STATE OF NEVADA AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS/ NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT OFFICE NWPO-SE-062-94 THE 1994 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: KEY FINDINGS by C. K. Mertz, James Flynn and Paul Slovic (Decision Research) December 1994 This Report was prepared under contract to the Agency for Nuclear Projects using funds provided through the U.S. Department of Energy Grant #DE-FC04-90AL-6514.
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings ii CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. METHOD 2 3. KEY FINDINGS 4 4. SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION IN NEVADA TO YUCCA MOUNTAIN 7 4.1. Yucca Mountain Referendum 7 4.2. Strength of Opinion 9 4.3. Inevitability of Yucca Mountain 12 4.4. Continue Opposition/Make a Deal 13 5. PERCEPTION OF RISK 16 6. NUCLEAR/REPOSITORY RISKS 19 6.1. Long-Term Safety and Risks 20 6.2. Concerns About Yucca Mountain 23 6.3. Risks From NTS and Other Governmental Nuclear Activities 31 7. POTENTIAL COSTS AND BENEFITS 34 7.1. Potential Benefits 35 7.2. Potential Costs 38 7.3. Benefits vs. Costs 43 8. TRUST 45 8.1. Trust in Federal Government and DOE 45 8.2. Awareness of DOE Disclosures Concerning Testing on Humans 51 9. DECISION PROCESSES AND EQUITY 53 9.1. Decision Processes 54 9.2. Equity 59 10. COMPENSATION ISSUES 62 11. COMMUNITY ISSUES 68 12. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE USES FOR THE NEVADA TEST SITE 72 13. IMPOSING RISK ON OTHERS 77 14. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 79 14. BIBLIOGRAPHY 80 APPENDIX A: THE INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT A-1 APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA B-1
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings iii TABLES 1. Yucca Mountain Referendum, 8 2. Strength of Response on. Referendum Question for Respondents Voting for the Yucca Mountain Repository, 10 3. Strength of Response on Referendum Question for Respondents Voting Against the Yucca Mountain Repository, 11 4. Inevitability of Yucca Mountain, 13 5. Make a Deal or Continue Opposition, 14 6. Government Able to Build Repository That Is Safe for 10,000 Years, 21 7. Repository Risks to Future Generations, 22 8. Repository Risks to Nearby Residents, 24 9. Transportation Risks, 26 10. Risks of Underground Water Contamination, 27 11. Risks to Repository From Earthquakes, 28 12. Adequacy of Local Emergency Response, 29 13. Likelihood Nation's Nuclear Activities in Past Have Caused Problems, 32 14. Likelihood Nation's Nuclear Activities in Future Will Cause Problems, 33 15. Likelihood Nuclear Test Site Caused Problems in Past, 34 16. Likelihood Repository Will Result in New Jobs, 35 17. Repository Would Encourage Industrial Growth, 36 18. Likelihood Repository Will Improve Local Government Financial Conditions, 37 19. Likelihood Repository Will Cause Loss of Tourism, 39 20. Likelihood of Stigmatization From Repository, 40 21. Yucca Mountain Repository Will Result in Loss of Property Values, 41 22. Repository Would Result in Loss of Property Value, 42 23. Repository Benefits vs. Costs, 44 24. Trust Government to Manage Repository Safely, 46 25. Trust DOE to Disclose Problems With Waste Management, 47 26. Trust DOE to Disclose Problems at Yucca Mountain, 48 27. DOE Honesty About Yucca Mountain Program, 49 28. Awareness of DOE Disclosures on Human Testing, 52 29. Affect of Disclosures on Trust, 53 30. Store Nuclear Waste On-Site Until Host Accepts Facility, 55 31a. Should Local Communities Have Final Say on Accepting Repository?, 57 31b.Should States Have Final. Say on Accepting Repository?, 58 32a. Should Local Communities Have Right To Close Down Repository?, 59 32b.Should States Have Right To Close Down Repository?, 60 33. Fairness of Yucca Mountain Selection Process, 61 34. Should Receive Economic Benefits for Accepting Repository, 63 35. Compensation for Negative Health Effects, 64 36. Trust Fund for Losses to Future Residents, 65 37. Compensation for Property Value Losses, 66 38. Grant for Local Government, 67 39. Tax Rebates for Nearby Residents, 68 40. Importance of Improving Public Services, 70 (Continued)
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings iv (Tables Cont.) 41. Importance of Attracting New Businesses and Industry, 71 42. Importance of Increasing Local Control Over Decisions, 72 43. Use NTS for MRS, 74 44. Use NTS for Storage of Plutonium From Dismantled Weapons, 75 45. Use NTS for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes, 76 46. Use NTS for Dismantlement of Nuclear Warheads, 77 47. Acceptability of Imposing Small Risks on People Without Their Consent, 78
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings v FIGURES 1. Mean Risk Perception Ratings: State Sample, 17 2. Mean Risk Perception Ratings: Rural Samples, 18 3. Risk to American Public by Gender: Percept Difference in "High-Risk" Between Females and Males, 20 4. Compensation Items: Percent Difference in Appropriateness Between Males and Females, 69
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 1 1. INTRODUCTION This report describes the results of a 1994 telephone survey of state residents that examined their attitudes and opinions toward the federal government's Yucca Mountain repository program and its management. The survey was designed to address the following issues: Support and/or opposition to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository Perception of health risks in general and nuclear risks, specifically Potential costs and benefits of nuclear waste facilities Trust in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the federal government to safely manage nuclear waste Local and state roles in decision processes regarding nuclear waste management and the equity of the Yucca Mountain selection process Attitudes toward various types of benefits or compensation for accepting a hazardous facility Attitudes toward possible alternative uses other than nuclear weapons testing for the DOE's Test Site (NTS) This survey was conducted for the State of Agency for Nuclear Projects/Nuclear Waste Project Office (NWPO) as part of an ongoing socioeconomic impact assessment study. The questionnaire was designed by a study team including: Jim Flynn and Paul Slovic from Decision Research, Jim Chalmers, Coopers & Lybrand, K. David Pijawka and Alvin Mushkatel from Arizona State University, Richard Krannich and Ronald Little from Utah State University, Howard Kunreuther, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and Doug Easterling of the Colorado Trust. A copy of the survey instrument can be found in appendix A.
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 2 Twelve surveys have been conducted within between 1986 and 1993 to assess public attitudes and opinions about the repository and its management. Six of the surveys have had statewide samples; another six have focused on local jurisdictions in southern. This 1994 survey provides longitudinal data for NWPO's ongoing socioeconomic impact study. The purpose of this report is to provide a description of 1994 results; a longitudinal analyses will not be provided here, although some comparisons to past survey findings will be made. A description of the study team reports, including each survey, is contained in the Yucca Mountain socioeconomic study team report (1993). 2. METHOD Several samples were used for this survey. The first was a sample of 800 residents throughout the entire state of. This sample was proportional to the population in each county. Additional samples consisted of 202 interviews in and 100 interviews each in and counties. These supplemental samples were drawn to enable the study team to measure attitudes and opinions of the host county () and two contiguous counties located in southern. Respondents for the samples were selected from a random sample of telephone numbers generated by Survey Sampling, Inc., of Fairfield, Connecticut. This sample allowed access to all households with telephones, including listed and unlisted numbers. Standage Accureach, Inc., of Denver, Colorado conducted the telephone interviews between July 15, 1994, and September 20, 1994. One initial attempt and numerous callbacks (in some cases as many as 8 or 10) were made to contact each household to determine if that household met criteria of being a residence with a respondent over the age of 18. Respondents were identified by the person in the household having the most recent birthday until
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 3 one or the other gender quota was completed for each county. At that point the interviewer screened for the person needed to fill the gender quota. State sample. The 800 completed interviews represent a response rate of 50.4% from a of 1586 qualified households. The margin of error for the statewide sample was plus or minus 3.5% with a 95% confidence interval. Five hundred and nine respondents were residents. The margin of error for the subsample was plus or minus 4.4% with a 95% confidence interval. For the remaining 291 respondents residing in the rest of the state (non- ), the margin of error was 5.9%.. The 402 completed interviews for the three-county supplemental samples represent a response rate of 56.4% from a of 708 qualified households. One hundred respondents each resided in and counties. The margin of error for these two subsamples was plus or minus 10.0% with a 95% confidence interval. The 202 respondents in have a margin of error of plus or minus 7.1% with a 95% confidence interval. Demographics. The mean age for the statewide sample was 44.3 with 48.1% male and 51.9% female respondents. The mean age in the three rural county samples was slightly older; 48.1 in ; 49.7 in, and 49.6 in. Frequency tables displaying the additional demographic characteristics by sample and subsample are provided in appendix B. This report presents the results of the survey. Tables showing the frequency distribution for each question in the survey are provided. The results are displayed to show the entire statewide sample in the first column ( Total) with the breakout for and the rest of the state in the second and third columns, respectively. The results for the three rural county samples are shown by county in columns 4 through 6. It should be noted that
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 4 the " State" results also include one respondent from, two from, and 10 from that are not included in the rural county samples. Because past surveys have found differences between men and women on a number of items such as support for the Yucca Mountain repository and perceptions of risk, a brief description of gender differences found in the 1994 survey will be provided. Although other socioeconomic variables (e.g., age, education) could also affect responses, such analyses are beyond the scope of this report. 3. KEY FINDINGS This section presents some of the key findings identified in this report. The 1994 survey found ns still strongly opposed to the federal governments attempts to site a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. When asked if they would vote for or against locating the repository at Yucca Mountain, 72.3% said they would vote against it; only 20.9% would vote for it. Greater support for the repository was found in the three rural southern counties with recording the greatest support with 42.6% indicating they would vote for it. When asked whether the State of should make a deal to get benefits or continue its opposition to the Yucca Mountain repository, 68.3% supported continued opposition to the repository even if it means turning down benefits and 25.5% were in favor or negotiating for benefits (6.3% did not know or did not answer the question). Over half of the state respondents disagreed that the federal government could build a repository that would be safe for 10,000 years. ns indicated high levels of concern about a number of risks associated with operating a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Respondents were
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 5 very concerned about contamination of underground water supplies and earthquake risks with 60.6% and 51.5% recording extremely concerned scores (scores of 9 or 10 on a 0 to 10 scale), respectively. Respondents also saw high levels of risks associated with the transportation of high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain; on a 0 to 10 scale where 0 means no risk at all and 10 means very serious risk, 39.1% of the respondents recorded scores of 9 or 10 indicating they perceived this as a very serious risk. A vast majority of the respondents (79.8%) thought it was likely or very likely that past activities at the NTS have caused harmful health problems for people in the surrounding communities. Almost two-thirds of the respondents thought it was likely or very likely that the repository would cause loss of tourism and 79.3% indicated they thought it was likely or very likely the repository would result in communities near the repository being labelled as nuclear dump areas. ns understand that a repository could have economic benefits. Three-quarters of the state respondents indicated it was likely or very likely that the repository would create a significant number of new jobs in local areas and nearby communities. Half of the respondents indicated that it was likely or very likely that the repository would improve local financial conditions. When asked how likely they thought it was that the benefits of a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain would be greater than the costs, respondents were more likely to think that the repository costs would be greater than the benefits to their local communities. On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 means not likely at all and 10 means extremely likely, the mean score was 4.1 with 29.9% of the respondents recording 0 or 1
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 6 scores indicating that respondents thought it was not at all likely that the benefits would be greater than the costs. Over three-quarters (77.4%) of the respondents indicated they disagree or strongly disagree that DOE could be trusted to provide prompt and full disclosure of any accidents or serious problems with their waste management programs. A large majority of respondents (70.1%) had heard of the recent disclosures concerning radiation testing on humans that had occurred from the 1940s until the 1970s. For those respondents who said they had heard of the disclosures, 71.5% indicated that the disclosures had somewhat or greatly decreased their trust in DOE. respondents overwhelmingly believe that state and local government should have a say in siting a radioactive waste facility. Ninety percent indicated they agree or strongly agree that "radioactive wastes should be stored where they are produced until the federal government obtains an agreement with a host state or local community to accept a new storage facility." When asked whether local communities and/or states should have the final say on whether they accept a radioactive waste facility, over 80% agreed or strongly agreed. When asked if local communities and/or states "should have the right to close down the operations of a radioactive waste facility at any time after it is built if they are convinced that it is unsafe," over 80% again agreed or strongly agreed. ns tended to think the Yucca Mountain selection process had been unfair. On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 means completely unfair and 10 means completely fair, the mean score was 3.7, with one-third of the respondents recording completely unfair scores of 0 or 1.
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 7 A vast majority of the state respondents (80.2%) indicated they agree or strongly agree that states and communities accepting storage facilities should obtain significant economic benefits. However, when asked about five specific compensation measures, support was somewhat weaker ranging from 45 to 63% of the respondents recording appropriate or completely appropriate responses. Greater support was found for those measures that compensate specifically for negative health effects or property losses than for measures that provide benefits for accepting a repository. Little support was found for any of the proposed alternative uses of NTS. In fact, disagreement with the proposed uses ranged from 58.6% recording disagree or strongly disagree responses to using NTS as a place to dismantle nuclear warheads to 77.2% disagreement to using it as an MRS. Respondents were overwhelmingly against the imposition of even small health risks on people without their consent; 87.9% of the respondents recorded disagree or strong disagree responses. 4. SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION IN NEVADA TO YUCCA MOUNTAIN 4.1. Yucca Mountain Referendum Following a short introduction (see appendix A for the complete questionnaire), the first survey question posed a hypothetical situation to ask whether the respondent supported the development of the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. State sample. Survey results shown in Table 1 indicate that respondents continue to be opposed to locating a repository at Yucca Mountain with 72.3% of the state sample voting against the repository. Only 20.9% would vote for it. Voting patterns for and the rest of the state are similar-70.7% of respondents would vote against
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 8 Table 1. Yucca Mountain Referendum Q: Suppose the Department of Energy selected the Yucca Mountain site for the nation's first high-level radioactive waste repository, but it wouldn't be located there unless residents voted in favor of it. If this were the case, would you vote for it or against it? Vote For 20.9% 22.2% 18.6% 35.0% 37.0% 42.6% Against 72.3 70.7 74.9 60.0 54.0 49.5 Would not vote 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Don't know/no answer 6.1 6.1 6.2 5.0 9.0 7.9 respondents = 800 509 291 100 100 202 Note. Percentages may not 100 due to rounding. * The state sample, which includes (n = 509) plus rest of state (n = 291), equals (N = 800). also includes 1 respondent from, 2 from, and 10 from that are not included in the supplemental sample. the repository compared to 74.9% of the rest of. Higher levels of support for DOE projects would be expected in given the large employment and spending benefits of the NTS and the Yucca Mountain project, as well as additional major federal activities such as Nellis Air Force Base. Still, only 22.2% of respondents would vote for the repository compared to 18.6% of the rest of. Past surveys asking the same vote question found similar results. Opposition to locating the repository at Yucca Mountain has ranged from 69.4% to 80.2% in surveys conducted
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 9 between 1989 and 1993 for state respondents. For, opposition to has ranged from 68.0 to 76.5%.1. Support for locating the repository at Yucca Mountain was found to be somewhat greater in the three rural counties. respondents recorded the greatest support for the repository with 42.6% indicating that they would vote for it. However, opposition was still higher than support with 49.5% voting against the repository; 7.9% of respondents did not know or answer this question. In, 37.0% would vote for the repository compared to 54.0% voting against. Of the three rural counties, respondents indicated the greatest opposition to the repository with 60.0% voting against it. Gender differences. Women have voted against the repository program in greater proportions in every survey conducted on the question of Yucca Mountain. This pattern was also found in the 1994 survey with 80.2% of women respondents voting against the repository compared to 63.6% of the men. These findings are consistent with results from previous surveys on this issue (Flynn, Slovic, & Mertz, 1994). 4.2. Strength of Opinion To assess the strength of support and opposition implied by the vote question, we asked people to tell us how strongly their positions were held. Tables 2 and 3 show these results. State sample. Differences in strength of position between those who would vote for the repository and those who would vote against the repository were quite notable. Ten percent of the state respondents indicated strong support compared to 58.0% who strongly oppose 'See Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz. C.K. (1994). The autumn 1993 state telephone survey: Key findings (Report No. NWPO-SE-058-94). Carson City, NV: NWPO. This report provides data for five surveys conducted in 1989, 1991, and 1993.
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 10 Table 2. Strength of Response on Referendum Question for Respondents Voting for the Yucca Mountain Repository Q: Would you say you somewhat support or strongly support the repository? [Asked only of those who would vote for it] Support Somewhat 10.8% 11.0% 10.3% 19.0% 19.0% 18.8% Strongly 10.0 11.0 8.3 16.0 16.0 23.8 Other 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Frequency 79.1 77.8 81.4 65.0 63.0 57.4 Missing respondents = 800 509 291 100 100 202 Note. Percentages may not 100 due to rounding. * The state sample, which includes (n = 509) plus rest of state (n = 291), equals (N = 800). also includes 1 respondent from, 2 from, and 10 from that are not included in the supplemental sample. the repository. The ratio of those who were strongly opposed (n = 464) to those who were strongly supportive of the repository (n = 80) was 5.8 to 1. This ratio would seem to indicate that the position in opposition to the repository is firmly established in numbers and in commitment level.. Rural county responses were similar to the state strength of opinion was much stronger for those who opposed the repository than those supporting it (see tables 2 and 3). However, the discrepancy between those who strongly support and those who strongly oppose was not as great in the three rural counties. As Table 2 shows, the strength of support in was found to be stronger than in the other two rural
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 11 Table 3. Strength of Response on Referendum Question for Respondents Voting Against the Yucca Mountain Repository Q: Would you say you somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the repository? [Asked only of those who would vote against it] Support Somewhat 13.6% 14.3% 12.4% 12.0% 9.0% 9.9% Strongly 58.0 55.6 62.2 48.0 45.0 39.6 Other 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Frequency 27.8 29.3 25.1 40.0 46.0 50.5 Missing respondents = 800 509 291 100 100 202 Note. Percentages may not 100 due to rounding. * The state sample, which includes (n = 509) plus rest of state (n = 291), equals (N = 800). also includes 1 respondent from, 2 from, and 10 from that are not included in the supplemental sample. counties with 23.8% strongly supporting the repository in compared to 16.0% in and counties. Gender differences. The measures of strength of support show that men and women who supported the repository had about the same strength of opposition with 48% in the strongly support category. For those who opposed the repository, women were slightly more likely to indicate they strongly oppose (82.3%) than men (77.6%). However, this difference was not statistically significant. In summary, men were more supportive of the repository than women, but of those who would vote for the repository, men and women were equally likely to say they had strong support.
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 12 4.3. Inevitability of Yucca Mountain One question was posed to gauge the respondents sense of fatalism regarding their state's selection as the waste repository site. Respondents were asked if they strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strong agree with the statement: "The repository at Yucca Mountain is inevitable. It will be built there whether the state of opposes it or not." State sample. Two-thirds of the state respondents indicated agreement that the repository at Yucca Mountain is inevitable and will be built there whether the State of opposes it or not. As Table 4 shows, respondents are somewhat more likely to agree with this statement than the rest of (69.5% vs. 61.5% agreement). A similar question included in the 1989 survey recorded lower levels of fatalism with slightly over half (53.0%) of the state respondents indicating agreement that the repository was inevitable. However, even stronger levels of fatalism were found in a 1987 survey when three sites (Hanford in Washington, Deaf Site in Texas, and Yucca Mountain in ) were being considered for a permanent high-level nuclear waste repository. Ninety percent thought it was likely or very likely that the repository would be located at Yucca Mountain. In spite of being the only site currently being considered for the repository, it appears that ns sense of inevitability decreased between 1987 and 1989 and then increased from 1989 to 1994.. respondents recorded the highest level of fatalism about the siting of the Yucca Mountain repository with three-quarters of the respondent indicating agreement. respondents indicated the least support for this view with 64.0% agreement. Gender differences. No gender differences in the state sample were found on this question.
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 13 Table 4. Inevitability of Yucca Mountain Q: The repository at Yucca Mountain is inevitable. It will be built there whether the State of opposes it or not. Strongly disagree 11.4% 9.0% 15.5% 12.0% 13.0% 8.4% Disagree 19.0 19.3 18.6 22.0 14.0 13.9 Agree 41.0 43.2 37.1 36.0 44.0 44.1 Strongly agree 25.6 26.3 24.4 28.0 28.0 33.7 Don't know/no answer 3.0 2.2 4.5 2.0 1.0 0.0 respondents = 800 509 291 100 100 202 Note. Percentages may not 100 due to rounding. * The state sample, which includes (n = 509) plus rest of state (n = 291), equals (N = 800). also includes 1 respondent from, 2 from, and 10 from that are not included in the supplemental sample. 4.4. Continue Opposition/Make a Deal In addition to the Yucca Mountain referendum item another question was included to measure support and/or opposition to the repository. Respondents were asked to evaluate two possible strategies state and local public policy makers could take in responding to the federal repository program. This question asked the respondent if the State should stop its opposition to the repository and make a deal with the federal government in order to receive benefits or if the State should continue to do all that it can to oppose the repository even if that means turning down benefits. Table 5 provides the full text of the question and results.
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 14 Table 5. Make a Deal or Continue Opposition Q: Some people in the state think that ns should stop fighting the repository and try, instead, to make a deal with the federal government in order to get benefits for the state. Other people believe that Yucca Mountain is a poor choice, and that the state resistance should not be weakened or compromised by entering into a deal for benefits. Do you believe the state should stop its opposition and make a deal, or do you think the state should continue to do all that it can to oppose the repository, even if that means turning down benefits that may be offered by the federal government? Stop fighting and make a deal Continue opposition/turn down benefits Don't know/no answer 25.5% 26.9 % 23.0% 30.0% 37.0% 43.6% 68.3 68.2 68.4 65.0 55.0 46.5 6.3 4.9 8.6 5.0 8.0 9.9 respondents = 800 509 291 100 100 202 Note. Percentages may not 100 due to rounding. * The state sample, which includes (n = 509) plus rest of state (n = 291), equals (N = 800). also includes 1 respondent from, 2 from, and 10 from that are not included in the supplemental sample. State sample. State respondents continue to believe the state should continue its opposition to the repository. Two-thirds (68.3%) of the state respondents supported continued opposition to the repository even if it means turning down benefits. Support for making a deal increased between 1989 when 19.6% supported this view and autumn 1993 when 28.0% of state respondents indicated they were willing to make a deal. The percentage willing to make a deal decreased slightly to 25.5% in the 1994 survey.
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 15 However, a large majority (68.3%) opposes the repository program to the extent of refusing to listen to tradeoffs and possible benefits. The level of opposition to even talking about conditions for siting a repository is almost as large as those who would vote against the repository if a referendum were held. This level and persistence of opposition against the repository program highlights the strong perceptions of potential risk from high-level radioactive waste and the profound lack of trust in existing management by the federal government. No differences were found between respondents and the rest of in the 1994 survey.. respondents recorded the most support for making a deal with the federal government with 43.6% supporting this position. However, slightly more respondents (46.5%) felt that the state should continue its opposition to the repository. Ten percent were undecided. respondents were found to hold very similar views to the state sample with 65.0% supporting continued opposition to the repository. The view of respondents fell in between and counties with 55.0% supporting continued opposition. These are consistent with results to the Yucca Mountain referendum question. respondents tend to be less opposed to the repository than the other two rural counties and the state as a whole. As the in situ county for the repository, residents may feel that they would be more likely to receive benefits (i.e., employment, etc.) from the repository than other areas of the state. Gender differences. Women were much more likely to feel that the state should continue its opposition to the repository than were men (76.9% vs 57.0%, respectively). This is consistent with responses to the Yucca Mountain referendum question and to other survey findings that
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 16 show women as more risk averse than men (see section 5). One-third of the men indicated they were willing to make a deal with the federal government. 5. PERCEPTION OF RISK In one segment of the survey, respondents were asked to rate the degree of health risk associated with 20 hazards. These 20 items covered a range of technological and pollution hazards (e.g., nuclear waste facilities, nuclear power plants, power lines, waste incinerators), two medical treatments (e.g., X-rays and blood transfusions), one natural hazard (e.g., storms and floods), and a voluntary lifestyle choice (e.g., cigarette smoking). Each item was rated in terms of the health risk posed "to the American public as a whole." A four-item Likert scale was used for the possible responses: "almost no health risk," "slight health risk," "moderate health risk," and "high health risk" (coded 1 to 4, respectively). Figure 1 shows the mean risk perception ratings of the 20 items for the, and the rest of ; the items are ranked by the means. Figure 2 shows comparable data for the three rural county samples; these data are sorted according to the figures. State sample. Cigarette smoking was ranked as the item with the highest perceived health risk followed by a high-level radioactive waste facility. Twelve of the 20 items had mean risk ratings of 3.0 (indicating moderate risk) or higher. All nuclear items had means greater than 3.0 (high-level radioactive waste facility, transportation of radioactive wastes, nuclear power plants, and low-level radioactive waste facilities). A high-level radioactive waste facility was seen to be a more serious risk than the other three nuclear items. In fact, 62.6% of the state respondents rated a high-level radioactive waste facility as a high risk.
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 17 Medical X-rays and storms and floods were perceived to have the lowest risk. Other items perceived as less risky include electric and magnetic fields from power lines, municipal landfills, and climate change. As Figure 1 illustrates, risk perceptions of respondents and the rest of are very similar. Cigarette smoking High-level radioactive waste facility Chemical manufacturing plants Motor vehicle accidents Asbestos in buildings Dioxin Transportation of radioactive wastes Nuclear power plants Chemical weapons at military bases Agricultural use of pesticides Genetically engineered bacteria in agriculture Low-level radioactive waste facilities Blood transfusions Oil and gas refineries Municipal waste incinerators Climate change Municipal landfils EMFs from power lines Storms and floods Medical X-rays 2 3 4 Slight risk Moderate risk High risk. Figure 1. Mean risk perception ratings: state sample.. Figure 2 shows the mean risk ratings for the three rural counties sorted according to the in Figure 1. As in the state sample, cigarette smoking and a high-level nuclear waste facility were found to have the highest perceived risk associated with them. Items receiving the lowest risk ratings were also similar to the state findings.
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 18 Cigarette smoking High-level radioactive waste facility Chemical manufacturing plants Motor vehicle accidents Asbestos in buildings Dioxin Transportation of radioactive wastes Nuclear power plants Chemical weapons at military bases Agricultural use of pesticides Genetically engineered bacteria in agriculture Low-level radioactive waste facilities Blood transfusions Oil and gas refineries Municipal waste incinerators Climate change Municipal landfils EMFs from power lines Storms and floods Medical X rays 2 3 4 Sligh risk Moderate risk High risk Figure 2. Mean risk perception ratings: rural county samples. In general, risk ratings were found to be slightly lower in the three rural counties. As can be seen in Figure 2, some variation in responses were found between the three counties. In both and counties ten items had mean risk ratings over 3.0. Three of the four nuclear items had means above 3.0; however, low-level radioactive waste facilities had a mean of 2.8 in both and counties. Interestingly, a low-level radioactive waste facility is located near Beatty in perhaps giving respondents a sense of familiarity and less perceived risk associated with low-level wastes. In, only four items had ratings over 3.0 (cigarette smoking, high-level radioactive waste facility, motor vehicle accidents, and transportation of radioactive wastes).
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 19 Ratings for nuclear power plants and low-level radioactive facilities had ratings of 2.9 and 2.8, respectively. Another way to assess the magnitude of perceive risk is to look at the percent in the high health risk category. Again, risks associated with a high-level nuclear waste facility were second only to cigarette smoking with 53 to 54% of the respondents recording high risk responses in and counties and 60.0% in. Gender differences. Other studies have found sizable differences in perceived risk between men and women (Slovic et al., 1993). Women tend to be more risk averse and have higher perceptions of risk than men. The 1994 survey also found this to be true. Differences in the percent high risk between men and women are shown in Figure 3. Women were more likely to rate a hazard as a high risk for every item. In several instances, the differences between men and women were quite large up to 18% for asbestos in buildings and a high-level radioactive waste facility. Other items exhibiting more than a 15% difference in percentage of high-risk responses were low-level radioactive waste facilities, and nuclear power plants. Smaller differences (7.7%) between men and women were found for transportation of highlevel radioactive wastes. Little differences were found between men and women for medical X-rays and dioxin. 6. NUCLEAR/REPOSITORY RISKS Another series of questions were posed to assess risk perceptions specifically associated with a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain and other governmental nuclear activities. Opinions were solicited about long-term safety of the repository and risks to future generations, earthquake risks, groundwater contamination, transportation risks, and harmful effects resulting from past and future governmental nuclear activities.
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 20 Asbestos in buildings High-level radioactive waste facility Low-level radioactive waste facility Nuclear power plants Agricultural use of pesticides Genetically engineered bacteria in agriculture Chemical manufacturing plants EMF's Motor vehicle accidents Climate change Transportation of radioactive wastes Municipal waste incinerators Blood transfusions Oil and gasoline refineries Cigarette smoking Municipal landfills Chemical weapons stored at military bases Storms and floods Dioxin Medical X-rays -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% Percent difference Figure 3. Risk to American public by gender: percent difference in "high-health risk" between females and males. 6.1. Long-Term Safety and Risks Two questions asked about the long-term risks associated with a high-level nuclear waste repository. The first question asked respondents (using a four-item Likert scale) if the federal government would be able to build a high-level nuclear waste repository in such as way that it could safely store wastes for 10,000 years. The second question asked respondent to rate their level of agreement on a 0 to 10 scale where 0 mean strongly disagree and 10 means strongly agree to the following statement: "A high-level nuclear waste repository would pose serious health and safety risks for future generations in your community."
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 21 State sample. Over half (56.5%) of the state sample disagreed or strongly disagreed that the federal government could build a repository that would be safe for 10,000 years with 27.9% recording strongly disagree responses. As Table 6 shows, results for respondents and the rest of were very similar. Table 6. Government Able to Build Repository That Is Safe for 10,000 Years Q: The federal government will be able to build a high-level radioactive waste repository in such a way that it can safely contain wastes for at least 10,000 years. Strongly disagree 27.9% 27.7% 28.2% 17.0% 15.0% 25.3% Disagree 28.6 27.5 30.6 30.0 36.0 23.8 Agree 26.8 28.3 24.1 40.0 41.0 33.7 Strongly agree 10.6 9.8 12.0 4.0 5.0 11.4 Don't know/no answer 6.1 6.7 5.2 9.0 3.0 5.9 respondents = 800 509 291 100 100 202 Note. Percentages may not 100 due to rounding. * The state sample, which includes (n = 509) plus rest of state (n = 291), equals (N = 800). also includes 1 respondent from, 2 from, and 10 from that are not included in the supplemental sample. Respondents also tended to agree that the repository would pose serious health and safety risks to future generations (mean of 6.7). As Table 7 shows, 43.0% indicated strong agreement with a score of 9 or 10. Again, results were very similar for and the rest of.. The three rural counties were more likely than state respondents to agree that the federal government could build a repository capable of storing wastes for
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 22 Table 7. Repository Risks to Future Generations Q: A high-level nuclear waste facility would pose serious health and safety risks for future generations in your community. Strongly disagree 0 8.3% 6.9% 10.7% 13.0% 8.0% 12.9% 1 3.6 4.1 2.8 3.0 6.0 5.9 2 4.6 5.1 3.8 8.0 10.0 7.4 3 6.1 5.1 7.9 7.0 11.0 4.5 4 3.8 3.9 3.4 2.0 4.0 6.9 5 10.4 10.8 9.6 10.0 16.0 10.9 6 3.1 3.0 3.4 4.0 5.0 5.0 7 6.1 5.3 7.6 8.0 8.0 5.9 8 10.3 11.6 7.9 15.0 7.0 5.9 9 4.5 5.5 2.8 1.0 3.0 4.0 Strongly 10 agree 38.5 37.7 39.9 28.0 22.0 29.2 Don't know/no response 0.8 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.0 1.5 Mean 6.7 6.8 6.6 5.9 5.4 5.7 respondents = 800 509 291 100 100 202 Note. Percentages may not 100 due to rounding. * The state sample, which includes (n = 509) plus rest of state (n = 291), equals (N = 800). also includes 1 respondent from, 2 from, and 10 from that are not included in the supplemental sample. 10,000 years with agreement ranging from 46.0% in to 44.0% in. Still, more of the respondents in the rural counties (about half) tended to disagree that this was possible.
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 23 Rural county respondents tended to agree that the repository would pose risks to future generations; means ranged from 5.4 in to 5.9 in. The strength of agreement with this statement was lower for the three rural counties than the state. One third (33.2%) of the respondents recorded strong agreement (score of 9 or 10) compared to 29.0% in and 25.0% in. Gender differences. Men were much more likely than women to agree that the federal government could build a repository capable of storing wastes for 10,000 years with 47.8% recording agree or strongly agree responses compared to 27.7% of the women. In fact, men were fairly evenly divided on this statement with 47.8% recording agreement and 47.3% disagreement. On the other hand, two-thirds of the women disagreed with this statement. Women were more likely than men to agree with that the repository would pose serious risks for future generations. Half of the female respondents recorded a strongly agree score (9 or 10) compared to 35.6% of the men. This is consistent with the higher risk perceptions held by women that was found in section 5. 6.2. Concerns About Yucca Mountain Five questions were included to assess risk perceptions or concerns specific to the Yucca Mountain site. Items asked about the seriousness of Yucca Mountain risks to the community, transportation risks, concerns about underground water contamination and earthquake risks, and ability of local emergency response organizations to prepare for potential transportation accidents. State sample. Overall, state respondents tended to perceive serious risks from the Yucca Mountain repository. When asked to rate the seriousness of risk of the Yucca Mountain repository to health and safety of residents in their area on a 0 to 10 scale with 0 meaning "no risk at all" and 10, "very serious risk," mean scores were 6.3 for the state, with 33.8% of
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 24 Table 8. Repository Risks to Nearby Residents Q: How serious a risk do you think the [Yucca Mountain] repository would be to the health and safety of residents in your area? No risk at all 0 8.5% 6.9% 11.3% 9.0% 8.0% 11.4% 1 3.1 3.1 3.1 4.0 4.0 6.9 2 6.4 5.5 7.9 9.0 10.0 5.0 3 6.4 6.3 6.5 6.0 8.0 8.4 4 4.9 5.1 4.5 5.0 8.0 5.9 5 12.5 12.4 12.7 18.0 22.0 13.4 6 4.1 4.5 3.4 6.0 4.0 4.5 7 7.4 7.3 7.6 5.0 4.0 5.9 8 11.6 13.4 8.6 13.0 11.0 9.4 9 4.9 4.1 6.2 4.0 4.0 4.5 Very serious 10 risk 28.9 29.9 27.2 18.0 17.0 21.8 Don't know/no response 1.4 1.6 1.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 Mean 6.3 6.5 6.0 5.6 5.4 5.5 respondents = 800 509 291 100 100 202 Note. Percentages may not 100 due to rounding. * The state sample, which includes (n = 509) plus rest of state (n = 291), equals (N = 800). also includes 1 respondent from, 2 from, and 10 from that are not included in the supplemental sample. state respondents recording very serious risk scores of 9 or 10. As Table 8 shows, the mean score for (6.5) was somewhat higher than the rest of the state (6.0). Perhaps this finding reflect the closer proximity of residents to the repository compared to
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 25 many other state residents. However, little difference was found between and the rest of in terms of those recording 9 and 10 responses; 34.0% and 33.4%, respectively. Transportation risks were seen as somewhat more serious than general repository risks discussed above. When asked to rate the risk to people in their area from transportation of high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain (on the same 0 to 10 scale), the mean score was 6.8 with 39.1% of the respondents recording scores of 9 or 10 indicating this was a "very serious risk" (see Table 9). Results for and the rest of were very similar. Two items solicited levels of concern about two technical issues associated with locating a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain: contamination of underground water supplies and earthquake risks. Tables 10 and 11 contain the full text of the questions and results. Both of these issues are under study to determine the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site as an underground repository. A scale of 0 to 10 with 0 indicating "not at all concerned" and 10 meaning "extremely concerned" was utilized in both questions. High levels of concern were indicated by respondents to both issues. However, respondents exhibited slightly greater concern regarding contamination of underground water supplies with 60.7% of the state respondents recording scores of 9 or 10 compared to 51.5% indicating extreme concern about earthquake risks (means of 7.8 and 7.4, respectively). The same pattern was seen in the and rest of responses. respondents tended to be less concerned than the rest of the state about earthquake risks with 49.5% recording scores of 9 or 10 compared to 55.0% of the rest of the state (mean score of 7.2 vs 7.7). Another item asked if "local emergency response organizations can be adequately prepared to protect the public safety in the event of a major accident involving transportation
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 26 Table 9. Transportation Risks Q: How much risk to people in your area do you think would result from the transportation of high-level nucear waste to a disposal facility at Yucca Mountain? No risk at all 0 4.5% 4.1% 5.2% 9.0% 4.0% 7.4% 1 4.0 3.9 4.1 6.0 3.0 6.9 2 5.5 5.1 6.2 10.0 11.0 7.9 3 6.1 6.3 5.8 2.0 8.0 6.9 4 5.3 4.1 7.2 4.0 5.0 6.4 5 8.4 10.4 4.8 18.0 16.0 11.4 6 5.9 5.3 6.9 7.0 4.0 4.5 7 8.1 8.6 7.2 5.0 7.0 8.4 8 12.3 11.4 13.8 9.0 11.0 8.4 9 5.9 5.7 6.2 4.0 2.0 4.5 Very serious 10 risk 33.3 34.0 32.0 22.0 29.0 24.8 Don't know/no response 0.9 1.0 0.7 4.0 0.0 2.5 Mean 6.8 6.8 6.7 5.7 6.2 5.8 respondents = 800 509 291 100 100 202 Note. Percentages may not 100 due to rounding. * The state sample, which includes (n = 509) plus rest of state (n = 291), equals (N = 800). also includes 1 respondent from, 2 from, and 10 from that are not included in the supplemental sample. of high-level nuclear waste." A 0 to 10 scale was used where 0 means "strongly disagree" and 10 means "strongly agree." As Table 12 shows one-third of the state respondents strongly disagreed (score of 0 or 1) with this statement. Results for and the rest
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 27 Table 10. Risks of Underground Water Contamination Q: How concerned are you that a repository at Yucca Mountain would contaminate underground water supplies? Not at all concerned 0 5.6% 5.7% 5.5% 9.0% 8.0% 13.4% 1 2.4 2.6 2.1 2.0 4.0 5.5 2 2.5 3.0 1.7 7.0 3.0 5.9 3 4.1 4.5 3.4 4.0 5.0 4.0 4 2.3 1.8 3.1 3.0 4.0 3.0 5 5.0 3.9 6.9 10.0 6.0 5.9 6 2.8 3.0 2.4 1.0 5.0 2.0 7 4.5 3.7 5.8 6.0 5.0 1.5 8 9.4 10.2 7.9 6.0 11.0 8.9 9 5.9 6.7 4.5 4.0 7.0 4.0 Extremely 10 concerned 54.8 54.4 55.3 47.0 40.0 44.1 Don't know/no response 0.9 0.6 1.4 1.0 2.0 2.0 Mean 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.0 7.0 6.5 respondents = 800 509 291 100 100 202 Note. Percentages may not 100 due to rounding. * The state sample, which includes (n = 509) plus rest of state (n = 291), equals (N = 800). also includes 1 respondent from, 2 from, and 10 from that are not included in the supplemental sample. of the state were similar.. The three rural counties tended to exhibit lower perceptions of risk from the proposed Yucca Mountain facility than the state respondents (see tables 9-12).
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 28 Table 11. Risks to Repository From Earthquakes Q: How concerned are you that earthquakes would cause the containment of radioactivity within the repository to fail? Not at all concerned 0 4.9% 6.1% 2.8% 9.0% 9.0% 11.4% 1 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.0 0.0 5.0 2 3.5 3.9 2.8 4.0 6.0 7.9 3 4.6 5.1 3.8 4.0 6.0 4.5 4 3.6 4.1 2.8 2.0 2.0 4.0 5 8.1 7.9 8.6 6.0 10.0 7.4 6 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.0 6.0 2.0 7 5.9 6.7 4.5 8.0 9.0 6.4 8 9.4 8.3 11.3 9.0 7.0 7.4 9 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.0 8.0 3.0 Extremely 10 concerned 45.4 43.4 48.8 44.0 35.0 38.6 Don't know/no response 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.5 Mean 7.4 7.2 7.7 7.2 6.8 6.3 respondents = 800 509 291 100 100 202 Note. Percentages may not 100 due to rounding. * The state sample, which includes (n = 509) plus rest of state (n = 291), equals (N = 800). also includes 1 respondent from, 2 from, and 10 from that are not included in the supplemental sample. When asked about the risks of transporting high-level nuclear wastes to Yucca Mountain, mean scores ranged from 6.2 in to 5.7 in compared to a mean score of 6.8 for the state sample. Thirty-one percent of the sample
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 29 Table 12. Adequacy of Local Emergency Response Q: Local emergency response organizations can be adequately prepared to protect the public safety in the event of a major accident involving transportation of high-level nuclear waste. Strongly disagree 0 27.8% 25.9% 30.9% 18.0% 18.0% 26.7% 1 5.0 5.5 4.1 2.0 7.0 4.5 2 9.6 10.6 7.9 12.0 9.0 3.5 3 6.8 7.5 5.5 8.0 9.0 7.9 4 5.6 6.1 4.8 6.0 5.0 6.9 5 11.1 10.8 11.7 16.0 13.0 13.4 6 6.0 6.3 5.5 2.0 8.0 5.0 7 5.9 4.1 8.9 5.0 6.0 6.4 8 7.6 7.7 7.6 12.0 10.0 7.4 9 2.1 2.4 1.7 4.0 4.0 4.5 Strongly 10 agree 10.9 12.0 8.9 15.0 10.0 10.9 Don't know/no response 1.6 1.2 2.4 0.0 1.0 3.0 Mean 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.8 4.5 4.3 respondents = 800 509 291 100 100 202 Note. Percentages may not 100 due to rounding. * The state sample, which includes (n = 509) plus rest of state (n = 291), equals (N = 800). also includes 1 respondent from, 2 from, and 10 from that are not included in the supplemental sample. recorded scores of 9 or 10 indicating it was very serious risk compared to 29.3% of the respondents and 26.0% of. Comparable figures for the state sample were higher with 39.2% recording scores of 9 or 10.
1994 State Telephone Survey: Key Findings 30 When asked about the seriousness of health and safety risks of the Yucca Mountain repository to residents in their area, mean scores ranged from 5.4 in to 5.6 in compared to the state sample mean of 6.3. However, when looking at the very serious risk end of the scale respondents rated the risks as more serious than the other two rural counties with 26.3% in the 9 and 10 category compared to 21 to 22% in and counties. State respondents recorded 33.8% scores in the 9 and 10 categories (see Table 8). As with the state sample, the rural counties exhibited great concern about contamination of underground water supplies and earthquake risks at Yucca Mountain. As tables 10 and 11 illustrate and counties appeared to be somewhat more concerned about these two risks than but less concerned than the state respondents., the host county for the site, exhibited less concern about these two risks. The rural counties exhibited somewhat less concern than the state about the ability of local emergency response organizations to prepare for transportation accidents involving high-level nuclear waste; mean scores ranged from 4.3 to 4.8 in the rural county samples compared to 4.0 in the state sample (higher score indicates greater agreement that local abilities could be adequately prepared). Gender differences. Women again indicated higher risk perceptions or concerns about the various risks associated with the Yucca Mountain repository. Women were more likely to: rate the seriousness of risk of the Yucca Mountain repository to the health and safety of residents in their area as more serious than men with 41.9% recording a very serious score of 9 or 10 compared to 24.9% of the men.