forwards 'transient stability evaluation of impact of new
TRANSCRIPT
ROSCRT LOWCNSTCINJACK R, NCWMANHAROLO F. RCISMAVRICC AXCLRAOOAVIO R, TOL'LKATHLCCN H ~ SHCAJ, A. SOVKNIOHT~ JR.
C ORCOORY SARNCSMICHACL A. SAVSCROCSORAH L SCRNSTCINALSCRT V, CARR, JR,ROSCRT H, CVLRRCTCR 0, FLYNNWILLIAMJ, FRANKLINFRCOCRIC 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., ChairmanAtomic Safety and Licensing
Appeal BoardU. S.. Nuclear Regulatory
CommissionWashington, DC 20555
Dr W Reed JohnsonAtomic Safety and Licensing
Appeal BoardU. S. Nuclear Regulatory
CommissionWashington, DC 20555
Richard S. Salzman, Esq.Atomic Safety and Licensing
Appeal BoardU. S. Nuclear Regulatory
CommissionWashington, DC 20555
Xn the Matter ofFLORXDA 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 the1980 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. Theyconsist of the following:
1) Attachment A presents the results of a summaryevaluation of the 1980 230KV tie between FloridaPower 6 Light Company and Georgia Power Company.The response of the grid to loss of generationwas investigated for the years 1980 and 1983.
t91018p ~~z
LOY/ENSTEI¹ LEE~ 4A¹ REISE AX D 8c TOLL '0
Members of the BoardSeptember 19, 1979Page Two
2) Attachment B is a summary evaluation of the per-formance of various electrical configurationsbetween St. Lucie Plant and the FPL gri'd. The1983 system configuration was chosen becauseit is the year in which the second unit atSt. Lucie is scheduled to go into Service.
Sincerely,
Harold F. ReisCounsel for Florida Power 6
Light Company
HFR:sgb
Enclosures
cc: See Attached Certificate of Service
~ k
0Attachment 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 tiebetween 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'nsularFlor'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. S t. Lucie ~ 1Turkey Pt. Sl
1144
St. Lucie glPt. Everglades ~2Turkey 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 ofth- 10 second simulations.
1980 Summer Peak
System Res onse
Gener'ationLoss (biPT)
With Tie inService
Tie Hot inService
777 None None
981 None Separationbegins at8.0 seconds
1144 None Separationbegins at6.2 seconds
1983 Sunder Peak
S stem Response
GenerationLoss (Ni 1)
With Tie inService
Tie Not inService
777 Hone
None
None
Separationbegins at4. 5 seconds
1 14$ None Separationbegins at3.2 seconds
1348 Separationbegins at3.87 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 evisting1979 connections between Georgia and northwest Florid . It isexpected 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 unitat 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 circuitbetween 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 fiveconfigurations under the single- and double-outage scenarios.
~ Percent. of~Confi oration '1 (Pig. 1) L'ne Loaded
Single Outage
Double Outage
None
None
Con fi 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 ofPatina
113
103
Configuration 54 (Fig. 4)
Single Outage
Double OutageI
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 lllalabar 230 kV
l1idway 500 KV "'1icl~ray 230 KV t.Luci230
Sherman
End iantown
Pratt 697hitney
Nartin500 KV
Ranch
s/
Zaidytos~n Lines
FIGURE 2ilalabar 230 kV
IIidway 500 KV II dwayI
30 Kg St= Luc230
Sherman 0lndiantown
Pratt 6Whitney
Ranch
Hartin500 KV
Andytown Lines
FIGURE 3
llalabar 230 kV
Nidway500 kv Nidway 230 KV St. LQc
Sherman
Indian to<7n
500 kV
PrattWhitney
I~'Ranch
'/ VAndytown Lines
FIGURE 4
Malabar 230 kV
Midway 500KV 230 KV Midway St. Lucie
Sherman
Xndiantown
PrattWhitney
Martin500 KU
Ranch
Andytown Lines
FIGURE 5
l1alabar 230 kV
Hidssay 500 KV midway 230 KV Luci~
Sherman
Xndiantosrni
PrattWhitney
~1artin 500 EV'anch
f
Andyto~i:n Lines
UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR 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 this19th 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 fAXELRAD & TOLL
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 862-8400
UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR 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. StephensSupervisorDocketing and Service SectionOffice of the Secretary
of the CommissionNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555
Michael C. Farrar, EsquireChairmanAtomic Safety & Licensing
Appeal BoardNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555
Dz. W. Reed Johnson-Atomic Safety & Licensing
Appeal BoardNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555
Richard S. Salzman, EsquireAtomic Safety & Licensing
Appeal BoardNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555
Alan S. Rosenthal, EsquireChairmanAtomic Safety & Licensing
Appeal PanelNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555
Edward Luton, EsquireChairmanAtomic Safety & Licensing
Board PanelNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555
Michael Glasez, EsquireAlternate ChairmanAtomic Safety & Licensing Board1150 17th Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20036
Dr. Marvin M. MannTechnical AdvisorAtomic Safety & Licensing BoardNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555
Dr. David L. HetrickProfessor of Nuclear Engineerin<University of ArizonaTucson, AZ 85721
Dr. Frank F. HooperChairmanResource Ecology ProgramSchool of Natural ResourcesUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor, MI 48104
Mr. Angelo GiambussoDeputy Director for Reactor
ProjectsNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555
William D. Paton, EsquireCounsel for NRC -Regulatory
StaffNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555
Martin Harold Hodder, Esquire1130 N.E. 86 StreetMiami, FL 33138
Norman A. Coll, EsquireSteel, Hector G DavisSoutheast First National
Bank BuildingMiami, FL 33131
William J. Olmstead, EsquireNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 205S5
Local Public Document RoomIndian River Junior College
Library3209 Virginia AvenueFt. Pierce, FL 334SO
James R. TourtellotteCounsel for NRC Regulatory
StaffNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 205S5