Some%20Thoughts%20about%20Meteorological%20Monitoring%20Program%20Reviews

1
Some Thoughts about Meteorological Monitoring
Program Reviews

• Matthew J. Parker
• Savannah River National Laboratory
• Carl A. Mazzola
• Shaw Environmental Inc.
• and
• Walter Schalk
• NOAA-ARL/SORD, Nevada Test Site

2
DOE Meteorological Coordinating Council (DMCC)

• Assist Visit Program
• Since 1996
• Use ANSI/ANS 3.11 as basis for met mon
• DOE G 151.1-1 for consequence assessment
• No fault reviews
• Aim to strengthen programs
• Follow-up reviews every 3-4 years

clouds
3
DOE Meteorological Coordinating Council (DMCC)

• Assist Visit Program (continued)
• Topic areas
• Instrumentation
• Data management
• System protection
• Consequence assessment process
• Programmatic / resources
• Changes / new installations

Moon at night
4
DOE Meteorological Coordinating Council (DMCC)

• Assist Visit Program (continued)
• Team members
• Carl Mazzola, LEAD, Programmatic issues
• Matt Parker, Meteorological monitoring
• Walt Schalk, Consequence assessment

TODAYS PRESENTATION WILL FOCUS ON METEOROLOGICAL
MONITORING PROGRAM ISSUES / COMMENTS
lightning
5
Assist Visit Program

• Instrumentation
• Programs in-place to cover needs of customers
• Nuclear grade instrumentation in-use
• Obsolete equipment relatively common
• New systems sometimes include sonics
• Remote sensors (sodars) in use in some cases
• Lightning protection issues
• Obvious grounding system problems (broken cables,
  connections, etc)
• Ageing / corrosion

cracks in lake ice
6
Assist Visit Program

• Instrumentation (continued)
• Stability class determination
• Mostly SRDT
• Some sigma theta and/or phi
• Siting issues
• Topography addressed adequately
• Tree growth over time often a problem
• Other obstructions (lay down yards, etc)
• New structures or roadways

CB
7
Assist Visit Program

• Instrumentation (continued)
• Data acquisition systems
• Data loggers sufficient
• Alternate downloading techniques available
• Data base management
• Techniques vary widely
• Not always robust
• Lack of formal computing facilities (HVAC,
  365-24-7)
• Lack of relational databases (back-filling
  problems, etc)

more lightning
8
Assist Visit Program

• Instrumentation (continued)
• Data quality assurance process
• Methods vary widely
• Not always documented
• Annual database process not always documented
• Wind variable algorithms
• Usually acceptable
• One case where only vector (no scalar) wind data
  captured
• Data substitution applied reasonably
• Data recovery rates at 90 common

trees
9
Assist Visit Program

• Instrumentation (continued)
• Total system accuracy calculations
• No one has documented! Have you?
• Sensor calibration frequency
• Not always semi-annual
• Quality assurance program
• Programs usually in-place but are not always
  adequate per previous topic highlights

high clouds
10
Assist Visit Program

• Programmatic issues pertaining to met mon
• Resources usually adequate
• Focus on improvements usually address new
  technology
• Use of ANSI/ANS 3.11 widespread but not totally
  completely used
• Consequence assessment issues pertaining to met
  mon
• Proper data availability usually adequate
• Averaging periods usually appropriate

tornado
11
Questions?
Matthew J. Parker, CCM Fellow Meteorologist Atmosp
heric Technologies Group Savannah River National
Laboratory Bldg. 735-7A Aiken, SC 29808 (803)
725-2805 FAX [phone] email
matt.parker_at_srnl.doe.gov
more trees