EFSEC maintains regulatory oversight at
the five nuclear projects owned by Energy Northwest*, a municipal corporation
and joint operating agency of the State of Washington.
*formerly known as Washington
Public Power Supply System
Energy Northwest
Columbia Generating
Station
(Formerly Nuclear
Project No. 2 (WNP-2))
The Columbia Generating Station,
formerly known as WNP-2, is an operating nuclear electric generating station
located near Richland, Washington, in Benton County, on land leased from the
United States Department of Energy (DOE) on the Hanford Site. The approximate
1089 acre site (the main plant is located on 605 acres and the pipeline corridor
is 484 acres) has been leased from DOE for a term of 50 years commencing January
1, 1972, with options to extend the lease for two consecutive ten-year periods.
The Supply System, now Energy
Northwest, filed an application with the state in 1971 for the construction and
operation of WNP-2. Hearings were held during that year and a Site
Certification Agreement (SCA) was approved by the Governor on May 17, 1972. The
Supply System also received construction (3/73) and operating (12/83) licenses
from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the plant. The
SCA covers the entire life of the project; while NRC’s Operating License (OL)
expires in 2023.
Following initial startup testing, NRC
issued a full power OL in March 1984 and commercial operations commenced in
December 1984. WNP-2 has a net design electrical rating of 1,190 megawatts and
the entire output of the plant has been acquired by the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) through a “Net Billing Agreement.” Since beginning
commercial operation, WNP-2 has operated at a cumulative capacity factor of
59.9% (as of August 1996) and has generated over 77 million megawatt-hours of
electric power through January 1998.
The Columbia Generating Station
consists of a General Electric designed boiling water reactor and nuclear steam
supply system; a turbine-generator; and the necessary transformer switching and
transmission facilities to deliver the plant’s output to the Federal System at a
transmission substation located near the plant. The project consists of the
following structures: the reactor building, the radioactive waste building, the
turbine-generator building, the diesel generator building, the service building,
six mechanical-draft evaporative cooling towers, the circulating water pumphouse,
and the river makeup water pumphouse. The station also includes the Plant
Engineering Center located adjacent to the main plant, the Plant Support
Facility located one mile southwest of the main plant, and various
administrative buildings in Richland.
Operations
Energy Northwest's highest priority
continues to be to operate the Columbia Generating Station safely, reliably, and
economically. Strategic planning efforts have focused on achieving cost
competitiveness in the regional energy market. As energy prices continue to
drop, the most pressing challenge facing Energy Northwest is to lower the cost
of power produced by the Columbia Generating Station. A key factor in providing
cost-competitive power is continued improvement of the reliability of the
electrical output of the plant.
Beginning in 1993, Energy Northwest
has brought in senior managers from some of the top performing nuclear plants in
the industry. This management team has brought increased focus on
accountability, human performance, professionalism, and quality operation of the
plant. The major concerns relating to plant reliability and efficiency were
immediately and aggressively addressed. Significant expenditures were made for
major maintenance activities and capital improvements. The performance
enhancement initiatives have produced significant positive results in actual
plant performance over the past four years.
In FY 1997 the Columbia Generating
Station set a record with 270 days of continuous operation, the longest
operating run in the plant’s 12-year history. The availability factor that went
along with that operating run was 83.7%, another Columbia Generating Station
record. The availability factor measures what percent of the entire year the
plant was either operating or available to operate. During the first half of FY
98, the plant has continued this operational trend by exceeding generation
records in the winter months and is currently in its fourth longest consecutive
run at over 220 days.
The installation of the new Adjustable
Speed Drives and Digital Feedwater systems made the plant the first in the
nation with this combination of computerized controls for adjusting plant power
levels and feedwater flow into the reactor vessel. While there were problems
with both systems, these systems allowed operators to change reactor power level
on demand. This capability made it possible for the plant to operate in a “load
cycling” mode where it was able to vary power levels on a daily and weekend
basis in response to the power needs of BPA. BPA has publicly commended the
plant for its enhanced reliability and integration with the hydro-based Federal
System.
Operational and maintenance
improvements have also resulted in the lowering of radiation exposure for
Columbia Generating Station workers. Beginning a trend that began in 1995, the
plant has gone from having one of the highest exposure rates in the industry to
being in the lower one-third.
The success in achieving higher
performance standards at the Columbia Generating Station has resulted in
improved SALP ratings from the NRC. The Systematic Assessment of Licensee
Performance (SALP) is an NRC inspection process that takes place over a 14-month
time period that assesses the plant’s performance in the areas of Maintenance,
Operations, Engineering, and Plant Support. For the period September 3, 1995
through March 1, 1997, Columbia Generating Station received a score of 2 in each
of the four areas indicating good performance in all areas ( the rating scale is
1 to 3; with 1 being the highest and 3 the lowest). The report noted that
Columbia Generating Station had made significant improvements as a whole since
the previous rating period, but cautioned that there were still areas and issues
that needed close attention. The plant also received improved marks from a peer
review conducted by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations in late 1996.
Energy Northwest has also been
successful in reducing the cost of Columbia Generating Station power during the
past four years. The regional cost of the station has decreased from $251
million in FY1994 to $171.6 million in FY 1997. The current planning target is
to have that cost down to $150 million in FY 2000 that would bring the cost to
less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Top of page
Nuclear Projects Nos. 1 and 4
(WNP-1/4)
Background -
Restoration
Plans: 1987 to 1995 -
June 1999
Restoration Plan
Background
Projects 1 and 4 are partially
completed nuclear projects located on the Hanford Site on approximately 972
acres. The sites are one and one-half miles east of the Columbia Generating
Station.
The application for the twin 1 and 4
projects was filed with TPPSEC in May 1974. Hearings were held during early to
mid-1974 and a combined Site Certification Agreement (SCA) was signed by the
Governor on August 8, 1975.
WNP-1: Construction began on WNP-1 in
late 1975. In April 1982, with construction 63% complete, the Supply System
Board of Directors voted to “mothball” WNP-1 for up to five years. While the
plant was ahead of construction targets, a growing energy surplus and financing
issues forced BPA to consider shutting down either WNP-1 or WNP-3 because the
region would not need the power from both plants when the were scheduled to come
on line in 1986. BPA was forecasting an energy surplus through the year 2000
and concerns over keeping a pending rate increase as low as possible and the
size of the last bond sale before Initiative 394 took effect, contributed to
putting WNP-1 in an extended construction delay. [Two factors in the decision
to shutdown 1 vs. 3 were the 30% private utility ownership in 3 and WNP-3 was
farther along in construction and beating completion schedules (the plant
advanced from 42.9% in 12/81 to 68.2% complete by the end of 1982.)
Following the halt to construction,
WNP-1 entered a preservation mode, where the plant assets and project licenses
were maintained to enable the Supply System to resume construction at such a
time as that action was determined to be appropriate. The construction delay
continued through to May 1994, when the Supply System board adopted a resolution
terminating WNP-1. Since that date, the Supply System has been planning for the
demolition of WNP-1 and restoration of the site because there is no market for
the sale of the plant as an energy facility and no viable alternative use has
been found. BPA has continued funding the administrative efforts associated
with the preservation/restoration activities.
In June 1995, EFSEC approved a Site
Restoration Plan for WNP-1 that deferred demolition and restoration activities
until the demolition process for the Satsop 3/5 projects could be evaluated. It
was felt that the experience gained at the Satsop Site would be beneficial to
any work that would be done at the 1 (and 4) sites. In the interim, the Supply
System has carried out a minimal level of maintenance and security control at
the WNP-1 project site.
WNP-4: Construction began on WNP-4 in
1975. In May 1981, the Supply System initiated a six-month construction
slowdown at 4 (and 5). WNP-4 was planned as a twin unit of WNP-1 to take
advantage of the cost-savings of dual-unit construction.
While the SCA combines the 1 and 4
projects, for funding purposes, WNP-1 is a separate project under a net-billing
agreement with BPA, where Bonneville is obligated to pay for the costs of the
project. WNP-4 and WNP-5 were created as a combined utility system and the 88
participants were responsible to pay the projects operating costs. Those
contracts were later declared invalid, thereby triggering the default on bonds
issued to finance the 4/5 projects. The following briefly reviews events that
lead to the Supply System formally terminating WNP-4 in January 1982.
In 1980 new Supply System management
initiated a comprehensive evaluation of all costs and schedules for the five
nuclear projects (3 of the projects were shutdown at the time due to a labor
dispute at Hanford). This review lead to a number of management reforms being
implemented and construction resuming at all projects. However, the evaluation
of the true costs to complete the projects, identified that cost had risen to
$23.8 billion or $3 billion annually, at a time when there were questions being
raised about the need for power, low Supply System credibility, and skyrocketing
interest rates.
Based on the recommendation of a “Blue
Ribbon” panel established by the Washington and Oregon Governors, the 4/5
participants, private utilities, and several large industrial electricity users,
developed a plan that would provide funding for a two-year preservation
program. This deal fell apart as parties questioned the funding obligations
that would be placed on them, and in mid-January 1982, the Supply System’s
Managing Director announced that the necessary funds for mothballing were not
available. One week later, on January 22, 1982, the Supply System board
terminated both the 4 and 5 projects (when construction was 24% and 16%
complete, respectively). The act of termination triggered the subsequent
default on the Project 4/5 bonds on July 22, 1983. The Supply System had
previously issued $2.25 billion (principal) in bonds to pay construction costs
of the two plants.
For the next decade, the Supply System
was party to a substantial number of lawsuits related to the termination and
default of bonds. All of the litigation has been either settled with prejudice
and finality; or reduced to judgments against the Supply System that can only be
paid from available funds from 4 and 5.
Top of page
Restoration Plans: 1987 to 1995
Partially in response to concerns that
the terminated projects would not have the financial capability to pay for
restoration, the Council adopted rules in 1987 that required certificate holders
to prepare restoration plans for terminated projects. The Supply System
petitioned for, and the Council conditionally approved, a delay in consideration
of the 4/5 Site Restoration Plans (Resolution No. 246). The postponement would
allow additional time for the litigation and plans for the twinned 1 and 3
projects to become known; and acknowledged that certain salvage and asset sales
were underway at the projects. Following completion of the salvage work and
asset sales at WNP-4, the only significant structures remaining are the
partially completed reactor building and the concrete turbine-generator
pedestal.
In reviewing the Supply System’s
request to delay consideration of the 4/5 restoration plans, the Council faced
the issue about how any future restoration/demolition work would be funded.
Any 4 and 5 funds were locked up in the numerous lawsuits and it was not felt
that the state would not be successful in receiving specific funds for
restoration if it pursued legal remedy, i.e., other creditors had priority
claims. Therefore, the conditional approval of the initial plan provided
several options that might be fruitful later on as the litigation was decided
and/or decisions were made on the twinned projects.
In May 1994, the Supply System
terminated plans to complete Projects 1 and 3. After the termination vote, BPA
and the Supply System agreed to preserve the two plants until January 1995 to
explore alternative uses for all or a portion of the project facilities. No
alternative uses were identified from that effort, and the Supply System
subsequently submitted a Site Restoration Plan to the Council in 1995 that
covered all four terminated projects. The plan identifies that no funding is
available to carry out restoration activities associated with WNP-4. Top
of page
June 1999 WNP-1/4 Restoration Plan
Energy Northwest submitted a revised
Site Restoration Plan for the WNP-1/4 project site to EFSEC on June 30, 1999.
The revised plan sets out a series of options or levels for site restoration at
the 1/4 sites. The plan presents nine (9) restoration levels that range from
site access control and security with removal of environmental and safety
hazards, to varying degrees of entombment, demolition or removal to grade of
existing structures. The plan also provides updated restoration costs for the
nine restoration levels based on an analysis to relative public risk.
Energy Northwest did not request that
EFSEC approve the revised plan at this time, recognizing that other stakeholders
must be brought into the discussion. At the same time as it is developing
restoration options, Energy Northwest is also working with local agencies to
examine the potential reuse or redevelopment of the 1/4 site and facilities.
EFSEC believes that stakeholder and
public involvement will assist the Council in arriving at an approach to site
restoration at WNP-1/4. The Council has initiated an informal dialog with
representatives from Energy Northwest, the Bonneville Power Administration, the
United States Department of Energy, The Washington Department of Ecology and
Congressional Staff in order to understand the issues and alternatives available
to the Council. EFSEC is also seeking to involve the public, state agencies,
tribes and the environmental community.
A public hearing was conducted on
October 27, 1999, in Richland, Washington, to provide an opportunity for these
stakeholders and interested persons or organizations to comment on future plans
for the 1/4 site.
At its
regular meeting on December 13, 1999, the Council adopted a series of
observations, timelines, and directives to guide the development and
implementation of site restoration/reuse activities at the WNP-1 and WNP-4
projects. Council formally communicated these observations, timelines, and
directives to Energy Northwest in a
letter dated December 17,
1999. Council will continue working with Energy Northwest and other
interested parties to advance the restoration plans for the WNP-1 and WNP-4
sites.
Additional information regarding
Energy Northwest's Restoration Plan is available as follows:
For additional information regarding the Restoration Plan please
contact:
Mike Mills,
EFSEC Compliance Manager
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
925 Plum Street SE, Bldg. 4
PO Box 43172
Olympia, WA 98504-3172
(360) 956-2151
mikem@ep.cted.wa.gov
Top of page
Nuclear Project Nos. 3 and 5
(WNP-3/5)
Projects 3 and 5 are partially completed
nuclear projects located on the Satsop Site on approximately 1600 acres near
Elma, Washington, in Grays Harbor County.
The Supply System filed an application
for the construction and operation of the twin 3 and 5 projects in December
1973. Hearings were held from August to November 1975 and an SCA was signed on
October 27, 1976.
WNP-3: Construction began on WNP-3 in
1977. The project is jointly owned, 70% by the Supply System (BPA has acquired
the Supply System’s ownership share of Project 3 through a net billing
agreement); and 30% by four investor-owned utilities (Pacific Power & Light,
Portland General Electric, Puget Sound Power & light, and Washington Water
Power).
As noted above, in 1980 the Supply
System made major management changes and took initiatives to: bring in an
experienced construction manager for all the projects (Bechtel); reduce
unnecessary expenditures; secure changes in state contracting laws; stabilize
labor agreements; and identify the true costs to complete the projects.
The results of these reforms were
evident in all the projects, but were probably most obvious at WNP-3 which
became known as the Supply System’s “showcase” project before it was reluctantly
placed in an extended construction delay in July 1983. The construction pace
doubled from around 1% completion a month to an average of 2% per month in
1982. During that time about a quarter of the plant was completed, advancing it
from 42.9% in 12/81 to 68.2% in December 1982.But despite the reforms and
excellent construction progress, it was necessary for the either delay or
terminate at four of its projects in 1982-83.
The Supply System’s worsening
financial condition in 1983 led to the reluctant decision in July 1983 to delay
construction on WNP-3 for up to three years. That decision stemmed from the
Supply System being prevented from raising the $961 million needed to complete
WNP-3 from revenue sale bonds. At the time construction was halted, the project
was about 76% complete and just about to make the transition from the primary
construction phase to testing, startup, and operations.
Just as at WNP-1 at Hanford, WNP-3
then entered into a preservation program that was designed to preserve the
equipment and construction licenses so that the plants could be restarted at
some future date if the region decided they were needed. This program involved
such steps as wrapping the electric switching gear in plastic, purging the steam
generators with an inert gas, rotating turbine generator shafts every six
months, and at Satsop, maintaining a vigorous humidity and moisture control
regime to prevent corrosion on the many pieces of equipment both inside and
outside the plant. The costs of the preservation program were paid by BPA as
the 1 and 3 plants were identified as “options” or possible future resources if
they were cost-effective and financing impediments could be lifted.
In April 1993 the Supply System
Executive Board recommended termination studies for Projects 1 and 3. The
realization that completion of the projects as commercial nuclear power plants
was unlikely, prompted the board’s action. Preservation activities would
continue until the results of the Supply System/BPA study was completed.
On May 13, 1994, based on the
recommendations of the study, the Supply System board adopted resolutions
terminating Nuclear Projects 1 and 3. Preservation funding was to be continued
through January 1995 while the Supply System evaluated alternative uses for and
to facilitate the marketing of the projects. Since that date, the Supply System
has been planning for the demolition of the projects and restoration of the
sites. Funding has continued for the administrative activities associated with
termination and planning for restoration/demolition for both the 3 and 1
projects.
In March 1995 the Supply System
submitted a Site Restoration Plan to EFSEC pursuant to the Council’s site
restoration regulations for terminated projects. On June 12, 1995, the Council
approved the Supply System’s Plan for restoration of the 1, 3, 4, and 5 project
sites. The plan focused on the Satsop Site and plans to remove the assets, and
restore the site by demolition, burial, entombment, or other techniques that
would minimize damage to the environment and hazard to the public. The Supply
System proposed to use the Satsop restoration experience as a model for future
restoration at the 1and 4 sites. In conditionally approving the Supply System’s
plan, the Council recognized that there was uncertainty in how the plan would be
implemented, and therefore reserved the opportunity to conduct additional
reviews once the details of the plan(s) were finalized. [Under the termination
agreements, BPA would continue to pay for the administrative expenses of
maintaining the plan and restoration activities at the net-billed 3 and 1
projects; however, those projects would have no legal obligation to pay for 4
and 5.]
Also affecting the future of the
Satsop Site, is a plan developed by Grays Harbor County interests to use the
site for economic development purposes. During 1995, a group of county agencies
formed the Satsop Redevelopment Project to examine the potential for economic
and industrial business opportunities at the site. The group was instrumental
in getting legislation passed in 1996 that would enable local governments and
the Supply System to negotiate an arrangement allowing the locals to assume an
interest in the site for economic development by transferring ownership of all
or a portion of the site to local government entities. The legislation also
provides for local government to assume regulatory responsibilities for site
restoration requirements and control of water rights.
Since the adoption of the legislation,
the county has completed studies on possible reuse or development of the site
and entered into discussions with the Supply System (and BPA) about possible
alternative uses for the site. The Supply System has advised the Council that
they have reached an agreement in principle to transfer the site to Grays Harbor
County.
During this time the Supply System
also applied for, and was issued a Site Certification Agreement, to construct
and operate a two-unit combustion turbine project at the Satsop Site. The
project (one-unit) was selected as one of three combustion turbine power plants
to be developed (designed and permitted) and held as an “option” under BPA’s
Resource Contingency Program. While there are no assurances that either unit
will be needed, the SCA and associated permits are good for a ten-year period.
WNP-5: Construction began in 1977. As
noted above in the discussion of WNP-4, based on the Supply System’s review of
costs required to complete the five projects under construction, and problems
faced by the Supply System and participants in finding financing to continue
work on 4 and 5, on May 29, 1981, the Supply System board accepted a
recommendation by Managing Director Bob Ferguson to begin a six-month
construction slowdown at the two projects. When efforts to come up with a
funding plan for a two-year “mothball” period failed, on January 22, 1982 the
Supply System board terminated Project 5 (and 4) when it was 16% complete.
Refer to the discussion under Projects
3 and 4 for additional details on the status of site restoration activities at
the 3/5 Satsop Site.
The Site Restoration Plan approved by
the Council for the 1, 3, 4, and 5 projects, acknowledges that there is no
funding source for Project 5 site restoration, while assuming that costs will be
reasonable and funding will be found to accomplish whatever work is needed.
The disposition of WNP-5 facilities is
part of the current negotiation between the Supply System and Grays Harbor
County interests to reach agreement on a plan for transferring all or a portion
of the Satsop Site to the county.
WNP-3/5 SCA Amendment
On June 25, 1998, the Washington Public Power
Supply System (Supply System) filed a request with the Council to amend its SCA
for the Satsop Power Plant site. The existing SCA authorizes construction and
operation of two nuclear power plants (WNP-3 and WNP-5) and a combustion turbine
(Satsop Combustion Turbine Project).
The purpose of the requested amendment is to remove the authorization for the
two nuclear power plants from the agreement. The remaining agreement would
continue to authorize the operation and construction of the combustion turbine
project with an associated natural gas pipeline. Consistent with WAC 463-36 and
pursuant to due and proper notice, the Council held a public hearing and
received comments on the proposed amendment. After review of the request, and of
ensuing comments, Council submitted a recommendation to the Governor in Order
731.
Council Order No. 731: Order
Recommending Governor's Approval of Amendment of Site Certification Agreement
for Satsop Power Plant Site (doc)
(pdf). April 20, 1999.
By letter dated April 30, 1999, Wildlife Forever of
Grays Harbor requested reconsideration of the Council’s Order No. 731 and a stay
of the order until its lawsuit, Wildlife Forever v. Washington Public Power
Supply System (Thurston County Superior Court No. 99-2-00620-5), is decided.
Council sent notice to interested persons, providing an opportunity to comment
on Wildlife Forever’s motions. The Council reconsidered Order 731 in light of
these comments and reaffirmed its earlier order in Order 735.
