The purpose of this paper is to stimulate discussion of an alternative approach to cleanup of DOE sites and the transition of host communities to sustainable economic vitality. These tasks are large, contentious and complex-more so on all dimensions than was widely recognized a decade ago when the current approach was formulated. Some adjustments have been made in response to the reality of the enormity of the task as it was originally conceived and in recognition of technological and budgetary constraints. Most notably, the Ten Year Plan, renamed the Focus on 2006 Plan, has sought to shorten the process and limit the long-term call on the nation's resources while still doing everything necessary to protect health and the environment. The underlying contention of this paper is that the reforms envisioned in the Focus on 2006 Plan itself are at risk due to conflicting political dynamics, and that in any event, larger change is needed. In essence, that change is to implement a risk-based, least-cost remediation strategy. This can only be done with the support of host communities who are assured that the Federal Government's obligation to assist them to sustainable economic vitality will be met. This paper describes how the cleanup program has taken on the character it has, the problems that the current arrangement generates, and the outlines of a Grand Agreement that could leave DOE sites safe and host communities vital-at lower cost to the taxpayer. This is a paper to initiate discussion, not a research treatise. It makes arguments in grand sweeps, not in detail. It eschews numerous footnotes and does not provide specific examples or confirming data. It aims for what is generally true, not for what is specifically correct in every detail at each DOE site. This paper is based on the author's observations and research, and on conversations that have taken place over more than a decade. Origins for the ideas presented here are many and no adequate way of acknowledging the intellectual contributions of others exists. It is possible, however, to acknowledge the great assistance of persons who read previous drafts of this iii paper and took the time to provide careful and thoughtful comments. Reviewers were selected in some cases for their expertise and direct involvement in the matters discussed. Other reviewers were selected to represent various degrees of involvement and distance from the subject. Each was asked to examine the manuscript for substance and for clarity. The comments they made represented their personal views and for that reason, no institutional affiliations are given. The comments sharpened the presentation, prevented errors, and improved the analysis. Obviously, the final product is the responsibility of the author alone.
