H.1.0 INTRODUCTION

This appendix describes the socioeconomic impact modeling for the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) alternatives. It describes the methodology and assumptions used in the modeling effort and provides additional technical information about the analysis. This appendix discusses:

• The development of the baseline Hanford Site employment estimates used to assess the socioeconomic impacts of the EIS alternatives;
• The econometric forecasting model used to project economic variables; and
• Details of the employment projections for the EIS alternatives.

The appendix also includes tables showing socioeconomic impacts for each alternative during each year of the remediation period, analyzed up to the year 2040.

The socioeconomic impact analysis addresses the Tri-Cities Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which encompasses all of Benton and Franklin counties. The analysis does not address impacts on other areas of the region because there are too few Hanford Site employees in the surrounding counties for changes in Hanford Site employment to cause substantial economic impacts there. Historically, only about 7 percent of the total Site work force has lived outside Benton and Franklin counties (Cushing 1995). Most of these employees live in Yakima County, which has a total nonfarm employment of over 65,000 (WSDES 1993b). With Hanford Site employees representing approximately 1 percent of total Yakima County nonfarm employment, the EIS alternatives would have too small an employment impact to warrant detailed analysis. The analysis does not address potential economic impacts of accidents that potentially could occur during implementation of the alternatives. Because there is a very low probability that an accident would have major economic impact, this issue does not warrant detailed analysis. However, Appendix E does provide a discussion of potential impacts associated with remediation accidents and mitigation measures that would be taken to address those impacts.

It was assumed that the schedule for implementing each alternative would meet the applicable Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) milestones (Ecology et al. 1994). There are uncertainties related to waste characterization (Appendix A, Section A.3.0) and waste loading (Appendix B, Section B.3.10 and B.8.0) that could affect the schedules for completing all of the ex situ alternatives. Under conservative case conditions, because of these uncertainties completing the ex situ alternative could require from one to four years beyond the applicable Tri-Party Agreement milestones for low-activity waste. However, there are factors that could compensate for these uncertainties and allow the Tri-Party Agreement schedule to be maintained. For example, it may be possible to achieve a higher percentage of waste loading than projected under the conservative case. Also, larger processing facilities could be constructed or construction schedules could be accelerated, both of which could shorten alternatives' schedules for completion.

Section H.1.1 provides a discussion of the assumptions, data, methodology, and uncertainties directly associated with the development of the baseline scenario used to calculate and compare the impacts of the EIS alternatives. The major uncertainties are associated with the projection of future levels of non-TWRS Hanford Site employment and future overall employment in the Tri-Cities MSA. In both cases, substantial changes in future overall employment would change each alternative's impact on future Hanford Site employment, Tri-Cities MSA nonfarm employment, population, taxable retail sales, and average home prices. In turn, changes to the population projection would result in comparable changes to each alternative's impact on public services and facilities such as schools, police, and fire (Volume One, Section 5.6). Also, changes to the projection of future Hanford Site employment would result in changes to the analysis of transportation impacts (Volume One, Section 5.10). In each case, however, the changes in future employment would impact all of the alternatives equally. Therefore, while the level of each impact would change, the comparison of the relative impacts among the alternatives would not be affected.

In the time between publication of the Draft EIS and preparation of the Final EIS, revisions have occurred in the schedules of a number of EIS alternatives. In all cases except for Phase 2 of the Phased Implementation alternative, these schedule changes would have a very small effect (less than 5 percent) on the level or timing of employment under the various alternatives. Because this is well within the accuracy of the socioeconomic modeling, the modeling was not revised.

The Final EIS includes a new alternative that was not analyzed in detail in the Draft EIS. This alternative, the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternative, would have lower overall employment levels than the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative that was analyzed in detail in the Draft EIS. However, the timing of the employment peaks under the Ex Situ/In Situ Contamination 2 alternative, as well as the duration of its construction and operations phases, would be similar to the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative. Data are provided in this appendix for peak and average employment levels for the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternative. However, no socioeconomic modeling has been performed because of its similarity to the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative.

H.1.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASELINE ECONOMIC ESTIMATE

This section describes the assumptions, data, and methodology used to develop the baseline estimate of future economic activity in the Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco (also called the Tri-Cities) MSA. This estimate was used to analyze the socioeconomic impacts of the EIS alternatives.

The socioeconomic impact analysis compares the impacts of the EIS alternatives to an estimate of future economic conditions in the Tri-Cities area, based on Hanford Site employment in the absence of any TWRS activities (except for a phased shutdown of routine tank farm operations). The scenario for future Hanford Site employment that provided the baseline for the impact analysis was calculated using the following method:

1. The latest available estimate of total Hanford Site employment was obtained from Hanford Site facility planning personnel (Daly 1995). This estimate assumed implementing the TWRS program as defined by the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) (Ecology et al. 1994).
2. Labor requirements were estimated over time to implement the TWRS programs as defined in the Tri-Party Agreement, based on engineering data provided by the Hanford Site Management and Operations contractor (WHC 1995a). The engineering data were provided for total labor hours by phase of the activity. The EIS contractor then adjusted the labor hours to reflect the final alternatives selected for analysis in the EIS and to ensure consistency in the methodology used to develop labor estimates among the alternatives (Jacobs 1996). These data were then provided for inclusion as inputs into the socioeconomic modeling.
3. The labor requirements for the TWRS program were then subtracted from the overall estimate of Hanford Site employment to derive a calculational baseline for Hanford Site employment that excludes remediation of the tank waste.

This calculational baseline for Hanford Site employment (total employment without TWRS employment) then was used in an econometric forecasting model to analyze the socioeconomic impacts of the various EIS alternatives. Figure H.1.1.1 shows both the estimate of total Site employment and the calculational baseline of total Site employment without TWRS employment. All figures and tables in this appendix are provided after page H-1 5 .

Assumptions incorporated into the impact analysis included the following:

• The latest available estimated total Hanford Site employment (including potential TWRS activities as defined in the Tri-Party Agreement) was derived from data for selected years between 1994 and 2025. The intervening years were estimated using straight-line interpolation. For the years subsequent to 2025, a straight-line extrapolation was used, with 2040 as the end year.
• The latest available estimated total Hanford Site employment incorporated planned restructuring of the Hanford Site labor force, including early retirements and reductions in force, as well as new hires expected in 1995 for the Hanford Site environmental restoration contractor, and for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office. Because plans for labor force restructuring and new hires are under constant review, these estimates are imprecise but are the best currently available.
• The latest available total Hanford Site labor employment estimate includes other (non-TWRS) environmental cleanup and restoration activities, operations and maintenance, research and development (including the Environmental and Molecular Sciences Laboratory and the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory), and facilities management personnel required to operate and maintain the Hanford Site.
• The data on the proposed TWRS program, as defined in the Tri-Party Agreement, provided by the Hanford Site Management and Operations contractor and the TWRS EIS contractor were used in the following manner. Annual employment data were developed based on engineering projections that allocated estimated labor requirements over the different phases of the project. The annual labor requirements data were then interpolated (or assigned intermediate values) to provide quarterly data, as required by the regression model, to be used to estimate impacts. Because the total Hanford Site employment data were estimated using smoothed interpolations, the TWRS Tri-Party Agreement labor requirements estimates also were smoothed using a 30-quarter moving average before subtracting them from the total Hanford Site employment estimates to obtain the calculational baseline employment estimates. This smoothing was done to maintain consistency between the two data series. Without smoothing the data, the annual fluctuations in the TWRS Tri-Party Agreement data would have been transferred to the calculational baseline estimate, creating a misleading result. However, the smoothed TWRS Tri-Party Agreement data were used only to estimate calculational baseline employment. The socioeconomic impact analysis of the EIS alternatives used unsmoothed data added to the calculational baseline. The calculational baseline estimate used to construct estimates of total Hanford Site employment for each of the proposed EIS alternatives is described in Section H.3.1.
• Routine operations at the tank farms were included in the latest available total Hanford Site employment estimate and in the estimated labor requirements for the TWRS Tri-Party Agreement labor estimate. As envisioned in the Tri-Party Agreement, tank farm routine operations would be phased out over time as remediation occurs. Estimates for employment in routine operations (including phaseouts over time) were incorporated into the labor requirements for the other TWRS EIS alternatives as described in Section H.3.1. The inclusion of the routine operations labor estimate in the calculational baseline was factored into the labor estimates for each of the alternatives. Routine operations were estimated to require 1,016 full-time equivalent employees. In the calculational baseline, it was assumed that the routine operation activities would phaseout beginning in 2005, with an end to routine operations in 2029. For alternatives with routine operations extending at current levels beyond 2005, the labor required to maintain the 1,016 employment level was added to the alternative labor estimates. This was the case for the No Action, Long-Term Management, and In Situ Fill and Cap alternatives. For other alternatives that ended routine operations prior to 2029, the appropriate level of employment was subtracted for the labor estimate. This was the case for the In Situ Vitrification, Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1, Ex Situ/In Situ Contamination 2, and Phased Implementation alternatives.

The calculational baseline estimate of Hanford Site employment is used only to provide a basis for analyzing the impacts of the proposed EIS alternatives. These impacts are measured in terms of percentage changes from the calculational baseline. Neither the calculational baseline nor the impact analysis itself is intended to be a precise forecast of future economic conditions in the Tri-Cities MSA. Any forecast that extends over 40 years can only project current trends and is subject to unpredictable changes in future economic conditions. The Tri-Cities is in the early stages of an economic transition as Site employment decreases. There are currently little definitive data to indicate how successful attempts to diversify the local economy will be in reducing dependence on the Hanford Site, the area's largest single employer. Likewise, any estimates of future Hanford Site employment under any scenario must be considered as estimates rather than definitive data. The calculational baseline estimate, however, provides a consistent projection of one possible path for Hanford Site employment that can be used as the basis for analyzing and comparing the impacts of the EIS alternatives. Changes in future Hanford Site employment or future Tri-City MSA employment would affect the amount of population growth, taxable sales growth, housing price changes, and other socioeconomic factors analyzed in the EIS. However, such future employment changes would affect all EIS alternatives equally and thus would not affect the comparison of the relative impacts of the alternatives.

H.2.0 ECONOMETRIC FORECASTING MODEL METHODOLOGY

Quantitative projections of the impacts of the TWRS EIS alternatives on nonfarm employment, population, housing prices, and taxable retail trade were obtained by regression analysis, using Hanford Site employment as the key independent variable. The regression analysis used data from historical experience to determine the statistical relationship between Hanford Site employment and total Tri-Cities MSA nonfarm employment (1987 to 1993), and the statistical relationship between nonfarm employment and taxable retail sales (1987 to 1993), population (1980 to 1993), and housing market conditions (1980 to 1993). These statistical relationships provide information on the potential impacts of future changes in Hanford Site employment on retail sales, population, and housing market conditions.

Analyzing the impacts of the EIS alternatives required specific estimates of labor hours for implementing each alternative. In each case, these labor hours were estimated based on cost and labor input data supplied by the Hanford Site Management and Operations contractor (WHC 1995a, c, e, f, g, h, i, j, n) and by the TWRS EIS contractor (Jacobs 1996). The data first were estimated as annual average full-time equivalent employees, then interpolated to obtain quarterly full-time equivalent employees (at annual rates). The labor estimates for the EIS alternatives then were added to the calculational baseline estimate of total Hanford Site employment to obtain total Hanford Site employment estimates under each alternative. The estimates of total Hanford Site employment associated with the EIS alternatives then were used to estimate impacts on nonfarm employment in the Tri-Cities MSA. Because Hanford Site activities do not impact farm employment, the analysis addresses nonfarm employment only. Nonfarm employment then was used to estimate impacts on taxable retail sales and population. Population was used to estimate impacts on housing prices.

1. The econometric model used to estimate impacts accounts for the "multiplier effect" of Hanford Site jobs on the Tri-Cities economy. For each new job at the Hanford Site, it was estimated that approximately 2.4 jobs would be created in the nonfarm employment sector. These jobs, as well as the new Hanford Site jobs, then were used in estimating other impacts, including taxable retail sales, population, and housing market conditions. This 2.4 multiplier is in reasonably close agreement with employment multipliers used in other recent Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. For example, the Safe Interim Storage of Hanford's Tank Waste Final EIS (DOE 1995i) used a 2.2 multiplier based on input/output analysis by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. However, the model used for the TWRS is based on historical data for the Tri-Cities through the end of 1993, whereas the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory multiplier was developed in the late 1980's and is considered to be less representative of current economic conditions. These two models are the only known comprehensive economic models that were developed by analyzing the local economy.

All equations are linear and were estimated using ordinary least squares. The following sections of this appendix (H.2.1 through H.2.4) document the regression equations used in the quantitative assessments.

H.2.1 EMPLOYMENT

The regression equation for total Tri-Cities MSA nonfarm employment uses quarterly data from the third quarter of 1987 to the fourth quarter of 1993 and has the following explanatory variables:

X1 = Hanford Site employment (full-time equivalent employees);
X2 = Time trend;
X3 = First quarter dummy variable;
X4 = Lagged Hanford Site employment (one year or four quarters); and
Y1 = Nonfarm employment.

The time trend starts at one for the third quarter of 1987. Data on Hanford Site employment were obtained from the DOE Richland Operations Office. Data on Tri-Cities MSA employment were obtained from the Washington State Department of Employment Security (WSDES 1993b). Table H.2.1.1 shows the data used to estimate the regression equation. The T-value for each estimated parameter (a measure of the statistical significance of the estimated parameter, where a T-value greater than two means that there is a high degree of confidence that the true value of the parameter is different than zero) is shown in parentheses. The adjusted R-squared value (a measure of the goodness-of-fit of the estimated equation) is shown immediately after the equation. An adjusted R-squared value of 1.0 indicates a perfect fit.

The estimated equation for employment is:

Y1 = 36998.466489 + 2.438843 X1 + 209.789246 X2 - 1500.74503 X3 - 0.822646 X4
( 4.574603) ( 3.103108) (1.039399) (-4.539982) (-4.440990)
Adjusted R-squared: 0.986
Note:
. = Multiplied by

H.2.2 TAXABLE RETAIL SALES

The regression equation for taxable retail sales uses quarterly data from the third quarter of 1987 to the third quarter of 1993 (the latest data available). The equation has the following explanatory variables:

X5 = Time trend;
X6 = Quarterly nonfarm employment at annual rates;
X7 = First quarter dummy variable;
X8 = Fourth quarter dummy variable; and
Y2 = Taxable retail sales.

The data on taxable retail sales were obtained from the Washington State Department of Revenue (WSDR 1993). Table H.2.2.1 shows the data used to estimate the regression equation.

The equation for taxable retail sales is:

Y2 = -68.899165 + 5.089547 X5 + 0.005126 X6 - 37.779538 X7 + 0.687021 X8
(-0.613913) (3.652568) (2.471805) (-4.976665) (0.108059)
Adjusted R-squared: 0.964
Note:
. = Multiplied by

H.2.3 POPULATION

The regression equation for population in the Tri-Cities MSA used annual data on population for 1980 to 1993. The explanatory variables are:

X14 = Time trend;
X15 = Annual average nonfarm employment, with a lag of 1 year; and
Y3 = Population.

The time trend starts at one for 1980, although 1980 is not used in the regression because lagged employment is used. The data on population comes from the 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census (DOC 1991) and the Washington State Department of Financial Management (WSDFM 1987-95) for years other than 1980 and 1990. Table H.2.3.1 shows the data used in the regression analysis.

The equation for population is:

Y3 = 58107.265102 + 358.944822 X14 + 1.465489 X15
(3.805755) (1.160945) (5.370630)
Adjusted R-squared: 0.764
Note:
. = Multiplied by

H.2.4 AVERAGE HOME PRICES

The regression equation for the average home price in the Tri-Cities MSA used annual data for 1980 to 1993 (HBA 1994). The explanatory variables are:

X9 = Time trend;
X10 = Population; and
Y4 = Average home price.

Data on home prices were obtained from the Tri-Cities Association of Realtors (TAR 1995). Table H.2.4.1 shows the data used to estimate the equation.

The equation for the average home price is:

Y4 = -176.372436 + 0.508830 X9 + 0.001653 X10
(-7.901429) (1.755588) (10.435336)
Adjusted R-squared: 0.926
Note:
. = Multiplied by

H.3.0 TWRS EIS ALTERNATIVES IMPACT PROJECTIONS

For each EIS alternative, the economic impact estimates were made using the following four steps.

1. Estimates of total Hanford Site employment under the alternative were used to estimate quarterly nonfarm employment.
2. Estimated quarterly nonfarm employment was used to estimate quarterly taxable retail sales. Quarterly sales were summed for each year to yield estimated annual taxable retail sales.
3. Quarterly sales estimates of nonfarm employment for each year were averaged to estimate the average annual employment for that year. Average annual employment was lagged 1 year and then used to estimate population.
4. Annual population estimates were used to estimate average annual home prices.

H.3.1 HANFORD SITE EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS

This section provides detail on the development of the employment estimates for the EIS alternatives. For each alternative, the annual average employment was estimated for each phase of activity based on engineering data and cost estimates provided by the Hanford Site Management and Operations contractor (WHCa, c, e, f, g, h, i, j, n) and the TWRS EIS contractor (Jacobs 1996).

Employment for each phase of each EIS alternative was divided into three phases for purposes of this analysis. These phases are 1) construction of facilities; 2) facilities operations; and 3) post remediation, including decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of remediation facilities and monitoring and maintenance (M&M) activities as applicable. Activities for each phase then were divided into waste retrieval, waste transfer, and waste processing activities. For analytical purposes, the estimates of waste retrieval and processing activities were aggregated into the construction, operations, and post-remediation phases. Each alternative would also involve routine operations of the tank farms that, for all alternatives except No Action and Long-Term Management, would be phased out over time as remediation occurs.

Once total annual average employment for each alternative was derived by combining the annual data for the various phases, the data were converted to quarterly employment by straight line interpolation. Interpolation was used to build ramp-up and ramp-down periods into the quarterly Hanford Site employment data, which more accurately reflect the process of increasing or decreasing staffing levels for large-scale projects. However, because of the interpolations, annual average Hanford Site employment data as used in the forecasts and reported in Tables H.3.2.1 through H.3.2.3 will differ slightly from the annual employment data reported in Tables H.3.1.1 through H.3.1.10. Then, the quarterly data for the alternatives were added to the calculational baseline of quarterly average total Hanford Site employment. The resulting estimate of total Hanford Site employment under each alternative then was input to the forecasting model to produce the socioeconomic impact analysis for the Tri-Cities MSA.

No Action Alternative (Tank Waste)

The No Action alternative would have one phase: routine tank farm operations. Figure H.3.1.1 and Table H.3.1.1 show the number of potential full-time equivalent employees by phase under this alternative. The routine tank farm operations phase assumes that routine operations would be maintained at the TWRS program Tri-Party Agreement level through 2005. After 2005, the TWRS program Tri-Party Agreement would involve a steady phaseout of routine operations, while the No Action alternative would maintain routine operations staffing at the 2005 level of just over 1,000 full-time equivalent employees. The difference between routine operations employment under the No Action alternative and under the TWRS program Tri-Party Agreement was used to calculate total employment for the No Action alternative. Use of the TWRS program Tri-Party Agreement routine operations estimates in the baseline estimate resulted in the need to add employment to the No Action alternative estimates from 2005 through 2029. The jobs were added to maintain employment levels at 1,016 for routine operations.

Long-Term Management Alternative

The Long-Term Management alternative would have two phases: 1) routine tank farm operations; and 2) tank replacement (which would include waste retrieval and transfer activities as well as new tank construction).

The routine operations phase of the Long-Term Management alternative is identical to the routine operations phase for the No Action alternative. The Long-Term Management alternative assumes that the double-shell waste tanks would be replaced every 50 years. The data in Table H.3.1.2 and Figure H.3.1.2 show one such replacement cycle in the 2030's. Future tank replacements would occur beyond the 2040 time frame for the analysis in this EIS.

In Situ Fill and Cap Alternative

This alternative would involve neither a waste retrieval and transfer or a D&D phase. The phases for the In Situ Fill and Cap alternative would include:

• Construction (install fill equipment);
• Fill and cap operations;
• Post remediation - M&M and tank closure; and
• Routine tank farms operations.

Employment under this alternative would be low; a maximum change from the calculational baseline of less than 150 in the peak year, which is approximately 1 percent of the calculational baseline total Hanford Site employment. Figure H.3.1.3 and Table H.3.1.3 show the number of full-time equivalent employees by phase for the In Situ Fill and Cap alternative. Under this alternative, routine tank farm operations would differ greatly from the TWRS program Tri-Party Agreement estimate. The In Situ Fill and Cap alternative would result in a faster completion of tank waste remediation, which would result in routine operations being phased out sooner. The calculation of Hanford Site employment under the In Situ Fill and Cap alternative includes the difference between routine tank farm operations under the TWRS program defined in the Tri-Party Agreement and routine operations under the In Situ Fill and Cap alternative. This difference would represent a reduction in Hanford Site employment, as compared to the baseline. Because of this difference, the estimate of employment impacts presented in Figure H.3.1.3 and Table H.3.1.3 show a negative estimate of total employment under the alternative from 2023 through 2030. This comparison only represents a negative number of jobs compared to the baseline estimate.

In Situ Vitrification Alternative

The In Situ Vitrification alternative would not involve waste retrieval and transfer but would involve a relatively minor D&D phase. The operations phases for this alternative would include:

• Vitrification facilities construction;
• Vitrification operations;
• Post-remediation activities - M&M, D&D, and tank closure; and
• Routine tank farm operations.

Figure H.3.1.4 and Table H.3.1.4 show the number of full-time equivalent employees by phase for the In Situ Vitrification alternative.

Ex Situ Intermediate Separations Alternative

The Ex Situ Intermediate Separation s alternative would involve the following phases:

• Waste retrieval and transfer - construction;
• Waste retrieval and transfer - operations;
• Waste retrieval and transfer - D&D;
• Waste processing - construction;
• Waste processing - operations;
• Post remediation - M&M, D&D, and tank closure; and
• Routine tank farm operations.

Figure H.3.1.5 and Table H.3.1.5 show projected employment for each phase of the alternative. The routine operations phase is identical to the routine operations estimate for the TWRS program as defined in the Tri-Party Agreement, and it is therefore currently built into the baseline projection as part of the current forecast of Hanford Site employment. Because of this, routine operations were not separately incorporated into the calculated Hanford Site employment for this alternative. Construction employment for both waste retrieval and transfer and for the vitrification facilities would peak in the year 2000 and decline sharply through 2010. Operations employment would begin in 1997, climb steadily from 2001 through 2003, level off for several years, and then climb sharply in 2009 when full-scale waste processing operations would begin. Operations employment would drop off sharply in 2019, at which point post-remediation activities would be conducted.

Ex Situ No Separations Alternative

This alternative's breakdown by phase is the same as for the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative. Figure H.3.1.6 and Table H.3.1.6 show employment for the Ex Situ No Separations alternative by construction, operations, and post-remediation phases. The data show a large spike in construction activity in the period 1997 to 2003. Not only would the level of employment for construction reach almost 4,500 jobs in 2000, but the period of construction activity would be very short, with construction jobs falling to 3,000 in 2001 and below 1,000 by 2003.

Ex Situ Extensive Separations Alternative

Employment would involve the same phases for this alternative as for the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative. As shown in Figure H.3.1.7 and Table H.3.1.7, employment under the alternative would result in two spikes in construction activity. Both spikes would occur during construction of the waste processing facilities. The boom-bust cycle reflected by the two spikes would result in substantial economic impacts because of the transient nature of crews working on large construction projects. The Tri-Cities MSA experienced similar conditions in the early 1980's with the Washington Public Supply System nuclear project (as noted in Section 4.6).

Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 Alternative

This alternative is a combination of the In Situ Fill and Cap alternative and the Ex Situ Extensive Separations alternative. The waste from approximately 70 tanks would be retrieved, transferred, and processed as described for the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative, with the remaining tanks undergoing fill and cap construction and operations activities as described for the In Situ Fill and Cap alternative. The breakdown by phases for Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative would be as follows:

Figure H.3.1.8 and Table H.3.1.8 show estimated employment under the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative by project phase. Construction activity, including both waste retrieval and transfer and waste processing facilities, would peak in 2000, and then begin a steady decrease through 2010. After several years of level employment, construction activity then would fall steadily until it ends in 2018. Operations, including both transfer and retrieval and waste processing, would begin to increase in the late 1990's with a fairly level period between 2003 and 2009. This would be followed by a large increase to a peak level in 2010, when waste processing would reach its full operational status. After 2018, operations would decline sharply when the post-remediation activity (including tank closure and D&D of facilities) would occur. Except for minimal M&M activities, total Hanford Site employment for the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative and the calculational baseline would converge by 2030.

Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 Alternative

This alternative is very similar to the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative except that wastes would be retrieved from 25 tanks rather than from approximately 70 tanks under the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative. The remainder of the 177 tanks would undergo fill and cap construction and operations activities as described for the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative. The primary difference between the two Ex Situ/In Situ Combination alternatives is that the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternative would involve scaled-down waste retrieval, waste transfer, and waste processing activities, which include pretreatment, LAW processing, high-level waste (HLW) processing, LAW vaults, and HLW temporary storage. This smaller scale of operations is because there would be fewer tanks from which the waste would be retrieved and a smaller volume of waste to be processed. The smaller scale of operations generally would result in lower levels of employment to implement the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternative than would be required for the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative, particularly during the operations phase. However, the timing of the employment peaks and the nature and duration of the various phases of activity would be similar between these two alternatives.

Peak construction phase employment under the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternative would occur in the year 2001 at about 2,200 workers. Over the 14-year construction period, employment would average about 1,400 workers. Over the 35-year operating period under this alternative, there would be a broad peak employment period from the year 2008 to 2019. During this peak period, employment would average approximately 750 workers. Over the entire 35-year operations period, employment would average about 430 workers.

As mentioned in Section H.1.0, no detailed year-by-year employment data were generated for the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternative, nor was any socioeconomic modeling performed to assess its impacts. Thus, this appendix contains no detailed data tables or graphics for this alternative, either describing employment under the alternative or evaluating its impacts on overall Tri-Cities nonfarm employment, population, taxable retail sales, or housing prices. The lower levels of employment under this alternative compared to the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative would result in smaller socioeconomic impacts on the Tri-Cities area.

Phased Implementation Alternative

The Phased Implementation alternative differs from the other alternatives, and this difference is reflected in the economic impact analysis. Phased Implementation would involve a demonstration phase (Phase 1) and a full-scale treatment phase (Phase 2). The demonstration phase would involve two combined separations and LAW facilities and one separations and HLW vitrification facility. After completing the demonstration phase, the demonstration plants would be shut down and two LAW vitrification facilities and one HLW vitrification facility would be built, together with waste retrieval and transfer facilities. The full-scale facilities would operate through 2025. The economic impact analysis is divided into two parts; Phase 1 covers the demonstration phase only, and the total alternative covers the entire Phased Implementation alternative.

Labor force requirements for the Phased Implementation alternative were based on the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative, scaled for the reduced size of the facilities, and include construction, operation, and post-remediation labor force for the two plants. In addition, there was a further 15 percent reduction in labor force requirements based on an improved overall efficiency in operating personnel operations during the first phase.

Phase 1

Phase 1 of the Phased Implementation alternative would consist of construction, operations, and post remediation (including D&D).

Because this alternative would involve a reduced-scale demonstration and terminate in 201 2 after processing only a portion of the tank waste, routine operations are assumed to be the same as under the calculational baseline and are not separately identified. Also, M&M activities are not included because of the limited duration of the alternative. A small number of workers would be involved in transferring waste from the tanks to the treatment facility and are included in the operations phase labor force projections. Figure H.3.1.9 and Table H.3.1.9 show the labor force projections for each element of the alternative. Since publication of the Draft EIS, changes in Phase 1 of this alternative resulted in estimated employment levels that are within 2 percent of the levels presented in the Draft EIS. Thus, socioeconomic impacts for Phase 1 would be very similar to those presented in the Draft EIS.

Total Alternative

The total Phased Implementation alternative would consist of construction, operations, post remediation (including D&D and M&M), and routine operations.

Labor requirements for the total Phased Implementation alternative track the Phase 1 labor requirements through 2003. Construction of waste retrieval and transfer facilities for Phase 2 would begin in 2004. Construction of the waste treatment facility would begin in 2005. Operation of the Phase 2 waste retrieval and treatment facilities would extend through 2025. D&D of the waste retrieval and transfer facilities would begin in 2015 and extend through 2027, while D&D of the waste treatment facilities would begin in 2022 and extend through 2030. Tank closure would begin in 2016 and conclude in 2039. Routine operations virtually would be the same as in the calculational baseline, except for some accelerated reduction in the labor force after 2020. Figure H.3.1.10 and Table H.3.1.10 show the labor force projections for each phase.

Capsule Alternatives

The maximum number of employees that would be involved in implementing any of the capsule alternatives would be 47 employees in the peak year. This low level of employment will not have a measurable impact on current and future socioeconomic conditions. For this reason, the socioeconomic impacts of capsule alternatives were not modeled. However, where appropriate, data regarding employment under the alternatives are presented in Section 5.6.

H.3.2 DATA TABLES FOR IMPACTS OF TWRS EIS ALTERNATIVES

The annual impacts of the EIS alternatives are presented in the following data tables.

Data regarding Hanford Site employment are presented in Tables H.3.2.1, H.3.2.2, and H.3.2.3. Tri-Cities nonfarm employment data are presented in Tables H.3.2.4, H.3.2.5, and H.3.2.6. Data regarding Tri-Cities population are presented in Tables H.3.2.7, H.3.2.8, and H.3.2.9. Tri-Cities taxable retail sales data are presented in Tables H.3.2.10, H.3.2.11, and H.3.2.12 and data regarding Tri-Cities housing prices are presented in Tables H.3.2.13, H.3.2.14, and H.3.2.15.

For all tables presented in this Appendix, routine operations are those in addition to routine operations labor requirements under the TWRS program Tri-Party Agreement estimate, which includes approximately 1,000 employees for routine operations through 2005 and a phaseout of employment through 2029. The employment estimate assumes employment for routine operations would continue at 1995 levels through 2040. Negative numbers in Tables H.3.1.3 to H.3.1.10 and H.3.2.1 to H.3.2.15 result from the phaseout of routine operations on an earlier schedule than included in the TWRS program Tri-Party Agreement estimates.

FIGURES:

Figure H.1.1.1 Estimated Hanford Site Employment and Calculational Baseline Employment Estimate, 1994 to 2040

Figure H.3.1.2 Full-Time Equivalent Employees (Change from Baseline Estimate) - Long-Term Management Alternative, 1995 to 2040

Figure H.3.1.3 Full-Time Equivalent Employees (Change from Baseline Projection) - In Situ Fill and Cap Alternative, 1995 to 2040

Figure H.3.1.4 Full-Time Equivalent Employees (Change from Baseline Estimate) - In Situ Vitrification Alternative, 1995 to 2040

Figure H.3.1.5 Full-Time Equivalent Employees (Change from Baseline Estimate) - Ex Situ Intermediate Separations Alternative, 1995 to 2040

Figure H.3.1.6 Full-Time Equivalent Employees (Change from Baseline Estimate) - Ex Situ No Separations Alternative, 1995 to 2040

Figure H.3.1.7 Full-Time Equivalent Employees (Change from Baseline Estimate) - Ex Situ Extensive Separations Alternative, 1995 to 2040

Figure H.3.1.8 Full-Time Equivalent Employees (Change from Baseline Estimate) - Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 Alternative, 1995 to 2040

Figure H.3.1.9 Full-Time Equivalent Employees (Change from Baseline Estimate) - Phased Implementation Alternative (Phase 1), 1995 to 201 3

Figure H.3.1.10 Full-Time Equivalent Employees (Change from Baseline Estimate) - Phased Implementation (Total Alternative), 1995 to 2040

TABLES:

Table H.2.1.1 Regression Data for Nonfarm Employment in the Tri-Cities MSA

Table H.2.2.1 Regression Data for Taxable Retail Sales in the Tri-Cities MSA

Table H.2.3.1 Regression Data for Population in the Tri-Cities MSA

Table H.2.4.1 Regression Data for Average Home Prices in the Tri-Cities MSA

Table H.3.1.1 Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Phase (Change from Baseline Estimate) - No Action Alternative, 1995 to 2040

Table H.3.1.2 Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Phase (Change from Baseline Estimate) - Long-Term Management Alternative, 1995 to 2040

Table H.3.1.3 Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Phase (Change from Baseline Estimate) - In Situ Fill and Cap Alternative, 1995 to 2040 ¹

Table H.3.1.5 Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Phase (Change from Baseline Estimate) - Ex Situ Intermediate Separations Alternative, 1995 to 2040

Table H.3.1.6 Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Phase (Change from Baseline Estimate) - Ex Situ No Separations Alternative, 1995 to 2040

Table H.3.1.7 Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Phase (Change from Baseline Estimate) - Ex Situ Extensive Separations Alternative, 1995 to 2040

Table H.3.1.8 Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Phase (Change from Baseline Estimate) - Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 Alternative, 1995 to 2040

Table H.3.1.9 Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Element (Change from Baseline Estimate) - Phased Implementation Alternative (Phase 1), 1995 to 2014

Table H.3.1.10 Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Element (Change from Baseline Estimate) - Phased Implementation Alternative (Total Alternative), 1995 to 2040

Table H.3.2.1 Hanford Site Employment with the No Action, Long-Term Management, and In Situ Fill and Cap Alternatives (Change from Baseline Estimate), 1994 to 2040 (Full-Time Equivalent Employees)

Table H.3.2.2 Hanford Site Employment with the In Situ Vitrification, Ex Situ Intermediate Separations, and Ex Situ No Separations Alternatives (Change from Baseline Estimate), 1994 to 2040 (Full-Time Equivalent Employees)

Table H.3.2.3 Hanford Site Employment with the Ex Situ Extensive Separations, Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 , and Phased Implementation Alternatives (Change from Baseline Estimate), 1994 to 2040 (Full-Time Equivalent Employees)

Table H.3.2.4 Tri-Cities MSA Nonfarm Employment with the No Action, Long-Term Management, and In Situ Fill and Cap Alternatives (Change from Baseline Estimate), 1994 to 2040

Table H.3.2.5 Tri-Cities MSA Nonfarm Employment with the In Situ Vitrification, Ex Situ Intermediate Separations, and Ex Situ No Separations Alternatives (Change from Baseline Estimate), 1994 to 2040

Table H.3.2.6 Tri-Cities MSA Nonfarm Employment with the Ex Situ Extensive Separations, Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 , and Phased Implementation Alternatives (Change from Baseline Estimate), 1994 to 2040

Table H.3.2.7 Tri-Cities MSA Population with the No Action, Long-Term Management, and In Situ Fill and Cap Alternatives (Change from Baseline Estimate), 1994 to 2040

Table H.3.2.8 Tri-Cities MSA Population with the In Situ Vitrification, Ex Situ Intermediate Separations, and Ex Situ No Separations Alternatives (Change from Baseline Estimate), 1994 to 2040

Table H.3.2.11 Tri-Cities MSA Taxable Retail Sales with the In Situ Vitrification, Ex Situ Intermediate Separations, and Ex Situ No Separations Alternatives (Change from Baseline Estimate), 1994 to 2040 ($ Millions)

Table H.3.2.14 Tri-Cities MSA Home Prices with the In Situ Vitrification, Ex Situ Intermediate Separations, and Ex Situ No Separations Alternatives (Change from Baseline Estimate), 1994 to 2040 ($ Thousands)

Table H.3.2.15 Tri-Cities MSA Home Prices with the Ex Situ Extensive Separations, Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 , and Phased Implementation Alternatives (Change from Baseline Estimate), 1994 to 2040 ($ Thousands)

REFERENCES