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

-'-

""

"".

""'

.".

q",&

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9 H. BARRETT, VOLUME 1 of 23 DEPOSITION OF LAKE Filed 06/28/2004 Page 5 CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY , MAY 10, 2002

1156
generated wi thin the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management Control, if I got the name right, and
I apologize if I got it wrong.
I take it there would

have been documentation generated wi thin the office
relating to the proposed .

report setting out

the reason

the report was proposed, arguing why or why not the

report should be conducted, and that documentation
would be circulated through the appropriate
individuals in the office, correct?
MS. HERRMANN:

Obj ection.

Compound.

Correct.
And would there be some type of typically

sign- off

sheet accompanying that analysis of the need

of the report where the various authorizing officials
wi thin your office would individually sign off on the

proposed report and then send it to the next person up
the chain of command?

Yes.

The chain might be short.

May only

have been one person did it but, nonetheless, there
should be those documents similar to what you

descr ibed.
Is it possible that you personally may have

(202) 861-'3410

D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY
(301) 762-

8282 (410)

539-

3664 (800)

292- 4789

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9 H. BARRETT, VOLUME 2 of 23 DEPOSITION OF LAKE Filed 06/28/2004 Page

CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY, MAY 10 , 2002

1163

fine.
Do you disagree with any other aspect of
the statement?

No.

Again I'

m starting with the beginning

receipt rates ranging from

1500 to 6, 000,

that entire

statement, do you disagree with any other aspect of

it?
No.

But you do disagree wi th

the statement that

there is not a clearly documented rationale for 3, 000

MTU per year receipt rate, correct?

Correct.
Because you believe that there is, in

fact,

a clearly documented rationale for a 3, 000 MTU per

year receipt rate, correct?

Yes.
And could you explain to me that rationale that you believe has been clearly documented by the

department?
There was one in the old mission

plans.

basically was that the rate of 3, 000 tons per year

(202) 861-

3410 (301)

D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY
762-

8282 (410)

539-

3664 (800)

292- 4789

.....

""",

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9 H. BARRETT Page DEPOSITION OF LAKE Filed 06/28/2004VOLUME 3 of 23 , 5 CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2002
--.... 1164

exceeded a generation rate of a nominal 2, 000 tons per

' I

year and allowed a catchup of a thousand tons per year
del ta.

And for where the program was at that time

that was sufficient, and I felt that was sufficient at

that time.
Sufficient to do what?

Sufficient as a design basis for the
facili ty.

I didn t want to basically put

resources,

inasmuch as I was involved in this, into further
refinements and expendi tures of money on fine-tuning

when we needed to focus on do we have a site and can

we ever do

this.
And fine-tuning, for example, whether it

shoulq be higher than

3, OOO?

Correct.
And when you just stated " allowed a catchup
of a thousand tons per year delta, " what did that
statement refer to?
The receipt rate of a nominal 3,

000 tons

per year steady state when the generation rate was

approximately 2, 000

tons per

year.

The system

capacity and take- rate was exceeding the generation

(202) 861-

3410 (301)

D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY
762-

8282 (410)

539-

3664 (800)

292- 4789

'-.

'" '
Document 833-9 Filed 06/28/2004

"....,

,.. "

"""""""""

"""'

"""

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY , MAY 10, 2002

Page 4 of 23

1165 j
rate in the

nation.

Why was that important?

Because we would like to catch up and, you

know , remQve the waste that had been accumulating at
whatever the start date of the facility would

be.

Did you consider that to be your mission

under this statute, the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act?
MS. HERRMANN:

Obj ection.

Vague, calls for

a legal conclusion.

Repeat the question

agaln.
and,

You stated " We

would like to catch up

you know , remove the waste that had been accumulating

at whatever the start date of the facility would be.

Do you recall that statement?

Yes.
Why would you have liked to have caught
as you stated in that answer?

up,

Because waste existed in the United

States,

both commercial waste and defense waste, and we were

to start, either be it '

98 or some other date, there

would be an inventory existing, and you wanted to work
off that inventory as soon as

practicable.
"c"

(202) 861-

3410 (301)

D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY
762-

8282 (410)

539-

3664 (800)

292-4789

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9 Filed DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. 06/28/2004

BARRETT, VOLUME CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2002

Page 5 of 23

1166
Why did you want to work off that inventory
of spent nuclear fuel as soon as practicable?
Because I believe that' s the intent of the

act.
By " the
act" you re referring to the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982?

Correct.
MR. CAYNE:

It'

s 9:18.

Let'

s take a short

break.
MS. HERRMANN:

Okay.

(There is a recess from the record.

(Deposi tion Exhibit Barrett 58 was marked
for identification and was attached to the

transcript.
Mr. Barrett, the court reporter has handed
you a document marked for identification as Exhibit

58.

It'

s a parametrics analysis for future program

costs scenarios bearing Bates number HQR- 022- 0001
through 0030.

On the front page it says November

5th,

1999, Stephen Goldberg with the DOE CBO staff , draft.
Do you have that document before you?

Yes.

(202) 861-

3410 (301)

D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY
762-

8282 (410)

539-

3664 (800)

292- 4789

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9 H. BARRETT , VOLUME 65 23 DEPOSITION OF LAKE Filed 06/28/2004 Page of CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY , MAY 10, 2002

1295
What was the purpose of this statement or

report?
This was an aid used to brief various

people or organizations on what the dyaft

environmental impact statement was.
time to time.

I used it from

Can I turn your attention to page 12 under

Addi tional Analyses.

Yes.
Is it reasonably foreseeable that

commercial greater than Class C waste will be

deli vered to and

accepted for disposal in the

permanent repository?
MS. HERRMANN:

Obj ection.

Foundation.
Obj ection,

Obj ection, calls for a legal

conclusion.

speculation.
It is my understanding under CEQ guidelines

for environmental impact statements these were

appropriately classified as reasonably foreseeable

future scenarios, and analysis would be

appropriate.

Why do you conclude that the acceptance of

greater than Class C waste would be a reasonably

(202) 861-

3410 (301)

D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY
762-

8282 (410)

539-

3664 (800)

292-4789

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9 Filed 06/28/2004 Page of DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT , VOLUME75 23 CONDUCTED ON FRI DAY , MAY 10, 2002

1296
foreseeable scenario?
MS. HERRMANN:

Same obj ection.

Acceptance

the repository of the greater
Same obj ections .

than Class

waste.
MS.
HERRMANN:

It'

s my understanding that the Low-Level

Waste Policy Act of 1980 requires waste to be disposed

of in an NRC-licensed deep

geologic.

It is not

appropriate for a near- surface disposal

facility.

The

only other one
would be a deep

I know of for ul timate disposition
one.
Which Yucca Mountain , if there

were appropriate authorizations made, could dispose of

greater than Class

So we did evaluate, and also

there were requests from the EIS scoping that we
evaluate the disposition of both what' s called module

one and module two.
What is the EIS scoping?

EIS scoping is a necessary part of

preparing an environmental impact statement, which was
done before the draft environmental impact statement

was prepared.
Could you please turn to the page, a number

(202) 861-3410 (301)

D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY
762-

8282 (410)

539-

3664 (800)

292- 4789

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME 5 CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2002

Document 833-9

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 8 of 23

1332
reference to a variety of DOE

documents.

My question

is do you have an understanding of the term

steady- state

rate

I believe

so.

What' s your understanding of that term?
Basically constant over

time.

I believe you testified that there is a
relationship between the 3, 000 MTU annual steady- state

rate and either the discharge rate or '
Is that correct?

generation rate.

There

s a difference.

Is there a relationship between the two?

Discharge rate is what it

is. Utili ties

control that.

The receipt rate, which is what you

call 3, 000, is something that is variable, but

depending upon the system we design to build, we can

vary that.
the two.

So there s no direct relationship between

My understanding from your testimony -- and

20 j please correct me if I'

m wrong -- was that the 3, 000

MTU steady- state rate or receipt rate as you just used
that term , was chosen in part because it exceeded the

(202) 861-3410 (301)

D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY
762-

8282 (410)

539-

3664 (800)

292- 4789

',"

'-,

~ ,. .",

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9 Filed 06/28/2004 Page of DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME 95 23 CONDUCTED ON FRI DAY, MAY 10, 2002

1333 i
discharge rate or the generation rate by utilities.
Is that right?

Correct.
What other factors went into choosing a

3, 000 MTU receipt ra te?

The 3, 000

rate that we have was established

before I was ever involved in the

program.

It'

s my

understanding that it was looked at then as a proper
balance for total life- cycle costs as well as

near-term cash flow requirements and

performance.

you make the number too high , then you have -- you

would quickly work off the backlog, and then you would

have a lot of idle

capacity.

If it was too low, you

would have reactors needing to put in dry storage, and

000, based on an early 1980s, seemed like a
reasonable number to

use.
rate being a reasonable number

Do you know if there were any studies that

talked about the 3, 000
to use?

I don t know of any that were done back
then, but

told there were some

done.

I never had

reason to ever

look.

There were some -- we went

(202) 861-

3410 (301) 762-8282 (410) 539-3664 (800)

D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY
292-4789

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9 DEPOSITION OF LAKE FiledBARRETT, VOLUME10 of 23 H. 06/28/2004 Page 5

CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2002

1334 ;
through some of them here that were done in the middle

eighties and some done in the early nineties that

would say that you can run them at a higher

rate.

And

you can run them at a higher rate and there are puts

and takes on costs and

performance.

And am I right in understanding that the

, 000 steady- state rate has been used as the

steady- state

rate in the majority of design documents
DOE will eventually use to take

for the facili ty that

and emplacement spent nuclear

fuel?

Yes, it' s around 3, 000.
And am I also right in understanding that
the 3,

000 steady- state rate has been the rate that is

used in the maj

ori ty of documents

issued by DOE with

regard to total system life- cycle costs?

Correct.
Wi th regard to those documents, the

documents issued in connection with estimating total
system life- cycle costs, what is that document

supposed to reflect, the TSLCC document?
Our best estimates of what the costs would
be, you know , year by year for the

program.

And to

(202) 861-

3410 (301)

D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY
762-

8282 (410) 539-3664 (800)

292- 4789

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9 DEPOSITION OF LAKE Filed BARRETT , VOLUME 5 23 H. 06/28/2004 Page 11 of CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY , MAY 10, 2002

1335
determine those you would have some assumption as to
what the receipt rate would be, and we used 3, 000.

And is the receipt rate of

3, 000 used

because that'

s what your intention at the time you

issued that TSLCC report, is that the intention at

that time,

to use that rate for whatever facility you

would have running when you begin to accept spent

nuclear fuel?
MS. HERRMANN:

Obj ection.

Foundation.

At steady state,

yes.

Do you have an understanding of what the

term " waste

management system " is?

Yes.
What' s your understanding of that term?
That would be the transportation system to

remove it from the

reactors.

It would be an MRS if

there were to be an MRS, and it would be the
reposi tory, or repositories if we have more than

one.

With regard to the transportation

system,

other than the RFP that we ve discussed just a couple

of hours ago, were there any other documents that
talked about the acceptance rate or the physical
D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY
292-4789

(202) 861-

3410 (301) 762-8282 (410) 539-3664 (800)

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9 DEPOSITION OF LAKE Filed 06/28/2004 H.

BARRETT, VOLUME CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY , MAY 10, 2002

Page 12 of 23

1368 '
The higher the rate of performance the

better.
That doesn t answer the question of whether

or not the rate -I couldn t understand the question.
the question.
Repea t

At least you told me

that.

All right.
question, but try

I thought that was your

again.

My understanding is that one of the goals

of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program
was to design a system that could take spent nuclear
~uel at a rate that would eliminate the need for

utili ties to

provide for additional on- site storage
Is that correct?

after January 31st, 1998.

No.
What is not correct about that statement?

I never considered the design of the system

to solely try to avoid spent-fuel pool

overflows.

tried to design the system to be as large as you could
reasonably make it to avoid not only spent-fuel

overflows but pool rerackings to allow shut-down

A. D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY (202) 861-3410 (301) 762- 8282 (410) 539-3664 (800) 292-4789

.,

., '-"""

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9 DEPOSITION OF LAKE Filed BARRETT , VOLUME of 23 H. 06/28/2004 Page 13 CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2002

1369

reactors to empty their si tes
reasons in addi tion

For all those other

to.

So the way you phrased it

don t think is correct.
Thank you for clarify a misimpression

clarifying.
I had, so

It actually did

glad I asked the

question.
And is it your testi~0~Y that prior to you
actually coming to the Office of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management DOE had established that a

steady- state

rate of 3, 000 MTUs on an annual basis

would achieve all those obj ecti
specified in your prior answer?
MS 0 HERRMANN:

ves that you

just

Obj ection.

Foundation

In a general

sense, yes.

At any point during your tenure at OCRWM
did you have a reason to disagree with that rate that

was selected, the 3, 000

MTU steady- state rate on an

annual basis?
Never paid much attention to it

Because

all my energies were focused on trying tc get a system
that could run as soon as practicable.

But in your tenure at the program did you
,"d,..""

(202) 861-

3410 (301)

D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY
762-

8282 (410)

539-

3664 (800)

292- 4789

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9 Filed 06/28/2004 Page 5 DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT , VOLUME14 of 23 CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY , MAY 10, 2002

1370
ever see any evidence that would indicate that that 000 MTU rate was not sufficient to address all of those needs as you specified a couple of answers ago?
I saw no reason nor saw no reports that

said 3, 000 was a bad choice.

There were some studies

done in the late eighties, also in the early nineties

that, you know, it didn t say there was an obvious
better number
bet ter

That 2, 000

was better or 4 000 was
So I didn
It wasn

And 3, 000

appeared to be okay

pay much attention.

So I was satisfied.

conscious per se

I saw no reason why I should change

it.

Let'

s phrase it that way.

And I'

ll take it

a step further.

Do you

believe that the 3,

000 annual steady- state

rate is a

reasonable rate for DOE to plan to use in terms of

taking spent nuclear fuel from utili ties? I think it' s a reasonable rate.
be better rates that if we

There may

if the nation gets a

little clearer that we re going to really perform

think we will refine that number and we may, based on

events of September 11 th, maybe it will be

raised.

And would you agree that the 3, 000 annual

A. D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY (202) 861-3410 (301) 762- 8282 (410) 539- 3664 (800) 292- 4789

"",

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9 DEPOSITION OF LAKE FiledBARRETT, VOLUME15 of 23 H. 06/28/2004 Page 5 CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY , MAY 10 , 2002

1371

steady- state

rate is a rate that is consistent with

achieving the obj ecti

ves that you
yes.

enumerated earlier?

Generally so,

In your opinion would a steady- state rate

of 2, 000 MTUs

on an annual basis be consistent with

achieving those same obj ecti

ves?
low.

would
Why?

think that'

Because

that'

about what the generation

rate is, and if we start with that, matching the
generation rate at 2010 -- if we steady state at 2010
all the fuel that' s in dry storage and a lot of the

shut-down reactors, it will be difficult to avoid new
storages or prolong decommissionings.

And what would your opinion be if an annual

steady- state

rate was chosen that was around 1, 000

MTUs per year?
MS. HERRMANN:

Obj ection.

Speculation.

For performance aspect it would be better
you know , better than none, but not as good as 2, 000

and not as good as 3

000.

Would you believe that a steady- state
","".m

(202) 861-

3410 (301)

D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY
762-

8282 (410)

539-

3664 (800)

292- 4789

~-~_.__......' ~._- - ' --"-'- ._-~ -,-Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9

- -.

~~ .--

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME 5 CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2002

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 16 of 23 ""1;:2

1434
funds or is being paid on a regular basis?

Yes.
Okay.
MR. TOMPKINS:
I believe that' s all I have.

We reserve our right to reopen the
deposi tion pending resolution of the outstanding

document production

issues.
And of course we obj ect

MS. HERRMANN:

that.
MR. TOMPKINS:

Other than that, we re done.

(Signature having not been waived,

the deposition

of Lake H. Barrett was concluded at 5: 21 p. m. )

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEPONENT
I, Lake H. Barrett, do hereby acknowledge that

have read and examined the foregoing testimony, and
the same is a true, correct and complete transcription
of the testimony given by me and any corrections

appear on the attached Errata sheet signed by me.

6/17/c
(DATE)
:!C~
(202)

A. D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY COMPANY 861- 3410 (301) 762- 8282 (410) 539-3664 (800) 292- 4789

.=,

----------------------Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-9 Filed 06/28/2004 Page 17 of 23
May 14 2002

Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER

Washington , D.

Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
- X

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
uri;':u

COMPANY , CONNECTICUT YANKEE

CO?Y

ATOMIC POWER COMPANY, MAINE
YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY,
: Case No. 98-126C,
: 98- 154C, 98-474C

Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Senior Judge Merrow)

Defendant.

: Volume I
- X

Washington ,

D. C

Tuesday, May 14 , 2002

Deposition of LAKE H. BARRETT , a
witness herein, called for examination by counsel
for the Plaintiffs in the above- entitled matter

pursuant to notice , the witness being duly

sworn, taken at the offices of Spriggs & Holl innsworth ,

1350 Eye Street ,

N. W., Washington, D. C. ,

commencing at 9:30 a. m., Tuesday, May 14, 2002

and the proceedings being taken down by Stenotype

by CAPPY HALLOCK , RPR-CRR , and transcribed under

her direction.
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. I I I I 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-9

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 18 of 23

Lake H. Barrett CONT AINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER May 14 , 2002

Washington , D.
Page 64

most of the sequencing would remaln the same?

They should be minor.
So they would be substantially the
same today, there might be some minor variations?

Correct.
Putting aside those minor variations,

is it your understanding that when the program

starts to operate in 2010, or some other

time,

that this listing of allocations of oldest fuel

first is going to be the actual sequence in which
the Department picks up spent fuel from the
various contract holders?
MS. HERRMANN
Obj ect ion.

THE WITNESS:

Could I have that again?

(The record was read as requested.

I doubt

it.
it?

BY MR. STOUCK:

And why do you doubt

Because from a practical matter , the numbers on some of the contract holders are not an
efficient size or , for example , Consolidated

Edison has 2. 9

tons , Dairyland 0. 7 tons, and it

would not be very efficient to pick up such
small amounts for either the Department of

Energy I S contractor nor the utility itself to
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 833-9

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 19 of 23

Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER May 14 2002

Washington, D.
Page 65

prepare for shipping such small amounts, so most
likely there will be some arrangement such as more

efficient sizes as determined through a process

worked out.
When you say more efficient sizes, are

you referring to fuel casks, filling up casks?
Correct, cask campaigns.

So you are referring to filling up

casks, but that I s not Correct.

all you are referring to?

So in addition to filling up casks you
are referring to cask campaigns?

Correct.
And what do you mean by cask

campaigns?
From a practical point of Vlew

primarily for the utility, but also somewhat for
the Department of Energy that you would establish

a term that' s

sometimes used, bite size, the

campaign size of how much tonnage you would take
in a campaign that would be scheduled to be

consistent with the reactor I s operating
be mutually beneficial for both

cycle or

the situation at the contract holder which would

parties.

Okay.

Could you just clarify or

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 833-9 Filed 06/28/2004 Page 20 of 23
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER May 14 2002

Washington , D.
Page 67

for an acceptable arrangement for both the

contract holders and the Department of

Energy, to
What are

present that for mutual

approvals.
to?

Well , for mutual approvals.
MS. HERRMANN

the contractual matters that you are referring

Obj ection.

Calls for a

legal conclusion.

Given that the contract

contracts

exist under the statute and that there are
implementing documents under the contract

,I

would -- it is our goal that there 1S an acceptable arrangement for all the parties how to work the allocations into actual shipping

campaigns.
And when you referred a moment or two
ago to working out the most efficient system

for scheduling that could be arranged
recall that reference?

do you

Yes. Okay.

What are your expectations in

the context of working out the most efficient
system or an efficient system for scheduling?

What are your expectations about the extent to which exchanges of allocations between or among
utilities will occur?

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 833-9

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 21 of 23

Lake H. Barrett CONT AINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER May 14 2002

Washington , D.
Page 68

MS. HERRMANN:

Obj ection.

Foundation.

Speculation.

Calls for a legal conclusion.
I don

- - I'

m hopeful , but I don'

know what the actual utility contract holders will

do.

Why are you hope ful
always been my hope lesser need earlier

?

From a macroscopic perspective it has
that utilities that have a

would exchange the appropriate

remuneration

or compensation

might have a greater need to

with others that work out the mos

effective national utilization of whatever

I capacity you

were able to bring on

line.

And that' s your hope because that

would promote the most effective national
utilization of the capacity?
Is that why it is

your hope , because it would be the most effective

utilization of the capacity of a system?
It would be more effective than a

layout like this on this
21 I

most it would be better.
program has ,

table. You say the
goal that the

22

Q.

Okay, but that I s a

is to promote effective utilization

of the capacity of the system?
MS. HERRMANN

Obj ection.

Foundation.

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 833-9

-Filed 06/28/2004 Page 22 of 23

Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER May 14 2002

Washington , D.
Page 71

Yes.
BY MR. STOUCK:

Okay.
Do you think there is any possibility that when the spent fuel acceptance program
commences operations in 2010 , or at some other

time, that the actual sequence of pickup of spent

nuclear fuel will be the sequence

putting aside

the minor variations that we referred to

previously - -

do you think there is any

possibility that the actual sequence will be the
sequence that is shown on this OFF array on Page

40?
MS. HERRMANN:

Obj ection.

Speculation.
Yes. You do? Yes. Okay. Can you quantify the
possibili ty?

MS. HERRMANN

Obj ection.

Speculation.
No.
If that sequence were to be followed

in actuality, do you believe that the costs would

1111

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-9

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 23 of 23

Lake H, Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER May 14 , 2002

Washington , D.
Page 72

be greater or less than the costs of a system that

includes some

included some amount of campaign

pickups?
MS. HERRMANN

Obj ection.

Speculation.

Greater.
Okay.
So it would be in the utility'

interests to avoid tnat greater cost through some

kind of rearrangement of the sequence; would you
agree wi th

that?
MS. HERRMANN

Obj ection.

From a cost perspective,

Foundation. yes.

Okay, and it would be in DOE'

interest from a cost perspective to promote some

rearrangement of the sequencing to be more
cost-effective, right?
Wi thin the extent of the law, yes.

And is the reason that you believe it
is possible that the actual sequence for pickup

would be the sequence that is shown on Page

8 of

Exhibit 40 is

the reason that you believe that

is a possibility, that contractual matters and issues and disputes on the utility side would
require that that schedule be maintained if those

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005