DOCSLIB.ORG

The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident : Its Decommissioning, The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident : Its Decommissioning, The The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident : its decommissioning, the Interim Spent Fuel Storage ISF-2, the nuclear waste treatment plants and the Safe Confinement project. by Dr. Ing. Fulcieri Maltini Ph.D. SMIEEE, life, PES, Comsoc FM Consultants Associates, France Keywords Nuclear power, Disaster engineering, Decommissioning, Waste management & disposal, Buildings, structures & design. Abstract On April 26, 1986, the Unit 4 of the RBMK nuclear power plant of Chernobyl, in Ukraine, went out of control during a test at low-power, leading to an explosion and fire. The reactor building was totally demolished and very large amounts of radiation were released into the atmosphere for several hundred miles around the site including the nearby town of Pripyat. The explosion leaving tons of nuclear waste and spent fuel residues without any protection and control. Several square kilometres were totally contaminated. Several hundred thousand people were affected by the radiation fall out. The radioactive cloud spread across Europe affecting most of the northern, eastern, central and southern Europe. The initiative of the G7 countries to launch an important programme for the closure of some Soviet built nuclear plants was accepted by several countries. A team of engineers was established within the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development were a fund was provided by the donor countries for the entire design, management of all projects and the plants decommissioning. The Chernobyl programme includes the establishment of a safety strategy for the entire site remediation and the planning for the plant decommissioning. Several facilities that will process and store the spent fuel and the radioactive liquid and solid waste as well as to protect the plant damaged structures have been designed and are under construction. The author has been responsible for the programme with the EBRD Nuclear Safety Account team. This paper describes the design and construction of a new interim spent fuel storage, the liquid and solid radioactive treatment plants and the construction of a unique and very large New Safe Confinement that, when completed, will be moved over of the reactor Unit 4. 1. Introduction In 1993 following the 26 April 1986 Chernobyl accident, the G7 launched an initiative on the prevention of nuclear accidents within Russian built plants and agreed that the EBRD - European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, establishes a fund aimed at the closure and decommissioning of some Russian built Nuclear Power plants of the RBMK and VVER 440-230 type. The initiative included initially the plants of Ignalina units 1 and 2 in Lithuania, Kozloduy units 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Bulgaria, Saint Petersburg units 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Russian Federation. In 1996, Chernobyl three remaining units in Ukraine were added to the scope. The fund contributors included the G7 countries, the EU, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. Initial contributions were in excess of € 285 million. As of today 40 countries and the European Community are contributing with grants for the safety upgrades and the decommissioning of the above nuclear power plants. The concept, that had been accepted by the plants countries, included for each plant a nuclear safety assessment, the construction of an essential number of short terms safety improvements facilities and the final closure of the plant. Later an additional special fund was established for the decommissioning of each plant. 2 Fig. 1 The Chernobyl Nuclear power plant including four RBMK-1000 reactors – dated 1985 prior to the accident (source chnpp.gov.ua) 3 Fig. 2 Nuclear power plants in Ukraine (source IAEA) 2. The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (ChNPP) included four graphite moderated RBMK-1000 MWe reactors. The “beyond design-basis accident” occurred on 26 April 1986 during an experiment on Unit 4, which studied a potential of using “runout” of a turbine to ensure Unit’s needs at emergency shutdown. The reactor became in an unstable condition, provoking the explosion of the entire structure. The explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere. Fig. 3 Schematics of RBMK-1000 reactor (source IAEA) 4 Fig. 4 The Chernobyl NPP Unit 4 after the accident (source chnpp.gov.ua) Unit 4 was destroyed and the radiation levels in some areas of the reactor building have been estimated to be 0,056 sieverts per second (Sv/s) (1.4 mA/Kg), equivalent to more than 200 sieverts per hour (Sv/hr). A lethal dose is around 5 sieverts over 5 hours, so in some areas, unprotected workers received fatal doses in less than a minute. A dosimeter capable of measuring up to 10 Sv/s (0.3 A/kg) was buried in the rubble of a collapsed part of the building. All remaining dosimeters had limits of 10 exp-5 sv/s (0.3 µA/kg) and therefore read "off scale". The reactor crew could ascertain only that the radiation levels were somewhere above 10 exp-5 sv/s (0,0036 sv/h, or 0.3 µA/kg), while the true levels were much higher in some areas. During the accident and the following days a significant cloud containing mostly Caesium, Strontium and other fission products, including Plutonium, spread across Ukraine, northern, eastern, central and southern Europe. Fig. 5 shows a representation of the radioactive cloud eight days after the accident. 5 Fig. 6 shows the levels of contamination in various countries in Europe. Fig.5 Pattern of Cesium 137 concentration levels (Bq/sqm) on 4th May 1986 across Europe following the accident (source IRSN) 6 Fig. 6 Radiation levels across Ukraine and Europe following accident. (source WHO/IAEA) The French government strongly denied that the radioactive cloud had “entered” the country territory. However, as shown in Fig 7 it was obliged later to admit that large part of east and southern land was contaminated by Cesium 137. 7 Fig. 7 Mean concentration of cesium-137 in the air over France between 30th April and 6th May 1986 (source IRSN). ). Official document released five years after the accident. The structure of the reactor collapsed due to the fire (Fig. 8) and the reactor core melted due to temperatures exceeding 2600 °C. The corium, also called “fuel containing material (FCM)”, a lava-like molten mixture of portions of nuclear core, was collected in the lower reactor structure (Fig.9)- 8 Fig. 8 Schematics of the collapsed reactor after the accident (source chnpp.gov.ua) 9 . Fig. 9 Reactor corium lava flow formed in the basement of the plant below (source chnpp.gov.ua) 10 Fig 10 Storage of abandoned contaminated vehicles and helicopter used for throwing sand and other materials on the burning reactor (source chnpp.gov.ua) Human Consequences. About 130,000 people were evacuated immediately after the initial event, and in total about 400,000 people were eventually dislocated. Around 550.000 poorly trained workers called “liquidators”, engaged by the Soviet army in disaster management, received amongst the highest doses. Health Consequences. A recent independent assessment expects a total of 40,000 fatal cancers over the coming 50 years caused by Chernobyl fallout. Over 6,000 thyroid cancer cases have been identified so far, another 16,000 are expected in the future. Similarly, 500 % increases were observed in leukemia risk in both Belarus and Ukraine. Some new evidence indicates increased incidences of cardiovascular effects, stroke, mental health effects, birth defects and various other radiogenic effects in the most affected countries. Strong evidence has been published on Chernobyl related effect on children, including impaired lung function and increased breathing difficulties, lowered blood counts, high levels of anemias and colds and raised levels of immunoglobulins. 11 Fig.11 45,000 people abandoned the town of Pripyat (source chnpp.gov.ua) Fig.12 The abandoned town of Pripyat (source chnpp.gov.ua) Six months after the accident, a "Sarcophagus" also called “Object Shelter”, was built to cover the damaged Unit 4. (Fig. 10, 11, 12). At term, this was considered highly unsafe. The other three units of the plant were shut down respectively in 1991 (2), 1996 (1) and 2000 (3). 12 Fig. 13 Construction of the «Sarcophagus» (source chnpp.gov.ua) Fig. 14 Completion of the «Sarcophagus» (source chnpp.gov.ua) 13 Fig.15 Cross section of the “Sarcophagus” (source chnpp.gov.ua) Fig. 16 View of Chernobyl plant following the completion of “sarcophagus” (source: chnpp.gov.ua ) 14 3. EBRD Nuclear Safety Fund Following the Chernobyl accident, the G7 launched an initiative in 1993 aimed at the prevention of nuclear accidents within Russian built Nuclear Power Plants. The EBRD- European Bank for Reconstruction and Development was appointed to manage a Fund created by more than 40 donor countries. The RBMK and VVER-230 reactor types targeted by the Fund were: - Ignalina Units 1,2 Lithuania - Kozloduy Units 1,2,3,4 Bulgaria - Saint Petersburg Units 1,2,3,4 Russian Federation - Chernobyl 1,2,3,4 Ukraine added in 1996 A budget of € 285 million was initially established. Today the Fund includes more than 40 countries. The purpose of the Fund was to decommission the selected soviet built nuclear power plants by initially providing a strategy for the site remediation and building several safety facilities. Among them, interim spent fuel storages, radioactive liquid and solid waste treatment and storage plants as well as several protection structures on the plants. In charge of the operation, EBRD established a team called the Nuclear Safety Account including engineers and nuclear specialists. The author of this paper has been a member of the team and has been responsible for the entire decommissioning programme of the Chernobyl an Ignalina power plants. The co-author has been in charge for the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant of various tasks including the site remediation, the design of the “object” shelter and the construction supervision of the facilities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 27 September 2019
    United Nations A/74/461 General Assembly Distr.: General 27 September 2019 Original: English . Seventy-fourth session Agenda item 71 (d) Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian and disaster relief assistance of the United Nations, including special economic assistance: strengthening of international cooperation and coordination of efforts to study, mitigate and minimize the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster Persistent legacy of the Chernobyl disaster Report of the Secretary-General Summary The present report is submitted in accordance with General Assembly resolution 71/125 on the persistent legacy of the Chernobyl disaster and provides an update on the progress made in the implementation of all aspects of the resolution. The report provides an overview of the recovery and development activities undertaken by the agencies, funds and programmes of the United Nations system and other international actors to address the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. The United Nations system remains committed to promoting the principle of leaving no one behind and ensuring that the governmental efforts to support the affected regions are aimed at achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals. 19-16688 (E) 041019 151019 *1916688* A/74/461 I. General situation 1. Since the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident on 26 April 1986, the United Nations, along with the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, has been leading the recovery and development efforts to support the affected regions. While extensive humanitarian work was conducted immediately after the accident, additional recovery and rehabilitation activities were conducted in the following years to secure the area, limit the exposure of the population, provide medical follow-up to those affected and study the health consequences of the incident.
    [Show full text]
  • Present and Future Environmental Impact of the Chernobyl Accident
    IAEA-TECDOC-1240 Present and future environmental impact of the Chernobyl accident Study monitored by an International Advisory Committee under the project management of the Institut de protection et de sûreté nucléaire (IPSN), France August 2001 The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Waste Safety Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria PRESENT AND FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT IAEA, VIENNA, 2001 IAEA-TECDOC-1240 ISSN 1011–4289 © IAEA, 2001 Printed by the IAEA in Austria August 2001 FOREWORD The environmental impact of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident has been extensively investigated by scientists in the countries affected and by international organizations. Assessment of the environmental contamination and the resulting radiation exposure of the population was an important part of the International Chernobyl Project in 1990–1991. This project was designed to assess the measures that the then USSR Government had taken to enable people to live safely in contaminated areas, and to evaluate the measures taken to safeguard human health there. It was organized by the IAEA under the auspices of an International Advisory Committee with the participation of the Commission of the European Communities (CEC), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The IAEA has also been engaged in further studies in this area through projects such as the one on validation of environmental model predictions (VAMP) and through its technical co-operation programme.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Lessons from Chernobyl, Early Warnings from Fukushima
    Emerging issues | Late lessons from Chernobyl, early warnings from Fukushima 18 Late lessons from Chernobyl, early warnings from Fukushima Paul Dorfman, Aleksandra Fucic and Stephen Thomas The nuclear accident at Fukushima in Japan occurred almost exactly 25 years after the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. Analysis of each provides valuable late and early lessons that could prove helpful to decision-makers and the public as plans are made to meet the energy demands of the coming decades while responding to the growing environmental costs of climate change and the need to ensure energy security in a politically unstable world. This chapter explores some key aspects of the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents, the radiation releases, their effects and their implications for any construction of new nuclear plants in Europe. There are also lessons to be learned about nuclear construction costs, liabilities, future investments and risk assessment of foreseeable and unexpected events that affect people and the environment. Since health consequences may start to arise from the Fukushima accident and be documented over the next 5–40 years, a key lesson to be learned concerns the multifactorial nature of the event. In planning future radiation protection, preventive measures and bio-monitoring of exposed populations, it will be of great importance to integrate the available data on both cancer and non-cancer diseases following overexposure to ionising radiation; adopt a complex approach to interpreting data, considering the impacts of age, gender and geographical dispersion of affected individuals; and integrate the evaluation of latency periods between exposure and disease diagnosis development for each cancer type.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction of the Protective Shelter for the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor Faces Schedule Delays, Potential Cost Increases, and Technical Uncertainties
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Ranking Member, GAO Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives July 2007 NUCLEAR SAFETY Construction of the Protective Shelter for the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor Faces Schedule Delays, Potential Cost Increases, and Technical Uncertainties GAO-07-923 July 2007 NUCLEAR SAFETY Accountability Integrity Reliability Highlights Construction of the Protective Shelter for Highlights of GAO-07-923, a report to the the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor Faces Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Schedule Delays, Potential Cost Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives Increases, and Technical Uncertainties Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found In 1986, an explosion at the Although two of three construction components—site preparation and Chernobyl nuclear power plant in stabilization of the existing shelter—are nearly finished, construction of the Ukraine destroyed the reactor new shelter has fallen about 7 years behind schedule. Over the past couple building and released massive of years, the main reason for schedule slippage has been the failure to award amounts of radioactive a construction contract. The lack of a contract is partly the result of a contamination. A temporary lengthy disagreement between Ukraine and the European Bank for shelter was built over the damaged reactor to prevent further Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). In late 2006, the Chernobyl contamination. The United States nuclear power plant director told GAO that the donors should not make any is a major donor to an international additional contributions to the project until contracting issues were project to build a new shelter to resolved.
    [Show full text]
  • Chernobyl: Chronology of a Disaster
    MARCH 11, 2011 | No. 724 CHERNOBYL: CHRONOLOGY OF A DISASTER CHERNOBYL; CHRONOLOGY OF A DISASTER 1 INHOUD: 1- An accident waiting to happen 2 2- The accident and immediate consequences ( 1986 – 1989) 4 3- Trying to minimize the consequences (1990 – 2000) 8 4- Aftermath: no lessons learned (2001 - 2011) 5- Postscript 18 Chernobyl - 200,000 sq km contaminated; 600,000 liquidators; $200 billion in damage; 350,000 people evacuated; 50 mln Ci of radiation. Are you ready to pay this price for the development of nuclear power? (Poster by Ecodefence, 2011) 1 At 1.23 hr on April 26, 1986, the fourth reactor of the Cherno- power plants are designed to withstand natural disasters (hur- byl nuclear power plant exploded. ricanes, fl oods, earthquakes, etc.) and to withstand aircraft The disaster was a unique industrial accident due to the crash and blasts from outside. The safety is increased by scale of its social, economic and environmental impacts and the possibility in Russia to select a site far away from bigger longevity. It is estimated that, in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia towns." (page 647: "Zur Betriebssicherheit sind die Kraftwerke alone, around 9 million people were directly affected resulting (VVER and RBMK) mit drei parallel arbeitenden Sicherheit- from the fact that the long lived radioactivity released was systeme ausgeruested. Die Kraftwerke sing gegen Naturka- more than 200 times that of the atomic bombs dropped on tastrophen (Orkane, Ueberschwemmungen, Erdbeben, etc) Hiroshima and Nagasaki. und gegen Flugzeugabsturz und Druckwellen von aussen ausgelegt. Die Sicherheit wird noch durch die in Russland Across the former Soviet Union the contamination resulted in moegliche Standortauswahl, KKW in gewisser Entfernung van evacuation of some 400,000 people.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF: Transforming Chernobyl
    The works to transform Chernobyl into a safe and on the ground. Total costs for the Shelter secure state are nearing conclusion. The New Implementation Plan – of which the NSC is the Safe Confinement (NSC), a gigantic steel arch, most prominent element – were estimated to be has been erected and is now being equipped €2.1 billion in 2014, leaving a large funding gap with systems and tools to make the site safe for of €615 million. generations to come. The EBRD shareholders’ decision in November Impressive progress has been made and we are 2014 to commit an additional €350 million confident that the NSC will be completed and (from the Bank’s reserves) for the NSC and operational by the end of 2017. an anticipated €165 million from the G7/ European Commission have significantly The Chernobyl project would not have been reduced the funding gap. However, a shortfall of possible without the active involvement and €100 million remains. generous contributions of the international community and Ukraine. The fact that to date Ukraine is currently in a vulnerable state and more than 40 countries and the EBRD have cannot be left to bear this uniquely hazardous provided funds speaks for itself. burden alone. The EBRD welcomes the leadership of the G7 to secure the full funding As the project is now far-advanced it is possible of the project. to make a reliable cost estimate based on the final design of the NSC and the progress Suma Chakrabarti, EBRD President PART OF A LARGER The New Safe Confinement (NSC) is a structure intended to the international community’s work together with Ukraine cover the destroyed reactor unit 4 at Chernobyl, the site of got under way.
    [Show full text]
  • International Nuclear Law in the Post-Chernobyl Period
    Cov-INL PostChernobyl 6146 27/06/06 14:59 Page 1 International Nuclear Law in the Post-Chernobyl Period A Joint Report NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY A Joint Report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency ISBN 92-64-02293-7 and the International Atomic Energy Agency International Nuclear Law in the Post-Chernobyl Period © OECD 2006 NEA No. 6146 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. * * * This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD.
    [Show full text]
  • The IAEA Conventions on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident Or Radiological Emergency
    International Nuclear Law in the Post-Chernobyl Period The IAEA Conventions on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency by Hon. Prof. em. Rechtsanwalt DDr. Berthold Moser∗ Abstract This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the provisions of both conventions. Special attention is paid to the rules of the Convention on Early Notification which identify the event subject to notification and the content and addressees of the information provided with regard to a nuclear accident, as well as to the provisions of the Convention on Assistance concerning the request and grant of international assistance with regard to a nuclear accident and the duties attributed in this field to the IAEA. The author also considers the liability questions raised by that convention. I. General In the wake of the Chernobyl reactor accident on 26 April 1986, discussions were initiated in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with the object of strengthening international co-operation in the development and use of nuclear energy. To that end, the intention, among other things, was that IAEA Member States (and the IAEA itself) should be under an obligation, in the event of an accident in their own country, to notify any other states for which there was a danger of harmful radiological effects as quickly as possible. It was also the intention that Member States and the IAEA should agree on an undertaking to provide assistance in the case of a nuclear accident or a radiological emergency. The Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine had radiological consequences on an unprecedented scale on the territory of other states not limited to those bordering the USSR.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Contribution to EBRD Chernobyl Shelter Fund: 4Th Pledge, 5Th Instalment
    Community Contribution to EBRD Chernobyl Shelter Fund: 4th Pledge, 5th Instalment Description Background The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (ChNPP) is situated 110 Km north of Kiev. Its construction began in the 1970s and by 1983 four units were in operation producing about 10 percent of Ukraine’s electricity. Two additional units were under construction. On 26 April 1986, the world’s worst nuclear accident occurred, which destroyed Unit 4 of the power plant and resulted in the release of radioactive materials into the environment. The nearby city of Chernobyl, located about 15 km away from the power plant had a population of 12,500, but the city was not the residence of the power plant workers. When the power plant was under construction, Prypiat, a city larger and closer to the power plant, had been built as home for the power plant workers. It had a population of just under 50,000 at the time of the accident. Evacuation of the population of Prypiat began about 40 hours after the accident. Later other population areas within a 30km radius were evacuated, including the city of Chernobyl. By 14th May 1986, some 116,000 people had been evacuated. In the years following the accident, a further 220,000 people were resettled into less contaminated areas, and the initial 30 km radius exclusion zone (2800 km2) was modified and extended to cover about 4300 km2. Following the accident a Shelter (sometimes referred to as a ‘sarcophagus’) enclosing the remains of ChNPP Unit 4 was constructed under exceedingly hazardous conditions. Units 1, 2 and 3 (adjacent to Unit 4) were put back into operation, raising the fear of another accident.
    [Show full text]
  • The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities
    THE CONGRESS Appendix OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL T�e Sl�vut��� Appe�l AUTHORITIES l�un��ed �� t�e Inte�n�tion�l �onfe�en�e “��e�no��l 20 �e��s on lo��l �nd �egion�l �ut�o�ities de�ling wit� dis�ste�s” Resolution 215 (2006)1 Slavutych (Ukraine), 2-4 March 2006 on ��e�no��l 20 �e������s on lo��l We, �nd �egion�l �ut�o�ities de�ling wit� dis�ste�s The participants in the International Conference “Chernobyl, 20 years on: local and regional authorities dealing with disasters”, local and regional elected representatives, parliamentarians and representatives of . The date of 26 April 2006 marked the 20th anniversary governments, international and non-governmental of the unprecedented catastrophe in the history of mankind organisations and experts, which took place at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. Meeting in Slavutych on the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, 2. The consequences of the Chernobyl disaster have long been a subject of speculation and the issue is a no less Resolve to adopt an appeal, which will be forwarded to the topical subject today, which is why the Congress decided to Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council hold a conference on “Chernobyl, 20 years on: local and of Europe and to other interested organisations. regional authorities dealing with disasters” in Slavutych in Ukraine, from 2 to 4 March 2006. Here in Slavutych, some 50 kilometres from Chernobyl and twenty years after the worst technological disaster in the history of humankind, we feel the need to solemnly 3.
    [Show full text]
  • International Initiative for the Chernobyl
    GC(41)/RES/21 October 1997 International Atomic Energy Agency GENERAL Distr. GENERAL CONFERENCE Original: ENGLISH Forty-first regular session Agenda item 22 (GC(41)/28) INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVE FOR THE CHERNOBYL SARCOPHAGUS Resolution adopted on 3 October 1997 during the 9th plenary meeting INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVE FOR THE CHERNOBYL SARCOPHAGUS The General Conference. (a) Recalling the Chernobyl accident of 1986, which destroyed Reactor 4 of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, (b) Mindful that the sarcophagus enclosing the remains of Reactor 4 was built under extremely adverse conditions, was intended to serve only as an interim measure and does not represent a long-term solution to the problems posed by the destroyed reactor, (c) Noting that the Group of 7 and Ukraine have adopted the Shelter Implementation Plan developed by an international team of experts to transform the sarcophagus to an environmentally safer condition over the long term, (d) Noting that Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union are committed to raise US$300 million to support the approximately US$750 million Shelter Implementation Plan and that Ukraine will contribute in kind, and (e) Aware that Ukraine currently expends nearly 12 per cent of its national budget on dealing with consequences of the Chernobyl accident, 1. Welcomes the decision of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to establish the Chernobyl Shelter Fund, to administer the implementation of the Shelter Implementation Plan and to convene meetings at least annually of the countries contributing to the Fund for the purpose of reviewing and approving projects to implement the Plan; and GC(41)/RES/21 page 2 2.
    [Show full text]
  • After the Chernobyl Accident... More Than 1.8 Million People Still Inhabit the Contaminated Territories
    ALEGRIA MONTORO PASTOR (PhD) Laboratorio de Dosimetría Biológica Servicio de Protección Radiológica WHY? After the Chernobyl accident... More than 1.8 million people still inhabit the contaminated territories. 502,377 children, residents of Ukraine, were born in families where the parents have been exposed to ionizing radiation. Countries from EU offer hosting programs for Ukranian Non-Government Organization which has a program of hosting children Ukranian children with families from Valencia (Spain). Our biodosimetry laboratory reviewed the literature in order to obtain more information on the level of human hazard due to such accidental exposure: Various cytogenetic studies reported an increased frequency of chromosomal aberrations in children from contaminated areas (Padovani et al. 1997; Barale et al. 1998). WHO found in a report (2006) a complete lack of analytical studies (Stepanova et al. 2008). One proven way to obtain information related to the absorbed radiation dose is to quantify the cytogenetic effects. OBJECTIVES To assess whether the children living in the areas contaminated by the Chernobyl accident are exposed to ionizing radiation... Started a collaboration program to assess the radiation dose absorbed by children living near Chernobyl as NGO (Spain) Biodosimetry laboratory well as the health and nutritional (Hospital La Fe, Spain) status. The aim of this study was to carry out a cytogenetic analysis of 55 Ukrainian children and adolescents living in the Chernobyl area and whose parents were exposed to ionizing radiation due to the nuclear accident. For this purpose we carried out a dicentric chromosome assay to elucidate a possible exposure to radiation from different contaminated sources.
    [Show full text]