Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPWDEPOSITION OF298-4 H. BARRETT, VOLUME 2 Page 1 of 9 Document LAKE Filed 03/27/2007
CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002 1 (Pages 273 to 276)

273 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 2 3
................. X

275 I Continued Deposition of LAKE H. BARRET]', held 2 at the offices of: 3 4 ARNOLD & PORTER 5 555 12th Street, Northwest 6 Washington, D. C. 20004 7 (202) 942-5000 89 10 12 13 Pursuant tO a~reement, betbre Diane Gomez. 14 Registered Professional Reporter and NotaD' Public in 15 and for the District of Columbia. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY: : Case Nos. 98-126C. CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER : 98-154C, 98-474C.

5 COMPANY; MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC : 98-483C, 98-484C, 6 POWER COMPANY; FLORIDA POWER & : 98-485C. 98-486C. 7 8 9 LIGHT COMPANY; NORTHERN STATES : 98-488Co 98-614C, POWER COMPANY; DUKE POWER, a : 98-621C. 99-447C, Division of DUKE ENERGY CORP : : 00-440C. 00-695C.

10 INDIANA MICH1GAN POWER COMPANY; ¯ 00-?03C. 01-115C. II SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY : 01-116C. 01-249C 12 13 (Caption continued on next page) 14 Continued Deposition of LAKE H. BARRETT 15 16 17 18 19 20 Job No.: 11792-5 21 l~ages 273 through 526, Volume 2 22 Reported by: Diane Gomez, RPR Washington. D. C. Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:36 a.m.

274

276 1 APPEARANCES ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY. NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, DUKE POWER, INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY, BOSTON EDISON COMPANY, GPU NUCLEAR. INC., POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT, and NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT: DEVON E. HEWlTT, ESQUIRE SHAW PITTMAN LLP 1650 Tysons Boulevard McLean, Virginia 22102-4859 (703) 893-0527
ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: JEFFREY L. HANDWEI~KER, ESQUIRE HOWARD CAYNE, ESQUIRE RONALD A. SCHECHTER, ESQUIRE ARNOLD & PORTER 555 12lh Street, Northwest Washington, D. C. 20004-1206 (202") 942-5000

I DISTRICT; SOUTHERN NUCLEAR : 2 2 OPERATING COMPANY, et al.; : 3 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY; : 3 4 4 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY; GPU : 5 NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED; WISCONSIN : 5 6 ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY; POWER : 6 7 7 AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW : 8 ' YORK; OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT;: 8 9 NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT; : 9 10 and TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, : 10 II 11 Plaintiffs : 12 12 V. ~ 13 13 THE UNITED STATES, : 14 14 Defendant : 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22

L.A.D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC. (301) 762-8282 (202) 861-3410 (800) 292-4789 (703) 288-0026

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW Document LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME 2 Page 2 of 9 DEPOSITION OF 298-4 Filed 03/27/2007
CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002 !9 (Pages 345 to 348)

345 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

347

fuel. MR. CRAWFORD: Same objections. A Probably. Q Probably. Now: let's return to the scenario I asked you to consider a few moments ago, that the repository design receipt rate is set at a level of 900 MTUs. Do you recall we discussed that? A Yes. Q And do you recall that you indicated that in order to eliminate the backlog under an annual receipt rate of 900 MTUs, it could take 80, 90, even more years? Do you recall that? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the foundation. Objection to the hypothetical. A It will take considerably longer at 900 versus the 3,000. Q Wouldn't that fhct that it would take considerably longer have an effect on the adequacy of the fee assessment in light of your testimony that the program was intended to be operated on a full cost recovery basis? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

higher than the fee assessment that in actuality was imposed by the department? A No. Q You don't see any circumstance in which the fact that the department would be required to operate the repository tbr 80. 90 or more 3'ears as opposed to in the ballpark of 30)'ears would require the assessment ofhlgher fees. Is that)'our testimony? A Yes. Q And what is the basis of that testimony? A Because the rate of return on the monies not spent would more than pay for the additional costs due to the extended time because this program is front-end loaded dollarwise, it is not back-end loaded dollarwise. So l cannot - at those low expenditure rates of a 900-ton-per-year system you most likely the value of the time of your investments would exceed your costs so that your fee adequacy is probably better. The only exception where you would get into trouble with that in finance space would be if there were other costs on the waste fund that are not parl ofthe system. Such as damages.

346 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2t 22 Objection, vague. A Not necessarily. Q And why did you say that, sir? A Because it all depends upon the amount of capital is there, the return on the investment versus the expenditures. There are different scenarios that were timed generally is on the side to make the fee more adequate. Q But are there definitely scenarios that you can envision sitting here today, Mr. Barrett, that a repository design receipt rate set at 900 MTUs would have required the Department of Energy to have imposed a higher fee assessment upon the operators of nuclear reactors? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the foundation. Objection, vague. A Repeat the question again. Q Certainly. Sitting here today can you identify scenarios under which a repository design rate set at 900 MTUs per year would have required the Department of Energy to have imposed a higher fee assessment upon the operators of nuclear reactors,

348

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22.

Q Is it your testimony then that it would have been less costly tbr the Department of Energy to operate a repository for a period of 80, 90 or more )'ears than it would have been for the department to operate a~repository in the ballpark of 30 years? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the foundation. Objection. vague. A No. Q In fact, it would have been much more expensive to the department to operate the repositoE,' for a period of 80, 90 or more )'ears as contrasted with operations in the ballpark of 30 years, correct? A Yes. Q Are you aware of an)' TSLCC or fee adequacy stud)' undertaken at any time that assumed a repository design receipt rate of 900 MTUs per year on a steady state basis? A No. Q Are you aware of any TSLCC or fee adequacy study that assumed a 900 MTU per year acceptance rate on a steady state basis? A No.

L.A.D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC. (301)762-8282 (202) 861-3410 (800)292-4789 (703)288-0026

DEPOSITION OF LAKE Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW Document 298-4H. BARRETT, VOLUME 2 Page 3 of 9 Filed 03/27/2007 CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002 20 (Pages 349 to

349 Q In fact, Mr. Barrett, to your knowledge 1 2 have not all of the TSLCC and fee adequacy studies 3 assumed 3,000 MTU per )'ear acceptance rates or repository design receipt rates?

351

5 MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the foundation. 6 Q To your knowledge, sir. 7 A Repeat the question again. 8 Q To your knowledge. Mr. Barrett, have all 9 TSLCC or tee adequacY studies issued on or after 1982 1o assumed a 3,000 per annum MTU acceptance rate or a
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 repository design receipt rate? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the foundation. A Some had more. Q Some had more? Which ones had more? A Ones that had two repositories in it had rates higher th~in 3,000. Q What was the highest annual aggregate rate of any of the TSLCC or fee adequacy studies that you're referring to? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection. Best evidence.. A Some of the earlier ones, pre-'87, had two repositories at steady state which would run higher at

I Baseline, the Proposed Waste Acceptance Schedule." Do 2 you have that document before you? 3 A Yes. MR. CRAWFORD: Ho\vard. why don't we go 5 ahead and note the Bates range on the record. MR. CAY-NE: The Bates range of this 6 7 document is CTR-045-1032 -- doesn't look like it's 8 in -- these numbers are off: 9 MR. CRAWFORD: 1 think it's 1041 is 10 probably the last on~. 11 MR. CAYNE: That's correct. Q Do you have that document. Mr. Barrett?. 12 13 A Yes. Q Could you identity' for me who S. Brocoum 14 15 is?
16 A He worked in the Office of Geologic 17 Repositories at that time. 18 Q What was his position? 19 A 1 don't recall what his title was. 20 Q Who is W. Danker? 21 A He worked on international matters. That's 22 all I remember.

350

352

l '2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1 nominal 6,000 tons. Q Per year? 2 A Per year. All recent ones, since '87 or so 3 to my knowledge are basically steady state at 3,000. 4 Q And by recent ones -- I'm sorry. 5 A In the 1990s the TSLCCs had a state steady 6 receipt rate at 3,000 tons per year. 7 Q And what about the most recent study? 8 A I believe the most recent ones9 MR. CRAWFORD: Objection, best evidence. 10 11 A -- is 3,000 tons per year steady state. (Deposition Exhibit Barrett 15 was marked 12 for identification and was retained by counsel.) 13 14 Q Mr. Barrett, the court reporter has handed you a document marked for identification as Exhibit 15 15, which is a multipage document, the first page of 16 which is a routing and transmittal slip directed to L. 17 Barrett, J. Hale, S. Brocoum, B-r-o-c-o-u-m, A. 18 19 Bro.wnstein, B-r-o-w-n-s2t-e-i-n, W. Danker, D-a-n-k-e-r, MRS team and D. Shelor, S-h-e-l-o-r. And 20 attached to that is a multipage memorandum that the 21 subject line reads "Document Change Proposal to 22

Q And who is D. Shelor? A He worked storage and systems engineering Work. Q Who is Joe Daly? A He was a cost analysis type person. Cost analyst I guess is the right term. Q Is this your writing on the first page? A No, it is not. Q Are you able to read the handwriting under the black box in the upper left-hand side of this page? A No. Q Looks to me like "handed over," but l'm not certain. A 1 don't know what that says. No, ! can't figure that out. "Over" looks like the last word. The front part of that, I don't know what it is. Q Have you seen this document and the attached memorandum in the past? A ! don't recall ever seeing it. Q You don't recall ever seeing the attached memorandum? Did you not write the attached

L.A.D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC. (301) 762-8282 (202) 861-3410 (800) 292-4789 (703) 288-0026

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW Document LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME 3 Page 4 of 9 DEPOSITION OF 298-4 Filed 03/27/2007
CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2002 1 (Pages 527 to 530)

527 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 2 3 4 5 6 8 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY; : Case Nos. 98-126C, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOM1C POWER : 98-154C0 98-474C. COMPANY; MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC : 98-483C, 98-484C, POWER COMPANY; FLORIDA POWER & : 98--485C, 98-486C,

529

7 LIGHT COMPANY; NORTHERN STATES : 98-488C, 98-614C. POWER COMPANY; DUKE POWER. a '. 98-62 IC, 99-447C, Division of DUKE ENERGY CORP.; : 00..440C. 00-695C, INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY; : 00-703C, 01-115C, SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY : 01-116C, 01-249C

9 10 I1 12

13 (Caption continued on the next page) 14 15 16 17 18 Continued Deposition of LAKE H. BARRETT Washington, D. C. Friday, April 26, 2002 8:10 a.m.

19 20 Job No.: 11792-8 21 Pages 527 through 825. Volume 3 22 Reported by: Diane Gomez, RPR

1 Continued Deposition of LAKE H. BARRETT. held 2 at the offices of: 3 4 ARNOLD & PORTER 5 555 12th Street, Northwest Washington, D. C. 20004 6 7 (202) 942-5000 8 9 10 11 12 Pursuant to agreement, betbre Diane Gomez, 13 14 Registered Professional Reporter and Nora,' Public in 15 and for the District of Columbia. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

528

530 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 APPEARANCES ON BEHALF OF P~.AINTIFFS FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT ' COMPANY, NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, DUKE POWER, INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER cOMPANY, BOSTON EDISON COMPANY, GPU NUCLEAR. INC., POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT~ and NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT: DEVON E. HEWI'I-F, ESQUIRE SHAW PITTMAN LLP 1650 Tysons Boulevard McLean, Virginia 22102-,1859 (703) 847-5097 ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: HOWARD CAYNE, ESQUIRE JEFFREY L. HANDWERKER, ESQUIRE RONALD A. SCHE~HTER, ESQUIRE ARNOLD & PORTER 555 121h Street, Northwest W~shington, D. C. 20004-1206 (202) 942-5000

1
2 3

4 5 6
7

8 9 10

11 12 V. : 13 THE UNITED STATES,

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 OFNEW : YORK; OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT;: NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT; : and TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, : Plaintiffs : Defendant :

14 15 16
17

x

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

18
19

20
21 22

L.A.D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC. (301) 762-8282 (202) 861-3410 (800) 292-4789 (703) 288-0026

DEPOSITION OF 298-4 Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW Document LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME 3 Page 5 of 9 Filed 03/27/2007 CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2002 44 (Pages 699 to 702)

699

701

1 need to find out if you have an understanding of 2 what's in this document, sir. This morning you testified that DCS stood 3 4 for delivery.commitment schedule. Do you recall that? 5 A Yes. Q What, without looking at the document, are 6 you able to tell me is the purpose of a Dcs? 7 8 A ! believe they were something to do with 9 the planning for the receipt of material into our 10 system in the future, ten years or something in the 11 future. And it related to the contract. Q Why did you view it as administrivia? 12 A Because i did not consider it pertinent tO 13 14 the primary business~ which was to determine if the 15 repository site was suitable so we can get on to build 16 the facility to be able to receive it. 17 Q What consideration did you personally give 18 to the data produced by a DCS? 19 A What? 20 Q What consideration did you give to the data 21 ¯ produced on a DCS? 22 MR. CRAWFORD: Objection, vague.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

or submitted a DCS request an allocation amount that was different than the amount specified in the 1991 annual capacity report'? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection. assumes facts not in evidence. Objection. lbundation. A ! don't know. Q Let's turn to page two. Can you read. take a look at enid' 7C. A Okay. I've read it. Q Now. you see that it states that the DCS -do you know \vhat FWMS stands for? Is that federal waste management system? A 1 think so. MR. CRAWFORD: Objection. best evidence. Q You see the statement that "The process described herein assumes that the federal waste management system \viii be able to accept the purchasers' SNF beginning in 1998 according to the acceptance rate reflected in the ACR"? A [ see that.

Q Based on your testimony earlier today..as 21 22 of what date in )'our opinion would that ha\'e been an

700

702

1 Objection, foundation. 2 Q Did you give any? 3 A What consideration -- repeat the question 4 again. 5 Q A DCS form contains certain data, correct? 6 A I really don't know if it has data in it or 7 not. Q Let me ask you to look at item number two 8 9 on the first page, "Who should submit." Do you see 10 that item? 11 A Yes. Q Why does that item provide that the DCS 12 13 should be submitted by all purchasers with allocations 14 in the '91 annual capacity report? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection, foundation, 15 16 vague. 17 A I don't know. Q Do you know why the '91 annual capacity 18" 19 report was a report that was chosen? 20 MR. CRAWFORD: Objection, foundation. 21 A No. Q Could a nuclear utility that submits a DCS 22

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

unreasonable assumption that spent fuel acceptance would be beginning in 1998? Did you indicate earlier today that that projection became unreasonable sometime in mid to late 1993? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection. Mischaracterizes his prior testimony. A in late '93 it became, you know, in my mind unlikely to happen. Q Do you know \vhy this instruction form for completing DCSs contains that assumption? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the extent it calls for speculation. A No. Q Do you know what the relevance ofthat assumption was in connection \vith the DCS process? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection, lbundation, vague, and objection to the extent it calls for any kind of a legal conclusion. Q Let me strike that question and ask you to - subparagraph C, it says "In the event that such circumstances change" -- referring to the assumption that you and I just discussed, Mr. Barrett. Do you

L.A.D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC. (301) 762-8282 (202) 861-3410 (800) 292-4789 (703) 288-0026

DEPOSITION OF 298-4 Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW DocumentLAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME 3 Filed 03/27/2007 CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2002

Page 6 of 9
¯54 (Pages 739 ~to 742)

739

741

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 !7 18 19 20 21 22

readiness for earlier transportation should a site for federal interim storage become available sooner than a repository." ! believe that's the only part in here on the MRS. Q You believe that's the only reference in this document to an MRS? A My quick scan here, my recollection was I don't remember anything else. Somebody else may have read it closely. Q Turn your attention to page one, Bates 174286. A I'm sorry, page one? Q Page one on the bottom, paragraph one. A Okay. " Q On the end of the introduction section it states that "By 1993 it became clear that continuation of the program in accordance with the then-current approach was no longer a viable option." Do you see that? A Yes.

MR. CRAWFORD: Where is that? MR. CAYNE: Last sentence of the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

language of this document, correct, before it became final? A Yes. ~ MR.. CRAWFOR.D: Objection, asked and answered. Argumentative. A ! would have accepted those words there. Q The words being "no longer a viable option," correct? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection. asked and answered. Argumentative. Q Correct? ¯ MR. CRAWFORD: Objection, asked and answered, argumentative. A Correct. Q Page four, please, bottom of page four. The first sentence. "When the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was enacted, it was envisioned that the department would have had a facility available in 1998 to accept waste for disposal, and the department entered into contracts with utilities on that basis." Do you see that? A Yes.

740

742

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

introduction. A Yes, 1 see it. Q What was the then-current approach that's being referred to in that statement? A That was the volunteer IVlRS that would had a reasonable chance of success for 1998. That was no longer a viable option. Q So that was no longer a viable option? A 1 would have used the word "unlikely," but it's certainly not the central premise for waste acceptance anymore. Q The department used the word "viable," correct? A That's what it says. Q And you would have seen this document before it was issued, correct? A Yes. Q And I assume you were in the chain of command that had to approve this document? A 1 was responsible, I'm sure. ! don't know if ! ever signed it off or not. Q You would have been satisfied with the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22

Q What does that mean, that the department entered into contracts with utilities on the basis that it would have a facilit~ available in '98 to accept waste for disposal? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the extent it calls for speculation. A Just what it says. Q Do you understand what.that means? A The act says we should have a coniract within the time frame, and they put those contracts together under the limited time there in '83, '84. The base operating premise was it would have a facility ready to accept in 1998. Q The time the contract was signed or contracts were signed in 1983, that is what the government and the nuclear utilities intended? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection -Q Correct? MR. CRAWFORD: -- to the extent it calls for speculation. Objection to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. A I wasn't there. 1 wasn't involved in a

L.A.D. REPoRvING COMPANY, INC.
(30t) 762-8282 (202) 861-3410 (800) 292-4789 (703) 288-0026

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPWDEPOSITION OF 298-4 H. BARRETT, VOLUME 3 Page 7 of 9 Document LAKE Filed 03/27/2007
CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2002 55 (Pages 743 to 746)

743

745

1 program then, so I don't know what they envisioned. 2 Q But is that yourunderstanding? 3 MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the extent it 4 calls for speculation. Objection to the extent it 5 calls for a legal conclusion. A Yes. 6 7 Q Page nine, please. Under Waste Acceptance
8 Storage and Transportation Approach, towards the 9 bottom of the page it says, The main aspects of the 10 approach for waste acceptance storage and 11 transportation are to" - and it gives then six 12 separate entries on pages nine and ten. Do you see 13 that? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And specifically on the top of page ten, 16 the first line it says "Because more detailed work 17 ' would not be useful until a specific site has been 18 selected, no development work is included in the 19 current plan." Do you see that? 20 A Yes. 21 Q ls that refen:ing to an IVIRS facility? 22 A Site-specific MRS facility is what tha~

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

under Fiscal Year 2000 it states that "The site recommendation will be submitted in a report to the President in 2000." Correct? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection, vague. A Yes, itsays that. Q And the page before to which that refers, the caption of that page is Major Milestones for Program Success. Do you see that, page 13? A 1 see the chart. Q So according to this chart, the recommendation, the site recommendation to the P~'esident was one of the major milestones for program success, correct? A Yes. Q And that milestone, in fact, has occurred two years later than planned for in the radioactive management program plan set forth in Exhibit 36,

18 correct? 19 A Close. 20 Q What's close? It occurred two years after 21 the date, correct? 22 A Including FY '02, but depending on when in

744

746 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 the year, a little less than P, vo)'ears. Q Is it fair to say that as of now the program is at least a little less than two years behind schedule, as reflected by the major milesiones for program success? A As defined back in '94, .yes. Q The.court reporter has handed you a document marked for identification as Exhibit 37. It is a memorandum, Subject: Total life cycle cost 1995 assumptions package from Ronald A. Milner, Director, Office of Program Management and Integration, bearing Bates HQR-057-1493 through HQR-057-1569. Do you have that document beforeyou? A Yes. Q Could you please turn to page Bates number 14 -, oh, this is -- it says RW-30 in the top left comer, Do you see that? A Yes. Q Could you please refer to Bates 057-1498. First, what would )'our involvement in this, in the preparation or review of this document have been? A l would have signed off on a final total

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

refers to. Q And again by "site-specific MRS facility," specifically what are you referring to? A The actual siting of a facility, lfwe'did generic work was the previous sentence. We did generic work for a generic facility. It could be sited anywhere. So ifa site develops through some political process, we would be able to quickly build such a facility to receive fuel as quickly as possible. Q And at this time the department did not think that to be a viable option, correct? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection. Best evidence. A There was a low probability. Q Low probability did you say? A Yes. Q And, in fact, such a specific site never .did become available through today? A Correct. (Deposition. Exhibit Barrett 37 was marked for identification and was retained by counsel.) Q Exhibit 36, under Fiscal -- ot~ page 14,

L.A.D. REPORTING COMPANY, INC. (301) 762-8282 (202) 861-3410 (800) 292-4789 (703) 288-0026

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPWDEPOSITION OF298-4 H. BARRETT, VOLUME 5 Page 8 of 9 Document LAKE Filed 03/27/2007
CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2002 1 (Pages 1104 to 1107)

1104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
................. X

1106

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY; : Case Nos. 98-126C, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER : 98-154C, 98-474C, COMPANY; MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC : 98-483C, 98-484C, POWER COMPANY; FLORIDA POWER & : 98-485C, 98-486C, LIGHT COMPANY; NORTHERN STATES : 98-488C, 98-614C, POWER COMPANY; DUKE POWER, a : 98-621C, 99a147C, Division of DUKE ENERGY CORP.; : 00-440C, 00-695C,

10 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY; : 00-703C, 01-115C, I1 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY : 01-I 16C, 01-249C 12 13 (Ca~tion continued on the next page) 14 15 16 17 18

Continued Deposition of LAKE H. BARRETT Washington, D. C. Friday, May 10, 2002 8:06 a.m.

19 20 Job No.: 11792-11 21 Pages 1104 to 1437, Volume 5 22 Reported by: Diane Gomez, RPR

1 Continued Deposition of LAKE H. BARRETT, held 2 at the offices of: 3 4 ARNOLD & PORTER 5 555 12th Street, Northwest 6 Washington, D. C. 20004 7 (202) 942-5000 8 9 10 11 12 Pursuant to agreement, before Diane Gomez, 13 14 Registered Professional Reporter and Notar3' Public in 15 and for the District of Columbia. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1105

1107 1 2 APPEARANCES ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY; NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, DUKE POWER, INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY, BOSTON EDISON COMPANY, GPU NUCLEAR, INC., POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT, and NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT: DEVON E. HEwITr, ESQUIRE SHAW PITTMAN LLP 1650 Tysons Boulevard McLean, Virginia 22102-4859 (703) 847-5097

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

DISTRICT; SOUTHERN NUCLEAR : OPERATING COMPANY, et al.; : COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY; : 3 4 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY; GPU : NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED; WISCONSIN : 5 ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY; POWER : 6 7 AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW : YORK; OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT;: 8 9 NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWERDISTRICT; : t0 and TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, :

Plaintiffs
V. :

:

THE UNITED STATES, Defendant :

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

X

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: HOWARD CAYNE, ESQUIRE ARNOLD & PORTER 555 12th Street, Northwest Washington, D. C. 20004-1206 (202) 942-5000

L.A.D. REPORTING & DIGITAL V1DEOGRAPHY COMPANY (202) 861-3410 (301)762-8282 (410) 539-3664 (800)292-4789

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW Document LAKE H. BARRETT, VOLUME 5 Filed 03/27/2007 DEPOSITION OF 298-4
CONDUCTED ON FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2002

Page 9 of 9
58 (Pages 1332 to 1335)

1332

1334

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

reference to a variety of DOE documents. My question is do you have an understanding of the term ¯ "steady-state rate"? A I believe so. Q What's your understanding of that term? A Basically constant over time. Q I believe you testified that there is a relationship between the 3,000 MTU annual steady-state rate and either the discharge rate or generation rate. Is that correct? A There's a difference. Q Is there a relationship between the two? A Discharge rate is what it is. Utilities 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. So there's no direct relationship between the two. Q My understanding from your testimony -- and 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

9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

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. Q And am I right in understanding that the 3,000 steadyrstate rate has been used as the steady-state rate in the majority of design documents for the facility that DOE will eventually use to take and emplacement spent nuclear fuel? A Yes, it's around 3,000. Q And am I also right in understanding that the 3,000 steady-state rate has been the rate that is used in the majority of documents issued by DOE with regard to total system life-cycle costs? A Correct. Q With 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? A Our best estimates ofwhat the costs would be, you know, year by year for the program. And to

1333

1335

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

discharge rate or the generation rate by utilities. Is that right? A Correct. Q What other factors went into choosing a 3,000 MTU receipt rate? A 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. If you make the number too hight then you have- you would quickly work bffthe backlog, and then yon would have a lot of idle capacity. If it was too low, you would have reactors needing to put in dry storage, and 3,000, based on an early 1980s, seemed like a reasonable number to use. Q Do you know if there were any studies that talked about the 3,000 rate being a reasonable number to use? A I don't know of any that were done back then, but I'm told there were some done. I never had reason to ever look. There were some - we went

1 determine those you would have some assumption as to 2 what the receipt rate would be, and we used 3,000. Q And is the receipt rate of 3,000 used 3 4 because that's what your intention at the time you 5 issued that TSLCC report, is that the intention at 6 that time, to use that rate for whatever facility you 7 would have running when you begin to accept spent 8 nuclear fuel? 9 MS. HERRMANN: Objection. Foundation. 10 A At steady state, yes. 11 Q Do you have an understanding of what the 12 term "waste management system"is? 13 A Yes. 14 Q What's your understanding of that term? 15 A That would be the transportation system'to 16 remove it from the reactors. It would be an MRS if 17 there were to be an MRS, and it would be the 18 repository, or repositories if we have more than one. 19 Q With regard to the transportation system, 20 Other than the RFP that we've discussed just a couple 21 of hours ago, were there any other documents that 22 talked about the acceptance rate or the physical

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