13.05.2014 Views

Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Congressional Hearings Transcript

Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Congressional Hearings Transcript

Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Congressional Hearings Transcript

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

133<br />

and <strong>Chernobyl</strong>, had a very serious accident. It was core-related; is<br />

that correct?<br />

We assumed there was a core meltdown at TMI, and we assumed<br />

there was a similar one at <strong>Chernobyl</strong>, do we not? Let me ask you:<br />

One mile from TMI, what was the curie count, if you recall?<br />

Mr. Denton. The numbers I do recall were, on iodine-131, there<br />

were 15 curies released from TMI over the course of the accident,<br />

and 50 to 60 million curies of iodine-131 released at <strong>Chernobyl</strong>.<br />

Some of the same comparisons would work for the noble gasses,<br />

also.<br />

Senator Domenici. Let us have the numbers one more time. At<br />

the same distance, we are measuring for the potential radioactive<br />

effects that might occur on living things, and one of the ways we<br />

do is to measure what?<br />

Mr. Denton. The total amount of iodine-131 that was released.<br />

Iodine is one of the most hazardous isotopes in the reactor. At TMI,<br />

15 curies were released; at <strong>Chernobyl</strong>, 50 to 60 million curies of the<br />

same isotope.<br />

Senator Domenici. Now, let me ask you, what is the principle<br />

reason that they had 15 and they had the millions that you just<br />

described?<br />

Mr. Denton. I think the principle difference would have to be attributed<br />

to the reactor pressure vessel and the reactor containment<br />

that worked at TMI, and whatever enclosure the Soviets had provided<br />

was ineffective and permitted the release of essentially all<br />

that isotope.<br />

Senator Domenici. All right. Now we use this word containment,<br />

and sometimes words that have very, very explicit meaning seem<br />

out there to take on some scientific meaning. Containment is the<br />

right word, is it not? We have a light water reactor that could<br />

work all by itself with what it has, only we put a container around<br />

it so that if anything gets out it gets hooked up in the container. Is<br />

that a valid description of what containment is?<br />

Mr. Denton. Yes, sir. Containment are those large, strong buildings<br />

that are typically shown as housing the reactor. We have required<br />

them in this country since the earliest reactors were licensed.<br />

Senator Domenici. And they do not have one of those on these<br />

plants? They do not have that kind of containment on the plant<br />

that had the accident, or on almost of their civilian reactors?<br />

Mr. Denton. From the best we can tell, they had paid little attention<br />

to accident mitigating features of any kind; containment,<br />

emergency safety features, all the safety features, up until fairly<br />

recently. It does appear that when they began to export reactors,<br />

they attempted to upgrade their standards to Western style standards.<br />

But this reactor, obviously, did not have a Western style containment<br />

building around the reactor core.<br />

Senator Domenici. As a matter of inquiry, other than their satellite<br />

nations, which I do not assume buy voluntarily, how many<br />

countries have bought nuclear reactors from the Soviet Union for<br />

civilian use of the kind that are at <strong>Chernobyl</strong>? Freely and open in<br />

the market.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!