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

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 1 of 31

INDEX TO THE APPENDIX
Document Southern Nuclear Operating Company. Alabama Power Company, and Georgia Power Company v. United States, No. 98-614, Trial Transcript, (October 19, 2005) ............................................................. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Alabama Power Company, and Georgia Power Company v. United States, No. 98-614, Trial Transcript, (October 20, 2005) ............................................................. Page

1

6

Wisconsin Electric Power Co.. v. United States, No. 00-697, Deposition Trmascript, 34 ofEileen M. Supko, (June 27, 2006) ..............................................
System Fuels, Inc.. System Ener~5, Resources, Inc. And South Mississippi Electric Power Association v. United States, No. 03-2426C, Deposition Transcript, 44 of Eileen M. Supko, (July 19, 2006) ..............................................

System Fuels, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc. And South Mississippi Electric Power Association v. United States, No. 03-2426C, Trial Transcript, (September 21, 2006) .......................................................... System Fuels, Inc., System Energy Resources. Inc. And South Mississippi Electric Power Association v. United States, No. 03-2426C, Trial Transcript, (September 22, 2006) .........................................................

90

t03

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 2 of 31

5O6
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Co~oration (202) 628-4888 BEFORE T~ HONORABLE JAMES F. MEROW The parties met, pursuant to the notice of the Judge, at I0:10 a.m. VOLUME 3 Wednesday, October 19, 2005
VS.

IN THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

SOUTHE~ NUCLEAP~ OPERATING COMPANY, ~_L~AMA POWER COMPAAVf, and GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, Plaintiffs :NO. 98-614C
: :

THE UI~ITED STATES, Defendant. Courtroom 5 Court of Federal Claims 717 Madison Place N.W. Washington, D.C.
:

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 3 of 31

5O7
1

APPE.~_RANCE S : ON BEH_ZI,F OF THE PI,AINTiFFS: M. STANFORD BLANTON, ESQ. K.C. HAIRSTON, ESQ. S. ALLEN BAKER, JR., ESQ.

6 7 8 9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24
25

Balch & Bingham 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203 (205) 226-3417

RONALD A. SCHECHTER, ESQ. Arnold & Porter 555 12th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 ON BEHALF .OF THE DEFEND~!qT: JOHN E~iN, ESQ. HEIDE HERRMANN, ESQ. MARIAN SULLIVA!q, ESQ. JOSHUA E. GARDNER, ESQ. ALAN LO RE, ESQ. STEPHEN FINN, ESQ. U.S. Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 ***Index appears at end of transcript*** Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

O2

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 4 of 31

689

them to accommodate it? Would they have needed additional dry storage?
A. As I said earlier, I looked at the numbers

for-the-plants, the additional~ requirements were 5 6 7 8 9 i0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 typically under i00 metric tons, in some cases one or two reloads of spent nuclear fuel. That type of quantity could have been accommodated by providing additional racks and just some of the flexibilities, unracked areas of the pool, providing temporary racks, for example, in the spent fuel cask. That's been done at some plants. Using part of the full core discharge capability, there are a wide range of things that could have been done, had they believed performance was going to occur. Q. Okay. Moving down now to the average post

-- you were talking about scenario 1 ~_nd walking us through the chart. Tell us what the results are for -- first of all, average post shutdown storage is obviously an industry-wide average? A. It is an average over a!l of the plants.

There are 70 some sites, so this is based on each site. Some sites have more than one reactor operating. The range of numbers in this ranges from Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

03

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 5 of 31

690 five years of post shutdown storage to approximately. 12 or 14 years for operating nuclear power plants. Q. A. 5 6 7 8 9 i0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And that's under scenario i? Under scenario I, yes. Could you continue with your discussion of

scenario i, please? A. Yes. The years maximum acceptance

capacity utilized, 28 years, that means that from the start of waste acceptance in 1998, DOE would pick up 3,000 metric tons per year for a total of 28 years over about a 40 year period. So that's about three-quarters of the program. Q. And what are your views in terms of scenario

1 in terms of its efficiency? A. The fact that it does minimize the amount

of additional storage requirements and it provides a reasonable time post shutdown storage and it provides what I would consider to be an efficient and a practicable time period for utilizing the system capacity, I think this is a reasonable rate of acceptance that would have been practicable. Q. A. How about scenario 2? Scenario 2 is the flat 900 metric ton

rate. I calculated additional storage requirements after 1998 of 13,130 metric tons. This is more than Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

04

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 6 of 31

722 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 !I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (20~) 628-4888 05 Date:<0~/ Karen Brlrnteson, Rg[R, CR!~ Official Reporter Heritage Reporting Corp. Suite 600 1220 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-4019 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. DOCKET-NO]: CASE TITLE: CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 98~614C Southern Nuclear Operating Co v U.S.

HE~_RING DATE: Octeber 19, 2005 LOCATION: Washington, D.C.

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 7 of 31

UN]~TED STATES COUN. T OF-FEDERAL CLAIMS
SOUTHERN NUCLE~_R OPERATING COMPANY, ALAB~AvLA POWER COMPANY and GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, Plaintiffs
VS.

:NO. 98-614C
:

THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

:

Pages: Place: Date:

723 through 1006 Washington, D.C. october 20, 2005

~ZRITAGE NEPORT[NG CO~dPORA~ON
Offidal Reporters 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C; 20005-40!8 (202) 628-4888 h_rc@concentric, net

O6

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 8 of 31 723

1 2 3 4 5

IN THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF FEDER~IL CLAIMS

SOUTHEPdq NUCLEAROPERATING COMP~!~Y, AL~_BAMA POWER COMPANY, and GEORGIA POWER COMPAITY, Plaintiffs

: : :NO. 98-614C :
:

7 8 9 i0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE HONO~LE JAMES F. MEROW VOLUME 4 THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. :

Courtroom 5 Court of Federal Claims 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

The parties met,.pursuant to the notice of the Judge, at I0:00 a.m.

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

07

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 9 of 31 724

1

AP PE_~iR~!gCE S : ON BEHJLLF OF THE PI~AiNTIFFS : M. STAIqFORD BLANTON, ESQ. K.C. HAIRSTON, ESQ. S. ~I,LEN BAKER, JR., ES'Q. Balch & Bingham 1710 Sixth Avenue North

8 9 I0 ii 12 13 14 } 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25

Birmingham, ;hlabama 35203 (205) 226-3417

-RONALD A. SCHECHTER, ESQ. Arnold & Porter 555 12th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004

BENTINA TERRY, ESQ. Southern Nuclear P.O. Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201

Heritag.e Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

08

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 10 of 31
725

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0

APPE~iR/hNCES : ON BEHALF OF THE DEFEI~D~/qT: .... JOHlq -EKHAN, ESQ. HEIDE HERPd~iqN, ESQ. MARIAN SULLIV~!{, ESQ. JOS~-071 E. GARDNER, ESQ. .... AIJiN LO B3{, ESQ. STEPHEN FINN, ESQ. U.S. Department of Justice ii00 L Street, NoW. Washington, DC 20530

12 13 ***Index appears at end of transcript***

17 18 19 2O 2! 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

09

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 11 of 31 739

1

Q.

I understand, Ms. Supko, it is your belief

that these are im_mortant factors to consider in the nuclear waste program. But my question to you is slightly different. All I am simply asking you is if those two factors are rejected by the Court, you would need new assumptions, correct, to measure the various rates 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 . 20 21 22 23 24 2S against? A. Q. I suppose that's true. And, in fact, sitting here today, you can't

identify an alternative methodology that you would utilize to determine the reasonableness of a particular rate, correct?. A. As I said, the amount of additional

storage at nuclear power plants and how long spent nuclear fuel remains at those Sites are the important factors from the nuclear industry perspective, They are factors that the Department of Energy itself has kept track of. Yes, you are right, I don't k-now what else one would evaluate. Q~ You had spoken a little bit yesterday about

the ERI computer model. Do you recall that testimony? A. Q. Yes. And the ERI computer model, that was created Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

010

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 12 of 31
746

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

incorrect. A.
As i explained yesterday briefly, what I

did was I decided to export data that was calculated :~by the SPNTFUEL program into an Exce! spreadsheet. The reason that I did that was during, I believe it was during my Southern Nuclear deposition, based on questions that were asked me by counsel for the government, it appeared that there were questions such as, well, where is the output from the model? ~d I said, well, they are in the output files, but it seemed as though it wasn't i00 percent clear as to how it was that the model worked. And so I thought I would be more transparent and export the results and calculate the additional requirements for each plant so that you could see, everybody knows or most people are very familiar with Excel, and Excel spreadsheets, I would calculate the additional requirements in an Excel spread~heet. In doing that, I discovered that I did the calculation differently in the spreadsheet than the code had been using and discovered that I had, what is the word I am looking Jot -- basically underestimated the requirements at the eight sites that had dry storage prior to 1.998. I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

011

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 13 of 31 747

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

underestimated their requirements post-i998 because of the way I had linked things in the model. In my spreadsheet, it was very clear the way that I calculated it that these results were a better reflection of what would happen at sites not only that had dry storage before 1998 but those that did not. Q. That was very helpful, thank you, Ms. Supko.

And, in fact, stated another way, you have in this case underestimated the amount of storage requirements for those utilities that had dry storage as of 1998, correct? A. -sites. Q. About eight sites. And then yesterday you Yes. There were, I believe, about eight

endeavored to correct that oversight by using the numbers that you used in subsequent reports such as South Carolina, correct? A. opinion. Q. That's correct. It doesn't change my The numbers are different. And, in fact, none of the changes in the

numbers over the course of the iterations of your report have changed your conclusion about the reasonableness of the 3,000 rate, correct? A. No. If you look at the various acceptance Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

012

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 14 of 31 751

! enough.

Doesnrt ghange the overall result, fair

And with regard to pool capacities generally, your model is not always utilizing pool capacity for utilities as they existed in 1998, correct? A. 8 9 'I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 !9 2O 21 22 23 24 25 That's cbrrect. I think there may be a

dozen or so pool capacities that had been upgraded after 1998. Again, it wouldn't change --~ I think we discussed this qualitatively in my South Carolina Electric & Gas deposition. It wouldn't change the overall results because if I modified the pool cajacities, all of the scenarios would, potentially increase additional storage capacities or additional storage requirements somewhat, and you would have the same relative difference. Q. Sure. And just so I'm clear, so, in other

words, your model utilizes certain pool capacities that were modeled after or modified after 1998, correct? A. It does, yes. For example, you include Plant Hatch's

Q.
correct?

post-1998 rack addition in your model in this case,

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

013

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 15 of 31
752

1 2 3

A. Q.

I did include that, yes. Okay. .And, in fact, you also used South

Carolina's 2002 post rerack capacity in your acceptancerate model, correct?

5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25

A.

I did. And it is interesting, that

doesn't come into play or it wouldn't come into play if I used the lower capacity in scenario 1 or scenario 4 because South Carolina Electric & Gas would have had plenty of capacity at their old rerack, at their old poo! capacity, had DOE begun acceptance at either the scenario 1 or scenario 4 rates. It would have increased the scenario 2 and 3 rates and by and large I think that's the case for most of the pool capacities ih which I used the newer capacities. Q~ But, of course, you do agree, though, using

these post-i998 storage additions was simply an oversight in terms of the inputs you were placing into' your model, correct? A. I didn't go back and attempt to try to see

what the world looked like for every pool in 1998.. That would have required my going into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's docket for every nuclear power plant and !ooking at license amendments. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

014

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 16 of 31

! 2

acceptance right, correct? A. Q0 For a fraction Of the pools. And you would agree that, in fact, as you

continue to change the pool capacities for particular utilitiesr based upon the information you received 6 fromyour clients, it is possible these numbers could change again in the future, correct? 8 9 io II 12 13 14 A. It is -- if I get new information and I

believe that information is useful, I will use it. Q. Sure. Even if those changes occurred after

1998, correct? A. Q. I'm sorry, I don't understand that. Even if those utilities added additional

at-reactor storage after 1998, if you received that information in the course of your representation of

16 17 18 19 20, 21 22 23 24

those clients, you may include those in your 1998 model, correct? A. I'm not sure that I would. It depends on

what it is and how I believe it would affect the analysis. I would use my judgment. Q. So it is situational when you would choose

to use a utility that had that additional at-reactor storage, whether you would put that into your 1998

model? A.
Well, there are plants that are adding or Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

015

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 17 of 31 782

Q. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25

.And you are certainly not looking in terms

of 1998 what particular utilities' intentions were with respect to seeking license extensions or not seeking license extensions, correct? A. Again, the industry has moved forward and

is operating their nuclear power plants despite the government's failure to begin acceptance and they are upgrading their plants. They would have done that had the government begun acceptance in 1998. So I am reflecting what has occurred at nuclear power plants. Q. But the answer to my question is no, you are

not looking in terms of 1998 as to what particular utilities would or would not have done with respect to license extensions, correct? A.. That's correct, I think it was, would have

been difficult to determine in 1998. Q. Okay. Now, in fact, in your industry-wide

model, you assumed that utilities do not seek license extensions, correct? A. Q. That's right. But in calculating acceptance rights for

Southern Nuclear, you do assume license extensions, correct? A. I did, but, again, given the Indiana Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

016

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 18 of 31 783

Michigan decision regarding the calculation of damages, any of those projected discharges, whether it is through 40 years or through 60 years, don't come into play and don't matter. Q. Wel!, whether or not they matter, Ms. Supko,

you agree that for overall industry-wide acceptance, no license extensions are assumed, but for Southern 8 9 I0 II 12 Nuclear, you do assume license extensions, correct? A. That's correct. And I did talk, I believe

it was in the, my Southern Nuclear deposition, I did talk qualitatively about what the effect of license extension would have. And, in fact, since then I actually did look at it, I modeled it. And my .qualitative discussion in my deposition was correct.

15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25

Q.

We!!, and I would like to talk with you

about that, but before we do that, I have one other quick question. Both analyses,the industry-wide analysis and the utility-specific~analysis, they are both but-for nonbreach analyses, correct? A. Q. I'm sorry. Repeat that, please? of course. Certainly.. Both the

utility-wide projection that you are doing or analysis that you are doing and the utility-specific, the Southern Nuclear analysis you are doing, are both Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

017

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 19 of 31
784

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 II 12 13

endeavoring to model a nonbreach but-for world, correct? A. That's correct~ that in both cases I model

a nonbreach scenario, but I also model a breach scenario for the utility-specific calculation of acceptance rights. Q. A. Q. In this case? Yes. Yes. Now, if you had modeled license

extensions in your industry-wide analysis, your industry-wide model, you would expect the average post shutdown numbers, that's the number in the Plaintiff's demonstrative 6, .that third box, average post shutdown -storage time, you would expect that number to

15 ~ 16 17 18 19

decrease, correct? A. I believe.what ! stated in my deposition

was that I believed that scenario 1 and scenario 4 post shutdown storage time would decrease somewhat and, in fact, that is what happens. Scenario 3 also decreased somewhat, but it was still, I want to say, maybe 12 or 13 years. Q. A. Q.. A. So -- I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Please. In scenario 2 it actually increased. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

2O
21 22 23 24 25

018

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 20 of 31 785

Q.

For scenario 3, that's the 1992 ACR rate,

the number of average post shutdown storage time you think went from about 16.5 tot what, approximately 127 ........ A. 5 the number. Q. 7 8 9 !0 ii 12 13 , 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 By the way, just so we're on the same page I think it was 12 or 13. I don't recall

here, the reason these numbers decrease are because you are assuming 20 more years of time for DOE to work off the backlog, correct? A. Q. That's correct: I have maybe five more questions and then

why don't we take a break. We have been going for a .while. A. "" The otherthing that. I also discussed

qualitatively, was that the, in my Southern Nuclear deposition regarding license extension was that the effect of, assuming license extension in this overall analysis, would be that the additional storage requirements in scenario 1 and scenario 4 wouldn't change, but they would increase in scenarios 2 and 3 and, that, in fact, does occur. Q. Yes. Now, with respect to all your inputs,

you would agree that the inputs you are using in your model are evolving, correct? A. No. The historical discharges remain the Heritage Reporting Corporation -(202) 628-4888

019

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 21 of 31 787

1 2

A. Q.

It is possible. And as that representation of that

3

particular client stops, you may take out that particular utility's information, correct? A. .... Q. I'm not sure that I would. I mean, you did that with Commonwealth

Edison, correct? 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 25 past. MR. GARDNER: That would be great. (A recess was taken at ii:ii a.m., after which the trial resumed at 11:31 a.m.] BY MR. GARDNER: Q. Ms. Supko, you would, agree that you are an A. I did, because -- that was because I was

updating my entire database. To the extent that the Department of Energy doesn't issue another RW-859 database for several years, I probably will not make major changes to the historical and projected discharges. M!%. GARDNER: ten-minute break now? THE COURT: Sure. Why don't we return at Your Honor, may we take a

advocate for the nuclear industry, correct? A. I'm a nuclea-r engineer. I have worked in

the nuclear industry for 20 years. I sez-~e as an Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

020

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 22 of 31 788

advisor to Pennsylvania State University's nuclear 2 engineering program. YeS, of course I'm an advocate for nuclear power and nuclear energy. ........ Q.~-. -~I would like, to turn now from the inputs of 5 your model which you have been talking about this morning to the outputs-of your model. In other words, 7 8 9 I0 Ii 12. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 the numbers that we had star.ted to talk about a little bit. Now, you are offering an opinion in this case about what you believe to be a reasonable overall spent fuel acceptance rate had DOE begun accepting spent fuel in 1998, correct? A. Q. Yes. But you are not-offering an opinion

concerning what .rate of .acceptance is required by the standard contract, right? A. Q. That's correct. .And you are not offering an opinion about

what rate of acceptance is require~ by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, correct? A. Q. That's correct. But you agree that a 3,000 MTU rate of

acceptance is not included in either the standard contract or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act? A. Yes, that's correct. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 23 of 31 807

! 2

discharge rate, correct? A. I'm sorry, I don'.t u~derstandwhat you are

3 4

talking about. Q. Well, let me reask it and I will tl-y to be

clearer. When you are determining the amount of 6 7 8 9 !0 II 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 additional at-reactor storage that would or would not be reasonable, you are benchmarking that against the annual discharge rate, correct? A. That's the annual discharge rate which is

2,000, approximately 2,000 metric tons per year, is one of the benchmarks. But in addition, I also look at the underlying data to see how many plants and how much storage would be required at each. It is not just a simple look at ahe overall number. Q. Okay. And, by the way,. I think you just

said this, did you say that 2,000 is an average, right, annual discharge rate? A. It has increased in recent years. It is

probably a bit above that. Q. correct? A. Q. It could go as high as 23 or 2400. And it could also go as low as 1800 at I think it could go as high as 2100,

times, correct? A. Historically, it has. I would say in Heritage Rgporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

022

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 24 of 31 8O8

today's e.nvironmentr it is rare that -- just because of the fact that utilities are operating at fairly high capacity factors and with more and more operating in two-year cycles, it typically doesn't dip below to 1800. .............. Q. ~d sitting here today, you can't identify

how far above 2,000 the amount of additional 8 9 !0 at-reactor storage could be and still satisfy the first prima~y requirement, correct? A. Q. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 I don't understand yqur question. Okay. We just discussed 2,000 and that is

one of the things that you look at to determine reasonableness, correct, among other factors? A. Q. Yes. But sitting here today, you cannot tell me

how far above 2,000 the additional storage number would be and still satisfy this first primary requirement identified for you, correct? A. I modeled acceptance rates, overall

acceptance rates that I found in Department of Energy documents_ I didn't attempt to do -- I don't know if you would call it a break-even analysis,.so, no, I-have not modeled a scenario that attempts to determine what level. Okay. Now, if you assumed all the other Heritage Reporting Corporation 202) 628-4888

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 25 of 31 8o9

numbers in your analysis for scenario i, the 3,000 rate, you would agree that it is possible that if the number of additional at-reactor storage were, say, as high as 1999 MTUs, that could still satisfy the first primary requirement, correct? A. question. Q. That's fine. Kristin, could you please put I'm sorry, I did not understand your

up Plaintiff's demonstrative, I believe it is 4, believe. I'm sorry, it was 6. Ms. Supko, I have put on the screen Plaintiff's demonstrative 6 again, the same slide we were looking at earlier. My question isyou have got three categories here~ additional--SNF storage requirements, average post shutdown storage .time,:years maximum acceptance capacity utilized. Hypothetically, if average pose shutdown remained at 9 and the years maximum acceptance capacity remained at 28, if the first number were as high as 1999, that might still satisfy the first primary requirement, correct? A. It might. It would depend upon a wide

range of things such as, as I said earlier, looking at the underlying numbers, how many plantsr.how much additional storage, but 2,000 metric tons is, I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

024

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 26 of 31
813

1 2 3

reserve utilized the plus 20 percent flexibility, that 690 would go down to 552. So i quantified those two numbers. I did not model the inter-utility exchanges.

5 6 7 8 9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25

Q.

I see. So you don't know how much further

those numbers would get with exchanges, in other words, you haven't done that analysis? A. No, and, in .addition, there are other

flexibilities that companies have on their own. Q. And you haven't, looked at those

flexibilities. And those flexibilities, by the way, as I think you talked about yesterday, are things like how they manage .the full core reserve policies, whether or not they want to.add, racks, things of that nature, correctZ A. Q. Yes. And you haven't endeavored in this case to

model how those flexibilities affect these numbers on Plaintiff's demonstrative ii, correct? A. Q. That's correct. Now, in the South Carolina case, you

determined that under the 1991 ACR rate, there would be 4980 MTUs of additional at-reactor storage once intra-utility exchanges are applied, correct? A. Yes. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

025

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 27 of 31 814

I 2 3 4 5

Q.

~d that's, again, reflected in Plaintiff's

demonstrative Ii. But.you don't know sitting here today if it is possible under this 1991 ACR rate to bring the additional at-reactor storage numbers from 4980 to, say, 2,000, if all the flexibi!ities were exercised, correct?-

7 8 9 I0 II 1-2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A.

Well, I have reviewed the underlying

numbers associated with the rollup of the numbers, the 4980 metric tons, and it is on the order of about 30 plants, 25 or 30 plants, several hundred metric tons per plant of additional capacity. I haven't modeled how far down that number could come, that's correct, but the other factors that also have to be considered, is you don't just look at additional at-reactor storage requirements. One of the other important factors is the average post shutdown storage time of 16.5 years. That means that, on average, plants would be storing spent fuel for 16 and a half years after they shut down for decommissioning. In some cases, it is 20 years or longer. That's one of the other factors that I also considered. It is not just looking at the additional storage requirements line. Q. Of course, by the way, if you had assumed

license extensions in your model, as I think you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

026

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 28 of 31 815-

1 2 3

testified earlier, that 16.5 drops down to 12, correct? A. On average, but, again, the numbers range

from i0 to probably, probably still 20 and higher 5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13. 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 for some plants. Q. Sure. But, in any event, just to get back

to myinitial question, you haven't, you don't know sitting here today whether it is possible under the 1991 ACR rate -- or here you used the 1992 ACR rate, called it scenario 3, you don't know.whether it is possible to bring that 4980 number for additional storage down to 2,000 if all the flexibilities are exercised, correct?. A. I have not modeled that. THE COURT: Do.~you know what would happen if they are probably already shut down plants? THE WITNESS: I haven't done that in this, Your Honor, but in the early 1990s, that was an issue that was discussed quite extensively in the industry, and I did actually model shutdown reactor priority. And what I found at that time was that a 3,000 metric ton acceptance rate would help the fuel to move not just from shutdown plants, but would also prevent adding additional storage at operating Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

027

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 29 of 31 823

1

Q.

So are your workpapers incorrect here when

2. ~ .i~ represent~ there are 147 3 ~ 5 6 7 8 9 I0 Ii 12 1314 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No, this is modeling that theZ would have~

had to have done something, but it wasn"t adding on-site additional capacity. Q.. Okay... BuG they would have had to have d~ne

something after 19987 A. Q. Yes. By the way, Ms. Supko, since you mentioned

transshipments, are there anycosts associated with transshipmgnt of spent nuclear fuel? A. Q. A. There is. Do you know how much? Well, it depends. Particular reactors

involved here actually own their own spent fuel transportation casks and have for more than a decade. So it would be the operating costs associated with loading fuel and transferring it. Q. Ms. Supko, turning to what I just provided "

to you from your workpapers, by my count there are four utilities here, four reactors, I should say, with over I00 MTUs of maximum additional storage required, correct? Ao Yes. In fact, one of those, I believe it is Palo Heritage Reporting Co.rpo±ation 202) 628-4888

Q.

028

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 30 of 31 824

Verde Number 1-has 184.9 MTUs of additional storage, 2 3 4 5 correct? A. Q. A. It is the Number 2 plant. Yes, I see it. Is that correct? That's correct. But those are actually

three nuclear power plants with three separate 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 pools, which would average about 61 metric tons per pool, which is a reload and a half maybe. Q. By the way, with 184.9 MTUs, if they had to

go to dry storage, that could be as much as 18 casks, correct, if you assume ten MTUs per cask? A. Wellr actually 15 metric tons per cask is

probably a more reasonable number today. Q. Okay, 15. But Z would say that a plant, and just

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A.

looking at each individual pool, as I said, let me calculate it back, 184..9 divided by 3 is approximately 62 metric tons per pool. I can't imagine that any utility would build on-site dry storage to ship -- or, excuse me, to store just 61 metric tons. There would have been other alternatives that would have made more sense. Q. A. And do you know what Palo Verde is doing? They are storing their spent fuel in dry

storage today, but that is in the breach world where Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

029

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 265-2

Filed 10/04/2006

Page 31 of 31

generation rate, correct?

2 3

A0 .Q.

A rate -- what do you mean? A rate of acceptance of the 2,000 MTUs per

year, it would keep upwith the generation rate,

5 6 7
8 9 I0 Ii 12

correct? A. Roughly. The number is higher in some

years, so --

Q.
A.

And lower in others, correct? Right. So it would apprbximately keep up with the

Q.
~. Q.

generation rate? Yes. But it is also your belief that the DOE

14

~cceptance rate must also accept, a portion of the backlog of each year or some aiount above 2,000,

16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25

correct? A. Q. Could you repeat that? Sure. Not only must the generation -- or

not only must the acceptance'rate keep up with the generation rate -- sorry, not only must the acceptance rate keep up with the generation rate, it also, you believe, requires it to work off the backlog, correct? A. It is not my opinion. That's the

requirements that were identified to me by counsel. The second issue identified was that spent fuel Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

030