Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority is located in Hollywood, Alabama.

The two partially-built 1,256 megawatt (MWe) pressurized water reactors on the site were made by Babcock and Wilcox and are called a 205 design due to the number of fuel assemblies in the core. These units are of the same design as WNP-1 which is also unfinished, and as the Mulheim Karlich A reactor in Germany that operated for three years and proved the design. Unit 1 was 88% complete and Unit 2 was 58% when development was suspended in 1988 after a $6 billion investment. Subsequent asset recovery activities, along with more recent inspections of remaining equipment, resulted in BLN 1&2 now being considered approximately 55 percent and 35 percent complete, respectively. Although the construction permits were terminated on September 15, 2006, TVA is investigating completion of these first two units with operation projected to start Unit 1 in 2017 and Unit 2 in 2021. In August 2008 TVA asked the NRC to reinstate the construction permits as part of the restart evaluation. This request was granted by the NRC on February 9, 2009, albeit as a terminated application which required significant inspection of all systems to bring the license to the deferred stage. The status was upgraded January 14, 2010 to deferred.

On September 22, 2005 it was announced that Bellefonte was also selected as the site for one or two AP1000 pressurized water reactors to be called Units 3 and 4. TVA filed the necessary applications in November 2007 to begin the design and construction process. For details, see Nuclear Power 2010 Program.

In August 2009, the Tennessee Valley Authority, faced with "falling electric sales and rising costs from cleaning up a massive coal ash spill in Tennessee", trimmed plans for the potential four-unit Bellefonte nuclear plant to one reactor.

On August 20, 2010 the TVA Board of Directors authorized $248 million to continue development of the Bellefonte Unit 1. Construction is expected to resume in 2011.

The rough estimate to complete BLN 1 by itself is between $4.2 and $4.8 billion in 2010 dollars.

Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station
Country	United States
Locale	Hollywood, Alabama
Status	Proposed
Construction cost	US$6 billion (Units 1 & 2)
Owner(s)	Tennessee Valley Authority
Reactor information
Reactors planned	2 x 1,100 MW
Reactor type(s)	Pressurized water reactor
Reactor supplier(s)	Babcock and Wilcox

The Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project is a prospective nuclear power plant which may be built on the Bell Bend of the Susquehanna River in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, near the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.

On October 10, 2008, Pennsylvania Power and Light (PPL) filed an application for a Combined Construction and Operating License (COL) for the plant with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by the end of 2008 — in time for the potential plant to qualify for production tax credits under the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005.^[2] NRC review of the 10,000-page COLA is expected to take three to four years.

Bell Bend would use the 1,600 MWe European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) designed by the French company AREVA. Plants using this technology now are under construction in Finland, France, and China. The plant would be built by PPL and UniStar Nuclear Energy, a joint enterprise of Constellation Energy and French energy giant EDF.

PPL spokesman Dan McCarthy said the plant would cost about $10 billion to develop, and seven to eight years to construct — beginning operation in 2016 or 2017. A later estimate gives costs as $13–15 billion and an operational starting date of 2018-20. PPL filed an initial application for federal loan guarantees by the September 29, 2008 deadline. PPL intends to submit the second part of the application by the December 19 deadline. PPL Chief Operating Officer William Spence said, "Without federal loan guarantees, companies like PPL will not be able to secure financing for the substantial cost of building new, advanced-design nuclear energy plants that will help this country achieve challenging limits on carbon dioxide emissions, as well as energy independence".

The Victoria County Nuclear Power Plant Project is a proposed two-unit nuclear power plant, in Victoria County, Texas. If built, the facility would occupy an 11,500-acre (47 km²) site in McFaddin, an unincorporated community south of Victoria. Plant structures would occupy about 300 acres (120 ha) and a man-made lake for plant cooling would cover about 4,900 acres (20 km²).

Exelon filed the Combined Construction and Operating License (COL) application for the plant on September 3, 2008 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Originally, the plant would have had two GE–Hitachi Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactors (ESBWRs) which between them would generate over 3,000 MWe. The model is currently in the process of design certification by the NRC. The application reportedly cost $23 million to prepare and file.

Exelon later decided to change reactor design, choosing the established GE 1,350 MWe Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) instead, which is also to be built at the South Texas Project.

In July 2009, Exelon announced that it was suspending its COL application. "We are not leaving Victoria," said Exelon's Thomas O'Neill, "But today's economic realities compel us to defer any decision on construction for a while." Exelon will continue to pursue the Early Site Permit (ESP) for the station, under which the NRC would certify that the site meets the criteria of site safety, environmental impact, and emergency planning.

In March 2010, Exelon announced that it was formally withdrawing its COL application, while submitting its application for an early site permit (ESP). The NRC's review of the ESP application is expected to take three to four years. If Exelon later decides to revisit the project, having the ESP in hand would simplify and shorten the licensing procedure.

The Levy County Nuclear Power Plant Project is the umbrella term for a proposed nuclear power plant in Levy County, Florida. Proposed in 2006, Progress Energy Florida (PEF) announced the selection of 5,100 acres (21 km²) in southern Levy County for the potential construction of nuclear reactors. The site's proximity to the company's existing Crystal River 3 Nuclear Power Plant will provide opportunities for efficiencies in shared support functions at both facilities.

Progress Energy Florida submitted a filing with the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) on March 11, 2008, outlining its need for additional electricity and proposing to meet that need with two nuclear units in Levy County. The PSC scheduled hearings on the project in late May, and approved it in July. The company then applied for a Combined Construction and Operating License (COL) from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on July 30, 2008. Costs of the two nuclear units are estimated at $14 billion, plus $3 billion for necessary transmission upgrades.

On October 14, 2008, the PSC voted to allow PEF to charge customers an additional $11.42 per 1,000 kW·h, beginning in January 2009, to pay for the Levy plant and work upgrading the Crystal River plant.

On January 5, 2009, PEF awarded an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contract to Westinghouse and The Shaw Group's nuclear division to build the two reactors for $7.65 billion. The reactors were supposed to be operational by 2016–18. In May, after the NRC denied permission to begin excavation work on the site to prepare for construction prior to issuing the COL, Progress Energy announced that commercial operation of the two new reactors had been pushed back "a minimum of 20 months." In view of the delay, Progress Energy has requested approval from the Public Service Commission to reduce the project cost to consumers in 2010 from $12.63 to $6.69 per 1000 kW·h.

On August 11, 2009, Florida governor Charlie Crist and his cabinet unanimously adopted the recommendation of the state Department of Environmental Protection, and approved the plant's Site Certification Application (SCA). Site certification is the last major state-level approval needed before Progress can start constructing the Levy plant. The approval included a requirement that Progress shut down coal-fired electrical generating units 1 & 2 at its nearby Crystal River Energy Complex by the end of 2020, assuming the timely licensing and construction of the Levy nuclear power plant.

Levy County Nuclear Power Plant
Country	United States
Locale	Levy County, Florida
Status	Proposed
Construction cost	$17 billion (approximately, including $3 billion for transmission lines)
Owner(s)	Progress Energy, Inc.
Reactor information
Reactors planned	2 x 1,105 MW
Reactor type(s)	AP1000 pressurized water reactors
Reactor supplier(s)	Westinghouse
Power generation information
Installed capacity	2,210 MW

The William States Lee 3 Nuclear Generating Station is a planned two-unit nuclear power plant. Duke Energy filed the Combined Construction and Operating License (COL) application for the plant on December 13, 2007 to the NRC. With this application, Duke Energy was the fourth company to apply for a license under the new procedure, and the license will be modeled after the Bellefonte NPP application that was filed by NuStart Energy two months prior, which is possible because both plants will use the AP1000 standard design. Duke expects to receive the COL for Lee in 2012. The first unit could come on line about 2016-2018.

The plant is named for William States Lee 3 (1929–1996), former chief executive officer (CEO) of Duke Energy (1982–94). This site will be adjacent to the Cherokee Nuclear Power Plant site which was never completed and abandoned in the early 1980s, and used by James Cameron as a film set for the 1989 movie The Abyss.

In December 2007, Duke Power announced that it would spend $160 million in 2008 on the plant and that total costs could range 5–6 billion dollars. In November 2008, Duke estimated the overnight cost of the plant at $11 billion.

William States Lee III Nuclear Generating Station
Country	United States
Locale	Cherokee County, near Gaffney, South Carolina
Construction cost	$11 billion (estimate)
Owner(s)	Duke Energy
Reactor information
Reactors planned	2 x 1117 MW
Reactor type(s)	AP1000
Reactor supplier(s)	Westinghouse

The Galena Nuclear Power Plant Project is a proposed nuclear power plant to be constructed in the Yukon River village of Galena in the U.S. state of Alaska. If built, it would be the first non-military nuclear power plant built in Alaska to be utilized for public utility generation.

Galena is not accessible by road, and its energy needs are provided by large air and water shipments of fuel oils, gasoline and propane. Electricity use is avoided, and accounts for only 4% of the village's energy usage. Space heating is done by the end user by using kerosene and wood. Because of Galena's climate the Yukon River is frozen 8–9 months of the year, stopping all delivery by the seasonal river barges. The alternative delivery is by aircraft tanker. This scarcity of fuel makes energy very expensive for area residents. The price of electricity is dictated by the price of fuel oil, $2.45/gal = $0.35/kWh(2004), $4.25/gal = $0.68/kWh(2006).

On December 14, 2004, the Galena City Council accepted a proposal from Toshiba to test their new 10 megawatt Toshiba 4S (Super Safe, Small and Simple) “nuclear battery” reactor design, which would require only minimal staffing. If the reactor is successfully licensed, Toshiba will install it free of charge by 2012. It is expected to provide electricity for $0.05–$0.13/kWh, which factors in only operating costs. On paper, it has been determined that the reactor could run for 30 years without refueling.

The liquid sodium cooled reactor would heat steam to 500 °C (932 °F) and would be located in a sealed concrete cylindrical vault 30 m (98 ft) underground, while the above-ground turbine building would be 22 × 16 × 11 m (72 × 52.5 x 36 ft) in size. The generation plant would provide a more-than-sufficient ten megawatts of power to the community of Galena.

Toshiba intends to sell more 4S reactors in Alaska and the rest of the United States if the Galena project succeeds.

As of 2010, the project is still in its final planning stages with final regulatory submission planned for October 2010. The City Council passes a resolution every six months reaffirming the community's support for the reactor.

In April 2008, Marvin Yoder, a consultant on the reactor, said that Toshiba was planning to make the application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2009, and that if approval is given in 2010 or 2011, the reactor could be operational by 2012 or 2013. The company is also developing a 50 megawatt (electric) version of the reactor.

Fukushima 1 Nuclear Accident Day 15, 16, 17

Friday, 25 March

Units 1, 2 and 3 had possible breaches in their containment vessels. NISA announced that a breach had likely occurred in the containment vessel of the unit 3 reactor, the only one using a plutonium fuel mix (MOX). Officials suspected it was leaking radiation. Kyodo News reported highly radioactive water was found in the turbine buildings of unit 1 and 2.

US Navy began the transport by barge of 1,890 cubic meters (500,000 gallons) of fresh cooling water to the Fukushima reactors. This fresh water supply is expected to arrive on site within two days.

Japan announced transportation would be provided in a voluntary evacuation zone of 30 kilometres (19 mi).

Tap water was reported to be safe for infants in Tokyo and Chiba but still exceeded limits in Hitachi and Tokaimura.

An analysis of stagnant water in the basement floor of the turbine building of Unit 1 showed heavy contamination.

Nuclide	Concentration (Bq/ml)
38 Cl	1.6×106
74 As	3.9×102
91 Y	5.2×104
131 I	2.1×105
134 Cs	1.6×105
136 Cs	1.7×104
137 Cs	1.8×106
140 La	3.4×102

Saturday, 26 March

Replacing seawater with fresh water for cooling became a priority due to worries that the salt in the seawater was clogging pipes and coating fuel rods, which may have been hindering the cooling process.

It was reported that radiation levels in water in the unit 2 turbine room measured 1 Sv/h, or 10 million times the normal radioactivity of water circulating in an operating reactor, and four times the yearly level allowed for workers. This has since been denied by Japanese officials as a misread by one of the employees working inside the plant, prompting all of the workers to flee before a second reading could be taken to confirm.

Sunday, 27 March

The IAEA announced that workers hospitalized for treatment of radiation burns on Friday had been exposed to between 2 and 6 Sv of radiation at their ankles when standing in water in unit 3.

TEPCO reported measurements of very high radiation levels of 1000 mSv/hr in the basement of the unit 2 turbine building, which officials reported was 10 million times higher than what would be found in the water of a normally functioning reactor. Hours into the media frenzy, the company retracted its report and stated that the figures were not credible. "because the level was so high the worker taking the reading had to evacuate before confirming it with a second reading." Shortly following the ensuing wave of media retractions that discredited the report worldwide, TEPCO clarified its initial retraction; the radiation from the pool surface in the basement of the unit 2 turbine building was found to be "more than 1,000 millisieverts per hour," as originally reported, but the concentration of radioactive substances was only 100,000 times higher than usual, not 10 million. The high radiation levels delayed technicians working to restore the water cooling systems for the troubled reactors.

Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency indicated that "The level of radiation is greater than 1,000 millisieverts. It is certain that it comes from atomic fission. But we are not sure how it came from the reactor."

The IAEA reported temperatures at the bottom of the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) at Unit 2 fell to 97 °C from 100 °C on Saturday. Water is being pumped from the turbine hall basement to the condenser in order to allow power restoration activities to continue.

New aerial video recorded on 27 March by a Ground Self-Defense Force helicopter revealed the clearest and most detailed view of the damaged plant to date. Significant observations included:

• White vapor, possibly steam, emanating from the buildings of reactors 2, 3, and 4.
• The roof of the reactor 2 building has been badly damaged but is still intact.
• The reactor 3 building is largely uncovered, its roof blown off in a hydrogen explosion over two weeks prior.
• The walls of the reactor 4 building have also collapsed.