Air Combat Command’s Transformation of Environmental Remediation

1. Air Combat Command’s Transformation of Environmental Remediation Margaret C. Patterson HQ ACC/CEVRP

2. U.S. Air ForceMajor Commands • Air Education and Training Command (AETC) • Air Combat Command (ACC) • Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) • Air Mobility Command (AMC) • Air Force Space Command (SPACECOM) • Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) • US Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) • Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC)

3. Headquarters Air Combat Command Headquartered at Langley AFB in Hampton, Virginia

4. ACC Environmental Restoration Program • 674 Total Sites • 273 Active Sites • 401 Closed Sites • 45 Installation and HQ personnel • Two major service centers • Annual Budget – app. $50M TOTAL PROGRAM 674 Sites

5. Background • Langley AFB VA • Across the road from new • world class fitness center • Along main entrance road

6. VISUALIZE DELIVER CONCEPTUALIZE CONSTRUCT PLAN DESIGN Future First Planning “A process that fuses base development planning with environmental cleanup to optimize land use.”

7. Future First Planning (F2P) What is it? • Cross functional approach to better utilize installation land • Fuses facility construction and environmental clean-up with future land use planning • Supports construction considerations on open/active restoration sites Why? • AF land is limited…future needs must be the first step in all planning • Old think restore, cap, post “no trespass”…new think “future need” How? • Command Implementation Plan • Contract through AFCEE, San Antonio TX • Inventory open ERP sites and base development plans • Implement at applicable sites command-wide • Pilot Projects at 4-5 bases in FY04

8. Future First Planning • What we’ve accomplished: • Identified, awarded, and executed three pilot projects • Expanded the program for FY05 • Where we are: • Institutionalize via Wing Infrastructure Development Outlook (WINDO) • Continuing Education (Video, Environmental Symposium, Conferences) • Process improvement • Part of Integrated Planning Initiative

9. Integrated Planning - Zoning

10. Environmental Program Perspective For some, no need for change: • Have achieved good results • Presently on-target to meet Defense Planning Guidance goals • Executing the current program with 80-90 contract actions every year

11. Performance Based Restoration (PBR) What is it? • Target: Site closure • Minimizes contract actions • PBR defines “what” is to be achieved, not “how” Why? • Historically, emphasis on process, not progress • Cost overruns and schedule slippages How? • Command Acquisition Plan • Targets seven major acquisitions across the command • All actions will be performance based and fixed price • Utilize private sector expertise to achieve desired end-state Objective – Close out the legacy restoration program

12. Step One – Whiteman AFB, MOFY04 Effort • PBC • 26 Sites • 2 • 22 • 26 Sites • $5.7 Mil • Tasks • Investigation/Study • Landfill Maintenance/Repair • ROD • Sites Closed • Total Costs • Pre-PBC • 17 Sites • 1 • 4 • 4 Sites • $5.6 Mil • Additional Cost Savings • If awarded in separate TOs (traditional approach) the costs would exceed $7.1 Mil • Activities of 26 sites were consolidated into 1 Task Order compared to 10 or more TOs. Internal Management Cost Savings! • Accelerated Schedule Achievements • 11 Sites projected to achieve regulatory closure over a year ahead of schedule • 9 Sites projected to achieve regulatory closure 6 months ahead of schedule

13. FY05 PBR Strategy Cannon Dyess Minot D-M Holloman • Aggregate closeouts into one contract action: • Involves LTM and NFA actions only • Ellsworth/Mt Home/Nellis/Offutt combined effort • Primarily targets groundwater issues • Utilizes life cycle cost analysis • Don’t just optimize: relook the remedy • Langley, Shaw, Seymour Johnson as stand alone multi-site, multiple year actions • Target Langley for delisting

14. PBR Results • Five Base Closeout • Optimize LTM – Eliminate 1/3 of LTM within 3 yrs • Target site closeout on 40 sites • Near-term investment, mid-term savings • Seymour Johnson • Regulatory closure of 16 sites with insurance • 20% Reduction in schedule vs. government estimate • Cost savings of 35% against FY04 Cost to Complete (CTC) • Shaw AFB: • Regulatory closure/source reduction 14 sites w/insurance • 40% Reduction in schedule vs. government estimate • 42% Cost savings against FY04 CTC • Langley: • Site Closure of 15 sites with insurance • Develop draft delisting package (final contract task) • 100% Increase in schedule (FY 07 to FY09 completion) Some funding reallocated for other PBR efforts • 57% Cost savings against FY04 CTC

15. Actions Underway • Ellsworth/Mt Home/Nellis/Offutt combined effort (Four base contract) • Primarily targets groundwater issues • Utilizes life cycle cost analysis • Don’t just optimize: relook the remedy • Prep Avon Park, Barksdale, and Beale for FY06-07 • When complete: • Significant reduction in number of contract actions per year • More focus on project control and management • Clear program objectives identified upfront

16. Execution • Organize for Success • Business lines (Triad/PBR, F2P/ Future Rqts) • Engaged management approach • Stabilize the Structure • Formalizing internal processes • Automated document flow • Automated project tracking • Set the Strategy • Near-term objectives • Strategic Plan for the program

17. Today • Triad • The mechanism for performing site investigations • Focus on remediation objectives not completion of RI • Performance Based Restoration • Prep Avon Park, Barksdale, and Beale for FY06-07 • Look at Geographically Separated Units • Design, Build, Remediate, Restore (DBR2) contract vehicle • Future First Planning • Link remediation goals to integrated planning needs • More partnered approach with contract support community

18. CEVR Organization Chart