I thought the project was just to build a big, dumb steel arch
June 22, 2019 12:28 PM Subscribe
So what are the difficulties of building a giant shed around an exploded nuclear reactor? How did a small Scottish consultant land work on a critically important international project? And what is it like to work at the site of the world’s worst nuclear accident?
Living in the Ukrainian capital, they were shaken by the violence that struck in 2014 with so-called Euromaidan revolution, which saw thousands of citizens descend upon the streets of Kiev to protest at then-president Viktor Yanukovych’s pivot away from the EU and towards Russia. Both men were among hundreds of thousands of protesters, with Ross’ wife, Irina, and their grown-up daughter helping cook food for activists in the freezing winter.
...
Putting the new steel arch in place was no easy task. “You couldn’t build it over the reactor because the radiation would fry the builders – and also because you don’t want to drop anything on the structure because it is so fragile,” explains Ross. The structure is thought to be the heaviest thing ever lifted by humankind, weighing approximately 35,000 tonnes, and was jacked onto a rail system by 16 jacks at either side. The width of the arch was 257.5m, but each pair of the 32 jacks could not be more than one or two millimetres out from each other, or the structure would twist too much when moved.
...
Potentially rabid dogs are only one of the unique threats posed by working at Chernobyl. The gravest is exposure to radiation: either from radioactive particles or gamma rays. Labourers are furnished with dosimeters, devices that record how much radiation they are being exposed to – with the machine beeping once it reaches a certain threshold. “In some areas, we could only work five minutes and then the pre-alarm beeps, and the guy has to go out,” says Fargier. “You can imagine the number of people and the time it takes.”
...
The job was so dirty that Novarka refused to take it on, but problems were confounded by the appointment of a local Ukrainian contractor not used to the western safety standards demanded by donors. “They just had absolutely no safety culture whatsoever,” says Bechtel’s McNeil. “And because of the radiation limits, once a worker had reached his maximum dose he had to leave the job. But I guess it was a fairly well-paying job, so we would find dosimeters that they would hide so they could work longer hours.
Living in the Ukrainian capital, they were shaken by the violence that struck in 2014 with so-called Euromaidan revolution, which saw thousands of citizens descend upon the streets of Kiev to protest at then-president Viktor Yanukovych’s pivot away from the EU and towards Russia. Both men were among hundreds of thousands of protesters, with Ross’ wife, Irina, and their grown-up daughter helping cook food for activists in the freezing winter.
...
Putting the new steel arch in place was no easy task. “You couldn’t build it over the reactor because the radiation would fry the builders – and also because you don’t want to drop anything on the structure because it is so fragile,” explains Ross. The structure is thought to be the heaviest thing ever lifted by humankind, weighing approximately 35,000 tonnes, and was jacked onto a rail system by 16 jacks at either side. The width of the arch was 257.5m, but each pair of the 32 jacks could not be more than one or two millimetres out from each other, or the structure would twist too much when moved.
...
Potentially rabid dogs are only one of the unique threats posed by working at Chernobyl. The gravest is exposure to radiation: either from radioactive particles or gamma rays. Labourers are furnished with dosimeters, devices that record how much radiation they are being exposed to – with the machine beeping once it reaches a certain threshold. “In some areas, we could only work five minutes and then the pre-alarm beeps, and the guy has to go out,” says Fargier. “You can imagine the number of people and the time it takes.”
...
The job was so dirty that Novarka refused to take it on, but problems were confounded by the appointment of a local Ukrainian contractor not used to the western safety standards demanded by donors. “They just had absolutely no safety culture whatsoever,” says Bechtel’s McNeil. “And because of the radiation limits, once a worker had reached his maximum dose he had to leave the job. But I guess it was a fairly well-paying job, so we would find dosimeters that they would hide so they could work longer hours.
They keep calling it an arch, but it's more of a gigantic Quonset hut. Not like the thing in St. Louis.
Were the efforts to build a thick concrete slab under the reactor ultimately successful, and is that really a permanent protection from melt-through?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:48 PM on June 22, 2019
Were the efforts to build a thick concrete slab under the reactor ultimately successful, and is that really a permanent protection from melt-through?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:48 PM on June 22, 2019
Everything I've read about it points to ~100 years, fshgrl.
posted by barchan at 2:49 PM on June 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by barchan at 2:49 PM on June 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
The Wikipedia articles on the new structure and the original ‘sarcophagus’ are both pretty comprehensive.
posted by ambrosen at 2:56 PM on June 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by ambrosen at 2:56 PM on June 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
What's the design life for this, does anyone know?
Even if it's a hundred years, as Barchan's link indicates, that's just enough to give us some breathing room because the reactor is going to be radioactive effectively forever. Assuming climate change doesn't kill us all, the best case scenario is that there will eventually be five or six concentric shells around the reactor, each one containing the dangerously radioactive remains of its predecessors.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:58 PM on June 22, 2019 [10 favorites]
Even if it's a hundred years, as Barchan's link indicates, that's just enough to give us some breathing room because the reactor is going to be radioactive effectively forever. Assuming climate change doesn't kill us all, the best case scenario is that there will eventually be five or six concentric shells around the reactor, each one containing the dangerously radioactive remains of its predecessors.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:58 PM on June 22, 2019 [10 favorites]
The implementation phase of the New Safe Confinement involves demolishing the original containment structure and decontaminating it. Although the confinement building is complete, the ventilation and cranes inside it are not yet operational, so that phase of the project isn't started yet.
Obviously, one of the major reasons to slide this protection over the site on rails is for ease of replacement when it's life expired. I find it very unlikely that it will remain in situ once it becomes life-expired. And I have a reasonable optimism that substantial amounts the reactor remains inside the confinement will actually be removed from the site into long term disposal.
posted by ambrosen at 3:10 PM on June 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
Obviously, one of the major reasons to slide this protection over the site on rails is for ease of replacement when it's life expired. I find it very unlikely that it will remain in situ once it becomes life-expired. And I have a reasonable optimism that substantial amounts the reactor remains inside the confinement will actually be removed from the site into long term disposal.
posted by ambrosen at 3:10 PM on June 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
I find it very unlikely that it will remain in situ once it becomes life-expired. And I have a reasonable optimism that substantial amounts the reactor remains inside the confinement will actually be removed from the site into long term disposal.
We don't have great techniques for dealing with radioactive waste and the solutions only tend to last as long as they're in the forefront of public consciousness. E.g., only last year the EPA announced that they had developed a five year program to deal with waste from the Manhattan Project that had been stored for about thirty years, then dumped. I don't know whether the work has actually begun, though.
Chernobyl is massively more dangerous (and harder to ignore) but it's also much harder to deal with. I expect even a 100-year structure requires maintenance and monitoring, and it will eventually require replacement. I'm not nearly as sanguine about this as you are.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:22 PM on June 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
We don't have great techniques for dealing with radioactive waste and the solutions only tend to last as long as they're in the forefront of public consciousness. E.g., only last year the EPA announced that they had developed a five year program to deal with waste from the Manhattan Project that had been stored for about thirty years, then dumped. I don't know whether the work has actually begun, though.
Chernobyl is massively more dangerous (and harder to ignore) but it's also much harder to deal with. I expect even a 100-year structure requires maintenance and monitoring, and it will eventually require replacement. I'm not nearly as sanguine about this as you are.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:22 PM on June 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
There was a documentary recently on BBC4 about the construction and emplacement of the sarcophagus. It's available to view for another few weeks here: Inside Chernobyl's Mega Tomb
posted by Jakey at 3:23 AM on June 23, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by Jakey at 3:23 AM on June 23, 2019 [5 favorites]
And I have a reasonable optimism that substantial amounts the reactor remains inside the confinement will actually be removed from the site into long term disposal.
Just want to point out that 'disposal' for nuclear waste of all kinds is really storage, and that higher levels of radioactivity require greater levels of security and durability of storage. The current model for decommissioning US nuclear plants seems to call for storing spent fuel on the plant site "until a secure storage site is designated". So far, that translates to forever. So all nuclear power sites are radioactive waste sites.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:56 AM on June 23, 2019 [6 favorites]
Just want to point out that 'disposal' for nuclear waste of all kinds is really storage, and that higher levels of radioactivity require greater levels of security and durability of storage. The current model for decommissioning US nuclear plants seems to call for storing spent fuel on the plant site "until a secure storage site is designated". So far, that translates to forever. So all nuclear power sites are radioactive waste sites.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:56 AM on June 23, 2019 [6 favorites]
Assuming climate change doesn't kill us all
The worsening climate crisis has lead to an increase in forest fires worldwide. The radioactive forests in and around the exclusion zone are not only not decaying naturally, but there is concern that a wildfire will further spread high levels of contamination thousands of miles downwind, just as the original explosion did. The sarcophagus is a wondrous feat of engineering, but it can only contain a very small area of deadly waste.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:39 AM on June 23, 2019 [3 favorites]
The worsening climate crisis has lead to an increase in forest fires worldwide. The radioactive forests in and around the exclusion zone are not only not decaying naturally, but there is concern that a wildfire will further spread high levels of contamination thousands of miles downwind, just as the original explosion did. The sarcophagus is a wondrous feat of engineering, but it can only contain a very small area of deadly waste.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:39 AM on June 23, 2019 [3 favorites]
It's worth noting that even intact graphite moderated reactors present unique challenges to decommission. The plan for the UK's Magnox and AGR reactors is to essentially remove all the non-nuclear bits, enclose the remaining core with its containment in a climate controlled building and leave it for 100 years before doing the actual decommissioning. This is quite a sensible approach because it is both cheap and easy to build that cocoon and to maintain it, it'll be much less radioactive in 100 years, and hopefully robotics will have improved by then.
Of course, the unspoken thing is that in 100 years we may just decide to replace the cocoon building and leave it for another century. It doesn't take up that much space and quite frankly, it's quite safe where it is!
Of course in that case the fuel is removed so the total radioactive inventory is much lower.
With Chernobyl, the area actually covered by the reactor is so contaminated that it will never be used for anything again and aiming for total decontamination of the site is foolish and will just waste money. I always thought that the plan was to use the gantry cranes to remove the old sarcophagus as it is at risk of collapse and maybe thereafter remove some elements of the reactor building that pose similar risks. Completely taking the building and reactor components apart seems a little pointless. They're already in the best possible place for storing radioactive waste, purely because it's so radioactive that the storage of such waste isn't going to make it worse.
The latest readings of radiation inside the destroyed reactor hall are 25 Sv / hr. That's a fatal dose in about 10 minutes. Since activity is now dominated by caesium 137 with a 30 year half life, we can estimate what it might be like in the future. (note that this is an extreme case, radiation in most of Pripyat is much lower and even walking past the reactor is only 2.5 micro Sv / hr which is the equivalent of two full body CT scans a year.
posted by atrazine at 3:55 PM on June 23, 2019 [6 favorites]
Of course, the unspoken thing is that in 100 years we may just decide to replace the cocoon building and leave it for another century. It doesn't take up that much space and quite frankly, it's quite safe where it is!
Of course in that case the fuel is removed so the total radioactive inventory is much lower.
With Chernobyl, the area actually covered by the reactor is so contaminated that it will never be used for anything again and aiming for total decontamination of the site is foolish and will just waste money. I always thought that the plan was to use the gantry cranes to remove the old sarcophagus as it is at risk of collapse and maybe thereafter remove some elements of the reactor building that pose similar risks. Completely taking the building and reactor components apart seems a little pointless. They're already in the best possible place for storing radioactive waste, purely because it's so radioactive that the storage of such waste isn't going to make it worse.
The latest readings of radiation inside the destroyed reactor hall are 25 Sv / hr. That's a fatal dose in about 10 minutes. Since activity is now dominated by caesium 137 with a 30 year half life, we can estimate what it might be like in the future. (note that this is an extreme case, radiation in most of Pripyat is much lower and even walking past the reactor is only 2.5 micro Sv / hr which is the equivalent of two full body CT scans a year.
posted by atrazine at 3:55 PM on June 23, 2019 [6 favorites]
How/why was reactor 3 still in operation until 2000?
posted by gottabefunky at 8:15 AM on June 24, 2019
posted by gottabefunky at 8:15 AM on June 24, 2019
gottabefunky, the Ukrainians desperately needed the power is the short answer.
posted by atrazine at 9:24 AM on June 24, 2019
posted by atrazine at 9:24 AM on June 24, 2019
« Older Desus and Mero Give a Crash Course in Wokeness | Nude Girl Filming Bags 11 On a Bare Island Off... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by scruss at 1:48 PM on June 22, 2019 [8 favorites]