Meteorological Considerations for Nuclear Power Plant Siting and Licensing

1
Meteorological Considerations for Nuclear Power
Plant Siting and Licensing

• George C. Howroyd, Ph.D., P.E.
• CH2M HILL
• Paul B. Snead, R.E.M.
• Progress Energy

2
Background

• Projected need for new generation by 2030 is
  gt350,000 MW, the equivalent of hundreds of new
  power plants
• Increasing concern over CO2 emissions is putting
  increasing environmental pressure on fossil
  powered generation
• Nuclear power generation produces no CO2
  emissions and represents 75 of the power
  generated in the U.S. with no CO2 emissions
• Current nuclear generation is only 20 of current
  U.S. capacity
• No new U.S. nuclear plants have been licensed in
  over 25 years

3
Background (Contd)

• New plant licensing has historically been an
  onerous process
• Lengthy (10 years in many cases)
• Costly
• Site/reactor specific
• Recent initiatives have streamlined the process
  (DOEs Nuclear Power 2010 Program) but is still
  estimated to take several years to license a
  plant
• DOE financial incentives have spurred significant
  interest and activity

4
Recent New Plant Licensing Activity

• New license applications are currently under
  review or are being prepared
• 23 applications for more than 34 new reactors
• 5 submitted to NRC in 2007 (8 units)
• 13 expected to be submitted in 2008 (19 units)
• 5 projected in 2009/2010 (7 units)
• Represents only 10 percent of projected demand
  through 2030 (assuming all are built)
• Source U.S. NRC web site
• Most are in southeastern U.S.
• Others are being considered

5
Potential for New Nuclear
Potential for New Nuclear
Existing Plants Plant Re-Starts ESP Sites New
Plants
Graphic provided by NEI and updated by Progress
Energy with latest utility announcements
6
Meteorological Reqs for Licensing

• Role of Meteorology To help support the
  conclusion that a plant can be constructed and
  operated without undue risk to health and safety
• NRC has extensive regulatory requirements
  pertaining to climatology and meteorology
• Regional Climatology Used to identify limiting
  parameters that determine safe design and
  operation
• Local Meteorology Used to assess the impact of
  facility operation on local meteorological
  conditions
• On-site Meteorology Continuous pre-and post
  operational monitoring is a required element
  (minimum of two years prior to licensing
  issuance)data are used to assess potential
  radiological impacts due to routine and
  hypothetical accident release scenarios

7
Regulatory Drivers

• NRC requirements are much more extensive than
  EPAs requirements for industrial facilities
• Basic requirements are in 10 CFR 52
• Specific requirements are provided in numerous
  NRC guidance documents
• NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23 Meteorological
  Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants
• Many others
• NRC always requires on-site meteorological
  monitoring, whereas EPA rarely requires it

8
Meteorological Monitoring Reqs

• Primary Objective To provide representative data
  suitable for use in dispersion modeling of
  radiological releases
• Schedule Lead Time Considerations
• Tower instrument procurement/installation (3 to
  6 months, typ.)
• Minimum 1-year of operational data prior to
  application submittal
• Minimum 2-years of operational data prior to
  license issuance
• System Design Siting Considerations
• Must be representative of the site
• No undue influence from terrain, vegetation,
  thermal effects
• Due consideration should be given to the
  influence of construction and operation of the
  plant
• Systems typically designed for permanent
  operation (including plant operation)
• Complex terrain may require multiple towers
• Basic criteria provided in RG 1.23

9
Meteorological Monitoring Reqs (Contd)

• System Design Basic Components
• Minimum of two monitoring levels (10- and
  60-meters is recommended) for the following
  minimum parameters
• Wind Speed (10- and 60-m)
• Wind Direction (10- and 60-m)
• Ambient Temperature (10- and 60-m)
• Vertical Temperature Difference (for atmospheric
  stability)
• Dew Point (10-m)
• Precipitation (near ground level)
• Minimum data recovery objective 90
• Electronic data logging devices must sample data
  in 5 second intervals, and compile results in
  15- and/or 60-min averages
• QA/QC requirements are stringent

10
Example of Recent Tower Installation

• New Tower in Levy County, FL
• Site of Progress Energys Proposed Levy Nuclear
  Plant (two Westinghouse AP-1000 units are
  proposed)
• 3400 acre forested site
• Flat site
• Undeveloped (no structures or public roads
  onsite)
• Sandy conditions and high water table required
  deep footings
• Remote location required use of solar power and
  cellular phone modem
• Tower and instrumentation designed and installed
  by Murray and Trettel of Palatine, IL

11
Progress Energy Florida - Service Territory
12
200 ft. Tower and Surrounding Terrain
13
Tower Base and Security Fence
14
Solar Power System and Instrument Enclosure
15
Lower Level Wind and Temperature Sensors
16
Upper (60-m) and Lower (10-m) Level Sensors
17
Tower Guy Wire Anchor
18
System Operation

• High data recovery targets require continuous
  oversight and scrutiny of operation
• Electronic Data Management Systems allow real
  time data access, flexibility of operation, and
  remote operation
• Remote interrogation via land line or cellular
  modem
• Frequent downloading of data minimizes data loss
  due to system failures
• Programmable system allows simple data conversion
• Remote troubleshooting allows for consistency
  checks and diagnosis of potential problems
  without field visits
• Comparison of data with redundant system
  measurements
• Comparison of data with local or regional
  observations
• Search for trends and anomalies in data

19
System Operation (Contd)

• Data recovery can be increased by
• Daily interrogation and data scrutiny
• Maintaining and calibrating instrumentation on a
  periodic basis
• Install new/rebuilt/calibrated instruments at
  periodic intervals
• Maintain spare equipment to avoid repair delays

20
Data Averaging Considerations

• Some parameters can be significantly affected by
  how they are averaged
• Example Wind Speed can be stated as a VECTOR
  average or as a SCALAR average
• Neither is incorrect
• Results can be very different
• Users should be aware of intended use of data and
  implications of how the data was processed

21
Examples of Vector and Scalar Wind Averaging
22
Implications of Vector vs. Scalar Averaging

• At low wind speeds, vector average wind speeds
  can be significantly understated
• Understated wind speeds will result in overstated
  dispersion modeling results (since Gaussian
  dispersion modeling results are inversely
  proportional to wind speed)

23
Comparison of Vector vs. Scalar Averages

• Progress Energy conducted a year-long comparison
  of Vector and Scalar averages in North Carolina
  using co-located sensors
• A statistical regression analysis of the data
  indicated a distinct correlation
• USCALAR 1.03 UVECTOR 0.4 (4 months, r0.99)
• USCALAR 1.00 UVECTOR 0.31 (18 months,
  r0.92)
• Results should be site-specific

24
Progress Energy Carolinas - Service
Territory
25
Co-located Wind Sensors
26
Summary

• Site-specific meteorological data is considered
  to be a critical component of nuclear plant
  siting and licensing, being used to support
  safety related analyses
• Given the importance of this data, due care and
  consideration are required in the planning,
  design, and operation of on-site monitoring
  systems in order to successfully meet regulatory
  criteria