DOCSLIB.ORG

Slides Only from Presentation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Slides Only from Presentation The Past, The Present, The Future November 1986 Shelter Object completed; Units 1,2 back online June 1982 Unit 3 goes online April 1972 Pripyat officially named March 1984 November 1996 January 1967 Unit 4 goes Unit 1 shut down September 2010 Gosplan online permanently Construction begins recommends a new on New Safe May 1978 November Confinement to power plant at Unit 1 goes 1987 Unit 3 Kopachi, Ukraine replace Shelter online back online Object 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 February 1970 May 1979 Construction of Unit 2 goes Pripyat begins online; Pripyat becomes a city April 1986 Unit 4 destroyed, August 1972 Pripyat is December 2000 Construction begins evacuated Unit 3 shut down on Chernobyl Unit 1 permanently; end of power-producing September 1982 October 1991 era at ChNPP Partial core melt, Fire destroys Unit 1 Unit 2 4 3 2 1 Fuel Fuel Chain-reacting systems are familiar (e.g., fire). Feedback, stability, and control concepts in nuclear reactors may be compared to the behaviors of fires. CONTROLLING FIRES Fuelis combustible Fuel is combustible Reactivity depends on 1. Increase or reduce the material that reacts with heat transfer efficiency efficiency of heat transfer material that reacts with between fuel air when exposed to heat, air when exposed to heat, (separation of fuel pieces), 2. Decrease efficiency by putting producing more heat, producing more heat, heat leakage (shape and water, or damp fuel, in the fire which can cause which can cause size of the system), and (water evaporation removes heat). combustion in additional combustion in additional availability of fuel and air. 3. Increase efficiency by moving fuel. fuel. fuel pieces closer together, or by burning dryer fuel. Fuel is atomic nuclei that Fuel is atomic nuclei that Reactivity depends on CONTROLLING REACTORS explode when they absorb explode when they absorb neutron transport, slow-moving neutrons, 1. Increase or reduce the slow-moving neutrons, including moderation efficiency of neutron transfer producing more neutrons producing more neutrons (separation of fuel between fuel nuclei (generally fast-moving (generally fast-moving pieces), neutron leakage 2. Decrease efficiency by putting ones). The moderator slows neutron-absorbing material ones). The moderator (shape and size of the (typically called control rods) down fast neutrons so they slows down fast neutrons system), and availability between fuel elements. will cause fission in so they will cause fission in of fuel. 3. Increase efficiency by additional fuel. additional fuel. withdrawing the control rods. FIRES FEEDBACK: POSITIVE FEEDBACK: NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: POISONING: Feedback refers to a system A perturbation to a parameter of A perturbation causes a Fires and nuclear reactors AND influencing its own the system causes a response response that moves the both generate byproducts behavior. that moves that parameter in the parameter in the opposite that interfere with—or NUCLEAR same direction as the stimulus. direction of the stimulus. “poison”—the chain reaction. REACTORS Can promote instability. Favors stability. Time Event / Action Result ~12:00 AM Failure to maintain computerized Reactor almost shuts down. Xe-135 April 26 automatic control of reactor poison builds up, suppressing ability to 1986 power at intended power level. resume intended power. ~1:00 AM Operator attempts to maintain Only neutron absorber left in core is power. He must remove almost boiling water. Positive power reactivity all the control rods. feedback scenario. Power begins rising. 1:23 AM Test concludes, operator presses Control rod tips push water out of the button to insert all control rods. core, adding reactivity because the tips (Unknown whether he does this are made of a poor absorber. Reactor because of power surge, or power rises uncontrollably; core damage because he was attempting a impedes further control rod entry. normal shutdown.) ***EXPLOSION*** The operator withdrew most control rods to counteract poisoning, leading to positive power reactivity feedback as water boiled in the core. When the operator attempted to replace the control rods, their tips accelerated the power surge and control was lost. OPERATOR DESIGN SAFETY RISK Operator Fault: Flawed Design: Deficient “Safety Culture”: Residual Risk: ChNPP staff performed RBMK had dangerous Phrase coined by INSAG The constellation of contrary to regulation characteristics, did not encompasses faults technical / human and technical meet official safety specific to Chernobyl and circumstances leading instruction from the mandates; some views the wider system of to accident was designer, contributing suggest catastrophe nuclear power regulation preemptively unknown to the accident and its “built in”. Upgrades and management in and practically consequences. Six addressed reactor USSR; the Soviet industry, unknowable; nuclear ChNPP staff convicted issues most significant by its priorities, ideology, power is “inherently of misconduct in the to accident. and organization, was dangerous” even when Chernobyl Trial (1987), accident-prone. handled competently; but the trend since has from an alternative been exculpatory. viewpoint, “Science requires victims.” CHERNOBYL 18 CHERNOBYL 21 Isotope Activity Am-241 3,782 pCi/g Ba-133 42 pCi/g Cs-137 78,274 pCi/g Eu-154 48 pCi/g Gd-153 21 pCi/g Ra-226 384 pCi/g .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Modelling Radiocaesium Fluxes in Forest Ecosystems
    BY0000223 Modelling Radiocaesium Fluxes in Forest Ecosystems Results from the ECP-5 project conducted under the Agreement for International Collaboration on the Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident between the European Commission and the Ministries for Chernobyl Affairs in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine G. Shaw: Centre for Analytical Research in the Environment, Imperial College at Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 7TE, United Kingdom A Kliashtorin, S. Mamikhin, A Shcheglov: Radioecology Laboratory, Soil Science Faculty, Moscow State University, Moscow, 119899 Russian Federation B. Rafferty: Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, 3 Clonskeagh Square, Clonskeagh Road, Dublin 14, Ireland A. Dvornik, T. Zhuchenko: Byelorussian Research Institute of Forestry, Gomel, Belarus N. Kuchma: 'Pripyat' Research and Industrial Association, 1-a B. Khmelnitsky Street, Chernobyl, 255620 Ukraine Abstract: Monitoring of radiocaesium inventories and fluxes has been carried out in forest ecosystems in Ukraine, Belarus and Ireland to determine distributions and rates of migration. This information has been used to construct and calibrate mathematical models which are being used to predict the likely longevity of contamination of forests and forest products such as timber following the Chernobyl accident. 1. Introduction Little information on radionuclide migration processes within forest ecosystems existed before the Chernobyl accident. Yet in countries such as Belarus, where approximately 20% of the national forest cover is contaminated to levels in excess of 15 Ci km"2 (555 kBq m"2), the post-contamination management of forests is a highly important economic and social problem [1]. During the period 1992 - 1995 forest sites contaminated by the Chernobyl accident in Ukraine, Belarus and Ireland have been monitored by ECP-5 to determine the magnitudes of radionuclide fluxes (principally radiocaesium) between the major components of the forest ecosystems concerned.
    [Show full text]
  • Support to Radioactive Waste Management in Ukraine Project U4.01/10 D
    EC- UkraineContract International No.: NSI/2014/341 Nuclear Safety-739 Cooperation (INSC) Program Support to radioactive waste management in Ukraine Project U4.01/10 D Project D: Investigation of radioactive waste burial and temporary storage sites in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone Project D Leader: Dr. Norbert Molitor, Plejades Project Director: Dr. Zoran Drace, Plejades Presentation by: Dmitri Bugai, IGS, Ukraine (national project expert) Ukraine-Japan Collaboration Workshop , Kiev, 30 January 2015 Overview of clean-up waste burial sites (RWTSP) Support to radioactive waste management in Ukraine 09 July 2014 (U4.01/10 C+D+F project) RWTSP - Radioactive Waste Temporary Storage Places 9 RWTSP Sites: • Neftebaza Kopachi Clamp example • Peschanoe Plato • Old/Staraya Stroybaza • New/Novaya Stroybaza • Chistogalovka • Kopachi • Pripyat • Red Forest Red Forest Trench example • Yanov Station In total (currently characterized) 470 trenches and clamps 884,000 m³ radwaste (~ 70% investigated of the tot.area of ~12km2) RWDS - Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites Engineered facilities: Podlesny • Podlesny • ChNPP 3rd Stage 3rd turn ChNPP • RWDS contain (potentially) HLW – LLW originating from Sarcophagus site (1986-87) • Inventory is highly uncertain • Waste storage conditions do not comply with safety requirements Chernobyl 3rd stage Radwaste Inventory data for ChEZ Aims of Project D Investigation of radioactive waste burial and temporary storage sites in the ChEZ: – Characterization of waste disposal sites using airborne geophysical techniques (location,
    [Show full text]
  • The Competition Commission
    CHERNOBYL – A NUCLEAR C ATASTROPHE 20 YEARS ON A REVIEW OF THE PRESENT SITUATION IN THE UKRAINE O REF N Q3143-A2 Client: GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL 1ST ISSUE REVISION NO APPROVED CURRENT ISSUE DATE 21 DECEMBER 2 005 Q3143-A1-11 22 APRIL 2006 2 - 29 CHERNOBYL – A NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE 20 YEARS ON SUMMARY Twenty years ago the No 4 reactor of the Chernobyl nuclear power and excused on the basis that they, those receiving the higher dose station underwent catastrophic failure, spewing radioactivity into and risk, can choose to leave whenever they themselves wish to do the environment for 10 or so days. The radiological consequences so. applied throughout most of Europe, extending as far afield as Britain and Scandinavia. Locally, in the regions of the Ukraine, It might not be a full understanding to put this deadlock entirely Russian and Belarus, the radiological situation was very severe, in down to the almost symbiotic relationship that has developed fact so bad necessitating the immediate evacuation of ninety between those in the contaminated territories, who receive financial thousand or more population from towns and villages nearby the compensation, and the politicians who look towards this stricken Chernobyl nuclear power plant and, as time passed, whole compensated group as a block vote. Correcting this overdosing via settlements were evacuated, demolished and ploughed into the the food uptake path requires a greater degree of intervention ground, and more and more stringent controls over foodstuffs and management of the agricultural cycle and critical group habit. Put agricultural were imposed. simply, it requires additional resources costing relatively small sums of money to finance, perhaps no more that €10M per year for Today the town of Pripyat, once home to 50,000, remains deserted a few successive years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cause of the Chernobyl Accident 1. USSR State Committee on The
    NOTES Introduction: The Cause Of The Chernobyl Accident 1. USSR State Committee on the Utilization of Atomic Energy, "The Acci­ dent at Chernobyl' Nuclear Power Plant and Its Consequences," presented at the International Atomic Energy Agency Post-Accident Review Meeting, Vienna, August 25-29, 1986. 2. USSR State Committee, "The Accident at Chernobyl"; A. Dastur, R. Osborne, D. Pendergast, D. Primeau, V. Snell and D. Torgerson, "A Quick Look at the Post-Accident Review Meeting (PARM)," Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL-9327, September 1986. 3. P.S.W. Chan, A.R. Dastur, S.D. Grant, J.M. Hopwood, and B. Chexal, "The Chernobyl Accident: Multidimensional Simulations to Identify the Role of Design and Operational Features of the RBMK-1000," paper presented to the ENS/ ANS Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Risk Assess­ ment, Zurich, Switzerland, August 30-September 4, 1987. 4. V.G. Asmolov eta!., "The Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant: One Year After," preliminary translation of principal Soviet paper presented by N.N. Ponomarev-Stepnoj to the International Atomic Energy Agency International Conference on Nuclear Power Plant Performance and Safety, Vienna, September 28-0ctober 2, 1987. 5. Chan eta!., "The Chernobyl Accident." 6. Ibid. 279 280 Notes 7. V.G. Asmolov et al., "The Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant." 8. "CANDU Nuclear Generating Station Technical Summary," Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, PA-4, CANDU Operations, Mississauga. 9. V.G. Snell, "Safety of CANDU Nuclear Power stations," Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL-6329, January 1985. 10. For a detailed technical evaluation, see J.Q. Howieson and V.G.
    [Show full text]
  • Fires in Ukraine in the Exclusion Zone Around the Chernobyl Power Plant: Point Position
    Logo IRSN April 15, 2020 avril 2020 Information note Fires in Ukraine in the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl power plant: Point position Since the publication of our previous information note on April 7, 2020, fires in Ukraine have spread nearby the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Following numerous questions received by our Institute about their radiological consequences, which, according to Ukrainian authorities, which have now been brought under control, this note provides an assessment of the possible radiological impacts for the firefighters as well as for the inhabitants of Kiev. It also reviews cesium 137 (137Cs) airborne activity levels likely to be detected in France due to the transport of contaminated air masses. 1/ Current situation as of April 15, 2020 Forest fires broke out in Ukraine about ten days ago in a territory heavily contaminated by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. These fires reached the exclusion zone and the surrounding environment (about 1 km) of the nuclear power plant from April 8, 2020 (see Fig. 1). Nearly 400 fire-fighters and 90 specialized aerial and terrestrial vehicles, including planes and water- bomber helicopters, have been mobilized for more than a week for the control of the fires. According to some estimates, the burned area reached about 20,000 ha. Ukrainian authorities said earlier this week that "the efforts of the fire- fighters and the rain have reduced the forest fire in the Chernobyl exclusion zone". They assured Tuesday, April 14, 2020 in the morning that the risks of fire spreading were now limited to isolated or smoldering fires. At the end of April 14, 2020, the Ukrainian authorities indicated that the fires were under control.
    [Show full text]
  • A REASSESSMENT David R. Marples1 Introduction This Paper
    CHERNOBYL: A REASSESSMENT David R. Marples1 Introduction This paper returns to a topic that has virtually disappeared from international discussion outside scientific circles: the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. It forms part of a new study that attempts a reassessment of the events at Chernobyl as we approach the 20th anniversary. That anniversary will come four years after the closure of the station by the Ukrainian authorities, but also at a time when nuclear power still forms an important component of the Ukrainian energy program. One reason for a new investigation is the release of over 120 primary documents by the Ukrainian branch of the KGB.2 These documents serve several useful purposes: they allow the observer to differentiate between supposition and fact in several instances, corroborating events that earlier were based—at least in part—on speculation. They allow one to perceive at first hand the workings of the Soviet structure, and specifically the relationship between the KGB and the Government Commission appointed to deal with Chernobyl. But perhaps above all, the newly released materials provide a much clearer and more composite picture of the flaws of the Soviet nuclear power industry and the way these defects were concealed from the public by official images of the operation of nuclear power. This paper cites selective documents for the reason of lack of space. The Chernobyl accident has been the subject of numerous accounts of varying quality since its occurrence. They include official reports conducted on behalf of the International Atomic Energy (IAEA, 1991, 1997) and World Health Organization (WHO, 1995); Soviet and post-Soviet accounts (Sklyarov, 1991, G.
    [Show full text]
  • Disposal of Low and Medium Level Radioactive Waste in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone
    DISPOSAL OF LOW AND MEDIUM LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN THE CHERNOBYL EXCLUSION ZONE V.M. ANTROPOV, V.V. ZHYLINSKY XA9745860 Scientific & Technical Centre of the RIA "Pripyat", Chernobyl, Ukraine The peculiarity of Chernobyl exclusion zone is the existence of constant and a lot of temporary points of radioactive waste of Chernobyl origin disposals in it. Chernobyl zone (exclusion zone) is the territory round Chernobyl NPP restricted in the result of Chernobyl accident with no inhabitants in it and where the economic activity was almost stopped. The exclusion zone is characterized by die irregular (spotted) distribution of radionuclides and large range of physico-chemical and radioactive composition variations, that is connected with specific radioactive releases and meteorological circumstances in the period of throwing of radionuclides from the destroyed reactor to the environment The distinction of die zone radioactive contamination is the existence of large quantity of "hot particles", and also fuel Mings in the zone adjacent to the ChNPP [1]. Reference assessments of the RAW volumes that are situated in the exclusion zone are shown at Pic. 1 [2]. In the process of territory decontamination during 1986 - 1995 substantial part of RAW which was concentrated at the most contaminated separate plots was localized and placed to different disposals[3]. At the same time in the zone there soil is large enough quantity of RAW distributed round the zone the localization. of which requires more developed technologies and equipment In Chernobyl exclusion zone there are two types of disposals. They are as follows: points of radioactive waste disposal (PRAWD) and points of temporary Localization of radioactive waste (PTLRAW), that were founded in 1986-1987 during the liquidation of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident Nowadays the mam point of low and middle activity radioactive waste disposal (with the levels of y-contaminarion up to 1 R/h) in the zone, to which the RAW generated from the decontamination of territory and equipment are put up is PRAWD "Buryakovka".
    [Show full text]
  • Chernobyl and Nuclear Power in the Ussr
    CHERNOBYL 7i 4 "M w* n !r ? y V. 'W/m /. & NUCLEAR POWER IN THE USSR DAVID R. MARPLES CHERNOBYL AND NUCLEAR POWER IN THE USSR CHERNOBYL AND NUCLEAR POWER IN THE USSR David R. Marpies Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies University of Alberta Edmonton 1986 Published in association with the Macmillan Press, London THE CANADIAN LIBRARY IN UKRAINIAN STUDIES A series of original works and reprints relating to Ukraine, issued under the editorial supervision of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta. Edmonton. Copyright © 1986 David R. Marples Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Marples, David Roger, 1952— Chernobyl and nuclear power in the USSR Bibliography: p. Includes index. ISBN 0-920862-48-9 (bound). - ISBN 0-920862-50-0 (pbk.) 1. Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station (Ukraine). 2. Nuclear power plants - Ukraine - Chernobyl - Accidents. 3. Nuclear industry - Soviet Union. 4. Nuclear energy - Government policy - Soviet Union. I. Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies. II. Title. TK1362.S65M37 1986 363.T79 C86-091498-4 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or other- wise without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Typesetting: The Typeworks, Vancouver Distributed by the University of Toronto Press 5201 Dufferin Street Downsview, Ontario Canada M3H 5T8 Contents Acknowledgements vii Introduction ix Chapter One: A Chernobyl Diary, 28 April- 14 May 1986 1 Chapter Two: Soviet Energy in the 1980s 37 Chapter Three: Nuclear Energy Development in Eastern Europe 51 Chapter Four: Ukraine in the Soviet Nuclear Energy Programme 71 Chapter Five: Safety in the Soviet Nuclear Power Industry 95 Chapter Six: The Chernobyl Disaster 115 Chapter Seven: After Chernobyl 153 Epilogue 181 Notes 185 Selected References 197 Appendices 203 Index of Personnel 209 Acknowledgements I am indebted to a number of individuals and institutions who have as- sisted me over the past few months.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT of Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology
    REPORT of Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology On results of studies in 2017 on theme: Assessment of state and development tendencies of natural landscapes and biodiversity on the territoru of Chernobyl exclusion zone In framework of the UNEP-GEF project “Conserving, Enhancing and Managing Carbon Stocks and Biodiversity in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone” Reporting period 08.08.2017 – 31.12.2017 Agreement No. SSFA/2017/14 S1-32GFL-000370/11232/SB-000687.37/14AC0003 Signed: General Director of CC Bondarkov Mikhail D. 2017 Report of Chornobyl Center on UNEP-GEF project in 2017 2 CONTENT INTORDUCTION. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT .............................................................................. 4 MAIN DATA OF THE PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................... 4 MAIN GOAL..................................................................................................................................................................... 4 EXPECTED RESULTS OF THE PROJECT .............................................................................................................................. 4 DELIVERABLES. GENERAL GEOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CHEZ ................................................ 5 DIVERSITY OF ECOSYSTEMS AND LANDSCAPES ............................................................................................................... 5 WEATHER AND CLIMATE CONDITIONS IN CHEZ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Side Approach to the Realities of the Chernobyl NPP Accident - Summing-Up of the Consequences of the Accident Twenty Years After (II)
    Multi-side Approach to the Realities of the Chernobyl NPP Accident - Summing-up of the Consequences of the Accident Twenty Years After (II) - Report of a research grant from the Toyota Foundation (November 2004 – October 2006) Project leader Imanaka T. May 2008 チェルノブイリ原発事故の実相解明への多角的アプローチ － 20 年を機会とする事故被害のまとめ(II) － トヨタ財団助成研究 （2004 年 11 月～2006 年 10 月） 研究報告書（英語版） 研究代表者 今中哲二 200８年５月 Preface This is the English version report of the international collaboration study, “Multi-side Approach to the Realities of the Chernobyl NPP Accident: Summing-up of the Consequences of the Accident Twenty Years” which was carried out in November 2004 – October 2006 supported by a research grant from the Toyota Foundation. Twenty three articles by authors of various professions are included about Chernobyl. The Japanese version was already published in August 2007, which contains 24 articles. (http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/tyt2004/CherTYT2004.htm) Out of them, 12 articles are included in both versions. As a specialist of nuclear engineering, I have been investigating the Chernobyl accident since its beginning. Before the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl, I hoped to start a new project to try to make an overview of “Chernobyl disaster” by collecting various viewpoints of persons who have been involved in Chernobyl in their own ways: scientists, journalists, NGO activists, sufferers etc. I thought that a new image of Chernobyl could be constructed through learning different viewpoints. Fortunately the Toyota Foundation supported my proposal. I think we could make a unique report about Chernobyl. In addition to this report, the following two reports were already published through the previous collaborations: ¾ Research Activities about the Radiological Consequences of the Chernobyl NPS Accident and Social Activities to Assist the Sufferers by the Accident.
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty-Five Years After Chornobyl Accident: Safety for the Future»
    Ministry of Ukraine of Emergencies All-Ukrainian Scientific Research Institute for Civil Defense of population and territories from technogenic and natural emergences. «Twenty-five Years after Chornobyl Accident: Safety for the Future» National Report of Ukraine Кyiv 2011 УДК 621.311.25:621.039.586](477.41-21) ББК 31.47(4Укр-4Киї)-08 Д22 To compile the National Report materials of the following organizations were used: Ministry of Ukraine of Emergencies, Ministry of Energy and coal-mining industry of Ukraine, Ministry of Public health of Ukraine, State Nuclear regulatory inspection of Ukraine, Committee on Environmental Policy, Use of Natural Resources and Elimination of Consequences of Chornobyl Disaster at Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, National Academy of medical sciences of Ukraine, National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine, National Commission on Radiological Protection of Ukraine. The materials included in the report were compiled by: Abramenko I.V. (3.3.3); Bazyka D.A. (3.3; 7.5.1); Baklan V.A. (8.2); Balashov L.S. (2.1.3); Bakhanova Ye.V. (3.1.1); Bebeshko V.G. (3); Belousova L.P. (7.3.2); Bilyj Д.O. (3.3.1); Bogdanova T.I. (3.2.4); Bondarenko G.M. (2.1.3); Borysyuk M.M. (7; 8); Boyuk L.T. (7.2.4); Buzunov V.O. (3.2); Vasylenko V.V. (3.1.3); Vdovenko V.Yu. (3.2.3); Vynograds’ka V.D. (2.2.3); Voznyuk V.M. (7.2.1.); Voytsekhovytch О.V. (2.1.1; 2.2.2); Voytchulene Yu.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Tour
    PRIVATE TOUR Private tour to the Chernobyl PRIPYAT SIGN “YANIV” RAILWAY “BRIDGE OF DEATH” CARGO PORT RIVERPORT AND “TREE OF FRIENDSHIP PANEL BUILDING WITH “RAINBOW” HOTEL “POLISSYA” CINEMA “PROMETHEUS” exclusion zone is a once-in-a- STATION CAFÉ “PRIPYAT” OF NATIONS” USSR EMBLEM SHOPPING CENTER lifetime experience. This special tour is designed for individuals and groups who would like to explore the zone at their own pace and with their own preferences. You can choose the date, time, pickup place (from Kyiv), and even which places to see in the Chernobyl exclusion OLD CEMETERY CITY COUNCIL HOUSE BOAT POST OFFICE BOULEVARD OF LENIN GRAMMAR SCHOOL #3 POLICE STATION FIRE STATION “JUPITER” FACTORY ROOFTOP VIEW zone, and much more. The tour includes the city of Pripyat, city of Chernobyl, well-preserved villages, Chernobyl power plant, Duga radar system, and the zone itself. This document serves as a menu with locations to choose from. Please, bear in mind that not every location can be visited “ENERGETIC” RESTAURANT SUPERMARKET VOCATIONAL “GOLDEN KEY” GRAMMAR SCHOOL #1 BWC AND BARBERSHOP BUS STATION FAIRGROUND “AVANTGARD” during 1-day private tour. PALACE OF CULTURE TECHNICAL SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN STADIUM This tour is often chosen by photographers and tv crews. THE CITY OF PRIPYAT More places to see (compared to other tours) THE CITY OF CHERNOBYL ACCOMMODATION OPTIONS Meeting the Self-settlers Tailored program for the most demanding explorers Extra time for photos and exploring Access to no-go places All at your own pace And much more… CHERNOBYL SIGN MONUMENT MONUMENT TO “THOSE CHERNOBYL CHERNOBYL OPEN AIR “ALLEY OF MEMORY WORMWOOD HOTEL “PRIPYAT” HOTEL “10” HOTEL “SLAVUTYCH” OF V.
    [Show full text]