Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Congressional Hearings Transcript

168
meet many of the current safety standards that are considered to be the minimum
requirements needed to protect the health and safety of the pubUc." *^
Nuclear bureaucracy presents a further problem, as the agencies responsible for
inspection, compliance and maintenance of investment. For example. In February,
the Russian government halved its number of nuclear Inspectors. Less than two
months later, the accident at Sosnovy Bor was blamed on poor testing and inspection.
". . . the nuclear inspectorate ... is in chaos and strapped for cash. In a
country where making electricity has always come before safety, the inspectorate
has never been properly independent of the energy ministry." *^ Obviously, the
funding situation is unlikely to improve in the short- to medium-term, while the
government's prioritization of electricity before safety may be far harder to eradicate.
RBMKs are not the only plants that lack sufficient replacement parts. Across the
board, "the supply of spare parts dwindles." ** Even with more funding, there is no
guarantee that the mindset of the bureaucracy will change; in fact, an attempt to
reorder priorities must run into some recalcitrance, because it challenges values
people have acted on throughout their careers.
Nuclear experts share this dangerous devaluation of safety, as a recent accident
demonstrates. After the leaik at Sosnovy Bor, Western nuclear scientists observed
that the incident, though not severe, had caused significant fuel assembly damage.
However, Russian experts simply noted that the reactor safety systems had performed
admirably, and showed the success of the design. ^^ Evidently, Soviet-trained
scientists are more concerned about serious meltdowns, and less concerned about radiation
release, even with its concomitant health risks. This, however, is not simply
a matter of "education" or "re-training", because it once again reflects the significantly
different priorities of the Soviet nuclear community. It is unlikely that these
scientists do not know the health risks; rather, they do not value them. Training
cannot remedy such a difference in outlook.
Nuclear waste disposal is currently carried out, as it has always been, in a
manner that threatens the health of the environment. In particular, the nuclear nations
of Eastern Europe face a unique problem: although in previous years, the Soviets
accepted and reprocessed their wastes for no charge, in recent years, the Russians
have begun to charge for the reprocessing. The young nations argue that they
cannot afford this cost. To complicate further their waste disposal procedures. In
1990 the Russian Parliament proclaimed that no nuclear waste from other republics
or nations would be buried In Russia. In response, these countries have begun storing
irradiated fuel in temporary storage facilities, which will remain available for
approximately five more years. The countries plan to expand their permanent storage
capabilities, but they face a public that has lost confidence, given past burials of
radioactive materials.^ ^ Not only is space for waste disposal finite, but it seems that
capacity in those countries has been exceeded, as popular pressure brings itself to
bear against the construction of new facilities.
The nuclear related activities of the former Soviet Union have resulted in severe
environmental damage, leaving the young republics little room for error. Some of
the worst damage occurred because of illegal disposal of nuclear wastes in the
ocean. According to Oleg Petrov, Chief Radiologist of the Soviet Navy, the former
Soviets used to dump low- to intermediate-level waste at sea. Several nuclear warheads
have been lost at sea, in addition to those on board two sunk submarines.*''
Because of the level of dumping and leakage, damage has been caused to the delicate
Arctic environment.*® The situation has become so bad that many lakes and
rivers in the former Soviet Union have become dangerously radioactive.*^ The Russian
Government plans to take steps to remedy these problems. People's Deputy
Vorpholomeev, who chairs the committee on Ecology and the Rational Use of Natural
Resources, claimed that radioactive waste is currently the most serious environmental
problem in Russia.^"
Even in a group of legislators that is relatively concerned about these issues, however,
recalcitrance from the nuclear community, both bureaucratic and scientific, as
well as the vast extent of environmental damage to date, hinder the ability of the
state to solve for the hazards associated with nuclear wgiste and leakage. Every day
that a reactor continues to operate compounds the problem by generating new
waste and new environmental radionuclide contamination. If the reactors are not
shutdown, the republics and the countries of Eastern Europe will not be able to deal
effectively with their extensive levels of pollution.
Shoddy documentation of materials was common during the reign of the Communist
regime, because paperwork was valued less than fast energy production. As a
result, it is difficult to determine the original construction materials used in the re-