Determining a Backup Source of Meteorological Data for Dispersion Characteristics (Wind and Stability) Mark T. Carroll Heather A. McDonald Andrew J. Lotz.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
21M062007D The Shaw Group Inc. ® An Analytical Screening Technique to Estimate the Effect of Cooling Ponds on Meteorological Measurements – A Case Study.
Advertisements

CURRENT METEOROLOGICAL HAPPENINGS THE SITING AND ACCIDENT CONSEQUENCES BRANCH DIVISION OF SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS OFFICE OF NEW REACTORS Brad Harvey,
Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling for Carbon-14 Emissions 14th NUMUG Conference, June 2011, Chicago, IL Theodore A. MessierMark Strum Principal ScientistAdvisory.
Carbon 14 Gaseous Effluent Dose The importance of Human Performance Ron Chrzanowski Corporate Chemistry Manager Exelon Nuclear June 27, 2011.
Case Study: Impact of Above Ground Spent Fuel Storage on Nearby Meteorological Systems Jim Holian SAIC NUMUG Meeting Charlotte, NC June 2008.
Session 11: Modeling Dispersion of Chemical Hazards, using ALOHA 1 Modeling Dispersion of Chemical Hazards, using ALOHA Prepared by Dr. Erno Sajo, Associate.
11th NUMUG Meeting - St. Louis 10/13/061 Preliminary Dispersion Modeling for the NuStart Plant at Bellefonte Doyle E. Pittman and Kenneth G. Wastrack Tennessee.
X/Q for Releases From Area Sources 2008 RETS-REMP and NUMUG Workshop Jim Key Key Solutions, Inc.
1 ANSI/ANS American National Standard for Determining Meteorological Information at Nuclear Facilities R. Brad Harvey, CCM Physical Scientist.
Temporal Comparison of Atmospheric Stability Classification Methods
Setting Acceptable Odor Criteria Using Steady-state and Variable Weather Data Z. Yu 1, H. Guo 2, C. Lague 3 1.Division of Environmental Engineering, University.
Weather and X/Q 1 Impact Of Weather Changes On TVA Nuclear Plant Chi/Q (  /Q) Kenneth G. Wastrack Doyle E. Pittman Jennifer M. Call Tennessee Valley Authority.
Sonic vs. Cup/Vane Data Comparison at the Cooper Nuclear Station Jim Holian SAIC Jim Holian SAIC NUMUG Meeting St. Louis, MO October 2006 NUMUG Meeting.
X/Q for Releases From Area Sources 2009 RETS-REMP Workshop Jim Key Key Solutions, Inc.
Using ARCON96 for Control Room Radiological Habitability Assessments
Section Find the first four derivatives of f (x) = x 4 - 2x 3 – 3x 2 - 5x - 7.
Weather Station Models What do they mean? How do you translate them?
George C. Howroyd, Ph.D., P.E. CH2M HILL Paul B. Snead, R.E.M.
Formula Practice Find the area for the figure below. 12 m 6 m Answer: #1.
Strategies for the Selection of Substitute Meteorological Data Ken Sejkora Entergy Nuclear Northeast – Pilgrim Station Presented at the 14 th Annual RETS-REMP.
Atmospheric Measurements Nick Bassill January 28 th 2009.
NUMUG Survey (Second Edition) Kenneth Wastrack Tennessee Valley Authority.
Identifying Non-Linear Flow for Modeling of Routine Releases from TVA Nuclear Facilities Toree M. Cook Kenneth G. Wastrack Doyle E. Pittman Tennessee Valley.
The Impact of Nearby Structures and Trees on Sigma Theta Measurements Tom Bellinger Illinois Dept of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield IL.
El Vado Dam Hydrologic Evaluation Joseph Wright, P.E. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center Flood Hydrology and Meteorology Group.
Investigation of Meteorological Tower Siting Criteria Ken Sejkora Entergy Nuclear Northeast – Pilgrim Station Presented at the 15 th Annual RETS-REMP Workshop.
R. Brad Harvey, CCM Physical Scientist Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11th NUMUG Meeting, St. Louis, MO, October.
NUMUG_TVA-Nowcast1 TVA Nowcast Aids for Emergency Preparedness Kenneth G. Wastrack and Doyle E. Pittman Tennessee Valley Authority Presented at the 11.
Earth System Sciences, LLC Suggested Analyses of WRAP Drilling Rig Databases Doug Blewitt, CCM 1.
A NEW STANDARD IN METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING SYSTEMS INSTALLED AT THE PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Jim Holian (SAIC) and Jamie Balstad (First Energy Corp)
January 2008 Trajectories Magnuz Engardt Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute.
ESP / COL Applications Meteorological Data Requirements and Regulatory Conformance Issues Ping Wan Bechtel Power Corporation The Eleventh Nuclear Utility.
13 th Nuclear Utility Meteorological Data Users Group Meeting Lessons Learned From Establishing Design- and Operating-Basis Regional Meteorological Conditions.
03-1 n Chapter 3 –Weather Considerations Haz-Mat Incident Considerations.
Meteorological Program Self Assessment Presented at NUMUG San Francisco, CA 2009.
BFN Sigmas1 EVALUATING METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING SITES USING SIGMA-THETA Kenneth G. Wastrack Doyle E. Pittman T ENNESSEE V ALLEY A UTHORITY.
8-4 Angles of Elevation and Depression
FUKISHIMA Nuclear Reactors Radiological Assessment Air Measurement Surveillance AMS March 22,
Comparison of the AEOLUS3 Atmospheric Dispersion Computer Code with NRC Codes PAVAN and XOQDOQ 13th NUMUG Conference, October 2009, San Francisco, CA.
PRACTICAL USER TIPS FOR ARCON96 10 TH NUMUG MEETING Wilmington, NC June 2005 By Y. J. Lin Bechtel Power Corporation Frederick Maryland.
Fahrenheit and Celsius
Chronic Atmospheric Releases Using GENII V.2 EXAMPLE Dose Calculation for Chronic Atmospheric Releases Using GENII V.2 FRAMES-2.0 Workshop U.S. Nuclear.
Navigation NAU 102 Lesson 32. Weather Instruments The safety of crew, passengers, cargo and the ship itself is dependent on making good weather decisions.
Regional Technical Forum Recommissioning commercial retail facilities: A whole building approach to energy savings April 7th, 2009 Presented by: Jeremy.
EXAMPLE 1 Subtracting Integers –56 – (–9) = – = –47 –14 – 21 = –14 + (–21) = –35 Add the opposite of –9. Add. Add the opposite of 21. Add. a. –56.
Air Pollution Meteorology Ñ Atmospheric thermodynamics Ñ Atmospheric stability Ñ Boundary layer development Ñ Effect of meteorology on plume dispersion.
NUMUG - Oct Atmospheric Stability – Methods & Measurements Robert F. Yewdall PSEG Nuclear LLC.
A Dual Elevator Meteorological System at the Cooper Nuclear Station Jim Holian/Russ Southerland SAIC June 2005 NUMUG Meeting.
Relationship of PM and Meteorology in Fairbanks: the Sequel Robert Crawford, Rincon Ranch Consulting Tucson, AZ Sierra Research, Sacramento CA May 26,
Instruments. In Situ In situ instruments measure what is occurring in their immediate proximity. E.g., a thermometer or a wind vane. Remote sensing uses.
Stephen A. Vigeant: Shaw E&I Carl A. Mazzola: Shaw E&I H. Wesley Nance: Washington TRU Solutions Consideration of Micrometeorological Trends Consideration.
West Texas Mesonet – Texas Tech University TTU Wind Science & Engineering Atmospheric Science Group
New & Improved Meteorological Data Archives Kenneth G. Wastrack Jennifer M. Call D. Sherea Burns Tennessee Valley Authority.
Various Methodologies for Calculating the Impacts on Delta-T From Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI) Jim Holian and Steve Mirsky, SAIC.
Data Quality Monitoring in RA I Nairobi Regional Meteorological Center Eng. Henry Karanja
Regulatory background How these standards could impact the permitting process How is compliance with the standards assessed.
Consequence Analysis Robert Wu South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Enhancing Safety at America’s Nuclear Energy Facilities U.S. Industry’s Fukushima Response Joseph Pollock, Nuclear Energy Institute Christopher H. Mudrick,
Earth's Atmosphere Earth's Atmosphere Thin Gaseous envelope.
Haz-Mat Incident Considerations
Consequence Analysis 2.1.
Statistics in Applied Science and Technology
The Role of Meteorology in the Nuclear Power Industry
Lift-Type (the sweep surface faces the wind)
Robert Kahler Branch Chief
Handbook on Meteorological Observations
Keeping Data Recovery Levels High – Combating Fire and Ice and an Occasional Bird Mark T. Carroll Andrew J. Lotz Heather A. McDonald Jeffrey J. Daley.
XOQDOQ Calculation Method, Tools and Pitfalls
ALTIMETRY.
6.11: Fronts Unit 6: Meteorology March 13, 2012 Sanders.
Presentation transcript:

Determining a Backup Source of Meteorological Data for Dispersion Characteristics (Wind and Stability) Mark T. Carroll Heather A. McDonald Andrew J. Lotz

Background Clinton Power Station Primary Met Tower- 60m tower approximately 0.5 miles SSE of plant reactor building Backup Met Tower- Approximately 0.3 miles NE of plant. Measuring only wind at 10m 2

Primary Met Tower Instrument Locations Measurement Sensor Type Location Elevation Wind Speed Climatronics F460 Tower 10&60 m Wind Direction Climatronics F460 Tower 10&60 m Ambient Temp Climatronics Tower 10&60 m Sigma Theta Calculated Tower 10&60 m Differential Temp Climatronics Tower 60 m Dew Point Temp Climatronics Tower 10 m Precipitation MRI 302 Tipping Bucket Ground 3 ft 3

Backup Met Tower Instrument Locations Measurement Sensor Type Elevation Wind Speed Met One 1564B 10 m Wind Direction Met One 1565C 10 m Sigma Theta Calculated 10 m 4

Primary Tower Sigma Theta- Hourly value calculated by taking the Root-Mean-Square (RMS) of the four quarter-hour wind sigma values. 5

Study/Evaluation The Clinton Power Station sought relief to a previous commitment to regulatory quality by seeking the elimination of the back-up meteorological monitoring tower. 6

Study/Evaluation It was determined that four (4) criteria would be required before Clinton could convince the NRC that it was acceptable to delete the function of the back-up tower. 7

Study/Evaluation 1. The primary meteorological monitoring tower would have to be evaluated to determine that it is being maintained and calibrated in accordance with ANSI standards. Also, the data retrieved would be proven to be valid and representative of current conditions at the time. 8

Study/Evaluation 2. Arrangements need to be in place and personnel on shift trained to be able to quickly retrieve a source of backup meteorological data. 9

Study/Evaluation 3. A statistical study or evaluation would need to be done proving the backup source of meteorological data (National Weather Service data from Lincoln, Bloomington, Decatur and Champaign) is representative of the dispersion meteorology of the 10 miles Emergency Preparedness Zone (EPZ). 10

Study/Evaluation The change must be shown not to decrease the effectiveness of the Emergency Plan.

Study/Evaluation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.23, Revision 1, dated March 2007 states that “Meteorological instruments should be inspected and serviced at a frequency that will insure data recovery of at least 90 percent on an annual basis. The 90-percent rate applies to the composite of all variables (e.g., the joint frequency distribution of wind speed, wind direction, stability class) needed to model atmospheric dispersion for each potential release pathway.” 12

Study/Evaluation #1 Valid Data Recovery Parameter m Wind Speed 98.5% 99.6%99.7% 10 m Wind Direction 98.6% 99.0%99.7% m Temp (Delta-T) 99.5% 99.3%99.0% Joint Frequency 97.4% 98.7%99.0% 13

Study/Evaluation #2 Shift personnel to be trained at site by CPS and M&T. 14

Study/Evaluation #3 Statistical Study Hourly meteorological data for the years 2005 and 2006 were obtained for the following locations: 1. Clinton Power Station, Clinton, IL 2. Central Illinois Regional Airport, Bloomington, IL 3. Decatur Airport, Decatur, IL 4. Logan County Airport, Lincoln, IL 5. University of Illinois, Willard Airport, Champaign, IL 6. Braidwood Power Station, Braidwood, Braceville, IL 7. Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Morris, IL 8. LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station, Marseilles, IL 15

Study/Evaluation Distance From/To (miles) ClintonBloomington22.1 ClintonDecatur23.5 ClintonLincoln28.0 ClintonChampaign29.1 ClintonLaSalle74.3 ClintonBraidwood80.4 ClintonDresden

MAP 17

Study/Evaluation The following are the heights of measurement of the change of temperature with height for each of the nuclear facilities: Lower Level Upper Level Difference Clinton 10.0m (32.81 ft) 60m (197 ft) 50.0m (164 ft) Braidwood9.15m (30 ft) m (203 ft) m (173 ft) Dresden (Mid)10.675m (35 ft) 45.75m (150 ft) m (125 ft) Dresden (Upper)10.675m (35 ft) 91.50m (300 ft) m (265 ft) LaSalle (Mid)10.065m (33 ft) 61.00m (200 ft) m (167 ft) LaSalle (Upper)10.065m (33 ft) m (375 ft) m (342 ft) 18

Study/Evaluation 19 The following are the conversions for the above towers to convert the change in temperature with height (in Fahrenheit and feet) to the Lapse Rate in degrees Celsius per 100 meters: Clinton: 2 X.5555 = Braidwood:1.895 X.5555 = Dresden (Mid):2.851 X.5555 = Dresden (Upper):1.237 X.5555 = LaSalle (Mid):1.963 X.5555 = LaSalle (Upper):1.043 X.5555 = 0.533

Study/Evaluation 20 Clinton Atmospheric Stability Classes Differential Differential Temperature Temperature IntervalInterval (in °F over the Class (in ° C/100m) m interval) Extremely Unstable ΔT < ‑ 1.9 ΔT < ‑ 1.8 Moderately Unstable ‑ 1.9 <ΔT < ‑ 1.7 ‑ 1.8 <ΔT < ‑ 1.6 Slightly Unstable ‑ 1.7 <ΔT < ‑ 1.5 ‑ 1.6 <ΔT < ‑ 1.4 Neutral ‑ 1.5 <ΔT < ‑ 0.5 ‑ 1.4 <ΔT < ‑ 0.5 Slightly Stable ‑ 0.5 <ΔT <1.5 ‑ 0.5 <ΔT <1.3 Moderately Stable1.5 <ΔT < <ΔT <3.7 Extremely Stable 4.0 < ΔT 3.7 < ΔT

Study/Evaluation CLASSIFICATION OF ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY BY SIGMA THETA StabilityPasquillSigma Theta ClassificationCategories(degrees) Extremely unstable ASigma >=22.5 Moderately unstable B22.5>Sigma>=17.5 Slightly unstable C17.5>Sigma>=12.5 Neutral D12.5>Sigma>=7.5 Slightly stable E7.5>Sigma>=3.8 Moderately stable F3.8>Sigma>=2.1 Extremely stable G2.1>Sigma Found in Table 3 of the Proposed Revision 1 to NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23, dated September,

Study/Evaluation Airport Data 22

Study/Evaluation Seasons were broken out as follows: Winter – December, January, February Spring – March, April, May Summer – June, July, August Fall – September, October, November 23

Study/Evaluation 24 Daytime by Season: Winter – 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Spring – 6 a.m. to 6 a.m. Summer – 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Fall – 6 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Study/Evaluation Wind Direction Classes IF348.75°<WD<11.25°THENClass isN IF11.25°<WD<33.75°THENClass isNNE IF33.75°<WD<56.25°THENClass isNE IF56.25°<WD<78.75°THENClass isENE IF78.75°<WD<101.25°THENClass isE IF101.25°<WD<123.75°THENClass isESE IF123.75°<WD<146.25°THENClass isSE IF146.25°<WD<168.75°THENClass isSSE IF168.75°<WD<191.25°THENClass isS IF191.25°<WD<213.75°THENClass isSSW IF213.75°<WD<236.25°THENClass isSW IF236.25°<WD<258.75°THENClass isWSW IF258.75°<WD<281.25°THENClass isW IF281.25°<WD<303.75°THENClass isWNW IF303.75°<WD<326.25°THENClass isNW IF326.25°<WD<348.75°THENClass isNNW 25

26 Study/Evaluation CLINTON’S CURRENT STBILITY CLASS DETERMINATION IN AN EMERGENCY: In the event of an emergency at the Clinton Power Station, the following priority list is used by the facility to determine the atmospheric stability: 1. Primary Meteorological Monitoring Tower (determined from Delta T) 2. Back-up Meteorological Monitoring Tower (determined from Sigma Theta) 3. National Weather Service – Lincoln, Illinois 4. Dresden Nuclear Power Station 5. Local Airports 6. Meteorological Consultants

27 Results Stability Class Comparison:

28 Site Stability Classes Equal Stability Within One Class Stability Within Two Classes Braidwood Delta-T57.50%89.60%96.80% Dresden Lower Delta-T55.50%87.80%95.70% Dresden Upper Delta-T59.20%88.80%97.20% LaSalle Lower Delta-T46.30%81.90%95.50% LaSalle Upper Delta-T50.30%82.00%94.30% Clinton Lower Sigma Safety Guide %76.10%89.60% Clinton Lower Sigma RG 1.23 Proposed Rev %73.60%89.10% Clinton Upper Sigma Safety Guide %81.60%90.60% Clinton Upper Sigma RG 1.23 Proposed Rev %82.20%92.60% Decatur Wind Speed & Cloud Cover34.60%66.10%85.80% Champaign Wind Speed & Cloud Cover35.30%66.10%87.70% Results

29 Results

30 Results Average Wind Direction by Sector In Percent Frequency ClintonBraidwoodDresdenBloomingtonDecaturChampaignLincoln N NE E SE S SW W NW CALM

31 Results

32 Results

33 Results Ranking According To Percentage of Occurrence When Compared To Clinton Direction Braidwood Dresden Bloomington Champaign Decatur Lincoln N NE E SE S SW W NW Calm Total Rank T-2 T Wind Speed Rank Sum of Ranks Final Wind Ranking T-3 T-1 5 T-1 T-3 6

34 Conclusion In the event of an emergency at the Clinton Power Station, the following should be used in order of preference in order to estimate wind speed, wind direction and stability (atmospheric dispersion): 1.Clinton Primary Meteorological Monitoring Tower (utilizing stability class based upon delta T plus wind speed and wind direction) 2.Dresden stability class plus the Champaign wind speed and wind direction. 3.Dresden Meteorological Monitoring Tower (utilizing the upper level stability class based upon delta T first, then the middle level stability class if upper level is not available plus wind speed and wind direction from 10 meters) 4.Braidwood Meteorological Monitoring Tower (utilizing stability class based upon delta T plus wind speed and wind direction from 10 meters) 5.Meteorological Consulting (private meteorologist or National Weather Service) 6.Clinton Back-up Meteorological Monitoring Tower (utilizing wind speed, wind direction and sigma theta to determine stability) 7.LaSalle Meteorological Monitoring Tower (utilizing the upper level stability class based upon delta T first then the middle level stability class if the upper level is not available plus wind speed and wind direction from 10 meters) 8.Champaign utilizing wind speed, wind direction and cloud cover 9.Decatur utilizing wind speed, wind direction and cloud cover 10.Bloomington utilizing wind speed, wind direction and cloud cover 11.Lincoln utilizing wind speed, wind direction and cloud cover

Questions ? Thank You 35