WNP-1 and WNP-4

The Site Certification Agreement was approved in 1975, with construction commencing on both units later that year.[5] Labor disputes at Hanford halted construction on WNP-1, -2 and -4 in 1980 and the forecast electric demand had failed to materialize, prompting WPPSS to install new management and re-evaluate the cost and schedule for all five nuclear projects.[6] In 1982, the Bonneville Power Administration, which had encouraged and was responsible for funding the construction of the initial three projects, had to decide between shutting down construction on WNP-1 or WNP-3. Construction continued on WNP-3 since WNP-3 was partly owned by public utilities and was slightly ahead of schedule, and WNP-1 entered an extended construction delay in April 1982 when it was approximately 63% complete.[6]

Equipment and structures at WNP-1 were preserved to enable the resumption of construction at a later date, based on regional energy forecasts showing surplus power generation would disappear by 1990,[7] but preservation was terminated in 1995.[6] However, the low humidity has maintained the structures in a reasonable condition.[3] The co-owners of WNP-4 and WNP-5 planned to fund similar preservation measures for a potential construction restart, but could not agree on funding obligations, and WNP-4 was canceled in January 1982 at approximately 24% complete.[6]

With the shutdown of the nearby N-Reactor in 1987, a Department of Energy proposal to complete and convert WNP-1 to a tritium-producing reactor for the production of nuclear weapons materials was advanced. Senator Brock Adams and Representative Sid Morrison commissioned reports[8][9] detailing the issues involved. Public reaction to the conversion proposal was mostly negative.[10] WPPSS advanced a separate proposal to convert both WNP-1 and WNP-2 to dispose of highly enriched uranium and plutonium by using it as mixed-oxide fuel.[11]

WPPSS's successor, Energy Northwest, submitted a revised site restoration plan in 1999 proposing several different alternative levels of restoration, ranging from putting a fence around the incomplete units to full demolition of all structures.[12] Under EFSEC Resolution No. 302,[13] a revised 'Level 3D' restoration is acceptable, which retains major structures such as the containment, turbine pedestal and auxiliary building. The final agreed-upon restoration adopts a two-phase site restoration, which retains major structures and utility infrastructure for potential reuse in the near-term.[5] The containment building at WNP-1 is slated to be retained, but the containment at WNP-4 will be demolished to approximately 25 feet above grade and sealed with a concrete cap in the long term.[12]

In 2001, regional electricity shortages led to Energy Northwest's withdrawal of a request to terminate the construction permit for WNP-1.[14] Instead, Energy Northwest commissioned a series of studies regarding the feasibility of restarting construction on WNP-1 and in 2002, the NRC extended construction permit CPPR-134 for WNP-1 to 2011, pending study results.[15] These studies included one by Bechtel for a cost- and time-to-complete analysis, another study by R. W. Beck to independently assess Bechtel's methodology, a study by the Energy Northwest senior management team, and an industrial/political feasibility study by the lobbying group Goldschmidt-Imeson, which was founded by former Oregon governor Neil Goldschmidt.[16] The studies concluded that restarting construction on WNP-1 was technically feasible but not cost-effective, with cost of completion estimated at US$4,200,000,000 (equivalent to $6,941,300,000 in 2022).[17][18][19] As a result, Energy Northwest requested termination of the construction license, which was received on February 8, 2007.[20][21]

TVA revived its terminated construction license[22][23] for two similar partially completed units at the Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station and decided to proceed with staffing and long lead item ordering for completion of Unit 1.[24][25] TVA then sold the site on November 14, 2016, to Nuclear Development LLC which planned to complete both units for about $13 billion starting in 2018 although the sale was cancelled by TVA on November 30, 2018. Nuclear Development, LLC filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court seeking to force TVA to complete the sale. The lawsuit was finally decided in favor of TVA which withdrew its construction permits in September 2021.[26] Even so, this potential restart of a similar power plant indicated that it may be feasible to revive the construction license and complete WNP-1 if desired and needed.

However, in late 2020 the federal government awarded two $80 million initial fundings to build the TerraPower and X-energy reactors at sites 4 and 1 respectively within the next 5 to 7 years which appears to end any chance of completing WNP-1.[27]

The pressurized water reactor nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) for WNP-1 and -4 was being manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox. The B&W 205 design was ordered for WNP-1 and -4 as well as for the two units at Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station and Mülheim-Kärlich Nuclear Plant, but only Mülheim-Kärlich was completed. Elements of the design are similar to earlier B&W NSSSes installed at Davis Besse, ANO-1, Crystal River 3, Three Mile Island, Oconee and Rancho Seco.

WNP-1/4 would have received make-up water from the adjacent Columbia River and was equipped with forced-draft low-profile cooling towers and a spray pond.[3]

WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 (now Columbia Generating Station) should not be confused with the proposed Skagit/Hanford plant. Skagit/Hanford was a proposal advanced by a consortium of utilities led by Puget Sound Power & Light (40% share) and joined by Portland General Electric (30%), Pacific Light and Power (20%) and Washington Water Power (10%) to build a two-unit plant north of Seattle in the Skagit Valley. The Skagit site was directly above a major earthquake fault. After the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, Skagit County voters forced the consortium to relocate the proposed Skagit plant to the Hanford site.[28] Skagit/Hanford had not progressed beyond the initial engineering design phases before the plant was scuttled. A 1978 Battelle Northwest report stated the Hanford site could support twenty or more nuclear reactors.[29]

• List of nuclear reactors

• Jacklet, Ben (29 March 2002). "Nuclear thaw? Goldschmidt hunts for potential investors". The Portland Tribune. Archived from the original on 8 June 2011. Retrieved 2 September 2015.
• The Fifth Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Plan (Report). Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 1 May 2005. Retrieved 2 September 2015.
• Energy Northwest Executive Board Review of Nuclear Program (PDF) (Report). Energy Northwest. 23 January 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 February 2012. Retrieved 2 September 2015.
• Strand, Neil O. (17 June 1979). "[OPINION] WPPSS—what it is and where it's heading". The Spokesman-Review. Retrieved 1 September 2015.
• "Washington's nuke builder: A giant among U.S. industries". The Spokesman-Review. 16 April 1979. Retrieved 1 September 2015.
• 46.4674°N 119.3151°W / 46.4674; -119.3151 - WNP-1
• 46.4755°N 119.3189°W / 46.4755; -119.3189 - WNP-4