Dean Kyne

Nuclear
Power Plant
Emergencies in
the USA
Managing Risks, Demographics and
Response
Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies
in the USA
Dean Kyne

Nuclear Power Plant

Emergencies
in the USA
Managing Risks, Demographics
and Response

123
Dean Kyne
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley
Edinburg, TX
USA

ISBN 978-3-319-50342-4 ISBN 978-3-319-50343-1 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50343-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016959403

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To my parents, my father U Moe Kyaw and
my late mother Daw Thein Thein Tin.

To my family, my wife Herina Miyamoto, and

my two sons, Marc and Will.
Preface

There are currently 99 commercial reactors, operating at 61 nuclear power plant

sites in the USA. Nuclear power plants (NPPs) are associated with potential core
meltdown accidents, which could ultimately lead to catastrophic events. The three
main nuclear disasters with the most significant historic and catastrophic impacts
are as follows: Three Mile Island in the USA, which occurred in 1979; Chernobyl,
Ukraine, in 1986; and Fukushima Daiichi, Japan, in 2011. The Fukushima Daiichi
accident, the most recent disaster of the three, demonstrates that the risks of nuclear
core meltdown accidents could be magnified by a natural disaster event such as an
earthquake, tsunami, or similar natural events.
The immediate impacts from nuclear power core meltdown accidents is the
release of high-level radioactive materials into the air which could be carried away
for several hundreds of miles away, depending on the geographical location of an
NPP, the size of the population living in areas around the facility, wind speed and
directions, and weather conditions on the day the event is taking place. The
Chernobyl accident caused hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate, and
additionally, millions of people were exposed to radioactive radiation. The larger
areas near the nuclear power plants were radiation-contaminated, and some areas
were permanently restricted for habitation due to high level of radiative contami-
nation. According to Perrow (1992), accidents related to NPPs are normal because
the operating systems are coupled, and failure in one of the systems will have
impact on other parts of the system, leading to the failure of an entire nuclear
system. Given that accidents are considered to be normal for nuclear power plants,
the risks of such accidents are inevitable.
There are three options to manage such inevitable risks: shutting down all NPPs,
transforming inevitable risks to evitable ones, and effectively managing future
nuclear power emergencies. The first option of shutting down all NPPs is not a
currently feasible option, for a number of political and economic reasons. The
second option involves the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which has
initiated reactor oversight framework which emphasise on three performance areas:
reactor, radiation, and safeguards. However, the agency faces challenges of human
errors and the nature of the inevitable accident (Perrow’s Normal Accident Theory)

vii
viii Preface

in its efforts to transform the inevitable risks. The last option presents opportunities
to minimize the negative impacts associated with the NPPs.
Managing the nuclear power emergencies is significantly different from
managing those of other disasters such as fire or flood emergencies. For example, in
the case of a fire emergency, as soon as the 911 call center alerts the fire department,
firemen are dispatched to the place the fire is taking place, usually within minutes
of the initial call. However, managing nuclear power emergencies requires certain
procedures and protocol to go through, prior to an initial announcement of evac-
uation could take place. To effectively manage nuclear power emergencies, it is
necessary to understand the problems in the previous nuclear power accidents, as
well as demographic data of the populations prone to high-level radiation doses,
living in areas surrounding the NPPs. Critically important in nuclear disaster
management plans are the places the radioactive plume will disperse, and the
individuals under the plume path at risks of exposure to the high-level radiation
dose, and the challenges faced in evacuating individuals living in the areas with
high-level radiation doses.
The development of commercial NPPs in the USA, the impacts of the three
historic nuclear power core meltdown accidents, and the problems associated with
response and evacuation are discussed in Chap. 1. The impacts of the three nuclear
core meltdown accidents are analyzed, coupled with addressing the problems with
response and evacuation, from a disaster and emergency management point of
view. Chapter 2 captures the geographical locations of the 61 nuclear power plants
within the USA and the communities exposed to the potential risks of core melt-
down accident associated with the NPPs. In an event of a nuclear emergency, it is
vital to carry out evacuation activities immediately so that the people living around
the NPPs could be protected from the potential high-level doses of radiation.
Chapter 3 examines the current radiological emergency plan and carefully inves-
tigates the process and potential problems that could lead to undermining the
effectiveness of immediate response and evacuation. To evacuate people, it is
imperative to know where the radioactive plume will go, given the weather con-
ditions on the day the event takes place. Chapter 4 demonstrates utilization of
powerful computer code, namely Radiological Assessment Systems for
Consequence Analysis (RASCAL) to estimate the places the radioactive plume
could be carried away by the given weather conditions during a nuclear core
meltdown accident. The chapter provides two simulation exercises at two NPPs,
namely the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona, and the Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Station in New York. The simulation exercises utilizing the
RASCAL computer code with step-by-step procedures provides fundamental
understanding and special technical skills needed to carry out a part of the effective
nuclear power emergency management process. Chapter 5 examines the issues
related to the nuclear power emergency plan in place. The discussion focuses on
issues in terms of policy, priorities, process, participation, evacuation, and recovery.
Chapter 6 proposes the three options for minimizing the risks associated with NPPs,
suggesting the elimination of all NPPs in operation in USA, transforming inevitable
Preface ix

risks to evitable risks, and transforming the current radiological plan into an
effective emergency management plan.
This book would not have been made possible without the comments from my
former academic advisors, for whom I have the outmost respect for, including Prof.
Bob Bolin, Arizona State University; Prof. Christopher Boone, Arizona State
University; and Prof. Dawid Pijawaka, Arizona State University. All three have been
instrumental and extremely helpful in shaping my research skills and strengthening
my work in nuclear emergency management. I would also like to express immense
gratitude to two anonymous reviewers who provided me with very helpful com-
ments and feedback in my work. Additionally, many thanks go to the instructors
of the RASCAL course, Lou Brandon, PMT and RASCAL Program Manager,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), George F. Athey, of Athey Consulting, and
James Van Ramsdell, of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. My heartfelt
appreciation goes to Edlira Kuka, who edited my entire book manuscript, in multiple
editing phases and providing invaluable feedback from inception to completion.
Significant gratitude and appreciation is also extended to Dr. Robert Doe, Editor,
Springer International Publishing, and Ms. Naomi Portnoy, project production
coordinator, for their kind support throughout the publishing process. This book is
considered a first-of-its-kind in providing a comprehensive understating of how to
effectively manage nuclear power emergencies in the USA.

Edinburg, TX, USA Dean Kyne

Contents

1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Their Potential

Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 U.S. Nuclear Power Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Discovery of Fission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.2 Self-sustaining Chain Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.3 Peaceful Applications of Atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.4 Nuclear Power Reactor with Fission Technology . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in Operation . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.1 Operating License Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.2 Operating License Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.3 License Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.4 Current Reactors in Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Their Potential
Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3.1 Core-Meltdown Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3.2 Contamination Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.3.3 Nuclear Radiation Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1.3.4 Terrorist Attack Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.3.5 Inevitable Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants . . . . . . 39
2.1 Setting Boundaries in Host Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.2 Invisible Risks and Unknown Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.2.1 Nuclear Power Plant Siting and Environmental Justice . . . . 40
2.2.2 Embracing the Low-Level Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.2.3 Consequence of Constant Exposure to Low-Level
Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.2.4 Incomplete Knowledge of Low-Level Radiation
Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

xi
xii Contents

2.2.5 Nuclear Power Facilities Living Longer Than

Human Average Longevity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.3 Data and Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.3.1 Study Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.3.2 Study Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.3.3 Study Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.3.4 Study Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.4 Overall Demographic Composition by Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.5 Hosting Communities in Urban and Non-urban Areas . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.6 Hosting Communities at Individual Nuclear Power Plants . . . . . . . 58
2.7 Demographic Changes in 1990–2000 and 2000–2010 . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process . . . . . . 75
3.1 Disaster and Emergency Management Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.2 Nuclear Power Emergency Management Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.3 Nuclear Power Emergency and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.4 Projection of Plume Path Dispersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.4.1 RASCAL Computer Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.4.2 Obtaining RASCAL Computer Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.4.3 Installing RASCAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.4.4 RASCAL Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.4.5 Projecting Source to Term Dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.4.6 Exporting to Shapefile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.4.7 Overlaying on Other Map Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.5 Protective Action Recommendation (PAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
3.6 Protective Action Decisions (PADs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.7 Evacuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents . .... 105
4.1 Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . .... 105
4.2 Radioactive Plume Dispersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 105
4.3 A Scenario of a Core-Meltdown Accident at the Palo Verde
Nuclear Power Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 106
4.3.1 Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station (PVNGS) . . . . .... 106
4.3.2 Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Core-Damage
Accident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.3.3 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.3.4 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4.3.5 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.3.6 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Contents xiii

4.4 A Scenario of Core-Meltdown Accident at the Indian Point

Nuclear Power Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.4.1 Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.4.2 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.4.3 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.4.4 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.4.5 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.5 Projection Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5 Issues Associated with the Nuclear Power Emergency . . . . . . . . .... 135
5.1 Policy Issues Associated with Nuclear Power Emergency
Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.2 Issues Associated with the Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
5.3 Issues Associated with the Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
5.4 Issues Associated with the Stakeholders’ Participation . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.5 Issues Associated with the Evacuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
5.6 Issues Associated with the Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
5.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
6.1 Dealing with the Inevitable Risks of NPPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
6.2 Eliminating the Inevitable Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
6.3 Transforming the Inevitable Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6.4 Minimizing the Inevitable Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
6.5 Revisiting Radiological Emergency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
About the Author

Dean Kyne is assistant professor of environmental

sociology at the Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, College of Liberal Arts, at the University
of Texas Rio Grande Valley.1 Being an environmental
social scientist and geographer, he has conducted
research studies covering the issues related to nuclear
power plants, disaster and emergency management,
environmental justice, social capital index, and siting
controversial facilities.

1
He graduated with a Ph.D. in Environmental Social Science from Arizona State University.

xv
Chapter 1
The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants
and Their Potential Risks

1.1 U.S. Nuclear Power Development

In the history of nuclear power development, there are three major events that
precede as the first commercial nuclear power plant was developed and it became
fully operational in USA (Table 1.1). The three development events are as follows:
discovery of fission, discovery of self-sustaining chain reaction, and the political
vision of peaceful applications of atoms.

1.1.1 Discovery of Fission

The first preceding event before the birth of US commercial nuclear power plants
was the discovery of fission in 1993 (US DOE 1995). To understand fission, one
requires the knowledge of “atoms.” This can be traced back to about 2,400 years
ago when a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher claimed that the world is made up of
small and invisible substances called “atoms” (Ferguson 2011). Fission can be
defined as follows:
The splitting of an atom, which releases a considerable amount of energy (usually in the
form of heat) that can be used to produce electricity. Fission may be spontaneous, but is
usually caused by the nucleus of an atom becoming unstable (or “heavy”) after capturing or
absorbing a neutron. During fission, the heavy nucleus splits into roughly equal parts,
producing the nuclei of at least two lighter elements. In addition to energy, this reaction
usually releases gamma radiation and two or more daughter neutrons (US NRC 2016b).

Fission was discovered by Enrico Fermi, a physicist who conducted an exper-

iment on neutrons in 1934 (US DOE 1995). His findings revealed that the neutrons
could split many different types of atoms. 4 years later, two German scientists,
namely Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman, added their new discovery to the findings of
Fermi. Their findings were that after firing with a source containing radium and
beryllium into uranium (atomic number 92), there are even lighter elements such as
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1
D. Kyne, Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies in the USA,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50343-1_1
2 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

Table 1.1 Chronology of nuclear research and development

1940s
1942 The first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction occurs at the University of Chicago
1945 The U.S. Army’s Manhattan Engineer District (MED) tests the first atomic bomb at
Alamogordo, New Mexico, under the code name Manhattan Project
1945 The atomic bomb, nicknamed Little Boy is dropped on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6. 3 days
later, another bomb, Fat Man, is dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. Japan surrenders on August 15
of 1945, ending World War II
1946 The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 creates the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to control
nuclear energy development and explore peaceful uses of nuclear energy
1947 The AEC first investigates the possibility of peaceful uses of atomic energy, issuing a report
the following year
1949 The AEC announces the selection of a site in Idaho for the National Reactor Testing Station
1950s
1951 In Arco, Idaho, Experimental Breeder Reactor I produces electric power from nuclear energy
for the first time, lighting four light bulbs
1952 Keel for the Navy’s first nuclear submarine, Nautilus, is laid at Groton, Connecticut
1953 Nautilus starts its nuclear power units for the first time
1953 President Eisenhower delivers his “Atoms for Peace” speech before the United Nations. He
calls for greater international cooperation in the development of atomic energy for peaceful
purposes
1954 President Eisenhower signs The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the first major amendment of the
original Atomic Energy Act, giving the civilian nuclear power program further access to
nuclear technology
1955 The AEC announces the Power Demonstration Reactor Program. Under the program, AEC
and industry will cooperate in constructing and operating experimental nuclear power reactors
1955 Arco, Idaho, population 1,000, becomes the first town powered by a nuclear reactor, the
experimental boiling water reactor BORAX III
1955 Geneva, Switzerland, hosts the first United Nations International Conference on the Peaceful
Uses of Atomic Energy
1957 The first power from a civilian nuclear unit is generated by the Sodium Reactor Experiment at
Santa Susana, California. The unit provided power until 1966
1957 The Price-Anderson Act provides financial protection to the public and AEC licensees and
contractors if a major accident occurs at a nuclear reactor
1957 The United Nations creates the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna,
Austria, to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons around the world
1958 The world’s first large-scale nuclear reactor begins operation in Shippingport, Pennsylvania.
The plant reaches full power three weeks later and supplies electricity to the Pittsburgh area
1958 Construction begins on the world’s first nuclear-powered merchant ship, the N.S. Savannah, in
Camden, New Jersey. The ship is launched on July 21, 1959
1959 Dresden-1 Nuclear Power Station in Illinois, the first U.S. nuclear plant built entirely without
government funding, achieves a self-sustaining nuclear reaction
1960s
1960 The third U.S. nuclear reactor, Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station, achieves a
self-sustaining nuclear reactor
1960 Small nuclear-power generators are first used in remote areas to power weather stations and to
light buoys for sea navigation
1961 The U.S. Navy commissions the world’s largest ship, the U.S.S. Enterprise. It is a
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with the ability to operate at speeds up to 30 knots for
distances up to 400,000 miles (740,800 km) without refueling
(continued)
1.1 U.S. Nuclear Power Development 3

Table 1.1 (continued)

1964 President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Private Ownership of Special Nuclear Materials Act,
which allows the nuclear power industry to own the fuel for its units. After June 30, 1973,
private ownership of uranium fuel is mandatory
1963 Jersey Central Power & Light Company announces its commitment for the Oyster Creek
nuclear reactor, the first nuclear plant ordered as an economic alternative to fossil-fuels
1964 Three nuclear-powered surface ships, the Enterprise, Long Beach, and Bainbridge, complete
“Operation Sea Orbit,” a cruise around the world
1965 The first nuclear reactor in space (SNAP-10A) is launched by the United States. SNAP stands
for Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power
1970s
1970 The United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and 45 other nations ratify the Treaty for
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
1971 Twenty-two commercial nuclear reactors are in full operation in the United States. They
produce 2.4% of U.S. electricity at this time
1973 U.S. utilities order 41nuclear reactors, a 1-year record
1974 The first 1,000-MW-electric nuclear reactor goes into service—Commonwealth Edison’s Zion
1 Plant
1974 The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 divides AEC functions between two new agencies—
the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), to carry out research and
development, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), to regulate nuclear power
1977 President Jimmy Carter announces the United States will defer indefinitely plans for
reprocessing spent nuclear fuel
1977 President Carter signs the Department of Energy Organization Act, which transfers ERDA
functions to the new Department of Energy (DOE)
1977 DOE begins operations
1979 The worst accident in U.S. commercial reactor history occurs at the Three Mile Island nuclear
power station near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The accident is caused by a loss of coolant from
the reactor core due to a combination of mechanical malfunction and human error. No one is
injured, and no overexposure to radiation results from the accident. Later in the year, the NRC
imposes stricter reactor safety regulations and more rigid inspection procedures to improve the
safety of reactor operations
1979 Seventy-two licensed reactors generate 12% of the electricity produced commercially in the
United States
1980s
1980 DOE initiates the Three Mile Island research and development program to develop technology
for disassembling and de-fueling the damaged reactor. The program will continue for 10 years
and make significant advances in developing new nuclear safety technology
1982 After 25 years of service, the Shippingport Power Station is shut down. Decommissioning
would be completed in 1989
1983 The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) establishes a program to site a repository for the
disposal of high-level radioactive waste, including spent fuel from nuclear reactors. It also
establishes fees for owners and generators of radioactive waste and spent fuel, who pay the
costs of the program
1983 Nuclear power generates more electricity than natural gas
1984 The atom overtakes hydropower to become the second largest source of electricity, after coal.
Eighty-three nuclear power reactors provide about 14% of the electricity produced in the
United States
1985 The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations forms a national academy to accredit every nuclear
reactor’s training program
(continued)
4 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

Table 1.1 (continued)

1986 The Perry Power Plant in Ohio becomes the 100th U.S. nuclear reactor in operation.
1986 April 26. Operator error causes two explosions at the Chernobyl No. 4 nuclear reactor in the
former Soviet Union. The reactor has an inadequate containment building, and large amounts
of radiation escape. A plant of such design would not be licensed in the United States
1987 December 22. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) is amended. Congress directs DOE to
study only the potential of the Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site for disposal of high-level
radioactive waste
1988 U.S. electricity demand increases 50% higher than in 1973
1989 109 nuclear reactors provide 19% of the electricity used in the U.S.; 46 units have entered
service during the decade.
1989 The NRC proposes a plan for reactor design certification, early site permits, and combined
construction and operating licenses
1990s
1990 DOE launches a joint initiative to improve operational safety practices at civilian nuclear
reactors in the former Soviet Union
1990 America’s 110 nuclear reactors set a record for the amount of electricity generated, surpassing
all fuel sources combined in 1956
1990 The final shipment of damaged fuel from the Three Mile Island nuclear plant arrives at a DOE
facility in Idaho for research and interim storage. This ends DOE’s 10-year Three Mile Island
research and development program
1991 111 nuclear reactors operate in the U.S. with a combined capacity of 99,673 MW. They
produce almost 22% of the electricity generated commercially in the U.S.
1992 110 nuclear reactors account for nearly 22% of all electricity used in the U.S.
1992 DOE signs a cooperative agreement with the nuclear industry to co-fund the development of
standard designs for advanced light-water reactors
1992 The Energy Policy Act of 1992 is signed into law. The Act makes several important changes in
the licensing process for nuclear reactors
1992 The 50th anniversary of the historic Fermi experiment is observed worldwide
1993 The U.S. nuclear utility consortium, the Advanced Reactor Corporation (ARC), signs a
contract with Westinghouse Electric Corporation to perform engineering work for an
advanced, standardized 600-MW pressurized water reactor. Funding for this next-generation
plant comes from ARC, Westinghouse, and DOE
1993 The U.S. nuclear utility consortium, ARC, signs a contract with General Electric Company for
cost-shared, detailed engineering of a standardized design for a large, advanced nuclear
reactor. The engineering is being funded under a joint program among utilities, General
Electric, and DOE
Source US DOE (1995)

barium (atomic number 56), in the leftover materials which weigh about half the
atomic mass of uranium. However, they faced a puzzle that when they added all
messes of fission products, the sum did not equal before the weights of messes
before. Their big question was where did the lost mass go? Another scientist, Lise
Meitner, who worked with Niels Bohr and his nephew, Otto R. Frisch in
Copenhagen, used Einstein’s theory to provide the answer to the big question of the
previous two scientists. Lise finally provided that the lost mass was due to occur-
rence of fission (US DOE 1995) which was a significant discovery leading to the
future of nuclear work.
1.1 U.S. Nuclear Power Development 5

1.1.2 Self-sustaining Chain Reaction

The second development in nuclear discoveries was the achievement of

self-sustaining chain reaction (US DOE 1995). It was in 1929 that Niels Bohr who
worked with Hahn–Strassmann–Meitner met Einstein and shared his discoveries.
Bohr also met with Fermi in a conference in the USA and shared his excitement
about a potential to sustain nuclear reaction. At that time, many scientists around
the world began to believe that the potential for a self-sustaining nuclear reaction
could be realized. In 1941, Fermi and Leo Szilard suggested a possible design that
could help sustain the fission chain reaction process; taking uranium and placing it
in a stack of graphite to make a cubelike frame of fissionable materials (US DOE
1995), they began their work in constructing the world’s first nuclear reactor, which
took place at Chicago University, in 1942. Their first reactor is known as Chicago
Pile-1 consisting of control rods, made of cadmium, uranium, and graphite.
Cadmium is a metallic element which absorbs neutrons resulting in slowing down
of the chain reactions. In the reactor, the fission is controlled by cadmium. When
the cadmium rod was pulled out in the pile, it provided more neutrons available to
split atoms that resulted in speeding up the chain reactions. It was exactly 3:25 pm
on December 2, 1942, that Fermi and his group successfully transformed their
theories into realities, leading the world to enter into the nuclear age.

1.1.3 Peaceful Applications of Atoms

The third development in nuclear energy was the study and examination for
peaceful applications of nuclear power (US DOE 1995). Prior to World War II,
there were many scientists who made great efforts to harness atoms in order to
produce nuclear weapons. Producing nuclear weapons was secretly under the code
name Manhattan Project at that time. On the other hand, there were many other
scientists who worked on developing breeder reactors. A turning point was reached
when the use of atomic bombs began. In August 1945, atomic bombs were dropped
in Japan, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People from different walks of life including
politicians, journalists, scientists, and business leaders saw the horrific negative side
of using atomic power for destruction and war. The events changed the attitudes of
people around the world, and many began condemning the use of atoms for
destructive purposes. Meanwhile, in December 1945, Alvin M. Weinberg added
another excitement to the world through his claim on peaceful use of atoms. He
claimed the potentials of nuclear power to benefit all mankind in a report to the US
Senate’s Special Committee. His assertion was that “atomic power can cure as well
as kill. It can fertilize and enrich a region as well as devastate it. It can widen man’s
horizons as well as force him back into the cave (US NRC 2016c).” Based on
Alvin’s claim, in 1946, the US government encouraged the development of nuclear
energy for peaceful civilian purposes.
6 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

The official launch was made when the government established the Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC), under the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Under the act,
the AEC was responsible for regulating nuclear power. The government’s intention
to develop atomic energy became more intense when the President Eisenhower
made a popular public speech, in December 1953. In delivering his “Atoms for
Peace” speech, Eisenhower stated that “this greatest of all destructive forces can be
developed into a great boon, for the benefit of all mankind (US NRC 2016c).” He
highlighted his plan to transform nuclear fission materials—the subject of much
public fear—into a resource with a peaceful end use (Eisenhower 1953). 8 years
after the establishment of the AEC, Congress replaced the existing law with the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which allowed the agency to develop, for the first
time, a commercial nuclear power plant (US NRC 2016a). The new act authorized
the AEC to promote the use of nuclear power and to regulate its safety. One notion
was that the AEC was playing a dual role; on the one hand, the agency was required
to promote the nuclear energy sector, and on the other, it was responsible to regulate
the industry. 4 years after the famous Atoms for Peace speech, on December 18,
1957, the world’s first commercial nuclear power plant—built on the Ohio River 25
miles northeast of Pittsburgh—began generating nuclear power (US NRC 2011) out
of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station. The AEC received a lot of criticisms for
the competing dual roles it played as promoter and regulator of atomic power.
These dual roles were competing with each other, and the agency was criticized for
being unable to impose strict rules and regulations on the use of nuclear energy.
According to the NRC (US NRC 2016c), during the 1960s, the AEC was criticized
for its weak actions on several important areas, such as protecting the public from
radiation, establishing strong radiation protection standards, establishing guidelines
for reactor safety, siting plants, and protecting environments. Taking those criti-
cisms into account, in 1974, Congress decided to abolish the AEC and created the
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Under the new act, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) was established (US NRC 2016c); the agency officially began
its operations on January 19, 1975. According to the NRC (US NRC 2016c), the
agency’s regulatory activities emphasized on the following:
(1) reactor safety oversight and reactor license renewal of existing plants;
(2) materials safety oversight and materials licensing for a variety of purposes;
(3) waste management of both high-level and low-level wastes; and
(4) evaluating new applications for nuclear plants.

1.1.4 Nuclear Power Reactor with Fission Technology

Nuclear power plants are not different from other power plants that use heat to
produce electricity. Referring to US EIA (2015), a nuclear power plant could be
simply described as follows: Nuclear power reactors were developed after the
discoveries of the self-sustaining fission reactions because the fission reaction is
1.1 U.S. Nuclear Power Development 7

used as a source of the heat for nuclear power plants. In a nuclear fission reaction,
the atoms are split into smaller atoms that release energy. Nuclear fission takes
place in the uranium fuel which is placed in the reactor of a power plant to heat up
the water. The uranium fuel rod consists of ceramic pellets which are placed in
12-foot metal fuel. Each ceramic pellet could produce the similar energy amount
produced by 150 gallons of oil. A fuel assembly may include hundreds of fuel rods,
and a reactor core contains many fuel assemblies. When the water in the reactor is
heated by nuclear fission reactions, taking place in the fuel rods, the water is
transformed into steam, which rotates the turbine blades, making generators and
thus producing electricity. The water is cooled down and sent back to the reactor to
be reused. According to the NRC (US NRC 2010), there are two types of US
commercial nuclear reactors, namely boiling water reactors (BWR) (Fig. 1.1a) and
pressurized water reactors (PWR) (Fig. 1.1b).
Referring to the NRC (2010), both nuclear power reactors contain a core which
is placed inside the reactor where fuel assembles, and bundles of hundreds of fuel
rods are housed in order to produce heat. The heat is generated by using the nuclear
fission reactions in fuel rods. The core of the nuclear reactor is indicated “1” in both
reactor types. The reactor obtains heat energy from nuclear fission reactions, and the
next step is to transform the heat to steam. In the BWR type (Fig. 1.1a), the stream–
water mixture is generated by a flow of very pure water (reactor coolant), through
the core of the reactor where the heat is absorbed (indicated as “2”), then the
stream-water mixture passes through separators and dryers (indicated as “3”). In the
PWR type (Fig. 1.1b), the stream generation is achieved by two steps: First, reactor
coolant is pressurized, and then, the pressurized coolant carries the heat to the
stream generator (indicated as “2”). The heat vaporizes the water in a secondary
loop that generates steam (indicated as “3”). The differences between the PWR and
BWR types are that the steam is generated in the core of a reactor in the BWR,
whereas the steam is produced in a separate chamber of steam generator in PWR

(a) Typical Boiling-Water Reactor (b) Typical Pressurized-Water Reactor

Fig. 1.1 Types of US commercial nuclear power reactors. Source US NRC (2010)
8 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

type of reactor. The generated steam in both types of reactors is directed to turbine
generators, in order to drive electric generators to produce electricity (indicated as
“4”). In both reactors, unused steam is recycled by placing it back to the condenser
and then reheating it, by flowing through the reactor. The BWR type uses more fuel
rods than the PWR type does. The first one normally carries between 370 and 800
fuel assemblies, whereas the latter does between 150 and 200 fuel assemblies.
The most important and challenging task is to control the fission reaction in the
core in order to sustain the amount of heat that is appropriate to generate the steam.
If the fission reaction is out of control, the core containing nuclear fuel assemblies
could become overheated, leading to a core-meltdown. In the BWR-type reactor,
the fuel assemblies are cooled by water circulated using electrically powered
pumps, which receive electricity from the electrical grid. In the PWR, the fuel
assemblies are cooled by circulating water pumped with electrical pumps. A backup
pumping system is installed using electricity, produced by onsite diesel generators.
Another cooling system that further cools the containment is also installed. The
dome-shaped containment structure is built with iron and concrete walls of about 4
ft in thickness. In case of a core-meltdown accident, the radioactive materials are
contained inside, preventing from polluting the environment.

1.2 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in Operation

Currently, the USA has brought online a fleet of commercial nuclear reactors,
located at 61 sites scattered across 30 states. Before the current commercial reactors
could begin their operation, the owners of the nuclear power plants are required to
apply for a license, even before they begin to build a site. The following three
sections discuss why a license is required; when a license could be renewed; and the
current nuclear reactors currently in operation.

1.2.1 Operating License Requirement

All owners of US commercial nuclear power plants are legally required to obtain a
license to operate or build from the US NRC. According to the US NRC (2016d),
the agency was authorized for licensing and regulating the operation of nuclear
power plants. As mentioned earlier, the AEC also authorizes issuance of nuclear
power plant licenses before the US NRC was formed in 1974. In the history of both
the AEC and the NRC, they are authorized to issue nuclear licenses.
The US NRC explains conditions that require those seeking licenses to submit an
application for a license to operate. There are three conditions that may warrant the
license requirement which are as follows:
1.2 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in Operation 9

Fig. 1.2 US commercial nuclear power reactor operating licenses—issued by year, Data. Source
US NRC (2010), US NRC (2016a)

(1) to construct, operate, and decommission commercial reactors and fuel cycle
facilities.
(2) to possess, use, process, export and import nuclear materials and waste, and
handle certain aspects of their transportation.
(3) to site, design, construct, operate, and close waste disposal sites (US NRC
2016d)
As of August 2009, both the ACE and the NRC have issued a total of 104 US
commercial nuclear reactors which are located at 65 nuclear power plant sites in 31
states, to 26 various operating companies (Fig. 1.2). The reactors are produced by
four different reactor vendors, and there are 80 different designs (US NRC 2010). In
2013, three nuclear power plants with a total of four reactors were permanently shut
down. They are Crystal River Power Plant in Florida (one reactor) in February; the
Kewaunee Power Plant in Wisconsin (one reactor) in April; and the San Onofre
Power Plant in California (two reactors) in June. In 2014, the Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Plant in Vermont (one reactor) was also permanently shut down in
December (US EIA 2016). 1973 is seen as the year in which the USA has seen a
peak of construction and operating of nuclear power plants (Fig. 1.2). After 1973,
the demand for nuclear power plants slowed down until in the mid-1980s, where the
construction resumed gradually. However, there were no licenses related to nuclear
power plant facilities issued after 1996.
10 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

*A combined license application can reference an early site permit, a standard design certification,
both, or neither. If an application does not reference an early site permit and/or a standard design
certification, the applicant must provide an equivalent level of information in the combined license
application.

Fig. 1.3 Relationships between combined licenses, early site permits, and standard design
certifications. Source US NRC (2004)

1.2.2 Operating License Process

In the past, nuclear power plants were licensed under a two-step licensing process.
This process required both a construction permit and an operating license sepa-
rately. In 1989, the NRC established an alternative licensing process that essentially
combines a construction permit and an operating license with certain conditions,
into a single license (Fig. 1.3). Under either process, before an applicant can build
and operate a nuclear power plant, it must obtain the approval from the NRC (US
NRC 2004).
During the licensing process, one of the key elements is “public involvement.”
One of the reasons to have a public process is to encourage the public to participate
in the environmental decision-making process and provide feedback. This key
element could be related to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In
1970, NEPA went into effect and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was
established, with its mission to incorporate environmental protection policy into all
federally sponsored projects. According to the EPA, the NEPA could be summa-
rized as follows:
The NEPA is one of the first laws ever written that establishes the broad national frame-
work for protecting our environment. NEPA’s basic policy is to assure that all branches of
government give proper consideration to the environment prior to undertaking any major
federal action that significantly affects the environment (US EPA 2016).

NEPA required that all federal agencies include Environmental Assessments

(EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) from carrying out the projects
for airports, buildings, military complexes, highways, parkland purchases, and other
1.2 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in Operation 11

federal activities (US EPA 2016). The US EPA is the agency which assures that all
federal activities incorporate the NEPA requirements by advocating environmental
justice, which could be defined as:
Fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national
origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of
people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences
resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies. Meaningful
Involvement means that: people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about
activities that may affect their environment and/or health; the public’s contribution can
influence the regulatory agency’s decision; their concerns will be considered in the decision
making process; and the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those
potentially affected (US EPA 2016)

In the combined license process, there are opportunities for the public to par-
ticipate in environmental decision making (Fig. 1.4). At least two opportunities for
public involvement are mandatory, namely public meetings on environmental
review and mandatory hearings on the combined license application process.
The NRC conducts its licensing activities based on the current existing regulations.
The two existing regulations that are regarded as the most relevant to the design,
siting, construction, and operation of new commercial nuclear power facilities are
10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing
and Related Regulatory Functions,” and 10 CFR Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications,
and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” The combined licenses have been
awarded to Fermi 3, South Texas Project Unit 3, South Texas Project Unit 4, V.C.
Summer Unit 2, V.C. Summer Unit 3, Vogtle Unit 3, and Vogtle Unit 4.

Fig. 1.4 Opportunities for public involvement during the review of combined licenses. Source
US NRC (2004)
12 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

1.2.3 License Renewal

After the amendment of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the NRC was authorized to
issue a 40-year initial license for commercial nuclear power reactors. The act also
allows the NRC to renew the licenses for another 20 years at a time. After 40 years of
use, some of the essential parts of a reactor, which are engineered with an expected
use of 40 years, will expire and the license holders must replace and maintain the
parts in good condition, before renewing their existing licenses. As of June 2015, the
NRC has renewed the 74 currently operating reactors located at 43 plant sites to
another 20 years (US NRC 2015a). The regulations governing the renewal process
are specified in 10 CFR Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses
for Nuclear Power Plants,” while the NRC’s environmental review requirements for
license renewal are found in 10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations
for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions (US NRC 2015a).”

1.2.4 Current Reactors in Operation

As of January 27, 2016, there are 99 US commercial nuclear reactors which are
currently in operation located at 61 power plant sites in 30 states (Fig. 1.5). Many
of the reactors are located in the east, northeast, and southwest of the nation.
Among the 61 nuclear power plant sites, 35 of these plants have two or more
reactors. The Palo Verde Power Plant in Arizona, the largest nuclear power plant,
which contains three reactors, has the largest combined net summer generating
capacity of 3,937 megawatts (MW) in 2014. The Fort Calhoun in Nebraska was the
smallest single reactor with the smallest net summer capacity of 479 megawatts
(MW) in 2014 (US EIA 2016). According to the EIA (2015), the USA is ranked as
the highest capacity for generation of nuclear energy, among 30 countries gener-
ating electricity with nuclear power plants.
Of the 30 countries in the world that have commercial nuclear power plants, the
USA has the most nuclear capacity and generation suppling 20% of its total energy
usage. France, the country with the second highest nuclear capacity, relies on
nuclear power for nearly 75% of its total electricity. Fourteen other countries
generate more than 20% of their electricity from nuclear power (US EIA 2015).
As noted earlier, as of June 2015, the NRC has renewed the 74 currently
operating reactors located at 43 plant sites to another 20 years (US NRC 2015a). It
could be implied that the current operators are aging. There are about 35 reactors
out of a total 99 (35%) that are over 40 years old (Fig. 1.6). The primary license
provided a 40-year operation span; many of them were initially designed to operate
for a 60-year span. The owners who would like to operate beyond the 40 years of
nuclear reactor life spans are required to replace parts that were expired from what
is their expected life of use, before they could renew their licenses. There are issues
associated with aging of reactors which can cause safety concerns. Copper (2013)
1.2 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in Operation 13

Fig. 1.5 Locations of current US commercial nuclear power plants, Data. Source US NRC
(2016a)
14 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

Fig. 1.6 Age of currently operating US commercial reactors, Data. Source The US NRC (2016a)

made a one notion that the construction proposals make a projection of a nuclear
power plant life to be up to 60 years, but in reality, about one-sixth of the total US
reactors retired prior to their projected expectancy of 60 years. In other words, they
even retired before expiration of their initial license which was provided for up to
40 years.
There are at least three reasons why owners of current reactors made a decision
to abandon the aging reactors (Cooper 2013). The following reasons are evident:
(1) Expensive repairs;
(2) Uneconomic to keep running; and
(3) Some of them have permanent damages beyond repair.
Costly repairs became major reason for abandonment of two nuclear power
plants: Duke Energy’s Crystal River in Florida and Edison International’s San
Onofre in California. Both of the plants needed multibillion-dollar repairs (Crooks
2016). According to the NRC, the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant
with a capacity of producing 2,609 MW and a pressurized water reactor was issued
a license to operate from December of 1976 to February 20, 2013. On September
26, 2009, when the plant was doing a refueling, the owner decided to replace the
stream generators. To do so, a large hole must be created in the concrete dome,
prior to replacing the generator. After replacing the generator, the hole must be
restored again. However, the owner could not fix the repair and finally decided to
permanently shut down the Crystal River Unit 3 reactor, after 33 years of operation.
Similarly, San Onofre, in California, retired after 30 years of operation, in 2013,
after observing steam tube degradation (US NRC 2015b). The repair needs were
complex especially for the replacement of 2000 tubes, and finally, the owner
decided to take the reactor down and end operations.
1.2 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in Operation 15

Further, some reactors are simply not economical to operate. A good case study
to review is the Kewaunee Power Plant in Wisconsin, with a capacity of 556 MW,
which was closed on May 7, 2013, after 39 years of operation, solely for uneco-
nomic reasons (Dotson 2014). Dotson noted that the plant owner confirmed that the
decision for permanently shutting down the plant was due to economic reasons and
the cost of operation, which faced no regulatory reason or public opposition.
Dominion, a Virginia-based power company, owns three plants, namely North
Anna and Surry in Virginia and Millstone in Connecticut. In July 2005, the com-
pany acquired Kewaunee Power Plant, which was jointly owned by Wisconsin
Public Service Corporation and Alliant for $129 million. The Kewaunee acted as a
supplier for electricity to two companies in the past. The two companies did not
renew their contracts. The company could not buy another power plant to make up
the loss with Kewaunee and to make it economical to continue the plant running.
The company put the plant on sale in April 2011, but it could not find any buyers.
In October 2012, it decided to close the plant (Dotson 2014).
Some reactors received local opposition to discontinue their operations. On
March 29, 1979, the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor in Middletown, PA, expe-
rienced a partial core-meltdown experience (US NRC 2013c). It was regarded as
one of the most serious accidents in US commercial power plant history, and the
plant was permanently shut down after being in operation since December 30,
1978.
The current fleet of nuclear power plants which are aging provide lessons and
cautionary observations for the future of nuclear reactor maintenance and safe
operations. They demonstrate some hindrances that could limit their full potentials.
A study conducted by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT 2003) found
that there are four major problems within the nuclear industry. These four problems
center on costs of operations, safety, proliferation, and risks.
Nuclear power plants are found to have higher overall lifetime costs than other
source of energy in the long term. For example, the study shows that when com-
pared to another source of energy, natural gas, with combined cycle turbine tech-
nology (CCGT) and coal, at least the nuclear power has an absence of a carbon tax
or an equivalent “cap and trade” mechanism for reducing carbon emissions.
Further, other issues exist, associated with safety, health, and environmental
impacts. Nuclear power is associated with the issues that receive attention and
concern from the public. In many cases, the public demonstrated their strong
opposition against the use of nuclear power for safety reasons. The nuclear power
accidents over time, Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl reactor accidents in 1986
in Russia and Fukushima accident in 2011 in Japan, bring up safety issues asso-
ciated with nuclear power reactors. In addition, nuclear fuel waste also poses safety
concerns, especially while in the fuel pool, next to the nuclear reactor, which poses
additional safety risks. During transportation from the nuclear power plant to the
storage sites, fuel waste also poses risks and safety concerns. Nuclear power plants
16 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

also pose the concerns for nuclear proliferation. Currently, nuclear power tech-
nology has separated to various counties. With regard to national security, there is a
concern that nuclear power plants could be misused to produce uranium for nuclear
weapons. The production of uranium for nuclear weapons is possible in the fuel
cycles that include the reprocessing of spent fuel to separate plutonium and uranium
enrichment technologies. Lastly, nuclear power is naturally associated with the
management of nuclear waste as it involves high radioactive waste; thus, public
safety is a major concern. Nuclear waste must be systematically deposited in a way
that does not pose any danger to the environment and human health. Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, has been designated to have high-level nuclear waste deposal,
but there is no final decision reached yet with regard to this site. The project faced
strong local opposition to use the place for high-level nuclear permanent waste
deposal. In short, to prosper from nuclear power in the future, all key stakeholders
must address the four unresolved problems collectively in a way that responds to
the posed threats to the environment and exposure to communities.

1.3 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Their

Potential Risks

Nuclear power is not a risk-free technology, and as earlier discussions depict,

nuclear technology harnesses the most powerful destructive material in the world,
uranium atoms, for producing heat energy. Human knowledge and ability to
completely harness uranium are limited. The limitation does not warrant a devel-
opment of a technology that could get rid of any potential risks. Nuclear power
plants expose (1) core-meltdown risks, (2) contamination risks, and (3) radiation
risks.

1.3.1 Core-Meltdown Risks

Since May 26, 1958, when Shippingport came online, nuclear power plants in the
USA have been in operation for more than 59 years. Nuclear power plants house
dangerous materials of many assemblies of fuel rods in the core of a nuclear reactor,
which are always contained in an average of 4-ft-thick iron and concrete
dome-shaped structures. When the system that cools down the nuclear fuel rods is
disturbed, the fuel rods could melt down and containment might be breached.
Further, highly radioactive toxic materials could be carried away by the winds and
people living beneath the radioactive plume pathway might be exposed to it. In the
history of nuclear power, it has been demonstrated that a destructive potential could
go beyond the human capacity to manage and respond appropriately to such an
event.
1.3 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Their Potential Risks 17

1.3.1.1 Three Mile Island (TMI) Accident

Preceding events: The first nuclear accident occurred at the Three Mile Island
(TMI) reactor Unit 2, just 26 years after Shippingport was in operation. The plant
experienced a major core-meltdown accident due to a disruption in the cooling
system of the fuel rods, causing the cooling system shutdown, resulting in
uncovering the fuel assemblies in the core and overheating and melting the fuel
rods. It is noted that failure of the cooling systems was not the only contributing
factor to the accident. The accident was caused by personnel error, deficiencies in
design, and failures of parts and components in the system (US NRC 2013c).
The following description demonstrates the accident-related elements, including
the sequence of events preceding the accident at the Unit 2 of the TMI power plant.
It was on Wednesday, March 28, 1979, the main feed-water pump that normally
sends water to the steam generators experienced a failure at about 4:00 am (Fig. 1.7,
Event 1). The cause of the failure was unknown, and it was speculated that the
failure could be due to shortage in power supply or a mechanical issue. In a
standard operation, the steam generators utilize steam from the nuclear reactor, and
thus, they reduce the heat inside the reactors. The major consequence of the
shutdown of the steam generators is that the heat increases in the nuclear reactor
causing an increase in pressure in the pressurizer. To reduce the pressure, the
pilot-operated relief valve (a valve located at the top of the pressurizer) was opened
(Fig. 1.7, Event 2). The valve was constructed to close by itself when the pressure
is released and it reaches to a proper level. However, the valve was stuck open,
resulting in cooling water in the reactor being released. In the control room, the
operators noticed the water being released from the core reactor for a couple of

Fig. 1.7 Event of sequences preceding the core-meltdown accident at Three Mile Island power
plant. Source US NRC (2013c)
18 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

reasons; the instruments did not provide sufficient information on water level in the
reactor, and there was no specific instrument that monitors the water level in the
reactor. At that time, the staff made a critical assumption; the high water level in the
pressurizer keeps the core covered with water. The flashing warning lights after
alarms running in the control room did not make the staff realize a loss-of-coolant
accident the plant was experiencing. To respond to the warning, the staff moved
their figures to push buttons on the control panel in order to carry out a series of
tasks to prevent from further damage. First, they turned off the reactor coolant
pumps in order to prevent vibration caused by escaping water through
pilot-operated relief valve which was stuck open. Second, they reduced the amount
of emergency cooling water being pumped into the primary system in order to
prevent the pressurizer from filling up completely. These actions worsen the con-
ditions causing reactor overheated. Overheating of the nuclear fuel caused zirco-
nium cladding, which are long metal tubes holding the fuel pellets inside the
nuclear reactor ruptured resulting in melting the fuel pellets (Fig. 1.7, Event 3) (US
NRC 2013c).
Managing the nuclear emergency: The following chronological events
(Table 1.2) in TMI nuclear power accident describe how the management of the
TMI and concerned authorities carried out activities to respond and manage the
nuclear power emergency, a core-meltdown accident which is regarded as the worst
kind of nuclear accident. About 4 h after the incident was initiated, the plant
management finally decided to inform the NRC’s regional office located in King of
Prussia, PA. A moment later, the NRC Headquarters in Washington, D.C., opened
the Operation Center in Bethesda in MD. An official notification was reached to the
White House, about 5 h the initiation of the accident took place. 7 h later after the
first initial incident, management evacuated non-essential workers off the premise
of the plant. The air sampling to monitor radioactivity took place after 8 h after the
initial incident, and the sampling was recorded above the plant (US NRC 2013c).
Impacts from the nuclear emergency: The NRC and other agencies including
the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania conducted detailed studies of the accident’s
radiological consequences (US NRC 2013c). It was estimated that there were about
2 million people who lived around the troubled TMI Unit 2 that might have
received about 1 millirem above the usual background dose which was estimated to
be between 100 and 125 millirem per year for the area (US NRC 2013c). According
to the US NRC (2013c), the environmental samples taken from air, water, milk,
vegetation, soil, and foodstuffs collected revealed low levels of radionuclides.
A study conducted after 3 years the TMI accident took place shows that there is a
modest post-accident increase in cancer near TMI, but the increase could not be
explained by the radiation emissions form the accident (Hatch et al. 1991). 9 years
later after, another study was conducted and findings reveal that there were
higher-than-expected thyroid cancer incidences in two counties, namely Lancaster
and York with high exposure to radiation to TMI accident (Levin 2008). After
1.3 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Their Potential Risks 19

Table 1.2 Chronological events in TMI nuclear power accident

March 28, 1979
4:00 am Shutdown of the main water-feed pumps sending water to stream generator
Pilot-operated relief valve on top of the pressurizer stuck open
Reactor coolant pumps were turned off
Nuclear fuel overheated and caused zirconium cladding, an event of melting metal
tubes holding the fuel pellets inside the nuclear reactor
7:45 am The TMI’s plant management informed the NRC’s Regional Office in King of
Prussia, PA
8:00 am The Operation Center in Bethesda, MD was opened by the NRC Headquarters in
Washington, D.C.
9:15 am Notification was officially sent to the White House
11:00 Evacuation of all non-essential personnel off the plant’s premises was carried out
am
12:00 The TMI, General Public Utilities Nuclear, and the Department of Energy took
am air-sample to monitor radioactivity in the atmosphere above the plant
Evening The plant’s operators believed that the core was adequately cooled down and the
stabilization of the reactor was achieved
March 30, 1979
Morning A significant amount of radioactive materials was released from the plant’s
auxiliary building to relive pressure on primary system
An advisory announcement was made by the governor of Pennsylvania, Richard L.
Thornburgh for pregnant women and pre-school-age children within a 5-mile
radius of the plant to leave the area
March 31, 1979
The authorities were concerned about possible hydrogen burst from hydrogen
accumulated by chemical reactions in the melting fuel in the pressure vessel in the
dome. It was anticipated that in the worst scenario, the hydrogen bubble might
burn or explore leading toward rupturing the reactor vessel and core falling on the
floor of containment building. If this happens, the containment building might be
breached. This possible hydrogen burst created great anxiety among government
authorities and the population on March 31, 1979
April 1, 1979
The authorities realized that the possibility of the bubble burst was very slim or
non-existence because there were no oxygen in the pressure vessel that the bubble
needs to burn or explode. The utility was able to reduce the size of bubbles in the
pressure vessel
Source US NRC (2013c)

30 years of the TMI accident, Levin and his colleagues conducted another study and
their findings revealed that thyroid cancer incident was higher, but the direct cor-
relations with the radiation exposure from the accident could not be validated
(Levin et al. 2013). They suggest that chronic low-level radiation exposure from
nuclear accidents and routine emissions from power plants should be examined in
the future studies.
20 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

Analysis of nuclear emergency management: The incident was originated due

to machine failure or shortage of electricity, which could not be determined given
that this failure was coupled with another system failure, that of a pressurizer’s
valve. When these machine failures take place, a failure of pilot-operated valve that
was designed to close by itself did not work as intended. This design failure
coupled with machine failure did not provide information to the operators timely.
The operators were not able to make effective and timely decision to correct situ-
ations due to lack of information. The human errors made the situations worse and
the accident took place. Fortunately, the event came to an end without requiring an
evacuation on March 28, 1979 (US NRC 2013c). It has been estimated that more
than two million people were exposed to radiation (US NRC 2013c), but the exact
level of the doses they were exposed to was not then able to be determined with any
precision. One notion is that the emergency management plan was developed
effectively. The advisory evaluation was provided to residents living within a 5 mile
radius of the plant, including preschool-aged children and pregnant women, who
were evacuated but only after 2 days had passed since the accident occurred (Three
Mile Island Alert 2013).

1.3.1.2 Chernobyl Accident

Preceding events: On April 26, 1986, the second demonstration of NPPs’ powerful
destructive potential occurred at the Chernobyl NPP in Ukraine, 7 years after the
event at TMI. The Chernobyl plant experienced an accident that breached its reactor
containment vessel and released radioactive effluents into the environment (US
NRC 2013b). The accident took place at the reactor Unit 4 due to a sudden surge of
power during a safety system test related to a routine maintenance outage. On April
25, 1986, the Unit 4 reactor, the Soviet-designed RBMK (reaktor bolshoy
moshchnosty kanalny, high-power channel reactor), a pressurized water-cooled
reactor which includes individual fuel channels and uses graphite as its moderator
(Fig. 1.8), was scheduled for a routine maintenance shutdown. The plant intended
to take a test if pumps that cool down the core were supplied with sufficient
electricity generated by slowing operation management of the plant. This was
intended as a test to assure that in the event of power outage from the station power,
the pumps that cool down the core receive sufficient power supply from the slowing
turbine generators, prior to the pumps are supplied with the power generated from
the diesel emergency power supply (World Nuclear Association 2016a).
The test conducted last year showed unsatisfactory results due to a rapid decline
in the power supply from the slowing turbine engine. Therefore, before the
scheduled maintenance shutdown, management intended to undertake the test
again. The test was considered as non-nuclear-related and sufficient information
exchange with the in charge of nuclear safety of the nuclear reactor did not take
place. The test required preconditions for the reactor before it is shutdown. One of
them was to shut down the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) in order to
proceed with the planned test. However, there was a risk associated with the
1.3 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Their Potential Risks 21

Fig. 1.8 Diagram of the RBMK-1000 reactor design. Source World Nuclear Association (2016a)

isolation of the ECCS because if the core experienced an incident, the system might
be able to reduce the impacts. In fact, the ECCS could not be shut down because the
reactor was operating at about half power. It was required to be switched off. Next,
the required condition for the reactor was to stabilize at 700–1000 MW, but it was
at 30 MW at 00:28 on April 26; but it could restore back to about 200 MW at
01:03 a.m. (Table 1.3). It was obvious that the operators underestimated that risks
are associated with setting the preconditions for the test. As planned, the power
needed to increase from 200 to 500 MW, but operational errors caused the power to
lower down to 30 MW at 00:28 on 26 April. At 01:03, the reactor came into
stabilized state at 200 MW and the test began. After 20 min, the signals of the
power excursion rate emergency protection system were displayed and the reactor
was operating at 530 MW. Since that time, there was a continued increase in the
power that leads to rupture in fuel elements which increased steam generation
resulting in increase in power. At 1:24, the fuel control rods were no longer
functional and reached their lower limit stop switches; it leads to power being
switched off for clutch mechanisms. Finally, the stem explosion took place first.
This event was followed by another event after a couple of seconds, another
explosion stemming from the buildup of hydrogen from zirconium–steam reaction
(World Nuclear Association 2016a).
Managing the nuclear emergency: When the explosions took place, the plume
that carries radioactive materials, smoke, debris from the core, and the building
went to up to 1 km high into the air. On that day, the northwesterly winds carried
the radioactive plume further away, leaving the heavier debris down near the plant.
22 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

Table 1.3 Chronological events in Chernobyl nuclear power accident

April 25, 1986
01:06 The scheduled shutdown of the reactor started. Gradual lowering of the power
level began
03:47 Lowering of reactor power halted at 1600 MW (thermal)
14:00 The emergency core cooling system (ECCS) was isolated (part of the test
procedure) to prevent it from interrupting the test later. The fact that the ECCS
was isolated did not contribute to the accident; however, had it been available it
might have reduced the impact slightly
The power was due to be lowered further; however, the controller of the
electricity grid in Kiev requested the reactor operator to keep supplying
electricity to enable demand to be met. Consequently, the reactor power level
was maintained at 1600 MW and the experiment was delayed. Without this
delay, the test would have been conducted during the day shift
23:10 Power reduction recommenced
24:00 Shift change
April 26, 1986
00:05 Power level had been decreased to 720 MW and continued to be reduced.
Although INSAG-1 stated that operation below 700 MW was forbidden,
sustained operation of the reactor below this level was not proscribed
00:28 With the power level at about 500 MW, control was transferred from the local
to the automatic regulating system. The operator might have failed to give the
‘hold power at required level’ signal or the regulating system failed to respond
to this signal. This led to an unexpected fall in power, which rapidly dropped to
30 MW
00:43:27 Turbogenerator trip signal blocked in accordance with operational and test
procedures. INSAG-1 incorrectly reported this event occurring at 01:23:04 and
stated: “This trip would have saved the reactor.” However, it is more likely that
disabling this trip only delayed the onset of the accident by 39 s
01:00 The reactor power had risen to 200 MW and stabilized. Although the operators
may not have known it, the required operating reactivity margin (ORM) of 15
rods had been violated. The decision was made to carry out the turbogenerator
rundown tests at a power level of about 200 MW
01:03 A standby main circulation pump was switched into the left hand cooling
circuit in order to increase the water flow to the core (part of the test procedure)
01:07 An additional cooling pump was switched into the right hand cooling circuit
(part of the test procedure). Operation of additional pumps removed heat from
the core more quickly leading to decreased reactivity, necessitating further
absorber rod removal to prevent power levels falling. The pumps delivered
excessive flow to the point where they exceeded their allowed limits. Increased
core flow led to problems with the level in the steam drum
01:19 The steam drum level was still near the emergency level. To compensate, the
(approx.) operator increased feed water flow. This raised the drum level, but further
reduced reactivity to the system. The automatic control rods went up to the
upper tie plate to compensate but further withdrawal of manual rods was
required to maintain the reactivity balance. System pressure began to fall and,
to stabilize pressure, the steam turbine bypass valve was shut off. Since the
(continued)
1.3 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Their Potential Risks 23

Table 1.3 (continued)

operators were having trouble with the pressure and level control, they
deactivated the automatic trip systems to the steam drum around this time
01:22:30 Calculations performed after the accident found that the ORM at this point
proved to be equal to eight control rods. Operating policy required that a
minimum ORM of 15 control rods be inserted in the reactor at all times
01:23 Reactor parameters stabilized. The unit shift supervisors considered that
(approx.) preparations for the tests had been completed and, having switched on the
oscilloscope, gave the order to close the emergency stop valves
April 26, 1986 (Test)
01:23:04 Turbine feed valves closed to start turbine coasting. This was the beginning of
the actual test. According to Annex I of INSAG-7, for the following
approximately 30 s of rundown of the four coolant pumps, “the parameters of
the unit were controlled, remained within the limits expected for the operating
conditions concerned, and did not require any intervention on the part of the
personnel”
01:23:40 The emergency button (AZ-5) was pressed by the operator. Control rods
started to enter the core, increasing the reactivity at the bottom of the core
01:23:43 Power excursion rate emergency protection system signals on; power exceeded
530 MW
01:23:46 Disconnection of the first pair of main circulating pumps (MCPs) being ‘run
down’, followed immediately by disconnection of the second pair
01:23:47 Sharp reduction in the flow rates of the MCPs not involved in the rundown test
and unreliable readings in the MCPs involved in the test; sharp increase of
pressure in the steam separator drums; sharp increase in the water level in the
steam separator drums
01:23:48 Restoration of flow rates of MCPs not involved in the rundown test to values
close to the initial ones; restoration of flow rates to 15% below the initial rate
for the MCPs on the left side which were being run down; restoration of flow
rates to 10% below the initial rate for one of the other MCPs involved in the
test and unreliable readings for the other one; further increase of pressure in the
steam separator drums and of water level in the steam separator drums;
triggering of fast acting systems for dumping of steam to condensers
01:23:49 Emergency protection signal ‘Pressure increase in reactor space (rupture of a
fuel channel)’; ‘No voltage—48 V’ signal (no power supply to the servodrive
mechanisms of the EPS); ‘Failure of the actuators of automatic power
controllers Nos 1 and 2’ signals
01:24 From a note in the chief reactor control engineer’s operating log: “01:24:
Severe shocks; the RCPS rods stopped moving before they reached the lower
limit stop switches; power switch of clutch mechanisms is off”
Source World Nuclear Association (2009)

About 4 min after the explosion, the very first task carried out by the 14 firemen at
the site was to put out the fire associated with the explosion on the roof of adjacent
turbine hall. Finally, a total of 69 firemen which consisted of the first group of 14
firemen who were joined by other firemen in nearby areas placed the fire under
control at 5:00 pm. While the explosion had taken place at the Unit 4 reactor, the
other reactor Units 1, 2, and 3 were still in operation. After two and a half hours of
24 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

the explosion taking place, the plant operators could successfully shut down at
5:00 a.m. The other two, Units 1 and 2, were shut down the next morning on April
27. The firemen used both water and foam spray for flammable materials such as
diesel oil, stored gas, and chemicals to put out the fire. There was one notable
human error in carrying out the response activities which were feeding the water
with emergency water pumps into the reactor core. After a day of injecting 200–300
tons per hour into the reactor core, the plant realized that the water was going into
Units 1 and 2, and then, the water feed was stopped (World Nuclear Association
2016a).
2 days after the accident (on April 28), the second task for a massive accident
management was carried out. The main purpose of the task was to combat the fire
and the radioactive releases. The task was performed by 1800 helicopter flights
which dumped about 5000 tons (40 tons of boron carbide, 2400 tons of lead, 1800
tons of sand and clay, and 800 tons of dolomite) over the troubled reactor. In
carrying out the task, there was another notion of human error and safety caution
taken into account of effective planning. At first time, the helicopters stabilized over
the reactor and dumped the materials, but the radiation level was very high. Thus,
the plan was changed to dump the materials while the helicopters travelled over the
reactor. When the compounds were not dumped over the reactor, they became
compounds that insulated heat and increased the temperature (World Nuclear
Association 2016a).
A week later (on May 5), another plan to cool down the reactor temperature was
implemented. The plan included to feed cold nitrogen to the areas surrounding the
reactor. A day after injecting the cold liquid to the reactor, the temperature was
noticeably decreased. It took about 15 days and required about 400 workers to
construct a built-in cooling system beneath the reactor underground (World Nuclear
Association 2016a). After 8 months the explosion took place (December 14), a
“sarcophagus,” a concrete roof, was constructed over the troubled reactor. That
sarcophagus was constructed with about 300,000 tons of concrete, and 6,000 tons of
metal was estimated to last for about 30 years (The Chernobyl Gallery 2016). The
sarcophagus contained about 5,500 tons of radioactive sand, lead, and boric acid and
about 220 tons of uranium and other unstable isotopes (Wendle 2016). The radiation
level was very high inside (10,000 roentgens per hour) (500 roentgens over 5 h is a
lethal dose). It is impossible to repair the sarcophagus due to high-level radiation
inside, and a new containment called “New Safe Containment” was constructed (The
Chernobyl Gallery 2016). The shape of the New Safety Containment looks like an
outsized aircraft hangar with measurements of 360 ft high, 540 ft long, and 850 ft
wide with a total estimated cost of $1.7 billion (Wendle 2016).
Impacts from the nuclear emergency: The Chernobyl nuclear power plant
accident caused an evaluation of about 116,000 people from areas surrounding the
nuclear power plant in the year the accident took place. In the following years, there
were about 220,000 people who were evacuated from three countries: Belarus, the
Russian Federation, and Ukraine (Fig. 1.9) (UNSCEAR 2008). The authorities
sealed off the areas within 18 miles of the nuclear power plant. However, indi-
viduals involved in continued investigations were allowed to continue their
1.3 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Their Potential Risks 25

Fig. 1.9 Surface ground deposition of cesium 137 released in the Chernobyl accident. Source
UNSCEAR (2008)

businesses (US NRC 2013b). The radioactive materials and radionuclides from the
nuclear power accident were carried by the winds to far distances and they con-
taminated the larger areas in other countries in the northern hemisphere. People
living in the areas surrounding the nuclear power plants in Belarus, the Russian
Federation, and Ukraine included more than 6,000 individuals who were diagnosed
with thyroid cancer up to the year 2005 (UNSCEAR 2008). The individuals consist
of both children and adults. There were more than five million people who exposed
to radiation after the nuclear power accident. Most of them were exposed to the
radioactive materials during the evacuation. When the accident took place in the
early morning of April 26, 1986, there were about 600 workers who were working
on the site, 134 of them received high doses (0.8–1 Gy) and 28 of them died during
the first 3 months after the accident and 19 died between 1987 and 2004. In
addition, there were 530,000 individuals who were registered as recovery operation
workers and exposed to doses between 0.02 and 0.5 Gy between 1986 and 1990
(UNSCEAR 2008). Those individuals were anticipated to experience cancer or
other cancer-related diseases. However, in general, two decades after the accident,
the increase in cancer incidents and mortality rates did not provide any clues to
relate the cause of death to be radiation exposure after the nuclear power accident. It
was observed that the incidence of leukemia in the general population did not
increase to a cause of radiation exposure (UNSCEAR 2008).
Analysis of nuclear emergency management: The Chernobyl accident was
ranked as a level 7, the highest level classified as a major event, according to the
International Nuclear Event Scale. The accident was caused mainly by design
26 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

failure, lack of sufficient coordination among various departments, underestimation

of the risks, ignoring the standard procedure, lack of proper training, and human
errors. Further, the emergency management plan was not effectively formulated.
First, after the accident took place, there were not sufficient firemen available at the
site, but later it was reinforced with other firemen from nearby stations and second,
2 days later, when it attempted to extinguish the fire and demonstrated a lack of
sufficient knowledge and detailed plan to extinguish the fire and radionuclide
releases. The high dose of radiation did not allow helicopters to stabilize while
dumping sands and other materials. It was obvious that the radiation dose was not
projected and the results were not incorporated into the emergency plan. Containing
the radiation materials at the plant site took about 8 months after the accident. It was
not a permanent solution, and in 30 years later, an arch-type containment structure
that costed 2.1 billion euro was replaced. This costly containment structure was
anticipated to last another 100-year period.

1.3.1.3 Fukushima Daiichi Accident

Preceding events: On March 11, 2011, an earthquake with a 9.0 magnitude which
was epic entered in about 231 miles northeast of Tokyo struck Japan’s Honshu
Island coast. There were a total of fourteen reactors, Mark I type reactors (Fig. 1.10)

Fig. 1.10 Diagram of the Fukushima Daiichi reactor: GE boiling water reactors (BWR). Source
World Nuclear Association (2012)
1.3 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Their Potential Risks 27

at four nuclear power plants, namely Fukushima Daiichi, Fukushima Daini,

Onagawa, and Tokai. The eleven reactors that were in operation were as follows:
Units 1, 2, and 3 at Fukushima Daiichi, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 at Fukushima Daini,
Units 1, 2, and 3 at Tohoku’s Onagawa and Japco’s Tokai, whereas Units 4, 5, and
6 at Fukushima Daiichi were under regular maintenance (World Nuclear
Association 2016b).
When the earthquake struck, the eight reactors out of eleven were automatically
shut down by design. The residual heat removal (RHR) system cooling pumps
started to function to cool down the reactor within about 4 days, whereas the other
three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant site were flooded when about
50-ft-high tsunami waves generated by the powerful earthquake that struck the coast.
At 2:42 pm, after an hour earthquake, the electricity supply to Units 1, 2, and 3 were
disturbed when they were flooded by the 50-ft-high tsunami waves (Table 1.4). In
addition, the flood caused damage to 12 of 13 backup generators as well as the heat
exchangers which dump the reactor heat and decay heat from the reactor to the sea.
As a result, the cooling system of the three reactors was dysfunctional and the
temperature in the reactor increased. Then, the hydrogen formation took place
inside the reactors due to zirconium cladding with the steam after the fuels sub-
merged from the water inside. The emergency core cooling system (ECCS) was
activated and firemen used pipes to inject the seawater into the core reactors. The
Prime Minister’s instructions were to cease the seawater injection into the reactor
Unit 1, but the plant management did not follow. Gradually, the heat and pressure
increased inside the reactors. The hydrogen explosion took place in Units 1, 2, and
4 which damaged the buildings and released radioactive materials from Units 1 and
2 (World Nuclear Association 2016b). Another concern was the used fuels stored in
all six fuel pools located next to the reactors. When used fuels were removed from
the reactors, they were stored in the fuel pools. Later, they were transferred into the
central fuel pool located in the Unit 4. At the time of accident in 2011, about 60% of

Table 1.4 Event sequence following earthquake at Fukushima Daiichi accident

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
Loss of AC power +51 min +54 min +52 min
Loss of cooling +1 h +70 h +36 h
Water level down to top of fuela +3 h +74 h +42 h
Core damage startsa +4 h +77 h +44 h
Reactor pressure vessel damagea +11 h uncertain uncertain
Fire pumps with freshwater +15 h +43 h
Hydrogen explosion (not +25 h service +87 h suppression +68 h service
confirmed for Unit 2) floor chamber floor
Off-site electrical supply +11–15 days
Freshwater cooling +14–15 days
Source World Nuclear Association (2016b). Timing from 14:46 on 11 March, 2011
Note aAccording to 2012 Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP)
28 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

the used fuels from the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi were stored in the central fuel
pool. There were 6375 fuel assemblies out of the total capacity of 6840 in the
central pool. The temperature increased to 73 °C, but later the temperature was
placed under control and there was no damage in the fuel pool (World Nuclear
Association 2016b).
Impacts from the nuclear emergency: The third and most recent NPP-related
accident occurred, 25 years after the Chernobyl accident, when an underwater
earthquake triggered a tsunami that hit the Japanese coastline, causing massive
damage at the Fukushima Daiichi NPP (US NRC 2013f). This catastrophe has been
regarded as a nuclear disaster of a degree humankind has never experienced
(Cosmic Convergence 2013). The accident has proven to be far worse in its effects
than the previous two nuclear power-related accidents. The Japanese government in
its initial response evacuated approximately 160,000 people living within a 12–19
mile radius of the Fukushima plant (Morris-Suzuki et al. 2012), but the impacted
areas have proven to be much wider than the evacuated areas. The earthquake was
coupled with tsunami wave. In mid-December 2011, the plant management
declared a cold shutdown condition after nitrogen was injected into all three con-
tainment vessels and pressure vessels leading to a minimal level of radioactive
releases (World Nuclear Association 2016b). After the reactor core-meltdown
accident, about 78,000 people living in areas within a 12 mile radius around the
nuclear power plant were evacuated (Fig. 1.10). Later, about 62,000 people living
in areas between 12 and 19 miles were evacuated by sheltering in their homes. In
April 2011, areas in the northwest part of the plant were designated as deliberate
evacuation areas because the high levels of radioactive materials were observed on
the ground and people living in the areas could expose to high-level radiation.
About 10,000 people living in the areas were evacuated because evacuation could
reduce radiation by up to a factor of 10. However, evacuation came with undesired
outcomes including evacuation-related deaths (World Nuclear Association 2016b).
It was estimated that there were about 300,000 people evacuated from their homes
in areas located surrounding the nuclear power plant according to Red Cross figures
(Smith 2013). According to the Mainichi Shimbun survey, the deaths related to
displacement amounted to about 1,600, whereas about 16,000 people were killed as
a result of earthquake and tsunami (Smith 2013). Among the 1,600 deaths, 1,599 of
these deaths were in the Fukushima Prefecture where the nuclear power plant
accident took place (Smith 2013). According to the United Nations Scientific
Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation report, a large portion of the
atmospheric releases were carried away by the winds to the Pacific Ocean and direct
radioactive liquid releases were discharged into surrounding sea until the reporting
was made in May 2013 (UNSCEAR 2008) (Fig. 1.11).
Analysis of nuclear emergency management: First, the failure to design the
plant to potential tsunami risk magnified the plant’s vulnerability to natural disas-
ters. The Fukushima Daiichi plant was built 10 meters above the sea level. When
the plant was flooded by the tsunami, the plant was below about 5 meters of
seawater. The Fukushima Daiichi plant was built under 13 meters above the sea
level, and the impact of tsunami was less than the Daiichi plant. Second, the plant
1.3 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Their Potential Risks 29

Fig. 1.11 Evacuation areas surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Source
UNSCEAR (2014)

management did not follow the instruction by the Office of the Prime Minister to
not feed the seawater into the reactor cores. Third, 6 h after the plant accident
initiated, the government started the evacuation of people living in areas within 2
mile (3 km) radius from the plant. The evacuation took place after 3 h
core-meltdown started. This delay in evacuation could cause residents living near
by the plant unnecessarily expose to the radiation. Fourth, the next day, the gov-
ernment made an announcement for evacuation of people living within 6 mile
radius and 12 mile radius. Fifth, 4 days after the first accident initiated, a further
evacuation to shelter inside was advised to residents living in areas between 12 mile
(20 km) radius and 19 mile (30 km) radius surrounding the plant (Table 1.5).
These accidents at NPPs are normally preceded by an event or a series of events
that trigger or contribute to the damage done to the reactor core. When brought
under control, events with the potential to have escalated into major accidents—that
is, those of the type capable of causing reactor core damage—are described as
near-miss events. The NRC issues an annual report detailing all near-miss events
30 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

Table 1.5 Timeline of evacuation orders during the Fukushima Daiichi accident
Date Time Activity
March 11, 14:46 JST The earthquake occurred.
2011 15:42 TEPCO made the first emergency report to the government.
19:03 The government announced a nuclear emergency.
20:50 The Fukushima Prefecture Office ordered 2 km radius evacuation.
21:23 The government ordered 2-mile (3-km) evacuation and to keep
staying inside buildings in the area of 2–6 mile (3–10 km) radius.
March 12, 05:44 The government ordered 6-mile (10-km) radius evacuation.
2011 18:25 The government ordered 12-mile (20-km) evacuation.
March 15, 11:01 The government ordered to keep staying inside buildings in the area
2011 of 12–19 miles (20–30 km) from the plant.
March 25, The government requested voluntary evacuation in the area of 12–19
2011 miles (20–30 km).
April 21, The government set the 12-mile (20 km) radius no-go area.
2011
Source UNSCEAR (2014)

and classifying them according to the three categories defined by the type of team
sent out to inspect the event, which is in turn determined by the level or degree of
severity of the event. There are three such teams, namely the augmented inspection
team (AIT), the incident inspection team (IIT), and the special inspection team
(SIT). The AIT evaluates events that pose a 10-fold increase in risk, whereas the
SIT investigates events that pose a 1,000-fold increase in risk level (Lochbaum
2010, 2011, 2012). In 2010, there were a total of 14 near-miss events (13 SIT and 1
AIT); in 2011, 15 (14 SIT and 1 AIT); and, in 2012, 14 (11 SIT and 3 AIT), figures
that hint at the regularity with which such plants pose a risk to their surrounding
areas.

1.3.2 Contamination Risks

Another risk associated with NPPs is that of contamination of the sort caused by the
unmonitored and unplanned release of liquids. Commercial NPPs release radioac-
tive materials into the environment, in either liquid or gaseous or both, on a routine
basis. There have been incidents of unplanned and unmonitored leaks of liquids that
occurred at Braidwood, Indian Point, Byron, and Dresden NPPs. The Liquid
Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Task Force (LLTF) has been tasked with
identifying the causes of such leaks (Richards et al. 2011). Their findings included
the following: (1) The construction of plant components did not meet existing
safety standards; (2) the components that caused or contributed to said leaks
were not required to be monitored, nor were they subject to routine maintenance
activities according to the NRC regulations; (3) some components associated with
1.3 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Their Potential Risks 31

subterranean leaks or with spent-fuel pools were not readily accessible or physically
visible; (4) liquid leaks can enter undetected into groundwater; (5) the contami-
nation of groundwater may go undetected because it is not required to be monitored
according to the existing NRC regulations; and (6) the contaminated groundwater
could flow off-site undetected. The communities that host NPPs therefore are at
perpetual risk due to the very presence of the NPPs.
Another potential risk associated with NPPs surrounds their spent fuel—the
highly radioactive used fuel rods that are removed from a nuclear reactor. Nuclear
fuel rods are made of fissionable materials and retain their inherent destructive
potential long after their initial use. Approximately 74% of all spent fuels are stored
at the reactor site, most often in spent-fuel pools, while the rest are stored in dry
storage casks distributed across 33 states (US GAO 2012). The US Government
Accountability Office (GAO) projects an annual 2,000-metric-ton increase in the
amount of spent fuel stored on site, with the current 70,000-metric-ton spent-fuel
stockpile growing to 140,000 metric tons within a decade. New storage facilities are
expected to be ready to begin accepting spent fuel in 15–40 years. The potential
risks associated with such facilities include (1) the release of radiation, which could
have severe negative impacts on human health and (2) a self-sustaining fire if and
when the water is drained and the fuel rods are exposed to air. The amount of
hazardous materials stored in each state varies from a maximum of approximately
2,000 metric tons in Illinois to a minimum of less than 100 metric tons at the
decommissioned St. Vrain NPP in Colorado (US NRC 2013a). Above all, the
threats that are inherent to the 70,000-metric-ton spent-fuel stockpile cannot and
must not be underestimated. To put into perspective the dire consequences of doing
so, we must bear in mind that only approximately 400 metric tons of spent fuel were
stored in the fuel pool at the Fukushima NPP, materials that are equivalent in their
destructive potential to 14,000 Hiroshima bombs (The Asahi Shimbun 2013).
The most hazardous human-made materials do not sit forever in the spent-fuel
pools or stay safely in the dry-storage casks housed at the reactor sites. When they
are transported, they pose great risk not only to the host communities but also to the
communities at large along the transit route. The purpose of transporting spent fuels
is to relocate them to storage space shared by multiple reactor sites operated by the
same owner (US NRC 2013d). According to Garrick (2003), between 1964 and
1997, a total of 3,025 shipments moved 829 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM)
by road and an additional 1,445 MTHM by rail. The transportation of such
materials is closely supervised by the NRC and the US Department of
Transportation (US NRC 2013d). Although regulated and supervised, the trans-
portation—whether by road or by rail—has not been accident-free. Between 1971
and 1995, there were four accidents on the highways and four on the rail lines; one
highway accident resulted in the death of a driver and detectable emissions of
radiation (Garrick 2003; US NRC 2013g). All of the approximately 70,000 metric
tons of spent fuels stored at reactor sites are in waiting to be transported to
high-level repositories, when such facilities are open and available to accept said
materials (US NRC 2013d). With the Obama administration’s 2009 decision to
32 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

withdraw funding for the Yucca Mountain High-Level Nuclear Waste Project, there
is at present no permanent storage facility under development (Wald 2009).
Another risk that NPPs pose is inherent to their design and serves to highlight
why it is critical that the design of a reactor that contains fissionable fuel rods
during its normal operation be centered on safety. The Mark 1 containment vessel,
first produced by GE in the 1960s and still in use at Fukushima NPP at the time of
the accident there, contributed to the catastrophic events of 2011 (Zeller 2011). As
early as 1975, it was known that there had not been sufficient testing of the con-
tainment design and that any flaws that might persist could compromise the safety
of the plant and its surroundings. However, the warning did not lead to a halt in the
operating of the design, given that by that time, it had been widely accepted
throughout the nuclear power industry. However, Harold Denton, a retired NRC
official, pointed out that the probability of a Mark 1-type reactor bursting if the fuel
rods were to enter into meltdown was approximately 90% (Denton 1987). In the
USA, there remain 23 Mark 1 reactors still in operation, located at 16 NPPs,
including Oyster Creek, New Jersey; Dresden, Illinois; and Monticello, Minnesota.
The host communities of NPPs that still operate Mark 1 reactors are at greater risk
of exposure to a Fukushima-like disaster than sites with safer reactor designs.
Nuclear power plants are also vulnerable to seismic events of the type that played a
role in triggering the catastrophe at Fukushima. The NPPs sited along the US
eastern seaboard, in particular, do not include in their designs any kind of measures
meant to shield against the aftereffects of a strong earthquake (Koch 2011).

1.3.3 Nuclear Radiation Risks

Nuclear power plants, even under normal operating conditions, release limited
amounts of radioactive contaminants into the atmosphere. In the event of a nuclear
disaster, the quantities of radioactive materials can increase by orders of magnitude.
Ionizing radiation can quickly travel more than one hundred kilometers (62 miles),
carried on the wind in the form of a radioactive plume to outlying areas (Cyranoski
and Brumfiel 2011). In general, the routine emissions of ionizing radiation origi-
nating from NPPs are known to be associated with elevated incident rates of a
number of types of cancer, permanent damage to human vital organs, and death
(Astakhova et al. 1998; Canu et al. 2008; Cardis et al. 2005). Populations living
near an NPP, as well as those that may prove to be in the path of a radioactive
effluent plume in the case of an accident, are vulnerable to exposure of high levels
of radiation.
The communities that host such facilities shoulder the potential risks associated
with nuclear power from the time the plant begins operation until the time it is
decommissioned—for a typical reactor design, the use life is between 40 and
60 years (Green Peace 2010). After a plant is shut down, it takes under normal
conditions, 50 years for the reactor to cool; this is followed by a period of
decommissioning that normally takes another 40–60 years (Green Peace 2010).
1.3 U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Their Potential Risks 33

The NRC has advanced three strategies for dealing with end of use at of NPPs:
(1) DECON or decommissioning strategies; (2) SAFSTOR or deferred dismantling;
and (3) ENTOMB or the permanent encasing on site of radioactive contaminants
(US NRC 2013e). For example, Hallam Nuclear Power Plant, Nebraska, a NPP
with a short use life, was decommissioned in 1971. All potential containments were
at that time buried underground. Since then, the Department of Energy, working in
conjunction with the Nebraska Department of Health, has monitored the entomb-
ment site for possible groundwater contamination and radiation and will continue to
do so for a period of 119 years, until 2090 (Nebraska Energy Quarterly 1997).

1.3.4 Terrorist Attack Risks

Spent fuel, among the most hazardous material created by humans, is always
vulnerable to terrorist attack (Holt and Andrews 2007). The terrorist attack on the
World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon building in Washington, D.C.,
on September 11, 2011—the so-called 9/11 attack—serves as reminder of the dire
consequences and very real threat of a potential attack on NPPs. Afterward, evi-
dence came to light that revealed Al Qaeda had considered targeting an NPP in their
initial plan of attack (Holt and Andrews 2007).
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a successful attack on a
spent-fuel storage facility would be difficult, but it is possible. In the event of such
an attack, the spent fuel could become the source of a self-sustaining zirconium
cladding fire and would release a massive amount of radioactive materials.
Communities that host NPPs therefore live with the unpredictable risk of exposure
to a massive release of radiation.

1.3.5 Inevitable Risks

Despite their years of operation, NPPs have yet to prove themselves the peaceful
resource for the benefit of humankind that President Eisenhower first envisioned. In
fact, NPPs use a technology that seeks to harness nuclear fissionable materials to
produce heat, which is used to boil water, transforming it into steam that is then
used to power electric generators. These nuclear fissionable materials were initially
used in the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. Their powerful destructive potential
is beyond imagination, as was revealed by the Trinity test—the first detonation of
an atomic bomb, which occurred at 5:29:45 a.m., July 16, 1945, in the desert of
New Mexico (Masco 2006). The destructive potential of nuclear fission can escalate
beyond an NPP’s ability to control it, for instance when a plant experiences an
accident that damages its nuclear reactor, where the fuel rods made of fissionable
materials are housed.
34 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

Above all, the potential risks associated with NPPs can be explained by Perrow’s
“normal accidents theory.” As noted previously, NPPs are complex and tightly
coupled systems, and complexity produces unknown risks; according to the
Perrow’s theory:
Nothing is perfect, neither designs, equipment, procedures, operators, supplies, or the
environment. Because we know this, we load our complex systems with safety devices in
the form of buffers, redundancies, circuit breakers, alarms, bells, and whistles. Small
failures go on continuously in the system since nothing is perfect, but the safety devices and
the cunning of designers, and the wit and experience of the operating personnel, cope with
them. Occasionally, however, two or more failures, none of them devastating in themselves
in isolation, come together in unexpected ways and defeat the safety devices—the definition
of a “normal accident” or system accident. If the system is also tightly coupled, these
failures can cascade faster than any safety device or operator can cope with them… [I]f the
accident brings down a significant part of the system, and the system has catastrophic
potential, we will have a catastrophe. (Perrow 1999, pp. 356–357)

According to the Perrow’s analysis, the risks associated with NPPs therefore
should be seen as intrinsic to the system, normal, and as something that cannot be
avoided.

References

Astakhova LN, Anspaugh LR, Beebe GW, Bouville A, Drozdovitch VV, Garber V et al (1998)
Chernobyl-related thyroid cancer in children of Belarus: a case-control study. Rad Res 150
(3):349–356. Retrieved from WOS:000075670600010
Canu IG, Ellis ED, Tirmarche M (2008) Cancer risk in nuclear workers occupationally exposed to
uranium—emphasis on internal exposure. Health Phys 94(1):1–17. Retrieved from
WOS:000251786800001
Cardis E, Kesminiene A, Ivanov V, Malakhova I, Shibata Y, Khrouch V et al (2005) Risk of
thyroid cancer after exposure to I-131 in childhood. J Natl Cancer Inst 97(10):724–732.
Retrieved from WOS:000229856500011
Cooper M (2013) Nuclear aging: not so graceful. Retrieved from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
http://thebulletin.org/nuclear-aging-not-so-graceful
Cosmic Convergence (2013) Fukushima: a nuclear catastrophe of epic proportions. Retrieved from
the mind unleashed http://www.themindunleashed.org/2013/09/fukushima-nuclear-
catastrophe-of-epic.html
Crooks E (2016) Uneconomic US nuclear plants at risk of being shut down. Retrieved from
Energy http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/da2a6bc6-98fa-11e3-a32f-00144feab7de.
html#axzz430cDscgc
Cyranoski D, Brumfiel G (2011) Fukushima impact is still hazy. Nature 477(7363):139–140.
Retrieved from WOS:000294603900005
Dotson S (2014) Lessons learned from Kewaunee’s closing. Retrieved from Power Engineering
http://www.power-eng.com/articles/npi/print/volume-7/issue-3/nucleus/lessons-learned-from-
kewaunee-s-closing.html
Eisenhower DD (1953) Atoms for peace. Retrieved from Voices of Democracy http://
voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/eisenhower-atoms-for-peace-speech-text/
Ferguson CD (2011) Nuclear energy what everyone needs to know. Retrieved from Oxford
University Press
References 35

Garrick J (2003) The current status, safety, and transportation of spent nuclear fuel. 33(3):11–18.
Retrieved from National Academy of Sciences
Green Peace (2010) Nuclear power: decommissioning risks. Retrieved from Green Peace USA
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/reports/Nuclear-Power-Decommissioning-
Risks/
Hatch MC, Wallenstein S, Beyea J, Nieves JW, Susser M (1991) Cancer rates after the
three-Mile-Island nuclear accident and proximity of residence to the plant. Am J Public Health
81(6):719–724. Retrieved from WOS:A1991FV60700009
Holt M, Andrews A (2007) Nuclear power plants: vulnerability to terrorist attack. CSR Report for
Congress
Koch W (2011) Earthquake readiness of U.S. nuclear power plants is unclear. USA Today
Levin RJ (2008) Incidence of thyroid cancer in residents surrounding the three mile island nuclear
facility. Laryngoscope 118(4):618–628. Retrieved from ISI:000260662000009
Levin RJ, De Simone NF, Slotkin JF, Henson BL (2013) Incidence of thyroid cancer surrounding
three mile island nuclear facility: the 30-year follow-up. Laryngoscope 123(8):2064–2071.
Retrieved from WOS:000322004400041
Lochbaum D (2010) The NRC and Nuclear power plant safety in 2012: tolerating the intolerable.
Union of Concerned Scientists: Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions. Retrieved
from: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/NRC-nuclear-safety-2010-
report.pdf
Lochbaum D (2011) The NRC and nuclear power plant safety in 2012: tolerating the intolerable.
Union of Concerned Scientists: Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions. Retrieved
from http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/NRC-nuclear-safety-2011-
report.pdf
Lochbaum D (2012) The NRC and nuclear power plant safety in 2012: tolerating the intolerable.
Union of Concerned Scientists: Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions. Retrieved
from http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/NRC-nuclear-safety-2012-
report.pdf
Masco J (2006) The nuclear borderlands the Manhattan Project in post-Cold War New Mexico.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
MIT (2003) Retrieved from Massachusetts Institute of Technology http://thebulletin.org/nuclear-
aging-not-so-graceful
Morris-Suzuki T, Boilley D, McNeill D, Gundersen A (2012) Lessons from Fukushima.
Greenpeace.org
Nebraska Energy Quarterly (1997) State’s First Nuclear Plant Buried Near Lincoln. Retrieved
from Nebraska Energy Quarterly Newsletter
Richards S, Frye T, Shepherd J, Nicholson T, Kuzo G, Shoop U et al (2011) Liquid radioactive
release lessons learned task force final report. Retrieved from United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission www.nrc.org
Smith A (2013) Fukushima evacuation has killed more than earthquake and tsunami, survey says.
Retrieved from NBC News http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/fukushima-evacuation-has-
killed-more-earthquake-tsunami-survey-says-f8C11120007
The Asahi Shimbun (2013) The long road ahead in ending Fukushima water problem. Retrieved
from The Asahi Shimbun www.ajw.asahi.com
The Chernobyl Gallery (2016) The Sarcophagus. Retrieved from The Chernobyl Gallery http://
chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/sarcophagus/
Three Mile Island Alert (2013) Incident Chronology at TMI from NRC: 1979–2012. Retrieved
from Three Mile Island Alert http://www.tmia.com/node/1586
UNSCEAR (2008) Maps of radionuclide deposition. Retrieved from United Nations Scientific
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/
chernobylmaps.html
36 1 The US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants …

UNSCEAR (2014) Sources, effects, and risks of ironizing radiation: UNSECAR 2013 Report.
New York: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Retrieved
from: http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2013/14-06336_Report_2013_Annex_A_Ebook_
website.pdf
US DOE (1995) The History of Nuclear Energy (DOE/NE 0088). Washington D.C.: US
Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology. Retrieved from:
http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/The%20History%20of%20Nuclear%20Energy_0.pdf
US EIA (2015) Nuclear explained. Retrieved from US Energy Information Administration https://
www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=nuclear_home
US EIA (2016) How many nuclear power plants are in the United States, and where are they
located. Retrieved from US Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/tools/
faqs/faq.cfm?id=207&t=3
US EPA (2016) Summary of the National Environmental Policy Act. Retrieved from: https://www.
epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-national-environmental-policy-act
US GAO (2012) Spent nuclear fuel: accumulating quantities at commercial reactors present
storage and other challenges (GAO-12-797). United States Government Accountable Office
(US GAO)
US NRC (2004) Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Process. Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0298/
br0298r2.pdf
US NRC (2010) 2009–2010 Information Digest US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved
from: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/v21/sr1350v21.pdf
US NRC (2011) Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission www.nrc.gov
US NRC (2013a) 2012–2013 Information Digest (NUREG-1350, Volume 24). US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Retrieved from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/
nuregs/staff/sr1350/v24/sr1350v24.pdf
US NRC (2013b) Backgrounder on chernobyl nuclear power plant accident. Retrieved from US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/
chernobyl-bg.html
US NRC (2013c) Backgrounder on the three mile island accident. Retrieved from US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.
html
US NRC (2013d) Backgrounder on transportation of spent fuel and radioactive materials.
Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulatory Commission http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/fact-sheets/transport-spenfuel-radiomats.pdf
US NRC (2013e) Decommissioning nuclear power plants. Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.
html
US NRC (2013f) Fact Sheet on Summary of Japan Events in March 2011 and NRC Response.
Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulatory Commission http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/fact-sheets/fs-japan-events.html
US NRC (2013g) Spent Fuel Transportation: Risk Assessment (NUREG-2125). Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved from: http://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/transport-spenfuel-radiomats.pdf
US NRC (2015a) 2014–2015 Information Digest. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved
from: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/
US NRC (2015b) SONGS steam generator tube degradation. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tube-
degradation.html
US NRC (2016a) 2015–2016 Information Digest. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved
from: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/v26/sr1350v26.pdf
US NRC (2016b) Glossary. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.
nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary.html
References 37

US NRC (2016c) History. Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulatory Commission http://www.nrc.

gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/history.html
US NRC (2016d) Licensing. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.
nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/licensing.html
Wald ML (2009) Future dim for nuclear waste repository. Retrieved from The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/science/earth/06yucca.html?ref=
yuccamountain&pagewanted=print
Wendle J (2016) Chernobyl’s radioactive ruins get a new tomb. Retrieved from National
Geographic http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/042516-chernobyl-new-safe-
confinement-contains-radiation/
World Nuclear Association (2009) Sequence of events: chernobyl nuclear power accident.
Retrieved from World Nuclear Association http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/
safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/chernobyl-accident-appendix-1-sequence-of-
events.aspx
World Nuclear Association (2012) Fukushima: background on reactors. Retrieved from World
Nuclear Association http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/
safety-of-plants/appendices/fukushima-reactor-background.aspx
World Nuclear Association (2016a) Chernobyl Accident 1986. Retrieved from World Nuclear
Association http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-
plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx
World Nuclear Association (2016b) Fukushima accident. Retrieved from World Nuclear
Association http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-
plants/fukushima-accident.aspx
Zeller T (2011) Experts had long criticized potential weakness in design of stricken reactor.
Retrieved from New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16contain.
html?_r=0&pagewanted=print
Chapter 2
Communities Hosting US Commercial
Nuclear Power Plants

2.1 Setting Boundaries in Host Communities

Communities located around a nuclear power plant shoulder inevitable risks

associated with the nuclear power plants. These inevitable risks include nuclear
contamination, radiation, and nuclear core-meltdown accidents. In case of the worst
accident scenario, an event with a core-meltdown accident at a nuclear power plant,
communities near the site could face the risk of exposure to highly toxic radioactive
plume. The areas that are prone to such radiation risks depend on how far the plume
could travel and the weather conditions in that particular day. The NRC has des-
ignated two types of emergency planning zones (EPZs): a 10-mile radius zone and a
50-mile radius from a nuclear power plant (US NRC 2016). The first 10-mile radius
zone around the nuclear power plant is called the plume exposure pathway, whereas
the latter one is named the ingestion exposure pathway. The difference between the
two zones is the emergency management plan for each. The plume exposure zone
(PEZ) requires a mandatory and detailed emergency management plan, whereas the
ingestion exposure zone (IEZ) is not required a mandatory emergency management
plan. However, the two zones share a common goal of avoiding or reducing
potential radiation. The PEZ with predetermined protective action plans is designed
to avoid or reduce radiation by sheltering, evacuation, and the use of potassium
iodide, whereas the IEZ is designed to avoid or reduce potential ingestion.
To define the host community of a nuclear power plant, I consider the 50-mile
distance based on the NRC’s predetermined two emergency zones: a 10-mile radius
and 50-mile radius. Therefore, in this chapter, communities hosting nuclear power
plants are defined as those communities living around a 50-mile radius from a nuclear
power plant, as designated in both exposure pathway and ingestion pathway by the
NRC (US NRC 2016). However, a group of more than 37 environmental and civic
organizations argued that the 50-mile radius is not a sufficient distance because
the radioactive plume could travel longer than the specified distance, as evident in the
events of Chernobyl and Fukushima (NIRS 2013; Kyne 2014). In acknowledging

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 39

D. Kyne, Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies in the USA,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50343-1_2
40 2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

Fig. 2.1 Communities hosting the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) within a
50-mile radius from the power plant

the controversial debate on the definition of impacted areas, this study uses the most
legal definition of an impacted area, defined as an area within a 50-mile radius of an
NPP. For example, a community living around a 50-mile radius from the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) is depicted in Fig. 2.1.

2.2 Invisible Risks and Unknown Consequences

This session takes a closer look at the communities living around the nuclear power
plants, to enhance understanding on environmental justice issues and current
knowledge of consequences from constant exposure to low-level radiation.

2.2.1 Nuclear Power Plant Siting and Environmental

Justice

Communities hosting the nuclear power plants are in fact embracing all different
types of potential risks. There are certain types of risks that simply cannot be
2.2 Invisible Risks and Unknown Consequences 41

avoided, as discussed earlier in Chap. 1. The potential and inevitable risks include:
core meltdown, contamination, nuclear radiation, and terrorist attack risks. NPPs
utilize nuclear fuel rods containing fissionable materials and their destructive
potentials are unpredictable in nature; their profound impacts on environments and
humankind cannot be underestimated (Kyne 2014). Due to the potential destructive
nature and unpredictable long-term impacts on environments and humankind, it is
necessary for the Federal Government authorities to regulate all NPPs in the U.S.
(Kyne 2014). Responsible regulatory authorities must monitor every step from
selecting a plant site, the granting of construction licenses, and the warranting of
operating a plant. Once an NPP is built within a community, that particular pop-
ulation in the area becomes the host community and begins to embrace the
above-mentioned potential risks (Kyne 2014).
Given the fact that such nuclear power facilities have the potential to cause
powerful destruction, governmental intervention plays a vital role in protecting
human life and the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was
established under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970, with a
mission to incorporate environmental protection policy into all federally sponsored
projects. The EPA established goal is “to provide an environment where all people
enjoy the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and
equal access to the decision-making process to maintain a healthy environment in
which to live, learn, and work (US EPA 2013).” To achieve this goal, the EPA
promotes one of the key elements which is “public involvement.” It is vital for
communities that are likely to host a nuclear power plant to actively participate and
engage in every step of environmental decision-making process, from site selection
to issuing operating licenses.
Previously, when issuing the construction and operation licenses to all previous
U.S. commercial nuclear power plants, environmental justice concepts were not
incorporated, and the AEC has issued 126 NPP operating licenses without taking
into account any environmental impacts or guidelines (US NRC 2004; Kyne 2014).
During the AEC administration era, the agency struggled dual conflicting roles—on
one hand, it was required to regulate the nuclear power industry; on the other hand,
it was required to promote the industry growth. After receiving criticism for its dual
roles and ineffectiveness, the AEC was dissolved in 1975. The NRC became its
successor under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (US NRC 2011; Kyne
2014). Since then, the NRC became the agency which has authority and respon-
sibility in administering the licensing process (US NRC 2004; Kyne 2014). The
licensing process in fact encourages public participation through adjudicatory, or
courtroom-style hearings. In public meetings, proposed NPP projects are presented
and their quality of design conform within the current existing environmental laws.
Participants have opportunities to make comments on any design flaws, raise any
environmental concerns and engage in debates on potential impacts (Mariottee
2006; Kyne 2014). There still remains the unanswered question with regard to
public participation in the licensing process: Does the licensing process encourage
public participation and if so, to what extend does the public participate; and to
42 2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

what extend the public concerns are taken into serious consideration by the NRC
and other concerned authorities? Systematic studies on evaluation of public par-
ticipation in nuclear power plant licensing processes are rarely found.
One notion is that there was a transformation taking place in the licensing
process after 1992. Previously, all prospective owners of NPPs were required to
seek the construction license first and then the operation license. The two steps were
combined into one-step process in which the prospective owners or operators of
NPPs could obtain both licenses. The one-step process was well received as it is
shorter and provides encouragement to the prospective owners and operators to
invest in NPPs. On the other hand, it also received criticism for placing increased
constraints on public participation. The main barriers to public participation was
observed as the creation of public contentions and its legitimate requirements to the
ASLB. In public hearings, any public contentions must be decided by the
three-person panel of NRC employees which consists of two technical experts and
one attorney. Any citizen who would like to content an objection must bear sub-
stantial costs which include expert and attorney fees (an estimated cost of $100,000
to $500,000) who normally testify in support of the objecting party (Mariottee
2006; Kyne 2014). The barriers to public participation could undermine promotion
of procedural equity which is essential for effective environmental decision-making
processes and outcomes; thus, in turn, it could negatively affect the people living
near NPPs (Kyne 2014).
In the history of US commercial nuclear power plant licensing, NPPs have not
been well received by communities. There were many objections and resistance by
the public who feared the unpredictable risks associated with nuclear power pro-
duction. When nuclear power energy was introduced, there was a tension between
two groups of scientists—those supporting the advantages of nuclear power and
those who foresaw the risks associated with fuel rods, spent fuels, and radiation.
During 1970s, the sentiments against nuclear power gained momentum and
received significant public attention. Collective public action placed a haul or a
delay of a number of the proposed NPPs at the time (Nuclear Heritage 2013; Kyne
2014). For example, there were more than 70,000 people who protested against
nuclear power to Washington, DC, in May of 1979. For nuclear power energy, the
protesters were not fully granted their constitutional rights of freedom of speech, but
there were more than 1,414 people who protested against the construction of
Seabrook NPP in New Hampshire, where they were arrested on May 2, 1997
(Nuclear Heritage 2013; Kyne 2014).

2.2.2 Embracing the Low-Level Radiation

NPPs regularly or from time to time release radioactive materials in gaseous or

liquid forms from their normal operations, and from temporary shutdowns and
abnormal situations such as a fuel-rod meltdown (Ottaviani and Wehe 1989).
2.2 Invisible Risks and Unknown Consequences 43

Fig. 2.2 Pathways for exposures to radiation from effluent releases from nuclear power plants.
Source Adapted from (National Research Council (USA) & Committee on the Analysis of Cancer
Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities 2012)

Individuals living in the host communities are involuntarily exposed to constant

low-level radiation on a regular basis. In addition, these individuals involuntarily
accept negative consequences from constantly being exposed to low-level radiation.
Figure 2.2 depicts how an NPP releases gaseous and liquid radioactive effluents
during normal operation.
According to the National Research Council (USA) and Committee on the
Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities (2012), there are
mainly two radiation exposure pathways: external radiation and internal radiation.
External radiation pathways include exposure to radionuclides that emit high-level
radiation that could penetrate the human body. Possible sources are directly from a
nuclear power facility, from ionizing radioactive particles present in the air,
radioactive materials, and contaminated water body from radioactive liquid efflu-
ents from the nuclear power plant. Internal radiation pathway includes individuals
receiving radiation thorough intake of radioactive materials into the body. For
example, individuals could inhale air containing radioactive particles, or by con-
suming foods that were ingested with radiative materials.

2.2.3 Consequence of Constant Exposure to Low-Level

Radiation

Many scientists have attempted to prove the casual relationships between low-level
radiation and impacts on health. They have specified some negative health con-
sequences that are related to permanent cellular damage and chronic illnesses,
44 2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

including various types of cancer, such as leukemia, thyroid, and other cancers
(Ramana 2009). Some individuals could even face the worst consequence of pre-
mature death due to radiation (Denton 1987). Many researchers face great chal-
lenges in attempting to establish a correlation between the exposure to low-level
radiation and the incidence of certain kinds of cancer (e.g., Bouges et al. 1999;
Canu et al. 2008; Cardis et al. 1995, 2005; Sexton and Adgate 1999). The primary
reason for this challenge is lack of data that could be used for investigations related
to the attempted establishment in their studies. Some critical data that are not readily
available for studies are data collected for the effects of prolonged exposure to
low-level radiation, varying radiation doses, and health conditions of individuals
prior to moving to the host communities (Kyne 2014).
In the existing studies, there was one study with a focus on cancer incident rates
in the host communities before and after the NPP closure, after decommissioning
(Mangano and Sherman 2013; US NRC 2013a). The two researchers focused their
subject of the study on the Rancho Seco NPP, in Sacramento County, California,
where they evaluated the population living in this particular host community. They
collected two types of cancer incident rates—one consists of incident rates data
collected during the last 2 years of the plant’s operation in 1988 and 1989. The
other included incident rates data of the communities two decades after decom-
missioning period. The study’s findings show that cancer incident rates decline in
18 out of 31 categories. The study concluded that people in the communities who
were exposed to prolonged low-level radiation were more likely to develop ill-
nesses related to cancer (Mangano and Sherman 2013; Kyne 2014). The scientific
study of the effects of exposure to radiation began with the injection of plutonium
into 18 men, women, and children—performed in a U.S. hospital ward in 1945, and
without informing the unwitting subjects of the potential risks and dangers—and
has continued with present-day studies that have attempted to better understand the
human body’s reaction to various radioisotopes (Welsome 1999).

2.2.4 Incomplete Knowledge of Low-Level Radiation

Consequences

It is surprising that nuclear power plants have been in existence and in operation for
more than six decades, but the NRC does not have a solid and complete knowledge
on negative health consequences for individuals exposed to low-level radiation for a
long period of time. The National Research Council (USA) and Committee on the
Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities (2012) conducted a
study design that would allow for the accurate assessing of cancer incident rates
among populations living near NPPs. Their findings include that (1) many epi-
demiologic studies face challenges because of (a) lack of availability and quality of
2.2 Invisible Risks and Unknown Consequences 45

data on cancer mortality and incidence at geographic levels smaller than a county,
(b) lack of quality data on nuclear facility effluent releases, (c) lack of population
mobility risks factors, and (d) low expected statistical power; (2) different study
designs such as risk projection models, ecologic studies, as cohort studies have
strengths and limitations; and (3) effluent release, direct exposure, and meteorology
data are needed to better understand what effect radiation has, depending on dis-
tance and direction from a nuclear power plant. The committee recommends that
the NRC should carry out an epidemiologic study of cancer risks on two areas:
(1) an ecologic study of multiple cancer types and (2) case–control study of cancers
in children born near the nuclear facility.
In their second phase (National Research Council (USA) and Committee on the
Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities 2014), seven
nuclear facilities were selected for the pilot study of cancer risks:
1. Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Morris, Illinois,
2. Millstone Power Station, Waterford, Connecticut,
3. Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Forked River, New Jersey,
4. Haddam Neck Plant, Haddam Neck, Connecticut,
5. Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant, Charlevoix, Michigan,
6. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, San Clemente, California, and
7. Nuclear Fuel Services, Erwin, Tennessee.
As recommended in the Phase I study, the committee will carry out two studies:
a case–control and an ecologic study in Phase II (National Research Council
(USA) and Committee on the Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear
Facilities 2014). The first study examines cancer types of all ages living within
30-mile radius from the nuclear power plant.
(1) “Do cancer incidence and mortality vary by proximity to nuclear facilities?
(2) Does cancer incidence or mortality reflect patterns of radiation exposure
associated with the nuclear facility? (National Research Council (USA) and
Committee on the Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear
Facilities 2014).”
In the latter study, the subjects of the study are children younger than 15 years of
age and their mother lived in areas within a 30-mile radius. The study attempts to
hypothesize that children born by mothers living closer to the nuclear facilities are
more likely to develop cancer than their counterparts who live further away, from
the 30-mile radius. The study’s findings are expected to provide answers to the
following two research questions.
(1) “Is a mother’s residential proximity to a nuclear facility at time of delivery
associated with cancer in her children?
(2) Is estimated radiation exposure during pregnancy, early infancy, or childhood
associated with childhood cancer occurrence? (National Research Council
(USA) and Committee on the Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near
46 2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

Nuclear Facilities 2014)” The current estimated time frame to complete this
pilot study was 16 months, another 30 months to assess feasibility of
nationwide study, and another 30 months to estimate the risk in a nationwide
study; a total of 66 months is projected.
Above all, the agency who is responsible and accountable for regulating the
nuclear power industry does not have a compete knowledge on constant exposure to
low-level radiation. Without a complete knowledge, the authorities seem being
blindfolded and walking on the regulation pathway without any direction. As a
result, this has placed individuals living in the host communities at greater risk.

2.2.5 Nuclear Power Facilities Living Longer Than Human

Average Longevity

The longevity of a commercial NPP is about 120 years, which normally counts the
day operation began until the day its decommission is successfully completed, and
includes 60 years from inception to the decommission; 50 years to cool down the
reactor after its permanent shutdown; and 40 to 60 years to decommission the plant
(Green Peace 2010; Kyne 2014). In general, the existence of nuclear power plants
in host communities could be more than 120 years (Kyne 2014). Activities to
remove an NPP after it has been shut down requires regulated monitoring because
of the removal of several thousand tons of radioactive materials, such as spent fuel
rods. Thus, NRC has adopted three advanced strategies to decommission an NPP:
(1) DECON, or decommissioning strategies;
(2) SAFSTOR, or deferred dismantling; and,
(3) ENTOMB, or the permanent encasing on site of radioactive contaminants (US
NRC 2013a; Kyne 2014).
Among the three strategies, entombing includes permanently encasing the
radioactive materials. In some cases, it requires several years to monitor both
underground water and soil contamination. Hallam Nuclear Power Plant in Nebraska
operated for a short time period and later it was decommissioned in 1971. It was
entombed and the radioactive contaminated materials were buried underground. Due
to the risks for underground water contamination, the Nebraska Department of
Health has been monitoring possible underground water contamination and radia-
tion. The monitoring will last for a period of 119 years, until 2090 (Nebraska Energy
Quarterly 1997; Kyne 2014).
It is evident that after an NPP is introduced to the host communities, the indi-
viduals living in the area have to bear the risks of exposure to low-level radiation,
and face health risks and long-term negative impacts on their environment (Kyne
2014).
2.3 Data and Research Methods 47

2.3 Data and Research Methods

2.3.1 Study Questions

The primary goal of this chapter is to understand the communities hosting nuclear
power plants. The understanding is necessary for effectively managing nuclear
emergency and response. To achieve the primary goal, the following research
questions are determined as follows:
(1) What are demographic characteristics of the individuals living in the com-
munities hosting nuclear power plants in 1990, 2000, and 2010?
(2) Do the demographic characteristics vary with proximity to the nuclear power
plants?
(3) Do the demographic characteristics vary from urban to non-urban areas?
(4) Do the demographic characteristics vary at individual nuclear power plants?
(5) Did the demographic characteristics change between 1900 and 2000, and
between 2000 and 2010?

2.3.2 Study Variables

This chapter attempts to investigate the demographic characteristics of populations

living in either of the two study areas described above. The demographic variables
selected for this study purpose include both racial/ethnic and socioeconomic
variables.
First, the racial/ethnic variables included the categories White, Black, Asian,
Hispanic, Native American, Other, and Color. They are defined as follows:
(1) Percent White as percent of all non-Hispanic Whites;
(2) Percent Black is as percent of non-Hispanic Blacks or African Americans;
(3) Percent Asian as percent of Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander;
(4) Percent Native American as percent of American Indian or Alaska Native;
(5) Percent Other as percent of Some Other Race whose are not included in the
White, Black, or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian,
and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander race categories;
(6) Percent Color as percent of all other races except non-Hispanic Whites; and
(7) Percent Hispanic as percent of people who are Hispanic origin.
Second, the socioeconomic variables selected for inclusion were as follows:
(1) renter-occupied housing,
(2) unemployment rate,
(3) percent living in poverty,
48 2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

(4) mean household income, and

(5) percent composition at the census-tract level.
The construction of the study variables is depicted in Appendix A (Table A.1).
In addition to the above-mentioned demographic variables, this study also
includes distance from the NPP in order to analyze proximity-based disparities in
any of the given study variables. The distance from the NPP was measured in
Euclidean distance, in miles, between the census-tract center point and the NPP.

2.3.3 Study Data

To answer the research questions above, multiple datasets were obtained. First, for
demographic characteristics, the US Census Bureau and GeoLytics datasets are
acquired:
(1) US Census 1990, long form, normalized to 2010 census-tract boundaries
(GeoLytics 2012b);
(2) US Census 2000, long form, normalized to 2010 census-tract boundaries
(GeoLytics 2012a); and
(3) US Census 2010/American Community Survey, 5-year estimate (GeoLytics
2012c).
The 1990 and 2000 data containing census-tract level surveys are normalized to
those of 2010 census boundaries. This normalization allows for the comparison of
study variables across the study years. The geographical unit of analysis in this
study is the census tract. The selected datasets for 1990, 2000, and 2010 contain
racial and ethnic subgroups and socioeconomic data.
In order to conduct spatial analyses including tracking the changes in study
variables across the study years, this study used the TIGER/Line shapefiles and the
2010 US Census Summary File 1 Demographic Profile (DP1) for the USA and
Puerto Rico from the US Census Bureau’s Web site. (The US Census Bureau
2010b). The selected study variables were merged with the selected shapefiles in the
ArcGIS 10.2 program.
Geographical locations of the 99 nuclear reactors which are currently in oper-
ation were created in the shapefiles to conduct spatial analysis. Information was
obtained from the NRC’s Web site (NRC 2012) in order to create information on
the following: geographical locations of the reactors, data on reactor type and
containment type, design type, docket number, licensee, operating license issue
date, commercial operation start date, renewed operation license, issue date, and
operating license expiration date. However, since the September 11, 2011 event, the
NRC did not provide latitude and longitude information for safety reason. To obtain
latitude and longitude information for individual NPPs, individual planta was
located in the Google Earth program and the XY coordinates were obtained
manually.
2.3 Data and Research Methods 49

2.3.4 Study Methods

This study covers populations living within a 50-mile radius of an NPP and con-
siders this distance to define a host community. Those living at a distance greater
than a 50-mile radius from an NPP are thus not considered a host community, for
the purposes of this study. The selection of a 50-mile distance reflects the need to
consider two emergency zones, namely the plume exposure pathway zone, which
includes a radius of approximately 10 miles from the reactor site, and the ingestion
exposure pathway zone, which has a radius of approximately 50 miles from the
reactor site as defined by the NRC (US NRC 2013b).
However, the NRC’s use of the 50-mile distance is considered to be contro-
versial, given that more than 37 environmental and civic organizations argued that
the 50-mile distance is not adequate to allow for full emergency preparedness, in
reference to the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi accidents (NIRS 2013). The
selection of a 50-mile distance reflects the legal definition and boundaries of
emergency zones. To determine the host communities surrounding an NPP, the
census tracts that are within a 50-mile distance from the power plant are included as
host communities (Fig. 2.3).

Fig. 2.3 Distance between census-tract centroid and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
within 50-mile distance; Source (Kyne 2014)
50 2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

2.4 Overall Demographic Composition by Distance

This section explains findings of demographic characteristics in communities

hosting 61 nuclear power plants. As stated, the overall population is the sum of
population at all census tracts living around the nuclear power plants within a
50-mile radius. In some locations, when the two power plants are located close to
each other, or a distance less than 50 miles from one another, some census tracts
could be included in both host communities for each of the power plants. In such
cases, the census tracts are counted only once. In other words, the total population
living in the communities hosting the 61 power plants include only those indi-
viduals living in unique census tracts. To understand the disparities, the study
measures the socio-demographic characteristics of the host communities by the six
distance categories, namely 0–10 miles from the nearest NPP, 11–20 miles, 21–30
miles, 31–40 miles, 41–50 miles, 0–50 miles, and those more than 50 miles from
the nearest NPP (outside), included in the study periods, 1990, 2000, and 2010.
Population living in those communities outside of a 50-mile radius within the state
are also described in the table (outside areas) to compare the demographic char-
acteristics of population between host communities and non-host communities.
There are 87.47 million in 2010, 82.93 million in 2000, and 75.56 million
individuals living in areas within a 50-mile radius from the 61 nuclear power plants
(Tables 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). Looking at each racial and ethnic group, the total pop-
ulation consists of 71% White, 17% Black, 4.4% Asian, 6.9% Other, 13.18%
Hispanic, and 36.32% Color. When comparing with the outside areas in 2010, the
71% White were in host communities, whereas there are 75% White in outside
areas. This implies that the present of White individual is higher in outside areas
than their counterparts in the host communities. In other words, more White people
prefer to live in non-host communities. In contrast, more Black people tend to live
in host communities. There are 17.30% Black in the host communities, whereas
only 10.55% of their counterparts present in outside areas. Unlike Black, fewer
Hispanics are found in the host communities. There are 13.18% Hispanic living in
the host communities, whereas 16% of their counterparts live in outside areas.
Findings are similar in other racial groups including Asian, Native Americans, and
the “Other” category. “People of Color” is a category that includes the total pop-
ulation excluding non-Hispanic Whites (see Appendix A, Table A.1) and was
observed as a more prevalent racial group among communities within a 50-mile
radius of an NPP (36%) than their counterparts living among communities in
outside areas (35%) (Table 2.1). Findings indicate that the presence of People of
Color in the outside areas was slightly lower than the presence of their counterparts
in the host communities. The following observations on populations living in the
host communities in comparison with the communities living in the outside areas
could be made from the study findings: They (1) earn higher than the average
household income; (2) are more likely to live in renter-occupied housing units;
Table 2.1 Demographic composition according to area, sorted by distance from any one of the 61 US-based commercial NPPs, based on 2010 American
community survey data
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 #Outside
Tract 881 3,123 5,902 7,267 4,452 21,625 51,432
Tract area (sq. mile) 17,411 53,061 77,062 89,543 49,638 286,714 3,510,028
Total population 3,785,622 12,924,633 24,002,206 29,428,636 17,329,084 87,470,176 216,495,088
White 3,149,990 10,331,676 17,654,848 20,074,272 10,964,530 62,175,316 162,720,384
Black 403,053 1,574,326 4,038,444 5,493,675 3,623,037 15,132,535 22,846,216
Asian 76,117 347,859 782,670 1,464,925 1,174,769 3,846,340 10,830,826
Native American 9,872 38,608 69,544 110,421 59,304 287,749 2,192,716
Others 146,590 632,164 1,456,700 2,285,341 1,507,444 6,028,239 17,904,950
Hispanic 309,223 1,287,201 2,964,844 4,326,143 2,640,485 11,527,896 36,199,636
Color 844,011 3,417,169 8,130,174 11,683,426 7,698,411 31,773,192 75,619,312
Female 1,922,927 6,609,058 12,335,718 15,167,198 8,940,031 44,974,931 109,591,612
Old (65+ years) 419,393 1,372,779 2,302,602 2,648,012 1,354,474 8,085,141 20,575,376
2.4 Overall Demographic Composition by Distance

Kid (<5 years) 25,838 100,919 260,071 346,928 234,982 968,684 1,533,545
White (%) 83.21 79.94 73.56 68.21 63.27 71.08 75.16
Black (%) 10.65 12.18 16.83 18.67 20.91 17.30 10.55
Asian (%) 2.01 2.69 3.26 4.98 6.78 4.40 5.00
Native American (%) 0.26 0.30 0.29 0.38 0.34 0.33 1.01
Others (%) 3.87 4.89 6.07 7.77 8.70 6.89 8.27
Hispanic (%) 8.17 9.96 12.35 14.70 15.24 13.18 16.72
Color (%) 22.30 26.44 33.87 39.70 44.42 36.32 34.93
Female (%) 50.80 51.14 51.39 51.54 51.59 51.42 50.62
Old (65+ years) (%) 13.31 13.29 13.04 13.19 12.35 13.00 12.64
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.41 6.41 6.44 6.32 6.49 6.40 6.71
(continued)
51
Table 2.1 (continued)
52

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 #Outside

Native-born (%) 92.57 90.93 88.08 84.89 79.61 85.94 87.82
Renter housing units (%) 21.72 25.60 28.71 33.24 34.81 30.66 28.80
College degree or higher (%) 27.96 29.86 29.46 30.46 30.16 29.93 27.07
Unemployment (%) 7.19 7.33 8.02 8.43 8.21 8.06 7.87
Poverty (%) 10.10 11.39 12.98 13.72 13.53 12.98 14.16
Mean household income ($) 74,831 75,869 73,736 75,122 76,236 75,057 69,179
2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants
Table 2.2 Demographic composition according to area, sorted by distance from any one of the 61 US-based commercial NPPs, based on 2000 American
community survey data normalized to 2010 US census boundaries
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 #Outside
Tract 881 3,123 5,902 7,267 4,452 21,625 51,432
Tract area (sq. mile) 17,411 53,061 77,062 89,543 49,638 286,714 3,510,028
Total population 3,320,806 11,798,208 22,752,148 28,365,748 16,693,309 82,930,216 198,491,696
White 2,845,596 9,728,702 17,187,364 19,820,268 10,866,363 60,448,296 150,905,424
Black 317,882 1,344,595 3,741,738 5,233,932 3,497,843 14,135,990 20,225,750
Asian 42,950 218,981 533,037 1,084,885 840,199 2,720,052 7,830,550
Native American 10,232 40,587 75,776 118,638 61,272 306,505 2,141,484
Others 104,272 465,182 1,214,213 2,108,042 1,427,585 5,319,294 17,388,556
Hispanic 165,809 803,233 2,132,320 3,296,326 2,085,288 8,482,976 26,755,504
Color 571,357 2,540,502 6,766,977 10,081,858 6,765,774 26,726,468 60,181,296
Female 1,690,846 6,038,254 11,738,862 14,667,990 8,638,993 42,774,942 100,730,780
Old (65+ years) 365,327 1,255,586 2,227,851 2,563,851 1,323,869 7,727,279 18,533,455
2.4 Overall Demographic Composition by Distance

Kid (<5 years) 25,705 106,589 301,085 415,214 286,593 1,133,983 1,668,418
White (%) 85.69 82.46 75.54 69.87 65.09 72.89 76.03
Black (%) 9.57 11.40 16.45 18.45 20.95 17.05 10.19
Asian (%) 1.29 1.86 2.34 3.82 5.03 3.28 3.95
Native American (%) 0.31 0.34 0.33 0.42 0.37 0.37 1.08
Others (%) 3.14 3.94 5.34 7.43 8.55 6.41 8.76
Hispanic (%) 4.99 6.81 9.37 11.62 12.49 10.23 13.48
Color (%) 17.21 21.53 29.74 35.54 40.53 32.23 30.32
Female (%) 50.92 51.18 51.59 51.71 51.75 51.58 50.75
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.84 12.91 12.96 12.94 12.18 12.78 12.28
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.09 7.93 8.05 7.93 8.19 8.02 8.25
(continued)
53
Table 2.2 (continued)
54

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 #Outside

Native-born (%) 94.71 92.87 89.78 86.75 81.53 87.72 89.46
Renter housing units (%) 22.79 26.59 30.42 35.42 37.35 32.64 30.00
College degree or higher (%) 23.76 26.02 25.59 26.41 25.77 25.89 23.77
Unemployment (%) 4.76 4.85 5.71 6.02 6.40 5.79 5.77
Poverty (%) 8.90 9.43 11.59 12.38 12.95 11.72 12.65
Mean household income ($) 73,480 75,633 73,474 74,511 75,395 74,520 68,904
2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants
Table 2.3 Demographic composition according to area, sorted by distance from any one of the 61 US-based commercial NPPs, based on 1990 American
community survey data normalized to 2010 US census boundaries
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 #Outside
Tract 881 3,123 5,902 7,267 4,452 21,625 51,432
Tract area (sq. mile) 17,411 53,061 77,062 89,543 49,638 286,714 3,510,028
Total population 2,872,653 10,412,267 20,904,464 26,161,414 15,209,935 75,560,736 173,148,624
White 2,547,599 9,011,480 16,755,732 19,829,114 10,838,429 58,982,352 140,844,256
Black 261,483 1,113,991 3,288,618 4,674,866 3,189,857 12,528,815 17,401,612
Asian 25,874 131,508 337,458 668,567 514,220 1,677,627 5,549,255
Native American 9,013 30,139 58,238 95,796 47,295 240,481 1,774,563
Others 28,784 124,947 464,452 893,046 620,151 2,131,380 7,578,717
Hispanic 89,271 395,405 1,412,975 2,101,466 1,351,832 5,350,949 16,549,152
Color 381,220 1,659,713 5,037,307 7,364,445 4,983,126 19,425,812 40,859,180
Female 1,460,436 5,366,463 10,849,682 13,599,014 7,906,815 39,182,411 88,354,808
Old (65+ years) 321,785 1,144,949 2,194,278 2,595,350 1,357,899 7,613,219 17,441,976
2.4 Overall Demographic Composition by Distance

Kid (<5 years) 22,867 96,001 284,830 398,670 272,221 1,075,803 1,554,033
White (%) 88.68 86.55 80.15 75.80 71.26 78.06 81.34
Black (%) 9.10 10.70 15.73 17.87 20.97 16.58 10.05
Asian (%) 0.90 1.26 1.61 2.56 3.38 2.22 3.20
Native American (%) 0.31 0.29 0.28 0.37 0.31 0.32 1.02
Others (%) 1.00 1.20 2.22 3.41 4.08 2.82 4.38
Hispanic (%) 3.11 3.80 6.76 8.03 8.89 7.08 9.56
Color (%) 13.27 15.94 24.10 28.15 32.76 25.71 23.60
Female (%) 50.84 51.54 51.90 51.98 51.98 51.86 51.03
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.63 12.71 13.10 13.09 12.53 12.91 12.38
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.75 8.62 8.66 8.53 8.53 8.59 8.93
(continued)
55
Table 2.3 (continued)
56

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 #Outside

Native-born (%) 96.32 95.18 92.06 90.39 86.66 90.99 92.52
Renter housing units (%) 24.68 28.03 31.89 36.97 38.74 34.20 31.33
College degree or higher (%) 18.52 21.32 21.01 22.12 21.24 21.39 19.87
Unemployment (%) 5.55 5.20 6.20 6.60 6.60 6.26 6.34
Poverty (%) 9.60 9.70 12.02 12.62 12.29 11.87 13.66
Mean household income ($) 64,953 68,022 66,607 67,859 69,318 67,717 61,101
2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants
2.4 Overall Demographic Composition by Distance 57

(3) are more likely to hold college degree or higher; (4) are less likely to be
employed; and (5) are less likely to be native-born citizens. However, findings do
not show any significant differences between the two areas in age or gender study
variables. Similar demographic patterns are observed in the years 2000 (Table 2.2)
and 1990 (Table 2.3).
Looking into proximity-based disparities in demographic characteristics, the
findings indicate that there is a negative association between the percent White and
the distance. In the 2010 data, the percent of White population was observed as
83.21, 79.94, 73.56, 68.21, and 63.27%, respectively, in the 0–10 miles, 11–20
miles, 21–30 miles, 31–40 miles, and 41–50 mile categories, respectively
(Table 2.1). In contrast, the positive association is observed between the percent in
other racial groups, namely Black, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American, and their
distance from the NPP. Similarly, the positive association is observed between the
percent of socio-demographic study variables, namely poverty, unemployment rate,
education attainment, and household income (Table 2.1, Fig. 2.4). Similar patterns
in the study variables are observed in the US Census data for the years 2000
(Table 2.2) and 1990 (Table 2.3).

Fig. 2.4 Demographic trends (race/ethnicity) in the areas surrounding any one of the 61 US-based
commercial NPPs, as sorted by distance
58 2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

2.5 Hosting Communities in Urban and Non-urban Areas

To define the boundaries of metropolitan areas, this study used the Combined
Statistical Areas (CSAs) 2010 TIGER Shape file (The US Census Bureau 2010b).
The Shape file consists of metropolitan statistical areas which are created based on
urbanized areas (50,000 people or more) and micropolitan statistical areas, which
are based on urban clusters (between 10,000 and fewer than 50,000 people) (The
US Census Bureau 2010a).
In 2010, out of the 87 million people living within a 50-mile radius of an NPP,
77 million lived in a metropolitan area (Table 2.4). Within that same group, those
living within a 50-mile radius of an NPP, there was a higher percent Black, Asian,
and Hispanic in metropolitan areas as compared to non-metropolitan areas.
A higher percent of Color people, 37%, lived in metropolitan areas than that lived
in non-metropolitan areas, 31%. There was a pattern in the socioeconomic data,
such that metropolitan areas included more people with a college degree or who had
completed some other form of higher education, a greater percentage of unem-
ployed individuals, and fewer people living in poverty. Further, the mean household
income was higher than as compared to demographically similar households in
non-metropolitan areas. Similar patterns were observed in the US Census data for
the years 2000 (Table 2.5) and 1990 (Table 2.6), respectively.
Over the past three decades, in communities sited within a 50-mile radius of an
NPP, there has been a sharp decrease in the percent White among the population,
with a compensating dramatic increase in the percent Hispanic and percent Color
(Fig. 2.5), in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. This same pattern is
observed in non-metropolitan areas when considering the demographic data for the
outlying areas.

2.6 Hosting Communities at Individual Nuclear

Power Plants

In this section, the demographic characteristics of the communities surrounding

individual NPPs in areas within a 10-mile radius and within a 50-mile radius are
discussed. Second, the percent change in total population of the communities in
proximity to an individual NPP during the periods 1990–2000 and 2000–2010 is listed.
Analysis and discussion of the socio-demographic composition of the host
communities consider those populations living in communities within a 10-mile
radius and a 50-mile radius of a NPP, respectively. First, each NPP was ranked
according to the total population living within a 10-mile radius according to 2010
US Census data. The total such population varies from just 2,654, near South Texas
Project, Texas, to as much as 257,462, at Limerick Generating Station,
Pennsylvania (Table 2.7)—approximately 0.06% of the total US population lives
within a 10-mile radius of the Limerick Generating Station. The ten NPPs with the
largest population living in such close proximity as of 2010 were as follows:
Table 2.4 Demographic composition in metropolitan areas within a 50-mile radius of any one of the 61 US commercial NPPs, based on 2010 American
community survey data
Urban Non-urban Urban outside Non-urban outside
Tract 19,222 2,403 35,148 16,284
Tract area (sq. mile) 173,650 113,064 764,061 2,745,968
Total population 77,488,104 9,982,079 152,552,224 63,942,864
White 54,565,688 7,609,628 111,465,152 51,255,228
Black 13,487,840 1,644,695 17,367,044 5,479,172
Asian 3,663,882 182,458 8,893,478 1,937,348
Native American 230,165 57,584 1,038,965 1,153,751
Others 5,540,525 487,714 13,787,588 4,117,362
Hispanic 10,477,473 1,050,423 27,627,094 8,572,543
Color 28,723,434 3,049,757 57,342,840 18,276,470
White (%) 70.42 76.23 73.07 80.16
Black (%) 17.41 16.48 11.38 8.57
Asian (%) 4.73 1.83 5.83 3.03
Native American (%) 0.30 0.58 0.68 1.80
Others (%) 7.15 4.89 9.04 6.44
Hispanic (%) 13.52 10.52 18.11 13.41
2.6 Hosting Communities at Individual Nuclear Power Plants

Color (%) 37.07 30.55 37.59 28.58

Female (%) 51.49 50.83 50.79 50.22
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.88 13.96 11.92 14.38
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.37 6.65 6.80 6.49
Native-born (%) 84.99 93.34 85.80 92.62
Renter housing units (%) 31.29 25.94 30.40 25.35
College degree or higher (%) 30.93 22.02 29.28 21.86
Unemployment (%) 8.12 7.49 7.94 7.69
Poverty (%) 12.71 15.09 13.51 15.71
Mean household income ($) 76,850 61,118 73,392 59,404
59
 60

Table 2.5 Demographic composition in metropolitan areas within a 50-mile radius of any one of the 61 US commercial NPPs, based on 2000 American
community survey data
Urban Non-urban Urban outside Non-urban outside
Tract 19,222 2,403 35,148 16,284
Tract area (sq. mile) 173,650 113,064 764,061 2,745,968
Total population 73,925,584 9,004,636 138,833,968 59,657,720
White 53,513,884 6,934,410 103,039,168 47,866,268
Black 12,672,128 1,463,862 15,169,283 5,056,467
Asian 2,601,777 118,275 6,327,916 1,502,634
Native American 257,619 48,886 1,033,967 1,107,517
Others 4,880,127 439,167 13,263,712 4,124,844
Hispanic 7,868,239 614,737 20,485,020 6,270,484
Color 24,394,302 2,332,166 45,308,664 14,872,632
White (%) 72.39 77.01 74.22 80.23
Black (%) 17.14 16.26 10.93 8.48
Asian (%) 3.52 1.31 4.56 2.52
Native American (%) 0.35 0.54 0.74 1.86
Others (%) 6.60 4.88 9.55 6.91
Hispanic (%) 10.64 6.83 14.76 10.51
Color (%) 33.00 25.90 32.64 24.93
Female (%) 51.64 51.07 50.87 50.47
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.64 13.93 11.53 14.03
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.04 7.89 8.43 7.83
Native-born (%) 86.80 95.32 87.55 93.91
Renter housing units (%) 33.52 25.66 32.07 25.64
College degree or higher (%) 26.69 19.29 25.87 18.92
Unemployment (%) 5.81 5.55 5.63 6.11
Poverty (%) 11.51 13.51 11.90 14.41
Mean household income ($) 76,287 60,094 73,621 58,173
2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants
Table 2.6 Demographic composition in metropolitan areas within a 50-mile radius of any one of the 61 US commercial NPPs, based on 1990 American
community survey data
Urban Non-urban Urban outside Non-urban outside
Tract 19,222 2,403 35,148 16,284
Tract area (sq. mile) 173,650 113,064 764,061 2,745,968
Total population 67,602,272 7,958,464 120,016,720 53,131,904
White 52,568,548 6,413,805 96,121,016 44,723,232
Black 11,264,808 1,264,007 12,908,319 4,493,294
Asian 1,598,934 78,693 4,243,576 1,305,679
Native American 201,596 38,885 842,528 932,035
Others 1,968,337 163,043 5,901,096 1,677,621
Hispanic 5,051,194 299,755 12,640,686 3,908,466
Color 17,752,876 1,672,936 30,344,224 10,514,956
White (%) 77.76 80.59 80.09 84.17
Black (%) 16.66 15.88 10.76 8.46
Asian (%) 2.37 0.99 3.54 2.46
Native American (%) 0.30 0.49 0.70 1.75
Others (%) 2.91 2.05 4.92 3.16
Hispanic (%) 7.47 3.77 10.53 7.36
2.6 Hosting Communities at Individual Nuclear Power Plants

Color (%) 26.26 21.02 25.28 19.79

Female (%) 51.89 51.55 51.10 50.87
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.79 13.94 11.62 14.12
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.57 8.69 9.02 8.74
Native-born (%) 90.24 97.37 91.02 95.91
Renter housing units (%) 35.05 27.20 33.54 26.73
College degree or higher (%) 22.01 15.96 21.74 15.63
Unemployment (%) 6.29 5.94 6.10 6.93
Poverty (%) 11.51 15.00 12.45 16.42
Mean household income ($) 69,394 53,429 65,690 50,809
61
62 2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

Fig. 2.5 Demographic trends (race/ethnicity) in the areas surrounding any one of the 61 US-based
commercial NPPs, as sorted by urban and non-urban areas

(1) Limerick Generating Station, Pennsylvania, 257,462; (2) FitzPatrick Nuclear

Power Plant, New York, 253,977; (3) St. Lucie Plant, Florida, 209,961;
(4) Catawba Nuclear Station, South Carolina, 200,869; (5) Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Pennsylvania, 191,325; (6) McGuire Nuclear Station, North
Carolina, 188,937; (7) Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Florida, 147,705;
(8) Surry Nuclear Power Station, Virginia, 133,856; (9) Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, New Jersey, 128,893; and (10) Seabrook Station, New
Hampshire, 120,876. The three NPPs with the smallest total populations living
within a 10-mile radius as of 2010 were as follows: (1) South Texas Project, Texas,
2,654; (2) Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Arizona, 3,090; and
(3) Columbia Generating Station, Washington, 6,007 (Table 2.7).
In 2000, among the ten NPPs with the largest such populations as of 2010,
Beaver Valley Power Station, Pennsylvania, and Millstone Power Station,
Connecticut, replaced Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Florida, and Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, New Jersey (Table 2.7); the three NPPs with the
smallest such populations were the same in 2000 (Table 2.7). In 1990, among the
top ten such NPPs as of 2000, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, New
Jersey, replaced Millstone Power Station, Connecticut, while the bottom-three
NPPs in terms of such population again were unchanged (Table 2.7).
The total population living within a 50-mile radius of an NPP in 1990, 2000, and
2010 are also depicted in Table 2.8. The total population of communities sited in
such areas ranged between 111,113, and 15 million (Table 2.8); approximately 5%
of the total US population as of 2010 lived within a 50-mile radius of Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Station. The ten NPPs with the largest total population
living within a 50-mile radius were as follows: (1) Indian Point Nuclear Generating,
Table 2.7 Total population living in census tracts within a 10-mile radius of a NPP as of 2010, as measured from census-tract centroid point to NPP
Index Plant name State No. of tract Tract area Total population (0–10 mile) 2010 Rank
(10-mile) (sq. mile) 1990 2000 2010
1 Browns Ferry Alabama 10 302 36,259 38,640 40,292 31
2 Farley Alabama 5 358 15,104 15,882 17,021 50
3 Palo Verde Arizona 1 120 1,365 2,112 3,090 60
4 Arkansas Nuclear Arkansas 8 196 32,038 37,734 43,212 29
5 Diablo Canyon California 7 358 39,157 40,444 27,776 40
6 Millstone Connecticut 32 266 118,811 115,203 118,025 11
7 Saint Lucie Florida 35 234 132,150 157,349 206,961 3
8 Turkey Point Florida 26 208 89,348 99,529 147,705 7
9 Hatch Georgia 3 333 9,459 10,524 10,422 55
10 Vogtle Georgia 2 325 6,629 7,929 8,333 58
11 Braidwood Illinois 10 327 28,159 32,863 35,921 32
12 Byron Illinois 5 300 19,736 22,901 23,750 43
13 Clinton Illinois 4 254 13,021 13,049 12,773 51
14 Dresden Illinois 17 251 44,647 54,839 73,784 18
2.6 Hosting Communities at Individual Nuclear Power Plants

15 La Salle Illinois 3 188 10,831 11,165 12,195 52

16 Quad Cities Illinois 7 272 33,742 32,764 32,223 35
17 Duane Arnold Iowa 22 291 77,265 90,277 95,814 14
18 Wolf Creek Kansas 3 654 8,404 8,865 8,587 57
19 River Bend Louisiana 5 239 16,273 18,311 18,786 49
20 Waterford Louisiana 18 285 61,978 67,869 73,071 19
21 Calvert Cliffs Maryland 10 258 33,438 48,206 48,285 26
22 Pilgrim Massachusetts 15 453 59,169 66,086 69,440 20
23 D.C. Cook Michigan 16 183 51,729 53,837 53,507 25
(continued)
63
Table 2.7 (continued)
64

Index Plant name State No. of tract Tract area Total population (0–10 mile) 2010 Rank
(10-mile) (sq. mile) 1990 2000 2010
24 FermiFermi Michigan 24 268 78,888 82,873 85,991 15
25 Palisades Michigan 8 183 34,133 34,594 33,432 34
26 Monticello Minnesota 8 308 28,856 42,437 56,001 23
27 Prairie Island Minnesota 5 226 22,549 24,295 25,260 41
28 Grand Gulf Mississippi 4 662 13,756 14,443 12,168 53
29 Callaway Missouri 2 237 8,124 10,726 11,642 54
30 Cooper Nebraska 3 670 11,078 10,205 9,770 56
31 Fort Calhoun Nebraska 5 173 15,687 17,820 18,933 48
32 Seabrook New Hampshire 30 270 101,342 117,140 120,876 10
33 Hope Creek New Jersey 15 332 34,738 40,224 47,275 27
34 Oyster Creek New Jersey 29 287 91,665 114,293 128,893 9
35 Salem New Jersey 15 332 34,738 40,224 47,275 28
36 FitzPatrick New York 55 292 229,882 242,165 253,977 2
37 Ginna New York 9 374 30,260 29,878 29,580 36
38 Indian Point New York 9 374 30,260 29,878 29,580 37
39 Nine Mile Point New York 13 139 49,871 59,508 65,466 21
40 Brunswick North Carolina 11 160 13,649 18,639 28,812 39
41 McGuire North Carolina 47 322 61,535 117,264 188,937 6
42 Shearon Harris North Carolina 19 272 24,724 54,745 84,598 16
43 Davis-Besse Ohio 6 416 22,999 23,501 23,312 45
44 Perry Ohio 22 141 68,920 75,998 80,167 17
45 Beaver Valley Pennsylvania 33 279 119,111 115,882 108,656 12
46 Limerick Pennsylvania 62 350 184,712 222,564 257,462 1
(continued)
2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants
Table 2.7 (continued)
Index Plant name State No. of tract Tract area Total population (0–10 mile) 2010 Rank
(10-mile) (sq. mile) 1990 2000 2010
47 Peach Bottom Pennsylvania 10 317 35,760 40,396 43,032 30
48 Susquehanna Pennsylvania 14 287 51,798 53,318 55,117 24
49 Three Mile Island Pennsylvania 41 297 156,537 177,279 191,325 5
50 Catawba South Carolina 46 309 101,221 137,392 200,869 4
51 Oconee South Carolina 8 309 30,342 32,295 33,936 33
52 Robinson South Carolina 15 281 51,644 58,346 64,579 22
53 Summer South Carolina 5 457 14,256 18,174 22,287 46
54 Sequoyah Tennessee 20 312 76,278 90,338 104,716 13
55 Watts Bar Tennessee 5 417 17,803 22,704 24,916 42
56 Comanche Peak Texas 6 356 16,383 23,844 28,892 38
57 South Texas Texas 1 25 3,233 2,848 2,654 61
58 North Anna Virginia 6 363 14,747 19,529 23,603 44
59 Surry Virginia 29 356 108,530 121,515 133,856 8
60 Columbia Washington 1 209 3,530 4,364 6,007 59
2.6 Hosting Communities at Individual Nuclear Power Plants

61 Point Beach Wisconsin 5 192 20,905 20,819 19,752 47

All 61 plants in operation (0–10) 881 17,411 2,872,653 3,320,806 3,785,622
All 61 plants in operation (0–50) 21625 286,714 75,560,733 82,930,217 87,470,180
65
66 2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

New York, 15,118,181; (2) Limerick Generating Station, Pennsylvania, 6,559,209;

(3) Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Illinois, 4,700,949; (4) Hope Creek Generating
Station, New Jersey, 4,372,701; (5) Fermi, Michigan, 4,368,235; (6) Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, New Jersey, 4,328,469; (7) Peach Bottom Atomic Power
Station, Pennsylvania, 4,124,024; (8) Seabrook Station, New Hampshire,
3,767,215; (9) Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Florida, 3,318,548; and
(10) Pilgrim Plant, Massachusetts, 3,130,058.
The three NPPs with the smallest such populations were as follows: (1) Cooper
Nuclear Station, Nebraska, 111,113; (2) Wolf Creek Generating Station, Kansas,
138,464; and (3) Arkansas Nuclear One, Arkansas, 194,963. In 2000, among the ten
NPPs with the largest such populations as of 2010, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station,
Massachusetts, replaced Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Florida (Table 2.8). In
1990, among the ten NPPs with the largest such populations as of 2000, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating, Florida, replaced Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station,
Massachusetts (Table 2.8). The three NPPs with the smallest such populations were
unchanged relative to 2010 in both 2000 (Table 2.8) and 1990 (Table 2.8).

2.7 Demographic Changes in 1990–2000 and 2000–2010

The percent change in population size within both a 10-mile radius and a 50-mile
radius during the periods 1990–2000 and 2000–2010 was tracked. Among commu-
nities within a 10-mile radius of an NPP from 2000 to 2010, there was an increase in
total population at 44 NPPs, while at the remaining 15 NPPs, the total such population
declined. The percent change ranged from a 61% increase, in the area surrounding
McGuire Nuclear Station, North Carolina (Fig. 2.6), to a 31% decrease among the
communities surrounding Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, California. Large
positive percent changes during the period 2000–2010 also occurred in the areas
immediately surrounding Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, North Carolina, 55%, and
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, North Carolina, 55%; a large negative percent
change also occurred in the area surrounding Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Mississippi
(−16%). From 1990 to 2000, the largest percent change in total population living
within a 10-mile radius of a NPP occurred at Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,
North Carolina (121%); the communities surrounding McGuire Nuclear Station,
North Carolina, also experienced dramatic population growth (91%).
Fifty-six NPPs saw a positive percent change, or an increase in the population
living in communities within a 50-mile radius; the remaining 9 NPPs saw a decrease
in such populations from 2000 to 2010 (Fig. 2.7). The percent change range varied
between 51 and −7%. The largest percent change occurred among the communities
within a 50-mile radius of Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station, Arizona (51%);
the same NPP also saw the largest percent change in the growth of its same such
population during the period 1990–2000 (53%). LaSalle County Station, Illinois
(28%), and Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, North Carolina (27%), also saw sig-
nificant growth in the population living within a 50-mile radius of each respective
Table 2.8 Total population living in census tracts within a 50-mile radius of a NPP as of 2010, as measured from census-tract centroid point to NPP
Index Plant name State Tract Tract area Total population (50 mile) 2010 Rank
(50-mile) (sq. mile) 1990 2000 2010
1 Browns Ferry Alabama 207 6,353 716,311 812,964 885,374 38
2 Farley Alabama 94 6,642 316,989 343,659 360,352 55
3 Palo Verde Arizona 534 6,942 1,295,802 1,799,929 2,207,889 17
4 Arkansas Nuclear Arkansas 45 6,046 154,290 182,869 194,963 59
5 Diablo Canyon California 90 3,048 361,432 409,562 448,292 51
6 Millstone Connecticut 395 5,103 1,522,087 1,589,650 1,667,925 24
7 Saint Lucie Florida 266 3,296 732,319 930,833 1,151,024 30
8 Turkey Point Florida 691 4,431 2,489,137 3,024,321 3,318,548 9
9 Hatch Georgia 72 6,586 243,782 284,616 304,217 56
10 Vogtle Georgia 139 6,248 517,981 587,317 628,353 46
11 Braidwood Illinois 660 5,806 2,367,196 2,718,397 3,018,399 11
12 Byron Illinois 199 5,627 706,621 773,547 821,645 40
13 Clinton Illinois 154 5,851 548,176 577,409 608,176 47
2.7 Demographic Changes in 1990–2000 and 2000–2010

14 Dresden Illinois 1037 5,838 3,901,073 4,433,036 4,700,949 3

15 La Salle Illinois 235 5,775 683,266 886,835 1,137,865 31
16 Quad Cities Illinois 154 5,824 539,561 547,635 544,388 48
17 Duane Arnold Iowa 129 5,795 462,956 510,461 543,720 49
18 Wolf Creek Kansas 39 5,973 133,789 140,997 138,464 60
19 River Bend Louisiana 161 6,869 656,582 737,814 814,822 41
20 Waterford Louisiana 487 6,269 1,655,821 1,778,252 1,656,164 25
21 Calvert Cliffs Maryland 438 6,082 1,460,569 1,605,592 1,719,445 22
22 Pilgrim Massachusetts 747 4,394 2,907,647 3,078,452 3,130,058 10
23 D.C. Cook Michigan 227 5,853 809,517 861,818 873,728 39
(continued)
67
Table 2.8 (continued)
68

Index Plant name State Tract Tract area Total population (50 mile) 2010 Rank
(50-mile) (sq. mile) 1990 2000 2010
24 Fermi Michigan 1312 4,552 4,489,966 4,542,979 4,368,235 5
25 Palisades Michigan 226 6,785 794,744 882,586 899,600 36
26 Monticello Minnesota 450 5,299 1,544,634 1,781,553 1,950,169 19
27 Prairie Island Minnesota 450 5,643 1,465,322 1,686,829 1,800,095 20
28 Grand Gulf Mississippi 56 6,076 214,616 218,887 210,536 58
29 Callaway Missouri 81 5,752 307,345 357,726 392,917 53
30 Cooper Nebraska 38 6,168 117,399 115,868 111,113 61
31 Fort Calhoun Nebraska 269 5,587 731,120 813,760 890,963 37
32 Seabrook New Hampshire 868 4,195 3,465,615 3,683,764 3,767,215 8
33 Hope Creek New Jersey 1097 5,684 4,052,631 4,189,795 4,372,701 4
34 Oyster Creek New Jersey 583 3,412 2,132,640 2,387,006 2,538,550 13
35 Salem New Jersey 1088 5,715 4,011,786 4,147,881 4,328,469 6
36 FitzPatrick New York 212 4,938 757,206 745,522 747,467 43
37 Ginna New York 264 4,515 987,092 1,020,186 1,035,214 33
38 Indian Point New York 3760 5,810 13,786,298 14,894,006 15,118,181 1
39 Nine Mile Point New York 211 4,908 754,261 742,377 744,267 44
40 Brunswick North Carolina 108 3,040 232,337 316,773 402,395 52
41 McGuire North Carolina 613 6,366 1,636,412 2,072,499 2,517,850 14
42 Shearon Harris North Carolina 486 6,217 1,393,352 1,829,822 2,222,038 16
43 Davis-Besse Ohio 363 4,476 1,343,578 1,354,016 1,349,593 27
44 Perry Ohio 531 4,905 1,766,037 1,788,572 1,699,459 23
45 Beaver Valley Pennsylvania 808 5,647 2,824,537 2,757,925 2,655,595 12
46 Limerick Pennsylvania 1609 5,759 5,986,390 6,282,721 6,559,209 2
(continued)
2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants
Table 2.8 (continued)
Index Plant name State Tract Tract area Total population (50 mile) 2010 Rank
(50-mile) (sq. mile) 1990 2000 2010
47 Peach Bottom Pennsylvania 1008 5,794 3,569,625 3,845,576 4,124,024 7
48 Susquehanna Pennsylvania 303 5,863 1,102,337 1,116,488 1,136,292 32
49 Three Mile Island Pennsylvania 448 5,941 1,718,797 1,906,037 2,068,685 18
50 Catawba South Carolina 556 6,403 1,437,561 1,819,689 2,235,497 15
51 Oconee South Carolina 276 6,175 873,312 1,031,201 1,152,820 29
52 Robinson South Carolina 152 6,363 568,041 616,110 649,720 45
53 Summer South Carolina 251 6,436 749,396 865,550 971,019 34
54 Sequoyah Tennessee 205 6,227 747,693 855,343 937,320 35
55 Watts Bar Tennessee 178 6,455 616,648 731,267 812,206 42
56 Comanche Peak Texas 268 6,086 881,604 1,050,191 1,220,100 28
57 South Texas Texas 52 4,663 199,113 215,547 216,206 57
58 North Anna Virginia 364 6,181 1,085,119 1,322,489 1,553,358 26
59 Surry Virginia 450 5,599 1,523,998 1,645,196 1,741,096 21
2.7 Demographic Changes in 1990–2000 and 2000–2010

60 Columbia Washington 71 4,782 234,431 302,914 365,409 54

61 Point Beach Wisconsin 114 5,150 418,292 461,723 485,589 50
All 61 plants in operation (0–50) 21625 286,714 75,560,733 82,930,217 87,470,180
All 61 plants in operation outside 51432 3,510,028 173,148,625 198,491,689 216,495,092
69
70 2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

Fig. 2.6 Percent change of the total population living in census tracts within a 10-mile radius and
50-mile radius, as measured from census-tract centroid point to the nearest NPP, during the periods
1990–2000 and 2000–2010, sorted according to percent change within a 10-mile radius
2.7 Demographic Changes in 1990–2000 and 2000–2010 71

Fig. 2.7 Percent change of the total population living in census tracts within a 10-mile radius and
50-mile radius, as measured between the census-tract centroid point and the nearest NPP, during
the periods 1990–2000 and 2000–2010, sorted according to percent change within a 50-mile radius
72 2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

NPP. The largest negative percent change, −7%, occurred among the communities
within a 50-mile radius of Waterford Steam Electric Station, Louisiana.
Overall, the total population in areas within a 10-mile radius of one of the 61
US-based commercial NPPs increased 14% during the period 2000–2010 and 15%
during the period 1990–2000, while the total population in all other places outside of a
50-mile radius of any NPP saw increases of 38 and 23%, respectively, during the
periods 1990–2000 and 2000–2010, respectively (Figs. 2.6, 2.7). The total population
of communities sited within a 50-mile radius of any one of the 61 NPPs increased 6 and
10%, respectively, during the periods 2000–2010 and 1999–2000, respectively, while
the total population in all other areas of the country increased 9 and 14%, respectively,
during the periods 2000–2010 and 1990–2000, respectively (Figs. 2.6, 2.7).

2.8 Conclusion

This chapter provides information on demographic characteristics of population

living around the 61 nuclear power plants which are in operations in the USA.
There were about 88 million people living in areas within a 50-mile radius sur-
rounding the nuclear power plants in 2010. Among them, 71% were White, 17%
Black, 4.4% Asian, 6.9% listed as Other, 13.18% Hispanic, and 36.32% People of
Color. Within a 10-mile radius area, the ten NPPs with the largest population range
from 258,462 (Limerick Generating Station, Pennsylvania) to 120,876 (Seabrook
Station, New Hampshire). The three smallest communities range from 2,654 (South
Texas Project, Texas) to 6,007 (Columbia Generating Station, Washington). Within
50-mile radius areas, the ten NPPs with the largest population range from
15,118,181 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating, New York) to 3,130,058 (Pilgrim
Plant, Massachusetts). The three smallest communities range from 111,113 (Cooper
Nuclear Station, Nebraska) to 194,963 (Arkansas Nuclear One, Arkansas). From a
nuclear emergency management point of view, these data could be interpreted as
challenges to effectively carry out various activities in response to any of the
potential nuclear emergencies associated with the NPPs. For example, if an
emergency occurs at Limerick Generating Station in the Pennsylvania plant, the
challenge is to evacuate a population of 258,462. Protecting a quarter of a million
people living within a 10-mile radius poses tremendous challenges for federal, state,
and local governments. In the previous three historic nuclear power accidents
(discussed in Chap. 1 under the topic 3.1), evacuation orders actually took place
many hours after the core-meltdown accident occured. Therefore, a quarter million
people could face potential risks of exposure to the nuclear radiation materials
before they have been officially evacuated if an accident takes place at the Limerick
Generating Station. When looking at the larger area evacuation of within 50-mile
radius, the impacted population size could be as big as 15 million if the nuclear
accident takes place at the Indian Point Nuclear Generating, New York. Evacuation
comes with a price, as evident by the evacuation-related deaths in the Fukushima
nuclear power accident discussion in Chap. 1. The location could be more complex,
and the deaths related with evacuation could be high in areas such as New York
2.8 Conclusion 73

because of the high-rise buildings in close proximity and in a condensed area.

According to the Fukushima accident, the evacuation-related deaths were about
10% (about 1,600 deaths out of 16,000 evacuees, Chap. 1, topic 3.1). If this death
rate applies to the potential accident in New York, it could be 1.5 million deaths. In
addition, the most vulnerable groups when addressing evacuation planning and
risks of exposure are women, seniors, and children who live in areas surrounding
the NPPs. As depicted in Table 2.1, 45 million women, 8 million seniors who are
65 or older, and 1.5 million children who are younger than 5 years live within
50-mile radius areas. This includes exposure to day-to-day low radiation risks as
well as potential exposure to high-level radiation during a nuclear emergency.
Low-level radiation from day-to-day operation could cause leukemia and cancer to
child (Yoshimoto et al. 2004). Similarly, elderly populations, within the age range
of 50–74 years, were noted to be linked to higher likelihoods of leukemia and
cancer mortality rates (Yoshimoto et al. 2004).

References

Bouges S, Daures JP, Hebrard M (1999) Incidence of leukemia, lymphoma and thyroid cancers in
children under 15 years old in the vicinity of Marcoule nuclear plant, 1985–95. Revue D
Epidemiologie et de Sante Publique 47(3):205–217. Retrieved from WOS:000081141800002
Canu IG, Ellis ED, Tirmarche M (2008) Cancer risk in nuclear workers occupationally exposed to
uranium—emphasis on internal exposure. Health Phys 94(1):1–17. Retrieved from
WOS:000251786800001
Cardis E, Gilbert ES, Carpenter L, Howe G, Kato I, Armstrong BK et al (1995) Effects of
low-doses and low-dose rates of external ionizing-radiation—cancer mortality among nuclear
industry workers in 3 countries. Rad Res 142(2):117–132. Retrieved from ISI:
A1995QV23100001
Cardis E, Kesminiene A, Ivanov V, Malakhova I, Shibata Y, Khrouch V et al (2005) Risk of
thyroid cancer after exposure to I-131 in childhood. J National Cancer Institute 97(10):724–
732. Retrieved from WOS:000229856500011
Denton HR (1987) The causes and consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear accident and
implications for the regulation of U.S. nuclear power plants. Ann Nuclear Energy 14(6):295–
315. doi:10.1016/0306-4549(87)90132-0. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/B6V1R-498W137-18/2/cbefde3b6b634a1626c992bb4369ba8f
GeoLytics (2012a) 2000 Long form in 2010 boundaries. Retrieved from GeoLytics, Inc. http://
www.geolytics.com/USCensus,2000-Long-Form-in-2010-Boundaries,Products.asp
GeoLytics (2012b) Census 1990 in 2010 boundaries. Retrieved from GeoLytics, Inc. http://www.
geolytics.com/USCensus
GeoLytics (2012c) Census 2010/American community survey (ACS). Retrieved from GeoLytics,
Inc. http://www.geolytics.com/USCensus,Census2010ACS,Categories.asp
Green Peace (2010) Nuclear power: decommissioning risks. Retrieved from Green Peace USA.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/reports/Nuclear-Power-Decommissioning-
Risks/
Mangano JJ, Sherman JD (2013) Long-term local cancer reductions following nuclear power plant
shutdown. Biomed Int 1(4). Retrieved from http://www.bmijournal.org/index.php/bmi/article/
viewFile/115/82
Kyne D (2014) Environmental justice issues in communities hosting US nuclear power plants
(Order No. 3617964). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1528556250).
Retrieved from http://ezhost.utrgv.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezhost.utrgv.
edu:2048/docview/1528556250?accountid=7119
74 2 Communities Hosting US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

Mariottee M (2006) The NRC’s reactor licensing process: an overview. Nuclear Information and
Resource Services (NIRS)
National Research Council (U.S.), & Committee on the Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations
near Nuclear Facilities (2012) Analysis of cancer risks in populations near nuclear facilities
phase 1. Retrieved from National Academies Press
National Research Council (U.S.), & Committee on the Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations
near Nuclear Facilities (2014) Analysis of cancer risks in populations near nuclear facilities
phase 2, pilot planning. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18968/analysis-of-cancer-
risks-in-populations-near-nuclear-facilities-phase
Nebraska Energy Quarterly (1997) State’s first nuclear plant buried near Lincoln. Retrieved from
Nebraska Energy Quarterly Newsletter
NIRS (2013) Pettition for rulemaking to improve emergency planning regulations (10.C.F.R. 50.47).
Retrieved from http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/emergency/petitionforrulemaking22012.pdf
NRC (2012) Information Digest, 2011–2012. Retrieved from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/
Nuclear Heritage (2013) Anti-nuclear movement in the United States. Retrieved from Nuclear
Heritage http://www.nuclear-heritage.net/index.php/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_United_
States
Ottaviani J, Wehe DK (1989) Measured radiation fields in commercial nuclear power plants. Ann
Nuclear Energy 16(2):91–99. doi:10.1016/0306-4549(89)90033-9. Retrieved from http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V1R-498W1JD-18G/2/
da96f79562075196ed555b4043b4af32
Ramana MV (2009) Nuclear power: economic, safety, health, and environmental issues of near-term
technologies. Ann Rev Environ Resour 34:127–152. Retrieved from ISI:000272082000007
Sexton K, Adgate JL (1999) Looking at environmental justice from an environmental health perspective.
J Exposure Anal Environ Epidemiol 9(1):3–8. Retrieved from WOS:000086103000001
The US Census Bureau (2010a) 2010 TIGER/Line shapefiles technical documentation. Retrieved
from The US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/pdfs/tiger/tgrshp2010/
TGRSHP10SF1.pdf
The US Census Bureau (2010b) TIGER/Line® shapefiles pre-joined with demographic data: 2010
census summary file 1 demographic profile (DP1). Retrieved from The US Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-data.html
US EPA (2013) Environmental justice. Retrieved from US Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/
US NRC (2004) Nuclear power plant licensing process. Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission www.nrc.gov
US NRC (2011) Nuclear regulatory commission. Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission www.nrc.gov
US NRC (2013a) Decommissioning nuclear power plants. Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html
US NRC (2013b) Emergency planning zones. Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulartory Commission
US NRC (2016) Emergency planning zones. Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulartory Commission
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/about-emerg-preparedness/planning-zones.
html
Welsome E (1999) The plutonium files America’s secret medical experiments in the Cold War.
Delacorte Press, New York, N.Y
Yoshimoto Y, Yoshinaga S, Yamamoto K, Fijimoto K, Nishizawa K, Sasaki Y (2004) Research
on potential radiation risks in areas with nuclear power plants in Japan: leukaemia and
malignant lymphoma mortality between 1972 and 1997 in 100 selected municipalities. J Radiol
Protect 24(4):343–368. Retrieved from ISI:000226325000003
Chapter 3
Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their
Management Process

3.1 Disaster and Emergency Management Process

People in various parts of the world see disaster events that bring causalities,
injuries, deaths, and damages to property and environments, in many different
scales. Their encounters may vary from one person to another; some might have
direct experience in a disaster event, where others might have seen the events on
any media or live broadcast from news channels. Disaster events are so frequent
that people feel that they become a part of everyday life. For example, New York
City was hard hit by Hurricane Sandy, which is also known as Superstorm Sandy,
in October 29, 2012. The possibility for this event to take place was discovered on
October 22, 2012, 1 week before the event actually occurred. The hurricane pro-
duced 147 deaths in the northeast USA, Canada, and the Caribbean; the dead toll
was 48 in New York, 12 in New Jersey, 5 in Connecticut, 2 in Pennsylvania, and
five in other states. The surge level was measured as 13.88 ft. at Battery Park, and
the wave was measured at 32.5 ft. at New York Harbor; many important organi-
zations were shut down including The New York Stock Exchange, US federal
offices, schools, and United Nations headquarters in Manhattan. More than
11 million commuters were without access to transportation and about 7.9 million
businesses and households without electric power in 15 states; 1,400 guardsmen are
in Massachusetts, 6,700 National Guard are on active duty; and 110 homes burn in
the Breezy Point neighborhood of Queens, New York. Approximately, 9,000
people in 13 states stayed in 71 Red Cross operated shelters (CNN 2015). The
damage was estimated at $19 billion (Rosenzweig and Solecki 2014). According to
the National Hurricane Center, Sandy was ranked as the second costliest tropical
cyclone, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 (CNN 2015). Hurricane Sandy demon-
strates the extent to which a disaster event could bring about causalities, injuries,
deaths, damages, and destruction. To have a closer look at managing natural dis-
asters, it is imperative to understand the three key terms, namely disasters, hazard,
and vulnerability.

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 75

D. Kyne, Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies in the USA,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50343-1_3
76 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

Disasters are deadly, destructive, and disruptive events that occur when a hazard interacts
with human vulnerability. Disasters are significant societal events that injure and kill
people, damage infrastructure, and personal property, and complicate the routine activities
people undertake on a daily basis (e.g., bathing, cooking, travelling, going to school,
working, etc.). Hazard is the threat or trigger that initiates a disaster. Hazards include
natural, technological, or anthropogenic (human-induced) agents like earthquakes, indus-
trial explosions, and even terrorist attacks that negatively affect people or critical infras-
tructure. Vulnerability, on the other hand, refers to the proneness of people to disasters
based on factors such as their geographic location, exposure of property, and level of
income or other social variables. The ability of individuals, organizations, and communities
to deal with disaster also determines the degree of vulnerability. Vulnerability is therefore
closely related to the human element of disasters, while hazards may or may not always
have a direct social cause (McEntire 2007).

To minimize the negative impacts from a disaster, effectively managing the

disaster process is essential. The disaster management process consists of five
phases: prediction, warning, emergency relief, rehabilitation (short-term), and
reconstruction (long-term) (Moe and Pathranarakul 2006). In general, mitigation
and preparedness, response, and recovery activities are conducted in the predication
phase, rehabilitation and reconstruction phases, and warning and emergency relief
phases, respectively (Moe and Pathranarakul 2006). The authors perceived that
mitigation and preparedness activities are normally conducted before any disaster
event actually takes place, while response activities are necessary during the event,
and recovery activities are vital for rehabilitation and reconstruction to bring back
the mental and physical damages of people and materials to their normalcy.

Fig. 3.1 An integrated approach to disaster management process. Source Adapted from Moe and
Pathranarakul (2006) “Reprinted from Disaster Prevention and Management: An International
Journal. Used with permission. All Rights Reserved.”
3.1 Disaster and Emergency Management Process 77

Referring to the Hurricane Sandy event, the likelihood of the superstorm landing in
New York was known a week before the event actually took place. Mitigation
activities included closing of metro and subway system, a day prior to the storm. In
addition, the National Guard was on standby, the preparing of shelters by Red Cross
began, and other predisaster measures. An effective disaster management system
requires the integration of both proactive approaches, which includes mitigation and
preparedness activities and reactive approach which consists of response and
recovery activities (Fig. 3.1).

3.2 Nuclear Power Emergency Management Process

As discussed in Chaps. 1 and 2, nuclear power plants are associated with inevitable
risks. Chapter 1 discusses three historic nuclear power accidents, whereas Chap. 2
identifies populations that are at risk for potential nuclear power emergencies
associated with 61 nuclear power plants in the USA. There are three nuclear
power-induced disasters in nuclear power history, demonstrated as severe and
unimaginable impacts that nuclear power plants might have on people living around
the plant and environment. The most recent nuclear power-induced disaster,
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, which occurred in March 2011, caused
severe damages, some irreversible and devastating. According to the Japanese
science ministry, the accident left 11,580 square miles of land contaminated with
the long-lived radioactive cesium and some 4,500 square miles (the size of
Connecticut) had radiation levels higher than allowable exposure rate of 1 mSV
(millisievert) per year (Starr 2016). In addition, some parts of the land are declared
as “exclusion” zones because of high-level radiation for human habitation. The
exclusion zones that were declared include 310 square miles of plant location and
nearby areas where more than 159,128 people were evacuated. People living in the
area received small amounts of moneys to cover their living costs, but they are
being forced to still pay mortgages for their houses in the exclusion zones; the value
of the exclusion zones could not be precisely estimated, but the rough estimated
value reached to between $250 and $500. Radioactive cesium entered in the
ecosystem, and it has been detected in various foods in Japan. While the chances to
decontaminate the exclusion zones are very slim, there are additional areas that are
contaminated, including homes and land due to rainwater flow. There are 733,000
curies of radioactive cesium, the largest discharge of radioactive materials pumped
into the Pacific Ocean, after 15 months of the disaster. Reactor 4 building holds a
spent fuel pool with 1,532 nuclear fuel assemblies, about 10 times more radioactive
cesium than that was released by the Chernobyl disaster, a common pool containing
6,000 fuel assemblies located 50 ft. from building 4 (Starr 2016).
Unlike other disasters, nuclear power-induced disasters cause severe and irre-
versible damages. To minimize the negative impacts, effective nuclear power
emergency management is essential. Like disaster management phases, nuclear
power plant-induced disaster management includes four phases, namely prediction,
78 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

Fig. 3.2 An integrated approach to nuclear power plant-induced disaster management process.
Source Kyne (2015) “Reprinted from Journal of Emergency Management. Used with permission.
All Rights Reserved.”

warning, emergency relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (Fig. 3.2) (Kyne

2015). Activities carried in nuclear power plant-induced disaster management are
similar to those of disaster management phases, with the exception of response
activities. There are four response activities, namely (1) projection of plume path
dispersion, (2) protective action recommendation (PAR), (3) protective action
decisions (PADs), and (4) evacuation.
Among the four phases, warning and emergency relief are very important, in
order to save lives and minimize the negative impacts from nuclear power
plant-induced disasters. This is due to the fact that there is no lead time in nuclear
power emergencies. Hurricane Sandy, which was the most powerful storm, pro-
vided 7 days in advance of its likelihood of landing in New York City. This lead
time of 7 days provided to do activities for mitigation and preparedness, before the
disaster actually occurred. In nuclear emergencies, the response activities should
begin soon after an incident is initiated, at the nuclear power plant. However,
sometimes, an incident could go unnoticed for a period of time. For example, a
crack in the pressure vessel in which nuclear fuel rods sit went unnoticed until the
next fuel recharge cycle, which occurred every year and half at the Palo Verde
Nuclear Power Generating Station (PVNGS), in October 2013 (Alltucker 2006).
According to the NRC (US NRC 2011a), US commercial nuclear power plants
are required to notify the public when an accident occurs. For the purpose of
notification, emergency levels are classified into four, namely (1) notification of
unusual event (NOUE), (2) alert, (3) site area emergency (SAE), and (4) general
emergency (GEm). The description of the four emergency classification and
examples causing the four emergencies are discussed under the next subtitle.
An SAE is an event that requires protecting the public, whereas a GEm is an
event such as a core-damage accident that requires protection of public. The release
of radioactive materials from a SAE may not exceed the Environmental Protection
3.2 Nuclear Power Emergency Management Process 79

Agency (EPA) Protective Action Guides (PAGs), whereas the release resulting
from a GEm may. In either event, the nuclear power plant is required to provide a
protective action recommendation (PAR) to state, local, and tribal agencies within
15 min of the incident. To meet this requirement by EPA PAGs, the nuclear power
plant must, first and foremost, project the radioactive plume path dispersion under
the current and projected weather conditions, including wind speed and direction,
humidity, and precipitation.
To accurately project and assess the source term dose and release pathway, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission utilizes the Radiological Assessment System for
Consequence Analysis (RASCAL) Source Term to Dose (STDose) (RSICC 2013).
The computer program was preinstalled with information on the type of reactor, the
reactor’s power output capacity, peak rod burn in the reactor, the discharge burn-up
projected to occur in materials housed in spent fuel storage, and so on. However,
the meteorological information, such as that on wind direction and speed, stability
class, precipitation, and air temperature, must be entered manually. The RASCAL
4.3 program’s method of calculating the source term is based on the methods
documented in McKenna and Glitter (1988). The inhalation dose factors used in my
calculations are based on the recommendations of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP 1977). Radiation dose was computed as a total
effective dose equivalent (TEDE), which is defined as “the sum of the deep-dose
equivalent (EDE) (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose
equivalent (CEDE) (for internal exposures)” (US NRC 2011).
Once, the projection of the plume path dispersion and radioactivity was com-
pleted, the protective action recommendation (PAR) was generated. Then, the
nuclear power plant sends the PAR to local radiological association, which con-
ducts similar plume path dispersion analysis and generates PAR based on the study
and recommendation done by the nuclear power plant. Then, the PAR is sent to
local authorities to make protective action decisions (PADs). Based on the pro-
tective action decisions, evacuation activities are carried out accordingly. After the
evaluation, activities to clean the radioactive contaminated areas will be followed.
Cleanup activities pose a great challenge, and it is a time-consuming process.

3.3 Nuclear Power Emergency and Response

According to the NRC, there are four emergency events that could take place at a
nuclear power plant (US NRC 2014a). An emergency classification is defined as “a
set of names or titles established by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) for grouping off-normal events or conditions according to (1) potential or
actual effects or consequences, and (2) resulting on-site and off-site response actions
(US NRC 2014a).” The agency classified four levels of emergency in ascending
order of severity:
80 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

(1) Notification of unusual event (NOUE)

(2) Alert
(3) Site area emergency (SAE)
(4) General emergency (GE)
(1) Notification of unusual event (NOUE or UE): “Events are in progress or have
occurred which indicate a potential degradation of the level of safety of the plant or
indicate a security threat to facility protection has been initiated. No releases of
radioactive material requiring off-site response or monitoring are expected, unless
further degradation of safety systems occurs (US NRC 2014a).” Some incidents
causing this level of emergency are (1) the metal tubes holding uranium fuel pellets
damage detected from reactor coolant samples, (2) low water level in spent fuel
pool, (3) main turbine damage, (4) leaks from the reactor coolant system, and
(5) loss of communication equipment (Table 3.1) (US GAO 2001). This is the
lowest level of nuclear emergency, which requires all emergency and staff at the
nuclear power plant to enter into a state of readiness, to handle systematically the
current event.
(2) Alert: “Events are in progress or have occurred, which involve an actual or
potential substantial degradation of the level of safety of the plant or a security
event that involves probable life-threatening risk to site personnel or damage to site
equipment because of what is considered ‘hostile action’. Any releases are expected
to be limited to small fractions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
protective action guides (PAGs) (US NRC 2014a).” A few example situations
causing this emergency event are (1) high radiation in primary containment, (2) a
water leak more than 50 gallons per minute from the reactor coolant system,
(3) high radiation level in vital areas, (4) main turbine damage, (5) unauthorized
personnel entering the restrictive areas, and (6) an explosion taking place
(Table 3.1) (US GAO 2001). This alert provides a warning to site emergency
personnel to become ready to respond if the situation becomes more serious and
informs current development to off-site authorities (US NRC 2014a).
(3) Site area emergency (SAE) : “Events are in progress or have occurred which
involve actual or likely major failures of plant functions needed for protection of the
public or hostile action that results in intentional damage or malicious acts; (1) to-
ward site personnel or equipment that could lead to the likely failure of or; (2) that
prevent effective access to, equipment needed for the protection of the public. Any
releases are not expected to result in exposure levels which exceed EPA PAG
exposure levels beyond the site boundary (US NRC 2014a).” Some examples of
accidents causing this type of emergency are (1) failure in normal method of
cooling the reactor, (2) alternative electrical power lost for more than 15 min, and
(3) unauthorized personnel entering the restrictive areas (Table 3.1) (US GAO
2001). The goal of declaring this type of emergency is to ensure that response
center, monitoring teams, and evaluation teams are ready to move forward if the
situations get more serious (US NRC 2014a). During this type of emergency,
radioactive materials could be released, but response action by an off-site organi-
zation is not expected (US NRC 2014a).
3.3 Nuclear Power Emergency and Response 81

Table 3.1 Emergency action level and examples

Emergency action level and definition Examples
Unusual event ∙ Reactor coolant samples indicate measurable
∙ An extremely low-level emergency that damage to the metal tubes that hold the
poses no threat to public safety but warrants uranium fuel pellets
increased awareness on the part of utility and ∙ The water level in the spent fuel pool is low
off-site personnel ∙ Water leaks from the reactor coolant system
in excess of The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission’s allowed limits
∙ The main turbine is severely damaged.
∙ Loss of all on- and off-site communication
equipment occurs
Alert ∙ High radiation readings occur inside the
∙ A low-level emergency that poses no threat primary containment—a large concrete and
to public safety but for which precautionary steel structure that surrounds the reactor
mobilization of certain emergency response vessel and its coolant system
functions is appropriate. Any radioactive ∙ Water leaks from the reactor coolant system
release is expected to be limited at a rate greater than 50 gallons per minute
∙ Radiation levels in one or more vital areas
(equipment necessary for the safe operation
and shutdown of the plant) are high
∙ Damage to the main turbine results in
damage to vital equipment
∙ Unauthorized personnel enter the protected
area (area that includes vital plant structures
and is surrounded by a security fence)
∙ A fire occurs that could potentially affect
safety systems, and an explosion occurs that
damages permanent plant equipment
∙ A toxic or flammable gas is released in or
near a vital area
Site area emergency ∙ The normal methods of cooling the reactor—
∙ Plant conditions degrade to a point where feed water system, main steam system, or
full activation of response functions is steam generators—do not function
warranted. Any radioactive release is not ∙ All alternating current electrical power to
expected to exceed the Environmental vital busses (on-site network to supply
Protection Agency’s exposure levels, except electric power) is lost for more than 15 min
near the site’s boundary ∙ Unauthorized personnel enter a vital area of
the plant
General emergency ∙ Two of the three fission product barriers
∙ Actual or imminent substantial degradation (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and
or melting of the reactor with the potential containment) fail.
for a significant radioactive release to the ∙ All alternating current electrical power (on-
environment beyond the plant’s boundary and off-site) is lost and not expected to be
occurs. available for an extended period of time.
∙ Unauthorized personnel take over the control
room so that the utility loses the ability to
safely operate or shut down the plant.
Source US GAO (2001)
82 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

(4) General emergency: “Events are in progress or have occurred which involve
actual or imminent substantial core degradation, or melting with potential for loss of
containment integrity, in addition to possible hostile action that results in an actual
loss of physical control of the facility. Releases can be reasonably expected to
exceed the EPA’s PAG exposure levels off-site for more than the immediate site
area (US NRC 2014a).” A few situations that might lead to this type of emergency
are (1) fuel cladding, reactor coolant system failure, (2) electrical power system
failure on- and off-site, and (3) unauthorized personnel entering into restrictive
areas (Table 3.1) (US GAO 2001). The purpose of declaring this type of emergency
is “to initiate predetermined protective actions for the public, to provide continuous
assessment of information from the licensee and off-site organizational measure-
ments, to initiate additional measures as indicated by actual or potential releases, to
provide consultation with off-site authorities, and to provide updates for the public
through government authorities (US NRC 2014a).” During this type of emergency,
radioactive materials could be released and off-site response organizations are
expected to take response actions.

3.4 Projection of Plume Path Dispersion

As discussed earlier, the emergency response activities are critically important to

achieve the ultimate goal of minimizing negative impacts and saving lives for indi-
viduals living near nuclear power plants. There are two conditions that challenge the
key stakeholders to effectively carry out their response activities. First, there is no lead
time provided before an emergency event actually takes place. Second, there are
rigorous guidelines to strictly follow during the emergency response. The radiological
emergency response constitutes four steps, namely projection of plume path disper-
sion, protective action recommendation, protective action decisions, and evacuation.

3.4.1 RASCAL Computer Code

First and foremost, the projection of the plume path dispersion and radiation level
requires a computer code, namely the Radiological Assessment System for
Consequence Analysis (RASCAL) Source Term to Dose (STDose) (RSICC 2013).
The Radiation Protection Computer Code Analysis and Maintenance Program
(RAMP) NRC has developed the RASCAL code for dose and consequence pro-
jection tool for 25 years, with a primary purpose of making projection for inde-
pendent dose and consequence in case of radiological incidents and emergencies
(RAMP 2016a). The tool could be used by the Protective Measures Team in the US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Operations Center and licensed facili-
ties. The RASCAL estimates radioactive effluents from various sources including
3.4 Projection of Plume Path Dispersion 83

nuclear power plants, spent fuel storage pools and casks, fuel cycle facilities, and
radioactive material handling facilities (RAMP 2016a).

3.4.2 Obtaining RASCAL Computer Code

The computer code could be obtained from the RAMP at a cost of $5000 per reactor
site and $1000 one-time free for documentation including RASCAL code docu-
ments (Fig. 3.3). Users will have to complete a “non-disclosure agreement” form,
including your payment information in order to request use of the computer code.
Users may send back the completed from via an email attachment to [email protected]

Fig. 3.3 Obtaining a RASCAL computer code. Source RAMP (2016a)

84 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

Fig. 3.4 File download for RASCAL 4.3.1 program. Source RAMP (2016a)

or fax them to 1-888-573-9473. Additional information could be obtained at https://

www.usnrc-ramp.com/RASCAL%20Obtaining%20Code.

3.4.3 Installing RASCAL

RAMP administrators process the application and will send a notification email when
user’s “user account” has been created. With the user account, users will have an
access to RASCAL’s most updated version and will be able to download (Fig. 3.4).
For the program installation, you will need at least three files to download:
(1) RASCAL431_Setup.exe
(2) MapWinGIS-only-v4.8SR-32bit-installer.zip
(3) RASCAL 4.3.1 Installation.pdf
The file with the name RASCAL431_Setup.exe is the program file user will
need to run “step up” with administrative right. When user runs “setup,” users will
see instruction with which location to install. The default location is predetermined
at C:\NRC\RASCAL43 (RAMP 2016b). The program requires Windows 7 or
higher, with a disk space of 70 MB (RAMP 2016b). Users will need to unzip the
file MapWinGIS-only-v4.8SR-32bit-installer.zip to install, and this file will help
users export the map to ArcGIS shapefile.
While the program files are downloaded for installation, other technical docu-
ment files (Fig. 3.5) should be downloaded for future reference. Among technical
documents, there are two groups, namely models and methods and technical
references.
Models and methods
1. NUREG-1940 Supplement 1—RASCAL 4.3 Description of Models and
Methods
2. NUREG-1940—RASCAL 4 Description of Models and Methods
3.4 Projection of Plume Path Dispersion 85

Fig. 3.5 RASCAL technical documents download page. Source RAMP (2016a)

Technical references
1. State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses Project Volume 2: Surry
Integrated Analysis
2. State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses Project Volume 1: Peach
Bottom Integrated Analysis
3. State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Report Part 2
4. State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Report Part 1
5. Source Term Estimation Using MENU-TACT
6. Spent Fuel Pool Study SECY-13-0112
86 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

7. Source Term Estimation During Incident Response to Severe Nuclear Power

Plant Accidents
8. RTM Response Technical Manual 96 (NUREG/BR-0150, Vol. 1, Rev. 4)
9. RASCAL 3.0.5 Workbook
10. RASCAL 3.0.5: Description of Models and Methods
11. Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government
Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light-Water Nuclear
Power Plants
12. Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear
Incidents
13. Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake And Air Concentration and Dose
Conversion Factors For Inhalation, Submersion, And Ingestion—Federal
Guidance Report No. 11
14. Guidance for Industry KI in Radiation Emergencies—Questions and Answers
(\\CDS029\CDERGUID\5386fnl.doc)
15. FR Notice of FDA Guidance on Use of Potassium Iodide as a Thyroid Blocking
Agent in Radiation Emergencies; Availability
16. Fission Product Removal in Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) Systems—Data
Base Assessment and Suggested Experimental Program
17. Federal Guidance Report No. 12 External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air,
Water, and Soil (EPA-402-R-93-081)
18. EPA AERSURFACE User’s Guide
19. Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response
Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants
20. Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent
Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor
21. Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure To Radionuclides—
Federal Guidance Report No. 13
22. Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid
Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code)
23. Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid
Effluents from Boiling Water Reactors (GALE-BWR Code)
24. Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants
25. 2013 EPA Protective Action Guides And Planning Guidance For Radiological
Incidents

3.4.4 RASCAL Tools

The RASCAL constitutes two groups of tools, namely primary and additional
(Fig. 3.6). The primary tools include four tools:
3.4 Projection of Plume Path Dispersion 87

Fig. 3.6 Seven tools in the Radiological Assessment System for Consequence Analysis
(RASCAL). Source (RAMP (2016a)

(1) Source Term to Dose (STDose)

(2) Field Measurement to Dose (FMDose)
(3) Radionuclide Data Viewer, and
(4) Decay Calculator.
The secondary tools include three tools:
(1) Create Reactor Inventory Base File,
(2) Source Term Merge/Export, and
(3) MetFetch
There are four phases in nuclear emergency, namely prerelease, plume (early),
intermediate, and ingestion. The projection of plume dispersion for the first two
phases must be done with the Source Term to Dose (STDose), whereas the latter
two phases must be computed with the Field Measurement to Dose (Fig. 3.7)
(FMDose) (RAMP 2016a)
When the radiological emergency is in either prerelease or plume (early), user uses
the STDose tool to estimate radiation from a radioactive plume dispersed to the people
downwind. The STDose first produces a time-dependent source term as a function of
time for any release from the plant. This time-dependent radioactive release rate is
used as input for an atmospheric dispersion and transport model to project plume

Fig. 3.7 Plume dispersion phases in a nuclear emergency. Source RAMP (2016a)
88 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

dispersion and radioactive concentrations in the plume. The Field Measurement to

Dose (FMDose) is normally used when the accident is in intermediate phase or
ingestion phase. The model uses measurements of the radionuclide activity in the
environment as input to calculate the intermediate phase dose (US NRC 2015).

3.4.5 Projecting Source to Term Dose

When using STDose model, there are eight steps involving in projecting plume path
dispersion:
(1) Event type,
(2) Event location,
(3) Source term,
(4) Release path,
(5) Metrology,
(6) Calculate doses,
(7) Detailed results, and
(8) Save case
To demonstrate how to project plume path dispersion and radioactive release in
the plume downwind, a hypothetical core-meltdown accident at reactor Unit 1 at the
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNG) is used as an example.
(1) Event Type: First, user selects the type of event. There are four event types
preinstalled:
(1) Nuclear power plant,
(2) Spent fuel,
(3) Fuel cycle/UF6/criticality,
(4) Other radioactive material releases (Fig. 3.8).
In this case, nuclear power plant was selected.
(2) Event Location: Second, user determines the event location. In this exercise,
Plao Verde Unit 1 was selected (Fig. 3.9).
(3) Source Term: Third, user selects the appropriate source term. In the
RASCAL program, there are two groups of conditions, namely source term based
on reactor conditions and source term based on nuclide specific data. RASCAL has
two sequences for estimating releases from core-melt accidents. The long-term
station blackout (LTSBO) sequence due to gradual decay of the reactor coolant as
heat evaporates the coolant. The temperature increases in the core after the coolant
evaporates. The LOCA sequence is based on an assumption that the accident is due
to rapid loss of coolant due to a large break in the cooling system line. The
temperature rapidly increases the core. In this exercise, LTSBO is selected and the
user selects LTSBO and inputs the date and time of the accident with “No” to core
recovered (Fig. 3.10).
3.4 Projection of Plume Path Dispersion 89

Fig. 3.8 Event type selection in RASCAL STDose model. Source RAMP (2016a)

Fig. 3.9 Event location selection in RASCAL STDose model. Source RAMP (2016a)
90 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

Fig. 3.10 Source term selection in RASCAL STDose model. Source RAMP (2016a)

(4) Release Path: The next step involves selecting a release path out of prein-
stalled three pathways, namely containment leakage/failure, steam generator tube
rupture, and containment bypass. In this exercise, containment leakage/failure was
selected (Fig. 3.11).

Fig. 3.11 Release path selection in RASCAL STDose model. Source RAMP (2016a)
3.4 Projection of Plume Path Dispersion 91

Fig. 3.12 Meteorology data selection in RASCAL STDose model. Source RAMP (2016a)

(5) Meteorology: Fifth, user selects meteorology dataset options: create new,
edit existing, import, and delete. In this exercise, user selects create new and enters
data as shown in Fig. 3.12. The meteorological data were selected from the joint
frequency distribution (JFD) tables published in the 2010 Annual Radioactive
Effluent Release Report for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station: Units 1, 2, and
3 (Kutner 2010). Metrological information includes time, wind direction (degree),
wind speed (mph), stability class, precipitation, and air temperature (degree F).
(6) Calculate Doses: Sixth, calculations are carried out for “close-in + out to
100 miles,” and 24 h is set for “start of release to atmosphere plus.” ICRP 26/30
was used for inhabitation dose factors in the calculations (Fig. 3.13).
(7) Detailed Results: Seventh, detailed results can be viewed in two types of
display formats: from 100-mile calculation and from close-in calculation. Each of
them can be viewed in two formats: footprint and numeric table (Fig. 3.14).
The results of “from close-in calculation” are displayed in footprint form
(Fig. 3.15).
The results of “from 100-mile calculation” are displayed in footprint form
(Fig. 3.16).
The source term results are displayed in a tab source term (Fig. 3.17).
The maximum values can be viewed for both close-in calculation and 100-mile
calculation. Figure 3.18 shows a close-in dose. Underlined values exceed the rec-
ommended thresholds. TEDE refers “to the sum of inhalation dose and the external
doses from cloudshine and 4-days of groundshine (US NRC 2013).” “Although, the
PAG is expressed as a range of 1–5 REM, it is emphasized that, under normal
conditions and evacuation of members of the general population should be initiated
for most incidents at a projected dose of 1 REM (US EPA 2013).”
The maximum dose is viewed for 100-mile calculation (Fig. 3.19).
The case summary could be viewed in a case summary tab (Fig. 3.20).
92 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

Fig. 3.13 Calculating doses in RASCAL STDose model. Source RAMP (2016a)

Fig. 3.14 Detailed results for close-in calculation to be displayed in footprint format. Source
RAMP (2016a)
3.4 Projection of Plume Path Dispersion 93

Fig. 3.15 Detailed results for close-in displayed in footprint format. Source RAMP (2016a)

Fig. 3.16 Detailed results for 100-mile calculation to be displayed in footprint format. Source
RAMP (2016a)
94 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

Fig. 3.17 Detailed results for source term displayed in source term tab under detailed results.
Source RAMP (2016a)

Fig. 3.18 Detailed results for maximum dose values for close-in values displayed in maximum
dose value tab under detailed results tab. Source RAMP (2016a)
3.4 Projection of Plume Path Dispersion 95

Fig. 3.19 Detailed results for maximum dose values for dose to 100-mile values displayed in
maximum dose value tab under detailed results tab. Source RAMP (2016a)

Fig. 3.20 Detailed results for case summary displayed in case summary tab under detailed results
tab. Source RAMP (2016a)
96 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

Fig. 3.21 Saving a case file in.STD extension in a preferred location. Source RAMP (2016a)

(8) Save Case: The calculations could be saved in a file with an extension
“.STD” and could be recalled for future calculation or modification to compute
(Fig. 3.21).

3.4.6 Exporting to Shapefile

The footprint files for close-in calculation and 100-mile calculation are exported to
GIS shapefile (Fig. 3.22).

3.4.7 Overlaying on Other Map Layers

The footprint results for a close-in calculation in shapefile format could be added to
ArcGIS map (ESRI 2011) and overlay on other map layer (Figs. 3.21, 3.22, 3.23
and 3.24).layer (Figs. 3.21, 3.22, 3.23 and 3.24).
The TEDE footprint overlaid on Google map is exported as a map in ArcGIS
program (Fig. 3.24)
The footprint results for 100-mile calculation in shapefile format could be added
to ArcGIS map (ESRI 2011) and overlay on other map layer (Fig. 3.25).
The TEDE footprint overlaid on Google map is exported as a map in ArcGIS
program (Fig. 3.26)
3.4 Projection of Plume Path Dispersion 97

Fig. 3.22 Exporting the footprints into GIS shapefile. Source RAMP (2016a)

Fig. 3.23 Over laying close-in dose footprint GIS shapefile on Google Base map in ArcGIS
program
98 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

Fig. 3.24 A GIS map displaying projected close-in plume pathway overlaid on the Google street
map

Fig. 3.25 Overlaying close-in dose footprint GIS shapefile on Google Base map in ArcGIS
program
3.5 Protective Action Recommendation (PAR) 99

Fig. 3.26 A GIS map displaying projected 100-mile plume pathway overlaid on the Google street
map

3.5 Protective Action Recommendation (PAR)

According to NRC (2014b), the requirement of the nuclear power plant personnel to
produce the protective action recommendation (PAR) to state and local government
agencies are stated clearly as follows:
Immediately upon becoming aware that an incident has occurred that may result in a
radiation dose that exceeds federal government protective action guides, responsible
nuclear power plant personnel evaluate plant conditions and then make protective action
recommendations (PARs) to the state and local government agencies on how to protect the
population. Nuclear power plant personnel are required to report the PARs to the state or
local government agencies (within 15 min) (US NRC 2014b).

The protection action recommendation (PAR) could be generated based on the

projection of plume dispersion in the RASCAL. However, it must be noted that
RASCAL does not provide protective action recommendations. The nuclear power
plant personnel must read the detailed results including source term (Fig. 3.17),
maximum dose value including close-in (Fig. 3.18) and 100-mile (Fig. 3.19), and
plume footprint including close-in (Fig. 3.16) and 100-mile (Fig. 3.16).
100 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

Table 3.2 Protective actions recommended by the EPA’s PAGs

Protective PAG (Projected Comments
action dose)
Evacuation TEDE 1–5 REM Evacuation (or for some situations, sheltering)
(or) Sheltering thyroid should normally be initiated at 1 REM TEDE or
CDEThyroid CDE 5 REM thyroid CDE
5–25 REM
Note TEDE is the sum of inhalation dose and the external dose from cloudshine and 4 days of
groundshine
Source US NRC (2013), US EPA (2013)

As stated clearly, the plant personnel are required to produce PAR “immediately
upon becoming aware that an incident has occurred and that may result in a radi-
ation dose that exceeds federal government protective action guides (US NRC
2014b).” There are three key words: immediate action after becoming aware of the
incident, radiation dose exceeding the federal guidelines, and sending the PAR to
state and local authorities within 15 min. Regarding the radiation dose, the federal
guidelines by the EPA are listed below (US EPA 2013) (Table 3.2).
In this exercise, the detailed results of maximum dose for close-in calculation
(Fig. 3.18) show TEDE and thyroid CDE calculation indicate the need to evacuate
within a 3-mile radius. When pointing cursor over the cell or display in Fig. 3.15,
the data at individual model receptors are shown in (Fig. 3.27). This information

Fig. 3.27 A close-in dose calculation displayed in footprint map with data at individual model
receptors when mouse pointer hovering on a selected model receptor. Source RAMP (2016a)
3.5 Protective Action Recommendation (PAR) 101

provides a dose rate at the wind direction and distance from the release point. This
information could be incorporated within the maps overlaid on Google maps
(Figs. 3.24 and 3.26) to make protective action recommendation.

3.6 Protective Action Decisions (PADs)

According to NRC, the state and local authorities must make a decision on the
protective action recommendation (PAR) submitted by the plant.
State and local officials make the final decision on what protective action is necessary to
protect public health and safety, and then relay these decisions to the public in a timely
manner (normally within approximately 15 min) (US NRC 2014b).

The 15-min time frame is another challenge for state and local agencies to make a
certain decision on the protective action decisions. In addition, the agencies must
generate a PADs, which must be signed by a State Governor. For example, in case
of such emergency in Arizona, the PADs is signed by the Governor of the State of
Arizona; in the absence of the Governor, it must be signed by a Maricopa County
Judge (Kyne 2015). Once the PADs has been signed, the joint information com-
mittee must be formed and disseminate the PADs information to the public and
emergency management agencies and responders.

3.7 Evacuation

The emergency agencies and personnel must carry out evacuation activities. The
PADs is based on PAR which was generated by the plant personnel. Thus, plant
personnel as well as state and local agencies must be aware of EPA’s protective
action guidelines. There are a few items that should be aware of before making
PAR and PADs which will have an impact on evacuation.
First, the TEDE’s range is between 1 REM and 5 REM, and the projected dose
of 1 REM is suggested to evacuate the general population. The EPA’s PAG states as
follows:
Although the PAG is expressed as a range of 1-5 REM, it is emphasized that, under normal
conditions, evacuation of members of the general population should be initiated for most
incidents at a projected dose of 1 REM (US EPA 2013). (pp. 2–5)

Second, the sheltering is more preferred for some group of general public. For
example, the elderly, disabled persons, children, and other vulnerable populations
may face difficulty in evacuating. It is justified that those groups of people may be
at the projected doses of up to 5 REM. In addition, under very hazardous condi-
tions, the group could even be sheltered at the projected dose rate of 10 REM.
102 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

Sheltering may be preferable to evacuation as a protective action in some situations.

Because of the higher risks associated with evacuation of some special groups in the
population (e.g. those who are not readily mobile), sheltering may be the preferred alter-
native for such groups as a protective action at projected doses up to 5 REM. In addition,
under unusually hazardous environmental conditions, use of sheltering at projected doses
up to 5 rem to the general population (and up to 10 REM to special groups) may become
justified (US EPA 2013). (pp. 2–5)

Third, the specific situations that are not in favor for evacuation of the specific
population at the projected dose of 1 REM are severe weather conditions, competing
disasters, institutionalized persons, and local physical factors (US EPA 2013).
Illustrative examples of situations or groups for which evacuation may not be appropriate at
1 REM include: a) the presence of severe weather, b) competing disasters, c) institution-
alized persons who are not readily mobile, and d) local physical factors which impede
evacuation (US EPA 2013). (pp. 2–6)

Fourth, the EPA’s PAG highlighted that there is no minimum radiation level to
initiate the sheltering. The advantage of sheltering is that it is low-cost and low-risk
protective action to protect the general public (US EPA 2013).
No specific minimum level is established for initiation of sheltering. Sheltering in place is a
low-cost, low-risk protective action that can provide protection…(US EPA 2013) (pp. 2–7)

Fifth, the plant personnel and state and local agencies must be aware that the EPA’s
PAG radiation dose levels are projected for a four-day period, whereas the PAR and
PADs are based on early stages of prerelease and plume (early) (Fig. 3.7). Therefore,
the plant personnel must project the dose with FMDose to reevaluate the radiation
dose level. Based on the projected dose levels generated by the FMDose, PAR and
PADs should be updated and necessary changes in evacuation must be carried out.
The projected dose comparison to the early phase PAGs is normally calculated for exposure
during the first four days following the projected (or actual) start of a release. The objective
is to encompass the entire period of exposure to the plume and to deposited material prior to
implementation of any further, longer-term protective action, such as relocation. 4 days is
chosen here as the duration of exposure to deposited materials during the early phase
because, for planning purposes; it is a reasonable estimate of the time needed to make
measurements, reach decisions, and prepare to implement relocation (US EPA 2013).
(pp. 5–6)

Finally, the PAR, PADs, and evacuation activities must be carried by local and state
agencies. The NRC does not involve in any of the activities.
The NRC monitors the actions of nuclear power plants to ensure the protective actions
taken or recommended by the nuclear power plant personnel are appropriate. Additionally,
state and local agencies may independently assess the situation to ensure that the correct
protective action decisions are made. Independent assessments performed during an acci-
dental radiological release from a nuclear power plant ensure that the best possible action is
taken (US NRC 2014b).
3.8 Conclusions 103

3.8 Conclusions

This chapter explains four types of nuclear power emergencies: notification of

unusual event (NOUE), alert, site area emergency (SAE), and general emergency
classified by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC). Among them, the
latter two emergencies require projection of plume dispersion and carrying out
emergency management activities including mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery. Among the four stages in nuclear emergency management process, the
response to nuclear power emergency is different from other emergency responses.
For example, responding to a fire emergency, a fire station could go to the fire
accident place as soon as the station was notified of the fire. However, responding
to a nuclear power emergency requires special technical skills or technical-oriented
response. In the response stage in the nuclear power emergency management, there
are four activities to carry out, including projection of radioactive plume path
dispersion, protective action decisions (PADs), protective action recommendation
(PAR), and evacuation. The projection of radioactive plume path dispersion
requires a special software, RASCAL, and weather information. Only a trained
technician could do projection of the radioactive plume path dispersion. This
chapter provides detailed explanation on the process of projecting plume path
dispersion with RASCAL. In the most recent Fukushima nuclear power emergency
(Chap. 1, Sect. 1.3), evacuation was delayed several hours after the nuclear power
accident was initiated. In addition, the determination for evacuation zones was also
delayed a couple of days to evacuate larger areas. This plume projection with
RASCAL could help accelerate the response process and could help expedite the
evaluation.

References

Alltucker K (2006) Palo Verde’s costly slump: customers may pay for nuke plant’s struggles.
Retrieved from AZ Central News http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/
0212paloverde12-CP.html#
CNN (2015) Hurricane sandy fast facts. Retrieved from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/
world/americas/hurricane-sandy-fast-facts/
ESRI (2011) ArcGIS desktop: Release 10.1 Redlands. Environmental Systems Research Institute,
CA. Retrieved from http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcgis10/whats-coming/
ICRP (1977) Recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP Publication 26. Ann ICRP 1(3). Retrieved
from http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%2026. Retrieved from
International Commission on Radiological Protection
Kutner K (2010) 2010 annual radioactive effluent release Report. Retrieved from Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1113/ML11136A042.pdf
Kyne D (2015) Managing nuclear power plant induced disasters. J Emergency Manag (Weston,
Mass.) 13(5):417–429. doi:10.5055/jem.2015.0252. Retrieved from Prime National Pub. Corp
McEntire DA (2007) Disciplines, disasters, and emergency management the convergence and
divergence of concepts, issues and trends from the research literature. Charles C Thomas,
Springfield, Ill
104 3 Nuclear Power Emergencies and Their Management Process

McKenna TJ, Glitter JG (1988) Source term estimation during incident response to severe nuclear
power plant accidents (NUREG-1228). Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
(USA). Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data. Retrieved from http://www.
osti.gov/scitech/biblio/6822946
Moe TL, Pathranarakul P (2006) An integrated approach to natural disaster management. Disaster
Prevent Manag Int J 15(3):396–413. doi:10.1108/09653560610669882. Retrieved from http://
www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/09653560610669882. Retrieved from Emerald
RAMP (2016a) Radiological Assessment System for Consequence AnaLysis (RASCAL)
Overview. Online: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Radiation Protection Computer
Code Analysis and Maintenance Program. Retrieved from https://www.usnrc-ramp.com/
RASCAL%20Overview
RAMP (2016b) RASCAL 4.3.1 Installation. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Radiation
Protection Computer Code Analysis and Maintenance Program
Rosenzweig C, Solecki W (2014) Hurricane sandy and adaptation pathways in New York: lessons
from a first-responder city. Global Environ Change-Human Policy Dimen 28:395–408.
Retrieved from WOS:000343839100034
RSICC (2013) RASCAL 4.3: radiological assessment systems for consequence analysis reactor
and nuclear systems division (RNSD), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, The Radiation Safety
Information Computational Center (RSICC). Retrieved from https://rsicc.ornl.gov/
PackageDetail.aspx?p=RASCAL%204.3&id=C00783&cpu=PCX86&v=02&t=Radiological%
20Assessment%20Systems%20for%20Consequence%20AnaLysis
Starr S (2016) Costs and consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster. In: PSR’s
Environmental Health Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.psr.org/environment-and-
health/environmental-health-policy-institute/responses/costs-and-consequences-of-fukushima.
html
US EPA (2013) Manual of protective action guides and protective action for nuclear incidents.
Office of Radiations Program, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington DC 20460. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015–06/
documents/pag-manual-interim-public-comment-4-2-2013.pdf
US GAO (2001) Nuclear regulations: progress made in emergency preparedness at indian point 2,
but additional improvements needed (GAO-01-605). United States Government Accountable
Office (US GAO). Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/231903.pdf
US NRC (2011) Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission www.nrc.gov
US NRC (2013) RASCAL 4.3 Workbook Washington, DC 20555-0001: US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Retrieved from http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1328/ML13281A475.pdf
US NRC (2014a) Emergency classification U.S. nuclear regulatory commission. Retrieved from
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/about-emerg-preparedness/emerg-classifica
tion.html
US NRC (2014b) Protective action recommendations. Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/about-emerg-preparedness/
protective-action-recommendations.html
US NRC (2015) RASCAL 4.3: User’s Guide. Washington, DC 20555-0001: US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Retrieved from http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1328/ML13281A475.pdf
Chapter 4
Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant
Core-Meltdown Accidents

4.1 Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents

Historically, there has only been one plant, Three Mile Island, in Pennsylvania, that
experienced a partial nuclear core-meltdown, in U.S. commercial nuclear power
operations, which occurred in 1997. As discussed in the previous chapters, the
impacts of the nuclear power core-meltdown accidents are unimaginable. The most
destructive power came from the tons of nuclear fuel assemblies containing many
hundreds of nuclear fuel rods, sitting inside the core of the nuclear reactor in the
containment building. When the fuel rods are uncovered and they enter into the
melting stage, there was high–level toxic radioactive plume released into the air.
Gradually, the fuel rods are melted to the bottom of the reactor or breach the
reactor. The entire containment room could quickly fill up with the radioactive
plume and accumulate pressure from it. When the 4-feet thick containment wall no
longer resists the enormous pressure, the dome-shaped containment building erupts.

4.2 Radioactive Plume Dispersion

Radiation from the toxic radioactive plume is considered to be the most immediate
threat from nuclear power core-meltdown accidents. The radioactive plume will
move from the source depending on the wind speed, wind direction, and other
weather conditions. People living near nuclear power plants need to be evacuated
immediately when an accident takes place. Therefore, the projection of the
radioactive plume dispersion is a necessary first step to evacuate the individuals
living around the nuclear power plant. This chapter will conduct a plume dispersion
projection at two nuclear power plants: Palo Verde Nuclear Power Generating
Station and Indian Point Nuclear Power Station.

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 105

D. Kyne, Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies in the USA,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50343-1_4
106 4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents

4.3 A Scenario of a Core-Meltdown Accident at the Palo

Verde Nuclear Power Plant

The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) is located 25 miles west of
Phoenix, Arizona and has three currently operating reactors. There are two reasons
for selecting this nuclear power plant as a hypothetical scenario for a core melt-
down: First, unlike other reactors in the U.S., the PVNGS is not located next to a
body of water, such as a river or ocean. The plant is located in the desert, next to a
pond, where the water is stored for cooling purposes. The risk associated with this
power plant is that in case of a core-meltdown accident, the power plant may face
challenges in cooling down the melting nuclear fuel rods with water. In Japan,
when the Fukushima four reactors experienced partial and full core-meltdown,
water must have been poured over the melted cores of unit 1, 2 and 3, to keep the
fuel from overheating and melting again. The water seeping into ground water and
some of the contaminated water are stored in 10-meter tall steel tanks holding
750,000 tons of water (Normile 2016). The nuclear power plant is located close by
the fifth largest city in the U.S., with a population of more than six million, and
more than 2.2 million living within a 50-mile radius from the nuclear power plant.

4.3.1 Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station (PVNGS)

There are nearly 2.2 million people living in the host communities located within a
50-mile radius from the PVNGS, whereas about four million of their counterparts
live in the “outside areas” of the plant (Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3). Outside areas are
defined as areas that fall outside of a 50-mile radius from the nearest nuclear power
plant, in this case the PVNGS. The racial demographic characteristics in the
communities within a 50-mile radius are observed as 77% White, 6% Black, 37%
Hispanic, and 3% Asian. The demographic characteristics in the communities
located in what qualify as outside areas are observed as 78% White, 3% Black, 24%
Hispanic and 3% Asian (Kyne 2014). Overall, more People of Color (49%) live in
the host communities than their counterparts (36%) in the outside areas (Table 4.3,
Fig. 4.1).

4.3.2 Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Core-Damage

Accident

In this exercise, the objective is to evaluate the simulated dispersal of a radioactive

effluent plume path, in a scenario in which only one of the NPP’s three PWRs
experiences a core-damage accident, at the PVNGS in Arizona. The Radiological
Assessment System for Consequence Analysis (RASCAL) Source Term to Dose
4.3 A Scenario of a Core-Meltdown Accident at the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant 107

Table 4.1 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station, Arizona in 1990; Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 1 8 39 192 294 534 992
Tract area (sq. 120 1,658 672 2,661 1,831 6,942 107,049
mile)
Total population 1,365 10,128 38,556 379,343 866,410 1,295,802 2,369,419
White 1,090 8,112 28,273 299,286 714,771 1,051,532 1,916,149
Black 0 328 2,073 15,153 42,671 60,225 49,833
Asian 0 44 563 5,254 14,728 20,589 33,539
Native American 72 209 496 6,985 18,992 26,754 177,831
Others 203 1,440 7,144 52,651 75,260 136,698 192,071
Hispanic 203 2,580 11,418 85,971 162,063 262,235 418,401
Color 275 3,137 14,272 112,206 234,538 364,428 668,883
White (%) 79.85 80.09 73.33 78.90 82.50 81.15 80.87
Black (%) 0.00 3.24 5.38 3.99 4.93 4.65 2.10
Asian (%) 0.00 0.43 1.46 1.39 1.70 1.59 1.42
Native American 5.27 2.06 1.29 1.84 2.19 2.06 7.51
(%)
Others (%) 14.87 14.22 18.53 13.88 8.69 10.55 8.11
Hispanic (%) 14.87 25.47 29.61 22.66 18.71 20.24 17.66
Color (%) 20.15 30.97 37.02 29.58 27.07 28.12 28.23
Female (%) 48.21 49.81 47.30 51.82 50.43 50.74 50.64
Old (65+ years) 9.23 8.18 7.12 19.38 10.08 12.70 13.19
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.23 11.33 11.99 9.84 9.80 9.89 9.30
Native-born (%) 92.89 90.32 91.61 92.68 91.30 91.71 92.80
Renter housing 20.21 22.27 34.78 23.84 37.08 32.95 27.74
units (%)
Education (%) 14.12 8.44 12.64 13.97 20.77 18.45 21.31
Unemployment (%) 12.74 10.17 8.92 7.56 6.49 6.85 7.36
Poverty (%) 26.30 22.84 20.52 13.05 14.66 14.42 16.47
Mean household 38,481 48,753 54,608 54,603 60,623 58,632 57,882
income ($)

(STDose) model is used to project plume dispersion, in case of one of the three
reactors experiencing a core-meltdown accident (RSICC 2013). The results of the
dispersal projections were imported in shapefile format to ESRI’s ArcMap program
(US NRC 2013). The resulting TEDE is measured in Roentgen Equivalent Man
(REM) and is equal to the absorbed dose (in RADS) multiplied by the quality factor
of the type of radiation (US NRC 2011).
108 4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents

Table 4.2 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating StationPalo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Arizona in 2000; Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 2000
Total population 2,112 15,826 62,558 570,281 1,149,152 1,799,929 3,330,703
White 1,615 11,767 45,916 398,763 841,429 1,299,490 2,572,225
Black 15 583 2,661 26,280 55,123 84,662 69,654
Asian 10 99 922 8,189 28,148 37,368 60,021
Native American 49 309 703 9,584 25,715 36,360 217,182
Others 423 3,073 12,357 127,445 198,728 342,026 411,644
Hispanic 712 5,260 20,013 208,105 347,341 581,431 713,886
Color 779 6,310 24,968 258,156 469,773 759,986 1,098,581
White (%) 76.47 74.35 73.40 69.92 73.22 72.20 77.23
Black (%) 0.71 3.68 4.25 4.61 4.80 4.70 2.09
Asian (%) 0.47 0.63 1.47 1.44 2.45 2.08 1.80
Native American 2.32 1.95 1.12 1.68 2.24 2.02 6.52
(%)
Others (%) 20.03 19.42 19.75 22.35 17.29 19.00 12.36
Hispanic (%) 33.71 33.24 31.99 36.49 30.23 32.30 21.43
Color (%) 36.88 39.87 39.91 45.27 40.88 42.22 32.98
Female (%) 48.48 43.41 48.87 51.28 49.04 49.69 50.43
Old (65+ years) 10.18 7.92 8.98 17.07 8.55 11.26 13.96
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 9.14 8.72 9.78 10.24 9.79 9.92 8.34
(%)
Native-born (%) 81.53 86.71 87.52 83.72 81.68 82.57 89.72
Renter housing 23.38 26.40 24.29 23.10 38.25 32.89 25.37
units (%)
College degree or 7.02 8.83 17.09 15.40 23.71 20.68 25.00
higher (%)
Unemployment 6.13 5.84 4.55 5.80 5.62 5.64 5.63
(%)
Poverty (%) 21.02 17.93 12.74 13.00 15.61 14.70 13.48
Mean household 53,204 59,309 71,249 60,305 68,888 66,197 67,691
income ($)

4.3.3 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 1

The plume dispersion after the NPP encounters a core- meltdown accident is largely
dependent by the weather condition. To project the plume path, the actual and
forecast weather information on the day the event is taking place are required to
input into the RASCAL model. In this exercise, a typifying weather information for
quarter 1 (January to March) was based on the meteorological data, reported in the
4.3 A Scenario of a Core-Meltdown Accident at the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant 109

Table 4.3 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station, Arizona in 2010; Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 2010
Total population 3,090 41,543 164,444 805,703 1,193,109 2,207,889 4,038,927
White 2,446 32,437 132,810 612,665 929,449 1,709,807 3,173,799
Black 224 2,368 9,639 49,776 70,875 132,882 107,773
Asian 10 852 4,670 19,844 41,677 67,053 111,648
Native 0 761 1,769 13,084 26,470 42,084 236,252
American
Others 410 5,125 15,556 110,334 124,638 256,063 409,455
Hispanic 1,066 16,096 49,966 357,283 402,723 827,134 987,540
Color 1,319 20,479 67,230 446,487 555,346 1,090,861 1,488,924
White (%) 79.16 78.08 80.76 76.04 77.90 77.44 78.58
Black (%) 7.25 5.70 5.86 6.18 5.94 6.02 2.67
Asian (%) 0.32 2.05 2.84 2.46 3.49 3.04 2.76
Native 0.00 1.83 1.08 1.62 2.22 1.91 5.85
American (%)
Others (%) 13.27 12.34 9.46 13.69 10.45 11.60 10.14
Hispanic (%) 34.50 38.75 30.38 44.34 33.75 37.46 24.45
Color (%) 42.69 49.30 40.88 55.42 46.55 49.41 36.86
Female (%) 49.94 47.17 51.24 51.15 49.38 50.13 50.31
Old (65+ years) 9.00 5.97 8.00 14.46 8.65 10.67 14.80
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 6.89 11.41 9.96 9.04 7.76 8.46 6.84
(%)
Native-born (%) 87.57 88.74 88.10 79.95 80.63 81.10 88.43
Renter housing 21.78 22.18 20.49 27.12 36.01 31.61 25.23
units (%)
College degree 7.27 15.58 24.73 18.38 26.31 23.13 27.96
or higher (%)
Unemployment 10.90 7.32 7.31 8.89 7.15 7.75 7.60
(%)
Poverty (%) 21.23 12.79 9.81 16.41 18.84 17.18 14.21
Mean household 66,449 67,996 79,633 58,958 67,297 65,194 68,577
income ($)

2011 Radioactive Effluents Report by the PVNGS. With a prevailing wind direction
of west-northwest, at a speed of 6.2 miles per hour, the model provides a projected
plume path which dispersed to the east-south, travelling a distance greater than
100 miles in a 24-h period (Fig. 4.2). The plume path covers an area of approxi-
mately 3,477 square miles, dispersing over an estimated population of 663,543
(Kyne 2015). Under the plume pathway, different groups of individuals are exposed
to different levels of TEDE ranging from 0.000 to 0.095 REM, grouped
110 4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents

Fig. 4.1 Spatial distribution of percent Color among the populations surrounding Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)

Fig. 4.2 The projected plume path emanating from Palo Verde NPP after a simulated
core-damage accident conducted under meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 1; Source
Adapted from (Kyne 2014)
4.3 A Scenario of a Core-Meltdown Accident at the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant 111

Table 4.4 Demographic composition in areas around Palo Verde NPP located beneath the
projected plume path with meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 1, Source (Kyne 2015)
“Reprinted from Journal of Emergency Management. Used with permission. All Rights Reserved”;
Source (Kyne 2014)
Demographics/ (0.000– (0.0003– (0.002– (0.005– (0.01– Total Outside
(TEDE) rem) 0.0003) 0.002) 0.005) 0.01) 0.4)
Tracts 213 145 50 73 68 549 977
Tract area (sq. 1,201 726 425 475 650 3,477 110,513
miles)
Total population 305,529 207,069 41,606 75,125 34,214 663,543 5,583,273
White 235,302 157,724 31,010 57,221 21,834 503,090 4,380,516
Black 16,143 9,151 2,337 3,266 1,574 32,471 208,184
Asian 16,948 12,539 1,094 2,214 581 33,375 145,326
Native American 6,267 4,629 1,855 4,149 7,049 23,949 254,387
Others 30,870 23,025 5,310 8,276 3,177 70,658 594,860
Hispanic 66,773 45,665 10,932 18,591 6,745 148,705 1,665,969
Color 110,872 75,803 16,869 29,130 16,337 249,011 2,330,774
White (%) 77.01 76.17 74.53 76.17 63.82 75.82 78.46
Black (%) 5.28 4.42 5.62 4.35 4.60 4.89 3.73
Asian (%) 5.55 6.06 2.63 2.95 1.70 5.03 2.60
Native American 2.05 2.24 4.46 5.52 20.60 3.61 4.56
(%)
Others (%) 10.10 11.12 12.76 11.02 9.29 10.65 10.65
Hispanic (%) 21.85 22.05 26.27 24.75 19.71 22.41 29.84
Color (%) 36.29 36.61 40.55 38.77 47.75 37.53 41.75
Renter-occupied 26.70 20.73 15.66 16.42 18.38 22.57 27.81
housing units (%)
College degree or 37.20 34.26 19.32 23.37 18.08 32.43 25.60
higher (%)
Unemployed (%) 6.18 6.25 6.28 8.07 8.08 6.47 7.80
Below poverty line 8.95 7.00 8.90 10.68 15.65 8.86 16.01
(%)
Mean household 86,360 85,695 80,214 69,205 59,475 82,421 65,767
income ($)
Source (Kyne 2015)

in Table 4.4. EPA recommends evacuation when the dose level reaches 1 REM
(US EPA 2013; Kyne 2015). In short, in the event under the typifying Quarter 1
weather conditions, minority populations—including People of Color, Black and
Asian populations who live in owner-occupied housing units and who live under
the poverty line, are likely to be exposed to high doses of radiation.
112 4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents

4.3.4 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 2

This projection exercise is carried out under meteorological conditions typifying

Quarter 2 (April to June) with the PVNGS, as subject of a core-meltdown accident.
The weather information for Quarter 2 includes a northeasterly wind direction at a
speed of 7.6 miles per hour, and the resulting plume pathway covers an estimated
area of 6,004 square miles in which about 1 million people (964,774) exposed to
radiation level ranging between 0.00 and 0.023 REM (which is still below the 1
REM requirement, to call for an evacuation or sheltering according to the NRC’s
protection action guidelines) within a period of 24 h (Table 4.5) (Kyne 2014). The
population beneath the projected plume pathway under meteorological conditions

Table 4.5 Demographic composition in areas around Palo Verde NPP located beneath the
projected plume path with meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 2; Source (Kyne 2014)
Demographics/ (0.000– (0.0003– (0.002– (0.005– (0.01– Total Outside
(TEDE) rem) 0.0003) 0.002) 0.005) 0.01) 0.4)
Tracts 421 185 131 55 12 804 722
Tract area (sq. 2,276 1,801 1,251 525 150 6,004 107,987
miles)
Total population 643,380 189,204 97,495 30,819 3,876 964,774 5,282,042
White 547,531 156,891 86,769 27,471 3,124 821,787 4,061,819
Black 21,935 6,386 3,131 786 78 32,316 208,339
Asian 21,031 4,340 2,210 762 129 28,472 150,229
Native American 6,682 2,352 683 239 11 9,967 268,369
Others 46,201 19,235 4,701 1,561 534 72,232 593,286
Hispanic 122,483 35,082 10,238 2,987 832 171,623 1,643,052
Color 180,171 50,293 17,322 5,090 1,190 254,066 2,325,719
White (%) 85.10 82.92 89.00 89.14 80.60 85.18 76.90
Black (%) 3.41 3.38 3.21 2.55 2.01 3.35 3.94
Asian (%) 3.27 2.29 2.27 2.47 3.32 2.95 2.84
Native American 1.04 1.24 0.70 0.78 0.28 1.03 5.08
(%)
Others (%) 7.18 10.17 4.82 5.06 13.79 7.49 11.23
Hispanic (%) 19.04 18.54 10.50 9.69 21.48 17.79 31.11
Color (%) 28.00 26.58 17.77 16.51 30.71 26.33 44.03
Renter-occupied 22.65 17.10 11.54 8.98 12.47 19.75 28.70
housing units (%)
College degree or 27.26 27.77 29.40 32.87 18.33 27.77 26.04
higher (%)
Unemployed (%) 6.31 6.65 6.38 7.32 7.25 6.41 7.88
Below poverty line 9.21 9.25 5.87 5.70 10.69 8.77 16.47
(%)
Mean household 74,049 77,654 71,533 76,691 68,980 74,527 66,108
income ($)
4.3 A Scenario of a Core-Meltdown Accident at the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant 113

Fig. 4.3 The projected plume path emanating from Palo Verde NPP after a simulated
core-damage accident conducted under meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 2; Source:
Adapted from (Kyne 2014)

typifying Quarter 2 consists of a racial demographic with of White (85%) and

Hispanic (18%); 10% of them live under poverty and are exposed to higher levels
of radiation doses (Kyne 2014). In short, this projection provides that an estimated
one million people would be exposed to the radioactive plume.

4.3.5 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 3

In this exercise, the projection of the radioactive plume was carried out with the
meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 3 (July to September)—prevailing
winds toward west-southwest (248°) and an average speed of 7.3 miles per hour.
The findings show that the west-southwest wind pushed the radioactive plume to
the east-northeast of the NNP (Fig. 4.4) covering an area of more than 3,702 square
miles (Table 4.6). Approximately 3.5 million people are observed to live beneath
the plume pathway (Kyne 2014). The populations exposed include a racial
demographic makeup of a higher percentages of Black, Hispanic, Asian and People
114 4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents

Fig. 4.4 The projected plume path emanating from Palo Verde NPP after a simulated
core-damage accident conducted under meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 3; Source
Adapted from (Kyne 2014)

of Color, among the population demographics, while their exposure to radiation

levels was estimated between 0.00 and 0.188 REM, which is below the 1
REM TEDE required to initiate either an evacuation or shelter-in-place order. The
estimated radiation level must be validated with field data collected from the
affected area at the time of the accident (Kyne 2014). The projected radioactive
plume would likely be dispersed over populated areas including: Buckeye,
Maricopa, Guadalupe, Chandler, Queen Creek, Florence, Coolidge, Casa Grande,
Glendale, Litchfield Park, Phoenix, Tolleson, Avondale, Gilbert, Tempe, Apache
Junction, and Paradise Valley (Fig. 4.4). There are 12 cities that would be exposed
to the higher TEDEs, shown in red and brown colors (Fig. 4.4). They include:
Buckeye, Guadalupe, Chandler, Queen Creek, Florence, Phoenix, Tolleson,
Avondale, Gilbert, Tempe, Apache Junction, and Paradise Valley (Kyne 2014).
This projection estimates about 55% (3.5 million out of 6.25 million total) of the
total population of Arizona would be likely to be beneath the projected radioactive
plume pathway. This is cause for concern to many key stakeholders who are
involved in radiological emergency planning, to effectively plan and response in
case of the core-meltdown accident under similar circumstances and impacts.
4.3 A Scenario of a Core-Meltdown Accident at the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant 115

Table 4.6 Demographic composition in areas around Palo Verde NPP located beneath the
projected plume path with meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 3; Source (Kyne 2014)
Demographics/ (0.000– (0.0003– (0.002– (0.005– (0.01– Total Outside
(TEDE) rem) 0.0003) 0.002) 0.005) 0.01) 0.4)
Tracts 484 168 97 172 589 1,510 16
Tract area (sq. 1,426 550 325 575 826 3,702 110,288
miles)
Total population 1,024,487 335,466 162,860 344,957 1,601,288 3,469,058 2,777,758
White 856,746 261,947 131,867 278,370 1,195,778 2,724,708 2,158,899
Black 33,563 17,001 7,129 13,314 107,419 178,427 62,228
Asian 29,532 9,657 6,904 11,525 62,536 120,154 58,547
Native American 16,039 9,150 2,425 13,270 35,586 76,470 201,866
Others 88,608 37,711 14,534 28,478 199,968 369,299 296,219
Hispanic 207,529 93,733 25,983 92,706 685,726 1,105,677 708,997
Color 300,148 133,971 44,709 134,774 907,417 1,521,017 1,058,768
White (%) 83.63 78.08 80.97 80.70 74.68 78.54 77.72
Black (%) 3.28 5.07 4.38 3.86 6.71 5.14 2.24
Asian (%) 2.88 2.88 4.24 3.34 3.91 3.46 2.11
Native American 1.57 2.73 1.49 3.85 2.22 2.20 7.27
(%)
Others (%) 8.65 11.24 8.92 8.26 12.49 10.65 10.66
Hispanic (%) 20.26 27.94 15.95 26.87 42.82 31.87 25.52
Color (%) 29.30 39.94 27.45 39.07 56.67 43.85 38.12
Renter-occupied 23.29 24.85 19.24 34.99 37.84 30.84 23.41
housing units
(%)
College degree 27.30 23.11 37.66 31.16 24.13 26.39 26.23
or higher (%)
Unemployed (%) 6.58 6.80 5.90 7.11 8.20 7.37 8.03
Below poverty 10.22 11.92 6.28 13.17 20.34 15.16 15.41
line (%)
Mean household 73,210 68,029 102,708 68,579 62,674 68,917 65,685
income ($)

4.3.6 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 4

This projection which was conducted with the meteorological conditions typifying
Quarter 4—a prevailing wind direction to the west (270°) and a wind speed of 5.6
miles per hour provides an estimated plume pathway moving to the east of the Palo
Verde NNP (Fig. 4.5), covering an area of 3,327 square miles (Table 4.7) (Kyne
2014). There are about 2.3 million people living beneath the radioactive plume
pathway and they are estimated to be exposed to radiation levels ranging from 0.00
and 0.371 REM (1 REM is a threshold to call for either an evacuation or
shelter-in-place order) (Kyne 2014). The presence of minority groups, including
People of Color, Black, Hispanic and Asian (estimated in percentages) is greater
116 4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents

Fig. 4.5 The projected plume path emanating from Palo Verde NPP after a simulated
core-damage accident conducted under meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 4; Source
Adapted from (Kyne 2014)

than the populations living outside of the projected plume path (Kyne 2014). The
cities which are observed to be beneath the plume pathway are: Buckeye,
Goodyear, Guadalupe, Chandler, Queen Creek, Florence, Coolidge, Litchfield Park,
Tolleson, Avondale, Gilbert, Tempe, Apache Junction, and Paradise Valley
(Fig. 4.5); while the cities exposed to the higher TEDEs, shown in red (Fig. 4.5)
include: Buckeye, Guadalupe, Chandler, Queen Creek, Litchfield Park, Tolleson,
Avondale, Gilbert, Tempe, Apache Junction, and Paradise Valley (Kyne 2014).
The findings from the four projections for the four different quarters in a calendar
year provide an understanding that the impacted areas could be between 3,327 and
6,004 square miles, while the impacted population size could be between 0.66
million (11% of the total 6.25 million Arizonians) and 3.5 million (55% of the total
6.25 million Arizonians). The differences in weather conditions including wind
direction and wind speed are mainly accountable for the variations in affected areas
and populations. The 10-mile emergency planning zone is not sufficient for the
radiological emergency planning because the radioactive plume could travel a
4.3 A Scenario of a Core-Meltdown Accident at the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant 117

Table 4.7 Demographic composition in areas around Palo Verde NPP located beneath the
projected plume path with meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 4; Source (Kyne 2014)
Demographics/ (0.000– (0.0003– (0.002– (0.005– (0.01– Total Outside
(TEDE rem) 0.0003) 0.002) 0.005) 0.01) 0.4)
Tracts 142 159 199 229 356 1,085 441
Tract area (sq. 1,126 525 400 550 725 3,327 110,663
miles)
Total population 158,798 336,474 461,824 580,558 798,994 2,336,649 3,910,167
White 131,442 281,968 368,090 442,544 603,861 1,827,905 3,055,701
Black 4,680 11,963 19,428 32,461 58,381 126,912 113,743
Asian 4,034 6,342 10,642 20,528 41,548 83,094 95,607
Native American 7,414 9,795 13,343 11,251 15,471 57,273 221,063
Others 11,228 26,406 50,322 73,774 79,734 241,465 424,053
Hispanic 27,843 90,260 163,568 260,908 251,684 794,263 1,020,411
Color 46,200 122,338 211,141 331,486 378,173 1,089,338 1,490,448
White (%) 82.77 83.80 79.70 76.23 75.58 78.23 78.15
Black (%) 2.95 3.56 4.21 5.59 7.31 5.43 2.91
Asian (%) 2.54 1.88 2.30 3.54 5.20 3.56 2.45
Native American 4.67 2.91 2.89 1.94 1.94 2.45 5.65
(%)
Others (%) 7.07 7.85 10.90 12.71 9.98 10.33 10.84
Hispanic (%) 17.53 26.83 35.42 44.94 31.50 33.99 26.10
Color (%) 29.09 36.36 45.72 57.10 47.33 46.62 38.12
Renter-occupied 17.55 29.99 35.66 36.67 27.17 30.85 25.45
housing units (%)
College degree or 27.40 24.34 21.51 22.42 31.96 26.12 26.43
higher (%)
Unemployed (%) 5.63 6.66 7.86 8.59 6.64 7.29 7.88
Below poverty line 9.12 17.57 18.80 18.99 11.58 15.51 15.13
(%)
Mean household 80,123 58,299 57,641 63,297 80,402 68,100 67,071
income ($)

distance longer than 100 miles within a 24-hour period. The findings from the
projections do not provide an alarming radiation level measured by TEDE, but it
must be verified with the filed data collected in the day of the event. In addition, this
projection is assumed that one out of three reactors will encounter a core-meltdown
accident. The four projections of plume dispersion demonstrate that nuclear power
emergencies such as nuclear power plant core-meltdown accident, are different
from other emergencies because of its potential severity and impacts and funda-
mental requirements for mass evacuations and timely responses.
118 4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents

4.4 A Scenario of Core-Meltdown Accident at the Indian

Point Nuclear Power Plant

4.4.1 Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant

There are close to 15 million people living in the host communities located within a
50-mile radius from the IPNG, whereas nearly 16 million of their counterparts live in
the “outside areas” (Tables 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10) (Kyne 2014). In other words, more
than five out of every ten people (15 million out of 31.7 million total population in
New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey) live within a 50-mile radius of an NPP,
according to the 2010 U.S. Census. The racial demographic composition in the
communities within a 50-mile radius are observed as 65% White, 22% Black, 18%
Hispanic and 5% Asian, whereas the demographic characteristics in the communities
located in the outside areas are observed as 88% White, 8% Black, 4% Hispanic and
2% Asian (Kyne 2014). Overall, more People of Color (43%) live in the host
communities than their counterparts (14%) in the outside areas (Table 4.10).
The spatial distribution of higher percent of Color living around the IPNG was
depicted in Fig. 4.2. It is evident that many of the census tracts that consist of below
20% were mainly scattered in the north, the east and the west, whereas census tracts
with greater than 20% were located in the south (Fig. 4.6).

4.4.2 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 1

Assuming that one of the two reactor units at the IPNG experience a core-meltdown
accident, under the meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 1 (January to
March), with a prevailing wind direction of north-east (23°), at a wind speed of 3
miles per hour, the projection results show a plume path traveling toward a
south-west direction, more than 100 miles, within 48-h after the core-meltdown
accident took place (Kyne 2016). The plume footprint is estimated to cover an area
as large as 9,612 square miles, dispersing above an estimated population of 20
million (19,855,006) likely to be exposed to radiation level ranging from 0.000 to
1.103 REM, which is above the recommended evaluation dose level of 1 REM
(Table 4.11) (Kyne 2016). Interestingly, there are about 4.25 out of 20 million
people who are likely to be exposed to a high level of radiation, exceeding the
threshold required for an evacuation (Table 4.11). Among the populations living
beneath the projected radioactive plume footprint, Blacks and Asians were living in
the pathway area at higher percentages than other races. While fewer of them live
below the federal poverty line than compared with the counterpart population living
outside of the plume’s footprint (Kyne 2016).
Table 4.8 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Indian Point Nuclear Generating, New York, in 1990; Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0-50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 55 187 596 1,252 1,670 3,760 4,002
Tract area (sq. miles) 292 1,005 1,487 1,919 1,107 5,810 63,011
Total population 229,882 749,366 2,453,297 4,911,005 5,442,748 13,786,298 15,221,250
White 201,501 647,849 1,855,732 3,162,924 3,096,381 8,964,387 13,431,768
Black 16,429 64,693 368,460 861,202 1,657,783 2,968,567 1,200,971
Asian 5,847 23,174 91,373 317,468 303,274 741,136 266,893
Native American 425 1,661 4,420 12,869 13,867 33,242 47,283
Others 5,669 11,994 133,340 556,475 371,457 1,078,935 274,366
Hispanic 18,731 43,014 324,710 1,214,297 825,975 2,426,727 648,859
Color 39,637 129,807 757,725 2,266,527 2,700,268 5,893,964 2,127,483
White (%) 87.65 86.45 75.64 64.40 56.89 65.02 88.24
Black (%) 7.15 8.63 15.02 17.54 30.46 21.53 7.89
Asian (%) 2.54 3.09 3.72 6.46 5.57 5.38 1.75
Native American (%) 0.18 0.22 0.18 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.31
Others (%) 2.47 1.60 5.44 11.33 6.82 7.83 1.80
Hispanic (%) 8.15 5.74 13.24 24.73 15.18 17.60 4.26
Color (%) 17.24 17.32 30.89 46.15 49.61 42.75 13.98
Female (%) 49.70 51.09 52.43 52.56 52.72 52.48 51.44
Old (65+ years) (%) 10.37 11.00 13.76 13.15 13.02 13.04 13.40
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.35 8.53 8.11 7.60 8.36 8.05 8.44
Native-born (%) 89.09 87.42 81.67 74.57 76.13 77.39 93.56
4.4 A Scenario of Core-Meltdown Accident at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant

Renter housing units (%) 25.75 26.01 41.22 60.66 53.40 52.34 28.04
Education (%) 32.51 34.60 29.01 28.94 20.61 26.10 22.16
(continued)
119
Table 4.8 (continued)
120

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0-50 Outside

Unemployment (%) 3.96 4.35 5.61 7.72 8.14 7.23 5.62
Poverty (%) 5.02 6.38 7.89 16.16 15.07 13.55 8.41
Mean household income ($) 103,352 113,938 97,399 82,528 70,724 82,538 72,323
4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents
Table 4.9 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Indian Point Nuclear Generating, New York, in 2000; Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 2000
Total population 242,165 826,902 2,627,286 5,352,294 5,845,359 14,894,006 15,902,366
White 196,235 673,908 1,759,588 3,040,855 2,825,575 8,496,161 13,272,190
Black 17,902 70,385 410,274 800,710 1,750,064 3,049,335 1,370,075
Asian 8,780 34,826 130,263 500,998 486,427 1,161,294 459,169
Native American 431 2,370 7,084 23,711 18,208 51,804 54,916
Others 18,804 45,422 320,086 985,956 765,109 2,135,377 746,051
Hispanic 30,788 77,568 495,739 1,592,978 1,054,119 3,251,192 1,048,920
Color 61,284 195,385 1,073,881 2,944,270 3,443,913 7,718,733 3,123,957
White (%) 81.03 81.50 66.97 56.81 48.34 57.04 83.46
Black (%) 7.39 8.51 15.62 14.96 29.94 20.47 8.62
Asian (%) 3.63 4.21 4.96 9.36 8.32 7.80 2.89
Native American (%) 0.18 0.29 0.27 0.44 0.31 0.35 0.35
Others (%) 7.76 5.49 12.18 18.42 13.09 14.34 4.69
Hispanic (%) 12.71 9.38 18.87 29.76 18.03 21.83 6.60
Color (%) 25.31 23.63 40.87 55.01 58.92 51.82 19.64
Female (%) 50.78 50.92 52.31 52.01 52.58 52.20 51.32
Old (65 + years) (%) 11.52 11.93 13.10 12.21 12.12 12.31 13.84
Kid (< 5 years) (%) 8.73 8.92 8.43 7.62 8.39 8.16 7.68
Native-born (%) 85.06 84.71 76.46 68.28 68.34 70.93 91.29
Renter housing units (%) 25.56 26.47 41.05 60.63 53.30 52.23 27.18
College degree or higher (%) 38.04 39.90 33.57 33.57 25.04 30.72 26.40
4.4 A Scenario of Core-Meltdown Accident at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant

Unemployment (%) 3.56 4.01 5.68 8.10 8.42 7.47 5.67

Poverty (%) 6.01 7.92 10.23 17.31 17.28 15.35 9.17
Mean household income ($) 109,993 123,688 103,111 89,616 74,011 88,163 77,552
121
Table 4.10 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Indian Point Nuclear Generating, New York, in 2010; Source (Kyne 2014)
122

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside

Year 2010
Total population 253,977 866,039 2,685,808 5,416,986 5,895,371 15,118,181 16,378,985
White 196,989 679,057 1,697,802 2,981,212 2,799,672 8,354,732 13,279,606
Black 21,031 75,492 428,486 765,664 1,716,532 3,007,205 1,502,391
Asian 12,594 45,390 166,660 646,636 662,158 1,533,438 695,603
Native American 261 1,937 5,135 17,716 16,853 41,902 52,616
Others 23,102 64,163 387,725 1,005,758 700,156 2,180,904 848,769
Hispanic 48,788 114,365 622,117 1,732,926 1,182,057 3,700,253 1,503,914
Color 83,856 244,517 1,238,828 3,138,954 3,625,473 8,331,628 3,940,985
White (%) 77.56 78.41 63.21 55.03 47.49 55.26 81.08
Black (%) 8.28 8.72 15.95 14.13 29.12 19.89 9.17
Asian (%) 4.96 5.24 6.21 11.94 11.23 10.14 4.25
Native American (%) 0.10 0.22 0.19 0.33 0.29 0.28 0.32
Others (%) 9.10 7.41 14.44 18.57 11.88 14.43 5.18
Hispanic (%) 19.21 13.21 23.16 31.99 20.05 24.48 9.18
Color (%) 33.02 28.23 46.12 57.95 61.50 55.11 24.06
Female (%) 49.24 51.22 51.94 51.90 52.29 51.98 51.10
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.80 13.01 13.16 12.55 12.00 12.47 14.14
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.96 6.82 6.38 6.07 6.62 6.38 5.78
Native-born (%) 80.58 82.49 74.88 66.85 66.66 69.33 89.09
Renter housing units (%) 22.67 24.79 38.10 56.15 49.51 48.41 25.33
College degree or higher (%) 40.49 43.98 37.58 39.18 30.93 36.01 30.52
Unemployment (%) 6.00 5.55 7.45 8.29 8.35 7.97 7.26
Poverty (%) 7.08 8.73 10.30 16.31 15.63 14.39 10.14
Mean household income ($) 111,702 124,939 105,091 93,828 78,343 91,901 79,841
4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents
4.4 A Scenario of Core-Meltdown Accident at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant 123

Fig. 4.6 Spatial distribution of percent Color among the populations surrounding Indian Point
Nuclear Generating

Fig. 4.7 The projected plume path emanating from Indian Point Nuclear Generating after a
simulated core-damage accident conducted under meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 1;
Source (Kyne 2016)
124 4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents

Table 4.11 Demographic composition in areas around Indian Point Nuclear Generating located
beneath the projected plume path with meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 1; Source
(Kyne 2016)
Demographics/ (0.000– (0.0003– (0.002– (0.005– (0.01– Total
(TEDE) rem) 0.0003) 0.002) 0.005) 0.01) 2.00)
Plume pathway 4,633 2,252 951 650 1,126 9,612
area (sq. miles)
Total population 6,406,282 4,043,251 3,798,295 1,350,646 4,256,533 19,855,006
White 3,931,013 2,688,114 2,087,612 916,557 2,664,943 12,288,238
Black 1,199,355 753,589 793,762 137,920 694,945 3,579,571
Asian 486,509 319,271 336,838 201,967 397,238 1,741,823
Native American 16,001 8,610 12,024 3,481 8,674 48,789
Others 773,403 273,667 568,060 90,721 490,733 2,196,585
Hispanic 1,241,120 444,956 950,273 197,915 1,001,888 3,836,151
Color 2,977,345 1,556,422 2,075,321 551,010 2,129,061 9,289,159
White (%) 61.36 66.48 54.96 67.86 62.61 61.89
Black (%) 18.72 18.64 20.90 10.21 16.33 18.03
Asian (%) 7.59 7.90 8.87 14.95 9.33 8.77
Native American 0.25 0.21 0.32 0.26 0.20 0.25
(%)
Others (%) 12.07 6.77 14.96 6.72 11.53 11.06
Hispanic (%) 19.37 11.00 25.02 14.65 23.54 19.32
Color (%) 46.48 38.49 54.64 40.80 50.02 46.78
Female (%) 51.91 51.80 52.46 51.67 51.30 51.85
Old (65+ years) 13.18 13.78 11.78 12.93 12.37 12.84
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 6.29 6.54 5.86 6.04 6.65 6.32
(%)
Native-born (%) 79.48 79.82 72.16 74.25 72.42 76.28
Renter housing 38.60 34.65 60.10 35.06 38.35 42.16
units (%)
College degree or 28.83 29.77 44.22 43.17 35.39 34.44
higher (%)
Unemployment 8.29 8.33 8.26 6.66 7.64 8.04
(%)
Poverty (%) 14.95 13.53 18.04 8.78 10.55 13.89
Mean household 72,709 75,906 98,518 105,781 94,536 85,420
income ($)

4.4.3 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 2

The projection exercise was conducted with the meteorological conditions typifying
Quarter 2 (April to June) with a prevailing wind direction to the South (180°) and a
wind speed of 3 miles per hour (Kyne 2016). The resulting projected radioactive
4.4 A Scenario of Core-Meltdown Accident at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant 125

Fig. 4.8 The projected plume path emanating from Indian Point Nuclear Generating after a
simulated core-damage accident conducted under meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 2;
Source (Kyne 2016)

plume dispersion footprint shows that the radioactive plume was pushed toward the
northerly direction covering an estimated area of 6,654 square miles and there was
an estimated population of 1.4 million people (1,390,699) exposing to the radiation
level ranging from between 0.00 and 0.97 REM, which is about the 1 REM that
requires either evacuation or sheltering by the NRC’s protection action guidelines
(Fig. 4.8, Table 4.12) (Kyne 2016). Among the populations exposing to the radi-
ation underneath the plume footprint, the presence of White (83%) is observed as
predominant, whereas minorities consist of Black (8%) and Hispanic (8%); about
10% of the total impacted people are estimated to live under the poverty
(Table 4.12) (Kyne 2016).

4.4.4 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 3

This resulting projected radioactive plume dispersion under meteorological condi-

tions typifying Quarter 3 (July to September) with a prevailing wind direction of
north-east (45°) and an average wind speed of 3 miles per hour shows a radioactive
plume footprint covering an area of 8,957square miles (Table 4.13) and an
126 4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents

Table 4.12 Demographic composition in areas around indian point nuclear generating located
beneath the projected plume path with meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 2; Source
(Kyne 2016)
Demographics/ (0.000– (0.0003– (0.002– (0.005– (0.01– Total
(TEDE) rem) 0.0003) 0.002) 0.005) 0.01) 2.00)
Plume pathway 2,276 1,176 825 1,126 1,251 6,654
area (sq. miles)
Total population 205,832 172,200 76,904 414,501 521,261 1,390,699
White 186,572 156,525 71,071 337,736 410,013 1,161,917
Black 6,656 6,315 2,219 42,175 56,533 113,899
Asian 3,322 2,445 1,058 15,974 14,175 36,974
Native American 425 320 88 908 897 2,639
Others 8,857 6,595 2,468 17,709 39,642 75,270
Hispanic 15,235 8,822 3,716 18,931 65,882 112,586
Color 27,459 20,457 8,383 86,031 143,661 285,990
White (%) 90.64 90.90 92.42 81.48 78.66 83.55
Black (%) 3.23 3.67 2.89 10.17 10.85 8.19
Asian (%) 1.61 1.42 1.38 3.85 2.72 2.66
Native American 0.21 0.19 0.11 0.22 0.17 0.19
(%)
Others (%) 4.30 3.83 3.21 4.27 7.61 5.41
Hispanic (%) 7.40 5.12 4.83 4.57 12.64 8.10
Color (%) 13.34 11.88 10.90 20.76 27.56 20.56
Female (%) 49.36 51.25 49.36 51.29 50.61 50.64
Old (65+ years) 13.65 17.10 14.78 13.98 13.54 14.20
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 4.97 4.90 4.35 5.24 5.59 5.24
(%)
Native-born (%) 93.11 94.33 94.20 91.80 88.63 91.25
Renter housing 15.21 23.84 17.07 34.12 30.59 27.63
units (%)
College degree or 30.86 29.20 35.30 35.28 28.94 31.49
higher (%)
Unemployment 6.55 7.19 5.64 6.58 6.98 6.75
(%)
Poverty (%) 7.19 10.62 7.20 12.44 10.55 10.44
Mean household 85,701 70,260 82,767 73,346 77,576 76,703
income ($)

approximately 12.4 million people living beneath the projected plume dispersed
areas (Kyne 2016). The impacted population is anticipated to be exposed to radi-
ation levels ranging from 0.00 and 1.565 REM, which is above the 1 REM TEDE
required to initiate either an evacuation or shelter-in-place order (Table 4.13) (Kyne
2016). The projected radioactive plume would cover areas in three states: New
York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, placing the cities and their surrounding areas,
4.4 A Scenario of Core-Meltdown Accident at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant 127

Table 4.13 Demographic composition in areas around Indian Point Nuclear Generating located
beneath the projected plume path with meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 3; Source
(Kyne 2016)
Demographics/ (0.000– (0.0003– (0.002– (0.005– (0.01– Total
(TEDE) rem) 0.0003) 0.002) 0.005) 0.01) 2.00)
Plume pathway 3,603 2,527 1,151 651 1,026 8,957
area (sq. miles)
Total population 3,454,294 5,215,402 1,482,878 1,047,547 1,236,696 12,436,816
White 2,594,096 3,437,311 974,204 622,578 1,016,798 8,644,986
Black 414,021 1,050,103 208,426 249,870 62,291 1,984,710
Asian 223,345 318,739 170,130 55,775 97,536 865,525
Native American 6,541 10,406 2,319 2,021 2,378 23,666
Others 216,292 398,843 127,799 117,302 57,692 917,928
Hispanic 459,556 697,099 229,760 213,461 121,487 1,721,363
Color 1,132,178 2,120,398 626,265 529,505 294,388 4,702,735
White (%) 75.10 65.91 65.70 59.43 82.22 69.51
Black (%) 11.99 20.13 14.06 23.85 5.04 15.96
Asian (%) 6.47 6.11 11.47 5.32 7.89 6.96
Native American 0.19 0.20 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.19
(%)
Others (%) 6.26 7.65 8.62 11.20 4.67 7.38
Hispanic (%) 13.30 13.37 15.49 20.38 9.82 13.84
Color (%) 32.78 40.66 42.23 50.55 23.80 37.81
Female (%) 51.40 51.67 51.25 51.62 51.22 51.50
Old (65+ years) 13.26 13.38 12.14 11.57 13.66 13.08
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 6.31 6.13 6.54 6.67 6.27 6.29
(%)
Native-born (%) 84.46 85.45 76.71 77.30 82.03 83.11
Renter housing 29.62 32.14 31.05 35.24 20.71 30.51
units (%)
College degree or 33.17 30.89 38.11 34.21 48.92 34.46
higher (%)
Unemployment 7.53 8.40 7.21 8.16 5.69 7.72
(%)
Poverty (%) 9.96 12.87 8.38 10.74 5.37 10.59
Mean household 87,696 77,504 95,126 95,031 133,381 89,125
income ($)

primarily Newark, East Stroudsburg, New Brunswick, Bethlehem, Trenton, and

Allentown, to higher levels of TEDEs, shown in red and brown colors (Fig. 4.9)
(Kyne 2016). The impacted populations include higher presence of minority groups
including People of Color, Black, Hispanic, and Asian, most living under poverty
(Table 4.13).
128 4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents

Fig. 4.9 The projected plume path emanating from Indian Point Nuclear Generating after a
simulated core-damage accident conducted under meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 3;
Source (Kyne 2016)

4.4.5 Projected Plume Path for Quarter 4

This projection of radioactive plume dispersion was conducted inputting the

meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 4 (October to December), with a
prevailing wind direction to the north-east (23°) and a wind speed of 6 miles per
hour (Fig. 4.10). The resulting plume footprint covers an area as large as 5,054
square miles (Table 4.14) and an estimated 10.9 million people expose to the
radiation carried by the plume ranging from 0.00 and 0.134 REM, which is lower
than the 1 REM threshold to call for either an evacuation or shelter-in-place order
(Kyne 2016). The impacted populations include a higher presence of Black,
Hispanic, and Asian (Table 4.14). The projected radioactive plume pathway placed
the six cities and their surrounding areas, namely, Newark, New York, New
Brunswick, Trenton, Philadelphia, and Camden under the higher TEDEs level
(Fig. 4.10) (Kyne 2016).
The four projection exercises provide estimated populations living in the
impacted areas and their exposure to radiation from the dispersed radioactive plume
4.4 A Scenario of Core-Meltdown Accident at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant 129

Fig. 4.10 The projected plume path emanating from Indian Point Nuclear Generating after a
simulated core-damage accident conducted under meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 4;
Source (Kyne 2016)

scenario. In the projection with meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 1, the

resulting plume pathway placed an estimated population of 7.2 million people, 7.68
million, 4.89 million, and 0.06 million population living beneath the radioactive
plume pathway areas located in the four states, namely New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and Delaware, respectively (Fig. 4.11) (Kyne 2016). Among the four
states, New Jersey hosts the largest population that could be exposed to dangerous
levels of radiation. Similar findings are observed in projection results with mete-
orological conditions typifying Quarter 4 (October to December) (Kyne 2016). The
projection results with typifying weather conditions in Quarter 3 (July to
September) provide estimates in populations of1 million people in New York, about
6.78 million in New Jersey, 4.91 million in Pennsylvania, and 0.06 million in
Delaware; indicating that the New Jersey host the largest population that would be
exposed to radiation. The projection results with the typifying weather conditions in
quarter 2 (April to June) show that 1.23 million out of the total estimated 1.39
million living in impacted areas live in New York (Fig. 4.11) (Kyne 2016).
130 4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents

Table 4.14 Demographic composition in areas around Indian Point Nuclear Generating located
beneath the projected plume path with meteorological conditions typifying Quarter 4; Source
(Kyne 2016)
Demographics/ (0.000– (0.0003– (0.002– (0.005– (0.01– Total
(TEDE) rem) 0.0003) 0.002) 0.005) 0.01) 2.00)
Plume pathway 1,926 901 676 701 851 5,054
area (sq. miles)
Total population 2,866,750 2,831,498 1,171,610 1,015,330 3,029,595 10,914,783
White 2,117,502 1,755,476 852,117 722,686 1,789,422 7,237,203
Black 396,992 635,352 162,029 142,431 588,037 1,924,840
Asian 226,263 196,489 79,354 70,270 300,291 872,667
Native American 4,572 6,976 2,674 1,816 5,751 21,790
Others 121,422 237,204 75,438 78,126 346,093 858,283
Hispanic 242,294 461,169 123,837 159,521 642,261 1,629,084
Color 895,341 1,316,486 381,473 385,785 1,560,135 4,539,219
White (%) 73.86 62.00 72.73 71.18 59.06 66.31
Black (%) 13.85 22.44 13.83 14.03 19.41 17.64
Asian (%) 7.89 6.94 6.77 6.92 9.91 8.00
Native American 0.16 0.25 0.23 0.18 0.19 0.20
(%)
Others (%) 4.24 8.38 6.44 7.69 11.42 7.86
Hispanic (%) 8.45 16.29 10.57 15.71 21.20 14.93
Color (%) 31.23 46.49 32.56 38.00 51.50 41.59
Female (%) 51.79 51.90 51.64 50.75 51.47 51.62
Old (65+ years) 14.71 12.71 13.05 13.01 12.24 13.17
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 5.98 6.42 6.10 6.05 6.79 6.34
(%)
Native-born (%) 85.01 83.31 86.06 79.83 73.42 80.98
Renter housing 28.70 35.48 26.68 30.34 36.70 32.55
units (%)
College degree or 42.45 28.91 32.55 33.45 35.16 35.07
higher (%)
Unemployment 6.46 9.72 7.63 7.16 7.91 7.88
(%)
Poverty (%) 8.75 16.77 8.45 8.62 10.50 11.27
Mean household 101,091 73,630 90,017 92,233 93,212 89,745
income ($)

4.5 Projection Limitations

The RASCAL computer code is not free from limitations in carrying out estimating
radioactive plume dispersion (Kyne 2014). The projection is highly dependent on
prevailing weather conditions on the day the event takes place (Ramsdell et al.
4.5 Projection Limitations 131

Fig. 4.11 A summary of total populations in areas around Indian Point Nuclear Generating
located beneath the projected plume path with meteorological conditions typifying four quarters;
Source (Kyne 2016)

2013). It should be noted that the eight projections conducted in this chapter may
not provide the actual plume footprint that would occur in the event actual accident,
on any given day, during any calendar quarter because the assumed typifying
weather conditions could be different from those of the actual conditions on the day
the event takes place (Kyne 2014). Second, it is not advisable to use the this
stimulation data in briefings delivered to decision markers making critical decisions
for evacuation during an actual emergency (Ramsdell et al. 2013). The resulting
projected stimulation data must be incorporated with the current meteorological
data for a few hours prior to the event (Kyne 2014). Third, extreme caution must be
taken when using the radiation level of TEDE estimated by the STDose model in
the RASCAL computer code (Kyne 2014). During the emergency, the actual
radiation does must be recomputed with the data collected on site by the EPA’s
Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT); the verification and computation
of the TEDE could be done using the Field Measurement to Dose model in the
RASCAL computer code (RASCAL Class Training July 11 and 12, 2013). In the
beginning, the projection provides estimated TEDE levels, and either evacuation or
shelter-in-place suggestions are provided based on the EPA’s Manual of protective
action guides and protective actions for nuclear incidents (US EPA 1992) while a
does of 1 REM is recommended by the NRC to evacuate in most incidents and the
agency did not specify minimum level for a shelter-in-place order (Ramsdell et al.
2013; Kyne 2014).
132 4 Simulation of Nuclear Power Plant Core-Meltdown Accidents

4.6 Conclusion

This chapter demonstrates the significant potential and scale of a nuclear power
emergency and its impacts, providing tools necessary to understand where the
plume path will disperse if a nuclear core-melt down accident occurs. The imme-
diate threat after the nuclear core-melt down accident is the release of radioactive
toxic waste to the environment. Radiation doses could be lethal. During the
Fukushima accident, the radiation dose was measured to be nearly 12,000 µSv h−1
near the main gate of the plant (Thielen 2012). The main radionuclide releases were
Iodine-131 which has a half-life of 8 days, Caseium-137 which has a 30-year
half-life, and Caesium-134 which has a two-year half-life (World Nuclear
Association 2016). One of the four activities that needs to be carried out in the
response stage of the response management process is to project radioactive plume
path dispersion in order to estimate the radiation does level and to determine the
evacuation zones. This chapter also demonstrates the two simulation exercises to
project radiative plume path dispersion at two nuclear power plants: Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station (PVNG) in Arizona and Indian Point Nuclear
Generation (IPNG) in New York. The impact of a nuclear power accident depends
on weather conditions on the day the event takes place. In the simulation exercise
for PVNG, the estimated population underneath the radioactive plume path could
be 0.66, 0.96, 3.5, and 2.3 million in typifying weather conditions, in quarters one
through four, respectively. (Tables 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7). In the similar simulation
for IPNG, the estimated population underneath the radioactive plume path could be
19.86, 1.39, 12.49, and 10.91 million, in typifying weather conditions in quarters
one through four respectively (Tables 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14). With such
population sizes being vulnerable to exposure of the radioactive plume pathway,
carrying out emergency management process effectively is critical for the lives of
nearly 3.5 million people, and 19.86 million people in the simulated worst case
scenarios at PVNG and IPNG respectively. Any delay in the four activities in
response stage, namely projection of radioactive plume dispersion, protective action
recommendation, protective action decision, and evacuation will place people living
near the power plant in danger of exposure to the high level radioactive material
releases. The previous nuclear power accidents including Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl, and Fukushima Daiichi power plants share a common issue, which is
that of a delay in evacuation of people living close to the nuclear power plants. The
delayed evacuation might have caused an increase in the unnecessary exposure to
the radioactive materials for populations that were not able to evacuate in a timely
manner. To save millions of people from unnecessary and dangerous exposure to
radiation, addressing the problem with the delay in evacuation is imperative. To
solve this issue, two preventive actions are necessary: administering potassium
(KI) pills and informing the emergency alert to the residents before the nuclear
core-melt down accident takes place.
References 133

References

Kyne D (2014) Environmental justice issues in communities hosting US nuclear power plants
(Order No. 3617964). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1528556250).
Retrieved from http://ezhost.utrgv.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezhost.utrgv.
edu:2048/docview/1528556250?accountid=7119
Kyne D (2015) Managing nuclear power plant induced disasters. J Emerg Manag (Weston, Mass.)
13(5):417–429. doi:10.5055/jem.2015.0252. Retrieved from Prime National Pub. Corp
Kyne D (2016) A Fukushima-like disaster in New York city and possible issues associated with the
extreme event management system. J Extreme Events 3(2). doi:10.1142/S234573761650007X
Normile D (2016) Five years after the meltdown, is it safe to live near Fukushima? Retrieved from
Science http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/five-years-after-meltdown-it-safe-live-near-
fukushima
Ramsdell JV Jr, Athey GF, Rishel JP (2013) RASCAL 4.3 user’s guide (Draft). Retrieved from U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1328/ML13281A701.pdf
RSICC (2013) RASCAL 4.3: radiological assessment systems for consequence analysis Reactor and
Nuclear Systems Division (RNSD), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, The Radiation Safety
Information Computational Center (RSICC). Retrieved from https://rsicc.ornl.gov/PackageDetail.
aspx?p=RASCAL%204.3&id=C00783&cpu=PCX86&v=02&t=Radiological%20Assessment%
20Systems%20for%20Consequence%20AnaLysis
Thielen H (2012) The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident-an overview. Health Physics 103(2):
169–174. Retrieved from WOS:000306109900009
US EPA (1992) Manual of protective action guides and protective actions for nuclear incidents
(EPA-400-R-92-001). Office of Radiation Programs, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/er/400-r-92-
001.pdf
US EPA (2013) Manual of protective action guides and protective action for nuclear incidents.
Office of Radiations Program, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington DC 20460. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/
documents/pag-manual-interim-public-comment-4-2-2013.pdf
US NRC (2011) Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission www.nrc.gov
US NRC (2013) RASCAL 4.3 Workbook. US Nuclear Regulartory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001. Retrieved from http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1328/ML13281A475.pdf
World Nuclear Association (2016) Fukushima accident. Retrieved from World Nuclear
Association http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-
plants/fukushima-accident.aspx
Chapter 5
Issues Associated with the Nuclear Power
Emergency

5.1 Policy Issues Associated with Nuclear Power

Emergency Response

The nature of the nuclear emergency management process requires urgency and
timeliness in carrying out activities. Why does the process require “urgency” and
“timeliness” actions? The powerful destructive nuclear fuel assemblies containing
hundreds of fuel rods may uncover and may enter into a meltdown state. In this
stage, high-level radioactive plume is released from the reactor and could disperse
into the environment. Soon after a nuclear power plant encounters the core-
meltdown accident, the immediate threat is the emission of radioactive plume. How
fast the highly toxic radioactive plume could disperse or travel will depend on the
wind speed, wind direction, precipitation, temperature, and weather conditions on
that particular day. For example, if the wind is at 10 miles per hour, then the
radioactive plume could travel a distance of 10 miles per hour. Thus, this requires
urgency and timeliness in carrying out the activities related to the emergency
management process. If there is a delay, the plume path could even travel longer
distances, placing more people at risk of exposure to high levels of radioactive
plume.
Understanding the nature of the nuclear power emergency management response
system, the NRC has set rigorous steps to follow in carrying out the response
activities. The NRC sets the policy to reflect the urgency and timeliness nature of
the nuclear emergency management by allocating 15 min each for the first three
activities (US NRC 2014). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
also plays an important role in assuring that the emergency planning in EPZ is in
order. The facility owners must follow the NRC guidelines in preparing the
emergency plan for EPZ while they need approval by FEMA, which also has the
authority to set the minimum time required to alert and notify in order to completely
cover 100% of the plume path exposure zone within a recommended goal of 45 min
(US FEMA 2016).

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 135

D. Kyne, Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies in the USA,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50343-1_5
136 5 Issues Associated with the Nuclear Power Emergency

The NRC’s policy seems to promote the effectiveness of successfully carrying

out the activities in the response phase of the emergency management process that
reflects the nature of urgency and timeliness. To recall response activities discussed
earlier, there are four steps in the response activities:
(1) projection of plume path dispersion,
(2) protective action recommendation (PAR),
(3) protective action decision (PAD), and
(4) evacuation.
To evaluate the list above, NRC’s policy toward four response activities, the
practicality of 15 min for each activity should be investigated. Looking at the
practicality of the 15-min allocated time, there are two research questions that arise:
(1) Is this 15-min time doable in practice? and
(2) What are some potential issues associated with the policy toward response
activities?
In search of answers to the questions, it is imperative to look into a projected
case of a core-meltdown accident at the PVNGS. The response activities to be
carried out are depicted in Fig. 5.1.
Step (1 & 2) Project plume path dispersion and provide a PAR
As depicted in the flowchart in Fig. 5.1, the first two steps involve two parties, the
PVNGS and the ARRA. The two steps are closely related and they could be studied
together.

Fig. 5.1 A tentative timeline for preparing a protective action decision (PAD) in the case of a
GEm at PVNGS, Source (Kyne 2015) “Reprinted from Journal of Emergency Management. Used
with permission. All Rights Reserved”
5.1 Policy Issues Associated with Nuclear Power Emergency Response 137

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS): The first activity to be

carried out by the plant personnel is to provide a protective action recommendation
(PAR) to the state, local, and tribal agencies, within 15 min from the time of the
initial incident. To do so, the plant personnel must follow the following steps:
(1) become aware of the initiation of an incident,
(2) gather meteorology information for projection,
(3) conduct a projection of radioactive plume path,
(4) have a team meeting to generate a PAR based on the projection results,
(5) deploy staff to collect the air sample beneath the radioactive plume pathway,
(6) update the projection with the changes in weather conditions,
(7) validate the projection using the collected air sample data,
(8) standby to answer to any questions other agencies may arise, and
(9) coordinate with other agencies for further actions.
Among the above-mentioned nine steps, the first four steps are mandatory to
generate a PAR at the plant. A closer look at these first four steps has been taken
into consideration, in order to estimate the time requirement.
The first challenge the plant personnel must face is becoming aware of the
incident as soon as it is initiated. There are mechanism and devices that help
indicate any potential destruction or failure of any system or parts. It could be fairly
stated that the plant personnel will be notified with the assistance of devices and
mechanism about any incident. In the past, the plant experienced two incidents
which went unnoticed for an unknown period of time. One incident was that one of
the three reactors experienced a water leak from the reactor vessel which contains
hundreds of nuclear fuel rods (Randazzo 2013). The leak was discovered in reactor
unit 3, on October 5, 2013, when the plant underwent regular re-fueling every 18–
24 months. The leak, which releases radioactive fluid at a rate of 0.01 gallons per
minute was located within the reactor unit housing, and did not reach the outside
environment. The humidity detector inside the reactor’s containment dome did not
detect the leak (Kyne 2015). The other incident was that the plant had to shut down
because there was a problem with a value on one of the reactor’s two steam
generators, which occurred on November 11, 2013 (The Associated Press 2013).
That incident was recorded as a near-miss event by the NRC due to the risks of
damage to the reactor core (Lochbaum 2012). Given the past experience, it is highly
likely that the plant management may not notice the incident as soon as it is initiated
and it is highly likely that the plant management encounters an unknown amount of
delay in preparing a PAR, within 15 minutes of a core-meltdown accident (Kyne
2015).
Next, once the plant personnel become aware of the incident, they must project a
radioactive plume pathway and radiation dose. The plant personnel must utilize the
Radiological Assessment System for Consequence Analysis (RASCAL) (RSICC
2013). The computer code will allow the plant personnel to project an estimated
138 5 Issues Associated with the Nuclear Power Emergency

radiation dose. The radiation dose was computed as a total effective dose equivalent
(TEDE), which is defined as “the sum of the deep-dose equivalent (EDE) (for
external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) (for
internal exposures)” (US NRC 2011). How long will it take to conduct a plume
projection?
(1) To start, the plant personnel must switch on the computer and open the
RASCAL code program. This will take about 5 min.
(2) There is preinstalled information in the computer code about the meteorology
data such as wind speed, wind direction, temperature, precipitation, and sta-
bility condition at the plant and other stations. The plant meteorology data
could be available, but the plant personnel may need to type them in. Other
weather information at other weather stations that were included in the pro-
jection could be available to download directly from online systems, using
direct download function in the RASCAL program. This step may require at
least 30 min to project a radioactive plume dispersion and estimated dose.
(3) Once the projected plume dispersion pathway and the estimated radioactive
dose are ready, it is necessary to call for a meeting with team members who
are responsible for making decisions for certain conclusions to be included in
the PAR. Then, a PAR must be formally prepared, which is a process that
could require an additional 15 min.
(4) When the PAR is ready, it could be transmitted via a fax or email to the
ARRA. In addition, a telephone call must be made in order to let the agency
officials know that the PAR is transmitted and to assure they received the
documents successfully. In some cases, the radioactive plume projection file
must be saved as “case file” with an extension “.STD.” This file will also help
ARRA in checking the input information, including meteorology data, and
reuse this information for projection at their end. These steps may also require
at least another 5 min of time.
In practice, the process of generating PAR at the PVNGS would require at least
55 min. This 55-min period excludes the time the incident may have gone unno-
ticed. If there is a period of time when the incident goes unnoticed, the process
would take even longer than 55 min. However, the completion of generating and
delivering the PAR does not stop PVNGS’s activities to an end and PVNGS has to
carry out other activities. It has to deploy staff or its team members to collect the air
sample beneath the radioactive plume pathway. The weather conditions could be
very fluid depending on the day and month of the year. It is also necessary to
monitor the conditions by collecting the up-to-date meteorology data and updating
the plume path dispersion with the changes in weather conditions. As discussed in
Chap. 3, there are four phases in nuclear emergency: prerelease, plume (early),
intermediate, and ingestion. The projection of plume dispersion for the first two
phases must be done with the Source Term to Dose (STDose) , whereas the latter
two phases must be computed with the Field Measurement to Dose. To project the
5.1 Policy Issues Associated with Nuclear Power Emergency Response 139

plume dispersion in the latter two phases, the PVNGS must collect air sample data
beneath the plume pathway after the radioactive plume has started dispersion.
Collection of field data at 10-min intervals along the central axis requires a certain
amount of time. The latter two phases require the use the Field Measurement to
Dose model to project plume dispersion. Therefore, the PVNGS must deploy its
team member to collect air samples. Next, the PVNGS personnel must standby to
answer any questions the other agencies may have after they have sent out their
PAR especially from the ARRA agency. In addition, the plant personnel must
coordinate with other agencies in carrying out other activities.
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency (ARRA): After ARRA receives PAR
information, this step requires ARRA to project a plume dispersion based on the
PAR prepared by the plant personnel at PVNGS (Kyne 2015). The preceding step is
preparing PAR by PVNGS. In other words, ARRA could begin this step only after
the agency receives the PAR report from the plant personnel at the PVNGS. How
could ARRA prepare a PAR at their end? The answer to this question is to follow
certain steps:
(1) receive a PAR prepared by the PVNGS,
(2) gather meteorology information for projection,
(3) conduct a projection of radioactive plume path,
(4) have a team meeting to generate a PAR based on the projection results,
(5) deploy staff to collect air samples beneath the radioactive plume pathway,
(6) update the projection with the changes in weather conditions,
(7) validate the projection using the collected air sample data,
(8) standby to answer to any questions other agencies may arise, and
(9) coordinate with other agencies for further actions.
In order to begin with the response activities at the ARRA end, the first step is to
receive the PAR prepared by the PVNGS. ARRA’s primary goal in this exercise is
to validate the PAR and the projection of radioactive plume dispersion generated by
the PVNGS. ARRA will use the same computer code RASCAL that PVNGS used
in projecting plume dispersion. Therefore, ARRA might find it useful to use the
case file saved in a file with an extension “.STD.” How long will it take to conduct a
plume projection?
(1) First, ARRA personnel must switch on the computer and open the RASCAL
code program. This will take about 5 min.
(2) There is preinstalled information in the computer code, about the meteorology
data such as wind speed, wind direction, temperature, precipitation, and sta-
bility condition at the plant and other stations. The plant meteorology data
could be available, but the plant personnel may need to type them in. Other
weather information at other weather stations that were included in the pro-
jection could be available to download directly from online using direct
download function in the RASCAL program. This step may require at least
30 min to project a radioactive plume dispersion and estimated dose.
140 5 Issues Associated with the Nuclear Power Emergency

(3) Once the projected plume dispersion pathway and the estimated radioactive
dose are ready, it is necessary to call for a meeting with team members who
are responsible for making decisions for certain authorizations to be included
in the PAR. In the decision-making process, ARRA must make a comparison
between their results and the results obtained by the PVNGS. Then, a PAR
must be formally prepared. The PAR of ARRA and PVNGS may or may not
be the same. This process could require another 20 min.
(4) When the PAR is ready, it could be transmitted via a fax or an email to the
state, local, and tribal offices. In addition, a telephone call must be made in
order to let the agency officials know that the PAR is transmitted and they
received them successfully. This informing process many also require at least
another 15 min.
In practice, the process of generating PAR and validating the PAR of PVNGS at
the ARRA office would require at least 70 min. However, upon completion of the
tasks of generating, validating, and delivering the PAR to the state, local, and tribal
offices does not bring ARRA activities to an end. ARRA has to carry out other
activities as well. ARRA is responsible to lead a group of volunteers to collect field
data, including radiation surveys, and environmental and foodstuff samples, at the
PVNG plant site. ARRA must provide training courses, including a week-long
training and day-long annual refresher course, to a group of volunteers. In addition,
ARRA is also responsible for collecting up-to-date meteorology data in order to
update the projection of plume path dispersion. It must also project the plume dis-
persion using the Field Measurement to Dose model in order to estimate the radiation
level, in the radioactive plume dispersed in the intermediate, and ingestion phases,
utilizing the up-to-date meteorology data, and air and food sample data collected by its
volunteers. ARRA officials must prepare and remain on standby to answer any
questions from the state, federal, local, and tribal agencies on the PAR provided.
Finally, ARRA officials are responsible for coordinating with other federal, local,
state, and tribal agencies in order to carry out other related activities (Kyne 2014).
Step (3) Making a protective action decision (PAD)
State, local, and tribal agencies: In this step, the state, local, and tribal agencies
have been provided with the PAR. Their goal is that the state, local, and tribal
agencies review the PAR provided by ARRA in order to prepare a protection action
decision (PAD).
(1) receive a PAR prepared by the ARRA,
(2) meet responsible parties to generate a PAD including instructions for evacu-
ation, sheltering-in-place, and the administering of potassium iodide (KI),
(3) sign the PAD by the Governor or the County Judge,
(4) send the PAD to all concerned agencies,
(5) standby to answer any questions or concerns that may arise, and
(6) coordinate with other agencies for further actions.
5.1 Policy Issues Associated with Nuclear Power Emergency Response 141

The PAD must be prepared based on the information contained in the PAR
provided by ARRA. Therefore, the concerned agencies at the state, local, and tribal
levels must wait for the PAR from ARRA. Once the agencies receive the PAR, then
responsible parties must be called for an urgent meeting to generate a PAD.
The PAD must pertain information instructions for evacuation, sheltering-in-place,
and the administering of potassium iodide (KI). Once a PAD is prepared, it must be
signed by either the Governor of the State of Arizona or by a Maricopa County
Judge and is then sent out to all concerned agencies. This entire process with the
final product of signed PAD could take at least 45 min. Then, the agencies must
send the PAD to all other concerned agencies (Kyne 2015).
Step (4) Evacuation
As soon as the PAD has been signed, the next step is to form a joint information
committee (JIC) near the incident site. The exact location is not clearly described,
however, it is indicated that the JIC would be near the incident site. A total of 48
outdoor warning sirens, located within the 10-mile radius of PVNGS’s emergency
planning zone are to be turned on as soon as the event is initiated (Maricopa County
Emergency Management 2013; Kyne 2014).
The findings reveal that it could take at least 170 min for this to take place. The
ARRA office would require at least 70 min, and the PVNGS would require at least
55 min, thus producing signed PAD could take at least 45 min. The NRC’s policy
is to complete the three steps within 45 min. The highly radioactive toxic plume
might have traveled at least about 30 miles at a wind speed of 10 miles per hour.
This does not include the possibility of unnoticing the initiation of the incident at
the PVNGS. As discussed earlier, the nuclear power plant encountered several
experiences in which the initiation of the incident went unnoticed. If this possibility
is not ruled out, the radioactive plume might have traveled even a longer distance
than 30 miles.
The lessons learned from this PVNGS case study are as follows:
(1) The population in the EPZ zone within a 10-mile radius is likely to be
evacuated after they have unnecessarily been exposed to the radioactive
plume, dispersed from the accident at the PVNGS.
(2) It would be too late to take KI pills which could protect their thyroid gland
because evaluation information could reach them after they have been exposed
to the radioactive plume or they have been beneath the radioactive plume
pathway.
(3) During the 170 min, under the changing weather conditions the radioactive
plume might have traveled various locations within the 10-mile-radius areas or
in the EPZ zone. With these possibilities, many people might have become
exposed to the high-level radioactive plume before the evacuation efforts take
place.
142 5 Issues Associated with the Nuclear Power Emergency

5.2 Issues Associated with the Process

The nuclear emergency management process constitutes the four stages, namely
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. The nuclear emergency man-
agement and the disaster management processes are similar, but the response stage
is different between the two (Fig. 3.2, Chap. 3). Unlike the response stage in the
disaster management process, the response stage in the nuclear emergency man-
agement process includes four activities that are namely projection of plume path
dispersion, protective action recommendation (PAR), protective action decision
(PAD), and evacuation. These activities are very specific and technical in nature
and require special training and specific skills in order to carry out the activities. For
instance, projection of plume path requires a special training to use the RASCAL
computer code and special knowledge about nuclear reactors and radiation. In
disaster management, this response stage does not require much specialized skill.
For example, to respond to a storm-hit area, almost anyone could carry out response
activities, searching people who are displaced, assisting in accounting for those who
have survived or may be injured.
In the nuclear emergency management process, the NRC is aware of the urgency
and timeliness nature of response stage. With the awareness, the NRC has set clear
policy guidelines on the flow of activities and the time allocated for each activities.
A delay in one activity may cause another delay in the subsequent activity.
However, as discussed earlier in this chapter, it is evident that the time allocated is
not sufficient to carry out specified activities. In every step, there is a high likeli-
hood of encountering a delay rather than accomplishing the specified tasks. In other
words, the allocated time of 15 min does not relate to the practical aspects of
accomplishing the tasks within an allocated time frame. According to Perry and
Lindell (2003), to formulate an effective emergency preparedness plan, planning,
training, and existing written plans must relate to one another. The degree of
effectiveness always depends on the degree of relation among the plan, prepared-
ness, training, and existing written plans. What is evident here is that the NRC’s
policy and guidelines provided for the response stage are not related to executing
the specified activities.
One issue associated with the nuclear power emergency process is that there is a
redundant work performed by two different parties in response activities. As dis-
cussed in the activities, projection of radioactive plume dispersion was done by the
two parties, the personnel at PVNGS and the officials at ARRA. They used the
same computer code, namely RASCAL to conduct the same study, a projection of
plume dispersion. To solve redundancy issue, taking the advantage of the
state-of-the-art technology, a virtual coordination system could be established
between the two parties. The system will provide opportunity to work together
without a requirement of traveling. In case of emergency at the nuclear power plant,
both parties could be connected through the virtual system. Then, projection of the
5.2 Issues Associated with the Process 143

plume dispersion could be carried out by both parties at the same time. Both parties
could discuss and make certain decisions on generating a PAR.
Another issue related to the nuclear power emergency management process is
the lengthy process which could take up to an estimated 170 min prior to the PAD
being officially signed and evacuation activities starting. The negative consequence
of this delay is the individuals living near the nuclear power plant exposed to the
radioactive plume before they could be evacuated. The prevention such as taking KI
pills could not be done before the individuals are exposed to the high-level
radioactive plume. There are some alternatives to reduce the processing time before
evaluation. One possible alternative is that immediately after the incident is initiated
at the nuclear power plant, the JIC should be established and notify the information
to the public living within 50 miles. The center should provide instructions and
guidelines such as taking KI pills and proper shelter placements. The JIC could also
inform the public that there are further instructions and guidelines to be provided,
including the detailed information on plume path dispersion, direction, and esti-
mated dose level, once the PAD has been officially signed. In taking these steps, the
public does not need to wait the estimated processing time for projecting plume
dispersion and radiation levels.
In short, the findings uncover the potential issues in relation to the nuclear
emergency management process and policy, the redundancy, and a lengthy process
of nuclear power emergency management. These three issues need urgent attention
from the NRC policy makers.

5.3 Issues Associated with the Priorities

This section looks into priorities specified in the radiological emergency planning.
In the discussion above, it is evident that there are issues with the nuclear power
emergency management process. This section intends to search for and identify any
issues associated with such priorities. There are certain priorities that are specified
in the national emergency planning guidelines for all hazards. On December 17,
2003, the President signed a directive, namely Homeland Security Presidential
Directive-8 (HSPD-8) of “National Preparedness Guidelines” to the Secretary of
Homeland Security to develop a national domestic all-hazards preparedness goal.
The Homeland Security Agency (US FEMA 2007) has set priorities in developing
emergency planning for all hazards.
The agency’s priorities for emergency planning include the following:
• Expand regional collaboration,
• Implement the National Incident Management System and National Response
Plan,
• Implement the National Infrastructure Protection Plan,
• Strengthen Information Sharing and Collaboration Capabilities,
• Strengthen Interoperable and Operable Communications Capabilities,
144 5 Issues Associated with the Nuclear Power Emergency

• Strengthen CBRNE Detection, Response, and Decontamination Capabilities,

• Strengthen Medical Surge and Mass Prophylaxis Capabilities, and
• Strengthen Planning and Citizen Preparedness Capabilities.
The priority areas are highlighted in order to build “a nation prepared with
coordinated capabilities to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from all
hazards in a way that balances risk with resources and need (US FEMA 2007).” The
areas that are placed under a spotlight in the HSPD-8’s guidelines vary from
collaboration, planning, preparedness, and participation. Priorities are those activ-
ities that are important to incorporate into emergency planning in order to respond
with the sufficient resources to a particular risk.
The risks from nuclear power plants are different from other risks associated with
other power facilities. The catastrophic nature of the nuclear power plant is very
powerful in destructing the individuals who are living around the nuclear power
plant. Priorities should lead to the ultimate goal of timely evacuation in order to
save lives and minimize the impacts associated with such disasters. Reflecting the
HSPD-8 directives, the priorities in nuclear power emergency planning should
include (1) collaboration, (2) information sharing, (3) planning, (4) preparedness,
and (5) citizen participation.
First, it is critical to have effective collaboration among the key stakeholders who
are involved in the nuclear emergency management process. The two facts with
nuclear power incidents are that the incident could go unnoticed and the radioactive
plume could travel at the wind speed and direction on the day of the event taking
place. It is vital to expand the collaboration among the key stakeholders who are
involved in the emergency management process for these reasons. For instance, the
plant personnel, such as the ARRA personnel, and the NRC officials need to perform
the plume projection separately in case of emergency, such as in the case study of
Palo Verde nuclear power plant accident. The three parties should collaborate and
work together on plume path projection and utilize the resources to collect the air
sample instead of gathering the air sample data separately, in different groups. Thus,
they can project radioactive plume dispersion together so that the redundancy work
could be eliminated and the process could be completed within a shorter time frame.
Second, information sharing should also be one of the priorities in emergency
planning. There are two areas of information sharing that receive a worthy dis-
cussion in this section. On the one hand, the information sharing among the key
stakeholders is not clearly outlined. For example, the information sharing between
the plant personnel and the ARRA personnel could be carried out since the incident
was initiated and the plume projection and PAR formulation could be shared.
Second, the information sharing between the authorities and the public is not clear.
The information sharing is regularly done with the residents who live within the
10-mile-radius or within the plume exposure pathway EPZ. However, the infor-
mation about the plant potential risks and evacuation is not shared with the residents
who live in the radiation ingestion pathway EPZ or within the 11–50-mile radius
from the nuclear power plant. The reason is that in case of nuclear power emer-
gency, the possibilities of evacuating the residents are not only within a 10-mile
5.3 Issues Associated with the Priorities 145

radius. As shown in the case study of the Palo Verde, the distance the radioactive
plume could travel is far beyond the 50-mile-radius zones. Therefore, the infor-
mation sharing must be regularly carried out with all residents at large, including
those who live further than the 10-mile radius.
Third, another issue could be planning for a radiological emergency. The National
Preparedness Guidelines highlight the importance of planning, in the priorities list.
One issue associated with nuclear power emergency planning is lack of focus on
mitigation before an incident takes place, but it rather focuses on the response to
emergency events. An emergency management plan consists of four phases: miti-
gation, preparedness, response and recovery (Choi 2008). The first two phases take
place before an emergency has occurred, whereas, the latter two phases focus on
activities carried out after the emergency has already occurred. To formulate any
effective emergency management plan, it is vital that every effort must be made for
both mitigation and preparedness. The overall goal for the two phases is to minimize
negative impacts from the emergency event. To do so, optimizing lead time is very
important in the two phases of mitigation and preparedness. As an example, in case
of a tsunami event, an early-warning could be issued anywhere from a few minutes
to hours before the actual tsunami would hit the impacted areas. Such warning
provides local people ample lead time to mitigate the risks and relocate themselves to
a designated safe haven. However, a nuclear power emergency plan does not seem to
embrace the preciousness of the lead time. The emergency plan clearly states that
only after PDA has been signed and the JIC has been formed, the evacuation could
begin. At this evacuation stage, it is highly likely that the individuals in the affected
areas might have been exposed to the radiative plume (Kyne 2014).
Fourth, another issue associated with radiological emergency planning is lack of
sound preparedness, which deserves to be included in the list of priorities. Planning,
training, and existing written plans, and their relatedness to one another contribute
to the effectiveness of any emergency plan (Perry and Lindell 2003). The ultimate
goal of emergency management is to minimize the potential negative impacts and
save lives of individuals in the impacted areas. Before any evacuation activities
could be initiated, there are certain detailed and technically oriented steps and
procedure to follow. These steps include projecting the plume dispersion pathway,
estimated radiation dose level, generating PAR, and generating the PAD, which
precede the official notification. Carefully and exactly following the steps, and
obtaining the desired outcomes from radioactive plume projection, in addition to
correctly estimating population size could take a certain amount of time; it is highly
likely that the radioactive plume might have dispersed and traveled more than
10-miles from the PVNGS when the notification has been completed by the JIC. It
is vital to initiate evacuation activities as soon as the incident has begun at the NPP
because any delay might have unsurmountable negative impacts (Kyne 2014).
Fifth, citizen participation is another priority in formulating an emergency plan.
The potentially effected population size is enormous. It could be as big as more than
three million of people depending on the weather conditions including wind speed
and wind direction on that particular day. When it is time to evacuate, citizens must
evacuate themselves. It is impossible for the responders go to every residence and
146 5 Issues Associated with the Nuclear Power Emergency

evacuate the individuals who are in the affected areas. To do so, it is necessary that
the emergency plan emphasizes citizen participation in the emergency planning and
exercises. The plume exposure pathway EPZ, when drills are exercised every 2
years, the individuals living in those areas should participate in the exercise. As
suggested, the citizen participation should also be expended into radiation ingestion
zone: EPZ within a 50-mile radius.
In short, emergency planning clearly lacks defined priorities that are vital to
achieve the ultimate goal of saving lives and minimizing impacts. The priorities
must be clearly related to the ultimate goal, and they deserve attention by key
stakeholders who are concerned with the radiological emergency planning.

5.4 Issues Associated with the Stakeholders’ Participation

The key stakeholders involved in the radiological emergency management could be

identified as follows:
1. Nuclear power plants,
2. State, local, and tribal organizations,
3. Federal agencies including NRC, FEMA, EPA, DOE,
4. Nongovernmental organizations, and
5. Citizen groups.
It is evident that the above-mentioned key stakeholders are not involved in the
emergency planning. For example, the emergency drill exercises are required by the
NRC’s regulation. Every 2 years, a joint emergency drill exercise must be carried
out by nuclear power plant personnel, and off-site responders including emergency
responders. On November 1, 2011, PVNGS conducted a medical emergency
response drill under FEMA’s Radiological Emergency Response Plans (RERP).
The drill included key stakeholders: ARRA, PVNGS, and Buckeye Valley Fire
Department (BVFD). In contrast, in case of radiology emergency, more than seven
stakeholders including other agencies and departments are anticipated to carry out
response activities together. The objective drill was to evaluate the preparedness
and readiness level of the key stakeholders, with a goal to carry out two hypo-
thetical patients from the plant site, facing radiological injuries and contamination.
There are two reasons that such drills do not represent a real scenario. In the event
of a radiological emergency, citizens must evacuate on their own. In a real event,
there are no sufficient responders for individuals living in areas within a 10-mile
radius from an NPP. The drill also lacks other activities such as the actual practices
of plume path projection, generating PAR, making decision to reach a PAD, and
disseminating information by a JIC. It is essential to design the drill that resembles
actual disaster events and key stakeholders (Kyne 2015).
Another evidence for ineffective preparedness was found in the evaluation
report, as the emergency responders do not have permanent dosimeters, but bor-
rowed ones; the dosimeters are required to read the radiation levels before entering
5.4 Issues Associated with the Stakeholders’ Participation 147

into the incident areas, according to the EPA’s PAGs (US FEMA 2011). This kind
of issue with poor and ineffective preparedness related to radiological emergency
planning is shared by 26 of the 31 states that host an NPP (Watkins et al. 2011). In
particular, the emergency planning lacks effective preparedness in other activities
including exposure assessment, environmental sampling, human specimen collec-
tion and analysis, and human health assessments, which were poorly prepared to
meet their responsibilities as laid out in the written response plans (Kyne 2014).
In short, getting a PAD done in a timely manner is very important in any
emergency planning process, in order to begin evacuation activities. It is entirely
dependent on how quickly PVNGS and ARRA’s work is performed in assessing
radiation doses and producing PARs. It is evident that the previous training and
drills did not embrace the other elements, focusing on risk assessment, field data
collection, radiation dose estimation, and on compiling a PAR. Most important, the
missing element of risk-communication could hinder other efforts in preparedness.
Trainings are meant to facilitate communication between at-risk populations and
other federal, state, and local agencies with no active role to play in emergency
planning (Perry and Lindell 2003). The radiological emergency plan should include
a training focusing on the important element of risk-communication with the
individuals living the impacted areas near NPPs; such populations should be pro-
vided with KI tablets and clear and detailed instructions on when and how to
properly use them to protect any potential exposure to radiation in case of a nuclear
power emergency (Perry and Lindell 2003; Kyne 2014).

5.5 Issues Associated with the Evacuation

According to FEMA (US FEMA 2016), the minimum acceptable design objectives
for coverage by the system are:
(1) “the capability to provide both an alert signal and an informational or
instructional message to the population on an area wide basis throughout the
10-mile emergency planning zone (EPZ), within 15 min;
(2) that the initial notification system will assure direct coverage of essentially
100% of the population within 5 miles of the site;
(3) notification methods will be established to assure coverage within 45 min of
essentially 100% of the population within the entire plume exposure EPZ who
may not have received the initial notification. The basis for any special
requirement exceptions (e.g., large water areas with transient boats or remote
hiking trails) must be documented; and
(4) utility operators identify and develop, in conjunction with state, local, and tribal
governmental officials, the administrative and physical means for a backup public
alert and notification system capable of covering essentially 100% of the popu-
lation within the entire plume exposure EPZ in the event that the primary method
is unavailable. The backup means that alert and notification will be conducted
within a reasonable time, with a recommended goal of 45 min (US FEMA 2016).”
148 5 Issues Associated with the Nuclear Power Emergency

There are several issues in evacuation: First, the findings of this study revealed
that there are about 1.39–19.85 million population that could possibly be exposed to
the radioactive plume pathway in case of a nuclear core-meltdown accident at the
IPNG. This is a very significant finding as this would drastically impact a very large
population and would have long-term negative consequences for many years after
the initial incident. The projection conducted in this study has the following two
limitations: First, the findings related to the radiation dose and plume path dis-
persion are based on an assumption that they are included in one of the two reactors
as a core-meltdown accident. However, the Indian Point Nuclear Generating hosts
two nuclear power reactors, namely Indian Point Unit 2 and Indian Point Unit 3 that
are currently located and are in operation at the plant site. If both are to experience
the core-meltdown accident scenario, then the impacts and radioactivity from that
extreme event could be magnified in multiples of two, given the issue at hand and
that would be twice as big as the numbers. Second, the computer code provides a
maximum of 100-mile radius for projected plume pathway. In reality, the
radioactive plume could travel more than 100 miles from the nuclear power plant.
For example, the plume traveled more than 160 miles when the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant encountered the core-meltdown accident. In addition, there are
estimated 253,977 individuals and 15,118,181 individuals live in areas within a
10-mile radius surrounding the plant and areas within a 50-mile radius surrounding
the plant, respectively, which are officially designated as emergency planning zones
(EPZs) by the NRC. In counting those individuals, this constitutes higher per-
centage of minority racial and ethnic groups than their counterparts living in areas
outside of the EPZs. Thus, minority groups are again significantly more impacted
and face greater consequences in such events. Having said this, the potential
extreme event stemming from the IPNG’s core-meltdown accident and the esti-
mated negative impacts, the key stakeholders who are involved in the emergency
management process could face tremendous issues in carrying out activities in the
process. Among the issues they could potentially face, I would like to highlight the
following emergency event-related issues below:
When the evacuation has been announced, the population living in the EPZ zone
within a 10-mile radius around the IPNG will have been completely exposed to the
radioactive plume. The well-documented emergency planning and preparedness
including the EPA’s Manual of protective action guides and protective action for
nuclear incidents (US EPA 1992) and FEMA’s action guide (US EPA 1992;
US FEMA 2013) do not reflect the time required for actions in practice.
Another anticipated issue is shadow evacuation which is defined as “evacuations
by persons outside of any officially declared evacuation zone” (Dotson and Jones
2008). The current emergency plan focuses on areas within a 10-mile radius and
show evacuations beyond a 10-mile distance, which could become a serious
problem in case of a nuclear power emergency. When individuals living beyond the
10-mile distance engage in shadow evacuations, they could have a negative impact
on traffic flows especially in some large-scale evacuations. The risk awareness,
personalization of that risks, and evaluation of alternative actions of those indi-
viduals would have impacts on the behavior of evacuation (Sorenson 1987). It is a
5.5 Issues Associated with the Evacuation 149

concern that individuals living outside a 10-mile radius did not receive regular
information on emergency planning (US GAO 2012) and their risk awareness, risks
personalization, evaluation of alternative actions could be different from those of
their counterpart living in the areas within the 10-mile radius zone. Therefore, to
overcome issues associated with the shadow evacuation, the NRC must incorporate
this important element of shadow evacuation in the emergency plan, drills, and
evacuation exercises (Kyne 2016).
Another issue associated with evacuation is the important element of coordi-
nation among key stakeholders. In a nuclear emergency, to effectively carry out
evacuation activities, the coordination among various federal, state, tribal, and local
agencies is critical. The evacuation tasks become more complex when the emer-
gency takes place in a mega city such as New York. Many years ago, a small
number of organizations predominantly participated in the evacuation efforts in
response to 911 attacks in New York (Schweinberger et al. 2014). It was evident
that there was a direct communication among US NRC, FEMA and state author-
ities, but they lacked direct communication with county officials who are respon-
sible to develop a radiological emergency plan (US GAO 2001). The importance of
coordination among federal agencies was highlighted in case of weapon of mass
destruction (WMD) response in mega cities, including New York (Bell and Dallas
2007). Thus, the element of coordination is essential among various key stake-
holders at all levels (Kyne 2016).
The other issue is that the evacuation plan lacks the element of educating the
public. In the context of mega cities, there are many high-rise buildings and
evacuation from individuals living in those buildings needs special procedures.
There is a continued need for educating the public from evacuating from such
high-rises buildings after the 911 attacks (Zmud 2008). Emergency responders
could face great challenges when evacuating the individuals living in high-rise
buildings who lack education or training on special instruction and procedures
required for evacuation. Thus educating the public living in the host communities is
a vital element to include in emergency planning for a successful and effective
evacuation (Kyne 2016).

5.6 Issues Associated with the Recovery

There are anticipated issues related to recovery activities in nuclear emergency

planning. First, after nuclear core-meltdown accidents, nearby lands became
irrecoverable and uninhabitable for humans. After the Fukushima accident, some
areas were left contaminated and some of them become uninhabitable lands
and were declared as permanent “exclusion” zones. It was estimated that there
were about 11,580 squares miles of land which were contaminated with radioac-
tive materials; about 4,500 squares miles (similar to the size of Connecticut) have
radiation level of 1 mSV (millisievert) per year, which is higher than the US
exposure limit; and a total of 310 square miles located northwest of the plant with
150 5 Issues Associated with the Nuclear Power Emergency

the 12-mile radius from the plant were declared as permanent “exclusion” zones
(Starr 2016). There are nearly 160,000 Japanese who are still displaced because
they cannot return to their lands which were contaminated with radioactive mate-
rials or declared as permanent “exclusion” zones (Glinsky 2011). Therefore, it is
essential to incorporate factors of radioactive contamination on lands nearby NPPs
and situate displaced individuals into an effective recovery plan (Kyne 2016).
Another issue is associated with the loss of land due to contamination with
radioactive materials after a nuclear power core-meltdown accident. Quantifying the
economic and monetary values of land, which poses great challenges in carrying out
recovery activities. Radioactive contamination is very complex to manage and
sometime contamination leaves land permanently uninhabitable. For example, it was
roughly estimated that the values of contaminated lands and property within the 310
square miles after the Fukushima disaster were between $250 and $500 billion US. In
addition, there was a cost for small compensation provided to 160,000 people with no
place to live (Starr 2016). The costs for radioactive contamination in some places in
the U.S. would be even greater than those of Fukushima. If the IPNG NPP encounters
a core-meltdown accident, the radioactive contamination of land and water could
cause $1.702 trillion for taxable property in the New York City area (based on the
estimated total market value of taxable property in New York City as of July 1, 2016)
(Barbanel 2016). In addition to the estimated values, residents could face similar
problems to Japanese victims who were forced to pay their mortgage for the houses
they could no longer live in, located in the “exclusion” zones (Kyne 2016).
Third, the other issue associated with recovery is the economic loss of businesses
which were located in the radioactive contaminated areas. For example, Wall Street,
a world international financial hub is located only 25 miles away from the
IPNG NNP in New York. In addition, the world’s biggest economy is located in the
U.S.; 2013 US gross domestic product (GDP) of $16.80 trillion, comprising 22.4%
of global economic output (Picardo 2014). The business firms located on Wall
Street control trillions of dollars in financial assets. Furthermore, the New York
Foreign Exchange Market is ranked as the second-largest trading center in the
world, with a daily volume exceeding $5 trillion (Picardo 2014). It should be noted
that economic loss could vary with different geographical areas where the NPP is
located. However, if the core-meltdown accident takes place in an area like New
York, it is hard to deny the potential tremendous impacts on the nation’s economy
as well as the world’s economy, in addition to impacts to the local community with
regard to contamination and radiation exposure (Kyne 2016).

5.7 Conclusion

This chapter provides discussions on issues associated with the nuclear emergency
management process. First, this chapter identifies issues associated with the four
response activities in nuclear emergency process, namely projection of radioactive
plume path dispersion, protective action recommendations, protective action
5.7 Conclusion 151

decision, and evacuation. The government has developed an emergency plan

containing detailed guidelines. This chapter investigates the emergency plan poli-
cies and guidelines. The issues identified are potential issues in relation to the
nuclear emergency management process and policy, the redundancy, and a lengthy
process of nuclear power emergency management. The ultimate goal in the nuclear
power emergency management process is to provide a lead time to mitigate the
impacts from the nuclear power accidents. To do so, the public must be notified of
any alert as soon as the accident is initiated. A delay in evacuation activities would
have undesired consequences of increasing mortality rates caused by the nuclear
power accident. To elaborate the consequences of delayed evacuation, the study
demonstrates the two simulation exercises of nuclear power emergency events at
PVNG and INPG. The projection results show the demographic characteristics of
populations that are vulnerable to any potential nuclear power accidents (as dis-
cussed details in Chap. 4). In the worst-case scenarios, people living within the area
underneath the plume path would be close to 3.5 million in numbers (Table 4.6,
Chap. 4), under typifying weather conditions in quarter 3 at PVNG and 19.86
million people (Table 4.11, Chap. 4) are likely to be exposed to high levels of
radiation doses. Above all, the issues also places 87.5 million people living within a
50-mile radius surrounding the NPPs (including 45 million women, 8 million
elderly who are 65 years or older, and one million kids who are younger than
5 years old) (Table 2.1, Chap. 2) at risks of exposure to radiation and radioactive
nuclear materials. This chapter also identifies issues related to priority setting in the
emergency management process. Findings show that the emergency planning
clearly lacks defined priorities that are vital to achieve the ultimate goal of saving
lives and minimizing impacts. This chapter also calls attention from key stake-
holders, namely nuclear power plants; state, local, and tribal organizations; federal
agencies including NRC, FEMA, EPA, DOE; nongovernmental organizations; and
citizen groups to actively participate and collaborate in carrying out activities in
managing nuclear power emergency process. Issues associated with evacuation are
also identified and addressed within this chapter. As discussed in Chap. 1 under
topic 1.3, the previous three historical nuclear power accidents demonstrated that
there were delays in evacuation. For example, in the Three Mile Island accident,
only women and children were advised to evacuate within a 5-mile radius, which
was a day after the radioactive materials were released into the air. Men, women,
seniors, and children were not included in the evacuation plans immediately. There
are about eight million seniors who are 65 years or older live within a 50-mile
radius from NPPs. Evacuating elders need to be a program with special and specific
details relating to limitations, including possible mobility issues. There were nearly
10% of evacuations that were recorded as evacuation-related deaths in the
Fukushima accident (Chap. 1). In addition, the places in New York and its vicinity
areas pose challenges for evacuation because of the high-rise buildings which
require special skills for evacuation. Finally, the recovery poses challenges
including removing melted fuels and containing the disaster side.
152 5 Issues Associated with the Nuclear Power Emergency

References

ARRA (2013) Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Retrieved from Arizona Radiation
Regulatory Agency http://www.azrra.gov/er/pvngs.html
Barbanel J (2016) New York city property values surge; brooklyn leads way in largest increase in
values since ‘08; taxes are set to rise. Retrieved from Wall Street Journal (Online) http://login.
ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1757132464?accountid=4485
Bell WC, Dallas CE (2007) Vulnerability of populations and the urban health care systems to
nuclear weapon attack-examples from four American cities. Int J Health Geogr 6. Retrieved
from WOS:000258119500001
Choi SO (2008) Emergency management: implications from a strategic management perspective.
J Homeland Secur Emerg Manag 5(1). Retrieved from WOS:000254565600001
Dotson LJ, Jones J (2008) Identification and analysis of factors affecting emergency evacuations.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Division of Preparedness and Response; Sandia
National Laboratories
Glinsky V (2011) Indian point: the next Fukushima? Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
2011/12/17/opinion/is-indian-point-the-next-fukushima.html?_r=0
Kyne D (2014) Environmental justice issues in communities hosting US nuclear power plants
(Order No. 3617964). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
(1528556250). Retrieved from http://ezhost.utrgv.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.
com.ezhost.utrgv.edu:2048/docview/1528556250?accountid=7119
Kyne D (2015) Managing nuclear power plant induced disasters. J Emerg Manag (Weston, Mass)
13(5):417–429. doi:10.5055/jem.2015.0252. Retrieved from Prime National Pub. Corp
Kyne D (2016) A Fukushima-like disaster in New York city and possible issues associated with the
extreme event management system. J Extreme Events 3(2). doi:10.1142/S234573761650007X
Lochbaum D (2012) The NRC and nuclear power plant safety in 2012: tolerating the intolerable.
Union of Concerned Scientists: Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions. Retrieved
from: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/NRC-nuclear-safety-2012-
report.pdf
Maricopa County Emergency Management (2013) Nuclear plant to sound emergency sirens:
annual test part of federal requirements. Retrieved from Maricopa County Emergency
Management http://www.maricopa.gov/pr_detail.aspx?releaseID=2445
Morris DZ (2016) At Indian point, a small leak turns into a big political battle over nuclear energy.
Retrieved from Fortune http://fortune.com/2016/02/28/indian-point-nuclear/
Picardo E (2014) Why Wall Street is a key player in the world’s economy. Retrieved from
Investopedia. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100814/wall-streetsenduring-impact-
economy.asp
Perry RW, Lindell MK (2003) Preparedness for emergency response: guidelines for the emergency
planning process. Disasters 27(4):336–350. Retrieved from WOS:000187255200005
Randazzo R (2013) Palo Verde nuclear plant leak could cost $10 M to $15 M to fix. Retrieved
from AZCentral.com http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/20131015palo-
verde-nuclear-plant-leak-could-cost-m-m-fix.html
RSICC (2013) RASCAL 4.3: radiological assessment systems for consequence analysis Reactor and
Nuclear Systems Division (RNSD). Oak Ridge National Laboratory, The Radiation Safety
Information Computational Center (RSICC). Retrieved from https://rsicc.ornl.gov/PackageDetail.
aspx?p=RASCAL%204.3&id=C00783&cpu=PCX86&v=02&t=Radiological%20Assessment%
20Systems%20for%20Consequence%20AnaLysis
Schweinberger M, Petrescu-Prahova M, Vu DQ (2014). Disaster response on September 11, 2001
through the lens of statistical network analysis. Social Networks, 37:42–55. Retrieved from
WOS:000334001400004
Sorenson JH (1987) Evacuations due to off-site releases from chemical accidents experience from
1980 to 1984. J Hazard Mater 14
References 153

Starr S (2016) Costs and consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. In: PSR’s Environmental
Health Policy Institute Retrieved from http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-
health-policy-institute/responses/costs-and-consequences-of-fukushima.html
The Associated Press (2013) Palo Verde unit cuts power for valve problem. Retrieved from Contra
Costa Times http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_24477243/palo-verde-unit-cuts-power-valve-
problem
US EPA (1992) Manual of protective action guides and protective action for nuclear incidents.
Office of Radiations Program, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC
20460. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/er/400-r-92-001.pdf
US FEMA (2007) National preparedness guidelines. US Department of Homeland Security.
Retrieved from: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/National_Preparedness_Guidelines.pdf
US FEMA (2011) Palo Verde nuclear generating station after action report/ improvement plan.
Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program, US FEMA. Retrieved from: http://
pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1217/ML12174A197.pdf
US FEMA (2013) Communicating during and after a nuclear power plant incident. US Department
of Homeland Security. Retrieved from: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-
1919-25045-1433/communicating_during_and_after__npp_incident___june_2013__secure_.pdf
US FEMA (2016) REP program manual January 2016 (FEMA P-1028). US FEMA. Retrieved from:
http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1452711021573-a9b920f4f7ac34ea9f32738f51982afe/
DHS_FEMA_REP_Program_Manual_Jan2016_Secure.pdf
US GAO (2001) Nuclear regulations: progress made in emergency preparedness at Indian point 2,
but additional improvements needed (GAO-01-605). United States Government Accountable
Office (US GAO). Retrieved from: http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/231903.pdf
US GAO (2012) Emergency preparedness: NRC needs to better understand likely public response
to radiological incidents at nuclear power plants (GAO-13-243). United States Government
Accountable Office (US GAO). Retrieved from: https://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/emergency/
gaoshadowevacreport413.pdf
US NRC (2011) Nuclear Regulartory Commission. Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission www.nrc.gov
US NRC (2014) Protective action recommendations. Retrieved from US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/about-emerg-preparedness/
protective-action-recommendations.html
Watkins SM, Perrotta DM, Stanbury M, Heumann M, Anderson H, Simms E et al (2011)
State-level emergency preparedness and response capabilities. Disaster Med Public Health
Preparedness 5:S134-S142. Retrieved from WOS:000288748000014
Zmud M (2008) Public perceptions of high-rise building emergency evacuation preparedness. Fire
Technol 44(4):329–336. Retrieved from WOS:000259908600003
Chapter 6
Conclusions

6.1 Dealing with the Inevitable Risks of NPPs

The previous chapters discussed the risks associated with the US commercial
nuclear power plants. The catastrophic nature of nuclear power plants is evident in
the three historic nuclear power disasters, namely the Three Mile Island (TMI) in
USA, Chernobyl in Ukraine, and Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. This powerful and
destructive nature of power plants is regarded as inevitable. The inevitability of the
risks means that as long as nuclear power plants exist, individuals living in close
proximity to these facilities must burden the risks and must embrace the catas-
trophic nature of a possible powerful destruction. As long as our country places
nuclear power plants in operation, it has to find ways to deal with the risks and
pitfalls that come with nuclear facilities. There are many possible ways to better
deal with the nature of powerful destruction of nuclear power plants. This chapter
addresses three such possible ways to address these potential disasters:
(1) Complete elimination of inevitable risks
(2) Transforming the inevitable risks into evitable risks
(3) Minimizing the inevitable risks (Fig. 6.1).
One possible way is to completely eliminate inevitable risks of nuclear power
plants by getting rid of the source of the risks. In other words, a complete shutdown
of the fleet of nuclear power plants could be one possible way to completely
eliminate the inevitable risks. This also requires consensus agreement of key
stakeholders.
Second, another possible way to deal with the inevitable risks of nuclear power
plants is to transform the inevitable risks into evitable risks. This requires a close
monitoring system and making great efforts in transforming the risks.
Finally, another possible way to deal with inevitable risks is to minimize them,
so that the inevitable risks become minimal, which could lead to reduced impacts.

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 155

D. Kyne, Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies in the USA,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50343-1_6
156 6 Conclusions

Fig. 6.1 Dealing with the inevitable risks of nuclear power plants

Because the risks are inevitable, a possible intervention to minimize these risks is to
create an effective radiological emergency plan, which could possibly lead to
minimizing the negative impacts.

6.2 Eliminating the Inevitable Risks

To completely eliminate the inevitable risks requires the shutting down permanently of
all existing US commercial nuclear power plants. To do so, all stakeholders must have
a common consensus to discontinue nuclear power as an energy source. The feasibility
of the discontinuation of nuclear energy depends on key stakeholders and their per-
spectives on the issue. This section enhances the understanding of key stakeholders’
perspectives toward the future of nuclear energy. The government, regulators, NPP
owners, nuclear safety advocates, pro-nuclear power advocates, scientists, and the
public are identified as key stakeholders in such projects (Kyne 2014).
Dr. Gregory B. Jaczko, who was a regulator and former chairman of the NRC
(2009–2012), saw some weaknesses and limitations of nuclear technology. He
asserted that the current NPPs in operation were not designed to withstand severe
accidents (Jaczko 2013; Kyne 2014). His suggestion was that the U.S. take a pause
6.2 Eliminating the Inevitable Risks 157

for now and spend some time to collect more information about the current tech-
nology and their limitations; then find solutions to cover such limitations. In his
view, ideal technology should not have such limitations to withstand accidents, to
safely operate, and to dispose spent fuel. He provided a question to the key
stakeholders: “Why do we continue to move forward with the technology that
presents all of these weaknesses and pursue it without stopping?” (Jaczko 2013;
Kyne 2014). In fact, Dr. Jaczko might not expect the answers from the stakeholders;
his intention might have been to encourage them to reflect the current limitations
with the existing nuclear technology (Kyne 2014).
Another key stakeholder, namely Arnie Gundersen, who is a nuclear safety
advocate with 40 years of experience in nuclear power engineering asked all key
stakeholders including federal- and state-level governments, business interest
groups and the nuclear power industry at large to watch the video footage of the at
Japan’s Fukushima NPP (Gundersen 2013; Kyne 2014). His intention was to
increase the awareness of the key stakeholders, especially policy makers that such a
nuclear power accident could occur in the U.S. and they should discontinue their
beliefs that such accident could occur only outside of the U.S. (Kyne 2014).
There are climate-change scientists who think that nuclear power energy is the
only viable source of energy to counter climate change issues from other forms of
energy. Among them, James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom
Wigley are a group of four climate-change scientists who sent an open letter in
which they called world leaders to support nuclear power energy (CNN 2013; Kyne
2014). They raised concerns with the current energy supply and consumption rates
exceeding the planet’s ability to reverse the effects of carbon dioxide pollution;
nuclear power energy is seen as solution to the pollution problem (Kyne 2014).
However, in my view, when taking into account of potential harms from nuclear
power core-meltdown accidents, radioactive pollution from day-to-day operations,
irreversible effects of radioactive contamination, risks associated with transport and
storage of radioactive waste could easily far outweigh solving the carbon dioxide
pollution (Kyne 2014).
Like the climate-change scientists, there are some key stakeholders who have
thoughts on nuclear renaissance. However, one important key stakeholder, namely
Peter Bradford, a former member of the NRC and former chair of the Maine and
New York Utility Regulatory Commission has negative views on the possibility of
“nuclear renaissance” taking place (Kyne 2014). He argued that “there is no coming
nuclear renaissance—instead, the nuclear renaissance bubble will soon burst
(Bradford 2013; Kyne 2014).” His notion was that the requirement of immerse
financial commitments caused nuclear power energy to be a less acceptable and
competent form of energy and his prediction was that the NPPs in current operation
will shut down of their own accord, due to economic considerations (Kyne 2014).
Another key stakeholder is Naoto Kan, the former prime minister of Japan and
leader of the administration who managed the nuclear emergency during the
Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. He mentioned that nuclear power core-meltdown
accidents are the only events that could negatively impact 50 million people, short
of a global war (Kan 2013; Kyne 2014). After the aftermath of the Fukushima
158 6 Conclusions

nuclear accident, Mr. Kan admitted that his belief of safe nuclear power energy has
gone a 180° change and now he believes that the risks associated with nuclear
power plants are not inevitable; his suggestion in eliminating the risks is to get rid
of nuclear power itself (Kyne 2014).
Another key stakeholder, President Barack Obama presented his vision on
nuclear energy. He asserted that nuclear energy could become part of the “global
energy mix” in his “Sustainable Energy for All Initiative” (Gerhardt 2013; Kyne
2014). He stated the following:
The United States will continue to promote the safe and secure use of nuclear power
worldwide, through a variety of bilateral and multilateral engagements. For example, the U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission advises international partners on safety and regulatory
best practices, and the Department of Energy works with international partners on research
and development, nuclear waste and storage, training, regulations, quality control, and
comprehensive fuel leasing options. Going forward, we will expand these efforts to pro-
mote nuclear energy generation consistent with maximizing safety and nonproliferation
goals (Barack Obama, as cited in (Gerhardt 2013).

My notion is that the President’s remarks share the vision of President Eisenhower,
who launched the Atoms for Peace program some 60 years prior (Kyne 2014):
The more important responsibility of this Atomic Energy Agency would be to devise
methods whereby this fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits
of mankind. Experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture,
medicine, and other peaceful activities. A special purpose would be to provide abundant
electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world. Thus the contributing powers
would be dedicating some of their strength to serve the needs rather than the fears of
mankind (Eisenhower 1953).

Other key stakeholders include the U.S. general public. There was a poll conducted
by CBS, the American broadcast-television station, which measure U.S. public
opinion of nuclear power just after the event of the nuclear disaster in Japan. The
survey results showed that 50% of Americans were opposed to building new nuclear
plants, an increase from 34% in 2008; and 62% of Americans objected to the con-
struction of an NPP anywhere near their communities (Madrigal 2011; Kyne 2014). In
my view, the public does not benefit from the current nuclear power plants. One reason
is that they have to bare the costs in the event of a core-meltdown accident with their
tax-payer money under the Price-Anderson Act of 1957 (Huffington Post 2013; Kyne
2014). In addition, nuclear power poses potential safety issues to the public as
unnecessary, uneconomic, uninsurable, and unsafe (Kyne 2014). Moreover, the public
appears concerned with the ageing of the existing fleet of U.S.-based commercial
NPPs and they are even called “zombie nukes” (Gerhardt 2013; Kyne 2014).
In short, one notion is that there is an on-going tension between two groups of
the key stakeholders with pro- and anti-nuclear views. It is unlikely that the two
groups could have a common consensus to discontinue the use of nuclear power
energy in the near future. As a result, it is very likely that the use of nuclear power
energy will go on, given the fact that political and economic factors outweigh the
risks individuals living around the nuclear power plants are faced with, including
the potential for powerful destruction scenarios.
6.3 Transforming the Inevitable Risks 159

6.3 Transforming the Inevitable Risks

The NRC has initiated reactor oversight framework which emphasizes on three
performance areas, namely reactor, radiation, and safeguards. These three areas
consist of seven cornerstones that reflect the essential safety aspects of facility
operation: (1) initiating events, (2) mitigating systems, (3) barrier integrity,
(4) emergency preparedness, (5) public radiation safety, (6) occupational radiation
safety, and (7) physical protection (Fig. 6.2) (US NRC 2015).
The NRC claimed that it utilizes the well-defined reactor oversight process
(ROP) in order to monitor the performance of reactors and their adherence to the
NRC’s rules, regulations, and license requirements (US NRC 2014). With this ROP
in place, the NRC expects to transform the inevitable risks into evitable risks. In
fact, no matter how much ROP benefited from the past 30 years of experience that
NRC has, it is unlikely that the regulatory agency could realize its overall objective
for two reasons: The powerful destructive nature of nuclear fuels could be changed
as long as the nuclear fuel rods are used in the nuclear core reactor, and the nuclear
power plants consist of very complex and tightly coupled systems and accidents in
the system are normal (Perrow 1999).
The reasons for focusing the three areas reveal that each goal in each of the three
areas share a common goal which is to “avoid” accidents or risks associated with
the nuclear power plants (US NRC 2014). The focus on reactor safety area calls for
an avoidance of accidents and reducing their impacts. Radiation safety aims to
avoid unnecessary radiation exposure for plant workers and the public. It also aims
to avoid risks of sabotage and other security threats (US NRC 2014).
Another notion in carrying out the reactor oversight framework is that the seven
cornerstones are impacted by human interactions with the technology. Human
interactions could be classified into three areas which are named as “cross-cutting”
by the NRC. They are human performance, problem identification and resolution,
and safety-conscious work environment. Human errors in human interactions with
the complex and tightly coupled system could not be completely avoided.

Fig. 6.2 Reactor oversight framework, Source (US NRC 2014)

160 6 Conclusions

Above all, the transformation of the inevitable risks associated with nuclear power
plants could not be feasible for the reason provided by Perrow (1999), who explained
that nuclear power plants are complex and tightly coupled systems and accidents are
normal and unavoidable. Therefore, the option of transforming the inevitable risks
associated with nuclear power plants is less likely to be a feasible option.

6.4 Minimizing the Inevitable Risks

There are two options with regard to minimizing of inevitable risks: to completely
eliminate the inevitable risks associated with nuclear power plants, and to transform
the inevitable risks associated with such facilities, which are discussed in the pre-
vious sections, and they are highly unlikely to be the feasible options. This section
focuses on the option of minimizing the inevitable risks.
Avoiding the inevitable risks associated with a nuclear power plant is not a vital
element in this option to minimize the risks. Rather this option embraces the
avoidance of the risks associated with the nuclear power plants, and unlike the
previous two options to deal with the inevitable risks, this minimizing option does
not attempt to avoid the inevitable risks by eliminating or transforming them. It
rather provides preparedness options to accept the inevitable risks and attempts to
minimize the inevitable risks and their negative impacts.
Embracing the inevitability of the risks can mean several key points that require
further explanation. First, when this option embraces the inevitable risks, it assumes
that there is no way to transform the risks into evitable or avoidable. Second, it also
assumes that the inevitable risks associated with the nuclear power plants are
catastrophic and powerful in destruction. What are the immediate risks from nuclear
power plants after an incident? The immediate risks are ironizing radiation which
normally comes from meltdown of nuclear fuels, from the reactor, and other
cooling system structures. The US EPA has, for the past 30 years, provided
guidelines to protect from radiation (Fig. 6.3) (US EPA 2013). There are various
thresholds of radiation does for different scenarios.
Are the EPA’s protective action guidelines acceptable? There were two studies
conducted by two organizations that invalidate the radiation dose levels described
in the US EPA protective action manual. The first organization is the US National
Academy of Sciences (US NRC 2008; Royal 2008) which publishes reports on
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII. This is the most recent pub-
lication from the NAS’s series. The recent report, the last report BEIR V, being
published 16 years ago, reveals the findings that show statistically significant
relationship between any levels of radiation exposure, including exposure to nat-
urally occurring background radiation and the increased risks of cancer it can
create. Similarly, the second organization, namely International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP 2007), concluded in its study of The 2007
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection
Publication 103 that any low-level radiation including naturally occurring
6.4 Minimizing the Inevitable Risks 161

Fig. 6.3 Planning guidance and protective action guides for radiological incidents, Source (US
EPA 2013)

background radiation is not safe and it causes cancer. Specifically, the LNT model
assumes that, in the low-dose range, radiation doses greater than zero will increase
the risk of excess cancer and/or heritable disease in a simple proportionate manner.
While further research is needed to undoubtedly prove this as true, current findings
support this model, and it has been adopted in standards and regulations worldwide.
Regardless of whether or not the source of radiation is human-made, as in the case
of NPPs, or natural, and as exposure increases so does risk.
When any low-level radiation dose is not safe for public to be exposed to, the
high-level radiation dose from a radiological emergency could certainly be unsafe. To
minimize the impacts from the inevitable risks, the best way is to mitigate from the
high-level radiation. This kind of mitigation must be incorporated into the radiological
emergency planning. The most important element in the radiological emergency
planning is to ensure that there is a lead time to mitigate from the ironizing radiation.
162 6 Conclusions

6.5 Revisiting Radiological Emergency Planning

The two options proposed above, elimination and transformation of the inevitable
risks associated with NPPs, are not feasible. It would not be possible to immediately
shut down all 61 US commercial NPPs. Similarly, the US NRC efforts to transform
the inevitable risks into manageable risks are not practical because the risks asso-
ciated with the NPPs are inevitable in nature. As a result, the only practical and
feasible option is to minimize the inevitable risks.
As discussed earlier, minimizing the inevitable risks requires an effective radi-
ological emergency plan, with a priority on lead time to mitigate before the public is
exposed to the high-level radiation during a nuclear power emergency event. This
study identified issues associated with the nuclear power emergency management
process. To transform the current emergency plan into an effective one, this section
revisits the current radiological emergency planning.
Transforming the current emergency plan into an effective one is vital for at
least two primary reasons. There are more than 87.5 million people who are living
within a 50-mile radius surrounding the 62 US commercial nuclear power plants
(Table 2.1, Chap. 2). In addition, the population living within the 50-mile radius
includes 45 million women, 8 million elders who are 65 years old or older, and
1 million children who are younger than five years (Table 2.1, Chap. 2). All of the
mentioned population groups are placed in danger of exposure to high levels of
radioactive materials from the NPPs when a core-meltdown accident takes place.
Another reason is that the effective plan could save the lives of 87.5 million people.
The vulnerable population groups mentioned above could be saved from exposure
to radiation, and they could be prevented from evacuation-related deaths.
The issues identified (in Chap. 5) in the current radiological emergency man-
agement plan are (Fig. 6.4) as follows:

Fig. 6.4 Issues associated with the radiological emergency management process
6.5 Revisiting Radiological Emergency Planning 163

• Insufficient education on dealing with radiation for communities;

• Insufficient knowledge on how to manage the core meltdown;
• Not all stake holders participate in drills in EPZ (10-mile zone);
• No emergency planning for individuals within 10–50 mile radius;
• A 15-min time frame for plume projection is not realistic;
• A 15-min time frame for PAR and PAD is not realistic;
• There is no lead time for evacuation;
• The JIC’s notification is likely to occur after individuals in 50-mile radius
exposed to the high-level radioactive plume;
• No plan for cleaning radiation-contaminated areas;
• No plan for relocating people living in the excluding zones; and
• No plan for homes in the permanent excluding zone and compensation for home
owners.
One notion is that responsible authorities do not provide sufficient information
and education on handling and responding to radiation exposure. Risk communi-
cation is very important for the radiological emergency management process. The
public must be educated with information on how to deal with radiation when a
nuclear core-meltdown accident occurs at NPPs. In addition, the public should be
provided with necessary resources to prevent themselves from possible radiation
impacts resulting from nuclear power accident. For example, potassium pills (KI)
should be distributed in advance, and public education must be provided on how to
administer the medication prior to radiation exposure.
There is not sufficient knowledge on how to manage the core-meltdown accident
within the existing literature and knowledge accumulation on core-meltdown
accidents. When a nuclear power plant encounters a nuclear core-meltdown acci-
dent, there is no manual on how to manage such an event. In the previous three
historic nuclear power disasters, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plants, the procedures for cooling down the fuel in the core
reactor were all different. In the most recent nuclear power plant core-meltdown
accident at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, the seawater was injected into the
nuclear core in order to cool down the temperature inside the reactor core. Even
though the injection of seawater was ordered to be ceased by the Office of the Prime
Minister, the plant management did not follow those directions. Finally, the tem-
perature in the reactor core was high, and the nuclear fuel submerged from water.
The fuel rods had zirconium cladding with steam after the water level dropped. The
zirconium cladding created the formation of hydrogen bubbles, and later the
increasing pressure inside the reactor core exploded. More scientific studies should
be conducted to understand how to manage nuclear core-meltdown accident at
NPPs.
An additional issue to consider is to encourage all key stakeholders to participate
in annual drills in the EPZs (10-mile zone). For example, when the PVNG had a
biannual drill, only firemen from the closest town to the nuclear power plant
164 6 Conclusions

participated. In case of a nuclear power accident event taking place, the radioactive
plume could be dispersed to a longer distance than the 10-mile radius. Therefore, it
is recommended that all fire and emergency departments within the 10-mile radius
should be participating in drills. Their participation will increase the key stake-
holders’ awareness of nuclear power accidents. In addition, they will become aware
of the need to use radiation dosimeters to measure the radiation while they evacuate
the victims at the nuclear power plant site as well as effected areas.
It is evident that in the event of a nuclear power accident, the radioactive
materials could be carried away by the winds and its direction. The previous three
nuclear power accidents show that wind could carry radioactive materials more than
a 50-mile distance. As a result, the individuals living in areas within 10–50 mile
radius from the nuclear power plants are exposed to potential nuclear power plants.
The emergency plan was developed for the 10-mile radius zone which was des-
ignated as an EPZ zone. However, there is no emergency planning for the people
who live between 10- and 50-mile radii. Because they are also equally exposed to
the radiation risk as those living within 10-mile radius from NPPs, a nuclear
emergency plan should be developed for the areas within 10–50 mile radius from
the NPPs.
It is not practical or feasible to conduct a projection of radioactive plume path
dispersion within a 15-min time frame. In fact, the projection requires use of
RASCAL computer code and special training. Turning on a computer and opening
the RASCAL computer code alone might need at least 15 min. A required time
frame should be revised to reflect sufficient amount of time to carry out the pro-
jection. Under the estimation of the required time for projection of plume dispersion
could contribute to under estimation of actual required time frame for entire nuclear
power emergency plan. Similarly, allocated time frames for PAR and PAD—a
15-min time frame for each of PAR and PAD—are not realistic.
There is no lead time for mitigation from the nuclear power accident before the
residents expose to the radioactive materials. The critical issue is that there is no
lead time to evaluate the people beneath the high-level ironizing plume in the
response stage. As soon after an incident has been initiated at the plant facility, the
authorities could not notify the public about the incident, before completing the four
tasks, namely projection of plume path dispersion, protective action recommen-
dation (PAR), protective action decision (PAD), and evacuation. To minimize the
impacts, it is necessary to find a lead time to evacuate the public before they are
being exposed to the radioactive plume path. As soon as the incident is initiated, the
public should be notified to evacuate. Spending longer than 45 min to find out
estimated radiation doses is not worthwhile and keeping individuals and families
waiting could be lethal or dramatically increase their exposure to radiation. As
noted previously, any dose level is not safe and the public should be notified as
soon as the incident is initiated.
The JIC formation could be seen as the last step before the evacuation activities
could be carried out. In fact, as discussed earlier in the Chaps. 3–5, the JIC’s
notification is likely to occur after individuals in 50-mile radius zones are exposed
6.5 Revisiting Radiological Emergency Planning 165

to the high-level radioactive plume. In that case, the nuclear power plant accident
took place on a day with a wind speed of 10 miles, then radioactive plume might
have carried out by winds to about 9-mile distance. Therefore, in any case, the
evacuation activities are likely to take place after the individuals who lived in the
50-mile radius have exposed to the radiation. FEMA has set guidelines to complete
the tasks within a recommended 45-min time frame. In fact, the four tasks require
great efforts and technological skills. In practice, it is unlikely to complete the tasks
within the recommended 45 min. The purpose of carrying out the tasks is to know
the radiation dose level and plume pathway. While the concerned key stakeholders
are carrying out the tasks to know the radiation dose and plume pathway, the
individuals living around the nuclear power plants would be exposed to the radi-
ation in the meantime. Upon the completion of the procedure and obtaining the
results of estimated dose and plume pathway with PAD, the JIC notified the public
for evacuation. When the public receives notification, they would have been
exposed to radiation. It is too late to administer the KI pills after exposing radiation
exposure.
Another challenge in the nuclear power emergency management is cleaning
radiation contaminated areas. In the Chernobyl nuclear power accident, there were
more than 5000 tons of sand, nuclear fuels, and other radioactive dusts at the plant
site, which could not be easily removed. After eight months of the explosion taking
place (December 14), a “sarcophagus,” a concrete roof was constructed over the
troubled reactor (Chap. 1). That sarcophagus lasted only 30 years, and a new
containment structure which costs $ 1.7 billion was recently replaced to entomb the
entire plant site. This structure is anticipated to last for 100 years. Therefore, a
detailed plan on how to clean the radiation-contaminated materials should be
developed for each plant. In addition, an emergency plan should include how to
cool down the melted fuel rods and types of materials such as sand to be used. For
example, PVNG is not located next to water sources such as river or sea. In case of
nuclear core-meltdown accident, it is necessary to develop an emergency plan that
describes the types of materials to be used to cool down the temperature of melted
fuel rods.
Emergency plans should include relocating people in the excluding zones.
Looking at the previous nuclear core-meltdown accidents at Chernobyl and
Fukushima Daiichi, the governments determined the excluding zones which were
areas contaminated with high level of radioactive materials and it was not safe for
people to live. In case of nuclear core-meltdown accident at a NPP, there could
expect an excluding zone. However, it is difficult to estimate how large the
excluding zones would be and how many people live in the excluding zones before
the event takes place. With the limitation of estimation, an emergency planning
should include a plan for relocating people living in the excluding zones.
Nuclear emergency plans lack specific preparations and recommendations for
relocating the individuals living in the permanent excluding zones and how to
compensate the home owners. In case of a nuclear core-meltdown accident at IPNG
in New York, the relocation of the residents could be very costly because the
property values in the New York area are very high, relative to other areas in the
166 6 Conclusions

country that face similar risks of exposure. In addition, the relocation could be very
complex and difficult to handle. If the accident required to designate permanent
excluding zones, then the costs will be much higher because of the high property
values in the areas.
In short, revisiting the radiological emergency plan is vital for minimizing the
inevitable risks associated with NPPs. The above-mentioned issues associated with
the plan must be well addressed as soon as possible. There are 23 Mark I reactors,
similar to the reactors used at Fukushima Daiichi plant site in current operation. In
addition, the nuclear reactors in the USA are called zombie reactors because of their
aging properties. The only option available to save lives of more than 87 million
people living in the areas within 50-mile radius from the NPPs is to transform
current radiological emergency plan into an effective one. The clock is ticking, and
any delay in actions against transformation of the plan cannot be afforded and will
have significant impacts on lives, in addition to the increased costs of managing the
aftermath of such events.

References

Bradford P (2013) Panel discussion. In: Panel discussion. The Fukushima nuclear accident:
ongoing lessons for New York, New York
CNN (2013) Climate change warriors: it’s time to go nuclear. Retrieved from CNN News
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html?
hpt=hp_t2
Eisenhower DD (1953) Atoms for peace. Retrieved from Voices of Democracy http://
voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/eisenhower-atoms-for-peace-speech-text/
Gerhardt T (2013) Obama’s climate action plan: nuclear energy? Retrieved from http://www.
huffingtonpost.com/tina-gerhardt/obamas-climate-action-plan4_b_3546999.html
Gundersen A (2013) Panel discussion. In: Panel discussion. The Fukushima nuclear accident:
ongoing lessons for New York, New York
Huffington Post (2013) Atomic energy: unnecessary, uneconomic, uninsurable, unevacuable and
unsafe. Retrieved from Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/atomic-
energy_b_4086042.html?view=print&comm_ref=false
ICRP (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on radiological
protection publication 103 (Annual ICRP 37). International Commission on Radiological
Protection (ICRP). Retrieved from: http://www.icrp.org/docs/ICRP_Publication_103-Annals_
of_the_ICRP_37%282-4%29-Free_extract.pdf
Jaczko GB (2013) Panel discussion. In: Panel discussion. The Fukushima nuclear accident:
ongoing lessons for New York, New York
Kan N (2013) Panel discussion. In: Panel discussion. The Fukushima nuclear accident: ongoing
lessons for New York, New York
Kyne D (2014) Environmental justice issues in communities hosting US nuclear power plants
(Order No. 3617964). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
(1528556250). Retrieved from http://ezhost.utrgv.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.
com.ezhost.utrgv.edu:2048/docview/1528556250?accountid=7119
Madrigal AC (2011) In Fukushima aftermath, half of Americans now oppose building new nuclear
plants. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2011/03/in-fukushima-
aftermath-half-of-americans-now-oppose-building-new-nuclear-plants/72911/
References 167

Perrow C (1999) Normal accidents living with high-risk technologies: with a new afterword and a
postscript on the Y2 K problem. Retrieved from Princeton University Press
Royal DH (2008) Effects of low level radiation—what’s new? Semin Nucl Med 392–402. doi:10.
1053/j.semnuclmed.2008.05.006
US EPA (2013) Manual of protective action guides and protective action for nuclear incidents.
Office of Radiations Program, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC
20460. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/pag-manual-interim-public-
comment-4-2-2013.pdf
US NRC (2008) Review of ICRP publication 103—the 2007 recommendations of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0807/ML080790301.pdf
US NRC (2014) Reactor oversight process (NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Supplement 3).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1405/ML14052A306.
pdf
US NRC (2015. Reactor oversight process (ROP), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. http://
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/
Appendix A

See Table A.1.

Table A.1 Construction of study variables. Source (Kyne 2014)

Category 1990 Census (SF3) 2000 Census (SF3) 2010 CAS 5-year estimate
Race/Ethnicity
Total population Total population Total population Total population (B01001_2)
(P0010001) (P006001)
% White White (P0080001)/ White (P006002)/ White (B02001_2)/Total population * 100
Total population * 100 Total population *
100
% Black Black (P0080002)/ Black (P006003)/ Black (B02001_3)/Total population * 100
Total population * 100 Total population *
100
% Asian Asia-Pacific Asia-Pacific Asia-Pacific (B02001_5, B02001_6)/Total
(P0080004)/Total (P006005-6)/Total population * 100
population * 100 population * 100
% Native American Native American Native American Native American (B02001_4)/Total population
(P0080003)/Total (P006004)/Total * 100
population * 100 population * 100
% Others Other race Other race Other race (B02001_7, B02001_8)/Total
(P0080005)/Total (P006007-8)/Total population * 100
population * 100 population * 100
% Hispanic Total persons of Total persons of Total persons of Hispanic origin (B03002_12)/
Hispanic origin Hispanic origin Total population * 100
(P0100001)/Total (P007010)/Total
population * 100 population * 100
% Color Total population Total population Total population (B01001_2)-Not Hispanic
(P0010001)-Not (P006001)-Not origin, White (B03002_3)/Total population *
Hispanic origin, White Hispanic origin, 100
(P0120001)/Total White (P007003)/
population * 100 Total population *
100
Households
Mean household Aggregate household Aggregate Aggregate household income (B19025_1)/
income ($) income (P0810001-2)/ household income Total household (B11001_1) * 100
Total household (P054001)/Total
(P0050001) * 100 household
(P014001) * 100
(continued)

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 169

D. Kyne, Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies in the USA,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50343-1
170 Appendix A

Table A.1 (continued)

Category 1990 Census (SF3) 2000 Census (SF3) 2010 CAS 5-year estimate
Poverty
Poverty rate Individuals below Individuals below Individuals below poverty threshold
poverty threshold poverty threshold (B17001_2)/Total population poverty
(P1170013-24)/Total (P08002)/Total determined (B17001_1) * 100
population poverty population poverty
determined determined
(P1170001-12) * 100 (P087001) * 100
Housing
Occupancy rate Occupied housing Occupied housing Occupied housing units (B25002_2)/Total
units (H0040001)/ units (H006002)/ housing units (B25001_1) * 100
Total housing units Total housing units
(H0010001) * 100 (H001001) * 100
Vacant rate Vacant housing units Vacant housing units Vacant housing units (B25002_3)/Total
(H0040002)/Total (H006003)/Total housing units (B25001_1) * 100
housing units housing units
(H0010001) * 100 (H001001) * 100
% Owner occupied Owner occupied Owner occupied Owner occupied housing units (B25003_2)/
housing units housing units housing units Total housing units (B25001_1) * 100
(H0080001) /Total (H007002) /Total
housing units housing units
(H0010001) * 100 (H001001) * 100
% Renter occupied Renter occupied Renter occupied Renter occupied housing units (B25003_3)/
housing units housing units housing units Total housing units (B25001_1) * 100
(H0080002)/Total (H007003)/Total
housing units housing units
(H0010001) * 100 (H001001) * 100
Unemployment
% Unemployment Unemployed Unemployed Unemployed population
rate population (P0700003 population (P043007 (B23001_8,15,22,29,36,43,50,57,64,71,76,
+ P0700007)/Civilian + P043014)/Civilian 81,86,94,101,108,115,122,129,136,143,150,
employed population employed 157,162,167,172)/Civilian employed
(P0700002-3, population population (unemployed, B23001_7,14,21,
P0700006-7) * 100 (P043005, P043012) 28,35,42,49,56,63,70,75,80,85,93,100,107,
* 100 114,121,128,135,142,149,156,161,166,171)

See Table A.2.

Table A.2 Study variables of US demographic characteristics in 1990, 2000, and 2010. Source
(Kyne 2014)
US_1990 US_2000 US_2010
Tract 73,057 73,057 73,057
Tract area (sq. mile) 3,796,743 3,796,743 3,796,743
Total population 248,709,360 281,421,920 303,965,280
White 199,826,608 211,353,728 224,895,696
Black 29,930,428 34,361,740 37,978,752
Asian 7,226,882 10,550,602 14,677,166
Native American 2,015,044 2,447,989 2,480,465
Others 9,710,097 22,707,850 23,933,188
Hispanic 21,900,100 35,238,480 47,727,532
(continued)
Appendix A 171

Table A.2 (continued)

US_1990 US_2000 US_2010
Color 60,284,992 86,907,768 107,392,496
White (%) 80.35 75.10 73.99
Black (%) 12.03 12.21 12.49
Asian (%) 2.91 3.75 4.83
Native American (%) 0.81 0.87 0.82
Others (%) 3.90 8.07 7.87
Hispanic (%) 8.81 12.52 15.70
Color (%) 24.24 30.88 35.33
Female (%) 51.28 50.99 50.85
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.54 12.43 12.75
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.83 8.18 6.62
Native-born (%) 92.05 88.95 87.28
Renter housing units (%) 32.19 30.77 29.33
College degree or higher (%) 20.34 24.40 27.90
Unemployment (%) 6.31 5.77 7.92
Poverty (%) 13.12 12.38 13.82
Mean household income ($) 63,119 70,570 70,881
Appendix B
Descriptive Analyses

B.1 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Alabama

See Fig. B.1.

See Table B.1.

Fig. B.1 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Browns Ferry
Nuclear Plant in Alabama in 2010

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 173

D. Kyne, Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies in the USA,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50343-1
174 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.1 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Browns Ferry
Nuclear Plant, Alabama, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 10 35 71 64 27 207 2,471
Tract area (sq. mile) 302 964 1,607 1,877 1,603 6,353 88,211
Total population 36,259 118,087 240,080 219,938 101,947 716,311 8,201,456
White 24,454 105,244 186,051 200,891 97,148 613,788 6,409,774
Black 11,481 10,323 49,527 15,824 4,342 91,497 1,705,299
Asian 92 545 2,328 2,038 181 5,184 47,166
Native American 194 1,856 1,640 945 247 4,882 25,891
Others 38 115 544 243 27 967 13,340
Hispanic 119 686 2,090 1,285 343 4,523 50,135
Color 11,881 13,371 55,147 20,054 5,094 105,547 1,824,165
White (%) 67.44 89.12 77.50 91.34 95.29 85.69 78.15
Black (%) 31.66 8.74 20.63 7.19 4.26 12.77 20.79
Asian (%) 0.25 0.46 0.97 0.93 0.18 0.72 0.58
Native American (%) 0.54 1.57 0.68 0.43 0.24 0.68 0.32
Others (%) 0.10 0.10 0.23 0.11 0.03 0.13 0.16
Hispanic (%) 0.33 0.58 0.87 0.58 0.34 0.63 0.61
Color (%) 32.77 11.32 22.97 9.12 5.00 14.73 22.24
Female (%) 51.78 50.77 50.89 51.75 51.60 51.28 52.03
Old (65+ years) (%) 13.05 10.88 10.26 13.07 14.78 12.01 12.86
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.92 8.28 8.38 8.01 8.43 8.28 8.29
Native-born (%) 99.70 99.07 97.86 98.52 99.64 98.61 98.87
Renter housing units 26.48 25.52 32.30 22.05 23.74 26.52 28.20
(%)
Education (%) 12.45 16.74 20.59 21.38 7.96 18.00 15.64
Unemployment (%) 7.55 5.46 5.96 5.12 6.59 5.78 6.69
Poverty (%) 17.47 12.53 13.71 11.72 17.50 13.63 17.19
Mean household 49,881 56,000 54,512 59,278 42,778 54,307 51,020
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 38,640 143,349 263,503 251,145 116,327 812,964 9,323,419
White 25,495 120,917 189,607 223,740 109,114 668,873 7,055,252
Black 11,681 15,402 61,373 18,372 4,733 111,561 1,971,347
Asian 113 1,261 2,976 2,145 328 6,823 80,563
Native American 329 1,829 2,334 1,403 399 6,294 32,144
Others 1,022 3,930 7,221 5,495 1,743 19,411 184,115
Hispanic 1,283 3,916 4,416 5,369 1,919 16,903 175,149
Color 13,776 24,724 75,857 30,103 8,107 152,567 2,348,154
White (%) 65.98 84.35 71.96 89.09 93.80 82.28 75.67
Black (%) 30.23 10.74 23.29 7.32 4.07 13.72 21.14
Asian (%) 0.29 0.88 1.13 0.85 0.28 0.84 0.86
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 175

Table B.1 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native American (%) 0.85 1.28 0.89 0.56 0.34 0.77 0.34
Others (%) 2.64 2.74 2.74 2.19 1.50 2.39 1.97
Hispanic (%) 3.32 2.73 1.68 2.14 1.65 2.08 1.88
Color (%) 35.65 17.25 28.79 11.99 6.97 18.77 25.19
Female (%) 51.16 50.27 51.29 51.53 51.30 51.18 51.57
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.31 11.26 11.46 14.28 14.82 12.82 12.64
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.88 8.20 7.97 7.46 7.62 7.80 7.95
Native-born (%) 97.88 97.37 97.04 97.44 98.61 97.49 97.57
Renter housing units 24.97 22.96 29.04 20.19 21.63 23.98 26.30
(%)
College degree or 14.80 21.21 23.36 24.83 10.97 21.26 19.16
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.97 4.90 6.83 4.00 5.87 5.45 5.81
Poverty (%) 18.08 11.60 12.97 11.12 15.11 12.70 14.80
Mean household 55,722 62,486 59,569 65,931 51,161 60,667 59,018
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 40,292 164,818 294,974 268,473 116,817 885,374 10,062,245
White 27,807 133,604 206,691 235,486 109,217 712,805 7,491,857
Black 9,843 20,368 71,901 21,230 3,892 127,234 2,142,467
Asian 138 2,687 4,721 3,402 442 11,390 131,842
Native American 610 2,097 2,102 1,528 498 6,835 34,216
Others 1,894 6,062 9,559 6,827 2,768 27,110 261,863
Hispanic 3,196 9,223 11,974 8,942 3,608 36,943 386,876
Color 14,133 36,909 96,997 38,088 9,945 196,072 2,812,238
White (%) 69.01 81.06 70.07 87.71 93.49 80.51 74.46
Black (%) 24.43 12.36 24.38 7.91 3.33 14.37 21.29
Asian (%) 0.34 1.63 1.60 1.27 0.38 1.29 1.31
Native American (%) 1.51 1.27 0.71 0.57 0.43 0.77 0.34
Others (%) 4.70 3.68 3.24 2.54 2.37 3.06 2.60
Hispanic (%) 7.93 5.60 4.06 3.33 3.09 4.17 3.84
Color (%) 35.08 22.39 32.88 14.19 8.51 22.15 27.95
Female (%) 51.91 50.17 51.06 51.15 51.15 50.97 51.39
Old (65+ years) (%) 13.91 12.29 12.17 15.65 16.71 13.93 13.18
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.57 6.19 6.38 6.20 5.18 6.14 6.48
Native-born (%) 95.02 94.81 95.57 96.66 97.94 96.05 96.06
Renter housing units 24.24 23.86 28.39 20.58 21.25 24.00 25.98
(%)
College degree or 17.45 24.33 26.78 27.70 12.66 24.27 22.10
higher (%)
(continued)
176 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.1 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Unemployment (%) 12.09 7.17 9.30 6.77 8.43 8.15 8.69
Poverty (%) 17.70 12.49 14.94 13.88 17.47 14.62 16.95
Mean household 54,044 63,724 61,702 64,257 49,219 60,858 58,340
income ($)
Index 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

B.2 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Alabama

See Fig. B.2.

See Table B.2.

Fig. B.2 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant in Alabama in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 177

Table B.2 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Joseph M. Farley
Nuclear Plant, Alabama, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 5 22 21 28 18 94 7,301
Tract area (sq. mile) 358 885 1,745 2,026 1,629 6,642 170,960
Total population 15,104 76,597 60,730 101,613 62,945 316,989 23,139,704
White 11,933 53,836 44,653 72,411 43,971 226,804 18,107,526
Black 3,096 22,242 15,579 27,185 18,101 86,203 4,434,358
Asian 2 317 154 898 325 1,696 244,015
Native American 62 157 239 534 335 1,327 74,867
Others 12 44 106 583 218 963 278,930
Hispanic 57 373 1,336 1,796 791 4,353 1,675,669
Color 3,212 22,963 17,149 30,155 19,461 92,940 6,365,508
White (%) 79.01 70.28 73.53 71.26 69.86 71.55 78.25
Black (%) 20.50 29.04 25.65 26.75 28.76 27.19 19.16
Asian (%) 0.01 0.41 0.25 0.88 0.52 0.54 1.05
Native American (%) 0.41 0.20 0.39 0.53 0.53 0.42 0.32
Others (%) 0.08 0.06 0.17 0.57 0.35 0.30 1.21
Hispanic (%) 0.38 0.49 2.20 1.77 1.26 1.37 7.24
Color (%) 21.27 29.98 28.24 29.68 30.92 29.32 27.51
Female (%) 51.60 52.97 51.31 50.38 52.70 51.70 51.69
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.04 13.41 14.09 12.41 14.17 13.40 15.13
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.58 8.68 8.11 9.16 7.89 8.56 8.28
Native-born (%) 99.69 99.32 97.58 98.05 98.38 98.41 91.90
Renter housing units 19.63 31.89 18.76 28.94 26.46 26.73 28.42
(%)
Education (%) 6.81 15.19 8.88 12.05 11.78 11.87 18.20
Unemployment (%) 4.75 5.21 5.29 6.20 6.29 5.70 5.95
Poverty (%) 18.22 19.50 20.77 19.73 22.73 20.38 14.12
Mean household 43,205 50,080 44,969 42,653 41,130 44,687 58,591
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 15,882 80,324 70,181 107,605 69,667 343,659 28,272,272
White 12,428 52,701 50,919 73,826 45,531 235,405 20,716,744
Black 3,283 25,867 17,510 29,538 21,878 98,076 5,709,183
Asian 20 383 261 737 437 1,838 475,775
Native American 32 361 246 612 284 1,535 99,478
Others 120 1,011 1,248 2,887 1,552 6,818 1,271,080
Hispanic 151 921 1,342 2,810 1,944 7,168 3,175,749
Color 3,516 28,030 19,912 34,956 25,075 111,489 9,791,218
White (%) 78.25 65.61 72.55 68.61 65.36 68.50 73.28
Black (%) 20.67 32.20 24.95 27.45 31.40 28.54 20.19
(continued)
178 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.2 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Asian (%) 0.13 0.48 0.37 0.68 0.63 0.53 1.68
Native American (%) 0.20 0.45 0.35 0.57 0.41 0.45 0.35
Others (%) 0.76 1.26 1.78 2.68 2.23 1.98 4.50
Hispanic (%) 0.95 1.15 1.91 2.61 2.79 2.09 11.23
Color (%) 22.14 34.90 28.37 32.49 35.99 32.44 34.63
Female (%) 52.49 51.75 50.75 50.47 50.25 50.87 51.24
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.14 14.27 14.57 13.19 14.48 14.03 14.59
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.85 8.08 7.51 8.38 7.78 7.99 7.69
Native-born (%) 99.07 98.52 98.95 97.64 97.56 98.16 88.22
Renter housing units 16.05 29.76 17.23 25.65 25.99 24.45 26.74
(%)
College degree or 10.45 17.31 13.21 12.86 13.36 13.97 22.47
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.88 6.09 4.94 7.31 5.92 6.11 5.63
Poverty (%) 15.64 17.81 16.32 19.38 20.57 18.43 13.14
Mean household 51,195 53,088 54,466 46,642 48,381 50,377 66,419
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 17,021 84,626 77,175 108,538 72,992 360,352 32,332,734
White 12,261 53,343 57,249 72,860 48,375 244,088 22,953,312
Black 4,218 28,075 17,356 31,014 21,146 101,809 6,903,997
Asian 47 654 621 827 698 2,847 807,358
Native American 119 301 178 403 435 1,436 102,182
Others 376 2,253 1,771 3,434 2,338 10,172 1,565,885
Hispanic 376 2,209 1,850 5,110 3,115 12,660 4,929,747
Color 4,982 32,178 21,139 38,629 26,626 123,554 13,066,692
White (%) 72.03 63.03 74.18 67.13 66.27 67.74 70.99
Black (%) 24.78 33.18 22.49 28.57 28.97 28.25 21.35
Asian (%) 0.28 0.77 0.80 0.76 0.96 0.79 2.50
Native American (%) 0.70 0.36 0.23 0.37 0.60 0.40 0.32
Others (%) 2.21 2.66 2.29 3.16 3.20 2.82 4.84
Hispanic (%) 2.21 2.61 2.40 4.71 4.27 3.51 15.25
Color (%) 29.27 38.02 27.39 35.59 36.48 34.29 40.41
Female (%) 52.69 51.25 50.64 48.80 49.71 50.14 51.18
Old (65+ years) (%) 15.64 13.79 15.44 14.36 15.31 14.71 14.50
Kid (<5 years) (%) 4.97 7.14 5.99 6.53 6.38 6.46 6.34
Native-born (%) 98.32 97.80 97.49 97.17 96.11 97.23 85.75
Renter housing units 18.65 30.07 18.34 27.80 26.48 25.58 25.47
(%)
College degree or 12.53 17.62 14.57 13.74 15.20 15.05 25.79
higher (%)
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 179

Table B.2 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Unemployment (%) 6.11 7.71 8.34 7.78 9.55 8.14 8.85
Poverty (%) 15.77 20.05 17.96 18.53 21.44 19.21 14.79
Mean household 48,218 51,861 55,221 47,416 47,774 50,227 65,299
income ($)
Index 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

B.3 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Arizona

See Fig. B.3.

See Table B.3.

Fig. B.3 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station, Arizona, in 2010
180 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.3 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station, Arizona, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 1 8 39 192 294 534 992
Tract area (sq. mile) 120 1,658 672 2,661 1,831 6,942 107,049
Total population 1,365 10,128 38,556 379,343 866,410 1,295,802 2,369,419
White 1,090 8,112 28,273 299,286 714,771 1,051,532 1,916,149
Black 0 328 2,073 15,153 42,671 60,225 49,833
Asian 0 44 563 5,254 14,728 20,589 33,539
Native American 72 209 496 6,985 18,992 26,754 177,831
Others 203 1,440 7,144 52,651 75,260 136,698 192,071
Hispanic 203 2,580 11,418 85,971 162,063 262,235 418,401
Color 275 3,137 14,272 112,206 234,538 364,428 668,883
White (%) 79.85 80.09 73.33 78.90 82.50 81.15 80.87
Black (%) 0.00 3.24 5.38 3.99 4.93 4.65 2.10
Asian (%) 0.00 0.43 1.46 1.39 1.70 1.59 1.42
Native American (%) 5.27 2.06 1.29 1.84 2.19 2.06 7.51
Others (%) 14.87 14.22 18.53 13.88 8.69 10.55 8.11
Hispanic (%) 14.87 25.47 29.61 22.66 18.71 20.24 17.66
Color (%) 20.15 30.97 37.02 29.58 27.07 28.12 28.23
Female (%) 48.21 49.81 47.30 51.82 50.43 50.74 50.64
Old (65+ years) (%) 9.23 8.18 7.12 19.38 10.08 12.70 13.19
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.23 11.33 11.99 9.84 9.80 9.89 9.30
Native-born (%) 92.89 90.32 91.61 92.68 91.30 91.71 92.80
Renter housing units 20.21 22.27 34.78 23.84 37.08 32.95 27.74
(%)
Education (%) 14.12 8.44 12.64 13.97 20.77 18.45 21.31
Unemployment (%) 12.74 10.17 8.92 7.56 6.49 6.85 7.36
Poverty (%) 26.30 22.84 20.52 13.05 14.66 14.42 16.47
Mean household 38,481 48,753 54,608 54,603 60,623 58,632 57,882
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 2,112 15,826 62,558 570,281 1,149,152 1,799,929 3,330,703
White 1,615 11,767 45,916 398,763 841,429 1,299,490 2,572,225
Black 15 583 2,661 26,280 55,123 84,662 69,654
Asian 10 99 922 8,189 28,148 37,368 60,021
Native American 49 309 703 9,584 25,715 36,360 217,182
Others 423 3,073 12,357 127,445 198,728 342,026 411,644
Hispanic 712 5,260 20,013 208,105 347,341 581,431 713,886
Color 779 6,310 24,968 258,156 469,773 759,986 1,098,581
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 181

Table B.3 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 76.47 74.35 73.40 69.92 73.22 72.20 77.23
Black (%) 0.71 3.68 4.25 4.61 4.80 4.70 2.09
Asian (%) 0.47 0.63 1.47 1.44 2.45 2.08 1.80
Native American (%) 2.32 1.95 1.12 1.68 2.24 2.02 6.52
Others (%) 20.03 19.42 19.75 22.35 17.29 19.00 12.36
Hispanic (%) 33.71 33.24 31.99 36.49 30.23 32.30 21.43
Color (%) 36.88 39.87 39.91 45.27 40.88 42.22 32.98
Female (%) 48.48 43.41 48.87 51.28 49.04 49.69 50.43
Old (65+ years) (%) 10.18 7.92 8.98 17.07 8.55 11.26 13.96
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.14 8.72 9.78 10.24 9.79 9.92 8.34
Native-born (%) 81.53 86.71 87.52 83.72 81.68 82.57 89.72
Renter housing units 23.38 26.40 24.29 23.10 38.25 32.89 25.37
(%)
College degree or 7.02 8.83 17.09 15.40 23.71 20.68 25.00
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.13 5.84 4.55 5.80 5.62 5.64 5.63
Poverty (%) 21.02 17.93 12.74 13.00 15.61 14.70 13.48
Mean household 53,204 59,309 71,249 60,305 68,888 66,197 67,691
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 3,090 41,543 164,444 805,703 1,193,109 2,207,889 4,038,927
White 2,446 32,437 132,810 612,665 929,449 1,709,807 3,173,799
Black 224 2,368 9,639 49,776 70,875 132,882 107,773
Asian 10 852 4,670 19,844 41,677 67,053 111,648
Native American 0 761 1,769 13,084 26,470 42,084 236,252
Others 410 5,125 15,556 110,334 124,638 256,063 409,455
Hispanic 1,066 16,096 49,966 357,283 402,723 827,134 987,540
Color 1,319 20,479 67,230 446,487 555,346 1,090,861 1,488,924
White (%) 79.16 78.08 80.76 76.04 77.90 77.44 78.58
Black (%) 7.25 5.70 5.86 6.18 5.94 6.02 2.67
Asian (%) 0.32 2.05 2.84 2.46 3.49 3.04 2.76
Native American (%) 0.00 1.83 1.08 1.62 2.22 1.91 5.85
Others (%) 13.27 12.34 9.46 13.69 10.45 11.60 10.14
Hispanic (%) 34.50 38.75 30.38 44.34 33.75 37.46 24.45
Color (%) 42.69 49.30 40.88 55.42 46.55 49.41 36.86
Female (%) 49.94 47.17 51.24 51.15 49.38 50.13 50.31
Old (65+ years) (%) 9.00 5.97 8.00 14.46 8.65 10.67 14.80
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.89 11.41 9.96 9.04 7.76 8.46 6.84
(continued)
182 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.3 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 87.57 88.74 88.10 79.95 80.63 81.10 88.43
Renter housing units 21.78 22.18 20.49 27.12 36.01 31.61 25.23
(%)
College degree or 7.27 15.58 24.73 18.38 26.31 23.13 27.96
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 10.90 7.32 7.31 8.89 7.15 7.75 7.60
Poverty (%) 21.23 12.79 9.81 16.41 18.84 17.18 14.21
Mean household 66,449 67,996 79,633 58,958 67,297 65,194 68,577
income ($)

B.4 Arkansas Nuclear One, Arkansas

See Fig. B.4.

See Table B.4.

Fig. B.4 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Arkansas
Nuclear One, Arkansas, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 183

Table B.4 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Arkansas Nuclear
One, Arkansas, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 8 10 12 11 4 45 641
Tract area (sq. mile) 196 851 1,943 2,258 799 6,046 47,133
Total population 32,038 34,024 38,439 38,745 11,044 154,290 2,196,442
White 30,524 32,899 36,164 36,706 10,898 147,191 1,797,202
Black 1,070 624 1,766 1,666 62 5,188 368,268
Asian 134 167 178 84 19 582 11,513
Native American 223 221 245 224 66 979 13,339
Others 93 106 87 63 0 349 6,109
Hispanic 292 315 273 279 53 1,212 18,372
Color 1,700 1,335 2,432 2,219 193 7,879 410,211
White (%) 95.27 96.69 94.08 94.74 98.68 95.40 81.82
Black (%) 3.34 1.83 4.59 4.30 0.56 3.36 16.77
Asian (%) 0.42 0.49 0.46 0.22 0.17 0.38 0.52
Native American (%) 0.70 0.65 0.64 0.58 0.60 0.63 0.61
Others (%) 0.29 0.31 0.23 0.16 0.00 0.23 0.28
Hispanic (%) 0.91 0.93 0.71 0.72 0.48 0.79 0.84
Color (%) 5.31 3.92 6.33 5.73 1.75 5.11 18.68
Female (%) 51.26 51.17 51.10 51.27 49.09 51.05 51.89
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.93 14.50 16.97 17.38 33.51 16.88 14.74
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.62 8.25 8.09 8.11 4.62 7.99 8.50
Native-born (%) 99.37 98.86 99.20 99.48 99.19 99.23 98.92
Renter housing units 32.26 20.41 20.44 18.02 13.20 21.51 27.49
(%)
Education (%) 17.43 10.09 8.78 7.39 19.45 11.31 13.46
Unemployment (%) 6.33 6.03 7.60 7.77 5.48 6.88 6.75
Poverty (%) 14.10 17.28 18.65 21.98 13.54 17.89 19.15
Mean household 47,160 39,906 38,991 35,133 53,826 41,096 45,209
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 37,734 41,883 42,616 44,654 15,982 182,869 2,490,531
White 34,594 39,037 38,594 41,468 15,478 169,171 1,967,995
Black 1,240 384 1,727 1,540 233 5,124 412,757
Asian 255 114 193 188 23 773 19,842
Native American 309 271 151 271 27 1,029 17,463
Others 1,341 2,072 1,951 1,186 225 6,775 72,471
Hispanic 1,167 2,331 2,090 692 184 6,464 79,112
Color 3,445 3,806 4,717 3,460 622 16,050 557,285
(continued)
184 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.4 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 91.68 93.20 90.56 92.87 96.85 92.51 79.02
Black (%) 3.29 0.92 4.05 3.45 1.46 2.80 16.57
Asian (%) 0.68 0.27 0.45 0.42 0.14 0.42 0.80
Native American (%) 0.82 0.65 0.35 0.61 0.17 0.56 0.70
Others (%) 3.55 4.95 4.58 2.66 1.41 3.70 2.91
Hispanic (%) 3.09 5.57 4.90 1.55 1.15 3.53 3.18
Color (%) 9.13 9.09 11.07 7.75 3.89 8.78 22.38
Female (%) 51.50 50.47 50.62 50.34 51.03 50.73 51.29
Old (65+ years) (%) 13.49 13.75 15.60 15.78 39.99 16.92 13.80
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.08 7.54 7.73 7.69 3.44 7.37 8.21
Native-born (%) 97.43 96.00 96.16 98.78 98.26 97.21 97.25
Renter housing units 31.61 21.31 19.94 18.44 9.06 20.98 27.68
(%)
College degree or 22.69 13.20 10.58 9.89 27.36 15.14 16.78
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.17 6.62 5.56 5.64 6.42 6.02 6.10
Poverty (%) 14.44 15.36 16.39 17.20 7.09 15.13 15.89
Mean household 52,502 51,909 47,867 45,765 61,536 50,583 53,505
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 43,212 44,933 44,141 45,623 17,054 194,963 2,677,721
White 38,960 42,063 39,805 42,668 16,321 179,817 2,074,058
Black 1,737 730 1,786 1,339 48 5,640 439,557
Asian 471 319 242 287 52 1,371 36,089
Native American 374 246 281 464 66 1,431 17,761
Others 1,670 1,575 2,027 865 567 6,704 110,256
Hispanic 3,402 4,384 3,533 972 317 12,608 155,819
Color 6,576 6,500 6,521 3,647 821 24,065 689,814
White (%) 90.16 93.61 90.18 93.52 95.70 92.23 77.46
Black (%) 4.02 1.62 4.05 2.93 0.28 2.89 16.42
Asian (%) 1.09 0.71 0.55 0.63 0.30 0.70 1.35
Native American (%) 0.87 0.55 0.64 1.02 0.39 0.73 0.66
Others (%) 3.86 3.51 4.59 1.90 3.32 3.44 4.12
Hispanic (%) 7.87 9.76 8.00 2.13 1.86 6.47 5.82
Color (%) 15.22 14.47 14.77 7.99 4.81 12.34 25.76
Female (%) 50.42 49.82 50.76 50.92 50.85 50.51 50.99
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.40 14.41 15.94 17.48 44.97 17.70 13.87
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.60 7.30 6.31 6.37 1.96 6.24 6.85
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 185

Table B.4 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 95.08 94.21 94.99 98.83 97.82 95.98 95.72
Renter housing units 32.84 23.43 19.56 17.42 9.98 21.39 28.21
(%)
College degree or 22.33 13.80 12.47 11.63 27.09 16.22 19.35
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.28 7.74 7.24 6.72 8.87 7.09 7.90
Poverty (%) 17.63 17.86 16.99 20.15 10.03 17.46 18.05
Mean household 52,363 44,991 45,846 45,433 56,786 48,185 53,615
income ($)
Index 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

B.5 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, California

See Fig. B.5.

See Table B.5.

Fig. B.5 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Diablo Canyon
Nuclear Power Plant, California, in 2010
186 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.5 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Diablo Canyon
Nuclear Power Plant, California, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 7 23 27 22 11 90 7,967
Tract area (sq. mile) 358 181 1,051 1,352 106 3,048 160,647
Total population 39,157 89,483 107,194 80,430 45,168 361,432 29,398,594
White 36,325 77,343 77,687 68,790 33,571 293,716 20,261,924
Black 398 3,568 1,570 2,624 3,016 11,176 2,187,592
Asian 1,374 3,678 4,372 2,466 2,244 14,134 2,833,691
Native American 328 860 1,308 833 712 4,041 244,866
Others 768 4,011 22,240 5,714 5,618 38,351 3,870,512
Hispanic 3,136 11,985 36,995 12,530 9,663 74,309 7,483,224
Color 5,001 19,405 43,312 17,898 15,241 100,857 12,565,203
White (%) 92.77 86.43 72.47 85.53 74.32 81.26 68.92
Black (%) 1.02 3.99 1.46 3.26 6.68 3.09 7.44
Asian (%) 3.51 4.11 4.08 3.07 4.97 3.91 9.64
Native American (%) 0.84 0.96 1.22 1.04 1.58 1.12 0.83
Others (%) 1.96 4.48 20.75 7.10 12.44 10.61 13.17
Hispanic (%) 8.01 13.39 34.51 15.58 21.39 20.56 25.45
Color (%) 12.77 21.69 40.41 22.25 33.74 27.90 42.74
Female (%) 51.30 45.82 49.80 49.58 49.50 48.89 50.01
Old (65+ years) (%) 17.81 13.99 11.49 12.98 9.21 12.84 10.46
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.23 5.73 10.92 9.66 11.44 9.02 9.56
Native-born (%) 92.81 91.18 83.17 92.44 88.41 88.92 78.17
Renter housing units 32.46 44.19 37.18 28.39 41.51 36.90 41.25
(%)
Education (%) 31.11 22.73 14.37 18.84 17.49 19.81 23.40
Unemployment (%) 3.76 6.14 6.93 5.65 6.95 6.09 6.65
Poverty (%) 9.40 18.65 14.44 7.20 13.02 13.00 12.50
Mean household 72,435 58,966 62,857 70,037 62,859 64,682 76,051
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 40,444 97,522 130,641 92,047 48,908 409,562 33,462,086
White 35,637 81,088 89,862 74,754 33,562 314,903 19,808,056
Black 376 2,814 1,774 1,807 3,177 9,948 2,209,242
Asian 1,417 3,865 4,099 3,000 1,981 14,362 3,782,471
Native American 247 693 1,584 830 817 4,171 308,044
Others 2,810 9,033 33,303 11,656 9,359 66,161 7,354,290
Hispanic 4,324 16,140 57,347 19,507 15,974 113,292 10,855,840
Color 7,169 25,603 66,358 27,243 22,890 149,263 17,951,222
White (%) 88.11 83.15 68.79 81.21 68.62 76.89 59.20
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 187

Table B.5 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 0.93 2.89 1.36 1.96 6.50 2.43 6.60
Asian (%) 3.50 3.96 3.14 3.26 4.05 3.51 11.30
Native American (%) 0.61 0.71 1.21 0.90 1.67 1.02 0.92
Others (%) 6.95 9.26 25.49 12.66 19.14 16.15 21.98
Hispanic (%) 10.69 16.55 43.90 21.19 32.66 27.66 32.44
Color (%) 17.73 26.25 50.79 29.60 46.80 36.44 53.65
Female (%) 51.37 46.66 49.13 50.67 47.92 48.96 50.29
Old (65+ years) (%) 19.20 13.93 11.20 15.02 11.21 13.50 10.55
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.69 5.00 9.34 7.70 8.79 7.51 8.84
Native-born (%) 91.40 91.12 77.10 89.17 83.63 85.34 73.69
Renter housing units 32.04 43.83 35.79 27.02 41.32 36.00 40.64
(%)
College degree or 37.33 27.66 15.47 21.37 17.39 22.35 26.67
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.18 7.79 6.94 5.78 8.50 6.76 7.02
Poverty (%) 11.02 17.80 15.49 9.44 13.34 13.88 14.22
Mean household 75,723 62,642 64,956 72,633 64,607 67,384 81,943
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 27,776 108,423 157,599 104,511 49,983 448,292 36,189,000
White 23,841 89,252 130,401 84,814 33,275 361,583 22,031,130
Black 90 3,469 2,187 2,303 2,744 10,793 2,235,518
Asian 1,538 4,780 5,083 3,957 1,708 17,066 4,870,615
Native American 148 866 1,375 1,111 761 4,261 279,367
Others 2,159 10,056 18,553 12,326 11,495 54,589 6,772,368
Hispanic 4,023 19,014 78,580 31,345 22,195 155,157 13,301,000
Color 6,652 30,258 87,482 40,018 28,213 192,623 21,337,624
White (%) 85.83 82.32 82.74 81.15 66.57 80.66 60.88
Black (%) 0.32 3.20 1.39 2.20 5.49 2.41 6.18
Asian (%) 5.54 4.41 3.23 3.79 3.42 3.81 13.46
Native American (%) 0.53 0.80 0.87 1.06 1.52 0.95 0.77
Others (%) 7.77 9.27 11.77 11.79 23.00 12.18 18.71
Hispanic (%) 14.48 17.54 49.86 29.99 44.41 34.61 36.75
Color (%) 23.95 27.91 55.51 38.29 56.45 42.97 58.96
Female (%) 50.04 46.95 49.56 51.10 47.76 49.12 50.27
Old (65+ years) (%) 16.26 14.70 11.11 14.49 10.58 13.02 11.06
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.32 3.68 8.10 7.12 7.48 6.56 6.95
Native-born (%) 89.02 90.48 75.29 86.82 76.47 82.63 72.69
(continued)
188 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.5 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 32.40 43.05 36.24 27.95 43.16 36.55 39.00
(%)
College degree or 38.33 32.63 19.80 24.50 17.11 24.92 30.12
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.77 7.80 8.21 7.29 8.86 7.79 9.00
Poverty (%) 14.25 17.98 14.37 8.29 15.62 13.82 13.71
Mean household 78,370 67,640 73,873 76,408 65,405 72,270 83,626
income ($)
Index 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

B.6 Millstone Power Station, Connecticut

See Fig. B.6.

See Table B.6.

Fig. B.6 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Millstone Power
Station, Connecticut, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 189

Table B.6 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Millstone Power
Station, Connecticut, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 32 47 56 161 99 395 5,601
Tract area (sq. 266 1,698 1,112 1,375 651 5,103 56,540
mile)
Total population 118,811 177,020 230,951 629,978 365,327 1,522,087 20,758,812
White 104,298 169,316 221,012 588,085 269,809 1,352,520 15,827,065
Black 8,990 4,061 5,988 22,550 56,558 98,147 3,073,983
Asian 2,059 1,908 1,434 8,264 6,058 19,723 736,121
Native American 604 752 813 2,186 1,062 5,417 64,730
Others 2,863 978 1,715 8,896 31,835 46,287 1,056,919
Hispanic 5,706 3,328 4,360 23,402 52,940 89,736 2,309,453
Color 17,009 10,018 12,513 56,031 113,106 208,677 5,922,545
White (%) 87.78 95.65 95.70 93.35 73.85 88.86 76.24
Black (%) 7.57 2.29 2.59 3.58 15.48 6.45 14.81
Asian (%) 1.73 1.08 0.62 1.31 1.66 1.30 3.55
Native American 0.51 0.42 0.35 0.35 0.29 0.36 0.31
(%)
Others (%) 2.41 0.55 0.74 1.41 8.71 3.04 5.09
Hispanic (%) 4.80 1.88 1.89 3.71 14.49 5.90 11.13
Color (%) 14.32 5.66 5.42 8.89 30.96 13.71 28.53
Female (%) 48.26 50.85 50.79 51.88 51.88 51.31 52.08
Old (65+ years) 12.72 13.90 12.49 14.80 12.15 13.55 13.26
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.79 8.37 8.39 7.61 9.00 8.24 8.29
Native-born (%) 95.35 95.72 95.83 92.94 89.25 93.00 84.97
Renter housing 35.27 24.61 17.99 28.65 45.72 30.88 42.70
units (%)
Education (%) 23.61 23.75 27.76 24.41 20.54 23.89 23.64
Unemployment (%) 6.05 5.42 4.95 4.56 6.79 5.35 6.73
Poverty (%) 6.33 5.37 5.19 5.34 14.03 7.50 12.28
Mean household 70,684 77,408 86,104 77,147 64,401 74,916 74,244
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 115,203 188,366 257,325 666,051 362,705 1,589,650 21,840,692
White 95,049 172,513 239,689 580,046 244,041 1,331,338 15,228,340
Black 8,948 5,042 5,792 34,218 56,329 110,329 3,227,051
Asian 3,031 2,475 2,820 14,919 9,431 32,676 1,127,550
Native American 740 1,619 836 2,520 1,042 6,757 87,100
Others 7,456 6,702 8,199 34,364 51,848 108,569 2,170,631
Hispanic 8,583 6,851 10,193 50,324 65,674 141,625 3,132,790
Color 23,862 19,475 23,021 109,403 137,811 313,572 7,858,900
White (%) 82.51 91.58 93.15 87.09 67.28 83.75 69.72
(continued)
190 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.6 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 7.77 2.68 2.25 5.14 15.53 6.94 14.78
Asian (%) 2.63 1.31 1.10 2.24 2.60 2.06 5.16
Native American 0.64 0.86 0.32 0.38 0.29 0.43 0.40
(%)
Others (%) 6.47 3.56 3.19 5.16 14.29 6.83 9.94
Hispanic (%) 7.45 3.64 3.96 7.56 18.11 8.91 14.34
Color (%) 20.71 10.34 8.95 16.43 38.00 19.73 35.98
Female (%) 50.99 50.87 50.98 51.84 51.82 51.52 51.85
Old (65+ years) 14.29 14.28 13.18 14.75 12.18 13.82 13.06
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.83 7.39 7.55 7.21 8.26 7.57 7.86
Native-born (%) 93.52 94.49 94.35 91.43 87.42 91.50 80.67
Renter housing 33.36 23.66 16.94 28.78 43.93 29.76 42.07
units (%)
College degree or 28.60 29.06 33.64 28.51 23.68 28.37 27.85
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.59 4.08 4.33 4.50 7.43 5.07 6.87
Poverty (%) 7.22 5.86 5.09 7.12 14.99 8.45 13.86
Mean household 78,503 81,782 93,395 80,057 66,283 79,102 78,923
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 118,025 201,538 259,552 708,022 380,788 1,667,925 22,164,052
White 94,588 174,106 240,142 591,583 251,480 1,351,899 15,075,107
Black 8,032 7,211 6,350 38,874 61,244 121,711 3,273,726
Asian 5,210 6,954 3,637 25,273 14,822 55,896 1,504,402
Native American 457 1,401 841 1,958 1,292 5,949 73,407
Others 9,738 11,866 8,582 50,334 51,950 132,470 2,237,411
Hispanic 12,836 13,482 14,476 82,304 77,811 200,909 3,659,514
Color 28,679 33,599 28,663 157,284 159,913 408,138 8,663,811
White (%) 80.14 86.39 92.52 83.55 66.04 81.05 68.02
Black (%) 6.81 3.58 2.45 5.49 16.08 7.30 14.77
Asian (%) 4.41 3.45 1.40 3.57 3.89 3.35 6.79
Native American 0.39 0.70 0.32 0.28 0.34 0.36 0.33
(%)
Others (%) 8.25 5.89 3.31 7.11 13.64 7.94 10.09
Hispanic (%) 10.88 6.69 5.58 11.62 20.43 12.05 16.51
Color (%) 24.30 16.67 11.04 22.21 42.00 24.47 39.09
Female (%) 50.76 50.49 50.47 51.45 51.25 51.09 51.63
Old (65+ years) 15.09 15.77 15.10 14.66 12.10 14.31 13.35
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.47 5.47 5.05 5.13 6.41 5.47 6.01
Native-born (%) 90.86 90.75 93.38 89.22 84.96 89.20 79.23
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 191

Table B.6 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing 30.91 21.27 13.56 25.61 40.87 26.78 38.99
units (%)
College degree or 33.29 33.20 37.91 32.62 27.32 32.43 32.51
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.86 5.83 5.87 7.30 10.07 7.49 7.56
Poverty (%) 7.63 6.90 4.96 8.91 16.13 9.61 13.61
Mean household 80,662 88,699 101,587 82,663 67,734 82,791 82,038
income ($)
Index 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

B.7 Saint Lucie, Florida

See Fig. B.7.

See Table B.7.

Fig. B.7 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Saint Lucie,
Florida, in 2010
192 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.7 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Saint Lucie,
Florida, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 35 41 34 60 96 266 3,979
Tract area (sq. 234 623 759 1,130 548 3,296 62,462
mile)
Total population 132,150 108,530 102,822 126,571 262,246 732,319 12,205,582
White 111,476 96,285 90,925 118,866 195,351 612,903 10,142,813
Black 18,060 10,615 9,469 3,328 58,913 100,385 1,655,553
Asian 778 592 609 1,026 2,977 5,982 144,219
Native American 341 187 199 375 570 1,672 40,941
Others 1,489 863 1,611 2,969 4,449 11,381 222,066
Hispanic 4,855 2,983 3,965 6,965 22,856 41,624 1,513,424
Color 23,803 14,237 14,140 11,732 83,969 147,881 3,301,312
White (%) 84.36 88.72 88.43 93.91 74.49 83.69 83.10
Black (%) 13.67 9.78 9.21 2.63 22.46 13.71 13.56
Asian (%) 0.59 0.55 0.59 0.81 1.14 0.82 1.18
Native American 0.26 0.17 0.19 0.30 0.22 0.23 0.34
(%)
Others (%) 1.13 0.80 1.57 2.35 1.70 1.55 1.82
Hispanic (%) 3.67 2.75 3.86 5.50 8.72 5.68 12.40
Color (%) 18.01 13.12 13.75 9.27 32.02 20.19 27.05
Female (%) 51.67 51.51 50.47 50.73 51.49 51.25 51.68
Old (65+ years) 23.04 25.28 23.59 18.57 18.34 20.99 18.15
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.97 6.90 6.74 7.70 8.78 7.88 7.81
Native-born (%) 93.06 94.66 93.80 93.37 87.41 91.43 86.89
Renter housing 22.10 18.62 18.89 20.20 28.65 23.07 27.86
units (%)
Education (%) 14.27 18.77 21.85 21.99 18.07 18.71 18.25
Unemployment (%) 7.20 5.33 5.39 4.08 6.04 5.70 5.79
Poverty (%) 12.32 8.99 9.02 9.14 12.41 10.85 12.80
Mean household 57,422 73,203 76,239 73,685 66,000 68,322 59,432
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 157,349 147,427 124,539 179,907 321,611 930,833 15,051,545
White 126,970 128,081 109,638 160,956 213,372 739,017 11,724,285
Black 21,221 13,421 8,984 6,928 80,707 131,261 2,180,844
Asian 1,436 1,157 921 2,703 5,504 11,721 259,468
Native American 413 451 330 366 1,040 2,600 51,828
Others 7,302 4,331 4,653 8,921 21,014 46,221 835,133
Hispanic 13,508 8,159 8,239 18,018 47,076 95,000 2,585,314
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 193

Table B.7 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Color 38,521 24,559 19,342 29,831 139,481 251,734 5,274,186
White (%) 80.69 86.88 88.04 89.47 66.34 79.39 77.89
Black (%) 13.49 9.10 7.21 3.85 25.09 14.10 14.49
Asian (%) 0.91 0.78 0.74 1.50 1.71 1.26 1.72
Native American 0.26 0.31 0.26 0.20 0.32 0.28 0.34
(%)
Others (%) 4.64 2.94 3.74 4.96 6.53 4.97 5.55
Hispanic (%) 8.58 5.53 6.62 10.02 14.64 10.21 17.18
Color (%) 24.48 16.66 15.53 16.58 43.37 27.04 35.04
Female (%) 51.60 51.43 50.26 50.28 51.34 51.05 51.29
Old (65+ years) 23.15 27.36 25.16 19.70 16.24 21.03 17.34
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.64 5.49 5.97 6.46 7.47 6.62 7.14
Native-born (%) 89.03 92.79 91.97 89.39 82.09 87.69 83.02
Renter housing 20.50 15.67 17.77 16.61 28.75 21.27 26.27
units (%)
College degree or 16.22 22.95 27.15 26.87 21.50 22.69 22.31
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.39 3.97 4.32 3.63 5.56 4.74 5.62
Poverty (%) 14.10 8.69 8.10 7.93 14.10 11.25 12.59
Mean household 58,800 77,356 84,862 88,879 71,357 75,463 66,100
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 206,961 186,605 144,462 232,232 380,764 1,151,024 17,360,596
White 157,045 151,285 127,353 204,978 240,086 880,747 13,234,481
Black 34,488 23,619 10,053 11,994 104,682 184,836 2,715,576
Asian 3,400 2,543 1,409 4,697 8,452 20,501 434,880
Native American 1,268 736 383 608 1,078 4,073 50,497
Others 10,760 8,422 5,264 9,955 26,466 60,867 925,162
Hispanic 31,454 22,129 15,235 32,462 78,316 179,596 3,815,728
Color 71,721 51,118 28,928 51,951 196,294 400,012 7,179,352
White (%) 75.88 81.07 88.16 88.26 63.05 76.52 76.23
Black (%) 16.66 12.66 6.96 5.16 27.49 16.06 15.64
Asian (%) 1.64 1.36 0.98 2.02 2.22 1.78 2.50
Native American 0.61 0.39 0.27 0.26 0.28 0.35 0.29
(%)
Others (%) 5.20 4.51 3.64 4.29 6.95 5.29 5.33
Hispanic (%) 15.20 11.86 10.55 13.98 20.57 15.60 21.98
Color (%) 34.65 27.39 20.02 22.37 51.55 34.75 41.35
Female (%) 51.10 50.48 52.08 50.58 51.37 51.11 51.11
Old (65+ years) 21.43 22.60 24.35 21.65 15.33 20.01 16.73
(%)
(continued)
194 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.7 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.02 5.11 4.83 5.08 6.07 5.55 5.86
Native-born (%) 84.74 87.78 90.01 86.13 76.52 83.46 80.65
Renter housing 20.81 14.73 16.85 16.92 25.91 20.05 24.75
units (%)
College degree or 18.16 26.19 29.63 33.01 24.66 26.14 25.89
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 11.90 10.29 9.08 7.97 9.69 9.74 8.83
Poverty (%) 14.10 10.29 11.94 9.36 15.67 12.77 13.89
Mean household 56,660 76,319 81,158 95,132 69,089 75,053 65,733
income ($)
Index 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

B.8 Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Florida

See Fig. B.8.

See Table B.8.

Fig. B.8 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Turkey Point
Nuclear Generating, Florida, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 195

Table B.8 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Turkey Point
Nuclear Generating, Florida, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 26 97 236 193 139 691 3,554
Tract area (sq. 208 599 588 2,794 242 4,431 61,326
mile)
Total population 89,348 362,555 847,153 721,636 468,445 2,489,137 10,448,764
White 58,339 294,607 658,329 475,188 389,620 1,876,083 8,879,633
Black 22,707 46,829 129,598 208,634 64,701 472,469 1,283,469
Asian 1,251 9,012 6,571 9,146 6,461 32,441 117,760
Native American 355 552 976 1,185 1,397 4,465 38,148
Others 6,704 11,544 51,705 27,477 6,252 103,682 129,765
Hispanic 27,217 127,347 557,806 249,329 48,145 1,009,844 545,204
Color 50,859 181,670 681,481 457,442 118,755 1,490,207 1,958,986
White (%) 65.29 81.26 77.71 65.85 83.17 75.37 84.98
Black (%) 25.41 12.92 15.30 28.91 13.81 18.98 12.28
Asian (%) 1.40 2.49 0.78 1.27 1.38 1.30 1.13
Native American 0.40 0.15 0.12 0.16 0.30 0.18 0.37
(%)
Others (%) 7.50 3.18 6.10 3.81 1.33 4.17 1.24
Hispanic (%) 30.46 35.12 65.84 34.55 10.28 40.57 5.22
Color (%) 56.92 50.11 80.44 63.39 25.35 59.87 18.75
Female (%) 50.02 51.65 52.05 52.91 51.65 52.09 51.55
Old (65+ years) 9.31 8.66 16.14 15.00 16.87 14.61 19.19
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 11.87 9.21 7.83 8.71 7.59 8.38 7.68
(%)
Native-born (%) 81.77 69.11 42.53 62.01 84.47 61.35 93.29
Renter housing 39.97 29.04 49.39 34.49 27.42 37.28 25.58
units (%)
Education (%) 10.72 31.65 16.61 15.57 18.96 18.70 18.18
Unemployment 7.53 4.86 8.65 7.70 5.49 7.14 5.43
(%)
Poverty (%) 21.95 8.97 22.76 15.35 10.76 16.29 11.83
Mean household 49,888 88,232 54,126 60,719 66,146 63,151 59,246
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 99,529 461,953 920,354 913,887 628,598 3,024,321 12,958,057
White 55,125 356,258 722,966 520,497 476,049 2,130,895 10,332,407
Black 30,816 55,493 110,717 297,104 96,481 590,611 1,721,494
Asian 1,187 11,351 8,006 14,613 15,638 50,795 220,394
Native American 137 1,389 1,634 1,984 1,976 7,120 47,308
Others 12,273 37,454 77,017 79,689 38,437 244,870 636,484
Hispanic 45,524 240,853 651,320 391,989 128,148 1,457,834 1,222,480
(continued)
196 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.8 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Color 78,747 313,670 767,526 715,076 253,323 2,128,342 3,397,578
White (%) 55.39 77.12 78.55 56.95 75.73 70.46 79.74
Black (%) 30.96 12.01 12.03 32.51 15.35 19.53 13.29
Asian (%) 1.19 2.46 0.87 1.60 2.49 1.68 1.70
Native American 0.14 0.30 0.18 0.22 0.31 0.24 0.37
(%)
Others (%) 12.33 8.11 8.37 8.72 6.11 8.10 4.91
Hispanic (%) 45.74 52.14 70.77 42.89 20.39 48.20 9.43
Color (%) 79.12 67.90 83.39 78.25 40.30 70.37 26.22
Female (%) 51.22 52.03 51.17 52.50 51.25 51.72 51.17
Old (65+ years) 7.75 9.56 16.27 13.10 12.56 13.24 18.57
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 11.47 8.43 6.78 8.26 7.69 7.82 6.94
(%)
Native-born (%) 69.49 58.29 40.41 53.52 75.88 55.43 89.79
Renter housing 44.55 26.43 46.13 31.96 27.29 34.79 24.25
units (%)
College degree or 11.72 31.26 21.02 18.61 27.13 22.86 22.22
higher (%)
Unemployment 11.41 6.04 9.08 9.18 4.78 7.70 5.07
(%)
Poverty (%) 27.84 10.58 20.36 16.83 10.52 15.98 11.70
Mean household 47,347 88,385 60,468 62,458 76,392 68,310 66,321
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 147,705 491,195 1,006,372 987,234 686,042 3,318,548 15,193,072
White 97,921 395,950 828,717 568,334 487,871 2,378,793 11,736,435
Black 37,054 52,053 117,434 329,001 123,671 659,213 2,241,199
Asian 2,897 12,580 13,448 19,416 23,470 71,811 383,570
Native American 143 647 1,228 1,819 1,648 5,485 49,085
Others 9,690 29,965 45,545 68,664 49,382 203,246 782,783
Hispanic 82,831 307,830 755,234 484,952 199,051 1,829,898 2,165,426
Color 122,889 375,537 873,067 826,040 356,808 2,554,341 5,025,023
White (%) 66.29 80.61 82.35 57.57 71.11 71.68 77.25
Black (%) 25.09 10.60 11.67 33.33 18.03 19.86 14.75
Asian (%) 1.96 2.56 1.34 1.97 3.42 2.16 2.52
Native American 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.17 0.32
(%)
Others (%) 6.56 6.10 4.53 6.96 7.20 6.12 5.15
Hispanic (%) 56.08 62.67 75.05 49.12 29.01 55.14 14.25
Color (%) 83.20 76.45 86.75 83.67 52.01 76.97 33.07
Female (%) 52.12 52.53 50.21 52.89 50.95 51.59 51.01
Old (65+ years) 7.30 11.99 15.89 13.55 12.28 13.49 17.68
(%)
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 197

Table B.8 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Kid (<5 years) 10.02 6.00 5.59 6.48 5.87 6.17 5.76
(%)
Native-born (%) 65.01 56.35 41.90 52.40 69.62 53.92 86.70
Renter housing 40.03 25.16 41.58 29.91 25.89 32.38 22.99
units (%)
College degree or 17.99 34.25 26.39 23.91 32.65 27.77 25.51
higher (%)
Unemployment 9.68 7.72 7.88 9.43 8.03 8.42 8.99
(%)
Poverty (%) 24.41 11.06 19.12 15.67 11.01 15.43 13.47
Mean household 52,294 86,037 60,694 61,531 79,165 68,233 65,956
income ($)
Index 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

B.9 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Georgia

See Fig. B.9.

See Table B.9.

Fig. B.9 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Georgia, in 2010
198 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.9 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Georgia, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 3 10 16 23 20 72 1,897
Tract area (sq. mile) 333 842 1,516 2,060 1,835 6,586 52,839
Total population 9,459 39,605 45,207 82,460 67,051 243,782 6,234,427
White 6,608 31,273 33,461 57,591 50,374 179,307 4,424,063
Black 2,595 7,488 11,279 23,146 16,157 60,665 1,684,207
Asian 1 64 76 534 269 944 72,812
Native American 22 118 39 186 104 469 14,813
Others 237 663 344 1,000 158 2,402 38,495
Hispanic 264 861 592 1,839 400 3,956 97,435
Color 2,878 8,518 11,952 25,591 16,887 65,826 1,862,637
White (%) 69.86 78.96 74.02 69.84 75.13 73.55 70.96
Black (%) 27.43 18.91 24.95 28.07 24.10 24.88 27.01
Asian (%) 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.65 0.40 0.39 1.17
Native American (%) 0.23 0.30 0.09 0.23 0.16 0.19 0.24
Others (%) 2.51 1.67 0.76 1.21 0.24 0.99 0.62
Hispanic (%) 2.79 2.17 1.31 2.23 0.60 1.62 1.56
Color (%) 30.43 21.51 26.44 31.03 25.19 27.00 29.88
Female (%) 50.66 49.44 52.17 49.57 52.49 50.88 51.53
Old (65+ years) (%) 10.97 11.30 14.20 11.14 12.04 11.97 10.00
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.30 8.55 8.45 10.10 9.61 9.34 9.14
Native-born (%) 99.03 98.79 99.09 98.74 99.33 98.99 97.26
Renter housing units 18.48 27.00 25.12 29.62 25.02 26.56 31.63
(%)
Education (%) 5.79 9.11 9.54 9.41 10.07 9.43 19.69
Unemployment (%) 6.68 5.76 5.61 6.23 6.29 6.06 5.73
Poverty (%) 22.77 19.83 23.72 23.56 20.18 22.01 14.37
Mean household 40,800 43,952 44,102 41,438 44,229 43,121 61,069
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 10,524 45,652 51,136 96,476 80,828 284,616 7,901,837
White 7,454 33,027 35,664 63,657 55,714 195,516 5,131,659
Black 2,465 9,230 13,406 27,346 21,630 74,077 2,268,033
Asian 11 309 184 699 562 1,765 173,564
Native American 0 93 187 304 140 724 22,964
Others 597 3,002 1,676 4,475 2,795 12,545 305,606
Hispanic 663 3,992 1,886 5,908 2,838 15,287 414,689
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 199

Table B.9 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Color 3,180 13,770 15,976 34,963 25,865 93,754 2,962,972
White (%) 70.83 72.35 69.74 65.98 68.93 68.69 64.94
Black (%) 23.42 20.22 26.22 28.34 26.76 26.03 28.70
Asian (%) 0.10 0.68 0.36 0.72 0.70 0.62 2.20
Native American (%) 0.00 0.20 0.37 0.32 0.17 0.25 0.29
Others (%) 5.67 6.58 3.28 4.64 3.46 4.41 3.87
Hispanic (%) 6.30 8.74 3.69 6.12 3.51 5.37 5.25
Color (%) 30.22 30.16 31.24 36.24 32.00 32.94 37.50
Female (%) 51.16 47.95 49.12 48.13 51.01 49.21 50.93
Old (65+ years) (%) 11.16 10.79 12.87 10.12 11.62 11.19 9.57
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.13 8.62 8.41 9.21 8.88 8.87 8.67
Native-born (%) 95.43 94.26 96.90 95.88 97.12 96.14 92.83
Renter housing units 14.63 24.77 22.43 26.20 23.22 23.93 29.99
(%)
College degree or 6.42 9.63 11.15 9.58 12.31 10.54 24.78
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.58 5.31 5.34 6.70 5.61 5.89 5.48
Poverty (%) 21.69 21.75 21.48 20.52 19.46 20.61 12.72
Mean household 46,407 46,599 48,493 47,793 49,401 48,147 71,311
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 10,422 47,478 57,197 98,638 90,482 304,217 9,164,598
White 7,395 33,734 39,614 66,518 59,717 206,978 5,581,277
Black 2,449 8,986 16,033 26,473 25,290 79,231 2,793,838
Asian 0 367 412 241 718 1,738 300,098
Native American 0 248 50 233 137 668 22,566
Others 578 4,143 1,088 5,173 4,620 15,602 466,819
Hispanic 640 6,562 2,146 8,851 5,475 23,674 761,038
Color 3,200 16,518 18,791 36,632 32,836 107,977 3,979,068
White (%) 70.96 71.05 69.26 67.44 66.00 68.04 60.90
Black (%) 23.50 18.93 28.03 26.84 27.95 26.04 30.49
Asian (%) 0.00 0.77 0.72 0.24 0.79 0.57 3.27
Native American (%) 0.00 0.52 0.09 0.24 0.15 0.22 0.25
Others (%) 5.55 8.73 1.90 5.24 5.11 5.13 5.09
Hispanic (%) 6.14 13.82 3.75 8.97 6.05 7.78 8.30
Color (%) 30.70 34.79 32.85 37.14 36.29 35.49 43.42
Female (%) 53.03 47.99 47.84 48.12 49.98 48.77 51.21
Old (65+ years) (%) 13.83 11.57 13.40 11.54 12.48 12.25 10.19
(continued)
200 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.9 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.77 7.90 6.41 7.29 6.84 7.07 7.28
Native-born (%) 96.78 91.37 96.89 93.65 96.39 94.83 90.25
Renter housing units 19.33 28.34 24.96 28.84 25.42 26.63 28.33
(%)
College degree or 8.15 10.66 13.69 10.42 12.00 11.48 27.74
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.08 6.01 5.88 8.09 7.58 7.12 8.90
Poverty (%) 24.15 23.90 20.96 21.13 19.39 21.12 15.53
Mean household 42,325 44,850 48,634 43,926 49,169 46,491 67,268
income ($)
Index 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

B.10 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Georgia

See Fig. B.10.

See Table B.10.

Fig. B.10 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant, Georgia, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 201

Table B.10 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant, Georgia, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 2 11 62 50 14 139 2,933
Tract area (sq. mile) 325 1,146 1,365 1,978 1,434 6,248 85,198
Total population 6,629 36,043 245,643 180,329 49,337 517,981 9,446,914
White 3,583 21,485 141,389 129,742 25,072 321,271 6,689,779
Black 3,009 14,313 98,548 47,408 24,121 187,399 2,597,474
Asian 0 67 3,180 2,481 31 5,759 89,294
Native American 6 102 679 311 64 1,162 23,053
Others 31 78 1,846 378 49 2,382 47,291
Hispanic 38 189 3,876 1,738 160 6,001 123,720
Color 3,055 14,671 105,948 51,775 24,350 199,799 2,823,437
White (%) 54.05 59.61 57.56 71.95 50.82 62.02 70.81
Black (%) 45.39 39.71 40.12 26.29 48.89 36.18 27.50
Asian (%) 0.00 0.19 1.29 1.38 0.06 1.11 0.95
Native American 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.13 0.22 0.24
(%)
Others (%) 0.47 0.22 0.75 0.21 0.10 0.46 0.50
Hispanic (%) 0.57 0.52 1.58 0.96 0.32 1.16 1.31
Color (%) 46.09 40.70 43.13 28.71 49.35 38.57 29.89
Female (%) 50.20 52.51 51.69 51.40 52.07 51.66 51.55
Old (65+ years) (%) 9.49 10.47 10.83 9.45 12.38 10.46 10.53
Kid (<5 years) (%) 10.42 10.18 9.57 9.50 9.90 9.63 8.99
Native-born (%) 99.70 99.31 97.74 97.82 99.70 98.09 97.74
Renter housing 16.76 22.45 34.44 24.41 23.61 28.97 29.80
units (%)
Education (%) 5.62 10.53 15.24 20.52 9.46 16.11 18.50
Unemployment (%) 7.39 7.50 6.87 5.24 6.36 6.27 5.65
Poverty (%) 28.92 20.85 18.86 13.99 25.33 18.06 14.73
Mean household 40,703 48,701 49,739 62,449 41,184 53,117 58,054
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 7,929 43,024 264,222 213,861 58,281 587,317 11,611,148
White 4,311 24,830 134,664 148,505 30,561 342,871 7,679,982
Black 3,560 17,122 118,375 56,432 26,662 222,151 3,302,686
Asian 6 181 3,122 4,016 187 7,512 205,706
Native American 0 158 801 731 208 1,898 36,478
Others 52 739 7,256 4,171 660 12,878 386,303
Hispanic 110 981 7,174 3,824 1,062 13,151 509,653
Color 3,672 18,751 132,525 67,414 28,316 250,678 4,163,659
(continued)
202 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.10 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 54.37 57.71 50.97 69.44 52.44 58.38 66.14
Black (%) 44.90 39.80 44.80 26.39 45.75 37.82 28.44
Asian (%) 0.08 0.42 1.18 1.88 0.32 1.28 1.77
Native American 0.00 0.37 0.30 0.34 0.36 0.32 0.31
(%)
Others (%) 0.66 1.72 2.75 1.95 1.13 2.19 3.33
Hispanic (%) 1.39 2.28 2.72 1.79 1.82 2.24 4.39
Color (%) 46.31 43.58 50.16 31.52 48.59 42.68 35.86
Female (%) 50.36 51.92 51.68 51.93 50.09 51.61 51.03
Old (65+ years) (%) 9.04 10.19 11.73 10.90 11.39 11.25 10.40
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.71 8.58 8.48 8.21 8.17 8.38 8.42
Native-born (%) 98.85 98.34 97.26 96.63 98.79 97.28 94.17
Renter housing 12.79 20.15 32.67 22.13 20.30 26.51 27.94
units (%)
College degree or 8.41 11.69 17.57 24.76 11.72 19.12 23.20
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 7.42 7.49 8.58 5.76 7.12 7.26 5.53
Poverty (%) 21.22 20.93 19.47 12.25 20.27 17.03 13.17
Mean household 45,999 51,797 54,547 66,926 49,348 58,262 67,495
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 8,333 41,084 272,766 243,472 62,698 628,353 13,351,890
White 4,383 23,614 130,725 166,074 34,830 359,626 8,462,629
Black 3,870 16,067 128,319 64,543 25,438 238,237 3,904,316
Asian 0 154 4,007 5,517 677 10,355 347,822
Native American 0 184 656 246 193 1,279 36,050
Others 80 1,065 9,059 7,092 1,560 18,856 601,073
Hispanic 117 589 11,525 9,143 2,062 23,436 970,030
Color 4,067 17,758 147,781 82,823 28,865 281,294 5,409,504
White (%) 52.60 57.48 47.93 68.21 55.55 57.23 63.38
Black (%) 46.44 39.11 47.04 26.51 40.57 37.91 29.24
Asian (%) 0.00 0.37 1.47 2.27 1.08 1.65 2.61
Native American 0.00 0.45 0.24 0.10 0.31 0.20 0.27
(%)
Others (%) 0.96 2.59 3.32 2.91 2.49 3.00 4.50
Hispanic (%) 1.40 1.43 4.23 3.76 3.29 3.73 7.27
Color (%) 48.81 43.22 54.18 34.02 46.04 44.77 40.51
Female (%) 52.78 51.17 51.63 51.57 48.99 51.33 51.19
Old (65+ years) (%) 10.15 10.66 12.48 12.50 11.11 12.20 11.16
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.29 6.67 6.84 6.97 6.64 6.88 7.05
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 203

Table B.10 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 99.11 98.49 96.42 95.56 96.51 96.27 91.78
Renter housing 15.25 23.31 32.10 22.09 21.49 26.46 27.23
units (%)
College degree or 6.42 14.91 20.08 26.87 15.81 21.84 26.34
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 11.84 9.94 10.55 7.65 10.52 9.35 8.96
Poverty (%) 28.36 22.54 21.82 14.06 21.54 18.90 15.79
Mean household 44,522 50,799 51,582 66,663 49,153 57,078 64,378
income ($)
Index 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

B.11 Braidwood Station, Illinois

See Fig. B.11.

See Table B.11.

Fig. B.11 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Braidwood
Station, Illinois, in 2010
204 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.11 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Braidwood

Station, Illinois, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 10 35 115 248 252 660 2,463
Tract area (sq. 327 1,083 1,322 2,181 893 5,806 52,108
mile)
Total population 28,159 103,904 298,603 927,921 1,008,609 2,367,196 9,063,387
White 27,795 97,315 246,012 756,921 917,354 2,045,397 6,912,516
Black 68 4,658 41,091 122,487 50,272 218,576 1,472,281
Asian 80 650 2,059 20,754 24,501 48,044 236,884
Native American 124 198 631 1,498 1,558 4,009 20,059
Others 92 1,077 8,820 26,250 14,923 51,162 421,643
Hispanic 323 2,281 16,004 53,399 42,049 114,056 764,632
Color 580 7,725 59,335 196,653 117,630 381,923 2,477,934
White (%) 98.71 93.66 82.39 81.57 90.95 86.41 76.27
Black (%) 0.24 4.48 13.76 13.20 4.98 9.23 16.24
Asian (%) 0.28 0.63 0.69 2.24 2.43 2.03 2.61
Native American 0.44 0.19 0.21 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.22
(%)
Others (%) 0.33 1.04 2.95 2.83 1.48 2.16 4.65
Hispanic (%) 1.15 2.20 5.36 5.75 4.17 4.82 8.44
Color (%) 2.06 7.43 19.87 21.19 11.66 16.13 27.34
Female (%) 49.91 51.32 50.25 51.13 51.51 51.18 51.55
Old (65+ years) 11.27 12.20 10.90 9.67 13.35 11.52 12.82
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 9.28 8.87 9.44 9.77 8.89 9.31 8.77
(%)
Native-born (%) 98.77 98.15 96.39 94.15 92.73 94.06 91.05
Renter housing 20.53 27.60 25.39 23.40 24.13 24.12 35.58
units (%)
Education (%) 7.54 14.85 14.39 23.12 27.07 23.29 20.46
Unemployment 7.49 4.77 6.26 5.22 3.92 4.78 7.14
(%)
Poverty (%) 7.89 6.07 8.91 6.79 4.12 5.89 13.49
Mean household 60,876 65,366 65,609 78,615 83,354 78,358 64,316
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 32,863 119,309 391,018 1,085,281 1,089,926 2,718,397 9,700,896
White 31,993 108,074 313,445 814,590 902,339 2,170,441 6,953,123
Black 162 6,652 50,610 164,410 89,077 310,911 1,553,708
Asian 20 767 4,769 39,221 37,641 82,418 344,833
Native American 63 224 862 2,094 2,005 5,248 25,159
Others 623 3,596 21,342 64,954 58,861 149,376 824,076
Hispanic 948 4,866 35,026 106,439 100,098 247,377 1,281,764
Color 1,436 13,623 94,633 324,334 242,765 676,791 3,319,094
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 205

Table B.11 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 97.35 90.58 80.16 75.06 82.79 79.84 71.68
Black (%) 0.49 5.58 12.94 15.15 8.17 11.44 16.02
Asian (%) 0.06 0.64 1.22 3.61 3.45 3.03 3.55
Native American 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.26
(%)
Others (%) 1.90 3.01 5.46 5.98 5.40 5.50 8.49
Hispanic (%) 2.88 4.08 8.96 9.81 9.18 9.10 13.21
Color (%) 4.37 11.42 24.20 29.88 22.27 24.90 34.21
Female (%) 50.34 50.92 49.89 51.24 51.33 51.05 51.10
Old (65+ years) 11.02 11.59 10.31 10.35 13.04 11.48 12.23
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 8.27 7.89 9.68 9.12 8.47 8.88 8.39
(%)
Native-born (%) 98.75 97.30 94.03 90.05 88.14 90.28 86.96
Renter housing 17.68 24.15 19.96 20.33 22.74 21.40 33.20
units (%)
College degree or 10.37 18.73 19.58 29.02 32.83 28.59 25.35
higher (%)
Unemployment 5.04 5.15 4.85 4.90 4.22 4.63 6.45
(%)
Poverty (%) 5.24 6.03 6.98 6.41 5.15 5.95 12.02
Mean household 71,905 75,332 78,226 88,157 93,188 88,091 73,612
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 35,921 143,022 510,817 1,212,228 1,116,411 3,018,399 9,726,960
White 34,793 128,578 400,286 833,626 876,852 2,274,135 6,862,545
Black 221 9,007 62,644 203,715 106,057 381,644 1,478,661
Asian 133 1,502 9,591 61,370 48,741 121,337 453,490
Native American 67 256 492 2,249 2,031 5,095 19,634
Others 707 3,679 37,804 111,268 82,730 236,188 912,630
Hispanic 1,270 9,617 77,223 191,369 171,079 450,558 1,489,370
Color 2,096 21,427 157,319 473,862 338,307 993,011 3,549,698
White (%) 96.86 89.90 78.36 68.77 78.54 75.34 70.55
Black (%) 0.62 6.30 12.26 16.81 9.50 12.64 15.20
Asian (%) 0.37 1.05 1.88 5.06 4.37 4.02 4.66
Native American 0.19 0.18 0.10 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.20
(%)
Others (%) 1.97 2.57 7.40 9.18 7.41 7.82 9.38
Hispanic (%) 3.54 6.72 15.12 15.79 15.32 14.93 15.31
Color (%) 5.84 14.98 30.80 39.09 30.30 32.90 36.49
Female (%) 49.39 50.20 50.62 51.11 51.23 51.01 50.95
Old (65+ years) 12.54 11.31 10.36 11.08 12.62 11.56 12.54
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 6.36 6.86 7.57 6.82 6.58 6.85 6.56
(%)
(continued)
206 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.11 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 98.54 96.46 90.89 86.60 85.33 87.46 86.04
Renter housing 16.45 20.16 17.21 19.41 21.69 19.93 30.13
units (%)
College degree or 11.65 22.01 24.50 32.24 37.15 32.08 29.72
higher (%)
Unemployment 11.90 7.26 8.40 8.85 8.01 8.42 8.64
(%)
Poverty (%) 8.47 7.09 8.69 8.87 7.01 8.06 14.07
Mean household 67,059 76,135 77,469 84,061 91,234 85,146 72,227
income ($)
Index 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

B.12 Byron Station, Illinois

See Fig. B.12.

See Table B.12.

Fig. B.12 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Byron Station,
Illinois, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 207

Table B.12 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Byron Station,
Illinois, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 5 60 66 38 30 199 4,333
Tract area (sq. mile) 300 945 1,657 1,443 1,283 5,627 117,783
Total population 19,736 206,595 243,810 125,999 110,481 706,621 15,615,730
White 19,556 176,787 229,393 116,345 108,690 650,771 12,821,452
Black 9 22,840 6,733 6,699 396 36,677 1,898,484
Asian 74 2,364 3,500 603 539 7,080 330,908
Native American 66 593 543 312 371 1,885 61,900
Others 29 4,006 3,647 2,044 484 10,210 502,957
Hispanic 161 7,220 7,513 3,985 1,495 20,374 945,920
Color 314 33,108 18,181 11,627 2,793 66,023 3,216,509
White (%) 99.09 85.57 94.09 92.34 98.38 92.10 82.11
Black (%) 0.05 11.06 2.76 5.32 0.36 5.19 12.16
Asian (%) 0.37 1.14 1.44 0.48 0.49 1.00 2.12
Native American (%) 0.33 0.29 0.22 0.25 0.34 0.27 0.40
Others (%) 0.15 1.94 1.50 1.62 0.44 1.44 3.22
Hispanic (%) 0.82 3.49 3.08 3.16 1.35 2.88 6.06
Color (%) 1.59 16.03 7.46 9.23 2.53 9.34 20.60
Female (%) 50.78 51.49 51.66 51.16 51.15 51.41 51.35
Old (65+ years) (%) 15.13 13.75 12.33 13.27 13.40 13.16 12.76
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.72 9.24 8.19 9.13 9.15 8.83 8.91
Native-born (%) 98.97 96.32 96.75 97.96 98.43 97.17 93.25
Renter housing units 24.78 34.11 29.13 28.33 29.60 30.46 32.23
(%)
Education (%) 15.36 14.27 18.65 11.75 13.05 15.13 20.28
Unemployment (%) 5.27 5.84 4.85 5.46 5.14 5.30 6.24
Poverty (%) 5.90 11.95 9.59 10.43 8.55 10.17 11.61
Mean household 59,673 54,360 62,984 56,810 58,473 58,488 64,540
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 22,901 212,942 281,564 136,609 119,531 773,547 17,009,420
White 22,342 168,157 252,652 122,351 114,697 680,199 13,216,918
Black 74 27,743 11,306 6,562 879 46,564 2,118,410
Asian 50 2,824 4,622 984 591 9,071 502,834
Native American 37 816 620 493 447 2,413 77,655
Others 398 13,398 12,369 6,218 2,914 35,297 1,093,607
Hispanic 415 19,204 15,692 9,248 3,596 48,155 1,672,035
Color 724 53,299 35,945 18,634 6,525 115,127 4,556,784
(continued)
208 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.12 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 97.56 78.97 89.73 89.56 95.96 87.93 77.70
Black (%) 0.32 13.03 4.02 4.80 0.74 6.02 12.45
Asian (%) 0.22 1.33 1.64 0.72 0.49 1.17 2.96
Native American (%) 0.16 0.38 0.22 0.36 0.37 0.31 0.46
Others (%) 1.74 6.29 4.39 4.55 2.44 4.56 6.43
Hispanic (%) 1.81 9.02 5.57 6.77 3.01 6.23 9.83
Color (%) 3.16 25.03 12.77 13.64 5.46 14.88 26.79
Female (%) 50.42 50.89 51.05 50.81 50.68 50.89 50.95
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.05 13.28 12.64 13.18 13.81 13.13 12.35
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.19 8.55 7.84 8.12 8.11 8.11 8.27
Native-born (%) 98.23 92.99 95.40 95.87 97.85 95.28 90.09
Renter housing units 21.66 31.55 27.17 24.32 26.80 27.69 30.08
(%)
College degree or 19.42 15.86 21.22 14.62 15.94 17.68 25.29
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.06 6.69 5.38 5.63 4.61 5.61 5.62
Poverty (%) 6.48 12.16 8.21 7.67 6.48 8.88 10.13
Mean household 70,621 59,496 70,338 65,104 66,589 65,820 74,050
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 23,750 214,649 314,446 145,769 123,031 821,645 17,561,660
White 23,038 167,268 275,854 129,839 115,327 711,326 13,339,905
Black 81 31,547 17,387 6,820 1,975 57,810 2,151,157
Asian 142 3,037 7,093 1,525 982 12,779 686,043
Native American 0 673 832 230 256 1,991 71,927
Others 489 12,124 13,280 7,355 4,491 37,739 1,312,629
Hispanic 544 28,712 28,391 14,340 6,498 78,485 2,171,992
Color 1,030 67,676 56,879 24,883 11,158 161,626 5,283,605
White (%) 97.00 77.93 87.73 89.07 93.74 86.57 75.96
Black (%) 0.34 14.70 5.53 4.68 1.61 7.04 12.25
Asian (%) 0.60 1.41 2.26 1.05 0.80 1.56 3.91
Native American (%) 0.00 0.31 0.26 0.16 0.21 0.24 0.41
Others (%) 2.06 5.65 4.22 5.05 3.65 4.59 7.47
Hispanic (%) 2.29 13.38 9.03 9.84 5.28 9.55 12.37
Color (%) 4.34 31.53 18.09 17.07 9.07 19.67 30.09
Female (%) 52.07 50.66 50.53 51.25 50.42 50.72 50.79
Old (65+ years) (%) 17.44 13.24 13.33 13.29 14.36 13.57 12.59
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.28 6.97 6.22 6.59 6.74 6.53 6.53
Native-born (%) 97.81 91.81 93.79 94.91 96.47 93.99 88.92
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 209

Table B.12 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 20.74 30.58 25.64 20.99 23.89 25.77 27.60
(%)
College degree or 20.27 17.16 23.91 17.78 18.18 20.06 29.30
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 8.18 10.99 8.96 8.87 7.91 9.27 7.92
Poverty (%) 6.96 19.34 12.03 12.21 11.58 13.77 12.26
Mean household 68,972 53,238 66,216 62,255 60,945 61,359 72,448
income ($)
Index 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

B.13 Clinton Power Station, Illinois

See Fig. B.13.

See Table B.13.

Fig. B.13 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Clinton Power
Station, Illinois, in 2010
210 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.13 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Clinton Power
Station, Illinois, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 4 10 90 37 13 154 2,969
Tract area (sq. mile) 254 823 1,713 1,783 1,278 5,851 52,063
Total population 13,021 35,172 303,709 147,650 48,624 548,176 10,882,407
White 12,902 34,568 272,592 128,355 48,287 496,704 8,461,209
Black 58 428 26,241 10,690 27 37,444 1,653,413
Asian 32 32 3,518 6,753 98 10,433 274,495
Native American 23 76 560 331 91 1,081 22,987
Others 6 65 800 1,522 121 2,514 470,291
Hispanic 74 157 2,410 3,242 505 6,388 872,300
Color 187 705 32,694 20,989 722 55,297 2,804,560
White (%) 99.09 98.28 89.75 86.93 99.31 90.61 77.75
Black (%) 0.45 1.22 8.64 7.24 0.06 6.83 15.19
Asian (%) 0.25 0.09 1.16 4.57 0.20 1.90 2.52
Native American 0.18 0.22 0.18 0.22 0.19 0.20 0.21
(%)
Others (%) 0.05 0.18 0.26 1.03 0.25 0.46 4.32
Hispanic (%) 0.57 0.45 0.79 2.20 1.04 1.17 8.02
Color (%) 1.44 2.00 10.76 14.22 1.48 10.09 25.77
Female (%) 51.10 50.73 52.37 48.68 51.86 51.20 51.49
Old (65+ years) (%) 17.16 11.98 12.50 9.60 17.29 12.22 12.57
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.47 8.58 8.22 7.51 8.48 8.08 8.92
Native-born (%) 99.52 99.42 98.21 94.04 99.03 97.27 91.39
Renter housing 29.21 18.49 32.93 42.39 24.29 33.57 33.35
units (%)
Education (%) 11.75 16.89 24.90 25.90 11.40 22.95 20.95
Unemployment (%) 6.19 4.54 5.01 4.53 4.21 4.81 6.73
Poverty (%) 10.30 5.76 12.27 16.59 9.31 12.59 11.87
Mean household 52,091 64,651 59,178 51,492 54,360 57,000 67,629
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 13,049 39,455 325,882 148,972 50,051 577,409 11,841,884
White 12,783 38,295 276,875 123,571 48,937 500,461 8,623,103
Black 38 597 33,812 12,609 130 47,186 1,817,433
Asian 42 151 7,211 8,633 140 16,177 411,074
Native American 16 82 523 337 53 1,011 29,396
Others 170 328 7,460 3,821 791 12,570 960,882
Hispanic 197 330 6,547 3,481 994 11,549 1,517,592
Color 426 1,363 52,396 27,178 1,621 82,984 3,912,901
White (%) 97.96 97.06 84.96 82.95 97.77 86.67 72.82
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 211

Table B.13 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 0.29 1.51 10.38 8.46 0.26 8.17 15.35
Asian (%) 0.32 0.38 2.21 5.80 0.28 2.80 3.47
Native American 0.12 0.21 0.16 0.23 0.11 0.18 0.25
(%)
Others (%) 1.30 0.83 2.29 2.56 1.58 2.18 8.11
Hispanic (%) 1.51 0.84 2.01 2.34 1.99 2.00 12.82
Color (%) 3.26 3.45 16.08 18.24 3.24 14.37 33.04
Female (%) 50.90 51.06 52.04 49.08 51.52 51.14 51.09
Old (65+ years) (%) 16.77 12.25 12.42 10.25 17.26 12.36 12.05
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.69 7.98 7.53 6.73 7.51 7.36 8.55
Native-born (%) 98.66 99.00 96.48 93.46 98.60 96.10 87.28
Renter housing 25.45 14.79 32.01 39.58 20.98 31.67 30.71
units (%)
College degree or 13.97 23.13 30.04 28.10 15.49 27.30 26.00
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.53 2.78 6.38 5.58 3.06 5.64 6.07
Poverty (%) 8.67 3.78 11.31 16.81 6.13 11.60 10.64
Mean household 60,631 76,044 65,546 57,685 63,521 64,024 77,324
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 12,773 42,132 345,193 156,890 51,188 608,176 12,137,183
White 12,443 40,037 278,517 124,655 49,878 505,530 8,631,150
Black 75 590 40,759 15,948 136 57,508 1,802,797
Asian 17 415 13,732 11,405 232 25,801 549,026
Native American 0 68 433 469 36 1,006 23,723
Others 238 1,022 11,752 4,413 906 18,331 1,130,487
Hispanic 306 798 12,117 6,464 1,576 21,261 1,918,667
Color 460 2,508 73,374 36,393 2,267 115,002 4,427,707
White (%) 97.42 95.03 80.68 79.45 97.44 83.12 71.11
Black (%) 0.59 1.40 11.81 10.17 0.27 9.46 14.85
Asian (%) 0.13 0.98 3.98 7.27 0.45 4.24 4.52
Native American 0.00 0.16 0.13 0.30 0.07 0.17 0.20
(%)
Others (%) 1.86 2.43 3.40 2.81 1.77 3.01 9.31
Hispanic (%) 2.40 1.89 3.51 4.12 3.08 3.50 15.81
Color (%) 3.60 5.95 21.26 23.20 4.43 18.91 36.48
Female (%) 51.00 50.25 51.67 49.06 51.48 50.87 50.96
Old (65+ years) (%) 17.11 14.28 12.43 10.23 16.46 12.43 12.30
Kid (<5 years) (%) 4.96 6.20 6.53 5.07 6.94 6.13 6.66
Native-born (%) 98.26 97.80 94.60 91.27 98.03 94.33 85.98
(continued)
212 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.13 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing 24.75 13.74 30.59 37.37 19.42 30.09 27.78
units (%)
College degree or 13.51 27.62 34.75 30.53 17.01 31.14 30.24
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 7.42 4.84 6.50 7.09 5.47 6.47 8.70
Poverty (%) 8.62 7.18 14.40 20.83 10.62 14.95 12.53
Mean household 54,808 77,212 65,965 56,181 60,541 63,666 75,738
income ($)
Index 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

B.14 Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Illinois

See Fig. B.14.

See Table B.14.

Fig. B.14 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Illinois, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 213

Table B.14 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Dresden Nuclear
Power Station, Illinois, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 17 85 212 413 310 1,037 2,086
Tract area (sq. 251 952 1,729 1,820 1,085 5,838 52,075
mile)
Total population 44,647 200,027 726,503 1,677,784 1,252,112 3,901,073 7,529,510
White 43,455 165,920 629,535 1,293,755 882,651 3,015,316 5,942,597
Black 520 24,232 59,011 318,961 227,662 630,386 1,060,471
Asian 216 1,291 17,344 31,150 39,954 89,955 194,973
Native 96 516 1,171 2,577 1,965 6,325 17,743
American
Others 363 8,076 19,417 31,348 99,874 159,078 313,727
Hispanic 957 13,800 40,275 74,537 173,573 303,142 575,546
Color 1,736 39,486 116,706 425,491 441,282 1,024,701 1,835,156
White (%) 97.33 82.95 86.65 77.11 70.49 77.29 78.92
Black (%) 1.16 12.11 8.12 19.01 18.18 16.16 14.08
Asian (%) 0.48 0.65 2.39 1.86 3.19 2.31 2.59
Native 0.22 0.26 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.24
American (%)
Others (%) 0.81 4.04 2.67 1.87 7.98 4.08 4.17
Hispanic (%) 2.14 6.90 5.54 4.44 13.86 7.77 7.64
Color (%) 3.89 19.74 16.06 25.36 35.24 26.27 24.37
Female (%) 49.54 50.14 50.91 51.88 51.23 51.37 51.52
Old (65+ years) 9.79 11.21 8.70 12.78 10.48 11.16 13.27
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 9.45 9.21 10.10 8.88 9.52 9.34 8.65
(%)
Native-born (%) 98.27 95.86 94.17 93.58 86.33 91.53 91.74
Renter housing 23.06 26.18 23.93 24.58 34.79 27.80 35.93
units (%)
Education (%) 14.00 14.24 24.78 22.52 18.44 21.12 21.00
Unemployment 5.00 6.31 4.38 6.01 6.97 6.02 6.97
(%)
Poverty (%) 5.18 8.27 5.23 7.30 9.55 7.67 14.13
Mean household 70,896 65,575 80,845 76,836 68,798 74,364 63,637
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 54,839 265,028 922,960 1,773,233 1,416,976 4,433,036 7,986,257
White 52,169 215,458 739,064 1,227,569 867,821 3,102,081 6,021,483
Black 957 28,127 94,872 387,663 255,674 767,293 1,097,326
Asian 222 3,269 35,311 47,345 66,231 152,378 274,873
Native 64 691 1,861 3,553 4,621 10,790 19,617
American
Others 1,430 17,485 51,847 107,099 222,622 400,483 572,969
Hispanic 2,211 29,986 87,602 172,023 374,398 666,220 862,921
(continued)
214 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.14 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Color 3,938 64,131 229,701 631,684 714,761 1,644,215 2,351,670
White (%) 95.13 81.30 80.08 69.23 61.24 69.98 75.40
Black (%) 1.75 10.61 10.28 21.86 18.04 17.31 13.74
Asian (%) 0.40 1.23 3.83 2.67 4.67 3.44 3.44
Native 0.12 0.26 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.24 0.25
American (%)
Others (%) 2.61 6.60 5.62 6.04 15.71 9.03 7.17
Hispanic (%) 4.03 11.31 9.49 9.70 26.42 15.03 10.81
Color (%) 7.18 24.20 24.89 35.62 50.44 37.09 29.45
Female (%) 49.57 49.71 50.96 51.81 50.88 51.18 51.04
Old (65+ years) 9.53 10.06 9.12 12.85 9.47 10.78 12.78
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 8.44 9.99 9.40 8.58 9.79 9.22 8.09
(%)
Native-born (%) 97.63 93.12 90.10 89.40 77.47 86.06 88.59
Renter housing 19.83 21.05 19.47 23.43 32.69 25.27 33.43
units (%)
College degree 18.28 18.79 31.09 27.35 22.06 25.86 26.17
or higher (%)
Unemployment 4.46 4.96 4.23 5.93 6.63 5.70 6.24
(%)
Poverty (%) 3.99 6.96 5.10 7.91 10.34 8.00 12.19
Mean household 82,461 76,446 93,541 84,662 77,382 83,743 73,119
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 73,784 359,685 1,099,335 1,769,057 1,399,088 4,700,949 8,044,410
White 69,424 283,718 808,646 1,159,665 806,821 3,128,274 6,008,406
Black 2,059 37,128 127,911 402,725 230,682 800,505 1,059,800
Asian 436 7,531 61,015 55,901 87,939 212,822 362,005
Native 61 328 2,105 3,074 3,452 9,020 15,709
American
Others 1,804 30,980 99,658 147,692 270,194 550,328 598,490
Hispanic 5,248 66,368 167,090 276,799 458,204 973,709 966,219
Color 8,251 116,606 372,202 753,852 789,596 2,040,507 2,502,202
White (%) 94.09 78.88 73.56 65.55 57.67 66.55 74.69
Black (%) 2.79 10.32 11.64 22.76 16.49 17.03 13.17
Asian (%) 0.59 2.09 5.55 3.16 6.29 4.53 4.50
Native 0.08 0.09 0.19 0.17 0.25 0.19 0.20
American (%)
Others (%) 2.44 8.61 9.07 8.35 19.31 11.71 7.44
Hispanic (%) 7.11 18.45 15.20 15.65 32.75 20.71 12.01
Color (%) 11.18 32.42 33.86 42.61 56.44 43.41 31.10
Female (%) 49.78 50.04 51.05 51.73 50.75 51.12 50.87
Old (65+ years) 9.59 9.56 10.11 12.86 9.74 10.99 13.07
(%)
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 215

Table B.14 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Kid (<5 years) 7.06 7.99 7.05 6.45 7.75 7.10 6.35
(%)
Native-born (%) 96.74 89.36 86.80 87.02 75.06 83.74 87.91
Renter housing 15.50 17.87 18.43 22.83 30.04 23.43 30.15
units (%)
College degree 21.83 22.93 34.85 30.84 24.95 29.32 30.82
or higher (%)
Unemployment 8.57 8.40 7.86 9.81 9.78 9.21 8.23
(%)
Poverty (%) 5.75 8.51 7.22 10.60 12.77 10.22 14.08
Mean household 79,156 76,132 89,143 81,429 71,974 80,096 72,559
income ($)
Index 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

B.15 LaSalle County Station, Illinois

See Fig. B.15.

See Table B.15.

Fig. B.15 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding LaSalle
County Station, Illinois, in 2010
216 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.15 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from LaSalle County
Station, Illinois, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 3 25 36 93 78 235 2,888
Tract area (sq. mile) 188 1,133 1,545 1,931 978 5,775 52,139
Total population 10,831 94,231 110,499 244,400 223,305 683,266 10,747,317
White 10,725 91,717 106,268 207,604 191,201 607,515 8,350,398
Black 23 1,048 2,243 25,300 14,318 42,932 1,647,925
Asian 41 208 499 1,737 3,508 5,993 278,935
Native American 39 263 213 509 419 1,443 22,625
Others 3 996 1,276 9,272 13,844 25,391 447,414
Hispanic 95 2,607 2,535 16,504 26,543 48,284 830,404
Color 190 4,144 5,476 43,685 44,387 97,882 2,761,975
White (%) 99.02 97.33 96.17 84.94 85.62 88.91 77.70
Black (%) 0.21 1.11 2.03 10.35 6.41 6.28 15.33
Asian (%) 0.38 0.22 0.45 0.71 1.57 0.88 2.60
Native American 0.36 0.28 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.21
(%)
Others (%) 0.03 1.06 1.15 3.79 6.20 3.72 4.16
Hispanic (%) 0.88 2.77 2.29 6.75 11.89 7.07 7.73
Color (%) 1.75 4.40 4.96 17.87 19.88 14.33 25.70
Female (%) 50.08 50.89 50.44 50.26 50.43 50.43 51.54
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.63 16.04 13.80 12.27 8.73 11.92 12.59
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.20 8.41 8.68 9.09 11.34 9.65 8.84
Native-born (%) 99.34 98.37 98.23 95.85 92.61 95.58 91.42
Renter housing units 21.94 26.92 24.16 26.20 27.94 26.45 33.77
(%)
Education (%) 8.43 10.72 11.30 14.14 24.83 16.46 21.33
Unemployment (%) 9.15 6.92 5.78 5.61 4.55 5.49 6.71
Poverty (%) 9.59 10.36 8.02 8.04 6.66 7.93 12.16
Mean household 52,577 55,557 58,868 64,361 75,609 65,522 67,207
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 11,165 99,235 125,264 318,005 333,166 886,835 11,532,458
White 10,930 94,847 118,096 261,283 265,495 750,651 8,372,913
Black 11 1,763 2,616 30,533 22,255 57,178 1,807,441
Asian 57 372 525 4,327 12,869 18,150 409,101
Native American 17 131 257 917 782 2,104 28,303
Others 150 2,125 3,775 20,992 31,724 58,766 914,686
Hispanic 110 4,512 5,403 35,981 57,740 103,746 1,425,395
Color 312 7,297 9,867 74,183 97,297 188,956 3,806,929
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 217

Table B.15 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 97.90 95.58 94.28 82.16 79.69 84.64 72.60
Black (%) 0.10 1.78 2.09 9.60 6.68 6.45 15.67
Asian (%) 0.51 0.37 0.42 1.36 3.86 2.05 3.55
Native American 0.15 0.13 0.21 0.29 0.23 0.24 0.25
(%)
Others (%) 1.34 2.14 3.01 6.60 9.52 6.63 7.93
Hispanic (%) 0.99 4.55 4.31 11.31 17.33 11.70 12.36
Color (%) 2.79 7.35 7.88 23.33 29.20 21.31 33.01
Female (%) 50.70 50.20 50.29 49.90 50.17 50.10 51.17
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.46 15.33 12.88 10.83 6.96 10.22 12.21
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.59 7.55 7.95 10.00 11.25 9.87 8.39
Native-born (%) 98.82 97.76 97.46 93.08 86.44 91.80 87.37
Renter housing units 18.67 25.08 20.14 21.21 21.00 21.42 31.43
(%)
College degree or 10.20 13.30 15.28 20.05 36.60 24.42 26.18
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.59 5.74 4.35 4.90 4.03 4.58 6.16
Poverty (%) 7.13 8.01 6.68 6.86 5.28 6.36 11.01
Mean household 61,628 63,822 69,120 76,227 97,065 80,932 76,366
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 12,195 107,361 146,245 446,375 425,689 1,137,865 11,607,494
White 11,724 101,516 134,898 350,749 297,318 896,205 8,240,475
Black 0 1,681 3,965 43,871 30,892 80,409 1,779,896
Asian 61 553 1,142 12,663 31,579 45,998 528,829
Native American 2 96 235 476 1,098 1,907 22,822
Others 408 3,515 6,005 38,616 64,802 113,346 1,035,472
Hispanic 568 6,639 10,533 84,372 100,559 202,671 1,737,257
Color 905 10,609 17,192 148,063 169,611 346,380 4,196,329
White (%) 96.14 94.56 92.24 78.58 69.84 78.76 70.99
Black (%) 0.00 1.57 2.71 9.83 7.26 7.07 15.33
Asian (%) 0.50 0.52 0.78 2.84 7.42 4.04 4.56
Native American 0.02 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.26 0.17 0.20
(%)
Others (%) 3.35 3.27 4.11 8.65 15.22 9.96 8.92
Hispanic (%) 4.66 6.18 7.20 18.90 23.62 17.81 14.97
Color (%) 7.42 9.88 11.76 33.17 39.84 30.44 36.15
Female (%) 52.04 50.15 50.02 49.94 50.43 50.18 51.04
Old (65+ years) (%) 16.06 14.84 12.25 9.74 7.61 9.82 12.55
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.10 6.19 6.40 8.16 8.21 7.74 6.52
(continued)
218 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.15 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 98.82 96.70 96.44 89.10 82.12 88.25 86.19
Renter housing units 18.09 23.37 16.60 18.12 20.98 19.50 28.62
(%)
College degree or 15.79 16.19 19.23 24.75 40.28 28.65 30.43
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 9.64 9.62 8.12 8.14 7.37 8.00 8.65
Poverty (%) 7.94 9.59 7.89 8.38 7.87 8.23 13.07
Mean household 62,441 64,620 72,170 76,444 94,070 80,807 74,629
income ($)
Index 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

B.16 Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Illinois

See Fig. B.16.

See Table B.16.

Fig. B.16 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Quad Cities
Nuclear Power Station, Illinois, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 219

Table B.16 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Quad Cities
Nuclear Power Station, Illinois, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 7 63 51 22 11 154 3,794
Tract area (sq. mile) 272 909 1,628 2,047 968 5,824 108,363
Total population 33,742 226,327 169,415 72,924 37,153 539,561 13,667,777
White 33,015 209,709 156,924 70,767 36,474 506,889 11,136,128
Black 438 10,299 8,520 485 406 20,148 1,717,967
Asian 68 1,568 985 233 82 2,936 306,319
Native American 131 723 526 126 57 1,563 30,316
Others 88 4,030 2,460 1,318 129 8,025 477,042
Hispanic 322 8,889 5,783 2,342 298 17,634 891,696
Color 967 21,410 15,555 3,191 910 42,033 2,927,212
White (%) 97.85 92.66 92.63 97.04 98.17 93.94 81.48
Black (%) 1.30 4.55 5.03 0.67 1.09 3.73 12.57
Asian (%) 0.20 0.69 0.58 0.32 0.22 0.54 2.24
Native American 0.39 0.32 0.31 0.17 0.15 0.29 0.22
(%)
Others (%) 0.26 1.78 1.45 1.81 0.35 1.49 3.49
Hispanic (%) 0.95 3.93 3.41 3.21 0.80 3.27 6.52
Color (%) 2.87 9.46 9.18 4.38 2.45 7.79 21.42
Female (%) 51.39 51.71 51.57 51.37 52.25 51.64 51.49
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.19 12.95 14.99 16.09 19.39 14.54 13.04
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.30 8.98 8.53 8.19 7.60 8.59 8.80
Native-born (%) 99.26 97.77 98.16 98.80 99.05 98.21 92.79
Renter housing 23.73 31.72 27.53 24.88 22.96 28.35 32.41
units (%)
Education (%) 14.43 19.45 12.39 10.91 11.04 15.14 20.43
Unemployment (%) 6.74 5.82 6.35 5.15 6.23 5.98 6.23
Poverty (%) 9.75 11.78 13.14 10.25 11.54 11.85 11.82
Mean household 54,959 56,525 51,892 52,878 47,269 53,843 64,541
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 32,764 234,762 169,147 74,209 36,753 547,635 14,797,982
White 31,489 209,459 151,031 70,901 35,260 498,140 11,375,161
Black 518 11,027 9,844 426 372 22,187 1,902,190
Asian 128 3,049 1,040 318 89 4,624 458,605
Native American 127 967 620 158 31 1,903 37,767
Others 500 10,261 6,613 2,408 999 20,781 1,024,259
Hispanic 641 14,572 8,323 3,413 805 27,754 1,582,888
Color 1,666 32,245 21,690 4,776 1,809 62,186 4,146,997
(continued)
220 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.16 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 96.11 89.22 89.29 95.54 95.94 90.96 76.87
Black (%) 1.58 4.70 5.82 0.57 1.01 4.05 12.85
Asian (%) 0.39 1.30 0.61 0.43 0.24 0.84 3.10
Native American 0.39 0.41 0.37 0.21 0.08 0.35 0.26
(%)
Others (%) 1.53 4.37 3.91 3.24 2.72 3.79 6.92
Hispanic (%) 1.96 6.21 4.92 4.60 2.19 5.07 10.70
Color (%) 5.08 13.74 12.82 6.44 4.92 11.36 28.02
Female (%) 50.63 51.44 50.94 50.54 51.92 51.14 51.07
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.70 13.27 15.27 16.16 19.54 14.79 12.53
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.30 8.19 7.48 7.26 7.14 7.72 8.38
Native-born (%) 98.97 96.08 97.43 98.06 98.56 97.10 89.16
Renter housing 21.03 28.94 24.52 21.59 19.99 25.45 29.93
units (%)
College degree or 15.78 22.23 14.76 13.29 14.54 17.75 25.41
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.03 5.07 6.04 4.35 5.18 5.27 5.69
Poverty (%) 9.14 9.69 10.96 8.13 9.21 9.80 10.41
Mean household 61,306 63,441 59,077 62,467 54,935 61,258 74,051
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 32,223 237,903 165,804 71,555 36,903 544,388 15,217,238
White 30,401 205,786 145,270 67,243 35,820 484,520 11,425,570
Black 760 14,681 10,773 830 355 27,399 1,915,588
Asian 209 3,790 2,016 271 147 6,433 619,718
Native American 95 514 379 236 108 1,332 33,222
Others 758 13,132 7,366 2,975 473 24,704 1,223,140
Hispanic 791 17,435 11,421 4,714 1,316 35,677 2,041,183
Color 2,259 40,532 26,967 6,918 2,078 78,754 4,783,553
White (%) 94.35 86.50 87.62 93.97 97.07 89.00 75.08
Black (%) 2.36 6.17 6.50 1.16 0.96 5.03 12.59
Asian (%) 0.65 1.59 1.22 0.38 0.40 1.18 4.07
Native American 0.29 0.22 0.23 0.33 0.29 0.24 0.22
(%)
Others (%) 2.35 5.52 4.44 4.16 1.28 4.54 8.04
Hispanic (%) 2.45 7.33 6.89 6.59 3.57 6.55 13.41
Color (%) 7.01 17.04 16.26 9.67 5.63 14.47 31.44
Female (%) 50.30 50.85 51.29 50.48 50.36 50.87 50.90
Old (65+ years) (%) 16.25 14.07 16.30 17.65 20.15 15.76 12.68
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 221

Table B.16 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.06 6.93 5.87 5.84 5.57 6.26 6.63
Native-born (%) 98.56 95.59 96.30 98.06 98.25 96.49 87.89
Renter housing 19.74 27.48 23.01 19.68 21.90 24.22 27.34
units (%)
College degree or 18.22 27.15 18.02 18.18 18.35 21.99 29.44
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.68 6.05 6.66 6.06 6.83 6.33 7.99
Poverty (%) 10.01 11.82 12.54 9.91 13.11 11.76 12.46
Mean household 64,349 64,003 57,579 61,077 52,949 60,911 72,883
income ($)
Index 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

B.17 Duane Arnold Energy Center, Iowa

See Fig. B.17.

See Table B.17.

Fig. B.17 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Iowa, in 2010
222 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.17 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Iowa, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 22 27 16 50 14 129 696
Tract area (sq. mile) 291 973 1,505 1,955 1,071 5,795 50,478
Total population 77,265 102,461 63,200 176,101 43,929 462,956 2,313,799
White 75,417 98,804 62,432 164,558 40,575 441,786 2,243,318
Black 824 2,413 408 6,638 2,978 13,261 33,997
Asian 734 762 160 4,094 165 5,915 18,412
Native American 86 230 91 214 111 732 7,079
Others 202 253 112 596 98 1,261 11,001
Hispanic 608 749 253 1,645 368 3,623 27,019
Color 2,266 4,164 887 12,611 3,604 23,532 85,856
White (%) 97.61 96.43 98.78 93.45 92.36 95.43 96.95
Black (%) 1.07 2.36 0.65 3.77 6.78 2.86 1.47
Asian (%) 0.95 0.74 0.25 2.32 0.38 1.28 0.80
Native American (%) 0.11 0.22 0.14 0.12 0.25 0.16 0.31
Others (%) 0.26 0.25 0.18 0.34 0.22 0.27 0.48
Hispanic (%) 0.79 0.73 0.40 0.93 0.84 0.78 1.17
Color (%) 2.93 4.06 1.40 7.16 8.20 5.08 3.71
Female (%) 51.08 51.68 50.13 51.19 52.49 51.26 51.64
Old (65+ years) (%) 10.29 14.19 13.74 12.00 16.72 12.88 15.83
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.79 8.56 8.74 8.29 8.86 8.55 8.41
Native-born (%) 98.32 98.51 99.31 96.73 99.37 97.99 98.53
Renter housing units 27.88 28.05 21.76 38.08 26.53 30.86 27.31
(%)
Education (%) 24.31 17.43 15.93 27.42 10.30 21.33 15.98
Unemployment (%) 4.77 6.26 4.56 4.34 5.73 4.99 4.44
Poverty (%) 6.15 11.26 8.76 16.43 16.17 12.45 11.29
Mean household 64,629 59,144 56,997 54,324 43,093 56,429 51,501
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 90,277 114,979 72,354 186,824 46,027 510,461 2,415,863
White 85,844 107,818 70,570 168,664 41,008 473,904 2,275,833
Black 1,314 3,197 579 8,230 3,678 16,998 42,760
Asian 1,439 1,308 413 4,945 222 8,327 27,651
Native American 154 268 148 281 99 950 8,313
Others 1,520 2,392 649 4,701 1,020 10,282 61,306
Hispanic 1,414 1,461 708 4,204 1,076 8,863 72,638
Color 5,260 7,901 2,253 20,135 5,477 41,026 172,272
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 223

Table B.17 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 95.09 93.77 97.53 90.28 89.10 92.84 94.20
Black (%) 1.46 2.78 0.80 4.41 7.99 3.33 1.77
Asian (%) 1.59 1.14 0.57 2.65 0.48 1.63 1.14
Native American (%) 0.17 0.23 0.20 0.15 0.22 0.19 0.34
Others (%) 1.68 2.08 0.90 2.52 2.22 2.01 2.54
Hispanic (%) 1.57 1.27 0.98 2.25 2.34 1.74 3.01
Color (%) 5.83 6.87 3.11 10.78 11.90 8.04 7.13
Female (%) 50.58 50.85 49.45 50.91 51.65 50.70 51.04
Old (65+ years) (%) 11.06 13.60 12.66 12.01 15.76 12.63 15.39
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.73 8.04 7.80 7.14 8.49 7.84 7.73
Native-born (%) 97.19 97.91 98.57 94.72 98.18 96.73 96.92
Renter housing units 24.75 25.96 19.09 36.47 25.05 28.60 25.20
(%)
College degree or 30.93 22.61 22.16 31.56 13.63 26.36 20.15
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 2.81 4.06 3.83 4.03 4.88 3.85 4.25
Poverty (%) 4.50 8.06 5.36 13.97 12.80 9.61 9.03
Mean household 74,393 66,328 71,347 59,890 52,523 64,832 60,361
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 95,814 126,017 80,322 194,292 47,275 543,720 2,472,547
White 87,913 115,401 76,896 169,723 41,260 491,193 2,282,217
Black 2,763 5,088 1,110 10,902 3,415 23,278 59,404
Asian 2,385 1,349 894 6,412 522 11,562 39,762
Native American 208 306 147 571 82 1,314 8,511
Others 2,545 3,873 1,275 6,684 1,996 16,373 82,653
Hispanic 2,409 2,752 1,355 7,108 2,208 15,832 121,100
Color 9,183 12,036 4,358 28,005 6,892 60,474 259,124
White (%) 91.75 91.58 95.73 87.35 87.28 90.34 92.30
Black (%) 2.88 4.04 1.38 5.61 7.22 4.28 2.40
Asian (%) 2.49 1.07 1.11 3.30 1.10 2.13 1.61
Native American (%) 0.22 0.24 0.18 0.29 0.17 0.24 0.34
Others (%) 2.66 3.07 1.59 3.44 4.22 3.01 3.34
Hispanic (%) 2.51 2.18 1.69 3.66 4.67 2.91 4.90
Color (%) 9.58 9.55 5.43 14.41 14.58 11.12 10.48
Female (%) 50.94 50.39 50.06 50.62 52.25 50.68 50.62
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.32 13.38 13.03 11.81 15.80 12.79 15.25
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.50 6.89 6.79 6.14 6.87 6.54 6.57
(continued)
224 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.17 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 96.80 97.63 97.99 93.62 96.52 96.01 95.84
Renter housing units 24.20 25.15 17.72 33.91 24.68 27.01 24.03
(%)
College degree or 32.74 25.13 29.23 33.28 17.39 29.22 23.51
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.98 5.08 3.50 5.23 5.86 4.95 5.35
Poverty (%) 7.50 10.89 6.60 17.73 12.70 12.22 11.46
Mean household 73,105 63,563 72,294 59,068 53,298 64,054 61,340
income ($)
Index 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

B.18 Wolf Creek Generating Station, Kansas

See Fig. B.18.

See Table B.18.

Fig. B.18 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Kansas, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 225

Table B.18 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Kansas, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 3 1 14 11 10 39 731
Tract area (sq. mile) 654 452 1,774 1,996 1,096 5,973 76,306
Total population 8,404 3,028 51,599 39,484 31,274 133,789 2,343,798
White 8,330 2,999 48,322 38,212 30,382 128,245 2,105,651
Black 11 7 894 369 236 1,517 140,440
Asian 2 0 728 215 51 996 30,120
Native American 59 21 342 323 300 1,045 22,208
Others 2 0 1,319 361 303 1,985 45,371
Hispanic 38 9 1,976 827 563 3,413 86,881
Color 110 34 3,904 1,670 1,142 6,860 276,841
White (%) 99.12 99.04 93.65 96.78 97.15 95.86 89.84
Black (%) 0.13 0.23 1.73 0.93 0.75 1.13 5.99
Asian (%) 0.02 0.00 1.41 0.54 0.16 0.74 1.29
Native American (%) 0.70 0.69 0.66 0.82 0.96 0.78 0.95
Others (%) 0.02 0.00 2.56 0.91 0.97 1.48 1.94
Hispanic (%) 0.45 0.30 3.83 2.09 1.80 2.55 3.71
Color (%) 1.31 1.12 7.57 4.23 3.65 5.13 11.81
Female (%) 50.51 50.59 51.28 51.56 51.67 51.39 50.94
Old (65+ years) (%) 19.61 16.88 15.79 17.35 17.87 17.00 13.64
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.67 8.72 8.99 9.20 7.79 8.75 9.18
Native-born (%) 99.80 99.60 97.70 98.82 99.41 98.61 97.40
Renter housing units 20.26 11.69 29.62 23.62 19.84 24.57 29.28
(%)
Education (%) 13.46 6.07 14.00 16.39 12.25 14.07 21.50
Unemployment (%) 5.29 4.64 5.55 4.63 4.78 5.06 4.68
Poverty (%) 8.94 16.69 15.22 10.29 11.45 12.49 11.42
Mean household 47,226 46,237 42,044 50,760 48,175 46,456 56,668
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 8,865 3,072 53,774 42,012 33,274 140,997 2,547,421
White 8,521 3,002 47,328 40,169 31,879 130,899 2,181,220
Black 22 5 975 361 237 1,600 148,984
Asian 70 0 444 153 120 787 45,193
Native American 80 27 377 301 185 970 23,753
Others 172 35 4,656 1,024 847 6,734 148,278
Hispanic 122 32 5,967 1,240 686 8,047 178,252
Color 398 90 8,620 2,568 1,783 13,459 440,471
(continued)
226 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.18 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 96.12 97.72 88.01 95.61 95.81 92.84 85.62
Black (%) 0.25 0.16 1.81 0.86 0.71 1.13 5.85
Asian (%) 0.79 0.00 0.83 0.36 0.36 0.56 1.77
Native American (%) 0.90 0.88 0.70 0.72 0.56 0.69 0.93
Others (%) 1.94 1.14 8.66 2.44 2.55 4.78 5.82
Hispanic (%) 1.38 1.04 11.10 2.95 2.06 5.71 7.00
Color (%) 4.49 2.93 16.03 6.11 5.36 9.55 17.29
Female (%) 50.98 49.67 50.51 50.61 50.97 50.66 50.61
Old (65+ years) (%) 16.29 16.93 14.14 15.91 16.08 15.32 13.11
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.22 8.01 8.33 7.62 7.03 7.73 8.44
Native-born (%) 99.21 99.77 94.20 98.23 99.28 97.04 94.87
Renter housing units 19.56 12.41 29.61 23.73 18.70 24.23 28.43
(%)
College degree or 20.11 7.76 16.20 20.51 16.91 17.77 26.25
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.44 5.59 5.79 3.02 4.40 4.54 4.23
Poverty (%) 6.61 14.90 14.79 8.33 9.42 11.06 9.83
Mean household 57,364 43,779 48,027 55,755 59,166 53,502 65,521
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 8,587 2,978 50,347 43,830 32,722 138,464 2,670,865
White 8,291 2,924 45,173 41,125 30,724 128,237 2,263,549
Black 60 0 919 375 410 1,764 160,004
Asian 11 3 883 161 135 1,193 66,551
Native American 20 4 140 135 218 517 23,905
Others 205 47 3,232 2,034 1,235 6,753 156,856
Hispanic 146 0 6,116 2,551 1,116 9,929 266,179
Color 410 54 9,338 4,151 2,887 16,840 571,537
White (%) 96.55 98.19 89.72 93.83 93.89 92.61 84.75
Black (%) 0.70 0.00 1.83 0.86 1.25 1.27 5.99
Asian (%) 0.13 0.10 1.75 0.37 0.41 0.86 2.49
Native American (%) 0.23 0.13 0.28 0.31 0.67 0.37 0.90
Others (%) 2.39 1.58 6.42 4.64 3.77 4.88 5.87
Hispanic (%) 1.70 0.00 12.15 5.82 3.41 7.17 9.97
Color (%) 4.77 1.81 18.55 9.47 8.82 12.16 21.40
Female (%) 50.22 50.20 50.30 50.78 51.64 50.76 50.47
Old (65+ years) (%) 16.75 15.51 14.35 15.35 16.72 15.40 12.97
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.69 5.71 6.79 6.76 6.36 6.59 7.12
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 227

Table B.18 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 99.10 99.66 93.10 98.00 98.68 96.48 93.55
Renter housing units 20.07 18.17 28.18 24.73 18.05 24.02 27.72
(%)
College degree or 19.98 11.92 17.69 22.44 21.77 20.23 29.83
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.06 6.07 6.77 5.91 7.54 6.50 5.98
Poverty (%) 11.47 9.04 19.85 9.94 12.78 14.25 12.34
Mean household 58,379 58,687 46,664 55,506 59,414 53,425 65,608
income ($)
Index 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

B.19 River Bend Station, Louisiana

See Fig. B.19.

See Table B.19.

Fig. B.19 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding River Bend
Station, Louisiana, in 2010
228 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.19 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from River Bend
Station, Louisiana, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 5 20 79 38 19 161 1,651
Tract area (sq. mile) 239 810 1,545 2,308 1,966 6,869 93,941
Total population 16,273 88,612 319,426 156,491 75,780 656,582 6,136,605
White 8,767 45,501 202,277 118,508 57,002 432,055 4,040,847
Black 7,455 42,749 111,543 36,150 17,981 215,878 1,998,642
Asian 13 151 4,004 1,219 313 5,700 46,681
Native American 32 172 544 313 91 1,152 27,777
Others 5 41 1,058 298 385 1,787 22,669
Hispanic 106 378 4,552 2,522 952 8,510 96,837
Color 7,594 43,373 120,438 40,155 19,451 231,011 2,162,469
White (%) 53.87 51.35 63.33 75.73 75.22 65.80 65.85
Black (%) 45.81 48.24 34.92 23.10 23.73 32.88 32.57
Asian (%) 0.08 0.17 1.25 0.78 0.41 0.87 0.76
Native American 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.12 0.18 0.45
(%)
Others (%) 0.03 0.05 0.33 0.19 0.51 0.27 0.37
Hispanic (%) 0.65 0.43 1.43 1.61 1.26 1.30 1.58
Color (%) 46.67 48.95 37.70 25.66 25.67 35.18 35.24
Female (%) 51.88 50.64 51.42 50.80 51.04 51.13 52.12
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.70 8.83 10.48 7.56 9.43 9.50 11.84
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.78 9.52 9.00 10.40 10.30 9.57 9.45
Native-born (%) 99.25 99.47 97.70 98.35 99.16 98.30 98.43
Renter housing 21.57 22.69 35.18 22.75 16.08 28.33 28.27
units (%)
Education (%) 14.43 13.21 23.71 20.13 6.78 19.33 15.21
Unemployment (%) 10.11 10.78 8.67 7.16 9.50 8.69 9.24
Poverty (%) 31.64 21.85 22.06 18.63 22.07 21.44 24.49
Mean household 43,827 49,517 53,801 57,401 44,976 52,902 46,170
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 18,311 92,984 340,810 195,870 89,839 737,814 6,575,820
White 10,720 43,256 194,414 145,696 69,082 463,168 4,138,149
Black 7,377 48,128 133,868 44,762 18,486 252,621 2,225,382
Asian 39 447 6,596 2,276 599 9,957 65,300
Native American 32 218 917 684 247 2,098 35,571
Others 139 939 5,012 2,457 1,398 9,945 111,443
Hispanic 184 706 5,708 3,566 1,966 12,130 133,514
Color 7,672 50,016 149,958 52,517 21,789 281,952 2,508,726
White (%) 58.54 46.52 57.04 74.38 76.90 62.78 62.93
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 229

Table B.19 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 40.29 51.76 39.28 22.85 20.58 34.24 33.84
Asian (%) 0.21 0.48 1.94 1.16 0.67 1.35 0.99
Native American 0.17 0.23 0.27 0.35 0.27 0.28 0.54
(%)
Others (%) 0.76 1.01 1.47 1.25 1.56 1.35 1.69
Hispanic (%) 1.00 0.76 1.67 1.82 2.19 1.64 2.03
Color (%) 41.90 53.79 44.00 26.81 24.25 38.21 38.15
Female (%) 51.65 50.13 51.33 50.77 50.56 50.94 51.77
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.76 10.40 10.81 8.28 8.93 9.91 12.00
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.40 8.25 8.10 9.31 9.30 8.60 8.56
Native-born (%) 98.84 99.25 96.61 97.59 98.29 97.47 97.92
Renter housing 20.20 21.13 35.73 20.05 13.80 26.86 27.31
units (%)
College degree or 17.59 14.70 26.43 23.46 9.62 21.90 17.59
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.48 7.97 6.65 4.98 6.28 6.31 7.47
Poverty (%) 20.68 19.06 19.97 13.56 16.26 17.69 19.98
Mean household 59,551 54,976 59,157 66,307 55,222 60,088 54,041
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 18,786 96,927 357,465 232,127 109,517 814,822 6,557,109
White 11,393 40,274 188,276 170,165 81,788 491,896 4,089,088
Black 7,162 54,179 153,312 53,841 24,051 292,545 2,201,410
Asian 0 634 8,892 3,462 688 13,676 80,277
Native American 102 146 666 599 429 1,942 39,020
Others 129 1,694 6,319 4,060 2,561 14,763 147,314
Hispanic 185 1,113 10,586 8,029 4,462 24,375 218,213
Color 7,570 57,006 176,777 67,723 30,399 339,475 2,598,980
White (%) 60.65 41.55 52.67 73.31 74.68 60.37 62.36
Black (%) 38.12 55.90 42.89 23.19 21.96 35.90 33.57
Asian (%) 0.00 0.65 2.49 1.49 0.63 1.68 1.22
Native American 0.54 0.15 0.19 0.26 0.39 0.24 0.60
(%)
Others (%) 0.69 1.75 1.77 1.75 2.34 1.81 2.25
Hispanic (%) 0.98 1.15 2.96 3.46 4.07 2.99 3.33
Color (%) 40.30 58.81 49.45 29.17 27.76 41.66 39.64
Female (%) 52.88 51.40 51.13 50.97 50.15 51.02 51.29
Old (65+ years) (%) 15.09 11.85 10.81 9.84 10.42 10.70 12.49
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.58 6.35 6.50 7.53 7.84 6.96 6.97
Native-born (%) 98.62 98.59 95.66 96.54 97.75 96.61 97.05
(continued)
230 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.19 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing 19.16 23.15 34.97 21.79 16.54 27.05 26.36
units (%)
College degree or 20.53 17.62 27.62 27.44 16.55 24.70 19.82
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.83 9.89 7.52 5.23 6.92 7.04 8.65
Poverty (%) 19.02 17.10 19.60 13.40 14.88 16.86 19.68
Mean household 58,682 55,685 60,344 74,007 65,867 64,356 56,114
income ($)
Index 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

B.20 Waterford Steam Electric Station, Louisiana

See Fig. B.20.

See Table B.20.

Fig. B.20 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Waterford
Steam Electric Station, Louisiana, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 231

Table B.20 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Waterford Steam
Electric Station, Louisiana, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 18 100 242 80 47 487 661
Tract area (sq. mile) 285 1,096 1,177 1,766 1,944 6,269 46,109
Total population 61,978 333,717 763,682 298,467 197,977 1,655,821 2,564,155
White 40,357 274,614 386,278 226,292 170,125 1,097,666 1,742,354
Black 20,849 48,108 357,404 62,343 24,157 512,861 785,800
Asian 296 5,475 9,836 6,254 1,524 23,385 16,289
Native American 136 749 2,853 2,733 1,459 7,930 12,144
Others 349 4,766 7,301 860 729 14,005 7,539
Hispanic 1,396 19,558 26,034 6,628 3,396 57,012 33,593
Color 22,566 73,483 393,883 77,755 30,459 598,146 845,481
White (%) 65.12 82.29 50.58 75.82 85.93 66.29 67.95
Black (%) 33.64 14.42 46.80 20.89 12.20 30.97 30.65
Asian (%) 0.48 1.64 1.29 2.10 0.77 1.41 0.64
Native American (%) 0.22 0.22 0.37 0.92 0.74 0.48 0.47
Others (%) 0.56 1.43 0.96 0.29 0.37 0.85 0.29
Hispanic (%) 2.25 5.86 3.41 2.22 1.72 3.44 1.31
Color (%) 36.41 22.02 51.58 26.05 15.39 36.12 32.97
Female (%) 51.74 52.18 52.85 51.61 50.68 52.19 51.72
Old (65+ years) (%) 7.31 11.17 11.61 8.56 7.57 10.33 11.56
Kid (<5 years) (%) 11.75 8.46 9.54 10.40 10.08 9.62 9.64
Native-born (%) 98.36 94.57 96.42 97.67 98.23 96.56 98.81
Renter housing units 19.18 33.05 40.95 23.78 24.57 33.90 27.11
(%)
Education (%) 13.01 20.94 18.23 14.47 20.85 18.29 14.70
Unemployment (%) 8.76 6.24 11.10 8.58 6.25 8.89 10.18
Poverty (%) 17.11 12.82 26.88 20.48 15.63 21.13 25.18
Mean household 55,028 58,954 48,406 51,604 57,855 52,518 45,751
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 67,869 332,732 773,325 361,234 243,092 1,778,252 2,690,724
White 38,815 256,157 345,306 272,187 198,830 1,111,295 1,744,669
Black 27,092 55,593 392,160 71,744 33,852 580,441 864,125
Asian 487 7,807 13,364 7,014 3,393 32,065 24,806
Native American 190 929 3,404 3,386 2,407 10,316 15,517
Others 1,298 12,241 19,082 6,921 4,629 44,171 41,571
Hispanic 1,917 23,706 27,164 8,274 4,915 65,976 41,878
Color 30,064 91,533 442,258 94,042 47,430 705,327 969,301
(continued)
232 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.20 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 57.19 76.99 44.65 75.35 81.79 62.49 64.84
Black (%) 39.92 16.71 50.71 19.86 13.93 32.64 32.11
Asian (%) 0.72 2.35 1.73 1.94 1.40 1.80 0.92
Native American (%) 0.28 0.28 0.44 0.94 0.99 0.58 0.58
Others (%) 1.91 3.68 2.47 1.92 1.90 2.48 1.54
Hispanic (%) 2.82 7.12 3.51 2.29 2.02 3.71 1.56
Color (%) 44.30 27.51 57.19 26.03 19.51 39.66 36.02
Female (%) 51.71 52.04 52.54 51.57 50.73 51.97 51.47
Old (65+ years) (%) 8.97 13.20 11.16 9.36 8.75 10.77 12.14
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.42 7.38 8.44 8.92 8.84 8.43 8.57
Native-born (%) 97.50 92.87 96.05 97.39 97.33 95.96 98.37
Renter housing units 17.56 33.31 39.92 21.67 21.71 31.96 26.66
(%)
College degree or 14.85 24.28 20.70 19.75 24.23 21.49 16.86
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.65 5.10 8.25 6.09 4.67 6.60 7.83
Poverty (%) 15.44 11.96 23.37 15.13 11.22 17.56 21.03
Mean household 61,806 66,376 54,632 64,561 68,526 61,006 52,411
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 73,071 323,442 591,275 387,069 281,307 1,656,164 2,773,776
White 38,350 237,178 287,520 291,984 219,223 1,074,255 1,744,819
Black 32,527 63,335 263,676 73,780 48,454 481,772 923,913
Asian 574 8,478 15,003 8,347 5,405 37,807 30,819
Native American 181 1,573 3,806 3,460 2,002 11,022 16,330
Others 1,439 12,878 21,270 9,498 6,223 51,308 57,895
Hispanic 3,236 34,819 34,793 16,044 11,403 100,295 72,459
Color 37,128 110,324 321,320 105,225 70,306 644,303 1,074,365
White (%) 52.48 73.33 48.63 75.43 77.93 64.86 62.90
Black (%) 44.51 19.58 44.59 19.06 17.22 29.09 33.31
Asian (%) 0.79 2.62 2.54 2.16 1.92 2.28 1.11
Native American (%) 0.25 0.49 0.64 0.89 0.71 0.67 0.59
Others (%) 1.97 3.98 3.60 2.45 2.21 3.10 2.09
Hispanic (%) 4.43 10.77 5.88 4.14 4.05 6.06 2.61
Color (%) 50.81 34.11 54.34 27.19 24.99 38.90 38.73
Female (%) 51.35 51.57 51.12 50.70 51.19 51.13 51.11
Old (65+ years) (%) 10.40 14.22 10.90 10.76 10.64 11.45 12.53
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.37 6.07 6.53 7.51 6.90 6.77 6.95
Native-born (%) 97.42 90.11 94.18 96.47 95.77 94.33 97.70
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 233

Table B.20 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 18.38 30.61 32.12 21.35 22.60 27.40 27.21
(%)
College degree or 18.22 26.23 23.21 24.42 26.94 24.53 18.72
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 7.79 6.65 9.02 6.04 6.08 7.30 8.04
Poverty (%) 14.27 12.27 20.20 13.86 11.87 15.47 19.76
Mean household 64,391 69,301 60,215 71,477 72,135 66,827 55,925
income ($)
Index 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

B.21 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Maryland

See Fig. B.21.

See Table B.21.

Fig. B.21 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Calvert Cliffs
Nuclear Power Plant, Maryland, in 2010
234 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.21 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Calvert Cliffs
Nuclear Power Plant, Maryland, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 10 26 45 152 205 438 3,054
Tract area (sq. mile) 258 907 1,720 2,244 953 6,082 49,167
Total population 33,438 83,023 146,292 507,912 689,904 1,460,569 10,115,140
White 28,854 67,156 116,513 263,709 316,745 792,977 7,576,252
Black 4,261 14,418 27,106 229,112 351,427 626,324 2,125,403
Asian 123 781 1,406 10,206 13,885 26,401 281,292
Native American 134 329 766 2,079 2,023 5,331 26,866
Others 73 312 510 2,824 5,831 9,550 105,271
Hispanic 369 965 2,030 8,148 14,457 25,969 280,745
Color 4,892 16,452 30,948 248,204 379,863 680,359 2,696,288
White (%) 86.29 80.89 79.64 51.92 45.91 54.29 74.90
Black (%) 12.74 17.37 18.53 45.11 50.94 42.88 21.01
Asian (%) 0.37 0.94 0.96 2.01 2.01 1.81 2.78
Native American 0.40 0.40 0.52 0.41 0.29 0.36 0.27
(%)
Others (%) 0.22 0.38 0.35 0.56 0.85 0.65 1.04
Hispanic (%) 1.10 1.16 1.39 1.60 2.10 1.78 2.78
Color (%) 14.63 19.82 21.15 48.87 55.06 46.58 26.66
Female (%) 50.31 49.89 50.62 51.92 51.85 51.61 51.30
Old (65+ years) (%) 10.21 8.65 10.18 8.96 9.04 9.13 11.11
Kid (<5 years) (%) 10.24 10.46 9.19 8.78 9.12 9.11 8.56
Native-born (%) 98.31 98.02 98.15 96.05 95.12 95.99 93.82
Renter housing units 15.45 25.21 22.50 29.94 40.72 33.78 32.80
(%)
Education (%) 19.08 15.68 17.18 23.79 25.58 23.43 26.12
Unemployment (%) 3.46 3.80 3.45 3.92 5.85 4.75 4.52
Poverty (%) 5.13 7.55 6.40 5.59 11.14 8.38 9.96
Mean household 79,006 71,759 77,800 82,773 74,909 77,867 72,122
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 48,206 100,590 168,160 576,295 712,341 1,605,592 11,341,468
White 40,685 79,046 121,814 238,569 307,224 787,338 7,895,918
Black 5,858 16,935 39,155 308,555 359,421 729,924 2,465,540
Asian 335 1,854 2,379 11,437 16,471 32,476 454,384
Native American 123 404 933 2,017 2,090 5,567 34,484
Others 1,215 2,317 3,891 15,744 27,149 50,316 491,113
Hispanic 858 1,622 3,182 13,528 28,757 47,947 551,446
Color 7,931 22,428 48,137 343,484 417,201 839,181 3,698,281
White (%) 84.40 78.58 72.44 41.40 43.13 49.04 69.62
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 235

Table B.21 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 12.15 16.84 23.28 53.54 50.46 45.46 21.74
Asian (%) 0.69 1.84 1.41 1.98 2.31 2.02 4.01
Native American 0.26 0.40 0.55 0.35 0.29 0.35 0.30
(%)
Others (%) 2.52 2.30 2.31 2.73 3.81 3.13 4.33
Hispanic (%) 1.78 1.61 1.89 2.35 4.04 2.99 4.86
Color (%) 16.45 22.30 28.63 59.60 58.57 52.27 32.61
Female (%) 50.02 50.05 51.33 52.49 52.20 52.01 51.31
Old (65+ years) (%) 9.88 9.08 10.88 9.82 10.18 10.05 11.44
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.69 8.43 8.19 8.18 8.56 8.38 7.82
Native-born (%) 97.64 97.37 97.27 95.05 92.12 94.20 90.57
Renter housing units 14.78 23.59 20.31 26.40 36.83 29.98 31.08
(%)
College degree or 23.27 20.55 21.49 27.35 30.72 27.68 31.13
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.66 3.96 3.73 4.53 6.92 5.41 4.63
Poverty (%) 4.56 7.26 6.63 6.38 13.15 9.40 9.63
Mean household 85,546 79,782 83,435 87,376 80,277 83,268 79,389
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 48,285 129,775 197,255 603,123 741,007 1,719,445 12,403,132
White 40,337 100,056 122,696 222,718 322,224 808,031 8,290,535
Black 6,042 21,710 63,121 340,523 360,158 791,554 2,714,879
Asian 520 3,147 3,469 14,220 21,726 43,082 707,414
Native American 23 486 725 1,640 1,374 4,248 38,531
Others 1,363 4,376 7,244 24,022 35,525 72,530 651,773
Hispanic 1,656 4,126 7,535 32,128 60,124 105,569 950,644
Color 9,084 32,728 79,157 397,726 453,351 972,046 4,624,980
White (%) 83.54 77.10 62.20 36.93 43.48 46.99 66.84
Black (%) 12.51 16.73 32.00 56.46 48.60 46.04 21.89
Asian (%) 1.08 2.42 1.76 2.36 2.93 2.51 5.70
Native American 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.27 0.19 0.25 0.31
(%)
Others (%) 2.82 3.37 3.67 3.98 4.79 4.22 5.25
Hispanic (%) 3.43 3.18 3.82 5.33 8.11 6.14 7.66
Color (%) 18.81 25.22 40.13 65.94 61.18 56.53 37.29
Female (%) 51.42 50.04 51.53 52.66 52.23 52.11 51.17
Old (65+ years) (%) 10.91 9.76 11.81 11.67 10.92 11.20 11.94
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.43 6.46 6.30 6.31 7.12 6.67 6.36
Native-born (%) 97.18 95.85 95.67 92.11 88.36 91.33 87.70
(continued)
236 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.21 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 14.68 21.89 17.88 24.03 33.89 27.27 29.22
(%)
College degree or 28.94 26.46 27.30 31.36 35.86 32.39 35.62
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.21 4.63 5.80 7.38 8.59 7.45 6.19
Poverty (%) 5.45 6.30 5.84 6.02 12.20 8.66 10.10
Mean household 97,216 96,429 94,526 94,529 89,320 92,445 85,728
income ($)
Index 21 21 21 21 21 21 21

B.22 Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Massachusetts

See Fig. B.22.

See Table B.22.

Fig. B.22 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Pilgrim
Nuclear Power Station, Massachusetts, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 237

Table B.22 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Massachusetts, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 15 50 187 332 163 747 975
Tract area (sq. mile) 453 539 1,710 1,222 470 4,394 7,705
Total population 59,169 208,525 750,365 1,188,509 701,079 2,907,647 4,112,244
White 57,619 201,256 698,882 943,095 632,029 2,532,881 3,797,948
Black 811 2,846 25,199 156,125 31,051 216,032 118,952
Asian 274 1,191 7,875 44,492 24,456 78,288 80,075
Native American 104 511 2,124 3,011 1,387 7,137 9,710
Others 359 2,710 16,291 41,801 12,138 73,299 105,539
Hispanic 626 2,506 17,890 75,151 30,322 126,495 193,291
Color 1,996 8,929 62,260 275,155 84,735 433,075 396,824
White (%) 97.38 96.51 93.14 79.35 90.15 87.11 92.36
Black (%) 1.37 1.36 3.36 13.14 4.43 7.43 2.89
Asian (%) 0.46 0.57 1.05 3.74 3.49 2.69 1.95
Native American 0.18 0.25 0.28 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.24
(%)
Others (%) 0.61 1.30 2.17 3.52 1.73 2.52 2.57
Hispanic (%) 1.06 1.20 2.38 6.32 4.33 4.35 4.70
Color (%) 3.37 4.28 8.30 23.15 12.09 14.89 9.65
Female (%) 51.08 50.53 52.38 52.32 52.75 52.29 51.84
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.51 11.12 15.39 13.82 14.45 14.16 13.60
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.57 9.23 8.27 7.60 7.06 7.78 8.38
Native-born (%) 97.01 97.06 91.29 84.78 86.08 87.90 92.29
Renter housing 21.03 17.10 28.72 47.90 49.74 40.59 34.25
units (%)
Education (%) 26.33 22.91 20.77 28.34 29.29 26.20 26.51
Unemployment (%) 6.43 6.59 7.67 7.41 6.30 7.12 6.41
Poverty (%) 5.06 4.65 8.32 12.37 9.78 9.99 8.35
Mean household 81,690 78,555 68,836 69,897 70,109 70,453 75,141
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 66,086 240,422 797,241 1,245,095 729,608 3,078,452 4,318,964
White 62,913 228,761 695,065 900,117 597,650 2,484,506 3,771,399
Black 1,216 3,360 36,136 164,871 37,894 243,477 138,916
Asian 511 1,103 14,892 73,288 42,926 132,720 131,627
Native American 170 575 2,548 3,986 1,991 9,270 11,159
Others 1,270 6,622 48,596 102,868 49,122 208,478 265,864
Hispanic 1,052 2,640 26,337 114,589 51,723 196,341 321,451
Color 3,714 12,982 114,602 388,475 153,948 673,721 667,906
White (%) 95.20 95.15 87.18 72.29 81.91 80.71 87.32
(continued)
238 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.22 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 1.84 1.40 4.53 13.24 5.19 7.91 3.22
Asian (%) 0.77 0.46 1.87 5.89 5.88 4.31 3.05
Native American 0.26 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.30 0.26
(%)
Others (%) 1.92 2.75 6.10 8.26 6.73 6.77 6.16
Hispanic (%) 1.59 1.10 3.30 9.20 7.09 6.38 7.44
Color (%) 5.62 5.40 14.37 31.20 21.10 21.89 15.46
Female (%) 50.80 50.94 52.18 52.04 52.11 51.98 51.76
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.04 11.66 15.82 13.28 13.88 13.93 13.51
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.25 8.39 7.35 6.94 6.41 7.06 7.79
Native-born (%) 96.34 97.02 89.91 80.50 81.17 84.73 90.23
Renter housing 19.20 15.72 27.35 47.42 50.00 39.75 32.92
units (%)
College degree or 32.42 28.93 25.66 34.84 35.21 32.01 32.21
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.16 3.80 4.89 5.81 4.55 5.08 4.44
Poverty (%) 5.12 4.87 8.61 12.91 10.64 10.45 9.18
Mean household 88,648 87,939 74,599 78,444 77,034 77,983 82,556
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 69,440 253,462 807,574 1,269,310 730,272 3,130,058 4,403,427
White 66,147 240,502 675,606 888,055 574,404 2,444,714 3,711,042
Black 1,030 4,137 69,729 176,485 52,918 304,299 180,086
Asian 636 2,597 21,965 94,481 55,279 174,958 194,577
Native American 88 424 2,102 3,353 1,325 7,292 9,813
Others 1,539 5,802 38,172 106,936 46,346 198,795 307,909
Hispanic 940 4,268 38,503 145,939 77,598 267,248 442,159
Color 3,847 15,811 153,254 439,092 199,623 811,627 889,914
White (%) 95.26 94.89 83.66 69.96 78.66 78.10 84.28
Black (%) 1.48 1.63 8.63 13.90 7.25 9.72 4.09
Asian (%) 0.92 1.02 2.72 7.44 7.57 5.59 4.42
Native American 0.13 0.17 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.23 0.22
(%)
Others (%) 2.22 2.29 4.73 8.42 6.35 6.35 6.99
Hispanic (%) 1.35 1.68 4.77 11.50 10.63 8.54 10.04
Color (%) 5.54 6.24 18.98 34.59 27.34 25.93 20.21
Female (%) 51.51 50.62 52.20 51.93 51.81 51.86 51.51
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.78 13.20 15.96 12.97 13.20 13.85 13.46
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.57 5.62 5.65 5.52 5.31 5.52 5.78
Native-born (%) 95.38 96.43 87.33 78.68 77.04 82.34 88.12
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 239

Table B.22 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing 17.06 12.97 25.54 43.61 46.54 36.53 29.55
units (%)
College degree or 38.47 34.91 30.19 40.59 40.83 37.41 37.02
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 7.94 6.86 7.84 8.55 7.01 7.85 7.13
Poverty (%) 6.16 5.17 9.70 14.39 12.51 11.80 10.01
Mean household 99,048 91,855 77,390 83,902 78,785 81,903 85,439
income ($)
Index 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

B.23 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Michigan

See Fig. B.23.

See Table B.23.

Fig. B.23 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Michigan, in 2010
240 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.23 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Donald C. Cook
Nuclear Power Plant, Michigan, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 16 29 99 58 25 227 4,097
Tract area (sq. mile) 183 1,396 1,350 1,322 1,602 5,853 127,280
Total population 51,729 92,894 336,028 234,769 94,097 809,517 14,029,827
White 47,625 69,660 291,514 218,719 92,300 719,818 12,061,910
Black 3,217 21,282 36,324 12,332 349 73,504 1,645,230
Asian 415 911 2,654 1,351 405 5,736 133,729
Native American 228 484 1,675 1,055 284 3,726 69,686
Others 242 558 3,864 1,305 767 6,736 119,247
Hispanic 715 1,481 7,428 3,360 1,945 14,929 270,349
Color 4,567 24,109 48,082 18,102 2,988 97,848 2,111,729
White (%) 92.07 74.99 86.75 93.16 98.09 88.92 85.97
Black (%) 6.22 22.91 10.81 5.25 0.37 9.08 11.73
Asian (%) 0.80 0.98 0.79 0.58 0.43 0.71 0.95
Native American (%) 0.44 0.52 0.50 0.45 0.30 0.46 0.50
Others (%) 0.47 0.60 1.15 0.56 0.82 0.83 0.85
Hispanic (%) 1.38 1.59 2.21 1.43 2.07 1.84 1.93
Color (%) 8.83 25.95 14.31 7.71 3.18 12.09 15.05
Female (%) 51.53 52.32 51.44 50.68 51.16 51.29 51.49
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.59 13.27 13.95 12.38 11.66 13.19 12.09
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.00 9.47 8.64 8.92 8.33 8.74 8.92
Native-born (%) 95.96 96.72 97.26 98.04 98.13 97.44 96.94
Renter housing units 20.07 32.12 25.73 22.87 24.93 25.18 26.43
(%)
Education (%) 23.07 14.44 16.07 14.79 15.23 15.89 16.73
Unemployment (%) 4.51 8.99 6.69 5.50 4.18 6.14 7.36
Poverty (%) 6.53 20.40 11.42 8.89 7.10 10.90 12.29
Mean household 65,530 48,129 55,111 59,657 61,153 56,980 60,707
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 53,837 91,502 352,593 260,465 103,421 861,818 15,157,111
White 47,338 65,745 288,402 230,900 98,274 730,659 12,547,017
Black 4,383 21,303 41,933 14,403 888 82,910 1,823,262
Asian 726 825 3,897 1,717 751 7,916 228,532
Native American 232 468 1,478 1,060 178 3,416 74,594
Others 1,154 3,164 16,885 12,377 3,339 36,919 483,704
Hispanic 968 3,191 18,086 13,997 5,227 41,469 491,229
Color 6,979 27,345 71,825 34,868 7,995 149,012 2,843,870
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 241

Table B.23 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 87.93 71.85 81.79 88.65 95.02 84.78 82.78
Black (%) 8.14 23.28 11.89 5.53 0.86 9.62 12.03
Asian (%) 1.35 0.90 1.11 0.66 0.73 0.92 1.51
Native American (%) 0.43 0.51 0.42 0.41 0.17 0.40 0.49
Others (%) 2.14 3.46 4.79 4.75 3.23 4.28 3.19
Hispanic (%) 1.80 3.49 5.13 5.37 5.05 4.81 3.24
Color (%) 12.96 29.88 20.37 13.39 7.73 17.29 18.76
Female (%) 51.26 51.95 51.21 50.26 50.87 50.96 50.99
Old (65+ years) (%) 15.62 13.65 13.48 12.73 12.01 13.23 12.26
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.79 8.62 8.43 8.35 7.81 8.25 8.25
Native-born (%) 94.90 94.87 95.65 95.85 96.27 95.66 95.56
Renter housing units 17.59 29.20 25.12 22.22 25.08 24.19 24.54
(%)
College degree or 27.78 16.57 19.55 17.23 19.98 19.13 20.97
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.78 6.66 5.78 4.46 3.92 5.11 5.46
Poverty (%) 6.41 17.38 11.27 8.00 7.13 10.12 10.14
Mean household 77,581 54,391 61,725 66,732 69,938 64,439 69,314
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 53,507 87,062 350,164 272,079 110,916 873,728 15,496,357
White 46,784 61,852 276,966 238,535 101,458 725,595 12,631,003
Black 4,612 18,965 44,796 15,928 2,018 86,319 1,887,649
Asian 835 1,680 5,462 2,382 1,313 11,672 331,635
Native American 114 540 1,504 1,140 269 3,567 65,422
Others 1,162 4,025 21,436 14,094 5,858 46,575 580,648
Hispanic 920 4,051 27,500 23,200 9,943 65,614 719,270
Color 7,226 27,040 87,212 46,689 14,616 182,783 3,260,870
White (%) 87.44 71.04 79.10 87.67 91.47 83.05 81.51
Black (%) 8.62 21.78 12.79 5.85 1.82 9.88 12.18
Asian (%) 1.56 1.93 1.56 0.88 1.18 1.34 2.14
Native American (%) 0.21 0.62 0.43 0.42 0.24 0.41 0.42
Others (%) 2.17 4.62 6.12 5.18 5.28 5.33 3.75
Hispanic (%) 1.72 4.65 7.85 8.53 8.96 7.51 4.64
Color (%) 13.50 31.06 24.91 17.16 13.18 20.92 21.04
Female (%) 50.95 51.34 50.92 50.30 50.76 50.75 50.90
Old (65+ years) (%) 17.24 14.80 13.27 13.37 12.70 13.62 12.99
Kid (<5 years) (%) 4.93 7.16 6.59 6.94 6.83 6.69 6.39
Native-born (%) 94.45 94.38 94.47 94.70 95.73 94.69 94.64
(continued)
242 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.23 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 16.06 26.68 23.67 20.87 23.10 22.54 23.20
(%)
College degree or 32.49 19.90 21.45 19.87 22.27 21.63 24.14
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 7.35 11.87 10.39 9.21 6.76 9.49 10.31
Poverty (%) 7.33 22.06 16.58 12.51 11.80 14.66 14.32
Mean household 72,172 52,262 56,423 61,769 64,423 59,720 62,918
income ($)
Index 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

B.24 Fermi, Michigan

See Fig. B.24.

See Table B.24.

Fig. B.24 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Fermi,
Michigan, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 243

Table B.24 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Fermi,

Michigan, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 24 73 401 510 304 1,312 4,453
Tract area (sq. mile) 268 597 1,148 1,353 1,186 4,552 136,987
Total population 78,888 248,261 1,327,704 1,809,704 1,025,409 4,489,966 15,652,356
White 76,095 235,400 1,034,834 1,036,411 963,855 3,346,595 13,937,582
Black 1,403 7,292 248,652 732,429 32,397 1,022,173 1,419,063
Asian 457 2,963 14,281 28,509 21,279 67,489 124,623
Native American 447 1,389 5,683 5,418 3,260 16,197 65,054
Others 486 1,217 24,239 6,972 4,623 37,537 105,995
Hispanic 1,150 5,517 49,793 21,155 13,959 91,574 230,325
Color 3,418 17,086 317,166 785,641 70,749 1,194,060 1,835,817
White (%) 96.46 94.82 77.94 57.27 94.00 74.53 89.04
Black (%) 1.78 2.94 18.73 40.47 3.16 22.77 9.07
Asian (%) 0.58 1.19 1.08 1.58 2.08 1.50 0.80
Native American 0.57 0.56 0.43 0.30 0.32 0.36 0.42
(%)
Others (%) 0.62 0.49 1.83 0.39 0.45 0.84 0.68
Hispanic (%) 1.46 2.22 3.75 1.17 1.36 2.04 1.47
Color (%) 4.33 6.88 23.89 43.41 6.90 26.59 11.73
Female (%) 51.45 51.29 51.73 52.82 51.57 52.11 51.53
Old (65+ years) (%) 10.51 10.80 12.42 12.49 11.94 12.21 12.55
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.64 8.67 9.24 9.35 7.99 8.98 8.84
Native-born (%) 97.96 96.17 94.89 94.91 92.87 94.56 97.63
Renter housing units 26.56 26.21 32.87 34.49 22.80 30.81 27.52
(%)
Education (%) 9.95 11.47 14.30 20.78 24.52 19.06 16.60
Unemployment (%) 7.53 6.77 9.32 11.08 5.27 8.82 6.94
Poverty (%) 10.79 7.94 15.87 18.61 5.32 14.03 12.45
Mean household 62,352 67,987 57,573 62,446 86,966 66,870 58,074
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 82,873 253,915 1,335,661 1,795,730 1,074,800 4,542,979 16,748,605
White 78,028 230,699 950,111 928,797 958,790 3,146,425 14,454,440
Black 1,809 12,187 274,917 764,888 45,291 1,099,092 1,590,990
Asian 904 3,206 25,274 48,427 39,750 117,561 194,704
Native American 281 1,099 5,941 5,218 3,104 15,643 72,198
Others 1,857 6,721 79,402 48,435 27,849 164,264 436,267
Hispanic 1,761 6,768 82,990 28,604 21,716 141,839 394,210
Color 6,018 27,347 423,634 880,992 128,772 1,466,763 2,482,414
(continued)
244 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.24 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 94.15 90.86 71.13 51.72 89.21 69.26 86.30
Black (%) 2.18 4.80 20.58 42.59 4.21 24.19 9.50
Asian (%) 1.09 1.26 1.89 2.70 3.70 2.59 1.16
Native American 0.34 0.43 0.44 0.29 0.29 0.34 0.43
(%)
Others (%) 2.24 2.65 5.94 2.70 2.59 3.62 2.60
Hispanic (%) 2.12 2.67 6.21 1.59 2.02 3.12 2.35
Color (%) 7.26 10.77 31.72 49.06 11.98 32.29 14.82
Female (%) 50.56 51.18 51.13 52.39 51.23 51.64 51.12
Old (65+ years) (%) 11.00 12.17 11.99 12.08 13.69 12.42 12.91
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.62 7.84 8.90 8.33 7.50 8.28 8.03
Native-born (%) 97.56 96.22 92.13 93.59 89.79 92.48 96.89
Renter housing units 22.85 23.05 31.25 32.06 22.06 28.78 25.57
(%)
College degree or 12.33 14.83 18.55 26.17 30.79 24.22 20.64
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.04 4.58 6.63 7.42 4.00 6.10 5.15
Poverty (%) 8.68 6.88 14.10 14.94 5.52 11.89 10.20
Mean household 71,669 75,830 64,286 72,876 93,245 75,436 66,546
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 85,991 260,959 1,282,033 1,651,761 1,087,491 4,368,235 17,096,884
White 79,329 227,803 883,946 846,961 924,248 2,962,287 14,531,779
Black 2,739 19,590 286,121 688,136 79,305 1,075,891 1,716,965
Asian 813 4,921 34,409 67,618 54,853 162,614 271,620
Native American 311 707 5,284 4,136 2,674 13,112 64,175
Others 2,799 7,938 72,273 44,910 26,411 154,331 512,344
Hispanic 3,820 10,636 99,397 35,478 28,598 177,929 578,502
Color 9,645 39,995 448,258 825,355 181,050 1,504,303 2,907,823
White (%) 92.25 87.29 68.95 51.28 84.99 67.81 85.00
Black (%) 3.19 7.51 22.32 41.66 7.29 24.63 10.04
Asian (%) 0.95 1.89 2.68 4.09 5.04 3.72 1.59
Native American 0.36 0.27 0.41 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.38
(%)
Others (%) 3.25 3.04 5.64 2.72 2.43 3.53 3.00
Hispanic (%) 4.44 4.08 7.75 2.15 2.63 4.07 3.38
Color (%) 11.22 15.33 34.96 49.97 16.65 34.44 17.01
Female (%) 50.95 51.06 51.33 52.19 51.57 51.69 50.92
Old (65+ years) (%) 11.80 13.21 11.59 12.65 14.61 12.84 13.69
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.60 5.86 7.13 5.94 5.72 6.24 6.24
Native-born (%) 97.38 95.77 91.08 93.08 88.39 91.57 96.12
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 245

Table B.24 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 21.89 21.54 29.16 28.53 21.56 26.50 24.44
(%)
College degree or 15.75 17.73 21.56 29.98 34.33 27.67 23.75
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 12.01 11.06 13.54 13.95 9.65 12.48 9.31
Poverty (%) 10.97 10.67 18.74 19.35 8.67 15.82 14.13
Mean household 62,923 64,973 56,406 65,310 80,715 66,641 61,932
income ($)
Index 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

B.25 Palisades Nuclear Plant, Michigan

See Fig. B.25.

See Table B.25.

Fig. B.25 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Palisades
Nuclear Plant, Michigan, in 2010
246 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.25 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Palisades

Nuclear Plant, Michigan, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 8 23 31 70 94 226 4,098
Tract area (sq. mile) 183 904 1,852 2,037 1,810 6,785 126,348
Total population 34,133 73,590 124,582 263,660 298,779 794,744 14,044,600
White 29,981 50,126 117,323 236,091 268,462 701,983 12,079,745
Black 3,282 21,648 3,627 17,125 24,118 69,800 1,648,934
Asian 120 238 1,343 4,475 2,713 8,889 130,576
Native American 355 511 922 1,100 817 3,705 69,707
Others 396 1,061 1,368 4,881 2,673 10,379 115,604
Hispanic 866 1,755 3,427 9,283 5,736 21,067 264,211
Color 4,603 24,090 9,266 31,926 33,340 103,225 2,106,352
White (%) 87.84 68.12 94.17 89.54 89.85 88.33 86.01
Black (%) 9.62 29.42 2.91 6.50 8.07 8.78 11.74
Asian (%) 0.35 0.32 1.08 1.70 0.91 1.12 0.93
Native American (%) 1.04 0.69 0.74 0.42 0.27 0.47 0.50
Others (%) 1.16 1.44 1.10 1.85 0.89 1.31 0.82
Hispanic (%) 2.54 2.38 2.75 3.52 1.92 2.65 1.88
Color (%) 13.49 32.74 7.44 12.11 11.16 12.99 15.00
Female (%) 51.97 52.34 50.92 51.62 51.37 51.50 51.48
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.01 13.72 11.70 11.45 12.65 12.26 12.14
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.32 10.22 9.04 8.87 9.26 9.19 8.89
Native-born (%) 98.11 97.49 96.31 96.16 97.20 96.78 96.98
Renter housing units 22.57 29.10 19.47 28.68 24.21 25.34 26.42
(%)
Education (%) 11.48 12.24 19.02 22.37 17.35 18.51 16.58
Unemployment (%) 10.29 11.92 5.70 5.71 5.56 6.33 7.35
Poverty (%) 17.69 24.71 8.72 12.08 8.87 11.79 12.23
Mean household 48,562 46,222 60,703 61,482 59,214 58,476 60,617
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 34,594 75,167 138,356 297,216 337,253 882,586 15,136,343
White 29,507 48,833 125,892 254,089 286,676 744,997 12,532,679
Black 2,782 21,865 4,489 18,094 30,033 77,263 1,828,909
Asian 234 414 1,593 7,642 4,356 14,239 222,209
Native American 266 416 782 1,473 1,249 4,186 73,824
Others 1,806 3,632 5,598 15,931 14,939 41,906 478,717
Hispanic 2,331 5,015 6,449 18,411 16,461 48,667 484,031
Color 6,075 28,575 15,446 50,823 57,374 158,293 2,834,589
White (%) 85.30 64.97 90.99 85.49 85.00 84.41 82.80
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 247

Table B.25 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 8.04 29.09 3.24 6.09 8.91 8.75 12.08
Asian (%) 0.68 0.55 1.15 2.57 1.29 1.61 1.47
Native American (%) 0.77 0.55 0.57 0.50 0.37 0.47 0.49
Others (%) 5.22 4.83 4.05 5.36 4.43 4.75 3.16
Hispanic (%) 6.74 6.67 4.66 6.19 4.88 5.51 3.20
Color (%) 17.56 38.02 11.16 17.10 17.01 17.94 18.73
Female (%) 51.73 51.05 50.50 51.35 51.24 51.17 50.98
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.38 12.76 12.15 11.85 11.89 12.09 12.32
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.86 9.12 7.87 8.36 8.77 8.48 8.24
Native-born (%) 96.31 95.88 94.85 94.64 95.49 95.17 95.59
Renter housing units 20.17 26.86 16.83 27.74 23.50 24.03 24.55
(%)
College degree or 12.03 14.23 23.19 26.41 21.76 22.47 20.78
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.73 7.58 4.35 5.96 5.15 5.55 5.44
Poverty (%) 12.35 19.52 7.88 10.56 9.21 10.46 10.12
Mean household 54,881 54,445 72,629 67,498 66,009 66,082 69,223
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 33,432 70,910 144,272 307,925 343,061 899,600 15,470,485
White 27,653 46,185 130,813 257,360 284,755 746,766 12,609,832
Black 2,575 19,388 4,432 19,533 33,182 79,110 1,894,858
Asian 178 473 2,457 9,599 5,582 18,289 325,018
Native American 141 424 621 1,540 1,136 3,862 65,127
Others 2,885 4,440 5,949 19,893 18,406 51,573 575,650
Hispanic 4,704 5,157 6,855 25,218 23,368 65,302 719,582
Color 8,086 26,811 16,906 62,170 70,304 184,277 3,259,376
White (%) 82.71 65.13 90.67 83.58 83.00 83.01 81.51
Black (%) 7.70 27.34 3.07 6.34 9.67 8.79 12.25
Asian (%) 0.53 0.67 1.70 3.12 1.63 2.03 2.10
Native American (%) 0.42 0.60 0.43 0.50 0.33 0.43 0.42
Others (%) 8.63 6.26 4.12 6.46 5.37 5.73 3.72
Hispanic (%) 14.07 7.27 4.75 8.19 6.81 7.26 4.65
Color (%) 24.19 37.81 11.72 20.19 20.49 20.48 21.07
Female (%) 51.47 51.13 50.42 51.04 50.98 50.94 50.89
Old (65+ years) (%) 15.42 13.63 13.61 12.55 12.13 12.75 13.04
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.50 6.94 5.81 6.59 6.98 6.64 6.39
Native-born (%) 92.75 95.91 94.86 93.89 94.61 94.44 94.66
Renter housing units 18.33 24.20 16.34 26.27 21.41 22.34 23.22
(%)
(continued)
248 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.25 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
College degree or 14.82 17.06 27.43 28.89 23.98 25.28 23.94
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 10.22 13.00 8.50 10.17 9.06 9.69 10.30
Poverty (%) 18.61 25.65 11.36 15.27 12.91 14.70 14.32
Mean household 53,186 50,337 66,579 60,247 62,056 60,861 62,857
income ($)
Index 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

B.26 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Minnesota

See Fig. B.26.

See Table B.26.

Fig. B.26 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant, Minnesota, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 249

Table B.26 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Monticello

Nuclear Generating Plant, Minnesota, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 8 24 122 245 51 450 888
Tract area (sq. mile) 308 760 1,613 1,377 1,241 5,299 81,637
Total population 28,856 82,718 439,709 807,901 185,450 1,544,634 2,830,480
White 28,631 81,457 426,650 719,344 175,183 1,431,265 2,701,930
Black 42 261 4,947 48,309 5,365 58,924 35,869
Asian 94 356 4,736 23,171 3,307 31,664 45,085
Native American 79 520 2,368 13,003 1,007 16,977 32,523
Others 13 125 1,006 4,034 591 5,769 15,059
Hispanic 188 401 2,974 9,976 1,643 15,182 34,474
Color 386 1,545 15,178 93,784 11,259 122,152 146,780
White (%) 99.22 98.48 97.03 89.04 94.46 92.66 95.46
Black (%) 0.15 0.32 1.13 5.98 2.89 3.81 1.27
Asian (%) 0.33 0.43 1.08 2.87 1.78 2.05 1.59
Native American (%) 0.27 0.63 0.54 1.61 0.54 1.10 1.15
Others (%) 0.05 0.15 0.23 0.50 0.32 0.37 0.53
Hispanic (%) 0.65 0.48 0.68 1.23 0.89 0.98 1.22
Color (%) 1.34 1.87 3.45 11.61 6.07 7.91 5.19
Female (%) 49.66 49.04 50.39 51.30 51.98 50.97 50.98
Old (65+ years) (%) 7.45 7.73 6.65 11.19 12.97 9.86 13.93
Kid (<5 years) (%) 11.94 10.47 10.59 8.88 8.73 9.49 9.19
Native-born (%) 99.30 99.18 98.50 95.58 97.29 96.88 97.71
Renter housing units 15.57 14.87 23.41 36.35 25.43 30.32 22.45
(%)
Education (%) 13.52 14.36 20.86 29.45 30.59 26.32 19.38
Unemployment (%) 5.42 5.56 4.51 5.17 3.68 4.82 5.34
Poverty (%) 7.14 6.15 6.94 10.74 5.43 8.70 11.05
Mean household 62,847 67,078 73,253 69,922 77,801 71,518 56,617
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 42,437 118,777 540,296 870,778 209,265 1,781,553 3,137,926
White 41,520 115,648 497,519 705,497 187,732 1,547,916 2,854,208
Black 136 684 14,845 75,739 6,908 98,312 69,545
Asian 226 542 12,965 38,960 6,324 59,017 81,952
Native American 142 453 2,903 8,721 1,284 13,503 41,065
Others 423 1,456 12,058 41,839 7,014 62,790 91,171
Hispanic 471 1,274 8,322 35,882 7,105 53,054 88,732
Color 1,204 3,867 46,861 179,550 24,834 256,316 322,491
(continued)
250 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.26 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 97.84 97.37 92.08 81.02 89.71 86.89 90.96
Black (%) 0.32 0.58 2.75 8.70 3.30 5.52 2.22
Asian (%) 0.53 0.46 2.40 4.47 3.02 3.31 2.61
Native American (%) 0.33 0.38 0.54 1.00 0.61 0.76 1.31
Others (%) 1.00 1.23 2.23 4.80 3.35 3.52 2.91
Hispanic (%) 1.11 1.07 1.54 4.12 3.40 2.98 2.83
Color (%) 2.84 3.26 8.67 20.62 11.87 14.39 10.28
Female (%) 49.82 49.18 50.15 50.49 51.67 50.42 50.56
Old (65+ years) (%) 6.90 7.27 7.58 10.81 12.85 9.74 13.38
Kid (<5 years) (%) 10.34 9.98 8.97 7.85 8.08 8.42 7.85
Native-born (%) 98.88 98.66 95.66 90.44 93.44 93.12 95.60
Renter housing units 12.93 12.94 20.98 35.10 22.67 27.79 21.03
(%)
College degree or 17.31 19.96 28.03 35.98 36.59 32.31 24.69
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.02 2.83 3.16 4.16 3.04 3.61 4.32
Poverty (%) 3.65 4.35 4.74 9.65 4.69 7.08 8.43
Mean household 76,311 82,793 86,842 81,397 89,604 83,920 68,262
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 56,001 163,032 591,309 898,525 241,302 1,950,169 3,291,745
White 53,442 154,601 511,554 704,342 204,643 1,628,582 2,911,244
Black 322 2,718 32,957 96,531 10,693 143,221 113,944
Asian 248 2,726 26,447 47,382 13,747 90,550 115,787
Native American 310 550 2,322 6,891 1,748 11,821 43,549
Others 1,679 2,437 18,029 43,379 10,471 75,995 107,221
Hispanic 1,504 2,787 18,029 53,937 13,668 89,925 143,791
Color 3,430 10,491 90,337 226,762 44,376 375,396 469,677
White (%) 95.43 94.83 86.51 78.39 84.81 83.51 88.44
Black (%) 0.57 1.67 5.57 10.74 4.43 7.34 3.46
Asian (%) 0.44 1.67 4.47 5.27 5.70 4.64 3.52
Native American (%) 0.55 0.34 0.39 0.77 0.72 0.61 1.32
Others (%) 3.00 1.49 3.05 4.83 4.34 3.90 3.26
Hispanic (%) 2.69 1.71 3.05 6.00 5.66 4.61 4.37
Color (%) 6.12 6.43 15.28 25.24 18.39 19.25 14.27
Female (%) 49.17 49.35 50.35 50.44 51.81 50.46 50.32
Old (65+ years) (%) 7.32 8.45 9.48 10.91 12.93 10.42 13.82
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.07 8.59 6.99 6.70 7.22 7.05 6.54
Native-born (%) 98.28 97.05 92.38 88.58 89.81 90.87 94.26
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 251

Table B.26 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 13.58 12.56 20.95 34.26 21.69 26.72 21.13
(%)
College degree or 22.50 25.62 31.34 40.69 41.11 36.27 28.58
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.83 6.43 6.56 7.14 5.84 6.71 6.18
Poverty (%) 5.41 6.30 8.05 13.12 7.15 10.05 10.91
Mean household 78,611 81,582 84,060 80,013 88,509 82,333 68,448
income ($)
Index 26 26 26 26 26 26 26

B.27 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant,

Minnesota

See Fig. B.27.

See Table B.27.

Fig. B.27 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Prairie Island
Nuclear Generating Plant, Minnesota, in 2010
252 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.27 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Prairie Island
Nuclear Generating Plant, Minnesota, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 5 22 107 260 56 450 2,297
Tract area (sq. mile) 226 1,126 1,319 2,217 756 5,643 146,789
Total population 22,549 81,536 306,309 877,923 177,005 1,465,322 7,801,560
White 22,086 80,351 295,746 772,878 170,339 1,341,400 7,306,105
Black 58 274 3,477 47,572 1,163 52,544 286,553
Asian 83 534 4,878 36,398 4,569 46,462 83,347
Native American 261 162 877 13,085 533 14,918 74,299
Others 61 221 1,325 7,978 399 9,984 51,206
Hispanic 165 544 4,003 18,221 1,505 24,438 112,824
Color 557 1,526 13,167 114,195 7,742 137,187 554,420
White (%) 97.95 98.55 96.55 88.03 96.23 91.54 93.65
Black (%) 0.26 0.34 1.14 5.42 0.66 3.59 3.67
Asian (%) 0.37 0.65 1.59 4.15 2.58 3.17 1.07
Native American (%) 1.16 0.20 0.29 1.49 0.30 1.02 0.95
Others (%) 0.27 0.27 0.43 0.91 0.23 0.68 0.66
Hispanic (%) 0.73 0.67 1.31 2.08 0.85 1.67 1.45
Color (%) 2.47 1.87 4.30 13.01 4.37 9.36 7.11
Female (%) 50.66 50.01 50.79 51.50 51.46 51.25 50.99
Old (65+ years) (%) 13.81 9.28 7.62 11.91 10.24 10.69 13.34
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.85 9.84 10.75 9.37 9.93 9.74 8.99
Native-born (%) 99.28 98.84 97.90 94.95 96.42 96.02 97.74
Renter housing units 24.76 21.14 22.60 35.53 23.94 30.80 26.84
(%)
Education (%) 13.88 18.20 25.73 27.04 30.90 26.58 18.38
Unemployment (%) 4.20 4.53 3.90 5.00 3.72 4.57 5.29
Poverty (%) 8.19 6.51 5.10 11.59 6.29 9.25 10.70
Mean household 57,921 67,105 74,654 62,450 75,699 66,560 58,426
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 24,295 96,933 412,332 946,237 207,032 1,686,829 8,596,325
White 23,302 93,933 378,717 744,661 189,405 1,430,018 7,745,659
Black 189 645 9,394 73,590 4,404 88,222 379,990
Asian 87 717 10,698 60,980 7,255 79,737 145,886
Native American 563 360 1,681 10,828 689 14,121 90,108
Others 153 1,284 11,850 56,168 5,274 74,729 234,684
Hispanic 243 1,036 11,383 51,412 4,356 68,430 264,405
Color 1,141 3,574 39,255 220,614 19,805 284,389 970,444
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 253

Table B.27 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 95.91 96.91 91.85 78.70 91.49 84.78 90.10
Black (%) 0.78 0.67 2.28 7.78 2.13 5.23 4.42
Asian (%) 0.36 0.74 2.59 6.44 3.50 4.73 1.70
Native American (%) 2.32 0.37 0.41 1.14 0.33 0.84 1.05
Others (%) 0.63 1.32 2.87 5.94 2.55 4.43 2.73
Hispanic (%) 1.00 1.07 2.76 5.43 2.10 4.06 3.08
Color (%) 4.70 3.69 9.52 23.31 9.57 16.86 11.29
Female (%) 49.94 50.20 50.73 50.87 50.90 50.79 50.53
Old (65+ years) (%) 13.66 9.54 7.86 10.95 10.98 10.16 13.08
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.17 7.99 9.41 8.13 8.25 8.44 7.77
Native-born (%) 98.80 98.41 95.55 89.64 93.35 92.17 96.25
Renter housing units 21.93 18.39 18.94 34.58 21.17 28.27 25.59
(%)
College degree or 19.01 23.68 34.26 32.57 36.37 32.75 23.28
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.20 3.68 2.93 4.38 3.36 3.84 4.49
Poverty (%) 5.92 4.92 3.75 10.37 5.46 7.76 8.43
Mean household 70,523 79,048 90,123 71,653 85,950 78,059 68,873
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 25,260 106,574 472,356 962,120 233,785 1,800,095 9,079,766
White 23,992 101,144 409,258 729,796 208,712 1,472,902 7,981,475
Black 433 1,329 19,120 96,949 8,253 126,084 479,743
Asian 94 1,590 22,719 74,248 10,663 109,314 221,018
Native American 428 325 1,723 9,440 659 12,575 91,984
Others 313 2,186 19,536 51,687 5,498 79,220 305,546
Hispanic 431 2,946 22,211 73,753 8,799 108,140 436,125
Color 1,518 7,437 75,956 275,734 31,748 392,393 1,355,202
White (%) 94.98 94.90 86.64 75.85 89.28 81.82 87.90
Black (%) 1.71 1.25 4.05 10.08 3.53 7.00 5.28
Asian (%) 0.37 1.49 4.81 7.72 4.56 6.07 2.43
Native American (%) 1.69 0.30 0.36 0.98 0.28 0.70 1.01
Others (%) 1.24 2.05 4.14 5.37 2.35 4.40 3.37
Hispanic (%) 1.71 2.76 4.70 7.67 3.76 6.01 4.80
Color (%) 6.01 6.98 16.08 28.66 13.58 21.80 14.93
Female (%) 51.14 50.26 50.74 50.57 50.99 50.66 50.34
Old (65+ years) (%) 15.68 10.71 9.34 10.85 12.35 10.71 13.44
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.76 6.17 7.13 6.81 6.95 6.86 6.43
Native-born (%) 98.77 97.31 92.71 87.49 92.28 90.22 95.06
(continued)
254 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.27 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 17.84 17.08 19.44 33.74 19.84 27.23 24.63
(%)
College degree or 21.96 27.51 39.29 36.87 40.08 37.16 26.81
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.56 6.12 5.59 7.58 4.90 6.58 6.51
Poverty (%) 7.82 6.84 5.61 15.15 7.58 11.04 11.14
Mean household 67,433 77,993 89,852 70,134 85,429 77,474 67,642
income ($)
Index 27 27 27 27 27 27 27

B.28 Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Mississippi

See Fig. B.28.

See Table B.28.

Fig. B.28 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Grand Gulf
Nuclear Station, Mississippi, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 255

Table B.28 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Grand Gulf
Nuclear Station, Mississippi, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 4 4 14 25 9 56 1,756
Tract area (sq. mile) 662 1,150 763 2,442 1,059 6,076 94,733
Total population 13,756 15,718 48,711 96,720 39,711 214,616 6,578,571
White 3,256 6,666 25,633 50,723 24,195 110,473 4,362,429
Black 10,469 8,994 22,648 45,635 15,440 103,186 2,111,334
Asian 8 45 227 158 15 453 51,928
Native American 24 13 105 104 37 283 28,646
Others 0 0 95 103 26 224 24,232
Hispanic 72 30 224 529 204 1,059 104,288
Color 10,518 9,075 23,128 46,308 15,685 104,714 2,288,766
White (%) 23.67 42.41 52.62 52.44 60.93 51.47 66.31
Black (%) 76.10 57.22 46.49 47.18 38.88 48.08 32.09
Asian (%) 0.06 0.29 0.47 0.16 0.04 0.21 0.79
Native American (%) 0.17 0.08 0.22 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.44
Others (%) 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.37
Hispanic (%) 0.52 0.19 0.46 0.55 0.51 0.49 1.59
Color (%) 76.46 57.74 47.48 47.88 39.50 48.79 34.79
Female (%) 53.61 52.33 53.40 52.87 52.58 52.94 51.99
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.63 11.79 15.02 13.15 14.85 13.75 11.54
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.02 10.13 8.99 8.86 9.51 9.11 9.47
Native-born (%) 99.32 99.15 99.31 99.66 99.79 99.55 98.38
Renter housing units 21.23 19.14 27.89 22.99 21.65 23.49 28.43
(%)
Education (%) 16.33 9.97 17.11 13.12 9.99 13.42 15.68
Unemployment (%) 18.18 16.81 8.62 11.04 11.56 11.36 9.12
Poverty (%) 43.18 37.24 26.62 30.76 35.34 31.84 23.95
Mean household 34,522 35,052 44,723 40,505 34,894 39,738 47,036
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 14,443 16,522 49,879 99,218 38,825 218,887 7,094,747
White 3,120 6,426 23,774 50,055 22,303 105,678 4,495,639
Black 11,183 9,801 25,198 47,955 15,904 110,041 2,367,962
Asian 12 106 223 347 246 934 74,323
Native American 7 75 60 187 164 493 37,176
Others 121 114 623 676 207 1,741 119,647
Hispanic 154 142 655 711 334 1,996 143,648
Color 11,338 10,138 26,371 49,479 16,768 114,094 2,676,584
(continued)
256 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.28 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 21.60 38.89 47.66 50.45 57.44 48.28 63.37
Black (%) 77.43 59.32 50.52 48.33 40.96 50.27 33.38
Asian (%) 0.08 0.64 0.45 0.35 0.63 0.43 1.05
Native American (%) 0.05 0.45 0.12 0.19 0.42 0.23 0.52
Others (%) 0.84 0.69 1.25 0.68 0.53 0.80 1.69
Hispanic (%) 1.07 0.86 1.31 0.72 0.86 0.91 2.02
Color (%) 78.50 61.36 52.87 49.87 43.19 52.12 37.73
Female (%) 52.45 52.54 52.89 52.02 51.79 52.24 51.67
Old (65+ years) (%) 11.43 10.96 13.42 13.71 15.01 13.52 11.74
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.75 9.73 8.61 8.14 8.50 8.41 8.57
Native-born (%) 99.10 99.04 99.04 99.22 99.04 99.12 97.83
Renter housing units 17.67 19.85 27.73 23.14 21.98 23.37 27.38
(%)
College degree or 18.53 12.78 18.40 14.98 10.50 14.99 18.11
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 16.44 11.41 7.63 8.83 9.09 9.23 7.30
Poverty (%) 32.23 30.18 20.87 24.85 29.21 25.56 19.57
Mean household 43,808 41,487 53,859 48,053 40,263 47,253 54,864
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 12,168 14,097 49,182 96,251 38,838 210,536 7,161,395
White 2,337 5,095 21,415 49,010 19,965 97,822 4,483,162
Black 9,732 8,840 26,662 46,050 18,424 109,708 2,384,247
Asian 13 47 417 308 50 835 93,118
Native American 7 0 41 189 115 352 40,610
Others 79 115 647 694 284 1,819 160,258
Hispanic 70 213 855 1,075 402 2,615 239,973
Color 9,855 9,116 28,272 47,840 19,273 114,356 2,824,099
White (%) 19.21 36.14 43.54 50.92 51.41 46.46 62.60
Black (%) 79.98 62.71 54.21 47.84 47.44 52.11 33.29
Asian (%) 0.11 0.33 0.85 0.32 0.13 0.40 1.30
Native American (%) 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.20 0.30 0.17 0.57
Others (%) 0.65 0.82 1.32 0.72 0.73 0.86 2.24
Hispanic (%) 0.58 1.51 1.74 1.12 1.04 1.24 3.35
Color (%) 80.99 64.67 57.48 49.70 49.62 54.32 39.44
Female (%) 51.97 51.78 51.38 51.57 48.87 51.07 51.26
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.91 12.72 13.18 14.68 13.85 13.95 12.25
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.81 6.36 6.84 6.50 7.21 6.66 6.97
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 257

Table B.28 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 99.81 99.16 98.42 98.83 99.72 98.98 96.94
Renter housing units 18.07 23.22 29.74 23.24 25.42 24.82 26.48
(%)
College degree or 16.38 17.28 21.43 16.74 11.63 16.94 20.45
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 10.22 10.85 9.73 10.95 14.90 11.28 8.39
Poverty (%) 35.13 30.44 23.21 24.33 30.24 26.14 19.18
Mean household 34,624 41,988 49,130 49,040 47,656 47,561 57,294
income ($)
Index 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

B.29 Callaway Plant, Missouri

See Fig. B.29.

See Table B.29.

Fig. B.29 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Callaway
Plant, Missouri, in 2010
258 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.29 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Callaway Plant,
Missouri, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 2 9 26 39 5 81 1,312
Tract area (sq. mile) 237 1,093 1,412 2,286 724 5,752 63,955
Total population 8,124 32,061 101,712 148,640 16,808 307,345 4,809,724
White 7,439 30,918 94,401 136,270 16,279 285,307 4,201,530
Black 612 910 6,188 8,558 410 16,678 530,170
Asian 33 68 552 2,966 50 3,669 35,912
Native American 31 113 360 446 22 972 21,349
Others 6 59 209 401 45 720 20,729
Hispanic 67 138 803 1,259 77 2,344 58,089
Color 746 1,231 7,858 13,200 574 23,609 643,604
White (%) 91.57 96.43 92.81 91.68 96.85 92.83 87.35
Black (%) 7.53 2.84 6.08 5.76 2.44 5.43 11.02
Asian (%) 0.41 0.21 0.54 2.00 0.30 1.19 0.75
Native American (%) 0.38 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.13 0.32 0.44
Others (%) 0.07 0.18 0.21 0.27 0.27 0.23 0.43
Hispanic (%) 0.82 0.43 0.79 0.85 0.46 0.76 1.21
Color (%) 9.18 3.84 7.73 8.88 3.42 7.68 13.38
Female (%) 49.80 51.20 50.43 50.88 50.40 50.71 51.91
Old (65+ years) (%) 17.68 14.44 13.14 11.06 15.97 12.55 14.12
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.40 8.97 8.23 8.44 8.64 8.41 8.67
Native-born (%) 98.89 99.45 98.72 97.05 99.20 98.02 98.39
Renter housing units 25.95 16.96 29.42 32.79 12.97 28.63 27.80
(%)
Education (%) 11.90 12.72 22.83 24.24 7.51 21.20 17.59
Unemployment (%) 5.00 3.76 4.82 4.50 6.66 4.65 6.26
Poverty (%) 11.68 9.69 10.61 14.59 14.00 12.63 13.38
Mean household 44,564 50,121 56,184 51,029 43,086 52,107 55,064
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 10,726 37,518 118,776 171,258 19,448 357,726 5,237,485
White 9,210 35,677 106,388 152,475 18,223 321,973 4,424,979
Black 1,219 969 8,427 11,200 737 22,552 599,535
Asian 125 92 1,256 3,584 10 5,067 58,433
Native American 25 200 400 700 91 1,416 24,784
Others 144 585 2,306 3,299 384 6,718 129,754
Hispanic 73 284 1,467 2,364 127 4,315 112,058
Color 1,550 1,994 13,199 20,214 1,344 38,301 869,073
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 259

Table B.29 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 85.87 95.09 89.57 89.03 93.70 90.01 84.49
Black (%) 11.36 2.58 7.09 6.54 3.79 6.30 11.45
Asian (%) 1.17 0.25 1.06 2.09 0.05 1.42 1.12
Native American (%) 0.23 0.53 0.34 0.41 0.47 0.40 0.47
Others (%) 1.34 1.56 1.94 1.93 1.97 1.88 2.48
Hispanic (%) 0.68 0.76 1.24 1.38 0.65 1.21 2.14
Color (%) 14.45 5.31 11.11 11.80 6.91 10.71 16.59
Female (%) 40.42 51.01 50.11 50.89 53.41 50.47 51.48
Old (65+ years) (%) 13.48 12.97 12.16 10.60 14.57 11.67 13.64
Kid (<5 years) (%) 4.61 7.85 7.48 7.84 6.55 7.56 7.97
Native-born (%) 98.83 99.15 97.90 96.56 99.20 97.49 97.28
Renter housing units 26.33 17.13 30.02 31.51 13.21 28.32 26.61
(%)
College degree or 13.57 15.21 27.73 29.39 9.14 25.59 21.32
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.91 4.08 4.24 4.73 3.87 4.44 5.36
Poverty (%) 8.77 8.00 11.03 12.64 10.50 11.40 11.76
Mean household 50,488 58,609 62,757 59,772 51,768 60,034 62,384
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 11,642 39,493 129,790 191,791 20,201 392,917 5,529,397
White 10,081 37,582 112,854 166,198 19,103 345,818 4,592,404
Black 899 945 10,775 13,007 582 26,208 652,854
Asian 120 254 1,772 5,220 6 7,372 89,976
Native American 38 45 381 754 25 1,243 21,586
Others 504 667 4,008 6,612 485 12,276 172,577
Hispanic 333 541 3,417 4,809 308 9,408 189,262
Color 1,728 2,394 18,442 27,658 1,333 51,555 1,051,943
White (%) 86.59 95.16 86.95 86.66 94.56 88.01 83.05
Black (%) 7.72 2.39 8.30 6.78 2.88 6.67 11.81
Asian (%) 1.03 0.64 1.37 2.72 0.03 1.88 1.63
Native American (%) 0.33 0.11 0.29 0.39 0.12 0.32 0.39
Others (%) 4.33 1.69 3.09 3.45 2.40 3.12 3.12
Hispanic (%) 2.86 1.37 2.63 2.51 1.52 2.39 3.42
Color (%) 14.84 6.06 14.21 14.42 6.60 13.12 19.02
Female (%) 43.81 50.72 50.70 50.97 53.54 50.78 51.13
Old (65+ years) (%) 11.40 13.54 12.62 11.04 15.68 12.06 13.84
Kid (<5 years) (%) 4.22 6.42 6.59 6.16 6.72 6.30 6.55
Native-born (%) 99.30 98.89 96.92 95.34 99.70 96.56 96.33
(continued)
260 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.29 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 29.76 17.43 30.41 31.18 12.55 28.49 26.07
(%)
College degree or 15.86 19.76 30.90 33.30 10.69 29.22 24.77
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.11 6.54 5.05 6.10 7.20 5.85 7.56
Poverty (%) 16.14 9.70 14.30 15.34 12.41 14.29 13.95
Mean household 57,079 58,081 61,274 60,457 50,873 59,960 61,327
income ($)
Index 29 29 29 29 29 29 29

B.30 Cooper Nuclear Station, Nebraska

See Fig. B.30.

See Table B.30.

Fig. B.30 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Cooper
Nuclear Station, Nebraska, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 261

Table B.30 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nebraska, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 3 2 10 14 9 38 3,482
Tract area (sq. mile) 670 554 1,395 2,259 1,290 6,168 279,438
Total population 11,078 6,798 28,334 40,875 30,314 117,399 11,832,396
White 10,993 6,521 28,042 39,923 29,763 115,242 10,771,594
Black 36 121 8 191 107 463 792,724
Asian 4 23 94 87 67 275 107,311
Native American 45 91 100 607 285 1,128 64,822
Others 0 42 90 66 91 289 95,907
Hispanic 26 47 281 341 187 882 215,579
Color 111 291 483 1,198 637 2,720 1,174,239
White (%) 99.23 95.93 98.97 97.67 98.18 98.16 91.03
Black (%) 0.32 1.78 0.03 0.47 0.35 0.39 6.70
Asian (%) 0.04 0.34 0.33 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.91
Native American (%) 0.41 1.34 0.35 1.49 0.94 0.96 0.55
Others (%) 0.00 0.62 0.32 0.16 0.30 0.25 0.81
Hispanic (%) 0.23 0.69 0.99 0.83 0.62 0.75 1.82
Color (%) 1.00 4.28 1.70 2.93 2.10 2.32 9.92
Female (%) 50.41 51.21 52.66 51.81 50.12 51.41 51.52
Old (65+ years) (%) 20.05 18.05 22.90 22.09 16.21 20.34 14.24
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.10 8.68 7.85 7.71 8.95 8.06 8.78
Native-born (%) 99.58 99.35 99.34 99.31 99.15 99.30 98.16
Renter housing units 28.30 28.07 25.15 23.16 23.77 24.59 28.50
(%)
Education (%) 16.66 14.17 11.89 12.85 12.15 12.87 18.46
Unemployment (%) 2.82 3.46 5.06 3.72 3.87 3.98 5.15
Poverty (%) 13.18 18.28 12.73 14.12 12.91 13.62 12.22
Mean household 45,263 39,940 42,655 43,994 45,163 43,834 54,371
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 10,205 6,117 27,836 40,863 30,847 115,868 12,805,348
White 10,040 5,854 26,739 39,308 29,413 111,354 11,231,241
Black 24 138 46 236 319 763 899,101
Asian 58 4 248 103 194 607 166,650
Native American 27 50 220 730 546 1,573 74,034
Others 56 71 583 486 373 1,569 434,324
Hispanic 50 25 578 408 566 1,627 476,418
Color 201 273 1,399 1,792 1,733 5,398 1,784,914
(continued)
262 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.30 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 98.38 95.70 96.06 96.19 95.35 96.10 87.71
Black (%) 0.24 2.26 0.17 0.58 1.03 0.66 7.02
Asian (%) 0.57 0.07 0.89 0.25 0.63 0.52 1.30
Native American (%) 0.26 0.82 0.79 1.79 1.77 1.36 0.58
Others (%) 0.55 1.16 2.09 1.19 1.21 1.35 3.39
Hispanic (%) 0.49 0.41 2.08 1.00 1.83 1.40 3.72
Color (%) 1.97 4.46 5.03 4.39 5.62 4.66 13.94
Female (%) 51.54 49.84 51.53 51.59 49.04 50.80 51.06
Old (65+ years) (%) 19.63 18.54 20.37 20.71 16.17 19.21 13.73
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.47 5.72 7.01 7.04 7.26 6.88 8.04
Native-born (%) 99.33 99.79 97.93 99.19 98.84 98.84 96.48
Renter housing units 25.06 24.13 24.08 21.84 23.24 23.17 27.28
(%)
College degree or 20.44 18.28 14.41 17.15 15.44 16.39 22.70
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.61 3.81 4.27 3.47 5.63 4.44 4.58
Poverty (%) 11.85 12.37 10.58 9.70 9.73 10.25 10.50
Mean household 51,308 46,785 50,783 52,927 54,282 52,257 62,562
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 9,770 5,155 27,379 38,925 29,884 111,113 13,435,922
White 9,501 4,976 26,004 36,883 28,213 105,577 11,585,698
Black 63 1 352 169 648 1,233 1,000,265
Asian 17 5 86 231 86 425 246,824
Native American 56 53 113 790 313 1,325 71,402
Others 133 120 824 852 624 2,553 531,733
Hispanic 114 37 1,430 738 598 2,917 760,764
Color 342 195 2,460 2,343 2,146 7,486 2,308,154
White (%) 97.25 96.53 94.98 94.75 94.41 95.02 86.23
Black (%) 0.64 0.02 1.29 0.43 2.17 1.11 7.44
Asian (%) 0.17 0.10 0.31 0.59 0.29 0.38 1.84
Native American (%) 0.57 1.03 0.41 2.03 1.05 1.19 0.53
Others (%) 1.36 2.33 3.01 2.19 2.09 2.30 3.96
Hispanic (%) 1.17 0.72 5.22 1.90 2.00 2.63 5.66
Color (%) 3.50 3.78 8.98 6.02 7.18 6.74 17.18
Female (%) 51.28 50.79 49.32 52.35 47.44 50.12 50.80
Old (65+ years) (%) 18.54 19.96 20.09 20.74 15.93 19.06 13.75
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.94 5.24 5.95 5.72 6.36 5.95 6.75
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 263

Table B.30 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 98.88 99.17 97.13 98.63 98.68 98.32 95.36
Renter housing units 24.19 20.13 22.92 21.22 20.22 21.63 26.45
(%)
College degree or 22.21 19.79 16.22 18.04 17.92 17.98 26.22
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.28 6.84 5.08 4.60 4.63 4.90 6.33
Poverty (%) 13.21 12.57 13.80 11.43 9.83 11.80 12.85
Mean household 54,322 52,507 49,662 52,796 58,011 53,419 62,412
income ($)
Index 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Fort Calhoun Station, Nebraska

See Fig. B.31.

See Table B.31.

Fig. B.31 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Fort Calhoun
Station, Nebraska, in 2010
264 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.31 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Fort Calhoun
Station, Nebraska, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 5 91 142 24 7 269 1,088
Tract area (sq. mile) 173 1,121 1,468 1,809 1,015 5,587 128,033
Total population 15,687 243,551 385,024 67,593 19,265 731,120 3,624,019
White 15,520 197,208 365,490 65,201 19,059 662,478 3,503,625
Black 57 40,882 8,879 1,314 14 51,146 53,236
Asian 14 2,585 4,064 551 77 7,291 29,598
Native American 50 1,411 1,855 281 66 3,663 16,713
Others 46 1,469 4,735 239 49 6,538 20,853
Hispanic 101 3,404 11,444 772 77 15,798 49,936
Color 203 48,090 25,988 2,847 233 77,361 148,684
White (%) 98.94 80.97 94.93 96.46 98.93 90.61 96.68
Black (%) 0.36 16.79 2.31 1.94 0.07 7.00 1.47
Asian (%) 0.09 1.06 1.06 0.82 0.40 1.00 0.82
Native American (%) 0.32 0.58 0.48 0.42 0.34 0.50 0.46
Others (%) 0.29 0.60 1.23 0.35 0.25 0.89 0.58
Hispanic (%) 0.64 1.40 2.97 1.14 0.40 2.16 1.38
Color (%) 1.29 19.75 6.75 4.21 1.21 10.58 4.10
Female (%) 52.09 52.19 51.25 50.24 49.94 51.45 51.46
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.94 11.82 10.76 14.22 14.82 11.63 15.56
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.93 9.77 9.53 9.20 9.15 9.53 8.52
Native-born (%) 99.18 98.00 97.56 98.55 99.16 97.87 98.45
Renter housing units 23.19 33.51 33.46 25.47 18.76 32.13 28.23
(%)
Education (%) 15.67 24.03 20.98 16.33 11.87 21.20 16.89
Unemployment (%) 3.45 4.78 3.80 3.61 4.57 4.13 4.23
Poverty (%) 7.06 12.19 8.33 7.98 11.99 9.65 11.71
Mean household 57,733 60,822 58,746 51,719 47,843 58,519 51,287
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 17,820 273,372 428,422 73,370 20,776 813,760 3,823,827
White 17,428 212,241 385,082 69,991 20,304 705,046 3,578,478
Black 66 45,594 11,847 1,090 15 58,612 68,581
Asian 77 4,722 5,996 477 76 11,348 46,429
Native American 38 1,945 2,326 310 107 4,726 19,958
Others 211 8,868 23,181 1,488 274 34,022 110,387
Hispanic 215 8,080 31,824 1,619 429 42,167 133,206
Color 451 64,820 56,609 4,233 724 126,837 302,171
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 265

Table B.31 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 97.80 77.64 89.88 95.39 97.73 86.64 93.58
Black (%) 0.37 16.68 2.77 1.49 0.07 7.20 1.79
Asian (%) 0.43 1.73 1.40 0.65 0.37 1.39 1.21
Native American (%) 0.21 0.71 0.54 0.42 0.52 0.58 0.52
Others (%) 1.18 3.24 5.41 2.03 1.32 4.18 2.89
Hispanic (%) 1.21 2.96 7.43 2.21 2.06 5.18 3.48
Color (%) 2.53 23.71 13.21 5.77 3.48 15.59 7.90
Female (%) 51.27 51.74 50.59 50.30 49.71 50.94 50.88
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.14 11.27 11.04 14.03 14.54 11.54 15.03
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.26 8.82 8.82 7.81 7.57 8.68 7.76
Native-born (%) 98.23 96.35 94.38 97.90 98.89 95.56 96.61
Renter housing units 23.07 33.28 32.30 22.68 17.59 31.18 26.57
(%)
College degree or 21.39 29.81 25.81 20.84 14.79 26.29 21.26
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.44 4.42 3.38 2.92 3.62 3.69 4.00
Poverty (%) 6.08 10.53 7.60 5.89 7.76 8.40 9.55
Mean household 66,484 70,483 69,512 64,129 59,642 69,052 59,757
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 18,933 298,263 474,429 78,563 20,775 890,963 3,924,429
White 18,330 224,840 418,617 73,280 20,297 755,364 3,605,903
Black 100 48,836 13,921 1,680 74 64,611 96,057
Asian 79 7,326 8,489 771 67 16,732 65,425
Native American 8 1,343 2,108 515 10 3,984 21,492
Others 416 15,918 31,294 2,317 327 50,272 135,552
Hispanic 464 14,601 55,721 3,011 461 74,258 214,645
Color 824 81,377 87,845 7,015 855 177,916 445,849
White (%) 96.82 75.38 88.24 93.28 97.70 84.78 91.88
Black (%) 0.53 16.37 2.93 2.14 0.36 7.25 2.45
Asian (%) 0.42 2.46 1.79 0.98 0.32 1.88 1.67
Native American (%) 0.04 0.45 0.44 0.66 0.05 0.45 0.55
Others (%) 2.20 5.34 6.60 2.95 1.57 5.64 3.45
Hispanic (%) 2.45 4.90 11.74 3.83 2.22 8.33 5.47
Color (%) 4.35 27.28 18.52 8.93 4.12 19.97 11.36
Female (%) 50.77 51.68 50.42 49.39 50.43 50.76 50.55
Old (65+ years) (%) 13.95 11.02 11.06 14.57 15.10 11.51 14.90
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.68 7.48 7.81 6.84 6.44 7.56 6.63
(continued)
266 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.31 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 98.66 94.66 92.13 97.17 98.48 93.71 95.54
Renter housing units 19.96 31.75 30.01 20.20 16.82 29.19 25.29
(%)
College degree or 26.38 34.75 30.89 25.69 20.46 31.34 24.42
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.89 6.53 5.72 4.34 4.77 5.82 5.07
Poverty (%) 5.66 13.83 10.39 7.25 7.61 11.09 11.82
Mean household 69,650 69,389 68,860 69,785 65,129 69,048 60,642
income ($)
Index 31 31 31 31 31 31 31

B.32 Seabrook Station, New Hampshire

See Fig. B.32.

See Table B.32.

Fig. B.32 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Seabrook
Station, New Hampshire, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 267

Table B.32 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Seabrook

Station, New Hampshire, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 30 78 180 271 309 868 1,263
Tract area (sq. mile) 270 650 1,185 1,256 835 4,195 51,088
Total population 101,342 310,511 755,938 1,146,601 1,151,223 3,465,615 4,887,988
White 100,218 296,305 703,646 1,067,227 891,135 3,058,531 4,648,230
Black 336 4,414 9,885 28,791 164,244 207,670 101,835
Asian 410 2,935 17,657 30,075 56,099 107,176 49,462
Native American 180 635 1,688 2,037 2,630 7,170 14,233
Others 189 6,229 23,044 18,449 37,142 85,053 74,211
Hispanic 522 12,218 42,624 41,738 69,970 167,072 127,409
Color 1,564 18,932 67,906 100,792 288,926 478,120 301,834
White (%) 98.89 95.42 93.08 93.08 77.41 88.25 95.09
Black (%) 0.33 1.42 1.31 2.51 14.27 5.99 2.08
Asian (%) 0.40 0.95 2.34 2.62 4.87 3.09 1.01
Native American 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.18 0.23 0.21 0.29
(%)
Others (%) 0.19 2.01 3.05 1.61 3.23 2.45 1.52
Hispanic (%) 0.52 3.93 5.64 3.64 6.08 4.82 2.61
Color (%) 1.54 6.10 8.98 8.79 25.10 13.80 6.18
Female (%) 51.54 51.11 51.61 51.97 52.50 51.98 51.65
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.60 11.43 11.89 13.44 12.86 12.71 13.66
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.52 9.20 9.10 8.13 6.95 8.06 8.53
Native-born (%) 97.14 94.89 92.15 90.00 83.87 89.08 94.42
Renter housing 25.23 29.89 34.54 39.42 51.12 41.14 27.93
units (%)
Education (%) 27.42 26.24 23.87 27.40 36.97 29.73 22.67
Unemployment (%) 6.53 6.33 7.05 6.42 6.67 6.63 6.64
Poverty (%) 5.22 6.51 8.73 7.54 12.17 9.15 8.68
Mean household 76,264 77,196 74,512 76,767 78,690 76,972 66,827
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 117,140 343,887 816,708 1,222,632 1,183,397 3,683,764 5,176,042
White 114,111 318,611 726,005 1,046,964 837,270 3,042,961 4,745,048
Black 547 3,407 12,745 42,309 164,634 223,642 128,546
Asian 714 5,064 25,765 59,376 91,949 182,868 81,452
Native American 114 802 1,683 2,728 3,734 9,061 16,425
Others 1,641 16,016 50,488 71,230 85,848 225,223 204,580
Hispanic 1,173 19,973 64,582 84,956 90,951 261,635 194,841
Color 3,676 31,844 113,423 213,537 380,831 743,311 513,643
White (%) 97.41 92.65 88.89 85.63 70.75 82.60 91.67
Black (%) 0.47 0.99 1.56 3.46 13.91 6.07 2.48
Asian (%) 0.61 1.47 3.15 4.86 7.77 4.96 1.57
(continued)
268 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.32 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native American 0.10 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.32 0.25 0.32
(%)
Others (%) 1.40 4.66 6.18 5.83 7.25 6.11 3.95
Hispanic (%) 1.00 5.81 7.91 6.95 7.69 7.10 3.76
Color (%) 3.14 9.26 13.89 17.47 32.18 20.18 9.92
Female (%) 51.63 51.48 51.42 51.50 52.23 51.72 51.54
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.95 11.78 12.06 13.43 12.32 12.60 14.05
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.55 7.86 8.19 7.50 6.38 7.33 7.42
Native-born (%) 96.51 93.65 90.45 85.08 79.70 85.70 93.48
Renter housing 24.22 27.98 33.65 39.02 51.35 40.52 26.60
units (%)
College degree or 34.62 32.39 28.85 33.10 44.35 35.75 27.72
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 2.72 3.33 4.20 3.84 5.31 4.32 4.59
Poverty (%) 5.03 6.79 8.20 8.18 12.80 9.40 9.02
Mean household 88,305 86,147 81,831 84,032 89,198 85,616 72,897
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 120,876 362,044 847,854 1,247,097 1,189,344 3,767,215 5,351,485
White 117,238 322,258 722,244 1,017,788 809,101 2,988,629 4,810,793
Black 648 4,687 18,987 60,905 173,556 258,783 191,609
Asian 1,300 8,066 37,582 85,282 120,580 252,810 127,288
Native American 168 601 1,059 1,834 3,280 6,942 15,479
Others 1,522 26,432 67,982 81,288 82,827 260,051 206,316
Hispanic 1,724 31,377 87,065 128,598 109,397 358,161 279,195
Color 4,811 47,970 154,265 297,323 424,698 929,067 699,721
White (%) 96.99 89.01 85.18 81.61 68.03 79.33 89.90
Black (%) 0.54 1.29 2.24 4.88 14.59 6.87 3.58
Asian (%) 1.08 2.23 4.43 6.84 10.14 6.71 2.38
Native American 0.14 0.17 0.12 0.15 0.28 0.18 0.29
(%)
Others (%) 1.26 7.30 8.02 6.52 6.96 6.90 3.86
Hispanic (%) 1.43 8.67 10.27 10.31 9.20 9.51 5.22
Color (%) 3.98 13.25 18.19 23.84 35.71 24.66 13.08
Female (%) 51.61 51.32 51.29 51.44 52.13 51.62 51.27
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.87 12.10 12.67 13.31 12.02 12.69 14.42
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.10 5.68 6.24 6.01 5.03 5.69 5.53
Native-born (%) 95.50 92.00 88.50 81.16 77.79 83.25 92.07
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 269

Table B.32 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing 21.22 24.51 29.55 36.23 47.37 36.85 24.00
units (%)
College degree or 41.35 37.48 34.01 37.87 50.28 40.93 32.13
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.19 6.10 6.70 6.94 7.32 6.87 7.12
Poverty (%) 5.02 7.26 8.89 9.48 14.91 10.65 10.28
Mean household 93,745 89,716 83,699 86,038 93,567 88,585 75,537
income ($)
Index 32 32 32 32 32 32 32

B.33 Hope Creek Generating Station, New Jersey

See Fig. B.33.

See Table B.33.

Fig. B.33 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Hope Creek
Generating Station, New Jersey, in 2010
270 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.33 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Hope Creek
Generating Station, New Jersey, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 15 99 188 398 397 1,097 5,755
Tract area (sq. 332 848 1,870 1,653 982 5,684 63,987
mile)
Total population 34,738 325,339 650,001 1,509,343 1,533,210 4,052,631 21,006,748
White 26,049 267,177 518,830 1,150,923 916,694 2,879,673 17,710,736
Black 7,987 48,281 106,188 313,228 501,262 976,946 2,447,042
Asian 84 4,030 7,329 32,446 36,439 80,328 470,992
Native American 195 1,590 1,675 2,893 3,206 9,559 37,510
Others 436 4,250 15,972 9,857 75,608 106,123 340,396
Hispanic 745 8,137 29,376 26,399 104,396 169,053 906,894
Color 8,919 61,688 143,035 372,107 639,329 1,225,078 3,809,682
White (%) 74.99 82.12 79.82 76.25 59.79 71.06 84.31
Black (%) 22.99 14.84 16.34 20.75 32.69 24.11 11.65
Asian (%) 0.24 1.24 1.13 2.15 2.38 1.98 2.24
Native American 0.56 0.49 0.26 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.18
(%)
Others (%) 1.26 1.31 2.46 0.65 4.93 2.62 1.62
Hispanic (%) 2.14 2.50 4.52 1.75 6.81 4.17 4.32
Color (%) 25.68 18.96 22.01 24.65 41.70 30.23 18.14
Female (%) 49.36 51.39 51.77 51.98 53.18 52.33 51.74
Old (65+ years) 11.86 10.72 12.32 13.60 13.69 13.18 13.91
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 8.96 8.88 8.91 8.54 9.02 8.81 8.14
(%)
Native-born (%) 98.26 96.87 96.30 95.35 94.63 95.38 92.93
Renter housing 30.02 29.00 27.68 29.50 31.40 29.92 29.17
units (%)
Education (%) 10.36 15.11 22.28 20.25 23.75 21.41 21.86
Unemployment 5.87 4.49 4.87 6.05 7.66 6.31 5.36
(%)
Poverty (%) 12.17 9.15 9.07 11.24 16.74 12.82 8.76
Mean household 58,742 63,687 73,575 65,371 69,621 68,084 71,689
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 40,224 383,484 709,421 1,525,610 1,531,056 4,189,795 22,585,696
White 29,785 282,207 543,558 1,073,697 840,955 2,770,202 17,791,120
Black 8,705 72,859 117,520 349,576 513,013 1,061,673 2,894,328
Asian 485 7,311 13,372 54,540 54,175 129,883 803,103
Native American 196 1,703 2,536 3,194 4,365 11,994 44,266
Others 1,067 19,398 32,414 44,612 118,557 216,048 1,052,874
Hispanic 1,085 24,730 45,000 43,697 151,190 265,702 1,506,994
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 271

Table B.33 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Color 10,870 111,838 185,101 471,678 735,636 1,515,123 5,522,464
White (%) 74.05 73.59 76.62 70.38 54.93 66.12 78.77
Black (%) 21.64 19.00 16.57 22.91 33.51 25.34 12.81
Asian (%) 1.21 1.91 1.88 3.57 3.54 3.10 3.56
Native American 0.49 0.44 0.36 0.21 0.29 0.29 0.20
(%)
Others (%) 2.65 5.06 4.57 2.92 7.74 5.16 4.66
Hispanic (%) 2.70 6.45 6.34 2.86 9.87 6.34 6.67
Color (%) 27.02 29.16 26.09 30.92 48.05 36.16 24.45
Female (%) 49.04 50.85 51.57 52.16 53.08 52.25 51.57
Old (65+ years) 10.23 10.57 12.63 13.54 13.15 12.94 14.13
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 8.76 8.16 7.87 7.66 8.11 7.92 7.60
(%)
Native-born (%) 96.97 94.25 94.79 93.50 92.82 93.57 89.91
Renter housing 24.46 28.56 25.96 29.79 32.45 29.99 28.20
units (%)
College degree 16.76 19.11 27.10 24.28 28.36 25.70 26.70
or higher (%)
Unemployment 5.18 5.61 6.25 6.50 8.81 7.16 5.20
(%)
Poverty (%) 10.07 9.70 9.23 12.21 17.88 13.52 8.93
Mean household 69,448 68,663 81,529 70,201 73,843 73,276 78,009
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 47,275 427,702 768,301 1,578,254 1,551,169 4,372,701 23,539,282
White 34,531 289,805 580,602 1,052,228 830,412 2,787,578 17,769,170
Black 10,020 100,007 130,603 385,252 507,839 1,133,721 3,240,060
Asian 914 14,427 20,250 75,950 72,566 184,107 1,187,353
Native American 167 1,863 2,476 2,891 3,727 11,124 46,053
Others 1,643 21,600 34,370 61,933 136,625 256,171 1,296,646
Hispanic 2,217 44,395 67,069 79,274 196,806 389,761 2,231,784
Color 13,744 165,952 229,283 565,115 790,951 1,765,045 6,974,797
White (%) 73.04 67.76 75.57 66.67 53.53 63.75 75.49
Black (%) 21.20 23.38 17.00 24.41 32.74 25.93 13.76
Asian (%) 1.93 3.37 2.64 4.81 4.68 4.21 5.04
Native American 0.35 0.44 0.32 0.18 0.24 0.25 0.20
(%)
Others (%) 3.48 5.05 4.47 3.92 8.81 5.86 5.51
Hispanic (%) 4.69 10.38 8.73 5.02 12.69 8.91 9.48
Color (%) 29.07 38.80 29.84 35.81 50.99 40.37 29.63
Female (%) 47.94 51.08 51.51 51.85 52.80 52.01 51.29
Old (65+ years) 10.70 10.83 13.13 12.82 12.69 12.61 14.15
(%)
(continued)
272 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.33 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Kid (<5 years) 6.41 6.90 6.35 6.24 6.54 6.44 6.01
(%)
Native-born (%) 95.99 90.38 92.84 91.43 90.66 91.35 87.58
Renter housing 16.46 27.33 24.29 29.56 32.92 29.57 26.88
units (%)
College degree 22.34 22.21 30.56 29.34 33.10 30.12 31.00
or higher (%)
Unemployment 9.13 7.87 7.56 8.57 9.80 8.74 7.02
(%)
Poverty (%) 7.68 11.73 10.44 13.07 19.12 14.56 9.78
Mean household 80,515 68,452 85,014 73,582 75,545 75,854 81,038
income ($)
Index 33 33 33 33 33 33 33

B.34 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station,

New Jersey

See Fig. B.34.

See Table B.34.

Fig. B.34 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, New Jersey, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 273

Table B.34 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, New Jersey, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 29 70 86 237 161 583 9,564
Tract area (sq. 287 760 787 1,008 570 3,412 105,920
mile)
Total population 91,665 237,253 335,439 843,941 624,342 2,132,640 35,469,420
White 89,171 227,599 299,980 684,923 523,233 1,824,906 28,231,784
Black 1,310 5,490 23,686 120,560 64,692 215,738 4,767,806
Asian 445 2,221 5,296 21,250 25,462 54,674 1,039,475
Native American 284 304 659 1,703 918 3,868 85,823
Others 457 1,635 5,821 15,501 10,020 33,434 1,344,511
Hispanic 2,092 5,849 16,672 37,725 29,157 91,495 3,001,051
Color 4,095 13,689 45,483 177,475 118,250 358,992 8,587,946
White (%) 97.28 95.93 89.43 81.16 83.81 85.57 79.59
Black (%) 1.43 2.31 7.06 14.29 10.36 10.12 13.44
Asian (%) 0.49 0.94 1.58 2.52 4.08 2.56 2.93
Native American 0.31 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.18 0.24
(%)
Others (%) 0.50 0.69 1.74 1.84 1.60 1.57 3.79
Hispanic (%) 2.28 2.47 4.97 4.47 4.67 4.29 8.46
Color (%) 4.47 5.77 13.56 21.03 18.94 16.83 24.21
Female (%) 51.88 53.44 50.94 51.63 51.24 51.62 52.04
Old (65+ years) 16.81 29.28 12.64 13.18 11.48 14.54 13.85
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 8.67 6.41 9.40 8.30 8.48 8.33 8.17
(%)
Native-born (%) 95.46 93.69 94.47 93.14 90.67 92.78 88.63
Renter housing 11.29 10.34 23.21 26.06 27.70 23.05 36.72
units (%)
Education (%) 13.55 15.09 20.12 24.41 27.90 23.18 21.76
Unemployment 6.25 5.84 5.12 4.90 5.08 5.13 6.43
(%)
Poverty (%) 6.02 5.03 5.90 6.13 5.57 5.80 11.63
Mean household 65,149 63,752 76,608 82,080 89,603 80,406 70,261
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 114,293 263,512 378,078 954,033 677,090 2,387,006 37,284,856
White 109,595 245,123 332,045 718,669 518,696 1,924,128 27,552,606
Black 1,773 7,186 22,581 137,758 72,571 241,869 5,083,308
Asian 799 4,201 7,574 41,148 54,148 107,870 1,649,311
Native American 198 562 603 1,874 821 4,058 112,754
Others 1,935 6,437 15,286 54,589 30,827 109,074 2,886,883
Hispanic 3,834 11,064 25,065 77,961 45,460 163,384 4,209,902
(continued)
274 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.34 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Color 7,287 25,266 60,142 271,090 183,804 547,589 11,480,117
White (%) 95.89 93.02 87.82 75.33 76.61 80.61 73.90
Black (%) 1.55 2.73 5.97 14.44 10.72 10.13 13.63
Asian (%) 0.70 1.59 2.00 4.31 8.00 4.52 4.42
Native American 0.17 0.21 0.16 0.20 0.12 0.17 0.30
(%)
Others (%) 1.69 2.44 4.04 5.72 4.55 4.57 7.74
Hispanic (%) 3.35 4.20 6.63 8.17 6.71 6.84 11.29
Color (%) 6.38 9.59 15.91 28.42 27.15 22.94 30.79
Female (%) 51.27 53.71 50.56 51.39 51.49 51.54 51.77
Old (65+ years) 17.84 29.32 12.12 13.49 12.05 14.82 13.76
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 7.42 5.74 9.20 8.06 7.97 7.93 7.68
(%)
Native-born (%) 96.16 93.33 93.13 88.92 84.73 89.23 84.99
Renter housing 10.74 11.18 21.58 24.98 27.76 22.45 36.20
units (%)
College degree or 17.29 18.83 25.99 28.76 33.98 28.04 26.21
higher (%)
Unemployment 5.13 5.12 5.23 4.94 5.99 5.33 6.43
(%)
Poverty (%) 5.85 5.65 7.07 7.29 6.37 6.74 12.53
Mean household 73,388 70,711 85,188 89,543 97,777 88,022 75,580
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 128,893 280,778 414,445 1,011,867 702,567 2,538,550 38,025,484
White 119,722 255,716 361,170 731,620 496,127 1,964,355 27,334,152
Black 2,072 9,461 23,916 147,076 77,463 259,988 5,253,896
Asian 1,616 5,631 9,479 65,377 93,761 175,864 2,257,388
Native American 101 250 439 1,771 2,358 4,919 99,845
Others 5,382 9,720 19,441 66,023 32,858 133,424 3,080,202
Hispanic 8,519 19,856 34,215 120,065 64,939 247,594 5,165,970
Color 13,354 37,989 72,166 343,540 245,981 713,030 13,069,155
White (%) 92.88 91.07 87.15 72.30 70.62 77.38 71.88
Black (%) 1.61 3.37 5.77 14.54 11.03 10.24 13.82
Asian (%) 1.25 2.01 2.29 6.46 13.35 6.93 5.94
Native American 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.18 0.34 0.19 0.26
(%)
Others (%) 4.18 3.46 4.69 6.52 4.68 5.26 8.10
Hispanic (%) 6.61 7.07 8.26 11.87 9.24 9.75 13.59
Color (%) 10.36 13.53 17.41 33.95 35.01 28.09 34.37
Female (%) 51.07 52.90 51.05 51.07 51.57 51.41 51.48
Old (65+ years) 18.23 27.87 12.57 13.80 12.35 14.98 13.83
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 5.70 5.19 7.15 5.93 6.04 6.07 5.99
(%)
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 275

Table B.34 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 93.94 92.04 91.74 84.86 79.72 85.81 83.44
Renter housing 9.74 11.86 20.42 22.46 25.72 20.79 34.21
units (%)
College degree or 22.60 23.19 30.67 33.36 39.75 32.90 30.72
higher (%)
Unemployment 8.07 8.41 7.57 7.23 7.71 7.58 7.50
(%)
Poverty (%) 6.32 7.43 9.31 7.67 6.91 7.62 12.85
Mean household 79,599 71,633 89,548 93,284 99,085 90,835 78,076
income ($)
Index 34 34 34 34 34 34 34

B.35 Salem Nuclear Generating Station, New Jersey

See Fig. B.35.

See Table B.35.

Fig. B.35 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, New Jersey, in 2010
276 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.35 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, New Jersey, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 15 93 189 386 405 1,088 5,764
Tract area (sq. 332 845 1,857 1,673 1,008 5,715 63,957
mile)
Total population 34,738 307,326 653,350 1,471,049 1,545,323 4,011,786 21,047,592
White 26,049 254,777 519,515 1,137,890 903,351 2,841,582 17,748,828
Black 7,987 43,400 108,578 289,691 525,204 974,860 2,449,128
Asian 84 3,827 7,438 30,921 37,360 79,630 471,690
Native American 195 1,568 1,685 2,720 3,433 9,601 37,468
Others 436 3,746 16,128 9,828 75,967 106,105 340,414
Hispanic 745 7,385 29,586 26,039 105,050 168,805 907,142
Color 8,919 55,876 145,738 346,588 664,996 1,222,117 3,812,643
White (%) 74.99 82.90 79.52 77.35 58.46 70.83 84.33
Black (%) 22.99 14.12 16.62 19.69 33.99 24.30 11.64
Asian (%) 0.24 1.25 1.14 2.10 2.42 1.98 2.24
Native American 0.56 0.51 0.26 0.18 0.22 0.24 0.18
(%)
Others (%) 1.26 1.22 2.47 0.67 4.92 2.64 1.62
Hispanic (%) 2.14 2.40 4.53 1.77 6.80 4.21 4.31
Color (%) 25.68 18.18 22.31 23.56 43.03 30.46 18.11
Female (%) 49.36 51.29 51.83 51.85 53.26 52.33 51.74
Old (65+ years) 11.86 10.38 12.47 13.42 13.68 13.12 13.93
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 8.96 8.87 8.90 8.60 8.96 8.82 8.14
(%)
Native-born (%) 98.26 96.88 96.27 95.43 94.59 95.38 92.94
Renter housing 30.02 28.72 28.10 28.48 32.31 29.98 29.16
units (%)
Education (%) 10.36 15.61 22.02 19.62 24.22 21.40 21.86
Unemployment 5.87 4.37 4.90 5.96 7.81 6.34 5.35
(%)
Poverty (%) 12.17 8.83 9.27 10.90 17.16 12.91 8.75
Mean household 58,742 64,718 72,905 65,050 69,536 67,979 71,701
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 40,224 364,904 710,302 1,492,038 1,540,413 4,147,881 22,627,608
White 29,785 271,716 539,851 1,064,490 831,336 2,737,178 17,824,144
Black 8,705 66,465 121,708 328,162 531,243 1,056,283 2,899,718
Asian 485 7,095 13,450 51,940 55,473 128,443 804,543
Native American 196 1,639 2,535 3,059 4,446 11,875 44,385
Others 1,067 17,987 32,735 44,397 117,908 214,094 1,054,828
Hispanic 1,085 22,527 46,285 43,337 150,064 263,298 1,509,398
Color 10,870 102,797 190,551 446,616 754,453 1,505,287 5,532,300
White (%) 74.05 74.46 76.00 71.34 53.97 65.99 78.77
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 277

Table B.35 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 21.64 18.21 17.13 21.99 34.49 25.47 12.81
Asian (%) 1.21 1.94 1.89 3.48 3.60 3.10 3.56
Native American 0.49 0.45 0.36 0.21 0.29 0.29 0.20
(%)
Others (%) 2.65 4.93 4.61 2.98 7.65 5.16 4.66
Hispanic (%) 2.70 6.17 6.52 2.90 9.74 6.35 6.67
Color (%) 27.02 28.17 26.83 29.93 48.98 36.29 24.45
Female (%) 49.04 50.86 51.56 52.09 53.11 52.24 51.57
Old (65+ years) 10.23 10.41 12.71 13.41 13.16 12.90 14.13
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 8.76 8.11 7.87 7.74 8.05 7.92 7.60
(%)
Native-born (%) 96.97 94.23 94.74 93.64 92.73 93.58 89.92
Renter housing 24.46 27.99 26.58 28.85 33.17 30.01 28.20
units (%)
College degree 16.76 19.63 26.79 23.51 28.99 25.69 26.70
or higher (%)
Unemployment 5.18 5.40 6.40 6.42 8.79 7.15 5.20
(%)
Poverty (%) 10.07 9.25 9.47 11.89 18.25 13.58 8.93
Mean household 69,448 69,565 80,882 69,965 73,920 73,254 78,004
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 47,275 410,475 764,726 1,552,122 1,553,871 4,328,469 23,583,514
White 34,531 280,389 572,330 1,048,911 823,884 2,760,045 17,796,704
Black 10,020 93,492 134,705 366,094 517,310 1,121,621 3,252,160
Asian 914 14,162 20,355 73,125 72,830 181,386 1,190,074
Native American 167 1,858 2,448 2,724 3,875 11,072 46,105
Others 1,643 20,574 34,888 61,268 135,972 254,345 1,298,472
Hispanic 2,217 41,275 68,759 79,979 195,236 387,466 2,234,079
Color 13,744 155,999 235,078 543,170 799,515 1,747,506 6,992,336
White (%) 73.04 68.31 74.84 67.58 53.02 63.76 75.46
Black (%) 21.20 22.78 17.61 23.59 33.29 25.91 13.79
Asian (%) 1.93 3.45 2.66 4.71 4.69 4.19 5.05
Native American 0.35 0.45 0.32 0.18 0.25 0.26 0.20
(%)
Others (%) 3.48 5.01 4.56 3.95 8.75 5.88 5.51
Hispanic (%) 4.69 10.06 8.99 5.15 12.56 8.95 9.47
Color (%) 29.07 38.00 30.74 35.00 51.45 40.37 29.65
Female (%) 47.94 51.07 51.55 51.72 52.85 52.00 51.29
Old (65+ years) 10.70 10.79 13.20 12.63 12.80 12.60 14.15
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 6.41 6.82 6.37 6.28 6.53 6.44 6.01
(%)
Native-born (%) 95.99 90.42 92.72 91.53 90.63 91.36 87.59
(continued)
278 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.35 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing 16.46 26.81 24.89 28.84 33.46 29.60 26.88
units (%)
College degree 22.34 22.74 30.14 28.50 33.80 30.08 31.01
or higher (%)
Unemployment 9.13 7.72 7.72 8.49 9.83 8.75 7.03
(%)
Poverty (%) 7.68 11.19 10.85 12.76 19.43 14.62 9.78
Mean household 80,515 69,550 83,926 73,432 75,908 75,893 81,020
income ($)
Index 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

B.36 Indian Point Nuclear Generating, New York

See Fig. B.36.

See Table B.36.

Fig. B.36 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Indian Point
Nuclear Generating, New York, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 279

Table B.36 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Indian Point
Nuclear Generating, New York, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 55 187 596 1,252 1,670 3,760 4,002
Tract area (sq. 292 1,005 1,487 1,919 1,107 5,810 63,011
mile)
Total population 229,882 749,366 2,453,297 4,911,005 5,442,748 13,786,298 15,221,250
White 201,501 647,849 1,855,732 3,162,924 3,096,381 8,964,387 13,431,768
Black 16,429 64,693 368,460 861,202 1,657,783 2,968,567 1,200,971
Asian 5,847 23,174 91,373 317,468 303,274 741,136 266,893
Native American 425 1,661 4,420 12,869 13,867 33,242 47,283
Others 5,669 11,994 133,340 556,475 371,457 1,078,935 274,366
Hispanic 18,731 43,014 324,710 1,214,297 825,975 2,426,727 648,859
Color 39,637 129,807 757,725 2,266,527 2,700,268 5,893,964 2,127,483
White (%) 87.65 86.45 75.64 64.40 56.89 65.02 88.24
Black (%) 7.15 8.63 15.02 17.54 30.46 21.53 7.89
Asian (%) 2.54 3.09 3.72 6.46 5.57 5.38 1.75
Native American 0.18 0.22 0.18 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.31
(%)
Others (%) 2.47 1.60 5.44 11.33 6.82 7.83 1.80
Hispanic (%) 8.15 5.74 13.24 24.73 15.18 17.60 4.26
Color (%) 17.24 17.32 30.89 46.15 49.61 42.75 13.98
Female (%) 49.70 51.09 52.43 52.56 52.72 52.48 51.44
Old (65+ years) 10.37 11.00 13.76 13.15 13.02 13.04 13.40
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 8.35 8.53 8.11 7.60 8.36 8.05 8.44
(%)
Native-born (%) 89.09 87.42 81.67 74.57 76.13 77.39 93.56
Renter housing 25.75 26.01 41.22 60.66 53.40 52.34 28.04
units (%)
Education (%) 32.51 34.60 29.01 28.94 20.61 26.10 22.16
Unemployment 3.96 4.35 5.61 7.72 8.14 7.23 5.62
(%)
Poverty (%) 5.02 6.38 7.89 16.16 15.07 13.55 8.41
Mean household 103,352 113,938 97,399 82,528 70,724 82,538 72,323
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 242,165 826,902 2,627,286 5,352,294 5,845,359 14,894,006 15,902,366
White 196,235 673,908 1,759,588 3,040,855 2,825,575 8,496,161 13,272,190
Black 17,902 70,385 410,274 800,710 1,750,064 3,049,335 1,370,075
Asian 8,780 34,826 130,263 500,998 486,427 1,161,294 459,169
Native American 431 2,370 7,084 23,711 18,208 51,804 54,916
Others 18,804 45,422 320,086 985,956 765,109 2,135,377 746,051
Hispanic 30,788 77,568 495,739 1,592,978 1,054,119 3,251,192 1,048,920
Color 61,284 195,385 1,073,881 2,944,270 3,443,913 7,718,733 3,123,957
White (%) 81.03 81.50 66.97 56.81 48.34 57.04 83.46
(continued)
280 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.36 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 7.39 8.51 15.62 14.96 29.94 20.47 8.62
Asian (%) 3.63 4.21 4.96 9.36 8.32 7.80 2.89
Native American 0.18 0.29 0.27 0.44 0.31 0.35 0.35
(%)
Others (%) 7.76 5.49 12.18 18.42 13.09 14.34 4.69
Hispanic (%) 12.71 9.38 18.87 29.76 18.03 21.83 6.60
Color (%) 25.31 23.63 40.87 55.01 58.92 51.82 19.64
Female (%) 50.78 50.92 52.31 52.01 52.58 52.20 51.32
Old (65+ years) 11.52 11.93 13.10 12.21 12.12 12.31 13.84
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 8.73 8.92 8.43 7.62 8.39 8.16 7.68
(%)
Native-born (%) 85.06 84.71 76.46 68.28 68.34 70.93 91.29
Renter housing 25.56 26.47 41.05 60.63 53.30 52.23 27.18
units (%)
College degree or 38.04 39.90 33.57 33.57 25.04 30.72 26.40
higher (%)
Unemployment 3.56 4.01 5.68 8.10 8.42 7.47 5.67
(%)
Poverty (%) 6.01 7.92 10.23 17.31 17.28 15.35 9.17
Mean household 109,993 123,688 103,111 89,616 74,011 88,163 77,552
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 253,977 866,039 2,685,808 5,416,986 5,895,371 15,118,181 16,378,985
White 196,989 679,057 1,697,802 2,981,212 2,799,672 8,354,732 13,279,606
Black 21,031 75,492 428,486 765,664 1,716,532 3,007,205 1,502,391
Asian 12,594 45,390 166,660 646,636 662,158 1,533,438 695,603
Native American 261 1,937 5,135 17,716 16,853 41,902 52,616
Others 23,102 64,163 387,725 1,005,758 700,156 2,180,904 848,769
Hispanic 48,788 114,365 622,117 1,732,926 1,182,057 3,700,253 1,503,914
Color 83,856 244,517 1,238,828 3,138,954 3,625,473 8,331,628 3,940,985
White (%) 77.56 78.41 63.21 55.03 47.49 55.26 81.08
Black (%) 8.28 8.72 15.95 14.13 29.12 19.89 9.17
Asian (%) 4.96 5.24 6.21 11.94 11.23 10.14 4.25
Native American 0.10 0.22 0.19 0.33 0.29 0.28 0.32
(%)
Others (%) 9.10 7.41 14.44 18.57 11.88 14.43 5.18
Hispanic (%) 19.21 13.21 23.16 31.99 20.05 24.48 9.18
Color (%) 33.02 28.23 46.12 57.95 61.50 55.11 24.06
Female (%) 49.24 51.22 51.94 51.90 52.29 51.98 51.10
Old (65+ years) 12.80 13.01 13.16 12.55 12.00 12.47 14.14
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 5.96 6.82 6.38 6.07 6.62 6.38 5.78
(%)
Native-born (%) 80.58 82.49 74.88 66.85 66.66 69.33 89.09
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 281

Table B.36 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing 22.67 24.79 38.10 56.15 49.51 48.41 25.33
units (%)
College degree or 40.49 43.98 37.58 39.18 30.93 36.01 30.52
higher (%)
Unemployment 6.00 5.55 7.45 8.29 8.35 7.97 7.26
(%)
Poverty (%) 7.08 8.73 10.30 16.31 15.63 14.39 10.14
Mean household 111,702 124,939 105,091 93,828 78,343 91,901 79,841
income ($)
Index 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

B.37 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant,

New York

See Fig. B.37.

See Table B.37.

Fig. B.37 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, New York, in 2010
282 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.37 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from James A.

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, New York, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 9 16 31 115 41 212 4,707
Tract area (sq. 374 658 1,451 1,844 611 4,938 49,616
mile)
Total population 30,260 66,188 121,603 397,569 141,586 757,206 17,233,108
White 29,760 65,244 118,190 349,634 135,091 697,919 12,699,958
Black 182 324 1,734 36,763 4,012 43,015 2,817,577
Asian 173 284 727 5,582 1,156 7,922 681,344
Native American 98 223 697 2,909 811 4,738 54,341
Others 47 116 267 2,675 516 3,621 979,897
Hispanic 320 437 1,092 6,065 1,427 9,341 2,142,401
Color 752 1,244 4,254 50,977 7,298 64,525 5,436,296
White (%) 98.35 98.57 97.19 87.94 95.41 92.17 73.70
Black (%) 0.60 0.49 1.43 9.25 2.83 5.68 16.35
Asian (%) 0.57 0.43 0.60 1.40 0.82 1.05 3.95
Native American 0.32 0.34 0.57 0.73 0.57 0.63 0.32
(%)
Others (%) 0.16 0.18 0.22 0.67 0.36 0.48 5.69
Hispanic (%) 1.06 0.66 0.90 1.53 1.01 1.23 12.43
Color (%) 2.49 1.88 3.50 12.82 5.15 8.52 31.55
Female (%) 51.89 50.95 50.41 52.01 51.72 51.60 52.13
Old (65+ years) 13.44 10.16 8.18 13.63 15.21 12.74 13.15
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.02 9.31 10.34 8.74 8.96 9.10 8.27
Native-born (%) 98.06 98.16 97.66 95.39 96.53 96.32 83.61
Renter housing 32.65 22.43 16.31 36.40 29.72 30.59 44.51
units (%)
Education (%) 18.41 11.65 19.08 20.18 23.84 19.97 23.26
Unemployment 7.87 8.75 4.90 6.31 6.16 6.30 6.91
(%)
Poverty (%) 15.38 11.02 6.25 12.47 8.88 10.76 13.13
Mean household 53,774 55,410 65,701 55,782 65,934 59,114 73,010
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 29,878 66,826 130,812 374,975 143,031 745,522 18,230,936
White 28,683 64,949 124,952 311,921 130,787 661,292 12,229,826
Black 113 435 2,081 39,869 4,994 47,492 2,938,750
Asian 304 157 965 7,671 2,275 11,372 1,040,954
Native American 102 216 626 2,601 1,666 5,211 74,103
Others 676 1,076 2,202 12,907 3,309 20,170 1,947,287
Hispanic 620 655 1,378 10,565 2,278 15,496 2,849,520
Color 1,461 2,211 6,599 67,432 13,319 91,022 7,123,756
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 283

Table B.37 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 96.00 97.19 95.52 83.18 91.44 88.70 67.08
Black (%) 0.38 0.65 1.59 10.63 3.49 6.37 16.12
Asian (%) 1.02 0.23 0.74 2.05 1.59 1.53 5.71
Native American 0.34 0.32 0.48 0.69 1.16 0.70 0.41
(%)
Others (%) 2.26 1.61 1.68 3.44 2.31 2.71 10.68
Hispanic (%) 2.08 0.98 1.05 2.82 1.59 2.08 15.63
Color (%) 4.89 3.31 5.04 17.98 9.31 12.21 39.08
Female (%) 51.69 50.72 50.64 52.02 51.46 51.54 51.88
Old (65+ years) 13.77 10.75 9.83 14.45 15.84 13.55 12.89
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.95 7.80 8.21 7.69 7.54 7.73 7.87
Native-born (%) 97.77 98.69 97.27 94.51 95.75 95.74 78.96
Renter housing 33.73 21.30 16.77 35.22 28.94 29.56 43.81
units (%)
College degree or 18.46 13.14 23.36 22.55 28.79 22.98 27.55
higher (%)
Unemployment 8.35 10.96 4.62 6.22 5.12 6.22 7.13
(%)
Poverty (%) 18.77 12.97 7.24 14.90 9.98 12.57 14.67
Mean household 53,246 56,785 69,001 58,249 69,951 61,978 77,711
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 29,580 66,955 132,151 373,620 145,161 747,467 18,482,284
White 28,357 64,615 125,152 301,879 131,131 651,134 12,113,268
Black 388 648 2,561 45,876 6,166 55,639 2,934,952
Asian 422 328 1,823 10,353 2,967 15,893 1,381,821
Native American 69 109 452 2,412 1,063 4,105 62,771
Others 344 1,255 2,163 13,100 3,834 20,696 1,989,473
Hispanic 943 1,259 2,084 16,013 3,450 23,749 3,265,131
Color 1,925 3,040 8,339 81,394 15,808 110,506 7,744,309
White (%) 95.87 96.51 94.70 80.80 90.33 87.11 65.54
Black (%) 1.31 0.97 1.94 12.28 4.25 7.44 15.88
Asian (%) 1.43 0.49 1.38 2.77 2.04 2.13 7.48
Native American 0.23 0.16 0.34 0.65 0.73 0.55 0.34
(%)
Others (%) 1.16 1.87 1.64 3.51 2.64 2.77 10.76
Hispanic (%) 3.19 1.88 1.58 4.29 2.38 3.18 17.67
Color (%) 6.51 4.54 6.31 21.79 10.89 14.78 41.90
Female (%) 51.59 49.71 50.61 51.56 50.77 51.07 51.66
Old (65+ years) 13.17 11.83 11.48 14.18 15.70 13.75 13.27
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.31 5.77 5.78 6.02 5.63 5.85 6.03
(continued)
284 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.37 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 97.69 97.92 96.69 93.30 95.70 94.95 77.59
Renter housing 31.23 21.20 17.05 33.76 27.97 28.56 40.60
units (%)
College degree or 20.37 14.46 26.79 25.86 31.07 25.90 32.38
higher (%)
Unemployment 10.42 10.16 6.12 7.49 6.17 7.32 7.53
(%)
Poverty (%) 18.87 15.70 7.50 16.67 11.47 13.99 14.17
Mean household 56,009 56,240 71,278 57,132 70,169 62,051 81,148
income ($)
Index 37 37 37 37 37 37 37

B.38 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, New York

See Fig. B.38.

See Table B.38.

Fig. B.38 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, New York, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 285

Table B.38 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, New York, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 9 16 32 112 42 211 4,708
Tract area (sq. 374 658 1,480 1,810 585 4,908 49,647
mile)
Total population 30,260 66,188 125,097 383,940 148,776 754,261 17,236,052
White 29,760 65,244 121,632 336,899 141,450 694,985 12,702,892
Black 182 324 1,758 36,190 4,561 43,015 2,817,577
Asian 173 284 745 5,433 1,287 7,922 681,344
Native American 98 223 697 2,852 857 4,727 54,352
Others 47 116 274 2,563 621 3,621 979,897
Hispanic 320 437 1,138 5,810 1,636 9,341 2,142,401
Color 752 1,244 4,353 49,941 8,224 64,514 5,436,307
White (%) 98.35 98.57 97.23 87.75 95.08 92.14 73.70
Black (%) 0.60 0.49 1.41 9.43 3.07 5.70 16.35
Asian (%) 0.57 0.43 0.60 1.42 0.87 1.05 3.95
Native American 0.32 0.34 0.56 0.74 0.58 0.63 0.32
(%)
Others (%) 0.16 0.18 0.22 0.67 0.42 0.48 5.69
Hispanic (%) 1.06 0.66 0.91 1.51 1.10 1.24 12.43
Color (%) 2.49 1.88 3.48 13.01 5.53 8.55 31.54
Female (%) 51.89 50.95 50.37 52.06 51.75 51.61 52.13
Old (65+ years) 13.44 10.16 8.16 13.72 15.16 12.76 13.15
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.02 9.31 10.32 8.67 9.08 9.10 8.27
Native-born (%) 98.06 98.16 97.68 95.34 96.48 96.31 83.62
Renter housing 32.65 22.43 16.15 36.40 30.91 30.64 44.51
units (%)
Education (%) 18.41 11.65 19.06 20.20 23.75 19.99 23.26
Unemployment 7.87 8.75 4.94 6.24 6.37 6.30 6.91
(%)
Poverty (%) 15.38 11.02 6.15 12.68 8.91 10.78 13.12
Mean household 53,774 55,410 65,848 55,736 65,074 59,090 73,009
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 29,878 66,826 134,215 362,647 148,811 742,377 18,234,080
White 28,683 64,949 128,308 300,729 135,610 658,279 12,232,839
Black 113 435 2,081 39,364 5,499 47,492 2,938,750
Asian 304 157 965 7,501 2,426 11,353 1,040,973
Native American 102 216 657 2,536 1,661 5,172 74,142
Others 676 1,076 2,217 12,512 3,615 20,096 1,947,361
Hispanic 620 655 1,460 10,141 2,620 15,496 2,849,520
Color 1,461 2,211 6,714 66,060 14,444 90,890 7,123,888
(continued)
286 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.38 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 96.00 97.19 95.60 82.93 91.13 88.67 67.09
Black (%) 0.38 0.65 1.55 10.85 3.70 6.40 16.12
Asian (%) 1.02 0.23 0.72 2.07 1.63 1.53 5.71
Native American 0.34 0.32 0.49 0.70 1.12 0.70 0.41
(%)
Others (%) 2.26 1.61 1.65 3.45 2.43 2.71 10.68
Hispanic (%) 2.08 0.98 1.09 2.80 1.76 2.09 15.63
Color (%) 4.89 3.31 5.00 18.22 9.71 12.24 39.07
Female (%) 51.69 50.72 50.59 52.07 51.48 51.55 51.88
Old (65+ years) 13.77 10.75 9.85 14.52 15.83 13.57 12.89
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.95 7.80 8.16 7.67 7.62 7.73 7.87
Native-born (%) 97.77 98.69 97.29 94.45 95.68 95.73 78.96
Renter housing 33.73 21.30 16.62 35.19 30.10 29.60 43.80
units (%)
College degree or 18.46 13.14 23.27 22.65 28.37 22.97 27.55
higher (%)
Unemployment 8.35 10.96 4.57 6.21 5.23 6.22 7.13
(%)
Poverty (%) 18.77 12.97 7.13 15.06 10.23 12.59 14.67
Mean household 53,246 56,785 69,176 58,246 68,871 61,943 77,710
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 29,580 66,955 135,763 361,573 150,396 744,267 18,485,484
White 28,357 64,615 128,594 291,435 134,984 647,985 12,116,417
Black 388 648 2,571 45,191 6,841 55,639 2,934,952
Asian 422 328 1,906 10,037 3,192 15,885 1,381,829
Native American 69 109 460 2,398 1,069 4,105 62,771
Others 344 1,255 2,232 12,512 4,310 20,653 1,989,516
Hispanic 943 1,259 2,216 15,455 3,825 23,698 3,265,182
Color 1,925 3,040 8,621 79,584 17,249 110,419 7,744,396
White (%) 95.87 96.51 94.72 80.60 89.75 87.06 65.55
Black (%) 1.31 0.97 1.89 12.50 4.55 7.48 15.88
Asian (%) 1.43 0.49 1.40 2.78 2.12 2.13 7.48
Native American 0.23 0.16 0.34 0.66 0.71 0.55 0.34
(%)
Others (%) 1.16 1.87 1.64 3.46 2.87 2.77 10.76
Hispanic (%) 3.19 1.88 1.63 4.27 2.54 3.18 17.66
Color (%) 6.51 4.54 6.35 22.01 11.47 14.84 41.89
Female (%) 51.59 49.71 50.57 51.64 50.72 51.08 51.66
Old (65+ years) 13.17 11.83 11.49 14.31 15.44 13.76 13.27
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.31 5.77 5.78 5.96 5.85 5.86 6.03
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 287

Table B.38 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 97.69 97.92 96.67 93.26 95.52 94.93 77.59
Renter housing 31.23 21.20 16.92 33.81 28.86 28.61 40.60
units (%)
College degree or 20.37 14.46 26.67 25.89 31.17 25.94 32.37
higher (%)
Unemployment 10.42 10.16 6.03 7.54 6.32 7.34 7.53
(%)
Poverty (%) 18.87 15.70 7.46 16.90 11.66 14.04 14.17
Mean household 56,009 56,240 71,360 56,980 69,449 62,017 81,146
income ($)
Index 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

B.39 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, New York

See Fig. B.39.

See Table B.39.

Fig. B.39 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding R.E. Ginna
Nuclear Power Plant, New York, in 2010
288 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.39 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from R.E. Ginna
Nuclear Power Plant, New York, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 13 155 56 32 8 264 4,655
Tract area (sq. 139 1,264 1,527 1,098 487 4,515 50,040
mile)
Total population 49,871 556,467 228,991 118,552 33,211 987,092 17,003,222
White 48,507 453,285 217,993 114,729 32,176 866,690 12,531,187
Black 775 79,475 6,728 2,424 580 89,982 2,770,610
Asian 427 9,263 2,686 545 233 13,154 676,112
Native American 58 1,487 559 333 100 2,537 56,542
Others 100 12,965 1,019 528 125 14,737 968,781
Hispanic 495 22,563 3,434 1,245 380 28,117 2,123,625
Color 1,761 111,830 13,313 4,547 1,281 132,732 5,368,089
White (%) 97.26 81.46 95.20 96.78 96.88 87.80 73.70
Black (%) 1.55 14.28 2.94 2.04 1.75 9.12 16.29
Asian (%) 0.86 1.66 1.17 0.46 0.70 1.33 3.98
Native American 0.12 0.27 0.24 0.28 0.30 0.26 0.33
(%)
Others (%) 0.20 2.33 0.44 0.45 0.38 1.49 5.70
Hispanic (%) 0.99 4.05 1.50 1.05 1.14 2.85 12.49
Color (%) 3.53 20.10 5.81 3.84 3.86 13.45 31.57
Female (%) 50.81 52.53 50.40 50.91 52.35 51.75 52.13
Old (65+ years) 9.49 13.58 10.38 11.99 11.45 12.37 13.18
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 9.31 9.32 8.71 9.03 8.11 9.11 8.26
(%)
Native-born (%) 96.40 93.56 95.59 97.64 98.22 94.82 83.53
Renter housing 19.90 35.84 22.77 22.21 23.47 30.26 44.70
units (%)
Education (%) 25.81 26.05 20.54 18.58 18.29 23.68 23.10
Unemployment 3.98 5.60 4.02 5.28 5.91 5.11 6.99
(%)
Poverty (%) 3.47 12.09 6.03 8.52 13.64 9.86 13.21
Mean household 79,631 65,307 71,841 61,174 54,589 66,637 72,765
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 59,508 555,306 250,746 121,854 32,772 1,020,186 17,956,272
White 56,473 416,290 231,935 115,490 31,269 851,457 12,039,661
Black 1,037 92,335 8,160 2,772 475 104,779 2,881,463
Asian 823 13,036 4,799 758 468 19,884 1,032,442
Native American 98 1,940 632 361 20 3,051 76,263
Others 1,068 31,716 5,215 2,462 545 41,006 1,926,451
Hispanic 849 35,111 5,051 2,534 507 44,052 2,820,964
Color 3,449 151,307 21,474 7,684 1,751 185,665 7,029,113
White (%) 94.90 74.97 92.50 94.78 95.41 83.46 67.05
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 289

Table B.39 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 1.74 16.63 3.25 2.27 1.45 10.27 16.05
Asian (%) 1.38 2.35 1.91 0.62 1.43 1.95 5.75
Native American 0.16 0.35 0.25 0.30 0.06 0.30 0.42
(%)
Others (%) 1.79 5.71 2.08 2.02 1.66 4.02 10.73
Hispanic (%) 1.43 6.32 2.01 2.08 1.55 4.32 15.71
Color (%) 5.80 27.25 8.56 6.31 5.34 18.20 39.15
Female (%) 50.75 52.25 50.38 51.26 52.10 51.58 51.88
Old (65+ years) 11.45 13.77 11.66 12.62 11.86 12.92 12.91
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 8.11 7.90 7.25 7.19 6.33 7.62 7.88
(%)
Native-born (%) 94.77 92.55 95.02 97.67 97.43 94.05 78.80
Renter housing 19.43 35.73 22.67 21.65 22.63 29.80 43.98
units (%)
College degree 31.72 30.25 26.07 22.58 20.08 28.13 27.33
or higher (%)
Unemployment 3.62 6.13 5.26 6.00 6.26 5.74 7.18
(%)
Poverty (%) 4.05 13.35 6.20 8.48 14.11 10.49 14.82
Mean household 82,529 67,914 75,301 64,752 60,079 69,874 77,488
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 65,466 547,508 262,996 123,563 35,681 1,035,214 18,194,538
White 61,862 401,996 237,087 116,892 33,023 850,860 11,913,542
Black 1,433 99,888 12,574 2,595 1,507 117,997 2,872,594
Asian 1,179 16,782 6,640 1,196 406 26,203 1,371,511
Native American 92 1,520 470 342 144 2,568 64,308
Others 900 27,322 6,225 2,538 601 37,586 1,972,583
Hispanic 1,293 44,871 8,011 3,615 1,118 58,908 3,229,972
Color 4,529 169,549 31,091 8,863 3,396 217,428 7,637,387
White (%) 94.49 73.42 90.15 94.60 92.55 82.19 65.48
Black (%) 2.19 18.24 4.78 2.10 4.22 11.40 15.79
Asian (%) 1.80 3.07 2.52 0.97 1.14 2.53 7.54
Native American 0.14 0.28 0.18 0.28 0.40 0.25 0.35
(%)
Others (%) 1.37 4.99 2.37 2.05 1.68 3.63 10.84
Hispanic (%) 1.98 8.20 3.05 2.93 3.13 5.69 17.75
Color (%) 6.92 30.97 11.82 7.17 9.52 21.00 41.98
Female (%) 50.51 52.31 50.36 51.12 49.08 51.45 51.64
Old (65+ years) 14.00 13.97 13.22 14.46 11.81 13.77 13.26
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 5.36 5.97 5.67 5.39 4.68 5.74 6.04
(%)
Native-born (%) 93.10 91.85 93.69 97.33 97.50 93.24 77.41
(continued)
290 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.39 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing 19.54 33.34 21.37 20.20 19.09 27.68 40.83
units (%)
College degree 35.17 33.70 31.19 26.37 22.13 31.92 32.14
or higher (%)
Unemployment 4.07 7.74 6.47 5.76 6.23 6.87 7.56
(%)
Poverty (%) 4.86 16.57 7.72 10.54 15.99 12.84 14.24
Mean household 78,783 62,564 73,457 64,045 57,958 66,241 81,212
income ($)
Index 39 39 39 39 39 39 39

B.40 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, North Carolina

See Fig. B.40.

See Table B.40.

Fig. B.40 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, North Carolina, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 291

Table B.40 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Brunswick

Steam Electric Plant, North Carolina, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 11 31 34 24 8 108 3,190
Tract area (sq. mile) 160 579 625 912 764 3,040 82,799
Total population 13,649 71,422 83,925 41,652 21,689 232,337 9,882,965
White 12,374 59,685 62,338 30,490 11,682 176,569 7,242,354
Black 1,181 10,966 20,729 9,920 9,356 52,152 2,443,188
Asian 13 351 289 60 9 722 70,966
Native American 51 310 443 1,037 599 2,440 89,099
Others 29 109 125 145 44 452 37,369
Hispanic 58 450 545 268 94 1,415 95,933
Color 1,315 12,067 21,895 11,254 10,037 56,568 2,689,528
White (%) 90.66 83.57 74.28 73.20 53.86 76.00 73.28
Black (%) 8.65 15.35 24.70 23.82 43.14 22.45 24.72
Asian (%) 0.10 0.49 0.34 0.14 0.04 0.31 0.72
Native American 0.37 0.43 0.53 2.49 2.76 1.05 0.90
(%)
Others (%) 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.20 0.19 0.38
Hispanic (%) 0.42 0.63 0.65 0.64 0.43 0.61 0.97
Color (%) 9.63 16.90 26.09 27.02 46.28 24.35 27.21
Female (%) 51.27 52.68 51.95 51.62 52.47 52.13 51.57
Old (65+ years) (%) 17.20 12.66 12.45 15.54 14.72 13.56 11.80
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.49 7.77 7.40 7.41 7.36 7.46 8.44
Native-born (%) 98.35 98.34 98.97 98.68 99.67 98.75 98.36
Renter housing 13.29 22.94 26.29 12.04 14.54 20.28 28.16
units (%)
Education (%) 13.63 19.51 17.46 14.26 8.75 16.47 17.15
Unemployment (%) 7.04 5.45 5.62 6.33 5.94 5.79 5.04
Poverty (%) 12.29 13.54 15.71 16.58 22.30 15.61 13.76
Mean household 52,717 58,299 50,771 50,726 40,276 52,330 54,044
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 18,639 98,916 112,072 60,380 26,766 316,773 11,744,552
White 17,173 83,477 84,383 46,394 14,776 246,203 8,251,640
Black 1,113 12,313 23,379 10,865 10,265 57,935 2,858,946
Asian 69 778 772 181 78 1,878 151,002
Native American 31 498 722 1,244 808 3,303 112,341
Others 232 1,858 2,826 1,683 848 7,447 370,630
Hispanic 187 1,928 3,272 2,003 709 8,099 457,693
Color 1,561 16,548 29,063 14,610 12,129 73,911 3,684,060
White (%) 92.13 84.39 75.29 76.84 55.20 77.72 70.26
(continued)
292 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.40 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 5.97 12.45 20.86 17.99 38.35 18.29 24.34
Asian (%) 0.37 0.79 0.69 0.30 0.29 0.59 1.29
Native American 0.17 0.50 0.64 2.06 3.02 1.04 0.96
(%)
Others (%) 1.24 1.88 2.52 2.79 3.17 2.35 3.16
Hispanic (%) 1.00 1.95 2.92 3.32 2.65 2.56 3.90
Color (%) 8.37 16.73 25.93 24.20 45.31 23.33 31.37
Female (%) 51.54 51.84 51.08 51.40 50.95 51.40 51.18
Old (65+ years) (%) 18.03 14.24 12.30 17.65 13.94 14.40 12.01
Kid (<5 years) (%) 4.59 7.33 7.06 6.49 7.76 6.95 8.00
Native-born (%) 98.01 97.01 96.58 96.15 97.95 96.83 95.44
Renter housing 12.78 21.30 26.63 12.24 15.03 20.04 26.48
units (%)
College degree or 22.17 27.64 25.68 16.26 10.09 22.90 21.76
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.33 4.74 6.23 4.91 6.89 5.40 5.50
Poverty (%) 8.95 11.14 15.32 12.67 19.91 13.49 12.87
Mean household 64,696 67,610 61,352 59,324 45,142 61,885 62,663
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 28,812 125,531 138,154 80,437 29,461 402,395 13,380,211
White 26,509 102,598 106,478 64,888 17,535 318,008 9,169,719
Black 1,555 15,090 24,132 11,315 10,110 62,202 3,188,224
Asian 217 1,059 1,798 364 21 3,459 253,045
Native American 58 463 603 1,476 985 3,585 116,536
Others 473 6,321 5,143 2,394 810 15,141 652,687
Hispanic 569 6,224 7,265 3,220 1,472 18,750 913,412
Color 2,654 24,976 35,797 17,101 12,667 93,195 4,652,672
White (%) 92.01 81.73 77.07 80.67 59.52 79.03 68.53
Black (%) 5.40 12.02 17.47 14.07 34.32 15.46 23.83
Asian (%) 0.75 0.84 1.30 0.45 0.07 0.86 1.89
Native American 0.20 0.37 0.44 1.83 3.34 0.89 0.87
(%)
Others (%) 1.64 5.04 3.72 2.98 2.75 3.76 4.88
Hispanic (%) 1.97 4.96 5.26 4.00 5.00 4.66 6.83
Color (%) 9.21 19.90 25.91 21.26 43.00 23.16 34.77
Female (%) 51.18 52.03 51.05 51.58 50.18 51.41 51.28
Old (65+ years) (%) 22.83 14.59 13.85 20.45 15.15 16.14 12.69
Kid (<5 years) (%) 3.56 6.64 5.28 5.43 4.93 5.58 6.69
Native-born (%) 96.52 95.44 94.66 96.38 96.79 95.54 93.44
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 293

Table B.40 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing 13.37 24.92 28.60 12.31 15.96 21.30 26.84
units (%)
College degree or 33.08 32.83 30.26 21.31 13.64 28.17 25.31
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 8.14 7.91 8.66 7.98 10.14 8.35 8.93
Poverty (%) 10.50 13.02 17.63 11.55 20.53 14.64 15.85
Mean household 68,524 70,118 60,215 59,789 48,173 63,017 60,785
income ($)
Index 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

B.41 McGuire Nuclear Station, North Carolina

See Fig. B.41.

See Table B.41.

Fig. B.41 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding McGuire
Nuclear Station, North Carolina, in 2010
294 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.41 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from McGuire

Nuclear Station, North Carolina, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 47 219 186 125 36 613 2,685
Tract area (sq. 322 923 1,573 2,057 1,491 6,366 79,474
mile)
Total population 61,535 546,470 508,186 391,233 128,988 1,636,412 8,478,890
White 54,050 391,448 442,955 327,287 113,863 1,329,603 6,089,320
Black 6,764 146,100 56,574 60,356 14,070 283,864 2,211,476
Asian 304 5,103 5,588 1,570 278 12,843 58,845
Native American 319 1,984 1,626 1,319 489 5,737 85,802
Others 93 1,832 1,463 696 292 4,376 33,445
Hispanic 352 4,844 4,341 2,107 747 12,391 84,957
Color 7,756 157,703 67,988 65,125 15,503 314,075 2,432,021
White (%) 87.84 71.63 87.16 83.66 88.27 81.25 71.82
Black (%) 10.99 26.74 11.13 15.43 10.91 17.35 26.08
Asian (%) 0.49 0.93 1.10 0.40 0.22 0.78 0.69
Native American 0.52 0.36 0.32 0.34 0.38 0.35 1.01
(%)
Others (%) 0.15 0.34 0.29 0.18 0.23 0.27 0.39
Hispanic (%) 0.57 0.89 0.85 0.54 0.58 0.76 1.00
Color (%) 12.60 28.86 13.38 16.65 12.02 19.19 28.68
Female (%) 49.99 52.44 51.38 51.63 50.49 51.67 51.57
Old (65+ years) 10.97 12.06 9.92 12.09 11.31 11.30 11.95
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.05 8.56 8.52 8.42 7.76 8.43 8.41
Native-born (%) 98.92 98.03 97.55 99.09 99.33 98.27 98.39
Renter housing 16.31 36.65 25.01 25.94 19.16 28.43 27.82
units (%)
Education (%) 18.96 15.63 22.79 13.64 11.27 17.19 17.12
Unemployment (%) 3.52 4.60 3.30 4.27 3.66 3.99 5.28
Poverty (%) 6.45 12.36 6.40 10.11 9.26 9.49 14.65
Mean household 70,219 54,885 69,750 55,420 54,957 60,197 52,782
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 117,264 661,218 659,306 478,606 156,105 2,072,499 9,988,826
White 102,010 432,402 534,841 389,554 136,304 1,595,111 6,902,732
Black 11,676 183,934 85,412 69,361 15,194 365,577 2,551,304
Asian 1,348 13,363 13,960 5,169 542 34,382 118,498
Native American 507 2,884 2,781 2,671 723 9,566 106,078
Others 1,717 28,642 22,314 11,857 3,342 67,872 310,205
Hispanic 2,503 40,194 30,988 16,073 5,154 94,912 370,880
Color 16,770 246,061 139,643 96,433 22,545 521,452 3,236,519
White (%) 86.99 65.39 81.12 81.39 87.32 76.97 69.10
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 295

Table B.41 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 9.96 27.82 12.95 14.49 9.73 17.64 25.54
Asian (%) 1.15 2.02 2.12 1.08 0.35 1.66 1.19
Native American 0.43 0.44 0.42 0.56 0.46 0.46 1.06
(%)
Others (%) 1.46 4.33 3.38 2.48 2.14 3.27 3.11
Hispanic (%) 2.13 6.08 4.70 3.36 3.30 4.58 3.71
Color (%) 14.30 37.21 21.18 20.15 14.44 25.16 32.40
Female (%) 50.20 51.00 50.92 51.12 50.45 50.92 51.24
Old (65+ years) 8.66 10.70 10.37 11.86 11.74 10.82 12.33
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.01 8.30 8.39 8.35 7.98 8.36 7.90
Native-born (%) 96.60 92.40 93.26 96.41 96.99 94.18 95.74
Renter housing 15.74 35.67 25.32 24.94 18.28 27.53 26.02
units (%)
College degree or 35.59 21.72 28.59 17.32 13.10 23.07 21.52
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.50 5.96 3.90 5.20 4.51 4.87 5.64
Poverty (%) 4.39 11.67 7.54 10.34 9.46 9.46 13.61
Mean household 97,183 64,982 80,572 63,591 61,406 71,160 60,881
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 188,937 782,274 784,185 585,783 176,671 2,517,850 11,264,756
White 145,604 479,941 601,362 467,712 151,042 1,845,661 7,642,066
Black 31,770 226,337 112,315 86,475 16,981 473,878 2,776,548
Asian 4,590 25,249 25,830 8,565 1,088 65,322 191,182
Native American 809 2,556 3,198 2,258 580 9,401 110,720
Others 6,164 48,191 41,480 20,773 6,980 123,588 544,240
Hispanic 9,622 79,836 70,926 33,962 9,135 203,481 728,681
Color 48,726 343,042 223,401 138,425 29,987 783,581 3,962,286
White (%) 77.06 61.35 76.69 79.84 85.49 73.30 67.84
Black (%) 16.82 28.93 14.32 14.76 9.61 18.82 24.65
Asian (%) 2.43 3.23 3.29 1.46 0.62 2.59 1.70
Native American 0.43 0.33 0.41 0.39 0.33 0.37 0.98
(%)
Others (%) 3.26 6.16 5.29 3.55 3.95 4.91 4.83
Hispanic (%) 5.09 10.21 9.04 5.80 5.17 8.08 6.47
Color (%) 25.79 43.85 28.49 23.63 16.97 31.12 35.17
Female (%) 50.98 51.39 51.31 50.98 51.63 51.26 51.28
Old (65+ years) 8.43 10.36 11.16 12.09 14.15 11.13 13.16
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.43 7.24 6.86 7.02 6.27 7.01 6.58
Native-born (%) 93.27 89.71 90.39 94.87 96.37 91.86 93.87
(continued)
296 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.41 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing 18.22 33.98 26.16 23.46 18.13 26.90 26.57
units (%)
College degree or 41.75 25.94 31.32 22.69 16.84 27.42 24.95
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.40 10.78 8.05 9.15 8.82 9.08 8.87
Poverty (%) 7.00 15.92 11.07 13.90 14.03 13.13 16.43
Mean household 93,371 62,194 74,370 64,032 57,552 68,424 59,192
income ($)
Index 41 41 41 41 41 41 41

B.42 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, North

Carolina

See Fig. B.42.

See Table B.42.

Fig. B.42 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Shearon Harris
Nuclear Power Plant, North Carolina, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 297

Table B.42 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Shearon Harris
Nuclear Power Plant, North Carolina, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 19 111 176 102 78 486 1,709
Tract area (sq. mile) 272 954 1,727 1,866 1,399 6,217 47,602
Total population 24,724 249,080 499,206 346,954 273,388 1,393,352 5,235,264
White 18,076 195,649 357,131 244,455 188,777 1,004,088 4,007,155
Black 6,338 46,154 129,542 91,404 74,580 348,018 1,107,321
Asian 137 4,971 8,639 3,861 2,972 20,580 29,811
Native American 64 871 1,691 2,114 4,317 9,057 73,549
Others 116 1,394 2,228 5,122 2,743 11,603 17,442
Hispanic 344 3,538 5,872 9,573 5,928 25,255 43,763
Color 6,832 55,329 145,225 105,925 87,170 400,481 1,250,842
White (%) 73.11 78.55 71.54 70.46 69.05 72.06 76.54
Black (%) 25.64 18.53 25.95 26.34 27.28 24.98 21.15
Asian (%) 0.55 2.00 1.73 1.11 1.09 1.48 0.57
Native American (%) 0.26 0.35 0.34 0.61 1.58 0.65 1.40
Others (%) 0.47 0.56 0.45 1.48 1.00 0.83 0.33
Hispanic (%) 1.39 1.42 1.18 2.76 2.17 1.81 0.84
Color (%) 27.63 22.21 29.09 30.53 31.89 28.74 23.89
Female (%) 51.80 50.51 52.42 49.17 51.82 51.14 51.66
Old (65+ years) (%) 10.86 8.60 9.71 9.54 11.24 9.79 12.72
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.54 7.98 8.30 9.19 9.14 8.65 8.11
Native-born (%) 98.41 95.86 96.36 97.74 97.45 96.86 98.64
Renter housing units 24.64 36.58 38.68 31.79 30.25 34.82 26.99
(%)
Education (%) 20.10 33.01 33.55 16.53 16.11 25.66 15.24
Unemployment (%) 3.26 3.74 3.94 5.42 5.82 4.55 4.86
Poverty (%) 9.70 11.29 11.18 11.46 13.11 11.63 13.32
Mean household 60,506 63,876 64,641 54,434 53,679 59,938 53,138
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 54,745 364,328 656,183 421,566 333,000 1,829,822 6,219,491
White 43,286 274,941 426,252 285,718 210,313 1,240,510 4,561,655
Black 8,362 56,852 172,471 106,660 95,130 439,475 1,294,679
Asian 1,113 14,102 17,636 4,849 5,512 43,212 71,779
Native American 258 1,532 3,128 2,988 4,718 12,624 88,332
Others 1,742 16,830 36,745 21,364 17,311 93,992 203,055
Hispanic 2,056 21,836 46,593 25,944 20,476 116,905 256,059
Color 12,396 98,885 248,860 146,147 130,529 636,817 1,763,543
White (%) 79.07 75.47 64.96 67.78 63.16 67.79 73.34
(continued)
298 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.42 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 15.27 15.60 26.28 25.30 28.57 24.02 20.82
Asian (%) 2.03 3.87 2.69 1.15 1.66 2.36 1.15
Native American (%) 0.47 0.42 0.48 0.71 1.42 0.69 1.42
Others (%) 3.18 4.62 5.60 5.07 5.20 5.14 3.26
Hispanic (%) 3.76 5.99 7.10 6.15 6.15 6.39 4.12
Color (%) 22.64 27.14 37.93 34.67 39.20 34.80 28.36
Female (%) 50.96 49.81 51.45 49.59 51.41 50.67 51.15
Old (65+ years) (%) 7.41 8.26 8.76 10.26 11.55 9.47 12.81
Kid (<5 years) (%) 11.05 7.78 8.30 8.95 8.69 8.50 7.88
Native-born (%) 93.99 90.01 90.01 94.80 94.34 92.02 95.43
Renter housing units 20.04 33.06 35.91 28.83 29.64 32.15 25.89
(%)
College degree or 40.46 42.91 37.96 21.84 19.89 32.03 19.76
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 2.30 5.04 4.31 5.61 5.95 4.94 5.44
Poverty (%) 5.35 9.65 11.58 11.15 12.00 10.99 12.66
Mean household 85,239 81,543 75,356 63,473 61,973 71,827 61,520
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 84,598 469,143 806,279 487,213 374,805 2,222,038 7,049,140
White 64,958 336,291 493,610 324,251 221,779 1,440,889 5,012,838
Black 10,978 69,906 215,284 116,846 108,922 521,936 1,459,006
Asian 3,410 30,026 29,999 8,170 7,002 78,607 121,556
Native American 181 2,072 2,170 2,065 4,280 10,768 95,258
Others 5,071 30,848 65,216 35,881 32,822 169,838 360,482
Hispanic 4,979 42,502 91,906 45,294 35,270 219,951 503,457
Color 21,980 151,942 351,651 182,026 165,707 873,306 2,268,808
White (%) 76.78 71.68 61.22 66.55 59.17 64.85 71.11
Black (%) 12.98 14.90 26.70 23.98 29.06 23.49 20.70
Asian (%) 4.03 6.40 3.72 1.68 1.87 3.54 1.72
Native American (%) 0.21 0.44 0.27 0.42 1.14 0.48 1.35
Others (%) 5.99 6.58 8.09 7.36 8.76 7.64 5.11
Hispanic (%) 5.89 9.06 11.40 9.30 9.41 9.90 7.14
Color (%) 25.98 32.39 43.61 37.36 44.21 39.30 32.19
Female (%) 51.05 50.40 52.12 50.59 51.83 51.33 51.23
Old (65+ years) (%) 7.11 9.26 9.03 11.36 12.31 10.07 13.39
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.72 6.73 7.47 7.67 6.96 7.36 6.50
Native-born (%) 91.73 86.75 87.26 93.20 93.41 89.67 93.57
Renter housing units 18.55 32.27 33.66 28.48 29.89 31.10 26.29
(%)
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 299

Table B.42 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
College degree or 46.34 47.19 40.91 25.98 22.03 35.96 23.11
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.54 6.29 7.21 8.99 9.45 7.64 9.11
Poverty (%) 5.57 10.90 14.03 13.54 16.20 13.30 16.23
Mean household 85,138 81,927 72,288 63,019 57,944 70,362 59,138
income ($)
Index 42 42 42 42 42 42 42

B.43 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Ohio

See Fig. B.43.

See Table B.43.

Fig. B.43 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station, Ohio, in 2010
300 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.43 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Davis-Besse

Nuclear Power Station, Ohio, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 6 27 163 65 102 363 5,402
Tract area (sq. mile) 416 758 1,397 1,146 758 4,476 137,063
Total population 22,999 94,762 586,871 264,486 374,460 1,343,578 18,798,744
White 22,333 90,228 498,548 254,720 339,036 1,204,865 16,079,312
Black 167 2,171 73,677 4,422 27,526 107,963 2,333,273
Asian 64 249 4,603 2,568 3,137 10,621 181,491
Native American 64 132 1,558 711 2,161 4,626 76,625
Others 375 1,974 8,491 2,064 2,600 15,504 128,028
Hispanic 940 4,149 16,610 4,880 9,851 36,430 285,469
Color 1,235 6,727 96,344 12,447 42,568 159,321 2,870,556
White (%) 97.10 95.22 84.95 96.31 90.54 89.68 85.53
Black (%) 0.73 2.29 12.55 1.67 7.35 8.04 12.41
Asian (%) 0.28 0.26 0.78 0.97 0.84 0.79 0.97
Native American (%) 0.28 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.58 0.34 0.41
Others (%) 1.63 2.08 1.45 0.78 0.69 1.15 0.68
Hispanic (%) 4.09 4.38 2.83 1.85 2.63 2.71 1.52
Color (%) 5.37 7.10 16.42 4.71 11.37 11.86 15.27
Female (%) 50.32 51.45 51.98 51.56 51.52 51.70 51.65
Old (65+ years) (%) 13.82 13.77 13.03 10.48 12.07 12.33 12.49
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.67 8.37 9.29 8.40 8.77 8.88 8.87
Native-born (%) 98.87 98.43 97.71 97.85 96.32 97.42 96.91
Renter housing units 17.36 20.40 31.01 26.13 25.38 27.49 28.29
(%)
Education (%) 10.54 11.30 15.38 17.42 9.97 13.84 17.38
Unemployment (%) 8.49 6.99 8.25 6.24 8.09 7.71 7.34
Poverty (%) 7.21 8.36 14.14 9.06 9.90 11.45 12.90
Mean household 58,521 58,550 57,630 66,489 61,610 60,453 60,011
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 23,501 96,100 582,186 284,237 367,992 1,354,016 19,937,568
White 22,792 89,248 470,175 267,834 318,925 1,168,974 16,431,891
Black 69 2,497 82,714 5,523 32,483 123,286 2,566,796
Asian 51 435 5,192 3,268 3,747 12,693 299,572
Native American 80 246 1,687 511 1,827 4,351 83,490
Others 515 3,668 22,421 7,097 11,003 44,704 555,827
Hispanic 951 5,318 23,783 7,336 13,614 51,002 485,047
Color 1,263 9,300 122,576 20,013 57,217 210,369 3,738,808
White (%) 96.98 92.87 80.76 94.23 86.67 86.33 82.42
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 301

Table B.43 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 0.29 2.60 14.21 1.94 8.83 9.11 12.87
Asian (%) 0.22 0.45 0.89 1.15 1.02 0.94 1.50
Native American (%) 0.34 0.26 0.29 0.18 0.50 0.32 0.42
Others (%) 2.19 3.82 3.85 2.50 2.99 3.30 2.79
Hispanic (%) 4.05 5.53 4.09 2.58 3.70 3.77 2.43
Color (%) 5.37 9.68 21.05 7.04 15.55 15.54 18.75
Female (%) 50.77 51.37 51.65 51.07 51.49 51.45 51.22
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.64 15.20 13.44 11.29 13.35 13.11 12.79
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.74 7.27 8.21 7.53 8.15 7.96 8.09
Native-born (%) 98.96 98.36 97.39 97.21 96.40 97.18 95.86
Renter housing units 14.76 19.92 30.25 24.63 22.79 26.03 26.25
(%)
College degree or 13.58 13.90 18.64 21.94 12.33 17.12 21.69
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.99 4.75 5.71 5.15 5.68 5.48 5.34
Poverty (%) 6.70 7.30 12.73 8.01 8.50 10.10 10.60
Mean household 65,801 63,897 62,473 73,446 68,645 66,499 68,575
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 23,312 96,554 562,982 303,934 362,811 1,349,593 20,115,524
White 22,134 89,114 444,314 280,843 300,132 1,136,537 16,357,529
Black 262 2,837 88,499 8,709 40,783 141,090 2,651,766
Asian 127 403 6,293 4,604 5,395 16,822 417,412
Native American 65 200 1,910 666 1,462 4,303 72,984
Others 724 4,000 21,966 9,112 15,039 50,841 615,834
Hispanic 1,146 6,689 28,863 12,381 21,487 70,566 685,865
Color 1,825 11,077 134,953 30,332 74,527 252,714 4,159,412
White (%) 94.95 92.29 78.92 92.40 82.72 84.21 81.32
Black (%) 1.12 2.94 15.72 2.87 11.24 10.45 13.18
Asian (%) 0.54 0.42 1.12 1.51 1.49 1.25 2.08
Native American (%) 0.28 0.21 0.34 0.22 0.40 0.32 0.36
Others (%) 3.11 4.14 3.90 3.00 4.15 3.77 3.06
Hispanic (%) 4.92 6.93 5.13 4.07 5.92 5.23 3.41
Color (%) 7.83 11.47 23.97 9.98 20.54 18.73 20.68
Female (%) 51.08 50.85 51.59 50.72 51.38 51.28 51.07
Old (65+ years) (%) 16.22 16.28 13.28 12.82 13.19 13.42 13.52
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.10 5.95 6.54 5.80 6.15 6.20 6.24
Native-born (%) 98.79 97.71 97.09 96.65 95.63 96.67 95.09
(continued)
302 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.43 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 12.77 18.34 29.35 23.14 22.55 25.08 24.84
(%)
College degree or 15.75 15.67 20.68 24.81 15.14 19.60 24.88
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 8.32 7.89 11.49 9.49 12.38 10.94 9.89
Poverty (%) 9.87 10.16 16.78 10.60 13.40 13.90 14.52
Mean household 59,922 60,610 56,287 69,453 58,802 60,178 63,067
income ($)
Index 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

B.44 Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Ohio

See Fig. B.44.

See Table B.44.

Fig. B.44 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, Ohio, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 303

Table B.44 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, Ohio, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 22 51 120 254 84 531 5,639
Tract area (sq. mile) 141 1,212 2,142 931 479 4,905 85,975
Total population 68,920 199,578 407,025 761,604 328,910 1,766,037 20,962,608
White 66,129 194,305 304,537 487,990 307,495 1,360,456 18,687,648
Black 2,212 3,015 96,726 250,079 16,988 369,020 1,870,760
Asian 143 1,339 4,312 8,066 3,183 17,043 207,277
Native American 198 356 544 1,762 556 3,416 34,879
Others 242 563 910 13,696 693 16,104 162,001
Hispanic 962 1,724 2,813 23,082 2,374 30,955 321,504
Color 3,471 6,511 104,206 282,413 23,219 419,820 2,425,832
White (%) 95.95 97.36 74.82 64.07 93.49 77.03 89.15
Black (%) 3.21 1.51 23.76 32.84 5.16 20.90 8.92
Asian (%) 0.21 0.67 1.06 1.06 0.97 0.97 0.99
Native American 0.29 0.18 0.13 0.23 0.17 0.19 0.17
(%)
Others (%) 0.35 0.28 0.22 1.80 0.21 0.91 0.77
Hispanic (%) 1.40 0.86 0.69 3.03 0.72 1.75 1.53
Color (%) 5.04 3.26 25.60 37.08 7.06 23.77 11.57
Female (%) 50.92 51.52 53.46 52.74 52.01 52.56 51.91
Old (65+ years) (%) 11.25 12.35 16.91 14.04 13.22 14.25 14.24
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.48 8.54 8.13 9.16 7.96 8.64 8.32
Native-born (%) 98.02 97.35 94.02 95.72 95.95 95.64 97.37
Renter housing units 25.14 23.46 32.05 38.98 25.85 32.90 28.07
(%)
Education (%) 13.03 17.24 23.04 15.23 20.23 18.16 17.43
Unemployment (%) 5.80 5.42 6.67 9.75 5.95 7.61 6.16
Poverty (%) 8.58 7.18 10.74 19.59 9.48 13.84 11.63
Mean household 58,729 65,223 67,983 51,882 64,978 59,780 59,105
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 75,998 209,426 400,393 759,545 343,210 1,788,572 21,845,622
White 70,583 201,024 275,267 450,578 313,076 1,310,528 18,816,172
Black 2,332 3,524 112,698 262,807 19,756 401,117 2,098,911
Asian 384 1,570 5,609 12,817 4,551 24,931 330,193
Native American 123 241 420 1,754 546 3,084 43,426
Others 2,583 3,068 6,397 31,578 5,287 48,913 556,919
Hispanic 3,116 2,979 3,923 35,423 3,735 49,176 556,834
Color 6,970 10,121 127,497 322,959 32,580 500,127 3,268,987
White (%) 92.87 95.99 68.75 59.32 91.22 73.27 86.13
(continued)
304 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.44 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 3.07 1.68 28.15 34.60 5.76 22.43 9.61
Asian (%) 0.51 0.75 1.40 1.69 1.33 1.39 1.51
Native American 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.23 0.16 0.17 0.20
(%)
Others (%) 3.40 1.46 1.60 4.16 1.54 2.73 2.55
Hispanic (%) 4.10 1.42 0.98 4.66 1.09 2.75 2.55
Color (%) 9.17 4.83 31.84 42.52 9.49 27.96 14.96
Female (%) 50.59 51.70 53.17 52.34 51.69 52.25 51.55
Old (65+ years) (%) 11.44 14.11 16.89 13.61 14.40 14.47 14.51
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.50 7.29 7.65 8.50 7.39 7.96 7.55
Native-born (%) 96.27 96.88 93.58 95.23 95.84 95.22 96.51
Renter housing units 22.40 21.86 30.32 37.04 24.71 30.94 27.05
(%)
College degree or 16.04 21.34 27.70 20.31 24.95 22.84 21.67
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.30 3.65 5.34 7.63 4.67 5.87 5.28
Poverty (%) 7.50 6.13 10.94 17.57 8.22 12.52 10.65
Mean household 65,424 71,288 72,616 59,867 72,744 66,774 65,640
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 80,167 207,252 374,819 695,322 341,899 1,699,459 22,425,676
White 73,646 196,845 241,739 399,049 305,993 1,217,272 18,841,550
Black 3,453 3,854 119,345 254,470 22,446 403,568 2,334,724
Asian 631 2,218 6,877 15,941 5,675 31,342 492,731
Native American 101 439 462 1,695 524 3,221 37,769
Others 2,336 3,896 6,396 24,167 7,261 44,056 718,903
Hispanic 4,966 4,812 5,677 40,579 5,247 61,281 928,246
Color 10,256 13,741 136,703 320,734 39,218 520,652 4,082,172
White (%) 91.87 94.98 64.49 57.39 89.50 71.63 84.02
Black (%) 4.31 1.86 31.84 36.60 6.57 23.75 10.41
Asian (%) 0.79 1.07 1.83 2.29 1.66 1.84 2.20
Native American 0.13 0.21 0.12 0.24 0.15 0.19 0.17
(%)
Others (%) 2.91 1.88 1.71 3.48 2.12 2.59 3.21
Hispanic (%) 6.19 2.32 1.51 5.84 1.53 3.61 4.14
Color (%) 12.79 6.63 36.47 46.13 11.47 30.64 18.20
Female (%) 49.73 51.71 52.78 52.46 51.21 52.06 51.21
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.00 16.05 16.81 13.87 14.73 14.87 14.53
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.51 5.76 5.70 6.12 5.66 5.91 6.03
Native-born (%) 95.22 96.24 93.96 94.73 95.17 94.86 95.28
Renter housing units 22.95 21.81 29.08 34.67 25.11 29.63 26.39
(%)
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 305

Table B.44 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
College degree or 19.23 24.07 29.83 23.26 28.97 25.78 25.29
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 7.49 6.53 9.03 12.54 8.00 9.82 7.80
Poverty (%) 12.12 9.53 13.72 20.89 12.63 15.85 13.03
Mean household 62,082 66,964 66,200 55,466 66,754 61,796 65,084
income ($)
Index 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

B.45 Beaver Valley Power Station, Pennsylvania

See Fig. B.45.

See Table B.45.

Fig. B.45 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Beaver Valley
Power Station, Pennsylvania, in 2010
306 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.45 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Beaver Valley
Power Station, Pennsylvania, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 33 97 313 269 96 808 5,846
Tract area (sq. 279 963 1,639 1,747 1,019 5,647 109,463
mile)
Total population 119,111 341,379 1,060,141 954,382 349,524 2,824,537 21,697,584
White 111,021 330,728 935,988 853,255 328,368 2,559,360 19,214,768
Black 7,439 8,428 110,586 92,163 18,478 237,094 2,058,081
Asian 226 1,523 10,299 3,687 1,492 17,227 214,602
Native American 203 383 1,490 1,171 484 3,731 37,662
Others 234 279 1,782 4,133 696 7,124 172,432
Hispanic 604 1,485 6,729 8,240 1,658 18,716 341,636
Color 8,506 11,898 128,961 105,646 22,322 277,333 2,641,997
White (%) 93.21 96.88 88.29 89.40 93.95 90.61 88.56
Black (%) 6.25 2.47 10.43 9.66 5.29 8.39 9.49
Asian (%) 0.19 0.45 0.97 0.39 0.43 0.61 0.99
Native American 0.17 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.17
(%)
Others (%) 0.20 0.08 0.17 0.43 0.20 0.25 0.79
Hispanic (%) 0.51 0.44 0.63 0.86 0.47 0.66 1.57
Color (%) 7.14 3.49 12.16 11.07 6.39 9.82 12.18
Female (%) 52.76 51.82 52.86 52.94 52.38 52.70 51.86
Old (65+ years) 16.96 15.06 17.16 17.59 17.65 17.10 13.93
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 7.82 7.76 7.45 7.54 7.45 7.53 8.36
(%)
Native-born (%) 97.90 97.95 96.89 97.84 98.08 97.53 97.35
Renter housing 26.42 22.30 31.20 27.65 25.13 28.01 28.02
units (%)
Education (%) 10.95 18.01 21.14 15.52 13.11 17.44 17.07
Unemployment 8.83 6.38 6.50 7.56 7.79 7.08 6.40
(%)
Poverty (%) 16.37 9.55 12.72 13.08 13.58 12.72 12.33
Mean household 48,114 60,829 59,438 51,531 50,431 55,351 58,440
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 115,882 360,292 1,022,100 923,557 336,094 2,757,925 22,684,612
White 106,422 342,247 881,207 797,390 309,290 2,436,556 19,407,626
Black 7,671 9,982 108,182 102,859 19,560 248,254 2,307,773
Asian 292 3,036 16,336 5,864 1,996 27,524 337,450
Native American 139 450 1,294 1,517 541 3,941 46,339
Others 1,369 4,529 15,105 15,928 4,703 41,634 585,441
Hispanic 1,014 3,300 9,403 11,710 2,758 28,185 589,599
Color 10,179 20,125 146,362 132,175 28,564 337,405 3,530,736
White (%) 91.84 94.99 86.22 86.34 92.02 88.35 85.55
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 307

Table B.45 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 6.62 2.77 10.58 11.14 5.82 9.00 10.17
Asian (%) 0.25 0.84 1.60 0.63 0.59 1.00 1.49
Native American 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.20
(%)
Others (%) 1.18 1.26 1.48 1.72 1.40 1.51 2.58
Hispanic (%) 0.88 0.92 0.92 1.27 0.82 1.02 2.60
Color (%) 8.78 5.59 14.32 14.31 8.50 12.23 15.56
Female (%) 52.39 51.30 52.36 52.65 52.17 52.30 51.50
Old (65+ years) 18.20 15.79 17.38 18.49 18.24 17.68 14.18
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 7.09 7.22 6.69 6.95 6.64 6.86 7.61
(%)
Native-born (%) 98.46 97.54 96.36 97.95 98.12 97.35 96.50
Renter housing 25.65 20.54 30.00 26.31 24.40 26.73 26.93
units (%)
College degree or 14.47 24.76 26.89 18.94 16.78 22.18 21.13
higher (%)
Unemployment 5.41 4.40 6.34 5.87 6.26 5.88 5.40
(%)
Poverty (%) 11.31 7.56 11.79 11.86 12.51 11.32 11.30
Mean household 53,823 71,293 64,496 56,723 56,077 61,272 64,972
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 108,656 363,062 988,565 876,230 319,082 2,655,595 23,310,344
White 98,914 338,398 842,323 740,456 291,560 2,311,651 19,481,786
Black 7,166 11,120 100,457 107,701 19,285 245,729 2,551,531
Asian 374 6,372 24,466 8,219 2,050 41,481 494,603
Native American 110 389 1,092 1,142 446 3,179 40,950
Others 2,092 6,783 20,227 18,712 5,741 53,555 741,473
Hispanic 1,322 4,767 14,187 16,600 4,313 41,189 969,293
Color 10,672 27,561 155,220 146,119 30,482 370,054 4,353,806
White (%) 91.03 93.21 85.21 84.50 91.37 87.05 83.58
Black (%) 6.60 3.06 10.16 12.29 6.04 9.25 10.95
Asian (%) 0.34 1.76 2.47 0.94 0.64 1.56 2.12
Native American 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.18
(%)
Others (%) 1.93 1.87 2.05 2.14 1.80 2.02 3.18
Hispanic (%) 1.22 1.31 1.44 1.89 1.35 1.55 4.16
Color (%) 9.82 7.59 15.70 16.68 9.55 13.93 18.68
Female (%) 51.95 50.85 51.96 52.11 52.03 51.87 51.17
Old (65+ years) 18.33 15.89 16.87 17.70 18.10 17.22 14.35
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 5.47 5.55 5.10 5.33 5.19 5.26 6.07
(%)
Native-born (%) 97.95 96.96 95.54 97.75 98.40 96.90 95.34
(continued)
308 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.45 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing 24.30 20.17 28.59 25.88 24.29 25.92 26.27
units (%)
College degree or 18.03 30.45 32.11 22.56 19.19 26.58 24.51
higher (%)
Unemployment 7.23 6.26 7.04 8.15 8.18 7.43 7.94
(%)
Poverty (%) 12.58 9.41 12.81 13.74 15.43 12.96 13.59
Mean household 56,082 75,637 65,853 55,540 52,271 61,673 64,111
income ($)
Index 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

B.46 Limerick Generating Station, Pennsylvania

See Fig. B.46.

See Table B.46.

Fig. B.46 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Limerick
Generating Station, Pennsylvania, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 309

Table B.46 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Limerick

Generating Station, Pennsylvania, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 62 231 704 499 113 1,609 3,837
Tract area (sq. mile) 350 913 1,512 2,035 950 5,759 51,506
Total population 184,712 790,709 2,732,462 1,859,942 418,565 5,986,390 14,291,528
White 174,314 727,752 1,895,372 1,602,011 383,381 4,782,830 12,411,323
Black 8,109 37,191 703,293 186,321 25,974 960,888 1,274,186
Asian 1,247 14,697 60,158 28,854 6,822 111,778 301,876
Native American 267 1,068 4,374 2,951 686 9,346 23,466
Others 767 9,993 69,256 39,790 1,715 121,521 280,645
Hispanic 2,376 22,040 107,438 68,080 5,389 205,323 750,634
Color 11,691 73,896 869,378 282,711 38,662 1,276,338 2,306,925
White (%) 94.37 92.04 69.36 86.13 91.59 79.90 86.84
Black (%) 4.39 4.70 25.74 10.02 6.21 16.05 8.92
Asian (%) 0.68 1.86 2.20 1.55 1.63 1.87 2.11
Native American 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
(%)
Others (%) 0.42 1.26 2.53 2.14 0.41 2.03 1.96
Hispanic (%) 1.29 2.79 3.93 3.66 1.29 3.43 5.25
Color (%) 6.33 9.35 31.82 15.20 9.24 21.32 16.14
Female (%) 50.10 51.79 52.94 51.55 51.52 52.17 51.80
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.26 13.21 15.09 13.65 11.33 14.04 14.69
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.62 8.40 8.51 8.51 8.64 8.51 7.91
Native-born (%) 97.67 95.62 94.37 95.87 96.79 95.27 92.48
Renter housing units 23.84 27.19 30.51 26.78 26.80 28.50 28.63
(%)
Education (%) 20.18 30.16 21.30 19.54 19.06 21.75 20.27
Unemployment (%) 3.47 3.51 6.79 4.79 4.36 5.41 5.98
Poverty (%) 3.98 5.11 13.81 8.09 7.20 10.13 9.50
Mean household 74,664 86,960 65,923 70,297 68,310 70,490 68,899
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 222,564 876,175 2,774,273 1,930,389 479,320 6,282,721 15,196,283
White 204,582 762,985 1,778,519 1,577,481 408,245 4,731,812 12,438,488
Black 10,623 47,060 751,754 208,857 47,267 1,065,561 1,422,197
Asian 3,314 28,755 94,131 52,555 11,318 190,073 531,170
Native American 286 1,514 6,131 3,770 935 12,636 27,973
Others 3,751 35,877 143,727 87,723 11,580 282,658 776,436
Hispanic 3,593 45,929 172,828 115,833 13,017 351,200 1,194,391
Color 19,782 131,299 1,053,980 399,603 77,541 1,682,205 3,345,967
White (%) 91.92 87.08 64.11 81.72 85.17 75.31 81.85
(continued)
310 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.46 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 4.77 5.37 27.10 10.82 9.86 16.96 9.36
Asian (%) 1.49 3.28 3.39 2.72 2.36 3.03 3.50
Native American 0.13 0.17 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18
(%)
Others (%) 1.69 4.09 5.18 4.54 2.42 4.50 5.11
Hispanic (%) 1.61 5.24 6.23 6.00 2.72 5.59 7.86
Color (%) 8.89 14.99 37.99 20.70 16.18 26.78 22.02
Female (%) 50.23 51.45 52.84 51.44 51.62 52.03 51.49
Old (65+ years) (%) 11.72 13.53 14.67 14.27 11.71 14.06 14.82
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.64 7.82 7.77 7.53 7.64 7.72 7.48
Native-born (%) 96.63 93.55 92.49 93.73 95.38 93.38 89.38
Renter housing units 22.29 26.23 31.26 26.69 25.74 28.47 28.03
(%)
College degree or 28.85 36.19 25.84 23.93 23.27 26.62 24.85
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.39 3.94 7.50 4.94 5.64 5.91 5.61
Poverty (%) 4.37 6.49 14.88 8.90 7.34 10.92 9.53
Mean household 87,022 94,814 69,524 75,574 73,711 75,826 75,547
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 257,462 938,523 2,844,249 2,009,040 509,935 6,559,209 15,656,351
White 229,340 787,408 1,736,334 1,581,055 403,574 4,737,711 12,422,821
Black 14,839 53,033 797,752 236,469 67,295 1,169,388 1,539,158
Asian 7,365 48,477 132,483 78,191 19,640 286,156 777,753
Native American 197 963 5,002 4,497 853 11,512 29,452
Others 5,721 48,642 172,678 108,828 18,573 354,442 887,167
Hispanic 6,414 79,425 258,163 179,807 27,973 551,782 1,639,817
Color 32,397 192,254 1,216,711 519,083 121,554 2,081,999 4,140,991
White (%) 89.08 83.90 61.05 78.70 79.14 72.23 79.35
Black (%) 5.76 5.65 28.05 11.77 13.20 17.83 9.83
Asian (%) 2.86 5.17 4.66 3.89 3.85 4.36 4.97
Native American 0.08 0.10 0.18 0.22 0.17 0.18 0.19
(%)
Others (%) 2.22 5.18 6.07 5.42 3.64 5.40 5.67
Hispanic (%) 2.49 8.46 9.08 8.95 5.49 8.41 10.47
Color (%) 12.58 20.48 42.78 25.84 23.84 31.74 26.45
Female (%) 49.99 51.45 52.53 51.30 51.37 51.81 51.14
Old (65+ years) (%) 11.65 13.86 13.69 14.17 12.23 13.67 14.75
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.75 6.17 6.34 6.07 6.27 6.24 5.88
Native-born (%) 95.33 90.73 90.30 91.51 92.30 91.08 87.44
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 311

Table B.46 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 19.91 25.96 31.64 26.37 23.71 28.20 26.72
(%)
College degree or 35.90 41.46 30.11 27.73 27.26 31.01 29.09
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.41 5.88 9.24 7.63 7.37 7.93 7.29
Poverty (%) 5.36 8.28 16.44 10.08 8.34 12.26 10.51
Mean household 93,455 96,613 70,631 77,758 75,337 77,828 77,247
income ($)
Index 46 46 46 46 46 46 46

B.47 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,

Pennsylvania

See Fig. B.47.

See Table B.47.

Fig. B.47 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station, Pennsylvania, in 2010
312 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.47 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station, Pennsylvania, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 10 81 228 485 204 1,008 3,834
Tract area (sq. 317 966 1,579 1,909 1,023 5,794 55,155
mile)
Total population 35,760 291,208 821,840 1,702,769 718,048 3,569,625 13,759,639
White 34,789 269,850 747,917 1,171,446 610,100 2,834,102 11,620,667
Black 693 14,051 46,719 499,072 85,484 646,019 1,742,575
Asian 171 2,703 14,232 18,641 10,491 46,238 235,281
Native American 56 462 1,526 4,181 1,517 7,742 24,682
Others 61 4,126 11,433 9,443 10,447 35,510 136,391
Hispanic 226 7,205 21,130 23,351 21,951 73,863 281,754
Color 1,108 23,956 82,927 542,986 118,188 769,165 2,269,976
White (%) 97.28 92.67 91.01 68.80 84.97 79.39 84.45
Black (%) 1.94 4.83 5.68 29.31 11.91 18.10 12.66
Asian (%) 0.48 0.93 1.73 1.09 1.46 1.30 1.71
Native American 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.25 0.21 0.22 0.18
(%)
Others (%) 0.17 1.42 1.39 0.55 1.45 0.99 0.99
Hispanic (%) 0.63 2.47 2.57 1.37 3.06 2.07 2.05
Color (%) 3.10 8.23 10.09 31.89 16.46 21.55 16.50
Female (%) 49.56 50.81 51.12 52.31 51.99 51.82 51.93
Old (65+ years) 10.65 11.11 11.60 13.24 14.25 12.87 14.30
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 9.69 9.45 8.81 8.77 8.45 8.78 8.17
(%)
Native-born (%) 99.32 97.96 96.67 96.69 97.00 96.88 95.69
Renter housing 16.57 24.15 29.20 35.88 31.19 32.36 27.12
units (%)
Education (%) 9.30 17.33 23.32 19.70 16.21 19.52 20.63
Unemployment 4.22 3.50 3.29 5.59 4.47 4.63 5.60
(%)
Poverty (%) 7.41 6.55 6.86 12.08 8.56 9.68 10.39
Mean household 63,748 69,715 73,801 66,101 63,128 67,489 65,008
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 40,396 344,798 931,445 1,759,116 769,821 3,845,576 14,515,564
White 39,286 314,594 807,708 1,138,072 596,443 2,896,103 11,565,779
Black 531 16,111 62,687 542,850 114,133 736,312 2,092,423
Asian 202 3,514 22,303 30,882 17,572 74,473 374,010
Native American 30 563 1,915 4,504 2,250 9,262 29,011
Others 354 10,020 36,825 42,800 39,428 129,427 454,340
Hispanic 297 12,121 44,816 44,060 48,682 149,976 506,571
Color 1,310 35,048 143,047 642,036 190,731 1,012,172 3,165,543
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 313

Table B.47 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 97.25 91.24 86.72 64.70 77.48 75.31 79.68
Black (%) 1.31 4.67 6.73 30.86 14.83 19.15 14.42
Asian (%) 0.50 1.02 2.39 1.76 2.28 1.94 2.58
Native American 0.07 0.16 0.21 0.26 0.29 0.24 0.20
(%)
Others (%) 0.88 2.91 3.95 2.43 5.12 3.37 3.13
Hispanic (%) 0.74 3.52 4.81 2.50 6.32 3.90 3.49
Color (%) 3.24 10.16 15.36 36.50 24.78 26.32 21.81
Female (%) 49.66 50.98 51.29 52.34 51.89 51.84 51.71
Old (65+ years) 11.10 11.85 12.70 13.15 14.48 13.17 14.56
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 8.46 8.08 7.94 7.64 7.83 7.80 7.38
(%)
Native-born (%) 98.60 97.25 94.95 94.85 95.14 95.19 93.89
Renter housing 14.92 21.42 27.57 32.48 30.37 29.83 26.34
units (%)
College degree 13.70 22.60 28.06 25.01 20.18 24.44 25.21
or higher (%)
Unemployment 3.23 3.16 4.08 5.75 5.00 4.92 5.48
(%)
Poverty (%) 5.82 6.53 7.20 11.71 10.04 9.75 10.30
Mean household 69,195 75,538 78,651 71,599 67,536 72,773 70,781
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 43,032 387,349 1,024,312 1,847,088 822,243 4,124,024 15,066,382
White 41,506 347,498 851,839 1,144,429 595,702 2,980,974 11,501,764
Black 763 22,544 92,530 584,976 137,182 837,995 2,359,545
Asian 119 5,046 37,446 55,118 25,725 123,454 547,915
Native American 56 749 2,136 4,879 1,509 9,329 28,165
Others 588 11,512 40,361 57,686 62,125 172,272 628,993
Hispanic 752 21,957 74,840 87,726 85,660 270,935 882,434
Color 1,927 54,631 219,035 755,927 262,768 1,294,288 4,006,588
White (%) 96.45 89.71 83.16 61.96 72.45 72.28 76.34
Black (%) 1.77 5.82 9.03 31.67 16.68 20.32 15.66
Asian (%) 0.28 1.30 3.66 2.98 3.13 2.99 3.64
Native American 0.13 0.19 0.21 0.26 0.18 0.23 0.19
(%)
Others (%) 1.37 2.97 3.94 3.12 7.56 4.18 4.17
Hispanic (%) 1.75 5.67 7.31 4.75 10.42 6.57 5.86
Color (%) 4.48 14.10 21.38 40.93 31.96 31.38 26.59
Female (%) 49.04 50.67 51.35 52.34 51.63 51.76 51.34
Old (65+ years) 12.65 12.87 13.41 12.81 13.71 13.14 14.50
(%)
Kid (<5 years) 5.47 6.22 6.48 6.35 6.48 6.39 5.87
(%)
(continued)
314 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.47 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 98.44 96.31 92.52 92.19 92.50 92.78 91.84
Renter housing 13.08 20.85 26.66 31.04 29.70 28.67 25.62
units (%)
College degree 14.75 26.10 31.65 30.15 24.02 28.77 29.28
or higher (%)
Unemployment 7.06 5.54 5.88 7.57 7.61 6.96 7.09
(%)
Poverty (%) 8.30 7.87 8.99 11.81 12.35 10.81 11.28
Mean household 74,946 80,493 80,633 75,452 69,182 75,930 74,175
income ($)
Index 47 47 47 47 47 47 47

B.48 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,

Pennsylvania

See Fig. B.48.

See Table B.48.

Fig. B.48 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Pennsylvania, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 315

Table B.48 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Susquehanna

Steam Electric Station, Pennsylvania, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 14 84 77 97 31 303 2,915
Tract area (sq. mile) 287 1,075 1,627 1,746 1,128 5,863 40,192
Total population 51,798 271,019 291,624 369,871 118,025 1,102,337 10,779,295
White 51,037 265,342 289,016 364,679 116,600 1,086,674 9,436,499
Black 495 3,600 1,121 2,235 616 8,067 1,079,491
Asian 211 1,161 892 1,784 386 4,434 130,648
Native American 27 159 219 408 103 916 15,051
Others 29 746 382 778 300 2,235 117,574
Hispanic 289 1,794 1,143 2,412 880 6,518 213,956
Color 996 6,714 3,410 6,852 1,951 19,923 1,430,575
White (%) 98.53 97.91 99.11 98.60 98.79 98.58 87.54
Black (%) 0.96 1.33 0.38 0.60 0.52 0.73 10.01
Asian (%) 0.41 0.43 0.31 0.48 0.33 0.40 1.21
Native American 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.14
(%)
Others (%) 0.06 0.28 0.13 0.21 0.25 0.20 1.09
Hispanic (%) 0.56 0.66 0.39 0.65 0.75 0.59 1.98
Color (%) 1.92 2.48 1.17 1.85 1.65 1.81 13.27
Female (%) 51.51 52.69 52.55 52.20 50.28 52.17 52.07
Old (65+ years) (%) 17.26 19.27 20.22 17.37 12.58 18.07 15.13
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.54 6.97 7.07 7.71 8.07 7.39 8.08
Native-born (%) 98.69 98.37 98.57 98.39 98.69 98.48 96.73
Renter housing units 20.01 30.27 20.33 25.36 17.94 24.19 26.98
(%)
Education (%) 11.14 12.48 10.32 13.33 11.85 12.05 18.56
Unemployment (%) 5.92 6.00 6.35 5.41 4.21 5.67 6.00
Poverty (%) 9.11 11.70 11.14 9.78 8.44 10.43 11.20
Mean household 53,076 47,121 47,544 52,612 58,235 50,447 61,232
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 53,318 262,272 290,229 377,812 132,857 1,116,488 11,164,566
White 51,573 252,219 282,224 365,141 129,902 1,081,059 9,405,118
Black 989 5,003 4,265 4,725 805 15,787 1,195,882
Asian 271 1,320 1,194 2,601 546 5,932 214,420
Native American 99 372 280 529 181 1,461 18,050
Others 389 3,346 2,268 4,829 1,391 12,223 331,122
Hispanic 569 3,410 2,799 5,862 1,800 14,440 377,681
Color 2,140 11,743 9,578 15,644 3,950 43,055 1,910,001
White (%) 96.73 96.17 97.24 96.65 97.78 96.83 84.24
(continued)
316 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.48 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 1.85 1.91 1.47 1.25 0.61 1.41 10.71
Asian (%) 0.51 0.50 0.41 0.69 0.41 0.53 1.92
Native American 0.19 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.16
(%)
Others (%) 0.73 1.28 0.78 1.28 1.05 1.09 2.97
Hispanic (%) 1.07 1.30 0.96 1.55 1.35 1.29 3.38
Color (%) 4.01 4.48 3.30 4.14 2.97 3.86 17.11
Female (%) 50.52 51.93 51.12 51.73 50.20 51.38 51.77
Old (65+ years) (%) 17.22 19.18 20.01 17.31 13.20 17.96 15.40
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.21 6.09 5.96 6.50 6.85 6.29 7.28
Native-born (%) 98.36 98.08 98.53 97.97 98.29 98.20 95.63
Renter housing units 19.62 28.64 19.95 24.04 17.44 23.11 26.43
(%)
College degree or 13.78 15.25 14.28 16.86 16.09 15.56 23.06
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.32 6.23 5.69 4.85 5.52 5.53 5.68
Poverty (%) 9.88 12.60 10.25 9.49 8.16 10.27 11.05
Mean household 56,513 51,664 52,833 57,830 66,608 55,919 66,631
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 55,117 264,433 292,379 385,363 139,000 1,136,292 11,476,413
White 53,031 242,828 279,934 362,588 133,583 1,071,964 9,388,132
Black 797 10,266 6,394 9,364 1,883 28,704 1,318,348
Asian 623 2,368 1,551 4,658 881 10,081 325,366
Native American 122 276 513 462 99 1,472 16,733
Others 544 8,695 3,987 8,291 2,554 24,071 427,834
Hispanic 1,214 16,572 6,865 14,718 3,641 43,010 613,498
Color 3,088 31,046 16,898 31,980 7,636 90,648 2,397,756
White (%) 96.22 91.83 95.74 94.09 96.10 94.34 81.80
Black (%) 1.45 3.88 2.19 2.43 1.35 2.53 11.49
Asian (%) 1.13 0.90 0.53 1.21 0.63 0.89 2.84
Native American 0.22 0.10 0.18 0.12 0.07 0.13 0.15
(%)
Others (%) 0.99 3.29 1.36 2.15 1.84 2.12 3.73
Hispanic (%) 2.20 6.27 2.35 3.82 2.62 3.79 5.35
Color (%) 5.60 11.74 5.78 8.30 5.49 7.98 20.89
Female (%) 50.59 51.49 50.03 51.19 50.13 50.80 51.38
Old (65+ years) (%) 16.87 17.39 18.60 16.98 14.10 17.13 15.09
Kid (<5 years) (%) 4.61 5.19 5.11 5.35 5.27 5.21 5.82
Native-born (%) 97.76 95.45 97.86 96.80 97.88 96.94 94.17
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 317

Table B.48 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 18.66 28.44 20.32 23.32 18.17 22.91 26.17
(%)
College degree or 17.19 18.20 18.16 19.96 19.56 18.89 27.15
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.64 7.00 8.04 6.45 6.37 6.92 7.33
Poverty (%) 10.54 15.86 11.66 11.79 8.73 12.26 12.39
Mean household 56,670 52,042 55,312 58,621 66,313 57,003 68,322
income ($)
Index 48 48 48 48 48 48 48

B.49 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,

Pennsylvania

See Fig. B.49.

See Table B.49.

Fig. B.49 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Three Mile
Island Nuclear Station, Pennsylvania, in 2010
318 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.49 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Three Mile
Island Nuclear Station, Pennsylvania, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 41 150 118 74 65 448 4,176
Tract area (sq. 297 933 1,520 2,098 1,093 5,941 52,519
mile)
Total population 156,537 568,626 476,325 293,340 223,969 1,718,797 14,944,296
White 145,102 516,219 450,334 289,009 218,524 1,619,188 12,300,242
Black 8,529 40,264 10,337 2,013 3,254 64,397 2,212,075
Asian 1,367 6,012 4,606 1,081 1,448 14,514 258,234
Native American 313 794 571 220 314 2,212 28,012
Others 1,238 5,309 10,466 1,022 425 18,460 145,702
Hispanic 2,409 9,714 16,221 2,384 1,198 31,926 308,538
Color 12,590 56,304 31,016 5,666 6,257 111,833 2,790,162
White (%) 92.70 90.78 94.54 98.52 97.57 94.20 82.31
Black (%) 5.45 7.08 2.17 0.69 1.45 3.75 14.80
Asian (%) 0.87 1.06 0.97 0.37 0.65 0.84 1.73
Native American 0.20 0.14 0.12 0.07 0.14 0.13 0.19
(%)
Others (%) 0.79 0.93 2.20 0.35 0.19 1.07 0.97
Hispanic (%) 1.54 1.71 3.41 0.81 0.53 1.86 2.06
Color (%) 8.04 9.90 6.51 1.93 2.79 6.51 18.67
Female (%) 51.73 51.68 51.36 50.42 51.51 51.36 51.99
Old (65+ years) 13.52 13.87 13.67 12.21 13.68 13.47 14.15
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.05 8.08 8.54 9.07 8.57 8.44 8.26
Native-born (%) 98.01 97.95 98.02 98.93 98.29 98.18 95.64
Renter housing 27.73 29.62 28.82 19.57 20.02 26.37 28.48
units (%)
Education (%) 17.02 19.25 14.93 11.85 19.73 16.70 20.78
Unemployment (%) 3.76 3.82 3.42 3.16 3.88 3.60 5.68
Poverty (%) 7.03 7.04 7.60 6.74 7.02 7.14 10.67
Mean household 62,567 64,844 60,486 61,943 71,398 63,803 65,556
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 177,279 618,682 521,514 329,596 258,966 1,906,037 15,671,503
White 159,236 539,121 479,171 319,472 247,414 1,744,414 12,132,784
Black 10,592 48,334 13,859 2,961 5,955 81,701 2,598,211
Asian 2,777 9,539 6,197 2,432 2,630 23,575 408,520
Native American 235 917 675 442 472 2,741 32,421
Others 4,454 20,735 21,585 4,313 2,509 53,596 499,577
Hispanic 4,874 21,767 30,131 5,181 2,444 64,397 554,829
Color 20,286 87,669 54,181 12,808 13,151 188,095 3,774,376
White (%) 89.82 87.14 91.88 96.93 95.54 91.52 77.42
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 319

Table B.49 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 5.97 7.81 2.66 0.90 2.30 4.29 16.58
Asian (%) 1.57 1.54 1.19 0.74 1.02 1.24 2.61
Native American 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.14 0.21
(%)
Others (%) 2.51 3.35 4.14 1.31 0.97 2.81 3.19
Hispanic (%) 2.75 3.52 5.78 1.57 0.94 3.38 3.54
Color (%) 11.44 14.17 10.39 3.89 5.08 9.87 24.08
Female (%) 51.62 51.41 51.14 50.29 50.78 51.08 51.83
Old (65+ years) 13.68 14.63 14.40 13.26 13.45 14.08 14.36
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.35 7.20 7.70 7.85 7.35 7.48 7.45
Native-born (%) 96.81 96.85 96.89 97.88 97.69 97.15 93.80
Renter housing 26.00 27.73 26.88 18.88 17.79 24.58 27.48
units (%)
College degree or 23.05 23.78 18.70 16.06 25.13 21.21 25.52
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.29 3.72 3.59 3.37 3.44 3.55 5.60
Poverty (%) 6.54 7.40 7.72 6.59 6.26 7.11 10.60
Mean household 68,924 69,167 65,922 66,958 78,348 69,104 71,261
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 191,325 682,479 561,898 357,731 275,252 2,068,685 16,240,443
White 163,766 577,673 504,793 342,331 258,225 1,846,788 12,009,524
Black 14,572 59,853 19,086 5,373 8,488 107,372 2,904,915
Asian 4,489 15,871 9,683 2,463 4,143 36,649 606,349
Native American 176 1,352 688 532 507 3,255 31,163
Others 8,322 27,730 27,648 7,032 3,889 74,621 688,492
Hispanic 9,836 39,676 46,888 9,213 5,959 111,572 974,882
Color 32,310 126,631 81,083 20,474 21,185 281,683 4,723,573
White (%) 85.60 84.64 89.84 95.70 93.81 89.27 73.95
Black (%) 7.62 8.77 3.40 1.50 3.08 5.19 17.89
Asian (%) 2.35 2.33 1.72 0.69 1.51 1.77 3.73
Native American 0.09 0.20 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.19
(%)
Others (%) 4.35 4.06 4.92 1.97 1.41 3.61 4.24
Hispanic (%) 5.14 5.81 8.34 2.58 2.16 5.39 6.00
Color (%) 16.89 18.55 14.43 5.72 7.70 13.62 29.09
Female (%) 51.12 51.22 51.07 50.66 50.74 51.01 51.48
Old (65+ years) 13.08 14.70 14.92 14.49 14.11 14.50 14.19
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.71 5.98 6.19 6.19 5.67 6.10 5.95
Native-born (%) 95.58 95.07 95.75 97.51 96.53 95.92 91.56
Renter housing 25.62 27.52 26.58 18.58 16.57 24.20 26.74
units (%)
(continued)
320 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.49 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
College degree or 25.91 27.64 21.40 19.27 28.98 24.54 29.84
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.30 5.89 6.17 4.98 5.40 5.69 7.24
Poverty (%) 9.12 9.36 9.54 7.02 7.36 8.71 11.50
Mean household 69,255 70,611 65,528 70,953 85,147 71,013 74,991
income ($)
Index 49 49 49 49 49 49 49

B.50 Catawba Nuclear Station, South Carolina

See Fig. B.50.

See Table B.50.

Fig. B.50 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Catawba
Nuclear Station, South Carolina, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 321

Table B.50 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Catawba

Nuclear Station, South Carolina, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 46 192 165 108 45 556 2,742
Tract area (sq. 309 824 1,695 2,276 1,300 6,403 79,437
mile)
Total population 101,221 506,174 375,954 306,069 148,143 1,437,561 8,677,741
White 85,352 374,242 287,011 250,088 124,291 1,120,984 6,297,939
Black 14,449 122,466 83,012 53,605 22,835 296,367 2,198,973
Asian 798 5,916 3,473 985 463 11,635 60,053
Native American 419 1,868 1,536 784 306 4,913 86,626
Others 214 1,676 916 612 253 3,671 34,150
Hispanic 627 5,375 2,422 1,670 550 10,644 86,704
Color 16,263 135,152 90,326 56,959 24,141 322,841 2,423,255
White (%) 84.32 73.94 76.34 81.71 83.90 77.98 72.58
Black (%) 14.27 24.19 22.08 17.51 15.41 20.62 25.34
Asian (%) 0.79 1.17 0.92 0.32 0.31 0.81 0.69
Native American 0.41 0.37 0.41 0.26 0.21 0.34 1.00
(%)
Others (%) 0.21 0.33 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.26 0.39
Hispanic (%) 0.62 1.06 0.64 0.55 0.37 0.74 1.00
Color (%) 16.07 26.70 24.03 18.61 16.30 22.46 27.92
Female (%) 51.99 52.36 51.47 51.89 51.30 51.89 51.53
Old (65+ years) 10.57 10.72 9.45 12.87 13.87 11.16 11.96
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.43 8.84 9.07 8.08 7.89 8.61 8.39
Native-born (%) 98.38 97.27 98.20 99.21 99.36 98.22 98.39
Renter housing 27.25 36.73 27.35 22.96 20.29 29.08 27.73
units (%)
Education (%) 20.31 24.62 15.15 12.06 9.25 17.59 17.05
Unemployment (%) 4.34 4.39 4.36 4.60 3.78 4.36 5.18
Poverty (%) 8.76 11.06 9.75 10.77 9.29 10.31 14.39
Mean household 65,223 66,912 57,991 54,520 50,828 60,268 52,954
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 137,392 596,426 521,467 385,237 179,167 1,819,689 10,241,636
White 110,288 416,181 360,546 312,168 147,562 1,346,745 7,151,098
Black 21,441 143,626 127,229 60,596 25,027 377,919 2,538,962
Asian 1,950 12,971 10,344 1,921 1,770 28,956 123,924
Native American 862 3,129 2,264 1,165 657 8,077 107,567
Others 2,864 20,508 21,073 9,407 4,147 57,999 320,078
Hispanic 3,459 29,849 26,838 14,721 5,608 80,475 385,317
Color 28,947 194,624 172,093 80,278 34,100 510,042 3,247,929
White (%) 80.27 69.78 69.14 81.03 82.36 74.01 69.82
(continued)
322 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.50 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 15.61 24.08 24.40 15.73 13.97 20.77 24.79
Asian (%) 1.42 2.17 1.98 0.50 0.99 1.59 1.21
Native American 0.63 0.52 0.43 0.30 0.37 0.44 1.05
(%)
Others (%) 2.08 3.44 4.04 2.44 2.31 3.19 3.13
Hispanic (%) 2.52 5.00 5.15 3.82 3.13 4.42 3.76
Color (%) 21.07 32.63 33.00 20.84 19.03 28.03 31.71
Female (%) 51.84 51.23 50.84 50.99 50.30 51.02 51.21
Old (65+ years) 10.10 10.43 8.83 12.19 12.70 10.54 12.34
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.35 8.30 8.88 8.29 7.84 8.42 7.90
Native-born (%) 96.29 92.64 93.15 96.24 96.87 94.24 95.69
Renter housing 26.50 34.97 26.73 22.44 20.37 27.95 25.98
units (%)
College degree or 26.82 31.48 22.52 18.49 12.77 23.98 21.40
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.94 5.63 4.78 4.99 4.11 5.13 5.57
Poverty (%) 8.57 10.44 9.73 9.89 9.31 9.87 13.43
Mean household 73,800 81,761 67,243 67,343 59,438 71,896 61,009
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 200,869 693,864 670,767 464,075 205,922 2,235,497 11,547,109
White 152,165 471,548 418,438 372,209 167,638 1,581,998 7,905,729
Black 35,104 161,031 190,158 69,123 27,425 482,841 2,767,585
Asian 5,771 23,823 18,911 6,456 3,427 58,388 198,116
Native American 556 3,374 2,981 1,405 440 8,756 111,365
Others 7,273 34,088 40,279 14,882 6,992 103,514 564,314
Hispanic 14,464 58,967 63,030 31,482 12,116 180,059 752,103
Color 58,960 256,111 284,248 113,063 45,505 757,887 3,987,980
White (%) 75.75 67.96 62.38 80.20 81.41 70.77 68.47
Black (%) 17.48 23.21 28.35 14.89 13.32 21.60 23.97
Asian (%) 2.87 3.43 2.82 1.39 1.66 2.61 1.72
Native American 0.28 0.49 0.44 0.30 0.21 0.39 0.96
(%)
Others (%) 3.62 4.91 6.00 3.21 3.40 4.63 4.89
Hispanic (%) 7.20 8.50 9.40 6.78 5.88 8.05 6.51
Color (%) 29.35 36.91 42.38 24.36 22.10 33.90 34.54
Female (%) 51.82 51.64 51.28 51.12 50.60 51.34 51.27
Old (65+ years) 10.03 10.52 9.27 12.45 13.22 10.75 13.19
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.45 7.17 7.41 6.88 6.38 7.14 6.57
Native-born (%) 92.75 89.74 90.29 94.34 95.55 91.67 93.86
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 323

Table B.50 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing 25.73 32.68 27.48 23.41 21.19 27.57 26.46
units (%)
College degree or 32.92 36.63 25.99 22.89 16.67 28.42 24.82
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 8.22 9.49 9.53 9.76 9.16 9.41 8.81
Poverty (%) 10.07 14.15 13.50 13.39 12.46 13.28 16.31
Mean household 72,266 79,641 62,770 65,891 57,326 69,185 59,269
income ($)
Index 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

B.51 H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant,

South Carolina

See Fig. B.51.

See Table B.51.

Fig. B.51 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding H.B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, South Carolina, in 2010
324 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.51 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from H.B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, South Carolina, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 8 16 38 55 35 152 3,146
Tract area (sq. 309 1,060 1,346 2,225 1,423 6,363 79,477
mile)
Total population 30,342 53,517 142,372 207,559 134,251 568,041 9,547,261
White 20,650 30,268 82,578 128,638 85,691 347,825 7,071,098
Black 9,607 23,051 58,902 76,615 46,752 214,927 2,280,413
Asian 19 32 475 1,058 379 1,963 69,725
Native American 50 74 301 926 1,101 2,452 89,087
Others 16 93 114 308 341 872 36,949
Hispanic 77 239 459 1,126 971 2,872 94,476
Color 9,751 23,269 60,035 79,568 49,014 221,637 2,524,459
White (%) 68.06 56.56 58.00 61.98 63.83 61.23 74.06
Black (%) 31.66 43.07 41.37 36.91 34.82 37.84 23.89
Asian (%) 0.06 0.06 0.33 0.51 0.28 0.35 0.73
Native American 0.16 0.14 0.21 0.45 0.82 0.43 0.93
(%)
Others (%) 0.05 0.17 0.08 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.39
Hispanic (%) 0.25 0.45 0.32 0.54 0.72 0.51 0.99
Color (%) 32.14 43.48 42.17 38.34 36.51 39.02 26.44
Female (%) 53.37 52.44 53.06 51.15 52.22 52.12 51.55
Old (65+ years) 12.03 12.75 12.47 10.56 11.98 11.66 11.86
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.30 8.33 8.61 9.21 9.17 8.92 8.39
Native-born (%) 99.70 99.66 99.03 99.03 99.38 99.21 98.32
Renter housing 23.34 21.68 26.60 26.65 26.46 25.94 28.02
units (%)
Education (%) 13.58 8.13 15.01 11.40 9.84 11.76 17.44
Unemployment 5.10 6.86 6.03 6.62 5.92 6.24 4.99
(%)
Poverty (%) 17.68 22.42 19.66 18.52 18.18 19.05 13.49
Mean household 52,591 40,920 50,421 46,014 45,461 46,892 54,396
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 32,295 59,414 155,000 222,116 147,285 616,110 11,445,215
White 21,100 32,655 86,903 130,786 89,174 360,618 8,137,225
Black 10,516 25,967 64,492 84,828 51,884 237,687 2,679,194
Asian 134 220 1,207 1,231 704 3,496 149,384
Native American 142 129 286 1,665 1,661 3,883 111,761
Others 403 442 2,112 3,593 3,875 10,425 367,652
Hispanic 410 554 1,980 2,879 6,002 11,825 453,967
Color 11,273 26,985 68,670 92,437 61,184 260,549 3,497,422
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 325

Table B.51 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 65.34 54.96 56.07 58.88 60.55 58.53 71.10
Black (%) 32.56 43.71 41.61 38.19 35.23 38.58 23.41
Asian (%) 0.41 0.37 0.78 0.55 0.48 0.57 1.31
Native American 0.44 0.22 0.18 0.75 1.13 0.63 0.98
(%)
Others (%) 1.25 0.74 1.36 1.62 2.63 1.69 3.21
Hispanic (%) 1.27 0.93 1.28 1.30 4.08 1.92 3.97
Color (%) 34.91 45.42 44.30 41.62 41.54 42.29 30.56
Female (%) 52.78 50.76 52.85 51.41 50.85 51.65 51.16
Old (65+ years) 12.29 11.97 13.47 11.27 12.27 12.18 12.06
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.22 7.75 7.72 8.32 8.49 8.15 7.97
Native-born (%) 98.90 99.05 98.11 98.50 96.53 98.01 95.34
Renter housing 20.92 18.64 24.19 23.42 24.85 23.34 26.41
units (%)
College degree or 16.22 9.66 18.29 12.81 11.66 13.82 22.21
higher (%)
Unemployment 10.49 7.47 7.06 6.93 7.63 7.37 5.40
(%)
Poverty (%) 19.68 20.70 17.16 15.39 17.52 17.08 12.66
Mean household 55,802 47,818 56,811 52,563 52,119 53,277 63,124
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 33,936 60,353 164,994 234,292 156,145 649,720 13,132,886
White 22,259 33,581 91,837 135,359 93,029 376,065 9,111,662
Black 10,546 25,967 68,854 90,478 54,262 250,107 3,000,319
Asian 18 256 1,244 1,705 1,198 4,421 252,083
Native American 74 56 219 1,769 1,902 4,020 116,101
Others 1,039 493 2,840 4,981 5,754 15,107 652,721
Hispanic 1,036 423 3,384 7,564 11,051 23,458 908,704
Color 12,193 27,057 75,417 104,227 70,019 288,913 4,456,954
White (%) 65.59 55.64 55.66 57.77 59.58 57.88 69.38
Black (%) 31.08 43.03 41.73 38.62 34.75 38.49 22.85
Asian (%) 0.05 0.42 0.75 0.73 0.77 0.68 1.92
Native American 0.22 0.09 0.13 0.76 1.22 0.62 0.88
(%)
Others (%) 3.06 0.82 1.72 2.13 3.69 2.33 4.97
Hispanic (%) 3.05 0.70 2.05 3.23 7.08 3.61 6.92
Color (%) 35.93 44.83 45.71 44.49 44.84 44.47 33.94
Female (%) 52.35 50.88 52.11 50.50 51.69 51.33 51.28
Old (65+ years) 14.05 13.17 14.11 12.80 12.75 13.22 12.77
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.24 6.52 6.10 6.87 7.37 6.73 6.66
(continued)
326 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.51 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 97.37 98.96 97.58 97.07 95.09 96.92 93.34
Renter housing 21.34 21.77 26.64 25.22 27.42 25.58 26.68
units (%)
College degree or 20.22 10.72 19.64 14.23 12.77 15.27 25.90
higher (%)
Unemployment 11.16 13.17 9.92 11.16 12.20 11.26 8.81
(%)
Poverty (%) 17.00 23.35 19.87 19.16 21.49 20.18 15.60
Mean household 55,522 43,121 53,567 48,269 48,010 49,510 61,393
income ($)
Index 51 51 51 51 51 51 51

B.52 Oconee Nuclear Station, South Carolina

See Fig. B.52.

See Table B.52.

Fig. B.52 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Oconee
Nuclear Station, South Carolina, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 327

Table B.52 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Oconee Nuclear
Station, South Carolina, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 15 29 103 91 38 276 4,991
Tract area (sq. mile) 281 1,020 1,522 2,107 1,246 6,175 139,090
Total population 51,644 108,245 320,112 285,328 107,983 873,312 15,720,199
White 46,636 97,024 254,169 255,012 100,817 753,658 11,268,635
Black 4,251 10,517 63,798 27,548 6,182 112,296 4,127,916
Asian 600 320 910 1,852 371 4,053 141,391
Native American 98 217 531 594 440 1,880 104,941
Others 59 166 702 328 177 1,432 77,286
Hispanic 429 553 2,271 2,087 780 6,120 192,619
Color 5,375 11,609 67,316 31,991 7,707 123,998 4,550,561
White (%) 90.30 89.63 79.40 89.38 93.36 86.30 71.68
Black (%) 8.23 9.72 19.93 9.65 5.72 12.86 26.26
Asian (%) 1.16 0.30 0.28 0.65 0.34 0.46 0.90
Native American 0.19 0.20 0.17 0.21 0.41 0.22 0.67
(%)
Others (%) 0.11 0.15 0.22 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.49
Hispanic (%) 0.83 0.51 0.71 0.73 0.72 0.70 1.23
Color (%) 10.41 10.72 21.03 11.21 7.14 14.20 28.95
Female (%) 49.79 51.22 52.65 51.24 52.17 51.79 51.54
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.44 12.23 14.21 12.55 19.85 14.02 10.99
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.85 7.42 8.12 7.96 6.60 7.72 8.76
Native-born (%) 97.51 99.26 98.95 98.17 98.53 98.59 97.93
Renter housing units 28.97 19.39 27.90 22.67 18.98 24.08 29.58
(%)
Education (%) 22.72 12.49 14.31 20.70 16.20 16.92 18.03
Unemployment (%) 5.61 4.60 5.55 3.75 4.82 4.75 5.35
Poverty (%) 14.89 10.97 13.73 9.74 11.88 11.93 14.26
Mean household 50,519 51,741 50,654 58,351 49,849 53,158 56,668
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 58,346 127,350 348,172 366,349 130,984 1,031,201 19,216,576
White 51,022 113,699 266,220 315,714 119,497 866,152 12,958,866
Black 4,744 11,143 70,882 37,340 7,169 131,278 5,127,713
Asian 1,107 492 2,382 4,898 419 9,298 318,911
Native American 105 238 738 696 710 2,487 136,845
Others 1,371 1,774 7,954 7,715 3,182 21,996 674,232
Hispanic 1,585 1,711 9,423 10,319 4,316 27,354 868,414
Color 8,081 14,385 86,578 55,909 13,588 178,541 6,636,156
(continued)
328 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.52 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 87.45 89.28 76.46 86.18 91.23 83.99 67.44
Black (%) 8.13 8.75 20.36 10.19 5.47 12.73 26.68
Asian (%) 1.90 0.39 0.68 1.34 0.32 0.90 1.66
Native American 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.54 0.24 0.71
(%)
Others (%) 2.35 1.39 2.28 2.11 2.43 2.13 3.51
Hispanic (%) 2.72 1.34 2.71 2.82 3.30 2.65 4.52
Color (%) 13.85 11.30 24.87 15.26 10.37 17.31 34.53
Female (%) 49.60 50.69 52.03 50.97 51.73 51.31 51.04
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.95 13.22 14.07 13.02 20.02 14.29 10.91
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.71 7.36 7.82 7.76 6.65 7.53 8.30
Native-born (%) 95.46 98.28 96.94 95.80 96.35 96.54 94.34
Renter housing units 28.12 18.37 26.02 22.09 18.42 22.85 27.89
(%)
College degree or 25.55 16.81 17.60 25.26 21.04 21.12 22.88
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.87 5.03 5.17 4.58 4.87 4.88 5.53
Poverty (%) 16.79 10.82 13.67 9.33 11.28 11.65 13.00
Mean household 55,769 56,897 57,906 67,407 57,481 60,951 66,003
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 64,579 136,681 371,175 436,380 144,005 1,152,820 22,098,600
White 56,070 122,318 283,428 367,066 127,670 956,552 14,319,430
Black 5,311 10,358 72,758 46,137 7,615 142,179 5,981,316
Asian 1,410 668 2,775 8,699 811 14,363 543,977
Native American 131 290 597 842 1,100 2,960 140,395
Others 1,657 3,047 11,617 13,636 6,809 36,766 1,113,483
Hispanic 3,001 3,088 22,851 24,853 8,473 62,266 1,654,608
Color 10,590 16,167 104,261 86,084 19,392 236,494 8,596,418
White (%) 86.82 89.49 76.36 84.12 88.66 82.97 64.80
Black (%) 8.22 7.58 19.60 10.57 5.29 12.33 27.07
Asian (%) 2.18 0.49 0.75 1.99 0.56 1.25 2.46
Native American 0.20 0.21 0.16 0.19 0.76 0.26 0.64
(%)
Others (%) 2.57 2.23 3.13 3.12 4.73 3.19 5.04
Hispanic (%) 4.65 2.26 6.16 5.70 5.88 5.40 7.49
Color (%) 16.40 11.83 28.09 19.73 13.47 20.51 38.90
Female (%) 49.62 50.71 51.91 51.33 51.29 51.34 51.21
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.53 15.07 14.77 13.97 21.05 15.28 11.58
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.12 5.60 6.78 6.37 4.92 6.16 6.95
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 329

Table B.52 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Native-born (%) 93.72 97.83 94.53 93.46 94.47 94.46 92.12
Renter housing units 27.44 19.21 26.63 22.84 19.05 23.42 27.48
(%)
College degree or 32.65 19.03 20.31 28.55 23.32 24.33 26.22
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 9.11 9.79 9.75 7.23 7.83 8.51 8.91
Poverty (%) 19.64 15.27 18.60 12.48 14.99 15.49 15.79
Mean household 56,152 56,421 55,156 62,997 55,109 58,313 63,381
income ($)
Index 52 52 52 52 52 52 52

B.53 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,

South Carolina

See Fig. B.53.

See Table B.53.

Fig. B.53 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station, South Carolina, in 2010
330 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.53 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Virgil C.

Summer Nuclear Station, South Carolina, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 5 29 116 64 37 251 852
Tract area (sq. 457 827 1,380 2,295 1,477 6,436 25,584
mile)
Total population 14,256 93,431 326,936 195,017 119,756 749,396 2,737,290
White 7,775 71,777 212,349 132,565 76,637 501,103 1,906,577
Black 6,450 20,912 109,418 59,903 42,319 239,002 800,999
Asian 20 494 3,257 1,012 229 5,012 16,285
Native American 2 78 647 565 495 1,787 7,146
Others 11 166 1,257 988 66 2,488 6,288
Hispanic 38 500 3,443 2,260 421 6,662 21,668
Color 6,499 21,954 116,377 63,301 43,391 251,522 843,251
White (%) 54.54 76.82 64.95 67.98 63.99 66.87 69.65
Black (%) 45.24 22.38 33.47 30.72 35.34 31.89 29.26
Asian (%) 0.14 0.53 1.00 0.52 0.19 0.67 0.59
Native American 0.01 0.08 0.20 0.29 0.41 0.24 0.26
(%)
Others (%) 0.08 0.18 0.38 0.51 0.06 0.33 0.23
Hispanic (%) 0.27 0.54 1.05 1.16 0.35 0.89 0.79
Color (%) 45.59 23.50 35.60 32.46 36.23 33.56 30.81
Female (%) 51.34 51.47 51.91 51.46 52.07 51.75 51.61
Old (65+ years) 11.39 10.27 10.51 10.65 11.15 10.63 11.56
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.93 8.90 8.13 8.52 9.07 8.47 8.88
Native-born (%) 99.71 98.87 97.62 98.66 99.46 98.38 98.62
Renter housing 11.61 18.67 34.93 22.68 24.67 27.80 26.32
units (%)
Education (%) 13.47 26.78 24.72 12.99 9.87 19.45 15.88
Unemployment 5.11 4.29 5.16 5.44 6.52 5.33 5.65
(%)
Poverty (%) 14.75 9.72 12.90 13.55 16.32 13.25 15.94
Mean household 52,998 66,688 56,992 50,938 48,823 55,365 52,202
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 18,174 113,750 372,457 222,318 138,851 865,550 3,146,462
White 10,930 82,464 228,113 145,827 89,405 556,739 2,138,939
Black 7,087 28,061 129,336 68,664 46,769 279,917 902,810
Asian 58 1,078 5,618 1,669 415 8,838 29,051
Native American 22 341 1,357 778 518 3,016 11,672
Others 85 1,798 8,014 5,406 1,729 17,032 63,998
Hispanic 177 2,630 9,060 5,948 1,928 19,743 73,085
Color 7,324 32,759 148,317 78,743 50,306 317,449 1,040,162
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 331

Table B.53 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 60.14 72.50 61.25 65.59 64.39 64.32 67.98
Black (%) 39.00 24.67 34.73 30.89 33.68 32.34 28.69
Asian (%) 0.32 0.95 1.51 0.75 0.30 1.02 0.92
Native American 0.12 0.30 0.36 0.35 0.37 0.35 0.37
(%)
Others (%) 0.47 1.58 2.15 2.43 1.25 1.97 2.03
Hispanic (%) 0.97 2.31 2.43 2.68 1.39 2.28 2.32
Color (%) 40.30 28.80 39.82 35.42 36.23 36.68 33.06
Female (%) 51.28 51.82 51.96 51.38 51.92 51.77 51.38
Old (65+ years) 10.69 10.89 11.04 11.24 10.48 10.97 12.42
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.23 7.95 7.51 8.04 8.32 7.85 7.90
Native-born (%) 99.03 96.81 96.37 97.52 98.70 97.15 97.10
Renter housing 8.77 18.17 32.90 21.69 23.00 26.10 23.84
units (%)
College degree or 21.91 31.82 28.82 14.65 11.92 22.83 19.76
higher (%)
Unemployment 3.11 4.47 6.13 6.09 7.62 6.07 5.79
(%)
Poverty (%) 11.29 9.64 13.29 13.29 14.09 12.88 14.44
Mean household 65,454 74,481 64,127 55,401 55,276 61,971 59,765
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 22,287 126,697 436,932 233,924 151,179 971,019 3,540,409
White 14,494 88,230 256,755 152,389 96,958 608,826 2,425,174
Black 7,260 32,158 156,161 71,933 48,484 315,996 953,488
Asian 115 1,155 9,088 2,249 811 13,418 42,923
Native American 37 118 808 1,211 495 2,669 11,426
Others 381 5,036 14,120 6,142 4,431 30,110 107,398
Hispanic 143 4,940 21,071 9,788 5,756 41,698 167,056
Color 7,888 40,699 192,459 87,465 57,621 386,132 1,217,621
White (%) 65.03 69.64 58.76 65.14 64.13 62.70 68.50
Black (%) 32.58 25.38 35.74 30.75 32.07 32.54 26.93
Asian (%) 0.52 0.91 2.08 0.96 0.54 1.38 1.21
Native American 0.17 0.09 0.18 0.52 0.33 0.27 0.32
(%)
Others (%) 1.71 3.97 3.23 2.63 2.93 3.10 3.03
Hispanic (%) 0.64 3.90 4.82 4.18 3.81 4.29 4.72
Color (%) 35.39 32.12 44.05 37.39 38.11 39.77 34.39
Female (%) 52.11 51.75 51.25 50.92 50.98 51.22 51.36
Old (65+ years) 12.46 12.33 10.90 12.79 11.60 11.69 13.61
(%)
(continued)
332 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.53 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.96 6.61 6.24 6.99 6.98 6.58 6.55
Native-born (%) 98.58 96.06 94.52 96.37 97.07 95.66 95.20
Renter housing 12.15 20.04 32.53 23.80 25.19 27.17 24.59
units (%)
College degree or 30.39 34.70 32.25 18.44 14.99 26.49 23.28
higher (%)
Unemployment 5.38 6.67 8.07 10.15 12.38 8.95 9.34
(%)
Poverty (%) 12.28 10.39 14.05 17.49 18.67 15.10 16.75
Mean household 68,719 73,422 61,786 53,274 50,067 59,643 58,749
income ($)
Index 53 53 53 53 53 53 53

B.54 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Tennessee

See Fig. B.54.

See Table B.54.

Fig. B.54 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Tennessee, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 333

Table B.54 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Sequoyah

Nuclear Plant, Tennessee, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 20 84 41 42 18 205 4,442
Tract area (sq. mile) 312 830 1,704 2,070 1,311 6,227 147,763
Total population 76,278 292,438 165,308 155,698 57,971 747,693 14,648,283
White 74,365 239,110 154,592 147,359 56,638 672,064 10,954,868
Black 977 49,972 9,673 6,042 800 67,464 3,474,204
Asian 491 1,983 428 415 102 3,419 122,687
Native American 250 755 510 410 343 2,268 43,787
Others 181 634 96 1,469 93 2,473 52,731
Hispanic 442 2,011 713 2,481 255 5,902 150,147
Color 2,207 54,605 11,320 9,299 1,487 78,918 3,779,257
White (%) 97.49 81.76 93.52 94.64 97.70 89.89 74.79
Black (%) 1.28 17.09 5.85 3.88 1.38 9.02 23.72
Asian (%) 0.64 0.68 0.26 0.27 0.18 0.46 0.84
Native American (%) 0.33 0.26 0.31 0.26 0.59 0.30 0.30
Others (%) 0.24 0.22 0.06 0.94 0.16 0.33 0.36
Hispanic (%) 0.58 0.69 0.43 1.59 0.44 0.79 1.03
Color (%) 2.89 18.67 6.85 5.97 2.57 10.55 25.80
Female (%) 50.69 52.88 52.07 50.55 50.79 51.83 51.77
Old (65+ years) (%) 8.67 13.84 12.25 12.04 12.24 12.46 11.61
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.71 7.82 8.13 7.86 7.74 7.88 8.69
Native-born (%) 98.85 98.49 99.54 98.60 99.53 98.86 98.18
Renter housing units 18.23 34.24 23.17 24.80 15.65 26.95 29.60
(%)
Education (%) 18.19 17.53 8.70 9.58 7.66 13.26 17.49
Unemployment (%) 4.58 5.79 6.12 6.37 5.92 5.86 6.25
Poverty (%) 7.39 14.59 15.63 14.96 13.88 14.10 16.05
Mean household 65,651 52,404 46,665 48,602 46,180 51,188 55,264
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 90,338 322,102 191,921 177,853 73,129 855,343 17,467,492
White 85,955 252,461 177,250 158,606 69,645 743,917 12,307,383
Black 2,147 57,830 9,594 6,063 974 76,608 4,348,410
Asian 789 3,779 869 997 284 6,718 255,997
Native American 288 860 565 488 228 2,429 59,697
Others 1,138 7,201 3,633 11,691 2,008 25,671 496,006
Hispanic 1,250 6,293 3,485 18,300 2,084 31,412 590,616
Color 5,121 72,418 16,199 26,746 4,112 124,596 5,432,851
(continued)
334 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.54 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 95.15 78.38 92.36 89.18 95.24 86.97 70.46
Black (%) 2.38 17.95 5.00 3.41 1.33 8.96 24.89
Asian (%) 0.87 1.17 0.45 0.56 0.39 0.79 1.47
Native American (%) 0.32 0.27 0.29 0.27 0.31 0.28 0.34
Others (%) 1.26 2.24 1.89 6.57 2.75 3.00 2.84
Hispanic (%) 1.38 1.95 1.82 10.29 2.85 3.67 3.38
Color (%) 5.67 22.48 8.44 15.04 5.62 14.57 31.10
Female (%) 50.89 52.14 51.34 50.18 49.98 51.23 51.24
Old (65+ years) (%) 10.60 13.89 12.53 12.37 12.23 12.78 11.23
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.50 7.41 8.06 8.41 7.87 7.81 8.29
Native-born (%) 97.65 97.06 98.29 92.23 97.67 96.45 95.46
Renter housing units 17.20 33.66 21.95 24.24 15.37 25.92 27.76
(%)
College degree or 22.05 21.29 11.39 10.58 8.55 15.87 21.80
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.32 5.85 4.67 4.72 4.17 4.94 5.68
Poverty (%) 6.30 13.48 12.72 14.49 12.62 12.67 13.96
Mean household 74,061 59,963 56,218 52,671 54,467 58,659 64,327
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 104,716 344,451 213,882 195,827 78,444 937,320 19,479,114
White 97,329 263,853 194,285 171,839 73,885 801,191 13,191,726
Black 4,396 62,369 10,116 5,896 1,375 84,152 5,058,618
Asian 1,640 5,411 1,590 1,299 70 10,010 435,058
Native American 250 1,000 692 660 295 2,897 61,388
Others 1,101 11,818 7,199 16,133 2,819 39,070 732,324
Hispanic 1,489 16,626 9,764 29,257 4,034 61,170 1,147,361
Color 8,510 90,122 25,491 40,313 7,284 171,720 6,923,635
White (%) 92.95 76.60 90.84 87.75 94.19 85.48 67.72
Black (%) 4.20 18.11 4.73 3.01 1.75 8.98 25.97
Asian (%) 1.57 1.57 0.74 0.66 0.09 1.07 2.23
Native American (%) 0.24 0.29 0.32 0.34 0.38 0.31 0.32
Others (%) 1.05 3.43 3.37 8.24 3.59 4.17 3.76
Hispanic (%) 1.42 4.83 4.57 14.94 5.14 6.53 5.89
Color (%) 8.13 26.16 11.92 20.59 9.29 18.32 35.54
Female (%) 51.47 51.77 51.16 50.31 49.15 51.07 51.26
Old (65+ years) (%) 13.67 14.40 13.89 13.23 14.30 13.95 11.76
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.59 6.24 6.47 6.87 5.73 6.31 6.86
Native-born (%) 97.50 95.17 96.97 90.76 96.17 95.00 93.36
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 335

Table B.54 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 18.13 32.94 23.28 23.30 16.56 25.80 26.98
(%)
College degree or 26.17 23.80 14.61 13.03 9.30 18.55 24.82
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.70 9.30 9.79 9.75 9.33 9.18 8.72
Poverty (%) 7.72 17.23 16.73 19.33 15.61 16.33 16.27
Mean household 74,655 56,716 52,512 50,189 48,170 55,772 62,483
income ($)
Index 54 54 54 54 54 54 54

B.55 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Tennessee

See Fig. B.55.

See Table B.55.

Fig. B.55 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Tennessee, in 2010
336 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.55 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Tennessee, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 5 16 37 68 52 178 3,288
Tract area (sq. mile) 417 772 1,533 2,545 1,188 6,455 95,115
Total population 17,803 61,485 135,601 210,773 190,986 616,648 10,738,744
White 17,358 58,597 130,706 204,156 162,222 573,039 8,078,649
Black 348 2,431 4,030 4,538 25,951 37,298 2,484,619
Asian 21 114 179 998 1,827 3,139 101,213
Native American 41 210 495 687 561 1,994 25,762
Others 32 134 191 388 449 1,194 48,461
Hispanic 99 220 802 1,160 1,640 3,921 128,545
Color 527 2,993 5,514 7,412 29,899 46,345 2,731,038
White (%) 97.50 95.30 96.39 96.86 84.94 92.93 75.23
Black (%) 1.95 3.95 2.97 2.15 13.59 6.05 23.14
Asian (%) 0.12 0.19 0.13 0.47 0.96 0.51 0.94
Native American (%) 0.23 0.34 0.37 0.33 0.29 0.32 0.24
Others (%) 0.18 0.22 0.14 0.18 0.24 0.19 0.45
Hispanic (%) 0.56 0.36 0.59 0.55 0.86 0.64 1.20
Color (%) 2.96 4.87 4.07 3.52 15.66 7.52 25.43
Female (%) 50.29 52.15 51.09 50.91 52.34 51.50 51.67
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.42 14.66 13.91 11.52 13.18 12.90 11.09
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.41 7.48 7.27 7.77 7.76 7.59 8.81
Native-born (%) 99.43 99.53 99.38 98.99 98.17 98.89 97.90
Renter housing units 15.80 22.71 20.52 20.82 28.32 23.18 30.92
(%)
Education (%) 6.29 10.84 10.33 14.24 21.23 14.99 18.02
Unemployment (%) 7.23 7.72 7.47 6.26 5.36 6.40 6.00
Poverty (%) 16.02 18.81 14.98 13.33 11.26 13.67 15.19
Mean household 43,804 43,813 47,294 54,053 58,609 52,697 57,100
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 22,704 72,749 165,453 258,187 212,174 731,267 13,144,469
White 22,107 68,044 158,188 245,418 171,712 665,469 9,224,160
Black 323 2,868 3,782 5,971 32,436 45,380 3,226,594
Asian 9 272 686 1,516 3,024 5,507 226,113
Native American 71 233 444 681 755 2,184 37,045
Others 189 1,333 2,347 4,605 4,275 12,749 430,535
Hispanic 137 938 2,508 3,887 3,909 11,379 538,022
Color 644 5,116 8,852 14,852 42,370 71,834 4,165,552
White (%) 97.37 93.53 95.61 95.05 80.93 91.00 70.18
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 337

Table B.55 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 1.42 3.94 2.29 2.31 15.29 6.21 24.55
Asian (%) 0.04 0.37 0.41 0.59 1.43 0.75 1.72
Native American (%) 0.31 0.32 0.27 0.26 0.36 0.30 0.28
Others (%) 0.83 1.83 1.42 1.78 2.01 1.74 3.28
Hispanic (%) 0.60 1.29 1.52 1.51 1.84 1.56 4.09
Color (%) 2.84 7.03 5.35 5.75 19.97 9.82 31.69
Female (%) 50.72 51.56 50.91 50.51 52.19 51.20 51.06
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.39 13.99 15.68 12.38 14.28 13.84 10.57
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.04 7.45 6.94 7.44 7.27 7.30 8.41
Native-born (%) 99.46 98.82 98.40 98.15 96.89 97.95 94.51
Renter housing units 15.75 21.95 19.01 20.28 28.15 22.32 29.20
(%)
College degree or 8.63 10.85 13.89 18.84 24.46 18.22 22.56
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.31 6.50 5.11 4.62 4.43 4.84 5.52
Poverty (%) 15.37 14.18 12.76 10.77 10.94 11.75 13.27
Mean household 49,660 51,163 56,858 62,857 65,471 60,696 66,652
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 24,916 77,801 183,904 298,964 226,621 812,206 14,891,577
White 24,389 72,073 174,637 279,175 178,886 729,160 9,969,840
Black 191 3,168 4,182 9,915 36,386 53,842 3,856,603
Asian 0 522 1,045 3,276 4,772 9,615 382,465
Native American 101 135 376 872 614 2,098 36,373
Others 235 1,903 3,664 5,726 5,963 17,491 646,296
Hispanic 196 2,508 5,287 8,527 10,461 26,979 1,019,181
Color 712 7,387 12,975 25,893 55,226 102,193 5,469,325
White (%) 97.88 92.64 94.96 93.38 78.94 89.78 66.95
Black (%) 0.77 4.07 2.27 3.32 16.06 6.63 25.90
Asian (%) 0.00 0.67 0.57 1.10 2.11 1.18 2.57
Native American (%) 0.41 0.17 0.20 0.29 0.27 0.26 0.24
Others (%) 0.94 2.45 1.99 1.92 2.63 2.15 4.34
Hispanic (%) 0.79 3.22 2.87 2.85 4.62 3.32 6.84
Color (%) 2.86 9.49 7.06 8.66 24.37 12.58 36.73
Female (%) 51.03 52.15 49.95 50.72 51.83 51.00 51.19
Old (65+ years) (%) 15.04 15.54 18.69 14.46 15.62 15.86 11.13
Kid (<5 years) (%) 4.96 6.27 5.00 6.26 5.54 5.73 7.02
Native-born (%) 99.28 97.26 97.58 96.96 94.87 96.62 92.24
(continued)
338 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.55 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 20.19 21.88 19.57 20.88 28.02 22.71 27.97
(%)
College degree or 9.74 13.80 16.17 22.12 27.14 20.95 25.63
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 11.92 11.85 8.51 8.07 7.76 8.52 8.77
Poverty (%) 18.32 18.80 13.87 14.19 14.28 14.71 16.09
Mean household 48,760 47,342 54,341 62,930 62,752 59,019 63,819
income ($)
Index 55 55 55 55 55 55 55

B.56 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Texas

See Fig. B.56.

See Table B.56.

Fig. B.56 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Comanche
Peak Steam Electric Station, Texas, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 339

Table B.56 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Comanche Peak
Steam Electric Station, Texas, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 6 10 28 120 104 268 4,997
Tract area (sq. mile) 356 1,003 1,427 2,308 992 6,086 262,510
Total population 16,383 27,568 87,665 413,835 336,153 881,604 16,104,907
White 15,526 26,606 81,737 335,381 232,870 692,120 12,095,405
Black 0 33 1,968 45,809 60,741 108,551 1,909,988
Asian 62 155 395 6,408 4,734 11,754 303,301
Native American 94 157 376 1,694 1,649 3,970 65,902
Others 703 615 3,197 24,539 36,153 65,207 1,730,315
Hispanic 1,275 1,614 6,661 44,466 59,795 113,811 4,180,319
Color 1,429 1,952 9,307 97,969 126,073 236,730 6,428,898
White (%) 94.77 96.51 93.24 81.04 69.28 78.51 75.10
Black (%) 0.00 0.12 2.24 11.07 18.07 12.31 11.86
Asian (%) 0.38 0.56 0.45 1.55 1.41 1.33 1.88
Native American (%) 0.57 0.57 0.43 0.41 0.49 0.45 0.41
Others (%) 4.29 2.23 3.65 5.93 10.75 7.40 10.74
Hispanic (%) 7.78 5.85 7.60 10.74 17.79 12.91 25.96
Color (%) 8.72 7.08 10.62 23.67 37.50 26.85 39.92
Female (%) 49.36 50.00 51.21 50.96 50.69 50.82 50.76
Old (65+ years) (%) 12.26 17.08 13.02 11.43 11.39 11.77 9.96
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.85 8.24 8.81 9.37 10.41 9.68 9.80
Native-born (%) 96.67 96.92 97.15 94.59 92.17 94.03 90.86
Renter housing units 15.94 17.71 25.30 32.17 29.23 29.53 34.14
(%)
Education (%) 16.77 13.24 14.91 22.89 13.38 18.12 20.44
Unemployment (%) 10.40 8.64 6.78 5.70 8.55 7.02 7.12
Poverty (%) 11.08 12.02 14.33 11.57 18.42 14.46 18.30
Mean household 63,899 57,368 54,192 63,538 53,324 58,706 58,452
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 23,844 36,129 108,363 486,385 395,470 1,050,191 19,801,628
White 22,535 33,701 98,149 367,184 267,745 789,314 14,008,671
Black 20 53 2,036 53,905 57,331 113,345 2,272,209
Asian 45 218 808 8,460 8,021 17,552 550,840
Native American 261 380 666 2,873 2,598 6,778 106,977
Others 985 1,773 6,715 53,973 59,748 123,194 2,862,940
Hispanic 2,005 3,146 12,939 89,719 109,199 217,008 6,453,114
Color 2,470 4,094 17,582 161,044 179,682 364,872 9,559,410
(continued)
340 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.56 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 94.51 93.28 90.57 75.49 67.70 75.16 70.75
Black (%) 0.08 0.15 1.88 11.08 14.50 10.79 11.47
Asian (%) 0.19 0.60 0.75 1.74 2.03 1.67 2.78
Native American (%) 1.09 1.05 0.61 0.59 0.66 0.65 0.54
Others (%) 4.13 4.91 6.20 11.10 15.11 11.73 14.46
Hispanic (%) 8.41 8.71 11.94 18.45 27.61 20.66 32.59
Color (%) 10.36 11.33 16.23 33.11 45.44 34.74 48.28
Female (%) 50.84 50.43 50.78 51.22 49.89 50.64 50.42
Old (65+ years) (%) 16.35 16.06 12.05 11.43 9.62 11.08 9.85
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.15 7.48 8.33 8.70 9.63 8.93 9.30
Native-born (%) 96.64 95.96 94.60 90.44 85.71 89.42 85.92
Renter housing units 16.43 16.57 24.35 32.26 28.56 29.09 33.00
(%)
College degree or 22.38 18.02 17.70 23.45 16.00 19.90 23.42
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 4.47 4.89 6.61 4.60 6.28 5.43 6.10
Poverty (%) 6.77 10.67 10.36 11.26 15.81 12.75 15.51
Mean household 74,906 63,012 62,529 68,180 62,038 65,396 67,919
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 28,892 42,708 130,604 568,750 449,146 1,220,100 23,091,792
White 25,938 38,570 119,408 436,281 304,710 924,907 16,578,539
Black 162 191 2,761 70,101 57,885 131,100 2,733,566
Asian 178 199 1,223 11,676 10,447 23,723 900,113
Native American 165 408 815 2,765 2,330 6,483 113,197
Others 2,449 3,340 6,397 47,927 73,774 133,887 2,766,376
Hispanic 3,517 4,793 20,293 138,056 149,222 315,881 8,601,596
Color 4,191 6,125 26,419 228,601 225,170 490,506 12,534,673
White (%) 89.78 90.31 91.43 76.71 67.84 75.81 71.79
Black (%) 0.56 0.45 2.11 12.33 12.89 10.75 11.84
Asian (%) 0.62 0.47 0.94 2.05 2.33 1.94 3.90
Native American (%) 0.57 0.96 0.62 0.49 0.52 0.53 0.49
Others (%) 8.48 7.82 4.90 8.43 16.43 10.97 11.98
Hispanic (%) 12.17 11.22 15.54 24.27 33.22 25.89 37.25
Color (%) 14.51 14.34 20.23 40.19 50.13 40.20 54.28
Female (%) 52.09 49.17 51.30 51.33 49.60 50.63 50.39
Old (65+ years) (%) 20.27 16.92 13.02 11.36 9.42 11.23 10.09
Kid (<5 years) (%) 5.79 5.74 7.23 7.51 8.28 7.66 7.84
Native-born (%) 94.20 94.96 93.75 87.65 84.28 87.47 83.71
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 341

Table B.56 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 17.45 18.80 24.59 30.32 27.61 27.95 31.05
(%)
College degree or 28.15 20.40 19.56 25.62 18.57 22.30 25.95
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.91 5.48 6.92 7.18 8.82 7.62 6.97
Poverty (%) 8.36 13.33 13.26 14.27 17.57 15.20 16.84
Mean household 75,416 71,102 67,592 68,754 62,768 66,798 68,801
income ($)
Index 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

B.57 South Texas Project, Texas

See Fig. B.57.

See Table B.57.

Fig. B.57 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding South Texas
Project, Texas, in 2010
342 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.57 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from South Texas
Project, Texas, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 1 9 7 23 12 52 5,213
Tract area (sq. mile) 25 1,484 1,003 1,428 725 4,663 263,933
Total population 3,233 25,996 28,373 98,056 43,455 199,113 16,787,398
White 1,171 19,716 22,227 77,477 32,043 152,634 12,634,891
Black 1,783 2,641 2,999 9,481 5,330 22,234 1,996,305
Asian 16 596 117 901 262 1,892 313,163
Native American 8 83 51 268 176 586 69,286
Others 251 2,967 2,977 9,932 5,646 21,773 1,773,749
Hispanic 347 6,735 6,038 21,018 9,892 44,030 4,250,100
Color 2,140 9,990 9,198 31,624 15,645 68,597 6,597,031
White (%) 36.22 75.84 78.34 79.01 73.74 76.66 75.26
Black (%) 55.15 10.16 10.57 9.67 12.27 11.17 11.89
Asian (%) 0.49 2.29 0.41 0.92 0.60 0.95 1.87
Native American (%) 0.25 0.32 0.18 0.27 0.41 0.29 0.41
Others (%) 7.76 11.41 10.49 10.13 12.99 10.93 10.57
Hispanic (%) 10.73 25.91 21.28 21.43 22.76 22.11 25.32
Color (%) 66.19 38.43 32.42 32.25 36.00 34.45 39.30
Female (%) 52.77 50.06 50.94 49.42 49.97 49.89 50.78
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.57 11.30 12.60 10.74 9.72 10.92 10.05
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.90 10.39 9.42 9.73 10.49 9.94 9.79
Native-born (%) 97.03 94.66 95.98 95.97 94.21 95.43 90.97
Renter housing units 29.45 23.79 22.79 27.00 27.57 26.04 33.99
(%)
Education (%) 13.40 12.41 10.02 15.17 14.14 13.82 20.40
Unemployment (%) 8.90 7.72 6.78 6.23 5.91 6.46 7.12
Poverty (%) 26.65 20.76 19.75 14.02 14.60 16.07 18.12
Mean household 46,372 52,637 50,393 59,729 59,121 57,074 58,481
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 2,848 27,821 29,037 104,589 51,252 215,547 20,636,272
White 976 19,377 21,892 80,249 36,629 159,123 14,638,862
Black 1,489 2,718 2,655 9,230 5,561 21,653 2,363,901
Asian 0 867 123 1,372 482 2,844 565,548
Native American 7 122 210 442 173 954 112,801
Others 373 4,748 4,152 13,296 8,411 30,980 2,955,154
Hispanic 511 8,826 8,119 27,797 15,488 60,741 6,609,381
Color 2,049 12,727 11,180 39,626 22,160 87,742 9,836,540
White (%) 34.27 69.65 75.39 76.73 71.47 73.82 70.94
Black (%) 52.28 9.77 9.14 8.83 10.85 10.05 11.46
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 343

Table B.57 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Asian (%) 0.00 3.12 0.42 1.31 0.94 1.32 2.74
Native American (%) 0.25 0.44 0.72 0.42 0.34 0.44 0.55
Others (%) 13.10 17.07 14.30 12.71 16.41 14.37 14.32
Hispanic (%) 17.94 31.72 27.96 26.58 30.22 28.18 32.03
Color (%) 71.95 45.75 38.50 37.89 43.24 40.71 47.67
Female (%) 49.33 50.17 50.56 49.76 50.32 50.05 50.44
Old (65+ years) (%) 16.22 12.76 12.78 11.96 9.74 11.70 9.90
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.09 9.19 8.31 8.78 9.50 8.92 9.29
Native-born (%) 94.98 89.36 93.70 93.14 90.63 92.16 86.03
Renter housing units 27.52 24.47 22.17 24.85 28.60 25.29 32.89
(%)
College degree or 12.51 12.96 9.90 16.89 15.46 15.04 23.32
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 14.46 8.59 6.71 6.11 6.24 6.62 6.06
Poverty (%) 29.36 18.68 14.39 13.33 13.50 14.42 15.38
Mean household 47,534 52,902 55,810 64,295 62,168 60,886 67,862
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 2,654 27,059 28,372 106,080 52,041 216,206 24,095,684
White 1,618 21,346 21,994 84,478 42,231 171,667 17,331,780
Black 843 2,935 2,658 9,621 4,945 21,002 2,843,664
Asian 9 754 306 1,450 306 2,825 921,011
Native American 0 50 127 299 136 612 119,068
Others 184 1,974 3,287 10,232 4,423 20,100 2,880,163
Hispanic 813 10,032 9,546 32,581 19,037 72,009 8,845,468
Color 1,802 13,972 12,872 45,184 24,634 98,464 12,926,715
White (%) 60.96 78.89 77.52 79.64 81.15 79.40 71.93
Black (%) 31.76 10.85 9.37 9.07 9.50 9.71 11.80
Asian (%) 0.34 2.79 1.08 1.37 0.59 1.31 3.82
Native American (%) 0.00 0.18 0.45 0.28 0.26 0.28 0.49
Others (%) 6.93 7.30 11.59 9.65 8.50 9.30 11.95
Hispanic (%) 30.63 37.07 33.65 30.71 36.58 33.31 36.71
Color (%) 67.90 51.64 45.37 42.59 47.34 45.54 53.65
Female (%) 54.60 49.15 50.10 50.08 51.48 50.36 50.40
Old (65+ years) (%) 14.81 13.72 14.12 12.78 12.13 12.94 10.12
Kid (<5 years) (%) 13.07 7.24 6.67 6.97 8.37 7.38 7.83
Native-born (%) 96.16 88.19 92.07 92.31 89.77 91.20 83.84
Renter housing units 26.20 19.80 19.66 23.85 25.16 23.00 30.97
(%)
(continued)
344 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.57 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
College degree or 22.02 14.14 13.02 17.47 15.92 16.13 25.85
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 20.95 9.62 7.38 6.11 6.29 6.92 7.00
Poverty (%) 35.83 18.72 16.79 13.30 14.05 14.90 16.77
Mean household 58,182 57,343 63,317 65,116 61,833 62,983 68,751
income ($)
Index 57 57 57 57 57 57 57

B.58 North Anna Power Station, Virginia

See Fig. B.58.

See Table B.58.

Fig. B.58 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding North Anna
Power Station, Virginia, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 345

Table B.58 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from North Anna
Power Station, Virginia, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 6 26 55 134 143 364 2,949
Tract area (sq. mile) 363 1,037 1,730 1,502 1,549 6,181 49,000
Total population 14,747 64,514 147,361 402,522 455,975 1,085,119 9,883,689
White 11,623 51,398 120,330 335,257 292,911 811,519 7,378,020
Black 2,928 12,457 24,930 58,353 153,511 252,179 2,099,796
Asian 101 250 961 6,986 6,554 14,852 281,608
Native American 80 184 563 806 1,265 2,898 27,740
Others 21 237 561 1,128 1,726 3,673 96,481
Hispanic 70 563 1,567 4,522 5,427 12,149 263,207
Color 3,172 13,545 28,005 70,370 166,449 281,541 2,654,430
White (%) 78.82 79.67 81.66 83.29 64.24 74.79 74.65
Black (%) 19.85 19.31 16.92 14.50 33.67 23.24 21.25
Asian (%) 0.68 0.39 0.65 1.74 1.44 1.37 2.85
Native American 0.54 0.29 0.38 0.20 0.28 0.27 0.28
(%)
Others (%) 0.14 0.37 0.38 0.28 0.38 0.34 0.98
Hispanic (%) 0.47 0.87 1.06 1.12 1.19 1.12 2.66
Color (%) 21.51 21.00 19.00 17.48 36.50 25.95 26.86
Female (%) 49.91 50.55 51.33 52.09 51.82 51.75 51.16
Old (65+ years) (%) 11.76 9.23 12.34 11.56 9.46 10.65 10.76
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.79 9.75 8.43 8.21 9.56 8.91 8.69
Native-born (%) 98.69 98.92 98.22 96.64 97.55 97.40 93.96
Renter housing units 11.23 16.68 26.57 33.05 34.61 31.63 31.53
(%)
Education (%) 7.51 14.42 19.05 31.19 23.46 25.03 25.38
Unemployment (%) 5.77 3.72 3.34 3.04 4.39 3.71 4.48
Poverty (%) 13.37 7.29 7.15 7.31 11.67 9.22 9.40
Mean household 57,543 65,484 67,508 74,276 65,708 69,120 73,231
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 19,529 92,932 194,575 505,701 509,752 1,322,489 11,052,512
White 16,115 73,360 156,391 397,440 301,023 944,329 7,563,621
Black 2,964 16,117 30,418 78,514 181,818 309,831 2,542,420
Asian 118 837 2,224 14,738 9,363 27,280 444,435
Native American 30 357 681 1,602 1,819 4,489 33,556
Others 317 2,275 4,836 13,408 15,737 36,573 468,467
Hispanic 85 1,747 4,128 12,180 15,592 33,732 520,646
Color 3,471 20,635 40,365 114,911 215,072 394,454 3,729,566
White (%) 82.52 78.94 80.38 78.59 59.05 71.41 68.43
Black (%) 15.18 17.34 15.63 15.53 35.67 23.43 23.00
(continued)
346 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.58 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Asian (%) 0.60 0.90 1.14 2.91 1.84 2.06 4.02
Native American 0.15 0.38 0.35 0.32 0.36 0.34 0.30
(%)
Others (%) 1.62 2.45 2.49 2.65 3.09 2.77 4.24
Hispanic (%) 0.44 1.88 2.12 2.41 3.06 2.55 4.71
Color (%) 17.77 22.20 20.75 22.72 42.19 29.83 33.74
Female (%) 49.83 50.54 51.26 51.78 51.98 51.66 51.28
Old (65+ years) (%) 11.84 8.67 12.46 11.10 9.61 10.57 11.30
Kid (<5 years) (%) 7.56 8.79 7.58 7.91 8.42 8.12 7.91
Native-born (%) 98.52 97.71 96.89 94.29 95.50 95.44 90.70
Renter housing units 11.12 14.81 25.17 31.32 32.33 29.39 29.75
(%)
College degree or 12.00 18.76 26.63 37.69 27.29 30.36 30.31
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.63 3.08 3.51 3.03 4.84 3.80 4.52
Poverty (%) 9.07 6.36 6.84 7.10 11.16 8.62 9.18
Mean household 63,854 74,573 78,375 81,903 71,855 76,783 80,212
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 23,603 123,759 249,849 579,607 576,540 1,553,358 11,984,819
White 20,170 93,596 189,992 432,068 325,312 1,061,138 7,815,053
Black 2,667 23,261 40,418 97,102 204,309 367,757 2,829,628
Asian 25 1,734 7,227 24,751 17,741 51,478 678,333
Native American 74 389 809 1,727 2,273 5,272 35,882
Others 667 4,779 11,403 23,959 26,905 67,713 625,923
Hispanic 370 7,601 12,663 30,376 40,594 91,604 913,308
Color 3,577 34,485 65,145 164,562 275,434 543,203 4,664,333
White (%) 85.46 75.63 76.04 74.54 56.42 68.31 65.21
Black (%) 11.30 18.80 16.18 16.75 35.44 23.67 23.61
Asian (%) 0.11 1.40 2.89 4.27 3.08 3.31 5.66
Native American 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.30 0.39 0.34 0.30
(%)
Others (%) 2.83 3.86 4.56 4.13 4.67 4.36 5.22
Hispanic (%) 1.57 6.14 5.07 5.24 7.04 5.90 7.62
Color (%) 15.15 27.86 26.07 28.39 47.77 34.97 38.92
Female (%) 50.72 50.50 51.24 50.98 52.29 51.47 51.19
Old (65+ years) (%) 13.62 8.90 12.76 11.54 9.67 10.86 12.00
Kid (<5 years) (%) 4.75 6.97 6.57 6.31 6.92 6.61 6.41
Native-born (%) 98.59 95.40 93.96 90.88 92.03 92.28 87.66
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 347

Table B.58 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 12.97 17.75 23.10 29.25 30.68 27.67 27.95
(%)
College degree or 17.62 25.36 31.31 41.09 31.09 34.23 34.66
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.63 6.58 6.13 4.89 7.55 6.24 6.21
Poverty (%) 11.16 7.96 7.43 8.58 12.51 9.87 9.53
Mean household 75,634 80,880 87,353 87,536 75,335 82,290 86,787
income ($)
Index 58 58 58 58 58 58 58

B.59 Surry Nuclear Power Station, Virginia

See Fig. B.59.

See Table B.59.

Fig. B.59 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Surry Nuclear
Power Station, Virginia, in 2010
348 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.59 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Surry Nuclear
Power Station, Virginia, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 29 73 93 212 43 450 3,652
Tract area (sq. 356 892 1,551 1,797 1,003 5,599 90,995
mile)
Total population 108,530 252,904 321,598 700,649 140,317 1,523,998 11,291,965
White 77,393 175,672 214,999 434,235 108,717 1,011,016 8,793,509
Black 25,781 71,447 96,457 243,662 24,512 461,859 2,156,541
Asian 3,475 3,897 5,852 15,862 5,379 34,465 174,720
Native American 318 799 1,686 2,601 634 6,038 92,949
Others 1,575 1,078 2,622 4,287 1,069 10,631 74,215
Hispanic 3,403 3,822 7,214 13,015 3,484 30,938 193,446
Color 32,483 79,362 109,808 273,258 33,323 528,234 2,607,563
White (%) 71.31 69.46 66.85 61.98 77.48 66.34 77.87
Black (%) 23.75 28.25 29.99 34.78 17.47 30.31 19.10
Asian (%) 3.20 1.54 1.82 2.26 3.83 2.26 1.55
Native American 0.29 0.32 0.52 0.37 0.45 0.40 0.82
(%)
Others (%) 1.45 0.43 0.82 0.61 0.76 0.70 0.66
Hispanic (%) 3.14 1.51 2.24 1.86 2.48 2.03 1.71
Color (%) 29.93 31.38 34.14 39.00 23.75 34.66 23.09
Female (%) 50.04 51.19 47.25 51.54 50.14 50.34 51.40
Old (65+ years) 7.19 10.46 10.24 10.66 6.49 9.91 11.63
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.81 9.40 8.93 9.76 10.71 9.61 8.21
Native-born (%) 94.86 97.19 97.09 96.91 95.73 96.74 96.66
Renter housing 38.79 36.15 36.33 36.41 24.77 35.51 28.95
units (%)
Education (%) 26.08 20.02 18.38 16.82 18.71 18.48 21.10
Unemployment (%) 5.10 5.75 6.33 6.39 4.61 6.00 4.48
Poverty (%) 8.95 10.79 12.58 13.27 6.94 11.81 11.64
Mean household 64,169 59,585 56,975 57,769 66,543 59,126 61,416
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 121,515 297,971 331,503 724,082 170,125 1,645,196 13,482,632
White 78,854 192,505 199,550 406,629 119,672 997,210 9,921,884
Black 33,064 89,683 111,240 273,671 34,826 542,484 2,575,678
Asian 3,586 5,976 6,728 18,159 8,417 42,866 332,097
Native American 604 1,157 2,032 3,293 619 7,705 115,645
Others 5,412 8,639 11,986 22,295 6,610 54,942 537,317
Hispanic 5,287 7,587 10,008 18,109 6,164 47,155 653,082
Color 44,981 108,939 135,586 325,179 53,621 668,306 3,846,659
White (%) 64.89 64.61 60.20 56.16 70.34 60.61 73.59
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 349

Table B.59 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 27.21 30.10 33.56 37.80 20.47 32.97 19.10
Asian (%) 2.95 2.01 2.03 2.51 4.95 2.61 2.46
Native American 0.50 0.39 0.61 0.45 0.36 0.47 0.86
(%)
Others (%) 4.45 2.90 3.62 3.08 3.89 3.34 3.99
Hispanic (%) 4.35 2.55 3.02 2.50 3.62 2.87 4.84
Color (%) 37.02 36.56 40.90 44.91 31.52 40.62 28.53
Female (%) 50.98 51.06 48.80 52.07 50.69 51.00 51.02
Old (65+ years) 10.48 11.10 10.82 11.84 7.52 10.95 11.72
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.29 8.01 7.66 8.27 8.74 8.15 7.92
Native-born (%) 94.52 96.18 96.12 96.03 94.03 95.76 93.10
Renter housing 33.37 35.12 33.98 34.94 22.90 33.52 27.74
units (%)
College degree or 30.09 25.04 21.36 20.05 23.56 22.31 26.15
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 9.22 4.42 6.31 5.80 4.27 5.74 4.71
Poverty (%) 8.72 9.45 11.98 12.66 6.46 11.00 11.03
Mean household 72,811 64,749 62,916 62,622 73,177 64,827 70,393
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 133,856 313,540 350,480 760,375 182,845 1,741,096 15,371,836
White 82,362 200,937 208,094 413,362 123,893 1,028,648 10,905,054
Black 38,403 93,141 118,805 294,501 38,901 583,751 2,929,341
Asian 5,491 8,059 8,781 23,183 11,486 57,000 565,423
Native American 263 928 1,784 2,682 617 6,274 124,693
Others 7,337 10,475 13,016 26,647 7,948 65,423 847,325
Hispanic 9,876 12,427 18,294 31,137 10,416 82,150 1,216,224
Color 57,482 120,163 152,312 365,185 65,643 760,785 5,072,013
White (%) 61.53 64.09 59.37 54.36 67.76 59.08 70.94
Black (%) 28.69 29.71 33.90 38.73 21.28 33.53 19.06
Asian (%) 4.10 2.57 2.51 3.05 6.28 3.27 3.68
Native American 0.20 0.30 0.51 0.35 0.34 0.36 0.81
(%)
Others (%) 5.48 3.34 3.71 3.50 4.35 3.76 5.51
Hispanic (%) 7.38 3.96 5.22 4.09 5.70 4.72 7.91
Color (%) 42.94 38.32 43.46 48.03 35.90 43.70 33.00
Female (%) 49.85 51.91 49.69 51.50 50.47 50.98 51.11
Old (65+ years) 12.04 12.97 11.04 12.20 9.37 11.79 12.31
(%)
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.36 6.00 6.83 6.64 5.93 6.47 6.61
Native-born (%) 91.76 94.32 95.11 94.45 92.03 94.10 90.71
(continued)
350 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.59 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing 31.95 32.15 32.06 33.09 21.26 31.47 27.22
units (%)
College degree or 32.47 29.21 24.82 23.56 27.69 25.94 30.06
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 5.33 5.99 7.36 7.60 4.49 6.74 7.51
Poverty (%) 9.30 9.02 12.02 11.86 6.41 10.60 13.42
Mean household 76,794 72,330 67,347 66,378 80,390 69,885 71,291
income ($)
Index 59 59 59 59 59 59 59

B.60 Columbia Generating Station, Washington

See Fig. B.60.

See Table B.60.

Fig. B.60 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Columbia
Generating Station, Washington, in 2010
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 351

Table B.60 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Columbia

Generating Station, Washington, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 1 31 22 8 9 71 2,221
Tract area (sq. mile) 209 1,136 1,432 1,479 525 4,782 164,895
Total population 3,530 80,090 83,319 28,897 38,595 234,431 7,474,582
White 3,030 70,657 66,091 17,605 33,563 190,946 6,760,395
Black 43 1,159 1,088 128 318 2,736 190,052
Asian 51 2,159 1,019 164 536 3,929 275,017
Native American 7 733 525 117 494 1,876 122,977
Others 397 5,376 14,604 10,879 3,691 34,947 126,184
Hispanic 810 8,135 18,057 13,558 5,302 45,862 270,747
Color 913 12,102 20,642 13,943 6,625 54,225 845,064
White (%) 85.84 88.22 79.32 60.92 86.96 81.45 90.45
Black (%) 1.22 1.45 1.31 0.44 0.82 1.17 2.54
Asian (%) 1.44 2.70 1.22 0.57 1.39 1.68 3.68
Native American (%) 0.20 0.92 0.63 0.40 1.28 0.80 1.65
Others (%) 11.25 6.71 17.53 37.65 9.56 14.91 1.69
Hispanic (%) 22.95 10.16 21.67 46.92 13.74 19.56 3.62
Color (%) 25.86 15.11 24.77 48.25 17.17 23.13 11.31
Female (%) 45.38 50.35 49.56 49.17 50.38 49.85 50.60
Old (65+ years) (%) 7.45 10.72 9.49 10.13 12.48 10.45 12.61
Kid (<5 years) (%) 12.52 9.71 11.34 13.36 9.93 10.82 8.82
Native-born (%) 85.33 93.30 89.70 79.77 93.41 90.25 94.13
Renter housing units 23.65 34.90 34.51 36.26 33.88 34.57 34.34
(%)
Education (%) 18.59 25.49 14.58 9.45 12.73 17.64 22.19
Unemployment (%) 3.84 5.84 8.05 11.77 8.41 7.67 5.84
Poverty (%) 13.37 11.38 18.15 24.29 17.55 16.43 11.32
Mean household 68,778 62,309 53,379 45,794 46,521 54,816 60,293
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 4,364 104,495 104,464 38,349 51,242 302,914 9,012,606
White 3,610 85,968 75,638 19,906 40,740 225,862 7,546,720
Black 20 1,226 1,088 95 860 3,289 234,795
Asian 7 2,998 1,189 252 684 5,130 444,306
Native American 0 494 936 202 294 1,926 132,807
Others 726 13,793 25,626 17,889 8,668 66,702 653,983
Hispanic 1,346 17,685 35,415 24,803 11,912 91,161 622,618
Color 1,403 24,533 39,916 25,431 14,360 105,643 1,703,621
White (%) 82.72 82.27 72.41 51.91 79.51 74.56 83.74
(continued)
352 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.60 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Black (%) 0.46 1.17 1.04 0.25 1.68 1.09 2.61
Asian (%) 0.16 2.87 1.14 0.66 1.33 1.69 4.93
Native American (%) 0.00 0.47 0.90 0.53 0.57 0.64 1.47
Others (%) 16.64 13.20 24.53 46.65 16.92 22.02 7.26
Hispanic (%) 30.84 16.92 33.90 64.68 23.25 30.09 6.91
Color (%) 32.15 23.48 38.21 66.31 28.02 34.88 18.90
Female (%) 45.53 49.65 49.90 48.20 49.87 49.53 50.36
Old (65+ years) (%) 7.95 10.37 9.02 8.42 11.27 9.78 11.88
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.68 9.21 10.70 13.10 9.92 10.33 7.87
Native-born (%) 85.15 88.28 83.12 67.04 89.25 83.93 90.51
Renter housing units 23.36 29.09 31.09 34.76 31.04 30.64 32.88
(%)
College degree or 14.80 28.64 15.37 10.32 14.14 19.40 26.97
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 7.76 6.32 8.98 15.51 8.91 8.74 6.25
Poverty (%) 7.42 10.91 16.24 24.64 13.08 14.82 10.86
Mean household 78,951 73,296 61,975 50,840 57,875 64,507 70,554
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 6,007 136,709 118,655 42,256 61,782 365,409 9,957,813
White 5,309 105,263 84,008 29,521 51,267 275,368 8,144,049
Black 29 2,314 1,514 161 741 4,759 291,553
Asian 74 4,332 2,004 121 660 7,191 633,904
Native American 0 1,274 1,297 321 874 3,766 152,058
Others 595 23,526 29,832 12,132 8,240 74,325 736,249
Hispanic 1,039 31,535 48,639 31,650 18,973 131,836 979,907
Color 1,211 41,078 54,415 32,270 22,168 151,142 2,350,377
White (%) 88.38 77.00 70.80 69.86 82.98 75.36 81.79
Black (%) 0.48 1.69 1.28 0.38 1.20 1.30 2.93
Asian (%) 1.23 3.17 1.69 0.29 1.07 1.97 6.37
Native American (%) 0.00 0.93 1.09 0.76 1.41 1.03 1.53
Others (%) 9.91 17.21 25.14 28.71 13.34 20.34 7.39
Hispanic (%) 17.30 23.07 40.99 74.90 30.71 36.08 9.84
Color (%) 20.16 30.05 45.86 76.37 35.88 41.36 23.60
Female (%) 44.18 49.87 49.52 48.56 47.32 49.08 50.35
Old (65+ years) (%) 9.59 10.46 9.92 8.02 10.97 10.07 12.57
Kid (<5 years) (%) 9.99 8.72 8.29 10.41 9.08 8.86 6.31
Native-born (%) 90.66 86.31 80.56 64.76 87.01 82.14 88.63
Renter housing units 16.20 28.89 30.46 36.90 33.34 30.76 32.44
(%)
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 353

Table B.60 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
College degree or 17.45 28.27 16.75 7.84 14.78 20.04 30.46
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 2.02 6.59 8.46 12.71 9.54 8.26 7.98
Poverty (%) 7.82 13.50 18.67 29.34 15.81 17.33 12.64
Mean household 79,791 72,614 59,086 47,739 58,236 63,491 70,963
income ($)
Index 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

B.61 Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Wisconsin

See Fig. B.61.

See Table B.61.

Fig. B.61 Spatial distribution of percent color among the populations surrounding Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Wisconsin, in 2010
354 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.61 Demographic composition of population, as sorted by distance from Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Wisconsin, in 1990, 2000, and 2010 Source (Kyne 2014)
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Year 1990
Tract 5 13 48 30 18 114 1,295
Tract area (sq. mile) 192 1,154 1,689 712 1,403 5,150 60,346
Total population 20,905 51,500 173,433 109,702 62,752 418,292 4,473,476
White 20,582 50,155 167,146 106,176 61,258 405,317 4,108,993
Black 32 75 949 215 93 1,364 242,940
Asian 139 928 2,549 1,380 714 5,710 47,350
Native American 106 256 2,313 1,617 288 4,580 35,137
Others 45 88 473 315 397 1,318 39,044
Hispanic 86 314 1,341 870 938 3,549 84,057
Color 358 1,570 7,038 3,983 1,973 14,922 407,753
White (%) 98.45 97.39 96.37 96.79 97.62 96.90 91.85
Black (%) 0.15 0.15 0.55 0.20 0.15 0.33 5.43
Asian (%) 0.66 1.80 1.47 1.26 1.14 1.37 1.06
Native American (%) 0.51 0.50 1.33 1.47 0.46 1.09 0.79
Others (%) 0.22 0.17 0.27 0.29 0.63 0.32 0.87
Hispanic (%) 0.41 0.61 0.77 0.79 1.49 0.85 1.88
Color (%) 1.71 3.05 4.06 3.63 3.14 3.57 9.11
Female (%) 50.23 51.65 51.09 50.84 50.95 51.03 51.08
Old (65+ years) (%) 15.71 17.03 12.23 11.60 15.58 13.33 13.31
Kid (<5 years) (%) 8.89 8.55 9.36 9.31 8.65 9.12 8.93
Native-born (%) 99.15 98.05 98.40 98.08 97.86 98.23 97.45
Renter housing units 21.80 27.10 32.07 28.36 23.84 28.65 29.59
(%)
Education (%) 11.08 12.78 16.20 15.88 12.64 14.87 18.01
Unemployment (%) 4.30 5.41 4.57 4.00 4.87 4.54 5.26
Poverty (%) 8.18 9.67 9.69 6.06 7.97 8.40 10.91
Mean household 53,475 51,709 57,095 64,344 53,847 57,584 57,762
income ($)
Year 2000
Total population 20,819 53,856 194,781 124,182 68,085 461,723 4,901,952
White 20,468 51,106 178,340 115,725 64,232 429,871 4,343,682
Black 2 123 2,339 603 416 3,483 296,872
Asian 103 1,276 4,066 2,924 1,470 9,839 74,815
Native American 43 387 3,205 2,213 283 6,131 43,530
Others 201 967 6,822 2,722 1,680 12,392 143,060
Hispanic 175 1,111 8,246 2,736 1,838 14,106 176,943
Color 444 3,251 19,591 9,649 4,611 37,546 638,480
(continued)
Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses 355

Table B.61 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
White (%) 98.31 94.89 91.56 93.19 94.34 93.10 88.61
Black (%) 0.01 0.23 1.20 0.49 0.61 0.75 6.06
Asian (%) 0.49 2.37 2.09 2.35 2.16 2.13 1.53
Native American (%) 0.21 0.72 1.65 1.78 0.42 1.33 0.89
Others (%) 0.97 1.80 3.50 2.19 2.47 2.68 2.92
Hispanic (%) 0.84 2.06 4.23 2.20 2.70 3.06 3.61
Color (%) 2.13 6.04 10.06 7.77 6.77 8.13 13.03
Female (%) 49.51 51.19 50.15 50.61 50.61 50.43 50.64
Old (65+ years) (%) 16.06 16.24 11.79 11.45 15.47 12.95 13.11
Kid (<5 years) (%) 6.40 7.20 8.14 8.24 7.00 7.81 7.71
Native-born (%) 98.84 97.06 95.73 97.09 96.56 96.51 96.38
Renter housing units 18.83 25.88 32.49 27.21 24.44 28.41 28.34
(%)
College degree or 13.40 16.27 20.25 21.36 15.58 19.04 22.74
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 3.16 4.18 3.91 3.01 2.99 3.53 4.79
Poverty (%) 5.57 7.15 7.29 5.02 5.70 6.34 8.88
Mean household 61,514 61,446 65,898 72,787 63,011 66,550 67,158
income ($)
Year 2010
Total population 19,752 53,456 202,115 140,059 70,207 485,589 5,152,358
White 18,850 50,204 179,187 127,270 65,421 440,932 4,473,619
Black 279 289 3,674 1,711 709 6,662 342,000
Asian 252 1,565 5,466 3,887 2,364 13,534 110,461
Native American 129 244 3,599 3,289 255 7,516 41,673
Others 242 1,154 10,189 3,902 1,458 16,945 184,605
Hispanic 221 2,018 15,574 4,811 2,683 25,307 285,242
Color 1,071 4,608 31,504 14,984 6,438 58,605 843,917
White (%) 95.43 93.92 88.66 90.87 93.18 90.80 86.83
Black (%) 1.41 0.54 1.82 1.22 1.01 1.37 6.64
Asian (%) 1.28 2.93 2.70 2.78 3.37 2.79 2.14
Native American (%) 0.65 0.46 1.78 2.35 0.36 1.55 0.81
Others (%) 1.23 2.16 5.04 2.79 2.08 3.49 3.58
Hispanic (%) 1.12 3.78 7.71 3.43 3.82 5.21 5.54
Color (%) 5.42 8.62 15.59 10.70 9.17 12.07 16.38
Female (%) 51.27 50.78 50.53 50.04 50.69 50.47 50.40
Old (65+ years) (%) 19.15 16.83 11.85 12.32 15.85 13.41 13.39
Kid (<5 years) (%) 4.35 6.04 6.86 6.24 6.13 6.38 6.29
Native-born (%) 98.31 96.44 94.19 96.40 96.26 95.54 95.41
(continued)
356 Appendix B: Descriptive Analyses

Table B.61 (continued)

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 0–50 Outside
Renter housing units 17.23 24.82 30.54 25.50 24.06 26.86 26.75
(%)
College degree or 15.05 18.25 22.56 24.91 20.59 22.13 26.14
higher (%)
Unemployment (%) 6.47 7.90 6.28 5.42 5.99 6.17 6.70
Poverty (%) 9.06 9.16 10.86 7.53 9.51 9.43 11.83
Mean household 58,942 58,520 61,510 71,688 57,426 63,316 65,460
income ($)
Index 61 61 61 61 61 61 61

Reference

Kyne D (2014) Environmental justice issues in communities hosting US nuclear power plants
(Order No. 3617964). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1528556250).
Retrieved from http://ezhost.utrgv.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezhost.utrgv.
edu:2048/docview/1528556250?accountid=7119
Index

A D
Alert, 78, 80, 103, 133, 135, 147, 148, 151 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, 301, 302
Alvin M. Weinberg, 5 Decommissioning strategies, 33, 46
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency Deep-dose equivalent (EDE), 79, 138
(ARRA), 136, 138–142, 144, 146, 170, 181 Deferred dismantling, 33, 46
Arkansas Nuclear One, 65, 72, 170, 184 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, 69, 170,
Atomic Energy Act of 1946, 6 187, 188
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), 6 Disasters, 28, 75, 77, 102, 144, 155
Augmented inspection team (AIT), 30 Disaster and emergency management process,
75
B Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, 241, 242
Beaver Valley Power Station, 65, 307 Dresden Nuclear Power Station, 45, 65, 214
Beryllium, 1 Duane Arnold Energy Center, 223, 224
Braidwood Station, 205, 206
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, 170, 175, 176 E
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 69, 172, 292 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, 199, 200
Byron Station, 171, 208, 209 Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), 20,
27
C Emergency planning zones (EPZs), 39, 148
Cadmium, 5 Enrico Fermi, 1
Callaway Plant, 172, 259, 260 Entombing, 33, 46, 165
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, 171, 235, Environmental Assessments (EAs), 10
236 Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), 10
Catawba Nuclear Station, 61, 322, 323 Environmental justice, 11, 39–41
Chernobyl Accident, 20, 25, 28 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 10,
Clinton Power Station, 211, 212 41, 79, 80
Columbia Generating Station, 65, 72, 352, 353 Evacuation, 20, 25, 28, 29, 39, 72, 75, 78, 79,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, 340, 82, 91, 101–103, 112, 114, 116, 125, 126,
341 129, 131, 140, 141, 144, 145, 148, 149,
Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs), 58 151, 164, 165
Committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE),
79, 138 F
Committee on the Analysis of Cancer Risks, Fair treatment, 11
43, 44 Fermi, 4, 5, 11, 65, 171, 244, 245
Contamination Risks, 16, 30 Field Measurement to Dose (FMDose), 87, 88,
Cooper Nuclear Station, 65, 72, 262, 263 102
Core-meltdown accident, 8, 17, 18, 28, 39, 72, Fission, 1, 6, 8, 33, 86
88, 105–107, 135–137, 148, 149, 163, 165 Fission Technology, 6
Core-meltdown Risks, 16 Fort Calhoun Station, 265, 266

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 357

D. Kyne, Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies in the USA,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50343-1
358 Index

Fuel assembly, 7 M
Fukushima Daiichi Accident, 26, 27, 30, 49 McGuire Nuclear Station, 65, 69, 172, 294,
295, 296
G Meaningful involvement, 11
Gaseous effluents, 43, 86 Millstone Power Station, 45, 65, 190, 191
GE boiling water reactors (BWR), 26 Mitigation, 76, 78, 103, 142, 145, 161, 164
General Emergency (GE), 26, 32, 78, 80, 81, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, 250, 251
82, 103
GeoLytics, 48 N
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, 69, 172, 252, 256, Nagasaki, 5
257 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
Graphite, 5, 20 10, 41
National Research Council (U.S.), 44
H National Research Council (USA), 43
Hazards, 41, 76, 143 Near-miss events, 29
H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, 325, 326 New Safe Containment, 24
High-power channel reactor, 20 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, 172, 286, 287
Hiroshima, 5, 31 Non-urban areas, 47, 61
Hope Creek Generating Station, 65, 171, 271, Normal accident, 34
272 Normal Accident Theory, 34
Host communities, 31, 39, 41, 44, 46, 49, 50, North Anna Power Station, 346, 347
61, 106, 118 Notification of Unusual Event (NOUE), 78, 80,
Hurricane Sandy, 75, 77, 78 103
Nuclear Power Emergencies, 39, 75, 77, 78,
I 103
Incident inspection team (IIT), 30 Nuclear power emergency and response, 79
Indian Point Nuclear Generating, 65, 72, 123, Nuclear power emergency management
125, 128, 129, 131, 148, 280, 281 process, 77–79
Inevitable Risks, 1, 33, 39, 41, 77 Nuclear Power Reactor, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15, 148
Ingestion Exposure Zone (IEZ), 39 Nuclear Radiation Risks, 32
Internal radiation pathway, 43 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 6
Internal radiation pathway, 43
Invisible Risks, 40 O
Oconee Nuclear Station, 328, 329
J Operating License, 10, 41, 42, 48
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, 172, Operating License Process, 10
283, 284 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, 45,
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, 170, 178, 179 65, 274, 275

L P
LaSalle County Station, 69, 217, 218 Palisades Nuclear Plant, 247, 248
Leo Szilard, 5 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, 40, 49,
License Renewal, 6, 12 65, 88, 91, 106, 110, 132, 137, 170, 181,
Limerick Generating Station, 61, 65, 72, 310, 182
311 Peaceful Applications of Atoms Act, 1, 5
Liquid effluents, 43, 86 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, 65, 313,
Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons Learned 314
Task Force (LLTF), 30 Perry Nuclear Power Plant, 304, 305
Lise Meitner, 4 Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, 65, 238, 239
Low-level radiation, 19, 42–44, 46 Point Beach Nuclear Plant, 174, 355, 356
Index 359

Potassium (KI) pills, 133, 141, 143, 163, 165 Soviet-designed RBMK, 20
Potential Risks, 16, 31, 32, 34, 40, 44, 46, 72, Special inspection team (SIT), 30
144 St. Lucie Plant, 61, 171
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, 253, Stakeholder participation, 146, 163
254 Stream-water mixture, 7
Prediction, 76, 77 Superstorm Sandy, 75
Protective Action Decisions (PADs), 79, 101 Surry Nuclear Power Station, 65, 349, 350
Projecting Source to Term Dose, 88 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, 316, 317
Projection of Plume Path Dispersion, 75, 78,
82, 142, 164 T
Protective Action Recommendation (PAR), 78, Terrorist Attack Risks, 33, 41
79, 101, 103, 137, 142 Three Mile Island (TMI) Accident, 17
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, 65, 319,
Q 320
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, 220, 221 Thyroid CDE, 100
2010 TIGER Shape file, 58
R Total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), 79, 91,
Radioactive plume dispersion, 105, 132, 138, 96, 100, 101, 107, 111, 112, 114–116, 118,
139, 142, 144 124–127, 129–131, 138
Radiological Assessment System for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, 65, 196
Consequence Analysis (RASCAL), 79, 82, Typical Boiling-Water Reactor, 7
107, 138 Typical Pressurized-Water Reactor, 7
Radium, 1 Typifying weather conditions, 105, 129, 132,
reaktor bolshoy moshchnosty kanalny, 20 151
Recovery, 25, 76, 103, 142, 145, 149, 151
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, 289, 290 U
Release Path, 88, 90 United Nations Scientific Committee of the
Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system, 27 Effects of Atomic Radiation, 28
Response, 24, 28, 47, 72, 75, 76, 78, 79, 82, Unknown Consequences, 40
86, 103, 132, 135, 139, 142, 146, 149, 164 Uranium, 3, 4, 7, 16, 24, 80
River Bend Station, 171, 268, 269 Urban areas, 58
US Census Bureau, 48
S
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, 65 V
Sarcophagus, 24, 165 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 331, 332
Seabrook Station, 65, 72 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 202, 203
Self-sustaining Chain Reaction, 1, 5 Vulnerability, 28, 75
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, 334, 335
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, 69, 298, W
299 Warning, 18, 32, 76, 78, 80, 141, 145
Shippingport Atomic Power Station, 6 Waterford Steam Electric Station, 69, 171, 232,
Site Area Emergency (SAE), 78, 80, 103 233
Source Term to Dose (STDose), 79, 82, 87, 89, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 337, 338
90, 92, 107, 131, 138 Wolf Creek Generating Station, 65, 226
South Texas Project, 11, 61, 72, 173, 343