Laurie Boucher, P.E., Ingrid Rosencrantz, Pete Karcz,
Nancy Werdel, and James Poppeti, PhD.
HAZMED

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is facing the challenge of environmental cleanup of the majority of this Nation's nuclear legacy by the year 2006. Success depends, in part, on valid, cost-effective technical strategies accepted in a timely manner by the appropriate Federal and State regulatory agencies. Extensive revision of reports, unnecessary sampling and analysis, and long and unresolved disagreement and debate over technical approaches can be prevented through a collaborative decision-making approach between DOE and its environmental regulators. Collaborative decision-making is a non-legally binding agreement between these parties to work together as an interagency team to attain a common goal, in this case timely, cost-efficient, effective environmental cleanup and compliance.

There are many approaches to collaborative decision-making. This paper discusses an approach that has been used successfully by DOE, its contractors, and the environmental regulatory agencies. This approach is flexible and its application changes from site to site.

This paper also presents two case studies illustrating how this approach was successfully implemented and produced cost avoidances of approximately $275 million along with more streamlined environmental cleanup and compliance. This paper also provides answers to frequently asked questions regarding collaborative decision-making.

Success in cleaning up this Nation's nuclear legacy by 2006 depends, in part, on valid, cost-effective strategies that are accepted in a timely manner by the appropriate Federal and State regulatory agencies. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is promoting the application of collaborative decision-making to more fully make use of the regulator's technical and regulatory expertise in an effort to achieve this goal. This paper describes a proven and successful collaborative decision-making approach whereby DOE, its contractors, and the environmental regulatory agencies work together as an interagency team to attain the common goal of environmental cleanup and compliance. This process improves the communication between these agencies, brings these agencies together earlier and more substantially in the planning and decision-making process, and uses the varied expertise and perspectives of these agencies. Some of the specific benefits of this collaborative decision-making approach are:

• Better technical decisions;
• Faster approval of technical reports;
• Improved communication between DOE and the regulatory agencies; and
• An ability for these organizations to meet or exceed their goals.

Recognizing the benefits of collaborative decision-making, in 1997 DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly issued a document titled "Final Guidance on Improving Communication to Achieve Collaborative Decision-Making." This guidance, signed by senior EPA and DOE officials, describes a communication framework that should improve compliance, accelerate environmental work, and increase efficiencies. The intent of the guidance is threefold:

• To outline a collaborative process to establish site priorities;
• To identify processes that accomplish collaborative program execution; and
• To encourage the development and use of informal dispute resolution mechanisms that help resolve issues quickly and keep projects moving forward to completion.

EPA and DOE prepared this document using a collaborative approach. State regulatory agencies reviewed and commented on this document as it was being developed. This guidance is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.em.doe.gov/em75anly/partner.html.

The collaborative decision-making approach described in this paper applies and further builds upon the principles outlined in this EPA/DOE guidance document. This approach to interagency collaborative decision-making involves an active and ongoing commitment by DOE and the regulatory agencies to:

• Work together to identify and solve problems;
• Jointly build and maintain a collaborative decision-making relationship;
• Remove organizational obstacles to open and honest communication between agencies;
• Empower decision-making at the lowest possible level;
• Reach decisions by consensus whenever possible; and
• Share all relevant information early and continuously throughout the decision-making process.

This collaborative decision-making approach, shown in Figure 1, results in high-performing interagency teams that work well together to solve technical problems and clean up environmental sites more quickly and cost-effectively. This approach consists of building and maintaining both interagency (DOE, EPA, and State) management teams and interagency project teams that work to achieve specific goals. The interagency management teams work together to define, clarify, and develop the means to implement their common program goals. The interagency project teams work together to solve specific technical problems. This application of this approach, as shown in Figure 1, includes Start-up Tasks, Interagency Management Team Tasks, and Interagency Project Team Tasks. It typically varies from site to site to meet program-specific requirements.

Start-up tasks include assessment, education, and planning. An assessment is conducted to determine if a collaborative decision-making approach could benefit the site program. Some of the criteria used in the assessment are:

• Frequency and type of communication processes between the parties;
• Level of understanding of the common goals and the means to achieve these goals;
• Extent of disagreement and conflict over technical approaches and regulatory documents;
• Processes used to develop technical documents; and
• Procedures to resolve disagreements and conflicts.

Often a third party conducts the assessment in order to gain an objective, independent evaluation. If the assessment concludes that collaborative decision-making would benefit the site program, the next step is to educate the senior management of the benefits of collaborative decision-making to their program. Senior management is defined here as the principals with overall responsibility for the particular program both at the DOE site and with the regulatory agencies. These senior managers typically must recognize a benefit particular to their organization in order to consider using this approach.

If the senior managers collectively agree to establish a collaborative decision-making approach, the next step is to plan an interagency management team workshop. The purpose of this workshop is for the senior management, and oftentimes the mid-level management, to come together to define the common goals of the parties and begin the process of collaborative decision-making. In some cases, it is helpful for the senior managers to have a closed-door meeting to come to a clear agreement on the common goals prior to the interagency management workshop.

Planning for the interagency management workshop involves determining appropriate participation, selecting a workshop location, and agreeing to a workshop facilitator. The managers that attend the workshop are professionals from DOE, its contractors, and the environmental regulatory agencies. Typically participants have similar status and decision-making authority within their respective organizations. It is often best to select a neutral off-site location for the workshop. Generally, senior managers also agree on the selection of a facilitator with collaborative decision-making experience between multiple organizations and expertise in building high-performing teams. This facilitator is often identified by a single organization and then agreed to by all participating organizations.

High-performing teams are a key component of collaborative decision-making. A high-performing team is a team that works successfully through the various phases of team building in order to improve its productivity and decision-making ability. It is different from teams typically encountered in most work environments in that trust, openness, and constructive confrontation are developed within the team. These interagency teams typically participate in a team building workshop and subsequent facilitated team working meetings to develop the skills to work together productively and to progress through the phases of team development. A professional team builder is typically used in team meetings to help the teams become high performing.

The interagency management team works together to define, clarify, and develop the means to implement the environmental program goals. The interagency management team workshop is the first step toward building this team. It is important to build a team at the management level in order to create high-performing teams at the project-levels in the organizations, since the staff will to some degree emulate the behavior of their management. More specifically, the purpose of the interagency management team is to:

• Initiate, develop, and maintain a collaborative decision-making relationship between parties;
• Jointly resolve or direct the resolution of policy-level issues regarding the environmental cleanup and compliance program;
• Remove organizational obstacles to open and honest communication between agencies;
• Empower decision-making at the lowest possible level; and
• Address issues presented by the interagency project teams.

This interagency management team begins this process during the interagency management workshop and continues this process through a series of interagency management team meetings. The goal of the management in these working meetings is to establish a team mission, establish team goals, effectively communicate these goals to staff, measure progress, and resolve issues identified by interagency staff teams.

One of the tasks of the interagency management team is to determine the program areas where the development of a high-performing interagency project team would benefit the site program. Once an interagency management team selects a program area or areas for building high-performing project teams, these project teams participate in a team-building workshop and conduct subsequent facilitated team working meetings focused on direct project work.

The purpose of the interagency project team is to work together effectively to solve technical problems. More specifically, the interagency project team is to:

• Jointly create solutions to specific environmental cleanup and compliance issues under the team's cognizance;
• Communicate team progress to the interagency management team; and
• Develop processes to streamline their work efforts.

The tasks of the interagency project teams are similar to those of the interagency management team, i.e., developing a team mission and goals and measuring team progress. These tasks are conducted within facilitated team meetings held typically every four to five weeks for a period of two days, depending on the urgency of the project. Interagency management team meetings are held approximately every eight to ten weeks for a period of one-and-a-half to two-days. In some cases the management and project team meetings overlap, and the teams meet to measure progress and obtain feedback.

The length and frequency of meetings is flexible and changes from site to site. Also, interagency teams often meet frequently or on a regular basis between facilitated meetings. What is important is that this is an ongoing process and that team members spend the time together to know and understand what is important to the other organization. Often it appears to team members that little or no progress is made the first several meetings, yet at some point the team begins to quickly and easily solve problems together. Eventually, it becomes common for employees to accomplish more in interagency team meetings then by working independently at their desks. Members of interagency teams develop the habit of picking up the telephone and contacting their respective team members to discuss technical approaches and options prior to developing reports or proposals. Through this process, team members help one another understand the different information needs and perspectives of the participating organizations.

Both the interagency management and interagency project teams continue to work within a team structure until the end goal is achieved. Some interagency teams continue to meet and jointly solve problems for several years while other interagency teams may exist for several months. Team membership may change several times during the lifecycle of an interagency team. Change in team membership affects the productivity of a team, and a skilled facilitator assists with appropriate entry and exit procedures to minimize disruption.

This approach to inter-agency collaborative decision-making is illustrated in the two case studies presented below. Both of these case studies refer to environmental cleanup and compliance programs at the DOE Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. The Hanford Site encompasses an area of 560 square miles and is located along the Columbia River. In 1989, DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10, and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) signed the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order known as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA). The TPA specifies the agreed-upon milestones for cleanup and compliance of the 100-B/C Area and the Tank Waste Remediation System, the two areas discussed in the case studies below.

The 100-B/C Area encompasses 450 acres along the Columbia River and is the site of radioactive liquid waste disposal and debris from demolition/operation of reactor support facilities. The environmental cleanup consists of removing, treating (as required), and disposing of waste at the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) located on the Hanford Site. Initially, the cost of conducting this cleanup in compliance with the Record of Decision (ROD) was projected to be as high as $275 million.

The DOE project manager responsible for implementing the 100-B/C Area ROD initially suggested collaborative decision-making for the 100-B/C Area Cleanup. DOE, EPA Region 10, and Ecology had major disagreements regarding the projected cleanup cost and how to meet the remedial action objectives. This jeopardized meeting the start date for initiating substantial and continuous remediation. The DOE project manager along with the EPA Region 10 and Ecology project managers responsible for oversight of this cleanup agreed to initiate a collaborative decision-making approach to address these issues. They also agreed to maintain the start date for remediation as identified in the TPA.

Prior to the initiation of a collaborative decision-making approach at the project level, the senior managers at DOE's Richland Operations Office (DOE Richland), EPA Region 10, and Ecology had initiated meetings on a quarterly basis to discuss and resolve issues related to DOE Richland's environmental cleanup and compliance programs. This senior management team, called the Interagency Management Integration Team (IAMIT) agreed to a collaborative decision-making approach at the project level for the 100-B/C Area cleanup.

The next step was to identify the interagency project team. The 100-B/C Area interagency project team consisted of three agency project managers (DOE, EPA Region 10, and Ecology) responsible for oversight of the 100-B/C Area Cleanup, and three DOE contractor project managers. Other contractor staff and the Washington State Department of Health were brought in as needed on specific technical issues.

Due to time constraints, this interagency project team began work immediately. This team did not participate in a team building workshop but instead initiated two-day team meetings approximately every three weeks over a period of five months. In these meetings, the team discussed and resolved technical issues and conducted team-building exercises. A professional facilitator with expertise developing high-performing teams facilitated these meetings.

During the first several interagency project team meetings, the team clarified its mission, identified goals, agreed on team ground rules, established basic meeting management practices, and agreed to make decisions by consensus.

Early in the team's discussions it became apparent that each agency had somewhat different interpretations of the language in the ROD. A central difference of perception regarded whether cleanup work would be started by December 1996 at one operable unit (OU) or three OU's. DOE and its contractors believed the ROD implied cleanup to initially focus activity at one OU; EPA and Ecology believed the ROD implied concurrent cleanup work in all three OU's. It was through the collaborative decision-making process that the difference in assumptions became clear.

Through the collaborative decision-making process, team members became more willing to listen to, understand, and account for the different assumptions and needs of each organization. Once the team accepted the different assumptions as valid, the team could develop and evaluate various options in order to come to a solution. The team developed a recommendation and agreed to present this solution and other alternatives to the IAMIT. It was important that the IAMIT decide if remediation work would be initiated at one OU or at three OU's. The IAMIT agreed to the interagency project team's recommendations to begin actions at two OU's six months apart.

The interagency project team subsequently worked together over the next several months to reassess the major cost drivers of the cleanup. This interagency project team developed an approach projected to reduce the cost of implementing this $275 million cleanup by approximately $200 million. The cost efficiencies resulted from a reduction in analytical requirements, a modification of field sequencing activities, use of local backfill, a reduction of waste volumes, and improved estimating of project management activities. The team also reached consensus on a methodology for meeting the remedial action objectives that included a human health exposure model and a groundwater/river protection model.

As a result of employing an interagency collaborative decision-making approach, these agencies avoided a potential dispute and developed a revised cleanup strategy that included significant cost reductions. Additionally, substantial remedial action was started nine months ahead of the CERCLA requirement for substantial, continuous, onsite remediation.

Because of the success of collaborative decision-making at the 100BC Area, senior managers of DOE, EPA, and Ecology evaluated the use of a similar approach for the Hanford Tank Waste and Remediation System (TWRS) program. The TWRS program is DOE's largest dollar value environmental cleanup and compliance program and includes the sampling and analysis, removal, and glassification of 55 million gallons of waste from 177 underground storage tanks.

Prior to initiating the inter-agency collaborative decision-making approach, DOE and Ecology were in disagreement over some of the milestones outlined in the TPA. A central issue was the procedure for the characterization of the tank waste as outlined in the TPA. DOE Richland and Ecology originally agreed in the Tri-Party Agreement to have the wastes in all 177 tanks sampled and analyzed by 1999. This strategy resulted in meeting numerical quotas rather than meeting the necessary safety and technical requirements.

A third party from DOE Headquarters conducted an assessment to determine if collaborative decision-making could benefit the site program. This party conducted this assessment through talking with representatives of DOE Richland, DOE Headquarters, and Ecology and also observed interactions between these agencies. The third party determined that communication between agencies could be improved and that this improvement could enhance the ability of these agencies to achieve success.

The next step was to educate the key senior managers on the benefits of an interagency collaborative decision-making approach. The third party met with senior management at DOE Richland, DOE Headquarters, and Ecology to educate them on the benefits of an interagency collaborative decision-making approach. This third party also educated several people from the middle- and project-management levels. The senior managers expressed an interest in applying a collaborative decision-making approach to the TWRS program.

The next step was to plan a workshop focused on building communication skills and initiating collaborative decision-making at the management-level. The senior management proposed a group of approximately thirty-five professionals from DOE Richland, DOE Headquarters, Ecology, and DOE's environmental contractors to participate. These persons represented the senior and middle management of the program.

Prior to the management workshop, the two senior principals of DOE Richland and Ecology met in a closed-door session to clear the air and to discuss their commitment to a collaborative approach to decision-making for the TWRS program. It was essential that these senior managers define and explicitly agree to a common goal that they could jointly express to the workshop participants. This was necessary to create the expectation among the managers of both DOE and Ecology that the senior principals expected them to develop a more collaborative decision-making approach. These two senior principals agreed to establish a more collaborative decision-making approach and in turn jointly communicated their commitment at the management workshop.

The two-day workshop was held off-site in a neutral location. Workshop participants were presented models of communication and were educated in how to build a collaborative decision-making approach for the TWRS program. The participants identified the interagency management team. This interagency management team consisted of approximately twelve people from DOE Richland, DOE Headquarters, DOE contractors, and Ecology.

A series of team meetings followed the workshop. These meetings were conducted off-site and were two days in length. A professional team builder facilitated these meetings. The team developed a team mission, clarified the team goal, established team ground rules, clarified roles and responsibilities, and developed a consensus decision-making process. The team also used these meetings to discuss high priority issues relative to implementation of the TPA.

One of the issues the interagency management team discussed was initiating an interagency collaborative decision-making approach at the project level. Whereas the interagency management team discussed and agreed upon general program goals and approaches to achieving these goals, they decided collaborative decision-making at the project team level could result in more tangible program benefits. The interagency management team agreed that interagency collaborative decision-making would be initiated for the Tank Waste Characterization Program. Since this program was responsible for the sampling and analysis of the tank waste that preceded much of the study and remedial work, the success of this program significantly influenced the overall success of the TWRS program. In addition, one of the milestones under question in the TPA was the responsibility of the Tank Waste Characterization Program.

The interagency management team defined the appropriate team representatives for the interagency project team for the Tank Waste Characterization Program. These seven representatives consisted of DOE Richland, DOE Headquarters, DOE contractors, and Ecology. These representatives participated in a two-day team building workshop similar to the interagency management workshop that had occurred several months earlier. The Tank Waste Characterization Interagency Team (interagency project team) subsequently participated in several two-day team working meetings similar to the interagency management team. Over the course of several meetings, this team developed a team mission and goals, identified the team ground rules, agreed to a consensus decision-making process, and clarified their roles and responsibilities.

The interagency management team met approximately every eight to ten weeks for a two-day off-site team meeting. The Tank Waste Characterization Interagency Team met approximately every four to five weeks for a two-day team meeting. In addition, during a two-month period the Tank Waste Characterization Interagency Team met every week for a half-day between the off-site meetings. The Management and Tank Waste Characterization Team meetings were scheduled to overlap so that the management and Tank Waste Characterization teams could meet to discuss progress, obstacles, and goals. The Tank Waste Characterization Interagency Team also agreed that its three principles (the DOE project manager, the DOE contractor project manager, and the Ecology representative) meet informally between facilitated meetings and raise issues as needed to the interagency management team.

One of the major tasks of the Tank Waste Characterization Interagency Team was to develop an improved and innovative approach to characterization of the tank waste. DOE, Ecology, and EPA Region 10 originally agreed in the TPA to complete sampling and analysis of wastes in all 177 tanks by 1999. This resulted in efforts to meet the numerical quotas as outlined in the TPA instead of allowing for flexibility to meet the tank waste characterization requirements needed to meet the technical and safety requirements. The Tank Waste Characterization Interagency Team worked together over a series of several meetings to clarify the different tank waste characterization needs of the different agencies. This team proposed a strategy that would allow DOE to identify the specific characterization requirements on a yearly basis and to obtain Ecology's approval of these requirements. These requirements would subsequently be updated annually in the TPA. This proposal required a change to the TPA.

The Tank Waste Characterization Interagency Team presented this proposal to the interagency management team that in turn accepted this proposal. DOE and Ecology issued a proposed change to the TPA and conducted a public comment period. After the completion of the public comment period, the change to the TPA was officially made.

This interagency collaborative decision-making initiative has results in an estimated cost avoidance of $76 million over six years due to a more technically-based versus quota-based tank waste characterization strategy for the TWRS program. It also allows the TWRS program to focus resources on the true technical needs that must be satisfied to allow environmental cleanup to continue successfully.

How much time does interagency collaborative decision-making take to implement and maintain? Overall, interagency collaborative decision-making results in faster, more effective decisions. Collaborative decision-making requires an up-front investment of resources to develop and train a team to manage conflict and solve difficult issues. Often building a team in this manner prevents conflict from arising due to the increased level of communication. It also works to prevent misunderstandings and disagreements. For example, DOE Richland, its contractors, and the regulators invested resources in six two-day facilitated inter-agency team meetings to attain a critical milestone that was in jeopardy rather than spending the same resources on a conflict resolution process after a missed milestone. This approach focused the resources on solving the technical issue instead of the legal issues involved in a dispute resolution process.

What are the costs involved in using this approach? Costs are saved through the application of interagency collaborative decision-making. Costs include staff time spent in team building sessions and follow-up sessions, costs for a team builder facilitator, and travel expenses associated with the initial team building session. Examples of estimated costs and benefits for two separate projects are the following: $300,000 estimated costs and a $76,000,000 estimated benefit (Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System); $100,000 estimated costs and a $200,000,000 estimated benefit (Hanford 100BC Area). Estimated costs include the salaries of management and staff spent in a team building workshop and follow-up sessions, their travel, and costs for a team builder. The benefits of inter-agency collaborative decision-making typically exceed the cost.

At this time, sites may request that DOE Headquarter's Office of Environmental and Regulatory Analysis (EM-75) provide start-up funding for collaborative decision-making efforts on a first come first served basis.

How does each organization maintain its individual responsibilities while using the interagency collaborative decision-making approach? Every individual that participates in the interagency collaborative decision-making approach is expected to meet the responsibilities of their organization's charter. For example, regulators are responsible for ensuring that the environmental laws and regulations are met. DOE is responsible for environmental cleanup and compliance and efficient use of the taxpayer's money. DOE's contractors are responsible for meeting their contractual requirements.

Some individuals are concerned that regulations will be relaxed or illegal practices overlooked if personal relationships between the regulated community and the regulator become too strong. In inter-agency collaborative decision-making, the team through consensus makes decisions. The regulator must agree that the solution meets the regulatory requirements before he or she agrees to the decision. If the solution does not meet the regulatory requirements, the team must develop solutions that do. In addition, if the Department is out of compliance or has failed to meet a regulatory milestone, the regulatory agencies have the right and responsibility to enforce fines or penalties as necessary. Interagency collaborative decision-making focuses the discussion on the team's goals, which take into account the goals and responsibilities of the individual organizations.

How do the Department's contractors participate in the interagency collaborative decision-making approach? It is important to include in the process the contractors who are responsible for the day-to-day activities associated with the environmental cleanup and compliance activities. They have important knowledge and technical expertise along with experience implementing environmental studies and remedial activities. In the interagency collaborative decision-making process, most decisions are decided by consensus by an interagency "core decision-making team." Early in each team's process, the larger group decides who will be a part of the core decision-making team. In some cases, contractors are members of the core decision-making team and in others contractors are members of an advisory or technical support team. In either case, it is extremely beneficial for the Department's key contractor representatives to be involved as a core decision-making team member or an advisory or technical support team member.

There are many resources available to assist DOE Sites and Headquarters in collaborative decision-making. The Office of Environmental and Regulatory Analysis (EM-75) at DOE Headquarters provides the following technical assistance:

• Qualified expertise to support the sites as they develop or enhance partnerships between Federal and State agencies;
• DOE guidance on successful, long-term interagency partnerships as a means to improve environmental regulatory compliance;
• A list of the names and phone numbers of individuals within the Department or regulatory agencies with experience in interagency collaborative decision-making; and
• The collection and dissemination of lessons-learned on interagency collaborative decision-making.

For further information contact DOE Headquarter's Office of Environmental and Regulatory Analysis (EM-75); telephone (202) 586-0338 or see the collaborative decision-making component of the EM-75 Home Page at http://www.em.doe.gov/em75anly/partner.html.

1. L.A. BOUCHER, "Enhancing Collaborative Decision Making between DOE and Its Regulators," Federal Facilities Environmental Journal (Spring 1997).
2. C.S. HOOKS, "Collaborative Decision Making in Cleanup at DOE Sites," Federal Facilities Environmental Journal (Autumn 1997).
3. "Hanford 100 Area Environmental Cleanup Along the Columbia River," Proposed Plan Focus Sheet, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
4. U.S. Department of the Navy, "Guide to Environmental Partnering (Final Draft)"(1995).

BACK