Journal of Environmental Management (1998) 54, 23–37 Article No. ev980216 Regional economic benefits of environmental management at the US Department of Energy’s major nuclear weapons sites M. Frisch, L. Solitare, M. Greenberg and K. Lowrie The five major US Department of Energy nuclear weapons sites located in the states of Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington have changed functions. Environmental management of 50 years of on-site contamination is now the primary function of the sites. The cost of this cleanup is estimated at over $200 billion. A regional economic simulation model was built to estimate the economic impact of changing environmental management expenditures on the surrounding regional economies. These simulations show wide variability among the host regions in dependence on the DOE site and differences in the likelihood of producing jobs and adding to personal income from environmental management investments at the sites. Urban regions, such as Oak Ridge, are more able to convert environmental management dollars into local jobs and income than rural regions, such as the Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory.  1998 Academic Press Keywords: economic impact, nuclear weapons sites, remediation, cleanup, US Department of Energy. (Office of Environmental Management, Introduction 1995a). The DOE environmental man- agement legacy is the second largest economic What US Government agency supervises the mortgage left to future American generations. Only the national debt is larger. largest hazardous waste management From the perspective of regional economics, budget? If, like most people, you answered the the distribution of environmental man- US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), agement expenditures by the EPA and DOE then your answer is almost right. The EPA is markedly different. The EPA’s hazardous has a massive program, including more than waste site remediation money is spent on 1300 so-called ‘Superfund’ or National Pri- 1300 sites and in every state. In contrast, over ority List sites. Russell et al. (1991) estimated 70% of the DOE environmental management that the EPA would spend $151 billion during (EM) budget is spent at only five sites in the years 1990–2020, or an average of about Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee $5 billion a year to manage these sites. and Washington. Environmental man- But the EPA does not manage the most agement budgets of $400 million to over $1 expensive hazardous waste management pro- billion a year concentrated in relatively isol- gram. That distinction belongs to the US ated regions should constitute a significant Department of Energy (DOE). Russell et al. Bloustein School of part of a regional economy. In other words, Planning and Public (1991) gave a best estimate for the DOE over the five major DOE environmental man- Policy, Rutgers University, the same 30 year period of $240 billion, or $8 agement, or EM, sites should be excellent New Brunswick, billion a year. The DOE’s own estimates are NJ 08901-1958, USA places to study the local economic impact of that $230 billion will be spent for en- massive environmental management fund- Received 15 October vironmental management during the period ing. The purpose of this research was to an- 1997; accepted 19 May 1998 1995–2070, with a range of $200–350 billion swer two questions about impacts of DOE 0301–4797/98/010023+15 $30.00/0  1998 Academic Press