Two professors, one from UNLV and the other from the University of Nevada, Reno, have released a report of their recently completed study, which explores perceived risk perceptions - and the economic values people place on those perceived risks - of transporting high-level radioactive waste to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain.

The study was authored by Mary Riddel, associate director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and an assistant professor of economics at UNLV, and W. Douglass Shaw, associate professor in the department of applied economics at the University of Nevada, Reno. The study was funded through a UNLV-sponsored grant.

Using an economic method for valuing risk, Riddel and Shaw surveyed 343 Southern Nevada residents about their perceptions of the health risks associated with having the high-level nuclear waste transported near their homes. The people surveyed estimated the risk to be thousands of times higher than the engineering estimates reported by the Department of Energy (DOE).

"On average, respondents reported that their perceived increased risk of death associated with transporting the waste would be 734 deaths per 100,000 residents, about half the risk of dying in an automobile accident," Riddel said. "This value is thousands of times higher than the engineering-based risk calculation for transporting the wastes reported by the DOE of 0.02 deaths per 100,000 residents."

Based upon the respondents' risk perceptions, the study also sought to estimate the perceived value people would place on the health and safety lost by the transporting of nuclear waste near their homes - an assessment that Riddel said had not been studied before nor included in any cost report on the Yucca Mountain Project.

"Although DOE engineers estimate the risks to be much lower than what respondents perceive it to be, our study indicates that people will act based on their beliefs. Their subjective assessment of the risk is what is relevant for estimating the economic impacts of the transportation routes," the report states.

Based upon risk perceptions, the study's authors asked respondents if they would stay at their current residence or relocate to protect themselves for different compensation amounts.

Riddel said that by using statistical models, the authors were able to determine what amount exactly compensated each household for bearing the health and safety risks from transporting high-level nuclear waste near their homes. The authors found that the average annual value of the safety losses was estimated to be $10,000 per household.

"If Clark County alone is considered, the present value of the safety losses for residents during the 30 years that nuclear waste is transported to Yucca Mountain could be $36.9 billion dollars, assuming a 15 percent rate of return on investment," Riddel said. "One may argue that the federal government has no intention of compensating for social welfare losses due to health and safety risks; nevertheless, the risks are still borne by households near the transportation route and should be included in an accounting of Yucca Mountain's project costs."

For a copy of the study or questions about the methodology, call Mary Riddel at (702) 895-3191 or Douglass Shaw at (775) 784-6785.