NukeWorker Forum

Facility & Company Information => Region II (South East) => Bellefonte => Topic started by: Roll Tide on Dec 05, 2003, 09:52

Title: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Dec 05, 2003, 09:52
Will Bellefonte ever get finished? As the only remaining NRC construction permit, it is the best hope for new nuclear generation until the next generation of nuclear.

I am not looking for facts, because I don't believe there are any to be had at this time. I work as a TVA contractor, and Dad retired from Bellefonte, and if there were verifiable plans, I would have heard them.

I would like to hear opinions, whether other people are as hopeful as I am that another nuke could come on line. From a personal perspective, it helps that my home is within the 5 mile EPZ for Bellefonte. 8)
Title: Re: BELLEFONTE
Post by: whosez on Dec 06, 2003, 12:20
They have an extension of the construction permits.
Unit 1 til 2011 and Unit 2 til 2014
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: idrum4food on Dec 07, 2003, 02:00
Rumor going around that TVA and some Jap company are going to build two brand new units at the same site????????
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: DecommMan on Dec 08, 2003, 02:28
I heard TVA is hurting financially - not sure if they could pull off building any new nukes right now.
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Dec 08, 2003, 03:58
Quote
Rumor going around that TVA and some Jap company are going to build two brand new units at the same site????????


I noticed there's a company looking for liasons between TVA and some Japanese company. They wanted previously SRO licensed and bi-lingual Japanese / English. I would be advertising in Japan rather than TN / AL / GA if I wanted to hire someone like that. :-*

I think there's too much invested in BLNP Unit 1 to not finish as nuclear, though Unit 2 may be a candidate for non-nuclear completion since Secondary is finished.
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: Dan_E. on Dec 08, 2003, 11:38
Quote


I think there's too much invested in BLNP Unit 1 to not finish as nuclear, though Unit 2 may be a candidate for non-nuclear completion since Secondary is finished.


A word of caution on there on having too much invested to not finish Unit 1 though I don't know what the percentage is. We had one, WPPSS #1, out here that was over 87% complete and they still pulled the plug. Will be starting to tear part of it down soon. Political and public climate and degree of paperwork completed has to be factored in too.
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: PWHoppe on Dec 09, 2003, 05:44
RE: Money invested to not complete see Midland, Shoreham, Seabrook, Perry, Marble Hill, etc, etc, ...

BTW...speaking of Bellafonte...I LOVE the Banana Boat song ;)
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Dec 09, 2003, 07:40
Quote

BTW...speaking of Bellafonte...I LOVE the Banana Boat song ;)


You have struck a sensitive nerve here on that subject. I grew up above Sublet's Ferry Landing, which used Bellefonte as the landing on the othe side of the Tennessee back before Guntersville Dam was built.
I can assure you it isn't a word that rhymes with Bellafonte, it's two incredibly flat syllables (Bell-Font) when spoken in the native tongue. (Of course, when my sister mentions working at Bellefonte, it does sound like Bellafonte, and is worse than nails on a chalkboard.)

The fact that TVA still has an active construction permit, and none of those other plants listed are still on the books makes TVA the only "in-progress" nuclear choice. Bellefonte is a better choice than Watts Bar Unit 2 due to parts scavenging. Watts Bar employees hate it when Sequoyah refers to WBN2 as the mock-up and storehouse, but it is.

Bellefonte being B&W instead of Westinghouse has spared it. Additionally, the NRC inspectors I have had conversations with over the years have all stated Bellefonte is the best built nuclear plant in the country. Politics was the reason Watts Bar 1 was finished instead of Bellefonte 1 (TN congressional delegation had more pull than AL.)
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: SloGlo on Dec 10, 2003, 06:07
Quote
I heard TVA is hurting financially - not sure if they could pull off building any new nukes right now.

sell the land to a group who has the money.  the permits should follow the sale.
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: HydroDave63 on Dec 10, 2003, 08:50
Quote


TVA hurting financially?  Thought they were a USG entity.  The federal budget must be getting tight.

The 'T' stands for Tennesse.  It may be a state government run facility, but NO comercial power plants are federally operated.


Most incorrect. TVA has Federal jurisdiction in 7 states for its electric distribution and generation, etc. No single state would have ever been able to arrange water rights for the hydroelectric parts of the TVA system when TVA was first created, with Federal financing. The first part of the FAQ page reads as follows:

What is TVA?
The Tennessee Valley Authority is a federal corporation and the nation's largest public power company. As a regional development agency, TVA supplies affordable, reliable power, supports a thriving river system, and stimulates sustainable economic development in the public interest. TVA operates fossil-fuel, nuclear, and hydropower plants, and has also begun producing energy from renewable sources. It manages the nation's fifth-largest river system to minimize flooding, maintain navigation, provide recreational opportunities, and protect water quality in the 41,000-square-mile watershed.

When was TVA established?
TVA was set up by the U.S. Congress in 1933, primarily to provide flood control, navigation, and electric power in the Tennessee Valley region.


http://www.tva.gov/abouttva/keyfacts.htm  for FAQ's about TVA
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Dec 10, 2003, 03:22
Quote

sell the land to a group who has the money.  the permits should follow the sale.


It can't be done. You see SloGlo, TVA nuclear plants are built with "government money", not real money. When you have nearly $30 Billion in nuclear construction debt, you can't just sell the land for what it's worth. What is the street value of an unfinished nuclear site? Millions of dollars (such as where they filmed "The Abyss), but that means writing off a loss of Billions. Congress will have to approve of that, and they won't.

Yeah, I know TVA is a quasi-government agency with no federal funding, but it still has congressional oversight. The only one who would spend billions of dollars on an unfinished nuclear plant is another government (or quasi-government) agency, and DOE worked out a different route for Tritium production. :'(
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: SloGlo on Dec 11, 2003, 05:58
Quote

It can't be done.
Congress will have to approve of that, and they won't.

sure it can.  sure they will.  get outside the box.  put a little item of pork barrel politics into a bill, say the rewrite of the energy bill, and voila, new land for new owners! ::)  
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Dec 11, 2003, 08:06
Quote

sure it can.  sure they will.  get outside the box.  put a little item of pork barrel politics into a bill, say the rewrite of the energy bill, and voila, new land for new owners! ::)  


OK,
I will concede it could be slid into a big bill, and be more relevant to the energy bill than a Hooter's in an energy efficient new mall in LA.  ::)
I just don't expect that to happen, especially if the prime bidder for a new project is a Japanese company.
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: whosez on Dec 12, 2003, 04:55
ROLL TIDE
Quote
OK,
I will concede

Think man, think, don't ever give up that easy.
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Dec 16, 2003, 12:55
Quote
ROLL TIDE
Think man, think, don't ever give up that easy.


Sorry SloGlo,
Based on the advice of counsel, I won't even concede that one measly point. ;) No one can afford to write off that much debt, they must bring it online. (Online by '09, join in the cheer with me!) ;D
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Jan 13, 2004, 02:37
 http://www.tennessean.com/business/archives/04/01/45348069.shtml?Element_ID=45348069 (http://www.tennessean.com/business/archives/04/01/45348069.shtml?Element_ID=45348069)

Kudos to C. Jethro for finding this jewel about Bellefonte:  involves building an Advanced BWR in conjunction with Toshiba and GE.
I can speak BWR! Put me in, Coach! ;D
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Jan 13, 2004, 06:49
Did I mention driving down Sand Mountain (AL-40) and looking at the BLNP Cooling towers and containment buildings every week? Also the sight from AL-35 TN River Bridge is gorgeous.
Title: Re: Talk about Bellefonte
Post by: idrum4food on Jan 15, 2004, 03:32
I've heard the same but not by 09. Send me in too.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Jan 30, 2004, 03:20
It seems Browns Ferry owes the majority of their HP staffing to the Bellefonte deferrment. Wonder how many would want to get back to Bellefonte when available?  ???
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: idrum4food on Jan 30, 2004, 01:04
Browns Ferry'd have ta start more than one rad con class.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Apr 30, 2004, 12:38
Energy Providers Seek Grant as Step to Build Nuclear Plant
By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: April 26, 2004

WASHINGTON, April 25 - Amid growing signs of interest in building nuclear power plants, a consortium of companies plans to ask the federal government on Monday for $400 million to help prepare an application to build a reactor.

Separately, six companies applied on Friday for a smaller grant to study building an advanced reactor on the site of a twin-reactor project abandoned in 1988 as too expensive.

The consortium first announced its interest in building a nuclear power plant on March 31, but it plans to tell the Energy Department on Monday that it has added two big partners, the Tennessee Valley Authority and Duke Power, a unit of Duke Energy. It will also provide a firmer budget for its work.

The group, which has named itself NuStart Energy Development, initially included Exelon Nuclear, a unit of the Exelon Corporation; Entergy Nuclear, a unit of the Entergy Corporation; Constellation Energy; the Southern Company; and EDF International North America, a subsidiary of Électricité de France, which owns shares in reactors in the United States.

The consortium also includes General Electric and the Westinghouse Electric Company, a subsidiary of BNFL, which was formerly British Nuclear Fuels Limited.

The initial announcement by the consortium drew criticism from antinuclear groups, who complained about safety, vulnerability to terrorism and the problem of disposing spent fuel.

According to people involved with the consortium, NuStart will argue that the sum it is seeking is modest relative to what the federal government has paid recently to subsidize other forms of energy research or production.

"The country needs fuel diversity, and it needs energy independence from foreign energy sources," an executive involved in the NuStart group, who asked not to be identified by name in advance of the announcement. "This is an effort to provide the nuclear option," he said.

In the 10 years ended in 2002, Nu- Start will point out, the Energy Department spent $482 million on fossil energy projects, including "clean coal;" $538 million on energy efficiency; and $446 million on solar and other forms of renewable energy. And in 2003, the government gave the wind industry $280 million in the form of a production tax credit.

NuStart is applying for a dollar-for-dollar match, under a program called Nuclear Power 2010, whose goal is to have at least one reactor under construction by that year. It has not picked a site or a design, or even committed to build anything.

Under the same program, on Friday a different group asked for help with a $4 million project to explore building a reactor in northern Alabama at the site of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Bellefont project. The T.V.A. stopped work on a twin-unit nuclear plant at Bellefonte in 1988, after spending $2.5 billion there.

The new group includes T.V.A. and General Electric (which are both members of the NuStart group as well); Bechtel, an architect and engineering company; Toshiba; and USEC, a company that processes uranium for nuclear reactor use.

On March 17, another consortium - made up of Dominion Resources Inc., Hitachi America, Bechtel and an American subsidiary of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. - also asked for financing.

Joseph H. Davis, a spokesman for the Energy Department, said on Friday, "We welcome any and all applications under this program." But he added, "We haven't made a decision on when we're going to make a decision."

In addition, the Energy Department does not have the money in hand to distribute.

But there is some sympathy in Congress. In a statement, Pete V. Domenici, the New Mexico Republican who is the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, said: "I am absolutely delighted. I think that the market and regulatory forces that have put nuclear back into play will continue in the coming decade, and I think this is the first step in a continuing trend."
---NY TIMES


I would rather see completion of BLN-1, but this would be great with or without BLN-1 completion!
 8)
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on May 04, 2004, 02:34
Toshiba, GE hope to build nuclear plant in U.S.

Toshiba Corp. and General Electric Co. have applied for permission with the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct a feasibility study on building a nuclear plant in Alabama, company sources said Sunday.
The two electric giants are hoping to land the contract following a Bush administration decision to once again support the construction of nuclear power plants, according to the sources.

Building of new nuclear power plants in the U.S. has been suspended since the major accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979.

The Bush administration is promoting the use of nuclear energy as a means of reducing America's dependence on Middle East oil.

Toshiba is eyeing the U.S. market because demand for construction of new nuclear power plants and reactors in Japan is stagnant.

According to the plan, Toshiba and GE will work in a consortium with four more companies -- the Tennessee Valley Authority public power firm, contractor Bechtel Corp., enriched uranium fuel supplier USEC Inc. and Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas LLC, a joint venture set up by GE, Toshiba and Hitachi Ltd.

The TVA has applied for permission with the Department of Energy as the main body conducting the feasibility study. If government approval is obtained, the consortium would begin the study for installing an advanced boiling water reactor in Alabama with an output in excess of 1 million kilowatts. Total construction costs would be around $3 billion.

The Japan Times: May 3, 2004

The Japanese version of the same news still looks good for Bellefonte!
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on May 24, 2004, 06:43
Award Could Lead to Completion of Unfinished Bellefonte Nuclear Site
 
Athens, AL--The U.S. Department of Energy today agreed to award $2.1 million to a team of companies that includes the Tennessee Valley Authority to study the cost of constructing a two-unit nuclear plant at TVA's unfinished Bellefonte site, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

The TVA application proposes to conduct a study of the cost and schedule to build a two-unit Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) nuclear facility at the unfinished Bellefonte nuclear site by 2014.

"This is great news for the TVA rate payers as well as the nuclear industry in America," Sessions said. "This study could be a catalyst to jumpstart a new generation of nuclear power in America--a generation that could begin at the Bellefonte site."

Sessions brought the number two official at the Energy Department, Deputy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow, to Alabama today to tour Bellefonte and the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant--both TVA facilities. Sessions, who served in the Senate with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, has discussed the Browns Ferry restart and completion of Bellefonte with Abraham on several occasions.

Sessions and McSlarrow toured Browns Ferry Unit 1 to see first hand the restart modification work. TVA began work to restart Unit 1 in 2002, with completion scheduled for 2007. TVA Chairman Glenn McCullough gave Sessions and McSlarrow a status report on the project.

Sessions and McSlarrow held a news conference afterwards at Browns Ferry, and were scheduled to meet with reporters later in the day at Bellefonte.

"I am pleased at the success of the TVA nuclear program and its commitment to providing low-cost, efficient, reliable power," Sessions said. "The restart of Browns Ferry Unit 1 is on-time and on-budget, and TVA is demonstrating that it is in the forefront of the future of the nuclear industry. The restart of Browns Ferry Unit 1 and the completion of the Bellefonte are consistent with the energy goals of the Bush administration and the needs of America. As we are faced with greater energy demands and more complex environmental challenges, I believe we must harness the possibilities of nuclear power and I hope that Bellefonte will be the proving ground for new-generation nuclear technology."

Members of the TVA ABWR project team include General Electric, Toshiba, Bechtel, Global Nuclear Fuels-America and the United States Enrichment Corporation.

The cost and schedule study is the initial effort in a pending larger combined construction and operating license demonstration project, according to the Energy Department. The department said that TVA expects to conclude the cost and schedule study in 10 months. After the study is finished, TVA will decide whether to submit a construction and operating license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The total cost of the proposed cost and schedule study is $4.25 million, which will be shard on a 50-50 basis between the Energy Department and the TVA team.

Get your resumes ready!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8)
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Sep 27, 2004, 03:38
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — The Tennessee Valley Authority board will consider a budget today that calls for no rate increase in 2005.

A budget recommendation also calls for no large-scale layoffs.

T-V-A, the nation's largest public utility, raised wholesale prices 365 (M) million dollars last year and cut staff by more than 600 employees.

It was the first rate increase since 1997 and the largest employee downsizing in a decade, reducing the work force to about 12,800.

Among the latest layoffs were 45 people in T-V-A's nuclear power group in July, including 16 of 28 people at the unfinished and mothballed Bellefonte station in north Alabama.

http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1095852551220481.xml&storylist=alabamanews

I guess it is time to read the writing on the wall for Bellefonte 1 & 2. Long live the ABWR's.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on May 03, 2005, 07:40
It looks like do or die time for Bellefonte. Here is the story:

http://www.thedailysentinel.com/story.lasso?ewcd=4f087b0ecffc2aa8&page=all

By the way, this showed up automatically on the Nukeworker news feed, eliminating my previous need to "Google" for Bellefonte news periodically. What a cool site feature!

According to the article, a report should be issued this month regarding feasibility of completion. As I said in another thread, "facts" change over time. I would really love to see this one start up!
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: NucEng for Hire on Apr 16, 2006, 09:34
TVA's Bellefonte site is slated to be host to the NuStart consortium's AP1000 GenIII+ PWR build (TVA is a member of NuStart).

Southern Nuclear is teaming up with Duke to possibly put two AP1000s in Cherokee Co., SC. Southern (alone) is also considering two additional AP1000s to be constructed at the Vogtle site.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Apr 17, 2006, 12:31
Most of the existing Bellefonte components are not going to be used for a new project. Perhaps the cooling towers and switchyard will be used, and some office / training structures.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: nukedog on Apr 18, 2006, 07:37


Sounds like Roll Tide has some interests in the Bellefonte plant. I see a transfer in the future.  ;)
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Apr 18, 2006, 08:51

Sounds like Roll Tide has some interests in the Bellefonte plant.

Going for understatement of the year award?
 ;D
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Apr 18, 2006, 12:10
If you want to work Bellefonte, get hired at Browns Ferry / Sequoyah / Watts Bar. It will be a few years before they are ready to hire direct (and if TVA runs it, transfers get priority)
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Apr 18, 2006, 12:52
Congratulations!
Where do you test? Huntsville Space Center Marriott?
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Apr 18, 2006, 01:05
Do you have kids? (or plans for kids?)
School districts are a big part of the equation if kids are involved. While I loved Jackson County, the schools aren't what I would have liked. They prepare kids for the high school graduation exam; 100% pass rate on grad exam but no impressive SAT / ACT scores.

The college is probably a better choice. I would have expected UCLA (University of Calhoun Longside the Airport) for a Browns Ferry job...
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Apr 18, 2006, 01:18
I enjoyed the UCLA line when I first heard it at Browns Ferry (thanks Mo).

Marion County TN is very nice, and parts of it are within an easy commute to Bellefonte (someday). I suppose I would relocate (again) if I transferred to Bellefonte, since I am in Dade County GA now.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Apr 19, 2006, 02:35


I'd go to Bellefonte in a heartbeat. I did see on the TVA website we have a bid out for Lead Instructors at Bellefonte.

Mike

The posting appears to be in error. 6 openings for Decatur should be Browns Ferry; to some admin type in Chattanooga there must not be any difference.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Ordinary Joe on May 11, 2006, 12:42
  I understand that the Nustart engineering will include the "footprint" for either a AP1000 or an ABWR.  Since Nustart doesn't have any construction aspect to it, funding will have to come from elsewhere.  Enter another consortium looking into the feasibility of an ABWR at the site (TVA, Toshiba, etc).  The current situation allows for strategic and financial flexibility for TVA.  I also understand Watts Bar two to be in the race for return on investment. $2Bn to Complete or so.
  As far as the earlier question about funding and TVA's finances.  TVA hasn't received federal funding for decades, strictly from debt or revenue generated through power sales.  However, TVA does have access to relatively low interest government loans. 
  IN the case that it wasn't mentioned the construction license for the old plant has been relinquished and the site is no longer being maintained
.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Fermi2 on May 11, 2006, 01:46
Actually the site is being maintained, the relinquishing of the Construction Permit only relinquished maintaining the nuclear end. Certain parts of the site were not included. TVA is in fact maintaining the Environmental end under the requirements needed to maintain it as a nuclear site.

So far as I know they have no idea how much it would cost to finish WBN2. They haven't ran any real numbers yet.

Nustart has already said they want an AP 1000 at Bellefonte.

Mike
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Ordinary Joe on Jul 10, 2006, 09:38
I'm sure TVA has been tracking the cost of Watts bar two for years, they have an idea and real numbers (as real as they get for a one-of-kind project on such a large scale). 

NUSTART has selected Bellefonte for an AP1000- correct.   There is also signiificant amount of time and resources being invested to look at the ABWR as well.  So it appears the AP1000 is not the last word at this point.

I'm not on any project team for any of these so none of this is "inside" information or drawn from official TVA statements. 

Almost looks like you've disagreed just to disagree??
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Fermi2 on Jul 10, 2006, 10:32
Note when I masde my intial post TVAN hadn't completed  the real numbers for Watts Barr. I wasn't disagreeing merely to disagree. In May it was a true statement.

I knew what the NUSTART plans met. I know a guy on the PM Team who was specifically told AP 1000. So far he says this hasn't been overturned.

I've been in Bellefonte. By maintained I did not mean to imply they keep the plant in mint condition, but it's not junk either.

It's no longer considered a "nuclear" site. TVAN kept some of the permits up to date because they didn't want to start cold. It makes sense as they won't have to start from ground up with the Environmental stuff. While this is a key condition for easing later Nuclear Applications it is in no way Nuclear permits they are keeping up to date.

Mike
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Ordinary Joe on Jul 10, 2006, 12:18
I know a guy on the PM Team who was specifically told AP 1000. So far he says this hasn't been overturned.

Who is it you've spoken to?  Perhaps it's a mutual acquaintance.  I'd like to get up to speed since this is something I like to stay informed about.
Title: Bellefonte Nuclear Plant
Post by: WillyB on Sep 01, 2006, 12:33
Anybody hear when Bellefonte would start demolition and construction?  I previously worked at the plant, '82-'85, as a co-op student and would like to go back and finish the plant.  I liked the job and loved the area.  Would love to go back.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Sep 01, 2006, 09:07
We are probably a year out from hearing the announced dates for construction. I doubt there will be much demolition; just leave it in place and build next door.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Oct 22, 2006, 08:12
A TVA director offers a timeline (Browns Ferry 1 Restart, Watts Bar 2 Completion, and then twin Bellefonte AP1000 construction):

The Bellefonte project would be a “little further out” or down the road, than Watts Bar, said Thrailkill.
NuStart could file its application for a COL (Combined Operating License) with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and under the most recent NRC control regulations, the study on a decision could take several years...at least five.
Plans had originally been made calling for actual construction to begin as early as 2010 and be completed by 2015. However, Thrailkill said there is no timetable and the project has not been approved.
Despite what TVA officials say, it appears the project is at least two years behind previously anticipated plans.


http://www.thedailysentinel.com/story.lasso?tool=print&ewcd=150c7ab40cd534d1 (http://www.thedailysentinel.com/story.lasso?tool=print&ewcd=150c7ab40cd534d1)


(Read the link quick; Daily Sentinel doesn't keep them available long!)
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Jan 23, 2007, 12:46
No more speculation about the old unfinished Bellefonte site:
The Reactor Buildings will remain (too expensive to tear down).
The Cooling Towers, Intake Structure, and Switchyard will be used when a new plant is built.
Everything else (turbine halls, fire hall, Admin building, and more) will be demolished in preparation for possible AP1000 construction.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: deaztrailnutz on Jan 29, 2007, 11:20
I'm confused.  In September the NRC canceled the construction permits for Bellefonte.  Will they have to reapply if they decide to use reactors/plans other than those supplied by B&W?  Roll Tide, how did being B&W opposed to Westinghouse save them?  I have heard PWRs and I have BWRs, which one would TVA use at Bellefonte?  I have an uncle who works for Southern Co. and said their priorities are to build 2 new PWRs at Vogtle, but Southern Co. is also looking at building a nuke somewhere near Chilton Co (or somewhere nearby).  He also said SoCo & TVA were in verbal talks about finishing Bellefonte together (nothing is binding as of now; no contracts. At anytime either party could walk away from the table)? 
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Jan 30, 2007, 09:34
TVA did not renew the non-disclosure agreement, which was the basis for their potential partnership on anything. That part is dead.

TVA did notify the NRC of the desired construction permits' cancellation. The new plants will not use the old plants (except the cooling towers (which is just Tennessee River water cooling) and the switchyard). Current plans is Westinghouse AP1000 design with NuStart pushing the study. Actual construction will probably only be one utility (TVA or competitor) rather than the multiple parties involved in NuStart.

I have no detailed knowledge about Southern, but it makes sense to look hard at your new commercial nuke plant construction (Vogtle) as well as build support for a new site later. I would love to see another 100 plants on line before I retire, and that looks like a distinct possibility in the current US environment.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Jan 31, 2007, 09:39
According to the local Scottsboro paper, Bellefonte looks good as a new site.

The plant seemingly became more entrenched over the weekend as TVA Board of Directors has begun mapping needs of more power production and they appear to be leaning heavily toward nuclear power as the source.

TVA estimates it will need the equivalent of a new nuclear plant every two years for an unspecified time. TVA directors are preparing a new strategic plan this year to guide how the utility will supply that need.

TVA is committed to reactivating its oldest reactor at Browns Ferry and plans for completion of Unit 2 at Watts Bar, which is about half finished.
...

Francis said the proposed new nuclear project at Bellefonte is still on schedule. By October of this year, TVA and its NuStart partners are to submit an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a new type of water pressurized reactor, a Westinghouse AP-1000 design, at the Bellefonte site. Engineering work is currently under way, Francis said Monday.

The NRC will have three years to sign off on the plans before construction starts, which conceivably could be in 2011.


A new nuke every 2 years could look like this: BFN1 2007; WBN2 2009 (or 2010); that would put a need for the 2 proposed AP1000 plants @ Bellefonte by 2011 (or 2012) and 2013 (or 2014). 

In reality, WBN2 is probably going to be 2011, which would push back BLN completion to 2013 and 2015 at best. TVA may not have learned every lesson from the Nuclear Bust following TMI, but they have determined to not try more than 1 project at a time.

Full article (for a VERY limited time):

http://www.thedailysentinel.com/story.lasso?tool=print&ewcd=b248b27fbb5b4490
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: deaztrailnutz on Feb 01, 2007, 09:59
Roll Tide do you have a prefrence to the GE BWR over the AP1000 by westinghouse?
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Feb 05, 2007, 01:15
Roll Tide do you have a prefrence to the GE BWR over the AP1000 by westinghouse?

I definitely prefer the AP1000. M1Ark says the GE ABWR is better, but he won't tell me why!

(If you have ever worked RadCon, you will never be able to justify building a BWR over a PWR!)
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Fermi2 on Feb 05, 2007, 08:48
Why? The dose rates at our plant and the annual dose is 3 times higher than at Fermi, a BWR-4. Also there's no comparison in Outage Dose. Fermi was a LOT lower.

Mike
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: M1Ark on Feb 06, 2007, 03:29
I definitely prefer the AP1000. M1Ark says the GE ABWR is better, but he won't tell me why!

(If you have ever worked RadCon, you will never be able to justify building a BWR over a PWR!)

Actually I said the ESBWR is better than the AP1000 and both are Gen 3+ reactors.  The ABWR is an older design and does not compare well to the AP1000.  I've already told Roll Tide some excellent reasons for my bias towards the ESBWR.  Radcon is a poor answer since it's not true.  N-16 dose is higher at power for a BWR but even that has been engineered in the design.  BWR building and structures are built quite a bit different than a PWR.

Again, both designs are good and I would work at either one.  All of the PWR types that ended up working at my old BWR said that they prefer the boiler design.

Deaz,

Use the search function and you'll find the thread on this subject already asked and answered.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Feb 06, 2007, 09:30
Why? The dose rates at our plant and the annual dose is 3 times higher than at Fermi, a BWR-4. Also there's no comparison in Outage Dose. Fermi was a LOT lower.

Mike

Dose rates to who? Control Room operators? That only changes if you compare Chernobyl!  :o
I have spent quite a few hours wriggling through the drywell @ beautiful Browns Ferry, and providing coverage for RWCU HX hydrolancing and other wonderful jobs where I picked up more dose in an average PWR year.


While I wouldn't have been leading protests outside the fence over building the ESBWR (Extra-Special BWR?) at Bellefonte, I am happy that NuSTART chose the AP1000 for the Bellefonte site. Regardless, M1Ark did provide reassurance at the prospect of having a BWR for a neighbor.

Speaking of M1Ark: there is a limit on the size of the inbox for PMs (unless you become a Goldmember). I can't reply...
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Fermi2 on Feb 06, 2007, 01:11
Uh I was a NLO at a BWR-4 and I've compared items like Outage dose for both types of reactors I've worked at. The average NLO at our plant gets more dose per year than at Fermi. I can name at least 5 or 6 times at Fermi where they were in the top quartile for all Reactors in the US for Dose AND many times when they would have been in the top 10% of PWRs. Additionally Fermi NEVER had the outage dose I've seen in 3 outages at SQN.

Mike
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Feb 06, 2007, 02:13
Mike,

One of these threads I will find out why you don't know what you are looking at. Based on your experience, it is confusing to me that we disagree with data available to both of us. Regardless, I must withdraw to a neutral corner due to being WAY off-topic.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: ageoldtech on Feb 07, 2007, 12:56
What’s the difference between a BWR fence post and a PWR fence post?
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Feb 07, 2007, 01:21
What’s the difference between a BWR fence post and a PWR fence post?
The voids are part of the inherent design in a MWR post, but are avoided in all but the most challenging accident scenarios in a PWR fence post.  8)
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: ageoldtech on Feb 07, 2007, 04:22
Thanks for the helpful insight, I knew there was a answer!
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: M1Ark on Feb 07, 2007, 08:37
I think Roll Tide and Broadzilla are both correct.  Fermi was the exception as a BWR in that there were a lot of plant modifications performed in the late 80's and early 90's at Fermi to minimize dose.

1. Cobalt 60 and stelite bearing minimization effort
2. Zinc injection for establishing corrosion boundary layer
3. The Turbine Building and the Reactor Building are very different than the "turn-key" GE plants I've been to.  More shielding provided by the Fermi structures as compared to Nine Mile Point, Brunswick and Susquehannah.

Roll Tide is quoting BWR's from his experience and Broadzilla is quoting a BWR were dose control was key during construction and early plant maturation.

Not an apples to apples comparison. 

I promise Roll Tide that if you ever licensed at a boiler your opinion would be very different.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Feb 08, 2007, 08:23
I promise Roll Tide that if you ever licensed at a boiler your opinion would be very different.


I guess it could happen. But this dog's getting older. Not too much time left to learn new tricks.  :D

But we are still WAY off topic for Bellefonte. I would love to be able to see into the future 10 years for that site.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Aug 27, 2007, 07:42
According to a local paper, the local college has been approached by the NRC for a meeting at their coliseum on the morning of September 11th. If that happens, all supporters of new reactors @ Bellefonte need to be there.


http://www.theweeklypost.com/story.lasso?ewcd=40f1c9a53b0ee066 (http://www.theweeklypost.com/story.lasso?ewcd=40f1c9a53b0ee066)
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: grantime on Aug 27, 2007, 08:26
I hope that they decide to build there.  It's pretty country up there and it's my wife's home town,  I could be talked into living around there.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Aug 28, 2007, 06:01
Looks like the previous report was accurate on the day and location, but the time is actually 7:00-9:00 PM (Central). See as many there as possible.


Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > News Releases > 2007 > 07-108

 
 NRC NEWS
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov
www.nrc.gov
 

 
No. 07-108 August 28, 2007 


NRC MEETING SEPTEMBER 11 IN RAINSVILLE, ALA., TO DISCUSS
REVIEW PROCESS FOR EXPECTED NEW REACTOR APPLICATION

 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will conduct a public meeting in Rainsville, Ala., on Tuesday, Sept. 11, to discuss how the agency will review an expected Combined License (COL) application for new reactors at the Bellefonte site near Scottsboro. The prospective applicant, Tennessee Valley Authority, has told the NRC it intends to apply later this year for a license to build and operate two AP1000 reactors at Bellefonte.

“The NRC’s reviews of this application and the others we’re expecting before the end of this year could certainly affect nearby communities,” said William Borchardt, Director of the NRC’s Office of New Reactors. “This meeting will be one of several where the NRC will work with residents to help them understand and participate in this process, because we value the information they can provide.”

The meeting will be held in the Tom Bevill Lyceum at the Northeast Alabama Community College, 138 Alabama Highway 35 in Rainsville, from 7 p.m. until 9 p.m. NRC staff presentations will describe the overall Combined License review process, which includes safety and environmental assessments, as well as how the public can participate in the process. The NRC will host an open house for an hour prior to the meeting so members of the public have the opportunity to talk informally with agency staff.

A COL, if issued, is authorization from the NRC to construct and, with conditions, operate a nuclear power plant at a specific site and in accordance with laws and regulations. More information on the NRC’s new reactor licensing process is available on the agency’s Web site here: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactor-licensing.html.

The AP1000 is one of four NRC-certified reactor designs that can be referenced in a COL. It is a 1,000 MWe advanced pressurized water reactor that incorporates passive safety systems and simplified system designs. The AP1000 is similar to another certified design, the AP600, but uses a taller reactor vessel to accommodate longer fuel, and also includes larger steam generators and a larger pressurizer.  
 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2007/07-108.html (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2007/07-108.html)

Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Sep 14, 2007, 02:48
The meeting went well. You could see the locals cringing every time some out of town anti-nuke wanted to explain why they should reconsider efficient electricity and excellent jobs for the future.



http://www.thedailysentinel.com/story.lasso?ewcd=a91e64209be28b05&page=all (http://www.thedailysentinel.com/story.lasso?ewcd=a91e64209be28b05&page=all)

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1189588692148130.xml&coll=1 (http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1189588692148130.xml&coll=1)

I find it interesting that the local media didn't even notice there were any anti-nukes. It was just a couple of people spouting old numbers.


CASE (Coalition for Clean and Safe Energy) sent some representatives with handouts. These "good environmentalists" believe nuclear is the answer to global warming.

http://www.cleansafeenergy.org/ (http://www.cleansafeenergy.org/)

Also represented (but no handouts) was NA-YGN (North American Young Generation of Nuclear)
http://www.na-ygn.org/index/index.html (http://www.na-ygn.org/index/index.html)


One final observation: if you don't know what to wear, fashion experts recommend knakis for men. When you look around, and everyone else is wearing either a suit or overalls, it is hard to say you feel like you fit in...
 ;D

Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Sep 18, 2007, 03:47
Chattanooga Times Free Press noted the very positive sentiments at the meeting as well:

http://www.timesfreepress.com/absolutenm/templates/local.aspx?articleid=21452&zoneid=77


I wonder who they interviewed?
 8) 8) 8)
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Atomic Frog on Sep 20, 2007, 01:07

I wonder who they interviewed?
 8) 8) 8)

Thats funny and very cool.
 ;D
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Sep 27, 2007, 05:27
Quote
The board of Tennessee Valley Authority moved a step closer to seeking approval to license two new nuclear reactors in Alabama, the agency said on Thursday.

The board of the largest U.S. public power supplier approved submitting an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking a license to build and operate two advanced nuclear units at TVA's Bellefonte site in Hollywood, Ala.

http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN2733770920070927 (http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN2733770920070927)


WOOT!!
 :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: ddklbl on Sep 27, 2007, 08:27
There was a decent article in this months Nuclear News about it.  Some of the things they mentioned were a little dated, wrt Browns Ferry, but good press all the same.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Oct 31, 2007, 09:52
TVA, NuStart Submit Application to Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Quote
At a brief ceremony this morning, TVA and NuStart Energy representatives presented an application for a new nuclear-power plant to Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials at their headquarters in Rockville, Md., outside of Washington, D.C.



http://insidenet.tva.gov/org/cao/communications/tvatoday/2007/october07/30/update.htm (http://insidenet.tva.gov/org/cao/communications/tvatoday/2007/october07/30/update.htm)
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Len61 on Oct 31, 2007, 12:01
Step 1, but I'll get really excited when we start moving dirt!
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Oct 31, 2007, 12:05
Step 1, but I'll get really excited when we start moving dirt!

Per the new NRC definition, moving dirt is NOT a construction activity. Dirt could be legally moved today! (It won't be, but it could be.)

I'll get really excited when we start pouring concrete!


http://www.nukeworker.com/pictures/displayimage-95-0.html (http://www.nukeworker.com/pictures/displayimage-95-0.html)

EDIT: Added a link to the artist's concept of the eventual site
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Len61 on Oct 31, 2007, 06:16
Ya know what I meant. :)
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: nuketarded on Jul 05, 2008, 07:51
What's this I hear about Units 1 & 2 back on the radar screen?
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Jul 06, 2008, 06:53
What's this I hear about Units 1 & 2 back on the radar screen?

Demolition suspended is my current understanding.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Aug 26, 2008, 07:44
OK, 1&2 are back!


Quote
Alabama’s biggest unfinished construction project may be revived nearly a half century after it was begun.

The Tennessee Valley Authority, which already is pursuing licenses for two new reactors at its Bellefonte Nuclear Plant site in Hollywood, Ala., soon will begin a study of whether it also should finish the original two reactors it previously canceled at the same site.

TVA President Tom Kilgore said Wednesday the agency will spend $10 million to study whether to try to finish the original two Babcock & Wilcox-designed reactors at Bellefonte.

“Given the rising price of coal and other fuels — and looking at the rising costs of steel and concrete — we are taking another look at these units,” he said.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/aug/21/tennessee-valley-authority-study-reviving-bellefon/ (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/aug/21/tennessee-valley-authority-study-reviving-bellefon/)


Now the questions are:
1. Will the NRC re-issue the CP?
2. Will TVA build 3&4 (AP1000) and then 1&2 (B&W 177) or reverse order?
3. Can you really invest $20 Billion in a county of 55,000 people?  :o


Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Limited Quanity on Aug 26, 2008, 10:52
OK, 1&2 are back!


Now the questions are:
1. Will the NRC re-issue the CP?
2. Will TVA build 3&4 (AP1000) and then 1&2 (B&W 177) or reverse order?
3. Can you really invest $20 Billion in a county of 55,000 people?  :o

When CNO Bill Campbell was at Sequoyah for his plant visit he told us that Bellefonte was back on the radar screen. 
1) He mentioned requesting the construction permit to be reissued and had no concern about getting it. 
2) He said that the two original units would be completed first since the cost ratio per kilowatt would be about half as much as the AP1000's.  I forget the exact numbers he quoted but it was substantial.
3) Didn't talk about it.  But how many times have we seen a "feasibility" study done on Bellefonte, BFN 1, or Watts Bar 2 and here we go again throwing millions out there to some lucky Engineering firm just to validate/reconfirm what I would think we know already, IMO.  Besides with an address like "Hollywood", Alabama,,,55 Billion probably won't go far  8)
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: ISFSI on Aug 27, 2008, 10:21
Is this the same Bill Campbell who was formerly with Entergy a few years back?   ???

Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Nuclear NASCAR on Aug 28, 2008, 12:05
Is this the same Bill Campbell who was formerly with Entergy a few years back?   ???



And at Callaway years ago?
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Fermi2 on Aug 28, 2008, 12:44
Yes it's the same guy, and from my dealings with him he's a pretty sharp and open minded individual.

Mike
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Laundry Man on Aug 28, 2008, 08:37
Another dose saving initiative at Fermi was replacing the condenser tubes.
LM
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Fermi2 on Aug 28, 2008, 03:57
The titanium tubes at Fermi were not a dose saving initiative. They were installed to get rid of Admiralty Brass tubes to prevent fuel failure due to CILC. The dose savings were just a by product of changing out the tubes.

Mike
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: ISFSI on Aug 28, 2008, 11:07
Also helped to reduce peak fuel centerline temperatures for the same thermal power output...that's where the real payoff was realized.   8)

Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Fermi2 on Aug 29, 2008, 12:20
AKA reduced CILC.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Feb 20, 2009, 07:01
NEVER say NEVER AGAIN!

Quote
NRC AUTHORIZES REINSTATEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
FOR BELLEFONTE NUCLEAR REACTORS 1 AND 2

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized the reinstatement of the construction permits for Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA’s) unfinished Unit 1 and 2 reactors at the Bellefonte site near Scottsboro, Ala.

In 2006, having decided not to complete construction of the reactors, TVA requested that NRC withdraw the construction permits for the two Bellefonte units. However, in August 2008 TVA, citing changing power-generating economics, stated that completing the Bellefonte reactors may now be viable and requested that the NRC reinstate the permits. If the Bellefonte construction permits had remained in place, they would not have expired until 2011 and 2014, respectively.

TVA also requested that the permits be reinstated with the reactors classified in the “deferred” status – a category indicating a plant’s structures, equipment and records have been well maintained in a mothballed condition. The Commission denied that portion of the request. “The Commission Policy Statement on Deferred Plants is clear and demanding with respect to the condition of the facilities and the quality of plant records. The Bellefonte reactors simply do not meet that threshold right now,” said NRC Chairman Dale Klein.

 The Commission chose instead to reinstate the permits with the reactors classified in the “terminated” status – a designation which recognizes that the structures, equipment and records have not been continuously maintained. This will require TVA to re-establish physical conditions and records quality of units 1 and 2 before the units could transition to a “deferred” status. This two-step approach provides assurance to the public that the NRC will thoroughly scrutinize the plant and that any issues identified will be addressed before TVA can move forward.

  The reinstatement of a withdrawn construction permit is unique. The Commission, after considering the technical, regulatory, and legal aspects of TVA’s request, concluded that there is sufficient reason to reinstate the construction permits and that a more conservative sequential
approach will ensure the safety of doing so. “We will start them out one step at a time so we can ensure the safety of these unfinished plants,” Klein said. “They will not be placed in a ‘deferred’ status until we are completely satisfied.” 

The agency granted construction permits for Bellefonte’s two pressurized water reactors in 1974. By 1988, when TVA deferred completion of the plant, Unit 1 was approximately 88 percent complete, and Unit 2 was approximately 58 percent complete. There is no nuclear fuel on the site. The Bellefonte site is located on approximately 1,600 acres adjacent to the Tennessee River in northern Alabama.


NRC New Release No. 09-035   
February 19, 2009
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Ordinary Joe on Jan 30, 2010, 11:29
go, no-go decision on 1&2 in just a few months...
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: JohnLBecker on Mar 14, 2010, 08:45
 :)ASLB TO WEBSTREAM MARCH 1 PREHEARING CONFERENCE
IN ROCKVILLE, MD., ON BELLEFONTE CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

   The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) will hold a prehearing conference March 1 in Rockville, Md., regarding a challenge to the NRC’s reinstatement of construction permits for the incomplete Bellefonte reactors in Alabama.

   Anyone wishing to view the conference over the Internet may do so at this link:
http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=66071.

   The board will conduct oral arguments with the petitioners challenging the reinstatement (the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and its Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team chapter, as well as the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy), the applicant (Tennessee Valley Authority), and the NRC staff. The arguments will include how the Atomic Energy Act’s “good cause” standard applies in this case, along with the admissibility of the petitioners’ proposed contentions.


Things are looking up
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Oct 27, 2010, 12:49
From TVA's extension request for BLN-1 Construction Permit:

Quote
Consistent with TVA's stated objective to use its existing facilities to the greatest extent
possible to meet future electrical power demands, TVA has determined that it is prudent
to consider adding the partially completed BLN units to its mix of base-load generating
options. Reinstatement of the BLN Units 1 and 2 Construction Permits has allowed TVA
and the NRC to establish key regulatory assumptions for the possible completion of the
plant (Reference 4) and for TVA to begin work on a more detailed regulatory framework
and plant licensing basis for consideration by.NRC. On August 20, 2010, TVA's Board
of Directors approved a budget allocation in support of continued engineering, design,
and regulatory-basis development, as well as the procurement of long-lead components
such as steam generators for BLN Unit 1 in order to preserve the option of timely
completion. This will help ensure that Unit 1 continues to be a viable alternative for
meeting base-load power needs in the 2018-2020 timeframe. The TVA Board has
reserved its ability to determine whether to proceed with construction and completion of
Bellefonte Unit 1, beyond the scope of the above budget allocation, following completion
of TVA's Integrated Resource Planning process, which is scheduled for the spring of
2011.

May 2018 is spelled out as the target commercial operation date, if that option is chosen. See you there!
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Ordinary Joe on Jul 17, 2011, 07:35
Anyone watching this? CEO says something about august right?
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: wingnut on Jul 17, 2011, 10:13
A decision on Bellefonte got moved from April to August. Its a go or no go moment. There are TVA staffers out there now. Training for Browns Ferry is done at Bellefonte using their rather large facility. Given the construction of Watts Bar 2 I would not be suprised if its a go. Might be time to invest in Hollywood (AL)
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: rumrunner on Jul 17, 2011, 05:14
To clarify, the Central In-Processing Center is not part of Bellefonte and is not the Bellefonte training center, although it is just a stone's throw away from the plant.  The CIP is used for all TVA nuclear in-processing, not just Browns Ferry, and presently it is just GET, medical, and plant access.  When the 2nd floor is finished they will be doing craft quals too. 

I opened the CIP last fall and worked there from January this year up until May. 

Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: tr on Jul 19, 2011, 01:19
As the recent ANS conference the TVA CEO?/CNO? said that their strategy was to have one in construction (Watts Bar 2), one in planning (Bellefonte), and one in development (Clinch River B&W small modular reactor) at any given time.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: rumrunner on Jul 24, 2011, 05:48
According to what I was told last week, TVA CEO Tom Kilgore plans to formally request TVA Board approval to complete one unit at Bellefonte.  He will do this at the board's next meeting in August.  Granted that TVA Board meetings are mostly scripted shows for the public and no surprises are allowed, hence it is already a foregone conclusion that Bellefonte is soon to get busy.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: rumrunner on Jul 24, 2011, 05:51
Also - TVA posted a VPA (vacant position announcement) last week for 'one or more' RP technicians for BLN.  According to the Scottsboro brain trust this is to support radiography at BLN initially.
Title: Re: Bellefonte
Post by: Roll Tide on Oct 03, 2013, 09:32
If you have worked at TVA in the past decade, you know this:
Q: Where is the safest place to be?
A: On schedule

If you love BLN, you know this:
Q: Where is the worst place to be?
A: Behind WBN!!!