutdown reactors prior to

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.

14 My

j/ot

ary

j!;il/ d:7 ~Ii
ic

Commission Expires:

:5//l/ A1.I:.-

Do you know where the 4. 5
came from?

million figure

A. No, specifically I don t. I vaguely recall at some point in time that utilities were
basically asked what their costs were. Whether that

is the basis of this figure, I don t know. Okay. Do you have any reason to believe

Q.

s -- or it s an accurate estimate? I mean, do you believe it' s an accurate

Page 285

Page 287

estimate al the time I don t know. 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. Q.

4I

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
thereafter transcribed by

A. The department was interested in the

') shorthand and

I () status of reactors and storage. and certainly we had

II been interested in utility cost.

12 13

11 a true record of the testimony given by said witness;

10 computer-aided transcription; that said deposition is

16 A. 17A. 18 19 20 21 2? 2J 24 25

BY MR. SKALABAN: Q. And part of your interest in utility cost 14 was to help promote efficiency in the overall system 15 and at the individual reactor sites
Yeah.

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

61 (Pages 284 to 287)
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.

111\ 14th Stred~. W Suite ~OO 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 840-16

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 6 of 9

EXHIB IT 1

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 840-16

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 7 of 9

III
II,'
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER
COMP ANY

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
Governmen Contractor or former Government em
ees

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 840-16

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 8 of 9

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
JAI 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 ACRs/ 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 840-16

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 9 of 9

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

than-

radioactive waste from commercial utilities pursuant to the 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,