- Date: 26 April 1986
- Location: Pripyat, Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union
- Cause: Inadvertent explosion of core during emergency shutdown of reactor whilst undergoing power failure test
The Chernobyl disaster, which is also referred to as the Chernobyl accident was a big catastrophic nuclear destruction. It said to occurred on 25 to the 26 of April 1986 in the 4th light water graphite moderated reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant near the abandoned town of Pripyat in northern Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Soviet Union, approximately 104 km north of Kiev.
The event was set to happen during a late-night safety test which simulated a station blackout power-failure in the course of which safety systems were intentionally turned off. A combination of characteristic attribute reactor design flaws and the reactor operators arranging the core in a manner opposed to the checklist for the test eventually resulted in uncontrolled reaction conditions. Water flashed into steam generating a destructive steam explosion and a subsequent open-air graphite fire.
The Chernobyl accident is considered the most disastrous nuclear power plant accident in history both in terms of cost and casualties that occurred. It is one of only two nuclear energy accidents classified as a level 7 event on the International Nuclear Event Scale the other being the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011.
The trouble of safeguard during the incident were realised and was perceived as having the potential for greater catastrophe together with later process of cleansing efforts of the surroundings, ultimately involved over 500,000 workers and cost an estimated 18 billion Russian rubles.
The 4th reactor buildings remains were enclosed in a large cover which was named the (object Shelter) often known as the sarcophagus. The purpose of the structure was to reduce the spread of the remaining radioactive dust and debris from the wreckage and the protection of the wreckage from further weathering. The sarcophagus was finished in December 1986 at a time when what was left of the reactor was entering the cold shut-down phase. The area closed off was not intended as a radiation shield but was built quickly as occupational safety for the crews of the other undamaged reactors at the power station with the No. 3 reactor continuing to produce electricity up into the 2000s.
The accident motivated safety upgrades on all remaining Soviet-designed reactors in the graphite moderate nuclear power plant. (Chernobyl No. 4) family of which eleven continued to power electric grids as of 2013.
Accident
Before the accident
The conditions to run the test were established before the day shift of 25 April 1986. The day-shift workers had been instructed in advance and were familiar with the established procedures. A special team of electrical engineers was present to test the new voltage regulating system. As planned, a gradual reduction in the output of the power unit was begun at 01:06 on 25 April, and the power level had reached 50% of its nominal 3200 MW thermal level by the beginning of the day shift.
Incident
Four reactors suffered a catastrophic power increase leading to explosions in its core on 26 April 1986. The reactor had not been encased in any containment vessel so it wouldn’t have keep it under control this spread large quantities of radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere and caused an open-air fire that increased the emission of radioactive particles carried by the smoke. The accident happened during an experiment scheduled to test the ability to survive a potential safety emergency core cooling feature, which required a normal reactor shutdown procedure.
In the state operation a massive fraction over 6% of the power from a nuclear reactor obtained from fusions from the decay of heat accumulated from fusions products. The heat continues for some time after the chain reaction is stopped e.g. (An emergency SCRAM). Active cooling may be needed to prevent the core damage. The Chernobyl reactors use water as a coolant. Reactor 4 at Chernobyl consisted of about 1,600 individual fuel channels, each of which required coolant flow of 28 metric tons (28,000 litres or 7,400 US gallons) per hour.
Experiment and explosion
During the time of 1:23:04 a.m., the experiment began. Four of the main circulating pumps (MCP) were active of the eight totals, six are normally active during regular operation. The steam to the turbines was shut off beginning a run-down of the turbine generator. The diesel generators started and sequentially picked up loads the generators were to have completely picked up the MCPs’ power needs by 01:23:43. In the interim, the power for the MCPs was to be supplied by the turbine generator as it moved down. As the momentum of the turbine generator decreased, so did the power it produced for the pumps. The water flow rate decreased, leading to increased formation of steam voids (bubbles) in the core Unlike western Light Water Reactors, the RBMK had a positive void coefficient of reactivity, meaning when water began to boil and produce voids in the coolant, the nuclear chain reaction increases instead of decreasing
Crisis management The radiation levels in the worst hit areas of the reactor building have been estimated to be 5.6 roentgens per second (R/s), equivalent to more than 20,000 roentgens per hour. A lethal dose is around 500 roentgens (~5 Gy) over 5 hours, so in some areas, unprotected workers received fatal doses in less than a minute. However, a dosimeter capable of measuring up to 1000 R/s was buried in the rubble of a collapsed part of the building, and another one failed when turned on. All remaining dosimeters had limits of 0.001 R/s and therefore read “off scale”. Thus, the reactor crew could ascertain only that the radiation levels were somewhere above 0.001 R/s (3.6 R/h), while the true levels were much higher in some areas.:42–50.
The experimental procedure was:
- The reactor was to be running at a low power level, between 700 Megawatt (MW) and 800 MW.
- The steam-turbine generator was to be run up to full speed.
- When these conditions were achieved, the steam supply for the turbine generator was to be closed off.
- Turbine generator performance was to be recorded to determine whether it could provide the bridging power for coolant pumps until the emergency diesel generators were sequenced to start and provide power to the cooling pumps automatically.
- After the emergency generators reached normal operating speed and voltage, the turbine generator would be allowed to continue to freewheel down.
Figure 2
Diagram of the reactor
Figure 3
Experimental explosion
Causes
There were two official explanations of the accident. The first official explanation of the accident that later acknowledged to be incorret was published in August 1986. It effectively placed the blame on the power plant operators. To investigate the causes of the accident the IAEA created a group known as the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG), which in its report of 1986, INSAG-1 on the whole also supported this view based on the data provided by the Soviets and the oral statements of specialists. In this view the catastrophic accident was caused by gross violations of operating rules and regulations of the nuclear plant. During preparation and testing of the turbine generator under run-down conditions using additional help and support load people employed in the organization disconnected a series of technical protection systems and breached the most important operational safety provisions for conducting a technical exercise.
The operator error was probably due to their lack of knowledge of nuclear reactor physics and engineering as well as lack of experience and training. According to these claims at the time of the accident the reactor was being operated with many key safety systems turned off most notably the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), LAR (Local Automatic control system), and AZ (emergency power reduction system). The staff had an insufficiently detailed understanding of technical procedures involved with the nuclear reactor, and knowingly ignored regulations to speed test completion. The developers of the reactor plant considered this combination of events to be impossible and therefore did not allow for the creation of emergency protection systems capable of preventing the combination of events that led to the crisis.
The second official explanations are that the Ukraine had some declassified information about the plant from 1971 and 1988 related to the Chernobyl plant e.g. previous reports of structural damages caused by negligence during construction of the plant (such as splitting of concrete layers) that were never acted upon. In 1991 a Commission of the USSR State Committee for the Supervision of Safety in Industry and Nuclear Power reassessed the causes and circumstances of the Chernobyl accident and came to new insights and conclusions. Based on it, in 1992 the IAEA Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) published an additional report. In this INSAG report most of the earlier accusations against staff for breach of regulations were acknowledged to be wrong based on incorrect information obtained in August 1986 to be less relevant. This report reflected a different view of the main reasons for the accident.
Human factors contributed to the conditions that led to the disaster. These included operating the reactor at a low power level less than 700 MW a level documented in the run down test programme and operating with a small operational reactivity margin (ORM). The 1986 assertions of Soviet experts’ regulations did not prohibit operating the reactor at low power level, however regulations did forbid operating the reactor with a small margin of reactivity.
These are the main contributing factors of cause:
- The plant was not designed to safety standards in effect and incorporated unsafe features
- Not enough safety analysis was performed
- There was insufficient attention to independent safety review
- Operating procedures not founded satisfactorily in safety analysis
- Safety information were not satisfactory and effectively communicated between operators and between operators and designers
- The operators did not passably understand safety aspects of the plant
- Operators did not necessarily respect formal requirements of operational and test procedures
- The regulatory command was insufficient to effectively counter pressures for production
- There was a general lack of safety culture in nuclear matters at the national level as well as locally
2018-11-7-1541589438