Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Severe accidents of nuclear power               Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa        ...
The flexRISK project               Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa 2009-2012, interdis...
Accident data               Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in EuropaLimited data available (nucl...
Release fractions & accident frequency                                   Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen ...
Dispersion calculations            Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa Lagrangian dispersi...
Ground contamination & concentration examples       Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa6/14
Example of risk: Iodine prophylaxis for children              Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in ...
Geographical distribution of total risk             Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in EuropaRisk...
Geographical distribution of total risk             Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in EuropaHeav...
Risk originator for Austria – high contamination              Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in ...
Sensitivity to accident frequency            Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa  Same as p...
Effects of phasing-out scenarios            Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in EuropaS 3 / S 1:20...
Conclusions              Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa1. Risk pattern reflects site d...
Thank you!         Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa   Extensive project web site: flexri...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Severe accidents of nuclear power plants in Europe: possible consequences and mapping of risk

1,398 views

Published on

Petra SEIBERT1, Delia ARNOLD1,4, Gabriele MRAZ3, Nikolaus ARNOLD2, Klaus GUFLER2, Helga KROMP-KOLB1, Wolfgang KROMP2, Philipp SUTTER3, Antonia WENISH3

1Institute of Meteorology, BOKU, Austria, Republic of; 2Institute for Security and Risk Sciences, BOKU, Austria, Republic of; 3Austrian Institute of Ecology, Austria, Republic of; 4Institute of Energy Technologies (INTE), Technical University of Catalonia (UPC), Barcelona, Spain

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Severe accidents of nuclear power plants in Europe: possible consequences and mapping of risk

  1. 1. Severe accidents of nuclear power Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa plants in Europe: possible consequences and mapping of risk Petra SEIBERT1, Delia ARNOLD1,4, Gabriele MRAZ3, Nikolaus ARNOLD2, Klaus GUFLER2, Helga KROMP-KOLB1, Wolfgang KROMP2, Philipp SUTTER3, Antonia WENISCH3 1Institute of Meteorology, BOKU, Austria 2Institute for Security and Risk Sciences, BOKU, Austria 3Austrian Institute of Ecology, Austria 4Institute of Energy Technologies (INTE), Technical University of Catalonia (UPC), Barcelona,Spain1/14
  2. 2. The flexRISK project Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa 2009-2012, interdisciplinary, 3 Austrian institutions Main aims:  demonstrate the overall geographical distribution of the risk caused by severe accidents in nuclear power plants in Europe  Show the contribution of different nuclear power plants according to type and geographical location  study the effects of phase-out scenarios Methods  Collect data for all 228 NPPs in Europe + Akkuyu (TR), Bushehr  Identify severe accident with inventories, release fractions, release frequencies for each plant  Perform Europe-wide dispersion & dose calculations for 2788 cases  Produce single-case maps and various aggregated risk parameters2/14
  3. 3. Accident data Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in EuropaLimited data available (nuclear industry business secrets) Grouping of NPPs into similar types  13 groups for release shapes (duration and effective height)  24 groups for release fractions (of inventory being released)  Where available (public), plant-specific data used Different types of severe accidents considered, e.g.  Steam generator tube ruptures (late)  Core melt accident with failure of containment isolation (early)  Interfacing Systems Loss-Of-Coolant Accident (early)  Core power excursion – RBMK (early)  Loss of carbon dioxide coolant – GCR (late)3/14
  4. 4. Release fractions & accident frequency Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa Fukushima Chernobyl Older designs with !! per unit !! extreme accidents and moderate to high frequencies Low frequencies, r y 1 yc neuqe t ned cc A moderate releases f i  Most accidents considered release 10-30% of inventory of volatile nuclides, some up to ca. 60% / (4/14  Frequencies span 5 orders of magnitude!
  5. 5. Dispersion calculations Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa Lagrangian dispersion model FLEXPART, dry and wet deposition ERA-Interim 70 km meteo input data for 1995, 2000-2009, 3-hourly 2788 cases (real weather situations) Output grids: fine (10 km), coarse (1 degree), 3 h Calculate only source-receptor sensitivity, scale with source term for each nuclide in postprocessing Fine output domain 2 weeks in VSC-2 Vienna supercomputer, 2.5 Terabyte Coarse output domain output (highly compressed) Calculation domain5/14
  6. 6. Ground contamination & concentration examples Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa6/14
  7. 7. Example of risk: Iodine prophylaxis for children Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa Intervention level for administering iodine tables in Austria (children): 10 mSv (7 day inhalation dose) Risk parameter shown: Weather-related probability of exceeding the intervention level for a given NPP (Philippsburg 2, release fraction for iodine is 20%) Probabililty > 1% from France to Western Poland, Northern Austria > 1 o/oo even further away But many countries prepared well only within 30 to 100 km!7/14
  8. 8. Geographical distribution of total risk Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in EuropaRisk parameter shown:Probability of exceeding the 37kBq/m2 Cs-137 IAEA thresholdSum over all NPPs activeMet. frequency x frequency ofaccident in each NPP unitLow contamination:Determined by dominant winddirections and distribution ofplantsStrong W-E gradient:1e-7 Portugal1e-6 Western Coast1e-5 Western Central Europe1e-4 Eastern Central Europe8/14
  9. 9. Geographical distribution of total risk Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in EuropaHeavy contamination(resettlement afterChernobyl)Dominated by sites and theiraccident severity & frequencyHeaviest maximum:Temelin-Dukovany-Bohunice-Mochovce-Paks-Krsko regionUkraine and RussiaAlso near RBMK sitesBut large parts of Europe areunder risk!9/14
  10. 10. Risk originator for Austria – high contamination Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa Risk received by Austria from … Contribution of each NPP country to Austria’s risk of receiving a contamination over 1480 kBq/m2 on the part of the country indicated in the box-and-whisker Risk is dominated by CZ, but for big areas Germany advances from rank 4 to rank 2 Chernobyl (UA) could have hit us with 1500 instead of 100 kBq/m2 !!10/14
  11. 11. Sensitivity to accident frequency Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa Same as previous map, but low range of accident frequencies halved in log space (1E-9 to 1E-5 mapped on 1E-7 to 1E-5) Risk in Western and Eastern Europe now more similar11/14
  12. 12. Effects of phasing-out scenarios Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in EuropaS 3 / S 1:2011 shutdowns inGermany and UKplus all pre-1980 unitsHigh contamination:Large reductions inSwitzerland, all ofGermany, W Austriaand UK, Scandinavia !Not much change forEastern Austria (not plantsin the East phased out) 12/14
  13. 13. Conclusions Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa1. Risk pattern reflects site density, NPP type and climate Maxima: E. Central Europe, parts of FR, around large sites in UA and RU Minima on N European Atlantic coasts and in Mediterranean2. Substantial consequences (intervention measures) possible for distances up to 500-1000 km, more frequent / severe for up to 100-300 km That’s in agreement with Chernobyl experiences, but many didn’t want to fully face these consequences3. Emergency planning presently focussing on too small areas. In reality, almost all of Europe should be prepared for nuclear disaster4. Risk distribution depends on level of damage: high damage is more concentrated, low or moderate damage spreads over long distance.5. Thus, regional phase-out policy is effective for reducing or even eliminating high damage6. Risk distribution also depends strongly on accident frequency, but this parameter is highly uncertain 13/14
  14. 14. Thank you! Flexible Werkzeuge zur Abschätzung des nuklearen Risikos in Europa Extensive project web site: flexrisk.boku.ac.at14/14

×