District evaluates environmental conditions  

Contractors conduct field sampling activities at Fort Monroe, Va. This sampling is representative of just one of the many forms of sampling conducted as part of the Environmental Condition of Property program across the nation. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

A contractor collects geophysical data during Environmental Condition of Property work at the Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

Mar. 28, 2008

Studies identify environmental liabilities,
advise Army of estimated disposal expenses

By Todd Hornback
Louisville District

At the request of the Base Realignment and Closure Division, referred to as BRACD, the Louisville District coordinated the nationwide execution of 156 Phase I Environmental Condition of Property studies, known as ECPs, in support of the U.S. Army Reserve BRAC 05 program.  In addition, Phase I ECPs also were completed for nine major installations throughout the continental U.S.  
 
"The ECP study determines the environmental condition of properties for disposal and provides a snapshot of the current environmental condition," said Chris Inlow, Louisville District project manager.
 
The ECPs document past and present environmental liabilities and advise the Army of estimated expenses associated with disposing of the property. The project delivery team gathered existing environmental documentation for each property and visited each site to identify other liabilities, such as underground storage tanks.  Each ECP includes additional reviews of chemical hazards, pesticides, radioactive materials, radon and chemical weapons and munitions impacts.
 
Phase I work included Historical Record Review and data gathering, interviews, aerial photography analysis, environmental database searches and visual site inspections.  The process included a team of 25 members plus five technical reviewers in Louisville District to oversee the task orders.  The ECP reports were reviewed by U.S. Army Reserve Command, BRACD, Army Environmental Command (AEC), U.S. Army Technical Center for Explosive Safety (USATCES) and several Corps offices.  Fort Worth, Kansas City, Norfolk, Sacramento and Seattle Corps districts provided technical support.
 
According to Inlow, open communication had a positive effect on project quality assurance reviews with the Army Installation Management Command, Environmental Law Division, AEC, USATCES and BRACD.
 
"Agendas often differed from agency to agency, so the team followed the Project Management Plan closely to ensure everyone was on the same page and contractors knew what the customer wanted," Inlow said.
 
The 19-page plan with additional appendices identified the stakeholders and provided contact information to ease communication amongst the agencies.  The constant and open communication became the basis for the project success. 
 
Through constant open communications via teleconferences, video teleconferences and on-site meetings, the agencies overcame all obstacles under the PDT's leadership.  The team also used Web sites to update project status notifying stakeholders through e-mail.
 
"The team worked to better execute to make the process easier for our military stakeholders," Inlow said. "The team gained experience to help in the future from lessons learned and to pass that knowledge on to other employees to continue excellent service to our military and nation."