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

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 1 of 30

utilities here? ......... ~__:_2 --A. No. So, for example, your. analysis would allow

. ~:5:~5-.3:~: .... -Q.

Georgia Power to exchahge ac~eptance~-rates with Alabama Power, correct? A. SoUthern Nuclear Operating-Company is the

operator of those three plants within that operating system, yes.
9 i0

Q.

And so Southern could decide that Georgia

Power could ge~ the acceptance rights of Alabama Power

Ii 12

under your analysis; is that.right?
modeled that the three sites for Southern NucSear,-thmh Southern Nuclear operates

13

I.'4. could, in fact, use those rights at any of the
sites. 16 17 18 19 20
21

Q. A. Q.

They could share rights? Yes. Now, you would agree that the decision to

engage in intra-utility trades is very com_many-specific, correct?
A. Yes.

22 23 24 25

It is also very region-specific? MR. SCHECHTER-: I will object on vagueness. I don't know what region-specific means. THE COURT: Does the witness Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 2 of 30

purport to represent that it is everywhere. THE WITNESS: No, I don't believe /hat I
state.that ............

BY MR. GAP~NER: 5 Q. Have you stated that in other reports,

Ms. Supko? ..... 7 8 9. !0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Not that I recall. What I state on page

17 of my report is that if nuclear operating companies exercised the provision in the standard contract that allows 20 percent flexibility in the amount of spent fuel delivered to DOE, it is possible that the ~ddit~onal storage requirements summarized i~ table 2 would be at least 20 percent !ower. That's not saying-that every nuclear operating company ~ho has acceptance rights in 1998, 1999, whenever, is going to increase their requirements. I was only looking at that portion who had additional storage requirements calculated. Q. And, by the way, just as utilities could

request 20 percent more spent nuclear fuel, they could also request 20 percent less spent nuclear fuel to be accepted, correct? A. It is a plus or minus 20 percent

flexibility~ yes. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

032

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 3 of 30
1006

1 2 3 4 ~5 6 7 8 9 I0 ll 12 13 .14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 DOCKET NO. : CASE TITLE :

CERTIFIC~ATE OF REPORTER 98-614C Southern Nuclear Operating Co v U.S.

HEARING DATE: October 20, 2005 LOCATION: Washington, D.C.

I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the United States Court of Claims.

Karen Br!rnteson, RMR, CRR Official Reporter Heritage Reporting Corp. Suite 600 1220 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-4019

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

033

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Eileen M. Supko

Document 265-3
Washington, DC

Filed 10/04/2006
June 27, 2006

Page 4 of 30

Page 1

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDE_~AL CLAIMS

3
4 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, Plaintiff

x

5 6
VS.

NO. 00-697 C

7 THE UNITED STATES

8
Defendant

9.
I0
Ii 12 13 The deposition of EILEEN M. SUPKO was held on Tuesday, June 27, 2006r commencing at ,9:22 a.m., at the U.S. Department of Justice, Ii00 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., before Rona!d E. Bennett, Notary Public.

14 15
16 1,7

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24 25 REPORTED BY: Ronald E.Bennett

l I ] I ]4th Strew-t, NAV Suite 400

Alderson Reporting Company ]-800-FOR-DEPO

Washington, DC 20005

034

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Eileen M. Supko

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006
June 27:2006

Page 5 of 30

Washington: DC
Page 2

1 2 3

APPEAP~NNCES DONALD J. CARNEY, ESQUIRE Perkins Coie LLP 607 Fourteenth Street, N.Wo

5
6

Washington, D.C. 20005-2011 Tel: 202-434-1675 Fax: 202-434-1690 E.mail: [email protected] On behalf of Plaintiff

7 8'
9

i0
II 12 13 14 JOSHUA E. GARDNER, ESQUIRE U.S. Department of Justice Civi! Division Ii00 L Street, N.W.. Washington, D.C. 20530 Telr 202-305-7583 Fax: 202-514-8624 E.mail: [email protected]

15
16 17

18
19

On behalf of DefemJan~

2.0
21 22 23 24 ALSO PRESENT:

_~u Luns-ord, Navigant Hugh Hill and Rachel Anglin, Interns

25
Alderson Reporting Company 1111 14th Street, N%V Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005

035

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
E~]e~a M. Supko

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006
Ju~e 27, 2006

Page 6 of 30

Washington, DC

Page 3

1 2 3 4 Examination by:

INDEX Deposition of EILEEN M. SUPKO June 27, 2006 Page

5 6
7 Mr. Gardner

8
9 !0 !i 12 13 14 1-3

Description

Marked

Documents

16

Retention Agreemen~

17

invoice

25

15
16

Rebuttal Report

98

'18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 i0

Document

121

Document

129

Concept Paper

142

Document

209

] ] ] ] ]4th Str~t. 1~ Sui[~ 400

Ald~rson R~pordng Company ]-800-YOR-DEPO

Washington, DC 20005

036

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
]~ileen h{. Supko '

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 7 of 30

June 27, 2006 ~Vashington, DC -Page ii

!

they have large number of plants. They may have benefit~, i've not seen what everybody's contract looks like. I have a snapshot of it, but it's hard to say.

2 3

5 6
7

Q.

!s it fair to say that in the dry storage

industry that all dry storage projects are basically negotiated projects? in other words, there's no off-the:price shelf or no off-the-shelf price regarding storage; is that fair to say? A. I don't know. The dua! purpose casks

8 9 I0
II 12 13 14

themselves are typically very similar from site to site, if you are using the same product cask with the same certification. Howevem, the individual sites will, in terms of building ~ facility, wil! differ dramatically. Q. Does that mean that obviously the prices

15
16 17

would vary from utility to utility in terms of dry storage cost? They might.

18
19

20
21 22 23 24

Q,
A.

Do you know if they do? I don't. We have spoken I think at extraordinary

Q.

lengths about your model, your fuel management models, and your opinions about the 3,000 rate. recall that,-of course?

25

] l 1 ] t4th Street. NAV Suite 400

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-I=OR.-DEPO

Washington, DC 20005

037

: ............................................................................................................. :

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Eileen M, Supko

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006
June 27:2006

Page 8 of 30

Washgngton: DC ¯ Page .12

! 2 3 4

A. Q.

Yes. May I rely upon you< previous testimony

with respect to that topic? A. Q. I suppose that you can. Okay. For example, we have talked about

6
7

how your calculations for additional extra storage, they ever changed from report to report; correct; the numbers have changed? A. They changed from the SMUD report to the

8 9 !0
ii 12 13 14

Southern Nuclear report and from the Southern Nuclear report to any report issued after that. But. I believe that all of the numbers have been the same in meports issued from the middle of last year forward.

15
16
17

Q.
A.

Since South Caro!_inm; correct? Yes. Let me just make sure i have got this Your report changed from comment to SMUD, in

Q.
right.

18
19

terms of the numbers of additional at reactor stomage? A. there. I believe I did some additional analyses

20 2~
22 23 24 25

Q.
A.

Then it changed from Southern Nuclear to

South Carolina; correct? That's correct. i did the analysis in a

] I I l 14th Strew-t, ]\rW Suit~ 400

Aldsrson Reporting Comp~z~y I-g00-FOR-DEPO

Washington, DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Eileen M. Supko

Document 265-3
. .

Filed 10/04/2006
June 27:2006

Page 9 of 30

Washinglon. DC

different way. Q. I can rely upon all your previous

testimony about why it changed; correct? A. Yes. We don't need to go into that? Yes. Thank you. I want to make sure I understood what you

5 6
7 8 9 i0 ii 12

Q. A. Q. A_.

meant by rely upon. Q. Just that I don't have td ask you the same

questions about the issues you and i. have already talked about? A. Q. though. I certainly endorse that. Me too. I do want to ask one question With respect to your opinions regarding, the

19
14

15

16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4

rate and schedule, the reports that you have offered in this case, have'you Conducted the same type of analysis as you conducted in South Caxo!ina? A. Q. I don't understand the question. Well, your initial r.eports basLcaAly made

the conclusion that at 3,000 rate of acceptance was reasonable because it satisfied what you understood to be two primary requimements; correct? The amount of additional at r.eactor storage and average post shutdown time; correct?

25

l 111 14th Street, N%V Suite 400

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-YOR-DEPO

Wnshington, DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Eileen M. Supko

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006
June 27, 2006

Page 10 of 30

Washingtc~n, DC Page 14

1 2

i believe that is correct. Okay. i'll have to look at those reports. Sure. We can if you need to. Ny understanding is that in South Carolina you have actually done slightly different analysis where you just calculated under various rate assumptions how much additional at reactor storage there would be and what the average post shutdown time is; correct? A. I performed the same analysis I believe or

3 4 5 6
7

8
9 I0 II 12 13 14

similar analysis. What I've done that is different in the report from South Carolina and any that I've completed after that was essentially to relate that to measures.that were provided to me by counsel which was tell us how much-additional a reactor storage would be required.. And discussed timely decommissioning and how these various acceptance rates that I analyzed affect those two factors. Q. You measured, you used the same two

15
16 17 18 19

20
21 22

measurements in Commonwealth Edison, SMUD and Southern Nuc!eam.; correct? I did. What are you doing differently --

24

My analysis is the'same, essentially the same.

25

I'm just not discussing the requirements of

1111 14th Street, NW Suite 400

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Washington, DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Eileen M. Supko

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006
June 27, 2006

Page 11 of 30

Washington, DC ¯Page ~5

1
2

the contract in order to not make any legal arguments such as the many, many questions you are asking me, whether i was issuing a, making a legal opinion in earlier reports. !'m doing an analysis. Q. is it fair to say that one of the

3
4

5
6 7

differences between some of your original opinions and say your post South Carolina opinions is that you are no longer offering an independent opinion about the two primary requirements? MR. CARNEY: Objection. Mischaracterizes prior testimony. A. ! wasn't often an opinion about the

8 9 !0
!i 12 13 14

primary requirements in Southern Nucl~ar report either. I believe I told you in the SMUD and Commonwealth that counsel had given me those primary requirements. I have just discussed them in the text of the repo.rt. .I no longer discuss them in the text of the report. Q. Okay. So for my purposes today you ame

15
16 17

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24 25

not offering an independentopinion about the fact there are two primary requirements; correct? You are simply relying upon counsel? A. Q. That's correct. Okay. Are there any statements you've

made either ~n deposition or trial testimony that

I l 11 14th Street, NW Suite 400

Alderion Reporting Company 1- 800-FOR-DEPO

Washington, DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Eflccn h'L Supko

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006
]unc 27:2006

Page 12 of 30

Washington, DC

¯ Page 16

1
2 3

you believe are incorrect? A. Q. Not that I can recal!. Okay. Now you have offered three separate

reports in this case; correct?

5 6
7 8 9

A~ Q.

Yes. You have offered two dealing with the

written schedule of acceptance; correct? A. Q. Yes. You have offered one that calculates

I0
II 12 !3 14

WEPCO's acceptance rights under a 3,000; correct? A. Q. That;s correct. And you offered one given about the

overall rate acceptance? A. Q. Yes. I think as you alluded to earlier you got

15
.16 17 18 19

a report dealing with the dua!-purpose dry storage market; correct? A. Q. Yes. Why don't we mark all three of these. (Deposition Exhibit Number 1-3 marked for purposes of identificaLion.) BY MR. GARDNER: Q. I have handed you what has been marked as

2O
21 22 23 24 25

Exhibits Ir 2 and 3. Can you just confirm for me what those exhibits are.

I 11 ] 14th Street. N-W Suit~ 400

Aldcrson Reporting Company ] -800-FOR-DEPO

Washington, DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 13 of 30

P~ge 277

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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

I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17

recorded stenog-raphically 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, 200~.

18

Ronald E. Bennett, Notary Public

19 20 21 22 23 24 My commission exzires: February 14, 2010

25

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 14 of 30

Eileen M. Supko
Page 1
DIqITED STATES COD-ST OF FEDEP~-L CLAIMS NORTHER!~ STATES POWER COMP-~ITf, Plaintiff, v. THE DqqITED STATES, Defendant. and SYSTEMS FUELS, INC. , et -al. , Plaintiff, v. THE DIqITED STATES, ¯ Defendant. DEPOSITION OF )EILEEN M. SUPKO July 19, 2006 No. 03-2623C No. 9B-484C

and
-SYSTEMS FUELS, INC. , etc. , Plaintiff, v. THE UIqITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 03--2624C

Job No. 175436

The deposition of EILEEN M. SUPKO commenced at 9 : 00 .~J~, at the UITITED .STATES DEP~_~,TMEITf OF JUSTICE, CI-VIL DI%riSION, CO~ERCI-~i5 LITIGATION BP~ZIqCH, Ii00 L Street,

Esquire Deposition Serv~ ces D.C. - 1-800-441-3376
044

MD -, 1-800-539-6398 VA - 1-800-752-8979
deOZe399-46~7-4ce4-gelf-986d2d~58ed3

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 15 of 30

Eileen M~. Supko~
Page 2 1 2 3

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

5

APPEARANCES
7

For Plaintiff: Jay E. Silberg, Esquire
i0
!l 12 13

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

15
!6 17

For Defendant: Joshua E. Gardner, Esquire AlanJ¯. Lo Re, Esquire ~ITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVIS~ION COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH ii00 L Street, N~.W. Washington; D.C.. (202) 307-0226
MD - 1-800-.539-6398

18
19

2O
21 22

20530

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

VA- 1-800-752-8979
~leO2e399-:46aTMce4-gel f-986d28a58~d3 ::.

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 16 of 30

Efleen Supko

I APPEA2_ANCES CONTINUED 2 3 For Xcel Energy: 4 5
6

Kerry C. Koep, Esquire XCEL ENERGY
Assistant General Counsel 414 Nicollet Hall, Suite 500 Hinneapolis, Mlq 55402
(612) 215-4583

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

Eric,Heintz and Ted Lunsford

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

O46

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 17 of 30

Eileen Supko Pagel0 I 15 minutes, every hour and a ~half, aithough if 2 you ever need a break at any time, please~ let me 3 know and we'l! take one. 4 5 6 A. Q. Is that fair? Yes. The only request I have is, is that

7 if there's a question pending, you answer the 8 question,, and then we'l! go on break. 9 I0 II 12 13 Q. A. Okay? Yes. (Mr. Lunsford entered the room.) BY MR. GARDNER: Now, !'m sure you recall that

14 several weeks ago, i took your deposition in the 15 Wisconsin Electric case.. 16 17 18 A. Q. Correct? Yes. Is it fair to say that the answers

19 you gave in that case with respect to the rating 20 schedule would apply equally to your opinions in 21 this case or these cases? 22 A. I believe they would.

Esquire Deposition Ser~ces D.C.-1-800-441-3376
047

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

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Eiteen M. Supko

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 18 of 30

June 27, 2006 Washington, DC
¯Page ii

.... :-:-:-: '

!

they have large number of plants. They may have

............................. ~--<2<: 'benefit~~ i've no~ seen what"everybody's contract ...... J- .... looks like. i have a snapshot of it, but it's hard to say.

5 6
7

Q.

Is it fair to say that in the dry storage

industry that all dry storage projects are basically negotiated projects? in other words, there's no o~-uhe-prlce shelf or no off-the-shelf price regarding storage; is that fair to say? A. I don't know. The dua! purpose casks

8 9 I0
ii 12 13 14

themselves are typically very similar from site to site, if you are using the same product cask with the same certification. Howevem, the individua! sites wil!, in terms of building ~ facility, will differ dramatically. Q. Does that mean that obviously the prices

15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

would vary from utility to utility in terms of dry storage cost? A. Q. A. Q. They might. Do you know if they do? I don't. We have spoken I think at extraordinary

lengths about your model, your rue! management models, and your opinions about the 3,000 rate. You recall that,-of course?

25

Alderson Report{ng Company

1 ] 1 ] 14th Stree% NW Suite 400

1-800-FOR.-DEPO

Washington, DC 20005

048
~..=..=..........................................................: ........~12,~212.~&~....~..:~::.; .........-. .........~o.~ ................................................................................................................

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Eileen M, Supko

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006
June 27:2006

Page 19 of 30

Washington, DC

¯ Page 12

Q~ :. May i rely upon you~ previoustestimony " with respect to. [hat topic?. .

4 5 6
7

A. Q.

I suppose that you Can. Okay. For example) we have talked about

how your calculations for additional extra storage, they ever changed from report to report; correct; the numbers have changed? A. They changed from the SMUD report to the

8
9 !0 II 12 13 14

Southern Nuclear report and from the Southern Nuclear report to any report issued after that. But. I believe that all of the numbers have been the same in meports issued from the middle of last year forward.

15
16 17

Q.
A.

Since South CaroLine; correct? Yes. Let me just make sure i have got this

Q.

18
19

right.. Your report changed from comment to SMUD, in terms of the numbers of additional at reactor stomage? A. there. I believe I did some additional analyses

2O
21 22 23

Q.
A.

Then it changed from Southern Nuclear to

24 25

South Carolina; correct? That's correct. i did the analysis in a

l I 11 14th Street, hn,V Suite 400

Alderson Reporting Comp~zry 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Washington, DC 20005

049

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Eileen M. Supko

Document 265-3
.

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 20 of 30

June 27, 2006 Washinaton. DC
¯ Pag-= 13

I

different way. Q. "I can rely upon- a!!-'your previous

3 4

testimony about why it changed; correct? A. Yes. We don~t need to gointo that?

6 7 8 9

A. Q. A.

Yes. Thank you. I want to make sure I understood what you

meant by rely upon. Q. Just that I don't have td ask you the same

i0
Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17

questions about the issues you and i have already talked about? A. Q. though. I certainly endorse that. Me too. I do want to ask one question With respect to your opinions regarding the

rate and schedule, the reports that you have offered in this case, haveyou conducted the same type of analysis as you conducted in South Ca2o!ina? A. Q. I don't understand the question. Well, your initial ~eports basica!ly made

18
19

20
21 22 23 24

the conclusion that at 3,000 rate of acceptance was reasonable because it satisfied what you understood to be two primary requimements; correct? The amount of additiona! at reactor storage and average post shutdown time; correct?

25

l 111 14th Street, NW Suite 400

Alderson Reporting Company ]-800-FOR-DEPO

Washington, DC 20005

050

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Eileen M. Supko

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006
June 27,2006

Page 21 of 30

Washington, DC " Fage 14

1 2 3 4

i believe that¯ is correct. Okay. i'll have to look at those reports. Sure. We can if you need to. My understanding is that in South Carolina you have

6
7 8 9 i0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

actually done slightly different analysis where you just calculated under various rate assumptions how much additional at reactor storage there would be and what the average post shutdown time is; correct? A. I performed the same analysis I believe or

similar analysis. What I've done that is different in the report from South Carolina and any that I've completed after that was essentially to relate that to measures that were provided to me by counsel which was tell us how much additional a reactor storage would be required. And discussed timely decommissioning and how these ~arious acceptance rates that I analyzed affect those two factors. Q. You measured, you used the same two

20
21 22

measurements in Commonwealth Edison, SMUD and Southern Nuclear¯; correct? I did. What are you doing differently --

24

My analysis is the same, essentially the same.

25

I'm just not discussing the requirements of

] 111 14th Street, N%V Suite 400

Alderson Repo~[ng Company t-800-FOR.-DEPO

Washington, DC 20005

051

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Hile~n M. Supko

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 22 of 30
June 27, 2006

Washing[on, DC -Page 15

! 2

the contract in order to not make any legal arguments such as the many, many questions you are asking me, whether i was issuing a, making a lega! opinion in earlier reports, i'm doing an analysis. Q. is it fair to say that one of the

3
4

5
6 7

differences between some of your original opinions and say your post South Carolina opinions is that you are no longer offering an independent opinion about the two primary requirements? MR. CARNEY: Objection. Mischaracterizes prior testimony. A. I wasn't often an opinion about the

8 9
!0 !I 12 13 14 15 16 17

primary requirements in Southern Nuclear report either. I believe I told you in the SMUD and Commonwealth that counsel had given me those primary requirements. I have just discussed them in the text of the report. text of the report. Q. Okay. So for my purposes today you ame I no longer discuss them in the

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24

not offering an independentopinion about the fac£ ut,~r~ are two primary requirements; cor_rect? are simply relying upon.counsel? A. Q. That's correct. Okay. Are there any statements you've You

25

made either £n deposition or trial testimony that

11 t 1 14th Street, NAV Suite 400

Alderion Reporting Company t-800-FOR-DEPO

Washington, DC 20005

052

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW
Eileen M. Supko

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006
June 27:2006

Page 23 of 30

Washington, DC
¯ Page 16

1 2 3 4

you believe are incorrect? A. Q. Not that I can recal!. Okay. Now you have offered three separate

reports in this case; correct? A. Q. Yes. You haveoffered two dealing with the

5 6
7 8 9

written schedule of acceptance; correct? A. Q. Yes. You have offered one that calculates

i0
Ii 12 13 14

WEPCO's acceptance rights under a 3,000; correct? A. Q. That{s correct. And you offered one given about the

overall rate acceptance? A. Q. Yes. I think as you a/imded to earlier you got

15
.16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

a report dealing with the dual-purpose dry storage market; correct? A. Q. Yes. Why don't we mark all three of these. (Deposition Exhibit Number 1-3 marked for purposes of identification.) BY MR. GARDNER: Q. I have handed you what has been marked as

Exhibits !r 2 and 3. Can you just confirm for me what those exhibits are.

111 ] I4th Street: NW Suite 400

Alderson Reporting Company ] -800-YOR-DEPO

Washington: DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3

Eileen Supko

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 24 of 30

Page 18
i BY MR.. GARDNER :

2

Q.

Why don't ! 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:

IS

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

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

¯-

"

054

" ~ ... . .

:.-..

...... " .......... -'-.'21 ............................. .................... __

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3

Eileen Supko

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 25 of 30

Pag~ 19 i to what their obligations are. 2 3 Q. BY MR. G~IRJDNER: ! understand you're not going to

4 offer an opinion..

5 6 7 8
no

Do you have an understanding?

Just yes or no. Yes. Yes, you do have an understanding,

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 r~te 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 ~n 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 Services D.C.- 1-800-441-3376 ~D - 1-800-539-6398 VA- 1-800-752-8979

055

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 26 of 30

Eileen Supko

Page 20 i 2 3 Q.. That's my understanding, BY MR. GABJgNER : 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 16.. 17 18 Q. (Supko Exhibit No. 7 was marked for identification. ). BY MR. GARDNER: Al! 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
1VID - 1-800-539-6398 YA- 1-800-752-8979

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

.-.-:-..-:-.-.: ..:: .".. ~ ~--.-. . .: ~!-: : '..:. ~ ..-2:.i:...:. .: :.: :.: !. ~!:~. :.i.:2:: ............... ~.=2~:.-"..,-- =:,2:..:2..2=~_2:1.=2~Z~/~22-12

¯ .

056

'

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3 Filed 10/04/2006 Eileen Supko

Page 27 of 30

1 excerpt, because I'm trying to save the 2 e~viror~nent today.

3 4 5

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

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 basica!ly a pretrial ii discovery document, a~d we -- which we asked the 12 plaimtiff for certain information, and they 19 purport to give us that infoz~natlon throngh 14 written responses. 15 And if you turn to the second page

16 of this document, the excerpt -- actually page 17 number 7 om 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 Services D.C.- !-800~441-3376 MD - 1-800-539-6398 YA - 1-800-752-8979

057

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 28 of 30

Efleen Supko Page22 ! t~at the government has asked NSP. 2 And we ask the following question:

3 Identify those p~rsons both within plaintiff's 4 organization and outside of plaintiff's 5 organization who are the most knowledgeable ~bout 6 the parties' understanding at any time subsequent 7 to the execution of plaintiff's contract as to 8 the ~ate and/or sequence of SNE. and/or ELW 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 the~ it goes on to list some

14 the ~ext page of this document, NSP has 15 fdentified Ei!een 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 Ser~4ces D.C. - 1-800~441-3376 :MD - 1-800-539-6398 VA- 1-800r752-8979

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 29 of 30

Eileen Supko

Page 23 MR. SILBERG: Objection, vague and
ambiguous. You can answer it if you understand it. I'm aware of the fact that NSP 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 ~ate and sequence of spent 13 fue! 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, iVID - 1-800-539-~6398 VA.- 1-~800-752-8979

Esquire Deposition Ser~ic..es D.C. - 1-800-441=-3376 ¯ i

059

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-3

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 30 of 30

Eileen Supko Page24 i 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 ~bout the rate and/or sequence of SNF 12 that DOE would be obligated to maintain under the 13 standard contract?

14 15 conciusion. 16 17 18
Q.

MR. SILBERG: Objection, legal

(Discussion off the record.) BY MR. GARDNER: Ms. Supko, I'm going to read back

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

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