Pol icy Studies Review, August 7985, Vol. 5, No. 1

William R . Freudenburg a n d Rodney K . Baxter

NUCLEAR REACTIONS: PUBLIC A T T I T U D E S AND POLICIES TOWARD NUCLEAR POWER

I f one o f t he k e y pol icy issues o f t h e 1980s i s t h e tens ion between t h e p r i v a t e right t o develop p ro f i t ab le v e n t u r e s a n d the p u b l i c right to be p ro tec ted f rom u n d u e r i s k s , pe rhaps nowhere is t h e tens ion more ev iden t t h a n i n t h e case o f t h e nuc lea r power i n d u s t r y . While the ongoing debate tends t o concentrate o n the technica l deta i ls o f nuc lear power, it takes place in t h e con tex t o f t w o sets o f I 'nontechnicaP considerat ions. These o f ten i gno rea considerat ions a r e t h e focus o f t h i s ar t ic le . T h e f i r s t i s t he ea r l y h i s t o r y o f nuc lear power development in t h e U.S. , in wh ich pub l i c concerns p layed a re la t i ve l y small ro le a n d t h e main emphasis o f t h e p u b l i c sector was o n encouraging g r o w t h in t h e p r i v a t e sector. The second i s todayls g r e a t l y changed pub l i c react ion to t h e nuc lear opt ion.

Despi te the fact t h a t t h e admin is t ra t ion o f a highly popu la r p res iden t has promoted a po l i cy o f re laxed regulat ions a n d has submi t ted congres- s ional proposals f o r " r e g u l a t o r y re form" t h a t a r e c losely pa t te rned on the i n d u s t r y ' s own posi t ions, nuc lear suppor te rs claim t h a t federa l regulat ions con t inue t o b e excessive. On t h e o t h e r hand , nuc lear opponents a rgue t h a t federa l regu la to rs a r e too w o r r i e d about imposing costs o n p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y a n d n o t w o r r i e d enough about p ro tec t i ng pub l i c heal th a n d safe- ty. B o t h s ides claim to be suppor ted by the b roader pub l i c , a n d b o t h make e f f o r t s t o increase t h e amount o f s u p p o r t t h e y enjoy.

T h e reasons a r e n o t d i f f i c u l t t o unders tand . Commercial nuc lear power i s e n d u r i n g d i f f i c u l t t imes in t h e U.S., a n d p rospec ts f o r an ea r l y recov- e r y a r e n o t good. T h e u n d e r l y i n g problems a r e many in number , but one o f them--one t h a t i s i nc reas ing l y acknowledged by energy pol icy analysts o f v a r y i n g persuasions--has to do w i t h the p u b l i c acceptabi l i ty o f t h e technology (Nat ional Academy o f Sciences, 1980; F o r d Foundat ion S t u d y Group , 1979; Pres ident 's Commission on t h e Acc ident a t T h r e e Mile Is land, 1979). In t h e 1983 de l iberat ions o f t h e Nat ional Academy o f Sciences/ Nat ional Research Counci l Exp lo ra to ry Committee on the F u t u r e o f Nuclear Power, o v e r th ree - fou r ths o f t h e panel is ts who addressed the quest ion exp l i c i t l y noted the importance o f pub l i c acceptance to t h e f u t u r e of t he nuc lear op t i on , a n d o v e r h a l f p r e d i c t e d f l a t l y t h a t t h e nuc lear power i n d u s t r y in the U.S. would b e unable to recover un less it f i r s t en joyed a renewal o f p u b l i c conf idence. Given t h a t nuc lear power sometimes seems to have generated almost as much con t rove rsy as e lec t r i c i t y , it is d i f f i c u l t t o

T h i s i s a n expanded ve rs ion of a p a p e r p resen ted at t h e 1985 Annua l Meet ing of t h e Paci f ic Sociological Associat ion, A lbuquerque , NM, A p r i l 17-20. It draws heav i l y f rom presentat ions made by t h e senior a u t h o r a t O a k Ridge Nat ional Labora to ry in Augus t o f 1983 a n d t o t h e E x p l o r a t o r y Committee on t h e F u t u r e of Nuclear Power, Nat ional Academy of Sci- ences/Nat ional Research Counci l , in June of 1984. B o t h au tho rs w ish t o t h a n k Ri ley E . Dun lap a n d Eugene A. Rosa for h e l p f u l comments o n a n ea r l i e r d r a f t . T h i s is Scient i f ic Paper t6904, Research Project 0478, A g r i c u l t u r a l Research Center , Washington State Un ive rs i t y .

96

Freudenburg/Baxter: Public Attitudes and Policies Toward Nuclear Power 97

te l l where t h e b r o a d e r p u b l i c s tands on t h e issue; marches, demonst ra t ions and congress iona l hea r ings a r e b e t t e r su i ted f o r mak ing head l ines t h a n f o r i nd i ca t i ng t h e t r u e fee l ings of t h e b r o a d e r pub l i c . T h u s t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s paper i s t o p r e s e n t t h e h i s to r i ca l b a c k g r o u n d b e h i n d today ' s debate and t h e n t o summarize, in concen t ra ted fo rm, t h e ava i lab le sc ien t i f i c s u r v e y da ta o n t h e ac tua l levels a n d t r e n d s in p u b l i c a t t i t udes .

BACKGROUND

A t least i n t h e eyes of many nuc lea r power p roponen ts , many o f t h e c u r r e n t p rob lems o f t h e nuc lea r i n d u s t r y can b e a t t r i b u t e d t o " o v e r r e g u - la t ion" a n d a n excess ive s e n s i t i v i t y t o p u b l i c concerns a n d fea rs (Szalay, 1984; Koch, 1985). However , in t h e pas t t h e tendency appears t o have been f o r t h e p u b l i c t o e x e r t re la t i ve l y l i t t l e i n f l uence o v e r t h e i n d u s t r y o r i t s regu la to rs .

D u r i n g t h e e a r l y y e a r s o f t h e e f f o r t t o deve lop nuc lea r power , f o r example, t h e major pub l i c - vs . - p r i v a t e debates o v e r nuc lea r power focused no t o n t h e ro le o f t h e b roader p u b l i c in t h e en te rp r i se , but w i t h t h e ques t i on o f w h e t h e r commercial nuc lea r power o u g h t t o b e run s t r i c t l y by t h e gove rnmen t ( i .e, , " p u b l i c l y " ) o r by p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y . T h e backe rs o f p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e won t h a t debate; in o t h e r respec ts as wel l , "pub l i c " conce rns rece ived less a t ten t i on a t t h e t ime t h a n did t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s o f es tab l i sh ing a v iab le commercial en te rp r i se .

T h e Atomic E n e r g y A c t o f 1954, wh i l e dea l ing a t l e n g t h w i t h commercial ma t te rs s u c h as p a t e n t r i g h t s , ownersh ip o f f i ss ionab le mater ia ls, a n d " f ree compet i t ion in p r i v a t e en terpr ise ,1 ' (see P.L. 83-703, 42 USC 2011 e t seq . ) , sa id l i t t l e more a b o u t r e g u l a t i n g nuc lea r power p l a n t s t h a n t o no te b r o a d l y t h a t t h e "hea l th a n d sa fe ty o f t h e pub l i c " shou ld b e p ro tec ted . T h e p r o v i s i o n s f o r l i cens ing p l a n t s were cop ied llalmost w o r d f o r w o r d f rom t h e Federa l Communicat ions A c t o f 1934, w h i c h h a d es tab l i shed p rocedures f o r t h e Federa l l i cens ing o f rad io stat ionsl l ( F c r d , 1983, p. 44).

A n i n s t r u c t i v e c o n t r a s t i s p r o v i d e d by t h e issue o f l i ab i l i t y f o r acci- dents - - the focus o f t h e Pr ice-Anderson A c t o f 1957. In March o f t h a t year , t h e Atomic E n e r g y Commission completed a "worst-case" ana lys i s o f conceivable nuc lea r power p l a n t acc idents : t h e ana lys is conc luded 3,400 people cou ld die, ano the r 43,000 cou ld b e i n j u r e d , a n d $7 b i l l i on in p r o p - e r t y damage cou ld r e s u l t f r o m s u c h a worst-case acc ident (U.S. Atomic E n e r g y Commission, 1957). While t h i s est imate was n o t in a n y sense a I1pred ic t ion l1 o f l i k e l y outcomes, it showed t h a t c e r t a i n cha ins o f even ts , wh i l e u n l i k e l y , cou ld p r o v e t o b e unacceptab ly cos t l y t o t h e f l edg l i ng i n d u s t r y . It wou ld have been b e y o n d t h e f inanc ia l capab i l i t y o f t h e i ndus - try t o run t h e r i s k o f acc idents , o r e v e n t o ob ta in i nsu rance aga ins t them, wh i l e keep ing cos ts w i t h i n a compet i t i ve range . La te r t h a t yea r , Congress responded by es tab l i sh ing a $560 mi l l ion fund t o b e appor t i oned among po ten t i a l acc iden t v ic t ims. T h e o n l y p rov i s ion f o r damages go ing b e y o n d t h a t amount was t h a t v i c t ims were p r e v e n t e d f rom recove r ing damages f rom p a r t i e s respons ib le f o r building a n d opera t i ng t h e p lan t - -even t h o u g h t h e $560 mi l l ion l im i ta t ion rep resen ted less t h a n 10 p e r c e n t o f t h e p r o p e r - ty-damage est imate (alone) o f a worst-case acc ident . S u p p o r t e r s o f t h i s leg is la t ion a r g u e t h a t it has p r o v e d j u s t i f i e d in re t rospec t ; almost 30 y e a r s s ince t h e Pr ice-Anderson A c t was passed, n o t even t h e acc ident a t T h r e e Mi le I s land (TMI) has exceeded t h e Ac t ' s l im i ta t ions f o r damages exper i - enced ou ts ide t h e p lan t . C r i t i c s find t h e A c t object ionable in p r inc ip le , a r g u i n g t h a t it "e f fec t i ve l y repea led e v e r y c i t i zen ' s common-law right t o sue fo r damages caused by someone else's neg l igence" ( F o r d , 1982, p. 45).

98 Policy Studies Review, August 1985, 5:l

Whatever onels pos i t ron in t h e debate o v e r t h e Pr ice-Anderson l im i ta t ions , t h e e a r l y leg is la t ion scarce ly can b e seen as "ove r regu la t i ng " t h e i n d u s t r y . Ins tead, it was w r i t t e n t o ' l regu la te" t h e p u b l i c ' s a b i l i t y t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e i n d u s t r y ' s deve lopment , a n d t o p r o v i d e t h e i n d u s t r y w i t h a g r e a t deal o f p r o t e c t i o n a n d suppor t .

T h e Atomic E n e r g y A c t o f 1954 es tab l i shed t h e Atomic E n e r g y Commis- s ion ( A E C ) a n d c h a r g e d it w i t h t h e dua l t asks o f p romot ing a n d r e g u l a t i n g t h e new i n d u s t r y . In t h e eyes o f c r i t i c s , t h e agency may have taken t h e f i r s t t a s k more ser ious ly t h a n t h e second, d e v o t i n g as much a t ten t i on t o r e g u l a t i n g p u b l i c op in ion as t o r e g u l a t i n g nuc lea r power . Fo r t h e n e x t decade a n d a ha l f , p r e s s cove rage o f t h e i n d u s t r y was u n i f o r m l y pos i t i ve , i f n o t en thus ias t i c , r e f l e c t i n g t h e u top ian v i s ions f o r t h e techno logy be ing promoted by t h e AEC. A n o f t -no ted example i s a 1954 speech by t h e then-Cha i rman o f AEC, Lewis S t rauss , who spoke o f "un l im i ted power . " o f e l e c t r i c i t y " too cheap t o meter," a n d o f a n e r a in w h i c h famines wou ld b e remembered o n l y as ma t te rs o f h i s t o r y . T h a n k s t o t h e atom, S t rauss a r g u e d , peop le wou ld " t r a v e l e f fo r t l ess l y o v e r t h e seas a n d u n d e r them a n d t h r o u g h t h e a i r w i t h a minimum o f danger a n d a t g r e a t speeds, and w i l l expe r ience a l i f e span f a r l onger t h a n ou rs . " Atomic power , in h i s v iew , p romised "an age o f peace" (S t rauss , 1954, p. 9 ) . T h e p u b l i c re la t i ons e f f o r t s o f t h e AEC were n o t r e s t r i c t e d t o en thus ias t i c speeches; a l a te r p r e s s release n o t e d t h a t more t h a n 40 mi l l ion peop le h a d a t tended sc reen ings o f AEC f i lms during t h e 1960s, a n d ano the r 158 mi l l ion watched t h e f i lms on te lev is ion (U.S. Atomic E n e r g y Commission, 1970, p. 5 ) .

I n c o n t r a s t , sa fe ty regu la t i ons f o r t h e nuc lea r power p l a n t s were l e f t a lmost e n t i r e l y t o t h e d i sc re t i on o f p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y . In re leas ing i t s ea r l y " t h r e e bas ic regu la t ions l l f o r t h e i n d u s t r y , t h e AEC emphasized i t s i n t e n t was t o "open t h e way t o a l l who a r e i n te res ted" i n nuc lea r power (U.S. Atomic E n e r g y Commission, 1955, p. 1 ) . In t h e words o f t h e c r i t i c a l but ex tens i ve l y documented h i s t o r y w r i t t e n by Daniel Fo rd , " T h e AEC s imp ly asked t h e companies ... t o w o r k , w i t h good sense a n d good fa i t h , t oward a common goal , w h i c h it vague ly spec i f ied as ' reasonable assurance t h a t t h e h e a l t h a n d sa fe ty o f t h e p u b l i c w i l l n o t b e endangered ' .... [ T h e AEC] s t a f f made it c lea r t o t h e i n d u s t r y t h a t sa fe ty was t h e i n d u s t r y ' s respons ib i l i t y " ( F o r d , 1982, pp. 5 2 , 54).

Even a f t e r t h e mid- l960s, when u t i l i t i e s f i n a l l y s t a r t e d p lac ing commer- c ia l o r d e r s f o r nuc lea r reac to rs , t h i s app roach did n o t change. U n d e r A E C r u l e s , t h e AEC s t a f f a n d t h e utility w o r k e d o u t t h e i r d i f t e rences be fo rehand ; t h e p u b l i c , by c o n t r a s t , was n o t e v e n pe rm i t ted access t o t h e agency ' s da ta a b o u t po ten t i a l sa fe ty p rob lems o f t h e p lan ts . Desp i te these cond i t ions , t h e h e a r i n g s h i g h l i g h t e d a number o f sa fe ty issues t h a t t h e AEC f o u n d i t s e l f unab le t o reso lve , a n d aga in , t h e AEC's response scarce- l y i nd i ca ted s e n s i t i v i t y t o p u b l i c concern . Ra the r t h a n h o l d i n g up t h e issuance o f pe rm i t s u n t i l t h e ques t i ons cou ld b e answered, t h e AEC dec id - e d t h a t i f a ques t i on concerned severa l p lan ts , i t no l onger needed t o b e dec ided in a n i n d i v i d u a l l i cens ing case. Ins tead, it wou ld b e t rea ted as a "gener ic " sa fe ty issue, t h e reso lu t i on f o r wh ich wou ld b e sough t t h r o u g h t h e ongo ing research o f t h e AEC a n d t h e i n d u s t r y . In t h e meantime, t h e p lan? cou ld b e built a n d opera ted , a n d no tab ly , t h e AEC e f fec t i ve l y t rea t - e d t h e issue as i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e l i cens ing hear ings . T h e n e t r e s u l t was t h a t , e v e n in cases where members o f t h e genera l p u b l i c managed t o overcome t h e l ack o f access t o AEC reco rds a n d t o i d e n t i f y issues t h e AEC s t a f f f o u n d leg i t imate , a t ten t i on to these issues was a n y t h i n g but assured: t h e l a r g e r t h e number o f p l a n t s a f fec ted , t h e lower t h e l i ke l ihood t h a t t h e issue wou ld ac tua l l y b e dea l t w i t h in l i cens ing cases. (Many o f t h e

Freudenburg/Baxter : P u b l i c A t t i t u d e s and P o l i c i e s Toward N u c l e a r Power 99

gener i c sa fe ty issues remain un reso lved t o t h i s d a y . ) A 1973 eva lua t ion o f t h e AEC l i cens ing process f u n d e d by t h e Nat ional Science Foundat ion conc luded, " T h e whole p rocess as it now s tands is n o t h i n g more t h a n a charade, t h e outcome o f w h i c h is, f o r a l l i n t e n t s a n d pu rposes , p rede- te rmined" ( E b b i n & Kasper , 1973, p. 264).

B y t h e e a r l y 1970s, however , i t was becoming c lear t h a t t h e AEC po l i cy o f i n d u s t r y se l f - regu la t i on was n o t work i r i g . T h e AEC may have been c o r r e c t in i t s assumpt ion t h a t t h e i n d u s t r y i t s e l f o f t e n stood t o lose as much as t h e genera l p u b l i c f rom ser ious accidents--a p o i n t t h a t was la te r d r i v e n home by t h e acc ident a t Th l l , w h i c h released o n l y m ino r .amoun ts o f rad ia t i on t o t h e s u r r o u n d i n g env i ronmen t , but l e f t t h e u t i l i t y w i t h a n expens ive p rob lem o f rad ioac t i ve waste d isposa l where a b i l l i on-do l la r cap i ta l i nves tmen t h a d stood o n l y a few d a y s ear l ie r . However , t h e u t i l - i t ies s imp ly were n o t accustomed t o t h e i n t e n s i t y o f management r e q u i r e d , a n d t h e y sometimes showed i n d i f f e r e n t compliance w i t h AEC p rocedures . A "special management rev iew" in 1975 f o u n d t h a t app rox ima te l y h a l f o f a l l p lan ts v io la ted e x p l i c i t sa fe ty cond i t i ons of t h e i r federa l ope ra t i ng l icenses; none o f them h a d comprehens ive w r i t t e n i ns t ruc t i ons , none o f them h a d " reac to r sa fe ty committees" t h a t were do ing t h e w o r k expec ted o f them, a n d none o f t h e p l a n t s h a d fully implemented t h e qua l i t y -assurance p r o - g ram seen by t h e AEC as t h e k e y t o safe opera t ion (Mun tz ing , 1973, p. 6, as c i t e d in Ford , 1982, p. 205).

These prob lems, in combina t ion w i t h a number o f o t h e r developments t h a t t o o k p lace during t h e ear ly - to -midd le 1970s, l ed t o a subs tan t i a l change in t h e federa l app roach t o t h e regu la t i on o f nuc lea r power during t h a t decade. T h e Nat ional Env i ronmenta l Pol icy A c t o f 1969 g a v e t h e p u b l i c g r e a t e r a b i l i t y t o i n f l uence r e g u l a t o r y decis ions, a n i n te rp re ta t i on e x p l i c i t l y s u p p o r t e d by federa l cou r t s . T h e na t i on ' s i nc reas ing env i ron - mental awareness a n d post-Watergate d i s t r u s t o f t h e gove rnmen t made it more d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e AEC t o avo id p u b l i c s c r u t i n y . T h e AEC's hea r ings on a k e y sa fe ty sys tem in nuc lea r power p lan ts , t h e I IEmergency Core Cool ing System," revea led wha t c r i t i c s r e g a r d e d t o b e ev idence o f agency b ias a n d e f f o r t s t o c o v e r up un favo rab le ev idence. Rad ioac t ive waste d isposa l p r o v e d inc reas ing l y t roublesome, w i t h p rob lems emerg ing a t a fac i l i t y nea r West Va l ley , New Y o r k , oppos i t ion ha l t i ng a p roposed fac i l i t y nea r Lyons , Kansas, a n d o v e r 100.000 ga l lons o f h igh - leve l rad ioac t ive waste l eak ing f rom a fac i l i t y nea r R ich land, Washington. I n e a r l y 1975, t h e AEC was abo l ished a n d i t s r e g u l a t o r y func t i ons were t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e new ly c rea ted Nuc lear Regu la to ry Commission (NRC) . Admin i s t ra t i ve l y separa t i ng these func t i ons f r o m t h e AEC's p romot iona l ro le, was a n a t tempt a t reso lv ing t h e image p rob lem f o r t h e agency . T h e AEC's s t a f f a n d e x i s t i n g regu la t i ons were t r a n s f e r r e d i n t a c t t o t h e NRC. However , w i t h i n two months , a ser ious , sa fe ty - re la ted f i r e a t t h e B r o w n ' s F e r r y nuc lea r power p l a n t i n Alabama put increased p r e s s u r e on t h e new agency t o toughen i t s regu la t ions , a n d t h e w ide ly pub l i c i zed res ignat ions o f severa l k e y o f f i c i a l s f u r t h e r inc reased t h e new agency ' s d i f f i cu l t i es .

T h e n e t r e s u l t o f these a n d o t h e r even ts was a dramat ic chsnge i n t h e p u b l i c regu la t i on o f wha t h a d once been a more p r i v a t e u n d e r t a k i n g . I n 1970, t h e AEC h a d fewer t h a n a dozen ac t i ve regu la t ions ; t h e r e were severa l dozen by 1972, a n d severa l h u n d r e d by 1977 (U.S. O f f i ce o f Techno logy Assessment, 1984, pp. 124-136). Accord ing t o p roponen ts o f t h e i n d u s t r y , t h e g r o w t h in regu la t i ons was genera ted main ly by " p u b l i c conce rn a n d t h e po l i t i ca l p r e s s u r e it genera tes" (Cohen, 1983, p. 225). It i s , o f cou rse , poss ib le t o debate t h e degree t o w h i c h o t h e r fac to rs were also i nvo l ved , but it i s c lear t h a t by t h e late 1970s--even be fo re t h e t ime

100 P o l i c y Studies Review, August 1985, 5:l

o f t h e 1979 acc ident a t TMI - - the s i t ua t i on h a d changed t o t h e p o i n t where p u b l i c conce rns were b e g i n n i n g to p lay a m u c h more impor tan t ro le in t h e fa te o f t h e nuc lea r power i n d u s t r y .

THE ROLE OF PUBLIC OPINION

Desp i te a r e l a t i v e l y high consensus o n t h e impor tance o f t h e pub l i c ' s v iews, t h e i n f l uence o f p u b l i c op in ion o n po l i cy outcomes i s n o t one t h a t i s s imple, d i r e c t o r ove rpower ing . T h a t i s , in no way cou ld op in ion po l l r e s u l t s b e ca l led d i r e c t de terminants of po l i cy outcomes. While po l i cy - makers do n o t a lways a c t in d i r e c t accordance w i t h p u b l i c wishes, p u b l i c op in ion o f t e n has a n i n f l uence on outcomes, p a r t i c u l a r l y when issues a r e sa l ien t t o t h e v o t i n g p u b l i c a n d outcomes a r e measured long i tud ina l l y ( B u r s t e i n & F r e u d e n b u r g , 1978; f o r a more t h o r o u g h rev iew , see A l f o r d & F r ied land , 1975).

In genera l , p u b l i c op in ion in f luences po l i cy outcomes in t w o fundamenta l ways ( F r e u d e n b u r g & Rosa, 1984b, p. 337). F i r s t , it es tab l i shes t h e b r o a d boundar ies w i t h i n w h i c h dec is ion makers m u s t operate. Second, in a re la t i onsh ip t h a t i s p a r t i c u l d r l y impor tan t in t h e case o f nuc lea r power , t h e p a r t i s a n s in t h e po l i cy debate o f t e n look t o t h e b r o a d e r p u b l i c as a source o f leg i t imacy a n d s u p p o r t . These genera l i n f l uences a r e r e i n f o r c e d t h r o u g h t h e ac t i ons o f a t least f o u r i n s t i t u t i o n s in t h e case o f t h e nuc lea r power i n d u s t r y .

T h e Nuc lea r Regu la to ry Commission ( N R C ) . As p r e v i o u s l y no ted , nuc lea r power p r o p o n e n t s h a v e a r g u e d t h a t t h e NRC t e n d s t o b e "exces- s ive ly ' l sens i t i ve t o p u b l i c op in ion . h h i l e NRC commissioners a r e appo in ted r a t h e r t h a n elected, t h e y a r e c h a r g e d w i t h p r o t e c t i n g t h e p u b l i c hea l th a n d s a f e t y , a n d a number o f laws a n d regu la t i ons r e q u i r e t h e NRC t o so l i c i t a n d cons ide r p u b l i c input in mak ing i t s decis ions. While c r i t i c s o f nuc lea r power a r g u e t h a t t h e NRC s t i l l t ends t o exc luae t h e pub l i c , p ropo- n e n t s have a r g u e d t h a t t h e commissioners have a tendency t o impose more s t r i n g e n t sa feguards t h a n those f e l t a p p r o p r i a t e by techn ica l special ists, p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t imes when p u b l i c conce rns a r e sal ient . It is possible, o f cou rse , t h a t inc reased respons iveness t o p u b l i c concerns m i g h t also p r o v e t o b e bene f i c ia l f o r t h e i n d u s t r y , s ince such respons iveness can ind ica te t h a t p u b l i c conce rns a r e b e i n g t a k e n ser ious ly . Pa r t i cu la r l y s ince t h e acc iden t a t TMI , it has become inc reas ing l y c lear t h a t t h e NRC's r e g u - la t ions a r e n o t t h e o n l y i ns t i t u t i ona l medium t h r o u g h w h i c h p u b l i c sen t i - ment i s l i k e l y t o a f f e c t t h e f u t u r e o f t h e nuc lea r power i n d u s t r y .

Congress i s t h e second ins t i t u t i on . While t h e Reagan admin i s t ra t i on has p roposed a "s t reaml in ing " o f many o f t h e regu la t i ons f o r t h e l i cens ing a n d opera t i on o f nuc lea r power p lan ts , a n d wh i l e these proposa ls a r e q u i t e s imi la r t o t h e recommendat ions t h a t have been made by t h e commercial nuc lea r power i n d u s t r y o v e r t h e pas t severa l yea rs , many o f t h e changes cou ld n o t b e implemented w i t h o u t d i r e c t ac t ion by Congress (Szalay, 1984). Congress , meanwhi le, cons is ts o f e lected rep resen ta t i ves who have recen t l y shown v e r y l i t t l e en thus iasm f o r mak ing t h e changes sough t by t h e Reagan admin i s t ra t i on a n d t h e nuc lea r power i n d u s t r y . If indeed new leg is la t ion is a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r t h e renewed hea l th o f t h e i n d u s t r y , t h e n congress ion- a l s e n s i t i v i t y t o p u b l i c sen t iment w i l l he lp de termine wha t outcomes a r e poss ib le .

Sta te U t i l i t y Commissions. While federa l leg is la t ion g i v e s t h e NRC u l t imate a u t h o r i t y o v e r sa fe ty issues in nuc lea r power , a 1983 U.S. Su- p reme C o u r t dec is ion u p h e l d t h e a u t h o r i t y o f Ca l i fo rn ia ( a n d presumably o t h e r s ta tes ] t o regu la te the economic aspec ts o f utility inves tments in

--

101

nuc lear power p lan ts . Nuc lear power , meanwhile, has p r o v e d t o b e f a r more expens ive t h a n ea r l i e r est imates (U.S. Depar tment o f E n e r g y , 1983; Cook, 1985). Moreover , ea r l i e r economic concerns may have been he igh t - ened by t h e acc ident a t T M I , w h i c h e f fec t i ve l y meant t h a t e lec t r i c i t y p roduced by t h i s reac to r during i t s s h o r t ope ra t i ng l i fe t ime was some o f t h e most expens ive in h i s t o r y . In add i t ion , s ta te utility commissioners tend t o b e e lec ted t o t h e i r o f f i ces , a n d t h u s nega t i ve p u b l i c op in ion i s l i ke l y t o p r o v i d e a n i ncen t i ve f o r utility commissioners t o g i v e p a r t i c u l a r l y t ough s c r u t i n y t o p lans f o r t h e expans ion o f nuc lea r genera t i ng capac i ty . In fac t , it may have been a concern f o r t h e sens i t i v i t y o f utility commis- s ioners t o p u b l i c conce rns t h a t l ed t h e U.S. Jus t i ce Depar tmen t t o a r g u e in i t s unsuccess fu l b r i e f aga ins t t h e Supreme C o u r t dec is ion t h a t " t h e r e s u l t [ o f t h e dec is ion ] wou ld b e t h e v i r t u a l e l im ina t ion o f nuc lear power as a po ten t i a l e n e r g y sourcel l (Wermiel, 1982, p. 13).

I nves to rs . Nuc lear power p l a n t s a r e major inves tments t h a t r e q u i r e massive commitments o f cap i ta l , a n d in turn r e q u i r e s t h a t a t ten t i on b e pa id to t h e i nves tmen t communi ty . T h e recen t d e f a u l t o f t h e Washington Pub l ic Power S u p p l y System (WPPSS) on a p a i r o f u n f i n i s h e d nuc lea r power p lan ts was t h e l a rges t d e f a u l t in munic ipa l b o n d h i s t o r y , a n d many u t i l i t i e s w i t h nuc lea r power fac i l i t i es u n d e r cons t ruc t i on a r e now pe r i l ous l y close t o de fau l t ; s u c h cons idera t ions have a t t r a c t e d unders tandab le a t ten t i on in t h e i nves tmen t community. Nuc lear power i s now wide ly seen as a r i s k y inves tment ; a recen t M e r r i l l L y n c h proposa l t o buy a p o r t i o n o f t h e f inan- c ia l l y t r o u b l e d Seabrook U n i t 1 asked f o r a 40 pe rcen t annua l r e t u r n on inves tment , f a r in excess o f t h e normal 10-17 pe rcen t range, to compensate f o r t h e r i s k s i n v o l v e d (Wessel, 1985). P a r t i c u l a r l y g i v e n t h e long lead time (a decade o r more) t h a t i s r e q u i r e d t o build nuc lea r power p lan ts , e i t he r local o r na t iona l oppos i t ion t o t h e cons t ruc t i on o f a fac i l i t y can a d d marked ly t o t h e r i s k i nvo l ved . Negat ive a t t i t u d e s may increase t h e l i ke l i - hood t h a t fac i l i t i es w i l l expe r ience cos t l y r e g u l a t o r y de lays , b e he ld u p in c o u r t , o r p e r h a p s even b e p r e v e n t e d f rom opera t i ng . Such increases In r i s k s cou ld scarce ly fa i l t o b e no ted by i n v e s t o r s who have t h e op t i on o f finding safer p laces t o i n v e s t t h e i r f u n d s .

Freudenburg/Baxter: Public Attitudes and Policies Toward Nuclear Power

TRENDS I N PUBLIC OPINION

With t h i s b a c k g r o u n d in mind, it is u s e f u l t o turn t o a condensed summary o f t h e ac tua l s u r v e y da ta o n t h e pub l i c ' s react ions. While t h e r e a r e many po ten t i a l ways t o measure a t t i t udes , t h r e e t y p e s o f a t t i t u d i n a l da ta have p a r t i c u l a r re levance t o nuc lea r e n e r g y po l i cy . T h e f i r s t catego- r y inc ludes s u r v e y s a s k i n g t h e genera l p u b l i c abou t n e a r b y nuc lea r power fac i l i t i es . T h e second ca tegory also asks abou t n e a r b y fac i l i t i es but inc ludes aa ta f rom pe rsons in "hos t communitiesIl--the local i t ies in o r nea r w h i c h nuc lea r power p l a n t s a r e u n d e r c o n s t r u c t i o n o r have recen t l y been completed. T h e third ca tegory ( t h e b roades t ) inc ludes a t t i t udes o f t h e na t iona l p u b l i c t o w a r d t h e genera l idea o f nuc lea r power . T h i s paper w i l l p r o v i d e a b r i e f summary o f recen t t r e n d s in each o f these areas, p r o v i d i n g re fe rences in each c6se t o t h e more de ta i led t rea tmen ts t h a t a r e ava i lab le f r o m o t h e r sources .

Nat ional Pub l ic A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d Nuc lear Power P lan ts I INearby". Many pe rsons a r e s u r p r i s e d t o l ea rn t h a t even t h e idea o f a nuc lea r power p l a n t i n a responden t ' s own "back y a r d " remained re la t i ve l y uncon t rove rs ia l until t h e mid-1970s. A s can b e seen f rom t h e da ta shown in F i g u r e 1, a p a i r o f po l l s in t h e e a r l y 1970s, f o u n d o v e r 55 p e r c e n t f avo rab i l i t y , w i t h r o u g h l y h a l f t h a t level o f oppos i t ion , when na t iona l samples were asked abou t

102 Policy Studies Review, August 1985, 5:l

h a v i n g " t h e local e lec t r i c company . .. build a nuc lear power p l a n t in t h i s area." ' Opposi t ion to local nuc lear faci l i t ies, however , began to increase as e a r l y as 1975. B y 1978, severa l months be fo re t h e TMI acc ident , opposi t ion actual ly exceeded s u p p o r t f o r t he f i r s t t ime. As can b e seen f rom F i g u r e 1 , however , t h e TMI acc ident was associated w i t h even g rea te r opposi t ion, and a decrease in favo rab i l i t y , t oward the idea o f a nuc lear power p l a n t "in t h i s area."

20-

0 15-

N 10-

5-

0

F I G U R E 1 ATTITUDE TOYARO A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT NEARBY

OVER TIME (NATIONAL SAMPLES) THREE M I L E ISLAND /

I / /

Favor

I

I

I

I

I

I

, I I 1 1

DATE OF SURVEY (1971-1980)

A second approach t o measur ing t h e acceptabi l i ty o f a "local" power p l a n t is t o speci fy an actual distance--as in the quest ion "do y o u favo r o r oppose h a v i n g a nuc lear power p l a n t w i t h i n f i v e miles o f y o u r communi ty?" Rank in a n d h i s colleagues (1984) summarized f o u r s u r v e y s u s i n g t h i s approach t h a t were done by t h e Gal lup a n d H a r r i s po l l i ng organizat ions; t h e y f o u n d t h a t s u p p o r t f o r a local nuc lear fac i l i t y was almost equal t o opposi t ion in 1976, but t h a t opponents outnumbered s u p p o r t e r s by a 57 percent- to-37 pe rcen t average in t h e t h r e e pol ls done in 1978, 1979, a n d 1980. T h e idea o f nuc lear power i n the abs t rac t was v iewed more fa- v o r a b l y , be ing suppor ted by an average o f 57 pe rcen t a n d opposed by an average of 41.7 pe rcen t o f t h e respondents across t h e th ree la ter s u r v e y s ( R a n k i n e t al., 1984; Gal lup Repor ts , 1979).

A n o t h e r nat ional s u r v e y appears t o show t h e same pa t te rn . T h e Re- sources fo r t h e F u t u r e "Nat ional Envi ronmenta l Su rvey ,IL wh ich was p e r - formed by Roper arid C a n t r i l f o r t h e Pres ident ls Counci l on Envi ronmenta l Qua l i t y in 1980, a t tempted t o measure t h e " to lerance distance" for f i ve t y p e s of fac i l i t ies (an o f f i ce building, a large fac to ry , a nuc lear power p l a n t , a coal - f i red power p l a n t a n d a disposal s i te f o r hazardous waste chemicals) . Respondents were asked to say how close such faci l i t ies could

103

b e b u i l t t o t h e i r own homes "be fo re y o u wou ld wan t t o move t o ano the r place o r t o ac t i ve l y p r o t e s t . " Even t h e d isposa l s i te f o r hazardous waste chemicals was s l i g h t l y more popu la r ( a t a mean d is tance o f 81.4 mi les) t h a n was t h e nuc lea r power p l a n t , w h i c h h a d a mean to le rance d is tance o f 91 miles (Mi tche l l , 1980a; 1980b). In s h o r t , wh i le t h e r e a r e a number o f va r ia t i ons among these d i f f e r e n t approaches, a l l of them d isp lay t h e same genera l p a t t e r n : rep resen ta t i ve na t iona l s u r v e y s o f t h e U.S. p u b l i c show cons iderab le oppos i t ion t o t h e idea o f h a v i n g a new nuc lea r power p l a n t cons t ruc ted nearby .

A t t i t u d e s o f Nuc lear Host Community Residents. Recent ev idence s t r o n g l y sugges ts t h a t hos t communi ty s u p p o r t can no l onger b e t a k e n f o r g ran ted . While Me lber e t a l . (1977) f o u n d high leve ls o f s u p p o r t in almost a l l nuc lea r hos t communit ies s u r v e y e d b e f o r e t h e TMI acc ident , s u r v e y s since t h e acc ident have shown a v e r y d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n . F r e u d e n b u r g a n d B a x t e r (1984) summarize t h e r e s u l t s f rom 36 hos t community s u r v e y s ( a t 15 i n d i v i d u a l reac to r s i tes ) t h a t were a l l done a f t e r local res iden ts became aware o f t h e fac i l i t i es , but be fo re t h e fac i l i t i es h a d completed t h e i r f i r s t s i x mon ths o f opera t ion . While methodological va r ia t i ons across s u r v e y s a r e subs tan t i a l , t h e o v e r a l l p a t t e r n i s q u i t e c lear , as can b e seen f rom F i g u r e 2 .

Freudenburg/Baxter : P u b l i c A t t i t u d e s and P o l i c i e s Toward Nuc lea r Power

1207

110.-

1 GO

90-

60-

70

I N D E

60-

FIGURE 2 HOST COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

BEFORE AN0 AFTER THREE MILE ISLAND

THREE MILE ISLAND

+ I + ++ I

+ + + + I -+ * + I

- t

I + I

h ++ + +

+ = Ac tua l + I + = Ac tua l +

In none o f t h e s u r v e y s conduc ted be fo re t h e T M I acc ident was oppos i t ion f o u n d among more t h a n 33 pe rcen t o f t h e popu la t ion ; in no known s u r v e y s s ince T M I has t h e r e been leSS t h a n 50 p e r c e n t oppos i t ion . A dummy va r iab le f o r p r e / p o s t - T M l s ta tus exp la ined o v e r 70 pe rcen t of t h e va r ia t i on

Policy Stud ies Review, August 1985, 5:l 104

across su rveys - -desp i te va r ia t i ons in ques t i on w o r d i n g , s u r v e y locat ions, a n d o t h e r fac to rs ( F r e u d e n b u r g & B a x t e r , 1984; f o r more de ta i led analyses o f spec i f i c hos t communit ies, see C u t t e r , 1984; Pi jawka, 1984; Sunds t rom e t al., 1981; Walsh & Warland, 1983; Wisniewski & F r e u d e n b u r g , 1981).

While na t iona l a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d nuc lea r power have obv ious impl icat ions f o r t h e f u t u r e deve lopment o f t h e techno logy , a more spec i f i c kind o f i n fo rma t ion may o f t e n p r o v e t o have g r e a t e r relevance. Nuc lear power p lan ts , i f t h e y a r e to b e built, w i l l b e b u i l t in spec i f i c ( ' l hos t l l ) commu- n i t ies . As n o t e d by F r e u d e n b u r g a n d B a x t e r (1984, p. 1130):

Even if most of the people in the nation have s t rong objections to having nuclear power facilities in their own back y a r d s , such objections can be overlooked if the facilities a re planned for someone else 's back y a r d , and if that "someone else" has little objection . . , . Historically . . . nuclear host communities . . . have been fa r more favorable toward nuclear power development than have cross sections of the U . S . public.

National Pub l i c A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d Nuc lear Power P lan ts " I n General" . Data in t h i s third ca tegory appear t o b e t h e t y p e most f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d in po l i cy documents (e.g. , U.S. O f f i ce o f Techno logy Assessment, 1984), a n d t h i s i s also t h e ca tegory in w h i c h we have been able t o ob ta in t h e most r e c e n t data. T w o nat iona l po l l i ng organ iza t ions have p layed a p a r t i c u l a r l y impor tan t ro le in document ing na t iona l a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d t h e genera l idea o f nuc lea r power p l a n t cons t ruc t ion- -Lou is H a r r i s Associates, a n d Cambr idge Repor ts , Inc . A s summarized by R a n k i n a n d h i s col leagues (1984), t h e da ta f rom t h e t w o o rgan iza t i ons a r e q u i t e s imi la r o v e r t h e pe r iod f o r wh ich comparable da ta a r e avai lable; s u p p o r t e r s ou tnumbered opponents by marg ins ave rag ing 20-30 p e r c e n t i n more t h a n 20 separa te s u r v e y s t h a t were t a k e n b e f o r e t h e t ime o f t h e TMI acc ident ( F i g u r e 3 ) .

70

6 5 1

FIGURE 3 ATTITUDE TOWARD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS OVER TIME

(CAMBRIDGE REPORTS)

-

\ / . _ _

\ , \ / - - N 104 I 5 1 I I

I 75 76 77 78

I

79 8@ E l 82 a3 84 85 I @- I

I 74

C)ATE OF SURVEY (1974-1984)

Freudenburg/Baxter: P u b l i c A t t i t u d e s and P o l i c i e s Toward Nuclear Power 105

T h e acc ident was associated w i t h a s ign i f i can t increase in t h e number o f opponents , a n d smal ler dec l ines b o t h i n s u p p o r t e r s a n d in "undec ided" persons . T h e n e t r e s u l t was a n almost two-to-one marg in o f s u p p o r t be fore t h e acc ident , a n d r o u g h l y a n even s p l i t be tween s u p p o r t e r s a n d opponents o f t h e techno logy immediately the rea f te r , a l t hough s u p p o r t e r s s t i l l ou tnumbered opponents in most pol ls. Many ana lys ts o f p u b l i c op in ion ( i nc lud ing t h e p r e s e n t a u t h o r s ) once expec ted t h a t p u b l i c s u p p o r t f o r t h e nuc lear i n d u s t r y wou ld b e g i n t o recove r a t least p a r t o f t h e los t g r o u n d as t h e TMI acc ident receded f rom consciousness. O t h e r s a r g u e d t h a t oppo- s i t ion t o nuc lea r e n e r g y wou ld n o t d iss ipa te in t h e near f u t u r e . A s can b e seen f rom t h e da ta in F i g u r e 3 , oppos i t ion has g r o w n r a t h e r t h a n dec l ined. T h e more recen t q u a r t e r l y s u r v e y s by Cambr idge Repor ts , Inc . have f o u n d inc reas ing oppos i t ion s ince late 1981. Each o f t h e po l l s s ince ea r l y 1982 has shown opponents ou tnumber ing s u p p o r t e r s by r o u g h l y two-to-one--almost a m i r r o r image o f t h e s i t ua t i on t h a t ex i s ted be fo re TMI ( F r e u d e n b u r g & Rosa, 1984b, p. 346; U.S. O f f i ce o f Techno logy Assess- ment, 1984). Ano the r app roach t o measur ing t h e favo rab i l i t y of t h e gen- e ra l p u b l i c i s t o compare a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d nuc lea r power w i t h a t t i t udes t o w a r d o t h e r e n e r g y technologies. T h i s app roach also fa i l s t o ind ica te s ign i f i can t s u p p o r t f o r nuc lea r power . In fac t , nuc lea r power tends to rece ive less p o p u l a r s u p p o r t t h a n a n y o t h e r e n e r g y s u p p l y op t i on excep t f o r i m p o r t i n g more o i l (Fa rha r -P i l g r im a n d F r e u d e n b u r g , 1984; Rosa e t al., 1984).

DISCUSSION

While it is n o t poss ib le t o p r e d i c t t r e n d s in f u t u r e a t t i t udes t o w a r d t h e p u b l i c regu la t i on o f t h e nuc lea r i n d u s t r y , t h e da ta o f t h e recen t pas t p r o v i d e l i t t l e reason f o r i n d u s t r y opt imism. Meanwhi le, t h e f i n d i n g s in t h e b roader social science l i t e r a t u r e sugges t t h a t t h e fac to rs b e h i n d p u b l i c oppos i t ion shou ld n o t b e t a k e n l i g h t l y o r expec ted t o "go away" q u i c k l y . With t h e excep t ion o f g e n d e r , w i t h women's oppos i t ion levels cons is ten t l y be ing severa l pe rcen tage p o i n t s h i g h e r t h a n t h e oppos i t ion f o u n d among men (Reed & Wilkes, 1980; Dun lap & Van L ie re , 1978; Passino & Louns- bury, 1976; B r o d y , 1981). most demograph ic fac to rs have o n l y modest i n f l uence o n nuc lea r power a t t i t u d e s ( F r e u d e n b u r g & Rosa, 1984b). T h e oppos i t i on canno t b e exp la ined a s r e s u l t i n g f rom a genera l hos t i l i t y t oward science, s ince p u b l i c s u p p o r t f o r science remains much s t r o n g e r t h a n s u p p o r t f o r nuc lea r power (Mar re t t , 1984). Moreover , wh i l e it has been a r g u e d t h a t t h e oppos i t ion i s t h e r e s u l t o f " i r r a t i o n a l i t y " o r even a "pho- b ia" (DuPon t , 1981 ) t h e p reponderance of ev idence shows these t o have l i t t l e o r n o co r re la t i on w i t h t h e p u b l i c a t t i t udes , p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e more recen t a n d more soph is t i ca ted analyses t h a t show t h e i n f l uence o f va lues i ns tead (Mi tche l l , 1984; D u n l a p & Olsen, 1984; see also Reed & Wilkes, 1981; Rank in & Nealey, 1978). While t h e r e i s n o ev idence t h a t most c i t i - zens a r e so opposed t o nuc lea r power t h a t t h e y wou ld cons ider themselves an t i nuc lea r ac t i v i s t s , in sho r t , it appears t h a t p u b l i c uneasiness abou t t h e techno logy has become a fac t o f l i fe . In t h e words o f a recen t summary ( F r e u d e n b u r g & Rosa, 1984a, p. 336):

Public concerns r u n deep. They a r e not matters of simple misinformation, a s promoters of nuclear power have often insist- e d . They are not likely to go away if they a re simply ignored, and public information or public relations campaigns a r e not likely to make them disappear.

106 Policy Studies Review, August 1985, 5:l

E x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e u s i n g cross-sect ional s u r v e y s , p r o v i d e s i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e d i f f e rences be tween s u p p o r t e r s a n d opponen ts o f nuc lea r power a t any g i v e n p o i n t in t ime. It i s also now c lear t h a t t h e TMI acc ident was associ- a ted w i t h a s ign i f i can t dec l ine in s u p p o r t f o r nuc lea r power , a l t hough t h e e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e p r o v i d e s o n l y l im i ted c lues o n t h e reasons f o r t he acc ident ' s impact on a t t i t udes . We a r e n o t aware o f a n y s tud ies t h a t have y e t p r o v i d e d t h e kind o f be fore-and-a f te r ana lys is o f rep resen ta t i ve da ta necessary t o p r o v i d e a d e f i n i t i v e answer t o t h i s ques t i on on a na t ionwide bas is , a n d it may b e t h a t p re -TMI da ta s imp ly do no t p r o v i d e t h e kind o f basel ine t h a t wou ld b e necessary t o answer t h i s ques t i on d e f i n i t i v e l y .

O n t h e bas is of t h e da ta we have seen, t h e hypo thes i s t h a t seems most pe rsuas ive t o us i s t h e dec l ine in s u p p o r t re f l ec ts a loss o f t r u s t i n t h e nuc lea r power i n d u s t r y a n d t h e federa l agencies expec ted to regu la te it. It may have p r o v e d exped ien t in t h e ea r l y y e a r s of t h e i n d u s t r y f o r t h e AEC t o l im i t p u b l i c i n f l uence o v e r t h e r e g u l a t o r y p rocess a n d t o d iscourage p u b l i c d isc losures o f i n d u s t r y p rob lems, but it may also b e t h a t these e a r l y ac t ions c o n t r i b u t e d t o a long- te rm legacy o f skept ic ism a n d d i s t r u s t . While t h e TMI acc ident did n o t r e s u l t in a n y immediate deaths , it may have ac t i va ted t h e u n d e r l y i n g doub ts , lead ing a n i nc reas ing number o f people t o conc lude t h a t nuc lea r i n d u s t r y p roponen ts a n d t h e i r regu la to rs ' ' don ' t know wha t t h e y ' r e do ing" a n d / o r " a r e n ' t t e l l i ng us e v e r y t h i n g t h e y know" (Wisn iewsk i E F r e u d e n b u r g , 1981). T h e d o u b t s a n d d i s t r u s t may have been r e i n f o r c e d b y o t h e r recen t nuc lea r i n d u s t r y p rob lems, such as t h e need t o redo much o f t h e w o r k a t t h e Diablo Canyon nuc lea r power p l a n t because b l u e p r i n t s were r e a d backwards , o r t h e fac t t h a t cost o v e r r u n s h a v e become a p e r v a s i v e fac t o f l i f e a t nuc lea r power p lan ts . * T h e lack o f t r u s t in federa l r e g u l a t o r s cou ld also b e re la ted to a pe rcep t ion t h a t t h e fede ra l gove rnmen t i s s t i l l in t h e bus iness o f p romot ing r a t h e r t h a n reg - u l a t i n g t h e i ndus t r y - -pe rhaps a t t h e expense o f o t h e r e n e r g y op t ions .

It i s poss ib le t h a t p u b l i c oppos i t ion w i l l subs ide in t h e y e a r s ahead, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f t h e reac to rs s t i l l u n d e r cons t ruc t i on a r e completed success- f u l l y a n d e f f i c i en t l y , i f e lec t r i c i t y demand a n d t h e cos t o f a l t e rna t i ve sources o f e l e c t r i c i t y r i s e d ramat ica l l y enough t o make nuc lea r power p l a n t s appear to p r o v i d e "ba rga in power , " a n d i f t h e search f o r a high- level nuc lea r waste repos i to ry i s successful . Since n o new p l a n t s h a v e been o r d e r e d since 1978 o r appear l i k e l y t o b e o r d e r e d f o r t h e n e x t sever - a l yea rs , i t i s i n t h e na t i on ' s c u r r e n t search f o r rad ioac t ive waste repos- i t o r i es t h e i n f l uences o f t oday ' s p u b l i c op in ions may most l i k e l y b e seen.)

It is also poss ib le t h a t t h e nuc lea r power i n d u s t r y w i l l b e i n t h e news n o t because o f i t s economic a t t rac t i veness but because o f cos t o v e r r u n s a n d cancel lat ions o n s t i l l more p l a n t s ( o v e r 40 pe rcen t of t h e commercial reac to rs e v e r o r d e r e d h a v e now been cancel led--Electr ic Power Monthly, 1982; Rosa & F r e u d e n b u r g , 1984) o r because t h e search f o r a h igh- leve l rad ioac t i ve waste r e p o s i t o r y leads t o hos t i l i t y a n d po la r iza t ion r a t h e r t h a n a success fu l reso lu t ion . T h e po la r i za t i on cou ld b e worsened i f nuc lea r i n d u s t r y rep resen ta t i ves respond t o p u b l i c c r i t i c i sm w i t h (unders tandab le ) de fens iveness t h a t i s i n t e r p r e t e d by t h e p u b l i c as i nd i ca t i ng "something t o h ide , " o r i f t h e p u b l i c pe rce i ves t h e c o n t i n u i n g emphasis o n nuc lear power research deve lopment t o b e t a k i n g place " a t t h e expense o f " research o n more popu la r e n e r g y op t ions s u c h as solar power a n d c o r ~ s e r v a t i o n . ~

It i s n o t poss ib le t o choose be tween these a l te rna t i ves o n t h e bas is o f p r e s e n t l y ava i lab le evidence. It i s poss ib le to conclude, however , t h a t a s ign i f i can t weaken ing o f federa l sa fe ty s tandards wou ld n o t b e cons is ten t w i t h p u b l i c p re fe rences , desp i te t h e t r e n d t o w a r d "deregu la t ion" in many areas o f federa l a c t i v i t y . While t h e r e is o n l y m i n o r i t y s u p p o r t a t p resen t

Freudenburg/Baxter : P u b l i c A t t i t u d e s and P o l i c i e s Toward N u c l e a r Power 107

f o r s h u t t i n g d o w n t h e reac to rs c u r r e n t l y in opera t ion (Rank in , 1984; Farhar -P i lg r im & F reuoenburg , 1984) o u r own judgmen t i s t h a t t h e genera l pub l i c i s u n l i k e l y t o v iew renewed nuc lea r power development o r t h e cons t ruc t i on o f nuc lea r waste fac i l i t i es w i t h a n y t h i n g l i k e t h e p re -TMI level o f s u p p o r t a t a n y time during t h e remainder o f t h i s decade.

NOTES

'A m u c h ea r l i e r s u r v e y u s i n g q u i t e d i f f e r e n t wording--"Would y o u b e a f r a i d t o have a p l a n t located i n t h i s community wh ich was run by atomic energy?" - -a lso f o u n d re la t i ve l y l i t t l e concern . When t h e Ga l lup o rga - n iza t ion asked t h i s ques t i on in 1956, 69 p e r c e n t o f t h e p u b l i c i nd i ca ted t h e y wou ld n o t b e a f r a i d , wh i l e o n l y 20 pe rcen t sa id t h e y wou ld b e (Public Opinion, 1979, p. 29).

2A Depar tmen t o f E n e r g y sample o f commercial nuc lea r power reac to rs t h a t were completed o r nea r complet ion in recen t yea rs showed t h a t no t one o f t h e 57 fac i l i t i es had been completed f o r i t s o r i g i n a l l y est imated cost o r less, t h a t o v e r th ree - fou r ths o f t h e reac to rs cos t more t h a n doub le wha t t h e y h a d o r i g i n a l l y been expec ted t o cos t a n d t h a t r o u g h l y h a l f cos t more t h a n f o u r t imes t h e o r ig ina l est imate (U.S. Depar tment o f Energy , 1983).

3 A s one s t u d y has no ted , j u s t t h e inc rease in federa l f iscal y e a r 1982 nuc lea r spend ing was l a r g e r t h a n t h a t yea r ' s t o ta l funding f o r solar re - search (Fa rha r -P i l g r im & F r e u d e n b u r g , 1984, p. 198). T h e o f f i c i a l p r o - posal f o r t h e f i sca l yea r 1985 b u d g e t (U.S. Of f i ce o f Management a n d Budge t , 1984) ca l l s f o r o v e r $1.1 b i l l i o n t o b e spent o n nuc lea r e n e r g y research a n a deve lopment ( R & D ) in t h e Depar tment o f E n e r g y (DOE) alone. T h i s i s more t h a n tw ice t h e sum DOE i s to spend on solar e n e r g y , conse rva t i on , a n d foss i l fue ls combined--and t h e f i g u r e exc ludes t h e $168 mi l l ion s la ted f o r "nuc lea r r e g u l a t o r y research" in t h e NRC, w h i c h i t se l f i s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e to ta l solar e n e r g y R I D b u d g e t o f $164 mil l ion. T h e mismatch be tween these f i g u r e s a n d t h e p u b l i c op in ion data--which show nuc lea r power t o b e t h e one e n e r g y op t i on Americans wan t to see t h e gove rnmen t spend ing t h e least t o deve lop (Fa rha r -P i l g r im & F r e u d e n b u r g , 1984)--can b e t a k e n as a n i nd i ca t i on o f a p o i n t made in t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h i s paper . Namely, t h e l i nkage be tween p u b l i c op in ion a n d po l i cy outcome i s o f t e n i n d i r e c t a n d imper fec t . T h e e x t e n t o f t h e mismatch, however , also ra ises t h e ques t i on o f how long t h e nuc lea r power i n d u s t r y can expec t t o en joy such subs tan t i a l funding, even g i v e n t h e presence o f a cons t i t u - ency f o r t h a t funding t h a t i s wel l -organized b o t h w i t h i n t h e federa l gov - e rnmen t a n d ou ts ide o f it.

REFERENCES

A l f o r d , R . , & F r ied land , R. (1975). Pol i t ical pa r t i c i pa t i on a n d p u b l i c po l i cy . Annual Review of Sociology, I , 429-479.

B r o d y , J. (1981). Nuclear power: Sex differences in publ ic opinion. Doctora l d i sse r ta t i on . Tucson: U n i v e r s i t y o f Ar izona, Depar tment o f Sociology.

B u r s t e i n , P., & F r e u d e n b u r g , W . (1978, J u l y ) . Chang ing p u b l i c po l i cy : T h e impact o f p u b l i c op in ion , an t iwar demonst ra t ions , a n d war' cos ts on senate v o t i n g o n V ie tnam w a r mot ions. American Journal of Sociology, 84(l), 99-122.

Policy S t u d i e s Review, August 1985, 5: l 108

Cohen, B . L . (1983). Before i t 's too late: A scient ist 's case for nuclear

Cook, J. (1985, F e b r u a r y 11). Nuclear foll ies. Forbes, 82-100. C u t t e r , S . (1984). Resident ia l p r o x i m i t y and cogni t ion o f r i s k a t Th ree

Mi le Is land: Impl icat ions f o r evacuat ion p lanning. In kl. J. Pasqualet t i & K . D. Pi jawka (Eds . ) , Nuclear power: Assessing and managing hazard- ous technology ( p p . 213-237). Bou lde r , CO: Westview.

Dunlap, R.E., & Olsen, M.E. (1984, A u g u s t ) . Ha rd -pa th ve rsus sof t - p a t h advocates: A s t u d y o f ene rgy act iv is ts . Paper presented a t annual meet ings o f t h e R u r a l Sociological Society, College Stat ion, TX.

Dunlap, R.E. , & Van L iere, K.D. (1978). Environmental concern: A b ib l iography of empirical studies and b r ie f appraisal of the l i t e ra tu re . Monticel lo, IL: Vance Bib l iographies (Publ ic Admin is t ra t ion Series Bib l i - o g r a p h y P-44).

DuPont , R. (1981, December 15). Testimony before subcommittee on energy research and product ion. Washington, DC: U.S. House o f Representat ives.

Ebb in , S., & Kasper , R. (1973). Cit izen g roup uses of scient i f ic and technical informat ion i n nucleor power cases. Washington, DC: Ceorge- t o w n U n i v e r s i t y Program o f Pol icy Studies in Science and Technology.

E lect r ic Power Month ly . (1 982, F e b r u a r y ) . Prologue: Nuclear power development. Electr ic Power Monthly, 2 , xi-xvi.

Farhar-Pi lgr im, 5. , & F r e u d e n b u r g , W . R. (1 984). Nuclear ene rgy in perspect ive: A comparat ive assessment o f t h e p u b l i c v iew. In W.R. F r e u d e n b u r g & E.A. Rosa (Eds. ) , Public reoctions to nuciear power: Are there c r i t i ca l masses? ( p p . 183-203). Bou lde r , CO: Westview Press/ American Associat ion fo r t he Advancement o f Science.

Fo rd , D. (1982). The c u l t of the atom: The secret papers of t he Atomic Energy Commission. New Y o r k , NY: Simon a n d Schuster .

F o r d Foundat ion S t u d y Group. (1979). Energy: The next twenty years. Cambr idge, MA: Ba l l i nge r .

F r e u d e n b u r g , W.R., & B a x t e r , R.K. (1984, December). Host community a t t i t udes t o w a r d nuc lear power p lan ts : A reassessment. Social Science Quar te r l y , 64(4 ) , 1129-1136.

F r e u d e n b u r g , W.R., & E.A. Rosa. (1984a). Public reactions to nuclear power: Are there cr i t ica l masses? Bou lde r , CO: Westview Press lAmer i - can Associat ion f o r t h e Advancement o f Science.

F r e u d e n b u r g , W.R., & Rosa, E.A. (1984b). A r e t h e masses c r i t i ca l? I n W.R. F r e u d e n b u r g & E.A. Rosa (Eds. ) , Public reactions to nuclear power: A re the re c r i t i ca l musses? ( p p . 331-348). Bou lde r , CO: West- v iew Press/Amer ican Associat ion f o r t h e Advancement o f Science.

Gal lup Repor ts . (1979, A p r i l ) . The Callup opinion index ( R e p o r t No.

Koch, L.J. (1985, January 24). A g r i m f a i r y ta le o f government regu - lat ion. Publ ic Ut i l i t ies F o r t n i g h t l y , 18-23.

M a r r e t t , C.B. (1984). Publ ic concerns about nuc lear power and science. In W.R. F r e u d e n b u r g G E.A. Rosa (Eds . ) , Public reactions to nuclear power: A re there cr i t ica l musses? (pp. 307-328). Bou lde r , CO: West- v iew Press/Americar i Associat ion fo r t h e Advancement o f Science.

Melber , B.E. , Kealey, S.M., Hammersla, J. , & Rank in , W. (1977). Nuclear power and the pub l i c : Analysis of collected su rvey reseorch. Repor t p r e p a r e d fo r t h e Savannah R ive r Operat ions Of f ice o f t he U.S. Depar tment o f E n e r g y . Seattle, WA: Bat te l le Memorial I n s t i t u t e , Human A f f a i r s Research Centers .

e n e r g y . hew Y o r k , NY: Plenum Press.

165). 1-11.

FreudenburgfBaxter: Public Attitudes and Policies Toward Nuclear Power 109

Mi tchel l , R.C. (1980a). Final resul ts of the resources for the f u t u r e national environmental su rvey for the president 's counci l on env i ron- mental q u o l i t y . Washington, DC: Resources fo r t h e Fu tu re , I nc .

Mi tchel l , R.C. (1980b). Public opinion on environmental issues: Results of a national publ ic opinion s u r v e y . Washington, DC: U.S. Counci l on Envi ronmenta l Qua l i t y .

Mi tchel l , R.C. (1984). Rat ional i ty a n d i r ra t i ona l i t y in the pub l i c ' s p e r - cept ion of nuclear power. I n W.R. F reudenburg & E.A. Rosa (Eds . ) , Publ ic react ions to nuclear power: Are there c r i t i ca l masses? (pp . 137-179). Bou lde r , CO: Westview Press/ American Associat ion fo r t he Advancement o f Science.

Mun tz ing , L.M. (1973). Remarks be fo re Qual i ty Assurance Conference f o r Opera t i ng Power Reactors (as c i t ed in Ford, 1982, pp. 205, 259).

Nat ional Academy o f Sciences. (1980). Energy i n t rans i t ion: 1985-2010. Final r e p o r t o f t h e Committee o n Nuclear a n d A l te rna t i ve Energy Sys- tems. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman a n d Co.

Passino, E.M., & L o u n s b u r y , J.W. (1976). Sex d i f ferences in opposi t ion to a n d s u p p o r t f o r cons t ruc t i on o f a proposed nuc lear power p lan t . In P. Suedefeld & J.A. Russel l (Eds. ) , The behavioral bosis of design. Book 1. Selected papers ( p p . 180-184). S t roudsburg , PA: Dowden, Hutch inson, a n d Ross.

Pi jawka, K . D. (1984). T h e p a t t e r n of pub l i c response to nuc lear faci l - i t ies : A n analys is o f t h e Diablo Canyon nuc lear genera t i ng s tat ion. I n M.J. Pasqualet t i & K.D. Pijawka (Eds . ) , Nuclear power: Assessing and managing hazordous technology (pp . 213-237). Bou lde r , CO: Westview.

Pres ident 's Commission o n t h e Acc ident a t T h r e e Mile Is land. (1979). The need for change: The legacy of TMI. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern- ment P r i n t i n g Of f ice.

Publ ic Opin ion. (1979, J u n e i J u l y ) . Opin ion roundup . Publ ic Opinion, 2 ( 3 ) , 21-40.

Rankin, W.L., & Nealey, S.M. (1978). The relat ionship of human values and energy beliefs to nuclear power a t t i t udes . Seattle, WA: Battel le.

Rank in , W . L . , Nealey, S.M., & Melber, B.D. (1984). Overv iew o f na- t ional a t t i t u d e s toward nuc lear ene rgy : A l ong i tud ina l analysis. In W.R. F r e u d e n b u r g & E.A. Rosa (Eds . ) , Public reactions to nuclear power: A re there cr i t ica l masses? (pp. 41-67). Boulder , CO: Westview Press/ American Associat ion f o r t he Advancement o f Science.

Reed, J.H., & Wilkes, J.M. (1980, A u g u s t ) . Sex a n d a t t i t udes toward nuc lea r power. Paper p resen ted a t t h e annual meet ings o f t h e American Sociological Associat ion.

Reed, J.H., & Wilkes, J.M. (1981, November). Technica l nuc lear knowl- edge a n d a t t i t u d e s toward nuc lear power be fo re a n d a f t e r TMI. Paper p resen ted a t t h e annual meet ings o f t he Society f o r t h e Social S t u d y o f Science, At lanta, CA.

Rosa, E.A., & F reudenburg , W.R. (1984). Nuclear power a t t h e cross- roads. In W.R. F reudenburg & E.A. Rosa (Eds. ) , Publ ic reactions to nuclear power: Are there cr i t ica l masses? ( p p . 3-37). Boulder , CO: Westview Press/Amer ican Associat ion f o r t he Advancement o f Science.

Rosa, E.A., Olsen, M.E., & Dil lman, D.A. (1984). Publ ic v iews toward nat ional ene rgy pol icy s t ra teg ies: Polar izat ion o r compromise? In W. R . F r e u d e n b u r g & E.A. Rosa (Eds . ) , Public reactions to nuclear power: Are there cr i t ica l masses? (pp . 69-93). Boulder , CO: Viestview Press/ American Associat ion f o r t h e Advancement o f Science.

110 Policy Studies Review, August 1985, 5:l

Strauss, L. ( 1 9 5 4 , September 1 6 ) . Remarks p repared f o r d e l i v e r y a t Founders ' Day D inner , Nat ional Associat ion o f Science Wri ters. New Y o r k C i t y , NY.

Sundstrom, E., L o u n s b u r y , J .W., DeVaul t , R.C., & Peele, E. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Acceptance o f a nuc lear power p lan t : Appl icat ions of t h e expectancy- va lue model. In A. Baum & J.E. Singer (Eds.) , Advances in env i ron- mental psychology, Vol. 3 , Energy : Psychological perspect ives (pp . 171-189) . Hil lsdale, NJ: Lawrence Er lbaum.

Szalay, R.A. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . A nuclear i n d u s t r y v iew o f the regu la to ry climate. In W.R. F r e u d e n b u r g 6 E.A. Rosa (Eds . ) , Public react ions to nuclear power: A re there c r i t i ca l masses? ( p p . 295-306). Boulder , CO: West- v iew Press iAmer ican Associat ion f o r t h e Advancement o f Science.

U.S. Atomic E n e r g y Commission. (1955, A p r i l 1 2 ) . A.E.C. announces three basic regulat ions for c iv i l ian atomic i n d u s t r y . Washington, DC: U .S. Atomic E n e r g y Commission p r e s s release 622.

U . S. Atomic E n e r g y Commission. ( 1 9 5 7 ) . Theoretical possibil i t ies and consequences o f major accidents i n large nuclear power p lants . Wash- i ng ton , DC: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. ( 1 9 7 0 ) . Press Release 5-18-170. Wash- i ng ton , DC: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

U.S. Depar tment of Energy . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . 1983 Survey of Nuclear Power Plant Construct ion Costs. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy In format ion Admin- i s t r a t i o n ( D O E / E I A - 0 4 3 9 [ 8 3 ] ) .

U.S. O f f i ce o f Management a n d Budge t . (1984) . Budget of the Uni ted States government: Fiscal year 1985. Washington, DC: U. S . Covern - ment P r i n t i n g Of f ice.

U.S. O f f i ce of Technology Assessment. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Nuclear power in an age of u n c e r t a i n t y . Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Of f ice o f Technology Assessment (OTA-E-216) .

Walsh, E.J., & Warland, R.R. (1983, December). Social movement in- vo lvement in the wake o f a nuc lear accident. American Sociological Review, 4 8 ( 6 ) , 764-780.

Wermiel, S. ( 1 9 8 2 , November 2 6 ) . H i g h c o u r t faces big nuclear-power cases, i n c l u d i n g ruling o n Cal i forn ia res t r i c t i ons . The Wall Street j o u r n a l , p. 13.

Wessel, D. ( 1 9 8 5 , F e b r u a r y 1 3 ) . I nves to r g r o u p seeks t o buy 9.7% o f Seabrook p lan t . The Wall Street Journal , p. 25.

Wisniewski, R.L., & F reudenburg , W.R. (1981) . The socio-environmental impacts of ene rgy development on local user groups and water resource p lann ing : Nuclear energy development i n the Twin Harbors reg ion. Pullman, WA: Washington Water Research Center .