World Meteorological Organization's model simulations of the radionuclide dispersion and deposition from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. (January 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Draxler, Roland; Arnold, Dèlia; Chino, Masamichi; Galmarini, Stefano; Hort, Matthew; Jones, Andrew; Leadbetter, Susan; Malo, Alain; Maurer, Christian; Rolph, Glenn; Saito, Kazuo; Servranckx, René; Shimbori, Toshiki; Solazzo, Efisio; Wotawa, Gerhard
• Is Part Of: Journal of environmental radioactivity. Volume 139(2015:Jan.)
• Page Start: 172
• Page End: 184
• Publication Date: 2015-01
• Subjects: Fukushima -- Deposition -- Air concentration -- ATDM -- Iodine -- Cesium; Radioactivity -- Periodicals; Radiation, Background -- Periodicals; Radioecology -- Periodicals; Radioactive pollution -- Periodicals; Environmental Pollutants -- Periodicals; Radioactive Pollutants -- Periodicals; Radioactivity -- Periodicals; Radioécologie -- Périodiques; Pollution radioactive -- Périodiques; Fond de rayonnement -- Périodiques; 539.752
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2013.09.014
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0265-931X

Abstract

Abstract: Five different atmospheric transport and dispersion model's (ATDM) deposition and air concentration results for atmospheric releases from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident were evaluated over Japan using regional 137 Cs deposition measurements and 137 Cs and 131 I air concentration time series at one location about 110 km from the plant. Some of the ATDMs used the same and others different meteorological data consistent with their normal operating practices. There were four global meteorological analyses data sets available and two regional high-resolution analyses. Not all of the ATDMs were able to use all of the meteorological data combinations. The ATDMs were configured identically as much as possible with respect to the release duration, release height, concentration grid size, and averaging time. However, each ATDM retained its unique treatment of the vertical velocity field and the wet and dry deposition, one of the largest uncertainties in these calculations. There were 18 ATDM-meteorology combinations available for evaluation. The deposition results showed that even when using the same meteorological analysis, each ATDM can produce quite different deposition patterns. The better calculations in terms of both deposition and air concentration were associated with the smoother ATDM deposition patterns. The best model with respect to the deposition was not always the best model with respect to air concentrations. The use of high-resolution mesoscale analyses improved ATDM performance; however, high-resolution precipitation analyses did not improve ATDM predictions. Although some ATDMs could be identified as better performers for either deposition or air concentration calculations, overall, the ensemble mean of a subset of better performing members provided more consistent results for both types of calculations.