A Preliminary Analysis of Volcanic Na-Tech Risks in The Vesuvius Area
A Preliminary Analysis of Volcanic Na-Tech Risks in The Vesuvius Area
A Preliminary Analysis of Volcanic Na-Tech Risks in The Vesuvius Area
E. Salzano, A. Basco
Istituto di Ricerche sulla Combustione, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
ABSTRACT: The area surrounding Vesuvius is considered as one of the most hazardous zone in the world.
Several civil protection actions (prediction and prevention, emergency plans, evacuation plan) have been managed for the population but, quite surprisingly, industrial risks triggered by the interaction with this catastrophic natural event have been neglected (Na-Tech risks). Furthermore, Naples and its province have several
industrial areas, two industrial harbors with LPG and fuel docks, and large fuel storage plants, in the close surrounding of crowded suburbs. The analysis of volcanic Na-Tech risks presented in the paper shows a revised
event tree starting from simplification of geophysicist studies, taking into account only the possible interaction
with industrial equipment. Among the eruption phenomena (tephra fall, lava flows, pyroclastic flows and
surges, atmospheric phenomena, pyroclastic bombs) the tephra fall has been analyzed in the following, starting from the intensity of explosive eruption predicted by Italian Civil Protection.
1 INTRODUCTION
Natural catastrophic events may be able to affect the
integrity of industrial structures and possibly lead to
loss of control of production processes. As a consequence, if industrial facilities store large amount of
hazardous materials, accidental scenarios as fire, explosion, or toxic dispersion can be triggered, thus
possibly involving population living in the close surrounding or in the urban area where the industrial installation is located. Eventually, the analysis of natural-technological mutual interaction (Na-Tech) is
necessary for the development of methodology for
risk management practice, for risk assessment and
for emergency planning. On the other hand, simplified tools are mandatory because the number of
possible scenarios is often dramatically high when
large installations or areas are considered.
Despite these considerations, a recent analysis
showed that none of the European countries have
specific Na-Tech risk and emergency management
programs in place (Cruz et al., 2004). In the following, some advancement for the assessment of natural-technological risks is presented, with specific
reference to the volcanic hazards. The analysis is
part of a larger project of the Department of Civil
Protection for the analysis of industrial risks in the
surrounding of Mt. Vesuvius in Napoli, aiming at
emergency planning for population in the case of
eruption. The methodology and the insights reported
here can be usefully adopted for any large cata-
Outcome
No eruption
Magmatic
intrusion
Magnitude
Phenomena
Tephra fall
Stop
VEI = 5
Sectors
Clone
Distance
1 Clone
Pyroclastic
flow
Eruption
VEI = 4
5 Clone
Clone
No
Stop
magmatic
intrusion
VEI = 3
5-10 Km
Clone People
1.E-01
1.E-02
1.E-03
15-20 Km
Buildings
6 Clone
Clone
Clone
1.E+00
0-5 Km Clone
10-15 Km
4
Lahars
(1)
Vulnerability
2 Clone
Clone
3 Clone
Restless
volcano
Exposure
logN(M) = a bM
f [y-1]
Unrest
Clone
20-25 Km
Clone
1.E-04
8 Clone
1.E-05
1
VEI
in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Annual frequency of exceedance of VEI for Vesuvius
(Scandone et al., 1993).
Table 1: Probability of occurrence and typology of the posteruption phenomena (Blong, 1984, as reported by Perrella,
2005)
Volcanic
phenomenon
Probability
of occurrence
24%
60%
60%
5%
6%
50%
50%
< 1%
Maximum
distance
(km)
100
20
800
100
300
50
Characteristic
temperature
(C)
600-1200
< 1000
25
< 600-900
< 100
25
Lava flow
Ballistic projection
Tephra fall
Pyroclastic flow
Lahars
Seismic activity
Soil deformations
Anomalous waves
Atmospheric phenomena
Acid rain and gas
600
60%
800
40%
2000
25
1.00
7.6 cm
22 cm
0.50
45 cm
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
10
20 km
30 km
15
20
25
30
35
Distance*, km
10 km
0.80
Prob [layer>layer*]
0.60
0.00
5 km
0.90
Prob [distance()>distance*]
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
25
50
75
100
layer*, cm
Figure 4: Exceedance probability of ash layer thickness with respect to layer thickness reported on x-axis (layer*) for different
distances from crater. VEI = 3.
Ash layer
thickness
cm
7.6
22
45
Probit coefficient
k1
4.21
4.45
4.86
Maximum
distance
k2
0.49
0.67
0.74
km
> 50
> 50
22
Layer thickness, cm
10% exc
2.01
1.70
65.93
1.40
1.70
35.82
1.20
1.70
29.33
0.84
1.70
20.46
0.50
1.70
8.83
1% exc
389.47
211.62
173.26
120.88
52.18
1.E-03
1.E-04
1.E-05
1.E-06
1.E-07
1.E-08
0
20
40
60
80
100
Figure 6: Exceedance annual probability of tank fire at any given distance* for layer thickness : : 22 cm; : 45 cm.