ML20107M746
| ML20107M746 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1985 |
| From: | Bernabei L GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, JOINT INTERVENORS - WATERFORD |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20107M736 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8503010413 | |
| Download: ML20107M746 (67) | |
Text
-
- ,4 m
"- 'N %g y
') _
. Y
^
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C3C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O fd s,
- ss Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal ' Boa [~dd 28 is ,
g /,ict g- 30 In the Matter of ) {
) % " a.,
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY) Docket No. 50-382 OL
) (,,
(Waterford Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 3) ) 4. p
) N JOINT INTERVENORS' SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT INTERVENORS' MOTION TO REOPEN Joint Intervenors submit this supplemental memorandum to support their second proposed contention that LP&L lacks the requisite character and competence to operate Waterford 3 safely.
I. MIDDLE SOUTH'S MISLEADING STATEMENTS IN ITS MOST RECENT OFFERING STATEMENT TO SELL $100 MILLION IN SECURITIES.
The City of New Orleans recently filed a suit charging that Middle South Utilities, Inc., prior to filing its most recent offering to sell $100 million of stocks and bonds with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") , failed to obtain approval from the New Orleans City Council. See " City sues to stop NOPSI stock sale" (Jan. 29, 1985), attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1.
The City claims that under a franchise agreement dating from 1923, New Orleans Public Service, Inc. ("NOPSI"), a Middle South subsidiary, had to obtain approval of the City of New Orleans prior to Middle South's offering of these securities. Middle South contends, alternatively, that in Dk AMMb
1981, when the City transferred its ratemaking authority to the Public Service Commission ("PSC") , it also transferred all rights to regulate utility financing to the PSC.
The City is seeking to enjoin issuance of the securities unless its approval is obtained. Ibid.
Regardless of whether the City or Middle South succeeds in this litigation, Middle South was responsible to disclose this potential risk to investors. The City's longstanding legal position was well-known to Middle South and should have been stated in the offering statement. See Middle South and NOPSI Application-Declaration (Dec. 21, 1984) attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit lA.A!
Clearly Middle South's failure to disclose this risk casts doubt on Middle South's honesty and integrity.
This misleading omission,in conjunction with the false and misleading statements described in Joint Intervenors' Motion to Reopen, support Joint Intervenors' contention that LP&L management lacks the required integrity to operate a nuclear power plant. See Joint Intervenors' Motion to Reopen at 16-21.
II. WATERFORD'S CURRENT MANAGEMENT LACKS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF WATERFORD'S QUALITY ASSURANCE PROBLEMS AND RESPEC1 FOR NRC REGULATION.
According to news reports, LP&L Senior Vice-President Roth S. " Mike" Leddick recently stated that the NRC kept " changing the rules" during the construction of Waterford 3, which led to its cost increasing two- or three-fold. He also stated that the NRC's unprecedented inspection efforts to verify the 1/ On February 21, 1985, a Louisiana State Court issued a temporo y restraining order against issuance of these securities.
See The City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.,
No. F6-61562 (Civ. Dist. Ct. Par ish New Orleans, filed Jan. 28, 1985). ,
v
s safety of the plant cost the utility $150 million but did not make the plant any safer. See " Plant cost blamed on public fear," Times-Picayune / States-Item (Jan. 25, 1985), attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2.
Mr. Leddick's statements indicate that he does not, even today, understand the seriousness of the quality assurance
("0A") and safety breakdown at Waterford over its construction life. Moreover, his attitude toward NRC regulation is one of disrespect.
Apparently, Mr. Leddick is unwilling to acknowledge that NRC regulation, including the Waterford Task Force's inspection efforts, is more than a waste of time. If he does not believe unprecedented NRC Staff actions to verify the construction quality of Waterford were needed, the Appeal Board can be certain that Mr. Leddick will not have a " willingness -- indeed --
desire" to carry out future NRC proposed programs. Consumer Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-106, 6 AEC 182, 184 (1973). Mr. Leddick's remarks reveal a decided lack of the necessary management char acter the NRC requires of its licensees.
III. LP&L BLACKOUT OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS DEMONSTRATES ITS LACK OF MANAGEMENT COMPETENCE, OR, POTENTIALLY, INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT.
On January 21, 1985, a substantial proportion of the combined NOPSI/LP&L generating capacity was lost. According to investigators commissioned by the City of New Orleans, the black-out affected 35,000 residential customers of NOPSI and 40,000 to 50,000 residential ratepayers of LP&L. See Press Release, attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 4.
Early on January 21, Jim Fort, an LP&L spokesman, stated that the outage outlined the need for adding the Waterford 3 and Grand Gulf nuclear power plants to the Middle South Utilities system.2/
City Councilman James Singleton charged that LP&L and NOPSI had deliberately " orchestrated" the blackout in order to force LP&L and NOPSI to accept a larger portion of Grand Gulf 1 and Waterford 3 than they needed. Public Service Commissioner John F. Schwegmann also criticized LP&L's statements. The City Council has begun an investigation to determine the causes of the blackout and whether LP&L and NOPSI management deliberately caused the blackout to promote the need for Grand Gulf 1 and Waterford 3. See Exhibit 4; " Mistrust tarnishes utilities,"
Times-Picayune (Jan. 23, 1985), attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 7.2!
It appears that the New Orleans City Council's investiga-tion may find that LP&L management either deliberately, or through gross mismanagement, caused a blackout of New Orleans, which led l
to extensive property damage and personal harm. This conclusion would be critical to a determination of LP&L's management' capabilities to operate Waterford in accordance with NRC regula-tions. If public authorities find LP&L cannot currently be 3/ Currently pending before the Federal Energy Regulatory Com-mission ("FERC") are two cases which will determine the percentage of Grand Gulf 1 for which each of the subsidiaries of Middle South will be responsible. The Middle South subsidiaries are LP&L, NOPSI, Arkansas Power and Light Company, and Mississippi Power and Light Company.
2/ Moreover, several New Orleans residents filed a $100 million suit against NOPSI for the serious property damage and personal harm caused by the blackout. See "NOPSI sued for $100 million in blackout," Times-Picayune (Jan. 24, 1985), attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 8.
5-a trusted to operate fossil fuel plants with care, how can the NRC find LP&L management responsible enough to operate a nuclear power plant?
The Appeal Board should, in any case, await the results of the City's investigation before endorsing current LP&L management.
Moreover, according to Mr. Leddick, the managers responsible for the blackout are D. L. Aswell and L. V.
Maurin. Although both currently are in charge of fossil fuel plant operations, formerly they were Vice-President for Power-Production and Waterford 3 Project Manager respectively. See Affidavit of Gary Groesch, attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 9.
Any fault or negligence found regarding the blackout will be attributed to them. Their lack of current management capabilities in managing fossil fuel plants corroborates Joint Intervenors' contention that historically the management of Waterford 3 project was incompetent.
IV. APPLICANT'S MANAGEMENT HAS DEMONSTRATED ITS SUBSERVIENCE TO AND LACK OF INDEPENDENCE FROM ITS PARENT MIDDLE SOUTH.
Recently it has become evident that the management of Middle South controls applicant LP&L. Therefore, this Appeal Board cannot be assured that current LP&L management has the capabili-l ties, including the independence, to follow NRC regulations and to ensure Waterford is safely operated.
l l According to the sworn testimony of John Chavanne, vice-president of corporate control for LP&L, Floyd Lewis, Middle 1
l
. _ , _ . . , . , - _ _ _ _ . _.._m.__ , , , , . _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _
South Chairman and President, threatened to fire James Cain, LP&L and NOPSI President, unless Cain supported a plan under which LP&L and NOPSI would buy larger shares of Grand Gulf than previously agreed. Cain, in a reverse of position, supported a plan submitted to FERC on January 4, 1985, under which LP&L and
.NOPSI would buy 48 percent of the power from Grand Gulf 1 instead of the preveiously agreed-to 31 percent.4[ See " Middle South chairman asked about firing threats," Times-Picayune (Jan. 30, 1985), attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 10.
The sworn deposition testimony of other LP&L managers apparently support Mr. Chavanne's statement that Lewis threatened Cain with termination if Cain did not agree to a system-agreement which Cain perceived was against the interests of LP&L. Ibid.
Neither Cain nor LP&L has corporate or de facto operational independence from Middle South. Although LP&L is the applicant for a license for Waterford, it will be Middle South which ultimately controls the operation of the power plant. This fact is central to any NRC determination of whether or not LP&L's management has adequate character to operate Waterford 3 safely. Certainly if Cain bows to the wishes of Lewis on financial matters he will, if necessary, subordinate LP&L's safety responsibilities at Waterford to Middle South's needs.
$/ PSC consultants believe that Louisiana does not need power from Grand Gulf and the new system agreement will cost New Orleans ratepayers " hundreds of millions of dollars." See Exhibit 10.
_7_
i This point is especially important since the NRC Staff has based its conclusion that LP&L can operate Waterford 3 safely largely on an assessment that LP&L top management has shown a new willingness to deal straightforward 1y with potential safety problems. The NRC Staff described how applicant addressed safety concerns outlined in the Eisenhut Letter of June 13, 1984, by "mobiliz(ing) a large work force headed by a special management team with personal oversight by the Applicant's President and Chief Executive Officer,"
NRC Staff's Response to Joint Intervenors' Motion to Reopen at 17. See also Crutchfield Affidavit, par. 4.
Obviously it makes little difference that Cain is personally overseeing the resolution of safety problems at Waterford 3 if his decision on safety matters can be over-ridden at will by Lewis.
Moreover, if Cain is willing to subordinate LP&L's financial interests to those of Middle South, it is even more probable that he will subordinate the safety of Waterford 3 to Middle South pressure.
V. CONCLUSION.
In consideration of the above arguments and documentation, this Appeal Board must determine that Joint Intervenors have met their burden to reopen the hearing record for litigation of their contention that LP&L management lacks the requisite character and competence to operate Waterford 3 safely.
O Respectfully submitted, L(/ u b d -
Ly E Bernabei Gove ent Accountability Project 15 5 onnecticut Avenue N.W.
S 202 W ington, D.C. 20036 (202) 232-8550 Attorney for Joint Intervenors Dated: February 25, 1985 1
g .
. Exhibit lA =
- p. g g j y y ey.
O 36-020 File No. 70- 9 d b / .
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION !
Washington, D. C. 20549 Torm U-1 b3 !
. APPL'ICATION-DECLARATION .
under THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935 New Orleans Public Service Inc. ddle South Utilities, Inc.
317 Baronne Street 225 Baron'ne Street New Orle ans, Loui.siana 70112 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 (Names of companies filing this statement -
and addresses of principal executive offices)
Middle South Utilities, Inc. h %'"ckuc CEl\.a-
~
(Name of top registered holding company Md. )4 parent of each applicant or declarant)
',...:.' ., James M. Ca in, Pre sident Edwin Lupberger
~~ (Naw Orleans Public Service Senior Vice President-I6c, .. Chief Financial Officer 317 Baronne Street Middle South Utilities, Inc.
\., ' ,,- .! . . , New' O rle ans , Lo ui si ana 7 0112 225 Baronne Street Q.- , p. y .'.. #
New Orlear}s, Louisiana 70112 (Names and addresses of agents for service)
- i The Commission is also requested to send copies of any communications in connection with this matter to:
- Melvin I. Schwartzman, Esq. Thcmas J. Igoe , Jr . , Esq .
Monroe & Lemann Reid & Priest
( A Professional Corporation) 40 West 57th Street 1424 Whitney Building New York, New York 10019 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 R. Drake Keith, Treasurer Stephen K. Waite , Esq.
Middle South Utilities, Inc. Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam 225 Baronne Street t. Roberts New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 40 Wall Street New York, New York 10005
t__ ,
.e Item 1. Description of Proposed Transactions.
(" Company") pro-New Orleans Public Service Inc.
poses to issue and sell, subject to Rule 50 under the Pub-lic Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (" Bolding Company Ac t" ) , as modified by Holding Company Act Release No.
22623, not more than $40,000,000 d "), to beamount in principal issued of in
. its First Mortgage Bonds ("New Bon s one or more series from time to time not later than Decem-ber 31, 1985. The interest rate to be borne by each series of the New Bonds will be a multipletoof,1/8th be paidofto14.
The price, exclusive of accreed interest, the Company for each series of the New Bonds kille be within a range specified by the Company to prosp' ctive purchasers of not more than five percentage points butsh I 100% of the principal amount of such series of the New Bonds.
The New Bonds are to be issued dated under the Com-as of-July 1, pany's 1944, Mortgage and Deed of Ttus t,to The Chase Manhattan Bank.(Na successor to The Chase National Bank of the City Buckley, of New York, anJ Joseph A. Payne, successor to Carl E.
as Trustees, as heretofore supplemented and as proposed to be further supplemented by supplemental Each series of Indentures -
cular series of the New Bonds is issued.the New Bonds wi .
not later than thirty years from the first day of the
~
. month of issuance.
Each supplemental Indenture will . provide that ... '
- n6ne of the New Bonds of a particular series covered
- thereby will be redeemed for a period of either four.
mencing with the first day of the month of. issuance, at a ,
! regular redemption price if such redemption the is the use, directly or indirectly, of f unds borrowed by Company at an ef f ective interest cost to the Company of less than the ef fective interest cost to the company hibits ofFor furt such series of New Sonds.the terms of the New Bonds, reference A-9, A-10 and A-11 hereto.
For information as to the procedures to be fol-lowed in connection with the sale ofReleasethe New No.Bonds, 2262 3, as See contemplated by Holding Company Actreference is made
- es
A, g
,_g Item 3 below with respect to the Company's possible amend-ment of this Application-Declaration to seek exemption from the requirements of Rule 50 under the Holding Company Act with respect to the sale of one or more series of the Ne w Bond s .
The Company also proposes to establish one or i
f its serial preferred stock having a par
,more new ser es ovalue of $100 per share, which shall consist in the aggre-gate of not more than 200,000 shares ("Newmore Preferred Stock"), and to issue and 3.1.1, in one or 198S, series from the New time to time not later than cecember 31, Preferred Stock, subject to Rule 50 under the Bolding Com-pany Act, as modified by Holding Company Act Release No.
22623.
The Company presently has outstanding two classes of preferred stock, o'ne consisting of 77,798 shares of 4-3/4% Preferred Stock and the other consisting of the serial preferred stock, which ranks pari passu with the 4-3/44and tributions Preferred of whichStock as shares 60,000 to dividends bearing or aother dis-dividend 60,000 shares bearing a dividend rate of 4. 364 per annum, 150,000 shares bearing a divi-rate of 3.56% per annum and15.44% per annum are presently authorized and dend rate of By appropriate corporate action, the Company outstanding.
intends, with the consent of its parent, Middle South Utilities, Inc . (" Middle South") , to amend its Rastatement *
(" Charter"), to of Articles of Incorporation, as amended -
authorize each series of the New Preferred Stock, which, and the terms and amount of sinking f und requirements, if
, for the purchase or redemption willofhave sharestheofsame the..New..
char-
- any'ferred Pre Stock described below, acteristics as, and rank pari passu with, the presently 4~. 36 4 Pre ferred outstanding 60,000 shares To shares of 5.564 Preferred Stock and 150,000 shares of '
15.44% Preferred Stock.
- The dividend rate of each series of the New Pre-ferred Stock will be a multiple of 1/25th of it, and the price to be paid to the Company for each series of the New Preferred Stock will be not less than $100 nor more than
$102.75 per share, plus accrued dividends, if any.
The terms of each series of the New Preferred Stock will include a prohibition for five years af ter the first day of the month of issuance of the respective series against refunding any shares of such series, di-rectly or indirectly, with funds derived from the issuance
- e .,.,e ,,,y, , ,,
of debt securities at 'a lowe'r ef fective interest cost or from the issuance of other stock, which ranks prior to or on a parity with such series as to dividends or assets, at a lower effective dividend cost. /
i The Company may include provisions for a sinking 1 fund for any series of the New Preferred Stock designed to
- redeem annually, commencing a specified period of time af ter initial issuance, at $100 per share plus accumulated dividends, a number of shares equal to a specified per-centage of the total numbar of shares of such series, with the Company possibly having a noncumulative option to redeem annually an additional number of shares up to a specified percentage of the total number of shares of such series. For further information as to the terms of the New Preferred Stock, reference is made to Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8 here to .
- For information as to the procedures to be fol-lowed in connection with the sale of the New Preferred Stock, as contemplated by Holding Company Act+ Release No.
22623, reference is made to Exhibits B-2 and B-4 hereto.
See Item 3 below with respect to the Company's possible amendment of this Application-Declaration to seek exemp-tion from the requirements of Rule 50 under the Holding Company Act with respect to the sale of one or more series of the New Preferred Stock.
The Company also proposes to issue and sell to
- Middle South, and Middle South proposes to acquire from -
the Company, not more than 4,000,000 shares
- of the Com-pany's common stock having a par value of $10 per share
(" Additional Common Stock") at a price o f S.10 *per share.,..
for an aggregate cash consideration of not more than ,
, S40,000,000. The Company's Charter presently provides for - ,
l 7,000,000 authorized shares of common stock having a' par . ,
value of $10 per share, of which 5,935,900 shares, having an aggregate par' value on the Company's bo'oks of
$59,359,000, are issued and outstanding and owned by ...
l The proposed 4,000,000 shares includes the 1,500,000 shares previously proposed to be issued by the Company and acquired by Middle South in 1984 with
) respect to which an application-declaration is pend-ing (see File No. 70-6962) before the Commission.
This Application-Declaration supersedes the applica-tion-declaration in File No. 70-6962 with respect to the proposed issuance and sale by the Company, and acquisition by Middle South, of additional shares of j the Company's common stock. .
(
~ '
Middle South. According1y, the Company proposes, by ap-propriate corporate action and with the consent of Middle South, further to amend its Charter so as to increase from 7,000,000 to 10,000,000 the number of authorized shares of its common stock, thereby providing the Company with a sufficient number of authorized but unissued sharos for purposes of consummating the proposed sale to Middle South of the Additional Common Stock.
The Company and Middle South believe it is pre-ferable for sales of the Additional Common Stock to be timed to time.
to coincide with the Company's cash needs from time The re fore, the Company and Middle South respect-fchange ully request that the order of the Securities and Ex-Commission (" Commission") herein permit the. sales of the Additional Common Stock to be effected from time to time and at any time through .and including December 31, 1985, in increments to be determined by the Company and Middle South. Upon consummation of each such issuance and sale by the Company, and the acquisition of such Addi-tional Common Stock by Middle South, the.Compady proposes to credit its Common Stock Account with the amount (in the aggregatr. of not more than $40,000,000) received by it for the Additional Common Stock, and Middle South proposes to debit its Inves tment Account with the amount (in the ag-gregate of not more than S40,000,000) of its cash invest-ment in such Additional Common Stock. For additional in-formation with respect to the proposed issuance and sale of the Additional Common Stock, reference is' made to Ex- '
hibits A-6, A-7 and B-5 hereto.
- Middle South plans to obtain the funds with which to acquire the Additional Common Stock b'y issuing ,.
and selling its promissory notes to various commercial,
} banks pursuant to Middle South's proposed revolving . credit ,
agreement (see File No. 70-7034) or through such oth6r i
forms of financing as may be approved by the Commission.
The Company intends to apply the net proceeds ..!
derived from the issuance and sale of the New Bonds, the New Preferred Stock and tha Additional Common Stock to the pa ymen t in part of short-term borrowings, to the financing in part of the Company's 1985 construction program, which provides for expenditures of approximately S39,300,000, to the payment in part of the Company's obligations to Middle South Energy, Inc. under a Power Purchase Advance Payment l Agreement (see File Nos. 70-6592 and 70-6985) and to other corporate purposes.
I b
. (h>
. Item 2. Fees, Commissi6ns and Expenses.
Tb be supplied by amendment. -
Item 3. Applicable Statutory Provisions. f The Company believes that Sections 6(a) and 7 of
. the Holding Company Act and Rules 23, 24 and 50 thereunder apply to the sale (s) of the New Preferred Stock and the New Bonds . The Company plans to utilize alternative pro-cedures under Rule 50 for the sale (s) of the New Preferred Stock and the New Bonds as contemplated by Bolding Company Act Release No. 22623. ,
The company believes that the sale (s) of one or more series of the New Preferred Stock or the New Bonds may require the assistance of underwriters, dealers or agents depending on market conditions at the time of the of fering thereof or that a private placement of one or more series of the New' Preferred Stock or the New Bonds may result in more f avorable terms to the Company than would result from a public of fering. Accordingly, the Company may amend this Application-Declaration to seek an exemption from the requirements of Rule 50 so that it may of f er such series of the New Preferred Stock or the New Bonds through either a negotiated public sale (s) or a private sale (s).
The Company believes that Sections .6(a), 7 and .
12(f) of the Holding Company Act and Rules 23, 24 and 43 .
thereunder are or may be applicable to the proposed is-suance and sale of the Additional Common Stock.
< Middle South believes that Sections 9(a),
- 10, and a 12(f) of the Holding Company Act and Rules 23 and 24.of
- the rules and regulations thereunder are or may be ap- ,
plicable to the proposed acquisition by 'it, of the Addi-tional Common Stock. ,
The Company and Middle South further consider that Rule 50 is inapplicable to the proposed issuance and sale by the Company of the Additional Common Stock by virtue of paragraph (a)(3) thereof.
Item 4. Regula tory Approval.
The Company and Middle South believe that no state regulatory body or agency and no Federal commission or agency other than the Commission has jurisdiction over the proposed transactions. For further information with
1 l
respect to these matters, refdrence is made to Exhibits F-1 and F-1 (a) hereto. j Item 5. P roc ed ure . .
The Company and Middle South request that the Commission's order herein be entered on January 31, 1985 so as to permit the Comp:ny promptly to commence its pro-posed financing program in February 1985.
The Company and Mi.ddle South hereby waive a recommended decision by a hearing officer or any other responsible officer of the Commission; agree that the Staf f of the of fice of Public Utility Regulation' may as-sist in the preparation of the Commission's decision; and request that there be no waiting period between the issu-ance of the Commission's order and the date on which it is to become ef fective.
~
Item 6. Exhibits and Financial Statements.
i (a) Exhibits: .
A-1 Restatement of Articles of Incorporation of the Campany, as executed September 30, 1969
( filed as Exhibit A-1 in File No. 70-6392).
A-2 Articles of Amendment to Restatement of Ar-
- ticles of Incorporation 'of the Company, as .
executed February 27, 1980 ( filed as Exhibit A-2 ( a) to Rule 24 Certificate in File No.
70-6392).
A-3 Articles of Amendment to Restatement o'f' Ar- .
ticles of Incorporation, as amended, of. the ,
Company, as executed March 19, 1980 ( fi~ led as Exhibit C-1 to Rule 24 Certificate in File No. 70-6404). ...
A-4 Articles of Amendment to Restatement of Ar-ticles of Incorporation, as amended , of the Company, as executed January 23, 1984 (filed as Exhibit A-7(d) in File No. 70-6962).
A-5 Proposed form ( s) of Articles of Amendment of Restatement of Articles of Incorporation, as amended , of the Company increasing authorized shares of Preferred Stock and establishing series of New Preferred Stock.
,y v- - - . - , - - - - -
A-6 Proposed form of Articles of Amendment of Re-statement of Articles of Incorporation, as amended, of the Company increasing authorized shares of Common Stock.
A-7 By-laws, as amended and currently in ef fect, of the company (filed as Exhibit A-8 in File No. 70-6962).
A-8 Proposed form of New Preferred Stock Cer-tificate.
A-9 Mortgage and Deed of Trust, as amended by ten supplemental indentures ( filed , respectively, as the Exhibits and in the Files Nos. in-d icated : B-3 in 2-5411 (Mortgage); 7(b) in 2-7674 (First); 4(a)-2 in 2-10126 (Second) ;
4(b) in 2-12136 (Third); A-6 in 70-3959 (Fourth); A-7 in 70-4023 (Fifth); D to Rule 24 Certificate in 70-4023 (S ixth) ; 2(c) in 2-24523 (Seventh); A-4 in 70-44 62..(Eighth) ; C to Rule 24 Certificate in 70-5479 (Ninth);
and C to Rule 24 Certificate in 70-6204 (Tenth)).
A-10 Form of Additional Supplemental Indenture (s) .
A-11 Propos ed form of Bond . ,
- B Proposed form of letter ( s) to prospective -
purchasers with respect to the New Bonds.
- B-2 Proposed form of letter (s) to. pr6spect,ive -
, purchasers with respect to the New Preferred .
Stock. ,- .,- ,
- B-3 Proposed form of Underwriting Agreement ( s) for the New Bonds. ...
- B-4 Proposed form of Underwriting Agreement (s) for the New Pref erred Stock. ,
B-5 Proposed form of Agreement between the Com- ,-
pany and Middle South relating to the sale and acquisition of the Additional Common Stock.
- C-1 Registration Statement ( s) relating to the New Bo nd s .
1
.. _g_
- C-2 Registration Statement (s) relating to the New Preferred Stock.
D . Inapplicable'.
I E Inapplicable.
F-1 Opinion of Monroe t Ls; ann (A Professional Cor poration) . .
F-1(a) Memorandum of Monroe & Lemann (A Professional Corporation) in connection.with ,its opinion. .
F-2 Opinion of Reid & Priest. .
- G Plan of Financing.
- H-1 Fee Statement of Deloitte Haskins & Sells.
- H-2 Fee Statement of Monroe & Lemann JA Profes-sional Corporation). *
- H-3 Fee Statement of Reid & Pries t .
- H 4 Fee Statement of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam &
Robe r ts .
- H-5 Fee Statement of Middle South , Services, 7.a c . .
- I-1 Preliminar,y computation of pro forma earnings coverage required for the issuance of the New Bonds under. the Company's Mortgage and Deed I of Trust, as supplemented. -
~
."' 'V
- I-2 Preliminary computation of pro forma earnings :
coverage required for the issuance of the New l
Preferred Stock under the Company's Restate-ment of Articles of Incorporation, as amended.
(b) Financial Statements:
- Financial Statements of the Company as of September 30, 1984 (reference is made to Exhibit G hereto) .
- Financial Statements of Middle South l Utilities, Inc. and of Middle South
( *
- To be filed by amendment.
- - _to_
Utilities, Inc. and subsidiaries, con-solidated, as of September 30, 19.84.
Except as reflected in the Financial Statements, no material changes not in the ordinary course of business 1984.
have taken place since September 30,
- Reference is made to Exhibit G hereto for a statement of (i) the approximate amounts, before and af ter giving ef fect to the proposed transactions, of unbonded bondable property of the Company available for the issu-ance of bonds and (ii) the proposed accountin'g treatment of the transaction's herein contemplated.-
Item 7. Information to Environmental Ef fects.
(a) As stated in Item 5, the Company and Middle South would appreciate receiving the order of the Commis-sion in this File authorizing the transactions proposed herein on January 31, 1985. As more fullyto described in tKe jurisdic-Item 1, the proposed transactions subject tion of the Commission relate only to the financing ac- in-tivities of the Company and Middle South and do not volve a major Federal action having a significant impact on the human environment.
(b) Not applicable.
- O J
. .s .. ..
I .
l l
.e' l
l l
l
- y M Os e. _
. . SIGNATURES Pursuant to ,the requirements of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, the undersigned companies have duly caused this statement to' be signed on their behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized. ,
1
~
! , NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE INC.
'~
By: -
Edwin Lupbegggt #
Assistant freasurer and Assistant Secretary MIDDLE SOUTH UTILITIES, INC.
l -
By: % %_
Edwin Lupberjfer' #
Senior Vic(President -
Chief Financial Officer Dated: December 20, 1984 ,
~
o
.e*
S 8 g
.n a
$H M
149th year'No. 5 New Orleans . a The States !t:em ~ Tuesday. January 29,1983 20 cents
..%. . ..s 1mauw w m - - _ N m mum -
City sues to stop XOPSI stock sale f
ty susan FINCl4 1923 franchise allowing NOPSI pany. Midlie South Utilities Inc %ney frnm the common stock company's stock and innd = ales only gave the PSC control over r and tvhes CUNN4NGHAA4 to operate in New Orleans. fded the recluest to sell the stocks sale to contir ue making advance and has said such methin would rates of NOPSI and LPtsL*s i sieff etum According to backers of a city and honds last rrumth with the payments for power from the swr be undertaken without coun- operations in Algiers. It says the takeover. the franchise allows the federal Securities and Exchange Grand Gulf I nuclear reactor. cil appriwal. city did not give up control ofim-
.. The city of New Orleans filed city to buy NOPSI's assets for Commission. The companies since January 1984. NOPSI But NOPSI has taid the SFE ancing.
J suit Monday to stop New Orleans the current book value, now asked the SEC to waive a cus. and two ather Middle South- that enuncil approval is not PSC escrutive secretary louis Public Service Inc. from selhng abra.t 3200 millum, to,iary hearing and allow the sale companies. Imi=iana Power and needed because of the 1982 trans- Qumn said the agency does net
, $100 mibn worth of bunds r id stocks, saying the sale would . Accordin8 to the s"t. NOPSI - ""preferably
- 8" through as simm as possible, by Feb.1. andl.ight Light On. andbeen Co han Musissippi paying Power the Cityfer of regulation Council of NOPSI from regulate securities sold by to the louisiana increase the cost of buying f,P,"(,] g,[g'",;g ",P I,,$40 NOPSI. because the utilit
, , , "il'
, , The rumman stock would be a Mwidle Snuth culmidiary $12.5 Pabhc Service Commissiors the owned by a !=>ld ng company.y He is NOPSI- sold te M ddle South, which mdlum a numth t. finance Grand suit says.
The city also says NOPSI bonds, up to 200.000 shares of said the holding company is res J-should have sought City Council new preferred stnci .t $100 "I"O """ "h' mdlion shares """SIN" of NOI stock", U""
Port 'Gi
' * # '" # 'P"b "* " *I
' bson. M io. " "*" " Tregre said. "Our regulat.lliam ion islatedThe by mit the alw SEC.says that if the '
permissi<m to sell the honds and [b";g*,nd ** "["Y,,Q
,,, ,g 4
,[iU]. a the suit sayy
,, , g The suit ssvs that w,th The city's suis sa3s NOPSI presently before the Puhlic Ser. senck and imed sale is completed, starks. bue did nut. g ge , ,g,,* i President James M. Cain has me Commiss'em. and they regu- it would beenme " impossible The city says it has the optkm . spproval of diddle South, preva.usly acknemledged that the late nur financing?
ta ly y utdity operations under ita NOPSI and its parent com. bOPSI will use snme nf the City Council mu a approve the The suit. immever. asyn the city ses sutr. A-4 1 . >- '" ' '. ' ~ . * * .
- 6 Sud= ,
- - .x
-incra ih vaiu ofthe u ert, the city wants to buy. although it p,,,, y , duca not specify grhat the impact y* .g truuld gba A.t f,..
and/or impracticable"for the sity ~ [ "Aa's consMenca," .the suit to esercise sta option to buy .says. "The city will be rendered NOPSI operations. . . incapable.of financing the acqui.
The sale, the suit,says, wendd , sition? 't ; ; -> .i ,
- . . . . .-. . _ n . .- - n u .
mm Exhibit 2 -
A-10 Frey January 25.1985 The Tnves-Pic.*yure/The States-trem 3 IV:ETRO R1EWS -
Plant cost Kgy .
blamea on.
public fear
%%;@d l h# - y-sy GUSTAV NIERUHR < 4 * . .h. 4' I L last,leffmorn bureau f 'f Q, l w s. 7,
- The public's fear of nuclear .,
, ' p: .~ :-y c,nwer, combined with increased
')'Ay.M 4 segulations by the federal govern-
[4 *" . }N.JfjM' g
Cient. have driven up the cost of "
'1 the Waterford 3 nuclear riant, a .ir#4 . -
6ntor official of Louisiana Power- f Q'
~/ .% .X
~
& Light Co. said Thursday.
\ -
[d g'.
i:The plant, which is scheduled ..g' to go on line by June, is now eIpected to cost $2.7 billion, said Roth S. ' Mike' Leddick St>th S. " Mike" Leddic k, LP&L's LP&L senior vice gresident senior vice president for nuclear Operations. When construction of. nuclear submarine commander, the plant was annourced in 1970, supervised construction of the Waterford 3 was budgeted at Prairie Island nuclear power
(;'30 million with a January 1977- plant in Minneapolis.
nampletion date. Constntetion of the plant was U"The cost of Waterford 3 , hampered by.a serien of delays, didn't have to be that much, but most recently in April, when the ITankly the public had a lot to do NRC began an unprecedented eHth it." Leddick told the Rotary investigation into the plant's enn.
Club of Metairie. struction nrter receiving hundred,
" Asked about that remark after of complaints from workers that the meetin;:. Leddick said the contractors had vinisted safety federal Nuclear Regulatory Com. standards. That investig:. tion has mission, acting in responce tn bxn completed and last month IEblic concern about nuclear the NRC granted LP&L a license -
accidents, "kept changing the to operate Waterford 3 at 5 per-rules" on how nuclear plants cent of its capacity. However, should be built. 'I he increased nearly a dozen NRC investiga-safety regulations caused con. tions of the plant and its manage-struction rosts to double and per. ment by LP&L remain open.
hop 4 eve n triple at Waterfnnt 3, Leddich said the six. month b'emaid, investigation cost LP&L $130 "A lot of the million but it did not make the nuclear energy .. .problems have beenwith plant safer.
caused because the public was not While Leddick conceded that
, as wril informed as they should Waterford 3's completion will l have been,"leddick said. He said cause electric bills to local cus-that the news media have often tomers to rise significantly, he taker a hostile attitude to nuclear said the plant will prove a energy, rather then trying to edu. investment in the long Therun. good ente the public to its benefits. price of its electricity will not Led.iick, a graduate of the U.S. inerene with future inflation, at Naval Academy and a former least for several decades, he said.
Eh Exhibit 3 I
PRESS RELEASE The City Council-today released a report on the causes of the blackouts which occurred in the City on January 21, 1985. The report was prepared by a team of investigators hired by the City Attorney at the request of the City Council. The team of investigators included engincers from Gulf South Engineers, Inc.
and R.W. Beck and Associates, and attorneys from the law firm of McGlinchey, Stafford, Mintz, Cellini & Lang. A summary of the facts discovered by the City's investigators are as follows:
- 1. LOSS OF GENERATING CAPACITY:
A substantial proportion of the combined NOPSI/LP&L generating capacity was lost on the morning of January 21, 1985 from causes reported by NOPSI/LP&L to be a combination of winter and non-winter related conditions. The losses consisted of generater shutdowns and limitations in the output of other generators. When compared to the rated capacity cf the units available and/or on-line before the first loss at 12:24 a.m.,
Monday, January 21, the order of the magnitude of losses of
, capacity were: NOSPI 10%, LP&L 64%, combined 56%. LP&L lost l
l 2,051 MW (megawatts) of generating capacity out of a total generating capacity of 3,852 MW. The only NOPSI generating unit which was shutdown was Paterson #3, with a capacity of 56 MW, which shutdown at 11:23 A.M. from non-winter related conditions.
See attached tables.
l
- 2. TRANSMISSION LIMITATION Transmission capacity limitations would have prevented any substantial benefit from Grand Gulf, had it been available during the power outage period.
- 3. APPORTIONMENT OF EMERGENCY LOAD SHEDDING (BLACKOUTS)
According to the Emergency Reports, filed with the Department of Energy, 35,000 residential customers of NOPSI and 40,000 to 50,000 residential ratepayers of LP&L were affected by the blackouts. NOPSI/LP&L policy is that the load shed during an emergency is based upon a 2:1 ratio, i.e., LP&L will shed twice as much power than NOPSI since LP&L's load is twice as large.
However, since LP&L was able to ultimately shed about 385 MW of industrial load, and NOPSI only 9 MW from three industrials, the ultimate burden placed on the residential ratepayers of LP&L was very close to the burden on residential ratepayers of NOPSI, i.e.,
each had to shed about 200 MW of residential and non-industrial load. Since the unwritten policy of NOPSI and LP&L pertaining to the sharing of shedding in an emergency situation concentrates on
- the total-volume of the load, rather than on the kind of load, NOPSI's non-industrial customers will bear c disproportionate burden of cut-backs or cut-offs in power in emergency situations.
NOPSI/LP&L maintain that this unwritten procedure is equally applicable if NOPSI would have an emergency.
- 4. WINTER PROOFING DESIGN CRITERIA FOR GENERATING PLANTS Data supplied by NOPSI/LP&L indicate that most of their steam electric generating units are supposed to withstand a temperature 2
-y,
l I
of 10'F with a wind velocity of 50 mph. The weather conditions l
experienced on January 21, 1985 did not exceed the winter proofing design criteria.
During December 1983, very similar temperatures, wind velocity and direction were reported by NOPSI/LP&L. The utility reports that a remedial p c ogram was undertaken to correct cold weather problems identified in 1983. During the 1985 emergency, NOPSI/LP&L report no breakdewns of equipment suffering breakdowns during December 1983.
- 5. MOTH 3ALLING OF PLANTS During December 1984, NOPSI began the "mothballing" of 193 MW of generating capacity at its Market Street and Paterson plants.
During the same period, 444 MW of generating capacity (Paterson
- 4, Michoud #1 and #2) was taken out of service for scheduled maintenance, including an anticipated long duration outage (several months) of Michoud No. 2. The net loss of available NOPSI generating capacity at the time of the blackouts was 637 MW or 50.7% of the total NOPSI generating capacity.
- 6. CURTAILMENT PLAN AND LOAD SHEDDING SEQUENCE The Curtailment, Plan adopted by the City Council on December 7, 1978 by Resolution R-78-204 calls for rotating cutages so that no particular area is out of power for a period exceeding 20 minutes at a time.
The Curtailment Plan provision calling for rotating outages not to exceed 20 minutes was not adhered to. Most outages 3
i 1
appear to have been substantially longer than 20 minutes while some areas eligible for shedding appear not to have suffered outages at all.
The priority list indicating the sequence of shedding was not adhered to'. The inability to adhere to the curtailment plan outage duration requirements and the shedding priority list may have been affected by problems in the operation of the remote control switching and telemetry systems. NOPSI/LP&L are investigating and report no conclusion as to causes.
NOPSI furnished a map of New Orleans showing areas serviced by each feeder. On the East Bank of New Orleans, one feeder area experienced a loss of 0-2 hours of electric power, 13 feeder areas, 2-4 hours, 45 feeder areas, experienced 4-6 hours, and 41 feeder areas were out of electricity for more than 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
54 areas experienced either no loss, or from the available data losses could not be determined.
- 7. OTHER REPORTED EMERGENCIES Eight other emergency reports were filed with the U.S.
Department of Energy concerning freeze-related problems on January 21, 1985. Only one emergency (Detroit Edison in Detroit, Michigan) was possibly due to an electric generator failure.
Detroit Edison lost 137 MW power output on a total of 5,380 MW, or
~
2.5% of their total load. The report seems to indicate that no residential ratepayers were deprived of their electricity. The other reports indicate that utilities in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia did not experience loss of generation,
but experienced reduced voltage on transmission lines. Gulf States Utilities lost power on a 500 KV transmission line. It lost 600 MW on a line load of 4,450 MW (13.5%) and reported that power was lost to 120,000 customers, mainly in Texas. It is unknown how many customers were affected in the Lake Charles, Louisiana area. No generator failures were reported by Gulf States Utilities. The cause of the problem was unknown. The problem occurred at about 8:25 a.m. Power was restored at 11:00 a.m.
The report prepared by the City's investigators is only a preliminary report and did not reach any final conclusions regarding the ultimate cause of the failures of the generating units, the prudency of the procedures followed by NOPSI/LP&L during the emergency, or the prudency of policy decisions regarding weatherization or "mothballing" of plants.
The report was prepared with the cooperation of and with information supplied by NOPSI/LP&L personnel.
5
- D 0
LPAL UNI TS IN AMI TE AHL A 500Di DLHING OulAU.S 1/21/25
/9 ll
/O Year of Out Due To Back on Winter Design Commercial Capacity 1/21/85 Powerplants Unit Operation Scheduled Line Crlieria Mw Out MW Out Maintenante 1/28/85 T Wind Velocity Nineelle I 1951
- 2 66 4:30 a.m. 22 " 3:08 p.m. - 1/22/85 -
19S3 100 4:30 a.m. 56* " 3:40 p.m. - 1/22/85 --
3 19SS I2S Dec. 1984 133 1/22/83 4 1971 750 10 T 50 M it 4:30 a.m. 143* "
5 1973 750 9:50 p.m. - 1/22/85 10T $0 Mil 1:45 a.m. 7SO 2:59 p.m.
SUBTOTAL: 1, 791 9 71 135 8.Ittle Gypsy I 1961 244 l:48 a.m. 244 4:31 a.m. --
2 1965 436 3:20 a.m. 4 36 3 1969 570 7:26 a.m. or 11l:45 a.m." OT None Stated Jan. 1984 $70 feb.1985 (E stimatel "Similar to it. 2"
$UBTOTAL: 1,230 600 $70 Waterford I 1975 411 -
2 1975 400 10T SO M11 12:24 a.m. 400 10T S0 M'tt SUBTOTAL: 811 400 #
ll Total capacity of 3 generating plants 3,852 MW g
g 23 Total generating capacity out due to 'g ) Q .a o
forced losses 2,051 MW
\ K 0 [
- 3) Total generating capacity out due to fq\ <
scheduled maintenance 705 MW 4 3 Total generating capacity available or pnerating 1,096 MW Does not include Buras 119 MW), Thlbodeaux (40 MW) Daily Log-Sheets show Duras of f un til 11 a.m., thereaf ter producing 3 MW and no output from Th ibodeaux.
Confilcting Information
- " Reduction in capacity. See Appendia 4 of Preliminary Reprt. ,
TAlt.E I Rawlsed 1/27-85
. e
NEW OHLEANS PLAtLIC SERvlCE, IE.
CENtHATlNG UNI TS IM54f NG OUTATES 1/21/85 Date la Forces Out Due To cut Oue To Commercial Capacity Ou t eje NW
_ Plant Unit Scheduled "Milhlta l l i ng" Back On Operation IMWI 1/7t/05 M Maintenance Star tints 1/1/85 tine Market Street il 1938 46 12 1943 %
36 13 1954 38 18
$U8 TOTAL: 103 105 P. terson I 1947 46 2 46 1948 44 3 44 1950 % 11:23 a.m. 56 4 1954 87 01/22/85 at I:35 a.m.
87 10:48 p.m, 0l/21/85 laf ter enorgency S 1967 16 unit tripped at 11:41 p.m.)
3:12 a.m. On Line SUBTOTAL: 249 % 87 90 Michoud i 1957 183 113 2 1963 244 Late Jan. 1985*
244 May 1985*
3 1967 S48 ** l* Estimates) 2:22 a.m. 9t 8:00 a.m. - 530 MW SUBT0Thl: 905 IJanuary 21, 1985) 38 357 ll Total capacity of 3 generating plants 1257 MW 23 Total generating capgity out due to
, forced losses f alter III 323 a.m.) % MW
- Unable to increase load - at 490 Mw 53 Total generating capacity out due to scheduled maintenance 444 MW
- 6) Total capacity available or generating TMtE 2 562 MW at 3:3 2 a.m. Revised I/27-85 e
E
- c E
h -
y -
a-I .
'l
_.57 .
l 148th year No. 364 New Orleans a The States > tem ' . Ta esday. January 22.1985 e + - . .
. . . . x. . . . . .
~ .-
e -3 20 cents l~
i Major power Mackout is triggered by cold oy asAnK ECHLENSTElse avoid a repeat of the power and cnoling water lines to freeze, l
end enasset poseze kees. for the loss,nf that power, the sleeping customers early Morvf ay. The power outages added to he said. utility officials diverted power ss /y.mm The New Orleans City Commcil Some customers were mithout the discemifort felt hy residents
-We had taken sorne precau. from other areas by ordering poner for as tong as .is hours.
called for an investigstion of tie ns and d.me some insulation rotating blackouts. attempting to cope with sub-Jack Frost chose the dead of whether ruta ne blackout. - band on our esperience last year. Utihty officials said they had freeri.:e temperatures, frozen New Orleans area busirtenses, to continue rotating blackouts water pipes and danceruusly slip-aight switchestoand wreak havoc crminJs with ordered that oper- by Li &L .iew power company. md fira sister yleans put 'inbut wasevider.tly the insulation rud adequate e e pio- we a ked to shut down Monday throughout southeast basisiana pery streets and brul:en afternoun by the City Council. until midday Monday. leaving Hut the blackout also sparkwl j ste four Co. louisiana generating Power ry';.ns early&erating Light Pubhc failuresService
- mere Inc, ;es-after wgen- tect esperienced un frorn 3esterda9 the oyrations Tregre estremeTuesday.
cold we were espected to resume normal thousands rnure without perser a polit .
Monday morling, ng one of sarv. saut. for shorter periods of time, to spokesman Jim Fort said early i the worst bishout .he electric The initial generating ures North of Lake Pontchartrain, avoid having the companies' Monday that the enstage under. '
system's history. - were caused by a comhm, m "I areHe said most esposed ta theofweather, the controls residents in and Washmstun St. Tammany parishes could be and hit entire d.mn.
generating system shut lined the need for adding the And whde p.mer was restored freezing rain. Iow tempe.atu:es are not housed in protectise hy power outages if more Waterford 3 and Grand Gulf I to .dmost all residential areas in azul omd conditions t h.t dn pped huddings because of the area's o One LP&L spokesman said the nuclear p,wer plants to the Mai-the New Orleans area by midday the chill" factor below 0. said mild chmate. When the equip- br:mc ws fall nn hnes and break rolling blackouta were dealt out to die South Utihties kystem.
- tivm. official. said. NOPsl aiwi LP&L customers "to '
I Monday, utihty and city officials NOPSI spokesman Bill Tregre. ment faded. the plants' computer His comm.nts clicite.1 immed:-
. urged rewlenri and businesses to That causec a variety of elec- LP&L and NOPSI said they spread the grief to as few people ate entwimm from th*e City Cuun-( systems automata-ally shut them were forced to cut power without as possible for the lemit amounts l limit usage thruuzh Tuesday to tronic s, witches. hydraulic va!ves duwn. Tregre said. To make up warning to more than 70.000 of time.-
e see stAcuouts. A-4 Es t
-..t
. .. m us . ... - . .. . . ,
.$ f by:S$dt$tirmss'erbs .
$,B ' lackOutS,y - inoperativefortwomonths.
. . 9f there is anHavaHaMep The Centrn! Businees,'Etra, )'
,$ * . . . .. . M . ,$ '.e power up North,there would be a ".where cutting off individual din. I A"r.om Page t , , ..,,,, '
problem" relaying it'to LP&L . tributiun lines wealmpractica!. ,
> The St. Charles streetcar line '
cil and Public'S sice'Commin. : I,and NOPSI he said.' The enmpanies did get'emer. f and purtions of the a
- asinherJohn F.Schwegmann. . . gency power from MP&L and ~ 11. to continue use of the'stnet. i
.s= During an emergency council several nther surrounding power . car. c a
,gnacting called to discuss taking companies, Fort said - . > The Air Products and Chemi. t "over NOPSI, councilmen' invited . s., The LP&L power plants that M cela Inc. plant on Intracoastal g
.' Middle South chairman Flavd L. ' malfunctioned were' Nine Mile ' Drive in eastern New Orleans, 4
"$ewig to esplain the outage.'They Point Unit 5 on the West Bank ;because that company's genera. tt
. hinted that Iewis might be sub. v. ear Bridge City, Little Gypsy .: tors were prodoemi power (cr tl
'benmed if ha declines an invita., Station Units I and 2 near tre NOPSI on en en.w.gency benis.
, i tun to their meeting Thursday. Ronnet Carre Spil'way, and ' .In addition, individual distri. E,
- l"I think they orchestrated the. Waterford 2, a natural gas gen. bution lines t<i most area hos. fg
- blackouts, Councilman James' ereting plant on the West Bank pitals, fire 'and police stations, r, Singleton naid af*er the meeting. . of St.CharletParinh.- P " sewerage and water plants'and ' I
."They have decided that what. ., .. Making the situationTrorse~ *..other essential services wm not '
..theill do in show us luna much LP&l. and NOPSI officials said, ' cut off wherever possible. , t we need n6 clear pnwer andtry.to ? was that two power r!aats at (Se M ' Power was rentored to all resi. ni ram it d 9wrt our throats like ;Michoud Generating Stat (ur dential arees ascept those cut off G thefve been doing all elong." ' ' have been shut down for more by lasks in' individual distnbu. ' oI Schwegmann said, Fort was than a month for routine mainte. - tion 1.nu W2 p.m. .t, tii
" groping for whatever shred of nante. . .. .3 + iMeanwi i *nidents served by in; id&tumalpupport he can get to c Tregre maid such maintenance:' Washingtoe;t. "*mmany Dec.,' es justify the dec*siaaJogild those is routmely done during winter $ tric Cooperstjee In sul paris of' '44 units." y ,,N, months because thnee months are three n parishes braced Moi. taa for , ,8 T ut
^. ' NOPSIspoke'am'an NI'cNrd , demand. , %nonnelly L % e tentlyofwithwt a time Inw power another electrich. '. . nightheof going inte .h Guthribald theaktitional r %.
that v$dd be supp!ied W d * .NDPSI inupposed to follow a,y " Sunday night's terqperatures in w-Gulf 9'and Waterford 3 w' hen # 'p'cific 'm'rgency P lan for New - the teens caused demand for C-they begin ennimerciaj nperalions Orleans custpmers thatwas rr.an/g power greater than what the elec. iri later this year "would4avpdatedpy the ity Cougeil in vtric: c9-op could provadeds..a E changed the sitse%cpider. M
- 4 -
".suh, about 5,000 homen were b But F*drt & fe.1rgency.. without pnwer at various times 1 wybly % .
. q'*f W. -
f
- rf
- plan never had a chance to work. - 1In the' northern.part of St.
" Basically."&heWyou're - < Because all four LP&L Nants.. Tammany endin Aarts of Wash.
3 depending on one banic anuYee of . shut down between 2:40 a.m. and ;,ington and Tahgipehon parishen, e electricity with no backup,** 3.50 a.m the company could not. about 3,500'resi,?en.ts uent with.
f Guthrie said,"yuu're in trouble." : . notify sleeping residential cus.*i, out electricity for abdut an hour
- ' Maanwhile< Mississippi Pnwerg.tomers and business and ananu. . efter midnigSt. said operation
- A Light Co. officials'said Grand facturing executma to limit their7 manager Gerald Brumfield.
, Gulf I was cperatirig at only 4 ., electricity usage.' * .' , 'The electric co op decided Iin.c4r:t ofits capacity on Sunday e The magnitude of the power - against alternating power to vari.
and Monday. , . Insa also meant that reducing ous areas the company serves.
. The plant now is expected to ' voltage by 10 percent, another said BrurafMd. who urgal the he increened to more than 60 per. . option in the gmergency plan, co-op's 2R.0tM au fom*rs to ron-cent of its capacity next week would not work, serve electricity. .
during its third stage of testing The only optinnl Fort said,,an - Central Lm hinna Dectric Co.,
(before commercial. operation. to cut off large chunks af custom. which serven the, rest of the par.
p MP&U ppak esman .Linenin, ,, ers as quickly as possible to avoid ish, had more power than i 3 Warren said Jta sister utilities in e the loss of power to all of south. needed Monday and was provi/
tlanslana had not requested that ' 'eest Louisiana.- ing some of it to Middle Saut Grand Cult generate more power ~
- Once utility officials gnt the
- Utilities,a spokesman said. 6 on en emerrancy basis to help ' situation under control, they . About 5,100 CLECO'custon alleviate the blachdut. He said he - began to rotate the blackouta,in ers, mostly in the Slidell are.:
.did not know if such a move most areas. That meant turnmg wm withnut power Sunday whe -
would be feasible under federal , 'offindividualdistributinnlines at- a LP&L line under constructio"
. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - awitching stations thrnughout the , M scross a CLECO line.
~
regulations. .
New Orleans area on a rotating Although power was restored And Guthrie said a trans. basis.
to most areas within a few hours.
former normals used in relay - The only areas whose power. 60 customers were without elec power from Ark.a-as ,han been . was not cut off were thone served ' tricity for 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br />, he said.
m g
Exhibit 5 -
[ An analysis -
~
' adopted by a Federal Energy N ,
},Qh , hhh.gg Regulatory Commission judge, h
- who recommended it to the full commissi n.The FERC regulates FrTrs 21
% }'}g@@
*1 mterstate power sales and will have the final say over howi increase LP&L and NOPSI the amount will buy from of poger. r, Grand Gulf 1 power .
e e th&S3.4 billion Grand Gulf 1 PSC consultants say the utili-Qt}o } ~}Q$ plarit in Mississippi. The utilities *. local image has ties' new cost-sharing plan will gotten so bad, several observers , cost Louisiana ratepayers hun-By t.YNN CUNNINGHAM . - , say. that if voters were asked', dreds
.. increased of millions electric of dollars rates. in Utility 3:ag writ,r again to return regulatory control executives say.that the plan will over them to the City Council, ' benefit Louisiana ratepayers in The exec'u tise secretary of the the measure would pass. .
h state Public Service Commission 'A similar referendum faile'd' by ~. At ,the long run.PSC meeting, Alonday's oc can remember when Louisiana 'a few hundred ' votes'in 1983. Cain and Middle South Chair-
, Power & Light Co. was "the dar- Councilmen Monday introduced man Floyd W. Lewis were extoll-p ling of the nation's utility indus- legislation to call a May 4 refer- ing the virtues of the new pro-try" - a company that was so endum on regulatory control. , nosal. Commissioner Louis N well run its executives asked to "It's turned around," said I reduce rates 26 times in the past Councilman Joseph Giarrusso,) away. Lambert of Gonzale I
\ 00 years. one of the measure's authors. "Why should we believe any-New Orleans City Attorney " People have a better under- thing you're saying today." Lam-Ssivador Anzelmo recalls with standmg of what the issues are - bert said, "when you told us fondness a New Orleans Public the rate impact of two nuclear months ago that you backed our Service Inc. of days gone by, a power plants." position (in the cost-sharing
" paternalistic" utility known sim. Observers who say the utilities' issue) - reversing your position ply as "Public Service" that sup- imnge has decayed cite s,everal without telling us, embarrassing '
plied cheap power and ran. a , actions by company executives. us. A credibility problem now money. making transit system. For example, city officials are ex sts and you created it." But that sweet harmony has angry because they say NOPSI Cain acknowledged that he e suured. State and city officials tried to claim a large share of 4 may have lost credibility with the say now that they see the two court-ordered refund granted the ' PSC, but said he hoped the com. New Orleaps area utilities as city and the utility from a gas mission would understand how untrustworthy satellites of the supply company. hard it is to please electric cus-Middle South system, ready to Also, the utilities have said tomers in three states. sell out hical interests to the,cor- that when the PSC assumed reg-porate good New Lrleans City Councilman Tuesday, New Orleans City u,latory control m 1982, city offi. Mb F4 dd On WM a cials lost some other controls
"""I it"'; but definite change m-Councilm'an Wayne Babovich overNOPSI and LP&L. I~i said tha. Z the council voted now, lhtt the biggest blow to the uti- N01 Si s corporate image in the it would take over NOPSI and litics' relations with government gg'y!n{a attrih te i the Algiers operations of LP&L and, the public seems to be the deb because the companies can no dec,ision thn month by James M. with Middle South- '
longer be trusted to protect rate. Cam, president of NOPSI and ",NOPSI is not the corporate LP&L to increase the com- .ci,tizen it once was in New nday, Councilman James panies' share in Grand Gulf 1 Orleans," Early said. "Its image Singleton charged that the utili. electricity ,a decision made now is that of a subsidiary of a ties created extensive power out. without notifymg the council or mammoth, multistate corpora-ages during a cold rnap as a ploy the PSC. , tion tha acts for the benefit, not to garner support for their State und qy ofnetala reacted of New Orleans and I ouisiana, nuclear plants, Waterford 3 and I"udly and quickly, saying that but for system as a whole."
; NOPSI and LP&L capitulated to Babouch said that to mend e an e day PSC members P""" I'"m their parent 'com- fences, NOPSI and LP&L wouhl in Baton Rouge lambasted utility pany, Middle South U,tilities Inc., have to support a Grand Gulf I official = over their plans to which m turn was fechng political cost shanng plan more favorab!c pressure from Arkansas. Middle to New Or! cans area customers See UTILITIES, next page South owns LP&L, NOPSI, - than the Middle South plan.
Arkansas Power & Light Co. and "NOPSI has got to stop play-Mississippi Power & Light Co. ing games," he said, "either admit LP&L and NOPSI had sup- it th,esn't have control of its des . gmrted the cost. sharing plan pm- tiny, or work with us to battle posed by the PSC, it also was , the dominant companies." l
]
Exhibit 6 I-13-Sd he pcp Cityprobes i power plants after outage. - a vLYssN CUfuNINGHARA
~
and MAaK SCHLEIFSTEIRB . a="}-
'"","(*
i-A'eaff enere . s New Orleans city officials and .,% Y energy consultants toured New .Y .
-'g, ,
~\
Orleans Pubhe Service Inc gen. .i .. erating planta Tuesday in a coun-ril ordered investigation into the. " AM', a/ d,,==# ,
'S Monday blackouts that left ,.V p*g 70/Xiu without electricity in sub- - $qs. -
freezmg temperatures- s O, % hl lun,eanwhile, niana Powerthe president
& Light Co. andof
.h, ; T
;e NOPSI said Tue= day that a city '.~ Y. MM s rouncilman's characs about the ,,@ 'M6'FC W [
w er fadures were a %p in the 4 7
.luuncilman James Singleton 7 e*' I g' 4 :8'*.1 accud utility officials of master- e -
t' mindmg the Islackouts to support the companies' contention that nudear plants will provide better .ly,f,Mw the f$ce* service for Louisiana custumers. Singleton made the charge national ennsulting firm, wanta to hfunday, and the council called know whether NOPSI and LP&L for the investigation of NOPSPs are to blame for the outages and notating puwer cutoffs. The util. whether NOPSI was selling elec-ity said the cutoffs were needed tricity to LP&L because high demard was thnat. Utilities President James M. ening to throw the entire New Cain said at a hastily called press Orleans area into darkness. conference, "We have no more orchestrated the blackouts than City Atintney Salvador the Sewerage & Water Board Anzelmo said the investigation mchatrated bw water pnssun. gnmp, which includes city law-yers and engineers from,a See st.ACKOUT, nest page
! .s '
Cain also said a comment by a
.QEa: nackOut~.
utmi, spokesman ihat powe,
.i from Waterford 3 and Graml Gulf From Page 21 . I coald have prevented the blatk-Tu say we did this is in poog outs has caused him "a lut of I taste." -
, grief."
- Cain, describing Monday "a= 1 lie said he cansiot understand l "the psychulogy behind the pu(
fo'r"teIIkNt] ,
> A transformer malfunctioned, . lic s nectiva Wth,e.cinnpent, and said the remark was mtended preventing and NOPSI.powersisterfrom an LP&l.
subsidiary in to show Qatd the two plants emM Arkansas frupi reaching the area. ..have pruv3 ed inre puwu to the ans,
. > Several puwer planta were dis .
assesnbled for scheduled winter Both the $2.7.1 billion Water-maintenance and couldn't be res- .furd 3 and $3.4 bi!! ion Grand Gulf tarted in time. I are years behind schedule and
> Insulation of nut 41ont controle . many times over budget. Buth was inadequate at LP&L's ras- are scheduled for commercial and uil fired generators. Cain operation later this year, and said engineers and technicians both will furnish electricity to didn't espect the below tero LP&L and NOPSi customers.
windshill factor. He also said ~ Meanwhile, as warmer weather i that cuntruts at two a.ea nuclear thawed the New Orleans area plants, Waterford 3 and Grand Tumlay, electric puwer was ren. Gulf 1, are indours and not sun .' tored to all but a few LP&L and ceptable to freezing., ,u NOPSI customers.
1 m4 5 En cayuu 2 Exhibit 7
'fLt %b .!h Lug 2'i, Fr ii S Blackouts defended by utilities By LYNN CUNNWOMAas Staff e ed r local utilsties,115 'a series of:
planned emergency power out- * '? ages during the height of last
. week's record breaking cold snap. *
- tried to follow accepted indus-try practice end New Orleans l City ('ouncil emergency guide-lir es, utility eng neers said Mon-day..
.m Iecal utility engineers called a prew conference Monday to teD1 their version of the story behind the controversial Jan. 21 area- . wide outages that left 70.000 elec-tricity customers without pnwer for hours in the midnt of a frees-J ing temperatures.
f.,7ssM",' tR" *?d engineer for Imuisiana 1%er & f -NOPSI- 2 ""50"#tS!'A' foDowd te Co. and New Orleans Puh- '
'*i" "#
Freen Pese 1 ,. _ ['y', Seacks said'the rutating black. through south Iouisiana. 'I?.ose gency period, but that the sale / auts wcre netemsary to prevent a 11 planta, the utility said, would were necessary to maintain th cascadmg saluation which cuuld -supply more than enough power integrity of the,LP&L systeur to Orleans, Jefferson, St. Bet- w hose transmission lines connen have re*utr-d in a complete area nard, Plaquemines and St. NOPSI to outside power. blackout of all customers. Charles pan'shem.
.. , Utility spokesman James Fort
' Smacks also said that tb util But the utility did not predict ties learned a lesson about ads said the telackouts were in hne that sub-sero wind chill factors with nationwide uti' ty practice" would freen outdoorcontrols and quate protection for outsid -
and emergencv sudelmes laid out knock out four of those 11 gen ,,powerplantequipment.. But Single in 197Fi by the cuuncil. ersting planta. companies of ignoring prope But New Orlea When the four plants went , maintenance. man James N,nangleton. City Council who
- accused NOPSI and LP&L of % the rurnaining units had to "NOPSI and LP&L are so'he take up the slack, their transmis- bent on getting (the two nucles urchestrating the b!ackouts to emphasize the need for tw" mion lines working at near capac ' planta) Grand Gulf 1 and Wate ity levels to distnbute the power. ford 3 paid for that they' has n,udcar plants, saal he is rmt con- according to the report. In order deliberately created the **
vmeed the plan was fu!! awed. to prevent the overload of trans .- where they allowed their equil
*I'm not satisfied they followed miasion lines that utility officials . ment to deteriorate," Singleto the plan," Sivletun saict ,"They .L think they did. liut it's obvmun to , se e d would have "- darkened the, .4 said.. -
, ,,, r, ,
me they did nuL They can't jus-tify tha. they followed the plan. Fort said "We followed the prearranged plan to the estent we could." . Fort said part of the plan called for planned power outages, but only for durations between 20 and 30 minutes. Thme guidelirwn were not fulluwed. Furt said. bedause of the crisia situation and fear that equipment turned on and off frequently might break. .
"It was a judgment call," Fort said. .
According tu a utility report, il of the 16 generators that sup-ply puwer to metropolitan New Orleans were either operating or available to generate the day before the cold front swept
. See NOPSI, A-4
4 i, l Eaat Jeffeison
~
, % ..i. _ ,u.,m % en - ~.,u ,m ,, - ..
~ ~
! h__.____MMO .
l NOPSI sued for 8100 miUion in blackout I c,susanFenCH NOPSI ha. said the outages generating capacity to supply the engineers also wi!I present their sures to " ensure sufficient electri. to the area for no good reason i eme tyms cummamensame were necessary because power city." own report. r cal power for heateg and other and without warning, and w Srw mntere demand in the metropolitan area NOPSI Senior Vice President Cordaro said he is not sur. electrical needs," according to the out stopping the flow of to gas m,ith. esceeded supply, r la the imbal- John Cordero, who called prised Ba;ert filed die suit. T,e suit. buit hngs affected by;the power A leading utility critic Wednen- ance could have caused a wide. Hagert's suit harassment, said the local attorney is a leader in the Bagert said he didn't know the loss. _ , d*y filed a $100 million class spread blackout. companies bought and sold power fi ht to retum regulatory control other plaintiffs personally, but . Imaa of electricity caused the. l 'ection suit agaiost New Orleans But Bagert claims NOPSI had to each other during ti;e outage, of NOPSI to the City Cour.cil they had called him Monday to blower in the tracery *a heating i Public Service Inc., claiming sufficient power to serve its cus- but only to prevent a to'al area rnd to lary out NOPSI 15 avoid empresa their anger over the. umt to shut down, but the gas. I cosapany negligence caused Mon- tomers but diverted some of it to blackout. purchasing high-cost power from b?ackouis. powered part of the uait kept days extensive power blackouts neighboring levisiana Power & " Total blackout was a real a Missis ippi nuclear plant. Also Wednesday, NOPSI was .o:wratmg.according td the suit. during subfreezing temperatures. Lig'.t Co., also threatened with alternative," Cordaro saicL "The "I question his motives," Cor;. sued for rmre than $1 millims by The aunt says the fire, which Former City Councilman and ' losing poser. integrity of the entire system had dato said. "He is a leader in the the w n* uf a 2703 Ursulines left the grocery and its contents a PuHic Service Commissioner He also claims that NOPSI ta be maintained, so we (blacked drive toward municipalization, Ave. grocery that burned Monday totalloan,wcs caused by NOPSI'm Brod L sgert filed the suit in Civil manae* ment ordered generating out areas) to bring back stabil- Every prortunity he sees as a morning after electrical power to neghgence. including failure to
,Ihatric. Court on behalf of new. units disassembled for routine ity." . .
pns ible argument to further his the stem was shut off. . warn its custorners of the danger
.ertl New Orleanians, charging maintenance during the winter Cordarre said utility c,cineers de .re to move this city townr? Seven Seas of Harvey Inc of operstmg heatmg units when thtt 70.000 NOPSI customera months when customer demand . vill present a report 'to the Nera municipalization, he takes." which operates Bayerno's, sued electrical power is cut off and suffered property damage and in high. Orleans City Council Thursday NOPSI had adequate notice with store operatora Jose failure ta halt the flow of res into personal discomfort because of "At no point," Begert said, esplaining the reasons far the that temperatures would drop, Jimenes and his wife, Norma, buildings when power has been.
,t he sight-hour blackout. "did NOPSI not have enough intermittent power outairs. City but faite i en t.the. sufficient men. claiming NOPSI shut off power stopped. g.
t !? E E re to
M
- t
.1 Parish of Orleans Exhibit 9 - g State of Louisiana AFFIDAVIT My name is Gary L. Groesch. I am the Research Coordinator of the Oystershell Alliance /Save Our Wetlands (Joint Intervenors) interven-tion into the operating license of the Waterford 3 nuclear power plant. I attended a meeting on January 25, 1985 at the Waterford 3 facility wherein Louisiana Power & Light (LP&L) officials briefed Nunzio Palladino, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, on the present status of the project and a possible timetable for attaining an upgraded license. During the six-hour discussion and tour, I had occasion to speak, with R. S. Leddick, Vice-President of Nuclear Operations, about the extensive rolling blackouts that occurred on January 21 in the LP&L and New Orleans Public Service areas. I mentioned that the initial reports on the blackouts (see reports) indicated lack of preparation on behalf of LP&L managers. I questioned him concern-ing his responsibility during the episode. He responded that his duties were concentrated on the nuclear project, not the failed fossil units. He said fossil operation and maintenance were the responsibilities of "Maurin and Aswell." These two men, D. L. Aswell and Lee Maurin, were the former senior LP&L personnel at the Waterford 3 facility throughout the 1970's and into the 1980's until the arrival of Leddick and his " team." Aswell was Vice-President of Power Production; Maurin.was Plant Manager and Vice-President of Nuclear Operations. Aswell and Maurin are now the Senior Vice-President of Fossil Operations and Vice-President of Foss' Operations, r pectively. Jm' . Jn , Gary L. Gr sch [ 3 5.AxJ A L(dp'~~
- u n .i A.y ( !M ~ y ,17yr f:h,.d' 9/ 93o m
.x ;< y n s %
-q p
e' SECOND REPORT ON LOSS OF ELECTRIC POWER IN CITY OF NEW ORLEANS ON JANUARY 21, 1985 Submitted to City Council ' on January 29, 1985 To Supplement Preliminary Report of January 24, 1985 i I l I i i l I McGlinchey, Stafford, Mintz, Cellini & Lang l Gulf South Engineers, Inc. j R. W. Beck and Associates l
t
'E 1
INDEX Page Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Table 1: LP&L Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table 2: NOPSI Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 3: Retail Customer Mix - 1982 . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 4: Retail Customer Mix - 1983 . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 5: Number of LP&L Customers in Affected Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Report on Findings of Fact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . Protection Against Freezes: Weatherization of LP&L's Power Plant . . . . . . . . . 12 Electric Power Emergency Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 o I
7 4 - 1 g. o. INTRODUCTION This is the Second Report pursuant to Council Resolution 85-35. The resolution calls for a " full and complete investigation with regard to the ' rolling blackouts' of electric power in the City on January 21, 1985 and the necessity for the blackout." This report incorporates information and facts not available or researched at the time the First Preliminary Report was submitted. Also included are revisions of some tabulations. This report is a preliminary report, limited to facts obtained from NOPSI/LP&L and several other sources such as the U.S. Meteorological Service. Facts obtained from NOPSI/LP&L were furnished by Plant Managers and Management Personnel and not directly from operators on duty at the time events occurred. Information however, did include logs which we understand from NOPSI were prepared by the operators. Information obtained from NOPSI/LP&L also included data automatically recorded. During January 22 and 23, meetings were held with NOPSI/LP&L including visits to generator units which experienced outages. The investigating team was not informed at that time about generators at Nine Mile and Michoud which were limited in output during the crisis period. Therefore, the Team did not have an opportunity, while inspecting Unit #5 at Nine Mile to inspect generating units nos. 1, 2 and 4 which were also limited in output. Information furnished the evening of January 23 first revealed the Michoud No. 3 and the Nine Mile units 1, 2 and 4 problems. Those units were thus not included in the First Preliminary Report technical section, " Exhibit A", prepared by R. W. Beck. This report deals mainly with factual issues as did the Preliminary Report. It is not an inquiry into policy decisions, into the identity of those making decisions, or of those at whose direction any decisions made were implemented. We were unable to examine the decision making process and how any of the policies were adopted, as this was an area in which LP&L/NOPSI's legal counsel refused to allow any inquiries in by the Investigating Team. In the short period of time available to prepare this report, it has not been possible to collect sufficient informa-tion to reach any conclusions regarding the adequacy and prudency of winter proofing programs in comparison to standards common to the utility industry. We have not reached any final conclusions regarding the ultimate cause of the failures of the generating units, the prudency of the emergency procedures that were followed, or the reasonableness of the policies under which NOPSI and LP&L initiated the shedding of its loads. This report is not intended to be, and should not be considered a complete report on all of the facts involved. NOPSI/LP&L personnel have worked long hours to gather, l reproduce and identify material furnished at the request of the j investigating team. We are appreciative of their cooperation. 2-
g .* % LPAL UNII$ 1:3 AMIIL AHL A SOUitl' DtHING OUTAa5 I/28/ts$ Year cf Oot Due To Back on Winter Design Commercial Capacity I/21/85 bcheduled Lino
-morplants Operation Criteria unit Bed Out led Out Malatenance t/21/85 T Wind Velocltv neells I 1951 66 4:30 a.m. 22*** 3:08 p.m. - 1/22/85 -
2 1953 100 4:30 a.m. 56*** 3:40 p.e. - 1/22/85 - 3 1935 125 Dec. 1984 135 1/22/85 10T 50 let 4 1971 750 4:30 a.m. 143***
- 9:50 p.m. - 1/2?/85 10T 50 WH S 1973 750 1:45 a.m. 150 _ 2:59 p.e.
SUBTOTAL: 1 , 7 91 9 71 13S Dtla Gypsy 1 1961 244 I:48 a.m. 244 4:31 a.m. - 2 1965 436 3:20 a.m. 436 7:26 a.m. or Wl245 a.a.** 07 None Stated 3 1969 570 Jan. 1984 _. 570 Feb.1985 IEstimate) "Slaller to #1, 2" SUBTOTAL: 1,250 680 570 Derford I 1975 411
- IOT S0 WH 2 1975 400 12:24 a.m. 400 10T S0ffH SUBTOTAL: all 400 l) Tgtal capacity of 3 generating plants 3,852 MW
- 2) Titel generating capacity out due to forced losses 2,051 W
- 3) Tctal generating capacity out due to scheduled malatenance 705 MW 4 3 T tal generating capacity available or generating I,096 lef Does not include Suras 119 MW). Thibodeaux 140 MW) Daily Log-Sheets shoe Suras of f until 11 a.m., thereaf ter producing 3 MW and no output from Thibodeaux.
Conflicting Information
*** Reduction la capacity. See Appendia 4 of Prellainary Hoport.
TAtLE I -
's Revised I/27-85 l
t
e NCJ OHLEANS PUHLIC SERVICE, IN . CENERATING UNI TS OtRING OUTAMS 1/28/85 Date in , Forced Out Due To Out Due To Commercial Capacity Outage MW Scheduled " Moth 8alling" Back On Plant Unit Operation IMW) I/21/85 Out Maintenance Starting 1/1/85 Line Market Street Il 1938 96 % i2 1943 36 36
- 13 1954 38 31 SUBTOTAL: 103 103 Peterson I 1947 46 46 2 1948 44 44 3 1950 56 11:23 a.m. 56 01/22/85 at I:35 a.m.
4 1954 87 87 10:48 p.m, 01/21/85 (af ter emergency unit tripped at II:41 p.m.) 5 1967 16 3:12 a.m. On Line SUBTOTAL: 249 56 87 90 Michoud i 1957 113 113 Late Jan. 1985* 2 1963 244 244 May 1985* (* Estimates) 3 1967 548 2:22 a.m. 58** 8:00 a.m. - 530 MW (January 21, 1985) SUBTOTAL: 905 58 357
- 1) Total capacity of 3 generating plants 1257 MW 23 Total losses forced generating capap)ity (af ter'9 223 a.m.)out due to 56 MW
- 3) Reduction in capacity 58 MW
- 4) Total generating capacity out due to ** Unable to increase load - at 490 MW "mothballing" 193 MW s
- 5) Total generating capacity out due to scheduled maintenance 444 MW TABLE 2
- 6) Total capacity available or generating 562 MW at 3:12 a.m. Revised 1/27-85 l
l
l 3 l .. TABLE 3 -- RETAI(_ CUSTOMER MIX - 1982
- LP&L Electric Operating Retail Customers KWH Sales Revenues Class No. t (Millions) % ($000,000) %
Res. 478,360 88.6 6,429 27 364.0 30 l l Com. 52,001 ; 9.6 3,130 13 183.0 15 1 1 Ind. 6,618 1.2 12,997 54 574.0 48 l l Govt. -- -- -- -- -- -- Other 3,408 1 0.6 1,385 6 74.5 6 Total 540,387 100 23,941 100 1,195.5 100 NOPSI Electric Operating Retail Customers KWH Sales Revenues Class No. % Millions % S000,000 % Res. 177,700 90 1,700 35 107.1 35 Com. 1,631 34 109.1 '36 Ind. 756 16 40.8 14 l Govt. 756 16 43.3 14 l Other -- -- -- Total 198,400 l 100 4,843 100 300.3 100 0 Source - 1982 Annual Reports e e
2 TABLE 4 -- RETAIL CUSTOMER MIX - 1983 LP&L Electric Operating Retail Customers
- KWH Sales
- Revenue
- Class No. 4 Millions % Millions %
Res. 487,148 88 6,274 28 358,840 31 l Com. 53,812 l 10 3,168 14 186,822 16 l l l Ind. 7,503 l 1 11,491 52 529,649 47 1 Govt. 3,562 1 1,305 06 69,432 , 06 i Other -- Total 552,025 l 100 22,238 100 1,144,743 100 I l NOPSI I Electric Operating Retail Customers ** KWH Sales
- Revenue
- Class No. % Millions % S Millions %
Res. 179,800 89 1,643 34 97.8 35 Com. 18,600 l 9 1,654 35 104.3 37 1 Ind. 1,100 l 1 728 15 36.4 13 l Govt. 1,600 , 1 762 16 41.1 15 Other -- -- -- Total 201,100 l 100 4,787 100 279.6 100
- Source - 1983 Annual Report
** Source - LP&L/NOPSI
+
y -w y4 - - ~ - , - + - e ,,---e - -~ -,v--r- o,, - - - - - - - - - ~ - - -
.s TABLE 5 -- RETAIL CUSTOMER MIX - 1983 LP&L Customers Affected by Outages LP&L Retail Customers Class Number Percent
' Residential 213,060 l 89.7 l
Commercial 20,810 8.8 , Industrial 2,330 l 1.0 l Governmental 1,200 l 0.5 Other -- Total 237,400 l 100.0 _ ,n._...m _ , . . . _ , . _.__,__-_.-_.~_m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._..,,e__.
REPORT OF FACTS FOUND - II The following are revisions and additions to the five facts presented in the Preliminary Report of January 24, 1985 as well as new facts identi.fied since. The original set of facts (numbers 1 through 5) are presented in Appendix 6. 1 The numerical sequence is continued here for the new facts. ITEMS 1 AND 2 -SEE APPENDIX 6
- 3. APPORTIONMENT OF EMERGENCY LOAD SHEDDING AMONG NOPSI AND LP&L SERVICE AREAS:
Additional Information: Records of load shed and commands for shedding of load furnished by NOPSI/LP&L indicate that from the
, commencement of load shedding efforts the two to one policy of allocation of load to be shed was maintained. By about 1.25 hours following the first shedding and until return to normal the ratio of load shed was approximately three to one with the LP&L service area enduring three times as much as the NOPSI service area. This relates to total load shed without regard to class of load as to industrial, commercial or residential.
- 4. WINTER PROOFING DESIGN CRITERIA FOR GENERATING PLANTS:
NOPSI/LP&L indicate that freeze protection, minimum temperature and maximum wind velocity used by NOPSI/LP&L as design criteria for the original design or subsequent freeze
a t protection of steam electric generating units is generally more severe than that encountered during January 1985. Table No. 2 contains freeze protection general criteria for temperature and wind velocity as furnished by NOPSI/LP&L for several steam electric generator units. The current freeze protection general design criteria was developed following record setting cold weather of January 1962. See Appendix NO. 8 for a tabulation of those conditions in comparison to conditions recorded in December 1983 and January 1985. '
- 5. See Appendix 6 .
- 6. LOSS OF GENERATING CAPACITY:
A substantial proportion of the combined NOPSI/LP&L generating capacity was lost on the morning of January 21, 1985 from causes reported by NOPSI/LP&L to be a combination of
' winter and non-winter related conditions. The losses consisted of generator shutdowns and limitations in the output of some generators. When compared to the rated capacity of units available and/or on-line before the' first loss at 12:24 a.m.,
Monday, January 21, the order of the magnitude of losses of capacity were: NOSPI 10%, LP&L 64%, combined 56%. See Preliminary Report, section " Chronology of Events".
-9
; .:, u J
- 7. COMPARISON OF ACTUAL LOAD SHEDDING SEQUENCE AND PRORATION VERSUS CURTAILMENT PLAN AND SHEDDING PRIORITY SEQUENCE:
The Curtailment Plan provision calling for rotating outages not to exceed 20 minutes was not adhered to. Most outages appear to have been substantially longer than 20 minutes while some areas eligible for shedding appear not to have suffered outages at all. The priority list indicating the sequence of shedding was'not adhered to. The inability to adhere to the curtailment plan outage duration requirements and the shedding priority list may have been affected by problems in the operation of the remote control switching and telemetry systems. NOPSI/LF&L are investigating and report no conclusion as to causes. NOPSI furnished a map of New Orleans showing areas serviced by each feeder. On the East Bank of New Orleans, one feeder area experienced a loss of 0-2 hours of electric power, 13 feeder areas,-2-4 hours, 45 feeder areas, experienced 4-6 hours, and 41 feeder areas were out of electricity for more than 6 hours. 54 areas experienced ei.ther no loss, or from the available data losses could not be determined. We were not provided with a feeder area map for the affected LP&L area. Hence, the location of the feeder groups tripped for Algiers could not be determined. Review of the LP&L Southern Control Daily Switching Log and computer generated power shedding report dated January 21, 1984 reveals that Algiers is serviced by LP&L's Lower Coast and Holiday Substations. Six service areas were blacked out in Algiers through switches in the Holiday Substations and each outage lasted about three hours. LP&L also shed loads through the Lower Coast substation, cutting power to two Algiers t service areas, with one outage lasting about 2.5 hours and the other lasting a total of about two hours.
- 8. RESERVE CAPACITY FOR POWER SUPPLY LOSS CONTINGENCIES NOPSI/LP&L maintained approximately 1500MW of excess supply capacity as of the evening of January 20, 1985 in excess of the expected peak area load. Normal contingency planning does not anticipate the disintegration of the system to the extent that it occurred. The large number of steam electric generator unit outages and reduction in output is highly unusual, and was unique in the country. (See Appendix 3).
9
~
9 PROTECTION AGAINST FREEZES: WEATHERIZATION OF LP&L'S POWER PLANTS A. Weatherization Program The freeze of January 21, 1985 was not unexpected. Freezing weather had been predicted one or two days before January 21, 1985 (See Appendix 9). The MSU dispatch centers have teletype connections with the Weather Bureau. The Companies no longer use a consulting meteorologist. In answer to our question, whether the companies had written procedures regarding weatherizing the plants we were told that there were no written procedures _(See also Appendix 5, which is the response to our request for information on this point), but that only LP&L/NOPSI of the MSU companies, were in the process of preparing procedures. Company officials stated that after the Christmas 1983 freeze, a formal program was undertaken. All freeze related problems were identified, a remedial program was developed and reported to all-plants within the Middle Sou- System. Specific remedial-measures were taken with respect to individual equipment items and systems. General remedial action was undertaken including protective sheathing on walls around certain areas. As of our plant visits on January 22 and 23, 1985, work was incomplete on some enclosures and walls. We were not able to investigate the status of other measures as details of those measures were received later. Upon receipt of an impending freeze warning, NOPSI/LP&L advised that plant managers act at their discretion and in their
t best judgment to effect additional last minute measures for freeze protection in addition to those mandated by p. lor directives. B. Cost of Weatherization Program Members of management of both companies and plant managers at the various powerplant sites alike volunteered the information that the implementation of a weatherization freeze
. protection program was hampered and delayed as a result of a lack of funds. "We are strapped for money," was the often-heard complaint. The lack of funds was not attributed by the Companies representatives as being the result of any regulatory actions.
Time did not permit a thorough review of the adequacy of freeze protection measures or of the maintenance programs as to any potential relationship to the failures. Nor can we evaluate whether any budget constraints contributed to the failures of equipment. It is recommended that the Council urge the Companies to make the necessary financial resources available for the protection of the powerplants from cold weather a priority. A thorough reevaluation of all systems and subsystems for-any factors affected by subfreezing weather should be undertaken as a company-wide formal program. The re-evaluation program should involve design engineering personnel in addition to operating personnel and should involve a formal examination of every system and subsystem for vulnerability to freezing, identification of possible failure modes, identification of
. s ..
t specific freeze protection measures; determination of monitoring techniques for verifying the operation of measures. Particular attention should be directed to instrument air systems and pressure sensing lines. Indicating systems not in control loops but which may be required for backup manual operation or confirmation of critical data should receive the same priority for freeze protection as control loop systems. r . - ,.
-t ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM EMERGENCY REPORTS Filed on January 21, 1985 With the U.S. Department of Energy Ten reports were filed under the Power System Emergency
' Reporting Procedures guidelines of the Department of Energy (See Appendix 3). The criteria determining when a report must be filed are summarized at Appendix 4.
The reports of NOPSI and LP&L represented two of the ten filed. LP&L reported at 4:08 a.m. that it began losing power on its 2100 MW system and that seven or eight industries voluntarily dropped their load and that 40,000 to 50,000 customers were cut off on a rotating basis.
- NOPSI reported ~that at 4:08 a.m. it " began to lose power generation on a 600 MW system." It did not state that the power generators lost were not NOPSI's power generators, but actually LP&L's generating equipment. No power plant unit on NOPSI's syst'em was shut down until 11:23 a.m. -The only problem that i
- occurred prior to 4
- 08 a.m. on NOPSI's system of which we are now aware, happened at 2:22 a.m. when NOPSI was unable to increase the load on its Michoud #3 station to more than 490 MW. Michoud #3 I has a-capacity of 548 MW. NOPSI officials claim that the reduction in power was due to various weather related problems.
By 4:08 a.m., NOPSI was instructed to shed an additional 100 MW
-after the first instruction to shed 100 MW four minutes earlier.
The Emergency Report further stated that two major customers voluntarily. dropped their load and that 35,000 residents shared on a rotation of power basis. It stated that the loss of power t generation was caused by freezing weather conditions. However, freezing conditions were not responsible for the loss of any generator and Paterson 3 (87 MW) shut down at 11:23 a.m. with problems, which, according to information we received from the Companies' officials, did not appear to be freeze related. Moreover, at the time that Paterson 3 went out, NOPSI had been given approval to pick up, or was actually picking up, load (See Preliminary Report Appendix 3). According to the Emergency Reports, 35,000 residential customers of NOPSI and 40,000 to 50,000 residential ratepayers of LP&L were affected. The Companies' officials informed us that the load shed during an emergency is based on a 2:1 ratio, i.e., LP&L will shed twice as much power than NOPSI, as LP&L's load is twice as large. However, since LP&L was able to ultimately shed about 385 MW of industrial load (See Appendix 10), and NOPSI only 9 MW (See Appendix 11) from three industrials, the ultimate burden placed on the residential ratepayers of LP&L was very close to the burden on residential ratepayers of NOPSI, i.e., each had to shed about 200 MW of residential and non-industrial load. Since the
~
unwritten policy of NOPSI and LP&L pertaining to the sharing of shedding in an emergency situation concentrates on the total volume of the load, rather than on the kind of load, NOPSI non-industrial customers will bear a disproportionate burden of cut-backs or cut-offs in power in emergency situations if this policy continues to be in effect. This procedure is apparently equally applicable if NOPSI would have an emergency. At this time, we do not know if this c . procedure is a' common industry practice among sister companies owned by the same parent company, nor can we evaluate at this time whether this is a common practice among neighboring utilities. Eight other emergency reports were filed. Only one emergency (Detroit Edison in Detroit, Michigan) was possibly due to an electric generator failure. Detroit Edison lost 137 MW power output on a total of 5,380 MW, or 2.5% of this total load. The report seems to indicate that no residential ratepayers were deprived of their electricity. The other reports indicate that utilities in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia did not experience loss of generation, but experienced reduced voltage on transmission lines. Gulf States Utilities lost power on a 500 KV transmission line. It lost 600 MW on a line load of 4,450 MW (13.5%) and reported that power was lost to 120,000 customers, mainly in Texas. It is unknown how many customers were affected in the Lake Charles, Louisiana area. No generator failures were reported by Gulf States Utilities. The cause of the problem was unknown. The problem occurred at about 8:25 a.m. Power was restored at 11:00 a.m.
~
3-APPENDICES APPENDIX DESCRIPTION 1 Schematic diagram of electric generating unit. 2 Diagram of a typical electic generator. . 3 Electric Power System Emergency Reports filed by various utilities with the Department of Energy on January 21,'1985. 4 Summary of Electric Power System emergency reporting requirements of the U.S. Department of Energy. 5 Response of NOPSI and LP&L to Request for Written Procedures for preparation of units for cold weather. 6 " Report of Facts Found," Excerpt of Preliminary Report on Loss of Electric Power in City of New Orleans, submitted to City Council on January 21, 1985. 7 Excerpts-from the Times-Picayune from January 20-27, 1985 on the New Orleans freeze and the NOPSI power outage, and a New York Times excerpt from January 23, 1985. 8 Table of weather conditions in 1962, 1983 and 1985. 9 Graphs indicating total generating output of NOPSI and LP&L. 10 Excerpts from the Times-Picayune from January 18-21, 1985 on weather data in Louisiana and the nation. 11 LP&L Industrial load shedding January 21, 1985. 12 NOPSI Industrial load shedding January 21, 1985. 13 Summary of NOPSI and LP&L curtailment plan, filed with the New Orleans City Council on December 7, 1978.
.. 3 ..
~
ll Electric Generating Unit . Boiler e Turbo-Generator
- Condenser /Feedwater System Steam Stock - Turbine .
f o Electrical s l Output l
<[ i Generator I
A ! -
~
Spent Steam l ' Air f - o Hester l Forced , a r i Draft -
,V i Fan Flue Gas
" Cooling l
! I J f [ Water l; i
-> i -
>/--- -
g CondenserI s M '
/ j Fuel - Gas or Oli o o - '
Water s o ( 9 Water '
= c i
!k Feedwater Feedwater Pump Heater
asu "
'i!
h!e' [g5 t n l . $
- 1
. _hi s
'I h 7
.j j;
I ;rwl y ni g
?9
<5 WC.in;;4 4
.;,1 '
MW ' ~W
CC6o.aw-C ROUTING AND TRANSMff7AL SUP (p{ to, o.es. .e,. ,se. es..e,. in e., oo.e i Poet)
- 1. W S=$.!bi -
' l
^ :n rue mese and naeum
^ ^ ; T. _- ! For Clearence Per Conwefesten As Requested FerCorreseen Peepe's 1.o. &
See Me Carf-a- For Your InfesmeUen
- . . . . _;- :g'.^
^
Signature Demment t- cnetten ! Jose 4 diowins W 7,fen r,9,4:sd n~k w* '
/0 +v .
wMg *c'M s. m t.. N .== g . 30 not use thee tonn es a nicono of eseeseela, eenewmaese, espeesse, eteerenosa, and semitet acuene FMMes (Namt org. eyentet. Agency / Post) Reesn .*=_ FF e94 r"Fs rrrt. . 5::
# y.es..
"F 2 %-m,
.e..
so.,-.
...,, # ==n.x. e 3'.
M
- - _ W__ _ _ _
' ~
. S
.t. tg- 3 h 1 !i UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY /IE ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM EMERGENCY REPORT Date of Report January 21, 1985 VOLTAGE ' Type of Report j NE23M14)EhtEX$46ppgggxREDUCTION/J@N.E y; OTHER L / Utility: Louisiana Power and Light Co. Divisions (Southeastern LA)
- Reported by: Malcolm Hurtsell, Vice President, Louisiana Power & Light Co.
142 Delarende Street (Name and Title) Honet 504-523-5714 Location: New Orleans. LA 70174 Office: 504-595-2208 Phone- D.'.; k ... " 3 2 5'14 System and/or Area Affected: Southeastern Louisiana Incident Date & Tir.e of Initial DestuttMfM5H@iotMgx!EXfd4E i 4:081/21/85 k . For an Interruption Report the Followingt Date & Time of Service Restoration: Initial F 7 or 8 najor induntrial and -v w- su ,-. gal*=---3 ..__, Nutr.ber of Customers Involved: / Amount of I.oad Involved: ___ Description of Event (Including as appropriates cause of the . incidents, equipment damaged, critical services interrupted, and any effects on neighboring systems): At h:08 a.m. January 21,1985, Louisiana Power and Light, Co., began to lose power rstem providing power t.o southeast Louisiana souT.n m n= on'its 3ent 2100 MV ehetrain. m;Jnstituted emergency shedding and retention plan which is clo coordinated with a connon load sharing progran zcz aAA n= 5 w. = * = . -....w. aght mater industrial customers have voluntarily dropped their load and rotating sharing to'40,000 to 50,000 customers is in errect. uw nw .i.. s .. Le% . ...J ued _mt 1600 MV. No emergencies exist in the system except those mentioned. The loss wa Ns-c 2-PM R-A -
es / I s ,- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY /IE
- f ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM EMERGENCY REPORT Date of Report January 21, 1985 Type of Report INTERRUPTION L/; VOLTAGE REDUCTION /ADDSAny; OTHER L /
Utility:_ Potomac Edison Company Division: Reported by: James D. Latimer. Eastern Division Manager, Potomao Edison Co. Office: 421 E. Name and Title) i
- atrick St.
Location: P.O. Box 488, Prederick MD 21701 Phones *)01-69W20 52 stem and/or Area Affected: Potonae Edison Date & Time of Initial E-!=- =M==Wtv/ Incidents _6:49 a.m.1/21/85 For an Interruption Report the Following: Date & Time of Service Restoration: Initial Final
. .s - .r '
Number of Customers Involved: Amount of Load Involved: Description of Event (Including as appropriates cause of the ,, incidents, equipment damaged, critical services interrupted, and any effects en neighboring systems): - At 8:49 a.n. on January 21,1985 Potenac Edinon cor.pany effected a 5 co .pany-wida voltage reduction. The reason for the reduction was that at '/s00 p.m. on January 20[1983 a 1730 W peak was reached and that this will go even higher today. 2, PP1
$,If kdh
-,. J. 1 A/ -
/, ?N sn //2///f
( e e U-1 Q HQ R
l9 45 t#!j- . :a
' .s z.
t'N
- I.
..M%. )
% UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY /IE . .Jfg
. ..y'r- . ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM EMERGENCY REPORT
- u. .
!r .. Date of Report January 21. 1983 ia W, -
. :. ' .1 .
Type of Report: IlODERREP4G3XU,%XXT ~ VOLTAGE REDUCTION /MP!NEXp/;
,y.. OTHER L/
' "Y Utility: Pennsylvania. New Jersey. Division: Valley Forge Maryland Int.orconnection 10:18 l'p. , Reported by: Williar. Shelton at 10'12 and Mr. Charlie Woodward Superdeing Eng. Mailing address (Name and Title) ' g. Location: 955 Jefferson Ave. ., Phone: 215-666-8806 --
., ......m.i... - a m-System and/or Area Affected: Entire System 4
y e a a.a. ' ^
,- Date & Time of Initial Disturbance / Outage / Incident: Tine of Repott 10:12 i
i ,. . . For an Interruption Report the Following: Date & Time of service Rest 6 ration: Initial 12.y p.m. Final 12.W p.n.' Amount of Load Involved: Nur.ber of Customers. Involved: -- -- Description of Eve.nt JIncluding a's appropriate s caQse of the ,, - l., incidents, equipment damaged, critical services interrupted, and 1 any ef fects on neighboring systems): ! PA. NJ and MD Interconnection is effecting a load reduction of 3( to all custmers No emergencies - situation under' control. Full power output restored at i 12:30 p.a. t 6 - 4 I U-1 -
? . ]=
m
$5 .
f i
.L .
l 1
,g,a .
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY /IE yM. , ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM EMERGENCY REPORT P. :- January 21, 1985
$b Date of Report f f.,' Type of Report: N de-i % VOLTAGE REDUCTION /AD93AL fx/;
- 4. ., commev -
i' Utility: Detroit Edisen Divisions * * 'I **
'3 Reported by: Willian Garvey -
(Name and Title)
^ 2000 2nd Avenue Location _
Detroit, Michigan 48237 Phone: 313-237-7833 System and'/or Area Affected: Entire System
., Date & Time of Initial :DCasastrMBF/ME"J/ Incident: 8118 :a.n.
For an Interruption Report the Following: Date & Time of Service Restoration: Initial Final Number of Customers Involved:' ' Amo'unt of Load InDolvedi 137W Description of Event (Includinig as appropriate: cause of the7. . incidents, equipment damaged, critical services inte'rrupted, and any effects on neighboring systems): _At 8:18 a.m. Detroit Edison reduced its 5380 m system ty 137 W power output There are no energencies. Applied load management 59.89 Hz in two parts Additionally J/ voltage reduction and 2/ Electric Water Service Removed. 10 commercial users reduced their load. (. _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . , . - , _ - _ _ _ . _ _ . .,m... _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ , . - , , , .
L. .
~
f 4 .
~
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY /IE ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM EMERGENCY REPORT Date of Report January 21, 1985 Type of Reports 2NJERIUp3XEEF.@/; VOLTAGE REDUCTION / APPEAL [/; OTHER L_/ Utility: New Orleans Public Services. Inc Division: New Orleans Reported by: Malcoln Hurtsell, Vice President New Orleans Public Services. Inc. - (Name and Title) 142 Delaronde Street. Home: 504-523-5714 Location: New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Phone: Offs 504-595-2208 system and/or Area Affected: New Orleans Incident Date & Time of Initial We==+====fhaMw_M 4:08a.n.1/21/85 ( For an Interruption Report the Following: Date & Time of Service Restoration: Initial Final two major industrial and 33.ww renaaential Number of Customers Involved:_ / Amount of Lead Involved: 2001G , j Description of Event (Including as appropriate: cause of the ,. . ! incidents, equipment damaged, critical services interrupted, and any effects on neighboring systems): At 4:08 a.n. January 21,1985. New Orleans Public Servios. Inc. , begar. to lone power generation on a oco nw syst.em. Ans u t.uT.eu emerasaci saved...e, .; m...d en plan which is closely coordinated with a connon load sharing program. Two majer industrial customers voluntarily aroppea ans azzectea resiusnuma anaur.6 a..vslved rotation of power to 35,000 residential customers. 600 MV systen is being r.aintaine at 400 MWs. No emergencies exist in sne syst.em excepT. T. nose ment.asnea. L.. loss of tower generation was caused by freezing weather conditions. The temperature in the New Orleans Area with wins /cn1A4 ract.or is e os o= 0; iu m.im .. f ( , U-1
F lg.. p .:' * .
.$7 1 7, u k J : s: u e.n.
- k. M ! ,- 6 A n L
- o. .
a >-,. ,, ,, W ry : 0 . ,r v a w r h
; *tf
- c. avmd.
. hS$5 f
sky'$fAC5/d? s -
$~ hemM iqqs Pasab. siv-7t<e-ir 77
@K5c4 May.
{_. (g4_77g ppg yuj k.- 80 ea) kcf}!hlJL~44.- Muynw m : 7:m.n. -
$. 5y,-L 6
- g. ; '
.. o e,y4: 1 u- naso M~sk ~ A ;tfd
. i... ' Ij4uCdYJ5%V&p . ned _
'.:: ' ?.IQbt?Ob$'2*eA+a- M **-
A & g _. ( ;:y R)- ,4 % q-;Ar-- .ypt
> % GMd A wv l,..-
i i l* ___ . _ . _ _ . _ . . - . _ . _
%.e .-
. er f
~$- &%&sNJ: 5'sb >. [
h- e ydm$w')
}:n 1i, IO S Wkk .'Cb.cb d $b bi l w.s $Q
't j. M Lugu :
,P o. qs 4y.< eau. W'70-!7 ygg.
ay oc.c .. h.? ., Pb ud 29%Y
%%1%-L'wfR- ~
.l
,. 00 w?wpryoNsdt4 ,
h l 5 % g. n4 o
- p y ,
_c- -
.s/Omcyp'%LJ8eglen .
9& Jnju-f - j; e+1AfC,,, w g
~
l .
^%A~%:/~. .
i l*
_&_s ___,w- e A a_ --,.____,._._,m._._._,,m,m . . _ a, n ._g A m a ga__,_ , _,___, l . #f0 \ N 4/ ; [ [ l " " 1 / V a ky O d & t.- l , l f$ fy, PFt//-51s7 h6' /@tfpo MN 9( ,- l Ad<JeMetaspL - Ow n a-
$$2;%k ya,ea m ~re p y 44Pp.
- ee ,
e b 6
1 *
- i- #9
!
- WR: . if ! 3-c P.+f
!* P s & b+ la.ilgg =
~
imLitt' .' $N W
$WD: PC. Ba+ 2.9st *TY ' e-ys
$%'&, /4/MJ 7 17a ,
^
**' heyea -4.syueda kin's den b yy5o & h00 M
&ps.f !* O cA& 1 l .
8sd y w soo KV L o - t l. Y & M W a,1A1 44 dsb. l R3o(/ M 4~#La, 5 *** l Lt y r a
- . 9&yya a- at m x-/4 $~ , .d l ,
gd to .==- drew ~r l . 4j[." 7FM A l gizc.ruwA - .. . . a x - a u-e_ - srtooa.n- Q Q . l i ) eggity,- MO !
( . . s
SUMMARY
OF POWER SYSTEM EMERGENCY REPORTING PROCEDURES ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY who reports I Every electric in the generation, utility or other subject entity engaged transmission or distribution of electric energy shall report promptly to the Department of Energy's (DOE) Alert Coordination Officer. Telephonic reports of an emergency by the utility are accepted by the DOE. The utilities are not required to update their information once reported. DOE does not require a written DOE. report of the emergency, unless specifically requested by A report may be made jointly by two or more entities. Reporting Requirements Time Limit The following event [s must be reported:
- 1. The issuance of 1. The Department any public or of Energy (DOE) private re, quest shall be noti-to any customer or the general fled as soon as public to reduce practicable, or within twenty-the use of ,
four (24) hours electricity for reasons of after the issuance of the request maintaining the continuity of service of the utility's bulk electric power supply system;
- 2. Any load shedding 2. The DOE shall be that results in
- e the reduction of notified as soon as practicable, or over 100 megawatts (MW) within twenty-of firm customer four (24) hours load for reasons af ter the issuance of the request; of maintaining the continuity of service of the bulk electric power supply systems
y J
- g. .. .
?
Summary of Power System Emergency Reporting Procedures Issued by the Department of Energy (Continued) -
- 3. Any electric power supply equipment or
- 3. The DOE shall be facility failure or notified as soon as practicable, or other event that, in the judgment of the within three (3) utility, constitutes a hours after such action is taken; hazard to the current or prospective adequacy of the utility's bulk electric power supply system;
- 4. Any electric power 4. The DOE shall be supply equipment or facility failure or notified as soon as practicable, but other event that, in the judgment of reports are expected the utility, con- within one-(1) business day after stitutes a hazard the determination of to the current or the hazardous prospective adequacy condition by the of the utility's utility; bulk electric power supply system;
- 5. Any loss in service 5.
for greater than 15 The DOE shall be-minutes by an ' notified as soon as practicable, without electric utility of unduly interfering firm loads totalling with service restora-over 100 MW, or more than 50% of the tion and, in any event total load being within three (3) hours
, supplied immediately after the beginning of the interruption prior to the incident, pe riod.
i i whichever is lesst
- 6. Any significant 6.
5 The DOE shall be I. incident on an electric notified as soon as ' utility system which practicable, or results in a continuous within twenty-four ! outage .of 3 hours or 4 longer to over 50,000 (24) hours of the occurrence if customers or more than practicable, or as one-half of the utility's soon thereafter as j total customers, whichever practicable, , is less. l i l
a s. . . . .. 3. C. .....
. .. , e .e ., >c. h. ..
.Awm.
3.. .. . 0: ,a...... , IOI. 0 ** O *n**d*"*ii,*',
!!o such .::::en procedures e:tist 0
4 f f Qg// D 6 D Oy No/*Si/d Av
/N M EC Po Ngr v~c /NFogs 71 oN Rrq ves7~ Fon NM / 7 7'fW Pot sc srf f cA
? A f P /9 M M 1*/D Ao &F &Wo!"&
70M c.oaD Wapreen 7"O t. / T*y J'sy ht'$T/$ MT!CN W NO
//3 f.f r
Y 1 Report of Facts Found
- 1. Transmission capacity limitations would have prevented any substantial benefit from Grand Gulf, had it been available during the power outage period.
- 2. During December 1984, NOPSI began the "r othballing" of
,193 MW of generating capacity at Market Street and Paterson. During the same period, 444 MW of generating capacity (Paterson #4, Michoud #1 and 2) was taken out of service for scheduled maintenance including an anticipated long duration outage (several months) of Michoud No. 2. The net loss of available NOPSI generating capacity is 637 MW or 50.7% of the total NOPSI generating capacity.
- 3. NOPSI/LP&L follow what they report to be a "long established practice" of apportioning emergency load shedding obligations withir. an affected area on the basis of the proportions of normal peak loads irrespective of the location of generation capacity. Thus, a given service area, during an emergency, will shed its share of e load regardless of the amount of generating capacity within the service area. This methodology is designed by NOPSI/LP&L to minimize the magnitude of power outages in any service area by spreading outages as widely as possible. Convercely, the methodology can result in 4
outages within a service area despite the availability of 4 9.
4 r ,
?
sufficient or even excess generating capacity.
- 4. According to NOPSI/LP&L, the plants suffering outages were designed or modified for operation down to a low temperature of +10*F. No wind criteria was reported.
The temperature during the emergency did not drop to 10*F. During December 1983 very similar temperatures, wind velocity and direction were reported by NOPSI/LP&L. The utility reports that a remedial program was undertaken to correct cold weather problems identified in 1983. During the 1985 emergency, NOPSI/LP&L report no breakdowns of equipment suffering breakdowns during s December 1983.
- 5. There is one 500kv/230kv 560 MVA transformer and one 500kv/115kv, 560 MVA transformer at the Little Gypsy plant. One unit was out for repaira. Had both units
( been in service, the system would not have been capable of importing enough power to cover the loss of generation capacity, o l < l l l l
$ BM
~
Exhibit 10 N , Q, ".{Y J.Q .y; $j;' f 'j ,. y
.[2 4WC % ((\sMR f ..
gf@Q$)g(hdh{k;t hg hgW'i
., a z'.; , . ; < > ~~ .-
;w y & ' :f,,.pp sW f,,am ~
ir . \q 4g.gg g.y'g,Q.g%j;.3y'
; ig
,g k- _ .,
yi{ i: A ** ' ' ' N ?p p ;j % gs n @ i % ;;, % e Ik, n ti *:$- %l l- ,4 's Q:3p: ^ e;
$' D.Vy
- w. .. ,,
tw a
%* )R@ , 4'c99$ *
$ir L
A . sg
'b 7 :. u , .- ..
~ . - .
gy. 4tf - <
.. h..y,c.- -
.f- %
g a
,, n [ ll gh .
f y, . hy
~
j p w n x[j w, m Middle South Utilities Inc. Chairman Floyd Lewis testifies before New Orleans City Council. I ' I [* ST AFF PHOTO BY ELUS LU':A Middle South chair. mali
........3 .
asked about firing thretts . By LYNN CUNNINGHAM NOPSI President James bl. Cain mission, will cost New Orleans and FRANK DONZE was prassured into getting area ratepayers hundreds of mil. Stag ,. rirm approval for the heavily criticized lions of dollars. Specine figures
, plan. Lewis is chairman of 51id- are not vet available.
New Orleans city councilmen die Son h Utilities Inc., which The PSC has been taking dep. questioned utility execmive Floyd owns LP&I., NOPSI and utilities ositions frem utility officials in Lewis for thre e h< urs Tuesday, in hiississippiand Arkansas. ' an attempt to show that Lewis asking whether he threatened to Under the plan, which was first and Sliddle South p'ayed a key fire an executise if he did not proposed by Aliddle South's chief role in drawin.g up the al'ocation support a controversial plan that financial officer LP&L and plan. That. PSC members say, increases Louisinna's share of NOPSI woulJ buy 48 percent of would prose that the plan does high. cost Grand Gulf 1 nuclear the power from the $3.4 billion not benefit Louisiana ratepa.sers pow er. Grand Gulf I for most of the and is instead designed to ensure i Coun(ilmen Lyne Babovich N!ississippi plant's lifetime. Pre- the financial health of Niiddle l and Alike Early c inted a Louisi. viously the utilities had agreed to Sout h. ! ana Power & Lipit Co. and New buy only 31 percent of the power. Tuesday, councilmen quoted a Orleans Public Service Inc. finan- The additinna1 17 pereent. l deposition by . John H. Chavanne. I cial executive. who recentiv testi- according to consultants for the i ficd under oath that LP&L and louisiana Public Ser -ice Com. see lewis, A-4 i l
I e Lewis - From Page 1 vice president of corporate con-trol for LP&L and h0 PSI, who said he assumed the pressure on Cain came from Lewis. Chavanne was being questioned by state ial tm h i ha 1 on hann Commission. The FERC, which" that depositiima have been taken oversees interstate power sales, from only five LP&L and NOPSI Fontham questioned Chavanne will allocate Grand Gulf l's officials; Chavanne. Cain, vice about a Jan. 2 LP&L and NOPSI power. .
. president of rates Shelt4m Cun-stsff meeting: "Did Mr. Cain, ..i'ou didn't say he (Cain) was ningham, chief financial officer during the course of this meetmg. expected to get the votes or face Malcolm McLetchie, and general make the statement that he termination?" Babovich asked manager Malcolm, Hurstell.
might be asked to resign, by Mr. g#*I"' Copies of the depositions were Lewia?' not available.
"That never crossed my mind," Hurstell and Cunningham Chavanne: ,'l'here was a state-Lewis said. "I nominated Jim declined commant on their testi-ment made by Mr. Cam to the Cain for that job. mony, as.ymg Fontham tol.d them effcet that he may be asked to resign.yes, sir. Wh-ther he added Lewis said he had ta!!.ed with not to discuss it. mci 4tchie could by Mr. Lewis. I don't recall - Cain Tuesday morning and Cain not be reached for comment. ,
exactiv. But . . ." indicated that he did not know Counc.r Afte ilmanTuesday JamesaSingleton meeting, what Chavanne was talking Fontham: "What was your about. said. "I believe Chavanne is tell-understanding of who would ask ing the truth. Pm not saying Mr. Cain to resign, during the in a 1,irepared statement Tues- Floyd Lewis said it (that Cain course of that staff meeting?" would be fired). But I'm sure the
' l- [d I in threat ned
- Chavanne: "I had the or in any way indicated that my ",,*from h,is office impression that if anyone would continued employment was Y
, , og , ,ourtr th is ask Mr. Cain to resign it would be , dependent upon adoption of the ' p,; laying the role of combative wit Mr. Lewis. Grand Gulf offer of settlement.
ness before a tenacious group of But Lewis repeatedly denied But Fontliam said the testi- prosecutine councilmen. . exerting any pressure on Cain. many of Chavanne and three 14wis became festy at times, latticularly that he threatened other LP&L ana NOPSI officials ;particularly when Singleton
' Cain's job if the LP&L and - indicates that Cain was pressured asked him to reveal his annual NOPSI chief did not get the by Lewis to ensure passage of the salary. .'<
approval of the LP&L and settlement offer and was three'- _. Lewis said it was irrelevant to NOPSI boards on the Grand Gulf ened with the lossof his pb.. . the proceeding. Singleton per-I plan' '
. "Chavanne's teatimony,l., .sisted, and IAwis finally gave in.
Fontham said Tuesda Lewis defended the proposal, ported by other execu(y,ives of the'"is sup ' saying Before he earnsbegan the councilmen $404,000 a' wee . ' and insisted that the boards of. companies. Chavanne is not by questioning Lewis, they heard a the four utili,ies t mdependently - report on planned power outages arrived at their decisions to sup- himself pened." in stating what hap ; during a recent cold snap. As a port the plan, filed Jan. 4 with - Fontham wculd not say who result, lewis's appearance was the Federal Energy Regulatory 't he executives are, but he said delayed 45 minutes. _ . r. - - M i f e
-w y w- m y-+w. . . . . , , - - . , --
(. . n I ig~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of )
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY) Docket No. 50-382 OL
)
(Waterford Steam Electric ) Station, Unit 3) )
)
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Joint Intervenors' Supplemental Memor m in Support of Motion to Reopen has been served this day of February, 1985, by mailing a copy first-class, postage prepaid to the following: Service List Christine N. Kohn, Chairman Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. Chairman qF Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board l y Dr. W. Reed Johnson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Docketing and Service Station (3) Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' Howard A. Wilbur Washington, D.C. 20555 4 Atomic Safety & Licensing [ Appeal Board 1G Sherwin Turk, Esq. l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Office of Executive Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l Atomic Safety & Licensing l Appeal Board Panel Dr. Walter H. Jordan l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Administrative Judge ! Washington, D.C. 20555 881 West Outer Drive l Oak Ridge, TN 37830 l y 3 " , - - - - - g -- 9 - -g--------e m m -w- - - - - - --,r-----i- -- - -
t4 6 William J. Guste, Jr., Esq. Attorney G 7eral for the State of Louis _ana 234 Loyola Avenue, 7th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 Dr. Harry Foreman, Director Administrative Judge University of Minnesota Box 395, Mayo Minneapolis, MN 55455 Mr. Gary L. Groesch 302 Walnut Street New Orleans, LA 70118 Malcolm Stevenson, Esq. Monroe & Lemann 1424 Whitney Building New Orleans, LA 70130
,g E. Blake, Esq.
B. Churchill, Esq. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Carole H. Burstein, Esq. 445 Walnut Street New Orleans, LA 70118 (A a- - L ne Bernabei
/
+IA4.-beli M
.. . .}}