ML031210709
| ML031210709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton, PROJ0718  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/2003 |
| From: | Dimaggio A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| +ReviewedClintonESP, +reviewednvg | |
| Download: ML031210709 (2) | |
Text
.
J I Kinnattin riilp-q - ni iP.-,tinndz nhni it Clintnn Paae 1I I
N~~~n~~ttc11 -
- III-
- n, nr
-hii flitnP a
From:
"Anthony DiMaggio" <tooboring8@hotmail.com>
To:
<NVG @ nrc.gov>, <acappar~ilstu.edu>, <dmmoria@ilstu.edu>,
<tooboring8 @ hotmail.com>, <mareede @ilstu.edu>, <gdower@ ilstu.edu>, <onedogil aol.com>
Date:
4/11/03 7:22PM
Subject:
questions about Clinton To Nannette Gilles, My name is Anthony DiMaggio and I'm a resident of Normal II, less than half an hour from the Clinton nuclear power plant. I attended the meeting held by the NRC on April 3rd in Clinton intended to discuss the plant record, the yearly review, and the extension at Clinton of a new reactor. I very much appreciated the meeting and the chance to question some of the head plant officials and members of the NRC. I was told to email you at this address by Ann Marie Stone.
What increasingly concerns me after the meeting is the lack of necessary information I was able to obtain. We are talking about putting in a new nuclear reactor half an hour away, in a nation with slightly over 100 reactors, some of which retain atrocious safety records. Clinton needs to make a compelling case for the need of a new plant, especially considering the fact that it was shut down for over a year due to inefficiency. Adding another reactor means adding a substantial amount of nuclear waste. I questioned head officials at the plant of this, seeing as they are already planning on applying for an early site permit in June 2003.
Shouldn't the heads of the plant be able to supply information to the public about how much waste is anticipated to be created, the technology that will be used to move it, protect it, and store it, the plans for moving it eventually (specifically how they can guarantee it will be safe)? I think these are all legitimate questions, and they should be able to answer them considering they are already applying for the permit in June. It raises questions about how well this is planned out if they don't have the figures for how they will store the waste or move it later. Or more accurately, it raises the question of whether those owning the plant do not want this information readily available to the public assuming they already have estimates (which is what I believe). If this is the case, then again, I think it raises serious questions as to how anyone can be expected to trust those running the plant. How can we be sure this will be safe if we're going to be kept in the dark? These issues have the potential to affect everyone in the surrounding communities, a fact that I'm not sure the heads of the plant understand or care about. They have to disclose this information to those asking if they expect anyone to take them seriously. If not, there's not reason to believe that anyone should support the new reactor.
>1 look forward to hearing from you,
>Anthony DiMaggio The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http:/join.msn.com/?page=featuresljunkmail
I C:\\WIND0WS\\TEMP\\GWI00001.TMP Page 1 1 I C:\\WINDOWS\\TEMP\\GW}OOOO1.TMP Page 1 Mail Envelope Properties (3E974E3E.EC6: 9: 28358)
Subject:
Creation Date:
From:
Created By:
questions about Clinton 4/11/03 7:22PM "Anthony DiMaggio" <tooboring8 @hotmail.com>
tooboring8 @ hotmail.com Recipients nrc.gov owf4_po.OWFNDO NVG (Nanette Gilles) aol.com onedogil ilstu.edu gdower mareede dmmoria acappar Post Office owf4_po.0WFNDO Route nrc.gov aol.com ilstu.edu Files MESSAGE Mime.822 Options Expiration Date:
Priority:
Reply Requested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security:
Size 2735 3815 Date & Time 04/11/03 07:22PM None Standard No None No Standard