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 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
TODAY’S 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, )
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
Atmospheric Technologies Group
Savannah River National Laboratory
Bldg A
Aiken, SC
(803) FAX (803)
more trees