.-'
---------------Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 780-8
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 1 of 12
March 13
2002
Mclean. VA
246
(00 -440C) (Bush, J.
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
(00- 697C) (Merow, S.
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
(00- 703C)
(Damich, J.
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
(01-115C) (Bush, J.
NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
(01-116C) (Sypolt, J.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
(01- 249C)
(Bruggink, J.
Plaintiffs,
Discovery
THE UNITED STATES,
: Judge:
Defendant.
McLean , Virginia
: (Judge
- - - - -xSypol
Wednesday, March 13, 2002
Continued deposition of BILLY M. COLE
a witness, recalled for examination by counsel
for Plaintiffs in the above-entitled matter
pursuant to notice, the witness being duly sworn
by CATHERINE
S. BOYD
a Notary Public in and for
Virginia
the Commonweal th of
taken at the
1650 Tysons
offices of Shaw
Pittman, LLP
0096
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
III I 14th Street ,
N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 780-8
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 2 of 12
March 13 , 2002
Mclean. VA
480
draft.
No.
I wasn't party to it, but
Do you know whether, during the course
of your involvement with the standard
contract,
whether certain utilities objected to DOE the
possibility that DOE would give priority to
shutdown reactors?
Yes, I do.
As part of the issue
resolution process, one of the issues, I can I
remember which number it was, should priority be
given to shutdown reactors?
And since that was an equity issue, we
tossed it across the table to the utility
representatives.
They took it and met wi
th - -
sent it
out to all utilities, and got a consensus back
to DOE on
it.
And the consensus was under no
circumstances will priority be given to shutdown
reactors.
issue --
That was their
finding.
And when you say it was an equi
If I take fuel away from a shutdown
then I can
I t take
one away from operating if
you I ve only got so much capacity.
0097
Alderson Kepornng \..-ompauy, Inc.
1111 14th Street, N. w. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 780-8
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 3 of 12
March 13 , 2002
McLean. VA
481
From DOE' s standpoint, if it was fine
with the utilities
it was fine with DOE?
That'
They don'
s right.
s right.
DOE are truck drivers.
t care.
That'
And there was a memo
that came back from DOE, I mean from the
utilities by the chairman of that committee
saying this is their position.
At that time,
Zabransky.
the chairman of that
committee is now a DOE employee, Mr. David
m going to hand you a memo dated
June 28th, 1991 , from Mr. McDuffie and Mr. Vance
to Mr. Brownstein and Mr. Langstaff , and its
subject is recommended DOE positions on 17
contract implementation
, Okay.
issues.
(The witness reviewed the document.
THE WITNESS:
Okay.
BY MR. MACDONALD:
In your testimony, testimony a moment
ago, you referred to the issue resolution
process, and specifically the response that came
back from the utilities on the shutdown reactor
priority?
0098
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
::!.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 780-8
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 4 of 12
March 13 ,
2002
Mclean. VA
"",0
482
That I S
correct.
Would you turn to the bot tom of page
4, top of page 5?
Okay.
This appears to be ID No. 15 or Issue
No. 15, acceptance priority for shutdown
reactors?
Um- hm.
And the position has two, it has two
elements, Phase 1 and Phase 2?
Um- hm.
And Phase 1 says since this issue is primarily an equity issue among the purchasers
an has no impacts on WMS performance or public
safety, DOE concurs with purchasers' consensus
view that no priority shall be afforded to
shutdown reactors during the start-up phase of
the WMS?
Correct.
What does that, the last phrase mean
during the start-up phase of the WMS?
The first few years of
operation,
they
re not going to sit there and impact the
operating reactors.
Once we get to them , you know , as the
0099
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 780-8
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 5 of 12
March 13 , 2002
Mclean. VA
483
next phase says, in the first line, as the
system matures, then we'll reconsider this thing
where we can , we can start taking this stuff
from shutdown reactors.
And do you think that was, to your
knowledge, was that DOE' s position?
I don't know if they wound up
formalizing that or not because these were
recommendations to DOE, what we recommended be
done with those positions.
I don' t know where, I don
I t know
whatever happened to the resolve of most of
these.
I jus t don' t know.
I can
I t
remember.
And Phase 2 continues there and
says,
quote, when the WMS receipt rate exceeds the
aggregate purchasers I annual discharge rates and
all purchasers can be assured that they will not
need additional add reactor storage, DOE may
elect
shu tdown
allocate acceptance priority to reactors to facilitate the permanent
those sites
That I s
soon as possible?
closure
true.
That was
recommendation , that they consider
that.
Did you have discussions with Mr.
0100
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street , No w. Suite 400 1- 800-FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 780-8
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 6 of 12
March 13 , 2002
Mclean. VA
484
McDuffie or Mr. Vance while this recommendation
was being developed?
The development process was going on
prior to this date,
times, and I don
yes.
We have had discussions on this many
I t remember ,
you know,
specifically on this date or this draft, but I'
very familiar with this, and we have discussed
it, yes.
And it was, was it your view that once
the receipt rate or acceptance rate exceeded the
discharge rate, that priority could be given to
shutdown reactors?
It says, it says you may give
it.
The, the problem that I s going
to occur in that
is you have to wait until your system is well
along and fully matured and everybody is
comfortable and fuel is being moved for a
while.
Otherwise you with the shutdown
reactor ,
and some guy has got an operating
reactor and he' s got a right to ship some fuel
that year , he
I s not going to want to give up his
rights for you to ship that fuel, not unless we
have emptied sufficient amount away from him the
previous years where he
I S not going
0101
to have a
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, No w. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
. :'
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 780-8
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 7 of 12
March 13 , 2002
Mclean. VA
485
problem.
He' s going to be concerned about
continue operating, so you have to wait for the
system to mature well enough and everybody feels
comfortable that it' s all
, it' s over all the
to shut itself down
hiccoughs, it' s not going and it' s moving along.
We just want a recognition that even
though the utilities came back and said under no
circumstances, as a consensus, should priority
be to shut down reactors, we felt we still need
to leave that door open and they may want to do
that to help them in the decommissioning
process.
And when you say that the utilities came back with that view, do you know if SMUD or
other shutdown reactors as of 1991 shared that
view?
. No, I
do not.
I would imagine the
owners of the shutdown reactors did not share
that view , but if you get a two-thirds
consensus, I can tell you 90 percent were
operating, and so it I S not surprising.
Also I know even though I was not at
those meetings, where they had private meetings
0102
Alderson Keportmg company, Inc.
1111 14th Street, No W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Billy Cole
Document 780-8
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 8 of 12
March 13 , 2002
Mclean. VA
486
with the utilities to go over these
have a friends.
things, I
I know that some of the things
that came out of those meetings.
They had trouble even figuring out
what was a consensus, and Commonwealth Edison
got up and made the statement we agree two
thirds
should be consensus as long as we'
part
of the two thirds.
There I S a lot of people involved in
this. Unfortunately, it I S not one contract.
Was oldest fuel first considered an
efficient way to deliver fuel?
No, not necessarily an efficient way
to deliver it.
It was the efficient way to allocate
capacity.
To try to find a way
- - you I
honoring the fact that the guys who have the
oldest fuel also have the oldest reactors and
been operating the longest period of time, so
they should have the first rights, so the age of
the fuel established the priority for
acceptance, not what fuel is going to be
taken.
Now in a perfect world, it would be a
nice way if you didn
I t have
to worry about
campaigning and things like that, age of the
0103
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 780-8
Washington , D.
,
Page 9 of 12
Filed 04/06/2004
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 1HE PROTECTIVEORDER- YOLUME II May 15 2002
Page 242
;t,,",4:~
, 1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY, MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC
POWER CO., and CONNECT I CUT
CerIIed Copy
Case No. 98- 126C,
: 98- 47
YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.,
Plaintiff$,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
4C, 98- 154C
: (Senior Judge Merrow)
Defendant.
: VOLUME II
Washington, D . C .
Wednesday, May 15, 2002
, I
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
, O
:::0'
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005
0104
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-8
Washington , D.
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 10 of 12
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 1HE PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME II May 15, 2002
Page 363
Is that a fair characterization?
Yes. Okay.
Number 1, " Granting
priority can
be shown to be lest costly to DOE
I S waste
management system.
Do you believe that a shutdown utility
could make that showing?
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection.
Speculation.
Possibly.
Okay.
Well, I mean the question is not
whether this would always be true, but whether --
the question included possibly.
Is it possible
that a shutdown utility could make that showing?
m not sure that " possibly " is a fair answer to
that.
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection.
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?
Yes.
And is it possible that granting
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 111114th Street , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005
0105
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-8
Washington, D.
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 11 of 12
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDEN'I1AL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 1HE PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME II May 15, 2002
Page 364
priority acceptance -- this is Number 2 -- to a shutdown utility -- I 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
unders tanding?
Yes.
And I take it you would agree that
granting priority -- this is a different question
-- not whether the showing could be made, but I
take it you would agree that granting priority to a
shutdown reactor can be shown, at least in some
circumstances, to avoid the establishment
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 400 800-FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 111114th Street , N. W. Suite
20005
0106
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-8
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 12 of 12
Lake H. Barrett CONTAINS CONFIDEN'I1AL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 1HE PROTECTIVE ORDER- VOLUME II May 15 2002
Washington, D.
Page 365
otherwise unneeded reactor site storage
facilities?
Yes.
MS. HERRMANN:
Objection.
Speculation.
And Number 4, " Granting priority can be
shown to be clearly cost-effective for consumers
from the. standpoint of timely
talked about that earlier.
MS. HERRMANN:
decommissioning.
I take it you agree with that?
Objection.
Speculation.
Yes.
All right.
abou t .
And Number 5 is an overall
policy issue which I think we have also talked
Okay.
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. , N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR-DEPO Washington , DC 20005 111114th Street
0107