Text

Socioeconomic Impacts of Nuclear Generating Stations: Arkansas Nuclear One Station Case Study.Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368.(Arkansas Power and Light Company)
	ML20062E230
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	07/31/1982
From:	Pijawka K; MOUNTAIN WEST RESEARCH, INC.
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
References
	CON-FIN-B-6268 NUREG-CR-2749, NUREG-CR-2749-V01, NUREG-CR-2749-V1, NUDOCS 8208090021
	Download: ML20062E230 (193)
	v • d • e

- - _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ - _ _ - _

NUREG/CR-2749 Vol.1 Socioeconomic Impacts of Nuclear Generating Stations I

Arkansas Nuclear One Station Case Study Prepared by K. D. Pijawka/MWRI Mountain West Research, Inc.

with Social impact Research, Inc.

Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission hD0OD00Po!$00$f3 P PDR - - _ _ _ _ _ __________ __________________

NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the Umted 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 liabihty 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 infrmge privately owned rights.

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

1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W. ,

Washington, DC 20555 l

2. The NRC/GPO Sales Program, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555

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

Refere. 4.ed 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 apphcant and licensee documents and correspondence.

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

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

Documents available from public and special technical librarie* include all open htcrature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices federal and state legislation, and congresional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foraign reports and translations, and non-N RC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the pubhcation cited.

Sing!e 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 stardJrds used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7320 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National S*andards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.

GPO Printed copy pnce

NUREG/CR-2749 Vol.1 RE Socioeconomic Impacts of Nuclear Generating Stations Arkansas Nuclear One Station Case Study Manuscript Completed: January 1982 Date Published: July 1982 Prepared by K. D. Pijawka, Mountain West Research, Inc.

Mountain West Research, Inc.

1414 W. Broadway

( Suite 228 Tempe, AZ 85282 l

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 i

Washington, D.C. 20555

! NRC FIN B6268 l

l l

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

operation of the reactor.

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

l l

J f

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION > 1 1.1 The NRC Post-Licensing Studies 1 1.1.1 Objectives of the Post-Licensing ptuales 1 1.1.2 Components of the Post-Licer. sing Studies 2 1.1.3 Three Mile Island '

4 1.2 Overview of th'e 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 11 2.3.1 Co. unte Background 11 2.3.2 Service :-; 13 2.3.3 Generating Capacity and Production 15 2.4 The Project 15 t 2.4.1 The Project Site 15 l

l 2.4.2 The Plant 16 2.5 Construction 17 i

2.5.1 Announcement 17 2.5.2 Schedule and Cost 17 2.5.3 Work Force 19 2.5.4 Construction Experience 22 2.6 Operations 22 l 2.6.1 Sc%nch and Costs 22 2.6.2 Operations Phase Work Force 25 i 2.6.3 Operating Pharc Experience 25 2.7 Taxes 27 2.8 Corporate / Community Programs 29 2.8.1 Emergency Planning 29

2.9 Chronology of Major Events 30 CHAPTER 3: DISTRIBUTION OF DIRECT PROJECT EFFECTS AND IDENTIFICATON OF THE STUDY AREA 33 3.1 Introduction 33 3.2 The Region 33

, V i

, - - - ,n --- ,,..,, , - - - - - . , ,

l TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continised)

PAGE 3.2.1 Description of the Region 33 3.2.2 Identification of Places within the Region 37

3.3 Distribution of Direct Project Effects within the Region 37

, 3.3.1 Distribution of Direct Basic Employment by Place of Work,1974 and 1978 38 3.3.2 Distribution of Workers by Place of Residence, 1974 and 1978 38 3.3.3 Distribution of Utility Purchases 40 3.3.4 Distribution of Taxes,1974 and 1978 41 3.4 Selection of the Study Area 42 3.4.1 The Study Area 42 3.4.2 Rationale 42 1

3.4.3 Summary 45 CH APTER 4: ECONOMY OF THE STUDY AREA 46 4.1 Introduction 46

)

4.2 Economic History of the Study Area 46 i 4.3 Economic Changes during the Study Period 51 4.3.1 Employment and Income in the Local Economy 51 4.3.2 Employment of Local Residents 55 4.4 Economic Changes in the Study Area due to the Project 55 4.4.1 Estimation of Project-Related Employment ,

and Income Effects 56 1 4.4.2' Effects of the Project on the Study Area 73 CHAPTER 5: POPULATION 74 5.1 Introduction 74 5.2 Demographic Trends 74 5.3 Changes in the Population during the Study Period 79 5.4 Population Effects due to the Project 80 5.4.1 Introduction 80 5.4.2 Population Effects of the Project 80 5.4.3 Magnitude of the Total Population Effects during the Study Period 85 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE CHAPTER 6: SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND HOUSING 87 6.1 Introduction 87 6.2 Settlement Patterns 87 6.3 Housing 89 6.3.1 Housing Prior to Construction of Arkansas Nuclear One Station 89 6.3.2 Changes in the Housing Stock during the Study Period 90 6.4 Effects of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station on Housing in the Study Area 94 6.4.1 Project-Related Demand for Housing 94 6.4.2 Effects on the Size of the Housing Stock due to Project-Related Demand 94 6.4.3 The Effects of Project-Related Demands on the Housing Market 99 6.5 Summary 99 CHAPTER 7: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES 101 7.1 Introduction 101 7.2 Government Structure 101 7.3 The County Budget during the Study Period 103 7.3.1 Revenues 103-7.3.2 Expenditures 107 7.4 Selected Public Services 110 7.4.1 Education 110 7.4.2 Transportation 118 7.4.3 Public Safety 119 7.4.4 Social Services 119 7.5 Summary 120 CHAPTER 8: SOCIAL STRUCTURE 121 8.1 Introduction 121 8.2 Social Structure at the Beginning of the Study Period (1969) 121 8.2.1 Identification of the Social Groups 121 8.2.2 Group Profiles 122 8.2.3 Interaction among Groups 132 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE 8.3 New Groups in the Study Area during the Study Period 136 8.4 Distribution of the Project Effects to the Groups 137 S.4.1 Economic Effects 137 8.4.2 Demographic Effects 137 8.4.3 Settlement Patterns and Housing Effects 140 8.4.4 Government and Public Services Effects 140 8.5 Changes in the Social Structure and the Role of the Effects of the Project 141 8.5.1 The Farmer Group 141 8.5.2 The Business Group 142 8.5.3 The Black Community 143 8.5.4 The Worker Group 143 8.6 Changes in the Relationships among the Groups 144 CHAPTER 9: PUBLIC RESPONSE 146 9.1 Introduction 146 4

9.2 Public Response during the Preconstruction Period 146 9.2.1 Project Announcement and Siting 146 9.2.2 Construction Permit Hearings, Unit 1 146 9.2.3 Evaluation of Public Response during the Preconstruction Period 149 9.3 Public Response during the Construction Period 149 9 3.1 Examination of Construction-RelatedIssues during Construction of Unit 1 150 1 9.3.2 Unit 2 Construction Permit Process and Unit 1 Operating Permit Hearing 151 9.3.3 Community Attitudes toward ANO,1972 151 9.4 Public Response during the Operations Period 152 9.4.1 The Effects of the Three Mile Island Accident 152 9.4.2 Distribution of Tax Revenue Issue 152 9.4.3 Emergency Response Plan Iswa 153 9 4.4 ANO Accident Issue 153 9.4.9 Evaluation of Public Response during the Operations Period 153 viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE CH APTER 10: EVALUATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF TIIE SOCIOECONOMIC l EFFECTS OF TIIE ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION 155 10.1 Introduction 155 10.2 Evaluation of the Effects by Group 155 10.2.1 The Farmer Group 155 10.2.2 The Black Community 157 10.2.3 The Business Group 159 10.2.4 The Worker Group 162 10.3 Significance of the Plant 164 BIBLIOGRAPHY 167 PERSON AL COMMUNIC ATIONS 176 a

iX

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 4 NUMBER TITLE NUMBER 1-1 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post-Licensing Study, Case Study Sites 3 i

1-2 Case Study Organization 5 2-1 Location of Arkansas Nuclear One 12.

2-2 Arkansas Power and Light Company Service Area 14 2-3 Average Daily Construction Work Force, Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2,1969-1979, Annual Average Work Force 21

! 3-1 Study Region: Johnson, Pope, Logan and Yell Counties, Arkansas 34 3-2 Arkansas Nuclear One Study Area: Pope County,

! Arkansas 43 4-1 Estimation of Project-Related Employment and Income Effects 57 i

l i

I X

l l

i '

LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE NUMBER TITLE NUMBER 2-1 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Average Annual Con-

struction Work Force, 1969-1979 20

! 2-2 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Work Stoppages,

! 1971-1976 23 l

, 2-3 Arkansas Nuclear One Station-Unit 1, Average Annual Operating Costs, 1974-1977 24 j 2-4 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Average Annual Opera-

tions Work Force, 1972-1980 26 2-5 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Assessed Valuation and Taxes Paid to Pope County, 1968-1977 28 2-6 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Chronology of Major Events, 1967-1980 32 r 3-1 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Direct Basic Workers l By Place of Residence,1974 and 1978 39 l

3-2 Arkansas Nuci,ar One Station, Summary of Direct Pro-ject Effects, 1974-1978 44 4-1 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Employment by Place of Residence, Pope County, Arkansas, 1940,1950,1960, 1970 50 j

4 4-2 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Employment by Place of Work by Industrial Sector, Pope County, Arkansas, 1969-1978 52 4-3 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Total Labor and Proprietors' Income by Place of Work, Net Labor and Proprietors' Income by Place of Work and Place of Residence, Personal Income by Place of Residence and Per Capita Personal Income, Pope County, Arkansas, 1969-1978 54 4-4 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Direct Basic Employment and Income by Place of Work, Pope County, Arkansas, 1969-1978 59 4-5 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Direct Basic Employment and Income by Place of Residence, Pope Ccunty, Arkansas, 1969-1978 60 4-6 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Estimated Indicact Basic Employment and Income, Pope County, Arkansas, 1969-1978 62 xi

LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE NUMBER TITLE NUMBER 4-7 Arkc.nsas Nuclear One Station, "Other" Basic Employ-ment and Income, 1969-1977 65 4-8 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Total Project-Related basic Employment and Income in the Study Area,1977 66 4-9 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Distribution of Project-Related Basic Workers and Income and Weighting Factors among Nonmovers, Movers, and Daily Long-Distance Commuters 69 4-10 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Effective Basic Income and Nonbasic Employment and Income by Place of Work, Pope County, 1969-1978 70 4-11 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Total Employment and Income due to the Project, Study Area, 1969-1978 72 5-1 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Population of Pope County, 1900-1977 75 5-2 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Components of Population Change, Pope County and State of Arkansas, 1960-1970 and 1970-1977 77 5-3 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Project-Related Employ-ment by Worker Category, Study Area,1977 82 5-4 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Population In-Migration due to the Project, Pope County,1977 83 5-5 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Population Effects, Pope County, 1969-1978 86 6-1 Number of Dwelling Units, Pope County and Russellville, 1970-1978 91 6-2 Number of Dwelling Units by Type of Structure, Russell-ville, Arkansas, 1970-1977 92 ,

6-3 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Estimated Project-Related Housing Demand, Study Area, 1969-1978 95 6-4 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Estimated Project-Related Housing Demand, Russellville, 1969-1978 96 xii

LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE NUMBER TITLE NUMBER 7-1 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Assessed Valuation, Taxes Paid, and Total County Assessed Valuation, 1968-1977 105 7-2 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Project Revenue Impact To Russellville School District 106 l

7-3 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Expenditures by Major Function for Pope County, 1969-1977 108 l.

7-4 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, City of Russellville Expenditures, 1972-1977 , 111 7-5 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Revenue Impact, Pope County,1977 112 7-6 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Revenue to Russellville Public Schools 113 7-7 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Russellville School District Revenues, 1968-1977 115 7-8 Summary-Pope County Education, Average Daily Atten-dance, Expense, Capital Outlay, Teachers, and Salary 1966-1977 117 8-1 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Project-Related Employ-ment by Worker Category, Study Area,1977 138 i

( 8-2 Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Estimated Employment

! Effects, Pope County, Arkansas, Study Area Residents, 1977 139 1

~s Xiii

NRC POST-LICENSING STUDY NRC Project Coordinators:

Donald Cleary Michael Kaltman Clark Prichard Project Director:

James A. Chalmers, Mountain West Research, Inc.

Research Team:

Pamela A. Bergmann, Mountain West Research, Inc.

Kristi Branch, Mountain West Research, Inc.

David Pijawka, Mountain West Research, Inc.

Cynthia Flynn, Social Impact Research, Inc.

James Flynn, Social Impact Research, Inc.

Report Production:

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

Jeffrey Fairman O.

XV

i CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 The NRC Post-Licensing Studies This report-the case study of the Arkansas Nuclear Station One, located in Pope County, Arkan7as-is one of a series of reports that are being prepared as part of the NRC Post-Licensing Studies. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the objectives of the NRC Post-Licensing Studies, the major components of the studies, and the relationship of research concerning Three Mile Island to the overall study plan, and the organization of this case study report.

1.1.1 Objectives of the Post-Licensing Studies i

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

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

lear facility in or near their communities.

After 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 knov' what combination of site project, or other circumstantial determinants appears to be respon-3 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 socioeconomic-assessment process. The central question is whether there are assessment methods currently available that could have been used to foresee the most significant of the socioeconomic effects associated with the nuclear plant. Based on the answer to this question, recommendations will be developed with respect to the assessment methods that can most appropriately be applied to anticipate the effects of the construction and operation of nuclear generating stations.

1.1.2 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 I

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 I

methods would have had in anticipating the most significant effects of the twelve 2

~

e ic u

L t

i S

t f y nd f r "

no i

- r n io att l

iP C u lso S N, IB lei h a c _

Mae r e

N eP v

7 e i O r R I h L la o S k T

o S o ts s I

M C o - C y

r 0

0 M =

O I

C s u

Y p m R Y O D T U S ( s a

s A T E n L S T a k

U I r

G S A 8

_ E G ,

N Y k R I

\

. S D N U \1 R E T A C S

_. E I L L

_ C -

C U S T A

_ N S C O

S P E

T 7

A T

S D

E TI N

U N

1 1

E R {

U G -_

o c

I -

e F S n o o loy c bn n

o aa R iD C 35

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

1.1.3 Three Mile Island Since Three Mile Island was one of the case-study sites, the scope of the Post-Licensing Studies was expanded to include an analysis of the social and economic effects of the accident on the residents of south-central Pennsylvania. Because a reliable data base was necessary to support this effort, the NRC Telephone Survey of 1,500 households was conducted in late 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 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 indicat.c the significance of those effects to the individuals and groups affected. Each report contains j ten chapters, the c.ontents of which are summarized in Figure 1-2.

4 4

CH A PTliR 1 1NTDtJOUCTION if CILAPTER 2 s OVERVI1M AND DESChilTitd Cr THE l>GJICT if CILAPTER 3:

IDLHTIFICATION OF THE STUDY AptA

Description of the Study begion

Distribution of Workers, Furchases, and Tases eselection o f the StuJy Area i t _

t t CHAPTER 4s CHAPTER $s CitAl*FER 6: CnApTLR 7, EFFt' CTS ON THE STUDY AREA IrONOMY DEfe%RAPHIC ITFECTS IN Dit STUDY ABEA LFIECTS OH STUDY AREA EFFECTS ON STUDY ASEA e Econmac History of the Study Area eDesegraphic Trends

*

Background % eBeckground

+9ecent Changes in the Economy specent Changes in the ropulation y

Changes in Settlement Patterne

Changes in Goverrunent and eEppicp ent and Income Effecta due

Population Effecto due to the Project and Housing Segacted Pubtle Services to the Project

. Effects on Settlement Patterne .Erfects on Covernment and and Housing due to the Project Public Services due to Propst I

s CILAPTER 8:

ETFECTS ON THE SOCIAL STRUCTUkE IN THE STUDY ASEA

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

eBackground of Croups and Group Interrelationships -

eDistribution of Effects CHAPTER 9a PUBLIC DESIONSE

Changes in Social Structure

Response during Pre-Construction, Construction, and Operation

Effects of Socioeconosnic Consequences CHAliER 10s in the Study Area on Public tesponse

SUMMARY

AND cot 4CLUSICNS

Effects of Public Response on Groups

Survnary of Socioeconomic Ef f ects in the Study Area of the Project FICURE l-2. Case Study Organization . Evaluation or the Effects by croupe g in the Study Area

Significance of the Effects

Overall Evaluation of the Project

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

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

The next four chapters trace the effects of the plant on the study area economy, on the size and composition of the area's population, on housing and settlement patterns in the study area, and on government and the provision of public services in the study area. There are several organizing principles used to present this information. First, an attempt is made to describe conditions as they existed in the study area prior to the start of construction and as they changed from that time to the present. An explicit attempt is then made to identify that part of the change, or lack of change, due to construction I 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

I 1

due to the station can be determined as a residual. Using the second approach, the same 4 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 i from use of both approaches-control of other exogenous influences and identification of

! direct causal links to the plant. Where possible, both approaches are pursued in the case studies. In general, however, the social and economic changes that have taken place in

! the areas examined in this study over the ten- to fifteen-year period of investigation are I

so complex that the second general approach is relied upon more heavily than the first.

I 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 i

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 I 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 i

and industrial activity are also described.

l Chapter 7 summarizes the major consequences of the station and 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 localjurisdictions are then described. Finally, there is a discussion of the combined influence of changed revenues and changed levels of demand for public services on the provision of services in the study area. It was decided that these effects could be shown most clearly by focusing on a smaller number of important services rather than by trying to examine the provision of all public services in the study area. The services chosen are education, transportation, public safety, and social services.

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

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

Chapter 8 examines the social structure of the study area and the ways in which it has been affected by the construction and operation of the nuclear station. The social structure is defined by the groups that exist in the area, their principal characteristics, and their social, political, and economic interrelationships. The chapter begins by identi-fying a set of functional groups into which the study area population is divided. A profile of each group 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. The distribution of effects across groups provides explanatory information concerning the changes in group structure and characteristics and provides data for interpreting and understanding the group evaluations of the project.

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

First, it makes operational the concept of social structure so that its constituent parts '

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

8

Chapter 9 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. Unlike the previous five chapters of the case study, which focused on the effects of the nuclear station within the study area defined in Chapter 3, the analysis of public response is regional in scope. The principal sources of information concerning public response are the local and regional press, transcripts of hearings, and key informants.

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

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

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

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

i l

10

I CHAMER 2: OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2.1 Introduction An essential element in every impact assessment is a description of the impacting agent. The purpose of Chapter 2 is to provide an overview of the Arkansas Nuclear One power station and a sufficient description of the utility, the project site, and the project characteristics to support and orient the more detailed discussions and analyses of the subsequent chapters and to facilitate comparisons among the twelve case studies.

Consequently, this chapter presents information on the project's location, size, type, and site characteristics; the utility and other major factors involved with the project; the magnitude and duration of the construction effort; and the project's operating characteristics.

2.2 Location The Arkansas Nuclear One Station, owned by the Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L), is located on the north bank of Lake Dardanelle (an impoundment built along the Arkansas River) in Pope County, Arkansas. The site is 5 miles northwest of i

Russellville, the county seat (population approximately 14,000), and 2 miles from the town of London (population approximately 300). As shown in Figure 2-1, Little Rock, Arkansas, is located about 75 miles southeast of the nuclear power station. The plant is also 70 miles from Fort Smith and about 55 miles from Hot Springs, two important state population centers. An access road directly connects the project site to two major east-west state routes that are closely parallel. United States Highway 64 (U.S. 64), north of the plant's site, was the earliest east-west link between Fort Smith and Little Rock.

Interstate 40 (I-40), which also links these two urban centers, was nearing completion in the Russellville area at the time AP&L decided on the nuclear facility site. In addition, Arkansas State Highway 7, which runs in a north-south direction, is an important regional route linking the site to the smaller towns north of the Arkansas River and south to Hot Springs.

2.3 The Utility 2.3.1 Corporate Background The Arkansas Power anti Light Company (AP&L) is a subsidiary of Middle South Utilities, a utility holding company which supplies electricity to most of Arkansas, southeastern Missouri, eastern Louisiana, and western Mississippi. The company was 11

FIGURE 2-1. LOCATION OF ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE Missouri (n gg g

V

~~-

t Fayetteville 23 9,

71 7 67

- 64 l

ke E 22 Russellville 64 I Dardanelle Fort Smitqi 64 4

g Little Rock =

j Z 32 71 #o, O Hot Springs *o, 70

'bei.

I Pine Bluff

_j O, c

67 E'

9 k0M 10 20 30 40 50 Miles M M N

12

founded in 1913 as a small system between Malvern and Arkadelphia, Arkansas. It has expanded to become Arkansas' largest supplier of electrical energy, and today provides electric power service to 62 of the 75 counties in the state--including 250 incorporated municipalities. According to data gathered from AP&L and the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), electricity is sold wholesale to eight municipalities and to nine rural electric cooperatives within the state. (AEC,1973; AP&L,1970-1978.)

Arkansas Power and Light's electric production and transmission are integrated with and operated as part of the Middle South Utilities' system, which services over 1.5 million customers in three states. Approximately 30 percent of these customers are supported by AP&L. (Alexander, personal communication,1981.)

Between the late 1920s and early 1970s, the company used natural gas to fuel its plants. Ilowever, in the mid-1960s, it decided to diversify the system in order to assure adequate fuel sources in the future. The decision to construct the Arkansas Nuclear One Station came about as a result of this need for diversification. AP&L had long been interested in nuclear power and, in 1968, in concert with sixteen other utilities, set up a

$25 million experimental nuclear reactor near Fayetteville, Arkansas-the Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor. In addition, AP&L sponsored nuclear research and scholarship programs at regional universities. ( Alexander, personal communication,1980:

Whalen, personal communication,1980; Arkansas Power and Light, 1967-1977.)

It was therefore not surprising when, in April 1967, AP&L announced its decision to construct the Arkansas Nuclear One Station. T3y 1980, both Unit 1 (ANO-1) and Unit 2 (ANO-2) of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station were in full operation, although they remained the only nuclear units within the AP&L system.

2.3.2 Service Area As shown in Figure 2-2, AP&L services about seventy-five percent of the land area of the State of Arkansas, including tha selling of electricity to a number of small companies and cooperatives within the state. In 1965, AP&L served 336 thousand customers: in 1970 it served 370 thousand. Dv 1975, the number of customers in the system had increased to 429 thousand, an increase of about 28 percent over 1970. (AP& L 1965,1970, and 1975.) In 1981, there were about 500 thousand electrical customers in AP& L's service area. (Arkansas Power and Light, 1967-1977.)

11

FIGURE 2 2. ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COiAPANY SERVICE AREA ,

\

.....: f H arrison t - l ij: !i!%5:

m .-

a T.

m ...... . . . . . .

,1k ii AR K ANSAS:i . . . . .

. ....:i searcy i:

, NUCLEAR..ON.E;il ii($9

se.::

iii:5

j.h.Little

Rock .;.

is

.. :d

' ". 9~~

i

..... iiHot Springli ii!$.I!'

...:{iiine'EIbIII

!EEN;

ii$).I 5;'s:

i:iss;

!.i.l.

. ...i'$idor'a2511

.ii$y 0 75 Miles C Service Area y

2.3.3 Generating Capacity and Production In 1973, when construction of ANO-1 was nearing completion, the generating capability of AP&L was estimated to be 2,104 Mw based on the output of seven fossil-fueled generating stations (12 units). The nuclear unit was estimated to be able to provide 836 Mw, or an additional 40 percent of the existing capacity of the system.

( AP& L,1976.) In 1980, the total AP&L system capability was estimated to be 4,394 Mw, of which ANO-1 and ANO-2 provided 1,694 Mw, or about 38 percent of the system's capability (AP&L, personal communication,1980).

In 1967, when ANO-1 was announced, AP&L generated 4,118 million kwh. In 1975, with commercial operation of ANO-1, the total generating output was estimated to be 9,933 million kwh. Of this net output, gas- and oil-fired plants contributed 4,887 million kwh (nuclear--4,874, and hydro-172). In 1977, net generated output increased to 12,643 million kwh, of which nuclear sources contributed 40.2 percent. ( A P& L,1970-1980.)

2.4 The Project 2.4.1 The Project Site The Arkansas Nuclear One Station is located on a 1,164 acre site situated on a l

peninsula on the northern bank of Lake Dardanelle. Of the 1,164 acres,150 acres include facilities associated with the reactor units while the remaining acreage indudes the area within the exclusion zone (a 65-mile radius). Prior to the building of the nuclear facility, the land was used primarily for marginal farming and livestock. The number of structures relocated from the site amounted to 22 buildings and included 55 people.

I Other than a few small towns, the area around the nuclear facility is rural in character. The land use in the vicinity of the nuclear f acility is primarily a forest resource, but there are limited dairy, agriculture, and recreation uses (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1976). The land is largely undeveloped and, within a ten-mile radius of tne site, less than one percent is under cultivation. In addition to the use of the area for pasture and for marginal f arm operation, the completion of the Dardanelle Reservoir in 1966 resulted in the development of numerous water-based recreational uses. Lake Dardanelle, 51 miles long with a surface area of 36,600 acres, is one of seventeen impoundments built along the Arkansas River to provide a navigable channel.

The use of Lake Dardanelle for recremtional purposes contributes to an alreadv large seasonal tourist population in the area. Immediately adjacent to the plant site, the Corps 15

of Engineers has constructed a recreational facility including boat launch ramps, picnic <

areas, and campgrounds. (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,1973a.)

The accessibility of transportation was a very important consideration in the decision to construct the nuclear facility near Russellville. By 1964, construction to make the Arkansas River navigable was completed, enabling the transport of major facility components to be shipped by barge and unloaded on site. In addition, the interstate highway system near Russellville was close to completion at the time AP&L decided on the site. A nearby rail line was an added incentive, and a rail spur was eventually extended to the site. (Alexander, personal communication,1981; Burrough, personal communication,1980; Deaton, personal communication,1981.)

Niajor f actors considered for siting of the facility included: (1) a foundation built on solid bedrock; (2) ample cooling availability by the Dardanelle Reservoir; (3) proximity to existing transmission lines; (4) availability of navigable water for barge transporation; (5) accessibility of road and rail transportation; (6) presence of a good labor pool in the area: and (7) a local community receptive to the project. The site was selected following the utility's evaluation of fourteen alternative sites along the Arkansas and White Rivers. (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,1973a.)

2.4.2 The Plant The Arkansas Nuclear One Station consists of two pressurized light-water reactors. An operating license was issued for ANO-1 on 5 hiay 1974, and three months later the reactor went critical. Although ANO-2 went critical in December 1978, it did not begin commercial operation until Starch 1980. For ANO-1, the reactor supplier was Babcock and Wilcox, and the engineer contractor was Bechtel Engineering. Combustion engineering was the system design for ANO-1, and Bechtel Corporation provided the construction services.

The intake and discharge system for heat dissipation is based on water taken from Lake Dardanelle. The turbine condenser for ANO-1 is cooled by a once-through circulating water system. Water flow requirements range from 1,707 c.f.s. imder normal conditions to 1,738 c.f.s. under maximum capacity situations. The cooling system for ANO-2 depends on the use of a closed circulating water system with a natural-draf t cooling tower. (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1973a: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1977b.)

16

Arkans.a Power and Light required five transmission lines to distribute electricity from the Arkansas Nuclear One Station (four lines for ANO-1 and one line for ANO-2).

Altogether, approximately 3,700 acres of rights-of-way were developed for the transmission lines. Two 500 kV lines connected westward to the vicinity of Fort Smith, a distance of about 70 miles, for power exchanges with the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company. Another 500 kV line traversed Yell, Perry, and Pulaski counties not only to provide a power exchange for local sales, but also to connect interchanges with the TVA. The remaining ANO-1 line improved the capacity of the Russellville and Morrilton local areas. In order to increase the capacity in the Little Rock and Conway areas, ANO-Z distributed energy from an additional 92-mile line. (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,1973b.)

2.5 Construction 2.5.1 Announcement On 5 April 1967, ANO-1 was announced, and the application for construction and operation of a nuclear facility was submitted seven months later on 20 November 1967.

ANO-1 was originally estimated to cost $140 million and to be commercially operating in late 1972. The construction project was also to be the largest single project in the history of Arkansas. AP&L estimated that building ANO-1 would necessitate a peak work force of 500 workers, providing $14 million worth of local contracts and material purchases. (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,1973a.)

The construction of ANO-2 was announced 21 May 1970, and the application for a construction permit was filed on 17 September 1970. The utility originally anticipated that ANO-2 would be in full power operation in 1976 and would cost an estimated $182.7 million. (Enos, personal communication,1981.)

2.5.2 Schedule and Cost Originally estimated to cost $140 million, ANO-1 actually cost $245 million. The original estimate for ANO-Z was $182.7 million, but the actual cost totaled $526 million. The initial ANO-Z estimate was based on the estimated cost of ANO-1 on the assumption that design demands between the two would not be significantly different.

Commercial operation of ANO-2 was scheduled to commence in December 1975. The delay in the construction permit was due to re-evaluation of AP&L's environmental impact statement as a result of implementation of the National Environmental Policy 17

Act (NEPA). This delay created problems in project scheduling and in site preparation work which had begun prior to the issuance of the construction permit.

Financing for ANO-1 was arranged through the sale of bonds and common and preferred stocks, as well as through bank loans. There were no recognizable financing problems of ANO-1 that resulted in delays in the permit application or the construction schedule. The costs of ANO-Z were financed through a deferred-payment plan that resulted in an identifiable, but not significant, cost increase. In order to finance the ANO-2 project, work was cut back on construction of AP&L's non-naclear plants, White i

Bluff One and Two. In addition, part of the plan to secure construction funds included an arrangement to sell and then lease back the nuclear fuel for ANO-1. (Alexander, personal communication, 1981; Enos, personal communication, 1981; Smith, personal communication,1981.)

According to the utility, significant cost increases resulted from design modifications and additions required because of changes in safety standards instituted by the AEC and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). AP&L estimated that design changes, necessitated by regulatory requirements, resulted in a 64 percent increase over the original plant cost estimate. Nonregulatory costs were estimated to have increased the total cost of construction of ANO-Z by 36 percent. (Cavanaugh, personal communication,1980.)

Although ANO-1 was scheduled to go into commercial operation in late 1972, operation did not commence until 1974. Full power operation for ANO-2 was scheduled for late 1976, but the reactor did not go critical until December 1978; commercial operation did not begin until March 1980. This delay was caused by equipment problem s. During the start-up tests, problems were experienced with the secondary safety valves and the diesel generators. (AP&L, personal communication,1980.)

The series of regulations developed by the NRC following the Three Mile Island ,

(TMD accident affected the costs of both units. Approximately $15 million was spent on both units for design retrofittina, and AP&L estimated that an additional $30 million would be required. These cost estimates included a 65-thousand-square-foot technical support center for contingency situations. This center was scheduled for completion in May 1981. (Enos, personal communication,19 '1.)

18

2.5.3 hork Force Construction of ANO-1 began in 1968 with site preparation efforts, but important construction efforts did not commence until April 1969. In May 1974, ANO-1 was completed. Construction of ANO-2 began in August 1971 and was completed in 1978.

Between 1969 and 1972, the average annual number of workers on ANO-1 increased at a steady rate; from 215 skilled craf t workers in 1969 to 870 workers in 1972. (Horn, personal communication,1981.)

The decline in construction employment as ANO-1 neared completion in 1973 was balanced by an increase in construction activity on ANO-2. The peak construction period for ANO-Z occurred in 1974 with 1,100 workers. The number of average annual workers remained relatively steady between 1974 and 1977, but dropped markedly in 1978 (a decline of more than 400 workers over 1977) as construction activity was terminating. In 1979, there were 284 construction workers employed at the nuclear facility site. Table 2-1 shows the avetage annual construction work force for the Arkansas Nuclear One Station during the 1969 to 1979 period, and Figure 2-3 graphically displays this data.

It was common practice to hire construction workers from local unions. The pipefitters' union hall was located 55 miles away in Hot Springs, and many of the pipefitters commuted to the project site. Because the electricians' union hall was located in Fort Smith and the teamsters' union hall in Little Rock, members also commuted from these areas to the site. There were no special incentives or provisions provided by the utility for the work force vrith respect to housing, transportation, recreation, or training programs.

No information exists on the ethnic breakdown, educational level, or family size of the construction work force. Concerning the number of minority workers, data were available only for the 1978 work force, when minorities accounted for between 2 and 4 percent of the total. No tensions or conflicts were reported between minority and non-minority workers, nor between minority construction workers and the community.

According to the contractor, approximately 85 percent of the manual construction work force came from within Arkansas; the remainder came from surrounding states (e.g.,

Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi). (Horn, personal communication,1981.)

19

.- - . .- . . . . . . ~ . . - . . _ . .- . . - . _ . - . . - .

i i

TABLE 2-1 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION

- AVERAGE ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION WORK FORCE 1969-1979 i

Annual Average Work Force a i Year

! 1969 215 1970- 420 1971 669 4

1972 940 i 1973 828 1974 1,100 1975 928 s

1976 1,023 1977 1,089 1978 618 1979 284 1

i

~

"The annual average work force estimates include manual craf ts, non-manual personnel, and subcontractors.

l Source: Bechtel Power Corporation, Average Field Force, 1977-1980; Bechtel Power Corporation, Work Force Time Charts, 1979-1980.

I i

20

FIGURE 2-3 AVERAGE DAILY CONSTRUCTION WORK FORCE ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS 1 AND 2 1969-1979 ANNUAL AVERAGE WORK FORCE 1200--

1000-800-c Y

600 -

400 -

200 -

' ' ' i i i , , ,

0 i

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Year 21

2.5.4 Construction Experience There were no major problems in hiring the required number of construction workers. Although a few relocated from surrounding states, a sufficiently large labor pool was available within the local area. Prior to the announcement of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station, most of the construction had been completed on both Lake

]

Dardanelle and I-40. A large construction labor pool was thus already available in the area. Despite this, securing the necessary number of craft workers, especially pipefitter welders, was a problem. This had the potential for costly delay, but the contractor was able to hire additional welders at a later stage in construction to regain lost time.

Fif teen work stoppages occurred during construction of the nuclear facility, but they accounted for only 1.2 percent of the total person-hours expended. Table 2-2 documents these work stoppages, most of which were short-term and involved jurisdictional or wage-rate disputes between unions. According to the contractor, a number of these stoppages were illegal as they did not follow the process laid down to resolve labor disputes. In a few cases, the international unions were forced to take action and coerce the local unions to return to work. (Horn, personal communication, 1981.)

Interviews with AP&L personnel and Bechtel managers indicated that the Arkansas Nuclear One Station had fewer construction labor disputes than did other nuclear plants. Moreover, construction delays and problems in materials procurement were considered to be relatively minor. Further, total construction costs were comparable to other nuclear plants being constructed at the same time. Finally, a number of interviewers suggested that the work ethic among local construction workers was generally higher than at other nuclear plants. (Alexander, personal communication, 1981; Campbell, personal communication, 1981; Cavanaugh, personal communication, 1981; Deaton, personal communication,1981; Horn, personal communication,1981.)

2.6 Operations 2.6.1 Schedule and Costs Commercial operation of ANO-1 began in August 1974; ANO-2 began operation in l

March 1980. ANO-2 first went critical on 12 December 1978, but there was a 15-month 1

! delay between criticality and the commencement of operation. The average annual cost j of operating ANO-1 is shown in Table 2-3. In 1974, the first year of partial commercial j operation, annual operating costs amounted to $472.7 thousand. In 1975, the first full i

22

TABLE Z-2 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION WORK STOPPAGES 1971-1976 Person-Hours Date Craft Cause Lost 2/71 Boilermakers Jurisdictional 620 6/72 All Economic 6,400 8/73 Electricians Grievance 1,950 8/73 All Jurisdictional 5,700 9/73 Carpenters Jurisdictional 270 2/74 Pipefitters, Electricians, Carpenters and Millwrights Grievance 5,540 4/74 Carpenters Economic 2,650 5/74 All 3rd Party 7,820 5/74 All Economic 36,750 7/74 Carpenters Jurisdictional 330 7/74 Pipefitters Grievance . 4,950 11/74 Pipefitters Grievance 4,030 2/75 All Economic 34,940 S/75 All Jurisdictional 4,090 5/76 Laborers / Cement Finishers Economic 790 Source: AP&L, personal communication,1979.

23

TABLE Z-3 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION-UNIT 1 AVERAGE ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS 1974-1977 Category 1974 1975 1976 1977 Operation, Supervision $426,828 $778,310 $1,002,078 and Engineering Fuel $472,641 12,720,404 9,563,075 12,273,703 Coolants and Water 318,845 411,189 446,497 Steam Expenses 565,086 731,824 835,791 Steam from Other 33 5 Sources l Electric Expenses 336,793 269,279 244,870 Miscellaneous 53 881,648 1,446,220 1,406,161 Rents 1,021

% Maintenance Total 61 1,578,711 2,377,740 4,438,621 TOTAL $472,755 $16,829,336 $15,577,670 $20,647,726 Source: AP&L, personal communication,1979 and 1980.

I year of operation, the costs of operation increased to $16.8 million. Of this, labor accounted for $426.8 thousand, and fuel accounted for $12.7 million.

2.6.2 Operations Phase Work Force Although ANO-1 did not commence commercial operation until late 1974, '

operations personnel were first assigned to the Arkansas Nuclear One Station in 1972. In that year, 86 operations personnel were employed. Personnel requirements for plant operation increased over the life of the project. In 1974, when ANO-1 began commercial operation, there were 138 operations-related employees. In 1978, with the beginning of ANO-2 operation, an estimated 277 employees were working on both units. In 1980, the size of the work force increased to 352. This work force included contracted utility employees and security personnel.

These figures do not account for the temporary refueling and repair personnel who were an integral part of the plant's operation. Bechtel, the prime construction contractor, had a general services contract with AP&L for maintenance, modifications, and piecemeal construction. Historically, during non-outage conditions Bechtel employed an average of 110 persons on a yearly basis for modification and maintenance. During periods of refueling, which lasted approximately six weeks, an additional 180 persons were required. Therefore, during refueling, AP&L employed 290 people over and above its regular operations personnel. During the study period, ANO-1 experienced four refueling outages. Because of TMI related modifications, the 1980 outage required an unusually large work force and retrofitting effort. (AP&L, personal communication, 1980.) Table 2-4 shows the average annual operations work force. These include regular operations personnel employed by the utility, the regular maintenance / repair contracted employees, and supplemental refueling people estimated on the basis of annual employment equivalence.

2.6.3 Operating Phase Experience In 1975, the first full year of commercial operation, ANO-1 was available 76.7 percent of the time for power generation; in 1976 this dropped to an average of 56.6 percent. This decline was a reflection of a 3-month shutdown in 1976 resulting from design problems in the reactor vessel surveillance system. Through 1977 and 1978, the ANO-1 availability factor exceeded 70 percent. Between 1974 and 1981, ANO-1 produced at an average annual rate in excess of 66 percent. This figure excludes the 1976 shutdown. In 1978, ANO-1 produced 69.9 percent, which compared to an average of 61.7 percent for all nuclear-fueled commercial plants in the United States. (Nucleonics 25 1

TABLE 2-4 ,

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION AVERAGE ANNUAL OPERATIONS WORK FORCEa 1972-1980 Year Average Annual Daily Employment 1972 196 1973 222 1974 248 1975 293 1976 324 1977 356 1978 387 1979 404 1980 462

^ Full-time utility employees, full-time contracted maintenance personnel, and refueling work force adjusted to full-time annual equivalents.

Source: AP&L, personal communications, 1979 and 1980; Bechtel Power Corporation, personal communications,1980.

26

Week, 25 January 1979:18.) In 1979, the ANO-1 capacity factor dropped to 45.4 percent; by 1980 it had risen to 59.7 percent.

Analysis of ANO-1 shutdowns showed a consistent pattern. In 1975, the unit was shut down a total of 1,989 accountable hours. Of this,1,168 hours0.00194 days 0.0467 hours 2.777778e-4 weeks 6.3924e-5 months were devoted to maintenance. Approximately 60 percent of recorded shutdown time resulted from minor equipment failure, and repairs took a relatively short time. In sum, a total of 22 shutdowns were recorded in 1975.

In 1976, AP&L identified a total of 12 shutdowns, amounting to 3,874 hours0.0101 days 0.243 hours 0.00145 weeks 3.32557e-4 months . Of these hours, 2,220 resulted from a failure in the surveillance specimen holder tubes. In addition, two shaft-seal failures resulted in easily repaired leaks. Nevertheleas, shutdown time for repairs totaled 892 hours0.0103 days 0.248 hours 0.00147 weeks 3.39406e-4 months . (Arkansas Power and Light, personal communication,1981.)

Shutdown time in 1977 totaled 1,709 hours0.00821 days 0.197 hours 0.00117 weeks 2.697745e-4 months , of which 1,611 hours0.00707 days 0.17 hours 0.00101 weeks 2.324855e-4 months were for normal.

refueling operations. 'n 1978, 8 shutdowns were recorded for a total of 2,053 hours6.134259e-4 days 0.0147 hours 8.763227e-5 weeks 2.01665e-5 months . Of these, two shutdowns were the result of pipe leaks.

Three months after com 1ercial operation began, repairs to two leaks in the containment building spray pump station were reported. In 1976, the NRC stated that it considered the Arkansas Nuclear One Station to have the worst operating record of any two-year-old plant. This reflected a concern over the 3-month shutdown in 1976 which had resulted from problems in the design of the reactor vessel surveillance system.

Furthermore, in 1978 the NRC investigated AP&L's delay in reporting a leak in the reactor coolant pump seal. AP&L was ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing, as the leak was not sufficient to exceed safety requirements. (Daily Courier Democrat,1976 and 1978.)

2.7 Taxes Property tax was the principal source of revenue for Arkansas counties and municipalities, and the legal ratin of assessment was 20 percent applied to the true market value of real property. Pope County received the bulk of the taxes paid by AP&L for the Arkansas Nuclear One Station. Table 2-5 shows AP&L's annual tax payments to Pope County for the Arkansas Nuclear One Station during the 1968 to 1977 period. In 1970, with construction underway, the Arkansas Nuclear One Station paid $242 thousand in taxes. In 1974, with commercial operation of ANO-1 underway, Pope County received 27

TABLE 2-5 ,

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION ASSESSED VALUATION AND TAXES PAID TO POPE COUNTY 1968-1977 Percent ANO Pope County ANO of County Taxes Assessed Assessed Assessed Paid Valuation Valuation Valuation Millage ANO 1968 $17,100,000 $930,053 5.4 .057 $53,093 1969 23,054,000 1,244,578 5.4 .064 79,653 1970 27,295,000 3,784,109 13.9 .064 242,183 1971 34,978,000 10,103,531 28.9 .064 646,626 1972 52,607,000 25,817,219 49.1 .064 1,652,302 1973 67,934,000 39,398,391 58.0 .064 2,521,497 1974 91,571,000 64,931,593 70.9 .059 3,830,964 1975 118,717,000 85,744,525 72.2 .059 5,059,104 1976 136,640,000 100,589,373 73.6 .059 5,934,773 1977 173,096,925 114,791,441 66.3 .059 6,772,695 Source: AP&L, personal communications,1980 and 1981.

28

$3.8 million in taxes from AP&L. This increased to $7.6 million in 1978 when ANO-2 came on line. A 50-mill rate was assigned to the assessed valuation of the facility for education revenues within the Russellville School District, one of five school districts within Pope County. About 80 percent of the local taxes were paid by the utility to the Russellville School District.

2.8 Corporate / Community Programs 2.8.1 Emergency Planning Detailed procedures for the implementation of an emergency plan were developed as reflected in the submission of the Emergency Plan as part of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FS AR) in December 1972. The emergency response structure consisted of an on-site organization, an off-site organization, and the local, state, and federal agencies with whom AP&L had support arrangements.

The on-site organization was composed of a number of emergency response teams: radiation, fire, medical, evacuation, and re-entry. The of f-site emergency group was responsible for assisting outside government agencies.

The local agencies participating in contingency arrangements included the Russellville Fire Department, the county sheriff's departments in Pope, Yell, Johnson, and Logan counties, and a Russellville medical clinic. The Russellville Fire Department personnel would periodically visit the Arkansas Nuclear One Station to monitor fire-fighting equipment. In addition, ten members of the department would be trained in the operation of radiological monitors. The Russellville Fire Department also would arrange for additional manpower and equipment from other regional cities. The Russellville Sherif f's Department would aid in traffic control, emergency transportation, communications, and evacuations. The Pope County Sheriff's Department would coordinate police activities in case of an emergency of regional magnitude. (Arkansas Nuclear One Emergency Plan,1975.)

AP&L retained the Millard-IIenry Clinic in Russellville to provide medical consultants for the Arkansas Nuclear One Station, and two of its physicians received training in treating radiation exposure. Charges for the training of medical people and for participation in emergency drills were paid by AP&L. The Millard-Henry Clinic also provided physicians for consultation in preparing and updating plans and procedures for emergencies. In addition, arrangements were made with St. Mary's llospital to treat 29

contaminated individuals. In preparation for such events, the hospital would maintain emergency supplies. The hospital would also participate in emergency drills and would provide personnel for consultation in preparing plans for medical emergencies. The Pope County Ambulance Service would use special procedures and equipment to treat potentially contaminated individuals. (Arkansas Power and Light, emergency plan, n.d.;

Enos, personal communication,1981.)

The Pope County Civil Defense organization would train personnel in the use of radiation-monitoring instruments, rescue equipment, and communication systems. It l would also coordinate with the local government in providing for evacuation of the local population and in providing shelter for them. In addition, Pope County developed a Radiological Emergency Response Plan. (Enos, personal communication, 1981.) The State of Arkansas also developed a Radiological Response Plan. The Arkansas State Board of Health would be responsible for evaluating a radiological incident and recommending mitigating actions to the relevant government groups. This agency would conduct training programs for emergency response groups involved with radiological hazards.

AP&L actively responded to the long-term recommendations for emergency planning to conform to the NRC's post-Three Mile Island requirements (AP&L, personal communication, 1980). After the TMI accident, two new emergency plans were developed involving the utility and the four counties around the Arkansas Nuclear One Station. It was anticipated that the official plan would be implemented in April 1981. In addition to the efforts aimed at developing and implementing a regional contingency plan, the utility supported legislation for an Arkansas nuclear planning and response program and provided funding for salaries of a 9-person nuclear planning board located in Russellville. Furthermore, during 1980, AP&L provided $200,000 in radio equipment for Pope County's civil defense organizations and installed an early warning system as required by the NRC. Of particular importance was the of f-site " emergency technical support center." This $15 million center was to be located 0.6 miles north of the plant and was scheduled for completion in May 1981. (Enos, personal communication,1981.)

2.9 Chronology of Major Events ANO-1 was announced on 5 April 1967, and the application Mr construction and operation was submitted to the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) on 20 November 1967. In its Safety Evaluation Report of 1 October 1968, the AEC regulatory staf f reported the results of a review prior to construction. The public hearing before 30

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board took place on 30 October 1968, and a provisional construction permit was subsequently issued on 6 December 1968.

On 14 April 1971, AP&L applied for an operating license and also filed the FSAR as a prerequisite to obtaining an operating license. Two months later, on 14 June 1971, the Environmental Report was submitted to the NRC, and comments were requested from state and local agencies. Supplements to this report were issued a number of times, the latest being in October 1972. By August 1972, construction on ANO-1 was about 85 percent complete. It was not until June 1973 that the AEC issued the Safety Evaluation Report; the operating license was awarded on 7.1 May 1974. The reactor became

" critical" on 6 August 1974, approximately one year later than the utility had originally anticipated.

The construction of ANO-Z was announced 21 May 1970, and the application for a construction permit was filed on 17 September 1970. The Environmental Report (construction permit stage) was submitted at the same time. Revisions to this report were received by the AEC on 20 December 1971. The AEC's final environmental statement, relating to the issuance of a construction permit for ANO-2, was issued on 29 September 1972 and took into account AP&L's Environmental Report, comments from state and federal agencies, and the safety evaluation. The construction permit was awarded on 6 December 1972. While construction on ANO-Z was 90 percent completed by November 1977, it was not until 9 July 1978 that the operating license was awarded.

The chronology of the major events for the Arkansas Nuclear One Station is shown in Table 2-6.

11

TABLE 2-6 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS 1967-1980 Date Event 5 April 1967 Announcement of ANO-1 20 November 1967 Application for Construction Permit-ANO-1 30 October 1968 Construction Permit Public Hearing-ANO-1 21 May 1970 Announcement of ANO-2 17 September 1970 Application for Construction Permit-ANO-2 6 December 1970 Issuance of Construction Permit-ANO-1 14 April 1971 Application for Operating License-ANO-1 6 December 1972 Issuance of Construction Permit--ANO-2 21 May 1974 Issuance of Operating License-ANO-1 6 August 1974 ANO-1 rea hes criticality 6 August 1974 ANO-1 commences commercial operation 9 July 1978 Issuance of Operating License--ANO-2 12 December 1978 ANO-Z reaches criticality 2 March 1980 ANO-2 commences commercial operation ,

I i

l l

32

CHAPTER 3: DISTRIBUTION OF DIRECT PROJECT EFFECTS AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE STUDY AREA 3.1 Introduction

, This chapter serves as a transition between the focus on the Arkansas Nuclear One Station 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 Arkansas Nuclear One Station and the distribution of direct project effects-jobs, workers, purchases, and tax payments-within that region. The secand is to identify the area in which the consequences of the direct project effects will be studied in detail-the study area.

There were two major considerations in selecting the study area: the direct effects of the project must have been great enough to identify and study, and the area must correspond, as much as possible, to the spatial boundaries of functional social and economic systems that operate in the region.

The identification and selection of the study area was an important element in the overall case study methodology. The minor civil divisions (or municipal units) and counties in the region that received appreciable direct project effects were identified.

Based on a consideration of the relationships between these units and the distribution of jobs, workers, purchases, and tax payments among those spatial units, a study area was derived.

3.2 The Region 3.2.1 Description of the Region The preliminary site visit examined a multicounty region around the Arkansas Nuclear One Station and is described in the Arkansas Nuclear One-Units 1 and 2:

Preliminary Site Report (Pijawka,1979). The distribution of direct project effects was calculated for two periods, the construction peak (1974) and a year of full-time commercial operation (1978). The direct effects resulting during these representative periods were examined in terms of their scope, magnitude, and distribution. These effects were then compared to social and economic structures of the four-county region and served as the basis for selecting the study area. The preliminary study of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station examined the four counties in Arkansas-Johnson, Pope, Logan, and Yell-shown in Figure 3-1. Approximately in the center of the four-county 13

1 FIGURE 3-1. STUDY REGION: JOHNSON, POPE, LOGAN AND YELL COUNTIES, ARKANSAS E

7 JOHNSON on ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE Dardanelle Russelville

^

Dardanelle m ,

N YELL I

l i

{0 N

5 10 20 30 40 Miles i

34

region, the nuclear power plant is located in Pope County on the Arkansas River, midway l between Little Rock and Fort Smith.

The urban / rural split in the population is an indicator of the region's rural character. In 1970, when 73.5 percent of the United States population was urban, only 50 percent of the Arkansas population lived in urban areas. The study region experienced an even smaller proportion of urban population than that of the state: Yell County-23.2 percent, Johnson County--33.9 percent, Logan County--41.0 percent, and Pope County-41.1 percent. The four counties comprising the study region are characterized as rural and sparsely populated. In 1970, while the population density for the United States was estimated to be 56.2 persons per square mile and that of Arkansas was 37.0 persons per square mile, the density for the four counties was smaller: Yell--15.3; Johnson--20.3; Logan-23.4; and Pope--35.2. (Arkansas Department of Local Services,1977d and 1977e; U.S. Department of Commerce,1970 and 1972.)

The region also had a large number of small rural communities of less than 1,000 people. In terms of spatial distribution, there was no major concentration of these towns. There were seven communities with populations totaling between one and five thousand persons. Russellville, the county seat of Pope County, had the largest population (approximately 12,000) in 1970. (Arkansas Department of Local Services, 1977e.)

All of the counties in the region experienced a population decline during the 1940 to 1960 period, due primarily to the lack of industrial development concomitant with high levels of unemployment in the agricultural sector. The population loss in terms of average annual percent decrease for the four-county region between 1950 and 1960 was as follows: Yell County-1.7 percent; Johnson County-2.9 percent; Logan County-2.6 percent; and Pope County-0.9 percent. However, the out-migration trend in the region was reversed during the intercensal period 1960-1970, an increase of about 17 percent.

Population continued to increase during the 1970s; both urban and rural nonfarm population increased substantially. To illustrate this trend, during the 1950-1960 period out-migration in Pope County decreased by 23.4 percent; during the 1960 to 1970 period, the population increased approximately 35 percent (from 21,177 persons to 28,607 persons). Between 1970 and 1975, the Pope County population continued to grow at an average annual rate of 3.4 percent. In 1975, Pope County had the largest population of the three counties-an estimated 33,600 persons. Populations of the three remaining 35 1

I

counties were: Johnson County-15,300; Logan County-18,300; and Yell County-16,400. (Arkansas Department of Local Services,1977d and 1977e; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1970,1972,1976c,1977a and 1978b; University of Arkansas, 1973,1977,and 1978b.)

Historically, the region's economy was based predominantly on agricultural and lumbering activities. Between 1940 and 1960, total employment in the region declined by 18 percent, reflecting the significant out-migration from the region. Decline in total employment during the two decades was attributable to a decrease in employment in the agricultural sector of the regional economy (from 57.7 percent of total employment in 1940 to 18.4 percent in 1960).

Between 1960 and 1970, as new industries were located in the region to take advantage of locational opportunities made available by the improved Arkansas River, the regional highway system, and the relatively lower regional wage rates, employment increases were experienced in manufacturing. The 1960 to 1970 period reflected employment growth in the manufacturing, services, and retail trade sectors, and resulted in a 30 percent total employment increase for the region. In 1975, total employment by

! residence waa estimated to be 31,839 persons, with manuf acturing the leading employer.

(U.S. Departme nt of Commerce, BEA,1975.)

In spite of the increases in total employment in the region, the per capita personal income for the region, as compared to the state or nation, was far below average.

Between 1969 and 1974, while the state average increased to $1,575 and the United States to $1,716, the average in the region increased to only $1,459. Moreover, between 1959 and 1969, all of the counties representing the region experienced lower real increases in family income than did the state or the United States as a whole. (U.S.

l Department of Commerce,1973 and 1975.)

The extent of poverty in Arkansas, measured by the number at f amilies below the recognized poverty level, was high. In 1969, while 10.7 percent of all United States f amilies were below this level, 22.8 percent of Arkansas families were below the poverty level. All of the counties in the region, except Pope and Yell, exceeded the Arkansas percentage of families living in poverty. The 1970 census data on poverty in Pope County, for example, showed 24 percent of the population had incomes below the poverty level. (U.S. Department of Commerce,1972.)

36

l Of primary importance to the development of the regional manufacturing and trade economy was construction to make the Arkansas River navigable; this effort ended in the mid-1960s. Of equal importance was the highway linkage: Interstate 40 (I-40),

running parallel to the Arkansas River and connecting Little Rock to Russellville and Fort Smith; and Arkansas State Route 7, running in a north-south direction approximately midway through the region. (See Figure 3-1.) These transportation routes were a significant factor for the location of manufacturing firms in the Russellville area during the mid-1960s and 1970s.

> 3.2.2 Identification of Places within the Region Based on preliminary information regarding area characteristics and distribution of direct project effects (workers, purchases, and taxes), subcounty areas were not considered for separate analysis. Because residents of the four-county region who obtained employment at the plant site were largely distributed in the small towns and rural areas of the region (except for Russellville), the allocation of project effects to subcounty units did not result in any concentration of effects to warrant separate consideration. In fact, the dispersed nature of the residential location of workers resulted in the aggregation of Johnson, Logan, and Yell counties as a spatial unit for examination of project effects. In Pope County, the preliminary examination of project effects resulted in the separation of Russellville from the remaining area of the county.

Thus, the spatial units for allocating project effects include: (1) the three-county subregion; (2) Russellville; (3) the remainder of Pope County; and (4) the area outside the region from which "long distance daily commuters" commuted to the site.

3.3 Distribution of Direct Project Effects within the Region In this section, the distribution of the project effects--direct basic employment,I direct basic workers,2 utility purchases, and tax payments-is described for the year of peak construction (1974) and an operating year (1978). The principal purpose of allocating workers to the areas within the region is to determine the size of the effects relative to the size of the areas in which they occurred-a determination of the intensity 1

Direct basic employment is the employment on the project itself. In this discussion, the focus is on the location of the job employment by place of work.

2 Direct basic workers are workers employed on the project itself. See Chapter 4 for a more complete discussion.

37

of the project effects to be utilized in deriving the study area for the detailed socioeconomic analysis. Because no recorded data were available to show where the construction work force resided, this information was obtained through interviews with key informants-utility personnel, managers of the prime contractor (Bechtel Corporation), managers of trade unions, real estate persons, and construction workers.

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 Pope County, all direct basic employment occurred within the jurisdictional boundaries of Pope County in i

both 1974 and 1978. In 1974, the annual average daily employment at the project site was 1,100; in 1978, it was 618 (AP&L, personal communications,1979 and 1980).

3.3.2 Distribution of Workers by Place of Residence,1974 and 1978 Although there was no survey to document spatial distribution of workers at the Arkansas Nuclear One Station, utility records and interviews with key informants enabled allocation of the workers. The availability of the utility's address list of operations personnel enhanced the precision of worker allocation.

Table 3-1 shows the number of direct basic workers residing in each of the places identified in the region.I The largest number of workers resided in Pope County-primarily Russellville. During the peak construction year (1974), 67 percent of the total on-site work force was located in Pope County, and approximately 60 percent of the total on-site work force resided in the community of Russellville. In the 1978 operations j year, over 77 percent of the total operations work force resided in Pope County and approximately 66 percent of the total work force resided in Russellville. The number of workers located in the three-county area-Johnson, Logan, and Yell-in 1974 was l estimated to be 226 workers, representing 16.8 percent of the total 1974 work force. In 1978, the 88 workers residing in the three-county area represented 22.7 percent of the total operations work force.2 The operations work force was primarily located in the i

1 1ncluded in these figures are the operations personnel assigned to the plant in each of the two years.

2 The 1974 and 1978 work forces consisted of both operations and construction worker / maintenance personnel. The estimate for the allocation of workers for each of the two years was derived by assigning allocation factors based on the spatial distribution of each worker type-operations and skilled construction craf t.

38

TABLE 3-1 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION DIRECT BASIC WORKERS BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE 1974 and 1978 b

1974a 1978 Percent of Percent of Total Total Place Number Work Force Number Work Force Three-County Area 226 16.8 88 22.7 Pope County C 902 67.0 299 77.3 Outside Region 220 16.2 0 0 TOTAL 1,348 100.0 387 100.0 aIncludes 1,100 construction and 248 operations personnel.

hncludes 110 maintenance and 277 operations personnel.

cPope County distribution in 1974: Russellville-802 workers comprising 59.5 percent of the work force; remainder of Pope County-100 workers comprising 7.5 percent of the work force. Pope County distribution in 1978: Russellville-257 workers comprising 77.3 percent of the work force; remainder of Pope County-42 workers comprising 10.9 percent of the work force.

Sources: Mountain West Research, Inc., based on Bechtel Corporation records, AP&L records, interviews with key informants, and personal communications with business managers of union locals.

39

four-county region. Because ANO-1 did not require refueling in 1978, there were no workers commuting from outside the region. Of the operations work force,277 workers were considered to be regular AP&L employees, and 110 workers were subcontracted maintenance / repair workers. (Alexander, personal communication, 1981; Campbell, personal communication, 1981; Deaton, personal communication, 1981; Fontaine, personal communication,1979; Ramsey, personal communication,1981; Horn, personal communication,1980 and 1981.)

Because a relatively sizeable construction labor pool resided in the Russellville area prior to plant construction, a large share of the construction work force was already located in Pope County. Due to the earlier construction efforts on the Arkansas River, a large number of construction workers had relocated to the Russellville environs and continued to reside in the area following the completion of that project. The locating of new industries into the Russellville area, the growth of the housing sector, the construction of I-40, and the impending decision to start construction of a nuclear generating facility resulted in the permanence of a construction labor pool. Of the total on-site work force in 1974, approximately 36 percent relocated into the Russellville area. The residential patterns of these workers were determined in large measure by the availability of housing. Through the expansion of 4 mobile home parks, the construction of apartments, and the development of housing subdivisions, the housing sector was easily able to accomodate these workers and their families. (Alexander, personal communication, 1981; Deaton,_ personal communication, 1981; Enos, personal communication,1980 and 1981; Fullerton, personal communication,1981; Horn, personal communication,1980 and 1981.)

3.3.3 Distribution of Utility Purchases Both the largest purchases and the greater volume of all purchases for the construction and operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station were made outside the four-county region. Between 1969 and 1978, approximately $18.6 million was spent for purchases and material outside of Arkansas, while a cumulative total of $24.3 million was spent within the state. State vendors generally were not able to provide the specialized material required to meet safety specification standards (Q-purchases); consequently, these purchases were made outside the state. Although AP&L implemented a policy for in-state purchasing whenever possible, such purchases were generally stock requirements consisting of piping, printing, lumber, metal, and electrical products. The majority of l these products were purchased in Little Rock. Data from interviews with Bechtel 40

Corporation and AP&L purchasing managers indicated that, of the total in-state purchases,15 percent of the costs for material were spent in the Russellville area and 5 percent in the three-county section of the region. Between 1969 and 1978, of the total materials purchased in Arkansas, $3.6 million was spent in Russellville. Of this, $471.5 thousand was estimated to have been spent in 1974. Utility purchases within the three-county area were estimated to be $1.2 million during the study period. (Deaton, personal communication, 1981; IIorn, personal communication, 1981; Campbell, personal communication,1981.)

Although the value of the monetary transactions in the Russellville area was small compared to the total transactions for the project, local merchants indicated that the utility's purchases of construction materials were significant in terms of the economic history of their respective establishments and the additional employment the purchases generated. Because of these purchases, a number of firms in Russellville were able to expand, diversify, and stock a greater volume of goods; the indirect effects were that these firms were able to expand their market and become regional outlets for their l products rather than supply just the local community. The evidence suggested that the purchase of materials be included as a criterion for study area selection because local suppliers reported that the purchases were important in terms of volume and affected both employment and the overall scale of operation. (Lee, personal communication, 1981; Peters, personal communication, 1981; Russel, personal communication, 1981; Borough, personal communication,1981.)

3.3.4 Distribution of Taxes,1974 and 1978 AP&L paid taxes on the Arkansas Nuclear One Station to Pope County. Taxes were assessed on the basis of 20 percent of market value for land improvements and personal property. Subsequent to 1969, the year construction on the project began, the assessed valuation increased annually. In 1974, the peak construction year, the Arkansas Nuclear One Station provided 71 percent of the county's total assessed property valuation; this amounted to $3.8 million. In 1978, AP&L paid $7.6 million in taxes on the Arkansas Nuclear One Station. The recipient of the largest tax payments within Pope County was the Russellville School District. Property within the jurisdiction of the Russellville School District was assessed at a tax rate of 50 mills, while the tax rate for the county was 9 mills. In 1974, $3.2 million was paid in taxes to the school district for the Arkansas Nuclear One Station. By 1978, annual taxes had increased to $6.5 million.

AP&L paid over 80 percent of local taxes to the Russellville School District. AP&L 41

made no substantial tax payments to any local jurisdiction within the region other than Pope County (Smith, personal communication,1981).

3.4 Selection of the Study Area 3.4.1 The Study Area The Study Area selected for the Arkansas Nuclear One case study was Pope County, Arkansas. A detailed map of the Study Area is provided in Figure 3-2.

3.4.2 Rationale Table 3-2 summarizes the distribution of direct basic employment, direct basic utility purchases, and tax payments for the two years of focus,1974 and 1978. All direct basic employment was located in Pope County in both years, adding 1,348 jobs in 1974 and 387 jobs in 1978 to the county economy. The distribution of the work force for 1974 showed that 16.2 percent of the workers commuted to the site from outside the region.

Approximately 67 percent of the workers resided in Pope County and 16.6 percent in the three-county area adjacent to the plant. To facilitate examination of the concentration of direct project effects, it was necessary to determine what percentage of the population in each of the areas were direct basic workers. In 1974, the direct project workers residing in Pope County comprised 3.2 percent of the county population; direct project workers in the three-county area comprised 0.5 percent of the population. Pope County presented the highest ratio of any of the spatial units identified in the region, indicating that the highest intensity of direct basic employment and direct basic workers occurred in Pope County.

The purchases made within the region were considered in a similar manner, and Pope County, principally Russellville, experienced the largest concentration of purchases. Preliminary investigation of the effects of these purchases in terms of employment and expansion of the scale of operations indicated that utility purchases were important in the local economy and therefore pertinent to Study Area determination.

In considering tax distribution, Pope County was the only local jurisdiction to receive significant tax payments from the project. Between 1968 and 1979, AP&L paid approximately $40.6 million in taxes for the plant.

42

FIGURE 3-2. ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STUDY AREA.

POPE COUNTY, ARKANSAS Ozark National Forest 7

27 164 -j t..l ( ,

Scottsville 27 Tates island 1 _ _ _ _

10 i[4,t '

l Gas Field 'l. * : Dover Moreland Gas Field 7 .,. aje,'. f 3

. .,7 v

London 124 g,7 RKANSAS::. '

e NUCLEAR:- 1M ONE!;

Lake Dardanelle . . . . :: i::: ... . . . . . . .

Pottsville

- Russellville ' -

T T 0

9 Atkins of Golla Greek Game g.{gs Management Area f 1 10

-u _

Holla Bend National C Urban Aiea Wildlife Refuge j0 1 2 3 6 Miles N

43

TABLE 3-2 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION

SUMMARY

OF DIRECT PROJECT EFFECTS 1974-1978 Direct Basic Direct Basic Purchases Tax Receipts Employment Workers (thousands of (millions of Total 1970 (Place of Work) (Place of Residence) dollars) dollars)

Place Population 1974 1978 1974 1978 1974 1978 1974 1978 Three-County Area 44,627 -

226 88

$171.7 $57.2 - -

Pope County 28,607 1,348 387 902 299 - -

$3.8 $7.6 Russellville 11,750 -

802 257

$471.5 $157.2 - -

Remainder-Pope County 16,857 - -

100 42 - - - -

Outside Region - - -

220 - - - - -

TOTAL -

1,349 387 1,348 387 - -

$3.8 $7.6 Source:

AP&L, personal communications,1979 and 1980; Bechtel Corporation, personal communications,1979 and 1980.

3.4.3 Summary Pope County was clearly the Study Area due to the concentration of the work force and tax revenues in the county. In addition, the purchases of goods and services made by the utility were also concentrated in the Russellville area, and this fact reinforced the decision to use Pope County as the Study Area. Since the work force distribution was concentrated in the Russellville urban area, the definition of a subcounty area (the City of Russellville) as the Study Area was considered. Ilowever, the entire county was chosen as the Study Area for ceveral reasons. The fiscal impacts were large enough to have definite county-wide impacts. To illustrate, the Russellville School District consisted of a large portion of the county, certainly outside the boundaries of Russellville. In addition, the public response to the project was county-wide. Finally, Pope County had evolved as a socioeconomic functional system, and the county hinterland was intricately linked to Russellville, the county seat. Thus, changes in one spatial component of the county socioeconomic system were discernible in other areas of the county. The distinctive social, economic, and political characteristics of Pope County made it an interesting and useful choice for studying the socioeconomic impacts of a nuclear plant.

45

t CHAPTER 4: ECONOMY OF THE STUDY AREA 4.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to identify and discuss the effects of the construction and operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station (ANO) on the economy of the Study Area. Emphasis is placed on changes in the local economy and the employment, incorae, and labor force status of the Study Area population. An attempt is also made to assess the impacts of the station on the standard-of-living of the Study Area residents.

The analysis begins by providing an overview of the economic history of the Study Area. The historical discussion is oriented to the major components of the economic base of the Study Area-agriculture and industry. A more detailed examination is then made of changes that occurred in the economy of the Study Area from 1968 (the year .

t preceding project construction start up) through 1978. In this section, the purpose is to quantify some of the changes that occurred in the Study Area: (1) the number of jobs and amount of income generated, (2) the labor force and employment characteristics of residents, and (3) the standard-of-living of residents. An attempt will be made to identify the role of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station in these changes.

The next sections of the chapter analyze the effects of the construction and operation of the nuclear power plant for these same economic variables. The analysis of the economic effects of the station is centered on 1977, which was both a major construction year and the year selected for study of plant operations. This year represented the peak roanpower year during which construction and operations work forces were combined. An economic base approach is utilized to identify and analyze three different effects of the project on the Study Area: basic employment and income; nonbasic employment and income; and total employment and income. This analysis is followed by a summary of the employment, income, labor force, and standard-of-living effects due to the Arkansas Nuclear One Station. The role these effects played in the total changes that occurred in the economy of the Study Area is then considered.

4.2 Economic History of the Study Area By the late 1800s, Pope County was characterized by a well-developed and flourishing agricultural economy. In 1850, there were approximately 534 farms in the county, encompassing an area of 37.7 thousand acres. By 1890, the total number of 46

farms had increased to 2,710 and covered an area of about 235 thousand acres. The main crop was cotton, which was grown in the fertile Arkansas River lowlands and was based on a system of large plantations, with tenant farming the dominant land-tenure form.

Approximately 70 percent of the farms in Pope County specialized in cotton production.

Although subsistence farming was a common practice in the less productive upland regions of the county, supplemental employment was of ten necessary. Following the construction of a railroad line between Fort Smith and Pope County in 1973, agriculture in the county expanded, the size of the county rapidly increased, and Russellville became an important service trade center for the agricultural region. (West,1968; Worley,1954; Pope County IIistorical Association,1979.)

Agriculture continued to be a viable and stable economic activity during the early 1900s and, as a result, the City of llussellville became increasingly more important as a trade center due to a number of a;;ricultural processing firms locating there. In 1930, the agricultural sector accounted for 62.7 percent of total employment in Pope County; manuf acturing accounted for only 6.8 percent. At this time, manufacturing was limited to lumber operations. In addition, mining, particularly coal mining, accounted for about 3 percent of the total county employment.

i While the early 1900s witnessed growth and general economic stability in the county, the twenty-year period between 1930 and 1950 was marked by severe economic problems and major population out-migration. In 1930, the population of Pope County numbered 26,547; in 1950, the population was estimated to be 23,291-a decline of 12.6 percent in two decades. Major economic problems in the county resulted from the declines in the major economic sectors that depended exclusively on natural resources.

Changes associated with the displacement of tenant farming by mechanization, the reduction of farm acreage, and the diversification of crops resulted in an out-migration of f arm labor from the county's lowland areas. This displacement reached its peak in the 1930s because the price of cotton sharply declined and because the federal government planned to eliminate the practice of farm tenancy based on one crop and to move toward agricultural diversification and mechanization. The upland farming areas also experienced substantial out-migration: between 1930 and 1950, total personal income of farming in Pope County decreased from 43.7 percent to 19.4 percent, and the percentage of workers employed in agriculture declined from 62.7 percent to 32.0 percent. Coal mining reached its peak in the 1930s, and then declined as it became unprofitable to transport the coal.

47

i Population out-migration continued into the 1950s. The decade was characterized by a number of changes that would have important economic effects during the 1960s.

During the 1950s, the change in agriculture was toward poultry and livestock. Poultry production was enhanced by the development of an integrated poultry food-processing industry centered in Russellville. However, the integration of poultry farms into the manufacturing sector was insufficient to absorb labor leaving the agricultural areas.

While the total population in Pope County steadily decreased during the 1950s, the population of Russellville steadily increased due to the expansion of low-skilled production jobs and the growth of urban services. In 1960, manufacturing represented 25.8 percent of the employment in Pope County. The poultry industry was critical in maintaining the economic viability of the county during the county's economic transition from agriculture to manufacturing. Throughout the study period, the poultry industry continued to be a major source of employment and income that resulted in the growth of a number of industrial linkages, particularly with respect to food-processing firms. As a 1 percentage of manufacturing employment, the food and kindred products sector employed 7.4 percent in 1940, 18.0 percent in 1950, and 41.4 percent in 1960.

In addition to the poultry-related industry, other industries located in Russellville j during this period as a response to the activities of the Russellville Industrial Development Corporation, a group of businessmen who offered incentives for industries to locate in Russellville. Moreover, the Kerr-McClellan Arkansas River Navigation System, a federal project, began in the late 1950s near Russellville. This project was important as a stimulus for employment and the in-migration of a skilled construction work force in the county. By 1960, 9.8 percent of the Pope County labor force was employed in the construction industry. Because of the gro vth in the poultry and manufacturing industries, as well as construction on the navigation system, farming families were able to combine their low farm income with non-farm income-a pattern that persisted throughout the study period.

]

Subsequent to 1960, the Study Area experienced growth through in-migration, diversification and expansion of the manufacturing sector, stabilization of the agribusiness sector, and the growth of Russellville as a regional center. The construction of the Arkansas River Navigation System, which was the first of a number of large-scale construction projects over a 20-year period, provided a direct benefit to the local l

economy in terms of in-migration, employment, and wages. Af ter 1960, construction 48

employment increased in level and share of income. The share of total personal income provided by construction was estimated to be 4.7 percent in 1959; 10.3 percent in 1970; and 15.1 percent in 1978. (U.S. Dept. of Commerce,1978.)

Construction of the Arkansas River Navigation System was followed by the building of Interstate Ilighway 40 (I-40) through Pope County in the 1960s, and the construction of a nuclear facility (Arkansas Nuclear One Station) in the 1970s.

Arguments have been posited that the growth in new plants and jobs in the late 1960s and 1970s was largely the result of these construction projects, which influenced industry to locate in Pope County. The maintenance of a large construction sector over a 20-year period brought about the permanent relocation of a skilled labor pool in Pope County. By 1978, construction activity in the area was declining, and the county experienced a high rate of unemployment (9.7 percent) relative to that of the state (6.2 percent). Although most rural counties in Arkansas were experiencing in-migration and rural industrialization at this time, Pope County was experiencing an even higher rate of growth due to the large public transportation investments which, in turn, initiated private sector growth. Between 1960 and 1970, Pope County regained the population that it had previously lost.

Three f actors accounted for the economic structure in Pope County at the end of the study period: (1) the highly integrated poultry industry; (2) the large construction work force; and (3) the relocation into the Russellville area of manufacturing firms which were indirectly related to the series of public sector investments.

Table 4-1 shows how the composition of employment in Pope County changed between 1940 and 1970. Agriculture, which accounted for 52 percent of total employment in 1940, had declined to 12.6 percent by 1970. By 1970, agricultural activity was largely limited to poultry and livestock, and a large number of the farming families had supplemental manufacturing income. Employment in agriculture gave way to increases in the services and trade sectors. Contract construction significantly increased in its share of total employment--from 6.4 percent in 1950 to 9.0 percent in 1970. A major shif t. in the composition of the economic base occurred between 1940 and 1950 when the proportional share of employment in the manufacturing sector jumped from 8.2 percent to 20.0 percent. By 1970, manufacturing accounted for 26.5 percent of total 49

TABLE 4-1 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE POPE COUNTY, ARKANSAS 1940,1950,1960,1970 Percent Percent Percent Percent of of of of Percent of Total Total Total Total Change Sector 1940 1940 1950 1950 1960 1960 1970 1970 1960-1970 Agriculture _ 3,285 52.2 2,201 32.0 945 13.3 1,054 10.0 12.6 Mining 76 1.2 85 1.2 78 0.9 12 0.1 -84.6 Construction 214 3.4 440 6.4 698 9.8 954 9.0 36.7 Manufacturing 516 8.2 1,376 20.0 1,834 25.8 2,814 26.5 53.4 TCPUa 220 3.5 316 4.6 318 4.5 705 6.7 121.7 Trade b 780 12.4 1,052 15.3 1,257 17.7 1,826 17.2 45.2 FIREc 69 1.1 101 1.5 180 2.5 278 2.6 54.4 Services 925 14.7 1,108 16.1 1,S52 21.9 2,646 25.0 70.5 Government 208 3.3 197 2.9 239 3.4 303 2.9 26.8 TOTAL 6,293 100.0 6,876 100.0 7,101 100.0 10,602 100.0 49.3

" Transportation, communications, and public utilities.

b

\Vholesale trade and retail trade.

cFinance, insurance, and real estate.

Sources: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Employment by Industry 1940-1970, 1975.

employment in Pope County. The largest percentage increase in employment during the 1960-1970 intercensal period was experienced in the transportation, communications, and public utilities sector (TCPU) of the local economy. While total employment increased by 49 percent during this period and manufacturing by 53 percent, TCPU showed an increase of approximately 120 percent. Between 1940 and 1970, employment in the services sector increased in absolute amount by 186 percent, and its relative share of employment increased from 14.7 percent in 1940 to 25.0 percent in 1970. Because of the manner in which the United States Census Bureau defines employment (i.e., distributing government employment across all industrial sectors by function), the increase in services employment, especially between 1960 and 1970 (from 1,552 to 2,646), reflected the growth of educational services employment. There was substantial growth at Arkansas Technical College, which had a staff greater than 300 during the 1960s.

4.3 Economic Changes durin; the Study Period In this section, two major perspectives are considered regarding changes in the economy of the Study Area over the study period, 1969-1978. One perspective focuses on the level of economic activity occurring within the boundaries of the areas being studied. The measures of activity under study are the number c,f jobs and the amount of income generated at places of work within the Study Area. The second perspective focuses on the people residing in these areas. The principal questions deal with the labor force status of area residents and with the income they earned. Included in this perspective is the overall standard-of-living of area residents. Thus, employment is a key indicator in both perspectives, but the distinction in the employment concepts must be kept closely in mind. The first perspective deals with employment in terms of the local economy-the number of jobs measured at the place of work; the second perspective measures the number of employed persons on the basis of their residence in the Study Area.

4.3.1 Employment and Income in the Local Economy In 1969, there were approximately 11,000 jobs in Pope County. Total employment by place of work increased during the study period from 1.,174 jobs in 1969 to 16,908 jobs in 1978, representing an increase of 51.3 percent. Employment by place of work for selected employment sectors in Pope County from 1969 to 1978 is shown in Table 4-2.

Employment increased at a generally steady rate except between 1971 and 1972 when the number of jobs in Pope County jumped from 12,657 to 14,037.

51 1

'?

_ ._ - . _ _ _ - _ _ __

TABLE 4-7, ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK BY INDUSTRIAL SECTOR POPE COUNTY ARKANSAS 1969-1978 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 -1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 Total Employment 11,174 11,526 12,657 14,037 14,102 14,357 14,773 15,157 16,018 16,908 Number of Proprietors 2,215 2,172 2,280 2,301 2,275 2,340 2,364 2,363 2,414 2,491 Farm 1,163 1,165 1,152 1,140 1,128 1,133 1,144 1,138 1,121 1,120 Nonfarm 1,052 1,007 1,128 1,161 1,147 1,207 1,220 1,225 1,293 1,371 Total Wage and Salary Employment 8,959 9,354 10,377 11,736 11,827 12,017 12,409 12,794 13,404 13,413 i

u. Agricultural Services" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 163 N/A N/A N/A N/A Mining - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 23 N/A N/A N/A N/A Construction 764 795 1,071 1,480 1,409 1,505 1,387 1,545 1,708 1,193 Manufacturing 2,741 2,712 2,866 3,489 3,565 3,441 3,594 3,456 3,661 3,401 b 447 545 647 594 612 650 831 840 984 TCPU 519 Trade c 1,365 1,498 1,678 1,774 1,861 1,943 2,084 2,236 2,504 2,685 FIRE d 235 252 278 227 220 230 242 262 284 319 Services 1,216 1,260 1,340 1,509 1,531 1,544 1,750 1,737 1,899 1,980 Government 1,670 1,720 1,963 1,988 2,021 2,134 2,222 2,275 2,347 2,318 Farm, agricultural services, forestry, fisheries, and other wage and salary employment.

b Transportation, communications, and public utilities wage and salary employment.

cWholesale and retail trade.

d Finance, insurance, and real estate wage and salary employment.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, April 1980, unpublished data.

The principal components of the economic base of the county were manufacturing, agriculture, and commerce. The major sources of employment were the manufacturing, trade, services, and government sectors. Farm employment was based on ownership and few farm laborers were employed. Manufacturing was the single most important employment sector followed by wholesale and retail trade.

Most of the employment in Pope County was in wage and salary employment (see Table 4-2). The number of proprietors during the study period increased slightly, from 2,215 proprietors in 1969 to 2,491 proprietors in 1978. This increase reflected the growth in nonfarm ownership. The number of farm proprietors actually declined during the period, from 1,163 in 1969 to 1,120 in 1978. Although the absolute number of proprietors increased over the period, the proportion of proprietors in th' local economy declined due to the expansion of wage and salary employment. In 1969, proprietors accounted for approximately 19 percent of total employment; by 1978, they accounted for about 14 percent. In effect, the total number cf proprietors remained fairly stable over the entire study period. During the study period, wage and salary employment grew from 8,959 jobs to 13,413 jobs, an increase of 49.7 percent. Employment grew at a steady rate of growth during the study period.

The construction sector showed the greatest variation in employment during this period. Between 1969 and 1772, employment growth in the construction sector was substantial: from 764 jobs in 1969 to 1,480 jobs in 1972, an increase of 93.5 percent.

This increase was largely due to the construction of the nuclear plant. The number of jobs in the construction sector fell in 1973 compared to the number in 1972 and increased between 1973 and 1974. In 1974, there were 1,505 construction jobs, but a year later, in 1975, the number of jobs had declined to 1,387. The number of jobs in construction peaked in 1977 at 1,700, but fell the following year to 1,193 with the phase-down of construction of the nuclear plant. The manufacturing sector remained fairly steady over the period with no major employment shif ts. Between 1969 and 1975, the TCPU sector showed a f airly steady increase followed by a major jump between 1975 and 1976.

Labor and proprietors' income by place of work followed the same pattern as that of total employment. As shown in Table 4-3, total labor and proprietors' income in Pope County increased throughout the study period.

53

I ,l ,! Ii iI ,

i' i li[ ,! l l !!f1 t , t , >

3 7 9 5 0 5 9 1 0 4 9 -

7-2, 0, 4, 9, 5, 6 7 2 1 5 -

6 5 4 n -

1 1 1 2 7 3 5 1 1 4 7 6 9 8 3 1 9 2 1, 2, 0 3,

~

1 8 9 2 6 5 5 4 3 5 .

1 1 1 1 -

6 5 S 3 4 S 7 5 2 1 6 0 9 7, R, 7, 2, 0, 1 5

- 1 5 1 0 E 4 3 2 7 C 1 1 1 1 -

- NE -

EM -

_- DO 0 0 .

SC I

5 6 9 1 1

2 1

9 7 EN 7 9 1, 3, 2, 3 4, RI 1 5 8 7 0 1

,F L 2 1 0 5 ,

K A 1 1 1 1 R ON . -

OEO a WCS AR 8 1 2 7 0 3 t

a -

d FLE OPP 7

9 4

7, 0

7, 4

3, 4

3, 0

8, d e

1 5 9 0 6 3 EDA 0 9 9 ? h is CN T I 1 !

l NLA AP s

_ OTK A TY R C I

3 8 1 9 4 7.

'u p

t AB ORS i

7 7 9 4 3 7

5, T

S E WEA PS 9

1 9,

8 6,

3 6,

5 9,

1 3 0,

8 E MF N

A 9 9 8 1 1

9 1

_ N O ON DK l O!tCE CA R 8 i

. r 3 p 4 RiA EA7,9 2 2 3 0 3 R A

_ E L

B A 'S L C ERPNY1 LOY ET99 7

9 1

0 5,

0 9

9, 5

8 6,

7 4

9, 2

3 2,

3 m,

e 9 8 7 0 t A

T C

UE TBIDN6 S U1 1 s y

S Nt! E EO n SP iM PC 1 9 9 1 3 6 o AO O S C OP FE 7 9

3 5

6 0,

4 7,

4 8,

0 8,

it a

R N itA P I O 1 0 7

7 6

1 6

4 8

2 m

' E P r o

K DSC f R NRA n A AO TP L 0 7 3 9 0 3 I

l R E 7 4 5 8 3 4 a OI BR B Y 9 1

1, 6

7, 3

3, 0

6, 0

4, 2

n o

5 5 ig

- APE 5 7 e

LOM R LR PO s A C 9 9 0 5 8 1 is TDN 6 0 8 2 4 1 ly ONI 9 3, 7, 8, 3, 3, 1 2 a TA LA 3 5

0 5

7 4

5 6 n RN A OO :

B S lm AR o LE n n

TP c E e E N c f n o e e

'sr kr k

'sr or d

's is m o

a o o r e o c t

c r eW toW tor n B

u irf po ief ief c !

r o r o : l a

o pe pe yn S r e o o b e n Pc a r c r c o .

Pl a Pl a ei d s r

U dl nP a y d P d P mes e :

e coR P n y ny c rb ab ab l r

- o r e r e I o nf a u b e o o n t o

am bm l a e ip Lo l

a In c L a o c.

r b

am Lc n nc ol a C a

S

. t I t I sP r r to e e e e T N N P P m'

4.3.2 Employment of Local Residents In 1970, when construction activity on Unit I was underway, Pope County had a labor force of about 7,500. The fact that the estimates of employment by place of work were larger than the labor force indicates that commutation into the county for work was a characteristic pattern.

In 1970, the unemployment rate in Pope County was approximately 11 percent.

Between 1970 and 1975, however, unemployment declined to 8.4 percent, this was below the state average of 9.5 percent. By 1978, unemployment was estimated at 7.0 percent while the state unemployment rate was 6.3 percent.

The percentage increase in the labor force in Pope County during the study period was over 40 percent, compared to a 25 percent increase in the labor force for the state as a whole. The Russellville area grew very rapidly during this period as an employment center.

4.4 Economic Changes in the Study Area due to the Project The purpose of this section is to describe the economic effects of constructing and operating the Arkansas Nuclear One Station in Pope County. As with the previous section, three perspectives will be taken: (1) the effects of the project on economic activity in the Study Area (i.e., on jobs and income on a place-of-work basis); (2) the effects of the project on the labor force status of the residents of the Study Area; and (3) the effects of the project on the standard-of-living of Study Area residents.

An economic base analysis, supplemented with an input-output analysis, is utilized. The premise of this approach is that the economic activities of the project-employment at the Arkansas Nuclear One project, the purchases of materials for the project, and other project-related market effects (for example, the consequences of the massive taxes paid by the project)-caused " nonbasic" or additional activities in the county. The determination of the total project effects on employment and income in the Study Area requires quantification of both the direct project effects and the additional activities induced by them. Once these income and employment consequences have been estimated, their impacts on the county's economy, labor force, and standard-of-living will be summarized.

55

4.4.1 Estimation of Project-Related Employment and Income Effects This analysis begins by describing the work force and the purchases 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 at their place of residence. 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. If, for example, $1,000 of materials was purchased locally, some fraction of the purchase would accrue as income to local residents. For materials produced locally, the ratio of locally-generated-income-to-total-purchases could be quite high. Materials produced elsewhere but distributed locally would result in a lower ratio of income-to-purchases, which would reflect only the distributor's margin. Income and employment thus generated 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 income and employment. This analysis identifies any labor-market effects, labor shortages, higher wages, or fiscally induced changes in activity resulting from the project. 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.

4.4.1.1 Basic Employment and Income due to the Project Direct Basic The first of the three components of total project-related basic income and I 1

employment is direct basic income and employment. The direct basic employment in the Study Area is represented by those jobs and workers involved directly in the construction l

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) on a place-of-work basis to show the number of jobs and amount of income generated by the project and the effect of these jobs and income on the Study Area economy, or (2) on a place-of-residence basis to show the number of

, Study Area residents employed at the project, their income, and the effect on the area l

labor force. In this study, the determination of direct basic income and direct basic j employment by place or work is derived from project employment and wage data. The 56

F1GUR E 4-1 LSilM AllON OF PitOJECT-It EL ATED EMPLOYMEN T AND INCOME EFFECTS 11trect Basic Employreent

-Crmstruction workere

--Operellone workere In.litect Basic Employment and Income _

Total Basle Employ. _ Total due to Utility Purchases of Goode ment and Incoise '

Project-and Services in the Study Area Related Emplorreent and Incom e a

Adjustment for

$ 4--------- Transient Sietus of Workers l'

'Other* Basic Eruployment and Ef fec tive Eruployment and Incorse Honbeelc Inenme Eff ecto due to 1.abot-Market Basic Incom e Multipliere Employment Ef fects. Tan-Related Ef fects.oe Both and Income a

lf

direct basic work force is considered as a composite of construction workers, regular operations workers, and repair / maintenance refueling workers.

The Arkansas Nuclear One Station is located entirely in Pope County.

Consequently, in terms of employment and income by place of work, all direct basic employment and income generated by the project accrued to the Pope County economy.

The number of workers and the total income earned by each type of worker for each year of the study period are shown in Table 4-4. In 1977, on a place-of-work basis, basic employment amounted to 1,385 jobs, and income amounted to $21 million (constant 1972 dollars) of direct basic income.

Determination of direct basic income and employment at place of residence in the Study Area requires information about the wage rates and residential locations of each of the three categories of direct basic employees. As shown in Table 4-5, not all of the direct basic employees resided in the Study Area. Available data indicated that approximately 65 percent of the construction work force and 75 percent of the repair / maintenance / refueling (RMR) workers were residents of Pope County. Of the regular operations workers, 80 percent were residents of the Study Area. In 1977, in terms of employment and income by place of residence, an estimated 951 direct basic employees earned $14.2 million in income from the project as residents of Pope County.

Indirect Basic The second component of total project-related basic income and employment is the indirect basic, here designated as the profits, earnings, and employment resulting from the utility's purchases of goods and additional services 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 (manufacturer versus wholesaler) involved in the transaction. By applying the income-and-employment-to-value-of-purchases ratio derived from the Regional Industrial Multiplier System (RIMS)I to the total value of I In estimating the indirect basic employment and income effects of the utility purchases in the Study Area, the purchases were assumed to have been made in the wholesale trade sector. The RIMS multipliers indicate that $1 million of utility purchases resulted in $91,000 in indirect basic income and 11.3 indirect basic jobs.

(Drake, personal communication,1980.)

58

, i[{iil<lli;If , ..j , 'f

< <fr, II {f e1 h t!l t . l !

!(!If f -

o s

._ 1 0521 69857 s r 5673364R 1 5

_. I

e 8,1, 6, 8, 9, 6, 2, 4, 0, 1, nk ir no r

1 46201 461 3

$ 1 1 1 1 1 21 aW

_ l E

a

- t o

T f o s

_ s r r e 5090081 755 -

ek 1 261 41 2482 2 4 6 9 9 3,Z,3,3,0, b r mo uW 1 1 1 1 1 N

_. a f

l m o s e s u ge r AAAAA26004 55 763 f /////

K e inkr NNNNN 9 5,3,9,6, $

R R no 1 1 1 1 r s

/

O e aV c E

_ W n F a

_ n

_ O t e

f E a o s C

NL A imsr e

/ ek b r r

AAAAA00000

///// 1 31 33

_ OP I

ir mo NNNNN 1 1 1 1 1 a

- TY S p uW AB A R e N

_. T ES S

E MN

)

N O A 2 1 O! R 8 CK 2

- t f d

_ 4 RI A7 o n

,9 s a E

L ADEN Y1 - "

s r gc AAA750497 50586654 1 s nk c /// -

B LA C

T9 N6 n ino NNN 0,3,4,5,3,6,0, 2 A T1l 19 o r 1 1 1 1 234 s T

i ah $ e

_ INO IN E t

a r E l

b SM C e a A E p T

_ S Y P O m NO O r f o A L P P la o s f r

K M u s r r e d R E A

C I

S hbmo ek uW r

AAA6283 467

///81 3611 147 NNN 1 222 i e

v r

e N d A (

S 0 8

_ T 9 C 1 E ,

R f c I

oE s n

D s s r 1 05561 9989 567726041 6 r I ge : h, 8,1,6,7,6,2,1,7, 2, 7, !

inkr 1 461 991 257 o c n o $ 1 1 1 1 r

n r d a e

EaW i

o 2 s t 7 e c 9 u

1 R r le t t t

s b n s n f l a a e o o s i a

t s W C s r r e 5090808393 v n in ek 1 264272 201 t o c a b r 246980,90,0,6 t t m o o n 1 1 1 f n o u uW s s o N n d M a n e a :

n s e r u c o r A h u

/ T o N " S r 901 2345678 a 677777 777 7 e 9999999999 Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

, i]l! ,ii! I j! i' 4i . !i iiI

TABLE 4-5 l ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION I DIRECT BASIC EMPLOYMENT ANIS INCOME BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE POPE COUNTY, ARKANSAS

, 1969-1978 I

, Number of Percent of Earnings gf l Year Workers ^ Total Werkers 1969 140 65.0 $1,203 1970 273 65.0 2,704 1971 435 65.0 4,339 1972 680 72.3 8,498 1973 628 66.8 7,301 1974 889 67.5 7,896 1975 831 68.1 9,655 1976 919 68.2 11,210 1977 951 68.7 14,212 1978 722 70.4 9,519

" Annual average employment.

b Thousands of constant 1972 dollars.

Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1980.

60

I j materials purchased by the utility in the Study Area, the indirect basic income and l

l employment resulting from the project is calculated.

In 1977, the value of the goods and materials purchased in the Study Area by the utility and the prime contractor was estimated to be $436.4 thousand. Based on the ratios of indire c t-basi c-e mploy m ent-and-inco m e-to-value-o f-purchase s derived from RIMS, these purchases resulted in approximately 5 indirect basic jobs and $39.7 thousand in indirect basic income. Indirect basic employment and income on a yearly basis is l shown in Table 4-6.

I Through interviews, firm managers and owners who had transactions with the utility and the prime contractor regarding project-related purchases indicated that all the indirect basic jobs were filled by Study Area residents. According to the managers i and owners, these purchases enabled the proprietors to diversify their products and to

(

purchase a greater volume of goods, which brought about a greater market for their goods. The proprietors argued that the purchases of material for plant construction and operation indirectly caused additional employment. However, it was difficult to differentiate between increases in employment attributable directly to the plant and increases in employment due to increased demand for goods in general. The RIMS-based l

multipliers may have slightly underestimated the indirect employment effects resulting from plant-related purchases of goods and services.

"Other" Basic The third component of the project's basic income and employment effects is categorized as "other" basic income and employment. The project site was located within easy commuting distance of a large construction labor force. There was no evidence that the plant caused noticeable wage-induced effects. The Study Area had a strong agricultural sector, which is usually considered the sector most vulnerable to such effects. Ilowever, interviews with farmers, the county agricultural extension agent, and managers of agri-businesses revealed no indication of wage-induced "other" basic effects. This was probably due to the fact that the farms in the Study Area were family run, and the farmers of ten supplemented their income by nonfarm employment.

Clearly, the Arkansas Nuclear One Station had a major effect on the assessed valuation of Pope County, especially on the Russellville School District, one of five school districts in Pope County and the district in which the plant is located. During the 61

TABLE 4-6 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION ESTIMATED INDIRECT BASIC EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME" POPE COUNTY, ARKANSAS 1969-1978 Value of Indirect Basic Indirect Basic Year Purchasesa,b Workers Income b 1969 $219.9 3 $20.0 1 1970 269.2 3 24.5 1971 406.6 5 .37.0 1972 446.4 5 40.6 '

1973 559.7 6 50.9 1974 471.5 5 42.9 1975 344.1 4 31.3 1976 323.3 4 29.4 1977 436.4 5 39.7 1978 171.7 2 15.6 i

"The value of purchases made in the Study Area was based on the finding from key informants that of the total annual purchases made in Arkansas, approximately 15 l percent were made in Pope County.

b Thousands of constant 1972 dollars.

l 62

study period (1968-1978), the assessed valuation of the Russellville School District increased from $16.1 million to $142.2 million. The Russellville School District received a substantial proportion of its revenues from the project; in 1977 plant revenues accounted for 75 percent of the district's budget. Prior to plant construction, the Russellville School District was experiencing severe financial difficulties and, based on school quality indicators, was rated as being low relative to other school districts in the state. IIowever, the additional revenues received from the large supplement to the district's tax base (50 mills of assessed valuation) resulted in a reversal in all education quality indicators, and the district became known as one of the leading school areas in the state.

The additional revenues to the school district could have 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 also caused by the project. The employment and income change in the government sector that was a direct function af the economic and demographic growth in the Study Area caused by the project would be nonbasic; only that caused directly by the increased revenues from the project would be basic.

Key school district administrators who were interviewed stated that a substantial number of teachers, certified personnel, administrators, and other employees were added as a consequence of plant-related budget increases. Prior to plant construction, the teacher-to-student ratio was 35:1. Without additional revenues from the plant, the 3,700 students enrolled in the Russellville School District in 1977 would have required 105 teachers. Instead, in 1977 there were approximately 195 teachers in the school district, a teacher-to-student ratio of 20:1 This difference (90 teachers) was attributable to the additional revenues received by the school district from the plant. Moreover, if other school district employees, administrators, certified personnel, and maintenance workers were included, the total number of "other" basic employment in the school district was estimated to be 125 jobs. This would be consistent with the information provided by administrators of the school district. Interviews with key county administrators also suggested that, of the county government employment gains that occurred during the study period, a few jobs were attributable to the plant-related revenue increases accruing to the county. However, the precise number of direct plant-induced government jobs could not be determined.

63

The improvements in the quality and expansion of the Russellville School District as a direct result of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station had ramifications on the site-selection decisions of a number of industries that relocated in Russellville during the period of study. Through interviews, owners or managers of these industries indicated that the decision to locate in the Study Area was partly influenced by the quality of the school district. 'This was especially true for those firms requiring the transfer of highly trained professional manpower from the larger urban centers. However, the evidence was not persuasive enough to conclude that the selection of a site in the Study Area was wholly based upon the school district. Other locational factors-market, bbor costs, site, and taxes-seemed to have been of greater importance.

In 1977, the "other" basic employment was estimated to be 125 jobs and $1.2 million (constant 1972 dollars) in income. "Other" basic employment and income on a yearly basis is shown in Table 4-7.

Total Basic Employment and Income Effects due to the Project i Total basic employment and income is the sum of three basic components-direct basic, indirect basic, and "other" basic. As shown in Table 4-8, in 1977 total basic employment in the Study Area by place of work was approximately 1,515 jobs, and income was $22.3 million. Workers residing outside the Study Area filled some of the basic jobs. In all, about 1,080 project-related basic workers, earning $15.5 million, were residents in the Study Area.

4.4.1.2 Nonbasic Employment and Income due to the Project Nonbasic employment and income, the final component of project-related l

employment and income effects, result from the expenditure (and re-expenditure) of basic income in the local economy. The amount of project-related nonbasic employment and income in the local economy is determined by the interaction of two factors: (1) the amount of " effective" basic income created by the project, and (2) the size of the nonbasic-to-basic employment and income multipliers in the local economy. A larger, i

more diverse economy generally results in a higher ratio of effective basic income to total basic income and larger income and employment multipliers.

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 Pope County and who, therefore, spent a smaller proportion of their income in the county 64 l

1

TABLE 4-7 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION "OTHER" BASIC EMPLOYMENT AND INCOMEa 1969-1977 Other Basic Other Bagic Year Employment Income 1969 2 $19 1970 4 39 1971 13 125 1972 31 298 1973 46 442 1974 70 672 1975 94 902 1976 109 1,046 1977 125 1,200

^The annual "other" basic employment was derived by assuming a constant relationship between taxes paid to the Russellville School District and "other" basic employment utilizing the 1977 ratio as the baseline, b

Thousands of constant 1972 dollars.

Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.

65

TABLE 4-8 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION TOTAL PROJECT-RELATED BASIC EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME IN THE STUDY AREA (l')77) -

Employment and Income - Direct Indirect "O ther" TOTAL Employment By Place of Work 1,385 5 125 1,515 By Place of Residence 951 5 125 1,081 Income" By Place of Work $21,045 $39.7 $1,200 $22,285 By Place of Residence $14,212 $9.7 $1,200 $15,452

" Thousands of constant 1972 dollars.

Sources: AP&L, personal communication, 1980; Ronald Drake, personal communication,1980.

I i

i 66

economy than did workers living in the Study Area who earned the same 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: (1) the residential location of the workers carning the basic income, and (2) the incidence of outside financial commitments such as the maintenance of a household. The effects of these factors were analyzed by dividing the project-related basic workers into four groups:

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

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

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

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

Based on information concerning residential location, commuting patterns, and outside financial commitments, as well as examination of the availability of goods and services in the local economy, the basic income of each of the four groups was weighted so that its effect, in terms of generating induced economic activity within the Study Area, would be commensurate across groups. The resulting weighted income estimate is referred to as " effective" basic income. Because the county-specific multipliers are based on the consmaption patterns of average county residents who are principally nonmovers, nonmovers serve as the standard for defining effective basic income, and all of their income is treated as effective (i.e., their income is weighted by a factor of 1.0). For each of the remaining categories of workers, data outlined by the Consumer Expenditure Survey (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1972-1973) were utilized to determine the proportion of income spent by these workers in the local area compared to that spent by nonmovers. Averages in this survey included annual family expenditures for major items (i.e., homes, clothing, health care, and recreation) for a family of four in the $20,000-$24,999 income bracket (appropriate to the income levels of basic workers in the Study Area). Examination of the local economy and discussions with workers, local 67

planners, and area residents then led to assumptions about the percentage of expenditures made locally for each category of expenditures. Regarding housing, for example, it was assumed that nonmovers and movers accompanied by their families would spend 100 percent of their housing expenditures in the Study Area, movers without their families would spend only 50 percent of their housing expenditures in the Study Area, and daily commuters would spend nothing for housing in the area.

The analysis indicated that nonmovers and movers with families had a similar level of local expenditure-approximately $12,000-out of a total consumption of

$15,300. This means, therefore, that of all consumption expenditures,78.4 percent would be within the Study Area. Movers unaccompanied by families and daily long distance commuters were estimat *d to have spent substantially less of the $15,300 in the local area-unaccompanied movers spent approximately 23.9 percent, and the commuters spent only 3.0 percent.

From these estimates, the relative effect on the local economy of income paid to each of the four groups was calculated. Based on these calculations, the income of the nonmovers and movers accompanied by families was weighted by a factor of 1.0. For the income of unaccompanied movers, the appropriate weight was 0.305 based on their local expenditure (23.9 percent) relative to that of the reference group (78.4 percent). For the long distance com muters, the appropriate weight was 0.038 based on their local expenditures (3.0 percent) relative to that of the nonmovers (78.4 percent).

Table 4-9 shows the distribution of direct basic, indirect basic, and "other" basic employment among the four categories of workers-nonmovers, movers accompanied by f amilies, movers unaccompanied by families (or single), and daily long-distance commuters. Also shown are income weighting factors. Although the distribution and weights were based on 1977 data, evidence indicated that they are valid and represent the best estimate for the distribution of workers and the conversion factors for income throughout the study period. i Applying the Table 4-9 data to earlier employment and income data gives the effective basic income in the Study Area for each year of the study period and is shown in Table 4-10. In 1977, the estimated effective basic income in the Study Area was approximately $13.6 million, or 61 percent of the total basic income due to the project.

68

lIl ll{[ltI [t*ll? lI( ! :I! !I jlloIf hIl lilt g

eni mt o oh cg t

r c

0 0

5 0

3 0

8 3

a _

- I nie W

F 1 1 0 0 t

.- n c e ) ) ) )

7 -

~.

i s

i.,

c r

e

(

2 5

(

2 1

(

0 0

1 1

9 P .

- I (

D 0 .

I I_r

- T r A h e .

. t b 5 5 5 5 Dst m 4 6 1 2 1

N!E 4u .

A V O_ !

SO I

E M T

t .

KS n

ic e ) ) ) 0 RR s c 0 0

- - 0

_ f f OE SR B a r e

1

(

6

(

0 1 OWV E 1

P (

OT t c

ITC AI MU e r

e T SNM

- r

! b 2 3 5 S A O - -

- B! M m m E i u

. D ! C .

N

- 9

!O ETt GC

! E

~ 4 tAOC E tALMN L E EAA

- B LR STS t n

- A C TR / e

)

) )

0 6

- T UNCODI ET -

e e g cr n

5 7

(

5 2

(

0 1

7 0

e SJ C G AOA N -

/iine a mil P r

peu

(

SRFO L -

. et f r NP G _ Rine e b 2 MaR mu 8 0 A F! Y.

KO!

! 9 - - 3 3 1

l T! N lA NI A I OG

! I D

rE t UW n ) ) ) ) )

8 B c e 0 0 0 0 0 D i s cr 1 6 1 2 0 3

- t s r n ( ( ( ( 1 7

t N T B a a o e (

0 lu it P

- S A I t gra DE c e e e e r

- M Rp b ir 5 6 5 0 6 O

C D Om 2 4 2 5 4 u 1 2 i

t I

N t

n ) ) ) ) ) 4 n e 0 s 0 5 0 2 n cr 3

( f i 2

(

3

(

0 5 it 1 c e (

0 u P r

t r s e s

- b o m 3

0 0

5 3

0 3

5 9

0 C u 3 1 2 3 0, i

t 1

_ r d t e

e e eca d i n c l

a s a pe s n a sr mF o

a s r

n ie al t

s e cg e e pi mili i t A

r v

o s nm s com Du- m L Innit l

la h ly m r

e eF ma r c a e aF ly gm A g n ri n v c y v n y no TO ee St w

if e

MoAb MoUb iaLC D T O vW

TABLE 4-10 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION EFFECTIVE BASIC INCOME AND NONBASIC EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME BY PLACE OF WORK" POPE COUNTY 1969-1978 Effective Nonbasic Nonbasic Year Basic Income Employment b Income C 1969 $1,009 28 $159.4 1970 2,243 63 354.4 1971 3,649 102 576.5 1972 7,264 203 1,147.7 1973 6,463 181 1,021.2 1974 7,307 205 1,154.5 1975 9,081 254 1,434.8 1976 10,561 296 1,668.6 1977 13,645 382 2,155.9 1978 9,423 264 1,488.8

" Income amounts expressed in thousands of constant 1972 dollars.

b Obtained by multiplying effective basic income by the RIMS nonbasic employment-to-basic-income multiplier of 0.0000280 jobs / dollar.

cObtained by multiplying effective basic income by the RIMS nonbasic-income-to-basic multiplier of 0.158.

Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.

70

Nonbasic-to-Basic Multipliers The second set of factors used in determining the nonbasic employment and income effects of the project in the Study Area are the nonbasic-to-basic employment and income multipliers. The size and characteristics of the economy being analyzed determine the size of the multipliers-the larger and more diversified the economy, the larger the multiplier. The nonbasic income and employment to effective basic income multipliers employed in the analysis of the Study Area were derived from the county specific input-output analysis of the Regional Interindustry Multiplier System (RIMS) which was described earlier. Here, RIMS multipliers are used to estimate the employment and income effects of an increase in final demand in the household sector caused by basic income from the project. They employ both county-specific industrial sector and national household data (Drake, personal e ommunication,1980).

Based on the RIMS analysis, the appropriate multipliers for the Study Area were for $1,000 of effective basic income to result in 0.0280 nonbasic jobs and $158 in nonbasic income in the Study Area (by place of work). When applied to the estimated project-related effective basic income (see Table 4-10), these multipliers yield the project-caused nonbasic jobs and nonbasic income estimated for the Study Area.

The estimated 1977 nonbasic employment and income (by place of work) in the Study Area were approximately 382 jobs and $2.2 million (constant 1972 dollars). Based on a consideration of labor force availability and commuting patterns, an estimated 40 percent of the nonbasic jobs created by the project in Pope Count was filled by nonmovers; 50 percent was filled by movers with families present; and 5 percent was filled by movers without families. The remaining 5 percent was filled by outside daily com muters. Therefore, in 1977, the project provided 363 nonbasic jobs to Study Area residents, who earned $2.1 million in income.

Total Employment and Income due to the Project The sum of the four components of employment and income generated by the Arkansas Nuclear One Station-direct basic, indirect basic, "other" basic, and nonbasic-is the total employment and income created in Pope County by the project.

Table 4-11 shows the number of new jobs created in Pope County by place of work and by place of residence between 1969 and 1978. The total number of new jobs created in the county in 1977 by place of work was estimated to be 1,897, and total income from this 71

TABLE 4-11 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME DUE TO THE PROJECT STUDY AREA 1969-1978

~~

Place of Work Place of Residence Number of Number of Year Workers Incom e" Workers Income" 1969 248 $2,049.5 172 $1,388.8 1970 490 4,578.0 340 3,105.7 1971 489 7,413.2 550 5,046.0 1972 1,179 14,318.4 909 9,923.2 1973 1,173 22,011.2 852 8,763.7 1974 1,598 13,535.5 1,158 9,707.7 1975 1,573 16,677.1 1,170 12,005.5 1976 1,757 19,232.1 1,313 13,871.2 l

1977 1,897 24,440.6 1,444 17,493.9 1978 1,416 16,161.3 1,100 12,212.4 aThousands of constant 1972 dollars.

Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.

r 72

employment was $24.4 million. In 1977,1,444 jobs were project-related by place of residence, and income from this employment was estimated to be $17.5 million.

4.4.2 Effects of the Project on the Study Area Many changes occurred in the economic profile of the Study Area during the ten-year period cf ANO's construction and operation. The nuclear project was but one of the several large .ndustrial projects which served to change the character of the Study Area ec.onomy. The substantial amount of in-migration coupled with Russellville's rapid industrialization during the study period prevented the area from being overwhelmed by the activity generated by the nuclear station. Thus, the economic impacts of the nuclear

~

facility were tempered by population and employment increases that were unrelated to the nuclear plant. The plant had the effect of stabilizing the indigenous construction labor force, and bringing a greater number of professional employees (teachers, technicians, engineers) to the area.

Employment generated by the Arkansas Nuclear One Station accc,unted for about 2.2 percent of estimated employment in the Study Area in 1969, about 10.6 percent in 1975, and 11.2 percent in 1978. The Economic Adjustment Plan for Russellville (Manes and Associates, Inc.,1980) noted that, although construction peaked in 1977, the number of cor.struction workers dropped af ter 1977. The dislocation of workers was estimated to have resulted in lost wages of $12.2 million in 1978 and $4.1 million in 1979. In the two-year period,930 secondary jobs were estimated to have been lost due to the termination of construction activity.

73

CHAPTER 5: POPULATION 5.1 Introduction The purpose of Chapter 5 is to determine and explicate the population effects of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station on the Study Area (Pope County). The first step in this chapter is to examine the demographic trends in the Study Area. The second step is to determine the demographic implications of the basic and nonbasic employment created by the project. Two sources of population increase are considered: (1) increases due to the in-migration of workers and their household members for project-related employ-ment, and (2) 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 demographic trends in the Study Area from 1900 to 1977 were examined and the data are shown in Table 5-1. The historical population trend is characterized by a steady growth during the early 1900s, a serious growth decline between 1930 and 1960, and a rapid increase in both growth rate and size following 1960. These fluctuations at the county level reflect the pattern of population growth at the state level. The Arkansas population, for example, declined by 2 percent from 1940 to 1950 and continued to decline throughout the 1950s, a relative decline of 6.5 percent.

The population growth of 7.7 percent during the 1960s marked a significant reversal of a 20-year experience of population loss due to out-migration. Between 1970 and 1977, Arkansas experienced a relative growth of 11.5 percent, surpassing that of the United States for the same time period.

Between 1930 and 1950, the population in Pope County declined from 26,547 to 23,291, a decrease of over 12 percent. A further decline of over 9 percent (-0.96 average percent annual rate of growth) occurred during the 1950-1960 intercensal period.

Between 1960 and 1970, the Study Area experienced a major reversal of the out-migration trend. The in-migration of persons into Pope County beginning in the 1960s was a response to the major public investment projects begun at that time, in addition to 74

l TABLE 5-1 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION POPULATION OF POPE COUNTY 1900-1977 Average Annual Rate Year Population of Change (Percent) 1900 21,715 --

! 1910 24,527 1.20 1920 27,153 1.00 1930 26,547 -0.23 1940 25,682 -0.33 1950 23,291 -0.98 1960 21,177 -0.95 1970 28,607 3.05

1971 30,100 5.20 l 1972 31,900 5.90 1973 32,700 2.50 1974 33,200 1.50 l 1975 33,600 1.20 1976 34,300 2.10 f 34,800 1.50 1977 Sources: Industrial Research and Extension Center, University of Arkansas, A Changing Arkansas, Population and Related Data,1973; Arkansas Population Projections to 1990 by County, Research Memorandum, RM-65; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information Systems Personal Income, April 1980; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Federal-State Cooperative Program for Population Estimates, Estimates of Population of Arkansas Counties, 1971-1977.

75

increased employment opportunities made available through manufacturing concerns that located in the area. During 1960-1970, the population of Pope County grew by an estimated 3.5 average annual percent change (21,177 to 28,607), surpassing the percent change in both the State of Arkansas and the United States as a whole. The rapid population growth that occurred in the 1960s continued into the next decade. For example, between 1970 and 1977, the population increased at an average annual rate of change of 2.84 percent (28,607 to 34,800), a 21.6 percent increase.

While Pope County as a whole was experiencing major fluctuations in population, ,

Russellville, the county's largest urban center, was growing steadily with very rapid rates of change during the 1940s and 1950s. The growth during the 1940s reflected the location of new manufacturing firms in Russellville and the nascence of the poultry industry in the Study Area. Population growth in Russellville during the 1940s resulted from the shif t in population from the rural areas of the county to Russellville as employment opportunities expanded, but the expansion of Russellville's economy was not sufficiently large to reverse the major out-migration trend. Between 1930 and 1940, Russellville's population increased by 5.3 percent, but during the following decade, the population increased by 37.8 percent (5,927 to 8,166). In the 1950s, the rate of growth decreased compared to the 1940-1950 period; nevertheless, the population expanded by 9.2 percent. A marked increase in the rate of growth also characterized the 1960s and 1970s; the population grew by 31.7 percent in the 1960-1970 intercensal period and by 22.7 percent in the 1970-1977 study period. ( Arkansas Department of Local Services, 1977e; Manes and Associates,1975.)

The major contribution to population growth was net in-migration. This is shown in Table 5-2 which outlines the 1960-1970 period when net in-migration accounted for 71.3 percent of the total population change. Natural increase accounted for less than 3 percent of the population growth each year during the 1960s. While the net in-migration in Pope County between 1960 and 1970 accounted for about 21 percent of the total population in 1970, censt.s estimates indicate a net out-migration of 2.8 percent from the state during the same period. During the study period, natural increase accounted for 1,600 persons out of a total population change of 6,193, a higher rate of increase than was evidenced in the previous decade. Of the population growth occurring between 1970 and 1977, net in-migration accounted for 74.3 percent. In-migration growth occurred in 76

TABLE 5-2 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE POPE COUNTY AND STATE OF ARKANSAS 1960-1970 and 1970-1977 Components of Population Change-1960 to 1970 Total Population Natural Increase Net Migration 1960 1970 Births Deaths Total Number Percent Pope County 21,177 28,607 4,515 2,380 2,135 5,295 21.3 State of Arkansas 1,786,272 1,923,295 381,696 193,601 188,095 -51,072 -2.8 U

Components of Population Change-1970 to 1977 Total Population Natural Increase Net Migration 1970 1977 Births Deaths Total Number Percent l

Pope County 28,607 34,800 3,700 2,100 1,600 4,600 16.0 Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Population Estimates, Series P-26, No. 78-4, 1979; Industrial Research and Extension Center, University of Arkansas, A Changing Arkansas-Population and Related Data,1973.

both rural and urban areas of the county with the rural nonfarm sector expanding substantially. (U.S. Department of Commerce,1979a; University of Arkansas,1973.)

During the 1960s and 1970s, three major factors accounted for the population growth. Because of the expansion of the economic base in Russellville, the rate of out-migration of young people and farming families slowed considerably. To illustrate, out of 61 students from the 1973 high school graduating class in Atkins,15 out-migrated from the Study Area following graduation, a 23 percent out-migration rate. Data show that an average of 57 percent of the graduating class out-migrated during the 1950s. (Gray, 1977.) Because of the manufacturing employment available in Russellville, farming i families were able to supplement their farm income and continue to farm marginally.

Moreov .r, the nature of much of the manufacturing activity was dependent on low-skill labor and encouraged a high proportion of female labor. The opportunity for both the male and the fem ale within one household to obtain employment was an important incentive to stay.

The population composition of the in-migration was especially unique because a large number of in-migrants were former residents or relatives of former residents who had earlier out-migrated from rural Pope County. In 1977, a study of 100 returnees was undertaken (Gray,1977). Of those individuals who lef t in the 1920s because of farm failures and because of no alternative employment, the primary reason for returning to Pope County was to retire. Of those who out-migrated in the 1930s and 1940s, retirement and the wish to "come back home to family" were most frequently mentioned as the reasons for returning.

The in-migration of retired people influenced the population of the county. In 1970, the elderly group (64 years of age and older) accounted for 11.2 percent of Pope County's total population. Between 1960 and 1970, the county experienced a net increase of 851 elderly persons although the proportional share of the elderly remained steady.

Ilowever, information obtained from key informants and a number of demographic studies undertaken in the county in the 1970s pointed to a shif t towards a larger elderly group relative to other age groups as the Study Area became a receptor area for retirees. The proportional share of those 20 to 64 years of age changed only minimally.

In 1960, 50 percent of the total population was in the 20-64 age category and in 1970,52 percent of the population was estimated to be in this group. In 1970, the median age in the county was 27.7 years.

78

In 1(j60, the average household size in Pope County was 3.19 persons, but by 1970 it had declined to 3.01 persons. The average household size in the state as a whole was slightly higher-3.35 person per household in 1960, and 3.05 persons in 1970 (Industrial Research and Extension Center,1973).

A review of the state net migration pattern by race between 1960 and 1970 showed an estimated net in-migration of 47,229 whites (3.2 percent) and a net out-migration of 98,301 nonwhites (26.3 percent). Out-migration of blacks from the Study Area reflected this trend, although historically the proportional percentage of blacks in the total Pope County population was smaller than the state percentage. During the 1950s, out-migration of blacks was particularly marked-37 percent. During the 1960-1970 period, the net migration of blacks in the state amounted to -98,301, and in Pope County the net migration was -20 persons, or 2.9 percent of the Study Area's black population. In 1970, approximately 18 percent of the state population was black, while in the Study Area only 2.4 percent 01 the total population was estimated to be black. The black population resided predominantly in the City of Russellville. (University of Arkansas,1974.)

With respect to educational level, in 1970 the median number of school years completed by Arkansas and Study Area residents was below the national average of 12.1. Ilowever, Pope County, with an average of 10.7 school years, exceeded the Arkansas State median of 10.5 years. In addition, the percent of the population in the Study Area that had completed high school (41.8 percent) surpassed that of the state (39.9 percent), but fell short of the national figure (52.3 percent). (U.S. Dept. of Com m erce,1970.)

5.3 Changes in the Population during the Study Period Between 1969 and 1977, the county populatiou increased from 27,492 to 34,800 (26.6 percent). This population increase was less rapid than that of the 1960s, and represented continuous growth since the major out-migration during the 1950s. The annual average rate of growth during this period was estimated at 2.84 percent, compared with annual growth rates of 3.5 percent during the 1960s. During the 1970-1977 period, in-migration to the county accounted for most of this growth; net migration as a percent of total population change was estimated at 74.3 percent. The annual population data for the study period (see Table 5-1) show a steady increase in 79

population with no aberrations in the pattern that would have resulted from the construction of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station.

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

In Chapter 4, the number of plant-related workers in the Study Area was determined for both basic and nonbasic employment. The number of workers who moved into the county and the number of workers who were already residents of the county were determined for this plant-related employment. The following sections present estimates of the two categories of population effects.

5.4.2 Population Effects of the Project Population Change due to In-migration The principal demographic effects at;ributable to the Arkansas Nuclear One Station are those resulting from the in-migration to the Study Area of project-related workers accompanied by families. In 1977, the project created an estimated 1,443 jobs in the Study Area (see Chapter 4). These jobs were distributed among the three categories of workers-nonmovers, movers accompanied by families, and movers unaccompanied by families or single. Nonmovers held 618 of the 1,425 jobs, movers accompanied by their families held 504, and movers who were unaccompanied by their families or single held 303. These jobs included both basic and nonbasic employment.

In-migration by movers and their accompanying household members caused a change in the in-migration pattern in the Study Area. An average family size of 3.25 was used for accompanied basic workers, based on surveys of construction workers moving to work on large-scale construction projects (Malhotra,1979). The average 1970 household size in Arkansas (3.05) was used to estimate the number of household members accompanying nonbasic workers in-migrating to the Stuiy Area (U.S. Bureau of the 80

Census,1970). Table 5-3 reiterates the basic / nonbasic employment by work category and is the basis for Table 5-4, which estimates the number of in-migrants to the Study Area in 1977.

Population Change due to Diminished Out-Migration Population increases due to the construction and operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station could also have resulted from diminished out-migration. Workers who would normally have lef t to obtain employment elsewhere may have stayed because they found work on project-related jobs, thus increasing the population from 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 had out-migrated if not employed. The minimum population effect would have occurred if the best alternative for these locally hired residents had been to remain unemployed in the Study Area, in which case no population increase from diminished out-migration would have been caused by the project. The analysis focused on the role of project-related eraployment in preventing out-migration of area residents. To estimate the magnitude of this project-related population effect, the number of nonmovers employed in project-related jobs and the availability of other employment opportunities to the nonmovers during the study period were assessed and the commutative, unemployment, and migration patterns for Pope County were examined.

Pope County had a long history of out-migration due to a lack of employment opportunities. Ilowever, during the 1960s and 1970s, net in-migration was substantial because of the employment that became available on public investment projects and in the new manufacturing firms that located in Russellville. The first step in the analysis of diminished out-migration was to assess the degree to which the construction and operation of the plant reduced out-migration of the nonmover workers. The Study Area residents "ho were hired to work on the nuclear plant (direct basic nonmovers) came primarily from two sources: (1) resident construction workers who had in-migrated during the 1960s to work on the Arkansas River project and on other public investments in infrastructure development, and (2) residents who were subsistence f armers who needed supplemental incomes. For families who were residing on farms, supplemental income from nonf arming sources was a necessary condition for remaining in the area and was an important f actor in accounting for the large net in-migration during the 1960s and 81

TABLE 5-3 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION PROJECT-RELATED EMPLOYMENT BY WORKER CATEGORY STUDY AREA 1977 Worker Category Basic Nonbasic 8 TOTAL Nonmovers 473 145 618 Movers Accompanied by Families 364 140 504 Movers Unaccompanied by Families (or Single) 243 60 303 TOTAL 1,080 345 1,425

^ Based on 70 percent of movers accompanied by families (Verway,1979).

1 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.

l l \

l 82

TABLE 5-4 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION POPULATION IN-MIGRATION DUE TO THE PROJECT POPE COUNTY 1977 Additional Household Employment Category Workers Members TOTAL Basic Workers Movers Accompanied by Families" 364 819 1,183 Movers Unaccompanied by Families 243 547 790 Nonbasic Workers Movers Accoppanied by Families 140 287 427 Movers Unaccompanied by Families 60 123 183 TOTAL 807 1,776 2,583 Based on average family size of 3.25 (Malhotra,1979).

b Based on 1970 average household size in Arkansas of 3.05 (U.S. Department of-Commerce, Bureau of the Census,1970).

Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1980.

83

1970s. For those individuals, the absence of the nuclear plant would not have resulted in out-migration. Between 1960 and 1970, for example, total employment in manufacturing increased 76 percent (from 2,250 to 3,975). By 1977, employment in manufacturing increased to 4,800 persons in the Russellville area. Of particular importance was the demand for female employment in the poultry, chemical, and electrical industries:

employment opportunities for females was an added incentive for remaining in the area.

The study period was marked by rapid growth in employment opportunities in the trade, manufacturing, services, and construction sectors of the economy. The project-created employment, particularly that filled by local residents, was only a small fraction of the total employment opportunities in the county labor market. Thus, there was already a reduced out-migration rate for the farming community and unemployed persons that was unrelated to the construction of the nuclear plant.

The fact that a relatively large construction work force resided in the Russellville area prior to construction of the nuclear plant resulted in the assessment of construction worker retention as a result of the plant. Major construction projects in the region began in the early 1960s, continued through the decade, and came to an end by the time construction was beginning on the Arkansas Nuclear One Station. Although general construction activity in the county (on new industrial buildings, homes, and commercial establishments) occurred during the study period, such activity occurred at a steady rate and partly as a response to project-related changes and could not have utilized the entire construction work force residing in the county. It is estimated that approximately 15 percent of the resident construction work force would have out-migrated were it not for the project. This estimate was based on interviews with key informants, on data gleaned from an economic impact report on the number of plant-related construction workers who out-migrated from the county following the 1978 decline in construction activity at the plant, and from studying the economic trends in neighboring counties. (Manes and Associates, Inc.,1980.) The diminished out-migration was estimated to be 120 workers.

Using 3.05 as the household size factor, the diminished out-migration due to the construcuon of the nuclear plant amounted to 366 persons.

Total Project Effects in 1977 The total population effects of the project are the sum of the increase due to in-migration and the increase due to diminished out-migration. In 1977, the total population effects of the Study Area were estimated to be 2,949 persons.

84

5.4.3 Magnitude of the Total Population Effects during the Study Period Based on the calculations for population increases in 1977, the annual population i effects of the project shown in Table 5-5 were estimated, assuming a constant relationship between population size and total work force. The population due to the project reached its highest level in 1977 when it accounted for 8.5 percent of the Study l Area population. The population increase due to the Arkansas Nuclear One Station l ranged from 1.5 percent of the Study Area population in 1969, when construction was j beginning, to 8.5 percent in 1977, when construction on ANO Unit-2 was in progress.

Based on this analysis, it appears that the population effects of the project on the Study Area were relatively large. The effects of the plant on the population of the Study Area included: (1) reduction of the out-migration of a sizeable indigenous construction work force and their families; and (2) an increased in-migration of workers with families. Interviews with key informants indicated that up to 150 construction workers and their families who in-migrated into Pope County for work on the Arkansas Nuclear One Station may have permanently relocated in the Study Area following the end of plant construction. This information was reinforced by a study that found that, of the 472 I

j workers laid off from work on the plant in 1978, 55 percent lef t the Russellville area (mostly commuters and movers), 35 percent drew unemployment for six months and then began to work in other industries in the area, and 10 percent went immediately to work on other projects. (Manes and Associates, Inc.,1980.) The project-related population effects were moderated to some extent by the relatively large construction labor pool residing in the Study Area, but were heightened by the lack of large urban centers in the region, which would have dispersed the population among a number of communities.

85 l

TABLE 5-5 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION POPULATION EFFECTS POPE COUNTY 1969-1978 .

1 Percent of Project-Related Study Area Study Area Year Increase Population Population 1969 434 27,492 1.5 1970 846 28,607 3.0 1971 1,349 30,100 4.5 1972 2,108 31,900 6.6 1973 1,947 32,700 6.0 1974 2,756 33,200 8.3 1975 2,576 33.600 7.7 1976 2,849 34,300 8.3 1977 2,949 34,800 8.5 1978 2,238 35,300 6.3 Sources: Mountain West Research,Inc.,1981; University of Arkansas,1977.

86

CHAPTER 6: SE'lTLEMENT PATI' ERNS AND HOUSING 6.1 Introduction l The purpose of Chapter 6 is to identify the effects of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station on settlement patterns and housing in the Study Area. In this chapter, the historical trends are examined, with particular attention paid to the changes that took place during the study period (1969-1979). Based on the analysis of the preceding chapters, estimates are made of the effects of the project on the construction of new housing and the upgrading or conversion of existing houses. The effects on cost and availability of housing units, based on key informant interviews and information describing the numbers and specific locations of project-related people, are then discussed. The chapter concludes with a summary of the effects of the nuclear project on settlement patterns and housing in the Study Area.

6.2 Settlement Patterns The settlement pattern can first be described by the prevailing land-use pattern in the Study Area. Pope County is rural with 67 percent of its total acreage in forest land and 29 percent devoted to agriculture. The urban areas comprise approximately 1 percent of the county's acreage. Although the Study Area is rural in character, approximately 41 percent of the 1970 population resided in the urban areas.

The Study Area is also characterized by a dispersed pattern of eight small rural communities of less than 1,000 people. Larger towns include Atkins, with a 1970 population of 2,446, and Russellville, the largest city, with a population of approximately 14,000. The small towns have traditionally served the agricultural areas and, more recently, the rural nonfarm developments. In 1970, the State of Arkansas had a relatively low population density of 37 people per square mile compared to the national population density of 56.2 people per square mile. Pope County is sparsely populated with a 1970 density of 35.2 people per square mile. (Arkansas Department of Local Services,1977e.)

The settlement pattern has been largely influenced by the topography. About 50 percent of the Study Area's land (in the northern half) is part of the Ozark Mountains-hilly and wooded, precluding urban development and a viable agricultural sector. In fact, 34 percent of the county is owned by the federal government in the form of the Ozark National Forest and the Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge. Scattered, marginal farms 87

with low acreage are found in the hilly northern areas of the county. The density of the number of farms increases toward the more fertile lowland near the Arkansas River.

Thus, the population distribution in the Study Area is skewed toward the southern half of the county. Soit characteristics and east-west transportation routes that either utilized or paralleled the Arkansas River favored urban and agricultural development in the southern half of the county. However, the lack of rich agricultural soils, coupled with the hilly and wooded terrain, precluded the development of a viable agricultural sector.

As a result, most f arming families required other sources for supplemental income and located within easy commuting distance of Russellville.

The most concentrated zone of economic activity and population is in Russellville, which is located on the north bank of the Arkansas River. The national trend of movement from urban to rural areas resulted in residential development outward from Russellville into rural undeveloped areas (especially towards the west) in the Russellville environs.

The incorporated area of Russellville included about 4.5 thousand acres, of which j the developed land area constituted about 54 percent of the city's land. Af ter 1960, the city grew in two ways: through "in-filling" within established residential areas, and 1 1

through subdivision expansion (Manes and Associates, Inc.1976). Residential growth j occurred primarily to the west and southwest of the city with no growth in the east and southeast where industrial development had taken place. The location of Arkansas Technical University in the northern section of the city served to prevent urban development in the north. Residential housing was predominantly of the single-family, detached structure type (more than 90 percent of total housing units). Housing studies showed that there had been no economic pressures toward multifamily or higher density development (Manes and Associates, Inc.,1976).

1 1

Commercial development in the Study Area was concentrated in the Russellville !

area, largely in the city's central business district and along the major routes (I-64 and Route 7). Industrial land use, mostly concentrated in the eastern section of the city, comprised about 2 percent of the land area within the incorporated limits of the city.

However, approximately 80 percent of all industrial land use in the county fabout 475 acres) was located just outside the incorporated limits of Russellville.

88

6.3 Housing 6.3.1 Ilousing Prior to Construction of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station In 1970, there were 9,875 year-round housing units in Pope County: 82 percent were single-family structures,11 percent consisted of 2 or more units, and the remainder were mobile homes. The number of housing units in 1970 represented an increase of 3,017 units over the number in 1960, an increase of 44 percent in the total housing stock. Compared to previous decades, the 1960s was marked by an especially rapid rate of growth in the housing sector, reflecting the substantial in-migration of population to the Study Area during this period.

l The 1960-1970 period was also characterized by a shif t in the types of housing in tiu Study Area. In 1960, approximately 92 percent of the housing stock constituted l

l single-family housiag structares,7 percent were 2 units or more, and 1 percent consisted of mobile homes. By 1970, the proportional share of single-family homes had declined, while both the proportion aad the absolutt. r. umber of mobile homes had substantially increased-from 1 percent to approximately 8 percent of total housing stock. The proportion of owner-occupied dwellincs also increased during the 1960s--from 63 percent of all housing units in 1960 to 69 percent in 1970. There were few multifamily housing structures in the Study Area during the 1960s; the first large project began in 1969 as a direct response to expected demographic increases due to the construction of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station. (Western Central Arkansas Planning and Development D is t ri c t , 1978 b, 1978 c, 1980 a , 1980b.)

The quality of housing in the Study Area increased between 1960 and 1970. The 1960 census data show that 63 percent of all housing units were sound and that 25 percent were deteriorating. Similar data for 1970 was not available so a comparative analysis could not be made. However, while 31 percent of the housing stock lacked some plumbing in 1960, by 1970 this number had declined to approximately 16 percent. Urban renewal and new public housing projects were partly responsible for the general upgrading of the housing stock. By 1970, Pope County surpassed all its neighboring counties in terms of housing quality. On the whole, housing quality depreciated in the rural areas as compared to that of the Russellville area. Study Area housing surveys also showed that rental units were inferior in quality compared to owner-occupied units. In 1970, for example,46 percent of all rental units were substandard as compared to only 16 percent of owner-occupied units (Arkansas Department of Local Services,1977).

89

6.3.2 Changes in the Housing Stock during the Study Period The Study Area lacked a strong data base in regard to housing construction. To derive estimates of the changes in the size of the housing sector and population for the intercensal period, the main data source used by the West Central Arkansas Planning and Development District was the surveys of electrical connections. In 1970, the nat electrical connections closely approximated the number of new dwelling units. Because most municipalities in the Study Area did not record new housing starts, especially in rural areas, the net electrical connections served as an important indicator of housing trends for Pope County in 1970. Building permit data for the study period were available, however, for Russellville.

Table 6-1 shows the number of new residential units constructed in the Study Area and Russellville between 1970 and 1973 and Table 6-2 shows the number of dwelling units in Russellville by type of structure between 1970 and 1977. The growth rate of new residential units in the county increased steadily between 1970 and 1977. The annual percent increase in the number of new units ranged from a peak of 5.5 percent in 1971 to 3.0 percent in 1978. The new housing growth in the county as a whole represented the development primarily of single-family structures, although a number of multifamily apartment structures were built in Russellville during the 1970s.

l In 1970, the total number of housing units in Pope County was estimated to be 10,305; by 1978, this had increased to 14,215, representing a 37.9 percent increase in the housing sector. This correlated closely with the population growth of 31.5 percent during the same period. Annual data on housing units in the county by type of structure was not available. In 1970, approximately 82 percent of the total housing stock was devoted to single-family housing structures and 8 percent to mobile homes. The remaining 10 percent were multifamily units located in Russellville. Available housing data suggested that, during the study period, the trend in housing was such that a greater emphasis was placed on building multifamily housing units and mobile homes. Several years of housing data suggested that the structure of new growth in the housing sector consisted of approximately 50 percent single-family units, 20 percent multifamily units, and 30 percent mobile homes.

Of the total growth of the housing stock in the Study Area from 1970-1977, the {

growth in Russellville's housing sector contributed approximately 24 percent. In the l l

1970-1977 period, the estimated number of year-round housing units in Russellville 90

TABLE 6-1 NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS POPE COUNTY AND RUSSELLVILLE 1970-1978 )

Pope County Russellville New Dwelling Total Dwelling Percent New Dwgiling Total Dwelling Percent Year Units Units Increase Units Units Increase 1970 451 10,305 4.6 - 3,724 -

1971 571 10,876 5.5 128 3,852 3.4 1972 488 11,364 4.5 94 3,946 2.4 1973 424 11,788 3.7 228 4,174 5.8 1974 434 12,222 3.7 89 4,263 2.1 1975 605 12,827 5.0 70 4,333 1.0

- 1976 513 13,340 4.0 71 4,404 1.6 1977 459 13,799 3.4 139 4,543 3.2 1978 416 14,215 3.0 82 4,625 1.8

^The number of new dwelling units was derived from the number of net electrical connections made in the county.

Building permit data for municipalities in Pope County outside Russellville have historically not been recorded. The use of net electrical connections as a surrogate for the number of new dwelling units is reinforced by their application by the West Central Arkansas Planning and Development District to estimate the annual size of the housing sector and population.

bNew dwelling units comprise single family, multifamily, and mobile home structures and have been estimated from building-permit data. The number of units comprising multifamily structures was based on an assumption of an average of 4.3 units per multifamily structure, based on historical and 1975 housing data.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing, 1970: General Housing Characteristics, Arkansas, Final Report HC(1) - A5, Table 29; Census of Housing,1970: General Housing Characteristics, U.S., Advance Report HC (VI) - 1, Table 2. January 1973; West Central Arkansas Planning and Development District, Inc.

(WCAPDD), Comprehensive Analysis of Pope County, Arkansas; WCAPDD, Housing and Household Trends 1970-1977, 1978; WCAPDD, Areawide Housing Policies,1980; City of Russellville, Office of the Building Inspector, Building Permit Reports, l

1965-1978; WCAPDD, Overall Economic Development Progrun,1976; Industrial Research and Extension Center, University of Arkansas, " Year Round Housing Units," . in A Changing Arkansas,1973; Manes and Associates, Inc., The Planning Document Russellville, Arkansas,1976.

TABLE 6-2 NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE OF STRUCTURE RUSSELLVILLE, ARKANSAS 1970-1977 New Dwelling Units Total Dwelling Units Single M ulti- Mobile Single M ulti- Mobile Year Family Family Homes TOTAL Family Family Homes TOTAL 1970 90 34 -

124 2,894 770 60 3,724 1971 86 39 3 128 2,980 809 63 3,852 1972 71 22 1 94 3,051 831 64 3,946 1973 75 151 2 228 3,126 982 66 4,174 1974 72 13 4 89 3,198 995 70 4,263 1975 54 13 3 70 3,252 1,008 73 4,333 j

e 1976 47 22 2 71 3,299 1,030 75 4,404

" 70 0 139 3,369 1,099 75 4,543 1977 69 Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing, 1970: General Housing Characteristics, Arkansas, Final Report HC(1) - AS, Table 29; Census of Housing,1970: General Housing Characteristics, U.S., Advance Report HC (VI) - 1, Table 2. January 1973; West Central Arkansas Planning and Development District, Inc.,

Comprehensive Analysis of Pope County, Arkansas; WCAPDD, Housing and Household Trends 1970-1977, 1978; WCAPDD, Areawide Housing Policies,1980; City of Russellville, Office of the Building Inspector, Building Permit Reports 1965-1978; WCAPDD, Overall Economic Development Program, 1976; Industrial Research and Extension Center, University of Arkansas, " Year Round Housing Units," in A Changing Arkansas,1973; Manes and Associates, Inc., The Planning Document Russellville, Arkansas,1976.

increased from 3,724 to 4,543 units, representing an increase of 22 percent. The 1

proportion of single-unit structures declined slightly (from 78 percent to 74 percent), ;

while the share of mobile homes did not change, and the proportion of multifamily j structures increased only slightly (from approximately 21 percent to 24 percent of the total housing stock). The 43 percent increase in the number of multifamily units during the study period exceeded the rate of growth of both single units and mobile homes. In 1973, for example,151 multifamily units were added to Russellville's housing stock. This represented about 66 percent of the total new dwelling units that year.

A number of factors influenced the housing characteristics of the Study Area during the study period. The growth of economic opportunities, both in the private and public sectors, resulted in substantial population growth and associated increased demand for housing. The influx of construction workers, in addition to the expansion of the local college, resulted in demands for rental housing that were partly met through an increase in multifamily structures and in the number and size of mobile home parks. During the 1970s, a number of new housing subdivisions were developed in the western part of Russellville; consequently, housing shortages did not result.

The housing analysis also indicated that during the study period a number of the large, old, single-family estates were converted into apartments or professional buildings. This reflected a move by owners of these estates to the new residential subdivisions and the use of their earlier family homes as investment property. In 1970, approximately 16 percent of the housing stock in Pope County was rental housing units, a proportion of the housing stock that exceeded that of neighboring counties.

During the study period, Russellville's housing sector was also characterized by a continued effort to provide urban renewal and housing for the elderly, especially those of low income. By 1975, Russellville owned 233 public housing units (Manes and Associates, Inc.,1976), a substantial increase over the late 1960s. A 1975 housing survey found that the overall housing conditions in Russellville were generally good: 75 percent of residential structures were assessed to be in standard condition, 20 percent in repairable condition, and 5 percent in dilapidated condition. Using the lack of minimum plumbing facilities as a measure of housing quality, the housing data in the 1970 census show that the housing quality in the city was generally good, with only 1.8 percent of the housing units lacking one or more plumbing facilities. A large number of these units were upgraded by an urban renewal project undertaken during the study period.

93

6.4 Effects of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station on Housing in the Study Area 6.4.1 Project-Related Demand for Housing The analysis of the effects of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station on housing in the Study Area focuses on three aspects: (1) the size of the housing stock; (2) the characteristics of the housing stock including changes in housing mix and quality; and (3) the housing market in terms of cost and availability of housing units.

6.4.2 Effects on the Size of the Housing Stock due to Project-Related Demand Based on the characteristics of the workers and the numbers of accompanying household members described in Chapters 4 and 5, the project-related demand for housing is estimated as shown in Table 6-3. As seen in this table, housing demand increased at a steady rate between 1969 and 1974, representing a growth in housing demand from 126 units to 801 units during this period. The greatest demand for housing during ANO-Unit I construction occurred in 1972 when 613 units (5.4 percent of the county housing stock) were estimated to have been used by project-related households.

I Following 1974, the demands for project-related housing increased, reflectir.g the combined needs of ANO-Unit I construction work forces and ANO-Unit 2 operations I

work forces and their families. From 1974 to 1977, the size of the project-related population increase remained relatively constant, ranging from 2,576 to 2,949 persons.

As a consequence, there was little fluctuation in the demand for housing during the four years. As a percent of the total housing stock, project-related demand for housing during the 1974-1977 period usually exceeded 6 percent, reaching a peak of 6.6 percent in 1974. In 1978, construction activity declined; project-related population also declined by approximately 32 percent over the 1977 induced population. Concomitantly, the proportion of project-related units of the total housing stock decreased to 4.6 percent.

Approximately 75 percent of the project-related population increase in the Study ,

Area was centered in Russellville. Table 6-4 shows the demands for project-related I housing in Russellville. From 1972 to 1978, housing demand exceeded 10 percent of the housing stock, peaking in 1977 at 14.2 percent.

The demands for housing attributable to the Arkansas Nuclear One Station (as Table 6-4 shows) were large relative to the size of the housing sector, particularly in Russellville. However, the housing needs of the movers and their families were easily l l

accommodated, and no shortages, overcrowding, or other housing problems were apparent i during the construction period.

94

TABLE 6-3 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION ESTIMATED PROJECT-RELATED HOUSING DEMAND STUDY AREA (Number of Units) 1969-1978 i

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 Project-Related 434 846 1,349 2,108 1,947 2,756 2,576 2,849 2,949 2,238 Population Increase l Project-Related Housing Demanda 126 246 392 613 566 801 749 828 858 656 e Total County Housing Stock 9,854 10,305 10,876 11,364 11,788 12,222 12,827 13,340 13,799 14,215 Project-Related Housing Units as Proportion of Total County Housing Stock 1.3 2.4 3.6 5.4 4.8 6.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 4.6

" Based on estimated distribution of workers among movers accompanied by families (housing demand factor of 1.0) and movers unaccompanied by families (housing demand factor of 0.85 based on observed doubling-up ratio) from Chapter 4 and Chapter 5.

Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.

TABLE 6-4 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION ESTIMATED PROJECT-RELATED HOUSING DEMAND l RUSSELLVILLE 1969-1978 Project-Related Units Housing Housing as a Proportion of Year Demand Stock Total Housing Stock

/

1969 95.0 - -

1970 185.0 3,724 4.9 1971 294.0 3,852 7.6 1972 460.8 3,946 11.7 1973 424.5 4,174 10.2 1974 600.8 4,263 14.1 1975 561.8 4.333 12.9 1976 621.0 4,404 14.1 1977 643.5 4,543 14.2 1978 492.0 4.625 10.6 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981. (

l 96

l A number of adjustments to the housing sector occurred to accommodate the project-induced population. In response to the 1967 announcement that a nuclear plant was to be built near Russellville, construction began on an 87-acre multiunit housing project in the northwestern section of Russellville. Because there were few multiunit housing structures in the Study Area, residents perceived this particular development to be conspicuously linked to the construction of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station.

Ilowever, interviews with a number of developers and real estate people indicated that the building of multiunit structures was a response to the expected increased demand for such housing by students and young couples who were rapidly in-migrating to the Study Area.

During the mid-1970s, additional multif amily units were constructed for both project-related and non-project-related populations. In 1973 (as Table 6-2 shows),151 multif amily dwelling units were added to the Russellville housing stock. The number of

, multifamily units in Russellville grew by 329 units, representing an increase of about 43 percent. In contrast, during the same period the number of single-family units increased by 475 units, representing an overall increase of about 16 percent. The growth of multif amily structures in Russellville during the study period was a departure from the

( single-family housing that had dominated the housing stock. The construction and operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station was an important catalyst for the development and growth of multifamily housing structures in Russellville. The in-migration of construction and operations workers and their families provided the necessary demand for such rental units. As construction neared completion and the number of construction workers at the site declined, the continued viability and maintenance of the multif amily structures was insured through the in-migration of persons who obtained employment in the manufacturing sector as well as by the increased number of college students attending the local college.

According to key informants, approximately one-third of the movers rented housing accommodations, including apartment units within the larger single-family homes and in multifamily structures. In addition, another one-third of the movers may have resided in mobile home parks located in the county. Five new mobile home parks were established in the Study Area to accommodate movers and their families. By the time construction was nearing completion, only three parks remained; these accommodated significantly fewer mobile homes than was the case during more intense construction activity. By the end of the study period, the existing mobile home parks accommodated 97

students, temporary workers in the Study Area, a few retirees, and lower socioeconomic status families. The construction of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station had the effect of expanding the number and the size of mobile home parks, but only temporarily.

Plant-related effects on the housing sector also occurred because of the unusually large number of purchases of both newly constructed homes and older homes. Key informants agreed that approximately 300 homes may have been purchased by plant-related workers during the construction of the plant. Of these purchases,60 percent may have consisted of older homes in the Russellville area (including the nearby town of London). The remainder consisted of new homes built either in the western sections of Russellville or in the unincorporated portion of the Study Area. The demand for newly constructed housing resulted in reinforcing the trend toward new, single-family residential construction in the western area of Russellville and its suburts.

1 i

According to interviews with key informants, the demand for housing was never so large that it could not be absorbed. While shortages for newly built homes were l experienced, they were infrequent and of short duration. Although real estate activity soared during the construction period, the demand for housing and housing growth never exceeded the ability to provide facilities and services. Key informants also indicated that the housing sector remained a viable sector of the Study Area economy when construction activity was nearing completion. This was attributed to the fact that the i

decline in housing demand was a gradual process. Moreover, as construction workers sold I their homes and out-migrated, their homes were purchased by plant operations workers and by other workers who were in-migrating to take advantage of the employment opportunities in the expanding industrial sector. Further, the fact that many construction workers (movers) remained in the area af ter construction on the nuclear plant phased down acted as an additional stabilizing element in the housing sector. Up to 15 percent of the movers, according to key informants, may have remained in the area and obtained work. on other construction projects or :n local industry. A number of Bechtel engineers, for example, decided to stay in the area and obtained managerial j

, positions in local manufacturing firms. (Fullerton, personal communication,1981; Horn, t

personal communication,1981; Russel, personal communication,1981; Ramsay, personal communication,1981.)

The upgrading of homes and the conversion of large single-family structures to multifamily units were on-going housing sector processes during the study period. The 98

construction of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station may have partly contributed to this trend. However, the evidence from key informants suggested that conversions of large single-family homes were a function of the housing trend rather than a response to plant-related demands for rental housing. This argument was supported by the fact that a number of large housing estates were converted into commercial and office uses rather than into housing.

6.4.3 The Effects of Project-Related Demands on the Housing Market For Pope County as a whole, the effects of project-related demand on the cost and availability of housing were small. Through the construction of new multifamily structures, conversion of single-family units to multifamily units, expansion of mobile home parks, and construction of new residential subdivisions, the county was sufficiently able to accommcdate movers and their f amilies.

1 Because the in-migration of movers was, for the most part, geographically

concentrated in the Russellville area, the project-related ef fects were most noticeable in l Russellville. The rise in housing costs was mentioned by key informants as one of the noticeable changes that had occurred during the study period. They further noted that, during peak construction years, the large demand for housing by construction workers escalated real estate values above the national trend. However, the evidence does not indicate that the rise in housing costs resulted in any adverse effects such as delays in in-migration of operations workers and other grcups. As construction was nearing completion, the price of homes deflated and paralle!ed national trends. Local officials and residents indicated that the price of the relatively limited number of rental units increased sharply (10 percent) as a direct response to project-related demand for rental housing. By the mid- and late-1970s, this demand was readily met by newly constructed multifamily housing structures.

6.5 Summary The construction and operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station had important effects on the settlement and housing patterns in the Study Area. Of particular importance was the expansion of multifamily and mobile home development projocts as a direct reponse to project-related demand. During the study period, the area was experiencing major population growth, largely due to in-migration; and the housing sector expanded both in absolute numbers and in geographical area, particularly in the western part of Russellville. The movers' demand for new single-family homes was a 99

significant factor in this expansion. There is no question that the subdivision developments in the western section of Russellville would have grown without the nuclear project-for example, non-project-related in-migrants later purchased most of the dwellings that had been owned by construction workers. Nonetheless, plant-related demand for single-family houses accelerated the suburbanization process to a considerable extent. Furthermore, the on-going process of converting large estate homes to multifamily units was heightened by project-related demands for rental housing. In Russellville, the demand for housing by construction and operations workers was responsible for a significantly large proportion of the increase in total housing stock, and for the short-term inflation in both house values and rentals rates. All in all, the Study Area was able to accommodate the movers who concentrated in Russellville. The fact that demand increased and declined steadily ensured that a " boom-bust" effect in the housing market did not occur. The continuing demand for housing, once construction neared completion, meant that major market fluctuations and housing vacancies did not develop.

l l

100

CHAPTER 7: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES 7.1 Introduction I

The purpose of Chapter 7 is to describe the basic structural components of the local government in the Study Area, indicate the level of services, and detail specific areas of services during the study period. The objective is to focus on changes in public services that resulted from the construction and operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station. These discussions highlight changes associated with significant social or political consequences rather than provide a detailed fiscal analysis of the Study Area government.

Once the background description of the local government is outlined, a summary of the budgets for the study period will be presented. An analysis of revenues and expenditures concentrates on the local area's response to the increased revenues

, resulting from plant construction. This analysis includes consideration of the effects on the assessed tax base of the county, reduced tax rates, increased expenditures, and other results.

The discussion of public services focuses on employment and service trends in four areas: education, transportation, public safety, and social services. These services have been chosen because: (1) they are thought to be responsive to socioeconomic change in the county; (Z) they are of ten cited as impacted services in the literature; and (3) they would be indicative of other public services' effects esperienced in the Study Area.

7.2 Government Structure At t!.e time of the 1970 Census, Pope County was classified as rural and included four incorporated cities: London, Dover, Atkins, and Russellville, the county seat.

Historically, the incorporated cities and the county had a close interdependent relationship whe.reby many of the municipal and county functions and services were merged. By the early 1960s, the individual political jurisdictions were highly integrated with the county, and such services as fire protection were shared. In the 1960s, as substantial in-migration and economic expansion were taking place in the Study Area and as Russellville was rapidly growing, the jurisdictional functions of the individual municipalities became more distinct and autonomous. This tendency toward increased municipal independence was reinforced by regional and federal support for community comprehensive planning and by the substantially larger tax base.

101

The basis of political decision making in the unincorporated area of Pope County was the quorum court, whose members established county policy, administered the county budget, and oversaw the county of icials. The eleven members of the quorum court were selected by districts based on population-4 from Russellville, I from Dover, 1 from Atkins, and 5 from the unincorporated rural areas of the county. The county judge was the executive administrator of the quorum court and had veto power over decision making. By statute, the county judge was responsible for the budget and served as the juvenile judge. In addition, the county judge served as the cor.nty road commissioner, a position considered important by county residents. One-third of the county tax revenues were for road construction and maintenance. (Rye, personal communication,1981.)

Although the farming ccmmunity in the Study Area did not function as a unified political body, 75 percent of the quorum court members were farm-related and five of the last six county judges during the study period were farmers-agricultural interests {

were thus well represented. (Rye, personal communication,1981.)

In 1980, there were 127 full-time employees in the nine departmentsI of the county government. Of these, the two largest were the Sheriff's Department, with 32 employees, and the Road Department, with 50 full-time employees.

The quorum court met bi-monthly to discuss policy, make decisions, and interact with their constituencies. The decision making process was an open one with substantial citizen impact. Ilowever, no major political issues emerged during the study period. The most important issue was over upgrading county services and raising the taxes for a county building complex.

The county was also divided into five school districts. The Arkansas Nuclear One Station was located in the Russellvnie School District and paid a school tax to the district. The average school district millage in Pope County was 51.6 mills, and the combined average of school district millage and county millage was 60.6 mills.

1 The county departments included: county judge, county sheriff, tax assessor, county treasurer, circuit court clerk, county clerk, and the county road, ambulance, and fire departments.

102

The county government did not have a planning department but, af ter the late 1960s, relied on the research, policy initiatives, and economic development programs of the West Central Arkansas Planning and Development District (WCAPDD). This agency covered a 10-county area of west-central Arkansas and was an offshoot of the Public l Works Economic Act of the 1960s, which gave grants to depressed areas. These grants required planning on the basis of Economic Development Districts, of which eight were in l

Arkansas. As such, WCAPDD served as an umbrella agency supported by several federal grant programs. (WC APDD,1976.) The structure of WCAPDD was such that all county and municipal governments within the ten-county planning district participated in economic projects. Of particular importance was the WCAPPD designation of Russellville as an economic growth center. As a result, the Russellville area became a focus of planning, and close ties were nurtured between Russellville officials, the Pope County government, and regional planning agencies. Historically, the county was not active in land-use planning but, through WCAPDD, it undertook local economic planning. (Fullerton, personal communication,1981.)

The governmental structure of the incorporated municipalities was of the mayor / city-council type, and officials were elected every .wo years. The study period was marked by a noticeable departurt from the 1950s and 1960s in terms of the emphasis placed on planned growth. The earlier no-growth attitude held by Russellville's political power base had eroded and was replaced by leadership largely composed of businessmen with a progressive pro-growth orientation. In the 1970s, a comprehensive development plan was completed for the city and, in 1976, the Russellville Zoning Ordinance was updated to implement the land-use portion of the comprehensive plan. Although there was no city planning department in Russellville, there was an active planning commission. Of particular importance in the decision making process was the role played by informal political bodies such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Industrial Devolopn ent Team. These two organizations were influential in setting development policy. (Russel, personal communication,1981.)

7.3 The County Budget during the Study Period 7.3.1 Revenues The major revenue effects of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station resulted from property taxes levied on the project and were most evident in the budgets of Pope County and the Russellville School District. During the study period, an important source of revenue for Pope County was the ad valorem property tax. Approximately 103

one-third of the county's revenues accrued from this local tax; another one-third of the revenues were received from the state in addition to one-third from the federal government.1 The ad valorem property tax was a tax on all real and personal property located in the county and was levied at a fixed mill rate in terms of mills of the assessed value of the property. Assessed value in Pope County was set at 20 percent of the full market value.

The importance of project revenues to the total county assessment is shown in Table 7-1. The nuclear facility was taxed annually beginning in 1968. Between 1969 and 1977, the county property assessment increased by 81.5 percent. In 1969, when construction of ANO Unit 1 began, the tax assessment of the plant amounted to 5.4 percent of the total county assessed valuation. In 1975, with Unit I completed and with the ongoing construction of Unit 2, the assessed valuation of the project as a percent of total county assessment was significant, amounting to an estimated 72.2 percent. In 1977, 66.3 percent of the county's assessed valuation was the result of the nuclear station. l l

~

l The fiscal effects of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station were most visible for the Russellville School District. Real estate property located in the Russellville School District and in the unincorporated area of the county was assessed at 9 mills for county revenues and 50 mills for the school district revenues. Thus, of the fiscal contribution made by the nuclear station to the county, the recipient who most benefited from the plant's revenue-generating effects was the school district. Table 7-2 shows the revenue impact of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station. Between 1968 and 1977, revenues to the ~

school system from ANO taxes jumped from $46.5 thousand to $5.7 million, and contributed 6.2 percent of school district total property tax revenues in 1968 and 80.7 percent in 1977.

l I

l l

1 The state sources of revenue consisted of state general turnback, state highway revenue turnback, state aid to secondary roads, and the severance tax. Federal sources of funding included federal revenue sharing and grants.

104

I TABLE 7-1 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION ASSESSED VALUATION TAXES PAID AND TOTAL COUNTY ASSESSED VALUATION 1968-1977 Percent of ANO Total County ANO of County Net Assessed Assessed Assessed ANO Taxes Year Value" Valuation a Valuation Paida 1968 $17,100 $ 930.1 5.4 $ 53.0 1969 23,054 1,244.6 5.4 79.7 1970 27,295 3,784.1 13.9 242.2

~1971 34,978 10,103.5 28.9 646.6 1972 52,607 25,817.2 49.1 1,652.3 1973 67,934 39,398.4 58.0 2,521.5 1974 91,571 64,931.6 70.9 3,830.9 1975 118,717 85,744.5 72.2 5,059.1 1976 136,640 100,589.4 73.6 5,934.7 1977 173,097 114,791.4 66.3 6,772.7

^Thou: ands of dollars.

Source: Arkansas Power & Light Company, Tax Department,1980.

105

TABLE 7-2 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION PROJECT REVENUE IMPACT TO RUSSELLVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ANO Revenues School District School as Percent Percent Total Total School Revenues from District Revenues from ANO Assessed District Propergy Revenues frgm Property of Total Year Valuation" Revenues Taxes ANO Taxes Taxes Revenues c 1968 $14.9 N/A $745 $46.5 6.2 N/A 1969 16.1 N/A 805 62.6 7.8 N/A 1970 19.9 N/A 995 189.2 19.0 N/A 1971 27.4 $2,035 1,370 505.2 36.9 24.8 1972 44.3 2,600 2,215 1,290.9 58.3 49.7 1973 58.9 3,641 2,945 1,969.9 66.9 54.1 1974 81.7 4,958 4,085 3,246.6 79.5 65.5 1

1975 108.2 6,357 5,410 4,287.2 79 2 67.4 l 1976 125.6 7,898 6,280 5,029.5 80.1 63.7 1977 142.2 8,740 7,110 5,739.6 80.7 65.7

^ Millions of dollars.

b Thousands of dollars.

C Total revenues consist of revenues from property assessments, and state and federal funding sources.

Source: Russellville School District, Russellville School District Information, 1979, 1980; Arkansas Power and Light Company, Tax Department,1981.

Between 1968 and 1977, a total of $22.5 million in school district revenues was expended by the Arkansas Power & Light Company for the Arkansas Nuclear One Station. With the completion of ANO Unit 1 in 1974, approximately 80 percent of revenues from property taxes, ca an annual basis, were ANO payments. Total school district revenues, however, consisted of revenues allocated from assessed valuation in addition to state and federal sources of school revenues. In 1971, when construction of ANO Unit I was ongoing, approximatelv 25 percent of total school district revenues were attributable to the nuclear station. In 1974, when Unit I was completed, the percent of total revenues associated with ANO had climbed to 65 percent. Between 1974 and 1977, the propor-tional share remained stable at about 65 percent, but the total revenues increased from

$4.1 million to $7.1 million.

Because the Arkansas Nuclear One Station constituted such a large proportion of the tax base of the county and the Russellville School District, and subsequently paid a similarly large proportion of the total taxes of those districts, other taxpayers in these districts paid fewer taxes, given the total level of revenues. The amount of tax savings can be estimated by calculating what the tax rate for the same amount of revenue would have been without the facility. The county basic tax rate in 1977 was 9 mills for the county and 50 mills for the Russellville School District. Without the Arkansas Nuclear One Station, the county basic tax rate would have had to be increased to 148 mills (an additional 89 mills) in order to meet the 1977 level of county operations. For a homeowner with a home valued at $50,000 ($10,000 assessed value due to 20 percent assessment ratio), the additional taxes would have been $890 for 1977.

7.3.2 Expenditures Table 7-3 shows the county expenditures by major function for the 1969 to 1977 period. As shown in this table, total county expenditures increased (in current dollars) from about $160 thousand in 1969 to $1.5 million in 1977, an average annual rate of increase of 28.4 percent. After adjusting for inflation, the overall annual rate of increase was 21.9 percent. However, the recording of the county expenditure data is not consistent over time. For example, the total expenditures for public protection were not included until 1975. In addition, the county expenditures for road maintenance were considered a separate item and were not included as part of the general county budget until 1977. The fact that these inconsistencies existed made it difficult to assess the trends in expenditures over time and to attribute change to the nuclear plant.

107

t [

=

5 W*

\ A t-m L C' N m C N F3 O O e CI t- cae **

e - N C N e C O < - *l O *?I

- b.

P I, *f. C. O. Ch. C. O. C. oc. %'.

CI n t. *{ . if. I-ry s cx + sr- { -T C C N C C'

- Di e :

.* l CC C N C m C 'T C C" Ct L y N *T - m N

&. Cf "3 y et g

- -4 4o.

% wt

{

-u t **

l C 3 i l 6 c

O C

ra eJ re O

G O

C 4 Y x

aj cc e

C%

==

b

. l e*

t- b E*

r, C'. C. e. C. C. O. N. Ck.

Ci cc. **'.' *;

. n # *g at - tr- - *P O == r- Ck di Q cc l .' C

.O-.t ** .* eJ C% rn ** Q #I t% C V f

' *J e

M Nl C*

CC w *'b t

[ l

i - ' .

e -

C o-LC he t- %C t- a **

c t-C C

O N

C N

O O

C i

4 ec O

<l eJ i -

P to c'

R~ k Y es r-C 2 y C. < N. ':. C. N. N. r' af. 4.. L.' C.

l -.

6 i Ch s N

+ Q. wr r* - * < C' N O L - er s== r.f N r- N *P < N r- -

) -" T l r.* c r- <

M 9= w. ** C T C L

C Y .C

-a C. < a

8e ~i e

! m h O C O 9 O O O e S ej b A 1 -

7* .i '

- e m r*

e 4

O O l 1 N

r r . ee* = '

@i

~ , e O t- t. cf. O. . O. C. r.C 7 4

.i n C~ < cc + N e en - r- ** Cc 2.,

so V

=' C"- *r -* M N % O c -oc.

s

C O l M re N C C *~* c W

e v- a c C 0 l C 2 J Cv - , bu 3

~s

[%

O

?

O O

O N O O O

O O

C l l

~+

C .;

O C* <

e 4

3 0

C 3 aw g,

y n

v

',,3,,

~ -.

N -.

c.

N C

-. <.rn O

C.

r= a q e.

t-N. .

== i g

oa a V- t

.O , g g

-e oc mr e-a N Q'! + =~

q ..

yZ W e2 N g L O - [ **

c ~ * *:

2 O. to c e- c.

m b r-t-a g " r- t y ='"d- O O O N O O O O' N e, ,; ekL, y N O O oc e C- c ,

e cl N-- - 7

~ =

- g /.o a

=

p*, = ,

.-,3- r- e. e. O. *v. e. O. O. *r.4 6

e. e. U v p 4 C ._, [ O m C N 0.-

o,e e-a Nl N N p C g. 6.

". . , .%. e*

- r- . .. - -

h C C -l 2 , " M N

r

N c .C3 ~ $0 U: < ~

x .h.,

r". *U t,

$ e f:: .

Z U O >

2.

>c

, A r-O O

r.

O o

N.

O O

O.

O c-m.

O O

O.

O o

O.

O O

O.

1 1 M

C~

C e

o n.

E e

w.

3u 35 a ee

-gc.g:

M H g e CU

~~w l -O O o N oc ** c m

- cr l = -= .5 ..~ ,[ -g [

t- ** - ** *T l* C =~

@ N N k O'*

9 e e o c e Ged e 0 6 U

.u- s- a' ew o.

s e C u

O e n U cM eCb O O O

<*- O O O Ol < N 3 VU h

{ o O O O e C o [ l c- co t ,.

~

~Q y r- N. N. O. ?. r-O. C.

- d C. I O c"

~b g. ,

k. O ,3 O N O C - en =O. C "'-

- 4m g

- I @ N *-a e-* N & C'" **

t) w .

I e - - . O, ,,c, xo et-M M, 4 O m

E b 's O*

o.

s < > -

g,, C rg ==.m.

{ e U W 6 c C%

- C O O C O O C., - N C -w ,L. o.s

-9 M C O - O C O { l v. re. C' --

7 ~= 4 CC c r.

~; O **

!wl e. 4 C. C. t-O. O. r N. -

c- ,; **s. .

O rm N 0: O ** N' ct co -

~c 'C

--*O C ** -= N =*. # c C.

M 4 .t . - ' =g p

C 4

~h

@ % 5e fC * *C ":*

u

- 5

- =

Ec. $

C =.

x 3 h )

--yO 0. ;

a E b

=

2 [,, O -c C 3 .=*--

e a o

C o e

.-- ?

Y D D

C e *. ** cEc ~ E E E 7 C '-

G ..C. r

.C ".:'

1 -. , .F5 c.* 1 O.4 O

.- S>~..b L a3 fg w w .. >

U C U ~~

4 ** .o c :: ...". -

O '

-e =; c C

2 o".i

,0 o u &

, * - *U, r,: :

x- "' '=

b*

V b

M O p d OI he h k- M ** '*

%- - C C. e . C.

r: .3 3 U s.. LO

O - - C A ("- a s2 . 4

(- n .3 +d **

c c

D.

n d; 7 m

C S

4

- < '3C' L t I ,1

= :- _

+

n ,

sL. * -* n v s ~*O'

m. c'. T"

- g 63- 6e e b .a. h 7"* k* .

be b

03

An examination of expenditures was made of those county functions for which data were available and consistent-general government, utilities, health, planning, and public buildings. Expenditures for general government showed a steady increase during l

l the 1969 to 1974 period. In 1969, approximately $60 thousand was expended on l administrative functions and county salaries; in 1974, these expenditures reached about

$97 thousand, representing an average annual increase of 8.2 percent. Ilowever, beginning in 1975, a relatively significant number of new employees were added to the county. In that year, the general government expenditures were estimated to be $182 l thousand. This represented an 88 percent increase over the level of general government expenditures from the previous year. General government expenditures centinued to increase and in 1976 amounted to $245 thousand, reflecting an increase of 34.8 percent over the 1975 level of expenditures. Interviews with key informants suggested that revenues from the Arkansas Nuclear One Station were partly responsible for the county's capability for supporting a larger administrative budget.

l l

l According to the county's chief administrator, the county's administration prior to the construction of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station was characterized by a weak j county government with an insufficient number of employees to accommodate the county needs. The county judge said that 15 percent of the increased number of county l employees came about as the result of revenues generated by the nuclear plant. Between l

1968 and 1980, the number of county employees increased from 27 to 66, excluding personnel employed on road construction and repair. (Rye, personal communication, 1981.)

While the assessed value of the ANO facility constituted about 66 percent of the county's total assessed value in 1977, the taxes paid for the nuclear facility accounted for approximately 25 percent of total revenues. The taxes paid for the nuclear plant were particularly important in the area of road maintenance. Historically, road maintenance revenues were allocated from property taxes at a basic tax rate of 3 mills (1.5 mills for roads located within the jurisdiction of the county and 1.5 mills for road maintenance within the City of Russellville). In 1977, tax revenues from the Arkansas Nuclear One Station for road maintenance amounted to $344 thousand. With the tax monies available from the nuclear facility, an ambitious road repair program was implemented in 1974. (Rye, personal communication,1981.)

109

Except for road improvements, the City of Russellville did not directly benefit from the taxes levied on the nuclear station. Of the three mills levied by the county for road improvements and maintenance,1.5 mills were allocated to Russellville. In 1977, for example, Russellville was estimated to have received $172 thousand. Table 7-4 shows the expenditures for the City of Russellville for 1972 to 1977. In 1972, total expenditures were estimated at roughly $600 thousand. This increased to almost $775 thousand by 1977, representing an increase of 28.6 percent. The most notable increase occurred in administrative expenditures-from $71 thousand in 1972 to $262 thousand in 1977, reflecting a 269 percent increase. The increase in administrative expenditures is reflected in the increase in municipal employment during the study period, from 50 persons in 1972 to over 80 persons in 1977. Expenditures for public safety and recreation and parks also showed noticeable increases during this period. IIowever, these increases in revenues were not a direct result of the taxes paid by Arkansas Power & Light for the ANO facility. Rather, the nuclear facility had indirect effects by the expansion of the city's tax base through plant-induced in-migration and housing growth. In summary, the plant did not have a significantly large direct impact on Russellville's budget. Table 7-5 shows the revenue impact for Pope County in 1977.

7.4 Selected Public Services The pablic services described here are those that are most responsive to public demand and most of ten cited in the literature as being affected by large scale projects.

In dealing with these services, it has been necessary to present an overview that condensed extensive data for an extended period. The objectives are to identify responses to project impacts made by public services and to record structural changes that had important consequences for county residents.

7.4.1 Education Of all the public services to be affected by the revenues generated by taxing the Arkansas nuclear facility, the Russellville School District received substantial tax monies from the ANO project. These tax revenues had significant positive impacts on the Russellville School District. The nuclear facility was taxed annually beginning in 1969 when construction began. A 50-mill rate was assigned to the assessed valuation of the facility for education revenues within the Russellville School District.

Table 7-6 shows the magnitude of the ANO revenues paid to the Russellville School District. In 1968, one year prior to the start of construction, property within the 110

TABLE 7-4 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION CITY OF RUSSELLVILLE EXPENDITURES 1972-1977 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Administrative $71,190 $106,503 $157,621 $280,072 $222,468 $261,902 Sanitation 13,324 14,185 15,930 20,126 17,000 17,805 Community Development 12,180 - -

17,704 23,320 25,442 Police 114,758 119,546 154,385 214,805 269,110 278,483 Recreation and Parks 58,213 6,950 11,000 88,072 117,768 141,184 Fire 51,190 - -

65,935 32,734 76,759 Cemetery 5,830 7,853 7,118 10,391 9,036 18,283 Airport 1,000 - - - - -

Court 7,200 7,199 7,600 7,600 8,468 8,468 Bonded Indebtedness 33,867 31,881 31,124 32,347 - -

TOTAL General Fund and Bonded Indebtedness $368,752 $294,117 $384,778 $737,052 $699,904 $828,326 Street 233,260 217,763 262,206 243,781 270,863 261,074 GRAND TOTAL $602,012 $511,880 $646,984 $980,833 $938,036 $1,089,400 Constant 1972 Dollars $602,012 $485,194 $553,451 $775,362 $704,231 $774,272 Source: City of Russellville, Budget, 1972-1977.

TABLE 7-5 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION REVENUE IMPACT, POPE COUNTY l 1977 (Thousands of Dollars)

Jurisdiction Value Pope County Assessed Valuation $173,097 Pope County Resenues from Taxable Property (9 Mills) 1,558 ANO Assessed Valuation 114,791 ANO County Revenue Contribution (9 Mills) 1,033 Pope County Road Maintenance Revenues from Taxable Property (3 Mills) 519 ANO Revenues for Road Maintenance (3 Mills) 344 l

Source: Pope County Judge, personal communication,1981.

l 112

TABLE 7-6 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION REVENUE"TO RUSSELLVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 Beginning Balance $59,627 $79,012 $68,792 $305,953 $420,579 $738,471 Local Revenue 1,094,522 1,527,418 2,365,258 3,165,310 4,202,072 5,409,117 Other Districts 0 11,687 13,937 7,689 13,029 14,741 County Revenue 7,174 5,068 2,027 7,162 8,186 10,275 State Revenue 802,472 934,803 1,152,742 1,473,641 1,648,763 1,682,552 C 43,672 Federal Revenue 49,239 26,900 32,411 39,226 33,274 Non-Revenue 22,731 15,220 5,867 0 31,500 0 TOTAL Revenue $2,035,767 $2,600,111 $3,641,037 $4,958,984 $6,357,406 $7,898,830

^ Revenue estimates for subsequent years are as follows: $8.7 million in 1977-78; $9.8 million in 1978-79; $11.9 million in 1979-80; and $10.9 million in 1980-81.

Source: Harvey Young, personal communication,1981.

school district was assessed at $14.9 million, from which the school district received

$745 thousand in revenues. In 1969, revenues from assessed property were an estimated

$805 thousand, of which the nuclear plant paid $62 thousand or about 8 percent. After 1974, with the completion of ANO Unit 1, the utility paid the Russellville School District about 80 percent of the revenues received from the local property tax receipts.

State and federal revenue payments to the Russellville School District remained fairly constant between 1971 and 1977 (see Table 7-6). In the 1971-1972 school year, local tax revenue accounted for about 54 percent of total revenues for the school district. By 1977, this had increased to over 68 percent. Thus, while nonlocal revenues remained relatively constant, revenues from school district property taxes contributed substantially to the overall revenues available for educational expenditures. In 1971, taxes paid for the ANO facility accounted for approximately 25 percent of total school district revenues, as Table 7-7 shows. In 1975, ANO tax revenues amounted to 67.4 percent of total revenues. Consequently, the taxes paid for the nuclear facility were highly significant to the Russellville School District.

l The beneficial impacts of the nuclear plant on the Russellville School District were enhanced compared to the conditions prevailing prior to ANO construction.

Interviews with key informants consistently pointed out the contrast between the 1980 situation of the school district and the situation preceding construction of the nuclear plant. During the 1960s, the school system was experiencing severe overcrowding and financial problems. Much of the overcrowding was due to the unprecedented in-r migration that accompanied economic growth in the Russellville area, including the sizeable construction work force related to the Arkansas River navigation project. Prior to construction of ANO, the enrollment of the school district was growing rapidly, and the school district did not have the necessary revenues to supply the needed educational services. The pupil / teacher ratio at that time was 35:1. In the late 1960s a fund drive was established to raise sufficient revenues for the school district. Additionally, school j district residents voted to increase the tax rate by 5 mills in order to construct a much l needed high school. Thus, at the time ANO was announced, the Russellville School District was experiencing considerable and serious difficulties.

The tax revenues provided by the construction of the nuclear facility reversed the economic situation of the school district. However, the evidence suggested that the reversal was not immediate. The tax payments early in the construction phase were not 114

TABLE 7-7 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION RUSSELLVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUES 1968-1977 Russellville R evenue - ANO Percent ANO Total School District from Revenues Revenues of School Percent ANO Assessed Assessed to School Property Tax District of Total Year Valuation a Valuation b District b Payment s Revenues b Revenues

1968 $14.9 $745 $46.5 6.2 - -

1969 16.1 805 62.6 7.8 - -

l 1970 19.9 995 189.2 19.0 - -

l -

! G 1971 27.4 1,370 505.2 36.9 $2,035 24.8 1972 44.3 2,215 1,290.9 58.3 2,600 49.7 1973 58.9 2,945 1,969.9 66.9 3,641 54.1 1974 81.7 4,085 3,246.6 79.5 4,958 65.5 1975 108.2 5,410 4,287.2 79.2 6,357 67.4 1976 125.6 6,280 5,029.5 80.1 7,898 63.7 1977 142.2 7,110 5,739.6 80.7 8,740 65.7 aMillions of dollars, bThousands of dollars.

Sources: Russellville School District, Information Sheet, 1978, 1979, and 1980; Harvey Young, personal communication,1979 and 1981; Arkansas Power & Light, Tax Department Data Sheet,1981; Mountain West Research,Inc.,

1981.

sufficiently large to offset the incoming students associated with the ANO construction workers. Interviews with key informants indicated that it was not until 1973 that the situation was balanced. However, the tax payments during the first three years of construction helped finance the new high school which was completed in 1972. The opening of the high school had a significant impact in reducing overcrowding because it expanded the enrollment capacity of the school district, which enabled the school system to readily accommodate the in-migrating students associated with construction of the nuclear plant. (Young, personal communication,1981.)

Table 7-8 is a summary of changes that occurred in the Russellville School District during the 1966-1977 period. These changes were compared to the four other school districts that were located in Pope County but that did not benefit from tax receipts from the nuclear facility. In 1967, the expenditure per average daily attendance (ADA) in the Russellville School District was $330; this did not differ significantly from the other four school districts. In fact, the expense per ADA for the Pottsville School District exceeded that of Russellville with an estimated $344 per ADA. In 1974, the situation had dramatically altered: expenses per ADA for Russellville were estimated at

$1,026, while all the other districts were about one-half that of Russellville. This trend continued through 1980. Moreover, during the 1970-1977 period, capital outlays exceeded $500 thousand annually. Between 1977 and 1981, over $5 million was spent on capital improvements, all paid in cash as a result of the revenues from ANO.

l l

1 l

An examination of educational quality indices demonstrated that plant-related revenues were particularly important to the changes that took place in the school system. The pupil / teacher ratio of 30:1 during the late 1960s declined to 27:1 by 1972, to 21:1 by 1975, and 20:1 by 1980. When construction began on ANO, the school system employed approximately 125 classroom teachers; by 1980, there were over 300.

Interviews with school officials indicated that had it not been for plant revenues, there would be 90 fewer teachers in the district and perhaps 125 fewer administrative and service personnel. In addition, in 1980 the school district had the highest teacher salary schedule in the state: in 1977, the average teacher salary was about $13.5 thousand, while the next highest district averaged $10.3 thousand. The substantial educational revenues also enabled the establishment of a policy to hire highly qualified teachers (over 60 percent had master's degrees) from all over the country and to establish specialized educational programs. (Young, personal communication,1981.)

116

lllll l

7 4 920l 9 1 005 4 77521 7757 5 7 - - - - 4 295 l 5 1 0 81 5 43223 64339 9 - - - - 7, 778A5, 6, 0, 9,1,8, 2 2,3,1,9,4, 1

3 1 36t 73 00093 24' 6 1 1 1 1 4 5, 1 .

7 6 0060 7 4 9 1 2 3 2 65 8 08 64 o3 7 7 7 3' 2 569 574 01 7081 4 97 8 43221 3 2 91 9 9

1 0,9 5 4 6, 66573, 2,0,5,5,5, 2 6,5, n,5, 5, 1 1 3 1 6781 1 99992 6

( 3289 1 6 9

4, 1 1 s t

r 5

7 9

88952 53 650 991 65 01 625 6 '3 761, 9, 359;- 1 7

'80641 1 2 651 00 43222 2

765 1990 27 R m

]

1 0,8 5 4 7, , , , , , 1,0,30,0, c 1 3 1 3474 4 99991 R Y 31 1 3 0 1 ,

R 1 6 n A o 4 60745 521 06 005 00 543 05 1 7721 it L 7 1 3 8 42 9 7582 005 00 43229 R 3 956 a A 1 9 0,8 5 4 6, 5565 0, 0,0,9,0,0, 1 8,2,2,1,1, c S 0521 8 u 1 3 1 788 80 d D 1 1 9 7 7

1 E

N _

f A 3 4269 2 9008 7 5o001 1 2395 61 1 1 3 o 7 825 4 ? 5021 0 8 n0 e2 4321 7 1 1 01 7 S, 9 1

98 5 45, 45558 1, 5, 0, 0, 9, 1 4,1,4,2,1, t

n R 3 92379 77779 e E 61 3 m i

t 2

4, t r

c 1 a p

A E 2 3781 3 92894 40001 48098 60208 e 1t T 7 9

1 862 3 51 1 08 31 4 45 1 0 00 7 32216 2 31 04 D O f, 1 97545, 8,0,0,4,0, 1 8,7,8,1, 5, I 3 85425 66667 te a

TA 1 21 8 t AL 5 S CT . 1 87850 1 5 901 00207 37973 4231 5 ly, UU - 7 2 4R 36 1 7 01 5 00 4 0 2 321 1 3 5 9354 DO 9 1 97S44, 331 44 0, 3, 4,6, 6, 1 1,2,3,3,1, b E 3 22924 66667 m L 1 0 e YA 9 s s

8- TT 4 I 7 0 38639 05 089 26971 A 71 3 1 2 79222 7 t U P7 9 7 643 92 1 1 61 0 0401 8 321 1 2 4065 5 l A 9 07533, 3331 4 5,1,0,1 5, 1 6, 7, 5,6, 7, a .

E L O C-1 1 r C 6 3 1 67 6 55556 e 1

1 ,

6 1 8 n A EC 9 1 0, e T P NS1 1 G

Os Pi 9 763 72 71 783 1 6973 83 352 1

6

- P 6 40961 - - - - - 5591 2 321 1 2 51 7 7 9 9 X 9 87 431, - - - - - 3,2, 8,1 8, 1 6, 5, 4, %, 3 1 YR ,

E 1 3 651 9 55556 f

o 1 6 AE 2 8 MC 8 9 67877 00904 95865 31 279 5

MN 6 - - - - 0 821 53 003 05 121 1 0 2601 8 o UA 9 - - - - 0, 23333 0,0,7,5,0, 1 5,4,3,1,1, i t

SD 1 3 61 542 5s556 n N 8 8 E 1 io t

T T 7 1 1 852 3 240 00069 05860 52801 lu A

6 856 4 1 192043 00000 321 1 1 75 828 o s

1 9 76438, 23333 0, 0, 0, 6, 2, 1 7,9,6 6,7, e Y ?. 0221 5 444t 5 R 1 5 IL 4 t A n 6 29376 0831 2 74867 5 3 91 2 e D - 6 4 1 532 - - - - - 1 8 5 3 8 221 1 0 3 3769 r r

E . 9 76437, - - - - - 0,3,0,4,6, 1 5,4,1,0,1, u

. 1 c

G 2 2291 1 44445 n A 6 9 o t

l i t C

y i c e e e c e e Vl t r

l l l i l s u

A n.

t t

s el l i l v l

l eli v

lel l

i v

letiv l

leli l v i c

o i l C D s il r vl s r vl i l s r ivl l

s il r vl s i l r vl n nr os e nr os e s inretos nr os e t e.

l e o p oo et t s ik v ct s et t ik vct s s inret ost s e vct s et t s ik v ct s s o h k v ct : t P c S AD!or!

t PR ou AIbl t e I Pl ou l t

AD'l oeoh l' t kt AiIhleouPR AIM!! Ptl t e ou r o

p e

y ly

)

n nlna r R e t e

Nit a :

xrt ip l c

iact d n. on e g r

a eeoa n

f < as a u s s s

(

ed d r t pnc) y y oor r e er e mr r u

o gns u e nes ea laa r sh gsh S a eel d e s edl t l es c a s c r t ocn r nout ipu t b a a r aa et d ni r edl u u p( co nl e a el e va( ik a o t ct vct A C C J I A C

l[lll[1' .!l ll ll lll llll i!

The major effects of ANO on the school system were brought about by the i increased revenues collected by the school district. Key informants suggested that the quality of the education provided by the school system had important positive and indirect effects. These included the in-migration of families to the Russellville area because of the quality of education offered. There is also evidence that a number of smaller businesses such as engineering firms moved to Russellville because the high level of education offered and the cosmopolitan nature of the school system would be attractive to professional employees and managers. Consequently, the expansion and upgrading of the school system were considered to be factors in the growth of the Russellville area. In addition, a sizeable number of construction workers who moved into the area to work at ANO decided to remain in the area once construction activity terminated. Although employment opportunities and small town / rural qualities were of ten cited as factors for construction worker retention, the quality of education offered l

in the Russellville School District was considered an equally important factor.

7.4.2 Transportation By the time construction began on the Arkansas Nuclear One Station, Pope County had a well-developed transport system. Interstate 64 ran in an east-west direction, linking the Russellville area to Little Rock to the east and Fayetteville to the west.

Route 7 connected Russellville to areas north and south across the Arkansas River.

Arkansas Power & Light Company improved and extended the highway system to meet the ANO site and the port areas on the Lake Dardanelle peninsula where the plant is located. This road development provided good access to Interstate 64 and to Russellville and was a f actor in the growth of residential development in that area of the county.

Russellville is well served with a rail system, and owes much of its recent industrial growth to the fact that the city is a regional rail hub. A rail spur was constructed from the main east-west county rail line to the station's site for shipment of construction equipment. The ANO project did not have any visible effects on the rail system.

The Arkansas River is a major navigable waterway with a relatively active port located in Dardanelle, just south of Russellville. Interviews with key informants suggested that unloading areas were constructed near the site and that port activity during the construction period increased. Evidence that handling capacity had increased was not available although it was suggested by a few interviewees.

118

Key informants indicated that there were no problems related to traffic congestion or parking. The fact that commuters generally bypassed the City of Russellville mitigated against potential traffic congestion in the city. Furthermore, movers were spatially dispersed throughout the Russellville area, which further lessened the impact of traffic during peak traffic hours.

Tax revenues paid to the county (3 mills) were used for road maintenance, and these revenues paid for the resurfacing of approximately one-third of the existing county roads.

7.4.3 Public Safety The major public safety components were the police, fire, and emergency-preparedness services. Police services were provided by the county sheriff's office and the Russellville Police Department. The number of law enforcement personnel at the time of the study was estimated at 32 full-time employees-a 100 percent increase subsequent to the beginning of construction of ANO. The county did not have a countywide fire protection system, but did assist communities financially in establishing municipal fire protection systems. There were 11 rural volunteer fire departments in the county. The City of Russellville, however, had a large full-time fire department. The county ambulance service was expanded during the time of the study and eventually employed 12 full-time staff personnel.

Tax revenues from the ANO plant contribued an estimated 15 percent share of the increase in total county employment during the study period. In addition, the utility undertook the development of an emergency communications system that linked the ANO plant directly with the sheriff's office, fire department, and hospitals. To this end, the utility provided expensive and substantial communications equipment for the county and funded emergency drills and programs.

7.4.4 Social Services A county department of social services did not exist in Pope County, and evidence indicated that expansion of social services based on county tax revenues alone was modest. Rather, the county was largely dependent on federal and state allocations. Of particular importance were the local activities of the West Central Arkansas Planning and Development District's programs in comprehensive health planning, Alcohol Abuse Planning and Development, and the Agency on Aging. There is no evidence to attribute 119

an increase in social pathology or increased demands for social services to the construction and operation of the nuclear facility. In fact, statistics on criminal offenses indicate that the number of criminal offenses overall, on a per capita basis, was consistently less in Pope County than in the state as a whole during the study period (Arkansas Department of Local Services,1977). Moreover, because a greater number of elderly were retiring to the Russellville area, specialized medical and social services were established.

7.5 Summary The growth in county government can be partly attributed to the revenues paid by the ANO facility. An estimated 15 percent of the increased number of county government positions during the study period opened because of ANO's tax payments. In addition, the increased efficiency and professionalism in the county's administration was also partly attributed to the monies made available from taxing the plant. The demand for increased services, however, came from a rapidly growing population during the study period. The demand placed on public facilities and services directly attributable to the 1 nuclear generating plant was minimal. There were few changes in county government services directly related to the siting of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station. Most services required on site were provided by the utility. The road expansions and upgrading near the site were an incentive for scattered residential development.

The increase in the in-migration of construction and operations workers resulted in an additional burden on the capacity of the school system, which was already overtaxed and in financial difficulties. Af ter plant construction began, overcrowding was a serious problem for about four years, but it subsequently dissipated. Over 80 percent I

of the tax payments made by the utility for the ANO plant went to the Russellville School District. These substantial tax payments resulted in a financial reversal of the situation that had prevailed in the late 1960s. The expansion and upgrading of education in the school district had a number of significant indirect effects: namely, the induced in-migration of population and the location of industry in the Russellville urban area.

120

CHAPTER 8: SOCIAL STRUCTURE 8.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to identify and examine the effects of the project on the social structure of the Study Area.I The first step in the approach followed in 2his chapter includes identifying the major functional social groups in the Study Area at l

the beginning of the study period, developing a profile of each group, and describing the major features of the relationships among the groups in the Study Area. The next step is to distribute the economic, demographic, housing, and local government effects of the project (see Chapters 4 through 7) among the Study Area groups.

Changes that occurred in the profile of each group and in the relationships among groups during the study period are then identified, and the role the project played in those changes is determined. Much of the information is based on interviews with key informants who represented the groups in the Study Area. Secondary data were also used to substantiate the information provided by the key informants and to further define the groups. Finally, a description of the conclusions outlined in this chapter was presented to residents of the Study Area to confirm the validity and completeness of the information.

8.2 Social Structure at the Beginning of the Study Period (1969) 8.2.1 Identification of the Social Groups A premise of this study is that relationships among groups in a community 2 are structured, and that people in a community form functional groups that can be identified and described. The selection of social groups is based primarily on: (1) an examination of the historical development of the Study Area; and (2) interviews with key informants regarding the organization and structure of the Study Area community. In 1969, groups of Pope County residents were identified as the important functioning social units of the 1

The following discussion represents a synthesis of the information obtained through interviews with Study Area residents. In order to protect the confidentiality of the information provided by these persons, statements are not attributed to specific people.

2 Warren's (1978) definition of community is used: that combination of social units and systems that performs the major social functions having locality relevance.

Functions are defined to include: production, distribution, consumption; socialization; social control; social participation; and mutual support.

121 l

Study Area. These groups were: (1) farmers, (2) businessmen / professionals, (3) the black community, and (4) workers.

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

1. Size of group;

2. Livelihood of group members;

3. Demographic characteristics;

4. Geographic characteristics;

5. Property ownership characteristics;

6. Dominant attitudes and values toward growth, environment, community participation, and planning; and

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

The profile of each group takes into account these attributes and focuses on the most distinct characteristics of group membership. Some diversity within each group is indicated, as well as a description of the modal characteristics of each group. Inter- and intra-group changes over the study period are highlighted and those characteristics which remained relatively stable are described.

8.2.2.1 The Farmer Group After the 1900s, there were major fluctuations in Pope County's farming community. Between 1900 and 1950, Pope County was primarily rural, characterized by row crops and cotton production, and Russellville served as an agricultural service town. During this period, economic conditions were severe, with extensive poverty in the agricultural sector; consequently, population out-migration prevailed. A detailed history of the forces which brought about the decline of agriculture in the county was provided in Chapter 4. Those who remained carried out subsistence agriculture. In 1969, there were 934 farms in the county. A decade earlier (1959) there had been 1,319 farms, a little over half the 1950 number of 2,250. As a result of the continual out-migration of farming families, the cohesion, both social and economic, among members of the farming community dissipated. Another factor which fragmented the agricultural sector was the 122

trend toward absentee ownership of large farms near the fertile river lowlands.

Approximately 60 thousand acres of farmland were owned by 50 farmers. Many of these farms had been in families for over 200 years, and by the start of the study period, most of these farms were tenant occupied and were characterized by a relatively high turnover rate.

Beginning in the 1950s, the dissipation of row cropping and its replacement with poultry, livestock, and cattle ranching stabilized the agricultural population. By the late 1960s, poultry farming and cattle ranching dominated the agricultural base of the county. The farms were relatively small (averaging roughly 100 acres), family-owned, and not consolidated. Af ter 1960, the number of fully operational farms continued to decline as suburban nonf arm encroachment occurred.

Poultry farming stabilized the agricultural base. By the time construction began on ANO Unit 1, poultry farming was a highly integrated industry. During the 1960s, the poultry food processing industry and feed outlets expnded in Russellville to become one of the leading industries. Poultry farming was viable because of the continual demand by food processing firms in the area, monitoring activities and research by local feed companies, and the efforts of both the agricultural extension office and the local university.

The poultry industry and cattle-raising activity in Pope County did not provide sufficient income to support a farming family. Consequently, over 50 percent of the rural families had to have full-time supplemental employment outside of farming. By the time construction began on Unit 1, substantial industrialization had taken phce in the Russellville area, and jobs were available for farming families.

The availability of supplemental income resulted in the return to the area of a sizeable number of f armers who had earlier out-migrated. In addition, the viability of farming as a way of life and the availability of industrial jobs (especially for females) increased the value of farm land. Evidence indicates that prior to the study period, some farmers were selling their land for inflated prices. However, it should be noted that the population exceeded the capability of the land to support it; although supplemental income from the extra farm employment enabled a family to earn a moderate income, the combined income could not support more than one family. The tendency, consequently, was for the youth to out-migrate. The returning farmers (some of whom 123

returned to retire in the county) plus the out-migration of the young resulted in an elderly farming population with an average age of 51 years.

Thus, at the beginning of the study period, the farming community can be characterized as follows:

1. Farmers were predominantly white, elderly, Methodist or Lutheran, and earned a moderate income;

2. Farming consisted primarily of poultry farming that was highly integrated with the food-processing industries in Russellville;

3. Farming was usually supplemented with industrial employment;

4. Fif ty percent of the rural population was non-native (out-of-state) with major turnovers in the farming population during the 1950s and 1960s;

5. Social and economic links among farmers were minimal as a result of the high historical turnover rates and their employment links to industry; and

6. Russellville was extremely important for the farming group as an agricultural service town, a place of employment, and a center for social activities.

The farmers tended to be very conservative in their political philosophy.

Interviews with farmers in the Study Area indicated that they strongly supported both the free-enterprise system and minimal government participation in farm programs.

Examination of voting records suggested that the f arming group generally supported conservative candidates and voted Republican. The church (Baptist, Lutheran) played an important role in the social life of the farming group.

Attitudes toward growth were complex. On the one hand, interviews with farmers suggested that the farmers were against growth that would result in expansion of l l

Russellville, suburbanization into rural areas, and the subsequent loss of the rural way of life. On the other hand, farmers tended to oppose zoning or planning in the county and supported industrial growth. The need for expansion of employment was an important factor in their attitudes toward growth. The fact that hired farm labor was not an important part of the farm economy tended to reduce any potential conflict over labor supply from surfacing between farmers and industry. Further, the farmers tended to support additions to the tax base, such as the nuclear power plant, and to oppose expenditures that would not directly benefit them. For example, the nuclear plant was i l

considered an important asset since it meant employment for some farmers, increases in !

124

county revenues, and an upgraded school system for those who resided in the Russellville School District. Environmental concerns were subordinate to concerns over the economy, and many farmers who were interviewed expressed opposition to federally imposed environmental standards. Not one of the farmers interviewed expressed concern over the plant's potential for adverse impacts on the natural environment. While environmental protection was downplayed, most of the farmers indicated that the advantages of living in the Study Area were the " clean environment free of major pollutants" and the " rural qualities" of the county. Industrialization was viewed as important on three dimensions: (1) industrialization was important for supplemental employment; (2) jobs for young people would mean that the family could stay together; and (3) it would help in reducing farmer turnover and would eventually result in a viable and permanent farming community.

The farmers were not politically organized at the county level, although members of the quorum court were farmers. Generally, farmers did not participate in county political organizations. The major area of conflict was between the farmers and the rural nonf arm residents over land use incompatibilities.

Although there were three agricultural organizations in the Study Area, the level of intragroup interaction was low. These organizations met infrequently for business functions and for disseminating information rather than for social activities. Visitation levels were generally low, but church functions served an important social role.

8.2.2.2 The Black Community The black community in Pope County was largely concentrated in one section of Russellville, which, during the 1960s, was characterized by a relatively stable population of about 80 families. Few changes occurred in the demographics of the black group during the 1960s. With increasing industrialization during the 1960s, the population out-migration experienced during the 1950s was reversed. In general, the movement of blacks paralleled those of the white population and was largely a reflection of economic forces. Even with increasing employment opportunities for blacks, there was a tendency for black youth to out-migrate to the larger cities.

Historically, the black group had always functioned as a community, and this was still true at the beginning of the study period. This sense of community was based on strong intragroup cohesion brought about by familial and neighborhood ties, on shared 125

social experience, and on a belief structure centered around the church. Geographically, the black group resided in the same area of town as they did in the early 1900s.

The historical evidence suggested that black employment was diversified and consisted largely of labor. In the early 1900s, blacks were employed in the area's gas fields, coal mines, cotton f arms, and f actories. In the late 1960s, employment rates among blacks paralleled those of the wider community, and blacks found relatively good jobs in the new industries that had located in Russellville-Firestone, Dow, and International Paper. Industrial employment among blacks resulted in both the diminished out-migration of black youth and the in-migration of others. The high level of employment opportunities for females in the newly established industries was an important economic boon to the black community.

Most black families in Russellville owned their homes and took substantial pride in home ownership. These homes were of ten handed down from father to son, and many exhibited unique historical qualities. Blacks were very active in the area of urban renewal, and activities with respect to proposed and ongoing urban renewal projects represented the first political participation of blacks in community planning. Through participation in the local urban planning commission, the black community pressed demands for substantially improved housing. The result was that the housing quality in the section in which blacks resided was substantially improved. Further, the experience gained through active political participation in the area of urban renewal heightened the black com munity's awareness of the importance of political involvement and, consequently, a number of de facto leaders emerged in the community. Further, because there was a realization that blacks had to address their problems themselves, the community become active in proposing and implementing education-related activities and social-welfare programs.

l Interviews with members of the black community indicated that they strongly supported industrial and urban growth. Expanded employment opportunities to the group meant less out-migration of young people and fewer social problems; employment would enhance the community, it was reasoned. Active community participation was viewed as critically important, but key informants suggested that their level of participation in

( community affairs was minimal. Black community leaders, although recognized by the l wider community, were not involved in Russellville politics. Rather, involvement would I

result through initiatives taken by the nonblack community over specific problem areas 126

that required resolution. Participation was viewed as an evolving process: the black community was too small numerically to have its voice heard in the political arena. The blacks that were interviewed did not consider environmental concerns important; their preeminent concern lay with the expansion of employment opportunities.

The level of cohesion among members of the black community in Russellville was very high. Intramarriage was common within the group, visitation levels were high (due, in part, to proximity), and leadership of the group was reached through an informal evolutionary process. The church played an exceedingly important social, religious, and cultural role in the community. Leaders of the black group were generally church leaders as well. The long history of shared experience in one locale was the overriding factor leading to a conspiraously high level of cohesion among members of the black community.

8.2.2.3 The Business Group The business group in Pope County included nonfarm proprietors, administrators, ,

high-level managers of local industry and commerce, and professionals who owned their own firms. In the late 1960s, there were an estimated 1,050 nonfarm proprietors residing in Pope County. Together with administrators and professionals and their dependents, the " business community" represented approximately 4,500 persons.

The business group was centered in the Russellville area in terms of its commercial activities. Historically, a small group of elite families provided the leadership in the business community. As owners of substantial real estate, banking, and agribusiness enterprises, these "old families" were most influential in providing business and political leadership and in directing the growth of Russellville. By the late 1960s, the influence of these "old families" had waned. Some of the families had moved from the county but, through absentee ownership arrangements, had continued their economic ties to the Study Area. Others remained in the area, but their children out-migrated. By the time construction began on ANO Unit 1, the level of activity and leadership provided by these f amilies had dissipated, but they continued to hold considerable economic power in the local area due to land holdings and ownership of the large commercial establishments.

By the late 1960s, the Russellville economy was in the process of very rapid change. The industrial base was both expanding and diversifying. New industries were locating in the Russellville area as were large retail establishments designed to serve the 127

i l

rapidly growing population. The in-migration cf new industrial managers and proprietors, small and large retailers, and independent professionals further diminished the traditional role of the elite business families.

In 1969, when construction began on the nuclear facility, the business group was characterized by three constituent subgroups defined on the basis of length of residence and type of commercial activity. The first of these subgroups consisted of "old-time" entrepreneurs and business families which included both the previously described elite families and the owners of retail / wholesale outlets whose families had resided in Russellville since the early 1900s. The second subgroup cor sisted of those proprietors of i

! small retail / wholesale / service establishments who relocated primarily in the downtown Russellville area during the 1950s and 1960s. These firms were marked by a consistently large turnover rate and, consequently, the level of cohesion among them was generally low. The third subgroup consisted of managers of industries and large retail stores who began to locate in the Russellville area about the time the planning for ANO began.

Despite the fact that the group was divided into three subgroups, interviews with key business leaders indicated that the business group as a whole was an important and active community force and provided the base for community political leadership. Of particular importance to the group was the promotion of a viable economic base and the attraction of growth-inducing businesses to the Study Area. The degree of importance of this value to the business group can be illustrated by the fact that the business group, by means of the Chamber of Commerce, bought a number of parcels of land for ANO from landowners who were reluctant to sell their land to the utility for the asking price.

According to key bueinesspeople who were interviewed, the business group, through its various organizations, provided economic and political support for major entrepreneurial endeavors and consistently took an active role in attracting industry to the Russellville area. The " ideology of growth" was a deep-seated and irrevocably held community value; l because the business community also functioned in a political leadership capacity, this value was pervasive in the community and shared by all social groups. 4 The local newspaper, the Russellville Courier Democrat, was searched in order to

ascertain: (1) the shared community value of promoting growth in general, and (2) the active role played by the business community to enhance the industrial base of the Study Area. This research included past editions of the paper between 1940 and 1980.

. 128

l It appeared that during the 1930s and 1940s, there was a good deal of cooperation between the business and farm communities. It was recognized that the livelihood of most businessmen depended on the agricultural com munity; given the economic uncertainties of agriculture at the time and significant out-migration, the business community attempted to aid farmers through special credit arrangements. In 1945, the business community, through the Chamber of Commerce, was very active in planning for the community, and surveys were conducted in the areas of transportation, health, and education. Its concern over attracting veterans to Russellville was so strong that it instituted a special program to study and remedy potential shortages in the housing l sector. In fact, the ousiness community established advisory committees in Pope County to counsel returning war veterans regarding such issues as education, loans, farming, and employment.

1 l

Immediately following the end of World War II, the Chamber of Commerce initiated a " Pasture Improvement Program" to assist farmers in improving land taken out I of production by various New Deal crop control programs. In addition, a number of large industrial establishments located in Russellville at that time. In order to induce one large manufacturer to locate a plant in Russellville, the Russellville Chamber of l

Commerce agreed to buy the necessary land and construct a building for the company. In addition, there were numerous articles during the 1950s which discussed the continuing cooperation between business and farm leaders. One article menticed the establishment of an " agriculture committee" of the Chamber of Commerce, and another noted that the chamber raised monies for the Farm and IIome Development Fund.

An especially important issue during the 1950s was industrial development. The state legislature established the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission and enacted legislation enabling cities to establish industrial development corporations with the power to issue bonds to finance acquisition of industrial sites. Russellville was the first city in Arkansas that officially established an Industrial Development Corporation.

The Russellville Chamber of Commerce led the way in locally promoting industrial development. For example, the first project of the Russellville Industrial Development Corporation was to finance the purchase of equipment for a new poultry-processing plant to be built in Russellville. This was an important entrepreneurial step as it laid the foundation for the poultry industry in Russellville, which, in turn, stabilized the agricultural economy of the area and reversed the traditional out-migration rate.

129

The positive 2ttitude toward industrial growth was illustrated by the response of the business group to AP&L's announcement of plans to build ANO Unit 2. The president of the Chamber of Commerce stated that "Russellville is the most progressive city in Arkansas. Industry will furnish the nucleus for the largest city in Arkansas."

There was no indication of any opposition by the community regarding growth and industrialization, and no issues over environmental quality surfaced. Since growth was traditionally perceived as being very important to the community, it was supported politically by the business community.

The business community functioned effectively as a social group and showed a high level of cohesion principally through its organizations and political activities. Social interaction among the members of the business community was consistently high, especially among the more active members.

t Interviews with key informants indicated that community planning was an important activity, and that the business community supported growth, land-use controls, and zoning ordinances.

Although all the key informants indicated that the environmental amenities and rural character of Pope County were important attributes, the business community did not see a need for environmental interest groups in the local area. The level of environmental quality was generally perceived as satisfactory, and government regulations in this area were regarded as excessive by members of the group.

8.2.2.4 The Worker Group The working class in the Study Area comprised the largest group indentified for the study. By definition, this group included neither members of the black community nor members of the farmer group although members of both groups were of ten employed in local industries. The group was composed of families who were long-term residents of r the county and families who in--migrated during the 1960s when the economic situation began to improve. Their per capita income tended to be at the state average. During the 1960s, a large number of construction workers and other skilled manpower in-migrated to the Study Area to work on a number of large public works projects. With the construction of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station and the locating of several new industrial plants in Russellville in the late 1960s and early 1970s, many of these workers 130

remained in the area and became permanent residents. Few people commuted outside the county to work as most found employment in the construction sector, in the chemical, poultry, and other industries, and in the trade sector in Russellville. The size of the working class in 1970 was estimated to be 19,800 workers.

Geographically, the workers usually owned their homes-generally modest residences in either Russellville or surrounding towns. The in-migration of workers who were experienced professionals, skilled craf tsmen, and unskilled factory laborers resulted in a pattern of diverse occupations and socioeconomic grot'ps. The more affluent and the salaried professionals tended to reside in the west part of Russellville, which was in the formative stage of a suburbanization proces:. at the beginning of the study period. Due to the diversity of socioeconomic levels of this functional group, diverse value systems and various levels of public participation were represented. Because the Study Area had experienced massive out-migration and in-migratrion during the 1960s, the separation of I

oldtimers and newcomers was not an important social factor.

In general, the workers were politically conservative and progrowth, and they 1

e.tpressed few concerns over environmental quality. As could be gauged from the interviews with key informants and newspaper reports, the worker group generally favored the construction of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station. For many, the locating of the nuclear plant near Russellville was perceived to result in relatively high-salaried employment. All of 'he key informants of this group indicated that the plant provided more jobs and helped improve the local education system through tax revenues. The nuclear plant represented growth and industrialization, an important value held by the workers. For the families of long-term workers, industrialization was seen as an important factor in preserving a " sense of community" and reversing the historic out-migration of the young. The recent in-migrants universally supported industrial growth.

The workers tended to have a relatively low level of participation in community political affairs, and key informants suggested that there was a tendency to allow the elected political officials to make decisions without public involvement. However, there was evidence to indicate that individual complaints were taken directly to public officials, especially at the county level. This is a reflection of the general openness of the local political system and the extensive informal communication system typical of some rural areas. Few political issues emerged in the Study Area; according to some key informants, this was attributed to the casual approach to local decision making and the public acquiescence to authority and politicalleadership.

131 f

Although the workers formed a diverse group due to occupational differences, they shared a strong " sense of community" that did not differ significantly between the long-term residents and recent in-migrants. This " sense of community" was enhanced through membership in social organizations and participation in school and church l activities. Many key informants noted that the church was an important factor in enhancing the level of social interaction between the long-term residents and recent in-migrants.

8.2.3 Interaction among Groups The following discussion is intended to outline the dominant interactions among groups in the Study Area. The interaction among groups, as measured by the economic, political, and social dimensions of the interactions, is an important component in the description of social structure.

8.2.3.1 Economic Interaction In 1969 when construction began on the Arkansas Nuclear One Station, the majority of employed area residents worked either in businesses owned by the area businessmen or in local industries; there was little commutation to work outside of the county. The economic interaction among local residents was exceptionally large, and this can be explained by a number of factors:

(1) The agriculbral economy was intimately linked with agricultural processing firms located in Russellville. The historical record points out that the agribusinesses in Russellville supported the farm economy through investment and credit programs, agricultural research, and political support. The largest industrial employers in Russellville were the poultry processing firms, which were highly integrated with the farming community. By 1969, a triad of linkages between agribusiness, agricultural research at the university, and the farming group was firmly established.

(2) The farming community was not able to depend solely on farming for income and, consequently, relied on industrial employment for supplemental income. Many of the industries that located in the Russellville area did so because of the availability of non-union unskilled workers, the generally low wage rate, and the strong work ethic intrinsic to the area. The farmers' dependence on industrial employment was concomitant with industry *.* need for available manpower at low wage rates relative 132 l

4 i

to the northeastern part of the country. A strong symbiotic relationship between industry and the farm group was established by the late 1960s.

4 (3) By the late 1960s, Russellville had grown to become a major regional center, providing goods and services to meet most demands of the resident population. As a result, the level of interaction in terms of economic activities was largely self-contained. For long-time residents of the Study Area, close proprietor / shopper ties t

had developed between themselves and older established firms. Moreover, strong links were established among downtown merchants, older financial institutions, and business and accounting services firms.

(4) The fact that the business commundy was well organized and provided political I leadership and direction for development enhanced the economic interaction among groups. For example, the concern of black leaders over high unemployment levels i

among the black youth resulted in some action being taken by business leaders to provide employment.

8.2.3.2 PoliticalInteraction The Study Area comprised two distinct political entities-the county political structure, which was particularly responsive to problems and issues outside of Russellville, and the Russellville political jurisdiction. In the county, political leadership and policy-making functions rested with the quorum court. Many of the court's concerns centered on agricultural and land-use problems in the rural areas of the county.

Although the agricultural community expressed interest in local politics, the level of participation in local affairs was low. In matters relating to specific land-use questions, there was evidence that issues and questions could be taken directly to the county judge for resolution. Larger issues relating to agricultural interests were directed to the State Agricultural Extension Office, although its agricultural interests were directed more to state agricultural lobbies than to the local issues. No consensus among members of the agricultural group as to local political policy was articulated; rather, the group responded to specific problems as they emerged on an individual basis. There is no evidence of group political action over land use, environmental concern, or taxing issues. The historical uprooting of the farming population in the county and the subsequent high level of turnover militated against the groups developing a strang political base, and participation levels were thus low.

133

The black community was a very small community in terms of numbers (300), and a significantly large segment of the group was young. Discussions with key informants representing the group indicated that major issues over racial relations did not emerge in the community on a political level, although expressions supporting racial segregation were heard on an individual basis. As a small community, with southern traditions and with the church playing an important role in the sociopolitical field, expressions of group political activism were not apparent during the late 1960s. A search of the local newspaper failed to find any report that such activities had occurred.

Leadership in the black community was held by church ministers and preachers who were particularly influential among the more elderly and long-established black families in Russellville. The major political involvement of black leadership prior to construction of ANO was over the urban renewal program, which for the first time brought black and white leadership together to face a shared community problem.

Outside of political participation over urban renewal, the black community did not actively participate in ongoing political affairs. Specific problem areas affecting the black community, such as social programs and neighborhood recreation needs, were expressed by black leaders in informal meetings with elected officials and through 1

contacts with local social services agencies. l Participation rates among members of the business group were consistently high, and elected officials were usually from this group. By the late 1960s, the locally elected officials represented the relatively younger members of the business group who were extremely active in promoting growth and communty planning. Business and political interests merged and were reinforced through shared membership in business organiz ations. Community-wide issues and conflicts did not surface; rather, the role of elected officials was primarily an administrative one.

8.2.3.3 SocialInteraction Measured along economic and social dimensions, the Study Area was relatively self-contained: the farming and business industries were highly integrated, social activities occurred at places inside the Study Area, and all groups defined their place of residence and interests as being located in Pope County rather than in some place outside the county. For all groups, the sense of community was strong, even among the recent in-migrants. Nevertheless, the level of social interaction among the groups was generally low. For example, the black community had historically established formal and 134

informal social interactions primarily within its own group rather than with the other groups. Because of a strong spatial identity, a shared historical experience of segregation and racial prejudice, and common social bonds, there was considerable distance in terms of socialinteraction between the black community and the other social groups. While the church served to bridge the social distance between new residents and old-time residents in the other groups, the black community depended on its own church. Black churches in Russellville did not function in a capacity to facilitate a higher level of black-white social interaction. Thus, the black group developed a strong social network among members of its own community.

Russellville's rapid emergence as an industrial town during the 1960s resulted in an influx of in-migrant " wage and salary" families and farmers who required supplemental income from industrial employment. This influx resulted in a mix of people in-migrating from other regions of the country and made the area unlike other rural areas in Arkansas where social interaction patterns evolved slowly over a long period of time and where

" newcomers" were conspicuous. In contrast, although there was some distinction between long-time residents and newcomers, this distinction was not sharp, and rigid boundaries between groups on a " length of residency" basis did not occur. However, informal social interaction was stronger among long-term residents than it was among groups. One exception to this was the growing social interaction pattern between long-time residents who were businessmen and recently in-migrated residents who were busincssmen.

Thus, by the late 1960s, the pattern of social interaction in the Study Area was characterized by a general acceptance of recent in-migrants and a loss of provincialism. The turnover of older businesses to more recent in-migrants provided the basis for a new social order and, by the late 1960s, newcomers would easily and quickly fit into the community. Large scale in-migration to Russellville began in the 1950s, and by the late 1960s the distinction between the "old families" and newcomers was not perceived as a distinguishing social group dimension.

Members of the farmer group tended to use urban institutions and places of recreation, and thus interacted with both the business group and the worker group in social clubs and church activities. Social interaction among families of affluent businessmen, old-time elite families, and farmers was heightened by membership in private clubs; but limited membership in such clubs was beginning to dissipate by the late 135

1960s. Overall, there was a high level of participation in church organizations and social clubs, but this involvement was not group specific. The black community was conspicuous by its lack of participation in Study Area social organizations and community affairs, but this was due not so much to the group's volition as it was to the group's particular social history. The evidence also indicates that friendship patterns were based on professional ties, age, and length-of-residency factors rather than by social group, except in of the black community.

8.2.3.4 Study Area Cohesion Interviews with key informants and an examination of historical records indicated that the business group dominated the economic and political activities of Pope County, particularly in Russellville. The agricultural community was highly integrated with the industrial development of Russellville and was linked to other groups through membership in formal community social organizations. The " community of interest" was clearly the Study Area environs, and a strong sense of identity with the local area was apparent.

Because differences between old and new families had been dissipating since the late 1950s, new in-migrant families were readily accepted into the community social fabric.

The level of cohesion was generally high due to the residents' extraordinary orientation and focus; in general, they had limited interests outside the Study Area. In addition, there were no major long-term issues that would have the potential to disrupt and reduce the level of community cohesion. Community cohesion was also strengthened because of shared community values among all groups: they believed in industrial growth, limited federal involvement, and a strong school system. The level of social cohesion was furthered by the unusual political leadership role of the business community and by the autonomy given to elected officials.

8.3 New Groups in the Study Area during the Study Period The results of the analysis reveal that no new group emerged in the area during the s'tudy period, despite increased industrial and population growth. The construction workers and their families were studied for potential inclusion as a separate functional social group. However, they were not considered a new group because they did not exhibit distinct economic, political, and social patterns of behavior, nor were they identified as a distinct group by key informants. In terms of group definitions, the construction workers and their families who in-migrated to work on ANO were added to an existing and proportionately large construction labor pool which had in-migrated earlier. Further, most workers who had in-migrated to work at the plant later found 136

permanent employment in the area and became area residents. In terms of social and economic patterns of behavior, these people were incorporated into the workers group.

8.4 Distribution of the Project Effects to the Groups The effects of the ANO project on the Study Area economy, labor force population, housing and settlement patterns, and government and public services were identified and described in Chapters 4 through 7. This section describes the distribution of those effects among the groups for 1977, the peak construction year at ANO. The distribution described in this section was derived from key informant information, on-site field work, and analysis of available secondary data.

8.4.1 Economic Effects The project-related employment impacts of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station on the Study Area are restated in Table 8-1. Table 8-2 contains estimates of employment and income effects in the Study Area and the distribution of these effects to the social groups in the area. In 1977, an estimated 1,425 residents of the Study Area worked in

( project-related jobs, including basic and nonbasic employment (see Table 8-2). These 1,425 jobs (and workers) were distributed among the four groups as follows: the farmer group-125; the business group-20; the black community-40; and the worker group-1,240. The construction workers who moved into the area were categorized as part of the wage and worker group. The number of nonmovers was large because there was a large contingent of local people in the construction work force and because clerical workers at the plant were predominantly local residents. Approximately 9 percent of those employed on the project and in project-induced jobs were farmers who characteristically required supplemental income to augment their agricultural pursuits.

A few project-related jobs went to blacks, but these were mostly in the nonbasic category. In terms of employment, the worker group gained most from the construction of ANO. Approximately 43 percent of the project-related workers were residents who were categorized as nonmovers.

8.4.2 Demographic Effects The demographic effects of the project on the Study Area for the period 1969 to 1978 were outlined in Chapter 5. In 1977, total in-migration of project-related people to the Study Area was estimated at 2,279. Both in-migration and diminished out-migration was found to have measurable effects on the area population.

137

TABLE 8-1 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION PROJECT-RELATED EMPLOYMENT BY WORKER CATEGORY STUDY AREA 1977 Employment by Place of Residence Basic Nonbasic TOTAL Nonmovers 473 145 618 Movers Accompanied by Families 364 140 504 Movers Unaccompanied by Families (or Single) 243 6_0 303 TOTAL 1,080 345 1,425 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.

l l

l 1

l i

138

TABLE 8-2 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION I ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS POPE COUNTY, ARKANSAS STUDY AREA RESIDENTS 1977 Employment Type Social Groups Basic Nonbasic TOTAL Farmer 50 75 125 Business 5 15 20 Black 10 30 40 Worker 1,015 225 1,240 TOTAL 1,080 345 1,425 Source: Mountain West Research, Inc.,1981.

139

The worker group was the one most affected by the employment and subsequent population increase. A sizeable proportion of the population change was due to the diminished out-migration of workers residmg in the area who had previously worked on large public projects. Many of these workers would have out-migrated if employment on the ANO project had not materialized.

8.4.3 Settlement Patterns and Housing Effects As Chapter 6 indicated, the settlement pattern of the Study Area was somewhat affected by the project. The demand for housing accelerated the development of the western section of Russellville, and new subdivisions were constructed there. Many of the workers who in-migrated to work at the site bought homes, thus stimulating the housing boom. In addition, a number of multifamily apartment structures were constructed to meet the demands for rental units, while at the same time existing mobile home parks were expanded and others were established. Rental income accrued to some residents, but this was not a widespread effect. Land prices escalated during the construction period, and thriving real estate and building industries surfaced. However, the construction and operation of the plant was but one contributing element to this activity; during this same time, industrial growth in general was rapid, and in-migration flourished.

The building of ANO concomitant with industrial growth was the principal reason l

for the rapid growth in the housing sector. There was no evidence, however, that the demand for both older homes and new homes by project-related workers resulted in problems of housing availability for nonproject in-migration. The study found that housing availability and inflated costs were not problematic in the Study Area during the study period. The expansion of housing developments (apartments) in the northern part of the city together with the increased capacity of mobile home parks assured that no particular group in the Study Area would be adversely affected by housing and rent competition from construction workers. In general, it was the business group (landowners, builders, real estate people, and owners of mobile home parks) who ,

benefited most from the housing sector growth.

8.4.4 Government and Public Services Effects Chapter 7 presented an analysis of both the changes in the size of the county government and in the county's revenue / expenditure pattern. The substantial increase in 140

county tax revenues due to the project was an important element in the expansion of county services, particularly in the areas of public safety and road improvement.

Because the Russellville School District received substantial tax revenues from the construction of the ANO plant, a major expansion and upgrading of the school system occurred. The jurisdiction of the Russellville school system did not cover the entire area of Pope County, and tax revenues for the school district benefited only residents within that district, which included the bulk of the farmers, the Russellville business groups, blacks, and some wage and salary employees.

8.5 Changes in the Social Structure and the Role of the Effects of the Project This section describes the major changes in the profile of each of the groups during the study period. In addition, the role of the project's effects in those changes is examined.

8.5.1 The Farmer Group Between 1969 and 1978, the population of the farmer group decreased slightly as a result of the selling of farms and farmland for rural nonfarm development. Thus, during the study period, the distinction between farmers and nonfarmers residing in the rural areas of Pope County (a trend continuing from the 1960s) became increasingly unclear.

The in-migration of plant-related construction and operations people resulted in an accelerated suburbanization process in Russellville. Interviews with operations personnel employed at ANO indicated that the opportunity to buy a home with a few acres of land was very attractive and became a factor in their decision to move to Russellville. The encroachment onto farmland resulted in greater loss of cohesion among families who considered themselves farmers. During the 1970s, as rural nonfarm growth increased and as employment opportunities were found in the rapidly expanding industrial sector, in many cases agriculture became secondary in importance to industrial employment, especially among the young. The nuclear plant was only one factor in this transition toward fragmentation of the farmers group.

Structural changes within the groups were generally small and cannot be attributable to the induced plant effects: social patterns existing prior to plant construction were not altered in any significant way during the study period. There was, however, a tendency for young people to remain in the area, reversing an earlier trend of 141

out-migration. This tendency was due directly to industrial growth in Russellville and to the concomitant population growth which resulted in services jobs for rural residents in the Study Area. The nuclear plant was not a major factor in this development. The industrial linkages between agribusiness, poultry processing firms, and poultry farmers were strengthened, and again the ANO plant had no effect in this development.

8.5.2 The Business Group The business group grew substantially over the study period. This was the result of the influx of large industrial firms into the area, the expansion of existing firms, the general growth of population, and the development of the retail trades and services sector. The business group thus expanded, matured, and diversified. During the study period, large retail food stores and other types of retail stores located in Russellville, many of which were part of national chains with absentee ownership. This phenomenon was dependent on national trends and population growth.

The locating of new industries in Russellville was not a direct consequence of the ANO plant. Ilowever, interviews with owners and managers of many of the recently located industries suggested that, although the ANO plant was not a direct or important locational determinant, its location in the area and its acceptability by the local population presented a favorable climate for industrial location. Thus, the plant was indirectly influential in promoting industrial growth.

The location of the large shopping centers outside of downtown Russellville occurred at the time construction began on ANO. The fact that these developments occurred during construction was perceived by many downtown businesses to be linked with the heightened business activity due to the plant's construction. These large establishments may have located at that time in order to take advantage of increased consumer demands induced by the plant, but population growth in the Russellville area and national trends indicate that these establishments would have located there at some l time during the study period. The building of ANO may have accelerated this process to some extent.

Some of the downtown merchants indicated that the plant may have increased l their volume of sales, but the general growth in the area was seen as the prime factor.

Nevertheless, during the study period there was a generally high level of business turnover in the downtown area, and competition from newly established commercial and 142

retail centers outside the downtown area was a contributing factor. Business competition of this form could not be attributed to the ANO plant.

The indirect basic effects were too small to have had a major effect on the entire business group. However, a number of merchants who gained through selling construction materials to the plant were able to expand their businesses and diversify their products to reach a larger regional market: this expansion resulted in a long-term gain for these merchants and was directly attributable to the construction of ANO.

Although the business group became larger and more diverse, it retained its leadership role in the Study Area and played a vital role in devising plans to attract new commercial and industrial establish ments. The managers of ANO and the utility became integrated into the business group and actively participated in its activities. There were no major issues to create conflict within the group, and the level of cohesion remained consistently high.

8.5.3 The Black Community The economic, social, and housing conditions did not change to any significant degree for the black group during the study period. There was, however, less out-migration due to increased job opportunities, although only a few jobs were plant-related. Overall, the socioeconomic effects of the plant on the black community were minimal. Changes in levels of participation in political affairs were examined, and the evidence did not demonstrate any increased participation during the study period.

Overall, the nuclear plant was not an especially important direct benefit for blacks.

However, the improved school system was evaluated as having benefited both black and white students.

8.5.4 The Worker Group The worker group included a large and diverse membership, and the size of the group increased substantially during the study period. Although the group continued to favor conservative views and to hold pro-growth sentiments, there were indications that concerns over environmental health and safety, including those engendered by the nuclear plant, were expressed by a few in-migrants. In fact, the first environmental interest group was initiated by members of this group, and the nuclear plant surfaced as j a community issue during the late 1970s, albeit a small one. Overall, the worker group showed a limited concern regarding environmental issues and a low level of participation 143

in political affairs. The group continued to be diverse with a low level of cohesion, although the number of informal organizations representing group membership increased.

The in-migration of salaried technical operations personnel, engineers, and teachers was directly attributable to the nuclear plant. The increase in the number of professional people to Russellville had the effect of introducing a more cosmopolitan quality and orientation in the community and bringing about a decline in the level of provincialism. This change was a direct result of the plant and was evaluated by many key informants as a very significant contribution. Some noted that the change in outlook of the community was also an important factor in attracting commercial and industrial investments.

The construction of the ANO plant provided jobs for those construction workers who were already residents of Russellville. The in-migration of workers did not create discernible changes in the worker group's demographic or economic characteristics.

l During the study period, the general level of interaction and participation in i

! political affairs remained low for the worker group as a whole, although many of the project-related in-migrants assumed positions of importance in a number of social organizations in the community. In addition, community leadership roles outside of business interests and business organizations were increasingly assumed by members of this group.

8.6 Changes in the Relationships among the Groups The effects of the ANO project on the Study Area as a whole resulted in minimal changes in group interrelationships. In most cases, the effects of the project were only part of larger changes that were ongoing--population growth, diversification of the economic base, suburbanization, and industrial growth. Prior to the project, the social and economic links among groups in the Study Area were moderately strong, and they continued to be so during the study period. The level and type of interaction among groups did not change much during the study period.

The industrial linkages between poultry processing, agribusinesses, and farmers in Pope County were strengthened during the study period. In addition, industrial growth ensured rural employment, and through this, a viable agricultural base. These trends were outside the locus of plant-related effects.

144

1 Although the business community benefited from the income generated by the i project, this income was dispersed to newly established commercial centers and thus reduced the potential economic benefits from the plant: in general, the business owners did not consider the relationship between the construction work force and themselves to be a long-lasting one or an important one during the study period. No new business establishments emerged as a direct effect of the plant; thus, the existing economic pattern of exchange was not altered because of ANO.

The level of public involvement in the Study Area regarding plant-related environmental issues or health was very low. Consequently, there were minimal changes in terms of political structure or direction as a result of public response. No major public interest group emerged in the Study Area to stimulate public concern over the plant, although a small environmental group was established following the accident at Three Mile Island. This group had little impact on the general public, according to the key informants.

During the study period, the business group continued to exert political leadership, although a few members of the workers group, including some salaried professionals and teachers, were beginning to be active in political affairs. This pattern of interaction can be attributed paitly to the ANO project because some of the people involved were employed at the nuclear plant or in jobs induced by plant-related revenues. In summary, the political relationships among the four groups did not appear to have been altered during the atudy period as measured by the nature of the issues, the political structure, the leadership, and the level of participation. Overall, the social relationships among the groups during the study period were not altered, and the traditional sense of community remained in spite of substantial population and industrial growth. The distinction between long-time residents and newcomers dissipated during the study period, however, and the nuclear plant was one of the principal factors in this development.

145

CIIAPTER 9: PUBLIC RESPONSE 9.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to present the major issues and to describe the public response that arose in conjunction with the construction and operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station. These descriptions, which are presented in chronological order, provide important background'information for understanding the evaluation and response of Study Area groups to the project. The responses to the ANO nuclear plant were limited, but at times included actors from outside the Study Area as well as ,

participants from within Pope County. In this chapter, the issues over the nuclear plant will be identified; the institutions, constituencies, and political activities will be described; and the impact on the Study Area will be assessed. It is important to ascertain the degree to which residents of the Study Area participated in public activity, to gauge their level of concern over the facility, and to measure the salience of issues provoked by the construction and operation of the plant.

9.2 Public Response during the Preconstruction Period The preconstruction period began with the announcement of the ANO project in 1967. This period, which lasted approximately three years, concluded in 1970 with the issuance of the construction permit for Unit 1. The period is characterized by a generally favorable climate and overwhelming acceptance of the plant by Study Area residents. The major project-related events during this period included the project announcement, the purchase of the plant site, and the construction permit hearings.

9.2.1 Project Announcement and Siting The announcement, in August 1967, of Arkansas Power and Light Company's plan to construct a nuclear power plant just west of Russellville was greeted in the

~

community with unmitigated enthusiasm. It was "the greatest thing that has ever happened to the Arkansas River Valley," "the greatest thing that has ever happened in Pope County and Russellville," or "the greatest thing that has ever happened to the schools." (Russellville Courier Democrat,1967.) It was believed locally that the nuclear plant would lead to faster industrial development, as well as put an end to the Russellville School District's financial problems due to the enormous property taxes which would have to be paid on the plant. The president of the Russellville Chamber of Commerce, who had predicted before the announcement of the plant that Russellville's 1980 population would be 25,000, said that his prediction was underestimated in light of 146

the new development. (Russellville Courier Democrat,1967.) The community's desire to have the plant located nearby was so great that a fund-raising campaign was undertaken to assist AP&L with the acquisition of the land it needed for the plant. The owners of two small tracts of land that AP&L wanted to acquire apparently inflated their asking prices beyond what AP&L was willing to pay. The community responded by raising the money required to make up the difference between the asking prices and the highest appraisal AP&L had received of the land. Three hundred twelve (312) firms and individuals contributed $31,193.19 to the fund-raising campaign; $26,500 actually was needed. (Deaton, personal communication,1981; Russellville Courier Democrat,1967.)

The only issue that arose regarding any harmful impacts of the plant had to do with the concerns of the state over effects of thermal discharges on Lake Dardanelle. In May 1968, AP&L responded to this concern by entering into an agreement with the University of Arkansas whereby the university would conduct a 10-year study on the environmental characteristics of the lake. The purpose of the study was to provide AP&L with data about the effects of the nuclear plant on temperatures and other conditions of the lake. (Russellville Courier Democrat,1968.)

In October 1968, a group of Arkansans--including AP&L officials and representatives of various environmental groups-visited the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Plant at IIaddam Neck, Connecticut, a plant similar to the one proposed for Arkansas. Again, the main concern stated was the possible harmful effect of higher temperatures in Lake Dardanelle (especially the impact of such temperatures on the fishing habitat). (Russellville Courier Democrat, 1968.) Discussion about thermal pollution continued but, by the end of October 1968, the Atomic Energy Commission had approved AP&L's application for construction. The application was not contested.

Examination of newspaper articles indicated that the nuclear plant was viewed as a particularly important industrial project that would stimulate the area's traditionally ailing economy. The nuclear plant was favored because it strongly conformed to the community's prevailing progrowth value, and the plant became a community " symbol" of growth an I change. Few concerns were expressed over safety by Study Area residents at that time. 1 or a region that had experienced economic problems, the construction of ANO was accepted as an important regional project and as an integral part of the economic development that had been occurring in the area after the mid-1960s.

147

9.Z.2 Construction Permit Hearings, Unit 1 The public hearings over the safety of Unit 1 of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station were uncontested. There was no organized nor ad hoc opposition to the siting of a nuclear facility near Russellville. However, limited appearances were made by three individuals whose concerns were to clarify agency positions and responsibilities and to point out potential problem areas with respect to thermal pollution. (Enos, personal communication,1979.)

One of the individuals represented the Division of Radiological Health of the Arkansas Department of Health. The objective of the appearance was to identify the responsibilities of the agency with respect to the release of radioactive material and to describe the agency's environmental surveillance program during construction.

The second individual was a representative of the Arkansas Conservation Council who voiced some concern over the potential impact of heated effluent on the ecology of the Dardanelle Reservoir-that the rise in termperature could be in excess of predicted values. But this was not a condemnation of the project; it was merely an expression of concern. )

The third limited appearance was made by the Arkansas Pollution Control Commission ( APCC). The expressed concern was related to the status of the issuance of a permit for a plant disposal system to handle the heated discharge back to the reservoir. The issue arose because the APCC was not convinced that the thermal increase in discharged water would necessarily meet Arkansas' water quality criteria with respect to water temperature. The issue led to discussions between APCC and the utility that resulted in an arrangement to improve the means of disposal by upgrading the diffusion in the stream. (Russellville Ccurier Democrat,1969.)

l The combination of the acceptance of the plant by local residents, the perceived I importance of the utility as a regional industry and employer, the lack of regioral opposition, the active involvement of business leaders to site the plant in Russellville, and the lack of concern over safety, resulted in minimal public opposition to the plant during the construction permit hearings from Study Area residents. 1 14S

F 9.2.3 Evaluation of Public Response during the Preconstruction Period The positive community attitude toward the nuclear facility was related to: (1) the historic relationship between the utility and the region; (2) the perception of the nuclear plant as safe and efficient as presented in information from the local newspaper and utility information releases; (3) the econcaic benefits; and (4) the perceived lack of any adverse environmental impact because of the adjustments made by AP&L to meet state environmental quality criteria.

AP&L was one of the earlier companies to establish in Arkansas and to invest in industrial development. In addition, the company was a major contributor to recreational development in the state. In 1968, for example, the utility donated 100 acres to the City of Ilot Springs for recreational development. In a state which was losing population between 1940 and 1960, AP&L was viewed as a stabilizing and important economic asset and this attitude persisted throughout the study period.

Because newspaper coverage can aid in identifying public concerns and issues and may also contribute to the formation of attitudes through the dissemination of information, past copies of the Russellville newspaper, the daily Courier Democrat, were examined in researching data for this report. Regarding the siting of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station, nearly all of the early articles dealt primarily with the economic benefits of the plant and plant safety information.

Another factor that should be considered in explidning the lack of local opposition was the nature of political involvement in Pope County at the time. There were few interest groups, major issues had not surfaced, and there was a strong belief in the ability of elected leaders to resolve community conflicts. Moreover, concerns over the environment were not an expressed community value.

9.3 Public Response during the Construction Period Construction on ANO Unit 1 began in 1970 following the issuance of the construction permit. The following section describes the two events which resulted in public response: (1) the construction permit process for Unit 2, and (2) the operating permit hearing for Unit 1.

149

9.3.1 Examination of Construction-Related Iseues during Construction of Unit 1 Analysis of regional newspapers did not show any negative impacts perceived or felt by the area's communities from the construction labor force. A number of articles reported that the construction workers were helping develop the economy of local communities through their expenditures on rents and purchases. Overall, the communities near the facility had a positive feeling toward the incoming construction workers. Interviews with key community leaders consistently indicated that, in their view, the nearby towns, especially Russellville, benefited from the construction workers.

With respect to rental or housing shortages, no problems were identified in the newspapers, in the Russellville City Council minutes, or in interviews with key community actors.

Social interaction between the construction labor force and nearby communities was highly compatible. Many construction workers relocated to this part of Arkansas in the early 1960s to take advantage of the employment opportunities available through the improvements being made on the Arkansas River, including Lake Dardanelle and Dardanelle Dam, and the construction of the interstate highway. In addition, a substantial number of the construction work force operated small marginal farming operations and, as skilled and licensed craf tsmen, would take on, seasonal construction work to supplement their income. The work force was predominately a work force with established ties to the region.

No problems surfaced between the construction work force and the community with respect to housing, transportation, social integration, or schools. An important consideration was the fact that construction activity was not visible to the local communities in terms of traffic or site. Arkansas Power and Light established a program to reduce adverse environmental impacts of construction by such means as landscaping and dust reduction measures. Moreover, the scheduling of major construction projects in this region af ter the early 1960s meant that construction of ANO had no additional social effects on the community. Many of the construction workers and their families were well integrated into the community.

Earlier, the construction activities on the Dardanelle hydro-electric power plant, the interstate highway system, the Dardanelle Lock and Dam, and numerous small industries, had resulted in the in-migration of construction workers and their families, 150

i which in turn had created enrollment problems for the Russellville School District. By the late 1960s, the tax base was not sufficient to support the increased school enrollment and a fund drive was initiated. With the construction of ANO, the annual revenues generated by taxing the facility provided more than sufficient monies for expansion and upgrading of the educational facilities.

9 3.2 Unit 2 Construction Permit Process and Unit 1 Operating Permit Hearing By 1972, when AP&L applied for a construction permit to build Unit 2, there may have been slightly more concern about nuclear por:er safety. Nineteen witnesses appeared before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the AEC at an evidentiary hearing in July 1972. Two of those witnesses proposed that AP&L's application be rejected. An official of the Johnson County Health Club " urged AP&L to carefully weigh your decision in light of your moral obligation to the people of the area." The president of the Arkansas Wildlife Federation asked that the federation be informed of future developments. (Russellville Courier Democrat,1972.)

Another evidentiary hearing (apparently of the same nature) held in October 1972 was reported as being entireiy uncontsted. Similarly, when AP&L was seeking an operating permit hearing for Unit 1, no opposing testimony was presented at a hearing held in July 1973.

9.3.3 Community Attitudes toward ANO,1972 In 1972, Arkansas Power and Light Company conducted A Study of Public Attitudes Towards the Company's Image. Over 90 percent of those interviewed felt that, in general, Arkansas Power and Light was doing a good job. With respect to attitudes toward nuclear power, a sample of responses at the state level was compared to responses from Russellville on a number of attributes.

The study found that the Russellville respondents expressed a greater degree of familiarity with issues related to nuclear power plants than did the state respondents.

The outstanding factor among Russellville interviewees (96 percent agreement) was that ANO would benefit the community. In addition,74 percent felt that nuclear power was the best answer to fuel shortages. Furthermore, a comparatively high percentage of Russellville residents were of the opinion that the plant did not contribute to air or water pollution. Overall, the Russellville community had a f avorable attitvh toward ANO, and potential health hazards were generally not viewed as a serious problem.

151

9.4 Public Response during the Operations Period The Arkansas Nuclear One Station began commercial operation in 1974. The major project-related issues during the operation period included the accident at the Three Mile Island plant, the tax distribution issue, the emergency planning issue, and a 1980 leak of radioactive water at ANO.

9 4.1 The Effects of the Three Mile Island Accident The history of ANO Unit 1 equipment failures, leaks, and plant shutdowns did not lead to any veralized community concern over the safety of nuclear technology. Despite reporting of these prob'lems, the nuclear facility was a "non-issue" for the community.

o On the basis of newspaper reports and interviews lvith key informants, it appeared that public concern about the plant was heightened by the accident at Three Mile Island. This concern, however, was not universally expressed by Study Area residents, and many indicated that the likelihood of such an accident at ANO was remote. Changes made to the ANO plant-redesign of a number of valves, a revised contingency plan, and plans for an off-site emergency control center-had the effect of reducing public concern. (Enos, personal communication,1981.)

However, concerns over ANO because of the accident at Three Mile Island resulted in the establishment of a small antinuclear group in Pope County. This group did not receive public support and soon disbanded. Interviews with key informants indicated that there was a general trust in technology, and that the risks of living near the plant were, on the whole, acceptable. Key informants also indicated a strong belief in the technical " expert," and felt that the TMI accident would result in improved safety standards for all plants.

9.4.2 Distribution of Tax Revenue Issue Residents of Dardanelle, a community south of Pope County, voiced two concerns: not only were they downwind of ANO and thus exposed to the greatest risk, but they did not receive any of the tax revenues paid by AP&L on ANO. In addition, Dardanelle continually lost business to Russellville due to Russellville's competitive advantage due to size. Consequently, a proposed constitutional amendment was submitted to the state legislature to redistribute the revenues from the properties of 152

power plants. However, this proposed amendment was not successful. (Thomas, personal communication,1981.)

9.4.3 Emergency Response Plan Issue In May 1980, 27 persons on behalf of the local antinuclear groups filed a class action suit which stipulated that AP&L shut down the ANO plant until adequate emergency evacuation plans were established. This suit was dismissed in court where it was appealed. At the close of the study period it was pending review.

The original plan established by AP&L for the ANO plant was considered problematic in that a number of neighboring counties were not financially able to implement the plan. Consequently, AP&L revised the plan and it was accepted by the surrounding counties.

9.4.4 ANO Accident Issue An accident at the Arkansas Nuclear One Station on 10 May 1980 heightened public concern. The accident consisted of radioactive water leaking onto the floor in the Unit I reactor building. The accident in itself might not have caused much contention; it was AP&L's handling of the situation which seems to have upset some local residents. As a result of the leak, a build-up of contaminated air occurred, and AP&L was going to

vent the air out of the building. The State Health Department requested that AP&L delay the venting by 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months so that some additional testing could be done, but AP&L went ahead with the venting. Although the Health Department actually had no i

authority over AP&L, many local residents questioned the company's credibility and the safety of the plant. Interviews with a number of key informants suggested that it was this event, more than any other, including TMI, which caused them to seriously question the plant's safety and the utility's abihty to respond in an emergency situation.

9.4.5 Evaluation of Public Response during the Operations Period Although two important events occurred-Three Mile Island and the venting of contaminated gas at ANO-these did not trigger any widespread active opposition to the plant by Study Area residents. The opposition to the plant was limited and reflected individual environmental proclivities rather than group concern. The Study Area population continued to support the plant, although questions about its safety had been 153

raised. There was no organized group effectively opposing ANO by the end of the study period. The lack of opposition can be explained by a number of factors:

(1) The regional tendency to rely upon established governmental procedures for regulating businesses; (2) The reliance on elected governmental officials to ensure resolution of public problems; (3) The strong value placed by the community on growth and industrial development; (4) The historical lack of major community issues which would result in interest group emergence; (5) The general faith in technology and the safety of the plant; (6) The important role played by the utility in the promotion of economic development in the region; and (7) The tangible benefits in terms of tax revenues to the school system.

l l

l 154

CHAPTER 10: EVALUATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STATION 10.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to describe the evaluation of the effects of construction and operation of the ANO station by the four major social groups in the Study Area. In the determination of the evaluation of the effects by group, the research attempted to ascertain the perception of each group regarding: the magnitude of the individual effects; the positive / negative dimension of the effects; the duration of the changes; and the saliency of the effects to each group and to the Study Area. Following the evaluation of the individual effects the overall evaluation of the plant was measured in terms of its perceived benefits and risks.

The final section describes the overall rating of the significance of the nuclear plant and its effects on the Study Area as a whole. The following criteria were utilized in assessing the signficance of the plant's effects: (1) the relative magnitude of the effects; (2) the duration of the effects; (3) the distribution of the effects among social groups-who gained and who lost; (4) the evaluation of the effects; and (5) the role of the plant in the Study Area.

10.2 Evaluation of the Effects by Group 10.Z.1 The Farmer Group Examination of the plant's effects to individual social groups found that the number of farmers who obtained employment at the plant was limited. This limited employment participation was accurately assessed by those farmers who were inter-viewed. Interviews with farmers who had worked on the construction of Arkansas Nuclear One or had family members employed at the site evaluated the plant as providing important economic benefits at the time. However, as industrial growth expanded in the Russellville area, farmers employed at the nuclear site tended to seek alternative industrial employment. Thus, although at the time of peak construction the plant was seen by these farmers as an important source of income for them, it was deemed in the long term as increasingly unimportant. According to farmers who were interviewed, the expansion of the employment base in Russellville seemingly lessened the importance of the plant as an employer.

155

Overall, because of alternative employment, the farmers evaluated the plant's economic effects on their group as unimportant. The effects of the plant were underplayed partly as a response to the availability of alternative and long-term employment opportunities.

Although they viewed the economic effects to their group as relatively unimportant, the key agricultural informants nonetheless felt that the plant was an important contributor to the overall economy of the Study Area. Many farmers expressed the view that the economic stimulus during the construction period was large and important for the growth and stability of the area; however, af ter the major construction period, they came to view the nuclear plant as simply another local industrial firm--and one not as important as other industries in the area by virtue of the size of the number employed. Thus, the plant's economic effects were considered an important economic stimulus during its early phases, but only moderately important to the Study Area after operations began.

The farmers who resided outside the jurisdiction of the Russellville school district did not benefit from plant revenues to the school district and the subsequent improvements to the quality of the schools. In discussions of plant effects, the economic effects of the plant to the community were viewed as being of greater importance to those farmers residing within the school district than they were to those living outside the district. For those residing within the school district, there was a strong association i between the economic effects and the revenue effects. Thus, the revenues to the school 1

district were considered important economic effects.

By themselves, the revenues paid by the utility for the Arkansas Nuclear One facility were evaluated as very large, positive, and permanent. The changes in the school district were identified as the most significant and positive effects of the nuclear plant by farmers residing within the school district. Other revenue effects, particularly to the county budget, were not attributed to the nuclear plant but rather to the increased population and economic growth of the county.

The key informants representing the Study Area's farmer group indicated that they were not aware of any problems directly associated with the construction activities at the ANO site. Project-related in-migration was viewed as a positive development for the community as a whole but did not affect the farmers to any significant degree. On 156

the whole, the consensus of opinion was that the plant did not have direct major effects or long-term effects to the farmers and their families. The improvement in the quality of the school system was viewed as a significant benefit by those f armers residing in the Russellville School District.

Interviews with group members indicated that prior to the Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident, the agricultural community generally did not express concern regarding safety or environmental hazards posed by the plant. The nuclear plant was an accepted industrial plant and was viewed primarily as an industrial employer like the

( other industrial establishments located in the Russellville area. The accident at Three 1

Mile Island, however, generated a new level of awareness of the risks posed by nuclear technology, and interviews with the group's key informants indicated that the plant was viewed as posing risks but was, nevertheless, accepted as an integral part of the community infrastructure. Support of the plant and the downplaying of concern over the risks posed by the plant seems to have been associated with the importance placed on industrial growth as an expression of group values. A number of farmers stated that when the accident at Three Mile Island occurred, they thought that the value of agricultural land located near the facility would be adversely affected. However, this concern became a moot issue as land values near the plant continued to increase. The Arkansas Nuclear One project did not result in issues or problems that were of concern to the farmer group as a whole. In terms of the issues that were important to the farmer group, the nuclear plant was not considered to be relevant.

It was the general consensus of persons interviewed that some farmers benefited l

t from changes to the school system but, on the whole, the agricultural community did not receive significant benefits from the plant. The perceived risks posed by the plant were generally considered remote and did not detract from the plant's value to the community.

10.2.2 The Black Community During the 1970s, when construction of the Arkansas Nuclear One station was ongoing, the black community in Russellville was undergoing major changes: employment opportunities in recently located industries were available; housing and overall community upgrading had occurred; out-migration rates hai fallen; and a greater level of participation in civic affairs had developed. The expansion of economic opportunities was viewed by those who were interviewed to be of principal importance to blacks and, 157

consequently, the black community strongly supported industrial development.

Interviews with key informants representing this group indicated that they did not expect to obtain a large number of jobs on the construction of the plant but expected to obtain project-related nonbasic employment. However, key informants evaluated the employment effects to the black community as insignificant. During the construction period, most blacks were already employed in local industries. In comparison with other sources ot employment, project-related employment of blacks was perceived as minimal. A number of individuals who worked on the plant did so on a temporary basis until they could find a permanent job with local industries. Thus, there was the perception that plant-related jobs were short-term. Nonbasic employment of blacks in the services and trades sectors was perceived to be unrelated to the nuclear plant.

Unemployment levels in the black community were historically low. During the 1970s, employment among blacks expanded in the skilled craf ts and in the managerial and professional positions; however, this was not seen to be associated with the nuclear plant but to the change in social climate and affirmative action programs.

The consensus of key informants in the black community was that the plant contributed substantially to the improvement of the Russellville School District and that the black group, particularly, benefited from the expansion of school services and improvement in educational quality. The black group evaluated the plant-induced effects to the school system as highly positive, important from both a group and a community perspective, and permanent.

Tax revenues paid for the ANO f acility were considered by the black group to represent the most significant beneficial impact of the nuclear plant. Further, key informants indicated that the indirect effects of the plant-related revenues to the local school district included the in-migration of a diverse professional group that enhanced the trend of moving away from traditional provincialism that was characteristic of the Study Area. This particular change was highly favored by the black key informants. .

Overall, blacks who were interviewed felt that the ANO facility (aside from the revenue impacts) provided few benefits to the black community. However, while few positive effects directly affected the black community, key informants noted that there were no negative or adverse impacts associated with demographic changes and demands placed on housing and public facilities and services. Potential impacts on the group's social structure me mitigated because of the group's strong social and spatial cohesion in Russellville.

H8

l The presence of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station was not a major concern of the black community with respect to public safety and environmental quality. Although the I

Three Mile Island accident increased the level of awareness of the risks posed by nuclear technology, key informants indicated that the level of concern over the local nuclear plant did not increase appreciably. Further, the changes made to the plant by the utility subsequent to TMI-training programs, an off-site emergency center, and safety design retrofitting--reinforced the belief of the members of the black community that the probability of a serious nuclear accident was remote. However, because of the spill of irradiated water at the ANO plant that occurred subsequent to the accident at TMI, l there was some concern expressed about the effectiveness of emergency planning for the area.

Those interviewed did not generally perceive the plant as a threat to their safety. In retrospect, the impacts of the plant were seen to be important (a stimulant to I the economy) to the community during the construction period. Af ter operations began, the plant was viewed as an important source of revenue, especially to the Russellville School District, and as an important employer as were the other large industrial enterprises in the Russellville area. Those interviewed generally felt that the benefits of the plant to the group and the community outweighed the risks posed by the technology.

10.2.3 The Business Group The business leaders in the Study Area consistently favored industrial expansion and made strenuous efforts to attract industry to locate in Russellville. The siting of the nuclear generating plant in Russellville was viewed as a significant economic boon to the Study Area with long-term employment and income effects. The siting of the nuclear l plant near Russellville subsequent to the construction of two large public investment projects (the Arkansas River Navigation Project, and the Interstate Highway) was looked upon as an additional project that would stimulate economic growth. The ANO plant was thus perceived as a precursor to economic prosperity. In fact, in an effort to show support for the plant, the business community, through the actions of the local Chamber of Commerce, purchased land for the utility from two landowners who were reluctant to sell at the asking price. For many businessmen, the nuclear plant became a symbol for industrial growth and a basis for a mature and diversified economy.

The consensus of the key business community informants was that the group benefited economically from the construction of ANO. However, key informants 159

indicated a mixed evaluation with respect to the prevalence of such effects. Those key informants who represented the downtown Russellville merchants indicated that the plant's employment and income effects were not sufficiently large to counteract the persistently high turnover rate among the small businesses. Moreover, the perception of those interviewed was that, although sales activity increased during the construction period, the plant may have been only partially responsible. The increase in volume of sales for some businesses was viewed as part of the general expansion of the Russellville economy which had grown rapidly during the study period. The nuclear plant was but one factor contributing to this growth. Consequently, a number of merchants who were interviewed indicated that it was difficult to evaluate the exact role played by the plant in the community's growth.

Another factor mentioned by a number of downtown merchants that mitigated against greater economic gains to the downtown merchants was the location of large department stores and shopping centers outside of the downtown area during the period of the plant construction. A few merchants felt that the economic activity that was to be generated through the construction of ANO was a significant factor in the acceleration of these establishments to locate in Russellville. Thus, for a number of downtown merchants the construction of the plant resulted in some economic gains; the degree to which effects of the plant contributed to these gains was uncertain but was i certainly not conspicuous. Greater economic effects were reduced because of the 1

growth of large shopping centers during the construction period which successfully competed with the downtown area merchants.

Although major economic impacts did not accrue to the downtown area as a whole, a few individual business owners indicated that their establishments significantly benefited from plant-related purchases. The purchases that were made were sufficiently large to enable these few individual firms to expand and diversify their stock.

Consequently, the market range of these establishments expanded. The owners of these few firms viewed the nuclear plant as having had large, important, and long-term ef fects i to the business group in Russellville and to the community as a whole.

Members of the business group who did not represent the downtown merchants assessed the economic impacts of the plant as important and long lasting. The in-migration of operations workers and their families, the enlargement of the housing sector, and the expansion of the industrial sector were identified as being directly 160

associated with permanent effects of plant construction and operation. Key informants were asked to evaluate the plant's overall importance to the economic growth of the Study Area. The consensus was that in the context of overall economic growth during the study period, the construction and operation of the ANO plant contributed only moderately. The location and expansion of the industrial sector and the rapid population growth during the 1970s was considered to be the basis for the economic growth that occurred during the study period. As the level of construction activity at the ANO site diminished, workers began to out-migrate. The economic effects of this out-migration were noticeable in Russellville, and the need for the community to make adjustments had the effect of reducing the perception of ANO as a permanent growth inducer. Thus, the overall importance of the plant to the business community, when compared to other developments in the area, was assessed to be moderate. Of importance was the fact that plant-related effects were often indistinguishable from the general rapid growth occurring in the Study Area. Rapid economic and demographic growth was viewed as the most significant factor in effecting changes in the county, and the plant was considered, in retrospect, to be of moderate significance in the collective changes that occurred in the Study Area during the study period.

Key informants representing the business group agreed that the tax revenues paid by the utility for the ANO Station resulted in significant and long-term changes. The major positive impact resulted from the revenues paid to the Russellville School District. It was generally felt that the nuclear plant was the single largest local source of revenues in the Study Area, and that the expansion of the tax base was considered to be very important for the area's development. A number of key informants of the business group argued that the improvement and upgrading of local schools had an important secondary effect in that it was perceived to be a factor in attracting professional and industrial development. The addition to the tax base and the revenues to the Russellville School District were perceived as benefiting all members of the community. While the community benefited from increased tax revenues, the key

> informants indicated that the demands placed on housing and public facilities and services by project-related in-migrants were minimal due to the large absorptive capacity of RusseD~ille. While school overcrowding occurred during the early phases of construction of the ANO Station, this problem was rectified through a building program which added significantly to the system's capacity.

161

Interviews with group members indicated that, prior to the accident at Three Mile Island, the business community held no widespread concern regarding safety or health hazards because of the location of the ANO plant near Russellville. Three factors surfaced during the interviews that could explain the low level of concern. The business community had a close professional and social relationship with both the utility management and the station operators. This resulted in an informal communications network among the utility, the plant workers, and the business group. According to members of the business group. a high degree of trust was placed in station management and operations personnel, and the utility was considered an integral part of the community. In addition, there was a general belief in the value of technology and a specific belief in the importance of nuclear technology. The level of concern over the potential hazards, as documented in Chapter 7, was low.

The accident at Three Mile Island and the 1980 leak of irradiated water at the ANO plant did not result in any major change in the level of concern over safety of members of the business group who were interviewed. Although a number of those interviewed indicated that they were now more aware of the potential hazards of nuclear technology than they were prior to the TMI accident, they still retained confidence in the ANO plant and its operators. In fact, there was general and intense disagreement with one businessperson in the community who had taken an antinuclear posture toward the ANO plant following the TMI accident. Those persons who were interviewed indicated that plant-related changes following TMI-safety design retrofitting of the ANO plant, preparation of a new emergency plan, and the construction of an off-site contingency planning center--were perceived to have the effect of reducing the risks and the consequences of a possible plant accident. Moreover, the probability of an accident at the ANO plant was considered to be extremely remote, not only because of the trust placed in the management and operation of the plant, but also because of the safety features which had been instituted following the TMI accident. The positive effects of the plant on the business group and the community were viewed as far outweighing the risks posed by the ANO Station.

10.2.4 The Worker Group The interviewt with key informants of the worker group found that they had experienced wide-ranging plant-related economic e f f ects. For those residents who obtained employment at the site, the economic effects, in terms of employment and income, were evaluated to be positive, important, and of sufficient duration to be 162

considered of long-term significance. Many construction workers with families who in-migrated to work on other major public works projects prior to ANO remained in the area to work on the ANO Station and consequently became permanent residents. Interviews found that these workers considered the economic effects to the worker group and to the community to be large and significant. The ANO plant was viewed as a critical project, coming as it did immediately following these large public investment projects.

Workers who were not directly employed at the ANO construction site did not l generally associate nonbasic employment or their jobs with construction or operation of l

the ANO Station. However, all workers who were interviewed indicated that the building and operation of the plant was important to the worker group in general and to the community as a whole because it was perceived as an economic boon to the area. When construction on the nuclear plant began, the nuclear project was thought to be the most important on-going economic stimulus; in the long term, however, the importance assigned to the plant as an agent in the creation of new jobs declined. This was a function of the rapid expansion of the industrial and services sectors of the local economy and the growth of other employment generators during the study period. The perception of the plant as a local employer, then, was that the plant was a major employer during the early phases of construction but became less importart as other major industries located in the study area or expanded their activities. Further, almost all the workers ir'terviewed indicated that, although there was a permanent operations work force at the site, the plant was not the largest employer in the area. It was perceived that the plant benefited the entire worker group because it stimulated growth in the Study Area, but that the workers directly employed in the construction sector were the principal beneficiaries.

A number of workers indicated that the housing demands made by plant-related in-migrants resulted in increases in housing costs, but this was not considered a major or long-lasting problem. Impacts to social structures and social organizations were not identified as concerns or issues by the worker group. In addition, the workers were aware of the tax payments paid by Arkansas Power and Light Company for ANO and considered the plant to be an important addition to the tax base. Although tax rates were not reduced, all of the key informants indicated that the improvements made to the school system were important to them and represented the most significant visible change attributable to the ANO project. Further, informants suggested that their decision to 163

remain in the Russellville area subsequent to the termination of construction work at the ANO site was based on a number of factors, including the quality of the school system.

According to members of the worker group, the overall evaluation of the project's effects on the Study Area was that, although the area benefited economically, the magnitude of the effects varied over the life of the project and primarily affected those workers who were directly employed at the site. In addition, the construction and operation of the plant was not considered the most important factor in the economic growth of the Study Area, but was assessed as one important element when all the other f actors were considered collectively vis-a-vis the nuclear f acility.

Among those workers who were interviewed, the expressed level of concern over the potential effects of the plant on public health and safety was low. Most stated that they were not overly concerned about the plant, neither before nor af ter the accident at Three Mile Island. Few expressed concern over the possible risks associated with a nearby nuclear f acility; rather, they perceived the probability of a major accident or an event with serious health consequences as being very remote. The spill of irradiated water at ANO in 1980 and the utility's discharge of the water prior to the State Department of IIealth's wishes, were mentioned by a few informants as factors accounting for a somewhat increased level of concern. Ilowever, even these individuals indicated that modifications to the safety features of the f acility af ter TMI further reduced the probability of an accident. Overall, the nuclear facility was accepted by the worker group as an important featt.re of the community and issues over public health and safety and environmental quality did not surface.

10.3 Significance of the Plant i The economic changes attributable to the construction of the Arkansas Nuclear One Station were relatively large and important. Total employment by place of residence was estimated to be about 1,450 persons and this constituted about 14 percent of the labor force (place of residence) in the Study Area. The changes brought about by the plant occurred at a very critical time in the economic history of the area. During the 1960s, substantial in-migration had occurred to reverse a long and serious historical out-migration. This in-migration resulted from major public work efforts on the Arkansas River and the location of a number of industries in the area. The decision to site a nuclear power plant near Russellville, the construction of which was to last a decade, resulted in the stabilization of the economic and demographic base. M any 164 l l

i

construction workers remained in the area permanently because of the plant; in fact, over 70 percent of the work force were noncommuters.

I In 1977, the year of peak construction, there were 951 direct jobs and 125 "other" jobs (public service and school-related jobs) from plant tax revenues. Together with nonbasic employment, the total employment of over 1,400 jobs generated more than

$17 million in income, much of which remained in the Study Area. From an historical perspective, the construction of the nuclear plant was an important stabilizing element, coming as it did at the start of a period of industrial growth in the Study Area.

i Although the number of workers fluctuated at the site during the construction period, the economic changes were long lasting. At the close of the study period, there was a sizable operations work force, and TMI-related changes to the plant resulted in the construction of a large ancillary emergency building that employed a sizable work force. Moreover, in the Russellville School District there were an estimated 125 teaching and administrative positions attributable to plant revenues.

The industrial and urban growth of Russellville which took place at the same time l as the construction of the nuclear facility reduced the relative importance of the plant's economic effects and the level of perceived impacts. Yet, as a result of plant l

expenditures, a number of individual firms were able to expand and diversify their inventory. Consequently, these firms were placed in a strong competitive position and their market area expanded. Russellville, in part, became a more important regional center of economic activity. In the context of the substantial development that took place in the Study Area over the study period, the importance of the plant's economic

, effects, in terms of both magnitude and duration, should not be underestimated; it was an important project for the community.

Demographic effects of the project on the Study Area were relatively large.

These effects included: (1) the prevention of the out-migration of a sizable indigenous construction work force and their families, and (2) the in-migration of over 2,500 persons during the peak construction year. Over 150 construction workers and their families who in-migrated into the area to work on the plant permanently relocated at the end of construction. The population increase due to the facility ranged from 1.5 percent in 1969, when construction began, to 8.5 percent in 1977, the peak year of construction.

165

The in-migration of both construction workers and their families and nonbasic workers did not have any negative social effects. The plant-related in-migrants were not conspicuous as a distinct group and were readily integrated into the established community social patterns. The fact that in-migration to the Study Area was occurring at a very rapid rate during the study period and that the area had experienced a major population turnover, diminished the likelihood of a strong traditional / newcomer social split. In terms of demographic characteristics, the in-migrants did not markedly differ from the established residents. The social indicators examined to measure social change found no adverse impact. Social structure and social process changes attributable to the plant were not apparent; the study period was a period of major socioeconomic transition that had little to do with the nuclear plant.

The growth in housing was significant during the study period; in 1977, the peak construction year, the estimated project-related housing demand accounted for 6.2 percent of the total county housing stock. The large demand for housing did not result in housing shortages: the in-migrants were readily accommodated in new homes, in expanded mobile home parks, and in apartment buildings. Once construction ended, there were no major housing problems because the demand for housing continued through non-plant-related in-migration.

All groups evaluated the revenue effects of the plant on the Russellville School District as the most significant positive and permanent impact. Prior to construction of the plant, the existing level of tax revenues and state and federal revenue sharing were act sufficient to provide the operating basis of the local school system. By the end of the study period, the school district was one of the leading districts in the state.

Given the historical context of economic instability and population out-migration, the nuclear plant was highly valued as part of the community industrial infrastructure.

Questions of safety were generally limited to a few individuals. The plant had been elevated by the general population as a symbol of growth, industrialization, and modernization, important values which were shared by the local area residents. Thus, the overall signficance of the plant to the Study Area was rated as large.

166

i BIBLIOGRAPHY Arkansas Department of Labor, Employment Security Division 1961a Employment and Payrolls Quarterly Summary of Covered Employment (First Quarter).

1961b Employment and Payrolls Quarterly Summary cf Covered Employment (Second Quarter).

1961c Employment and Payrolls Quarterly Summary of Covered Employment f (Third Quarter).

I I

1961d Employment and Payrolls Quarterly Summary of Covered Employment (Fourth Quarter).

1964 Average Weekly Earnings, Covered Employment by Industry and County.

1968 Average Weekly Earnings, Covered Employment by Industry and County.

1972 Average Covered Employment and Earnings by Industry and County, 1971.

1973 Average Covered Employment and Earnings by Industry and County, 1972.

1973 Covered Employment and Earnings by Industry and County, Arkansas, First Quarter.

1977 Average Covered Employment and Earnings by Industry and County, Arkansas.

Arkansas Department of Local Services n.d. Arkansas Department of Local Services Brochure.

I 1977a Perry County.

1977b Searcy County.

1977c Van Euren County.

1977d Yell County.

1977e Pope County Arkansas Economic Development Study Commission 1976 Arkansas' Economic Development: A Design for Future Growth.

167

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)

Arkansas Employment Security Division, Research & Statistics Section 1978a Arkansas Labor Force Statistics Annual Averages, State and Areas, 1974-1977.

1978b Labor Market Information for Arkansas Counties, January through October,1978.

1978c Revised Monthly and Annual Average Labor Force and Unemployment Data for 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, for the United States, The State of Arkansas, and all the Labor Areas and Counties in the State.

Arkansas Power & Light Company, Little Rock, Arkansas n.d. Nuclear Power Information Program.

n.d. Technical Fact Sheet.

1967 Application for Licenses, Russellville Nuclear Unit. Docket 50313-2.

November 24, 1967.

1967-1977 Annual Report.

1967 -Fact Sheet. ,

1967 Press Release.

1967 Technical Fact Sheet.

1968 Fact Sheet.

l 1970 Fact Sheet.

1971 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. Environmental Report. Supplement 1, Docket 50313-33. November 5,1971.

1971 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. Environmental Report, Operating Permit Stage. Docket 50313-30. June 8,1971.

1971 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report.

Amendment 20. Docket 50313-28. April 19,1971.

1972 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. Final Safety Analysis Report, Emergency Plan.

1972 Study of Public Attitudes Towards the Company's Image, Possible Rate Increases and Nuclear Power During 1972.

1974-1977 Annual Report, Electric Operation and Maintenance Expenses.

168 1

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)

Arkansas Power and Light Company l 1974 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. Environmental Report, Vol.1.

I 1974 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. Environmental Report, Vol. 2.

l 1977 Emergency Plan. Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Final Safety Analysis Report. March,1977.

1978 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Operating Record. Intracompany correspondence: File: 0520.1. December 7,1978.

Arkansas Public Service Commission n.d. Direct Testimony of William Cavanaugh, III, on Behalf of Arkansas Power and Light Company. Docket U-2972.

Arkansas State Department of Education t

i 1966-1977 Reports on House Concurrent Resolution No. 58 of 1961 General Assembly.

Brady, Guy, Jr.

1974 The Economic Impact of Industrialization on a Rural Town Economy:

Wynne, Arkansas. (unpublished masters thesis)

Brann, W. Paul 1964 "Helena-West Helena, Arkansas--A Case Study in Economic Readjustment," Community Economic Development Efforts-Five Case Studies. New York, New York: Committee for Economic Development.

Breshears, Sarah G., and Diana K. Brenske 1978 Average Hourly Earnings in Arkansas Manufacturing-U.S. and Southern States,1977. Little Rock, Arkansas: University of Arkansas.

Building Inspector's Comparative Report 1961-1977 Building Permit Data, New Construction. Russellville, Arkansas.

Industrial Research and Extension Center 1978 Research Memorandum: Arkansas Population Projections to 1990, by County. R M-6 5. Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas.

March,1978.

169

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)

Cavanaugh, William III i

n.d. Testimony at construction permit hearing on behalf of Arkansas Power &

Light Company.

Ilolmes, liarlan T.

1971 Testimony at public hearing, Arkansas Pollution Control Commission.

Russellville, Arkansas: Ark = a: Power A Light Company.

Hurley, William Marvin 1931 Socializing Forces in the History of Pope County, Arkansas.

Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas.

1930 Articles from the Russellville Courier Democrat. Pope County " Place File," Arkansas History Commission.

Jackman, Mary R., and Mary Scheur Senter 1980 " Images of Social Groups: Categorical or Qualified?" Public Opinion Quarterly, pp. 341-361.

Manes & Associates, Inc., Russellville, Arkansas 1975 Goals, Objectives, and Standards for Russellville. (for the Arkansas Planning Commission) 1976 The Planning Document, Russellville, Arkansas. April,1976.

1976 Zoning Ordinance, Russellville, Arkansas. (for Russellville, Arkansas) 1980 Economic Adjustment Plan, Russellville, Arkansas.

Motz, Annabelle Bender 1977 A Research Strategy for Social Impact Assessment: A Tale of Three Cities. Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Service.

Pope County Historical Association 1979 History of Pope County, Arkansas. Winston-Salem, N.C.: Pope County Historical Association and Hunter Publishing Co.

Russellville Centennial Committee n.d. Russellville Centennial, 1870-1970: Arrows to Atoms.

Russellville School District n.d. Annual Reports and Budget Information Sheets.

170 l

l BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)

, Stuart, Alfred W.

t 1971 Rural Industrialization and Population Growth: The Case of Arkansas.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The Century Twenty-One Committee, Inc.

1978 The Russellville Concept. An Intermodal Cargo Transportation System.

Russellville, Arkansas, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission l

I Final Statement of Environmental Considerations Associated with 1973 Operating License for ANO-Unit 1.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing l 1973a Final Environmental Statement related to the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. Docket 50313.

1973b Safety Evaluation by the Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of Arkansas Power & Light Company, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Nuclear Power Plant, Pope County, Arkansas. Docket 50313.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1968 Estimates of the Population of Counties, July 1,1966. P-25.

1969a Estimates of the Population of Counties and Metropolitan Areas, July 1, 1966. A Summary Report. P-25.

1969b Summary of Special Censuses Conducted by the Bureau of the Census between January 1 and December 31,1968. P-28.

1969c Summary of Special Censuses Conducted by the Bureau of the Census between January 1 and March 31,1969. P-28.

1969d Summary of Special Censuses Conducted by the Bureau of the Census between April 1 and June 30,1969. P-28.

1970a Summary of Special Censuses Conducted by the Bureau of the Census between July 1 and September 30,1969. P-28.

1970b Summary of Special Censuses Conducted by the Bureau of the Census between October 1 and December 31,1969. P-28.

1971 Components of Population Change by County: 1960-1970. P-25.

1973 Estimates of the Population of Arkansas Counties, July 1,1971 and July 1,1972. P-26.

171

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued) I U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1974a Estimates of the Population of Arkansas Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July 1,1972 and 1973. P-26.

1974b Estimates of the Population of Counties, July 1,1971 and 1972. P-25.

1974c Summary of Special Censuses Conducted by the Bureau of the Census between January 1,1974 and June 30,1974. P-28.

1975a Estimates of the Population of Arkansas Counties and Metropolitan )

Areas: July 1,1973 and 1974. P-26, 1975b 1973 Population and 1972 Per Capita Income Estimates for Counties and Incorporated Places in Arkansas. P-25.

1976a Estimates of the Population of Arkansas Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July 1,1974 and 1975. P-26.

1976b Estimates of the Population of Counties: July 1,1973 and 1974. P-25.

1976c Summary of Special Censuses Conducted by the Bureau of the Census between July 1,1975 and December 31,1975. P-28.

1976d Su.nmary of Special Censuses Conducted by the Bureau of the Census between January 1,1976 and June 30,1976. P-28.

1977a Estimates of the Population of Arkansas Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July 1,1975 (Revised) and 1976 (Provisional). P-26.

1977b Estimates of the Population of Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July 1, 1974 and 1975. P-25.

1977c Gross Migration by County: 1965-1970. P-25, 1977d 1973 (Revised) and 1975 Population Estimates and 1972 (Revised) and 1974 Per Capita Income Estimates for Counties and Incorporated Places in Arkansas. P-25.

1977e Summary of Special Censuses Conducted by the Bureau of the Census between July 1,1976 and December 31,1976. P-28.

1978a Estimates of the Population of Arkansas Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July 1,1976 (Revised) and 1977 (Provisional). P-26.

1978b Estimates of the Population of Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July 1, 1975 and 1976. P-25.

1979a Estimates of the Population of Arkansas Counties and Metropolitan Area ~ July 1,1977 (Revised) and 1978 (Provisional). P-26.

172

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1979b Estimates of the Population of Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July 1, 1976 and 1977.

1980a 1977 Per Capita Money Income Estimates for States, Counties, and Incorporated Places in the Southern Region of the United States. P-25.

1980b Estimates of the Population of Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July 1, 1977 and 1978. P-25.

t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1977 Operation of Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2, Arkansas Power f; Light Company. Docket 50368.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1977 Final Environmental Statement related to operation of Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2. Docket 50368.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Public Affairs 1978 Press Release.

University of Arkansas 1973 A Changing Arkansas: As Reflected by Popitiation and Related Data 1960-1970. Little Rock, Arkansas, University of Arkansas, Industrial Research and Extension Center; Little Rock, Arkansas 1972 Arkansas Intercensal Population Estitt ates, by County,1960 and 1970.

(research memorandum) 1974 Population Changes and Migration in Arkansas by Color, 1950-1970.

1975 Arkansas Employment, 1960-1970, An Industry Growth Pattern Analysis.

1975 Migration Patterns by Age, 1950-1970.

1978a Arkansas PersonalIncome Handbook.

1978b Arkansas Population Projections to 1990, by County. (research memorandum) 1978c State and County Economic Data for Arkansas.

173

, BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)

University of Missouri at Columbia 1978 Population Change in the Ozarks Region 1970-1975. (for the Ozarks Regional Commission)

Vance, David L.

1970 Early History of Pope County. Mabelvale, Arkansas: Forem an-Payne Publishers.

West Arkansas Health Systems Agency, Inc., Russellville, Arkansas )

1976 Application.

1977 County Health Profile of the West Arkansas Health Service Area.

West Central Arkansas Planning & Development District,Inc., Little Rock, Arkansas n.d. Arkansas Industrial Site Directory.

n.d. Prime Times, Area Agency on Aging.

1973 Overall Program Design. FY 1974-1978.

1975a Comprehensive Health Plan.

1975b Medical Facilities Plan.

1976 Overall Economic Development Program & Multi-Year Program Design, FY 1977-1978-1979.

1978a Community Development, News Briefs.

1978b Comprehensive Analysis of Pope County Arkansas.

1978c Housing and Household Trends, 1970-1977, 1978d overall Economic Development Program Update, July 1,1977 through June 30,1978.

1930a Areawide Housing Policies, Goals and Implementation Procedures.

i 1980b Housing and Household Trends, 1970-1979.

West, D. Porter 1968 Early History of Pope County. Reprint of 1903 edition, David Lee ,

Vance.

174

l BIBLIOGRAPIIY (Cantinued)

Wilkinson, Kenneth P.

l 1964 Analytic Guide for the Study of Action Programs. (revised 1966, unpublished)

Worley, Ted R.

1954 " Pope County One IIundred Years A go," The Arkansas IIistorical Quarterly, vol. XIII, no. 2, pp.196-204.

l NEWSPAPER REFERENCE Russellville Courier Democrat 175

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Alexander, Cecil Director, State Governmental Affairs, Arkansas Power and Light Company, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Bryan, Pamela J.

State of Arkansas, Department of Local Services.

Burrough, David Corps of Engineers, Of fice of Planning.

Cambell Family 3 Solar Supply, Russellville, Arkansas. f Campbell, Roger Nuclear Purchasing Agent, Arkansas Power and Light, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Cavanaugh, W.

Arkansas Power & Light Company.

Cia, Elaine County Historical Society, Russellville, Arkansas.

Cook, Millicent Teacher, Russellville liigh School, Russellville, Arkansas.

Deaton, Ernie Area Manager, Arkansas Power and Light Company, Russellville, Arkansas.

Donovan, T.

Attorney, Dardanelle, Arkansas.

Edwards, N.

Former coordinator, Dogwood Alliance.

Eitenmiller, John Teacher, Russellville High School.

Enos,Ted Arkansas Power & Light Company.

Fontaine, James R.

Assistant Executive Director, West Central Arkansas Planning & Development District, Inc., Russellville, Arkansas.

Fullerton, Fred Planner, West Central Arkansas Planning and Development District, In c.,

Russellville, Arkansas.

176

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) 4 Goatcher, Truett Department of Education, State of Arkansas.

Herrington, Gene Media Communications Coordinator, Arkansas Power & Light Company.

Hettinga, Robert Administrator, Health System Agency, West Central Arkansas Planning and Development, Inc., Russellville, Arkansas.

Hodges, R. E.

Coordinator, Area Agency on Aging, West Central Arkansas Planning &

Development District, Inc.

Horn, Walter Project Superintendent, Bechtel Power Corporation.

< Kuras, John Russellville, Arkansas.

Lawless, J.C.

Agent, Agriculture Extension Service, Russellville, Arkansas.

Lee,R.

Building Supply, Russellville, Arkansas.

Lemley, J.B.

Curator, History Commission and Past-President, Pope County Historical Association, Russellville, Arkansas.

Malloy, Mike State of Arkansas, Department of Local Services.

Morgan, Bob Chief, Research & Statistics, Arkansas Employment Security Division.

Newton, Bill Owner, Newton's Drugs.

Nichol, Thad Owner, Ace Gun Shop.

O'Hanlin, J.

General Plant Manager, Arkansas Power and Light Company, Russellville, Arkansas.

Pampach, Joan Secretary, Newcomers Group.

Peters, William Representative of antinuclear faction and owner of Peters Hardware, Russellville, Arkansas.

177

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) i Pollard, Forest Industrial Research & Extension Center, University of Arkansas. .

Ramsay, Ward President, First National Bank, Russellville, Arkansas.

Ring, B.

Delegate, Constitutional Convention.

Rueter, D.

Arkansas Power & Light Company. f Russel, Ron Mayor of Russellville, Arkansas.

Sheppard Owner, Sheppard's Jewelry.

s Smith, Roy Manager, Corporate Records, Tax Department, Arkansas Power and Light Company, Little Rock, Arkansas.

l Stocks, Joe Editor, Dardanelle Post-Dispatch, Dardanelle, Arkansas.

Thomas, John Prosecuting Attorney, Danville, Arkansas.

Van Horn Developer / Builder, Russellville, Arkansas.

l Vaugh,V.

Reporter, Dardanelle Post-Dispatch, Dardanelle, Arkansas, l

i Wetzell

! Librarian, Pope County Public Library.

l Whalen, J. M.

Market Research Department, Arkansas Power & Light Company.

! Williams, Daniel H.

Manager of Licensing, Arkansas Power & Light Coinpany.

Young, Harvey Superintendent of Schools and President of the Chamber of Commerce, Russellville, Arkansas.

178 l

E NRC r onu 335 7 l . REPORT NUMCE R (Asspied by DOC /

'" a" u s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMG310N nUREG/CR-2749 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET yo], j 4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE (Add Volume No., of mormnatel 2. (Leave blekt Socioeconomic Impacts of Nuclear Generating Stations:

1. Arkansas Nuclear One Station Case Study ' 3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.

I

7. AUTHOH4SI 5. DATE REPORT COMPLE TED K. D. Pijawka, Mountain West Research, Inc. vo~Ta lvEAa January 1982 9 PE HF OHMiNG OHGANI/ATION N AME AND MAILING ADDRESS (tactude 2,p Coder DATE HEPORT ISSUED Mountain West Research, Inc. w/ Social Impact Reser.rch, Inc . " N'"

l'E*"

1414 W. Broadway, Suite 228 Areis Building, Suite 427 1"ly !992 Tempe, AZ 85282 2366 Eastlake Avenue East 6"'*"

Seattle, WA 98101 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

17 SPONSORING OHGANIZATION N AME AND MAILING ADDHE SS (Inctuae 2,p Codel 10 PROJE CTiT ASKiWORK UNIT NO

Division of Health, Siting and Waste Management Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research H. HN No U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 B6268 13 1 YPE OF REPOH f PE Rf 0D COV E RE D (Inclupve datesJ Technical Report Oct. 1, 1978 to Jan. 4, 1982 IS. SUPPLEME N TA4Y NOTES 14 (Leme twan4J 16 ABSTH ACT I?OO words or lessJ This report documents a case study of the socioeconomic impacts of the construction and operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One nuclear power station. It is part of a major post-licensing study of the socioeconomic impacts at twelve nuclear power stations. The case study covers the period beginning with the announcement of plans to construct the reactor and ending in the period, 1980-81. The case study deals with changes in the economy, population, settlement patterns and housing, local government and public services, social structure, and public response in the study area during the construction /

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 WORDS AND DOCUVE NT AN ALYSIS l b DESCHiPTOHS Socioeconomics Arkansas One 17p IDE N TIF IE HS OPE N E N DE D TE HYS 18 AV AIL ABILITY ST ATE ME N T 19 SE CURIT Y CL ASS (T* 5 'epont 21 NO OF PAGE S lincl a ssi find 20 SE CUR 6 T Y CL ASS f 7N psps 22 P4:CE Unlimi tod Iincia s si find s NRC F ORY 335 itt RS

. _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ , _ . - - _ . _ _ _ - -_ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - --__.-_..m_..._._,._. -

l i

j UNITED STATES s ounin u ass ua.t ,

Postaa a sus paso 3

.I MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION usnat WASHINGTOfd. D C 20%5 nasa o c I Pt amt %e 111 ,

Of f iO A4 BUS 5 NESS j P(NAltY FOR F4fv AT( US( $W) k ,

1 +

i I

h i

I i l t i,

f 1

I b

1 l

l 4

f i

l.

}

I I

e I

f 1

I s

I L

- _ . _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ ._ _ - _ _ .- - . . . . . - . -

ML20062E230

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search