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

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

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

DOE Meteorological Coordinating Council (DMCC) Assist Visit Program (continued) Team members Carl Mazzola, LEAD, Programmatic issues Matt Parker, Meteorological monitoring Walt Schalk, Consequence assessment TODAY’S PRESENTATION WILL FOCUS ON METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM ISSUES / COMMENTS lightning

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions? Matthew J. Parker, CCM Fellow Meteorologist Atmospheric Technologies Group Savannah River National Laboratory Bldg. 735-7A Aiken, SC 29808 (803) 725-2805 FAX (803) 725-4233 email: matt.parker@srnl.doe.gov more trees