Talk:Chernobyl New Safe Confinement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NJ151.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
This article really needs more recent sources, I have contacted the EBRD and NRC for more information, and neither group has been particularly helpful, a person local to the area or involved in the design/construction/management of the new shelter would be able to provide the best current information. Even just a recent picture of the site around Unit 4 would shed a lot of light on what the SIP is actually doing there. --Matthew 20:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have substantially expanded the technical aspects of this article, it still needs some pictures, editing, and current information. Perhaps I will have more time later this evening --Matthew 22:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Some pictures are added, as is more information about deconstruction. --Matthew 00:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have mostly finished the article text, it needs to be edited and all of the links need to be fixed. --Matthew 01:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed links, removing tag. Kendrick7 00:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I recently ran across this article regarding the progress in constructing the NSC- Perhaps it is of some use for the article?LondonIce 14:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

too much detail tag
I can see someone has said there is too much detail, but I dont see any comments here in the talk page. I personally dont find the level of detail to be excessive, and I'd be inclined to remove the tag. I think that it may need updated information but I like the content (more or less) Ottawakismet (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No further remarks in last 18 months. Let's do it.  Tag removed. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Utopia?
Do you think this shelter will ever be built? I am afraid the money will never be there for this ambitious project and the original sarcophagus will remain in place until it collapses some 20 years from now. Many dates mentioned in this article have already passed and not a bucket of mud has been moved yet. 195.70.32.136 10:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Being that construction has officially begun for the foundation and superstructure of the NSC, as well as the reinforcement of the old containment structure, I think this point can be removed. Sagath (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

end walls
accroding to the article both end walls will be in place before the structure is moved into its finial position. given this how exactly do they plan to put it over the reactor? Plugwash 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I cant find anywhere in the article that explains how they will do the end walls. Anybody knows? And also, when the stucture has been slid into place, how will they "seal" it to the ground? 192.38.5.154 (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would assume they will do what they can during construction away from the reactor, and whatever remains after the arch is moved into place. At the moment there is also a wall of concrete blocks to dampen radiation; obviously it will have to be dismantled, as well as the trademark vent stack.  As for sealing, the edges of the arch ride through concrete lined trenches; I imagine the trenches will be filled in more or less permanently. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Google Earth?
Perhaps a more recent image from Google Earth would help show this place in perspective

--Psquare 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it is an interesting sight however: Link

Is it needed at all?
The article takes for granted the need to contain Unit 4 within some Confinement, old or new.

But there is opinions, that Shelter does not have any crytical amount of radioactive wastes. Original nuclear blast in bottom part of reactor had vapored and through out most of the reactor, hence only about 10%-20% remains inside.

http://www.lebed.com/2006/art4566.htm In this article a person, participated in managing the Disaster's consequences, tells that the best confinement would be just huge pile of sound, original Shelter wa build only to continue operating of remainging 3 reactors (and was more expensive than building a brand new power plant), same is about new Confinement, which has more sense as financial help to the Ukrainian science, than optimal way to safety. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.249.152.137 (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Yes, it is needed. This confinement isn't just a confinement, it is also a set of cranes that will be used to deconstruct and decontaminate the old shelter. And just in case something goes wrong (as in, unplanned amounts of radiation are discovered), the confinement is there to stop it. — Alex(T 07:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Providing one needs to deconstruct all the Unit 4 and take out all the fuel lava from it. But how reliable is opinion that 90% of fuel stayed within the reactor unit and that nuclear blast thrashed the reactor into the basement, not into the air ? Also i was surprised to see comment from Zappa there - http://www.spaceman.ca/gallery/chernobyl/fruin10m - it is not directly about SNC itself, but rather raises question if SNC is more techical or more financial project
 * There never was a nuclear blast, and a reactor unit isn't exactly something that would just vanish even if an explosion was powerful enough to actually send it flying any significant distance(though an explosion powerful enough to send something so large and heavy flying would more than likely pretty much disintegrate most anything nearby. RealSunner 12:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)RealSunner
 * Yes, it is needed very badly. The initial Sarcophagus is very unstable and with the ageing of the structure, there is an extreme risk of the entire structure collapsing and hurling hundreds of tons of very radioactive dust into the atmosphere. The new shelter will supply a containment for decontamination purposes, and much more importantly, it will supply three extremely versatile cranes to support the unstable structure as it is deconstructed.--Dio1982 13:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the "yes" answers above tell *why* is it needed. The simple truth is, it is needed to consume funds. $1.4 billion dollars are given to us by scared European public?! Oh yeah, I bet the firms which are going to be contracted to do it are more than happy with those money.

The old Sarcophagus is unstable? So fill it with concrete, turn it into an artificial rock monolith. This is technically simple solution, we have hundreds of years of experience of building huge concrete constructs, such as hydroelectric stations.

But nooo, can't do that, that's *too cheap*! We'd build huge cranes ($1.4 billion dollars), then we will sort out and slightly clean up ten thousand tons of dangerously radioactive rubble (billions of dollars), then build a shelter where to store resulting twelve thousand tons of dangerously radioactive rubble (even more billions of dollars), dollars dollars dollars! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.80.244.172 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The opinion you are presenting is biased, at best. You ask *why* to the replies, who back up their points with proven studies and facts, and you refute the arguments presented without any information other then your own beliefs that all this is based on money... Sagath (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, phlease. I am an Ukrainian. I know how my government operates. And I am sure French and other European firms are more than happy to play along. Be my guest. Go to Google maps and find Chernobyl NPP. Do you see any shreds of New Safe Confinement? Anything at all? I don't see it, and it's 25-10-2011. How come so super-duper-urgent structure "originally planned to be in place by 2005" is not being built by the end of 2011? In which case it makes more sense - if this structure is REALLY needed, or if the people in charge of its feasibility study, design, review, contract bids, under-the-carpet machinations and kickbacks, redesign, re-review, contract re-bids (repeat ad nauseum) are collectively receiving their hundreds of millions of dollars per year without actually doing anything - and thus ensuring that super-duper-urgent structure is still super-duper urgently needed, and money flow for it is not drying out?
 * Sad for you, but the confinement structure was built, is in place and has cost billions of rubles.

StuZealand (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Use of the term "Design Basis Accident"
The term Design Basis Accident is used by the US NRC, however I do not believe that the Soviet Regulatory authority used this term or the concept of a DBA. Is the term "Design Basis Accident" appropriate in this context?Jkrellenstein 01:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good catch. We should at least explain specifically what it means, if we do retain it. &mdash;BurnDownBabylon 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What does it mean? 192.38.5.154 (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Repairing has started says russian newspaper
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080304/100599299.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tronza (talk • contribs) 12:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
this article seriously needs some pictures hornplayer2 (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Chernobyl25 site has some great ones that can be worked in to the article. I'll try to do so when I get some time, unless someone beats me to it? http://chernobyltwentyfive.org/image Sagath (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ukritiye International
References this group were added on 17 July by without any sources. A google search for this group turns up nothing except references back to this Wikipedia article and others updated by the same anonymous user. I suggest undoing the changes if no supporting sources can be found. Similar edits were also made to Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant‎ and New Safe Confinement. -- Tcncv (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Updates?
Is there any information on whether this has been completed by now? 142.204.16.10 (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have updated the construction status, and timelines to completion as of the most recent info (8 Apr 11) I could locate as of today. Also, I think the timeline area could use some work. Is it really necessary to keep the old outdated build status, rather then just stating that the project is/was delayed multiple times? Sagath (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a small amount of condensing just now. I left the original steps in place, since they convey what will be done and how long the different steps are expected to take, which might help give some feeling for when the real completion date might be given the various slips.
 * I also left in some of the twists and turns the project has taken, since they still form part of the story of how the project has gotten to where it is today.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"2. An arch fitted snugly over the damaged reactor (minus its chimney)."

I wonder how much they would want for the chimney. It has made the look of the reactor building iconic and would be a pretty cool memento....—An Sealgair (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * At this point the first half of the shell has been constructed and moved towards the reactor. The second half is about 2/3s done.  When they are done they will be mated, and a lot of internal work done (mounting cranes and such), then they will be slid over the #4 reactor ares and the ends finished to seal the shelter.  The chimney, fairly highly contaminated, is being removed.  A "Chernobyl cam" is located at http://www.chnpp.gov.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=230&Itemid=101&lang=en SkoreKeep (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The second of three "liftings" of the western arch was completed on August 4, 2014. The view in the cam is noticeably different; it is looking through the completed and parked eastern arch to the west. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Third lifting completed in November, 2014. It looks good for the proposed move of the combined arch over the reactor next summer. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Obviously bitter none-neutral commentary?
The text in the section headed "International Competition" seems to be rather bitter in tone that us poor Brits got left out after coming up with such a wonderful plan. Perhaps it needs a bit of tidying up. It's certainly someone's personal view and nothing more. Chulk607 (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

British add-ons to design section
88.104.85.75 has made the point that the history of the sliding design should be further explicated, and proceeds to add paragraphs about the British design. I whole-heartedly bolster his rationale, but without documentation it, unfortunately, won't fly; there's just too much open space for conjecture, as well as just flat being against the rules for any encyclopedia. I'd leave it for perhaps a week, requesting that he gentleman pony up some references which back up the story, and remove the opening rationale paragraph for something more straight-forward. Being an engineer myself, I'm well aware of the sorts of emotions winning/loosing a major contract can engender (let alone an international one, which I never had to go through), and I also know that lots of really interesting details about design get lost in the mash. I encourage him to back up the story, because I too don't want the history lost. Their paragraph:

"Currently the containment arch for the damaged nuclear power station at Chernobyl is under construction. This has led to more articles and papers about the arch in addition to those already described in this feature. However, in all cases no mention is made about the origin of the sliding arch concept, although some do allude to the international competition of 1992/1993."

(Sorry for bumping in above the German comment below; I thought these two comments needed to be together.) SkoreKeep (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well, someone else objected, and they're history. Hopefully the next try will be documented. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Starting point for German version
This article could be a good starting point for a more up to date german article:

http://www.faz.net/artikel/C30950/reaktorruinen-kehraus-nach-der-kernschmelze-30334612.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.78.103.19 (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chernobyl New Safe Confinement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724123431/http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1208978222.51/ to http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1208978222.51/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chernobyl New Safe Confinement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110720161210/http://www.delukr.ec.europa.eu/press_releases.html?id=47113 to http://www.delukr.ec.europa.eu/press_releases.html?id=47113

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

euro-dollar-conversion issue
It says in the article "€2.15 billion (US$3.09 billion)". That section was added on 26 March 2015. According to http://www.x-rates.com/historical/?from=USD&amount=1&date=2015-03-26 the Euro:Dollar rate that day was 1.091951. Neither then nor today does it make any sense that there's almost a 3:2 ratio between those two currencies. What gives? 2003:8C:4F25:52F7:B595:9FE2:F5F:811F (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Chernobyl New Safe Confinement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002175055/http://www.bouygues.com/document/?f=press-room/en/bouyguesconstruction_chernobylsarcophagus_17092007_us.pdf to http://www.bouygues.com/document/?f=press-room/en/bouyguesconstruction_chernobylsarcophagus_17092007_us.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120100343/http://bigstory.ap.org:80/article/first-section-new-shelter-chernobyl-ready to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/first-section-new-shelter-chernobyl-ready
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708142609/http://www.chernobylee.com/blog/2010/02/chernobyl-new-safe-confinement.php to http://www.chernobylee.com/blog/2010/02/chernobyl-new-safe-confinement.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110918032131/http://www.ebrd.com:80/pages/news/press/2011/110408e.shtml to http://www.ebrd.com/pages/news/press/2011/110408e.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It was planned for when?
Comes 101.174.157.104 changing the date of completion from "it is 2017" to "it was 2016". The two pre-existing citations (web page references only to the European Bank website) say "November 2017" in one place, and then in another: "In 2009, planned completion was projected for 2012; the same year, progress was made with stabilization of the existing sarcophagus, which was then considered stable enough for another 15 years. On February 2010 the reported completion date of the NSC was pushed back to 2013.[12] As of April 2011, the estimated completion date has been updated to Summer 2015.[3] In November 2016, the planned completion date was stated as November 2017." No mention anywhere of a 2016 completion date. The change was probably true at some point, but that fact is not very enlightening, and is not backed by references. The currently published date is relatively much more important, and is backed up.
 * While the NSC was moved into its final location in November 2016, there's still additional work that is going on that expected to be complete by the end of 2017. Their website states the following:
 * Chernobyl’s giant New Safe Confinement (NSC) was moved over a distance of 327 metres from its assembly point to its final resting place, completely enclosing a previous makeshift shelter that was hastily assembled immediately after the 1986 accident. The equipment in the New Safe Confinement will now be connected to the new technological building which will serve as a control room for future operations inside the arch. The New Safe Confinement will be sealed off from the environment hermetically. Finally, after intensive testing of all equipment and commissioning, handover of the New Safe Confinement to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant administration is expected in November 2017.
 * Hope this clears it up. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Works for me. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chernobyl New Safe Confinement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bouygues.com/document/?f=press-room%2Fen%2Fbouyguesconstruction_chernobylsarcophagus_17092007_us.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://bigstory.ap.org/article/first-section-new-shelter-chernobyl-ready
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ebrd.com/pages/news/press/2011/110408e.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212025937/http://new.chnpp.gov.ua/eng/articles.php?lng=en&pg=80 to http://new.chnpp.gov.ua/eng/articles.php?lng=en&pg=80
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060513195855/http://www.ebrd.com/projects/psd/psd1998/4807.htm to http://www.ebrd.com/projects/psd/psd1998/4807.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Updates and new source
Hello, all,

I made some edits to reflect the (for the most part) completion of the NSC implementation. I added an article from PRI as source for the implementation of the project. Let me know what you think and please feel free to contact me with ways I can improve my edits. Thanks, --Ontheroad1957 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I covered it in my edit statement, but the exterior of the structure had finished construction and was moved into place in November of 2016, but there was still additional work to be done on the inside. See this article for more info. It states the arch reached its final resting place but that there was more to do. The opening line of that article states:
 * Further on, it states:
 * Let me know if you have any other questions. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chernobyl New Safe Confinement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.chnpp.gov.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=417%2F
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302231841/http://www.chnpp.gov.ua/ to http://www.chnpp.gov.ua/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The world?
From the Design & construction section: "Since the competition, the world has adopted the sliding arch concept but it now has members supporting a dismantling crane which was not a requirement for the 1992 competition."

I'm kind of baffled by this sentence, which comprises its own paragraph. Who is "the world"? Why do its "members" support a "dismantling crane" and why? When did this adoption happen? Where did this information come from? Does anyone mind if I just delete it? Liv * 18:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, does not make much sense to me and is unreferenced. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Liv * 17:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

SI units only
For style and readability, I've removed the convert tag from most units of length in order to keep the article metric-only, as the article subject matter is set in a country that only uses SI units of measurement.

Alternately, if this were a non-scientific article about anything in the United States, then U.S. cusomary units can be used, along with the convert template for readers from all countries of the world, and not just people from the U.S. - Mardus /talk 06:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Isn't the dimensions of the shelter as important to the readers in the US as it is to, say, Brazilians?  Why is it a necessity to delete information from the article only because that information is only of use of the country that made a major, perhaps the largest, contribution to the completion of the shelter?  Is there some particular reason for this, beyond the fact that it streamlines the reading of the article for those who don't need that information?  I fully agree that metric ought to be universal, but the fact is it is not yet, and the conversion macro is there to be used. SkoreKeep (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I also think that deletion is misguided. And I don't see this is necessarily a "scientific article". Where and how is that defined? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Infographic
Seems to me this fancy infographic is not very informative, and in fact is in error in at least one respect. The cost of the project was approximately 2 billion dollars/euros; the infographic states 2.+ million euros. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would add it shows the old removed vent stack rather than the newer added one, and it shows the other stack on the property leaning at an absurd angle - twice.  I see someone removed it. SkoreKeep (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * New Safe Confinement March 2016.jpg
 * New Safe Confinement at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant October 2016 1.jpg
 * New Safe Confinement at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant October 2016 2.jpg
 * New-safe-confinement-April-2015-IMG 8575.jpg
 * New-safe-confinement-April-2015-IMG 8747.jpg

High-strength steel
The new containment structure is described as being built of "high-strength steel," yet the yield strength quoted is only normal 36 ksi steel - which is rarely used nowadays, supplanted by stronger 50 ksi steel. Are there any sources for this, or for the many other unsourced assertions in the article?  Acroterion   (talk)   19:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

‎Russian invasion of Ukraine section
I've WP:BOLDly removed the "‎Russian invasion of Ukraine" section. It didn't seem to contain any content specific to the New Safe Confinement, only to the Chernobyl site in general; and that content is much better covered at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, and easier to keep updated in one place. Happy to discuss, but there didn't seem much purpose to this section as it stood. Obviously if the New Safe Confinement was specifically affected by the invasion, that should be in the article. TSP (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and added a small amount in the status part of the timeline about the Russian invasion. I tried to make it related to the NSC, but if it doesn't fit in the article, feel free to get rid of it. Cerluean (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * NSC Sept 2017.jpg