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

• Published in: Risk analysis 2009-09, Vol.29 (9), p.1242-1254
• Main Author: Greenberg, Michael R
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Atomic power plants; Clamps; Coal; Data Collection; Facility siting; Federal Government; Geographic location; Laboratories; Location; Location of industry; National security; Nuclear Energy; Nuclear industry; Nuclear physics; nuclear power; Nuclear power generation; Nuclear power plants; Nuclear reactors; Nuclear research; nuclear waste; Policies; Position (location); Public opinion; R&D; Radioactive wastes; Research & development; Risk analysis; Risk management; Site selection; Studies; Surveys; Trust; U.S.A; United States; Waste management
• ISSN: 0272-4332; 1539-6924
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01262.x

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