Can nuke plants and chemical plants be built on the same sites?

[jmowreader]

I know that nuclear energy carries with it a lot of negatives (waste, meltdowns, etc., etc., etc.), but hear me out:

There are a lot of chemical plants in the United States, and all of them use steam to heat their reactors. This steam is created by burning either natural gas, oil or coal in a boiler. Most of these plants are located near rivers.

A nuclear reactor is a boiler. It creates steam which is then pumped into a bank of turbine-powered alternators which generate electricity--which is why we build nuclear plants in the first place. They then cool the steam down to a reasonable temperature and dump it back in the river.

Would it be possible, or feasible, for a chemical plant with a river near it and some unused land around it to host a nuclear plant on its property? The cycle of function:

water is drawn from the river and fed into the nuclear reactor, where it becomes steam
the steam is piped to the powerhouse, where electricity is generated
the steam is then looped back through the reactor, where it is reheated, and piped to the chemical plant's reactors
the cooled steam is then dropped to a safe temperature and put back in the river

Doing this offers three advantages--you're using the heat in the steam from the nuke plant for something useful, you're conserving fossil fuel, and you're not generating greenhouse gases to create heat for the chemical plant.

We still have to figure out what to do with the nuclear waste besides turning it into antitank ammunition, but it's a start.

[derby378]

1. Er, uh - lemme get back to you on that one

Radioactive chorine gas ain't my cup of tea, but who knows? My main concern, of course, is plant safety - both from sabotage and from equipment malfunction.