Environmental Cleanup On Air Force Installations Essay

I. Introduction

To improve the hazardous waste site cleanup process the Air Force (AF), in cooperation with the EPA Region IV and State of Florida, has implemented a facilitated

alternate dispute resolution (ADR) partnering process to improve communication and expedite site restoration. The ADR process initiated in Florida represented a

significant change from use of litigation as a dispute resolution tool to using a facilitated team approach for resolving issues and concerns. The AF developed the Florida

program as a model to enhance its environmental program nationwide.

The partnering program has been in operation for approximately 2 years. The field level operations teams have reduced the reporting requirements, shortened program

review times, and implemented cleanup action ahead of schedule. By contrast, however, upper and middle management teams have not made similar progress using

facilitated teams as a dispute resolution process. An evaluation of the current model will identify process improvements for management teams, which will allow the

facilitated team dispute resolution process to be implemented on Air Force installations nationwide at both field and supervisory levels.

Improvement in the facilitated partnering process at the management level will allow export of the Air Force/EPA Region IV/Florida model nationwide to improve the

quality and cost effectiveness of the Air Force hazardous waste site cleanup program.

II. Background

Most costs associated with cleaning up hazardous waste sites should be from the activities associated with site clean up. In many cases, the investigative costs have been

inflated due to poor communication between the military and state/federal regulatory authorities . Historically the AF has taken a standard litigation approach to resolving

disputes with state and federal regulatory authorities. This is especially true at sites regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act, which allows the AF to act as the lead agency instead of the regulatory authorities. To improve this process the Air Force, EPA Region IV and the State of

Florida are working together to build trust, communicate and resolve issues. Communication and trust are the building blocks to making the ADR successful.

In simplistic terms, the environmental regulatory process for hazardous waste clean up is a paper nightmare. Prior to proceeding with any action the responsible party

must submit plans and documentation to the regulatory authority for review/comment /approval. This creates a paper shuffle in both directions and the goal of

environmental cleanup can be delayed in the bureaucracy is lost somewhere in the pile. The facilitated ADR process initiated by the Air Force, EPA, and Florida has

three tiers: agency decision-makers (Tier I), mid-level program managers (Tier II), and field level operations managers (Tier III). The respective agencies agreed to

switch from litigation as a means for dispute resolution to a facilitated ADR. Facilitated ADR in this process includes using a facilitator at each meeting, consensus

agreement of each team, and the inclusion of team building workshops as part of the program. The primary goals of the partnering efforts are to involve all parties in real

time decision making and push the decision making process to the field operations level. The program has been operating for approximately 2 years. The success stories

published by the middle level management team (Tier II) indicate the facilitated ADR has reduced the overall cost of the cleanup program. Facilitated ADR has built trust

between the regulators and Air Force personnel. In addition to expediting and improving the decision making process ADR has created a consensus plan prior to

presenting the cleanup recommendation for public review. The success of the Tier III partnerships are only overshadowed by the lack of success at the Tier I and Tier II

levels for enhancing ADR throughout Air Force environmental program. The specific requirements and structure of the teams need to be evaluated and revised to meet

the goal of supporting Tier III programs.

III. Evaluation

To determine the success of the Florida ADR program an evaluation of each tier as well as the entire program was completed. A summary of the program evaluations is

presented below.

Tier I

Initially the Tier I Team did an excellent job of developing and implementing the ADR structure for use by the Tier II and III Teams. In addition, the team set up

mandatory training and team building requirements which would expedite each teams group dynamics of “storming, norming and performing.” Upon completion of this

phase for the AF the Tier I team expanded its focus to include other defense agencies. With the expanded focus the team grew from approximately 15-20 participants to

approximately 40 “decision makers”. This group included multiple representatives from each agency. The group also failed to follow the principal rule of consensus

decision making of “Preparation, Preparation, Preparation”. The size of the team and the lack of preparation

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать