ML080090542

2008/01/01 Indian Point Lr Hearing - Exhibit Clarification - Petition to Intervene Westcan, Rcca, Sierra Club, Phase

ML080090542
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	01/01/2008
From:	- No Known Affiliation
To:	Division of License Renewal
References
Download: ML080090542 (10)

Text

From: Sherwood Martinelli <fuse_usa@yahoo.com>

To: <Palisadesart@aol.com>,<richardbrodsky@msn.com>,"Sherwin Turk" <SET@nrc.gov> Date: 1/1/2008 12:36:15 PM

Subject:

Re: Exhibit Clarification - Petition to Intervene WestCAN, RCCA, Sierra Club, PHASE cc: "Nancy Burton" <NancyBurtonCT@aol.com>,"Sherwood Martinelli" <roycepenstinger@aol.com>,"Arthu r Kremer(2)" <kremer@area-alliance.org>

,"Richard Brodsky" <brodskr@assembly.state.ny.us>,"Daniel O'Neill" <vob@bestweb.

net>,"Manna Greene" <mannajo@clearwater.org>,"William Dennis" <wdennis@entergy.com>,"Joan Matthews" <jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us>,"Diane Curran" <dcurran@harmoncurran.com>,"Kathryn Sutton" <ksutton@morganlewis.com>,"Martin O'Neill" <martin.o'neill@morganlewis.com>,"Paul Bessette" <pbessette@morganlewis.com>,"Hearing HearingDocket"

<HearingDocket@nrc.gov>,"Christopher Chandler" <CCC1@nrc.gov>,"Zachary Kahn" <ZXK1@nrc.gov>,"Beth Mizuno" <BNM1@nrc.gov>,"Brian Newell" <BPN1@nrc.gov>,"Kaye Lathrop" <KDL2@nrc.gov>,"Lawrence McDade" <LGM1@nrc.gov>,"Kimberly Sexton" <KAS2@nrc.gov>,"Lloyd Subin" <LBS3@nrc.gov>,"Bo Pham" <BMP@nrc.gov>,"David Roth" <DER@nrc.gov>,<IPNonPublicHearingFile@nrc.gov>,<OCAAMAIL@nrc.gov>,"Richard Wardwell" <REW@nrc.gov>,"Michael Delaney" <mdelaney@nycedc.com>,"John Sipos" <John.Sipos@oag.state.ny.us>,"Susan Shapiro" <mbs@ourrocklandoffice.com>,"Robert Snook" <Robert.Snook@po.state.ct.us>,"Phillip Musegaas" <phillip@riverkeeper.org>,"Victor Tafur" <vtafur@riverkeeper.org>,"Arthur Kremer" <ajkremer@rmfpc.com>,"Daniel Riesel" <driesel@sprlaw.com>,"Jessica Steinberg" <jsteinberg@sprlaw.com>,"Justin Pruyne" <jdp3@westchestergov.com>

Dear Mr. Turk:

I am not a fan of Susan Shapi ro, nor for that matter a fa n of the NRC. That being said, afraid I must step in here even if the board has egregiously tossed me from the process. Any one that wants to can IGNORE my rant...any one that wants to see true justice might want to step in and offer us here at FUSE USA some much needed help with our contentions, and in appealing the baords barring of me, Sherwood Martinelli...and yes, since I am currently barred, this is NOT official case correspondance, and my views are not necessarily the views of FUSE USA.

The LRA, and our initial offerings in the form of contentions ARE NOT a legal process, but instead a means by which to decide if a legal hearing will be granted. In fact, NRC rules and regulations state, "Stakeholders do not need to prove their contentions in their initial filing, but simply offer up enough proof to show there is a legitimate issue of fact or law that deserves FURTHER REVIEW.

What we are seeing, is the NRC tossing HEALTH AND SAFETY to the four

winds, and throwing out citizen stakeholder contentions on technicalities, and personality. It is unrea sonable to expect small gr assroots organizations and citizens to be attorneys, and it is furt her unfair to place economic burdens on them that cut them out of the process strictly on the issue of lack of funding...should a stakeholder's contenti on be dismissed because they cannot afford to hire an attorney to repres ent them? Should a stakeholder be denied a voice because they cannot afford thous ands of dollars in COPYING CHARGES?

WE could all agree that Susan Shapiro has made a MOUNTAIN of mistakes, could state that she, as a licensed a ttorney should KNOW BETTER...well, she does not, and good, bad or ugly, she is the best some stakeholders can afford to have represent them, as she is WORKING FOR FREE, just like I work for free for FUSE USA. The LRA process is supposed to give citizen stakeholders opportunity to RAISE ISSUES. Instead, you Mr. Turk, and the BIASED BOARD are turning the process into a screw the average stakeholder on technicalities event, finding any way you can to avoid givi ng any of our contentions their fair chance to be heard. I've reviewed other contentions filed on other applications, and read statements from boar d members that basically say, "the petitioner brings up some very valid concerns, raises some good points, but alas the contention is not within sc ope, or was not prefaced properly for this venue." Regardless of the RULES, the NRC and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has a s uperceding responsibi lity above ALL ELSE to protect human health and safety, and ignoring serious SAFETY ISSUES

because they are not present ed perfectly amounts to a dereliction of duty, even treason against our nation.

You Mr. Turk, called my house the other day as FUSE USA's offices are located in my home. You were short, nasty and impolite, even though it was you calling me during a time that most people consi der Christmas Vacation. In fact, you were not happy to know that FUSE US A was/is on vacation until after January 8th, 2008, even though I know first hand t hat legal staff for DEC are on vacation until January 7, 2008. When I told you I was aware t hat the latest FUSE USA filings included exhibits burned onto CD ROM, you got rather upset, showed your distain that the NRC had not been sent a hard copy of the exhibits. When I pointed out to you that the exhibits we re thousands (perhaps as much as 20,000) of pages in length, you quipped, "Oh well, litigation is expensive", as if to say, "IF YOU CANNOT FINANCIALLY AFFORD THE FIGHT, GET OUT OF IT." Yet, you wonder why I call you, and the board (m ade up of paid NRC staff) a bunch of "Pro Industry Pricks"? Your statement, your nick picking prove that you, and the board have but ONE CONCERN...eliminate as many obstacles as possible to the Relicensing of the Indian Point reactors.

Curious here...did it ever occur to you Mr. Turk, that some of the supposed errors you are accusing us as stakehol ders of making are not ours?

1. I was accused of emailing multiple copies...in fact and deed, I DID NOT email multiple copies, but instead there was and AOL glitch that caused the NRC to recieve multiple email copies of the correspondence in question.

2. I have numerous computers...older ones, ones that are running on OBSOLETE software/hardware have trouble opening certain documents. It is not the document that is the problem, it is the equipment. The federal government is notorious for running out dated software, and no better example of outdated computer technology exists than the NRC's own ADAMS system.

Most times, when someone cannot open a giv en file, it is not the files problem, but points to a shortcoming in the reci pients computer...IE, lacking necessary software or drivers to view said documents.

I would venture to say, that your Mr Turk are having trouble reading certain files on certain DVD's because you are a computer neanderthal with fe w real computer skills. I'd suggest you stop using your lack of skills as an excuse to beat up on STAKEHOLDERS.

Sherwood Martinelli

Director of FUSE USA, but speaking for my self as a pissed off stakeholder living three miles from Indian Point. You don't lik e my voice in the process, then move me out of the area...maybe FEMA has an internment camp for people like me?

Otherwise, I have a right to be heard, and wil l continue to express myself in this process via this email tree.

---

Original Message ----

From: Sherwin Turk <SET@nrc.gov>

To: Palisadesart@aol.com; richardbrodsky@msn.com

Cc: Nancy Burton <NancyBurtonCT@aol.com>; Sherwood Martinelli <roycepenstinger@aol.com>; Arthur Kremer(2) <kremer@area-alliance.org>; Richard Brodsky <brodskr@assembly.s tate.ny.us>; Daniel O'Neill

<vob@bestweb.net>; Manna Greene <m annajo@clearwater.org>; William Dennis <wdennis@entergy.com>; Joan Matthews

<jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us>; Di ane Curran <dcurran@harmoncurran.com>;

Kathryn Sutton <ksutton@morganl ewis.com>; Martin O'Neill

<martin.o'neill@morganlewis.com>; Paul Bessette

<pbessette@morganlewis.com>; bo pham

<BMP@nrc.gov>; Beth Mizuno <BNM1.TWGWPO01.HQGWDO01@nr c.gov>; Brian Newell <BPN1.TWGWPO01.HQGWDO01@nrc.gov

>; Christopher Chandler

<CCC1.OWGWPO03.HQGWDO01@nrc.gov>; David Roth

<DER.TWGWPO03.HQGWDO01@nrc.gov

>; Hearing HearingDocket

<HearingDocket@nrc.gov>; IPNonPublicHe aringFile@nrc.gov; Kimberly Sexton <KAS2.TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01@nrc.gov>;

Kaye Lathrop <KDL2@nrc.gov>; Lloyd Subin <LBS3.TWGWPO02.HQGW DO01@nrc.gov>; Lawrence McDade

<LGM1@nrc.gov>;

OCAAMAIL@nrc.gov; Richard Wardwell <REW@nrc.gov>; Zachary Kahn <ZXK1@nrc.gov>; Michael Delaney

<mdelaney@nycedc.com>; John Sipos <John.Sipos@oag.state.ny.us>; Susan Shapiro <mbs@ourrocklandoffice.com>; Robert Snook <Robert.Snook@po.state.ct.us>; Phillip Musegaas

<phillip@riverkeeper.org>; Victor Tafur <vtafur@riverkeeper.org>; Arthur Kremer <ajkremer@rmfpc.com>; Daniel Riesel <driesel@sprlaw.com>; Jessica Steinberg <jsteinberg@sprlaw.com>; Justin Pruyne <jdp3@westchestergov.com>; Sherwood Ma rtinelli (2) <fuse_usa@yahoo.com>

Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 5:42:59 PM

Subject:

Re: Exhibit Clarification - Petiti on to Intervene WestCAN, RCCA, Sierra Club, PHASE

Dear Ms. Shapiro and Mr. Brodsky:

I just received your E-mail message, dated December 27 but sent today, December 28, at 4:46 PM, from Ms. Shapiro's "Palisadesart" E-mail address.

Your message incorrectly states t hat you are "clarifying and resending the following attached exhibits" upon my request, in part. Let's be clear.

You had previously sent the NRC St aff your petition to intervene and exhibits by E-mail on December 10, followed by the delivery of a CD containing the exhibits. You did not serve the Staff with a paper copy of your exhibits. We found we co uld not open numerous electronic files containing your exhibits, as t hey were corrupt and could not be accessed; many other exhibits were missing or incomplete. In our telephone conference call with you and En tergy's Counsel on December 19, you committed to send the Staff a complete paper copy of your petition and all exhibits, along with a correct table of exhibits, for delivery on Friday morning, December 21. Y ou made other commitments to Entergy's Counsel, promising to send them certai n materials by E-mail that day, to rectify the problems t hey had encountered with your exhibits. In return, both Entergy's attorneys a nd I indicated we would not file motions to strike, subject to our receipt of the promised materials within the agreed time. The Staff received your delivery on Friday, December 21, as promised. I did not request anything other than that.

I do not understand what you are attempting to file now, or whether it differs in any way from the paper copy we received from you on December

21. If you are filing anything else now, you are late. You are also late in trying to supplement or rect ify your previous filings, without seeking leave to do so. Further, due to the numerous problems we have encountered with your electronic filings in the past several months, we will not even attempt to open your la test electronic files. Proper service requires a paper copy; your E-mail message and electronic transmissions do not constitute proper service.

We do not have time, nor should we have to sort through your repeated bulk mailings to try to determine what is new or different from your previous filings. If your latest E-mail messages and electronic contain anything different from the paper c opy that you delivered to us on December 21, please advise me immediately, identifying any such changes.

Thank you.

Sincerely, Sherwin Turk Counsel for NRC Staff Hearing Identifier: IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic Email Number: 354 Mail Envelope Properties (4784DEAB.HQGWDO01.OWGWPO04.200.2000007.1.139515.1)

Subject:

Re: Exhibit Clarification - Petition to Intervene WestCAN, RCCA, Sierra Club, PHASE Creation Date: 1/1/2008 12:36:15 PM From: Sherwood Martinelli <fuse_usa@yahoo.com>

Created By: fuse_usa@yahoo.com Recipients "Nancy Burton" <NancyBurtonCT@aol.com> "Sherwood Martinelli" <roycepenstinger@aol.com>

"Arthur Kremer(2)" <kre mer@area-alliance.org> "Richard Brodsky" <brodskr@assembly.state.ny.us> "Daniel O'Neill" <vob@bestweb.net>

"Manna Greene" <mannajo@clearwater.org> "William Dennis" <wdennis@entergy.com> "Joan Matthews" <jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us>

"Diane Curran" <dcurran@harmoncurran.com> "Kathryn Sutton" <ksutton@morganlewis.com> "Martin O'Neill" <martin.o'neill@morganlewis.com>

"Paul Bessette" <pbessette@morganlewis.com> "Hearing HearingDocket" <HearingDocket@nrc.gov> "Christopher Chandler" <CCC1@nrc.gov>

"Zachary Kahn" <ZXK1@nrc.gov> "Beth Mizuno" <BNM1@nrc.gov> "Brian Newell" <BPN1@nrc.gov>

"Kaye Lathrop" <KDL2@nrc.gov> "Lawrence McDade" <LGM1@nrc.gov> "Kimberly Sexton" <KAS2@nrc.gov> "Lloyd Subin" <LBS3@nrc.gov> "Bo Pham" <BMP@nrc.gov>

"David Roth" <DER@nrc.gov> <IPNonPublicHearingFile@nrc.gov> <OCAAMAIL@nrc.gov>

"Richard Wardwell" <REW@nrc.gov> "Michael Delaney" <mdelaney@nycedc.com> "John Sipos" <John.Sipos@oag.state.ny.us>

"Susan Shapiro" <mbs@ourrocklandoffice.com> "Robert Snook" <Robert.Snook@po.state.ct.us> "Phillip Musegaas" <phillip@riverkeeper.org> "Victor Tafur" <vtafur@riverkeeper.org> "Arthur Kremer" <ajkremer@rmfpc.com> "Daniel Riesel" <driesel@sprlaw.com>

"Jessica Steinberg" <jsteinberg@sprlaw.com> "Justin Pruyne" <jdp3@westchestergov.com> <Palisadesart@aol.com>

<richardbrodsky@msn.com> "Sherwin Turk" <SET@nrc.gov>

Post Office Route OWGWPO04.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 9812 1/1/2008 12:36:15 PM TEXT.htm 12922 1/9/2008 2:48:11 PM Mime.822 26468 1/9/2008 2:48:11 PM

Options Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None None

Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard

Dear Mr. Turk:

I am not a fan of Susan Shapiro, nor for that matter a fan of the NRC. That being sa id, afraid I must step in here even i f the board has egregiously tossed me from the process. A ny one that wants to can IGNORE my rant...any one that wants to see true justice might want to step in and offer us here at FUSE USA some much needed help with our contentions, and in appealing th e baords barring of me, Sherwood Martinelli...a nd yes, since I am currently barred, this is NOT official case correspondance, and my view s are not necessarily the views of FUSE USA.

The LRA, and our initial offe rings in the form of contentions ARE NOT a legal process, but instead a means by which to decide if a legal hearing will be granted. In fact, NRC rules and regulations state, "Sta keholders do not need to prove their contentions in their initial filing, but simply offer up enough proof to show there is a legitimate issue of fact or law that deserves FURTHER REVIEW.

What we are seeing, is the NRC tossing HEALTH AND SAFETY to the four winds, and throwing out citizen stakeholder contentions on technicalities, and personality. It is unreasonable to expect small grassroots organizations and citizens to be attorneys, and it is further unfair to place economic burdens on them that cut them out of the process strictly on the issue of lack of fundi ng...should a stakeholder's contention be dism issed because they cannot afford to hire an attorney to represent them?

Should a stakeholder be denied a voice be cause they cannot afford thousands of dollars in COPYING CHARGES?

WE could all agree that Susan Shapiro ha s made a MOUNTAIN of mista kes, could state that she, as a licensed attorney should KNOW BETTER...well, she does not, and good, bad or ugl y, she is the best some stakeholders can afford to have represent them, as she is WORKIN G FOR FREE, just like I work for free for FUSE USA. The LRA process is supposed to give citizen stakeholders opportunity to RAISE ISSUES.

Instead, you Mr. Turk, and the BIASED BOARD are turning the process into a screw the average stakeholder on technicalities event, finding any way you can to avoid giving any of our contentions th eir fair chance to be heard. I've re viewed other contentions filed on other applications, and read statements from board members that basically say, "the petitioner brings up some very valid concerns, raises some good points, but alas the contention is not within scope, or was not prefaced properly for this venue." Regardless of the RULES, the NRC and the At omic Safety and Licensing Board has a superceding responsibility above ALL ELSE to protect human health and safety, and ignoring seri ous SAFETY ISSUES because they are not presented perfectly amounts to a dereliction of duty, even treason against our nation.

You Mr. Turk, called my house the other day as FUSE USA's offices are located in my home. You were short, nasty and impolite, even though it was you calling me during a time that most people consider Christmas Vacation. In fact, you were not happy to know that FUSE USA was/is on vaca tion until after January 8t h, 2008, even though I know first hand that legal staff for DEC are on vacat ion until January 7, 2008. When I told you I was aware that the latest FUSE USA filings included exhibits burned ont o CD ROM, you got rather upset, show ed your distain that the NRC had not been sent a hard copy of the exhibits. When I pointed out to you that the exhibits were thousands (perhaps as much as 20,000) of pages in length, you quipped, "O h well, litigation is expensive", as if to say, "IF YOU CANNOT FINANCIALLY AFFORD THE FIGHT, GET OUT OF IT." Yet, you wonder why I call you, and the board (made up of paid NRC staff) a bunch of "Pro Industry Pricks"? Your statement, your nick picking prove that you, and the board have but ONE CONCERN...e liminate as many obstacles as possible to th e Relicensing of the I ndian Point reactors.

Curious here...did it ever occur to you Mr. Turk, that some of the supposed errors you are accusing us as stakeholders of making are not ours?

1. I was accused of emailing multiple copies...in fact and deed, I DID NOT email multiple copies, but instead there was and AOL glitch that cau sed the NRC to recieve multiple email c opies of the corres pondence in question.

2. I have numerous computers...older ones, ones that are running on OBSOLETE soft ware/hardware have trouble o penin g certain documents. It is not the document that is the p roblem, it is the e q ui p ment. The federal g overnment is Pa ge 1of 3 1/9/2008file://c:\EMailCa p ture\IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic\354\attch1.htm notorious for running outdated software, and no better example of outdated comput er technology exists than the NRC's own ADAMS system.

Most times, when someone cannot open a given file, it is not the files problem, but points to a shortcoming in the recipients computer...IE, lacking necessary software or drivers to view said do cuments. I would venture to say, that your Mr Turk are having trouble readi ng certain files on certain DVD's becaus e you are a computer neanderthal with few real computer skills. I'd suggest you stop using your la ck of skills as an excuse to beat up on STAKEHOLDERS.

Sherwood Martinelli Director of FUSE USA, but speaking for myself as a pissed off stakeholder living three miles from Indian Point. You don't like my voice in the process, then move me out of the area...maybe FEMA has an internment camp for people like me? Otherwise, I have a right to be heard, and will continue to express myself in this process via this email tree.

---

Original Message ---- From: Sherwin Turk <SET@nrc.gov> To: Palisadesart@aol.com; richardbrodsky@msn.com Cc: Nancy Burton <NancyBurtonCT@aol.com>; Sherwood Mart inelli <roycepens tinger@aol.com>; Ar thur Kremer(2)

<kremer@area-alliance.org>; Richard Brodsky <brodskr@assembly.state.ny.us>;

Daniel O'Neill <vob@bestweb.net>;

Manna Greene <mannajo@clearwate r.org>; William Denni s <wdennis@entergy.com>; Joan Matthews

<jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us>; Diane Curran

<dcurran@harmoncurran.com>; Kathryn Sutton

<ksutton@morganlewis.com>; Martin O'Neill <m artin.o'neill@morganlewis.com>; Paul Bessette

<pbessette@morganlewis.com>; bo pham <BMP@nrc.gov>; Beth Mizuno

<BNM1.TWGWPO01.HQGWDO01@nrc.gov>; Brian Ne well <BPN1.TWGWPO 01.HQGWDO01@nrc.gov>;

Christopher Chandler <CCC1.OWGWPO 03.HQGWDO01@nrc.gov>; David Roth

<DER.TWGWPO03.HQGWDO 01@nrc.gov>; Hearing HearingDoc ket <HearingDocket@nrc.gov>;

IPNonPublicHearingFile@nrc.gov; Kimberly Sexton <KAS2.TWGWPO02.H QGWDO01@nrc.gov>; Kaye Lathrop

<KDL2@nrc.gov>; Lloyd Subin

<LBS3.TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01@nr c.gov>; Lawrence McDade

<LGM1@nrc.gov>; OCAAMAIL@nrc.gov; Richard Wardw ell <REW@nrc.gov>; Zachary Kahn <ZXK1@nrc.gov>;

Michael Delaney <mdelaney@nycedc.com>; John Si pos <John.Sipos@oag.state.ny.us>; Susan Shapiro

<mbs@ourrocklandoffice.com>; Robert Snook <R obert.Snook@po.state.ct.us>; Phillip Musegaas

<phillip@riverkeeper.org>; Victor Tafu r <vtafur@riverkeeper.org>; Arthur Kremer <ajkremer@rmfpc.com>; Daniel Riesel <driesel@sprlaw.com>; Jessica Steinbe rg <jsteinberg@sprlaw.com>; Justin Pruyne

<jdp3@westchestergov.com>; Sherwood Ma rtinelli (2) <fuse_usa@yahoo.com>

Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 5:42:59 PM

Subject:

Re: Exhibit Clarificat ion - Petition to Intervene Wes tCAN, RCCA, Sierra Club, PHASE

Dear Ms. Shapiro and Mr. Brodsky:

I just received your E-mail message, dated December 27 but sent today, December 28, at 4:46 PM, from Ms.

Shapiro's "Palisadesart" E-mail address.

Your message incorrectly states th at you are "clarifying and resending the following attached exhibits" upon my request, in part. Let's be clear. You had previously sent the NRC St aff your petition to intervene and exhibits b y E-mail on December 10, followed b y the deliver y of a CD Pa ge 2of 3 1/9/2008file://c:\EMailCa p ture\IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic\354\attch1.htm containing the exhibits. You did not serve the Staff with a paper copy of your exhibits. We found we could not open numerous electronic files containing your exhibits, as they were corrupt and could not be accessed; many other exhibits were missing or incomplete. In our telephone conference call with you a nd Entergy's Counsel on December 19, you committed to send the Staff a co mplete paper copy of your petition and all exhibits, along with a correc t table of exhibits, for delivery on Friday morning, December 21. You ma de other commitments to Entergy's Counsel, promising to send them certain materials by E-mail that day, to rectify the problems they had enc ountered with your exhibits. In return, both Entergy's attorneys a nd I indicated we would not file motions to strike, subject to our receipt of the promised materials within the agreed time. The Sta ff received your delivery on Friday, December 21, as promised. I did not request anything other than that.

I do not understand what you are attempting to file now, or whether it differs in any way from the paper copy we received from you on December

21. If you are filing anything else now, you are late. You are also late in trying to supple ment or rectify your pr evious filings, without seeking leave to do so. Further, due to the numerous problems we have encountered with your elec tronic filings in the past several months, we will not even attempt to open your latest electronic files. Proper service requires a paper copy; your E-mail message and electronic transmissions do not constit ute proper service.

We do not have time, nor should we ha ve to sort through your repeated bulk mailings to try to determine what is new or different from your p revious filings. If your latest E-mail messages and electronic contain anything different from the paper copy that you delivered to us on December 21, please advise me immediat ely, identifying any such changes.

Thank you.

Sincerely, Sherwin Turk Counsel for NRC Staff Pa ge 3of 3 1/9/2008file://c:\EMailCa p ture\IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic\354\attch1.htm