[Powderworks] NMOC: Planned restart of Browns Ferry NPP
Unit #1
Kate Adams
kate@dnki.net
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:49:26 -0400
--=====================_1584220358==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
It is important to remember that all nuclear plants have to emit tritium
into air and water as part of their normal operation. The effects of
tritium exposure are not fully known, since most of the epidemiological
studies fail to model the exposure properly OR fail to model it at
all. Ingestion is not the same biologic mechanism as total-body radiation.
Nuclear power cannot be made safe and cost effective. Furthermore, the
clean energy sham is dependent on the continued operation of a
emissions-grandfathered dirty coal plant in Ohio used to generate the large
quantity of electricity needed to enrich the uranium for fuel rods.
Civilian electricity generation is highly subsidized because of its long
"Atoms for Peace" history: sanitizing the image of nuclear technology helps
the weapons industry. The regrowth of the nuclear industry was one of the
key reasons Yucca Mountain was pushed through congress. Why am I not
surprised at the blossoming proposals for more nuclear capacity now that
they bought their way.
Even my son's friends mom, a professional energy economist who works for
clients I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole will tell you: nuclear power
makes no sense.
At 04:33 AM 8/13/02 -0400, Michael Devall wrote:
> Some of you Powderworkers living in the Deep South may already know
> about this, but for others who don't, there are plans in the making of
> possibly restarting Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Unit #1 in Alabama
> which has been idle since 1985. Listed below are some facts about this
> facility:
>
>
>1. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant is a three unit facility located near
>Decatur, Alabama which is about 35 miles southwest of Huntsville,
>Alabama. It is owned and operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
>
>2. Unit #1 was the site of a significant fire in 1975 which disabled the
>automatic emergency systems for both Units #1 and #2. A partial meltown
>came close to occuring at Unit #1 but with some quick thinking, the
>reactor was able to be shut down manually. Unit #1 was restarted within a
>couple months after making necessary repairs. For a detailed story of the
>incident please visit
><http://www.ccnr.org/browns_ferry.html>www.ccnr.org/browns_ferry.html.
>
>3. All three units were shut down in 1985 due to design basis
>problems. Both Units #2 & #3 were restarted in the mid 1990's after
>updates were made. Unit #1 remains shut down. There is a possibility
>that there may have been other problems occurring at Unit #1 which made
>TVA decide to keep it idle.
>
>4. It has been stated that no maintenance of any kind has taken place at
>Unit #1 since it became idle in 1985, which means that parts could have
>aged and possibly become worn. There have not been any recorded
>inspections at Unit #1 since 1985, so it cannot be proven that there has
>not been any kind of maintenance done at Unit #1 since it became idle. It
>is known though that Unit #1 still does not meet current NRC standards.
>
>5. TVA currently has plans to meet with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
>(NRC) and talk about the issue of restarting Unit #1. The company states
>that it will cost $1.2 billion to bring Unit #1 up to current standards
>and get it ready for restart.
>
>
>Do you think it is a good idea to restart this unit? I would like to hear
>other people's input on this subject. Remember that Unit #1 has been idle
>for 17 years and probably hasn't been maintained. Although TVA plans to
>update the facility and bring it to current standards, there is always a
>possibility that they could overlook something which may cause a problem
>in the future when it is operating. Due to stricter safety regulations by
>the NRC I don't expect another Three Mile Island type incident, but
>unfortunately the possibility is still there. Also, is that unit really
>worth spending $1.2 billion dollars on just to restart it? I believe
>there are better ways of spending that amount of money. Then again, I've
>seen that kind of money spent on much dumber things. We'll just have to
>wait and see what happens I guess. TTFN...
>
>Michael
*********************************************************************************
Kate Adams
Graduate Student
Department of Work Environment
UMass Lowell
*********************************************************************************
Global Free Trade: All the economic benefits of colonialism, without all
those nasty responsibilities.
****************************************************************************
*****
--=====================_1584220358==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
It is important to remember that all nuclear plants have to emit tritium
into air and water as part of their normal operation. The effects
of tritium exposure are not fully known, since most of the
epidemiological studies fail to model the exposure properly OR fail to
model it at all. Ingestion is not the same biologic mechanism as
total-body radiation.<br>
<br>
Nuclear power cannot be made safe and cost effective. Furthermore,
the clean energy sham is dependent on the continued operation of a
emissions-grandfathered dirty coal plant in Ohio used to generate the
large quantity of electricity needed to enrich the uranium for fuel
rods. <br>
<br>
Civilian electricity generation is highly subsidized because of its long
"Atoms for Peace" history: sanitizing the image of nuclear
technology helps the weapons industry. The regrowth of the nuclear
industry was one of the key reasons Yucca Mountain was pushed through
congress. Why am I not surprised at the blossoming proposals for
more nuclear capacity now that they bought their way.<br>
<br>
Even my son's friends mom, a professional energy economist who works for
clients I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole will tell you: nuclear
power makes no sense.<br>
<br>
At 04:33 AM 8/13/02 -0400, Michael Devall wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>
Some of you Powderworkers living in the Deep South may already know about
this, but for others who don't, there are plans in the making of possibly
restarting Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Unit #1 in Alabama which has
been idle since 1985. Listed below are some facts about this
facility:</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size=2>1. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant is a three unit
facility located near Decatur, Alabama which is about 35 miles southwest
of Huntsville, Alabama. It is owned and operated by the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA).</font><br>
<br>
<font size=2>2. Unit #1 was the site of a significant fire in 1975
which disabled the automatic emergency systems for both Units #1 and
#2. A partial meltown came close to occuring at Unit #1 but with
some quick thinking, the reactor was able to be shut down manually.
Unit #1 was restarted within a couple months after making necessary
repairs. For a detailed story of the incident please visit
</font><a href="http://www.ccnr.org/browns_ferry.html"><font size=2 color="#0000FF">www.ccnr.org/browns_ferry.html</a></font><font size=2 color="#006600">.
</font><br>
<br>
<font size=2>3. All three units were shut down in 1985 due to
design basis problems. Both Units #2 & #3 were restarted in the
mid 1990's after updates were made. Unit #1 remains shut
down. There is a possibility that there may have been other
problems occurring at Unit #1 which made TVA decide to keep it
idle.</font><br>
<br>
<font size=2>4. It has been stated that no maintenance of any kind
has taken place at Unit #1 since it became idle in 1985, which means that
parts could have aged and possibly become worn. There have not been
any recorded inspections at Unit #1 since 1985, so it cannot be proven
that there has not been any kind of maintenance done at Unit #1 since it
became idle. It is known though that Unit #1 still does not meet
current NRC standards.</font><br>
<br>
<font size=2>5. TVA currently has plans to meet with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and talk about the issue of restarting Unit
#1. The company states that it will cost $1.2 billion to bring Unit
#1 up to current standards and get it ready for restart. </font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size=2>Do you think it is a good idea to restart this unit? I
would like to hear other people's input on this subject. Remember
that Unit #1 has been idle for 17 years and probably hasn't been
maintained. Although TVA plans to update the facility and bring it
to current standards, there is always a possibility that they could
overlook something which may cause a problem in the future when it is
operating. Due to stricter safety regulations by the NRC I don't
expect another Three Mile Island type incident, but unfortunately the
possibility is still there. Also, is that unit really worth
spending $1.2 billion dollars on just to restart it? I believe
there are better ways of spending that amount of money. Then again,
I've seen that kind of money spent on much dumber things. We'll
just have to wait and see what happens I guess.
TTFN...</font><br>
<br>
<font size=2>Michael</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
*********************************************************************************<br>
Kate Adams<br>
Graduate Student<br>
Department of Work Environment<br>
UMass Lowell<br>
*********************************************************************************<br>
Global Free Trade: All the economic benefits of colonialism, without
all<br>
those nasty responsibilities.<br>
*********************************************************************************</font></html>
--=====================_1584220358==_.ALT--