Latest Update!

A national survey conducted on behalf of the University of Maryland by Decision Science Research Institute, Inc. based in Eugene, Oregon indicates strong public opposition to establishing an interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada for spent nuclear fuel rods (high-level nuclear waste) from commercial nuclear power plants.

Legislation currently before the U.S. Congress, H.R. 1270, would order the immediate transportation of spent nuclear fuel rods across the country to Yucca Mountain over a 30 year period of time courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. H.R. 1270 is being pushed by the nuclear power industry, which, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (a Washington D.C.-based watchdog organization), contributed over three million dollars in PAC and soft money to Congressional campaigns during the 1996 election cycle. Current law stipulates that a permanent disposal facility be designated by the President before any waste is shipped.

In addition, the nuclear power industry has filed a law suit* against the Department of Energy in an effort to defray the industry's costs for any interim storage needed prior to the establishment of a permanent disposal site and for any future at-reactor storage. According to CAC's analysis, the nuclear power bailout law suit represents an effort to force a large expenditure of taxpayer dollars from the nation's general revenues ranging in the tens of billions of dollars without Congressional approval.

Grant Smith, Citizens Action Coalition's Environmental Policy Coordinator, said, "Members of the Indiana Congressional delegation who voted for H.R. 1270 should take a hard look at this survey before casting any more votes on behalf of the commercial nuclear power industry. Nationwide 66% of respondents are opposed to the plan envisioned in H.R. 1270. In the Midwest, almost 69% are opposed to the immediate shipment of spent nuclear fuel rods across the country. Of those in the Midwest opposed to the plan backed by the nuclear power industry, almost 80% are strongly opposed to it."

Additional questions asked in the survey also demonstrate Midwesterners' distaste for the transportation of high-level nuclear waste from commercial power plants under the scenario prescribed by H.R. 1270. Over 70% are not willing to live near a transportation route and believe terrorists can successfully mount attacks on shipments. Over 60% believe property along the routes would be devalued. More Midwesterners than not believe that the nuclear power industry can safely store the waste onsite at nuclear power plants for the foreseeable future. The majority of Midwesterners also believe that shipping nuclear waste is riskier than shipping gasoline or industrial chemicals.

Christopher Williams, CAC's Executive Director, said, "It is uncanny how insightful people can be. Most of the people surveyed were not aware of the nuclear power industry's plan to ship thousands of casks of spent nuclear fuel rods across the country under H.R. 1270 prior to being surveyed; however, their opinions on key issues are right on target."

Williams pointed out that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already certified that spent nuclear fuel rods could be safely stored onsite at nuclear power plants for 100 years. Also according to a newspaper in New Mexico, a jury last year awarded a couple over $300,000 to compensate them for lost property values because the planned Santa Fe bypass, which would be located near their property, would be used to transport nuclear waste to the military's Waste Isolation Pilot Project near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Moreover, government cost estimates have ranged in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars for accidents involving spent nuclear fuel rods from commercial power plants depending on the severity of the accident. Department of Transportation statistics demonstrate that accidents are likely with rates as high as 15 accidents per year.

CAC suspects that the numbers in the survey would have been even more lopsided had the public known the extent of the corporate bailout envisioned by the commercial nuclear power industry in H.R. 1270 and by the pending law suit filed by the industry against the Department of Energy last year.

CAC says that both the legislation and the law suit attempt to stop or reduce the use of the Nuclear Waste Fund established in 1982 as a small surcharge on nuclear power customers to pay for storage and emergency response costs.

Williams said, "The industry seeks in the nuclear power bailout law suit $70 billion in general tax revenues for onsite storage costs and other damages claimed to result from delays in opening the Yucca Mountain repository. This would amount to a massive taxpayer bailout of the nuclear power industry. The legislation attempts to put a cap on the amount of money used from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Once again, the taxpayer is the targeted deep pocket for the nuclear power industry. These two initiatives by the nuclear power industry represent corporate welfare in its most repulsive form. The bill and law suit amount to an effort to force an expenditure of taxpayer dollars without Congressional approval."

Smith said, "It's amazing that Congressmen Buyer, Visclosky, Hostettler and Burton voted for H.R. 1270. They're helping to orchestrate a corporate bailout for an industry that's in its death throes. The only way the nuclear power industry can survive is with taxpayer money. The United States does not need nuclear power. It's the most expensive and dangerous way to boil water to make electricity. The waste alone represents a 250,000 year toxic legacy to future generations. This insanity must stop now. Continued support by elected officials for H.R. 1270 or the nuclear power bailout law suit is incredibly irresponsible."

The Citizens Action Coalition vows to continue its opposition to H.R. 1270 and any rendition of it. The President has promised to veto the legislation, as well.

* Consolidated cases of Northern States Power Co. v. U.S. Department of Energy, Docket No. 97-1064, and State of Michigan v. U.S. Department of Energy, Docket No. 1065, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Go to Nuclear Issues Index

| CAC Home Page | Table of Contents | Issues Index |
| Contact CAC | Join CAC | CAC Newsletter | Resource Links |