Advertisement

Atomic Energy

, Volume 121, Issue 1, pp 1–9 | Cite as

Lessons from Chernobyl and Fukushima and Advanced Control Concepts for Severe Accidents

  • L. A. Bol’shov
DEDICATED TO THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE JOURNAL ATOMNAYA ÉNERGIYA

The year 2016 marks the 30th anniversary of the accident in the No. 4 unit of the Chernobyl NPP and the 5th anniversary of the accident at the Fukushima NPP in Japan. The Chernobyl accident substantially changed the public’s attitude toward severe accidents at NPPs, promoting on the one hand modernization and improvement of safety systems and on the other hand a higher safety culture by harmonization of standards and regulations, and adoption of deeply echeloned protection and a scientifically validated approach to the analysis of accidents. The Fukushima accident revealed a new class of accidents – extreme actions caused by naturally occurring cataclysms and/or different external actions, which actually are identical to loss of a large part or all of the means for controlling an accident. The present article examines the main lessons on accidents in terms of understanding the phenomenology of the events occurring during severe accidents and confirms the importance of the deterministic component of the safety concept. At the same time, it emphasizes that special attention must be given to hydrogen safety, systems for prolonged removal of residual heat, emergency readiness, and emergency response under the extreme conditions of severe accidents. The computational means used to develop accident counter-measures must be properly set to take account of the design features of the reactor facility, the containment of the NPP, and the adjoining territories in order to determine the time required to implement the procedures for controlling accidents and mitigating the consequences.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    V. A. Puchkov and L. A. Bol’shov (eds.), Russian National Report ‘30 Years of the Chernobyl Accident: Results and Prospects for Overcoming Its Consequences in Russia in 1986–2016’, Akadem-Print, Moscow (2016).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    O. M. Kovalevich, V. A. Sidorenko, and N. A. Shteinberg, “On the problems of safety security of nuclear power in the USSR,” At. Énerg., 68, No. 5, 333–337 (1990).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. G. Asmolov, A. Yu. Gagarinskii, V. A. Sidorenko, and Yu. F. Chernilin, Atomic Energy: Assessment of the Past, Realities of the Present, Expectation of the Future, IzdAT, Moscow (2004).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. A. Bolshov and V. F. Strizhov, “SOCRAT – the system of codes for realistic analysis of severe accidents,” Proc. Int. Congr. Advances in Nuclear Power Plants, ICAPP’06, Reno (2006), pp. 1415–1422.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. V. Arutyunyan, L. A. Bol’shov, A. E. Kiselev, et al., “Operational analysis of the accident in the Fukushima-1 NPP,” At. Énerg., 112, No. 3, 151–158 (2012).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. S. Dolganov, A. V. Kapustin, A. E. Kiselev, et al., “Results of express calculations of a severe accident at the Fukushima-1 NPP using the SOKRAT code,” Proc. IBRAE ‘Accident at Fukushima-1 NPP’: Response Experience and Lessons, Nauka, Moscow (2013), pp. 67–79.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Broughton, P. Kuan, D. Petti, and E. A. Tolman, “A scenario of the Three Mile Island unit 2 accident,” Nucl. Technol., 87, No. 1, 34 (1989).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. V. Arutyunyan, L. A. Bol’shov, and A. A. Borovoi, Nuclear Fuel in the Cover of the Chernobyl NPP, Nauka, Moscow (2010).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evaluation of the Situation of Cores and Containment Vessels of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Units-1 to 3 and Examination Into Unsolved Issues in the Accident Progression, Progress Rep. (2014), No. 2.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. G. Asmolov, S. S. Abalin, and Yu. G. Degal’tsev, “Behavior of the core melt pool on the bottom of the reactor vessel (Rasplav project),” At. Énerg., 84, No. 4, 303–318 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. G. Asmolov, S. V. Bechta, V. B. Khabensky, et al., “Partitioning of U, Zr and FP between molten oxidic and metallic Corium,” Proc. MASCA2 Seminar, Aix-en-Provence, France, June 10–11, 2004, pp. 103–116.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Tuomisto and T. G. Theofanous, “A consistent approach to severe accident management,” Proc. of the Specialist Meeting on Severe Accident Management Programme Development, Italy, Sept. 23–25, 1991, OECD/CSNI/SESAM (1992), pp. 133–151.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. G. Asmolov, N. N. Ponomarev-Stepnoy, V. F. Strizhov, and B. R. Sehgal, “Challenges left in the area of in-vessel melt retention,” Nuc. Eng. Design, 209, No. 1–3, 87–96 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. S. Filippov, N. I. Drobyshevskaya, A. E. Kiselev, et al., “SOKRAT/HEFEST: models of the interaction of VVER core melt with reactor structures during a severe accident,” Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk, Energetika, No. 3, 4–24 (2010).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    V. V. Bezlepkin, E. Yu. Kuz’min, V. O. Kukhtevich, et al., “Investigation of the possibility of melt retention at the bottom of the reactor vessel at a late stage of a severe accident using the RATEG/SVECHA/GEFEST code,” Vopr. At. Nauki Tekhn. Ser. Fiz. Yad. Reakt., No. 4, 20–28 (2003).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. I. Pantyushin, E. A. Frizen, S. I. Asadskii, et al., “Development of a system for melt retention and reactor vessel cooling during severe beyond design basis accidents for NPPs with VVER-600 and VVER-TOI reactors,” Vopr. At. Nauki Tekhn. Ser. Obesp. Bezop. AES, No. 30, 45–59 (2011).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    I. V. Kukhtevich, V. V. Bezlepkin, V. S. Granovskii, et al., “Concept of corium melt localization at the in-vessel stage of a beyond design basis accident in NPPs with VVER-1000,” Teploenergetika, No. 9, 2–7 (2001).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    V. G. Asmolov, V. M. Zagryazkin, S. V. Bechta, et al., “Crucible-type core catcher for VVER-1000 reactor,” Proc. Int. Congr. Advances in Nuclear Power Plants, ICAPP’05, Seoul (2005), pp. 1221–1227.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    In-Vessel Corium Retention Strategy: Status of Knowledge and Perspectives: Int. Workshop, Aix-en-Provence, France, June 6–7, 2016.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Paladino, S. Guentay, M. Andreani, et al., “The EURATOM–ROSATOM ERCOSAM-SAMARA projects on containment thermalhydraulics of current and future lwrs for severe accident management,” Proc. ICAPP’12, USA, June 24–28, 2012, Paper 12325.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Paladino and A. E. Kiselev, “Main outcomes from the EURATOM–ROSATOM ERCOSAM-SAMARA parallel projects for hydrogen safety of LWR,” Proc. ICAPP’15 (2015), Paper 15357.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    E. V. Bezgodov, A. A. Arkhipov, V. P. Bakaev, et al., “Results of experimental investigations of stratification and burning processes for VPGS in model enclosures in the containment of NPP with VVER at atmospheric pressure,” Abstr. 5th Sci. Seminar Modeling of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technologies, Snezhinsk (2016), p. 2.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    I. V. Lavrenyuk, T. A. Kupriyanen, M. V. Nikiforov, et al., “Results of experimental studies of stratification and burning processes in VPGS under conditions characteristic for severe accidents,” ibid., p. 20.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. S. Filippov, S. Yu. Grigor’ev, and T. A. Yudina, “Numerical modeling of an experiment at RFYATS – VNIITF on hydrogen stratification in ‘strong’ structure and comparison with calculations of ‘light’ structures,” ibid., pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    V. M. Goloviznin, V. Yu. Glotov, A. V. Danilin, and A. V. Solov’ev, “Vortex-resolving balance-characteristic difference schemes for problems of hydrogen safety for NPPs,” ibid., p. 9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. A. Bol’shov
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Problems in the Safe Development of Nuclear EnergyRussian Academy of Sciences (IBRAE RAN)MoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations