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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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