ML17207A475
| ML17207A475 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1979 |
| From: | Reis H LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Mike Farrar, Johnson W, Salzman R NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910180442 | |
| Download: ML17207A475 (15) | |
Text
ROSCRT LOWCNSTCIN JACK R, NCWMAN HAROLO F. RCIS MAVRICC AXCLRAO OAVIO R, TOL'L KATHLCCN H ~ SHCA J, A. SOVKNIOHT~JR.
C ORCOORY SARNCS MICHACL A. SAVSCR OCSORAH L SCRNSTCIN ALSCRT V, CARR, JR, ROSCRT H, CVLR RCTCR 0, FLYNN WILLIAMJ, FRANKLIN FRCOCRIC S, ORAY LAW OFFICES LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD 8-TOLL IO25 CONN CCTICUT AVKNUF~ N. W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 202 '62-8400 September 19, 1979 Michael C. Farrar, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr W
Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Xn the Matter of FLORXDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2)
Docket No.
50.-389
Dear Members of the Board:
Since it, last filed, prepared testimony on June 22,
- 1979, Florida Power S Light Company has conducted studies of the 1980 Florida to Georgia tie and of different electrical con-figurations between the St. Lucie Plant and the FPL grid.
Summaries of these studies were made available to Mr. Edward J.
Fowlkes of FERC and to the NRC Staff.
Copies of these sum-maries are herewith provided for your information.
They consist of the following:
1)
Attachment A presents the results of a summary evaluation of the 1980 230KV tie between Florida Power 6 Light Company and Georgia Power Company.
The response of the grid to loss of generation was investigated for the years 1980 and 1983.
t91018p ~~z
LOY/ENSTEI¹ LEE~ 4A¹ REISE AX D 8c TOLL
'0 Members of the Board September 19, 1979 Page Two 2)
Attachment B is a summary evaluation of the per-formance of various electrical configurations between St. Lucie Plant and the FPL gri'd.
The 1983 system configuration was chosen because it is the year in which the second unit at St. Lucie is scheduled to go into Service.
Sincerely, Harold F. Reis Counsel for Florida Power 6
Light Company HFR:sgb Enclosures cc:
See Attached Certificate of Service
~ k 0
Attachment A
TRANSIENT STABILITY EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF. THE NEW 230 KV TIE BE%WEEN FPGL AND GEORGIA POWER CO
~
This is an analysis of the impact of the new 230 kV tie between Florida Power
& Light Company and Georgia Power Company.
The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate the relative improve-ment in system transient response following loss of generation in South Florida.
System configurations for 1980, when the tie goes in service, and 1983,'when St. Lucie g2 goes in service, were analyzed.
Two basic assumptions are made in this study:
1.
Allsystems are at their peak summer loading conditions.
e 2.
There is no scheduled interchange between Pen'nsular Flor'ida and Georgia Power Company.
Given the above assumptions, the following ge'"..e=ation losses, in roughly 200 megawatt increments, were simulated with the new tie in and out of service:
Units Lost K0 Loss 1.
St. Lucre "r.1 2.
St.
Lucie
"-.'.1 Pt.
Everglades g2 777 981 3.
St. Lucie
~ 1 Turkey Pt.
Sl 1144 St. Lucie gl Pt. Everglades
~2 Turkey Pt.
~1 1348
System response was observed to detect the beginning of relay actions and breaker operations that sr'.'ll isolate Peninsular Florida from the Georgia system.
The follocring is a summary of the simulations and the observed system responses at the end of th-10 second simulations.
1980 Summer Peak System Res onse Gener'ation Loss (biPT)
With Tie in Service Tie Hot in Service 777 None None 981 None Separation begins at 8.0 seconds 1144 None Separation begins at 6.2 seconds 1983 Sunder Peak S stem
Response
Generation Loss (Ni 1)
With Tie in Service Tie Not in Service 777 Hone None None Separation begins at
- 4. 5 seconds 1 14$
None Separation begins at 3.2 seconds 1348 Separation begins at 3.87 seconds
Previous studies have indicated that voltage conditions in the vicinity of Kingsland are sensitive to the status of Plant llc Nanus and may, therefore, affect the timing at which the relays would initiate breaker operations.
Also, to be noted, is the fact that the 1983 case has the proposed model of the out-of-step tripping scheme at the Fort Nhite s tation of Florida Power Cox'poration, whereas the 19 80 case models the standard distance relays.
This will influence the timing of separation between the Kingsland-Duval tie on the east coast and the west coast ties between FPC and Georgia.
- Recently, though, heavy purchases of coal power from Georgia Power and Tallahassee by Florida Power Corporation, in order to reduce their'il consumption, hive tended to stress evisting 1979 connections between Georgia and northwest Florid
. It is expected that the new tie will help reduce the instances where separation did occur for loss of the largest un't ir Florida under heavy import conditions.
Attachment B
REVIEW"1 OF THE PZRFORi~lANCE OF VARIOUS ELECTRICAL CONFIGURATIONS BETWEEN ST LUCIE PLANT AND THE FPL GRID A steady-state, loadf low analysis of the pe formance o'
various electrical configurations between the St. Lucie Plant and the FPL system was performed.
The 1983 system configura-tion was chosen because it is the year in which the second unit at St. Lucie is scheduled to go into service.
The purpose of the evaluation was to compare the performance of the planned configuration to four (4) other possible confi-gurations under identical outage conditions.
The outages simulated are:
(1)
Single outage of one circuit between St.
Lucie and lligway Substation; (2)
Double outage of the circuit between Pratt s Whitney and Ranch simultaneously;;'th the. outage of one circuit between St. Lucie and Midway.
The five confi-gurations are depicted in Figures 1 to 5.
The following is a summary of line loadings for the five configurations under the single-and double-outage scenarios.
~
Percent. of
~Confi oration
'1 (Pig.
1)
L'ne Loaded Single Outage Double Outage None None Confi uration (Fig.
2)
Single Outage Double Outage blidway-St. Lucie 53 blidway-St. Lucie 63 112 104
Confi uration
"'3 (Fig.
3)
Single Outage Double Outage Line Loaded Midway-St. Lucie 53
~~liavay-S t. Lucie N 3 Percent of Patina 113 103 Configuration 54 (Fig.
4)
Single Outage Double Outage I
St. Lucie-Ranch 112 St. Lucie-Indiantown 105 Confi uration
"'5 (Fig.
5)
Single Outage Double Outage St.
Lucie-i~1idvay
"-2 St.
Lucie-Midway
."2 148 147 The analysis shows that the planned configuration three lines between i~iidvay and St. Lucie results in better load dis-tribution and produces no overload under both single and double outage conditions.
At. present, the total lenqth of transmission 1-'ne exposure between St. Lucie and the system is approximately 35.0 miles.
Confiquration No.
2 vill increase the total line exposure to 88 miles.
Configuration No.
3 vill increase the total to about 61 miles including a 26 mile, 500 kV, portion between
.~!idway and
."~!artin Plant.
Configuration No.
4 vill increase the line exposure to approximately 118 miles while Confiauration No.
5 will increase the total to approximately 86 mi3 es.
Assuming a constant outaa rate per 100 miles per year for 240 kV lines, it is evident that the proaosed confiquration vill be more reliable.
In fact, data collected so far show that the three
'midway-St. Lucie lines have a better outage record than the averaqe 240 kv line.
F j:GURE l llalabar 230 kV l1idway 500 KV
"'1icl~ray 230 KV t.Luci 230 Sherman End iantown Pratt 6
97hitney Nartin 500 KV Ranch s/
Zaidytos~n Lines
FIGURE 2
ilalabar 230 kV IIidway 500 KV II dway I
30 Kg St= Luc 230 Sherman 0
lndiantown Pratt 6
Whitney Ranch Hartin 500 KV Andytown Lines
FIGURE 3
llalabar 230 kV Nidway 500 kv Nidway 230 KV St.
LQc Sherman Indian to<7n 500 kV Pratt Whitney I~'Ranch
'/
V Andytown Lines
FIGURE 4
Malabar 230 kV Midway 500KV 230 KV Midway St. Lucie Sherman Xndiantown Pratt Whitney Martin 500 KU Ranch Andytown Lines
FIGURE 5
l1alabar 230 kV Hidssay 500 KV midway 230 KV Luci~
Sherman Xndiantosrni Pratt Whitney
~1artin 500EV'anch f
Andyto~i:n Lines
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY
& LICENSING APPEAL BOARD-In the Matter of:
)
)
FLORIDA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Unit 2)
)
Docket No. 50-389 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that, txue and correct copies of the foregoing letter dated.
September 19,
- 1979, addressed to the
, Members of the Atomic Safety
& Licensing Appeal Board, and the enclosures referred to therein, have been served this 19th day of September,
- 1979, on the pexsons shown on the attached service list by deposit, in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed.
September 19, 1979 HAROLD P.
REIS LOWENSTEIN ~
NEWMAN~
REIS f AXELRAD & TOLL 1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Telephone:
(202) 862-8400
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY
& LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of:
)
)
FLORIDA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Unit 2)
)
Docket No. 50-389 SERVICE LIST Mr. C.
R. Stephens Supervisor Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary of the Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Michael C. Farrar, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety
& Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dz.
W.
Reed Johnson
-Atomic Safety
& Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esquire Atomic Safety
& Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety
& Licensing Appeal Panel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Edward Luton, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety
& Licensing Board Panel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Michael Glasez, Esquire Alternate Chairman Atomic Safety
& Licensing Board 1150 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Dr. Marvin M. Mann Technical Advisor Atomic Safety
& Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. David L. Hetrick Professor of Nuclear Engineerin<
University of Arizona
- Tucson, AZ 85721 Dr. Frank F. Hooper Chairman Resource Ecology Program School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Mr. Angelo Giambusso Deputy Director for Reactor Projects Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 William D. Paton, Esquire Counsel for NRC -Regulatory Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Martin Harold Hodder, Esquire 1130 N.E.
86 Street
- Miami, FL 33138 Norman A. Coll, Esquire
- Steel, Hector G Davis Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, FL 33131 William J.
- Olmstead, Esquire Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 205S5 Local Public Document Room Indian River Junior College Library 3209 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 334SO James R. Tourtellotte Counsel for NRC Regulatory Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 205S5