- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 833-11
Washington , D.
Page 242
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 1 of 13
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TIll PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME II May 15 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY , MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC
CerIIfted Copy
: Case No. 98- 126C,
: 98- 474C,
POWER CO. , and CONNECTICUT
YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
98- 154C
: (Senior Judge Merrow)
Defendant.
: VOLUME II
Washington, D. C .
Wednesday, May 15, 2002
Deposition of LAKE H. BARRETT, a witness herein
called for examination by counsel for Defendant in
the above-entitled matter , pursuant to notice, the
witness being previously duly sworn , taken at the
offices of Spriggs & Hollingsworth , 1350 Eye
Street ,
N. W., Washington, D. C., commencing at 9:05
m., Wednesday, May 15, 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. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPOWashington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 833-11
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 2 of 13
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL lNFORMA TION PURSUANT TO TIll PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME II May 15 , 2002
Washington , Do
Page 363
Is that a fair characterization?
Yes. Okay.
Number 1, " Granting
priority can
be shown to be lest costly to DOE' s waste
management system.
Do you believe that a shutdown utility
could make that showing?
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ection.
Speculation.
Possibly.
Okay.
Well , I mean the question is not
Is it possible
whether this would always be true, but whether --
the question included possibly.
that a shutdown utility could make that showing? I m not sure that " possibly " is a fair answer to
that.
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ection.
Speculation.
Asked and answered.
What was the question?
The question is could a shutdown
reactor, is it possible that a shutdown reactor
could show that granting priority acceptance to it
would be less costly to DOE' s -- would reduce the
cost of the waste management system?
24 '-
Yes.
And is it possible that granting
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Lake H. Barrett
Document 833-11
Washington , D.
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 3 of 13
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TIll PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME
11 May 15 , 2002
Page 364
priority acceptance -- this is Number 2 -- to a
shutdown utility -- I' m paraphrasing -- could be
shown to involve small enough quantities of fuel
compared to the overall DOE acceptance rate so as not to jeopardize the timely removal of spent fuel
from other sites.
Is it possible that they could
make that showing?
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection.
Speculation.
You use the word timely in an absolute
sense.
The answer is
no.
Okay.
So it is your opinion that
granting priority acceptance to a shutdown
reactor would necessarily involve a schedule
impact to some other utility or utilities?
other words, there is no play in the
system.
you got priority for one, somebody else would
necessarily have to move; is that your
understanding?
Yes.
20
21 grantlng priority -- this is a different question
-- not whether the showing could be made, but I
. Q. And
I take it you would agree that
23
24 ,
take it you would agree that granting priority to a
shutdo~ reactor can
be shown, at least in
so~
circumstances, to avoid the establishment of
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
"...
""""'"
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 833-11
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 4 of 13
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMA TlON PURSUANT TO TIll PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME II May 15 2002
Washington , D.
Page 365
otherwise unneeded reactor site storage
facilities?
Yes.
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ection.
Speculation.
And Number 4, " Granting priority can be
shown to be clearly cost-effective for consumers
from the standpoint of timely decommissioning.
I take it you agree with that?
talked about that earlier.
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ection.
Speculation.
Yes.
All right.
about.
Okay.
And Number 5 is an overall
policy issue which I think we have also talked
I think we have exhausted that one, and
I just have a couple more questions for you about
your prior testimony and I hope we can wrap this
up.
So all my remaining questions, I believe, are
going to concern either Exhibit Number
100 or
Exhibit Number 97, which are the first two days of
your testimony in this deposition , so you might
want to have those
handy.
Before we turn to those I do have one
other question.
Yesterday we talked about
something, and I believe, Mr. Barrett, it concerned
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 833-11
Washington , Do
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 5 of 13
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMA TlON PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME 11 May 15 , 2002
Page 394
schedule and would not have picked up Yankee
Atomic s GTCC on the same schedule?
Do you know that the government has
taken that position in this case?
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ection.
Foundation.
No.
But you understand the position that I
just explained to you , that I just stated to you?
Yes.
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection.
Foundation.
Is it your expectation that when the
Department begins to accept and remove from the
site Yankee Atomic
I s standard spent fuel, is it I s failed
your expectation that the Department will not
accept on the same schedule Yankee Atomic
fuel?
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection.
Foundation.
Speculation.
Repeat the question , please.
Yes.
Is it --
MR. STOUCK:
Let'
s read it back.
(The record was read as requested.
MS. HERRMANN:
Same objections.
It was spent fuel and --
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 833-11
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 6 of 13
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME II May 15, 2002
Washington , Do
Page 395
First is standard and second is failed?
MS. HERRMANN:
You can have it read
again.
MR. STOUCK:
Yes, read it again.
(The record was read as requested.
Can you define expectation a little bit
or not?
BY MR. STOUCK:
Well, I will accept a definition from
you if you are uncertain about the
word.
I mean,
do you think it' s going to happen that way?
MS. HERRMANN:
Same objections.
When all is said and done, my
expectation ,
what I really think will happen is
when it moves along it will move together -contemporary, it will all move contemporary,
that'
s the failed fuel and the standard
Now, a different question:
fuel.
Is it your
expectation that when the Department of Energy
commences the acceptance of Yankee Atomic s spent
fuel ,
it will accept at the same time
contemporaneously Yankee Atomic s GTCC and remove
it away from the site?
25 Speculation.
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ection.
Foundation.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 833-11
Washington , Do
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 7 of 13
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMA TlON PURSUANT TO TIll PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME II May 15 , 2002
Page 396
Ao When all extraneous legal matters are ~
finally resolved my expectation is the greater
than Class C waste will go at the same
time,
contemporaneously, at the same
time.
And why is it -- let' s start, take them
one at a time.
Why do you expect that the failed
what you refer to
at the end of the
fuel, putting aside extraneous matters, failed fuel will go
standard fuel?
happen?
the day the
I s likely to
con tempor aneous I y with the
Why do you think that
MS. HERRMANN:
Foundation.
Speculation.
Because it is my understanding that the
physical configuration of the spent fuel at Yankees are somewhat similar to normal spent fuel
handling, so there is none that I know of -- there
are no sneak technical reasons why it could not be
accepted into the
system.
And that, from a common
sense point of view, we should resolve these, you
know, other legality matters, and if you have a
campaign you want to move all the fuel at
once.
And would you give the same answer if I
asked you the same question about the basis for
your expectation that GTCC would move
.-J
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 833-11
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 8 of 13
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TIll PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME II May 15 , 2002
Washington , D. C.
Page 397
2,
(conte~oraneOUSIY with the spent
MS. HERRMANN:
fuel?
Objection. Foundation.
complex,
Speculation.
It is similar, but more because there is a lot of administrative matters that have to happen regarding the authorization of
greater than Class C, so it is not as simple -you are dealing with another class of
materials,
time.
but when all is said and done, at the end of the
day, I believe that should go at the same
11 ~
wi th respect to GTCC, if I limited the
question to removal from the site at the same
time, then would you agree that these additional
complexi ties that you referred to would not come
into play because those complexities relate to
disposal and placement?
Do you understand my question?
MS. HERRMANN:
Obj ection.
19 I
from the Yankee site
If I were to ask a different question
about whether you expect the GTCc to be removed
By whom?
By the Department of
Energy,
contemporaneous with the spent fuel without regard
251 to where
the GTCC
goes, would you give
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 833-11
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 9 of 13
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL lNFORMA TION PURSUANT TO TIll PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME II May 15 , 2002
Washington , Do
Page 398
substantially the same answer that you gave with
failed fuel?
In other words, these complexities,
the complexities that you referred to with respect
to the GTCC, you said the bottom line was
essentially the same,
but there was more
complexities, because it is a different class of
materials.
Correct.
My question is do those complexities
concern only destination for the GTCC and
emplacement in the repository or disposal in the
repository, or do those complexities also bear on
the question of what happens at the Yankee site
and the removal of GTCc from the Yankee
MS. HERRMANN:
legal conclusion.
site?
Objection.
Calls for a
Those additional complexities primarily
have to do with the government' s authority or
nonauthority and where the government is going to
put it under what, legislation, et cetera.
little to do with anything at the Yankee
It has
site.
And also, just for
completeness, I
limi ted my
questions at the outset'to failed fuel
and GTCC and the timing of their removal from the
Yankee Atomic site, but if I were to ask you the
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 833-11
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 10 of 13
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME II May 15 2002
Washington , Do
Page 399
I~
same questions about those matters with respect to
Connecticut Yankee and Maine Yankee, would you
give me the same answers?
MS. HERRMANN:
I don
Same obj ections .
t -- I knew -- I think I know
more about the configurations at the Yankee Rowe
site.
I don
t know what is being considered or I
don I t know enough to be as conclusive as I was
about Maine Yankee or Connecticut
Yankee.
Okay.
As you can be about Yankee
Atomic?
Right.
What is it about the configurations
that you would need to know to compare?
Are we
talking about cask configurations, crane
configurations, transportational issues or what
are we talking about
or what are you talking
about?
The ability to handle failed fuel, does
it handle like a normal fuel assembly or is it
unique in 10- ton canisters which are much more
complex to handle.
If we have to go in and vacuum
out fuel pieces from a 10- ton
significant consideration.
canister, that I s
the case at
That may or may
That I S not
Yankee Rowe is my understanding.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 833-11
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 11 of 13
May IS , 2002
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME II
Washington , D.
Page 400
not be the case at other
sites.
Anything else that you can think of -if I wanted to find out if the answer you gave
for Yankee Atomic also applied to Maine Yankee and
Connecticut Yankee for failed fuel, what other
things would I look out for to see if your answer
applies there?
That I s the
only one I can think of.
with respect to GTCC, likewise if I
wanted to find out if your answer for Yankee
Atomic applied to the other two sites, what
factors would bear on whether or not the answer
did apply?
If they have packaged it such that it
is relatively standard handling, meanlng like a
spent fuel assembly, the same should apply at the
other sites.
MR. STOUcK:
Okay.
Mr. Barrett, thank
you for your testimony over these many
have no further questions.
days. . I
I will tell you that
it has been our practice, meaning the plaintiffs
in these cases -- there are some disputes between
the parties that are ongoing about the production
of documents, some of them are
privileged, et
cetera.
There are some things we want from the
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 833-11
Washington, D.
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 12 of 13
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS COk . JENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE PROThdlVE ORDER- VOLUME II May 15. 2002
Page 402
lookout for that.
(Thereupon, at
1: 30 p. m., the taking of
the instant deposition ceased.
of the Witness
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
day of
-6/l7
, 20
02-
Pat l. Austin
My Commission Expires:
NotarYPublic , District of Columbia My Commission Expires 0 .= \4- 006
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 833-11
Filed 06/28/2004
Page 13 of 13
ERRr, . A SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRIPI JF:
Notice Date: May 16, 2002
- Case Name: Yankee Atomic vs. United States
Case Number: 98- 126C- 987 4C Dep. Date: May 15 2002
Deponent: Lake Barrett (cont)
Place: Washington DC 4269-4
Ref. Noo
CORRECTIONS:
Page
Line
Now Reads
Should Read
Reasons Therefore
(Jd
'3J3
i. Z--
;, e. 0 .
S') ( ql7
(Ju(?,
W~J
tlJ);C'J~
1J)
d h~
537
'fro(ov
Date of Signature