Ukrainian Nuclear Power Plants Research Articles

Chernobyl and the future: Forward planning

The global future of nuclear power may rest in large part on local politics, reports Geoff Brumfiel. On 28 April 1986 the Soviet Union acknowledged that there had been an accident in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine two days earlier. This week's cover shows a helicopter crew monitoring radioactivity above the damaged reactor 4 later that summer. In a series of pieces in this issue we chart the costs of Chernobyl, the world's worst peacetime nuclear accident, in terms of human lives and ecological damage. And with the perspective of 20 years, it's time also to assess the prospects for nuclear energy in the twenty-first century. In a Commentary anticipating the UN agencies' forthcoming Chernobyl report, Dillwyn Williams and Keith Baverstock stress the importance of comprehensive health monitoring of populations in the most affected areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Without it, the nuclear power industry will never overcome the public suspicion that is a lasting legacy of Chernobyl.

Too soon for a final diagnosis

Twenty years ago, the nuclear accident at Chernobyl exposed hundreds of thousands of people to radioactive fallout. We still have much to learn about its consequences, argue Dillwyn Williams and Keith Baverstock. On 28 April 1986 the Soviet Union acknowledged that there had been an accident in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine two days earlier. This week's cover shows a helicopter crew monitoring radioactivity above the damaged reactor 4 later that summer. In a series of pieces in this issue we chart the costs of Chernobyl, the world's worst peacetime nuclear accident, in terms of human lives and ecological damage. And with the perspective of 20 years, it's time also to assess the prospects for nuclear energy in the twenty-first century. In a Commentary anticipating the UN agencies' forthcoming Chernobyl report, Dillwyn Williams and Keith Baverstock stress the importance of comprehensive health monitoring of populations in the most affected areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Without it, the nuclear power industry will never overcome the public suspicion that is a lasting legacy of Chernobyl.

Emergency preparedness and response: compensating victims of a nuclear accident

The 1986 tragedy at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine motivated the entire international nuclear community to ensure that countries would, in the future, be well prepared to manage the physical, psychological and financial consequences of a serious nuclear accident. Since that event, numerous nuclear emergency preparedness and post-emergency management programmes have been established at national and international levels to ensure that appropriate mechanisms will respond to the threat, and the aftermath, of a nuclear accident. The INEX 2000 Workshop on the Indemnification of Nuclear Damage, jointly organised by the OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency and the French Government, was the first ever international programme to address the manner in which victims of a nuclear accident with trans-boundary consequences would be compensated for damage suffered before, during and after the accident. The Workshop results revealed striking differences in the compensation principles and practices implemented in the 30 participating countries, in the co-ordination measures between different public authorities within an affected state, and in the co-operative procedures between the accident state and its neighbours. All participants agreed on the need for improvement in these areas, particularly for maintaining public confidence in governments’ ability to properly manage nuclear emergencies.

Support of the Ukrainian supervisory authority in establishing a modern nuclear power plant monitoring / Unterstützung der ukrainischen Aufsichtsbehörde beim Aufbau einer modernen KKW-Überwachung

The type of monitoring of nuclear power plants in Ukraine practiced in the early nineties provided the supervisory authority with only inadequate access to information about the current safety status of plants. For the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, unit 5, a technical system to improve operational monitoring has been designed, installed and commissioned for trial operation at the end of 1995 as a pilot project. The system complements existing operational checking and monitoring facilities by including modern means of information technology. It enables concentration on a continuous monitoring of the state of unit 5 in normal operation and in cases of anomalies or incidents so that when recognisable deviations from the regular plant operation occur, the authority can immediately inquire and if necessary impose conditions on the operator. In 1997, the Information and Crisis Centre of the Ukrainian supervisory authority in Kiev was equipped with the most essential technical means necessary for quasi-simultaneous transfer of data and voice and for monitoring purposes and connected the Centre to the Zaporozhye system. A similar monitoring system for both VVER-440 units of the Rovno nuclear power plant by analogy with the pilot project was specified and put into operation and connected to the ICC in 1998.

Economic and safety pressures on nuclear power: a comparison of Russia and Ukraine since the break-up of the Soviet Union

Since the Chernobyl accident and the break up of the Soviet Union, nuclear power in Russia and Ukraine has come under intense scrutiny. The West has pursued a policy that the plants should undergo safety upgrades or be closed. However, the resources needed to achieve this have not been available. This paper examines how these pressures have affected nuclear power plants in Ukraine and Russia since 1991. Economic recession and the fall in electricity demand have led to lack of resources for fuel purchase, maintenance and upgrading. The only `unsafe’ plant that has been closed is one at Chernobyl in Ukraine. Russia is life-extending its `unsafe’ plants for a further ten years service. In Russia, other plants are dispatched ahead of nuclear plants and in summer, nuclear plants are operated at reduced power. Ukraine's position as a fossil fuel importer means that there is a greater incentive to run the nuclear plants intensively. This pressure was particularly strong in 1992 and 1997. Performance in the years following was much poorer. Ukraine faced an additional challenge in building up an independent regulatory capability from scratch after the break-up of the Soviet Union. While the new body is regarded as technically competent, it may lack the political power to impose its will.

Communities of periphytic algae in the sections of release of heated water into the cooling ponds of thermal and nuclear power plants of Ukraine

Communities of periphytic algae in the sections of release of heated water into the cooling ponds of thermal and nuclear power plants of Ukraine

Investigation of heat-resistant steels used in nuclear power engineering in the complex stressed state formed under conditions of cyclic loading

From the viewpoint of actual problems of operation of power-generating equipment at the Ukrainian nuclear power plants, we analyze the regularities of deformation and fracture of heat-resistant steels of various structural types extensively used in nuclear power engineering under conditions of a, complex stressed state formed under static and cyclic loading at operating temperatures of the equipment of nuclear power plants. We suggest a extension of some procedures used for the evaluation of the durability of the indicated types of steel to the case of quasistatic fracture of steel in a complex stressed state under the action of low-cycle pulsating loads in the indicated temperature range.

East European nuclear investment projects: the case of K2/R4 in Ukraine

Economic assessment of two nuclear power plants in Ukraine (Khmelnitsky 2 and Rovno 4) to know if the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development finances the end of the construction and the upgrading of the safety systems to western standards

Environmental Health Policy in Ukraine After the Chernobyl Accident

The 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine produced severe environmental health problems. This paper reports on the environmental health conditions in Ukraine after the accident and the health policy approaches employed to respond to the environmental conditions and health problems.Crisis conditions and a period of rapid change in Ukraine contributed to the difficulties of developing and implementing policy to address serious environmental health problems. Despite these difficulties, Ukraine is taking effective action. The paper describes the primary environmental health problem areas and the efforts taken to solve them. The effect of intense public fear of radiation on policymaking is described. The paper discusses the ability of public fear to distort health policy towards certain problems, leaving problems of greater importance with fewer resources.