: )
,.".
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A Milner
Document 833-14
Washington, D.
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 1 of 11
May 8 , 2002
Page 267
Yes.
And that' s been an objective throughout
your time in RW?
Yeah, I believe it
has.
And when you consider efficiency in
operating the waste management system, is it also
proper in your view to take into account utility
costs?
My personal opinion , that should be a
consideration.
And that would be particularly appropriate
given that it is a full-cost recovery contract?
Well, I don t know that I would blend
those two ideas together.
doesn
Full-cost recovery only
Full-cost recovery
refers to the DOE expenditures.
t consider utility costs.
Do you think given it is a full-cost
recovery contract and program that it puts some kind
of responsibility on the department to operate it in
a way where practicable to minimize utility costs?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection ,
answered.
mischaracterizes
prior testimony, asked and
In my personal opinion, I think
i t ~-
the
department should and in fact I think the department
did consider utility costs, and
that' s factored in
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
111114th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A Milner
Document 833-14
Washington, D.
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 2 of 11
May 8 , 2002
Page 268
many decisions what the impacts would be on utility
costs.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
And that consideration of utility cost has been a constant through your tenure at RW?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, asked and
answered.
In my mind~ it has.
BY MR. SKALABAN
Now, in
considering utility exchanges,
what was the department
I s position if you have a
utility that has an allocation for example that
doesn
t perfectly match up?
For example, you have a utility one year
that has an allocation of 20 MTUs, another one that
has an allocation of ten MTUs in a later year, and
they want to swap that ten- MTU allocation.
The first
utility with the allocation of 20 would then be
swapping away for example ten MTUs, but still hold a
ten- MTU
allocation.
Would that sort of partial trade, if you
will ,
not a trade of exactly the same allocations, be
permissible in the department' s view?
MR. SHULTIS:
. Objection, calls for
(b )( 6) witn
~peCUlation ,
Mr. Milner is not a 30
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 833-14
Washington , D.
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 3 of 11
May 8 , 2002
Page 269
asks for a legal conclusion.
Well , since no exchange request or
swapping request had ever been made, I can '
t really
say how the department would have ultimately dealt
with that.
My personal opinion was that a partial
trade like that would work.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
Because as a practical matter , it would be
coincidence or not very likely that any utility would
have the exact same allocation in two different
years. Right?
MR. SHULTIS:
Same objections.
I believe that I s true.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
I . d have to look
at the allocations there, but I believe that' s true.
I mean , I think that that
Isa
fair
characterization, more likely than not , they re not,
and so to have a swap -- to be able to have swaps in
the system , the partial trades would need to be
allowed?
In my opinion , yes.
And that wouldn t be a problem, would
it,
because the utility could just resubmit new DCSs to reflect that change?
MR. SHULTIS:
Same objections, calls for a
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 833-14
Washington , D.
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 4 of 11
May 8 , 2002
legal conclusion, asks for
speculation.
Yeah.
Again ,
in my personal opinion,
because the department had never received a
in my opinion , that would make
request,
sense.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
And you do not have any reason to believe
that that would be a problem for the department?
MR. SHULTIS:
Same objections.
Other than some slight increase in
administrative burden, I have no reason to believe
that.
MR. SKALABAN
Let I S go off
the record for
a second.
(Discussion off the record.
MR. SKALABAN:
Back on the record.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
You agree that commercial nuclear power
has been used in the United States for a long period
of time?
Yes.
And is there a history of -- history
available of shipping consistent quantities of spent
fuel from reactor sites to commercial and governments
facilities?
There
s certainly been large numbers of
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 833-14
Washington , D.
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 5 of 11
May 8 , 2002
Page 271
nuclear shipments within the
that there
country.
I don t know
I s been large number of shipments from
reactors to government
facilities.
country.
There certainly
has been some small amounts of that that I I m aware
of, at least within this
And has there been a lot of shipments of
foreign fuel?
I mean , are you aware that spent fuel has
been shipped in large quantities in foreign
countries?
Yes.
In fact, I believe countries such as
Britain, France, Japan, and Russia reprocess spent
fuel, don
t they?
France and Britain reprocess spent
fuel.
Germany, Japan ,
I believe others ship their fuel to
one of those two countries for reprocessing or have
in the past at least.
So in view of that, there ' s been
substantial amounts of spent fuel transportation
shipments abroad?
Yes.
Would you have any reason to disagree with
an opinion that through 1998 more than 100, 000 MTUs of spent fuel has been shipped by road, rail, and sea
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 833-14
Washington, D.
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 6 of 11
May 8 , 2002
Page 273
don t know that any of the casks used for shipments
have been certified by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but certainly we '
re aware of
what I S been done and utilize that
information.
Would you agree with the opinion that with
sufficient advance planning, DOE could develop the
casks or casks for nonstandard fuel , failed fuel, and
GTCC waste and obtain the necessary licenses from the
NRC -MR. SHULTIS:
speculation, asks for a
Objection , calls legal conclusion.
for
BY MR. SKALABAN
-- to perform in 1998 if it had been able
to do so?
MR. SHULTIS:
Same objection.
Transport casks, you re referring to?
BY MR. SKALABAN:
hm.
Certainly transport casks could have been
developed and in fact I believe were developed that
were certified by the NRC for transport of spent
fuel.
I can
I guess in my recollection , I don t know of
any that had been developed for failed fuel or GTCC.
t offhand at this point -- I have no reason to
believe at this point that that couldn t have been
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , No W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A Milner
Document 833-14
Washington, D.
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 7 of 11
May 8 , 2002
Page 274
done.
And in the period of 1991 approximately
through part of 1994 when you were the director of
storage and transport, did you have any concerns at
that time?
And I believe you had testified previously
that at that time you still believed DOE could make
1998?
hm.
Did you have any -- during that ' 91
through ' 94 time period,
in place
did you have any concerns
that the transportation system wouldn '
you were
t
be able to be
going
to perform
1998?
No,
didn
In view of
seeing about the
the documents that we department 1 s current plans -
been
current objectives to reach a steady state of 3, 000
MTUs shortly after the beginning of repository
operations in approximately 2010, do you have any
reason to believe that the department can t develop a corresponding transportation system that can take
that 3, 000 MTU a year?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, asked and
answered.
No, I see no reason why a
transportat~
, DC 20005
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street, No W. Suite 400 1- 8oo-FOR- DEPO Washington
.-./
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A Milner
Washington, Do
Document 833-14
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 8 of 11
May 8 , 2002
Page 275
system can
MTUs.
t be developed to eventually handle 3, 000 \
BY MR. SKALABAN
And how about if the department had been
performing in 1998?
Do you think it could have developed a
transportation system that could have handled 3, 000
MTUs in 1998 or within a few years
MR. SHULTIS:
thereafter?
Objection, asked and
answered.
It had never been the department I s
plan to
begin accepting 3, 000
MTUs in 1998, but according to
the schedule that existed, I don t recall what the
year that we ramped up to 3, 000 was , but , yes
,I
think the system could have been developed.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
A system could have been developed in 1998
after a reasonable rampup
that
MTU?
would have been
capable
of handling
000
A system could have been developed with a
rampup which began in 1998 and ultimately have ended
up with 3, 000
MTU whatever that year was, yes
,I
believe that a system could have been
developed.
Because for example from the early mission
25 ~1ans .
we see rampup period beginning in 1998 and
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , No Wo Suite 400 1-800-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A Milner
Document 833-14
Washington , Do
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 9 of 11
May 8 , 2002
Page 276
few years thereafter making 3, 000 MTU.
hm.
Again on that kind of schedule, you
wouldn t see a problem on making -- on developing a
transportation system to do that?
Developing a transportation system?
Because that' s simply -- how manyMTU you can
No.
handle
relates strictly to how many casks trailers and
railcars there
are.
MR. SKALABAN:
Off the record briefly.
I . d like to mark Exhibit
(Milner Exhibit No. 106
(Discussion off the record.
MR. SKALABAN:
106.
was marked for
identification.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
Mr. Milner
, I' d
like to call your
attention -- this is a letter that
I s actually signed
July 15,
by you for Lake Barrett, and it I S dated
1998.
I just received it , so if I can take a
moment.
Sure.
Please.
(Pause. )
Alderson Reporting Company, Inco 111114th Street , N. Wo Suite 400 1-800-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A Milner
Document 833-14
Washington, Do
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 10 of 11
May 8, 2002
Page 285
estimate
at the time?
4~
answered.
don t know.
Just don t know.
Why was the department looking for this
5 , information about the number of shutdown reactors and
the annual maintenance cost of those reactors?
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, asked and
The department was interested in the
status of reactors and storage, and certainly we had
been interested in utility
BY MR. SKALABAN
cost.
And part of your interest in utility cost
was to help promote efficiency in the overall system
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. SKALABAN:
Mr. Milner, I have no
further questions.
THE WITNESS:
Okay.
I don t have any redirect.
MR. SHULTIS:
MR. SKALABAN:
Great.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inco 111114th Street , N. Wo Suite 400 1- 800-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Ronald A. Milner
Document 833-14
Washington , D.
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 11 of 11
May 8 , 2002
Page 284
Page 286
MR. SHULTIS: OITlhe record. MR. SKALA BAN: We are concluded. (Whereupon , at 6:02 p. . the taking of the instant deposition ceased.
II A. 12 Q. 13
which fuel the utility shipped to uSo Q. How so? Utilities verbally -- I don t recall anything in writing -- but I think utilities verbally indicatcd to. us that if 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 seeo I f I can ca1\ your attention to Bates No. HQ 0013570 , and it s a page entitled , dry 10 storage requirements , 1998 to 2002.
A.
)
1~re
9.~
1)1
:!i~
9 SUBSCRIBED
AND SWORN to before me this
;),;/1
day of
14 1998. No additional reactors shut down during the
Yes. In the I guess the third paragraph, it says: Therc are eight shutdown reactors prior to
12
13
A~f/ ~7U
Yot
ary ~bliC' Expires:
14 My Commission
5//1/ /L1J.:
15 period 1998 to 2002. The annual maintenance cost at 16 each of these reactors is assumed to be 4.5 milliono
19 A. No, specifically Idon t. I vaguely 20 recall at some point in time that utilities were 21 basically asked what their costs wereo Whether that 22 is the basis of this figure , ( don t know. Q. Okayo Do you have any reason to believe
17
Do you know where the 4.5 million figure
18 came from?
23 24 it
25
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. 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.
Q.
4I
CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA , CHERYL A. LORD , the reporter before 5 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
A. The department was interested in the
II been interested inutility cost.
10 status of reactors and storage, and certainly we had
BY MR. SKALABAN: Q. And part of your interest in utility cost 14 was to help promote efficiency inthe overall system 15 and at the individual reactor sites? Yeah. MRo SHULTIS: Asked and answered. A. It had been a goal of the department to 19 minimize those costs to the extent possible , looking 20 at the industry as a whole. MR. SKALABAN: Mr. Milner l have no 22 further questions. THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. SHULTIS: I don t have any redirect. MR. SKALABAN: Great.
12 13
10 computer-aided transcription; that said deposition is
II a true record of the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither counsel for, related to , nor
12 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 A. 17 18
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
21 23 24 25
61 (Pages 284 to 287)
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th Street, No W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005