ML18191A168

Annual Report 1975, Washington Public Power System

ML18191A168
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	12/31/1975
From:	Washington Public Power Supply System
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML18191A168 (36)

Text

r

~r'~J t

Q t

i b->

I Aik,.

< <~WE>

i

'D . ~ ~

1 i

, (~"81 t!

i' I'

'14 '

Wcp~M tv 'il@%

I I ' I ,t,

-;,e'

~,

t - P't

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 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 1983).

~ 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.

~ Comptroller of the Currency authorizes national banks of the United States to purchase, deal in, tl KW ~

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

'4

'I 4

Gathered for a quarterly meeting of the Management and control of the Supply System are vestedin 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 lalternate from Lewis County), Clair R. Hiiderbrandt, LANE A. BRAY, Mayor, City of Richland; "J. D. COCKRELL, Light Kirby Billingsiey, 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 UtilityDistrict 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 Utility District.

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 sulphur coal exists in some of the western states, it is not a simple mhtter to secure an adequate supply for the life of a large power Plant. Also, coal is a source of valuable 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 ihe 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.

through the mid-1980s. This pro- 4. Industry must strive to improve gram was designed to supplement These changes required modifica- financing, design, construction and all available hydro power with tions of work in progress. Because operation of these large complex 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-kilowatt turbine-generators were inflation rate.

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 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY.SYS'EM'

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 s (Nuclear Projects No. 2 and No. 3) h f have uranium supply contracts for fl deliveries extending into the mid-

'I'l 1990s.

>> ~ t These uranium acquisitions were factored into the Supply System's annual 10-year fuel management plans for Nuclear Projects 1 through

5. The plans set forth the uranium ore and separative work require-ments for all five nuclear projects, permitting a comparison of require-

, II Throughout 1975, the Supply System devoted considerable effort 9 III B mitmloilai To provide an adequate power supply for our members, the primary ments vs. commitments.

considered in the fuel management which form it is enriched by the U.

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

other utilities of a Northwest the prospect of having to devote as Enrichment Pool. This arrangement much as 10 to 12 years to bring a At the same time the Supply would give the Supply System power generating project on line from conception through construc- System was building or preparing to increased flexibility in its fuel build five nuclear power plants, it management by expediting trading tion to operation.

also was looking ahead to secure a units of enrichment service between fuel supply for these projects. member utilities.

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

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 the Supply System to construct a

.pounds of uranium oxide which is Central Warehouse and Office expected to be delivered in early 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, effi'cient 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 SYSTEM k.

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

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project The Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project occupies lands of the Gifford cX.

Pinchot National Forest in the .F Cascade Mountains of Washington State. The project consists of a l 4

diversion structure a short distance t downstream from the discharge of 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 Hanford commercial operation began. Power months, helped maintain that 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 8918,091. 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 Protect, upper left, receives steam through overhead pipes from the Energy Research and Development Administration's dual purpose N Reactor, nght center.

4

(

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 HGP-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 Mo. 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, the 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 welds on a pipe whip support bracket tore the inside of the containment vessel. After an t~3~ L~ j+g$ ~L~~~C+

extensive investigation into the reasons for the tearing, repairs were @a' 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.

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, $ 7,150,000. 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- "triple-A" by both Moody's and hearing held in Richland March 6.

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-River, and sets forth the controls tect-engineer, submitted a revised Nevertheless, more than 78,000 and quality standards for .this capital cost estimate in the fall of cubic yards of concrete were placed 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 (WNP-1 and WNP-4) started to move off the drawing boards and make the physical transition to steel and 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 P electrical output of around 1,250,-

000 kilowatts. 'S 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 had begun in late 1972 as an As time went on, however, it Site investigation and engineering intended replacement nuclear steam became increasingly important to and design work for the two supply system for the U. S. Energy the regional power supply picture projects proceeded at maximum Research and Development Admin- that the N Reactor-Hanford Genera- effort during 1975 with the aim of istration's N Reactor, situated on ting Project complex continue securing state and federal approval the ERDA Hanford Reservation. The operating into the late 1970s rather for them as soon as possible. In 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 System's adjacent Hanford Gener- system. To maintain this continuity (TPP SEC) held site certification ating Project to enable the HGP's of operation, the Supply System's hearings in Olympia, the state' Board of Directors in May 1974 capital. All testimony was complet-two turbine-generators to produce more than 800,000 kilowatts of authorized addition of a new ed in one week's time and the 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.

I" 1'estimony 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 piogress at the WNP-1 site at year' well at the site, the Supply System end, the concrete batch plant was By early July, TPPSEC 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.

INRC) 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 '>t manager for WNP-1 and WNP-4,

'd 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- I Fl (I

tor Corp. for elevators and dumb- fi 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 Joint Venture for structural steel,

$ 19,482,000; and to Zurn Industries, 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, S8,310,480, 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 tong-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

& 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 (bonom right). The site for Nuclear Projects No. 3 and No. 5 is on one of the forested ridges (near background) t /~

miles south of this point.

Combustion Engineering nuclear The Supply System and its architect-Nuclear Projects steam supply system with a engineer and construction manager Mo. 3 and Mo. 5 pressurized water reactor. The for the two projects, Ebasco Westinghouse turbine-generator at Services, Inc., began work on each plant will have an electrical WNP-3 in January 1973. Announce-For WPPSS Nuclear Projects No. 3 output of 1,240,000 kilowatts. ment of the Grays Harbor County and No. 5 (WNP-3 and WNP-5),

WNP-3 is scheduled to begin site selection was made in April 1975 was a year of preparation.

commercial operation in March 1973. Various site investigations The beginning of the year found an 1982, and WNP-5 in September began immediately and have con-extensive licensing effort under way 1983. tinued since. The decision to in anticipation of several crucial construct and operate a duplicate WNP-3 ownership is shared 70 nuclear power plant at the site was state and federal hearings expected percent by the Supply System, 10 made in July 1974 by the Supply during 1975. Engineering work at percent by Portland General Electric System's Executive Committee.

that time was 25.7 percent completed. By the end of the year, Company, 10 percent by Pacific Power and Light Company, 5 WNP-3 and WNP-5 are the Supply the hearings had been held, but the decisions were pending. Engineer- percent by Puget Sound Power and System's first nuclear power plants Light, and 5 percent by The situated in Western Washington. In ing approached 40 percent comple-tion. Washington Water Power Com- January 1975, a study of the pany. The Supply System will have anticipated socioeconomic effects an ownership interest in WNP-5 of of construction and operation of the The Supply System has proposed to construct and operate WNP-3 and at least 70 percent. Final ownership two projects was completed for the arrangements have not been com- Supply System. A supplemental WNP-5 on a site about 16 miles east however, both Pacific pleted; socioeconomic analysis was made of the city of Aberdeen in Grays Power and Light and Portland later in the year and submitted to Harbor County, Western Washing- General Electric have stated their the Supply System in September.

ton. The twin plants will be situated intention to each accept a 10 end-to-end on a ridge some one percent ownership interest in the and one-half miles south of the project.

Chehalis River and 390 feet above sea level. Each plant will use a 21

Vegetation from the bottom of the Chehalis River is gathered to be analyzed for naturally occurring radioactivity as part of pre-construction environmental studies.

The object of these studies was to National Pollutant Discharge Elim-identify anticipated impacts, parti- ination System permit. The permit is cularly those which can be alleviated for the discharge of excess water by coordinated planning efforts of from the projects into the Chehalis E local and state governments in River, and establishes the controls cooperation with the Supply and quality standards for this dis-System. charge. Two additional days of hearings on this subject were held in In April, the Supply System Elma July 24-25. By year's end, acquired an existing structure TPPSEC had developed a draft of situated near the town of Elma a few the NPDES permit and was miles east of the projects'ite. It preparing for its issuance.

was remodeled to provide office space for Supply System and On June 24 and 25, the Atomic Ebasco personnel during the prelim- Safety and Licensing Board held en-inary construction of the projects. vironmental and site suitability Later, it will be available as an hearings for the projects in information center. Aberdeen. The primary topic of The first of a series of state and discussion centered around the need for the power to be generated federal hearings for WNP-3 and WNP-5 was held in Olympia, the by the projects.

state capital, in mid-April. This On August 5, TPPSEC began the hearing was to provide the state final siting hearings on WNP-3 and Thermal Power Plant Site Evalua-WNP-5 with taking of public tion Council (TPPSEC) with infor-mation to enable it to issue a testimony in Elma, and continued intermittently in Olympia, Elma, and the Evergreen State College through November 12, for a total of 43 days of hearings. At year's end, TPPSEC was considering the input from the hearings and developing a Site Certification Agreement for submittal to the state's governor.

WNP-5 will be constructed. The In June 1975, the Supply System's purchase included approximately Board of Directors authorized a $ 2.2 280 acres of Grays Harbor County-million real estate transaction to owned property and 840 acres of acquire the land on which the ITT Rayonier, Port Blakely Mill principal structures for WNP-3 and Company, and Weyerhaeuser Com-pany properties. The county-owned property was exchanged to ITT

-Rayonier and Port Blakely for their properties in the nuclear power plant site area. The Supply System also made arrangements with the Washington State Department of Highways for assistance with the acquisition of rights-of-way required for access roads to the site.

A number of contracts were awarded during the year so that project construction, when approv-ed, could proceed expeditiously.

The contracts are firm with respect to WNP-3 and contain options fo' the work and material required for 22

Extensive geology and seismology investi-gations are alt important part of the site evaluation the Supply System makes for each of its nuclear power plant sites.

constructing its 70% ownership share of WNP-3. The bonds were rated "triple-A" by both Moody's and Standard & Poor's. A portion of the proceeds will be used to retire the $ 29 million of WNP-3 revenue notes issued in October 1973 for preliminary financing and maturing in June 1976. Additional bonds are a If'j+p to be issued from time to time as construction funds are required.

It is presently planned that WNP-4 (described elsewhere in this report) and the Supply System's ownership interest in WNP-5 will be further financed during 1976. The Supply System issued $ 100 million of revenue bonds in July 1975, to

y. finance preliminary work on these projects.

In October 1975, Ebasco Services submitted a revised capital cost estimate for both projects. Total estimated project costs for WNP-3 1 4 rose to $ 1.244 billion from $ 1.144 billion, and WNP-5 costs rose to

$ 1.271 billion from $ 1.210 billion.

These estimated increases resulted from the continued inflation of costs of labor, material, and financing, and the need to incorporate more complex safety and control systems in the plants.

WNP-5. This provides flexibility F IN AN CIAO'NF OR M ATION during the time final financing Although WNP-3 and WNP-5 are details are being concluded for WNP-5. Awards were made to duplicate plants from a physical Railco, Inc., for railroad track, standpoint they will be financed switches, and fittings for WNP-3, separately by the issuance of long-term revenue bonds.

$ 910,490; for radwaste tanks to Boeing Aerospace Co., $ 838,906 for WNP-3 with an option for WNP-5 of The Supply System issued $ 150 million of long-term revenue bonds

$ 698,553; for large diameter con-in December 1975 to pay the cost crete pipe to Ameron, Inc.,

incurred in 1976 for acquiring ancf

$ 1,760,738 for WNP-3 with an option for. WNP-5 of $ 1,207,043; for steam generator feed pump turbines to DeLaval Turbine, Inc., $ 1,392,100 for WNP-3 with an option for WNP-5 of a similar amount; for circulating water pumps to Ingersoll Rand Company, $ 1,906,000 for WNP-3 with an option for WNP-5 of

$ 1,940,000; and for clearing, grub-bing and erosion control for WNP-3 to J. J. Welcome Construction Company, $ 2,095,000.

23

Project Participants WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM Public & Peoplos UtilityDistricts Municipalitios Cooperatives Oregon Idaho California Central Lincoln Peoples Utility District Albion Heyb urn Surprise Valley Electrification Corp.

Clatskanie Peoples Utility District Bonners Ferry Idaho Falls Northern Wasco County Peoples Burley Minidoka Idaho Utility District Declo Rupert Clearwater Power Co.

Tillamook Peoples Utility District East End Mutual Electric Co., Ltd.

Orogon Fall River Rural Electric Cooperative Inc.

Washington Bandon Forest Grove Farmers Electric Co., Ltd.

Benton County PUD No. 1 Canby McMinnville Idaho County Light & Power Cooperative Cheian County PUD No. 1 Cascade Locks Milton-Freewater Assn., Inc.

Clallam County PUD No. 1 Drain Monmouth Kootenai Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Oark County PUD No. 1 Eugene Springfield UtilityBoard Lost River Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Cowlitz County PUD No. 1 Northern Lights, Inc.

Douglas County PUD No. 1 Washington Prairie Power Cooperative, Inc.

Ferry County PUD No. 1 Blain e Port Angeles Raft River Rural Electric Cooperative, lnc.

Franklin County PUD No. 1 Centralia Richland Riverside Electric Co., Ltd.

Grant County PUD No. 2 Cheney Seattle Rural Electric Co.

Grays Harbor County PUD No. 1 Coulee Dam Steilacoom Salmon River Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Kittitas County PUD No. 1 Blensburg Sumas South Side Electric Lines, Inc.

Klickitat County PUD No. 1 McCleary Tacoma Unity Light & Power Company Lewis County PUD No. 1 Montana Mason County PUD No. 1 Irrigation Districts Mason County PUD No. 3 Flathead Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Okanogan County PUD No. 1 Glacier Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Consolidated Irrigation District 019 Lincoln Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Pacific County PUD No. 2 Vera Irrigation District iy15 Pend Oreille County PUD No. 1 Missoula Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Skamania County PUD No. 1 Ravalli County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Investor Owned Utilitios Vigilante Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Wahkiakum County PUD No. 1 Nevada Whatcom County PUD No. 1 Montana Power Company Pacific Power & Light Company Wells Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Portland General Electric Company Orgoon Puget Sound Power & Light Company Blachly-Lane County Cooperative The Washington Water Power Company Electric Assn.

Central Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Columbia Basin Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Columbia Power Cooperative Assn., Inc.

Total participants by classification: Consumers Power, Inc.

Coos-Curry Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Cooperatives: 52 Douglas Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Irrigation Districts: 2 Harney Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Municipalities: 30 Hood River Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Public Utility Districts: 26 Lane County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Investor Owned Utilities: 5 Midstate Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Salem Electric Umatilla Electric Cooperative Assn.

Total 115 Wasco Electric Cooperative, Inc.

West Oregon Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Washington Alder Mutual Ught Company Benton Rural Electric Assn., Inc.

Big Bend Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Columbia Rural Electric Assn., Inc.

Elmhurst Mutual Power & Light Inland Power & Light Co.

Uncoln Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Nespelem Valley Elec. Cooperative, Inc.

Ohop Mutual Light Okanogan County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Orcas Power & Light Company Parkland Light & Water Company Tanner Electric Wyoming Lower Valley Power & Light, Inc.

24

I:-,':,;:-.":-flgsiiiiit::88itioii'-:

VfA8HlN~974gPUBfjC,:'F'OVtBA SUPPLY SYSTEM P

h

'rr; i

$ 4', I 1, ) I(I ', Q 'Vtq

~40','"'J",',,c~,"q~,'I A",1jyj,g<<p,'C 4 Jfeg,

,p.'t'.tjP "Wg<.'1'

'<,'jj,ptl 4(~

q I

vie

<. e~~

Balance Sheets WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM June 30, 1975 (Amounts in thousands)

Packwood Lake "Future" Hanford Hydroelectric Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Generating General ASSETS Project Project Project ¹1 Project ¹2 Project ¹3 Facilities Fund Note A Note A (Unaudited)

Utility Plants and Equipment - at cost:

In service S 67,150 S 12,205 S 1.275 717 Modifications and additions to facilities owned by the U.S. Government 14,411 Less allowances for depreciation and amortization (29,717) (2,825) (40) (666) 51,844 9,380 1,235 51 Construction work in progress 177,150 Preliminary costs of utility plants to be constructed S 24,334 S 22,794 S 4,780 Nuclear fuel 10,631 Prepayments for nuclear fuel enrichment services 3,014 2,812 3,212 3,228 Less amount charged to other joint owners (7,705) 51,844 9,380 27,348 191,828 18,301 8,008 51 Special Funds - Note C:

Cash 4 38 2,333 236 61 Time certificates of deposit 8,590 45,051 3,000 Securities - Note 8 1,558 306 27,094 190,120 8,099 9,003 Accounts receivable 3 780 Prepaid Insurance 138 Deferred expenses, less amortization 57 Due from other Projects and General Fund 3,051 134 Net amounts due from other funds 275 426 3,441 1,834 310 39,199 241,277 12,175 9,244 Sinking Funds - Note C:

Cash 495 16 1 59 Time certificates of deposit 4,557 21,230 Securities - Note B 5,322 707 27,884 51,415 1,306 1,172 5,817 723 32,441 72,646 1,306 1,231 Current Assets:

Cash and repurchase agreements 1,998 1,033 Securities - Note B Accounts receivable 127 Supplies and spare parts inventories 203 Prepaid insurance 213 7 Due from other funds 1,015 88 Due from other Projects and General Fund 58 4 Due from power purchasers 2,939 Special cash deposit - matured interest 6 2 1,975 15,373 6,559 339 1,975 15,373 384 1,037 Other Asset - unbilled reimbursable cost 837 2,633 Deferred Charges:

Costs associated with abandoned plant site- Note B 6,847 Preliminary survey and investigation costs - Note E 3,381 Unamortized debt expense 218 38 118 682 21 23 218 38 6,965 682 21 23 3,381 S 67,109 0 13,423 $ 107,928 $ 521,806 0 31,825 $ 18,890 S 4,469 25

Packwood Lake "Future" Hanford Hydroelectric Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Generating General LIABILITIES Project Project Project b'1 Project N2 Project P3 Facilities Fund (Unaudited)

Revenue Notes and Bonds - Note C:

Principal amount S 60,040 S 12,956 S 102,000 S 480,000 S 29,000 S17,500 Unamortized debt (discount) or unaccreted premium (1,195) (143) (159) (610) 2 (38) 58,845 12,813 101,841 479,390 29,002 17,462 Accrued Interest 626 158 Special Funds - Note C:

Accounts payable and accrued expenses 3,319 14,213 2,670 Amounts withheld from contractors 111 5,983 37 Accrued sales taxes on contractor payments 3,406 Amount due to "Future" Generating Facilities Net amounts due to other funds 30 3,452 23,602 2,707 Sinking Funds - net amounts due to other funds - Note C 426 3,441 Current Liabilities:

Accounts payable 408 Net amounts due to other funds 849 Due to other projects 2,914 Due power purchasers 199 Matured interest on debt 2 1,975 15,373 4,177 224 1,975 15,373 Deferred Credits and Advances:

Deferred gain on redemption of revenue bonds 2,738 Advance from power purchasers to increase current assets Advances from members and participants and accured interest 3,575 3,020 3,575 Commitments and Contingency - Note D S 67,109 S 13,423 S 107,928 S 521,806 S 31,825 S 18,890 S 4,469 See Notes t'o balance sheets 27

Notes To Balance Sheets WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM Note A - Organhation Because of the Bonneville Power "Future" Generating Facilities consist Administration's (BPA - an agency of the of the Supply System's Nuclear Projects United States Government) obligations Nos. 4 and 5, any ownership interest that The Washington Public Power Supply under the Net Billing and/or Exchange the Supply System may acquire in Puget System is a municipal corporation and Agreements as described in Note C, Sound Power & Light Company's Skagit joint operating agency of the State of Security for the Bonds, the Supply Nuclear Power Project Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Washington and was organized in 1957. Its System and BPA have entered into Project and preliminary studies and investigations membership consists of 18 public utility Agreements with respect to the Hanford of the construction of additional generat-districts and three municipalities which Project and Nuclear Projects Nos. 1, 2 and ing facilities.

own and operate electric systems within 3. The Project Agreements, among other the State of Washington. It is empowered things, provide standards for the design, All projects heretofore undertaken by the to acquire, construct and operate facilities licensing, financing, construction, fueling, Supply System except Nuclear Projects for the generation and transmission of operation and maintenance of each of the Nos. 4 and 5 have been separately electric power and energy. aforementioned projects. They also financed. It is anticipated that the Supply provide for the approval of any System's ownership interests in Nuclear The Supply System has constructed and is replacements, repairs or capital additions Projects Nos. 4 and 5 and any interest in now operating the Packwood Lake Hydro- thereto. the Skagit Project will be collectively electric Project and the Hanford Project, financed in total.

has one nuclear electric generating plant Nuclear Project No. 3 will be constructed under construction (Nuclear Project No. 2) and operated by the Supply System and four other nuclear electric generating pursuant to terms of an Ownership plants (Nuclear Projects Nos. 1 and 3, and Agreement between the Supply System Note B- Accounting Policies "Future" Generating Facilities which and four investor-owned utilities. The includes Projects Nos. 4 and 5) in various project will be 70'lo owned by the Supply stages of preliminary planning. In addition The Supply System has adopted System and 30lo by four investor-owned accounting policies and practices which the Supply System has a General Fund. utilities (Pacific Power & Light Company-The Hanford Project is situated on land are in accordance with generally accepted 10o/o, Portland General Electric Company-which is leased from the Energy Research 10o/o, Puget Sound Power & Light accounting principles applicable to the and Development Administration (ERDA). utility industry. As required by the various Company - 5o/o, and The Washington Nuclear Projects Nos. 1, 2 and 4 also are Water Power Company - 5/o). Each of the project bond and note resolutions, situated on property leased from ERDA. separate books of account are maintained joint owners is responsibie for providing its for each project. Descriptions of signifi-Rental for each project's property is a ownership share of the costs of nominal amount for each year plus any cant accounting policies are presented construction and operation and will be below.

taxes or assessments which may be entitled to its ownership share of the imposed upon the leasehold. Projects Nos. project's capability. The ownership shares 3and 5 will be consiructed on land owned Capitalization of Costs During Construction may be adjusted upon the occurrence of During the constructiori phase of a by the projects. The projects are further oertain events. Each owner shall defray its described elsewhere in this report. own financing costs. The parties to the project, the Supply System will capitalize all costs of the project including general, Ownership Agreement have designated administrative, interest and other over-the Supply System to act as their agent to head expenses.

construct, operate and maintain the project. Dobt Discounh Promium and Exponsos Debt discount or premium and expenses The Supply System expects to have an 80'lo ownership share of Nuclear Project relating to the issuance of revenue notes and bonds are amortized on the straight-No. 5, with the remaining 20'/o to be line method over the terms of the shared by two of the investor-owned respective issues. Such provisions for utilities which are co-owners of Nuclear amortization (net of accretion of pre-Project No. 3. miums) are capitalized as costs during the construction period.

Galas on Rodompiion of Rovonuo Bonds-Packwood and Hanford Pro focis Gains from the early extinguishment of debt occurring prior to 1973 have been recorded in the balance sheet as a deferred credit less the annual accretion to income computed using the straight-line method over the terms of the respective bonds.

28

Current Assots and Curront Liabilities among other costs, until 1980 when annual costs including the principal Assets and liabilities shown as current in participants of Nuclear Project No. 1 amount of bonded debt, the Supply the accompanying balance sheets exclude assume this obligation. Consequently, if System records this reimbursable cost as current maturities on revenue bonds and the plant ceases operations, revenues operating revenues for the Hanford and notes and accrued interest thereon as arising from the aforementioned payments Packwood projects. In order to spread either sinking funds have been provided will nevertheless be recorded each year such revenues equally over the full term of for their payment or with respect to thereafter in amounts which will result in the respective bonds, the Supply System revenue notes due within one year, full realization of the carrying value of the has recorded as revenue each year an refinancing of this debt has been plant. amount Iin addition to recovery of accomplished subsequent to June 30, operating costs) which is equal to the 1975 (see Note C). Provisions for amortization of modifica- provisions for depreciation and amortiza-tions and additions to facilities owned by tion of utility plant and debt discount and Socurities the U. S. Government are being computed expense, less the annual accretion of the The bond and note resolutions provide for for the Hanford Project on the straight- gain on bond redemption occurring prior line basis using an estimated useful life to 1973 and all gains on bond redemption the investment of funds in U. S.

Government and government ending October 31, 1977, the present subsequentto 1973.

and certain bank time deposits agencies'ecurities contract date of discontinuance of dual evidenced by certificates of deposit and purpose operation of the New Production Cumulative reimbursable costs fess pay-Reactor. However, operation may be ments by member purchasers for future secured in the manner provided by the laws of the State of Washington. extended as further explained in Note D. bond redemption are reflected as Unbilfed Reimbursable Costs in the accompanying Costs associated with the abandoned balance sheets.

U.S. Government and government plant site will be amortized by charges to agencies'ecurities are stated at amortized income over the life of Nuclear Project No. Rotiroment Plan cost including accrued interest thereon. 1 beginning with the commencement of The Supply System participates in the Investment securities owned by the commercial operations. Washington State Public Hanford and Packwood Projects'ond System which provides retire-Employees'etirement Fund Reserve accounts and Reserve and The administrative office building which is ment benefits to eligible employees. Cost Contingency funds 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 earned on investments during construc-straight-line basis over its estimated useful actuarily computed value of pension fife. benefits exceeds the fund assets for the tion is recorded as a reduction of Retirement System. However, because construction costs. Contributions Used for Purchaso of the Retirement System is a multi.employer Equipment-Pack wood 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 hefd in the sinking and special funds and as current assets as equipment since compietion of the available.

of June 30, l975 approximates amortized projects are accounted for as contributions in aid of construction and are applied as a cost.

reduction of the carrying value of plant in-service.

Doprociation and Amortization Provisions for depreciation of the Hanford Operating Rovonuos 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 Bonds) which approximates the estimated lives of the projects.

In the event that the Hanford Project ceases operations as discussed in Note 0, 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 $ 27,585 due September 1, 1996. 3.26% $ 60,040 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Revenue Bonds, Series of 1962, 3.625%

maturing March 1, 2012. 3.66% $ 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, 4.25% maturing December 15, 1975 4.27% $ 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 $ 124,400 due July 1, 2012. 4.66% $ 150,000 WNP No. 2 Revenue Bonds, Series 1974, 6.5% to 7.375% due in varying amounts through1994except$ 15,000due July1, 1999, and $ 37,000 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

$ 15,000due July1,1999, and

$ 78,000 due July 1, 2012. 67% 125,000 WNP No. 2 Revenue Bonds, Series 1975A, 6.60% to 6.875% due in varying amounts through 1994 except

$ 15,000 due July 1, 1999, and

$ 78,000 due July 1, 2012. 6 71% 125,000 WNP No. 3 Revenue Notes, Series 1973A, 4.375% maturing June 15, 1976. 4.38% $ 29,000 WPPSS Generating Facilities Revenue Notes, Series 1974, 4.7% maturing December 15, 1975 4.7% $ 2,500 WPPSS Generating Facilities Revenue Notes, Series 1974A, 7.75% maturing June 15, 1976. 8.0 15,000

$ 60,040 $ 12,956 $ 102,000(A) $ 480,000 $ 29,000(A) $ 17,500 Current maturities on the above debt $ 1,130 $ 110 $ 24,997 $ $ 29,000 $ 17,500 (A) - Subsequently refinanced byissuance of revenue bondsin the amounts of $ 175 ON CtN and $ 150 RU 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 payabie and Contingency Supply System's notes and bands 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 obtained 1975, the Supply System The participants of the Hanford Project $ 100,000,000 through issuance of WP PS S The Supply 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 proceeds 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 System and Bonneville Power Administra- As security for the $ 100,000,000 of stages of preliminary planning. At June tion. Pursuant to the agreements, the Generating Facilities Revenue Bonds, the 30, 1975, the total contract amounts, less Supply System has sold all of the Supply System has entered into Option payments, by project were approximately:

to the participants of each projects'apability and Services Agreements with 93 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 payment for the purchase of power, each have obtained options to become parties participant is obligated to pay the Supply to a Participants'greement which 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 other things, for the 93 participants to Facilities $ 364,000,000 assigned their respective interest in each project'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 power 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 output. 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 Suppiy 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. The special funds are to 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 94.75 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 bondholder s or noteholders for the members to make advance payments to payment of principal and interest on notes the Supply System in an amount sufficient and bonds.

31

Note D - Commitments and Note E - Preliminary Survey and system of federal wild river, recreation and Contingency [Continued] Investigation Costs - General Fund wilderness areas.

[Unaudited] Monies expended by the General Fund of the Supply System for preliminary The present agreement provides for the planning costs, as explained above, have Supply System to reimburse ERDA for The Supply System has recorded

$ 3,380,706 including interest on advances been advanced by its members and project termination and standby charges and participants. It has been agreed that shutdown costs (estimated to approximate (see below), as preliminary survey and investigation costs relating to certain repayment of the amount advanced pIus

$9,235,0GO) arising from the future interest thereon at 4% per annum to the suspension of the reactor. The participants projects which have been under considera-tion. The most significant such project is member-participants will be made solely of Nuclear Project No. 1 have agreed to from the proceeds of the sale of revenue pay all such termination and standby the Middle Snake Hydroelectric Project for which approximately $ 3,300,000 has been bonds issued by the Supply System to charges and shutdown costs. Also, these finance the construction of the project or participants have agreed to pay, commen- charged.

any alternate project ultimately construct-cing January 1, 1980, all debt service costs The Middle Snake Hydroelectric Project ed. Such advances amounting to of the Hanford Project regardless of was originally intended to consist of two interest of

$ 2,292,644 plus accrued continued operation of the reactor. dams which were to be constructed on the $ 989,308 have been recorded as a liability Outstanding revenue bonds will then Snake River between Idaho and Oregon in the General Fund. If the projects are aggregate approximately $ 48,000,000. The and operated jointly by the Supply System abandoned, the Supply System intends to agreement to pay such costs will permit and an investor-owned utility consortium. write off the related planning costs. Also, participants of Nuclear Project No. 1 to advances, including interest, pertaining receive power from BPA to the extent of 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 planning costs with respect to the Middle acquire ownership of the Hanford Project prohibit construction of dams in this Snake Hydroelectric Project. Such addi-upon obtaining Congressional approval. If section of the river and create instead a tional unrecorded costs are not expected the Government exercises its option, it to be material in amount.

must assume all rights and obligations of 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

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

Construction & Fuel Eng. & Const. Management $ 22,274,000 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 Construction & Fuel Nuclear Project No. 2 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%

(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 Interest 52.8%

Packwood Lake Project Year ended June 30, 1975 Depre iation 27.9%

Depreciation $ 485,000 Power Production 7.8% Interest 255,900 Power Production 72,400 Administrative & General 6.5% Administrative & General 59,300 Transmission 45,500 Transmission 5.0%

$ 918,100 Power Production 77 8%

Hanford Generating Project Year ended August 31, 1975 Depreciation & Amortization 12.9% Power Production $ 24,126,400 Depreciation and Amortization 3,982,100 Interest 7.0% 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 ot 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 6 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 3000 GEORGE WASHINGTON WAY RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 99352 PHONE: (509) 946-1611 22121 Color Prorr. Corlogo lroor, WA Q922O Uua lASJL

(1

(.1

'J 1

't I I. I 4

II.

I 1

IP I

jI I el I

I a ~1 lr

.f oC' S

p VSr ~

I 4

r I