APPENDIX D: SOCIOECONOMICS

D.1 Introduction

This appendix includes the methodologies, models, assumptions, and supporting data used to assess potential impacts in the socioeconomics sections of this programmatic environmental impact statement. Section D.2 presents the methods and assumptions used to evaluate the potential socioeconomic effects of the proposed alternatives of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program. The socioeconomic analysis involved two major steps: (1) characterizing and projecting existing social, economic, and infrastructure conditions surrounding each of the candidate sites (i.e., the affected environment); and (2) evaluating potential changes in socioeconomic conditions that could result from operating the proposed alternatives in the regions addressed (i.e., the environmental consequences).

For each site, socioeconomic impacts were estimated using two geographic areas. First, a region of influence (ROI) was identified based on the distribution of residences for current Department of Energy (DOE) and contractor employees. The ROI is defined as those counties where approximately 90 percent of the workforce lives. This residential distribution reflects existing commuting patterns and attractiveness of area communities for people employed at each site, and was used to estimate the future distribution of direct workers associated with the proposed alternatives.

As an example, table D.1-1 displays the residential distribution by city and county for approximately 90 percent of all personnel employed at Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Data on residential locations of a large portion of facility employees were obtained from ORR personnel offices. Similar data were provided by the other locations and are given in tables D.1-2 through D.1-8.

Table D.1-1.-- Distribution of Employees by Place of Residence in the Oak Ridge Reservation
Region of Influence, 1991

County/City	Number of Employees	Total Site Employment (percent)
Anderson County	5,053	33.1
Clinton	1,035	6.8
Oak Ridge	3,292	21.6
Knox County	5,490	36.0
Knoxville	4,835	31.7
Loudon County	848	5.6
Lenoir City	638	4.2
Roane County	2,537	16.6
Harriman	802	5.3
Kingston	1,033	6.8
Total ROI	13,928	91.3
City values are included within county totals. ORR 1991a:4.

Table D.1-2.-- Distribution of Employees by Place of Residence in the Savannah River Site
Region of Influence, 1991

County/City	Number of Employees	Total Site Employment (percent)
Aiken County	9,978	51.9
Aiken	4,928	25.7
North Augusta	2,666	13.9
Barnwell County	1,401	7.3
Columbia County	2,036	10.6
Richmond County	3,358	17.5
Augusta	2,780	14.5
Total ROI	16,773	87.3
City values are included within county totals. SRS 1991a:3.

Table D.1-3.-- Distribution of Employees by Place of Residence in the Kansas City Plant
Region of Influence, 1991

County/City	Number of Employees	Total Site Employment (percent)
Cass County	761	14.0
Belton	237	4.4
Harrisonville	150	2.8
Jackson County	3,246	59.8
Kansas City	1,499	27.6
Lee's Summit	609	11.2
Johnson County	915	16.9
Overland Park	376	6.9
Wyandotte County	135	2.3
Total ROI	5,057	93.2
City values are included within county totals. KCP 1993a:1.

Table D.1-4.-- Distribution of Employees by Place of Residence in the Pantex Plant
Region of Influence, 1994

County/City	Number of Employees	Total Site Employment (percent)
Armstrong County	46	1.3
Carson County	380	10.7
Potter County	1,217	34.2
Amarillo	196	5.5
Randall County	1,783	50.2
Total ROI	3,426	96.4
City values are included within county totals. PX 1994a:2.

Table D.1-5.-- Distribution of Employees by Place of Residence in the Los Alamos National Laboratory Region of Influence, 1991

County/City	Number of Employees	Total Site Employment (percent)
Los Alamos County	4,697	48.3
Rio Arriba County	2,027	20.8
Espanőla	944	9.7
Santa Fe County	1,851	19.0
Santa Fe	1,548	15.9
Total ROI	8,575	88.1
City values are included within county totals. LANL 1991b:6.

Table D.1-6.-- Distribution of Employees by Place of Residence in the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory Region of Influence, 1995

County/City	Number of Employees	Total Site Employment (percent)
Alameda County	4,746	57.1
Livermore	3,215	38.7
Pleasanton	642	7.7
Contra Costa County	1,098	13.2
San Joaquin County	1,327	16.0
Manteca	372	4.5
Tracy	656	7.9
Total ROI	7,171	86.3
City values are included within county totals. LLNL 1995i:1.

Table D.1-7.-- Distribution of Employees by Place of Residence in the Sandia National Laboratories Region of Influence, 1994

County/City	Number of Employees	Total Site Employment (percent)
Bernalillo County	6,463	88.0
Albuquerque	6,030	82.1
Sandoval County	333	4.5
Valencia County	334	4.5
Total ROI	7,130	97.0
City values are included within county totals. SNL 1995b:1.

Table D.1-8.-- Distribution of Employees by Place of Residence in the Nevada Test Site
Region of Influence, 1991

County/City	Number of Employees	Total Site Employment (percent)
Clark County	6,270	81.7
Henderson	357	4.7
Las Vegas	5,352	69.7
North Las Vegas	505	6.6
Nye County	1,173	15.3
Total ROI	7,443	97.0
City values are included within county totals. NTS 1991a:1.

A second geographical area, referred to as a regional economic area, was also identified for estimating socioeconomic impacts. The regional economic area encompasses a broad market that involves trade among regional industrial and service sectors and is characterized by strong economic links between the communities located in the region. These links determine the nature and magnitude of multiplier effects of economic activity at each candidate site. Regional economic areas, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, consist of an economic node that serves as the center of economic activity, and surrounding counties that are economically related and include the places of work and residence of its labor force. The regional economic area is used to analyze the primary economic impacts on employment, spending, earnings, and personal income. Table D.1-9 displays the counties found in each site's regional economic area.

Data for the year 1992 or later were obtained from sources such as the U.S. Bureau of Census, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), state and local government publications, and telephone interviews with state and local government officials and planners.

Table D.1-9.-- Candidate Sites' Regional Economic Areas

ORR		SRS		KCP				Pantex			LANL		LLNL			SNL		NTS
Tennessee		Georgia		Kansas	Missouri (Con't)	Missouri (Con't)		New Mexico	Texas (Con't)		New Mexico		California	California (Con't)		Arizona		Arizona
Anderson		Burke		Anderson	Caldwell	Livingston		Curry	Gray		Guadalupe		Alameda	Stanislaus		Apache		Mohave
Blount		Columbia		Atchison	Carroll	Macon		Debaca	Hall		Los Alamos		Calaveras	Trinity
Campbell		Glascock		Bourbon	Cass	Mercer		Harding	Hansford		Mora		Contra Costa	Tuolumne
Cocke		Jefferson		Doniphan	Cedar	Nodaway		Quay	Hartley		Rio Arriba		Humboldt			New Mexico		Nevada
Grainger		Jenkins		Douglas	Chariton	Pettis		Roosevelt	Hemphill		San Miguel		Lake			Bernalillo		Clark
Hamblen		Lincoln		Franklin	Clay	Platte		Union	Hutchinson		Santa Fe		Marin			Catron		Esmeralda
Hancock		McDuffie		Johnson	Clinton	Putnam			Lipscomb		Taos		Mariposa			Cibola		Lincoln
Jefferson		Richmond		Leavenworth	Davies	Ray			Moore				Mendocino			McKinley		Mineral
Knox		Warren		Linn	De Kalb	Saline		Texas	Ochiltree				Merced			Sandoval		Nye
Loudon		Wilkes		Miami	Gentry	Schuyler		Armstrong	Oldham				Monterey			Socorro
Morgan				Wyandotte	Grundy	St. Clair		Bailey	Parmer				Napa			Torrance
Roane					Harrison	Sullivan		Carson	Potter				San Benito			Valencia		Utah
Scott		South Carolina			Henry	Vernon		Castro	Randall				San Francisco					Beaver
Sevier		Aiken		Missouri	Holt	Worth		Childress	Roberts				San Joaquin					Garfield
Union		Allendale		Adair	Jackson			Collingsworth	Sherman				San Mateo					Iron
		Bamberg		Andrew	Johnson			Cottle	Wheeler				Santa Clara					Piute
		Barnwell		Bates	Knox			Dallam					Santa Cruz					Washington
		Edgefield		Benton	Lafayette			Deaf Smith					Solano
				Buchanan	Linn			Donley					Sonoma
DOC 1995a.