NRC puts nuke plant performance data on Internet

WASHINGTON, Aug 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Thursday it is posting information on the performance of nine nuclear power plants on the agency's Internet website as part of a pilot evaluation process.

Information on the plants will periodically appear on the NRC website at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/index.html.

The agency hopes the Internet site will attract feedback on what amounts to a test run of a new plant oversight process designed to provide more timely and detailed information on plant performance.

Information listed will include data on any unplanned reactor shutdowns, unplanned events that result in changes in reactor power, effluent releases in excess of NRC regulatory requirements, the availability of plant security systems and the readiness of the plant emergency response organization.

The nine plants taking part in the program are: Fitzpatrick in Scriba, N.Y.; Hope Creek in Salem, N.J.; Salem 1 and 2 in Salem, N.J.; Sequoyah 1 and 2 in Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.; Harris in New Hill, N.C.; Prairie Island 1 and 2 in Red Wing, Minn.; Quad Cities 1 and 2 in Cordova, Ill.; Cooper in Brownville, Neb.; and Fort Calhoun in Fort Calhoun, Neb.

=========================================

Ray

-- Anonymous, August 05, 1999

Answers

Seems to me that the NRC has already given us an overabundance of effluent. ;) Apparently, they feel the need to "release" more of the same. Of course, these nine sites will be the most prepared for the date change. Why do I feel just a wee bit cautious here?

-- Anonymous, August 05, 1999

Ann,

Slow down there. Three of these plants, Hope Creek, Salem 1&2, supply my own local grid in south NJ. They have already been listed by the NRC as "behind" in their remediation work, with estimated ready dates in late Oct, Nov, or Dec. They are on a "watch" list right now, so any further information about them will not be smiley face good news. This is getting very serious for me, since our grid here is about 60% nuclear power.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

Now, Gordon, don't you know that everything important has been fixed, even though nothing important had to be fixed, but it's all practically done now, except for what isn't, though nothing really important had to be fixed anyway, and it took them months and millions of dollars to do it, despite not having to do it, and it not being quite really done yet.

See? It's so simple....

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

Gordon, Thanks for the correction--sometimes I can be pretty facetious, but I didn't mean to step on toes. What I'm trying to express is that we, John Q. Public, shouldn't have to go digging and scrabbling through government websites, finding out that "exceptions" are actually vendor compliance letters, etc. Unless the nukes' directors are willing to put their own bodies over the cooling towers and tell the operators to throw the switch on January 1, 2000, they should be shut down. Then, as Ed Yourdan recommends, slowly check out one system at a time, starting with those which are used for safety. We still need to remember that electricity is a consumer commodity, and we can find ways to slow down our lifestyles to deal with the shortage of electricity which would result. There's no second chance with this: if the nukes leak, it's like shaking a down pillow into a tornado. You can't get all of those flying feathers back. It's ludicrous to think that I, a very sensible mom, nurse, and homemaker, should be even considering purchasing KI just because somebody's office politics could be upset. There's something terribly wrong with a program of potentially very dangerous electricity generation which is run by people who tell us, "Yes, we're playing it very close to that line, but we won't put our toes over it." Instead, they should be doing everything they can to get away from the line. I know that the people who work in the nukes are doing everything they can to go into 2000 with no problems, but human beings are, by definition, very fallible. Anybody who ever did Fortran with the cards knows that!

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

Ann,

Yes, you are right. We are definitely between a rock and hard place, at least in my area. Unless, of course, Lane Core is correct in what he says just above. ;-) Anyway, I am glad that information is starting to get more specific and accurate, as that reduces some of the tension. I can deal with power disruptions, it's the not knowing what the heck is really going on that stresses me out.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

that exactly right lane... it is that simple, and that improbable, and that ridiculous, and that false.

ann, you shouldn't talk like that... do you want to be labeled a nuclear activist or, worse yet, seen as this 'irrational' woman trembling in fear of a perceived threat that has no basis in reality.

gordon, haven't you gotten the picture yet? "THEY" are LYING to us. we are all in danger...and our homes, our air, our water, our farmland, our livestock and our future.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

Good news...a company named Consolidated Growers and Processers, http://www.congrowpro.com, has signed a contract with the Ukranian Government to do phytoremediation at Chernobyl. What is phytoremediation you ask? It is using plants to fix the soil. Test plots have proven that Industrial Hemp not only removes heavy metals from the soil, making it healthy again, but that the end product can still be proccessed and made into over 500 different products - everything from the finest paper to biodegradeable plastic to hempseed oil. Too bad it is illegal to grow Hemp in the United States.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 1999

Tim, I was under the impression that the heavy metals in the soil around Chernobyl were still radioactive. What are they going to do with radioactive hemp after they grow it? Harvest and bury it? Or am I missing something here?

-- Anonymous, August 07, 1999

bonnie, go into the site and check out 'hot news,' i believe that will answer your question.

excerpt from text:

The majority of radioactivity within industrial hemp translocated into the above-ground biomass (91%) is associated with leaves and inflorescence that constitute about 50 percent of plant biomass and could be easily removed at the initial stage of industrial hemp processing and used for biomass to energy conversion. The industrial hemp fiber had 137Cs levels significantly less than the regulatory limit and may be considered as "clean" product. Other byproducts of industrial hemp processing, i.e. hurd and retting water, had diminishing concentrations of 137Cs.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 1999