Twenty-eight of the workers at Chernobyl died in the first four months following the accident, according to the U. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC , including some heroic workers who knew they were exposing themselves to deadly levels of radiation in order to secure the facility from further radiation leaks. The prevailing winds at the time of the accident were from the south and east, so much of the radiation plume traveled northwest toward Belarus.
Nonetheless, Soviet authorities were slow to release information about the severity of the disaster to the outside world. But when radiation levels raised concern in Sweden about three days later, scientists there were able to conclude the approximate location of the nuclear disaster based on radiation levels and wind directions, forcing Soviet authorities to reveal the full extent of the crisis, according to the United Nations.
Within three months of the Chernobyl accident, a total of 31 people died from radiation exposure or other direct effects of the disaster, according to the NRC. Between and , as many as 20, cases of thyroid cases were diagnosed in patients who were under the age of 18 in , according to a UNSCEAR report.
While there may still be additional cases of cancer that emergency workers, evacuees, and residents may experience throughout their lifetimes, the known overall rate of cancer deaths and other health effects directly related to Chernobyl's radiation leak is lower than was initially feared.
Some experts have claimed that unsubstantiated fear of radiation poisoning led to greater suffering than the actual disaster. For example, many doctors throughout Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union advised pregnant women to undergo abortions to avoid bearing children with birth defects or other disorders, though the actual level of radiation exposure these women experienced was likely too low to cause any problems, according to the World Nuclear Association.
In , the United Nations published a report on the effects of the Chernobyl accident that was so "full of unsubstantiated statements that have no support in scientific assessments," according to the chairman of UNSCEAR , that it was eventually dismissed by most authorities. Shortly after the radiation leaks from Chernobyl occurred, the trees in the woodlands surrounding the plant were killed by high levels of radiation.
This region came to be known as the "Red Forest" because the dead trees turned a bright ginger color. The trees were eventually bulldozed and buried in trenches, according to the National Science R esearch Laboratory at Texas Tech University. The damaged reactor was hastily sealed in a concrete sarcophagus intended to contain the remaining radiation, according to the NRC.
However, there is ongoing intense scientific debate over how effective this sarcophagus has been and will continue to be into the future. In the next step, these wastes, as well as those from decommissioning reactor blocks , are processed into a form suitable for permanent safe disposal. Low- and intermediate-level wastes are separated into combustible, compactable, and non-compactable categories. These are then subject to incineration, high-force compaction, and cementation respectively.
In addition, highly radioactive and long-lived solid waste is sorted out for temporary separate storage. In the third step, the conditioned solid waste materials are transferred to containers suitable for permanent safe storage.
As part of this project, at the end of , Nukem handed over an Engineered Near Surface Disposal Facility for storage of short-lived radioactive waste after prior conditioning. It is 17 km away from the power plant, at the Vektor complex within the km zone. The storage area is designed to hold 55, m 3 of treated waste which will be subject to radiological monitoring for years, by when the radioactivity will have decayed to such an extent that monitoring is no longer required. Another contract has been let for a Liquid Radioactive Waste Treatment Plant LRTP , to handle some 35, cubic metres of low- and intermediate-level liquid wastes at the site.
This will be solidified and eventually buried along with solid wastes on site. Construction of the plant has been completed and the start of operations was due late in This will not take any Chernobyl fuel, though it will become a part of the common spent nuclear fuel management complex of the state-owned company Chernobyl NPP.
Its remit includes eventual decommissioning of all Ukraine nuclear plants. In January , the Ukraine government announced a four-stage decommissioning plan which incorporated the above waste activities and progresses towards a cleared site. In February a new stage of this was approved for units , involving dismantling some equipment and putting them into safstor condition by Then, to , further equipment will be removed, and by they will be demolished. See also official website.
In the last two decades there has been some resettlement of the areas evacuated in and subsequently. Recently the main resettlement project has been in Belarus. In July , the Belarus government announced that it had decided to settle back thousands of people in the 'contaminated areas' covered by the Chernobyl fallout, from which 24 years ago they and their forbears were hastily relocated. Compared with the list of contaminated areas in , some villages and hamlets had been reclassified with fewer restrictions on resettlement.
The decision by the Belarus Council of Ministers resulted in a new national program over and up to to alleviate the Chernobyl impact and return the areas to normal use with minimal restrictions.
The focus of the project is on the development of economic and industrial potential of the Gomel and Mogilev regions from which , people were relocated. The main priority is agriculture and forestry, together with attracting qualified people and housing them.
Initial infrastructure requirements will mean the refurbishment of gas, potable water and power supplies, while the use of local wood will be banned. Schools and housing will be provided for specialist workers and their families ahead of wider socio-economic development. Overall, some 21, dwellings are slated for connection to gas networks in the period , while about contaminated or broken down buildings are demolished. Over kilometres of road will be laid, and ten new sewerage works and 15 pumping stations are planned.
The cost of the work was put at BYR 6. The feasibility of agriculture will be examined in areas where the presence of caesium and strontium is low, "to acquire new knowledge in the fields of radiobiology and radioecology in order to clarify the principles of safe life in the contaminated territories.
A suite of protective measures was set up to allow a new forestry industry whose products would meet national and international safety standards. In April , specialists in Belarus stressed that it is safe to eat all foods cultivated in the contaminated territories, though intake of some wild food was restricted.
Protective measures will be put in place for settlements in the contaminated areas where average radiation dose may exceed 1 mSv per year.
There were also villages with annual average effective doses from the pollution between 0. The goal for these areas is to allow their re-use with minimal restrictions, although already radiation doses there from the caesium are lower than background levels anywhere in the world. The Belarus government decision was an important political landmark in an ongoing process. A UN Development Program report in said that much of the aid and effort applied to mitigate the effects of the Chernobyl accident did more harm than good, and it seems that this, along with the Chernobyl Forum report, finally persuaded the Belarus authorities.
In the published results of a major scientific study showed that the mammal population of the exclusion zone including the sq km Polessian State Radiation-Ecological Reserve — PSRER in Belarus was thriving, despite land contamination. Other studies have concluded that the net environmental effect of the accident has been much greater biodiversity and abundance of species, with the exclusion zone having become a unique sanctuary for wildlife due to the absence of humans.
Leaving aside the verdict of history on its role in melting the Soviet 'Iron Curtain', some very tangible practical benefits have resulted from the Chernobyl accident. The main ones concern reactor safety, notably in eastern Europe. The US Three Mile Island accident in had a significant effect on Western reactor design and operating procedures. While that reactor was destroyed, all radioactivity was contained — as designed — and there were no deaths or injuries.
While no-one in the West was under any illusion about the safety of early Soviet reactor designs, some lessons learned have also been applicable to Western plants.
Certainly the safety of all Soviet-designed reactors has improved vastly. This is due largely to the development of a culture of safety encouraged by increased collaboration between East and West, and substantial investment in improving the reactors.
Modifications have been made to overcome deficiencies in all the RBMK reactors still operating. In these, originally the nuclear chain reaction and power output could increase if cooling water were lost or turned to steam, in contrast to most Western designs. It was this effect which led to the uncontrolled power surge that led to the destruction of Chernobyl 4 see Positive void coefficient section in the information page on RBMK Reactors. All of the RBMK reactors have now been modified by changes in the control rods, adding neutron absorbers and consequently increasing the fuel enrichment from 1.
Automatic shut-down mechanisms now operate faster, and other safety mechanisms have been improved. Automated inspection equipment has also been installed. A repetition of the Chernobyl accident is now virtually impossible, according to a German nuclear safety agency report 7.
Since , over nuclear engineers from the former Soviet Union have visited Western nuclear power plants and there have been many reciprocal visits. Over 50 twinning arrangements between East and West nuclear plants have been put in place. Most of this has been under the auspices of the World Association of Nuclear Operators WANO , a body formed in which links operators of nuclear power plants in more than 30 countries see also information page on Cooperation in the Nuclear Power Industry.
Many other international programmes were initiated following Chernobyl. The International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA safety review projects for each particular type of Soviet reactor are noteworthy, bringing together operators and Western engineers to focus on safety improvements. These initiatives are backed by funding arrangements.
The Chernobyl Forum report said that some seven million people are now receiving or eligible for benefits as 'Chernobyl victims', which means that resources are not targeting those most in need.
Remedying this presents daunting political problems however. Chernobyl is the well-known Russian name for the site; Chornobyl is preferred by Ukraine. Much has been made of the role of the operators in the Chernobyl accident. The Summary Report on the Post-Accident Review Meeting on the Chernobyl Accident INSAG-1 of the International Atomic Energy Agency's IAEA's International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group accepted the view of the Soviet experts that "the accident was caused by a remarkable range of human errors and violations of operating rules in combination with specific reactor features which compounded and amplified the effects of the errors and led to the reactivity excursion.
However, the IAEA's INSAG-7 report, The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-1 , was less critical of the operators, with the emphasis shifted towards "the contributions of particular design features, including the design of the control rods and safety systems, and arrangements for presenting important safety information to the operators. The accident is now seen to have been the result of the concurrence of the following major factors: specific physical characteristics of the reactor; specific design features of the reactor control elements; and the fact that the reactor was brought to a state not specified by procedures or investigated by an independent safety body.
Most importantly, the physical characteristics of the reactor made possible its unstable behaviour. As pointed out in INSAG-1, the human factor has still to be considered as a major element in causing the accident. It is certainly true that the operators placed the reactor in a dangerous condition, in particular by removing too many of the control rods, resulting in the lowering of the reactor's operating reactivity margin ORM, see information page on RBMK Reactors.
Many of the control rods were withdrawn to compensate for the build up of xenon which acted as an absorber of neutrons and reduced power. This meant that if there were a power surge, about 20 seconds would be required to lower the control rods and shut the reactor down.
In spite of this, it was decided to continue the test programme. There was an increase in coolant flow and a resulting drop in steam pressure. The automatic trip which would have shut down the reactor when the steam pressure was low, had been circumvented. In order to maintain power the operators had to withdraw nearly all the remaining control rods.
The reactor became very unstable and the operators had to make adjustments every few seconds trying to maintain constant power. At about this time, the operators reduced the flow of feedwater, presumably to maintain the steam pressure. Simultaneously, the pumps that were powered by the slowing turbine were providing less cooling water to the reactor. The loss of cooling water exaggerated the unstable condition of the reactor by increasing steam production in the cooling channels positive void coefficient , and the operators could not prevent an overwhelming power surge, estimated to be times the nominal power output.
The sudden increase in heat production ruptured part of the fuel and small hot fuel particles, reacting with water, caused a steam explosion, which destroyed the reactor core. A second explosion added to the destruction two to three seconds later.
Some medias had reported a sismic origin of the accident, however the scientific credibility of the paper at the origin of this rumour St98 has been discarded. The accident occurred at hr on Saturday, 26 April , when the two explosions destroyed the core of Unit 4 and the roof of the reactor building. In the IAEA Post-Accident Assessment Meeting in August IA86 , much was made of the operators' responsibility for the accident, and not much emphasis was placed on the design faults of the reactor.
Later assessments IA86a, UN00 suggest that the event was due to a combination of the two, with a little more emphasis on the design deficiencies and a little less on the operator actions. The two explosions sent fuel, core components and structural items and produced a shower of hot and highly radioactive debris, including fuel, core components, structural items and graphite into the air and exposed the destroyed core to the atmosphere.
The plume of smoke, radioactive fission products and debris from the core and the building rose up to about 1 km into the air. The heavier debris in the plume was deposited close to the site, but lighter components, including fission products and virtually all of the noble gas inventory were blown by the prevailing wind to the North-west of the plant.
Fires started in what remained of the Unit 4 building, giving rise to clouds of steam and dust, and fires also broke out on the adjacent turbine hall roof and in various stores of diesel fuel and inflammable materials.
Over fire-fighters from the site and called in from Pripyat were needed, and it was this group that received the highest radiation exposures and suffered the greatest losses in personnel. A first group of 14 firemen arrived on the scene of the accident at 1. Reinforcements were brought in until about 4 a.
These fires were put out by hr of the same day, but by then the graphite fire had started. Many firemen added to their considerable doses by staying on call on site.
The intense graphite fire was responsible for the dispersion of radionuclides and fission fragments high into the atmosphere. The emissions continued for about twenty days, but were much lower after the tenth day when the graphite fire was finally extinguished. While the conventional fires at the site posed no special firefighting problems, very high radiation doses were incurred by the firemen, resulting in 31 deaths.
However, the graphite moderator fire was a special problem. Very little national or international expertise on fighting graphite fires existed, and there was a very real fear that any attempt to put it out might well result in further dispersion of radionuclides, perhaps by steam production, or it might even provoke a criticality excursion in the nuclear fuel. A decision was made to layer the graphite fire with large amounts of different materials, each one designed to combat a different feature of the fire and the radioactive release.
The first measures taken to control fire and the radionuclides releases consisted of dumping neutron-absorbing compounds and fire-control material into the crater that resulted from the destruction of the reactor. The total amount of materials dumped on the reactor was about 5 t including about 40 t of borons compounds, 2 t of lead, 1 t of sand and clay, and t of dolomite, as well as sodium phosphate and polymer liquids Bu About t of material were dumped on 27 April, followed by t on 28 April, t on 29 April, 1 t on 30 April, 1 t on 1 May and t on 2 May.
About 1 helicopter flights were carried out to dump materials onto the reactor; During the first flights, the helicopter remained stationary over the reactor while dumping materials. As the dose rates received by the helicopter pilots during this procedure were too high, it was decide that the materials should be dumped while the helicopters travelled over the reactor.
This procedure caused additional destruction of the standing structures and spread the contamination. When the slowdown of the neutrons decreases because some or all of the water has turned to steam , the neutrons will no longer be able to continue the fission chain reaction, and the reactor will shut down. This is why most reactors inherently respond to prevent any disastrous increase in pressure and the potential consequences of that.
In the case of Chernobyl accident, the sudden increase in power did cause the cooling water to boil but, because it was not water-moderated, the graphite blocks continued to moderate the neutrons, allowing power to increase until it reached devastating consequences. It is also noteworthy that just prior to this incident, operators were conducting tests in which they chose to disconnect certain safety circuits so the tests would not take as long.
The lack of one of those safety circuits actually allowed power to increase rapidly. The graphite blocks caught fire causing more heat and damage. The steam explosions and all the heat forced the reactor core cover off its mountings and caused a lot of the fission products in the reactor to be thrown out of the reactor building.
And remember, at Chernobyl, the reactor was housed in a thin-metal-walled building and did not have a three-to-six-foot thick steel-reinforced concrete containment such as those used in the United States and countries other than Russia and in the former Soviet Union. The number of deaths due to acute radiation syndrome ARS during the first year following the Chernobyl accident is well documented.
0コメント