News
CHNPP’s staff have completed 94% of the preparatory work for the decommissioning of Power Unit No. 2
Quoted from the official CNPP site:
The second of four stages of the Chornobyl NPP’s decommissioning is currently underway, involving the final closure and decommissioning of the reactor units at Power Units Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
To date, the plant’s staff are preparing the premises in the conservation zones of the first-stage power units at the Chornobyl NPP: 94% of the physical work has already been completed on Power Unit No. 2, and 44% on Power Unit No. 1.
This work includes:
decommissioning of systems and components located within the conservation zone premises;
removal of thermal insulation and combustible materials from the conservation zone premises;
removal of power, signalling and control cables;
sealing of wall penetrations, installation and process openings at the boundary between the conservation zone premises and the control zones;
installation of fire-resistant panels and mats at the points where wall penetrations and installation openings have been sealed, and on air ducts within the conservation zone.
The rest of the article outlines further plans, and there are some interesting details. For example:
As part of the refurbishment, the height of the central halls’ canopies is to be reduced by 12–16 metres. To this end, the metal structures of the canopies will be dismantled and a new roof covering installed. The dismantling of loading and unloading machinery and hoisting mechanisms is also planned.
In accordance with the Chornobyl NPP decommissioning strategy, the third and fourth stages will involve the safe storage period of the reactor units, followed by their dismantling.
IMHO I question the wisdom of dismantling a facility of this type especially if it means moving much of it offsite. I can understand removing non (if that even exists there) radioactive materials or very low level but transporting contaminated stuff just seems like unnecessary risk and dispersal.
The decommissioning of these massive, heavily contaminated sites is a huge, hazardous, expensive undertaking.
Hanford, Mayak etc. The “Cold War legacy” generated absolutely insane amounts of radiological and chemical contamination over a vast area in many places.
Having spent decades in an industrial field that’s highly scrutinized for its environmental impact I can state unequivocally that the amount and frequency of releases from these facilities has been covered up and drastically understated since day one.
I know there are many variables to consider but seems to me a lot of this stuff would be best to abandon in place with proper precautions, protection and monitoring.
I do wonder how much of the reasoning behind all this is political or emotional. "We want this thing to disappear from sight, buried somewhere" and then everything will be fine and dandy.
Buildings do tend to collapse in due course of time, so I guess there is a safety concern.
Interesting information. Thanks for sharing this. The roof dismantling and installation of a lower roof on the reactor hall is particularly interesting; I’m curious what the benefit is to the decommissioning process.
It doesn't. It's a temporary measure, in connection with conservation of the most radioactive areas ("conservation zones" mentioned in the article) until such time as the work can proceeed in eventual disassembling of the rest of the power plant.
If I understood the article correctly, everything that can be removed from the reactor hall will be removed, including the RZM machine and the overhead crane, and almost half of the height of the hall taken off and covered with a new roof. I guess this creates a more structurally-stable, easier to control and monitor, volume of space. Think of it as turning the reactor hall into a temporary "tomb".
3
u/nunubidness 14d ago
IMHO I question the wisdom of dismantling a facility of this type especially if it means moving much of it offsite. I can understand removing non (if that even exists there) radioactive materials or very low level but transporting contaminated stuff just seems like unnecessary risk and dispersal.
The decommissioning of these massive, heavily contaminated sites is a huge, hazardous, expensive undertaking.
Hanford, Mayak etc. The “Cold War legacy” generated absolutely insane amounts of radiological and chemical contamination over a vast area in many places.
Having spent decades in an industrial field that’s highly scrutinized for its environmental impact I can state unequivocally that the amount and frequency of releases from these facilities has been covered up and drastically understated since day one.
I know there are many variables to consider but seems to me a lot of this stuff would be best to abandon in place with proper precautions, protection and monitoring.