ML17207A475

Forwards Transient Stability Evaluation of Impact of New 320 Kv Tie Between Fl Power & Light & Ga Power & Review of Performance of Various Electrical Configurations Between Plant & Fl Power Grid. Certificate of Svc Encl

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

LAW OFFICES LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD 8- TOLL IO25 CONN CCTICUT AVKNUF ~ N. W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 ROSCRT LOWCNSTCIN JACK R, NCWMAN HAROLO F. RCIS MAVRICC AXCLRAO 202 '62-8400 OAVIO R, TOL'L KATHLCCN H ~ SHCA J, A. SOVKNIOHT~ JR.

C ORCOORY SARNCS September 19, 1979 MICHACL A. SAVSCR OCSORAH L SCRNSTCIN ALSCRT V, CARR, JR, ROSCRT H, CVLR RCTCR 0, FLYNN WILLIAMJ, FRANKLIN FRCOCRIC S, ORAY Michael C. Farrar, Esq., Chairman Dr W Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U. S.. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 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 Light Company has conducted studies of the S

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. All systems 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.1 777

2. St. Lucie "-.'.1 981 Pt. Everglades g2

3. S t. Lucie ~ 1 1144 Turkey Pt. Sl St. Lucie gl 1348 Pt. Everglades ~2 Turkey Pt. ~1

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 With Tie in Tie Hot in Loss (biPT) Service 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 With Tie in Tie Not in Loss (Ni 1) Service 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 None Double Outage None Con fi ur ation -",.'

(Fig. 2)

Single Outage blidway-St. Lucie 53 112 Double Outage blidway-St. Lucie 63 104

Percent of Confi uration "'3 (Fig. 3) Line Loaded Patina Single Outage Midway-St. Lucie 53 . 113 Double Outage ~~liavay-S t. Lucie N3 103 Configuration 54 (Fig. 4)

Single Outage St. Lucie-Indiantown 105 Double Outage St. Lucie-Ranch 112 I

Confi uration "'5 (Fig. 5)

Single Outage St. Lucie-i~1idvay "-2 148

Double Outage St. Lucie-Midway ."2 147 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 30 Kg St= Luc I 230 Sherman 0 lndiantown Pratt 6 Whitney Ranch Hartin 500 KV Andytown Lines

FIGURE 3 llalabar 230 kV Nidway Nidway 230 KV St. LQc 500 kv Sherman Indi an to<7n Pratt Whitney 500 kV

~'Ranch I

'/ 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 500 EV'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 ) Docket No. 50-389

)

(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, )

Unit 2) *

)

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.

HAROLD P. REIS LOWENSTEIN ~ NEWMAN~ REIS f AXELRAD & TOLL 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 862-8400 September 19, 1979

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of: )

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-389

)

(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, )

Unit 2) )

SERVICE LIST Mr. C. R. Stephens Edward Luton, Esquire Supervisor Chairman Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety & Licensing Office of the Secretary Board Panel of the Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Michael C. Farrar, Esquire Michael Glasez, Esquire Chairman Alternate Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Appeal Board 1150 17th Street, N.W.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20555 Dz. W. Reed Johnson Dr. Marvin M. Mann

-Atomic Safety & Licensing Technical Advisor Appeal Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Richard S. Salzman, Esquire Dr. David L. Hetrick Atomic Safety & Licensing Professor of Nuclear Engineerin<

Appeal Board University of Arizona Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tucson, AZ 85721 Washington, DC 20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Dr. Frank F. Hooper Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Resource Ecology Program Appeal Panel School of Natural Resources Nuclear Regulatory Commission University of Michigan Washington, DC 20555 Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Mr. Angelo Giambusso William J. Olmstead, Esquire Deputy Director for Reactor Nuclear Regulatory Commission Projects Washington, DC 205S5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 William D. Paton, Esquire Local Public Document Room Counsel for NRC -Regulatory Indian River Junior College Staff Library Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3209 Virginia Avenue Washington, DC 20555 Ft. Pierce, FL 334SO Martin Harold Hodder, Esquire James R. Tourtellotte 1130 N.E. 86 Street Counsel for NRC Regulatory Mi ami, FL 33138 Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 205S5 Norman A. Coll, Esquire Steel, Hector G Davis Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, FL 33131