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

Abstract

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.

Pay for Environmental Performance: The Effect of Incentive Provision on Carbon Emissions

“…Frey and Oberholzer-Gee (1997) found that monetary incentives decreased the acceptance rate among citizens of a local community about whether a nuclear waste repository should have been located in their town. Kunreuther et al (1990) found similar results for the siting of a nuclear repository in Nevada, where raising tax rebates failed to increase support for the project since they signaled the opposite of pro-social behavior. Gneezy and Rustichini (2000b) showed that for a group of pupils collecting donations for charity from households, only those groups that received substantial monetary rewards did as well as the groups that worked for free.…”

Electricity Externalities, Siting, and the Energy Mix: A Survey

“…The nuclear risks that manifest themselves in the valuation of nuclear power externalities are perceived risks, which may differ from objective factors such as likelihoods of events (Kunreuther et al 1990). A considerable literature has shown that perceived risks are a function of statistical risks as well as subjective factors, such as dread, involuntariness and lack of controllability (Slovic 1979).…”

Allocating U.S. Department of Homeland Security funds to States with explicit equity, population and energy facility security criteria

“…The net effect is to double the objective function score for every county with a nuclear plant, increasing its chance of receiving additional funding. Nuclear power plants and waste management facilities are perceived as unwanted by many, although less so than two decades ago [45][46][47]. In fact, a recent study of people who live near nuclear facilities showed that the majority are more concerned about traffic congestion, loss of open space, water pollution, and other environmental issues than they are about a problem at a nuclear power plant, waste management, or laboratory facility [48].…”