Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 1 of 18
June 13 ,
Nancy Slater Thompson
Washington , D.
2002
Page 109
ask you --
Conceptually.
Approved. Do you be
commi tment
1 i
approved
schedule binding
tha
Let I S focus on approved. eve that a delivery been proposed and tI
on any
party?
Obj ection to the extent
MS. SULLIVAN:
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
I do not
You may answer.
In my personal oplnlon
believe that it is binding because I do not
believe - -
I am at a loss as to how you could bind
yourself to anything in a range of discharge
dates. I am at a loss as to how yourself when it I S not final.
you could bind
So a utility wouldn 't even be binding
itself as to the total amount of MTU of spent fuel
that it would be delivering to DOE in a particular
year?
MS. SULLIVAN:
Obj ection to the extent
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
Objection,
vague.
I think it is possible that a utility
25
~s
in fact could deliver less than it indicated on
DCS for whatever
reason.
1111 14th
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 2 of 18
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D.
Page 110
Did you vlew an approved delivery
commitment schedule as binding a utility to not
delivering more spent fuel than is set out on that
delivery commitment schedule?
MS. SULLIVAN:
Obj ection to the extent
Obj ection,
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
vague.
It' s not the DCS that establishes allocation. It' s simply a reflection.
What sets out the allocation?
The ACRi
the
and that I s for
planning
purposes only because that allocation could
change.
And is it fair to say then that the
allocations reflected on the delivery commitment
schedules are not binding because they are based
in turn on the allocations set out in the Annual
Capacity Reports which say explicitly that they
are not binding?
MS. SULLIVAN:
legal conclusion.
I really think that
Obj ection.
Calls for a
Isa
legal issue.
We are really stepping beyond what I feel skilled
enough to answer.
MR. SHAPIRO:
Do you want to take a
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111
14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 3 of 18
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D.
Page 159
wi th a better understanding of how to complete the
form .
This was a cooperative effort, mutually
took the
agreed to by both sides. That I s why we
time once we had drafted instructions to go back
over and discuss the instructions with them and
get comments.
Did you Vlew the DCS instructions as
guidance to utilities as to how to fill out their
delivery commitment schedule forms or did you view
the instructions more directly as requirements for
how the forms must be filled out by utilities?
MS. SULLIVAN:
Obj ection to the extent
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
You may answer.
I view the DCS instructions as my
would take completing expectations for what approve a DCS. For these forms in order for
example,
told
them, which
did on page
section 7 , section E, that if they exceeded their
allocation I would disapprove the DCS, I view that
as an instruction.
Actually, that point is also made
24
25
clear on page 5, item number 2. 5, that
The total quantity of SNF designated for delivery
says:
~st
1111 14th
not exceed the allocation in the
ACR.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson
Washington , D. C.
Page 160
Document 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 4 of 18
June 13 ,
2002
Exceeding the allocation will result in
disapproval of the DCS
(S).
This is Exhibit 10.
Do you recall whether you ever
disapproved a proposed delivery commitment schedule for any reason other than the proposed
schedule exceeding a utility s allocation of spent
fuel acceptance?
No
I don't.
I am not sure that
ask the question quite clearly
maybe I didn't
enough.
any for any
You don 't recall whether you did or
you recall that you didn
I t disapprove
other reason?
I do not recall whether I disapproved
addi tional DCSs for reasons other than having
exceeded the acceptance
allocation.
We have been talking about you
approvlng or disapproving delivery commitment
schedule forms submitted by utilities.
Technically
wasn' t it the contracting officer who
but as the contracting officer'
it
was doing the approval or disapproval?
Yes
technical representative
was my responsibility
by virtue of my signature to make a
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 l- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
1111
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 5 of 18
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D.
Page 161
recommendation.
Q.
And as a practical matter , you were in
fact the person who was approvlng or disapproving;
wouldn I
t that
be a fair statement?
Well, I can
I t make
that
statement.
That I s to
imply that the contracting officer had
no role whatsoever and did no
review.
Did the contracting officer ever
disagree with one of your recommendations
concerning the approval or disapproval of a proposed delivery commitment schedule?
Not that I recall.
Did the contracting officer ever
question one of your recommendations to approve or
disapprove a proposed delivery commitment
~ schedule?
17
Not that I recall.
Did tile contracting officer
ever
question any of your re commenda t ions that you COTR? In your role Obj ection. Vague. MS. SULLIVAN:
That I S a lot
made
of history and a lot of
time.
Unless you can be more specific, I am not
sure I can answer that question.
I am just asking for your
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111
14th Street , No W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
~~
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Nancy Slater Thompson
Document 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 6 of 18
June 13 ,
2002
Washington , D.
Page 164
THE REPORTER:
MS. SULLIVAN
Reading and signing?
Yes, reading and
signing.
Off the
record.
4: 35 p. m., the
taking
(Thereupon, at
of the instant deposition was ceased.
Signature of the Witness
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
cQ $_
day of
200~
VS)lavtJ
r 0Pj
NOTARY PUBLI C
My Commission Expires:
&'6,
aCXJ3
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 840-15 Filed 07/07/2004 ER~,,"\ TA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRIP I OF:
Page 7 of 18
Notice Date: June 17 , 2002 Case Name: Yankee Atomic vs. United States Case Number: 98- 126C- 987 4C Dep. Date: June 13 , 2002
Deponent: Nancy Slater Thompson
Place: Washington DC
Ref. No. : 4269-
CORRECTIONS:
Page
Line
Now Reads
Should Read
Reasons Therefore
clef
kiiif flll1J.c.-. ~~/wzd
3 htJ
;;~417)!d )d
d417P
3-1-
tJ
/ C,
tJ;;;:
:u
AJ 0e
d j
.ci/
!;::Jf; ~~tP'
Ad?
/0/
L;)
4#HI~~~~
ALLL
L&Jd.
;g;t
/~d
/fPl
/'ft,
/JIM-/:
IS-a tj
/57
/iA~cI
JI~ cIt
~ee
$1l 'wud
U25l
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 8 of 18
EXHIBIT
------------------Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald Milner
Document 840-15
McLean , V A
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 9 of 18
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 - 4 83C) 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 - 44 OC) 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.
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
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Ronald Milner
Document 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 10 of 18
May 3 , 2002
McLean , V A
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.
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
forecasts?
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
rates?
Actually we I ve not addressed that yet.
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection.
BY MR. TOMPKINS:
Haven' t addressed
it.
Would it be
reasonable to assume that utilities will have that
option?
MR. SHULTIS:
Obj ection , calls for
speculation.
Mr. Milner
s not a 30(b) (6) witness.
IIII
14th Street ,
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
..-....
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald Milner
Document 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 11 of 18
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 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 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 12 of 18
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 Ronald A. Milner
Document 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 13 of 18
May 7 , 2002
Washington , D.
Page I
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY
(98 - 126C) (Merow ,
S. J.
CeRTIFIED COP
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER
COMPANY
(98 - 154C) (Merow, S. J.
) Volume I
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY) Washington, D. C.
( 98 - 4 74 C) (Merow ,
S. J
) 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 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 14 of 18
May 7 , 2002
Washington , D.
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
(b) (6)
speaks for itself , Mr. Milner is not a 30
witness, and calling for a legal
conclusion.
In my opinion , that I 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
Exhibit 43 is the DCS
instructions. It I s enti tIed,
United 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
capacity report.
And that further suggests , does it not
that the department was requiring 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 o
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 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 15 of 18
May 7 , 2002
Ronald A. Milner
Washington , D.
Page 29 ,
1991 ACR?
MR. SHULTIS:
Obj ection.
The documen
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' 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 , semicolon, exceeding the
allocation will result in the approval of the DCS.
MR. SHULTIS:
the document.
MR. SKALABAN
Obj ection, mischaracterizes
, Il m sorry.
Okay.
Thank you, counsel.
BY MR. SKALABAN
Exceeding the allocation will result in
the disapproval of the DCS.
AAd ooesn' t this part
2, 7 further
confim
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 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 16 of 18
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' 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:
Objection, calls for a legal
conclusion and -- objection, calls for a legal
conclusion , witness.
and also Mr. Milner is not a 30
(b) (6)
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 840-15
Filed 07/07/2004
Page 17 of 18
May 7 , 2002
Washington , D.
Page 31
The DCSs were -- do
~u ~erstand
question?
No, I don't.
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.
Objection.
It calls for a
You' re talking schedule linkage?
BY MR. SKALABAN
Yes, sir.
Well , I just donl t view it as inconsistent
in the sense that certainly in my opinion at the time there was a possibility of that schedule linkage
being 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.
25 based on a waste acceptance schedule that was
As the law then existed, the DCSs were
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 840-15 Filed 07/07/2004
-Page 18 of 18 May 7 , 2002
Ronald A. Milner
Washington , D.
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 1
sorry.
Let me ask a more artful
question.
There hasn '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 as you unfolding when it begins in approximately
anticipate in 2010, an overVlew, just kind of a
general overview of the
process.
I I m sorry.
How do you envision that working?
MR. SHULTI S :
Which process?
MR. SKALABAN
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