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

'"~' .

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-13

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 1 of 23
May 7 , 2002

Ronald A. Milner
Washington , D.

Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

(98- 126C) (Merow ,
COMPANY

S .

CeRTIFIED COP

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER

(98- 154C) (Merow ,

S.

) Volume I

MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY) Washington , D.
(98-474C) (Merow , S.

) 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.
at 3

, Washington, D. C.,

: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 833-13

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 2 of 23
May 7 , 2002

Ronald A. Milner

Washington , D.
Page 37

That were not rail-accessible?
That were not rail- capable, and I may be

wrong.
So an approximation is ten?

It'

s not 50- 50.

Right.
rail, approximate?

So about ten , 15 percent are not

That'
Okay.

s my very general recollection, yeah.

I recognize it'

s kind of a -- a

rough approximation.

I s the department
sites there indefinitely?
MR. SHULTIS:

of energy planning to or

intending to leave failed fuel at the utility reactor

Obj ection, calls for a legal
(b) (6)

conclusion. witness.

Also Mr. Milner is not a 30

In my opinion, the department does not

plan to leave it there

definitely.

BY MR. SKALABAN

Is there any -- well, actually, in your
opinion, that wouldn

't be a

good policy, would it?

Not in my opinion.
MR. SHULTIS:

Same obj ection.

BY MR. SKALABAN

In actuality, failed fuel is moved in this

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 833-13

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 3 of 23
May 7 2002

Ronald A. Milner
Washington , D.

Page 40

speculation.
m certainly not an expert in that
but I don

area,

I t know

of any.

BY MR. SKALABAN

And having worked in the office of storage
and transportation in OCRWM and now as its chief

operating officer, have you ever heard anyone express
the opinion 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
~.e

to defer the acceptance of failed fuel?
MR. SHULTIS:

Objection ,

calls for a legal

conclusion.
I guess my understanding of the current

situation ~- and I think that I s provided
the standard contract - further in the queue.
BY MR. SKALABAN

for under

that the failed fuel is back

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.

111114th

Alderson Reporting Company, inc. Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPOWashington , DC 20005

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

Document 833-13

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 4 of 23
May 7 , 2002

Washington

Page 42

Page 44

"r"

fuel for purposes of the schedule. BY MR. SKALABAN: Whether it would be technically feasible

course.

BY MR. SKALABAN:

Q.

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

to accept that spent fuel?

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

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.

Page 43

Page 45

BY MR. SKALABAN:

fuel is going to be put back years later in the queue , does it?

Q. This doesn t suggest to you that failed

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

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

Signature ofthe Witness SUBSCRlBED AND SWORN to before me this

day of

12

r)1 il1

20

L.v,

ry

13 My Commission Expires:

f/t'-

MR. SHULTIS: Objection , calls for speculation , asks for a legal conclusion. A. I guess to my opinion , if for that specific failed fuel , if there were an NRC-certified container , theNRC 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

12 (Pages 42 to 45)
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 A Milner
Washington , D.

Document 833-13

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 5 of 23
May 8 , 2002

Page 47

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

(98- 126C)

(Merow, S.

COMPANY
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER

Volume II
) Washington ,
D. C

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

(Merow, S.

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

) May 8 , 2002

Plaintiffs,

CERTIFiED COP"
THE UNITED STATES,
tf'

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.
if?

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 833-13
Washington , D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 6 of 23
May 8 W02

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,
And I mean, if it I S not going to be

yeah.

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

That'

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 s a
possibili ty in your mind that the DOE is not going to

integrate multipurpose canisters into its system?

I think that I s a mischaracterization.
We I re

certainly going to be able to integrate and

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 833-13
Washington , D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 7 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' s decision.

That I

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission s decision.
I see.

Again, I'

m not trying to

mischaracterize.
Yeah.

I I m trying to understand.

And again -- so if I understand

correctly,

I mean, it' s your understanding, I mean, as COO of
OCRWM ,

that the system is going to accept those kind

of canisters.

It'

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 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 833-13
Washington, D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 8 of 23
May 8, 2002

Page 61

and 96.
(Milner Exhibit No. 9 6

was marked for

identif ication.
BY MR. SKALABAN

And Mr. Milner, before we start on these documents, I want to ask you a followup about what we
just talked about.

And I understand your testimony

to be it'

s not the department

I s intent to not accept

this kind of multipurpose canister technology that I s

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.
If we were

riot going

to accept

multipurpose canisters, I think it would certainly

cause some problems for the

utilities.

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 833-13
Washington , D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 9 of 23
May 8 , 2002

Page 194

So if -- when the department starts

performing presumably in 2010, if there ' s no
alternative disposal site proposed and approved by

the commission,

it' s

going to consider taking GTCC

waste in your opinion?
MR. SHULTIS:

Objection, calls for a legal

conclusion, asked and answered.

Well, let me go to the matter of tlming

again.
To me, you seem to be inferring that when we begin accepting waste in the year 2010 that you
can infer from the NRC regulation that at that time
we I d

begin accepting GTCC, and I' m saying in my

opiniort I don

t think you can infer

that.
not

By the same token, there I s certainly
a reactor site for a hundred years

been any discussion or intent that GTCC would sit at

either.

The

department has simply not addressed that.

This

program has certainly not addressed that at this

point.
BY MR. SKALAB
As a matter of policy, wouldn t it be

to see that the GTCC waste goes somewhere
when the department begins performing, that it goes
ither to the repository, or alternatively, if an

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 833-13
Washington, D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 10 of 23
May 8 , 2002

Page 195

alternative disposal site is developed, that it would

go there?
MR. SHULTIS:

Objection, vague, calls for

speculation.
In my personal opinion, I think there

should be an agreed-upon path forward for the
disposal of GTCC.

Again, my personal opinion, I

think it would not be good to leave it sitting at the reactor site or any site for any length of time, any
significant length of time.
BY MR. SKALABAN

I mean, that would be a bad policy,

wouldn t it, to leave GTCC waste at reactor sites for
an extended period of time even when all the -- even

when the rest of this -- well, let me rephrase.
It would be bad policy to leave GTCC waste

at reactor sites for an extended period of time if

the department has otherwise picked up all the spent
fuel from the site?
MR. SHULTIS:

Objection, mischaracterizes

prior testimony.

BY MR. SKALABAN:

Do you agree with that?

My personal opinion, in this mechanical

engineer I s opinion,

I think it would be bad policy to

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 833-13
Washington, D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 11 of 23
May 8 , 2002

Page 196

leave GTCC sit at a reactor site long after all of

the spent fuel has been removed from that reactor

site.
MR. SKALABAN

Off the record.

(Recess. )
MR. SKALABAN:

Back on the record.

BY MR. SKALABAN:

We were just looking at the definition
of -- standard contract of high- level waste, and in

particular the provision about other highly

radioactive material that the commission consistent with existing law determines by rule requires
permanent isolation.
Would you agree that there

I s some

ambiguity in the application of that definition of

high- level

waste when it' s applied to the NRC

regulation that we ve just been looking at, which

requires disposal in a geologic repository in the

absence of an al ternati
MR. SHULTIS:

ve?

Objection, calls for a legal

conclusion, asks for speculation.

I guess

it' s

my understanding that the NRC

has not determined that GTCC requires disposal in the
Yucca Mountain repository.
BY MR. SKALABAN

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 833-13
Washington , D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 12 of 23
May 8 , 2002

Page 221

for disposal, you ve created a fairly large secondary

waste stream to deal with

canisters.

Any other disadvantages that you can think

of?
Not offhand,

no.

And at this point, if I understand again I don t want to -- I want to make sure I'

correctly testifying -- or correctly representing
your prior testimony -- at least currently the

department I s plans

are to accept canister systems and

to dispose of them if possible?

Certainly the department plans to accept
canister systems.

The department certainly hopes to

be able to dispose of

those.

Obviously, we would

prefer not to have to open them and create another

waste stream.
MR. SKALABAN:

Let me go ahead and mark
102

this.

I believe we re on Exhibit

is that

correct?
MR. SHULTIS:
MR. SKALABAN

103.

Thanks.
(Milner Exhibit No. 103

was marked for

identification.
BY MR. SKALABAN:

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 833-13
Washington, D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 13 of 23
May 8 , 2002

Page 222

103 is a memo from Mr. Ronald Milner dated

March 8, 1994, to a series of people listed on a

distribution list,

and it contains an attachment.

And the subject of the memo is, modification of the
CRWMS program baseline to a multipurpose

canister- based system.
Are you familiar with this document,
Mr. Milner?

am,
What

yes. was the purpose

of this

document?

Essentially,

it'

stated here,

that

this was advising staff within the program that the

director of the program had approved a change to the

baseline to incorporate multipurpose canisters into
the baseline.

And what does that mean, to be
incorporated into the baseline?

That means that essentially that we expect and would accept canisters into the

system.

That was

part of the operation that we envisioned.

Was the intent of this at this time to
actually furnish multipurpose canisters to all of the

utilities?
To the best of my recollection, time
frames are unclear.

Certainly at one point, which

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 833-13
Washington , D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 14 of 23
May 8 , 2002

Page 223

would be this approximate time frame, the department
gave consideration to furnishing multipurpose

canisters to utilities as a potential means to
mi tigate any delays.

Whether it was actually this

exact time frame,

I can t recall.

Certainly what this baseline change is

dealing with is not the provision of canisters to

anyone.

It I s simply

a change in the baseline so that

as part of the design process, designers will begin
to take into account multipurpose canisters in the
design of the system.

And is that baseline still in effect?

I believe it
MR. SKALABAN

is.
If I could mark now as

Exhibit 104.
(Milner Exhibit No.
104

was marked for

identification.
BY MR. SKALABAN:

Can you tell me what this -- and just for

the record, 104 is a memo, although I will indicate

there

s no approval signature on the memo, but it

appears to be a memo from Mr. Milner to Daniel
Dreyfus, the director of OCRWM.

Do you recall this memo?

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 833-13
Washington, D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 15 of 23
May 8 , 2002

Page 224

I do vaguely,

yes.

Did you send it Mr. Dreyfus?

My recollection is that I

did.

And what was the purpose of the memo?

Essentially to get the formal approval of

the director to terminate funding for the MPC

development program.
And was this in response to Congressional

appropriations?
It was.

So the effect of this memorandum is that

the department was no longer going to directly fund
the development of MPCs?

Correct.
Now, the second page, it says that the -at the top:

The technical and operational objectives

and advantages of standard canistered SNF defined in

the attached MPC approval memo are still

applicable.

Recognizing that I don t have the attached

memo, but at that time, do you agree with that
statement that the general -- or do you agree with

that generally that technical and operational

objectives and advantages of standard canister SNF
would still be applicable?
Yeah, I do.

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 833-13
Washington, D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 16 of 23
May 8 , 2002

Page 225

And it says at the very bottom:

The

will continue actions that are necessary to encourage private industry development and
utilization of casksl

slash ,

canister technologies

that provide the technical and operational objectives
and advantages that were anticipated with the MPC.
Do you see that?

Yes.
And that was your understanding of the
program -- of a program goal at that time?

Yes.
And to this day, does the program -- is -are -- excuse me.

Scratch that.

To this date, is the department still

encouraging the development and utilization of

cask/ canister
not a 30

technologies?

MR. SHULTIS:

Obj ection.

Mr. Milner is

(b) (6) witness.
I believe it

is.

I guess I would add that

at least in my opinion the work that DOE had done on

MPC technology development I think provided the seed
and the impetus which ultimately resulted in at least

a couple of canister systems being so far certified
for storage and transportation.
BY MR. SKALABAN:

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 833-13
Washington, D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 17 of 23
May 8 , 2002

Page 226

Such as some of the NAC systems?

Yeah.
And that' s a positive development?
It is.

MR. SKALABAN

d like to mark

defendant'
105.

s proposed stipulation of fact as Exhibit

(Milner Exhibit No. 105

was marked for

identification.
BY MR. SKALABAN:
I I m going to represent to you, Mr. Milner,

that this is the government' s proposed statements of
~'1

fact in the Yankee Atomic

litigation.

Do you -- have you ever reviewed or seen
this document?
I don t recall that I did, no.

Do you recall or have you reviewed any
pleadings in this litigation or filings in this

litigation other than interrogatories that we talked
about yesterday?
I have not.

And I'

m sorry.

Let me clarify my question
m saying, in this

also a little bit:

What I'

litigation, 1' m not limiting it just to Yankee

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.

111l14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005

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

Document 833-13
Washington , D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 18 of 23
May 8 , 2002

Page 228

your understanding, are those canister systems that
are an outgrowth of what we ve just been talking

about, the multipurpose canister program that DOE was

looking at?

Actually, I' m
designation UMS.

not familiar with the

Certainly the NAC MPC is -- my

understanding suggests a canister

system.

Okay.

So you re -- just with respect to

the NAC UMS, you re just not sure if that is a

multipurpose canister- type system?

Yes.
Now, here the assertion is made that it is

a multipurpose element sealed canister.
Does that suggest to you that
it' s

canister- type

system?

m talking about the Maine Yankee part.

Yeah.

It suggests that certainly.

simply indicated I had not heard the term OMS

before.

Now, part 114, can you take a look at that

paragraph.
( Pause. )
BY MR. SKALABAN:

Do you agree with that?
MR. SHULTIS:

Obj ection, calls for a legal

conclusion.
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 833-13
Washington , D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 19 of 23
May 8 , 2002

Page 229

To the best of my recollection, there is

no provision in the contract that requires disposal
of a canister.
BY MR. SKALABAN

Is there anything in the contract to your recollection that excludes acceptance of a canister?
MR. SHULTIS:
Same objection.

In my recollection, nothing excludes

it.

That I S my opinion.
BY MR. SKALABAN

So is the contract kind of open on the issue of whether or not a canister has to be

accepted?
MR. SHULTIS:

Objection, calls for a legal

conclusion, asked and

answered.

You know, in my opinion --

well, in fact,

when the contract was written and were no such things as

executed, there multipurpose canisters, so I

would have been surprised if they
in the contract in one way or
BY MR. SKALABAN

another.
d been referenced

Can you take a look at proposed finding of

fact 145,

which is on page 70 of this document.

Mr. Milner, what I'

d like to ask you first

is, as a general matter, do you think it' s an

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 833-13
Washington, D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 20 of 23
May 8 , 2002

Page 262

If I could call to your attention Milner

For the record this is the draft 1988
mission plan amendment.

If you could take a look at page 16.

the section 2.
it says:

, transportation, in the second

paragraph under that heading in the second sentence
The casks be be developed for shipments

from reactors will differ from the casks currently

used for spent fuel shipments in that they will have

considerably greater capacities.
Do you see that?
I do.

Does that reflect the department

I s intent

at the time to either directly develop or encourage
the development of larger-capacity casks?
MR. SHULTIS:

Objection.

The document

speaks for itself.

I believe at that point in time, the department was involved in development effort to

develop higher-capacity casks.
BY MR. SKALABAN:

So that was -- the department was

intending to use greater-capacity casks in its

program?
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1-8oo- FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005

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

Document 833-13
Washington , D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 21 of 23
May 8, 2002

Page 263

The department certainly had an obj ecti ve to utilize higher-capacity casks. And still has that objective today? Certainly. What are the reasons for that? utilization higher-capacity casks, you make less shipments. And so it I S more cost-effective?
Yes.

And there

s less repetitive visits to

individual utility sites?

Correct.
What' s the estimated average turnaround
time for one rail cask trip to a reactor to a

reposi tory?
I don

t recall.

Would a month sound right, or is it longer

than that?
I guess to me a month would be to the best
of my recollection.

It may be a little on the high

side, but I really don t recall.
You I re thinking it could be a quicker

turnaround time from a trip from the repository to a
site and like a complete round- trip?

My recollection is, the estimate is 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 833-13
Washington

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 22 of 23
May 8 , 2002

Page 264

Ii ttle bit less

than that, but again I really don

If I wanted to find out the answer to that
question, who would I ask in the department?

Well, I believe that the estimates of turnaround times and so forth are embodied somewhere
in the TSLCC analysis.
Whether it' s specifically

stated in the published report, I don t recall.
person responsible for the TSLCC analysis is

The

currently the acting director of the -- I forget what

we call it now -- acceptance transportation and

integration office.
And who is that?

That'

s Jeff Williams.

Does the department anticipate any

problems handling higher burnup

fuel?

What I mean by that is fuel -I understand the term higher burnup, yeah.
MR. SHULTIS:
Objection, vague.

I guess I' m vaguely aware that somebody

has raised the question as to whether or not there

would be any difficulty in handling higher burnup

fuel.

I don t recall any specifics or any specific

concern.
BY MR. SKALABAN
't;.'l.;,V)

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 833-13
Washington , D.

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 23 of 23
May 8, 2002

Page 266

capacity report.
d like to call your attention to the -inside the first page, there

I s a letter from Ben

Rusche, or a statement signed by Mr. Rusche.
Do you see that there

I s a statement there

where Mr. Rusche says:

Even more importantly, comma,

it activates a mechanism through which contract

holders can express their views on how the waste

management system can achieve maximum efficiency
while assuring equity among the parties?

What did Mr. Rusche mean to your knowledge
about achieving maximum efficiency?
MR. SHULTIS:

Objection, calls for a legal

conclusion, calls for

speculation.

I don t know what specifically what

Mr. Rusche was referring

to.

I can form an opinion

in my own mind at this point in time reading that

that the start of issuing this document indicated to
the utilities at that time what the capacity in the

rankings plans were, and that could be the basis for

comment on how efficiencies might be improved
BY MR. SKALABAN

Has it been the objective of OCRWM to

the waste management system in a way that can
maximum efficiency?

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