Senator FORD. In keeping with your opening remarks, I want one question as it relates to the event in Soviet Russia.

The cloud is apparently moving. The Swedes said that their particles per million have increased 100-fold as a result of the rain they had yesterday. It is estimated that cloud will reach the west coast within the next 3 to 4 days.

How much concern do we need to have for that particular cloud? And will it continue based on its still burning, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. VAUGHAN. Senator Ford, obviously I don't have precise answers to those questions because the movement of clouds is somewhat speculative. My understanding is that the Swedes commented that, even though their levels of radioactivity had increased based on using very sensitive monitoring equipment, they did not believe that those levels posed any hazard to public health and safety. That simply is what I have heard on the media and not based on additional, special knowledge.

We obviously, through equipment and systems available to the Department of Energy at its national laboratories, will closely monitor the atmospheric conditions as they might relate to this country and if any action is warranted, take such action. But we do not anticipate any fallout to the degree it would be a serious public concern to this country.

Senator FORD. If this fire is not contained, not brought under control and continues to burn and continues to create a cloud, do you still think, in your best judgment, we would not have anything to worry about as it relates to health hazards?

Mr. VAUGHAN. That is my best judgment, obviously based on very limited knowledge. Several people have commented that the basic direction of movement of the cloud initially was counter to the normal winds and movements that are expected in that area. So it is not even clear it would continue to move in the same direction.

Senator FORD. I guess if they were burning coal, the only thing we would have would be acid rain. [General laughter.]

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Evans?

Senator EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What do you know of the precise nature of the event, and have we asked specifically of the Soviets that kind of information? It seems to me that it is terribly important at this point to try to get them to be as candid as possible just on behalf of the safety of other nations that might be involved.

Have those kinds of questions been asked? What do we know of the precise nature of the event, and of the reactor, itself, in terms of its cooling capacities, just the nature of it, and if we have made those inquiries, what kind of response have we been getting?

Mr. VAUGHAN. Senator, let me answer that in two parts. First, just prior to your coming in, when I responded to a similar question from-

Senator EVANS. I am sorry I missed it.

Mr. VAUGHAN [continuing]. From Senator Domenici, we have little precise knowledge of the incident, other than that which has been in the public media. There has been no specific set of inquiries made, but those are being considered and will be considered as a part of any offer for us to provide assistance.

With respect to knowledge of the reactor designs, themselves, I commented previously that the Russian reactor is quite unique. It is a Russian reactor design of the water-cooled, graphite-moderated, and open-boiling water reactor cycle, which is unique to the U.S.S.R., built in the U.S.S.R., and to U.S.S.R. safety standards.

For example, the ignition of the graphite moderator and the causing of the fire which has been reported in the media, certainly would not be a common type of event for U.S. commercial pressurized water reactors where we use both water as the coolant and the moderator, and with quite a completely different set of design concepts and safety standards, which I described earlier in response to Senator Domenici's question.

We will, of course, continue to carefully evaluate design differences as we learn more facts, to make sure we leave no stone unturned as to lessons learned.

Senator EVANS. I guess more explicitly, do you believe we have sufficient information now to guide us in terms of any potential difficulties, fallout, problems that might impinge on this country? Do we need more? If we do need more, are we asking for it?

Mr. VAUGHAN. Are you using fallout in the sense of atmospheric dispersal, or are you using it in the sense of lessons learned from this event?

Senator EVANS. No, primarily the former. I presume as time goes on, the scientific community has a pretty good way eventually of learning things. I am more interested in the immediacy now of potential problems and whether we have all the information that we should be getting.

Mr. VAUGHAN. We, of course, have put systems in motion to monitor the atmospheric conditions to make sure that there aren't any problems to the health and safety of people in the United States. Beyond that, it will depend on additional, precise information coming out of the Soviet Union, which we don't yet have.

Senator EVANS. Do we know at this time whether there is any continuing discharge of radioactivity into the atmosphere?

Mr. VAUGHAN. The presumption from the press reports, which we believe to be accurate, is that the graphite fire is continuing to burn. It is possible that if it was a severe reactor accident, most of the fission products that have existed have quite possibly already been dispersed-because it is postulated that the event probably occurred last Saturday.

Senator EVANS. It seems to me, in that statement there is a lot of speculation. And I guess I am just curious as to why we have not made a direct inquiry. You may not get a direct answer, but I hope we have at least made the direct inquiry to elicit as much information as would be necessary or helpful for us in responding.

Mr. VAUGHAN. Those queries are underway, but we don't have the feedback at this time.

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Hecht?

Senator HECHT. Thank you; nothing, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DOMENICI. Senator Warner?

Senator WARNER. Let's look at this thing from the worse case hypothesis. Now you know basically the type of technology, the type of reactor. Given the worse case, could that generate any type of

64-415 - 86 - 12

radioactive fallout that could be detrimental the United States or other continental land masses?

Mr. VAUGHAN. Senator Warner, my opinion is that that is extremely unlikely.

Senator WARNER. So we should have no cause for alarm here in the United States. I do not believe we should have any great cause for alarm. I believe that our monitoring capability is sufficient that it would give us enough early warning if it were to occur.

I would note, again, that the comment that I understand the Scandanavian countries have made is, that although their very sensitive equipment monitored noticeably higher than background levels, notwithstanding, they believe that the levels they were monitoring posed no health and safety problems to their citizens.

Senator WARNER. The purpose of the question is that we should try and alleviate any fear among our own citizens here in the United States, if this type of accident could generate a situation that would be detrimental to the health and welfare of our people. And your answer to that is no.

Mr. VAUGHAN. That is correct. In my best judgment. Obviously, I don't have all the facts at hand.

Senator DOMENICI. Senator McClure, did you have any questions on this first round. It was brought upon us not by plan here, as you understand, but by the events of yesterday?

The CHAIRMAN. I don't want to repeat what you have already asked in the excellent set of questions you asked, drawing some parallels, because I am afraid many people will try to draw parallels between this accident and U.S. experience. I think the point to be made and I think the point made in response to your questions was it is very hard to make comparisons because they are so radically and totally different. It is like comparing apples and oranges in very real terms.

I don't remember exactly, but I notice that the news report referred to an earlier nuclear incident in the Soviet Union, which as I recall was not associated with a powerplant at all.

Mr. VAUGHAN. My understanding of that incident, which I have not recently reviewed but have in the past, is that it occurred in the late 1950's and was more likely associated with a fuel processing plant, or something of that nature, as contrasted to a power generating source.

The CHAIRMAN. It was a materials production plant; could have been either for fuels or for military purposes. We are uncertain which, but it was not a powerplant.

Mr. VAUGHAN. That is my understanding, also, Senator McClure. The CHAIRMAN. Again, apples and oranges and perhaps lemons— I am not sure.

We have nothing in this country that is identical with the Soviet plants, and our civilian powerplants all have both different design in terms of the reaction that occurs within them, and also in the you have referred to safety standards. We have very strict standards in containment.

I notice, some people will immediately attempt to make some comparisons between this and what might have happened at TMI, or what did happen at TMI.

I think the fact will be that what we have perceived in Sweden, or what the Swedish officials have detected is radiation levels above the radiation levels that were measured at the fence at TMI, am I correct?

Mr. VAUGHAN. I think that is correct. It is our understanding, also.

The CHAIRMAN. So, comparisons are very difficult to make because they are so radically different in technical basis as well as in design, and as well as in the extent of the accident.

Mr. VAUGHAN. I agree with your analysis. I think it is a good, succinct analysis.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you. Senator Wallop, we were engaged in permitting Senators who might want to ask about the nuclear accident in the Soviet Union, before we got to the business at hand, if they had a question or two of the witnesses. We are completing that now. Does the Senator desire to ask on that issue, and then proceed to the-

Senator WALLOP. Mr. Chairman, I probably would but I would be certain to ask what has already been asked. I was up trying to see to it that we don't give away the entire store to the People's Republic of China without contemplating our ally and friend, Taiwan, in the Foreign Relations Committee-I missed this.

I am certain that as this unfolds, the dimension of it will grow rather than shrink. Is that fair-from what is presently being stated in the public press?

Mr. VAUGHAN. I think that that is probably a fair judgment.

Senator WALLOP. Also, I happen to see Mr. Medvedev, on the Today Show this morning, on which he made the statement that the Soviets did not use containment vessels because their technology was foolproof, much more sophisticated than ours.

You see how much you have been delaying us in the process of building nuclear powerplants in this country by making excess requirements like containment vessels. [General laughter.]

Seriously, I think that it demonstrates the strength of the American nuclear technology and the process that we have been undergoing.

Mr. VAUGHAN. We believe there are a lot of things that demonstrate that, not the least of which is, I believe, the very careful quality control we put into the design, manufacture and inspection of the equipment that goes in the plants.

We certainly don't have the data to know whether the Russians apply the same standards and levels of inspection. Some of their statements indicate that they can build the materials in these plants at almost any commercial facilities, as contrasted to the specialized facilities and specialized inspection techniques that we have. It might lead one to believe that if the standards are not as high, but certainly that is speculation on our part.

Senator WALLOP. Mr. Chairman, one last question. Do we know if this was a plutonium plant or a generating plant?

Mr. VAUGHAN. The press has reported that the plant was used for commercial power production, but perhaps with a concomitant purpose of making plutonium. We do not know that for sure, but

the design of the plant would indicate that that would be a possibility.

Senator WALLOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent at this point that my opening statement appear in the record following your opening statement?

Senator DOMENICI. Without objection.

Let me suggest to the members of the committee and the subcommittee, and in the presence of the chairman of the full committee; perhaps, Mr. Chairman, as the information on this accident becomes more familiar and available, it might be well that this subcommittee, or at your pleasure, the full committee, convene on short notice and try to, before this committee and for the American public, through this committee, learn any additional information that you find or I find in talking with the administration, ought to be presented.

I think it is urgent that all distinctions between what they have and what happened there and anything that has ever happened here be forthcoming in an official way, before a committee such as this, rather than we wait around for a long periods of time. I personally, subject to your direction, would ask the staff of this subcommittee to do that.

If the chairman prefers to do it in the full committee, I certainly will defer.

The CHAIRMAN. If the Senator would yield, I do believe it is important that we give the American public as much information as it possible for us to give, not only on what happened, but what implications that has for our programs, if indeed it has any. I would be happy to work with you and with Senator Johnston to make certain that this committee functions in such a way that we can give that kind of information to the American people.

Senator JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman.

Senator DOMENICI. Yes.

Senator JOHNSTON. I just have two quick questions.

Senator DOMENICI. Would you defer on that? I have just been told that I have to go to the floor, so I understand Senator McClure will preside.

I have a statement with reference to the subject matter that we are going to discuss; that is, the scope of this hearing with reference to programs of the Department as they relate to their budget requests. I am going to ask that it be made a part of the record, and apologize for having to leave, but I understand, Senator McClure, that you have some time to preside in my absence. And I greatly appreciate that.

[The prepared statements of Senator Domenici and Senator McClure follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Good morning. Today we will be receiving testimony from the Administration on various aspects of the Department of Energy programs, including its budget request for fiscal year 1987, that relate to nuclear energy and radioactive waste disposal. May I say at the outset that, while we may be tempted today to talk more about Russian nuclear technology and safety standards, rather than its U.S. counterpart, we really must try to stick to the business at hand. But first, before we go on, I