In the first part of this series, I described how automatic safety controls could have prevented the Three-Mile Island accident. Now I’ll do the same for Chernobyl. This accident at the RBMK nuclear power plant at Chernobyl in the Ukraine occurred at 1:23 a.m. on April 26, 1986, right after the midnight shift change of the operators at Unit 4, which consisted of four 1000-MWe units, built in the 1970s. The meltdown caused a steam explosion that blew off the 2500-ton top of the reactor, followed by hydrogen explosions and a fire when the graphite in the core ignited. Twenty million curies of radioactivity were released, 30 times the nuclear fallout that occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thirty-one operators and fireman were killed, and over 100,000 people were evacuated.
The released radioactivity cloud spread as far as Norway, and the atmosphere in the area is expected to remain radioactive for some 300 years (the ground itself, longer). Decommissioning is still in progress and is estimated to be completed by 2015, when a containment structure (sarchopagus) will finally be built. So what happened? Why did such a simple process as boiling water created such a mess?
The Process
The core of the reactor consisted of hundreds of pressure tubes containing low-concentration (2% U-235) fuel rods. Water was pumped through the tubes from the bottom up, and the fission in the fuel rods turned this water to steam, which was sent through a steam separator to the steam turbine-generators (Figure 1).
The RBMK reactor design
Figure 1. The RBMK reactor design uses graphite moderator blocks surrounding the pressure tubes in which the water is boiled by the fuel rods.
The pressure tubes were inserted into blocks of graphite neutron moderator, which served to slow down the neutrons, because when slowed, the neutrons are more efficiently captured by the U-235 atoms and, therefore, the concentration in the fuel rods can be lower and less expensive (~ 2% at Chernobyl). The rate of heat generation was maintained by the insertion of control rods that absorb the excess neutrons. Various safety systems, such as an emergency core cooling system (ECCS), were provided, but they were not automatic; therefore, the operators could (and did) disable them at will.
Design Errors
Automation can’t correct design errors, but it can protect the plant from the consequences of them. The basic design error at Chernobyl was that scramming (shut down) at low loads (under 700 MWt ~ 230 MWe) caused a temporary and self-accelerating power surge. This occurred because the reactor had a positive void coefficient (+VC), while all properly designed reactors have a negative one (-VC).
VC indicates the effect of swelling (the increase in the volume of steam bubbles) when the rate of steam generation changes (temperature rises or pressure drops). VC is negative (-VC) if swelling decreases reactivity (fewer U-235 atoms are split). All properly designed reactors do this; i.e. the nuclear reaction rate slows when more steam bubbles form. This is because steam is a less effective moderator (does not slow the speed of the emitted neutrons as much as does water), and therefore, when swelling occurs, the proportion of fast neutrons, which are less likely to hit and split U-235 atoms, rises, so the reactor produces less power due to this ‘negative feed-back’ effect.
With the Chernobyl reactors, the opposite was the case: At loads under 700 MWt, the VC was positive (+VC), and the operators either were not told or did not understand this counter-intuitive characteristic. This was the case because the control rods had graphite tips and were 1.3 meters shorter than necessary .
In case of an emergency, the sudden insertion of the control rods (scramming) with their graphite tips could initially cause a dramatic and self-accelerating power surge, because the graphite tips act like modulators. In other words, as they were shoved down into the core, the graphite slowed down more, not fewer neutrons (+VC) than before, and therefore the neutron impact efficiency in the fuel rods increased instead of dropping.
On top of this, the control rods were too short. Therefore, the upper part of the rod made of boron carbide that absorbs the neutrons did not even enter the reactor core at the beginning of lowering the control rods. Thus, for the first few seconds of scramming, reactor power output increased instead of dropping!
The control rods also jammed, so they could not be slammed into the core anyway. Naturally, the runaway reaction resulted in a meltdown that burned the zirconium cladding of the fuel rods, causing the generation of hydrogen, which exploded, destroying the building and releasing radioactive isotopes into the environment.
The Test That Caused the Accident
At Chernobyl, it was the conducting of a ‘safety test’ that caused the meltdown. The purpose of the test was to determine if, in case of the failure of the external power supply grid, the residual ‘rotational energy’ (inertia) of the turbines would be enough to provide electric power until the backup diesel generators (DG) started up. The goal of the test was to determine if this ‘rotational inertia’ was enough to supply the plant with electricity for about a minute after a grid failure .
The test should have been performed when the thermal power generation exceeded 700 MWt—when the void coefficient is negative (-VC)—but the operators, being in a hurry at 1 a.m. and ignorant of the consequences, started the test before reaching this minimum power and, therefore, started the test under +VC conditions. They ran the test ‘in manual,’ disabled the turbine generator’s safety systems, and therefore, the main process computer could not shut down the reactor or even reduce its power.
Automation Would Have Prevented the Accident
So why would having automation prevented this accident? The answer is simple: An automatic safety interlock would have prevented the start of the test until the 700 MWt limit was reached. Unfortunately, automatic safety interlocks can prevent accidents only if they exist and can’t be deactivated by the operators. In other words, allowing panicked, unqualified and sleepy operators at 1 a.m. to do what they felt like doing was a recipe for disaster.
Naturally, if the control system was so designed that the operators could not bypass the automatic safety system, the accident could not occur, but even if it did due to some other cause, at the first sign of a power surge, the control computer would have ‘scrammed’ the reactor by inserting all of the control rods into the core and flooding it with water.
The equipment layout of Unit 4 at Chernobyl
Figure 2. For simplicity, only one of the 211 pressure tubes is shown. See the text to the right for an explanation of the numbers.
In Figure 2, I have inserted some numbers, showing the points where automatic safety controls should have existed and did not. Point 1 refers to the fact that automatic pressure relief valves should have been provided to relieve the steam overpressure that caused the explosion that damaged the building.
Reliable water level and pressure/temperature measurements should have been combined with automatic interlocks to scram the reactor if the water level dropped below the reactor core (Points 2 & 3). Automatic pressure relief should have been provided on the roof to protect the building from steam explosion damage (Point 4). Control rod controls should have been faster than the speed of the worst possible power surge, and operators should have been prevented from manually removing any control rods (which they did), and should have automatically ‘scrammed’ the reactor when the power surge was detected (Point 5). When the presence of hydrogen was detected, both automatic venting and inerting should have been triggered (Points 6 & 7).
The report focuses on nuclear accidents, their causes, and consequences with significant attention to Three Miles Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima disaster. The stress is made on the role of engineers in the accidents and the application of engineering ethics. The major finding of the report is that it was negligence in following the safety rules and procedures that led to the accidents. The primary recommendation of the report is that embracing ethical behavior might help prevent similar disasters and minimize their consequences. Challenges faced in providing the required information were mostly presenting it in a compact form without missing any details. It was overcome by producing only the key facts about the catastrophes.
Introduction
Purpose of the Report
This report on nuclear meltdowns analyzes three differing industrial accidents from various countries to ascertain if the appropriate appliance of engineering procedures would have impacted these accidents differently. Through the examination of these disasters, this report aims to provide preventative recommendations through varying engineering practices that aim to alleviate the effect such disasters may cause.
Background of the Report
In recent times, the industrial revolution has seen a shift in paradigms, as many within the industry are opting for large-scale machinery and chemical production over the conventional hand production method (Landes, 1969). This poignant transition has contributed to remarkable increases in the rate of production and consistent growth in the economy; however, it has also increased the rate of industrial based accidents and the severity of such incidents (Lindert & Williamson, 1983).
One of the accidents that have originated from this significant shift would be nuclear disasters. Nuclear accidents are considered one of the most severe industrial related accidents to have occurred as its effects surpass mere direct casualties to inducing more long term detriments to anyone within a large radius. Additionally, it also damages the environment and other life forms. A case study of previous nuclear accidents allows a richer understanding of the causality of such incidents and relatively aids in developing systematic procedures in preventing and mitigating the effects of such calamities.
There are three nuclear accidents studied in this report, which, in chronological order, are:
Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine (then Ukrainian SSR).
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan.
Scope of the Report
The report aims at providing an in-depth understanding of nuclear power plants, the factors of causation and the effects stemming from the aforementioned nuclear accidents, the role engineers play in such accidents, effective preventative measures that may be implemented in current power plants and operational procedures that may be employed to diminish the effects of such accidents. This report will emphasize the technical details in relation to the accidents which shall not affect the opinion pertaining to the power plant, the controversy surrounding nuclear power, legislative procedures, the operational impacts and the technical details on the chemical process of nuclear fission which is unrelated to the previously named accidents.
Technical Details on Nuclear Power Plants
Nuclear power plants became popular because of the transition towards the extensive use of alternative sources of energy. They use energy from atom-splitting to produce heat. The major element of any nuclear power plant is the nuclear reactor that has a core located in the center composed of nuclear fuel. Uranium and plutonium are the most suitable materials to be used as nuclear fuels. The process of atom-splitting is complicated because sometimes, it is impossible to predict the reaction.
The primary danger of the process is the control of the chain reaction. There are several systems of control including control rods (neutron-absorbing materials at put in or withdrawn from the core during the reaction), coolers (water, graphite or heavy water), and containment designed to protect both the reactor from external intrusion and the outside world from possible internal malfunctions. There are some primary types of reactors exploited, such as light and heavy water reactors, gas-cooled reactors, fast neutron reactors, and light water graphite reactors.
The major reason for most neutral accidents is the melt of core resulting from the inability of coolers to deal with the heat produced inside the reactor’s core once the reaction was stopped by control rods. In this case, fuel rods begin to melt through the containment and reveal radioactivity to the outside worlds (Matson, 2011). It is what caused all three disasters – Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power accidents.
Because of the technical complexity and potential horrifying consequences of similar accidents, it is vital to involve high-skilled engineers in the process of construction and operation of the nuclear plants and prevention of accidental nuclear occurrences. The primary role of engineers is to make sure that all safety rules and regulations are followed and making check-ups with the aim of assuring the safety. It should be stressed that because the types of the reactors and the coolers are different, engineers have a moral responsibility to know well how to operate them and continuously improve their knowledge and skills.
Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station
Nuclear station consists of two units, one operational and one decommissioned after the disaster. The both exploit a pressurized water reactor capable of generating 852 megawatts of electrical energy.
Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant
Power station operated four graphite-moderated reactors with a capacity of 1,000 megawatts of electrical power each. Todays, they are all inactive.
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
It is a nuclear power station consisting of six units using boiling water reactors of differing electrical power generating capacities from 460 megawatts to 1,100. All six units were partially of totally damaged.
Nuclear Disasters – The Timeline & Causation
Three Miles Island Accident (Level 5)
It occurred on March 28, 1979, in the second unit. At the time of the accident, the reactor was operating at 97% capacity. There was a malfunction in the second cooling circuit that made the temperature of the primary cooler rise. To deal with the challenge, the pilot-operated relief valve (PORV) opened automatically to cool down the temperature by adding cold water but it did not close automatically as it was supposed to, so the cooling water drained to pressurizer making the control of pressure in the core impossible. With the lack of cooling water, the reactor core was not covered with the cooler that resulted in partial meltdown.
The primary concern is that the operators did not know that the PORV has not closed automatically because their indication panel did not show any problems in the system except for the high pressure in the pressurizer, and they did not have an instrument to check whether the PORV is closed. The operators managed to take control over situation once they analyzed the data and found out that PORV was open (it took them more than 2 hours from 4 am to 6:18).
Closing the valve, they ended immediate emergency, and by late afternoon they restored pressure. However, the problem was in the hydrogen bubble that formed while the reactor core was uncovered. It took operators two days to remove it by opening and closing the valve in the pressurizer and four days in general (from March 28 to April 1) to deal with the accident (Walker, 2005).
It should be noted that the primary causes of the accident were the malfunction of the pump that was supposed to keep the water flowing and the lack of instruments and knowledge of the operators to find out whether the valve was closed. Routine inspection showed that every part of the reactor was functional, but to carry out another one during the accident itself the operators had to open and close the valve, and they did not do it, so it took more time to take control over the situation.
Chernobyl Disaster (Level 7)
The accident took place on April 26, 1986. It was considered to be the worst nuclear plant disaster in history with the heaviest economic, environmental, and health consequences up to 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident. The disaster began at the unit 4 reactor. It was as well a nuclear meltdown resulting from steam explosion and fire in the reactor building. The most aggravating part of the accident is that the explosion blew the reactor roof open and released vast amounts of radioactivity into the outside environment (Saygin, 2011).
The nuclear reactor at Unit 4 was meant to be closed on April 25 for carrying out the experiment, and the accident resulted from these experiments that were planned prior to the maintenance shutdown of the reactor. There was a plan of gradual decreasing the power of the unit and stabilizing its power. The primary condition of the experiment was that the required level of energy was reached before the beginning of the test.
Because energy decrease turned out to be steeper than planned, the operators were ordered to withdraw the absorbing rods to the nuclear reactor core with the aim of keeping to the initial plan of the experiment. As they withdrew the control rods, it led to the quick increase of the reactor power. It led to higher temperature of the cooler in the lowest sections of the core. It was a dangerous state of the nuclear reactor, and the experiment was to be stopped, but the operators did not realize that the situation was hazardous, do they continued the test.
Understanding that the reactor power increased, the operator decided to insert the absorber rods back, but because of technical malfunction the rods were not inserted. Even as the operator cut them off, it turned out to be late, so the experiment resulted in the drastically high reactor power that led to two massive explosions blowing off the roof and destroying the wall of the reactor building (Malko, n.d.).
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster (Level 7)
The accident was primarily caused by the earthquakes and tsunami on March 11, 2011. They led to the equipment malfunction and the disaster itself. The primary concern was the water coolers that ceased operating as the result of earthquake and inability to fix them because of flooding in one of the nuclear plants buildings. It was solved by constant supply of water as a cooler and building confinements to minimize the release of radioactive particles into the atmosphere.
Routine Inspections
These three accidents were the most disastrous in the history of the nuclear industry. Nevertheless, they proved that nuclear power is one of the safest alternative resources of energy because except for Chernobyl there were no human victims dying from direct exposure to radiation in the territory of the power plant. Moreover, they highlighted the significance of the routine inspections. The particular scenario for all three accidents was failing to follow the safety rules.
So, they stressed on the operator’s responsibility for the safety of the society. What changed since the first two accidents is the harmonization of the International standards on nuclear power station construction and operation. Making them higher helps lift the overall level of safety because they imply the use of the newest technologies and equipment and diverse control systems to maintain the safety and prevent the release of radioactive particles into the atmosphere.
Nuclear Disasters – The Impact & Consequences
Direct Casualty & Injury
Three Miles Island Accident
There were no instances of direct casualty and injury because the core meltdown was insignificant and the radioactive particles were not released into the atmosphere.
Chernobyl Disaster
There were 30 immediate deaths that raised to 56 within the next few weeks resulting from injuries during the explosion and exposure to excess amounts of radiation and gases in the building of the nuclear reactor. Most of the victims were nuclear station employees and firemen. They suffered from the acute radiation syndrome. There were also 600 hundred employees and emergency workers affected, 134 of them with acute radiation sickness.
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster
There were no deaths related directly to radiation exposure because most of deaths are because of the earthquake and tsunami.
Indirect Casualty & Long Term Health Effect
Three Miles Island Accident
There were no significant health effects of the accident. There were many studies aimed at determining the connection between the accident and the level of cancer mortality but all of them prove that it is either extremely weak, or there is no link at all (Walker, 2005). Nevertheless, the decision to conduct voluntary evacuation of the local people was made with the special stress on moving pregnant women and children within the 20-mile radius.
Chernobyl Disaster
The consequences of the accident were intimidating. First, it led to evacuation, so, more than 336,000 people from Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus left their homes and were forced to look for a new permanent place of residence. The primary impact on health is increasing the risk of cancer and the level of cancer mortality, especially thyroid cancer.
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster
It led to the increase in risk for cancer and higher level of cancer such as leukemia, thyroid and breast cancers, etc. There were no other effects because of the immediate evacuation. As for now, more than 1,500 people died from radiation-related cancer.
Environmental Effect
Three Miles Island Accident
This accident did not have significant impact on the environment, because not too much iodine was released into the atmosphere and almost all radioactive particles remained inside the reactor.
Chernobyl Disaster
The impact of the accident is mainly seen through the mutations in plants and animals not to mention the fact that the soils in the territory are not suitable for agriculture because the food grown on them is dangerous.
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster
Environmental effects are similar to those of Chernobyl leading to mutations in plants, animal, and fish.
Economical Effect
Three Miles Island Accident
Primary economic impact derived from the need to conduct investigation and clean up the local territory. As the result, this accident cost amounted to $1 billion for cleanup more than and $2,4 of property damages.
Chernobyl Disaster
The economic effect of the Chernobyl disaster goes down to the increase in governmental spendings on dealing with the consequences of he accident. It should be stressed that up to 5 percent of the state budget is devoted to Chernobyl-related programmes such as helping the liquidators and those affected by the disaster and maintaining the safety of the plant by building up the confinement around the Fourth reactor.
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster
More than $100 billion of compensation to those affected by the disaster and losing more than 30% of country’s energy potential are the primary economical effects of the accident.
Nuclear Disasters – The Engineers’ Role
Three Miles Island Accident
The engineers’ role was to conduct routine inspection and make sure that all parts are functional. The operators conducted all necessary inspection prior to the accident, however, they demonstrated the lack of knowledge and qualification during the accident itself. Failing to analyze the data to detect whether the PORV was open might be attached to the account of emergency and the fact that the instruments in the control room showed that it was close. Even though the operators did not have necessary instruments, they should have demonstrated more problem-solving skills and orientation as the occasion required and analyzed the data earlier. However, as the whole they managed to take control over situation fast enough, so the consequences of the accident were not that aggravating.
Chernobyl Disaster
The role of the engineers was crucial in this accident. In fact, their actions were what led to the explosion in the reactor and the blowing off the reactor building roof because they neglected the safety rules and regulations. Being aware that the initial condition of the experiment, i.e. the necessary level of the reactor power, was not reached, they decided to carry out the experiment at any cost that turned out to be to high. It should be said that it was not the first experiment of this type, and all previous were failed. So, it would have been better to give up the idea of carrying it out or, at least, control the process and stop it at the initial stage.
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster
Initially, the role of engineers is in building the plant. Because Japan is located in the seismic zone, it was not recommended to develop its nuclear industry. Nevertheless, this recommendation was ignored. The building was constructed as seismic stable, but in 2011, earthquake turned out to be too strong. Moreover, road quality is poor, that is why it was difficult for the rescuers to get to the place of emergency.
Preventative Measure & Reduction of Impact
Preventative Measure
The primary way to prevent the accident is through embracing engineering ethics and behaving ethically. First and foremost, specific attention should be paid to safety. It would be ethical of engineers to check their workplaces, equipment, and projects for safety and work only with and on such that comply with all the safety rules and regulations and function perfectly, making sure that materials are of best quality and safe (Sivarethinamohan, 2010).
Second, ethical behavior of engineers can help in preventing accidents through carrying the duties thoroughly, being accurate, and working only in the excellent condition of mind and body. This condition sounds unreal, but the professional engineers should do their best to put it to practice. Next step is assuming broad responsibility (Johnson, 2015). It is the responsibility not only for the lives of engineers themselves but also realizing that every their action could have a direct or indirect effect on the members of their society and their safety.
It implies taking responsibility for every little step in the working place and informing people and the respective organizations of any serious problems or accidents while conducting the project. Finally, ethical behavior can be useful in preventing accidents if the construction firms do not strive for cutting operations cost by ignoring the quality and safety standards, but, instead, realize that doing their job qualitatively will benefit them more than the money they managed to save.
Reduction of Impact
There are to ways for reducing the impact of the nuclear power plants accidents – ethical and constructional. Ethical behavior implies sharing the information about the accident with the audience and relevant organization so that they know that they are in danger and are ready for the consequences. Next, it means not precluding the investigation process and being responsible for the mistakes.
As of the constructional approach, it implies surrounding the reactor with the shelter to reduce the release of the radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Moreover, it includes steps taken during the process of construction such as making confinements more reliable, providing effective escape routes and additional support structures to walls as well as insulate the building.
References
Johnson, C. E. (2015). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Landes, D. S. (1969). The unbound Prometheus: Technological change and industrial development in Western Europe from 1750 to the present. Cambridge, New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Lindert, P. H., & Williamson, J. G. (1983). English workers’ living standards during the Industrial Revolution: A new look. The Economic History Review, 36(1), 1-25.
Malko, M.V. (2002). The Chernobyl reactor: Design features and reasons for accident. In T. Imanaka (Ed.). Recent research activities about the Chernobyl NPP Accident in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia (pp. 11-27). Kyoto, Japan: Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute.
Saygin, H. (2011). Major nuclear accidents and their implications for the evolution of nuclear power. In S. Ülgen (Ed.). The Turkish model for transition to nuclear power (pp. 53-85). Istanbul, Turkey: EDAM.
Sivarethinamohan, R. (2010). Industrial relations and labor welfare: Texts and cases. New Delhi, India: PHI Learning Private Limited.
Walker, J. S. (2005). Three Miles Island: a nuclear crisis in historical perspective. London, England: The University of California Press.
For Ukraine, nuclear power plants are the main source of electrical energy. About 15 reactors are settled in Ukraine. They generate about half of Ukrainian energy, so it depends on nuclear energy very much. In 2009, about 40% of electrical energy came from thermal stations and more than 47% from nuclear stations (82.9 TWh). According to IAEA, the same year, nuclear power stations have produced 77.9 billion kWh net. One of the biggest nuclear power plants was settled in Chernobyl. One night, due to a human mistake catastrophe at Chernobyl took place.
On April 26, 1986, Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant had a terrible accident and released huge amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere over the large area, including Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. This accident had an unprecedentedly heavy impact on the environment and caused as many as about 4000 death by invoking radiation poisoning and different kinds of cancer. More than 600000 recovery workers and emergency were trying to liquidate casualties. They have received the highest radiation doses. Many of the areas were designated as contaminated and were isolated. Local residents of the most contaminated areas were evacuated to nearest safe regions. Most of them have received small doses of radiation.
The accident happened on a Friday night, 25 April 1986. The routine procedures were to be carried out, the nuclear station was about to shut down, but it was decided to carry out some tests. Chernobyl’s reactors had 3 emergency generators because cooling pumps need electricity to operate and cool down a reactor after a SCRAM (safety control rod ax man). It usually took from 60 to 70 seconds for the main pump to reach full speed. To solve this problem a huge safety risk has been taken. The automatic emergency shutdown was dismounted by station operators and some engineers. Due to human error, the accident had happened. Alexander Akimov was a shift foreman. He was standing at the main control board together with young engineer Leonid Toptunov. They were nervous because emergency systems would not turn on automatically if something went wrong. They have got the order to postpone the shutdown of the station. Later on, station personnel have received permission to recommence the procedure. Akimov and Toptunov noticed that the power level was too low to proceed. They knew that it was the best time to finish the test and shut down the reactor. But their superior Dyatlov has interfered. He told them to continue the procedure and carry on the test. He did not want to postpone the test again, so he ordered to draw the rods to increase the power. The power level became high enough to continue the test.
Quite soon staff noticed that something was going wrong. The energy level has surged too high. The water pressure on the pumps has quickly risen so that pipes started to vibrate. Akimov and others were confused. They did not know, what was happening. At about 1.20 a.m. Akimov decided to react quickly and lower all the rods into the core to reduce the increasing power and radiation level to a minimum. Akimov activated the emergency AZ button, but the descending control rods stuck and the horrible tremor had appeared. The fourth reactor had exploded a moment after. The explosion was so strong, that it could be compared with several nuclear bombs the size of Hiroshima. The 2000-ton steel top was blown off and the concrete was dislodged by it. The explosion also caused the spread of 50 tons of radioactive materials. An overwhelming fire followed.
As yet, no one believed this was real. None of the personnel could assume this could ever happen. Some of the confused and scared staff was sent to lower the rods manually. That was an impossible mission.
Some others were sent to start the emergency cooling system. They were supposed to turn the huge valves while standing deep in the radioactive water. Unit 4 of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station looked like a burning crater that night. The firefighters, emergency, and liquidators of the catastrophe at Chernobyl were exposed to the deadly doses of radiation. Most of them had blackened skin by the morning. The burning pieces of graphite ignited the asphalt and it was melting under the feet of firefighters. Only by 5 a.m., the fire was quenched. On Saturday morning, experts from Moscow have arrived to deal with the consequences. The reactor temperature was above 2,500 degrees on a Celsius scale. The experts decided to try to stifle the fire with the sand mixed with dolomite, lead, boron, etc. This mixture was supposed to block the fire and radiation, which was spreading in fume.
The Soviet Union tried to keep this horrible disaster in secret for as long as it was possible. All kinds of news were totally blocked out. On April 28, a high level of radiation was detected in Sweden. At first, Swedes assumed that it was radiation from Soviet nuclear weapons. Shortly they realized that it was radioactive materials from a nuclear reactor. The level of radiation was 100 times higher than supposed to be. When it became impossible to hide the truth, the Russian news agency made an announcement to the world.
On May 1, the level of radiation increased. Several men were sent on a dangerous mission to drain the bubbler pool. On May 7, as the pumping of radioactive water was completed, the radiation level suddenly decreased. On May 9, the fire was finally put out. Eventually, the Chernobyl disaster caused a lot of environmental problems, as well as political tensions. The high radiation level was detected in many European countries. The highest contamination was in Ukraine (5% of land), Belarus (23% of land), Russia (1.5% of land). The radiation increase was noticeable even over the ocean. Even now, thousands of people are still living in areas with high radiation levels. A lot of soldiers were sent to liquidate the casualties. All of them received huge doses of radiation. They also got genetic damage caused by radiation, as well as their children in the future. Officially, there are about 31 men died in a day of an accident. Alexander Akimov and Leonid Toptunov were among the first victims. A huge forest area was burned down. A lot of wildlife was laying dead all over the area.
The contamination was comprehensive and irremediable and there was no simple solution for that. Radiation materials settled on open surfaces and the huge area became uninhabited and empty. Roads, parks, squares, and walls became radioactive. There was total contamination of all kinds of food and goods.
The radiation caused many illnesses, such as cancer. Also, it caused deformities and divergence in appearance.
The radiation caused cancers and deformities or an abnormal appearance. It also caused many illnesses. The accident caused a lot of severe consequences and had a terrible impact on the environment. The rains with radioactive materials destroyed a lot of food in many nearby countries. The horrible consequences of one experiment at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant were huge.
The Chernobyl catastrophe has ruined the lives of millions of people and caused huge ecological damages that are difficult to calculate. The scientific community is now forced to admit that the effects of radionuclide damage have turned out to be much more serious for the human body than ever considered by nuclear power research (Frenzel & Llengfelder, 2016). In addition, irreparable damage was caused to the victims of the disaster. This tragedy made thousands of families suffer in silence as their lives are constantly undercut by poor health and personal crises even today, more than thirty years after the catastrophe. However, the worst part is that people who survived Chernobyl fear their own future due to terrible ecological consequences. The Chernobyl disaster is a planetary catastrophe of a century that has no precedents in the world. The aim of this paper is to provide a brief summary of the catastrophe, outline its short-term and long-term impacts, define preventative measures and applicable regulations implemented to handle the catastrophe, and provide a personal evaluation of the problem.
Brief Summary of the Catastrophe
The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) is located in Ukraine, 18 kilometers from Pripyat, 16 kilometers from the Belarusian border and 110 kilometers from Kyiv. Prior to the accident, four RBMK-1000 reactors with an electrical capacity of 1,000 MW and a thermal capacity of 3,200 MW were used at the station (Beresford et al., 2016). At about 1:23 am on April 26, 1986, an explosion occurred at the fourth unit of the Chernobyl NPP, which completely destroyed the reactor. The construction of the unit has partially collapsed, with one person being killed. A fire started in different rooms of the plant and on the roof; subsequently, the remnants of the core melted. The mixture of molten metal, sand, concrete, and fuel particles flowed into the sub-reactor rooms.
The accident resulted in the release of radioactive substances, including isotopes of uranium, plutonium, iodine-13, cesium-134, cesium-137, and strontium-90 (Krawczak & Jelewska, 2018). The situation was exacerbated by the fact that uncontrolled nuclear and chemical reactions with heat release continued, with the eruption from the fracture over many days of products of combustion of radioactive elements and contamination of large territories in the destroyed reactor. The active eruption of radioactive substances from the destroyed reactor was stopped only by the end of May 1986 by mobilizing the resources of the entire USSR and the cost of mass irradiation of thousands of liquidators.
Short-Term Impacts
The first three years after the catastrophe were full of heroism and consolidation of the entire society around the Chernobyl tragedy. The disaster relief at this stage was similar to overcoming the effects of a nuclear war. Regular troops and reservists were in conditions as close as possible to combat. To prevent the spread of radioactivity beyond the destroyed reactor and the site of the Chernobyl NPP, thousands of soldiers, military builders, dosimeters, and specialists worked in totally unsuitable ecological conditions (Havenaar, Bromet & Gluzman, 2016). Many extremely dangerous radioactive materials that were part of the reactor and were ejected from the reactor shaft at the time of the explosion were near the destroyed power unit. The most dangerous sources of radiation were temporarily localized in hundreds of so-called burial grounds.
As a result of the Chernobyl disaster, a unique ecological situation has developed in the 30-kilometer zone; a wide range of radionuclides has been released into the environment. At the time of the accident, the Ukrainian health care system did not have universal facilities capable of preventing the accumulation and accelerating the removal of radioisotopes of various chemical nature from the environment. As a result of the Chernobyl disaster, during the first years, about 116,000 people were evacuated from Chernobyl, and more than 70 settlements of the thirty-kilometer zone were isolated (Takamura et al., 2016). A team of scientists has investigated and developed new mechanisms of action of efferent methods of treatment of radiation diseases. Nevertheless, the short-term consequences of the catastrophe included death, destruction, cancer, significant economic loss, and other negative outcomes.
Long-Term Impacts
The long-term impact on flora and fauna of the highly polluted and restricted areas was ultimately positive. Expeditions to the most active areas of the Chernobyl zone have revealed the richness of animal life. Some sections of the 10 km exclusion zone, located around the fourth power unit, are striking yet misleading, according to the experts (Plokhy, 2018). Only the crackling electronic devices indicated that the environment was contaminated with radionuclides. In fact, the radioactivity of such a level as in Chernobyl has a significant negative impact on plant and animal life. However, the effect of displacement of people from these heavily polluted lands far outweighs the effect of radiation exposure.
This long-term impact shows the paradox of the relationship between environmental perspectives and safety issues for human health. The observations of scientists support the view that the acceptable levels of radiation exposure to plants and animals should be higher than for humans. Such inequality is due to the fact that the resettlement of people most often contributes to the natural restoration of ecosystems, even in the face of adverse radioactive and chemical pollution. The fact that human activities are more damaging to biodiversity than the worst nuclear catastrophe further indicates the negative impact of human population growth on the wild nature in Chernobyl. Overall, the recent data clearly indicates the existence of viable ecosystems even in the most polluted areas of the Chernobyl zone.
The aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster was the first large-scale experiment in overcoming a failed nuclear crisis. In the catastrophe, 31 people were killed, and 130,000 individuals received large doses of radiation (Frenzel & Llengfelder, 2016). The most damaging and long-lasting are the effects associated with radioactive contamination of soil, acreage, and reservoirs. Radioactive substances are contained in food and accumulate in human tissues and bones, thus endangering the life and health of mankind, even though it has been over 30 years since the accident (Frenzel & Llengfelder, 2016). The catastrophe’s ecological consequences have no precedent in the history of mankind since they changed people’s perception of nuclear energy forever.
Preventative Measures and Applicable Regulations
A set of preventative measures was implemented to enhance the safety of the operating nuclear reactors. Ecological expertise of the projects of the NPPs and other facilities with nuclear power plants has been made. The program for the use of non-traditional, environmentally friendly energy sources and the construction of pilot and experimental nuclear power plants with different types and layouts of nuclear reactors was adopted. Following the adoption of the International Convention on Rapid Alert for Nuclear Accidents and the Convention on Assistance in the Case of Nuclear Radiation, an Inter-Organization Committee on Nuclear Accident Response was established in 1986 (Beresford et al., 2016). After its adoption, cleaner products, medical equipment, medicines, and machinery were coming into the contaminated regions.
The consequences of the disaster were global in scale; in 1990, the governments of three republics, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, addressed the United Nations with a proposal to consider the matter by the General Assembly (Beresford et al., 2016). In the same year, a special UN mission, which described the Chernobyl catastrophe as an unprecedented one, visited Chernobyl. The work was carried out in the following priority areas: health, resettlement, economic rehabilitation of the contaminated territories, social and psychological rehabilitation of the affected people, food and agricultural monitoring, economic improvement of the environment. Since 1990, all UN sessions have included the Chernobyl agenda.
In 1990, in Vienna, representatives of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine signed an agreement to conduct international research on Chernobyl at the Pripyat Science Center. In 1993 alone, five million projects were implemented; in addition, UNESCO actively supported the affected regions. In 1991, UNESCO developed the Chernobyl program, which included the construction of schools, research and training programs, analysis of the social, economic consequences of the accident, and the preservation of cultural values (Beresford et al., 2016). In total, the UNESCO-Chernobyl Program included more than seventy projects. On January 9, 1991, an agreement was signed in Paris between UNESCO and the USSR on the implementation of the Chernobyl program. Thus, authorities all over the world understood that only by joining forces would it be possible to overcome the aftermath of the disaster.
Personal Evaluation
I do not think that enough measures have been implemented to prevent another similar incident from occurring. However, some conventions and regulations have been adopted on the international level within the framework of the United Nations, UNESCO, and other international organizations. Still, I believe that United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could focus more on the liquidation of ecological consequences after the Chernobyl catastrophe. EPA should recognize that Chernobyl is not a nuclear desert, but the ecological issues caused by it need to be addressed before authorities understand the overall significance of this disaster for wildlife and humans. Overall, I think that in the following years, the need to overcome the consequences of the Chernobyl accident will remain the priority issue in the policy of the Ukrainian government, as required by Article 16 of the Constitution of Ukraine (Plokhy, 2018). Accordingly, the problem of reducing the impact of the Chernobyl catastrophe on the state of health of citizens as well as on the environment remains a crucial problem on a national scale.
Conclusion
Overall, the Chernobyl catastrophe has permeated all spheres of life, from academic science to the state of the environment. However, the Chernobyl accident is not only an environmental tragedy. In addition, this catastrophe has shown the inability of the government to protect its people and take responsibility for everything that happened. And today, more than thirty years after the Chernobyl tragedy, there are conflicting estimates of its striking effect and the ecological damage it has caused. Nevertheless, the problem of reducing the impact of the Chernobyl accident on the state of citizens’ health and environment remains an important problem on a national scale.
References
Beresford, N. A., Fesenko, S., Konoplev, A., Skuterud, L., Smith, J. T., & Voigt, G. (2016). Thirty years after the Chernobyl accident: What lessons have we learned? Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 157, 77-89.
Frenzel, C., & Llengfelder, E. (2016). Medical and radioecological consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe in Western Europe. In Proceedings of the 16 International Scientific Conference (pp. 198-199). Munich, Germany: Greenpeace.
Havenaar, J. M., Bromet, E. J., & Gluzman, S. (2016). The 30‐year mental health legacy of the Chernobyl disaster. World Psychiatry,15(2), 181-182.
Krawczak, M., & Jelewska, A. (2018). The spectrality of nuclear catastrophe: The case of Chernobyl. In EVA Copenhagen (pp. 1-8). Copenhagen, Denmark: Aalborg University.
Plokhy, S. (2018). Chernobyl: The history of a nuclear catastrophe. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Takamura, N., Orita, M., Saenko, V., Yamashita, S., Nagataki, S., & Demidchik, Y. (2016). Radiation and risk of thyroid cancer: Fukushima and Chernobyl. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 4(8), 647-649.
The purpose of the memo is to understand better how Chernobyl affected animals and how their genetics have changed over time in the radioactive area.
Summary
The wildlife after the Chernobyl explosion continues to exist even in locations with enormous radiation levels. Some scientists believe that some radiations and other chemical ingredients do not affect several species (Wendle, 2016). Moreover, the decreased level of hunting has allowed animals to breed and ensure survival. Surprisingly, experts in environmental protection have realized that the radiation zone is full of different animals in the Red Book. For instance, specific cameras caught bison, gray wolves, raccoon dogs, and red foxes (Wendle, 2016). Observations have shown that the radiation disaster does not stop the wildlife on the territories of Ukraine and Belarus.
Animals have shown adaptive responses to the changes in the environment, and they managed to adjust to the radioactive surrounding. However, this aspect has caused specific shifts in genetics. Mousseau et al. (2014) stated that the most common problems are single and strand breaks in DNA. Moreover, the rate of mutations stays significant, causing psychological and developmental changes in organisms. The nuclear power plant explosion caused an increase in the number of born albinos (Mousseau et al., 2014). However, the percentage of animal survivance in the radioactive location varies yearly, and it is complicated to predict the future trend.
The lack of human participation in the radioactive zone made the ecosystem around Chernobyl unique and untouched. Rare birds started to return back even though the air was not clear from chemicals (White, 2022). A military invasion in 2022 directly influences nature around the exploded nuclear power plant as the shots and loud sounds disturb animals. Moreover, the repetitive military training on the Belarussian – Ukrainian border scares living species causing additional issues to the nature of Chernobyl.
Introduction
One of humanity’s greatest problems happened more than 30 years ago when the Chernobyl nuclear power plant exploded due to the mistake and negligence of the workers. The tragedy of April 26, 1986, caused many human deaths and developed the problem of thyroid gland cancer (Wendle, 2016). While humans managed to leave the affected territories on time, animals had to adjust to the changes. Not all species survived, and the first ear after the explosion became complicated for the wild populations. However, when the level of radiation decreased, animals returned to their home and changed their habits to survive in harsh conditions. Scientists became able to identify relatively ‘clean’ territories of Chernobyl district and the most affected location to see how the genetics of the same animals differs (Wendle, 2016).
Additionally, find the answer to why some species could survive, but others died in this environment. Depending on the geographic position and the level of radiation, habitat types change and show specific and unique traits.
Even though animals managed to return to their homes located on the territories close to Chernobyl, the diversity of species stays insignificant. According to Dr. Mousseau in The New York Times video report, the biodiversity has not achieved the normal level, but the number of mutations made it unique. The scientist also mentioned that the most common proof of the changes in the animals’ nature is visible from the spider webs. It does not have a typical polygon structure but a chaotic pattern that is uncommon for spiders distant from Chernobyl locations. Similar situation with bugs that have merged dots on the back. The function of these insects did not change, and they continue protecting plants from pests, but their appearance is unusual for nature. Due to the fact that some chemical elements continue decomposing, more mutations and changes in animal biodiversity can appear in the future.
Research Results
The research on radioactive areas has many limitations due to the health risks. With the Russian invasion of the Ukrainian territories, the situation stayed unstable as the sarcophagus was shelled, and animals left these territories. Nevertheless, it is clear these days that some species manage to survive because they do not need many resources like specific food or shelter. Unfortunately, weaker species could not cope with the level of radiation and harsh environmental conditions. Consequently, the adjustment process conducted a natural selection making the nature of the Chernobyl district untypical and separated from the rest of the world.
The life expectancy of animals on the boarding territories between Belarus and Ukraine has decreased significantly due to the radiation in food and water. According to Wendle (2016), mushrooms are the main type of food consumed by many wild populations, but the concentration of radiation in this food is enormous. Consequently, when living organisms consume radioactive food, their inner organs lose a high level of performance, causing a quick death. Animals like wolves, which move fast and can leave affected territories, suffer less radiation, which helps them survive in this environment. Therefore, depending on the endurance and lifestyle of animals and insects, radiation cause different consequences to the living organisms.
In a recent NY Times article, Chernobyl nuclear plant explosion is touted as the gravest nuclear accident to have ever occurred in human history. The explosion occurred on the 26th of April, 1986 at 1:23:58 am. According to the article, on this Saturday, the Ukraine located nuclear power station that had four reactors exploded during reactor number 4’s testing (Wald, 2011). Consequently, the temperature rose beyond 2,000 degrees Celsius and as a result melting the fuel rods (Wald, 2011). The quality issues raised in the article, therefore, were design and operation flaws. Although it is known that the explosion was a result of a power surge, the exact causes of this surge remained uncertain. However, the article categorically floated the idea that the fire and meltdown resulted from design flaws as well as operational errors.
Chosen Quality Management Tools for Use
Brainstorming: This approach is chosen due to its ability to allow the exploration of a range of options. Additionally, it forms the basic starting point of investigations whereby a range of possibilities is floated for further evaluation. Through this tool, various professionals can propose multiple factors that could result in quality problems at the plant.
Cause and effect diagram: This approach is as well useful in such an evaluation given that it allows various possible causes to be linked to their likely effects. This allows the quality management team to not make timely identification of the possible challenges but also make headway in identifying the impact the individual challenges are likely to have on the plant’s functionality.
Pareto Chart: Based on the concept that most of the challenges in operation are caused by only a few problem items. This is useful in the identification of those items with extremely grave consequences and accords them, the importance they deserve.
3 actions to be taken in investigating the problem
Undertake a critical investigation of possible challenges associated with the management of the nuclear plant. This includes reviewing the reasons behind the successes and failures of other plants.
Bring together a team of experts to review the scenario and suggest possible causes.
Investigate each case and look at its possible effect on the building while attempting to match the recorded facts relating to the problem.
References
Wald, J. D. (2011). Chernobyl Nuclear Accident (1986). New York Times, p. 6.