ML17339A562
| ML17339A562 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point, Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1978 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17207A819 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002150468 | |
| Download: ML17339A562 (6) | |
Text
gR Rcggl c~
4 0
j)=-y) s Reference 10 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINCTDN, D. C. 20555 Docket Nos.
50-250 50-251 and 50-335 lIARCH 1 6 5' P<<SI'~nt I IJIAI~~ )p Florida Power
& Light Company ATTIC:
Robert E. Uhrig, Vice President Advanced Systems
& Technology Post Office Box 529100 Miami, Florida 33152 Gentlemen:
The Florida Power and L'ight Company
(.FP&L) submitted a report entitled, "Report on System Disturbance May 16, 1977," dated June 29, 1977 for review by the NRC staff.
This report provides details of the events and causes of the system outage that resulted in loss-of-offsite power to the Turkey Point and St. Lucie Stations.
It also describes certain corrective actions recommended by FP&L.
On December 14, 1977 you
. submitted additional information in response to our request dated October 5, 1977.
We,.have reviewed the information provided and deter-mined that certain additional information is required for completion of our evaluation.
Please provide your written response to the enclosed request for additional information within 30 days of your receipt of this letter.
Should you have any questions on this matter, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information A.'chwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch
>1 Division of Operating Reactors cc:
See next page
f
RE UEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFOP~~tATION
'BASED ON THE FPSL DECEMBER 14, 1977 RESPONSES TO OCTOBER, 97 NRC LETTt,R The response to request 1.3 gives limitations on the line based on long-term operation.
Please provide any operational guidance that may exist such as "The line may be operated at above x amperes but
'ot exceeding y amperes for a time not to exceed z minutes,"
where z is a number small enough to provide operational guidance.
Line sag is computed for two different,temperatures, but no indication is given as to what the temperature of the line was when it relayed open.
Please provide any recorded data on the line current over this 16-minute period (10:08-10:24) from>>hich a temperature profile could be determined.
2.
The power estimates given in response by the data on which they were based.
(10:08-10:24) record of each variable power calculation and a sample of how to request 1.6 are not supported Please provide the 16-minute that was used in making this the calculation was made.
A reference is made in this response to past history of division of the load (between the two Ft. Myers-Ranch lines).
Please provide any records of such a division of transmission on these lines at approximately 500-600 MW total power.
'n a dynamic situation such as the system was then experiencing would the relative loading of the two lines be expected to oscillate so that an average relative loading would not reflect peak conditions on one? If so please discuss the details.
In the response to 1.6, oscillogram records from Ringling are included; oscillogram records from Broward and Midway are cited but not included.
- Please, furnish copies of the Broward and Midway osci llogram records.
Since osci llogram records at locations remote from a fault cannot be interpreted without some knowledge of the intervening circuitry, particularly transformer coupling, please furnish the indicated intervening circuitry description for Ringling, Broward, and Midway.
3,
. The response to request 2 "We have concluded that the Turkey Point trip could not by itself, have caused the line to relay" is not supported.
Please furnish any supporting analyses with a full description.
4.
The response to request 3 appears to suggest that the calculation involving the loss of Turkey Point 4 in the FCG study is to be considered to bound the events which occurred around 10:08 on 5/16/77. If this suggestion is int nded, please furnish a detailed description of thi s calcul ation showing relevant detai 1 which'auses it to be regarded as bounding.
5.
The response to request 6 is not clear in some respects.
Is our understanding that Southern Co.
and Florida Power and Light have not yet entered an agreement for a 500 kV Georgia-Florida tie
,correct?
Is our understanding that the 800 tfl interchange capability from Georgia to Florida (which was, according to referenced FPSL
- reports, to be ready in 1976) is not yet available correct?
6.
The reply to request 7.3 is not fully responsive.
Please provide the discussion requested.