The remains of the Marble Hill Nuclear Power Plant.
Marble Hill Nuclear Power Plant is an abandoned power generating facility in Marble Hill, Indiana. It was abandoned in 1984 after $2.7 billion was expended.
History
Marble Hill Nuclear Power Plant is an abandoned power generating facility in Marble Hill, Indiana. It was abandoned in 1984 after $2.7 billion was expended.(5)
In 1973, Public Service Indiana (PSI), now owned by Cinergy, proposed a nuclear power generating plant at Marble Hill. Located approximately 45 minutes north of Louisville, Kentucky and 30 minutes south of Madison, Indiana, the $700 million facility was projected to be the largest capital project in the state’s history.(1)
The proposed 987-acre (9) nuclear facility included twin pressurized 1130 MWe Westinghouse light water reactors.(2)(10) Both of the units would employ two pressurized water reactors to produce up to 3,425 MWth from each unit, and steam turbine generators would utilize the heat to provide 2,360 MWe of total electrical power capacity.(9)(10) One unit was expected to be operational by late 1986, while the other was set for completion in 1987.(8)
PSI would retain 65% capacity of the plant, with 20% of the capacity being delivered to the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) and the remaining 15% by other entities.(10) Among those others requesting included Kentucky-Indiana Municipal Power Association; City of Richmond, Indiana; East Kentucky Power Cooperative; Wabash Valley Power Association.
A maximum of 69 CFS of cooling water was to be withdrawn from the Ohio River, of which 9 CFS would be returned via a pipeline with the dissolved solids concentration increased by a factor of six.(9) About 60 CFS would be evaporated by mechanical-draft cooling towers.(10) As a comparison, the average river flow in the Ohio is 110,000 CFS.
Approximately 115 miles of transmission lines would be constructed, requiring 3,475 acres of land. 85 of these acres would be used for the bases of the transmission towers. A railroad spur from the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad would require 245 acres.(9)
The proposed cost of the facility ranged from $1.4 billion (1) to $1.8 billion (7) and $4.3 billion.(8) Construction was scheduled to start in July 1976, with one unit to commence operation in January 1982, with the other to start up in January 1984.(10) A limited work authorization order was issued in December 1976.
Construction began in August 1977, and at its peak, Marble Hill employed 8,000 workers (7) and the plant was scheduled to be complete in 1982.(1) Approximately 250 were to operate the plant upon completion.(7)
Controversy
Skeptics of the power plant accused PSI of forging numbers for the actual construction costs and debated that the actual costs were much higher.(1) Others were afraid of potential nuclear radiation leaks, fears that were intensified after the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant leak in March 1979. In the disaster, entire systems failed that created immense pressure buildup inside the containment structures. After three agonizing days, the danger at Three Mile Island had passed, but not after contaminating the nearby ground and waterways — fueling only further opposition against any construction of a nuclear power plant.
In the Environmental Statement prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the calculated dose of radiation for the year 2000 for people living fifty miles from Marble Hill would be 10 man-rems per year, much lower than the 170,000 man-rems per year that the general population receives from background radiation.(9)
It was reported that there were numerous inconsistencies in construction in a May 8, 1979 newspaper article.(1) Charles Cutshall, a former employee of Marble Hill’s general contractor, Gust K. Newburg, filed an affidavit that stated he and other Newberg employees were told to cover up and hide construction defects before inspectors could spot them. The defects that were revealed in the affidavit involved the concrete pouring in the walls of the containment buildings, and were later discovered in the walls of the containment structures where “honeycombs” were discovered. According to the affidavit, had radioactive gas breached the containment structure similar to the situation at Three Mile Island, residents within a 30-mile radius would be affected.
Construction was stopped on three separate occasions during the summer of 1979 to investigate and correct the growing number of reports of poor construction.(1) PSI’s chairman, Hugh Barker, lashed out against the opposition in an employee magazine, “Watts Cookin.” In it, he claimed that “one is forced to ask what’s really behind the anti-nuclear movement? Who is fanning the flames of fear and irrational emotion?” He then attempted to answer his own question with, “Two British experts on Soviet propaganda accuse the Soviet Union of funding and manipulating anti-nuclear movements in the west…the radicals among the anti-nuclear forces, by whatever name, clearly have as their goal, the transformation of our democratic, free society.”
Construction termination
On January 10, 1984, as a result of major cost overruns, construction at Marble Hill ceased.(3) Governor Robert Orr stated that the completion of the facility might cause PSI go enter into bankruptcy and cause large increases in electric rates.
Over $2.8 billion was spent at Marble Hill at the time of its closure.(3)(7) Another $4 billion was required to complete the project.(7) Over 3,500 construction workers were laid off, and the county’s unemployment rate soared to 24.8% and remained over 20% for several months.(6) By June 1986, the rate had declined to 10.3%.
Construction at its peak at Marble Hill Nuclear Power Plant.
Beginning in 1986, many of its components, such as its generators and reactors, were sold to other power generating facilities.(1)(7) About $90 million was recovered to be paid towards the $1.65 billion debt incurred.(7) By 1987, only 50 people worked on-site, who were charged with the task of keeping the facility secure.
In November 1998, the Marble Hill property, still owned by PSI, was sold to an agricultural equipment and lumber business based out of Madison.(3) Purchased by Debbie and Dean Ford, the land remained unused and was sold to a Michigan company in 2005.
In early March 2007, the turbine building was demolished.(3) The initial implosion, using traditional dynamite, failed to budge the mammoth structure. A second demolition effort collapsed the five-story building. The two containment buildings, however, remain standing.
Financing and debt
On January 4, 1988, the federal government sued Wabash Valley Power Association and its 24-member rural-electric cooperatives over a $500 million debt stemming from Marble Hill.(4) Filed in the U.S. District Court in Indianapolis by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), the suit claimed that the REA lent Wabash Power $650 million towards the nuclear power plant.
After the power plant project was abandoned, Wabash Valley filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1985.(4) The association then filed for a rate increase one year later to raise money to pay the REA debt, but that increase was denied by the Indiana Public Service Commission. Wabash Valley contended that it could not raise money to pay the debt because Indiana law and the state Supreme Court stated that electric utilities could not charge customers for a plant that was never operational.
In 1994, six attorneys filed a settlement agreement within the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, seeking $14.25 million fees, or 9.3% of the $150 million they won for PSI customers in two earlier court decisions.(5) The commission set fees at $3.12 million, but the attorneys appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, where it brought the case back to the utility commission.
The lead attorney, Mike Mullett, stated that they would return to the Court of Appeals to receive the full amount. Of the $14.25 million, 21%, or roughly $3 million, was to be placed into a trust fund for customers to contest future cases before the commission.(5)
Of the $3.1 million in fees, plus interest, that the court ordered PSI to pay after its May ruling, about $600,000 had been set aside for the trust fund. The remaining $2.5 million was split amongst the attorneys and clients.(5)
On November 8, 1996, a state regulatory panel ruled that the six attorneys should share $7.98 million for winning a $150 million refund to PSI customers for costs associated with the abandoned Marble Hill plant.(5) The attorneys, who were seeking far more, appealed.
Gallery
Submitted by Mark Gish
Mark Gish was a contractor during the construction of Marble Hill.
Links
Sources
- Blair, John. “Return to Marble Hill: Indiana’s rusting nuke.” Bloomington Alternative, July 27, 2003. Sept. 27, 2005 Article.
- “Marble Hill: Southern Indiana’s Nuclear Power Plant.” March 24, 2007 Article.
- Dick, Kaukas. “Building razed at Marble Hill power plant site.” Courier-Journal (Louisville), March 18, 2005. March 28, 2007. Print.
- “U.S. government sues Wabash Valley Power over Marble Hill debt.” Courier-Journal (Louisville) 16 Jan. 1988. 18 Dec. 2009. Print.
- Kusmer, Ken. “Marble Hill lawyers reject new settlement, vow to appeal again.” Courier-Journal (Louisville) 9 Nov. 1996. 18 Dec. 2009. Print.
- Egerton, Judith. “Madison is recovering from its tumble down Marble Hill.” Courier-Journal (Louisville) 4 Sept. 1986. 21 Dec. 2009: B. Print.
- Gardner, Bruce. “Elements reclaiming abandoned Marble Hill plant.” Indiana Weekly 11-12 Feb. 1987, East ed.: B1. Print.
- Marble Hill, on the move. N.p.: Public Service Indiana, n.d. N. pag. Print.
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. “Summary and Conclusions.” Draft Environmental Statement related to construction of Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2. N.p.: Public Service Indiana, March 1976. Print.
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. “The proposed project.” Draft Environmental Statement related to construction of Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2. N.p.: Public Service Indiana, March 1976. Print.
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. “Status of the project .” Draft Environmental Statement related to construction of Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2. N.p.: Public Service Indiana, March 1976. Print.
My father was a foreman on the Marble Hill project in the early 80′s. I have heard stories about the facility my entire life, and despite living in the area most of the last 30 years, I had not ever visited the site. That is until yesterday. On a lark, I decided to swing by the facility to see it for myself. It is currently under demolition, with the the Fuel Handling building and Containment #2 already demolished. Containment #1 still stands, but as a guard told me, not for much longer. The cooling facilities also still stand, and probably will for quite some time due to their size, as do the underground water ways that underpin the structures.
Despite being a grown man in his thirties, I have to say that I found the whole site somewhat creepy. Perhaps that is a silly statement to make; there are generally no people loitering about on a demolition site on a Sunday, but it was the distinctly Chernobyl-esque setting that was so striking. The wind rustling through the debris, as well as the fan blades in the cooling buildings was very unsettling. It’s easy to see why some people claim it is haunted. It really brought to mind the “World Without Us” shows on the Discovery Channel about how long it would take nature to reclaim human settlements. There were so many trees and other plant life springing up through the cement, as well as deer and other animals running amok. It was interesting to see firsthand how nature marches forward, oblivious to our designs. The other remaining structures present a solemn testament to shifting perspectives on what is valuable and worth investing money and resources in. My father, and many other men and women, spent years working on the facility, and essentially it was all for nothing. So much money, resources, and effort, wasted.
I realize that it is important to finally put an end to the project, and reclaim the land for other uses, but also, I am sad to see it knocked down. I know that the site presents physical (fortunately not nuclear) hazards, but in a way I wish they would leave it alone and allow nature to take her course. I really do wish that I had taken the time to visit the place years ago and see it “intact”.
Thanks for sharing your insights Josh, and I do too wish that I was able to visit the location at a time when it was more intact. It is amazing that nature will always reclaim everything, no matter how durable or how structurally sound a location is. Case in point: Chernobyl. Despite the effects of radiation fallout, Chernobyl is being reclaimed by nature, and there is an abundance of wildlife in an area that is so devoid of humans or any other interaction.
And they exist peacefully.
CHEAP Nuclear Power, SAFE Nuclear Power : Pick ONE !
.
I worked there for Public Service Indiana. I transfered there in March 1980 from a coal fired power plant. This is an extreme shame to see this almost nuclear plant demolished. It is amazing how the company told us in October 1983 that they were committed to completing the plant and then January 1984 back after the holidays they tell us to pack our belongings and get out. The project shutdown. So much money invested and the documentation in the 70′s stating the need for more electric power. Indiana seems to have gotten along pretty well with out the extra power that that plant was going to produce. The plant would have produced approximately 1200 Mega Watts of power per unit.
I agree Russell. But I think that even though Indiana has done well without Marble Hill (i.e. no brownouts), it could have taken one or two aging and dirty coal fired power plants off line.