Watts Bar Unit 2 Restart

[Rennhack]

TVA may resume construction of its Unit 2 reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, pending a comprehensive evaluation of the cost and schedule for completing the unit. Work on Unit 2 stopped in 1985. The detailed study will provide an evaluation of the engineering work, cost and timetable required to complete the unit, similar to a study TVA did on Unit 1 at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.

[CountryHeavenTN]

Looks like it is going to go through, full speed ahead.

If it is not okay to print this, just edit and give link.

TVA plans to finish Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor
By: Max Hackett
Source: The Herald-News
04-22-2007   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At a sparsely attended open house meeting at Rhea County High school Tuesday evening, TVA presented a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed completion of Watts Bar Nuclear Unit 2 for public comment.

"I was expecting more public input than what I saw," said Rhea County Executive Billy Ray Patton.

The open house, held in the school's gymnasium from 4:30 p.m. until 8 p.m., offered information broken down from the DSEIS into categories ranging from water quality to the impact on housing and community services. The meeting resulted in three written comments and one comment recorded by a court reporter contracted by TVA, according to TVA media spokesman Terry Johnson. Thirty Rhea County residents, 12 of them elected officials, attended the open house, Johnson said.

The report concludes that TVA's preferred alternative is the completion of WBN Unit 2.

The study is a supplement to the original 1972 final environmental statement and subsequent WBN-related environmental reviews. It updates the analysis of potential environmental impacts resulting from construction, operation and maintenance of WBN Unit 2. The unit would be completed as originally designed, alongside its sister unit, WBN Unit 1, which has been operating since 1996.

The 132-page report indicates that TVA is proposing to complete Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 as originally designed except for modifications consistent with those made to Unit 1. A power analysis presented in the report shows how completion of WBN Unit 2 would help meet expected demands for increased baseload power, reduce fossil plant emissions and potentially lower the cost of power to TVA's customers.

In addition to the environmental review, a detailed, scoping, estimating and planning study is underway. TVA will use information from the DSEP and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Study "to make an informed decision about whether to complete construction of and to operate WBN Unit 2," according to the report.

TVA holds a valid construction permit for the completion of WBN Unit 2 from the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. An announcement of a decision on the completion and operation of WBN Unit 2 is expected in August.

Only minimal new construction is proposed, and no expansion of the existing site footprint would be required, according to the study.

WBN Unit 2 was about 80 percent complete when construction work halted in 1985. Since that time, a substantial amount of equipment and components have been removed to support WBN Unit 1 and Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. As a result, WBN Unit 2 is now considered approximately 60 percent complete.

WBN Unit 2 is designed as a twin plant to the operating Unit 1 and would be completed and operated the same as Unit 1. TVA estimates completion of UNIT 2 would cost between $2 and $3 billion.

TVA is expected to designate certain counties, primarily Rhea County, as impacted by the construction. The impacted counties would then become eligible for a supplemental allocation from TVA's tax equivalent payment as provided for in the Tennessee Tax Code. The additional funds could be used by counties to address impacts on county services.

"That money was very important to us during the construction of Unit 1, and we will be looking at how it might play into our funding for school expansion in particular," Patton said.

As part of the DSEP, TVA is conducting a labor study of the potential construction workforce. That information will be provided to impacted counties to help with local planning to accommodate the anticipated temporary population growth.

The draft report indicates that population would increase due to an influx of workers. At peak construction employment, the total employment in construction and design is projected to be as high as 3,000. For the purposes of the study, TVA adopted a more conservative estimate, assuming the peak on-site workforce would be 2,200.

Based on previous experience at the site, the report assumes that 40 percent, or 880 workers, would move into the area. The remaining 60 percent of workers would be either local residents or would commute from the surrounding area, including Chattanooga and Knoxville.

Of the 880 workers expected to move into the area, approximately 600 are anticipated to move into Rhea and Meigs counties, with the majority of those expected to move into Rhea County.

The report suggests that much of the income received by these workers would be spent in the area, especially by those who move families into the area and those who are already residents.

"This would increase income of businesses in the area, especially those oriented directly to consumers, and could lead to a small temporary increase in employment," the study says.

The report also indicates "some increase in temporary housing needs, including apartments and facilities for trailers and RVs."

An estimated 434 school age children are expected to move into Rhea and Meigs counties during construction, with the majority expected to be settled in Rhea County. The study projects that the result would be an increase in "the overcrowding already being experienced" in local schools.

A mitigating action would be the identification of Rhea County as an impact area under the existing state tax code.

The formula dictated by Tennessee law allocates 3 percent of TVA in lieu of tax payments made to the state to "impacted local governing areas that are experiencing TVA construction activity on facilities to produce electric power." TVA made in lieu of tax payments to the state of $221,017,704 in 2006. The potential additional impact money that could be shared by all governing areas designated by TVA in 2006 was $6,630,530 according to the formula set forth in the code. The impact money would be paid during construction and for three years following its completion.

"I've heard them anticipate the construction of Unit 2 to be about a five-year project," Patton said. "I was only half-kidding when I told them that we'd like to see it drag on for 20 years if possible. The economic impact on Rhea County will be significant if it's anything like the construction of Unit 1."

The DSEIS presented for comment Tuesday evening also includes assessments of the potential effects on other local resources.

Other results from the construction of WBN Unit 2 are said to be additional road traffic at peak times, as well as noticeable impacts on community services such as medical facilities and public safety, according to the draft report.

The study says "increased risk in the area of nuclear plant safety and security from UNIT 2 operation would be extremely low."

No impact on groundwater quality, wetlands, floodplains, protected plant and animal species, or the five natural areas within five miles of WBN, including the Chickamauga State Mussel Sanctuary, is projected.

The potential environmental effect on surface water quality, climatology and meteorology, radiological effects and waste, and spent fuel transportation and storage are described as "insignificant."

TVA's 45-day public comment period on the DSEIS continues until May 14. Comments can be submitted through TVA's website at www.tva.gov/environment/reports/wattsbar2, by e-mail to tvawattsbr2@tva.com, by fax to 865-632-3451, or by surface mail to Ruth Horton, TVA NEPA Services, 400 West Summit hill Drive (WT-11D), Knoxville, TN 37902.

The final SEIS will be issued June 22.

http://www.rhea.xtn.net/index.php?table=news&template=news.view.subscriber&newsid=139845

[Fermi2]

That says nothing outside TVAN has completed the Environmental Impact required by law. The scoping study is still going on.

Mike

[Roll Tide]

That says nothing outside TVAN has completed the Environmental Impact required by law. The scoping study is still going on.

But the fact that there are not dozens of local anti-nuke activists attending the meetings is great. Nothing would kill a project like this as fast as negative community reaction. Too many horror stories from the 80's.

[johnndor]

"The TVA board approved the expected five-year, $2.49 billion construction project in August. The utility has a valid license to build the never-finished plant, but it must earn an operating license from the NRC."

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/sep/08/challenges-await-tva-in-building-watts-bar-unit/

[nuketarded]

What are the odds of getting such a license?

[Fermi2]

If you build it within regulations 100%.

Mike

[nuketarded]

If you build it within regulations 100%.

Mike

I missed this reply during one of my hourly reviews of the board.  The above statement is well understood,  the construction of Watts Bar has been somewhat outside the bounds of regulation for 20 years.  Therein lies the true nature of the question.  Will the regulators (and legislators) of today forgive the sins of the past? And will a part 50 license be issued in the current climate?  It was really more of a poll than a question.  I should've elaborated.

[Nuclear Renaissance]

Presumably TVA kept WB2 in a state where the construction license is still valid. Finish that, and the operating license should be fairly straightforward given WB1. No need for a Part 52 combined construction/operating license, that's for those whamodyne new plants.

[Fermi2]

I believe it'll bre a Part 50 License.

[nuketarded]

I believe it'll bre a Part 50 License.

It certainly will.  Part 52 requires a certified design to start and a mountain of other differences exist.  I just think there is a lot of risk during the hearing process for the construction permit and operating license.  Was wondering what the groups opinions are regarding this. Is the climate right to weather these obstacles?

[Fermi2]

Trust me, they aren't going to get any real opposition in the Valley.

Mike

[nuketarded]

Trust me, they aren't going to get any real opposition in the Valley.

Mike

I understand that most of the opposition drives a long way to contest nukes in the southland.  Should make for an interesting set of public meetings.

[HydroDave63]

Is the climate right to weather these obstacles?

146 dollar oil, nat. gas at $13.57/MMBtu (equates to 8 cents/kWh cost on 58% efficent comb. cycle unit, driving residential rates north of 10 cents/kWh long term)....I couldnt think of more favorable conditions.

[Fermi2]

I understand that most of the opposition drives a long way to contest nukes in the southland.  Should make for an interesting set of public meetings.

Really? Name one nuke in the south that didn't reach startup due to opposition? You'll be looking for a long time.

My guess is you don't live in the Valley do you?

Mike

[nuketarded]

Really? Name one nuke in the south that didn't reach startup due to opposition? You'll be looking for a long time.

My guess is you don't live in the Valley do you?

Mike

Ummmm.  What I intended to communicate is that the public opposition in the valley comes from people outside the valley (blue ridge environmental defense league and a couple others that have sprung up like mushrooms after a rain)....... Have you been to one of the recent public meetings? Have you reviewed the recent legal challenges to the BLN COL? (those are actual questions not smart @ss comments) Opposition is from people outside the valley.  Regardless, opposition played a role in the failed startup of several nukes, bellefonte, hartsville, yellow creek.  All in the valley.  Yes I know that there were multiple factors but, opposition was one. 

BTW...... I am the valley of which you speak.

[Fermi2]

No none of those plants went defunct because of opposition. They went defunct because TVA tried to build 17 plants at once and couldn't afford it.
Check your history

[Roll Tide]

Ummmm.  What I intended to communicate is that the public opposition in the valley comes from people outside the valley (blue ridge environmental defense league and a couple others that have sprung up like mushrooms after a rain)....... Have you been to one of the recent public meetings? Have you reviewed the recent legal challenges to the BLN COL? (those are actual questions not smart @ss comments) Opposition is from people outside the valley.  Regardless, opposition played a role in the failed startup of several nukes, bellefonte, hartsville, yellow creek.  All in the valley.  Yes I know that there were multiple factors but, opposition was one. 

BTW...... I am the valley of which you speak.

I have been at recent BLN meetings. The close tree-huggers are from Nashville.
The population within 50 miles are supportive. The population within 10 miles are adoring!

[nuketarded]

 That is the patent answer.  Opposition and political climate following TMI resulted in an extremely long licensing process which was a factor in the cost and the failure to build many of the 300+ planned plants.  It is not as simple as "they were too expensive."  There was a multitude of factors.  The man in charge of TVA when the building stopped (David Freeman) happened to be anti nuclear.


There were many other factors outside of price, NRC action under 50.54(f) and TVA's resultant NPP which then resulted in NUREG 1232.

It's not "my history" but I am familiar with it (BTW, the condescending tone is very constructive). You can't ignore the political pressure that TVA was subject to at the time (that is, the board answers to congress who answers to voters).

Why do you think the industry, including TVA, is so sensitive to the public's acceptance of Nuclear Power?

Anyway, I'm not going to go back and forth about history.   I simply think that there were multiple reasons, not simply price, though price may have been the objective measure of the cumulative effects.

[nuketarded]

I have been at recent BLN meetings. The close tree-huggers are from Nashville.
The population within 50 miles are supportive. The population within 10 miles are adoring!

That's the same impression that I've had.  I'm interested to see what the public meetings around WBN look like.  I'm thinking they'll be very similar.  Have you heard of any contentions against the construction permit at WBN?  Just curious.

[LDO4CNO]

The draft report indicates that population would increase due to an influx of workers. At peak construction employment, the total employment in construction and design is projected to be as high as 3,000. For the purposes of the study, TVA adopted a more conservative estimate, assuming the peak on-site workforce would be 2,200.

Based on previous experience at the site, the report assumes that 40 percent, or 880 workers, would move into the area. The remaining 60 percent of workers would be either local residents or would commute from the surrounding area, including Chattanooga and Knoxville.

Of the 880 workers expected to move into the area, approximately 600 are anticipated to move into Rhea and Meigs counties, with the majority of those expected to move into Rhea County.

These numbers are higher than I would have guessed.  But then again, I have not built a lot of commercial nuclear plants.  Do you guys have a feel for how the second plant would change the staffing levels after construction is complete?  How do you see the breakdown in staffing changes wrt percentage in ops, training, maintenance, etc?  Thanks.

JB

[Dream Tar Heel]

Rumored Discussions have Chemistry adding 13 techs and Rad Protection adding 6-10 techs.

These are all just projected wish lists at best. No rumors on OPS.

[nuketarded]

Rumored Discussions have Chemistry adding 13 techs and Rad Protection adding 6-10 techs.

These are all just projected wish lists at best. No rumors on OPS.

I understand that 45 licensed operators are/will be in queue.  That is considering retirements so it is not all additional.  Plus WBN is in the hole a bit.

[RAD-GHOST]

Opposition and political climate following TMI resulted in an extremely long licensing process which was a factor in the cost and the failure to build many of the 300+ planned plants.

Opposition and political climate added to the venue, but with very little influence!  The actual venue, that I recall, was to establish a higher degree of operational monitoring capabilities in the nuclear generating facilities, or as some remember, POST-TMI Modifications.  Let the historians correct me if I'm wrong, but every nuclear generating facility constructed, was approximately twenty years old, (by design), before it produced it's first neutron!  Back in that era, future operating experience was based on previous operating experience.  As more and more nuke plants hit the grid, without problems, they proved that the systems worked!  Sort of equates to leaving well enough alone!  It wasn't the fact that the utilities didn't necessarily want to spend the funds for improved capabilities, but most of those improvements weren't even conceived!  TMI proved that those plants needed a higher degree of operational accuracy and redundancy, augmented by speed!  That's what brought the delays to licensing a new nuclear facility, bigger, better and how to back fit them!  It wasn't TMI alone, there were hundreds of modifications that hit the industry in the eighties!  What do they all have in common, COSTS!  Cost of R&D, cost of the modifications, costs of manpower and the costs associated with the turbine at a stand still!

nuketarded

I believe your going to weasel your perspective in, no matter what!  How many operating plants where immediately influenced by opposition and the political climate, immediately after the TMI event?   

I can hear it now, that doesn't count!   

Guess you should have been there.............RG! 

[nuketarded]

I believe your going to weasel your perspective in, no matter what!  How many operating plants where immediately influenced by opposition and the political climate, immediately after the TMI event?   

My honest opinion is that there was some effect and I am curious as to what the rest of the board thinks. It really is that simple.  If providing ones opinion here is weaseling, then I guess that's me.  It sure seems like the industry spends a lot of time considering public perspective today when it had no influence in the past.  I guess I'm missing something (which happens more often than I'd like to admit).