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

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 1 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME CONDUCTED ON MONDAY, APRIL 22 , 2002

138

you re referring to at the time.
Well, various points in time your office
issued ACRs, correct?

I believe

so.

I didn t follow , quote, the

ACR, DCSs and those sort of

things.

I didn t follow

those very closely.

They should have been

So you didn t follow them very

consistent. closely,

correct?
No.

That'

s correct.

When you were acting director and deputy

director of your office, did you not have ultimate
responsibili ty for those documents?
I did.

And did you delegate that responsibility to
someone else?

You can delegate authority; you retain

responsibility.
And although you retained your

responsibili ty for them, you
yourself with them?
MR. CRAWFORD:

did not familiarize

Obj ection, argumentative.

, I think I was familiar with

them, but I
( 703 )

( 301 )

7 62 - 8 2 8 2 (

202 )

D. REPORTING COMPANY , INC. ( 800 ) 292 - 4 789 861- 3 41

288- 0 026

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 2 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME CONDUCTED ON MONDAY , APRIL 22, 2002

148
debate in the formulation of the

' 82 act

was there was

discussions between what was known at the time as

away-from- reactor storage concept versus a geologic
reposi tory concept, and the after the debate was over

the decision was not to authorize an away-from- reactor storage facility, which the new name became a

moni tored retrievable storage facility, because the
opponents of that felt it would detract from the geologic repository and the DOE was to submit a

proposal for an MRS, but it was not

approved.

It took

an act of Congress to approve it and authorize

it.

That was the forces that were at play from a policy

perspecti ve on this.
In 1982?
In 1982.

And those existed right through

87.

Some people vehemently opposed the MRS; some

people wished -- were proponents of the MRS.
So then am I correct that in 1985 it was

important to your office that the MRS as then proposed
not be perceived as a replacement for the permanent

reposi tory?
That' ' correct.

(301) 762-

8282 (202)

D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
861-

3410 (800)

292-

4789 (703)

288- 0026

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 3 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT , VOLUME CONDUCTED ON MONDAY, APRIL 22 , 2002

149
MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection.

Lack of

foundation.
You see B, the waste receipt rate?

Uh- huh.
Are you familiar with the basis for the

3, 000 MTU per year receipt rate in 1985?
MR. CRAWFORD:

Objection, asked and

answered.

Obj ection, foundation.
m f ami 1
i a r

wit h

it.

It was established

before my arrival or personal participation in

establishing that number.

It seemed like a reasonable

number to me then as it does

today.
MTU per

Has there ever been a time Slnce you

been at the Department of Energy that a 3, 000
year rate did not seem reasonable?
MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection, vague. Obj ection, lack of

Objection, asked and

answered.

foundation.
As this lS used In this case, as an
assumption for an operating facility rate and

21 l capaci ty, it was a reasonable number.
In C, do I understand this correctly that

(301) 762-

8282 (202) 861-3410 (800) 292-4789 (703)

D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

288- 0026

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 4 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME CONDUCTED ON MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002

159

foundation.
The failure of 19 -- as we were delayed

there

s more storage costs that are going to have to

be paid for in

society.

So in proposlng this plan, this improved

plan your office was attempting to reduce those

costs,

correct?
MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection

to the extent it

calls for speculation and obj ection to the foundation

and obj ection, vague.
Yes.
Let me

add, it'

s much more than just

cost.

It' s also the intent.

The government should be

trying to take the material and discharge
responsibili ties

its

under the act.

So it' s more than

just cost.

16 ~

And is it your understanding that the
standard contract was entered into between the

government and the utilities with nuclear reactors in
order to carry out the underlying intent of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act?
MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection.

Mischaracterizes
answered.
288- 0026

prior testimony.

Obj ection, asked and

(301) 762-8282 (202)

D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
861-

3410 ~800)

292-

4789 (703)

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 5 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME CONDUCTED ON MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002

160

Objection ,

foundation.

Obj ection to the extent it

calls for speculation.

To me the contract was administri via
aspects of the program.

for

What?
Administri via.

Can you explain that novel term to me?

Paperwork.
attention to the

Legal stuff. contract. We were

I didn t pay much

-- our sights were

set on trying to perform, to take the waste into the

government system as quickly as

possible.

Consistent wi th

the intent of the act?

Act.
subpiece of the
is tertiary.

Not -- the contract is a small

act.

The act is primary; the contract

Your sights were focused on the
requirement s of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of

1982,

correct?
Correct.
Continuing on page 28, subparagraph one
towards the bottom of the page, would you take a

moment to look at

that, sir.
861-

(301) 762-

8282 (202)

D. REPORTING COMPANY , INC.

3410 (800)

292-

4789 (703)

288- 0026

~ """,-

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 6 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT , VOLUME CONDUCTED ON MONDAY, APRIL 22 , 2002

196

Positions by decision group, current

status?
Yes.
You see under Decisions Group it has

aggregate acceptance, the first entry, system study on
technical basis under review confirms 3, 000 MTU per

year?

I see it.
That'
s consistent with your testimony
today, correct, that -MR. CRAWFORD:
MR. CAYNE:

Obj ection.

Could I finish, counsel.

MR. CRAWFORD:

Sorry.

That'

s consistent with your testimony today

that in 1986 your office was projecting a 3, 000 MTU

per year acceptance rate, correct?
MR. CRAWFORD:
Obj ection , vague.

Seems consistent.

Do you know what the, or are you familiar
wi th the system study that is being referred to in

this entry?

Not the specific

one.

Do you have a general understanding of the

(301) 762-

8282 (202)

D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
861-

3410 (800)

292-

4789 (703)

288- 0026

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 7 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME CONDUCTED ON MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002

197
system study being referred to here?
MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection.

As ked

and

answered.
There were varlOUS studies done in the

eighties and also in the very early nineties on system

performance rate, you know, what the costs

were,

schedules were,
issues, correct?

plausibility of

them.

And these system studies looked at system

Yes.
And am I correct that each one of these
studies to which you ve just referred confirmed an

acceptance rate, an aggregate acceptance rate of 3, 000
MTU per year?
MR. CRAWFORD:

Well, obj ection,

vague.

I think it'

s overstated to say it confirmed

it.

It showed that, you know , at 2, 000 it ~oes

this,

at 3, 000 it does that, 4, 000 it does something

different. I don t know if they actually reached an absolute confirmation that 3, 000 was the exact number, but generally they supported the system rate of 3, 000 was a reasonable rate.
(301) 762-

8282 (202)

D. REPORTING COMPANY , INC.
861-

3410 (800)

292-

4789 (703)

288- 0026

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 8 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME CONDUCTED ON MONDAY , APRIL 22 , 2002

198
So it' s your understanding or your

knowledge that each of the various system studies to

which you just referred that were undertaken in the -from the mid- 1980s to I think you said the mid- 1990s,

supported an acceptance rate of 3, 000 MTU per

year,

correct?
MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection, vague.

Obj ection, assumes facts not in
mischaracterizes prior

evidence.

Obj ection,

testimony.

Yes.
ll ask you to turn to page HQ 0002909 of
this same exhibi

Okay.
Do you see under the second

entry,

allocation of acceptance under consequences of
decisions, it says

allocation required to plan
Do you see that

maximum ~~orage at some sites.

statement?

I see it.
Do you understand that statement?

No.
Do you understand that statement to refer

(301) 762-

8282 (202)

L. A. D. REPORTING COMPANY ,
861-

3410 (800)

292-

4789 (703)

INC.

288- 0026

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 9 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME CONDUCTED ON MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002

209
but certainly site designation was a key
Look at page two of this
Arabic at the bottom.

matter. document, two in

Okay.
You see the

statement, " As

specified in the

contracts, the ACR is for planning purposes only
MR. CRAWFORD:
MR. CAYNE:

Where are you?

m at the last sentence of the

carryover paragraph -- next to the last sentence of

the carryover paragraph on the top of page

two.

read
You

it.

see that?
your knowledge does the contract

Yes.

actually make that statement, the standard contract?
Don t know.

Have you ever been advised by anyone of the

statement on this page two that the ACR is for planning purposes only?

ve heard that

statement.

Have you ever made that statement?
Don t recall.

Might have.

(301) 762-

8282 (202)

D. REPORTING COMPANY , INC.
861-

3410 (800)

292-

4789 (703)

288- 0026

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-7 Filed 06/28/2004 Page 10 of 23 OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME DEPOS ITION CONDUCTED ON MONDAY , APRIL 22, 2002

210
Is that your position?

Yes.
MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection, foundation.

Yes.
And what is the basis for that position?
MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection to the extent it

calls for a legal

conclusion.
asked.

My staff has advised me that' s the proper

thing to say when

What members of your staff?

people who

Mr. Brownstein, Mr. Zabransky and the are responsible in that area.
When did they give you that advice?

Numerous times over many
Starting when?

years.
93 on I would

Probably when I came back

guess.
Did they glve you that advice in the

context

of discussions relating to the issue of

whether operations would start at the repository by
January 31st, 1998?
MR . CRAWFORD:

Obj ection, vague.

(301) 762-

8282 (202) 861-3410 (800) 292-4789 (703)

L. A. D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

288- 0026

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 11 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME CONDUCTED ON MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002

217
Did you ever read part of a DCS?

Might have.

Don t know.

What is a DCS?

Well -MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection.

As ked

and

answered.
I understand the

title.

Deli very commitment schedule.
Do you understand what role it played in
the overall SNF process?
MR. CRAWFORD:
Obj ection , foundation.

These were all part of the administrative

details of the contract that I did not pay much management policy attention

to.

So in your view was a DCS what you referred

to, Mr. Barrett, I think the term was administrivia?

That'

s correct.

A deli very commitment

schedule was

administri via?
Uh- huh.

Didn t really matter much to you, correct?

That'

s correct, relative to running the

(301) 762-

8282 (202)

D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
861-

3410 (800)

292-

4789 (703)

288-0026

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 12 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME CONDUCTED ON MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002

218
program and getting the

site.

So you really did not have a particular

understanding of what role or what function the

overall administrative process that a DCS played; it
was just another kind of bureaucratic piece of paper

correct?
MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection, vague.

Obj ection, mischaracterizes the witness

s prior

tes timony .

And obj ection to the foundation.

Correct?
Yes.
My statement is correct?

Correct.
Would you turn to page seven of Exhibit
Are you there, sir?

Yes.
You see the section captioned Proj ected

Waste Acceptance Capacity?

Tha t ' s the caption of the

section?
Yes. Yes.
And about seven lines down there s a
sentence that begins, " The schedule will serve as a
D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
861-

(301) 762-8282 (202)

3410 (800) 292-4789 (703)

288- 0026

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004
H.

Page 13 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE

BARRETT, VOLUME CONDUCTED ON MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002

260
the Department of

Energy, correct?
Obj ection to the

MR. CRAWFORD:

foundation.

That'

s my understanding.

How in your knowledge or in your view could
the amendments act of ' 87 have affected the

purchasers?
MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection to the

foundation.

Objection ,

calls for speculation.

By making it more difficult for the

department to achieve a 1998 date.
And how would that have affected the

purchasers.
If we could not select a place by law we

couldn

t move the fuel, therefore the fuel would

remain there longer.
And that would have what impact on the

purchasers?
MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection as to

speculation.

Obj ection to the

foundation.

Primarily one

cost, that

they would have

store the fuel. Additional cost?
D.

(301) 762-8282 (202)

REPORTING COMPANY , INC.
861-

3410 (800) 292-4789 (703)

288-0026

.....

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 14 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT , VOLUME CONDUCTED ON MONDAY, APRIL 22 , 2002

261

Addi tional cost.
Costs in addition to those that would have

been incurred had the repository been up and running

by January 31st,

1998, correct?
Obj ection to foundation.

MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection to the extent it calls for
The system running by
reposi tory and MRS.

speculation. 1998, being the

So you re referring to costs, additional

costs that would have been sustained by the
utili ties -- you re referring to additional costs that

would have been sustained by the utili ties that would

not have been incurred had the waste management system
been up and running by January 31st, 1998 , correct?

Correct. Please turn to page seven. paragraph. Actually, would you take
Okay.

First full
moment,

please,

to read that, the two paragraphs on page

seven.

Did your office attempt to quantify the

proj ected increase in the purchasers ' need for at- reactor storage as a result of the delay in
D.

the

(301) 762-8282 (202) 861-3410 (800) 292-4789 (703)

REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

288-0026

-~,
LJ"", VJI' Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

IV., vr 1.1\"-1:. 833-7 Document n. UAKKt 1 1 , VULUM1:. I Filed 06/28/2004 CONDUCTED ON MONDAY , APRIL 22 , 2002

Page 15 of 23
68 (Pages 269 to 272)

269

271

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEPONENT \, Lake H. Barrett , dQ hereby acknowledge that I have read and examined the foregoing testimony, and the same is a true , correct and complete transcription Qfthe testimony given by me and any corrections
appear on the attached Errata s

ERRATA SHEET
IN RE: YANKEE A TOMICv. UNITED STATES
RETIJRN BY:

4 PAGE LINE CORRECTION AND

REASON

t signed by me.

t::/17/ (It(DATE)

(DATE)

(SIGNATURE)

210
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER. NOTARY PUBLIC
, Diane Gomez. Registered Professional , Reporter.

272

ERRATA SH EET CONTIN UED
IN RE: YANKEE ATOMIC v . UNITED STATES

the officer before whom the foregoing proceedings were
4 taken , do hereby certify that the foregoing 'r~nscrip'

3 RETURN

BY:

4 PAGE LINE CORRECTION AND

5 , is II. 'rue and correct record of the proceedings; that
said proceedings were taken ,by me stenographically and

REASON

7 ' tbereafto;r rtduced to t)-pe,writing under my
supervision; and that I am neither counsel for;

9, related to, nor employed by any oflhe parties to this,

8 -

II ilsoutcome.
14 , 2002.

10 case and have no inlerest , financial or otherwise. in

12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
J3 and affixed my nolarial seal this 25th day of April

15 My commission exp ires:
, June 14

2005

20 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
21 THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

(DATE)

(SIGNATURE)

LAD. REPORTING COMPANY , INc. (301) 762- 8282 (202) 861-3410 ' (800) 292-4789 (703) 288- 0026

.", ..,~"."-""""",

.,."

.-."... ...._", ".. ,,, ~-",.."

~,, ...

.,", ,

, ' "

. '.' ,'" -"

",,-

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-7 BARRETT, VOLUME 1 DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. Filed 06/28/2004 Page 16 of 23 CONDUCTED ON MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002

271

IN RE:

YANKEE ATOMIC v. UNITED STATES
MAY

RETURN BY:
PAGE

27. 2002

LINE
I L-

CORRECTION AND REASON
t2 '7 ~

ilL

fi t/'-t:-

!d

/2(:

/e1N"-

(DATE)

(301) 762-

8282 (202)

D. REPORTING COMPANY , INC.
861-

3410 (800)

292-

4789 (703)

288- 0026

-' ,

"",""

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 17 of 23

273
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY;
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER
COMPANY; MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC
POWER COMPANY;

Case Nos. 98-126C,
98-154C, 98-474C, 98-483C, 98-484C,

FLORIDA POWER

98- 485C, 98- 48 6C,
98-488C, 98-614C,

LIGHT COMPANY; NORTHERN STATES

POWER COMPANY; DUKE POWER , a
Di vision of DUKE ENERGY CORP.

98- 621C, 99- 447C,
00-440C, 00-695C,

INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY;

00-703C, 01-115C,

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY

01- 116C, 01- 249C

(Caption continued on next

page)

Continued Deposition of LAKE H. BARRETT

Washington, D.

C.

Tuesday, April 23, 2002

9:36 a.
Job No. : 11792 -

Pages 273 through 526, Volume 2

Reported by:

Diane Gomez , RPR

D.

REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1150, Washington ,
o.

1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW . Suite

c. 20036 . 202. 861. 3410
. E-mail:lisa~ladreporting. com

Fax: 202. 861.3425

. 800. 292. 4789 . Website: ladreporting. com

NATIONWIOf COURT REPORTERS AND VIOEOGRAPHERS

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 18 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME 2 CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY , APRIL 23, 2002

274

DISTRICT; SOUTHERN NUCLEAR
OPERATING COMPANY, et al.

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY;

BOSTON EDISON COMPANY; GPU

NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED; WISCONSIN

ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY; POWER

AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW

YORK; OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT;:

NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT;
and TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

Plaintiffs
THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - X

i"'-W""""

"ww.w."",

"',"k__~""

(301) 762-

8282 (202)

D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
861-

3410 (800) 292-4789 (703)

288-0026

, ,~~', "",~""""""""""

""""."""

,,,

"~""

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 19 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME 2 CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, APRIL 23 , 2002

348
Is it your testimony then that it would

have been less costly for the Department of Energy to

operate a repository for a period of 80, 90 or more
years than it would have been for the department to

operate a reposi tory

in the ballpark of 30 years?

MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection to the foundation.

Objection ,

vague.

No.
In fact, it would have been much more
expensi ve to the department to operate the repository

for a period of 80, 90 or more years as contrasted
wi th operations in the ballpark of 30 years, correct?

Yes.
Are you aware of any TSLCC or fee adequacy
study undertaken at any time that assumed a repository

design receipt rate of 900 MTUs per year on a steady
state basis?

No.

Are you aware of any TSLCC

fee adequacy

study that assumed
No.

900 MTU per

year acceptance rate

steady state basis?
""",""""'d,

d , "ill,o" ,

(301) 762-8282 (202) 861-3410 (800) 292-4789 (703)

D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

288- 0026

",,

.,,,"," "

~"'"

---""

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-7 Filed 06/28/2004 Page 20 of 23 DEPOS ITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT , VOLUME 2 CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002

349
In fact, Mr. Barrett, to your knowledge

have not all of the TSLCC and fee adequacy studies

assumed 3, 000 MTU per year acceptance rates or

reposi tory design receipt
MR. CRAWFORD:

rates?

Obj ection to the foundation.

To your

knowledge, sir.

Repeat the question

again.
Barrett, have all

To your

knowledge, Mr.

TSLCC or fee adequacy studies issued on or after 1982

assumed a 3, 000 per annum MTU acceptance rate or a

reposi tory design receipt
MR. CRAWFORD:
Some had more.

rate?

Obj ection to the foundation.

Some had more?

Which ones had more?

Ones that had two repositories in it had

rates higher than 3, 000.
What was the highest annual aggregate rate
of any of the TSLCC or fee adequacy studies that

you re referring to?
MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection.

Best evidence.

Some of the earlier

ones, pre- ' 87 ,
.60'

had two

repositories at steady state which would run higher at
"x" ,.w~,"

(301) 762-

8282 (202)

D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
861-

3410 (800)

292-

4789 (703)

288- 0026

-'~~"-"""'

~'",,~"'

, -"'

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 21 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME 2 CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002

350 i

nominal 6, 000 tons.
Per year?

Per year.

All recent ones, since

' 87 or
000.

to my knowledge are basically

steady

state at

And by recent ones
In the

sorry.
year.

1990s the TSLCCs had a state steady

receipt rate at 3, 000 tons per

And what about the most recent study?
I believe the most recent ones -MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection, best evidence.

-- is 3, 000 tons per year steady

state.

(Deposi tion

Exhibi t Barrett 15 was marked

for identification and was retained by counsel.

Mr. Barrett, the court reporter has handed
you a document marked for identification as Exhibit
15, which is a mul tipage document, the first page of

which is a routing and transmittal slip directed to

Barret t ,

J. Hale, S. Brocoum , B- r-

m, A.

Brownstein, B-

s-t-

n, W. Danker

r, MRS team and D. Shelor, Sattached to that is a multipage " memorandum that the
subj ect line reads
OW'&/""""Cw~"""Mk,"~ "

And

" Document Change Proposal to
""'i'" "Cw-"',i""""""W',*"M","'C"~"A""""",,"~, Cw,

(301) 762-8282 (202)

D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
861-

3410 (800)

292-

4789 (703)

288- 0026

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Filed 06/28/2004

Page 22 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME 2 CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, APRIL 23 , 2002

414
reposi tory,

you understand that?
' 87 legislation authorize the

Yes.
But did the

construction and operation of an MRS facility that was

not compliant with each of the links established by
the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of

1982?
MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection, best evidence.

I th~nk the way you phrased that the answer
is no.

Did you not understand the question?

Your phraseology had a double negative in

it, so I think the answer was

no.

Let me try to ask the question again

because we want the record

clear.

Did the 1987

legislation authorize the construction and operation

of an MRS facility that was not compliant with each of

the links established by the 1987 amendment to the
NWPA?

No.
MR. CRAWFORD:

Obj ection.

Best evidence.

So you agree with me that such an MRS was
U. KEPORTING COMPANY , INC.
861-

(301) 762-

8282 (202)

3410 (800) 292-4789 (703)

288- 0026

....

"""""""""""','

",
Filed 06/28/2004

, "

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 833-7

Page 23 of 23

DEPOSITION OF LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME 2 CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002

415
not lawful in

1989, correct?
Obj ection.
As ked

MR. CRAWFORD:

and

answered.
The answer is
And in fact -I do.

yes.

And, in fact, such an MRS never became
lawful under the laws of the United States, correct?

Yes.
Turn your attention to page four of Exhibit
16, please.

The second full paragraph , Mr. Barrett.

Are you there?
Yes.
MR. CRAWFORD:
MR. CAYNE:

What page?

Page four of the attachment to

Exhibit 16.
MR. CRAWFORD:
MR. CAYNE:

Which paragraph are we on?

The second full

paragraph.
The

It starts, in conclusion number four

commission found that an MRS link as provided in the

current law would not be justified, especially in
light of uncertainties in completion time for the
=h4# """'~

",C, '

"",w"

(301) 762-

8282 (202)

D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
861-

3410 (800)

292-

4789 (703)

288- 0026