Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 312-4

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 1 of 13

Yankee Atomic Electric v. U.S.

Nos.: 98-126C, 98-154C, 98-474CAugust11, 2004

Heritage ReportingCorporation Page4614 to Page4865

CONDENSED TRANSCRIPT AND CONCORDANCE PREPARED BY: HERITAGEREPORTING CORPORA 7"ION 1220 Street, N.W. L Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-628-4888 FAX: 202-371-0935

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM
BSA (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Yankee Atomic Electric Page 4710

Document 312-4
v.U.S. Nos.: 98-126C, (1) (2)

Filed 10/17/2005
98-154C, 98-474C

Page 2 of 13
2004

August 11, Page 4712

XMAX(25/25)

-memo whichthe plaintiffs havereferred that to !Mr. Rusch had - that has Mr. Rusch'sname it on fact somehow goes with the concurrenceon the pdor page. With that understanding, will not we object to this series of documents being admitted as single exhibit. JUDGE MEROW: Well, okay. Then with that (8) explanation, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1972 admitted is into (9) (10) evidence. (11) (PX Exhibit 1972wasreceived in (12) evidence.) (13) MR. LESTER: I've been told, Your Honor, (14) the prior exhibit the plaintiffs hadtried to (15) introducewasPlaintiff's Exhibit 1951,andI (16) understand that that exhibit's being withdrawn and (17) that it will not be admitted here. (18) MR. SHAPIRO: That's correct, Your Honor. (19) That wassubsumed within the larger one. JUDGEMEROW: Okay. 1951 is considered (20) (21) withdrawn. Doesthat take up our prelunch - anything (22) else? MR. STOUCK: Take up the other matters at (23) (24) the endof the day. (25) JUDGE MEROW: Fair enough.We'll break

A Yes, lam. is Q What your current position? A Chief operatingofficer. (3) Q What your responsibilities as chief are (4) officer?. (5) operating (6) A I assist the deputydirector for strategy (7) and program developmentin the day-to-day management (8) of that office. Q Anddo youreport to the deputydirector?. (9) (10) (11) A Yes, ldo. Q Andwho the department is director?. A Ted Gerdsh. Q Does anybodyreport to you? A Not directly. Q Howlong have you served as chief operatingofficer? A In total, about four years. Q When you first join the Office of did

(12) (13) (14) (15) (16) 17) (18) (19) Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement?. A I believe it wasApril of '84. 20) Q What was your first position? AndI'm (2!) (22) goingto refer to it as RW, that's all right. if (23) A Okay. Q Whatwasyour first position with RW? (24) A I wasthe branchchief of the (25)

i

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (2O) (21) (22) -~3~"-

Page 4711 for lunch. Andwhattime? MR. LESTER: I'm told Mr. Milner cannot be here until 2 o'clock, so if wecould resume 2, that at wouldbe great. JUDGEMEROW: Okay, we'll resume at 2 o'clock. (Luncheonrecess taken from 12:40 p.m. through 2:06 p.m.) - AF'~'ERNOON SESSIONMS. SULLIVAN: Government's ready to call its next witness. JUDGE MEROW: Fine. MS. SULLIVAN: We call RonaldMilner to the stand, please. (The witness wassworn.) MS. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

RONALDMILNER wasswornandtestified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. SULLIVAN: Q Good afternoon, Mr. Milner. A Good afternoon. _ ~ '~r. Milner, are youcurrently employed in (24) the Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement (25) the Departmentof Energy?

Page 4713 (1) organization. Q Whatwere your responsibilities in that (2) (3) position? (4) A Preparation of total systemlife cycle (6) cost, adequacy analysesand the first missionplan. (6) Q What position did you next hold in RW? (7) A I was division director. a (8) Q Andwhatwereyour responsibilities in (9) that position? (10) A Budget, humanresources, total system life (11) cycle costs, fee adequacy analyses. (12) Q And what position did you next hold in RW? (13) A Next, I wasfirst acting director and then director of the Office of Storageand (14) permanent (15) Transportation. Q And do you remember when you became acting (16) director of the Office of StorageandTransportation? (17) (16) A Roughly 1990. Q And how long did you serve as director of (19) (20) the Office of Storageand Transportation? A About four years. (21) Q Whatwere your responsibilities as acting (22) (23) and then director of the Office of Storageand (24) Transportation? A Management the MRS of monitor to treatable (25)

Heritage

Reporting

Corporation

(202)

628-4888

' Page 4710 to Page 471;~

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM
BSA (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (15) (17) (15) (19) (2o) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)

Document 312-4

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 3 of 13
~.

Yankee Atomic Electric v.U.S. Nos.: Page4714 storageprogram, transportation program, waste acceptance ~ssues, suchas preparation the annual of capacityreports, processing deliverycommitment of schedules so forth. and QYousaid that you wereresponsiblefor managementthe MRS of process.What specifically were you doing? A At that point in time, wewere attempting to find a volunteer to construct MRS. site an QDoyourecall, was Bartlett the Dr. . directorof the program while were the acting you directorand directorof the Officeof Storage and Transportation? A Yes, hewas: Q Didyoureportto Dr. Bartlett? A Yes. Q Afterserving the directorof office as of storage transportation, positiondid you and what next hold? A Director of the Office of Program Management Integration. and QAndwhatwereyour responsibilities in that position? A The program'sbudget, human resources, preparation total system cyclecostsand of life fee

XMAX(26/26) 98-126C, 98-154C, 98-474C August 11, 2004 Page4716 (1) chief operating officer again? A Yes, uh-huh. .. (2) QMr. Milner, prior to joining RW, where (3) (4) were you employed? A Wit~ the Department Energy of with the (5) (6) first with the StrategicPetroleum Reserve then and and Energy. (7) with the Office of Conservation Renewable Q Prior to becoming DOE a employee,where (8) (9) were you employed? eight yearsas a (10) A Prior to that, I sewed (11) Naval officer. (12) QMr. Milner, do youhold a Bachelor's (13) degree? (14) A Yes, do. I (15) Q In what? (16) A Mechanical engineering. did (17) Q Where you obtain that degree? of (18) A University Mississippi. (19) Q When? (20) A 1966. (21) Q Anddo youalso hold a Master'sdegree? (22) A I do. (23) Q In whatsubject? engineering. (;~4) A Also mechanical did (25) Q When you obtain that degree?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (lO) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)

Page4715 adequacy analysis. QDid youalso haveresponsibility for regulatory interface with the NRC? A Yes, uh-huh. QAndthen whatposition did you hold next after you weredirector of program management and integration? A After that, I was appointed acting the deputy director of the program. Q Doyou recall approximately that was? when A I believethat was 1996. Q Andhowmany times have you servedas deputy director of the program? A I was actingdeputy different times. two Q Andwhattime periodswerethose? A It was through roughly, then '96 '99, and 2001 through2002,roughly. QWhat position did you hold in between theseperiodsthat youwere data director? A Chief operatingofficer. QAndwereyour responsibilities as the chief operating officer thensubstantiallythe same as they are today? A Substantially the same,yes. Q Andthen in 2002, is that whenyou became

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)

Page4717 A 1967. QWas that also from the University of Mississippi? A Yes. QCanwehavePlaintiff's Exhibit 95, please? MS. SULLIVAN: MayI approach? JUDGE MEROW: Sure. MS.SULLIVAN: We're going to look at several differentpages this exhibit,so I'd like of to provide copies the Courtas well. to JUDGE MEROW: right. All MS. SULLIVAN: Plaintiff's Exhibit 95 is a multivolume What provided the Courtand set. I to the witness simplyan excerptof that document. is BY MS. SULLIVAN: QMr. Milner, do you havewater there? Do youwanta cup of water? A Yeah, that wouldbe great. MS.SULLIVAN: Could I get a cup of water for the witness,Your Honor?. JUDGEMEROW: course. Of BY MS. SULLIVAN: Q Mr. Milner, do you recognizethe document that I've handed youandput up on the computer to

Page 4714 to Page 4717

(202) 628-4888

Heritage

Reporting

Corporation

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM
BSA (1) (2) Atomic Electric v.U.S. Page 4722 Q Thank you. Mr. Milner, did DOEevaluate possible contingenciesin the missionplan? A Yes, it did. Q Can we go to page 20 of this document? Can highlight the text on the page? Milner, you Mr. Yankee

Document 312-4
Nos.: 98'126C,

Filed 10/17/2005
98-474C

Page 4 of 13
XMAX(28/28) I

(3) (4) (5) (6) could you read the highlighted sentence? (7) A Should no repository be constructed and an facility not beauthorized,utilities would (8) MRS (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (221 (23) (24) (25) continueto be responsible storing the spent fuel for at reactorsites. Q Wasone of the contingencies that DOE

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Mr. Milner, do you recognize the schedule (6) that's set forth on page26 of the missionplan? A Yes. That was an example of - of how the (7)

August 11, 2004 Page 4724 reasonour electronic copy- I checked against the it papercopy. For some reason, it's turned. I don't know whyweturned it but it's - same information is there. I think the informationjust got squeezed.

98-154C,

(8) authorized systemmight operate. Q Howmany repositories did DOEassumewould (9) (10) be constructedat the time the missionplan was (11) prepared? (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) A Two. Q Can we go to page 29? Can you bring up the first full paragraph underthe numbered paragraphs? Mr. Milner, canyouread that section, that highlighted material? A It should be emphasized that this schedule is only an approximation of how the systemmayoperate and is subject to considerablevariation. TheDOE will further define andspecify the systemacceptance parameters as the programprogresses. Q Mr. Milner, does that paragraph accord with your recollection regardingthe schedule set forth in the missionplan?

evaluatedin the missionplan the possibility that DOE could not construct either an MRS a repository? or A Yes, it certainly was. Q Mr. Milner, I believe you testified that DOE prepared the mission plan becauseit was a requirement of the NWPA. A That's correct. Q Okay. Do you remember whether there was specific statutory provision that wentto the mission plan? A I believe there was, yes. Q Mr. Milner, I've handed you an excerpt from Title 42 of the USCode,Section 10-221, whichis titled missionplan. Doyourecognizethis provision

acceptance rate? A I did not. Q Whydid DOE include acceptance rates in the mission plan? A Well, one of the requirements for the mission plan wasto provide an estimation of - of how long the repository wouldbe in operation before it was closed. To do that, you had to assume an acceptancerate, so there were acceptancerates assumed the mission plan as examplesof how the in the programmight be operated. Q Thank you. is (19) Andthat requirement, that set forth of is (20) on - as your understanding that requirement set 9, (21) forth in paragraph A9of this provision? (22) A Yes. (23) Q Thank you. (24) Couldwego backto Plaintiff's (25) Exhibit 95, please?Page26. Mr. Milner, for some

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (6) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (15) (17)

Page 4723 to be the provision that sets forth the requirements of the mission plan? A Yes, I do. Q Mr. Milner, did you have an understanding as to whetherthis provision contained a requirement for the missionplan to set forth a specific

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 12) 13) 14) 16) 16) 17) 18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)

Page 4725 A Yes, it does. Q Could we bring up the last paragraph on this pageand, Mr. Milner, wouldyou read the last two sentencesthat are highlighted there? A Underthe terms of the contracts for disposal services that have beensigned between the DOE the utilities, an annualcapacity report with and projected annual receiving capacities and rankings will be issued by the DOE beginning in 1987. In 1991 the DOE will begin to publish firm wasteacceptance schedules individual reactors, including shipment for allocations. Q Mr. Milner, what was your understanding of the term "firm wasteacceptance schedules"as that term's used in that paragraph? A That would be the schedules that DOEwas committing to to accept the waste. Q Did DOE publish, if I recall, waste acceptanceschedules in 19917

A Yes, it did. Q Wherewere those schedules set forth in the annualcapacity report for that year? Andwhat wereutilities to do with these schedules forth in set the annual capacity report? A Theywere to utilize those to develop (25)

Page 4722 to

Page 4725

(202)

628-4888

Heritage

Reporting

Corporation

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM
8SA

Document 312-4
Nos.: 98--126C,

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 5 of 13
XMAX(29/29)

Yankee Atomic Electric v.U.S. Page4726 (1) their tier/very comm/tment schedutes, DCSs, #or (2) submittal the department. to Q Andwhichoffice within DOE preparedthe (3) 1991 ACR? (4) (5) A TheOffice of Civilian Radioactive Waste (6) Management. (7) Q Andwhichoffice within RW? (8) A TheOffice of Storage Transportation. and your office? (9) Q Thatwas (10) A Yes,it was. (11) Q Mr. Milner,in yourvarious positions (12) withinDOE, you hadresponsibilityfor preparing have (13) total system cyclecosts? life (14) A Yes, I have. (15) Q Have also hadresponsibility for you (16) preparing what referred to as fee adequacy are (17) studies? (18) A Yes. (19) Q Couldyou explain to the Court whata (20) total system cyclecost is, or a TSLCC? life (21) A It was - anestimateat anygiven time a (22) of - Of thetotal costs - of the entirewaste of system (23) management fromidentifying sites, sites through construction operation of (24) characterizing and (25) ithe system - andultimately decommissioning.

98-154C, 98-474C August 11, 2004 Page4728 (1) Q Canwe have Raint~s Exhibit 246, (2) please? y~u (3) Mr. Milner, I've handed what'sbeen marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 248.Doyourecognize as (4) (5) this document? (6) A Yes,I do. (7) Q Could tell the Courtwhatthe document you (8) is? it it's (9) A Well, - again, - thetitle (~0) basicallysays pre~im='nary estimate the of (11) restructuredprogram, whichwasan addendum a to analysis. (12) prior - prior TSLCC you (13) QWere involved in the preparationof (14) this document? (15) A No, I wasnot. 16) Q Okay.Are you familiar with this document 17) baseduponyour workwith other TSLCCs? 18) A Yes. 19) Q Canwe go to page1, please?Canwe brfng out the first paragraph the page highlight the on and third sentence? Mr. Milner,would readthe highlighted you (23) portioninto the record, please? A Theprimary for the total system use life analysisis to providecost data (25) cycle costs, TSLCC,

Page4727 Q Decommissioning what? of A Of therepository facilities. is study? Q What a fee adequacy A Thefee adequacy studiesusing the - the cost estimates a basis attempted analyze as to whether or not the fee that was being paidbythe utilities was adequate coverthe - the costs. to Q Why a TSLCC, total system is or life cycle cost report, prepared? A Well, one,it's - it's good keep to track of the estimate the program but principally of costs is - is input to the fee adequacy analysis. Q Andwhyare fee adequacy studies prepared? A They'remandated the act. by Q By the Nuclear A Waste Policy Act. Q Arethere assumptions for the made preparationof a TSLCC? A Yes,thereare. Q What the basisfor thoseassumptions? is A Theywerethe current program planning bases the time. at Q Has DOE changed the assumptionsthat form (24) the basis for TSLCCs time? over (25) A Yes. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (2o) (21) (22) (23)

Page4729 (1) necessary determining for whether feespaid by the the waste generators besufficient to fully cover will the (2) costsof the program, parentheses, fee adequacy the (3) (4) analysis. QOkay,thankyou. For our court reporter, (5) as youreadthings, youcantake yourtime. Thank (6) (7) you. that (8) Mr.Milner, the sentence youread, does just read, does that sentence accord with your (9) understanding to the purpose the TSLCC? as of (10) (11) A Yes, it does. QCanwego to page2, please?Andin the 12) first full paragraph, that out. The bring first two (13) sentences. (14) you (15) Mr. Milner, would pleasereadthosethe highlighted material tl3. e record? into (16) A It mustbe recognized that the waste (17) management program continually evolving. TheTSLCC is (18) represent snapshots time which in (19) estimates incorporated availableand all appropriate information (2o) (21) onprogram activities upto a specificpointin (22) specificpoint in timein orderto develop set for (23) comprehensive of cost estimates the system. (24) Q Mr. Milner, do you agreewith that regardingthe nature of TSLCCs? (25) statement

Heritage

Reporting

Corporation

(202) 628-4888

Page 4726 to Page 4729

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM
BSA

Document 312-4

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 6 of 13

XMAX(30/30) Yankee Atomic Electric v.U.S. Nos.: 98-126C, 98-154C, 98-474C August 11, 2004 Page4730 Page4732 what'sbeen A Yes, ldo. (1) Mr. Milner, do yourecognize (1) as QCanwego backto pageI of this document, (2) marked Plaintiff's Exhibit976? (2) estimate. again? Milner,in that Mr. (3) A Yes. It's the 1986TSLCC (3) that first paragraph Q Were involved in the preparationof you (4) (4) paragraph there'sa reference report to Congress to on (5) this document? of Waste (5) reassessment the Civilian Radioactive Program issued by the Secretaryof Energy (6) A I believe I was,yes. (6) Management (7) Q Canwego to page2? Andcan wehighlight (7) in November 1989. of the first threesentences the first paragraph? of A Yes. (8) Mr.Milner,couldyoureadthe highlighted Q Doyou recall that reassessment? (9) portion, please? (10) A Yes,ldo.. Q Do recall what result Of that you the (11) A Twoimportant programdevelopments (11) analysishaveemerged sincethe was? (12) pertinent to the TSLCC (12) reassessment analysisin January 1985. First, the A I think principalresult of that (13) previous (13) was (14) president determined defense has that high-level (14) reassessment the repositorywouldnot be ableto be opened until the your 2010. (15) waste,parentheses, DHLW, shouldbe emplaced the in (15) repositories.Second, DOE the has QOkay.As a result of that reassessment, (16) civilian geologic (16) was (17) announced plansto seek its Congressional approval for (17) was there a date by whichthe MRS to be opened? A 1998. (18) a monitored retrievable storage,parentheses MRS, (18) (19) facility thatwill befully integrated the into (19) Q Canwe go to pages4 and 5? Could I ask (20) overall wastemanagement system. (20) youto readthe highlighted sentences the record? into estimates presentedin this (21) Q Thank you. Mr. Milner, baseduponwhat (21) A The TSLCC report are updated estimatesfrom the May 1989TSLCC (22) youjust read,doyourecall what basis the the for (22) analysiswhich reflect the changes the system in 1986 TSLCC was? (23) (23) of (24) outlined in the secretary'sreassessmentthe Waste (24) A Essentially wouldhavebeenthe mission (25) Management Program. such, theseestimatesare As 1(25)plan.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)

Page4731 derivedin the same manner thosepresented May as in 1989,since the majodty the assumptions of and methodologies haveremained unchanged; however,a majorchange the schedule a significant impact in had onthe updated estimates. Thus,the difference between May the 1989 estimatesandthe upda.ted estimates represent overall cost impact to the the due restructL~red program. QMr. Milner, wereyouresponsible the for preparationof the 1989TSLCC? A I believe I was. QIt wasa long time ago. Couldwe go to appendix pageAI? A, Mr.Milner, what information presented is in table A1of this document? A That's the wasteacceptance schedule, whichincludedacceptance rates, amount material of that would storedat the MRS anygivenpoint in be at time, cumulative numbers. Q Sois it your understanding theseare that the waste acceptance assumptions the preparation for of this TSLCC? A Yes. Q This is an addendum the 1989TSLCC. to Can have we Plaintiff's Exhibit976, please?

Page4733 Q Thank you. CanwehavePlaintiff's (1) (2) Exhibit982, please? MS.SULLIVAN: Your Honor, I should note (3) 976,I provided counsel to (4) that onPlaintiff's Exhibit just anexcerptof that document. (5) andto the witness It also is a multivolume volume document. BYMS. SULLIVAN: (7) QMr. Milner, do yourecognize Plaintiff's (8) (9) Exhibit 982? analysis. (10) A Yes. It's the 1998TSLCC you (11) QWere responsiblefor the preparation (12) of this document? (13) A Not directly, no. you it (14) Q Okay.Would havereviewed prior to (15) its issuance? (16) A Yes. (17) Q Canwe go to pageI of this document, (18) please? Paragraph second one, sentence. Milner, Mr. (19) canyoureadthat highlighted material, please? (20) A This estimate consistentwith the is of (21) viability assessmenta repositoryat Yucca parentheses, designbasLs cost VA, and (22) Mountain, DOE to (23) estimate, parentheses, 1998,extended address costsfor all waste planned disposal for (24) total system (25) in a geologic repository the total system for life

Paqe 4730 to Parle 4733

(202) 628-4888

Heritaqe

Reportinq

Corporation

8SA

XMAX(31/31) Nos.: 98-126C, 98-154C, 98-474C August 11, 2004 Page4736 (1) please? Milner, doyourecognize Mr. this document? (1) cycle. (2) A Yes, ldo. you. Mr. Milner, whatwasthe basis (2) Q Thank QCould identify it for the Court, you (3) (3) for the 1998TSLCC? (4) please? (4) A Theviability assessment was that A Yes. It wasmyaction memo the to to (5) (5) submitted Congress. seeking approval publishthe his to (6) director of RW QCanwego to pagelittle Roman numeral v, (6) (7) 1990 ACR. the introduction - actually,let me you,this by ask (7) (8) QWho the director at the time you was (8) indicates that Lake Barrettwas actingdirectorat the this memo? (9) prepared (9) the time this document signed.Were the was you (10) A Dr. JohnBartlett. directorat that time? (10) deputy (11) Q Couldwe go to the second page,if we director, yes. (11) A Acting deputy (12) could? Now, Milner,is that yoursignature the Mr. on (12) Q Thank you. second pageof this document? paragraph, (13) (13) Couldwehighlight the second paragraph? (14) A Yes,it is. (14) bring up the second that portion, (15) Q Okay. Doyou recognizethat other (15) Mr.Milner,couldyouread to portioninto the record? (16) signature bethat of Mr.Bartlett? (16) the highlighted A Yes. analysis differs from the (17) (17) A This TSLCC me. TSLCC analysispublished 1995,as several in (18) Q Or Dr. Bartlett, excuse (18) previous A Yes. have First, additional waste (19) (19) keyassumptions changed. we to of DOE, owned (2o) Q Could go back the first page, (20) from USDepartment Energy,parentheses please? Couldwebring out the second paragraph, the SNF disposition of surplus (21) (21) andmanaged andHLW, first paragraph discussion, highlight it? under and plutonium havebeenincluded. (22) (22) weapons you readthat, the (23) Mr. Milner,would please (23) Second, repositorywouldremainopen (24) the highlighted portion,into the record? (24) for at least100 years following initial waste (25) A TheACR requiredto project both the is and havethe capability to be kept (25) emplacement would Yankee Atomic Electric Page4734 v.U.S.

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 312-4

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 7 of 13

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Page4735 open with appropriate maintenance monitoring and for upto 300years.Costs included this analysis are in for 100years monitoring. of Third, unlike the 1995 TSLCC analysisthat relied heavily the useof multipurpose on canisters, this analysis provides capabilityto dispose a the of widerangeof canisteredanduncanistered as well SNF

~(I

,,.(~!~.asHL.W. .... Q Thankyou. Mr. Milner, once a newTSLCC (9) o) hasbeen issued,is the old TSLCC valid? still (11) A No, is not. it (12) Q Whynot? (13) A Well, you wouldissue a newoneoncethe (14) assumptions changed, program evolved. have the has preparea test TSLCC every year? (15) Q DoesDOE (16) A Noteveryyear. (17) Q Mr.Milner,I believeyoualready youroffice that was responsible (18) testified that it was for the issuance the 19- or the preparation of of (19) the 1991 ACR, correct? (2o) (21) A Yes. you (22) Q Were - wasyour office also responsible the preparation the 1990 for of ACR? (23) (24) A Yes, it was. (25) Q CouldI haveDefendant's Exhibit 130,

Page4737 (1) annualreceivingcapacityof the wastemanagement and acceptance rankingof contract (2) system the annual (3) holdersfor ten yearsfollowing projectedcommencement (4) of facility operations. information the ACR The in is (5) for planning purposes andis scheduled be only to as by (6) replaced required the contractby a (7) contractuallybindingannual acceptance pdority reporton April 1991. (8) ranking QThank you. Mr. Milner, doesthat excerpt (9) with (10) that youjust readcomport yourrecollection of ACR? (11) regardingthe issuance the 1991 (12) A Yes, it does. (13) Q Canwe haveDefendant'sExhibit 23, Mr. Defendant's (14) please? Milner, doyou recognize (15) Exhibit 23? (16) A Yes, ldo. you (17) QWould identify it for the Court, (18) please? to (19) A It wasmy action memorandum the (20) director, Dr. Bartlett, seeking approval his for (21) issuingthe 1991ACR. this memo, did (22) QAt the time you prepared couldstill besited so that DOE (23) youbelievethat MRS in (24) couldacceptspentfuel beginning 19987 (25) A Yes, at that time.

Heritage

Reporting

Corporation

(202) 628-4888

Page 4734 to Page 473/

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM
BSA

Document 312-4
Nos.:

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 8 of 13

Yankee Atomic Electric v.U.S. Page4738 (1) QAt the time you preparedthis memo, were (2) youresponsible MRS for sffing activities? (3) A Yes. approximately the time of this at (4) Q And approximately much how time did you devoteto (5) memo, (6) MRS si'dng activities? A Oh, probablysomething like 30 or (7) 40 percent mytime. of (6) QCanwehighlight the second paragraph in (9) the background, please? haven'thighlightedthat, We (10) (11) but couldyoureadthe portion that's been blown up (12) into the record? (13) A The1990ACR stated that it wouldbe the (14) last ACR be issuedandwould replacedby the to be (16) acceptance priority ranking, parentheses APR. (16) However, based discussions on with contract holders (17) and their representatives, department the elected to (18) continue publish the ACR. to This change plans was in (19) conveyed contractholders, a May to in 15, 1991 from(20) letter fromthe department's contracting officer. (21) Q Thank you. (22) Mr.Milner, doesthat sentence accord with (23) yourrecollectionof DOE's decision regarding the (24} issuanceof the 1991ACR? (25) A Yes, itdoes.

98-126C, 98-154C, 98-474C August 11, 2004 XMAX(32/32) Page4740 (1) QOkay.Plaintiffs Exhibit 629, please? (2) Mr. Milner,you'vebeen provided a copyof with this (3) Plaintiffs Exhibit629.Doyourecognize (4) document? (5) A Yes, ldo. QWould identify it for the Court, you (6) (7) please? (8) A Yes. It wasmymemo the director, to Dr. Bartlett, seeking approval issue his to for (9) comment a draft of the annual acceptance pdority (10) ranking. (11) pageof (12) Q Okay.Canwe go to the second this document? yourecognize Do that to be your (13) on (14) signature that page? (15) A Yes. Would (16) QCouldwe go backto the first page? (17) youbdng the third paragraph, second up the paragraph "discussion"? Milner,couldyoureadthat Mr. (18) under (19) portioninto the record,please? (20) A Thepublication of the APR begins the (21) contractuallybindingwaste acceptance process. The (22) APR be usedin conjunction will with wasteacceptance (23) rates to be published the 1991 in annual capacity (24) report, parentheses ACR, the basisfor purchasers as schedules, parentheses (25) to submitdelivery commitment

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)

Page4739 Q Canwego to the second pageof this document? Actually, canwestop that for a second? Mr.Milner,is that yoursignature that page? on A Yes, it is. Q Doyou recognizethe other signatureto be that of Mr.- Dr. Bartlett? A Yes. QNow,could webring up the first paragraph andhighlight the second sentence? Milner, could Mr. youreadthat highlighted portioninto the record? A Whilenot stated in the ACR, this rate was selected because is theoretically it sufficientto eliminate the aggregate need additional in the for at-reactorout-of-pool storage starting in 1998. QMr. Milner, whatwasyour understanding as to the - aboutthe rates that were contained the in 1991 with regardto meeting additional ACR any at-reactor storageneeds? A Well, if - if youlooked as it says at, in the aggregate, looked each you at utility andwhat their projectedspentfuel discharges would what be, their poolstorage capacitieswould andyou be aggregated shortcomings, rate would the this havein the aggregate prevented further need any for out-of-pool storage.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (1I) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)

Page4741 DCS, beginning January in 1992 the department's for approval. turn, purchasers have In will the opportunityto exchange approved DCSs, also subject to departmental approval. Q Thank you. Mr. Milner, does this statement you that just readaccord with your understanding to how as fir4"n Waste accep~nceschedi~le~ to be established were withindividual utilities. A Itdoes, yes. Q Mr. Milner, are youfamiliar with DOE's plansfor the steady-state acceptance rate? A I believe I am,yes. QWhat that rate that you'refamiliar is with? A Thesteady-state acceptance rate, the design rate, if youwill, of the system 3,000 is metrictonsper year. Q Thank you. During your tenure at DOE, has DOE assumed other designrate for the repository? any A No. Q Dudng your tenure at DOE,are you aware of any planningbasis by which- by DOE whichDOE in has assumed three-yearramp-up a period to a steady-staterate of 3,000MTU?

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM
BSA (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Document 312-4
Nos.: 98-126C,

Filed 10/17/2005
98-154C, 98-474C

Page 9 of 13
2004

Yankee Atomic Electric v.U.S. Page 4742 A No, not that I'm aware. Q At the time DOEissued the 1991 ACR, was DOE planning to accept wasteat a 3,000 MTU rate beginning in 1998? A No. Q Why not?

August 11, Page 4744

XMAX(33/33)

(1) Honor. (2) JUDGE MEROW: Plaintiff's 629 is admitted (3) in evidence. (PX Exhibit 629 wasreceived in evidence.) (4) MS. SULLIVAN:Thank you, Your Honor. (5) (6) Might wehave a break for the witness? MR. SHAPIRO:Certainly. JUDGEMEROW: you want to take a Do (8) (9) sure. Returnabout - on the hour?. (10) MR. SHAPIRO: 3 o'clock? (11) JUDGEMEROW: o'clock. 3 12) MS. SULLIVAN:Thank you, Your Honor. (13) (Recesstaken from 2:47 p.m. through 3:03 (14) p.m.) (15) JUDGEMEROW: Mr. Shapiro? (16) MR. SHAPIRO:Thank you, Your Honor. (17) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO: (18) Q My name Robert Shapiro. is (19) A Uh-huh. (2o) Q I'd like to start out askingyousome (21) questions about the rate of acceptance.Youdiscussed (22) (23) that topic in various planningdocuments your in 24) direct examination. if correctly, the 25) Now, I understand (7)

L

A At - at that time, we assumed that an MRS had (8) would be operational in the system. The MRS a (9) capacity limit of 10,000metric tons, so a ramp-up (10) rate wasdesignedsuchthat you would not exceedthat rate before the repository began operation. Q Mr. Milner, during Dr. Bartlett's tenure (12) (13) as director, do yourecall considerationof the idea (14) that DOE should remove five-year-old cooled fuel all (15) from shutdownreactors? (16) A What recall is Dr. Bartlett on occasion I that (17) mentioningthat gee, that wouldbe something (18) wouldbe goodto do or that perhapswe might should characterizeit as thinking out (19) look at. I would (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) loud, I guess,really. Q Do you recall receiving any direction from Dr. Bartlett to implement acceptance an rate that wouldhaveallowedall five-year-old cooled fuel to be removedfrom shutdownreactors? A No.

utility r_epresentatives Dr. Bartlett? with A Yes. ¯ (9) Q Wasattending utility meetings with (10) Dr. Bartlett among your responsibilities? (11) A It was, yes. (12) Q Do you recall any meetings at which (13) utility representatives expressed great interest in (14) pursuing exchanges? (15) A No. (16) MS. SULLIVAN: One moment, Your Honor. (17) YourHonor,I havenothingfurther at this time. I (18) (19) wouldmove admission Plaintiff's Exhibit 629. for of (20) That's an exhibit that wason Plaintiff's may-use (21) list. I notified Mr. Shapiro night before the last (22) that we expected that we might use it with Mr. Milner. and (23) Mr. Milner's identified the document authenticated (24) it. MR. SHAPIRO:Wehave no objection, Your (25)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (6)

Page 4743 Q Would you have been responsible during Dr. Bartlett's tenure for determining whatsuchan acceptance rate wouldbe if you had beendirected to develop one? A I - I would have, yes. Q Mr. Milner, do you recall attending industry meeting- sorry, attending meetingswith

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (lO) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

Page 4745 Department Energy'spurposein publishing the of information contained in documents like the mission plan was utilities to useit for - for planning for purposes, correct? A Well, in the mission plan at - at that time, since it wasthe very beginningof the program, weweresimply trying to illustrate howa systemmight operate.I think at that stage of the game, was it too early to say you could use that for planning purposes. Q What about the mission plan amendment? A Oh, I think that might have been suitable for somevery early planning. Q And let me turn to the TSLCC. One of the objectives of the TSLCC report is to makecost estimatesthat reflect as closely as possible the most current Department Energy program of strategy fo~ for meetingthe - the legislative milestones, correct?

A True. Q And one of your concerns has been to try (21) is (22) to ensurethat the program using the sameset of (23) numbersand the sameassumptions in various documents, (24) correct? A Well, if you're talking about from - from (25)

Heritage

Reporting

Corporation

(202) 628-4888

Page 4742 to

Page 474b

BSA

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 312-4

Yankee Atomic Electric v.U.S. Nos.: Page4758 that- that three-year (1) Q Andthat's because repository andMRS opening,that (2) difference between (3) represented department's estimate how the best of (4) quicklyit couldget an MRS andrunning up giventhe (5) linkages? (6) A Correct. QNow, believedat the time of that you (7) (8) November report to Congress the reassessment 1989 on of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program (9) that if the statutory linkages modified, the were that (10) couldbeginto accept wastebeginning in (11) department (12) 1998? (13) A Yes. (14) QAndby 1991,you believe that if the the constructionandthe (15) linkagesbetween MRS repositoryauthorization maintained the were so (16) initial acceptance DOE by couldnot begin until 2007? (17) (18) A Correct. abandoned its (19) Q Andultimately, the DOE effort to site an MRS sometime roughlybetween 1991 (2o) (21) and 19947 (22) A Yeah,I think it wasprobably closer to (23) 1994. (24) Q Andeven by Februaryof 1994, RW doing was (25) contingency planning the possibility that anMRS for

XMAX(37/37) 98-126C, 98-154C, 98-474C August 11, 2004 Page4760 (1) Mr.Milner?. A Well, that was anda half yearsago. two (2) different recollections what did twoand than I (3) I have ago,but no, that would accurate. be (4) a half years (5) Q Now,as of December 1994, that - the end (8) of that year, there was development on an no work facility, was there,Mr.Milner? (7) interimstorage A By that timeno, I don't believeso. (8) QAndDOE no current plans to site an has (9) (10) MRS? A No. ~.1) would (12) Q Do you believe that- that an MRS offereda better opportunity the department for (13) have the waste 1998? by (14) of meeting objectiveof accepting (15) A Yes, I do. (16) QI'm goingto tumto the subject of schedules. touched that a You on (17) delivery commitment your I'd 18) little bit dudng directtestimony. like to First, youwould agree that if (19) askyoutwoquestions. no fuel then (20) therewas facility to accept in 1998, the schedules wereentered that into (21) delivery commitrnent (22) between utilities andthe department not be would have be reevaluated, to true? (23) bindingandwould (24) A Well, I certainly recall discussions to as (25) whatwould- whatwouldhappen that caseandyeah, in

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 10 of 13

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11 (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)

Page4759 might besited at all. True? not AI don'trecall that, but potentially. Q Well, let meask you againabout your deposition.And this was short one.Let measkyou a if yourecall the following question givingthe and followinganswer. Page if counsel 359 wants to follow. MS. SULLIVAN: Which day? MR.SHAPIRO: It's May2. BY MR. SHAPIRO: Q Areyouonthat page, Milner? Mr. A Yes, sir. Q Start online 5. Doyourecall being asked followingquestion givingthe following the and answer? Question: at least as of February So of 1994,OCRWM concerned was aboutthe possibility that an MRS mightnot be sited? Answer: werecertainly doing We contingency planning that, yes. for Thatwas your testimony, Milner? Mr. A Yes, was. it Q And that was accuratetestimony? A Yes, the time. at Q Doyouhavea different opinionnow,

Page4761 (1) I think wewould have certainly hadto reevaluate what (2) wouldhaveoccurred. (3) Q Sothe delivery commitment schedulescould (4) change circumstances if change? A Potentially, that wouldhaveto be (5) yes. (6) evaluated, QIf circumstances change,the DCSs could (7) True? ¯ (6) change. A I'd haveto knowwhatthe circumstances (9) whether they wouldchange not. or (lO) werebeforeI knew Q In your opinion, the delivery commitments (11 good-faithcommitments on (12) werereally best estimates, (13) quantity andtiming? as (14) A No, I viewedthe DCSs a binding (15) commitment. (16) Q Let mego backto your depositionagain, 2, day (17) onceagainMay the same that wewereat, this 396. Have foundthat page,Mr. Milner? you (18) time page (19) A Yes, I have. (20) QI'm goingto start on line 12. Doyou asked followingquestion giving the and (21) recall being (22) the followinganswer?. it your viewabout (23) Question:Does change reflected in the DCS? There (24) the bindingcommitment an fromMr. Shultis. (25) was objection

Heritage

Reporting

Corporation

(202) 628-4888

Page 4758 to Page 4761

BSA

Yankee Atomic Electric v.U.S. Page 4766 consideration. THE WITNESS:Right. Well, on my (2) (3) recollection, our - our scheduleswere basedon 400 and then (4) metric tons the first year, 600 the second (5) 900for the remainingeight years in that case, so (6) they were - they werebasedon a ten-year allocation. start of (7) Therewasa 12-year difference in the assumed

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 312-4
Nos.: 98-126C,

XMAX(39/39) August 11, 2004 Page 4768 PoJJcyAct scheduJe Jinkages as they (1) the NucJearWaste (2) existedat this time. (3) Andyour answer:Sitting here today (4) looking at that, that wouldbe myopinion. 98-154C, 98-474C (5)

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 11 of 13

(8) operation betweenanMRS a repository, so in the and (9) first two years you would have accepteda thousand metric tons an~ then "~n the next ten years you wo~ (11) have accepted 9,000 metric tons which - so you would (12) havestayed, as I recall, under the 10,000metric ton (13) cap. (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) JUDGE MEROW: think he's worried more I about whenyou could start accepting. BY MR. SHAPIRO: QThat's right. The- welt, let mefirst go to this specific questionthat I asked,because believe you gavea different answerat your deposition.Let's take a look at that, Mr. Milner. If youcouldturn this timeto tab 5 of your binder. Ifs still May but there weretwo sessionson 7, May 7th. Specifically, on page - I'll let you 31 find that. Have you foundthat page, Mr. Milner? A Yes, uh-huh.

MS. SULLIVAN: Objection. I don't think (6) that that wasthe questionthat wasaskedof the (7) witness on cross, but we can clean that up on (8) redirect. (9) BY MR. SHAPIRO: Q That wasyour- yo~.,r truth~u~ testimony, ~ 0) (11~) Mr. Milner? (12) A That was mytruthful testimony. If I may, there are, in myview, capacity linkages with the MRS i(13) (14) to 10,000metric tons and there are schedulelinkages (15) that - that being that an MRS could not be sited by the department until a repository site wasselected, (16) (17) the - the particular assumption that time, the MRS at (18) program wasworking with the then-office of the (19) nuclear wastenegotiator to attempt to find a site. (20) volunteer MRS It was- all of the program planning (21) assumptions that time assumed you were at if (22) successfulin finding a volunteer MRS site, that (23) (24) that those negotiationswill hopefullylead to - to (25) removalor at least alteration of - of some those of

Page 4767 (1) Q It's a little bit long, but I'll (2) throughit. Andmyquestion for youis, wereyou (3) were you askedthe following series of questions and (4) gavethe following answers,starting on line 4 on page (5) 31? (6) I mean,assuming then that the purchasers basedon (7) followed the instructions and submitted DCSs in (8) the schedules the 1991annualcapacity report, then (9) the DCSswould be based upon a waste acceptance (10) schedulethat wasinconsistent with the statutory Policy Act. (11) linkages and the Nuclear Waste (12) Objectionfrom Mr. Shultis. (13) Answer:You're talking schedulelinkage? (14) By Mr. Skalaban:Yes, sir. (15) Andyour answer:Well, I just don't view that certainly in my (16) it as inconsistent in the sense (17) opinionat the time, there wasa possibility of that (18) schedule linkage being removed. (19) Question: But it was- but the schedule (20) linkage wasthere? (21) Answer: Yes. (22) Question: Andso the law then existed as (23) it exists now because don't believe - well, scratch t (24) that. As the law then existed, the DCSs were basedon (25) a wasteacceptanceschedule that wasinconsistent with

| (1)

Page 4769 linkages, certainly schedule linkage. Q But the schedule linkage was, in fact, (2) (3) there at the time it wasdelivered and the schedules (4) were there? (5) A Correct. Q And these delivery commitment schedules (6) wereinconsistent with the laws as it stood at that time? A It was inconsistent with the scheduling andJUDGEMEROW:Wouldn't they make conditional uponthe - didn't the approval say they

(7) (8) (9) (lO) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)

wereconditioned uponapproval of a repository, or something that nature? of THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. JUDGE MEROW: Rather than just approval? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. MR. SHAPIRO:Thank you, Your Honor. (18) (19) BY MR. SHAPIRO: QI'd like to switchtopics a little bit. (2o) (21) We discussed little bit the issue of dealingwith a (22) shutdown reactors and - and providing priority (23) acceptancefor shutdownreactors. I have a few (24) questions on that subject. (25) The Department of Energy does have an

Heritage

Reporting

Corporation

(202)

628-4888

Page 4766 to

Page 4769

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM
BSA (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (2o) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)

Document 312-4
98-126C,

Filed 10/17/2005
98-154C, 98-474C

Page 12 of 13
2004

Yankee Atomic Electric v.U.S. Nos.: Page 4782 regardingyour understanding the intent of the of programwas to work off the backlog. Do you remember that testimony in the cross-examination? A Yes, yes. Q When you say intent was to work off the backlog, what do you mean? A Intent to mewould be that that would be a - a program goal or - or one of the planning assumptions. Q Are you referring to a contractual intent when use the word"intent" in that statement? you A No, not at all. Q Mr. Milner, you were also asked about the approval of DCSs being conditioned uponthe existence of a facility or the delivery date beingconditioned uponthe existenceof a facility. Doyou remember that testimony? A Yes, uh-huh. Q Do you recall whether all DCSswere approvedwith that conditional statement? A I - i don't recall whetherall of them were. Q Okay. Can we look at - and I apologize, I don't havethe exhibits for the witness. We'll have to rely on the computer. amgoingto look first at I

August 11, Page 4784

XMAX(43/43)

(1)_. Q Okay. And could we go to t'-(2) JUDGE MEROW: you recall, Do

Mr. Milner,

(3) though, before the Court of Appeals the District for (4) of Columbia told us otherwise, that it wasDOE's (5) position, whichyouattemptedto establish by rule to ',6) making,that the obligation of DOE perform under (7) this contract wassubject to the existenceof a - of (8) a repository? THEWITNESS: do. I recall that had I (9) beenthe department's position until the court 10) (11) decision,sir. 12) MS. SULLIVAN:Thank you, Your Honor. 13) BY MS. SULLIVAN: (14) Q Could we go to Defendant's Exhibit 30.018? 15) Mr. Milner, this is a letter from Beth Tomasoni dated Atomic again (16) June 14, 1995to Mr. Buchheit at Yankee schedules. 17) forwarding approveddelivery commitment reads: The (18) Thethird sentencein the first paragraph uponexistence of (19) proposeddelivery date is dependent (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) an operational repository or an interim storage facility constructed underthat - the act. Do you see that language? A Yes, I do. Q Okay. Do you recall - does that refresh your recollection as to Department Energy's of

(1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (6) (7) (6) (9) (lo) (11) (12) (13)

Page 4783 29, I believe. Yeah,29.003. Can you put that on the computer, please? Mr. Mi!ner, I apologize,I don't havea paper copy for you. Defendant's Exhibit 29.003 has beenta~kedaboutby other witnesses, is a letter from contracting officer to M.EoThomas MaineYankee. of Do you recall Mr. Thomas Maine Yankee? at A N_o, I don't offhand. Q Okay. And it - the first sentence of that letter reads: The Department Energyhas of reviewed and approvedthe six delivery commitment schedules by MaineYankee,and it goes on to provide the numbers. Copies of the accrued DCSs are enclosed for your records. Andattached to this document, wecould if go to the next page, are a series of DCSs. you see Do that they have beenapproved?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (lO) (11) (12)

Page 4785 statements that effect at or aboutthis time? to A Yes. Q 1995? A Yes, yes. Q Okay.If wecould go to the next page, and could you enlarge the section 2.0, delivery information, commitment information? And, Mr. Milner, do you see the statement that's beentyped in there? Theproposed delivery date is dependent uponthe existence of an operational repository or intedmstorage facility constructed under the act. A I do. Q Is that the conditional languagethat you recall?

(14) (15) (16) (17) (18) A Yes, uh-huh. Q And how do you know that those have been (19) (2o) approved? A I see the approved by DOEsignature. (21) Q Okay. And do you - do you see the (22) (23) conditional statementthat you testified aboutearlier (24) regarding the delivery date? (25) A No, I don't.

(13) (14) (15) (16) A Recall, yes. j Q Mr. Milner, do you recall your (17) (18) testimony - one second, Your Honor. (19) Let's actually go to something else. Exhibit 23 (20) Mr. Milner, do youstill haveDefendant's (21) in front of you? A Yes. (22) Q Okay. Could we go to the second page of (23) (24) Defendant's Exhibit 23 in that second that last (25) second first paragraph,the last sentence. And

Heritage

Reporting

Corporation

(202)

628-4888

Page 4782 to

Page 4785

Case 1:98-cv-00614-JFM

Document 312-4

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 13 of 13

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I herebycertify that on this 17th day of October, 2005, a copyof foregoing "DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY DESIGNATIONS" filed was electronically. I understand that

notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operationof the Court'selectronic filing system. Parties may access this filing tl~'ough the Court's system.

s/Marian E. Sullivan