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