Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Congressional Hearings Transcript

43
I thank you for your attention.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Garrity.
Dr. Brewer, you talked about the collapse of the infrastructure
for nuclear power in the former Soviet Union and in eastern
Europe. Do you believe that that collapse has increased the risk of
another Chernobyl?
Dr. Brewer. Yes, I do. As you may recall, before the collapse of
the Soviet Union itself, civilian nuclear power was administered by
an agency in Moscow called MAPI, Ministry of Atomic Power and
Industry. When the Soviet Union broke up, their responsibilities
were then confined to Russia. The Ukraine is setting up its own
nuclear ministry and so forth, and the other states are doing so as
well. So you have on the one hand a decentralization and democratization
of the country.
On the other hand, you have the transient period here where
there's some time before the other republics can get their nuclear
expertise up to grade that they had formerly been relying on the
centralized agency to provide. And the other problem with this decentralization
is economic—there are some economies of scale in
having reactor expertise centralized and fuel cycle facilities centralized
as long as their quality can be improved, but I don't see
the decentralization of these institutions and these functions as a
positive safety factor. It's a disruption, particularly now with the
general economic situation so chaotic.
Senator Graham. Do you see any greater capability of dealing
with Chernobyl today than was the case in 1986?
Dr. Brewer. Yes, the emergency procedures in eastern Europe
and the former Soviet Union are far, far improved. They understand
the need for emergency procedures. They understand the
need for standardization of these procedures and training and so
forth. Responding to an accident of that magnitude from the station
perspective is orders of magnitude better than it was in 1985-
1986.
Senator Graham. Each of you has touched upon the issue of the
United States' role both from a scientific basis and also in terms of
our economic opportunities that exist. At the recent Rio conference,
there was a section within one of the treaties called Agenda
21 that related to nuclear power. If you're familiar with that, do
you have any comments about that particular provision? There's
of the Germans
also been a suggestion largely at the instigation
that there be a more detailed convention on the international
issues of nuclear power, with particular attention to the former
Soviet Union. Assuming that there is going to be such a convention,
what do you think the U.S. agenda should be at that meeting
in terms of advancing our national economic and scientific goals?
Mr. Garrity. Well, speaking to the issue of the nuclear power
option, it has been our position that the western technology and
the very high safety standards that are being incorporated in the
next generation of advanced light-water reactors both by my company
and by ABB and by Westinghouse and others I think does
speak well to the future safety and the future potential of that
energy source to address some of the other issues relative to combustion
of coal and natural gas and oil for power production in
terms of limiting the CO2 emissions as well as other greenhouse