THE COST OF POSITIONAL NEGOTIATIONS VERSUS COLLABORATIVE OR RELATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS FOR NEGOTIATING COMPLIANCE MILESTONES AT HANFORD WA
The Hanford site is subject to the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (HFFACO), an order on consent signed by the DOE, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) and the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). Under the HFFCCO, negotiations for transition milestones begin within six months after the issuance of a shutdown order. In the case of the PFP, the Nuclear Materials disposition and stabilization activities, a DOE responsibility, were necessary as precursor activities to Transition. This situation precipitated a crisis in the negotiations between the agencies, and formal negotiations initiated in 1997 ended in failure. The negotiations reached impasse on several key regulatory and operational issues. The 1997 negotiation was characterized by a strongly positional style. DOE and the regulatory personnel took hard lines early in the negotiations and were unable to move to resolution of key issues after a year and a half. This resulted in unhappy stakeholders, poor publicity, and work delays as well as wounded relationships between DOE and the regulatory community. The PFP is a former plutonium metal production facility. The operating mission of the PFP ended with a DOE Headquarters shutdown letter in October of 1996. Generally, the receipt of a shutdown letter initiates the start of Transition (as the first step of Decommissioning) of a facility. In the 2000-2001 PFP negotiations, a completely different approach was suggested and eventually initiated: Collaborative or Relational Negotiations. The relational negotiation style resulted in agreement between the agencies on all key issues within 6 months of initiation. All parties were very pleased with the results and all parties were relieved that protracted negotiations sessions were not needed with the new style of working together collaboratively to serve each other's interests without compromising each party's needs. The characteristics of collaborative negotiations included building trust, emphasizing equality of team members, problem solving by the entire team, relying on individual communications, and self-management skills. A specific example of positional negotiations is given with the resultant increase in cost, duration of negotiations, and lingering questions regarding trust among the parties.
- Research Organization:
- Fluor Hanford, Richland, WA (United States)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (US)
- DOE Contract Number:
- AC06-96RL13200
- OSTI ID:
- 821829
- Report Number(s):
- HNF-20117-FP, Rev.0; TRN: US0401102
- Resource Relation:
- Conference: Conference title not supplied, Conference location not supplied, Conference dates not supplied; Other Information: PBD: 26 Feb 2004
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
THE DEACTIVATION DECONTAMINATION & DECOMMISSIONING OF THE PLUTONIUM FINISHING PLANT (PFP) A FORMER PLUTONIUM PROCESSING FACILITY AT DOE HANFORD SITE
Regulatory and Stakeholder Involvement is Key to Successful Project Completion