Perceived Risk and Uncertainty of Nuclear Waste: Differences Among Science,Business, and Environmental Group Members1

This paper presents survey results on perceived risk regarding the management of nuclear waste. Using data taken from random mail surveys of members of scientific, business, and environmental groups in Colorado and New Mexico in the summer of 1990, we examine differences between the groups in their expressed perceptions of risk and also their assessments of the certainty of their beliefs. We consider whether (a) greater uncertainty is associated with greater perceived risks and (b) whether there is greater responsiveness to new information for those whose beliefs are least certain. We find that there are connections between perceived risk and uncertainty, and there is a greater tendency to update risk assessements from a position of greater initial uncertainty. There are, however, differences between the groups as well as asymmetries in their responses to new information. The latter suggests that perceived risks will ratchet upward over time even when information is not biased toward more or less risk.     

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception

Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy. Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.     

The Impact of Accident Attention,Ideology, and Environmentalism on American Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy

This study involves the analysis of three waves of survey data about nuclear energy using a probability‐based online panel of respondents in the United States. Survey waves included an initial baseline survey conducted in early 2010, a follow‐up survey conducted in 2010 following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and an additional follow‐up conducted just after the 2011 Fukushima, Japan, nuclear accident. The central goal is to assess the degree to which changes in public views following an accident are contingent on individual attention and respondent predispositions. Such results would provide real‐world evidence of motivated reasoning. The primary analysis focuses on the impact of Fukushima and how the impact of individual attention to energy issues is moderated by both environmental views and political ideology over time. The analysis uses both mean comparisons and multivariate statistics to test key relationships. Additional variables common in the study of emerging technologies are included in the analysis, including demographics, risk and benefit perceptions, and views about the fairness of decisionmakers in both government and the private sector.     

Performance Assessment in Support of the 1996 Compliance Certification Application for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

The conceptual and computational structure of a performance assessment (PA) for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is described. Important parts of this structure are (1) maintenance of a separation between stochastic (i.e., aleatory) and subjective (i.e., epistemic) uncertainty, with stochastic uncertainty arising from the many possible disruptions that could occur over the 10,000-year regulatory period that applies to the WIPP, and subjective uncertainty arising from the imprecision with which many of the quantities required in the analysis are known, (2) use of Latin hypercube sampling to incorporate the effects of subjective uncertainty, (3) use of Monte Carlo (i.e., random) sampling to incorporate the effects of stochastic uncertainty, and (4) efficient use of the necessarily limited number of mechanistic calculations that can be performed to support the analysis. The WIPP is under development by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the geologic (i.e., deep underground) disposal of transuranic (TRU) waste, with the indicated PA supporting a Compliance Certification Application (CCA) by the DOE to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in October 1996 for the necessary certifications for the WIPP to begin operation. The EPA certified the WIPP for the disposal of TRU waste in May 1998, with the result that the WIPP will be the first operational facility in the United States for the geologic disposal of radioactive waste.     

Mitigation and Benefits Measures as Policy Tools for Siting Potentially Hazardous Facilities: Determinants of Effectiveness and Appropriateness

How do mitigation and benefits measures affect public acceptance for siting different kinds of potentially hazardous facilities? What kinds of benefits measures are seen as most (or least) appropriate for different kinds of facilities? This study used a nationwide telephone survey consisting of 1,234 interviews with randomly selected respondents to test for the effects of packages of safety and benefits measures for siting a landfill, prison, incinerator and nuclear waste repository. The experimental design used in the survey permits analysis of the fractions of respondents who are willing to change their initial levels of acceptance (or opposition) when presented with a sequence of the safety and benefit measures. The measures vary significantly in their impact on levels of acceptance for the facilities, and some measures that would at face value appear to reassure residents of facility safety turn out to lack credibility and therefore diminish facility acceptance. Ordering of the benefits versus safety measures significantly affects changes in acceptance in surprising ways. The perceived appropriateness of different kinds of benefits measures varies systematically by the type of facility under consideration. It appears that successful benefits packages will directly address the underlying dimensions of concern caused by the facility. These findings point to the importance of further research on “commensurable” benefits measures.     

Privatization and Public Opinion in Germany

Privatization has been a major issue around the world, but research on public opinion about it has been scarce. The German Social Survey provides an opportunity to compare citizen opinions from a formerly socialist-authoritarian regime with those from a democratic regime, in their opinions about privatizing banks, electrical power, and hospitals. As do citizens in surveys in other nations, Germans support privatization of the services in the order just given. Citizens from the east, where privatization led to sharp increases in unemployment, oppose privatization much more than do westerners. A LISREL analysis indicates that their opposition is not due to their concerns about its economic effects on themselves or the nation (economic pessimism), but more due to perception of the proper role of government (opposition to government spending), and sense of political efficacy. The analysis also reflects on the roles of other variables such as ideology, partisanship, gender, being unemployed, education, and preference for taxes versus public services. We discuss implications for theory and research on public opinion about government policies and services, such as the role of direct economic self-interest versus more symbolic and ideological orientations.     

Analysis of Local Acceptance of a Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility

Like many other countries in the world, Korea has struggled to site a facility for radioactive waste for almost 30 years because of the strong opposition from local residents. Finally, in 2005, Gyeongju was established as the first Korean site for a radioactive waste facility. The objectives of this research are to verify Gyeongju citizens' average level of risk perception of a radioactive waste disposal facility as compared to other risks, and to explore the best model for predicting respondents' acceptance level using variables related to cost-benefit, risk perception, and political process. For this purpose, a survey is conducted among Gyeongju residents, the results of which are as follows. First, the local residents' risk perception of an accident in a radioactive waste disposal facility is ranked seventh among a total of 13 risks, which implies that nuclear-related risk is not perceived very highly by Gyeongju residents; however, its characteristics are still somewhat negative. Second, the comparative regression analyses show that the cost-benefit and political process models are more suitable for explaining the respondents' level of acceptance than the risk perception model. This may be the result of the current economic depression in Gyeongju, residents' familiarity with the nuclear industry, or cultural characteristics of risk tolerance.     

The Effect of Decisions About Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage on Residential Property Values

National, regional, state, and local surveys have revealed that people have intensely negative images of "nuclear" and "radioactive" technologies, activities, and facilities, as well as associated fears of stigmatization. In light of these perceptions, the debate over where to temporarily store or permanently dispose of spent nuclear fuel (at the reactor site, an interim storage facility, or a permanent repository) provokes immense concern among possible host jurisdictions. To address these concerns, one needs to know if people's subjective opinions conform with the choices they make and are therefore reflected in their economic behavior. Argonne National Laboratory researchers used a hedonic model to complete a study of residential property value dynamics over a 5-year period within a 15-mile radius of two California nuclear power plants. They tracked the economic ramifications of decisions about the spent nuclear fuel stored at those reactors. The study revealed that no significant negative effects on residential property values resulted from a decision to move spent nuclear fuel from wet storage to a dry-cask storage facility or from a request to extend the reactor operating permit (given future changes in the type of nuclear fuel storage facility that would accompany such an extension).     

Developing and Testing a Facility Location Model for Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste

The purpose of this paper is to develop and test a facility location model for the siting of a nuclear fuel waste disposal facility in Canada. The model is based on successful Canadian siting processes related to hazardous waste and low level radioactive waste facilities, as well as attributes of facility siting found in the literature. The proposed model was presented to a sample of participants in the federal environmental assessment review of the technical feasibility of the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal Concept (CNFWDC) held throughout Canada in 1990. Results demonstrate that despite the fact that over half of the survey respondents did not support the CNFWDC during the public hearings, the majority favorably rated the proposed facility location model. Components of the model that were tested included siting criteria and goals, decision-making groups, and siting safeguards. On the basis of these results, it is concluded that the siting of a nuclear fuel waste disposal facility must make the decentralization of decision-making authority to local communities and governments a priority.     

Resolution of the Long-Term Performance Issues at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is a geological repository for disposal of U.S. defense transuranic radioactive waste. Built and operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), it is located in the Permian age salt beds in southeastern New Mexico at a depth of 655 m. Performance assessment for the repository's compliance with the 10,000-year containment standards was completed in 1996 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certified in 1998 that the repository meets compliance with the EPA standards 40 CFR 191 and 40 CFR 194. The Environmental Evaluation Group (EEG) review of the DOE's application for certification identified a number of issues. These related to the scenarios, conceptual models, and values of the input parameters used in the calculations. It is expected that these issues will be addressed and resolved during the first 5-year recertification process that began with the first receipt of waste at WIPP on March 26, 1999, and scheduled to be completed in March 2004.     

Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan

Nuclear power is a highly controversial and salient example of environmental risk. The siting or operating of a nuclear power plant often faces widespread public opposition. Although studies of public perceptions of nuclear power date back to 1970s, little research attempts to explain the spatial heterogeneity of risk attitude toward nuclear power among individuals or communities. This article intends to improve the knowledge about the major factors contributing to nuclear power plant risk perceptions by mapping the geographical patterns of local risk perception and examining the determinants in forming the nature and distribution of the perceived risk among potentially affected population. The analysis was conducted by a case study of the Second Nuclear Power Plant (SNPP) in Taiwan by using a novel methodology that incorporates a comprehensive risk perception (CRP) model into an ethnographic approach called risk perception mapping (RPM). First, we examined the determinants of local nuclear power risk perceptions through the CRP model and multivariate regression analysis. Second, the results were integrated with the RPM approach to map and explain the spatial pattern of risk perceptions. The findings demonstrate that the respondents regard the nuclear power plant as an extremely high‐risk facility, causing them to oppose the SNPP and reject the compensation payment to accept its continuing operation. Results also indicate that perceptions of nuclear power risk were mainly influenced by social trust, psychological and socioeconomic attributes, proximity, and the perceived effects of the SNPP on the quality of everyday life.     

Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada

This paper examines the sources of public opposition to a high-level nuclear waste repository among samples of 1001 residents of Nevada and a national sample of 1201 residents. Two models of choice are contrasted: A benefit-cost model and a risk-perception model of individual choice. The data suggest that the willingness of Nevada residents to accept a repository at Yucca Mountain depends upon subjective risk factors, especially the perceived seriousness of risk to future generations. Perceived risk depends in part on level of trust placed in the Department of Energy to manage a repository safely. Opposition to a local repository did not decrease significantly if compensation in the form of annual rebates, either ($1000, $3000, or $5000 per year for 20 years) were offered to residents. The public needs to be convinced before compensation is considered, that the repository will possess minimal risks to themselves as well as to future generations, and that the site currently targeted is suitable. One way to do this is through adoption of mitigation and control procedures such as strict federal standards and local control over the operation of the repository. The federal government should also consider returning to the fair procedure for selection between candidate sites specified in the initial Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.     

Changes in the Factors Influencing Public Acceptance of Nuclear Power Generation in Japan Since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster

Public support for nuclear power generation has decreased in Japan since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in March 2011. This study examines how the factors influencing public acceptance of nuclear power changed after this event. The influence factors examined are perceived benefit, perceived risk, trust in the managing bodies, and pro‐environmental orientation (i.e., new ecological paradigm). This study is based on cross‐sectional data collected from two online nationwide surveys: one conducted in November 2009, before the nuclear accident, and the other in October 2011, after the accident. This study's target respondents were residents of Aomori, Miyagi, and Fukushima prefectures in the Tohoku region of Japan, as these areas were the epicenters of the Great East Japan Earthquake and the locations of nuclear power stations. After the accident, trust in the managing bodies was found to have a stronger influence on perceived risk, and pro‐environmental orientation was found to have a stronger influence on trust in the managing bodies; however, perceived benefit had a weaker positive influence on public acceptance. We also discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.     

Local Acceptance of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository

The siting of nuclear waste facilities has been very difficult in all countries. Recent experience in Sweden indicates, however, that it may be possible, under certain circumstances, to gain local support for the siting of a high-level nuclear waste (HLNW) repository. The article reports on a study of attitudes and risk perceptions of people living in four municipalities in Sweden where HLNW siting was being intensely discussed at the political level, in media, and among the public. Data showed a relatively high level of consensus on acceptability of at least further investigation of the issue; in two cases local councils have since voted in favor of a go-ahead, and in one case only a very small majority defeated the issue. Models of policy attitudes showed that these were related to attitude to nuclear power, attributes of the perceived HLNW risk, and trust. Factors responsible for acceptance are discussed at several levels. One is the attitude to nuclear power, which is becoming more positive, probably because no viable alternatives are in sight. Other factors have to do with the extensive information programs conducted in these municipalities, and with the logical nature of the conclusion that they would be good candidates for hosting the national HLNW repository.     

How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster

Major nuclear accidents, such as the recent accident in Fukushima, Japan, have been shown to decrease the public's acceptance of nuclear power. However, little is known about how a serious accident affects people's acceptance of nuclear power and the determinants of acceptance. We conducted a longitudinal study (N= 790) in Switzerland: one survey was done five months before and one directly after the accident in Fukushima. We assessed acceptance, perceived risks, perceived benefits, and trust related to nuclear power stations. In our model, we assumed that both benefit and risk perceptions determine acceptance of nuclear power. We further hypothesized that trust influences benefit and risk perceptions and that trust before a disaster relates to trust after a disaster. Results showed that the acceptance and perceptions of nuclear power as well as its trust were more negative after the accident. In our model, perceived benefits and risks determined the acceptance of nuclear power stations both before and after Fukushima. Trust had strong effects on perceived benefits and risks, at both times. People's trust before Fukushima strongly influenced their trust after the accident. In addition, perceived benefits before Fukushima correlated with perceived benefits after the accident. Thus, the nuclear accident did not seem to have changed the relations between the determinants of acceptance. Even after a severe accident, the public may still consider the benefits as relevant, and trust remains important for determining their risk and benefit perceptions. A discussion of the benefits of nuclear power seems most likely to affect the public's acceptance of nuclear power, even after a nuclear accident.     

Perceived Risk and Benefit of Nuclear Waste Repositories: Four Opinion Clusters

Local public resistance can block the site‐selection process, construction, and operation of nuclear waste repositories. Social science has established that the perception of risks and benefits, trust in authorities, and opinion on nuclear energy play important roles in acceptance. In particular, risk and benefit evaluations seem critical for opinion formation. However, risks and benefits have rarely been studied independently and, most often, the focus has been on the two most salient groups of proponents and opponents. The aim of this exploratory study is to examine the often‐neglected majority of people holding ambivalent or indifferent opinions. We used cluster analysis to examine the sample (N = 500, mailed survey in German‐speaking Switzerland) in terms of patterns of risk and benefit perception. We reveal four significantly different and plausible clusters: one cluster with high‐benefit ratings in favor of a repository and one cluster with high‐risk ratings opposing it; a third cluster shows ambivalence, with high ratings on both risk and benefit scales and moderate opposition, whereas a fourth cluster seems indifferent, rating risks and benefits only moderately compared to the ambivalent cluster. We conclude that a closer look at the often neglected but considerable number of people with ambivalent or indifferent opinions is necessary. Although the extreme factions of the public will most probably not change their opinion, we do not yet know how the opinion of the ambivalent and indifferent clusters might develop over time.     

Managing Nuclear Waste from Power Plants

National strategies to manage nuclear waste from commercial nuclear power plants are analyzed and compared. The current strategy is to try to operate a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to dispose of high-level nuclear waste underground. The main alternatives involve temporary above-ground storage at a centralized facility or next to nuclear power plants. If either of these is pursued now, the analysis assumes that a repository will be built in 2100 for waste not subsequently put to use. The analysis treats various uncertainties: whether a repository at Yucca Mountain would be licensed, possible theft and misuse of the waste, innovations in repository design and waste management, the potential availability of a cancer cure by 2100, and possible future uses of nuclear waste. The objectives used to compare alternatives include concerns for health and safety, environmental and socioeconomic impacts, and direct economic costs, as well as equity concerns (geographical, intergenerational, and procedural), indirect economic costs to electricity ratepayers, federal government responsibility to manage nuclear waste, and implications of theft and misuse of nuclear waste. The analysis shows that currently building an underground repository at Yucca Mountain is inferior to other available strategies by the equivalent of $10,000 million to $50,000 million. This strongly suggests that this policy should be reconsidered. A more detailed analysis using the framework presented would help to define a new national policy to manage nuclear waste.     

NIMBY, CLAMP, and the Location of New Nuclear-Related Facilities: U.S. National and 11 Site-Specific Surveys

Public and political opposition have made finding locations for new nuclear power plants, waste management, and nuclear research and development facilities a challenge for the U.S. government and the nuclear industry. U.S. government-owned properties that already have nuclear-related activities and commercial nuclear power generating stations are logical locations. Several studies and utility applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission suggest that concentrating locations at major plants (CLAMP) has become an implicit siting policy. We surveyed 2,101 people who lived within 50 miles of 11 existing major nuclear sites and 600 who lived elsewhere in the United States. Thirty-four percent favored CLAMP for new nuclear power plants, 52% for waste management facilities, and 50% for new nuclear laboratories. College educated, relatively affluent male whites were the strongest CLAMP supporters. They disproportionately trusted those responsible for the facilities and were not worried about existing nuclear facilities or other local environmental issues. Notably, they were concerned about continuing coal use. Not surprisingly, CLAMP proponents tended to be familiar with their existing local nuclear site. In short, likely CLAMP sites have a large and politically powerful core group to support a CLAMP policy. The challenge to proponents of nuclear technologies will be to sustain this support and expand the base among those who clearly are less connected and receptive to new nearby sites.     

Public Opposition to a Proposed Nuclear Waste Repository in Canada: An Investigation of Cultural and Economic Effects

Residents of four northern communities were surveyed about Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's proposal to site an underground repository for high-level nuclear waste somewhere in the Canadian Shield. Opposition to the repository was relatively strong in all communities, but was strongest among aboriginal respondents. Path analysis revealed that trust in nuclear regulators, faith in science and technology, and anticipated net costs were important mediators of this effect. Aboriginals were less trusting, exhibited less faith in science and technology, and perceived the costs associated with the repository to be higher than their nonaboriginal counterparts. No support was found for the hypothesis that, after controlling for aboriginal status, financially insecure individuals would display greater support for the nuclear waste repository than financially secure individuals. Policy implications for balancing perceived risks and siting needs are discussed.     

Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy

To study the homogeneity and influences on scientists'perspectives of environmental risks, we have examined similarities and differences in risk perceptions, particularly regarding nuclear wastes, and policy preferences among 1011 scientists and engineers. We found significant differences ( p 0.05)in the patterns of beliefs among scientists from different fields of research. In contrast to physicists, chemists, and engineers, life scientists tend to: (a)perceive the greatest risks from nuclear energy and nuclear waste management; (b)perceive higher levels of overall environmental risk; (c)strongly oppose imposing risks on unconsenting individuals; and (d)prefer stronger requirements for environmental management. On some issues related to priorities among public problems and calls for government action, there are significant variations among life scientists or physical scientists. We also found that–independently of field of research–perceptions of risk and its correlates are significantly associated with the type of institution in which the scientist is employed. Scientists in universities or state and local governments tend to see the risks of nuclear energy and wastes as greater than scientists who work as business consultants, for federal organizations, or for private research laboratories. Significant differences also are found in priority given to environmental risks, the perceived proximity of environmental disaster, willingness to impose risks on an unconsenting population, and the necessity of accepting risks and sacrifices.