AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS/ NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT … · 2007. 9. 4. · Council (ANEC)...

STATE OF NEVADA AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS/ NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT OFFICE

YUCCA MOUNTAIN SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECT

THE SPRING, 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY:

AEY FINDINGS

James H. Flynn Paul Slovic C. K. Mertz

(Decision Research)

May, 1993

The Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects/Nuclear Waste Project Office (NWPO) was created by the Nevada Legislature to oversee federal high-level waste activities in the State. As part of its oversight role, NWPO has contracted for studies designed to assess the socioeconomic implications of a repository and of repository- related activities. This study was funded through financial assistance provided by the U.S. Congress.

Additional copies of this report may be obtained by contacting:

Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects Capitol Complex

Carson City, Nevada 89710

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Discussion of Survey Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Appendix A:

Appendix B:

The Interview Instrument

Frequency Distributions for Nevada State and Clark County

Introduction

The Spring 1993 Nevada State Telephone Survey was conducted by Decision

Research on behalf of the State of Nevada, Agency for Nuclear Projects/Nuclear Waste

Project Office (NWPO) as part of an ongoing socioeconomic impact assessment study. The

survey examined a focused set of public attitudes and opinions toward the federal government

Yucca Mountain repository program. The information gathered in this survey provides

longitudinal data for state residents in regard to the repository program. It thereby updates

and monitors important aspects of the public socioeconomic responses.

A large number of surveys have been conducted to measure public opinion and

attitudes in regard to the Yucca Mountain project. These surveys have been conducted by a

variety of stakeholders in the repository issue and as might be expected the results vary

depending upon the way questions are framed, information collected, and data are analyzed.

This report presents information from four surveys that were conducted by the Yucca

Mountain Socioeconomic Study Team between 1989 and 1993.

A 1989 survey conducted by Mountain West Research was the most extensive of

those completed in this series and it collected detailed information on people's attitudes and

perceptions about environmental and nuclear-related matters that are likely to influence

actions and behaviors that have socioeconomic consequences. Two 199 1 surveys were

conducted by Decision Research on behalf of the NWPO. A Spring 1991 survey focused

upon public evaluations of the Yucca Mountain repository program and the trust Nevadans

place in key public officials who are currently addressing the siting issues. This was

followed by a survey in the Autumn 1991 that replicated several of the key questions from

Spring 1993 Nevada State Telephone Suwey / 1

the earlier two surveys and also collected information on the American Nuclear Energy

Council (ANEC) advertising campaign, a multi-million dollar promotional effort by the

nuclear industry designed to gain public support for the Yucca Mountain repository. The

Spring 1993 survey was designed to collect data on current issues and perspectives, and to

monitor responses from the earlier surveys. This report focuses on the results of the Spring

1993 survey, and places these results in the context of the earlier findings from the surveys

done in 1989 and 1991.

Methodolo~v

Respondents for the Spring 1993 survey were selected from a random sample of

Nevada telephone numbers generated by Survey Sampling, Inc. of Fairfield, Connecticut.

This sample allowed access to all households with telephones, whether listed or unlisted, in

proportion to the household population of the state.

The survey interviews were conducted by Standage Accureach, Inc. of Denver,

Colorado during the period March 15 to 25, 1993. Five attempts were made to contact each

telephone number and to determine if they met the criteria of being a residential household

with a respondent over the age of 18. These attempts were made on different days of the

week and weekend and at different times of the day. Respondents were identified by the

person in the household having the most recent birthday until 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. Over quota telephone numbers were classified as never reached

numbers.

Spring 1993 Nevada State Telephone Survey / 2

The 803 completed interviews represent a response rate of 51.0 percent from a total

of 1634 qualified households. The margin of error for the state-wide sample is f 4.0

percent with a 95 % confidence interval. A subtotal of 505 of the respondents were residents

of Clark County. The margin of error for the Clark County subsample is f 4.5 percent

with a 95 % confidence interval.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The opposition of Nevada residents to the Yucca Mountain program remains very

strong with 71.0 percent of the respondents saying that they would vote against the

repository if they had the opportunity. Slightly more than a fifth (21.2 %) of those

interviewed said they would vote for the repository.

Despite a concerted effort by pro-repository supporters to convince Nevadans that

they ought to make a deal for benefits with the federal government, a large majority

supports continued opposition. When asked whether the State of Nevada should make

a deal to get benefits, or whether the state should continue its opposition, 26.2 percent

were in favor of negotiating for benefits and 64.0 percent supported continuing

opposition (9.8 % did not know or did not answer the question).

An overwhelming majority (93.7%) said that the final decision on whether or not the

repository is built in the state should be made by Nevada residents.

Trust and confidence in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the federal agency in

charge of the Yucca Mountain project, continues to be a serious problem. Almost

two-thirds of the respondents (65.6%) disagreed with the statement that DOE "can be


trusted to provide prompt and full disclosure of any serious problems with the Yucca

Mountain project. "

Concerns about potential stigma impacts continue. More than half (52.6%) of the

respondents said they felt a repository at Yucca Mountain "could negatively impact

the tourist and visitor economy in Nevada. "

A majority (65.1 %) felt the process used to select Yucca Mountain as the nation's

first high-level radioactive waste repository has been unfair.

When respondents were asked a question about the overall evaluation of an operating

repository, 58.4 percent thought the harms would outweigh the benefits and only 26.8

percent thought the benefits would outweigh the harms (14.8 % did not answer, did

not know, or thought the harms and benefits would balance).

w Over 60 percent (63.1 %) of the respondents reported they had seen or heard the

ANEC advertisements promoting the Yucca Mountain project: 8.9 percent said the

advertisements made them more supportive of the Yucca Mountain repository

program; 3 1.6 percent said the advertisements made them less supportive; 59.6

percent said that the advertisements did not change their level of support or

opposition.


DISCUSSION OF SURVEY FINDINGS

Yucca Mountain Referendum

Following a short introduction (see Appendix A for complete text of the

questionnaire), the first survey question posed a hypothetical situation in order to ascertain

whether the respondent supported the development of the proposed high-level nuclear waste

repository at Yucca Mountain. The question was as follows:

Suppose that 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 state residents voted in favor of it. If this were the case, would you vote for it or against it?

This question was also asked in the 1991 and 1989 Nevada surveys conducted as part of the

NWPO socioeconomic studies.

Nevada State Findings. Survey results indicate that Nevada respondents continue to

be adamantly opposed to locating the repository at Yucca Mountain (see Table 1). The

percentage of respondents who would vote against the repository in the March, 1993 survey

is 71.0 percent. The opposition percentage is lower than was recorded in the two 1991

surveys but higher than that recorded in 1989. The 80 percent figure recorded as a vote

against in the Spring, 1991 is the largest measure of opposition recorded by any poll and

may be partly the product of sampling variations or measurement of a public mood that was

temporary. Over the period represented by these four surveys, however, the high levels of

opposition indicated by this referendum question are clear and consistent.

Those who would vote for the repository have increased by 6.8 percentage points

from the Autumn, 1989 survey to the Spring, 1993 (up from 14.4 % in 1989 to 21.2 % in


1993). While the fluctuation between the last survey, in the Autumn 1991, and the Spring

1993 is within the margin of error for these surveys, and therefore should be interpreted with

caution, the longer term data going back to 1989 indicate a modest increase in support for

the repository. Given the small base of support, it seems unlikely that Nevadans will provide

a majority support for the repository any time soon. As is the case with all important public

issues, changes in the levels of support and opposition for one or another position will occur

from time to time in response to events and conditions.

Table 1 Yucca Mountain Referendum

Nevada Survey Results 1989, 1991, and 1993 (In Percent) *

Spring Autumn Spring Autumn 1993 1991 1991 1989

Vote For Vote Against Wouldn't Vote Don't Know Refused

Number of Respondents 803 504 500 500

*May not total 100 percent due to rounding.

Clark Countv Findings. The pattern of voting is similar for both Clark County and

the state over the four surveys shown in Table 2, below. About two-thirds of the Clark

County respondents say they would vote against the repository while slightly less than a

quarter would vote for it. As has been the case in the past, Clark County residents record

slightly less proportion of votes in opposition and slightly more in favor of the Yucca

Spring 1993 Nevada State Telephone Survey 1 6

Mountain project. Higher levels of support for DOE projects would be expected in Clark

County given the large employment and spending benefits of the Nevada Test Site and the

Yucca Mountain project itself, as well as the additional major federal activities such as the

Nellis Air Force Base.

Table 2 Yucca Mountain Referendum

Clark County Survey Results 1989, 1991, and 1993' (In Percent) *


Vote For 23.4% 22.0% 18.7% 15.8% Vote Against 68.7 72.0 76.5 68.0 Wouldn't Vote 0.8 0.2 0.3 6.8 Don't Know 6.7 5.9 4.4 8.3 Refused 0.4 -- -- 1.1

Number of Respondents 505 4 10 294 266

'Clark County figures for Spring 1993, Spring, 1991, and Autumn, 1991 are subsets of the state-wide surveys. The Autumn 1991 survey included 310 Clark County respondents from the state-wide sample combined with a 100 oversample for the County.


Streneh of O~inion

Within a somewhat narrow range, there might be variations due to sampling error,

and other technical factors. Other changes in survey results over time might be due to

altered opinions on the acceptability of the repository. One hypothesis is that those whose

positions are less resolute would be most likely to change from one survey period to another.


In order to test the strength of support and opposition implied by the vote question, we asked

people to tell us how strongly their positions were held. Tables 3 and 4 show these results.

These data have not been collected in the past but they could be included in future survey

efforts and provide a more detailed accounting of the public responses over time.

Table 3 Strength of Response on Vote Question

for Respondents Voting "Yes " 1993 Survey Results

Question 2 . [Only for respondents who said they would vote FOR the Yucca Mountain Repository]. You said you wouM vote "yes" on the r@erendum indicating that you support the Yucca Mountain repository project. Would you say you somewhat support or strongly support the repository ?

--

~ e v a d a Clark County

Somewhat Support 53.5 47.5 Strongly Support 45.9 5 1.7 Don't Know 0.6 0.8

# of Respondents 170 118

Those who would vote for the repository were about evenly split between the

"somewhat" and the "strongly" support with a stronger support vote in Clark County than in

the state as a whole. It should be noted that a total of 78 respondents (9.7% of the sample of

803) voted "yes" and said they would "strongly support" the repository project. In

comparison, (Table 4) 447 respondents (55.7% of the total sample) who voted "no" said they

were strongly opposed to the repository.


Table 4 Strength of Response on Vote Question

for Respondents Voting "No" 1993 Survey Results

Question 3. [Only for respondents who said they would vote AGAINST the Yucca Mountain Repository]. You said you would vote "no" on the referendum indicating that you oppose the Yucca Mountain repository project. Would you say you somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the repository ?

Nevada Clark County

Somewhat Oppose 20.9 20.7 Strongly Oppose 78.4 79.0 Don't Know 0.7 0.3

# of Respondents 570 347

There was a very noticeable difference in the strength of the positions between those

who would vote for the repository and those who would vote against it. The large majority

of those who said they would vote against the repository also said they were "strongly"

opposed. In terms of the total sample (803 respondents) the ratio of those who were strongly

opposed (n = 447) was 5.7 times those who were strongly supportive of the repository (n =

91). This would seem to indicate that the position in opposition to the repository is more

firmly established both in numbers and level of commitment to their position. The figures are

virtually the same for the state and Clark County for those who voted against the repository.


A solid majority of the respondents for both the state (55.7%) and for Clark County (54.3%)

say they "strongly" oppose the repository.

Gender Differences

Women have voted against the repository project in greater proportions in every survey

conducted on the question of Yucca Mountain. This is consistent with the results of findings

from other research on public risk perceptions for a wide variety of hazards. As shown in

Table 5, below, women respondents to the Spring 1993 survey were almost 20 percentage

points more likely to vote against the repository than were men-80.5 percent to 61.2

percent. The Autumn 1991 survey showed a difference of 12.6 percentage points-80.3

percent to 67.7 percent. The proportion of female opposition was almost exactly the same

for the Autumn 1991 and the Spring 1993 surveys, down over 9 points from the Spring 1991

and up only slightly from the Autumn 1989. The male responses have been more variable

showing a decline in the opposition vote of 6.5 percentage points since the Autumn 1991

survey.


Table 5 Gender Differences in the Yucca Mountain Referendum

1989, 1991 and 1993 Nevada State Surveys (in percent) *


Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Vote For 29.7% 12.8% 24.2% 13.5% 23.2% 7.9% 23.7% 6.9% Vote Against 61.2 80.5 67.7 80.3 70.7 89.4 59.4 77.5 Wouldn't Vote 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 6.3 8.3 Don't Know 8.1 6.4 7.3 5.7 5.3 2.4 9.4 6.5 Refused -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.7

Number of Respondents 397 406 260 244 246 254 224 276

"Percent columns may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

The votes in favor of the repository show a somewhat different pattern. The male

votes were quite stable for the 1989 and 1991 surveys between 23.2 percent and 24.2 percent

with an increase of five percentage points by the Spring 1993 poll (to 29.7 percent). The

female vote in favor was very small for the 1989 and Spring 1991 surveys (6.9 percent and

7.9 percent), increasing to 13.5 percent for the Autumn 1991 survey. For the Spring 1993

poll the figure was 12.8 percent, approximately the same as findings from Autumn 1991.

The measures of strength of opinion show that men who supported the repository (n

= 117) were more likely to provide strong support (49.6 % of "yes vote" and 14.6 % of total


male vote) than were women (n = 52) who voted for the respository (38.5 % of "yes vote"

and 4.9% of total female vote). For those who opposed the repository the strength of

opinion results for men and women, somewhat surprisingly, were very similar. More than

three-quarters of both genders said they were "strongly" opposed; men recorded a 78.1

percent response in this category and women a 79.6 percent response. In summary, men

reported they were more supportive of the repository than women, and of all those who

voted for the repository, men were more strongly committed. Women respondents tended to

be significantly more opposed to the repository but the strength of opposition is about the

same for men and women.

Public Trust and the Re~ositoq Program

Trust and confidence in the management of hazardous facilities and technologies are

important elements in understanding the public's opinions and attitudes, including the

perception of risks and the acceptability of establishing sites and operating them. In the case

of the Yucca Mountain project, there is evidence that trust and distrust are significant in

explaining the response of Nevada residents to the repository.' The U. S. Department of

Energy has special problems with the public confidence and trust in their management, as

demonstrated by the recent report to the Secretary of Energy by an Advisory B ~ a r d . ~

'Flynn, J. Opposition to Risk Analysis,

, Burns, W., Mertz, C.K., and Slovic, P. (1992). "Trust as a Determinant of a High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model, " Vol. 12, No. 3, (September): 417-429.

2Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on Radioactive Waste Management. (1992). Drafi Final Report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on


The Yucca Mountain Socioeconomic Study Team has collected data on the trust

ratings of DOE, and other public agencies and officials in its Autumn 1989, Spring 1991,

and Spring 1993 surveys. One set of questions was designed to measure the level of trust

Nevada residents have in a number of federal, state, and local institutions and officials.

People were asked:

On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 means you have NO TRUST AT ALL and 10 means you have COMPLETE TRUST. Please tell me how much you trust each of the following to do what is right with regard to a nuclear waste repository.

The entities to be evaluated, along with the results of the Autumn 1989, Spring 1991, and

Spring 1993 ratings, are shown in Table 6 , below. Each of these officials or entities has a

recognized role in the repository program, and therefore each makes an appeal to the public

trust and confidence.

Nevada State Findings. In every case the ratings are down from those recorded in the

Spring 1991 and in the Autumn 1989. As in the past, the Nevada Governor had the highest

trust rating (5.9), although it was down from both the earlier scores and more than a full

point lower than in the Spring 1991. The Nevada State Legislature again recorded the

second highest trust rating (mean = 5.5). City (or town) officials tied with state officials

and agencies at a mean score of 5.2.

Among the federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency scored the highest

at 5.4, the only federal agency to obtain a higher than "5" score, which is midway in the

scale. Respondents expressed the lowest level of trust for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Radioactive Waste Management. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board: Washington, D. C.


Commission (mean = 3.6) followed by the U.S. Congress (mean = 3.7) and the U.S.

Department of Energy (mean = 4.1). These three scores, for the federal entities most

closely associated with policy and program management of high-level radioactive wastes, are

the lowest recorded for any subjects in the three surveys over the period 1989 to 1993.

Also, the trust ratings for federal officials and agencies all recorded a statistically significant

negative correlation with the vote, benefitlharms, and deal or continue opposition questions.

Another question, shown in Table 7, below, asks respondents if they think DOE will

provide prompt and full disclosure of any serious problems with the Yucca Mountain project.

The Spring 1993 survey found that 65.6 percent of the respondents do not think that DOE

would be truthful in this way. This compares with findings of distrust in response to this

same question of 64.0 percent in the Spring 1991 and 75.0 percent in Autumn 1989. There

has been a significant decline in the number of "strongly disagree" responses and an increase

in the "disagree" rating for the Spring 1993 survey, probably due to the change in the rating

scale as noted at the bottom of the table.3 There has been no increase in trust for DOE as

shown in the two "agree" ratings, rather they have remained about the same over the more

than three years covered by these surveys.

3The scale of the agreeldisagree responses was changed to delete the "somewhat" qualifying term based upon an analysis of findings from a number of recent surveys that indicated this adjustment would remove a bias toward the extremes of the response scale.


Table 6 Trust in Government Officials and Entities, Mean Scores

Nevada State Survey Results: 1993, 1991, and 1989

Spring 1993 Spring 1991 Autumn 1989

U . S . President 5 .O 6.0 5.1

U.S. Congress 3.7 4.5 4.3

U. S . Environmental 5.4 Protection Agency

U.S. Dept. of Energy 4.1 4.3 4.6

U.S. Nuclear 3.6 3.9 4.3 Regulatory Commission

Governor of Nevada 5.9 7.0 6.3

Nevada State Legislature 5.5 6.4 5.7

Nevada State 5.2 Officials & Agencies

Your County Commissioners 4.9 5.6 5.1

Your local city or town officials

Number of Respondents 803 500 500


Table 7 DOE Can Be Trusted to Provide Prompt and Full Disclosure of

Serious Problems with the Yucca Mountain Project Nevada State Results (in percent) *

- -


Strongly Disagree 35.5 48.6 Disagree 30.1 15.4 Neither DisagreeIAgree 7.1 10.0 Agree 16.6 17.2 Strongly Agree 6.1 8.8 Don't know1No answer 4.6 --

Number of Respondents 803 500

*May not total 100 percent due to rounding. The scale for 1991 and 1989 included "Somewhat disagree" rather than "Disagree" and "Somewhat Agree" rather than "Agree."

The decline in the "disagree" responses since 1989 has not transferred to "agree"

(more trust), rather the "neither disagree nor agree" and the "don't knowlno answer"

categories have increased.

Clark Countv Findings. The mean trust ratings for Clark County respondents (Table

8) are very similar to those recorded for the state as a whole. State officials and agencies get

the highest ratings while the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Congress, and the DOE

are rated at the bottom in terms of how trustworthy they are in dealing with the HLNW

project at Yucca Mountain.

Table 9, below, shows that Clark County residents do not believe that DOE can be

trusted to provide full and prompt disclosure of serious problems with the Yucca Mountain

project. Two-thirds (65.9%) of the respondents said that they disagree or strongly disagree

Spring 1993 Nevada State Telephone Survey I 16

that DOE could be trusted in providing this type of information. Those who agree and

strongly agree (and indicate they would trust DOE) with the trust statement total 22.7 percent

for the 1993 survey, a decline of almost 10 percentage points from 32.6 percent in 1991 and

much closer to the 19.9 percent recorded in 1989.

Table 8 Trust in Government Officials and Entities, Mean Scores

Clark County Survey Results: 1993, 1991, and 1989


U.S. President

U. S . Congress 3.8 4.8 4.2

U. S . Environmental 5.5 5.8 Protection Agency

U.S. Dept. of Energy

U.S. Nuclear 3.7 Regulatory Commission

Governor of Nevada

Nevada State Legislature 5.5 6.3 5.7

Nevada State 5.2 Officials & Agencies

Your County Commissioners 4.8 5.5 5 .O

Your local city or town officials


Spring 1993 Nevada State Telephone Suwey 1 17

Table 9 DOE Can Be Trusted to Provide Prompt and Full Disclosure of

Serious Problems with the Yucca Mountain Project Clark County Results (in percent)"


Strongly Disagree 37.4 41.8 45.9 Disagree 28.5 14.3 29.7 Neither DisagreeIAgree 7.5 Agree 17.0 Strongly Agree 5.7 Don't know/No answer 3.8


*May not total 100 percent due to rounding. The scale for 1991 and 1989 included "Somewhat disagree" rather than "Disagree" and "Somewhat Agree" rather than "Agree. "

Another area of trust was examined with a question about how people would respond to

new information about the repository program. This question did not attempt to characterize

the nature of the information but merely asked how the respondents would view information

from DOE as the source of the communication. Respondents were asked: "If DOE gave you

new information about the repository, how likely is it that new information would change

your point of view about the repository?" The results are shown in Table 10.

A solid majority of respondents, 57.9 percent for the state and 56.3 percent for Clark

County say that new information from DOE would be unlikely to change their opinion about

the repository.


Gender and Trust

Women historically have recorded higher levels of opposition to the Yucca Mountain

repository than men, although both genders have opposed the current DOE program. In

order to better understand some of the factors that might be involved in this gender

difference, we examined the responses of men and women to the trust questions.

In the Spring 1991 and Autumn 1989 surveys women typically expressed slightly less

trust than men in all governmental entities and federal activities. In most cases these

differences were small although occasionally they were statistically signficant. For example,

the greatest difference in trust between males and females in the Spring 1991 survey was for

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission where the male mean rating was 4.3 compared to the

female mean rating of 3.4.

Table 10 Would New Information from DOE Change Your Opinion

1993 Nevada Telephone Survey (in percent) *

Nevada State Clark County

Very Likely 4.7 Somewhat Likely 19.8 Neither 5.9 Somewhat Unlikely 13.3 Very Unlikely 44.6 Don't Know/

No Answer 11.7

No. of Respondents 803 505



Data from the current survey (Spring 1993) show a somewhat different result. Women

had higher trust ratings than men for every case except for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (See Appendix B). Few of these differences are statistically significant since the

ratings generally are quite close for both men and women. However, given that trust has

been related to perception of risk and the support or opposition for a repository in the

literature, one would expect that women would give lower trust ratings to the federal officials

and agencies since they voted much more strongly against the repository than men did. The

fact that women did not provide lower trust ratings for DOE, Congress, and the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission suggests that their higher levels of opposition to the repository might

be more strongly based upon additional factors other than trust and confidence in the

program managers. These factors might include perceptions of risk, world views including

values placed on equity and fairness in the siting process, or the perceived level of direct

control over the nuclear waste hazards by states and communities.

The data in Table 11 show the male and female responses to the question on whether the

respondent would trust DOE to disclose problems with Yucca Mountain. Notice that the

two disagree categories, indicating distrust of DOE, were quite similar for men and women

although women were very much more likely to vote in opposition to the repository.


Table 11 Trust in DOE to Disclose Information, by Gender

1993, 1991, and 1989 Nevada State Telephone Surveys (in percent) *

Spring 1993 Spring 1991 Autumn 1989 Male Female Male Female Male Female

Strongly Disagree 36.5 34.5 45.9 51.2 47.7 46.6 Disagree 30.2 30.1 14.2 16.5 25.2 31.2 Neither 5.5 8.6 8.1 11.8 2.6 0.8 Agree 19.7 13.6 21.5 13.0 15.3 15.8 Strongly Agree 6.8 5.4 10.2 7.5 5.7 5.6 Don't Know/

No Answer 1.3 7.9 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.1 Number of Respondents 397 406 260 244 246 254

*May not total 100 percent due to rounding. The scale for 1991 and 1989 included "Somewhat disagree" rather than "Disagree" and "Somewhat Agree" rather than "Agree. " See note 3, above.

Should Nevada Residents Decide?

One area of concern that has come up in discussions about the reasons that states and

communities oppose a number of hazardous facilities, such as low-level and high-level

nuclear waste repositories is that local people do not have control over the decisions that

they, more than anyone else, are most affected by. In order to determine how important

Nevada residents considered the ability to decide, we asked people to indicate how they

judged the following statement: "Nevada residents should have the final say on whether or

not the repository is built inside the state." As shown in Table 12, below, there was

overwhelming agreement with this position.


Table 12 Nevada Residents Should Have Final Say on the Repository

Results for Spring 1993 and Spring 1991 (in percent)"

Nevada State Nevada State Clark County Clark County 1993 1991 1993 1991

Strongly Disagree 0.7 4.4 0.6 6.1 Disagree 3.9 3.8 4.6 4.8 Neither DisagreeIAgree 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.7 Agree 22.3 7.6 23.4 8.2 Strongly Agree 71.3 82.6 69.5 79.3 Don't know/No answer 0.5 -- 0.8 --


*May not total 100 percent due to rounding. The scale for 1991 included "Somewhat disagree" rather than "Disagree" and "Somewhat Agree" rather than "Agree." See note 3, above.

Although both men and women record strong agreement with the statement, women are

more likely than men to agree and strongly agree. In 1991 the difference was 85.0 percent

for men and 95.2 percent for women. For the 1993 survey the figures are 90.9 percent for

men and 96.2 percent for women, about a six point increase for the men.

Are Stima Irn~acts a Concern?

One concern that has been raised by researchers for the Nevada Nuclear Waste Project

Office is the possibility that visitors and tourists to Nevada will be adversely influenced by

the repository and will be more likely than otherwise to avoid coming to the state. Such

avoidance behaviors could have very important economic implications since the visitor and


tourist industries are the state's major economic basee4 In order to judge how Nevada

residents evaluated this potential problem, we asked people to agree or disagree with the

statement: "Development of a high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain

could negatively impact the tourist and visitor economy in Nevada." The results are shown

in Table 13, below.

Table 13 Yucca Mountain Could Negatively Impact Tourist and Visitor Industries

Results for Spring 1993 and Spring 1991 (in percent)"

Nevada Nevada Clark Clark State State County County 1993 1991 1993 1991

Strongly Disagree 7.8 15.4 9.5 19.0 Disagree 28.6 14.2 29.3 13.9 Neither DisagreeJAgree 6.8 8.4 6.3 6.1 Agree 30.3 18.8 30.3 16.3 Strongly Agree 22.3 43.2 21.8 44.6 Don't know/No answer 4.1 -- 2.8 --


*May not total 100 percent due to rounding. The scale for 1991 included "Somewhat disagree" rather than "Disagree" and "Somewhat Agree" rather than "Agree. " See note 3, above.

Some of the longitudinal differences shown in this table are due to the changes in the

rating scales made for the Spring 1993 survey (see note 3, above). However, comparing

4For example, see: Slovic, P., Layman, M., Kraus, N., Flynn, J., Chalmers, J., and Gesell, G. (1 99 1). "Perceived Risk, Stigma, and Potential Economic Impacts of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada, " Risk Analysis, 11, 4: 683-696.


both of the agree responses against both of the disagree responses in the two surveys shows

that fewer people agree than disagree with the potential for stigma impacts. At the state level

in 1991, 62.0 percent agree that stigma impacts could occur; with the 1993 survey the figure

is 52.6 percent. Inversely, the proportion who disagree in 1991 was 29.6 percent and in

1993 it was 36.4 percent. The same pattern holds for Clark County.

While a majority of the respondents think that stigma impacts on tourist and visitor

behavior is a potential impact, the proportion who agree with this statement is reduced from

the 1991 findings. Since many of the results of the Spring 1991 survey are noticeably more

anti-repository than the other three surveys that are examined in this report, we might view

this comparison with caution. Further data collection will tend to substantiate or modify the

observation that there has been a decline in concern with stigma impacts by Nevada

residents.

Has the Selection of Yucca Mountain Been Fair?

The nation's political beliefs are strongly influenced by the idea that government program

should treat citizens, states, and other jurisdictions fairly. Concerns with fairness and equity

become very important when the issue is siting an unwanted and potentially hazardous

facility such as the HLNW repository at Yucca Mountain. In order to understand how

Nevada respondents viewed the fairness of the current repository program we asked for

responses to the following statement: "Taking into consideration everything I know about the

repository program, I feel that the selection of Yucca Mountain as the nation's only potential


site has basically been a fair process. " The results of this item are shown in Table 13,

below.

Table 13 Has Selection of Yucca Mountain Been Fair

1993 Nevada Telephone Survey (in percent) *

Nevada State Clark County

Male Female Male Female

Strongly Disagree 33.5 35.7 35.5 37.5 Disagree 27.5 33.5 25.2 33.3 Neither 9.6 8.4 9.2 6.6 Agree 19.9 10.6 22.1 11.9 Strongly Agree 5.5 2.0 5.3 1.2 Don't Know/

No Answer 4.0 9.9 2.7 9.5

No. of Respondents 397 406 262 243


About two-thirds of the state-wide sample respondents (65.1 %) said that they disagree or

strongly disagree and felt the process was not fair; for Clark County the total who disagree

or strongly disagree was very slightly more, 65.5 percent. Women were about half as likely

as men to agree that the process was fair, and only two percent at the state level and just

over one percent from Clark County strongly agreed.


American Nuclear Ener~v Council Advertisinp C a m ~ a i ~ n

In September 199 1, the American Nuclear Energy Council (ANEC) began

implementation of an advertising campaign in the State of Nevada to attempt to increase

support for the Department of Energy's (DOE) repository program at Yucca Mountain. This

effort was funded by various nuclear industries including utilities with nuclear power

generating stations and supply/contractor organizations.'

The strategy of the campaign was to (1) increase public support for the repository

program, (2) bring pressure on the State of Nevada to cooperate with the program, especially

in issuing permits for work at the Yucca Mountain site, (3) recruit allies in Nevada who will

support the industry program and the repository work, and (4) obtain support for the

repository program from key media (newspaper and television) s o ~ r c e s . ~ The cost of the

1991 advertising campaign appeared to have been in the range $800,000 to $1 million7 with

over $3.5 million budgeted each year for 1992 and 1993.8 The program was described as a

three-year effort with a cost in excess of $9 million.'

'Memo from Allen J. Keesler, Jr., Florida Power Corporation to EEI (Edison Electric Institute) Executive Committee Members, dated October 25, 199 1.

6Kent Oram and Ed Allison, "The Nevada Initiative: The Long Term Program, An Overview," Proposal to the American Nuclear Energy Council, September, 1991.

'Memo from Douglas Schoen to Kent Oram, September 6, 1991.

'As described in the Oram and Allison proposal.

'Keith Schneider, "Nuclear Industry Plans Ads to Counter Critics, " The New York Times, November 13, 1991.


Four questions were included in the Autumn 1991 survey" and two of these questions

were included in the Spring 1993 survey to track the Nevada reposes to this campaign. One

of these replicated questions asked if the respondent had seen or heard any of the

advertisements. In the Autumn 199 1 survey nearly three-quarters (72.4 %) of the state-wide

respondents said they had seen or heard of the ANEC advertisements; the figure for the

Spring 1993 survey was 63.1 percent. (See Table 14).

The proportion of respondents who recalled seeing the advertisement campaign

dropped by almost ten percentage points in the 15 months between the Autumn 1991 and the

Spring 1993 surveys. This may be due to the long hiatus in the advertising campaign that

followed the public controversy over "The Nevada Initiative"" and the relatively low profile

of the revised effort. Also, it should be noted that 7.2 percent of the respondents reported

they have lived in Nevada less than one year and 13.4 percent less than two years. The

figures for Clark County are similar, 6.9 percent less than one year and 13.9 percent less

than two years. (See Appendix B, question 28).

-

1°Flynn, J., Mertz, C.K., and Slovic, P. (1 991). The Autumn 1991 Nevada State Telephone Survey. Report submitted by Decision Research to the Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office.

llFlynn, J. (April 15, 1992). "How Not to Sell A Nuclear Waste Dump" Wall Street Journal.


Table 14 Exposure to ANEC Advertising Campaign

Spring 1993 and Autumn 1991 Surveys (in percent)"


Yes 63.1 72.4 65.5 75.9

No 34.7 27.6 24.1 32.5

Don't KnowINot Sure 2.1 0.0 2.0 0.0

# of Respondents 803 504 505 4 10


A second question was asked to examine the impact of the campaign on respondents'

level of support for the repository program:

Based upon these advertisements are you, personally: more supportive of the Yucca Mountain repository program, less supportive, or about the same as before you saw the advertisements?

This question was a measure of how effective the ANEC campaign has been with Nevada

residents with the results shown in Table 15, below. In the Autumn 1991 almost 15 percent

(14.8 %) statewide and 12.9 percent in Clark County who had seen the advertisements said

the result was to make them more supportive. This figure has dropped by almost six

percentage points to 8.9 percent for the state and four points for Clark County. This may

have been the result of a number of factors. As was pointed out in the report for the

Autumn 1991 survey, that data was collected just prior to the exposure of "The Nevada


Initiative" and the strong adverse reaction on the part of Nevada officials and citizens. There

might have been some recollection of this controversy remaining by the time the March 1993

data were collected, and this may have contributed to a subsequent loss of trust and

confidence in the ANEC messages. Also, the revised and lower profile campaign may have

been less memorable and therefore less effective than the early media blitz that was fielded in

the last quarter of 1991.

Table 15 Effect of Ads on Respondent Position Toward the Repository

Spring 1993 and Autumn 1991 Surveys (in percent) *


More Supportive 8.9 14.8 Less Supportive 31.6 32.1 About the Same 59.6 52.9 Don't Know 0.0 0.3 Number of Respondents 507 365


The adverse response to the advertisements, as demonstrated by those who reported that

the campaign made them less supportive of the repository program remained about the same

for both periods at more than 30 percent of the statewide respondents and just under this

figure for Clark County. The ratio of less support to more support changed from about 2 to

1 against the effectiveness of the advertising campaign to 3.5 to 1 against for the state sample

and more than 3 to 1 for Clark County. Those who said the advertisements did not affect


their opinion in regard to the repository increased by almost seven percentage points by

March 1993 for the state sample and five points for Clark County, accounting for the drop in

the "more supportive" category.

Should State of Nevada "Make a Deal" with DOE or Continue Their Op~osition?

One of the arguments made by Yucca Mountain advocates is that opposition to the

repository is hurting the state prospects for obtaining federal monies and programs, and that

by negotiating with the federal government the state could get special benefits including

federal assistance with programs, facilities, and revenues. In asking the survey respondents

about their position on this strategy for dealing with the repository program and the federal

government, the question was put in the following terms:

Some people in the state think that Nevadans should stop fighting the repository and try instead, to make a deal with the federal government in order to get benefits for the State. Others believe that Yucca Mountain is a poor choice, and that Nevada's 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?

Nevada State Findings. Almost two-thirds (64.0 %) of the respondents were against

"making a deal," while 26.2 percent said they were in favor of an attempt to gain benefits

through some agreement with the federal government. The Spring 1993 figures (see Table

16, below) continue an upward trend in negotiating for benefits and a slight decline in

support for continued opposition.

The selection of a "deal" or continued opposition may have contained some element

of strategic behavior. Of those who said they would vote for the repository in question 1


(see Table I), ten respondents (5.9 % of the vote for the repository) said the State should

continue its opposition. Of those who voted against the repository, 45 respondents (7.9% of

the vote against) said the State should make a deal. Perhaps this latter group, which voted

against the repository but supported a negotiated deal with the federal government, felt that

benefits would not necessarily commit the Nevada to acceptance of the repository but only to

scientific study program. This rationale has been put forward by both DOE and the nuclear

industry as a reason to make a deal about the Yucca Mountain project.

Table 16 Make a Deal or Continue Fighting

Results for Nevada State: 1993, 1991 and 1989 (in percent) *


Stop Fighting & Make a Deal 26.2 % 24.2 % 21.8 % 19.6 %

Continue Opposition1 Turn Down Offers 64.0 % 68.3 % 72.8 % 73.6 %

Don't Know /No Answer 9.8 % 7.6 % 5.4 % 6.8 %



The vote for a "deal" also may indicate that some respondents feel the repository is

inevitable and the state should get what benefits they can. In any case, there is some


difference between the vote to oppose the repository and the opposition to making a deal for

benefits, although most people (91.6%) who would vote "no" would also continue State

opposition. As in the case of the referendum vote, women were more likely want opposition

continued (72.2 %) than men (55.7 %).

Clark County Findings. The results of this question for Clark County follow the

pattern of the state responses with both the major response categories within two percentage

points (Table 17, below). Clark County historically has recorded somewhat higher support

for making a deal with the federal government, which considering the large DOE and federal

presence in the county is not surprising.

Table 17 Make a Deal or Continue Fighting

Results for Clark County: 1993, 1991 and 1989 (in percent)"


Stop Fighting & Make a Deal 27.7 % 24.9 % 27.2 % 22.9 %

Continue Opposition/ Turn Down Offers 62.0 66.8 68.0 69.9

Don't Know /No Answer 10.3 8.3 4.7 7.1


"May not total 100 percent due to rounding.


We would expect that consideration of a trade-off for benefits would be more

attractive when these efforts are combined with a slowing rate of growth in the national

economy and in the Las Vegas metropolitan area along with the prospect of significant job

losses at the Nevada Test Site with the end of the cold war. Added to this, there has been

the massive advertising campaign by ANEC, the extensive public relations program by DOE,

and the aggressive attempts by repository proponents to gain labor support, especially among

the construction and trade unions that depend upon government spending. Therefore, it is

somewhat surprising that Clark County residents remain so little interested in making a deal.


RECOMMENDATIONS

1 . Continuing surveys of Nevada public opinion and attitudes toward the Yucca

Mountain project should be supported by the Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office

(NWPO) to track the progress and effects of this effort on residents of the state.

2. Gender differences in evaluating the repository have historically been reported but

not well understood. The 1993 Nevada State Telephone Survey produced curious

results where women provide equal or higher trust ratings of federal government

institutions responsible for the repository project but at the same time vote more

strongly in opposition. These basis for these results should be examined further,

perhaps by a more comprehensive survey at some point in the future.

3. The survey conducted in 1989 was substantially more detailed and produced more

data on public attitudes and opinions than was the case for the surveys conducted in

1991 and 1993. There are increased costs to designing, implementing, and analyzing

a more detailed survey effort. Nonetheless, such an effort should be considered by

the NWPO and the Study Team since the additional data could address a number of

issues that cannot be answered with the findings from the shorter versions.


Appendix A: Survey Interview Instrument

04/08/93 12: 24 RUBY ST At 4Lnut

STANDAGE ACCUREACH

I N C O R F O I A T C D

METHODOLOGY NEVADA STATE SURVEY MARCH, 1993

I n t e r v i e w i n g for t h i s p r o j e c t was conducted between March 15, 1993 through March 25, 1993 a t the c e n t r a l phone bank f a c i l i t y of Standage Accureach, Inc. i n Denver, CO.

The sample used f o r t h l s s tudy was provlded by Survey Sampllng, Inc. o f F a l r f i e l d , CT. The use of a random d i g i t telephone sample al lows households wi th u n l l s t e d telephone numbers t o be Included I n the study,

A1 1 count ies i n Nevada were inc luded I n the study according t o populat ion propor t ions , Those propor t ions are:

Church1 11 C l a r k Doug1 as E l ko Esmeral da Eureka Humbol d t Lander L i n c o l n Lyon M ine ra l N Y ~ P e r t h i ng Storey Wa shoe Whl t e Pine Carson C i t y

An o v e r a l l response r a t e o f 50.99% was obtained. One I n i t i a l attempt and I I

f o u r addi tonal ca l lbacks were made t o each workable number used I n the I sample t o obtaln t h l s percentage. A break down of the sample by county fo l lows: 1

i T o t a l #s Disc.

I Bus Deaf Usable Never Ref, Comp. R e s p I

d i a l e d - Gov' t. - L a n ~ . ds Reached - - - Rate 1 I

P I1 Other 475 188 40 12 235 8 5 3 0 120 51 .o( 1 Count ies . . C la rk Co.. . 2400 86 7 386

Washoe Co. . 650 - - - - - - 79 1 6 3 4

- T o t a l . . . 3525 1331 481 490 340 803 50.9~1

Hel lo, I ' m , w i t h Standage Market Research, a n a t i o n a l p o l l i n g company. May I speak t o ( m l e / f e m y e y e a n of age o r o lder , please? We a r e conduct ing a survey of Nevada State i s s u

may I ask you a few quest ions, please? As you may know, h i g h - l e v e l nuclear wastes a re c u r r e n t l y produced and stored a t a number o f nucle. power p l a n t s and seve ra l m i l i t a r y and research f a c i l i t i e s around the country. I n 1987, Congress decided t h a t Yucca Mountain, Nevada would be s tud ied as a poss ib le repos i to ry s i t e .

1. Suppose the Department of Energy selected the Yucca Mountain s i t e for the na t i on ' s f i r s t h i g h l e v e l r a d i o a c t i v e waste reposi tory, bu t i t wou ldn ' t be located there unless Nevada r e s i d e n t s voted i n favor of i t. I f t h i s were the case, would you vote fo r i t o r against i t ?

Vote For I t . . . . . . . . .I Vote Against I t (sk ip t o 3 ) . 2 Would Not Vote ( s k i p t o 4 ) . . 3 Don't Know (sk ip t o 4 ) . , . .O No Answer ( sk ip t o 4 ) . . . .9

2. (ASK ONLY OF THOSE WHO WOULD VOTE FOR I T ) You s a i d you would vo te "yes" on the referendum i n d i c a t i n g tha t you support the Yucca Htn. r e p o s i t o r y p r o j e c t . Would you say you somewhat support o r s t rong ly support the repos i to ry?

So~newnat Support. . . . . . .I Strongly Support. . . . . . . 2

Other

( S K I P TO QUESTION 4 NOW) 3. (ASK ONLY OF THOSE WHO WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT )

You s a i d t h a t you would vote "no" on the referendum i n d i c a t i n g t h a t you oppose the Yucca Mounta in r e p o s i t o r y p ro jec t . Would you say you somewhat o r s t rong ly oppose the repos i to ry?

Somewhat Oppose. . . . . . . 1 Strongly Oppose. . . . . . . 2 Other

. I f t h e U. S. Department of Energy gave you new i n f o r m a t i o n about the reposi tory, how l i k e l y i s i t t h a t new information would change you r p o i n t o f view about the repos i to ry? I s i t v e r y 1 i k e l y , somewhat l i k e l y , ne i the r l i k e l y nor u n l i k e l y , somewhat un l i ke l y , o r v e r y u n l i k e l y ? Very L i k e l y . . . . . . . . .I

Somewhat L i k e l y . . . . - 2 Nei ther L i k e l y Nor Un l i ke l y 3 . . . . . Somewhat Un l i ke l y . 4 Very Un l ike ly . . . . 5 Don1tKnow. - . . . 0 NoAnswer0 . . . . 9

I am g o i n g t o read a l i s t of statements about the issues associated w i t h the Yucca Mountain r e p o s i t o r y program. For each statement, please t e l l me i f you s t rong ly d i ~ a g r e e ~ d i s a g r e e , n e i t h e r agree nor d isagree ,agree o r s t rong ly agree.

5. Nevada res iden ts should have the f i n a l say on whether o r n o t the repos i to ry i s b u i l t i n s i d e t h e s t a t e . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 9 0

6. The U.S. Department of Energy can be t rus ted t o p rov ide prompt and f u l l d isc losure o f any s e r i o u s problems w i t h the Yucca Mtn, p r o j e c t . 1 2 3 4 5 9 0

7. Development o f a h igh- level rad ioac t ive waste r e p o s i t o r y a t Yucca Mtn.could negat ive ly i m p a c t t h e t o u r i s t a n d v i s i t o r e c o n o m y i n N e v a d a 1 2 3 4 5 9 0

8. If t h e r e p o s i t o r y were eventual ly b u l l t, I b e l i e v e t h e t o v e r a l l tbe benef i ts would out- 1 2 3 4 5 9 0 weigh the harms

Tak ing i n t o cons idera t ion every th ing I know abou t t h e r e p o s i t o r y program, I f e e l t h a t t h e s e l e c t i o n o f Yucca Mountain as the na t i on ' s o n l y p o t e n t i a l s i t e has b a s i c a l l y been a f a i r process. Would you say you s t rong ly d i s a g r e e ,di sagree,nei t he r agree nor disagree, agree, o r s t r o n g l y agree w i t h t h i s statement. .I 2 3 4 5 9 0

. The American Nuclear Energy Counci l , t h a t i s a group represent ing the nuclear power industry, has been conduct ing an a d v e r t i s i n g campaign i n support of t he Department of Energy repos i to ry program a t Yucca Mountain. Have you seen o r heard any o f these advertisements?

Yes (cont inue w i t h Q. 11) . . . . 1 NO (Sk ip t o Quest ion 12) . . . . 2 DK/Not Sure . . . . . . . . . . . 0

. (ASK ONLY I F SAW ADVERTISING) Based upon the advertisements t h a t you have seen . are you personal ly . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . (READ LIST). . More support ive o f the Yucca Mountain r e p o s i t o r y .1 . . . . . . . . . . Less support ive o f the Yucca Mountain r e p o s i t o r y .2 OR . . About the same as before you saw the advertisements . . . . . . . . . 3

tw, I'm go ing t o ask you how you f e e l about var ious government agencies and i n s t i t u t i o n s . On a :a le o f zero t o ten, where zero means tha t you have NO TRUST AT ALL and ten means you have MPLETE TRUST, please t e l l me how much you t r u s t each of the f o l l o w i n g t o do what i s r i g h t w i th !gard t o a nuc lear waste repos i to ry .

. . . . . . . . . . 12. The pres ident o f the United States - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. The U.S. Congress - 14. The U. S. Environmental P ro tec t i on Agency . . . . . . . I - . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. The US Department o f Energy. - i 16. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission . . . . . . . . - 17. The Governor o f the State o f Nevada. I . . . . . . . . . - 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18. The Nevada S ta te Leg is la tu re - 1 19. The s t a t e o f Nevada O f f i c i a l s and agencies . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20. Your county commissioners. - . . . . . . . . . . 21. Your l o c a l c i t y o r town o f f i c i a l s . -

try, instead, t o make a deal w i t h the federal government i n o rder t o ge t benef i ts f o r the

I !2. Some people i n the s ta te of Nevada t h i n k t h a t Nevadans should stop f i g h t i n g the reposi tory and t

! s t a t e . Other people be l ieve t h a t Yucca Mountain i s a poor choice, and t h a t the s t a t e ' s 1 r e s i s t a n c e should n o t be weakened o r compromised by en te r i ng i n t o a deal fo r benef i ts . Do y o u b e l i e v e the s t a t e should s top i t s oppos i t ion and make a deal, o r do you t h i n k the s ta te s h o u l d cont inue t o do a l l t h a t i t can t o oppose the r e p o s i t o r y even i f t h a t means tu rn ing down b e n e f i t s t h a t may be o f f e r e d by the federal government?

Stop f i g h t i n g and make a deal .1 I . . i Continue Opposi t ion/ turn down . . .2 I . . . . . . . . . . . . Don t Know. .I) . . . . . . . . . . . . No Answer .g . I

I F i n a l l y , we would l i k e t o ask some questions about you rse l f and your f a m i l y t o help us i n t e r p r e t / the r e s u l t s f o t h i s study. Remember t h a t your responses are completely con f i den t i a l . I

No school .I I

23. What was the h ighest grade o f school o r . . . . . . . . . . . . I i

c o l l e g e t h a t you completed? Grade School ( 1-8). . . . . . . . .2 1 Some High School (9-11) . . . . . .3 High School Graduate (12) .4

I I . . . .

Some College (13-15). . 5 ! . . . . . . $

Professional/Technical. . . . . . .6 Col 1 ege Graduate. . . . . . . . . .7 Post Graduate ( 1 I + ) . . . . . . . .8 Don ' t Know. . . . . . . . . . . . .O . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refused .9

4. Please t e l l me what your age was a t your l a s t b i r thday . . , , , . , , . . . . . . . . - 5 . Could you please t e l l me the approximate ages of any o t h e r adu l ts and c h i l d r e n 1 i v i n g i n

y o u r household? - C _ _ -

RECORD ONE AGE PER SPACE PLEASE)

6. What i s you r cu r ren t m a r i t i a l s ta tus / Are you , . . (READ LIST)

Marr ied . . . . . , . . . . . . 1 L i v i n g as Marr ied . . . . . . . 2 S ing le and Never Been Marr ied . 3 D i v o r c e . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Separated . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Widowed . . . . . . . . . , . . 6 Don ' t Know. . . . . . . . . . . 9 No Answer/Refused . . . . . . . 9

7. What i s your z i p code? - - - - - - . - . -

( 1 1 (2 1 (3 ) (4 1 (5 ) (6 ) ( 7 1 (8 ) 8. How 1 ong have you 1 ived i n Nevada? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yrs

9. f F LESS THAN 5 YEARS ASK) Where were you l i v i n g 5 years ago . . . . .Wri te i n c i t y l s t a t e

0. F i n a l l y , I ' d 1 i ke t o read some general ca tegor ies regarding l e v e l s of household income. Please inc lude income from a l l sources be fore taxes during 1992. Stop me when I get t o yours.

Under 35,000. . . . . . . . . . .1 $5,000 less than $15,000. . . . .2 $15,000 l ess than $25,000 . . . . 3 $25,000 less than $35,000 . . . .4 $35,000 less than $50,000 . . . .5 $50,000 less than $65,000 . . . .6 $65,000 less than $85,000 . . . . 7 $85,000 and over. . . . . . . . .8 Don' t Know. . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Refused . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

'hank y o u f o r your help. lay I have your f i r s t name only please, j u s t i n case my supervisor needs t o c a l l t o v e r i f y ;h is i n t e r v i e w .

tesponden t s Name Telephone #

RESPONDENT WAS:

M a l e . . . . . . . . 1 Fema 1 e . . . . . . . 2.

: n t e r v i e w e r t s name

Appendix B: Frequency Distributions for Nevada State and Clark County


MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS DATASET: NEV. NV393 15:46 Uedneulay, Apri 1 7, 1993

Q1. Suppose DOE selected the Yucca Mountain r i t e t o r the nation's f i r s t HUM repository, but i t wouldn't k located there unless Nevada residents voted i n favor of it. It th i s were

the caw, would you vote fo r i t or w i n s t i t ?

YUCCA MT VOTE

Cuwlat ive Q1 Frquency Percent Frequency ..................................................

DK 55 6.8 55 VOTE FOR IT I 70 21.2 225 VOTE AGAINST I T 570 71 .O 795 WILD NOT VOTE 5 0.6 800 NO ANSUER 3 0.4 803

Cumulative Percent -----------

6.8 28.0 99.0 99.6

100.0

G!. You said you would vote 'yes' on the referendum indicat ing that you suport the Yucca Mtn repository project. Would you say you somewhat support o r strongly support the repository?

STRENGTH OF SUPPORT

Cumulative Cumulative 42 Frquency Percent Frquency Percent ..............................................................

NO ANSWER 633 78.8 633 78.8 DK 1 0.1 634 79.0 SOMEWHAT SUPPORT 91 11.3 725 90.3 STRONGLY SUPPORT 78 9.7 803 100.0

43. You said that you would vote 'no' on the referendum indicat ing that you oppose the Yucca Mountain repository project. Uould you say you solnewhat or strongly oppose the repository?

STRENGTH OF OPPOSITION

Cumulative Cumulative a3 Frquency Percent Frquency Percent .............................................................

NO ANSUER 233 29.0 233 29.0 DK 4 0.5 237 29.5 SOMEUHAT OPPOSE 119 14.8 356 44.3 STRONGLY OPPOSE 447 55.7 803 100.0

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS DATASET: NEV. NV393 15:46 Uednesday, Apri 1 7, 1993

96. I f DOE gave you new i n f o r u t i o n about the repository, how l i k e l y i s i t that new information would change your point o f view about the repository?

WULD NEU INFO CHANCE OPINION?

Cum l e t i ve 44 Frquency Percent Frquency

DK/NO ANSWER 94 11.7 94 VERY LIKELY 38 4.7 132 SW4EUHAT LIKELY 159 19.8 291 NEITHER 47 5.9 338 SOnEUHAT UNLIKEL 1 07 13.3 445 VERY UNLIKELY 358 44.6 803

Cumulative Percent

Q5. Nevada residents should have the f i n a l say on whether or not the repository i s b u i l t inside the state.

NV RESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE FINAL SAY

CumuLative Cuu la t i ve 45 Frquency Percent Frquency Percent ..............................................................

STRONGLY DISAGRE 6 0.7 6 0.7 DISAGREE 31 3.9 37 4.6 NEITHER 10 1.2 47 5.9 AGREE 1 79 22.3 226 28.1 STRONGLY AGREE 573 71.4 799 99.5 DK/NO ANSUER 4 0.5 803 100.0

46. The DOE can be trusted t o provide prompt and f u l l disclosure of any serious probleas with the Yucca Mountain project.

DOE CAN BE TRUST U/FULL DISCLOSURE

Cuwlative Cuu la t ive M Frquency Percent Frquency Percent ..............................................................

DWNO ANSUER 37 4.6 37 4.6 STRONGLY DISAGRE 285 35.5 322 40.1 DISAGREE 242 30.1 564 70.2 NEITHER 57 7.1 621 77.3 AGREE 1 33 16.6 754 93.9 STRONGLY AGREE 49 6.1 803 100.0

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS DATASET: NEV . NV393 15:46 Wednesday, Apr i l 7, 1993

Q7. Development o f 8 HLRU ropoaltory a t Yucca Ilount8in could negatively lapact the tour is t and v i s i t o r econoay I n Nevada.

YM UILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT NV TOURISM

Cunulrtive Cuulat ive Q7 Frquency Percent Frquency Percent ..............................................................

DK/W ANSWER 33 4.1 33 4.1 STRONGLY DISAGRE 63 7.8 % 12.0 DISAGREE 230 28.6 326 40.6 NEITHER 55 6 .8 381 47.4 AGREE 243 30.3 624 T1. 7 STRONGLY AGREE 179 22.3 803 100.0

48. I f the repository were eventually bu i l t , I believe that overal l the benefits would outweigh the harms.

BENEFITS WILL OUTUEIGH THE HARMS

48 ----------------- DK/W ANSWER STRONGLY DISAGRE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

Frquency .-------------

57 239 230 62

158 57

Cumulative Percent Frequency .....................

7.1 57 29.8 2% 28.6 526 7.7 588

19.7 746 7.1 803

Cuulat i ve Percent -----------

7.1 36.9 65.5 73.2 92.9

100.0

Q9. Taking i n t o consideration everything I know about the repository program, I feel that the selection of Yucca h u n t a i n as the nation's only potent ia l s i t e

has basical ly been a f a i r process.

YUCCA MT SELECTION WAS FAIR PROCESS

Q9 ----------------- DK/NO ANSWER STRONGLY DISAGRE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

Frquency .-------------

56 278 245 n

122 30

Percent --------- 7.0

34.6 30.5 9.0

15.2 3.7

Cuulat ive Frquency ------------

56 334 579 65 1 m 803

Cuulat ive Percent -----------

7.0 41.6 72.1 81.1

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS DATASET: NEV. NV393 15:46 Udnerby, Apr i l 7, 1993

Q10. ANEC, that i s a group representing the nuclear power industry, has bew conducting an advert ising campaign i n support of the DOE repository program a t Yucca Uountaln.

Have you seen or heard any o f these advertisements?

HAVE SEEN/HEARD OF ANEC CAHPAIGN

Cululat lve Cumulative Q10 F rquency Percent F rquency Percent .........................................................

DK/NOT SURE 17 2.1 17 2.1 YES 507 63.1 524 65.3 NO 279 34.7 803 100.0

Q l l . Based on the advertisements that you have seen, are you personally: More supportive o f the Yucca Mtn. repository, Less supportive of the repository

or About the same as before you saw the advertisements

EFFECT ON THOSE THAT SAW ADS

Cumulative Cullulative Q l l Frquency Percent Frqumcy Percent .............................................................

NO ANSUER 296 36.9 296 36.9 MORE SUPPORTIVE 45 5.6 341 42.5 LESS SUPPORTIVE 160 19.9 ~ 0 1 62.4 ABOUT THE SAME 302 37.6 803 100.0

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DlSTRIBUTlONS DATASET: NEV. NVJO 15:46 Wednesday, Apri L 7, 1993

Now, I a n going t o ask you how you fee l about various governnent agencier and i ns t i t u t l on r . On a scale o f zero t o 10, where zero news that YOU have NO TRUST AT ALL a d 10 means you hrve

COMPLETE TRUST, please t e l l m how wch you t r u r t each of the fol lowing t o & whet ir r l gh t w i th regard t o a nuclear waste repository.

TRUST: US PRESIDENT

41 2 ----------------- NO TRUST 0

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

COMPLETE TRUS 10 DK

NO TRUST 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

COMPLETE TRUS 10 DK

Frquency .------------

132 13 25 41 43

21 6 62 81 90 21 67 12

Percent

16.4

Cumulative Frquency

,------------

132 145 170 21 1 254 470 532 61 3 703 724 791 803

TRUST: US COMGRESS

Frquency .----- ------.

167 31 77 87 73

183 52 51 46 9

19 8

Percent --------- 20.8 3.9 9.6

10.8 9.1

22.8 6.5 6.4 5.7 1.1 2.4 1 .o

Cumulative Frquency

.------------ 167 1 98 275 362 435 61 8 670 721 767 776 795 803


16.4 18.1 21.2 26.3 31.6 58.5 66.3 76.3 87.5 90.2 98.5

100.0

CURU Lat i ve Percent -----------

20.8 24.7 34.2 45.1 54.2 77.0 83.4 89.8 95.5 96.6 99.0

100.0

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIOWS DATASET: NEV. Nn93 15:46 Wednesday, Ap r i l 7, 1993

Now, I ' m going t o ask you how you feel about various government agencies and ins t i tu t ionr . On l scale of zero t o 10, where zero means that you have NO TRUST AT ALL and 10 nans you have

COnPLETE TRUST, please t e l l ao hou much you t rust each of the following t o do what i s r i gh t wi th regard t o a nuclear waste repository.

TRUST: US EPA

Cumulative Cu~ulat ive Q14 Frquency Percent Frquency Percent ..............................................................

NO TRUST 0 102 12.7 102 12.7 1 16 2.0 118 14.7 2 26 3.2 144 17.9 3 52 6.5 1% 24.4 4 53 6.6 249 31 .O 5 1 62 20.2 41 1 51.2 6 53 6.6 464 57.8 7 97 12.1 561 69.9 8 118 14.7 679 84.6 9 47 5.9 726 90.4

COHPLETE TRUS 10 63 7.8 789 98.3 OK 14 1.7 803 100.0

TRUST: US DOE

Ql 5 ----------------- NO TRUST 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

CMPLETE TRUS 10 DK

Frquency .-------------.

152 40 43 74 65

185 66 64 76 16 25 19

Percent --------- 18.9 5.0 5.4 9.2 8.1

23.0 5.5 8.0 9.5 2.0 3.1 2.4

Cumulative Frquency

Cumulative Percent

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIWTIO(IS DATASET: NEV. NV393 15:46 Wadnesday, Ap r i l 7, 1993

Mow, I ' m going t o ask you how you fee l about various governnnt rgcncies and inst i tut ions. On a scale of zero t o 10, where zero mans that you have NO TRUST AT ALL and 10 8eanr you h v e

COMPLETE TRUST, please t e l l me how much you t rus t each o f the fol lowing t o do what i s r igh t with regard t o a nuclear waste repository.

TRUST: US NRC

01 6 ------------------. NO TRUST 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

COMPLETE TRUS 10 DK

Frquency .---------- 185 49 58 79 58

155 39 52 53 14 23 38

Percent ,----------

23.0 6.1 7.2 9.8 7.2

19.3 4.9 6.5 6.6 1.7 2.9 4.7

Cuwlat i ve Frquency ------------

185 234 292 371 429 584 623 675 728 742 765 803

Cumulative Percent

TRUST: NEVADA GOVERNOR

Cumulative Cuwlative 917 F rquency Percent Frquency Percent ..............................................................

NO TRUST 0 62 7.7 62 7.7 1 18 2.2 80 10.0 2 28 3.5 108 13.4 3 53 6.6 161 20.0 4 34 4.2 195 24.3 5 172 21.4 367 45.7 6 58 7.2 425 52.9 7 91 11.3 516 64.3 8 113 14.1 629 78.3 9 58 7.2 687 85.6

COMPLETE TRUS 10 99 12.3 786 97.9 DK 17 2.1 803 100.0

HARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIWTIONS DATASET : NEV. M 9 3 IS:& Utdnesday, Apri 1 7, 1993

Now, I'm going t o ask you how you feel about various government agencies a d i ns t l t u t i on r . On a scale o f zero t o 10, where zero mema that you have NO TRUST AT ALL and 10 man8 you have

COHPLETE TRUST, please t e l l w how wch you t rus t each of the fo l lowing t o do whrt ir r i gh t w i th regard t o a nuclear warte repository.

TRUST: NV STATE LEGISUTURE

Q18 ------------------ NO TRUST 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

COHPLETE TRUS 10 DK

Frquency ------------ 67 8

37 47 47

199 85 94

108 36 56 19

Percent --------- 8.3 1 .o 4.6 5.9 5.9

24.8 10.6 11.7 13.4 4.5 7.0 2.4

Cumulative Frquency ------------

67 75

112 159 206 405 490 584 692 728 784 803


8.3 9 .3

13.9 19.8 25.7 50.4 61 .O 72.7

TRUST: NV OFFICIALS/AGENCIES

Cumulative Cumulative 919 Frqutncy Percent Frquency Percent ..............................................................

NO TRUST 0 76 9.5 76 9.5 1 16 2.0 92 11.5 2 27 3.4 119 14.8 3 52 6.5 171 ZI .3 4 65 8.1 236 29.4 5 21 4 26.7 450 56.0 6 80 10.0 530 66.0 7 106 13.2 636 79.2 8 80 10.0 71 6 89.2 9 27 3.4 743 92.5

COMPLETE TRUS 10 39 4.9 782 97.4 DK 21 2.6 803 100.0

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRlBUTIONS DATASET: NEV. NV393 IS:& Udnesday, Apri 1 7, 1993

Nou, 1'. going t o ark you how you fee l about v r r iour government rgmcies 8nd i n r t l t u t i on r . On a r c r l e of zero t o 10, where zero means that you have NO TRUST AT ALL and 10 mans you have

CO~PLETE TRUST, please t e l l nr how wch you t rus t each o f the t o l l w i n g t o do what ir r i g h t wi th regard t o a nuclear warts repository.

TRUST: COUNTY COnMISSIONERS

Q20 ----------------- NO TRUST 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

COMPLETE TRUS 10 DK

Frquency Percent Cuaulative Frequency

Cuulat ive Percent

.----------- 12.7 15.4 20.4 26.5 33.5 56.3 65.8 78.6 87.5 90.8 95.5

100.0

TRUST: CITY/TOUN OFFICIALS

Cuwlative Cumulative QZ1 Frquency Percent Frquency Percent ..............................................................

NO TRUST 0 85 10.6 85 10.6 1 26 3.2 111 13.8 2 41 5.1 152 18.9 3 42 5.2 194 24.2 4 50 6.2 244 30.4 5 180 22.4 424 52.8 6 74 9.2 498 62.0 7 100 12.5 598 74.5 8 99 12.3 697 86.8 9 33 4.1 730 90.9

COMPLETE TRUS 10 51 6.4 781 97.3 DK 22 2.7 803 100.0

RARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIOllS DATASET: NEV. NV393 15:46 Uednesday, Apri l 7, 1993

Q22. Soae people i n the state of Nevada think that Nevadans shuld stop fighting the repository .nd try, instead t o mke a deal with the federal government i n order t o get benefits for the state.

Other people believe that Yucca Htn i s a poor choice, and that the state's resistance should not be weakened or conpronised by entering in to a deal for benefits.

RAKE A DEAL/CONTINUE OPPOSITION

Cumulative Cumulative 922 F rquency Percent Frquency Percent ..............................................................

DK/W ANSUER 79 9.8 79 9.8 RAKE A DEAL 210 26.2 289 36.0 CONTINUE OPPOSITION 514 64.0 803 100.0

423. What was the highest grade of school or college that you coapleted?

EDUCATION

EDUC -------------- DK/REFUSED GRADE SCHOOL SOHE HS HS GRAD SOnE COLL PROFfTECH COLL GRAD POST GRAD

F rquency .-----------

2 7

45 250 259 30

1 49 61

Percent ---------- 0.2 0.9 5.6

31.1 32.3 3.7

18.6 7.6

Cumulative Frquency

.------------ 2 9

54 304 563 593 742 803

Cumu la t i ve Percent -----------

0.2 1.1 6.7

37.9 70.1 73.8 92.4

100.0

@4. Please t e l l ae what you age was at your Lest birthday. IAGGREGATEDJ

Cumulative Cumulative AGE Frquency Percent Frquency Percent

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 22 DATASET: NEV.NV393 15:46 bJsdnt?s&y, Apr i l 7, 1993

426. Uhat i a your current m r i t i a l status?

MARITIAL STATUS

426 Frquency Percent ....................................... MARRIED 474 59.0 LIVING AS MARRIE 15 1.9 SINGLE/NEVER MAR 136 16.9 DIVORCE 97 12.1 SEPARATED 12 1.5 WIDOWED 63 7.8 DK/NA/REFUSED 6 0.7

Cufnulative Frquency

.------------ 474 489 625 722 734 797 803

Cumulative Percent

.----------- 59.0 60.9 77.8 89.9 91.4 99.3

100.0

028. How Long have you l ived i n Nevada? [AGGREGATED]

YRS LIVED I N NEVADA

428 Frquency ............................ NO ANSWER 3 2 yrs or less 105 3 t o 5 yrs 118 6 t o 10 yrs 133 11 yrs or ~ m r e 441 REFUSED 3

Percent --------- 0.4

13.1 14.7 16.6 54.9 0.4

Cumulative Frquency ------------

3 108 226 359 &00 803


0.4 13.4 28.1 44.7 99.6

100.0

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE T E L E P m E SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIOUS DATASET: NEV. NV393 15:46 Utdneadey, A p r i 1 7, 1993

W . [ F o r t h o s e l i v i n g i n Nevada l e a s than 5 y e a r s 3 U h e r e we re y o u L i v i n g 5 y e a r s qp?

UHERE SUBJECT MAS L IV ING 5 YRS AGO

Q29 F r q u e n c y ........................... NO ANSUER 61 5 REFUSED 2 ARIZONA 9 ARKANSAS 1 CALIFORNIA 83 COLORADO 8 FLORIDA 3 HAUAI I 2 IDAHO 3 I L L I N O I S 9 INDIANA 1 IOVA 3 KANSAS 2 KENTUCKY 1 LOUSIANA 1 MASSACHUSETTS 2 MICHIGAN 3 W T A N A 1 NEW JERSEY 2 NEW MEXICO 2 NEU YORK 8 OH I0 2 OKLAHOMA I OREGON 2 PENNSYLVANIA 3 TENNESSEE 2 TEXAS 7 UTAH 12 VIRGINIA 2 UISCONSIN 2 UY(Iw1NG 3 ALASKA 1 OTHER 5

P e r c e n t C u m u l a t i v e C u w l a t i v e

F r q u e n c y P e r c e n t .----------------------- 61 5 76.6 61 7 76.8 626 78.0 627 78.1 710 88.4 71 8 89.4 721 89.8 723 90.0 726 90.4 735 91.5 736 91.7 739 92.0 741 92.3 742 92.4 743 92.5 745 92.8 748 93.2 749 93.3 751 93.5 753 93.8 761 94.8 763 95.0 764 95.1 766 95.4 769 95.8 771 96.0 778 W.9 790 98.4 792 98.6 794 98.9 797 99.3 798 99.4 803 100.0

HARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIWTIONS DATASET: NEV. NV393 IS : * Wednesday, Apr i l 7, 1993

030. Finally, I ' d l i k e t o r e d soae general categories regarding levels o f household income. Please include incow froa a l l sources before taxes during 1392.

INCOME -------------- DK/REFUSED/NA UNDER $5000 $5000-14999 $1 5000-24999 $25000-34999 $35000-49995' S 50000-64999 M5000-84999 $85000*

F rquency ------------ 88 16 60

121 151 1 68 9l 47 61

Percent ,----------

11 .o 2.0 7.5

15.1 18.8 20.9 11.3 5.9 7.6

Cumu l a t i ve Frquency ------------

88 104 I 64 285 436 604 6% 742 803

Cuwlat i ve Percent -----------

11 .o 13.0 20.4 35.5 54.3 75.2 86.6 92.4

100.0

030. Finally, I ' d l i k e t o read some general categories regarding levels o f household incow. Please include income from a l l sources before taxes during 1992. CAGGREGATEDI

Cumulative Cumulative INCOME Frquency Percent Frquency Percent ..............................................................

DK/REFUSED/NA 88 11 .O 88 11 .0 LESS THAN $25000 197 24.5 285 35.5 $25000-49999 31 9 39.7 604 75.2 $50000, 199 24.8 803 100.0

Sex of respondent

Cumulative Cumulative SEX Frquency Percent Frquency Percent ....................................................

MALE 397 49.4 397 49.4 FEMLE 406 50.6 803 100.0

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRleUTIONS 1 DATASET: NEV. NV393 >>>>>>> C U R K COUNTY RESPONDENTS ONLY <<<<<<<

16:18 Udnesday, Apri l 21, 19QJ

Q1. Suppose OOE selected the Yucca Mountain s i te for the nation's f i r s t H U M rrpository, but It wouldn't be located there unless Nevada residents voted I n favor of i t. I f this were

the case, would you vote for i t or against i t ?

YUCCA )IT VOTE

Cumulative Cumulative Q l Frquency Percent Frquency Percent .............................................................

DK 34 6.7 34 6.7 VOTE FOR I T 118 23.4 152 30.1 VOTE AGAINST I T 347 68.7 499 98.8 WOULD NOT VOTE 4 0.8 503 99.6 NO ANSWER 2 0.4 50s 100.0

QZ. You said you would vote 'yes' on the referendum indicating that you suport the Yucca Htn repository project. Uould you say you somewhat support or strongly support the repository?

STRENGTH OF SUPPORT

Cuwlat ive Cumulative Q2 Frquency Percent Frqumcy Percent ..............................................................

NO ANSUER 387 76.6 387 76.6 DK 1 0.2 388 76.8 SOHEUHAT SUPPORT 56 11 .I 444 87.9 STRONGLY SUPPORT 61 12.1 505 100.0

Q3. You said that you would vote 'no' on the referendum indicating that you oppose the Yucca Mountain repository project. Yould you say you somewhat or strongly oppose the repository?

STRENGTH OF OPPOSITION

Cumulative Cumulative Q3 Frqumcy Percent Frquency Percent .............................................................

NO ANSWER 158 31.3 158 31.3 DK 1 0.2 159 31 .S SO~EUHAT OPPOSE n 14.3 UI 45.7 STRONGLY OPPOSE 274 54.3 505 100.0

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 4 DATASET: NEV.NV3n >>>>>>> CLARK COUNTY RESPONDENTS ONLY <<<<<<<

16:18 Uedmrdry, A p r i l 21, 1993

Q4. I f DOE gave you new infornation about the repository, how l i ke l y i s i t that new information would change your point o f view about the repository?

WOULD NEW INFO CHANGE OPINION?

----------------- DKINO ANSWER . VERY LIKELY SOMEWHAT LIKELY NEITHER SOMEWHAT UNLIKEL VERY UNLIKELY

Frequency ------------ 67 25 98 31 60

224

Percent Cumulative

F rquency C w l a t i v r

Percent

Q5. Nevada residents should have the f i n a l say on whether or not the repository i s b u i l t inside the state.

NV RESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE FINAL SAY

QS ------------------ STRONGLY DISAGRE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE STRONGLY AGREE DKINO ANSUER

Frequency .-----------

3 23 6

118 351

4

Percent Cumulative C w l a t i v e Frquency Percent

Q6. The DOE can be trusted t o provide prompt and f u l l disclosure o f any serious problems wi th the Yucca Mountain project.

DOE CAN BE TRUST WIFULL DISCLOSURE

Cuwlative C w l a t i v e 46 Frquency Percent Frquency Percent ..............................................................

DKINO ANSWER 19 3.8 19 3.8 STRONtLY DISAGRE 1 89 37.4 208 41.2 DISAGREE 144 28.5 352 69.7 NEITHER 38 7.5 390 T1.2 AGREE 86 I 7 .O 476 94.3 STRONGLY AGREE 29 5.7 505 100.0

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 7 DATASET: NEV.NV393 >>>>>>> CLARK COUNTY RESPONDENTS ONLY <<<<<<<

16:18 Wednesday, Apr i l 21, 1993

Q7. Development o f a HLRU repository a t Yucca Uountain could negatively l l lprct the tour is t md v i s i t o r economy i n t4ev.d..

YM WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT NV TOURISM

Q7 ----------------- DK/NO ANSUER STRONGLY DISAGRE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

Frequency .-------------

14 48 148 32 153 110

Percent .---------

2.8 9.5 29.3 6.3 30.3 21.8

Cuwlat i v e Cumulative Frequency Percent

.----------------------- 14 2.8 62 12.3 210 41.6 242 47.9 3% 78.2 505 100.0

48. ~f the repository were eventually bui l t , I believe that overa l l the benefits would outweigh the harms.

BENEFITS WILL OUTWEIGH THE HARMS

. a 8 ------------------ DK/NO ANSWER STRONGLY DISAGRE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

Frequency Percent ,---------------------

39 7.7 147 29.1 133 26.3 46 9.1 1W 19.8 40 7.9

Cumulative Cumulative Frequency Percent .......................

39 . 7.7 1 86 36.8 31 9 63.2 365 72.3 465 92.1 505 100.0

Q9. Taking i n t o consideration everything I know about the repository prograa, I fee l that the selection of Yucca Mountain as the nat ion 's only potent ia l s i t e

has basical ly been a f a i r process.

YUCCA MT SELECTION WAS F A I R PROCESS

Cuwlat ive Cumulative Q9 Frequency Percent Frequency. Percent ..............................................................

DK/NO ANSWER 30 5.9 30 5.9 STRONGLY DISAGRE 1 84 36.4 21 4 42.4 DISAGREE 147 29.1 361 71 -5 NEITHER 40 7.9 601 79.4 AGREE 87 17.2 488 96.6 STRONGLY AGREE 17 3.4 505 100.0


16:18 Uednesday, Ap r i l 21, 1993

1210. ANEC, that i s a group representing the nuclear power industry, has been conducting an advert ising c a w i g n i n support of the DOE repoajtory program a t Yucca Mountain.

Have you seen or heard any of there advertiacmnts?

HAVE SEEN/HEARD OF ANEC CAMPAIGN

Cumrlat i ve Cumulative Q10 Frquency Percent Frequency Percent .........................................................

DK/NOT SURE 10 2.0 10 2.0 YES 331 65.5 341 67.5 NO 1 64 32.5 505 100.0

Q11. Based on the advertisements that you have a m , are you personally: More supportive of the Yucca Mtn. repository, Less supportive of the repository

or About the same as before you saw the advertisements

EFFECT ON THOSE THAT SAU ADS

Cumulative Cumulative Qll Frequency Percent Frquency Percent .............................................................

NO ANSUER 175 34.7 175 34.7 MORE SUPPORTIVE 29 5.7 204 - 40.4 LESS SUPPORTIVE % 18.8 299 59.2 ABOUT THE SAME 206 40.8 505 100.0


16:18 Wednesday, Apri 1 21, 1993

Mow, I'm going t o ask you haw you fee l about various governwnt agencies end inst i tut ion#. On a scale of zero t o 10, where zero means that you have NO TRUST AT ALL and 10 means you have

COMPLETE TRUST, please t e l l me how much you t rus t each of the following t o do what i s r i gh t wi th regard t o a nuclear waste repository.

TRUST: US PRESIDENT

Q12 Frequency Percent ....................................... NO TRUST 0 80 15.8

1 6 1.2 2 2.4 3 26 5.1 4 28 5.5 5 1 38 27.3 6 37 7.3 7 49 9.7 8 55 10.9 9 13 2.6

COMPLETE TRUS 10 51 10.1 DK 10 2.0

Cuwlative Frquency

.------------ 80 86 98

124 152 290 327 376 431 444 4% 505

Q13

NO TRUST 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

COMPLETE TRUS 10 OK

TRUST: US CONGRESS

Frequency .------------

108 19 42 63 45

106 31 33 32 6

15 5

Percent --------- 21.4 3.8 8.3

12.5 8.9

21 .o 6.1 6.5 6.3 1.2 3.0 1 .o

Cumulative Frquency -------------

108 127 169 232 277 383 41 4 447 479 485 500 505

Cumulat 1ve Percent -----------

15.8 17.0 19.4 24.6 30. I 57.4 64.8 74.5 85.3 87.9 98.0

100.0


21.4 25.1 33.5 45.9 54.9 75.8 82.0 88.5 94.9 %. 0 99.0

100.0


16:18 Ucdnesday, Apr i l 21, 1993

Now, I ' m going t o ask you how ycu feel about various government agencies and inst i tut ions. On a scale of zero t o 10, where zero means that you have NO TRUST AT ALL and 10 wens you have

COMPLETE TRUST, please t e l l me how much you t rus t each o f the following t o do what i s r i gh t with regard t o a nuclear waste repository.

TRUST: US EPA

Q14 ------------------ NO TRUST 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

COMPLETE TRUS 10 OK

Frquency Percent ..................... 65 12.9 11 2.2 15 3.0 29 5.7 33 6.5 95 18.8 30 5.9 66 13.1 69 13.7 36 7.1 48 9.5 8 1.6

Curmlative Frequency ------------

65 76 91

120 153 248 278 344 41 3 449 497 505

Cumulative Percent

,-----------

12.9 15.0 18.0 23.8 30.3 49.1 55.0 68.1 81.8 88.9 98.4

100.0

TRUST: US DOE

Cumulative Cumulative Q15 Frquency Percent Frequency Percent ..............................................................

NO TRUST 0 101 20.0 101 20.0 1 18 3.6 119 23.6 2 32 6.3 151 29.9 3 46 9.1 1 97 39.0 4 35 6.9 232 45.9 5 117 23.2 349 69.1 6 24 4.8 373 73.9 7 38 7.5 41 1 81.4 8 51 10.1 462 9 l . 5 9 12 2.4 474 93.9

COMPLETE TRUS 10 21 4.2 4% 98.0 OK I 0 2.0 505 100.0


16:18 Utdnoday, Aprll 21, 1993

Now, I ' m going t o ask you how you fee l about various government agencies and i ns t i tu t ions . On a scale of zero t o 10, where zero means that you have NO TRUST AT ALL and 10 w r n s you have

COMPLETE TRUST, please t e l l ae how much you t rust each of the following t o do what I 8 r i gh t with regard t o a nuclear waste repository.

TRUST: US NRC

Cullulative Cuaulrtive Q16 Frequency Percent Frquency Percent ..............................................................

NO TRUST 0 122 24.2 122 24.2 1 33 6.5 155 30.7 2 29 5.7 184 36.4 3 53 10.5 237 46.9 4 36 7.1 273 54.1 5 91 18.0 364 72.1 6 25 5.0 389 77.0 7 31 6.1 420 83.2 8 34 6.7 454 89.9 9 11 2.2 465 92.1

COMPLETE TRUS 10 18 3.6 483 95.6 DK 22 4.4 505 100.0

TRUST: NEVADA GOVERNOR

Cumulative Cumulative Q17 Frequency Percent Frquency Percent

NO TRUST 0 1 2 3

' 4 5 6 7 8 9

COMPLETE TRUS 10 OK

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIWTIONS 15 DATASET: NEV.NV393 >>>>>>> CLARK COUNTY RESPONDENTS ONLY <<<<<<<

16:18 Ydnesday, Ap r i l 21, 1993

Now, I ' m going t o ask you how you fee l about various government agencies and inst i tut ions. On a scale of zero t o 10, where zero means that you have NO TRUST A t ALL and 10 mans you have

COMPLETE TRUST, please t e l l me how much you t rust each of the following t o do what i s r i gh t with regard t o a nuclear waste repository.

TRUST: NV STATE LEGISLATURE

Q18 ------------------. NO TRUST 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -

COMPLETE TRUS 10 DK

Frquency .---------- 47 5

25 29 31

118 51 61 65 22 37 14

Percent .---------. 9.3 1 .o

Cumulative Frquency .------------

47 52 n

106 137 255 306 367 432 454 491 505

Cumulative Percent

,-----------

9.3 10.3 15.2 21 .o 27.1 50.5 60.6 72.7 85.5 89.9 97.2

100.0

TRUST: NV OFFICIALS/AGENCIES

Cunulat i ve Cumulative Q19 Frquency Percent Frqucncy Percent ..............................................................

NO TRUST 0 49 9.7 49 9.7 1 6 I .2 55 10.9 2 16 3.2 71 14.1 3 36 7.1 1 07 21.2 4 42 8.3 1 49 29.5 5 140 27.7 289 57.2 6 47 9.3 336 66.5 7 67 13.3 403 79.8 8 44 8.7 447 88.5 9 15 3.0 662 91.5

COMPLETE TRUS 10 28 5.5 490 97.0 OK 15 3.0 505 100.0


16:18 Uedneaday, Apri 1 21, 1993

Now, I'II going t o ask you hou you feel about vrrioua government agencies a d in r t i tu t iona. On a scale of zero t o 10, where zero means that you have NO TRUST AT ALL and 10 wan8 you have

COMPLETE TRUST, pl-se t e l l H hou luch you t rust each o f the fol lowing t o do What I$ r i gh t with regard t o a nuclear waste repository.

TRUST: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Q20 Frquency ............................. NO TRUST 0 72

1 14 2 25 3 29 4 30 5 123 6 49 7 54 8 48 9 12

COMPLETE TRUS 10 23 DK 26

Percent ----------- 14.3 2.8 5.0 5.7 5.9 24.4 9.7 10.7 9.5 2.4 4.6 5.1

Cum l a t i ve Frquency

.----------- 72 86

111 140 1 70 293 342 3% 444 456 479 505

Cum l a t i ve Percent ----------- 14.3 17.0 22.0 27.7 33.7 58.0 67.7 78.4 87.9 90.3 94.9 100.0

TRUST: CITY/TOUN OFFICIALS

Cunulat i ve Cuw la t i ve 421 Frquency Percent Frequency Percent ..............................................................

NO TRUST 0 52 10.3 52 10.3 1 18 3.6 70 13.9 2 21 4.2 9'l 18.0 3 26 5.1 117 23.2 4 28 5.5 145 28.7 5 123 24.4 268 53.1 6 54 10.7 322 63.8 7 59 11.7 381 75.4 8 58 11.5 439 86.9 9 16 3.2 455 90.1

COMPLETE TRUS 10 34 6.7 489 96.8 DK 16 3.2 505 100.0

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 17 DATASET: NEV . NV393 >>>>>>> CLARK COUNTY RESPONDENTS ONLY <<<<<<<

16:18 Uednesday, Apr i l 21, 1993

Q22. Some people i n the state of Nevada think that Nevadans rhuld stop f igh t ing the repository and try, instead t o mke a deal with the federal government i n order t o get benefits fo r the state.

Other pcople believe that Yucca Mtn i s a poor choice, and that the state 's resistance should not be weakened or collpronised by entering i n to a deal f o r benefits.

MAKE A DEAL/CONTINUE OPPOSITION

Cumulative Cumulative 922 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

DK/NO ANSWER 52 10.3 52 10.3 MAKE A DEAL 140 27.7 1 92 38.0 CONTINUE OPPOSIT 31 3 62.0 505 100.0

423. What was the highest grade o f school or college that you completed?

EDUCATION

EDUC ------------- DK/REFUSED GRADE SCHOOL SOHE HS HS GRAD SOHE COLL PROF/TECH COLL GRAD POST GRAD

Frequency ,-------------

I 6

25 160 1 76 22 84 31

Percent .---------

Cumulative Frequency

.------------ 1 7

32 192 368 390 474 505

Cumulative Percent

,-----------

0.2 1.4 6.3

38.0 72.9 77.2 93.9

100.0

424. Please t e l l me what you age was a t your las t birthday. CAGGREGATEDI

Cumulative Cumulative AGE Frequency Percent Frequency Percent ........................................................

18 t o 24 49 9.7 49 9.7 25 t o 34 119 23.6 1 68 33.3 35 t o 44 112 22.2 280 55.4 45 t o 54 92 18.2 372 73.7 55 t o 64 53 10.5 425 84.2 65+ 80 15.8 505 100.0

MARCH 1993 NEVADA STATE TELEPHONE SURVEY: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 22 DATASET: NEV. Ma93 >>>>>>> CLARK COUNTY RESPONDENTS ONLY <<<<<<<

16:18 Uednerday, Apri 1 21, 1993

426. Uhat i s your current a a r i t i a l status?

MRITIAL STATUS

Q26 ------------------ MARRIED LIVING AS MARRIE SINGLE/NEVER MAR DIVORCE SEPARATED UIDOUED DK/NA/REFUSED

Cumulative Cuwlat ive Frquency Percent Frequency Percent ............................................

284 56.2 284 56.2 13 2.6 297 58.8 93 18.4 390 77.2 59 11.7 449 88.9 8 1.6 457 90.5

46 9.1 503 99.6 2 0.4 505 100.0

Q28. Hov long have you l ived i n Nevada? CAGGREGATEDI

YRS LIVED I N NEVADA

Cumulative Cumulative 428 Frquency Percent Frquency Percent ............................................................

2 yrs or less 70 13.9 70 13.9 3 t o 5 yrs 81 16.0 151 29.9 6 t o 10 yrs 93 18.4 244 48.3 11 yrs or mre 261 51.7 505 100.0


16:18 Wednesday, Ap r i l 21, 1993

QH). Finally, I ' d l i k e t o read some general categories regarding levelr o f household incow. Please include income from a l l sources before taxer during 1992.

INCOnE --------------- DK/REFUSED/NA UNDER $5000 $5000-14999 $1 5000-24999 $25000-34999 $35000-49999 $5000044999 $65000-84999 $85000*

Frquency .-----------

61 9

39 n 90 99 60 32 38

Percent ,----------

12. I 1.8

Cuw l a t ive Frquency

.------------ 61 70

109 186 276 375 435 467 505

Cuwlat i ve Percent

,-----------

12.1 13.9 21.6 36.8 54.7 74.3 86.1 92.5

100.0

930. Finally, I ' d l i k e t o read some general categories regarding levels o f household income. Please include income f ron a l l sources before taxes during 1992. [AGGREGATED]

Cumulative Cumulative INCOME Frequency Percent Frquency Percent ..............................................................

DK/REFUSED/NA 61 12.1 61 12.1 LESS THAN $25000 125 24.8 186 36.8 $25000-49999 1 89 37.4 375 74.3 $50000* 130 25.7 505 100.0

Sex o f respondent

Cumulative Cumulative SEX Frquency Percent Frquency Percent ....................................................

HALE 262 51.9 262 51.9 FEMALE 243 48.1 505 100.0

AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS/ NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT … · 2007. 9. 4. · Council (ANEC)...

Documents

Transcript of AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS/ NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT … · 2007. 9. 4. · Council (ANEC)...