Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting

350 Pages·1993·21.135 MB·English

by  Riley E. Dunlap, Michael E. Kraft, Eugene A. Rosa

Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste

Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste
Citizens' Views of Repository Siting
Edited by Riley E. Dunlap, Michael E. Kraft,
and Eugene A. Rosa
DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS Durham and London 1993
© 1993 Duke University Press
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
00
Typeset in Melior by Tseng Information Systems
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
appear on the last printed page of this book.
Contents
List of Figures and Tables vii
Preface Riley E. Dunlap, Michael E. Kraft, and Eugene A. Rosa xiii
Part I The Context of Public Concern with Nuclear Waste
1. Public Opinion and Nuclear Waste Policymaking Michael E. Kraft,
Eugene A. Rosa, and Riley E. Dunlap 3
2. The Historical Development of Public Reactions to Nuclear Power:
Implications for Nuclear Waste Policy Eugene A. Rosa and William R.
Freudenburg 32
3. Perceived Risk, Trust, and Nuclear Waste: Lessons from Yucca
Mountain Paul Slavic, Mark Layman, and James H. Flynn 64
Part II Public Reactions to Preliminary Sites
4. Public Testimony in Nuclear Waste Repository Hearings: A Content
Analysis Michael E. Kraft and Bruce B. Clazy 89
5. Sources of Public Concern About Nuclear Waste Disposal in Texas
Agricultural Communities Julia G. Brody and Judy K. Fleishman 115
6. Local Attitudes Toward Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository
at Hanford, Washington Riley E. Dunlap, Eugene A. Rosa, Rodney K.
Baxter, and Robert Cameron Mitchell 136
vi Contents
Part III Public Reactions to the Yucca Mountain, Nevada Site
7. Perceived Risk and Attitudes Toward Nuclear Wastes: National and
Nevada Perspectives William H. Desvousges, Howard Kunreuther, Paul
Slavic, and Eugene A. Rosa 175
8. The Vulnerability of the Convention Industry to the Siting of a
High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository Douglas Easterling and
Howard Kunreuther 209
9. Nevada Urban Residents' Attitudes Toward a Nuclear Waste
Repository Alvin H. Mushkatel, Joanne M. Nigg, and K. David Pijawka
239
10. Rural Community Residents' Views of Nuclear Waste Repository
Siting in Nevada Richard S. Krannich, Ronald L. Little, and Lori A.
Cramer 263
Part IV Summary and Policy Implications
11. Prospects for Public Acceptance of a High-Level Nuclear Waste
Repository in the United States: Summary and Implications
Eugene A. Rosa, Riley E. Dunlap, and Michael E. Kraft 291
Index 325
Contributors 329
Tables and Figures
Figures
2-1 Annual number of regulations and amendments and annual number
of nuclear reactor inspections 39
2-2 Public attitudes toward nuclear power in the United States (Louis
Harris Associates) 48
2-3 Public attitudes toward nuclear power in the United States
(Cambridge Reports) 49
2-4 Public attitudes toward construction of local nuclear power
plants 51
2-5 Host community attitudes toward nuclear power plants before
and after Three Mile Island (TMI) 53
3-1 Responses of Nevada residents when asked to rate their trust in
federal, state, and local officials and federal agencies to do what is right
with regard to a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain 69
7-1 Conceptual framework of risk perceptions 177
7-2 Number of times read or heard about high-level nuclear wastes in
past three months 182
8--1 Influence of a repository on convention planners' decision to hold a
meeting in Las Vegas 212
8--2 Influence of a repository on convention attendees' decision to attend
a meeting scheduled for Las Vegas 215
10-1 The study area 266
viii Figures and Tables
Tables
1-1 Major provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 10
3-1 Some viewpoints of experts regarding public perceptions of the risks
from nuclear waste disposal 65
3-2 Survey details 67
3-3 Relationship between trust in DOE and perceived risk of transport
accidents 69
3-4 Relationship between trust rating of DOE and perceived risk of
transport accidents 70
3-5 Relationship between trust in DOE and response to the question
"would you vote for a repository at Yucca Mountain?" 70
3-6 Images of a nuclear waste repository: totals for four surveys by
superordinate and subordinate categories 73
3-7 Subordinate categories ordered by decreasing frequency 75
3-8 Relationship between affective rating of a person's first image of a
nuclear waste repository and their response to the question "would you
vote for a repository at Yucca Mountain?" 77
4-1 Public opposition to repository siting: reaction to the area
recommendation report among those having read it 94
4-2 Public opposition to a nuclear waste repository: comprehensive
measure 94
4-3 Public opposition to siting a nuclear waste repository within the
state 95
4-4 Public opposition to DOE siting recommendations and in-state
repository siting by state and group affiliation 95
4-5 Knowledge level of individuals testifying at public hearings on
nuclear waste repository siting by group affiliation 97
4-6 Geographic focus of public comments 99
4-7 Emotive themes in public comments 99
4-8 Perceived credibility and competence of government and
others 101
4-9 Technical criticisms of the Department of Energy's siting analysis
made at public hearings 102
4-10 Political and social issues raised at public hearings 104
4-11 Perceived impacts of a nuclear waste repository by state 105
Figures and Tables ix
4-12 Acceptability of nuclear waste risk by group affiliation 108
4-13 Multiple regression of public opposition to siting proposals on
independent variables 109
5-1 "Would you allow construction of a high-level nuclear waste
repository ... ?" 120
5-2 Percentages of finalist site residents who mentioned selected reasons
for supporting or opposing the repository, 1986 121
5-3 Expected environmental risks, 1986 122
5-4 Expected socioeconomic impacts, 1986 123
5-5 Attitudes toward industrial development, preliminary sites,
1984 124
5-6 Regression of overall attitudes toward the repository on expected
impacts, knowledge, uncertainty, and background characteristics 126
5-7 Regression of expected environmental risk on knowledge,
uncertainty, and background characteristics 128
5-8 Regression of expected socioeconomic benefits on knowledge,
uncertainty, and background characteristics 129
6-1 Summary of Washington State polls on nuclear waste repository
siting at Hanford: statewide and tri-cities 141
6-2 Attitudes toward siting a high-level nuclear waste repository at
Hanford 146
6-3 Likelihood of accidents associated with siting a repository at
Hanford 149
6-4 Expected impacts of a HLNWR at Hanford 152
6-5 Regression of attitudes toward repository on demographic
characteristics: bivariate correlation coefficients (r's), standardized
regression coefficients (betas) and multiple correlation coefficient
(R2) 155
6-6 Regression of attitudes toward repository on cognitive
characteristics: bivariate correlation coefficients (rs), standardized
regression coefficients (betas) and multiple correlation coefficient
(R2) 156
6-7 Regression of attitudes toward repository on confidence in
Department of Energy and knowledge about nuclear waste: bivariate
correlation coefficients (rs), standardized regression coefficients (betas)
and multiple correlation coefficient (R 2) 159