G20090007/Oedo-2009-0007
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com R Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 126 (2003) 11^30 www.elsevier.com/locate/jvolgeores Volcanic and seismic hazards at a proposed nuclear power site in central Java Alexander R. McBirney a;Ã, Leonello Serva b, M. Guerra b, Charles B. Connor c a Department of Geological Sciences, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA b APAT, Italian Agency for Environment Protection and Technical Services, Via Vitaliano Brancati, 48, 00144 Roma, Italy c Department of Geology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, SCA 528, Tampa, FL 33620-5201, USA Received 1 February 2003; accepted 16 March 2003 Abstract A nuclear power plant site has been proposed near the base of Mount Muria, a long-dormant volcano in Indonesia. Over a period of eight years the volcanic and seismic hazards were investigated, first by the contractor and later by a joint team of Indonesian geologists and consultants to the International Atomic Energy Agency. In order to assess the risk posed by a large volcano for which there is no record of historical eruptions, it was necessary to determine the age of the last activity by geological and geochronological means and to deduce from this whether the volcano posed a credible risk. Similarly, because there was no adequate record of seismic activity, the seismic hazards were investigated mainly by geological, geomorphological, and geophysical methods that identified and characterized potential seismogenic sources related to the volcano or tectonic movements (i.e. active/capable faults). Muria Volcano has not erupted since about two thousand years ago, but the last activity was sufficiently recent to rule out any assumption that the volcano is extinct. Detailed studies indicated that the proposed site may be vulnerable to the effects of air-borne tephra, pyroclastic flows and surges, debris flows, lahars, and opening of new vents. A more serious factor, however, was the poor geotechnical properties of the foundation material that required a careful analysis of the seismic hazards. Although the project was suspended, the study proved useful, because it provided an opportunity to develop procedures and techniques that could be applied in similar studies elsewhere. ß 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: volcanic hazards; nuclear power plants; Indonesia 1. Introduction evaluate safety studies for what was to be Indo- nesia’s ¢rst nuclear power plant. Because the site 1.1. Background of study is in a densely populated region on the north coast of Java near one of the world’s major chains In 1991 the Indonesian government invited the of active volcanoes (Fig. 1), the primary concern International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to of the safety studies was the potential hazards of * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.R. McBirney). 0377-0273 / 03 / $ ^ see front matter ß 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0377-0273(03)00114-8 VOLGEO 2620 1-7-03 12 A.R. McBirney et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 126 (2003) 11^30 volcanism and seismicity. A panel of geologists, adapted for use at other projects of this kind. volcanologists, geophysicists, and engineers re- The result was a set of guidelines laid out in the viewed the geological studies and found a number 1997 IAEA document ‘Volcanoes and associated of open issues critical to the acceptability of the topics in relation to nuclear power plant siting’ proposed site. Additional studies were recom- (McBirney and Godoy, 2003). The guidelines are mended to address these concerns, and with similar to others that had already been prepared time, the panel took on an increasing role in the for earthquakes, tsunamis, and other natural haz- investigation until it had a team of eleven experts ards. A preliminary version was distributed to all from various nations working in close coopera- appropriate members of the United Nations, and tion with Indonesian scientists. recommended changes and additions from experts Having no established precedent for assessing in several of these countries were incorporated volcanic hazards under these conditions, the into the ¢nal version. Our purpose here is to team developed a plan of study that could be show how this approach was followed in the Fig. 1. Satellite image showing the location of the proposed nuclear power plant (NPP) with respect to Muria Volcano. VOLGEO 2620 1-7-03 A.R. McBirney et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 126 (2003) 11^30 13 case of the proposed Indonesian nuclear power plant. The investigation was concerned with a variety of possible hazards, but only those associated with volcanism and seismicity are discussed here. The data we report are taken from unpublished documents produced by BATAN (the Atomic En- ergy Commission of Indonesia), NEWJEC (a con- Fig. 2. The acceptable hazard varies greatly depending on sulting company) and NTT (a team of Indonesian the application. Critical facilities like nuclear power plants scientists from universities and public institutions require the largest margin of safety. formed with the speci¢c goal of de¢ning the seis- mic and volcanic hazards at the Muria site). ments in hazardous areas to monitor volcanoes, 1.2. Volcanic and seismic hazards at nuclear because the possibility of losing them is usually facilities acceptable. Nuclear facilities occupy the opposite end of the spectrum (Fig. 2). The probabilities of Evaluations of seismic and volcanic hazards af- volcanic eruptions or earthquakes resulting in loss fecting nuclear facilities di¡er in several ways of control of a nuclear plant, or in a release of from other types of hazard assessments. The radionuclides into the environment, must, of most important di¡erence is that they are focused course, be very low, on the order of 1038 to on hazards at a speci¢c locality, in this case a 1036 per year, depending on the longevity of the proposed nuclear power plant site, rather than facility. Note that at such low probabilities, un- on a general region near a particular volcano or certainties in assigning values to certain parame- fault. In addition, one must consider volcanic and ters, such as the frequency of volcanic eruptions, seismic hazards together, rather than indepen- are very high. Estimates of hazards and risk based dently, because they are closely linked. Seismicity on a small number of events, either because these is associated with most volcanic terrains and can events are very infrequent or because they have induce mass movement on the slopes of the vol- not been recognized as such, are highly uncertain cano, even without renewed magmatism. Because (Von Mises, 1957). Conversely, because the geo- the assessment must consider the total hazard and logic record is usually incomplete, the small frac- risk, it must span both of these disciplines. tion of volcanic and seismic events that have been The success of volcanic hazard assessments de- preserved in the geologic record may drive most pends on the quality of basic geologic research, of the risk analysis. numerical modelling of volcanic processes, and In its study of the Indonesian site, the team was the investigators’ experience with a great diversity not able to deal successfully with all of these is- of eruptive activities. Similarly, seismic hazard as- sues. Nevertheless, the lessons learned there are sessment requires a basic understanding of the worth considering, in the hope that future assess- regional tectonics, local fault characteristics, and ments will avoid some of the pitfalls we encoun- site conditions. In our case, the team was faced tered. with using information gathered by other groups, often with di¡ering objectives. This inevitably 1.3. Plan of investigation complicated the task of providing adequate as- sessment of long-term geologic hazard rates. Hazards were considered on all scales ranging Such complications manifest themselves in the from the broad regional tectonic setting to condi- analysis as increased uncertainty. tions in the immediate vicinity of the site. As out- The level of acceptable risk depends, of course, lined in McBirney and Godoy, 2003, the goal of on the nature of the exposed facilities. For exam- the regional studies was to identify all Quaternary ple, one does not hesitate to place scienti¢c instru- volcanic and seismic phenomena within a radius VOLGEO 2620 1-7-03 14 A.R. McBirney et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 126 (2003) 11^30 of at least 150 km from the site on Muria Pen- motectonic model for interpreting the seismicity insula. near the site; (3) compile a record of activity for Because of its great geological interest, the In- all active volcanoes and faults within a radius of donesian Arc has been the subject of countless 150 km from the site; and (4) identify time-strati- volcanological and seismological studies the re- graphic units and determine the ages of the Plio- sults of which are available in publications dating cene and Quaternary volcanic deposits having a back more than a century. With so much infor- regional extent of 100 km2 or more. mation already compiled, much of the research These regional studies were followed by inves- required on the regional scale could be accom- tigations on a more detailed scale of conditions in plished by a review of the existing literature. Un- the vicinity of the proposed site. The potential fortunately, however, these resources are mainly hazards were grouped into two categories depend- of a general nature and are not adequate for ing on whether or not they could be mitigated by many aspects of a detailed study of the present economically feasible design measures: (A) vol- kind. It was necessary, therefore, to acquire addi- canic or seismic hazards that adversely a¡ect the tional information directly related to the project.