guidance for negotiating the base closure environmental restoration gauntlet

Guidance for Negotiating the Base Clos ure Environmental Restoration Gauntlet

Joseph M. Murphy, Jr.

The militavy base closure acts passed in the United States since 1988 have established an aggressive challenge for the U.S. Army and other armed services to achieve. The challenge is to close the bases, restore the local environment to a condition suitable for reuse, and revitalize affected communities. Adding to the challenge is the need to do this under an accelerated schedule and in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws/regulations, including those pertaining to cleaning up hazardous waste. These actions need to be accomplished in an environment of constrained resources and high accountability for use of taxpayer’s dollars. This challenge is similar to running a gauntlet, and one worthy of discussion and guidance on how to successfully avoid unnecessary pitfalls. This article discusses the scope of the U S . Army’s Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Environmental Restoration Program, the myriad of interests that need to be satisfied to accomplish its objectives, some techniques the Army has utilized with a fair degree of success to negotiate the BRAC gauntlet, and several site-specific examples of success that resultedfvom using these techniques.

The military base closure acts passed in the United States since 1988 have established an aggressive challenge for the U.S. Army and other armed services to achieve. The challenge is to close the bases, restore the local environment to a condition suitable for reuse, and revitalize affected communities. Adding to challenge is the need to do this under an accelerated schedule, and in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws/regulations including those pertaining to cleaning up hazardous waste. These actions need to be accomplished in an environment of constrained resources and high accountability for use of taxpayer’s dollars. This challenge is similar to running a gauntlet, and one worthy of discussion and guidance on how to successfully avoid unnecessary pitfalls.

~~

Joseph M. Murphy, Jr., is a supervisory environmental engineer at the Army Environmental Center with 20 years of diverse environmental experience. Current responsibilities include management offield operations for the Army‘s BRAC and IRP environmental cleanup programs.

Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Summer 1996 49 CCC 1048-4078/96/070249-10 Q 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Joseph M . Murphy, Jr.

The BRAC Environmental Restoration Program takes a holistic approach to evaluating past contamination and existing operations and implementing remedies that are protective of human health and the environment and that comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.

THE ARMY BRAC ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM

This article discusses the scope of the U.S. Army’s Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Environmental Restoration Program, the myriad of interests that need to be satisfied to accomplish its objectives, some techniques the Army has utilized with a fair degree of success to negotiate the BRAC gauntlet, and several site-specific examples of success which have resulted from using these techniques.

The objectives of the Army’s BRAC Program are the following:

1. Realign and close bases by congressionally mandated dates. 2. Protect human health and the environment. 3. Accelerate disposal of properties. 4. Facilitate expeditious reuse of properties.

All objectives are important, but the focus is on closing disposing, effective reuse of properties, economic revitalization of local communities, and, of course, doing all of this in a manner which is protective of human health and the environment.

Since December 1988, the Department of Defense (DOD) has had four successive rounds of closures and realignments authorized by public laws. The Army’s BRAC big picture is as follows: BRAC I (77 closures/57 realignments), BRAC 91 (five closures/six realignments), BRAC 93 (one closure/four realignments), and BRAC 95 (32 closures/ ten realignments). The majority of Army BRAC I installations have been closed and all required actions have been completed. However, several of the BRAC I installations are undergoing extended environmental cleanup requirements which have delayed the transfer of the properties The latter rounds of BRAC are ongoing, and many of the lessons learned from BRAC I are being applied to speed up the process.

Performing the environmental restoration or cleanup is a challenge in itself, because it must be performed in full conformance with all applicable and appropriate federal, state, and local regulations. The Army has many of the same environmental concerns as the private sector, plus some additional ones. Exhibit 1 provides some examples of environmental contaminants associated with typical Army BRAC installations.

The BRAC Environmental Restoration Program takes a holistic approach to evaluating past contamination and existing operations and implementing remedies that are protective of human health and the environment and that comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. Exhibit 1 shows that the BRAC program addresses contaminants normally addressed under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DEW) and also evaluates issues related to property transfer such as radon, lead-based paints, asbestos, underground and aboveground storage tanks, radiation, and unexploded ordnance (UXO). The BRAC program is also complicated by the need to evaluate and mitigate any issues related to the presence of radiation and UXO.

The Army BRAC Environmental Restoration Program utilizes a

50 Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Summer 1996

Guidance for Negotiating the Base Closure Environmental Restoration Gauntlet

Exhibit 1. Contaminants Associated with Some Army BRAC Installations

Installation Environmental Contaminants

Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL), organic solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and asbestos

Fort Devens, Massachusetts POL, metals, organic solvents, PCBs, unexploded ordnance (UXO), and radiation

Fort Ord, California POL, organic solvents, PCBs, UXO, and asbestos

Harry Diamond Laboratory, Virginia POL, metals, organic solvents, PCBs, and asbestos

Sacramento Army Depot, California metals, organic solvents, PCBs, asbestos, and radiation

process (Exhibit 2) modeled after the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). This process is designed to accomplish all actions from the assessment phase to the completion of required remedial actions. During the assessment phase, an environmental baseline survey is performed to determine which parcels of property are ready for immediate transfer/reuse, and which parcels need further investigation, cleanup, and remediation. The emphasis during this assessment phase is to identify clean parcels for early release. This is consistent with the requirements of the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA), passed in 1992, which requires the immediate identification of uncontaminated parcels to help ensure rapid overall transfer of property for reuse. Lessons learned from earlier rounds of BRAC have proven that time spent during the assessment phase researching possible clean parcels is invaluable.

The Army is making every effort to identify every parcel that is clean, thus maximizing the acreage that can be transferred. In cases where additional investigations must be performed, the Army focuses on using site investigations that may reveal no need for further action or that a removal action is warranted. Once the parcel is drawn into the full CERCLA process,itcantakemany years togetitcompletelyevaluated andremediated.

Environmental restoration is tied to other considerations within the BRAC process. Once the closure of an installation is approved, a complicated series of events must occur in an orchestrated fashion. Exhibit 3 displays the various considerations which need to be addressed during the BRAC process. Installation operations and mission of the installation must continue until the closure date without any major interruptions. However, in many cases those missions are realigned to a receiving installation under a stringent schedule. This realignment necessitates

Federal Facilities Environmental JournallSummer 1996 51


Exhibit 2. The BRAC Process

military construction (MILCON) of new facilities at the gaining installation before it accepts the new mission. The requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) must also be satisfied. NEPA requires federal agencies to consider all reasonable alternatives associated with the federal actions and the environmental consequences of those alternatives. This process is time consuming.

The BRAC process is open to the public through the formation of restoration advisory board (RABs). The RABs provide a vital link with the local community and allow the Army to understand its interests and concerns. Cultural and natural resource issues need to be addressed when performing work on properties with historical significance. Proper consul- tation with the State Historic Preservation Office must be performed and documented. Army real estate experts need to be involved throughout the BRAC process, so they can have the information needed to execute a timely transfer of the property. Reuse interests need to be known early in the process so that the restoration process can incorporate the most likely reuse into the remedial investigation feasibility study As depicted in Exhibit 3, environmental restoration is the tall pole in the tent, because it is central to the entire BRAC process and is the most time-consuming step.

Accomplishing the restoration requirements needed to support the BRAC process is a considerable feat and can only be achieved through the use of teamwork. Exhibit 4 displays the many stakeholders that have an interest in the BRAC restoration process. A common goal of restoring sites and disposing of property must be established as early in the process as


Guidance for Negotiating the Base Closure Environmental Restoration Gauntlet

Exhibit 3. BRAC Considerations

, BRX'

Environmental Restoration is Tall Pole in Tent

possible. During BRAC I and the early phase of BRAC 91, the Army had some successes building team relationships and establishing common goals among a variety of stakeholders with a diversity of interests. However, in July 1993, President Clinton announced his base closure community rein- vestment program to help speed the economic recovery of communities affected by BRAC. This program consisted of five parts.

One part of the program was fast-track cleanup. This part outlined a strategy for accelerating environmental cleanup at closing bases to prepare property for community reuse, while ensuring that human health and the environment are protected. This approach was established because the formerly slow pace of environmental restoration, conducted under very structured regulatory programs, was seen as the most significant impediment to the effective reuse of the property.

DOD initiated a major cultural change in its BRAC Environmental Restoration Program in order to accomplish fast-track cleanup. The Army established BRAC Cleanup Teams (BCT) at its major closure sites. The teams were composed of a BRAC Environmental Coordinator (BEC) who is an Army representative, a state regulator, and a representative from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The BCTs were charged with taking a practical approach to cleaning up the bases by developing common goals and then making decisions and setting priorities based on these goals. The BCT members are empowered to make real-time decisions with the goal of eliminating extended formal document reviews.

Federal Facilities Environmental ]ournal/Summer 1996 53

Ioseph M. Murphy, Ir.

Exhibit 4. BRAC Stakeholders

BRAC Environmental Program A Team Effort

INSTALLATION EMPLOYEES& $ RESIDENTS 1

nn I-,

The BCTs were charged with conducting a bottom-up review of all environmental programs at their installations. Results from the bottom- up review were used to build a BRAC Cleanup Plan (BCP), an environmental action plan which defines strategies for conducting all of the environmental cleanup actions necessary to support timely transfer of properties. The BCP is a living document which is continually updated by the BCT as it discovers additional technical information about the site and receives feedback from the RABs and the Local Redevelopment Authorities (LRA) regarding their interests and reuse priorities. The Base Transition Coordinator (BTC) is the local DOD contact who func- tions as an ombudsman for the community. The BTC works very closely with the BCT to ensure that reuse is adequately addressed during the environmental restoration process.

The fast-track cleanup program has resulted in a major change in the way of conducting environmental cleanup within the Army at BRAC installations. This has led to considerable success at Army BRAC sites. The Army’s success was facilitated by a formal partnering process and team-building concepts that developed positive and productive relationships and established common goals among all the stakeholders. A discussion of the partnering process and resulting successes will follow.

THE PARTNERING PROCESS Partnering is a structured process designed to foster innovation, facili-

tate quality improvement, and build teamwork and consensus, among the


Guidance for NegotiatinT the Base Closure Environmental Restoration Gauntlet

K Partnering is a structured process designed t o foster innovation, facilitate qua 1 i t y improvement, and build teamwork and consensus, among the stakeholders.

stakeholders. It is important to establish a partnering relationship. This is usually created during a facilitated workshop where individuals get to know each other on a more personal basis. Commitment to achieving shared goals is built through personal relationships formed early in the project planning phase and reinforced throughout the project’s life cycle.

Conducting a facilitated partnering workshop with the key stakeholders is necessary to ensure the success of the project. Key representatives of all the internal and external organizations should participate. It is very important to have management representatives from the respective organizations participate. Management participation sends a strong message that partnering is acceptable and will be supported by top management. The workshop should be facilitated by a neutral person who helps participants establish open and honest communications, define each participant’s interests, help build collaborative relationships, and help define common or shared goals for all the stakeholders that participate.

Once common goals are established by all the stakeholders, the facilitator can help the team establish a plan of action for accomplishing these goals. A charter can also be established which defines what everyone agreed to during the workshop and serves as a reminder of the commitment that was made at the workshop. It is helpful to conduct a partnering workshop as early in the project’s life cycle as possible. Periodic follow-up meetings need to be conducted to evaluate progress on the project and to reinforce the commitment established during the initial partnering session.

The Army is committed to expeditious environmental restoration of BRAC installations and promoting the earliest reuse of these properties to revitalize the affected communities. The partnering process was used in the Fort Devens BRAC Project to gain commitment toward the goals of accelerating cleanup actions, reuse, and property transfer. The Fort Devens Project had two facilitated interagency parmering/ team-building workshops to spearhead and consolidate this effort.

THE FORT DEVENS PARTNERING EXPERIENCE Prior to using the partnering process, the relationships between the

Fort Devens stakeholders (the Army, EPA, the Massachusetts Land Bank, local community, and other reuse groups) were less than ideal. A high degree of frustration was felt by all parties due to the limited progress made in spite of intensive efforts to work together. At the time no one had clearly articulated a shared vision and goals for the project. Recognizing the need for better working relationships among the stakeholders, DOD sponsored an interagency partnering/ team-building workshop for all Fort Devens stakeholders.

The first workshop, known as the ”Lenox Meeting,” was held in December 1992. It brought key stakeholders associated with the Fort Devens Project together to promote open discussion of outstanding issues and concerns about the cleanup and reuse activities at Fort Devens. The meeting more firmly established the Fort Devens cleanup team. Adversaries became partners during the workshop. A common

Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Summer 2 996 55


The Fort Devens cleanup team accelerated the cleanup of this Supe$und site by almost four years t o avoid $5 million in environmental costs.

goal was agreed upon at the workshop to rapidly transfer property to help revitalize the adjacent communities.

The Fort Devens cleanup team also agreed to develop a teamwork approach to resolving difficult issues. They developed a plan of action during the meeting, formed process action teams, and committed them- selves to enhanced communications during the remainder of the project’s life cycle.

As a result of the partnering and team building, the Fort Devens cleanup team agreed to use streamlined workplans instead of the boilerplate that is contained in a set of master workplans for the site. Subsequent workplans would contain only the substance necessary for decision making. Additionally, the teamopted to hold decision meetings to review data packages after the site investigation phase. These data were used to determine if a remedial investigation or removal action was needed, or if no further action was required. This approach significantly accelerated the restoration process. The Fort Devens cleanup team was willing to accept a higher degree of risk. The joint data reviews, while sensitive to the community and redevelopment authority interests, accelerated the cleanup of this Superfund site by almost four years. This commonsense approach is expected to avoid $5 million in environmental costs at Fort Devens.

The Intermodal Lease facility was the first property at Fort Devens to be reused. It serves as an inland port and distribution center, with a direct rail link to the Port of Boston (Moran Container Shipping Terminal). It has been referred to as the “port to the fort.” It has accelerated the shipping of containers from France to the Far East. This is accomplished with a rail transfer at Fort Devens and end transfer in Vancouver to a shipping mode. This facility had a significant positive impact on the economic redevelopment of the community.

The Fort Devens Enterprise Commission was formed by a legislative action and gives the Massachusetts Land Bank the lead for redeveloping Fort Devens into a commerce center. A reuse plan for the commerce center has been developed by the Fort Devens Enterprise Commission which includes provisions for innovative technology, environmental, and rail- related business development. The commerce center has tremendous redevelopment, reuse, and revitalization potential due to its close proximity to Boston and Worcester, Massachusetts, and its existing infrastructure. It is anticipated that 3,400 acres of the former Fort Devens will be conveyed or leased to the Land Bank in May 1996. The Land Bank plans to invest considerable capital into the site to attract private industry.

The Army plans to transfer approximately 1,100 acres of the former Fort Devens to other government agencies. The Federal Bureau of Prisons plans to use part of Fort Devens for a prison medical center. The Department of Labor plans to create a Job Corps Center on a parcel of Fort Devens, and the Fish and Wildlife Service plans to expand the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge currently located at Fort Devens.

A follow-on partnering workshop was held in Falmouth, Massachu- setts, in October 1993. Its purpose was to reconfirm the accomplishments


Guidance for Nefotiatinf the Base Closure Environmental Restoration Gauntlet

The partnering process needs t o implemented early in the BRAC environmental process.

at the ”Lenox Meeting” and to continue efforts of commitment, partnering, and risk sharing. The goals of the project were reemphasized during the second workshop, and the team was reorganized somewhat to enhance its cohesion.

PARTNERING AT OTHER ARMY BRAC INSTALLATIONS Partnering and collaborative working relationships with BRAC

stakeholders have become standard approaches for accelerating cleanup actions on Army BRAC bases. Exhibit 5 lists additional examples of results obtained by utilizing partnering and team building techniques with BRAC stakeholders.

These examples provide convincing evidence that partnering can be an effective way of negotiating the myriad of conflicting interests and competing demands that exist in the Army BRAC program. The following is guidance that may be helpful in negotiating the gauntlet.

GUIDANCE FOR SUCCESSFUL PARTNERING The partnering process needs to implemented early in the BRAC

environmental process. It helps build the team and provides a frame- work for building consensus and resolving conflicts and competing demands. It requires an investment of time and continuous support and must be openly endorsed and supported by the stakeholders and respective management.

A team approach of shared common goals and commitment to achieving them is the most effective way to accelerate cleanup. Estab- lishment of a mutually developed plan of action provides focus and maintains the commitment to achieve goals. BCT members need to be empowered to the fullest extent practicable. The empowerment facili- tates the BCT in making decisions on a real-time basis, which accelerates the cleanup process.

Understand the reuse interests. The reuse groups are interested in getting property made available as soon as possible. This is consistent with the Army’s interests. Every day the Army holds on to property costing significant dollars due to ongoing operation and maintenance costs. The reuse groups are concerned about the environmental condition of property but are more practical in their perspective than other, more risk-averse stakeholders. The reuse groups can help maintain the momentumnecessary to keep projects on an accelerated track. The reuse groups interests at Fort Devens were very strong and have been instru- mental in keeping the pressure on to make real-time decisions on difficult environmental restoration issues. It is essential to closely coor- dinate the environmental cleanup and reuse plans.

RABs can serve as advocates for the Army. They can provide the sense of reality and community involvement necessary to bring difficult restoration issues to closure Their feedback to the BCT provides a degree of accountability necessary to keep actions moving. The RABs also ensure that the Army is delivering its part of the bargain. It benefits the Army project manager to know the interests and concerns of the local

Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Summer 1996 57

Joseph M. Murphy, Ir.

Exhibit 5. The Results of Partnering

Sacramento Army Depot, Sacramento, California Army utilized innovative technology to remove solvents from soil and groundwater at this Superfund site. Accelerated cleanup and transfer of property by two years. Packard Bell brought in 5,000 new jobs and is reusing the installation.

Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia

Facility closed on schedule.

Established excellent relationships with local community and reuse groups from the very beginning of process.

Alexandria City Council approved mixed residential/commercial reuse plan for the site and enacted zoning changes that will facilitate reuse.

Army Research Laboratory-Watertown, Massachusetts Emphasis has been on cleanup. Accelerated schedule by 18 months. Early identification of removal actions has facilitated the potential for early transfer of office building. The local community plans to reuse it as a college.

Army Research Laboratory, Woodbridge, Virginia Emphasis has been on cleanup. The BCT has focused on use of removal actions in order to make property available sooner. PCB removal action performed early in CERCLA process.

Umatilla Army DEPOT, Hermiston, Oregon Contingency Record of Decision tied to an approved reuse plan, savirig the Army from tremendous costs, provided the property is not reused for residential purposes.

community up front in the project cycle so that they can be addressed. The RABs provide an effective way of getting such information. They also build credibility and trust with the local community.

Early, consistent and frequent dialogue and coordination with BRAC participants is critical for success. Start talking early in the process and keep it up throughout the entire project cycle. *:*

REFERENCES Fast-Track Cleanup, Successes and Challenges 1993-1995, Office of the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Cleanup).

J.M. Murphy, Jr. and P.E. Wojciechowski, “Partnering-A Means of Achieving Project Objective,” Federal Conference of Environmental Engineers Newsletter (January 1993).

Keys to Opening the Door to BCT Success, Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Environmental Security).

“Partnering, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series,” IWR Pamphlet-91-ADR-P-4, US. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources (December 1991).


guidance for negotiating the base closure environmental restoration gauntlet

Documents