THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help Doc Contents [Part] Contents CR Issues by Date
[Page: S2771]
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
Let me say as we begin this debate in this Congress, it reminds me that we are talking about old wine in a new bottle. These arguments have been advanced for decades now, and the prime mover is the nuclear utility industry.
The fatal flaw in S . 104 is that it is unnecessary, unneeded, and bad policy. That is not just the Senator from Nevada making that statement. Let me review for the record some of the statements made by various boards and commissions created by the Congress in terms of their response.
We have the 1989 MRS Commission review. The commission report found no safety advantage to centralizing the storage of spent fuel. In 1996, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board analyzed the issue of interim storage and concluded that there is no urgent technical need for centralized storage of commercial spent fuel--no need, no compelling necessity, no safety advantage to be achieved. That was 1996. Now, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board underwent a change in the composition of the chairmanship, so in effect there was an opportunity for essentially a new board composed of new members to review whether or not they would agree with the position taken by their predecessors in 1996. In testimony offered on February 5, 1997, by Dr. Jared L. Cohen, the chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Dr. Cohen simply reaffirmed the position taken by his predecessors, that there is no need, either for technical or safety reasons, to move spent fuel to a centralized storage facility for the next few years. He further maintains that to maintain the credibility of the site collection process, any decision with respect to interim storage should be deferred until a technologically defensible site-suitability determination can be made at Yucca Mountain.
Mr. President, that is what the scientists, the people who the Congress, through a series of legislative enactments, have asked to take a look at that, that is what they say--no need, no safety reasons, no compelling necessity, bad policy. That is what the scientific community says.
I said at the beginning this is old wine in new bottles. Indeed, Mr. President, it is very, very old wine. The driving policy here is not science; it is the nuclear utilities. It is not a new car. If one looks back nearly two decades ago, on July 28, 1980, this issue was before the Congress. This Senator was not a Member of the body at the time, but the Congressional Record reflects debate on a proposed away-from-reactor concept, which is akin, if you will, to this interim nuclear waste proposal.
At that time, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Johnston, addressed himself to the issue, referring again to this need to move this nuclear waste away from the reactor sites--the same issue, identical to what is being debated today. This is what the Senator from Louisiana said nearly 17 years ago: `Mr. President, this bill deals comprehensively with the problem of civilian nuclear waste. It is an urgent problem.' Sound familiar? Urgent problem. Urgent problem. `Mr. President, for this Nation, it is urgent, first, because we are running out of reactor space at reactors for the storage of the fuel, and if we do not build what we call away-from-reactor storage and begin that soon, we could begin shutting down civilian nuclear reactors in this country as soon as 1983.' That was 14 years ago. Not a single nuclear reactor in America has been closed or been forced to close because of this issue. Some have closed because of overriding safety concerns about their operation and maintenance. That, Mr. President, is a separate issue.
So here again we have the nuclear utility industry sounding the drumbeat, issuing a clarion call, generating hysteria, that indeed there will be brownouts across the country and reactors will have to close unless we pass S . 104 , the modern day equivalent to the legislation that was before the Senate of the United States some 17 years ago. The answer today is the same as the answer then. There is no compelling necessity, no need, no rational policy to do so, and no safety issue that makes that a compelling issue.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help Doc Contents [Part] Contents CR Issues by Date