.

.

.. .

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withdrawn.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

Chief, Antitrust & Indemnity GroupU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555

Executed at Washington, D.C. this 12th day of April,

1979.

GSh sdr er W YSan'dra J. Styebel