WEBVTT 00:33:09.000 --> 00:33:19.000 That's floating on the screen. If for any reason you can't read all of the individual responses, we do have those available on the slide. 00:33:19.000 --> 00:33:20.000 So you can move the pull window out of the way, read through the options that are shown on the slide deck and then cast your vote. 00:33:20.000 --> 00:33:36.000 In this case, this is a pick all that apply. So for this particular question, we're asking you to indicate which of these examples are examples of informal disputes. 00:33:36.000 --> 00:33:46.000 Would it be A, a difference of opinion when the parties are determining how to implement institutional controls to limit groundwater use until the aquifer is restored. 00:33:46.000 --> 00:33:56.000 How about B? Resolving disagreement between the lead cleanup agency and EPA on determination of applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements, otherwise known as A. 00:33:56.000 --> 00:34:00.000 R. At the directors level. Option C. One party wants to use a certain technology in a cleanup while the other parties want to use different technology. 00:34:00.000 --> 00:34:12.000 Or the last option DA disagreement between the parties over identifying a preferred alternative in the proposed plan. 00:34:12.000 --> 00:34:13.000 So you'll see a box to the left of each of those. You can check off any or all that you think are examples of informal disputes and then hit the submit button. 00:34:13.000 --> 00:34:26.000 If for any reason that polling feature isn't working for you, again, just feel free to send a quick message into the QA. 00:34:26.000 --> 00:34:33.000 And just type in. Your individual responses into a message in the QA and can submit it on in there. 00:34:33.000 --> 00:34:34.000 So it does look like about half of you have cast your vote. I know this can be a little tricky and that's why we're posing this question. 00:34:34.000 --> 00:34:51.000 We'll talk through these responses in just a moment. So again, I'll give you just a few more seconds to consider and then take your best guess and submit your votes. 00:34:51.000 --> 00:35:02.000 It looks like responses are starting to slow down. About 2 thirds of you have voted. So I'll go ahead and close the poll here. 00:35:02.000 --> 00:35:09.000 In 3. 2. One. Let me end that poll. 00:35:09.000 --> 00:35:19.000 And so let's take a look at the results, Mary. It looks like the top 2 responses were A and D. 00:35:19.000 --> 00:35:27.000 But a lot of people also felt C. About a 3rd of the audience thought B might also be in formal dispute. 00:35:27.000 --> 00:35:31.000 So. What were the right answers or what were we looking for in this situation? 00:35:31.000 --> 00:35:43.000 So the answers we were looking for in this situation are A. Difference of opinion when the parties are determining how to implement institutional controls to limit groundwater use until the aquifer. 00:35:43.000 --> 00:35:54.000 Restored. C, which is one party wants to use these, one party wants to use a certain technology and a cleanup all the other parties want to use a different technology. 00:35:54.000 --> 00:36:04.000 And day, disagreement between the site team members over identifying a preferred alternative and a proposed plan. These are examples of. 00:36:04.000 --> 00:36:14.000 The project team working together. Through the circle process. Now B, could be a formal dispute since it includes sort of managers at the director's level. 00:36:14.000 --> 00:36:20.000 So really what we're sort of looking at here as an informal dispute is not so much the issue. 00:36:20.000 --> 00:36:28.000 It's at what level that decision is going to be being made or what level we are for. For some of the input that we're we're asking for. 00:36:28.000 --> 00:36:36.000 So B, we are looking at, you know, we're looking at getting the office directors. And so that would be our. 00:36:36.000 --> 00:36:46.000 That would be our dispute resolution committee. So we have already moved into the formal dispute process at that point. 00:36:46.000 --> 00:36:54.000 Alright, excellent. 00:36:54.000 --> 00:36:57.000 Great. 00:36:57.000 --> 00:37:08.000 So really, then this is just, before I come off of this slide, this really is sort of a, when we talk, we'll have another little quiz later about an issue that would elevate to that level. 00:37:08.000 --> 00:37:12.000 But when we're trying to do disputes, informal is when it's the RPMs. 00:37:12.000 --> 00:37:18.000 Informal is, you know, the folks who are at the table. Working through some of these issues regarding, you know. 00:37:18.000 --> 00:37:25.000 Which technology to use that's not something at a site level we're gonna we're gonna be bringing to our management. 00:37:25.000 --> 00:37:41.000 Necessarily. But once we start getting the 70 director directors let's say for EPA involved. Or some of that, you know, second tier management in the States or directors at the other federal agencies. 00:37:41.000 --> 00:37:53.000 Then That's when we start moving into the formal process. 00:37:53.000 --> 00:37:55.000 Okay. 00:37:55.000 --> 00:38:02.000 So talk a little bit about preparing for dispute with relationships. 00:38:02.000 --> 00:38:11.000 Your team, your dispute resolution team. Should be identified really early in the process. Informal disputes again, we talk about. 00:38:11.000 --> 00:38:17.000 This being at the project level. Without having to, proceed to a formal dispute. 00:38:17.000 --> 00:38:22.000 Sort of thinking of these as. 00:38:22.000 --> 00:38:28.000 I think the phrase, we think of this as part of a continuum of dispute resolution. When preparing for these disagreements, a few things to keep in mind. 00:38:28.000 --> 00:38:44.000 Then may or may not work in the get-go. May include thinking about the majority of the issues that We will come up at a site. 00:38:44.000 --> 00:38:50.000 The vast majority of these issues can be resolved at the RPM or Media Project manager or their supervisor. 00:38:50.000 --> 00:38:59.000 Technical supervisor level maybe with the assistance of a technical team. A lot of the EPA regions have. 00:38:59.000 --> 00:39:08.000 Their sort of their BTAG group, they're. Either they're sort of environmental, like. 00:39:08.000 --> 00:39:22.000 Sorry, sort of a rewind here for a second. You have, so your technical assistance groups either from there say like a eco or your, You're hydrogeologists who work within the regions. 00:39:22.000 --> 00:39:27.000 We may be bringing them to the table during the, you know, those. 00:39:27.000 --> 00:39:37.000 Early part of the informal dispute. But knowing who to have during these discussions is definitely going to help move the discussion forward. 00:39:37.000 --> 00:39:43.000 As long as you have the right folks at the table, you're able to get the answers that you're seeking. 00:39:43.000 --> 00:39:49.000 Or the feedback that you need. To help drive that decision. 00:39:49.000 --> 00:40:00.000 So your team. At this level will generally consist of the lead cleanup agency, which the other federal agency. 00:40:00.000 --> 00:40:05.000 You're gonna have your EPA RPM. Maybe other involved there may be other. 00:40:05.000 --> 00:40:16.000 Cleanup agencies, I'm sorry, there may be other agencies involved. Federal agencies maybe we are talking it maybe a site that has multiple parties who have interest. 00:40:16.000 --> 00:40:23.000 Multiple stakeholders that probably should be part of the those conversations. We will most likely have the state vault. 00:40:23.000 --> 00:40:31.000 So we wanna make sure we have a state representative, also as part of this team. Are there issues with trouble? 00:40:31.000 --> 00:40:40.000 Concerns. We don't have huge number of federal facilities. That may fall into this category but we do have some. 00:40:40.000 --> 00:40:43.000 So are their documents, are there? Are there is there work being done at these sites that may impact the tribes? 00:40:43.000 --> 00:40:58.000 The tribes would have interest in. And so do we have to have them at the table as well, particularly during this dispute process so that we can work out a lot of these issues. 00:40:58.000 --> 00:41:11.000 Hmm. I mentioned bringing the technical folks, to the conversation. So that if there are questions that could be answered about the the technical aspect of things, the data. 00:41:11.000 --> 00:41:19.000 Some of the you know some of those more very focused conversations. If we have them at the table, we may be able to come up with an answer. 00:41:19.000 --> 00:41:35.000 Or at least help to inform the conversation. You know For example, if we're looking at a groundwater situation, we're looking at maybe having, you know, it are we having issues with determining contamination transport. 00:41:35.000 --> 00:41:41.000 Are we having issues with number of a number of things that come up with groundwater when we're talking at our sites. 00:41:41.000 --> 00:41:52.000 Would it be beneficial for the team to have that hydrogeologist as part of this dispute team? So that when a question comes up that we can we will be able to turn to them and just say hey. 00:41:52.000 --> 00:41:57.000 You know, help us out. Help, God is down the speed, the, you know, the path. 00:41:57.000 --> 00:42:04.000 Would it be beneficial to have an attorney at the table? You know, just because we are in an informal dispute. 00:42:04.000 --> 00:42:05.000 Doesn't, you know, some people think that we don't, we don't bring attorneys in until much later and that's not necessarily the case. 00:42:05.000 --> 00:42:17.000 I mean, there's If there's a good reason to have an attorney at the table, that's going to help that conversation move forward and help us. 00:42:17.000 --> 00:42:31.000 You know, pivot off of whatever has us stuck. Then have an attorney at the table. I think they bring in a great ability to help facilitate those conversations and maybe give some viewpoints that we hadn't thought of as a team that's doing the cleanup work. 00:42:31.000 --> 00:42:38.000 It's, you know, it's just that that that maybe a slightly different look at something that could help move the conversation. 00:42:38.000 --> 00:42:45.000 So, you know, that's our team. That's the folks that should be down. You sitting down these conversations. 00:42:45.000 --> 00:42:56.000 But we have to build these relationships too. And how do we do that? So. You know, you know, regularly is a very good way to. 00:42:56.000 --> 00:43:07.000 So get everybody on the same page and. You know, make sure we're moving the conversation. Have these regularly scheduled meetings so that things aren't left to You aren't left at, you know, we're not leaving something out. 00:43:07.000 --> 00:43:15.000 We're not. Ignoring a topic that needs to be addressed. We're not letting something languish that really should be able to. 00:43:15.000 --> 00:43:26.000 Be discussed as part of either our team meetings or as a special, maybe a special topic call. Meeting in person is very beneficial. 00:43:26.000 --> 00:43:30.000 I know we've gotten off of that a lot in the last several years. Given COVID, etc. 00:43:30.000 --> 00:43:43.000 Sometimes, you know, we have a lot of teams that have folks have moved outside the area. But getting people face to face, there's not There's it really is the best way to do it. 00:43:43.000 --> 00:43:52.000 There's that there's something about there's face to face meetings that lend to relationships that Just aren't available on Teams or on Zoom. 00:43:52.000 --> 00:44:03.000 And so this is just something if it's an opportunity, you it's available to you. We recommend taking it because those relationships are really important. 00:44:03.000 --> 00:44:12.000 We advocate for our teams. We advocate for our agencies. But we should be able to sit at this table with these other interested parties. 00:44:12.000 --> 00:44:20.000 I speak openly not only about our needs, but to actively listen about their needs. And is this a you know? 00:44:20.000 --> 00:44:29.000 If we're having these conversations, very open, very honest conversations about these issues. What do we need to, what does. 00:44:29.000 --> 00:44:33.000 Will you pick on somebody else? What does DOE need to have this site? What are the wants? 00:44:33.000 --> 00:44:38.000 What are the needs? EPA, what are your wants and needs, states, same thing? 00:44:38.000 --> 00:44:52.000 Actively listening to one another and being open about those needs. Is really is really important and it's 1 thing to sit at a table and have a conversation and have these meetings. 00:44:52.000 --> 00:45:00.000 But if you're not being upfront with what your needs are, that's not going to help drive this, you know, drive this dispute. 00:45:00.000 --> 00:45:11.000 To an ending. It's just going to maybe add a little bit more of a lack of clarity to what we're having to what we're doing and what the conversations that we are trying to have. 00:45:11.000 --> 00:45:19.000 Have a clear agenda in advance. So that everybody is prepared. We don't want to have to blind, we don't want to blindside anybody. 00:45:19.000 --> 00:45:25.000 You know, if the conversation is about X in groundwater, let's say vapor intrusion. 00:45:25.000 --> 00:45:32.000 You know, make sure everybody's aware of this is the conversation we plan to have. These are the contaminants that we're talking about. 00:45:32.000 --> 00:45:40.000 This is the scenario. This is the operable unit. If somebody is blindsided at a meaning, they're just going to feel. 00:45:40.000 --> 00:45:44.000 Like they're being put on the defensive. That's not going to help build a positive relationship. 00:45:44.000 --> 00:45:54.000 That's not gonna help move the conversation forward. So have a clear agenda so everyone is prepared to be able to advocate for their department or their agency. 00:45:54.000 --> 00:46:05.000 And they can actually maybe have some of the questions that are going to come up already answered or at least have had a chance to think about them so that we can get more work done in those meetings than. 00:46:05.000 --> 00:46:12.000 You know, we can get the questions we need to have answered can be answered in those meetings to the best of our abilities. 00:46:12.000 --> 00:46:22.000 Do we have the right people present? Again, goes back to identifying your project team. If we know we're going to be talking about groundwater. 00:46:22.000 --> 00:46:25.000 Should we have a hydrogeologist at the table? Probably. Do we have to brief these issues up the chain of command? 00:46:25.000 --> 00:46:34.000 Is this something that we feel that maybe at our level and I'm talking as if I was an RPM. 00:46:34.000 --> 00:46:43.000 At our level, can we have this conversation and get this? Get this particular particular dispute item resolved today. 00:46:43.000 --> 00:46:52.000 Or is this something we should give management a heads up about? Maybe get their feedback. Maybe this is something on a more national level that we need to be concerned about. 00:46:52.000 --> 00:47:07.000 At our sites rather than creating, you know, a national precedent. This is something we need to get feedback from our management on so that we can make the right decision so that we are empowered at these meetings to make the right decisions and to no longer have these. 00:47:07.000 --> 00:47:18.000 Yeah, the dispute conversation. Can we rectify this now? So that's again making sure you have your right people there. 00:47:18.000 --> 00:47:26.000 That you have your agenda. Sort of nail down that everybody is given an opportunity to talk about the needs of their agency. 00:47:26.000 --> 00:47:35.000 The once and are Open, being open about those needs, but one thing we don't have all here is that active listening. 00:47:35.000 --> 00:47:43.000 You know, if I'm If I'm in a meeting trying to resolve a dispute on an issue and somebody's not paying attention in that meeting. 00:47:43.000 --> 00:47:54.000 They're on their phone. They're working on something else entirely. You need to be present, or it's just not going to It's just not gonna, it's just not gonna work. 00:47:54.000 --> 00:48:06.000 You know, we just, everybody needs to be a part of this decision and be able to move forward. 00:48:06.000 --> 00:48:16.000 Maintaining regular communication. This is really important also. And if you are a region, if you're from a or your website that does. 00:48:16.000 --> 00:48:31.000 Formalized partnering. A lot of this is gonna sound very familiar to you, cause I think the A lot of the guidelines that we use for formal dispute or for formal partnering are really very applicable to informal dispute. 00:48:31.000 --> 00:48:38.000 And moving forward, with, with those meetings and how we. How we how we have those communications. 00:48:38.000 --> 00:48:53.000 But maintaining regular communication is a great way to prepare for. You know, the dispute resolution process. Preparing ourselves for any potential conflicts you know, outside of these meetings. 00:48:53.000 --> 00:48:59.000 Maybe pick with the phone, have a conversation about something that's coming up if you have any questions. 00:48:59.000 --> 00:49:09.000 That you feel maybe. Mainly to dispute at the site, may lead to that conflict. Try to resolve it as early in the process as possible. 00:49:09.000 --> 00:49:18.000 Preferably by phone call. Emails can sometimes get a little tricky because you know, you don't have somebody reading reading that email. 00:49:18.000 --> 00:49:23.000 You don't know what frame of mind they're in when they're reading that email. Are they reading that defensively? 00:49:23.000 --> 00:49:31.000 Are they? Just confused by what you're saying. So sometimes that, you know, picking up that phone is dialing in on teams if you have that ability. 00:49:31.000 --> 00:49:47.000 That's just a really good way of having that. You know, it reduces the likelihood of their being at conflict and it really sort of increases the camaraderie of the team because again, it's that relationship building that's very important. 00:49:47.000 --> 00:49:55.000 And it's important that you feel comfortable picking up the phone and calling one another for information, a question to provide input. 00:49:55.000 --> 00:50:02.000 Because we are trying to, we're trying to do the best things for these sites. We're trying to get cleanups done. 00:50:02.000 --> 00:50:08.000 We're trying to come to remedy. We're trying to avoid a dispute. We're trying to make sure that we're all on that same page. 00:50:08.000 --> 00:50:20.000 So maintaining communication is, is, is. SK. And working within the flexibilities available. And this doesn't. 00:50:20.000 --> 00:50:23.000 And well, it sounds like, well, you know, I don't want to give up anything. 00:50:23.000 --> 00:50:29.000 It doesn't necessarily mean you have to. There are a multitude of ways of ways to come up. 00:50:29.000 --> 00:50:45.000 To the to the answer to the desired result. There's no one right way. All the time and you know we put here there's no silver bullet remedy that's fully protective of human health in the environment it's the only way to do things No. 00:50:45.000 --> 00:50:59.000 Compromise and flexibility can be sometimes one of our best tools. Because we're Yeah, this sort of goes back to the open communication advocating for your for your group. 00:50:59.000 --> 00:51:07.000 Sometimes there's a number of ways that we haven't maybe there's ways we hadn't even thought about that might get get us to a great result. 00:51:07.000 --> 00:51:11.000 It's completely achievable. But it really hasn't been. What anybody's been talking about? 00:51:11.000 --> 00:51:17.000 Hey, great idea. Let's let's do that. Is it something we could all live with? 00:51:17.000 --> 00:51:28.000 Is it protective? Sometimes flexibility, that ability to be flexible. Is, is our best trend in these meetings because It makes sure that maybe everybody's not thrilled. 00:51:28.000 --> 00:51:34.000 I will take a break. Maybe it's when when kind of a situation or at least if it's not. 00:51:34.000 --> 00:51:40.000 You know, we won, we were able to move forward as a collective. We were able to move forward as a team and get this done. 00:51:40.000 --> 00:51:48.000 We have a protective remedy. We haven't had a dispute. We're not, you know, we're not trying to elevate this outside of. 00:51:48.000 --> 00:51:53.000 Outside of our decision-making group. And that's a win. That's not only a win for your team. 00:51:53.000 --> 00:52:02.000 But you know it just shows you're getting that work done and it's a win for all of our agencies as well because we're able to move forward. 00:52:02.000 --> 00:52:10.000 With with with that goal in mind of. You know, being protective, maybe a reuse. So some of these issues that come up. 00:52:10.000 --> 00:52:17.000 When, we are able to be flexible, our, you know, I think we, get really good outcomes. 00:52:17.000 --> 00:52:23.000 Teamwork, again. You know, everything we're talking about is sort of. Teamwork. 00:52:23.000 --> 00:52:34.000 You know, practice acknowledging others when they provide ideas. That's something we don't necessarily Sort of like that opening open listening. 00:52:34.000 --> 00:52:41.000 You know, if someone's at that in your meeting and they're coming up coming up with that outside of the box idea. 00:52:41.000 --> 00:52:52.000 Acknowledge that hey you know what I hadn't thought about that that's a great idea thank you for bringing that up or my agency can't do that, you know, but thanks for bringing that up anyway. 00:52:52.000 --> 00:53:01.000 Acknowledged when somebody has an idea. Don't just ignore them. Yes, that's 1 way to shut somebody down and That again, we go back to is it a personality issue? 00:53:01.000 --> 00:53:08.000 Is it? Is it something that if we are not having this? If we're not having that teamwork, we're not having that camaraderie. 00:53:08.000 --> 00:53:16.000 Does somebody feel is it becoming a personality issue? Or are we legitimately having a dispute here that's based on the data? 00:53:16.000 --> 00:53:28.000 Are we having a dispute based on you know, path forward for, you know, for under, or are we having a dispute because There's just been too much personal interpersonal. 00:53:28.000 --> 00:53:39.000 Interactions on the team. So making sure you have a tight team is really. Is very beneficial and just being cognizant of the fact that. 00:53:39.000 --> 00:53:44.000 People are coming here with ideas that may not be yours. But that doesn't mean they're wrong. 00:53:44.000 --> 00:53:45.000 And even if they are and they're not something that we can work with, thank them for bringing something to the table. 00:53:45.000 --> 00:53:56.000 I acknowledge that they've been a participant at that they've tried to bring, forward a solution. 00:53:56.000 --> 00:54:03.000 And is sort of goes with that flexibility from that last slide. Identify areas where compromise is possible. 00:54:03.000 --> 00:54:10.000 You know, we, we may not all be able to walk away with a big W. But it doesn't mean we had to walk away with an L. 00:54:10.000 --> 00:54:19.000 And sometimes that compromise and that flexibility will open up a lot of avenues for some of these remedies that we hadn't thought about before. 00:54:19.000 --> 00:54:33.000 Just a joke in when I was in RPM, some of the best conversations we may have had with our groups are after hours when we're sitting there at dinner spitpulling an idea and it's amazing what you can come up with when that team has worked together. 00:54:33.000 --> 00:54:43.000 And you're acknowledging everybody's ideas. And you're trying to think outside the box and you're trying to work together as a collective for the benefit of your site. 00:54:43.000 --> 00:54:50.000 And again, it's not just your site that's benefiting. We're all here for human health. 00:54:50.000 --> 00:55:02.000 Environment. Putting things into putting these sites back into good use and restoring aquifer. All these things that we do for the American people you know, that's that's why we do what we do. 00:55:02.000 --> 00:55:10.000 And the person who really are the group that needs the W. This isn't always us as the team that's putting things together. 00:55:10.000 --> 00:55:17.000 It's making sure that we are being able to. To be to answer that responsibility to answer that call. 00:55:17.000 --> 00:55:22.000 And that's really what we are. You know, that's what we're gonna do. 00:55:22.000 --> 00:55:32.000 I believe. I'm moving into the communications section next. So did anybody have any questions about preparing for dispute? 00:55:32.000 --> 00:55:44.000 Well, we do have some questions that came in earlier, so I want to start with those and then if, some additional questions come in while we're talking, we can, we can continue to take those. 00:55:44.000 --> 00:55:52.000 This 1st question that came in is asking if an FFA can be renegotiated or be rewritten. 00:55:52.000 --> 00:56:01.000 They note that they have a lot of things and they're very antiquated FFA that aren't followed or are irrelevant and outdated. 00:56:01.000 --> 00:56:12.000 So I think, My, my gut reaction. I mean, there's nothing prohibiting us from renegotiating and rewriting FFAs. 00:56:12.000 --> 00:56:23.000 And although the attorneys that probably negotiated them in the 1st place may disagree with me. But when we when we open up an FFA, we're opening up the FFA. 00:56:23.000 --> 00:56:30.000 So we are opening it up to all the parties who negotiated it. Any changes that they would would want made. 00:56:30.000 --> 00:56:46.000 So what may seem may seem like it may be irrelevant to one party may be relevant to another. What may seem that, you know, what's antiquated to to one may may be but one of the other parties have been sort of leaning into. 00:56:46.000 --> 00:56:53.000 So I think it really depends on why you feel that your FFA is no longer functional. So that's just, I mean, and that would be a question for the attorneys on the team. 00:56:53.000 --> 00:57:07.000 To sort of can get site specific. My guess is you have a specific site in mind, Sam, and I think that's just a There's no prohibition against it. 00:57:07.000 --> 00:57:17.000 But we open it up to an awful lot if we do. And I can use one example. Sort of an example that's in most FFAs. 00:57:17.000 --> 00:57:23.000 That fortunately was there. In the last couple of years and that is looking at pollutants and contaminants. 00:57:23.000 --> 00:57:30.000 There's a section in your FFAs that is it seems pretty innocuous. We're gonna look at pollutants and contaminants. 00:57:30.000 --> 00:57:35.000 We'll dress them. For most for I believe it's a almost all of the DOD ones at least. 00:57:35.000 --> 00:57:41.000 And we're not for pollutants and contaminants. I don't know where we would be with the discussions about PFAS. 00:57:41.000 --> 00:57:47.000 Because up until recently that's all that was and even though it's been really big for us in federal facilities Yeah, it's, you know, that's just something maybe the private side had been as concerned about in their documents. 00:57:47.000 --> 00:58:00.000 Or, you know, Do you do would have loved to have that taken out? Because there's a lot of the work that they've been doing. 00:58:00.000 --> 00:58:06.000 Under Sarka for these FFAs has been under that that little section. So we have to be careful about what we're opening up. 00:58:06.000 --> 00:58:10.000 And what we would be renegotiating. 00:58:10.000 --> 00:58:28.000 Okay. Okay. Can you talk a little bit about experience for a crucial conversation and if that can help during dispute resolution? 00:58:28.000 --> 00:58:36.000 So I don't know if what you're leaning towards here is maybe, you know, just being able to have those open, open communications. 00:58:36.000 --> 00:58:47.000 Open discussions during the team meetings. We talked a little bit about You know, you have your team, you're working with teamwork, maybe. 00:58:47.000 --> 00:58:56.000 Having those relationships where you were your project team. You know, is sort of advocating for the team and working across the aisle. 00:58:56.000 --> 00:59:06.000 From one another of of there's a lot of like. Sort of mission creep. I would it's probably what I'm sort of leaning towards here. 00:59:06.000 --> 00:59:11.000 You know, there are there's a mission for a lot of the departments that is not human health in the environment. 00:59:11.000 --> 00:59:28.000 Whereas that's our main mission. And sometimes those conversations well difficult to have. About what is best, what is the what's circle mean what to circle what are the rules what are the regs what are the guidance that are out there. 00:59:28.000 --> 00:59:39.000 And maybe how it's. We could sort of play that into, you know, how does that, how does that affect the, the work we're doing at Atop, what you need at a department of defense site. 00:59:39.000 --> 00:59:49.000 I think all of those things we talk about though with open communication. And active listening and team building. 00:59:49.000 --> 01:00:06.000 Really helped to have those. Really unpleasant conversations. And sometimes those unpleasant conversations can be as, difficult as hey we have a team that's completely dysfunctional because of a person or because of a a couple of personalities. 01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:14.000 What can we do for the benefit of the team? For the benefit of these sites for the benefit of these disputes. 01:00:14.000 --> 01:00:17.000 To maybe break up the team and 01:00:17.000 --> 01:00:23.000 Realistically look at what those issues are. So I don't know if that's that really answers your question. 01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:32.000 But, you know, sometimes these crucial crucial difficult conversations can be just You know, hey, by the way, management. 01:00:32.000 --> 01:00:40.000 We think that we think we can clear we clear this dispute off the off our list, but it's really a question of are we. 01:00:40.000 --> 01:00:48.000 Are we bringing in different people to make that happen? Cause the current situation. This is just not going to allow for it. 01:00:48.000 --> 01:00:49.000 Hopefully it's an answer. 01:00:49.000 --> 01:00:59.000 Okay. No, I think you did a great job. We do have a question. Where someone is asking for an example. 01:00:59.000 --> 01:01:10.000 In terms of regulatory or technical procedures. That would define how you come up with a dispute resolution. 01:01:10.000 --> 01:01:18.000 And they're referencing in their FFA, it says to quote, describe the procedure to resolve a dispute, end quote. 01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:24.000 So they're hoping that you could give them an example and in terms of in terms of those regulatory or technical procedures. 01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:31.000 That someone should come up with dispute resolution. 01:01:31.000 --> 01:01:37.000 So I think what we look. We are given a lot of a lot of autonomy by the FFA. 01:01:37.000 --> 01:01:44.000 We have the informal dispute process, which you know, that's everything should be done as informally, seemingly possible. 01:01:44.000 --> 01:01:49.000 Yeah, that's your early discussion. Maybe that's something at that point your team sits down together and says, okay, we're going to start with informal. 01:01:49.000 --> 01:01:54.000 This is what informal dispute means to us. You, it's the RPM, RPM level. 01:01:54.000 --> 01:02:06.000 Do we have the right team here? Do we have, you know, are we all willing to bring in the attorneys and the hydros and the toxicologists, the bee tigers and Yeah, contractors if you know who ran the data. 01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:13.000 Do we have the right people to make these decisions? You, yeah, then once you go into the formal, that's preset. 01:02:13.000 --> 01:02:17.000 I mean, that's here's your dispute resolution committee. Here's your senior executive committee. 01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:28.000 And here's here's where elevates now to EPA administrator. So there are you could add to a most At least informally, you can add. 01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:33.000 And informally, I don't mean informal dispute. You can add to any of these. You know, there's timelines. 01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:41.000 They can they can be negotiated. But it really depends on what your dispute is too, because there are some things that you just maybe. 01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:49.000 There are just some issues that are gonna come up that there's not a lot of wiggle room with And maybe it's a question of guidance that. 01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:59.000 Somebody didn't want to, somebody doesn't want to follow. Is it you know a that we should be addressing is it really depends on what your issue is. 01:02:59.000 --> 01:03:07.000 I think, but remember, we said very early in this in the training. You can stop a dispute at any time. 01:03:07.000 --> 01:03:19.000 We can acknowledge that we have this, you know, particular issue and we can resolve that even if it's gone to formal dispute even if you're you know you could be almost to the level of administrator and still not ask for him to opine or her. 01:03:19.000 --> 01:03:28.000 To opine on the issue until we have, you know, we've worked out a couple more glitches and I've seen several sites get to that level where it's still sitting on a desk. 01:03:28.000 --> 01:03:33.000 Waiting for us to give the okay to have a to have the administrator opine on it. 01:03:33.000 --> 01:03:35.000 Okay. 01:03:35.000 --> 01:03:38.000 It really, everything comes down to communication. 01:03:38.000 --> 01:03:53.000 Okay. Well, I think those were all the questions that I saw in the queue. So it's 200, and 9. 01:03:53.000 --> 01:03:54.000 Great. 01:03:54.000 --> 01:03:56.000 So just a quick time check. Turn the floor back to you Mary to carry on the presentation but we'll pause again for questions in just a few moments. 01:03:56.000 --> 01:04:03.000 And I think this section will go pretty quickly because a lot of this is what we've already been talking about. 01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:13.000 Let's talk. We said communications really critical. To understanding not only the root of the disagreement that you have, but how do we how do we work towards that resolution? 01:04:13.000 --> 01:04:22.000 You know, active listening. You heard me mentioned a couple of slides ago. This is really important and I it's really I think it's really under plate sometimes. 01:04:22.000 --> 01:04:31.000 You know, yeah, I'm listening to you while you're sitting there, you know, texting your boss about something happening at your site. 01:04:31.000 --> 01:04:38.000 Or yeah, yeah, I'm, I know none of us have ever sat in a meeting and played candy garage. 01:04:38.000 --> 01:04:42.000 I don't know how you did it, cause you know, you clearly were not listening to what's going on in that meeting. 01:04:42.000 --> 01:04:49.000 But, you know, you pay attention to what's being said, because sometimes there's body language issues. 01:04:49.000 --> 01:04:57.000 Yeah, maybe there's something you're hearing. Yeah, maybe somebody's giving. An alternative or having a discussion about, you know, data. 01:04:57.000 --> 01:05:03.000 You look at the, we're trying to read their body language as well. So it really helps if you're focused on that person who is. 01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:15.000 Who's speaking and you know, what are they really saying? What can we, what can we glean from what they're really from that, between their tone, their body language, our, you know. 01:05:15.000 --> 01:05:21.000 Do they believe what they're saying? Is there some is there a way to sort of continue this conversation? 01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:25.000 And, and and be more open about these topics like we mentioned earlier, no one be open with a lot of these conversations that were happening. 01:05:25.000 --> 01:05:36.000 This is, you know, you're, there's, there's your opinion, there's my opinion, there's the right opinion. 01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:45.000 So when you're making that effort. To not only here. But understand. What the other party saying, you know, you've changed, you've changed the game. 01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:59.000 Now you're having that now you're having open communication. Now you're going to be able to better resolve If at all possible these disputes. 01:05:59.000 --> 01:06:06.000 At the level of that team. Or 1st level 1st line management type of a. Type of a situation. 01:06:06.000 --> 01:06:14.000 What are folks really saying? You know, we're not We're not trying to think about what the next thing we want to say is. 01:06:14.000 --> 01:06:22.000 How make and we are all very guilty of that. I'm hearing what you're saying, but I'm waiting for you to take a breath so that I can jump in with my opinion. 01:06:22.000 --> 01:06:30.000 That's not active listening. So we don't wanna be already formulating like argument in our head about how we're going to. 01:06:30.000 --> 01:06:38.000 Work, you know, work our, work our argument in as soon as they're done, as soon as they're done talking. 01:06:38.000 --> 01:06:49.000 Each team member should have an opportunity to speak during these meetings. Yeah, it's, it's, it goes back to the way back, you know, the way back machine for formal partnering and the region I came from. 01:06:49.000 --> 01:06:54.000 We had a Beanie baby. That tells you how far back it goes because Beanie babies were a thing. 01:06:54.000 --> 01:07:01.000 But, we had a beanie baby and if you had and a lot of the tribal meetings I've been in as well, it's a talking stick. 01:07:01.000 --> 01:07:10.000 When you are in possession of that, you speak. And others listen and that's how everybody at table gets an opportunity. 01:07:10.000 --> 01:07:14.000 If somebody's not speaking, maybe they have a lot of really good things to say. Maybe we need to ask. 01:07:14.000 --> 01:07:18.000 You know, hey, hey, Bill, I see you've been sitting in that corner, you know. 01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:25.000 You're listening to the conversation. I see the wheels turn in. What can you? What are we missing? 01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:34.000 What do you think? That person may have the solution. So bring people into the conversation as well. You just make sure that we're paying attention to all the parties at the table. 01:07:34.000 --> 01:07:43.000 And don't interrupt. You know, allow somebody to finish their thought. And just because they took a breath doesn't mean they're done. 01:07:43.000 --> 01:07:50.000 So, and it goes back to that, you know, this active listening. Don't tee up what you want to say next. 01:07:50.000 --> 01:07:57.000 Because you just want to say it because They may have a really good point they're trying to make and you just missed it. 01:07:57.000 --> 01:08:10.000 Because you decided that just wasn't what you felt like listening to. So I think that the aspect back to listening is just You can avoid an awful lot of misunderstandings. 01:08:10.000 --> 01:08:18.000 If we can, if that's something we focus on during some of our meetings. During some of these conversations about dispute. 01:08:18.000 --> 01:08:31.000 About these issues that are really. Really tying us up on some of these sites. Just that That's 1 piece of communication that's just so vital. 01:08:31.000 --> 01:08:39.000 Repeat what you've heard somebody say. So if you aren't sure you heard it right. 01:08:39.000 --> 01:08:41.000 Repeat back. Here's what I think I heard you say. Am I understanding what you're saying? 01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:54.000 This is what I think I heard. Can you clarify that for me? Not only does it show that you were actively listening because your your statement your next statement is not but my plan is Your next statement is, let me understand what you just said. 01:08:54.000 --> 01:09:08.000 Let me make sure that I'm not missing something. Not only does it show, you know, you're trying to get that connection, that mutual understanding, you want to make sure you're getting what they're putting out there. 01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:15.000 But it could open up a conversation that we may not have thought about having. Maybe there's something that. 01:09:15.000 --> 01:09:24.000 As this person is sort of walking through. What they said, maybe it triggers a totally different conversation within the group. 01:09:24.000 --> 01:09:33.000 And now we've resolved the issue. So just. That it also, it's respect that they are also being heard. 01:09:33.000 --> 01:09:36.000 Like I said, there's that active listening piece. That yes, I heard what you're saying. 01:09:36.000 --> 01:09:42.000 Not only did I hear what you were saying, But I just wanna make sure that we all understood what you were saying. 01:09:42.000 --> 01:09:48.000 Because hearing and understanding really can be, can be sort of 2 different things. 01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:57.000 Reducing the issue to writing may help the parties reach an understanding. And this is something, you know, whether it's notes from your meetings, the minutes. 01:09:57.000 --> 01:10:05.000 Of putting this into writing where all the parties who are involved, all the parties will have a, you know, dog in this fight. 01:10:05.000 --> 01:10:10.000 We are all on that same page. Here's what EPA said. Here's what. 01:10:10.000 --> 01:10:18.000 Air Force said, here's what. The state said, you know, here's maybe some tribal, you know, input. 01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:22.000 Here's and here's what we all here's what we all think we heard at this in this conversation. 01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:29.000 Here's where we are. This is the this is the plan This is, you know, where do we go from here? 01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:37.000 But make sure that if it's in writing. You not only have you memorialized it. As a team and said, okay, now here's what we all said. 01:10:37.000 --> 01:10:43.000 And here's where the issue still are. But now we can go if we have to bring in that next tier of management in. 01:10:43.000 --> 01:10:51.000 If this has to go to formal dispute. This is the understanding at our team level. Here's where we've been able to check off. 01:10:51.000 --> 01:11:05.000 These 3 items. But these 4 items that are left in this dispute, this issue. These may need elevation and here's the issue cleanly agreed to by all the parties on what we need for the higher ups to give their input on. 01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:13.000 And that way not only are, you know, we're all on the same page as a team, but when we go to present to our management. 01:11:13.000 --> 01:11:21.000 We've all presented the same issue without saying, okay, well. You know, let's say DOE. 01:11:21.000 --> 01:11:22.000 Yeah. Goes back and they've given their version of it. And EPA went back and give their version of it. 01:11:22.000 --> 01:11:31.000 There's not a version. It's this. Putting writing and we've all agreed to before we've left the table. 01:11:31.000 --> 01:11:32.000 And that really will help as we've moved forward with this because that way all of management has the same information. 01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:44.000 So that when they have to have their conversations, they all are going in there with the exact same notes. 01:11:44.000 --> 01:12:01.000 They have they know what they're they know what their job is. To help make you know these decisions and in the end make make our lives as like maybe the site people a little a little a little easier. 01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:12.000 So communication behavior. We talk about, you know, understanding. Communication be critical to understanding the root of conflict, working towards solving issues. 01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:21.000 Focusing on the issues at hand, the core issues. Can be a really good starting point for, you know, dispute. 01:12:21.000 --> 01:12:33.000 Make sure we are all on the same page from the get go. You know, I think, as let's say, I think EPA thinks this is the issues that we have. 01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:40.000 Department defense. You know, are we on, are we on that same page? We want to make sure we're not having a laundry list of issues. 01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:48.000 Per se, but we want to make sure the issues that we have. That we're on we are on that same page and that we understand collectively. 01:12:48.000 --> 01:12:55.000 What they are. And this of them is the bigger ticket issues. We don't need to go, we don't need to go down the rabbit hole. 01:12:55.000 --> 01:13:11.000 On every single issue that we have. Is there a general overarching? Conversation. That we need to maybe look at because we're looking at a big a big ticket item we're looking at you know We could be talking about industrial cleanup levels. 01:13:11.000 --> 01:13:20.000 For an example. Rather than saying, well, we want to talk about this, this opera unit and this opera unit and this upper book, why don't we just talk about it? 01:13:20.000 --> 01:13:26.000 Maybe sometimes that open that overarching conversation can resolve all of those, those simple, it's under it. 01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:32.000 So rather than having that those individual Sort of a sort of a nitpicky. Yeah, that checklist. 01:13:32.000 --> 01:13:45.000 Just maybe having that overarching conversation about the general issue. You know, letting go of issues already resolved in the past and those not relevant to the current dispute. 01:13:45.000 --> 01:13:54.000 This? This is really sort of, this can be a pretty big issue. We have a lot of turnover. 01:13:54.000 --> 01:14:02.000 And so you may have an issue that was resolved 5 years ago. But because you have new team members, maybe that issue. 01:14:02.000 --> 01:14:08.000 Maybe it's showing its head again. Maybe we're reopening it. Has this been resolved in a way? 01:14:08.000 --> 01:14:20.000 That everyone agreed to. Did we memorialize it? Has anything really changed to affect that decision or are we talking about it's a personal, it's a personal preference. 01:14:20.000 --> 01:14:21.000 A lot in you've heard me talk about partnering. In a lot of these situations with partnering, the team. 01:14:21.000 --> 01:14:30.000 Memorializes situations like this. It's in the document. It's in the minutes. 01:14:30.000 --> 01:14:39.000 It's part of the record. And what what would be the reason to reopen it? So there may be perfectly legitimate reason to do so. 01:14:39.000 --> 01:14:53.000 There may be a change in a cleanup level. There may be a new RSL, there may be new a new and we're going to start talking about that in the next couple of weeks, hopefully over some, you know, specific compounds. 01:14:53.000 --> 01:15:08.000 But if this is something that's already been resolved, why are we reopening it? So that's just something to consider, you know, as you're having these conversations on, on some of these disputes on some of these issues. 01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:19.000 High like those that currently need to be addressed. You know, often times, like I said, with that laundry list, you'll have Sometimes some of these issues can sort of. 01:15:19.000 --> 01:15:39.000 Work themselves out through through through some of these conversations. But let's talk about some of the things that we need. 01:15:39.000 --> 01:15:49.000 Conversation and also it's in the situations where I've seen where this has been followed of, you know, avoiding that laundry list. 01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:56.000 Working with the understanding that some of these issues aren't current issues, they're past issues. Let's work the current issues first.st 01:15:56.000 --> 01:16:03.000 If there's something we have to address that we have to reopen, let's have that conversation. 01:16:03.000 --> 01:16:18.000 As part of a different conversation. It doesn't necessarily need to be part of a dispute. Just because we have the, the format, the venue, the attention from on high does not necessarily mean that has to be moved forward if it's not pertinent to what we're talking about here. 01:16:18.000 --> 01:16:40.000 And etiquette, I. We touched on this several times. Be respectful. You know, that's That's a lot of the battle for in some of these meetings where people are defensive and There's just your You serve on that on that look for somebody like. 01:16:40.000 --> 01:16:44.000 You know, you're waiting for that up, you know, that other shoe to drop. Just be respectful of the folks in the room and be respectful of their time. 01:16:44.000 --> 01:17:00.000 And be respectful of their opinions. I think the respect it goes a long way. And it's very much appreciated by The folks who get it and you appreciate it when it's when someone's respectful to you. 01:17:00.000 --> 01:17:06.000 So when we're having these conversations, just remember that, you know, it's we're trying to minimize the conflict. 01:17:06.000 --> 01:17:16.000 We're not trying to create more. And trying to make a more difficult situation by. Bye, treating folks the way we shouldn't be treating. 01:17:16.000 --> 01:17:24.000 And make an effort to take a really fresh look at some of these issues. Do we have past baggage that we're bringing into this meeting? 01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:30.000 You know, does some of this falls to personalities? But, you know, are we bringing up an issue that we thought? 01:17:30.000 --> 01:17:36.000 Was hammered out 5 years ago just because we got the venue for it. And that's not necessarily the way to go into these meetings. 01:17:36.000 --> 01:17:41.000 We're going into these sort of 01:17:41.000 --> 01:17:51.000 Almost wanna go go judge Judy on you were going and into these meetings with clean hands. Let's go in here open slate and clean slate open communication and we can work out these issues wonderful. 01:17:51.000 --> 01:18:02.000 Maybe something has to be brought up because the issue we're dealing with today may have been negatively impacted, directly impacted by something that we talked about 5 years ago. 01:18:02.000 --> 01:18:07.000 Let's work that out, but. Let's take a, you know, we're not gonna rehash. 01:18:07.000 --> 01:18:12.000 A lot of the old stuff. We're gonna let you start from new. Here's the issue. 01:18:12.000 --> 01:18:16.000 And we'll move forward from there. Let's forget about the fact that we've been debating this. 01:18:16.000 --> 01:18:25.000 Or that we agreed to this and we now know that we shouldn't have. Sometimes things happen. And I just think it's very impossible. 01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:28.000 It's very possible to, you know. 01:18:28.000 --> 01:18:38.000 Or better best practice to try to move forward. Again, respectful. Acknowledging that you know this team has a job to do and let's try to let's try to do it. 01:18:38.000 --> 01:18:44.000 As best we can. 01:18:44.000 --> 01:18:46.000 Gee. 01:18:46.000 --> 01:18:50.000 Oh, right. So we're going to launch our last poll for today. And this one is a multiple choice question. 01:18:50.000 --> 01:19:01.000 So you should see that new popup asking which of the following is not an example of practicing good communication across a site team. 01:19:01.000 --> 01:19:08.000 You'll have 4 choices. Is it option A, providing a written summary of my agency's understanding of an issue and our stance? 01:19:08.000 --> 01:19:14.000 Is it option B? Asking clarifying questions once another team member has presented their thoughts on the topic. 01:19:14.000 --> 01:19:26.000 Or what about option C? Raising issues that are not relevant to the current discussion. Or lastly option D, disagreeing with someone from another group in explaining why I disagree. 01:19:26.000 --> 01:19:35.000 So of those 4 choices, which of the following is not an example of practicing good communication across a site team. 01:19:35.000 --> 01:19:39.000 So ask you to check or the circle to the left of the answer that you think is correct and then hit the submit button. 01:19:39.000 --> 01:19:55.000 About half of you have cast your vote. So I'll give you just a few more seconds to think about it, but of course if you're having any technical issues, you can type your message or thoughts and response in as a Q&A submission and we will still count that towards your participation in this little quick knowledge check. 01:19:55.000 --> 01:20:05.000 I'll go ahead and close this one down in 3. 2. One and let's look at those results. 01:20:05.000 --> 01:20:17.000 So overwhelmingly, 95% of the audience thought options see raising issues that are not relevant to the current discussion is not an example of practicing good communication across the site team. 01:20:17.000 --> 01:20:22.000 Mary, how'd they do? 01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:23.000 Very good everybody. Very good everybody. 01:20:23.000 --> 01:20:29.000 I think I saw a good. Excellent. Alright, so. 01:20:29.000 --> 01:20:34.000 So yeah, so we're looking at so, yeah, let's just really quick look, you know, for A. 01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:41.000 Yup, Pretty good, a summary. We've got our agencies understanding of an issue with our stance. 01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:48.000 We're going into this meeting with, you know, we have our information, we're ready to support and advocate for our office. 01:20:48.000 --> 01:20:54.000 Great, wonderful. That that's really great communication because you've got your issue right there. You're asking clarifying questions. 01:20:54.000 --> 01:21:09.000 You actively listen during this presentation. You're trying to understand what their thoughts are on the topic. And if you're disagreeing with somebody from your another federal agency or the state or what have you, you're explaining why you disagree. 01:21:09.000 --> 01:21:15.000 You're not just You know, I guess I disagree with you, but I have a good reason to do it. 01:21:15.000 --> 01:21:19.000 Here's. I may not agree, but I have a reason to do it. Here's my rationale. 01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:29.000 And that could lead to a great conversation. But if you're if we're talking about something that's not relevant to the current discussion Hmm, then that's really not good communication when we're trying to. 01:21:29.000 --> 01:21:34.000 We're trying to, we're trying to resolve a dispute. That's really not gonna get us anywhere. 01:21:34.000 --> 01:21:46.000 So great job, great job everybody. Before we move into the next section, which I. My colleague John So is pop on for your viewing pleasure. 01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:54.000 Before we move on to John, did anybody have any questions about communication or anything up until up until this point? 01:21:54.000 --> 01:22:02.000 Yeah, and I'll just remind the audience if you do have questions go ahead and type them in or feel free to just put in no questions as a message into the QA that also helps us make sure we're allowing enough time. 01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:19.000 As I'm waiting to see what responses come in, Mary, I will say that a number of people were complimenting some of your suggestions and recommendations is just best practices and that you were giving some really good tips on how they might handle interacting at their sites. 01:22:19.000 --> 01:22:20.000 Oh, thank you. 01:22:20.000 --> 01:22:26.000 So you had some positive feedback there and I am looking at a bunch of individuals indicating that they have no questions at this time. 01:22:26.000 --> 01:22:27.000 Wonderful. 01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:34.000 So I think just in the interest of time seeing it has out 2 27, how about we pass the baton over to Jonathan and he can carry on with the presentation. 01:22:34.000 --> 01:22:36.000 Alright, thank you very much. 01:22:36.000 --> 01:22:42.000 Awesome. Thanks, Mary. Thanks, Dream. Alright, so we're gonna go over resolving disagreements. 01:22:42.000 --> 01:22:48.000 We've got a little bit over 30 min left, so we. Definitely could finish this. We got 2 sections left. 01:22:48.000 --> 01:22:49.000 So the 1st step to resolving this agreement is to acknowledge, you know, that there isn't this agreement. 01:22:49.000 --> 01:23:01.000 You wanna prepare for resolution. So people often ignore the 1st sense of disc as they think it's part of the regular process. 01:23:01.000 --> 01:23:08.000 They think, you know, it's part of the debates and. Typical, you know, work everyday scenarios where, you know, your experience. 01:23:08.000 --> 01:23:20.000 Arguments and what not. If you're concerned about conflict amongst agencies or any working group, discuss it with other members, ask your teammates, ask other RPMs of Dave or if they're counting similar issues. 01:23:20.000 --> 01:23:24.000 You can always come ahead with the, you could always come to headquarters and, you know, Ask me and Mary or anybody else in our office. 01:23:24.000 --> 01:23:32.000 We're all regional coordinators here to see whether it's any experience. With any current issues that are happening. 01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:45.000 And recognizing the issue can be the start of the pro the start of the process of resolution. Once you identified a disagreement, you want to discuss what the impacts are. 01:23:45.000 --> 01:23:52.000 So. Well, this disagreement if you're not, if you can't come to consensus, is it gonna cause cleanup delays at a site? 01:23:52.000 --> 01:24:05.000 Is that gonna stall your timelines again? It's important to look at your FFA because the FFA is kinda outlined the timeline of when you know certain Miles, you're supposed to be met. 01:24:05.000 --> 01:24:13.000 So if this agreement. You know, kicks in, this is gonna cause a delay is, you know, it could build up for years down the road. 01:24:13.000 --> 01:24:35.000 Is there a potential loss of available funds? So we've had, we've had examples where this agreements happen towards the end of the fiscal year and you know the lead agency that wants to you know get this resolved their argument would be that hey what if we don't get this resolve As soon as possible, we're gonna lose this money and you know, we need to ask Congress for more additional money down the road 01:24:35.000 --> 01:24:40.000 and this can also, this goes back to clean up delays. Is there a potential for 4 more dispute? 01:24:40.000 --> 01:24:47.000 You want to raise, again, you want to try to resolve issues at the site level at the informal level. 01:24:47.000 --> 01:24:49.000 However, you know, it's we're trying to change the idea that going through a dispute is a bad thing. 01:24:49.000 --> 01:24:59.000 I saw earlier in the chat when Gene was asking what you're expecting to learn from this course that people wanted to avoid disputes. 01:24:59.000 --> 01:25:05.000 In an ideal world, yes, would we all work together and, you know, have no Disputes? 01:25:05.000 --> 01:25:11.000 Yes, but Unfortunately, in reality, that's not the case and that's That's common practice. 01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:20.000 That's gonna happen at every site. So yeah, raising it to form a dispute if need be is not. 01:25:20.000 --> 01:25:30.000 A bad thing that I think it is. You wanna agree to a cooperative process? Going back to what Mary was saying, you know, there's proper etiquette and. 01:25:30.000 --> 01:25:31.000 Why not to handle issues? It's kind of productive if you're not gonna cooperate. 01:25:31.000 --> 01:25:42.000 Why have these meetings at that point? And you wanna agree to communicate at the end of the day, communication is key. 01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:48.000 How many times who has who here hasn't received a message where you know you're interpreting it differently? 01:25:48.000 --> 01:26:01.000 However, the person who sent the message. Totally meant something else. Cases like that if you have a good working relationship with your counterpart definitely you know it'll be a good idea to give them a call and kinda discuss it out. 01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:12.000 So just interpreting the email or the message as something negative because there's been there's always been times where this communication happens. 01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:21.000 Step 2 would be to understand the situation. Again, there's going to be varying new points as we indicated earlier. 01:26:21.000 --> 01:26:34.000 Each agency or it state has their own. Mission statement are the and not everything is going to line. You want to have, you wanna make sure that each group clarifies their position. 01:26:34.000 --> 01:26:46.000 Again, this kind of goes into communication. Right down what your position is and why you believe that it's that's what you want to move forward with. 01:26:46.000 --> 01:26:52.000 And at this point, you should avoid assuming that there is a single correct way. To adjust an issue. 01:26:52.000 --> 01:27:03.000 Again, opinion, there's different factors here. Many different opinions. You want to clarify that before you go in to a dispute. 01:27:03.000 --> 01:27:21.000 We have an example here where There's some general examples of team members clarifying the positions of which, for, which remediation approach should be used to treat a, So in this case, we're selecting a remedy and party A believes that. 01:27:21.000 --> 01:27:33.000 Hey, groundwater plume should be remediated through Pumpkin Street. Party B believes that the contaminated groundwater should be addressed through my natural attenuation and party C believes that more data is needed. 01:27:33.000 --> 01:27:39.000 Just take a brief look at these. These are all fine points. And nobody's wrong in this case. 01:27:39.000 --> 01:27:48.000 They're just clarifying why. What their position is. 01:27:48.000 --> 01:27:57.000 Go further, you know, why do you believe that? So in this example, party believes that the pump and treat system is best because it has worked well. 01:27:57.000 --> 01:28:09.000 In areas of the site with similar contamination, party B believes that M and A is appropriate due to relatively low concentration of contaminants and party C, believes more data would be helpful. 01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:15.000 You wanna clarify again, you wanna clarify the issue and that you're raising to the dispute. 01:28:15.000 --> 01:28:35.000 You want list facts assumptions and beliefs don't forget you know assumption beliefs they play a role in this they may not align with what the persons agency, you know, their mission statement is, but you know, you want to identify what which opinions are there and why they're in effect. 01:28:35.000 --> 01:28:43.000 Might be easier to break down these discussions of smaller teams. Ask your team again, like I said earlier, ask your teammates. 01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:59.000 Whether they've experienced issue somewhere to list if you know you're going to meeting and there's like 20 people there who who's you know there's too many cooks in the kitchen at that point you know you got varying opinions formulating and that's gonna cause confusion. 01:28:59.000 --> 01:29:01.000 So it definitely can be helpful to break into smaller teams and to analyze that, you know, again, you could reach out to headquarters. 01:29:01.000 --> 01:29:18.000 Reach out to your subject matter experts reach out to your 1st line supervisors. And when you come to our consensus and convene and discuss, we're trying to resolve the issue here. 01:29:18.000 --> 01:29:27.000 So. Go ahead and do that. 01:29:27.000 --> 01:29:36.000 You wanna identify the minimum needs and where there's no flexibility. So are there rules and regulations that can't be broken that your agency needs to follow. 01:29:36.000 --> 01:29:44.000 Are there memos that are identified? You wanted to make sure that there are no deal breakers. 01:29:44.000 --> 01:29:50.000 You want to remember that personal views are not always the same as the agency positions, you know, as RPM. 01:29:50.000 --> 01:30:01.000 You might have one opinion, but you know, policy states this, you know. When you raise it to headquarters, there's been times where we don't line with the region, however. 01:30:01.000 --> 01:30:09.000 You need to follow the law and the regulations. You wanna identify issues that and offer constructive suggestion. 01:30:09.000 --> 01:30:18.000 So again, each agency is responsible for clearing and identifying what the issues are. So, that you need to state your opinions and make sure that the clear. 01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:27.000 And you wanna propose ways to ways that those issues can be addressed. There's no single way to address an issue there. 01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:31.000 Could be different varying. There could be different ways to kind of. You know, come to resolution. 01:30:31.000 --> 01:30:49.000 So all that should be thought of and, you know, put on the table. And they should be all the options should be explored. 01:30:49.000 --> 01:30:56.000 Step 3 when it should be to reach, reach, reach agreement. So. Be creative, you want to negotiate. 01:30:56.000 --> 01:31:02.000 Most things when you actually meet with people, you can find out that people are willing to work with one another. 01:31:02.000 --> 01:31:17.000 You you wanna avoid getting stuck in your own views? And listen to others. Rarely have we even counter times where, you know, people are dead set on their ways where they're refusing to work with you. 01:31:17.000 --> 01:31:21.000 So. You know, take the time to meet and work this out. One to discuss your stance. 01:31:21.000 --> 01:31:30.000 So talk about your stance on an issue with people you trust in respect within your agency. So as Mary indicated and I indicated earlier. 01:31:30.000 --> 01:31:40.000 You know ask headquarters ask her colleagues if they've counted this bring in the attorneys they need to everybody here's they want to get this resolved so they're here to help you. 01:31:40.000 --> 01:31:48.000 Consider expertise of different members. So again, if you have a risk assessor or a toxicologist that is very well versed in the subject. 01:31:48.000 --> 01:32:02.000 Go and ask them, they could bring a, you know, they can bring the light. On and help resolve this issue. 01:32:02.000 --> 01:32:09.000 If you can come to resolution, reach an agreement, then using a 3rd party facility is helpful. 01:32:09.000 --> 01:32:19.000 We've had sites where you know the federal agencies are not agreeing with one another and we bring we brought down the 3rd party facilitator to help. 01:32:19.000 --> 01:32:31.000 Discussions. These people, these facilities should be neutral parties and they might also bring, you know, new ideas on till a new creative ways to help address the issue. 01:32:31.000 --> 01:32:46.000 When agreements are. Are made you should celebrate them no matter how small they are again the our clean up sites at federal facilities take years so you know any any step to help progress the cleanup at a site. 01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:53.000 Should be celebrated. 01:32:53.000 --> 01:33:04.000 So we're going to go next until formal dispute. So what happens when you can't resolve an informal dispute? 01:33:04.000 --> 01:33:13.000 Again, Read your FFA, your FFA describes all the necessities of, you know, the dispute process. 01:33:13.000 --> 01:33:29.000 It describes what role, what rolls up parties. Signatory parties play. And it outlines everything that needs to be known in the dispute process. 01:33:29.000 --> 01:33:38.000 So if you can't solve an issue at the informal level, so that's your site team level, then you want to raise it to formal dispute. 01:33:38.000 --> 01:33:45.000 Typically the formal dispute, informal dispute phase is about 30 days, but that can vary depending on your FFA. 01:33:45.000 --> 01:33:54.000 Again, to emphasize that. Enough, FFA kinda dictates, you know, how clean up is gonna happen at the site or end the timelines. 01:33:54.000 --> 01:34:04.000 There's, there's cases where informal dispute. Can sit, you know, in more than 30 cannot be resolved in more than 30 days and that's fine. 01:34:04.000 --> 01:34:05.000 As long as this progress that's made throughout, you know, the whole dispute process, informal dispute process. 01:34:05.000 --> 01:34:18.000 That's fine. We want progress to be. No matter what. There's been cases where they've set 4 years. 01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:25.000 I onboarded here an EPA in 2020 and I could think of a couple of informal disputes that are still sitting in that. 01:34:25.000 --> 01:34:29.000 That have not raised the formal dispute phase because the region and the site team believes that they're still incremental progress being made. 01:34:29.000 --> 01:34:42.000 So that's good. Both formal and form of the speech are anticipated parts of the process and that's why there is a procedure for them in the FFAs. 01:34:42.000 --> 01:34:55.000 Neither is inherently good or bad and dispute doesn't mean there has been a failure. Again, beginning of this course, we were asking people what they're expecting out of this course and people want to avoid dispute. 01:34:55.000 --> 01:35:10.000 That's probably not gonna happen if so then that might be pressing the setting cause I want I want to say a lot most of our 175 MPL sites have gone through some sort of informal dispute. 01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:18.000 Initiating a form of dispute is the appropriate action when there's no further prize can be made in at the informal level. 01:35:18.000 --> 01:35:25.000 So in the case where you can't, you know, you and your 1st slide supervisor can't make any progress. 01:35:25.000 --> 01:35:40.000 Bring it to the DRC at a dispute resolution committee, make it formal. One thing to keep in mind when it goes formal that You need to document this in the administrative records. 01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:48.000 So in 2018 we have this principles memorandum it's called the principles for reinforcing federal facilities agreement informal and formal dispute timelines. 01:35:48.000 --> 01:36:02.000 It was written by Susan Bowden who was the acting administrator who was the assistant. Administrator at the time and there are 6 major principles that were outlined in this. 01:36:02.000 --> 01:36:16.000 So the 1st one is disputes are in natural parts of the process. Second is all party should have a common understanding of dispute resolution procedures and should resolve disputes informally when, when possible. 01:36:16.000 --> 01:36:26.000 3 is resolving disputes informally when possible is an effective dispute resolution tool. 4 informal disputes should be elevated when progress has stalled. 01:36:26.000 --> 01:36:38.000 5 dispute resolution time I should be filed to the greatest extent practicable Again, there's certain that FFA will break down the timelines, but we Understand that that's not always gonna happen. 01:36:38.000 --> 01:36:43.000 And then 6 each party to the FFA has a role in this. 01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:50.000 So when this memo was made, it was issued by the Office of Environmental Compliance Assurance. 01:36:50.000 --> 01:37:03.000 Compliance assurance, so that's O. That's the attorney office where in the office of land emergency management we're in OLD, but it was kind of a joint minimal, but a week ago took the lead on it. 01:37:03.000 --> 01:37:10.000 And when we when we came up with the memo, we saw participation from the other federal agencies, ECOS, that's the environmental council of the states and that's why we, association of state and territorial. 01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:29.000 Salt waste management officials. The memo can be found on our public facing website. If you have the student manual, there is the URL that Well, take you there. 01:37:29.000 --> 01:37:35.000 But yeah, it kinda outlines the and emphasizes that, you know, dispute happens at the site. 01:37:35.000 --> 01:37:44.000 It's bound to happen and we should follow the FFA when possible. 01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:51.000 So there's certain questions you wanna ask for raising it till from a no formless dispute to a form of the dispute. 01:37:51.000 --> 01:38:00.000 Does this issue merit the involvement of upper management? You know, you spent years, you spent months arguing over something. 01:38:00.000 --> 01:38:25.000 At the site level you and your counterpart can't get an agreement does the upper management this is do the decision makers need to get involved is this a technical issue that is better resolved by subject matter experts at the teams level that's where we want to bring in you know a matter experts whether their risk assessors toxicologists can they bring in can they bring light to the issue in hand as all flexibility and selecting pathway have been 01:38:25.000 --> 01:38:32.000 considered. And is there a key disagreement on how this dispute would affect selection of our army that would be protective? 01:38:32.000 --> 01:38:40.000 Of human health and environment. At the end of day we want to clean up the sites we're all public servants and we want to make sure you know there's no exposures out there. 01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:48.000 So the formal dispute is needed and to order and make it have a decision made to, you know, move to clean up further, then that should be considered. 01:38:48.000 --> 01:38:55.000 That should be done. 01:38:55.000 --> 01:39:01.000 So if a decision is made to initiate form of sleep, keep in mind that the FFAs generally require this to be done in writing. 01:39:01.000 --> 01:39:09.000 And then when you get that in with that, you get your, when you get the, Same positions I've ran that should be all added to the administrative record. 01:39:09.000 --> 01:39:20.000 So we have an example here from our foot use this FFA for uses the FFA for for use is our model FFA. 01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:29.000 And it says within 30 days after the issuance of draft final primary document pursuant to section 10 consultation. 01:39:29.000 --> 01:39:42.000 Or any action that leads to or generates a dispute, the disputing party shall submit to the DRC, that's the dispute resolution resolution committee, a written statement of dispute setting forth the nature of the dispute. 01:39:42.000 --> 01:39:55.000 The work affected by the dispute, the disputing party's position with respect to the and technical, legal, or factual information for disputing party is relying upon to support its position. 01:39:55.000 --> 01:40:06.000 So again, raising it to formal dispute is not bad. It's. Part of the process if you think if you know you can't get it resolved at the informal level and it's an opportunity for progress. 01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:16.000 You know, if you can't make decision on site level, then have upper management involved. They'll make the decisions. 01:40:16.000 --> 01:40:28.000 So the 1st step of a formal dispute is the dispute resolution committee. So for EPA, that's typically our SMD directors that see superfund and the emergency management division director. 01:40:28.000 --> 01:40:39.000 For other federal agencies that could be, if it's like DOD, it could be a base commander and then for the states if they're part of the FFA. 01:40:39.000 --> 01:40:54.000 It could be an official the FFA will identify that The FFA will identify who is equivalent to what for each level so it's the DRC SEC and then it goes to the administrator. 01:40:54.000 --> 01:41:02.000 So once it gets raised to the dispute resolution committee. Under the FFA there is 21 days. 01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:06.000 For this to be resolved at that level. 01:41:06.000 --> 01:41:13.000 Ideally, you know. That within that timeframe, it will get resolved, but if there's no resolution, then. 01:41:13.000 --> 01:41:25.000 Once there's agreement that there's no revolution within 7 days and needs to be moved to the next level, which is your senior executive committee. 01:41:25.000 --> 01:41:32.000 So the senior executive committee are typically our Ssers. So for EPA, that's the regional administrator. 01:41:32.000 --> 01:41:42.000 For other federal agencies, example would be like a rear animal or like a commander of a Pacific fleet or something like that. 01:41:42.000 --> 01:41:46.000 And then for the states that would be the director of that state environmental program. 01:41:46.000 --> 01:41:55.000 The SCC has 21 days to unanimously resolve the dispute and issue a written decision, which all party sign. 01:41:55.000 --> 01:42:04.000 Again, look at your FFA, that's your written decision, which all party sign. Again, look at your FFA, I will identify who's part of the which parties are applicable and if there's no resolution in the FFA. 01:42:04.000 --> 01:42:16.000 Then this, this gets raised up. And what happens if it doesn't get resolved, then the EPA regional administrator makes a ring position. 01:42:16.000 --> 01:42:27.000 That room position is gonna be the decision on how the dispute will be resolved. And if there's no objections within 14 days that. 01:42:27.000 --> 01:42:37.000 Stands that then the speed is closed is resolved and the EPA's regional administrator makes. The decision goes final. 01:42:37.000 --> 01:42:49.000 If a party objects to the regional administrators, position, then this goes up to the EPA administrator where the EPA administrator is the final decision maker where the EPA administrator is the final decision maker. 01:42:49.000 --> 01:42:54.000 So whatever the EPA administrator says, the final decision maker. So whatever the EPA administrator says goes final and cannot be. 01:42:54.000 --> 01:43:03.000 Cannot be Resolve cannot be, sorry, cannot be. And that goes final. 01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:17.000 So in the case where a dispute has gone to the administrator in the federal facilities program, there's only been a handful, I'd want to say about a dozen, maybe a little bit more 13 or 14 cases where the EP administrator has made a decision. 01:43:17.000 --> 01:43:23.000 For a dispute. Where we're actually currently working on one right now. On in California. 01:43:23.000 --> 01:43:35.000 Again, you know, ideally these the speeds will be following the FFA timeline, but in this case we've been sitting at the administrators level for about 2 years now almost. 01:43:35.000 --> 01:43:41.000 I remember coming in EPA 1st day where the region raised it to us saying, oh, this is going to be a nothing but we'll get this resolved. 01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:51.000 Really quick, but then, you know, 4 years later, sitting at the ministry level, we're still working, so in this, in this case, we're still trying to work. 01:43:51.000 --> 01:43:58.000 On getting a result before we need to actually raise it to the administrator. But, you know, if that doesn't. 01:43:58.000 --> 01:44:05.000 If we can't come to agreement, then the EPA administrator will make the final decision and that's final. 01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:13.000 Here's the timeline and the levels on just a quick summary on 01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:23.000 The speed process. So again, your DRC level is the 1st formal phase. So you have 21 days to resolve and if it's not resolved within 7. 01:44:23.000 --> 01:44:28.000 If it's not resolved within 7 days, it needs to be elevated to the senior executive level. 01:44:28.000 --> 01:44:39.000 I'm there. You have 21 days to resolve. And if not resolved, and it elevates to the ARA where the RA writes the his or her written position. 01:44:39.000 --> 01:44:50.000 There's no timeline to respond. There's technically no timeline. On that, but once the decision is once the decision is issued by the, you have 14 days. 01:44:50.000 --> 01:45:07.000 So come to agreement or else it goes to the administrator. And then at the administrative level, ideally, 21 day, that takes 21 days to resolve, but we all know, you know, the administrator is busy and cases where the minister wants to meet with his or her counterpart at the other federal agencies or the state. 01:45:07.000 --> 01:45:17.000 So, you know, schedule meetings for these high political officials. These to take into account. So, you know, it might take months or even years before they even meet. 01:45:17.000 --> 01:45:22.000 And you know, EPA would need to brief up their chain, DOD, or the LLF. 01:45:22.000 --> 01:45:30.000 Ferally agency needs to brief up their chain and so does the state. So that takes time. 01:45:30.000 --> 01:45:37.000 Some examples of formal disputes that have. Gone and then resolved or you know the use of MCL is at cleanup levels. 01:45:37.000 --> 01:45:49.000 Argument whether, you know, groundwater is potential source of drinking and If it's not a source of drinking water, one party may argue that there is no need to restore the aquifer to drinking water standards. 01:45:49.000 --> 01:46:00.000 Request for extensions and deadlines. There's been cases where Some parties may try to, you know, push down. 01:46:00.000 --> 01:46:14.000 Milestones just down the road on you know just because they have no funding or they're not making compelling argument so we, if one party doesn't think that's reasonable then you could raise the speed there. 01:46:14.000 --> 01:46:21.000 And then you know the agreements on AVRs which should be included in r. 01:46:21.000 --> 01:46:30.000 So roles of states, check your FFA. Again, most states are part of our part of the FFA. 01:46:30.000 --> 01:46:45.000 There's only a handful where states are not. Let's say most of them are in the New England area in region one where the states aren't a party FFA, however, EPA region one works closely with them and keeps them in consideration when, you know, they want to raise issues. 01:46:45.000 --> 01:46:56.000 So anybody any party can raise. Informal or formal disputes. So states, cause you guys have the power to do that. 01:46:56.000 --> 01:47:02.000 It's part of the FFA. You're party of your, at the table as well. 01:47:02.000 --> 01:47:04.000 We've got examples where the state. Has raised issues like rocky flats over here. 01:47:04.000 --> 01:47:14.000 Note though, I could think of a couple of examples where Although the state raises an issue, EPA. 01:47:14.000 --> 01:47:22.000 May not support the state, but we'll work with you on getting it resolved. 01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:39.000 And again, if the party, if you know. If this if the state is part of the FFA, then they have a representative at each of the dispute, the disputing party dispute resolution process. 01:47:39.000 --> 01:47:46.000 So we're at the end. Conclusions redirect a figure, FFA outlines everything that needs, you know. 01:47:46.000 --> 01:47:54.000 Identify all the timelines and all that. At your site. Resolve issues at the project at low as possible, one level when possible. 01:47:54.000 --> 01:48:00.000 And if you can't then raise it to formal, we'll work with you on that. 01:48:00.000 --> 01:48:08.000 Promote teamwork prepare to handle this agreement disagreements are gonna happen no matter what it's inevitable. 01:48:08.000 --> 01:48:18.000 Move on to formal dispute. If sustainable progress is not being made in informal dispute as appropriate. And celebrate agreements. 01:48:18.000 --> 01:48:26.000 And with that, here's our contact info. Are there any questions? 01:48:26.000 --> 01:48:33.000 Alright, so I'm gonna bring Mary back up here to join you for any final questions that make come into the Q&A. 01:48:33.000 --> 01:48:41.000 I do see one that's already in the QA. From a new RPM that really hasn't been exposed to many FFAs. 01:48:41.000 --> 01:48:52.000 They're wondering if there's if there can be a lot of variability in their contents depending on which federal group is involved, where the sites located, state laws. 01:48:52.000 --> 01:49:01.000 They're just wondering what are they about to walk into as an RPM? How much can these FFAs vary depending on the sites and the specifics? 01:49:01.000 --> 01:49:07.000 So John, if you don't mind, I'll jump in on that. So there's not a lot of variability. 01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:16.000 In fact, there is a negotiated sort of a I almost wanna refer to it as. A model. 01:49:16.000 --> 01:49:26.000 They're very, very similar. The only time you're gonna see something like really tweet sometimes when the states, whether the states are or are not. 01:49:26.000 --> 01:49:33.000 A signatory you may see a little bit of variation there. Generally not due to whichever DOD department we're talking about. 01:49:33.000 --> 01:49:39.000 So Army is not going to necessarily have a substantially different FFA than say the Navy or the Air Force. 01:49:39.000 --> 01:49:51.000 As far as geology, what have you really that's not part of this. This is a negotiated document on really legally what is the what is the process for dealing with an NPL site. 01:49:51.000 --> 01:49:58.000 So it's going to be what, you know, preliminary assessment type stuff. What documents are we going to be looking at? 01:49:58.000 --> 01:50:03.000 That was the review time. What's the process for dispute? What, you know, if you change our PMs, who do we notify? 01:50:03.000 --> 01:50:11.000 So that's it's really more the very that management aspect of it as opposed to the more of the technical stuff. 01:50:11.000 --> 01:50:23.000 But if you are, if you look at. If you see like a model language for almost all of them, I wish there was one stop shopping for all of our FFAs, but right now we usually call the Eustace model. 01:50:23.000 --> 01:50:28.000 It's based on Fort Eustace in region 3. It was negotiated. I want to say. 01:50:28.000 --> 01:50:41.000 About 18 years ago or so and with the exception of a handful of sentences here and there. Or small provisions, it's been the standard for I would say the better part of 20 years. 01:50:41.000 --> 01:50:42.000 Very excellent. 01:50:42.000 --> 01:50:48.000 Now older ones, you will find differences, but they're not extraordinary. Like it may be less. 01:50:48.000 --> 01:50:49.000 Okay. 01:50:49.000 --> 01:50:53.000 Detailed. Some of the old, Very interesting. 01:50:53.000 --> 01:50:59.000 Okay. I'll also just remind the audience if you have questions, now is the time to sneak them into that QA. 01:50:59.000 --> 01:51:02.000 If you'd like to raise your hand and ask a question out loud, you can go ahead and use that. 01:51:02.000 --> 01:51:19.000 Raise hand feature and I can help you unmute. Otherwise, for those of you who are still with me, if you don't have any questions or comments for Mary or Jonathan, feel free to just put no questions or no queues as a message into the QA window and that will help us make sure that we've addressed everything. 01:51:19.000 --> 01:51:32.000 There were a handful of individuals that were sharing in some comments and observations about specific scenarios that they've encountered at their sites or with other federal partners at one of their federal facilities. 01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:41.000 And I just wanted to reiterate if there is something unique or specific about their sites or their experiences, can they reach out to the 2 of you to talk through? 01:51:41.000 --> 01:51:45.000 Some ideas or ask questions directly. 01:51:45.000 --> 01:51:54.000 Yeah, my, your 1st stop would be the person who work with that EPA. So if, if you're a state state person, I would reach out to the RPM you work with on your sites. 01:51:54.000 --> 01:52:01.000 But if there are specifics about the, that you really just, you know, or not. You're very specific about or not very site specific. 01:52:01.000 --> 01:52:08.000 Yeah, I mean, feel free to go free to reach out. We can help as best we can. 01:52:08.000 --> 01:52:14.000 Alright, and as I'm scrolling through, I'm seeing no questions, no questions, lots of gratitude for a great presentation. 01:52:14.000 --> 01:52:26.000 So looking at the clock, noting that I don't see any questions, I'll just ask Mary and Jonathan any final thoughts before I walk the audience through our closing reminders? 01:52:26.000 --> 01:52:27.000 Now ma'am, thank you all for your time and for joining us today. 01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:32.000 No? Alright, thank you. So with that, I'm gonna swap out the view here. 01:52:32.000 --> 01:52:38.000 I'm gonna take control and I am gonna walk us through our final reminders and close things out today. 01:52:38.000 --> 01:52:42.000 So if you happen to join us a little bit late, please stay with me for just another moment or 2 as I'm going to provide some very important closing reminders. 01:52:42.000 --> 01:52:58.000 Before we end today's webinar. So the 1st thing that I wanted to remind everybody is that today's session is part of an ongoing series that's, the federal facilities academy. 01:52:58.000 --> 01:52:59.000 That academy is composed of 12 classes in all. 11 of them will be hosted as monthly webinars. 01:52:59.000 --> 01:53:14.000 We'll do one topic per month here on the Cleanup Information Network. So we're here doing the June 12 session and we will carry on next month on July 11th where we look at federal facility five-year reviews. 01:53:14.000 --> 01:53:27.000 And then there is also going to be a 3 day in person classroom training opportunity that complements these webinars that is open to states, tribal, federal, and EPA regulators. 01:53:27.000 --> 01:53:35.000 If you are able to participate in all of the online courses, either live or replay the recorded versions and you're eligible and complete that in person. 01:53:35.000 --> 01:53:49.000 3 day classroom training opportunity, you can receive a federal facility academy certificate if you can't take or are not eligible to take that in-person classroom training, you are still welcome to do any or all of the online webinars and get a certificate for each one of those 11 sessions. 01:53:49.000 --> 01:53:50.000 So with that, I'll just encourage you to visit us at the Cleanup Information Network or Cluwen. 01:53:50.000 --> 01:54:02.000 Dot org and make sure you sign up for our free monthly newsletter tech direct I send that out on the 1st of each month and highlight free training opportunities like today's session. 01:54:02.000 --> 01:54:03.000 I will also remind everybody that we do have a unique seminar homepage. It's available in the at the red URL shown here. 01:54:03.000 --> 01:54:10.000 It's the same website that we sent you to when you registered. It's the same website that I sent you to in my reminder emails. 01:54:10.000 --> 01:54:23.000 It is the same place I will send you to now if you are looking for a copy of the presentation materials or links to the participant manual or some of the other resources that were highlighted. 01:54:23.000 --> 01:54:29.000 On that seminar homepage. There is also a link if you scroll far enough down to the feedback form section. 01:54:29.000 --> 01:54:35.000 To access our event feedback form because if you are looking for a certificate of participation, this is the 1 million dollar question that I get at the end of all of our webinars, you'll need to complete that online feedback form. 01:54:35.000 --> 01:55:00.000 Once you fill out that online feedback form, please make sure you look for a box at the bottom to check to certify that you were here for the entire session, or that you've replayed the entire archived version and then as soon as you submit that feedback form, you'll have access to a window where you can download or print out that certificate for your own records. 01:55:00.000 --> 01:55:05.000 We will email a copy to you, but in all honesty, people oftentimes report that gets caught up in junk or spam filters. 01:55:05.000 --> 01:55:11.000 So I encourage you to download it from that pop up screen. If others joined at your location, so you hosted a viewing party. 01:55:11.000 --> 01:55:20.000 Please take this URL that shown in red and pass that along to those who joined because they can each fill out the feedback form even though they didn't register on their own. 01:55:20.000 --> 01:55:30.000 They can each share their own feedback. Get their own certificate for their own records. Now, I will also let everybody know that this seminar homepage will remain available from today forward. 01:55:30.000 --> 01:55:36.000 Our session was recorded and you'll get an automatic email from me in about a week or so in that archive is available for on-demand playback. 01:55:36.000 --> 01:55:53.000 You're welcome to share it with colleagues or others you think will find this useful. And if you happen to be one of the lucky people watching the recorded version of today's webinar right about now in the archive version if you've made it to the end there will be a button in the upper corner above my head that will point you to that seminar feedback form and the seminar homepage. 01:55:53.000 --> 01:55:59.000 You can still download the slides. You can still fill out the feedback form based on your replay to get a certificate of participation. 01:55:59.000 --> 01:56:12.000 So with that, I wanna thank, Jonathan, I wanna thank Mary. I want to thank the organizers as well as the support staff who joined us behind the scenes to help make today's session as well as each and every one of you who joined us from across the US for today's live broadcast. 01:56:12.000 --> 01:56:17.000 We hope that this has been a valuable center of your time and you will join us on a future Clean webinar. 01:56:17.000 --> 01:56:25.000 With that I'll go ahead and formally conclude today's life broadcast.