Transcript Meteorological Considerations for Nuclear Power Plant

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
Background
• Projected need for new generation by 2030 is >350,000 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
2
Background (Cont’d)
• New plant licensing has historically been an
onerous process
o Lengthy (10+ years in many cases)
o Costly
o Site/reactor specific
• Recent initiatives have streamlined the process
(DOE’s 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
3
Recent New Plant Licensing Activity
• New license applications are currently under
review or are being prepared:
o 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
o Most are in southeastern U.S.
o Others are being considered
4
Potential
for New
Potential
forNuclear
New Nuclear
Existing Plants
Plant Re-Starts
ESP Sites
New Plants
5
Graphic provided by NEI and updated by
Progress Energy with latest utility announcements
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:
o Regional Climatology – Used to identify limiting parameters that
determine safe design and operation
o Local Meteorology – Used to assess the impact of facility
operation on local meteorological conditions
o 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
6
Regulatory Drivers
• NRC requirements are much more extensive than
EPA’s requirements for industrial facilities
o Basic requirements are in 10 CFR 52
o 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
7
Meteorological Monitoring Reqs
• Primary Objective: To provide representative data suitable for
use in dispersion modeling of radiological releases
• Schedule & Lead Time Considerations:
o Tower & instrument procurement/installation (3 to 6 months, typ.)
o Minimum 1-year of operational data prior to application submittal
o Minimum 2-years of operational data prior to license issuance
• System Design – Siting Considerations
o Must be representative of the site
o No undue influence from terrain, vegetation, thermal effects
o Due consideration should be given to the influence of construction
and operation of the plant
o Systems typically designed for permanent operation (including plant
operation)
o Complex terrain may require multiple towers
o Basic criteria provided in RG 1.23
8
Meteorological Monitoring Reqs (Cont’d)
• System Design – Basic Components
o 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)
o Minimum data recovery objective: 90%
o Electronic data logging devices must sample data in ≤ 5 second
intervals, and compile results in 15- and/or 60-min averages
o QA/QC requirements are stringent
9
Example of Recent Tower Installation
• New Tower in Levy County, FL
o Site of Progress Energy’s Proposed Levy Nuclear Plant
(two Westinghouse AP-1000 units are proposed)
o 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
o Tower and instrumentation designed and installed by
Murray and Trettel of Palatine, IL
10
Progress Energy Florida - Service Territory
Levy
Crystal River
11
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
Upper (60-m) and
Lower (10-m) Level
Sensors
16
17
Tower Guy Wire Anchor
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
o Remote interrogation via land line or cellular modem
o Frequent downloading of data minimizes data loss
due to system failures
o Programmable system allows simple data conversion
o 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
18
System Operation (Cont’d)
• Data recovery can be increased by:
o
o
o
o
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
19
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
o Neither is incorrect
o Results can be very different
o Users should be aware of intended use of data and implications
of how the data was processed
20
Examples of Vector and Scalar Wind Averaging
Case “A”
Case “B”
5 m/s
5 m/s
Case “C”
5 m/s
5 m/s
3.5 m/s
5 m/s
Vector Average = 0 m/s
Scalar Average = 5 m/s
21
5 m/s
Vector Average = 3.5 m/s
Scalar Average = 5 m/s
Vector Average = 5 m/s
Scalar Average = 5 m/s
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)
22
Comparison of Vector vs. Scalar Averages
• Progress Energy conducted a year-long comparison of
Vector and Scalar averages in North Carolina using colocated sensors
• A statistical regression analysis of the data indicated a
distinct correlation:
USCALAR = 1.03 × UVECTOR + 0.4 (4 months, r=0.99)
USCALAR = 1.00 × UVECTOR + 0.31 (18 months, r=0.92)
• Results should be site-specific
23
Progress Energy Carolinas - Service Territory
Harris
Brunswick
Robinson
24
25
Co-located Wind Sensors
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
26