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

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 1 of 40
Page 277

1
2 3 4

WASHINGTON, D.C. NOTARY PUBLIC, to wit: I, Ronald E. Bennett, a Notary Public of the District of Columbia, do hereby certify that the within-named witness personally appeared before me at the time and place herein set out, and after having been duly sworn by me according to law, was examined by counsel. I further certify that the proceedings were recorded stenographically by me and this transcript is a true record of the proceedings. I further certify that I am not of counsel to any of the parties, nor in any way interested in the outcome of this action. As witnessed my hand and notarial seal this 13 day of July, 2006.

5
6 7

8 9 i0
ii 12 13 14

15
16 17

18

Ronald E. Bennett, Notary Public

19 20 21 22 23

24 25

My commission expires: February 14, 2010

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 2 of 40

Eileen M. Supko
Page
UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDER/bL CLAIMS

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY,) Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. and SYSTEMS FUELS, INC., et al., Plaintiff,
V.

) ) No. 98-484C ) )

) ) )
) No. 03-2623C

THE UNITED STATES, .Defendant. and ¯ SYSTEMS FUELS, INC. Plaintiff,
V.

)
)DEPOSITION OF )EILEEN M. SUPKO etc., ) July 19, 2006

)
) No. 03--2624C

THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

)
) Job No. 175436

The deposition of EILEEN M. SUPKO commenced at 9:00 AM, at the UNITED STATES DEPA!{TMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH, II00 L Street, N.W.,

Esquire Deposition Services D.C. - 1-800-441-3376 42

MD VA

1-800-539-6398 1-800-752-8979
deO2e399-46a7-4ce4-9elf-986d2da58ed3

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 3 of 40

Eileen M. Supko
Page

Washington, D.C., before Cheryl A. Lord, Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and Notary Public for the District of Columbia.
APPEARANCES

For Plaintiff:
9 I0
II 12

Jay E. Silberg, Esquire PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. (202) 663-8000 20037-1128

13
14

For Defendant: Joshua E. Gardner, Esquire Alan J. Lo Re, Esquire ~iTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF i~ 20 21 22 JUSTICE
BRANCH

CIVIL DIVISION COMMERCIAL LITIGATION ii00 L Street, N.W. Washington~ D.C. (202) 307-0226 20530

Esquire Deposition Services D.C. - 1-800-441-3376
43

MD - 1-800-539-6398 VA - 1-800-752-8979
~leO2e399-46a7-4ce4-9elf-986d2da58ed3

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Eileen Supko

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 4 of 40

Page 3 i APPEARANCES CONTINUED 2

3 For Xcel Energy:
4

Kerry C. Koep, Esquire XCEL ENERGY Assistant General Counsel 414 Nicollet Mall, Suite 5OO Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 215-4583

5 6
7

8 9
I0

Ii Also present: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376
44

Eric Heintz and Ted Lunsford

MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Eileen Supko

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 5 of 40

Page 4 i 2 3 EXAMINATION BY 4 Mr. Gardner 5 6 7 NO. 8 9 1 I0 II 12 13 14 2 15 16 17 18 19 3 2O 21 22 Expert Report Regarding Determination of the U.S. Department of Energy's Overall Spent Nuclear Fuel Acceptance Rate Expert Report Regarding Spent Nuclear Fue! Acceptance Rights for Northern States Power Company's Prairie Island and Monticello Plants Expert Report Regarding Determination of the U.S. Department of Energy's Overall Spent Nuclear Fue! Acceptance
MD- 1-800-539-6398 VA- 1-800-752-8979 45 13 13

CONTENTS

PAGE 8

EXHIBITS

DESCRIPTION

PAGE

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.- 1-800-441-3376

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 6 of 40

Eileen Supko Page 18 1 2 Q. BY MR. GARDNER: Why don't I reask it, and tell me

3 what part you're having difficulty with. 4 Do you have an understanding as to

5 the rate of acceptance that DOE would be 6 obligated to maintain under the. standard 7 contract? 8 A. There is no rate of acceptance in

9 the standard contract specified. I0 Q. Okay. So you have, then, I presume

ii no understanding, then, as to what rate DOE is 12 obligated to perform that? 13 14 15 A. MR. SILBERG: Objection. That calls for a legal conclusion. As I said, there's no rate in the

16 contract. 17 BY MR. GARDNER:

Q.

SO the answer is no, you have no

19 understanding as to the rate of acceptance that 20 DOE is obligated to perform that? 21 22 A. MR. SILBERG: Same objection. I'm not going to offer an opinion as

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.- 1-800-441-3376 48

MD - 1-800-539-6398 VA- 1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Eileen Supko

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 7 of 40

Page 19 1 to what their obligations are.
2

BY MR. GARDNER:
Q. I understand you're not going to

3

4 offer an opinion. 5 6 7 A. Do you have an understanding? Just yes or no. Yes. Yes, you do have an understanding,

8

Q.

9 is that correct? I0 Yes, you have an understanding to

Ii what DOE's obligations are with respect to rate 12 under the standard contract? 13 A. As I stated, there is no rate in the

14 standard contract. 15 16 Q. That's my understanding. So is the answer to my question, no,

17 you do not have an understanding as to DOE's 18 obligations with respect to the rate of 19 acceptance under the standard contract? 20 21 A. MR. SILBERG: Asked and answered. I answered your question that the

22 contract doesn't have a rate in it. Esquire Deposition Serfices D.C.-1-800-441-3376 MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 8 of 40

Eileen Supko Page 20 1 2 3 Q.

That's my understanding. BY MR. GARDNER:
Okay. And therefore if the contract

4 doesn't contain a rate, then you have no 5 understanding otherwise as to what rate DOE's 6 obligated to perform at under the standard 7 contract; is that correct? 8 MR. SILBERG: Objection, legal

9 conclusion, asked and answered. I0 A. I~ don't know how else to answer your

II question other than to tell you what I know. 12 MR. GARDNER: I'm going to have

13 marked what will be exhibit number 7. 14 15 !~ 17 18 Q. (Supko Exhibit No. 7 was marked for identification.) BY MR. GARDNER: All right. Ms. Supko, I've handed

19 you what's been marked as exhibit number 7. 20 And before I describe the document,

21 have you ever seen that document before? 22 I'll represent to you it's an MD-1-800-539-6398 VA- 1-800-752-8979

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376

48

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 9 of 40

Eileen Supko

Page 21
1 excerpt, because I'm trying to save the 2 environment today.

3 4 5

A.

I don't recal!. I'll describe it to you. It is plaintiff's -- and this is

Q.

6 Northern States now. 7 This is plaintiff's objections and

8 responses to the defendant's first set of 9 interrogatories and requests for production of i0 documents. This is basically a pretrial ii discovery document, and we -- which we asked the 12 plaintiff for certain information, and they 13 purport to give us that information through 14 written responses. 15 And if you turn to the second page

16 of this document, the excerpt -- actually page 17 number 7 on the bottom, you'll see there's an 18 interrogatory number 7 on the top. 19 20 21 A. Q. Do you see that? M-hm. And the interrogatory -- this is an

22 interrogatory by the way -- this is a question Esquire Deposition Serfices D.C.-1-800-441-3376 49 MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 10 of 40

Eileen Supko
Page22 1 that the government has asked NSP. 2 And we ask the following question:

3 Identify those persons both within plaintiff's 4 organization and outside of plaintiff's 5 organization who are the most knowledgeable about 6 the parties' understanding at any time subsequent 7 to the execution of plaintiff's contract as to 8 the rate and/or sequence of SNF and/or HLW 9 acceptance that DOE would be obligated to I0 maintain under the standard contract. Ii 12 subparts. 13 Now, if you go to page 7 D, which is And then it goes on to list some

14 the next page of this document, NSP has 15 identified Eileen Supko, which of course is you. 16 17 18 A. Q. Correct? Yes. Now, Ms. Supko, do you agree that

19 you are one of the most knowledgeable persons 20 with respect to the rate and/or sequence of SNF 21 that DOE would be obligated to maintain under the 22 standard contract?

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376
5O

MD -1-800-539-6398 VA- 1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 11 of 40

Eileen Supko

Paze 23
1 2 ambiguous. 3 4 it. 5 A.
I'm aware of the fact that NSP You can answer it if you understand MR. SILBERG: Objection, vague and

6 identified me as such a person. 7 It also states that the plaintiff's,

8 NSP's, response to this was that the 9 interrogatory was overly broad, et cetera, but I0 they did identify individuals with the most ii knowledge of these issues, which is the 12 acceptance rate and rate and sequence of spent 13 fuel acceptance. 14 15 Q. BY MR. GARDNER: That's actually a nonresponsive

16 answer, Ms. Supko. 17 My question is, do you consider

18 yourself to be one of the most knowledgeable 19 persons with respect to DOE's obligations 20 concerning the rate schedule of acceptance under 21 the standard contract. 22 MR. SILBERG: Objection,

Esquire Deposition Serfices D.C.-1-800-441-3376
51

MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 12 of 40

Eileen Supko

Page 24
1 mischaracterizes the document. 2 A. I consider myself to be one of the

3 most knowledgeable persons associated with an 4 understanding of the rate and sequence of spent 5 fuel acceptance by DOE. 6 Whether or not it would be an

7 obligation under the standard contract is a legal 8 issue. 9 I0 Q. BY MR. GARDNER: Let me ask you, do you have any

ii knowledge about the rate and/or sequence of SNF 12 that DOE would be obligated to maintain under the 13 standard contract? 14 15 conclusion. 16 17 18 Q. (Discussion off the record.) BY MR. GARDNER: Ms. Supko, I'm going to read back MR. SILBERG: Objection, legal

19 the last question, because I think there was -20 there's some separation. 21 (Reading the realtime screen:) Let

22 me ask you, do you have any knowledge about the Esquire Deposition Services D.C.- 1-800-441-3376 52 MD- 1-800-539-6398 VA- 1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 13 of 40

Eileen Supko Page 25 1 rate and/or sequence of SNF that DOE would be

2 obligated to maintain under the standard 3 contract? 4 A. I believe that I answered the

5 question that discussing DOE's obligation is a 6 lega! issue, and I'm not making a legal 7 conclusion. 8 I'm fully aware of acceptance rates

9 that the Department of Energy has used over the I0 lifetime of the program, and I've analyzed those II rates, as you know, in my expert reports. 12 Q. Outside of your expert reports, do

13 you have any understanding as to the rate and/or 14.sequence of SNF that DOE would be obligated to 15 maintain under the standard contract?
16 17 answered. 18 A.

MR. SILBERG: Objection, asked and

From the beginning of the program,

19 the intent of the program was to have an 20 acceptance rate set such that utilities, nuclear 21 operating companies would not be required to add 22 additional storage capacity after 1998, and to
Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376 53

MD -1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 14 of 40

Eileen Supko ,. 1 work off the backlog to allow timely Page26

2 decommissioning, and a rate that does that is a 3 rate that reaches 3,000 metric tons with. a fairly 4 short 5- to 6-year rampup period. 5 6 Q. BY MR. GARDNER: So is the answer to my question, no,

7 that you have no knowledge about the rate and/or 8 sequence that DOE would be obligated to maintain 9 under the standard contract? I0 ii answered. 12 A. I stated I have -- that I believe MR. SILBERG: Objection, asked and

13 discussing what DOE's obligation is is a legal 14 issue, and that's not something thai I'm opining 15 on. 15 17 18 Q. BY MR. GARDNER: I understand you're not opining. I'm asking if you have an

19 understanding. 20 21 A. Do you have any knowledge? I know that my client, NSP -- I

22 don't recall if Entergy or System Fuels Inc. has Esquire Deposition Services D.C.- 1-800-441-3376 54

MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Eileen Supko

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 15 of 40

Page27 1 submitted reports regarding -- briefs regarding 2 the Department of Energy's -- the facts 3 associated with DOE's obligations regarding spent 4 fuel acceptance. 5 I know there were many briefs filed.

6 I know that NSP did in fact file one, and their 7 opinion is they were required to pick up spent 8 nuclear fue! at a rate that would have limited 9 the amount of spent fue! storage such that no one I0 would have to add additiona! storage after '98. Ii 12 13 Q. Now, that's in their brief. I'm asking for your view. Outside of this expert report, do

14 you have any understanding or knowledge about the 15 rate and/or sequence that DOE would be obligated 16 to maintain under the standard contract? 17 18 answered. 19 20 A. MR. SILBERG: Objection, asked and

She gave you the information. As I said, whether DOE is obligated That's all that I can tell

21 is a legal issue. 22 you. Esquire Deposition Services D.C.- 1-800-441-3376

MD - 1-800-539-6398 VA- 1-800-752-8979 55

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Eileen Supko

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 16 of 40

Page 28
1 2 Q. BY MR. GARDNER: Okay. So you have no knowledge

3 about that? 4 5 A.

MR. SILBERG: Asked and answered. I have no legal knowledge about it,

6 no, I don't. 7 8 Q. BY MR. GARDNER: Do you have any nonlegal knowledge

9 about the DOE's obligations under the standard I0 contract? ii 12 A. Q. It's a legal issue. Okay. So the answer is, no, you

13 have no knowledge? 14 15 16 A. Q. No.

Thank you. Ms. Supko -- and I think you

17 testified to this. You certainly said this in 18 your report -- that the notion of no additional 19 at-reactor storage was a key issue identified by 20 utilities. 21 22 A. Correct? Yes. MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979 56

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Eileen Supko

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 17 of 40

Page 29
Q. Now, that's in fact what you say in
2 your expert report. 3 Correct?

4 5 6 7 8

I believe it's page I. MR. SILBERG: Excuse me. We're referring to the overall -MR. GARDNER: Yeah. Why don't we go to exhibit 1 as an

9 illustrative example. i0 II Q. BY MR. GARDNER: The very first paragraph, it looks

12 like the middle of the paragraph, you say -13 A. I don't say that no additional

14 storage. 15 I say that counse! asked me to

16 provide an opinion on the DOE's rate of 17 acceptance of spent nuclear fuel on -- as a whole 18 on 2 key issues identified by DOE in the nuclear 19 industry. 20 One of those is the aggregate amount

21 of additional storage that would be required. 22 Q. Now, are you just relying upon MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979 57

Esquire Deposition Serfices D.C.-1-800-441-3376

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 18 of 40

Eileen Supko
Page 49 1 of SNF equal to the year's generation rate plus a 2 reasonable share of the backlog, to be tantamount 3 to a request that the rate be sufficient to 4 preclude all additional at-reactor storage? 5 A. That would be the result of doing

6 it, yes. 7 Q. But of course, even under your

8 analysis, there are utilities that required 9 additional at-reactor after 1998. I0 Ii A. Correct? My calculation as we've discussed

12 many times before is based on an oldest fue! 13 first analysis. The -- one of the sensitivity 14 analyses that I do examines the use of acceptance 15 rights within a company at any reactor that that 16 company owns, and it reduces the number fairly 17 significantly such that with the flexibilities in 18 the system, that number -- the amount of 19 additional storage would approach zero, or could 20 approach.zero. 21 22 Q. So I just want to be sure. Your opinion is that under the

Esquire Deposition Serfices D.C.-1-800-441-3376
58

MD -1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Eileen Supko

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 19 of 40

Page50 1 analysis you conduct, no utility needs additional 2 at-reactor storage after 1998? 3 4 5 case? 6 A. My calculations in the way that I A. Q. That's not what I said. I'm asking you, is that in fact the

7 calculate additional at-reactor storage 8 requirements do show that there would be some 9 amount of additional at-reactor storage. i0 Looking at exhibit I, table 3, which

ii is a sensitivity analysis that includes 12 intracompany use of acceptance rights, I 13 calculated 690 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel. 14 That was at maybe a dozen or so nuclear power 15 plants that would require that. 15 17 18 19 answer. 2O 21 A. That may be. I said approximately. And the additional storage Q. It's 14, actually, isn't it? MR. SILBERG: Excuse me. If you could let her finish her

22 requirements could be accommodated -- they don't

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376

MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 20 of 40

Eileen Supko

Page 119
1 would have been able to exercise. 2 Q. Correct me if I'm wrong: You've

3 actually testified that even absent any 4 flexibilities being utilized that 1,030 MTUs of 5 additional at-reactor storage~is a reasonable 6 amount of additional at-reactor storage. 7 8 A. Correct? I don't think it's unreasonable.

9 It's a calculated amount based on the information i0 that I used in. my analysis. ii Q. And you believe that that amount is

12 a reasonable amount of additional at-reactor 13 storage. 14 15 A. Correct? The number is what it is. It's

16 based on my analysis. 17 It's not unreasonable given that

18 it's a small number of plants and a relatively -19 again this is a calculated number. It's not 20 necessarily what would have occurred had the 21 industry believed DOE was coming. 22 Q. Is there a difference between-not MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979 6O

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 21 of 40

Eileen Supko Pagel20 1 unreasonable and reasonable? 2 You seem very hesitant to tell me

3 that 1030. is reasonable. 4 A. I know that based on what I know

5 makes up that number in terms of the number of 6 nuclear power plants that -- whose additionai 7 requirements are calculated within that number 8 and the amount of storage requirements calculated 9 at those plants that that number is reasonable I0 and could have been accommodated within the II flexibilities that existed. 12 Qo And we've talked about this before I

13 think most recently in perhaps South Carolina 14 that your upper limit of reasonable additional 15 at-reactor storage would be approximately one 16 year's worth of discharge. 17 18 19 A. Q. Correct? Yes. Do you know under scenario 3, had

20 the flexibilities been utilized, would there have 21 been more than 2,000 MTUs of additional 22 at-reactor storage? Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376 61 MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 22 of 40

Eileen Supko

Page 121
I 2 3 A. Q. A. I have not calculated that. So you don't know? Well, as I stated under scenario 3,

4 even if one were -- this is -- I'll characterize 5 this as a qualitative analysis that I'm doing 6 here as we sit -- that from -- from the period 7 2005 to 2009, 900 metric tons per year wouldn't 8 have been enough to eliminate even using trading 9 or only those companies who needed requirements i0 would be able to ship their.spent~fuel.. It Ii wouldn't have been enough to eliminate that. 12 Q. But do you know if it would have

i3 been enough to get the amount of additional 14 at-reactor storage to 2,000 MTU in total? 15 16 A. I have not calculated that number. MR. GARDNER: I'm having marked what

17 is going to be exhibit number 14. 18 19 20 21 22

(Supko Exhibit No. 14 was marked for identification.) BY MR. GARDNER: Ms. Supko, do you recognize what MD-1-800-539-6398 VA- 1-800-752-8979

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3 Eileen SupkoFiled 01/31/2007

Page 23 of 40

Page 139 1 going to increase, and they've done that fo~ a 2 long time in their analyses. 3 4 Q. I'm asking a different question. My question is, have you done any

5 analysis to determine whether the number you've 6 calculated here, 1,031.5, would have been 7 different had DOE begun performance in 19987 8 9 A. Q. No. Have you done any analysis to

I0 determine.of these 14 utilities whether there Ii would have been a cost for any of these utilities 12 to accommodate those additional storage 13 requirements that you've calculated? 14 15 A. Q. No, I haven't. Now, you don't include shutdown

16 utilities in this calculation. 17 18 19 20 plants. 21 Q. Do you know what the views are of, A. Correct? No. This is only looking at operating

22 say, PG&E and Humboldt Bay with respect to when Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376 MD-1-800-539-6398 VA-1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 24 of 40

Eileen Supko

Page 142
1 expert opinion from the Yankee case? 2 3 A. Q. That's correct. I take it since you don't know

4 Mr. Graves or his analysis, you don't know if his 5 analysis is consistent with yours. 6 7 8 9 A. Is that fair to say? That's correct. I don't know. If the court in these cases, Judge

i0 Lettow, Judge Braden, and Judge Weiss, if those ii judges conclude that they need to determine what 12 rate the government is contractually obligated to 13 perform at, you can't address that issue. 14 15 A. Correct? I'm not qualified to make a legal

16 conclusion, so I wouldn't be addressing that. 17 Q. Are you making an affirmative

18 conclusion that scenario 3 is unreasonable? 19 A. My conclusion is that scenario I --

20 and I'll -- so I don't misquote myself-- which 21 is a 3,000 metric tons per year rate of 22 acceptance, and I'm looking at exhibit one page

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.- 1-800-441-3376
84

MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 25 of 40

Eileen Supko Page 157
1 transit? 2 3 4 A. Q. A. Turn-around time. What else? And using that plus some downtime

5 was able to calculate based on an annual rate of 6 acceptance of 3,000 metric tons approximately how 7 many casks would be needed. 8 Q. What rampup did you assume for that

9 analysis? i0 A. It was either -- it was the rampup

Ii rate that was in legislation, so it depended upon 12 the legislation. 13 Q. Do you recall the different rates,

14 the rampup rates? 15 A. I know that the very first rampup

16 rate was consistent with the 1990 ACR shown in 17 table 4 of exhibit i. The rest of them I don't 18 recall. 19 Q. And what was the -- was your

20 analysis -- you say that you did it on NEI; is 21 that correct? 22 A.' Yes.

Esquire Deposition Serfices D.C.-1-800-441-3376
85

MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 26 of 40

Eileen Supko Page 158 Was the purpose of that for NEI to

1

Q.

2 demonstrate that 1020 was a good idea? 3 4 that? 5 6 speculation. 7 A. It also included a cost analysis, MR. SILBERG: Objection, calls for Is that kind of the purpose behind

8 because part of the discussion was what would the 9 impact on budget be. I0 II 12 13 Q. MR. GARDNER: Off the record. (Recess.) BY MR. GARDNER: Ms. Supko, now, I want to change

14 gears a bit and talk about exchanges, 15 specifically not intracompany exchanges, but !~ intercompany exchanges. 17 And I believe that one way utilities

18 could have additional storage requirements after 19 1998 met was through the use of exchanges. 2O 21 22
no

Correct? Could you repeat that? Sure.

Esquire Deposition Serfices D.C.-1-800-441-3376

MD -1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 27 of 40

Eileen Supko Page 159 That one way that utilities -- the

1

2 numbers you've calculated for additional 3 at=reactor storage after 1998, one way that could 4 be met is through the use of exchanges. 5 6 A. Correct? This is a flexibility in the

7 contract, yes. Q. money? i0 ii A. Idon't know. You haven't done any analysis to Do you think exchanges would cost

Q.

12 determine what a potential exchange would cost. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Correct? No. Do you think they'd be free? I don't know. Have you ever thought about it? Not in any leve! of detail. You've never done any analysis to

20 determine how much a utility would be willing to 21 pay to engage in an exchange. 22 Is that fair to say? MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979 67

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 28 of 40

Eileen Supko

Page 160
1 2 3 Q. A. That's correct. I have not. Have you done any analysis to

4 determine how exchanges would actually work? 5 A. Since the current system where the

6 government is not coming now until 2017 or 2018 7 if we're lucky, it's highly unlikely that anybody 8 would exchange acceptance rights. 9 Q. Let me be clear: I'm talking about

i0 the but-for world and you're running but-for ii world scenarios. 12 My question relates to have you

13 conducted any exchanges analysis in these but-for 14 worlds that -15 16 A. Q. I have not. I presume you'd agree that an

17 analysis could be done to determine what an 18 exchange marketplace would have looked like in 19 the but-for world.
20 21 22

Correct? I suppose so. Do you believe that you've got the

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376

MD -1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 29 of 40

Eileen Supko

Page161
1 expertise to develop such an exchanges model?

2 3 4 other? 5 6

A. Q.

I haven't thought about it. So you don't know one way or the

A. Q.

No. Hypothetical question for you:

7 Let's take Boston Edison. They come to you and 8 say, Ms. Supko, could you model exchange rights 9 across the industry. i0 Ii them? 12 13 do it. 14 do it. 15 16 it? 17 A. There are a lot of variables and Q. Why wouldn't you be willing to do A. I don't know if I would be able to Would you be able to do that for

I don't know that I would be willing to

18 factors involved in such an analysis, and I think 19 it would be difficult to try to capture al! of 20 those variables and factors. 21 Q. I'm curious, what do you view as

22 being the different variables and factors that

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376

MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 30 of 40

Eileen Supko

Page 162 1 would go into an exchange analysis.? 2 3 A. Q.
I haven't t~ought about it. I had thought previously you had

4 testified and maybe it was the Southern Nuclear 5 trial. Maybe it was SMUD -- I can't remember -6 but I recall that in the past you had said you 7 had run an analysis of exchanges; is that

8. correct? 9 A.
I ran analyses of decommissioning

I0 shutdownreactor priority in the early 1990s. ii Q. Offering -- in other words, taking

12 the OFF queue as it exists but affording priority 13 to the Yankees a.nd SMUDs of the world? 14 15 A. Q. Yes. Then I'm misremembering that you

16 have not engaged in any type of analysis 17 exchanges?

18 19 any. 2O

A.

I don't recall that I've ever done

Q.

Based on -- you've read the standard

21 contract many times. 22 Correct?

EsquireDeposifion Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376
7O

MD -1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 31 of 40

Eileen Supko

Page 163
1 2 A. Q. Yes. Based on your reading of the

3 standard contract, what is actually being 4 exchanged if you know?

5 6 7

A.

I'd have to look at the contract. Why don't we do that. For the record, I am going to give

Q.

8 you New England states standard contract. I'll 9 represent to you it's my understanding that they i0 should be. identi.cal between all 3 sites and in ii fact all the 103 reactors I suppose. 12 13 15. 14 15 16 17 18 Q. (Supko Exhibit No. 15 was marked for identification.) BY MR. GARDNER: Ms. Supko, I've handed you what's MR. GARDNER: This will be exhibit

19 been marked as exhibit 15, which. I'll represent 20 to you is the standard contract between Northern 21 States and the United States Department of 22 Energy. Esquire Deposition Serfices D.C.-1-800-441-3376 71 MD-1-800-539-6398 VA- 1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 32 of 40

Eileen Supko

1 2 before? 3 A.

Page 164 Have you seen the standard contract

This specific one? I knew you were going to ask that. No. More generally.

4
5 6

Q.

A.

I have seen the standard contract as

7 it's identified in part 961 of title i0 of the 8 United States Code of Federal Regulations. 9 I0 ii document. 12 21679. 13 You should see a section there Q. Okay. Fair enough. If you could turn to page 12 of the It's got a Bates label of COF double 0

14 entitled, E exchanges. 15 16 17 A. Q. Do you see that? Yes. The second paragraph says:

18 Purchaser shall have the right to exchange 19 approve delivery commitment schedules with 20 parties to other contracts for disposal of SNF or 21 HLW. 22 Do you see that?

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376
72

MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 33 of 40

Eileen Supko Page 165 A. Q. Yes. And is that consistent with your

3 recollection that in fact exchanges would have 4 taken place between approved delivery commitment 5 schedules?

6 7 much. 8 says. 9

A.

Honestly, I haven't thought about it

That's what the language in the contract

Q.

But you haven't really thought about

I0 exchanges? II A. I haven't analyzed it other than to

12 know that it is a flexibility that does exist. 13 Q. Do you know -- if we can go back to

14 your spreadsheet, which is exhibit 14, do you 15 know which of these utilities that you've 16 identified as having additional storage 17 requirements have approved DCSs? 18 19 A. Q. I don't. Okay. Ms. Supko, do you have an

20 opinion as to when the market for exchanges would 21 have developed? 22 MR. SILBERG: Objection, vague and MD -1-800-539-6398 VA- 1-800-752-8979 73

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 34 of 40

Eileen Supko Page 166
I ambiguous. 2 We're referring to the but-for

3 world, I assume? 4 5 6 Q. A. I haven't thought about it. BY MR. GARDNER: Do you remember in the Southern

7 Nuclear trial Judge Merrill asked you that exact 8 question? 9 A. I recall he asked me a question

I0 about exchanges and whether I thought they would ii have-been possible.
12 Q.

Do you recall giving a time frame

13 for that? 14 15 A. Q.

I don't. I assume sitting here today you

16 haven't really given any thought as to the timing 17 of when that market would have developed. 18 19 A. Is that fair to say? Well, if the government had

20 performed in '98 -- and I believe this is what I 21 said to Judge Merow -- if they had performed at a 22 3,000 metric tons rate of acceptance and if in

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.- 1-800-441-3376
74

MD - 1-800-539-6398 VA- 1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 35 of 40

Eileen Supko Page167 1 fact it appeared that performance was going to 2 continue uninterrupted, the market most likely 3 would have developed. 4 5 6 Q. A. When? After 1998. It could have happened before. I

7 have not really thought about it, but there would 8 have been sufficient flexibility in the system to 9 allow exchanges once the rampup rate started I0 increasing. II Q. You do no analysis to determine the

12 timing at which a market would have developed? 13 14 A. Q. I have not. You also recall -- this goes back to

15 the SMUD trial I think -- that you offered 16 testimony that you thought an exchanges market 17 would work similar to a uranium enrichment 18 exchanges market. 19 2O 21 testimony. 22 A. Yes. MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979 75

Do you recall that? That was in your written direct

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 36 of 40

Eileen Supko

1

Page168 The companies have exchanged uranium
And it

2 in its various forms since the mid-1980s. 3 works in a fairly seamless way. 4 Q.

When were the uranium enrichment

5 contracts originally signed? 6 7 them. 8
Are you talking about the enrichment

A.

Well, there have been a range of

9 contracts with the Department of Energy, with i0 USEC, with European -II Q. When you've made the conclusion in

12 your written direct testimony before Judge Braden 13 that you think that exchanges of acceptance rates 14 would work like exchanges of uranium enrichment 15 contracts, to what were you referring? 16 A. At the time, it was associated with

17 toll enrichment services under Department of 18 Energy contracts. Those no longer exist. 19 Companies still do exchange and borrow materia! 20 from time to time. 21 Q. So were you basing your conclusion

22 about the similarities between those 2 markets to Esquire Deposition Serfices D.C.-1-800-441-3376 78 MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Eileen Supko

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 37 of 40

Page 184 1 taking that 20 percent from another utility.
2 3 4 se. 5 It just assumes that those companies
no

Correct? It doesn't make an assumption per

6 who had additional requirements could potentially 7 have requirements that were 20 percent less. I 8 didn't analyze the effect on an annua! basis. 9 Q. You've done no analysis, then, as to

i0 what would happen if DOE were to grant a ii particular utility's request for an additional 20 12 percent, what impact that would have on other 13 purchasers as that term is used in the standard

14 contrac~. 15 16 17 A. Q.
Correct? I did not. It's your understanding that

18 utilities that have approved delivery commitment 19 schedules may adjust their allocations by 20 20 percent in either direction subject to DOE 21 approval. 22 Correct? MD -1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979 77

EsquireDeposifion Serfices D.C.-1-800-441-3376

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Eileen Supko

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 38 of 40

Page 207 1 Q. And then it says: The total

2 systemwide spent fuel arisings are projected to 3 be approximately 86,000 MTUs. 4 5 6 A. Q. Do you see that? Yes. Does your analysis in these spent

7 fuel cases assu~e these same assumptions or make 8 these same assumptions? 9 i0 A. Q. No. How have your assumptions changed

ii between, say, this private fuel storage analysis 12 in 2000 and the analysis you're doing for this 13 litigation? 14 A. (Pause.) I don't wish to misspeak as to what

16 my current assumptions are, and I don't have them 17 committed to memory, so I'll give you some 18 approximate answers. 19 20 21 Q. A. BY MR. GARDNER: Okay. The overall analysis that I've done

22 for the various clients assumes 40-year licenses,

Esquire Deposition Services D.C.-1-800-441-3376 78

MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Eileen Supko

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 39 of 40

Page208 1 but I've also done the analysis assuming license 2 extension for all plants. And I believe that 3 analysis has been progided to you. 4 5 Q. I want to take them one at a time. The license extension analysis

6 you're not offering that in your actual opinion. 7 8 A. Right? I didn't change my opinion. It

9 doesn't change my opinion. The results are i0 similar. II Q. You don't even provide that analysis

12 in any of your reports. 13 14 15 A. Correct? It's not in the report, no. It is a sensitivity to show that my

16 opinion wouldn't change. 17 Q. So 40-year licenses you still assume

18 that for what I'll call your base case? 19 20 21 A. Q. A. The overall analysis, yes. That assumption will stay the same. For the projection, although it

22 doesn't matter for the projection of acceptance Esquire Deposition Serfices D.C.-1-800-441-3376 79 MD-1-800-539-6398 VA -1-800-752-8979

Case 1:00-cv-00697-JFM

Document 280-3

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 40 of 40

Eileen Supko
Page228
i A. There would have been summaries of

2 the spent fuel discharges that were provided to 3 the client. 4 Q. Do you know if you produced those in

5 connection with the other things you produced in 6 this litigation? 7 8 A. I didn't. As I would update an analysis,

9 those would have been written over by the new i0 analyses. ii Q. Do you recall the outputs of that

12 preliminary estimate and how those compared to 13 the conclusions you've reached in this report? 14 A. I recall that things didn't change

15 significantly, plant operating schedules are in 16 general pretty consistent, and you don't see 17 major differences from one projection to another 18 unless something drastic happened, and nothing 19 drastic has happened in the nuclear industry with 20-respect to operating schedules. 21 Q. When you say that you would have

22 overwritten any preliminary estimate or Esquire Deposition Services D.C.- 1-800-441-3376 80

MD - 1-800-539-6398 VA - 1-800-752-8979