William Bryan: “I want to address the broad policy implications of S. 1936. I want to emphasis that my comments apply directly to the…”

“I want to address the broad policy implications of S. 1936. I want to emphasis that my comments apply directly to the bill before us, not 1271. There has been some suggestion that 1936 represents improvement over 1271, its predecessor. It is my view that there are some changes but the changes make no policy difference at all. First, I want to make the point again with respect to the necessity for interim storage. My colleague has pointed it out. I want my colleagues who are watching the debate in the office to look at this report entitled ``Disposal and Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, Finding the Right Balance, a Report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy.'' This is March of this year, 1996. ``The Board sees no compelling technical or safety reason to move spent fuel to a centralized storage facility for the next few years.'' Mr. President, what is occurring is a familiar pattern. This technical review board was created by Congress in 1987 after the original 1982 act. So, if you do not like what you asked for in a report in the nuclear utility industry--and its advocates obviously do not--then you reject the report. But this represents the consensus of scientific opinion as chosen by individuals who have no personal interest in terms of any parochial concerns. Their conclusion emphatically is that there is no need.…”