Ukrainian firefighters tried to extinguish the flames for days, but to no avail. According to the Environment Ministry, radioactive contamination levels are within normal limits.
The reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which exploded in 1986, is covered by a protective shell made of steel and concrete. Photo: dpa
Berlin Taz | Ukrainian firefighters have been unable to extinguish the fire in the Chernobyl protected area for six days. On Saturday evening, the Ukrainian Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources reported on its Internet portal that 2,600 hectares were burning.
Just two days ago, the Ministry of Health said 550 hectares had been damaged by the fire. According to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, 561 rescue workers and 141 fire trucks are currently in operation. Everyone is wearing breathing apparatus. According to the Ministry of Environment, landmines are making the firefighting process more difficult. Four explosive devices have been defused by military pyrotechnicians.
At the same time, the Defense Ministry reported that the level of radioactive contamination is within the normal range. There is probably no place in Ukraine where the potential source of nuclear hazard is more concentrated than in the safe zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The hazardous materials are not only stored in the damaged reactor.
At the time of the disaster in April 1986, there were 190 tons of nuclear fuel there. In 2019, the reactor was covered with a new protective shell weighing 36,000 tons and costing 2.2 billion euros. It is said that the reactor will no longer pose a risk for the next 100 years.
Radiation vehicle
In the village of Buryakovka, abandoned after the accident and located 12 km from the reactor, decommissioned and contaminated vehicles and equipment used immediately after the 1986 accident lie in the open. The “Vector complex” is located 11 km from the reactor. It is an above-ground storage facility for solid low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste from all over Ukraine. And less than 5 km from the reactor, the above-ground Fidlisny storage facility, built by the American company Holtec International, contains spent fuel from all Ukrainian nuclear power plants.
The turning point in the Chernobyl zone was the temporary occupation of the Russian army from February 24 to April 2, 2022. During this period, the Russian army stole equipment, hardware and special equipment. In early June 2022, the Ukrainian Exclusion Zone Administration estimated the damage at $135 million.
Oleksandr Kharchenko, head of the Ukrainian Energy Research Center, sees the largely unprotected switchgear of Ukrainian nuclear power plants as the Achilles heel of the Ukrainian energy sector. “If at least one of the plants breaks down at sub-zero temperatures, let alone at sub-zero temperatures, we will be in a very difficult situation,” he was quoted as saying by Ukrainian TV channel TSN. According to TSN, Russian propagandists are already talking about nuclear power plant switchgear as the next target of Russian aggression.
But it is not only direct attacks on nuclear power plants that can lead to a nuclear disaster. In a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in late August, the Ukrainian mission warned of further Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy networks, which also threaten radiation safety.
“Considerable risk”
In late August, the reactors at the Rivne nuclear power plant were abruptly shut down due to “grid fluctuations” caused by a Russian attack. The article went on to say that the Russian attack posed a “significant risk” to the stable operation of Ukrainian nuclear facilities and, as a result, threatened the safety of millions of people.
There are also concerns in Russia that Ukraine will attack the Russian nuclear industry. Russian media reported that Rosatom Director General Alexei Likhachev said after meeting with IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi in Kaliningrad that “Chernobyl will look like a warm-up compared to what would happen if the RBMK-1000 reactor was attacked.” The fact that Russia could reduce the risk by shutting down the Kursk reactor did not seem to be taken into account.
