Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering

BRAC University
EEE423: Power Plant Engineering
Fall Semester 2024

Case Study On
Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident

Prepared by Group No. 04

Name ID
QURESHI JULKER NAYEEN 20321048
ABDULLAH AL FAHAD 20321050
MOHAMMAD IBTEHAZ KABIR 21121001
KHAIRUL AMIN SOJIB 21121003
MOHAMMAD SHIBLI NOMAN 21121009

Date of Submission: 8 January 2025

 Table of Contents
No. Topic Page
No.
01 Brief History of the Accident 2

02 Causes of the Accident 4

03 Details of The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant 6

04 Immediate impact of the accident and long-term impact 9

05 Environmental Impact 11

06 Economic Impact 12

07 Steps taken after accident 13

08 Lesson learned for the future/Solution 14

09 Safety Improvements in Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant 15

2
Brief History of The Accident:
The Chernobyl nuclear disaster was one of the most catastrophic events in the history of nuclear
power. It occurred on April 26, 1986, at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant near Pripyat, in the
then Ukrainian SSR which was part of the Soviet Union at that time. It was the result of a sudden
and unexpected surge of power during a late-night safety test of Reactor No. 4 which led to a
series of explosions and the release of massive amounts of radioactive material into the
environment [1].

Timeline of Events Leading to the Disaster:

1. Construction and Operation of the Plant: The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was located
approximately 130 km north of Kyiv, Ukraine. It consisted of four RBMK-1000 type
reactors. The site of the accident was reactor no. 4. It became operational in December
1983. When the accident occurred, reactors 5 and 6 were under construction to expand the
plant's capacity [1].

2. Pre-Accident Safety Test: To evaluate the reactor's ability to generate sufficient power for
emergency cooling systems when a power outage occurs, a safety test was scheduled [2].
This safety test had been postponed several times due to operational delays and critical
safety protocols were overlooked to accelerate the process [3].

3. Sequence of the Accident:

● At 1:23 AM on April 26, the engineers began the test under conditions that violated
standard safety procedures [1].
● A combination of flawed reactor design and operator errors led to a massive surge of power
and it overheated the core.
● Steam built up in the reactor and it caused a catastrophic steam explosion. The first
explosion was followed by a second explosion believed to be caused by hydrogen or
graphite interactions [2].

4. Immediate Aftermath:
● The explosions destroyed Reactor No. 4. These explosions release around 400 times more
radioactive material than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima [3].
● A massive fire engulfed the reactor. It lasted several days and worsened the scenario by
releasing radioactive isotopes such as iodine-131, cesium-137 and strontium-90 into the
atmosphere [1].

3
 5. Evacuation and Initial Response:
● The nearby city of Pripyat was a residence for approximately 49,000 people. They were
not evacuated until nearly 36 hours after the accident which exposed the residents to high
doses of radiation [3].
● The delayed response was partially attributed to initial denial and suppression of
information by Soviet authorities [2].

6. Historical Significance: The Chernobyl disaster is widely regarded as the worst nuclear
power plant accident in the history of nuclear power plants in terms of immediate casualty
and long-term health and environmental consequences. It exposed the systemic flaws in
the reactor design and operational safety protocols. It also played a significant role in
shaping global nuclear energy policies [3].

Causes of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident:

The Chernobyl disaster was the result of a combination of factors involving design flaws, human
error and systemic operational deficiencies. These causes are briefly described below:

1. Technical Causes:
A. Flawed Reactor Design: The RBMK-1000
● The design of the RBMK-1000 reactor was inherently unstable at low power levels due to
its positive void coefficient [4].
● A positive void coefficient means that when coolant boils and becomes steam, the reactor's
reactivity increases, potentially causing runaway reactions [1].
● The use of graphite-tipped control rods worsened the situation. During insertion, the
graphite temporarily increased reactivity before reducing it. And it created a dangerous
delay in response time [5].

B. Lack of a Containment Structure

● The RBMK-1000 lacked a reinforced concrete containment structure to prevent the release
of radioactive material during an accident [4].
● This deficiency magnified the scale of radioactive release following the explosions [5].

4
2. Human Factors
A. Operator Errors
Reactor Shutdown Rules Ignored: Operators wanted to conduct the test under conditions
outside the reactor's design parameters. For that reason, they disabled multiple safety systems
including the emergency core cooling system [5].
Test Execution Errors: Operators allowed the reactor's power to fall to extremely low levels.
This made the reactor unstable. To compensate for the condition, they removed a large number
of control rods which reduced their ability to control reactivity [3].

B. Inadequate Training and Knowledge

● Many operators who were regulating the test were poorly trained and unaware of the
reactor’s specific vulnerabilities such as the positive void coefficient [4].
● They were unable to predict the consequences of their actions during the test [5].

3. Systemic and Organizational Causes:

A. Soviet Bureaucratic Culture

● A culture of secrecy and denial discouraged open reporting of problems in the nuclear
sector [6].
● The plant's management prioritized meeting energy production quotas over safety
considerations [2].

B. Design and Safety Oversight

● The Soviet regulatory framework for nuclear reactors lacked sufficient independent
oversight [5].
● The RBMK-1000 design flaws were known but it was ignored for saving costs and for the
pressures to expand nuclear capacity [6].

C. Inadequate Safety Testing Protocols

● The safety test was poorly planned and did not adequately address known reactor risks [2].
● The test created unusual operating conditions due to a critical delay in starting like unstable
power levels thus increasing the likelihood of failure [6].

D. Sequence of Events Demonstrating Combined Causes

5
 ● Initial Conditions: Operators reduced the reactor's power to a dangerously low level which
destabilized the core [4].
● Disabling of Safety Systems: They ignored the safety protocols to maintain the test
conditions [6].
● Test Initiation: When the test began, reactor reactivity surged uncontrollably as they
removed control rods and due to the effect of positive void coefficient [3].
● Explosions: The design flaws in the reactor’s control system and lack of containment led
to two explosions, the release of radioactive materials and the catastrophic failure of
Reactor No. 4 [4].
Details of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant with Block Diagram:

The first official name of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was the V.I. Lenin Nuclear Power
Station. It was a key component of the Soviet Union’s strategy for energy independence. It was
situated approximately 130 km north of Kiev, Ukraine and about 20 km south of the Belarusian
border. The plant had four RBMK-1000 reactors. Each reactor had a net electrical output of 1,000
MW. Units 1 and 2 were constructed between 1970 and 1977. But units 3 and 4 were completed
in 1983. During the 1986 accident, two additional RBMK reactors were under construction. An
artificial lake spanning approximately 22 square kilometers was created to support cooling

Figure 1: Cross section of Chernobyl Nuclear power plant (Unit 4) [7]

requirements adjacent to the Pripyat River.

Key Components of the Plant:

6
1. RBMK-1000 Reactor Design
The RBMK-1000 was a graphite-moderated, light-water-cooled reactor. It was
designed for dual purposes: a) electricity generation and b) plutonium production. Its
unique design featured several key elements:

● Pressure Tube Configuration: The reactor core consisted of numerous vertical pressure
tubes made of zirconium alloy. Each containing fuel assemblies composed of uranium
dioxide pellets. This design enabled on-load refueling which allowed the reactor to
remain operational during fuel replacement.

Figure 2: RBMK 1000 REACTOR [8]

● Graphite Moderator: Graphite blocks served as neutron moderators surrounding the

pressure tubes. These blocks slowed down fast neutrons, facilitating the nuclear fission
process in the slightly enriched (2% U-235) uranium fuel.

● Boiling Light Water Coolant: Light water acts as both coolant and neutron absorber. As it
flowed upward through the fuel channels, it boiled and generated steam that directly drove
turbines without the need for an intermediate heat exchanger.

● Positive Void Coefficient: One of the most significant characteristics of the RBMK reactor
was its positive void coefficient. As steam bubbles (voids) formed in the coolant, the

7
 reactor’s reactivity increased due to reduced neutron absorption by the less dense steam.
This feature posed a risk of rapid power surges if not properly controlled.

2. Cooling System
The reactor’s cooling system relied on a network of circulating water loops.
Pumps continuously circulated coolant to remove heat from the reactor core and deliver it
to the steam generators. Each reactor’s cooling loop included multiple main circulation
pumps with at least one on standby

Figure 3: Cooling system of RBMK reactor [9]

3. Control Rods
Reactor power levels were managed using 211 control rods which were made from
neutron-absorbing materials. However, a significant design flaw existed. That is, the tips
of these rods were made of graphite. When these control rods were inserted into the core,
the graphite tips temporarily displaced coolant and caused a brief spike in reactivity before
the neutron-absorbing portion of the rod took effect. This flaw contributed to the
catastrophic power surge during the 1986 accident.

4. Safety Features
The RBMK reactors lacked a robust containment structure. This omission left the
plant highly vulnerable to radioactive release in the event of an accident. Though the
reactor included an emergency core cooling system, its effectiveness was limited by the
inherent design flaws and procedural lapses.

8
 The plant also consists of:

Steam Generators: Heat from the reactor’s core was used to convert water into steam. The steam
then was passed directly to the turbines.

Turbine-Generator: Steam from the generators drove turbines. These turbines powered
electrical generators. Each reactor’s turbine system produced a net output of 1,000 MW.

Cooling Towers: Excess heat was dissipated into the atmosphere through large cooling
towers. These structures played a critical role in maintaining the thermal balance of the
system.

Control Systems: Reactors power was controlled by a series of monitoring and regulatory
mechanisms. However, significant procedural and design flaws undermined the
effectiveness of these systems.

Immediate and Long-Term Impacts of the Accident:

1. Immediate Impacts of the Accident:

The immediate effects of the Chernobyl accident were disastrous, with considerable
human casualties and displacement. Two workers at the plant died on the night of the
accident from injuries sustained during the explosions, while 28 liquidators and firemen
died from acute radiation syndrome within several months [1] [2]. It is believed that the
explosion sent approximately 530,000 TBq of radioactive material from the reactor into
the environment, exposing millions of people to dangerous levels of radiation and forcing
the belated mass exodus of people in the surrounding areas [3]. Some 49,000 residents of
Pripyat were evacuated 36 hours after the disaster, and 116,000 more were displaced from
the surrounding areas [4]. In return, helicopters dropped sand, lead and boron to smother
the fire and check further radioactive emissions. The liquidators worked on the dangerous
job of building a temporary sarcophagus over the reactor to contain its radiation. These
immediate measures, though necessary, also brought into sharp focus the seriousness of
the disaster and its far-reaching implications.

9
2. Long-Term Impacts of the Accident:
A. Health Consequences
○ Thyroid Cancer: The release of iodine-131 during the Chernobyl disaster led to a
sharp rise in thyroid cancer cases, particularly among children who were exposed
to the radioactive fallout. Early detection and treatment became a priority for
affected regions, but the burden of care remains significant.[5]
○ Other Cancers: Long-term studies have shown an increased incidence of leukemia
and other cancers in the exposed populations. These findings underscore the severe
biological impact of radiation exposure and its persistent effects over
generations.[6]
B. Psychological and Social Impacts.
The psychological marks the catastrophe had left on the survivors and their
communities were profound. Chronic anxiety, depression, and a sense of hopelessness
haunted many due to the exposure and its long-term implications. Social stigma from
being labeled a "Chernobyl victim" has further contributed to marginalization of affected
people [3]. Trauma associated with displacement and the uncertainty over return to the
contaminated area is one reason behind enduring mental health challenges.

C. Relocation and Community Disruption:

Large-scale evacuations were carried out to mitigate the imminent health risks,
displacing more than 300,000 people from their homes. Such a forced uprooting of people
disrupted social structures, fragmented families, and eroded cohesion in the community.
Many of the evacuees suffered economic hardships striving to rebuild their lives in
unknown places. Whole towns and villages were deserted, leaving ghost towns as a legacy,
standing reminders of the disaster.

D. Global Nuclear Policy Reforms:

Chernobyl accelerated the changes in nuclear safety policies around the world.
International organizations like the IAEA developed more stringent guidelines in order to
make nuclear power plants much safer [6]. The Convention on Nuclear Safety, among
others, was developed in order to provide more transparency, better disaster response
policies, and to reduce the chances of such disasters happening again.

10
Environmental Impact:
The Chernobyl disaster caused one of the most severe environmental crises in history due to
extensive radioactive contamination and its far-reaching effects on ecosystems, water bodies and
biodiversity.
1. Radioactive Contamination: Large quantities of the radioactive isotopes’ cesium-137,
iodine-131, and strontium-90 were also released by the explosion, spreading over the whole
of Europe, contaminating a wide area of soil, air, and water. An area of approximately
4,000 km² around the reactor was declared the "Chernobyl Exclusion Zone," where, to this
date, human activities remain highly restricted due to sustained levels of radiation [4].
Contamination of this nature, with these radioactive elements, seriously disrupted
agricultural activities and further made big swathes of land unusable.

2. Biodiversity Changes: While the high levels of radiation initially eliminated flora and
fauna within the immediate radius of the plant, the absence of human interference has
turned the exclusion zone into an unlikely haven for wildlife [3]. In time, populations of
species such as wolves, bison, and several birds have thrived, creating a unique ecosystem
where the resilience of nature can be observed despite lingering radiation.

3. Water Pollution: As a result, radioactive material contaminated rivers and reservoirs near
the reactor, therefore posing risks to aquatic life and downstream water supplies. While
ongoing efforts have been made to monitor and mitigate the spread of contamination into
water systems, the ecological balance in these aquatic environments remains precarious
due to the long half-life of radioactive isotopes [5]

Economic Impact of the Chernobyl Disaster

1. Direct Costs: The government of the Soviet Union invested in containment,

decontamination, resettlement, and health treatment in the aftermath, and approximately
US$18 billion in total since the catastrophe [2]. This was an awful burden laid upon the
Soviet economy. Large sums needed to be allocated toward the building of the reactor's
sarcophagus, remediation of affected areas, and payment of compensation toward those
losing homes.

11
 2. Regional Economic Decline: The local economies were severely affected because
agriculture and the general industry in the contaminated parts of the countries were
effectively killed. Farming stopped because the soil was poisoned; this caused loss of crops
and livestock. Furthermore, industries that rely on natural raw materials collapsed, which
caused unemployment and paralyzed economic activities across large areas of Ukraine,
Belarus, and Russia.

3. Global Economic Repercussion: The disaster led to a loss of confidence in nuclear energy
worldwide; a number of nuclear projects were consequently suspended or cancelled [6]. In
turn, countries needed to invest in other energy resources, which caused disturbance in the
global energy markets and increased the energy costs for the rest of the countries.

Steps Taken After the Chernobyl Accident

1. Immediate Measures: The Soviet authorities, in the immediate days after the accident,
emphasized containment and evacuation. A sarcophagus was built around Reactor No. 4
to prevent radioactive material from leaking out. More than 135,000 residents were
evacuated from Pripyat and other localities within the vicinity and a 30-kilometer radius
exclusion zone was established to limit further radiation exposure. Emergency crews
worked in hazardous conditions to put out fires and manage the disaster site [1].

2. Long-Term Remediation: Such efforts have continued with the objective of reducing
radiation exposure and keeping radioactive elements contained. For instance, the
completion of the New Safe Confinement in 2016 will seal off Reactor No. 4 for at least a
century [5]. The new complex structure replaced the previous, degrading temporary
sarcophagus with more safety and a better environment for continuing cleaning activities.
Regions within the contaminated zone have remained subjected to decontamination and
monitoring for radiation; the ground and soil are freed from highly radiated contamination
so that areas might again become partially serviceable while extreme precautions are
observed.

3. Regulatory Overhauls: The disaster triggered an overall global review of the terms of
nuclear safety. New safety standards were issued by the IAEA, as well as other bodies, in
terms of preventing the same type of accident. This also includes upgraded reactor designs,
stricter operating regulations and upgraded emergency preparedness systems. Other
national regulatory authorities of countries concerned and others beyond have increased

12
 monitoring of nuclear power plants regarding the principles of transparency and safety
culture [6].

Lessons Learned for the Future

1. Reactor Design and Operational Safety: The accident in Chernobyl showed that only those
reactors with sound safety mechanisms and passive safety features could prevent operator
errors from leading to catastrophic failures [4]. Improved designs boast systems that
automatically reduce reactor activity during anomalies, reducing human intervention and
errors.

2. Emergency Preparedness and Response: The disaster highlighted the need for emergency
response systems that would be both effective and transparent. Speedy communication,
preplanned evacuations and timely monitoring of the dose of radiation exposure are now
the cornerstones of nuclear disaster management processes [6]. These measures have been
proposed to safeguard human life and avoid panic in case of emergencies.

3. International Cooperation and Standards: Chernobyl triggered the development of

international safety standards like the Vienna Declaration on Nuclear Safety [5]. These also
resulted in the harmonization of safety standards, sharing information and approaching
disaster management together to bring about an assurance that nuclear safety would be
pursued as a collective duty internationally.

4. Ethical Responsibility and Transparency: The disaster focused attention on what ethical
decisions and choices were needed to prevent such disasters in the future, placing a greater
value on human life without political or economic interests. All governments and public
institutions should disclose any risk in nuclear power openly to ensure better trust and
responsibilities among stakeholders as well as their public [3].

13
Safety Improvements in Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant:

The Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant in Bangladesh features two VVER-1200 reactors, renowned
for their advanced safety systems and robust design. Incorporating passive and active safety
measures, double containment and modern reactivity controls. These reactors address the flaws of
earlier designs like the RBMK-1000, ensuring enhanced reliability and operational safety.

1. Enhanced Safety Systems

○ Active and Passive Measures: The VVER-1200 embodies both active safety
systems, which rely on external power or manual human functions, and passive
safety systems that operate solely on physical principles without requiring electric
power. Their aim is to provide multiple layers of protection in case of accident
conditions [7].
○ Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS): These hydro-accumulators supply
coolant to the reactor core during pressure drops to ensure immediate cooling and
prevent overheating of the core [7].
○ Passive Heat Removal System (PHRS): Uses natural circulation to transfer residual
heat from the reactor core to the atmosphere, ensuring safe cooling during total
power loss [7].
2. Structural Advancements
○ Double Containment Structure: Includes an inner containment to prevent
radioactive leaks and an outer containment to protect against external impacts like
earthquakes [10].
○ Core Catcher: A specialized device beneath the reactor core that contains and cools
molten core material in a meltdown, preventing breaches in containment structures
[10].

3. Reactivity Control
○ Negative Void Coefficient: This reactor design reduces reactivity with increased
steam bubbles, minimizing the risk of power surges. This improvement addresses
the critical flaw in RBMK reactors, which had a positive void coefficient [10].
○ Advanced Control Rods: Made from boron carbide, these rods avoid the graphite-
tipped rod flaws of RBMK reactors, eliminating reactivity spikes during insertion
[10]

14
 4. Operational Safety
○ Redundant Systems: Multiple backup systems for safety purposes guarantee that
most of the indispensable functions will anyway continue even though one system,
in case any fails
○ Advanced Monitoring and Control: Real-time monitoring systems provide
continuous oversight of reactor conditions, allowing immediate action in case of
anomalies [10].
These safety features make the VVER-1200 reactors at Rooppur significantly safer and more
reliable than older designs like the RBMK-1000 used at Chernobyl.

Figure 4: VVER-1200 reactor

15
Reference:

[1] G. Medvedev, The Truth About Chernobyl. Basic Books, 1991.

[2] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-
1. Vienna: IAEA, 1992. [Online]. Available: https://www.iaea.org/publications/3786/the-
chernobyl-accident-updating-of-insag-1.

[3] S. Plokhy, Chernobyl: The History of a Nuclear Catastrophe. Basic Books, 2018.

[4] D. R. Marples, Chernobyl and Nuclear Power in the USSR. Palgrave Macmillan, 1988.

[5] M. Gorbachev, Memoirs: Chernobyl's Aftermath. Penguin Books, 2006.

[6] IAEA, Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-economic Impacts. Vienna:
IAEA, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/chernobyl.pdf.

[7] BCD Urbex, "Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Ukraine," Behind Closed Doors Urban
Exploring,2023.[Online]. https://www.bcd-urbex.com/chernobyl-nuclear-power-plant-ukraine/.

[8] World Nuclear Association, "Chernobyl Accident 1986," 3-Dec-2024. [Online]. Available:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-
accident. .

[9] B. Mercier, D. Yang, Z. Zhuang, and J. Liang, "A simplified analysis of the Chernobyl
accident," EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol., vol. 7, p. 1, Jan. 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348625574_A_simplified_analysis_of_the_Chernobyl_
accident.

[10] Rosatom, "The VVER today: Evolution, Design, Safety," Rosatom State Atomic Energy
Corporation,2020.
https://www.rosatom.ru/upload/iblock/0be/0be1220af25741375138ecd1afb18743.pdf.

16