ML20058H658

Socioeconomic Impacts of Nuclear Generating Stations:Peach Bottom Case Study.Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278. (Philadelphia Electric Company)

ML20058H658
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	07/31/1982
From:	Pijawka K MOUNTAIN WEST RESEARCH, INC., SOCIAL IMPACT RESEARCH, INC.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
References
CON-FIN-B-6268 NUREG-CR-2749, NUREG-CR-2749-V08, NUREG-CR-2749-V8, NUDOCS 8208060357
Download: ML20058H658 (217)

Text

NUREG/CR-2749 Vol. 8 1

(

Socioeconomic Impacts of Nuclear Generating Stations Peach Bottom Case Study Prepared by K. D. Pijawka/MWRl Mountain West Research, Inc.

with Social Impact Research, Inc.

Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission hDR DO O 0277 P PDR

~ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ____ m _. . _ _ _ ___m__ ____ _ _ _ _ . _ m, __ _. . _ m_. _

1 r

\1 4

NOTICE f f

This report was prepared es an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their ,

j employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability of re-1 sponsibihty for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, l product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

f i

4

, l I

f Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:

1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W. l Washington, DC 20555

\ 2. The NRC/GPO Sales Program, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Washington, DC 20555 l

3. The National Technical information Servic.e. Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive. .

l Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu- I

' ment Room include NRC correspondence and ir,ternal NRC memoranda; NRC Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices:

Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence, i

The following documents in the NUREG senes are available for purchase from the NRC/GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of

Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.

t Documents available from the National Technical information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by Ihe Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

i I

Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federaf and J state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.

Single copics of NRC dratt reports are available free upon written request to the Division of Tech-l I

nical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are msintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are Amrrican National Standards, from the American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.

i GPO Printed copy price $7.00

l l

NUREG/CR-2749 Vol. 8 l RE 1

=  ::  :

Socioeconomic Impacts of Nuclear Generating Stations Peach Bottom Case Study

. - _ - - - - _ - - _ ___:---___--_..__._^

Manuscript Completed: January 1982 Date Published: July 1982 Prepared by K. D. Pijawka, Mountain West Research, Inc.

Mountain West Re,earch, Inc.

1414 W. Broadway Suite 228 Tempe, AZ 85282 Social Impact Research, Inc.

Areis Building, Suite 427 236S Eastlake Avenue East Seattle, WA 98101 Prepared for Division of Health, Siting and Waste Management Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 NRC FIN B6268

k l

ABSTRACT This report documents a case study of the socioeconomic impacts of the construction and operation of the peach Bottom nuclear power station. It is part of a major post-licensing study of the socioeconomic impacts at twelve nuclear power stations. The case study covers the period beginning with the announcement of plans to construct the reactor and ending in the period, 1980-81. The case study deals with changes in the economy, population, settlement patterns and housing, local government and public services, social structure, and public response in the study area during the construction /

cp; ration of the reactor.

A regional modeling approach is used to trace the impact of construction / operation on th2 local economy, labor market, and housing market. Emphasis in the study is on the attribution of socioeconomic impacts to the reactor or other causal factors. As part of the study of local public response to the construction / operation of the reactor, the effects of the Three Mile Island accident are examined.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The NRC Post-Licensing Studies 1 1.1.1 Objectives of the Post-Licensing Studies 1 1.1.2 Components of the Post-Licensing Studies 2 1.1.3 Three Mile Island 4 1.2 Overview of the Case Study Organization 4 CHAPTER 2r OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 11 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 Location 11 2.3 The Utility 13 2.3.1 Corporate Background 13 2.3.2 Service Area 15 2.3.3 Generating Capacity and Production 15 2.4 The Project 15 2.4.1 Project Site 15 2.4.2 The Plant 17 2.5 Construction 17 2.5.1 Announcement 17 2.5.2 Schedule and Cost 18 2.5.3 Construction Phase Work Force 18 2.5.4 Construction Experience 20 2.6 Operations 22 2.6.1 Schedule and Cost 22 2.6.2 Work Force 22 2.6.3 Operating Experience 22 2.6.4 Refueling and Major Repairs 24 2.7 Taxes 25 2.8 Corporate / Community Programs 26 2.8.1 Emergency Planning 26 2.8.2 Visitors' Center 28 2.8.3 Other 28 2.9 Major Events Chronology 29 y

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE CHAPTER 3: IDENTIFICATION OF THE STUDY AREA 31 3.1 Introduction 31 3.2 The Study Region 32 3.2.1 Description of the Region 32 3.2.2 Identification of Places within the Region 34 3.3 Distribution of Direct Project Effects within the Region 35 3.3.1 Distribution of Direct Basic Employment by Place of Work 36 3.3.2 Distribution of Direct Basic Workers by Place of Residence 36 3.4 Distribution of Purchases 40 3.5 Distribution of Taxes 40 3.6 Selection of Study Area 41 l

3.6.1 Area Selected 41 3.6.2 Rationale 41 CHAPTER 4: ECONOMY OF THE STUDY AREA 44 4.1 Introduction 44 4.2 Economic History of the Study Area 44 4.3 Changes in the Economy during the Study Period 46 4.3.1 Employment 46 i 4.3.2 Labor Force 49 4.3.3 Standard of Living 50 .

1 4.4 Economic Changes in the Study Area due to the Project 51 4.4.1 Employment and Income Effects due to l

Construction of the Plant,1973 55 4.4.2 Employment and Income Effects due to Operation of the Plant,1978 64 4.4.3 Summary of the Economic Effects on the Study Area,1973 and 1978 67

4.5 Effects of the Project on the Study Area Economy, 1967-1978 68 l

l vi

l TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE CHAPTER 5: POPULATION 72 5.1 Introduction 72 5.2 Demographic Trends 72 5.3 Changes in the Population during the Study Period 75 5.4 Population Effects due to the Project 77 5.4.1 Introduction 77 5.4.2 Population Effects during the Construction Period 77 5.4.3 Population Effects during the Operation Period 83 5.4.4 Summary 86 CHAPTER 6: SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND HOUSING 90 6.1 Introduction 90 6.2 Settlement Patterns 90 6.2.1 FactorsInfluencing the Settlement of the Study Area 90 6.2.2 Population Distribution 93 6.3 Housing 94 CHAPTER 7: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES 101 7.1 Introduction 101 7.2 Government Struct tre 101 7.3 The Budget during the Study Period (1967 - 1979) 104 7.3.1 The Budget 104 7.3.2 Revenues 106 7.3.3 Expenditures 112 7.4 Selected Public Services 113 7.4.1 Education 113 7.4.2 Transportation 117 7.4.3 Public Safety 122 7.4.4, Social Services 124 7.5 Summary 125 vii ,

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE CHAPTER 8: SOCIAL STRUCTURE 126 8.1 Introduction 126 8.2 Social Structure at the Beginning of the Study Period (1969) 126 8.2.1 Identification of Groups 126 8.2.2 Group Profiles 127 8.2.3 Interrelationships among the Groups 135 8.3 Distribution of Project Effects to Groups 138 8.3.1 New Groups: The Construction Workers 138 8.3.2 Distribution of Economic, Demographic, Housing and Settlement Patterns, and Public Service Effects to Groups 140 8.4 Summary of the Effects of the Project on Groups 148 8.5 Changes in the Interrelationships among the Groups 152 8.5.1 Introduction 152 8.5.2 Economic 152 8.5.3 Political 154 8.5.4 Social 156 CHAPTER 9: PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THE PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION 158 9.1 Introduction 158 9.2 Response during the Pre-Construction Period 158 9.2.1 Announcement 158 9.2.2 Siting 159 9.2.3 Hearings 159 9.2.4 The AEC Construction Permit 160 9.3 Response during the Construction Period 160 l 9.3.1 Operating License Hearings:

The Regional Context 160 9.3.2 The Operation License Hearings 162 9.3.3 Concern over the Fulton Nuclear Plant 165 9.3.4 The Tax Issue 165 viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE 9.4 Response during the Operation Period 166 9.4.1 The Waste Transportation Issue 166 9.4.2 Response to the Accident at Three Mile Island 167 I 9.5 Summary 170 9.5.1 Measuring Public Concern over the Peach Bottom Plant 170 9.5.2 Effect of Regional Response on Groups in the Study Area 175 CHAPTER 10: EVALUATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE PEACH BOTTOM NUCLEAR STATION 176 10.1 Introduction 176 10.2 Evaluation of Projects Effects by Groups in the Study Area 176 10.3 Significance of the Plant 185 10.3.1 Magnitude and Relative Importance of Effects 185 10.3.2 The Impact of the Three Mile Island (TMI)

Accident on the Peach Bottom Area 190 10.3.3 Community Well-Being 192 BIBLIOGRAPHY 193 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 198 i

ix

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE NUMBER TITLE NUMBER 1-1 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post-Licensing Study, Case Study Sites 3 1-2 Case Study Organization 5 2-1 Location of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 12 l 2-2 Philadelphia Electric Company Service Area 16 2-3 Average Daily Construction Work Force, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 19 3-1 Study Region: Four Counties in Pennsylvania and Maryland 33 3-2 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Study Area:

Delta and Peach Bottom Township 42  ;

4-1 Estimation of Project-Related Economic and Demographic Impacts 54 5-1 Population of Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township, 1900-1979 73 7-1 Revenues and Expenditures, Peach Bottom Township, 1968-1978 107 9-1 Measurement of Public Concern over the Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant: Reports in the Communi-cations Media, York Dispatch, 1958-1979 171 l

l x

l

I LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE NUMBER TITLE NUMBER 1

2-1 Average Annual Construction Work Force, Peach Bottom Atomic Generating Plant, 1967-1974 21 2-2 Average Annual Operations Work Force, Peach Bottom Atomic Generating Plant, 1974-1979 23 2-3 Total Tax Payments for the Peach Bottom Atomic Plant, Units 2 and 3,1974-1978 27 2-4 Chronology of Major Events 30 3-1 Peach Bottom Atomic Generating Plant, Payroll Operations Work Force, by Place of Residence,1973 37 3-2 Peach Bottom Atomic Generating Plant, Payroll Operations Work Force, by Place of Residence,1978 39 4-1 Employment by Major Sector, Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township,1960 48 4-2 Direct Basic Employment and Income in the Study Area,1973 56

4-3 Total Project-Related Employment and Income, j Peach Bottom Township and Delta Borough,1973 65 t

5-1 Population and Population Change, Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township,1960, 1970,1975, and 1979 76 5-2 Project-Related Employment by Type of Worker, Peach Bottom Township and Delta Borough,1973 78 5-3 Employment and Population Increase due to In-Migration, Delta Borottgh and Peach Bottom Township,1973 80 5-4 Population Increase due to In-Migration of Basic Workers and Household Members, Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township, 1967 to 1974 81 xi

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

TABLE PAGE NUMBER TITLE NUMBER 5-5 Population Increase due to Diminished Out-Migration, Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township, 1967-1974 84 5-6 Total Population Increase due to the Construction of Peach Bottom Atomic Generating Station, Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township, 1967-1974 85 5-7 Population Increase due to the Operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Plant, Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township,1974 to 1979 87 5-8 Population Change due to Construction and Operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Plant, Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township, 1967-1979 88 6-1 Land Use, Peach Bottom Township,1971 and 1976 96 6-2 Number of Housing Units, Peach Bottom Township, 1970-1979 97 7-1 Revenues Receipts, Delta Borough, 1965,1970, 1973,1975 105 7-2 Study Area Budget, Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township, 1969-1975 108 7-3 Revenue Contribution of Peach Bottom Atomic Generating Plant to the Peach Bottom Township, 1969-1978 109 7-4 Peach Bottom Township, Actual and Potential Property Tax Revenues Based on 1969 Tax Rate, 1970-1976 111 7-5 Revenues and Expenditures, Southeastern School District, 1968-1979 114 7-6 Share of Total Revenue by Source, Southeastern School District, 1973-1978 115 i

l 7-7 Total School Enrollment and Impact of the Nuclear Facility, Southeastern School District, 1968-1978 118 l xii

i LIST OF TABLES (Continued) l TABLE PAGE NUMBER TITLE NUMBER 7-8 Highway and Street Expenditures, Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township, 1969-1975 120 l 7-9 Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township, Average Daily Traffic Volume at Three Selected Points, 1966,1972, and 1975 121 7-10 Expenditures for Public Safety in the Study Area 1969-1975 123 8-1 Employment and Income Effects, Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township,1972 and 1978 141 8-2 Employment and Income Effects Distributed to Five Social Groups, Peach Bottom Township and Delta Borough, '.973 and 1978 142 8-3 Approximate Distribution of Population Effects by Group, Peach Bottom Township and Delta Borough,1973 145 9-1 Summary of Major Issues over the Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant, by Time, Issue, Participants, LocalInvolvement, and Resolution 172 xiii

NRC POST-LICENSING STUDY NRC Project Coordinators:

Donald Cleary Michael Kaltman Clark Prichard Project Director:

l James A. Chalmers, Mountain West Research,Inc.

t Research Team:

i I

Pamela A. Bergmann, Mountain West Research,Inc.

Kristi Branch, Mountain West Research,Inc.

David Pijawka, Mountain West Research, Inc.

Cynthia Flynn, SocialImpact Research,Inc.

James Flynn, SocialImpact Research, Inc.

l Report Production:

Charlene Samson Riedell, Editor and Manager Shirley Dawson Janet E. Vriens l Patricia G. World l Timothy Stallcup l Linda Manney l

Graphics:

Dee Fuerst Technical Editing:

Marsha Weisiger l

XV

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 The NRC Post-Licensing Studies This report-the case study of the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station located in York County, Pennsylvania-is one of a series of reports that are being prepared as part of the NRC Post-Licensing Studies. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the objectives of the NRC Post-Licensing Studies, the major components of the studies, and the relationship of research concerning Three Mile Island to the overall study t

plan, and the organization of this case study report.

l 1.1.1 Objectives of the Post-Licensine Studies The Post-Licensing Studies have four main objectives: to determine the socio-economic effects of nuclear power stations; to ascertain the significance of'these effects to individuals and groups affected; to identify the determinants of the effects and their significance; and to determine whether currently available assessment methodology could have been used to anticipate the most significant of these effects.

Each of the latter three objectives depends upon clear identification of the effects of the nuclear station-the difference in the socioeconomic conditions as they occurred with the station and those that would have prevailed had the station not been built. Once the effects have been identified and their incidence among groups estab-lished, they must be placed in the context of the values of the individuals affected by them to determine their significance. The explication of the effects, the evaluation of those effects, and their significance to local residents permits an analyti:s consideration of the overall evaluation and the response of local residents to the presence of the nuc-lear facility in or near their communities.

Af ter determining the patterns of effects caused by the facilities and the meaning of the effects to local residents across sites, the Post-Licensing Studies will turn to an examination of the causes of the documented effects. It is necessary to know what combination of site, project, or other circumstantial determinants appears to be respon-sible for the effects that ensued and for the levels of significance attached to them by local residents. In short, some plausible explanation for the consequences of constructing and operating the stations must be developed.

1 l

The final objective of the Post-Licensing Studies is somewhat different from the preceding three in that it is directly concerned with the methodology of the socioeconomic-assessment process. The central question is whether there are assessment methods currently available that could have been used to foresee the most significant of the socioeconomic effects associated with the nuclear plant. Based on the answer to this question, recommendations will be developed with respect to the assessment methods that can most appropriately be applied to anticipate the effects of the construction and operation of nuclear generating stations.

1.1.1 Components of the Post-Lie ===i== Studies The Post-Licensing Studies have three distinct components: the individual case studies, the cross-site analysis, and the methodo!ogical recommendations. The individual case studies are being conducted at twelve sites, as listed in Figure 1-1. The twelve case study reports will meet the first two objectives of the study. They will establish the social and economic effects of the nuclear station, and they will determine the signifi-l cance of the effects for those persons affected by them.

Once the twelve case studies have been completed, work will begin on the part of the study referred to as the cross-site analysis. The results from all twelve case studies will be utilized to identify more specifically the causal mechanisms responsible for the effects that occurred. Of particular importance will be the establishment of the relative roles of site characteristics, project characteristics, and external forces in determining the consequences of constructing and operating a nuclear plant. The objective is to understand why effects occurred as they did and . what was responsible for the significance they assumed. It must be remembered that twelve case studies is a very small sample and will not support rigorous statistical analysis of postulated causal relationships. At the same time, twelve comparable observations are more than have heretofore been available, and it is anticipated that the cross-site analysis will contribute substantially toward an understanding of why the socioeconomic effects occurred as they did and what determined the significance of the effects for the individuals affected by them.

The final component of the study will develop recommendations for methods to be applied in assessing the social and economic effects of proposed projects. The recom-mendations will be based on an evaluation of the relative success that various assessment methods would have had in anticipating the most significant effects of the twelve l

2 l

ll

[ e ic

/ L u

k c .

ie l

." f s

y t

p nd f i r "

zei on a f r n C u ls" t

iip S FN I

le .

M i

N

_ e' e i R

e v w O h r

l s

I S T a e k ts S o y I o r M C M

C9

='

O '

S C E L

Y p MI R Y O D s o

T U S s A T E n L S T U I r A 8 G S -

E G

N Y R I S D R N U E T A C S E I L L C E

- S U T A N S C O

S P E

T l a

A T

S -

e D -

E -

T I

N U

1 1

E R

U o G

I

_ c e

F S n

= o l oyo c bn n aa R

o iD C

• . w

'f I Il l

nuclear stations.

Based on these results, methodological recommendations will be made, with an attempt to indicate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives.

1.1.3 Three Mile Island Since Three Mile Island was one of the case-study sites, the scope of the Post-Licensing Studies was expanded to include an analysis of the social and economic effects  !

of the accident on the residents of south-central Pennsylvania. Because a reliable data base was necessary to support this effort, the NRC Telephone Survey of 1,500 households was conducted in late iuly (Flynn,1979). Since that time, an additional report was prepared. This report described the social and economic consequences of the accident during the six-month period from the end of March through September (Flynn and Chalmers,1980).

Because of the unique circumstances surrounding the accident, the research at Three Mile Island will culminate in an individual report with two major parts. Part I will describe the pre-construction, construction, and operating experience of the station from late 1966 through 27 March 1979. This part will be based on the same methodology being used at the other eleven nuclear station sites and will be directly comparable to those case study reports. Part II will describe the emergency and the post-emergency periods covering the period from 28 March through the summer of 1981.

In addition to the expanded effort at the Three Mile Island site itself, the accident will affect the Post-Licensing Studies in one other way. Each of the case study sites will be examined for consequences of the Three Mile Island accident. There are two possibili-ties: the accident may have directly affected social or economic conditions at other sites, or the accident may have caused recognized effects to be evaluated in a different way and, therefore, to assume increased significance in the eyes of local residents. Both possibilities will be investigated.

1.7. Overview of the Case Study Organization As was explained above, the purposes of the individual case study reports are to describe the socioeconomic effects of the construction and operation of the nuclear station that were experienced by residents of the area being studied and to indicate the significance of those effects to the individuals and groups affected. Each report contains ten chapters, the contents of which are summarized in Figure 1-2.

4 I _ _ _

CHAPT 89 Ie INTRODUCTION 1r CitA PTER 2e OVERVII.w AND DESCRIPT3tel Or Tilt PPOJECT 1r CitAPTER 3e IDENTIFICATION OF THE STUDY AREA

• Description of the Study pegion

• Distribution of Workerg, Purchases, and Tause

• selection of the study Area t t t 1 CIIAPTER 4e CitAPTER 5: CHAPTER 63 CHAPTta 7, EFFECTS ON THE $7UDT AptA ECCe8088Y DEMOGRAPHIC f7FECTS IN Titt STUDY AptA EFFEITS Off STUDY AREA EFFECTS ON STUDY Apr.A

• Econmic History of the Study Aree *Dewographic Trende

• ->

• Background --* e B ackg round e $ecent Changes in the Economy specent Changes in the Population

• Changes in Settlement Patterne echenges in Cover ment and steptopent and Income Effecta due

• Population Effecto due to the Project and Housin9 Selected Public Services to the Project

• Effects on Settlement Patterne eElfects on Covernment and and Housing due to the Project Public Services due to rro).vt s

Cit A PT E R 8e ETFECTS Ort THE SOCI AL STNUCTURE IN THE 51UDT A pt.A

• Background of Croups and Group Interrelationehlps - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ]

• Distribution of Effecto CHAPTER 9e

. PUBLIC ptSFONSE

• Changes in Social Structure speeponse during Pre-Construction, Construction, and Operation

• Effects of Socioeconnale Consequences CHAPTER 10e in the Study Area on Putelle peegente SUNNApf AND COr8CLUSIONS

,gg p p

• Summary of Socioeconomic Effecte in the study Area of the Project FIGURE 1-2. Case Study Orgenization *Ev.luation of the Effects by Croupe <

in the Study Ares

• significance of the Effecte

• Overall Evaluation of the Project

Following this introduction, Chapter 2 describes the project with emphasis on those project characteristics that are important determinants of socioeconomic effects.

Chapter 3 then provides a general description of the region in which the project is located, both as an orientation and as a prelude to selecting the smaller study area that will be intensively analyzed in the remainder of the case study. Actual selection of the study area relies on the spatial distribution of project consequences and on the geo-graphic extent of the major social, economic, and political systems that function in the vicinity of the plant. The consequences of the project that are examined in this context are the spatial distribution of the persons directly employed in constructing or operating the nuclear station, the distribution of direct purchases of goods or services made by the utility in order to build or operate the facility, and the spatial distribution, by jurisdic-tion, of the tax payments from the utility due to the nuclear station. The study area is then defined with reference both to the spatial distributions of these major consequences of the project and to the spatial distribution of the functional, social, economic, and political systems that operate in the vicinity of the station.

The next four chapters trace the effects of the plant on the study area economy, on the size and composition of the area's population, on housing and settlement patterns in the study area, and on government and the provision of public services in the study area. There are several organizing principles used to present this information. First, an attempt is made to describe conditions as they existed in the study area prior to the start of construction and as they changed from that time to the present. An explicit attempt is then made to identify that part of the change, or lack of change, due to construction and operation of the nuclear station. The temporal focus of the attribution of changes to the nuclear facility is on two points in time: the peak year of construction and a recent year during which the station was in full operation.

The second major organizing principle concerns the way in which effects are attributed to the nuclear station. There are two basic approaches to this problem. The first is to identify and control the effects of all other exogenous forces acting on the study area and, af ter their effects have been isolated, to attribute remaining effects to the nuclear station. The second approach is to make explicit causal arguments that directly tie postulated effects back to some known aspect of the construction or opera-tion of the station. Both approaches require use and acceptance of the same kinds of behavioral hypotheses. Using the first approach, it is necessary to define the direct and indirect effects of other exogenous forces acting on the study area so that the effects 6

due to the station can be determined as a residual. Using the second approach, the same kinds of hypotheses and behavioral relationships are used to directly argue the nature and extent of socioeconomic effects stemming from the construction and operation of the station. The most convincing case for attributing effects to the nuclear station results from use of both approaches-control of other exogenous influences and identification of direct causal links to the plant. Where possible, both approaches are pursued in the case studies. In general, however, the social and economic changes that have taken place in the areas examined in this study over the ten- to fifteen-year period of investigation are so coraplex that the second general approach is relied upon more heavily than the first.

Chapter 4 begins with a description of the jobs and income directly associated

' with the station and then establishes other employment, income, and labor force effects experienced in the study area. Chapter 5 works directly from these estimates of employment change to examine effects on the size and composition of the study area's population, both from the in-migration of workers and their families and from reduced out-migration of local persons induced to remain in the area due to opportunities offered by the construction or operation of the station. Once population change due to the station has been established in Chapter 5, Chapter 6 examines the effects of the combined economic and demographic changes on housing and settlement patterns in the study area. The emphasis is principally on changes in the number, type, and spatial distribution of residences, although, where relevant, effects on patterns of commercial and industrial activity are also described.

C.hapter 7 summarizes the major consequences of the station and of its economic, demographic, and housing effects on the local government in the study area. It begins by examining the major local jurisdictions in the study area for evidence of change in organ-

ization or structure due to the station. The effects on the revenues of local jurisdictions are then described. Finally, there is a discussion of the combined influence of changed revenues and changed levels of demand for public services on the provision of services in the study area. It was decided that these effects could be shown most clearly by focusing on a smaller number of important services rather than by trying to examine the provision of all public services in the study area. The services chosen are education, transportation, public safety, and social services.

Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 proceed in sequence, therefore, to trace the economic, demographic, housing, and governmental implications of constructing and operating a 7

nuclear station. The geographic focus is the study area defined in Chapter 3. The tem-poral focus is on the change from pre-construction to the construction peak and on the change from pre-construction to a recent year of full operation. Finally, the attribution of the effects to the nuclear station is achieved primarily through the establishment of direct causal relationships that are linked to effects directly associated with the station.

Chapter 8 examines the social structure of the study area and the ways in which it has been affected by the construction and operation of the nuclear station. The social structure is defined by the groups that exist in the area, their principal characteristics, and their social, political, and economic interrelationships. The chapter begins by identi-fying a set of functional groups into which the study area population is divided. A profile of each group in then developed. Each group is characterized in terms of livelihood, size, outstanding demographic characteristics, location, property ownership, values and atti-tudes, and patterns of intragroup interaction. The economic, political, and social interrelationships of the groups are then identified and described. An appreciation of these group characteristics and interrelationships helps to understand the way in which the effects of the project were evaluated and to explain group response to these j effects. In addition, the characterization of groups and their interrelationships prior to the project serves as the basis for assessing the degree to which groups and social struc-ture were altered as a consequence of the project.

The final step in the analysis of social structure is to determine the distribution of the economic, demographic, housing, and governmental effects of the station. The distribution of effects across groups provides explanatory information concerning the changes in group structure and characteristics and provides data for interpreting and understanding the group evaluations of the project. l l

Chapter 8 is designed, therefore, to accomplish two very important objectives.

First, it makes operational the concept of social structure so that its constituent parts can be described and so that the effects of the construction and operation of the plant on social structure can be assessed. Second, the approach permits the examination of the effects of the plant on each group. The information on group characteristics and on the project effects accruing to each group provides the basis for determining the project's impact on the groups, discussed in Chapter 10.

8

Chapter 9 provlies another perspective on the socioeconomic effects of constructing and operatn.a the nuclear station by examining the public response to the project. The emergence and expression of public concerns and the issues that arose over the plant during the three study periods-pre-construction, construction, and operations, including post-Three Mile Island-are described and assessed. The issues are described in terms of topic, time of occurrence, actors, positions, and resolution. Unlike the previous five chapters of the case study, which focused on the effects of the nuclear station within the study area defined in Chapter 3, the analysis of public response is regional in scope. The principal sources of information concerning public response are the local and regional press, transcripts of hearings, and key informants.

The analysis of public response focuses on three questions: the extent to which the socioeconomic effects of the 3tation on individuals and groups in the study area played a causal role in the public response to the project; the level of the direct participation of study area residents in publicly responding to the project; and the effects of the public response itself on the residents of the study area. The latter question involves the degree to which issues and confrontations that arose in the course of building and operating the nuclear station were responsible for changes in social or economic conditions within the study area. The strategy of Chapter 9, therefore, is to identify public response to the nuclear project and then sort out the reciprocal causal links from local socioeconomic effects to public response and from public response to local socioeconomic effects.

The overall objectives of the individual case studies are to establish the socio-economic consequences of constructing and operating a nuclear power station on the residents of the local area in which a station is located and to provide a perspective on the significance of these effects to the people who experienced them. Chapter 10 will focus on the evaluation of the major socioeconomic consequences of the project by each group in the study area. The next step in Chapter 10 is to combine the information on group characteristics, effects, and group-specific evaluations to reach conclusions about the impacts and significance of the effects of the project. Absolutely large effects combined with strong positive or negative evaluations would imply strong significance.

Similarly, absolutely small effects would tend to offset strong positive or negative evaluations, or indifferent evaluations could offset large effects and produce low levels 9

of significance. This process leads to a summary of the significance of the effects of the project.

t l

l 10 l

1

CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2.1 Introduction The purpose of Chapter 2 is to provide an overview of the Peach Bottom project, whose socioeconomic effects are the topic of study in this report. The emphasis in this chapter is on a description of the major characteristics and elements of the project. 'Ihis information will be provided in sufficient detail to support and orient the discussions ar.d analyses of the subsequent chapters and to facilitate the cross-site comparison.

Information is provided on the project's location, siz e, type, and site characteristics; on the utility and other major actors involved with the project; on the magnitude and duration of the construction effort; and on the project's operating characteristics. This chapter is principally descriptive and is based on information provided by the utility, contractors, newspaper files, NRC docket materials, other reports, and interviews with a variety of informed people.

2.2 Iocation The Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3, operated by the Philadelphia Electric Company, is located in southernmost York County, Pennsyl-vania, two miles north of the Pennsylvania-Maryland border. The station is adjacent to the Susquehanna River. Ownership of the facility is shared by four utilities.

Atlantic Electric Company and Delmarva Power and Light Company each own eight percent, and the remainder is divided equally between the Philailelphia Electric Company and the Public Service and Gas Company. As seen in Figure 2-1, three metropolitan areas-Baltimore, Maryland; Wilmington, Delaware; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-are within 75 miles of the plant site. Two important regional centers, York and Lancaster, are each approximately 30 miles from the nuclear plant.

Harrisburg, the state capital, is approximately 60 miles from the station.

As shown in Figure 2-1, the major transport ttion routes within the regional area are Interstate 95, which links Baltimore and Philadelphia; Interstate 83, which runs north from Baltimore through York; and Interstate 76, which connects Harrisburg and Philadelphia.

11 1

FIGURE 2-1. LOCATION OF PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION Reading .g.,

/ 9 Harrisburg Trenton 16 Philadelphia y Lancaster York h,

'o PEACH BOTTOM 9g camden

?

PA e3 ATOMIC POWER /ftT"

. S TATION /

MD ~j Wilmingion 4, es!  :

i 5 l 1 k +,

, t Baltimore Il \ 'e, e

A 301 ,

v g Dover 95 e i

Annapolis 4 ep f

l Washington

[

v, i

y D. C. [ l t

Miles Urban Area k N

12

N 2.3 The Utility i

2.3.1 Corporate Backpound In 1902, the Philadelphia Electric Company of Pennsylvania was incorporated through margers of several smaller electricity and gas companies. Growth of ,

Philadelphia and the surrounding suburban areas, along with rising per capita consumption of electricity, resulted in rapid expansion [the utility.

1 The Philadelphia Electric Company has actively invested in the development of generating facilities. The Conowingo hydroelectric project, started in 1926 in northeastern Maryland near the Peach Bottom site, was one major generating facility

,1 built to meet the increasing demands for electricity.' 'Ihe project originally included seven generating units and involved ths' construction of the Conowingo Dam and a 13 square mile storage reservoir. In 1964, four additional hydroelectric units were added h

to the Conowingo project, increasing its total generating capacity to 512 Mw.

Fourteen miles north of the Conowingo Dam, in Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Electric Company built an additional dam and a small reservoir for the Muddy Run pumped storage project.' (Wainwright, 1961, 1968; Philadelphia Electric Company,

n. 4 The heavy involvement of the utility in the region, the general acceptability of the utility's projects, and the $'hiladelphia Electric Company's policy to provide and k encourage use of the reservoirs for recreation undoubtedly int 1uenced the positive public response to the Peach Bottom nuclear facility.

The Philadelphia Electric Company actively participated in the early develop-ment of nuclear technology as a member)of one of the original groups of electric utilities formed to research the possibilities for commercial application of the technology. In 1952, the Philadelphia Electric Company participated in the developtient of the Enrico Fermi Atomic Plant in Michigan-(Philadelphia Electric Company,1967). In 1954, the laws governing atomic energy were changed to permit private industry to invest in the development of nuclear power, and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) invited utilities to deve.p demonstration plant with the AEC's help. The Philadelpha Electric Comssy suh itted a proposal for such an ,

investment, but the contract was awarded u ch e pesne Light Company, which developed the first nuclear plant in the U.S. (Wain.vright,1961).

In 1955, the AEC initiated the Power Demonstration Reactor Program, which provided industry with governmental research and development assistance. Soon 1

13 -s

citer, whrn kn:wladga and cxperisaca wara n cdsd with a high-tsmptretura gas-cooling experimental nuclear reactor, the Philadelphia Electric Company proposed the construction of a helium-cooled reactor on the Peach Bottom site. In 1959, congressional approval to build the demonstration plant was given. (Philadelphia Electric Company,1975.)

Although the Peach Bottom project was principally an undertaking of the Philadelphia Electric Company, fifty-two other utilities were involved. ne fifty-two companies contributed $16.5 million toward the research and development costs of Unit 1, while the Philadelphia Electric Company contributed $1.3 million toward this effort. In addition, the Philadelphia Electric Company furnished the site and an additional $8 million toward the station's construction. The Atomic Energy Commission spent $14.5 million for research on the reactor and waived $2 million of carrying charges on nuclear fuel. (York Dispatch,1967.)

The plant was designed as a small experimental station with a maximum capacity of 40 Mw. He site in Peach Bottom Township was chosen for a number of reasons: the land was already owned by the utility, the site satisifed all the locational requirements (Iow population density, adequate water supply, and geo-logical stability), and proximity to a 220kV transmission line ensured low transmission costs. (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,1973.) In April 1960, the site was approved by the AEC, and in February 1962, the construction permit was issued. In March 1966, criticality was reached, and in January 1967, electricity was generated. The unit operated for seven years and was decommissioned in October 1974.

By the time Peach Bottom Unit 1 became operational, additional generating capacity was needed in Philadelphia Electric Company's system to meet the estimated demands for the middle 1970s. By 1967, a decision was made to construct the Limerick nuclear plant about 20 miles northwest of Philadelphia to add 2,000 Mw of additional electric capacity by 1977. Earlier, it was decided to expand the Peach Bottom site with two additional units, each with a capacity of 1,098 Mw. (U.S.

I 1

The original schedule for the operation of the proposed Limerick plant was 1977, but after numerous delays and construction cutbacks because of public resistance to the project and cash flow problems, the operating schedule was changed to 1985.

I 14 )

Atomic Energy Commission,1973.) The original proposal was to construct one unit in Peach Bottom Township and the other unit in New Jersey. He need for additional generating capacity, however, resulted in a decision to construct four additional nuclear-fueled units-two at the Peach Bottom site (Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3) and two in New Jersey (the Salem Nuclear Generating Station). Of the four utilities who collaborated in this effort-Philadelphia Electric Company, Public Service and Gas Company, Atlantic Electric Company, and Delmarva Power and Light Company-Philadelphia Electric owns 42.6 percent of the additional Peach Bottom plant and 42.6 percent of the Salem facilities. (McHugh,1980.)

2.3.2 Service Area he Philadelphia Electric Company's present service area is restricted to southeastern Pennsylvania, as shown in Figure 2-2, and a subsidiary provides electric services in two counties in northeastern Maryland. Together with its subsidiaries, the Philadelphia Electric Company service area encompasses 2,475 square miles. In 1978, the utility provided electricity to 1.3 million customers and gas to 0.3 million. (U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission,1973; Philadelphia Electric Company,1978.) The Peach Bottom nuclear facility is located in the easternmost portion of the utility's service area.

2.3.3 Generatina Capacity and Production In 1978, the total generating capacity of the Philadelphia Electric Company's system was 7,727 Mw. Of this, Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 provided 2,196 Mw, or 28.4 percent of the total generating capacity. In 1975, 39.7 percent of the electrical-production (Mwh) of the Philadelphia Electric Company was provided by the Peach Bottom plant. In 1978, the Peach Bottom facility provided 48.1 percent of the company's electrical output. (Philadelphia Electric Company,1978.)

2.4 'Ibe Project 2.4.1 Project Site The Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station is located in the southeastern corner of York County, Pennsylvania. The site is adjacent to Conowingo Pond in the Susquehanna River, approximately eighteen miles northwest of its mouth in Chesapeake Bay, and consists of 620 acres,100 of which are covered with roads and structures. (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,1973.) The remaining 520 acres are woodland.

15

._2--__

FIGURE 2-2. PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY SERVICE AREA Reading .

.e v 7

Harrisburg

/ ff

,.. . [ IIi .': , [ .[.. , . Trenton

1. . . * : Limerick ; ^

p. s .' .g Nuclear ' '

Lancaster / Planti i dIh

• • e Q w York  ;^  : . .

Peach  ;~ l fy :-

Bottom c - 'c . S : Camden 1

Atomic - ~~s

? ;;yg__ ,j/

.e, Power *--

.. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.

• S I.O .E * .' /

-*- ^ f fl:= g a Salem Nuclear Plant I E,

) -

.] i ti #*

e '. 1 l

I. e l Baltimore l '. ~

l

// x I.

T

{ Dover j

= . e i i s sj= '

t l

Annapolis c . r-v s 3

I g

i

( x( e 1

rWashington sl D. C. g l,

) b t i

o s to ts 20 A 1 @ Urban Area

~

N O PEC Service Area Miles

@ Nuclear Electric Generating Plants Wholly or Portlolly Owned by PEC l

16 l

Tha tran: mission systsm et the cito mcda tha 1::cr. tion vcluabla for additioncl power generation. However, the transmission lines and existing rights-of-way were not the only advantages of the site. Cooling water was available from Conowingo Pond; the geological strata were stable; the population density in the surrounding area was low (79 persons per square mile, 6,145 persons within 5 miles); the danger of flooding was minimal; and road and rail transportation was nearby. In addition, the site had previously been determined acceptable for a nuclear facility in the siting of Peach Bottom Unit 1. (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,1973; Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication,1979.)

An outstanding feature of the Peach Bottom site is its location on the; shore of Conowingo Pond. The pond, actually a small lake formed by two dams on the Susquehanna River, is about 9 miles long and about 1.5 miles wide at the station site.

2.4.2 'the Plant Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 are boiling-water reactors, each having a capacity of 1,098 Mw. The reactor and the turbine generator were both furnished by the General Electric Corporation. The general contractor was Bechtel. The plant utilizes a once-through open-looped cooling technique with five mechanical draft cooling towers. A total of 3,350 cubic feet per second of Conowingo Pond water is used when both units are in full operation.

Utilizing much of the transmission line rights-of-way obtained for Peach Bottom Unit 1. Gree 600kV transmission lines were. constructed: a 3.8 mile line, a 24.5 mile line due east, and a 10.5 mile line to the south linked Units 2 and 3 into the system. (Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication,1980.)

2.5 Construction 2.5.1 Announcement In 1966, the Philadelphia Electric Company announced that two additional reactors would be built at Peach Bottom; construction began in 1967. At that time the cost of these reactors was estimated at $250 million. The projected completion dates were October 1970' for Unit 2 and October 1972 for Unit 3. (Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication,1979.)

17

ha nacd for the inersased system espacity to ba providtd by Patch Bottom Units 2 and 3 was presented in the Final Environmental Statement by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. He generating capacity required by the utility in 1974 was projected to be 20,856 Mw. At the time of this estimate, the utility's generating capacity was 14,144 Mw, with an additional 4,914 Mw anticipated from newly constructed units. With the loss of output from Unit 1 due to its d2 commissioning, the available capacity would thus be short of the 1974 requirements. He AEC concluded that the two Peach Bottom units would be needed to meet utility load requirements.

2.5.2 Schedule and Cost he construction of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 took place over a period of eight years, from 1967 to 1974. The actual cost of constructing the two units, excluding the costs of the transmission lines and the visitors' center, (which was built as part of Unit 1), was $760 million, about three times more than the original $250 million estimate. The construction of ancillary facilities such as the 3.5 mile spur line and an access road to the plant was included in the total costs. Since 1974, plant modifications to improve plant reliability and to satisfy NRC requirements (particularly those related to plant security and additional design modifications) have 1

increased the cost of the plant. '

2.5.3 Construction Phase Work Force Site preparation for the two units began in late 1966, but construction did not seriously commence ur.til 1967. By late .1967, 300 people were working .at the site.

By the end of 1968, the work force had increased to over 900 persons. As shown in Figure 2-3, the size of the work force increased sharply until the middle of 1970 when the number of workert was estimated to be almost 3,500. By the end of 1970, the 1

size of the work force had declined to 2,663. Of these, 254 persons were Bechtel's j nonmanual personnel, while the remainder consisted of manual employees. In mid-1971, the construction work force declined dramatically for a period as a consequence of work stoppages over labor disputes. (York Dispatch,1971; Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication,1979.)

In 1972, the peak construction year, the size of the work force remained consistently large, reaching over 3,000 workers. In early 1973, the work force began to decline as construction of the plant was completed. At the end of 1973, the total 18

3000- '

e

~

\

2500-l 2000-

~ l l

l m -

i E x

1500- .

z *

l. o ,

! p .

- 1000-o .

~ ,

500-0 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , j, 1967 11r68 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 YEAR FIGURE 2-3. Average Daily Construction Work Force, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station.

I I

i work force numbered 1,615 persons. Table 2-1 shows the average annual work force during the construction period.

The shift structure was such that a significant amount of work was done at night. In March 1971, for example,1,700 individuals were. working on the project during the day, and 700 were working during the night. A large " night shift" work force continued throughout the remainder of the construction period. The construction work was a union job, and the wage scale was the highest in the region.

In addition, overtime guarantees were provided.

2.5A Construction Experience ne construction permit for both units was issued on 31 January 1968, but the construction progress of the two units differed from the beginning. This was primarily a result of shorta;es of critical crafts and problems'in procuring building materials. (Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication,1979.) Although j the plant is bounded by industrial centers-Harrisburg to the north, Ba1.timore to the south, and Philadelphia to the east-the progressive expansion of industrial employ-ment in the region and competing construction projects closer to the residential location of the skilled work force resulted in shortages of pipefitters, welders, and l electricians throughout the project's construction. By February 1968, for example, i the concrete for the reactor building for Unit 2 had been poured, but not until seven months later was concrete poured for Unit 3 (Philadelphia Electric Company, n.d.).

l There were a number of labor disputes, mostly jurisdictional. in nature, that resulted in construction delays. he Peach Bottom plant was one of the earlier large nuclear projects, and the jurisdictional problems experienced in its construction were similar to those of other large projects constructed at the same time. (Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication,1979.) In March 1971, for example, a labor dispute halted construction for over four months. The Philadelphia Electric Company acknowledged at that time that the plant's construction was two years behind schedule because of labor shortages, work stoppages, problems with timely deliveries of construction materials, and design changes required because of new AEC l

1 A survey of the construction work force was carried out for the Philadelphia Electric Company in August 1973 by Renova International, Ltd.

20 l

l

TABLE 2-1 AVERAGE ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION WORK FORCE PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC GENERATING PLANT 1967-1974 Year Average Annual Employment 1967 150 1968 688 1969 1,064 1970 2,186 1971 2,119 1972 2,844 1973 2,230 1974 639 Source: Bechtel, n.d., Actual Field Manpower Distribution 1967-1974; Phila-delphia Electric Company, n.d., Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, Cumulative Commit-ments and Costs.

21

specifications (York DLottch, 20 March 1971). In August 1972, anothzr jurisdiction 1 dispute disrupted construction schedules for the Peach Bottom plant. The Philadelphia Electric Company estimated that labor problems alone contributed to a one-year delay in building the plant. (Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication,1979.)

2.6 Operations 2.6.1 Schedule and Cost Commercial operation of Unit 2 began in July 1974. In December 1974, Unit 3 began commercial operation. The total Peach Bottom operating expenses steadily increased since 1975. In 1975, power-production expenses amounted to approximately

$17 million ; in 1976, the total expense was estimated at about $26 million. Of this total, fuel costs were estimated at about $14 million, and maintenance costs, at $6.5 million. In 1977, total power production expenses were $30.7 million, and in 1978,

$36.4 million. The operating costs ($/kwh) in 1975 were estimated at 0.392; by 1978, costs had increased to 0.622. (Philadelphia Electric Company,1978; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,1978.)

2.6.2 Work Force The size of the operations work force from 1974 to 1979 is shown in Table 2-2.

During this six-year period, the size of the work force increased from 295 to 469 persons, in part due to increases in the security force resulting from changes in the guidelines of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

2.6.3 Operating Experience Unit 2 has been in commercial operation since July 1974; Unit 3 has been operating since December 1974. In 1974, the generating capacity factor was 78.8 percent for Unit 2 and 76.5 percent for Unit 3. The capacity factor declined in 1975 l to 55.1 percent for Unit 2 and 58.3 for Unit 3 and increased to 60.3 percent and 66.5 percent in 1976. In 1977, the capacity factor of both units dropped, to 43.7 percent i for Unit 2 and to 52.7 percent for Unit 3. In 1978 and 1979, the capacity factors l improved. In 1978, the capacity factor was 73.8 percent for Unit 2 and 76.8 percent for Unit 3. The capacity factors increased in 1979 to 91.2 percent and 81.1 percent for Units 2 and 3, respectively.

1 Power-production expenses include costs for refueling, maintenance, opera-tions personnel, repair work, and design modifications.

22

TABLE 2-2 AVERAGE ANNUAL OPERATIONS WORK FORCE" PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC GENERATING PLANT 1974-1979 Year Average Annual Employment 1974 295 1975 300 1976 308 1977 342 1978 414 1979 469 "he operations work force consists of plant managers, operators, engineers, clerical workers, the security work force, and maintenance workers. He security and maintenance employees are not employed by the utility but are subcontracted.

Source: Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication,1979.

23

In compari on with the ganarcting ccpicity factora for Puch Bottom Units 2 and 3 provided in this section, the average capacity factors for all nuclear-fueled units in the United States was 52 T percent in 1975, 52.2 percent in 1976, 62 percent in 1977, 61.7 percent in 1978, and 52.4 percent in 1979. Peach Bottom's capacity factors were well above the average for all plants in the United States.

Delays in the commercial startup and shutdowns due to equipment failures in both units may partially explain the problems in achieving higher capacity factors.

Although the 100-percent-power permit was issued for Unit 2 in October 1973, an electrical failure in the generator delayed startup for approximately six months. In December 1974, Unit 3 was declared commercial, but soon after, an electrical failure resulted in a three-week shutdown of the unit. (Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication,1979.)

On 23 September 1974, both units were shut down for AEC inspection after cracks were discovered in the cooling system of other plants. At that time, Unit 2 was operating at 83 percent capacity. On 18 October 1974, Unit 2 shut down for over one month when a relief valve on the primary coolant system opened, although no excessive release of radiation was apparent and no equipment was damaged.

In April 1975, the Peach Bottom plant was among eleven boiling-water facilities ordered to check for possible vibrations within the reactor; and on 3 June 1975, Unit 3 reduced its operating power by one-half due to vibrations found in the monitoring devices installed in the reactor core. As.a result of the concern over the vibration problems, the capacity of both units was restricted to 55 percent for a five-month period. 'Ihe instrument vibration problem was repaired by early December of that year, and the plants resumed normal operation. In October 1977, excessive levels of radioactive gases were emitted from the plant at 2.3 times the permissible rate. The emission levels were monitored, and studies were conducted; the problem was of a temporary nature. (York Dispatch, October 1977.) A valve in Unit 3 malfunctioned in June 1979, and this too resulted in the shutdown of the Peach Bottom reactor. By the end of the month, the Peach Bottom plant was again at full power. (York Dispatch, June 1979.)

l 2.6.4 Refueling and Major Repairs Each unit has been refueled three times, with each refueling lasting approxi-mately seven weeks. Becau e maintenance and repair work always accompany 24 l

J

refueling, the process has large labor requirements. In 1978, for example, 640 workers were needed for maintenance and refueling of the two units. Although the utility had a large pool of skilled craftsmen who were utilized during refueling, a substantial number were employees contracted for maintenance and decontamination l work. In both 1976 and 1977, about 400 workers were required for refueling.

Major repair and maintenance are frequently undertaken during a refueling outage. He first refueling outage for Unit 2 was extended for twenty-five days to repair cracks in the core-spray piping. The second refueling outage for Unit 2 was also extended to repair cracks in the control rod cladding, isolate the drive-return line, and remove damaged reactor parts. (Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication,1979.)

Peach Bottom Unit 3 was removed from service in April 1978 to accommodate a refueling and maintenance outage. The unit had been kept in service on a lower power-generating rate for approximately three weeks beyond the original shutdown date to provide power to adjoining utilities during a Pennsylvania coal strike.

t 2.7 Taxes '

In contrast to other states where local jurisdictions receive substantial revenue from taxes on the assessed value of utility facilities, the Pennsylvania tax structure is such that local areas do not benefit directly from property taxes on generating facilities. The Public Utility Realty Tax of 1970 (PURTA) is a tax imposed annually on the depreciated cost of utility real estate (including structures under construction) at a rate of 30 mills. He state distributes to localities throughout the state an amount equal to the total of all real estate taxes that would have been collected that year if the public utility's realty had been subject to local assessment and taxation.

The basis for the distribution is the ratio of total taxes collected by the local area to the total taxing effort of all localities in the state. (Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication,1979.)

Local real estate taxes are paid annually on nonutility real estate associated with the Peach Bottom plant such as the visitors' center, built in 1963. This tax is 25

[

l relatively small, approximately $6,000 annually. (Solecki, personal communication, i

1979.) In addition, an Occupational Privilege Tax of $10 per worker is levied on individuals who work within the boundaries of the Southeast School District, and a one percent earned-income tax is levied on earnings. The revenues from these taxes l are shared with local municipalities within the school district.

l Total tax payments by the utility for Peach Bottom Units 1 and 2 are shown in Table 2-3. A detailed analysis of the tax payments to municipaljurisdictions is found in Chapter 7.

2.8 Corporate / Community Prosrams l 2.8.1 Emergency Plamdna As part of the application for an operating license, the utility submitted a plan for coping with emergencies at the plant. The emergency plan incorporated agreements and communication with local, state, and federal agencies as well as arrangements for medical support in the event of a radiological emergency.

In August 1975, the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, a federation of state ecology groups, petitioned the State Public Utilities Commission. Both the j Peach Bottom plant and the Three Mile Island plant were cited for not having adequate contingency plans. By July 1976, state officials were preparing updated emergency plans.

In May 1978, an evacuation plan was drafted for the areas around t'he Three Mile Island and Peach Bottom nuclear plants. Prompted by the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in March 1979 and the subsequent development of emergency requirements, the York County Evacuation Plan was developed in April 1979.

On 12 April 1979, the Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Plan was issued. Peach Bottom Township supervisors, some residents, and a local activist group expressed concerns over the completeness and adequacy of the plan, and a l

I Based on the 1978 tax liability.

2 The townships of Peach Bottom, Faun, East Hopewell, and Hopewell, and boroughs within these townships are within the Southeast School District.

l 26 1

TABLE 2-3 TOTAL TAX PAYMENTS FOR THE PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC PLANT UNITS 2 AND 3 1974-1978 Year Total Tax Payments 1974

$1,386,196 1975 1,640,177 1976 1,762,549 1977 1,733,098 1978 1,707,071 Source: Renova International Ltd.,1974, Community Impact Study; A.J. Solecki, memorandum to W.J. Cloves, Philadelphia Electric Company,22 February 1979 i

27

numbar of townships in the vicinity of thn Patch Bottom plant dscidsd to dsval:p their own emergency plan. To this end, the Peach Bottom Township emergency coordinator met with representatives of the townships in the region. The utility has also been actively involved in the deliberations over the development of the plan.

2.8.2 Visitors' Center The Peach Bottom Information Center is located on the site adjacent to the nuclear facility and was built during construction of Unit 1. The center was originally designed to provide information on nuclear energy in general and on the Peach Bottom plant specifically with educational displays and models at the center and programs for various audiences. Approximately one-half of the visitors to the center are school children, mostly from Maryland schools. Annual attendance at the information center has averaged around 60,000 people. (McHugh,1980).

The information center is considered an important asset by residents of nearby communities, as the facility has been made available for community events and meetings. Moreover, che utility has sponsored an annual Peach Bottom historical night when slides are collected from local residents and presented to the community.

The information center has sponsored historical research in the area and has an extensive library of historic photographs of the Peach Bottom area.

The ecnstruction of the information center was part of a much larger, continuous, and active public relations effort. Speakers from Philadelphia Electric Company have often appeared at community meetings and functions in response to requests for information about the operation of the Peach Bottom plant. Special efforts have been made to develop good relationships between utility personnel and local civic and business leaders. Following the TMI accident, personnel from the l

utility held meetings with local government leaders and the public to discuss the accident and the Peach Bottom plant (Alden, Fleishman, and Hughes, personal l communication,1980).

2.8.3 Other Philadelphia Electric Company has actively participated in the development of recreational facilities in the region, especially in the Conowingo Pond area where the utility owns much land. As part of the utility's earlier hydroelectric projects on the lower Susquehanna River, recreational parks were integrated into the overall 28

development plans. The Muddy Run recrasti:n:1 parks wara dirsctly sp:nsored by ths Philadelphia Electric Company. Moreover, much of the land around Conowingo Pond is leased to individuals for private cottages. Philadelphia Electric Company's contribution to the development of these areas is highly visible.

2.9 Major Events Chronology

'Ibe chronology of the major events for the construction and operation periods is shown in Table 2-4.

29

i TABLE 2-4 CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS Year Month Day Event 1966 August 22 Units 2 and 3 are announced.

1967 February 10 Philadelphia Electric Company files license application with the AEC.

1968 January 31 Construction permits are issued by the AEC following a brief public hearing.

1972 June -

Peak construction work force is reach-ed with 2,800 wc:kers.

1973 May 30 Operating license hearing is held.

1973 August 8 Operating license is issued for Unit 2. (

The operating license for Unit 3 will be delayed. {

1974 July -

Commercial operation of Unit 2 be-gins.

1974 July 2 Operating license is issued for Unit 2.

1974 November -

Decommissioning of Unit 1 begins.

1974 December 30 Commercial operation of Unit 3 be- l gins.

Source: U.S. Ato:2ic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing,1973, Final Environmental Statement; Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication, 1979; York Dispatch, 29 September 1966, 2 June 1967, 2 March 1971.

30

f i

I CHAPTER 3: IDENTIFICATION OF THE STUDY AREA 3.1 Introduction This chapter serves as a transition between the focus on the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, presented in Chapter 2, and the focus on the socioeconomic effects resulting from the construction and operation of the plant, presented in the remaining chapters. As such, this chapter has two principal purposes. The first is to describe a multi-county region near the Peach Bottom nuclear plant and the distribution of direct project effects-workers, purchases, and tax payments-within that region. The second is to identify the area in which the consequences of the direct project effects will be studied in detail.

l The identification and selection of a study area is an important element in the overall case study methodology. An analysis of the secondary socioeconomic effects (social and fiscal changes, for example) requires identifying an area that has two characteristics: (1) a concentration of primary project effects (workers, purchases, and tax payments), and (2) overlapping and integrated economic, political / governmental, and social systems.

Initially, the counties contiguous to the project site that received appreciable direct project effects were identified as the study region. Within the counties, minor civil divisions (or municipal units) that received direct project effects were identified.

Based on the magnitude of direct project effects in relationship to the size of the minor civil divisions' populations and economy and the proximity to the project site, aggregate units were formed. The distribution of jobs, workers, purchases, and tax payments relating directly to the construction and operation of the Peach Bottom plant were identified for the aggregate units of the study region. The pattern of the distribution of direct project effects and the population size of the aggregate units were'then examined to identify those where the greatest intensity of direct project effects had occurred.

Based on the intensity of direct project effects and the relationships among the aggregate units, alternate study areas w w considered. A study area was then selected that would serve as the unit for analysis of the economic, demographic, housing, governmental, and social structure effects of the Peach Bottom nuclear generating station.

l i

31

A preliminary exarnination of the Peach Bottom project conducted in 1978 dentified and described a four county region as the area for the regional study. This region is identified in Section 3.2. The county descriptions were used in conjunction with information from utility and union officials and from key informants concerning the distribution of project workers, purchases, and tax payments for a construction year, 1973, and the latest complete year of plant operation,1978.

A systematic consideration of the distribution of project workers, purchases, and tax payments in these particular areas throughout the four-county region for each of the two years, presented in the following sections presents the scope, magnitude, and pattern of their individual and combined occurrence. As discussed in Section 3.6, this analysis provides a basis for identification and selection of a study area and for interpretation of the socioeconomic effects found to occur in the study area.

3.2 The Study Region 3.2.1 Description of the Region The four counties of York, Pennsylvania; Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Harford, Maryland; and Cecil, Maryland constitute the region examined in the chapter and are shown in Figure 3-1. These four counties were identified and described in Peach Bottom Units 1, 2, and 3: Preliminary Site Visit Report (Mountain West Research, Inc.,1979).

The four-county region straddles the Pennsylvania-Maryland border and both sides of the Susquehanna River. The Peach Bottom nuclear plant is located approximately in the center of the region, in the southeastern corner of York County. In general, the four-county region exhibits a rural / urban dichotomy, with the central, rural portion of the region surrounded by and somewhat isolated within a more densely populated and l industrialized area formed by the urban centers of York, Lancaster, Wilmington, and Baltimore. The total population of the four-county region was about 761,000 persons in 1970. The two counties in Maryland-Harford and Cecil-are smaller in area and

! population than are the two counties in Pennsylvania-York and Lancaster.

Despite the influence of the urban, industrialized centers of York and Lancaster counties on the overall economic statistics of the region, agriculture remains an important sector of the economy, particularly in the central portion of the region-the area nearest the Peach Bottom site.

32

FIGURE 3-1. STUDY REGION: FOUR COUNTIES l IN PENNSYLVANIA AND MARYL AND l

ss L ANC ASTER CO.

283 YORK CO. Lancaster 3e t so York **4 ,,, l 30 *, I 372

. Hanover .3 Peach Bottom Fawn .. ......

eA

._____.._._.1.._,_orava. ._ s ....j P

. ' M aj = ,

Whiteford ' Rising Sun l Darl ngton ePosit ,

Urban Area l

e 1

l Belair 33s

] Peach Bottom Township g Peach Bottom Atomic es ,

k Power Station CECilCO.j o s to is no g N

Miles C

33

I The northernmost portions of both York and Lancaster counties are semi-rural, oriented primarily toward the Harrisburg, York, or Lancaster urban areas. The Lancaster, York, and Hanover urban areas, with a combined population in 1970 of about j 180,000 persons and a highly integrated manufacturing sector, dominate the central and southwestern portions of the York-Lancaster county area. The remainder of the two counties, particularly the southwestern portion of Lancaster County and the southeastern portion of York county where the Peach Bottom project is located, is more sparsely

) populated with small, widely scattered towns functioning primarily as agriculture service centers. During the 1960s and 1970s, the population of the urban and semi-rural areas in the northern portion of York and Lancaster counties increased rapidly in contrast to the more rural southern portion where little population growth occurred.

The eastern part of Cecil County and the southern half of Harford County are within commuting distance of Wilmington, Delaware and Baltimore, Maryland, and experienced rapid population growth and suburbanization during the 1960s and 1970s.

The largest community in these two counties, Belair, which had a 1970 population of about 6,300 people, is located near the center of Harford County. As suburban

, development extended northward during the 1970s, the north-central rural areas of these i

two counties experienced a moderate rate of population growth and suburbanization.

i 3.2.2 Identification of Places within the Reaion The geographic areas delineated in this section function as the geographic framework within which the distribution of the direct effects of the project are i identified in the stud'y region. Figure 3-1 shows the four-county region and the places located within the region. All population figures are for 1970. Five places are shown in York County: the York urban area, Hanover, Fawn Grove, Peach Bottom Township, and Delta Borough. Of these, the York urban area was the most conspicuous area at the time of the study, with a large urban population (195,492 persons) and a diversified manufacturing economic base. The area included several incorporated centers that formed an urban-industrial continuum with York City. Hanover, in the southwestern section of the county, was an important retail and manufacturing center in the county, with extensive residential development and a population of over 15,600 persons. Fawn Grove, a small and prosperous town of about 485 persons, continued to serve its

! agricultural environs, although it became a " bedroom" community for commuters to the Baltimore area during the 1970s. The Peach Bottom plant is located in Peach Bottom Township, with Delta Borough as its nearest town. The township, primarily rural, and 1

34 i - .

)

Delta, which traditionally functioned as the township's service center, had' populations of 1,424, and 778 persons, respectively.

In Lancaster County, the principal area of attention was the Lancaster urban area, which had a population of 218,812 in Lancaster City and the adjacent suburban areas, along with the smaller town of Peach Bottom, which had a population of only 200. In Harford County, the principal areas of attention were Belair, a residential and retail center in a rapidly growing urban area of 30,803 persons; Whiteford, a small town of 600 persons; and Darlington, which had a population of 950. In Cecil (the other Maryland county), the towns of Rising Sun and Port Deposit, with populations of 956 and 906, respectively, were similarly considered.

3.3 Distribution of Direct Project Effects within the Region Construction and operations workers at the Peach Bottom plant will be spatially allocated to determine the areas in which socioeconomic effects may have occurred.

The places where workers resided are most likely to have experienced demographic and income effects because of the plant, and these effects may have resulted in secondary economic and social changes. In this section, the distribution of direct project effects resulting from the construction and operation of the Peach Bottom plant-direct basic employment, utility purchases, and tax payments-are allocated to places within the region.

Because they reflect the magnitude of the difference in work force size, demographic composition, residential patterns, income, and interaction with host communities, a construction year (1973)I and a recent operations year (1978) are the-periods for which worker distribution will be examined.

1 Although 1972 was the peak construction year (the average work fo.-ce was 2,844), a survey conducted in 1973 (when the work force was 2,230) provided accurate data on worker residence. The objective of the survey was to ascertain information about the si::e and distribution of the work force for assessing the projected impacts of the Philadelphia Electric Company's proposed Fulton Atomic Plant. The study was undertaken for the utility by Renova International Ltd. and was published in July 1974 as the Community Impact Study of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station.

35

The 1973 construction work force is spatially allocated on the basis of a detailed survey of the work force taken by the company, which recorded the place of residence of the workers. The information was validated by key informants, including union managers and individuals from communities located in the four-county area. Detailed information on the origin and residential distribution of the 1978 operations work force was provided by the Philadelphia Electric Company.

3.3.1 Distribution of Direct Basic Employment by Place of Work The Peach Bottom plant is located in Peach Bottom Township. Therefore, all project work and all direct basic employment occurred within the boundaries of the township in both 1973 and 1978. In 1973, the annual average daily employment at the project site was 2,230 persons; in 1978 it was 414 persons.

3.3.2 Distribution of Direct Basic Workers by Place of Residence Table 3-1 shows the 1973 construction work force as it was spatially allocated within the four-county region. The construction work force was divided into three categories: nonmovers-workers who were residents of the study area before construction began and did not relocate; movers-workers who relocated into the area to work at the site; and long-distance commuters-workers who communted daily from outside the study area to the site.

l l

In 1973, as shown in Table 3-1, 1,240 workers at the plant site resided in York '

County. This represented almost 50 percent of total employment. About 400 workers resided in Lancaster County, 60 workers in Cecil County and about 275 workers in Harford County. Almost 50 percent of the workers residing in York County were found in the York urban area.

s The distribution of the construction work force can be explained by several factors. All of the union locals from which construction workers for the Peach Bottom plant were obtained were located in York City. In addition, the York urban area had the largest pool of skilled labor in the four-county area. During the construction phase, many movers, especially thpse with families, were also attracted to the York urban area and to other large urban centers. (York City was located within easy commuting distance to the Peach Bottom site.) This was a result of both shortages of family housing l units in the irnmediate area of the plant (Peach Bottom Township) and the preferences of the professional nonmanual personnel for a more urban area. The immediate area of the 36

TABLE 3-1 PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC GENERATING PLANT CONSTRUCTION WORK FORCE BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE 1973 Place Nonmovers Movers TOTAL York County

( 46 Hanover 46 0 i York Urban Area 291 248 539 Fawn Grove 24 3 27 Delta 148 111 259 Peach Bottom Township 98 58 156 Residual 193 20 213 County Total 800 440 1,240 Lancaster County Lancaster Urban Area 94 164 258 Peach Bottom 12 6 18 Residual 126 0 126 County Total 232 170 402 i

Cecil County Rising Sun 18 0 18 Port Deposit 9 11 20 Residual 22 0 23 County Total 49 11 60 Harford County Whitford 14 4 18 Darlington 15 16 31 Belair 34 63 97 Residual 113 17 130 County Total 176 100 276 Outside Four-County Area 252 Total Construction Work Force 2,230 Sources: Renova International Ltd.,1974, Community Impact Study of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station; Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communica-tion,1979; Bechtel Corporation, n.d., Actual Field Manpower Distribution. -

37

plant lacked housing for workers with families, and the rental space that was available in the homes of Delta and Peach Bottom residents primarily accommodated workers who were either single or without their families. The demand for housing far exceeded the available housing close to the project. This fact, in addition to the available housing elsewhere but within commuting distance, resulted in a generally dispersed residential pattern for workers' location.

The 1978 data on the residential location of the operations work force for Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 were provided by the Philadelphia Electric Company. These data are shown in Table 3-2. The total operations work force, including the operations of the regular maintenance and contracted personnel, consisted of 414 workers in 1978. Of these, 220 were directly employed by the utility. Precise residential information was available for these 220 workers, but not for the remaining 94 workers, although their general distribution was known.

During the 1978 operation year, the operations work force was concentrated in York County, primarily in the York urban area and Peach Bottom Township. The remainder was distributed throughout the four-county area.

The annual refueling work force, which includes maintenance and repair workers, consisted of three groups of crafts workers: workers who were hired from the union halls in York City, workers employed by the utility, and workers who were employed by a maintenance-labor pool organization and resided primarily in the area near the plant.

(Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication, 1979.) The size of the refueling work force in 1978 was estimated to be over 600 workers. It is estimated that the residential distribution of these workers was similar to that of the construction work force although somewhat skewed toward the area near the plant. According to interviews from key informants, the 1978 refueling period resulted in the temporary relocation of a number of workers into the region.

Table 3-1 also characterizes the workers as nonmovers and movers. Movers are those workers who in-migrated into the community as a direct result of employment at the plant site. About 25 percent of the total work force were movers. About 30 percent of the work force were nonmovers and resided in York County. There were approximately 290 workers at the site who were from the York urban area and who resided there prior to plant construction. About 250 workers and their families 38

TABLE 3-2 PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC GENERATING PLANT PAYROLL OPERATIONS WORK FORCE BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE 1978 Place TOTAL York County York Urban Area 57 Fawn Grove 2 Delta / Peach Bottom Township 32 Residual 10 Lancaster County Lancaster Urban Area 51 Residual 8 Cecil County Rising Sun 1 Port Deposit 1 Residual 2 Harford County Whitford 4 Darlington 1 Belair 8 Residual 2 Four-County Area 172 Unallocated" 194 Outside Four-County Area 48 Total Operations Work Force 414 "Since it was not possible to obtain precise residential information for the 194 maintenance and contracted personnel who were not employed directly by the utility, they have not been allocated to particular places.

Source: Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication,1979.

39

i in-migrated to the York urban area. York City was the largest city in the coun6y with a high vacancy rate in the housing sector. A smaller, but sizeable number of workers in-migrated to the Lancaster urban area. Both Lancaster and York City were within commuting range of the plant site.

3.4 Distribution of Purchm===

The major purchases associated with the construction and operation of the Peach Bottom plant were made outside of the four-county region, mostly in Harrisburg, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. A deliberate effort was made to purchase construction items in Philadelphia. Purchases that were made within the four-county region were primarily bulk construction materials (such as lumber, sand, and cement) purchased from wholesalers, and these were relatively small purchases. The Philadelphia Electric Company suggested that up to 2 percent of the materials and services purchased for construction may have been made in York County, mostly in the York urban area. The

$3.7 million in purchases would not have had discernible economic effects in this heavily urbanized manufacturing region. In fact, interviews with key informants from York City indicated that no economic effects as a result of the plant were observable in that area.

(Alden, Barnhart, and McHugh, personal communication,1979 and 1980.)

3.5 Distribution of Taxes The Philadelphia Electric Company pays taxes on the Peach Bottom nuclear station to three public jurisdictions: Peach Bottom Township, the State of Pennsylvania, and the Southeastern School District. The implementation of the 1970 Pennsylvania Public Utility Tax Act resulted in the payment of utility real estate taxes to the state.

Since 1975, Pennsylvania has received an average of more than $1.6 million annually

, from the utility's realty tax payments on the plant. Real estate taxes paid on nonutility real estate have been paid to Peach Bottom Township, but this tax has remained small, approximately $6,000 annually.

The Occupational Privilege Tax, levied on workers who work within the Southeastern School District,I combined with the 1 percent earned-income tax that was l

l 1

The Southeastern School District covers an area that includes four townships in Southeaytern York County.

40

imposed on construction workers, added substantial revenues to Peach Bottom l

Township. Between 1969 and 1973, a cumulative sum of $991,581 in earned-income taxes was collected from construction workers. In' addition, by 1978, $303,662 in earned-income taxes had been withheld from operations persemel. - T " " ~~

3.6 Selection of Study Area t 3.6.1 Area Selected

)

The Study Area selected for the Peach Bottom case study., as shown in Figure 3-2, was Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township. Peach, Ef ttom Townhlp is a small agricultural township in York County as shown in Figure 3-t. T1.e town of Delta Borough is located within Peach Bottom Towr.. ship 102 is a separate and distinct municipality from the township. The two municipalities will serve as the basis 10r the analysis of the economic, demographic, housing, governmental and social structure effects of the construction and operation of the Peach Bottom plant.

3.6.2 Rationale The distribution of the construction work force shows that 415 workers resided in the Study Area. In 197'd the construction work force was estimated to constitute approxim.itely 20 percent of the Study Area population. In no other place within the four-county region was the construction work force such a large proportion of the host population.' Storeover, about one-third of the operations workers who relocated to work at the plar.t moved into the Study Area. The direct basic employment by place of residence was distributed throughout the four-county region. This section examined the concentration of the project's direct effects by place of residence for each place identified in the study region and each area's portion of total direct basic employment to each area's portion of the total 1970 population. In 1973 and 1978, Peach Bottom Township / Delta Borough had the highest pe r c en t age-o f-w orke rs-t o-p e r c e nt age-o f-population ratiq. *

.)

Even though there here an estimated 539 workers in the York urban area during the 1973 construction period, it wasinot selected as a Study Area because the number of workers was small in proportion to tiie population and the population was distributed throughout the large urban area. The effects of the Beact, Bottom plant were further diffused by the rapid expansion of the York urban area during the construction period..

The conclusion that discernible demographic and economic changes did not occur in the York urban area is supported by the Renova study, which did not find any noticeable I '

E 41 s ,

FIGURE 3-2. PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION STUDY AREA:

DELTA AND PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP  ;

i

't i b 3 pa 7 .' PEACH BOTTOM E -

74 7.

ATOMIC

-- g; N

( t POWER STATION Rd. 851 4

p,#g. % o,

$ ,,po"*

/

L \ /) Delta i Power Station Site o w ,

i

-- - A N ] suequ.hanna Tralie subdivielen mai,,

gg c... . o...i ...,t l

cconomic impacts in the York urban area as a direct r: cult of the plant's construction (Renova International,1974). This conclusion is further reinforced by information provided by key informants.

l There were relatively few purchases of construction materials within the four-c:unty area, and these did not result in any significant economic or income effects r:lative to the total costs of construction goods and services. Nevertheless, from the perspective of the residents in the Study Area, where some establishments were able to supply construction materials to the plant, the increases in the volume of sales were considered to be rather significant.

The taxes paid by the utility to the state are distributed state-wide to local jurisdictions, and the revenues are thereby diffused. The earned-income tax payments to

~

Peach Bottom Township, on the other hand, were large and important, given the pre-construction level of revenues. In 1972, earned-income tax payments amounted to

$332,764, and in 1973, they were $447,212. In 1972, the year of peak construction, taxes from the plant contributed 67.2 percent of the township's total revenues. No other places received comparable tax payments from the plant.

Investigations regarding the spatial distribution of the work force, taxes, and purchases have led to the conclusion that further study should be limited to Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township. The employment and income effects are expected to be highly observable given that the work force was a relatively large proportion of the population and that the area had been in economic decline for some time before the project began. Peach Bottom Township and Delta Borough also possess the characteristics necessary for a satisfactory examination of socioeconomic effects, each having a functioning political system and sharing a sense of community and social cohesion.

43

CHAPTER 4: ECONOMY OF THE STUDY AREA 4.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to identify and discuss the effects of the construction and operation of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 on the economy of Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township. Emphasis is placed on changes in the local economy and on changes in the employment, income, and labor force status of the area population. An assessment is also made of the impacts of the station on the standard of living of the Study Area's residents.

The analysis begins by providing an overview of the economic history of the Study Area. The historical is discussion oriented to the components which constitute the economic base of Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township-agriculture, agricultural services, and mining. A more detailed examination is then made of changes that occurred in the economy of the Study Area over the 1967-1978 period. The study period begins in 1967, the year prior to the start of construction on Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 and continues through 1978. The discussion is organized around three topics:

employment and income changes, labor-force changes, and standard of living changes.

The next sections of the chapter trace the employment and income effects associated with both the construction and the operation of the station. The analysis of the construction effects is centered on 1973 (a peak construction year), and the analysis of the operation effects focuses on 1978. An economic base approach is utilized to identify and analyze the three elements of basic employment and income as well as the nonbasic employment and income that together constitute the total employment and income effects of the project. A summary of the employment and income effects due to the station, followed by a summary of labor force effects and standard of living effects, completes the chapter.

4.2 Economic History of the Study Area The Study Area has historically been somewhat isolated. In the rural part of Pennsylvania, not traversed by any major east-west routes, the Study Area is located in a larger region that has been characterized as "one of the three colonial hearths" that contributed to the formation of the United States' cultural landscape. By the middle of the 18th century, the larger region had achieved what was to be the prototype of United States' development: a population mix of various national and religious origins and an .

44

evolving urban system. Philadelphia and Baltimore, as major ports of entry, dominated the region, and such cities as Lancaster, York, and IIarrisburg, with smaller populations, were emerging as county centers. Smaller farm service villages, such as Delta Borough, were scattered throughout the area. Urbanization began early in southeastern Pennsylvania, and by 1800, the region had acquired a markedly urban character with egriculturally rich hinterlands, a pattern that continued to the time of the study.

(Gibson,1886; Prowell,1907.)

The earliest settlers in the Study Area were Irish and Scottish farmers who arrived between 1718 and 1740. The farm settlements were precarious at first, and failure was not uncommon in the area then known as the " Barrens." By the early 1800s, the socioeconomic base of the area had stabilized. Slate quarrying in Delta Borough by Welsh immigrants began in the late 1700s, and by 1820 the quarrying and distribution of slate ensured the viability of Delta Borough as a regional commercial center. The opening of a canal on the west side of the Susquehanna in 1836 encouraged the development of large-scale farming in the region. The widespread adoption of fertilizers in the region coincided with the construction of the canal and resulted in an upsurge of agricultural activity. (Renova International Ltd.,1974; Prowell,1907.)

By the turn of the century, Delta Borough had a mature economic base centered on mining and agriculture. The development of the slate industry was critical to Delta Borough's early prosperity. During the early 1900s, however, the export of slate declined. Delta Borough's slate could not effectively compete with either the lower-priced slate that had become available or the construction materials that could be substituted for slate by 1930. Labor problems also affected the industry. During World War I, the location and establishment of arsenals in Maryland and shipyards in Philadelphia and Wilmington resulted in a substantial out-migration of experienced miners. (Renova International Ltd.,1974; Philadelphia Electric Company, historical documents, n.d.)

The economic decline and out-migration from Delta Borough continued into the 1960s; small retail outlets moved to larger urban centers, and the lack of employment opportunitiea resulted in the out-migration of the younger population. By the early 1960s, the economic base of Delta Borough was experiencing problems: there had been a long period of out-migration of young people, and the limited activity related to the mining industry-slate granulation-came to an end. Delta Borough's role as an 45 1

agricultural service center declined as equipment dealers and other service firms relocated to larger regional cities. The largest employer in the Study Area was a garment factory located in Delta Borough, but employment levels at the factory fluctuated widely. (Cooper, Gallbraith, Hughes, Hunt, Pof f, Sommer, personal communications,1979 and 1980.)

The economic decline of Delta Borough was reinforced by itt, isolated geographic position: the Susquehanna River blocked movement between York County and Lancaster County; the railroad between York County and Baltimore ceased operation; and the important routes between the major regional cities continued to by-pass York County's southeastern townships.

4.3 Changes in the Economy during the Study Period Two perspectives are taken in this section on changes in the economy of the Study Area from 1967 to 1978. The first perspective focuses on the level of economic activity occurring within the boundaries of the area being studied. The primary measure of this activity is the number of jobs at places of work within the Study Area. The second perspective focuses not on economic activity occurring within the Study Area, but on the people residing in the area. The discussion centers on the labor force status of area residents and on the income they earn. Therefore, while employment is a key indicator in both cases, the distinction in the employment concepts must be maintained. The first perspective deals with employment in terms of the number of jobs measured at the place of work, while the second perspective measures the number of employed persons at their place of residence.

4.3.1 Employment The study period begins in 1967, when construction on Units 2 and 3 commenced, and ends in 1978, an operating year. The best available economic data for the period prior to construction is the 1960 U.S. Census data. In describing this baseline year,1960 data are utilized. Whenever sufficient data are available to reasonably extrapolate to 1967, it will be done and will be so indicated.

Peach Bottom Township has traditionally had a significant number of people engaged in agriculture, the leading industry. In 1960, an average of 4.6 percent of York County's employment was in agriculture, while almost 34 percent of the labor force in Peach Bottom Township was employed in the agricultural sector. At this same time, 46

19.5 percent of the people employed in Peach Bottom Township were farmers and farm managers, and 14.4 percent were farm laborers and farm foremen (the large percentage of people employed as farm laborers indicates a high level of seasonal employment).

Prior to construction, there were 129 farm units in the township, but by the time construction on Units 2 and 3 had peaked in 1972, the number of farms had declined to 104. (York County Planning Commission,1971.) This decline was accompanied by a loss in acreage devoted to farmland, from 17,651 to 14,480 acres, a loss resulting from idle marginal farms and competing urban uses for farmland. There was little industrial cctivity in the Study Area except for the garment factory: one of the last important industries--granulated slate for roofing materials-was shut down in 1964. (Renova International Ltd.,1974; Hunt, personal communication,1980.) An examination of the industrial employment pattern of York County shows that the urbanized areas of the county, York and Hanover, contained over 85 percent of the county's total industrial employment. In contrast, the southeastern townships and boroughs, including Chanceford, East Hopewell, Fawn, Lower Chanceford, and Peach Bottom Township, contained a mere 1 percent of the county's industrial employment. (York County Planning Commission,1971 and 1975.)

Table 4-1 shows employment (including proprietors) by sector for Peach Bottom Township and Delta Borough in 1960. The problem in interpreting these data is that they show the employment of the residents of the area, not the employment actually occurring in the area.

Outside of agriculture, most Study Area residents worked outside the Study Area in Baltimore or York City, making the figures in Table 4-1 substantially higher than the employment actually located in the Study Area itself. The commuters were employed principally in the construction, manufacturing, and public administration sectors. (York County Planning Commission,1971.)

Prior to the construction of the Peach Bottom plant, tnore than 25 percent of the Study Area residents were employed in manufacturing, and over 20 percent were employed in agriculture. Many of those employed in manufacturing commuted to work outside of the Study Area. Interviews with key informants suggest that the employment pattern of the area's residents had not changed substantially between 1960 and 1967, the time of the construction of the nuclear facility. Employment data for Peach Bottom Township and Delta Borough for 1970 were not available due to boundary changes. The 47

TABLE 4-1 EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR SECTOR DELTA BOROUGH AND PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP 1960 Delta Borough Peach Bottom Township Study Area Percent of Percent of Percent of Total Total Total Sector Number Employment Number Employment Number Employment Agriculture 4 1.3 139 33.8 143 20.7 Construction 29 9.6 59 14.4 88 12.7 Manufacturing 73 24.3 107 26.0 180 26.0

.s.

oo Transportation 17 5.6 - -

17 2.5 Communications /

Utilities 16 5.3 8 2.0 24 3.5 Wholesale Trade 8 2.7 - -

8 1.2 Retail Trade 60 20.0 8 2.0 68 9.8 Education 12 4.0 20 4.8 32 4.6 Public Administration 49 16.3 50 12.1 99 14.3 Other Industry 20 6.7 12 2.9 32 4.6 Total Employment 288 403 691 Source:

Pennsylvania. _ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,1963, Character Files of the Population, Part 40,

boundaries of the enumeration district for the Peach Bottom area were changed in 1970 to Peach Botton Township, Delta Borough, Fawn Grove Borough, and Fawn Township (Census Tract 240). Since the economic structure and historical demographic processes taking place in Fawn Township and Fawn Grove Borough were in many respects similar to those in Peach Bottom Township and Delta Borough, the 1970 employment data by major industry group for Census Tract 240 are used as a proxy for the Study Area. (Fawn Grove Borough Planning Commission,1977.)

Between 1960 and 1970, no appreciable increases occurred in the importance of the manufacturing or agricultural sectors in the Study Area. However, in 1970, both the construction and communications-utilities sectors had grown substantially. In 1960, 88 persons in the Study Area (12.7 percent of total employment) were employed in l construction. By 1970, 212 residents of Census Tract 240 were ernployed in construction l

(17.7 percent of total employment).

In Delta Borough itself, employment of residents in the communications-utilities sector increased from 16 workers (5.3 percent of those employed) to 96 workers (8 percent of those employed) between 1960 and 1970.

Information provided by governmental officials, local businessmen, and farmers indicated that several changes occurred in the economy of the local area during the study period. Increased employment in the utility industry resulted directly from the Peach Bottom f&cility, and some shortages of labor in the agricultural sector developed due to workers shifting from jobs as agricultural laborers to employment at the Peach Bottom facility. There were two consequences of these changes. First, unemployment in the

Study Area decreased. Second, the combination of office jobs at the Peach Bottom facility and employment opportunities at recently developed commercial shopping centers within commuting distance of the Study Area significantly improved employment opportunities for women in the Study Area.

4.3.2 Labor Force By 1967, Delta Borough was a small community: the slate-related industries were dead and, although some of the agricultural services industry remained, most of the retail firms were relocating. The construction of Peach Bottom Unit I helped the economy to a very limited extent but did not prevent the continued out-migration of firms and population, with the result that Delta Borough had a large retired population 49

and a large proportion of workers who were commuters. When construction began on Units 2 and 3, the labor force in Delta Borough was about 300 persons, of whom less than 10 percent were usually unemployed. The female labor force participation rate in Delta Borough was unusually high for a rural town, and women made up approximately one-third of the total labor force. However, unemployment among women was also high: the unemployment rate for women was about 15.7 percent, compared to an unemployment rate of 5.3 percent for men. The high participation of women in the labor force was attributable to the availability of clerical, agricultural, and garment work in the area.

The high female unemployment rate was partly the result of seasonal fluctuations in local agricultural industries and partly the result of layoffs at the garment factory in Delta Borough, the largest single industry in the area prior to the siting of the Peach Bottom plant. The employment and labor force characteristics in Peach Bottom Township contrasted sharply with those of Delta Borough. The female labor force participation rates in Peach Bottom Township were considerably lower. The township's overall unemployment rate was also lower, only about 5 percent.

During the first half of the 1970's the size of the labor force increased in both Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township, and low rates of unemployment were experienced by residents of the Study Area from 1968 to 1974. However, in 1975, the size of the labor force started to decline, especially in Delta Borough, and significant out-migration began to take place.

4.3.3 Standard of Living Information on the standard of living was obtained from census data and planning reports prepared by the York County Planning Commission. The median family income in the Study Area remained stable during the 1960s at a level consistently below that of York County and the State of Pennsylvania. Factors contributing to this included the rural nature of the Study Area, with characteristically lower average salaries than those found in urban / industrialized areas, and the large proportion of retired people, many of whom derived their income largely from social security payments. Both York County, with a median family income of $5,678, and Pennsylvania, with a median family income of $5,719, exceeded the U.S. national average of $5,666. Peach Bottom Township, however, had a median family income of $4,455, and Delta Borough's median family income was estimated at $5,338. These data illustrate that median family incomes of the residents of the Study Area were comparatively low.

50

In 1969, 4.1 percent of the population of Peach Botton Township had incomes below the poverty level, compared to 7.9 percent in York County,10.6 percent in the State of Pennsylvania, and 13.7 percent in the United States. The median income of families and unrelated individuals in the Peach Bottom area (Census Tract 240) for 1969 was $7,834, markedly lower than that of York County of the State of Pennsylvania, where the median incomes were $10,022 and $8,066, respectively. Thus, although the median income was lower in the Study Area than in the county, the incidence of poverty was also substantially less. Interviews with key informants indicated that during the 1967 to 1974 period, the standard of living for residents of the Study Area improved with a noticeable increase in their disposable income.

During the 1970s, the Study Area experienced in-migration from the Baltimore urban area. As these families were either professionals or skilled craf tsmen, the median family income in the Study Area increased.

4.4 Economic Changes in the Study Area due to the Project The purpose of this section is to describe the effects of the construction and operation of the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station on the economic conditions in the Study Area. As was the case in the previous section, the analysis focuses on three perspectives: the effects of the project on economic activity in the Study Area; the effects of the project on the Study Area labor force; and the effects of the project on the standard of living of Study Area residents.

To accomplish these objectives, an economic base analysis, supplemented with an input-output analysis, was utilized. The premise of this analysis was that the economic activities of the nuclear project (the employment at the project, the purchases of materials and services for the project, and other market effects of the project) caused additional economic activity in the Study Area. The determination of the total project effects on employment and income in the Study Area required the quantification of both the direct project activity and the additional induced nonproject activity. Once these income and employment consequences of the project had been estimated, their impacts on the area's economy, on the area's labor force, and on the area residents' standard of living were summarized.

51 A_____ -- -- - - - - - - _

The analysis of the employment and income effects due to Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 begins by describing the work force and the purchases of goods and services used to construct and operate the generating station. In this analysis, persons directly employed at the plant will be referred to as " direct" basic employees, and the incomes they earn will be counted as " direct" basic income at their place of residence. The direct basic employment and income is the first of three components of total project-related basic income and employment. Direct basic employment and income are analyzed in two ways: (1) the number of jobs and income earned at the place of work and their effects on the economy of the Study Area, and (2) the number of Study Area residents employed at the project and their project-related income and the subsequent effects on the labor force and the standard of living in the Study Area.

In addition to direct employment and income, local income and employment may result from the purchase of goods and services for the construction and operation of the plant. If, for example, $1,000 of building materials were purchased locally for plant construction, some fraction of the total value of the purchase would accrue as income to local residents. For materials produced locally, the ratio of locally-generated-income- )

to-total purchases is quite high. Materials produced elsewhere and only distributed locally result in a lower ratio of local-income-to-purchases because only the distributors' margins would become local income. Income and employment generated in response to the purchases of goods and services by the utility is referred to as "indirec't" basic income and employment, and is the second component of total project-related basic employment and income. The amount of indirect basic income produced by a given purchase is determined by the ratio of indirect basic income to product value, which varies according to the type of goods and the type of establishments involved in the transactions. The indirect basic income and employment in the Study Area due to the project was calculated by applying an income-and-employment-to-value-of-purchases g ratio derived from the Regional Industrial Multiplier System (RIMS) developed for the Regional Economic Analysis Division of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (United States Department of Commerce,1977; Anderson,1980.)

A third component of the project's income and employment effects is referred to as "other" basic income and employment, which include changes due to labor market effects (e.g., labor shortages or higher wages) and changes due to the favorable fiscal impacts of the station. The changes in income or employment of area residents resulting 52

I from these effects are the "other" basic income and employment. The construction of a nuclear plant could result in labor market effects due to labor shortages, higher wages, or changes in economic activity in response to fiscal impacts due to the pisnt. For example, wage-induced effects might occur in agricultural areas or in areas experiencing-underemployment if higher wages paid at the site attracted workers from lower paying jobs. Theoretically, this could result in an increase in wage rates and in labor shortages throughout the local economy. To the extent that such responses changed the income or employment of local resHents, the change would be categorized as other basic income and employment. The three major sources of change in basic income and employment-direct basic, indirect basic, and other basic-are summarized in Figure 4-1.

j A high proportion of the project-related basic income in the Study Area was earned by workers who lived outside Peach Bottom or Delta Borough or who resided in the Study Area only during the work week. As a result, these workers spent a smaller proportion of their income in the Study Area than did workers who lived in the Study Area and earned the same income. Therefore, the total project-related basic income earned in the Study Area was adjusted to make each dollar of project-related basic income equivalent in its effect on the Study Area to an average dollar of basic income earned there. The resulting adjusted income total is referred to as " effective" basic income.

" Nonbasic" income and employment, the final component of project-related employment effects, is that which results when basic income generated as a direct consequence of employment at the plant leads'to purchases of goods and services and thereby increases employment and incomes in those sectors in which these purchases are made-the expenditure and re-expenditure of effective basic income. The ratio of nonbasic to basic income, known as the multiplier, varies according to the size and characteristics of the economic system. In general, the larger the local economy, the smaller the income leakages due to purchases of goods and services produced outside the local economy, and the larger the multiplier. Once a multiplier has been estimated that is appropriate to the size of the local economy, the nonbasic income and employment resulting from the basic income due to the project is calculated. The method for estimating the nonbasic employment and income response to an increase in effective 53

F100RE 4 8 ESTIM A110H OF FitOJECT-MELATED EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME EFFECTS tileect Baslc Employment 1

-Cenetruellen weehere

--Operellene weekeep In.llrect Basic Enoployenent and laceme Totallieele Empley- Total due to Ulliity Puechases of Geode '

meat and inceene and Seetices in the Study Area Project-Related Employment and Income o

Adjustment fee 4---------

$ Tremelent Status of workere l'

'Other* Beele Employaient and Effective Employment and laceae Monbeste laceme Eff ecte due to Lehne-Meenet Babic laceae Multiplleen Effects. Tem-Related Effecte,ee Both Employesent and lacerne

<L II l

l l basic income is based on RIMS.I Nonbasic employment and income can then be added to the three categories of basic employment and income to estimate the total employment and income effects of the construction and operation of the nuclear plant.

4.4.1 Employment and Income Effects due to Construction of the Plant,1973 I

Direct Basic Employment and Income Effects,1973 l

Table 4-2 shows the number of construction workers residing in the Study Area in l

1973. Of the 415 workers in the Study Area,259 were located in Delta Borough, and 156 workers were located in Peach Bottom Township. Of these 415 workers, some had lived in the Study Area prior to the plant's construction (the nonmovers), and some had relocated to the Study Area (the movers). The nonmovers working on the project were mostly clerical workers and unskilled or semi-skilled laborers, although a few were skilled craftsmen. In addition, a few young, unskilled nonmovers joined the apprenticeship program offered by the construction contractor during periods of manpower shortages and became skilled craftsmen.

Of the 246 nonmovers,148 lived in Delta Borough, and 98 lived in Peach Bottom Township. Of the 169 movers,111 moved into Delta Borough, and 58 moved into Peach Bottom Township. In constant 1972 dollars, the construction work force living in the Study Area had a totalincome of about $6.9 million in 1973. In addition to those workers living in the Study Area,1,814 workers commuted to the site from outside the Study Area, mostly from York and Lancaster counties. These commuters earned $32.5 million in 1973.

IIn general, the RIMS technique develops industry-specific input-output types of multipliers based on national interindustry relationships at the 496-sector level of disaggregation, adjusted to reflect the availability of required inputs from suppliers in the county. In the simplest case, if an industry does not exist in the county economy, any requirements from that industry are assumed to be supplied by imports from outside the county economy. If an industry does exist in the county at the same, or greater proportion to the county economy as the industry is to the national economy, the county demands from that industry are assumed to be met within the county economy. If an industry represents a smaller proportion of the county economy than it did of the national economy, some of the county demand is assumed to be supplied from within the county and some is assumed to be imported.

55

TABLE 4-2 DIRECT BASIC EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME IN THE STUDY AREA 1973 (Constant 1972 Dollars)

Nonmovers Movers Total Direct Total Income Family Income Family Income Basic Income Place Number ($000) Present ($000) Absent ($000) Employees ($000)

Delta 148 $2,470 22 $367 89 $1,485 259 $4,322 Peach Bottom Township 98 1,636 12 200 46 768 156 2,603 Study Area 246 $4,106 34 $567 135 $2,253 415 $6,925 Source: Renova International, Ltd.,1974; Mountain West Research, Inc.,1980.

l U___ _ _-____

Recent information on construction worker characteristics shows that approximat ;y 60 percent of the construction workers who move into an area to work on a nuclear power plant are accompanied by their families. In 21 out of 28 construction worker surveys at thirteen nuclear plant sites, the proportions of movers with ' family present were between 51 and 72 percent. (Malhotra,1079.) However, in the Study Area, the percentage of movers accompanied by their families was estimated at only 20 percent. The construction workers who moved into the Study Area were primarily single or unaccompanied by their families, a result of the lack of housing availability in the Study Area. Prior to the construction of the Peach Bottom nuclear plant, the housing in Delta Borough was primarily single-family residential structures; few rental units were available (less than 2 percent of the housing stock). When construction began on the Peach Bottom facility, every attempt was made to accornmodate the construction workers, usually by converting single-family homes to multi-unit apartments. These converted units were generally more suitable for single workers than for families; consequently, few families relocated to the Study Area. Only 34 movers to the Study Area were estimated to have been accompanied by their families, while 135 movers were estimated to have been single or unaccompanied by their families (see Table 4-2).

Indirect Basic Employment and Income Effects,1973 Indirect basic employment and income in the Study Area result from local purchases of materials or equipment. During the construction of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, the major purchases for construction were made outside the local area-mostly in Baltimore and Philadelphia. Some electrical and hardware supplies and bulk construction materials such as lumber were obtained locally, but total purchases in the Study Area for 1973 were estimated to be only $150 thousand (constant 1972 dollars).

Although a detailed quantitative analysis of indirect basic income and employment effects was not possible given the approximate nature of purchase estimates, an order-of-magnitude estirnate of the purchases made in the Study Area and the resulting indirect basic income and employment was made.

It is estimated that in 1973 the value of purchases made in the Study Area for the construction of the project was about $150,000 (constant 1972 dollars). Since little is known about the specific sectors from which purchases were made, it is assumed that they were in the wholesale trade sector. This assumption is undoubtedly appropriate for the majority of local purchases, although sorne materials (e.g., sand and gravel) were 57

produced locally. For the majority of goods, however, local wholesalers simply served as distributors for materials and supplies produced elsewhere. It is estimated that for each dollar of sales by the wholesale trade sector, about $0.09 of indirect basic income is created.I Thus, the $150,000 of purchases in the Study Area would produce about

$13,500 of indirect basic income; the indirect income and employment generated in the Study Area would have been insignificant to the overall economy.

For the owners of the few businesses in the Study Area that supplied the materials, however, the perspective was different. Interviews with these people suggested that increases in their volume of sales due to purchases for plant construction were important and enabled them to upgrade and expand their firms Both the lumber and printing firms in the local area, for example, increased sales by nearly 25 percent over the pre-project period and, although demands declined as construction was completed, purchases of lumber products by the utility continued through the study period. Later i purchases of lumber were used as crates to transport low level radioactive wastes from 1 the plant site. In spite of the increased sales, employment effects were minimal because the increased demands for products were met by internal adjustments with existing labor. (Bueker, personal communication,1980; Cooper, personal communication, 1980; Gallbraith, personal communication,1980; Hunt, personal communication,1980; Sommer, personal communication,1980.)

Other Basic Employment and Income Effects,1973 The construction of a large facility such as a nuclear generating plant may result in some wage-induced effects that are classified as "other" basic employment and income. Wage-induced effects might occur in agricultural areas or areas experiencing underemployment. In such areas, the higher wages paid at the construction site might attract workers from lower paying jobs. During periods of shortages in the skilled crafts, 1

This figure is based on a trade margin of .21 multiplied by a change in gross output of 1.0 plus direct purchases by the trade sector of 0.5613. The earnings-to-gross-output ratio for the wholesale trade sector in York County is 0.276; thus, it is estimated l that for each $1.00 of purchases from the wholesale trade sector, $0.09 (the product of the three factors, .21,1.5613, and 0.276) of indirect basic income will be generated. I These estimates are based on the Regional Interindustry Multiplier System (RIMS) '

calculations prepared for each of the counties under study. (Drake, personal communication,1980.)

58

the establishment of apprenticeship programs at the construction site, on-the-job training, and acceptance of craf tsmen with less than first-rate credentials may attract workers from competing employers. Theoretically, this could result in a market increase in wage rates and manpower shortages throughout the local economy. The agricultural cector is especially vulnerable to these effects. In the Peach Bottom area, farmers complained that because of the competition with the Peach Bottom plant for laborers, many were not able to rely on their traditional sources of seasonal help.

A common perception in the Study Area was that shortages of farm workers adversely affected the agricultural sector and that the absolute number of farms l

declined during the construction period. In support of this allegation, some informants claimed that after construction was completed, manpower was no longer in short supply. However, there is no evidence to support these arguments that agriculture declined. Rather, the agricultural sector continued to be a viable and important l

contributor to the regional economy. Interviews with key informants suggested that adjustments were made to offset labor shortages: longer hours for workers and higher levels of family labor made it possible for employment and income to remain at much the same level as they would have been without the nuclear station. No long-term or permanent shortages in seasonal manpower were observed during the construction of the plant according to key informants. In sum, no noticeable loss in agricultural income or employment can be attributed to the construction of the Peach Bottom station.

It was also alleged that the plant's construction resulted in the demise of a few traditional retail esta'blishments in the Study Area. However, the evidence suggests that this decline was consistent with the economic trend of such establishments in the area.

These establishments consisted of two general stores and an agricultural machinery service firm.

Similar arguments were also made regarding the wage-induced effects on the construction industry. A number of key inforta.atts wito were interviewe 1 tuggested that because of the high construction wages paid to workers on the Wech Bottom and Three Mile Island projects, which were being constructed at the same time, there were shortages of manpower for commercial and residential construction work; these shortages, they stated, were responsible for increased construction wage rates. Renova International, Ltd., in its study of the impacts of the Peach Bottom plant, confirmed that the high wage scale for construction on the atomic station was felt throughout York 59

County because the wage scale inflated private and public construction costs (Renova International, Ltd.,1974).

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviewed regional labor data in its evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed Fulton plant and concluded that during the construction of the Peach Bottom plant, above-average wage increases in construction work occurred in York County. The increase in average earnings for construction work between 1968 and 1972 was 68 percent. This increase was substantially higher than increases during the same period for the state as a whole and for three neighboring counties. Dauphin County, however, experienced wage increases similar to York County's; this was attributed to the construction of the Three Mile Island plant.

The increase in the York County construction wage scale was attributed to the construction work force at the Peach Bottom plant being included in the calculations-a work force that represented about 30 percent of the total employment in the county's construction industry and that received higher wages than the average York County construction wage. When the Peach Bottom wage was factored out, the rate of growth of construction wages in York County fell below that of the state. (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commssion,1975.)

In conclusion, wage-induced effects were alleged in both the agriculture and the construction sectors. However, such effects were apparently not responsible for any 1

significant changes in aggregate levels of employment or income within the Study Area. 1 Nonbasic Employment and Income Effects,1973 The construction of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 resulted in significant increases in basic employment and income in the Study Area. The purpose of this section is to estimate the induced or nonbasic employment and income effects in the Study Area.

These induced effects result from expenditure of the basic income earned in the Study Area due to the project.

The technique for estimating the nonbasic income and employment effects is based on a county-specific adaptation of the Regional Interindustry Multiplier System (RIMS) developed by the Regional Economic Analysis Division of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. The technique is well documented elsewhere (U.S. Water Resources Council,1977) and is therefore not described in detail here. In l

60

)

general, the technique develops industry-specific input-output types of multipliers based on nationalinterindustry relationships (at the 496-sector level of disaggregation) adjusted to reflect the availability of required inputs from local suppliers.

In general, variation in the size of the multipliers reflects variation in the size and l

diversity of the local economy rather than differential propensities to consume. The larger the local economy, the more able it is to meet its own needs; therefore, imports are smaller, and the induced response to an increase in basic income is larger. Income and employment multipliers have been estimated for York County and are based on the j national 1976 input-output table, adjusted to constant 1972 dollars. For York County, the income multiplier was estimated to be $229.4 (per $1,000 of income), and the employment multiplier was estimated at 0.036 (per $1,000 of income).I Effective Basic Income A proportion of the project-related basic income in the Study Area was earned by workers who were transient residents or who lived outside York County and who, therefore, spent a smaller proportion of their income in the county economy than did workers living in the Study Area who earned the same income. This red.uced the effect of the project-related basic income on the local economy by diminishing the amount available for multiplication. To account for this, the total project-rela'.ed basic income earned in the county was adjusted to make each dollar of project-related basic income equivalent in effect on the economy of the county to an average-dollar-of-basic-incom earned there. Two principal factors affected the amount of effective basic income resulting from the project: (1) the residential location of the workers earning the basic income, and (2) the incidence of outside financial commitments such as the maintenance of a household. The effects of these factors were analyzed by dividing the project-related basic workers into four groups:

1. Nonmovers-employees who were residents in the Study Area prior to employment on the project and who did not move because of this employment;

2. Movers accompanied by families-employees who moved into the Study Area because of employment on the project and who were accompanied by f amilies; 1

Drake, personal communication,1980.

61

3. Mov,.rs unaccompanied by families (or single)-employees who moved into the Study Area because of employment on the project and who were not accompanied by families; and

4. Daily long-distance commuters-employees living outside the Study Area who commuted daily into the Study Area to work at the project.

Based on information concerning residential location, commuting pattuns, and outside financial commitments, as well as examination of the availability of goods and services in the local economy, the basic income of each of the four groups was weighted so that its effect, in terms of generating induced economic activity within the Study Area, would be commensurate across groups. The resulting weighted income estimate is referred to as " effective" basic income. Because the county-specific multipliers are based on the consumption patterns of average county residents who are principally nonmovers, nonmovers serve as the standard for defining effective basic income, and all of their income is treated as effective (i.e., their income is weighted by a factor of 1.0). For each of the remaining categories of workers, data outlined by the Consumer Expenditure Survey (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1972-1973) were utilized to determine the proportion of income spent by these workers in the local area compared to that spent by nonmovers. Examination of the local economy and discussions with workers, local planners, and area residents then led to assumptions about the percentage of expenditures made locally for each category of expenditures. Regarding housing, for example, it was assumed that nonmovers and movers accompanied by their families would spend 100 percent of their housing expenditures in the Study Area, movers without their families would spend only 50 percent of their housing expenditures in the Study Area, and daily commuters would spend nothing for housing in the area.

To calculate the proportion of direct basic income (see Table 4-2) that should be included for estimating the nonbasic employment and income, several factors were i considered. An adjustment is made for the income of movers who are single or unaccompanied by their families since these workers spend considerably more of their income outside the Study Area than do the nonmovers or the movers accompanied by families. Interviews with union officials, workers, and local businessmen indicated that local spending by movers who are single or unaccompanied by families was about half that of nonmovers and movers accompanied by families. Therefore, only 50 percent of the basic income of this group is assigned to the base for calculating nonbasic income and employment.

62

Commuters from residences outside the Study Area spent money locali . on such goods and services as gas, meals, and incidental items. The amount spent on such purchases was considerably less than that spent locally by nonmovers or movers with families. Key informants, especially local businessmen, estimeted that a typical daily commuter spent about twenty dollars a month in the county. This was only about 7 percent of the local spending by nonmovers and movers with families.I The total effective income calculated as the base for deriving the nonbasic employment and income was $5.9 million. This includes all the income from the nonmovers and movers with families ($4.7 million), 50 percent of the income of movers

{ who were single or with family absent ($1.1 million), and 7 percent of the income of daily l

long-distance commuters from outside the Study Area ($0.06 million). Tbs application of the RIMS multipliers indicates that direct basic income produced an estimated $1.3 million in nonbasic income and an estimated 211 nonbasic jobs. It must be understood, however, that the multipliers applied to the income base of the Study Area were those applicable to York County. If it were possible to use similar techniques to derive multipliers for the Study Area, the resulting multipliers would be much smaller.

Therefore, although the 211 nonbasic jobs may be a reasonable estimate of regional nonbasic employment due to the basic income in the Study Area, only a very small proportion of these jobs would be expected to occur within the Study Area of Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township. In fact, interviews with key informants in the Study Area suggested that approximately 20 additional nonbasic jobs were created in the Study Area during the 1973 construction year, only about 10 percent of the total nonbasic jobs estimated above.

The degree to which the increase in nonbasic jobs occurred outside of the Study Area was not surprising given the small and declining commercial sector in Delta Borough relative to nearby shopping centers that were growing rapidly. It appears, therefore, that only a small percentage of the direct basic income was actually spent in the Study Area.

I If more goods and services had been available locally, including liquor, for example, local spending by movers and nonmovers would have been greater, as would have local spending by long-distance commuters.

63  ;

The nonbasic employment generated by the project was primarily in the service sector.

The average 1974 salary in the service sector in York County was $5,276 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,1976). At this salary, the 20 nonbasic jobs generated by the construction of Units 2 and 3 would have added an annual income of approximately $106 thousand (1972 constant dollars) to the Study Area.

A particularly visible consequence in nonbasic employment and income was the development of a large regional supermarket in the area, which stemmed from the increase in disposable income in the Study Area during the construction period. The expansion of this particular establishment accelerated the decline and ultimate demise of the few traditional general stores in Delta Borough, which could not compete with respect to location, range of goods and services, or price. The trend toward centralization of the retail food trade in the Study Area, which was accelerated by construction-related spending, was sustained by the other recent newcomers to the local area. The establishment of the large supermarket in which a number of Study Area residents were employed increased wage and salary employment in the Study Area, partly in substitution for proprietors' employment in family-operated stores.

Total Employment and Income due to Construction of the Project,1973 The sum of the four components of employment and income generated by the Peach Bottom station-direct basic, indirect basic, "other" basic, and nonbasic-is the total employment and income created in the Study Area by the project. Table 4-3 shows the number of new jobs created in the Study Area by place of work and by place of l

residence in 1973. The total number of new jobs created in the county in 1973 by place of work was estimated to be 2,441, and total income from this employment was $40.5 million. In 1973, 435 jobs were project-related by place of residence and income from this employment was estimated to be $7.07 million.

l l 4.4.2 Employment and Income Effects due to Operation of the Plant,1978 Direct Basic Employment and Income Effects,1978 Commerical operation of Units 2 and 3 began in 1975. Detailed information on the origins and residential distribution of the 1978 operations work force and on earnings was provided by the Philadelphia Electric Company. The average wage per operations worker in 1978 was $13,200 (constant 1972 dollars). This figure may be slightly high, as the cost data on operations did not separate the salaries paid to utility employees from 64

i TABLE 4-3 TOTAL PROJECT-RELATED EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSIIIP AND DELTA BOROUGH 1973 Employment and Income Type Place of Work Place of Residence Employment Basic 2,230 415 Nonbasic 211 20 TOTAL 2,441 435 Income" Basic 39 2 6.93 Nonbasic 1.3 0.11 TOTAL 40.5 7.04

" Income is reported in thousands of 1972 constant dollars.

Source: Mountain West Research,Inc.,1980.

65

the cost of contracted workers and therefore included some overhead and other indirect costs. The total operations work force-regular operations staff and security and maintenance personnel-was 414 workers in 1978. Of these,48 (12 percent) were Study Area residents; 22 were movers, mostly regular operations staff, and 26 were nonmovers, mostly the security and maintenance workers. In 1978, the basic income of the operations work force living in the Study Area was about $633,600, of which $290,400 was earned by the movers. The remaining 366 operations workers who resided outside the Study Area did not spend a sufficient amount of money in the Study Area to warrant inclusion as additional direct basic income. In addition, indirect and "other" basic employment and income effects in the Study Area during 1978 were negligible.

In 1978, a temporary work force of 640 refueling, maintenance, and repair per-sonnel was required for a short period. These workers were either hired from the union halls in York City, employed by the utility, or employed by a maintenance / labor-pool organization whose members resided primarily in the area near the plant. (Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication,1979.) The distribution of these workers by place of residence during the refueling periods was similar to that of the construction work force, with a slightly higher percentage located in the Study Area; about 87 of these workers stayed in the Study Area. (Philadelphia Electric Company, personal communication,1979.)

These workers are equivalent to 21 full-time workers in terms of average annual employment. Their pay rates were approximately the same as those of the regular operating workers, and they received a per diem subsistence allowance of $35. The

effective income spent by these workers for local purchases is estimated to have been j about 50 percent of that of the operations employees who were full-time residents of the Study Area, giving a total increase in basic income from these workers of approximately

$138,600. The 553 long-distance commuters, representing 136 full-time workers in terms of average annual employment, were estimated to have spent about 3.5 percent of their income, or about $36,000, in a pattern similar to that of the mover and nonmover refueling workers. Total basic income from these workers was therefore approximately

$200 thousand. Together with the direct basic income of the operations work force, this gives a total effective basic income in the Study Area of approximately $0.8 million in 1978.

66

Nonbasic Employment and Incomo Effects,1978 Nonbasic employment and income effects generated by the basic operations work force residing in the Study Area were estimated for 1978 applying the same procedure used to derive the nonbasic increases during construction. Nonbasic income was estimated to be $191,228, and nonbasic employment was estimated to be 30 persons.

Although a large proportion of the income earned by the operations workers was spent in York County, it was spent outside the Study Area: the nonbasic employment, then, is assumed to be a fraction of the total nonbasic jobs generated by earned income in the Study Area. As in the case of the induced nonbasic jobs during the construction period, the number of nonbasic jobs in the Study Area in 1978 was estimated to be 10 percent of the total nonbasic jobs-or a total of only 3 jobs.

4.4.3 Summary of the Economic Effects on the Study Area,1973 and 1978 The following subsections summarize the employment and income effects of the plant during a peak construction year and a recent year of operation.

Direct Income and Employment Effects,1973 and 1978 Construction,1973 The average annual on-site construction work force in 1973 was 2,230 workers, divided into movers, nonmovers, and long-distance commuters. In 1973, there were 415 direct basic workers residing in the Study Area. They had a totalincome of $6.9 million.

In 1973, about 169 direct basic workers moved into the Study Area (see Table 4-2). Of these movers, 34 were accompanied by families, and 135 were single or with family absent. Most of the 246 nonmovers were employed as laborers, clerical workers, and craf t trainees, although some were skilled crafts people. Nonmovers earned about $4.1 million in 1973.

Operations,1978 Basic employment for 1978 during the operations phase was estimated to be 414 workers,48 of whom resided in the Study Area. About 22 of these were movers. In addition, there was an average annual employment of 158 maintenance, repair, and refueling workers, 21 of whom stayed in the Study Area. The basic income of the operations workers living in the Study Area in 1978 was estimated to be $633 thousand.

The basic income contributed to the Study Area by these workers was estimated to be about $200 thousand.

67

Other Income and Employment Effects,1973 and 1978 Indirect income and employment results from the utility's purchase of goods a:nd services in the Study Area. Some electrical and hardware supplies and bulk construction materials such as lumber were purchased, but total purchases in the Study Area were estimated to be only about $150 thousand. The indirect basic income generated by these purchases was estimated at about $13 thousand, not enough to produce measurable employment effects in the Study Area.

Interviews with owners of establishments that provided goods and services to the utility indicated that the increases in their volume of sales due to these purchases were relatively substantial and enabled some of these firms to modernize.

Nonbasic Em loyment and Income Effects,1973 and 1978 Basic employment due to the plant resulted in income for the workers, which they, in turn, spent. A portion of those expenditures were made in the Study Area and resulted in nonbasic employment and income. In 1973, nonbasic employment due to the project was estimated to be about 20 jobs, and nonbasic income was estimated to be about

$106 thousand. In 1978, during the operations period, only three nonbasic jobs were l created by the project.

Summary of Employment and Income Effects,1973 and 1978 The total basic and nonbasic employment effects in the Study Area for 1973 included workers on the site and in the local economy. These were about 435 project-related basic and nonbasic workers residing 'in the Study Area in 1973. Their total income was about $7 million. For the operations year, 1978, there were about 51 project-related basic and nonbasic workers living in the Study Area, whose income was about $650 thousand.

4.5 Effects of the Project on the Study Area Economy, 1967-1978 l

The Peach Bottom project had important effects on the labor force in the Study Area during construction. One of the most significant of these was the effect on the number of unemployed. Prior to the construction of the nuclear station, the unemployment rate in the Study Area was 8.5 percent in Delta Borough and 5.6 percent in the townships (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1960). The total labor force in the local impact area was estirnated to be about 765 persons (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1960). In 1970, the fourth year of construction, the unemployment rate for the area fell to 68

v 2.1 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1970). The decline in the unemployment rate was particularly significant for tfe female labor force. Prior to the construction of the plant, the percentage of unem11 oyed women in the labor force in Delta Borough was 15.7. percent, but during the ' construction period, female unemployment in the ared dropped to 8.2 percent. ' The rate of male unemployment showed marked decline as well. In 1970, the male unemployment rate was approximately 1 percent, compared to an unemployment rate of about' 6 percent prior to construction, reflecting employment opportunities in the construction sector of the local economy.

A number of employment opportunities were presented by the project, and construction of the nuclear facility provided occupational mobility for many workers.

l The labor pool'in the Study Area prior to the project consisted of up to 60 percent unskilled or general farm labor, 20 percent semi-skilled labor, and 20 percent skilled i

craf tsmen (Renova International, Ltd.,1974). Until construction of the plant began, there were few employment opportunities in the Study Area, high levels of seasonal unemployment and underemployment, and high female unemployment rates.

Construction of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 benefited the seasonal agricultural worker: ,

ceveral of the construction workers from the Study Area were formerly employed in the egricultard ' sector but gained employment as laborers and semi-skilled laborers on the constructidn site and ul:iniately upgraded their skills.

Employment opportunities at the nuclear plant project were especialy important to the unemployed and unskilled youth in the area, some of whom became apprentices and received on-the-job training in skiUed crafts. Key informants point out that some of thesE trained individuals remained in the local area following the'end of the construction period and commuted to construedcin jobs outside of the ares.; although the number of

, t individuals involved was limited, this experience helped to reverse a trend of out-migration by young people.

The local workers who gained employment at Peach Bottom were replaced in the labor force by those who were previously unemploydd or underemployed: occupational f

mobility in this respect was especially important to the female labor force. The decline /

t + '

in the female unemployment rate in the S'tudy Area reflected etnployment opportunities, such as clerical work at the construction site and in nunb'asic j;bs.

.; i k

k ,

, i ,

+. I h 69 1

4

Although unemployment rates are not available for the Study Area following the termination of construction in 1974, results from interviews with key community informants suggest that unemployment rates increased thereaf ter. This increase was particularly difficult for women, among whom high levels of unemployment and underemployment persisted during the latter half of the 1970s. The local construction industry also experienced a general slowdown, partly due to the difficulties the industry as a whole was facing in the region at that time. Few construction workers remained in the local area permanently, and Delta Borough was again characterized by a declining population. Because the size of the operations work force was considerably smaller than that of the construction work force, the overall effect of the project on employment and income was also much smaller during the operations period. Only 51 persons employed in project-related jobs were living in the Study Area in 1978.

An important index for measuring change in the standard of living is the level of family income. During the construction period, family income in the Study Area generally increased. The increase reflected changes due to construction wages, nonbasic employment, and income from rentals. The high average annual wage in the Study Area during the construction period was a direct result of the high construction wages for the t

local workers, which were the highest for that sector in the county.

The Renova International assessment of the impacts of Peach Bottom's construction notes that "The increase in the wage scale had many beneficial effects . . .

retail businesses were boosted because of the increase in many expenditures. As business l improved, store owners had capital to improve stores and services." (Renova.

International,1974.) Nonbasic employment increased in the Study Area, and these jobs went primarily to local residents who were previously unemployed or underemployed; this employment increase, in turn, increased family income.

Additional supplementary income was provided to local area residents through rental payments. Of the housing stock in Delta, about 30 percent (amounting to 100 structures) was rentable. The Renova International study estimated that the average monthly rent in the Study Area was about $80 in 1973. For 1973, rental incomes from construction workers in Delta Borough totaled over $100 thousand.

However, there were many for whom the standard of living did not increase during the construction period. Aside from the few merchants who gained economically as a L 70

l result of direct expenditures from the construction workers, many local residents did not directly benefit from plant construction, particularly the agricultural community in Peach Bottom Township.

According to 1960 data, the median family income in the Study Area prior to the construction of the Peach Bottom nuclear plant was 86 percent of the median family income in the county; it was only 78 percent of the county's median family income during 1970, the fourth year of construction. While the median family income in York County increased by 76 percent during the 1960-1970 period, the median family income in the Study Area increased by about 60 percent.

l Community informants who were interviewed pointed out that the construction period was characterized by increased economic activity in the local impact area, but this activity was not sufficient to transform the economic base of the community or to have effects lasting after the construction of the plant was completed. The overall svaluation of the community with respect to the economic impact of the plant was that it was a temporary shot in the arm and did not prevent the eventual out-migration of I population and commerce in the area.

By 1975, even though the plant was operating, the effects of plant construction had dissipated. The residual income effects of plant operation were small: wages at the Peach Bottom plant for the skilled technicians, engineers, and managers were generally higher than were local wage levels, but since most of the local residents were employed in clerical, security, and maintenance jobs, their wages were generally not much higher than local rates. The few skilled workers were in-migrants to the area; thus, there was little improvement in the standard of living for the resident population. Peach Bottom Township has continually had one of the lowest average wages per worker in York County, and the construction of the plant did not alter this: in 1976, two years following the end of construction, the average worker's salary in Peach Bottom Township was less than $8,000, compared to the average salaries of between $9 and $10 thousand in other areas in York County.

71

CHAPTER 58 POPULATION 5.1 Introduction

'Ibe purpose of Chapter 5 is to determine the population effects of the Peach Bottom project in Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township and to explain the relationship between the project and its population effects. The first step in this chapter is to examine the historical and recent demographic trends in the Study Area.

The second step is to determine the demographic implications of the basic and nonbasic employment created by the project. Two sources of population increase are considered: increases due to the in-migration of workers and their household members for project-related employment and increases from diminished out-migration of local residents and their household members due to project-related employment. These estimates are formulated in an annual series, which are then stated as a percentage of the study area population to measure the population impacts of the project. Further demographic effects will be addressed in Chapter 8, where the impacts on groups in the study area will be considered.

5.2 Demographic Trends Since 1900, the overall population trend in Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township has been generally downward; the historical data are shown in Figure 5-1.

However, there have been exceptions to this decline. In 1900, Peach Bottom Township's population reached a peak of 1,888 persons; by 1930 it had declined to 1,420 persons. This decline reflected the national trend of out-migration from rural to urban areas, exacerbated by a decline in slate quarrying centered in Delta Borough.

Between 1940 and 1950, Peach Bottom's population increased slightly from 1,309 to 1,362 persons, but during the 1950s, the population again declined. Between 1960 and 1978, rural suburbanization from the Baltimore metropolitan area resulted in a relatively sizeable population increase for the township. In 1960, the township's population was 1,325 persons. This increased to 1,424 persons in 1970 and 1,477 l persons in 1975, an increase in population of 11.5 percent since 1960, at a consistent

! annual rate of increase of 0.7 percent over the two periods.

The population of Delta Borough also experienced fluctuations between 1900 and 1970, attributable largely to employment trends in the community. Between 1900 and 1920, Delta's population increased by almost 25 percent, a result of growth in the slate industry and of Delta's increasing importance as an agricultural service and 72

3.808 - Study Area Peach Bottom Township

-.- Delta Borough 2,500 -

2,000 -

~

' ~ . , ,

_ s Z \

s O_,

r _

\ s%

4 3

J 1.500 _ \

g e

p's L

O A.

s%g%s, ~~~~,

1,000 _

- s y

,/ ~*

.s's,_,_, ,. ._,_,~+-.~.

s00 -

0 g g g g  :  :

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1979 YEAR FIGURE 5 - 1. Population of Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township, 1900-1979.

Source: York County Planning Commission, 1971a, 1971b, 1973b, 1976, and 1978.

73

distribution center. However, a serious population decline began in the 1920s with the dedine of slate mining. From 1940 and into the early 1950s, the borough's popwation increased by 16 percent-from 724 to 840 persons-as a result of increased wartime employment in nearby urban areas. Hereafter, the population declined slowly and continuously through 1975. Between 1960 and 1970, the annual loss in population was 0.5 percent. His decline can be traced to the out-migration of young people from Delta Borough, where employment opportunities were limited, to the departure of a number of merchants whose small traditional retail stores were not able to compete with changes in consumer preferences toward regional shopping centers, and to the high death rate because of the relatively large proportion of elderly residents. The rate of the population decline was not as steep as it might have been because of the in-migration of families from Maryland, who were able to obtain homes in Delta at comparatively lower prices than those available in the Baltimore area. Since the 1940s, Delta has served as a " bedroom" community for a sizeable number of families who work within commuting distance. Between 1960 and 1978, this trend accelerated, resulting in the increase in Delta's population that occurred between 1976 and 1978.

1 Delta Borough had a relatively large number of elderly, retired people, especially widows, compared to Peach Bottom Township or the State of Pennsylvania.

In Delta Borough, in 1970, about 20 percent of the population was over 60 years of age, compared to 12 percent in Peach Bottom Township and 15 percent in Pennsylvania. Of the female population in Delta Borough, 27 percent were over 60 j years of age, while 18 percent of the males were in this age category. In contrast, the figures for Peach Bottom Township were much lower and more nearly equal for males and females-13 percent of all females and 13 percent of all males were 60 years of age or over. l ne prevalence of a large number of retired and elderly people in Delta Borough was due to the early retirement of slate miners, especially those who had developed lung disease because of their occupational exposure to slate particulate matter, the return of retired people who had out-migrated from the area during their working years, and the continued exodus of young people : seeking employment.

The average household size in Delta Borough in 1970 was small (3.02 persons),

compared to that of Peach Bottom Township (3.65 persons) or the state (3.22 persons) 74

l largsly becs:uss of tha high psrcentege of oldsr persons in the borough. Concomit-antly, the relatively small proportion of the population of Delta Borough in the 20-50 year age category (34 percent in the study area compared to 43 percent in the state) was significant for the Study Area since it is this age group that contributes most to the economy of an area. The influx of suburbanites to Peach Bottom Township during the 1960s and 1970s contributed to an increase in family size in the township, but did l

not greatly affect economic activity in the area despite their concentration in the 20-

! 50 year age category, since most worked and shopped outside the Study Area. .

I (Renova International, Ltd.,1974; York County Planning Commission,1971a,1971b, 1973b.)

The population of the Study Area was predominantly white; there were a few black families in Delta, and Peach Bottom Township had a black population of approximately 5 percent in the late 1960s when construction began on Units 2 and 3.

l H is racial composition, stable for some time, remained relatively unchanged throughout the study period.

5.3 Changes in the Population during the Study Period The period covered in this section is from 1967 to 1979. Construction of Units 2 and 3 began in 1967; by 1970, construction had been underway for three years, and, as shown in Figure 2-4, the construction work force exceeded 2,500 workers.

Table 5-1 shows the population change in the study area between 1960 and 1970 and between 1970 and 1979. Between 1960 and 1970, Delta Borough's population fell at an annual rate of 0.5 percent and continued to decline through the entire construction period to 1975. However, between 1975 and 1979, Delta Borough's population increased at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent. Peach Bottom Township experienced an average annual rate of growth of 0.7 percent between 1960 and 1975. This rose to 1.2 percent between 1975 and 1979. Thus, data show that Peach Bottom Township grew slowly from the late 1960s to 1979, with a slightly higher annual rate of increase since 1975, while for Delta Borough, the first half of the 1970s was marked by a persistent decline in its population, followed by an increase between 1975 and 1979.

The demographic composition of the Study Area in 1970 was similar to that of 1960, with elderly residents making up a large proportion of the population. Over 17 percent of the population was aged 60 and over in 1970. Interviews with key 75

TABLE 5-1 POPULATION AND POPULATION CHANGE DELTA BOROUGH AND PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP 1960, 1970, 1975, and 1979 Percent Percent Percent Annual Annual Population Annual Population Growth Population Growth 1979 Growth 1960 1970 1960-1970 1975 1970-1975 (Estimated) 1975-1979 Delta Borough 822 778 -0.5 727 -1.3 770 +1.5 Peach Bottom Township 1,325 1,424 +0.7 1,477 +0.7 1,550 +1.2 TOTAL 2,147 2,202 2,204 2,320 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1960 and 1970; York County Planning Commission, 1976, Rural Housing Study; key informant interviews,1979.

j l

l 76 l

(

informants indicated that during ths 1970s tha 25-40 age group grew in size as a result of the in-migration of commuters from the Baltimore metropolitan area.

5.4 Population Effects due to the Project 5.4.1 Introduction Population effects directly attributable to the construction and operation of the Peach Bottom project have been considered in two categories: population changs due to in-migration and population change due to diminished out-migration. For both categories, employment due to the project was the force driving the population change.

}

In Chapter 4, the number of plant-related workers in Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township was determined for both basic and nonbasic employment. In addition, the number of workers who moved into the area and the number of workers who were already residents were determined for the plant-related basic employment.

The following sections present estimates of the two categories of population effects due to the construction and operation of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3.

5.4.2 Population Effects during the Construction Period Population Change due to In-Migration The principal demographic effects attributable to Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 are those resulting from the in-migration of workers and sceompanying household members to the Study Area because of project-related employment. In 1973, the project created an estimated 435 jobs in the Study Area, of which 415 were basic and 20 were nonbasic. As was shown in Table 4-2, 246 of the basic jobs went to nonmovers; 34 went to movers with family present, and 135 went to movers who were single or with family absent. It is estimated that all of the nonbasic jobs were filled by residents of the Study Area or by family members of other project-related workers. (Key informant interviews, 1979.) None of these 20 jobs, therefore, contributed to additional in-migration to the Study Area. Table 5-2 shows the distribution of the jobs among the three categories of workers--nonmovers, movers accompanied by families, and movers unaccompanied by families.

1 Although it is possible that a project could cause out-migration or prevent in-migration or both, neither case appears to apply for Peach Bottom, and therefore neither one is pursued.

77

TABLE 5-2 PROJECT-RELATED EMPLOYMENT BY TYPE OF WORKER PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP AND DELTA BOROUGH 1973 Worker Type Basic Nonbasic TOTAL Nonmovers 246 20 266 Movers Accompanied by Families 34 --

34 Movers Unaccompanied by Families 135 --

135 TOTAL 415 20 435 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1980.

l l

78

Tha damographic affacts associated with the basic worksrs at the Patch Bottom plant were estimated by multiplying the number of movers with family present by the average family size of 3.25. He family size estimate was taken from the recent Battelle study on construction workers, which found that, among movers, over 70 percent of those surveyed had family sizes between 3.2 and 3.3 (Malhotra, 1979:211).

Table 5-3 shows the employment components and the resulting population changes.

The population increase due to in-migration is estimated to have been 246 persons in 1973. Based on the assumption that the proportion of movers to total work force for the construction period remained at the 1973 level, estimates for the annual population increases due to in-migration attributable to the nuclear plant were derived as shown in Table 5-4. his table shows the number of persons present in the Study Area each year because of in-migration caused by the project.

i l

Population Change due to Diminished Out-Migration Population increases from the construction of Peach Bottom Units 1 and 2 may also have resulted from diminished out-migration. When workers who would normally leave an area to obtain employment stay because they find work at local jobs, the population is increased over what it would have been without those jobs. The maximum population effect from reduced out-migration occurs if all locally-hired residents are mobile, perceive other job opportunities, and will out-migrate if not employed. The minimum population effect occurs if the best alternative for these locally-hired residents is to remain unemployed in the Study Area, in which case there will be no population increase from diminished out-migration.

A realistic position between these extremes can be obtained by examining the out-migration trends in the Study Area. A trend for out-migration by the area's young population was evident from the age and population data presented earlier.

The shortage of employment opportunities in the Study Area resulted in steady out-migration of the area's younger residents. Employment opportunities at the Peach Bottom plant were an exception to historical conditions in this area, and it is evident that a reversal in the out-migration trend occurred during the construction period.

To derive the population effects due to diminished out-migration, the pool of nonmovers employed in project-created jobs was divided into two categories: those who would probably have stayed in the study area regardless of a lack of employment opportunities (underemployed women, for example) and those who would have out-79

TABLE 5-3 EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION INCREASE DUE TO IN-MIGRATION DELTA BOROUGH AND PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP 1973 Additional Employment Household Category Workers Members Total Movers with Family 34 77 111 Movers who Are Single or without Family 135 0 135 Nonbasic Movers 0 0 0 Population Increase 169 77 246 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1980.

l l

80

TABLE 5-4 POPULATION INCREASE DUE TO IN-MIGRATION OF BASIC WORKERS AND HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS DELTA BOROUGH AND PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP 1967 to 1974 Work Population Year Force Increase 150 17 1967 688 76 1968 1,064 117 1969 2,186 241 1970 2,119 234 1971 1972 2,844 314 2,230 246 1973 639 71 1974 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1980.

81

migretsd from the Study Arse without the plant-rslatsd jsbs (tha young, unskillsd workers, and the unemployed). A total of 266 jobs related to the construction of the nuclear plant went to nonmovers, 246 basic and 20 nonbasic.

According to key informants in the Study Area, the nonbasic jobs that were taken by local residents went primarily to unemployed and underemployed females. It was assumed that a small proportion of these nonbasic workers-10 percent, or 2 people-would have out-migrated from the Study Area had it not been for these jobs.

To determine probable out-migration for the 246 nonmovers holding basic jobs, the employment data during the study period were examined; they showed that, on the average, male unemployment in the Study Area declined from about 6 percent to about 1 percent, probably because of the increased employment opportunities at the Peach Bottom plant. Based on the assumptions that the drop in male unemployment (5 percent of the male labor force) reflected the number of unemployed males finding jobs on the Peach Bottom project and that these unemployed males would have eventually left the Study Area in the absence of local job opportunities, the number of unemployed males who found jobs in construction, and who therefore did not out-migrate, was estimated at 28 workers. j The final component of diminished out-migration was the young population that was employed on plant construction and would have out-migrated were it not for the project. Based on interviews with key informants, it would be reasonable to estimate that 25 additional young people, or about 12 percent of those 15-20 years.of age in l the Study Area, would have out-migrated had it not been for the project. The total number of nonmovers who did not out-migrate during the 1973 construction year as a consequence of plant-induced employment was thus estimated to be 55 persons.

The next step was to determine the number of additional household members associated with these 55 nonmovers and to derive estimates of induced population increases. For the 1973 construction year, the population increase due to diminished out-migration was derived by calculating the number of workers per household (1.1 workers per household for those households that had a construction worker) and multiplying the number of households by the average household size,1.5 persons (this estimate was obtained by assuming that the potential out-migrants had an average I 82

family size of only half that of the Study Area-3.0 persons). This produced a total population effect due to diminished out-migration of 83 persons in 1973.

Based on these calculations, annual estimates of population increase were derived, as shown in Table 5-5, by assuming a constant proportion of population increase to total construction employment over the construction period.

Total Population Effects The total population increase due to the Peach Bottom plant resulted from in-migration of basic workers and their families during the construction period and diminished out-migration by local residents due to employment increases in basic and nonbasic employment. Table 5-6 shows the total annual population increase due to the construction of the plant.

During the first half of the 1970s, the population in the Study Area increased markedly because of the plant. In 1973, for example, the population increase from in-migration and diminished out-migration was an estimated 329 persons, an increase of approximately 15 percent. Following the end of construction, in 1975, significant out-migration of the resident population occurred. By 1975, for example, Delta Borough had 6.6 percent fewer persons than in 1970, indicating clearly that the population increases due to construction of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 were only temporary.

5.4.3 Population Effects during the Operations Period As during the construction period, the Study Area population increased during the operations period as a result of the employment of in-migrants in basic and nonbasic jobs. In 1978, as discussed in Chapter 4 and shown in Table 4-10, nonbasic employment in the Study Area from operation of the plant was rather small, perhaps three jobs. These jobs were presumably filled by residents of the Study Area. The number of operations workers who in-m! grated to the Study Area in 1978 to work at the nuclear facility was an estimated 22 workers. Assuming these workers had households with characteristics sirnilar to those for the state as a whole, the 1

No population increase was assigned as an effect of the maintenance, repair, and refueling workers since they were temporary.

83

TABLE 5-5 POPULATION INCREASE DTTE TO DIMINISHED OUT-MIGRATION DELTA BOROUGH AND PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP 1967 to 1974 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Diminished out-Migration 6 26 40 81 79 106 83 24 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1980.

l 84

i TABLE 5-6 TOTAL POPULATION INCREASE DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC GENERATING STATION DELTA BOROUGH AND PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP 1967-1974 Year In-Migration Reduced Out-Migration Total 2

17 6 23 1967 1968 76 26 102 1969 117 40 157 1970 241 81 322 1971 234 79 313 1972 314 106 420

, 1973 246 83 329-l 1974 71 24 95 l

l Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1980.

I 85

d:;mogrrphic incrsasa attributtbla to plant opar:tions is tha product of the numbsr of operations work force movers and the average household size for Pennsylvania in 1978 (3.53 persons), or 78 persons for 1978. (Pennsylvania Bureau of Statistics, Research and Planning,1979.)

Of the twenty-six nonmovers who were employed at the plant, many were security personnel, clerical workers, and maintenance personnel. Interviews with a number of these workers suggest that they would not have relocated if employment had not been obtained at the plant. Rather, they would have searched for employment elsewhere and commuted from their homes in the Study Area. This was especially true in the case of female clerical workers whose speuses worked in the area. He evidence suggests that employment at the plant did not result in any diminished out-migration. The total population increase, therefore, was limited to the in-migrant work force and their families, a total of 78 persons. The annual population increase for the operations period, 1974 1979, derived by assuming a constant relationship between population increase and the size of the operations work force, is shown in Table 5-7.

5.4.4 Summary He total annual population increase in the Study Area during the construction and operation periods is shown in Table 5-8. The greatest population impacts occurred in 1972, the year of peak construction, when the plant-related population accounted for over 14 percent of the study area's population. With the termination

,of construction in 1974, the number of people in .the Study Area due to the plant fell dramatically, reflecting the smaller operations labor force, which had fewer plant-related workers residing there. These data show clearly that during the construction period, the Peach Bottom station had an important demographic effect on the Study Area.

I 1

Based on the 1970 population of the study area. The population of the Study Area remained relatively steady during the study period and the 1970 population would serve as a good standard for comparative change.

86 1

TABLE 5-7 POPULATION INCREASE DUE TO THE OPERATION OF THE PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER PLANT DELTA BOROUGH AND PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP 1974 to 1979 Year Population Increase 56 1974 57 1975 58 1976 65 1977 78 1978 89 1979 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1980.

87

TABL1E 5-8 POPULATION CHANGE DUE TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER PLANT DELTA BOROUGH AND PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP 1967-1979 Project-Related Population as a Percent of Study Area Year Construction Period Operations Period Total 1970 1967 23 --

23 1.0 1968 102 --

102 4.6 1969 157 --

157 7.1 1970 322 --

322 14.6 1971 313 313 14.2 1972 420 --

420 19.1 1973 329 --

329 14.9 1974 95 151 6.9 1975 --

57 57 2.6 1976 --

58 58 2.6 1977 --

65

'3 65 3.0 1978 --

78 78 3.5 1979 --

89 89 4.0 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1980.

l l

88 l

The movers who came to the local impact area as construction employces wara mostly in the 25-40 ay- group and were primarily single and unaccompanied by household members. The pre-project population in the local impact area, in contrast, had a high proportion of elderly residents and unskilled workers; there was a " settled" ,

character, as opposed to the " transient" or mobile chacter of the construction work force. On the whole, the movers were not permanent residents, and as construction ended, there was a concomitant out-migration of the construction work force.

During the construction period, the employment opportunities at the Peach Bottom plant resulted in a reversal of the trend of out-migration of the young adult population from the Study Area. A few of the younger people employed at the plant decided to remain in the local area following the end of construction, which, together with the in-migrant suburbanites who were generally in the younger-aged groups, increased the proportion of the population 20-35 years of age in the Study Area; however, no noticeable long-term effects on population characteristics were evident because of plant construction and operation. In spite of some younger people remaining in the Study Area at the end of construction activity, an overall decline in the population occurred as a result of significant out-migration. Overall, the Study Area remained predominantly rural with few changes from the pre-project population.

He most dramatic population change since the project began was the in-migration of suburbanites. He construction and operation of the nuclear plant was not an important contributing factor in this population growth.

The in-migration of a technical and professional occupational group to operate the plant did not have a discernible effect on the population. The number of movers in the Study Area employed in the plant's operation was quite small, and they and their families became well integrated into the professional suburbanite group present in the Study Area.

89

1 CHAPTER 63 SEITLEMENT PA'ITERNS AND HOUSING 6.1 Introduction The purpose of Chapter 6 is to identify the effects of the construction and operation of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 on settlement patterns and housing in Peach Bottom Township and Delta Borough. In this chapter, the historical trends are examined with particular attention to the changes in the settlement patterns and housing stock during the study period, 1967-1979, and the factors influencing those changes. Based on the analysis of the preceding chapters, estimates are made of the Peach Bottom effects on new construction, upgrading, and conversions of housing and on the settlement patterns of Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township. The effects on cost and availability of dwelling units due to the project are discussed, based on key informant interviews and on information describing the numbers and specific residential location of the project-related population in the Study Area.

6.2 Settlement Patterns 6.2.1 Factors Infhaencing the Settlement Patterns of the Study Area The settlement patterns of the Study Area were influenced to a large extent by natural features, the availability of resources, and transportation routes. 'Ihe area's j geology, topography, and drainage patterns have determined the use of the land. The study area is hilly, with numerous streams flowing through the valleys. The major geological condition responsible for the early establishment of Delta Borough's l l

economy was a small band of slate located between Delta Borough and the l l

Susquehanna River. The mining of this formation was the primary reason for settlement in the Delta Borough area. However, the soils and climate of the countryside were conducive to agriculture, and intensive cultivation and dairy farming developed primarily along the ridges. (Renova International, Ltd.,1974; York County Planning Commission,1971b.)

Influenced by the topography, the transportation routes also followed the ridges, with the result that the early settlernent pattern followed the north-south orientation of the roads, with a concentration of farms along the new Route 74 and the roads associated with it.

The Susquehanna River and Muddy Creek were natural barriers to east-west movement and contributed to the area's geographic isolation. The development of the 90 l

l aras's tr nsportati:n syntsm was an important fcctor in tha aran'a growth. Tha establishment of a rail line from Baltimore City to York City, with Delta Borough as a transshipment point, strengthened the area's position as an agriculture service center. 'Ibe development of major regional highways between Baltimore, York City, and Philadelphia re::alted in the closing of the railline in the 1950s. Route 74, linking Delta to York City, was the most important regional route, especially once the Delta Bypass was constructed north of Delta Borough to link local roads with Route 74.

l During the mid 1960s, Route 372 was built to cross the Susquehanna River, linking the e,outhern portions of York and Lancaster counties and resulting in increased east-west movement. Improved transportation encouraged suburban settlement in the Study Area, particularly in the northwestern part of the township.

Peach Bottom Township remained a primarily rural area characterized by scattered, family-owned and -operated dairy farms and summer homes, with little l industrial, commercial, or population growth. A large percentage of land in Peach >

Bottom Township remained undeveloped and in its natural state at the time of the

! study period, much of it in areas with greater than twenty degree slopes or associated with the drainage system. This land, though not suitable for intensive uses such as agriculture, was a desirable location for summer cottages, and many summer homes were scattered along the rivers, tributaries, and hills of the township to exploit the vantage points of the rural landscape. Before the construction of Peach Bottom Unit 1, the plant site had been used by residents of the Study Area for summer recreation; a number of cottages and beaches were located there. The construction of Peach Bottom Unit 1 in the early 1960s resulted in the relocation of about forty cottages and the loss of a highly valued landscape to the residents of the Study Area.

(Philadelphia Electric Company, n.d.; Renova International, Ltd.,1974; York County Planning Commission,1971b; Alden, personal communication,1980; Baldwin, personal communication,1980; Cooper, personal comrnunication,1980; Poff, personal com-munication,1980.)

Delta Borough historically functioned as the service center for the rural area and developed as a commercial and residential center along the original Route 74 (now Main Street), which gave the borough the impetus for much of its early 1

The cottage owners were paid to relocate.

91

commarcial growth. Residential and commercial usas were mixed in the borough, with no distinct boundary separating the two. Because the town was enclosed wf thin Peach Bottom Township, it could not expand outward. Development outside of the borough was controlled by Peach Bottom Township, which did not want urban develop-ment. Natura1 features also had the effect of limiting residential development: to the south of the town, a ridge of slate prevented residential expansion, and to the north, parallel to the mined ridge of slate, a flood plain blocked additional growth.

Delta Borough developed between these two natural features. During the study period, new, intensive commercial development was located near the intersection of local roads, with Route 74, a noticeable change from the historical pattern of commercial activity in the Study Area. (Renova International 1974; York County Planning Commission,1971b.)

Nevertheless, between 1950 and 1978, the services Delta Borough provided to the agricultural sector-agricultural equipment and repair, chemicals, seeds, dairy processing, vegetable canning, and feed milling--declined. Although some agricul-tural economic activity remained throughout the study period, the level was considerably below that established earlier in its history. At the time of the study, there were banks, a supermarket, automobile repair shops, and other small retail stores in Delta Borough, making it the commercial center for the Study Area, while Peach Bottom Township had a few commercial establishments, but not enough to provide even the basic requirements of the township residents. Consequently, both the residents of Peach Bottom Township-farmers and suburbanites-and the traditional residents of Delta Borough had established economic ties to places outside of the Study Area. 'Ibe result was that Delta Borough was in the process of becoming a " bedroom" community, where residents worked, shopped, and obtained professional services outside the town, and the Belair urban area, southwest of the Study Area in Harford County, Maryland, was of growing importance to the Study Area residents.

Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township were separate politicaljurisdictions, each with its own government bodies and buildings. At one point in the early 1970s, there was a proposal to construct a Delta Borough-Peach Bottom government building with office spaces as well as meeting rooms, a library, and an historical museum. The proposal was defeated by both Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township. The township's building, constructed in 1974 and located south of Delta Borough, housed the highway maintenance department and was used for both political and nonpolitical 92

activitisc. The Study Area was highly d:ptndant on York County for its public cdministration and planning, and the level of interaction between York City, the county seat, and the Study Area was very high.

Delta Borough was the center for the area's formai social activities. Most of l

the churches, the social clubs and organizations, the historical society, and the volunteer fire department were located in Delta Borough as were the Delta-Peach Bottom Elementary School, which had the largest recreational facility in the study area, and the Delta-Cardiff Community Memorial Hall, which provided indoor recrea-tional activities. The township had an abundance of open space that was utilized for recreation, but overall, the planned recreational facilities available in the study area were limited and short of the suggested state standards. However, residents of both Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Townships had access to public and private recreation areas just outside the Study Area.

Delta Borough had traditionally served as the center for the economic and social activities of the Study Area. Although its role as an economic center had declined because of competing places located near the Study Area and changes in the composition of the population, it retained some aspects of this role throughout the study period. Prior to and during the study period, the natural, aesthetically pleasing visual landscape and availability of land in the township were the factors most strongly influencing settlement patterns in the Study Area.

6.2.2 Population Distribution Several distinct patterns with respect to population distribution in the rural Peach Bottom Township and Delta Borough are apparent. At the time of the study, the township was characterized by widely dispersed farm households, seasonal vacation homes, and recently constructed, more concentrated suburban developments.

In 1960, Peach Bottom Township had a low population density, estimated at 43 persons per square mile. By 1970, the density of the township had increased, but 55 percent of the area was still devoted to agriculture, and another 35 percent was open space. Recent suburban growth occurred in two areas: new homes were built on the outskirts of Delta Borough, and a subdivision, known as the Susquehanna Trails Development, was created in 1968 in the northwestern section of the township. This subdivision, which was formerly farm land, expanded with construction of both seasonal homes and year-round residential structures to meet the demands of 93

suburban in-migranta. A:ida from these two arcas, however, the popule. tion was scattersd throughout tha township.

While the township was characterized by a generally dispersed population pattern, except for the subdivision on the northwest, the population of over 700 in Delta Borough was highly concentrated in sirgle-family homes, both attached and detached. Along Main Street in Delta Borough, there was a mix of residential and commercial uses; the secondary streets were primarily residential.

6.3 Housing For the most part, the housing pattern 'and conditions in the Study Area reflected four historical and economic processes: the dominance of the agricultural economy with scattered family-operated farmsteads; the growth of Delta Borough in the early 1900s as a mining and agricultural service town; the in-migration of recent suburbanites and the development of a residential subdivision in the township; and the long-time use of the area for seasonal vacation homes. By the time construction began on Units 2 and 3, suburban growth in the area was still in its initial stages.

In 1960, 88 percent of the housing units in Delta Borough were single-family residences, divided into clusters of primarily detached units south of Main Street and primarily attached units north of Main Street. The housing stock in Peach Bottom Township were primarily single-family structures. Even before the construction of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 began, there were few housing vacancies in the Study i

Area; during construction on the plant, no sound units were left vacant. In 1960, there were about 297 housing units in Delta Borough and 517 in Peach Bottom Township. (York County Planning Commission,1971b; 1973a; 1976; 1977.)

Only a few housing units were added to the housing stock in Delta Borough i between 1960 and 1978. By 1978, there were an estimated 306 housing units: the I increase was primarily from the conversion of large single-family units to multi-family units. 'Ihe importance of this change to multi-family residences was small compared to the size of the single-family housing stock, but it represented a shift in the social structure of the community. During the 1970s, there was deterioration in housing quality in Delta Borough; some structures assessed to be structurally unsound were vacated. (In 1970, nine such vacant housing units existed.) (Renova International,1974; York County Planning Commission,1971a,1971b,1973a,1976; Hughes, personal communication,1980.)

94

Tha dsttrisrction of tha houting stock was partly tha rcult of tha growth in renter-occupied units, which consistently had a higher percentage of dilapidation and a higher degree of absentee ownership and management, and partly a function of the number and proportion of older structures in Delta Borough. Problems were generally concentrated in these older homes, but the elderly of Delta Borough, who often resided in these homes, were not always financially able to maintain and repair them.

In 1960, none of the housing units in Delta Borough were considered dilapidated (U.S.

Bureau of the Census,1960); but by 1970,4 percent of the residential structures were assessed to be dilapidated, and an additional 9 percent showed major deterioration.

Although the number of " marginal" housing structures in Delta Borough increased during the 1970s, the commuting population that relocated to Delta Borough during this period refurbished many of Delta's older homes. (Pof f, personal communication, 1980; Baldwin, personal communication,1980.)

During the study period, 1968-1978, a number of important changes occurred in the housing and population distribution in Peach Bottom Township. Primarily this change resulted from the Study Area's increasing connection with the larger urban centers, particularly the increasing presence of people who were economically and socially connected with the Baltimore metropolitan area. (Reed, personal com-munication, 1979; Poff, personal communication,1979.) Areas where residential growth was concentrated during the late 1960s-the Susquehanna Trails, along Route 74, and in the area north of Delta--continued to grow in the 1970s at an accelerated rate.

This incressed residential growth was reflected in the changes that occurred in land use in Peach Bottom Township between 1971 and 1976. As shown in Table 6-1, during this period there was a substantial increase in the acreage devoted to rural nonfarm residential uses, a loss in total agricultural and open space acreage, a sizeable increase in land devoted to roads and public rights-of-way, and almost a doubling of acreage of residential land use-the result of acceleration of the rural suburban;zation begun in the 1960s. The amount of land for commercial and industrial functions remained unchanged, but the amount of undeveloped land and agricultural and open space decreased by about 7 percent.

Table 6-2 shows the number of housing units in Peach Bottom Township between 1970 and 1978. These reflect the changes represented by changes in land use. In 95

TABLE 6-1 LAND USE" PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP 1971 AND 1976 Percent Percent 1971 of 1976 of

( Acres) Total ( Acres) Total Residential 410 2.3 823 4.5 Commercial, Industrial, Public 40 0.2 40 0.2 Agricultural and Open Space 17,325 95.6 16,209 88.9 Roads and Public Rights-of-Way 350 1.9 1,162 6.4 TOTAL 18,125 18,234 "The land use acreage in 1971 and 1976 was derived from two sources, and their totals consequently differ.

Sources: York County Planning Commission, August 1979,1976 Existing Land Use Area in Acres; York County Planning Commission, personal communication, 1979; York County Planning Commission, February 1971, Comprehensive Plans: Lower Chanceford Township, Peach Bottom Township, Delta Borough.

l t

i 96 l

l TABLE 6-2 4

NUMBER OF HOURNG UNITS s' '

STUDY . AREA .

.' i s 1970-1979

/

) )#

0 ,

Number of '. Number of Tot ! Annual Percent Year Housing Units Mobile Homes liousing\ Change 1970 ',; 641 26 ;667 -

1971 643 '

34 67 C- '

1.5 1972 648 42 690 1.9 1973 1974 '

671 693 5,1 P ', '6 0'- i

/ '

122 753

(/ ' '

4.6 4.3

, 716 4.4 1975 1976 ), 744

/ ' - 7'O

/*J j ,

786 827 / ,L

. 5.2 1977 / 788 '

873 5

5.6 ~,,

1978 , 813 s

.f 68 85f < 901 3.1 t

e< +

fj

[

• y ll < '*

Source: York County Plar.ning Commission, June 1978, Rural Social Service

• Study _;

I A.N. Towan, personal communica0 ion', A'ugust 1979

ty  ; , e <f

?

s' . y*

\*

.' ,'. [ ,

) [ ,

A , .

s s .

/ ' ,g/

a

[ -

,T ' #

+

-*; \ ,

l t ,

( ,.

s

'i s

/* ,

s  ; / (

e ,

? ,- . -

/ l: 3 '

. /g i

, s ', -

\ J .

y ,

i '

s .

g A g

t'

+

.?.

- +-

g

, s .1 ', '

y *

/

)

o

, 5

1. t h 7 4

t 4 f s' j 97 - '

/,s

,~ 1 .), ,

.,' es d.______._______ , l. -* -

1978, the number of housing units had increased by 172 units over the number in 1970, an increase of almost 27 percent and an average annual increase of 3.6 percent. As seen in this table, the growth in the housing stock in Peach Bottom Township l ,. increased at a faster rate in the years following construction of Units 2 and 3 than it did during the peak construction period. Combined with the fact that very few operations workers lived in Peach Bottom Township, this indicates that most of the l trend in increased housing in Peach Bottom was due to suburbanization rather than to the Peach Bottom project.

Housing conditions in the Study Area were quite different in Delta Borough than they were in Peach Bottom Township. In Delta Borough, the housing stock was old, and there was no room for expansion except through conversion of existing single-family units into multi-family structures. Furthermore, there had been some deterioration in the housing stock in Delta, but this was partially offset by rehabilitation efforts on units recently purchased by commuters from the Baltimore area.

Peach Bottom Township, on the other hand, experienced steady growth in the g* stock of housing over the 1970-1980 decade. There was ample developable land in the township, and residential development was expected to continue into the 1980s.

The construction of the nuclear plant did not result in a permanent increase in the population of the Study Area: rather, the construction work force was present only temporarily and stayed primarily in rooms rented in homes in the area (approxi-mately 30 percent of the housing in Delta Borough contained rentable units). Conse-quently, no new residential growth in Delta Borough can be attributed to the plant's l constmetion. Moreover, there were few people who relocated into the local area permanently for work related to the project, even during the operations phase, and their residences were dispersed throughout the area, thus minimizing the little J

settlement effect that could have occurred. The few operations workers and their j families merged inconspicuously with the growth of the suburban population.

.?

? At the same time that construction began on Units 2 and 3, as mentioned before, an area of farmland in the northwestern part of the township was subdivided I for residential development. 'Ibe area, known as the Susquehanna Trails, became the focal point for rural suburbanization. The residents in this area consisted of either 98 l

l

"nswcom:rs'-mostly rstired peop12 who wsra " full-tima r=id:nts" by virtua of thrir cvolving integration and participation in the community-and suburbanites, who lived in the township but whose place of employment and social ties were outside of the local area. he construction and operation of the nuclear station was not a factor in the development and ultimate growth of this area, either.

A large proportion of the nonmover work force was females employed as clerical workers, maintenance workers, and security personnel, who had previously been employed as agricultural workers or had retired. The nonmovers did not change the settlement patterns of the local area in any measurable way; the number of residential structures in Delta Borough during the last fifteen years remained stable, ne beginning of a commercial center on the northwestern edge of Delta Borough was the most noticeable change in the spatial pattern of commercial cctivity. Located at a major regional intersection, the large retail supermarket took cdvantage of its location as a market for commuting construction workers, local residents, and the suburban com'munity. The construction of the nuclear plant was the principal factor in the supermarket's expansion, as the establishment doubled in size during the construction period. The area was zoned for commercial development, and a new bank located there.

The overall effect of the nuclear station on the size of the housing market in the local area was minimal despite its noticeable effect on the population size, since much of the population effect was due to diminished out-migration rather than to significant in-migration. The movers to Delta constituted a small proportion of the total number of construction workers who relocated into the region to work on the project and were primarily workers unaccompanied by families. This was the result of the low vacancy rate of family housing units, the lack of apartment development in the local area, and the plant's proximity to other, more urban centers with higher vacancy rates that absorbed the excess housing demands from the study area.

Although a few people complamed about rental costs during the construction period, the Renova International study found that these costs conformed to the general rental costs of housing in the larger region of southeastern York County.

Local realtors suggested that property and housing valurs continued to appreciate during the study period; however, there was no strong evidence that rental costs or 99

property values deviated from regional or national trends as a consequence of the construction of the Peach Bottom plant.

In summary, since the housing growth potential in Delta during the study period was constrained by the town's limited space and the limited capacity of public services, there was virtually no residential expansion in Delta from 1960 to 1979. In 1960, Delta had a total of 297 units, and by 1979, the housing stock had increased to 306 housing units, reflecting growth in multi-family units. 'Ibe growth in multi-family units resulted primarily from the conversion of large single-fauilly homes into multi-units and was clearly.a change brought about by the pressure exerted .by the construction work force for housing near the construction site.

During the first four years of construction, housing quality in Delta Borough deteriorated. ' Ibis was thought to be due to the limited upkeep and maintenance received by multi-unit rentals held as investments by absentee landlords. When construction ended and the demand for these rentals declined, the.fr quality deteriorated further, and the families that replaced the construction workers differed from the other residents by virtue of their lower socioeconomic status. Although the relative importance of this change was small compared to the size of the single-family housing stock, the change represents a conspicuous shift in home-ownership patterns in the area.

While the housing stock remained constant in Delta Borough over the study period and housing quality deteriorated, the patterns in Peach Bottom Township were different, though essentially unaffected by Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. Housing starts in Peach Bottom Township grew at a steady rate since 1970 and, additionally, l l

housing quality generally improved during this period. These changes were not j influenced by the Peach Bottom facility, although it is probable that the trend toward conversion of seasonal houses to year-round houses may have been partly stimulated by the potential for rental income.

p 100

_ __u

[

CHAPTER 7: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES 7.1 Introduction The purpose of Chapter 7 is to describTe the basic structural components of the local government in the Study Area, to examine the source of revenues, to discuss the pnttern of expenditures, to indicate the level of services, and to describe specific areas of services over the study period. ne objective is to focus on the provision of I public services and on any changes in the sources of revenues and patterns of expenditures that resulted from the construction and operation of the Peach Bottom plant. He discussion is designed to highlight changes associated with significant social or political consequences rather than to provide a detailed fiscal analysis of the Study Area governments.

l l

Once the background description of the local government is outlined, a summary of the budgets for the study period will be presented. Discussions of revenues and expenditures will concentrate on the response the local area made to the increased rsvenues resulting from plant construction and operation. His examination will include both increased expenditures and reduced tax rates in the township.

The discussion of public services focuses on employment and service trends in four areas: education, transportation, public safety, and social services. These services have been chosen because they are thought to be responsive to socio-sconomic change in the community, they are often cited as impacted services in the literature, and they would be indicative of other public services effects experienced in the Study Area.

7.2 Government Structure The Study Area includes separate and distinct local jurisdictions-Delta Borough cad Peach Bottom Township. Peach Bottom Township is one of thirty-five townships in York County, and Delta Borough is one of thirty-five such jurisdictions in the county. A township is a subcounty area with the status of a legal municipality, originally established for administrative purposes, while boroughs are small towns within townships. In Pennsylvania, townships and municipalities designated as boroughs had a high degree of administrative autonomy in such matters as regulating taxes (by determining millage tax rates, for example), governmental structure, zoning end planning policy, and local public services. Such activities were highly influenced 101

)

by the county, however, which was responsibla for providing social and judicini services, funds, and planning expertise and for dispensing revenues to the county's constituent jurisdictions. (Peach Bottom Township,1977; Pennsylvania Office of State Planning and Development,1977; York County Board of County Commissioners, 1978; Baldwin, personal communication,1980; Poff, personal communication,1979.)

Of special importance to this study was the relationship between the York County Planning Commission and the Study Area. For municipalities with subdivision and housing regulations such as Peach Bottom Township, the Planning Commission reviewed lot plans. Furthermore, the commission, in developing its comprehensive plans, coordinated its activities with all municipalities and reviewed the policies established by the local areas for conformity with the broader goals of the county. In addition, the commission reviewed federal aid applications, provided advisory service, and made contractual arrangements to prepare local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. (Poff, personal communication,1979; Baldwin, personal communication, 1980.)

Delta had an elected, unpaid mayor-council system of government. The local government operated through both scheduled and ad hoc meetings of government officials (when situations requiring an immediate community response developed) and periodic public meetings. While the mayor historically served as the community administrator, in the 1960s, the mayor's power was diffused into four permanent committees: the departments of lighting, finance, water, and streets. (Poff, personal communication,1980.) l l

Decision-making was historically based on community consensus through public forums with broad-based community participation and through informal community contacts: decision-making was an open process, and it still was, to a large extent, at the time of the study. Decision-making by consensus was a workable process because of the nature of the decisions that had to be made, usually limited to budgetaq concerns; the homogeneity of values, which precluded the growth of public issues and social conflict; and the extensive network of information-communication channels between the decision-makers and the public. Planning and zoning activities were minimal. Delta Borough never worked towards the implementation of a zoning plan:

the town was small and could not expand, and there was an already existing mix of 102

I land uses without id:ntifiabla boundari:s separcting th2m. (Poff, p rsonal communi-cation,1980, York County Planning Commission,1971a,1971b.)

Peach Bottom Township's public administration consisted of three elected, unpaid members of the Board of Supervisors, which established temporary commis-sions when particular problems surfaced in the community. The prime objective of the Board of Supervisors traditionally was to budget the township's account, to organize and direct the township's departments, and to set the direction of development. Historically, public meetings were called as particular needs arose.

Because Peach Bottom Township was an agricultural co:nmunity, the concerns were generally regarding rural problems (usually small difficulties that could be quickly cmeliorated). The township administration was not considered an important institution prior to construction of the Peach Bottom plant, in part because no salient public issues or concerns that required its intervention were expressed.

Public administration in Delta Borough remained essentially unchanged during the study period. Here were some changes in governmental officials, but no change in the decision-making process or in the level of governmental activity in Delta Borough. His was not the case in Peach Bottom Township. A number of developments took place during the late 1960s that necessitated a new approach to decision-making in the township. The expansion of the Peach Bottom atomic plant and increased residential growth in the township were critical factors in increasing the level of political activity and in changing the manner in which township problem areas were assessed and actions implemented. For the first time, important public issues and concerns surfaced: the need for their resolution elevated the importance of the supervisor's function and resulted in public participation in the decision-making process. Moreover, the demographic changes occurring in the township meant that the township was no longer a homogeneous social and economic group that expressed cohesive concerns associated primarily with agricultural development. He recent in-migrants, for example, placed demands on the township's revenues for upgraded public services such as improvements in roads and sewage systems, while the agricultural community's interest was focused on restricting residential development in the township and using revenues to lower the property tax millage.

Although the structure and size of the township's public administration did not change during the study period, less obvious changes toward increased formalization of the decision-making prccess occurred, as indicated by the increasingly visible 103

1std:rship function required of tha alseted supsrvisors. Th2 suburban growth and uncontrolled development of subdivisions during the study period also made it necessary for the township government to change from the traditional role of responding to individual problems in an ad hoc fashion to one of taking the initiative for setting policy. Moreover, the administration of the township became " political" in that it moved away from merely dealing with organizational matters related to the budget toward taking positions on public issues and acting in support of its ccnstituency, the agricultural community. The concerns voiced by the supervisors ranged from decisions over the Peach Bottom nuclear plant to township zoning. In 1971, the first comprehensive land use plan was developed for the township, and in 1973 a zoning ordinance, in addition to subdivision and land development regulations, was established. nese regulations were intended to restrict residential development on productive agricultural land. (Sowers,1979; York County Planning Commission, 1971a,1971b; Alles, personal communication,1980; Baldwin, personal communication, 1980; Blackwell, personal communication,1980; Buecker, personal communication, 1980; Cooper, B., personal communication, 1980; Hunt, personal communication, 1980; Lawrence, personal communication,1980.)

In addition to the growth of the township administration's role in planning and land use control, the highways and streets department was expanded, a civil defense expert was hired temporarily, and the township's political activity spread to include neighboring jurisdictions.

7.3 1he Budaet durina the Study Period (1967-1979) 7.3.1 The Budget ne available data on the budgets of the Study Area show the limited administrative activity prior to the study period. In 1965, for example, total revenues for Delta Borough were $14,179. Table 7-1 shows the revenues for Delta Borough for selected years from 1965 to 1975. On the whole, revenues showed a steady rate of growth between 1967 and 1975, except for a sharp jump between 1967 and 1969. In ,

1970, total revenues amounted to $46,317; they increased to $51,742 in 1973. In 1975, revenues fell below the 1970 figure to $45,402 and subsequently remained stable at about that level through 1978.

The major constraint to increasing revenues in Delta Borough was the limited '

land for additional development. Through government loans and adjustments in the 104

TABLE 7-1 REVENUE RECEIPTS" DELTA BOROUGH 1965, 1970, 1973, 1975 (Current Dollars)

Revenue 1965 1970 1973 1975 General Fund Real Estate Taxes b $ 6,002 $ 7,891 $ 8,651 $ 8,874 Per Capita /Act 511 - 9,767 11,783 13,181 Occupational Taxes 422 474 466 603 Prior Taxes Collected 1,849 - - -

l Total Taxes Collected 8,273 18,132 20,900 22,658 l Miscellaneous Revenues" 5,906 28,185 30,842 22,744 l

l Total Revenues 14,179 46,317 51,742 45,402

• Not included in these figures are the Stata Liquid Fuels revenues and the nonrevenue receipts such as loans and transfers from local funds. The revenues c.ccruing from the State Liquid Fuels in 1965 amounted to about 50 percent of the total revenue estimate.

I 7he "Act 511" taxes include the following taxes: per capita, earned income, real property transfer, mercantile, amusement, and occupational privilege.

" Miscellaneous revenues include the following sources of revenues: licenses and permits, fines, state and federal grants, state highway aid, county grants, waste and refuse disposal, highway services, and sanitary sewer rents and charges.

Source: York County Planning Commission, February 1971, Lower Chanceford Township, Peach Bottom Township, Delta Borough Comprehensive Plans: Part 1 The Study; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1970,1973, 1975, Local Government Financial Statistics.

105

distribution of monies, revsnuss exceedsd borough expenditurcs, but tha increases in revenues during the 1970s were not sufficient to upgrade or expand public services in the borough.

In Peach Bottom Township, the overall trend for revenues during the 1960s was a slow but steady increase as real estate taxes rose due both to increasing assessed valuation and increasing millage rates. In 1965, total revenues amounted to $18,313; in 1968 they amounted to $45,000. Between 1972 and 1974, township revenues increased substantially. In 1972, total revenues amounted to over $200,000, and the revenues in 1974 exceeded the 1972 total. However, in 1975 and the years following, revenues declined. Figure 7-1 shows the total revenues and expenditures for Peach Bottom Township during the 1968-1978 period. Table 7-2 details the budget for the Study Area from 1969 to 1975.

7.3.2 Revenues Revenue and expenditure effects related to the Peach Bottom nuclear station were limited to Peach Bottom Township by virtue of the plant's location in the township. Delta Borough received no additional revenues because of the plant, nor were there any expenditure effects on Delta attributable to the Peach Bottom facility. No new housing starts of any significance, for example, occurred during the study period, and Delta Borough was outside the jurisdictional area where taxes on the plant or its workers were levied.

Annual revenues for Peach Bottom Township are shown in Table 7-3. There was a marked increase in township revenues during the construction period and a decline during the operation period. Between 1969 and 1974 (the construction period), annual revenues increased from $80,668 to $303,578, an average of 55 percent per year. .

However, in 1975, the level of revenues dropped sharply compared to that of the previous year, from $303,578 to $170,596. Revenue levels then remained relatively stable between 1975 and 1978.

Although the assessed valuation of realty increased during the study period, total revenues from taxes on real estate declined subsequent to 1973 because of the reduction in the millage rate. The township revenues generated by the nuclear plant consisted of three tax components: earned-income tax, real estate tax, and the utility rebate. Peach Bottom Township received very little tax revenue from utility 106

I l

l 32o,000-Total Revenues 2 so, coo-Total Expenditures 24o,ooo-200,000-I en i g

foo,oco-

1. % / \

1. \ #  % /

C4 \ #

O ,# g f

% /

i s /

/ \ /

\/ y~,' '# i 12 o,00o- f'

-~~ .s so, coo-4o. coo-o ,

8 8 8 i  :  : i ,

1968 1989 197o 1971 1972 1973 1974 197s 1976 1g77 jgyg YEAR FIGURE 7-1. Revenues and Expenditures, Peach Bottom Township, 1968-1978.

Source: Peach Bottom Township, Annual Reports, 1968 - 1978.

107

TABLE 7-2 STUDY AREA BUDGET

• DELTA BOROUGH AND PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP j

1969-1975 (Current Dollars)

DELTA BOROUGH Total General Health Public Urban Streets / Parks and Expenses Per Year Expenditure Government Sanitation Service Safety Renewal Highways Recreation Capita 1969 $ 33,564 $ 1,259 $ 2,695 - $ 6,620 $450 $12,535 -

3 40.83 1970 37,629 2,226 27,843 - 6,061 - 15,086 - 48.37 1971 45,832 1,575 8,320 - 6,066 - 14,283 -

58.91 1972 51,243 2,641 7,680 - 6,464 - 23,128 $125 65.87 1973 52,335 3,038 7,680 -

5,752 - 17,397 769 67.27 1974 48,383 2,7 54 - -

6,675 - 11,720 -

62.19 1975 42,227 3,082 - - 6,392 - 13,948 -- 54.28 o i vo PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP Total General Health Public Urban Streets / Parks and Expenses Per Year Expenditure Government Sanitation Service Safety Renewal Highways Recreation Capita 1969 $116,138 $10,228 $ 1,561 $30 $1,261 - $28,678 $ 65 $87.65 1970 112,086 9,896 - 10 509 -

56,456 5 78.71 1971 131,192 10,118 -

60 500 - 54,046 65 92.13 1972 123,133 14,779 - -

500 - 52,687 205 86.47 1973 167,041 11,031 - -

2,253 - 106,771 400 117.30 l 1974 132,031 14,893 - -

2,000 - 74,174 758 92.72 l 1975 172,171 14,851 - -

3,000 - 46,795 369 120.91

" Expenditures for capital outlays are not included as a category of expenditures although capital outlays are included in the total expenditure column.

Source: Peach Bottom Township, 1969-1975, Revenues and Expenditures; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Community Affairs, 1969-1973, Local Government Financial Statistics.

TABLE 7-3 REVENUE CONTRIBUTION OF PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC GENERATING PLANT TO THE PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP 1969-1978 Taxes Paid on Units 2 5 and 3 as Total Real Estate Earned Income Other Percent of Total Year Revenues Revenues Tax Revenue Revenues 1969 $80,668 $21,382 $27,700 $31,586 37.09 1970 141,658 19,751 66,517 92,576 48.4

( 1971 119,870 21,872 56,649 41,349 50.0 l

1972 212,141 19,043 140,560 52,538 67.2 1973 221,255 6,364 124,096 90,795 57.0 1974 303,578 4,561 184,879 114,138 61.4 1975 170,596 5,251 56,669 108,676 34.4 1976 164,032 4,826 40,487 118,719 25.5 1977 177,490 5,565 30,156 141,769 17.6 1978 184,730 6,991 47,038 130,701 16.9 Source: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1969-1978, Local Government Financial Statistics; Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs, Don Herbester, 1979, personal communication; Peach Bottom Township, 1969-1978, Budgets; York County Planning Commission, February 1971, Lower Chanceford Township, Peach Bottom Township 2 Delta Borough Comprehensive Plans: Part 1, The Study.

109

propsrty tax baccuse tha ravsnuss of utility rselty taxes wara distributsd stete-wida.

In 1978, for example, the township received $522 of the total utility tax paid by the Philadelphia Electric Company that year for the atomic plant. Local real estate taxes were paid to the township on nonutility real estate associated with the nuclear station based on a levy of 2 mills on twenty percent of the assessed value of the property. The assessed value of the Peach Bottom plant in 1978 was $295 thousand; thus, the station's property taxes contributed little to the township revenues.

Because the assessed value of the plant was low, the revenue producing effects of an earned-income tax were important to the township. The major source of revenue for Peach Bottom Township during the construction period was the one-percent earned-income tax lavoked by the township in 1969 as a means of increasing its revenues by taxing workers employed in the township. The imposition of this tax was a direct response to the potential revenue that could be generated from the large work force employed to construct the Peach Bottom plant. Table 7-3 shows the annual earned-income tax from 1969 to 1978.

The data show that the substantial increases in township revenues from 1970 to 1974 were the direct result of the one percent earned-income tax. In 1969, township revenues from the earned-income tax were estimated at $27,700, which represented approximately 50 percent of the total taxes collected that year. In 1974, the revenues from the earned-income tax increased to $184,879, or 93 percent of the total taxes collected that year. The revenues from the earned-income tax in 1975 decreased by approximately 70 percent. from the previous year, reflecting the termination of construction activity.

For the period prior to construction, the average millage rate on property in the township was 15 mills. The revenues generated through the levy of an earned-income i tax enabled the township to lower its millage rate. In 1970, the rate was 13 mills; in 1971, it was reduced to 11 mills, and it was still further reduced to 8 mills in 1972.

By 1973, the millage rate for Peach Bottom Township was only 2 mills, the lowest in York County. The reduction of the millage rate on township property was the direct result of the revenues obtained from the earned-income tax on workers at the nuclear station. As a result of the reduction in millage rates, taxpayers in Peach Bottom Township paid fewer taxes than they otherwise would have paid. Table 7-4 shows the difference between the actual property taxes paid by township taxpayers and the l

110

TABLE 7-4 PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES i BASED ON 1969 TAX RATE l 1970-1976 (Current Dollars) l Year Actual Revenues Potential Revenues Difference l

1970 $19,751 $22,215 $ 2,464 1971 21,872 32,250 10,378 1972 19,043 32,715 13,672 1973 6,364 33,450 27,086 1974 4,561 35,340 30,779 1975 5,251 37,170 31,919 1976 4,826 40,110 35,284 1977 5,565 40,185 33,194 1978 6,991 41,655 34,664 Sources: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1970-1978, Local Government Financial Statistics; Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs, Don Herbster, 1980, personal communication; Mountain West Research, Inc.,1980.

111

property taxes that would have been paid if the millage rate had not been lowered.

As can be seen in this table, $219,437 in property taxes was saved by township taxpayers between 1970 and 1978 because of the reduced millage rates. In 1978 alone, tax payments by owners of property in the township were $34,664 less than they would have been at the 1969 rate of 15 mills. Undoubtedly, this tax saving benefited the owners of real estate in Peach Bottom Township, who were principally farmers.

Table 7-4 shows that as construction ended and the revenues from the earned-income tax declined, "other revenues" contributed an increasing share of the total revenues. Most of these "other" revenues were from federal, state, and county revenue funds. In 1970, the state and federal grants, state highway aid, and county grants to the township amounted to $25,322. In 1973, these funds totaled $70,795, and in 1975, they were estimated to be $76,594. State revenue centributions remained relatively stable during this period.

7.3.3 Expenditures l

Since Delta Borough was situated outside of the jurisdiction where tax payments '

of the plant would accrue, the Peach Bottom plant had virtually no effect on the size of the budget in Delta Borough. The total annual revenues in Delta Borough remained stable throughout the construction period in 1970, total revenue for Delta was

$46,918, and in 1975, total revenue was estimated at $45,402. Historically, Delta Borough was not able to increase its assessed valuation because of geographical constraints to development. No major increase in the borough's level of expenditures was needed as a consequence of the nuclear plant, but the lack of revenues in the community prevented the improvement or expansion of public services.

Although the Peach Bottom plant had a large effect on the revenues received by Peach Bottom Township, the project had only a small effect on the level of public l

services or public employment in the township. Peach Bottom Township's decision to l invest much of the earned-income tax and to reduce the millage rate on taxable )

property resulted in little change in the level of expenditures for public services in the township even though revenues had increased during the construction period. The only area where expenditures markedly increased was in the area of street maintenance during the construction period. In other areas, the increased revenues had a minimal effect. No new employees were added to the township's public 112

l smploymsnt. Expendituras for c:pitel outinyt, morzovsr, were in tha arca of highwcy improvement.

In Peach Bottom Township, the level of public service expenditures prior to construction of the Peach Bottom plant was low but stable, averaging $41,233 between 1964 and 1976. By 1971, four years after the start of construction, the level of expenditures was deemed inadequate to meet the improvements needed in the l

township, according to the township's 1971 comprehensive plan. This plan identified the major shortcomings in the level of public safety and other public services and recommended increases in revenue to ameliorate these problems. (York County Planning Commission,1971b.)

Overall township revenues increased sharply during the construction period as a consequence of the earned-income tax, but these revenues were only important relative to the level of revenues collected prior to construction. They were neither sufficient nor permanent enough to be used for improvements of major public services l or for the expansion of development of facilities, and they were only temporary. The earned-income tax payments did make possible, however, a reduction in the property tax millage rates and improvements to the local highway system. An examination of how the increased resources, demands, and capabilities of local public services changed over the study period in the areas of education, transportation, public safety, and social services is made in the following sections.

7.4 Selected Ptablic Services -

The public services described here are those that are most responsive to public demand and most often cited in the literature as being affected by large scale projects. In dealing with these services, it has been necessary to present an overview that condensed extensive data for an extended period. The objectives are to identify responses to project impacts made by public services and to record structural changes that had important consequences for Study Area residents.

7.4.1 Education

'Ihe Study Area is served by the Southeastern School District, which also serves three other townships-Fawn, East Hopewell, and Hopewell-as well as the boroughs located within the boundaries of these townships. Table 7-5 shows the annual revenues and expenditures for the Southeastern School District, and Table 7-6 shows 113

TABLE 7-5 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES SOUTHEASTERN SCHOOL DISTRICT 1968-1979 School Year Revenues Percent Increase Expenditures Percent Increase 1968-1969 $1,204,823 -

$1,173,947 --

1969-1970 1,376,085 $14.2 1,366,419 16.4 1970-1971 1,484,328 7.9 1,482,110 8.5 1971-1972 1,721,238 15.9 1,686,250 13.8 1972-1973 2,084,495 21.1 1,975,102 17.1 1973-1974 2,105,332 1.0 2,104,346 16.5 1974-1975 2,452,674 16.5 2,500,203 18.8 1975-1976 2,726,094 -0.3 2,801,873 12.1 1976-1977 2,907,738 6.7 3,098,935 10.6 1977-1978 3,349,250 15.2 3,239,251 4.5 1978-1979 3,947,846 17.9 3,542,547 9.4 Source: L.B. Sowers, September 1979, Long Range Plan Southeastern School District; L.B. Sowers, personal communication, August 1979.

l i

114

TABLE 7-6 SHARE OF TOTAL REVENUE BY SOURCE SOUTHEASTERN SCHOOL DISTRICT 1973-1978 Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent of of of ut of Revenue Total Total Total Total Total Source 1973-74 Revenue 1974-75 Revenue 1975-76 Revenue 1976-77 Revenue 1977-78 Revenue Federal Funds $ 85,127 4.0 $ 104,835 4.3 $ 76,766 2.8 $ 150,209 5.2 $ 68,598 2.0 State Funds 1,155,147 54.9 1,334,522 54.4 1,425,740 52.3 1,459,829 50.2 1,806,174 53.9

- Local G Real Estate Funds 591,353 28.1 754,049 30.6 933,084 34.2 992,055 34.1 1,140,911 34.1 Other Local Taxes 273,705 13.0 262,2(3 10.7 290,504 10.7 305,645 10.5 333,567 10.0 TOTAL 2,105,332 100.0 2,452,674 100.0 2,726,094 100.0 2,907,738 100.0 3,349,250 100.0 Source: L.B. Sowers, September 1979, Long Range Plan Southeastern School District.

!~

l l

l

tha share of total revenuss for the school di:trict by revenus source for the school years 1973-1974 to 1977-1978. Local taxes paid to the school district comprise local real estate taxes (106 mills assessed on a twenty percent property valuation) and other local taxes, including a one-half percent earned-income tax based on residency and employment status within the school district, a per capita tax of $5, a real estate transfer tax of one-half of one percent, and an occupational tax of $10 imposed on residents employed in the school district.

Federal and state funding levels for the school district remained relatively stable between 1973 and 1978 except for a noticeable 3 percent decrease in federal funding between 1976 and 1977. Local real estate tax contributions increased steadily in absolute dollars, but remained relatively fixed as a proportion of revenues.

In spite of a claim made by a few key informants that the school system became overcrowded as a result of the in-migration of construction workers and their families, the evidence suggests that increased school enrollment was occurring quite apart from the Peach Bottom project and that the increase resulting from construction of the Peach Bottom plant was only a portion of the problem for the school district. 'Ihe school system could not accommodate the increased enrollment that occurred during the 1970s with its existing capacity; however, the great majority of this increased enrollment was due to suburban growth occurring in the school district rather than to growth due directly to the plant. For example, when construction on Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 was completed in 1974, school enrollment in the Southeastern School District declined by only 35 to 40 students; school enrollment again increased in 1975. In fact, during the period when the construction work force was declining, after the 1972 peak year,' enrollment levels in the school district were increasing, reflecting the growth in suburbanization. (Sowers,1979; Reed, personal communication,1980; Sowers, personal communication,1980.)

Between 1970 and 1974, enrollment in the school district's high school exceeded the high school's 850-student capacity. In response to this overcrowding, a new middle school was built; it was completed in 1975.

The Renova International Study (1974) on the impacts of the Peach Bottom

[

plant examined the changes to the school system brought about by the influx of the construction work force to the localimpact area; the report's conclusions support this 116

l study's findings. To illu;trett, a study conducted by tha Southcastern School Di:trict administration regarding the cumulative increase in school enrollment between 1963 and 1972 due to the construction of Peach Bottom's three generating units found a totalincrease of 83 students during this period. It was concluded that the size of this student population did not present a serious problem to the school system. Additional support for this conclusion was provided by a 1973 construction worker survey, which found a ratio of 0.6 school-aged children for each construction worker that moved into the school district. Based on this figure, about 101 pupils were added to the school district in 1973 because of construction worker in-migration to the Study Area.

In itself, this student population did not exceed the enrollment capacity of the school system, but combined with the expansion due to suburbanization, it strained the system's capacity during the early 1970s. (Renova International,1974; Sowers, personal communication,1980.)

Annual data on school enrollment in the Southeastern School District are shown in Table 7-7. During the 1969 to 1974 period, the annual rate of increase in student enrollment ranged from 0.8 percent to 5.6 percent, with progressively larger I

increases each year of this period. The peak increase occurred between the 1972-1973 and 1973-1974 school years. In contrast to this peak, there were lower rates of enrollment increase prior to 1970--0.8 percent between the 1968-1969 and 1969-1970 school years. Additionally, subsequent to 1974, the school population grew slowly, except for a sharp increase in the 1977-78 school year.

7.4.Z Transportation The responsibility of the Study Area governments for transportation were limited to roads and highways. The rail system that passed near Delta Borough ceased operation in the 1950s, and the Study Area had no public airport or waterway used for transportation. He primary roads in the township were under state jurisdiction. ne state was responsible for 29.7 miles of roads, or 39 percent of total road mileage in the township. The remaining 45.9 miles of roads were under the jurisdiction of the township or the borough. The state jurisdiction over the primary roads relieved the local area of substantial maintenance costs, but problems did arise:

some local roads were not priorities to the state, and consequently, maintenance of these roads was limited.

117

TABLE 7-7 TOTAL SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND IMPACT OF THE NUCLEAR FACILITY SOUTHEASTERN SCHOOL DISTRICT 1968-1978 Enrollment due to Construction Plant-Related Change in and Operation Work Force Percent of School Total Number Enrollment since Who Moved to Study Total Year Enrolled 1968-1969 Area Enrollment 1968-1969 1,721 31 1.8 1969-1970 1,735 14 48 2.8 1970-1971 1,785 64 99 5.5 1971-1972 1,844 123 96 5.2 1972-1973 1,913 192 129 6.7 1973-1974 2,020 299 101 5.0 1974-1975 2,026 305 42 2.1 1975-1976 2,052 331 14 0.7 1976-1977 2,069 348 14 0.7 1977-1978 2,230 509 16 0.7 1

Source: L.B. Sowers, personal communication, August 1979.

l 118

Tchla 7-8 shows tha sxpenditurcs for transportction in tha Study Arca. As cxpected, expenditures for streets and highways consistently accounted for a significant proportion of public spending in the Study Area. Between 1970 and 1974, a greater relative share of expenditures was devoted to highway improvement and maintenance than either before or after this period, reflecting the expenditure of some of the revenues received from the earned-income tax described above.

Expenditures rose from about $28,000 in 1969 to a peak of $107,000 in 1973 and then fell to $42,000 in 1975.

In the Study Area, state contributions to the revenues for highway maintenance and upgrading were substantial. Between 1970 and 1975, Delta Borough received state highway funds ranging from about $2,500 to $5,000 per year. The township's cppropriations from the state for highway funds increased from $21,575 in 1970 to

$33,415 in 1975 and remained stable through the end of the study period.

'Ihe major effect on transportation during the construction period was higher traffic density, congestion, lack of parking space in Delta, and roadside litter.

l Although the utility constructed an access road to the construction site to ease 1

1 traffic, the large labor force employed at the site and the limited and narrow access routes continued to present difficult traffic problems. In a public survey of the Peach Bottom area conducted by Mountain West Research, Inc. (August 1979), traffic problems resulting from commutation by the large daily work force were identified as an important effect on the Study Area. When questioned about any adverse effects from construction-worker commutation to the plant, approximately 28 percent of the respondents identified traffic problems: traffic problems were identified as the number one negative impact of the work force commuters.

York County's average traffic volume is shown in Table 7-9 for three locations:

the main street in Delta Borough, Peach Bottom Road at the first intersection west of the nuclear plant, and Route 851 near Broad Street north of Delta. All of the traffic to the project site passed through one of these points.

These data show a sharp increase in traffic volume from 1966, before construction began on the Peach Bottom plant, until peak construction in 1972. In 1975, traffic volume declined substantially at all three points compared to 1972; this decline correlates strongly with the reduction in the construction work force in 1975 with the completion of Units 2 and 3.

119

TABLE 7-8 HIGHWAY AND STREET EXPENDITURES" DELTA BOROUGH AND PEACH BO7 TOM TOWNSHIP 1969-1975 Peach Bottom Township Delta Borough Percent of Percent of Highway Total Total Street Total Total Ycar Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure 1969 $ 28,674 $116,138 24.7 $12,535 $33,564 37.3 1970 56,456 112,086 50.4 15,086 37,629 40.1 1971 54,086 131,192 41.2 14,283 45,832 31.2 1972 52,687 123,133 42.8 23,128 51,243 45.1 1973 106,771 167,041 63.9 17,397 52,335 33.2 1974 74,174 132,031 56.2 11,220 48,383 23.2 1975 46,795 172,171 27.2 13,948 42,227 33.0 "The expenditures do not include capital outlays between 1970 and 1975. Most of the capital cutlays were in the area of streets and highways expenditures.

Sources: York County Planning Commission, February 1971, Lower Chanceford Township, Delta Borough, Peach Bottom Township Comprehensive Plans: Part 1, The Study; Commonwealth  ;

of Pennsylvania, 1970-1975, Local Government Financial Statistics.

j 1

120

l TABLE 7-9 DELTA BOROUGH AND PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME AT THREE SELECTED POINTS 1966,1972,1975 Peach Bottom Road Ycar Delta Main Street Intersection Route 851 1966 1,200 Not Available 1,350 1972 (Peak Year) 2,700 1,300 4,400 1975 1,400 600 2,100 Source: Pennsylvania Department of Highways, Highway Planning and Traffic Division,1966, 1972,1975, York County Traffic Volume Tapes.

121

7.4.3 Public Saf zty The major elements of public safety were the police, fire, rescue, and Civil Defense (preparedness and communications). Expenditures to provide public safety to residents in the Study Area were low, as would be anticipated given the small population and rural characteristics of the area. To illustrate, at the time of the study, one volunteer fire department served Delta Borough, Peach Bottom Township (except for the fringe areas), and the adjacent communities of Cardiff and Whitford, in Harford County, Maryland. Funds for the fire department's operation were shared among the four municipalities. Police service was provided by one part-time officer and an elected constable in Peach Bottom Township and by three part-time officers in Delta Borough. During the construction period, no major problem emerged with respect to public safety. Because Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township had small part-time police forces, the Study Area relied on the Pennsylvania State Police and the county deputy for serious public safety situations.

The limited capability of Delta Borough's part-time police force to operate effectively became a major public issue in the late 1970s. According to interviews with key informants, population growth in the general area, the lack of public recreational facilities for young people, and the public knowledge that law enforcement in the Study Area was limited resulted in the growth of crime and civil disturbances in the area. Nevertheless, Delta Borough's expenditures for police protection remained stable throughout the study period. (Poff, personal communica-tion,1980; Alles, personal communication,1980; Baldwin, J., personal communica-tion,1980.)

In Peach Bottom Township, police protection did not become a major political concern; consequently, the increased expenditures in the township during the study l period were not directed to this public safety area. Table 7-10 shows the i

expenditures for public safety in the Study Area from 1969 to 1975.

The all-volunteer fire department did not directly benefit from plant-related tax revenues, although it did benefit indirectly from equipment donations, from both the utility and construction workers, and by the active involvement of construction workers residing in the Study Area. Much of the financial support for the fire department generally came from communit; tund drives and county grants.

122 l

l

TABLE 7-10 EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE STUDY AREA 1969-1975 (Current Dollars)

Year Delta Borough Peach Bottom Township 1969 $6,620 $1,261 1970 6,061 509 1971 6,066 500 1972 6,4 64 500 1973 5,752 2,253 1974 6,675 2,000 1975 6,392 3,000 Source: York County Planning Commission, February 1971 Lower Chanceford Township, Peach Bottom Township, Delta Borough Comprehensive Plans: Part 1, The l

Studyt Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1970-1975, Local Government Financial Statistics.

I 123

Overall, there was little change in the provision of public safety services in the local area during the study period. The increasing number of persons residing in the Study Area and commuting to the Baltimore metropolitan region resulted in an increasing need for the expansion of police services, but for Delta Borough in particular, public revenues were not sufficient to respond to this need.

7.4.4 Social Services The Study Area as a rural community with low population density has historically lacked the social services of the more urbanized areas of the county. The 1 1976 York County Rural Social Services Study concluded that differences in the delivery of social services existed between rural and urban areas and that the level of social services in rural areas had not sufficiently irnproved during the last decade. '

Improvements were identified as necessary in the following social services for the county's rural areas: health care, housing services, transportation, employment services, family planning, and juvenile services, especially in the area of drug abuse.

The need for improvement in the delivery of social services was articulated in the Study Area, especially by the younger and more recent in-migrants. The particular concstn of some members of the community was the lack of health facilities in the area: Peach Bottom Township and Delta relied exclusively on the service of one physician. Indeed, the lack of adequate health facilities was a significant problem for al' of the county's rural areas: in 1975 only 33 out of 326 physician:, in York County were located in rural areas; of these, 27 percent were 69 years of age and over.and had already retired from active practice. In the late 1970s, there was a proposal to research the feasibility of opening a rural regional health clinic, but that proposal did not receive widespread support. Residents of the Study Area relied upon county social services in the past and have continued to do so.

Changes in the local provision of social services for the elderly were instituted in the late 1970s, but no strong, direct relationship could be found between the construction and operation of the plant and the level of social services provided in the Study Area. Most social services were provided by state and federal funds, and the county played a significant role in the coordination and provision of social services as

, well. Residential growth in the Study Area during the 1970s resulted in the growth of a younger and more professional population; consequently, demands for increased and upgraded social services were made.

/

/

124

"h

' ^

\i, 1

\ ('

/ + -

' ' s

. t' ,f

,g , . . 9 i

~~

~ *

,7.5 Summarv ) ,

' \ i4'

.9 4 ! ~ i :' .,

The re.' venues attributable to'the Peach Bottom plant were enot substantial and ,

2' e

deperde.d largely on the imposition of ths' n%,-income tax. In Peach Bottom Township, revenue from the plant's pro;:ertv tc= and the earned-income tax were urad -

's' , , /

to expand and improve highway mainter.ance; other public services did not benefit .

i '

from these revenues. Howeveri;arpenditures on the whole~ slowly but steadily increased in theSownship, and the pr'opertyp/O' rate was substantially reduced, wh'ch benefited. the farming community. While thi, e.sr/ned-income tax benefited Peagh

. _/ , ,s .

Bottom Township, Delta Borough did not beneht from the tax.

r

'Ibe coastruction and opchation of the Peach Bottom plant took place at a time of residential growth in the Study Area, and thus demands for expanded and improved public services increased.' However, the revenues from the nuclear t plant did not

> s contribute to any najor upgrading of public services. r<!

e+

d' .

,t y / 7, w

h I y y

l *

[ {

} 7 i f

?

f. '[)

e#' " 1 f

' -( ,

c

, j .. e e J s

\

j f,_e

'e -

(' '

t f

} y.-

'* 77 0

I g c .

4

• e .t [

', I- s Y .

g

+ 1'

,N t [ .g .,

l

,j ' /-

s I

s s

T j

l 125

CHAPTER 81 SOCIAL STRUCTURE 8.1 Introduction he purpose of this chapter is to identify and examine the effects of the project on the social structure of the Study Area. The first step in the approach followed in this chapter includes identifying the major functional social groups in the StudyArea at the beginning of the study period, developing a profile of each group, and describing the major features of the relationships among the groups. Le next step is to distribute the economic, demographic, housing, and local government effects of the project (see Chapters 4 through 7) among the Study Area groups.

Changes that occurred in the profile of each group and in the relationships among groups during the study period are then identified, and the role the project played in those changes is determined.

Much of the information is based on interviews with key informants who represented the groups in the Study Area.

Secondary data were also used to substantiate the information provided by the key informants and to further define the groups. Finally, a description of the conclusions outlined in this chapter was presented to residents of the Study Area to confirm the validity and completeness of the information.

8.2 Social Structure at the Be#=% of the Study Period (1969) 8.2.1 Identification of Groupe Prior to the construction of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, the population of the Study Area fell into five broad social groups: the agricultural community in Peach Bottom Township, the business and professional proprietors, the traditional /old-time residents of Dulta Borough, the suburbanites. and the construction workers. R ese groups were identified to help explain the often complex interactions that took place in the Study Area during the study period and to allow identification of changes in the social structure that were caused by the project.

A premise of this study is that relationships arnong groups in a community are stnictured, and that people in a community form functional groups that can be identified and described. The selection of social groups is based primarily on: (1) an  ;

examination of the historical development of the Study Area; and (2) interviews with key informants regarding the organization and structure of the Study Area 126 1

___- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1

community. In 1969, tha groups wcro identifind as the important functioning socic1 units of the Study Area.

Based on a review of the literature on community organization, social structure, and large-scale project effects, seven attributes were identified as essential to the analyses of project effects on the Study Area social system. These attributes are:

1. Size of group;

2. Livelihood of group members;

3. Demographic characteristics;

4. Geographic characteristics;

5. Property ownership characteristics;

6. Dominant attitudes and values toward growth, environment, community partici-pation, and planning; and

7. Patterns of interaction among group members (cohesion).

The profile of each group takes into account these attributes and focuses on the most distinct characteristics of group membership. Some diversity within each group is indicated, as well as a description of the modal characteristics of each group.

Inter- and intra-group changes over the study period are highlighted and those characteristics which remained relatively stable are described.I 8.2.2 Group Profiles The Agricultural Community The members of the agricultural community were residents of Peach Bottom Township, a rural area with a strong and viable agricultural base. At the beginning of the study period, there were approximately 100 operating farms scattered throughout the township, averaging 145 acres per farm. Approximately 20 percent of the people in the township's labor force were either farmers or farm managers. Farming constituted by far the largest employment sector in the Study Area, which gave it substantial importance as an economic force. The farmers, as a group, were a large employer, especially of seasonal workers, and approximately 14 percent of the township's workers were seasonal farm laborers or foremen. The agricultural community (that is, the farm owners and their families), by virtue of its economic 1

The descriptions of the groups were determined from interviews with key informants and are a synthesis of the findings. Individual references are therefore not provided.

127 l

pr: dominance and distinctiva wry of lifs, was r:cogniztd by arsn rzid:nts as a clearly defined socioeconomic group.

The principal agricultural activities of the agricultural community were truck gardening, fruit growing, and, most importantly, dairying. Unlike many agricultural regions in the U.S. where family-owned farms have been sold for rural, residential, and industrial development or for large corporate farming enterprises, the economic and social strength of the family farming unit in Peach Bottom Township prevented such occurrences. Because of the long-term economic stability of the agricultural sector in Peach Bottom Township, there had been minimal dislocation of farmers.

Since farms had been retained in family ownership, handed down from father to son, a network of economic and social interaction among the agricultural population had developed, and ownership of the land and farming as a way of life had acquired symbolic value to many in the agricultural community. The farms were generally productive and prosperous. Farm income was sometimes supplemented by the participation of a family member in wage and salary employment, especially during the off-season.

The size of the agricultural group was estirnated to be about 450 persons. There was a concentration of older people in the agricultural group, typical of rural areas where the elderly have put down roots and are an integral part of family life, and a relatively low percentage of the group in the ages between 20 and 50, reflecting the limited capacity of most of the small farms in the area to support more than one primary family. Most members of the farming community were white and Protestant,  !

either Presbyterian or Methodist.

An outstanding characteristic of the agricultural community was the high value it placed on the preservation of its rural lifestyle and the economic viability of the agricultural sector. Members of this group generally supported economic growth in the Study Area, partly because much of the area's previous experience with industrial and commercial developments had been with agricultural services (such as feed mills, canning and dairy processing establishments, and agricultural equiprnent dealers) and partly because economic growth was seen to benefit the local area with which the agricultural community had long and deep social ties.

128

Envir::nmentcl-quality conccras wtra also prsvalsnt among tha farming frmilica in the township. Concerns over aesthetic,, for example, manifested themselves in the opposition of some farmers to the routing of (iectrical transmission lines, associated with the earlier installation of Unit 1, across their fields. The potential threats to the township's rural environment and lifestyle as well as to the agricultural economy were carefully monitored by the farmers. Generally, although the agricultural community disapproved of rapid residential growth in the township as a culture-l threatening process, recreational land use and the development of vacation homes, 1:cated on nonproductive land, were viewed by the agricultural community as compatible with the rural nature of the Study Area and were considered a means to strengthen the township's tax base. Herefore, the agricultural community was especially sensitive to changes in the natural environment that would pose a threat to the recreational use of the area, especially the Conowingo Pond section of the Susquehanna River.

He agricultural group was also sensitive to changes that would affect the area's social structure and traditional rural values. For example, the attachment to traditional values-active church participation, community altruism, family orienta-tion, and regional identification-was expressed in the efforts to bring about local control of education. The importance placed on traditional values, however, did not preclude the use of modern agriculturalinformation and technology.

he long-term economic viability of the agricultural sector in the Study Area resulted in a strong community with shared social values: in addition to the long-term family tenure, with its resulting historical family ties, the shared political values and religious beliefs and geographically insular social interactions all helped farmers and their families define themselves as a distinct social group within the Study Area. However, recent in-migrant farming families who also held traditional values and stressed agricultural effeciency were both supported and accepted. For example, a number of farmers who were interviewed expressed positive opinions

s. bout Amish farmers from Lancaster County who had bought two farms in Peach Bottom Township.

The group's cohesiveness was characterized by the nature of intragroup cconomic, soci3 1, and political interactions as well as by the strength of its group identification. ~ Within the agricultural group, there was a high level of informal 129

communication over economic mattsrs and cxchanga of goods, equipment, and agricultural products. Nevertheless, both purchases of agricultural materials and exports of products by the agricultural community took place at commercial centers outside of the Study Area.

Interviews with key informants indicated that s well-defined pattern of economic interactions within the group could not be established; there was a high level of individual variability, and most observable economic links were with centers outside the Study Area.

In Peach Bottom Township, the elected supervisors consistently were represen-tatives of the agricultural community, with long family traditions in the area.

Although periodic township meetings were held, there was little community-wide involvement. Overall there seemed to be no apparent need for long-term policy development: among members of the farming cornmunity, it was felt that preservation of farming as a way of life and the rural quality of the environment were pervasive community values; however, as long as urban residential encroachment was minimal, no strategy for dealing with growth was warranted.

The nature of farming as an occupation and the distances between individual farm residences limited participation and therefore active social interaction between members of the agricultural community in formal social institutions or organizations, the principal exception being the church, in which the agricultural community was very act'ive. Key informants indicated that there were few kin ties within the' agricultural group. Of special importance was the high level of interaction between school-aged members of the agricultural group.

l The Business Community The business community in the Study Area included those families that owned retail, wholesale, or inanufacturing establishments; those who influenced or directed economic policy through key financial or managerial positions; or those who represented or managed absentee-owned commercial establishments. Also included in this group were families of the independent professionals who worked in the Study Area.

130

In Peach Bottom Township, commercial activities represented only a small portion of the economy; consequently those involved in these activities were a relatively small portion of the population. In 1969, Peach Bottom Township had seventeen commercial establishments, and Delta Borough had approximately thirty.

Most of these were owner-operated with few employees, yet the larger establish-ments were usually absentee-owned. Given the poor economic conditions in the Study

, Area prior to the project, those involved with commercial or professional activities had not prospered, and the size of the group had declined.

Prior to the Peach Bottom project, the business community was quite small, about 165 persons or approximately 7 percent of the Study Area population. The members of the business community were exclusively white; in this as in other demographic characteristics, the group approximated the general profile of area residents, with no conspicuous concentration of age or sex. A substantial portion of the business community lived in Delta Borough; the others were widely scattered

! throughout the township, living near their business establishments. Most members of this group owned their own homes and their own businesses or offices.

The economic cyles of decline and stability experienced in Delta Borough during the last forty years resulted in a substantial movement of businessmen into and out of the town. Consequently, the group was not as cohesive as it might have been: it included merchants who were both long-term traditional residents of the community and those who were more recent arrivals. Some differences were apparent between members of this grobp in their outlook and approach to commerce and in the desired direction of community growth. Yet a collective desire for growth emerged from their realization of their precarious position as merchants catering to a small town that was economically troubled, by passed by the major transportation routes, and competing with growing shopping centers nearby. Particularly important was the overwhelming support given by the area's merchants to the proposed Peach Bottom Unit 1. The merchants who were residing in the community at the time of Unit l's inception believed that the nuclear plant would be the most important positive economic event in Delta Borough's history. Unlike other major commercial activities in the community, the plant was perceived as a permanent fixture in the landscape, not vulnerable to the vicissitudes of roarket demand.

131

)

The principal motive. tion of the businssa community was to promote economic stability. Consequently, the businessmen involved in retail trade were traditionally active politically, and the connections between this group and the local government were strong. The local barber, for example, served as mayor of Delta Borough for over thirty years, and 5 out of the 7 council members were members of the business community. The more recent newcomgs generally followed this same, well-established pattern.

Although an appreciation for open space, natural recreation areas, and rural qualities was prevalent among members of the business community, environmental quality was not an important concern for this group. Their minimal effort to improve environmental quality was partly a reflection of the growth ethos pervasive in the community and partly a function of the general political conservatism of the business-political leaders. Because Delta Borough's economy was declining and because the need for a stable economic base was the prime motivation of the commercial community, concern for environmental quality was superseded by economic and fiscal considerations.

As a group, the commercial community was distinct only because of its functional role in the economy of the Study Area and because of its influence and participation in the political decision-making process. The business group as a whole was conspicuous by its very high participation in civic organizations, political and social leadership roles, and community involvement.

Traditional /Old-Time Residents '

Throughout its history, Delta Borough was an affluent community, and its residents were primarily hard-working miners and merchants. The group that dominated the social environment in the borough was the "old-timers," those individuals and families who had developed long-standing ties to each other and to the town by virtue of their length of residence and shared community experience.

Approximately 50 percent of Delta Borough's population belonged to this social group.

An important portion of this group was the elderly residents (60 years of age and over), who made up about 25 percent of Delta Borough's population. A small percentage of the labor force within this group (excluding the elderly) were employed in Delta Borough, but most of this group's employment was outside the Study Area in nearby urban centers. There were professionals in this group who were earning high 132

incomes. Tha con mon occupttion) wzra those with modtr2to pry scel:s--crtite, public administration, management, and common labor. Most of the elderly in Delta Borough were long-standing members of the community and belonged to this group. A few were still active in business and politics and were an important social force in the community. A significant number of the elderly were widows, and a sizeable number of the elderly were supported solely by social security.

The rate of home ownership in Delta Borough was high, and the elderly were included as homeowners. However, Delta Borough was never an affluent community, and a number of this group were unable to maintain their homes to the standards they preferred.

The rural "small town" quality of their community was especially valued by this group. One important attribute of the small-town environment was the high level of social interaction between members of this group. The old-time residents were active in such groups as the local veterans club, the Lions club, and church groups.

Moreover, their level of participation in the decision-making process, both in active

leadership and in public involvement, was consistently high. The informal dimension of the social interaction of this group was characterized by its friendship patterns

of those individuals within this group that were interviewed, all identified their closest friends and family members as being "old-timers." This is not to say that friendships did not develop with newer residents, but that ties were much closer within the group than they were outside it. Moreover, interviews with "old-timer" families suggested that their geographical orientation was more restricted than that of recent in-migrants; they were more community-oriented than regionally-focused. The small-town character of Delta Borough, its dominant working-class social structure, and their shared experiences over time reinforced group solidarity and identity. For this group, civic involvement and pride in the history of their town were important.

The "old-timers" viewed themselves as a separate group based on their long-terrn association with each other and with the town. This manifested itself in the importance given to historical celebrations, civic involvement, and the preservation of the history of the community. In general, the old-timers held traditional, conservative attitudes, participated actively in church-related functions, held a strong attachment to the community, and did not initiate political actions that were potentially confrontational: they held " traditional" values as important.

133

In Delta Borough, political lacdsrship and participation wars strongly associstsd with the traditional residents of the community. He communication system in public decision-making tended to be informal, and public feedback to decision-makers was broad-based and effective. Here was a high level of active participation by the long-time residents of Delta Borough, as well as by the general public; decision-making was by consensus, and the public meeting served as an efficient forum for the articulation of community concerns.

All in all, based on the levels of social and political intragroup interactions, group cohesiveness was very high. Although bonds among members of the traditional residents were strong, however, this did not pre-empt the acceptance of newcomers into community life. The Study Area received a substantialinflux of people from the Baltimore metropolitan area during the 1960s. As a distinc.t social group, they differed from the traditional residents of the area, but the distinction was often blurred. Since the 1940s, for example, Delta Borough had residents who lived in the borough and commuted to work in Harford County, Maryland. Gradually, these earlier commuters became integrated with the traditional long-time residents. The recent newcomers, on the other hand, usually composed of young families and those who were employed in the professions,, were only in the earliest stage of this integration process at the tirne of the study.

He Suburbanites The socioeconomic structure of the local area prior to construction was characteristic of a rural farming area with a small town based on agricultural and retail services. During the pre-construction period, however, rural suburbanization was accelerating. In the late 1960s, the suburban group was already dispersed throughout Peach Bottom Township and Delta Borough. This group's employment and social interests were predominantly outside the area, and as a result, the suburbanites, as a group, were not well-organized, nor were its members much involved in the social and political affairs of the Study Area. A few suburbanites bought land and attempted farming on a small and part-time scale; others converted their previously owned vacation homes to year-round residences; and still others built or bought new homes. At the time construction on the nuclear plant began, por'tions of a number of farms that were recently purchased in the northwestern area of the township were subdivided for residential development; known as the Susquehanna Trails, this development became a densely populated residential area.

134

Although many of the suburbanites were young families, a sizeable proportion of the suburbanites who located to Peach Bottom Township were elderly. This was partly a reflection of the degree to which individuals utilized what were once their seasonal vacation homes in the township as their permanent r esidences for rstirement. Many of the individuals who converted their seasonal homes in the Susquehanna Trails a-ea to year-round housing units were people who were about to retire or had retired. This tendency is not uncommon in rural-recreational areas that are naturally suited as retirement places.

'Ibe level of group cohesiveness was relatively low for the suburban group. As the in-migrants became more settled in the Study Area, they participated more in community affairs, particularly in civic and social organizations and church-related ,

cctivities. But, for the most part, they did not behave as a group: many had individual interests outside the Study Area; there was little economic interaction between group members; and there was generally no political expression or leadership by members of this group within the Study Area.

8.2.3 Interrelationships among the Groups Economic As stated previously, just prior to the construction of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, the commercial sector of Delta Borough was declining. Small retail establishments with traditional ties to the local area were closing or relocating, the population was declining, and competition from shopping centers built nearby was increasing. A few of the firms catering to the agricultural community, a dairy processing company, and an agricultu:al equipment dealer had already relocated. The commercial sector was in the process of both decline and change in ownership patterns. In the late 1960s, the business sector was divided between members of families whose businesses had withstood the vicissitudes of market demands for twenty to thirty years and by recent cntreprenuers who had operated in the area for under five years. Moreover, because Delta Borough served as the service center for Peach Bottom Township, close ties were nurtured between the business community of Delta Borough and the farming community of the township. Nevertheless, these ties were not as prevalent nor as strong as they had previously been. The decline of Delta Borough's position as an agricultural center meant that members of the agricultural community went elsewhere for equipment and service, causing a diffusion of economic orientation and interaction throughout the larger region and a movement away from the focus of cconomic activity within the Study Area.

135

The largest ernployers in the Study Area were the Dalta Sewing Company and Philadelphia Electric Company's Unit I nuclear plant, which, together with the agricultural community and other elements of the business community, provided most of the employment opportunities in the Study Area. Prior to the construction of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, most of the wage and salary workers in the Study Area were members of the old-timer and agricultural communities.

The suburbanites and most of the old-timers in the labor force were commuters to jobs outside the Study Area. Agricultural laborers were from the agricultural community or from the old-timer group, especially younger members, but seasonal workers of ten came from outside the Study Area to work temporarily in the township.

The growth of neighboring commercial centers in the late 1960s resulted in fewer contacts between the business community and the other residents of the Study Area. These commercial shopping centers became popular; most purchases, were made there. Consequently, the level of economic interrelationships and interdepen-dence among groups in the Study Area was Icw.

The larger employers in the Study Area-the mining industry, a sewing manufacturer, and an agricultural equipment company-were absentee-owned. On the one hand, this absentee ownership result'ed in a lack of participation in Delta Borough's economic welfare by those who had the financial capability to stabilize the community's economy; on the other hand, it inhibited the emergence of an elite group based on commerce. As a consequence, the group of merchants who served the retail and wholesale needs of the local area surfaced as the dominant economic and political force in the community.

Political Although Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township were strongly linked economically and socially, they were distinct political entities, and the political relationships between and within their constituent groups differed. In Peach Bottom Township, the elected supervisors were consistently representatives of the agricul-tural community, with long family ties to the area. Prior to the building of the nuclear station, the scope of the supervisor's activities was limited to organizational matters related to the township budget and to ad hoc responses to specific problem areas, usually related to agriculture. Overall, there seemed to be no apparent need 136

for long-term policy developmsnt since thara wea little conflict between groups in the Study Area at that time.

In Delta Borough, on the other hand, political . leadership and participation were strongly associated with the old-timers and the merchants. Although the political process was an open one with regular public meetings, involvement by the more recent suburbanites was limited, due to their social and employment ties outside of the Study Area. The city council was composed of local merchants and professionals with conservative political leanings. Because no elite social or economic interest was represented in the town, the communication system tended to be informal, and public feedback to decision-makers was broad-based and effective. Decision-making was by consensus, and the public meeting served as an efficient forum for articulating community concerns. Unlike Peach Bottom Township, where decision-making was left to the elected supervisors, high levels of active participation by the public, particularly by the old-timers, were characteristic of Delta Borough.

i.

Prior to the construction of the nuclear facility, no visible public interest groups surfaced in the Study Area; even with the influx of new residents, generally younger and employed as white-collar professionals or as skilled craftsmen, no increase in political activism ensued. Delta Borough, for example, was characterized I

by a small relatively homogeneous population with active civic-oriented political participation dominated by the merchant / worker social class; political concerns were focused on the problems of upgrading the community economically, and few public issues surfaced.

Social

'Ibe old-timers and members of the business community had strong social bonds, manifested in ' group participation in formal community institutions such as the church and local civic affairs. Moreover, informal contacts, such as visitations between members of the two groups, were also frequent.

The out-migration of long-time residents was perceived by many in the communfty, especially businessmen, as a disruption and a cause of permanent change to the community's social structure. To others, however, this change was not so disturbing. Key informants suggested that, in the late 1960s, a trend toward the return of retired people and younger professionals to their familial base partly 137

counteractsd the disruption in community social life. Strong bonds batwun tha different generations of long-time residents enhanced the sense of community integration in the area. Among these individuals, participation in com:nunity public and social life was prevalent.

The agricultural community had weak ties to both the business community and old-timers as a result of four factors: the scattered spatial pattern of farm residences; the nature of the demanding work schedule for farm families, which precluded a high level of social interaction; the great extent to which social functions were performed within the group rather than outside of the group; and the diminished economic ties with Delta Borough. Nevertheless, informal visitation did take place between some individuals in the two areas: farming families participated in community fund drives and celebrations and belonged to the same churches. Although the agricultural community of Peach Bottom Township participated less as a group in community social affairs than did residents of Delta Borough, there was moderate interaction between the two municipalities with respect to social relationships and membership in social organizations, especially churches.

The most discernible change in social structure, at the time of the study, was the inclusion of recent suburbanites as a group within the social structure of the Study Area. However, the effect of the suburbanites on the social structure was diminished by their economic and social interest outside the Study Area. The integration of these recent in-migrants with the traditional social groups had not developed to any appreciable degree, nor had the existing social organizations been strengthened by their participation.

8.3 Distribution of Picket Effects to Groups 8.3.1 New Groups: 'lhe Construction Workers The economic, demographic, housing, and facilities / services effects attributable to the construction and operation of the plant have been identified and described in previous chapters. The purpose of this section is to distribute these effects to the groups in the Study Area. Of particular importance in understanding the magnitude and duration of these effects is the role and nature of the construction work force and their families who relocated into the Study Area. The characteristics of this group have been assessed in order to derive the socioeconomic effects, but as a social group two factors require explication: first, the impact of the movers and their 138

fcmilias on tha existmg socici structura and soci:1 process of the Study Area; and, second, the plant-related effects on the movers as a group.

The construction workers employed on the Peach Bottom project have been treated up to this point as either effects of the project or as the means by which effects have been transmitted to the Study Area. This is a useful and accurate perspective, as far as it goes. From another point of view, however, the construction workers and their households can be seen as a group in the Study Area that experienced the project effects in a way that is, if not the same as the experience of the other groups, analogous to it. Therefore, the construction workers are briefly dzscribed and added as a temporary group in the Study Area. D The occupations of construction work force personnel were considerably more diverse than the name implies. In addition to the craft workers and unskilled and camiskilled workers, there were engineering, administrative, clerical, and security  ;

personnel. In Chapter 4 (Table 4-2), it was estimated that 415 construction workers lived in the county, 246 nonmovers and 169 movers. The nonmovers were already members of the Study Area groups. 'Ihe movers and their families comprised a new group, movers who were present temporarily in the Study Area during the construction period. Altogether, these workers and their household members were c::timated to number 246 persons. About two-thirds of this population located in Dalta Borough, and the rest located in Peach Bottom Township. Most of the movers rsnted rooms in homes in Delta Borough; none bought homes in the Study Area. Most of these movers were white single men or men unaccompanied by families.

The members of the construction worker group tended to value growth and to equate new construction with progress. On the whole, they were highly mobile and hrd a very limited attachment to the Study Area. They appeared to place little emphasis or value on participation in civic or community affairs. The volunteer fire department enrolled several construction workers, but that seemed to have been the exception among civic groups. The construction workers tended to rely on members of their own group for much of their social interaction. The temporary nature of their residence in the Stuay Area was a major point distinguishing them from other newcomers. Overall, the construction workers were a visible, relatively unintegrated tddition to the area's social structure.

139

8.3.2 Distribution cf Economic. DeE--y--hin busina and Settlement Patterns, and Public Servica Effects to Groups The effects on the economy, demography, housing and settlement patterns, and government and public services were identified and described in chapters 4 through 7.

They are summarized in the appropriate sections below and are distributed among the groups described earlier in this chapter.

Economic Effects The economic impacts of the Peach Bottom nuclear station on the Study Area were assessed for the 1973 construction year and for the 1978 year of plant operations. Basic and nonbasic employment and income effects were generated in the Study Area; wage and tax-induced effects did not result in measurable changes in income or employment effects to the local economy. Table 8-1 recapitulates the employment and income effects.

Based on interviews with key informants and the economic analysis that was carried out in Chapter 4, the employment and income distributed to the five groups in the Study Area can be approximated as Table 8-2 shows.

The employment and income effects generated directly by plant construction and operation, as shown in Table 8-2, accrued primarily to the old-timers, the agricultural community, and the movers. In addition, there were economic effects due to purchases of plant construction materials and increased incomes to residents due to rent. In 1973, the total expenditures made for rental housing were estimated at about $160 thousand. Since sixty-six percent of the movers located in Delta Borough and the remainder in Peach Bottom Township, $105 thousand in rentals accrued primarily to the old-timers in the Study Area, and $55 thousand went to the agricultural community and the suburbanites in the township. Indirect basic income from purchases of construction material was estimated to have had a minimal income effect; approximately $13.5 thousand was estimated to have accrued as basic income to the local businesses.

In Chapter 4, the estimated total spendable income generated by plant construction in 1973 and accrued by Study Area residents was $7.2 million, which included income from basic, nonbasic, and commuter-related expenditures. However, g not all of this income was spent within the Study Area. The amount of income retained within an area is based on the capability of the area's economy to provide 140

TABLE 8-1 EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME EFFECTS DELTA BOROUGH AND PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP 1972 and 1978 1972 1978 Income Income Employment ($000) Employment ($000)

Basic Employment Nonmovers 246 4,106 26 343 Movers 169 2,820 22 290 Nonbasic Employment Nonmovers 20 106 3 39 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1980.

l 141

TABLE 8-2 EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME EFFECTS DISTRIBUTED TO FIVE SOCIAL GROUPS PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP AND DELTA BOROUGH 1973 and 1978 1973 1978 Basic and Basic and Nonbasic Income Nonbasic Income Groups Employment ($000) Employment ($000)

Old-Timers 141 2,237 29 379 Business and Professional 15 236 - -

Movers (Construction Workers) 169 2,820 22 290 Suburbanites 45 712 - -

Agricultural 65 1,027 - -

435 7,032 5I 6T9 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1980.

l 142

l nasdtd goods and servicss; that is, the polition of the Study Arca in the regionni trading hierarchy. 'Ibe Study Area had a very limited economic base, possibly less than a first-order place with much of the income leaking out of the area. In a small, rural area, such as Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township, it is not unreasonable to expect that only about twenty percent of the income would remain in the Study Area. Moreover, the level of personal consumption expenditures can be calculated directly from the basic income estimates derived for the construction period.

Nationally, personal consumption expenditures average about 0.79 of personal income (Economic Report of the President, 1979). Assuming this relationship holds, expenditures due to direct income can be derived by taking 0.79 of direct income that remains in the Study Area. The gross income that would accrue to the business community in the Study Area was then estimated to be $1.1 million for 1973. For the operations period, total basic and nonbasic income was estimated to be $0.67 million.

Using this procedure, approximately $110 thousand of this would remain in the study area.

For the agricultural group, some economic benefits were realized from the employment of young farm people, some farmers, and women. However, employment opportunities at the plant drew agricultural laborers to the construction site, which resulted in temporary labor shortages in the agricultural sector. No long-term impact resulted from these wage-induced effects on the agricultural sector. On the whole, the agricultural sector did not benefit from increased local spending.

The business community emerged as the leading recipient of the economic gains of constructing and operating the Peach Bottom plant. Some of the firms in the area were able to expand, but the economic effects varied depending upon the type of establishment. As noted in Chapter 4, the construction period was marked by both the acceleration of the demise of a few general stores and the concomitant growth of other stores, in particular the modern supermarket outside of Delta Borough.

Overall, however, the economic effects were short-lived and mostly dissipated with the end of construction activity.

Demographic Effects The demographic effects for the Study Area were estimated in Chapter 5 and summarized in Table 5-7 for the 1967 to 1969 period. The two major components of population changes were those due to increased in-migration and those due to 143 1

diminished out-migration. Tha driving varitblso wtra ba:ic and nonbt::ic employment, the associated household sizes, and the residential status of the work force. In 1973, population in-migration was estimated to be 246 persons, and diminished out-migration, 83 persons, for a total population effect of 329 persons due to the construction of the project (Table 5-5). The distribution of the population increase by group followed the analysis concerning the work force, migration patterns, and household size made in Chapter 5. The distribution of population effects by group in 1973, shown in Table 8-3, was based on the employment patterns for the five groups described above. In general, the nonbasic employment demands induced by construction activity and associated income expenditures were met by residents from the Study Area and not by in-migrants. In 1973, both the old-timer and the agricultural groups experienced reduced out-migration, and consequently additional numbers due to the plant, although these effects were not large. This was thought to have resulted from the project-related employment of younger members of the groups who therefore delayed their out-migration.

For the operations year, 1978, the population increase was estimated at 78 persons due to in-migration of operations workers and their families. The nonbasic employment in the study area attributable to plant operation was filled by residents of the Study Area. The evidence suggests that neither the nonmovers who were employed at the plant (26 workers) nor those in nonbasic jobs would have out-migrated from the Study Area without this employment; consequently, the project did not result in any reduced out-migration in 1978.

In chapters 4 and 5, the demographic effects estimated for the study period had the largest population increases occurring during the peak construction years and a dramatic decline in project-related population increase as construction was com-pleted and operations began. Overall, the resident population was not affected to any significant degree except that a few residents did not leave the area because of construction work. But, when construction work ended, there was a noticeable out-migration of both movers and residents, indicating that out-migration had merely been somewhat delayed for the interval during the construction period.

Distribution of Settlement Pattern and Housing Effects The overall effect of the nuclear station on the housing market was minimal, reflecting both the nature of the existing housing market prior to construction and 144

TABLE 8-3 APPROXIMATE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION EFFECTS, BY GROUP PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP AND DELTA BOROUGH 1973 I

In-Migrants Reduced Out-Migration Old-Timers -

45 Agricultural -

30 Business and Professional - -

Movers 246 -

Suburbanites --

8 TOTAL 246 83 145

tha siza of tha in-migrant work force. Bncture of the low vs.cancy rtte, tha relatively small size of the housing stock, and the plant's proximity to more urban centers with larger rental capacity, the Study Area did not accommodate more than a small percentage of those who moved to the region for work on the project. The in-migrating work force numbered 169 workers, which represented 23.4 percent of total movers and 7.6 percent of the total construction work force. Since the movers into the Study Area were primarily single men--not more than 34 were accompanied by their families-their demands were principally for rental units. Because no in-migration occurred as a response to nonbasic employment increases, the critical driving variable for impact on the Study Area's housing market during the construction period was the movers.

The movers were primarily renters, and therefore few demands were made for either purchases or construction of homes. The demand for rentals, however, affected some groups in the Study Area. A number of the old-timers, particularly widows residing in Delta Borough, converted rooms in their homes into rental units and obtained considerable supplemental income from renting these rooms to movers during the construction period. The construction of the plant, according to key informants, temporarily inflated the value of real estate, and as a result, a few old-time residents sold their residential properties to investment develop'ers, who in turn converted these properties into multi-unit rental properties for the use of construction workers. Chapter 5 describes the deterioration of the quality of these structures and the utilization of these units by suburban renters of lower economic status then that of most Delta' residents. This change was an encroachment upon the established housing type and social patterns of the traditional residents of the Study Area. For the old-timer group, income from rentals was a definite positive effect, especially for the widows in the community. However, the demands for rental units i

and the conversion of single-family structures ultimately resulted in the intrusion of a small but highly visible group of people who were not considered compatible with the old-timers. Thus, the impact of the plant resulted in both positive and negative effects.

Construction activity and the escalation of real estate values did not prevent the growth of residential development in the township. There is no evidence that the construction of the plant was a catalyst for this grow th, although, from the perspective of some members of the agricultural community, the distinction between 146

suburbnnizstion (which cccolcrzted at tha ccma time that construction commenced) and plant construction was not made. There was some evidence, however, that a number of second homes, previously used as vacation homes, were upgraded or converted to year-round structures with income obtainel from their rental to project-related workers. The degree to which such innovation was a factor influencing suburban retirement to the area could not be ascertained. What can be concluded is

that construction of the plant may have accelerated the suburbanization process to a

limited degree by conversions and upgrading of vacation homes and by stimulating interest among land developers in the area's potential for residential and subdivision development.

l l The operations work force did not affect the housing market to any appreciable I degree. 'Ibelt houses were scattered throughout the township, integrated with those of the suburbanites. These homes were usually newly built; so they added to the residential growth occurring in the Study Area, but the numbers were so small that they were not a visible component of the suburban growth.

Distribution of Governmental Effects Chapter 7 provided an overview of the effects of the Peach Bottom project on the Study Area government and the level of public services. The assessment showed that Delta Borough was not the recipient of additional revenues from the plant nor were increased demands placed on the provision of public services. Revenue and cxpenditure effects related to the Peach Bottom nuclear station were limited to the township by virtue of the plant's location in the township, and therefore only the agricultural and suburban groups were affected. During the period between 1972 and 1974, there was a substantial increase in revenues in the township from the earned-income taxes paid by the direct basic workers at the project. During the operations period, however, these revenues were significantly lower and generally inconsequen-tial.

Except for improvements and the increased maintenance of roads and highways, the Peach Bottom plant had only a small effect on the township's budget (and thus the level of public services and employment). The township's' decision (by the agricultural group) to invest much of the earned-income tax and to reduce the millage rate on taxable property resulted in little change in the level of expenditures for public services in the township in spite of increased revenues during the construction period.

147

. o

1 Improvements in the road system benefited all groups in the Study Area. Tha lowered tax rate particularly benefited the agricultural families and suburbanites who were landowners in the township. Between 1970 and 1978, $219,437 in tax revenues was not paid because of the reduced tax rates. The reduction in tax rates counter-balanced the revenues from the nuclear plant, minimizing the change in available governmental funds; consequently, no major upgrading of public services resulted from the project. The agricultural community favored and promoted this strategy, but the suburbanites generally desired upgraded public services and did not recognize i the reduced tax rate as a particular advantage.

8.4 Summary of the Effects of the Profect on Groups This section summarizes the effects of the construction and operation of the nuclear station on each group and the major changes they have produced in the groups during the study period. Overall, the effects of the project on the groups in the Study Area were temporary and relatively slight.

'Ibe Agricultural Community The agricultural community increased its political position as a result of the plant because of its involvement in the litigation / licensing hearings and because of its political action to restrict urban growth in the township, the implementation of which was partly influenced by the construction of the plant. The construction of the plant and associated population in-migration took place at the same time as non-plant-related suburbanization was occurring. The construction of the plant was viewed by farmers as a catalyst for far-reaching changes in the area. Political actions in the form of zoning ordinances to restrict residential development on productive farmland resulted.

The economic situation of the farmers continued to be as viable as it would have been without the building of a plant nearby. However, during the construction period, many farm laborers left their place of employment to work on Peach Bottom, which resulted in manpower shortages for some of the farmers in the local area.

These labor shortages were of a temporary nature and had no long-lasting effect on the agricultural economy. There was some change in the position regarding ownership of land as some farm families sold sections of their land to developers for a residential subdivision.

148

Ovtrnll, littis structural change occurrsd in the agricultural group ovzr tha thirteen-year study period. The social networks within the group existing prior to the construction of the plant were not altered.

'Ibe Business Community Historically, Delta Borough was geographically isolated and by-passed by the major regional transportation routes; it suffered declining population and diminuation of the commercial sector. The businessmen in Delta Borough provided enthusiastic support for the siting and expansion of the Peach Bottom nuclear facility near the town. Although some in the business community were affected positively by the economic and demographic effects of the project, some were not affected, and a few store owners were adversely affected. During the study period, six retail stores ceased operation, and the owners and their families out-migrated.

It is clear that local income increased during the construction period and that basic and nonbasic employment for local residents increased as well. Those businesses that were able to supply construction materials expanded; however, the predominantly single work force with families and residential ties outside of the area coupled with the proximity of a large retail center outside the area resulted in smaller expenditures on local goods and services than were anticipated. Furthermore, the growth of a commercial center within the local area but outside of Delta Borough may have accelerated the demise of a number of traditional but marginal retail stores in Delta Borough. The large supermarket was owned partly by a local resident and partly by absentee businessmen. It marked a change in traditional business prac.tice in the Study Area as decisions were made by individuals outside the Study Area.

Overall, a few business places were modernized, but there was little permanent change in the size, livelihood, property ownership, or location of the business group.

The distinction between the older and the more recent business community became sharper, but this was not influenced by the nuclear plant: there has historically been a high level of in- and out-migration of businessmen, and the more recent in-migrants were recognized for having brought with them new management skills and entrepreneurship not commonly found among the older business establishment.

149

Th;ra was no evzrall expan: ion of tha commarcial sector since the plant was completed and no major change in the structure of the business community that was solely and directly attributable to the plant. The growth of a large supermarket in the local a-ea, although initially supported by the expenditures of construction workers, relied more on the suburban population for its continued viability. Delta Borough remained a rural service town, although it continued its trend toward becoming a " bedroom" community, with fewer economic activities.

i

'1Vaditional/Oki *nme Pa=Wants For the long-time residents of the area, the construction period marked a reversal of the long historical trend of geographic isolation and a reduction in the level of out-migration of the population. As a group, they welcomed the changes they expected as a consequence of plant construction: increased prosperity, the retention of Delta Borough's youth, the in-migration of professional and skilled people with leadership qualities, a larger tax base, and population growth. The end result when construction was completed was that little had changed: the traditional, established residents remained the dominant social group in the local area. Had there been sufficient economic stimulus for residential growth, significant nonbasic employment, and in-migration of a sizeable operations work force as permanent residents, the traditional social group may have been greatly changed. However, the spatial constraints for development and urban growth precluded the location of a large in-migrant population in Delta Borough. The construction work force was predominantly unaccompanied by families; they were a transient population with different activity patterns than those of the established population. The result was that the old families were not greatly affected because social contact and integration between the plant's work force and the old-time residents of the local area were limited.

l The elderly members of this group continued to be a large proportion of the group's population. Although this elderly group was large in size, it lost some of its political power to younger people. The loss of some general stores in town and expansion on the outskirts, a process that was accelerated to some extent by the plant's construction, did not greatly affect the traditional group, whose shopping patterns had been changing prior to the plant, and whose view of the new commercial development was progressive. In terms of social cohesion, the existence of the plant did not alter the social and economic patterns of the traditional families.

150

f The Suburbanites In the mid-1960s, the suburban group was small in size and was dispersed throughout Peach Bottom Township and Delta Borough, with interests predominantly outside the area. As a result, this group was not well-organized, and their involvement in social and political affairs was minimal. Since 1967, however, the growth in suburbanization has accelerated, and at the time of the study, these suburbanites constituted a substantial proportion of the population in the local area.

Although many of these suburbanites were elderly, some retired and others soon to be retired, the majority were young families employed as professionals outside of tha local area.

As the in-migrants became more settled in the local area, they became more

! involved in community affairs. Participation in civic and social organizations and church-related activities grew; moreover, they became more vocal politically, otpressing concerns about the lack of urban services in their residential areas and demanding that township revenues be allocated for the expansion of water, roads, and electrical services. These demands were opposed by the agricultural community in Peach Bottom Township, which retained political leadership, and by virtue of its position, took steps to prevent the encroachment of commercial and residential development on farmland. In the late 1970s, however, a recent in-migrant was r

elected to Delta Borough's city council, a direct result of the increased size and political participation of the newcomers.

One aspect of this heightened political involvement was the increased demand for improved public facilities and environmental quality. Among the recent in-migrants were a number of concerned environmentalists who became very active in community affairs and effective in bringing about political action through the existing decision-making channels. Of particular concern to this subgroup was the Peach Bottom nuclear station; significant political activity by the Peach Bottom Alliance, an anti-nuclear interest group, focused on the facility. This group represented the first public interest organization with specific political aims in the Study Area and represented a change in community interest by some of the suburbanites. This was a definite result of the concern over nuclear technology subsequent to the TMI accident.

The Peach Bottom Alliance, a small group of active members, formed soon after the Three Mile Island accident. Although the number of active members was 151

faw, tha group rresivcd support from oth:r organizations in the region: c.ctivitizs and ,

participation in major events were coordinated at the regional level. Nevertheless, the group's interest was highly focused toward the Peach Bottom nuclear plant; the group was e active in information-gathering and was responsible for initiating l community interest in the shipment of wastes from the Peach Bottom plant and interest in the development of evacuation procedures for use in the event of an accident at the Peach Bottom site.; Although active group membership consisted of relatively recent in-migrants, their interest in the crea's welfare and concern about the environment grew quickly. The TMI accident was the catalyst for the formation of the group, and the feeling among group membars at the time of the study was that TMI's status was still in an emergency state,, The Peach Bottom Alliance had three principal aims: to disseminate information about nuclear power in general and the Peach Bottom plant specifically, to challegra the current procedure for waste y transport, and, of utmost importance, to guide efforts toward the development of a comprehensive and workable evacuation plan.

While there was little active support for the group among traditional comutunity residents, the group's participation in plant-related ("eussions at township meetinsa resulted in limited but growing acceptance of the c . ion as a legitimate part of ,j the community.

8.5 Chaastes in the Interrelationships among the Grm 8.5.1 Introduction The effects of the Peach Bottom project on the Study Area as a whole and on the internal organization of the groups resulted in some changes in group interrelationships. In some cases, the effects of the project were only part of larger trends that were already underway--changes that took place for a variety of reasons in addition to the project. The final result was the alteration of the socioeonemic structure of the Study Area. Since the links between groups were complex and since the time period covered by the study was over a decade, only the major links between greaps are discussed. As in Section 8.2, the economic, political, and social l interrelationships among groups are examined.

8.5.2 Economic Because of the out-migration of some of the long-established businessmen 1 during the last ten years, the business community lost its cohesiveness. This loss of 152

c h':sivcniso was furthered by tho influx cf n2w m:mb2rs who hsid diffsr:nt attitudss toward growth, development, and community involvement. Moreover, with the growth of a large subur(aalte population and the concomitant growth of regional shopping in Belair'e outside of the local ares, the traditional close ties between the I residents of the local area and the business csmmunity croded, a change for which the plant was not responsible. The loss of[small traditional general stores, replaced by a large supermarket (part of a regional chain) on the outskirts of Delta Borough, marked a change in the personal relationships between shop owner and consumer.

This relationship became impersonal and more fort:al, and long-term credit based on informal agreements between the consumer and the individual merchant was gradually eliminated. .

Althong the business community benefited directly from the income generated ,

by the project, this economic gain was only temporary, gradually ending as construction was comp.ti.t.ed. 'Overa'i, the economic structure, both in the aggregate and in specific sector IsW.s, did not change because of the plant. For example, prior to plant construction, the retail sector was declining; the construction of the plant <

l had the effect of sustaining and maintaining the sector for a few years. But once the plant was completed, this sector's economic decline resumed. Delta Borough began svo!ving into a " bedroom" commudty with more of the needs of the local population being met outside the local area. Tae construction and operation of the plant may have delayed these forces, but did not prevent their occurrence. Delta Borough's role as an agricultural service town continued at the level that had existed prior to the plant's construction, but there were signs of economic trouble in this sector as well.

The growth of a commercial center on the periphery of Delta Borough, with a large supermarket as the focus of activity, is indicative of the change toward centralization of commercial functions and the loss of local control (the supermarket vras part of a regional chain store). Construction of the nuclear plant may have accelerated these ongoing processes.

The economic relationships among groups shifted in a slight way during the construction period. Agricultural workers left their place of work for employment at the plant. Nonbasic employment increases for the commercial sector of the Study Area were met by employment of a few members of the old-timers, mostly women who were hitherto unemployed. Once construction ended, the pattern of economic 153

int:rralntionships cxisting prior to tha conItruction of the Pach Bottom plant was reinstated.

8.5.3 Political There was little change in the administrative structure of the Study Area since construction began on the Peach Bottom plant. Political leadership in the Study Area was slightly altered as a response to the changing local environment--new constituencies, public interest groups, and complex problems that required new approaches for their solution. In Delta Borough, the established administration gave way to younger businessmen and professionals (who continued to have familial ties to the old-time social establishment) and to new in-migrants. In Peach Bottom, the more articulate, educated, and successful farmers controlled township politics.

The change in the population characteristics of the local area during the study period resulted in the establishment of a more pluralistic society with various interests and demands placed on the political system. The construction of the nuclear plant at a time when farm land was being sold for a residential subdivision, concomitant with increasing rural suburbanization, was perceived by the agricultural community as a threat to their lifestyle, and appropriate political responses were initiated. In 1971, a land-use plan was established for the local area, and in 1973 a zoning ordinance was passed to restrict residential development on productive land.

In addition, the township supervisors accepted public positions and made decisions a

with respect to the nuclear plant. For example, a part-time Civil Defense expert was hired to develop a nuclear accident contingency plan for .the local area, and a resolution was passed to control the transport of low-level radioactive wastes from the nuclear plant. In addition, during the past few years, environmental concerns emerged as political issues in the local area. The traditional political decision- ,

i making process was replaced by public interest group confrontations, major policy I initiatives, and the increased formalization of politics; this change was partly a function of the change in population characteristics in the local area over the last ten years (namely, the growth in the number of suburban residents, of whom some were active environmentalists) and partly a reflection of tha perceived effects of the nuclear plant. 'Ihe recent emergence of environmental concerns as political issues in the Study Area is largely the result of concerns and political actions taken with respect to the Peach Bottom facility and the " trickling down" of these concerns into i

general environmental issues. Of particular significance is the involvement of the 154

Pach Bottom Allianca in twnship politics. At firtt this " suburban" group was viewed by the agricultural community with antagonism and seen as too oriented toward confrontation; but toward the end of the study period the group became more cecepted by the township because of the agricultural community's concerns over the impacts of nuclear power plants, concerns that surfaced since the accident at hree Mile Island (see Chapter 9).

Two other major changes in the political structure of the local area are directly attributable to the Peach Bottom plant, nese include the escalation of political tension between groups in the local area and the emergence of an informal regional political structure among some of the southeastern townships of York County. De political confrontation between grous,s was manifest in expressed differences over the allocation of tax revenues from the plant. Because of the earned-income tax imposed on both construction and operations workers at the nuclear facility, the property tax rate sharply declined during the early 1970s to become the lowest in York County.

Although this may have benefited the suburbanites, especially the elderly, who retired to the area in large numbers, many felt the reduced tax base resulted in underinvestment in public facilities and services. The strategy of tax reduction, as opposed to expenditure increase, was established by the agricultural community and was attacked by some suburbanites. This resulted in social tension between members of these two groups.

He political response of the local area a the nuclear plant in Peach Bottom Township extended across its political borders, with decisions made at the regional level. The involvement of neveral neighboring townships in the development of a contingency plan in the case of an accident at the Peach Bottom facility is illustrative of the growth of political regionalism. An example of the emergence of l

cooperation between social groups of different areas experiencing similar effects is the support provided by the township's agricultural community to farmers in neighboring Fulton Township who were opposed to the proposed Fulton nuclear plant.

If a regional political alliance develops, the Peach Bottom nuclear plant will have been an important catalyst for this growth.

The political structure and the process by which decisions were made in the local area underwent some change. This change had three dimensions. First, decision-making moved toward policy making and considered analysis. Second, the 155

d:cisi:n-making procIss b:ccm2 *pelitical": thnt 12, politicc1 Intdtrs had to respond to the growth of conflicting community interests, and they had to resolve emerging public issues. In so doing, the political leaders had to become representatives of particular public constituencies. Third, the leadership stmeture in Delta Borough evolved to include both younger members of the traditional families and new in-migrants.

%e problems and issues that surfaced in the local area by the end of the study period increased the necessity of gathering information and coordinating with county and state government agencies before decisions were made, a reflection of the nature of the issues, requiring technical and planning advice beyond the level of expertise available in the local area. This coordination contrasts with the relatively high level of autonomy in the decision-making process prior to the construction of the Peach Bottom nuclear station and is largely a reflection of concerns over the plant since hree Mile Island.

8.5.4 Social Although the farming community of Peach Bottom Township participated less as a group in community social affairs than did residents of Delta Borough, there was substantial interaction between the two municipalities with respect to social relationships and membership in social organizations, especially churches.

The major change in social structure was the growth of suburbanization; aside from the impacts on the political decision-making process, however, the effect of the suburbanites on the social structure was minimal because of their residential l location-somewhat isolated from other groups-and because their economic and l social interests were focused outside of the local area. While the integration of in-migrants with the traditional social groups developed slowly, some existing social organizations were strengthened by their participation. Furthermore, the develop-ment of a few new organizations by the recent in-migrants grew in importance, and at the time of the study there were indications that this tendency will continue. An example of such an organization is the Peach Bottom Alliance.

Even though the operations staff at the station was not an identifiable social group and did not constitute a large portion of one group, the operations personnel of the Peach Bottom plant, especially the utility's employees at the information center, 156

played an integral role in the civic /cocial activities of tha local crea. The utility cctively participated in the community's historical celebrations and became the de facto historical curator for the area. In addition, the community's leaders turned to the plant's managers to provide technical advice on problem areas that surfaced in the local area. In particular, one plant manager and his family who lived in the immediate vicinity of the plant became very influential in civic and social events in the area. This high level of community participation reinforced the local residents' perception of the utility as an integral part of the local area with concerns for the area's well-being.

ne construction work force was different from the resident population of the l

I local area. The difference between the two populations expressed itself in separate activity patterns and, for the most part, lack of social integration, yet there were no apparent social problems, tensions, or conflicts between the resident population and the construction work force. One unifying element, however, was the participation of i the construction workers in the volunteer fire department, a public facility that connoted strong community values.

Overall, the influx of construction workers did not result in any adverse impact on the host communities. However, one school board administrator thought that there were some intergroup social problems:

This area has been a rural, cloistered community where everyone knew everyone. During the construction of Peach Bottom, this relationship broke down to some extent, and the parents of children who had long lived in the community felt that the new situation caused them to lose disciplinary control of their children. The wives of the Bechtel supervisory personnel who moved into the immediate vicinity were quite vocally critical of the school. ney

) seemed to be quite unhappy with the community and the school and never really fitted in. (C. Reed, personal communication, January 1979.)

157

CHAPTER 9: PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THE PEACH BO*ITOM ATOMIC POWER STATION 9.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to present the major issues and to identify and describe the public response that arose in connection with the project. The response to the Peach Bottom facility included political actors outside the Study Area, especially during the license hearings, as well as participants from the Study Area.

The issues and actors will be identified, the institutions, constituencies, and political activities described, and the impact on the Study Area assessed. It is important to ascertain the degree to which residents of the Study Area participated as actors and the salience of issues provoked by the construction and operation of the nuclear plant to residents of the Study Area. This chapter provides a chronological summary of the major public response to the project, with particular attention to the response as a result of the Three Mile Island accident.

9.2 Response during the Pre-Construction Period The pre-construction period began with the announcement of the Peach Bottom Atomic Generating Plant, Units 2 and 3, in August 1966 and continued until May 1968 when the first structural concrete was poured for Unit 3.

9.2.1 A==~wement The announcement of plans by the Philadelphia Electric Company to build two additional units at the Peach Bottom site in August 1966 did not provoke any major reaction by the utility or the federal and state regulatory agencies. There was strong public support for the building of two additional units, especially from the business community and the long-time residents of Delta Borough, who expected economic l prosperity for the town and a reversal of the downward economic trend. The expansion of the Peach Bottom site was favored by York County as well The agricultural community in Peach Bottom Township, however, expressed apprehension that the addition of two reactor units and their ancillary cooling structures would adversely effect recreational use of the area. (York Dispatch,1967; Olson,1974; Renova International, 1974; Alden, personal communication, 1980; Baldwin, J.,

personal communication,1980; Delzingaro, personal communication,1980; McHugh, personal communication,1980; Sommer, personal communication,1980.)

158

922.2 Sities

'Ibe public response to the announcement of the Philadelphia Electric Company's plan to construct two generating units at the Peach Bottom site in 1966 was tempered by the presence of Peach Bottom Unit 1, an a.lready-established nuclear plant. When Units 2 and 3 were announced, Unit I was already completed. The construction of two additional units at the Peach Bottom site was viewed as an cxtension of an already-established plant, so issues of land purchase or zoning did not l arise.

l The Philadelphia Electric Company had purchased the site in the 1920s. The cite was highly valued by local residents for its landscape and became a well-used recreational area. Loss of the area was painful but stoically accepted by Study Area residents, in part because the construction of Unit I was viewed as the participation in a critical national effort to develop the peaceful uses of the atom. Additionally, the construction of Unit I was viewed as an important investment that would add to the economic growth of the local area, and alternative recreational land was substituted for that loss to the project. Peach Bottom Unit I had proceeded without local intervention. Although the state expressed concern over the lack of information with regard to radioactive discharge, and some residents of Peach Bottom Township cpposed the routing of transmission lines in the township, no major issues emerged.

The total economic impact experienced in the local area was small, yet Unit I was perceived locally as an important regional project, a stabilizing force in an economy that was experiencing difficulties. (York Dispatch,1967.)

9.2.3 Hearinas Prior to the construction permit hearings, the Peach Bottorp Township Planning and Zoning Commission requested that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reject the application by the Philadelphia Electric Company for construction of a series of canals and ponds to reduce the level of thermal emissions into Conowingo Pond. The township's position was that such construction would adversely affect the recreational use of the area and would not sufficiently reduce thermal discharges into Conowingo 1

Four farmers from the local area protested the routing of the transmission lines across their properties, but the Public Utilities Commission authorized the Philadelphia Electric Company to exercise the right of eminent domain.

159

Pond. Tha perm:t was insund, and clthough the township's concern was not a contention at the construction permit hearings, the issue over thermal emissions was not resolved from the perspective of the township. (York Dispatch,1967; Baldwin, J.,

personal communication,1980.)

In June 1967, the Public Utilities Commission scheduled hearings on the utility's application to acquire rights-of-way for the construction of a transmission line. Two landholders objected to the erection of transmission lines on their land, but the Public Utility Commission upheld the utility's position.

9.2.4 The AEC Construction Permit The construction permit for Units 2 and 3 was issued by the AEC in January 1968 following a brief and uneventful public hearing. There was a limited appearance at the hearings by one individual, a member of an environmental organization that focused on the Chesapeake Bay, concerning the effects of thermal discharges into the Susquehanna River on the Chesapeake Bay area. No residents from the Study Area expressed concern or objection at the hearings. Supporters of the plant appearing at the hearings included the utility, numerous scientific groups that had conducted studies on behalf of the utility, and county and state officials. (York Dispatch,1968.)

9.3 Response during the Construction Period The construction period began with the issuance of the construction permits for Units 2 and 3 in January 1968 and continued until December 1974 when commercial operation of Unit 3 began. Earlier, in July 1974, commercial operation for Unit 2 commenced. The outstanding events during this period were hearings for an issuance '

of the operating license in May 1973 and July 1974.

9.3.1 Operatina License Hearh==r 'Ibe Re& =1 Context

, During the operating license hearings in 1973 and 1974, major safety and environmental issues surfaced, reflecting a change in national trends and a growing concern over nuclear technology at the regional level.

The passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 meant that environmental effects, in addition to questions of reactor safety and radiation hazards, could be considered in siting and operation decisions. During the early 160

1970s, national public concsrn over safety issu:s incraased and we.s manifest in widespread opposition to nuclear plant sitings, causing increased sensitivity by the Atomic Energy Commission to local concerns. (Kasperson et al., 1979.) The opposition to nuclear facilities was rooted in the environmental movement. Utility plans for siting nuclear stations were being challenged at the local level by savironmental groups and their supporters. This is not to say that intervention was motivated solely by environmental concerns, but since these were the recognized grounds for contentions, individuals and groups concerned with generic safety and ethical issues over nuclear technology or those who perceived a threat to their sconomic well-being would use arguments showing the adverse environmental effects of nuclear plants in order to strengthen their positions. This national trend was raflected by events in the State of Pennsylvania. he public concern over the building of two additional Peach Bottom units was part of an apprehension by some in the region over the growing regional dependence on nuclear generation of electricity and the cumulative effects of multiple nuclear facilities. By 1970, for example, dscisions had been made to build or expand four nuclear power plants in Pennsylvania:

Paach Bottom, nree Mile Island, Limmerick, and Fulton. One of the critical contentions at the Peach Bottom hearing was the cumulative impact on the quality of the Susquehanna River from discharges by both the hree Mile Island plant and the Peach Bottom station. (York Dispatch, 1967-1970; Olson,1974; Philadelphia Electric l

l Company,1973; Alden, personal communication,1980; Hoviss, personal communica-tion,1980; Kesler, personal communication,1980.)

Although the public interest organizations in the region challenged the siting of specific nuclear plants, many of these efforts overlapped. he York Committee for a Safe Enviornment, the principal intervener at the permit hearings for the Peach Bottom plant, also participated in the challenge of the proposed Fulton plant in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. In addition, the same individuals opposed the issuance of the construction permit for the Limmerick plant and the Peach Bottom plant. (Philadelphia Electric Company,1979.) The pattern of opposition to the Peach Bottom plant was similar to that at the other plants in the region except perhaps for differences in intensity of conflict and location-specific issues. (Alden, personal communication,1980; McHugh, personal communication,1980.)

The commitment to the development of nuclear power in Pennsylvania and the heightened concerns over the hazards of this energy alternative culminated in a state 161 l

sennts inquiry on nucl:ar safaty. Although widsly divtrg:nt viswa on nuclacr risks were presented, the articulation of the State Health Department's concern over radiation hazards was significant because the same state agency had intervened in the 1961 hearings of Peach Bottom Unit 1 on the basis of incomplete casessments of waste disposal measures.

9.3.2 he Operation License Hearinas Four groups filed petitions to intervene in the hearings for issuance of an operating permit for Units 2 and 3: the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the York Committee for a Safe Environment, Save Salanco's Environment, and the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power. He positions of the three public interest organizations were represented by one individual during the May 1973 hearing. The Save Solanco's Environment was a small organization originally organized to challenge the proposed Fulton nuclear plant. The group received support from environmentalists and rural landowners in the area. He Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power was a regional organization of thirty ecologf groups, and the York Comtnittee for a Safe Environment was organized in 1973 to specifically challenge the licensing of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. The support for these three interest groups was regionally based, with only minimal support provided by residents in the Study Area. The State of Maryland entered into the proceedings as an

" interested state," and seven " limited statements" were made by various individuals.

(York Dispatch, 1973, 1974, 1975; Hoviss, personal communication,1980; McHugh, personal communication,1980.)

Although the interveners originally raised sixty-five contentions for the l

hearings, these were reduced to seven by the Atomic Energy Commission. These 1 seven contentions included: the inadequacy of emergency plans in the event of an accident; the inability to control radioactive wastes to meet the " low as practicable" standards; and the adverse environmental consequences of chlorine and thermal discharges into Conowingo Pond. Additional contentions were that the safe transportation of high-level wastes had not been demonstrated and that the cumulative impacts of discharged wastes from other plants, together with those from Peach Bottom, had not been considered.

The major issue at the operating license hearings was thermal emissions from the plant. The problem was initially raised by the AEC before the hearing: while 162

r: commanding that lictnses b2 issutd for tha plant's op;rrtion, the AEC gnvo warnings of potential thermal damage and required the applicant to conduct a special cnvironmental assessment. The State of Maryland voiced concern at the hearing that, unless mitigating measures were taken to reduce thermal discharges, there was a high likelihood of detrimental thermal effects on the Conowingo Pond. This contention was buttressed by the position taken by the Baltimore County Office of Planning:

that a supplemental investment in a closed-cycle cooling system by the utility would r; duce thermal changes to within desired levels and would reduce thermal impacts during periods of low river flow. (Olson, 1974; PEC,1973; Cooper, B., personal c::mmunication,1980; Merges, personal communication,1980.)

In contrast to these concerns, the thermal pollution report submitted by the utility, based on a detailed study of the Conowingo Pond, concluded that cnvironmental degradation and irreversible ' damage would not occur and that discharged cooling water would have minimal adverse consequences. The findings of the report were contested. The AEC made the adoption of a closed-cycle cooling system by 1975 a stipulation of the issuance of the operating license. (Alden, personal communication,1980.)

In spite of the stipulation, thermal discharge remained an issue between the utility and the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania. The disagreement involved the jurisdictional relationship between the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Regula-tions, which were instituted in 1972, and the state water quality statutes. According to the utility, the Water Quality Act required no technical means to reduce thermal 1svels unless impacts of thermal discharge were proven. The AEC awarded an operating license for Unit 2, in August 1973, but withheld the license for Unit 3 until the water quality issue was resolved. (York Dispatch, 1973; Alden, personal communication,1980.)

Following this decision, the State of Maryland protested the licensing of Unit 3.

The state requested a hearing to discuss its contention that the combined operation of Units 2 and 3 would exceed the water quality standards set by Maryland with respect to Conowingo Pond. After arguments were presented on the type and need for cooling towers, the utility acquiesced and agreed to install two additional open-looped cooling towers.

163

In cddition to tha tharmal di:charga issua, a brord ranga of conecrns wcra expressed at the operating license hearings. Individual members of the intervening groups made limited appearances concerning questions of the health risks of living near the nuclear station and the effectiveness of emergency plans. He protection of milk products surfaced as a concern at the county level and in Peach Bottom Township, where dairying is the important agricultural activity. Supported by the township, the York County Chamber of Commerce argued that safeguards should be considered to protect "the integrity of the milk-product industries by on-the-farm monitoring and by the development of a system to notify farmers of abnormal releases of radiation." He regional organization and the township also argued that alternative methods of shipping spent fuel and the cumulative effects of radioactive emissions from the Peach Bottom and hree Mile Island plants should be carefully assessed. (PEC,1973; Cooper, B., personal communication,1980.)

During the construction permit stage, Peach Bottom Township endorsed the siting of the plant in the township, but voiced concern over the ramifications of its operation on the temperature of Conowingo Pond. At the operating license hearings, Peach Bottom Township, in its limited appearance, reversed its earlier position and expressed misgivings about the plant's impact, especially on the local dairy industry.

Peach Bottom Township argued that the utility should be held responsible for possible damages to milk supplies not suitable for marketing due to radiation emissions. By the time of the operating license hearings, construction activity on the Peach Bottom plant had reached its peak. He township representative at the hearing expressed the sentiment of the township supervisors that, while Peach Bottom Township was the.

recipient of a great burden of risks, it was concurrently adversely affected by construction-related impacts because wages for plant construction contributed to the difficulty of procuring seasonal farm laborers. (York Dispatch, 1973,1974; PEC, 1973; Baldwin, personal communication,1980.)

The transportation of radioactive wastes emerged as a major concern at the hearings by local, regional, and state representatives and persisted as an issue through the operating-license hearings and the appeal process. The interveners argued that the safety assessments made on waste shipments were highly generalized and did not adequately or completely address specific problem areas such as training of personnel, accident-response planning, and local conditions for routing. In addition, the Baltimore Regional Planning Council expressed apprehension over the transport of 164

fusls through arsas cf high populntion dtnsity. Wasta shipmtnt wcs an issue in the AEC appeal hearing and surfaced again in the U.S. Court of Appeals but remained unresolved.

9.3.3 Concern over the Fulton Nuclear Plant The proposal by the Philadelphia Electric Company to build a 2300 Mw station ceross the river from the Peach Bottom site in Fulton Township and the public c:ntroversy generated by this decision heightened and reinforced the concerns of tcwnship residents over the building of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. (Poff, personal ccmmunication,1979; Alden, personal communication,1980.) The announcement of tha Fulton plant, made soon after the operating license was issued for Peach Bottom Unit 2, was instrumental in the intervener's attempt to re-open the hearing on the basis of the additional radioactive and thermal releases that would be discharged from the proposed plant. Peach Bottom Township took an active position opposing tha building of the Fulton nuclear station. The principal concern of many township rssidents was that the Fulton plant would require the relocation of a number of firmers and their families from the area and the loss of good agricultural land. The l agricultural community 5 Peach Bottom Township perceived this as a threat to their wcy of life. (Baldwin, personal communication, 1980; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1975; Olson,1974; Cooper, B., personal communication,1980.)

The issues surrounding the Fulton plant were dissolved in 1975 when the Philadelphia Electric Company decided to indefinitely delay the Fulton project bscause of contractual difficulties with the plant designer.

9.3.4 The Tax Issue In 1973, the court upheld Peach Bottom Township's position that the township could levy a one-percent income tax on workers employed in the township, including those at the Peach Bottom site. The utility had opposed this tax. Although the menner of the allocation of the induced revenue from plant construction was consistent with the requirements of the traditional farming community, it was nsvertheless viewed as problematic to the township's recent urban in-migrants, who dsmanded increased public services. Moreover, the agricultural community invoked a highly restricted urban development plan for the township and arged that the township had no commitment to provide such services on the basis of the original land dreds, which specifically affirmed individual responsibility for improvements in areas zoned as residential.

165

9,4 Response during the Oper* tion Period he operations period began in July 1974 when Unit 2 went into commercial operation. Five months later, Unit 3 began commercial operation. Two major issues emerged during this period: the shipment of low level waste from the Peach Bottom

~

plant and the need for an emergency evacuation plan.

9.4.1 %e Waste Transportation Issue ne issue over waste transportation persisted after the licensing hearings. The Delta Borough Council, for example, voiced concern to the utility about the potential hazards associated with shipping nuclear wastes by rail. The utility assured the council that, for the immediate future, the wastes would be stored on site. Le York County Environment Council (which had earlier made a limited appearance at the operating permit hearing because of its concern over thermal pollution) requested the County Commissioners hold public hearings on the hazards posed by waste transport. Much of this interest was generated as a response to the utility's proposal in 1975 to purchase the rail line between the Peach Bottom plant and the City of York for waste shipments. In response to this proposal, approximately twenty property owners, some of whom were from the Study Area, petitioned the Public Utilities Commission to deny Philadelphia Electric Company the purchase of this line for waste-shipment purposes because of the potential hazards posed to nearby residents. The sale ultimately did not take place. (York Dispatch, 1974, 1975.)

Subsequent to the Three Mile Island accident, Peach Bottom Township residents, with the active support of the Peach Bottom Alliance, expressed concern at township meetings about the dangers of radioactivity from the carriers of any waste material i 1

on township highways and the need for adequate protection. In response to this public l appeal, Peach Bottom Township passed an ordinance, in October 1979, that required the continuous movement of vehicles transporting radioactive waste through the township on identified routes, a state police escort, seventy-two hours notice of waste removal, and the removal of spent nuclear waste from the township within twenty-four hours after removal of the fuel from the containment building. The ordinance also prohibited waste transport in the event of hazardous road conditions.

(Lawrence, personal communication, 1980; Baldwin, J., personal communication, 1980.)

166

9.4.2 Response t7 tha Accident rt hree Mile Island

'Ihe Three Mile Island nuclear plant was located about thirty-five miles upwind from the Peach Bottom nuclear station. Four components of the effects of the recident will be investigated: changes in plant operation, economic / demographic l effects, institutional effects, and public response and expressions of concern by residents of the local area about the "Ihree Mile Island accident and the Peach Bottom plant.

Residents of the etudy community were not far removed from the uncertainty and trauma precipitated by the threatening events during the two-week period following the Three Mile Island accident. Although no changes in the operation of the Peach Bottom plant occurred during this period, there was a high level of interaction b:itween management personnel at the utility and residents of the Study Area.

Community lead'ers sought information from the utility, and the utility personnel provided the planning and technical information requested. Although few plant managers lived in the Study Area, the utility's management personnel played an important social function in the local community. Because the local area did not have professional resources, such as planning and environmental departments or college faculties, the utility managers, by virtue of their professional training and the utility's involvement in regional development, were relied upon as technical expe.ts 1

for advice in local decision-making. During the emergency period, utility personnel l played a pivotol role in providing information and interpretation of the situation at the Three Mile Island plant. This reinforced the utility's position as a member of the f local community. (Fleisher, personal communication,1980; Poff, personal communi-l cation,1980; 'lbcker, personal communication,1980.)

The economic / demographic effects of the accident on the Study Area cannot be quantified. Mountain West Research, Inc. conducted a telephone survey of 250 households in the Study Area five months after the accident, which showed that a majority of households in the Study Area prepared for possible evacuation by purcha'ing additional groceries, withdrawing cash from banks, and arranging for places to stay. None of those interviewed had actually evacuated, but the survey showed that several days' absence from school and work was not uncommon.

(Pijawka,1980.)

167

'Ihn survcy showcd thtt tha Thrce Mila Island tecidInt had virtually no impret on the individual household's economic situation in the local impact area (in terms of economic gain or loss or expenses incurred because of the accident). Approximately 35 percent of the 250 respondents indicated that the accident may have resulted in a depreciation of property values in the area because of the proximity of the Peach Bottom plant. However, interviews with key community informants, particularly real estate people, discounted this hypothesis, and no evidence to support this position was found.

No long-term economic / demographic changes have occurred in the Study Area since the accident at the Three Mile Island plant in March 1979. However, the accident increased the awareness of the local population to the risk imposed by the nearby nuclear power plant and thereby increased the Peach Bottom plant's visibility.

Among farmers whose property was close to the plant, there was some concern that the resale value of their property may have decreased, but this concern was not universally shared by those interviewed. However, farmers in the area expressed acute interest in the question of liability in cases where loss of productivity could result from a number of possible events: an accident with consequences of large magnitude as in the case of TMI; excessive radioactive residues found in agricultural products; a change in consumer-shopping behavior because of nearness to the plant; and a decline in the reproductive capacity of farm animals due to biological pathways of emissions from the plant to the animal.

The major consequence of the Three Mile Island accident on the Study Area was its effect on localinstitutions. The emergence of public issues in the community over the safety of the Peach Bottom plant; a heightened level of public and governmental l

participation and interaction in the decision-mak4sg prwess; the emergence of an environmental anti-nuclear interest group in the local area; and the initiation of I independent planning efforts to mitigate the potential hazards of the Peach Bottom nuclear station were the most notable demonstrations of this effect.

1 One farmer whose land is close to the plant indicated that the level of retail sales of his products has shown a noticeable downward trend since the accident at TML The individual also confirmed that, since the accident, some area residents have questioned whether the residue content of his products has been monitored to assure safe consumption levels. However, the degree to which the reduction of the individual's sales was due to the nuclear power plant, if any, has not been confirmed and remains open to questioning.

168

Tha smtrgence of nuclsar-entrgy ralated issues in tha study community may be due to the increased sensitivity of the public and its political representatives to the l problems caused by proximity to the Peach Bottom nuclear station; or issues may be I

cttributed to the activities of the local environmental organization that came into bsing soon after, and as a direct consequence of, the TMI accident; or both may be rzsponsible. There have been a number of community meetings about the long-term consequences to the area, addressing such concerns as the discharge of irridiated I water from the TMIplant.

Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township have also had extensive communica-tion with York County over evacuation plans. Persistent concerns over the adequacy of contingency plans in the event of an accident at the Peach Bottom plant or a rscurrence of a major problem at nree Mile Island, coupled with the criticism of existing plans by the local anti-nuclear group, ensured the elevation of a concern for a detailed emergency plan into a public issue.

Two unrelated events contributed to the escalation of a concern over an I

evacuation plan into a political issue in Peach Bottom Township. A neighboring township, Martic Township, passed a resolution soon after the TMI accident that the Peach Bottom plant should be shut down unless a detailed and workable plan was implemented for the area. The Peach Bottom Alliance, the environmental interest group established in the township soon after the TMI accident, expressed a similar damand to the Board of Supervisors in Peach Bottom Township. York County approved an emergency plan that was considered insufficient by Peach Bottom Township. The York County plan emphasized police involvement and the Civil Defense " chain of command" but did not include an evacuation plan for the immediate areas of southern York County. Subsequently, the township appointed an ernergency control coordinator, who contended that no workable proposal for evacuation had developed. To alleviate this problem, the coordinator established a committee consisting of representatives of neighboring townships to develop an area-wide plan.

As a consequence of the neee Mile Island accident, changes in the Peach Bottom plant's engineering system components and in the training of station operators were made, as required by new NRC regualtions (NUREG 0578). The design modifications were made during normal outages for other plant-related work, and the only additional personnel was one technical advisor, thus, causing minimal effects on plant 169 I

op:rati:n. (Lawr:ncr, p;rsonnl communicction,1980; Fleishst, p;rson:1 communicc-tion,1980; Alden, personal communication,1980 ;Baldwin, J., personal communica-tion,1980.)

9.5 Summary 9.5.1 Meamwing Public Concern over the Peach Bottom Plant One measure of the level of public oncern over an issue is the amount of space the issue receives in the communications media. There are numerous problems with the use of such a methodology. Nevertheless, the methodology has specifically been used in the measurement of public concerns over nuclear power and does afford an opportunity to discern temporal shifts in the degree and nature of public concern.

(Kasperson, et al.,1974; Mazur,1977.) he level of public concern as indicated by the amount of newspaper space given to the Peach Bottom nuclear plant over time is shown in Figure 9-1.

Table 9-1 summarizes the issues over the Peach Bottom plant from 1958, when Unit I was announced, to the present and shows the degree to which the issues manifest themselves in the Study Area. Of the sixteen major issues identified, ten were issues that involved residents of the Study Area. Rese concerns and issues can be put into five categories: (1) public safety and health, (2) environmental issues, particularly thermal emissions, (3) land-use conflicts, (4) safety assessments, and (5) economic well-being. Of particular concern has been the perceived threats of the plant on the agricultural economy and changes to the rural way of life. This concern correlates strongly with the traditional value system and predispostion toward growth j in Peach Bottom Township held by the farming community. Residents of Delta )

Borough expressed little concern over safety or environmental issues.

The concerns of the local residents varied over time. Problems during the early phases of Unit I were limited to land-use questions such as the routing of a transmission line and were dealt with quickly, often through negotiation with the utility. And, except for disagreements over such things as traasmission-line routing, the issues were initiated by participants outside the Study Area. Between 1966 and 1972, residents expressed minimal interest in safety or environmental concerns.

Except for interest regarding the impact of cooling towers on the recreational use of Conowingo Pond, there was generally enthusiastic support given by area residents to the project. Most of the interveners during the operating permit hearings were not 170

[

• U OO7UWEZ O E 33O W<E C. 4 Z ).

z SML4 I UO. 7h J zoE#

1 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 - - - - .

- - - - , ~ -

R 8

M E

5 9

L PTE A

- A C OHE S I

6 e NSDE I

O' AN t

o T I S ON I

R U 6'

1 w

n a

l E NG Y S T P R P

O N lN E

C O S IMR O E E 2 S HN EST SC I E OD RI AM 6'

3 .

AR RU IC Nu Se t * * .s KN CE Uo SP N

GI T Ds CC?

OOO HN D T If O A NOw H B T 6' NsA -

N T

4 I A S L e R N n I

T II T I P

N 6

S' f

8 M

UGL C

T T I

N SE OO F f

i I OO G

P TF I 6'

6 NwS AC G TO T U l I T

psi t

R 6

7' B 1 IM5 T U 5 G N

C M OPU E Y H E C O H M B 9

E 6

8' E A

N f

, M L 1

t u U NI A 6' l

N C 1

9I N U C R 9 G T S /

0 5CC C Y 8A L 1

T EO O RC AN

• I I O 2 .

P E

I C

L U Of P P t

R A 19 N E 7 S 3 5 B s IT ins TGT N M I N

G P R LN I

I N 4 1 OU G D C 9 p N E N MA I

E NO I

T

• S $

3 W t D TVE A

l S 7 f T 6' t A I  :

I G

E

/7

,A R e ~*

I W $

V A P 7 O 8' CA 5T 1S A S -

5E C T

A U A 7 NU T t S DE I

T I

9' I

O HP I O

N T N M

P E I L

A N

T P M

N A C

T Ill l

TABLE 9-I

SUMMARY

OF MAJOR I'SSUES OVER THE PEACH BOTTOM NUCLEAR PLANT BY TIMF, ISSUE, PARTICIPANTS, LOCAL INVOLVEMENT, AND RESOLUTION Time Local Period Issue Participants Involvement Resolution Unit 1 Bird Sanctuary Conservation Society of No Resolved through negotiation with York County utility Transmission Four Farmers; Public Yes PUC authorization for utility to exercise the right of eminent domain l Line Utilities Commission Loss of Recrea- Peach Bottom Township Yes Loss was accepted by residents, tional Area and township was awarded land as a replacement Transportation Delta Borough Yes Borough was successful in prohib-g of Reactor iting shipment of the reactor u Vessel through its main street Lack of Infor- IIealth Agencies of Mary- No Decision by the AEC that utility mation on Waste land and Pennsylvania; AEC had to furnish detailed information Discharge on waste discharges as a condition for a construction permit Safety Assess- State; AEC No Court upheld AEC's procedures for ment Procedures safety assessment as an ongoing process Units 2 and 3 Construction of Peach Bottom Township; Yes U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorized Pre-construction Cooling Towers U.S. Army Corps of permit for construction of cooling and Ponds Engineers system Construction Damage to Peach Bottom Township Yes Township position articulated that Recreational Value it would oppose any more nuclear of Conowingo plants near Peach Bottom Township Pond

TABLE 9-1--Continued

SUMMARY

OF MAJOR ISSUES OVER THE PEACH BOTTOM NUCLEAR PLANT I BY TIME, ISSUE, PARTICIPANTS, LOCAL INVOLVEMENT, AND RESOLUTION Time Local Period Issue Participants Involvement Resolution Construction Transmission Two Township Landowners Yes Opposition to siting of transmission Period Lines lines was resolved with court de-(Continued) cision to uphold the utility's right of eminent domahi hermal Dis- Limited Appearance by a No Concern expressed during construc-charge Impact Representative of the tion permit hearing over possible in Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay Foundation; thermal impact on Chesapeake Bay Bay Area AEC area G nermal Emis- York Committee for a No AEC decision to recommend closed-sions Safe Environment; Save cycle cooling system as a stipula-Salanco's Environment; tion to the issuance of an operating Environmental Coalition license. Following disagreements l on Nuclear Power; Penn- over water quality standards, the l sylvania Department of utility, in concert with the, states of l Environmental Resources; Maryland and Pennsylvania, installed l State of Maryland; AEC; two open-looped cooling towers EPA; York County En-vironmental Council Emergency Intervenors; AEC No Issue not resolved from perspective Plans of intervenors when operating license issued Radioactive Intervenors; York County Yes Peach Bottom Township expressed Wastes Chamber of Commerce; concern over impacts to dairy in-Limited Appearance by dustry. The safety of radiolodine Peach Bottom Township releases was considered by the AEC Farmer; Maryland; Peach to be inadequate and a re-evalua-Bottom Township; AEC tion of the risks was required by the utility.

TABLE 9-1--Continued

SUMMARY

OF MAJOR ISSUES OVER THE PEACH BOTTOM NUCLEAR PLANT BY TIME, ISSUE, PARTICIPANTS, LOCAL INVOLVEMENT, AND RESOLUTION Time Local Issue Participants Involvement Resolution Period

~

Transportation Intervenors; Maryland; No AEC upheld utility's position on the Contruction safety of waste transport Period of Wastes AEC (Continued)

Transportation Intervenors; York County Yes The utility did not purchase the . ail Operation line to transport fuel from the plant of Wastes Environmental Council; rail line PUC; Delta Borough; dispute Peach Bottom Township shipment Peach Bottom Township; Yes Peach Bottom passed a resolution j through Peach Peach Bottom Alliance to control shipment of waste from Bottom Town- the plant ship Evacuation Peach Bottom Township; Yes Progress has been made toward the State; York County; Peach development of a comprehensive Bottom Alliance; Neigh- evacuation plan for southern York boring Townships County

from the Study Area were concerned with the more specific effects of the project, particularly possible disruptions to the agricultural economy as a result of releases of radioactive substances.

The %ree Mile Island accident changed the local residents' perception of nuclear power in general and of the Peach Bottom plant in particular, which resulted in local political action. The change was clearly shown in the intense political cetivity, both formal and informal, in Peach Bottom Township, directed at mitigating the risk posed by the Peach Bottom plant. The political actions taken to reduce the risk included tlie ordinance controlling the transport of low-level radioactive wastes and the employment of a part-time Civil Defense expert to coordinate the development of an emergency evacuation plan for the southeastern townships of York County as described above.

9.5.2 Effect of RW-1 Response on Groups in the Study Area ne regional response to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station had an effect on the agricultural group in the Study Area. Of significance has been the increased involvement of the township in political matters; formerly, the group's concern had been limited to agricultural problems. The expression of concerns and issues in the political arena increased the awareness of the agricultural community to potential changes and to threats to their lifestyle. As a result, the township established large town planning and development strategies and goals. In addition, the political activism of the agricultural community increased to the extent that the township initiated political collaboration with entities outside the Study Area.

175

- )

CHAPTER los EVALUATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE PEACH BOTTOM NUCLEAR STATION 10.1 Introduction ne purpose of this chapter is to describe the evaluation of the effects of construction and operation of the Peach Bottom station by the major social groups in the Study Area. In the determination of the evaluation of the effects by group, the research attempted to ascertain the perception of each group regarding: the magnitude of the individual effects; the positive / negative dimension of the effects; the duration of the changes; and the saliency of the effects to each group and to the Study Area. Following the evaluation of the individual effects the overall evaluation of the plant was measured in terms of its perceived benefits and risks.

The final section' describes'the overall rating of the significance of the nuclear plant and its effects on the Study Area as a whole. The following criteria were utilized in assessing the significance of the plant's effects: (1) the relative magnitude of the effects; (2) the duration of the effects; (3) the distribution of the effects among social groups-who gained and who lost; (4) the evaluation of the effects; and (5) the role of the plant in the Study Area.

10.2 Evahmation of Project Effects by the Groups in the Study Area The Agricultural Community The outstanding characteristic of the agricultural community was the value it placed on the preservation of a rural lifestyle and the economic viability of the agricultural sector. De farmers supported general economic growth in the local area because in the past much of the area's industrial and commercial developments were l focused on the agricultural sector (such as feed mills, canning and dairy processing )

establishments, and agriculture equipment dealers) and because it benefited the area with which the agricultural community had long and deep ties. Environment-quality concerns were also prevalent among the farming families in the township.

On the whole, the farm owners in the agricultural community did not perceive that they greatly benefited from the increased local income and expenditures. During the hearings process for the operating license, members of the agricultural community complained that the township would receive only the risks from the nuclear facility and none of its benefits. 'Of particular importance to the agricultural 176

I community was tha occupationcl msbility and waga pressure crested by the employment opportunities at the construction site which resulted in workers leaving their employment in the agricultural sector for work on the construction project.

Manpower shortages were mentioned repeatedly as one of the potentially adverse impacts of the Peach Bottom facility on the agricultural community. However, the cctual effect on the economic base of the agricultural sector as evaluated by key informants was quite low since adjustments to the labor shortages proved effective and since long-term damages to the farm economy were avoided; increased labor costs were subsumed in the selling price of agricultural products.

He potential changes that would result from the plant's operation--changes in the township's rural environment and lifestyle as well as in the economy of the agricultural base-were particularly sensitive issues to the agricultural community.

Many of the farmers who were interviewed said that, when the plant was first proposed, they questioned the effects the plant would have on their economic well-being, principally on the dairy industry. hey argued that the utility should be held responsible for losses if the milk supplies were not suitable for marketing due to r:diation emissions. The question of liability was again raised by farmers following the hree Mile Island accident, and concern was expressed by a number of farmers that property vahae may have decreased due to its proximity to the Peach Bottom plant.

While the growth of recreational homes in the township was generally favored, there was'no support given by the agricultural community to- the rap'id suburbaniza -

ti:n that was taking place in the township during the 1970s. Nearly all of the farmers interviewed indicated that, in retrospect, they observed a distinct separation between the rapid suburbanization of the township and the few families that in-migrated to wsrk as operators at the plant during the same time period. However, it was clear that during the plant's construction this distinction was generally blurred, with the nuclear plant symbolizing the demographic changes occurring in the township. The preservation of the township's rural environment, particularly its productive farm-land, was a pressing concern for the agricultural community. The township's active opposition to the proposed Fulton nuclear plant and the support given to farmers threatened with expropriation by the Fulton plant proposal was mentioned to exemplify the sense of common cause and the importance given to the preservation of 177

agricultural vclu:s and policias by tha township's agriculturcl community. G:nsrclly, the agricultural community disapproved of the residential growth in the township.

He fiscal changes were mentioned by the farmers as one of the positive impacts of the nuclear power plant, but generally they were not regarded as an important contribution to the township's budget. This reflected a belief that since the community was host for a nuclear station and its inherent risks, the community was entitled to compensatory benefits. The agricultural community felt that, since the tax structure for utilities in the state was biased against local municipalities, the township's invocation of the earned-income tax on construction and operation workers was entirely justifiable but that it yielded only a minimal contribution from the project.

He reduction in local property tax rates benefited the farming community, but it was not considered a singularly important impact. In fact, unless specifically questioned about the plant-induced tax change, the farmers who were interviewed generally did not identify it as a positive impact. Aside from improvements to the local street and highway system, few additional revenues were allocated for upgrading public services. From the perspective of the farming community, the reduction in property taxes and the maintenance of minimal public services were acceptable administrative decisions since they meant that the township would provide little incentive for continued rural suburbanization.

The agricultural group was. sensitive to changes that would affect the area's traditional rural value system, especially their children's values. hey made a considerable effort to enhance local control of education. Of particular concern to the farming community was the potential impact on their value system from the association between the township's school-aged population and the children of the construction workers, who were considered relatively more independent and " street wise" than were children in the township.

However, it appeared that the pressures exerted on the agricultural community by the project were not sufficient to modify the existing group structure. Interviews with farming families identified three factors that tuitigated against change: first, the movers were a relatively small group compared to the host population and were considered quite isolated from the community; second, the effects of the project 178 1

i . .

I

I wtra tsmporcry; and third, the township cdministrction implarnsntcd policies to preserve the low-density residential, rural environment in most of the township. The operation workers and their families were perceived by farmers as part of the new

( suburban growth that took place during the study period. As such, they were viewed as part of an evolving political force in the area that might reduce pre-eminence of the farming community as the political power. 'Ihere was a sense that the political l

strength and cultural dominance of the farming community would be reduced by confrontation with groups whose values were perceived to differ from their own.

The health and safety questions of the Peach Bottom plant were serious concerns for the agricultural community. One of the primary concerns was the impact of radioactive and thermal releases on the economy of the Study Area, sspecially on the dairy industry and on the recreational use of Conowingo Pond. The Three Mile Island accident heightened the agricultural community's awareness of the risks posed by the Peach Bottom plant and increased the plant's visibility. Most of the farmers who were interviewed indicated that, since the plant was an established fact in the area, the public had to reconcile itself to the risks posed by nuclear technology. To some, the risks were inconsequential or acceptable; to others, the risks were serious, with the occurrence of an accident of the magnitude of TMI viewed as a realistic possibility. Of general concern to the community was the need for an evacuation plan in the case of an accident. Moreover, problems at the Peach Bottom plant soon after the TMI accident, coinciding with the state governor's criticism of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the failure of the utility l

responsible for TMI to report the accident to state authorities promptly, magnified the concern about a major mishap at the Peach Bottom site and the hazards of radioactive discharge. Overall the risks of the plant far outweighed the benefits to the agricultural group.

Two members of the agricultural community highlighted the evaluation of this 1

group:

I've been a dairy farmer all my life. Before the plant came in, the to wnship was a private place; there were no strangers. . . . Wages were high and many of the township's young people got jobs down there and straightened out. It helped the community because it brought money in. . . . The one-percent income tax brought in about $300-400 thousand and lowered the tax to the township. We keep improving services with the interest from the tax, especially road maintenance. . . . I was thinking about evacuating during Three Mile Island. I was wondering, why kill yourself working when all could be lost-who knows 179

citer % roe Mila Island. . . who kn:ws?. . . . Many farmsrs don't senm to mind it the Pacch Bottom Plant ena bit; a few ara scarsd of it, and as a groap, we want changes made for better safety. . . . De changes in the township have mostly been the commuters from Baltimore. These urban people have little concern for the township: the area has grown on the best agricultural land,.

which has now been ruined; the city farmers on 20 acres of land have made a mess out of what they tried. In a move to conserve farmland, we now have regulations to prohibit development. (Dairy Farmer, Peach Bottom Township, personal communication, August 1979.) , ,

'After hree Mile Island, we are conscious of the plant in our area. Who would w ait to buy my farm now? The farms around here may have been hurt-we won't be able to sell the land for its value if we wanted to do it. (Farmer, Peach Bottom Township, personal communication, August 1979.)

he Business Group he business community supported the Peach Bottom nuclear station from the time or ur 1. to the completion of Units 2 and 3. The construction of Unit 1, according to key informants, brought limited, temporary economic gains to the

}

business community; the addition of the two larger units was originally expected to result in substantial gains to the business community. As a consequence, the business community actively promoted and worked for the project. Although the business community was generally satisfied with the economic gains during the construction of the plant, the expectations of this gtoup were not fully realized. Businessmen who were interviewed stated that the economic base of the Study Area was not substantially expanded, fewer expenditures than anticipated were made in Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township, and out-migration of population and businesses continued after construction ended. he economic situation, then, at the end of the construction period was considered similar to the one preceding construction. he operations work force was not considered a particularly important contributor to the local economy.

Businessmen indicated that the worliers at the project, both the commuters and the movers, had positive, although temporary, economic effects on the Study Area.

However, the businessmen also identified some negative effects for their group; for example, traffic was mentioned as a principal problem area. 'Ihere was a general feeling among those interviewed that Delta Borough did not have the necessary economic base to attract rufficient business to, permanently stabilize the business s .

N, .

sector, but there was some speculation that better entrepreneurship during the construction period and the use of increased incomes for new commercial ventures in Delta Borough could have increased and prolonged the positive effects of the project.

180 l

h To some of the older businessmen in the Study Area, the " return to the way things were" before the plant was viewed with favor. Although they expressed satisfaction with the increased incomes over the eight year construction period, they clso indicated that the retention of the small-town environment and close social ties were important to them. There was a sense of overall satisfaction that the area had not been altered to any great extent. The economic impacts of the construction of the Peach Bottom plant-that the plant was not totally responsible for the changes l

that occurred during the last fifteen years--seemed to have been accurately assessed by the business community, even though the coincidence of plant construction and the major socioeconomic changes in the Study Area could have made the plant appear to be the principal driving force. Nevertheless, the Peach Bottom plant was seen as symbolic of the changes that have occurred. He demise of the traditional long-catablished general stores and the development of the large supermarket outside of Delta Borough were seen as part of an ongoing historical process of which the plant itself was part. Local businessmen indicated that community change, including the loss of local control over commerce, was acceptable, and they appeared to have taken an optimistic view of these changes.

The business community expressed disappointment that there were few revenue effects from the plant in Delta Borough, and, therefore, no improvement in public services, since they viewed the upgrading of public services as critical for reversing the economic decline of the community.

l l

l he major change in the social structure of the Study Area as seen by the business community was the influx of suburbanites during the last ten years. The in-migrants were welcomed by the business group for their contribution to both the i stabilization of the retail business sector and the community's formal and informal social organizations. The business community, however, generally did not favor the restrictions placed on commercial and residential growth in the township by the agricultural community and actively opposed the zoning and land-use controls instituted in the early 1970s. Developmental policy in the township was viewed as detrimental to the growth of the commercial sector in the Study Area. This problem was viewed as a serious handicap for commercial growth but was not perceived as related to the plant.

181

l In intsrvicws conc:rning ths Porch Bottom frcility, busintsspropia downpir.ynd health and safety questions prior to the Three Mile Island accident. Following the hree Mile Island accident, a number of plant-related concerns surfaced among the business community. nese included the necessity for an effective evacuation plan in case of an accident, the safety of shipments of wastes near Delta Borough, and liability questions in case of an accident similar to the one at Three Mile Island. he business community in Delta Borough supported the township ordinance to control shiptr.ents of waste. Among the businessmen in the community, an accident of the magnitude of the Three Mile Island accident was perceived as a possibility, albeit very remote, especially because of the regulatory changes brought about as a consequence of that accident. Furthermore, the business community had a high regard for the technical and professional competency of the operation work force and plant managers, some of whom were personal acquaintances.

The Peach Bottorn plant was consistently viewed positively by the business community, which as a group had given the utility much support. Le perception of the economic effects has a time dimension: during construction of the plant, the economic gains were viewed as an important stabilizing element, but still not as much as had been anticipated. From today's perspective, the plant's impacts were temporary and did not improve, upgrade, or expand the area's economic base. From the long-term perspective, the economic impact of the plant was unimportant. This perception was underscored in interviews with local businessmen:

I have mixed feelings about the construction of the plant; Delta did not get as much as it gave to the plant. It did, however, bring money into the area-the Bechtel people were getting a good salary. Overall we got along well with the construction workers but I don't know of any who stayed.in the area. . . . Were there lasting effects of Peach Bottom? Not really. The Philadelphia Electric Company did not turn money back into the community. . . At the time of plant l construction, there was an influx of wages, and rents doubled. But no new businesses opened because of the plant. . . . The town did not improve: it is poor, a lot are on welfare, the entire town is assessed at $500 thousand.

Businesses were hurt by the wage differential: Robinson Brothers and International Harvester were in Delta and moved to Fawn Grove because their employees quit to work on the plant. The area is not growing presently. It might attract new industry, but it hasn't. . . . The town would be the same without the plant. (Funeral Director, Delta Borough, personal communication, August 1979. )

What is my reaction to Units 2 and 3? Unless someone mentioned it, no one cared. ... Overall, there has been no great impact. . . . Unit I brought some benefits only during its construction. The other two units have not helped any.

182 l

. . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _J

f Mect of tha construction perpla did not liva hzra and did not do buriness. Soma local people were hired but not in great numbers; the job was union labor, which required specialized skills that were not available in Delta. . . Since construction ended, a number of stores have closed; local people drive to other places to shop at centers. . . . We were uneasy about nree Mile Island but are not with Peach Bottom. There is potential for trouble, as in all technology, but I have not stayed awake nights. . . . (Ex-mayor and owner of barber shop, Delta Borough, personal communication.)

l Traditional Families /Old '11mers The employment and income generated by the Peach Bottom plant were censidered important by the long-time residents of the Study Area. For example, many mentioned that the employment opportunities provided by the project halted the traditional out-migration of young people. Some local youth obtained training at the project and subsequently settled in the local area, thus allowing continuation of highly vahred family ties and contacts. Increased employment of women in th'.s group, in addition to income from rentals, were mentioned as important plant-related benefits. But these were identified as temporary benefits, and at the time of the study, the economic benefits did not seern as important as they had appeared at the time of construction. 'Ibe families in this group who were interviewed were generally supportive of the plant and often recalled the community's support of the c:nstruction of Unit 1. From their perspective, Units 2 and 3 were an addition to an ciready accepted project-Units 2 and 3 were inherited, as it were. The elderly in this group were also affected by the economic changes: first, the social organizations to which they belonged received financial and membership support; second, the olderly group obtained income from the rental of rooms to construction workers, a very important supplementary income to them.

The small-town environment with long established social ties was described by cll the families interviewed as the principal advantage of living in the local area.

Rather than perceiving the plant as a disruptive exogenous element, these families viewed the plant as a reinforcement of an already well-formed social structure; they had lived with the plant for more than twenty years and had accepted it as part of the community infrastructure. For a social group with strong historical ties, the plant was seen as one of the few events that aided community cohesiveness and spirit, in contrast to the debilating and disruptive history of economic instability and decline that has characterized the local area.

183

ha group and its position in tha social structurn was viewed by tha old-timara as unaffected by the plant: the old-timer families retained their political and social status; the church was still an important institution; and there were no new groups who challenged community social well-being-the size of the construction work force was relatively small with activity patterns distinct from those of the old-time residents. Some limited social interaction did take place between families of the construction workers and long-time residents, and friendships developed.

However, some of the families identified the conversion of a few of Delta Borough's single-family houses into multi-family dwellings during the construction period as a negative change that was partly due to the project. The deterioration of these buildings and the influx of " low income" families who v ere separated from the traditional community and considered non-participating and non-integrative were

) perceived as a negative impact of the project. The problem, as pointed out in the interviews, was that, for the first time, the economy of the area was not under local control since the owners of the converted multi-family structures were absentee landlords. Furthermore, the trend toward suburbanization (with suburban interests outside of the local impact area) buttressed the concern of the old-timers that the

" sense of community" nurtured for so long would dissipate. Enthusiastic support and acceptance had, therefore, been given to in-migrants who showed a desire to participate in local community affairs. Although there was general disagreement by the old-timer families with the Peach Bottom Alliance's opposition to the nuclear facility and little active support for its position or strategy, there was, nevertheless, tacit approval and acceptance of.its members as part of the community because of the members' concern for the public welfare of the local area.

l Health and safety concerns regarding Peach Bottom nuclear station did not i surface as an issue among members of this group prior to the Three Mile Island i

nuclear plant accident. Opposition to the project on environmental and safety questions was viewed as coming from outside tne area, and the old-timers did not share the concerns expressed at the permit hearings. However, the Bree Mile Island accident affected the level of concern about safety questions among the old-timers of i the area. Interviews riith old-timers indicated a common perspective with regard to

the Peach Bottom plant subsequent to the Three Mile Island accident, particularly the l recognition of the need for an effective evacuation plan in case of an accident. The accident at Three Mile Island increased the awareness of the hazards associated with l nuclear technology in general and the Peach Bottom plant specifically.

184 f

I

I ha Suburban Group ne suburban group indicated that they were generally not affected by plant employment and income, although the few operations workers and their families who were considered part of this group directly benefited. On the whole, the suburbanites felt that they were somewhat detached and remote from the plant's impacts since, as a group, their focus of interest was outside of the local area and since they were not cctively invc!ved in community affairs and events in the study area. There were, I however, in-migrants and their families that actively participated in local affairs and social organizations, but this participation was not generalized to the group.

He suburban group indicated that they did not benefit from the fiscal changes brought about by the plant, except, as mentioned, in the low property taxes that the group paid. Demands by this group for improved urban public services led to friction with the farming community, which had restricted the upgrading and expansion of public services in the township.

Health and safety concerns were generally not expressed by members of this group prior to the Three Mile Island accident; however, since the accident, a number of safety-related concerns emerged. He distribution of these concerns among the suburban population was not reliably ascertained, but the interviews with key l informants suggested.that this group had widely diverse perspectives on safety issues related to nuclear technology in general and to the Peach Bottom plant in particular.

He major issues promulgated by the Peach Bottom Alliance were over evacuation i

plans for the Study Area and the question of public safety during shipments of low-level wastes from the Peach Bottom nuclear generating facility.

10.3 Significance of the Plant 10.3.1 Maanitude and Relative Immortance of Effects i The Study Area has historically been rural and isolated. Here was little industrial activity in the Study Area, and agriculture remained the leading industry in Peach Bottom Township, employing a large percentage of the area's labor force.

Delta Borough had experienced a historical decline in its economic base since the early 1900s. Early in its history, Delta Borough had a mature economy based on the mining of slate and serving its agricultural hinterland. The decline of the slate industry and Delta's increasingly isolated geographical position during the 1900s 185

resulted in tha out-migrztion of popul: tion and cf ratail and wholzs:In catablish-ments. By the time the plant was announced, Delta was experiencing serious economic problems.

The size of the work force residing in the Study Area and employed in the constmetion of the plant in 1973 was estimated at 415 workers, which represented about 10 percent of the population of the Study Area. The income of these workers amounted to $6.7 million, which resulted in economic gains for the Study Area during the construction period. However, because the Study Area was limited in its economic base and could not meet even the basic demands of the Study Area residents for goods and services, much of the income generated by plant employment leaked to urban centers outside of the Study Area. The research findings indicated that the economic gains in the study area were of a temporary nature and were not large enough to transform the economic base of the area either temporarily or permanently. Moreover, uide from the merchants and their families who benefited froin increased sales to the Mant, the residents who obtained employment at the plant, and the residents who rented rooms to construction workers, most people in the Study Area did not directly benefit.

Some purchases of construction materials and supplies were made at the local level, but from the perspective of the local economy as a whole, the effects from indirect income on employment were minimal From the perspective of the owners of the few businesses that supplied materials, however, the increase in the volume of sales due to these purchases was substantial (20-25 percent over the normal volume of sales); these increases enabled the expansion and modernization of some of'these establishments. The increased demands for goods and materials were met by internal  !

adjustments rather than through increased employment. Thus, material purchases for construction in the Study Area resulted in short-term benefits for a few families; the i overall effects were small.

The construction of the Peach Bottom plant increased occupational mobility.

Manpower shortages in the agricultural sector became a problem because many agricultural workers left their previous occupations to work on construction. These shortages, however, were effectively counteracted by adjustments in work schedules and increases in salaries for replacement workers. Furthermore, these shortages were not permanent and did not adversely affect agricultural income or employment in the long run.

186

na incr:ase in disposabla inc:ma in the Study Arca as a rmult cf cmploymInt ct the project site was a critical factor in the expansion of a commercial zone on the outskirts of Delta Borough. The growth of a large supermarket in this area eccelerated the decline of the few general stores in Delta Borough.

l The data show that the end of construction marked a return to the conditions cxisting prior to the project. When construction activity came to an end, a concomitant increase in unemployment resulted. Although the operation of the plant did provide a few jobs for the residents of the local area, the operations period was not as important to the local area as was the construction of the plant. There were few nonlocal workers who relocated into the Study Area. nese findings were supported by the RenovaInternational(1974) study on the impacts of the construction of Units 2 and 3. The report states:

ne construction phase brought about a temporary economic boom leading to a false sense of prosperity. Had the plant located closer to a metropolitan area the shock would not have been as great. . . . On the whole, certain changes took place . . . few of these will have a prolonged effect.

Changes in population in the Study Area were based on the changes in the levels of employment. Two principal aspects considered in the determination of population change were in-migration and reduced out-migration. The population increase in 1973 associated with the construction in-migrants and reduced out-migration was esti-i mated to be 329 persons, which represented an increase of about 15 percent over the size of the pre-project population. The demographic increases related to plant operations were estimated at 78 persons; because this increase represented only 3.5 percent of the pre-project population, it was not assessed to be important.

Operations-related population increases did not measurably affect the size of an7 of the Study Area groups. Overall, the population of the host communities was not affected to any significant degree.

The influx of construction workers and their families was not a cause of any adverse impact to the host communities. The work force consisted primarily of young single males with different social activity patterns compared to those of the resident population. Although social integration and interaction between the newer groups and the existing residents were limited, no social problems or conflicts between the groups surfaced. In the long-term, there were no noticeable effects on population 187

charccteri tico bsecum cf plant con:truction and optration. In 1975, following the end of construction, a marked decline in population occurred, due to significant out-migration. The rnost dramatic change since the start of the project was the in-migration of the suburbanites: the construction and operation of the nuclear plant did not play a role in this growth.

Except for creating a small shift in the housing stock from single-family to multi-family structures in Delta Borough, the impact of the plant on housing and settlement patterns was temporary and minimal.

Historically, Peach Bottom Township has been a rural community with scattered farms, and this pattern has not changed. During the study period, a substantial growth in suburban housing stock occurred. This growth was a result of the rural suburbanization of residents from Maryland, not the construction and operation of the plant. Suburbanization continued to increase steadily following the end of construction and the out-migration of construction workers, suggesting that suburban growth was not plant-related.

Delta Borough did not experience much growth in the housing sector during the study period. He movers were mostly single males who rented rooms or apartments for the duration of the construction period. The change that did take place in the housing stock resulted from the provision of rental units in single-family houses and the conversion of a few single-family dwelling units to multi-family apartments.

When the construction workers moved out of those apartments, they were replaced by a new social group of people of generally lower socioeconomic status than that of most Delta Borough residents. There was a concomitant loss of local control of housing in the Study Area as the ownership of the multi-family units transferred to absentee landlords. In addition, there is some evidence to suggest that the construction of the plant aided in the conversion of seasonal vacation homes to year-round dwelling units. Overall, the magnitude of the changes in the housing sector due to the plant was small.

He size and structure of public administration in the local area remained basically unchanged during the study period. The revenues generated by the plant were not sufficient to warrant major expansion and upgrading of the area's public facilities and services.

188 l

____ _ __ _ __ _ _0

na township inv:ksd c 1 ptresnt tax on incomo carn d in tha township, including that of the construction and operation workers. This tax generated the most significant revenues for the' township during the study period, a high percentage cf which were due to the project. In 1969, total revenues to the township were cctimated at $80 thousand, and in 1974, they were approximately $300 thousand. In 1969,37 percent of total revenues were from the earned-income tax, but in 1972 and 1974, the earned-income tax accounted for over 60 percent of total revenues. These I r; venues enabled the township to lower the property tax millage rate from 13 mills in 1970 to 2 mills in 1973, the lowest in York County. During the operations period, h . wever, as the payroll of the project declined, the revenues to the township from the

( earned-income tax also declined: in 1975, the total township revenues were almost I

$133,000 less than they were the previous year.

l he' effects of the project on demands for and availability of education, transportation, public safety, and social services were examined. With respect to the effects of the plant'on the provision of educational services by the school district, two points are conspicuous. During the study period, there was no project-related increase in expenditures by the school district in the Study Area. By itself, the increased enrollment due to the project would not have exceeded the capacity of the schools, but since the project coincided with increasing suburban growth, overcrowd-ing did occur until additional facilities were made available.

The increased revenues from the plant were negligible in Delta Borough and were not sufficient to increase the levels of most public services in the township.

I Expenditures for maintenance and the improvement of streets and highways did increase substantially bect.use of the revenues from the plant, but public safety, social services, and other public services remained at levels similar to those in f cxistence before the project began.

Overall, the construction and operation of the Peach Bottom plant had very little effect on the groups and only a moderate effect on the social processes and interrelationships between the groups.

For the old-timers of the area, the construction project did not result in any changes in the overall characteristics or positions of the group-the old-timers remained the dominant social group in the area. Had there been greater permanent 189

sconomic change, residential growth in Delta Borough, and in-migration of a sizsabla operations work force as permanent residents, the old-timers social group may have been altered. However, the families within the old-timers group were not much affected by the in-migration of the temporary construction workers, who, on the whole, did not become integrated into the established social fabric.

For the agricultural community, the project increased its political position as a result of its involvement in litigation / licensing hearings and because of growth and development policy initiatives that were indirectly attributable to the plant. The group's economic position was essentially unaffected by the plant. Overall, little structural change occurred in the agricultural group over the thirteen year study period. He in-migration of suburbanites resulted in political strains between the two groups. He pressure toward growth and change in the township, symbolized by the nuclear power station, had the effect of ' reinforcing the traditional value system ci the farming community and heightening their concern over preservation of the agriculture way of life.

The political changes in the local area were characterized by changes in leader-ship as a result of the emergence of new constituencies and public interest groups. In Delta Borough, the traditional administration gave way to younger businessmen and professicnals and new in-migrants. He nuclear plant was not a factor in this change.

The township's decision-making process, formerly based upon community consensus and approached in ad hoc fashion, .was replaced.by public interest group confrontation, policy development, and formal political activity, at least partly as a result of the nuclear plant. The emergence of environmental concerns as political issues in the township was largely a consequence of political activity over the Peach Bottom station.

10.3.2 he Impact of the %ree Mile Island (TMI) Accident on the Peach Bottom Area The seriousness of the threat to safety posed by the Peach Bottom plant as evaluated by residents of the Study Area clearly increased because of the TMI accident. Although the perceived seriousness of the TMI accident itself had substantially diminished by the time the survey was taken (August 1979), a similar decline had not taken place in the level of concern over the Peach Bottom plant. This may be explained by events that were specific to the Peach Bottom plant, the 190 1

cctivitias of a locr.1 environmsntal group, township mnetings over nuclsar plant-community problems, and plant-operational problems at the time.

The TMI accident certainly heightened existing concerns over the Peach Bottom plant and was responsible for an increased level of public awareness of the hazards associated with nuclear technology. Forty percent of the population in the Study Area expressed concerns directly related to TMI, and a number of safety issues arose l in the Study Area subsequent to the accident.

When respondents were asked the degree to which they perceived their safety was threatened during the two-week emergency period following the TMI accident, 17.2 percent said they perceived the threat to safety as "'very serious." Another 13.2 parcent of the respondents considered the threat as " serious," and a further 32.4 psreent felt that the situation at TMI was "somewhat serious" during the two-week period, In all, about 20 percent of the respondents considered the events at TMI as "osrious" or "very serious" threats to their safety. However,30 percent of the sample did not consider the events at TMI as threats to their safety. In response to a question regarding concern with radioactive releams from the Three Mile Island plant during this period, 34.4 percent of the respondents said they were "very concerned,"

30.8 percent said they were "somewhat concerned," and 28.4 percent expressed no Concern.

The perceived seriousness of the threat to safety showed a noticeable decline in the five months bliowing the accident. The percentage of the sample population who thought that the accident at TMI posed a "very serious" threat- to safety declined from 17.2 percent to 7.2 percent. Likewise, the proportion of respondents who were "very concerned" over discharges of radioactive substances from TMI fell from 34.4 percent to 19.6 percent. However, in August 1979,35 percent of the population was still "somewhat concerned" about the release of radioactive emissions from Three Mile Island, about the same level of concern expressed during the emergency period.

The respondents were asked to rate the current threat (at the time of the survey) posed to themselves and their families' safety by the location of the Peach Bottom nuclear plant in their area (Table 10-2). The same question was asked with respect to their assessment of the threat posed by the plant before the TMI accident.

Before the TMI accident, a small percentage (9.2 percent) of the population viewed 191

i ths Patch Bottom plant as a "seri:uf or " vary rarious" thrsst to safaty, with a total of 56.8 percent indicating that the plant presented "no threat." Subsequent to the accident, the percentage that viewed the plant as either a " serious" or a "very serious" threat climbed to 22.8 percent, and the percentage who indicated "no threat" declined to 32.0 percent. Clearly, the accident at TMI increased the level of perceived threat posed by the Peach Bottom plant.

He respondents were asked to identify the three issues or concerns with respect to the Study Area that they felt were most critical. Approximately 50 percent of the respondents could not ider.tify any issue of importance to them.

Twenty-six percent of the responses concerned the lack of public services, especially the level of police protection. As an important community issue or concern, the Peach Bottom plant was mentioned by only a few respondents and constituted a mere 5.4 percent of all responses to this question.

In the context of other community concerns and issues, the nuclear station is viewed by the community as less important than the need for improved public services. The need for expanded employment opportunities and the problems associated with the abandoned quarries in the region were considered to be as important as the nuclear plant.

10.3.3 Community Well-Beine Overall, the respondents to the survey and other interviews expressed a positive view about living in the area. When . asked to rank the area as a place to live, approximately 75 percent of those interviewed indicated they thought that the area was either a " good" or an " excellent" place to live. A highly favorable attitude i 1

toward the Peach Bottom area was also indicated by the answers given to a question regarding the disadvantages of living in the area. About 28 percent of the responses to this question were that "no disadvantages" were found in living in the area near the plant. %e principal disadvantage reported was the lack of or distance to public services: 43.6 percent of the responses identified this problem. he disadvantages of having a nuclear plant as a neighbor (17.5 percent of the responses to the question about disadvantages of living in the azea) did not seem to detract from the general benefits of living in the area.

l l

192 l

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bechtel Corporation 1974 Actual Field Power Distribution, Man-months Averaged From Daily Force Reports, 1967-1974.

1963- The Delta Star.

1978 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Energy 1978 Philadelphia Electric Company, Peach Bottom Annual Report.

I Gibson, John l 1886 History of York County Pennsylvania. Chicago: F.A. Battey Publishing l Company.

Harford County Council 1977 Harford County Master Plan. .

1978 Harford County Land Use Study.

Kasperson, R. et al.

1979 Opposition to Nuclear Power: Postscript and Prospect. Committee on Nuclear Energy and Alternative Energy Systems. Working Paper No. 5.

1971- The Lancaster New Era.

1975 l

l Malhotra, Suresh and Diane Manninen 1979 Socioeconomic Impact Assessments: Profile Analyses of Worker Surveys Conducted at Nuclear Power Plant Construction Sites: A Preliminary Report. Seattle: Battelle MemorialInstitute Maryland Department of Economic Development 1 1970 1970 Maryland Statistical Abstract.

l Mountain West Research, Inc.

1975 Construction Worker Profile, for the Old West Regional Commission.

Tempe, Arizona: Mountain West Research, Inc.

Nucleonics Week 1975- Nuclear Generation Statitistics.

1978 Olson, McKinley, C.

l 1974 The Hot River Valley. The Nation.

Peach Bottom Township 1973 Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, York County, Pennsyl-vania.

1977 Zoning Ordinance, Peach Bottom Township, York County, Pennsylvania.

193

Pennsylvania Bureau of Statistics, Research and Planning 1976 Pennsylvania Statistical Abstract: 1976.18th edition.

1977a Pennsylvania County Industry Report: 1977, Lancaster County. (Pennsyl-vania Industrial Census Series Release Number M-5-76).

1977b Pennsylvania County Industry Report: 1977, York County. (Pennsylvania Industrial Census Series Release Number M-5-76).

1978 Pennsylvania Statistical Abstract: 1978.

1979 Pennsylvania Statistical Abstract.

Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs 1970- Local Government Financial Statistics.

1975 Pennsylvania Department of Commerce 1979 Pennsylvania Industrial Census, York County. Series Release Number M-5-77.

n.d. Pennsylvania Investors' Handbook, 1978-1979, Pennsylvania Facts and Figures.

Pennsylvania Department of Education, Bureau of Information Systems 1970- A Summary of Enrollments in Public Schools of Pennsylvania.

1978 Pennsylvania Department of Highways, Highway Planning and Traffic Division 1956- Traffic Volume Maps, York County.

1977 Pennsylvania Office of State Planning and Development 1977 Overview of Major State and Local Government Taxes.

Philadelphia Electric Company 1973 Transcripts of Operation Permit Hearings.

1973 Radioactive Release Data.

1978 1978 Annual Report.

1979 Thermal and Biological Monitoring Programs for Units 2 and 3, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Monthly Report No. 72.

n.d. Cumulative Cornmitments and Costs, Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. (P & I HC R-8).

n.d. The Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station.

n.d. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station-Units 2 and 3 Summary of Principal Features.

I 194

i Philadelphia Electric Company n.d. Power on the Susquehanna.

Pijawka, K. David 1980 Survey of Public Attitudes Towards the Peach Bottom Plant. Unpub-lished draft manuscript. Mountain West Research, Inc.

Prowell, George S.

1907 History of York County, Pennsylvania. Chicago: J. H. Beers and Company.

Rand, McNally and Company 1977 1977 Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide. 108th edition. Chicago:

Rand McNally and Company.

Renova International Ltd.

1974 Community Impact Study, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3.

Sowers, Luther B.

1979 Iona Range Plan South Eastern School District.

Stone and Webster Engineering 1975 ,%vironmental Report for Fulton Nuclear Generatina Station. Stone and Webster.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing 1973 Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3, Philadelphia Electric Company.

Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50 278.

l U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 1977 Local Area PersonalIncome, 1970-1975. Volume I, Summary.

n.d. Regional Employment by Industry, 1940-1970.

(

U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Measurement Division n.d. . Unpublished employment data computed by Mountain West Research, Inc.

, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census l 1963 Census of Population: 1960, Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population.

Part I, United States Summary.

1963 Census of Population: 1960, Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population.

Part 40, Pennsylvania.

1964 Census of Population: 1960, Vol. I, Characteristic 1 of the Population.

Part I, United States Summary.

195

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1973 Census of Population: 1970, Vol I, Characteristics of the Populatior.

Part I, United States Summary.

1973 Census of Population: 1970, Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population.

Part 40, Pennsylvania.

• 1977 Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1977. 98th edition. Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

n.d. Number of New Housing Units Authorized in Permit Issuing Places.

Construction reports C40/C42.

U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards 1979 Capital Costs and Work Hour Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1975 Final Environmental Statement Related to the Proposed Fulton Generat-ing Station Units 1 and 2. Docket Nos. 50-463 and 50-464.

Wainwright, Nicholas B.

1961 The Philadelphia Electric Company.

1968 The Peach Bottom Story. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Electric Company.

'.'ork County Board of County Commissioners 1978 The Government of York County.

1979 York County Evacuation Plan for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant. e York County Emergency Operations Center 1979 Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Plan.

York County Planning Commission ,

1971 Comprehensive Plans: Lower Chanceford Township, Peach Bottom Township, Delta Borough, Part 1, The Study.

1971 Peach Bottom Township Comprehensive Plan: Part 2, The Plan.

1972 Fawn Grove Borough: Comprehensive Plan.

1973a Housing Market Analysis, York, Pennsylvania.

1973b 1973 Population Report, York County, Pennsylvania.

1975 York County Economic Analysis Update.

1976 Rural Housing in York County: A Topical Study.

1977 York County Housing Plan Update, York County, Pennsylvania.

196  ;

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1978 Rural Social Services Study.

n.d. Population Estimates and Projections for York County Municipalities.

l l 1958- The York Dispatch.

1979 York, Michael N. and David Pijawka 1979 Peach Bottom Units 1, 2 and 3: Preliminary Site Visit Report, for U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Tempe, Arizona: Mountain West Research, Inc.

l 197

A PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Alles, William; Member of Delta Borough Council, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Alden, Bill; Engineer-in-Charge, Generation Division / Nuclear, Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Baldwin, John R.;

Farmer and Chairman, Peach Bottom Township Board of Supervisors, Peach Bottom Township, Pennsylvania.

Baldwin, Robert W.;

Farmer and Board of Supervisors Member, Peach Bottom Township, Pennsylvania.

Barnhart, Jack; Vice-President, York County Industrial Development Authority.

Barnhart, Jack R.;

Labor Manager, Operative Plaster and Cement Masons, York City, Pennsylvania.

Bell, J.;

Executive Director, York City Industrial Development Corporation, York, Penn-sylvania.

Blackwell, S.;

Tax Collector, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Buecker, H.;

Former Member of Delta Borough Council, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Clinch, E.;

President, York County Labor Council, York City, Pennsylvania.

Cooney, M.J.;

Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

I Cooper, Boyd; Farmer and Peach Bottom Township Commission Member, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Cooper, James; Delta Planning Commission Member, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Delzingaro, David; Reporter on Utilities, York Dispatch, York City, Pennsylvania.

Drake, R.;

Regional Analytics, Inc.

1 Includes only those contacts with people who were associated with official organizations.

198 1

Dunn, R.;

Director, York County Planning Commission Staff, York City, Pennsylvania.

Flaharty, J.;

Businessman, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Flaharty, L.D.;

Tax Collector, Peach Bottom Township, Peach Bottom Township, Pennsylvania.

Fleishman, R.;

i Engineer-Manager, Peach Bottom Nuclear Station, Philadelphia Electric Company, Delta, Pennsylvania.

• l Gnilbraith, D.;

Businessman, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Glenn, D,;

Dentist and Councilperson, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Glenn, David; Farmer, Peach Bottom Township, Pennsylvania.

Gotzis, Tom; Former Project Superintendent, Peach Bottom Atomic Generating Station, Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Green, R.;

Delta Planning Commission Member, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Hack, H.;

Deputy Secretary, Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Hubert, H. Nelson; Manager, South Pennsylvania Bank, Peach Bottom Township, Pennsylvania.

Herbester, D.;

Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Hoviss, Rainard; Attorney, York Council for a Safe Environment, York City, Pennsylvania.

Hughes, Robert; l Energy Information Representative, Peach Bottom Atomic Information Center, Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Hunt, J. A.;

Physician, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Jones, W.;

Businessman and Member of Southeastern School Board, Deita Borough, Pennsyl-vania.

Kesler, Charles; Reporter, Lancaster News Era, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

199

Lawrance, B,;

Chairperson, Peach Bottom Alliance, Peach Bottom Township, Pennsylvania.

Lehner, Theodore; Senior Engineer, System Planning Division, Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Logue, R.H.;

Engineer-in-Charge, Nuclear Engineering, Philadelphia Electric Company, Phila-delphia, Pennsylvania.

)

McHugh, Noble; Corporate Communications, Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, Penn-sylvania.

Merges, Henry; Editor, York Dispatch, York City, Pennsylvania.

Montgomery, Hubert; Businessperson and Member of Delta Borough Council, Delta Borough, Pennsyl-vania.

Morris, D.;

Mayor, Fawn Grove Borough, Fawn Grove, Pennsylvania.

Plather, S.;

York County Tax Assessor, York City, Pennsylvania.

Poff, Hugh; Former Mayor, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Reed, Charles; Assistant Principal, Kennard-Dale High School, Southeastern School District, Fawn Grove, Pennsylvania.

Rowan, Austin, N.;

Zoning Officer, Delta Borough and Peach Bottom Township, Harford County, Maryland. j Rush, Gary H.;

Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I Scarborough, Robert M.;

Former Member of Peach Bottom Township Commission, Peach Bottom, Pennsyl-vania.

Scarborough, W.R.;

Businessperson, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Scott, J.;

Councilperson, Fawn Grove, Pennsylvania.

Smith, T.;

Businessperson, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

1 200

k

\

Sol.eki, A.J.;

Manager, Taxes Division, Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, Pennsyl-vania.

Sommer, D.;

Editor, Delta Star, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Sowers, Luther, B.;

Superintendent, Southeastern School District, Fawn Grove, Pennsylvania.

I Steele, Albert; Farmer, Peach Bottom Township, Pennsylvania.

Steward, David; Farmer and Township Supervisor, Peach Bottom Township, Pennsylvania.

Tcylor, T.;

i Former Councilperson, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Thompson, Clara; Museum Curator, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Tucker, John J.;

Energy Information Representative, Peach Bottom Atomic Information Center, Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Watkins, Raymond; Mayor, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

Watsen, J.;

Council Member, Delta Borough, Pennsylvania.

J.S. GOVDNPEET PRIETING O'FICE : 1 % 2 0 161 297/2276 201

FON M

"' m U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUREG/CR-2749 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET Vol. 8 4 TIVLE AND SUBTlTLE IAdd Volume No., of mpicorostel 2. floave bleki Socioeconomic Impacts of Nuclear Generating Stations:

Peach Bottom Case Study 3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.

7. AUTHORIS) 5. DATE REPORT COMPLE TED K. D. Pijawka, Mountain West Research, Inc. " "" l"^" 4 January 1982

9. PE RF ORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (Include 2,p Code) DATE REPORT ISSUED Mountain West Research, Inc. w/ Social Impact Research, Inc .

=~m I n^a 1414 W. Broadway, Suite 228 Areis Building, Suite 427 July 1982 Tempeo AZ 85282 2366 Eastlake Avenue East 6 '"' *'" *'

Seattle, WA 98101 8 (Leave bimk)

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (include 2,p Codel p

Division of Health, Siting and Waste Management Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 11 FIN NO.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 B6268

, 13 TYPE OF REPORT PE RIOD COV E RE D f/nctus<re defesi Technical Report Oct. 1, 1978 to Jan. 4, 1982 15 SUPPLEMEN TARY NOTES 14 fleave n/ mal

16. ABSTR ACT (100 words or 'esst This report documents a case study of the socioeconomic impacts of the construction and operation of the Peach Bottom nuclear power station. It is part of a major post-licensing study of the socioeconomic impacts at twelve nuclear power stations. The case study covers the period beginning with the announcement of plans to construct the reactor and ending in the period, 1980-81. The case study deals with changes in the economy, population, settlement patterns and housing, local government and public services, social structure, and public response in the study area during the constructions operation of the reactor.

A regional modeling approach is used to trace the impact of construction / operation on the local economy, labor market, and housing market. Emphasis in the study is on the attribution of socioeconomic impacts to the reactor or other causal factors. As part of the study of local public response to the construction / operation of the reactor, the effects of the Three Mile Island accident are examined.

l I

17. KE Y WORDS AND DOCUMENT AN ALYSIS 1/a DE SC HiPT OH3 Socioeconomics Peach Bottom 17b IDENTIFIE RS OPE N EN DE D TE RVS 18 AV AILABILITY STATEVENT N SE coni TV CL AS5 /Te s icoorf t 21 NO OF PAGE S Unclassified 20 se cuna v ceass erss oom n onicE Unlimited Unclassified s N RC F ORY 33's ut sie

UNITED STATES , ,,,,, g g ,33 ,,3 Posta(,e a rits paio NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D C. 20%5 .f375c Pf RMef te fg G O5FICIAL BUSINESS PEN ALTY FOR PRIV ATE USE. $3)0 I

120S550/8677 1 ANdE JS AHC AOM Div Cf TIDC )

POLILY & PUBL ICA T IGN S r4GT BR PCR huREG CCPY LA 212 WASHINGTCN UC 2055S

\

l I

J l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .