Managing Range Condition Assessments: The Army s Operational Range Qualitative Assessment Program

Transcription

1 Managing Range Condition Assessments: The Army s Operational Range Qualitative Assessment Program Andrea A. Graham USACE, Baltimore District Douglas E. Sawyers, P.E., BCEE Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.

2 Acknowledgements USAEC John Buck ODEP George Cushman, Malcolm Garg HQ IMA Dave May ARNG HQ Major Jeffrey Kissler U.S. Army Reserves - Angela Atkins AMC Ron Baker USACE Young Chong, Sacramento District Tim Peck, Baltimore District Bob Zaruba, Omaha District EA Engineering Vince Williams ERT, Inc. - Peter Li

3 U.S. Army Operational Range Assessment Program (ORAP) Mission Fulfill requirements of DODD / DODDI by FY09 Considers 378 installations IMA MACOMs Army Reserves National Guard Multi-phased approach Proof-of Concept (USACHPPM) Qualitative assessments Quantitative assessments

4 Focus: Range Sustainability Qualitative assessment program focuses on potential for releases of munitions constituents offrange Programmatic considerations: Munitions constituents of concern (focused) Surface water and groundwater pathways Human and sensitive ecological receptors Supports Army s efforts to maintain ability to train and proactively manage potential liabilities Supports BMP approaches

5 ORAP Developmental Objective: Devise Program Meeting Diverse Needs of Involved Parties Challenges: Schedule demands (e.g., training) Multiple stakeholders Funding On-going programs (e.g., ORIS) Approach: Develop programmatic approach acceptable to all parties Clarify roles and responsibilities Provide for consistency Maximize efficiencies Data collection Installation involvement Reporting

6 G3 Operator Perspective ODEP Headquarters Oversight ORAP Involved Parties USACHPPM USAEC Technical Oversight Technical Management HQ IMA ARNG HQ MACOM Special Installations USACE Baltimore District Omaha District Sacramento District (Support Personnel) USACE (Baltimore District) Executor/Program Manager Contractors Regional IMA STARC AMC, ATEC, MDW, MEDCOM SDDC USMA Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. EA Engineering, Inc. Installation POC Installation POC Installation POC ERT, Inc.

7 378 Installations by FY Installation Excludes 2005 BRAC 4 0 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Fiscal Year of Execution

8 Contracting by IMA Region Omaha District Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Pacific Sacramento District Baltimore District

9 Program Management Coordination activities Weekly contractor calls Weekly/monthly programmatic calls ODEP IMA, ARNG USAEC, USACE, USACHPPM Contractors Quarterly In-Progress Reviews (QIPR) Other calls, as needed G3 Operator Perspective USACHPPM Technical Oversight USACE Baltimore District Omaha District Sacramento District (Support Personnel) Focus: Simplify programmatic complexities Promote technical validity and consistency Share lessons learned ODEP Headquarters Oversight USAEC Technical Management USACE (Baltimore District) Executor/Program Manager Contractors Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. EA Engineering, Inc. ERT, Inc. Organization / Lines of Communication HQ IMA Regional IMA Installation POC ARNG HQ STARC Installation POC MACOM Special Installations AMC, ATEC, MDW, MEDCOM SDDC USMA Installation POC

10 Managing the Process Program will be dynamic and changing HQ IMA/ARNG HQ Issues must be communicated clearly and timely Installation AEC to ODEP Installation to HQ IMA/ARNG HQ address at appropriate level Resolutions processed through programmatic calls Resolutions become standard procedures upon issuance in meeting minutes USACHPPM to AEC SOW Contractor to Corps PM/PgM Corps PgM to AEC

11 Qualitative Assessment Process Centralized Data Collection Contractor Data Review Data Gap Resolution Coordinate/ Conduct Site Visit Goals: Read-Ahead Package Streamlined approach Consistency Minimize burden to installation Complete Evaluation of Available Data Start of Installation Involvement Qualitative Assessment Report

12 Data Collection AEC: Facilitating centralized data collection Contractors: TIC, TCSI, AKO, GKO, MIDAS, ERIS, GIS-R, ARID, MMRP SI data, ITAM, RFMSS, IAP(s) Data collection/reviews Preliminary evaluation Data gap identification Read-ahead package Challenges: Data source availability Pre-site visit availability is key Timeliness of data updates For ORAP s purposes: Several high-value resources TIC, ITAM, RFMSS, GIS-R, IAPs Installation POCs

13 Read-Ahead Package Initial installation correspondence (through HQ agency) regarding ORAP qualitative assessments ACSIM memo Overview of qualitative assessment program Installation specific: present data gaps/specifically identify data needs Site Visit Objective is to close data gaps and to confirm understanding of conditions Critical to understanding nature of actual operations Provides for a more meaningful and objective report

14 Qualitative Assessment Report Internal draft, draft final and final reports Fixed review and revision timeframes Page limited clear & concise Report template for consistency Other Deliverables Semi-annual roll-up report (for upward reporting) Programmatic work plan QIPR meetings Meeting minutes

15 Qualitative Assessment Outcomes Range Categorizations: Unlikely Low priority. Sourcepathway-receptor (SPR) interaction incomplete. 9 Action: 5-yr Revisit Inconclusive Middle ground. SPR potentially complete. 9 Action: Prioritize for quantitative assessments (programmed for FY08 start) Referred High priority. Documented release impacting sensitive receptor. 9 Action: Refer to appropriate cleanup program For example purposes only. Depiction does not illustrate documented conditions.

16 Individual Qualitative Assessment Timeline Centralized Data Collection Draft Final Report Government Review 60 days * Read-ahead package submitted ~45 days * Site visit (3-5 days) 60 days * 45 days Final Report ~30 days *

17 Program Status Planning efforts complete Assessments underway EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. Northeast, Southwest and Pacific IMA Regions ERT, Inc. Northeast IMA Region Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Southeast and Northwest IMA Regions Site visits began Jan 2006