Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70017463

Observations on the geology and geohydrology of the Chernobyl' nuclear accident site, Ukraine

J.R. Matzko·D.J. Percious·J. Rachlin·D.R. Marples
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The most higly contaminated surface areas from cesium-137 fallout from the April 1986 accident at the Chernobyl' nuclear power station in Ukraine occur within the 30-km radius evacuation zone set up around the station, and an 80-km lobe extending to the west-southwest. Lower levels of contamination extend 300 km to the west of the power station. The deposition of this radioactive dust on the surface and the subsequent entombment of the damaged reactor effectively result in the de facto establishment of an above-ground nuclear waste storage site. This site is located on a thick sedimentary sequence of loose, mostly clastic deposits, with a shallow (generally 3-5 m) water table. The geology, the presence of surface water, a shallow water table, and leaky aquifers at depth make this an unfavorable environment for the long-term containment and storage of the radioactive debris. An understanding of the general geology and hydrology of the area is important to assess the environmental impact of this unintended waste storage site, and to evaluate the potential for radionuclide migration through the soil and rock and into subsurface aquifers and nearby rivers.

Explore related subjects

International Geology ReviewArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J.R. Matzko, D.J. Percious, J. Rachlin, D.R. Marples. 2010-07-06. Observations on the geology and geohydrology of the Chernobyl' nuclear accident site, Ukraine. https://doi.org/10.1080/00206819409465456

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2025

Did the Aleutian Basin form by plate capture or backarc basin opening?

The origin of the Aleutian Basin is unresolved because its crust is deeply buried beneath sediments. It has been interpreted as forming in the Eocene when the Beringian convergent margin jumped seaward to south of the Aleutian arc, thereby capturing a large sector of Cretaceous Pacific crust. Alternatively, it may have formed by backarc spreading. We present new magnetic and seismic reflection data compilations and review other pertinent data to evaluate these two possibilities. Arguments for entrapment are: 1) Palaeomagnetic and geologic data document that the Aleutian arc formed approximately in place and as a seaward, on-strike continuation of the Alaska Peninsula; 2) basin-central spreading anomalies trend N-S, normal to the Aleutian arc and exhibit amplitudes and lengths typically formed at mid-ocean ridges; 3) seismic reflection profiles document that cross-basin depositional sequences are like those expected of filling a fixed-width basin. Arguments for a backarc spreading origin include: 1) The perpendicular orientation of magnetic anomalies in the Aleutian Basin and the northern Pacific Plate suggest different origins; 2) the sub-parallel orientation of Aleutian Basin spreading magnetic fabric and Palaeogene rift basins on the Bering Shelf suggest a common extensional regime; 3) thinner continental crust beneath outer-shelf basins is consistent with extension; 4) lineated magnetic fabrics on the margins of the basin are similar to early rifting magnetic fabrics found in other backarc basins; 5) basin heat flow is consistent with Palaeogene seafloor spreading; 6) its marginal basin setting is analogous to marginal basins elsewhere that formed by extension and seafloor spreading, not entrapment; and 7) entrapment requires formation of the Aleutian subduction zone by transference, a mode of subduction initiation that has not yet been documented. We present evidence for both interpretations and underscore the need for continued data collection (e.g. scientific drilling) to test competing hypotheses. Similar approaches may be useful for understanding thickly sedimented marginal basins elsewhere.

Alaska↗
USGS2023

U-Pb zircon ages and Lu-Hf isotope systematics across northwestern Mexico: Implications for Cretaceous to Paleocene tectonomagmatic evolution during Farallon subduction

This study presents U-Pb zircon ages and Lu-Hf zircon isotope data for Cretaceous-Paleocene plutonic rocks along a W-E transect in northwestern Mexico. These data are combined with tectonic reconstruction that restores Late Cenozoic extensional deformation and shows the position of magmatism at 36 Ma. Zircon U-Pb ages results span from 142 to 58 Ma and demonstrate that the continental arc migrated northeastward at 1–2.5 km/Myr. These rates are slower than previously interpreted, but consistent with landward arc migration rates observed in the Andes. Weighted mean initial epsilon hafnium εHf( t ) values of plutonic rocks along the transect range from + 8.8 to −9.1. The heterogeneity in the zircon εHf( t ) is spatially related to the pre-Cretaceous basement provinces that the intrusive rocks were emplaced into. Zircon εHf( t ) values of western Baja California display positive values ranging from + 8.8 to + 2.6 suggesting they were formed from a moderately depleted mantle and were emplaced into the Guerrero-Alisitos-Vizcaino terrane. Zircon εHf( t ) values in the eastern part of Baja California and most of Sonora are heterogeneous ranging between −0.7 and −9.1 and may be formed from a relatively slightly more evolved mantle source and end up more evolved after crustal assimilation of metasediments. Zircon εHf( t ) values ranging from + 8.7 to + 2.9 in Chihuahua are consistent with a depleted-mantle derived melt and assimilation of Grenville lithospheric province. Our results highlight how Hf isotopic signatures help to constrain the pre-Cretaceous basement configuration in northwestern Mexico despite the few exposed outcrops along the transect.

northwestern Mexico↗
USGS2021

Comment on ‘New insights on Franciscan Complex geology, architecture, depositional age, and provenance for the western Mt. Tamalpais area, Marin County, California’ by Bero et al. (2020)

Serious errors and inconsistencies in the article undermine many of its interpretations to the point that principal conclusions are not valid. Much dependence is placed on the maximum depositional age (Dmax) of sandstone units based on zircon analysis of 10 samples, but calculation of those Dmax values is flawed, and their use confuses maximum with actual depositional ages and makes age distinctions finer than the resolution of the data. Conclusions that are compromised include the concept of a westward/downward-younging tectonostratigraphic stack of accretionary units, comparison of mapped sandstones with other California Coast Ranges sandstones, comparison of timing of events recorded in the map area with regional events, identification of mélange only in a narrow band in the study area, and detrital provenance of some of the sandstone units.

California↗