|
<br />00101:3
<br />
<br />I. EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION
<br />
<br />Community employment and population increase
<br />and decrease somewhat predictably as an energy project
<br />is planned, constructed and operated. This chapter
<br />discusses the typical "boom" growth cycle, the
<br />problems communities have in predicting what will
<br />happen, and ideas communities, areawide districts and
<br />States have used to obtain the information they need.
<br />
<br />A. THE GROWTH CYCLE
<br />
<br />During planning and construction phases of an
<br />energy project, employment and population increase
<br />rapidly from a generally static base. From the peak,
<br />employment drops - also rapidly ~ as the plant is
<br />completed.
<br />
<br />,. The dimensions of typical energy projects arC
<br />presented in Table 1. The number and timing of
<br />employees (based on the actual experience of projects
<br />of the sizes shown) 'IIary by the type of project. Sub.
<br />stitute gassification plants and oil refineries have the
<br />most rapid buildup. Coal-fired electric ~nd nuclear
<br />generating plants require slightly fewer employees, but
<br />employ them for longer periods of time. Coal export
<br />mines and platform fabrication facilities require few
<br />construction workers. but generate larger numbers of
<br />operations employees..
<br />
<br />CAUTION:
<br />The tvpical projects, numbers of employees and
<br />population added presented in this section are for
<br />illustration only. While useful to give a general idea
<br />of impacts, they should not be used for precise
<br />planning for any specific project. Impacts vary
<br />greatly depending on the situation,
<br />
<br />2. The employment patterns over time - through
<br />construction and into operations - of four selected
<br />energy projects are presented in Figure 1:
<br />
<br />Substitute gasification plant (from coal) with
<br />capacity of 250 million cubic feet per day, as pro.
<br />posed on the Navajo Reservation. 5
<br />Nuclear power plant of about 1 ,600MW capacity,
<br />as recently completed at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland.6
<br />Electric generating plant Icoal-fired) of 2,250MW
<br />capacity, as nearing completion at Page, Arizona.7
<br />Coal export mine, of about 9 million tons produc-
<br />tion per year, as operating at Fruitland, New
<br />Mexico. B
<br />
<br />3. Added direct construction employment gen-
<br />er;;l!ly brings with it a surge of supporting service em.
<br />ployment and population. Sweetwater County,
<br />Wyoming, for example, doubled in four years with the
<br />Jim Bridger Power Plant. Valdez, Alaska grew from
<br />1,000 to o'ller 3,000 in less than one year with
<br />
<br /> Table 1 r
<br />TYPICAL ENERGY PROJECTS k
<br /> Construction Peak Force - Operating
<br />Project Size Time Construction Force
<br />Coal Export Mine 9M tons/vr 2 -3 years 175-200 325-475
<br />Electric Generating Plant 700 MW 4-6 years 750-950 75-100
<br />(including coal mine) 2,250 MW 6-8 years 2,000-3,000 350-400
<br />Sub5titute Gasification Plant 250 met/day 2'V2-3 years 3,000-3,500 1,050-1,250
<br />{includes coal minel
<br />Oil Shale Processing Facility 50,000 bbl/day 3-4 years 2,400 1,050-1,450
<br />(includes mining)
<br />Nuclear Power Plant 1,600 MW 5-9 years 2,500 160
<br />Offshore Oil and Gas Support Per Rig 3-4 years 175 90
<br />~atform ~abricatjon Facility 2 platforms/year 5 years 400 1,000-1,500
<br />Deepwater Port 2 mooring spaces 3-4 years 1,250 75-90
<br />Liquid Natural Ga, (LNG) Conversion Plant 1,000 met/day 2-3 years 300-400 50-100
<br />Oil Refinery 250,000 bbl/day 2%.-3 years 3,500-4,500 450-900
<br />
<br />3
<br />
|