The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is said to have lost communication with Chernobyl nuclear data systems, and the Chernobyl facility is now without electricity.
Mr. Tony Roulstone of the University of Cambridge’s Department of Engineering commented:
“Cutting the power to Chernobyl necessary to cool the reactor might result in the core overheating owing to a shortage of cooling power, but it’s probably not as dangerous as Fukushima because the Chernobyl reactors have already been shut down for a few days and the decay heat will be decreased.” Nonetheless, it is a dangerous condition for them as well as the surrounding environment.
“The squandered gasoline is a longer-term issue.” The gasoline should stay suitably chilled until the water in the pond has boiled out, exposing the fuel, which will take several days or weeks.
“If there is a discharge of fuel, or if there is a fire, the absence of ventilation and fire systems will become a concern.” As a result, the unavailability of these safety mechanisms is a conditional worry.”
Prof. Tom Scott, Materials Professor at the University of Bristol, said:
“I agree with the IAEA’s assessment this morning that the spent fuel in Chernobyl’s storage ponds poses no significant concern, even with the current power loss.”
“Because the fuel in these pools is decades old, there is virtually little residual heat produced.” Because of the low heat load and the high volume of water in the cooling pools, the heat from the fuel can be safely dispersed even if there is no electricity to circulate the water. As a result, while the risk of spent fuel overheating is minimal, it is nonetheless critical that the status at the facility (and other nuclear sites in Ukraine) be actively reported to the IAEA. Any communication breakdown must be repaired as soon as possible.”
Prof Claire Corkhill, of the University of Sheffield’s Chair in Nuclear Material Degradation, said:
“With the Chernobyl site’s energy supply cut off, there are various areas of worry about the safety of the radioactive material held there.”
“A cooling pond is used to store spent nuclear fuel from reactors 1 and 3. This material generates heat due to radioactive decay and requires continual cooling, which is accomplished by pumping cool water into the ponds. Due to the lack of power, this water might slowly evaporate, contaminating the building with low quantities of radioactive isotopes.
“It’s critical that radiation monitoring devices can continuously monitor the condition within reactor 4 so that we can be aware of any possible concerns regarding the exposed nuclear material that dwells there.”
“Maintenance of the ventilation system in the New Safe Confinement construction is another important worry. This is necessary for the site’s eventual decommissioning and avoids further deterioration of Reactor #4 and the dangerous exposed nuclear material therein. If there is no electricity to this facility, the 1.5 billion euro decommissioning programme to make the site safe for good might be a complete failure.”
Associate Professor of Nuclear Chemistry at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, Dr Mark Foreman, said:
“Any nuclear or radioactivity facility where the radioactivity is not properly sealed or cooling is required typically requires an electric power source to run safety devices such as ventilation and cooling plants that are required to keep the materials in a safe state.” Because the electricity cables to Chernobyl have been shut off, the plant will be forced to rely on its own generators, which will have a limited supply of fuel or gas.
“I believe the incident is considerably less catastrophic than the on-site power outage that triggered the Fukushima nuclear disaster. While the fuel in the ponds must be kept cold, the final Chernobyl reactors were shut down years ago, so the heat generation in the spent fuel stored in their ponds will be far lower than that of the fuel in the Fukushima reactors, which were just recently operational. While it is critical to keep the cooling ponds from drying out, I believe that the repercussions of doing so will be considerably less severe than the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 or the more recent Fukushima disaster.
“I believe that drying out the ponds poses a greater risk to employees than to the general population.” If the water layer atop the fuel becomes too thin, radiation levels in the fuel storage and surrounding areas will rise. If the gasoline is left to dry out for an extended period of time, the cladding of the fuel may be damaged. Depending on how clean the ponds’ interiors are, drying them out might result in the mobilisation of radioactive.
“However, I do not anticipate a big release of radiation on the scale of the 1987 disaster, which had far-reaching implications outside the plant.” It’s also worth noting that drying up the ponds won’t result in a nuclear reaction or explosion.
“I believe that the loss of ventilation will limit the site’s ability to handle radioactive dust and safeguard personnel, and I am confident that working conditions will deteriorate.” Workers may find it more difficult to reach some areas of the site without complete protective gear, and they may also find it more difficult to change into and out of their protective gear. Until the electricity is restored, some areas of the site may be off bounds to the employees.
Prof Geraldine Thomas, Director of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank at Imperial College London, said:
“Because the Chernobyl Power Plant has been shut down since 2000, the spent fuel rods that have been kept on site have been cooled for 22 years.” As a result, they will not produce considerable quantities of heat, making a radiation emission extremely improbable. If any radiation were to be released, it would only affect the near local region, posing no threat to Western Europe because there would be no radioactive cloud. The plant’s personnel is comprised of highly skilled and motivated employees. Rather than radiation, the biggest hazard to their health is a lack of food and rest as a result of being unable to leave the facility.”
Dr. Mark Wenman, Reader in Nuclear Materials at Imperial College London’s Nuclear Energy Futures, said:
“While this is a worrying trend, the final Chernobyl reactor unit was shut down more than 20 years ago, while units 1 and 2 were shut down between 1991 and 1996. This indicates that during the next 20-30 years, the heat produced by the fuel in the storage ponds will have significantly decreased (decayed). The fuel storage ponds are also quite deep, and even with cooling pumps running, it would take weeks for the water to boil down. This should presumably give enough time for the power to be restored to the cooling systems.
“It is particularly disturbing because contacts with the IAEA to the facility are being lost, making it much more difficult to obtain up-to-the-minute live information on the continuing situation.”
“Another risk to the facility in general is fire, although this is less alarming because the worst radioactivity is in the fuel, which is protected by being submerged.”