ML20062E204
| ML20062E204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1982 |
| From: | Pijawka K, Weisiger M 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-V10, NUDOCS 8208090014 | |
| Download: ML20062E204 (304) | |
Text
--- - _ _
NUREG/CR-2749 Vol.10 t
Socioeconomic Impacts of Nuclear Generating Stations St. Lucie Case Study l
l
)
! Prepared by M. L. Weisiger, K. D. Pijawka/MWRI Mountain West Research, Inc.
with
, Social Impact Research, Inc.
Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
$$A8Ao88A4*S8$3$3 0 P PDR
NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work aponsored by an agency of the United States Government Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or imphed, or assumes any legal habihty of re>
sponsibihty for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights I
1 Availability of Reference Materials C;ted 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.
Washington, DC 20555
- 2. The NRC/GPO Sales Program, U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, f Washington, DC 20555
- 3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield VA 221G1 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-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 hcensee documents and corresponcence.
The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the NRC/GPO Sales Procram: formal NPr staff and contractor reports, NRC sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets ar/1 brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances Leocuments available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technicat reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Documents available from pubhc and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.
Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-N RC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.
Singie copies of NRC draft reports are available free upon written request to the Division of Tech-nical Information and Document Control U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Copies of industry codes and standards used irs a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the pubbc. Codes and standards are usually Copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organitation or, if they are American National Standards, f rom the American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
GPO Printed copy pr(e $7.00 _
NUREG/CR-2749 Vol.10 RE Socioeconomic Impacts of Nuclear Generating Stations t
St. Lucie Case Study Manuscript Completed: January 1982 Date Published: July 1982 Prepared by M. L. Weisiger, K. D. Pijawka, Mountain West Research, Inc.
Mountain West Research, Inc.
1414 W. Broadway Suite 228 Tempe, AZ 85282 Social impact Research, Inc.
Areis Building, Suite 427 2366 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
i ABSTRACT This report documents a case study of the socioeconomic impacts of the construction and operation of the St. Lucie 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 construc-tion / operation of the reactor.
l 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 c2tribution 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 t
iii
i l
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The NRC Post-Licensing S' tudies 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 2: 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 17 2.4.1 The Project Site 17 2.4.2 The Plant 20 2.5 Construction 20 2.5.1 Announcement 20 2.5.2 Schedule and Cost 21 2.5.3 Construction Work Force 23 2.5.4 Construction Experience 26 2.6 Operations 26 2.6.1 Schedule and Cost 26 2.6.2 Operations Work Force 28 2.6.3 Operating Phase Experience 28 2.7 Taxes 32 2.8 Corporate /Commtmity Programs 32 2.8.1 Emergency Planning 32 2.8.2 Visitors' Center 35 1 2.8.3 Other Public Relations 35 2.9 Chronology of Major Events 36 y
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
CH APTER 3: IDENTIFICATION OF THE STUDY AREA 39 3.1 Introduction 39 3.2 The Region 39 3.2.1 Description of the Region 39 3.2.2 Identification of Places within the Region 42 3.3 Distribution of Direct Project Effects within the Region 45 3.3.1 Distribution of Direct Basic Employment by Place of Work,1974 and 1978 45 ,
3.3.2 Distribution of Direct Basic Workers by Place of Residence,1974 and 1978 46 3.3.3 Distribution of Utility Purchases 48 3.3.4 Distribution of Taxes,1975 and 1978 48 3.4 Selection of the Study Area 51 3.4.1 Itationale 51 CHAPTER 4: ECONOMY OF THE STUDY AREA 54 4.1 Introduction 54 4.2 Economic History of the Study Area 54 4.3 Economic Changes during the Study Period 60 4.3.1 Employment and Income in the Local Economy 60 4.3.2 Employment and Income of Local Residents 64 4.4 Economic Changes in the Study Area ,
due to the Project 70 4.4.1 Estimation of Project-Related Employment and Income Effects 70 4.4.2 Effects of the Project on the Study Area Economy, 1968-1978 94 4.4.3 Effects of the Project on the Residents of the Study Area, 1968-1978 100 CHAPTER 5: POPULATION 104 5.1 Introduction 104 ,
5.2 Demographic Trends 104 5.3 Changes in the Population during the Study Period 110 vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continaed) t 5.4 Population Effects due to the Project 112 5.4.1 Population Effects in 1974 112 5.4.2 Population Effects in 1978 117 l
5.4.3 Summary 117 CHAPTER 6: SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND HOUSING 122 6.1 Introduction ~122 6.2 Settlement Patterns 122 6.2.1 Factors Influencing the Settlement Patterns of the Study Area 122 6.2.2 Population Distribution 124 6.3 Housing 126 6.3.1 Housing Prior to Construction of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 126 6.3.2 Changes in the Housing Stock during the Study Period, 1968-1978 129 6.3.3 Effects of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on Housing in the Study Area 131 CHAPTER 7: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES 137 7.1 Introduction 137 7.2 Government Structure 137 7.3 Budgets for Major Government Jurisdictions during the Study Period 140 7.3.1 The County Budget 141 7.3.2 Municipal Budgets 151 7.4 Selected Public Services 156 7.4.1 Education 159 7.4.2 Transportation 165 7.4.3 Public Safety 167 7.4.4 Social Services 168 CHAPTER 8: SOCIAL STRUCTURE 169 l
8.1 Introduction 169 8.2 Social Structure at the Beginning of the Study Period 169 l
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 8.2.1 Identification of the Social Groups 169 8.2.2 Group Profiles 170 8.2.3 Interaction among the Groups 187 8.3 New Groups in the Study Area during the Study Period 191 8.4 Distribution of the Project Effects to the Groups 191 8.4.1 Economic Effects 191 8.4.2 Demographic Effects 193 8.4.3 Settlement Patterns and Housing Effects 195 8.5 Changes in the Social Structure and the Role of l the Effects of the Project 198 8.5.1 Changes in the Profiles of the Groups 198 l 8.5.2 Changes in the Relationships among the Groups 204 CHAPTER 9: PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THE ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT 208 9.1 Introduction 208 9.2 The Environmental Hearings 209 9.2.1 Construction Permit Hearings, Unit 1, 1969-1973 209 9.2.2 Construction Permit Hearings, Unit 2, 1974-1979 215 9.2.3 State Site Certification Hearings, 1975-1976 219 9.3 Informal Response 220 1
9.4 The Nature of Nuclear Opposition in St. Lucie '
and Martin Counties 9.4.1 A National Perspective 225 9.4.2 Phase One: "The Indian River Ecology Issue 226 9.4.3 Phase Two: The Social Acceptability of Nuclear Power Plants 227 9.4.4 Prevalence of Nuclear Oppos. tion 230 9.5 Impacts of the Three Mile Island Accident in St. Lucie County 231 9.6 The Effects of Public Response on the Study Area 232 CHAPTER 10: EVALUATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT 234 10.1 Introduction 234 viii
f TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 10.2 Evaluation of the Effects by Group 234 10.2.1 The Business Community 234 10.2.2 The Black Community 238 10.2.3 The Retirees 240 I
10.2.4 The Workers Group 242 10.3 Significance of the Project to the Study Area 245 10.3.1 Significance of the Collective Project-Related Effects 245 10.3.2 Community Evaluation of the Project 249 BIBLIOGRAPHY 251 NEWSPAPER REFERENCES 264 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 279 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 St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 12 2-2 Florida Power & Light Company Service Area 16 2-3 Average Annual Construction Work Force, ,
1969-1978, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 25 3-1 Study Region: St. Lucie and Martin County, Florida 40 3-2 St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Study Area:
~
St. Lucie County 52 4-1 Estimation of Project-Related Employment i and Income Effects 72 4-2 Project-Related and Total Employment by Place of Work in Study Area, 1968-1978 99 4-3 Project-Related Employment and Total Labor Force by Place of Residence in Study Area, 1968-1978 102 9-1 Duration of Selected Issues in Environ-mental Hearings, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, 1968-1980 221 1
l l
X
LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE NUMBER TITLE NUMBER 2-1 Average Annual Construction Work Force, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, 1969-1978 24 2-2 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit 1,1976-1980 27 2-3 Average Annual Operations Work Force, St. Lucie Unit 1,1973-1980 29 2-4 Annual Nuclear Plant Capacity Factors, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit 1, 1977-1979 31 2-5 Total Assessed Taxable Value and Tax Payments, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, FY 1969-1970 through FY 1979-1980 33 2-6 Chronology of Major Events 37 3-1 Population Trends, St. Lucie County, 1970,1974,1978 44 3-2 Direct Basic Workers By Place of Residence, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant,1974 and 1978 47 3-3 Utility Purchases for Plant Construction and Operation, 1969-1980 49 3-4 Distribution of Tax Payments, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, FY 1973-1974 and FY 1977-1978 50 4-1 Employment by Place of Residence, St. Lucie County, Florida, 1940,1950,1960,1970 59 4-2 Employment by Place of Work by Industrial Sector St. Lucie County, Florida, 1968-1978 62 4-3 Labor and Proprietor's Income by Place of Work by Industrial Sector, St. Lucie County, Florida, 1968-1978 63 4-4 Population, Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment by Place of Residence, St. Lucie County, Florida, and United States, 1968-1978 65 4-5 Labor Force Participation Rates by Sex, St. Lucie County, Florida, and United States, 1960 and 1970 67 xi )
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE PAGE NUMBER TITLE NUMBER 4-6 Derivation of PersonalIncome by Place of Residence, St. Lucie County, Florida, 1968-1978 69 4-7 Total Project-Related Basic Employment and Income in the Study Area, St. Lucie County, 1974 78 4-8 Distribution of Project-Related Basic Employment and Income, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, 1974 80 4-9 Estimated Effective Basic Income St. Lucie Nuclear Plant,1974 83 4-10 Nonbasic Employment andIncome by Place of Work, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant,1974 85 4-11 Nonbasic Employment and Income by Place of Residence, St. Lucie County,1974 86 4-12 Total Project-Related Employment and Income by Place of Work, St. Lucie County,1974 87 4-13 Total Project-Related Employment and Income by Place of Residence, St. Lucie County,1974 88 4-14 Total Project-Related Basic Employment and Income in the Study Area, St. Lucie County, 1978. 91 4-15 Estimated Effective Basic Income, St. Lucie County,1978 92 4-16 Nonbasic Employment and Income by Place of Work, St. Lucie County,1978 93 4-17 Nonbasic Employment and Income by Place of Residence, St. Lucie County,1978 95 4-18 Total Employment and Income due to the Project by Place of Work, St. Lucie County,1978 96 4-19 Total Employment aad Income due to the Project by Place of Residence, St. Lucie County,1978 97 4-20 Estimated Annual Employment and Income Effects by Place of Work, St. Lucie County, 1968-1978 98 xii
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE PAGE NUMBER TITLE NUMBER 4-21 Estimated Annual Employment andIncome by Place of Residence, St. Lucie County, 1968-1978 101 5-1 Population of St. Lucie County, Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie, and Florida, 1930-1978 105 5-2 Components of Population Change, St. Lucie County, 1950-1978 107 5-3 Population Distribution by Age, St. Lucie County and Florida, 1950,1960,1970,1979 108 5-4 Nonwhite Population as a Percent of Total Population, St. Lucie County, Fort Pierce, and Florida, 1950,1960,1970,1979 109 5-5 Project-Related Employment by Worker Category, St. Lucie County,1974 113 5-6 Population In-Migration due to the Project, St. Lucie County,1974 115 5-7 Project-Related Employment by Worker Category, St. Lucie County,1978 118 5-8 Population In-Migration due to the Project, St. Lucie County,1978 119 5-9 Population Increase due to In-Migration of P.oject-Related Workers and Household Members, St. Lucie County, 1968-1978 120 6-1 Population Distribution in St. Lucie County, 1970,1975,1979 125 6-2 Selected Housing Characteristics, St. Lucie County,1960 and 1970 127 6-3 Housing Stock, St. Lucie County, 1968-1978 130 6-4 Housing Demand of Project-Induced Population, St. Lucie County, 1968-1978 132 6-5 Project-Related Housing Demand as a Proportion of the Total Housing Stock, St. Lucie County, 1968-1978 134 xiii
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE PAGE NUMBER TITLE NUMBER 7-1 General Revenues, St. Lucie County, FY 1967-68 through FY 1978-79 142 7-2 Average Millage Rate, St. Lucie County, FY 1969-70 through FY 1978-79 144 7-3 Taxable Value, Property Tax Revenues, and Total Revenues, St. Lucie County and St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, FY 1969-70 through FY 1978-79 145 7-4 Revenues and Expenditures, Selected St. Lucie County Taxing Districts, FY 1972-73 through FY 1978-79 148 7-5 General Expenditures, St. Lucie County, FY 1967-68 through FY 1978-79 149 7-6 General Revenues, Fort Pierce, FY 1967-68 through FY 1978-79 152 7-7 General Expenditures, Fort Pierce, FY 1967-68 through FY 1978-79 154 7-8 General Revenues, Port St. Lucie, FY 1972-73 through FY 1977-78 157 7-9 General Expenditures, Port St. Lucie, FY 1972-73 through FY 1977-78 158 i
7-10 Revenues and Expenditures, Taxable Value, and Property Taxes, St. Lucie County and St. Lucie County School District, FY 1969-70 through FY 1978-79 161 7-11 School District Enrollment, St. Lucie County, 1968-1978 163 8-1 Total Project-Related Employment and Income Effects of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, St. Lucie County,1974 and 1978 192 8-2 Estimated Employment and Income Effects i
by Groups, St. Lucie County,1974 and 1978 194 l
8-3 Distribution of Population Effects by Group, l St. Lucie County,1974 and 1978 196 l
xiv
LIST OF TABLES (Castismed)
TABLE PAGE NUMBER TITLE NUMBER 9-1 Chronology of the Environmental Hearings, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, 1968-1979 210 i
I XV
NRC POST-LICENSING STUDY NRC Project Coordinators:
Donald Cleary Michael Kaltman Clark Prichard !
1 Project Director:
James A. Chalmers, Mountain West Research, Inc.
Research Team:
Pamela A. Bergmann, Mountain West Research,Inc.-
Kristi Branch, Mountain West Research,Inc.
K. David Pijawka, Mountain West Research, Inc.
Marsha L. Weisiger, Mountain West Research, Inc.
Cynthia B. Flynn, SocialImpact Research, Inc.
James Flynn, Social Impact Research, Inc.
Report Production:
Charlene Samson Riedell, Editor and Manager Barbara Greenway Shirley Dawson Erna L. Penta Patricia G. World Janet E. Vriens Timothy Stallcup Linda Manney Graphics:
Jeff Fairman i
Xvii
i CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 The NRC Post-Licensing Studies This report-the case study of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, located in St. Lucie County, Florida-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, the relationship of research concerning Three Mile Island to the overall study plan, and the organization of this case study report.
1.1.1 Objectives of the Post-Licensing Studies The Post-Licensing Studies have four main objectives: to determine the socioeco-nomic 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 antic.ipate the most significant of these effects.
Each of the latter three objectives depends upon clear identification of the i
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-l l
lished, they must be placed in the context of the values of the individuals affected by l
l them to determine their significance. The explication of the effects, the evaluation of those effects, and their significance to local residents permits an analytic consideration of the overall evaluation and the response of local residents to the presence of the nuclear facility in or near their communities.
l 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
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 socioeco-i nomic-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.
1.1.2 Components of the Post-Licensing Studies The Post-Licensing Studies have three distinct components: the individual case studies, the cross-site analysis, and the methodological 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-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 lj l >'
/
e ic
' u d
i L
J t
'A tnd neDe f s
y S f
- ?in o o f i r r
u uP at ll S
J IsoB eh ' -
a I%o e r
~
eP e N ~
e i v g p
O I h r R S & k T
l a e e
S o
~
t s s I
M C o - r y
s C o M e d O '
e C 1- e S s E L
Y , e I
R Y e M s
O D s .
T U S t o s A T s e E n i L S T U I r
G S A e E
G R N I Y S D N U Ql R E T A C S E I L L C -
E U S T A N S C O
S P E !
- t T
A T
S D
E
%-}
TI N
U t
_ 1 1
_ E R
U G -
o c
I F e S
n
= o loy o
e n
bn o ia Ca g D a e w
.' , ll
r nuclear stations. Based on these results, methodological recommendations will be made, with an attempt to indicate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives. i 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 July (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 i
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.
1.2 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.
i 4
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION If OLAPTER 2s OVERVIIM AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT If OLAPTER 3:
IDprf!FICATION OF THE STUDY AREA eDescription of the Study Region
- Distribution of Norkers, Purchases, and Taxes eselection of the Study Area t t t t OLAPTER 4: CHAPTER 5: CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7:
EFFECTS ON THE STUDY AREA IrONONY DEMOGRAPHIC IFFECTS IN THE STUDY AREA EFFECTS Cse STUDY AREA EFFECTS ON STUDY AREA HOUSING AND SETTLEMDIT PATTERNS COVERNNDff AND PUBLIC SERvtCES
.Econcnic History of the Study Area
- Demographic Trends
- 4 + eBackground M e Background eRecent Changes in the Econcsmy *Recent Changes in the Population n e n a ns
- ng n r t and eEJaployment and Income Effects due
- Population Effects due to the Project , ,g 9 to the Project .
- Effects on Settlesment Patterne eggfects on Covernsment and and Housing due to the Project Public Services due to Project i
k OLAPTER Se ITTECTS ON THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE f IN THE STUDY AREA
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- Background of Groups and Group j
Interrelationships
- Distribution of Effects CHAPTER 9 I
- PUBLIC RESPONSE
- Changes in Social Structure l
- Response during Pre-Construction, Construction, and Operation
- Ef fects of Socioeconomic Consequences CHAPTER los in the Study Area on Public Response SUNNARY AND CONCLUSIONS eEffects of Public Response on Groups eSurunary of Socioecononic Effects in the Study Area of the Project FIGURE l-2. Case Study Organization .E,atuation of th. Effects by croup. *
)
in the Study Area
- Significance of the Effects
- 0verett Evaluation of the Project t . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 en the geo-graphic extent of the majcr 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. 'Ihere 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, after 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 t3 ken place in the areas examined in this study over the ten- to fif teen-year period of investigation are so complex 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.
Chapter 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 'th.ese effects could be shown most clearly by focusing on a smaller number of important services rather than by trying to examine the i
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 is 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 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. 'Ihe 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.
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 accruin:, to each group provides the basis for determining the project's impact on the groups, discussed in Chapter 10.
8
Chapter 9 provides another perspective on the socioeconomic effects of constructing and operating 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. Un?ike the previous five chapters of the case study, which focused on the effects of the nuclear station i
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 station on individuals and groups in the study area played a causal role in the public response to the project; the level of the direct l participation of study area residents in publicly responding to the project; and the effects l 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.
)
10 l
CHAPTERZ: OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2.1 Introduction An essential element in every impact assessment is a description of the impacting agent. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, which includes a description of the project site, the project characteristics, and the Florida Power & Light Company to support and orient the more detailed discussions and analyses of the ,
subsequent chapters and to facilitate comparisons among the twelve case studies.
Therefore, this chapter presents information on the project's location, size, type, and site l characteristics; the utility and other major factors involved with the project; and the magnitude and duration of the construction effort.
2.2 Location The St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, owned by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), is located along the Atlantic coast on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. As shown in Figure 2-1, the plant site is approximately 120 highway miles north of Miami and 230 miles south of Jacksonville. Fort Pierce, the St. Lucie County seat, with a 1
population of approximately 34,000 is located about 8 miles to the north of the plant.
About an equal distance to the south is Stuart, the Martin County seat.
The nuclear plant, easily accessible via the primary transportation routes in the area, is located on State Road A1 A, which is the major arterial on Hutchinson Island and links the plant with Fort Pierce and Stuart. In both cities, AI A connects with U.S.1, which is the primary route through the urban areas of St. Lucie and Martin counties and traverses Florida's Atlantic coast. At one time the most heavily traveled tourist route in southern Florida, U.S.1 is now primarily an internal transportation corridor rather than the primary link to coastal Florida. Such a link is now provided by the Sunshine State Parkway (Florida Turnpike) and by Interstate 95. The Sunshine State Parkway provides access to Orlando to the north, as well as the rest of north-central Florida, and to the coastal tourist areas to the south. Just west of Fort Pierce, the turnpike connects with Interstate 95, which provides access to northern coastal Florida. To travel west of Fort Pierce, the primary routes are Florida State Roads 68 and 70.
1 1
According to the preliminary 1980 census results.
l 11
FIGURE 21. LOCATION OF ST. LUCIE f2UCLEAR PLAMT 1
}
7 0 ' Tallahassee -
Jacksonville
\
Atlantic Ocean Gulf of Mexico 'h e 95 Cape Canaveral Tampa o 4,,
p 1
%, ST. LUCIE E NUCLEAR PLANT West Palm p Beach l
M Urban Area , ,
0 20 40 60 80k N
Miles 12
I 2.3 The Utility 1.3.1 Corporate Background Florida Power 8e Light Company (FPL), which owns the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, was incorporated as an investor-owned company on 28 December 1925, at the height of Florida's first land boom, to provide reliable electric light and power. The formation of FPL was the result of numerous mergers of municipal power companies along the Atlantic coast of Florida. While the primary purpose of FPL has always been to supply power, in the early days the company was composed of a motley assortment of enterprises-ice houses, gas plants, saw mills, and street car companies-as well as electric generating plants (which were often subsidiaries of these other ventures). (FPL, n.d.)
The rapid growth of FPL parallels that of the State of Florida. When the new firm was formed, it supplied service to 76,000 customers in 58 communities, with a total generating capacity of 70 Mw. (FPL, n.d.; Moody's Investors Service,1980.) By April 1927, the company had grown by 51 percent, serving 115,000 customers in 112 communities. During the decade following World War II, Florida grew phenomenally, with new residents pouring in at a rate of 3,000 per week as industry disc. overed the economic advantages of Florida's climate. As a result, in less than 5 years FPL almost doubled its generating capacity from 243 Mw at the end of the war to 444 Mw, serving about 314,000 customers in 1949. This rate of growth continued into the 1960s: in 1965 more than 970,000 customers were served by a generating capacity of 3,716 Mw. (FPL, n.d.) By 1979, the company was providing electricity to approximately 2.1 million customers in approximately 700 communities (Moody's Investors Service,1980).
1 Until recently, FPL relied almost exclusively on imported 011 for fuel. However, escalating oil prices have led to a diversified fuel mix: by the end of 1979 the utility used 55 percent oil,26 percent nuclear energy, and 19 percent natural gas. At that time, the company operated ten generating plants distributed geographically around its service area, with a total capacity of 12,182 gross Mw (an additional 415 gross Mw of power were 1
- 011 was supplemente(t ,y natural gas.
13
available from two plants on extended cold standby statusI ). These generating facilities consisted of three nuclear units, twenty-six fossil steam units, forty-eight gas turbines, two combined-cycle units, and two diesel installations. In addition, St. Lucie Unit 2 (a fourth nuclear unit), two oil-burning units in Martin County, and a solid waste resource recovery facility in Dade County were under construction. The company has also recently announced plans to construct two coal-fired generating stations at the Martin County site. (Moody's Investors Service,1979; FPL,1980b,1980c.)
FPL has interconnections or agreements for interchange service with a number of investor-owned and municipal utilities. These utilities include the City of Fort Pierce, l Florida Power Corporation, Tampa Electric Company, Jacksonville Electric Authority, the City of Vero Beach, the City of Lake Worth, Orlando Utilities Commission (which recently purchased 6 percent of the St. Lucie plant), the City of New Smyrna Beach, the
! City of Gainesville, the City of Homestead, and the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group (which comprises 37 utilities: 6 investor-owned utilities,18 municipal utilities, and 13 rural-electric co-ops). In December 1979, the company made its first direct interconnection with Georgia Power Compan'y with a 240 kV transmission line as part of an interchange agreement with Southern Company Services. (Moody's Investors Service, 1930; Scheer, personal communication,1981.)
l FPL's interest in nuclear power began in the 1950s. In 1955, three Florida l companies-FPL, Tampa Electric, and Florida Power Corporation--decided to jointly l construct a nuclear plant with government assistance. Because the costs of such a 1
project were uncertain at that time, however, the proposal was dropped. The company's first nuclear plant, Turkey Point, located in Dade County, was announced in November 1965. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 went on-line in late 1972 and 1973, respectively, with a combined capacity of 1,520 gross Mw.2 St. Lucie Unit 1, with an 850 gross Mw capacity, went into commercial operation in December 1976; Unit 2, with a similar l capacity, was still under construction at the time of this report. (FPL, n.d.; FPL,1980b, 1980c.)
1 These plants were not in operation but were available if needed; reactivation of these units would require 8 to 14 months (FPL,1980).
2 Turkey Point Units 1 and 2 are fossil-fueled plants and, therefore, are not included in this discussion.
14
2.3.2 Service Area As shown in Figure 2-2, FPL supplies service to most of the territory along the east and lower west coast of Florida. By 1967, the year FPL announced it would build a second nuclear power plant, the ccmpany served nearly 1.1 million customers in 559 communities. By 1979, the number of customers had increased 97 percent-2.1 million in a 27,650-square-mile service area encompassing approximately 700 communities in all or part of 35 counties. (Moody's Investors Service,1968 and 1980; FPL,1980c.)
2.3.3 Generating Capacity and Production According to FPL sources, the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant is a necessary addition to maintain enough generating capacity to supply Florida's burgeoning population. In 1973, in the Final Environmental Statement for Unit 1, FPL stated that, given the system size and the growth in demand they had experienced, annual additions of 300-500 Mw in both base-load and peak-load capability would be required through 1975; without St. Lucie Unit 1, system reserves would be inadequate in 1974 and 1975. The proposed plant would supply a net electrical output of 833 Mw. (AEC,1973.) However, the plant did not go into commercial operation until December 1976. According to FPL personnel, after the Arab oil embargo the growth in demand for electricity declined due to conservation.
Consequently, projections of needed system reserves were revised, which coincided with the construction schedule slippage. (Leskovjan, personal communication,1981.)
The initial application to construct Unit 2 as a duplicate of Unit I was filed with the AEC in May 1971. However, in October of that year, FPL decided to postpone the second unit because of construction delays experienced on its other nuclear units, the cost of construction, financing problems, and a degree of uncertainty in the need for power (Pearson,1977; Leskovjan, personal communication,1981). One year later, plans for Unit 2 were revived. The second unit was deemed necessary for the system reserves, which FPL maintained would be inadequate af ter 1979 because of rapid increases in electrical demand (AEC,1974a). Moreover, to a utility that depended heavily on oil-fired generating plants, Unit 2 was seen as a hedge against further increases in OPEC oil prices (Leskovjan, personal communication,1981).
As of 31 December 1979, FPL's total capacity (including two generating plants on extended cold standby) was 12,597 gross Mw. Of this total, St. Lucie Unit I supplied 850 gross Mw (802 net Mw), or about 7 percent. St. Lucie Unit 2, scheduled to go on-line in 15
FIGURE 2-2. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SERVICE AREA 1 -l'
~
y k; i'
Tallahassee _
Jacksonville Atlantic Ocean Orla Gulf of Mexico Cape Canaveral :
Tampa o 4,,
1 A
- , ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT West Palm I Beach
$ \
l l
M Urban Area I l Service Area 0 20 40 60 80k .
N Miles 16
May 1983, should provide an additional 850 Mw.I In addition to the energy supplied by St. Lucie,1,520 gross Mw were supplied by the nuclear units at Turkey Point, and the remaining energy was supplied by fossil-fueled plants. (FPL,1980; Leskovjan, personal communication,1980.)
In 1976, the year before St. Lucie Unit 1 was put into commercial operation,2 FPL's annual report announced that Turkey Point had provided 23 percent of the total system production of 34.9 billion kwh (FPL,1977a). Once St. Lucie Unit I was on-line for a year, nuclear power represented about one-third of FPL's total generation of 37.5 billion kwh (FPL,1978a). Of the 13.5 billion kwh generated by nuclear power, the St.
Lucie unit provided 42 percent. By 1979, however, the nuclear proportion had declined to 26 percent of FPL's total generation of 42 billion kwh (FPL,1980c).
2.4 The Project 2.4.1 The Project Site The St. Lucie Nuclear Plant is located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County midway between the cities of Fort Pierce and Stuart, about 40 miles north of the West Palm Beach load center. The barrier island, or sandbar, is approximately 22 miles long 3 and 1 mile wide at its maximum width. To the east lies the Atlantic Ocean; on the west, the island is separated from the mainland by the Indian River, actually a tidal lagoon, which is approximately 7,200 feet wide (1.36 miles) at the plant site. (AEC,1973; Kelly, personal communication,1981.)
Generally flat, the island's terrain consists mostly of mangrove swamps.
Vegetation is dense with mangroves, Australian pines, sabal palms, and wax myrtle shrubs. From the ocean shore, the land rises slightly into a dune, or ridge, to approximately fif teen feet above mean low water, forming a regular coastline. In 1
0rlando Utilities Commission bought 6 percent of the St. Lucie plant, however, and it is anticipated that approximately 13 percent of the unit will eventually be sold (FPL,1980c; Scheer, personal communication,1981).
2 S nce Unit 1 actually went on-line 22 December 1976, its contribution to the nuclear portion of FPL's power output was very small in 1976.
3 From the Fort Pierce Inlet to the St. Lucie Inlet.
17
contrast, the Indian River intrudes on the low-lying swamp areas to form an irregular coastline pierced with creeks and inlets.
Prior to the nuclear plant's construction, the plant site was a relatively remote, sparsely populated area. In May 1972, when the Final Environmental Statement for Unit I was written, the nearest inhabited areas on the island were 7 miles to the north and 4.5 miles to the south of the plant site. Within the five-mile radius to the west of the site, across the Indian River on the mainland, were the unincorporated towns of Walton, Eden, and Ankona (located 1.3 miles directly across from the plant). The population within this five-mile radius, on both the island and the mainland, was 1,155 l persons. The midsection of the island, where the plant was sited, was accessible via AIA
- and served recreational uses such as swimming, sunbathing, picnicking, fishing, and hunting. (AEC,1973.)
i i
A water pipeline from the mainland to the island permitted the extension of the Fort Pierce city limits about two miles south of the Fort Pierce Inlet; however, this fresh water supply was insufficient for the entire island. Consequently, since wells produced only brackish water, the island remained sparsely populated. South of the nuclear plant, a water pipeline from Stuart permitted some development, limited primarily to winter
- tourism, including a couple of mobile home parks. Since the environmental statement was written, however, development of condominiums on the island has mushroomed, especially to the south of the plant.1 Presently over 1,000 condominium units exist in l Martin County; approximately 3,000 additional units have been approved (Banfi, personal I
communication,1981). St. Lucie County claims 8,356 condominium units includin'g those that have been approved rut are not yet constructed (Kelly, personal communication, 1
i 1981; Honkonen, personal communication,1981). The Sand Dollar Villas condominium l
l development in St. Lucie County is located one mile scuth of the nuclear plant's intake canal. Nevertheless, due to the absence of cooling towers and the use of Australian pines
, as a screen, the generating station becomes visible only at close range; thus the plant appears remote and unobtrusive to those on the island.
1 For a discussion of the increase in water availability for new development, see Chapter 6.
2 While the plant is unobtrusive to those on Hutchinson Island, it should be noted that it is unscreened along the Indian River and is thus clearly visible to those who live across from the plant along South Indian River Drive.
18
Despite the lack of fresh water, the plant site was residentially zoned until May 1968, when the St. Lucie County Commission created a new public utilities zoning classification in anticipation of FPL's purchase of the site for a nuclear generating station (Fort Pierce News Tribune,21 May 1968).
According to the Final Environmental Statement for Unit 1, the Hutchinson Island site was selected in 1968 because of its distance from population centers; its available, adequate land area; its natural characteristics, potential minimizers of adverse environmental impacts;l its proximity to the West Palm Beach load center; its access to navigable water; and its access to cooling waters, which would minimize environmental impacts. According to the environmental statement, other locations were ruled out for various reasons. Sites on the Gulf Coast of Florida were too far from the load center, and south Florida sites near the Florida Keys were more prone to hurricane damage as well as too far from the load center. East Coast sites from Port Salerno south to Coral Gables had dense populations. Inland sites were considered too costly due to the requirements to minimize damage to the fragile ecology of the Everglades. (AEC, 1973.) Because the site selection process was a matter of contention during the construction permit hearings on Unit 2, site selection will be discussed in detail in Chapter 9, which discusses the public response to the plant.
The nuclear plant is located on 1,131.7 acres adjacent to Big Mud Creek, an inlet off the Indian River. Of this area,388.3 acres are occupied by the plant and its ancillary facilities; 743.4 acres remain vacant and are presently unused. The majority of the plant site (944.8 acres) was purchased in 1968 for about $1.7 million from Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc., the Kiplingers Association, Inc., and members of the Kiplinger family. The remaining 186.9 acres, owned by eleven individuals or companies in parcels averaging about 14 acres, were purchased for a total of about $0.7 million dollars that same year.
(McQualg, personal communication,1980; Palm Beach Post,1968.)
/
1 Begun in the 1930s by the Works Progress Administration and continuing to the present, a mosquito control program flooded the midportion of the island with salt water, killing many of the mangroves and rendering the area an "almost biological desert" (AEC, 1973; Leskovjan, personal communication,1981).
l 19
2.4.2 The Plant The St. Lucie Nuclear Plant has two pressurized water reactors designed and fabricated by Combustion Engineering, Inc. Each unit has a rated capacity of 850 gross Mw (802 net Mw). The turbine-generators were supplied by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The plant is cooled by a once-through condenser cooling system with intake from and discharge into the Atlantic Ocean. Although the two units will not share the same condenser cooling system, they will share the intake and discharge canal and ocean piping systems. (AEC,1973 and 1974a.)
1 l
The construction of transmission lines to connect St. Lucie Unit I with FPL's system involved three separate, parallel, overhead 240 kV transmission lines,11.7 miles in length, connecting the St. Lucie switchyard to the system transmission grid at the St.
Lucie substation 12.5 miles from the plant. The three transmission lines comprise the Indian River crcssing sections, 2.1 miles in length, and the mainland overland sections, 9.6 miles in length. No additional transmission lines were constructed for Unit 2. (FPL, 1980a; AEC,1974a.) For the overland lines nearly 760 acres of right-of-way were acquired, with half to be used for the three transmission lines and half to be held for future expansion. In the residential area across the Indian River, the right-of-way is 1,200 feet wide, comprising 43 acres. The two homes acquired with the 43 acres of right-of-way are now leased from FPL. (AEC,1973; Leskovjan, personal communication, 1981.)
Ebasco Services was the prime contractor for both units and provided design, engineering, construction supervision, and procurement services.
2.5 Construction 2.5.1 Announcement In December 1967, FPL announced plans to build a second nuclear plant (in addition to Turkey Point), at an undetermined site (Fort Lauderdale News, 5 December 1967). Around this time, FPL decided to purchase land on Hutchinson Island for use as a power plant site for at least two generating units (Pearson,1977). By early February 1968, the Fort Pierce News Tribune leaked an unconfirmed report that a nuclear generating plant, expected to " provide an annual payrollin excess of $1 million" would be built by FPL in St. Lucie County (Fort Pierce News Tribune,4 February 1968). Further speculation developed when FPL requested the St. Lucie County Commissioners to rezone an area of property on Hutchinson Island from residential to industrial (Fort 20
Pierce News Tribune, 9 February 1968). Then on 21 February 1968, FPL announced in a press release that the company had obtained options to purchase approximately 1,200 acres of land on Hutchinson Island for a nuclear plant, stating, " Preliminary studies show that this area meets the major requirements for a plant site." The scheduled operation date was 1973. (FPL,1968a.) According to details provided later to the press, the plant was to cost $100 million for the first unit and a similar amount for a second unit under option. An estimated 500 construction workers would be employed at peak construction, with a total payroll of $12 million. The operating work force was to be an estimated 80 persons with an annual payroll of $850 thousand. (Coughlin,1968.) According to FPL, the proposed plant was "...part of a broad expansion program undertaken . . . to meet future power needs of Florida." (Miami Herald,2 May 1968).
In November 1972, FPL announced in a press release that it planned to add a second unit to the St. Lucie plant, scheduled for commercial operation in 1979 (FPL, 1972).
2.5.2 Schedule and Cost In April 1969, the construction of St. Lucie Unit 1 began by building a perimeter road around the plant site, by excavating all the organic material beneath the plant site to 60 feet below mean low water and refilling it with dense dirt, by dredging Big Mud Creek to permit barge access, and by extending a water pipeline from Fort Pierce to provide fresh water to the plant site (Van Brunt, 1969; Leskovjan, personal communication, 1981). Unit I was completed and went into commercial operation in Decembar 1976, approximately three and one-half years af ter the original estimate of May 1973 (Chilson, personal communication, 1981; Van Brunt, 1969). The delay in meeting the construction schedule was attributed to permit delays, materials shortages, design changes, adverse weather conditions, labor difficulties, and shortages of certain skilled crafts workers such as electricians and welders. In addition, some construction components took longer than anticipated. (FPL,1973b and 1975.)
Preliminary construction on Unit 2 began in June 1976 under a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) issued by the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) in March 1975, with a projected completion date of 1979 However, licensing delays caused the 21
construction schedule to slip.I (Pearson, 1977; Leskovjan, personal communication, 1981.) Completion of Unit 2 is now anticipated for mid-1983, four years later than the I
original estimate (FPL,1980a; Pearson,1977).
The state site certification required by the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act of 1973 delayed Unit 2's license. Application for site certification was submitted to the Florida Department of Pollution Control (DPC) on 24 January 1974. Approximately twenty-eight months later-although the act specifies that an application be decided upon within fourteen months of submission-certification was granted. This delay occurred both because the DPC failed to act in a timely manner and because, in December 1975, the governor and the cabinet denied certification since radiological health and safety issues had not been considered in the certification hearings. FPL argued that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 pre-empted state consideration of such issues; nevertheless, additional hearings on radiological health and safety were conducted in February 1976, and certification given on 18 May 1976. Thus, construction was delayed for fourteen months between issuance of the LWA in March 1975 and state site certification. (Pearson,1977.)
Following state certification, preliminary construction began and continued until interveners filed a successful petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals, which stayed the LWA, effective 8 November 1976. Consequently, the construction of Unit 2 was successfully halted by interveners for approximately nine months (until July 1977)2 following the dissolution of the stay of the LWA and the issuance of the full construction permit, both in May 1977. (Pearson,1977.)
l Total construction costs of the two units has been approximately $1.1 billion to date, five times the original estimate of $225 million. The total cost of Unit I was $474 million; the cost of Unit 2 to date is $667 million3 (FPL,1976; U.S. Department of Energy,1981; Peacon, personal communication,1981). The projected total cost for i
I Moreover, an overly-optimistic initial construction schedule resulted from limited experience in the construction of nuclear plants (Leskovjan, personal communication,1981).
Z Remobilization of the work force began in June 1977.
3 As of 31 January 1981.
22
Unit 2 is now $1.1 billion (FPL,1980c). The increased cost of constructing the two units has been attributed to design modifications, changes in regulatory requirements, changes in industry standards, licensing delays, inflation, changes in interest rates, and labor problems (Spencer,1975; Pearson,1977).
2.5.3 Construction Work Force The construction of St. Lucie Unit 1 took place between April 1969 and December 1976. Construction of Unit 2 began in June 1976 and is still in progress. As shown in Table 2-1 and Figure 2-3, the average annual size of the construction work force increased steadily from about 140 workers in 1969 to about 1,840 workers (average annual) in 1974, the peak construction year for Unit 1, when construction was approximately 80 percent complete (AEC,1974c). When viewed on a weekly basis, the construction work force on Unit 1 peaked during the week of 26 May 1974, with almost 2,000 workers, declining to about 820 in 1976, as work on Unit 1 concluded and work on Unit 2 commenced. Despite the fact that the commencement of Unit 2 construction coincided with the conclusion of work on Unit 1, the average annual work force dropped only to about 360 workers in 1977, due to the seven-month, Limited Work Authorization stay from November 1976 to May 1977.I The average annual work force rose again in 1978 to almost 1,000 persons. At present, work on Unit 2 is at its peak, with an estimated 2,700 workers; approximately 60 percent of the plant had been completed as of 31 December 1980 (Escue, personal communication, 1981; Matthews, personal communication, 1981; U.S. Dept. of Energy,1981). The Unit 2 work force size is expected to remain at this level until the early part of 1982 and then begin to decline as construction concludes (Matthews, personal communication, 1981; Escue, personal communication,1981).
The St. Lucie project employed only union workers. Ebasco Services, the prime contractor and construction manager,2 hired through the union halls in West Palm Beach, Fort Pierce, Vero Beach, and Fort Lauderdale (Escue, personal communication,1981). To keep construction work on schedule, double shifting was used after mid-1972, although I Work was not resumed until about July 1977.
I In December 1976, many Ebasco supervisory positions were integrated with FPL. While Ebasco is still considered the prime contractor, FPL is the construction manager, assisted by Ebasco Services.
23
TABLE 2-1 AVERAGE ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION WORK FORCE ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 1969-1978 Year Average Annual Employment 1969 138" 1970 163a 1971 472" 1972 904 1973 1,592 1,838 1974 1975 1,603 1976 816 1977 363 1978 997
" Estimated work force. Prior to 1972, work was subcontracted by Ebasco; thus no accurate records are available.
Sources: Ebasco Services, Inc., 1972-1978, weekly Labor Force Report, St. Lucie Plant Units 1 and 2; Ebasco Services, Inc; 1976, Daily Force Report Month End; Matthews, Administrative Office Manager, Ebasco Services, personal communication, 1981.
l l
i l
l 24
8 7
,9 1
, 7 8 ,7 7 9 9 1 1
9 6
9 1
6 7
E 9 C 1
- R O
F K
R 5
,7 O 9 WT 1 N N OAL I
T P 4 R C 7 A U R 9 E RA E 1
Y T
S L N C OU 3 C N 7 L E I
,9 1
AC UU N L N T .
A S 2 7
E ,9 G 1 A
R E
V A 1 7
3 ,9 1
2 E
R U 0 G ,7 I
F 9 1
9 6
- - - - - 9 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 8 4 2 1 1 S
R E
K R
O W
o*
the second shif t was much smaller than the first (Ebasco Services, 1972-1978; Escue, personal communication,1981). Overtime was used only when necessary to maintain construction schedules. Moreover, no incentives were used to attract workers, since there were no other large projects competing for workers at that time and since Florida's weather conditions and coastal amenities tended to be incentives themselves (Escue, personal communication,1981).
2.5.4 Construction Experience No major labor problems marked the construction of the St. Lucie plant during the 1969-1978 period. During peak construction years (1973-1976), only about 37,750 person-hours (or 0.2 percent of total personhours) were lost in a total of thirteen disputes. Most of these work stoppages concerned jurisdictional disputes and contract negotiations, and all were resolved relatively quickly. Of the estimated 19,137,000 person hniira axpended in the construction of the St. Lucie plant during the study period, less than 0.5 percent (or about 82,280 personhours) were lost due to work stoppages. This relatively good record is attributed to the lack of other major union projects competing for workers in the area and to the good weather, which attracted workers to the area and thus created competition for jobs. (Ebasco Services, 1972-1978; Escue, personal communication,1981; Matthews, personal communication,1981.)
2.6 Operations 2.6.1 Schedule and Cost Commercial operation of Unit I began on 22 December 1976. In 1977, the first full year of commercial operation, Unit l's annual operating cost was approximately $17 million, with nuclear fuel constituting about 56 percent of the cost. By 1980, however, the cost of nuclear fuel had risen by 236 percent and constituted 66 percent of the total operation cost of over $48 million. (Chilson, personal communication,1981; FPL,1976-1980.) The annual operating costs during these years is shown in Table 2-2.
26
TABLE 2-2 ,
l ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTEN ANCE COSTS ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 1976-1980 Operation and Year Maintenance Nuclear Fuel TOTAL 19768 $3,248,804 $1,076,887 $4,325,691 7,528,648 9,486,785 17,015,433 1977 15,813,867 11,080,782 26,894,649 1978 14,391,806 16,047,571 30,439,377 1979 16,379,535 31,866,493 48,246,028 1980
" Testing of the unit began in May 1976.
Source: FPL,1976-1980, " Nuclear Power Production Expenses and Statistics, St.
Lucie Plant."
27
2.6.2 Operations Work Force Although commercial operation of Unit 1 did not begin until December 1976, operations personnel were first assigned to the St. Lucie plant in 1973. As Table 2-3 shows, the average annual operations work force at St. Lucie increased steadily from 100 persons in 1974 to 175 persons in 1976 (when commercial operation began) to about 380 persons in 1980, due to an increase in the number of FPL employees until 1978 (when the FPL work force stabilized) and an increase in the number of security personnel in 1979, primarily resulting from new NRC requirements. The operations work force consisted primarily of FPL employees (supervisory personnel, operators, engineers, clerical workers, and maintenance workers) and the security work force, contracted to Wackenhut Corporation. (Ruby, personal communication,1981; FPL,1978b.)
Refueling periods required temporary labor in addition to the regular operations, maintenance, and security work force. The first refueling took place in March 1978, two years af ter commercial operation began. This outage lasted 65 days and required about 300 subcontracted workers,100 of which were already on site for backfitting operations, in addition to about 180 FPL employees,130 of which were already on site. The second and third annual refuelings, requiring approximately the same number of subcontracted workers and FPL employees lasted 68 days and 56 days, respectively. Since the third refueling, the unit has shifted to an eighteen-month refueling cycle. (Chilson, personal communication,1981; Ruby, personal communication,1981; FPL,1977-1980.)
2.6.3 Operating Phase Experience St. Lucie Unit I was licensed for commercial ope ration on 1 March 1976; initial criticality was reached on 22 April 1976, and initial electricity (for testing) was generated on 7 May 1976. However, on 17 June 1976 it was restricted by the NRC (by recommendation of FPL) to 90 percent of its capacity pending an analysis of the reactor coolant flow I (Chilson, personal communication,1981; FPL,1977b). On 26 July 1976, during the test period, the reactor was shut down to inspect the fuel assemblies. The
( burnable poisen rods were replaced, and criticality was restarted on 4 December 1976.
On 22 December 1976, commercial operation began, but the plant did not reach 100 l
l 1
Because friction loss turned out to be greater than the design value, a safety analysis was required for coolant flow through the core that was less than had been anticipated (Chilson, personal communication,1981).
28
TABLE 2-3 AVERAGE ANNUAL OPERATIONS WORK FORCE ST. LUCIE UNIT 1 1973-1980 Year Average Annual Employment 1973" 15 1974 100 1975 150 1976 175 1977 263 D 1978 336c 1979 406 d 8
1980 378
" Operations workers were first assigned to the plant site in 1973, although commercial operation did not begin until 1976.
bIncludes 215 FPL operators, maintenance, and supervisory personnel plus 48 subcontracted security workers.
C Includes 235 FPL personnel plus 56 subcontracted security workers and approximately 250 temporary refueling workers (200 subcontracted and 50 FPL employees) on site for 65 days (45 average annual workers).
d Includes 256 FPL personnel plus 103 subcontracted security workers and approximately 250 temporary refueling workers (200 subcontracted and 50 FPL employees) on site for 68 days (47 average annual workers).
" Includes 237 FPL personnel plus 103 subcontracted security workers and approximately 250 temporary refueling workers (200 subcontracted and 50 FPL employees) on site for 56 days (38 average annual workers).
Sources: Ruby, personal communication,1981; FPL,1978b, personnel roster.
29
l t I percent generating capacity until 20 February 1977, two days after the 90 percent restriction was lifted. (Chilson, personal communicat8.on,1980.)
i The operating experience of St. Lucie Unit I has been relatively good, with few unscheduled outages (FPL, 1977-1978; FPL,1979-1981). Those problems that received the most press coverage during the study period occurred in early April 1977, three menths after the reactor went into commercial operation. On 3 April 1977, a hydrogen leak in the generator ignited; however, the fire was extinguished within an hour and a half. The unit was shut down to investigate possible damage to the electrical system.
While operators drained the cooling water from the system into the storage tank, operator error caused the refueling water tank to overfill. Approximately 3,800 gallons of radioactive water spilled into a storm drainage system on the site and then into the settling pond, normally used to collect yard wastes and chemicals. The drainage system
! and settling pond were outside the Radiation Controlled Area but on the plant grounds.
Immediate implementation of radiological contrds orevented contamination from spreading beyond the initially affected areas; no siraficant radiation exposure problems occurred, according to the utility. (Harris and W< ils,1977; FPL,1977b.) Only eight days after this shutdown, the unit was again on-line (Leskovjan, personal communication, 1
1981).
l On 2 October 1977, during a scheduled outage, coolant water overflowed the primary system into the containment building sump. According to FPL, no personnel I
were subjected to abnormal radiation exposures nor was the public health endangered since the water was contained. The plant suffered no damage, and additional procedures were instituted to avoid a similar recurrence. What effect, if any, the cleanup operations had on the restart date has not been estimated (Leskovjan, personal communication,1981; Ruby, personal communication,1981).
The St. Lucie plant's solid operating record is reflected in its annual capacity factors. St. Lucie's capacity factors, as shown in Table 2-4, have been much higher than than the national average since 1977, its first full operating year.
l 1
1 30
. . . -._- __ _ _ _ _ _ -- _ = _ ..
1 i
TABLE 2-4 ANNUAL NUCLEAR PLANT CAPACITY FACTORS ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 1977-1979 Capacity Factor Average for Year St. Lucie All U.S. Plants 1977 77.3 62.0 1978 72.2 61.7 1979 67.9 52.4 Source: Nucleonics Week, 2 February 1978, 25 January 1979, and 20 December 1979.
a 31
The availability figures on Unit I further underscore the operating achievement of the plant. In 1977, the reactor was available 88.3 percent of the time; in 1978, the year of the first refueling, availability dropped to 78.8 percent; the 1979 and 1980 additional refuelings slightly lowered availability to 76.9 percent and 78.7 percent, respectively.
However, average availability for the 1976-1980 period has been 80.8 percent. (Chilson, personal communication,1981.)
2.7 Taxes In Florida, real property is assessed by the county, based on what is called the "just value," a term synonomous with the fair market value. However, a business which owns personal property estimates the value of that property by determining its " taxable value," which takes into account depreciation and tax exemptions (such as pollution control devices) and submits the estimate for county approval.
There were numerous taxing jurisdictions in St. Lucie County, and the millage rate levied against the total taxable value of the real and personal property varied geographically depending upon the property's location. The St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, in taxing jurisdiction No. 32, paid taxes to seven authorities: the County General Fund, the St. Lucie County School Board, the Port and Airport, Erosion District B, the Mosquito Control District, the St. Lucie County-Fort Pierce Fire District, and the Flood Control District. (Bonham, personal communication,1981; Bass, personal communication,1981.)
Since business-owned personal property such as the St. Lucie plant's generators, reactors, and permanent structures is untaxed until utilized, the utility paid taxes only on real property (land, temporary facilities, and offices used during construction) and certain personal property (construction equipment) until Unit I went on-line (Bonham, personal communication,1981). Table Z-5 shows the total taxable value and property taxes paid on the St. Lucie plant to St. Lucie County from 1970 to 1980.
2.8 Corporate / Community Programs 2.8.1 Emergency Planning FPL's emergency plan for the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant was established in March 1974 (Kingsbury, personal communication,1981). In planning for hurricane emergencies, the State of Florida has developed one of the best disaster preparedness systems. The St.
Lucie plant emergency plan not only incorporates Florida's emergency plan, it also l
l l
32 1
TABLE 2-5 TOTAL ASSESSED TAXABLE VALUE AND TAX PAYMENTS ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 FY 1969-1970 through FY 1979-1980 (Current Dollars)
Fiscal Year Assessed Taxable Value Tax Paymenta 1969-70 $2,206,120 $50,491 1970-71 2,206,120 46,849 1971-72 2,248,660 46,992 1972-73 2,332,910 48,632 1973-74 5,648,410 91,899 1974-75 6,301,260 98,136 l
1975-76 7,024,640 102,678 1976-77 6,723,640 100,758 1977-78 279,849,090 3,723,840 1978-79 301,036,940 4,023,539 1979-80 $301,931,370 $3,707,445 aIncludes payments to school district, fire district, and flood control district.
Source: Bass, personal communication,1981.
I 33
includes a comprehensive Radiation Emergency Evaluation Facility medical response program. (Kingsbury, personal communication,1981; Johnson, personal communication, 1981.)
The initial 1974 plan describes the emergency response agreement between FPL and REEF Associates, Inc., a group of physicians, scientists, and technicians who have developed a Radiation Emergency Evaluation Facility (REEF) at the Division of Nuclear Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Miami Beach. REEF has agreed to provide medical assistance to FPL employees and to the general public in case of actual, alleged, or suspected radiation exposure or contamination resulting from a radiation incident at the St. Lucie plant. Interim facilities are located at the Lawnwood Medical Center in Fort Pierce. (REEF Associates,1978.) The Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinic of the University of Florida in Gainesville and the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center / Training Site (REAC/TS) program of the Oak Ridge Associated Universities for treatment of seriously irradiated persons have offered additional support. (Florida Board of Regents,1977; Kingsbu y, personal communication,1981.)
The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is authorized to evaluate matters regarding public health and radioactive materials and to take necessary actions to mitigate threats to public safety. The department, under the authority of the State of Florida Radiological Emergency Plan, will assess the impact of radiological incidents in off-site areas; will coordinate emergency plans, such as designating regional exclusion zones; and will train local and state personnel about health hazards and emergency responses to radiological accidents. (Pijawka,1979b; Florida D'ept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services,1977.) The department has maintained a Mobile Emergency Radiological Laboratory in Orlando, funded since 1977 by FPL and Florida Power I
Corporation (Kingsbury, personal communication,1981).
l l
Emergency agreements have also been made with the Florida Highway Patrol, the U.S. Coast Guard, the St. Lucie County-Fort Pierce Fire District, the St. Lucie County l Sheriff's Department, the St. Lucie County Office of Disaster Preparedness, and the l Martin County Sheriff's Department (Florida Highway Patrol, 1977; U.S. Dept. of l
Transportation, Coast Guard,1977; St. Lucie County-Fort Pierce Fire District,1978; St.
l Lucie County Sheriff's Department, 1976; Martin County Sheriff's Department, 1976; Rodi, personal communication,1981).
34
Other than periodic revisions to enhance communications with local officials I through the purchase of equipment and to incorporate the Mobile Emergency Radiological Laboratory in 1977, no substantial changes in the overall plan were made until the post-TMI emergency regulations (NUREG - 0654 - FEMA - REP -1, rev.1) were issued by the NRC. To comply with these regulations, a new emergency plan was adopted by FPL in April 1981 and revised in July 1981. This plan defines a 10-mile emergency planning zone (EPZ) and includes a public education and information program, an emergency alert and notification system, and an off-site emergency operating facility. (Kingsbury, personal communication,1981; Johnson, personal communication, 1981.)
2.8.2 Visitors' Center Because of the cost involved, no visitors' center was constructed at the St. Lucie plant. A model of the plant is on display at the FPL district office in Fort Pierce. Tours are conducted through St. Lucie Unit 2 while under construction, but will cease once the unit is in operation. (Scheer, personal communication,1981.) However, tentative plans exist to use the off-site emergency center (required under post-TMI emergency regulations) as a vistors' center and as a facility for community functions (Scheer, personal communication,1981; Schindehette, personal communication,1981).
2.8.3 Other Public Relations When St. Lucie Unit I was first announced, FPL planned to create a two-mile public beach and park, with nature trails and picnic facilities, similar to its facilities at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant (Scheer, personal communication,1981; Fort Pierce' News Tribune, 22 March 1968). However, subsequent to this plan, the NRC essentially banned parks within the buffer zone; thus, although people were permitted to walk along the beach, no formal facility was created (Scheer, personal communication,1981).
Because a speaker's bureau, coordinated by FPL headquarters in Miami, operates out of each district office in the FPL system, no separate speaker's bureau has been developed for the St. Lucie plant. The district offices in Fort Pierce and Stuart provide speakers and informational slide presentations on the nuclear plant for community groups. (Scheer, personal communication,1981; Schindehette, personal communication, 1981; Van Curen, personal communication,1981.)
35
Z.9 Chronolony of Major Events Table 2-6 outlines the major milestones in the construction of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant from the formal announcement of the plant in 1968 to 1977.
{
1 36
1 TABLE 2-6 CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS Date Event 5 December 1967 FPL announces it will build a second nuclear plant at an undisclosed site.
21 February 1968 The Hutchinson Island Plant Unit 1 (later named St. Lucie Unit 1) is announced.
- January 1969 FPL files an application with the AEC for a construction permit for Unit 1.
17 April 1969 Site preparation for Unit 1 begins.
12-13 May 1970 Public hearing on the construction permit for Unit 1 is held in Fort Pierce.
1 July 1970 AEC issues construction permit for Unit 1.
10 November 1972 FPL announces Unit 2.
14 May 1973 FPL files an application with the AEC for a construction permit for Unit 2.
24 January 1974 FPL files an application with the Florida Department of Pollution Control for state site certification of Unit 2.
16 Oct.-19 Nov.1974 Public hearings' are held by the AEC on the construction permit for Unit 2.
17 March 1975 Limited Work Authorization for Unit 2 is issued by the AEC.
16 June 1975 State Site Certification hearing begins on Unit 2. Radiological issues are excluded.
23-25 February 1976 Second State Site Certification hearing on Unit 2 held to consider radiological issues.
1 March 1976 Operating License for Unit 1 is issued by the AEC.
22 April 1976 Initial criticality for Unit 1 is reached.
18 May 1976 State Site Certification for Unit 2 is granted.
37
TABLE 2-6 (continued)
CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS Date Event 4 June 1976 Construction on Unit 2 begins.
26 July 1976 Unit 1 is shut down to replace poisen rods.
21 October 1976 LWA for Unit 2 is stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, effective 8 November 1976.
4 December 1976 Criticality for Unit 1 is restarted.
22 December 1976 Unit 1 begins commercial operation.
3 May 1977 Construction permit for Unit 2 is issued by the AEC.
12 May 1977 Stay of LWA for Unit 2 is dissolved by the U.S.
Court of Appeals.
- July 1977 Construction on Unit 2 resumes.
~
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Energy,3 November 1976 and 2 February 1981, Quarterly Progress Reports, Unit I and Unit 2; Vernon T. Chilson, Power Resources Specialist, FPL, personal communication, 1981; U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1970b, Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit, Docket No. 50-335; Orin Pearson,1977, St. Lucie Unit 2 Licensing History; FPL,1972 and 1968b, press releases; Edwin E. Van Brunt, Jr., August 1969, "The Hutchinson Island Plant," Ebasco News; Fort Lauderdale News, 5 December 1967; David Pijawka,1979b, St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Preliminary Site Visit Report.
38
~
CHAP'ITR 3: IDENTIFICATION OF THE STUDY AREA l
3.1 Introduction This chapter provides a transition between the focus on the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant itself and the focus on the socioeconomic effects caused by the project presented in the remaining chapters. As such, it has two principal purposes. The first is to describe the region near the St. Lucie plant and the distribution of direct project effects-jobs, workers, purchases, and tax payments-within that region. The second is to identify the study area within which the consequences of the direct project effects will be studied in detail.
The identification and selection of the study area are important to the overall case study methodology. Within the region, the urban areas and counties that received appreciable direct project effects were identified. Based on a consideration of the relationships between these units, aggregates were formed, and the distribution of jobs, workers, purchases, and tax payments among those aggregate units was determined. The pattern of distribution of direct project effects was then examined to identify those in which the greatest intensity of direct projects effects had occurred.
Based on the intensity of direct project effects and the relationships among the aggregate units, alternative study areas were considered. One was then selected to serve as the unit for analysis of the economic, demographic, housing, governmental, and social structure effects of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
3.2 The Region 3.2.1 Description of the Region The preliminary site visit examined a two-county region, as shown in Figure 3-1 (Pij awka, 1979b). The region comprises St. Lucie County, where the nuclear plant is located, and adjacent Martin County. The two-county region extends along Florida's Atlantic coast about midway between Miami and Cape Canaveral. The St. Lucie Nuclear Plant is located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, near the St. Lucie County-Martin County line.
The study region has experienced population growth rates that have generally outstripped those of the State of Florida (3.2 percent between 1960 and 1970 and about 3.5 percent from 1970 to 1979). Between 1960 and 1970, Martin Couuty's population 39
FIGURE 31. STUDY REGION: ST. LUCIE AND MARTIN COUNTIES, FLORIDA t
0 i State Parkway Fort Fort Pierce inlet Pierce.
03 ST. LUCIE COUNTY .
, S.T. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT Port St. Lucie!
A1A County Line i d
St. Lucie inlet St. Lucie River; +$.
tuart :i 1
MARTIN COUNTY I
Urban Area 0 5 to 15 20 h N
Miles f
l 40
grew at an average annual rate of 5.2 percent, from 16,932 persons to 28,035 persons.
This growth rate almost doubled (10.2 percent) over the next five years: by 1975, the population had reached 45,500 persons.I (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1971 and 1978.)
According to the University of Florida, the growth rate slowed between 1975 and 1975 to 4.7 percent to reach a population of 57,380 (University of Florida,1980). Nevertheless, between 1970 and 1979, Martin County was ranked as the fif th fastest growing county in the state (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979).
St. Lucie County's growth rates have been less dramatic than those of Martin County. Between 1960 and 1970, the population increased at an average annual rate of 2.6 percent, from 39,294 persons to 50,836 persons. By 1975, the population had grown to f 67,400 persons,2 an average annual rate of increase of 5.8 percent. (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1971 and 1978.) The University of Florida estimated that by 1979 the population had reached 82,439 persons, an average annual rate of increase of 4.5 percent (University of Florida,1980). The population of St. Lucie County is expected to continue to grow at a slightly slower rate than Martin County through the 1980s (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979).
l l
The population density of the region has always been below that of the State of Florida. In 1974, it was 81.1 persons per square mile in Martin County and 114.8 persons per square mile in St. Lucie County, compared to 152.5 persons per square mile for the state. However, 90 percent of the population is concentrated within 8 percent of the land area, in a strip paralleling the coastline. Consequently, the population density of the coastal area is much higher. (University of Florida,1975; Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979.)
i Despite this concentration, the population of the study region is increasingly locating outside incorporated areas. About 40 percent lived in incorporated areas in i
1979, compared to an estimated 46 percent in 1970. Martin County's incorporated population is decidedly smaller than St. Lucie County's. In both 1970 and 1979, less than 1
The 1975 estimate by the University of Florida is 47,726 (University of Florida, 1976).
2 The University of Florida estimated the 1975 population at 69,079 (Unifersity of Florida,1976).
41
22 percent lived in incorporated areas in Martin County. This trend places pressure on county governments to provide services and facilities that are traditionally the responsibility of municipal governments. (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 1979.)
In both counties, population growth has resulted primarily from in-migration, rather than from natural increase. Martin County, which has a large population over the age of 65 (an estimated 25 percent in 1979), actually recorded a population loss when comparing births to deaths and received all of its growth from in-migration. Even St.
Lucie County, with a younger population, received 90 percent of its growth through in-migration. (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979.)
Agriculture was instrumental in the development of the region's economy and has remained an important economic sector, although less important in Martin County. In both counties, the primary agricultural activities have been cattle and citrus, especially citrus. In fact, St. Lucie County produces the third largest dollar volume of citrus in the
\
state (St. Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee,1977). In St. Lucie County, agriculture is also related to other important sectors. The major portion of the county's industrial employers is composed of citrus packing houses, vegetable canneries, juice processing plants, shipping, and fertilizer and pesticide plants. Approximately half of all manufacturing workers in 1972 were employed by firms processing " food and kindred products" (St. Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee,1977).
Since the mid-1950s, however, the importance of agriculture in the region has declined somewhat, while the wholesale and retail trade and the services sectors have increased in importance. By the mid-1970s, the popularity of Stuart in Martin County as I
a boating and fishing resort increased; consequently, the services sector became the county's most important economic contributor. (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 1979.) Despite Stuart's resort character, however, manufacturing is also an important sector. Stuart is home to one of the largest industrial employers in the area, Grumman Aerospace Corporation.
3.2.2 ,Identificat, ion of Pla e_s wit,hin the Region Based on preliminary information regarding area characteristics and the distribution of direct project effects, two subcounty areas within St. Lucie County were 42
examined: Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. Table 3-1 shows the population trends for the two municipalities.
3.2.2.1 Fort Pierce Fort Pierce is the county seat and for many years was the only city of note in St.
Lucie County. It serves as a trade center for a four-county region, including St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, and Okeechobee counties, making the trade sector the most important in the county. Moreover, employment in light manufacturing firms (principally in metal fabrication, plastic pipe, and concrete products), citrus packing and juice processing firms, freighting companies, and the construction trades, have given Fort Pierce the image of a blue collar town. Despite this blue collar image, agriculture (mainly citrus) employs more people in Fort Pierce than any other industry (Planning / Design Group,1975b).
Fort Pierce has also served as the transportation center for the region. While the Port of Fort Pierce, a deep water port on the Atlantic Ocean and the Intracoastal Waterway, has declined in importance since the 1930s, it is still important for citrus export to Japan and Europe. Indeed, it is Florida's only point of citrus export equipped with precooling facilities, operated by the Indian River Refrigeration Terminal Company. The port is served by spur tracks of the Florida East Coast Railway Company, which provides freight service to Jacksonville and Miami. No passenaer service is available, hc, wever. (St. Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee,1977.)
In 1970, about 49 percent of the total population of 29,721 was black (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1973). The black population is concentrated in the northern section of town which, while poor and generally run down, has undergone considerable improvement in the last several years (Brown, personal communication, 1981; Fenn, personal communication,1981). By 1978, the population of Fort Pierce had grown to only 32,633 persons. This annual rate of growth of 1.2 percent is the lowest of the three major population centers in the study region (University of Florida,1979). Furthermore, as shown in Table 3-1, there was actually a slight population decline from the 1974 estimate of 32,788 persons (University of Florida,1975). It was the general consensus of planners and administrators that the proportion of blacks in the population had also declined slightly since 1970 (Moore, personal communication, 1981; Fenn, personal communication,1981).
I 43
i i
l TABLE 3-1 POPULATION TRENDS ST. LUCIE COUNTY l
1970,1974,1978 St. Lucie County 1970 1974 8 1978a Ft. Pierce 29,721 32,788 32,633 Port St. Lucie 330 2,860 6,778 St. Lucie Village 428 622 551 (
Unincorporated areas 20,357 30,764 37,515 TOTAL 50,836 67,034 77,477
- Estimate.
Sources:
University Florida Statistical of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research,1971, Abstract, 1971; University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Businee Research,1975, Florida Statistical Abstract,1975; University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research,1979, Florida Statistical Abstract 1979.
l l
(
44
3.2.2.2 Port St. Lucie Port St. Lucie in located about halfway between Fort Pierce and Stuart clong U.S.1. One of the fastest-growing cities in Florida, Port St. Lucie was developed entirely by General Development Corporation, which incorporated the city in 1961. (City of Port St. Lucie, n.d.) The estimated 1977 population was 4,820 persons. This figure represented an annual average growth rate of 48.7 percent since the 1970 population was only 330 persons. Indeed, most of this growth took place between 1970 and 1973, when the population grew to 2,216, an annual average growth rate of 88.7 percent. (U.S.
Bureau of the Census,1977 and 1979.) According to preliminary census results, the population of Port St. Lucie reached 14,737 persons by 1980, representing a 45.1 percent annual growth rate since 1977 (Crane, personal communication,1981). Port St. Lucie is primarily a residential community composed of affluent professionals and retirees.
3.3 Distribution of Direct Project Effects within the Region In this section, the distribution of the direct project effects-direct basic employment,I direct basic workers, utility purchases, and tax payments for the St.
Lucie project-is described for the year of peck construction (1974) and an operating year (1978). The aggregate incidence of direct project effects and the pattern over time were principal components in the determination of the intensity of direct project effects and the identification of the study area.
3.3.1 Distribution of Direct Basic Employment by Place of Work,1974 and 1978 Since the project site and all direct project work were located in St. Lucie County, all direct basic employment occurred within the jurisdictional boundaries of St.
Lucie County in both 1974 and 1978. In 1974, the annual average employment at the project was 1,938;3 in 1978, it was 1,333.4 (Ebasco Services,1974 and 1978; Ruby, personal communication,1981.)
1 Direct basic employment is the employment on the project itself. In this discussion, the focus is on the location of the job measured at the place of work.
2 Direct basic workers are workers employed on the project itself. See Chapter 4 for a more complete discussion.
3 Includes approximately 100 operations workers.
4 Includes 997 construction workers on Unit Z and 336 operations workers.
45
t l
3.3.Z Distribution of Direct Basic Workers by Placo cf Residenew 1974 and 1978 The principal purpose of allocating workers to the local areas is to determine the size of the effects relative to the size of the areas in which they occurred. Employment and income associated with the project are considered to be both important effects in i themselves and the cause of secondary effects.
Although there was no survey of the work force at the St. Lucie site to document the spatial distribution of workers, utility records and interviews (with utility construction managers, business agents of the union locals, and real estate agents) enabled allocation of the workers to the study region for 1974 and 1978.
l Table 3-2 shows the number of direct basic workers residing in St. Lucie and Martin counties. In 1974, almost 40 percent of the work force were long distance daily commuters, primarily from West Palm Beach. Another 40 percent resided in St. Lucie County, and the remainder resided in Martin County. In 1978, the distribution pattern remained relatively the same, with a slightly higher percentage residing in St. Lucie
- County.
Several factors were particularly influential in the distribution of workers. About
[
one-third of the manual work force worked out of union locals in Fort Pierce;I of these, two-thirds resided in St. Lucie County and one-third in Martin County. The majority of the union locals, however, were in West Palm Beach. Consequently, about half of the manual work force was from Palm Beach County. Because West Palm Beach is within easy commuting distance, most of these workers commuted daily, although a small number lived near the plant site during the week and returned home on the weekend. A small percentage of the manual work force commuted from Indian River County, and the rest moved in from outside the region. Additionally, most of the nonmanual work force and the FPL operations workers on site moved in from oittside the area.
1 The residential patterns of those workers whc moved in were split fairly evenly between St. Lucie and Martin counties, with about 60 percent residing in St. Lucie County because of greater housing availability in Port St. Lucie and its better investment value for those buying homes. <
1 These were the ironworkers', carpenters', and painters' unions. Additionally, many of the laborers were from the local area, even though the union local was in West Palm Beach.
46
l l
TABLE 3-2 DIRECT BASIC WORKERS BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT l 1974 and 1978 l
1978 b
Origin 1974" St. Lucie County 750 551 Martin County 436 332 Long Distance Daily i Commuters 752 450 TOTAL 1,938 1,333
" Includes 1,838 construction workers and 100 operations workers.
hcludes 997 construction workers,235 FPL personnel, 56 subcontracted security workers, 200 additional subcontracted workers for refueling and repairs (36 average annual), and 50 itinerate FPL employees for refueling and repairs (9 average annual).
Source: Mountain West Research, Inc. (Based on FPL records and personal communications with FPL personnel, Ebasco personnel, business managers of union locals, realtors, and other key informants.)
47
3.3.3 Distribution of E ty Purchases Although both the largest purchases and the greater proportion of all purchases for the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant were made outside the study region, a cumulative total of over $21.4 million in purchases was made in St. Lucie and Martin counties as of 31 January 1981.1 As shown in Table 3-3, the vast majority of local purchases were made in Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County: as of 31 January 1981, approximately $20 million in goods and services (or 92.1 percent of all local purchases) had been purchased in Fort Pierce. These purchases were primarily for stock goods such as lumber, fabricated metal, electrical supplies, small tools, cement, office supplies, equipment rental, chemicals, and gasoline; also for services such as machine vehicle repairs and engineering services. (Matthews, personal communication,1981.) When compared with the local purchases made for the other nuclear plants examined in this research project, $20 million is a significant amount to have been spent on purchases in the local area. Moreover, interviews with area suppliers indicated that a number of new jobs were created in Fort Pierce to handle the business generated by the St. Lucie plant. Based on these two considerations, the distribution of utility purchases made in ,
the local area was determined to be an important criterion for the selection of the study area.
3.3.4 Distribution of Taxes,1975 and 1978 Florida Power & Light Company paid property taxes on the St. Lucie plant to a number of taxing authorities within St. Lucie County,2 and sales and use taxes were paid on purchases of equipment and materials to the State of Florida. Table 3-4 shows the distribution of taxes to jurisdictions in FY1973-1974 and FY1977-1978.
In FY1973-1974, taxes on the St. Lucie facility totaled $800 thousand. Of this total, the sales and use taxes accounted for $709 thousand. Additionally, property taxes amounted to $92 thousand.3 The recipients of the largest property tax receipts were the 1
No breakdown of purchases by year was available.
Z The plant is located outside any corporate city limits.
3 In Florida, property taxes are levied on real property and personal property that is being utilized. Thus, in FY1973-1974, since Unit I was still under construction, l property tax was levied only on real property (land and temporary facilities and offices used in construction) and certain personal property (construction equipment). (Bonham, personal communication,1981.)
48 i
[ _ _ _ _ _ .
TABLE 3-3 UTILITY PURCHASES FOR PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION" 1969-1980 (Current Dollars)
}
l Place of Purchase Value of Purchases Purchases Within Study Region Fort Pierce $19,687,017 Stuart 1,684,767 Purchases Outside Study Region 609,068,496 l TOTAL PURCHASES b $630,440,280 l
"The sum of all purchases over $1,000 made by Ebasco Services,Inc.
b Does not include purchases out of Florida Power & Light Company General Office in Miami, such as the turbines and generators.
Source: Earl Matthews, Administrative Office Manager, Ebasco Services, Inc.,
i personal communication,1981.
49
TABLE 3-4 s
DISTRIBUTION OF TAX PAYMENTS ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT FY 1973-1974 and FY 1977-1978 (Current Dollars)
Tax Payments FY 1973-1974 FY 1977-1978 Property Tax St. Lucie County General Fund $25,869 $1,133,641 ;
St. Lucie County School Board 48,576 1,944,951 Fire District 11,816 447,227 Flood Control 2,739 111,100 Mosquito Control 2,063 78,750 Port and Airport 661 7,584 Erosion District B 173 588 TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES" $91,899 $3,723,840 Sales and Use Taxes State of Florida $708,637 $3,349,715 TOTAL TAXES $800,536 $7,073,555
" Totals may not add exactly due to rounding.
Source: James W. Bass, County Property Appraiser, St. Lucie County, personal communication,1981; W. A. Peacon, Supervisor of Production Plant Accounting, Florida Power & Light, personal communication,1981.
t t
50
St. Lucie County GU.eral Fund and the St. Lucie County School Board. (Bass, personal communication,1981; Peacon, personal communication,1981.)
However, it should be noted that the St. Lucie County School Board accrued considerably less tax revenues directly from the plant than indicated in Table 3-4 as a result of Florida's system of equalizing school taxes (Florida Department of Education, 1975).I In the 1973-74 fiscal year, only $16,154 in taxes from the nuclear plant went directly to the St. Lucie County School Board. The remaining $32,42Z was allocated through the Flcrida Education Finance Program to the state's school districts proportionate to the number of students in each district. (See, personal communication, 1981.)
6 In FY1977-1978, because Unit I was in operation, taxes paid on the plant increased dramatically over those paid in FY1973-1974. Of a total tax payment of $7.1 million, property taxes accounted for almost $4 million. Again, the recipients of the largest tax revenues were the St. Lucie County General Fund, with $1.1 million, and the St. Lucie County School Board, with $1.9 million. In addition, FPL paid $3.3 million in sales and use taxes to the State of Florida. (Bass, personal communication,1981; Peacon, personal communication,1981.)
3.4 Selection of the Study Area The Study Area selected for the St. Lucie Case Study is St. Lucie County, Florida. A detailed map of the Study Area is provided in Figure 3-2.
3.4.1 Rationale The Study Area was selected on the basis of the distribution of direct basic employment, utility purchases, and tax payments in 1974 and 1978. All direct basic employment by place of work (1,938 jobs in 1974 and 1,333 jobs in 1978) occurred in St.
Lucie County. Moreover, the distribution of the work force by place of residence in 1974 and 1978 showed that about 40 percent of the workers resided in St. Lucie County, while less than 25 percent lived in Martin County.
i I
For a detailed explanation, see Chapter 7.
51
l FIGURE 3 2. ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT STUDY AREA: ST. LUCIE COUNTY Indian River County g 5 \
St. Lucie County Atlantic Ocer.n La,kewood\
lndrio Rd. Park 0
4 State Parkway x .y Fort A1A Pie ce Orange Avenue
)
Fort Pierce
'%g g y i o e % Hutchinson O k Island 1
h Midway Rd. W te Eldred o
oweed / ity
!!!!hf; ST. LUCIE Ankona NUCLEAF }
PLANT j Walton i:1i s '!::9..
S W::: . . . . . . . . . -
Port,St. Lucie.$
,3 Florida East Coast St. Lucie County R.R.
Martin County s 0 5 10 C Urban Area Mi!es E Nuclear Plant Site 52
Even though the vast majority of materials were purchased outside the study region during the study perind, about $20 million worth (92 percent of the purchases in the local area) was purchased in Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County. Furthermore, in both 1974 and 1978, ali property taxes on the plant were paid to St. Lucie County. In 1978, Unit 1 (and those buildings and heavy equipment in use for the construction of Unit 2) accounted for about 19 percent of the assessable tax base of St. Lucie County.
In summary, St. Lucie County received the highest concentration of direct project effects. Therefore, St. Lucie County was selected as the Study Area.
53
CHAPTER 41 ECONOMY OF THE STUDY AREA 4.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to identify and discuss the effects of the construction of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on the economy of the Study Area. Emphasis is placed on changes in the employment, income, and labor force status of the population. An attempt is also made to assess the impacts of the plant on the standard-of-living of the Study Area's residents.
The analysis begins with an overview of the economic history of the Study Area.
Then, a more detailed examination of changes that occurred in the economy of the Study Area from 1968 (the year preceding commencement of construction of the project) through 1978 is made. The purpose of this analysis is to quantify the total changes that {
occurred (1) in the number of jobs and income generated in the Study Area; (2) in the Study Area's labor force and the employment characteristics of the Study Area's residents; and (3) in the standard-of-living in the Study Area. No attempt will be made to identify the role the St. Lucie nuclear project played in these changes.
The next sections of the chapter examine the effects of both the :c.nstruction and operation of the plant on these same variables. The analysis of plant construction effects focuses on 1974 (the peak construction year), and the analysis of plant operation effects focuses on 1978 (selected as a representative operating year). An economic base approach is utilized to identify and analyze the effects of the project on three economic components in the Study Area: basic employment and income, nonbasic employment and ,
income, and total employment and income. A summary of the effects on employment and income due to the nuclear power plant, followed by a summary of the effects on the labor force and on the standard-of-living, completes the chapter.
4.2 Economic History of the Study Area The earliest known inhabitants of St. Lucie County were the Als Indians, who, according to archaeological evidence, lived bountifully on a diet of oysters, clams, turtles, sharks, and whales. However, the Ais died out with the introduction of European diseases (as was the case with many eastern Native American tribes) within 150 years of b the settlement of St. Augustine by Spaniards.
l The first direct contact between the Spanish and the Ais in St. Lucie County I
- occurred in 1565, when Captain Juan Velez de Medrano, a Spanish explorer, traveled 54 1
l L
down the Indian River, then known as Rio Indrio de Ais, past the St. Lucie Inlet to Jupiter Inlet (just south of what is now known as Martin County). There he built a fort, which he named Santa Lucia, after a Catholic patron saint. This name was later applied to the river and it still bears the name. St. L'ucie County derived its name from this river which runs through the county. The Als drove Velez and his men from the fort and continued to be a deterrent to settlement for many years. J Almost 250 years passed before a white person again attempted permanent settlement in the area. In 1807, James Hutchinson obtained a Spanish land grant of 2,000 acres on what is now known as Hutchinson Island. He planned to engage in hog farming; however he died within a year, and his family returned to the United States. (Williams, 1963; Van Landingham,1976.)
In the early 1800s, the Als Indians were replaced by the Seminoles, who moved to Florida from Georgia and Alabama. When the Second Seminole War began in 1835, the United States ArmyIbegan to establish military posts throughout the Florida peninsula.
One of these posts was established by Lt. Col. Benjamin K. Pierce, brother of the future president, Franklin Pierce, in what is now known as 't. Lucie County in 1837 or 1838.2 (Williams,1963; Van Landingham,1976.) The fort, located about 1.5 miles south of the present city of Fort Pierce (Williams,1963), remained in operation until 1842. It was abandoned at the end of the war and burned down the following year. (Van Landingham, 1976.)
Another attempt at permanent settlement occurred in 1842 with the passage of the Armed Occupation Act by the United States Congress, which granted 160 acres in the area to anyone who would settle and cultivate five acres of the land for five years.3 After passage of the act, a number of pioneer families settled in what was to become St.
Lucie County. There they lived on abundant wild game and fish. In 1844, one year before Florida became a state, Santa Lucia County was formed from Mosquito County; the boundaries extended from the northern border of what is now Brevard County to as
)
I Tlie United States purcliased Florida from Spain in 1821.
2 Sources differ as to the date.
Some sources state that it was a seven-year requirement.
55
far south as the southern border of Palm Beach County. However, in 1849, fearing a Seminole uprising, most of the settlers fled the area. (Van Landingham,1976.)
The feared Seminole War failed to materialize, but in March 1850, the United States Army established Fort Capron at what is now Saint Lucie Village. With this military protection, settlers returned to the area. The 1850 Census recorded 139 people in St. Lucie County, 27 of whom were slaves. The close of the Civil War brought even more settlement to what had been renamed Brevard County in 1855. Most settlers hunted, fished, and farmed for their own sustenance. However, by the 1870s, the cattle industry had begun in the county, as a number of ranchers brought their beef herds to graze on the open range. (Williams,1963; Van Landingham,1976.)
The 1880s heralded the first development of the county's economy. Pineapples rapidly became the leading industry in the region. In 1879, Captain Thomas E. Richards had brought the first pineapple slips from the Florida Keys. The industry had grown so large by 1892 that the first pineapple growers' association in the county was formed.
Many of the most influential and wealthy families in the area owned pineapple plantations or pineapple packing houses. (Van Landingham,1976.) Ancther industry that developed during the 1880s was the oyster industry, with the opening of an oyster cannery by a group of financiers in Fort Pierce. The cannery was soon sold to Peter P.
Cobb, who built a dock that became a port of call for ferry boats, trading schooners, and steamers on the Indian River. (Williams,1963.) Soon numerous wholesale and retail fish houses and packing plants lined the dock, and Fort Pierce was on its way to becoming r important fishing village (Van Landingham,1976). Nevertheless, while the wharf was certainly important to the growth of the county's economy, it was the construction of the Florida East Coast Railroad through the area in 1894 that ensured the economic viability of the county. The railroad opened new markets for pineapple, fish, cattle, and vegetable crops (Cash,1938; Van Landingham,1976).
l On 2 February 1901, Fort Pierce was incorporated by 53 registered male voters.
In 1905, the name of St. Lucie County was revived, when the county was formed from the southern portion of Brevard County by the Florida Legislature; at that time it encompassed over 1,500 square miles. inchiding all or part of present-day Indian River, Martin, and Okeechobee counties (Overall Economic Development Program Committee, 1977). In 1917, when Okeechobee County was created, approximately 324 square miles were taken from St. Lucie County. The county changed again in 1925 when Martin and 56
Indian River counties were established, leaving 615 miles in St. Lucie County.I (Overall Ecenomic Development Program Committee,1977.)
In 1910, the major industries in St. Lucie County continued to be pineapple, tomatoes, cattle, and fish. While the marsh lands in the western part of the county were home to thousands of beef cattle, the eastern shoreline was thick with pineapple fields, stretching throughout the entire county. (Van Landingham,1976.) However, after 1910, the fortunes of the pineapple plantations declined. By 1917, the pineapple crop died due to a number of factors including disease and adverse weather conditions. (Williams, 1963.)
At about this time, W. L Fee, who owned a local hardware store and undertaking concern, pioneered the idea of mosquito control through a system of drainage ditches, which made it possible to plant citrus groves in the swamp lands. Once the pineapple industry died, the populous turned to citrus, and in time, citrus became the largest industry in the county. According to W. T. Cash's Story of Florida, published in 1938, over four-fifths of the fruit crops in Florida came from St. Lucie and Indian River counties. By the late 1950s, citrus groves covered 35-40,000 acres of land, with orange and grapefruit predominating. Citrus juice canning and citrus packing houses became important related industries. Moreover, cattle remained an important industry, as did tomatoes. (Williams,1963.)
In 1930, the Port of Fort Pierce was inaugurated. As part of the project, an inlet was cut across Hutchinson Island, known as the Fort Pierce Inlet. Development of the port was st'mulated by the opening of the Indian River Refrigeration Terminal Company in 1934, and the deepening of the port channel with federal money in 1935. The port served the Baltimore and Carolina Line, the Merchants and Miners Steamship Company, the Refrigerated Steamship Line, and the Waterman's Steamship Company. In 1941, however, with the beginning of World War II, commercial activity at the port ceased, and the port came under military supervision. In 1942, Hutchinson Island was occupied by the
. Army and Navy. Approximately 30,000 men were stationed there for mock landings and
)
mock sabotage of the port. Af ter the war, the port returned to its former role, although not to its former prominence. (Williams,1963.)
I The county presently encompasses only 584 square miles.
57
( l The end of the war brought economic growth to the county as well. In 1940, the population c,f St. Lucie County was 11,871 with 4,655 employed residents. By 1950, the population had increased by 70 percent to 20,180, and total employment had increased by 80 percent. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1943, 1952; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1975.)
Between 1940 and 1970, the composition of the economic base remained relatively stable, although total employment increased almost fourfold. However, the relative l importance of agriculture declined somewhat, especially between 1960 and 1970, when there was a decline in the absolute number of persons employed in agriculture.
I Concomitantly, the relative importance of the trade and services sectors rose somewhat,
- as the population continued to grow, reaching 50,836 in 1970, and as both tourism and the l
role of Fort Pierce as a trade center increased.
Table 4-1 shows the composition of employment in St. Lucie County from 1940 to 1970. Between 1940 and 1960, total employment increased at an annual rate of 5.9 percent along with population increases of 6.2 percent per year. However, although ,
agriculture had the largest share of total employment in both 1940 and 1950, it experienced the least growth of any sector between 1950 and 1960; thus it declined in importance relative to wholesale and retail trade. As a result, although the trade sector's relative share of employment remained stable at between 23 and 26 percent of total employment from 1940 to 1960, it became the most important sector in the economy in terms of employment by 1960. Services remained the third most important employment sector throughout the 1940 to 1960 period. While it grew very slowly from 1940 to 1950, it experienced relatively rapid growth in the next decade and, consequently, maintained its relative importance as an employment sector. The construction sector grew three times as fast as total employ:nent from 1940 to 1950, more than doubling its relative share of employment, and stabilized over the next decade, with an 8 percent share of employment. Manufacturing, on the other hand, remained stable in terms of its relative share of employment during the 1940 to 1960 period, although it grew faster than total employment from 1950 to 1960. (
Between 1960 n:11970, growth in total employment slowed considerably, as did that of all of the major employment sectors. The services sector, growing almost twice as fast as total employment, became the second most important sector, indicatSg the increasingly urban orientation of the local economy, with a 25 percent share.
58
TABLE 4-1 EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORID A 1940,1950,1960,1970 Percent Percent Percent Industrial Percent Percent of Change Percent of Change Percent of Change Sector 1940 of Total 1950 of Total 1940-1950 1960 of Total 1950-1960 1970 of Total 1960-1970 Total Employment 4,655 100.0 8,375 100.0 79.9 14,701 100.0 75.5 18,562 100.0 26.3 Agriculture Agriculture and Agri. Services 1,338 Z8.7 Z,480 29.6 85.4 3,391 23.1 36.7 3,081 16.6 -9.1 Forest and Fisheries 117 2.5 166 2.0 41.9 54 0.4 -67.5 138 0.7 155.6 Mining 0 0.0 7 0.1 700.0 15 0.1 114.3 69 0.4 360.0 Construction 190 4.1 695 8.3 265.8 1,230 8.4 77.0 1,662 9.0 35.1 Manufacturing 358 7.7 528 6.3 47.5 1,253 8.5 137.3 1,609 8.7 28.4 TCPU" 325 7.0 532 6.4 63.7 832 5.7 56.4 1,028 5.5 23.6 Trade D 1,060 22.8 2,172 25.9 104.9 3,703 25.2 70.5 4,650 25.1 25.6 C 668 4.5 180.7 752 4.1 12.6 FIR E 83 1.8 238 2.8 186.7 Services d 1,031 22.1 1,313 15.7 27.4 3,064 20.8 133.4 4,648 25.0 51.7 Government' 153 3.3 244 2.9 59.5 491 3.3 101.2 925 5.0 88.4 aTransportation, communication, and public utilities.
b Wholesale and retail trade.
C Finance, insurance, and real estate.
d
!ncludes school district employees.
' Comprises public administration and military.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau (,f Economic Analysis,1975, Regional Employment by Industry, 1940-1970.
Concomitantly, agriculture actually declined in its absolute number of employed to only 17 percent of total employment. The other major sectors remained stable in terms of their relative shares of employment.
4.3 Economic Channes during the Study Period Three perspectives are taken in this section on changes in the economy of St.
Lucie County over the 1968 to 1978 period. The first perspective focuses on the level of economic activity occurring within the boundaries of the county and is measured by the number of jobs and amount of income generated at places of work within the county.
The second perspective focuses on the people residing in the area and deals with the labor force status of area residents and with the income they earn. Thus, while employment is a key indicator in both cases, the distinction in the employment concepts must be kept clearly in mind. The first perspective deals with employment in terms of number of jobs measured at the place of work, while the second perspective measures the number of employed persons at their place of residence. The third perspective taken in this section describes the standard-of-living of Study Area residents.
4.3.1 Employment and Income in the Iocal Economy The principal components of the economic base of St. Lucie County historically have been agriculture, trade, and tourism. Consequently, during the study period,.1968-1978, the major sources of employment were retail trade, services, government,I and agriculture. Although the data show agriculture to be the least important of the four sectors, the figures mask its actual role in the economy. For example, seasonal and migrant farm workers who consider St. Lucie County to be their primary residence. are -
not included in the farm employment figures. Moreover, more than 50 percent of those employed in manufacturing produce agriculturally-related products (such as those who work in citrus packing houses, fertilizer plants, and farm equipment manufacturing) (G.O.
Team, Inc., n.d.a). Nevertheless, the mechanization of agricultural harvesting and production techniques clearly affected this sector of the economy, and the downward shift experienced in the 1950-1970 period continued through the 1970s. As the St. Lucie economy became more urbanized, the services sector experienced considerable expansion. The growth of tourism in the county, primarily visitors who stayed for the C winter months, was an increasingly important factor in the growth of the retail trade and I Includes school employees.
60 i
services sectors. Moreover, the growth of these sectors was stimulated by Fort Pierce's role as a regional trade center for a four-county area.
Table 4-2 shows employment by place of work in St. Lucie County for the 1968-1978 period. During this period, total employment increased from 16,218 to 26,978 persons, a 5.2 percent average annual rate of increase. The number of farm proprietors declined by 5 percent over the study period, and the number of nonfarm proprietors increased almost twofold at an average annual rate of increase of 6.2 percent. Wage and salary employment increased at a slightly slower rate of 5.3 percent.
All sectors except agriculture and construction experienced relatively steady increases in employment, with minor fluctuations. However, manufacturing, trade, and services experienced slight downturns as a result of the 1974-1975 national recession, with wholesale trade being the hardest hit. Employment in agriculture declined considerably during the study period, although by 1978 it had risen to a level about equal to that at the beginning of the study period. Employment in the construction sector rose
) fairly steadily through 1971, then increased dramatically to more than 1,900 persons between 1971 and 1973. It then remained fairly stable through 1974 before plummeting by more than 50 percent (to about 900 persons) in 1976. By the following year, however,
! construction employment once again began a steady increase.
The most rapid rate of employment growth occurred in the services sector, much of which catered to tourism. Over the study period, services experienced the largest
-absolute increase in employment (6.2 percent average annual rate of increase). Large absolute increases were also experienced in government (5.2 percent average annual rate of increase) and retail trade (5.1 percent annual rate of increase), reflecting the rapidly growing population in the county. Nevertheless, the only sector to have measurably increased its relative share of employment was the services sector, while agriculture, manufacturing, and wholesale trade declined somewhat in importance.
As shown in Table 4-3, total labor and proprietor's income by place of work o fluctuated throughout the study period. Despite this fluctuation, total income by place of work increased at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent, af ter adjusting for inflation.
At the beginning of the study period, the industries with the largest shares of total 61
TABLE 4-Z EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK BY INDUSTRIAL SECTOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORID A 1968-1978 (Full and Part-Time) 8 8 1970 8 1971 8
1972 8 1973 8 1974* 1975b 1976b gg77 b g97g b Industrial Sector 1968 1969 Tota 1 Employment e 16,218 17,786 18,506 19,309 21,187 23,465 24,065 22,830 Z3,566 24,458 26,978 Number of Proprietors 1,870 1,928 1,954 2,034 Z,149 Z,369 Z,550 2,609 Z,675 Z,811 2,948 Farm Proprietors 523 537 528 519 510 494 484 491 497 496 495 Nonfarm Proprietors 1,347 1,391 1,426 1,515 1,639 1,875 2,066 Z,118 Z,178 Z,315 Z,453 Total Wage and Salary Employment 14.348 15,858 16,55Z 17,275 19,138 21,096 21,515 20,221 20,891 21,647 24,030 Farm 1,712 1,755 1,735 1,673 1,673 1,666 1,578 1,578 1,680 1,656 1,790 Nonfarm 12,636 14,103 14,817 15,602 17,465 19,430 19,937 18,643 19,211 19,991 22,240 Private 10,072 11,394 11,936 12,501 14,083 15,900 16,169 14,631 15,213 15,821 17,992 Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fishing, and Other (D) (D) (D) (D) 430 477 484 1,018 1,079 1,383 (D)
Mining (D) (D) (D) (D) (L) 12 14 (L) (L) (D) (D)
Construction 823 853 962 1,023 1,354 1,944 1,810 1,069 899 939 1,143 1,569 1,537 1,421 1,510 1,586 1,550
$ Manufacturing 1,007 1,121 1,173 1,172 1,392 1,234 1,291 1,346 1,Z70 Nondurable Goods 817 919 933 921 1,121 1,222 1,269 Durable Goods 190 ZOZ 240 251 271 347 268 187 Z19 240 280 Transportation and Public Utilities 670 7Z1 800 863 832 877 862 859 900 952 1,138 Wholesale Trade 949 973 1,033 1,044 1,174 1,137 1,250 933 1,182 (D) 1,034 Retail Trade 2,867 3,025 3,486 3,886 4,316 4,852 4,996 4,455 4,498 4,724 4,700 l Finance, insurance, j and Real Estate 766 1,089 953 1,015 1,157 1,178 1,239 1,090 1,118 1,337 1,454 '
Services 2,603 3,189 3,164 3,158 3,421 3,854 3,977 3,836 4,023 4,030 4,731 Government Z,564 2,709 Z,881 3,101 3,38Z 3,530 3,768 3,959 3,998 4,170 4,248 Federal, Civilian 14Z 153 159 150 157 161 170 180 187 187 186 Federal, Militag 235 231 234 24Z 236 250 252 241 231 Z18 215 Z,187 2,325 Z,488 2,709 Z989 3,119 3,346 3,538 3,580 3,765 3,847 State and Local' aEstimates based on 1967 SIC.
b Estimates based on 1972 SIC.
C Consists of wage and salary jobs plus number of proprietors.
d Includes school employees.
(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential data. Data are included in totals.
(L) Less than 10 wage and salary jobs.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, April 1980, unpublished data.
TABLE 4-3 LABOR AND PROPRIETOR'S INCOME BY PLACE OF WORK BY INDUSTRIAL SECTOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORID A 1968-1978 (Thousands of Constant 1972 Dollars) gg77 b b Industrial Sector 1968 8
1969" 1970* 1971* 1972 8 1973 8 1974 8 1975b 1976b 1978 Agriculture C $16,569 $18,946 $16,434 $17,910 $23,771 $25,307 $20,851 $22,276 $21,143 $24,902 $ 26,657 Mining (D) (D) (D) (D) 80 97 110 (L) 39 (D) (D)
Construction 6,307 7,144 8,933 9,687 14,524 20,464 17,971 10,046 8,707 8,631 9,660 M anuf acturing 7,762 9,107 9,757 9,728 12,165 14,198 13,513 12,656 13,779 14,753 13,568 TCPU 5,616 6,395 7,308 7,813 8,363 9,670 8,740 8,804 9,758 10,693 12,181 Trade d 24,163 26,444 29,786 33,380 36,839 40,467 41,658 35,255 37,059 29,021 37,550 I
FIRE 6,896 9,742 9,290 9,968 12,443 11,506 10,713 8,868 9,732 12,193 12,341 Services 15,699 18,313 19,120 20,452 22,396 25,917 26,100 25,705 26,914 27,556 32,138 Government 14,378 15,501 17,386 18,871 21,138 22,964 23,727 25,909 26,074 27,132 27,865 TOTAL $99,897 $114,202 $120,270 $130,271 $151,719 $170,590 $163,384 $149,554 $153,203 $162,893 $182,790 l
l aEstimates based on 1967 SIC.
b Estimates based on 1972 SIC.
C 1968-1971 and 1978 farm income only; agricultural services, forestry, and fishing not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential data, but data are included in totals. 1972-77 includes agricultural services, forestry, and fishing, as well as farm income.
d 1968-1976 and 1978 includes both wholesale and retail trade. 1977 wholesale trade income not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but data are included in totals.
I (D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information; data are included in totals.
I (L) Less than $50,000; data are included in totals.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, April 1980, unpublished data.
income were trade (24 percent), agriculture (17 percent),I services (16 percent), and government (14 percent). Although these industries remained the four most important sectors in terms of income throughout the study period, agriculture, with only 15 percent of total income, had by 1978 become the least important of the four. Moreover, trade, while remaining the most important sector, dropped its share to 21 percent, and services and government both increased their relative shares to 18 percent and 15 percent, respectively.
4.3.2 Employment and Income of Local Residents The labor force status of the residents of St. Lucie County as a whole reflects the general economic forces operating on the local economy that were described in the previous section. In 1968, the year prior to commencement of construction on the St.
Lucie plant, St. Lucie County had a resident labor force of 16,740 persons, as shown in Table 4-4. This labor force increased steadily until 1977 at an average annual rate of 5.9 percent, reaching about 28,020 persons.2 The number of unemployed also increased throughout much of the study period.
Between 1974 and 1975, the number of unemployed workers in the county more than doubled, from 1,080 to 2,600 persons. In that recessionary period, the unemployment rate jumped from 4.6 percent to 10.4 percent. High unemployment rates (above 8 percent) continued through 1978. Much of this unemployment was in the construction sector: according to the Florida State Employment Service, more than 40 percent of the unemployment in 1976 was in the construction sector (St. Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee,1977).
Moreover, St. Lucie County experiences seasonal unemployment in trades, services, and agriculture. Employment in both trade and services peaks during the winter tourist season and then declines. Because the citrus season is from February until May or I June, agricultural employment also tends to peak in the winter. While many citrus I Because data on 1968 income for agricultural services, forestry, and fishing were withheld to avoid disclosure of confidential information, this figure is smaller than agriculture's true share of total income.
2 The anomalies in the 1973 and 1978 county data in Table 4-4 may be the result of noncomparability between data provided by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
l l 64
TABLE 4-4 POPULATION, LABOR FORCE, EMPLOYMENT, AND UNEMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND UNITED STATES 1968-1978*
h Labor Force Characteris;ic 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 b 3974c 1975 1976 b 1977 1978 St. Lucie County Labor Force 16,740 16,900 18,874 19,200 19,600 25,598 23,340 24,940 25,383 28,021 24,913 Employment 16,300 16,540 18,390 18,380 18,920 24,706 22,260 22,340 23,050 25,552 22,812 Unemployment 440 360 484 820 680 892 1,080 2,600 2,333 2,469 2,101 Unemployment Rate d 2.6 2.1 2.6 4.3 3.5 3.5 4.6 10.4 9.2 8.8 8.4 Population 49,500 50,400 50,836 52,000 54,488 62,180 67,034 69,079 71,128 73,644 77,477 Florida Labor Force (000) 2,501 2,607 2,787 2,876 3,082 3,369 3,332 3,520 3,545 3,578 3,688 Employment (000)' 2,428 2,540 2,700 2,747 2,974 3,279 3,169 3,175 3,191 3,303 3,444
& 69 64 80 125 106 89 163 345 354 276 232 I Unemployment (000)d Unemployment Rate 2.8 2.5 2.9 4.4 3.4 2.6 4.9 9.8 10.0 7.7 6.6 Population (000) 6,210 6,704 6,789 7,025 7,442 7,845 8,249 8,485 8,552 8,717 8,966 United States Labor Force (000) 78,737 80,734 82,715 84,113 86,542 88,714 91,011 92,613 94,773 97,401 100,420 Employment (000) 75,920 77,902 78,627 79,120 81,702 84,409 85,935 84,783 87,485 90,546 94,373 Unemployment (000)d 2,817 2,832 4,088 4,993 4,840 4,304 5,076 7,830 7,288 6,855 6,047 Unemployment Rate 3.6 3.5 4.9 5.9 5.6 4.9 5.6 8.5 7.7 7.0 6.0 Population (000) 199,312 201,306 203,810 206,206 208,322 269,846 211,371 213,023 214,675 216,383 218,059 aAll employment data are March figures.
b l973 and 1976 county data and the 1978 state and county data are from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Commission; consequently data may not be comparable.
C Labor force estimates have been revised to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 1974 benchmark levels and are not comparable with those in previous years.
d Determined by a ratio of the number of unemployed to the total civilian labor force.
' Excludes persons involved in labor management disputes.
I Estimate based on unemployment rate.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,1973, Census of Florida Statistical Abstract (for the years 1970 through 1977);
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979, Regional Profile Update, Treasure Coast Region; (U.S. Figures) David I. Verway,1979, Michigan Statistical Abst rac t.
l
workers move farther north for the vegetable crop harvest during the June to October season, many others remain unemployed in St. Lucie County. (St. Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee, 1977; Brown, personal communication, i 1981; Reid, personal communication,1981.)
Labor force participation rates for males in St. Lucie County, as shown in Table 4-5, were similar to those for the state in 1960 and 1970, although somewhat below the rates for the United States. In 1960, the labor force participation rate arnong males was 72.5 percent, almost equal to that of the state and 6.3 percent below that of the nation.
By 1970, the rate for males had dropped to 67.2 percent, only 3.3 percent below that of the state and 7.8 percent below the national rate.
Certainly much of this decline in labor force participation can be attributed to the growing retirement population in St. Lucie County, but the decline is also a result of the dramatic decrease in the labor force participation of black men.I Between 1960 and 1970, black male participation rates declined by 12.2 percent from a rate of 83.5 percent to 73.3 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1963b and 1973).
In contrast to the male participation rate, the female labor force participation rate did not change between 1960 and 1970: in both years, it was 41 percent. This rate was more than 18 percent higher than both the state and national rates in 1960; in 1970, it was 4.9 percent higher than the state rate and 3.5 percent higher than that of the nation. An analysis of women's labor force participation rates by race indicates that the high female participation rate in 1960 may be attributable to the high participation rate of black women: 61.1 percent of black women participated in the labor force, compared to 33.1 percent of white women. While the labor force participation rate of black women declined by about 10 percent to 54.5 percent in 1970, an increase in labor force participation of white women by a similar percentage stabilized the overall labor force participation rate of women.
1 Black men constituted 29.9 percent of the male population of working age in 1960 and 26.1 percent in 1970 (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1963b and 1973). -
2 Black women made up 28 percent of the female working-age population (U.S.
Bureau of the Census,1963b,1973).
66
TABLE 4-5 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES BY SEX ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND UNITED STATES 1960 and 1970 b
1960" 1970 Location Male Female Male Female St. Lucie County 72.5 41.0 67.2 41.0 Florida 72.4 34.7 69.5 39.1 United States 77.4 34.5 72.9 39.6
" Percentage aged fourteen years and older.
b Percentage aged sixteen years and older.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,1963b, Census of Population 1960: Characteristics of the Population: Florida; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1973, 1970 Census of Population: Characteristics of the Population: Florida.
67
One approach in ascertaining the standard-of-living of the residents of an area is to examine trends in personal income by place of residence. As Table 4-6 shows, total personal income of county residents, af ter adjustments for inflation, increased each year from 1968 to 1978, except in the recessionary year of 1975. It increased at an average annual rate of 7.6 percent, compared to a 6.6 percent average annual increase in labor and proprietors' income by place of residence. This difference between personal income and labor and proprietors' income by place of residence is largely due to tne relatively rapid increase in transfer paymentsl (11.6 percent per year) and dividends, interest, and rent (7.5 percent per year).
Per capita income, on the other hand, increased at an average annual rate of only 3.3 percent. While this rate of increase was slightly faster than that of the state (2.8 percent), the per capita income of county residents was, nevertheless, about 17 percent lower than the per capita income of Florida residents as a whole throughout the study period (University of Florida, 1969, 1972-1978). In 1968, per capita income in St. Lucie County was $3,093 (in constant 1972 dollars). By 1973, it reached $4,067, but then dropped for the next two years by 9 percent to $3,685. Following this recessionary period, per capita income again rose, reaching $4,270 in 1978.
Per capita income is only one indicator of the relatively low standard-of-living in St. Lucie County. In 1969, median family income was only $6,358 (current dollars), which was 23.1 percent below the Florida figure of $8,267 and 17.4 percent below the national median family income of $7,699. Furthermore, more than 20 percent of the families in St. Lucie County had incomes below the poverty level.2 Blacks made up a large part of the poor in St. Lucie County. The median income for a black family 3in 1969 was $4,186, 1
Transfer payments are, in general, receipts from government and business (other than government interest) for which no services are rendered c:arrently. These include old age, survivors, and disability insurance; unemployment insurance; federal civilian pensions; medicare benefits; veterans benefits; food stamp benefits; social security income; and welfare payments. (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,1977b.)
2 The 1969 poverty threshold for a nonfarm family of four headed by a male was defined as $3,750, 3
Black families comprised 25 percent of all families in St. Lucie County in 1969 (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1973).
68 h
TABLE 4-4 DERIVATION OF PERSONALINCOME BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 % 8-1978 (Thousands of Constant 1972 Douars)
Income 1968 8 1%9 8 1970 8 1971 8 1972 8 1973 8 1974 8 1975b 1976 b g977 b 3973 b Total Labor and Proprietors
- Income by Place of Work $99,897 $114,202 $120,270 $130,271 $151,719 $170,590 $163,384 $149,554 $153,203 $162,893 $182,790 Less: Personal Contributions for SocialInsurance by Place of Work 3,836 4,342 5,141 5,421 6,279 7,913 7,695 6,567 7,112 7,428 8,061 Plus: Residence Adjustment 5,142 5,495 4,437 5,065 6,549 8,587 8,616 9,2 % 11,810 13,960 16,614 Net Labor and Proprietors' Income by Place of Residence 101,203 115,355 119,566 129,915 151,989 171,264 164,305 152,283 157,901 169,426 191,344 Plus: Dividends, Interest, and Rent 26,336 27,993 28,157 29,119 32,164 36, % 7 41,837 43,790 47,181 50,496 54,117 Plus: Transfer Payments 20,843 22,793 25,935 29,089 33,412 40,319 43,938 52,399 57,270 60,853 62,661 PerscualIncome by Place of Residence 148,382 166,141 173,658 188,123 217,565 248,550 250,080 248,472 262,352 280,775 308,122 Per Capita PersonalIncome (Constant 1972 Dollars) 3,093 3,348 3,389 3,554 3,984 4,067 3,840 3,685 3,785 3,937 4,270
- Estimates based on 1967 SIC.
hatimates based on 1972 SIC.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, April,1980, unpublished data.
and 43.4 percent of all black families had incomes below the poverty level. (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1973.)
e 4.4 Economic Channes in the Study Area due to the Project This section describes the effect of constructing the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on the economic conditions in St. Lucie County. As was the case in the previous section, three perspectives will be taken: (1) the effect of the project on economic activity in the Study Area (i.e. on jobs and income on a place-of-work basis); (2) the effect of the project on the labor force status of the residents of the Study Area; and (3) the effect 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) is utilized. The premise of this analysis is that the economic activities of the project-the employment at the St. Lucie project, the purchases of materials for the project, and other market effects of the project (for example, the consequences of the massive taxes paid by 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 requires quantification of both the direct project activity and the additional nonproject activity it induced. Once these income and employment consequences of the project have been estimated, their impacts on the area's economy, on the area's labor force, and on the standard-of-living of area residents will be summarized.
4.4.1 Estimation of Prolect-Related Employment and Income Effects This analysis begins by describing the work force and the purchase of goods and services required to construct and operate the generating station. Persons directly employed in the construction or operation of the plant are called " direct" basic employees, and the income they earn is counted as " direct" basic income. In addition to direct employment and income, local income and employment may have resulted from the purchase of goods and services for the construction and operation of the plant. For example, if $1,000 of materials were purchased locally, some fraction of the purchase would accrue as income to labor. For materials produced locally, the ratio of locally- '
generated-income-to-total-purchases could be quite high. Materials produced elsewhere and only distributed locally would result in a lower ratio of income-to-purchases, which I
I 70
$ __ ________A . _ _ _ _ _ d'I
would reflect only the distributor's margin. Income and employment generated in this way in response to the purchases of goods and services by the utility are referred to as indirect basic income and employment.
A third group of income and employment effects is referred to as "other" basic incomo and employment. This category includes labor-market effects due to labor shortages, higher wages, or changes in activity that are a response to the favorable fiscal impacts of the plant. To the extent that such responses changed the income or employment of local residents, the change would be categorized as "other" basic income and employment. Figure 4-1 summarizes the three major sources of change in basic income and employment: direct basic, indirect basic, and "other" basic.
In addition to basic income and employment, local income and employment may have resulted from income spent by project-related workers. A significant portion of the project-related basic income earned in the Study Area, however, was earned by workers who lived outside the Study Area or who resided in the Study Area only during the work-week. As a result, less of this income was spent in the Study Area than would have been if the income had been earned by area residents. To account for this, the total project-related basic income was adjusted to make each dollar equivalent in terms of its effect on the local economy. The resulting adjusted income total is referred to as effective basic income. For example, if one group of workers spent only 25 percent as much in the Study Area as local residents earning comparable incomes, only 25 percent of the total income of the group would be included in effective basic income.
Nonbasic income and employment is that which results when effective basic income is spent and respent in the local economy, as calculated using a multiplier. In general, the larger the economy, the smaller the income leakages due to imports and the larger the multiplier. Once a multiplier appropriate to the size of the local economy has been estimated, the change that basic income produces in nonbasic employment and income can be calculated. Nonbasic employment and income can then be added to the three categories of basic employment and income to arrive at an estimate of the total employment and income effects of the construction and operation of the nuclear station.
The method for estimating the nonbasic employment and income response to an increase in effective basic income is based on the RegionalIndustrial Multiplier System (RIMS) developed for the Regional Economic Analysis Division of the United States 71
F1GURE 4-1 i
k.SllM AllON OF PItOJECT-t4 ELATED EMPLOYMENT ANO INCOME EFFECTS tlirect Basic Employment
( -Construction workers
-4perations workers in.lirect Basic Employment and lacome _'
Total Basle Employ- _ Total due to Utility Purchases of Goode ment and Incoise "
Project-and Services in the Study Area Related Employment and Income dL y Adjustment for N 4--------- Tranelent Status of Workers i t
'Other* Basic Employment and Effec tive Employment and Incosse Nonbasic inenme Eff ecto due to Labor-Market Basic Income Multipliere Employment Ef fects. Tam-Related Effects.or Both , and Income I dL
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. The RIMS approach is well dccumented elsewhere (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,1977a; Anderson,1980) and, therefore, is not described here.I 4.4.1.1 Employment andIncome Effects of the Project in 1974 Direct basic employment and income effects of the project in 1974.
The first of the three components of total project-related basic income and employment is direct basic income and employment. The direct basic employment in the Study Area due to the project is represented by those jobs and workers involved directly in the construction or operation of the plant. The wages earned by direct basic employees constitute the direct basic income due to the project. Direct basic income and employment can be counted in one of two ways: (1) at the place of work, to show the number of jobs and amount of income generated by the project and their effect on the economy of the Study Area, or (2) at the place of residence of the workers, to show the number of residents of the area employed at the project, their income, and the effect on the labor force of the area. In this study, the determination of direct basic income and direct basic employment at the place of work is straightforward and is derived from project employment and wage data.
The St. Lucie plant is located in St. Lucie County; consequently, in terms of employment and income by place of work, all direct basic employment and income from the project accrued to the St. Lucie County economy. This amounted to 1,938 jobs and
$28.2 million in direct basic income (in constant 1972 dollars) (Ebasco Services,1974; Ruby, personal communication,1981; Peacon, personal communication,1981).
l In 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.
73
~
Not all the direct basic employees resided in St. Lucie County, however.
Determination of direct basic income and employment by place of residence in the Study Area requires information about the residential location of the direct basic employees.
This information was obtained through interviews with the business agents of union locals, construction managers, and realtors regarding housing availability, commuting patterns, and the residential preferences of the work force. Thus, in 1974, in terms of employment and income by place of residence, it was estimated that 750 direct basic employees, earning $10.9 million (constant 1972 dollars) in income from the project, were residents of St. Lucie County.
Indirect basic employment and income effects of the project in 1974 The second component of total project-related basic income and employment is the indirect basic, here designated as the profits, earnings, and employment that result from the purchase of goods and services by the utility for plant construction and operation. The amount of indirect income produced by a given value of purchases is determined by the ratio of indirect income to product value, which varies according to the type of goods and type of establishment involved in the transaction. The indirect basic income and employment in the Study Area due to the project is calculated in this study by applying the ratio of income and employment to the value of purchases derived from the Regional Industrial Multiplier System (RIMS)I to the total value of materials purchased by the utility in the Study Area.
The total amount of purchases made in the Study Area was $19.7 million (current dollars)2 (Matthews, personal communication,1981). Based on information from key informants as well as data on purchases at other nuclear plants in areas with a similar industrial / trade base, it is estimated that approximately 18 percent of these purchases were made in the peak construction year,1974 (Matthews, personal communication, 1981; Pijawka,1979a). Thus, it is estimated that in 1974, $3,031,362 (constant 1972 dollars) worth of goods and services, primarily from the wholesale and retail trade sectors, were purchased in St. Lucie County. According to the ratios of indirect basic I For county-specific data.
2 As of 31 January 1981. No breakdown of purchases by year was available.
74
employment and income to the value of purchases derived from RIMS,1 these purchases resulted in about 35 indirect basic jobs and $284.9 thousand (1972 dollars) in indirect basic income. Of these 35 jobs, it is estimated that 31 (about $252 thousand in income) went to residents of St. Lucie County. The remaining 4 jobs (and $32.9 thousand in earnings) were assumed to go to commuters who lived outside the county.
Interviews with the owners and managers of the largest suppliers to the St. Lucie plant indicated that sales to the plant were an important part of their total sales volume. Several persons indicated that Ebasco Services and FPL were their top custo:ners, as the plant accounted for 20 to 40 percent of their total business volume, although an equal number of those interviewed stated that other construction projects (condominiums and housing developments) were more important. Additionally, a number of businesses expanded or diversified their product lines as a result of the plant's business, which helped to open new markets for them. In a number of instances, key informants attributed the creation of new jobs to the construction of the St. Lucie plant. (Enterline, personal communication,1981; Smith, personal communication,1981; Rye, personal communication, 1981; Gibbons, personal communication, 1981; Bishop, personal communication, 1981; Nelson, personal communication, 1981; Woodcock, personal communication,1981; Dane, personal communication,1981.)
"Other" basic employment and income effects of the project in 1974 The construction of a facility such as a nuclear generating station may result in some wage-induced effects that are classified as "other" basic income and employment.
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, the establishment of apprenticeships and on-the-job training programs, as well as the acceptance of craf tsworkers with less than first-rate credentials, may attract workers from competing employers. Theoretically, this could result in a marked increase in wage rates throughout the local economy. In a rural area, farmers who depend upon large numbers of seasonal laborers might be especially hard hit.
1 According to RIMS, $1,000 in utility purchases yields $94 in indirect basic income and 0.0117 indirect basic jobs (Drake, personal communication,1980).
75
The "other" basic effects were relatively small, since the St. Lucie project was entirely a union job and Ebasco Services, the construction contractor, hired workers primarily through the union halls. Nevertheless, there was a chronic shortage of welders throughout the project, and a welder-training program was established at Indian River Community College. Whether these trainees were unemployed, or employed but desiring the better-paying jobs at the plant, is unknown. Additionally, some employers in manufacturing and wholesale trade firms in the area indicated that they lost some employees who went to work at the plant. and managers at metals fabrication firms stated that they had to raise their welders' wage rates to compete with the union rates paid at the plant. (Enterline, personal communication,1981; Woodcock, personal communication,1981; Bishop, personal communication,1981; Gibbons, personal com-munication,1981; Nelson, personal communication,1981; Smith, personal communica-tion,1981; Rye, personal communication,1981; Dane, personal communication,1981.)
Yet, while the effect of union wages was certainly important to some individual businesses, the evidence suggests that such effects were not widespread. The manufacturing and wholesale trade concerns in Fort Pierce employed only nonunion workers. Since the nuclear project's labor needs were met through the union halls of Fort Pierce and West Palm Beach, few workers in nonunion shops would have had the opportunity for employment at the plant. Furthermore, interviews with agricultural program managers, grove managers, and packing house managers indicated that, while L
some workers from the agricultural sector particularly equipment operators and Anglo fruit pickers-were lured by pisnt employment, such effects were not widespread, since most of these workers had neither the skills nor the union rnembership necessary to qualify for employment at the plant (Rolle, personal communication 1981; Spyke, personal communication,1981; Cassens, personal communication,198,1; Husky, personal communication,1981).
j Additional tax revenues received by local governments from the plant could have also resulted in "other" basic employment in the Study Area by inducing expansion of local government employment. Because of the multiplier effect of basic income, it is ;
necessary to identify and distinguish this "other" basic employment from the nonbasic government employment and income caused by the project. The employment and income change in the government sector which was directly a function of the economic and demographic growth in the Study Area caused by the project (for example, school 76
f I
personnel, sanitation workers, public safety personnel, and so forth) would be nonbasic; only that caused directly by the increased revenues from the project would be basic.
As indicated in Chapter 3, the property taxes paid by FPL on the St. Lucie plant were relatively low, $92 thousand in 1974, since Unit I was not yet operational. This amount was less than 1 percent of the total property tax revenues in St. Lucie County in 1974. According to county officials, the number of new county employees increased by only 16 persons between 1971 and 1981, despite a population growth of more than 67 percent during the same period (Lewis, personal communication,1981). Consequently, all of the growth in government employment is attributed to the general growth of the county, not to the plant.
Based on these factors, total "other" basic employment and income in 1974 was assumed to be zero in the Study Area.
Total basic employment and income effects of the project in 1974 Total basic employment and income is the sum of the three basic components:
direct basic, indirect basic, and "other" basic. As shown in Table 4-7, a total of 1,973 basic jobs by place of work was added to the Study Area economy. The jobs generated basic income of $28.5 million (1972 dollars). A large portion of these jobs, however, was fi!!ed by workers who lived outside St. Lucie County. Therefore, in 1975, 781 project-related basic employees, earning $11.2 million (1972 dollars) were residents of the Study Area.
Nonbasic employment and income due to the project in 1974 Nonbasic employment and income, the final component of project-related employment and income effects, results from the expenditure (and re-expenditure) of basic income in the local economy. The amount of nonbasic employment and income caused by the project in the local economy is determined primarily by the interaction of two factors: the amount of " effective" basic income created by the project, and the size of the nonbasic-to-basic employment and income multipliers in the local economy.
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 St.
Lucie County. Therefore, these workers spent a smaller proportion of their income in the county economy than did workers living in the Study Area who earned the same 77
r TABLE 4-7 TOTAL PROJECT-RELATED BASIC EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME IN THE STUDY AREA ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1974 Employment and Income Direct Indirect Other TOTAL Employment By Place of Work 1,938 35 0 1,973 By Place of Residence 750 31 0 781 Income (Thousands of 1972 Dollars)
By Place of Work $28,237 $285 0 $28,522 By Place of Residence $10,928 $252 0 $11,180 Source: Mountain West Research,Inc.,1981.
l 1
78
income. This reduced 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-related 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 income earned there. Two principal factors affected the amount of effective basic income resulting from the project: the residential location of the workers earning the basic income, and the incidence of outside financial commitments (e.g., as the maintenance of a household outside the Study Area). 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 their 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 their employment on the project and were accompanied by families;
- 3. Movers unaccompanied by families-employees who moved into the Study Area because of their employment on the project and were not accompanied by families (including single employees); and,
- 4. Daily long-distance commuters-employees living outside the Study Area but commuting daily into the Study Area to work at the project.
An adjustment for the basic income earned by each group was then made individually.
Table 4-8 shows the distribution of project-related employees and basic income among these four groups in the Study Area. Recent information on construction worker characteristics shows that approximately 60 percent of the construction workers who move into an area to work on a nuclear power plant are accompanied by their families.
In twenty-one out of twenty-eight construction worker surveys at thirteen nuclear plant sites, the proportions of movers accompanied by their families were between 51 and 72 percent. (Malhotra, 1979.) Based on this data, along with information regarding the proportion of married men, the length of their residency, and the likelihood of married workers bringing their families, it was determined that an estimated 55 percent of the
" workers who moved into the Study Area were accompanied by their families (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1973; Escue, personal communication,1981). As the figures in Table 4-8 indicate, about 20 percent of the project-related basic jobs were held by people who lived in St. Lucie County prior to the construction of the project; 11 percent were held by workers who moved into the Study Area with their families; about 9 percent moved in 79
TABLE 4-8 DISTRIBUTICN OF PROJECT-RELATED BASIC EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT
)
1974
(
Total Basic Employment Total Basic Income a Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Type of Worker Basic Basic Total Basic Basic Total 372 31 403 $5,420 $252 $5,672 Nonmovers Movers, Accompanied 208 0 208 3,031 0 3,031 by Families l
Movers, Unaccompanied I 170 0 170 2,477 0 2,477 by Families (or Single)
$ 1,188 4 1,192 17,309 33 17,342 Daily Long-Distance Commuters 1,938 35 1,973 $28,237 $285 $28,522 TOTAL l Thousands of constant 1972 dollars.
Source: Mountain West Research,Inc.,1981.
_ _ _ - = ~
I without families; and more than 60 percent were held by persons commuting to the work tite from outside the Study Area.
Ba:ed on information about residential location .and outside financial commitments of the work force and on an examination of the availability of goods and services in the local economy, the basic income of each of the four groups was weighted to that its significance, in terms of generating induced effects 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 nonbasic employment end income multipliers are based on the consumption patterns of average county residents, nonmovers served as the standard for defining effective basic income. All of their income was treated as effective (that is, their income was weighted by a factor of 1.0). For each of the remaining categories of workers, a formula was used to estimate the proportion of income spent in the local area compared to that spent by nonmovers.
In this formula, the Consumer Expenditure Survey 1972-1973 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1978) was used as a baseline. This survey provided estimates of annual expenditures for major items (such as housing, clothing, health care, and recreation) for families and single consumers in the South whose income bracket falls within the average annual income of a St. Lucie construction worker (around $15,000 in 1972 dollars).
Discussions with workers and construction managers then led to assumptions about the percentage of expenditures made locally for each category of expenditure. 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; that movers without their families would spend 50 percent of their housing expenditures in the Study Area; and that daily long-distance commuters would spend nothing for housing in the Study Area.
It was also assumed that nonmovers and movers with their families present would have the same consumption patterns. Once the average yearly expenditures in each category were totaled, it was estimated that these two groups would spend $10,893 locally, out of total consumption of $12,321 (that is, 88.4 percent of consumption sould be within the county). For movers without their families and daily long-distance commuters, the amounts spent locally were estimated to be substantially less. For movers unaccompanied by families, the percentage spent locally was estimated to be 30 81
peretnt of total consumption, and for long dirtance drily commutcrs, thn estimnta was only 3 percent.I These estimates were used to weight the effect of the earnings paid to movers unaccompanied by families and long distance daily commuters on the local economy vis-a-vis that paid to nonmovers and movers with their families present. For movers I without their families, a weight of 0.339 was assigned, based on their percentage of local expenditures (30 percent) relative to that of the reference group (88 percent). For long distance commuters, a weight of 0.0339 was assigned based on their local expenditures (3 percent) relative to that of nonmovers (88 percent).
As shown in Table 4-9, these weights yielded an estimated effective project-related basic Income in St. Lucie County of about $10 million (1972 dollars), or 36 percent of the total project-related basic income by place of work.
Nonbasic-to-basic multipliers. The second factor determining the nonbasic employment and income effects of the project in the Study Area is the nonbasic-to-basic employment and income multipliers. The size of the multiplier is determined by the size and characteristics of the economy being analyzed: the larger and more diversified the economy, the larger the multiplier. The nonbasic income and employment to effective basic income multipliers employed for the analysis in St. Lucie County were derived from the county-specific input-output analysis of the Regional Industrial Multiplier System (RIMS). The general RIMS technique was described in Section 4.4.1. Here, RIMS multipliers are used to estimate the employment and income effects of an increase in final demand in the household sector caused by the liasic income from the project, and they employ both county-specific industrial sector and national household data (Drake, personal communication,1980).
l
[ Based on the RIMS analysis, the multipliers for St. Lucie County were for $1,000 of effective basic income to result in 0.0348 nonbasic jobs and $202 in nonbasic income in the county (by place of work). When applied to the estimated project-related effective 1
Daily long-distance commuters were primarily from two areas: Martin County and Palm Beach County. It was estimated that residents of nearby Martin County spent 5 percent of their income in St. Lucie County, while Palm Beach County residents spent only 1 percent in the local area. Consequently, a median figure of 3 percent was assumed.
82
TABLE 4-9 ESTIMATED EFFECTIVE BASIC INCOME ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT (Thousands of 1972 Dollars) 1974 Basic Adjustment Total Effective Type of Worker Income Factor Basic Income _
Nonmovers $5,672 1.0 $5,672 Movers Accompanied by Families 3,031 1.0 3,031 Movers Unaccompanied by Families 2,477 0.339 840 Daily Long-Distance Commuters 17,342 0.0339 588 TOTAL $28,522 $10,131 Source: Mountain West Research,Inc.,1981.
83
basic income ($10,131 thousand), these multipliers indicate that the project caused 353 nonbasic jobs and $2 million (1972 dollars) in nonbasic income in St. Lucie County in 1974 as shown in Table 4-10.
Based on a consideration of labor force availability and commuting patterns, it is estimated that 85 percent of the nonbasic jobs created by the project in St. Lucie County were filled by nonmovers; 5 percent were filled by movers; and 10 percent were filled by daily long-distance commuters. Therefore, the project provided nonbasic employment for 318 county residents, who earned $1.8 million in income, as shown in Table 4-11.
Because of the relatively large employment gains experienced by the county during the study period, key informants could not distinguish employment increases that resulted from the construction of the nuclear plant from those caused by other agents.
Total employment and income due to the project in 1974 The sum of the four components of employment and income generated by the St.
Lucie project ~ direct basic, indirect basic, "other" basic, and nonbasic-is the total employment and income created in St. Lucie County by the project. As shown in Table 4-12, the number of new jobs created in the county in 1974, by place of work, was estimated at 2,326. This employment generated $30.6 million in income.
The employment and income effects in the Study Area by place of residence were considerably smaller, since many of the workers commuted daily from outside the county. Within the Study Area, the project provided employment for 1,099 residents, who earned $13 million, as shown in Table 4-13.
4.4.1.2 Employment and Income Effects of the Project in 1978 The operation of Unit 1 and the construction of Unit 2 have been taking place simultaneously since July 1977. Because the data are not available in a form that would make it possible to disaggregate the effects of the operations and constructica work forces on the county, it is difficult to isolate the effects of operations only.
Consequently, the analysis that follows does not describe 1978 as a typical operating year, but rather as a recent year in the history of the nuclear plant.
1 Direct basic employment and income effects of the project in 1978 As in 1974, all direct basic employment and income by place of work accrued to I the St. Lucie County economy. In 1978, the average annual direct basic employment was l
84
l TABLE 4-10 NONBASIC EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME BY PLACE OF WORK ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT 1974 Nonbasic Income and Employment Value Effective Basic Income (Thousands of 1972 Dollars) $10,131 Employment Multiplier (Per Thousand Effective Basic Income) 0.0348 Income Multiplier (Per Thousand Effective Basic Income) $202 Total Nonbasic Employment 353 Total Nonbasic Income (Thousands of 1972 Dollars) $2,046 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
85
TABLE 4-11 NONBASIC EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1974 Nonbasic Nonbasic Type of Worker Employment Income" Nonmovers 300 $1,739 Movers Accompanied by Families b 11 64 b
Movers Unaccompanied by Families 7 43 Daily Long-Distance Commuters 35 203 TOTAL NONBASIC c 353 $2,046 TOTAL STUDY AREA 318 $1,844 aThousands of 1972 dollars.
b Assumes that all movers who were married brought their families. According to the 1970 Census, 63 percent of the residents of St. Lucie County over fourteen years of age were married (excluding those who were separated) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1973).
cTotals may not add exactly due to rounding.
Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
l l
86
l TABLE 4-12 TOTAL PROJECT-RELATED EMFLOYMENT AND INCOME BY PLACE OF #ORK ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1974 Type of Employment Employment Income" Direct Basic 1,938 $28,237 Indirect Basic 35 285 "Other" Basic 0 0 Nonbasic 353 2,046 TOTAL 2,326 $30,568
" Thousands of constant 1972 dollars.
Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
87
TABLE 4-13 TOTAL PROJECT-RELATED EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1974 Type of Employment Employment Income" Direct Basic 750 $10,928 Indirect Basic 31 252 "Other" Basic 0 0 Nonbasic 318 1,844 TOTAL 1,099 $13,024
" Thousands of 1972 dollars.
Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
1 I
i 88
1,333 workers, earning an estimated $17.1 million in income (1972 dollars). (Ebasco Services,1978; Ruby, personal communication,1981; Peacon, personal communication, 1981; Rainier, personal communication, 1981; Mikell, personal communication, 1981.) Not all of these workers were residents of the Study Area, however. In 1978, in terms of employment and income effects by place of residence, it is estimated that 551 workers, earning $7.1 million (constant 1972 dollars), lived in St. Lucie County.
Indirect basic employment and income effects of the project in 1978 It is estimated that 10 percent of the total local purchases of $19.7 million (current dollars) for the plant were made in 1978 (Matthews, personal communication, 1981; Pijawka,1979a). Thus, in 1978, $1,309.8 thousands (constant 1972 dollars) worth of goods and services were purchased in St. Lucie County. According to the RIMS multiplier,I these purchases resulted in about 15 indirect basic jobs and $123.1 thousand in indirect basic income by place of work. Of these 15 jobs, it is estimated that 13 (and about $107 thousand in income) vient to residents of St. Lucie County. The remaining 2 jobs (and $16.4 thousand in earnings) were assumed to go to commuters who lived outside the Study Area. As discussed in Section 4.4.1.1, key informants confirmed that a number of indirect basic job resulted from the plant's construction and operation.
COther" basic employment and income effects of the project in 1978 In 1978, with Unit 1 operational, FPL paid St. Lucie County $4 million in taxes on the nuclear plant. This amounted to 17 percent of the total property taxes levied by St.
Lucie County in 1978. However, as explained in Section 4.4.1.1, no new government employment resulted from the nuclear plant. Consequently, total "other" basic l employment and income in 1974 was assumed to be zero in the Study Area.
Nevertheless, the plant did have an "other" basic effect on the county, because the union wages at the plant affected the construction of projects funded with federal monies. Both state and federal law (the Davis-Bacon Act) required that the wages paid to construction workers on any building project on which federal funds are spent must equal the prevailing wages in the area. Most construction in St. Lucie County is nonunion; however, the high wages paid to the large construction work force at the plant 1
Using the RIMS multiplier, $1,000 in utility purche ses yields $94 in indirect basic income and 0.0117 indirect basic jobs (Drake, personal communication,1980).
89
skewed the wages for both skilled and cornmon laborers on public projects. In effect, all construction workers on public projects had to be paid at the same rate as workers on the nuclear plant. Thus, construction efforts such as the new high school, the county administration building, and the hospital cost considerably more than was budgeted originally. While these increases did not cause these projects to be postponed, less money was available for other uses. (Lewis, personal communication,1981; Murphy, n.d.) The increased construction costs due to higher wages were met by the county through the re-allocation of federal revenue-sharing funds from other budgeted programs to the construction projects. Consequently, no new money accrued to the county as a result of additional income paid ts construction workers. (Lewis, personal com munication,1981.)
Total basic employment and income effects of the project in 1978 Total basic employment and income in the Study Area due to the project in 1978 is shown in Table 4-14. Estimated total basic employment by place of work was 1,348, and total basic income was $17.3 million (constant 1972 dollars). Of this total, 564 basic employees, earning $7.2 million, were residents of the Study Area in 1978.
Nonbasic employment and income effects of the project in 1978 As in the analysis for 1974, basic employment and income was distributed among each of the four categories of workers-nonmovers, movers accompanied by families, movers unaccompanied by families, and daily long-distance commuters. These categories of workers were then weighted using the same assumptions as for 1974. The distribution
, of workers and income among the four categories, the weights applied to the income of i
each group, and the total effective basic income derived using the weights are shown in Table 4-15. As seen in the table, once income was adjusted for leakages due to workers who commuted daily from outside the Study Area and due to workers with outside ,
financial commitments, the effective basic income in the Study Area was estimated at l $6.5 million.
l Effective basic income was then converted to nonbasic employment and income, l
using the RIMS multipliers as outlined in the analysis of 1974. The resulting estimation, as shown in Table 4-16, was 225 nonbasic jobs and $1.3 million in nonbasic income within the Study Area in 1978 as a result of the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
90
TABLE 4-14 J
TOTAL PROJECT-RELATED BASIC EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME IN THE STUDY AREA ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1978 Employment and Income Direct Indirect Other TOTAL Employment By Place of Work 1,333 15 0 1,348 By Place of Residence 551 13 0 564 Income (Thousands of 1972 Dollars)
By Place of Work $17,134 $123 0 $17,257 By Place of Residence 7,082 107 0 7,189 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
91
TABLE 4-15 ESTIMATED EFFECTIVE BASIC INCOME ST. LUCIE COUNTY (Thousands of 1972 Dollars) 1978 Number of Total Basic Basic Adjustment Effective Type of Worker Workers Income Factor Basic Income Nonmovers 266 $3,359 1.0 $3,359 Movers Accompanied i by Families 173 2,224 1.0 2,224 Movers Unaccompanied by Families 125 1,607 0.339 545 Commuters 784 10,068 0.0339 341 TOTAL" 1,348 $17,257 $6,469 aTotals may not add exactly due to rounding.
Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
92
TABLE 4-16 NONBASIC EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME BY PLACE OF WORK ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1978 Nonbasic Employment and Income Value Effective Basic Income (Thousands of 1972 Dollars) $6,469 Employment Multiplier (Per Thousand Effective Basic Income) 0.0348 Income Multiplier $202 Total Nonbasic Employment 225 Total Nonbasic Income (Thousands of 1972 Dollars) $1,307 L Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
1 t
93
It was estimated that 191 of the 225 nonbasic jobs were filled by nonmovers, as shown in Table 4-17, and another 11 jobs were filled by people who moved into the county to obtain the jobs. As a result, over $1.2 million was earned by the 202 nonbasic workers who were residents of the Study Area.
Total employment and income effects of the project in 1978 Table 4-18 shows the total employment and income in 1978 due to the project in St. Lucie County by place of work. The number of new jobs in the Study Area economy as a result of the project was 1,573. These workers earned an estimated $18.6 million (constant 1972 dollars). However, only 766 of these jobs and $8.4 million in income went to residents of the Study Area, as shown in Table 4-19.
4.4.2 Effects of the Project on the Study Area Economy, 1968-1978 To give some sense of the magnitude and duration of the employment and income effects of the project on the economy of the Study Area, the annual employment and income due to the project was estimated by assuming that the ratio of direct basic employment and income to total project-related employment and income remained constant at the 1974 level from 1968 to 1974, then changed between 1974 and 1978 at a constant annual rate. The assumption can be made 1.ecause direct basic employment and income dominate all the total income and employment analyses. Table 4-20 shows the total employment and income for 1968-1978. This technique probably underestimates the employment effects in the early years and overestimates them in the later years because the direct basic workers' average salaries were higher (in constant 1972 dollars) in 1974 and would have caused a higher nonbasic response per worker.
As illustrated in Figure 4-2, employment created by the St. Lucie project was an estimated 2,326 jobs in 1974, which was about 10 percent of the approximately 24,000 jobs in St. Lucie County (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System,1980). The $30.6 millior. in income generated within the county by these jobs was about 19 percent of the total labor and proprietors' income of $163.4 million earned in the county (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System,1980). By 1978, the significance of the project to the total economy had declined somewhat. The 1,573 project-related jobs accounted for about 6 percent of the approximately 27,000 jobs in the county, and the $18.6 million in income created by those jobs represented about 10 percent of the total county income of $182.8 million (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System,1980. The l
l 94
l l
TABLE 4-17 NONBASIC EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1978 Nonbasic Nonbasic Type of Worker Employment Income" Nonmovers 191 $1,109 Movers Accoganied by Families 7 41 Mover Unaccgmpanied by Families 4 23 Long Distance Commuters (Outside Study Area) 23 134 TOTAL NONBASIC 225 $1,307 TOTAL STUDY AREA 202 $1,173 aThousand of 1972 dollars.
b Assumes that all movers who were married brought their families and that 63 p2rcent of the residents were married with their spouses present (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1973).
Source: Mountain West _ Research, Inc.,1981.
95
TABLE 4-18 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME DUE TO THE PROJECT BY PLACE OF WORK ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1978 Type of Employment Employment Income" Direct Basic 1,333 $17,134 Indirect Basic 15 123 "Other" Basic 0 0 $
Nonbasic 225 1,307 TOTAL 1.573 $18,564
" Thousands of constant 1972 dollars.
Source: Mountain West Research,Inc.,1981.
s a
k 96
TABLE 4-19 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME DUE TO THE PROJECT BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE l ST. LUCIE COUNTY l
! 1978 Type of Employment Employment Income" Direct Basic 551 $7,082 Indirect Basic 13 107
'Other" Basic 0 0 Nonbasic 202 1,173 TOTAL 766 $8,362
" Thousands of constant 1972 dollars.
Source: Mountain West Research,Inc.,1981.
x I
97
TABLE 4-20 ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME EFFECTS BY PLACE OF WORK ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1968-1978 Direct Basic Total Total Year Employment Employment" Income b 1968 0 0 0 1969 138 166 $2,177 1970 163 196 2,571 z 1971 472 566 7,445 1972 904 1,085 14,259 1973 1,607 1,929 25,347 1974 1,938 2,326 30,568 1975 1,753 2,095 26,803 1976 991 1,179 14,688 1977 626 742 8,994 1978 1,333 1,573 18,564 abased on tthe ratio of' 1974 total project-related employment to direct basic employment times the average annual direct basic employment (Tables 2-1 and 2-3) for the 1968-1974 period, decreased at a constant annual rate between 1974 and 1978 to reach the 1978 total project-related-to-direct-basic-employment ratio.
b Based on the 1974 total-income-to-direct-basic-Thousands of 1972 dollars.
employment ratio times average annual direct basic employment for 1968-1974, decreased at a constant annual rate between 1974 and 1978 to reach the 1978 income-to-employment ratio.
Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
t 98
Project-Related Employment 30 -_
U Other Employment 25 - ..
xxxxx, C
J hW a
.c 20 --
t- xmx
} . . . .
i -
- e w 15 --
li; .
.o 5
i:N:i:
10 --
- i8s
- i:ss
- 0.::.. .
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 YEAR FIGURE 4-2. PROJECT-RELATED AND TOTAL EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK IN STUDY AREA,1968-1978
percentage of total income generated by the project in both years was greater than the percentage of jobs because of the relatively high average annual wages earned in the project-related jobs.
4.4.3 Effects of the Project as the Residents of the Study Area, 1 % 8-1978 The employment and income effects of the project on the residents of St. Lucie County for each year of the study period are shown in Table 4-21 and illustrated in Figure 4-3. Throughout the study period, project-related jobs were held by less than 5 percent of the county's labor force. In the peak employment year,1974, an estimated 1,099 county residents held project-related jobs, about 4.7 percent of the total labor force in the county. However,396 of these residents (378 direct basic and 18 nonbasic),
(
or about 2 percent of the labor force, moved into the county for these jobs. By 1978, only about 3 percent of the county's labor force of approximately 25,000 was employed in project-related jobs. Of these 766 project-related employees, 298 direct basic and 11 nonbasic workers, or 1 percent of the labor force, were estimated to have moved into the county for these jobs.
The nuclear plant has been a major employer in the county for over ten years.
Indeed, throughout most of the plant's history, it has been St. Lucie County's largest \
single employer of county residents, and it will continue to be a significant employer once construction is completed because of the relatively large operations work force (however, most of these workers are movers to the Study Area). Moreover, key informants indicated that employment at the plant has played an especially significant role in the growth of the construction sector (Lewis, personal communication,1981; Reid, personal communication, 1981). For those individuals who were employed in project-related jobs, most of whom received higher-than-average wages, and for those firms that received a large proportion of their business from the plant, the St. Lucie project had a beneficial impact. Furthermore, some workers in the county received higher wages from employers who had to compete with the plant for workers and from public construction projects covered by the Davis-Bacon Act.
However, although the construction of the plant helped individuals, within the context of the general growth in the county the nuclear plant had relatively little effect on the standard-of-living of county residents overall (Reid, personal communication, 1981). The unemployment rates in the county generally followed the trend of unemployment in the State of Florida and, thus, do not appear to have been affected 100
TABLE 4-21 ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1968-1978 W-^ct Basic Total Total Year iy,3ymenta Employment b Income C 1968 0 0 0 1969 53 78 $920 1970 63 92 1,094 1971 183 268 3,178 1972 350 513 6,078 1973 622 911 10,801 1974 750 1,099 13,024 1975 678 980 11,384 1976 384 548 6,234 1977 259 365 4,065 1978 551 766 8,362 abased on the 1974 ratio of direct basic employment by place of residence to direct basic employment by place of work for the years 1968 to 1976. For 1977, the 1978 ratio was used to account for the residential distribution of the large operating work force.
b Based on the ratio of 1974 total project-related employment by place of residence to direct basic employment by place of residence, times the average annual direct basic employment by place of residence for the 1968-1974 period, decreased at a constant annual rate between 1974 and 1978 to reach the 1978 total project-related-to-direct-basic-employment ratio.
cThousands of 1972 dollars. Based on the 1974 ratio of total-income-to-direct-basic-employment by place of residence times average annual direct basic employment by place of residence for 1968-1974, decreased at a constant annual rate between 1974 and 1978 to reach the 1978 income-to-employment ratio.
Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
101
30 -- Project-Related Employment Nonproject Labor Force 25 --
E '" AN hN
-3 E
a ::::;::
a ""
20 -- _
sww S
g -----
E 5 15 --
1 3 l c -
l 'E l .8 l E j 10 -- . . ,
- 8:::
?
5--
in I..:!:
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1968 YEAR FIGURE 4G. PROJECT-RELATED EMPLOYMENT AND TOTAL LABOR FORCE BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE IN STUDY AREA,1968-1978
5 l
measurably by construction employment at the plant. For example, in March 1977, when most of the work force at the plant was laid off due to the stay of the Limited Work Authorization for Unit 2, the unemployment rate in the county was only one percentage point higher than the rate for the State of Florida and was lower than the rate in 1975, one of the peak years for plant-related employment. In 1978, when construction on the plant resumed, the county unemployment rate was higher than that of the state. The lick of correlation between employment at the plant and unemployment rates may be attributable to the effect of other construction projects in the county during the construction period. Between 1975 and 1978, a number of large construction projects were in progress, including a Southern Bell area office building, a new high school, the Lawnwood Medical Center, the S t. Lucie County administration building, two new buildings at Indian River Community College, the Link Port oceanography research facility, and the extension of Interstate 95 (Reid, personal communication, 1981).
Moreover, construction of condominiums and housing developments in Port St. Lucie, Fort Pierce, and Hutchinson Island provided numerous construction jobs.
In addition to the analysis of trends in unemployment rates, an examination of changes in per capita income, when adjusted for inflation, does not reveal any relationship between the per capita income of county residents and employment in project-related jobs. Furthermore, despite the economic boost provided by the nuclear plant, the federal government in 1975 designated St. Lucie County as an economically distressed county. This designation was made under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, which provided grant funds for regions suffering " substantial and persistent unemployment and underemployment" (St. Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee,1977).
In sum, the employment opportunities created by the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant were important to county residents: 703 nonmovers held project-related jobs in 1974, and 457 nonmovers in 1978. Nevertheless, the employment and income effects of the project did not measureably affect the standard-of-living of the county's residents as a whole.
p 103
CHAPTER S: POPULATION 5.1 Introduction i In Chapter 5, the population effects of the St. Lucie project on the Study Area (St.
Lucie County) will be determined and explicated. The first step is to examine the demographic trends in the Study Area. Next, the demographic implications of the basic and nonbasic employment created by the project will be determined. Two sources of population increase will be 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. The third step is to take these estimates formulated into annual series and to examine the population impacts of the project in terms of the percentage of the Study Area population due to the project. Further demographic effects are addressed in Chapter 8, where the impacts on groups in the Study Area are considered.
5.2 Demographic Trends The population of St. Lucie County from the 1930s 1 through the 1970s has generally grown faster than that of the State of Florida. The county grew relatively fast until the 1960s, as shown in Table 5-1. Between 1930 and 1950, the population of the county almost tripled, growing at an average annual rate of change of 5.4 percent, from 7,057 persons to 20,180 persons. This rate of growth was considerably faster than the 3.2 percent rate experienced by the State of Florida. Between 1950 and 1960, the county's growth accelerated at an average annual rate of 6.9 percent to reach a population of 39,294. During the 1960s, growth slowed to 2.6 percent per year, reaching a population of 5(;,836 in 1970. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1932,1943,1952,1963b,1973.) According to the preliminary results of the 1980 Census, the county's population growth rate increased to 5.5 percent per year during the 1970-1980 period, reaching an estimated population of 86,969 (Crane, personal communicatio'n,1981).
l l
l Throughout most of the county's history, the population was concentrated in Fort Pierce, where between 1930 and 1960 more than 60 percent of the county's population resided. During this period, the population of Fort Pierce grew at about the same rate as 1
The present St. Lucie County was established in 1925.
104 i
L
TABLE 5-1 POPULATION OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FORT PIERCE, PORT ST. LUCIE, AND FLCRIDA 1930-1978 Average Average Average Average Annual Annual Annual Annual Rate of Rate of Rate of Florida Rate of Year St. Lucie County Change Fort Pierce Change Port St. Lucie" Change (Thousands) Change 1930 7,057 - 4,803 - - - 1,468 1940 11,871 5.3 8,040 5.3 - -
1,897 Z.6 1950 20,180 5.4 13,502 5.3 - - 2,771 3.9 1960 39,Z94 6.9 25,256 6.5 - - 4,952 6.0 1970 50,836 2.6 29,721 1.6 330 - 6,789 3.2 1971 52,000 2.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 7,025 3.5 1972 54,488 4.8 31,565 3.1 1,165 87.9 7,442 5.9 i g 1973 62,180 14.1 31,752 0.6 1,725 48.1 7,845 5.4
- 1974 67,034 7.8 32,788 3.3 Z,860 65.8 8,249 5.1 1975 69,079 3.5 33,088 0.9 3,374 18.0 8,485 2.9 1976 71,128 3.0 32,182 -Z.7 4,292 27.2 8,552 0.8 1977 73,644 3.5 32,422 0.7 5,260 22.6 8,717 1.9 1978 77,477 5.2 32,633 0.7 6,778 Z8.9 8,966 2.9 aport St. Lucie eras incorporated in 1961 and, thus, was not recorded in the Census until 1970.
N/A: Not available.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1932,1943,1952,1963b,1973; University of Florida, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979.
)
the county, at an average annual rate of 5.7 percent, from only 4,803 persons in 1930 to 25,256 in 1960. During the 1960s, however, population growth slowed dramatically to only 1.6 percent per year, reaching 29,721 persons in 1970. The proportion of county I residents residing in Fort Pierce was about 58 percent. (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1932, 1943,1952,1963b,1973.)
In-migration has been the principal contributor to population growth in St. Lucie County, as shown in Table 5-2. Between 1950 and 1960, in-migration accounted for more than 73 percent of total population change. During the 1960 to 1970 period, the net migration of 6,874 persons accounted for 59.6 percent of the total population change.
Nevertheless, natural increase in the county accounted for a much higher percentage of growth during that decade--40.4 percent-than in the State of Florida, for which natural increase accounted for only 27.6 percent of total population change. (Bowles,1975.)
The age structure of net migration has had a definite effect on the age com-position of the population. As shown in Table 5-3, in 1950, only 6.7 percent of the population was over 65 years of age. This percentage increased to 10.4 percent by 1960 and to 14.5 percent in 1970. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1952,1963b,1973.) During the l'j60-1970 period, more than 37 percent of net migration was composed of persons over 65 years of age (Bowles,1975).1 While this trend may reflect the attraction of the county as a retirement center, it should be noted that both the age structure between 1950 and 1970 and the composition of net migration in the county closely paralleled those of the state. Moreover, while the proportion of people in the 45-64 age group remained stable, a significant- proportion of net migration, 33.4 percent, was composed of this group. Only 14.9 percent of net migration was composed of the 15-44 year old age cohort. (Bowles,1975.)
Historically, St. Lucie County has had a large percentage of black residents, compared to the state as a whole. As shown in Table 5-4, during the 1950 to 1970 period, the proportion of blacks in the county remained relatively stable, at between 31 and 33 percent of the population. About 90 percent of the black population resided in Fort Pierce.
1 The U.S. Bureau of the Census reports an even higher figure of 42.9 percent (St.
Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee,1977).
106
TABLE 5-2 COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE ST. LUCIE COUNTY f 1950-1978 Components of Change Total Population Natural Increase Net Migration Year Change Number Percent Number Percent 1950-1960 19,114 5,150 26.9 13,964 73.1 1960-1970 11,542 4,668 40.4 6,874 59.6 1970-1978 26,641 2,703 10.2 23,938 89.9 Source: Bowles,1965, Net Migration of the Population, 1950-1960, by Age, Color, and Sex; Bowles et al.,1975, Net Migration of the Population, 1960-70, by Age, Sex, and Color; University of Florida,1979, Florida Statistical Abstract '79.
l 107 1
TABLE 5-3 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY AGE ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND FLORIDA 1950,1960,1970,1979 (Percent) 1 St. Lucie County Florida Age 1950 1960 1970 1979 Age 1950 1960 1970 1979 0-14 28.5 31.7 28.4 23.6 0-14 26.2 29.6 25.8 20.4 15-44 45.1 36.8 35.8 34.1 15-44 45.0 38.6 38.1 39.5 45-64 19.6 21.0 21.3 24.1 45-64 20.2 20.6 21.6 22.4 65+ 6.7 10.4 14.5 18.2 65+ 8.6 11.2 14.5 17.7 g
Median Age 29.7 30.3 31.4 N/A Median Age 30.9 31.2 32.3 N/A N/A: Not available.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1952,1963b,1973; Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979
~ "
TABLE 5-4 NONWHITE ^ POPULATION AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL POPULATION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FORT PIERCE, AND FLORIDA 1950,1960,1970,1979 Year St. Lucie County Fort Pierce Florida 1950 31.7 N/A 21.8 1960 32.5 46.9 17.9 1970 31.1 48.5 15.3 1979 22.1 N/A 13.2 N/A: Not available.
aOf the nonwhite population, 99.7 percent were black in 1960 and 99.3 percent were black in 1970.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1952, 1963b, 1973, Census of Population; Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979, Regional Profile Update, Treasure Coast Region.
)
109
~~
5.3 Changes in the Population during the Study Period An analysis of the population trends in St. Lucie County during the study period is (
difficult because of significant demographic changes since the 1970 Census. For example, almost all of the growth of Port St. Lucie, one of the primary municipalities in the county, has taken place since 1970. Consequently, it is difficult for those state agencies charged with estimating population to do so with any accuracy. However, since no better estimates are available, the state estimates will serve as indicators of the 1 demographic changes that took place in St. Lucie County during the study period.
According to the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, growth rates in the county fluctuated considerably throughout the 1970s (see i Table 5-1). Between 1970 and 1973, the year prior to peak construction on the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, population grew from 50,836 to an estimated 62,180, at an average annual rate of 6.9 percent, a faster rate of growth than that of the 1960s. By July 1974, the population increased by an additional 7.8 percent to 67,034 persons. However, by July 1975, the rate of population growth had declined to only 3.5 percent. From 1975 to 1978, population growth continued at about the same rate,3.9 percent, to an estimated 77,477 persons. (University of Florida, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979.) In addition to this steady growth in the number of residents of St. Lucie County, each year during the peak winter visitor season (December through mid-March), the ~ population of the county swells by an estimated 20 percent (Reid, personal communication,1981; Ament, personal communication,1981).
Much of the county's growth in the 1970s is attributable to the tremendous growth of Port St. Lucie, incorporated in 1961 by General Development Corporation. In 1970, the population was only 330. Only three years later, by 1973, the population had grown to 1,725, an increase of 423 percent. By 1974, the population increased 66 percent to 2,860. This phenomenal growth slowed somewhat during the remainder of the study period: by 1978, the population had grown to an estimated 6,778, representing an increase of 137 percent since 1974. (University of Florida, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979.) It should be noted, however, that key informants contend that the <
intercensal population figures for Port St. Lucie may be significantly underestimated.
For example, the University of Florida estimated that the 1979 population of Port St.
Lucie was 8,518, while preliminary 1980 Census results indicate a population of 14,737.
Such a large increase (73 percent) between these two years is thought to be unrealistic.
(Henninger, personal communication,1981; Crane, personal communication,1981.)
l 110
While the population cf Fort Pierce grew at a fairly steady rate of approximately 5 percent between 1930 and 1970, in the 1970s, population increase slowed considerably I
(see Table 5-1). Throughout most of the study period, Fort Pierce's population grew at an average annual rate of less than 1 percent. (University of Florida, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979.)
As indicated in the previous section, between 1960 and 1970, net migration accounted for almost 60 percent of total population change. However, between 1970 and 1975, the importance of net migration increased considerably as the influx of new residents to Port St. Lucie increased. During this period, a net migration of 16,423 persons accounted for 90 percent of total population change, with a natural increase of
(
only 1,820 persons (St. Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee,1977). This trend continued through 1979 (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979).
The effect of the growth of Port St. Lucie on the age structure of the county will not be known until the 1980 Census results are released. General Development Corporation, which incorporated Port St. Lucie in 1961, launched a real estate advertising campaign aimed at the retirement market in 1958 (Hicks, personal communication, 1981).I Consequently, in 1970 when Port St. Lucie had only 330 residents, the population was almost entirely c'derly. However, according to key informants, the median age has been dropping rapidly as younger couples move into the city. (Henninger, personal communication,1981; Reid, personal communication,1981; Kelly, personal communication,1981.) Even so, there is some indication that an influx of retirees to the county, especially to Port St. Lucie where housing availability is greatest, is increasing the share of elderly in the population. According to the Florida Department of Commerce, 36.3 percent of net migration to St. Lucie County between 1970 and 1975 was composed of people 65 years old and older. As a result, by 1975, almost 20 percent e
I Port St. Lucie's growth began in the 1970s, even though the real estate advertising campaign was initiated in the late 1950s, because of the type of sales agreements made with General Development Corporation. Buyers purchased lots on which they could build a house once they owned the deed. Because most people paid for their lots over a ten-year period, housing generally was not constructed until the 1970s.
Around 1976, General Development Corporation began selling homes in large subdivisions, which also helped to increase population growth. (Hicks, personal communication,1981.)
111
of the county population was 65 or older. (Overall Economic Development Program Committee, 1977.) According to estimates by the University of Florida, however, in
\
1979 the share of the population 65 years and older was closer to 18 percent. (Treasure '
Coast Regional Planning Council,1979). Whether this difference represents an actual decline in the proportion of elderly or simply a difference in the estimating procedures between the two agencies is unclear.
In 1970, more than 30 percent of the population in St. Lucie County was black. By 1979, it is estimated that the proportion of blacks in the county declined by about 30 percent to slightly more than 22 percent of the population (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979). This relatively sharp decline was due not so much to the out- j migration of blacks, but to the influx of whites, mainly to Pc.t St. Lucie and the unincorporated areas of the county. The proportion of the black population in Fort Pierce remained at about 50 percent (Lewis, personal communication, 1981; Brown, personal communication,1981).
5.4 Population Effects due to the Project Population effects directly attributable to the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant have been considered in two categories: population change due to project-related in-migration and that due to diminished out-migration. For both
{
categories, employment due to the project was assumed to be the primary force behind l l
population change.
l In Chapter 4, the number of basic and nonbasic workers who moved into the county for plant-related employment was determined, as well as the number of workers who were already residents of the county. The following sections present estimates of the population effects due to the construction and operation of the St. Lucie plant.
5.4.1 Population Effects in 1974 5.4.1.1 Population Change due to In-Migration l The principal demographic effects attributable to the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant are those resulting from the in-migration of project-related workers and their families to the Study Area. In 1974, as discussed in Chapter 4, the project created 2,326 jobs in the Study Area. As shown in Table 5-5, 703 of these jobs went to people who were already residents of the Study Area; 219 went to people who moved into the Study Area with 112
TABLE 5-5 PROJECT-RELATED EMPLOYMENT BY WORKER CATEGORY l ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1974 In-Migrant Types Basic a Nonbasich TOTAL 403 300 703 Nonmovers Movers Accompanied by Families 208 11 219 Movers Unaccompanied by Families 170 7 177 1,192 35 1,227 Daily Long-Distance Commuters 1,973 353 2,326 TOTAL aFrom Table 4-8.
bFrom Table 4-11.
Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
113
1
)
their families for project-related employment; and 177 workers moved in unaccompanied by families. The remainder were daily long-distance commuters. ,
The population change caused by in-migration was assumed to be due to the movers and their accompanying household members. An average family size of 3.25 was used for basic workers accompanied by families, based on figures obtained by Malhotra for construction workers moving to work on nuclear power plant projects (Malhotra, 1979). For nonbasic workers who in-migrated with their families, the 1970 avenge household size in Florida (2.9 persons) was used (University of Florida,1971). As shown in Table 5-6, the resulting number of in-migrants was 396 basic and nonbasic workers and 489 additional household members, for a total of 885 in-migrants in 1974 due to the St.
Lucie project.
5.4.1.2 Population Change due to Diminished Out-Migration Population increases due to the construction of the St. Lucie plant could also have resulted frorn diminished out-migration. Workers who would normally have left to obtain employment elsewhere may have stayed because they found work on project-related jobs, thus increasing the population over what it would have been without those jobs. The maximum population effect from reduced out-migration would have occurred if all locally hired residents had been mobile, had perceived other job opportunities, and would have out-migrated if not employed in project-related jobs. The minimum population effect would bave occurred if the best alternative for these locally hired residents was to remain unemployed in the Study Area, in which case no population increase from diminished out-migration would have been caused by the project.
To determine the effect of the St. Lucie plant on diminished out-migration, an examination of net migration trends, other construction opportunities, commuting patterns, and the cost of living in St. Lucie County compared to nearby counties was made. During the study period, the county experienced an in-migration, rather than an out-migration, of people in the prime working ages (25-44 years). Between 1970 and 1975, the county experienced a 30 percent increase in the number of people in the prime <
working ages. Furthermore, according to the Florida Department of Commerce,19 percent of net migration during this period comprised people in the prime labor force.
(St. Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee,1977.) The period was also marked by considerable growth in employment opportunities in the construction sector. Between 1973 and 1975, more than 5,700 new housing units were 114
TABLE 5-6 POPULATION IN-MIGRATION DUE TO THE PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1974 Additional l In-Migrant Types Workers Household Members TOTAL l i
Basic Workers Movers Accompanied by Families" 208 468 676 Movers Unaccompanied by Families 170 0 170 Nonbasic Workers Movers Accogpanied by Families 11 21 32 Movers Unaccompanied by Families _ 7_ _0_ __7 TOTAL IN-MIGRANTS 396 489 885 abased on the average family size of 3.25 for basic workers who move to work at nuclear power plant sites (Malhotra,1979).
bBased on the 1970 average household size in Florida of 2.9 (University of Florida, 1971).
Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
115
(
f constructed in St. Lucie County, representing an increase in the housing stock of more than 25 percent. Major construction projects included a bridge, an oceanography research facility, and a jai alai building. (Ament, personal communication,1981; Reid, personal communication,1981.) There were also construction opportunities in nearby j counties within commuting distance. Therefore, few construction workers, especially laborers, would have had to out-migrate to find construction employment. Moreover, the evidence indicates that local residents exhibited a willingness to commute fairly long distances for work. In 1970, almost 13 percent of the residents of St. Lucie County commuted out of the county for employment, up from about 10 percent in 1960 (University of Florida,1975). According to a labor survey conducted by the University of Florida in 1980, 48 percent of the labor force surveyed in St. Lucie County stated a willingness to commute 11-20 miles for a job, and 28 percent expressed a willingness to commute more than 20 miles for employment. Of the unemployed, 52 percent said they l
were willing to commute fairly long distances for a suitable new job rather than move out of the county. Further, few of those surveyed indicated that they would move out of the county for a job. (Carter, n.d.)
The willingness to commute for work rather than move out of the county may be influenced by the relatively low cost of living.in St. Lucie County, compared to nearby counties. According to the Florida Chamber of Commerce, in 1978, St. Lucie County had a lower cost of living than nearby Palm Beach, Martin, and Indian River counties (G.O.
Team, Inc., n.d.b). Consequently, most of the basic and nonbasic workers who could not find employment in St. Lucie County would have probably commuted to neighboring counties. Additionally, exchiding the 2,326 project-related jobs in 1974, almost 4,000 new jobs (not including farm and government jobs) were created in St. Lucie County between 1968 and 1974. Thus, it is likely that the estimated 703 nonmovers (most of them laborers or nonbasic service-sector workers) who got project-related jobs would have found other employment opportunities. Although certainly some individuals would probably have moved out of the county had they not been employed in project-related jobs, an examination of these factors indicates that the percentage of nonmovers who obtained jobs at the project but who would otherwise have out-migrated was probably small. Consequently, for the purpose of estimating total population effects, no t
1 diminished out-migration is attributed to the project.
, 5.4.1.3 Total Population Effects in 1974 The total population effect of the project in 1974 is the sum of the increase due to in-migration and the increase due to diminished out-migration. No diminished 116 i
l out-migration was attributed to the project, so the total estimated population effect was 885 persons (see Table 5-6).
i i 5.4.2 Population Effects in 1978 5.4.2.1 Population Change due to In-Migration In 1978, as in 1974, the project caused a population increase as a result of the employment of in-migrants in project-related jobs. In 1978, as shown in Table 5-7, 309 p rsons moved into the county for project-related employment. An average household size of 3.08 was used for basic workers accompanied by families l to determine the total population increase, and the average family size for Florida residents (2.9) was used for nonbasic workers with families.
The estimated population increase in St. Lucie County in 1978 due to project-related in-migration, as shown in Table 5-8, was 682 persons: 309 project-related workers and 373 accompanying household members.
524.2.2 Population Change due to Diminished Out-Migration Based on the analysis described for 1974, no significant population effects due to diminished out-migration were attributed to the nuclear plant.
5,4.2.3 Total Population Effects in 1978 The population effects of the St. Lucie project on the Study Area resulted from project-related in-migration. In 1978, this increase was estimated to be 682 persons.
5.4.3 Summary Using the calculations for project-related population increases in 1974 and 1978, the annual population effects of the project were estimated, as shown in Table 5-9. The l largest population effect was in 1974, when 885 in-migrants accounted for 1.3 percent of the county's population.
l In 1978, roughly 50 percent o! the basic workers who moved into the county with their families were construction workers, with an average family size of 3.25 (Malhotra, 1979). The remaining 50 percent were operations workers, whose characteristics are assumed to be more similar to those of other Florida residents (2.9 average household size). Thus, a median figure (3.08) was used to determine the number of additional household members who moved into the county.
117 ;
TABLE 5-7 PROJECT-RELATED EMPLOYMENT BY WORKER CATEGORY ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1978 In-Migrant Types Basic" Nonbasic h TOTAL Nonmovers 266 191 457 Movers Accompanied by Families 173 7 18C Movers Unaccompanied by Families 125 4 129 l
Daily Long-Distance Commuters 784 23 807 TOTAL 1,348 225 1,573
/
aFrom Table 4-15.
Drom Table 4-17.
Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
l 1
118
TABLE 5-8 POPULATION IN-MIGRATION DUE TO THE PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1978 In-Migrant Additional Types Workers Family Members TOTAL Basic Workers Movers Accompanied by Families" 173 360 533 Movers Unaccompanied by Families 125 0 125 Nonbasic Workers Movers Accogpanied by Families 7 13 20 Movers Unaccompanied by Families 4 0 4 TOTAL 309 373 682 a
Based on an average family size of 3.08.
b Based on the 1970 average household size in Florida of 2.9 (University of Florida, 1971).
Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
119
TABLE 5-9 POPULATION INCREASE DUE TO IN-MIGRATION OF PROJECT-RELATED WORKERS AND HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1968-1978 Percent of Direct Project-Related Study Area Study Area Year Basic Population Increase
- Population Population 1968 0 0 0 0 1969 138 63 N/A N/A 1970 163 74 50,836 0.15 1971 472 216 52,000 0.42 1972 904 413 54,488 0.76 1973 1,607 734 62,180 1.18 1974 1,938 885 67,034 1.32 1975 1,753 824 69,079 1.19 1976 991 479 71,128 0.67 1977 626 311 73,644 0.42 1978 1,333 682 77,477 0.88 abased on the ratio of 1974 population increase to direct basic employment times the average annual direct basic employment for the 1968-1974 period, increased at a constant annual rate between 1974 and 1978 to reach the 1978 population-increase-to-direct-basic-employment ratio.
N/A: Not available.
Sources: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981; University of Florida, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979.
l 120
Because a large proportion of the project-related work force commuted daily to work from outside the county, the population effects were relatively small. In all but three years of the study period, the project-related population increase accounted for IIss than 1 percent of the Study Area population. Therefore, the population change was n:t a dominant element in the overall population changes in the Study Area.
i
)
121
CHAPTER 6: SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND HOUSING l
6.1 Introduction In Chapter 6, the effects of the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on settlement patterns, land use, and housing in St. Lucie County will be identified. Background information regarding historical trends is provided, with particular attention given to the changes that took place during the study period,1968-1978. The chapter concludes with an examination of the effects of the St. Lucie project on the housing supply and settlement patterns in the Study Area. Based upon the analyses made in the preceding chapters, estimates are made of the St. Lucie project's effects on housing demand and on the construction of new housing or the upgrading /
conversion of existing units.
6.2 Settlement Patterns 6.2.1 Factors Influencinst the Settlement Patterns of the Study Area The settlement patterns in St. Lucie County have been influenced largely by its physiography and land use potential. The county is flat with the western three-fifths of its area primarily covered by the St. John's Marsh in the northern portion and the Allapattah Flats to the south. This swampy area varies in elevation from about 50 feet above sea level in the west to 25 feet at the eastern border. Historically, more than 50 percent of the county's land area has been wetlands, primarily marshes and wet savannas in the western part of the county. The eastern portion of the county consists primarily of natural uplands, which extend to the Indian River. (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979.)
Early settlements were established in the uplands area along the Indian River, while the wetlands were used for open cattle grazing. In the early 1900s, a method of draining the wetlands was devised that made it possible to plant citrus. These historic land use patterns have continued to the present, although only 25 percent remains wetlands, due to draining by flood control canals in the area (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979). The western portion of St. Lucie County remains primarily agricultural, a land-use preserved by zoning. In 1973, more than 70 percent of St. Lucie County was agricultural land: about 50 percent was improved pasture for cattle grazing, and the remaining 20 percent consisted of large citrus groves (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979).
l 122
Urban settlement was concentrated within a narrow strip along the coastline, which extended the length of the county and was bounded on the west by the Sunshine State Parkway (Florida Turnpike). This strip constituted only 12 percent of St. Lucie County's land area (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979). Most of this cettlement was concentrated in Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie, with smaller population concentrations in St. Lucie Village and the unincorporated towns stretching along the coast.
Effects of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on Settlement Patterns The development of Hutchinson Island, where the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant is located, increased considerably over the study period. Prior to the construction of the i
plant, development was limited because of a shortage of potable water on the island.
The city limits of Fort Pierce extended from the mainland to the island for about two miles south of the Fort Pierce Inlet (the part of the island south of the inlet is known as South Beach). This was made possible by a water pipeline from mainland Fort Pierce that extended through the city limits. The relatively small capacity of the 8-inch pipeline, however, limited extensive development. South of the nuclear plant site was a water pipeline from Martin County, which extended somewhat past the St. Lucie County line.
(AEC,1973; Menge, personal communication,1981.)
As part of the construction of Unit 1, the City of Fort Pierce replaced the small water line with a 16-inch pipeline (which FPL helped finance) to a newly built repump station one mile north of the city limits. FPL then attached an additional 16-inch line from the repump station to Unit 1. As part of this joint effort, an agreement was made that the anticipated excess capacity of the FPL line would be sold by the city to other users through connections with the line.I The South Hutchinson Island Water Company (now defunct) contracted with the city to build a 12-inch pipeline extension from Unit I to supply water to recreational trailer parks south of the plant in St. Lucie County.
Another private company, H & M Land Company, later extended the pipeline even further with an 8-inch line. An additional (horizontal) connection was made by the Ocean Village condominium development. Nevertheless, while the construction of the water pipeline for Unit I would seem to have Inade increased development on the island I
FPL needed a 12-inch line for Unit 1. A 16-inch line was built at the request of the City of Fort Pierce under an agreement that FPL would be reimbursed for the excess capacity through fees charged to those who connected with FPL's line.
123
possible, it was felt by key faformants that such development would have occurred without the FPL pipeline. For example, private developers insialled a pipeline on the island north of the Fort Pierce Inlet (North Beach), and key '.nformants ind'cated that this would have happened on South Beach once the potential of the island as a resort attraction was fully recostAsed. Indeed, it was speculated that the South Hutchinson Island Water Company and H 8: M Land Company would have connected directly with the Fort Pierce line once it was enlaged (which key informants contended was. inevitable) or with the Martin County line. Moreover, some developers on South Beach (both in St.
Lucie and Martin couaties) piovided water to their condominiucts without the use of the water pipeline brackish water from wells was made potab!e using reverse osmosis.
Thus, the construction of the pipe!!ne probably only accelerated development that was generally thought to have been inevitable. (Menge, personal communication,1981; Kelly, personal communication,1981.)
The S t. Lucie plant also could have affected the settlement patter.us of Hutchinson Island by discouraging development in the vicinity of the nuclear plant.
However, key informants indicated that, while some buyers backed out once they were informed of the plant's presence, developers had no particular problems selling property near the plant, ud numerous condominium developments have been built, are under construction, or are being planned (Hoven, personal communication, 1981; Menge, personal communication, 1981). Indeed, the presence of the Sand Do'.lar Villas condominium development, one mile south of the. intake canal, which sold for $150 thousand per unit and up in 1981, would seem to confirm ths acceptance of the plant by buyers and developers on the island. Consequently, any effects of the plant on the settlement patterns of HutchirsonIsland are estimated to be minimal.
6.2.2 Population Distribution The population distributi$n of St. Lucie County shows a clear trend toward decentralization. In 1970, about 60 percent of the county's population lived in incorporated areas (priuarily Fort Pierce). By 1975, this proportion had dropped to 54 percent, and by 1979, to 52 percent, despite a marked increased in population. (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979.) The rural-nonfarm population,34 percent of the total population b 1910, was scattered throughout the unincorporated county east of the Sunshine State Parkway. Only 310 persons lived on farms according to the 1970 Census. ,
3 124
TABLE 6-1 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1970,1975,1979 b
Place 1970 1975 1979 TOTAL Incorporated Areas 59.9 53.7 52.0 Fort Pierce 58.5 47.9 40.9 Port St. Lucie 0.6 4.9 10.3 St. Lucie Village 0.8 0.9 0.8 TCTAL Unincorporated Areas 40.0 46.3 48.0 Source: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,1979.
1
\
9 125
(U.S. Bursru of the Csnsus,1973.) Th2 populttica distribution fr m 1970 to 1979 is shown in Table 6-1.
This population distribution was influenced primarily by Fort Pierce's historical role as the commercial center for the county. In its er.rly days, Fort Pierce became the primary port of call in the region for water traffic along the Indian River. When the Florida East Coast Railroad was constructed through the region in the 1890s, with switchyards and warehousing in Fort Pierce near the wharf, the commercial importance of the city was further enhanced. In 1930,68 percent of the county's population resided in Fort Pierce. By 1970 this proportion had declined to 59 percent as the county followed the national trend toward decentralization (see Table 5-1). Port St. Lucie housed less than 1 percent of the population. By 1979, Fort Pierce's share of the population declined further to 41 percent, and Port St. Lucie's rose to 10 percent; the remaining 48 percent lived in the unincorporated areas of the county. (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Coimcil,1979.)
The distribution of the population in Fort Pierce by race has historically been divided into two districts. The northern quarter of the city (north of Orange Avenue) was almost totally populated by blacks, while the residents of the southern portion were primarily white. Although some blacks moved into the southern district in the 1970s and 1980s as racial prejudice declined, and some whites moved into the northern section, due to the availability of cheaper housing, this dichotomy still largely remained at the time this study was conducted. (Brown, personal communication, 1981; Fenn, personal communication,1981.)
6.3 Housing 6.3.1 Housing Prior to Construction of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant The importance of Fort Pierce as the county's central city and the large proportion of agriculturally employed blacks were major influences on the housing pattern and conditions prior to 1970. Between 1960 and 1970, the share of the county's housing located in Fort Pierce rose from just over 60 percent to 75 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1963a,1972). During this period, a significant number of housing units were deteriorating or dilapidated, and most of these housed poor black families in Fort '
Pierce.
As shown in Table 6-2, between 1960 and 1970 the total housing stock increased by 4,882 units at an average rtte of 3.0 percent per annum. Approximately 65 percent of 126
TABLE 6-2 SELECTED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS ST. LUCIE COUNTY I 1960 and 1970 Housing Units 1960 1970 Total Housing Units 13,989 18,871 Occupied Units 12,052 16,847 Owner Occupied 8,004 10,912
) White 6,818 9,416 Black" 1,186 1,487 Renter Occupied 4,048 5,935 White 2,117 3,115 Black" 1,931 2,810 Vacant Units 1,937 2,024 For Sale 300 205 For Rent 763 883 Seasonally Vacant 449 137 Other Vacant 425 799 Units in Structure 1 (Single Family) 11,123 13,653 2 1,288 2,141 3 or more 989 1,840 Trailer or mobile home 589 1,100
- In 1960, this category was labeled " nonwhite"; however, over 99 percent of the n:nwhite population was black.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,1963a,1972.
127
the occupied units were owned rather than rented in both 1960 and 1970. In both years, more than 75 percent of the white residents of the county owned their homes, while the number of black homeowners declined slightly, from 38 percent in 1960 to about 35 percent in 1970. The vast majority of homes were single-family units, although the proportion declined somewhat, from 80 percent in 1960 to 72 percent in 1970, as the number of multi-family units almost doubled. Duplexes, the second most prevalent form of housing, constituted between 9 and 11 percent. Mobile homes were the least common housing type. (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1963a,1972.) !
In 1960, over 20 percent of the housing in St. Lucie County was classified as deteriorating or dilapidated. Almost 75 percent of this substandard housing was located in Fort Pierce, and 54 percent was occupied by blacks, although they represented only 33 (
percent of the county's population. To give some indication of the substandard quality of housing,15 percent of all housing units classified by the 1960 Census as standard or deteriorating lacked some or all plumbing facilities.I Again, for blacks, the housing situation was worse: in Fort Pierce,2 almost 50 percent of the " standard or deteriorating" housing occupied by blacks lacked some or all plumbing facilities. (U.S.
Bureau of the Census,1963a.)
i While the 1970 Census data on substandard housing is not comparable to that in 1960, the evidence indicates that housing conditions in St. Lucie County improved considerably. In 1970, only 5 percent of all housing units3 in St. Lucie County lacked some or all plumbing facilities. For blacks in the county,4 the proportion of housing units lacking some or all plumbing facilities declined significantly to 15 percent. This improvement is attributable to the installation of a city-wide water and sewerage system i
I The census reported that 7 percent lacked only hot water and 8 percent lacked other plumbing facilities. Dilapidated structures are not included in this data.
2 These data were not available for St. Lucie County as a whole in 1960. About 94 percent of all blacks in the county lived in Fort Pierce.
3 In 1970, the data include dilapidated units as well as sound and deteriorating units.
4 Almost 93 percent of all black households in the county lived in Fort Pierce in 1970.
128
in the 1960s and the demolition of over 1,900 housing units built prior to 1949. (U.S.
Bureau of the Census,1972.)
+
6.3.2 Channes in the Housing Stock during the Study Period, 1 % 8-1978.
During the study period, growth in housing was influenced primarily by the dsvelopment of Port St. Lucie and the influx of people to the unincorporated county.
Data on new housing units from 1968 to 1978 are shown in Table 6-3.I Between 1970 and 1978, the total housing stock grew at a slightly faster rate than did population: housing increased at an average annual rate of 6.9 percent, compared to 5.4 percent annual population growth. Between 1970 and 1972, the housing stock grew by about 7.1 percent ptr annum, twice as fast as the average annual population growth of 3.5 percent for the arme period, with a net addition of over 2,750 new homes. In 1973, however, while growth in the housing stock increased significantly by 12.6 percent over the previous yaar, the population increased by more than 14 percent. This disparity between growth retes continued into 1974, the peak construction year, with only a 4.9 percent increase in housing, compared with a 7.8 percent population growth. Nevertheless, given the excess growth in housing in 1971 and 1972 compared to population growth, increases in the housing stock between 1970 and 1974 (with a 7 9 percent average annual rate of change) kept pace with the average annual increase of 7.2 percent in population. From 1975 to 1978, the growth in housing stock equaled or exceeded population growth each year.
Approximately 48 percent of this growth took place in the unincorporated portion of the county, with approximately 7,000 new residences between 1970 and 1978.2 Of this number, 56 percent were sin'gle-family homes, about 20 percent were mobile homes,3 another 17 percent were multi-family homes, and less than 7 percent were duplexes.
(Ament, personal communication,1981.)
1 Data on 1968 and 1969 are not comparable to those other years due to different sources; thus they are omitted from the discussion.
2 The number of new units was 7,170, and the number of units demolished was 135, for a net housing increase of 7,035.
3 The data on the number of mobile homes is misleading because a mobile home space is recounted each time a new mobile home receives a permit to locate there.
Consequently, the number of mobile homes may be substantially lower than the data indicate. (Ament, personal communication,1981.)
129
TABLE 03 HOUSING 57DCK ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1968-1978 1968* b 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1969* 1970 1971 1972 Number of New Units Added 228 299 1,038 1,302 1,677 2,836 Z,010 923 1,076 1,953 2,773 Number of Units Demolished N/A N/A 287 80 138 117 95 40 53 43 65 Net Number of Units Added N/A N/A 751 1,222 1,539 2,719 1,195 883 1,023 1,910 2,708 l
C Percent increase in New Homes - - - 62.7 25.9 76.7 -29.6 -53.9 15.9 86.7 41.8 ,
1 Total County Housing Stock N/A N/A 18,871 20,093 21,632 24,351 25,546 26,429 27,45Z 29,362 32,070 Percent increase in Housing Stock - - -
6.5 7.7 12.6 4.9 3.5 3.9 7.0 9.2 N/At Not available.
- Data not comparable to other years due to different sources, b Does not include St. Lucie Village.
Sources: St. Iancie County Zoning and Building Department, n.d.; Ament, personal communication,1981; U.S. Bureau of the Census,1972.
i l
Over 30 percent of the growth in housing took place in Port St. Lucie, all of which wcs single-family housing, with the exception of 41 multi-family townhouses built in 1978 (Ament, personal communication,1981; Hicks, personal communication,1981).
Only 22 percent of the housing growth in St. Lucie County occurred in Fort Pierce. Between 1970 and 1978, the net number of new dwelling units in Fort Pierce was 3,162.1 over 70 percent of these new units were multi-family units, almost 25 parcent were single-family units, and just over 5 percent were duplexes. (Ament, p;rsonal communication,1981.)
In Fort Pierce, the quality of housing improved in the 1970s. In 1975, the city d:veloped a code enforcement program, financed through Community Development Block Grant funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
This program identified housing units that did not meet the city building code and provided low-interest loans and grants to low-income residents to bring their homes up to code specifications. As a result, housing quality, particularly in the black community, showed improvements. (Brown, personal communication, 1981; Moore, personal communication,1981.)
6J.3 Effects of the St. Imcie Nuclear Plant on Housing in the Study Area The effects of the St. Lucie plant on housing have been considered in three ways:
effects on the size of the housing stock due to project-related demand; effects on the cost and availability of housing units; and effects on the characteristics of the housing stock.
6.3.3.1 Effects on the Size of the Honninn Stock due to Project-Related Demand Based on the characteristics of the workers and the number of household members accompanying them (described in Chapters 4 and 5), the project-related demand for housing was estimated, as shown in Table 6-4. These estimates assumed that each married worker required one housing unit, and the number of " doubled-up" movers and two-worker households resulted in a housing demand of 0.85 per unaccompanied worker during the peak construction period (Mountain West Research, Inc., unpublished data, 1
A total of 3,995 new dwelling units were built, and 833 were demolished.
131
TABLE 6-4 HOUSING DEMAND OF PROJECT-INDUCED POPULATION ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1968-1978 Movers Movers TOTAL Accompanied Housing Unaccompanied Housing Housing Year by Families
- Demand by Families
- Demand Demand 1968 0 0 0 0 0 1969 16 16 13 11 27 1970 18 18 15 13 31 1971 53 53 43 37 90 1972 102 102 83 71 173 1973 182 182 147 125 307 1974 219 219 177 150 369 1975 207 207 162 138 345 1976 122 122 93 79 201 1977 81 81 60 51 132 1978 180 180 129 110 290
" Annual series derived by assuming a constant ratio of total population increase to movers accompanied by families and to movers unaccompanied by families between 1968 and 1974 and a constant rate of change between 1975 and 1978.
b Based on a housing demand of 0.85 per mover unaccompanied by family.
Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
132
1981). The estimated project-related housing demand in the Study Area peaked at 369 units in 1974 and declined to 290 units in 1978.
l As shown in Table 6-5, project-related housing demand was never a significant percentage of the total housing stock in St. Lucie County. According to key informants, project-related housing demand was not noticeable, given the generally rapid increase in population during the study period. It may be concluded that no additional housing units were constructed specifically to accommodate project-related housing demand.
The question of housing availability and the effect of plant-related workers, however, is a very complex one in St. Lucie County for several reasons. A number of the housing developments built during the study period were restricted to retirement-aged residents, and the condominium developments on Hutchinson Island were aimed at those who were very affluent (although some operations personnel and Ebasco Services personnel purchased condominium units there). Moreover, few realtors or owners of spartments or mobile home parks were residents of the county during the study period, and even fewer could distinguish plant-related construction workers from other construction workers who moved into the county during the study period for work on residential developments. Consequently, it was difficult to ascertain from these sources whether they rented to construction workers, and whether the presence of construction workers created problems for others seeking housing. It was the consensus, however, that the rental housing market was tight throughout the study period.
It was generally agreed that many of the operations workers and nontnanual workers employed by Ebasco Services, for whom employment at the plant was long-term, purchased homes in Port St. Lucie, where there was plenty of available housing.
Moreover, some rental housing was available in Port St. Lucie: many homes in that city l
were bought by people who planned to retire there in the future but had not yet retired, and these homes were often rented out in the meantime. Further, a high proportion of the tract homes built by General Development Corporation in the Midport area of Port St. Lucie was available on the rental market. (Ruby, personal communication,1981; Escue, personal communication,1981; Murphy, personal communication,1981.)
The evidence indicates that few construction workers rented housing on Hutchinson Island near the plant. Most of the available housing on the island was aimed 133
TABLE 6-5 PROJECT-RELATED HOUSING DEMAND AS A PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL HOUSING STOCK ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1968-1978 Project-Related Project-Related Demand Housing Demand County As A Proportion of Year (Units) Housing Stocka Total Housing Stock 1968 0 N/A -
1969 27 N/A -
1970 31 18,871 0.16 1971 90 20,093 0.45 1972 173 21,632 0.80 ,
1973 307 24,351 1.26 1974 369 25,546 1,44 1975 345 26,429 1.31 1976 201 27,452 0.73 1977 132 29,362 0.45 1978 290 32,070 0.90 aFrom Table 6-3.
N/A: Not available.
Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
134
et seasonal visitors, for which higher rents were charged during the peak tourist season.
While some apartment owners may have rented to construction workers for year-round rental income, most of the apartment owners interviewed said that they held their spartments for the regular winter visitors who returned each year, and they also felt that
- the lifestyle of the construction workers would not be compatible with that of their rzgular visitors. Further, rental prices on the island were considerably higher than in Fort Pierce, and many felt that most construction workers would have opted for less expensive housing. Prior to the construction of the plant, several trailer parks were developed south of the plant site for short-term recreational use. Some construction workers, however, rented spaces year round, due to the proximity of the plant and the availability of mobile home spaces. Nevertheless, key informants indicate that a meximum of 50 workers lived in these parks at any given time (Escue, personal communication,1981; Matthews, personal communication,1981). Many of those who lived in the Study Area only during the week (commuting home on weekends) rented those a
- partments on the island that were already oriented toward a " weekly rate" tourist i market.
The rental market was fairly tight in Fort Pierce and the unincorporated portion of the county, especially during the last few years of the study period. Key informants indicated that there was a continual shortage of rental housing for middle- and lower-income people. Nevertheless, it was agreed that the tight market for rental housing was the result of the general growth of the area, not the presence of the plant-related work force, although its presence would have exacerbated what was already considered a bad situation. (Lewis, personal communication,1981; Reid, personal communicat'.os 1981; Murphy, personal communication, 1981.) Additionally, an vsalysia of rental housing prices, based on advertised prices in the local newspaper for selected weeks during the study period, indicated that the price of rental housing was not affected measurably by project-related demand. Rather, the seasonal influx of winter visitors and inflation appeared to account for changes in housing costs.
6.3.3.2 Effects an the Housing Stock throuah Project-Related Upgr=M== or Conversion The Study Area had a fairly sizable stock of seasonal tourist housing before construction began at the St. Lucie plant, some of which served to accommodate movers who rented housing; thus, some of this stock was probably converted to year-round use.
As mentioned previously, trailer parks on Hutchinson Island to the south of the plant, which were originally intended for seasonal use, were used by construction workers on a 135
year-round basis. By the end of the study period, these trailer parks had many tenants on a year-round basis (unrelated to the nuclear plant) although most of their tenants were still seasonal visitors. Other conversions of seasonal units to year-round units probably occurred, but the large influx of people into the Study Area makes it difficult to determine the percentage that can be attributed to the plant-related population. Few other types of conversions (for example, subdividing large houces into rooming houses) occurred specifically for plant-related workers, although some conversions aimed specifically at migrant citrus workers occurred, and these converted dwellings may also have been rented to construction workers (Brown, personal communication, 1981).
However, such accommodations would not generally have been acceptable to construction workers. In addition, there is no evidence to indicate that the quality of housing increased due to home improvements with project-related income.
In sum, while the presence of the project-related work force that moved into the Study Area may have had some effect on housing availability and conversions, such effects could not be disaggregated from the effects of the overall population increase 1 during the study period.
i l
1 l
136
CHAPTER 7: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES 1
7.1 Introduction Chapter 7 analyzes the effects of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on the revenues and expenditures. of St. Lucie County. Moreover, it describes the basic structural components of the local government in the Study Area, indicates the level of services, and details specific areas of services during the study period. In this discussion, the objective is to focus on changes in public services that resulted from the construction of the St. Lucie plant.
Once the background description of the local government is outlined, a summary of the budgets for the study period is analyzed. Rather than providing a detailed fiscal analysis, this analysis of revenues and expenditures concentrates on the local area's response to the increased revenues resulting from plant construction. It includes consideration of the effects on the assessed tax base of the county, reduced tax rates, and increased expenditures.
The discussion of public services focuses on employment and service trends in four areas: education, transportation, public safety, and social services. These services have bren chosen because: (1) they are thought to be responsive to socioeconomic change; (2) they are often cited as impacted services in the literature; and (3) they are thought to be indicative of other public services' effects experienced in the Study Area.
7.2 Government Structure The Study Area includes three incorporated communities: Fort Pierce, Port St.
Lucie, and St. Lucie Village.1 Fort Pierce had a mayor-commission-manager form of government, with a city manager acting as the chief operating officer. The city was divided into two districts; although each district had two commissioners that ran from thr.t district, all four commissioners were elected in a city-wide election. The mayor / commissioner (who had an equal vote on the commission) was elected at-large.
The city commission held public meetings twice a month in the evenings. The city l
I The 1979 population of St. Lucie Village was only 621 (University of Florida, 1980) and was not considered a residential location for construction workers by key informants. Consequently, it has been omitted from discussion in this study.
137
l government had the authority to provide public services such as water, utilities,I waste disposal, infrastructure, and public safety, and to assess city taxes to provide revenue for these services. Some services, such as fire and ambulance, were provided by the county. The city also had jurisdiction over zoning laws within the city limits. (Fenn, personal com munication,1981.)
Port St. Lucie's ge7erntnent at the beginning of the study period was a mayor-council form of government, with the mayor as the chief administrator. In 1976, a new city charter established a mayor-council-manager form of government, with the city manager acting as the chief operating officer. The city was divided into four election districts. The mayor was elected at large, but the council members were elected by the voters in the district they represented. The council held two evening workshop meetings each month and two regular morning meetings, all of which were open to the public.
When the original city government was established, its responsibilities were limited to establishing ordinances, planning, zoning, and providing for refuse collection.2 Other services such as police, fire, and ambulance were provided by the county. General a Development Corporation (GDC) and General Development Utilities (a GDC subsidiary) continued to provide infrastructure, such as roads, and municipal services, such as street maintenance, drainage, water, and-to a limited extent-sewerage. Most of the residents of Port St. Lucie had private septic tanks; FPL provided electricity. Subsequent to the study period, Port St. Lucie established its own police force. (City of Port St. Lucie, n.d.; G.O. Team, Inc., n.d.a.)
Whereas the incorporated cities of the Study Area were responsible for administration and planning within their boundaries, the unincorporated and rural areas were under the jurisdiction of the county government. Moreover, the county government played a leading role for incorporated areas as well. Most public services were provided on a county-wide basis, including: fire protection, emergency and rescue services, 1
I In 1972, the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority was formed as an independent agency (
under the financial direction of the City of Fort Pierce to provide utilities such as electricity, gas, and water. Its five-member policy board consisted of four city-commission appointees and the mayor. Prior to 1972, utilities were provided directly by the city. (Menge, personal communication,1981; G.O. Team, Inc., n.d.a.)
2 Refuse collection was provided by a private firm under contract to the City of Port St. Lucie.
138
schools, library services, and police protection (the sheriff's department had jurisdiction throughout the county, even in incorporated cities). Further, the prosecution of law vialations (including city ordinances) was handled at the county level. (St. Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee,1977; City of Port St. Lucie, n.d.)
l As a result of this widespread authority, the county government was the dominant political entity in St. Lucie County. By the end of the study period, several proposals were being considered that would further enhance the importance of the county governm ent. For example, one option under consideration was to create a county-wide utility to replace the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority to provide continuity of services with the unincorporated areas of the county (Lewis, personal communication,1981).
Moreover, in the early 1970s, there was a proposal to consolidate the city and county governments into one governing body, a trend in southern rural counties to eliminate duplication of effort and provide more efficient, fiscally sound services (Driscoll, psrsonal communication,1981; Naylor and Clotfelter,1975). This proposal, however, was rsjected in a cc,unty-wide referendum (Driscoll, personal communication,1981).
The county was governed by a five-member Board of County Commissioners, elected to serve four year terms. These commissioners ran from five county commission districts but were elected in a county-wide vote. The County Administrator was the chief administrative officer. (Lewis, personal communication,1981; E. Enns, personal communication,1981.) During the study period, the county commission was dominated by business persons. As a consequence, the study period was marked by consensus, not political conflict, within the commission on the issue of growth, according to key informants. The commission wholeheartedly supported growth and industrial development to create employment opportunities and strengthen the tax base. For example, the commission created the Industrial Development Council in 1967, which promoted industrial development until 1977. In that year, the Chamber of Commerce created the G.O. Team, financially supported by the commission. The county commission t.lso successfully applied for federal monies to develop the Airport Industrial Park, owned by the Fort Pierce Port and Airport Authority, one of the county's six special districts.I (Lewis, personal communication,1981.)
i 1
These special districts were: the Fort Pierce Port and Airport Authority, the Mosquito Control District, and four Erosion Districts.
139
During the study period, the county's population grew rapidly, and county planning evolved into an important government function. In 1964, a Fort Pierce-St. Lucie County Planning Council composed of community volunteers, was formed by the county government. Key informants characterized the council's approach as one of reacting to problems rather than comprehensively planning future growth impacts. In 1973, environmentalists responded to rapid growth on Hutchinson Island by successfully lobbying for a rezoning moratorium on the island and for the development of the Plan for Hutchinson Island. Furthermore, they convinced the county commission to hire a full-time professional planner, who initiated the Countywide Comprehensive Plannning Program. Under this program, a computerized Planning and Development Information System was initiated, and several Small Area Plans were developed. These planning efforts were soon followed by the development of the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan, which was awaiting state approval at the time this study was conducted. (St. Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee, 1977.) Key informants indicated that the development of the plan had a divisive effect on the county. Indeed, growth management became the most salient issue in the county since school desegregation. Subsequent to the study period, a growing segment of the county's population wanted to put a " cap" on growth. For example, in April 1981 the residents of Fort Pierce approved a referendum to limit high-rise structures to four stories on Hutchinson Island (within the city limits). This referendum was an effort to limit population growth more severely than limits already provided for in the comprehen-sive plan.1 Developers, the business community as a whole, and the county commission, all opposed these efforts and continued to support growth as an economic stimulus.
(Lewis, personal communication,1981; Ament, personal communication,1981.)
7.3 Budgets for Major Government Jurisdictions during the Study Period County budget data for FY 1967-68 through FY 1978-79 by major function are discussed in this section. The municipal budgets for Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie are also presented. Revenues to the general fund for each jurisdiction are analyzed to identify major shif ts in resources, with special attention paid to the implications of the i
1 Proponents of the comprehensive plan contended that the plan provided for more open space than the height limitation advocated by its opponents. The comprehensive plan did not set a limit on the height of buildings, but mandated that the open space between buildings be equalin distance to the combined height of two adjacent buildings.
140
1 l
pretence of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. Expenditures are then examined to determine mejor shifts in the expenditures for public services.
7.3.1 The County Budget 7.3.1.1 Revenues The major revenue effects of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant resulted from property tax:s levied on the project and were most evident in the budgets of St. Lucie County, the St. Lucie County-Fort Pierce Fire District, and the St. Lucie County School District (discussed in Section 7.4.1). In addition, tax payments were made to the South Florida Water Management District. These revenue effects also resulted in tax savings to the property taxpayers in St. Lucie County.
Between FY 1967-68 and FY 1978-79, total county revenues increased at an avcrage annual rate of 9.7 percent (in constant 1972 dollars). During this period, the major source of revenue for St. Lucie County was the property tax. As shown in Table 7-1, the property tax accounted for 67 percent of the total county general revenues in FY 1967-68. The importance of the property tax slowly declined during the study period to 46 percent of the total general revenues by FY 1978-79. Between FY 1967-68 and FY 1978-79, the county's general property tax levies (in constant 1972 dollars) increased at an average annual rate of 5.9 percent, slightly faster than the rate of population growth in the county during the same period.
Although property taxes increased slightly faster than the rate of population growth, the average property tax millage rate in the county declined considerably during the study period, as shown in Table 7-2. This decline was made possible by the growing tax base, which increased at an average annual rate of 20.8 percent (in current dollars) ovcr the same period. Beginning with FY 1977-78, the primary factor in the increased tax base was the large increase in the taxable value of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. As shown in Table 7-3, the taxable value of the St. Lucie plant increased by a factor of 136 ovcr the course of the study period, while the county's total taxable value increased only by a factor of 5. In FY 1969-70, the St. Lucie plant's taxable value accounted for less than 1 percent of the county's total taxable value; by FY 1978-79, the nuclear facility's j
l 141
TABLE 7-1 GENERAL REVENUES" l ST. LUCIE COUNTY
{ FY 1967-68 through FY 1978-79 1
Functionb 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 l Property Taxes $1,832,918 $2,079,123 $2,167,746 $2,532,265 $2,682,209 $2,775,113 Other Taxes 30,084 24,910 4,907 86,911 92,432 5,593 Licenses and Permits 39,440 48,007 61,505 94,653 109,581 155,726 Intergovernmental Revenue 334,997 394,456 526,041 641,180 1,437,050 2,381,732 Charges for Services 155,100 152,993 154,897 158,625 330,821 265,739
{ Fines and Forfeitures 174,096 240,042 265,503 278,133 295,807 846,533 Miscellaneous 150,260 252,635 251,159 163,713 249,060 256,657 Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL REVENUES $2,716,895 $3,192,166 $3,431,758 $3,955,480 $5,196,959 $6,687,093 Nonrevenue Receipts $15,868 $19,007 $28,296 $44,887 $40,001 0 TOTAL (Current Dollars) $2,732,763 $3,211,173 $3,460,054 $4,000,367 $5,236,960 $6,687,093 TOTAL (Constant 1972 Dollars) $3,230,216 $3,628,444 $3,740,599 $4,141,167 $5,236,960 $6,338,477 Revenue Per Capita (Constant 1972 Dollars) N/A N/A $73.58 $79.64 $96.11 $101.94 Continued on Next Page
_- =
=
TABLE 7-1 (Contimmed)
GENERAL REVENUES8 ST. LUCIE COUNTY FY 1967-68 through FY 1978-79 FunctionD 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 Property Taxes $2,917,924 $4,569,955 $5,076,309 $5,503,839 $6,326,397 $6,767,384 Other Taxes 122,135 130,776 137,523 22,569 24,533 0 Licenses and Permits 131,534 23,241 125,277 172,403 167,555 230,230 Intergovernmental Revenue 2,481,251 2,896,367 3,021,757 3,326,755 4,027,547 4,377,524 Charges for Services 338,950 807,604 668,834 948,696 1,218,151 1,393,623 Fines and Forfeitures 449,119 359,553 337,286 402,105 541,066 587,071 Miscellaneous 230,663 378,661 400,851 371,080 602,237 1,170,770
" 0 0 88,956 Utilities 0 0 0 TOTAL REVENUES $6,671,576 $9,166,157 $9,767,837 $10,747,447 $12,907,486 $14,615,558 Nonrevenue Receipts 0 $27,004 $33,842 $89,162 0 $188,693 TOTAL (Current Dollars) $6,671,576 $9,193,161 $9,801,679 $10,836,609 $12,907,486 $14,804,251 TOTAL (Constant 1972 Dollars) $5,707,080 $7,267,321 $7,358,618 $7,701,925 $8,587,815 $8,945,167 Revenue Per Capita (Constant 1972 Dollars) $85.14 $105.20 $103.46 $104.58 $110.84 N/A aincludes dependent special districts (Erosion Control Districts, the Ft. Pierce Port and Airport Authority, Mosquito Control District, and Special Improvement Districts). Does not include independent districts such as the fire district, the flood control district, and thgschool district.
The format for recording revenue data was comparable from FY 1967/1968 through FY 1971/1972 and from FY 1972/1973 I through FY 1978/1979. However, the data for the FY 1967/1968 through FY 1971/1972 period and the FY 1972/1973 through l FY 1978/1979 period are not strictly comparable due to a major change in the reporting format.
N/A: Not Available l
Sources: Florida Office of the State Comptroller, 1969-1973, County Finances and County Fee Officers Report, State of Florida, (for FY 1967-68 through FY 1971-72); Florida Office of the State Comptroller, 1974-1980, State of Florida Local Government Financial Report (FY 1972-73 through FY 1978-79).
l
TABLE 7-2 AVERAGE MILLAGE RATE ST. LUCIE COUNTY FY 1969-70 through FY 1978-79 Fiscal Year Average Millage" 1969-70 7.4291 1970-71 7.9673 1971-72 5.8651 1972-73 5.4585 1973-74 4.4278 1974-75 5.9988 1975-76 5.5663 1976-77 5.4450 1977-78 4.2435 1978-79 4.2465
" Actual millage rates vary geographically within the county. The millage rates shown were derived by dividing the property tax revenues by the taxable value of property in the county. This millage does not include the *nillage levied for the school district, fire district, and flood control district, all of which are independent districts.
Sources: James W. Bass, personal communication,1981; Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
)
144
TABLE 7-3 TAX ABLE VALUE, PROPERTY TAX REVENUES, AND TOTAL REVENUES ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT FY 1969-70 through FY 1978-79 (Current Dollars)
Percent of Total Percent of Percent of Total Nuclear St. Lucie Total Nuclear Plant Total Nuclear Plant Total St. Lucie Plant to County St. Lucie Tames to St. bacie Tames to St. Lucie County Nuclear Plant Total County Propergy Nuclear Plant Total County County County Fiscal Year Taxable Value Taxable Value Taxable Value Tames Property Tazes* Tazes Revenues Revenues 1969-70 $291,791,378 $2,206,120 0.76 $Z,167,746 $18,977 0.88 $3,460,054 0.55 1970-71 317,833,187 Z,Z06,120 0.69 Z,532,Z65 18,335 0.72 4,000,367 0.46 1971-72 457,315,103 Z,248,660 0.49 Z,682,Z09 17,992 0.67 5,236,960 0.34
- 6,687,093 1972-73 508,397,845 Z,332,910 0.46 Z,775,113 18,582 0.67 0.28 1973-74 659,006,744 5,648,410 0.86 Z,917,924 Z8,767 0.99 6,671,576 0.43 1974-75 761,809,263 6,301,260 0.83 4,569,955 39,276 0.86 9,193,161 0.43 1975-76 911,977,175 7,024,640 0.77 5,076,309 40,343 0.79 9,801,679 0.41 1976-77 1,010,810,466 6,723,640 0.67 5,503,839 37,751 0.69 10,836,609 0.35 1977-78 1,490,842,179 279,849,090 18.77 6,326,397 1,220,56Z 19.29 12,907,486 9.46 1978-79 1,593,658,193 301,036,940 18.89 6,767,384 1,325,Z85 19.58 14,804,251 8.95
- Excludes the school district, fire district, and flood control district, all of which were ladependent districts.
Sources: Florida Office of the State ComptroIIer, 1971-1973, County Finances and County Fee Officers Report, State of Florida (for FY 1969-70 through FY 1971-72); Florida Office of the State Comptroller, 1974-1980, State of Florida Local Government Financial Report (FY 1972-73 through FY 1978-79)t James W. Bass, personal communication,1981.
contribution to the tax base had risen to almost 19 percent.1 The nuclear plant contributed almost 9 percent of the total county revenues in FY 1978-79.
Because the St. Lucie nuclear facility constituted such a large proportion of the tax base of the county and ' consequently paid a large proportion of the county's total property taxes, other taxpayers in the county paid fewer taxes. The amount of tax savings can be estimated by calculating what the minage rate would have been to raise the same amount of revenues without the nuclear facility. The first year that St. Lucie Unit I was assessed at its full value (FY 1977-78) was selected to illustrate the tax savings to the county's residents.
To determine the estimated millage rate that the county's taxpayers would have had to pay in the absence of the nuclear plant, the anticipated property tax levy to the county was adjusted for the absence of the project-related population increase. After making this adjt.stment, it was determined that without the St. Lucie plant, the average millage rate woald have had to increase from 4.2435 mills2to 5.45039 mills (or 1.20689 additional mills) to raise the necessary tax levy to maintain the same level of county expenditures per capita. For a home owner with a home valued at $50,000 ($40,000 taxable value due to the early payment discount and homestead exemption),3 the average additional tax pa.yment would have been $48.28 without the nuclear facility. It should be noted that the actual tax savings would have varied, since the actual millage rate varied by geographical area.
In addition to payments to the county, FPL paid taxes to the St. Lucie County-Fort Pierce Fire District and to the South Florida Water Management District, as shown I
No taxes were paid on personal property (such as the generator, reactor, and permanent structures) until the unit went on-line. Prior to FY 1977-78, taxes were paid only on real property (land, temporary facilities, and offices used during construction) and certain personal property (construction equipment).
2 Average millage excluding independent districts. The actual millage varied geographically within the county.
3 The Homestead Exemption Act reduced the property appraisal value by $5,000 for thou home owners who became legal residents of Florida and who resided full-tirne in their home on January 1 of the tax year. Those over the age of 65 who lived in their home for more '.han five years were eligible for an additional $5,000 exemption. (City of Port St. Lucie, n.d.)
146
in Table 7-4. Because the South Florida Water Management District was a multicounty l tr.xing district with a low millage rate, the proportion of the St. Lucie plant tax payment to the total district revenues was insignificant (less than 1 percent throughout the study ptriod). In contrast, while the percentage of payments on the nuclear plant to the St.
Lucie County-Fort Pierce Fire District from FY 1972-73 through FY 1976-77 were only about 1 percent, by FY 1978-79, the proportion rose significantly to almost 30 percent of the total fire district revenues once Unit I went on-line.
7.3.1.2 Expenditures Table 7-5 shows the general expenditures for St. Lucie County by major function for FY 1967-68 through FY 1978-79. As shown in the table, total county expenditures (in j current dollars) increased from $2.6 million in FY 1967-68 to $14.1 million in FY 1978- l 79, a 16.7 percent average annual rate of change. After adjustments for inflation, the ennual rate of increase was 9.8 percent. 'Ihe level of expenditures (in constant 1972 dollars) grew rapidly between FY 1967-68 and FY 1970-71, at an average annual rate of 14.8 percent, then dropped to an average annual rate of 2.9 percent during the following two years. In FY 1973-74, the level of expenditures rose dramatically by 23.8 percent; a similar increase was experienced the following year. This trend of increasing expenditures continued through the end of the study period, with the exception of FY 1977-78, when expenditures decreased by more than 18 percent. Expenditures per capita (in constant 1972 dollars) fluctuated during the study period, although the general trend was a gradual increase from $73.32 in FY 1969-70 to $80.08 in FY 1973-74 (the peak construction year) to $99.02 in FY 1977-78. An analysis of the increasing level of expenditures during the study period does not indicate any cause and effect relationship with changes in the project-related population in the Study Area.
During the study period, the major areas of county expenditure were general government, public safety, and transportation (primarily streets and highways). In FY 1967-68, general government accounted for 36 percent of the budget; public safety, 17 percent; and transportation, 24 percent. By FY 1973-74, the proportion of the budget expended for public safety (primarily law enforcement) had risen to 30 percent, while the percentages spent on general government and transportation had declined to 32 percent and 18 percent, respectively. (Interviews with key informants indicated that these changes were not a result of the nuclear plant or its work force.) The areas of county 147
l l
TABLE 74 REVENUES AND EXPENDIRJRES SELECTED ST. LUCIE COUNTY TA,XING DISTRICTS FY 1972-73 through FY 1978-79 (Constant 1972 Dollars)
St. Lucie County-Fort Pierce Fire District South Florida Water Manaaement District Percentage Percentage St. Lucie St.Imete St. Imcie St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Plant Nuclear Plant Plant Property to Total Property to Total Fiscal Year Revenues Expenditures Taxes Revenues Revenues Espenditures Taxes Revenues 1972-73 $859,667 $828,552 $5,508 0.64 $12,287,088 $11,808,782 $1,213 0.01 1973-74 1,173,028 1,019,151 11,816 1.01 15,512,618 12,398,267 2,739 0.02 1974-75 1,484,869 1,489,502 14,789 1.00 16,261,609 13,219,389 2,483 0.02 1975-76 1,503,763 1,370,369 14,590 0.97 15,826,297 15,306,299 2,634 0.02 1976-77 1,588,652 1,659,020 13,824 0.87 15,599,352 17,618,239 2,454 0.02 1977-78 1,673,730 1,617,804 447,227 26.72 17,371,506 17,395,968 111,100 0.64 1978-79 1,670,021 1,666,240 486,536 29.13 15,856,289 17,595,624 119,512 0.75 Sources: Florida Office of the State ComptroHer, 1974-1980, State of Florida Local Government Financial Report (FY 1972-1973 through F.
1978-1979); Alycia Pryor, personal communication,1981.
l
TABLE 7-5 GENER AL EXPENDITURES
- ST. LUCIE COUNTY FY 1967-68 through FY 1978-79 Function b 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-7Z 1972-73 General Governmental Services $913,700 $1,049,635 $1,220,626 $1,355,645 $1,467,328 $1,534,694 Public Safety 435,999 480,094 646,396 766,978 912,371 1,337,718 Physical Environment 27,639 2,125 25,709 608,871 d 1,207 Z,671 626,765 493,965 656,550 687,559 916,559 716,099 Transportation 224,354 263,702 320,321 306,515 3Z7,384 156,829
, Economic Environment Mental and Physical IIcalthC 10,863 36,694 64,670 2Z0,260 229,893 259,435 246,297 386,679 371,429 399,258 408,347 452,904 Culture aad Recre. tion 14,892 15,439 26,304 31,108 33,88Z 35,654 Utilities Other 71,702 76,127 115,689 64,012 132,201 79,103
$2,572,Z11 $2,804,460 $3,447,694 $4,440,206 $4,429,172 $4,575,107 TOTAL Expenditures ,
0 0 0 0 0 0 Nonexpenditure Disbur.ements
$2,572,211 $2,804,460 $3,447,694 $4,440,Z06 $4,429,17Z $4,575,107 TOTAL (Current Dollars)
$3,040,439 $3,168,881 $3,727,237 $4,596,487 $4,429,172 $4,336,594 TOTAL (Constant 1972 Dollars)
Per Capita Expenditures N/A N/A $73.32 $88.39 $81.29 $69.74 (Constant 1972 Dollars)
Continued on Next Page
TABLE 7-5 (Continned)
GENER AL EXPENDITURES" ST. LUCIE COUNTY FY 1967-68 through FY 1978-79 Function b 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 General Governmental Services $2,016,227 $2,632,823 $3,672,998 $5,892,873 $3,794,180 $3,350,978 Public Safety 1,860,227 2,477,304 2,417,703 2,762,275 2,956,325 3,507,238 Physical Environment 65,290 64,449 101,094 89,374 908,564 d 57,926 Transportation 1,159,733 1,755,728 1,189,617 1,556,002 556,259 3,280,853 Economic Environment 409,941 476,675 541,366 551,066 962,178 740,874 l Mental and Physical IIealth C 99,039 315,256 479,827 493,916 572,090 625,663 Culture and Recreation 553,061 797,858 784,406 1,097,557 1,450,064 1,996,129 Utilities 56,307 51,460 44,369 747,323 331,392 211,775 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
TOTAL Expenditures $6,219,825 $8,571,553 $9,231,380 $13,190,386 $11,531,052 $13,771,436 Nonexpenditure Disbursements $ 55,318 0 $234 $2,081 0 $348,929 TOTAL (Current Dollars) $6,275,143 $8,571,553 $9,231,614 $13,192,467 $11,531,052 $14,120,365 TOTAL (Constant 1972 Dollars) $5,367,958 $6,775,931 $6,930,641 $9,376,309 $7,672,024 $8,531,943 Per Capita Expenditures (Constant 1972 Dollars) $80.08 $98.09 $97.44 $127.32 $99.02 N/A
- Includes dependent special districts (Erosion Control Districts, the Ft. Pierce Port and Airport Authority, the Mosquito Control District, and Specia(Improvement Districts). Does not include independent districts such as the fire district, the flood control district, and the school district.
The format for recording expenditure data was comparable from FY 1967-1968 through FY 1971-1972 and from FY- 1972-1973 through FY 1978-1979. Ilowever, the data for FY 1967-1968 through FY 1971-1972 and FY 1972-1973 through FY 1978-1979 are not strictly comparable due to a major change in the reporting format.
C
!ncludes mosquito control.
d Increase due to beach erosion project.
N/A - Not available.
Sources: Florida Office of the State Comptroller, 1969-1973, County Finances and County Fee Officers Report, State of Florida (for FY 1967-68 through FY 1971-72); Florida Office of the State Comptroller, 1974-1980, State of Florida local Government Financial Report (FY 1972-73 through FY 1978-79).
sxpenditures experiencing the greatest growth during the study period were mental and l physical health (44.6 percent average annual rate of increase), utilities (27.3 percent),
culture and recreation (21.0 percent), and public safety (20.9 percent). With the exception of public safety, however, the absolute amount of expenditures was small, ralative to major categories of expenditures such as general government and transportation.
In all but two years during the study period, the county received sufficient ravenues to pay for the necessary expenditures. However, in FY 1970-71, expenditures exceeded revenues by about 11 percent. The disparity between revenues and expendi-tures was even greater in FY 1976-77, when expenditures exceeded revenues by 22 p:rcent. The large increase in expenditures that year, however, was primarily due to increases in the legislative function of general government and the acquisition of a new county dump site, mandated by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and was not attributable to the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant (White, personal communication,1981).
7.3.2 Municipal Budaets Because the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant was located in an unincorporated area of the county, the municipalities did not benefit from the nuclear plant in terms of property taxes. Moreover, because sales tax is paid only to the State of Florida, neither Fort Pierce nor Port St. Lucie received direct fiscal benefits from retail sales made to project-related workers or Ebasco Services. Nevertheless, the majority of the project-related in-migrants settled in these incorporated areas and, thus, exerted demands on expenditures for public services.
As shown in Table 7-6, revenues (in constant 1972 dollars) to the City of Fort Pierce increased during the study period at an average annual rate of 20.0 percent, compared to a 19.7 percent average annual rate of increase in expenditures, shown in Table 7-7. The largest expenditures were for general governmental services, public safety, and transportation at the beginning of the study period. Public safety expenditures increased by a factor of 4 over the study period, as did transportation, 151
~-- - , ,
.c .
r
'~^
TABLE 7-6
' ' ^
GiMERAL REVENUES ,
FORT PIERCE '
FY 1967-68 through FY 1978-79 Function a 1967-68' 1968-6_9 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 Property Taxes $366,660 $368,971 $382,498 j457,349 $481,914 $752,379 Other Taxes ,
81,122 44,577 36,326 58,008 -
120,898 1,078,464
( Licenses and Permits 106,208 29,401 118,821 138,597 46,587' 138.367 Intergoverr.ao-ntal lievenw 417,862 533,167 474,384 514,294~ 323,555
- 2,362,992 Charges for Services 280,803 332,125 277,610 682,348 704,805 145,702 C
N Fines and Forfeiture. 122,835 139,171 156,638 146,555 199,933 189,790 Miscellaneous 61,121 232,207 98,889 235,082 93,708 110,086 Utilities / Refuse 446,533 465,530 1,216,546 953,043 71,530 625,208 TOTAL Revenues $1,883,144 $2,145,149 $2,761,712 - $3,185,276 $2,542,900 $5,402,988
.. Nonrevenue Receipts $733,184 $751,571 0 0 .;$913,363 0 - - -
l TOTAL (Current Dollars) $2,616,328 $2,896,720 $2,761,712 $3,165,276 $3,456,263 '35,402,988 TOTAL (Consynt 1972 Dollars) $3,092,586 $3,273,130 $2,985,63 5 $3,297,387 $3,456,263 $5,121,316 Revenue Pc Capita (Constant 1972 Dollars) N/A N/A $100.46 N/A $109.50 $161.29 l
- Continued on Next Page s
gn ,s-m
r .-
v TABIE 74 (Canthmed)
GENERAL REVENUES FORT PIERCE FY 1967-68 through FY 1978-79 1
Function
- 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 l'v78-79 i
Property Taxes $753,078 $1,158,045 $1,253,333 $1,332,584 $1,379,589 $1,498,139 Other Taxes 739,579 737,531 838,589 909,683 969,177 999,37Z Licenses and Permits Z17,356 155,799 168,410 196,440 221,959 240,036 Intergovernmental Revenue 2,066,079 Z,281,006 2,331,891 Z,654,375 4,392,86Z 2,649,713 Charges for Services 186,326 155,798 Z59,967 312,722 269,225 639,860 Fines and Forfeitures 217,200 230,484 318,121 ZZ7,860 195,386 175,449 Miscellaneous 1,495,975 1,333,494 1,Z94,933 1,517,785 2,250,837 1,764,618 11,964,681 15,220,536 16,645,093 18,749,928 22,551,775 Z3,612,943 h Utilities / Refuse TOTAL Revenues $17,640,274 $21,272,693 $Z3,110,337 $25,e 31,377 $3Z,230,810 $31,580,130 Nonrevenue Receipts 0 $1,341,806 $1,018,813 $1,501,393 $1,455,476 $6,606,721 TOTAL (Current Dollars) $17,640,274 $22,614,499 $24,129,150 $27,402,770 $33,686,286 $38,186,851 TOTAL (Constant 1972 Dollars) $15,090,055 $17,877,074 $18,114,977 $19,476,027 $22,412,699 $23,073,626 Revenue Per Capita (Constant 1972 Dollars) $460.23 $540.Z9 $56Z.89 $600.70 $686.81 N/A
- Data from FY 1967-68 through FY 1971-72 are not strictly comparable to data from FY 1972-73 through FY 1978-79 due to different sources and data formating.
l N/A Not Available.
l Sources: McAlpin, Curtis & O'Haire, 1968-1972, City of Fort Pierce Audit Repfo (for FY 1967-68 through FY 1971-72); Florida Office of the State Comptroller, 1974-1980, State of Florida Local Government Financial Report (for FY 1972-73 through FY 1978-79).
TABLE 7-7 GENERAL EXPENDITURES FORT PIERCE FY 1967-68 through FY 1978-79 Functimi 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 General Governmental Services $900,778 $808,663 $1,165,975 $1,677,728 $1,740,374 4700,991 Public Safety 493,945 504,140 623,378 770,412 807,972 1,Z45,189 Physical Environment 97,040 50,617 79,122 107,261 109,917 0 Transport ation 413,318 476,186 374,122 436,038 365,623 530,567 l Economic Environment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mental and Physical Health 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 Culture and Recreation 181,811 125,Z53 106,740 140,419 138,637 142,156 Utilities 305,603 390,499 403,098 0 0 573,793 Capital Improvements 265,466 476,185 51,747 93,832 13,183 (u)
Other 46,212 %,865 135,598 161,713 144,416 748,600 TOTAL Expenditures $2,714,173 $2,928,408 $2,939,780 $3,347,403 $3,320,122 $3,941,296 Nonexpenditure Disbursements 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL (Current Dollars) $2,714,173 $2,928,408 $2,939,780 $3,387,403 $3,320,122 $3,941,296 TOTAL (Constant 1972 Dollars) $3,208,242 $3,308,936 $3,178,141 $3,506,628 $3,320,122 $3,735,8Z6 Per Capita Expenditures (Constant 1972 Dollars) N/A N/A $106.93 N/A $105.18 $117.66 Continued on Next Page
l TABLE 7-7 (Cantismed)
GENERAL EXPENDITURES FORT PIERCE FY 1967-68 through FY 1978-79 (Continued) l Function 1973-74* 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 l
1 l
General Governmental Services $2,229,275 $2,307,928 $1,716,791 81,835,763 $912,544 $1,810,233 Public Safety 1,654,082 1,601,189 1,709,242 1,833,775 1,990,701 2,189,108 0 91,026 79,607 10,495 113,406 0 Physical Environment Transportation 1,506,959 1,555,518 1,636,863 887,091 2,377,718 1,706,492 Economic Environment 239,%5 0 20,725 0 365,903 441,502 Mental and Physical Health 10,000 0 0 19,500 42,793 0 Culture and Recreation 622,098 275,727 576,967 700,633 910,520 978,910 0
Utilities 8,907,114
- 14,937,232 16,685,950 20,900,344 25,315,959 22,519,484 CapitalImprovements (U) (U) (U) (U) (U) (U)
Other 1,120,079 0 0 0 0 1,977,092 TOTAL Expenditures $16,889,572 $20,768,620 $22,426,145 $26,187,601 $32,029,544 $31,624,821 Nonexpenditure Disbursements 0 $4,978 $421,605 $448,366 $528,642 $6,733,577 TOTAL (Current Dollars) $16,889,572 $20,773,598 $22,847,750 $26,635,967 $32,558,186 $38,358,398
$14,447,880 $16,421,817 $17,152,%5 $18,931.036 $21,662,133 $23,177,280 TOTAL (Constant 1972 Dollars)
Per Capita Expenditures (Constant 1972 Dollars) $440.65 $4%.31 $533.00 $583.89 $663.81 N/A
- Beginning in FY 1973-74, the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority is incheded in the county's expenditure records. Consequently, data betreeen the FY 1967-68 to FY 1972-73 period and the FY 1973-74 to 1978-79 period are not comparable.
(U) Not itemized. Capital improvements are included in other categories.
N/A: Not Available. I Sources: McAlpin, Curtis & O'llaire, 1968-1972, City of Fort Pierce Audit Report (for FY 1967-68 through FY 1971-72); Florida Office of the State Comptroller, 1974-1980, State of Florida Local Government Financial Report (for FY 1972-73 through FY 1978-79).
1
expenditures, primarily due to a comprehensive street-paving program.I During the FY 1967-68 through FY 1970-71 period, expenditures exceeded revenues by between 1.0 and 6.0 percent. In FY 1978-79, expenditures exceeded revenues by less than 0.5 percent.
An examination of the expenditures, however, does not indicate that these disparities were due to municipal expenditures for the project-related population.
Although Fort Pierce did not receive property tax revenues from the St. Lucie plant, it did receive some revenues through the sale of water by the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority. However, the importance of this payment to total municipal revenues was minimal. For example, in FY 1977-78, the St. Lucie plant paid $15,778 (current dollars) to the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority for water use (Noyes, personal communication, 1981). This amount was only 0.9 percent of the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority's total water sales and only 0.05 percent of the total city revenues.
In Port St. Lucie, as shown in Table 7-8, revenues (in constant 1972 dollars) increased at an average annual rate of only 21.6 percent from FY 1972-73 through FY 1977-78, compared to an average annual increase in expenditures of 28.3 percent, as shown in Table 7-9. Nevertheless, the level of revenues was consistently higher than that of expenditures, despite rapid population growth. The primary areas of expenditure were general government and public safety.
In sum, the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant did not have a discernable effect on the municipal budgets of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. Rather, changes in the level of revenues and expenditures was the result of overall population growth.
7.4 Selected Public 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 construction projects. To discuss these services, it has been necessary to present an overview that condenses extensive data for an extended period. The objectives are to I
In 1968, more than 44 miles of streets in Fort Pierce were unpaved; by 1978, this figure was reduced by almost 50 percent.
156
TABLE 7-4 GENER AL REVENUES PORT ST. LUCIE FY 1972-73 through FY 1977-78 8 Function 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 Property Taxes $132,149 $224,511 $300,514 $330,273 $287,665 $310,003 Other Taxes 21,418 32,611 67,395 87,417 109,910 142,798 Licenses and Permits 138,410 159,166 99,101 160,723 254,545 439,315 Intergovernmental Revenue 21,019 39,241 59,940 109,640 223,711 260,203 Charges for Services 9,458 7,177 0 14,000 7,812 4,289 Fines and Forfeitures 704 979 1,265 4,153 5,838 13.217 Miscellaneous 10,465 20,611 27,922 56,800 52,265 88,737 Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL Revenues $333,623 $484,296 $556,137 $763,006 $941,746 $1,258,562 Nonrevenue Receipts 0 0 $7,600 0 0 $6,753 l
TOTAL (Current DcIlars) $333,623 $484,296 $563,737 $763,006 $941,746 $1,265,315 l
TOTAL (Constant 1972 Dollars) $316,230 $414,282 $445,642 $ 572,827 $669,329 $841,860 Per Capita Revenues (Constant 1972 Dollars) $183.32 $144.85 $132.08 $133.46 $127.25 $124.20 aData for FY 1967-68 through FY 1971-72 were not available.
Source: Florida Office of the State Comptroller, 1974-1979, State of Florida Local Government Financial Report.
l
\
TABLE 7-9 GENERAL EXPENDITURES PORT ST. LUCIE FY 1972-73 through FY 1977-78 8 Function 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 l
General Governmental Services $67,821 $262,738 $286,331 $236,098 $309,375 $312,121 Public Safety 91,202 188,023 137,166 170,087 258,542 327,797 Physical Environment 600 0 62,964 13,450 60,086 54,688 Transportation 12,938 8,346 0 13,080 0 95,906 Economic Environment 0 0 0 0 0 22,195 Mental and Physical IIcalth 0 600 0 2,500 8,500 5,000 Culture and Recreation 0 0 2,500 43,084 94,761 35,574 Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL Expenditures $172,561 $459,707 $488,961 $478,299 $731,264 $853,281 Nonexpenditure Disbursements 0 0 0 0 $7,128 0 TOTAL (Current Dollars) $172,561 $459,707 488,961 $478,299 $738,392 $853,281 TOTAL (Constant 1972 Dollars) $163,565 $393,248 $386,530 $359,083 $524,799 $567,719 Per Capita Expenditures (Constant 1972 Dollars) $94.82 $137.50 $114.56 $83.66 $99.77 $83.76 aData for FY 1967-68 through FY 1971-72 were not available.
Source: Florida Office of the State Comptroller, 1974-1979, State of Florida Local Government Financial Report.
l
id ntify responses to project impacts made by the public services and to discuss structural changes that had important consequences for county residents.
7.4.1 Education The St. Lucie Nuclear Plant was located within the St. Lucie County School District. The St. Lucie County School District was a unified public school system, optrated by a five-member St. Lucie County School Board and administered by the Superintendent of the St. Lucie County School District. The school district's boundaries were the same as the county's. The school district underwent a major reorganization in tha 1970-71 school year as a result of court-ordered desegregation. Separate white and black schools were combined to form eight elementary schools, three middle schools, a s::nior high school, and several special-purpose facilities. (St. Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee,1977; Behling, personal communication, 1981.) Post-secondary education within the county was offered by Indian River Community College, which provided both a two-year college program and a vocational cducation program.
Funding for public education came from federal, state, and local sources. In 1973, the Florida Legislature passed the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP), which mandated equalized funding for Florida's school districts (all of which coincide with county boundaries). Consequently, local school revenues generated by each school di:;trict's property tax millage are reallocated at the state level to all school districts based on a formula for determining the revenues per pupil, weighted for the different cducational programs offered.1 As a result of this re-allocation scheme, the impact of nsw property tax revenues is diffused: the amount of state funds a school district esceives is adjusted for the amount of locally generated revenues, so that each district receives equal money in proportion to the number of pupils in each type of program. For example, if a school district has been allocated $10 million in revenues for a given number of pupils in that district (excluding revenues for federally supported programs),
and $4 million is generated locally, $6 million would come from state funds. If the amount of locally generated revenues is increased to $8 million as a result of an 1
Different weights are given to each program offered by the school, such as basic education for kindergarten through third grade, special education for the deaf, physical and occupational therapy, gif ted students program, and vocational-technical programs.
159
increased tax base, only $2 million in state funds would be received; the total revenues would remain $10 million. (Florida Academy of School Leaders,1980; See, personal communication,1981.)
l Each year, the Florida Legislature determines the property tax millage necessary for the school districts to raise what is termed the " required local effort." In addition to the funds generated by the FEFP, a small supplemental fund may be raised by the school district by a discretionary millage. The maximum amount of discretionary millage that a local district can levy is established annually by the Florida Legislature, and the specific amount to be levied is determined by the local school board. The revenues from this discretionary millage remain with the school district without being redistributed-(Florida Academy of School Leaders,1980; See, personal communication,1981.) For example, in FY 1978-79, the required school millage was 6.4 mills, and the discretionary millage levied in St. Lucie County was 0.55 mills, although a millage of up to 1.6 mills could have been levied that year (Florida Department of Education,1979).
Changes in the revenues, expenditures, and district property taxes for FY 1969-70 through FY 1978-79 are shown in Table 7-10. Local property tax revenues were an important source of revenues to the St. Lucie Ccunty School District. In FY 1969-70, approximately 40 percent of the school district's revenues were provided by property taxes. This proportion rose to more than 45 percent during the period from FY 1971-72 through FY 1973-74, then declined to about 33 percent between FY 1974-75 and FY 1976-77. In FY 1977-78, this proportion increased to almost 50 percent.
During the ten-year study period, property taxes from the nuclear plant accounted for less than 1 percent of total district property taxes until FY 1977-78, when St. Lucie Unit I was first assessed at its full taxable value. In that year and the following year, the nuclear plant provided about 19 percent of the total property taxes to the schooldistrict, about $2 million (current dollars). However, in both of those years, the nuclear plant provided only about 9 percent of the total district revenues of $21 million (FY 1977-78) and $24 million (FY 1978-79).
It should be noted that in the absence of the nuclear plant, the school district would have been directly affected by the lower tax base only to the extent of the discretionary millage revenues. For example, in FY 1978-79, St. Lucie County levied a school district tax of 6.95 mills: 6.4 mills were required by the state, and 0.55 mills were 160
TABLE 7-10 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES, TAXABLE VALUE, AND PROPERTY TAXES ST LUCIE COUNTY AND ST. LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FY 1969-70 through FY 1978-79 (Current Dollars)
Percent of Percent of Total Nuclear Nuclear Total Total Percent of Total Nuclear Plant Plant to Plant District District Total Total Nuclear Plant District Tax Payments District Taxes to Revenue Current District Nuclear Plant to District Property to School Property District Fiscal Year Receipts Expenditures Taxable Value Taxable Value Tanable Value Taxes District Taxes Revenues 1969-70 $8,711,302 $7,239,769 $291,791,378 $2,206,120 0.76 $3,445,473 $26,050 0.76 0.30 1970-71 9,274,585 8,255,428 317,833,187 2,206,120 0.69 3,253,023 22,580 0.69 0.24
~
1971-72 9,992,026 9,006,446 457,315,103 2,248,660 0.49 4,573,151 22,487 0.49 0.23 1972-73 10,669,621 9,508,085 508,397,845 2,332,910 0.46 5,083,978 23,329 0.46 0.22 1973-74 12,546,438 11,159,626 659,006,744 5,648,410 0.86 5,667,458 48,576 0.86 0.39 1974-75 16,313,415 13,682,588 761,809,263 6,301,260 0.83 5,027,941 41,588 0.83 0.25 1975-76 16,307,794 14,779,249 911,977,175 7,024,640 0.77 5,856,535 45,111 0.77 0.28 1976-77 20,711,570 16,336,382 1,010,810,466 6,723,640 0.67 7,025,133 46,729 0.67 0.23 1977-78 21,178,612 18,808,677 1,490,842,179 279,849,090 18.77 10,361,353 1,944,951 18.77 9.18 1978-79 23,605,352 21,288,709 1,593,658,193 301,036,940 18.89 11,075,924 2,092,207 18.89 8.86 Sources: Florida Department of Education,1969, Report for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1,1968 and Ending June 30,1969t Florida Department of Education, 1971-1974, Statistical Profile of Florida School Districts (for FY 1970-71 through FY 1973-74); Florida Department of Education, 1975-1979, Profiles of Florida School Districts (for FY 1974-75 through FY 1978-79); James W. Bass, personal communication,1981.
discretionary. Consequently, the St. Lucie County School District received $165,570 (current dollars) from the nuclear plant as a result of the discretionary millage.
Although this amount was 19 percent of the total $877 thousand raised by the discretionary millage in FY 1978-79, it was less than 1 percent of the total district revenue receipts. One method of analyzing the effect of the nuclear plant on school district revenues and county taxpayers is to determine what the millage would have had to be in the absence of the plant to raise the same level of revenues. To raise the
$165,570 generated by the payment of the discretionary millage on the nuclear plant, the school district would have had to raise the mill levy by 0.163777 mills. Thus, a home owner under age 65 with a $50,000 home in 1978 would have paid an estimated $6.55 (current dollars) in additional school district taxes in the absence of the nuclear plant.I 3 The revenues to St. Lucie County as a result of the state-determined school tax millage would not have been directly affected by the absence of the plant, since locally generated school revenues are equalized by state funds. There may have been an indirect effect on the state-determined millage, since the total taxable value of all school districts participating in the Florida Education Finance Program is used in the formula for determining the required millage. However, dh effect would have been negligible, given a total assessed valuation of $118 billion (current dollars) for Florida school districts for FY 1978-79 (Florida Department of Education,1979).
School enrollments were also affected by the construction and operation of the St.
Lucie Nuclear Plant. Table 7-11 shows school enrollments for 1968 through 1978. In 1968 (the beginning of the study period) 12,200 students were enrolled in the St. Lucie County school system. Enrollments fluctuated during the study period, but increased by a total of 8 percent by 1978. In the first years of the study period, enrollment remained relatively stable until 1972 and 1973, when enrollment increased by 7 percent and 3 ,
percent, respectively. In 1974 (the peak construction year on St. Lucie Unit 1), this trend 1
The tax figure was determined by taking the "just value" of the home (the market value depreciated by approximately 10 percent, deoending on the condition of the home and the neighborhood-in practice, this percentage varies), minus $5,000 for homestead exemption, multiplied by the additional millage. Because of a higher homestead exemption for residents over age 65 who have resided in their homes for more than five years, such a resident in a $50,000 home would have paid an increased millage tax of
$5.73 in FY 1978-79 in the absence of the nuclear plant.
162
\
h TABLE 7-11 l SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1968-1978 St. Lucie Number of County Project-Related, School School District Percentage In-migrating Percent of Year Enrollment" Increase Childrenb Enrollment 1968 12,200 -
0 0 1969 12,398 1.62 19 0.15 1970 12,235 -1.31 23 0.19
! 1971 12,137 -0.80 66 0.54 l
1972 12,973 6.88 126 0.97 1973 13,424 3.48 224 1.67 1974 12,239 -8.83 270 2.21 1975 12,468 1.87 247 1.98 1976 12,576 0.87 141 1.12 1977 12,845 2.14 90 0.70 1978 13,158 2.44 193 1.47 aKindergarten through 12th grade, based on fall enrollment, b
Based on the ratio of the estimated number of project-related, in-migrating children in 1974 (determined in Table 5-6) to the average annual direct basic employment for the 1968-1974 period, increased at a constant annual rate between 1974 and 1978 to reach the 1978 in-migrating children to direct basic employment ratio (determined in Table 5-8).
Sources: Florida Department of Education,1969, Report for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1,1968 and Ending June 30, 1969; Florida Department of Education,1971-1974, Statistical Profile of Florida School Districts (for FY 1970-71 through FY 1973-74);
Florida Department of Education, 1975-1979, Profiles of Florida School Districts (for FY 1974-75 through FY 1978-79); Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
163
was reversed with a sharp 9 percent decrease in enrollment. By the final year of the study period (1978), enrollment gradually increased to 13,158 students.
There does not appear to be a strong relationship between school enrollment trends and the increase in the estimated number of project-related children who in-migrated to the Study Area. In 1974, for example, when total enrollment dropped by 9 percent, the estimated number of project-related children who in-migrated to the Study Area reached its peak. Further, between 1974 and 1977, the number of project-related children declined while school enrollment increased. At no point did the proportion of project-related children who in-migrated exceed 2.5 percent of total enrollment. In 1974, with a peak of 270 project-related children, they constituted only 2.2 percent of total enrollment. By 1978, this proportion declined to 1.5 percent. It should be noted that these figures probably overestimate the number of project-related children in-migrating to the Study Area who were enrolled in the school district, since the figures assume that all of these children were school-aged. In fact, some proportion of these children would have been 0-4 years old and, thus, not in the school system.
According to school officials, the number of school facilities increased between 1970 and 1978. In 1970 there were 8 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, and I high school; in 1978 there were 10 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 2 high schools (Behling, personal communication,1981). Schools were operating at near-capacity levels throughout the study period (See, personal communication,1981). During the 1976-77 school year, Fort Pierce Central High School became so crowded that double sessions were instituted. Consequently, an additional high school was constructed, which opened during the 1977-78 school year. However, school officials indicated that the presence of children of in-migrating nuclear plant workers was not an important factor in the crowded high school conditions. (Behling, personal communication,1981.) An analysis of ,
school enrollment figures for the 1976-77 school year substantiates this observation. In that year, an enrollment of 3,464 students exceeded the high school's capacity of 2,484 students by almost 40 percent (St. Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee,1977). In the most extreme case, if all of the estimated 141 project-related children who in-migrated had been high school students, they would have accounted for about 14 percent of the excess number of students. However, since it is unlikely that all of these children were high school-aged, the impact would have been considerably less.
Subsequent to the study period, Port St. Lucie Elementary School also went on double sessions; however, the effect the children of in-migrating project-related workers had on 164 l
1 this overcrowding could not be determined. Interviews with school officials indicated that any effects the project-related students had on the schools' crowded conditions could not be differentiated from the effects of general growth in the area (Behling, personal communication,1981; Fenn, personal communication,1981).
7.4.2 Transportation The primary transportation routes in St. Lucie County during the study period were U.S.1, the Sunshine State Parkway, and Interstate 95, the major north-south links connecting the county with Miami, Jacksonville, and Orlando. Additionally, the Florida East Coast Railway Company provided freight service to Jacksonville and Miami (no passenger service was available). The major east-west routes were Florida State Roads 68 and 70. State Road A1 A (S.R. A1A), stretching along Hutchinson Island and connecting with U.S.1 on the mainland, provided the only route to the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. (St. Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee,1977.)
As a result of the increased population in the county, traffic generally increand throughout the Study Area during the study period. In addition, traffic volume rose due to the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, primarily as a result of construction worker traffic at shift changes. During the construction period, S.R. A1 A was the primary artery handling construction worker traffic. The majority of the construction work force commuted from Martin County, Port St. Lucie, or West Palm Beach. These commuters generally traveled south from the plant on S.R. A1 A to cross to the mainland via two Martin County bridges. Those from West Palm Beach then centinued south through Martin County along U.S.1 or the Sunshine State Parkway.
Those commuters going to Fort Pierce or Vero Beach (Indian River County) generally I
traveled north from the plant on S.R. A1 A to cross at the Peter P. Cobb Bridge (known
[ locally as the " South Bridge"). Once on the mainland, the northbound commuter traffic traveled along U.S. I to Vero Beach.
l The majority of the traffic-related impacts in St. Lucie County were experienced on S.R. A1 A, a two-lane road; therefore an analysis of traffic volume on S.R. A1 A during the study period was attempted. However, the location of the traffic count stations and the limited number of days on which traffic counts were made (ranging between one and four days in each year) created difficulties in drawing any meaningful conclusions.
- Consequently, key informant interviews were conducted to supplement the analysis.
Three public safety agencies had jurisdiction over S.R. A1 A during the study period: the 165 l
t
Florida Highway Patrol, the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office, and the Fort Pierce Police Department. Officials from all three departments indicated that total traffic volume on S.R. A1 A increased substantially as a result of continuous bumper-to-bumper traffic caused by construction workers during morning and evening shift changes (Norvell, personal communication,1981; Bravakis, personal communication,1981; Kane, personal communication, 1981). Additional traffic-related problems included speeding and improper passing. Both the Florida Highway Patrol and the Fort Pierce Police Department (which had jurisdiction over that part of S.R. A1 A within the Fort Pierce city limits) indicated that a substantial number of construction workers were cited for traffic violations each week: the Fort Pierce Police Department estimated that an average of 50 tickets were issued weekly (Norvell, personal communication,1981; Kane, personal communication,1981). Residents complained not only about speeding and illegal passing, but also that they were unable to back out of their driveways or enter S.R. A1A from intersecting streets as a result of continuous traffic during shift changes. During peak construction on both Unit 1 and Unit 2, residents on Hutchinson Island appeared before both the county and city commissions requesting the installation of traffic control lights along the Fort Pierce section of S.R. A1 A, in the hope that traffic lights would regulate the project-related traffic jams. (Norvell, personal communication, 1981; Brooks, personal communication,1981.)
In addition to congestion and speeding, public safety agencies reported an increase in the number of accidents as a result of construction worker traffic. However, this increase was considered commensurate with the increase in traffic volume and, thus, was considered to be an insignificant impact. (Norvell, personal communication, 1981; Bravakis, personal communication,1981; Kane, personal communication,1981.)
The Fort Pierce Police Department assigned one patrol officer around-the-clock to Hutchinson Island (South Beach) during the construction of St. Lucie Unit 2 (subsequent to the study period). This position was created as a direct result of the construction worker traffic. (Norvell, personal communication,1981.) The St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department assigned one officer (paid for by FPL) to direct traffic during the morning and evening shift changes at the plant's entrance. Although the sheriff's department increased the number of patrol officers from 22 to 56 during the study period, the increase was not attributed to plant-related traffic, but to general growth in the county. (Bravakis, personal communication,1981.) During the study 166
period, the Florida Highway Patrol did not increase the number of officers assigned to St.
Lucie County (Kane, personal communication,1981).
During peak construction on St. Lucie Unit 1, South Bridge, a two-lane bridge connecting Hutchinson Island to mainland Fort Pierce, was severely damaged by a cargo ship, which necessitated extensive repairs.I A new bridge was under construction and was completed shortly thereafter. (Lewis, personal communication, 1981.) It was unknown whether the expansion of carrying capacity (the new bridge had four lanes) was influenced by the heavy construction worker traffic at shift changes. (Ward, personai communication,1981.) State Road A1A on Hutchinson Island was not upgraded during the study period (Thaxton, personal communication,1981).
l 7.4.3 Public Safety The major elements of public safety were the sheriff's department, the police dzpartment, and the office of disaster preparedness and communication. Fort Pierce provided police protection within its incorporated boundaries (including that part of Fort Pierce on Hutchinson Island). Police protection within the unincorporated areas of the county (including the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant site) as well as the incorporated area of Port St. Lucie, was provided by the county sheriff's office and the Florida Highway Pttrol. The St. Lucie County-Fort Pierce Fire District provided fire protection for all of St. Lucie County, including the municipalities of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. The fire dspartment also provided county-wide emergency rescue, medical, and transportation sarvices. The department was staffed by full-time, salaried personnel. (G.O. Team, Inc.,
n.d.a.) The St. Lucie County Office of Disaster Preparedness offered emergency assistance and educational seminars regarding hurricanes and radiological emergencies in the county (Rodi, personal communication,1981). All public safety agencies participated in the 911 emergency communications system which was established in the early 1970s to increase the efficiency of responding to emergencies. The St. Lucie Nuclear Plant had a direct line to the 911 system, at the request and expense of FPL, to speed response to plant-related emergencies. (Bravakis, personal communication,1981.)
1 As a consequence, during peak construction on Unit 1, all construction worker traffic was routed across the Martin County bridges and through Jensen Beach and Stuart in Martin County.
167
Interviews with key informants suggested there was no evidence of increased crime related to the project's work force. A large number of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant work force were residents of the Study Area, and the increased crime of ten associated with transient work forces (such as illegal drug use, prostitution, and rape) was not evident. (Bravakis, personal communication,1981; Kane, personal communication,1981; Norvell, personal communication, 1981.) The sheriff's department was required on several occasions to keep the peace during labor strikes at the plant; however, no arrests were made. No anti-nuclear demonstrations at the plant required intervention by public safety agencies. (Bravakis, personal communication,1981.)
All of the public safety agencies in the county pa'rticipated in mock emergency ,
drills at the plant; however, officials indicated that the costs involved in participating in these drills were negligible (Bravakis, personal communication,1981; Kane, personal com munication, 1981; Norvell, personal communication, 1981; Rodi, personal com-munication,1981). Following the accident at Three Mile Island, the Office of Disaster Preparedness shifted its focus from hurricane disaster planning to nuclear emergency planning. It was indicated that approximately 75 percent of the office's planning efforts were directed at nuclear emergency planning subsequent to the TMI accident (compared I with 25 percent prior to the accident); however, no figures on the increaser'. plant-related costs could be provided by officials with the Office of Disaster Preparedness. (Rodi, personal communication,1981.)
7.4.4 Social Services During the study period, social services were administered and coordinated by the St. Lucie County Welfare Association,Inc. This agency provided only temporary services for indigent residents in need of food, medical care, and burial service. Funds were obtaineu through the county's property tax fund, and thus the agency indirectly benefited i
from plant-related tax revenues. In general, it was agreed that the construction work force at the St. Lucie plant did not exert any demand on this department. Had there been a need for services such as aid to dependent children, food stamps, medical care, or unemployment insurance, construction workers would have sought help from state agencies' offices in Fort Pierce. (McNeil, personal commm.ication,1981.)
I 168 l 1
I CHAPTER 8: SOCIAL STRUCTURE 8.1 Introduction The effects of the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on the social structure and process within St. Lucie County will be identified and examined in the following discussion. This chapter identifies the major functional social groups at the beginning of the study period, develops a profile of each group, and describes the major features of the relationships among the groups. A premise of the study is that rslationships among people in a community l are structured and that people in a community form functional and interacting groups that can be identified and described.
Once the groups within the Study Area are identified and characterized and the relationships among the groups are defined, the economic, demographic, housing, government, and public services effects of the project (identified in Chapters 4 through
- 7) are distributed among the groups. Changes in the profile of the groups and in the rslationships among groups during the study period are then identified, and the role of the project in those changes is determined. Much of the information is based on interviews with key informants who were knowledgeable about the groups in the area.2 Sscondary data were also used to substantiate the information provided by the key informants and to further define the groups.
8.2 Social Structure at the Beginning of the Study Period 8,2.1 Identification of the Social Groups The selection of the social groups was based primarily on an examination of the historical development of the area and on interviews with key informants regarding the I Warren's (1978) definition of community is used: that combination of social units and systems that performs the major social functions have locality relevance. These functions include: production, distribution, and consumption; socialization; social control; social participation; and mutual support.
2 The following discussion represents a synthesis of the information obtained through interviews with study area residents. To protect the confidentiality of the information provided by these key informants, statements are not attributed to specific people. People interviewed for this Chapter are included in the list of Personal Communications at the end of this report.
169
organization and structure of the Study Area; the process was supplemented by personal observations and secondary data. An additional consideration was the distinctiveness of each group in relation to the effects of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. In St. Lucie County, four groups were identified as the important functioning social units: the business community, the black community, the retirees, and the wage and salary workers. It should be noted that the boundaries between these four groups overlap and that there is considerable heterogeneity within them. For example, while blacks are also business proprietors, workers, and retirees, they are all included, for the purposes of this study, in one group.
8.2.2 Group ProfHes t Based on a review of the literature on community organization, social structure, and large-scale project effects, seven attributes were identified that seemed most critical to the specification and description of the groups and the social structure, and to the analysis of the effects of the nuclear project on them. These seven attributes were:
(1) Size of the group; (2) Livelihood of group members; (3) Demographic characteristics; (4) Geographic location (residential and occupational);
(5) Property ownership characteristics; (6) Dominant attitudes and values toward growth, environment, community participation, and planning; and (7) Patterns of interaction among group members (cohesion).
A profile of each group was developed on the basis of these seven attributes by synthesizing secondary data and information from key informants. Because the purpose of these profiles is to explicate the social structure and to provide a basis for the analysis of project effects, the approach will be to describe the modal characteristics of the group and to give some indication of the diversity within the group.
The patterns of interaction among group members are examined for three spheres of activity-economic, political, and social. The focus of the discussions regarding the interaction among t;roup members in these three spheres is as follows: employment and income; political control, representation, and participation; and social participation or control of formal social organizations and the degree of informal social contact.
170
8.2.2.1 The Business Community The business community was the third largest social group in the county prior to the study period. The business community consisted of approximately 3,400 persons in St. Lucie County. Including their family members, this group numbered closer to 9,000 psrsons, or about 18 percent of the population in 1970.
The members of the business community formed a distinct social group primarily because of their economic role in the county. The business community in the Study Area included those families who owned retail, wholesale, or manufacturing establishments or firms that provided services to the community; those who influenced or directed cconomic policy through key financial or managerial positions; those who represented or managed absentee-owned commercial establishments; and those who held independent professional positions, such as physicians, attorneys, and architects. Also included in the business community were the families of agricultural proprietors and managers.
Historically, agriculturalists constituted a separate social group in St. Lucie County, but the evidence indicates that by 1968, agriculture had become less a "way of life" than simply a type of business establishment. Few members of the group felt the philosophical ties to the land that would generally be found in traditionally agrarian areas. One explanation for this difference is that the land had not been owned by families over many generations. Among ranching families, agricultural ties to the land in St. Lucie County generally went back only two generations. Moreover, by the beginning of the study period, most children of grove owners sought careers in professions other than agriculture. Certainly, some agriculturalists did highly value their rural, agricultural lifestyles, but they viewed themselves as pragmatists, and key informants indicated that business was still the primary consideration. If economic forces no longer favored profitable agriculture and if land values were high, most would sell their land and turn to other business ventures. One illustration of this attitude is the reaction of agriculturalists to the county's growth management plan. When first drafted, the plan contained strict zoning restrictions on agricultural lands to protect the land from urban encroachment, because it was considered important both to the county's economy and to water recharge. In response, the county's agricultural businessmen objected loudly to these restrictions, because they wanted the right to sell their land to whomever offered the best price, be it a farmer or, if economic conditions no longer favored farm production, an industrial develc,per. Consequently, the stiff zoning codes were softened.
171
The ownership / management structure of agriculture in St. Lucie County also fostered a business-group orientation. The vast majority of the county's grove acreage was owned by corporations, either small corporate partnerships comprising both local and absentee partners or large corporations such as Minute Maid. Furthermore, citrus groves were tended not by their owners, but by grove management companies to whom the work was contracted. In the same vein, interviews with key informants indicated an increasing trend for families who owned cattle ranches to form corporations, with corporate stock held by family members. Moreover, key informants estimated that as many as 90 percent of the ranchers and grove owners had business interests other than their primary agricultural operation. Agriculture in St. Lucie County was, in short, agribusiness; as numerous members of the business community pointed out, it was the largest business ;
sector in the county.
Both nonfarm businessmen and agriculturalists perceived those engaged in agriculture to be members of the business community. Agricultural businessmen, particularly grove owners and managers, participated in many of the same social and service clubs as the nonfarm business community. Furthermore, there were strong economic ties, particularly between grove owners and maaufacturers/ owners of whole-sale establishments, since most of these concerns were agriculture-related. This is not to say that agricultural businessmen did not have different economic interests than other businessmen in the county. But the business community as a whole was very heterogeneous in its economic orientation: the differences between the nonfarm businessmen and the farm-related businessmen were not significantly greater than those that existed between other subgroups within St. Lucie County's business community. As a result of these factors, agricultural proprietors and managers are included in the business community for the purposes of this study.
Almost 80 percent of the business community consisted of owners and managers of small retail and wholesale establishments, restaurants, service establishments, and manufacturing firms. The majority of the wholesale and industrial businesses were agriculture related: packing houses; manufacturers of fertilizer, pesticides, and farm ,
implements; citrus juice processors; and vegetable canneries. These companies were located primarily near the wharf and railroad yard, and on the outskirts of the agricultural hinterlands. The rest of the county's business activity focused on downtown Fort Pierce, although decentralization was already occurring with the growth of shopping centers toward the south.
172
The vast majority of the businesses in St. Lucie County were independently owned and operated by county residents, although some retail chains such as J.C. Penney's and the Sears catalog outlet had served Fort Pierce prior to the 1950s and the number of such cbsentee-owned businesses had gradually increased beginning in the late 1950s and early 1960s. These businesses mainly served the demands of local residents for goods and sIrvices. However, an examination of secondary data indicates that the role of Fort Pitree as a trade center for neighboring counties and for the growing tourism-related industry became increasingly important to the business community. For example, the income received by commercial lodging establishments increased by over 300 percent batween 1958 and 1972 to a level of almost $4 million per year. In contrast to the local markets available for the services and retail trade establishments, the markets for the farm proprietors and many of the agriculture-related industries were primarily outside the county, as these industries supplied national demands.
Whereas the vast majority of businesses in Fort Pierce and all of the county's ranches were locally owned, the number of absentee-owned citrus groves increased markedly in the 1960s. This change accelerated with the citrus freeze in north and ctntral Florida in 1962, which both increased the value of citrus and provided the impetus for grove owners from these areas to buy groves in the milder climate of St.
Lucie County. Consequently, at the beginning of the study period, turnover in grove ownership was quite high, according to key informants. This instability was not the experience of the rest of the business community, however. Despite the growing number of new business establishments in response to the growing population, turnover remained fcirly low within the Fort Pierce business community.
The members of the business community were middle- to upper-income families, with no conspicuous concentrations of age or sex. According to key informants, the grove owners formed the business elite: they were generally far wealthier and better cducated than the average member of the business community. Most of the business group owned single-family homes in Fort Pierce, although an increasing number were moving into outlying areas in the unincorporated portion of the county. The principal exception to this pattern was the cattle ranchers, who resided in single-f amily homes on their ranches in the western part of the county. Cognizant of the increasing attraction of Florida to northern in-migrants and the concomitant escalation of land values, a significant number of business community members owned additional real estate property for speculation purposes, according to interviews with members of the business I
173
community. As a result, the business community was generally predisposed to favor growth, which would further increase the value of their real estate investments.
Many members of the business community expressed concern that the major components of the economic base-agriculture and tourism-were subject to large seasonal fluctuations. Moreover, the seasons coincided, thus creating high unemployment levels in the summer and fall. To further exacerbate the problem, agriculture was vulnerable to the " whims of Mother Nature"; for example, adverse weather conditions, disease, and insects could significantly affect the county's economic prosperity.
Furthermore, both agriculture and tourism were dependent on national demand and economic trends. To counteract this vulnerability, most members of the business
(
community supported both population and business growth to help diversify the economy. However, there was some disagreement over the direction this growth should take: some favored industrial development, some favored tourist development, and still others favored maintaining an agricultural character to the economy. It should be noted that this disagreement was not clearly split along commerce / agricultural lines, since many agriculturalists had additional economic interests in the county and the commercial sector was heterogeneous in their business orientation. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the majority of the business community favored the development of a noneyclical economy, independent of tourism and agriculture, but also not in conflict with these well-established components of the economic base.
Several concerted, though largely unsuccessful, efforts were made to promote industrial development in the 1960s. In 1961, an Industrial Development Commission was created to attract " clean," nonpolluting industries, such as light manufacturing and assembly plents. Two years later, this commission merged with the St. Lucie County Advertising Committee (created in 1949 to promote tourism) to form the Area Development Council for St. Lucie County. In 1967, just prior to FPL's announcement of the proposed nuclear plant, an additional Industrial Development Council was formed to place greater emphasis on the development of light industry in St. Lucie County. The intent was to promote the creation of attractive industrial parks in the nonfarm areas of the unincorporated portion of the county so that industrial development would be compatible with tourism and agriculture. The business community, in general, felt that such development would boost the economy by providing not only jobs but also tax dollars to help finance the expansion of the county's infrastructure. The proposed nuclear power 174
plant was viewed as not only a part of the growth they desired, but as a symbol for future growth, since the power it would provide was perceived as a precursor to growth.
Despite the overall desire for growth among business community members, key informants indicated that a number of older agriculturalists opposed growth, both breause it did not benefit agriculture directly and because they wanted to preserve the county's rural lifestyle. Moreover, evidence suggests that agriculture-related manufacturers, such as packing houses and juice processors, were concerned that industrial and residential development not encroach on agriculture, because of their dspendence on the agricultural sector. Younger agriculturalists, on the other hand, were cognizant of the need to balance agricultural fluctuations (in part because of their own economic interests outside agriculture), according to agriculturalists who were interviewed. Nevertheless, there was still concern that some industries'. water demands might adversely affect citrus farming.
Although by the beginning of the study period St. Lucie County had a relatively large population, members of the business community who were interviewed characterized the county as retaining a "small town," rural quality. Open space was abundant, and long-time ties between many members of the community created the perception that everyone knew each other, even though it was recognized that this in fact was not true. To preserve the amenities that helped to created this ambiance, the business community recognized that planning and zoning were necessary. Nevertheless, interviews indicated a strong sentiment that a property owner should be free to do what he or she wished with that property as lorig as surrounding property owners were not harmed. For example, no objections were raised by business community members, including agriculturalists, when an owner of one of the larger ranches chose to sell his land to an oil refinery developer (plans for the proposed refinery were later abandoned).
Further, the traditional Southern aversion to government interference was prevalent.
Most of those interviewed indicated that they felt the government went too far in regulating business activities.
Most members of the business community who were interviewed characterized the business community as composed of conservative Southern Democrats, although the group members were relatively heterogeneous regarding their stance on specific issues, particularly regarding social programs. Despite their party affiliation, the presidential election of Harry Truman in 1948 on a strong civil rights platform turned these 175
Democrats away from their liberal party candidates to the conservative pro-business leaders of the Republican Party, a phenomenon that spread throughout the formerly
" Solid South" (Bass and DeVries,1976). An examination of voting trends in presidential elections between 1952 and 1980 illustrates this conservative orientation. In every instance but two, the overwhelming victor was the Republican candidate, running on a conservative, pro-business platform against a relatively liberal Democrat. In the two exceptions-the Johnson-Goldwater race and the Carter-Ford election-the Democratic winners, both Southerners, won by a narrow margin of three to four percentage points.
The business community was the most active of any of the county's functional groups in community affairs and formed the county's political leadership. Until the early 1960s, the agricultural members of the community dominated the Board of County Commissioners and controlled local politics through what was characterized as the " good ole boy" network, an informal system between long-time residents of the community.
Gradually, as the agriculturalists became outnumbered and the population grew, the commercial businessmen of Fort Pierce gained formal control. Some of this change was the result of the growing number of newcomers who desired a more urban outlook on the part of government officials. By the beginning of the study period, the commission was composed entirely of nonagricultural businessmen. The business community was also quite active in the county through civic and service organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary Club, the Treasure Coast Jaycees, the Kiwanis, the Lions Club, and the United Fund.
Economic interrelationships among members of the business community varied with the type of business. For example, the economic relationship between citrus growers and agriculture-related businesses (such as packing houses and manufacturers of farm implements, fertilizer, and pesticides) was particularly strong. The economic relationships between business leaders in the services / trade sectors were also fairly strong at the beginning of the study period, as a result of their alliances to promote industrial growth in the county. Ranchers had the strongest extralocal ties since their cattle were generally sold directly to other counties and states. Nevertheless, because many ranchers also had small citrus groves and additional economic interests in the county, they increasingly strengthened their economic ties with other businesspeople in the county. The interrelationships among financial institution executives, cattle ranchers, and citrus growers served to integrate the economic activities of the business community. These bonds were further strengthened throughout the study period: at the 176 l
end of the study period, a number of financial institutions in the county had agricultural proprietors on their boards of directors. The growing strength of economic ties between cgricultural proprietors and commercial businessmen fostered a pro-business orientation cmong agriculturalists on the eve of the construction of the nuclear plant.
The large size of the business group and the differences in economic outlook bstween merchants, agriculture-related industrialists, cattle ranchers, and grove owners militated against group cohesiveness. However, subgroups in the business community exhibited a high level of internal cohesiveness. Key informants and secondary data indica ed that the subgroups that exhibited the strongest levels of intragroup relationships included: the downtown Fort Pierce merchants; the grove owners and
(
, managers, and owners of related fruit processing and packing industries; the cattle
! ranchers; and the business leaders. This cohesion within subgroups was reinforced through membership in formal organizations such as the Fort Pierce Downtown Business Association; the Indian River Citrus League; the Cattlemen's Association and its women's tuxiliary, the Cowbelles; and the Chamber of Commerce. There was also evidence of a l moderate level of cohesiveness among "oldtimers" in the business community, a residual of ties established when the county was a smaller, more rural community. Nevertheless, bscause business growth was highly valued among most members of the business community, newcomers were readily accepted and quickly assimilated into the group through their membership in the county's civic, service, and social organizations.
Newcomers were even encouraged to accept leadership positions in the community.
Despite the relatively low level of cohesion, the business community as a whole perceived themselves to be a distinct group in the county. They generally acted as a group politically and shared a " pro-business" outlook. Moreover, interviews with members of the business community revealed a high level of informal social interaction, as most-including spouses of businesspeople-made close friendships within the business community and lunched together or visited in each other's homes with relatively high frequency. Although the cattle ranchers were separated from the rest of the group by distance, key informants indicated that frequent trips to Fort Pierce were not uncommon; while in town on business, they also socialized within the larger business community. This is not to say that all members of the business community socialized with each other, but that social interactions appeared to be almost exclusively endogenous.
I 177
8.2.2.2 The Black Community Blacks in St. Lucie County formed a distinct social group because of the existence of a caste system,I which separated blacks and whites. This caste system, based on race, made absolute social, economic, educational, and employment distinctions between blacks and whites. Thus, although there were black businessmen, retirees, and workers, they were not members of these functional groups alongside whites. Historically, blacks were segregated from the rest of society by law. As a consequence, blacks fermed their own, almost self-contained community within Fort Pierce, with their own businesses, churches, and social hierarchy. Even with the abolition of segregation laws in the 1960s, this closed community remained relatively the same, although there was somewhat more spatial mobility between the races. Therefore, as a result of this caste distinction, blacks formed a separate functional group for this study.
Prior to the study period, the black community was the second largest group in St.
Lucie County, numbering at least 15,500 persons.2 Blacks first came to St. Lucie County in large numbers in the early 1900s as migrants to harvest the tomato and citrus crops.
The migration of blacks for the agricultural harvest, which continued through the study period, is described by Davis and Donaldson (1975:95) in their study of the geography of blacks:
These migrants move up and down the eastern seaboard in a yearly cycle that begins with the harvest of citrus fruits, vegetables, and sugar cane in ,
January in Florida, then moves northward with the ripening of the spring I crops of berries, melons, tobacco, tomatoes, orchard and grove fruit.
However, unlike the usual settlement pattern for migrant workers, isolated in migrant camps far from towns and cities (Davis and Donaldson,1975), migrant blacks in St. Lucie County resided in the black quarter of Fort Pierce, residing in duplexes, triplexes, and l
l l
l 1
According to Dollard (1957:62), " Caste is often seen as a barrier to social contact or, at least, to some forms of social contact. It defines a superior and inferior group and regulates the behavior of the members of each group."
2 Because blacks were the most likely group to be undercounted by the census and because the census didn't count as residents the many blacks who regarded St. Lucie l County as their home but who migrated to northern states during the summer and fall, '
this number was probably much higher (Moore, personal communication,1981; Rolle, personal communication,1981).
178 s
{
t rooming houses. According to key informants, over the years many blacks saved enough m:ney to buy homes in Fort Pierce and formed a permanent community, as fewer and fswer blacks migrated out of the county at, the end of the citrus season. By 1950, blacks c:nstituted over 30 percent of St. Lucie County's population, a proportion maintained until the beginning of the study period.
The black community primarily resided in the northern quarter of Fort Pierce near th2 business dis %ict and the wharf, although the boundaries of the black settlement sxtended north of the city limits. This area was an extremely poor and depressed slum.
However, despite their poverty, in 1970 over a third of the black residents owned single-f amily homes. Key informants maintained that property ownership was highly valued by many in the black community-something to strive for, something to take pride l
in-although most could not afford to maintain their homes above substandard levels.
B1cause it generally took years of hard work and saving to " scrape" to buy a home, blacks tanded to place a high level of significance on their mark of achievement. Consequently, ence a black family purchased a home, they generally became permanent owners. Thus,
- ty at the end of the citrus harvest,
[ although many blacks still migrated out of
- the relatively large number of home own, created a feeling of stability in the community.
s As a result of federally funded programs and the construction of a number of public housing projects (which began in the early 1960s), housing conditions improved throughout the 1970s. A number of black families also moved into the traditionally
" white section" of Fort Fierce and into the unincorporated areas of the county as housing discrimination declined and as some blacks moved into the middle class (the result of effirmative action programs). Nevertheless, many blacks who experienced an increase in their standard-of-living chose to remain in the black quarter, their spacious homes juxtaposed with substandard ones. Furthermore, reore blacks were able to purchase 1 omes as more acquired year-round salaries. This further enhanced a sense of 4tability in the black community.
Prior to the study period, most black men, both non-migrant and migrant laborers, worked as fruit pickers. A few worked as craf tsmen, operatives, or nonfarm laborers, and 'some cwned businesses that served the black community, but in general, racial prejud'ce kep't jlacks out of nonagricultural jobs, according to members o! the black 179
- \
i
i community 'who were interviewed. Black women, too, worked primarily in the citrus groves or in domestic service: over 60 percent were in the labor force in 1970.
The seasonal nature of agricultural employment and the gecerally low-level skills of those blacks in nonagricultural jobs kept income levels low in' the black community. In 1969, for example, taore than 40 percent of the black families la the county had incomes below the federsdiy defined poverty level,I even though multiple incomes for families were prevalent. Almost 70 percent of these families were 75 percent below poverty level; yet ottly abo:tt 15 percer.e were receiving some kind of public assistance or welfare. More than 30 percent of black families were headed Ey women in 1969; of these almost 75 percent were living below the poverty level. Nevertheless, about 10 percent of the black families recorded in the 1970 census had incomes above $10,000. These blacks generally resided within the black quarter of Fort Pierce, with no spatial concentration.
Until the 1970-1971 school year, schools in St. Lucie County were racially segregated. Black informants maintained that the schools for blacks were poorly funded, and the quality of the educational program was low. Moreover, the need for black families to have their children in the labor force created a relatively high drop-out rate:
in 1970, the median educational level for blacks was the eighth grade, compared to the eleventh grade for the county as a whole. The low educational quality of these segregated schools reinforced the social and economic inferiority of blacks in St. Lucie County. As one key informant described the situation: " Black teachers did not know how to adequately prepare blacks for working.in white society because they had never been able to experience it themselves.' It was really two separate worlds."
Indeed, Fort Pierce was still a segregated Sc.athern society just prior to the study period. Although legal segregation was eliminated in the mid-1960s, a de facto segregation, based on social mores, largely remained in 1968. Through decades of forced segregation, a relatively self-contained black community had been created. Various businesses owned by blacks served the black community exclusively, although blacks also shopped in stores in downtown Fort Pierce.
1 The 1969 poverty threshold for a nonfarm family of four headed by a male was defined as $3,750.
180
In the black community, the churches were a central focus. According to key informants, community members, particularly the older people, were very religious. The B:ptist faith predominated, but the Methodist and Catholic churches were also important, and the churches of numerous sects dotted the black quarter. As one woman exclaimed, "Everywhere you can stick a church, there is one, even in the alley!"
Intsrviews with members of the black community indicated that the all-black churches l plcyed a leading political role in addition to their worship function. For example, the churches were an important force in the voter registration drives of the 1960s, and black
{ ministers often acted as mediators with the white community to iron out differences during the black community's struggle to desegregate public places. Moreover, it was through the black churches that blacks voiced charges of employment and social discrimination.
The all-black schools were also a focal point until they were integrated in 1970:
thsy served as meeting houses for both civic and social gatherings, and the schools' cthletic and music programs were a source of community pride.
Black educators, ministers, businessmen, and middle class workers formed what Frezier (1957) has termed a black bourgeoisie. This elite formed and participated in numerous organizations (all segregated) such as the Lions Club, the Elks Club, the Fort Pisrce Men's Civic Club, the Zenith Club (a civic club for black women), the Federated Wom an's Club, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and numerous other social, civic, political, fraternal, and sororial organizations.
The segregation of the black community, and the " community within a community" that resulted, created what Dollard (1957) refers to as " passive solidarity,"
where blacks perceive themselves as a somewhat united group because of their place in the caste system. This sense of cohesion was further enhanced by numerous kinship ties and frequent informal visitations between both related and unrelated community members, in addition to their own businesses, churches, and social institutions.
Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the black community was galvanized by the national civil rights movement. The community coalesced to fight for cqual access to public places, better housing, and better, higher-paying jobs through the elimination of discriminatory hiring practices. A central focus became political power 181 l ._
through the ballot box. Following the lead of the national movement, the black community-led by the N A.1 C P, the churches, and civic and social organizations-organized voter registration drives. Political awareness increased, and a sense of civic responsibility prevailed, according to key informants. In 1965, the black community was successful in electing the first black to the Fort Pierce City Commission to represent the predominantly black North District. Blacks, who had formerly had no political voice, began serving on city committees to discuss the redevelopment of the black quarter. By the beginning of the study period, blacks had begun to feel hope that conditions would change as federal programs, like the Community Action Program and the Neighborhood Youth Corps, began training blacks in new skills, such as the construction trades.
Thus, in 1968, the black community was primarily concerned with its own struggle for economic advancement and social change. Few were concerned with issues such as environmental quality. To be sure, there was an awareness of the pollution of the air and waterways, but there were more pressing issues for blacks, and few gave the environment much thought, according to key informants. A major issue in the black community was new job opportunities. Many blacks wanted to get away from the citrus fields, but without new job opportunities, the future looked bleak. As one man commented, "Unless you vere going to be a teacher, you had to be in agriculture or leave." Consequently, as employment barriers were lowered, the black community supported industrial growth, hoping it would provide them with new, nonseasonaljobs.
Whether the black community viewed the proposed nuclear plant as a potential employer is unclear. A number of key informants in the black community indicated that they expected it to assist the movement of blacks into the construction industry, and they particularly expected to receive many of the common laborer jobs. However, the prevalence of this expectation could not be ascertained. '
8.2.2.3 Retirees Because of the climatic, recreational, and geographical amenities of St. Lucie County's coastal area, a growing number of retirees were attracted to the county. Key informants indicated that many came to Florida because of the favorable property tax advantage afforded by the ho:nestead exemption law and the absence of a state income tax. They were specifically attracted to St. Lucie County by its friendly, small-town atmosphere. A number of retirees had formerly spent their winters in St. Lucie County 182
and had decided to retire there to escape the cold climates of their home states in the Northeast and the Midwest.
The in-migration of retirees began slowly in the 1950s and accelerated in the 1960s, so that by 1970 almost 15 percent of the population of St. Lucie County was 65 years of age or older.I However, although approximately 7,000 retirees resided in St.
Lucie County, this was the smallest group in the Study Area.
The retirees were a very heterogeneous group in 1968. A number were long-time rssidents who had retained their former ties in the county and held traditional community values; others were newcomers who brought with them new perspectives from thsir places of origin; still others were winter visitors. The retirees represented a wide range of incomes and former occupations. Secondary data indicated that most retirees had relatively low, fixed incomes; however, a number were quite affluent. Many held part-time jobs to supplement their incomes: in 1970, almost 20 percent of the men and 10 percent of the women over age 65 were in the labor force. Most of the retirees, regardless of income, resided in Fort Pierce or in the unincorporated areas of the county, with no particular spatial concentration. As a result of this heterogeneity and spatial dispersion, there was a relatively low level of cohesion among retirees. To be sure, small clusters of retirees had strong, informal social interactions. For example, long-time residents retained their long-established ties with one another, and retirees on Hutchinson Island frequently visited on an informal basis. However, few formal organizations or social functions existed specifically for the retirees, and none promoted interaction among all the retirees as a group.
The retirees in Port St. Lucie were in definite contrast to this pattern. In 1961, General Development Corporation incorporated Port St. Lucie: through a national advertising campaign directed at retirees, lots were sold with the provision that the lot had to be paid for in full before a house could be erected. Consequently, by the late 1960s, as some of the first land deeds were paid off, a growing number of affluent retirees were clustered in what was known as the " country club area" of Port St. Lucie.
1 While many of the retirees in St. Lucie County were formerly employed by the military, civil service, or other industries from which they retired before age 65, their numbers were considered too small to affect the proportionate size of this group.
183
By 1970, they numbered approximately 300 persons. These retirees had little contact with retirees in the rest of the county, since this area was in the southernmost part of the county and was somewhat isolated. Moreover, because the area was closer to Stuart in Martin County than it was to Fort Pierce, most of the retirees in Port St. Lucie shopped in Stuart and thus had little economic contact with the rest of the county. The isolation of this subgroup fostered a sense of community not evident among retirees in Fort Pierce. Golfing, boating, and bridge playing were popular pastimes that helped these retirees to quickly form friendships, and informal visitations and social functions were very frequent. Unlike the heterogeneity of the retirees in Fort Pierce, the Port St.
Lucie retirees were relatively homogeneous, principally former professionals, corporate executives, or owners of very successful businesses.
The civic participation of the retirees as a group was relatively low. Most felt that they had " paid their dues" to their former communities and chose not to get involved in local issues except for those that directly affected them, such as zoning changes, tax increases, and improved public services. Activities on these issues were generally neighborhood-specific prior to the study period and did not foster group action.
In general, the retirees favored economic growth, especially growth that would expand the tax base and provide money for better services without increasing their own tax burden. Like the rest of the community, the retirees favored " clean" industry that would not pollute the air and waterways, as many had come to escape the polluted cities of the North. However, unhke other groups in the county, evidence indicates that the retirees in Port St. Lucie were more predisposed toward restrictions on development.
For example, Port St. Lucie home owners were prohibited from erecting fences or clotheslines because they were considered unaesthetic and. more important, because they affected the feeling of open space. Such restrictions on a home owner's use of his or her property was wholeheartedly supported, and this philosophy extended to industrial developments as well.
Two groups of retirees were particularly concerned with the environmental quality of St. Lucie County. A number of those who had moved to the county 20 or 30 years prior to the study period and were considered "oldtimers," had become particularly fond of the varied landscape and waterways, and the county's rural quality. Through the years, a strong appreciation had evolved for the wetlands, the mangrove swamps, the beaches, and the rivers; many of these retirees had become amateur naturalists.
184
Another subgroup of retirees-including many from Port St. Lucie-had retired in the county primarily to take advantage of the excellent fishing in the Indian and St. Lucie rivtrs. Both of these groups opposed development that would endanger the natural emenities they cherished.
8,2.2.4 Workers
( Despite the important economic role played by agriculture in St. Lucie County, thi regional image of Fort Pierce was that of a blue-collar town. The principal reason fer this reputation was its large blue-collar population. The majority of the residents earned their livelihood from wage and salary employment-principally blue- (and pink-)
( collar jobs. The members of this group belonged to families who worked in a variety of occupations, ranging from white-collar workers such as civil servants and engineers to blue-collar workers such as construction, manufacturing, and agricultural workers to pink-collar workers such as waitresses and clerical workers. This group, with an estimated 18,000 persons in 1970, thus formed the largest functional group in St. Lucie County.
l t
The workers group represented a wide range of income levels, from minimum wage, as in the case of many pink-collar and blue-collar workers, to the relatively high s:laries of top-level government admininstrators and engineers. Few members of the workers group-other than school teachers, telephone company employees, and public safety workers-were members of labor unions at the beginning of the study period.
Although relatively few women married to white-collar workers were in the labor force in 1968, the labor force participation of women in blue-collar families was high, reIulting in an overall labor force participation rate of 35 percent for white women. The principal occupation for women in the workers group was clerical work, followed by cervices-sector and manufacturing jobs.
Since the workers group included the great majority of the Study Area's renidents in 1968, throughout the study period the demographic characteristics of the group closely approximated those of the entire Study Area population (as described in Chapeer 5).
Although secondary data indicate that perhaps 10 percent of this group was of foreign 185
stock,1 no discernible ethnic enclaves were present. Members of the workers group came from a variety of religious backgrounds, although the Baptist denomination I
predominated. A number of key informants indicated that Fort Pierce (where most of the workers lived) was a " churchgoing" community; however, the evidence indicated that the churches did not play a major social or political role in the community.
Most members of this group lived within the southern three-quarters of Fort Pierce. The majority owned single-family homes in either well-to-do or more modest neighborhoods, depending on their income levels. A few of those with lower incomes rented in the small number of mobile home parks in Fort Pierce and the unincorporated portion of the county. Others either rented the few apartments located downtown or found single-family rentals. Ranch hands generally resided in single-family homes on the ranches where they worked, as most ranchers provided housing as part of their salaries.
Politically, the workers were generally conservative, although some considered themselves moderates, according to key informant interviews. To illustrate the conservative proclivity of this group, an examination of the presidential election returns of the county in 1968 reveals that 43 percent of the voters chose Richard Nixon, and an additional 26 percent voted for George Wallace. In 1980, an overwhelming 61 percent of the vote went to Ronald Reagan. Members of this group were not particularly politically active in the community, however, except when a particular issue affected them directly. For example, few people attended the Fort Pierce City Commission meetings (held at night) unless a zoning change in their own neighborhood was on the agenda.
Moreover, voter turnout for local elections in Fort Pierce was very low: in 1968, only 36 percent of the voters cast ballots. This participation further declined through the study period; by 1981, voter turnout in local elections was only 27 percent.
Attitudes toward growth varied depending upon the person's occupation and length of residency. Key informants indicated that white-collar workers and long-time residents generally felt that growth was inevitable, but that it should be controlled to protect the area's rural qualities. Some had become amateur naturalists and enjoyed living in the county chiefly for its environmental amenities. On the other hand, both 1
Foreign stock is defined as foreign born or native of foreign or mixed parentage (U.S. Bureau of the Census,1972).
186
-___________j2@________________-__
secondary data and interviews indicate that construction workers and other blue-collar workers strongly favored industrial and population growth because it would create more jobs for them. In general, these members of the workers group were the least concerned about environmental considerations and felt the most frustrated by environmentalists who opposed the growth that they equated with a prosperous economy. It was indicated that ranch hands, as a group, generally opposed growth (although not actively) because it held no benefits for them and they loved their rural lifestyle, which could potentially be
! adversely affected by growth.
Of the four groups in the Study Area, the workers group exhibited the least cohesion. Because of the heterogeneity in occupations, income levels, and educational levels, there was no group identification, except for a general recognition that they were
" working class people." While everyone interviewed noted that the relative smallness of Fort Pierce created an atmosphere in which people felt they knew everyone, key informants indicated that the level of informal visitations and participation in church activities or social, service, and civic organizations was low, when contrasted with that of other groups in the area. This is not to say that individuals-particularly white-collar workers-did not participate in community and social activities. Members of the workers group were in bowling leagues, garden clubs, hobby clubs, fraternal and sororal organizations, church groups, and volunteer organizations. Nevertheless, although individuals did participate, key informants indicated that participation in formal organizations was not widespread within the workers group. Those who were interviewed observed that most people simply preferred to stay home after a hard day at work. In contrast, some subgroups within the workers group-such as ranch hands and construction workers-were relatively cohesive internally by virtue of their shared occupations.
Informal intragroup activities appeared to be fairly frequent within these subgroups.
8.2.3 Interaction among the Groups The interaction patterns among members of different groups in the period prior to the construction of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant varied considerably. The following discussion outlines the dominant interactions among the groups in the Study Area, as measured by the economic, political, and social patterns.
8.2.3.1 Economic In the years immediately preceding the study period, the economic interactions between the four Study Area groups was very strong. Most members of the workers 187
group and the black community worked within St. Lucie County for the business community. The economic relationship between citrus grove managers and owners and the blacks was particularly strong; additionally, most black citrus pickers worked directly with white foremen and operatives who were members of the workers group. The vast-majority of other jobs in the Study Area were filled by members of the workers group.
Some workers, however, did find employment outside the Study Area, particularly with Grumman Aerospace Corporation in Martin County and Piper Aircraft Corporation in Indian River County, where a combined total of approximately 700 St. Lucie County residents was employed. Additionally, some members of the retirees group filled part-time jobs in the Study Area.
l The other major source of economic interaction between the groups was the buying and selling of goods and services. Key informants indicated that, in general, the vast majority of all four groups made most of their purchases from the business community in St. Lucie County-although occasional shopping trips were made to Stuart and West Palm Beach. Both the cattle ranchers and the Port St. Lucie retirees indicated stronger extralocal ties than did other members of the community. According to key informants, the Port St. Lucie retirees shopped frequently in nearby Stuart, and the cattle ranchers, particularly those who lived close to the western border of St. Lucie County, purchased supplies from neighboring counties.
8.2.3.2 Political St. Lucie County, the City of Fort Pierce, and the City of Part St. Lucie were the local government bodies with jurisdiction over the Study Area. Political leadership on the Board of County Commissioners had long rested in the hands of longtime residents in the county, primarily members of the business community. While special interest groups, formed of various members of the other three social groups, would occasionally lobby the commission and thus participate in the political process, the political involvement of those outside the business community was low. This low level of participation was partly the result of the relatively low population in the unincorporated portion of the county (over which the commission had jurisdiction) and the commission's rather limited authority (it dealt primarily with zoning in the unincorporated areas and with county roads).
Political leadership on the Fort Pierce City Commission was more diverse. In 1968, the commission was comprised of two members of the business community, one 188
member of the black community, one member of the workers group, and one retiree.
Moreover, community members from all four groups participated on various advisory boards within the city government, providing a forum for community involvement. The political participation of blacks was notably high at this time, as they served on numerous committees established to determine the direction of the redevelopment of the black quarter, an outgrowth of the civil rights movement. Moreover, blacks were actively attempting to make inroads into the political process through voter registration drives, political awareness campaigns, and intense lobbying tactics. Nevertheless, widespread participation of the community as a whole in the city's political affairs was low, according to key informants. Only when an issue directly affected a segment of the population-for example, zoning changes-would community members participate.
The City of Port St. Lucie had a mayor-council form of government that, until 1967, was controlled predominantly by General Development Corporation. However, by the beginning of the study period, the entire council consisted of Port St. Lucie residents, all of whom were retirees.
In sum, prior to the study period, the political interaction of county residents was limited to those who were elected to office or appointed to various advisory boards. The rest of the community, for the most part, lef t the political decision making to their representatives. The evidence indicates that St. Lucie County residents felt that, in general, they had a honest, hard-working government that acted in the best interest of the community as a whole. There appeared to be a high regard for authority, and decision making was lef t to "the experts."
8.2.3.3 Social No formal social mechanisms to foster interaction between all four groups in the Study Area were discernible. As discussed previously, the black community was segregated from the rest of the community by social mores. Participation in church activities brought members of the business, retirees, and workers groups together, but key informants indicated that the overall participation in enurch activities other than worship services was fairly low. Members of the business community and the workers group-particularly white-collar workers-interacted within various organizations such as the Lions, Kiwanis, Masons, Eastern Star, and numerous other fraternal and sororial organizations.
189
Aside from these activities, each group maintained its own formal and informal ties. Many of the clubs and civic organizations were dominated by members of one (
group, particularly the business community, although there was rarely a conscious exclusiveness. In general, key informants indicated that the participation of retirees and members of the workers group in formal organizations was low, which created a de facto domination by the business community. Two exceptions were the white-collar members of the workers group and the Port St. Lucie retirees (however, although these retirees were very active in social organizations, they were generally isolated from the rest of the county).
Informal social interactions were fairly high within each group, yet relatively low between groups, with the notable exception of the business community and white-collar workers. While most members of all the groups knew most of the people on their street by name and would chat with one another "across the fence," there was little visitation between members of the different functional groups within neighborhoods.
The residential pattern in Fort Pierce and the unincorporated county was potentially conducive to informal interactions among the business, workers, and retirees groups. Although there were some exclusively affluent housing areas and some exclusively middle- and lower-income tract home subdivisions, in general, housing was mixed along economic lines. Affluent homes were juxtaposed with very modest residences. Consequently, a financially successful businessperson or attorney might live next door to a truck driver or a retiree on a fixed income. Despite the residential proximity of the groups, however, there was a low level of informal social interaction between neighbors.
The majority of kinship ties among Study Area groups were exhibited within the business and black communities. The only such ties discernible between groups were between the business community and white-collar members of the workers group, and between members of the business community, the workers group, and retirees who were former members of these two groups. All of these ties were exclusively between long-time residents in the county.
The black community had numerous organizations (including counterparts to traditionally white organizations) through which they interacted with other blacks.
There was also a high level of informal interaction within the group, according to 190
msmbers of the black community who were interviewed. However, blacks did not socially interact, either formally or informally, with members of other groups in the Study Area.
8.2.3.4 Study Area Cohesion As indicated by their profiles and by the description of their patterns of economic, political, and social interaction, the four functional social groups in St. Lucie County cxhibited a fairly low level of cohesion across groups. This is not particularly surprising censidering the population size of the Study Area. The business community tended to dominate the economic, political, and social activities in St. Lucie County. Although elmost all the residents interviewed indicated that the county's friendliness and small-town quality were its major attractive features, most indicated that they generally stayed at home after a hard day at work or they interacted on occasion within their own group.
8.3 New Groups in the Study Area during the Study Period No new functioral groups emerged in St. Lucie County during the study period, d: spite the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. The project-ralated workers were not identified as a new group due to their small number, their g nerally temporary residency patterns, and their failure to function as a social unit with distinct economic, political, and social patterns of behavior. As a result, the project-related in-migrants to the Study Area were incorporated into the four existing functional groups, primarily the workers group. Therefore, while the size and composition of the groups changed during the study period, the number of groups remained constant.
8.4 Distribution of the Project Effects to the Groups The effects of the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on thm Study Area's economy, labor force, population, settlement patterns, and public sirvices were identified and described in Chapters 4 through 7. This section outlines the distribution of those effects among the four groups in St. Lucie County. This distribution of effects to the Study Area's groups was derived from available empirical evidence, key informant information, and analytic judgment.
8.4.1. Economic Effects Table 8-1 summarizes the employment and income effects of the construction and operation of the St. Lucie project on the Study Area for 1974 and 1978. The 191
TABLES-1 TOTAL PROJECT-RELATED EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME EFFECTS OF THE ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1974 and 1978 1974 1978 Employment income" Employment incoa,e*
Type of Worker Basic Nonbasic TOTAL Basic Nonbasic TOTAL Basic Nonbasic TOTAL Basic Nonbasic TOTAL Nonmovers 403 300 703 $5,672 $5,739 ' $7,411 266 191 457 $3,359 $1,109 $4,448 Movers Accompanied by Families 208 11 219 3,031 64 3,095 173 7 180 2,224 41 Z,265 g Movers Unaccompanied
" by Families 170 7 177 2,477 41 2,518 125 4 129 1,607 23 1,630 TOTALb 781 318 1,099 $11.180 $1,844 $13,024 564 202 766 $7,189 $1,173 $8,362 aThousands of constant 1972 dollars.
b Totals may not add exactly due to rounding.
Source: Mountain West Research,Inc.,1981.
distribution of these economic effects to the four social groups in St. Lucie County is shown in Table 8-2. In 1974, an estimated 1,099 residents of the Study Area worked in project-related jobs, including 781 basic and 318 nonbasic jobs. Of these residents,396 were movers to the Study Area. An analysis of employment trends in the Study Area indicates that jobs were distributed to the functional groups approximately as follows:
workers-1,005; black community-60; business community-26; and retirees-8 (full-time equivalent).I Thus, the workers group received about 91 percent of the project-related jobs held by Study Area residents. In terms of income, an estimated $12,302 thousand (constant 1972 dollars) was earned by the workers group, $404 thousand was earned by thm business community, $276 thousand was earned by the black community, and $42 thousand went to retirees.
By 1978, project-related employment had decreased significantly. Once again, as shown in Table 8-2, the workers group received the vast majority of these jobs, about 86 percent. The proportion of blacks, however, doubled, with blacks receiving over 11 percent of the jobs. The business community received about 2 percent, and the retirees, less than 1 percent. Project-related income earned by St. Lucie County residents in 1978 was $8,362 thousand (in constant 1972 dollars). Of this amount, an estimated $7,412 thousand went to the workers group, $665 thousand to the black community, $261 thousand to the business community, and $24 thousand to retirees.
8.4.2 Demographic Effects Chapter 5 discussed the demographic effects of the project on the Study Area and summarized the project-related increase in the St. Lucie County population between 1968 and 1978 (see Table 5-9).2 In 1974, the in-migration of project-related people to the Study Area was estimated at 885 persons (378 basic workers accompanied by 468 I
In the Study Area, 5 percent of the labor force was 65 years of age and older.
Many who were classified as retirees, therefore, held part-time jobs to supplement their incomes.
2 0f the two potential components of the increased population, in-migration and diminished out-migration, only in-migration was found to have had a measurable effect on the St. Lucie County population.
193
- n. ..
TABLE 8-2 ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME" EFFECTS BY GROUPS ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1974 and 1978 I
1974 1978 Employment Incomeb Employment Incomeb Social Groups Basic Nonbasic TOTAL TOTAL Basic Nonbasic TOTAL TOTAL Business Community 4 22 26 $404 2 16 18 $261 Black Community 33 27 60 276 66 20 86 665 Retirees 0 8c 8e 42 0 Sc Sc 24 Workers 744 261 1,005 12,302 496 161 657 7,412 5
.s.
TOTAL 781 318 1,099 $13,024 564 202 766 $8,362 aThousands of 1972 dollars.
bNonbasic income also accrues to the business community in addition to the amount paid to nonbasic workers.
However, because it is difficult to determine the additional amount the business community retains, the nonbasic income accrued by St. Lucie County is distributed totally among the nonbasic employees.
C Full-time equivalents.
Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
family members and 18 nonbasic workers accompanied by 21 family members). In 1978, an estimated 682 project-related people in-migrated to the Study Area (298 basic workers accompanied by 360 family members and 11 nonbasic workers accompanied by 13 family members).
This additional population was unevenly distributed among the four social groups in the Study Area, as shown in Table 8-3. In 1974, approximately 879 project-related in-migrants were added to the workers group, and an estimated 6 project-related persons ware added to the business community. In 1978, an estimated 633 new persons were cdded to the workers group as a result of the project, 3 were added to the business community, and 46 were added to the black community.
8.4.3 Settlement Patterns and Housing Effects As indicated in Chapter 6, the overall effect of the nuclear plant's construction and operation on the settlement patterns of St. Lucie County was minimal. Because thsre were no particular concentrations of construction workers, their presence was not conspicuous. Those who lived in rental units (houses, mobile homes, apartments, and motel rooms) found existing housing wherever it was available. The workers (construction, operations, and nonbasic) who bought homes were residentially dispersed; thus, any potential effects on settlement patterns were minimized.
The number of rental vacancies was very low throughout the study period, and some residents felt that the housing demands of the construction work force had a noticeable impact on housing availability. However, the evidence indicated that the impact was not very significant. Construction workers who left the county during the stcy of the LWA and returned once construction resumed stated that rental housing was extremely difficult to find upon their return. Moreover, a number of residents observed that rental vacancies were numerous once the winter-visitor season ended. Additionally, evidence indicates that there were numerous rental units available in Port St. Lucie; the rental shortage was only in Fort Pierce. These factors, combined with the large influx of people to the county who did not hold project-related jobs but who also exerted demands on the rental housing market, led to the conclusion that the effect of project-related demand, compared to overall demand, was not significant.
A number of construction workers rented in subdivisions and townhouses in the "Midport" area of Port St. Lucie. Midport is the area of the city where most of the 195
TABLE S-3 DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION EFFECTS, BY GROUP ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1974 and 1978 Social Group 1974 1978 Business Community 6 3 Black Community 0 46 Retirees 0 0 TForkers 879 633 TOTAL 885 682 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.
i 196
l l
l I
I younger people with families live and an area with a high proportion of rental units.
According to key informants, these rental units were not well cared for, and this affected the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Moreover, some units were rented ostensibly by one or two people, but five or six people moved in. Some residents of Port St. Lucie blamed these problems on the nuclear plant work force and felt that construction workers were not compatible with others in the neighborhood. However, these residents could not specifically identify the problem renters as construction workers at the nuclear plant. Other residents indicated that the problems were created by renters in general, not specifically those working on the nuclear plant.
Some residents of the county also felt that the project-related demands for housing increased rental prices. However, there was no evidence that prices rose faster j than the rate of inflation. Similarly, some residents whose river front property on Indian River Drive was directly across from the plant (which was in full view) felt that the plant's presence would lower demand for their houses. There was some evidence to support this perception. Real estate agents indicated that property directly across from the plant was somewhat more difficult to sell, not so much because of the plant itself but because of the massive transmission lines stretching from the plant to the mainland.
Moreover, after the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident, some potential buyers did not want property directly across from the plant. In general, however, realtors indicated that the effect of the plant on the river front property was fairly small. There was no significant increase in the number of houses for sale along Indian River Drive following the TMI accident, and river front housing continued to be in demand.
For the most part, only the business community benefited economically from any increase in housing activity due to the in-migration of project-related workers. The business community owned the rental houses, motels, apartments, and mobile home parks that received project-related business. Those homes owned by out-of-state people (for example, homes in Port St. Lucie owned by future retirees) were often handled by local realtors-members of the business community-who retained a percentage of the rental income. Additionally, members of the business community were the major real estate investors and developers in the area.
197
8.5 Changes in the Social Structure and the Role of the Effects of the Project 8.5.1 Changes in the Profiles of the Groups This section describes the major changes in the profiles of each of the groups during the study period and examines the role the project's effects played in those changes.
8.5.1.1 The Enminess Community The business community benefited from the spending and respending of project-related incomes, which created new business and new jobs in the economy. A number of businesses also benefited directly from project-related purchases by Ebasco Services:
over 100 businesses received purchases in excess of $1,000 from the plant during the study period, and almost 20 businesses (about half of them locally owned) benefited from purchases in excess of $100,000. While the project-related purchases were a relatively small part of the total business volume for most of these businesses, a few businesses profited considerably. The president of one metal fabrication plant indicated that 40 percent of the company's total sales were project-related, and the company hired 5 new employees-3 of them in supervisory positions-to handle the project-related business volume. The manager of another company claimed that the nuclear plant accounted for 20 percent of his business volume and that 4 additional employees were hired as a direct result. The managers of several other companies indicated that they were able to expand their stock as a result of the plant, which helped to generate new business and open new markets.
During the study period, the business community grew considerably, not as a result of the St. Lucie project, but as a result of general population growth in the county. In the decade from 1968 to 1978, the business community increased by about 6,000 persons-totaling approximately 14,800 persons (about 19 percent of the population) in 1978. Women in the business community (as defined by their husbands' occupations) entered the work force in growing numbers during the 1970s, as part of the national trend l 1
of increased labor force participation and as inflation and rising consumer expectations dictated the necessity of two incomes. By the end of the study period, it was estimated l'y key informants that fully half of the wives in the business community worked outside the home, usually in white-collar and clericaljobs, although some owned small businesses of their own. In other respects, however, the demographic characteristics of the business community remained relatively unchanged. Residential patterns were also stable, 198
i although there was some expansion of the business community into the unincorporated areas of the county and into Port St. Lucie.
Nonetheless, the business community experienced substantial changes during the study period. The trend toward absentee-owned businesses and discount chain stores recelerated. For example, prior to the study period, the drugstores in Fort Pierce were locally owned; by 1978, the number of drugstores had doubled, with half affiliated with nttional or regional chains. Moreover, business became more decentralized; shopping centers sprawled through both the city and the unincorporated areas of the county, partly l in response to increased population growth south of Fort Pierce. 'Ihere is no evidence, however, that any of these changes were attributable to the construction of the nuclear l plant.
Despite the changes in the character of the business community that resulted l from growth, the business community remained steadfastly pro-growth. Economic l expansion was the primary concern of the business community in the 1970s, particularly 1
those members in the trade and services sectors. Of particular importance was the t.ttraction of new industry to the county and the creation of new jobs. As unemployment levels rose in the latter half of the 1970s, concern grew. In 1977, members of the buziness community formed the G.O. Team, Incorporated, under the auspices of the Chamber of Commerce. The function of this organization, composed of about 200 local investors, was to aggressnely promote the attraction of industry to the area and to create a positive outlook toward industrial development. One outcome of this attention toward promoting growth was a sense of group purpose, a sense of cohesion. Moreover, toward the end of the study period, there was a growing movement in the county advocating a " slow-growth" policy. This pro-growth / slow-growth dichotomy further strengthened the cohesiveness of the business community. The strenthened cohesiveness stemmed from the feeling that the business community had to act as a unified force against the attack of slow-growth advocates. The construction of the nuclear plant may have played a minor role in this cohesiveness during the State Site Certification hearings in 1975 and 1976, and during the stay of the Limited Work Authorization in 1976 and 1977. During this period, the business community expressed its support of the plant through the Chamber of Commerce. However, within the context of the total growth iszue and its role in coalescing the business community, the effect of the plant was relatively insignificant.
199
I l
8.5.1.2 The Black Community During the 1968-1978 period, the black community, as a proportion of the total population, declined from about 31 percent to about 22 percent. Nonetheless, it remained the second largest social group, with approximately 18,000 persons.
As a result of the civil rights movement, the economic conditions of some members of the black community improved. Federally funded training programs, affirmative action programs, and a commitment on the part of some members of the county's business community created nonagricultural employment opportunities for blacks. Blacks moved into the construction and manufacturing industries in unprecedented numbers, although most were still employed in the lowest skilled, lowest paid jobs, such as laborers and helpers. Key informants indicated that by the end of the study period, the construction industry was the second largest employer of blacks; agriculture was first. Moreover, blacks found employment as civil service workers, clerical workers, store clerks, and restaurant workers. Vocational training programs were established at the Indian River Community College in Fort Pierce to help blacks, as well as whites, obtain necessary job skills. Moreover, a few individual blacks advanced to positions of authority, such as school administrators and store managers. Some blacks found extra-local employment: with the construction of FPL's fon:1 fuel plant at Indiantown and with the Grumman Aerospace Corporation (both in Martin County), and at the Piper Aircraft Company in Indian River County. Nevertheless, most black men and women remained in agriculture-related jobs-as fruitpickers, packers, or longshoremen (loading fruit and other cargo onto ships and railroad cars)-because they lacked other skills.
The black community did not anticipate that the St. Lucie project would be a major employer of blacks because of the generally specialized skills involved; however, some key informants indicated that blacks hoped for employment opportunities as laborers. In fact, few blacks were employed in the construction of the plant, not only because they lacked the necessary skills, but also because they lacked union membership. There is evidence to suggest that the cost of union dues was prohibitive to most blacks in St. Lucie County and that blacks objected to paying for the laborers' training school. Moreover, some key informants indicated that the apprenticeship system s
of the craft unions restricted blacks from membership in those unions: it was alleged that white union members would not accept black apprentices. However, there was no hard evidence to either substantiate or refute this allegation. Nevertheless, some blacks 200
did become union members and did get jobs, primarily as laborers, in the construction of Unit 1.
By 1978, when work on Unit 2 was underway, it is estimated that the number of blteks at the plant doubled to about 66 persons (both construction and opnations workers). This increase was the result of the growing acceptance of blacks in the construction work force, increased interest in plant employment on the part of blacks, and affirmative action hiring. A few members of the black community also benefited from the indirect basic and nonbasic jobs that were generated by the plant's construction and operation. However, the estimated 60 indirect basic and nonbasic jobs in 1974 and the 86 jobs in 1978 represented only a fraction of the employment needs of the black ccmmunity, according to key informants. It is uncertain whether blacks in the construction industry benefited from the increased nonunion construction wage rates induced by the plant, given their inexperience and the shortage of alternative job cpportunities.
In sum, although the jobs generated by the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant were certainly important to those individuals who received them, the black comtaunity did not benefit tubstantially from the plant's construction and operation.
8.5,1.3 Retirees As a result of the in-migration of retirees to Port St. Lucie, the number of rstirees in St. Lucie County doubled during the study period, reaching an estimated 14,000 persons in 1978. The relative size of the group was about that of the business community. The retirees who were concentrated in Port St. Lucie (it is estimated that ovtr half of the retired population resided there) formed a visible subgroup during the study period.
A description of the Port St. Lucie retirees requires some explanation of the city itself. Although the majority of Port St. Lucie residents were retited, the city was not a "rstirement community." At the time of the 1970 census, the city was composed almost cxclusively of retired residents, but as younger families moved into the available housing, particularly rental units, the age structure shifted. By the end of the study period, it is c::timated that retirees constituted about 60 percent of the Port St. Lucie population.
201
The vast majority of retirees in Port St. Lucie were newcomers from the colder climes of northern states. A number of them originally relocated to the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Boca Raton area, then moved to St. Lucie County to escape the crowded
" concrete jungle." Because General Development Corporation advertised heavily on the Eastern Seaboard, a number of ethnic groups-for example, Italian-Americans-were represented in Port St. Lucie; however, no raal ethnic enclaves were evident.
The retirees in the Port St. Lucie area were a social subset of the county's retirees. Over forty organizations catered primarily to this group and provided a mechanism for the rapid integration of newcomers. These organizations ranged from activity clubs such as bridge clubs, golf associations, and the Anglers Club to groups such as the American Association of Retired Persons, which hosted speakers on varicus topics. One group, the Port St. Lucie Welcome Wagon, was restricted to newcomers, with the sole purpose of bringing peop?e together to make friends. Those who lived in the
" country club" area were particularly social according to key informants: informal visitation levels were high, and many residents played golf, fished, bowled, or played I cards together. One result of this level of socialization in Port St. Lucie was a sense of 1
community and cohesion. Retirees in the rest of the county were not nearly as social nor I as cohesive, both because they were more residentially dispersed and because of the absence of specific mechanisms for social interaction.
Although the level of social interaction was high in Port St. Lucie, civic participation was generally low, with only a handful of politically active residents.
However, throughout the study period, the council members and mayor were all retirees. Many retirees belonged to one of tha four home owners associations1 and to the Port St. Lucie Civic League but, in general, only the leaders of these organizations were active participants. These leaders attended city council meetings to represent their membership. According to key informants, in general, few retirees attended city council or county commission meetings unless an issue directly affected them (although a small group regularly attended reportedly for the " entertainment value"). These concerns included improved health services, water drainage, police protection, zoning, and 1
The Port St. Lucie Homeowners Association, the Port St. Lucie-River Park Homeowners Association, the St. Lucie Country Club Homeowners Association, and the Spanish Lakes Homeowners Association represented residents in the area.
202
taxation. As one civic-minded activist observed: "The great majority of people who come here don't give a damn. They feel they've paid their dues and don't get involved.
Th;re are exceptions, but on the whole, participation in civic affairs is low."
The retirees in St. Lucie County were not significantly affected by the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. About 13 percent of the rstirees worked part-time to s spplement their incomes and to pass the time, but only a small number received part-time nonbasic jobs as a result of the income generated by the plant. It is estimated that, at most, 16 retirees benefited from project-related l
croployment in the peak year of construction.
8.5.1.4 Workers The workers group grew dramatically during the study period, from 18,000 persons in 1968 to an estimated 30,700 persons in 1978. Despite this growth, the demographic characteristics of the group remained relatively unchanged. The most apparent difference was that, toward the end of the study period, more women who were wives of white-collar workers joined the ranks of working women in the county as inflation nscessitated two incomes.
The workers group was the functional group most affected by the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. St. Lucie County had a relatively large pool of local construction workers who joined the crafts and laborers unions to obtain employment at the plant. Moreover, a number of local women secured clerical positions both with Ebasco Services and with FPL's operations work force. A small proportion of white-collar professionals, such as draftpersons and engineers, also found employment at the plant. Further, a significant number of indirect basic and nonbasic jobs generated by the plant went to the workers group, most of them in trade and services occupations.
Although these jobs were important to those individuals who received them, it is estimated that only about 4 percent of the nonmovers in the workers group were employed in project-related jobs.
An additional 400 persons moved into the county for project-related employment, almost all of whom became part of the workers group. Generally, in-migrants quickly 1
0nly 8 full-time equivalent jobs.
203
integrated with the workers group (indeed, the majority in this group were newcomers by the end of the study period), and the project-related workers were no exception. Almost all of the members of the workers group who were interviewed knew of plant-related workers who moved into their neighborhoods, although few knew them socially. This relative social isolation, however, was not due to an active separation from the group, but rather to the low level of social interaction among neighbors in general. Some project-related employees, particularly operations workers, became active participants in the community. For example, a number of the project-related employees were members of the Shriners and were even active on committees, the first step toward group leadership positions.
The workers group, particularly blue-collar workers, was potentially the recipient of one negative effect of the in-migration of project-related workers: increased competition for middle-income housing, particularly rentals. However, the evidence of this competition was not clear-cut. Some community informants noted that it was extremely difficult to find rental housing, particularly after construction on Unit 2 commenced, and they contended that this housing shortage also caused the cost of available housing to rise. Others observed that housing was readily available once the tourist season was over and maintained that rental prices rose due to the tourist season, not in response to the in-migration of construction workers. As indicated in Chapter 6, the evidence indicates that increases in rental prices cannot be attributed to the ;
presence of the construction work force.
In summary, the construction and operation of the nuclear plant was relatively insignificant in effecting changes in the workers group as a whole, although some individuals clearly benefited.
8.5.2 Chances in the Relationships among the Groups The effects of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on the Study Area as a whole and on the internal organization of the functional groups resulted in very few changes in group j interrelationships. In general, the effects of the projects were a small part of larger trends that resulted for a variety of reasons unrelated to the nuclear plant.
I 8.5.2.1 Economic The basic pattern of economic interrelationships that existed between Study Area groups remained fairly constant throughout the study period. Previous extra-local 204
linkages grew somewhat during the study period according to key informants, as more blacks who worked in other counties moved in to take advantage of available public housing and as the southern sections of Port St. Lucie grew, since many of these residents shopped in nearby Stuart and Jensen Beach in Martin County. The only major change in economic relationships was that more members of the black community worked
! beside members of the workers group, as blacks moved out of the agricultural sector and into the construction and trade / services sectors. However, the evidence indicates that neither the local employment opportunities resulting from the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, nor the in-migration of project-related workers, created any measurable changes in the overall pattern of economic interaction among the groups.
8.5.2.2 Political During the study period, political interactions underwent some significant changes. The somewhat heated conflicts between the black community and the white population as a whole continued through the beginning of the study period, with attention riveted on the issue of federally enforced desegregation of the schools and school busing. However, despite the strides made by the black community with respect to political representation, key informants indicated that the black community, as a whole, still did not feel they were well represented in either city or county government.
The political power remained primarily with the business community, and the Chamber of Commerce was particularly influential during this time. While the retirees participated to some extent in Port St. Lucie's political arena, there was little participation at the county level of government. The workers group did not get politically involved to any significant degree, although some white-collar workers were members of the Fort Pierce City Commission.
For the most part, the political waters in St. Lucie County were fairly calm.
Although there were four referendums1 on the ballot during the study period, most of the political decision making was through more traditional government channels. A number of environmental issues arose during the study period, however, that created alliances as ITwo referendums concerned the formation of the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (FPU A); one regarded public funds for public beaches; and one concerned a proposed consolidation of the governments of Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County. Only the proposal to create the FPU A was successful.
205
well as conflicts between groups. According to key informants, many of these revolved around a dichotomy between the interests of developers and the business community as a whole, and the " environmentalists" primarily members of the workers (white-collar workers) and retirees groups. Although the nuclear plant was one of the environmental issues, its significance was relatively minor in comparison to other issues, such as high-rise condominium development.
Although the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant was one of the numerous environmental issues that arose during the study period (see Chapter 9 for a complete discussion), there was no evidence to indicate that it was the catalyst for increased environmental concern. Key informants indicated that the issues arose within a context of heightened environmental awareness throughout the State of Florida and the nation. As best could be determined, conflicts over the direction of St. Lucie County's growth and the protection of the environment would have surfaced without the presence of the nuclear plant.
8.5.2.3 Social The construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant did not have any discernible impact on social interactions during the study period. The only measurable change in social interactions during the study period was between the black community and the white community as a whole. As blacks moved into nonagricultural sectors of the economy and, thus, had increased contact with whites, and as more newcomers with various backgrounds and racial attitudes moved into the county, the social relationships improved. Blacks were able to mix more freely with whites without harassment. Some of the service clubs in Fort Pierce such as the Lions and the Rotary were integrated, although relatively few blacks joined. Members of the black community stated that black and white co-workers developed friendships and socialized with one another. Still, relations were strained. Blacks continued to feel most comfortable with-and, thus, associate primarily with-other members of the black community, according to key informants. Whereas the business community came to accept the social integration of blacks, if somewhat grudgingly, prejudice appeared to be prevalent among blue-collar workers. Nonetheless, it was the consensus of the members of the black community who were interviewed that blacks had come a long way toward full acceptance in St. Lucie County. The evidence indicated that this acceptance was not related to the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
206
The social interactions between other groups in the county did not change significantly during the study period. The business community, the workers group, and I the retirees continued to interact primarily endogenously, with little interaction across groups, with the exception of the business community and white-collar workers.
8.5.2.4 Study Area Cohesion At the end of the study period, the four functional groups in St. Lucie County continued to exhibit a Eenerally low level of cohesion. As the county became more urban with the influx of newcomers, any " sense of community" in Fort Pierce resulting from long-established ties among city residents was further diminished. However, the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant was not a significant factor in the low level of cohesion, given the substantial population increase during the study period that was not plant-related.
207
CHAPTER 9: PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THE ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT 91 Introduction The public response to the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant began in 1968, over the plant's original design (which used Indian River water for its primary cooling system), and continued through the study period. This public response took place primarily within the legal hearings process for the construction permits. In describing the public response to i the project, the issues regarding the nuclear plant will be identified; the institutions, constituencies, and political activities will be described; and the effect of public response on the Study Area's sociopolitical process will be assessed. In addition, the degree to which residents of the Study Area participated in public activity will be '
ascertained, their level of concern over the facility will be gauged, and the salience of issues provoked by the construction and operation of the nuclear facility will be measured.1 Two types of public response arose during the study period: (1) the formal l response within the hearings and legal process through the contentions of the interveners and the viewpoints expressed by those who made limited appearances, and (2) the informal response outside the hearings process. Resolutions passed and public statements made by governmental bodies and business organizations and the use of the press by I environmentalists are examples of such informal activities. Because of the proximity of Martin County to the plant, the magnitude' of the response of Martin County residents, and the influence of Martin County activists on public response in St. Lucie County, the public response in Martin County will be included in this chapter. The inclusion of Martin County's response will aid in understanding the degree to which the residents of the Study Area responded within the context of the total response to the construction of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. Nevertheless, the emphasis on the previously defined Study Area will remain.
l l
1 The following discussion represents a synthesis of hearings, documents, newspaper reports, interviews with Study Area residents, and interviews with the interveners and their supporters. To protect the confidentiality of the information provided by these key informants, statements are not attributed to specific people.
People interviewed for this chapter are included in the list of Personal Communications at the end of this report. A complete list of newspaper reports used in this chapter is ,
contained in the list of Newspaper References, also at the end of this report.
208
l l
9 2 The Environmental Hearirgs, The public response to the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant focused primarily on the con-struction permit hearings process and legal action in the courts. This response took place I
over an eleven-year period, from 1968 to 1979, ranging from intervention at the AEC htarings to attempts to halt construction through the United States Supreme Court.
Table 9-1 outlines the stages in the formal public response. Hearings on the construction p:rmit for Unit 1 took place in 1970 and 1973. Because no one filed to intervene in the d: liberations regarding the operating license for Unit 1, no public hearings were held and, thus, no formal public response against the operating license was recorded. In 1974, the environmental hearing on Unit 2 was held, which provoked public response from residents of both Martin and St. Lucie counties. This response continued with State Site Certification hearings, AEC Appeals Board hearings, and hearings before the United States Court of Appeals. The public response to the construction of Unit 2 essentially ended in 1979 when the United States Supreme Court denied the interveners' petition for appeal. The issuance of an operating license for Unit 2 was not considered during the study period. The following discussion is organized into two sections: (1) the formal public response to the construction permit for Unit 1 (including the prehearing response),
which took place at intervals during the 1969-1973 period, and (2) the formal public rcsponse to the construction permit for Unit 2, which took place periodically from 1974 through 1979.
When objections to the project initially surfaced, the questions concerned
! cnvironmental issues that were purely local in nature: the effect of the plant's design on estuarine and marine ecology. While local issues persisted (particularly objections to siting the plant in what environmentalists claimed was a projected population center),
attention was soon turned to those issues raised by the national antinuclear movement, namely the safety of nuclear fission as an energy source. This section will present an overview of the issues raised and the actions taken within the hearings as detailed in legal petitions, newspaper accounts, utility records, and interviews with the interveners.
I 9.2.1 Construction Permit Hearings, Unit 1,1969-1973 The construction permit hearings process for Unit 1 essentially involved three etages: the prehearing response, the initial AEC construction permit hearing, and the h aring held subsequent to the Calvert Cliffs decision providing that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) be applied to nuclear power plants. Newspaper 209 l
4
TABLE 9-1 CHRONOLOGY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT 1968-1979 Date Event Resolution l May 1970 AEC Construction Permit hearing, Construction permit granted. FPL re-Unit 1. vised plant design for Atkutic Ocean intake and agreed to protective measures for sea turtles.
August 1973 NEPA-man tated hearings, Unit 1. Continuance of construction permit recommended.
U o
October-November NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Partial Initial Decision issued permitting l 1974 (ASLB) Construction Permit hearing, a Limited Work Authorization (LWA).
Unit 2.
l l
June-July 1975 State Site Certification hearing, Unit 2. Radiological health and safety issues were excluded. Site approval was recommended.
October 1975 NRC Appeal Board hearing on 44 Appeal Board remanded alternative sites exceptions filed by interveners against issue to the NRC ASLB. LWA allowed to the PartialInitial Decision, Unit 2. remain in effect, with one dissenting vote.
December 197':-
Florida Governor and cabinet deny State Remanded to Hearing Examiner for Site Certification application, Unit 2. additional hearings on radiological health and safety.
Continued on Next Page
TAELE 9-1 (Contimmed)
CHRONOLOGY OF THE ENMRONMENTAL HEARINGS ST. LUCIE NUCL EAR PLANT 1968-1979 Event Resolution Date State Site Certification hearing con- State Site Certification granted.
February 1976 sidering radiological health and safety matters, Unit 2.
October 1976 U.S. Court of Appeals hearing requesting Court denied motion to reverse the a reversal of the PartialInitial Decision, decision, but stayed the LWA pending a Unit 2. decision by the ASLB on the alternative sites issue.
g NRC ASLB hearing to cover alternative Initial Decision issued authorizing a full December 1976 sites issue, Unit 2. Construction Permit.
U.S. Court of Appeals issue.s order Construction on St. Lucie Unit 2 May 1977 dissolving stay of construction, Unit 2. resumed.
Interveners file various motions with NRC denies petitions for review.
e May 1977 NRC Appeal Board for stay of the effectiveness of the construction permit, Unit 2.
Court upheld Initial Decision.
January 1979 U.S. Court of Appeals hearing on appeal of Initial Decision, Unit 2.
Continued on Next Page
TABLE 9-1 (Continued)
CHRONOLOGY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT 1968-1979 Date Event Resolution May 1979 Interveners filed appeal with the U.S. Court refused to hear appeal.
Supreme Court based on failure to consider Class 9 accidents, Unit 2.
October 1979 Interveners filed appeal with the U.S. Court denied petition.
Supreme Court based on failure to consider Class 9 accidents and the NRC's decision to disregard the Rasmussen report, Unit 27 Sources: Pijawka,1979b; Fort Pierce News Tribune,1979; interviews with interveners.
~
tecounts and utility records provide insight into the objections raised against the nuclear f plant.
The objections surrounding the construction of Unit I were primarily concerned with the environmental effects on the Indian River and on the Atlantic Ocean. Prior to tha hearing, in March 1969, the Martin County Taxpayers Association, a civic organiza-tion that monitored issues that would affect the county's taxpayers, expressed concern that minute estuarine life in the Indian River, such as plankton and trout eggs, would be entrained by the suction action of the intake pipes. In a well publicized resolution, it called for FPL to redesign the plant to use ocean intake or cooling towers. Both the j taxpayers association, arguing that such environmental damage would adversely affect Martin County's revenue from fishing, and the United States Department of the Interior, arguing against Indian River intake purely on an environmental basis, filed retitions to intervene in the construction permit hearing. Moreover, it was reported that intervention against Indian River intake was supported by the Martin County Anglers I Club, the Florida Air and Water Pollution Centrol Board, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Florida Department of Natural Resources. FPL re-sponded prior to the hearing by redesigning the plant for ocean-to-ocean cooling.
The construction permit hearing for Unit I was conducted by the AEC in May 1970 in Fort Pierce. At the hearing, the Martin County Taxpayers Association withdrew its intervention, since its objection had been rendered moot by the redesign of the intake system. Although the United States Department of the Interior also dropped its objection to the intake design, it raised an additional objection: that thermal pollution in the Atlantic Ocean and the plant's bright lights would adversely affect the migration patterns and hatching habits of sea turtles. This objection was supported by a limited appearance by a representative of the Pelican Island Audubon Society of Indian River County and by a student from Martin County. News accounts did not report any response on this issue froin residents of St. Lucie County at the hearing. In response to this objection regarding adverse affects on the sea turtles, FPL agreed to a number of protective measures. These requirements included: conducting a turtle nest relocation program during the construction of the plant, screening the plant's lights with vegetation to minimize adverse effects on the turtles' hatching habits, and conducting studies to monitor the effects of plant operation on the ocean environment, including entrainment. (Gluckler,1969; Fort Pierce News Tribune, 26 April 1970,13 May 1970, and 1 July 1970; Stuart News,3 May 1970, and 14 May 1970; AEC,1970b.)
213
In addition to objections raised by interveners, a limited appearance was made by a representative of the Fort Pierce Provisional League of Women Voters, who questioned '
the thoroughness of the utility's calculations regarding possible hurricane damage and the projected population of Hutchinson Island. These questions did not result in any new calculations. In support of the plant, limited appearances were made by the St. Lucie County Administrator and the executive director of the St. Lucie County Industrial Council. (Fort Pierce News Tribune,12 May 1970 and 14 May 1970; Stuart News,14 May /
1970.) A construction permit was approved by the AEC in June 1970.
Three years later, af ter construction was underway, an additional construction permit hearing was held in August 1973 in Fort Pierce to meet the requirements of i NEPA. The issues raised at this hearing signaled a shif t from local environmental concerns to national antinuclear issues. Although no one intervened at this hearing, representatives of the Martin County Conservation Alliance (and its newly formed Nuclear Study Committee), the Martin County High School's Nuclear Inquiry Committee, and individual citizens from Stuart, Fort Pierce, and West Palm Beach made limited '
appearances. The issues raised included low-level radiation, genetic damage, nuclear waste transportation, and coolant loss dangers. The primary local issue raised concerned sit.ing the plant in what was argued to be a growing population center. (Today, 6 June 1973; Fort Pierce News Tribune, 28 August 1973.) The AEC continued the previously issued construction permit.
A key to understanding these new opponents of the St. Lucie plant is their decision not to intervene in the NEPA hearing nor, for that matter, in the issuance of the operating license for Unit 1.1 A spokesperson for the Martin County Alliance explained their position in an interview with the local press: "They've spent $130 million on it (the St. Lucie plant) and it wouldn't be fair for us to siLd le it out to stop (it). We should have been more sophisticated three years ago in opposing the plant construction." (Today,16 June 1973.) The nuclear opposition felt that, for practical reasons, the AEC would not revoke the construction permit, given the large capital investment FPL had made in the q three years of construction subsequent to the granting of the permit. The opponents ,
perceived that it was simply too late to stop Unit 1; the time to have successfully I No operating licensing hearing was held because of the absence of intervention.
214
stopped the construction of Unit I was at the initial construction permit stage before a large capital investment had been made. Nevertheless, the nuclear opponents considered participation in the NEPA hearing through lim!ted appearances as an opportunity to keep tha nuclear issue in the forefront ~. ,
9,2.2 Construction Permit Hearings, Unit 2, 1974-1979 1 The formal public response to the construction of Unit 2 began in 1974, when the construction permit hearing was held by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).I Once the NRC granted permission to proceed with preliminary construction, the interveners sought redress through the NRC Appeal Board, the United States Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court (see Table 9-1). Additionally, nuclear opponents appeared at the State Site Certification hearings held in 1975 and 1976 by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The response to Unit 2 marked a shift in both the level of intensity and the tactics used by the environmentalists to oppose the plant. No longer were the environmentalists willing to settle for the mitigation of localized adverse environmental impacts. Instead, their goal was to permanently stop construction of an additional nuclear unit in St. Lucie County. The St. Lucie plant was enn of several nuclear plants under construction in Florida during the 1970s, and the interveners felt that the hearing on St. Lucie Unit 2 afforded them the opportunity not only to make a stand on the nuclear issue but to stop the " proliferation of nuclear power plants in Florida," according to key informants.
The construction permit hearings were conducted by the NRC in October and November 1974. An attorney from Dade County who became one of the principal spokes-psrsons for the nuclear opposition filed to intervene, representing six other interveners as well as himself. Only two of :he interveners were from the local area-both from Martin County. The remaining interveners came from other southern Florida counties.
Only the interveners from Martin County had previously been involved in the movement against the St. Lucie plant. Both had been active in the Martin County Conservation Alliance (one had headed the organization's Nuclear Study Committee and made a limited appearance before the AEC in the NEPA hearings on Unit 1 in 1973). None of the I In late 1974, the Atomic Energy Commission was reorganized as the NRC. To avoid confusion, the agency will be referred to as the NRC from the beginning of the hearing process on St. Lucie Unit 2.
215
interveners had been involved in the initial construction permit hearing held in 1970 for Unit 1. The Martin County Anglers Club, however, which had supported the intervention on Unit 1, continued to support intervention against the plant through its membership in the Martin County Conservation Alliance.
Sixteen of the interveners' contentions were accepted by the NRC as issues in controversy for the construction permit hearing. Some of the primary contentions can be summed as follows:
- 1. Whether the facility's normal operation would emit low-level radia-C tion sufficient to adversely affect human fetuses, mother's milk, cow's milk, and the food chain;
- 2. Whether thermal effluents would adversely affect aquatic life;
- 3. Whether emergency evacuation procedures for the low population zone (LPZ) were adequate;
- 4. Whether there was enough available water for ultimate heat sink;
- 5. Whether the utility had accurately projected the popttlation on Hutchinson Island; and
- 6. Whether the plant was adequately protected against hurricane damage.
The latter two contentions proved to be the most crucial in the efforts of the interveners to halt construction of the nuclear plant.
The interveners contended that FPL had made erroneous population projections regarding Hutchinson Island. This allegation was based on the existing population, the number of transient visitors on the island, the number of additional dwelling units allowable under existing zoning laws, and the probability of further development of Hutchinson Island, given its geographical amenities and the development history of the Florida coast. A demographic consultant for the utility projected a population of 2,690 by 1990 within the 5-mile LPZ.1 The interveners, however, averred that his projection erred by as much as a factor of 13. An urban / transportation planner with Peat, Marwick, 1
Includes both Hutchinson Island and the mainland within a 5-mile radius.
216
i and Mitchell, Incorporated and the St. Lucie County Development Coordinator testified as witnesses for the interveners that they projected much higher populations in the LPZ-up to 35,750 persons by 1990 given the number of dwelling units already in existence, the number of additional units already approved, and the density allowed under existing zoning regulations. The interveners were particularly concerned about Hutchinson Island's future population because of the limited egress from the island in the event of a plant-necessitated evacuation. As a result of the testimony regarding this contention, FPL was found to have underestimated the projected population, and a rcvised population projection was submitted by FPL.1 More important, the NRC mandated changes in the plant's emergency safety systems to make it possible to reduce
> tha LPZ from 5 miles to 1 mile, thus rendering the population issue moot. (U.S. Court of Appeals, 1978:34b-37b.)
)
A second contention (also related to the ability to safely evacuate the island) was that erosion induced by stalled hurricanes could cut through the sandbar on which the plant was sited and thus isolate the plant from evacuation routes. As a result, FPL agreed to construct additional storm surge barriers for erosion protection and groins to stabilize the canal banks, as directed by the NRC. The final outcome of the construction permit hearing was a PartialInitial Decision in February 1975, recommending a Limited Work Authorization (LWA),2 formally issued in March 1975.
In July 1975, the interveners filed forty-four exceptions to the Partial Initial Dscision with the NRC Appeal Board, which heard their case the following October. The three primary contentions were: (1) that FPL had violated NEPA by not considering alternative sites to the Hutchinson Island location; (2) that the consequences of a Class 9 accident (a complete meltdown) had not been considered; and (3) that Hutchinson Islanti should be considered a population center. It was the alternative sites issue that commanded the attention of the Appeal Board; the other forty-three exceptions were
,itnied.
1 This revised estimate, based on updated information, remained lower than the figure estimated by the urban planner who testified for the interveners. Further, FPL's error was found by the NRC Appeal Board to have been unintentional.
2 An LWA permits certain construction activities pending a full construction permit.
217
l l
The interveners argued that a superior site was located in western Martin County,1 but that only the St. Lucie County site had been considered. In testimony, it was revealed that Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, in preparing the environ-mental report for the NRC, had used a new approach by considering a hypothetical
" composite" site for comparison with the Hutchinson Island location, rather than con-sidering actual sites. However, Battelle, in its Final Environmental Statement Related to the Construction of St. Lucie Plant Unit 2, indicated that it had compared the St.
Lucie site to "another coastal site . . . defined as a typical east coast site, although the specific example used was located within a 40-mile radius of West Palm Beach" (AEC, 1974a:9-2). The Appeal Board found that Battelle in its report, and FPL in its failure to correct the error in the Battelle report, had " misled" the ASLB in implying that e alternative sites had actually been considered. More important, the board decided that NEPA required that the utility lool at an actual alternative site and remanded the alter-native sites contention to the NRC Licensing Board for further hearings. The LWA was allowed to remain in effect, although the interveners argued that the LWA should be stayed until the alternative sites issue was decided. (U.S. Court of Appeals, <
1978:81b-93b.)
The interveners responded with a legal petition for a review of the PartialInitial Decision with the United States Court of Appeals, requesting a reversal of the decision.
In October 1976, the Court denied the motion to reverse the decision, but stayed the LWA (effective in November 1976) pending a decision by the NRC Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) on the alternative sites issue. Hearings by the ASLB in December 1976, at which FPL presented an actual alternative site for comparison, culminated in the issuance of an Initial Decision in April 1977, authorizing a full construction permit. The following month, the United States Court of Appeals dissolved its stay of construction, and construction resumed in July.
The interveners countered this action with a new motion for a stay of construc-tion, filed with both the NRC Appeal Board and the United States Court of Appeals based on the same three contentions considered previously. Both the NRC Appeal Board and I the United States Court of Appeals ruled against the interveners' motion for appeal.
1 Two oil-fired units were under construction at this site at the time this report was written.
218
Then, in 1979, the interveners twice filed petitions to halt construction with the United States Supreme Court on the contention that the NRC had failed to consider the consequences of a Class 9 accident. Both petitions were rejected by the Court.
9.2.3 State Site Certification Hearings, 1975-1976 The Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, enacted in 1973, required State Site Certification by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER)
(originally the Department of Pollution Control) of all proposed energy facilities (Pearson,1977). Public hearings for St. Lucie Unit 2 were conducted in June and July 1975 by the Department of Environmental Regulation's hearing examiner. Representa-tives of the St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance, the ;.!artin County Conservation Alliance, Citizens United Against a Radioactive Environment (CURE), and the St. Lucie County League of Women Voters intervened in the hearings. Two of the interveners-the re'sident of Martin County (representing CURE) and the counsel for the Martin County Conservation Alliance-had also been interveners in the AEC Construction Permit hearings. The issues raised by the interveners at the state hearings were essentially the same as the contentions at the construction permit hearings. However, prior to the hearing, FPL argued that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 preempted states from considering issues regarding radiological health and safety, and the hearing examiner concurred. Therefore, the interveners' issues regarding low-level radiation, nuclear waste transportation, nuclear accidents, and evacuation were not legitimate concerns to be raised before the state hearing examiner.
Although there was opposition voiced at the hearing, there were also a' number of individuals who expressed support of the project. For example, the President of the Palm Beach County Federation of Labor and Vice President of the Florida AFL-CIO,
" representing working people," presented a petition with 1,280 signatures from Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River counties supporting the construction of a second nuclear unit because it was "an economic asset to the counties and because it would provide a cheaper source of electricity." (Palm Beach Post,17 July 1975.)
Although the hearing examiner recommended certification of the sit e, the Governor of Florida and the cabinet denied certification, since radiological matters had not been allowed, and required an additional hearing on radiological health and safety.
Issues raised at this hearing (in addition to the con 5ntion e that the site was unsuitable based on population projections) included waste transportation, evacuation preparedness, 219
and consideration of a Class 9 accident. State Site Certification was granted in May 1976; no major changes in plant design resulted from the interveners' contentions.
Figure 9-1 displays a chronometry of the duration of selected issues raised by the opposition to the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
9.3 Informal Resna===
Community and Political Leaders During the study period, the political and business leaders in St. Lucie County generally had a highly favorable attitude toward the construction of the St. Lucie facility. Interviews with business leaders indicated that the plant was welcomed because (
of its associated tax revenues and business activity. One of the principal concerns throughout the 1970s was the creation of new jobs in the county. Moreover, much of the growth occurring in the county was in residential development: because of the home-stead exemption act and its additional exemption for the growing number of elderly residents, residential growth did not provide sufficient tax revenues to meet the increased demands for services. Consequently, the business community looked to industrial development to increase the tax base as well as to reduce unemployment. The construction of the nuclear plant, it was perceived, would aid in solving these chronic problems.
In 1968, soon after FPL announced the proposed plant, the boards of directors of both the Fort Pierce-St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce and the St. Lucie County Farm Bureau unanimously passed resolutions welcoming the nuclear plant, noting that it would be a " great stimulus to the economic and civic well-being of the area" (Fort Pierce-St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce, 1968). The S t. Lucie County Commissioners echoed this sentiment by creating a new public service zoning district for the nuclear plant site. Positive attitudes toward the plant were further demonstrated by the commission's support of FPL's application to excavate a channel in the Indian River for barge access-despite criticism from state conservation agencies and public opposition voiced at the environmental hearings. Additionally, in 1973, the commission approved a tax-free bond issue for FPL to cover its water pollution control costs. l Interviews with county administrators, former commissioners, and business leaders indicated that the location of the plant was acceptable because of its relative isolation at the time the plant was sited. Indeed, that area of the island was seen as a wasteland 220
ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT 1968 1980 Entrainment of Indian FNer estuarine life in intake pipes.
Thermal pollution of Atlantic Ocean.
E ffect of lights on sea turtles.
Ability of plant and plant site to with-stand hurricanes.
Accuracy of population projections l for Hutchinson Island.
Siting plant in population center.
Adequacy of emergency evacuation procedures, i
Ef fects of low-level radiation.
Nuclear waste transportation and
- y storage.
U A'dequacy of the emergency core cooling system.
Availability of coolant water for ultimate heat sink.
Need for power for Unit 2.
E'f fects of Class 9 accident.
Consideration of alternative sites.
d 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1900 U T a 1 e 'E .. n . .E a y ag a
I3t
.g l a lii m 3 o;
.5 ..p m .E E
= i. I =O 15 jI u- I" '
.% .% c= c EE '
I - I .9 I Eo 8 a2
.t .T .t V E 'O to < CL b 6 % o r
2 c
a
.E
<t c
'a m 3-5e oe a
n e vi 33 E .g ;;; ,g u t, o < g, 8 U = U S 12 o .~
I 8
o 2
u < 2 u G.a <& OG=
E z "8 3a E 8 S 8 5m mz 5
"o m 7n ??
< o z o n a.
of dead mangroves. Additionally, the promise of a natural park and public beaches played a role in at least one commissioner's decision to support the siting of the plant.
The business and political leaders' support for the plant continued throughout the study period. Duririg the State Site Certification hearings, for example, the Chamber of Commerce telegrammed the Florida Cabinet, warning of severe economic consequences for the county, given the county's already high unemployment rate, if the construction of Unit 2 were delayed. The economic importance of the construction of Unit 2 was continually expressed throughout the latter part of the study period. Both the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of County Commissioners voiced anger that the state chose to consider radiological issues and thus hold additional hearings, maintaining that the state officials were unqualified to do so and were thus creating an unnecessary delay.
At times, public officials expressed dissatisfaction with certain plant-related issues while continuing to support the plant. In one instance, the county commissioners expressed concern that too many construction workers at the plant were being hired outside the local area. Moreover, they were concerned that the high wages paid at the plant were upwardly skewing the calculation of prevailing wages that was used under the Davis-Bacon Act to determine the wages to be paid construction workers m public pro-jects. Both the county commissioners and the city officials of Fort Pierce strenuously objected to apparently unfounded rumors that St. Lucie County was being considered by j FPL for a nuclear waste storage site. Moreover, there is evidence to indicate that the I l
response to the plant on the part of Fort Pierce officials was somewhat less favorable ,, j than that of county officials because the city received no direct tax benefits. For example, immediately prior to the State Site Certification hearings in 1975, the mayor of Fort Pierce objected to supplying St. Lucie Unit 2 with additional water unless the site were annexed to the city (it would then pay city taxes). Nevertheless, the overall attitude of both public officials and community leaders was that the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant was a " good neighbor" and provided enormous economic benefits with few economic l
costs to the area.
Construction Workers The construction workers at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant overwhelmingly supported the plant's siting and construction, and a number of events during the environmental hearing elicited their public response. The most publicized response was their reaction to the layoffs that resulted from the stay of the LWA. In October 1976, between 500 and 222
1,500 workers and their family members (depending upon the press reports) held a rally at I
7 tha construction site protesting the United States Court of Appeals decision and
! criticizing the environmentalists as " unrealistic radicals." Children of construction workers carried signs with messages such as, "Will Santa Visit Us Christmas? No!! Our Daddy Is Out of Work." At the rally, a petition drive was launched by a newly formed group, Concerned Citizens for the Nuclear Power Plant, organized by one of the construction workers. A month later, the petitions bearing almost 15,000 signatures from St. Lucie and the surrounding counties was sent to both state and federal government officials, urging that plant construction be resumed.
The Public It is difficult to ascertain the reaction of the general public to the plant with any sp:cificity, since no public opinion surveys were taken in St. Lucie County regarding nuclear power. Interviews with community residents and an examination of local news reports suggest that the public either favored the plant or simply didn't think about it.
)
Some key informants suggested that the relative isolation of the plant on Hutchinson Island made the plant relatively " invisible" to the public; people simply were not fully cognizant of its presence. Even when the plant was in the media limelight during the environmental hearings, local papers did not indicate a widespread public re:ponse-neither objecting to nor supporting the plant-although certainly members of the public signed the petition circulated by Concerned Citizens for the Nuclear Power Plant.
In general, key informant interviews indicated that residents accepted the plant
~
because it provided jobs and tax revenues, and because it was perceived to provide n eded electricity to the local area. Moreover, the watchwords of the "New South" were economic growth and industrialization, and the nuclear plant was a major symbol of this outlook on a progressive future. This positive view of the plant was further enhanced by the public's generally high regard for the competence of FPL's personnel and by deeply entrenched cultural values-patriotism and respect for authority. Key informant interviews indicated that many residents felt they were, in a sense, doing their patriotic duty for Florida and America by being a host community for a power plant that would decrease America's dependence on foreign oil. Although residents with deep environ-mental concerns objected strenuously to the plant, there was no evidence that their concern reflected a widespread public sentiment.
223
The Environmentalists In addition to the formal response through public environmental hearings, the environmentalists in St. Lucie and Martin counties responded informally through organizational meetings and the effective use of the press. The issues raised at local meetings were primarily those presented by the interveners, but additional concerns not allowed at the hearings-low-level radiation leaks, the safety record of nuclear plants, hypothetical accidents in transporting waste, and possible plutonium theft-were expressed at meetings and disseminated to the public through the press coverage of meetings (particularly in Martin County). In one instance-when the Martin County Taxpayers Association called for a redesign of the plant's intake, opposing the use of the Indian River-the environmentalists were successful in using the informal public arena to (
pressure for change, as detailed in Section 9.2.1.
In addition to holding meetings, the environmentalists expressed their position effectively through the press, particularly the Stuart News. Numerous editorials and letters to the editor were published outlining the nuclear opponents' concerns. Moreover, in several instances, the Stuart paper published lengthy bylined articles written by one of the interveners (the head of CURE) in which she outlined the national, philosophical issues in the nuclear debate. Whether the in-depth coverage of the antinuclear activists' views in Martin County played a role in the more widespread sentiment against the plant in Martin County (compared to St. Lucie County) could be neither substantiated nor refuted by available evidence.
Among the many nuclear issues of concern to the environmentalists, the most salient appeared to be the siting of the plant in an area alleged to be a population center. The growth of condominium developments on Hutchinson Island and the controversy surrounding the evacuation plan at the time this study was conducted underscored this concern. A common complaint of the antinuclear activists was that once the plant was sited, the population of the island was allowed to grow unabated. As l l
one St. Lucie County activist explained the issue:
They selected the site on the basis of a low population. If a low population is necessary, something should be done to maintain a low population. If it's not necessary, they should put the next nuclear plant in downtown New York City. It's either important that there be a low population, or it isn't. ,
The NRC is failing to do their job, which is to protect the public, by not I limiting growth within a five-mile zone.
224
k i
3 9.4 The Nature of Nuclear Opposition in St. Lucie and Martin Counties 9.4.1 A National Perspective i,
The nuclear opposition in St. Lucie and Martin counties is best understood egainst tha backdrop of the evolution of the national antinuclear movement. Bupp and Derian (1978) in their study of the antinuclear movement, Light Water: How the Nuclear Dream Dissolved, offer a useful perspective. The authors divide the history of the movement into three phases. The first phase, beginning in the mid-1960s, was characterized by local opposition to specific projects. Oftentimes, the object of concern was thermal l pollution. During this phase, opposition in a few instances resulted in the cancellation of tha project or in substantial design modifications. This period ended with the Calvert Cliffs decision in 1972: nuclear critics contended that the AEC,in licensing the Calvert Cliffs facility in Maryland, had not considered the potential environmental consequences of thermal pollution. This legal challenge resulted in new licensing procedures i stipulating that the National Environmentr.1 Policy Act (NEPA), which required i
cnvironmental impact statements, applied to nuclear power plants.
l The second phase of the national nuclear controversy focused on the alleged inidtquacy of the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) to cope with a loss of coolant.
An AEC task force of scientists and engineers recommended further tests of the design j of the ECCS. In these tests, a discrepancy was found between the results with computer simulation models and subscale replicas. One outcome of the resulting criticism of the j cdEquacy of the system was a public " Rule-Making Hearing," which lasted for 125 days 4
butween January 1972 and July 1973. Bupp and Derian maintain that this hearing was a
- "we.tcrshed" in the history of nuclear opposition
- it not only focused national attention on the question of nuclear safety for the first time, but also publicly revealed disagreements between the AEC's research scientists and its regulatory staff, which Edd:d credibility to the nuclear critics' case.
1 e In its third phase, the authoza contend that the opposition began to assume some 4
1 of the characteristics of a national movement. In November 1974,90 representatives of 1
environmental and antinuclear organizations attended a conference called " Critical Mass
'74." Its objective was "to provide a national focus on the risks and consequences of
{
nuclear fission and expand the citizen base-to move toward a nuclear moratorium" (Bupp and Derian, 1978:135). By 1975, a coalition of the antinuclear power movement and the l nuclear disarmament rnovement had formed. However, although the movement had a l
l 225 l
more national focus, it was not national in the sense of having a central organization directing antinuclear activities throughout the United States.
It was within this national context that the opposition to the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant took place. As indicated in the previous description of the construction permit hearings, this opposition was raised principally by residents of St. Lucie and Martin counties and involved essentially two phases: opposition to specific environmental problems (the ecology of the Indian River), and opposition to the overall social acceptability of nuclear reactors.
9.4.2 Phase One: The Indian River Ecology Issue o The Martin County Taxpayers Association was the principal group that expressed opposition to the siting of St. Lucie Unit 1, although support was provided by the Anglers Club and the Izaak Walton League. The taxpayers' association was not an environmental organization but rather a civic association dedicated to protecting the interests of Martin County taxpayers. For example, just prior to their intervention in the construction permit hearings, the association had made an in-depth study of a school- ,
1 millage issue and, according to news reports, took a controversial posith 2 by supporting I a millage increase. The group's interest in. the nuclear plant was purely economic; repeated public statements emphasized that the group was not opposed to the nuclear plant itself. They feared that the proposed cooling water intake from the Indian River would upset the delicate balance of the river's ecosystem, both by entraining fish and by making the river water more saline through the cooling system's flushing action. The taxpayers' association maintained that the county's economy, particularly that of Jensen Beach, was heavily dependent on the tourist fishing industry and that the ecological
" deterioration" of the Indian River would have a devastating effect on the county's tax base and general economic well-being. The evidence indicates that the position taken by the taxpayers' association had relatively widespread support in Martin County.
Newspapers reported that the group had approximately 600 members consisting of agriculturalists, industrialists, attorneys, and business persons. For example, the l president of the association the year its opposition was announced was the president of j the Jensen Beach Bank. Once the plant was redesigned for Atlantic Ocean intake, this group no longer publicly opposed the construction and operation of the plant.
226
9.4.3 Phase Two: The Social Acceptability of Nuclear Power Plants The NEPA hearings, held in August 1973, marked the shif t from expressing concern about a specific environmental impact to challenging the social acceptability of nuclear power. At both this hearing and the State Site Certification hearing, representatives of local environmental groups repeatedly raised questions regarding the safety of nuclear power and its effect on future generations.
The Martin County Conservation Alliance was one of the most visible groups in opposioon to the plant. The group was formed in 1968 as an advocacy coalition to promote general environmental conservation issues. The structure of the alliance requires some explanation. The alliance was composed of " delegates" from over 20 cnvironmental organizations, together representing several thousand members.1 These organizations were, in general, long-established conservation groups, most of which were based in Stuart and Jensen Beach. Member groups included the Audubon Society, the Izaak Walton League, the River Restoration League, the Anglers Club, the Men's Gardening Club, and the Sailfish Club. According to key informants, the membership of these organizations usually voted to be included in the alliance, and their representatives to the alliance were elected by the rank and file. Thus, it can probably be assumed that the majority of these members at least passively supported the activities of the group.
The multipurpose Martin County Conservation Alliance was concerned with a variety of environmental issues in addition to the nuclear plant, including controlled growth, preservation of the Atlantic coastline and beaches, preservation of the rivers, and the maintenance of open space. Moreover, key infccmants indicated that in the 1970s, the alliance was a powerful political influence in the county: it was largely the result of its efforts that three of the five Martin County Commissioners were environmental conservationists through most of the study period.
In April 1973, the Martin County Conservation Alliance took its first reported public stand against the nuclear plant in a unanimously supported resolution calling for an immediate moratorium on construction and operation permits for all nuclear power plants "until further investigation is made into the safety of the plants." Moreover, they called on the governor to intervene at the NRC hearings. The most vocal group within 1
News articles reported an estimated 4,000 members.
227
the alliance was a newly formed Nuclear Study Committee, which included one of the legalinterveners as a spokesperson. The issues raised by the Martin County Conservation Alliance focused on nuclear safety-low level radiation, nuclear waste transportation, adequacy of the ECCS, and evacuation in the event of an accident. Because the organi-zation did not file as an intervener, it sought to educate the public through the press and through public meetings, as detailed earlier in this chapter. Although only a handful of individuals were visibly active in voicing their opposition to the plant, the evidence indicates that there was fairly widespread support in Stuart and Jensen Beach for their activities and the actions of the interveners.
Inspired and assisted by the Martin County Conservation Alliance, some residents of St. Lucie County formed the St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance during the 1970-1971 period. Like its Martin County counterpart, the St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance was formed of delegates from local environmental and civic organizations, including the Audubon Society, the League of Women Voters, the North Beach Homeowners Association, the Indian River Freeholders Association, and the Port St.
Lucie Anglers Club; this group, reportedly represented hundreds of members.
Antinuclear members of this group were quite vocal in their opposition, making limited appearances throughout the NRC hearings process and participating in the State Site Certification hearings. The evidence indicates, however, that the antinuclear activists l did not have widespread support in the county.
In 1974, soon af ter petitions to intervene in the hearings on Unit 2 were filed with
~
the NRC, two of the interveners and other activists in Martin County joined forces with St. Lucie County environmentalists to form Citizens United Against a Radioactive Environment (CURE)1, specifically to oppose the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. This organization was considered by local residents to be the most radical of the opposition <
organizations because of its single-issue orientation, although its tactics and arguments were basically the same as those of the two conservation alliances. ,
i l
The majority of the antinuclear activists in both St. Lucie County and Martin County were white, middle-class residents over forty years of age. Many were long-time I
I The group was later renamed Citizens United for Responsible Energy to encompass support of renewable energy sources.
228
raidents of the area and had the general characteristics of traditionally upstanding, civic-oriented members of their communities. For example, the St. Lucie County activists included a school teacher and leader of the League of Women Voters, a former county commissioner who was a retiree, a retired chemical engineer, a wealthy citrus grove owner, and an assistant to a local minister.
The evolution of ideological opposition to nuclear power in the local area followed many of the patterns of the national movement. Prior to the environmental hearings on St. Lucie Unit 1, those residents who later became ardent opponents to nuclear power did not object to the plant, according to interviews with leaders of the opposition. Nuclear power safety had not yet become a nationalissue and, once the decision was made to use Atlantic Ocean intake, concerns about the plant dissipated. As several residents who later became members of CURE remarked, "We didn't know what nuclear power was then."
Most of the St. Lucie County activists interviewed dated the beginning of their opposition to the 1970 AEC construction permit hearing for Unit 1. Doubts were raised, according to interviews, when the Fort Pierce newspaper reported that the AEC and FPL were unable to immediately fully answer questions raised in a limited appearance by the wall-respected president of the Leagye of Women Voters. In subsequent interactions with FPL, concerned residents continued to feel that the utility was evasive.
Furthermore, the structure and legal procedures of the hearings, according to key informants, seemed to intentionally inhibit public participation. FPL's loss of credibility with these residents further escalated when the utility admitted that some of its data on the local area were outdated or in error. By this time, many of the St. Lucie County opponents had become ideologically opposed to nuclear power-convinced by the interveners (and by environmental classes at Florida Institute of Technology in Martin i
County) that nuclear fission was inherently dangerous. Bupp and Derian, in their study of the rise of the national antinuclear movement, describe this thought process:
During the critical earlyg years of public visibility . . . the business and government interests with the most to gain from nuclear power's acceptance were the only people interested in information on the innovation and they monopolized the competence to assess it. The way in which these groups handled information about light water reactors and their impatience with questions from the outside surely contributed to the critics' sense that they were hiding something. By routinely impugning the 229
competence or even the right of anyone "outside the club" to raise questions, government and industrial promoters of light water reactors enhanced the credibility and power of their critics. (Bupp and Derian, 1978:123.)
The first public shif t toward a philosophical opposition to nuclear power-the 1973 resolution calling;for a nuclear plant moratorium-was precipitated by the AEC's public
" Rule-Making Hsaring" on the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) controversy. This debate within the nuclear industry added technical fuel to the opposition's argument. On numerous occasions, the opposition referr 3d to the debate within the nuclear industry over nuclear safety as proof that nuclear power was inherently dangerous. At one point, the counsel for the interveners arranged to have a member of the Union for Concerned Scientists speak at one of the NRC hearings regarding the adequacy of the ECCS; however, he was dropped as a witness due to a technicality in the hearings procedure.
Contrary to the experience of many antinuclear movements, none of the organizations in St. Lucie and Martin counties formed alliances with national or state organizations, although individual members established loose contacts with state organizations such as the Sunshine Action Group and the Conch Shell Alliance. The local organizations also did not publicly espouse philosophical connections with the nuclear weapons disarmament movement.
9.4.4 Prevalence of Nuclear Opposition Although the number of committed opponents to the nuclear plant did not differ substantially between St. Lucie and Martin counties, key informants indicated that the relative level of broad-based support did differ. The vast majority of St. Lucie County residents viewed the environmentalists as "well-meaning, misguided people,"
" obstructionists," or " kooks." In contrast, evidence indicates that a relatively high percentage of Martin County residenta supported the efforts of the interveners and the antinuclear activists, although this support vas passive rather than active.
One possible explanation for this dichotomy is the socioeconomic difference between the two counties. Martin County had an older, more affluent, retired population than did St. Lucie County. The resort character of Martin County's coast, particularly the Stuart-Jensen Beach area near the plant, attracted fishing and boating enthusiasts who worked actively to preserve the environment. Moreover, it is estimated that almost a tenth of the population belonged to the primary environmental coalition that voiced 230
l opposition to the plant.I The Martin County Conservation Alliance had shown thnmselves to be a concerned, civic-oriented organization that had won much respect for their active conservation efforts. In contrast, although the environmentalists in the mera working-class St. Lucie County were generally respected and had been previously successful in some of their conservation efforts, overall environmental awareness in the county was low, according to key informant interviews. Residents were more concerned thout a vital economy than about environmental issues, and they believed the plant to be an important part of that economy.
Another explanation of the apparent dichotomy is that, although Martin County l racsived none of the tax benefits from the plant, it incurred many of the social costs.
Tha City of Stuart, Martin County's primary center for nucleaf opposition, was home to many sport fishermen who feared the adverse effects of testing the emergency core cooling system, which used Indian River water. Moreover, Martin County received most of the traffic impacts from the plant. During shift changes, the two bridges from Hutchinson Island to mainland Martin County were jammed with hundreds of construction workers traveling home to Martin County and West Palm Beach, particularly the latter.
Kcy informant interviews indicated that many Martin County residents were irked by the treffic congestion and the practice of some construction workers to speed through rsidential neighborhoods.
9.5 Impacts of the Three Mile Island Accident in St. Lucie County According to interviews with key informants and local newspaper accounts, the cccident at Three Mile Island (TMI) only slightly heightened concern in St. Lucie County, and this concern was soon dissipated. Some community leaders reported that residents expressed concern to them, especially blacks and retirees, but there was no general public outcry. FPL informed the public that the St. Lucie plant was unlike TMI: the g:nerators had different manufacturers, and the cooling systems were also different.
Residents who were interviewed generally believed that the probability of a similar cccident at the St. Lucie plant was low. Most believed that human or computer error J wc2 possible, but cited the difference in design, the plant's good operating record, and FPL's apparent competence as factors influencing their perceptions. Several people I This percentage could overestimate the case, since it does not necessarily cccount for multiple membership in alliance organizations.
231 j
noted that they personally knew FPL operations employees whose competence they trusted, and thus they felt reassured. Additionally, a number of interviewees felt that lessons were learned from the TMI accident and that newly instituted safeguards would further lower the probability of a serious accident.
One TMI-related issue that arose in St. Lucie County was the new emergency plan for the St. Lucie plant in April 1981. At the time this study was conducted, the new guidelines had become a major public issue. The controversy arose over who would incur the costs of a new civil defense communications office and a siren warning systemI -the county or the utility. Further, some public officials argued that an additional bridge from Hutchir. son Island to the mainland was necessary for a timely evacuation of the island's growing population. Political officials, the business community, and other residents were divided over who should pay for the bridge, but were in general agreement that FPL or the NRC should pay for other requirements. Many residents, including some antinuclear activists, felt that the county should assume the financial burden for the bridge because it had allowed the island population to grow unabated after the plant was under construction. Others, including the county commissioners, placed the responsi-bility with FPL for insuring the safety of residents in the newly established 10-mile evacuation radius.
9.6 The Effects of Public Response on the Study Area The public response to the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant could have had a number of effects on the political process and the social structure of St. Lucie County. These potential effects included factionalism within the pol'itical structure, an increased level of political participation, increased consciousness of environmental issues, and the creation of new organizations which raised additional politual or environmental issues.
Additionally, the public response could have brought about several other effects such as causing conflict between groups in the Study Area, ostracizing those involved in antinuclear activities, or coalescing groups opposed to or in support of the environmentalists' activities. A key to determining the significance of any effects is the magnitude and duration of those effects. Interviews with key informants for the Study Area's functional groups, political leaders, and antinuclear activists did not provide any 1
FPL is assuming the costs of the alert and notification system sirens.
232
evidence that the public response created any lasting changes in the political or social structure. To be sure, the public response to the plant was one of several environmental issues that helped to coalesce the business community and to create conflict between the environmentalists and the construction workers. However, in coalescing the business community, the public response to the plant was not pivotal; instead, the construction of condominiums on the island was the salient issue. Further, conflicts between savironmentalists and construction workers were not permanent. Therefore, it does not appear that public response had any durable effect on the Study Area.
i l
l 233
l CHAPTER 10: EVALUATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT 10.1 Introduction This chapter describes the community's evaluation of the effects of the construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant and provides a summary of the significance of those effects. This discussion is organized around the four functional groups in the Study Area, as identified in Chapter 8.
The evaluation of the project's effects was based on an analysis of public response and on interviews with key informants for each group. The interviews were organized around three major topics. First, the interviews identified the important issues and concerns of the groups during the study period, to ascertain the salience of the St. Lucie project and project-related issues. Second, the interviews focused on the effects of the project on each group and on the evaluation of the significance of those effects by those Inembers of the group who were interviewed. The determination of the significance of both the individual a:.d collective effects was based on the size, magnitude, importance, duration, extent, and prevalence of the effect. Third, the interviews revealed each l group's overall evaluation of the plant in light of the perceived risks and benefits.
10.2 Evaluation of the Effects by Group 10.2.1 'Ibe Business Community The business community favored the siting of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant: in 1968 the directors of both the Fort Pierce-St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce and the St. Lucie County Farm Bureau unanimously passed resolutions supporting 'the siting of the plant in St. Lucie County. The business community had long been concerned that the county's economic well-being was vulnerable, since the agricultural and tourist industries-both seasonal-formed the economic base. Various efforts to attract noneyclical industry to the county had been made in the 1960s and continued in the 1970s. The St. Lucie Nuclear Plant was, therefore, perceived as a welcome precursor to economic prosperity. Indeed, in its resolution welcoming the nuclear plant, the Chamber i of Commerce expressed its appreciation to Florida Power and Light Company for its decision to locate the facility in St. Lucie County with the following statement:
This new plant and its related deve'opments will be a great stimulus to the economic and civic well-being of the area by: providing new jobs and bringing new citizens into the area, most of whom will be highly trained 234
and highly skilled personnel; by stimulating business activity in general; by bringing about new construction and development that will help broaden the county tax base; by providing new and improved recreational facilities for the enjoyment of residents and visitors; and by focusing increased national attention on the Saint Lucie County area. (Fort Pierce-St. Lucie County l
Chamber of Commerce,Inc.,1968.)
The consensus of the key business community informants who were interviewed was that the group benefited economically from the construction of the plant. It was pointed out that the influx of construction and operations workers with relatively high, ysar-round incomes not only benefited business directly when these incomes were spent in the county, but also indirectly by creating nonbasic jobs and income. Moreover, a number of businesses benefited from purchases by Ebasco Services for construction of tha project. Several key informants also indicated that the group as a whole benefited from an increase in the overall wage rates in the county-attributed to the competition with high wages at the plant-in that consumers thus had more disposable income to spsnd in the local economy. It was, therefore, felt that the plant helped stabilize the economy. The effect of the plant on the county's economy was viewed as short-term, however. The majority of the business people who were interviewed expressed concern rtgarding future impacts of the completion of Unit 2 on the local economy. Most group members felt that the construction industry would not be able to absorb the project's work force: those who had in-migrated to work at the plant would be forced to leave the county for other work, and nonmovers would have to settle for lower-paying jobs or l would have to out-migrate.
In addition to boosting the local economy, the plant provided tax revenues, which the business community perceived as an important effect. In fact, one reason that the buziness community so strongly promoted industrial development was to expand the tax bare of the county to provide for the expansion of services. The plant-related tax revenues benefited the business community principally by holding the millage rate down and by providing revenues to improve the county's services and infrastructure, which was psrceived to ultimately benefit the economy. Most of the members of the business community who were interviewed considered the nuclear plant to be the most important contributor to the county's tax base. On a scale of 1 to 10, with I being least important and 10 most important, almost all the informants rated the nuclear plant a 10, vis-a-vis other developments in the county. They were generally aware that the plant paid approximately $4 million in taxes and noted that it demanded few services in return, unlike residential development in Port St. Lucie. Moreover, the plant's contribution to 235
the tax base was considere<'. long-term, and the business community pointed out that these benefits would double once Unit 2 was put into operation. The addition to the tax base and the revenues to the county were perceived as benefiting all members of the business community, although the degree of benefit varied among the members. For example, agriculturalists with large land holdings were thought to have benefited substantially more than others from the tax savings due to the plant.
Only two nrjative effects to the group were mentioned with any frequency. First, grove owners indicated that they lost some of their best workers to the plant's construction and to what they perceived to be project-related nonbasic jobs. Further, some members of the business community feared that the presence of the plant's union labor force would create a climate for increased unionization of the county's work force, particularly in the construction industry. However, this was perceived as a potential impact that had not yet been realized. Both of these effects, while perceived as negative, were thought to affect a relatively small segment of the business community.
The key informants who were interviewed were also aware of the many effects of the plant on the entire Study Area, in addition to the effects on their group. All of those interviewed noted that the plant provided jobs to local workers, although there was no '
consensus regarding the magnitude or importance of this effect. An additional effect that was universally noted was the traffic problem (congestion and speeding) on Hutchinson Island at shift changes. This effect, however, was considered both limited in scope and temporary.
Although the group's key informants considered the plant's effects on the local economy and tax base to be significant and positive impacts, the overall importance of the plant to the business community, when compared to other developments in the area, was considered only moderately significant. That is, on a scale from least important to most important, the nuclear plant was rated at the midpoint by most of those interviewed. This evaluation was based on the fact that some effects were short-term in duration (plant-related employment and traffic problems), and others were {
indistinguishable from the general rapid growth in the county (demographic and housing impacts). Rapid growth was viewed as the most significant factor in effecting changes in the county, and the business community believed that such growth would have happened without the plant. Still, even though the plant was considered to be of minor importance in the collective changes that took place in the county during the study period, when 236
1 l
i oth:r impacting agents were viewed individually vis-a-vis the nuclear plant, the plant was considered the most important single factor in the changes in the county.
l Interviews with group members indicated that, prior to the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI), the business community exhibited no wider.pread concern regarding sa'ety or health hazards from the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. Although those persons interviewed wire aware, through news reports, that the plant had experienced some operating poblems, such as the radioactive water overflow in 1977, these problems were viewed as minor and did not create much concern. One reason for this low level of concern was that the interviewees perceived the FPL operating work force as both conscientious and crp:ble.
The accident at Three Mile Island introduced doubt about nuclear safety among some members of the business community. Furthermore, a controversy arose at the time this study was conducted regarding the post-TMI emergency planning regulations estchlished by the NRC, which heightened the business group's awareness of possible tecidents. With the county's attention focused on notification and evacuation (in the event of an accident) of the county's residents within a 10-mile radius, one business community leader indicated that, in retrospect, he felt that there was a lack of foresight in siting the plant on the island, a growing population center. Moreover, a number of informants indicated a growing concern regarding nuclear waste disposal. Nevertheless, it was indicated that most members of the business group continued to feel confident j thst the St. Lucie plant presented no health hazard to the community. Nuclear power was generally preferred over fossil fuel since it was perceived as a cleaner, cheaper I source that would lessen the county's dependence on imported oil. Moreover, the probability of an accident at the St. Lucie plant similar to the one at Three Mile Island was considered extremely remote, not only because the St. Lucie plant was designed differently and was in the capable hands of FPL personnel, but also because of safety fattures which had been instituted following the TMI accident. The positive effects of the plant on the business group, the Study Area, and the region (in terms of power gsneration) were generally perceived to far outweigh any risk (albeit remote) that the plant represented. Nevertheless, it was uncertain, based on the key informant interviews, whether the business community would support an additional nuclear unit in the county; while several members indicated they would not object to another unit, an equal number indicated that the acceptance of two units was already "doing our share."
237
10.2.2 *Ibe Black Community During the early 1970s, when construction of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant began, the black community in Fort Pierce was undergoing significant changes, with many blacks moving out of the agricultural labor force and into the construction and services sectors. As a consequence of these new economic opportunities, the black community generally supported industrial development, since such development would potentially provide more employment opportunities for blacks. Consequently, the black community was favorably predisposed toward such developments as the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
Although the black community clearly did not expect to obtain many skilled jobs in the plant's construction work force, because of their unfamiliarity with the skills necessary for nuclear plant construction and the generally low skill levels in the black community, I
several key informants indicated that the black community expected to receive a significant number of the common labor jobs. The prevalence of this expectation could not be ascertained, however.
Interviews with members of the black community indicated that the significance ,
of the project-related effects, in terms of the black community, was low. The only 1
positive effect that was perceived to be of potential significance was project-related I employment. However, when viewed both individually and in comparison with other sources of employment collectively, project-related employment of blacks was generally perceived as minimal. Most of the key informants felt that few-perhaps 20 to 40-blacks were employed at peak construction. Although it was recognized that these jobs were important to those individuals who received them, the small number of blacks employed at the plant, compared with the perceived employment needs of the black community, resulted in a minimal positive effect, according to those interviewed.
Further, there was little indication that the members of the black community who were interviewed felt that the nonbasic employment that became available to blacks in the 1970s was the result of the construction and operation of the nuclear plant. Rather, the institution of affirmative action programs and the gradual decline in race-related employment barriers were perceived as the primary factors in increased employment opportunities for blacks. Nevertheless, those interviewed recognized that the plant's construction and operation generated a sizable number of relatively short-term jobs for local residents as a whole, although it was felt that most of the work force came from other counties.
238
Although several of the key informants in the black community were aware that the plant contributed substantially to the county's tax base, the black community was not perceived to have benefited substantially. Most of the improvements in public services and infrastructure for the black community (for example, the home improvement program) were financed with federal funds. Moreover, the majority of the black ruidents did not own their own homes.
Overall, blacks who were interviewed felt that although the plant generated no negative effects, it also provided few benefits to the black community. This evaluation ws.s based on the belief that the magnitude of the positive effects was low (employment and tax benefits) and that other potential impacts (for example, housing and social structure) did not affect the black community because of its de facto segregation from the predominantly white work force. In general, other factors, such as affirmative action programs, federal community development funds, and school desegregation were considered much more important in the changes occurring in the black community in the 1970s.
Interviews with group members indicated that prior to the Three Mile Accident, the presence of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant was not a prevalent concern of the black community. In general, the black community simply did not think about the plant.
Further, although the TMI accident heightened awareness of the nearby nuclear facility, the level of concern did not increase appreciably, according to key informants. However, at the time this study was conducted there was some concern expressed about evacuation and knowing what to do in an emergency, and this was heightened, no doubt, by the public discussion regarding the new emergency plan. Key informants indicated that their low level of concern was the result of a general belief that the plant was well managed by FPL personnel, a perception that was ronforced by the relatively good operating record at the St. Lucie plant. Moreover, thcse interviewed expressed faith in the NRC to monitor and regulate the plant's safety. Severalinformants expressed the sentiment that the federal government would not let nuclear plants be built if they were dangerous; consequently, the St. Lucie plant was not perceived as a threat to safety. Those interviewed generally thought the benefits of the plant (principally the generation of powerI) moderately outweighed the risks.
I Several black key informants perceived the generation of power to be the principal benefit of the plant to the county, believing that the plant specifically served St. Lucie County, rather than the entire FPL service area.
239
Nevertheless, most of the group members who were interviewed believed that the probability of an accident similar to that at Three Mile Island was fairly high, since they 1
perceived that the safe operation of the plant depended on continued good management and that human error was possible. All of the blacks interviewed who expressed an opinion-even those who in general supported nuclear power over fossil fuel-stated that they would oppose the construction of an additional nuclear unit because it would increase the risk of an accident.
10.2.3 The Retirees Members of the retirees group who were interviewed indicated that they did not feel they were the recipients of positive plant impacts. Only two types of impacts were mentioned with any frequency: social and demographic. One prevalent observation among the Port St. Lucie retirees who were interviewed was that renters generally perceived by Port St. Lucie residents as project-related construction workers-had a reputation for causing problems in the community. This was perceived as a negative effect of the plant. According to these key informants, rental units were not well maintained, which affected the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Moreover, some units would be rented ostensibly by one or two people, but five or six people would then rnove
)
in. In general, the retirees reportedly felt that the lifestyle of constmetion workers was not compatible with that of the retirees. However, key informants noted that those renters who caused problems could not be specifically identified as construction workers at the nuclear plant. Some felt that the troublemakers were residential construction workers, characterized as more transient. Those project-related construction workers that the key informants could identify in their neighborhoods were described as respectable " family men" who were good neighbors. Therefore, the key informants generally believed that the reputation that project-related construction workers had among retirees in Port St. Lucie was largely undeserved.
A related effect of the project taentioned by retirees was that a significant .
number of project-related workers had in-migrated to Port St. Lucie, which affected the age structure of what was formerly a retirement community. There was no consensus, however, on the magnitude of project-related in-migration to the city vis-a-vis other population growth of people in the prime working ages. This demographic effect was viewed as neither positive nor negative, judging from the responses, particularly because it was short term. Group members who were interviewed generally believed that thd ;
240
projat-related workers would out-migrate once construction was completed and would be rtplaced by the retirees who owned the homes being rented to construction workers.
Interestingly, there was very little awareness among those retirees interviewed th:t the nuclear facility provided any tax benefits to the retirees, despite the fact that keeping tax rates low was an important issue to the group.
One project-related issue among some retirees, according to key informants, was wh2ther residents should offset FPL's construction costs for the nuclear plant through rata increases. Retirees who were members of the Coalition of Consumers (a special interest group, reported to have widespread support among retirees, that was formed to hold down utility costs) were considering an appearance before the Florida Public Service
! Commission to protest rate increases, based on the argument that investors, not rate payers, should shoulder the' costs of the plant's construction.
Although a few of the retirees interviewed felt that the nuclear plant was j
moderately significant to the overall growth of the county because it provided jobs for local people and brought money into the county, the majority of the key informants perceived the plant to have had no significant effect.
Whereas it was indicated that there was no widespread concern regarding nuclear safety among retirees prior to the Three Mile Island accident, the reported level of concern following the accident varied considerably among key informants. Most of the informants reported that they personally were not concerned -about the presence of the plant, but several observed that the accident triggered a relatively high level of concern among Port St. Lucie retirees, particularly women. Additionally, fear that sabotage of the plant could create radiological danger was mentioned by a number of those interviewed. This perception was most likely heightened by news reports of transformers being sabotaged at several FPL facilities in Martin County at the time this study was conducted. Nevertheless, most of those interviewed felt that the possibility of the plant posing a serious health hazard to the community was fairly remote, although it was recognized that human error and computer malfunction were possible. Those interviewed expressed faith that the NRC was serious about protecting the public and that plant inspectors and monitors would ensure safety, particularly after the lessons learned from Three Mile Island. The responses also suggested that a fatalistic view toward the plant ,
was prevalent among retirees in the county. For example, one respondent who expressed 241
serious concern about the effects of nuclear waste on future generations added that her concern was not widely shared, with the comment: "Some people (in Port St. Lucie) feel they have only another twenty years here and say 'What do I care?'" Others indicated that at their advanced age they simply couldn't worry about negative effects of low level radiation that wouldn't be apparent for twenty years. One respondeut expressed the fatalistic sentiment succinctly: "If something happens and it blows, it won't matter anyway."
One common perception among retirees in Port St. Lucie (who received their electicity from FPL) was that the St. Lucie plant specifically served St. Lucie Countyl and was vital to the county's energy needs. As a consequence, the majority of those interviewed stated that they would not oppose the construction of a third nuclear unit if h it was shown that St. Lucie County needed the electricity. The benefits of power generation were perceived to outweigh any risks the plant posed by almost all of the retirees who were interviewed.
f I
10.2.4 The Workers Group l l
l The consensus of the members of the workers group who were interviewed was that the group received significant economic benefits from the construction of the St.
Lucie Nuclear Plant, both in terms of direct and indirect effects. Just as the business community felt a need for economic expansion in the county, so the workers group perceived the need for economic stimulation. In this respect the St. Lucie plant was viewed as a " boon to the area." The job opportunities created at the plant for local residents were cited as the principal benefit derived by the group. Indeed, the nuclear facility was deemed the most important agent in the creation of new jobs vis-a-vis other employment stimuli in the county. Although few of those interviewed were able to estimate the number of jobs created for locals, the general perception was that "a lot" of locals were employed at the plant. Most of those interviewed were personally acquainted with a number of construction workers at the plant, which reinforced their perception of the project as a major employer of local residents.
8 l
in fact, rather than serving the Study Area specifically, the energy from the St.
Lucie Nuclear Plant was fed into the FPL transmission system grid and redistributed throughout the FPL service area.
242
In addition to the positive impact of creating direct basic jobs for members of the workers group, several key informants indicated that competition with wages at the plant raised the incomes of many skilled workers in the county who were employed in jobs not r:ltted to the project. These respondents considered the nuclear project to be the most important factor in raising the standard-of-living of skilled labor. Moreover, the in-migration of project-related workers was perceived by a number of those interviewed as a ctimulus for the creation of nonbasic jobs in the county. There was some indication that those interviewed perceived the plant to have benefited the entire group in that it stimulated economic growth in the county. Nevertheless, the general perception was that those workers in the construction sector and related skilled trades were the primary bensficiaries.
There was no agreement among those interviewed as to whether the project impacted housing in the county. A few of the key informants, particularly blue-collar w:rkers, attributed increased rental prices and a rental shortage-perceived as negative sffsets-to the project-related in-migrants. These group members contended that rzidents (primarily memi.1rs of the workers group) had difficulty finding rental housing in Fort Pierce during peak construction. However, others maintained that the rental housing shortage and price increases were due to tourist demands, observing that problems were nonexistent during the "off season."
In addition to project-related effects on the group, members of the worker's group wsre generally aware of the effects of the plant on the Study Area as a whole. Key informants, particularly white-collar workers, were aware that the plant provided important tax revenues to the county. These workers were generally cognizant of the magnitude of the project-related tax payments and considered the plant to be the most important addition to the tax base. Nevertheless, the project's tax base was not perceived to have had much impact on the tax burden of members of the workers group.
Moct of the respondents, for example, observed that tax payments did not go down and expressed uncertainty whether the plant's addition to the tax base helped to keep the tax rctes from increasing. While key informants considered the plant's addition to the tax base as a positive effect, most also noted the negative, albeit short-term, effect of the c nstruction work force on traffic congestion on Hutchinson Island at shift changes.
Ruidents of Hutchinson Island further contended that construction workers violated spsed limits and generally created traffic hazards.
243
The overall evaluation of the project's effects on the Study Area, according to members of the workers group, was that the community benefited because of the positive economic impacts. Yet, although the plant was considered the most important single factor in the economic growth of the county, it was perceived as only moderately significant when all other factors were considered collectively vis-a-vis the nuclear facility. This evaluation appeared to be based on the perception that other factors, such as the growth of Port St. Lucie, were equally important and that the project-related employment was of relatively short duration.
There was no apparent consensus among the workers group in regard to the risks posed by the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, judging from the responses of key informants. The expressed level of concern regarding the effect of the plant on the health and safety of the community varied among these members of the workers group who were interviewed. Although the majority stated ths.t they had no concerns about the plant, neither before nor after the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI), several indicated that they had been very concerned even before the accident. Further, some of the informants I stated that, although they had not been concerned prior to the accident, they did become somewhat concerned following the accident, and this concern continued until the time i I
this st'udy was conducted. The concerns expressed focused on nuclear waste disposal and l Its effect on future generations, the possibility of an accident, and the perception that the plant was a natural target for attack in the event of war. The prevalence of these concerns could not be ascertained without a systematic survey of the workers group.
With few exceptions, however, the- probability of an accident similar to that at TMI was perceived as very remote. This evaluation was based on several factors, including the different design of the St. Lucie plant, the plant's good operating record, the perception that FPL had a competent operating work force, and the idea that lessons were learned from the TMI accident that made future accidents less likely. Moreover, 1
some respondents felt that the construction of nuclear plants would not be permitted by the government if nuclear power presented a danger to public safety.
When asked whether they favored nuclear power or fossil fuel, an equal number favored each energy source. Some who favored fossil fuel did so simply because it was perceived as presenting fewer safety hazards to the community. As one group member explained, "Other than pollution, fossil fuel is controlled. Nuclear has it possibilities.
We're all human and we all make mistakes. I can correct my mistakes with this pencil or 244
typswriter; I don't know how they correct their's without some effect on the welfare of tha whole community." A relatively small number of the informants expressed a philosophical opposition to nuclear power. Those who expressed a preference for nuclear powtr over fossil fuel indicated they felt that nuclear power was comparatively cheap, nonpolluting, and helped to lessen the country's dependence on foreign oil.
In weighing the benefits of the St. Lucie plant against the risks, the responses I corrzsponded closely with the key informant's expressed level of concern. Those who had expressed little or no concern-the majority of those interviewed-felt the benefits far outweighed the risks. In contrast, those who had expressed a high level of concern were cd:mant that such a comparison could not be made, that they couldn't "put our economic nn:ds before everything else regardless of what the results might be."
Just as the responses regarding the perception of nuclear safety were mixed, it l
wcs not clear whether the workers group would favor or oppose the construction of a third nuclear unit in St. Lucie County, based on the key informant interviews. Certainly tha group was predisposed toward developments that would create jobs. However, the rnponses were split equally between favoring and opposing an additional unit.
10.3 Significance of the Effects of the Plant The effects of the plant on the Study Area have been summarized in terms of th:ir relative magnitude, social equity, and perceived importance. A second component of the evaluation is the measurement of the significance of the project vis-a-vis the cumulative changes that took place during the study period. To achieve this objective, two broad indicators of significance were identified: the importance of the collective projtet-related effects and the community's evaluation of the plant.
103.1 Significance of the Collective Plant-Related Effects Although the construction of the plant helped individuals, within the context of tha general growth in the county the nuclear plant had relatively little effect. In 1974, cnd 1978, only about 30 percent of the project-related workers were residents of the Study Area prior to the construction of the project. Throughout the study period, project-related jobs were held by less than 5 percent of the county's labor force.
Moreover, the workers group and, to some extent, the business community, were the only functional groups to benefit significantly from the economic impacts of the plant.
245
Nevertheless, it should be noted that-as a single employer-the nuclear plant was one of the largest employers in the county.
According to interviews with key informants, the nuclear plant was perceived to be an important employer of Sturiy Area residents. Indeed, many of those interviewed (particularly members of the workers and business groups) considered the nuclear plant to be a considerably more important economic stimulus than it, in fact, was. Most of those 4 interviewed agreed, however, that the primary beneficiaries were the business community and the workers group. Moreover, there was a gene al consensus that the positive effects were relatively short-term and would basically end once construction of Unit 2 was completed, since the size of the operations work force was relatively small.
Because a large proportion of the project-related work force commuted daily to work from outside St. Lucie County, the population effects on the Study Area were relatively small. In 1974, the year in which the county experienced the largest population impact, the project-related in-migrants accounted for only 1.32 percent of St.
Lucie County's total population. Almost all of the population increase was distributed to the workers group.
Some of the Study Area residents who were interviewed perceived the nuclear project to be the most important factor in the population growth of the county.
However, the vast majority of those interviewed believed that the county would have experienced rapid population growth without the construction of the plant and generally considered the project-related increase to be insignificant within the context of general growth in the area.
The project-related housing demand was never a significant percentage of the total housing stock. This demand represented only 1.44 percent of the total housing stock in 1974 and 0.90 percent in 1978. Key informants indicated that no housing was constructed specifically for the project-related work force. The rental housing market was reportedly tight during the study period, and it is likely that the influx of I construction workers exacerbated the situation. However, within the overall context of rapid growth in the area, it was not possible to disaggregate the effects of the construction work force. There was no evidence that the project-related housing demand measurably affected rental costs. In sum, the evidence indicates that the project-related work force did not significantly affect housing in the Study Area.
246
Most of the community members interviewed felt that the project-related work force had no impact on housing. However, a number of informants, particularly in the workers group (the group most likely to be impacted by project-related workers who rsnted) felt that rapidly escalating rental costs were partly the result of the construction work force. Others attributed these increases to inflation ud tourist-related housing demand.
The St. Lucie facility was an important revenue source for St. Lucie County once Unit I went on-line (prior to the utilization of Unit 1, the nuclear plant was a relatively insignificant taxpayer). By FY 1978-1979, the nuclear facility contributed almost 19 percent of the county's total property tax revenues. This contribution resulted in a tax stvings for other property taxpayers in the county. The St. Lucie plant was also a significant contributor to the St. Lucie County-Fort Pierce Fire District once Unit 1 went on-line. In FY 1978-79, FPL contributed about 29 percent of the fire district's property tax revenues in payments on the St. Lucie plant. The nuclear facility, however, was not a major contributor to the St. Lucie County School District or the South Florida Water Management District.
Surprisingly, few of the members of the community who were interviewed were aware that the nuclear plant was a major contributor to the tax base. Members of the business community (the group most likely to be concerned about the county's fiscal well-being) generally considered the nuclear plant to be the most important taxpayer in the county, particularly since it demanded few services (unlike residential development).
Moreover, most also felt the plant helped to stabilize the tax rate. However, many members of the other groups felt the plant had no impact at all on taxes or revenues.
A portion of the in-migrating construction work force brought their children who attended schools within the St. Lucie County School District. However, throughout the study period, the proportion of project-related children was less than 2.5 percent of total school enrollment. Moreover, this percentage probably overstates the impact of project-related children on school enrollment, since it assumes that all of the project-related children were school-aged. Consequently, the eviuence indicates that the project-related demand on the school system was not significant.
While many of those interviewed felt school enrollments were probably affected by the presence of the construction work force, most agreed it could not be 247
differentiated from the general growth in the area. Members of the community did not attribute the overcrowded conditions in Fort Pierce Central High and Port St. Lucie Elementary to the presence of construction workers' children.
In summary, the nuclear plant was an important contributor to propety tax revenues in the county and demanded few services in return. Moreover, it should be noted that the imposition of an increased homestead exemption-from $5,000 to $25,000
- for five-year residents-will have a marked effect on the contribution of home owners to the tax base and, thus, will increase considerably the importance of the nuclear plant to the county's property tax revenues.
The construction and operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant had little effect on the social structure of St. Lucie County. The group that received the largest number of project-related workers was the workers group. Compared to the general growth in the j
\
size of this group, the effect of these in-migrants was not noticeable. Project-related I workers neither attained leadership positions nor disrupted the community during the study period. Indeed, by all indications, the project-related in-migrants melded with the rest of the community.
Most of the residents of St. Lucie County supported the construction of the St.
Lucie Nuclear Plant, particularly the bus sess community and blue-collar workers. A small, vocal group of citizens actively opposed the plant, although they were not involved in formal intervention at the NRC hearings. They voiced their opposition through limited appearances at the NRC hearings, appearances at the State Site Certification hearings, public meetings, and statements to the local press. These opponents did not have widespread support in the community. Although the opponents' participation in the public response did not affect the political process or the community's perception of nuclear power in any significant way, it did provide them with experience for other, more successful environmental campaigns, such as lobbying the State of Florida for preservation of the savannas. '
The community's perception of the environmentalists varied somewhat, judging from key informant interviews, with few clear-cut lines between groups. Most, particularly those in the business community, viewed opponents to the plant as " kooks,"
unrealistic extremists who "want to shut everything down." Others felt they were
" sincere, well-meaning alarmists." Few of those interviewed wholly agreed with the 248
l antinuclear activists. Interestingly, some viewed the environmentalists to be the principal negative effect of the project, since it was perceived that the activists came clos 2 to shutting down what was deemed a vital energy source. Still others observed that the cnvironmentalists played a positive role in that they made the community think about the issues involved.
10.32 Community Evaluation of the Significance of the Effects of the Plant The positive economic effects of the St. Lucie plant were most important to the business community and the workers group, particularly blue- and pink-collar workers, although both groups generally recognized that the economic benefits were short-term.
Tha business community overwhelmingly supported the plant, because it was peceived as o precursor to overall economic growth in the county. It was not, however, considered particularly important to the members of the business community themselves, since ralttively few received project-related business. It was generally recognized that the business community benefited from nonbasic employment and income generated by the projtet. However, the perceived importance was diminished since it could not be di:tinguished from nonbasic employment and income generated by other growth in the c:unty. The primary employment and income benefits were distributed to the workers group, yet relatively few individuals benefited. Nevertheless, group members, particularly blue- and pink-collar workers, considered benefits to their group to be c:nsiderable.
The social groups in the Study Area, while generally recognizing that additional tax revenues accrued to the county, did not perceive that individual families may have bensfited directly through tax savings.
In terms of the entire St. Lucie County population, the collective effects of the projset were considered insignificant when compared to the changes that resulted from g::niral growth in the area, particularly in Port St. Lucie. Moreover, the short-term n ture of the effects diminished the perceived importance of the project. One informant summed up the overall attitude, " Lasting things are what count."
Prior to the accident at Three Mile Island, the majority of the local residents ccc:pted the presence of the St. Lucie plant without question, having faith in both the utility and the NRC to protect the public's safety. Indeed, most of the community felt cIrtain that the federal government would not permit the construction of nuclear plants 249
If they represented a danger to the public. There was some indication that white-collar workers grew somewhat concerned during the study period; however, without benefit of a systematic survey, the prevalence of this attitude could not be ascertained.
Although the accident at Three Mile Island caused many locals to be concerned for the first t%e, FPL's reassurances that the St. Lucie plant, with its different design, could not experience the same problems as TMI generally dissipated that concern. The common sentiment seemed to be, as one woman expressed to the press, "We have to have nuclear power. If they take care of it, nothing will happen."
In general, residents continued to feel that the benefits to the community outweighed the risks of hosting the nuclear plant. The perception that the St. Lucie plant was an important provider of energy to the local area and that the county was doing its patriotic duty in helping the nation achieve energy independence played an important role in the positive attitude toward the plant. The effect of the public discussion of the post-TMI evacuation plan at the time the study was conducted (which again heightened awareness of the plant's risks), could not be determined.
Each of the key informants interviewed indicated a high level of satisfaction with living in the county. To those interviewed, St. Lucie County was more than just a place to live-it was a community. The most commonly mentioned facets of the county that appealed to the key informants were the area's small-town character, the amenities of the coastal environment, and the social ambiance. The presence of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant did not appear to have affected the community's positive feeling about the area.
Even those adamantly opposed to the plant chose to remain because of the special qualities the county still possessed, particularly the environmental amenities. The county's growth and the influx of northerners whose orientation was more urban had changed the small-town quality of the county somewhat, but the construction and operation of the nuclear plant was not perceived as a significant factor in that change.
l 250
BIBLIOGRAPHY I
Ament, J. Gary 1974 Letter from J. Gary Ament, St. Lucie County Development coordinator, to Martin H. Hodder, Counsel for Interveners (13 August 1974).
Anderson, Eric, et al.
1980 Spatial Interaction and the Economic Hierarchy in the Western United States. Tempe, Arizona: Mountain West Research, Inc.
Bass, Jack, and Walter DeVries 1976 The Transformation of Southern Politics: Social Change and Political Consequence Since 1945. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Bowles, Gladys K., and James D. Tarver 1965 Net Migration of the Population, 1950-60, by Age, Sex, and Color:
Part 3-South Atlantic States. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Bowles, Gladys K., Calvin L. Beale and Everett S. Lee 1975 Net Migration of the Population, 1960-70, by Age, Sex, and Color:
Part 3-South Atlantic States. (Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.) Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia.
Bupp, Irvin C., and Jean-Claude Derian 1978 Light Water: How the Nuclear Dream Dissolved. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Carter, Keith A.
n.d. People and Jobs for St. Lucie County: A Survey of the St. Lucie County Labor Force. (Prepared for the Center for Community and Rural l Development and G. O. Team, Inc.) Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.
Cach, W. T.
1938 The Story of Florida _. vol. 2. New York: The American Historical Society, Inc.
City of Port St. Lucie n.d. Welcome to Port St. Lucie.
251
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Contimaed) f Combustion Engineering, Inc.
1968 Press release announcing that a 850,000 kw nuclear steam supply system had been ordered by Florida Power & Light for a Hutchinson Island plant (1 May 1968).
1972 " Florida Power & Light Orders Second Nuclear System from Combustion Engineering." Press release. (7 December 1972)
Coughlin, Dr. James 1968 "Information Concerning Hutchinson Island." Unpublished data.
Davis, George A., and O. Fred Donaldson 1975 Blacks in the United States: A Geographic Perspective. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Dollard, John 1957 Caste and Class in a Southern Town. 3rd ed. Garden City, New York:
Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Dolph Map Company,Inc.
n.d. Map of Eastern Martin County and North Palm Beach, Florida. Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida: Dolph Map Company,Inc.
Ebasco Services, Inc.
i 1972-1978 Weekly Labor Force Report, St. Lucie Plant Units 1 and 2. Unpublished data.
1976 Daily Force Report. Month End. Unpublished data.
Florida Academy of School Leaders l
1980 Participant Materials, 1980-81 Florida School Finance Program.
l Florida Board of Regents 1977 " Medical Support Agreement between Florida Power & Light Company and Board of Regents of the State of Florida in Behalf of University of Florida, J. Hillis Miller Health Center, Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics."
Florida Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 1979 St. Lucie County Economic Data.
i 252
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Florida Department of Education, Commissioner of Education 1969 Report for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1,1968 and Ending June 30, 1969.
1971 Statistical Profile of Florida School Districts, 1970-71.
1972 Statistical Profile of Florida School Districts, 1971-72.
1973 Statistical Profile of Florida School Districts, 1972-73.
1974 Statistical Profile of Florida School Districts, 1973-74.
1975 Profiles of Florida School Districts, 1974-75.
1976 Profiles of Florida School Districts, 1975-76.
1977 Profiles of Florida School Districts, 1976-77.
1978 Profiles of Florida School Districts, 1977-78.
1979 Profiles of Florida School Districts, 1978-79.
Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1977 " Agreement between Florida Power & Light Company and Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, revised 30 July 1977."
Florida Highway Patrol 1977 Procedures Applicable to Accidents Involving Radioactive Materials and/or Nuclear Devices, General Order No. 25.
Florida Office of the State Comptroller, Bureau of Local Government Finance 1969 County Finances and County Fee Officers Report, State of Florida,1968.
1970 County Finances and Fee Officers Report, State of Florida,1969.
1971 County Finances and Fee Officers Report, State of Florida,1970.
1972 County Finances and Fee Officers Report, State of Florida,1971.
1973 County Finances and Fee Officers Report, State of Florida,1972.
1974 State of Florida Local Government Financial Report,1973.
1975 State of Florida Local Government Financial Report, Fiscal Year 1973-74.
1976 State of Florida Local Government Financial Report, Fiscal Year 1974-75.
253
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Florida Office of the State Comptroller, Bureau of Local Government Finance 1977 State of Florida Local Government Financial Report, Fiscal Year 1975-76.
1978 State of Florida Local Government Financial Report, Fiscs.1 Year 1976-77.
1979 State of Florida Local Government Financial Report, Fiscal Year 1977-78.
1980 State of Florida Local Government Financial Report, Fiscal Year 1978-79.
Florida Power & Light Company n.d. A Half Century of People Serving People: A History of Florida Power & >
Light Company. vols.1, 2, 3, and 4. Miami, Florida: Florida Power &
Light Company.
1968a "Information Concerning Hutchinson Island." Unpublished data. (6 March 1968) 1968b Press release announcing option to purchase Hutchinson Island site.
(21 February 1968) 1972 Press release announcing plans to construct S t. Lucie Unit 2.
(10 November 1972) 1973a " Applicant's Answer to Petition for Leave to Intervene of Hodder et al."
(2 November 1973) 1973b Letter to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission regarding the application for extension of the construction permit completion date for Unit 1.
(November 1973) 1973c " Applicant's Response to Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene."
(28 December 1973) 1974a " Applicant's Answer to Letter of Mrs. Betty Lou Wells." (4 January 1974) 1974b " Applicant's Answer to Interveners' Motion." (12 September 1974) 1975 Letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the application for extension of the construction permit for Unit 1. (November 1975) 1976 " Project Budget Summary for the Period Ending December 1976."
Unpublished data.
1976-1980 " Nuclear Power Production Expenses and Statistics, St. Lucie Plant."
Unpublished data.
1977a 1976 Annual Report. Miami, Florida: Florida Power & Light Company.
254
l BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
F1 rida Power & Light Company
! '1977b NRC licensee report regarding St. Lucie Unit I refueling water tank overflow. (6 April 1977) 1977-1978 Reportable Occurrence Reports, St. Lucie Unit 1. (Prepared for the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.)
1977-1980 Operating Status Report, St. Lucie Unit 1. (Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear l Regulatory Commission.) Unpublished data.
1978a 1977 Annual Report. Miami, Florida: Florida Power & Light Company.
l 1978b Personnel roster. Unpublished data.
1979-1981 Unit Shutdowns and Power Reductions, St. Lucie Unit 1. (Prepared for
' the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.)
)
1980a Final Safety Analysis Report, St. Lucie Plant Unit 2. vol. 7. Miami, Florida: Florida Power & Light Company.
l 1980b Florida Power & Light Company Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 1980-l 1989. Miami, Florida: Florida Power & Light Company.
1 1980c 1979 Annual Report. Miami, Florida: Florida Power & Light Company.
, Fort Pierce-St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
1968 Resolution supporting the siting of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
Frezier, E. Franklin 1957 Black Bourgeoisie. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.
Gluckler, E. H.
1969 Letter from E. H. Gluckler, Executive Secretary, Martin County Taxpayers Association, Inc. to R. D. Hill, Vice President, Florida Power &
Light Company. (20 March 1969)
G. O. Team, Inc.
n.d.a Detailed Economic Development Facts on St. Lucie County, Fort Pierce, and Port St. Lucie, Florida. Fort Pierce, Florida: Fort Pierce-Port St.
Lucie Chamber of Commerce,Inc.
n.d.b Entry to Florida's Treasure Coast. Fort Pierce, Florida: G. O. Team, Inc.
255
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued) i Harris, K. N., and C. A. Wells 1977 FPL memo regarding hydrogen fire in SL1 generator to C. O. Woody, Assistant Manager. (7 April 1977)
Hodder, Martin Harold n.d. Motion to Amend Issues in Controversy and Continue and Compel Discovery.
1973a Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene.
1973b Petition for Leave to Intervene.
1974 Letter from Martin Harold Hodder, Counsel for Interveners, to L. Manning Muntzing, Director of Regulations, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
(29 August 1974)
Landmark Publishing Company, Inc.
1980 Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie, Florida. (Map) Hollywood, California: '
Landmark Publishing Company, Inc.
Malhotra, Suresh, and Diane Manninen 1979 A Preliminary Report on Socioeconomic Impact Assessments: Profile Analysis of Worker Surveys Conducted at Nuclear Power Plant Construction Sites. Seattle, Washington: Battelle MemorialInstitute.
Martin County Sheriff's Department 1976 Letter from James D. Holt, Sheriff, to S. A. Kingsbury, Florida Power &
Light Company. (9 August 1976)
McAlpin, Curtis & O'Haire 1968 City of Fort Pierce, Florida, Audit Report, September 30, 1968. Fort Pierce, Florida: City of Fort Pierce. ,
1969 City of Fort Pierce, Florida, Audit Report, September 30, 1969. Fort J Pierce, Florida: City of Fort Pierce. l 1970 City of Fort Pierce, Florida, Audit Report, September 30, 1970. Fort Pierce, Florida: City of Fort Pierce.
1971 City of Fort Pierce, Florida, Audit Report, September 30, 1971. Fort Pierce, Florida: City of Fort Pierce.
1972 City of Fort Pierce, Florida, Audit Report, September 30, 1972. Fort Pierce, Florida: City of Fort Pierce.
l 256
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
McAlpin, Curtis & O'Haire 1973 City of Fort Pierce, Florida, Audit Report, September 30, 1973. Fort Pierce, Florida: City of Fort Pierce.
1974 City of Fort Pierce, Florida, Audit Report, September 30, 1974. Fort Pierce, Florida: City of Fort Pierce.
1975 City of Fort Pierce, Florida, Audit Report, September 30, 1975. Fort Pierce, Florida: City of Fort Pierce.
1976 City of Fort Pierce, Florida, Audit Report, September 30, 1976. Fort Pierce, Florida: City of Fort Pierce.
1977 City of Fort Pierce, Florida, Audit Report, September 30, 1977. Fort Pierce, Florida: City of Fort Pierce..
1978 City of Fort Pierce, Florida, Audit Report, September 30, 1978. Fort l Pierce, Florida: City of Fort Pierce.
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
f 1968 Moody's Public Utility Manual. New York: Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
(
1979 Moody's Public Utility Manual. New York: Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
1980 Moody's Public Utility Manual. New York: Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
Murphy, Bill, Robert Roth, and Charles Bagwell n.d. Special Task Force on Energy Projects Impact on Local Communities:
Florida Power and Light Company St. Lucie Nuclear Generating Plants Units #1 and #2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Federal Energy Administration.
Naylor, Thomas H., and James Clotfelter 1975 Strategies for Change in the South. Chapel Hill, North Carolina:
University of North Carolina Press.
Nuclear Industry 1978 "U.S. Nuclear Power Plants: Operating Experience," Nuclear Industry.
(November 1978)
Nucleonics Week 1976-1979 " Year-end Summaries for Nuclear Generation," Nucleonics Week.
257
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
{
Pearson, Orin 1977 "St. Lucie Unit 2 Licensing History." Unpublished data.
Pijawka, David 1979a Arkansas Nuclear One: Preliminary Site Visit Report. (Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.) Tempe, Arizona: Mountain West Research, Inc.
1979b St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Preliminary Site Visit Report. (Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.) Tempe, Arizona: Mountain West Research, Inc.
Planning / Design Group 1975a Comprehensive Plan, Fort Pierce, Florida. (Prepared for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.)
1975b Working Paper: Population /Economv Land Use, Fort Pierce Florida.
(Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.)
1980 St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan. 3rd revision. Fort ,
Pierce, Florida: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. l Rand McNally & Company 1981 Rand McNally Road Atlas. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally & Company.
REEF Associates, Inc.
1978 Radiation Emergency Medical Plan. 6th revision.
Reis, Harold F.
1974 Letter from Harold F. Reis, Counsel for Florida Power & Light Company, to L. Manning Muntzing, Director of Regulation, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. (7 August 1974)
Sharaf, Alan B.
1980 " Political, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Analysis of Local Nuclear Plant Opponents." Paper presented at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Regional Studies, Upton, New York.
Sindler, Allan P., ed.
1963 Change in the Contemporary South. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.
258
l BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Spencer, J. G., Jr.
1975 Memo to Marshall Mcdonald regarding St. Lucie Unit 1 Budget Increase.
(31 October 1975)
St. Lucie County Farm Bureau 1
1968 Resolution supporting the siting of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
St. Lucie County-Fort Pierce Fire District 1978 Letter frorn Russell E. Rogers, Fire Chief, to S. A. Kingsbury, Florida Power & Light Company. (16 May 1978)
St. Lucie County Overall Economic Development Program Committee 1977 St. Lucie County, Florida Overall Economic Development Program (O.E.D.P.).
)
l St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department l 1976 Letter from C. L. Norvell, Sheriff, to S. A. Kingsbury, Florida Power &
i Light Company. (7 May 1976) 1 St. Lucie County Zoning and Building Department n.d. " Recap for 1979." Unpublished data.
{ Tipton Associates,Inc.
1978 Hutchinson Island Traffic Study. (Prepared for the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners.) Orlando, Florida: Tipton Associates, Inc.
Trtasure Coast Regional Planning Council 1979 Regional Profile Update, Treasure Coast Region.
University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1969 Florida Statistical Abstract, 1969. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Press.
1970 Florida Statistical Abstract, 1970. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Press.
1971 Florida Statistical Abstract,1971. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Press.
1972 Florida Statistical Abstract,1972. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Press.
259
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1973 Florida Statistical Abstract,1973. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Press.
1974 Florida Statistical Abstract,1974. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Press.
1975 Florida Statistical Abstract, 1975. Gainesville, Florida: University Presses of Florida.
1976 Florida Statistical Abstract, 1976. Gainesville, Florida: University Presses of Florida. 4 1977 Florida Statistical Abstract, 1977. Gainesville, Florida: University Presses of Florida.
1978 Florida Statistical Abstract, 1978. Gainesville, Florida: University Presses of Florida .
1979 Florida Statistical Abstract, 1979. Gainesville, Florida: University Presses of Florida.
1980 1980 Florida Statistical Abstract. Gainesville, Florida: University Presses of Florida.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 1969a " Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit and Facility License." Docket No. 50-335.
1969b Press release regarding application for construction permit.
1970a Notice of Hearing on application for Construction Permit.
1970b " Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit." Docket No. 50-335.
1973 Final Environmental Statement Related to the St. Lucie Plant Unit No.1.
Docket No. 50-335.
1974a Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of St. Lucie Plant Unit 2. Docket No. 50-389 1974b " Memorandum and Order." (24 January 1974) 1974c Quarterly Progress Reports on Status of Reactor Construction, St. Lucie Unit 1.
260
I BIBIJOGRAPHY (Continued)
U.S. Court of Appeals 1978 Separate Appendix to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 78-17 52.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 1975 Regional Employment by Industry, 1940-1970.
l 1977a Industry-Specific Gross Output Multipliers for BEA Economic Areas.
(Prepared for the U.S. Water Resources Council.)
l f 1977b Local Area PersonalIncome 1970-1975, Volume 1: Sum m ary.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic j Information System 1980 Computer printout. Unpublished data. (April 1980)
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census i 1913 Thirteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1910: Volume l II, Population: Alabam a-Montana.
1922 Fourteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1920: Volume III, Population: Composition and Characteristics of the Population by States.
1932 Fifteenth Census of the United States 1930: Population: Alabama-Missouri.
1943 Sixteenth Census of the United States,1940 Population: Characteristics of the Population: Florida-Iowa.
1952 Census of Population 1950: Characteristics of the Population: Florida.
1963a Census of Housing, Volume I, States and Small Areas, Part 3, Delaware-Indiana: Florida.
1963b Census of Population 1960: Characteristics of the Population: Florida.
1971 Current Population Reports: Components of Population Change by County: 1960 to 1970. Series P-25, No. 461.
1972 Housing Characteristics for States, Cities, and Counties, Chapter B:
Detailed Housing Characteristks: Florida. .
1973 1970 Census of Population: Characteristics of the Population: Florida.
261
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1977 1973 (Revised) and 1975 Population Estimates and 1972 (Revised) and 1974 Per Capita Income Estimates for Counties and Incorporated Places in Florida. Series P-25, No. 657.
1978 Current Population Reports: Estimates of the Population of Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July 1,1975 and 1976. Series P-25, No. 739 1979 1977 Population Estimates for Counties and Incorporated Places in Florida. Series P-25, No. 822.
U.S. Department of Energy 1981 " Quarterly Progress Report on Status of Reactor Construction, St. Lucie Unit 2, for the Period Ending 31 December 1980." (February 1981)
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 1978 Consumer Expenditure Survey Series: Interview Survey, 1972-73.
U.S. Department of the Interior 1970 " Petition of Walter J. Hickel, Secretary of the Interior, for Intervention."
U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard 1977 Letter from L. L. Zumstein, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, to E. A. Adomat, Executive Vice President, Florida Power & Light Company. (4 August 1977)
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration 1976 " Quarterly Progress Reports on Status of Reactor Construction, St. Lucie Unit 1." Unpublished data.
Utility Spotlight (Editor) 1970 "FPL Attacks Cooling Problem," Utility Spotlight.
Van Brunt, Edwin E., Jr.
1969 "The Hutchinson Island Plant," Ebasco News, pp. 8-10. (August 1969)
Van Landingham, Kyle S.
1976 Pictorial History of Saint Lucie County 1565-1910. Fort Pierce, Florida:
St. Lucie County Library System.
262
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Verway, David I.
1979 Michigan Statistical Abstract. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University.
Warren, Roland 1978 The Community in America. 3rd ed. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally.
Williams, Ada Coats 1963 A Brief History of Saint Lucie County. Fort Pierce, Florida: St. Lucie Historical Society.
t 263
NEWSPAPER REFERENCES Fort Lauderdale News 5 December 1967 "FP&L Plans 2nd Nuclear Power Plant."
22 April 1977 "FPL Plant Delay Cost $125 Million."
Fort Pierce News Tribune 4 February 1968 " Plan Nuclear Power Plant."
9 February 1968 " Rezoning Sought for Power Plant."
21 February 1968 "FP&L Confirms Plans for Plant."
6 March 1968 " Martin Anglers Want 'All Facts' on Proposed Nuclear Power Plant."
22 March 1968 "Says Nuclear Plant Will be Clean, FP&L Offers Two Miles of Public Beach."
31 March 1968 "New Zoning Eyed for Nuclear Plant."
21 April 1968 "Nulcear Power Plant Operation Defended by FPL."
2 May 1968 " Contract Let for Nuclear Generator."
3 May 1968 " Zoning Step OK'd for Nuclear Power Plant."
21 May 1968 " County's OK: New Zone is Created for FP&L Plant."
12 Jane 1968 " Farm Bureau Backs FP&L Nuclear Plant."
14 June 1968 " Board OKs Zoning for Nuclear Plant: Hearing Set July 2; Not Yet in Clear."
264
NEWSPAPER REFERENCES (Continued)
Fort Pierce News Tribune 2 July 1968 " Zoning OK'd for FP&L Nuclear Plant."
17 July 1968 "Another Camping Area Planned on Island."
16 October 1968 " Nuclear Plant to Boost FP: Growth Big Factor."
15 January 1969 "St. Lucie Backs FP&L in Channel Applications."
20 February 1969 " Engineer Sees Danger to Ecology, Hydrology of River from FPL Plant."
23 March 1969 "Ask FPL Not Take Cooling Water from Indian River."
26 March 1969 "IRD Members to Hear Talk."
8 April 1969 "FP&L Plant May Turn to Ocean for Cooling."
26 April 1970 "FP Nuclear Power Plant Switching to Ocean Water: Objection Removed by FP&L."
12 May 1970 "FPL Power Plant Draws Ire of IR Audubon Unit."
13 May 1970 " Threat to Sea Turtle Nesting Grounds Before Plant Hearing."
(
14 May 1970 "FPL Agrees to Test Plant's Thermal Effects."
(
14 May 1970 "FPL Meets Challenge on Hurricane Safety Factors."
1 July 1970 " Island Nuclear Plant Okayed."
5 August 1970 "S. Beach Problem Lies Between A1 A, Tide Line."
23 September 1970 " Certification of FPL Plant by State Board Assured."
265
NEWSPAPER REFERENCES (Continued)
Fort Pierce News Tribune 20 October 1970 "Wackenhut Men and Dogs G tard Nucler Plant Site."
23 October 1970 "Two St. Lucie Park Areas Boosted."
8 November 1970 " Bridge, Bank Fishing in Big Mud Near FPL Nixed."
16 March 1971 " Fort Pierce to Sell Water to ' Nuke' Plant."
11 April 1971 " Sea Turtle Study Included in DNR Ecological Survey."
16 April 1971 " Water to FPL, Outdoor Resorts is Meet Topic."
23 April 1971 "C-D Official Sounds Note of Warning on Martin Shelters."
18 May 1971 "FPL to Double Capacity of Nuclear Plant."
26 May 1972 "FPL Nuclear Fuel Safety has CD Officials Skeptical."
1 August 1972 "SL County Board Asked to Endorse FPL Bond Issue."
28 August 1972 " Setback Line Subject of Major Consideration."
6 September 1972 " Nuclear Power Plant Line Okayed."
27 September 1972 " Atomic Energy Commission Asks Comment on Environmental Study at FP&L Plant."
27 September 1972 " Plan for Industrial Bonds Snagged by Naming of Agent."
18 May 1973 " Hearing Here on N-Plant."
27 August 1973 " Hearings This Week on FP&L Nuclear Plant."
266
l L
NEWSPAPER REFERENCES (Continued)
Fort Pierce News Tribune '
1 l
28 August 1973 "N-Plant Protested, Supported."
7 February 1974 " Nuke Plant Cooling by Mud Creek Aired."
13 September 1974 " Nuke Plant Foe Questions FPL Population Figures."
25 May 1975 " Mayor Eyes Plant Water."
May 1975 " Annexation Price of City Water, Bryan Tells Press." g l
16 June 1975 "FP&L Nuclear Plant Site Hearing Here."
18 June 1975 " Fuel Savings Pay for Nuclear Plant?"
10 December 1975 " Cabinet Urged to Nix FP Nuclear Plant."
14 December 1975 " Economy Wallop in Nuclear Plant Delay."
17 December 1975 "More FP&L Plant Hearings Ordered: Cabinet Rule on Radiation Hazard."
28 December 1975 " Layoffs Cut Plant Force in Half."
4 January 1976 "FP&L Should be Given the Go-Ahead." (Letter to the Editor) -
15 January 1976 "CC Board Urging Action on N-Plant."
25 January 1976 Nuclear Plant Won't Make This Year's Tax Roll."
27 January 1976 " City Eases Stand on Joint Agency Funding."
24 February 1976 "St. Lucie Nuclear Site ' Suitable'."
267
NEWSPAPER REFERENCES (Continued)
Fort Pierce News Tribune 25 February 1976 " Island Evacuation Questioned at Hearings on Nuclear Plant."
26 February 1976 " Hearings End on Nuclear Plant Location."
16 March 1976 "FP&L: No Nuclear Dumping Here."
11 April 1976 " Examiner Recommends Second Nuclear Plant."
22 April 1976 "Non-Action Disappoints FP Chamber."
3 May 1976 "Act Soon on FPL Plant?"
19 May 1976 " State Okays Second Nuclear Plant."
21 May 1976 " Plant Foes' Witness is Ruled Out."
3 August 1976
" Chamber Chiefs Make Pitch for 2nd Nuclear Plant."
3 September 1976 " Hearing or 2nd Nuke Unit Postponed; Foes Seek $$$."
October 1976 " Workers Try to Get Action on Nuclear Plant."
9 November 1976 " Students Will Tell Sen. Chiles They Favor FPL Second Nuclear Plant."
30 November 1976 " Petitions Mailed to High Officials."
2 December 1976 " Plant Hearing Opens."
9 January 1977 " CURE Steps up Anti-Plant Fight."
12 January 1977 " Decision Expected on 2nd Nuke Plant by March or April."
268
l ,
NEWSPAPER REFERENCES (Continued) h Fort Pierce News Tribune 4 April 1977 "FPL Nuclear Plant Shut Down; Fire 'Not Serious'."
22 April 1977 "No Surrender in Fight Against FPL's 2nd Nuclear Power Plant."
15 May 1977 "Another Nuclear Plant Barrier Down."
l June 1977 " Tax Relief in Nuclea; Plant? Don't Bet on It."
27 June 1977 " Nuke Plant Could Hike SLC Revenue by $3.1 Million."
19 July 1977 "May Require FPL to Share Nuclear Power With Cities."
11 October 1977 " County Gets Plan for Evacuation of Island."
11 October 1977 " Appeal Board Okays 2nd FPL Nuke Plant."
29 March 1979 " Radiation Leak at Plants of FPL Called Unlikely."
2 April 1979 "Hodder to Take FPL Plant Appeal to U.S. Appeals, Supreme Courts."
6 April 1979 Folks Don't Seem Worried About Nuclear Plant."
l 1 May 1979 "FPL Nuke Plant Appeal Filed With Supreme Court."
30 May 1979 "FPL Nuclear Safety Debate Generates Heat, Light."
1 October 1979 "Hutchinson Island Nuke Plant Appeal Rejected by Court."
30 October 1979 "Another Review Requested on St. Lucie II N-Plant."
8 November 1979 "NRC's Hearing Draws Complaints on Safety."
269
NEWSPAPER REFERENCES (Continued)
Fort Pierce News Tribune 9 November 1979 "N-Emergency Plans Here 'Far Ahead'-NRC Team."
30 November 1979 "Hodder: I've Lost a Battle, but Not the War."
Miami Herald 12 March 1968 " Conservation Leaders Stick to Middleground."
2 May 1968 "Second Nuclear Power Plant Will Be Built by FP&L."
- 17. May 1970 "FP&L Plant Permit, Turtle Safety Probed."
13 May 1970 "Take Nuclear Plant Responsibility, AEC Asked."
2 July 1970 " Atomic Energy Commission Gives Go-Ahead, FP&L Nuclear Power Plant Approved."
22 September 1971 " Nuclear Power Plant Running Year Late."
19 November 1971 "?.nd A-Plant Unit Cut by FP&L."
27 September 1972 "' Minimal Ecology Dam age,' AEC Power Plant Report Endorsed."
19 December 1972 " Hourly Wages Debated, FPL Scale Sets Standard."
30 January 1973 "2nd Nuclear Unit Revived by FPL."
5 September 1973 "From $16 Million to $160 Million, FPL Hikes Plans for County Bonds."
28 February 1975 "N-Disaster Evacuation Drill Set, Required to License Plant."
17 July 1975 "N-Unit Impact is ' Acceptable'."
270
l i
NEWSPAPER REFERENCES (Continued)
)
Miami Herald 14 Deceniber 1975 " Scenic Drive Residents May Get New Intruder-2nd Nuclear Monolith."
16 December 1975 " Groups Show Cabinet Nuclear Unit Support."
17 December 1975 "Make Sure N-Plant Is Safe, State Orders."
18 December 1975 " Bitter 'Hard Hats' Rap FPL Decision."
18 December 1975 "FPL Construction Crews Bitter Over Cabinet Action."
1 January 1976 "Will FPL Plant Make Tax Roll?"
20 February 1976 " Nuclear-Plant Critic Dropped as Witness."
21 May 1976 "FPL Plant Stop-Work Order Eyed: Final Hearings Open."
2 September 1976 " Ecologists Map N-Plant Battle."
3 September 1976 "FPL Unit Hearings Delayed."
l 28 October 1976 " Halt Work on 2nd Nuclear Plant, Judge Orders."
31 October 1976 " Layoff Protests Aired at Rally."
~
12 January 1977 "N-Plant Merits, Faults Presented."
22 April 1977 " Opponents Vow Continued Court Fight, FPL Gets 2nd N-Plant OK."
22 April 1977 " Reactions Are Strong, Predictable."
6 October 1977 " Water Spill is Minor at Nuke Plant."
9 271
NEWSPAPER REFERENCES (Continued)
Miami News 29 April 1970 "FP&L Puts Lid on Talk on Hot Water at Plant."
Mirror (Jensen Beach and Port St. Lucie) 22 February 1968 " Entering the Nuclear Age." (Editorial) 26 September 1968 " Nuclear Plant Design Heralds Island Entry Into Atomic Age."
20 March 1969 "McQuigg Expresses Nuclear Concern." (Letter to the Editor) 8 May 1969 " Nuclear Plant Site Roads Begin."
23 October 1969 "FP&L Reassures Walton Residents on Proposed Island Nuclear Plant: 'Have No Fear . . . ' Hill."
23 April 1970 " Anglers OK Ocean."
7 May 1970 " Taxpayer Intervention." (Editorial) 14 May 1970 " Nuclear Plant Debate Continues at Hearing: AEC Evaluates."
21 May 1970 " Taxpayers Object to Mirror Editorial." (Letter to the Editor) 11 June 1970 " Big Trucks Roll through Jensen."
3 August 1972 "FP&L Asks County for $14 Million Bond Issue."
18 August 1972 " Nuclear Plant Delayed a Year."
26 October 1972 " Island Concrete Plant Move is Considered."
272
NEWSPAPER REFERENCES (Continued)
Mirror 7 December 1972 " Water Main to Ous ' or Resorts: FP Water."
Orlando Sentinel 2 August 1972 " Bond Idea 'Interes ' St. Lucie."
)
Palm Beach Post 25 February 1968 "Possible Nuclear Plant Stirs Pollutionists."
3 May 1968 "FP&L Nuclear Plant Plans Arouse No Apparent Protest."
1 August 1968 "FP&L Buys Island Land for N-Plant."
21 August 1968 " Light Company Buys Property."
3 December 1971 "Despite U.S. Ruling, FP&L Purchases Land."
24 February 1972 " Nuclear Site Work Halts."
- 19 December 1972 " Legislators to Examine High Labor Wages, St. Lucie Gripes Taxpayers Hurt."
i 31 January 1973 " Nuclear Power Plant Planned."
28 February 1975 " Group Opposes Disaster Drill."
6 March 1975 " Report Discourages FP&L Nuclear Site, FIU Study Criticizes Plant Operation, Safeguard Plans."
273
APER REFERENCES (Continued)
Palm Beach Post 17 July 1975 " Nuclear Site Hearings Called Useless: Despite Discussion, Little Agreement Reached."
11 December 1975 " Counties' Residents Have to Decide, Too."
1976 "FP&L Promises Hiring Locally for Second Plant."
31 October 1976 " Workers Protest Work Shutdown at St. Lucie Two."
18 April 1977 " Malfunction Closes St. Lucie N-Plant."
20 April 1977 " Air Blamed for Plant Shutdown, Generators Expected to Restart This Weekend."
7 November 1978 "N-Plant Reports Radioactive Spill; No Threat Seen to St.
Lucie."
13 November 1978 " Tracing Nuclear Transits."
26 August 1979 " Foes of St. Lucie II Counting on Supreme Court."
30 August 1979 " Officials Say Nuclear Plants Safe in ' Cane, Critic of FPL Contends Storm Endangers Units."
23 October 1979 "N-Plant Warfare Not Over, Hodder Seeks Court Hearing."
Palm Beach Times 2 May 1968 "St. Lucie Expected to Act on Nuclear Plant Rezoning."
31 December 1971 " Power Firm Buys Right of Way."
274
l NEWSPAPER REFERENCES (Continued) t Palm Beach Times 22 May 1972 "FP&L Plan Tied to Environment."
8 June 1972 " Extension of Water Line Near."
8 September 1972 " Transmission Line Right-of-Way Survey Slated."
19 February 1973 " County Approves Bonds for Two Industries."
l 19 April 1973 "St. Lucie Wage Rate Decision Expected in Month."
30 April 1973 " Conservation Group Seeks Moratorium on N-Plants."
11 July 1973 "FP&L Beach Area Closing Possibility Probed."
13 July 1973 "AEC Urged to Ease Beach-Use Curbs at FP&L Site."
16 December 1975 " Chambers Say N-Plant Site Rejection Would Hurt County."
15 January 1976 "FP&L N-Unit Delay Reversal Urged: Chamber, County Petitions Askew."
21 May 1976 " Nuclear Hearing Denies Request for Delay."
l L
1977 " Extended N-Plant Closings Could Hike Power Bills."
l 4 6 October 1977 "FPL N-Plant Spills ' Hot' Water."
Stuart News 15 February 1968 "Another Pollution Hazard." (Editorial) 275
NEWSPAPER REFERENCES (Continued)
Stuart News 7 March 1968 "The Nuclear Plant Problem." (Editorial) 7 March 1968 " Anglers Club to Investigate Thermal Pollution Hazard."
16 May 1968 "Audubon Group Opposes Use of Estuary Water."
23 May 1968 " Conservation Leaders See No Thermal Pollution Dangers:
Wood, Head of Anglers Club, Reports in Detail on Inspection."
7 July 1968 "Walton League Worried About Pesticides in Fish Here."
1 May 1969 " Sea Intake Depends on Report by Biologists."
26 February 1970 "Hutchinson Island Owners Elect."
2 April 1970 " Martin County Conservation Alliance Calls for a $1 a Yard Charge for Fill."
16 April 1970 " Nuclear Plant to Suck Marine Life from River, Biologist Speaks to Anglers Club."
l 19 April 1970 " Conservationist Against River Water Use for Nuclear Power."
3 May 1970 " Ocean-to-Ocean Cooling Adding $8 Million Cost, but Helps Protect the Environment."
14 May 1970 " Nuclear Power Plant Opposition Lines Up at Fort Pierce Hearing."
13 June 1971 " Utility Files Nuclear Permit."
17 February 1972 "FP&L Applies for Permit for Giant Cooling Pipes."
276
l NEWSPAPER REFERENCES (Continued) l Stuart News N ,.
17 August 1972 " Monster in Paradise." (Editorial) 24 August 1972 " Nuclear Plants and Fish-Kill IIazards."
21 September 1972 " Migratory Fish Off New Nuclear Plant Monitored."
5 October 1972 "New Water Source Sought."
14 January 1973 "Along the Waterfront, Ray Roberts, Teacher and Sportsman, Warns about Environmental Disasters."
29 April 1973 " Nuclear Dangers Suggested, by Alliance."
17 March 1974 " Alliance Reviews LocalIssues."
1975 " CURE Organizer Speaks to Group on Dangers of Radiation."
1976 "Public Urged to Speak C ut on the Nuclear Gamble."
16 January 1976 " CURE Prepares for Future Hearings on St. Lucie II Nuclear Power Plants."
, 18 January 1976 " CURE is Pleased With Public Service Commission's Decision."
1 10 July 1978 " Nuke Neighbors Want a Warning for an Accident."
11 July 1978 " Residents on Indian River Drive Lose Bid for Nuke Warning."
Sun Tattler 11 May 1970 "U.S. Opposing FP&L Plant Plans." l l
l 277 e
f NEWSPAPER REFERENCES (Continued)
Today (Brevard County) 16 August 1972 "FPL Wants $14 Million Bond Issue from County."
27 September 1972 " Counsel Disagreement, Bond Resolution Withdrawn."
27 September 1972 " Ecology Report: ' Plant's Effect Negligible'."
19 May 1973 " Plant Safety Issue Still Not Settled."
6 June 1973 "AEC Panelists Meet, Set FPL Plant Hearing."
16 June 1973 " Hearing Called on Nuclear Power Plant."
Utility Spotlight 7 May 1970 "FPL Attacks Cooling Problem."
278
I PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Adams, Alto, Jr.;
Rancher; member of Board of Directors, First Federal Savings and Loan, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Adams, Buddy; Ranch Foreman, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Adams, Dorothy; Homemaker, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Alder, Harry; President, St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance, Fort Pierce, Florida.
i Alder, Marjorie; Founding President, St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance; former St. Lucie County Commissioner, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Ament, J. Gary; County Development Coordinator, St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Andrews, Dee; Broker, Laura B. Hancock Realtors, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Autullo, June; Manager, County Cove Mobile Homes, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Banfi, Joe; Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning, Martin County Department of Planning and Zoning, Stuart, Florida.
Barnes, Genevie; Retired beautician, Port St. Lucie, Florida.
Barr, Helen F.;
Nurse, Fort Pierce, Florida. ,
Bass, James W.;
County Property Appraiser, St. Lucie County, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Beckman, Kenneth; Retiree, Port St. Lucie, Florida.
Behling, Norman; Superintendent, St. Lucie County School System, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Bergalis, George; Chief Accountant, City of Fort Pierce, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Bishop, Lavon; Vice President and co-owner, B&B Machine Shop, Inc., Fort Pierce, Florida.
1 279
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
Bonham, W. H.;
Manager, Ad Valorem Taxes, Florida Power & Light Company, Miami, Florida.
Bouton, Bob; Deputy Appraiser, St. Lucie County, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Bowers, Jerry; Former Stuart Bureau Chief, Miami Herald; City Editor, Fort Pierce News Tribune; resider.t, Stuart, Florida.
Bowers, Mike; Assistant to the County Development Coordinator, St. Lucie County, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Bravakis, Kitty; Chief Deputy, St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office, Fort Pierce, Florida Brooks, John; Resident, South Beach, Hutchinson Island, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Brown, Clarence J.;
Housing Program Supervisor, City of Fort Pierce Planning and Development, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Brown, Juan Dale; Photographer, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Butler, Charles; Instrument Control Supervisor, Florida Power & Light Company, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Carter, Frank; Business Agent, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and R,einforcing Iron Workers, Local 402, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Cashell, Dorothy; Receptionist, Spgnish Lakes Mobile Home Communities, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Cassens, K. Dale; Owner, Cassens Grove Service, Inc.
Chase, Billy N.;
Information Officer, Martin County Sheriff's Office, Stuart, Florida.
Chilson, Vernon T.;
Power Resources Specialist, Florida Power & Light Company, Miami, Florida.
Coffman, Margareth; Retiree, Port St. Lucie, Florida.
280
l PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
Connell, Fay; Bookkeeper, Seminole Mobile Park, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Constantine, Bob; Statistics Engineer, Florida Department of Transportation, Highway Statistics, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Crane, Mindy; Statistician, Population Division, University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Gainesville, Florida.
1 l
Cummings, Jim; Extension Director, St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension Service, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Dane, Bob; Vice President, Barber Lumber Company, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Davidson, Kay; Broker, Florida Home Finders, Port St. Lucie, Florida.
Davis, Doug; Draf tsman, White City, St. Lucie County, Florida.
DeWitt, Dave; Realtor Associate, Allen Real Estate, Inc., Fort Pierce, Florida.
Drake, Ronald; Regional Economist, U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Driscoll, Michael J.;
Treasurer .and agent, Haynes & Haynes Insurance Company; President, Rotary Club, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Duval, Fred; j President and Business Agent, International Longshoremen's Association, Locals 1359 and 1860, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Engel, Charles; Owner, Seashore Apartments, Hutchinson Island, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Enns, Edward; St. Lucie County Commissioner; owner, Enns Agency, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Enns, Robert N.;
Executive Editor, Fort Pierce News Tribune, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Enterline, Jack; President, Precision Metal Services, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Escue, B. J.;
Site Manager, St. Lucie No. 2, Florida Power & Light Company, Jensen Beach, Florida.
281
PERSONAL COMMUNIC ATIONS (Continued)
Fellers, Charlie; Manager, ABC Mobile Park, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Fenn, Havert L.;
City Commissioner, City of Fort Pierce; Dean of Students, Lincoln Park Middle School, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Foy, Hal; Accounting Assistant Supervisor, Florida Office of the State Comptroller, Bureau of Local Government Finance, Tallahassee, Florida.
Franklin, Darrell; Director of Person.,el, St. Lucie County School System, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Gibbons, Bob; Store Manager, Major Electrical Supplies, Inc., Fort Pierce, Florida.
Gluckler, Edward H.;
Former Stuart Bureau Chief, Fort Pierce News Tribune; member, Martin County Conservation Alliance, Sewall's Point, Martin County, Florida.
Grozan, Thomas C.;
Licensing Engineer, Nuclear Licensing, Florida Power & Light Company, Miami, Florida.
Haman, Mary; Assistant Manager, Colony Club Mobile Home Park, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Henninger, Stephen; City Planner, City of Port St. Lucie, Florida.
Hicks, Preston; Assistant General Manager, General Development Corporation, Port St. Lucie, Florida.
Hinchcliff, Dorothy; Seamstress, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Hinchcliff, Richard; Ironworker, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Hodder, Martin; Intervener, construction permit hearings, St. Lucie Unit 2, Miami, Florida.
Honkonen, Chuck; Chief Appraiser, First Federal Savings and Loan of Fort Pierce, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Horton, Doug; Business Agent, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1447, Vero Beach, Florida.
282
)
i PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
Hoven, Russell; Manager, Sales Office, Sand Dollar Villas, Jensen Beach, St. Lucie County, 1
Husky, W. E.;
House Foreman, Economy Packing Company, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Jencks, Hugh; Retired reporter, Port St. Lucie, Florida.
Johnson, Howard D. II; l Power Resources Nuclear Specialist, Nuclear Staff, Florida Power & Light Company, Miami, Florida.
Kane, John; Corporal, Florida Highway Patrol, St. Lucie County Station, Fort Pierce, Florida.
1 Keller, Ruth; Owner, Gulfstream Apartments, Hutchinson Island, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Kelly, David P.;
Assistant Planner, St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Kindred, Tom; Superintendent of Recreation, St. Lucie County, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Kingsbury, Samuel A.;
Radiological Emergency Plan Administrator, Florida Power & Light Company, Miami, Florida.
1 Kramer, George; Manager, Pineview Mobile Home Park, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Leskovjan, Larry L.;
Principal Specialist, Environmental Technical Services, Licensing and Environmental Planning Department, Florida Power & Light Company, Miami, Florida.
Lewis, Weldon B.;
County Administrator, St. Lucie County, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Lowry, Inez; City Clerk, City of Fort Pierce, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Matthews, Barbara; -
Deputy City Clerk, City of Port St. Lucie, Florida.
Matthews, Earl; -
Administrative Office Manager, Ebasco Services, Inc., Jensen Beach, Florida.
283 e
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
McChesney, William B.;
Mayor, City of Port St. Lucie, Port St. Lucie, Florida.
McConnell, Jack; Co-Manager, Holiday Out Mobile Home Park, Hutchinson Island, St. Lucie County, Florida.
McConnell, Lillie; Co-Manager, Holiday Out Mobile Home Park, Hutchinson Island, St. Lucie County, Florida.
McKissick, Ellis; Property Manager, Hoyt Murphy Real Estate, Fort Pierce, Florida.
McLoughlin, Kevin; Vice President, Hoyt C. Murphy Real Estate, Fort Pierce, Florida.
McNeil, Grace; Director, St. Lucie County Welf are Association, Inc.
McQuaig, Fred L.;
Director, Land Management, Florida Power & Light Company, Miami, Florida.
Menge, Ewell E.;
Director of Utilities, Fort Pierce Utilities Authority, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Mikell, Ben; Outage Coordinator, Outage Planning, Florida Power & Light Company, Jensen Beach, Florida.
Mills, Capt. James B.;
Traffic officer in charge of road patrol, Martin County Sheriff's Office, Stuart, Florida.
Minix, Marilyn; Owner, Roadrunner Travel Trailer Park, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Moore, William R.;
Director, City of Fort Pierce Planning and Development, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Murphy, Hoyt; Owner, Hoyt C. Murphy Real Estate, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Nelson, Betty; Co-Owner, Economy Chemical Company, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Norvell, John R., Jr.;
Deputy Chief, Fort Pierce Police Department, Operation and Training Division, Fort Pierce, Florida.
284
)
)
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
Noyes, Vincent P.
Utilities Accountant, Fort Pierce Utilities Authority, Fort Pierce, Florida.
1 O'Connell, John; Office Manager, International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Union, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Peacon, W. A.;
Supervisor, Production Plant Accounting, Florida Power & Light Company, Miami, Florida.
1 l
Piowaty, Deborah; l Homemaker, Ankona, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Piowaty, James W.;
Grove owner and manager, Ankona, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Prime, Valerie; Intervener, construction permit hearings, St. Lucie Unit 2; former President, '
Citizens United Against a Radioactive Environment, and Martin County 1 Conservation Alliance, Stuart, Florida.
Pryor, Alycia; Controller, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida.
Rainier, Joseph; Security Force Supervisor, Wackenhut Corporation, Jensen Beach, Florida.
Reid, Richard S.;
Executive Vice President, Fort Pierce-St. Lucie County-Port St. Lucie Chamber of Commerce, Fort Pierce, Florida.
. Rodi, Philip J.;
Director, St. Lucie County Office of Disaster Preparedness, Fort Pierce, Florida. ,
{ Rogers, Russell; Chief, St. Lucie County-Fort Pierce Fire District, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Rolle, Eartha; Area Manager, Agricultural & Labor Program, Inc., Fort Pierce, Florida.
Rosenberger, Mary; Retiree, River Park, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Ruby, Jim; Plant Administrative Supervisor, Florida Power & Light Company, Jensen Beach, Florida.
Rye, Wayne; Building Material Coordinator, Rinker Materials Corporation, Fort Pierce, Florida.
285
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
Saleeby, Amy; Restaurant hostess, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Scheer, Charles L.;
Senior Communications Coordinator, Corporate Communications Department, Florida Power & Light Company, Miami, Florida.
Schindehette, Harry, Jr.;
District Manager, Florida Power & Light Company, Miami, Florida.
See, Frederick H.;
Director of Finance, St'. Lucie County School System, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Settle, Ernest E.;
Owner, Indian River Uniform Rental; past President, G. O. Team, Inc., Fort Pierce, Florida.
Sherman, Gail; Employee Relations, Piper Aircraft Company.
Smith, Clint; Operations Manager, Mullins, Inc., St. Lucie County, Florida.
Smith, Gail; Deputy Supervisor of Elections, St. Lucie County, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Spyke, Peter; County Extension Agent, St. Lucie County Agricultural Extension Service, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Swartz, Jack; Manager, ERA Furst Company, Hutchinson Island, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Taylor, Dave; Broker, Laura B. Hancock Realty, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Thaxton, Jim; Maintenance Engineer, Florida Department of Transportation, St. Lucie County, Florida.
Van Curen, Gene L.;
District Manager, Florida Power & Light Company, Stuart, Florida.
Ward, Emmett; Foreman, City of Fort Pierce Street Division, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Wells, Betty Lou; Former President, St. Lucie County League of Women Voters, Fort Pierce, Florida.
286
i PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
( Wells, Helen; Director, Hutchinson Island Coalition; former President, Hutchinson Island Homeowners Association, St. Lucie County, Florida.
West, John; Supervisor of Security, Florida Power & Light Company, Jensen Beach, Florida.
White, Dick; Finance Director, St. Lucie County Finance Department, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Wise, Betty Jean; Broker, Florida Gold Coast Real Estate, Inc., Fort Pierce, Florida.
Wolverton, Arlene; Broker, Allo Realty, Port St. Lucie, Florida.
Woodall, Bernard; Reporter, Fort Pierce News Tribune, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Woodcock, Dorothy; Office Supervisor, Hughes Supply, Inc., Fort Pierce, Florida.
Wright, Carolyn; Assistant Manager, Holiday Out Mobile Home Park, Hutchinson Island, St. Lucie County, Florida.
4 l
(
.... . m r.n.c mia i.1 mo.w.
287
l
%' av 335 U.S. NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMIS$10N NUREG/CR-2749 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET yol, 10 4 T8TLE AND SUBTITLE iAdd Volume No, of avorpor>atel 2 (Leave Dimk}
Socioeconomic Impacts of Nuclear Generating Stations:
3 "'C'"'e NT S ACCE SSION NO St. Lucie Case Study f
- 1. AU T HOH tSi 5. DATE REPORT COMPLE TED M.L. Weisiger, K.D. Pijawka, Mountain West Research, Inc. " N'" l^"
January 1097 9 PE HF OHMtNG OHGANl/A TION N AME AND MAILING ADDHESS (/nclu* l<p Code / DATE RE PORT ISSUED Mountain West Research, Inc. w/ Social Impact Research, Inc " "'" I"
July #2 1414 W. Broadway, Suite 228 Areis Building, Suite 427 6 " #'
Tempe, AZ 85282 2366 Eastlake Avenue East Seattle, WA 98101 8 ,c,,,,y,,,,,
12 SPONSOHING OHG ANI/ A TION N AME AND M AILING ADDHESS (toclude l'a Codri 10 PHOJE CT.T ASK;WOHK UNIT NO Division of Health, Siting and Waste Management Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research it nN No U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 B6268 13 I YPE OF HL POH T PE Rt 00 COV E RF O (/nclui ve ddfPsf Technical Recort Oct. 1_ 197R tn .lan. 4; 1992 IS SUFFL E VE N T AHY NO ff S 14 (L edre od e a l 16 ABST H ACT (200
- ords or less)
This report documents a case study of the socioeccnomic impacts of the construction and operation of the St. Lucie 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 construc-tion / 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.
17 AE Y WON DS AND DOCUME NT AN ALYSIS 17a DE SC hip TO HS Socioeconomics St. Lucie 17ti IDE N TI F IE RS OPE N E N DE D T E HYS 18 AV AIL ABILt T Y ST ATE YE N T 13 SE Cum T V C L ASS (Tos reporri 21 NO OF P AGE S 2a tinciassified 3E cumiv ct ASS ,ra o,w n PR.ce Unlimited Unclassified s NRC F ORY 335 i t t $1+
UNITED STATES .ny.,,, c i ass a,t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 25(1,6,' E t S ** +
WASHINGTON. D C 20%5 nasa o t Pt Ever %s sif ,
Of flCIAL hu$iN($$
Pf P.AL TY FOR PRiv Af f US( $ 3tX)
,