Quantification of the probability of containment failure caused by an in-vessel steam explosion for the Sizewell B PWR

AEA Technology has provided an assessment of the probability of α-mode containment failure for the Sizewell B PWR. After a preliminary review of the methodologies available it was decided to use the probabilistic approach described in the paper, based on an extension of the methodology developed by Theofanous et al. (Nucl. Sci. Eng. 97 (1987) 259–325). The input to the assessment is 12 probability distributions; the bases for the quantification of these distributions are discussed. The α-mode assessment performed for the Sizewell B PWR has demonstrated the practicality of the event-tree method with input data represented by probability distributions. The assessment itself has drawn attention to a number of topics, which may be plant and sequence dependent, and has indicated the importance of melt relocation scenarios. The α-mode failure probability following an accident that leads to core melt relocation to the lower head for the Sizewell B PWR has been assessed as a few parts in 10 000, on the basis of current information. This assessment has been the first to consider elevated pressures (6 MPa and 15 MPa) besides atmospheric pressure, but the results suggest only a modest sensitivity to system pressure.

Can wavelets improve the representation of forecast error covariances in variational data assimilation?

Two wavelet-based control variable transform schemes are described and are used to model some important features of forecast error statistics for use in variational data assimilation. The first is a conventional wavelet scheme and the other is an approximation of it. Their ability to capture the position and scale-dependent aspects of covariance structures is tested in a two-dimensional latitude-height context. This is done by comparing the covariance structures implied by the wavelet schemes with those found from the explicit forecast error covariance matrix, and with a non-wavelet- based covariance scheme used currently in an operational assimilation scheme. Qualitatively, the wavelet-based schemes show potential at modeling forecast error statistics well without giving preference to either position or scale-dependent aspects. The degree of spectral representation can be controlled by changing the number of spectral bands in the schemes, and the least number of bands that achieves adequate results is found for the model domain used. Evidence is found of a trade-off between the localization of features in positional and spectral spaces when the number of bands is changed. By examining implied covariance diagnostics, the wavelet-based schemes are found, on the whole, to give results that are closer to diagnostics found from the explicit matrix than from the nonwavelet scheme. Even though the nature of the covariances has the right qualities in spectral space, variances are found to be too low at some wavenumbers and vertical correlation length scales are found to be too long at most scales. The wavelet schemes are found to be good at resolving variations in position and scale-dependent horizontal length scales, although the length scales reproduced are usually too short. The second of the wavelet-based schemes is often found to be better than the first in some important respects, but, unlike the first, it has no exact inverse transform.

A review of forecast error covariance statistics in atmospheric variational data assimilation. I: Characteristics and measurements of forecast error covariances

Understanding the processes governing climate variability and change, climate predictability and the probability of extreme events

The purpose of Research Theme 4 (RT4) was to advance understanding of the basic science issues at the heart of the ENSEMBLES project, focusing on the key processes that govern climate variability and change, and that determine the predictability of climate. Particular attention was given to understanding linear and non-linear feedbacks that may lead to climate surprises,and to understanding the factors that govern the probability of extreme events. Improved understanding of these issues will contribute significantly to the quantification and reduction of uncertainty in seasonal to decadal predictions and projections of climate change. RT4 exploited the ENSEMBLES integrations (stream 1) performed in RT2A as well as undertaking its own experimentation to explore key processes within the climate system. It was working at the cutting edge of problems related to climate feedbacks, the interaction between climate variability and climate change � especially how climate change pertains to extreme events, and the predictability of the climate system on a range of time-scales. The statisticalmethodologies developed for extreme event analysis are new and state-of-the-art. The RT4-coordinated experiments, which have been conducted with six different atmospheric GCMs forced by common timeinvariant sea surface temperature (SST) and sea-ice fields (removing some sources of inter-model variability), are designed to help to understand model uncertainty (rather than scenario or initial condition uncertainty) in predictions of the response to greenhouse-gas-induced warming. RT4 links strongly with RT5 on the evaluation of the ENSEMBLES prediction system and feeds back its results to RT1 to guide improvements in the Earth system models and, through its research on predictability, to steer the development of methods for initialising the ensembles

Spatial analysis of the error in a model of soil nitrogen

Models of the dynamics of nitrogen in soil (soil-N) can be used to aid the fertilizer management of a crop. The predictions of soil-N models can be validated by comparison with observed data. Validation generally involves calculating non-spatial statistics of the observations and predictions, such as their means, their mean squared-difference, and their correlation. However, when the model predictions are spatially distributed across a landscape the model requires validation with spatial statistics. There are three reasons for this: (i) the model may be more or less successful at reproducing the variance of the observations at different spatial scales; (ii) the correlation of the predictions with the observations may be different at different spatial scales; (iii) the spatial pattern of model error may be informative. In this study we used a model, parameterized with spatially variable input information about the soil, to predict the mineral-N content of soil in an arable field, and compared the results with observed data. We validated the performance of the N model spatially with a linear mixed model of the observations and model predictions, estimated by residual maximum likelihood. This novel approach allowed us to describe the joint variation of the observations and predictions as: (i) independent random variation that occurred at a fine spatial scale; (ii) correlated random variation that occurred at a coarse spatial scale; (iii) systematic variation associated with a spatial trend. The linear mixed model revealed that, in general, the performance of the N model changed depending on the spatial scale of interest. At the scales associated with random variation, the N model underestimated the variance of the observations, and the predictions were correlated poorly with the observations. At the scale of the trend, the predictions and observations shared a common surface. The spatial pattern of the error of the N model suggested that the observations were affected by the local soil condition, but this was not accounted for by the N model. In summary, the N model would be well-suited to field-scale management of soil nitrogen, but suited poorly to management at finer spatial scales. This information was not apparent with a non-spatial validation. (c),2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Errors associated with the preparation of aseptic products in UK hospital pharmacies: lessons from the national aseptic error reporting scheme

Background Pharmacy aseptic units prepare and supply injectables to minimise risks. The UK National Aseptic Error Reporting Scheme has been collecting data on pharmacy compounding errors, including near-misses, since 2003. Objectives The cumulative reports from January 2004 to December 2007, inclusive, were analysed. Methods The different variables of product types, error types, staff making and detecting errors, stage errors detected, perceived contributory factors, and potential or actual outcomes were presented by cross-tabulation of data. Results A total of 4691 reports were submitted against an estimated 958 532 items made, returning 0.49% as the overall error rate. Most of the errors were detected before reaching patients, with only 24 detected during or after administration. The highest number of reports related to adult cytotoxic preparations (40%) and the most frequently recorded error was a labelling error (34.2%). Errors were mostly detected at first check in assembly area (46.6%). Individual staff error contributed most (78.1%) to overall errors, while errors with paediatric parenteral nutrition appeared to be blamed on low staff levels more than other products were. The majority of errors (68.6%) had no potential patient outcomes attached, while it appeared that paediatric cytotoxic products and paediatric parenteral nutrition were associated with greater levels of perceived patient harm. Conclusions The majority of reports were related to near-misses, and this study highlights scope for examining current arrangements for checking and releasing products, certainly for paediatric cytotoxic and paediatric parenteral nutrition preparations within aseptic units, but in the context of resource and capacity constraints.