ML19261A668
| ML19261A668 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1979 |
| From: | Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902060030 | |
| Download: ML19261A668 (4) | |
Text
.
NRC PUi: Lit is L' i
,tm.,
..-..m
,Q)
UITED STATES OF AMERICA j
"UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO::
, C"~
-r W.
v:
.,v,I e _.
, v
...,, - - -...., L,2 C m. a, s 1,. ce ne r.no sOnn-,
e.,.
tw
- c. _ r.... v marc :
n-. s 2
,Q.
Of 'j Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman 4-w*
_.@p Dr. John H.
Buck Micnael C.
Farrar
/;%,
i 5'm'Eo JAN 25
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE CCMPANY OF
)
Docket Nea. 50-443
- EW E.:JIPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
)
Messrs. Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr. and Robert K.
Gad, III, BCston, Massachusetts, for the applicants, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
Mr. Robert A.
Backus, Manchester, New Hampshire, for the intervenor, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League.
Messrs. Lawrence Brenner and James M.
Cutchin, IV, for the Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission staff.
MEMORA'!DUM A'iD ORDER January 24, 1979
( ALAB-5 2 0)
During the course of the evidentiary hearing before this Board last week, the applicants asked us to take official notice of the contents of a docsent entitled "2et sed Ordinances as amenfed thrcugh September
.2 S",
.-~-.-
..c..
u.
.._..,.....c..
-~,-..n,,
lids D00Ut,in! l:0tgAIN$ i 790206COjil6 P00il QUAUTY PAGES
. applicants sought to have the document admitted into evi-dence.
In light of objections by the other parties to both courses, we reserved judgment to enable us to determine the practice in the federal courts regarding such matters.
Pending our ruling, the document was marked for identifi-cation as applicants' exhibit 79-1 (Tr. 589).
Our research has disclosed that at least one court of appeals has recently held that municipal ordinances are
" proper subjec r for judicial notice".
Newcomb v.
- Brennan, 558 F.2d 825, 829 (7th Cir. 1977).
We need not pause, how-ever, to consider whether this view is universally accepted by the federal judiciary.
For, in any event, Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evicence- / Explicitly provides that 1
"[e]xtrinsic evidence of authenticity as a conditicr prece-dent to admissibility is not required with respect tc",
inter alia:
A document bearing a seal purporting (1) to be that of the United States, or of an-State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zcne, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or executicr.
--1/ These Rules were approved by Congress in 1975 and are a part of Title 25 Of the l'niced States Code.
.e_
gcVern preceedings in he courts cf the United 5:ater and before United States magistrates except as car.cr-
..ise provided therein.
. The exhibit tendered by the applicants bears both the seal of the Town of York and the attestation of the Town Clerk that it is a true copy of the ordinances in effect in the Town of York as of January 8, 1979.
We perceive no good reason why Rule 902 should not be followed in NRC ad'udicator.v Proceedin9s.
Accordinc.lv 3
r the exhibit should be deemed duly authenticated.
On that basis, we admit it into evidence.
To be sure, both the intervenor and the NRC staff questioned its materiality with respect to the issues which are before us for deci-sion.
But we need not pass upon that questien at this
.iuncture.
Should the a.c.clicants choose to place reliance in a post-hearing submission on one or more of the ordi-nances contained in the exhibit, there will be time enough for the other parties to press bv way of resconses a n v.
oints they might wish to make respecting materiality.
e d.b.r. - u, nue
--14 3-
-rAny 1 c.=.. p - g. : c.1.. r - 2_...,qp w.. le,
-n s
y ww-
.a
-y s..
.e.:
E
=,o u o..n' a-.
e e.. u C.. +w,
- u. u.., a n n.
a n.
o.
C.
- u. =- e:u. v...
- u. c-,., t, a
.u ww.
w-.
.. * ~
7/
a bearing upo. what must be decided.
3' 2
__/ Normally a determination on materiality will precede
. h. C
- C%...$ e q i 8.p-A n
E CM f% e C=Av V=
C..
t.I,P h..d~.M.
C
- E
-P
^
M...
O..--..MAwC (C.
- 4..;..q w Ar
.. b _.w p =..w%&. g.w.f
.1 4
.o_
y c_g.4 meg}
Q,
..g
.w g, - p v 4 6
w.4
--w p
g
.s. t c
g w
ww
.r-.-
..h."s
'o he a 4
c
-o'=d
- a ~"u.4." e.ne. ~. 4. c d... " ".." c
= - - - o_
i
~
e
- \\.
..- ~.; *
.s4..yw
,w.w a -cp
...2..-.
. s
.v.
..m w..-
7 www
..g qp
.l a E*
_ _ n.'. ;
E w h. o.
.vm....E m. &..En. e.A e_.
e.
.'.n
.v
-. c.
g Ma.
b.
p=*
~p.
mE 4
A g u.4 e.'m.
m 4y
_. k..m. m q 6 m.e g w.
... z_ v p c ~. -
-..s.
mz.w....
1-
_- c
,..e v
y j
ym
_4 _
Applicants' exhibit 79-1 is' admitted into evidence in accordance with the foregoing.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD 7mw7Edw&2a Mar @ ret E.
Du Flo S(cretary to the Appeal Board
.