ML18191A342

Annual Report for 1975

ML18191A342
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	08/17/1976
From:	Washington Public Power Supply System
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML18191A342 (36)

Text

Pil L,

LIC:

"p..+

i~

LL cL, O IL L

<- ~-

-,e4 '

"%y 1

'I j( )

D~

D t&

I

• '~ 4 fh.

& ~

L LL I

d I

'ltd Qcjci$9m'ill@

Oocko<<

go- l ' l I

~

e I conoid~ g ]g;74 L. d 1 ~-

kO O+gc d DQ'chal~ RS pego(goy

Table of Contents WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM Highlights Board of Directors Report from the Board President Report from the Executive Committee Chairman Managing Director's Report Overview '75 Packwood Project 14 Hanford Generating Project 14 Nuclear Project No. 2 16 Nuclear Projects No. 1 and No. 4 18 Nuclear Projects No. 3 and No. 5 21 Project Participants 24 Financial Section 25 Project Expenditures 33 Consultants 35 Washington Public Power Supply System, a municipal corporation and joint operating agency of Washington State, is made up of 18 public utility districts and three municipal electrical systems. Established in January 1957, the corporation is empowered to acquire, construct and operate plants and facilities for the generation and/or trans-mission of electric power. Principal office of the Supply System is located at 3000 George Washington Way, P. O. Box 968, Richland, Washington 99352.

Cover Photo-This photograph shows work in progress on the Supply System's three nuclear power plants situated in Southeastern Washington State. Nuclear Project No. 2 (A) is in the foreground. In the middle are Nuclear Projects No. 1 (B),

right, and No. 4 (C). The Columbia River (D) is in the background and beyond it (E) fertile irrigated farms.

Highlights of 1975 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM

%Construction of Nuclear Project No. 2 advances to 28 percent completion. Various delays encoun-tered during construction make it necessary to set back the project's estimated completion date to July 1979. Bonds sold to finance project construction receive "triple-A" rat-ings from Moody's and Standard &

Poor's.

~ Work began in August on site preparation and excavation for Nuclear Project No. 1 after Limited Work Authorization for Nuclear Projects No. 1 and No. 4 was received from the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission, and the site on the Hanford Reservation was certified by Washington State.

Similar work for Nuclear Project No.

4 began in October. Construction permit for Nuclear Project No. 1 was issued by NRC December 23.

~ Work required in preparing supplementary environmental im-pact statements for the utilities indicating intent to participate in Nuclear Projects No. 4 and No. 5 results in a 6-month delay in the anticipated completion date for WNP-5 (from March 1983 to September 1983I.

~ Central Warehouse and Office Facility is constructed and occupied in Richland. Facility includes a 50,000-square-foot warehouse with a 22,000-square-foot mezzanine and 16,500 square feet of office area.

(1 J

%Comptroller of the Currency authorizes national banks of the I United States to purchase, deal in, underwrite, and hold unlimited amounts of Nuclear Project No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 revenue bonds, thus broadening the market for these bonds.

The Board of Directors WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM Gathered for a quarterly meeting of the Management and control of the Supply System arevestedin a Board of Supply System's Board of Directors are, Directors consisting of one representative from each of 18 consumer-front row from left, Howard Prey, A. E.

Fletcher, and Edwin W. Taylor; middle owned utilities and three municipal electrical systems in Washington State.

row from left, Gordon Vickery, John A.

Goldsbury, John J. Welch, Ed Fischer, J. KIRBY BILLINGSLEY,Commissioner, Chelan County Public UtilityDistrict; D. Cockrell, T. R. Teitzel Ialternate from Lewis County), Clair R. Hiiderbrandt, LANE A. BRAY, Mayor, City of Richland; "J. D. COCKRELL, Light Kirby Billingsley, and E. L. Cosens Superintendent, Department of Public Utilities, City of Tacoma; GERALD Ialternate from Richland); and back row C. FENTON, Commissioner, Klickitat County Public Utility District; "ED from left, D. E. Hughes, John L. Toevs, FISCHER, Commissioner, Clark County Public Utility District; ALVIN E.

Glenn C. Walkley, Rolf E. Jemtegaard, Harold W. Jenkins, Gerald C. Fenton, and FLETCHER, Commissioner, Clallam County Public Utility District; JOHN W. G. Hulbert, Jr. GOLDSBURY, Commissioner, Benton County Public Utility Djstrict; CLAIR R. HILDERBRANDT, Commissioner, Ferry County Public Utility District; "D. E. HUGHES, Manager of Engineering & Planning, Cowlitz County Public Utility District; "W. G. HULBERT, JR., Manager, Snohomish County Public Utility District; ARNOLD J. JAMES, Commissioner, Lewis County Public Utility District; ROLF E. JEMTEGAARD, Commissioner, Skamania County Public Utility District; HAROLD W. JENKINS, Commissioner, Kittitas County Public Utility District; FRANCIS LONGO, Manager, Wahkiakum County Public Utility District; QUENTIN MIZER, Manager, Pacific County Public Utility District No. 2; HOWARD PREY, Commissioner, Douglas County Public Utility District; EDWIN W.

TAYLOR, Commissioner, Mason County Public Utility District No. 3; JOHN L. TOEVS, Commissioner, Grant County Public Utility District No. 2; "GORDON VICKERY, Superintendent, Seattle City Light; "GLENN C.

WALKLEY, Commissioner, Franklin County Public Utility District; "JOHN J. WELCH, Commissioner, Grays Harbor County Public UtilityDistrict.

'Executive Committee Member

From the Board President WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM Basic to the welfare of the Pacific Uranium, on the other hand,has only Northwest is adequate electrical one large-scale use fuel for energy. Presently available resour- powering electric generating sta-ces for generation of electricity, tions. Uranium is available in based on the current state of sufficient quantity to fuel light water technology, are falling water, the reactors into the next century. And combustion of fossil fuels, and by using fast breeder reactors, the nuclear fission. However, most of efficiency of uranium energy can be the environmentally and economi- expanded to meet energy demands cally acceptable hydroelectric sites for several centuries.

on our rivers have been developed, and domestic natural gas and oil The members of the Washington reserves are steadily declining. Public Power Supply System and the more than 100 utilities participat-Yet the number of customers ing in our power generating projects served by Supply System members have the responsibility for providing and utilities participating in our an adequate electric power supply projects continues to increase. So in not only to 2.8 million customers in spite of a slight decline in 1974 in the Pacific Northwest today, but to per capita residential use of the increased population this region electricity, our total electrical re- will experience decades into the quirements also continue to in- future. To do so as economically crease. and efficiently as possible, we must have continued energy conservation There are many methods being efforts on the part of all users but, at researched for new energy sources, the same time, we must use and i.e., geothermal, solar, wind, tides, develop all feasible and environmen-fusion, shale oil, etc. So far, not one tally compatible energy sources. By of these energy sources has been adhering to this program, we can developed to the point that a utility assure the economic stability of the today can order a large power plant region now and for those genera-using one of these sources to tions who will follow.

generate electricity in the Pacific Northwest within 10 years from now.

Thus the only practical and available resources whose use can be ex- A. E. Fletcher, panded in the near future for the President, Board of Directors generation of.electricity are coal and uranium.

Though low s Iphur coal exists in some of the w'estern states, it is not a simple mLtter to secure an adequate sup ly for the life of a large power lant. Also, coal is a source of val able chemicals and should therefore be utilized in a conservative fashion so future generations can enjoy the products that can be produced from it.

From the Executive Committee Chairman WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM When the Washington Public Power In 1970 the evolution of growth Supply System was formed 19 years needs resulted in the re-structure of ago, many of the present problems the Supply System's policy-making of electrical energy production were process. Management was provided only a future possibility. Events of with a strong fast-acting Executive the past several years have proven Committee to carry out the direc-the wisdom of creating this joint tives of the Board of Directors.

operating agency.

In compliance with the Joint In this era of energy shortage when Operating Agency law embodied in America must become self-suffic- the general public utility district laws ient in order to survive and progress, of Washington State, the Executive there must be someone to initiate Committee meets with Manage-and carry through the process of ment at least twice each month to providing for the energy needs of review and to act upon matters at people, commerce and industry. hand. Management and the Execu-tive Committee thus form a resolute The Supply System has been team for decision making and assigned the task of making things action. This 1975 report reflects the happen for electrical energy produc- positive results of an excellent tion in the Pacific Northwest. From Management working with the a very small beginning, the Supply Executive Committee, each group System has become a multi-billion understanding its respective role, dollar organization, as this annual and acting with the goal of getting report reveals. Through the co- things done.

operation of its 21 member public utility districts and municipalities, The rapid growth of the Supply with guidance from its Board of System during the past five years Directors, and working with the bears evidence that Management Bonneville Power Administration, and Staff, in concert with the the Public Power Council, industry Executive Committee, have been and some private utilities, the diligent in carrying out the directives Supply System has proven to be a of the governing board to provide viable entity capable of getting for future energy generation in the things done. This broad base of Pacific Northwest. The accomplish-support in the Pacific Northwest ments of the past have established provides the impetus, for the the foundation for continued agency's success and growth. progress and leadership in electrical energy production.

Ed Fischer, Chairman, Executive Committee

The Managing Director's Report WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM For almost 10 Construction progress on the 1100 To control these ever-increasing years the electric megawatt WPPSS Nuclear Project costs, the following actions must be utilities of the No. 2 is approximately 28 percent taken:

Pacific North- complete versus a projected 44 west have been percent completion at this time. 1. The time from conception to endeavoring to completion of thermal power plants alert the public There are several reasons for the must be reduced. Ten years is much to the fact that difference between actual and too long to permit accurate and the era of plenti- scheduled percent of completion. realistic planning.

ful low cost hydroelectric power Our need to maintain the highest has ended. standards of quality assurance has 2. The public and the government on occasion slowed some phases of regulators must come to an In order to provide additional the work. understanding on what constitutes electric power at the lowest cost acceptable risks in the generation of and with minimum adverse impact The most critical impact on the electric power.

on the environment, the region's construction schedule, and on utilities, public and private, together 3. There must be a slowdown in the construction costs, has been the with the Bonneville Power Adminis- need to make substantial revisions implementation of new safety and tration, have developed a hydro- to plant design to meet new guides environmental regulations for pro-thermal program to supply the and codes adopted by the U.S. jects under construction.

Pacific Northwest's electric needs Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

4. Industry must strive to improve through the mid-1980s. This pro-gram was designed to supplement These changes required modifica- financing, design, construction and all available hydro power with operation of these large complex tions of work in progress. Because energy from thermal power plants. projects.

of a shortage of skilled manpower, qualified personnel had to be pulled 5. Local, state and federal agencies Under this program the 21 members off other work to develop designs of the Supply System accepted the involved in the planning, licensing, meeting the new NRC requirements responsibility for construction of designing, constructing and operat-to prevent significant delays and five nuclear power plants costing in ing of nuclear power plants must increased costs which would have excess of $ 5 billion. These projects coordinate their efforts and elimin-resulted from backfitting at a later will provide more than six million ate duplication.

date.

kilowatts, or approximately 36 percent of the thermal generating 6. A greater effort must be made by As a result of changing criteria, with capacity scheduled for the Pacific industry and by state and federal accompanying delays and escala- governments to inform the public of Northwest. tion, WPPSS Nuclear Project the available energy alternatives and No. 2 has increased from a $ 614 to provide sufficient information to As our responsibilities have increas- million estimated cost to the present serve as the basis on which choices ed, so have our challenges. $ 794 million. What has happened to can be made between reasonable or WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2 is not practical alternatives.

In the summer of 1974, a number of unique in either delays or increased turbine blades in one of the Hanford costs. Utilities throughout the 7. The government must reduce the Generating Project's two 430,000 nation are having similar experien- inflation rate.

kilowatt turbine-generators were ces.

inspected and found to be damag- We can ill afford to procrastinate on ed. Interim repairs were made and The Supply System, the more than the issues. The sooner we begin to the unit was returned to service at 100 utilities participating in our implement these actions, the better reduced capacity. projects, and the Bonneville Power will be our prospects for the future-Administration are deeply concern- economically and socially.

This year during summer mainten- .ed with these ever increasing costs, ance we discovered blade damage because the ultimate cost of the in the other turbine-generator. projects must be paid by the Again, interim repairs were made. electric power users.

One turbine-generator now is operating at 86 percent of capacity, and the other at 93 percent. J. J. Stein, Managing Director

These artist's concepts show five Supply System nuclear power plants: Nuclear Project No. 2 (top); Nuclear Project No. 1 with Nuclear Project No. 4 above it (center), and Nuclear Projects No. 3, left, and No. 5 (bottom).

Overview 75 WA'SHlNG'TON PVHLlC POWER SUPPLY,,SYSTEM',

Safety analysis reports and results of environmental site studies fill many volumes for each Supply System project.

1976. The addition of these contracts to the existing uranium

~

~

~ supply contracts meets the fuel requirements for five Supply Sys-tem nuclear power plants through 1983. Two of these five plants (Nuclear Projects No. 2 and No. 3) have uranium supply contracts for deliveries extending into the mid-1990s.

These uranium acquisitions were factored into the Supply System's heart annual 10-year fuel management plans for Nuclear Projects 1 through

<<g 5. The plans set forth the uranium ore and separative work require-ments for all five nuclear projects, permitting a comparison of require-ments vs. commitments. Also considered in the fuel management IIIR88 8 8IIII txImlzile plan are services to convert uranium oxide to uranium hexafluoride, in which form it is enriched by the U.

S. Energy Research and Develop-Throughout 1975, the Supply To provide an adequate power System devoted considerable effort supply for our members, the primary ment Administration. Present plans to preparing for the future. efforts of the Supply System in 1975 are to request conversion through were devoted to ensuring that our 1985. Contracts with ERDA to Looking beyond the horizon is not present projects would be available provide enrichment services for each project for 30 years were only desirable but is necessary in an when needed, and to the develop-industry concerned about use ment of plans for the Supply signed in 1974. Also on the subject patterns for electricity 20 years from System to undertake future electric of enrichment, the Supply System is now, and which is confronted with generating projects to meet project- considering formation with several the prospect of having to devote as ed loads after the mid-1980s.

other utilities of a Northwest much as 10 to 12 years to bring a Enrichment Pool. This arrangement power generating project on line At the same time the Supply would give the Supply System from conception through construc- System was building or preparing to increased flexibility in its fuel tion to operation. build five nuclear power plants, it management by expediting trading also was looking ahead to secure a units of enrichment service between fuel supply for these projects. member utilities.

At the end of June 1975, the The Supply System also is Executive Committee approved investigating the possibility of direct uranium supply contracts with participation in uranium exploration Western Nuclear Inc., Denver, and development of uranium-bear-Colorado, and with Rio Algom ing lands to supplement normal pro-Mining Ltd. of Toronto, Canada.

curement channels in obtaining as-The Western Nuclear contract calls surance of long-term uranium for the delivery of 5.5 million pounds supplies.

of uranium oxide in the 1979-83 period at $ 22 per pound, escalated Progress on construction of nuclear from December 1974. The Rio projects reached the point during 1975 where it became prudent for Algom contract is for one million

.pounds of uranium oxide which is the Supply System to construct a expected to be delivered in early Central Warehouse and Office Facility adjacent to its Head-quarters in Richland.

10

The Supply System's Central Warehouse and Office Facility in Richland was constructed and occupied in 1975.

Construction of the $ 1,150,000 management system in an off-site assurance, purchasing, data pro-facility began April 14 and the computer. A DATA 100 Model 74 cessing, and central filing. Staff occupancy permit was received terminal unit was installed during level at the end of November 1975 from the City of Richland on 1975, along with a 600 line-per- was 437, of which 15 were September 17. The structure minute printer and a 600 card-per- temporary. There were 47 employ-provides 50,000 square feet of minute reader. The construction ees at the Hanford Generating warehouse floor with a 22,000- managers for the three Supply Project, 16 at the Nuclear Project square-foot mezzanine, and 16,500 System nuclear projects now under No. 2 site, 2 at the Packwood square feet of office area. construction at Hanford are using Project, 2 at Elma near the Nuclear this data transmission equipment for Project No. 3 site, and the Spare parts for Nuclear Project No. input/output service to provide remainder in Richland.

2 began arriving at Richland in mid- engineering, scheduling, progress, summer, and by the end of the year, and financial reports. The Supply The Supply System's Affirmative all spare parts on hand and other System's Fuels and Technical Stud- Action goals for 1975 were stores materials had been moved ies personnel also make extensive essentially achieved in all divisions.

into the new warehouse. use of the data processing facilities Affirmative action and equal em-in preparation of fuel management ployment opportunity continued to An emergency plan was drafted plans and economic and other be promoted in all areas. The result during 1975 in anticipation of the analytical studies. of this effort was an increase during operation of the Supply System's the year in placement of women and nuclear projects at Hanford. Pro- Yet another data processing appli- members of minority groups in the cedural agreements were made with cation was under development at work force.

medical facilities, federal law en- year's end. This involved converting forcement agencies and other local the increasing volume of project-and state entities concerned with related data into micro forms and public health and safety whose using a computerized system for efforts will be required in case of data retrieval. This will enable the plan implementation. Supply System to maintain rapid, efficient control, retention, and The Supply System's computer retrieval of data as volume in-capabilities are being put to use to creases.

develop and update reports of allocation of funds to contracts for Accelerating activities on behalf of the different projects and to serve as its several projects required the a management tool to assist in Supply System to increase its staff making future allocations. In par- capabilities during 1975. During the ticular, through its terminal facilities year, more than 100 employees in Richland, the Supply System has were added to the staff, particularly access to a MARK IV file in the areas of operations, quality 11

At year's end, Congress passed and When the utilities in the Pacific generating plants at these sites the President enacted into law Northwest look into the future a include geothermal, hydro, pumped legislation creating the Hells Canyon decade or more, they see a need for storage, solar, and thermal.

National Recreation Area, thereby construction and operation of ad-nullifying almost two decades of ditional electric generating plants to The Woodward-Clyde thermal effort by the Supply System and the meet future anticipated needs. As power plant siting study covered an Pacific Northwest Power Company a regional constructor and operator area of 170,000 square miles, (PNPC) to develop the hydroelectric of power plants, it is logical that the including the entire State of potential of the Middle Reach of the Supply System be asked by the Washington, northern and western Snake River, between the States of utilities to study potential power Oregon, and northern Idaho.

Idaho and Oregon. sources of the future, and to look Through application of a screening into the siting of future power process, the most suitable parts of The Supply System and PNPC had plants. this vast area were successively sought a joint license from the evaluated until finally nine can-Federal Power Commission to In January 1975, Woodward-Gizien- didate sites ranging in size from 400 construct two dams in this area of ski & Associates, consulting en- to 1,000 acres were identified. This the river. At the time the recreation gineers and geologists of San work was described in a summary area legislation was enacted, the Diego, California, completed a report issued in December 1975.

joint application was before the study for the Supply System of the Commission for final determination. geothermal resource potential in These nine sites were the best Central Washington State. The typical sites in areas of several The major impact of the bill is to purpose of the study was to identify square miles, in the judgment of the deprive Pacific Northwest power likely geothermal areas in the state consultant. Physically, they would users of about 6 billion kilowatt- and to provide the Supply System have the potential for location of at hours of low-cost electricity gener- with an estimate of the type of least two large thermal power ated by falling water, a self-renew- geothermal resources to be found plants, depending on the local water ing resource. This is the equivalent there. In such areas, naturally availability situation. Three of the of 10 to 12 million barrels of oil, 4 occurring underground heat might Washington State sites are in Lewis million tons of coal, or 60 billion be used for future electrical County, one is in Grays Harbor cubic feet of natural gas a year. generation. County, one in Wahkiakum County, and one in Benton County. In In the face of national energy The study indicated that the most Oregon, one site each is identified in shortages, coupled with the need to favorable area in Central Washing- Clatsop, Linn, and Umatilla coun-cut oil imports and conserve the ton is north of the Columbia River ties.

nation's fossil fuel resources, between Mt. St. Helens and Mt.

enactment of this legislation Adams. It was estimated that it In addition, three sites previously appears contrary to the public would take more than $ 11 million identified by Pacific Northwest interest. and an exploration program of three public utilities were considered by years to determine whether or not the consultant. They are located in there is any such resource in this Washington State in Benton, area. Cowlitz, and Grant Counties.

The firm of Woodward-Clyde Con- There has not yet been a decision to sultants, San Francisco, California, build power plants at any of the sites worked throughout 1975 under the mentioned in the Woodward-Clyde Supply System's direction on a study, and in fact such a decision long-range planning program that will not be made before a definite will be used to identify the best need for additional power has been potential future sites for electric confirmed and before there has generating facilities that will be been an extensive dialogue with needed after the mid-1980s. Power residents in potential power plant sources being considered for the site areas and with appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies.

Poster Projects WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEIVI

Packwood Lake, accessible by Forest trail, is a popular summer 'ervice recreation area.

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project The Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project occupies lands of the Gifford Pin chot National Forest in the Cascade Mountains of Washington State. The project consists of a Ep diversion structure a short distance downstream from the discharge of 1g<

Packwood Lake (area of the lake is about 450 acres), an intake structure, and a 22,000-foot pipeline to convey the water through two tunnels and around a mountain to a surge tank and penstock a short distance southeast of the town of

'Packwood. The tailrace from the powerhouse discharges into the Cowlitz River.

Since starting commercial genera-tion of electricity on June 1, 1964, the 31,500 kilowatt Packwood Project has generated more than 1.1 billion kilowatt-hours. It has operat-ed nearly 90 percent of the time during the 11 l~ years since and repair during the summer commercial operation began. Power months, helped maintain that Hanford from the project is allocated through record. Generating Project Bonneville Power Administration to public utility districts in Benton, Cost for electricity produced by the The 860,000 kilowatt Hanford Clallam, Clark, Franklin, Ferry, project is competitive with that Generating Project (HGP) set Kittitas, Klickitat, Lewis, Mason, produced by other non-federal records during 1975 for both the Skamania, Snohomish and Wahkia- hydroelectric projects and is about longest continuous run in its history kum Counties in Washington State. one mill above the Bonneville Power and for amount of electricity Administration wholesale firm generated during a run.

The project operated dependably energy (EC-6) rate.

and uneventfully during 1975. A The start of 1975 found the continuing preventive maintenance FINANCIALINFORMATION HGP'ell into its record-setting run.

program, supplemented by cleanup Packwood operating costs for the When the steam source for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1975, project, the Energy Research and were $ 918,091. Plant additions Development Administration's N during 1975 totaled $ 9,336; as of Reactor, was shut down for June 30, 1975, the plant value, less refueling on February 24, it had depreciation, amounted to $ 9,379,- provided steam to the HGP for 62 274. Total assets of the project as of continuous days. The two turbine-June 30, 1975, were $ 13,423,320. generators at HGP operated during that time at a combined power level As reserves in excess of those of 830,000 kilowatts, producing a required to meet commitments total generation during the run of accumulate, they are used to retire 1,221,530,000 kilowatt-hours.

bonds ahead of schedule by purchasing them in the open Following reactor refueling, the market. In 1975, $ 140,000 was HGP-N Reactor complex resumed expended for this purpose. operation in mid-March to conclude the annual contract commitment for 14

The Supply System's Hanford Generating Project, upper left, receives steam through overhead pipes from the Energy Research and Development Administration's dual purpose N Reactor, right center.

I

.v~

c gfa~ *<<

I L

~ ~~~ ~ a' tp IV 4

L steam between ERDA and the test technique to analyze the was assembled from salvaged Supply System. During the period conditions that prevail during blades. The station output was from startup after February's reactor operation in an effort to determine limited to 780,000 kilowatts by these refueling to shutdown May 9, the the cause of the blade problems modifications.

HGP-N Reactor complex operated identified in both turbines.

continuously for an additional 51 FINANCIALINFORMATION days, the second longest run in its Turbine=-generator Unit 2 was history. Generation averaged returned to service on September 11 Pursuant to the bond resolution, the 835,000 kilowatts. Total generation at a generation level of 370,000 Hanford Generating Project's fiscal during Fiscal Year 1975 was kilowatts, some 60,000 kilowatts year ends on August 31. The 3,838,858,000 kilowatt-hours. below the normal level. The project's operating costs for the decreased output was due to fiscal year ended August 31, 1975, On May 4, near the end of the fiscal replacement of defective blades by were $ 31,003,871. Plant additions year run, the HG P-N Reactor pressure plates. By the end of during fiscal year 1975 totaled complex generated its 30 billionth November, Unit 1 was back in $ 11,549; as of August 31, 1975, the kilowatt-hour of electricity. This was operation with two pressure plates plant value, less depreciation, more power than had been produc- in one low-pressure section, and amounted to $ 51,043,641. Total ed at any other single nuclear two rows of blades installed in the assets of the project as of August generating plant in the world. To other low=-pressure section. One row 31, 1975, were $ 70,515,739.

generate the same amount of was new blades and the other row electricity, a fossil fuel power plant would have had to burn nearly 11 million tons of coal or more than 50 million barrels of oil.

The annual HGP maintenance program began May 9, including dismantling and inspecting both turbines. The turbine manufacturer had developed a refined and reliable 15

A welder works in the Reactor Building at WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2.

+. r A sign of progress was the advance- slippage of scheduled project Nuclear Project No. 2 ment of overall construction during completion from June 1978 to July the year from 13 percent to 28 1979.

Two words "progress" and percent by December 1975. At that "problems" both can be used, time, work was in progress on 15 of As is the case with all nuclear power paradoxically, to describe 1975 the 16 major construction contracts, plants now under construction, activities associated with WPPSS including general construction; WNP=2 is susceptible to technology Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2). structural steel erection; architect- improvements, imposition of WNP-2 has a General Electric ural construction; mechanical changes in federal Nuclear Regula-nuclear steam supply system using a equipment installation and piping; tory Commission requirements, and boiling water reactor. The Westing- heating, ventilating, air conditioning problems that plague any large, house turbine-generator is rated at and plumbing; electrical installation; complex construction project. Pro-1,135,000 kilowatts. The plant cooling towers and accessories; blems experienced in each of these features off-stream cooling of the make-up water pumphouse; and areas in 1974 required assignment of turbine condenser using a system of warehousing. a top level Supply System executive six circular mechanical draft cooling to coordinate work on the project towers. The plant site is about 10 Scheduled construction by the end for the first part of 1975 and again miles north of the City of Richland, of calendar year 1975 had been later in the year. In addition, Burns and three miles west of the estimated at 45 percent. Delays in & Roe, ihe WNP-2 architect-Columbia River. some of the major construction engineer and construction manager, areas, along with design revisions, and the key contractors acquired accounted for failure to meet this additional skilled manpower in all projection and resulted in a one-year areas of engineering and craft work in an effort to improve the schedule.

16

Steel and concrete rise to form the radwaste, turbine. generator, and reactor buildings at Nuclear Project No. 2.

Project manning level went from about 900 at the start of 1975 to more than 1,300 at year's end, and work on the reactor building went on a multiple shift basis in, an effort to expedite that critical phase of the project.

Several problems experienced dur-ing the year contributed to delaying the project schedule. In the spring of 1975, some of the weids on a pipe whip support bracket tore the inside of the containment vessel. After an extensive investigation into the reasons for the tearing, repairs were made on a three-shift basis over a period of two months. There then followed two weeks of testing to assure that the repair work complied with American Society of Mechani-cal Engineer Codes, Nuclear Regula-tory Commission safety criteria, and Supply System policies.

A re-analysis of loads anticipated on the containment vessel in the event of accidental releases of large volumes of steam made it necessary tion of wire, cable and conduit, report printout contained 65,536 QA to design strengthening for the $ 43,725,111; to Westinghouse Elec- records.

vesssel after it had been fabricated tric Corp. for turbine-generator and pressure tested (testing was installation, $ 3,037,784; and to FINANCIALINFORMATION completed on June 2). The NRC Peter Kiewit & Sons for architect-also required a design change in the ural construction, S7,150,000. The Supply System has issued sacrificial shield wall that will be $ 480,000,000 of revenue bonds to installed above the reactor vessel as A National Pollutant Discharge pay a portion of the cost of additional protection against im- Elimination System (NPDES) permit acquiring and constructing the pacts. This necessitated a number was issued for WNP-2 following a project. The bonds are rated of drawing changes before con- hearing held in Richland March 6.

"triple-A" by both Moody's and struction and installation of the This permit allows the Supply Standard & Poor's.

shield could proceed. System to discharge excess water from the project into the Columbia Burns and Roe, the project archi-Nevertheless, more than 78,000 River, and sets forth the controls tect-engineer, submitted a revised cubic yards of concrete were placed and quality standards for .this capital cost estimate in the fall of at WNP-2 during 1975. Twenty-one discharge. On March 14, the Supply 1975. Total estimated project costs out of 26 construction specifications System received the U. S. Army rose from $ 614 million to $ 794 had been awarded by year's end, Corps of Engineers permits allowing million. The increased costs were with a total committed cost for the start of construction for the river attributed to escalation of the cost these contracts of $ 180,983,000. intake and discharge facilities for the of labor and materials, architect-Sixty-seven out of 72 prepurchased project. Construction of these engineering services, financing ex-equipment specifications had been facilities was about 60 percent penses and taxes.

awarded, with a total committed complete by the end of 1975.

cost for these contracts of

$ 96,610,000. Major contracts were The quality assurance documenta-awarded during 1975 to Fischbach/ tion requirement analysis covering Lord Electric Company (a joint all prepurchased equipment con-venture) for installation and testing tracts was completed during the of electrical equipment and installa- summer of 1975. The computerized 17

The first concrete is poured at Nuclear Project No. 1, beginning the foundation for the reactor containment building.

Nuclear Projects Mo.1 and Mo. 4 In 1975, WPPSS Nuclear Projects

No. 1 and No. 4 (WNP1 and WNP-4) started to move off the drawing boards and make the ~ . ~L gQMp" < 8':

physical transition to steel and -,'P, concrete.

The two duplicate nuclear power plants are situated some 3,000 feet apart on a site about 10 miles north of the City of Richland, Washing-ton. Each plant will use a Babcock &

Wilcox pressurized water reactor.

The Westinghouse turbine-genera-tor at each plant will have an electrical output of around 1,250,-

000 kijowatts.

For Nuclear Project No. 1, the receipt of, a federal construction permit on December 23, 1975, cul-minated more than three years of Supply System effort. The project Site investigation and engineering had begun in late 1972 as an As time went on, however, it became increasingly important to and design work for the two intended replacement nuclear steam the regional power supply picture projects proceeded at maximum supply system for the U. S. Energy effort during 1975 with the aim of Research and Development Admin-that the N Reactor-Hanford Genera-ting Project complex continue securing state and federal approval istration's N Reactor, situated on operating into the late 1970s rather for them as soon as possible. In the ERDA Hanford Reservation. The than shut down for the construction mid-March, the state Thermal N Reactor provides sufficient of a new nuclear steam supply Power Plant Site Evaluation Council surplus steam to the Supply (TPPSEC) held site certification system. To maintain this continuity System's adjacent Hanford Gener-of operation, the Supply System's hearings in Olympia, the state' ating Project to enable the HGP's Board of Directors in May 1974 capital. All testimony was complet-two turbine-generators to produce authorized addition of a new ed in one week's time and the more than 800,000 kilowatts of turbine-generator, cooling cycle, hearing record closed except for the electricity. and attendant facilities to the subject of socioeconomic impact.

nuclear steam supply system, and The Council kept that portion of the authorized locating the completely record open until completion and independent power plant at a site on review of a socioeconomic impact the Hanford Reservation somewhat study for the two projects made by less than one mile from WNP-2. Woodward-Clyde, consultants to the Supply System.

Two months later, in July 1974, the Supply System's Executive Com- The following month, May 13-15, mittee formally authorized actions the federal Atomic Safety and leading to development of a Licensing Board (ASLB) held duplicate nuclear power plant near hearings in Richland to gather the new WNP-1 site. This new plant evidence to be considered by the was identified as WNP-4. WNP-1 is Board before making a decision on scheduled to begin commercial issuance of a Limited Work operation in March 1981, and Authorization (LWA) for WNP-1 WNP-4 in March 1982. and WNP-4. The Board heard 18

Excavation work in progress at Nuclear Project No. 4.

xL.

'h testimony in a number of areas, both state and federal approval, the The supplement made it possible to including the need for power, site work for WNP-1 could proceed continue work at WNP-1 up to the site suitability, and anticipated plant at full speed. Indeed, throughout granting of the construction permit, releases. The same week, the the fall of 1975, excavation at both and will make it possible for work to Advisory Committee on Reactor plants proceeded ahead of continue at WNP-4 into 1976 to the Safeguards met in Richland to schedule, with a total of more than 2 time that project is expected to explore a number of safety million cubic yards excavated and receive a construction permit from questions relating to the projects, placement of compacted backfill the NRC.

including offsite power sources, begun at WNP-1.

environmental surveillance pro- In other construction activity in grams, and accident analyses. With the initial work progressing so progress at the WNP-1 site at year' well at the site, the Supply System end, the concrete batch plant was By early July, TPP SEC had felt it prudent to request an being readied for operation, power prepared and submitted a Site expanded Limited Work Authoriza- cables were being installed for road Certification Agreement for WNP-1 tion from the NRC to allow and yard lights, forming for the and WNP-4 to Washington Gov- installation of concrete foundations concrete foundation work in the ernor Daniel J. Evans. The governor and walls up to grade level for some main excavation was under way, signed the agreement on August 8, permanent structures such as the two wells for construction water thus giving the Supply System state containment, general services, and had been drilled, two office authorization to proceed with turbine-generator buildings, and buildings and a warehouse had been construction and operation of the pumphouses. An ASLB hearing for constructed, and several roads and projects. this supplemental LWA was held rail spurs were under construction.

September 29 and, with a favorable There were 240 persons at work One week earlier, on August 1, the ASLB ruling, the NRC issued the onsite.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission supplemental LWA on October 2.

(NRC) had issued a Limited Work Authorization for WNP-1 and WNP-4, allowing the Supply System to begin preliminary site preparation and excavation. With 19

Surveying (left) and taking soil samples at the bottom of the Nuclear Project No. 1 excavation were two of the many operations required before major con-struction began.

United Engineers & Constructors, architect-engineer and construction manager for WNP-1 and WNP-4, reported that engineering and design effort was more than 40 percent complete as the year ended.

Major construction contracts were awarded during 1975 to Power City Electric for temporary electrical facilities, $ 5,113,077; to U.S. Eleva-tor Corp. for elevators and dumb-waiters, $ 3,155,700; to J. J.

Welcome Construction Company for grading, major excavation, and earthwork, $ 3,642,442; to Transco Pacific Co. for railroad work,

$ 977,000; to Boecon Company for temporary facilities, $ 3,030,000; to Hoffman Construction Company for substructure concrete, $ 11,436,000; to Boecon Corporation for stainless steel liners, $ 5,125,000; to the A-C I Joint Venture for structural steel,

$ 19,482,000; and to Zurn Industries, I Inc., for cooling towers, $ 11,597,-

859 for WNP-1 with an option for WNP-4 of $ 11,397,862.

$ 2,006,200; to Boeing Engineering constructing WNP-1. The bonds Major prepurchased equipment and Construction for major equip- were rated "triple-A" by both contracts were awarded during the ment supports, $ 7,995,000; and to Moody's and Standard & Poor's.

year to Mine Safety Appliances Co. Westinghouse Electric Corp. for Proceeds are being used to finance for atmospheric cleanup trains, feedwater heaters, $ 8,310,480, and part of the cost of construction and

$ 8,882,000; to Mitsui & Company for turbine condensers, $ 4,148,125 will be used to retire $ 77 million of (USA) for heat exchangers, for WNP-1 with an option for WNP=-1 revenue notes in December

$ 6,186,000; to Ederer, Inc., for WNP-4 of $ 4,183,300. 1976. Additional bonds are planned turbine and heater bay cranes, to be issued from time to time as additional construction funds are FINANCIALINFORMATION required.

Although WNP-1 and WNP-4 are duplicate plants from a physical It is presently planned that WNP-4 standpoint, they will be financed and the Supply System's ownership separately by the issuance of interest in WNP-5 (described long-term revenue bonds. elsewhere in this report) will be financed collectively in total. The The Supply System issued $ 175 Supply System issued $ 100 million million of long-term revenue bonds of revenue bonds in July 1975 to in September 1975 to pay a portion finance preliminary work on these of the costs of acquiring and projects.

In the fall of 1975, United Engineers Ef Constructors submitted a revised capital cost estimate for both projects. Total estimated project costs for WNP=-1 rose to $ 1.147 billion from $ 990 million, and WNP-4 costs rose to $ 1.095 billion from $ 1.009 billion.

20

Fertile farmland surrounds the confluence of the ChehalisRiver (left) and the Satsop River (bottom right). The site for Nuclear Pro)acts No, 3 and No. 6 is on one of the forested ridges (near background) 1'/~

miles south of this point 4t P

)

ip'

'( h< are stated at the lower accounted for on the records of Project of the plan to the projects is determined by of amortized cost or market as provided by No. 2 is being depreciated on the the Retirement System's Board. The their respective bond resolutions. Interest straight-line basis over its estimated useful actuarily computed value of pension earned on investments during construc- life. benefits exceeds the fund assets for the tion is recorded as a reduction of Retirement System. However, because construction costs. Contributions Used for Purchase of the Retirement System is a multi.employer Equlpmont-Packwood and Hanford Projocts system, the amount of such excess, if any, The market value, including accrued Monies provided by participants to acquire that relates to the Supply System is not interest, of investments held in the sinking equipment since completion of the available.

and special funds and as current assets as projects are accounted for as contributions of June 30, 1975 approximates amortized in aid of construction and are applied as a cost. reduction of the carrying value of plant in-service.

Doproclatlon and Amortization Provisions for depreciation of the Hanford Oporatlng Rovenuos and Packwood Projects'tility plants have Because member purchasers of power are been computed on the straight-line basis contractually obligated to pay project using an estimated life ending in 1996 and 2012, respectively, (the final redemption years of the respective project's Revenue Bondsl which approximates the estimated lives of the projects.

In the event that the Hanford Project ceases operations as discussed in Note D, the then carrying value of the plant will continue to be depreciated over the remaining term of the outstanding revenue bonds. Regardless of continued opera-tions, the purchasers of power from the project will continue to be obligated to pay the principal amount of bonded debt, 29

Note C - Revenue Notes and Bonds Outstanding revenue notes and bonds of the various projects as of June 30, 1975, consist of the following (amounts in thousands):

Packwood Effective Lake "Future" Interest Hanford Hydroelectric Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Generating Rate Project Project Project ¹1 Project ¹2 Project ¹3 Facilities Hanford Project Electric Revenue Bonds, Series of 1963, 2.4% to 3.25% due in varying annual amounts through 1986 except S27,585 due September 1, 1996. 3.26% S6O,04O Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Revenue Bonds, Series of 1962, 3.625%

maturing March 1, 2012. 3.66% S 9,971 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Revenue Bonds, Series of '1965, 3.75%

maturing March 1, 2012 3.76% 2,985 WNP No. 1 Revenue Notes, Series 1973, r 4.25% maturing December 15, 1975 4.27% S 25,000 WNP No. 1 Revenue Notes, Series 1974, 5.90% maturing December 15, 1976 6 04% 77,000 WNP No. 2 Revenue Bonds, Series 1973, 5.0% to 5.7% due in varying amounts through 1991 except S124,400 due July 1, 2012. 4 66% S150,000 WNP No. 2 Revenue Bonds, Series 1974, 6.5% to 7.375% due in varying amounts through 1994 except S15,000 due July 1, 1999, and S37,000 due July 1, 2012. 7.21%

WNP No. 2 Revenue Bonds, Series 1974A, 7.2% to 7.75% due in varying amounts through 1994 except S15,000 due July 1, 1999, and S78,000due July1,2012. 125,000 WNP No. 2 Revenue Bonds, Series 1975A, 6.60% to 6.875% due in varying amounts through 1994 except S15,000 due July 1, 1999, and S78,000 due July 1, 2012. 6 71% 125,000 WNP No. 3 Revenue Notes, Series 1973A, 4.375% maturing June 15, 1976. 38% S 29,000 WPPSS Generating Facilities Revenue Notes, Sedes 1974, 4.7% maturing December 15, 1975 S 2,500 WPPSS Generating Facilities Revenue Notes, Series 1974A, 7.75% maturing June 15, 1976. 8.0 15,000 S 60,040 S 12,956 S102,000(A) S480,000 S 29,000(A) S17,500 Current maturities on the above debt S 1,130 S 110 S 24,997 S S 29,000 S17,500 (A) - Subsequenrly refinanced byissuance ofrevenue bondsin the amounrs of $ 175 MO MOand $ 150 MO MO for Nuclear Projects Nos. 1 and 3, respectively.

30

Security for the to pay the principal of and interest on all of Note D - Commitments the notes as they become due and payable and Contingency Supply System's notes and bonds unless the notes are paid or provision is is summarized as follows: made for the payment thereof from other monies of the Supply Sysyem lawfully The estimated costs of the projects are available therefor. Subsequent to June 30, discussed elsewhere in this report.

Agroomonts and Contracts 1975, the Supply System obtained The participants of the Hanford Project $ 100,G00,000 through issuance of WPPSS The Suqply System has entered into and Nuclear Projects Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Generating Facilities Revenue Bonds; contracts covering a portion of total which are utilities operating principally in qroceeds were used in part to establish a estimated costs for certain major the Western United States, have entered fund to retire at maturity the Series 1974 equipment and material, and for services into Net Billing Agreements (referred to as ($ 2,500,000) and 1974A ($ 15,000,000) relating to financing, design, and the an Exchange Agreement with 'respect to Revenue Notes. supply of nuclear fuel for the projects the Hanford Project) with the Supply under construction and those in various As security for the $ 100,000,000 of stages of preliminary planning. At June System and Bonneville Power Administra-tion. Pursuant to the agreements, the Generating Facilities Revenue Bonds, the 30, 1975, the total contract amounts, less Supqly System has sold all of the Supply System has entered into Option payments, by project were approximately:

and Services Agreements with 93 to the participants of each projects'apability project. The participants of each project participants (which are utilities operating Nuclear Project No. 1 $ 186,000,000 have agreed to purchase a stipulated principally in the Western United States).

percentage of each project's capability. As Under these agreements, the participants Nuclear Project No. 2 $ 280,000,000 have obtained options to become parties payment for the purchase of power, each to a Participants'greement which participant is obligated to pay the Supply Nuclear Project No. 3 $ 227,000,000 System its pro rata share of the annual provides for the purchase and sale of the cost of each project, including debt participants'hares of the capability of the "Future" Generating service. In turn, the participants have projects. The agreements provide, among Facilities $ 364,000,000 assigned their respective interest in each other things, for the 93 participants to qroject's capability to BPA. BPA is make advance payments to the Supply System in an amount sufficient to pay the The U. S. Energy and Research Develop-obligated to credit the amounts paid to the ment Administration (ERDA), one of the Supply System by the participants against principal of and interest on all of the bonds as they become due and payable unless successor agencies to the Atomic Energy amounts owed to BPA by the participants Commission, owns and operates the for qower and certain services provided by the bonds are paid or provision is made for the payment thereof from other monies of nuclear reactor which provides steam to BPA. BPA is so obligated whether or not the Hanford Project. The reactor is the projects are completed, operable, or the Supply System lawfully available therefor. operated for the production of plutonium operating and notwithstanding the sus- for national defense, and steam is a by-pension, interruption, interference, reduc- product of such production. In 1971, tion or curtailment of each project's Security - Creation of Funds ERDA suspended its operation of the outqu't. Under provisions of the various revenue reactor. However, the Supply System note and bond resolutions, the Supply entered into an agreement in 1971 with The Supply System's Packwood Project System has been required to establish ERDA to continue dual purpose operation Revenue Bonds are secured by power trustee-administered sinking funds for the of the reactor through October 1977. The sales contracts between the Supply sole purpose of paying principal and agreement requires annual payments of System and 12 of its members. Pursuant interest on the notes and bonds. $ 22,500,000 plus maintenance charges for to these agreements, each of the 12 continued operation of the reactor. The members purchases and pays the With respect to projects in the planning Supply System is continuing efforts to percentage allocation of power specified and/or construction phase, proceeds of work out new agreements which will therein at rates which will be sufficient to revenue notes and bonds not specifically extend the operation of the project beyond operate and maintain the project, required to meet principal and interest October 1977.

including debt service on the bonds. Such payments have been placed in special payments will continue until the bonds are funds. Thespecial fundsareto be used for paid or provision is made for their payment planning and/or construction purposes.

or retirement. The contracts also provide The special funds may be used, if that if any of the 12 members, because of necessary, to make required interest and insolvency or bankruptcy, fails to pay its principal payments.

respective share of project annual costs, 8 of the 12 members, which account for The Hanford and Packwood Projects each 91.75 percent 'of the project's power have established a Reserve and Contin-output, are liable for an automatic pro rata gency Fund (included as Special Funds in increase of the shares not so paid. The the accompanying balance sheets). As remaining 4 member purchasers are provided in the bond resolutions, the limited in their liability for a pro rata funds are to be used, among other things, increase to an aggregate amount equal to to make up any deficiencies in the Bond double their original percentages. Funds and to pay for extraordinary operation and maintenance costs, replace-The Generating Facilities notes are ments and contingencies.

secured by Revenue Note Agreements between the Supply System and 19 of its In addition, amounts in special cash members. The agreements provide, deposits are held in trust for the among other things, for each of the 19 bondholders or noteholders for the members to make advance payments to payment of principal and interest on notes the Supply Systemin an amount sufficient and bonds.

3'l

Note D - Commitments and Noto E- Proiiminary Survey and system of federal wild river, recreation and Contingoncy [Continued] investigation Costs - General Fund wilderness areas.

[Unaudited] Monies expended by the General Fund of The present agreement provides for the the Supply System for preliminary Supply System to reimburse ERDA for The Supply System has recorded planning costs, as explained above, have termination and standby charges and $ 3,380,706 including interest on advances been advanced by its members and project shutdown costs (estimated to approximate (see below), as preliminary survey and participants. It has been agreed that

$ 9,235,000I arising from the future investigation costs relating to certain repayment of the amount advanced plus suspension of the reactor. The participants projects which have been under considera- interest thereon at 4% per annum to the of Nuclear Project No. 1 have agreed to tion. The most significant such project is member-participants will be made solely pay all such termination and standby the Middle Snake Hydroelectric Project for from the proceeds of the'sale of revenue charges and shutdown costs. Also, these which approximately $ 3,300,000 has been bonds issued by the Supply System to participants have agreed to pay, commen- charged. finance the construction of the project or cing January 1, 1980, all debt service costs any alternate project ultimately construct-The Middle Snake Hydroelectric Project ed. Such advances amounting to of the Hanford Project regardless of continued operation of the reactor. was originally intended to consist of two $ 2,292,644 plus accrued interest of Outstanding revenue bonds will then dams which were to be constructed on the $ 989,308 have been recorded as a liability Snake River between Idaho and Oregon in the General Fund. If the projects are aggregate approximately $ 48,000,000. The agreement to pay such costs will permit and operated jointly by the Supply System abandoned, the Supply System intends to and an investor-owned utilityconsortium. write off the related planning costs. Also, participants of Nuclear Project No. 1 to receive power from BPA to the extent of advances, including interest, pertaining During 1975, proposed federal legislation thereto are not intended to be repaid. In such'additional costs incurred. passed the Senate and the House of addition to the recorded costs, the Supply Representatives of the U. S. Congress System may be liable for additional The U. S. Government has an option to which, if signed by the President, would acquire ownership of the Hanford Project planning costs with respect to the Middle prohibit construction of dams in this Snake Hydroelectric Project. Such addi-upon obtaining Congressional approval. If section of the river and create instead a the Government exercises its option, it tional unrecorded costs are not expected must assume all rights and obligations of to be material in amount.

the project, including the obligation to pay all revenue bonds.

Report of Independent Accountants Board of Directors Washington Public Power Supply System Richland, Washington We have examined the individual balance sheets of Washington Public Power Supply System's Hanford Project, Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Nuclear Project No. 1, Nuclear Project No. 2, Nuclear Project No. 3, and "Future" Generating Facilities as of June 30, 1975. Our examinations were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and, accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.

In our opinion, the balance sheets referred to above present fairly the respective financial positions of Washington Public Power Supply System's Hanford Project, Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Nuclear Project No. 1, Nuclear Project No. 2, Nuclear Project No. 3 and "Future" Generating Facilities at June 30, 1975, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis.

The individual balance sheet of the General Fund as of June 30, 1975, was not audited by us and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion on it.

Seattle, Washington August 26, 1975 32

Project Expenditures WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM Nuclear Project No. 1 Engineering & Construction Managem nt 79.1%

Eng. & Const. Management $ 22,274,000 Construction & Fuel 10.7%

Construction & Fuel 3,018,000 Owner's Costs 2,866,000 Net Financing Costs (810,000)

Owner's Costs 10.2%

$ 27,348,000 Nuclear Project No. 2 Construction & Fuel 72.3%

Engineering & Construction Management 19.9%

Construction & Fuel $ 138,783,000 Eng. & Const. Management 38,203,000 Owner's Costs 5.0% Owner's Costs 9,526,000 Net Financing Costs 5,316,000 Financing Costs 2.8%

$ 191,828,000 Nuclear Project No. 3 Engineering & Construction Management 70.2%

0 (WPPSS 70% ownership share)

Construction & Fuel 15.0% Eng. & Const. Management $ 13,124,000 Owner's Costs 2,801,000 Construction & Fuel 2,756,000 Net Financing Costs {380,000)

Owner's Costs 14.8%

$ 18,301,000 52.8%

Packwood Lake Project Interest Year ended June 30, 1975 Depreciation 27.9% $ 485,000 Depreciation Interest 255,900 Power Production 7.8%

Power Production 72,400 6.5% Administrative & General 59,300 Administrative & General 45,500 Transmission Transmission 5.0%

$ 918,100 Hanford Generating Project Power Production 77.8%

Year ended August 31, 1975 Depreciation & Amortization 12.9% Power Production $ 24,126,400 Depreciation and Amortization 3,982,100 Interest 70% Interest 2,176,900 Administrative & General 659,100 Administrative & General 2.1% Transmission 59,400 Transmission 0.2% $ 31,003,900

Statement of the State Auditor TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

The Washington State Auditor's Division of Municipal Corporations conducts a continuous examination of all of the operations of the Washington Public Power Supply System, including each and every project. Reports are issued covering each calendar year.

On every such examination, state law requires that inquiry shall be made as to the financial condition and resources of the Supply System, whether the Constitution and laws of the state, the resolutions and orders of the Supply System, and the requirements of the Division of Municipal Corporations have been properly complied with; and into the methods and accuracy of the accounts and reports.

Very truly yours, ROBERT V. GRAHAM, State Auditor DARRELL K. RUSSELL, CPA Chief Examiner Division of Municipal Corporations WPPSS Bond and Construction Fund Trustees Bond Fund Trustee Construction Fund Trustee WPPSS Morgan Guaranty Trust Company Morgan Guaranty Trust Company Nuclear Project No. 1 23 Wall Street 23 Wall Street New York, New York 10005 New York, New York 10005 WPPSS Continental Illinois Continental Illinois Nuclear Project No. 2 National Bank National Bank 231 South LaSalle Street 231 South La Salle Street Chicago, Illinois 60693 Chicago, Illinois 60693 WPPSS Seattle-First National Bank WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3 P. O. Box 3586 Seattle, Washington 98124 Hanford Project Bankers Trust Company of Not applicable New York P. O. Box 318 Church Street Station New York, New York 10015 Packwood Project Seattle Trust & Savings Bank Not applicable 804 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104

Consultants WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM Auditors Ernst & Ernst, Seattle, Washington Bond Counsel Wood, Dawson, Love & Sabatine, New York, New York Ecological Services Battelle-Northwest, Richland, Washington Ebasco Services, New York, New York Dr. Howard Coombs, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Engineering Services R. W. Beck & Associates Seattle, Washington Financial Advisors Blyth, Eastman, Dillon and Company, New York, New York Legal Counsel Houghton, Cluck, Coughlin & Riley, Seattle, Washington Conner & Knotts, Washington, D.C.

Nuclear Fuel Analysts The S.M. Stoller Corporation, New York, New York Socio-Economic Analysts Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Burlingame, California Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Community Development Services, Inc.,

Seattle, Washington WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM P. O. BOX 968 3XO GEORGE WASHINGTON WAY RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 99352 PHONE: (509) 946-1611 23I72 coIor prssr. corsoos Floor, wA 99324 Usho lAS.A

8 L V C

lI,

-C i

g ~.. ~

I@A~

a~

~

z