. . .. . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In The Matter Of : Pacific Gas and Electric ) Company (Stanislaus ) NRC Docket No. P-564-A Nuclear Project, Unit ) No. 1) ) CORRECTED MOTION FOR RESCHEDULING OF DEPOSITION OF ROBERT H. GERDES IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTICE OF DEPOSITION The Cities of Anaheim and Riverside, California (" Southern Citi's") move for an order reinstating the notice of deposition of Robert H. Gerdes for May 2, 1979 in Washington, D.C. Notice of the deposition of Mr. Gerdes was dated and served by mail on March 26, 1979. Having spent considerable time on the telephone working out a procedure and time as to which all parties could agree for this deposition, the undersigned was quite surprised to receive PG&E's motion for protective order asking that the deposition not be taken, or alternatively, that it be taken under conditions which were contradictory to the agreements reached by all parties prior to the issuance of the notice. We were further surprised, after acknowledgement that the motion had been filed without checking with the attorney who had par- ticipated in the discussion for PG&E, that the motion was not withdrawn. By Order issued April 5, 1979, the Board deferred 7905100007 I
7
Embed
Corrected motion for rescheduling of RH Gerdes deposition ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
.
.
.. .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
In The Matter Of :
Pacific Gas and Electric )Company (Stanislaus ) NRC Docket No. P-564-ANuclear Project, Unit )No. 1) )
CORRECTED MOTION FOR RESCHEDULINGOF DEPOSITION OF ROBERT H. GERDES
IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
The Cities of Anaheim and Riverside, California
(" Southern Citi's") move for an order reinstating the notice
of deposition of Robert H. Gerdes for May 2, 1979 in
Washington, D.C. Notice of the deposition of Mr. Gerdes was
dated and served by mail on March 26, 1979. Having spent
considerable time on the telephone working out a procedure and
time as to which all parties could agree for this deposition,
the undersigned was quite surprised to receive PG&E's motion
for protective order asking that the deposition not be taken,
or alternatively, that it be taken under conditions which
were contradictory to the agreements reached by all parties
prior to the issuance of the notice. We were further
surprised, after acknowledgement that the motion had been
filed without checking with the attorney who had par-
ticipated in the discussion for PG&E, that the motion was not
withdrawn. By Order issued April 5, 1979, the Board deferred
7905100007 I
.
.
..
-2-
the deposition of Mr. Gerdes, apparently basing that order
solely on the incorrect statements made in PG&E's motion for
protective order.
The notice of deposition was served only after
lengthy discussions among all parties, including PG&E and
Staff.
While PG&E did have certain reservations concerning
whether or not Mr. Gerdes would be an appropriate witness for
depositions, counsel for PG&E agreed that they would make Mr.
Gerdes available for deposition by intervenors and Staff in
accordance with the suggestions of this Board beginning on
May 2, in Washington, D.C. While there were some discussions
as to the subject matter of the depositions, it was agreed by
all parties that the deposition would be noticed and that
PG&E, by motion for protective order or by objections made at
the deposition, could contest the scope of the deposition.
Finally, following the undersigned's discussion with the
Chairman of the Board concerning the Board's attendance at
such depositions, the undersigned informed all counsel that
the Board was available to attend the depositions on the
dates scheduled if any one party chose to request the Board 's
attendance. 1/
1/ Of course, those noticing the deposition will pay theauthorized fees.
_
.
.
. .
-3-
PG&E's motion for protective order is written as if
these discussions had never taken place. Possibly, the
reason for this is that the counsel who was participating in
the discussions with counsel for intervenors and Staff, Mr.
William Armstrong, apparently was out of his office when the
motion was written. Regardless of the reason for the filing
of this motion for a protective order, PG& E has not correctly
reflected discussions which went on among counsel prior to
the notice of these depositions.
As to PG&E's concern that Mr. Gerdes might be
subject to multiple depositions and cross-examination as the
result of the ongoing proceedings before the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, counsel for Southern Cities was pre-
pared to agree that wherever possible the deposition record
created in this proceeding would be used in Docket E-7777(II),
therefore reducing the amount of further cross-examination to
which Mr. Gerdes might be subject if he is called as a wit-.
ness in that proceeding. 1/
Southern Cities believe that the deposition of Mr.
Gerdes will be very useful for the purposes stated by the
Board in the prehearing conference in January, 1979. Our ini-
tial review of the documents received from PG&E as a result
of discovery in this proceeding indicates that Mr. Gerdes was
invclved in many of the activities which are the subject
1/ It should be noted that not all parties to the Stanislausproceeding are parties in Docket E-7777(II) before the FERCand that there are additional parties in Docket E-7777(II)who are not parties to the Stanislaus proceeding. Therefore,PG&E's offer to make Mr. Gerdes available as a witness beforetht: FERC in lieu of depositions in this proceeding could notbe accepted. In fact, Mr. Gerdes has not yet been designatedas a witness in that proceeding.
. .
4
-4-
matter of this proceeding. Depositions of a witnecc such as
Mr. Gerdes should be beneficial to the parties in assisting
them in focusing on the important issues which must be
addressed. Merely because a particular witness is
knowledgable or may have been involved extensively in a
number of matters which are issues in this case should not
act as a bar to his deposition. In fact, given the inter-
relation of the various agreements and activities which form
the basis of the investigation ongoing in this hearing, a
witness such as Mr. Gerdes is exactly the type of witness
who can be useful to all the parties in helping to focus in
on these issues.
Southern Cities notes that delay in the deposition
of Mr. Gerdes beyond the May 2 date could result in no depc-
sition being taken of any witnesses in this proceeding for a
number of months. This is because beginning June 4, 1979,
hearings commence before the FERC in Docket E-7777(II). That
case does involve the same counsel for PG&E, NCPA, and
Southern Cities who are counsel in this proceeding. It also
involves many of the same people who would serve as witnesses
in both dockets as well as consultants and experts who would
assist in the cross-examination or depositions of other wit-
nesses. The granting of PG&E's motion for protective order
would ef f ectively postpone , in our view unnecessarily, the
benefits to the Stanislaus proceeding of the procedures
suggested by the Board.
_
.
*.
-5-
The May 2 date was requested by counsel for PG&E,
presumably on the basis that PG&E is obliged to file its evi-
dence in FERC Docket E-7777(II) on May 1. Southern Cities
and NCPA obliged counsel for PG&E, even though the response to
PG&E's testimony is set for May 22. If the Gerdes deposition
is allowed to slip further as a result of PG&E's motion, the
opportunity for a deposition will be lost for the foreseeable
future.
Wherefore Southern Cities respectfully request that
the Board vacate its order deferring deposition of Robert H.
Gerdes, issued April 5, 1979 and reinstate the notice of
deposition dated and served by mail on March 26, 1979
noticing the deposition of Mr. Gerdes for May 2, 1979 in
Washington, D.C. We suggest that the reinstatement be done
by telephone conference if necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
A b bn *hPeter K. Matt 9 v
Ya fA 2~~ Sandra J. Strebel -
Attorney for the Cities ofAnaheim and Riverside , California
April 12, 1979
Law Offices of:Spiegel & McDiarmid2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.Washing ton , D.C. 20037
.
-.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
Pacific Gas & Electric Company ) Docke t No. P-564-A(Stanislaus Nuclear Project, )Unit No. 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Sandra J. Strebel certifies that she has this day
served the foregoing document upon the following parties in
accordance with the requirements of Section 2.701 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice.
Marshall E. Miller, Esq. Chairman Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Antitrust DivisionU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Department of JusticeWashington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20530
Seymour Wenner, Esq. Michael J. Strumwasser, Esq.Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Deputy Attorney General4807 Morgan Drive CaliforniaChevy Chase, Maryland 20015 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 550
Sacramento, CA 95814Edward Luton , Esq.Atomic Safety and Licensing Board H. Chester Horn, Jr., Esq.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deputy Attorney General'
Washington, D.C. 20555 Of fice of the Attorney General3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Los Angeles , California 90010Panel
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555 Jack F. Fallin, Jr., Esq.
Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.Donald A. Kaplan, Esquire Glen West, Esq.P.O. Box 14141 Richard Meiss, Esq.Washington, D.C. 20044 Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
77 Beale StreetSan Francisco, CA 941u6
.
-..
-2-
Morris M. Doyle, Esq. Clarice Turney, Esq.William H. Armstrong, Esq. Office of the City AttorneyTerry J. Houlihan, Esq. 3900 Main StreetMeredith J. Watts, Esq. Riverside, CA 92521McCutchen, Doyle , Brown & EnersenThree Embarcadero Center, 28th FloorSan Francisco, California 94111
Docket and Service SectionOffice of the SecretaryU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C 20555
Mr. Gordon W. HoytUtilities DirectorCity of AnaheimP.O. Box 3222Anaheim, California 92803
Everett C. RossUtilities DirectorCity Hall - 3900 Main StreetRiverside, CA 9eadl
Joseph Rutberg, Esq.Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.David J. Evans, Esq. -
NRC Staff CounselU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashing ton , D.C. 20555