Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Has Panties in Knot

I spent the better part of yesterday at the Office of Westchester County Commissioner Andy Spano attending a press conference. By the time I broke bread with friends, and returned to my home less three miles from the aging Indian Point reactors owned by Entergy, it was late afternoon, and I had things to do. So, it was not until after ten last night that I got around to opening my emails. After deleting all the SPAM, the first letter of importance was from the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board informing me that THEY HAD CENSURED ME for what they feel were inappropriate remarks. I'd stated in a email letter to one Mr. Turk that the board's order dismissing all of FUSE USA's contentions in the name of HOUSE CLEANING amounted to them all acting like "pro nuclear industry pricks". (paraphrasing here)

1. The letter was NOT ADDRESSED TO THE BOARD, I merely CCed them a copy of communications between myself and Mr. Turk, erring on the side of caution, not wanting to be accused of Exparte Communications with the board's law clerk.

2. The board finds my use of the word pricks when referring to them abhorrant and disgusting, and is demanding that I offer up an apology to said board for offending their sensibilities, OR THEY WILL DISMISS ALL my filings, and FORBID me from participating moving forward in the License Renewal process...NO DURESS THERE.




Before Administrative Judges:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman

Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop

Dr. Richard E. Wardwell

In the Matter of


(Indian Point Nuclear Generating

Units 2 and 3)

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR

ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01

December 3, 2007

Sherwood Martinelli

Response to Censure

Apology to Board, and Other Matters

Dear Board and Participants:

I am in receipt of today’s censure order, where the board has taken exception to my speaking my honest heart felt opinion and beliefs in stating, “. . . the board decided to be a bunch of pro industry pricks . . .” as relates to a previous decision by the board, wherein certain FUSE USA filings were tossed not because of a lack of merit, but on technicalities as relates to the rules. It struck me as more than odd, that the board basically gave Entergy everything they were asking for in their Motion to Strike.

In hindsight, I could have, and perhaps should have found a more diplomatic means by which to express and state my discontent and anger with, what I feel was and is a bias, pro-nuclear industry decision by said board. For that reason, for my indiscretion in how I expressed my own perceived truths, I do apologize for using language that the Board and anyone else took exception to in my written response to this board, and shall endeavor in the future to express my views, opinions and facts in a fashion that avoids the proverbial George Carlin list of words that one is not supposed to use on network television. My intent then and now was to express my HONEST OPINIONS before this board, not to offend other’s sensibilities in that process.

So as to clarify my position, I restate, I do apologize to the board for using what they deem to have been “inappropriate and disrespectful language.” Perhaps I have spent too much time reading some of the rather colorful exchanges in the emails of certain NRC staff, or perhaps I have a different view point on what is or is not appropriate language to use in civil discourse. After all, when you have the Vice President dropping the F bomb on the floor of the Senate while not being censored, and can turn on any soap opera or Comedy Central and hear far more colorful language, let alone listening to rap lyrics, the lines of propriety over the years seem to have blurred.

Further, not being a far Right, Born Again Christian member of the Republican Party, being one who embraces Freedom of Speech, and a Woman’s Right to Choice, I tend to be more liberal, accepting and tolerant in viewing what others say and write, am perhaps less easily offended by others arrangement of words upon a written page.

Maybe the board could help me in my effort of not stepping over the lines of their subjective version of propriety again in using words or phrases this board considers inappropriate or disrespectful language? Perhaps the board could put forth for me, a list of words or passages they will not allow in documents presented for their consideration? For instance, from my own perspective and views, stating that the NRC stands for No Regulatory Control is not an inappropriate remark, and I have even heard similar remarks by elected officials. I would hate to inadvertently find myself again being censured, singled out for scolding despite my best efforts at exhibiting restraint and decorum in my presentations to this board.

As a part of this apology to the board, I certify that I will refrain, to the best of my ability, as is required by the order attempting to limit my freedom of speech, to refrain from rude or disrespectful language in all written and oral statements that I hereafter submit or otherwise make in the coarse of this proceeding. I point out, that what is rude or disrespectful is very subjective in nature, as the board’s order in this matter attests to. Therefore, though I shall strive mightily in this task, there are no guarantees that I will not offend any one in the presentation of my contentions. I find Entergy’s application both rude and disrespectful to my community and myself, but that is my own subjective opinion on the matter. Despite my most diligent efforts, despite my certifying that I shall avoid rude and disrespectful language in my presentation to the board, how others perceive those presentations is not within my control. As example, if one looks at the dictionary definition of prick(s):

Main Entry:







Middle English prikke, from Old English prica; akin to Middle Dutch pric prick


before 12th century

1: a mark or shallow hole made by a pointed instrument2 a: a pointed instrument or weapon b: a sharp projecting organ or part3: an instance of pricking or the sensation of being pricked: as a: a nagging or sharp feeling of remorse, regret, or sorrow b: a slight sharply localized discomfort prick of a needle>4usually vulgar : penis 5 usually vulgar : a spiteful or contemptible man often having some authority.

I specifically refer the reader to definition number 5, usually (BUT NOT ALWAYS) vulgar: a spiteful or contemptible man often having some authority. Now, from my perspective, based on what I feel was and is a spiteful ruling, the use of the word when I submitted my response to the board seemed accurate. From my own subjective perspective, it seems like and appropriate use of the word within the context it was used. I freely admit that I gave no thought to the fact that certain thin skinned or puritan people might take offense of its use in a sentence, in a document submitted to this board. So again, I do humbly apologize, since it is obvious by this boards visceral reaction that offense was taken. I shall endeavor in all future correspondence to avoid such offense on the part of the board.

I further certify, that I have read 10 CFR Part 2, and all orders of the board that I have been given a copy of, and further, I certify that I will abide by said rule, and the orders of this board to the best of my ability, based on my understanding of the rule, and orders of this board as they have been written.

It is noted for the record, that Sherwood Martinelli and FUSE USA resubmitted our contentions prior to this order, and there is a good likelihood that this board might find certain views and passages subjectively objectionable. As they say, one can not UNRING the bell, nor can we go back through our filing in seven short days playing the part of word/phrase police, censoring our verbiage to make sure we have not offended this board or other parties to this License Renewal Process. So, erring on the side of safety, I apologize in advance for any particular word use in our almost 500 page filing that this board takes objection to, and again certify, that moving forward, as the Censor Order requires, work diligently to even more carefully choose the words and phrases I use in expressing myself, so as to avoid using rude, obnoxious or offensive language, even if said words would accurately express the facts as I see them.

Lastly, though Sherwood Martinelli herein has officially complied with the order of this board, I do not waive my right to appeal said order.

Respectfully Submitted,

Sherwood Martinelli


Peekskill, New York 10566


Certificate of Service

A copy of the above letter of apology was sent via email to all parties. Further, said letter is being mailed out via normal first class mail to all parties.

Sherwood Martinelli

December 3rd, 2007


351 Dyckman Street

Peekskill, New York 10566


(914) 293-7458

No comments: