Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Congressional Hearings Transcript

8
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DANIEL J. EVANS
OVERSIGHT HEARINGS ON CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT
JUNE 19, 1986
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
As the Senator from the state that has the only graphitemoderated
reactor in the country, I have a keen interest in the
subject. The N-Reactor at Hanford began operation in 1964, and
has had a good operating record over the past 20-plus years. It
has also created a huge amount of inexpensive electricity for the
ratepayers of the Pacific Northwest through the utilization of
steam byproduct, besides producing weapons materials for our
defense needs. I don't think that such a record justifies the
immediate shut-down of the reactor. Until there is strong and
ample evidence to the contrary, I believe the plant should
continue to operate.
I am concerned, however, about the implications of the
Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union, as I think anyone
familiar with the nuclear power industry should be. But it is
difficult to make rational decisions until the Soviets provide us
with an adequate scientific explanation of the causes and nature
of the accident. I understand that the Soviets will not make
such a presentation to the IAEA until mid or late August.
It is very important to conduct studies of the N-Reactor 's
safety and operating record in order to present the objective
facts to the uneasy citizens in my state. At last count, there
are six studies being carried out today. The first study on the
fire prevention and safety systems, which was released several
weeks ago, called for some modest improvements in some of the
monitoring systems. The next study on the basic design of the
reactor, and modifications made to it since 1964, is due out at
the end of this month. I believe that the DOE, and the Congress,
should follow up quickly to provide the funding to implement any
recommendations coming from these studies.
We also must address through these studies the more
fundamental problem of the life extension of the N-Reactor. We
must ask ourselves when examining the results of these studies if
it is in the public health and safety interest to prolong the
life of this reactor, or whether we should proceed to consider
authorizing a new production reactor? I understand the budget
difficulties that our Government faces today, which led to a
decision to extend the life of the present graphite core. But
safety should be paramount to the budgetary questions in this
matter, in my view. And, in this instance, you can't measure
public health and safety in dollars and cents.