Introduction⌗

The INSAG-1 report on the Chernobyl accident, published in August 1986, was based on preliminary information available at that time. Since then, a large amount of new data has been collected and analyzed. Statements from experts, as well as from the plant personnel itself, have provided a more comprehensive understanding of the events leading up to and following the accident.

The resulting document, INSAG-7, published in 1992, offers a more detailed and accurate account of the Chernobyl accident. Most importantly, it was found that human and operator error has been less significant in causing the accident than previously thought. The primary cause was identified as a combination of inherent design flaws in the RBMK reactor, non-compliance of the plant to NSR (Nuclear Safety Regulations), OPB (General Safety Regulations) and the general inadequacy of the documents and procedures governing the operation of the plant.

The book, “Chernobyl - How It Was,” written by A. S. Dyatlov, the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant at the time of the accident, provides a detailed account of the events leading up to and following the accident. It offers insights into the technical aspects of the reactor design, the operational procedures in place at the time, and the challenges faced by the plant personnel during and after the accident. Alongside a technical analysis, several quotations from various sources have been included to provide a broader perspective on the incident.

Unfortnuately, as a source, this book has not been widely recognized in the West, likely due to its original publication in Russian and limited availability in other languages.

The account presented in the book can, of course, not be considered as the ultimate and only perspective on the disaster. However, since the publication of INSAG-7, as well as other reports and analyses, there has been a growing recognition of the need to re-evaluate the causes and consequences of the Chernobyl accident that ultimately led to a more nuanced understanding of the event that stands in relative agreement with Dyatlov’s account, written many years earlier.

The Translation⌗

It has come to the translator’s attention that but two incomplete renderings of this work are presently in circulation. Neither has sought to render the book accessible to readers unacquainted with the technical phraseology or administrative machinery of the Soviet era. They retain, moreover, the original Russian abbreviations and refer to sources scarce or altogether inaccessible. The present translation intends to remedy these defects by supplying such explanations and contextual remarks as may assist the general reader, while maintaining, so far as may be, fidelity to the author’s text and manner.

The footnotes are of mixed character: part consist of the translator’s own observations, part of supplementary information designed to make clear expressions or analogies which might otherwise remain unclear. Some reproduce or explain Russian terms and abbreviations; others furnish the historical or technical background requisite for understanding.

The original flow of the book (that is, starting from the first chapter until the beginning of the appendices) has been preserved. The translator, however, wished to compile more documents related to the contents of the book, as well as preserve certain rare materials cited within the text.

The work has not yet been completed in its fullest, only about 268 pages have been translated. Its criticism, as well as any suggestions toward improvement, will be gratefully received and may be addressed to k@iczelia.net or any other contact as seen on this website.

The translator dedicates the derived part of the work to the public domain by waiving all of her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.

The translation, as well as the PDF-compiled version, can be obtained from this GitHub repository.

Quotations⌗

No, I have not been silent during these five years. Refusing to acknowledge guilt – either personal or on behalf of the staff – for the reactor’s destruction, I prepared detailed technical arguments in vindication of our actions. To whom did I send them? It were easier to say to whom I did not. All proved in vain.

• p. 17

They portrayed us as morons – as though nothing better might have been expected. It is true that Dr. O. Kazachkovsky, contrariwise, termed us “professionals” – a balm to the soul, though not without its admixture of tar. Many took occasion to speak at our expense. According to them, the staff committed violations so extraordinary as to border upon the fantastic. But that is the privilege of the scientist: he is inventive. And the press dutifully transmitted these inventions to the public.

• p. 19

Upon reviewing the full record, the commission found no parameter deviating from the norm up to the instant the Emergency Protection button was pressed. At that moment, coolant flow was already nominal. Sub-cooling was not under operator control and remained constant. Thus the commission’s conclusion lacks foundation. And as for the so-called “difference in reactivity effects” – say, if six pumps had been operating instead of eight – it is as though one were to say: a man drowned at a depth of 100 metres, but had it been 90…

• p. 22

Meanwhile, after the Chernobyl explosion, the first head of the Government Commission, B. E. Shcherbina, is said to have demanded a schedule for restoring Unit 4 by the autumn of 1986. Pure phantasmagoria.

• p. 28

At 01:23:47 a.m. – an explosion that shook the entire building, and, one to two seconds later by my own sense, an even stronger explosion. Thee AZ rods halted, having, traversed less than half their path. That was the end. In that routine, businesslike setting, the RBMK-1000 reactor of Unit 4 was destroyed by the Emergency Protection button.

• p. 40

There the spectacle was worthy of Dante. Part of the roof had fallen in – how much I cannot say – perhaps three or four hundred square metres. The slabs had crashed down and torn the oil and feed-water lines. Rubbish lay on every hand. From the +12 m elevation I looked down through a gap – at +5 m the feed-pumps are placed. Jets of hot water burst from broken pipes in every direction, striking the electrical apparatus. Steam filled the air. Sharp, gunshot-like cracks of short circuits resounded.

• p. 58

It pained me, in later years, to learn of the neglect and profanation of the graves of those dead operators at Mitino Cemetery in Moscow, when compared with the honoured resting places of the fallen firemen.

• p. 62

A colonel of some department approached the table and began to question the Director concerning the extent of damage for his report – how many square metres of roof, and the like. My words – “Write it down: Unit 4 is destroyed” – the colonel loftily ignored. A wave of nausea overcame me; I rushed from the bunker and up the stairs, where I. N. Tsarenko helped me into an ambulance. And then – the hospital: half a year.

• p. 65

There they cleared several wards for us – some patients were discharged home, others transferred to different hospitals. At first I found myself in the gynaecological ward, but since I failed to give birth to anyone in alloted time, they transferred me elsewhere. Only six months later, on the 4th of November, was I discharged.

• p. 81

The authors of the article resemble the zoo visitor who, looking at a giraffe, says: “Such a long neck cannot exist.”

• p. 99

Twice the patent applications were rejected by the Union Bureau (see Literaturnaya gazeta, no. 20, 1989); then they pushed them through under departmental secrecy. In my view, the Union Bureau was wrong to reject them. There were obvious signs of an “invention” here:

• all reactors are nuclear-hazardous only at large operational reactivity margin; the RBMK is hazardous both at large margin and at small;

• a universal Emergency Protection: it both shuts the reactor down and accelerates it.

• p. 136

Now as to Dyatlov’s actions – that is, my own – on 26 April and not only then. That I appeared to Medvedev cross-eyed and bow-legged is no great disaster. Perhaps I am indeed such. We all appear handsome in our own eyes; could we see ourselves from without, then… But that is beside the point.

• p. 155

Acknowledgements⌗

The cover photo for this post was made by “That Chernobyl Guy”.