Chornobyl, Ukraine

1
Chornobyl, Ukraine
April 15,1998
2
Chornobyl Time Line

• 1986 -- Chornobyl Disaster
• Alerted world to safety threat of Soviet-designed
  reactors
• 1991 -- Soviet Union Breakup
• Provided opportunity for cooperative safety
  activities
• 1992 -- Lisbon Initiative
• Multiple bilateral agreements for cooperative
  safety projects
• Fire at Chornobyl
• Temporary closure of Unit 2
• 1994 --
• Jan. -- No assistance to Chornobyl (3 units
  continue to operate)
• April -- Lash assumes NE Director role
• Oct. -- PNNL accepts lead role for INSP

IG98040040.2
3
Chornobyl Time Line (Cont.)

• 1995 --
• May
• Presidential endorsement of bilateral agreement
• Creation of Chornobyl Center
• Safety upgrades at Unit 3
• July
• Agreements on specific safety upgrades
• December
• G-7/Ukraine MOU for Chornobyl Closure by 2000
• Fix Shelter
• Final completion of K2-R4
• Modernization of power industry

IG98040040.3
4
Chornobyl Time Line (Cont.)

• 1996
• April -- US Delegation tours shelter
• Safety and health conditions for workers
  intolerable
• May
• Technical team performs Shelter needs assessment
• International Shelter Project initiated
• August - Bilateral projects initiated at Shelter
• Hanford experts
• October - International Shelter Study Report
  completed
• Accepted by G-7 and Ukraine in December

IG98040040.4
5
Chornobyl Time Line (Cont.)

• 1997
• January - SIP initiated
• May - SIP completed
• 760 million/ 8-year project
• July - G-7 pledges 300 million
• Dedication of Chornobyl Center in Slavutych
• Nov/Dec - Kutchma/Gore Pledging Conference In New
  York
• 87 million additional pledged
• 22 countries now participating

IG98040040.5
6
Chornobyl Time Line (Cont.)

• 1998
• December - SIP RFPs issued by ChNPP
• February - Chornobyl Center facility completed
• May - Bechtel/EDF/Battelle win competitive bid

IG98040040.6
7
The Chornobyl Accident

• April 26, 1986, Ukraine's ChNPP Unit 4 reactor
  sustained a tremendous surge in reactor power
• Ruptured the reactor's fuel rods and pressure
  tubes
• Steam explosion lifted the reactor core and the
  2,000-ton shielding block 14 m (45 ft)
• Explosion destroyed 3/4 of reactor building,
  spewed hot fragments of graphite and reactor fuel
  from the core, starting 30 fires in nearby
  buildings
• Radioactive dust/gases (50 megacuries)
• Contaminated gt 60,000 miles2 of Ukraine, Belarus,
  and Russia (State of Washington 68,000 square
  miles)

IG98040040.7
8
Chornobyl Accident - April 1986

• 31 people died as a result of intense radiation
  exposure from the Unit 4 accident
• All people (about 116,000) within a 30-km zone
  around the plant were evacuated and relocated
• The town of Pripyat was closed and citizens
  working at the plant were relocated to Slavutych
• Completed in 1987
• 40 km from plant
• Population 26,000

IG98040040.8
9
Chornobyl Accident - April 1986

• Radiation Deposition
• Radioactive release was 200 times greater than
  that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined
• Contaminated areas Belarus - 25, Ukraine - 5,
  and Russia - 0.5.
• The contaminated area of Ukraine and Belarus is
  about 61,780 square miles- the size of England,
  Wales, and Northern Ireland combined
• Crops, milk, and livestock were destroyed in
  Austria, Hungary, Germany, Poland, and Nordic
  countries
• More than 400,000 emergency personnel worked to
  alleviate the immediate consequences of the
  accident
• Ukraine has spent 12of National budget since
  1991 on Chornobyl-related activities

IG98040040.9
10
Chornobyl Accident - April 1986

• Disaster continued to release radioisotopes to
  the environment
• Enclosed ruined reactor with 20-story steel and
  concrete "shelter built in 7 months
• Shelter has questionable foundation and shows
  cracks/holes
• Fuel corium is degrading to radioactive,
  respirable dust
• Shelter is unstable and could collapse, injuring
  workers and spreading radioactive dust
• Total radionuclide activity still contained by
  shelter is substantially reduced today

IG98040040.10
11
Improve Nuclear Safety in FSU

• Mission - reduce risks at Soviet-designed nuclear
  power plants and assist host countries in
  developing sustainable internationally accepted
  safety practices.
• Range of Activities
• Operation Safety
• Emergency Operating Instructions, training,
  simulators, safety maintenance, nondestructive
  evaluation
• Safety Systems
• Safety parameter display system, fire safety,
  confinement, emergency feedwater
• Safety Analysis
• Training, tools, evaluation
• Regulatory and Institution
• Liabilities, separate authorities

IG98040040.11
12
Solving Problems of the Chornobyl Shelter

• A team of Ukrainian and international experts
  proposed measures to prevent shelter collapse and
  contain reactor dust
• May 1997, the international team proposed the
  Shelter Implementation Plan
• SIP estimated at 760 million over eight-years
• To support developing the Shelter Implementation
  Plan, the U.S. team, led by the Pacific Northwest
  National Laboratory, provided substantial
  technical support and led development of the
  plan's cost and schedule estimates.

IG98040040.12
13
Solving Problems of the Chornobyl Shelter

• June 1997, Ukraine and the G-7 nations approved
  the Shelter Implementation Plan
• G-7 selected EBRD to manage project finances
  hire SIP Project Management Unit (PMU) contractor
  
• EBRD selected Chornobyl plant for PMU and
  required a Western PMU Consultant to help them
  succeed
• Ukraine selected the team, composed of Bechtel,
  Electricité de France and Battelle
• Negotiations continue today, with focus on
  nuclear liability issues
• The final contract likely this week

IG98040040.13
14
Liability issues of doing work at Chornobyl -
Background

• Liability problems are not new INSP encountered
  problems convincing United States industry to
  work in the former Soviet Union, because of
  concerns about liability
• Pacific Northwest National Laboratory had to
  develop some international nuclear liability
  expertise
• Our experience contracting at Chornobyl accents
  the importance of this issue for all firms doing
  business in the FSU
• Clear liability understandings are essential for
  the Chornobyl SIP, if the world is to succeed in
  stabilizing this damaged plant

IG98040040.14
15
Liability issues of doing work at Chornobyl - The
Risk

• Assessments have been performed
• The Shelter may collapse in an earthquake or high
  wind, or due to contractor errors while
  stabilizing it
• Intermediate events identified as common stack
  failure and common separation wall failure
• A nuclear explosion of Unit 3, based on
  propagation of a Shelter collapse, is incredible
  (lt 10-6). It was determined that Unit 3 can be
  safely shut down after collapse of vent stack or
  the separation wall
• The safety of workers in the facility and people
  in the near vicinity would be at hazard by a
  Shelter collapse

IG98040040.15
16
Liability issues of doing work at Chornobyl -
Background

• Elements necessary to limit third-party nuclear
  liability risk for a United States company doing
  business in a foreign country
• Domestic Liability Legislation
• Transboundary Victims Liability Treaty Relations
• U.S. Treaty Relations

IG98040040.16
17
Liability issues of doing work at Chornobyl -
Background

• INSP helped DOE/DOS sponsor the Convention on
  Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage,
  held in Vienna on September 29, 1997.
• Secretary of Energy Peña signed the Convention
  for the United States on that date, subject to
  congressional ratification. Ukraine also signed.
• The Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent the
  Convention on Nuclear Safety to the full Senate
  in early April, for its advice and consent to
  ratification.
• The Convention on Nuclear Safety will be followed
  immediately by the Convention on Supplementary
  Compensation.
• Approval of these conventions is key to opening
  business in Ukraine and elsewhere in the former
  Soviet Union.
• Your (nuclear industry) support is critical to
  timely congressional approval.

IG98040040.17
18
Chornobyl Centerfor Nuclear Safety, Radioactive
Waste and Radioecology

• Socio-Economic Impacts in Slavutych
• Education Exchange between Slavutych, Ukraine and
  Richland, Washington
• Student optimism
• Future for jobs
• Public Council for Economic Development
• Called for in Slavuytch Social Impact Plan
• Democratic Institution
• DOE may convene conference on skills needed for
  SIP projects

IG98040040.18
19
(No Transcript)
20
Chornobyl Centerfor Nuclear Safety, Radioactive
Waste and Radioecology

• Shelter Visit Feb. 25, 1998
• U.S. team led by Ray Hunter and John Wagoner
• Current Status of SIP pledges
• 300M from G-7
• 50M from Ukraine
• 37M from Pledging Conference
• Heat Plant
• Size - 290 MWT, Project completion - October 1999
• Cost - 18M (US), 36M (Ukraine)
• Critical to ensuring closure by year 2000

IG98040040.20
21
Improve Nuclear Safety In FSU National/Internation
al Participants

• U.S. Department of State

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science and Technology
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
U.S. Agency for International Development
Policy Funding
Russia Ukraine Bulgaria Czech Republic
Hungary Kazakhstan Lithuania Slovakia
Armenia
Coordination with G-7 and International
Financial Institutions
Participating Countries
Program Implementation
Lead Technical and Administrative Support Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory
Host Country Organizations and Nuclear Power
Plants
U.S. Industrial Organization
U.S. National Laboratories
IG98040040.21
22
Participating Organizations

• U.S. Government

National Laboratories
Department of Energy Department of State Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Agency for International
Development
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Argonne
National Laboratory Brookhaven National
Laboratory Sandia National Laboratory Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory
Private Industry
Honeywell International Management Development
Corp. Mariner Engineering, Inc. Matrix
International Logistics, Inc. Orion/Atlantic Path
Training Corp. Promatec Raytheon Engineers
Constructors, Inc.
ABB-CE American Technologies, Inc. Babcock
Wilcox Bechtel Power Corp. Burns Roe Control
Data Duke Engineering Services Ebasco General
Physics Corp. Gilbert/Commonwealth
Corp. Halliburton NUS Corp.
S3 Technologies Science Application International
Corp. Scientech Sierra Nuclear Corp. Stone and
Webster, Inc. Sonalysts, Inc. Taurus Westinghouse
Electric Co.
IG98040040.22
23
Improve Nuclear Safety in FSU65 Reactors at 20
Nuclear Power Plants in 8 Countries

• Problems
• Inadequate operating procedures and training
• Design deficiencies
• Lack of infrastructure to sustain safe operation
• Inadequate nuclear regulatory authority

Percent of Electricity from Nuclear Power
80
83
60
45
44
42
41
37
40
20
13
20
0
Russia
Czech Republic
Ukraine
Bulgaria
Hungary
Slovakia
Lithuania
Armenia
IG98040040.23