BRi 1

N A T I O N A L S U R V E Y O F N U C L E A R P O W E R P L A N T

C O M M U N I T I E S

( 1 0 - M I L E R A D I U S A R O U N D T H E 6 4 P L A N T S I T E S )

J U L Y 2 0 1 1

F O R N U C L E A R E N E R G Y I N S T I T U T E

by

B I S C O N T I R E S E A R C H , I N C . 5 5 3 0 G R E Y S T O N E S T R E E T C H E V Y C H A S E , M D 2 0 8 1 5

T E L : 3 0 1 . 6 5 7 . 5 5 5 6 F A X : 3 0 1 . 6 5 7 - 5 5 4 4 www.bisconti.com

With Support From Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20006

BRi 2

T A B L E o f C O N T E N T S

Page Facts About the Survey 3

Summary and Observations 4 About Nuclear Energy 11

Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy 12

Branding Metrics 22

About the Closest Nuclear Power Plant 26 Impressions of the Plant 27

Perceived Community Opinion 31

New Reactor Acceptability and Reasons 33

Local Economy and Jobs 38

Plant Safety and Environmental Protection 39

Radiation 45

Waste/Used Fuel 48

Communications and Outreach 53 Messages for Decision to Add a New Reactor at Nearby Nuclear

Power Plant Site 54

Feeling of Being Informed About the Nuclear Power Plant 57

Company Outreach 59

Information Sources 60

Energy Education Center Visits 67

Emergency Communications 69

Findings at a Glance: Summary Tables and Questionnaire With Data 76 Summary: Plant Neighbors 2005-2011 77 Summary: Plant Neighbors 2009-2011: Gender 80 Summary Plant Neighbors 2011: Regions, Population Density and COL Sites 83 Questionnaire With Data 92

BRi 3

F A C T S AB O U T T H E S U R V E Y

This fourth biennial nuclear power plant neighbor survey was conducted June 11-18, 2011. Telephone interviews were conducted with full-time residents of the 10-mile radius around the 64 U.S. nuclear power plant sites, including 18 selected at random from each site for a total of 1,152. The study excluded households where someone worked at a nuclear power plant. Bisconti Research, Inc. conducted the survey with Quest Global Research Group, using lists of randomly selected residential phone numbers provided by Affordable Samples. Persons contacted but not included in the 1,152 final interviews:

255 in households with persons who worked for an electric company

56 not full-time residents of the area

88 not English speakers

99 who said they were not aware of a nuclear power plant in the area. A test analysis of the first 27 persons who terminated the interview part way (after the screening questions) eliminated any concern that the interview itself might have caused persons with negative attitudes to drop out. Their attitudes were at least as favorable as those of persons who completed the interview. Of the 27 who terminated the interview part way, 19 persons were asked about acceptability of a new reactor at the nearby plant site, and 14 of them said a new reactor would be acceptable. By the random selection process, 27 of the total 1,152 persons interviewed in 2011 were also interviewed in 2009. The national sample was distributed regionally as follows:

25 percent in the Northeast1

25 percent in the Midwest

31 percent in the South

19 percent in the West More than half live in areas classified for this study as low-population-density areas:

25 percent in high-population-density areas2

19 percent in medium-population-density areas

56 percent in low-population-density areas. In addition, 22 percent live near 14 sites engaged in new plant licensing activities (COL sites). For this survey, we also examined the results for sites with multiple units (45 percent of interviewees) and single units (55 percent). There were no notable differences between the two types of sites. For example, 66 percent at single-unit sites and 67 percent at multiple-unit sites said that a new reactor would be acceptable.

1 Regions correspond to regions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

2 The population density classification of areas was based on the number of potential interviewees:

High = 20,000 or more, medium = 10,000 to 19,999, low = less than 10,000.

BRi 4

S U M M A R Y A N D OB S E R V A T I O N S

In June 2011, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) sponsored the fourth biennial national opinion survey of nuclear power plant neighbors. The survey replicated the methodology and most of the questions asked in August 2005, July–August 2007 and July 2009. Telephone interviews were conducted with full-time residents of the 10-mile radius around the 64 U.S. nuclear power plant sites, including 18 selected at random from each site for a total of 1,152. The study excluded households where someone worked at a nuclear power plant. About Nuclear Energy Attitudes. Attitudes of nuclear power plant neighbors toward nuclear energy continue to be highly favorable:

87 percent believe that nuclear energy will play an important role—62 percent believe it will play a very important role.

86 percent agree with renewing the license of nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards—62 percent agree strongly.

79 percent agree with keeping the option to build more nuclear power plants—55 percent agree strongly.

80 percent agree that electric utilities should prepare now so new plants could be built if needed—53 percent agree strongly.

72 percent agree that we should definitely build more nuclear power plants—45 percent agree strongly.

80 percent favor the use of nuclear energy—50 percent are strongly in favor. Trends. Some impact of the Fukushima events is observed when 2011 results are compared with those of 2009. (See graphs on following pages). In most cases, the 2011 numbers are significantly lower than the 2009 results but only slightly lower than in 2005. For example:

72 percent in 2011 agree we should definitely build more nuclear power plants in the future, compared with 79 percent in 2009 and 73 percent in 2005; 45 percent strongly agree compared with 52 percent in 2009 and 43 percent in 2005.

50 percent strongly favor nuclear energy compared with 58 percent in 2009 and 53 percent in 2005.

Thus, the impact of Fukushima on plant neighbors nationwide appears to be mostly a loss of small gains made in the past few years. Some notable declines in favorability include:

Those strongly favorable to nuclear energy dropped from 50 percent to 39 percent in the Northeast and from 64 percent to 52 percent in the West.

Residents near sites engaged in new plant licensing became less strongly favorable to nuclear energy—from 61 percent to 50 percent.

Newcomers to the area (lived there less than 10 years) and women with children under age 12 were the most affected demographic groups.

BRi 5

Branding Metrics Most important consideration for electricity. In today’s slowly recovering economy, affordability now ties with clean air as the most important consideration for the way electricity is produced. Affordability and clean air were selected well ahead of reliability, energy security and efficiency. In high-population-density areas, clean air is the No. 1 consideration. In less populous areas, affordability is No. 1. Association of attributes with nuclear energy. Almost all plant neighbors associate nuclear energy to some degree with six positive attributes or benefits that make up the nuclear energy brand, and majorities see a strong association. The six attributes are efficiency, reliability, clean air, job creation, affordable electricity and energy security. Fewer plant neighbors see nuclear energy as a solution to climate change or global warming. That is due in part to growing public skepticism about global warming. National general public polls show that more Democrats than Republicans believe that climate change results from human activity. Among plant neighbors, more Democrats (66 percent) than Republicans (54 percent) see nuclear energy as a solution to climate change. Since 2009 there have been significant losses in the strength of the linkage between nuclear energy and efficiency, reliability, clean air, energy security and climate change. About the Closest Nuclear Power Plant Impression of the plant. Plant neighbors’ impressions of the nearby nuclear power plant are very positive and statistically unchanged. Nationwide, 86 percent of plant neighbors have a favorable impression of the plant and how it has operated recently—59 percent have a very favorable impression. Residents of the Northeast are least favorable to the nearby plant: 77 percent have a favorable impression compared with about 90 percent in other areas. At sites involved in new plant licensing (COL sites), 92 percent are favorable to the plant; 67 percent are very favorable compared with 2 percent who are very unfavorable. Most demographic subgroups share a favorable impression of their plant and the way it has operated recently and have not changed their opinion since 2009. There is no gender difference on this measure: 87 percent of men and 86 percent of women plant neighbors have a favorable impression of the plant, and they are equal in the strength of this opinion. Newcomers to the area—those who have lived there for less than 10 years—are least favorable to the plant (80 percent). Perceived community opinion. Majority community support for the local plant is well-known. Unlike the general U.S. public that largely underestimates public support for nuclear energy, 70 percent of plant neighbors know that the majority of people in their communities have a favorable impression of the plant. That figure likely varies from community to community, as it is an average across the 64 sites. Compared with 2009, more people are uncertain about how the community thinks. Possibly they wonder if others are affected by the news from Japan.

BRi 6

New reactor acceptability and reasons. One measure that has changed significantly from both 2009 and 2005 is the acceptability of a new reactor at the nearby plant site. A solid two-thirds (67 percent) would find a new reactor at the nearby plant acceptable, but that number is down from 76 percent. Acceptability of a new reactor at the plant is down in all regions. Currently, 75 percent in the South, two-thirds in the West and Midwest, and 55 percent in the Northeast would find a reactor acceptable at the nearby plant. Drops of 10+ percentage points were measured in both high-density population areas and low-density population areas. In areas with new plant licensing activities (COL sites) 73 percent in 2011 and 79 percent in 2009 said “acceptable.” Although there is no gender gap in the favorable views of the nearby plant, fewer women than men would support a new reactor there. This was true also before Fukushima. Those least accepting are: women with children under age 12 living at home (55 percent), Democrats (58 percent) and women in general (60 percent). Main reasons given to support a new reactor are the need for nuclear energy and its benefits, jobs and the economy, and positive attitudes toward the company that operates the plant. Main reasons given for not accepting a new reactor are safety concerns and the thought that the existing reactors are enough. Two percent of the total sample (7 percent of those not accepting a new reactor) mentioned the events in Japan. This question was open-ended. Local economy and jobs. Most plant neighbors continue to see benefits from the plant to the local economy and jobs. Eighty-seven percent believe the plant helps the local economy and the same number agree there are good jobs for local people at the plant and in businesses that provide services to the plant. Safety and environmental protection. A large majority of plant neighbors view the plant as safe. Most have confidence in the ability of the company that operates the plant to operate it safely and protect the environment.

83 percent rated the plant’s safety high (5-7 on a 1-7 scale), and 39 percent gave the plant the highest safety rating.

87 percent expressed confidence in the company’s ability to operate a nuclear power plant safely—60 percent strongly.

79 percent expressed confidence that the company has prepared the plant to withstand the most severe natural events that may occur in the region—49 percent agreed strongly. This was a new question this year.

84 percent agreed the company is doing a good job of protecting the environment—51 percent strongly.

Only small changes in these perceptions were measured from 2009 to 2011, and these changes tend to be across the board with all population groups.

BRi 7

Radiation. A new question in the 2011 survey asked about the likelihood that people living near a nuclear power plant are exposed to harmful levels of radiation. A majority (57 percent) said unlikely (1 to 3 on a 1 to 7 scale), 29 percent said likely and 14 percent were in the middle or not sure.

Plant neighbors’ perceptions are almost the exact opposite of those held by the U.S. public at large. The same question was asked three times in national public opinion polls for NEI between 1984 and 2001, with almost identical results each time: in 2001, 27 percent said that harmful exposure was unlikely, 58 percent said likely, and 15 percent were in the middle or not sure.

Although plant neighbors appear to be more confident than the general public that radiation is contained, the significant number with some doubts indicates the importance of communications on radiation, which underlies the various public concerns about nuclear energy, from leaks to accidents.

Regionally, 64 percent in the Midwest, 60 percent in the West, 57 percent in the South and 48 percent in the Northeast believe it is not likely that persons living near nuclear power plants are exposed to harmful levels of radiation.

Demographic groups that are less confident about radiation exposure include Democrats, lower-income groups and women.

Waste/used nuclear fuel. Nuclear waste (used nuclear fuel) is another area of concern. Just half of plant neighbors agree that nuclear waste can be stored safely at the plant site, and only 19 percent strongly agree with that. In two previous years, the question about storage at the plant site included the phrase: “until it is moved to a permanent disposal facility.” There was much more confidence in waste storage at the plant site knowing that it would not be stored at the site permanently.

Plant neighbors support transporting nuclear waste to one or two volunteer sites where it can be stored more securely and efficiently (79 percent), developing a federal disposal facility, as long as it meets regulatory standards (87 percent), and recycling used nuclear fuel to make more electricity and reduce the amount of waste (87 percent).

Perceptions of nuclear waste at the plant site show that most plant neighbors (82 percent) believe that the waste is safely contained there. That confidence may be a reflection of familiarity with the operations at the nearby plant, as compared to safe storage at nuclear power plant sites generally.

Lack of ability to correctly picture nuclear waste creates a barrier to verbal communications on the subject.

45 percent believe that it is solid, 34 percent liquid and 21 percent are unsure.

58 percent believe that it is a large amount, 27 percent a small amount and 15 percent are unsure.

Groups least able to picture nuclear waste correctly include:

women

women with children under age 12 living at home

lower-income residents

Surprisingly, only 54 percent of those who have visited a nuclear power plant or energy education center know that nuclear waste is solid. That indicates a need to take advantage of such visits to replace a sci-fi image of glowing green ooze with a simple fuel pellet.

BRi 8

Communications and Outreach Messages. Both need and safety messages substantially increase support for a new reactor at the nearby plant site. Persuasive needs/benefits messages talk about:

energy independence

planning for the future, need for reliable and affordable sources of electricity

hundreds of good jobs and careers, company will train local people

70 percent of America’s carbon-free energy, 24 hours a day every day. Persuasive safety messages talk about:

NRC oversight, daily monitoring, will shut down plant if unsafe

planning for the unthinkable, more layers of precautions added after 9-11, if additional layers needed as a result of lessons learned from Japan they will be added

multi-layered back-up safety systems, automatic safe shutdown

public and workers protected with state-of-the art technology, layers of precaution, containment, safety systems function in emergency.

Feeling informed about the plant. Most plant neighbors (83 percent) feel very or somewhat well informed about the nearby plant. Only 39 percent feel very well informed, but that number has grown from 30 percent in 2005. Women with young children are among those who feel less well informed. Education programs could help to reach this group through their children. Company outreach. Plant neighbors continue to give the company that operates the plant good marks for outreach. Three-fourths agree that the company is involved in the community, and 47 percent strongly agree.

Information sources. Plant sources were rated highly both as a useful source for information about the plant in the past and as an excellent or good source of information about nuclear energy. For information about the local plant, booklets and brochures from the local plant and local news media have been most useful, plant neighbors said. General word of mouth and people who work at the plant also have been useful sources. Half said that visits to a nuclear power plant or energy education center also have been useful (32 percent have been to an energy education center). Half also have found the Internet useful for plant information. Social media are not yet widely used for this information, but 19 percent did find social media a useful source for information about the plant. When asked to rate sources of information about nuclear energy on their accuracy and reliability, the top-rated source is booklets or brochures from the local nuclear power plant. That source was followed closely by safety, radiation or environmental experts at “your local nuclear power plant”; local news media; the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and “people you know who work at your local nuclear power plant.”

BRi 9

Compared with 2009, two groups have lost some credibility, as measured by the percent rating them excellent or good sources of accurate and reliable information about nuclear energy: the NRC (from 75 percent in 2009 to 63 percent in 2011) and experts at the local plant (from 76 percent to 68 percent). Local news media, instead, have gained—from 55 percent to 66 percent rating them excellent or good. Energy education center visits and impacts. One-third (32 percent) of plant neighbors have visited an energy education center. Two-thirds (67 percent) of visitors became more favorable as a result. Thus, 21 percent of all plant neighbors became more favorable to nuclear energy as a result of that visit. The industry effort to share resources to increase visits to energy education centers is timely, as the percentage of neighbors reporting such visits has declined steadily since 2005—from 49 percent to 32 percent. Emergency communications. Most plant neighbors (81 percent) feel very or somewhat well informed about what to do in case of an emergency at the plant; 45 percent feel very well informed. Most (81 percent) recall receiving information about what to do in case of an emergency at the plant; 72 percent of the total sample read the information, and 53 percent keep it in a place where it can be found easily. Recall of receiving this information increased from 68 percent in 2005 and 2007 to 76 percent in 2009 and 2011. Also, the percent of the total sample that read the information increased from 60 percent in 2005 to 72 percent in 2011. In case of an actual emergency, 50 percent would turn on the radio, 43 percent would turn on the television, and 20 percent would listen for a siren alert. Fewer would refer to written materials. The use of Twitter and Facebook for mass communications is new, but 21 percent said that it would be useful to receive information from the plant through Facebook, and 12 percent through Twitter.

Observations The results of the survey show that support for nuclear energy and the local plant among plant neighbors nationally is both wide and deep. Just three months after the frightening events at Fukushima Daiichi, most key measures show declines but still impressively high levels of support. Plant neighbor support is built on perceived excellence in performance, excellence in outreach, and contributions to the economy and jobs. The largest impact of the accident is on support for adding a new reactor at the plant site. The number is down across regions and even in areas where new plant licensing is under way. Still, considering the range of situations included in the national figure, the fact that two-thirds of plant neighbors would find a new reactor acceptable at the plant site is remarkable.

BRi 10

Two areas call out for increased education: radiation and waste. Plant neighbors are more confident that they are protected from radiation than the general U.S. public believes them to be, but the results indicate that some doubts exist, especially among women. Although most plant neighbors believe that waste is contained safely at their plant, only half believe that waste can be stored safely at the plant, especially if they interpret the question to mean that waste will be stored there forever. The inability of a large segment of plant neighbors to picture used nuclear fuel accurately presents a barrier to verbal communications and understanding. In this effort, energy education center visits could be important, especially for newcomers to the area and women with children under age 12 (or their children). Over the period of the four biennial surveys, visit to energy education centers have declined steadily.

BRi 11

ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY

BRi 12

Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy Attitudes of nuclear power plant neighbors toward nuclear energy continue to be highly favorable:

87 percent believe that nuclear energy will play an important role—62 percent believe it will play a very important role.

86 percent agree with renewing the license of nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards—62 percent agree strongly.

79 percent agree with keeping the option to build more nuclear power plants—55 percent agree strongly.

80 percent agree that electric utilities should prepare now so new plants could be built if needed—53 percent agree strongly.

72 percent agree that we should definitely build more nuclear power plants—45 percent agree strongly.

80 percent favor the use of nuclear energy—50 percent are strongly in favor. Trends Some impact of the Fukushima events is observed when 2011 results are compared with those of 2009. (See graphs on following pages). In most cases, the 2011 numbers are significantly lower than the 2009 results but only slightly lower than in 2005. For example:

72 percent in 2011 agree we should definitely build more nuclear power plants in the future, compared with 79 percent in 2009 and 73 percent in 2005; 45 percent strongly agree compared with 52 percent in 2009 and 43 percent in 2005.

50 percent strongly favor nuclear energy compared with 58 percent in 2009 and 53 percent in 2005.

Thus, the impact of Fukushima on plant neighbors nationwide appears to be mostly a loss of small gains made in the past few years. Some notable declines in favorability include:

Those strongly favorable to nuclear energy dropped from 50 percent to 39 percent in the Northeast and from 64 percent to 52 percent in the West.

Residents near sites engaged in new plant licensing became less strongly favorable to nuclear energy—from 61 percent to 50 percent.

Newcomers to the area (lived there less than 10 years) and women with children under age 12 were the most affected demographic groups.

BRi 13

Importance of Nuclear Energy for Meeting Future Electricity Needs

“How important do you think nuclear energy will be in meeting this nation’s electricity needs in the years ahead? Do you think nuclear energy will be very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not important at all?”

Percentages

Importance of Nuclear Energy for Meeting Future Electricity Needs From 2005 to 2011, by Important and Not Important

Importance of Nuclear Energy for Meeting Future Electricity Needs From 2005 to 2011, by Very Important and Not Important At All

9

87

4

5

4

25

62

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Not important at all

Not too important

Somewhat important

Very important

NOT IMPORTANT

IMPORTANT

89 91 92 87

6 5 7 9

2005 2007 2009 2011

Important Not important

67 68 67 62

3 3 3 5

2005 2007 2009 2011

Very important Not important at all

BRi 14

License Renewal

“Please tell me if you personally strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: When their original operating license expires, we should renew the license of nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards.”

Percentages

Percent Agree and Disagree: License Renewal From 2005 to 2011

Percent Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree: License Renewal From 2005 to 2011

13

86

2

8

5

24

62

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

DISAGREE

AGREE

90 90 93 86

9 8 7 13

2005 2007 2009 2011

Agree Disagree

67 66 71

62

6 5 4 8

2005 2007 2009 2011

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

BRi 15

Option to Build in Future

“Please tell me if you personally strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: We should keep the option to build more nuclear power plants in the future.”

Percentages

Percent Agree and Disagree: Keep Option to Build From 2005 to 2011

Percent Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree: Keep Option to Build From 2005 to 2011

79

3

12

7

24

55

19

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

DISAGREE

AGREE

83 84 86 79

16 14 13 19

2005 2007 2009 2011

Agree Disagree

57 56 61

55

10 8 7 12

2005 2007 2009 2011

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

BRi 16

Preparation Now in Case New Plants Needed in Future

“Please tell me if you personally strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: Electric utilities should prepare now so that new nuclear power plants could be built if needed in the next decade.”

Percentages

Percent Agree and Disagree: Electric Utilities Should Prepare Now From 2005 to 2011

Percent Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree: Electric Utilities Should Prepare Now From 2005 to 2011

17

80

3

11

6

28

53

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

DISAGREE

AGREE

81 85 87 80

16 12 12 17

2005 2007 2009 2011

Agree Disagree

52 57 57

53

10 7 7 11

2005 2007 2009 2011

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

BRi 17

Definitely Build More Nuclear Power Plants in Future

“Please tell me if you personally strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: We should definitely build more nuclear power plants in the future.”

Percentages

Percent Agree and Disagree: Definitely Build From 2005 to 2011

Percent Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree: Definitely Build From 2005 to 2011

25

72

4

15

10

27

45

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

DISAGREE

AGREE

73 77 79 72

24 19 20

25

2005 2007 2009 2011

Agree Disagree

43 49 52

45

14 11 9 15

2005 2007 2009 2011

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

BRi 18

Favorability to Nuclear Energy

“Overall, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States?”

Percentages

Favorability to Nuclear Energy by Region

Percentages

Favorability to Nuclear Energy: Gender and Years in Area

(2009-2011)

<10 Years 10+ Years Men Women in Area in Area 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 FAVORABLE 86 83 82 77 84 78 84 80 UNFAVORABLE 13 16 17 22 15 22 16 19 Strongly favor 66 57 50 43 60 49 57 50 Somewhat favor 20 26 31 34 25 29 27 30 Somewhat oppose 7 6 13 11 10 8 10 9 Strongly oppose 6 10 5 11 5 14 5 10 Don’t know 1 1 1 1 <1 0 1 1

19

80

1

11

9

30

50

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Strongly oppose

Somewhat oppose

Somewhat favor

Strongly favor

OPPOSE

FAVOR

39

51

52

55

32

30

29

30

11

8

9

7

16

10

9

8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Northeast

Midwest

West

South

Strongly favor Somewhat favor Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose

BRi 19

Percent Favor and Oppose the Use of Nuclear Energy From 2005 to 2011

Percent Strongly Favor and Strongly Oppose the Use of Nuclear Energy From 2005 to 2011

83 82 84 80

16 16 16 19

2005 2007 2009 2011

Favor Oppose

53 52 58

50

8 7 5 11

2005 2007 2009 2011

Strongly favor Strongly oppose

BRi 20

Favorability to Nuclear Energy: Region, Population Density, and COL Site (2009-2011)

Regions: Percentages Northeast Midwest South West 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 FAVORABLE 77 71 85 81 86 85 87 81 UNFAVORABLE 22 27 14 18 13 15 13 18 Very favorable 50 39 53 51 64 55 64 52 Somewhat favorable 27 32 32 30 22 30 23 29 Somewhat unfavorable 13 11 11 8 9 7 9 9 Very unfavorable 9 16 3 10 4 8 5 9 Don’t know 1 2 1 1 2 <1 0 1 Population Density: Percentages

High Medium Low Population Population Population Density Density Density

2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 FAVORABLE 80 74 81 81 86 82 UNFAVORABLE 19 25 19 18 13 17 Very favorable 55 47 54 52 60 50 Somewhat favorable 25 27 27 29 26 32 Somewhat unfavorable 12 10 14 8 8 8 Very unfavorable 8 15 5 10 4 9 Don’t know <1 1 1 1 1 1

COL Sites: Percentages

COL Sites 2009 2011 FAVORABLE 86 83 UNFAVORABLE 14 16 Very favorable 61 50 Somewhat favorable 25 33 Somewhat unfavorable 8 8 Very unfavorable 6 8 Don’t know <1 2

BRi 21

Favorability to Nuclear Energy: Subgroups (2009-2011)

75

90

76

80

82

81

78

74

79

81

78

75

80

79

84

80

78

77

83

80

0 25 50 75 100

Independent

Republican

Democrat

Registered voter

Income more than $75,000

Income $50-$75,000

Income less than $50,000

Women with children under age 12 living athome

Children under age 12 living at home

Age: 55+

Age: 35-54

Age: 18-34

Not college graduate

College graduate

Visited NPP or energy education center

Lived in area more than 10 years

Lived in area less than 10 years

Women

Men

TOTAL

2009

84

86

82

84

84

87

83

85

79

84

85

88

86

83

83

87

84

81

90

82

BRi 22

Branding Metrics Most Important Consideration for Electricity In today’s slowly recovering economy, affordability now ties with clean air as the most important consideration for the way electricity is produced. Affordability and clean air were selected well ahead of reliability, energy security, and efficiency. In high population density areas, clean air is the number one consideration. In less populous areas, affordability is number one.

Most Important Consideration for Electricity “I am going to read to you five considerations for the way electricity is produced, and I’d like you to tell me which one is most important to you…”

Percent Most Important

Percent Most Important

*Wording in 2011 changed from “Affordability” to “Affordable electricity.” ** Wording in 2011 changed from “Energy independence” to “Energy security.”

2

1

10

12

15

30

31

0 25 50

Don't know

None

Efficiency

Energy security

Reliability

Clean air

Affordable electricity

3

14

8

19

30

18

4

12

0

14

35

20

4

10

0

13

28

22

3

10

12

15

30

31

0 10 20 30 40 50

Don’t know/none

Efficiency

Energy independence/Energy security**

Reliability

Clean air

Affordability/Affordable electricity*

2011200920072005

BRi 23

Association of Attributes with Nuclear Energy Almost all plant neighbors associate nuclear energy to some degree with six positive attributes or benefits that make up the nuclear energy brand, and majorities see a strong association. The six attributes are efficiency, reliability, clean air, job creation, affordable electricity, and energy security. Fewer plant neighbors see nuclear energy as a solution to climate change or global warming. That is due in part to growing public skepticism about global warming. National general public polls show that more Democrats than Republicans believe that climate change results from human activity. Among plant neighbors, more Democrats (66 percent) than Republicans (54 percent) see nuclear energy as a solution to climate change.

Association of Benefits with Nuclear Energy (2011) “Do you associate nuclear energy a lot, a little, or not at all with…”

Percentages

Since 2009 there have been significant losses in the strength of association with efficiency, reliability, clean air, energy security, and climate change. (See graphs on next pages).

29

52

54

54

61

62

63

30

29

29

31

24

26

26

28

12

10

11

11

8

7

13

7

6

4

5

4

4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Solution for climate change or global warming

Energy security

Affordable electricity

Job creation

Clean air

Reliability

Efficiency

A lot A little Not at all Don't know

BRi 24

Association with Efficiency (2005-2011)

Association with Reliability (2005-2011)

Association with Clean Air (2005-2011)

Association with Job Creation3 (2009-2011)

3 Not asked in 2005 or 2007

63

71

67

68

26

21

23

21

7

6

5

6

4

3

6

4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2011

2009

2007

2005

A lot A little Not at all Don't know

62

72

65

67

26

20

25

25

8

5

5

6

4

2

5

3

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2011

2009

2007

2005

A lot A little Not at all Don't know

61

67

66

66

24

22

21

19

11

9

9

10

5

2

5

4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2011

2009

2007

2005

A lot A little Not at all Don't know

40

50

61

54

58

35

34

29

31

30

18

13

7

11

10

8

4

3

4

3

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

High

Medium

Low

2011 Population Density:

2011

2009

A lot A little Not at all Don't know

BRi 25

Association with Affordable Electricity4 (2005-2011)

Association with Energy Security (2005-2011)

Association with Solution for Climate Change or Global Warming5 (2009-2011)

4 Wording in 2005-2009: Affordability

5 Not asked in 2005 or 2007

54

50

53

50

29

36

31

30

10

8

8

11

6

6

8

9

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2011

2009

2007

2005

A lot A little Not at all Don't know

52

63

60

56

29

26

25

29

12

8

9

9

7

3

6

6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2011

2009

2007

2005

A lot A little Not at all Don't know

29

35

30

33

28

24

13

8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2011

2009

A lot A little Not at all Don't know

BRi 26

ABOUT THE CLOSEST NUCLEAR

POWER PLANT

BRi 27

Impressions of the Plant

Plant neighbors’ impressions of the nearby nuclear power plant are very positive and statistically unchanged. (See trend graphs on next pages). Nationwide, 86 percent of plant neighbors have a favorable impression of the plant and how it has operated recently—59 percent have a very favorable impression. Residents of the Northeast are least favorable to the nearby plant: 77 percent have a favorable impression compared with about 90 percent in other areas. At sites involved in new plant licensing (COL sites), 92 percent are favorable to the plant. Also, 67 percent are very favorable compared with two percent who are very unfavorable. Most demographic subgroups share a favorable impression of their plant and the way it has operated recently and have not changed their opinion since 2009. There is no gender difference on this measure: 87 percent of men and 86 percent of women plant neighbors have a favorable impression of the plant, and they are equal in the strength of this opinion. Newcomers to the area—those who have lived there for less than 10 years—are least favorable to the plant (80 percent).

General Impression of Closest Nuclear Power Plant

“Thinking of the nuclear power plant closest to where you live, would you describe your general impression of this plant and the way it has operated recently as very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable?”

Percentages

General Impression of Closest Nuclear Power Plant by Region

11

86

3

4

7

27

59

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Very unfavorable

Somewhat unfavorable

Somewhat favorable

Very favorable

UNFAVORABLE

FAVORABLE

47

61

63

68

31

28

28

21

13

4

5

7

8

4

2

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Northeast

South

Midwest

West

Very favorable Somewhat favorable Somewhat unfavorable Very unfavorable

BRi 28

Percent Favorable and Unfavorable to the Closest Nuclear Power Plant From 2005 to 2011

Percent Very Favorable and Very Unfavorable to the Closest Nuclear Power Plant From 2005 to 2011

Impression of the Closest Nuclear Power Plant: Gender and Years in Area

(2009-2011)

<10 Years 10+ Years Men Women in Area in Area 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 FAVORABLE 91 87 89 86 91 80 89 87 UNFAVORABLE 8 10 10 11 6 11 10 11 Very favorable 69 61 58 58 67 52 62 60 Somewhat favorable 22 26 30 28 24 28 27 27 Somewhat unfavorable 5 6 7 7 4 7 7 7 Very unfavorable 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 Don’t know 1 3 1 3 3 9 1 2

87 86 90 86

10 11 9 11

2005 2007 2009 2011

Favorable Unfavorable

60 57 63

59

3 4 3 4

2005 2007 2009 2011

Very favorable Very unfavorable

BRi 29

Impression of the Closest Nuclear Power Plant: Region, Population Density, and COL Site (2009-2011)

Regions: Percentages Northeast Midwest South West 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 FAVORABLE 80 77 92 90 93 89 94 89 UNFAVORABLE 19 21 7 7 6 8 5 9 Very favorable 48 47 60 63 71 61 75 68 Somewhat favorable 32 31 31 28 22 28 19 21 Somewhat unfavorable 12 13 4 5 4 4 3 7 Very unfavorable 7 8 3 2 2 4 2 1 Don’t know 1 2 2 3 <1 4 1 2 Population Density: Percentages

High Medium Low Population Population Population Density Density Density

2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 FAVORABLE 88 80 87 88 92 89 UNFAVORABLE 11 14 12 11 8 10 Very favorable 58 50 61 61 66 63 Somewhat favorable 30 30 26 28 25 26 Somewhat unfavorable 7 9 9 7 5 6 Very unfavorable 4 5 3 3 3 4 Don’t know 1 7 1 1 1 2

COL Sites: Percentages

COL Sites 2009 2011 FAVORABLE 92 92 UNFAVORABLE 8 6 Very favorable 66 67 Somewhat favorable 25 25 Somewhat unfavorable 5 4 Very unfavorable 3 2 Don’t know <1 2

BRi 30

Percent with a Favorable Impression of the Closest Nuclear Power Plant: Subgroups (2009-2011)

85

91

86

86

87

88

86

87

88

87

85

90

87

85

92

87

80

86

87

86

0 25 50 75 100

Independent

Republican

Democrat

Registered voter

Income more than $75,000

Income $50-$75,000

Income less than $50,000

Women with children under age 12 living athome

Children under age 12 living at home

Age: 55+

Age: 35-54

Age: 18-34

Not college graduate

College graduate

Visited NPP or energy education center

Lived in area more than 10 years

Lived in area less than 10 years

Women

Men

TOTAL

2009

90

91

89

91

89

93

88

92

86

88

91

87

87

90

90

92

91

88

96

90

BRi 31

Perceived Community Opinion Community support for the local plant is well known. Unlike the general population that largely underestimates public support for nuclear energy, 70 percent of plant neighbors know that the majority of people in their communities have a favorable impression of the plant. That figure likely varies from community to community, as it is an average across the 64 sites. Compared with 2009, more people are uncertain about how the community thinks. Possibly they wonder if others are affected by the news from Japan.

Perception of Community’s Impression of Local Nuclear Power Plant

“Do you think that the majority of people in your community have a favorable or unfavorable impression of this plant?”

Percentages

Percentages

18

13

70

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Unfavorable

Favorable

11

13

75

14

13

73

10

12

78

18

13

70

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Unfavorable

Favorable

2011

2009

2007

BRi 32

Community’s Impression of Local Nuclear Power Plant: Percent Favorable by Region

57

73

75

75

0 25 50 75 100

Northeast

South

Midwest

West

BRi 33

New Reactor Acceptability and Reasons One measure that has changed significantly from both 2009 and 2005 is the acceptability of a new reactor at the nearby plant site. A solid two-thirds (67 percent) would find a new reactor at the nearby plant acceptable, but that number is down from 76 percent. Acceptability of a new reactor at the plant is down in all regions. (See next page). Currently, 75 percent in the South, two-thirds in the West and Midwest, and 55 percent in the Northeast would find a reactor acceptable at the nearby plant. Drops of 10+ percentage points were measured in both high-density population areas and low-density population areas. In areas with new plant licensing activities (COL sites) 73 percent in 2011 and 79 percent in 2009 said “acceptable.” Although there is no gender gap in the favorable views of the nearby plant, fewer women than men would support a new reactor there. This was true also before Fukushima. Those least accepting are: women with children under age 12 living at home (55 percent), Democrats (58 percent), and women in general (60 percent). Main reasons given to support a new reactor are the need for nuclear energy and its benefits, jobs and the economy, and positive attitudes toward the company that operates the plant. (Open-ended question. See table in this section). Main reasons given for not accepting a new reactor are safety concerns and the thought that the existing reactors are enough. Two percent of the total sample (seven percent of those not accepting a new reactor) mentioned the events in Japan.

Acceptability of Adding a New Nuclear Reactor at Nearby Plant Site

“If a new power plant were needed to supply electricity, would it be acceptable to you or not acceptable to you to add a new nuclear reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant?” Percentages

Acceptability of Adding a New Nuclear Reactor at Nearby Plant Site: 2005 to 2011

5

28

67

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Not acceptable

Acceptable

76 71 76 67

22 26 21 28

0

20

40

60

80

2005 2007 2009 2011

Acceptable Not acceptable

BRi 34

Acceptability of Adding a New Nuclear Reactor at the Site of the Nearest Nuclear Power Plant:

Region, Population Density, and COL Site (2009-2011) Percentages

Regions Northeast Midwest South West 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 Acceptable 65 55 79 67 81 75 81 68 Not Acceptable 32 40 18 28 17 21 18 26 Don’t know 3 5 3 5 2 4 2 7 Population Density

High Medium Low Population Population Population Density Density Density

2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 Acceptable 71 59 69 64 81 71 Not Acceptable 28 37 27 28 16 25 Don’t know 2 5 4 7 2 5

COL Sites

COL Sites 2009 2011 Acceptable 79 73 Not Acceptable 20 23 Don’t know 1 4

BRi 35

Percent Saying a New Reactor at the Nearest Nuclear Power Plant Site Would be Acceptable: Subgroups (2011)

64

78

58

67

71

67

65

55

65

66

67

76

68

65

75

67

63

60

75

67

0 25 50 75 100

Independent

Republican

Democrat

Registered voter

Income more than $75,000

Income $50-$75,000

Income less than $50,000

Women with children under age 12 living athome

Children under age 12 living at home

Age: 55+

Age: 35-54

Age: 18-34

Not college graduate

College graduate

Visited NPP or energy education center

Lived in area more than 10 years

Lived in area less than 10 years

Women

Men

TOTAL

2009

76

82

72

74

77

83

76

77

83

74

77

76

70

77

78

79

77

73

85

73

BRi 36

Reasons for Acceptability of a New Reactor at the Nearest Plant (2011)

“What are the main reasons why it would be acceptable/not acceptable to you to add a new nuclear reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant?”

Percentages Those saying Those saying not acceptable Total acceptable or don’t know Positive (NET) 61 90 2 Need and benefits (SUBNET) 31 46 0

Need the power/energy, need to build, plan for future needs 16 24 0 Economical, affordable 8 12 0 Clean air, not polluting 5 8 0 Efficient 4 5 0 Reliable, can count on it 2 4 0 Energy independence, not rely on foreign energy/oil 2 2 0 Not fossil fuel/coal/oil 2 3 0 Climate change, global warming solution <1 <1 0

Economy and jobs (SUBNET) 16 24 <1

Jobs 14 20 <1 Economy 5 7 0

Local plant and company is good (SUBNET) 15 22 1

Local plant is good, performs well, is safe 15 22 1 Company operating the plant is good 1 2 0 Good people work there, confident in people who work there 1 1 0

Nuclear energy is good/safe (SUBNET) 9 13 0

Good source, like nuclear 4 6 0 Safe 4 7 0 New plants safer 1 1 0

Other positives (SUBNET) 7 10 1

There is already a plant there/ infrastructure there 7 10 1 No natural disasters in area <1 <1 0

continues

BRi 37

Reasons for Acceptability of a New Reactor at the Nearest Plant (2011) Continued Those saying Those saying not acceptable Total acceptable or don’t know Negative (NET) 28 1 80 Danger, accidents, unsafe (SUBNET) 13 <1 39

Dangerous, not safe 8 <1 22 Mention Japan, Fukushima 2 0 7 Radiation, leaks 2 0 4 Accident, explosions, could blow up 1 0 3 Harmful to people, people sick around here 1 0 4 Natural disasters could happen, earthquakes, tornados, fires 1 0 4 More reactors would increase the danger <1 0 1 Terrorist target, security risk <1 0 1

Environment, waste (SUBNET) 4 <1 12

Waste 3 <1 8 Bad for environment, pollutes 1 0 4

Negative to plant/company (SUBNET) 3 <1 9

Local plant is not good, not safe, lot of problems 3 <1 8 Company operating the plant not good, don’t trust them 1 0 3

Other (SUBNET) 12 1 32

Don’t need another one 6 1 17 Use other sources, prefer solar, etc. 3 <1 8 Expensive, rates will go up 1 <1 2 Bad source, don’t like nuclear 1 0 4 Don’t like living that close to one 1 0 2 Don’t want growth, traffic will increase <1 0 1 Save energy first, energy efficiency, conservation <1 0 <1 People don’t like it, public against nuclear energy <1 0 1 Electricity created is shipped/sold away <1 0 1

Neutral or Conditional (NET) 5 5 4

OK if we really need it 3 4 0 OK if not near me 1 <1 3 Need more information <1 <1 1 OK if safe <1 <1 <1

Don’t know 4 6 1 No answer/refused 5 0 16

BRi 38

Local Economy and Jobs

Most plant neighbors continue to see benefits from the plant to the local economy and jobs. Eighty-seven percent believe the plant helps the local economy and the same number agrees there are good jobs for local people at the plant and in businesses that provide services to the plant.

Opinions about the Plant’s Impact on the Local Economy and Jobs

“Please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements about this company.” Percentages Total Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly (Don’t AGREE Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know) The plant helps the local economy. 87 61 26 5 4 4 There are good jobs for local people at the plant and in local businesses that provide services to the plant. 87 57 29 4 4 5

Percent Agree

90

89

87

87

0 25 50 75 100

The plant helps the local economy.

There are good jobs for local people at the plant andin local businesses that provide services to the plant.

2011

2009

BRi 39

Plant Safety and Environmental Protection A large majority of plant neighbors view the plant as safe. Most have confidence in the ability of the company that operates the plant to operate it safely and protect the environment.

83 percent rated the plant’s safety high (5-7), and 39 percent gave the plant the highest safety rating.

87 percent expressed confidence in the company’s ability to operate a nuclear power plant safely—60 percent strongly.

79 percent expressed confidence that the company has prepared the plant to withstand the most severe natural events that may occur in the region—49 percent agreed strongly. (New question this year)

84 percent agreed the company is doing a good job of protecting the environment—51 percent strongly.

Only small changes in these perceptions were measured from 2009 to 2011 and these changes tend to be across the board with all population groups.

Rating Safety of Nearest Nuclear Power Plant

“Thinking about the nuclear power plant that is nearest to where you live, how safe do you regard this plant? Please think of a scale from “1” to “7,” where “1” means very unsafe and “7” means very safe. The safer you think it is, the higher the number you would give.”

Percentages

1

3

3

3

6

17

27

39

10

83

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Very unsafe (1)

2

3

4

5

6

Very safe (7)

Low rating (1-3)

High rating (5-7)

BRi 40

Percent Rating Safety of Nearest Nuclear Power Plant From 2005 to 2011

Percent Rating Safety of Nearest Nuclear Power Plant Very High and Very Low From 2005 to 2011

85 86 88 83

8 8 7 10

2005 2007 2009 2011

High safety rating (5-7) Low safety rating (1-3)

40 46 44

39

3 3 2 3

2005 2007 2009 2011

Very high safety rating (7) Very low safety rating (1)

BRi 41

Rating Safety of Nearest Nuclear Power Plant: Region, Population Density, and COL Site (2009-2011)

Regions: Percentages Northeast Midwest South West 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011

High safety rating (5-7) 78 75 89 87 92 84 92 87 7 32 28 44 41 50 40 51 46 6 30 25 30 29 29 29 27 27 5 16 22 16 16 14 16 14 14 Middle (4) 7 8 5 5 3 7 3 5 3 6 5 3 4 2 2 3 2 2 5 6 0 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 6 1 2 2 3 1 1 Low safety rating (1-3) 14 17 4 8 4 7 5 6 (Don’t Know) 1 1 1 1 <1 2 0 2

Population Density: Percentages

High Medium Low Population Population Population Density Density Density

2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 High safety rating (5-7) 85 77 86 82 90 86 7 38 33 41 33 47 42 6 30 26 30 32 29 26 5 16 17 16 17 14 17 Middle (4) 5 7 6 7 4 5 3 5 4 3 4 3 3 2 2 5 2 3 1 3 1 3 4 1 3 1 3 Low safety rating (1-3) 10 13 7 10 5 8 (Don’t Know) <1 2 1 1 1 1

COL Sites: Percentages

COL Sites

2009 2011 High safety rating (5-7) 91 89 7 48 45 6 28 29 5 14 16 Middle (4) 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 Low safety rating (1-3) 5 6 (Don’t Know) 0 <1

BRi 42

Percent Rating Safety of Nearest Nuclear Power Plant From 2009 to 2011: Subgroups

Low Safety Middle High Safety Rating (1-3) (4) Rating (5-7) 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 TOTAL 7 10 5 6 88 83 Men 6 9 4 6 90 84 Women 8 10 6 6 86 83 Years lived in area

Less than 10 years 7 6 4 8 88 79 More than 10 years 7 10 5 6 88 84

Visited NPP or energy education center 6 7 3 4 90 88 College graduate 8 11 5 6 86 82 Not college graduate 5 9 4 6 91 84 Age

18-34 5 8 4 6 91 86 35-54 9 6 6 6 86 82 55+ 6 9 4 6 90 84

Children under age 12 living at home 10 11 6 7 84 81 Women with children under age 12 living at home 11 15 8 7 81 77 Income

Less than $50,000 5 10 4 7 91 81 $50-$75,000 7 8 4 2 89 89 More than $75,000 7 11 5 5 87 83

Registered voter 7 9 5 6 88 84

Democrat 8 13 5 7 87 78 Republican 3 4 2 5 94 90 Independent 9 10 6 5 84 84

BRi 43

Confidence in the Company that Operates the Nuclear Power Plants: Safety and Environmental Protection

“Now, I’d like to ask you about the company that operates the nuclear power plant nearest to you. Please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements about this company.” Percentages Total Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly (Don’t AGREE Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know)

I am confident in this company’s ability to operate a nuclear power plant safely. 87 60 28 5 5 2 This company is doing a good job of protecting the environment 84 51 33 6 5 6 I am confident that the company has prepared the plant to withstand the most severe natural events that may occur in this region 79 49 30 6 9 6

I am confident in this company’s ability to operate a nuclear power plant safely.

Percentages

Percentages

88 87 91 87

10 9 7 11

2005 2007 2009 2011

Agree Disagree

88 87 91 87

61 58 65

60

2005 2007 2009 2011

Agree Strongly agree

BRi 44

This company is doing a good job of protecting the environment

Percentages

Percentages

84 81 86 84

10 9 9 11

2005 2007 2009 2011

Agree Disagree

84 81 86 84

50 48 52 51

2005 2007 2009 2011

Agree Strongly agree

BRi 45

Radiation A new question in the 2011 survey asked about the likelihood that people living near a nuclear power plant are exposed to harmful levels of radiation. A majority (57 percent) said unlikely (1 to 3 on a 1 to 7 scale), 29 percent said likely, and 14 percent were in the middle or not sure. Plant neighbors’ perceptions are almost the exact opposite of those held by the U.S. public at large. (See graph on next page). The same question was asked three times in national public opinion polls for NEI between 1984 and 2001, with almost identical results each time. In 2001, 27 percent said that harmful exposure was unlikely, 58 percent said likely, and 15 percent were in the middle or not sure. Although plant neighbors appear to be more confident than the general public that radiation is contained, the significant number with some doubts indicates the importance of communications on radiation, which underlies the various public concerns about nuclear energy from leaks to accidents. Regionally, 64 percent in the Midwest, 60 percent in the West, 57 percent in the South, and 48 percent in the Northeast believe it is not likely that persons living near nuclear power plants are exposed to harmful levels of radiation. (See next page). Demographic groups that are less confident about radiation exposure include Democrats, lower income groups, and women. (See table following the next page).

Likelihood that Persons Living Near Nuclear Power Plants are Exposed to Harmful Levels of Radiation

“Please think of a scale from “1” to “7,” where “1” means “not likely at all” and “7” means “very likely.” Using this scale, how likely would you say it is that people living near a nuclear power plant are exposed to harmful levels of radiation? The more likely you think it is, the higher the number you would give it.”

Percentages

3

10

5

14

11

12

15

30

29

57

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Very likely (7)

6

5

4

3

2

Not likely at all (1)

Likely (5-7)

Not likely (1-3)

BRi 46

Likelihood that Persons Living Near Nuclear Power Plants are Exposed to Harmful Levels of Radiation: Plant Neighbors (2011) and General Public (2001)

Percentages

Percent Saying Not Likely That Persons Living Near Nuclear Power Plants are Exposed to Harmful Levels of Radiation: Region

27

15

58

57

14

29

0 25 50 75 100

Not Likely (1-3)

Middle (4) or (Don't know)

Likely (5-7)

Plant Neighbors - 2011

General Public - 2001

48

57

60

64

0 25 50 75 100

Northeast

South

West

Midwest

BRi 47

Percent Rating the Likelihood That People Living Near a Nuclear Power Plant are Exposed to Harmful Levels of Radiation: Subgroups

Not likely Middle Very likely (1-3) (4) (5-7) Men 66 9 22 Women 50 13 35 Years lived in the area

Less than 10 years 58 10 30 More than 10 years 57 11 29

Visited NPP or energy education center 66 11 22 College graduate 62 12 24 Not college graduate 53 11 33 Age

18-34 60 11 28 35-54 59 11 28 55+ 56 11 30

Children under age 12 living at home 56 10 33 Women with children under age 12 living at home 50 8 43 Income

Less than $50,000 49 12 36 $50-$75,000 61 11 28 More than $75,000 66 12 21

Registered voter 58 11 28

Democrat 46 13 39 Republican 65 10 22 Independent 59 11 27

BRi 48

Waste/Used Fuel Nuclear waste (used nuclear fuel) is another area of concern. Just half of plant neighbors agree that nuclear waste can be stored safely at the plant site, and only 19 percent strongly agree with that. In two previous years, the question about storage at the plant site included the phrase: “until it is moved to a permanent disposal facility.” There was much more confidence in waste storage at the plant site knowing that it would not be stored at the site permanently. Plant neighbors support transporting nuclear waste to 1 or 2 volunteer sites where it can be stored more securely and efficiently (79 percent), developing a federal disposal facility, as long as it meets regulatory standards (87 percent), and recycling used nuclear fuel to make more electricity and reduce the amount of waste (87 percent). Perceptions of nuclear waste at the plant site show that most plant neighbors (82 percent) believe that the waste is safely contained there. That confidence may be a reflection of familiarity with the operations at the nearby plant, as compared to safe storage at nuclear power plant sites generally. There is much less familiarity with the characteristics of nuclear waste at the plant site, however:

45 percent believe that it is solid, 34 percent liquid, and 21 percent are unsure.

58 percent believe that it is a large amount, 27 percent a small amount, and 15 percent are unsure.

Lack of ability to correctly picture nuclear waste creates a barrier to verbal communications on the subject. Groups least able to picture nuclear waste correctly include:

Women

Women with children under age 12 living at home

Lower income residents Surprisingly, only 54 percent of those who have visited a nuclear power plant or energy education center know that nuclear waste is solid. That indicates a need to take more advantage of such visits to replace a sci-fi image of glowing green ooze with a simple fuel pellet.

BRi 49

Agreement with Statements about Used Fuel Management

“Please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements about nuclear waste management.”

Percentages Nuclear waste can be stored safely at the plant site.

Agree 50 Disagree 38 Strongly agree 19 Somewhat agree 30 Somewhat disagree 15 Strongly disagree 24 (Don’t know) 12

It is more appropriate that nuclear waste be transported to 1 or 2 volunteer sites where it can be stored more securely and efficiently.

Agree 79 Disagree 15 Strongly agree 48 Somewhat agree 30 Somewhat disagree 6 Strongly disagree 9 (Don’t know) 6

The federal government should develop a final disposal facility for nuclear waste as long as it meets U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations.

Agree 87 Disagree 11 Strongly agree 64 Somewhat agree 23 Somewhat disagree 3 Strongly disagree 8 (Don’t know) 2

The U.S. should recycle used nuclear fuel to make more electricity and reduce the amount of nuclear waste.

Agree 87 Disagree 6 Strongly agree 66 Somewhat agree 21 Somewhat disagree 2 Strongly disagree 5 (Don’t know) 6

BRi 50

Agreement with Statements about Used Fuel Management

Percent Agree

*In 2009 wording was slightly different: “It is more appropriate that nuclear waste be stored at 1 or 2 volunteer sites

where it can be stored more securely and efficiently.”

Nuclear waste can be stored safely at the plant site (significant wording change in 2009)**

Percentages

**In 2005 and 2007 the question asked about agreement with this concept: Nuclear waste can be stored safely at the plant site until it is moved to a permanent disposal facility.” In the mind of the public, there is a big difference between temporary and permanent storage at the plant site.

85

91

79

87

0 25 50 75 100

It is more appropriate that nuclear waste betransported to 1 or 2 volunteer sites where it can be

stored more securely and efficiently*

The U.S. should recycle used nuclear fuel to makemore electricity and reduce the amount of nuclear

waste

20112009

72 71

56 50

22 20 37 38

2005 2007 2009 2011

Agree Disagree

BRi 51

Misperceptions Contribute to Fear of Nuclear Waste “Do you think of nuclear waste at your nearest power plant as something that is…”

Percentages

Solid 45

Liquid 34

Don't know

21

Small amount

27 Large

amount 58

Don't know

15

Not safely contained

12 Don’t know 5

Safely contained 82

BRi 52

Percent Correctly Identifying the Characteristics of Nuclear Waste: Subgroups (2011)

A Small Solid Amount Men 58 32 Women 34 23 Years lived in the area

Less than 10 years 41 32 More than 10 years 45 26

Visited NPP or energy education center 54 32 College graduate 51 28 Not college graduate 40 26 Age

18-34 31 35 35-54 43 29 55+ 47 25

Children under age 12 living at home 38 28 Women with children under age 12 living at home 31 22 Income

Less than $50,000 38 25 $50-$75,000 45 29 More than $75,000 53 31

Registered voter 45 28

Democrat 42 24 Republican 43 31 Independent 52 29

BRi 53

COMMUNICATIONS AND

OUTREACH

BRi 54

Messages for Decision to Add a New Reactor at Nearby Nuclear Power Plant Site

As in the past, both need and safety messages substantially increase support for a new reactor at the nearby plant site. (See next three pages). Persuasive needs messages talk about:

Energy independence;

Planning for the future, need for reliable and affordable sources of electricity;

Hundreds of good jobs and careers, company will train local people; and

70 percent of America’s carbon-free energy, 24 hours a day every day. Persuasive safety messages talk about:

NRC oversight, daily monitoring, will shut down plant if unsafe;

Planning for the unthinkable, more layers of precautions added after 9-11, if additional layers needed as a result of lessons learned from Japan they will be added;

Multi-layered back-up safety systems, automatic safe shutdown; and

Public and workers protected with state-of-the art technology, layers of precaution, containment, safety systems function in emergency

Among those who said a new reactor is not acceptable, messages about energy independence and multi-layered back-up safety systems/automatic safe shutdown scored slightly ahead of the rest. (See page after next).

BRi 55

Messages in Support of a New Reactor at the Nearest Nuclear Power Plant Site

“Let’s imagine that more electricity is needed in your area sometime in the future and an electric company wants to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that is already operating. Please tell me if each of the following points would make you much more inclined, somewhat more inclined, or no more inclined to support a decision to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant. How about... “

Percentages

Much Somewhat No More More More (Don’t Inclined Inclined Inclined Know) Nuclear energy helps reduce America’s dependence on foreign energy sources. 57 22 18 3

The independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a federal oversight organization of highly trained scientists and engineers, certifies nuclear power plant designs and inspects and monitors each nuclear power plant daily. If a plant is not safe, the regulator will shut it down until its safety improves. 54 25 20 2

Planning for the unthinkable makes our plants safer. That’s why more layers of precaution were added after 9-11 to protect against unimaginable events, and, if additional layers of precaution are needed here as a result of lessons learned from Japan, they will be made. 53 26 19 2

We should plan for our energy future so we are not caught unprepared. As our economy and population grow, reliable and affordable sources of electricity like nuclear energy will be needed. 52 28 19 1

Each new reactor adds hundreds of good jobs and careers, and the company will train local people for careers there. 52 26 21 1 SPLIT SAMPLE A Every nuclear power plant has multi-layered back-up safety systems and an automatic safe shutdown mechanism. 51 27 20 2

SPLIT SAMPLE B We protect the public and our workers with state-of-the-art technology that layers precaution on top of precaution, including four-feet-thick containment buildings that surround the reactor, as well as safety systems that function even in the event of an emergency. 50 27 22 2

Nuclear energy provides 70 percent of America’s carbon-free energy and produces electricity 24 hours a day every day. 47 30 20 2

BRi 56

Messages in Support of a New Reactor at the Nearest Nuclear Power Plant Site: By Acceptability of New Reactor and Gender

Percent “Much More Inclined” or “Somewhat More Inclined”

New Reactor: Not Acceptable Acceptable Men Women Planning for the unthinkable makes our plants safer. That’s why more layers of precaution were added after 9-11 to protect against unimaginable events, and, if additional layers of precaution are needed here as a result of lessons learned from Japan, they will be made. 94 51 81 78

We should plan for our energy future so we are not caught unprepared. As our economy and population grow, reliable and affordable sources of electricity like nuclear energy will be needed. 94 50 81 78

Nuclear energy helps reduce America’s dependence on foreign energy sources. 93 53 82 78

The independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a federal oversight organization of highly trained scientists and engineers, certifies nuclear power plant designs and inspects and monitors each nuclear power plant daily. If a plant is not safe, the regulator will shut it down until its safety improves. 93 51 79 78

Each new reactor adds hundreds of good jobs and careers, and the company will train local people for careers there. 93 49 78 78 SPLIT SAMPLE B

We protect the public and our workers with state-of-the-art technology that layers precaution on top of precaution, including four-feet-thick containment buildings that surround the reactor, as well as safety systems that function even in the event of an emergency. 93 43 77 76

Nuclear energy provides 70 percent of America’s carbon-free energy and produces electricity 24 hours a day every day. 92 50 79 76

SPLIT SAMPLE A Every nuclear power plant has multi-layered back-up safety systems and an automatic safe shutdown mechanism. 91 54 80 77

BRi 57

Feeling of Being Informed About the Nuclear Power Plant Most plant neighbors (83 percent) feel very or somewhat well informed about the nearby plant. Only 39 percent feel very well informed, but that number has grown from 30 percent in 2005. Women with young children are among those who feel less well informed. Education programs could help to reach this group through their children. (See next page).

Informed about the Nearest Nuclear Power Plant

“Do you feel very well informed, somewhat well informed, not too well informed, or not well informed at all about the nuclear power plant nearest to where you live?”

Percentages

Percent Informed and Very Well Informed About

the Nearest Nuclear Power Plant From 2005 to 2011

16

83

1

7

9

45

39

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Not well informed at all

Not too well informed

Somewhat well informed

Very well informed

NOT INFORMED

INFORMED

81 79 84 83

30 32 40 39

2005 2007 2009 2011

Informed Very well informed

BRi 58

How Informed about the Nearest Nuclear Power Plant: Subgroups (2011)

Percentages

Extent Feel Informed About the Nearest Nuclear Power Plant

Very Somewhat Not Too Not At All

Men 44 41 7 6 Women 34 48 10 8

Years lived in the area

Less than 10 36 41 16 8 More than 10 39 45 8 7

Visited an NPP or energy education center 52 39 5 4 College graduate 40 47 7 6 Not college graduate 38 43 10 8

Age

18-34 35 45 8 13 35-54 37 45 9 8 55+ 40 45 9 6

Children under age 12 living at home 35 45 11 10 Women with children under age 12 living at home 29 46 12 13

Income

Less than $50,000 36 43 11 9 $50-$75,000 38 50 5 7 More than $75,000 44 42 8 5

Registered voter 39 44 9 7 Democrat 35 49 10 5 Republican 46 43 6 5 Independent 38 43 9 11

BRi 59

Company Outreach

Plant neighbors continue to give the company that operates the plant good marks for outreach. Three-fourths agree that the company is involved in the community, and 47 percent strongly agree.

Perceptions about Company Involvement in the Community “Now, I’d like to ask you about the company that operates the nuclear power plant nearest to you. Please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements about this company.”

This Company is Involved in the Community

Percentages

Percent Agree and Strongly Agree This Company is Involved in the Community6

Percentages

6 In 2005 wording was slightly different: “This company is involved in the community as a good citizen.”

12

76

12

6

6

29

47

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

DISAGREE

AGREE

83 77

83 76

54 48 50 47

2005 2007 2009 2011

Agree Strongly agree

BRi 60

Information Sources Plant sources were rated highly both as a useful source for information about the plant in the past and as an excellent or good source of information about nuclear energy. Usefulness in the Past for Information About the Plant For information about the local plant, booklets and brochures from the local plant and local news media have been most useful, plant neighbors said. General word of mouth and people who work at the plant also have been useful sources. Half said that visits to a nuclear power plant or energy education center also have been useful (32 percent have been to an energy education center). Half also have found the Internet useful for plant information. Social media are not yet widely used for this information, but 19 percent did find social media a useful source for information about the plant. Credibility on Nuclear Energy When asked to rate sources of information about nuclear energy on their accuracy and reliability, the top-rated source is booklets or brochures from the local nuclear power plant. That source was followed closely by safety, radiation or environmental experts at “your local nuclear power plant;” local news media; the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and “people you know who work at your local nuclear power plant.” Compared with 2009, two groups have lost some credibility, as measured by the percent rating them excellent or good sources of accurate and reliable information: the NRC (from 75 percent in 2009 to 63 percent in 2011) and experts at the local plant (from 76 percent to 68 percent). Local news media, instead, have gained—from 55 percent to 66 percent rating them excellent or good.

BRi 61

How Useful Sources of

Information about the Nearest Nuclear Power Plant Have Been “How useful has each of the following been as a source of information about the nuclear power plant nearest to you—very useful, somewhat useful, not too useful, or not useful at all?”

Percent Who Said “Very or Somewhat Useful”

19

25

44

49

50

50

61

62

78

81

0 20 40 60 80 100

Social media, such as Twitter, YouTube orFacebook

Antinuclear organizations

Independent scientists

Local elected officials

The Internet

Visits to the plant or information center

People who work at the plant

General word of mouth in the community

Booklets or brochures from your local nuclearpower plant

Local news media

BRi 62

How Useful Sources of

Information about the Nearest Nuclear Power Plant Have Been

“How useful has each of the following been as a source of information about the nuclear power plant nearest to you—very useful, somewhat useful, not too useful, or not useful at all?”

Percentages Not (Don’t Total Very Somewhat Not Too Useful Know/Not USEFUL Useful Useful Useful At All Applicable) Local news media 81 44 36 9 8 2 Booklets or brochures from your local nuclear power plant 78 46 31 5 11 6 General word of mouth in the community 62 25 37 16 18 4 People who work at the plant 61 34 27 10 18 11 Visits to the plant or energy education center 50 27 23 10 22 18 The Internet 50 25 25 11 30 10 Local elected officials 49 17 32 18 28 4 Independent scientists 44 18 26 13 28 15 Antinuclear organizations 25 8 18 16 46 13 Social media, such as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook 19 7 12 11 56 14

BRi 63

How Useful Sources of

Information about the Nearest Nuclear Power Plant Have Been

Percent Who Said “Very or Somewhat Useful”

30

49

46

53

67

59

78

79

25

49

50

50

61

62

78

81

0 20 40 60 80 100

Antinuclear organizations

Local elected officials

The Internet

Visits to the plant or information center

People who work at the plant

General word of mouth in the community

Booklets or brochures from your local nuclearpower plant

Local news media

2011

2009

BRi 64

Credibility of Sources of Information about Nuclear Energy

“Please tell me if you think each of the following would be an excellent, good, fair, or poor source of accurate and reliable information about nuclear energy.”

Percent Who Said “Excellent or Good”

20

21

40

40

62

63

66

68

74

0 20 40 60 80 100

Antinuclear groups

Social media, such as Twitter, YouTube orFacebook

Your local elected officials

Environmental groups

People you know who work at your local nuclearpower plant

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Local news media

Safety, radiation, or environmental experts atyour local nuclear power plant

Booklets or brochures from your local nuclearpower plant

BRi 65

Credibility of Sources of Information about Nuclear Energy

“Please tell me if you think each of the following would be an excellent, good, fair, or poor source of accurate and reliable information about nuclear energy.” Percentages

Excellent Don’t Or Good Excellent Good Fair Poor Know Booklets or brochures from your local nuclear power plant 74 34 41 14 8 4 Safety, radiation, or environmental experts at your local nuclear power plant 68 31 36 17 9 7 Local news media 66 24 43 23 9 2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 63 27 37 20 10 7 People you know who work at your local nuclear power plant 62 30 32 14 10 15 Environmental groups 40 13 27 27 25 8 Your local elected officials 40 11 29 30 26 4 Antinuclear groups 20 6 14 24 46 11 Social media, such as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook 21 6 14 19 44 17

BRi 66

Credibility of Sources of Information about Nuclear Energy

Percent Who Said “Excellent or Good”

19

38

42

64

75

55

76

75

20

40

40

62

63

66

68

74

0 20 40 60 80 100

Antinuclear groups

Your local elected officials

Environmental groups

People you know who work at your local nuclearpower plant

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Local news media

Safety, radiation, or environmental experts atyour local nuclear power plant

Booklets or brochures from your local nuclearpower plant

2011

2009

BRi 67

Energy Education Center Visits

One-third (32 percent) of plant neighbors have visited an energy education center. Two-thirds (67 percent) of visitors became more favorable as a result. Thus, 21 percent of all plant neighbors became more favorable to nuclear energy as a result of that visit. The industry effort to share resources to increase visits to energy education centers is timely, as the percentage of neighbors reporting such visits has declined steadily since 2005-from 49 percent to 32 percent. (See next page).

Percent Who Visited an Energy Education Center

“Some nuclear power plants have a place where people can go to see exhibits and learn more about energy, nuclear energy, and the local nuclear power plant. Have you ever visited a place like that?”

Percentages

Impact of Visit to Energy Education Center

If visited energy education center: “Did that visit give you a more favorable impression of nuclear energy than you had before, a less favorable impression, or did it not make any difference?”

Percentages

67% of those who visited an education center became more favorable, so 21% of all plant neighbors became more favorable to nuclear energy as a result of visiting an energy education center.

68

32

0 25 50 75

No

Yes

1

30

2

67

0 20 40 60 80

Don't know

No difference

Less favorable

More favorable

BRi 68

Percent Who Visited an Energy Education Center

Percent “Yes”

Impact of Visit to Energy Education Center

If visited energy education center: “Did that visit give you a more favorable impression of nuclear energy than you had before, a less favorable impression, or did it not make any difference?” Percentages

49

48

38

32

0 25 50 75

2005

2007

2009

2011

2

41

2

54

1

43

2

54

0

31

4

64

1

30

2

67

0 20 40 60 80

Don't know

No difference

Less favorable

More favorable

2011

2009

2007

2005

BRi 69

Emergency Communications Most plant neighbors (81 percent) feel very or somewhat well informed about what to do in case of an emergency at the plant; 45 percent feel very well informed. Most (81 percent) recall receiving information about what to do in case of an emergency at the plant; 72 percent of the total sample read the information, and 53 percent keep it in a place where it can be found easily. Recall of receiving this information increased from 68 percent in 2005 and 2007 to 76 percent in 2009 and 2011. Also the percent of the total sample that read the information increased from 60 percent in 2005 to 72 percent in 2011. In case of an actual emergency, 50 percent would turn on the radio, 43 percent would turn on the television, and 20 percent would listen for a siren alert. Fewer would refer to written materials. The use of Twitter and Facebook for mass communications is new, but 21 percent said that it would be useful to receive information from the plant through Facebook, and 12 percent through Twitter. During an emergency, those in the South (26 percent) are more likely to find it useful to receive messages sent through Facebook compared with those living in other areas of the country.

BRi 70

Sense of Being Informed about First Thing to Do in Case of an

Emergency at Nearest Nuclear Power Plant

“Do you feel very well informed, somewhat well informed, not too well informed, or not well informed at all about what is the first thing to do in case of an emergency at the nuclear power plant nearest to where you live?”

Percentages

Percent Informed and Very Well Informed About the First Thing to Do in Case of an Emergency at Nearest Nuclear Plant

From 2005 to 2011

18

81

1

9

9

36

45

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know

Not well informed at all

Not too well informed

Somewhat well informed

Very well informed

NOT INFORMED

INFORMED

80 84 87 81

42 47 50

45

2005 2007 2009 2011

Informed Very well informed

BRi 71

Recall of Receiving Information Materials About What to Do

In Case of an Emergency at the Plant “Have you ever received any information from the utility, the nuclear power plant, or a government agency about what to do in case of an emergency at that plant?” If “No” or “Don’t know”: “Have you received a phone book with information about what to do in case of an emergency at that plant?” Percentages

Whether Materials Are Kept Where They Can Be Found Easily

“Do you keep this information in a place where you can find it easily?” Percentages

Whether Materials Were Read

“Have you read this information?” Percentages

1

5

76

81

0 25 50 75 100

Don't know/no answer

Yes, in phone book

Yes, unaided

Yes, total

19

1

26

53

0 20 40 60 80

Did not receive information

Don't know

No

Yes

19

0

8

72

0 20 40 60 80

Did not receive information

Don't know

No

Yes

BRi 72

Percent Who Recall Receiving Information Materials About What to Do

In Case of an Emergency at the Plant (Unaided)

Whether Materials Are Kept Where They Can Be Found Easily

Percentages

68

68

76

76

0 20 40 60 80

2005

2007

2009

2011

32

1

25

42

32

1

24

43

16

1

30

53

19

1

26

53

0 20 40 60 80

Did not receive information

Don't know

No

Yes

2011

2009

2007

2005

BRi 73

Whether Materials Were Read

Percentages

32

0

8

60

32

0

6

61

16

0

8

75

19

0

8

72

0 20 40 60 80

Did not receive information

Don't know

No

Yes

2011

2009

2007

2005

BRi 74

Where to Get Information about the Situation and What Local Residents Should Do

In Case of an Emergency at the Plant

“In the event of an emergency at the nuclear power plant, where or how would you get information about the situation at the plant and what, if anything, local residents should do?”

Percentages

Radio 50 TV 43 Hear siren/alarm 20 Information, information they sent me 10 Booklet or brochure 8 Company website 4 Calendar 3 Police/Fire Dept./FEMA 3 Phone book 2 Automated calls 2 Word of mouth 2 The city/town 1 Emergency broadcast/plan 1 Internet (unspecified) 1 Hospital <1 Don’t know 6

“In case of an emergency at the nearest nuclear power plant, would it be helpful to you to receive information from the plant through…?”

Percentages

Twitter Facebook

No 82

Yes, probably

12 Don’t know 3

Maybe 3

No 71

Yes, probably

21

Maybe 5

Don’t know

3

BRi 75

Helpful to Receive Emergency Information Through Facebook or Twitter: Subgroups (2011)

Percent “Yes, Probably” Facebook Twitter

Men 19 13 Women 24 11

Years lived in the area

Less than 10 30 13 More than 10 20 12

Visit to NPP or energy education center 18 11 College graduate 21 11 Not college graduate 22 13

Age

18-34 48 19 35-54 28 16 55+ 15 9

Children under age 12 living at home 34 19 Women with children under age 12 living at home 45 15

Income

Less than $50,000 20 15 $50-$75,000 28 12 More than $75,000 24 13

Registered voter 21 11 Democrat 22 15 Republican 20 9 Independent 23 11

Region Northeast 19 10 Midwest 21 11 South 26 14 West 17 13

BRi 76

F INDINGS AT A GLANCE : SUMMARY TABLES AND

QUESTIONNAIRE WITH DATA

BRi 77

S U M M A R Y : P L A N T N E I G H B O R S 2 0 0 5 - 2 0 1 1 Percentages 2005 2007 2009 2011

Nuclear energy will be important 89 91 92 87 Agree with:

Renew license of nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards 90 90 93 86 Keep the option to build more nuclear plants 83 84 86 79 Electric utilities should prepare now so new nuclear plants could be built if needed in next decade 81 85 87 80 Definitely build more nuclear plants 73 77 79 72

Favor use of nuclear energy 83 82 84 80 Strongly favor 53 52 58 50

Favorable impression of nearest nuclear power plant and how it has operated recently 87 86 90 86

Very favorable 60 57 63 59 Perceive that majority in community have favorable impression of nearest nuclear power plant 75 73 78 70 Associate nuclear energy with:

Reliability 92 90 92 88 Efficiency 89 90 92 90 Clean air 85 87 89 84 Energy security 85 85 89 81 Job creation N/A N/A 88 85 Affordable electricity/*Affordability *80 *84 *86 83 Affordability Solution for climate change or global warming N/A N/A 68 59

Associate nuclear energy “a lot” with: Reliability 67 65 72 62 Efficiency 68 67 71 63 Clean air 66 66 67 61 Energy security 56 60 63 52 Job creation N/A N/A 58 54 Affordable electricity/*Affordability *50 *53 *50 54 Solution for climate change or global warming N/A N/A 35 29

Consider nearest nuclear power plant safe 85 86 88 83 (Unsafe) (8) (8) (7) (10)

Continues

BRi 78

Percentages 2005 2007 2009 2011

Confident in this company’s ability to operate a nuclear power plant safely 88 87 91 87 The plant helps the local economy N/A N/A 90 87 There are good jobs for local people at the plant and in local businesses that provide services to the plant N/A N/A 89 87 This company is doing a good job of protecting the environment 84 81 86 84 This company is involved in the community 83 77 83 76 I am confident that the company has prepared the plant to withstand the most severe natural events N/A N/A N/A 79

Acceptable to add a new nuclear reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant 76 71 76 67 Feel informed about:

Nearest nuclear power plant 81 79 84 83 The first thing to do in case of an emergency at the nearest nuclear power plant 80 84 87 81

Feel very well informed about: Nearest nuclear power plant 30 32 40 39 The first thing to do in case of an emergency at the nearest nuclear power plant 42 47 50 45

Agree that nuclear waste can be stored safely at the plant site (*until it is moved to a permanent disposal facility) *72 *71 56 50 Agree that the federal government should develop a final disposal facility for nuclear waste as long as it meets U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations N/A N/A N/A 87 Agree it is more appropriate that nuclear waste be transported to (*stored at) 1 or 2 volunteer sites where it can be stored more securely and efficiently N/A N/A *85 79 Agree the U.S. should recycle used nuclear fuel to make more electricity and reduce the amount of nuclear waste N/A N/A 91 87 Think of nuclear waste at nearest NPP as:

Solid N/A N/A N/A 45 Liquid N/A N/A N/A 34 Small amount N/A N/A N/A 27 Large amount N/A N/A N/A 58 Safely contained N/A N/A N/A 82 Not safely contained N/A N/A N/A 12

Not likely that people living near NPPs are exposed to harmful levels of radiation: N/A N/A N/A 57

(Likely) N/A N/A N/A (29) Continues

BRi 79

Percentages 2005 2007 2009 2011

Sources of useful information: Local news media 75 N/A 79 81 Booklets or brochures from your local NPP N/A N/A 78 78 General word of mouth in the community 64 N/A 59 62 People who work at the plant 62 N/A 67 61 Visits to the plant or energy education center 50 N/A 53 50 The Internet 40 N/A 46 50 Local elected officials 48 N/A 49 49 Independent scientists N/A N/A N/A 44 Antinuclear organizations N/A N/A 30 25 Social media, such as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook N/A N/A N/A 19

Accurate and reliable source of information about nuclear energy: Safety, radiation, or environmental experts at your local nuclear power plant N/A N/A 76 68 Booklets or brochures from your local nuclear power plant 71 68 75 74 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 67 66 75 63 People you know who work at your local nuclear power plant 66 64 64 62 Local news media 56 48 55 66 Environmental groups 44 45 42 40 Your local elected officials 35 38 38 40 Antinuclear groups 22 22 19 20 Social media such as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook N/A N/A N/A 21

BRi 80

S U M M A R Y P L A N T N E I G H B O R S 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 1 : G E N D E R Percentages Men Women 2009 2011 2009 2011

Nuclear energy will be important 93 88 92 87 Agree with:

Renew license of nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards 93 88 92 84 Keep the option to build more nuclear plants 90 83 83 74 Electric utilities should prepare now so new nuclear plants could be built if needed in next decade 88 83 86 78 Definitely build more nuclear plants 84 77 76 68

Favor use of nuclear energy 86 83 82 77 Strongly favor 66 57 50 43

Favorable impression of nearest nuclear power plant and how it has operated recently 91 87 89 86

Very favorable 69 61 58 58 Perceive that majority in community have favorable impression of nearest nuclear power plant 79 71 77 69 Associate nuclear energy with:

Reliability 93 88 92 87 Efficiency 93 92 91 88 Clean air 92 89 86 80 Energy security 90 83 89 80 Job creation 88 84 86 86 Affordable electricity/*Affordability *87 87 *86 81 Solution for climate change or global warming 71 62 66 56

Associate nuclear energy “a lot” with: Reliability 77 66 68 58 Efficiency 75 68 68 59 Clean air 74 69 62 54 Energy security 66 58 60 48 Job creation 59 53 57 54 Affordable electricity/*Affordability *56 59 46* 51 Solution for climate change or global warming 42 36 30 23

Consider nearest nuclear power plant safe 90 84 86 83 (Unsafe) (6) (9) (8) (10)

Continues

BRi 81

Percentages Men Women 2009 2011 2009 2011

Confident in this company’s ability to operate a nuclear power plant safely 92 89 90 86 The plant helps the local economy 91 87 89 87 There are good jobs for local people at the plant and in local businesses that provide services to the plant 90 86 89 87 This company is doing a good job of protecting the environment 87 86 85 82 This company is involved in the community 85 77 81 75 I am confident that the company has prepared the plant to withstand the most severe natural events N/A 80 N/A 78

Acceptable to add a new nuclear reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant 82 75 72 60 Feel informed about:

Nearest nuclear power plant 87 86 81 81 The first thing to do in case of an emergency at the nearest nuclear power plant 88 82 86 80

Feel very well informed about: Nearest nuclear power plant 46 44 34 34 The first thing to do in case of an emergency at the nearest nuclear power plant 52 46 49 44

Agree that nuclear waste can be stored safely at the plant site 58 53 54 47 Agree that the federal government should develop a final disposal facility for nuclear waste as long as it meets U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations N/A 88 N/A 85 Agree it is more appropriate that nuclear waste be transported to (*stored at) 1 or 2 volunteer sites where it can be stored more securely and efficiently *87 84 83* 74 Agree the U.S. should recycle used nuclear fuel to make more electricity and reduce the amount of nuclear waste 93 89 90 86 Think of nuclear waste at nearest NPP as:

Solid N/A 58 N/A 34 Liquid N/A 25 N/A 42 Small amount N/A 32 N/A 23 Large amount N/A 54 N/A 62 Safely contained N/A 83 N/A 82 Not safely contained N/A 12 N/A 13

Not likely that people living near NPPs are exposed to harmful levels of radiation: N/A 66 N/A 50

(Likely) N/A (22) N/A (35) Continues

BRi 82

Percentages Men Women 2009 2011 2009 2011

Sources of useful information: Local news media 79 81 78 80 Booklets or brochures from your local NPP 79 76 78 79 General word of mouth in the community 58 62 59 62 People who work at the plant 68 60 66 61 Visits to the plant or energy education center 55 53 51 48 The Internet 49 54 43 47 Local elected officials 48 49 49 49 Independent scientists N/A 48 N/A 41 Antinuclear organizations 29 24 32 27 Social media, such as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook N/A 18 N/A 19

Accurate and reliable source of information about nuclear energy: Safety, radiation, or environmental experts at your local nuclear power plant 78 69 75 66 Booklets or brochures from your local nuclear power plant 74 72 75 76 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 73 64 77 63 People you know who work at your local nuclear power plant 66 61 63 63 Local news media 52 65 57 68 Environmental groups 38 35 45 44 Your local elected officials 36 38 39 41 Antinuclear groups 19 17 20 22 Social media such as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook N/A 18 N/A 23

BRi 83

S U M M A R Y P L A N T N E I G H B O R S 2 0 1 1 : R E G I O N S , P O P U L A T I O N D E N S I T Y , A N D C O L S I T E S

Regions: Percentages

Northeast Midwest South West Nuclear energy will be important 83 87 89 91 Agree with:

Renew license of nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards 77 88 90 88 Keep the option to build more nuclear plants 72 78 83 81 Electric utilities should prepare now so new nuclear plants could be built if needed in next decade 72 81 84 84 Definitely build more nuclear plants 63 70 78 76

Favor use of nuclear energy 71 81 85 81 Strongly favor 39 51 55 52

Favorable impression of nearest nuclear power plant and how it has operated recently 77 90 89 89

Very favorable 47 63 61 68 Perceive that majority in community have favorable impression of nearest nuclear power plant 57 75 73 75 Most important consideration:

Affordable electricity 29 32 32 32 Clean air 31 28 31 29 Reliability 15 15 13 17 Energy security 12 12 12 13 Efficiency 11 10 9 8

Associate nuclear energy with: Reliability 83 90 87 91 Efficiency 85 91 91 91 Clean air 80 84 86 87 Energy security 75 82 85 82 Job creation 81 87 83 92 Affordable electricity 79 82 86 87 Solution for climate change or global warming 57 63 60 55

Associate nuclear energy “a lot” with: Reliability 55 63 63 68 Efficiency 52 67 67 66 Clean air 53 63 65 61 Energy security 41 52 57 58 Job creation 45 55 54 63 Affordable electricity 45 55 59 59 Solution for climate change or global warming 27 33 28 26

Consider nearest nuclear power plant safe 75 87 84 87 (Unsafe) (17) (8) (7) (6)

Continues

BRi 84

Percentages Northeast Midwest South West Confident in this company’s ability to operate a nuclear power plant safely 77 91 91 91 The plant helps the local economy 79 89 88 93 There are good jobs for local people at the plant and in local businesses that provide services to the plant 81 90 86 91 This company is doing a good job of protecting the environment 72 88 88 88 This company is involved in the community 64 72 83 84 I am confident that the company has prepared the plant to withstand the most severe natural events 67 82 81 85 Acceptable to add a new nuclear reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant 55 67 75 68 Feel informed about:

Nearest nuclear power plant 80 87 81 88 The first thing to do in case of an emergency at the nearest nuclear power plant 80 85 78 82

Feel very well informed about: Nearest nuclear power plant 34 38 41 42 The first thing to do in case of an emergency at the nearest nuclear power plant 42 47 45 47

Agree that nuclear waste can be stored safely at the plant site 43 57 48 51 Agree that the federal government should develop a final disposal facility for nuclear waste as long as it meets U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations 87 85 90 83 Agree it is more appropriate that nuclear waste be transported to 1 or 2 volunteer sites where it can be stored more securely and efficiently 78 75 82 77 Agree the U.S. should recycle used nuclear fuel to make more electricity and reduce the amount of nuclear waste 86 88 87 88 Think of nuclear waste at nearest NPP as:

Solid 46 47 44 41 Liquid 33 28 37 39 Small amount 22 26 29 32 Large amount 62 60 56 53 Safely contained 73 88 86 82 Not safely contained 19 8 12 11

Not likely that people living near NPPs are exposed to harmful levels of radiation: 48 64 57 60

(Likely) (40) (22) (28) (27)

Continues

BRi 85

Percentages Northeast Midwest South West Sources of useful information:

Local news media 77 79 85 81 Booklets or brochures from your local NPP 73 82 76 80 General word of mouth in the community 60 64 60 66 People who work at the plant 48 65 63 70 Visits to the plant or energy education center 41 53 52 56 The Internet 48 48 52 53 Local elected officials 47 49 44 60 Independent scientists 44 39 46 48 Antinuclear organizations 27 23 28 21 Social media, such as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook 15 16 21 22

Accurate and reliable source of information about nuclear energy: Safety, radiation, or environmental experts at your local nuclear power plant 59 67 70 75 Booklets or brochures from your local nuclear power plant 64 80 76 79 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 62 62 64 66 People you know who work at your local nuclear power plant 51 65 64 72 Local news media 63 62 71 69 Environmental groups 44 33 42 39 Your local elected officials 44 39 34 45 Antinuclear groups 22 13 25 17 Social media such as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook 16 20 25 21

BRi 86

Population Density: Percentages

High Medium Low Population Population Population Density Density Density

Nuclear energy will be important 82 90 89 Agree with:

Renew license of nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards 81 88 87 Keep the option to build more nuclear plants 73 79 81 Electric utilities should prepare now so new nuclear plants could be built if needed in next decade 75 83 82 Definitely build more nuclear plants 64 74 75

Favor use of nuclear energy 74 81 82 Strongly favor 47 52 50

Favorable impression of nearest nuclear power plant and how it has operated recently 80 88 89

Very favorable 50 61 63 Perceive that majority in community have favorable impression of nearest nuclear power plant 62 65 75 Most important consideration:

Affordable electricity 26 28 34 Clean air 33 34 27 Reliability 15 17 14 Energy security 16 10 11 Efficiency 6 10 11

Associate nuclear energy with: Reliability 84 88 89 Efficiency 85 91 91 Clean air 80 86 86 Energy security 76 82 83 Job creation 75 83 90 Affordable electricity 83 85 83 Solution for climate change or global warming 56 59 60

Associate nuclear energy “a lot” with: Reliability 59 61 63 Efficiency 60 64 64 Clean air 57 63 61 Energy security 45 51 56 Job creation 40 50 61 Affordable electricity 54 53 55 Solution for climate change or global warming 29 29 28

Consider nearest nuclear power plant safe 77 82 86 (Unsafe) (13) (10) (8)

Continues

BRi 87

Percentages High Medium Low Population Population Population Density Density Density

Confident in this company’s ability to operate a nuclear power plant safely 83 88 89 The plant helps the local economy 78 89 90 There are good jobs for local people at the plant and in local businesses that provide services to the plant 78 87 90 This company is doing a good job of protecting the environment 76 86 87 This company is involved in the community 67 76 80 I am confident that the company has prepared the plant to withstand the most severe natural events 72 78 82 Acceptable to add a new nuclear reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant 59 64 71 Feel informed about:

Nearest nuclear power plant 81 86 84 The first thing to do in case of an emergency at the nearest nuclear power plant 79 84 81

Feel very well informed about: Nearest nuclear power plant 35 39 40 The first thing to do in case of an emergency at the nearest nuclear power plant 42 44 47

Agree that nuclear waste can be stored safely at the plant site 42 53 52 Agree that the federal government should develop a final disposal facility for nuclear waste as long as it meets U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations 75 77 81 It is more appropriate that nuclear waste be transported to 1 or 2 volunteer sites where it can be stored more securely and efficiently 75 77 81 The U.S. should recycle used nuclear fuel to make more electricity and reduce the amount of nuclear waste 85 86 89 Think of nuclear waste at nearest NPP as:

Solid 48 45 43 Liquid 33 35 34 Small amount 27 26 27 Large amount 58 61 57 Safely contained 79 82 84 Not safely contained 17 15 10

Not likely that people living near NPPs are exposed to harmful levels of radiation: 59 60 55

(Likely) (29) (27) (30)

Continues

BRi 88

Percentages High Medium Low Population Population Population Density Density Density

Sources of useful information: Local news media 82 79 81 Booklets or brochures from your local NPP 70 83 79 People who work at the plant 53 59 65 General word of mouth in the community 52 60 67 Visits to the plant or energy education center 45 48 53 Local elected officials 42 48 53 The Internet 57 53 46 Antinuclear organizations 25 25 25 Independent scientists 51 41 42 Social media, such as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook 21 15 18

Accurate and reliable source of information about nuclear energy: Safety, radiation, or environmental experts at your local nuclear power plant 66 68 68 Booklets or brochures from your local nuclear power plant 71 75 76 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 63 67 62 People you know who work at your local nuclear power plant 53 57 68 Local news media 69 66 65 Environmental groups 43 37 40 Your local elected officials 36 40 42 Antinuclear groups 23 14 20 Social media such as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook 21 15 22

BRi 89

COL Sites: Percentages

COL Sites Nuclear energy will be important 91 Agree with:

Renew license of nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards 88 Keep the option to build more nuclear plants 82 Electric utilities should prepare now so new nuclear plants could be built if needed in next decade 82 Definitely build more nuclear plants 76

Favor use of nuclear energy 83 Strongly favor 50

Favorable impression of nearest nuclear power plant and how it has operated recently 92

Very favorable 67 Perceive that majority in community have favorable impression of nearest nuclear power plant 79 Most important consideration:

Affordable electricity 29 Clean air 32 Reliability 14 Energy security 12 Efficiency 11

Associate nuclear energy with: Reliability 90 Efficiency 90 Clean air 89 Energy security 83 Job creation 88 Affordable electricity 82 Solution for climate change or global warming 61

Associate nuclear energy “a lot” with: Reliability 67 Efficiency 61 Clean air 66 Energy security 54 Job creation 58 Affordable electricity 53 Solution for climate change or global warming 27

Consider nearest nuclear power plant safe 89 (Unsafe) (6)

Continues

BRi 90

Percentages COL Sites

Confident in this company’s ability to operate a nuclear power plant safely 91 The plant helps the local economy 89 There are good jobs for local people at the plant and in local businesses that provide services to the plant 90 This company is doing a good job of protecting the environment 87 This company is involved in the community 83 I am confident that the company has prepared the plant to withstand the most severe natural events 82 Acceptable to add a new nuclear reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant 73 Feel informed about:

Nearest nuclear power plant 86 The first thing to do in case of an emergency at the nearest nuclear power plant 80

Feel very well informed about: Nearest nuclear power plant 41 The first thing to do in case of an emergency at the nearest nuclear power plant 48

Agree that nuclear waste can be stored safely at the plant site 49 Agree that the federal government should develop a final disposal facility for nuclear waste as long as it meets U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations 86 It is more appropriate that nuclear waste be transported to 1 or 2 volunteer sites where it can be stored more securely and efficiently 83 The U.S. should recycle used nuclear fuel to make more electricity and reduce the amount of nuclear waste 89 Think of nuclear waste at nearest NPP as:

Solid 43 Liquid 36 Small amount 26 Large amount 58 Safely contained 86 Not safely contained 7

Not likely that people living near NPPs are exposed to harmful levels of radiation: 56

(Likely) (32)

Continues

BRi 91

Percentages COL Sites

Sources of useful information: Local news media 81 Booklets or brochures from your local NPP 81 People who work at the plant 64 General word of mouth in the community 65 Visits to the plant or energy education center 54 Local elected officials 54 The Internet 50 Antinuclear organizations 28 Independent scientists 45 Social media, such as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook 20

Accurate and reliable source of information about nuclear energy: Safety, radiation, or environmental experts at your local nuclear power plant 69 Booklets or brochures from your local nuclear power plant 75 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 64 People you know who work at your local nuclear power plant 66 Local news media 68 Environmental groups 46 Your local elected officials 43 Antinuclear groups 24 Social media such as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook 21

BRi 92

QUESTIONNAIRE W ITH DATA

BRi 93

B I S C O N T I R E S E A R C H , I N C . 553 0 G R E Y S T O N E S T R E E T , C H E V Y C H A S E , MD 2 081 5

T E L : 30 1.6 57. 555 6 F A X : 301. 65 7 - 55 44

NATIONAL Questionnaire for Plant Neighbor Survey: June 2011

Introduction We would like your opinions in a national public opinion survey that we are conducting in communities near nuclear power plants across the U.S. Screener Questions: RECORD IF TERMINATED IN X, A, AND B X. NON-ENGLISH SPEAKER, UNABLE TO INTERVIEW—RECORDAND REPORT NUMBER TO BISCONTI

RESEARCH A. Have you, or has anyone in your household, worked at a nuclear power plant during the past year?

2009 2011 Yes TERMINATE 0 0 No 100 100

B. Are you a full-time resident of this area? Yes 100 100 No TERMINATE 0 0

C. Have you lived in this area for 10 or more years? Yes 80 87 No 20 13

D. Is there a nuclear power plant in this area? Yes 100 100 No—SKIP TO DEMOGRAPHICS 0 0 Not sure— SKIP TO DEMOGRAPHICS 0 0

BRi 94

1) How important do you think nuclear energy will be in meeting this nation’s electricity needs in the years ahead? Do you think nuclear energy will be very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not important at all?

2009 2011 Important 92 87 Not important 7 9 Very important 67 62 Somewhat important 25 25 Not too important 4 4 Not important at all 3 5 (Don’t know) 1 4

2) Please tell me if you personally strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree

with the following statements. How about…

Total Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly DK/ AGREE Agree Agree Disagree Disagree NA When their original operating license expires, we should renew the license of nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards 2009 93 71 21 3 4 1 2011 86 62 24 5 8 2 We should keep the option to build more nuclear power plants in the future 2009 86 61 26 6 7 1 2011 79 55 24 7 12 3 Electric utilities should prepare now so that new nuclear power plants could be built if needed in the next decade 2009 87 57 30 5 7 2 2011 80 53 28 6 11 3 We should definitely build more nuclear power plants in the future 2009 79 52 27 11 9 1 2011 72 45 27 10 15 4

BRi 95

3) Overall, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States?

2009 2011 Favor 84 80 Oppose 16 19 Strongly favor 58 50 Somewhat favor 26 30 Somewhat oppose 10 9 Strongly oppose 5 11 (Don’t know) 1 1

4) Thinking of the nuclear power plant closest to where you live, would you describe your general impression

of this plant and the way it has operated recently as very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable?

2009 2011 Favorable 90 86 Unfavorable 9 11 Very favorable 63 59 Somewhat favorable 27 27 Somewhat unfavorable 6 7 Very unfavorable 3 4 (Don’t know) 1 3

5) Do you think that the majority of people in your community have a favorable or unfavorable impression of

this plant? 2009 2011 Favorable 78 70 Unfavorable 12 13 (Don’t know) 10 18

6) I am going to read to you five considerations for the way electricity is produced, and I’d like you to tell me which one is most important to you. … RANDOMIZE.

2009 2011 Affordable electricity7 22 31 Clean air 28 30 Reliability 13 15 Energy security8 24 12 Efficiency 10 10 (None) 1 1 (Don’t know) 3 2

7 Wording in 2011: affordability

8 Wording in 2009: energy independence

BRi 96

7) Do you associate nuclear energy a lot, a little, or not at all with… RANDOMIZE.

Not (Don’t A Lot A Little At All Know) Efficiency 2009 71 21 6 3 2011 63 26 7 4

Reliability 2009 72 20 5 2 2011 62 26 8 4

Clean air 2009 67 22 9 2 2011 61 24 11 5

Job creation 2009 58 30 10 3 2011 54 31 11 4

Affordable electricity9 2009 50 36 8 6 2011 54 29 10 6

Energy security 2009 63 26 8 3 2011 52 29 12 7

Solution for climate change or global warming 2009 35 33 24 8 2011 29 30 28 13

8) Thinking about the nuclear power plant that is nearest to where you live, how safe do you regard this

plant? Please think of a scale from "1" to "7," where "1" means very unsafe and "7" means very safe. The safer you think it is, the higher the number you would give.

2009 2011 High safety rating (5-7) 88 83

7 44 39 6 29 27 5 15 17

Middle (4) 5 6 3 4 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 Low safety rating (1-3) 7 10 (Don’t Know) 1 1

9 Wording in 2009: affordability

BRi 97

9) Now, I’d like to ask you about the company that operates the nuclear power plant nearest to you. Please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements about this company. RANDOMIZE. Total Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly (Don’t AGREE Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know) I am confident in this company’s ability to operate a nuclear power plant safely. 2009 91 65 26 4 3 2 2011 87 60 28 5 5 2 The plant helps the local economy 2009 90 66 24 5 3 2 2011 87 61 26 5 4 4 There are good jobs for local people at the plant and in local businesses that provide services to the plant. 2009 89 61 28 5 3 3 2011 87 57 29 4 4 5 This company is doing a good job of protecting the environment. 2009 86 52 33 5 4 5 2011 84 51 33 6 5 6 I am confident that the company has prepared the plant to withstand the most severe natural events that may occur in this region. 2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2011 79 49 30 6 9 6 This company is involved in the community. 2009 83 50 33 6 4 7 2011 76 47 29 6 6 12

10) If a new power plant were needed to supply electricity, would it be acceptable to you or not acceptable to

you to add a new nuclear reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant? 2009 2011 Acceptable 76 67 Not acceptable 21 28 (Don’t know) 2 5

BRi 98

10a. What are the main reasons why it would be acceptable/not acceptable to you to add a new nuclear reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant?

Percentages Those saying Those saying not acceptable Total acceptable or don’t know Positive (NET) 61 90 2 Need and benefits (SUBNET) 31 46 0

Need the power/energy, need to build, plan for future needs 16 24 0 Economical, affordable 8 12 0 Clean air, not polluting 5 8 0 Efficient 4 5 0 Reliable, can count on it 2 4 0 Energy independence, not rely no foreign energy/oil 2 2 0 Not fossil fuel/coal/oil 2 3 0 Climate change, global warming solution <1 <1 0

Economy and jobs (SUBNET) 16 24 <1

Jobs 14 20 <1 Economy 5 7 0

Local plant and company is good (SUBNET) 15 22 1

Local plant is good, performs well, is safe 15 22 1 Company operating the plant is good 1 2 0 Good people work there, confident in people who work there 1 1 0

Nuclear energy is good/safe (SUBNET) 9 13 0

Good source, like nuclear 4 6 0 Safe 4 7 0 New plants safer 1 1 0

Other positives (SUBNET) 7 10 1

There is already a plant there/ infrastructure there 7 10 1 No natural disasters in area <1 <1 0

continues

BRi 99

Percentages Those saying Those saying not acceptable Total acceptable or don’t know Negative (NET) 28 1 80 Danger, accidents, unsafe (SUBNET) 13 <1 39

Dangerous, not safe 8 <1 22 Mention Japan, Fukushima 2 0 7 Radiation, leaks 2 0 4 Accident, explosions, could blow up 1 0 3 Harmful to people, people sick around here 1 0 4 Natural disasters could happen, earthquakes, tornados, fires 1 0 4 More reactors would increase the danger <1 0 1 Terrorist target, security risk <1 0 1

Environment, waste (SUBNET) 4 <1 12

Waste 3 <1 8 Bad for environment, pollutes 1 0 4

Negative to plant/company (SUBNET) 3 <1 9

Local plant is not good, not safe, lot of problems 3 <1 8 Company operating the plant not good, don’t trust them 1 0 3

Other (SUBNET) 12 1 32

Don’t need another one 6 1 17 Use other sources, prefer solar, etc. 3 <1 8 Expensive, rates will go up 1 <1 2 Bad source, don’t like nuclear 1 0 4 Don’t like living that close to one 1 0 2 Don’t want growth, traffic will increase <1 0 1 Save energy first, energy efficiency, conservation <1 0 <1 People don’t like it, public against nuclear energy <1 0 1 Electricity created is shipped/sold away <1 0 1

Neutral or Conditional (NET) 5 5 4

OK if we really need it 3 4 0 OK if not near me 1 <1 3 Need more information <1 <1 1 OK if safe <1 <1 <1

Don’t know 4 6 1 No answer/refused 5 0 16

BRi 100

11) Let’s imagine that more electricity is needed in your area sometime in the future and an electric company wants to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that is already operating. Please tell me if each of the following points would make you much more inclined, somewhat more inclined, or no more inclined to support a decision to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant. How about... RANDOMIZE.

Much Somewhat No More More More (Don’t Inclined Inclined Inclined Know) Nuclear energy helps reduce America’s dependence on foreign energy sources. 2009 66 22 11 1 2011 57 22 18 3

The independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a federal oversight organization of highly trained scientists and engineers, certifies nuclear power plant designs and inspects and monitors each nuclear power plant daily. If a plant is not safe, the regulator will shut it down until its safety improves.

2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2011 54 25 20 2

Planning for the unthinkable makes our plants safer. That’s why more layers of precaution were added after 9-11 to protect against unimaginable events, and, if additional layers of precaution are needed here as a result of lessons learned from Japan, they will be made. 2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2011 53 26 19 2

We should plan for our energy future so we are not caught unprepared. As our economy and population grow, reliable and affordable sources of electricity like nuclear energy will be needed. 2009 60 26 13 1 2011 52 28 19 1

Each new reactor adds hundreds of good jobs and careers, and the company will train local people for careers there. 2009 60 26 14 1 2011 52 26 21 1

(Split sample) Every nuclear power plant has multi-layered back-up safety systems and an automatic safe shutdown mechanism. 2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2011 51 27 20 2

(Split sample) We protect the public and our workers with state-of-the-art technology that layers precaution on top of precaution, including four-feet-thick containment buildings that surround the reactor, as well as safety systems that function even in the event of an emergency.

2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2011 50 27 22 2

Nuclear energy provides 70 percent of America’s carbon-free energy and produces electricity 24 hours a day every day. 2009 59 28 11 2 2011 47 30 20 2

BRi 101

12) Do you feel very well informed, somewhat well informed, not too well informed, or not well informed at all about the nuclear power plant nearest to where you live?

2009 2011 Informed 84 83 Not informed 16 16 Very well informed 40 39 Somewhat well informed 44 45 Not too well informed 11 9 Not well informed at all 5 7 Don’t know 1 1

13) Please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the

following statements about nuclear waste management.

Total Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly (Don’t AGREE Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know) Nuclear waste can be stored safely at the plant site. 2009 56 21 35 15 22 7 2011 50 19 30 15 24 12 It is more appropriate that nuclear waste be transported to 1 or 2 volunteer sites where it can be stored securely and efficiently.10 2009 85 58 27 5 6 5 2011 79 48 30 6 9 6 The federal government should develop a final disposal facility for nuclear waste as long as it meets U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. 2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2011 87 64 23 3 8 2 The U.S should recycle used nuclear fuel to make more electricity and reduce the amount of nuclear waste. 2009 91 69 22 1 3 4 2011 87 66 21 2 5 6

10

In 2009, wording was slightly different: “It is more appropriate that nuclear waste be stored at 1 or 2 volunteer sites where it can be stored more securely and efficiently.”

BRi 102

14) Do you think of nuclear waste at your nearest power plant as something that is… or…

2011 Solid or 45 Liquid 34 (Don’t know) 21 Small amount or 27 Large amount 58 (Don’t know) 15 Safely contained or 82 Not safely contained 12 (Don’t know) 5

15) Please think of a scale from “1” to “7,” where “1” means “not likely at all” and “7” means “very likely.” Using this scale, how likely would you say it is that people living near a nuclear power plant are exposed to harmful levels of radiation? The more likely you think it is, the higher the number you would give it.

2011 Not likely (1-3) 57

1 30 2 15 3 12

Middle (4) 11 5 14 6 5 7 10

Likely (5-7) 29 (Don’t Know) 3

16) Do you feel very well informed, somewhat well informed, not too well informed, or not well informed at all about what is the first thing to do in case of an emergency at the nuclear power plant nearest to where you live?

2009 2011 Informed 87 81 Not informed 13 18 Very well informed 50 45 Somewhat well informed 37 36 Not too well informed 8 9 Not well informed at all 5 9 (Don’t know) 0 1

BRi 103

17) In the event of an emergency at the nuclear power plant, where or how would you get information about the situation at the plant and what, if anything, local residents should do?

2011 Radio 50 TV 43 Hear siren/alarm 20 Information, information they sent me 10 Booklet or brochure 8 Company website 4 Calendar 3 Police/Fire Dept./FEMA 3 Phone book 2 Automated calls 2 Word of mouth 2 The city/town 1 Emergency broadcast/plan 1 Internet (unspecified) 1 Hospital <1 Don’t know 6

18) Have you ever received any information from the utility, the nuclear power plant, or a government agency about what to do in case of an emergency at that plant?

2009 2011 Yes 76 76* No 15 21 (Not sure) 2 4 (No answer) 8 0

*81% received this information separately or in the phone book. (If any yes on Q18 or 18a): 18b. Do you keep this information in a place where you can find it easily?

2009 2011 Yes 53 53 No 30 26 (Don’t know) 1 1 (Not asked) 16 19

(If any yes on Q18 or 18a):18c. Have you read this information?

2009 2011 Yes 75 72 No 8 8 (Don’t know) 0 <1 (Not asked) 16 19

(If no or not sure on Q18) 18a. Have you received a phone book with information about what to do in case of an emergency at that plant? Yes 20* No 63 (Don’t know/no answer) 17

BRi 104

19) In case of an emergency at the nearest nuclear power plant, would it be helpful to you to receive information from the plant through…And how about…

a. Twitter? Yes, probably 12 Maybe 3 No 82 (Don’t know) 3

b. Facebook? Yes, probably 21 Maybe 5 No 71 (Don’t know) 3

20) How useful has each of the following been as a source of information about the nuclear power plant

nearest to you—very useful, somewhat useful, not too useful, or not useful at all? RANDOMIZE. Not (Don’t Total Very Somewhat Not Too Useful Know/Not USEFUL Useful Useful Useful At All Applicable) Local news media 2009 79 35 44 9 11 1 2011 81 44 36 9 8 2 Booklets or brochures from your local nuclear power plant 2009 78 43 36 7 10 5 2011 78 46 31 5 11 6 General word of mouth in the community 2009 59 22 37 19 20 2 2011 62 25 37 16 18 4 People who work at the plant 2009 67 37 30 10 15 8 2011 61 34 27 10 18 11 Visits to the plant or energy education center 2009 53 28 25 11 22 14 2011 50 27 23 10 22 18 The Internet 2009 46 20 26 13 23 19 2011 50 25 25 11 30 10 Local elected officials 2009 49 17 32 22 27 3 2011 49 17 32 18 28 4 Independent scientists 2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2011 44 18 26 13 28 15 Antinuclear organizations 2009 30 9 21 19 41 10 2011 25 8 18 16 46 13 Social media, such as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook 2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2011 19 7 12 11 56 14

BRi 105

21) Please tell me if you think each of the following would be an excellent, good, fair, or poor source of accurate and reliable information about nuclear energy. RANDOMIZE. Excellent Don’t or Good Excellent Good Fair Poor Know Booklets or brochures from your local nuclear power plant 2009 75 33 42 17 7 2 2011 74 34 41 14 8 4 Safety, radiation, or environmental experts at your local nuclear power plant 2009 76 40 36 15 5 3 2011 68 31 36 17 9 7 Local news media 2009 55 17 38 32 12 1 2011 66 24 43 23 9 2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2009 75 36 39 15 6 3 2011 63 27 37 20 10 7 People you know who work at your local nuclear power plant 2009 64 32 33 19 8 9 2011 62 30 32 14 10 15 Environmental groups 2009 42 12 30 31 24 4 2011 40 13 27 27 25 8 Your local elected officials 2009 38 10 28 37 24 2 2011 40 11 29 30 26 4 Social media such as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook 2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2011 21 6 14 19 44 17 Antinuclear groups 2009 19 6 14 27 47 6 2011 20 6 14 24 46 11

BRi 106

22) Some nuclear power plants have a place where people can go to see exhibits and learn more about energy, nuclear energy, and the local nuclear power plant. Have you ever visited a place like that?

2009 2011 Yes 38 32 No 62 68

22a. (IF YES TO Q22):Did that visit give you a more favorable impression of nuclear energy than you had before, a less favorable impression, or did it not make any difference?

2009 2011 More favorable 24 21* Less favorable 2 1 No difference 12 10 (Don’t know) 0 <1 (Not asked) 62 68 *67% of those who visited an energy education center became more favorable as a result; 21% of all plant neighbors became more favorable as a result of visiting an energy education center.

I need to ask a few quick demographic questions to be sure we have a representative sample. 23) Do you have children under age 12 living in your home?

2009 2011 Yes 16 16 No 84 83 (Don’t know, no answer) 0 1

24) What was the highest level of school you completed?

2009 2011 Some grade school 3 5 Graduated high school 27 29 Technical/vocational school 3 2 Some college 20 22 Graduated college 32 27 Graduate school 13 14 (Don’t know, no answer) 1 1

25) Is your age ... 2009 2011 18 to 20 1 1 21 to 34 6 6 35 to 44 12 12 45 to 54 21 22 55 to 64 24 24 65 or older 35 35 (Don’t know, no answer) 1 2

BRi 107

26) To give us your best guess of the total annual income of your total household, is it…? 2009 2011 Less than $50,000 34 35 $50-75,000 22 20 More than $75,000 32 30 (Don’t know, no answer) 12 15

27) Are you currently registered to vote? 2009 2011

Yes 94 91 No (THANKS & END) 5 8 (Don’t know/refused) (THANKS & END) 1 1 If yes on Q27: Do you consider yourself…

2009 2011

A Democrat 25 27 A Republican 30 28 An Independent 29 27 Or something else WRITE IN___________________ 6 9 (Not asked) 11 9

END: Thank you very much for giving us your opinions! RECORD (DO NOT ASK)

2009 2011 Male 45 45 Female 55 55

RECORD Zip code ________________