The ESTE Decision Support System for Nuclear and Radiological Emergencies: Atmospheric Dispersion Models
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A well written paper. Perhaps a few minor grammatical changes needed. The visuals are very good.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Answers on the comments of the Reviewer 1:
- We corrected the typo: lenght -> length (in Section 2.3)
- We corrected the subscripts DRinhal and Dinhal to DRinhal and Dinhal. (in Section 2.3).
- We added the version of MCNP (it is version 5), and we inserted one reference to it.
- Conclusion was updated, reflecting also the comments of Reviewer 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review on the Article: Decision Support System ESTE for nuclear…
I have thoroughly read this article. I find it revealing and I feel that it deserves due consideration since it creates new ideas in the difficult question of nuclear power's hazards.
There are some matters that need due clarification in my point of view, before publication.
1.- The same concept of ESTE, it is not properly defined and it is as of yet a mystery, why this system applies in Slovakia and Austria but not in Germany or Poland and then it shifts to Iran. Why is that?
I would like the ESTE system to be more properly defined for the readers' sake.
Then, it is also unclear why the ESTE system only uses LPM and PTM to alert on potential dangers and it does not use other fluid dynamics programmes and diverse CFD.
2.- The explanation of the atmospheric dispersion models
I find this explanation a bit literal but not very scientific in the sense that only elementary equations are included and no graphs at all, only one table with a list of isotopes.
It even goes to the point of suggesting that the release source can be a line, a cylinder or a hemisphere. As these are very different figures it would be interesting to clarify the point.
When discussing the duration of impacts, it also mentions the problem of Fukushima in Japan in which I have worked directly. Frankly I have doubts that ESTE or any meteorological model can predict transcontinental propagation of radionuclides with any accuracy after several days.
The same applies to 2.2 and the PTM
At the end of 2.3 it is written that the urban meteo field is calculated as solution to the Reynolds averaged Navier Stokes equations with the k-ε closure model.
If so, it is not sufficient in my humble opinion to call to reference 5 which happens to be written by the same authors of the manuscript and thus more detail should be given to this difficult question, especially to the complex matter of urban configuration that would produce several turbulences and strange effects on the wind dynamics. This issue has received considerable importance in recent years and included valueable experiments at wind tunnel facilities for instance which are not referred nor detailed in the manuscript.
Subsequently this opaque model is applied to Mochovce NPP in Slovakia.
No data of this NPP are given, nor the reason to choose it instead of other facilities.
The graphs on Figure 2 are of particular interest to me. But so many assumptions and variables are called for that the results appear to be misleading though colourful.
3.- In this section, the facility is changed to Bohunice NPP
No explanation is given of the change of facility and the details of the plant are withheld.
The choice of trajectories is unexplained.
Graphs in figure 3 and 4 are too tenuous and difficult to read.
Given the vastness of the chosen area, almost the whole of eastern Europe, it is difficult to believe that those maps are representative.
Then two more calculations of LPM follow in this case without graphs and only tables 3 and 4.
From this, we move directly to the conclusions in Chapter 5. Chapter 4 seems to be missing, please confirm this.
The conclusion of a massive analysis on a potential nuclear disaster is just one paragraph which seems more a summarized description or checklistof the operations performed in the manuscript.
Therefore, I tend to disagree with the last sentence: the discussed parameter setting in ESTE is acceptable and adequate.
I feel that this sentence is very inconclusive and there is little option for the reader or other scientist to arrive to similar results by any means.
With this sharp ending the article seems incomplete or capped in some way. Thus, I encourage the authors to introduce lengthier and scientifically supported conclusions and findings to enhance their valuable research.
Some interesting videos are added to the manuscript and one specifically regards the problem of Fukushima Dai-ichi reactor. However, these cannot be a substitute for crucial facts that must be otherwise presented in the paper and not in filmed annexes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read with interest the new and revised version of this manuscript and I feel that the authors have worked a great deal to answer my caveats and doubts. With the former, I feel satisfied of the current results and I think that this article can proceed to further publication steps.
