ML20039G039

Affidavit of a Latman,Westchester People'S Action Coalition Atty,Authorizing Organization to Represent Interests in Proceeding

ML20039G039
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/31/1981
From:	Latman A WESTCHESTER PEOPLES ACTION COALITION, INC.
To:
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8201150209
Download: ML20039G039 (4)

Text

,

%;((

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'82 JA!111 A11:51 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -

.y-In the Matter of fl_ _ . _$2DEsY@?

) BRA:iCH

)

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-247-SP OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, ) 50-286-SP-Unit 2) )

)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE )

0F NEW YORK (Indian Point, ) December 31, 1981 Unit 3) )

)

G '

o AFFIDAVIT OF ALAN LATMAN #

• SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE RECsWE0 PETITION OF WESPAC g g g p.

~

9}

STATE OF NEW YORK ) s m,,,m,,,,y

ss.: 9 mm f COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

to ALAN LATMAN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am an attorney representing Westchester Feople's Action Coalition (WESPAC), and am one of the members of WESPAC who specifically authorized that organization to represent me in this proceeding. I live at 44 Sunset Drive, Croton-on-Hudson, less than ten miles from the Indian Point.

2. There have been references from time to time to the need for " concrete indication that at least one member of the organization whose interest might be affected by the outcome of the proceeding has authorized WESPAC to represent him or her'."-(See, e.g., Response of the NRC Staff to the i

8201150209 811231 DR ADOCK 05000247 h0 l PDR

l Amendments to Petitions of UCS-NYPIRG, GNYCE, PARENTS and WESPAC for Leave to Intervene and Amendments to Requests of the County and NYC Council for Participation as Interested States, p. 12). Such concrete indication has, in my opinion, been given in a number of ways such as by the written representation of WESPAC's co-chairperson (who lives within 50 miles of Indian Point) by signing and submitting the petition. My presence and appearance at the hearing on December 2, in my view, conscituted a further concrete indication. Were there any bona fide doubt on the question, it would have been removed by affidavit of Charles Scheiner sworn to on December 9, 1981condirming, under oath, that the matters in WESPAC's petition were true to his knowledge.

One of these matters was the allegation in paragraph 3 of the Petition that five other named individuals and I had

""specifically authorized WESPAC to represent" our interests in this proceeding.

3. The December 9 Scheiner affidavit was prepared

'under my supervision on the basis of my understanding of the directions of the Board on December 2. I understood these directions to be aimed toward the simplest means of confirming the facts, such as a single affidavit in the nature of a l verification of the petition.

4. Although I am convinced that the foregoing tedious

! recitals make WESPAC's authorization eminently clear to all

! concerned (including those who insist on their dismal litany l

l l

2 f

i

m e

of hypertechnicalities) I state herein that I, whose interests might be affected by the outcome of the proceeding, have authorized WESPAC to represent me. I also represent to the Board that I spoke personally on the telephone to Alvin R. Warren and Dr. Abe Levy, both of whom assured me that they had similarly authorized WESPAC to represent them. Dr. Levy also informed me that his wife, Pat Levy had done the same and I have no reason to believe (nor does anyone else) that the McKeons, the other named individuals have not done the same.

5. Several non-lawyers participating in this proceeding

- have , either at the hearing or in writing, questioned some of the " technical" requirements being discussed. In contrast to these persons, I have practiced law for more than 25

. years in a number of federal and state courts and several administrative agencies. I believe I am aware of the nature, purposes and operational framework of procedural rules. I must nevertheless reiterate what I stated at the hearing, namely, that I have never before seen the level of technical objections being raised by certain of the parties herein. This approach

! truly elevates form over substance. I believe that this approach is regrettable in its effect on the tone of the proceedings, particularly in view of its investigatory nature. I respectfully l

l request that the Board reject these obj ections summarily and I

i 3

proceed to the merits of this matter.

a

}

Ytk.e. Q/6L stJm ALAN LATMAN Sworn to before me this 9/ # ay d of December, 1981

'q

, k. /

) ( c.uc, J.',, c ,

r us .. A-

~ Notary Public ANNE McGU:9E Notary Pubbc. S t ate of n0W York

• Nn 03-7040975 Qual hor,n Gro,n Count,

'"'ssen F meres March 30,1 gyp

) 3 V'V 4

..