From Archives of VUChK-GPU-NKVD-KGB
Chernobyl Tragedy in Documents and Materials(Summary)
Volodymyr Tykhyy

General overview of the book
The book "From archives of VUChK-GPU-NKVD-KGB. Chernobyl tragedy in documents andmaterials" (Z arhiviv VUCHK-GPU-NKVD-KGB. Chornobylska tragedia v dokumentakh ta materialakh,№1(16) 2001) was published by the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) in 2001. SSU is a naturalcontinuation of the Soviet KGB (Committee of the State Security of the USSR), so SSU inherited KGB
archives and disclosed some documents when the appropriate legislation was passed by the Parliament of
Ukraine beginning in 1994 with the Law "On State Secrets". It is essential to note that on 10 December
2005 the book was also posted on the web-site of the SSU(http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=39296&cat_id=46616).
KGB is a unique source of information, because it worked "across the lines": it was subordinated neither
to nuclear industry nor to army generals; it supervised activities of industry, government and municipal
authorities, construction companies and cooperative shops alike. KGB officers collected information fromall sources they deemed reliable, they often were able to cross-check it and then to present to higher levelsof hierarchy - in KGB, Communist Party, Government of Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. So, thisinformation contained quite reliable facts, which were formulated without flatter - moreover, it was either"secret" or "top secret". Unfortunately, this does not mean that their reports were given any special
attention - the system had its own inertia, and KGB was an integral part of the system. This is especiallywell illustrated by the case of Chernobyl nuclear accident of 9 September 1982, which is well represented
in the published documents.
In fact, the book is an encyclopedia of everyday technical, professional, social life of Chernobyl NPP
before and after the accident of 1986, and that is why it is difficult to make a summary of it. The bookperhaps deserves a careful translation with necessary comments, to serve as a source of very importantlessons. It should be remembered, however, that the selection of documents was made by KGB itself andthus they might not represent a whole picture.
The book (400 pages with 17 photographs) consists of Introduction, Preface, 121 documents (mainly
information communications) of different KGB units and 5 memoirs of participants of the liquidation ofChernobyl catastrophe. Of 121 published documents, 20 are of pre-disaster period, and 101 cover period
from 26 April 1986 - 6 December 1988. Original KGB documents are in Russian, while other materials
and comments in the book are in Ukrainian.
This summary is based on internet version of the book. For convenience, documents were grouped
according to their dates and main topics. Two most representative documents were translated to give areader first-hand feeling of wording and style.

- 252 -

Summary of Introduction and Preface
Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant named after V.I.Lenin, as an industrial object of strategic importance, wasunder the permanent supervision of KGB organs from the first day of its construction. In the process ofregular investigations by the KGB personnel in the pre-disaster period numerous facts were revealed ofbad construction work quality, supply of faulty equipment, violation of technical rules of operation,
violation of fire and radiation protection rules. Reports on these cases were presented to the managementof the Chernobyl NPP and highest party (Communist Party - VT) and government authorities of the
Ukrainian SSR and former USSR.
Already at 2:30 am on 26 April 1986, after the message about explosion and subsequent fire on Chernobyl
NPP was received, investigators from KGB of Ukrainian SSR were dispatched to the city of Pripiat andChernobyl NPP. On the same day the accident on the NPP was reported to the high command of KGB of
USSR.
During first five years after the accident 1,500 officers of KGB of Ukrainian SSR and hundreds of KGB
officers from other republics of USSR participated in investigation of causes and the work on liquidationof the consequences of the disaster.
Specific feature of the documents of the soviet secret services related to the Chernobyl catastrophe is thatthey present a complex picture, unlike materials of other government agencies that are concentrated on
narrow special issues. This allows for producing a rather full and systematic analysis of all spectrum ofChernobyl problems.
In preparation of this special edition (of Archives of KGB - VT), the most characteristic and informational
deep documents were selected. They provide integral picture not only about pre-conditions, circumstancesand consequences of the accident, but also about problems and mistakes during localization andliquidation of the consequences of the accident.
Documents are presented in chronological order covering the period from 1971 to 1988.
Summary of documents: Pre-disaster period
Technical characteristics and faults of the design of RBMK reactor
In September 1971, when the decision to build the Chernobyl NPP with two units was made, KGB
prepared information memo on the design of the plant and reactors (Document 1). Information was basedon materials of the Ministry of Energy of Ukraine, however, it is not clear to whom this memo was
submitted.
Apart from providing general technical data, the document tried to analyze the safety issues of reactors,
and mentioned several drawbacks and weak points (like accidents with break of main pipelines).
Concluding paragraphs of the document are very important because they show that Ukrainian authorities
did not have necessary information and capacity to control the situation:"This is a brief summary (based on the experience of use of Soviet reactors and found in open
published materials) of the radiation safety issues of NPP. More detailed information, including
safety regulations, organization of operation and requirements to the personnel is in the disposition ofGlavatomenergo of the Ministry of Energy of the USSR and other specialized organizations. The- 253 -

Ministry of Energy of Ukraine does not have other information and does not have experience of
operation of nuclear power plants".
After four years of operation, insufficient reliability of control equipment became clear. The summary waspresented by Kyiv oblast KGB Department to KGB of Ukraine in the memo of 16 October 1981
(Document 8).
"During the period of operation 1977-1981 there were 29 emergency shut downs, for 8 of them
personnel was responsible, and other were due to technical reasons... Investigation shows that control
equipment does not meet the requirements for reliability due at the nuclear power plant... The issue
was several times brought to the attention of "Soyuzatomenergo" and design institute "Hydroproekt",but it is not resolved yet... In the system of control rods logical schemes, as well as relay andcontactors are of low reliability, and this caused emergency shutdowns in 1979 and 1981".
In a special information of October 1984 (Document 17, entitled "Main engineering and technical faults ofChernobyl NPP units, resulting from design"), a summary of problems was reported to the KGB of
Ukrainian SSR.
"In the process of counterintelligence measures... we conducted analysis of the reliability of the workof Chernobyl NPP... The first and second units are less reliable in terms of environmental safety,
because in case of the break of main pipelines with diameter more than 300 mm, the systems ofemergency shutdown and safety will not secure localization of cooler, and this will lead to radioactive
contamination of the area...
The system of cooling of main circulation pumps is insufficient (lower than norms by approximately
39 %)... The designer (Hydroproekt Institute) was notified on this after the analysis of experience
with unit 1, but even on units 5 and 6 that are now under construction, these comments are not taken
into account...
Because these and similar problems can lead to emergency situations, we officially notified the
management of the Chernobyl NPP in August, with a recommendation to tackle these faults. Until
now, necessary measures have not been implemented".
Problems encountered during construction period of Chernobyl NPP
There were numerous reports by different KGB departments on unsatisfactory quality of design ofChernobyl NPP units, as well as the quality of construction works. Altogether, 7 documents from 1976 1986 are published. These reports were submitted to higher levels of KGB and to the Ukrainian State andParty authorities. Often the reported faults were howling.
KGB reported of the bad quality of welding on main pipelines, which anyway were accepted and installed(Document 2, 1976), of faulty equipment supplied by numerous factories from all over the USSR. There
were permanent violations of technical rules during concrete works, roofing, welding. On 17 January 1979,a special memo on violations during construction works was submitted to the Central Committee of theCommunist Party of Ukraine (Document 3). Not only Soviet, but also other suppliers shipped faulty
equipment, like Yugoslav companies which supplied pipes and steam separators (Document 15, 9 January1984).
Some violation demonstrated negligence of technical requirements: during construction of unit 5, insteadof small rock fraction 5-20 mm, a fraction 20-40 mm was used, and this did not allow filling of
reinforcement of the floor/ceiling (which had to carry 1000 tons of equipment - steam separators). The- 254 -

problem was uncovered in time, but hundreds of square meters of concrete had to be replaced (Document
20, 26 February 1986).
Nuclear accident of 9 September 1982 at reactor # 1
On 10 September 1982, a report of KGB Department in Kyiv and Kyiv oblast was submitted to KGB of
Ukraine and USSR about the nuclear accident at reactor # 1 of Chernobyl NPP: rupture of one of 1640
technological channels. KGB reported that there was no contamination of the plant and that estimated 5days are needed for repair (Document 9).
In the next document more full and severe picture of the accident appears. Already on 13 September(Document 10) detailed technical information was presented: channel's stainless steel pipe, diameter 88
mm with walls 4 mm broke up at the depth 9.6 m from the top, and graphite blocks near the rupture were
washed out by water and steam, to the diameter of 170 mm and surface area 660-670 mm. Fuel waswashed into this hole. Estimated time needed for repair - 10 days.
"According to the statement of Director of NPP Briukhanov and Chief Engineer Akinfiev, zirconium
casing of the fuel was not destroyed, so there was no radioactive contamination of technologicalchambers".
High levels of radioactive contamination inside the reactor building and around it were reported 14
September (Document 11, 12). It was also reported that fuel was sucked into the washed out hole during
repair works. Gamma-level in some chambers of gas contour and drainage systems was 1000
microroentgens/sec. Radioactive aerosols were also released through ventilation stack, and gamma-levels
on the surface near the station in some point were 0.01-0.02 microrem/sec. "Administration of the NPP
started decontamination measures (concrete and asphalt surfaces are covered with soil, leaves etc.)"
The full picture of the consequences of the accident was reported to the Head of the KGB of Ukraine on
30 October 1982 (Documents 13), and subsequently to the First Secretary of the Communist Party of
Ukraine. These reports were based on the findings of commissions, organized by the nuclear industry(including specialists from Chernobyl and Pripiat, as well as from Moscow institutes) and of Academy of
Science of Ukrainian SSR, created by the decision of the Minister of Energy of UkrSSR V.Skliarov.
Commission of nuclear industry investigated radioactive contamination near the plant itself and in sanitary
protection zone of NPP (3 km radius) and observed zone (35 km radius). The distance of pollution reached
5 km from the stack of the plant in S-SW direction and 14 km in the N-NE direction. As of 10 September,levels of radiation in the sanitary-protection zone varied between 0-03 microrem/sec. By 25 October, thelevels of radiation dropped by 1.8 times. Various fission nuclides were detected in samples, and iodine
was detected in the air at the levels of 10-14 Ci/l.
The conclusion of the Commission states, that"the radioactivity of air and the density of radioactive depositions as of 25 October does not differ
from parameters, characteristic for the normal regime of exploitation of NPP (during repair works onunit 1 and operation of two other units at full capacity). Radionuclides were not detected in discharge
water and in cooling lagoon".
On contaminated territory in S-SW direction "hot" particles were detected, with activity between 5*10-8
and 2*10-7 Ci. Uranium was identified in these particles.
The Commission concluded that there is no need for implementation of measures, envisaged by the"Temporary guidelines... for protection of population in case of nuclear accidents" approved 18.12.80.

- 255 -

The group of scientists from the laboratory of biophysics of the Institute of Nuclear Research of the
Academy of Science of UkrSSR came to somewhat different conclusions. They measured the betaactivities of soil samples, which was between 2.6*10-9 to 2.23*10-7. Fission radionuclides, as well as
products of activation were detected in these same samples. Near Chistogalovka village , located at 5 km
from NPP in S-SW direction hot particles were registered, with activities up to 10-7 Ci, which is hundredof times higher than permissible levels. Radioactivity caused by the accident and the following
desactivation was registered in the cooling lagoon and bottom sediments. In the opinion of thiscommission, hot particles could lead to serious, even lethal consequences. This requires further analysis
and decisions regarding liquidation of "hot" particles, and this decision depends on the 3rd Main
Directorate of the Ministry of Health of the USSR.
Members of the Commission reported that their findings would be presented through the Minister ofEnergy and the President of the Academy to the Central Committee of CP of Ukraine and the Council of
Ministers of Ukraine.
Similar report was indeed submitted to the First Secretary of the Central Committee of CP Ukraine
V.Scherbytsky on 5 November 1982 as "top secret", "personally". It was added that "situation at the power
plant and the vicinity is normal, no facts of panic and rumors".
Another report of October 1984 (Document 17) provided still more details:"The reason for disaster was an overheating of the channel due to insufficient flow of cooling water.
During the accident a large volume of water (more than 200 tons) permeated the graphite core of thereactor".

Summary of documents: Post-disaster period
Catastrophe of 26 April 1986 and it's immediate consequences
First report about the explosion was filed already on 26 April (Document 21). Other reports describe
radiological situation around the stricken power plant, in nearby towns and villages, inform about
evacuation measures:
Several reports mention radioactive contamination of food products, recommendations for handling
contaminated food and other practical problems. In Kyiv, 4 samples of bread baked on two bakeries (#2
and #7) were contaminated to the levels of 5.9*10-8 Ci/kg - 8.8*10-8 Ci/kg. This happened apparently due
to use of whey in leaven (Document 39, 28 May 1986). Document 30 reports about the absence of reliabledosimentric devices in civil defense system, and ignorance of population on radiation protection issues.
During all period represented in the book, reports provide detailed information on the levels of radiation,
like"Situation with radioactivity levels remains stable. The level of radiation at the site of NPP is 0.5-1000
roentgen/hour, in the zone of lean-up 1.4-200 roentgen/hour, in the city of Prypiat 0.2 roentgen/hour, in
Chernobyl 6 miliroentgen/hour, at the boundary of the 30-km zone 8 miliroentgen/hour" (Document 34,
15 May 1986).
In later reports the data on levels of radiation become more detailed - obviously because the number andaccuracy of measurements improved.

- 256 -

Reports on liquidation measures and encountered problems
Already on 5 May emergency works for protection of river Pripiat from contamination were started construction of 6 dikes. 120,000 sq.m of film and liquid glass for desactivation were received. 100 miners
started digging the tunnel under the damaged reactor (Document 28).
Many documents provide evidence of the bad organization of work in the exclusion zone. Stations ofsanitary treatment of wastes and contaminated clothes were not operational, personnel not trained,
wastewater discharged in surface water without treatment (Document 32, 12 May 1986). Workers drafted
for work in the zone were not informed about radiation levels, terms and conditions of their work,transportation and living conditions were bad. This led to complaints from the workers (Document 33, 13
May 1986).
Tens of reports mention cases of negligent and irresponsible behavior of workers. "Miners and militarymen do not use individual protection measures, they receive exposure that is not caused by work need,
they rest near contaminated machinery and inside of it, do not keep up to hygiene rules. This leads to early
overexposure" (Document 37, 22 May 1986). But there were also problems with supply: "... plutonium
concentrations exceed the permissible level by 1000 times. This requires use of gas masks, but until now
responsible ministries have not provided their personnel with necessary protective equipment" (Document41, 1 June 1986).
"For liquidation of the consequences of the Chernobyl NPP disaster, by the order of the Minister ofDefense of the USSR 94 military units were mobilized and stationed in the area... These include
regular military, civil defense, chemical defense, medical, engineering units, land-forces and aviation,with total number of 32,329 men" (Document 46, June 1986).
These troops and servicemen not always were used efficiently. Many were drafted without explanations
and consent, were not told they will serve in Chernobyl zone. Some appeared to be unfit for the work,some were over 45 years old, some were ill. Hundreds had to be sent back home. Many received doses
higher than permissible. There were cases of short hunger strikes (Document 51, 4 July 1986 and otherdocuments).
Some decisions by the State Commission were highly controversial, like the decision to restart unit 3 of
the NPP. Many specialists express their objections (see translated Document 75, 1 February 1987 in the
Annex). By the end of May 1987, desactivation of the Unit 3 was not completed, e.g. "radiation levels atwhere cables need to be replaced are quite high - up to 1 Roentgen/hour, on the other hand, it is necessary
to remove by hacking about 1000 m3 of contaminated concrete..." (Document 83, 4 June 1987).
KGB was also concerned with technical problems of the "Shelter". Many details were unclear, e.g.
specialists of the Academy of Science of Ukraine estimated that 6 % of fuel were released from thedamaged reactor, while specialists of the Minsredmash opined for release of 30 to 50 %. This madedecisions difficult (Document 108, 2 April 1988). The problem of radioactive waste remained serious aswell:" - there are two operational PZRO (repositories for radioactive wastes):
1. "Buriakovka" for wastes up to 5 Roentgen/hour. Design capacity 450,000 m3. There are altogether
30 trenches, of which 14 filled.
2. "Podlesnyi" - for radioactive wastes 5-250 Roentgen/hour. Altogether 8 vaults 50x28x8 meters...
Vaults 1 and 2 are partially filled.
- 257 -

- there are 8 temporary repositories, where radioactive wastes were stored during first months after theaccident;- more that 200 sites where various buildings, materials, contaminated soil etc. are buried.
Some specialists express opinion that temporary repositories are below critic from the point of view of
construction norms. Clay lining on some of these storages can fail to work ling before the guaranteed
term, and that will lead to filtration of radioactively contaminated water into natural aquifers"(Document 120, 9 November 1988)".
Technical problems of nuclear industry in Ukraine
Chernobyl nuclear accident highlighted many problems of insufficient safety of nuclear industry. KGB
paid a lot of attention to this - tens of published documents deal with these issues.
Investigation of preparedness for nuclear accidents revealed big gaps. At Zaporizha NPP:"...the stock of iodine medicines was sufficient only for personnel of NPP (for two days instead of 10,
as required), and there was no such stock of medicines for NPP construction workers, citizens ofEnergodar city and the 30 km zone. As of beginning of July, the stock of iodine preparations for
population of Zaporizha oblast was about 20 % of needs? and in Mykolaiv oblast - about 22 %. The
procedure of delivering these preparations to users is not in place." (Document 56, 27 July 1986).
Confinements of some reactor units at Rivne NPP and South Ukrainian NPP were built and are used
despite of significant faults. "At Rivne 3 uptightness is 2.44 % while design requirement is 0.1 %. Similar
problems at South-Ukrainian 1 and 2. This may lead to serious consequences in emergency situation. The
reason is in the absence of unified requirements to designing, construction and operation of such systems."
Control equipment was often uncertified and unoperational:"At South Ukrainian NPP, of 811 control devices, including equipment for radiation measurements,
tested by organs of State Standards Committee of the USSR, 469 appeared to be unusable" (Document
72, December 1986).
KGB informed the Central Committee of CP of Ukraine that there are numerous problems with water use
for nuclear industry needs. Problem existed on all NPPs. In Chernobyl, very high filtration of water fromcooling lagoon due to the absence of special antifiltration measures. In spite of the decision of the Councilof Ministers of Ukraine of 1982, similar problem exists at Zaporizka NPP. At Rivne NPP and SouthUkrainian NPP discharges of water from plants lead and will lead to river contamination (Document 62,
August 1986).
Spent fuel storage was a persistent problem:"At South-Ukrainian NPP, the Ministry of Energy of the USSR did not reconstruct the basin for spent
fuel assemblies, so instead of 162 (design capacity) currently 171 are stored at Unit 1. In 1987, 73
assemblies will have to be unloaded, and it is not possible to store them without violations. Similar
situation exists at Unit 2" (Document 71, 14 November 1986).
"At Chernobyl NPP, radiation situation in central halls of Units 1 and 2 is very unfavorable. Gammaradiation level exceeds permissible level by 10-15 times, and it leads to additional exposure of
personnel. The reason is storing of unacceptable high numbers of spent fuel assemblies in basins... At
unit 1, there are 2803, while the design capacity is 1728, at Unit 2 - 2414 and 1568 respectively"(Document 87, 29 June 1987).
There were continuos problems with reloading of fuel. At Chernobyl NPP, reloading of technologicalchannel 50-21 failed, because the fuel assembly could not be pulled out neither at regular pull 500 kg, nor- 258 -

3000 and 4000 kg (maximum permitted). Later it was reported that personnel applied 5000 kg without any
permission. Reload was delayed by 10 days until the scheduled shutdown of the unit. Similar problems
occurred on 26 and 30 April at unit 1. (Document 84, 7 June 1987). On 17 June 1988, there appeared
problem with hermetization of channel 57-37 after reloading (Document 113, 9 July 1988)
Factors that influence the safety of NPP operation were summed up in the report of 16 July 1987, which
was prepared with participation of KGB department in several oblasts:"During the current year, there were 66 emergency shutdowns at NPPs, located in Ukrainian SSR. Of
them 41 at Rivne NPP, 19 at Zaporizha NPP, 5 at South Ukrainian NPP and 1 at Chernobyl NPP.
... main causes of emergency shutdowns are:
- faults of design and construction works - 37%;
- faulty equipment - 43%);- unskilled actions of NPP personnel -20%.
There exist substantial design defects in the design of VVER-1000 (approved by the Order of the
Ministry of Energy of the USSR on 30 December 1985). Faulty decisions and mistakes continue to becopied in documentation for construction, assembling and start-up works, as well as designs for
suppliers of equipment. These designs are provided to the NPPs of Ukraine, as well as abroad (toBulgaria, Hungary, GDR and Czechoslovakia)". (Document 88, 16 July 1987)
Secrecy and foreign visitors
Secrecy was an essential feature of all Soviet nuclear program, and Chernobyl disaster was no difference.
All ministries and other government agencies working in the 30-km zone were obliged to keep secrecy.
"Upon the directive of the Head of the Government Commission, requirements regarding secrecy were
presented to the heads of organizations by the representative of the KGB of USSR". When it became
known that transmission of radiometric data by radio would be organized, KGB was on alert: "Somespecialist admit that digital code might be deciphered, and this would make possible leakage of
information to an enemy. Department 6 of the KGB of Ukrainian SSR supervises these works".
(Document 57, 10 August 1986).
Violations of secrecy were apparently quite common. "In the 30-km zone, groups of specialists from over
70 research and design institutes work on permanent or temporary basis. Most of them violate rules ofwork with secret documents prescribed by the Instruction 0166-72." (Document 85, 22 June 1987).
The secrecy hindered the work on liquidation of the consequences. The Minister of Water Resources of
Ukraine V.N.Tkach complained that to protect water resources, detailed information on radioactive
contamination of territory is needed. However, it is possible to obtain such a map only in the State
Committee of Hydrometeorology of the USSR and Minsredmash of USSR. The Minister raised this issue
several times after 10 May at the meetings of different commissions, but there was no positive decision sofar. (Document 42, 3 June 1986).
Since autumn of 1986, there are numerous reports on visits of foreign journalists, scientists, otherdelegations to the 30-km zone (Documents 73, 77, 80, 81, 96, 98, 110). Usually the conclusion was "there
were no hostile intentions from foreigners; information passed to their agencies was objective".
Sometimes, however, incidents did occur: journalist of NHK telecompany Yamayghi Toshihiro tried tocollect samples near Chernobyl NPP and used dosimeter with automatic recording of data. These attempts
were, of course, suppressed. (Document 96, 6 October 1987). In November 1987 KGB reported:- 259 -

"We obtained direct evidence of intelligence efforts by foreigners who visited Pripiat and Chernobyl in
1986-1987. There were attempts to acquire secret data on liquidation of the consequences of thedisaster, on technical condition of reactors, radiation situation in the zone, new methods ofdesactivation of territory, industrial buildings and equipment, chemicals that are used for these purpose
and so on. Attempts to collect and export samples of soil, water and biomass were disclosed andsuppressed" (Document 98, 14 November 1987).
Health, social and other impacts
As it was already mentioned, KGB reported about cases when patients evacuated from the 30-km zone
and NPP workers were delivered to hospitals in Kyiv or Moscow. Later there appeared controversy
between Ukrainian and Moscow doctors. KGB reported, that according to obtained information, Ukrainianscientists headed by Academician K.S.Ternov achieved good results when treating patients with their
methods. Professor Gail (USA) noted successful treatment in Kyiv clinics. But use of these methods wasbanned by Academician L.N.Ilyin and Major-General E.E.Gogin without explanations, and the state ofpatients worsened.
"One of Prof. Kindzelsky's patients, firefighter Miagkov visited in the clinic of the Institute ofBiophysicss of the Ministry of Health of the USSR his colleagues, who participated with him in
combating the fire at Chernobyl NPP. He found them in bad condition (loss of hair, "parchment" skin,hemorrhages and necrosis of tissues at burns etc.) They told Miagkov, that they receive practically notreatment, doctors only observe them". (Document 63, August 1986).
High committed doses were serious problem for works at Chernobyl NPP: "Effectiveness of organizationof work is seriously deteriorated by the fact that of 124 senior specialist more than a half already received
doses 25 rem and more. If these specialists are replaced, the stability of management can be seriously
deteriorated". On the other hand, some workers try to hide committed zones because they can lose theirjobs in the zone. In such cases it is very difficult to control radiation doses of personnel. There are 4925
employees at the NPP, 91.8 % of needed engineers and specialists, 88 % of needed workers. (Document74, 20 January 1987).
"...analysis of individual doses of those who are controlled by the Dosimentry Directorate of"Kombinat" enterprise shows the following results as of 15 August 1987:
Subdivision

PeriodAllorganisations, 1986
except ChNPP
1987
Personnel of ChNPP
1986
1987
Total
1986
1987

Distribution of personnel according to their doses (rem)
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25
26471
1494
522
285
161
196
22706
154
41
21
12
27
3052
304
175
147
53
4150
14
7
5
3
31017
826
460
258
416
27010
55
28
17
30

According to official data of the Dosimetry Directorate, necessary investigations on the cases of excess
exposure, materials of such investigations are not submitted to the Directorate, in spite of numerous
requests to the managers of organizations... Since those who received more than 25 rem are entitled to 5
monthly salaries, this creates a certain incentive for artificial overexposure in expectation of remuneration.
On the other hand, there are also cases when received high doses are concealed." (Document 93, 5September 1987).

- 260 -

Due to various reasons, there were numerous conflicts at the Chernobyl NPP. People were nervous
because of working and living conditions (families lived in Kyiv and Chernigiv, personnel worked on
shift basis and stayed at Zelenyi Mys settlement), there were tensions about distribution of apartments in
Kyiv, questions on possibilities of keeping these apartments etc. Thus, on 20 August 1986, in thedormitory of Polessky technical college, where about 800 construction workers of Chernobyl NPP werequartered, there was an appeal to go to Kyiv to clarify the issue of apartments allocation. Of 1400 workers
700 families received flats in Kyiv and Chernigiv, but remaining 680 were worried. (Document 61).
Personnel of ChNPP protested against changes in duration of shifts (the plan was to introduce 8 hour shifts
instead of 12 hour). They argued that this will take much more time for transportation, condition for rest
would be worse and so on. Active discussions among people were triggered by article in central
newspapers and film "Chernobyl. Two colors of time".
"Main points of the discussions:- real cause of the accident (whether it's faulty design or mistakes of the personnel) is not established;- there was no analysis of the action of personnel - where sacrifices were justified, and where not;- still there is no model for actions of the personnel in case of major accident, to avoid panic or"heroism";
it is not clear, what to do with those whose actions had led to the accident;- Ministry of Health of the USSR is obviously hiding the effects of exposure both in low and highdoses. This contradicts the policy of "glasnost" and leads to neglecting of radiation protection norms,
which can damage the health of current and future generations. (Document 114, 8 August 1988)
Further problems appeared when it became necessary to relocate NPP personnel and their families to the
new city of Slavutich. Many refused to leave their Kyiv and Chernigiv apartments. There were muchprotest because of information that Slavutich is located on contaminated site (Documents 93, 102).
Investigation demonstrated that permissible limits in the city of Slavutich are not exceeded, but there aresome "hot spots" in nearby forests. On the 2 October 1987, the decision to start settling the city of
Slavutich was made, but additional measures like removal of contaminated soil and forest wererecommended (Document 97).
According to the report of 28 June 1988, morbidity and mortality of population in Narodichi, Ovruch and
Luginy district follow usual patterns. To normalize the situation, replacement of roofs and fences,improvement of dusty roads were started in these rayons. Special measures for additional supply of clean
milk top these rayons during summer period were approved, but the request to provide additional foodsupply was refused (Document 111).

- 261 -

Annex: translated documents
Document 4.
SECRET
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE OF STATESECURITY OF UKRAINIAN SSR
Colonel-general
Comrade FEDORCHUK V.V.
Kiev
SPECIAL COMMUNICATION
On emergency shutdown of unit 1of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant
According to information received on 19 February of 1979 by the KGB Department, at 23:40 18 February
unit 1 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was shutdown by emergency activation of automatic safetysystem AZ-5. Investigation of the special technical commission, created by the administration of the NPP
established that the cause of the shutdown was switching off of main circulation pumps, supplying coolingwater in the reactor, due to permeation of air in hydrosystem. In accordance with technological norms,
operating reactor is cooled by 4 main circulation pumps, of which one is permanently kept in reserve.
During 18.02.79 the reserve pump was repaired and water from unit's hydrosystem was used for liftingpump's rotor. Upon completion of the reaper at 23:05, to avoid loss of desalinated water, workers
discharged backwater through closed loop drainage device. During this process air penetrated in thehydrosystem, thus causing misfunctioning of pumps.
The Commission concluded that the cause of penetration of air in hydrosystem is technical imperfection of
the drainage device laid down in the design. In connection with this, the nuclear power plant managers
summoned representatives of the design institute from Leningrad, to prepare technical recommendation on
the mentioned device.
After the liquidation of the emergency by 6 am of 20 February unit 1 was put into operation at prescribed
power. As a result of its shutdown, the national economy have not received 11.5 million KWt of electricity.
Chernobyl rayon Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine and Oblast Committee of the Communist
Party of Ukraine were notified on this fact.
Reported as information.
Head of the Department of KGB of Ukrainian SSR
for the city of Kiev and Kiev oblast
major-general

N.Vakulenko«21» February 1979
Resolution on the document: «c[omrade]. Zubatenko N.I. For consideration. Fedorchuk. 21.2.».
SA SSU. — F. 65. — File. 1. — V. 5. — Pages. 30–31.
Original. Typewritten.

- 262 -

Document 75.
SECRET
Extract
From the report on the situation at the Chernobyl NPP region[...] When interviewed, the Chief Engineer of Chernobyl NPP Shteinberg N.A. stated, that it is notadvisable to put Unit 3 of Chernobyl NPP into operation, and that he proposed to the top management of"Minatomenergo" to put it up into conservation. He also informed that the top management of"Minatomenergo" and Chernobyl NPP studies a possibility of penetrating the sarcophagus of Unit 4,
because 56 fuel assemblies 16 m long each loaded with uranium are buried in the used fuel storage. Undercertain situation these circumstances can lead to explosion. In individual interviews scientist representing
Kurchatov Institute and "Minatomenergo"'s Research and Design Institute also said that it is unwise to
rehabilitate Unit 3 [...] Serious specialists motivated this opinion by the damage to health of many people
who would be involved in rehabilitation, and huge material costs (taking into account the permissible doseloads it is planned to engage no less than 25 thousand people).
The dates of putting Unit 3 into operation appeared unrealistic due to extremely unsatisfactoryorganization of rehabilitation works, and even now the contractor for the work has not been approved.
In October 1986 the Director of the NPP signed a document that all chambers of Unit 3 building were
desactivated by 95 %, while the investigation carried out in December 1986 determined that of 1180
chambers only 80 were desactivated, and no one even opened remaining chambers.
According to the reports of NPP management, in 1986 more than 390 tons of highly contaminated 4threactor debris were thrown down from the roof of Unit 3, although, according to expert estimates, thesefigures are significantly exaggerated because the roofing could not sustain even one half of this mass.
There was an opinion expressed that due to unjustified involvement of military personnel into clean up of
the roof of reactor 3, more than 3 thousand servicemen were irradiated, because the radiation levels on theroof of the reactor were not 500, but in some areas more than 10 thousand roentgens per hour [...].
The Chief of Special Department of KGB of USSR
for <acronym could not be deciphered>
Major-general Mironiuk
1 February 1987

- 263 -