Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 1 of 31

Proprietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance
With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

6.

POINT BEACH SPENT FUEL ACCEPTANCE RIGHTS

The acceptance rights EtLI has projected for Wisconsin Electric's Point Beach nuclear plant are based on the following information. Overall DOE spent fuel acceptance rates presented in Table 1. Historical and projected discharges as provider to DOE by contract holders via the 2002 RW-859 data vollection. Projected industry-wide discharges, assuming that all plants operate for 60-year license terms, as calculated by ERI's SPNTFUEL program, described in this report. An Oldest Fuel First acceptance priority. Table 2 provides a summary of the historical and projected spent nuclear fuel discharge data contained in the RW-859 database for Point Beach Units 1 and 2, as well as projected discharge data calculated by the SPNTFUEL model assuming that the plants operate under extended licenses for terms of 60 years. 6.1 Projection of Acceptance Rights Under 1998 Non-Breach Scenario

Projected spent nuclear fuel acceptance rights for Point Beach Units 1 and 2, on a MTU and fuel assembly basis for the 1998 Non-Breach acceptance scenario, are provided in Table 3. Under the 1998 Non-Breach acceptance scenario, the first spent nuclear fuel would have been accepted from Point Beach beginning in 1998, and the final spent nuclear fuel assembly would be accepted by the DOE by 2038. 6.2 Projection of Acceptance Rights Under 2010 Actual Scenario

Projected spent nuclear fuel acceptance rights for Point Beach Units 1 and 2, on a MTU and fuel assembly basis for the 2010 Actual acceptance scenario, are provided in Table 4. Under the Actual acceptance scenario, the first spent nuclear fuel would have been accepted from Point Beach beginning in 2010, and the final spent nuclear fuel assembly would be accepted by the DOE by 2049.

Energy Resources International, ]nc.

151

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 2 of 31

Pt~3prietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court-of Federal Claims Protective Order

Table 2

Spent Nuclear Fuel Historical and Projected Discharges Point Beach Units 1 and 2, 60 Year License Term Based on 2002 RW-859 Data
Point Beach Unit 1 Ass, y.. MTU 41 16.280 74 16 32 48 33 24 8 25 20 42 31 34 37 33 33 38 29 29 29 29 32 32 45 40 37 40 28.630 6.367 12.800 19.120 13.210 9.640 3.210 10.060 8.040 16.860 12.420 !3,630 14.850 12.930 12.340 13.900 t0.820 10.440 10.440 10.440 11.480 11.460 16.200 14.350 13.190 14.080 Assy. MTU 2003 2004 2005 20O6 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20t5 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total Ass~/. 40 41 40 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 22 121 MTU 14.076 16~48 15.840 15.844 15.407 15:012 14.617 14.221 13.826 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 8~91 47.800 Point Beach Unit 2 Ass=y. MTU 41 14.495 40 40 40 40 36 35 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 15~44 15.829 15.836 15.840 14.251 13.855 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 t3.460 13.460

Year 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 ! 993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

36 34 37 44 29 32 32 29 26 22 22 29 35 34 32 33 -29 29 28 29 32 20 53 40 36

14.370 13.390 14.260 17.610 11.620 12.840 12.860 11.680 10.370 8.830 8.680 11.680 13.570 12.550 11.650 12.130 10.650 10.460 10.090 10.380 11.470 7.200 18.980 14.360 12.770

1672

646.017

21 8.313 121 47.900 1624 627.933

]0

Energy Resources International, Inc.

152

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 3 of 31

Proprietary and C~nt'rdential

Protected Ma{erial to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

Table 3

Projected Point Beach Spent Fuel Acceptance Rights 1998 Non-Breach Spent Fuel Acceptance Scenario
Point Beach Unit 1 Ass, y. MTU 41 16.280 74 28.630 48 19.167 81 32.330 32 12.850 87 34.960 31 12.420 71 28.480 66 25.270 38 13.900 58 21.260 29 10.440 61 21.920 32 11.460 45 16.200 4O 37 40 40 41 40 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 143 14.350 13.190 14.080 14.076 16.048 15.840 15.844 15.407 15.012 14.617 14.221 13.826 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 56.491
Point Beach Unit 2 Ass,y. MTU II II

Year 1998 1999 2OOO 2001 2002 2OO3 2004 2005 2006 2O07 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2O30 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Total

II ~sx.

Total MTU

36 34 81 93 55 44 64 34 65 29 57 29 52 53 40 36 41 40 40 40 40 36 35 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 21 121 1,624

14.370 13.390 31.870 37.320 22.050 17.510 25.250 12.550 23.780 10.650 20.550 10.380 18.670 18.980 14.360 12.770 t4.495 15.644 15.829 15.836 15.840 14.251 13.855 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 t3.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 8.313 47.900 627.933

1,672

646.017

41 110 82 162 125 142 75 135 100 103 87 86 90 84 45 53 80 73 81 40 81 80 80 79 74 35 71 70 69 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 177 0 21 121 3,296

16.280 43.0O0 32.557 64.200 50.170 57.010 29.930 53.730 37.820 37.680 31.910 30.990 32.300 30.130 16.200 18.980 28.710 25.960 28.575 14.076 31.692 31.669 31.680 31.247 29.263 13.855 28.077 27.681 27.286 26.891 26.891 26~91 26.891 26.891 26,891 26.891 26.891 69.951 0.000 8.313 47.900 1273.950

]]

Energy Resources International, Inc.

153

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 4 of 31

Proprietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be-Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

Table 4
I

Projected Point Beach Spent Fuel Acceptance Rights 2010 Actual Spent Fuel Acceptance Scenario

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2O38 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2O49 Total

I

] Point Beach Unit 1 ~ Assy. MTU 41 16.280 74 28.630 48 19.t67 81 32.330 32 12.850 87 34.960 31 12.420 71 28.480 66 25.270 38 13.900 58 21.280 29 10.440 61 21.920 32 11.480 45 16.200 40 37 40 40 41 40 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 143 14.350 13.190 14.080 14.076 16~48 15.840 15.844 15.40715.012 14~17 14.221 13.826 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 13.431 56A91

II Point Beach Unit 2 |1 Total Assy. MTUII Assy. MTU

36 34 81 93 55 44 64 34 65 29 57 29 52 53 40 36 41 40 40 40 40 36 35 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 21 121 1,624

14.370 13,390 31.870 37,320 22~50 17~10 25,250 12.550 23,780 10.650 20,550 10.380 18.670 18.980 14.360 12.770 14.495 15~44 15~29 15.836 15.840 14.251 13.855 13.460 13.460 1&460 13.460 13A60 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 13.460 8.313 47.900 627.93

1,672

646.02

I

~

41 110 82 162 125 142 75 135 100 103 87 86 90 84 45 53 80 73 ~1 40 81 80 80 79 74 35 71 70 69 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 177 21 121 3,296

16.280 43.000 32.557 64.200 50.170 57.010 29.930 53.730 37.820 37~80 31,910 30.990 32.300 30.130 16.200 .18.980 28.710 25.960 28.575 14.O76 31.692 31.669 31.680 31.247 29.283 13.855 28.077 27.681 27.2~6 26.891 26.891 26.891 26.891 26,891 26.891 26,891 26.891 ~9.951 8.313 47.900 1273.950

]2

Ener.gy Resources International, Inc.

154

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 5 of 31

' Proprietary and Cont'iden'tial

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

APPENDIX A PROJECTION OF SPENT FUEL DISCHARGE INFORMATION USING SPNTFUEL

A.1

Projection of Cycle Discharge Data

The SPNTFUEL program has the capability to project nuclear power plant discharge data including the number of fuel assemblies discharged, fuel weight (MTU) discharged, and fuel burnup.

The SPNTFUEL program reads in the historical and projected spent fuel discharge data provided in the DOE's 2002 RW859 data and calculates cycle-by-cycle discharge data through the end of each plant'~s operating license expiration date - either for 40 year licenses or 60 year extended licenses. SPNTFUEL cycle discharge data is calculated as described below. Projected discharge dates are calculated by adding a plant's cycle length (the period of time between plant refueling outages) to the last historical/utility discharge date (e.g., last utility projected date of 9/2005 plus 18 month cycle length to produce projected discharge dates of 3/2007, 9/2008, etc.). Projected discharge burnups for the industry are based on last historical/projected discharge burnup, using this burnup as the starting point in the calculation. ERI specifies future maximum burnups for PWR and BWR fuel as well as an annual rate of increase in burnup for PWR and BWR fuel. For example, if the last projected discharge burnup for a PWR is 46,800 MWD/MTU and the PWR burnup rate of increase is 1.7% per year, a discharge in the next year is projected at 47,596 MWD/MTU (46,800 x 1.017), 48,405 MWD/MTU two years out, etc. The projected burnup is increased in whole year increments. The projected burnup wilt increase each year until a maximum projected for that reactor type is reached (e.g., PWR maximum burnup is 58,000 MWD/MTU). Projected capacity factors (CF) are based on the historical CF for each nuclear power plant or on plant-specific values supplied by nuclear operating companies to ERI. ERI specifies a future minimum CF (e.g., 90%) that it believes all plants can achieve in future operations. This future minimum CF is based on the industry-wide average CF, currently 90%. If the historical CF for an individual plant is below the ER]-specified future minimum CF, the individual plant CF is gradually increased from the study start year (e.g., 1998) to the specified future minimum CF over an ERI specified number of years. For example, if a plant's current CF is 80%, and ERI specifies a future minimum CF of 90% is to be reached over a period of 10 years, the projected CF will increase 1.0% [ (90%-80%) / 10 years] each year until the future minimum CF is reached in the year 2010. CFs i¢or plants that have current CFs that are greater than the future

A-I

Energy Resources International, lnc.

155

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 6 of 31

Proprietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

minimum CF (90%) are not adjusted by the SPNTFUEL program but instead that higher CF is assumed through the end of the plant's license. The projected amount of spent fuel discharged in MTU is based on a plant's licensed thermal rating (MWT), discharge burnup (BUP in MWD/MTU), capacity factor (CF in %); cycle length (CYL in years) as shown below:
MTU = (MWT) x (CYL) x (CF/I O0) x (365 days/year) / (~3UP)

For example, 3000 MWT x 1.5 years x 90/100 x 365 / 45,000 MWD/MTU = 32.85 MTU The projected number of discharged assemblies (ASSY) is calculated by dividing the MTU discharge size by the assembly unit weight. The assembly unit weight is calculated by dividing an individual plant's core weight by the number of assemblies in the core. Since fuel assembly discharges are in whole assembly increments, the adjusted assembly discharge (ASSY*) is calculated by rounding ASSY and the adjusted discharge weight (MTU*) recalculated based on the assembly unit weight. The adjusted discharge burnup (BUP*) is then recalculated based on the adjusted discharge size MTU* as shown below: BUP* = (MWT) x (CYL) x (CF/IO0) x (365 days/year) / (MTU*)
A.2.. DESCRIPTION OF DATA INPUT

The SPNTFUEL Program utilizes several data input files: Historical discharge data is consistent with the DOE's RW-859 database for spent fuel discharges through December 31, 2002. Data input into SPNTFUEL includes: plant name, storage location, storage location identification number, spent fuel discharge date, number of assemblies permanently discharged, weight (MTU) of assemblies discharged, and fuel assemblies burnup (MWD/MTU)~ Projected discharge data for five future cycles was also included in the RW-859 data submittal. The SPTNFUEL program utilizes this projected discharge information. Data input to the SPNTFUEL code includes: plant name, storage location, storage location identification number, spent fuel discharge date, number of assemblies permanently discharged, weight (MTU) of assemblies discharged, and fuel assemblies burnup (MWD/MTU). ¯ Each nuclear power plant has specific plant operating parameters that must be taken into account in order for the SPNTFUEL code to project future spent fuel discharges. Parameters in ERI's plant data base file that are used to calculate future spent fuel discharges include: the plant name, nuclear operating company, reactor type (PWR or

A-2

Energy Resources International, Inc.

156

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 7 of 31

' Proprietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

BWR), rated thermal power (MWT), capacity factor, start of operating license, cycle length, number of assemblies per core, core weight (MTU). These parameters are used to ~:alculate future cycle discharges as described in Section A. 1. Because nuclear power plant operators can change the plant operating parameters either through a chan.ge in operating practice (such as implementing longer cycle lengths) or through changes to the facility license (such as an increase in rated thermal power), it is necessary to modify the plant data parameters in response to such changes. ERI relies on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Int'ormation Digest to determine a plant's thermal power (MWT),14 as modified by license amendments to an individual plant's operating license. Nuclear power plants continue to uprate the plant thermal power to higher levels. ERI's SPNTFUEL database reflects power uprates that were approved by the U.S. NRC through the end of 2004. Nuclear plant operators decide upon the cycle length for their nuclear power plants. Cycle lengths range from 18 months to 24 months for most U.S. nuclear power plants. ERI maintains its data base of nuclear power plant cycle lengths by monitoring dates for plant refueling outages and through discussions with its contacts at the various nuclear operating companies. ERI has used the best available information for plant cycle lengths in its analysis. Plant capacity factors have risen steadily over the past ten years, from 71% industry-wide annual average capacity factor in 1991 to a 90% industry-wide annual average capacity factor in 2003.15 ERI uses plant-specific capacity factors calculated based on a multi-year average of the plant's capacity factor (e.g., 2001 to 2003). As described in A.1, for cases in which a plant's historical capacity factor is below a specified level (90%), the SPNTFUEL program will increase that capacity factor over a specified period of time until it reaches the specified capacity factor (90%).

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Information Digest, 2002 Edition, NUREG-1350, Volume 16, June 2204, Revised February 2005, Appendix A. 15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Information Digest, 2002 Edition, NUREG-1350, Volume 16, June 2204, Revised February 2005, Table 7.

A-3

Energy Resources ]nteruationat, Inc.

157

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 8 of 31

Proprietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

APPENDIX B DETAILED RESUME OF EILEEN M. SUPKO

Summary of Experience:
1990 - Present Energy Resources International, Inc. Senior Consultant

Consultant in the area of nuclear waste management and radioactive materials transport. Provides analysis of the technical, economic, regulatory and policy issues associated with the storage, acceptance, transport and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to nuclear power plant operating companies, foreign governments, industry organizations, private companies and private spent fuel management programs.

Dry_ Spent Fuel Storage. Provides analysis and consultation regarding the technical, regulatory, and economic evaluation of dry spent fuel storage and transportation technologies; technical and economic analyses in support of dry storage facility licensin:g efforts for nuclear operating companies including projections of dry storage life cycle costs and schedules and issues associated with dry storage licensing; technical and economic analyses in support of private spent fuel management program licensing efforts; analysis in support of industry efforts to increase the allowable burnup of spent fuel contained in dry storage systems and presentation of results to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff; and analyses of changes to NRC regulatory requirements for storage and transport. Authored. an industry Spent Fuel Storage Handbook, on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, to assist nuclear operating companies in decision-making, planning and licensing activities related to the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel. Served as a U.S. representative for an International Atomic Energy AgencY (IAEA) Consultancy on International Spent Fuel Storage Experience resulting in preparation of an IAEA technical report on this subject. Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Materials Transport. Provides analysis and consultation regarding spent nuclear fuel and radioactive materials transport including analysis of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) plans for transporting spent nuclear fuel to a repository; preparation of comments on NRC proposals for spent fuel transportation cask testing; analysis of proposed changes to NRC and U.S. Department of Transportation, and International Atomic Energy Agency regulations for the transport of radioactive materials. Principal Investigator and author of Spent Nuclear Fuel Transportation - An Overview on behalf of the Electric Power Research Institute, to summarize the technical, regulatory and policy framework for transporting spent nuclear fuel. Analysis of DOE Civilian Waste Mana~ement Program. Provided consultation and analysis to support nuclear waste legislative initiatives and developments including analyses of technical, economic and regulatory issues associated with proposed legislation and evaluation of legislative proposals on nuclear power plant spent fuel storage requirements and on Nuclear Was,te Fund adequacy. Analyzed DOE -proposals for acceptance and transportation of spent nuclear fuel includiiag review of regulatory, B-1
Energy Resources ]nlernalional, ]nc.

158

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 9 of 31

Proprietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

technical, logistical issues as well as schedule milestones. Analyzed possible overall DOE acceptance rates and the ef~'ect that DOE acceptance rates would have on utility spent fuel storage requirements and the period of time that spent fuel must remain at nuclear power plant sites ¢ollowing reactor shutdown for decommissioning. Provided technical support to industry organizations during industry-DOE staff-to-staff technical exchanges regarding outstanding issues and possible changes to the Standard Contract, DOE plans and conceptual designs for fuel receipt facilities at Yucca Mountain, and DOE-utility interface requirements for theacceptance of spent nuclear fuel. Reviewed and analyzed Congressional appropriations to DOE for the Yucca Mountain program, including monitoring and analysis of the adequacy of the Nuclear Waste Fund. International Waste Management Activities. Provides technical and policy consultation and analysis to a foreign government regarding programs for the long-term management of spent nuclear fuel including review of projected spent fuel disposal system costs and schedules; review of technical proposals and conceptual designs; review of decommissioning cost study assumptions; and review of long-term planning efforts.
Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Provides technical, economic and policy support to utilities in the areas of fuel cycle management, economics, and procurement. Assists utility clients with procurement planning activities, commercial bid evaluation related activities, preparation of responses to public utility commission (PUC) nuclear fuel related audits, and performs reviews and audits of utility nuclear fuel procurement practices.

Public Outreach. Provides third party expertise for the Nuclear Energy Institute and other nuclear industry clients, communicating on nuclear waste storage, transport and disposal issues; radioactive materials transport; fuel cycle issues; and nuclear energy benefits. In addition to interviews with the news media, these activities have included briefing members of the U.S. Congress, Congressional staff, and state and local officials on nuclear ~waste transportation and disposal issues and nuclear energy benefits; and participating in moderated debates with members of U.S. anti-nuclear organizations for Public Broadcast System and National Public Radio programs. In addition to numerous client-specific analyses, evaluations, and reports, author of over 35 reports, presentations, and publications in leading nuclear energy journals and an invited speaker at over a dozen conferences sponsored by leaders in the nuclear industry. Testimony. Indiana Michigan Power C9mpany v. United States, Docket 98-486C, U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Deposition and Trial Testimony); Commonwealth Edison Company v. United States, Docket 98-621C, U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Deposition); Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. United States, Docket 98-488C, US. Court of Federal Claims (Deposition); Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Alabama Power Company and Georgia Power Company v. United States, Docket 98-614C, U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Deposition).

B-2

Energy Resources International, Inc.

159

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 10 of 31

Proprietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

1988- 1990

Carolina Power and Light Company Nuclear Services Department Incore Analysis Engineer

Responsibilities included nuclear power plant reload core design, analysis and design review; nuclear fuel cycle management activities including preparation of nuclear power plant fuel cycle management reports, rod pattern improvements, and core operating recommendations to ensure that the nuclear fuel and nuclear reactor core operated within the regulatory limits approved by the NRC in the plant license. Provided control blade management support and technical review of control blade bid proposals. Performed detailed technical and economic analysis of control blade management alternatives. 1985-1988 Carolina Power and Light Company Nuclear Fuel Projects Engineer

Responsibilities included participation in nuclear fuel procurement activities including preparation of bid specifications, co-ordination of bid evaluations, and evaluation of economic and commercial contract terms. Prepared annual long-range nuclear fuel cycle cost projections; administered BWR channel contract and DOE enrichment contract; assisted in administration of BWR fuel fabrication contracts, uranium management activities, and fuel cycle analyses. 1984- 1985 GPU Nuclear Company TMI Environmental Controls Department

Responsibilities included computerization and data analysis for the TMI Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program; routine maintenance and data analysis for a real-time gamma monitoring system;participation in NRC emergency drills performing off-site dose calculations. Served on environmental monitoring team for TMI-2 headlift operation.

Education:
B.S., Nuclear Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, 1985 Memberships, Licenses and Honors: Member and past chairman, Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Division, Industrial and Professional Advisory Council to the Pennsylvania State University's College of Engineering, 1998 ~o 2004 Founding Member, Board of Directors (2003 -2005), Pennsylvania Sta~e University, Nuclear Engineering Society Member, American Nuclear Soc~ty

B-3

Energy Resources International, Inc.

160

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 11 of 31

Proprietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

APPENDIX C PUBLICATIONS LIST EILEEN M. SUPKO In addition to numerous client specific analyses, evaluations, and reports, Ms. Supko has authored the following representative reports, presentations, and publications. Supko, E.M., and Robert Jones, Options for Pursuing Moderator Exclusion for Application to Spent-Fuel Transportation Packages, EPRI Technical Report 1009692, Final Report, December 2004. Supko, E.M., and Robert Jones, Spent Nuclear Fuel Transportation, An Overwiew, EPRI Technical Report 1009226, Final Report, February 2004. Supko, E.M., User Friendly Instruments for Enhancing Communications, Presented on behalf of the World Nuclear Transport Institute, International Conference on the SafeW of Transport of Radioactive Materials, International Atomic Energy Agency, July 7-11, 2003, Vienna, Austria. Supko, E.M., Utility - DOE Dty Storage Interface, INMM Spent Fuel Management Seminar XX, January 15-17, 2003, Washington, D.C. Supko, E.M., Nuclear Transport - The lmpact of International Regulations, Presented on behalf of the World Nuclear Transport Institute, 1NMM Spent Fuel Management Seminar XX, January 15-17, 2003, Washington, D.C. Supko~ E.M, and J.A. Vincent, High Burnup Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Analysis, Presented to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Spent Fuel Project Office, March 5, 2002. Supko, E.M, Countering the Fear Campaign -- Transportation Specifics, Presented at the NEI Yucca Mountain Strategic Briefing, Washington, DC, January 15, 2002. Supko, E.M., Used Nuclear Fuel Transportation Safety, Presented at the Utah Association of Realtors Convention, Tucson, Arizona, September 6, 2001. Supko, E.M, High Burnup Fuel Considerations For Storage & Transport, Presented at the Nuclear Energy Institute Fuel Cycle 2001, San Francisco, California, April 1-4, 2001. Schwartz, M.H., and E.M. Supko, And Then There Were Three... ", Nuclear Engineering International, September 2000. Supko, E.M., Spent Nuclear Fuel Transportation - An Update of Current Issues, Presented at the Nuclear Energy ]nstitme Fuel Cycle 2000, Memphis, Tennessee, April 2 - 5, 2000.

C-I

Energy Resources ]nlernational. Inc.

161

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 12 of 31

Proprietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

Supko, E.M., Industry Perspective on the Update of the "Modal Study", Presented at the Waste Management Symposium 2000, Tucson, Arizona, February 27 - March 2, 2000. Supko, E.M., Nuclear Fuel Waste- How Long Must We Wait And What Are We Going To Do?, Presented at: Center For Business Intelligence Conference, Profit with Nuclear Power - Business Opportunities, Regulatory Reform and Restructuring Options, Chicago, Illinois, November 8-9, 1999. Supko, E.M., Projected Needs for Dry Spent Fuel Storage Equipment - The Next Five Years, Presented at the PCC Annual Workshop for Manufacturing of Spent Fuel Equipment April 7, 1999. Schwartz, M.H., and E.M. Supko, The Potential for Change in A Static Market, Nuclear Engineering International, September 1999. Supko, E.M., How Spent Nuclear Fuel, and Low- and High-Level Waste Will Be Disposed and At What Price, INFOCAST Conference, Nuclear Power Plants, Coming to Grips with Your License Expiration Options - Sell, Decommission, or Renew Your License,, January 25-27, 1999.

Supko, E.M., lndustry Spent Fuel Storage Handbook, Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI 98-01, 1998.
Supko, E.M., Used Nuclear Fuel Transportation Issues, presented to the State of Tennessee, Special Committee Meeting of House Conservation and Environment Committee and Senate Environment, Conservation, and Tourism Committee, March 3, 1998. Supko, E.M., Minimizing Risks Associated with Post-Shutdown Spent Fuel Storage and LLW Disposal, Presented at the Infocast "Nuclear Power In the Competitive Era," Post Conference Workshop, "Developing Risk Strategies for a Successful Decommissioning" January 30, 1998. Supko, E.M., Used Nuclear Fuel Transportation lssues, presented to the Joint Transportation Committees of the Colorado State Legislature, January 8, 1998. Supko, E.M., Storing Up Problems, Nuclear En:~ineerin-~ International, July 1997. Schwartz, M.H. and E.M. Supko, Fierce Competition in the U.S. Fabrication Market, Nuclear Engineerin~ International, September 1996. Supko, E.M., Technical Considerations Associated with Spent Fuel Acceptance, Electric Power Research ]nstitule, ERP] TR-106226, June 1996.

C- 2

Energy Resources International, Inc.

162

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 13 of 31

Proprietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

Supko, E.M., United States Experience With Dry Spent Fuel Storage, Presented at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Advisory Group Meeting on "Survey of Experience with Wet and Dry Storage", October 30-November 3, 1995.
Supko, E.M., Utility At-Reactor Spent Fuel Storage Requirements and Costs, Nuclear Waste Issues Forum, Nuclear Waste Program Office, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, May 25, 1995.

Supko, E.M., Integrated Waste Management System Costs in a MPC System, Presented at the Sixth Annual International Hi~zh Level Radioactive Waste Mana~zement Conference, April 30- May 5, 1995. Supko, E.M., Utility At-Reactor Spent Fuel Storage Plans, Nuclear Energy Institute Fuel Cycle '95, Coronado, California, April 5, 1995. Buchheit, J.M. and E.M. Supko, Impacts of MPCs on the Utility Spent Fuel Management System, Institute of Nuclear Materials Management Spent Fuel Mana-gement Seminar XI, January 1994.
Supko, E.M., Proceedings: 1993 EEI/UWASTE-EPRI-USCEA Spent Fuel Storage Workshop II, Regulatory and Communications Strategies, Electric Power Research Institute, EPR! TR-103253, December 1993.

Schwartz, M.H., P.J. Marsico, E.M. Supko, EEl Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Handbook, Edison Electric Institute Nuclear Fuel Committee, NFC-93-001, November 1993.
Supko, E.M., C.J. Henkel, M.H. Schwartz, EEI/UWASTE Oversight of the DOE Repository Program by the Repository hTformation Exchange Team, Fourth International Conference on High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, April 26-30, 1993.

Rasmussen, R., E.M. Supko, J.M. Jordan, M. Smith, Utility-DOE Interface Considerations of the Universal Container System Concept, Fourth International Conference on HighLevel Radioactive Waste Management, April 26-30, 1993. Stigers, R., M. Alissi, E.M. Supko, D.K. Zabransky, Non-Fuel Components: Regulatory Issues, Fourth International Conference on Hi-gh-Level Radioactive Waste Management, April 26-30, 1993. Supko, E.M., Proceedings: 1991 EEI/UWASTE-EPRI Workshop on At-Reactor Spent Fuel Storage, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI TR-100676, May 1992.

C-3

Energy Resources ]nternalional, Inc.

163

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 14 of 31

Proprietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only in Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

Steyn, J.J, M.H. Schwartz, E.M. Supko, Overview of Fuel Management Analysis - Supply lssues and Procurement Strategy Development for the 1990s, USCEA Fuel Cycle Conference 91, March 24-27, 1991. Supko, E.M., M.H. Schwartz, Spent Fuel Storage Handbook, Edison Electric Institute, Utility Nuclear Waste and Transportation Program, December 1990.

C-4

Energy Resources International, Inc.

164

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 15 of 31

Proprietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

APPENDIX D WRITTEN MATERIALS REVIEWED BY EILEEN SUPKO IN PREPARING THIS REPORT 1. Public Law 97-425, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1983, January 7, 1983. 2. Public Law 100-203, Title V, Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, December 22, 1987. 3. U.S. DOE, Standard Contract for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or HighLevel Radioactive Waste, Title 10, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 961. 4. U.S. DOE, OCRWM, Annual Capacity Report, DOE/RW'0191, 1988. 5. U.S. DOE, Annual Capacity Report, DOE/RW-0294P, December 1990. 6. U.S. DOE, A nnual Capacity Report, DOE-RW-0331 P, December 1991. 7. U.S. DOE, Annual Capacity Report, DOE/RW-0412, March 1992. 8. U.S. DOE, OCRWM, Acceptance Priority Ranking and Annual Capacity Report, DOE/RW-0457, March 1995. 9. U.S. DOE, RW-859 Data, December 31, 1998. 10. U.S. DOE, RW-859 Data, December 31, 2002. 11. U.S. NRC, Information Digest, 2002 Edition, NUREG-1350, Volume I4, June 2002. 12.U.S. NRC, Information Digest, 2004-2005 Edition, NUREG-1350, Volume 16, February 2005. 13. Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC, Calculation Method for the Projection of Future Spent Nuclear Fuel Discharges, TDR-WAT-NU-000002 Rev 1, February 2002 14. McLeod, Barrie, JAI Corporation, and Pollog, Thomas, US DOE, Methodology for the Projection of Spent Nuclear Fuel Discharges, conference paper, date unknown. 15. Joint Stipulations Regarding Testimony on Spent Fuel Discharges and Cask Loading Costs, Indiana Michigan Pvwer Company v. United States, No. 98-486C, March 2, 2004. 16. U.S. DOE, OCRWM, Acceptance Priority ,Ranking and Annual Capacity Report, DOEiRW-0567, July 2004.

D-l

Energy Resources International, lnc.

165

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 16 of 31

Proprietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

17. U.S. nuclear power plant capacity factors through 2003. 18. U.S. nuclear power plant power uprates through 2004. 19. U.S. EPA, Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, NV, Final Rule 140 CFR 197, FR Vol 66. No 114, 32074-32135, June 13, 2001. 20. Nuclear Energy Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 01-1258, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Argued January 14, 2004, Decided July 9, 2004. 21. Zabransky, David, Contracting Officer, U.S. DOE, Sample Letter to Contract Holders, July 27, 2004. 22. Zabransky, David, Contracting Officer, U.S. DOE, Letter to Contract Holders, December 1, 2004. 23. U.S. NRC, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Memorandum and Order (Ruling on State of Nevada's July 12, 2004, Motion to Strike), In the Matter of U.S. Department of Energy (High Level Waste Repository: Pre-Application Matters), Docket PAPO-00, ASLBP No. 04-829-01-PAPO, NEV-01, August 31, 2004. 24. Garrish, Theodore, Deputy Director, OCRWM, U.S. DOE, Statement to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, March 10, 2005. 25. Statement of Theodore J. Garrish, Deputy Director, OCRWM, US. DOE, FY 2006 Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Hearing, March 10, 2005. 26. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Ener.gy and Air Quality, Hearing on Funding Options for the Yucca Mountain Repository Program, March 10, 2005, Archived webcast of hearing, http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/03102005hearing 1450/hearing.htm. 27. V.C. Summer Spent Fuel Information, April 22, 2005. 28. NSP Outage Est 2005-05-20.xls. 29. 2004 Nuclear Fuel Budget Update Basis; HF2004_l 122_2004BudgetBassisiy.xls, 11/11/04; FF2004 1119 2004BudgetBasis.xls, 11/19f04; VF2004 l 122_2004OpBudgetBasis.xls, 11/22/04.

D-2

Energy Resources International, Inc.

166

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 17 of 31

Proprietary and Confidential

Protected Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

30. Ritter, Ken, Energy Department Official Says Yucca Project Delayed, Not Dead, Las Vegas Sun, February 9, 2005. 31. Struglinski, Su.zanne, DOE Official Says Yucca Unlikely to Open on Time, Las Ve~,as Sun, February 8, 2005. 32. Tetreault, Steve, Energy Officials Turn Shy in Talk About Yucca Schedule, Las Vegas Review Journal, March 11, 2005. 33. Struglinski, Suzanne, Energy Department Says It Needs Cask To Move on Yucca, Las Vegas Sun, March 11, 2005. 34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, EPA Information on Yucca Mountain, undated. 35. U.S. DOE, The Department of Energy's First Monthly Status Report Regarding LSN Certification and License Application Submittal, In the Matter of U.S. Department of Energy, High Level Waste Repository: Pre-Application Matters, Docket PAPO-00, ASLBP No. 04-829-01-PAPO, June 1, 2005. 36. U.S. DOE, The Department of Energy's Second Monthly Status Report Regarding LSN Certification and License Application Submittal, In the Matter of U.S. Department of Ener:gy, High Level Waste Repository: Pre-Application Matters, Docket PAPO-00, ASLBP No. 04-829-01-PAPO, July 1, 2005.

D-3

Energy Resources International, Inc.

167

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 18 of 31

ENERGY RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

ERI-2098-0601

Protected and Confidential Material to be Disclosed only in Accordance With U. So Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

Expert Report Regarding Determination of the U.S. Department of Energy's Overall Spent Nuclear Fuel Acceptance Rate

168

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 19 of 31

ENERGY RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

ERI-2098-0601

Protected and Confidential Material to be Disclosed only in Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

Expert Report Regarding Determination of the U.S. Department of Energy's Overall Spent Nuclear Fuel Acceptance Rate
© 2006 Energy Resources International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Prepared For: Wisconsin Electric Power Company
Prepared by: Eileen. M. Supko

Eileen M. Supko 5/8/06

1015 18t~ Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20036 USA Telephone: (202) 785-8833 Facsimile: (202) 785-8834

169

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 20 of 31

Protected and Confidential Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

NOTICE This repor,.t contains information proprietary and confidential to Energy Resources International, Inc. (ERI). It is for the use of Wisconsin Electric Power Company and,~ except for such use, reproduction of this report, or parts thereof, in any form is expressly prohibited without the written permission of ERI. The report, in its entirety or portions thereof, may not be given to other parties without the written permission of ERI.

iii 170

Energy Resources International, Inc.

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 21 of 31

Protected and Confidential Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2. 3. 4.

o

Scope of Report and Summary of Opinions 1 Background and Qualifications 2 Methodology Used and Materials Considered in Reaching Opinions 4 Description of ERI SPNTFUEL Model 5 4.1 SPNTFUEL Description 5 4.2 Acceptance Priority 5 Determination of Steady-State Annual Spent Fuel Acceptance Rate in the Non-Breach World 7 5.1 Acceptance Rate Scenarios Analyzed ¯ 7 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 9 5.3 Results of Acceptance Rate Analysis 10 5.4 Sensitivity Analysis Regarding Intra-Company Use of Acceptance Rights 4 1 5.5 Sensitivity Analysis Regarding Ramp Up Rate to 3,000 MTU 16 DOE Acceptance Rate Planning Since Program Inception 20 6.1 DOE Documents that Support Opinion Regarding 3,000 MTU Acceptance Rate 20 6.2 DOE Documents that Support Opinion Regarding Ramp Up Rate 21 Conclusion 23
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5

Spent Fuel Acceptance Rate Scenarios 9 Comparison of Factors Important to Spent Fuel Acceptance 11 Sensitivity Analysis Regarding Intra-Company Use of Acceptance Rights, Comparison of Factors Important to Spent Fuel Acceptance 14 DOE Ramp Up Rates to 3,000 MTU 17 Sensitivity Analysis Regarding Ramp Up Rates to Steady State Rate, Comparison of Factors Important to Spent Fuel Acceptance 17 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1

Comparison of Maximum Steady State Spent Fuel Acceptance Rates, Assuming a Minimum Spent Fuel Cooling Time of Five Years 12

iv

Energy Resources International, Inc.

171

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 22 of 31

Protected and Confidential Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

APPENDICES

Appendix A Projection of Spent Fuel Discharge Information Using SPNTFUEL Appendix B Detailed Resume of Eileen M. Supko Appendix C Publication List, Eileen M. Supko Appendix D Written Materials Reviewed and Considered by Eileen Supko in Preparing This Report

V

Energy Resources International, Inc.

172

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 23 of 31

Protected and Confidential Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

1.

SCOPE OF REPORT AND SUMMARY OF OPINION

Perkins Coie LLP, counsel for Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Wisconsin Electric), requested that I offer an opinion concerning the effects of the overall rate of performance by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under the Standard Contract.~ Counsel for Wisconsin Electric requested that I assume the start of DOE acceptance of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) by January 31, 1998, the date called for in the Standard Contract. -Given that assumption, Counsel forWisconsin Electric asked me to provide an opinion on the impact of the DOE's rate of acceptance of SNF assemblies from the nuclear industry as a whole on two key issues identified by both DOE and nuclear utilities: (1) the aggregate amount of additional at-reactor storage capacity nuclear utilities would be required to provide in order to continue operations after January 31, 1998; and (2) the utilities' ability to timely decommission their nuclear power plants, i.e., the length of any delay in decommissioning caused by the continued presence of SNF. In conducting this analysis; I also took into account issues associated with the efficient and cost effective operation of the DOE waste management system.
As described more fully below, I have determined that, if DOE had begun acceptance.of spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998, an overall steady-state spent fuel acceptance rate of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU) per year, reached after a five-year ramp up period, would have limited the amount of additional storage capacity needed at nuclear power plants after that date, kept up with the annual discharge rate of 2,000 MTU of spent fuel, and worked off the 37,000 MTU backlog of SNF in storage at nuclear power plants to allow timely decommissioning.2 In addition, a 3,000 MTU acceptance rate would have been fully utilized for almost 30 years of the waste acceptance program, ensuring that the waste management system capacity has not been overbuilt and underutilized. Furthermore, the 3,000 MTU overall steady-state acceptance rate, with a five year ramp up, is consistent with the overall acceptance rate contained in more than a dozen DOE program documents and with statements and testimony made by DOE officials and witnesses.

ERI's fees for this engagement range from $170 to $266 per hour and are not contingent in any way upon my findings.

~ U.S. Department of Energy, Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste, Title 10, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 961 (Standard Contract). 2 U.S. commercial nuclear power plants annually generate approximately 2,000 MTU of SNF. By January 31, 1998, the date that DOE was to have started SNF acceptance, the inventory of SNF that had been permanently discharged from commercial nuclear power plants was approximately 37,000 MTU.

Energy Resources International, Inc.

173

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 24 of 31

Protected and Confidential Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

2.

BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS

I am a senior consultant and an owner of Energy Resources International, Inc. (ERI). I hold a bachelor of science degree in Nuclear Engineering from Pennsylvania State University. From 1985 to 1990, I was employed by Carolina Power and Light Company (now Progress Energy); a nuclear operating company, as a Nuclear Fuel Projects Engineer and then a Nuclear Services Department Incore Analysis Engineer. At.Carolina Power and Light Company, my responsibilities included nuclear fuel procurement and nuclear reactor core design and analysis. As a function of nuclear reactor core design and analysis work that I performed, I was responsible for ensuring that the nuclear fuel and nuclear reactor core operated within the regulatory limits approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the plant license. I joined ERI in 1990, and I am currently a senior consultant and an owner of the company. I have extensive experience in providing advice to clients in the areas of spent nuclear, fuel, nuclear waste management and radioactive materials transport, and I analyze the technical, economic, regulatory, legislative, and policy issues associated with the storage, acceptance, transport, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. My clients .include nuclear power plant operating companies, a foreign government, industry organizations, private companies, and a private spent fuel management organization. ERI has developed a computer model, SPNTFUEL, that has the capability to model spent fuel acceptance rates, determine acceptance rights for individual nuclear power plants, and determine the effect of these acceptance rates on utility requirements for additional spent fuel storage capacity, including the amount of time that spent fuel must remain at nuclear power plant sites following plant shutdown for decommissioning. SPNTFUEL also has the capability to project nuclear power plant discharge data, including the number of fuel assemblies discharged, fuel weight (MTU) discharged, and fuel burnup. In Indiana Michigan Power Company v. United States, the parties stipulated that the ERI and DOE computer models used to project spent fuel discharges and acceptance rates rely on similar assumptions and similar input data. Further, the parties stipulated that "the annual acceptance allocations calculated by either the ERI or DOE models should not result in any material differences for the purposes of assessing damages.''3 Additional details regarding the SPNTFUEL program can be found in Appendix A to this report. On behalf of clients, using the SPNTFUEL model, I have analyzed possible overall DOE acceptance rates and the effect that DOE acceptance rates would have on utility spent fuel storage requirements and the period of time that spent fuel must remain at nuclear power plant sites following reactor shutdown for decommissioning. These analyses have been performed to determine the effect of DOE acceptance rates on the commercial nuclear power plants' spent fuel storage requirements, for the overall U.S. nuclear industry, and for
3 Joint Stipulations Regarding Testimony on Spent Fuel Discharges and Cask Loading Costs, Indiana Michigan Power Company v. United States, No. 98-486C, March 2, 2004.

2

Energy Resources International, Inc.

174

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 25 of 31

Protected and Confidential Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

individual nuclear power plants as requested by individual clients. Acceptance rate analyses that I have performed include analysis for nuclear industry organizations of potential DOE acceptance rates; analysis to support nuclear industry legislative efforts regarding changes to the DOE waste program in the 1990s; analysis on behalf of the nuclear industry of proposals to "take title" to spent nuclear fuel; development of spent fuel acceptance scenarios to support individual client decommissioning analyses; and development of spent fuel acceptance scenarios to support individual client spent nuclear fuel damages claims, such as the analysis supporting this case. From 1990 to 2004, I was a direct participant in technical exchanges between the nuclear industry and DOE regarding such topics as DOE plans for accepting commercial SNF, industry positions on outstanding Standard Contract issues, and DOE's conceptual designs . for surface facilities for acceptance of commercial SNF. I have assisted in the preparation of nuclear industry comments and feedback on various DOE program documents, including but not limited to Mission Plans, Annual Capacity Reports, Acceptance Priority Ranking reports, Environmental Impact Statement documents, and transportation plans. My detailed resume is attached as Appendix B, providing additional details on my background, and qualifications as an expert in this matter.
In addition to numerous client-specific analyses, evaluations, and reports, over the past fifteen years I have authored over 35 reports, presentations, and publications in leading nuclear energy journals and have been an invited speaker at over a dozen conferences. A detailed list of my publications and presentations is attached as Appendix C.

3

Energy Resources International, Inc.

175

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 26 of 31

Protected and Confidential Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order
o

METHODOLOGY USED AND MATE~ALS CONSIDERED IN REACHING OPINIONS

In developing my expert opinions regarding the overall DOE SNF acceptance rate, I have performed analyses of a range of overall acceptance rates using the SPNTFUEL program, including the overall steady-state acceptance rate used most frequently by DOE since the program inception (3,000 MTU per year), to determine the effect of these acceptance rates on commercial nuclear power plant spent fuel storage requirements, i also have reviewed and analyzed DOE and DOE contractor reports regarding DOE plans for accepting SNF. These include, but are not limited to: DOE Mission Plans, Total System Life Cycle Cost Analyses, Fee Adequacy Assessments, and Waste Acceptance System Requirements Documents. I also have reviewed deposition and trial testimony of knowledgeable DOE staff.
A list of the written materials that I have reviewed and considered in forming my opinions in this report is included in Appendix D. I respectfully reserve the right to express additional opinions, supplement or amend the opinions in this report, or provide additional. rationale for these opinions as additional documents are produced, the transcripts of expert and fact witness depositions become available for my review, and new facts are introduced during discovery and trial.

4

Energy Resources International, Inc.

176

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 27 of 31

Protected and Confidential Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

4. 4.1

DESCRIPTION OF ERI SPNTFUEL MODEL SPNTFUEL Description

In forming my opinions, I have performed analyses of a range of overall DOE- spent fuel acceptance rate scenarios using the SPNTFUEL program - a spent fuel acceptance simulation model developed by ERI, described further in Appendix A.
According to Article IV of the Standard Contract, contract holders are required to provide DOE with information on actual discharges and projected discharges on a periodic basis. This data is submitted to DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) by nuclear operating companies via DOE Nuclear Fuel Data Form, RW-859. DOE requested submittal of RW-859 data for spent fuel discharged from commercial nuclear power plants through December 31, 2002 (2002 RW-859). The analyses described below rely on industry-wide historical spent fuel discharges from U.S. commercial nuclear power plants as provided to DOE via the 2002 RW-859. Since many nuclear operating companies have added dry storage since December 31, 1998, using the storage locations identified in the 2002 RW-859 data base would not reflect spent fuel inventories that were in wet storage in 1998 but were moved to dry storage by 2002. For the purposes of this analysis, I used the 2002 RW-859 data but assumed that spent fuel placed in dry storage after December 31, 1998 remained in spent fuel storage pools. This ensures that the analysis does not underestimate the additional storage requirements,

Since the RW-859 data only includes five cycles of projected spent fuel discharges for nuclear power plants, ERI must project additional spent fuel discharges for each plant through the end of its 40-year operating license. SPNTFUEL is capable of projecting future spent fuel discharges for each operating nuclear power plant. The projected SNF discharge data calculated with SPNTFUEL are used in combination with historical and projected spent fuel discharge data to determine spent fuel acceptance rates, industry wide spent fuel storage requirements, as well as the timing associated with the removal of SNF from plants following shutdown for decommissioning.
4.2 Acceptance Priority

Since DOE's acceptance capacity will be finite in any given year (e.g., up to an overall rate of 3,000 MTU), DOE will allocate the annual spent fuel acceptance capacity to contract holders4 using a priority ranking process. According to the Standard Contract;5 the priority ranking for assigning spent fuel acceptance rights to the contract holders is based, with limited exceptions, on the age of the SNF as determined from the date that the SNF was
The term "contract holders" refers to companies who have signed the Standard Contract with DOE. Standard Contract, Article IV.B.5 and Article VI.B.I(a).

Energy Resources International, Inc.

177

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 28 of 31

Protected and Confidential Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

permanently discharged from the contract holders' nuclear power plant(s). This priority ranking methodology is typically referred to as "Oldest Fuel First''6 or "OFF." The age of each fuel assembly discharged determines the relative position of this fuel in the spent fuel acceptance "queue" (i.e., the chronological list of all spent fuel permanently discharged from all commercial nuclear power plants). Spent fuel acceptance "rights" are expressed in MTU of allocated acceptance capacity. It should be noted that while the Standard Contract priority ranking is based on an OFF methodology, the Standard Contract contains additional provisions that might affect the acceptance of spent nuclear fuel, providing additional flexibility to contract holders. For example, the Standard Contract, Article V.E, "Exchanges," allows Standard Contract holders the right to exchange delivery commitment schedules with other Standard Contract holders. The contract provision allows DOE to approve or disapprove any such exchanges within thirty days after receipt. The Standard Contract also allows Contract holders to "adjust the quantities of SNF and/or HLW plus or minus (4-) twenty percent (20%), and the delivery schedule up to two (2) months, until submission of the final delivery schedule.''7'

DOE, Annual Capacity Report, DOE/RW-O294P, December 1990, p. 8-9. Standard Contract, Article V.B.2

6

Energy Resources International, Inc.

178

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 29 of 31

Protected and Confidential Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

5.

DETERMINATION OF STEADY-STATE ANNUAL SPENT ACCEPTANCE RATE IN THE NON-BREACH WORLD

FUEL

As noted previously, U.S. commercial nuclear power plants generate approximately 2,000 MTU of SNF on an annual basis. By January 31, 1998, the datethat DOE was to have started SNF acceptance, there were approximately 37,000 MTU of SNF that had been permanently discharged from commercial nuclear power plants.8
Based on my analysis of the effect that various spent fuel acceptance rates would have on utility requirements for additional SNF storage capacity as well as the effect-on the time that spent fuel would remain at nuclear power plants following plant shutdown for decommissioning, I have determined that an overall steady-state SNF acceptance rate of 3,000 MTU per year had DOE begun acceptance of spent fuel acceptance by January 31, 1998: (i) would have kept up with the annual discharge rate of 2,000 MTU of spent fuel, thereby limiting the amount of additional storage capacity needed at nuclear power plants after that date; and (ii) would have worked off the 37,000 MTU backlog of.SNF as of 1998 allowing nuclear power plants to be decommissioned at the end of their Operating licenses without extensive delays. In addition, DOE would have used a steady-state spent~fuel acceptance rate of 3,000 MTU per year for almost 30 years of waste acceptance - an indication that the 3,000 MTU capacity would have been an efficient system that fully utilized system capacity. In contrast, use of other lower acceptance rates suggested by the Government in other spent fuel cases would have resulted in utilities having to provide much larger amounts of additional at-reactor storage after January 1998, and would have resulted in the continued presence of spent nuclear fuel at nuclear power plants for longer time periods following plant shutdown for decommissioning. In forming my opinion, I have performed analyses of a range of overall DOE spent fuel acceptance rate scenarios using the SPNTFUEL program - a spent fuel acceptance simulation model developed by ERI, described further in Section 4 and in Appendix A. I analyzed the results from the SPNTFUEL program using a spreadsheet that I developed to calculate additional spent fuel storage requirements under the scenarios described in the following sections. The analyses described below rely on industry-wide historical spent fuel discharges from U.S. commercial nuclear power plants as provided to DOE via data survey RW-859 through December 31, 2002. 5.1 Acceptance Rate Scenarios Analyzed

I performed an analysis to demonstrate the effect that different acceptance rates would have on commercial nuclear power plant spent fuel storage requirements and on the time that spent fuel would remain on site following plant shutdown for decommissioning.

8 U.S. DOE, OCRWM, Acceptance Priority Ranking and Annual Capacity Report, DOE/RW-0567, July 2004. Energy Resources International, Inc.

179

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 30 of 31

Protected and Confidential Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

Scenario 1, the 3,000 MTU per year steady-state acceptance rate scenario that assumes acceptance of 400 MTU in 1998, 600 MTU in 1999, 1,200 MTU in 2000, 2,000 MTU in 2001, and 3,000 MTU thereafter (3,000 MTU scenario), was analyzed because this rate is consistent with the overall SNF acceptance rates assumed throughout the majority of the program's history since its inception in 1983. In addition to the 3,000 MTU scenario, three other scenarios were analyzed: Scenario 2, with a 900 MTU steady-state acceptance rate that assumes acceptance of 400 MTU in 1998, 600 MTU in 1999, and 900 MTu thereafter (900 MTU scenario);
Scenario 3, with a 3,000 MTU steady state capacity and a ramp up period of 18 years that assumes- acceptance of 400 MTU in 1998, 600 MTU in 1999, 900 MTU in 2000 through 2009, 1,800 MTU in 2010 through 2014, and 3,000 MTU thereafter (1992 ACR scenario)

Scenario 4; with a 6,000 MTU steady-state acceptance rate that assumes acceptance of 400 MTU in 1998, 600 MTU in 1999, 1,200 MTUin 2000, 2,000 MTU in-200,1, 3,000 MTU in.2002, 4,000 MTU in 2003, 5,000 MTU in 2004,and 6;000 MTU thereafter (6,000 MTU scenario).
It should be noted that Scenario 2 is based on an acceptance rate scenario that DOE-used in the early to mid-1990s in conjunction with its efforts to develop-a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility, a facility that DOE never built and had no authority to operate beginning in 1998.9 This acceptance scenario is based on the acceptance rates found in DOE's 1991 Annual Capacity Report (1991 ACR)1° and the 1995 ACR,1~ which assumed a 900 MTU spent fuel acceptance rate for the first ten years of waste acceptance by DOE (the DOE made no assumption in those ACR reports regarding what acceptance rate would apply after the first ten years). Scenario 3 is also based on an acceptance rate Scenario that DOE used in conjunction with the MRS facility. It is based on acceptance rates found in the 1992 ACR~2 and the 1990 Total System Life Cycle Cost Report (1990 TSLCC).13
9 DOE was prohibited by the 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act ~rom operating an MRS facility until the proposed repository received construction authorization from the NRC. Hence DOE could not have begun operation of an MRS facility in 1998. DOE recognized this fact in its 1991 ACR when it stated that "If the current linkages between MRS facility construction and repository construction authorization are maintained, it is estimated that commencement of facility operations and initial acceptance of SNF by DOE could not start until at least 2007." (1991 ACR, p. 4). ~0 U.S. DOE, OCRWM, "Annual Capacity Report," DOE/RW-0331P, December 1991. 11 U.S. DOE, OCRWM, "Acceptance Priority Ranking and Annual Capacity Report, DOE/RW-0457, March 1995. ~2 U.S. DOE, OCRWM, "Annual Capacity Report," DOE/RW-0412, March 1993. : 13 U.S. DOE, OCRWM, "Preliminary Estimates of the Total System Cost for the Restructured Program: An Addendum to the May 1989 Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Costs for the Civilian Radioactive Energy Resources International, Inc.

180

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-6

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 31 of 31

Protected and Confidential Material to be Disclosed Only In Accordance With U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protective Order

Table 1 provides a summary of the ramp up rates and overall steady-state acceptance rates assumed in the four acceptance rate scenarios. Table 1: Spent Fuel Acceptance Rate Scenarios14 Year Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 3,000 MTU 900 MTU 1992 ACR, 3000 MTU 1998 400 400 400 1999 600 600 600 2000 900 9O0 1,200 2001 2,000 900 9OO 2002 3,000 900 900 2O03 3,000 900 900

Scenario 4 6,000 MTU

400
600 1,200 2,000 3,000

2004
2005 2006

3,000

2007
2008 2009.

3,000 3,000 3,000
ooo ooo

9OO 900 900 900
ooo

900 900 900
900

4,000 5,000
6,000

6,000
6,000
ooo ooo .

2010 2011
2012 2013 2014

°o° °°, .°o °oo, °°° °o° °oo °°° oo° °o° o°°

9O0 900 1,800 1,800
1,800 1,800 1,800 3,000 3,000 Max Capacity

ooo °,° ....

2015

3,000 Max Capacity

900 Max Capacity

6,000 Max Capaci~ .

5.2

Evaluation Criteria

As stated, I evaluated the acceptance rates described above to determine how they would impact the following two criteria:

(1) (2)

The amount of additional spent fuel storage that utilities would have had to add had DOE begun acceptance of SNF in 1998; and The number of years that SNF remains on site after each plant is shut down for decommissioning.

Waste Management System, DOE/RW-0295P. ~4 Any section of this Report including the charts, quotations and text, may be used as a demonstrative exhibit during the trial in this action.

Energy Resources International, Inc.

181