So at this point I'm going to turn the floor over to an exalty to get started with opening remarks so
Nick, at any point you are welcome to share your screen i'll confirm when your slides are up, and again you can begin the session today, and it looks like those slides are up.
Go right ahead all right. Thanks, Jean hello everybody it's good to have these M.
2 X 2 webinars back up and running our theme for today is the life of a conceptual site model going from concept to response complete.
So we're going to have 4 different presentations on the subject of conceptual site models, each one of them looking at the conceptual site model from a little bit of a different perspective.
James is going to start us off with an overview so even if you've been around for a long time, and you are an expert.
I highly recommend that you watching james's presentation is going to have some good information.
It's going to sort of build the foundation for for the follow-on presentations.
We're going to have a couple little brakes work in here, and we're going to try to stick to this agenda as best we can to help anybody that might be calling in for just just one of the sessions but
it's we do run a little over we'll skip the brakes to make sure that we're we're finishing within our our two-hour time window i'm gonna give a talk about using the
Csm to categorize risk areas. and then Amanda is gonna be going to talk about the Csm.
From the perspective of the acquisition process. and jason Blair has some, has a talk about the lessons learned, and and the cost of of bad Csm.
And then, after that we'll wrap it up so before we get started.
I've got just like a little exercise where i'm going to roll through some some photos just kind of get a think in and and illustrate. You know, a point that i'd like to make to keep in mind as we
go through these these presentations over the next couple hours so i'm going to show you some photos, and thank yourself.
Is does this spring to mind current conditions or future. expectations so it's not a guessing game, so don't try to guess what you think.
It is but just kind of the first thing that comes to mind when when you see some of these exposure.
So starting here, you know, current conditions or future expectations. this is in West Virginia.
This is part of the Dolly size, maneuver area, beautiful, beautiful part of the country.
You never been there. I hope you get a chance to go, especially in the in the spring or the fall.
Current conditions for future expectations. Oh, and I should mention, use the Q. and A.
If you if you want, if you want to play along to sort to put in what what you're thinking as as we go through these.
Yeah. Okay, Yeah. Thanks. certain conditions, future expectations. So that is a shot of the Pacific Ocean from the Wikilea maneuver area on the on the big island of Hawaii.
Another another beautiful but location, current or future on this one that is a cornfield in the dead of winter, and Western Kentucky.
That's part of can't breathe or the former Camp Breckenridge.
There's a range complex there. What about this one turner future This is Boise Idaho.
It's a trail system former boise barracks. if you could zoom in on that sign on the bottom left the versus caution.
There's a note about old artillery show you know as part of our educational effort current or future.
And I think got a couple more here, current or future, on this one.
That one there wagons point target It's a little peninsula and Upper Lake Michigan.
Another another beautiful area, the black in the sky is actually why that that part wasn't beautiful.
But those flies are around in the spring you know they're just coming out.
We all had to had to get them bug met after that, but but still it was a you know.
It's a nice nice area, and then another coastal view how this is a
From a recent trip, current or future. So this one, actually we did a time critical removal action.
This is on the island of Saipan, out in the Pacific.
We removed over over 2,000 mech items from just a 14 acre site.
For a time Crew removal action the point of this little exercise is that there's often a very fine line between where the site is.
When we start, and where we want to go, where we want it to be.
At the end of a remedial action so Oftentimes, with these projects we're operating within the margins.
You know very, very fine line and and that's where I think the conceptual site model can can really play an important role.
So when we're finding lots of Mac and we can locate it and dig it, you know that's that's the easy part.
But when we're, working, within the margins work we don't know what's there, and the risk is is a little bit more ambiguous.
That's when that's when things become a challenge and that's when we really need to rely on the tools and processes that have been developed.
And that's what we're going to kind of cover for today.
So thanks for playing along that we're going to go right into James's talk and stop sharing.
Thank you. Okay, let me just get this going. There we go.
Can everybody see my screen. We can but there's a there we go.
Thank you. Yeah, Ok, Ducky, so , we're going to start this this session off with some basics.
And, as Nick said, i'm sure that a number of you are all going to be fairly, or are going to be familiar with many of the concepts we talk about during this presentation.
But I hopefully, there'll be one or 2 new things new things to bring into the conversation.
I'll mention to start with as you see here there's this Em: 201 12, which is the you say em for conceptual side models that's currently under revision and while we have to go through the wonderful of venture of
it going through stuffing Hq. that should be coming out hopefully. sometime soon this year i'll say i'll be optimistic, but that will. That will have some new, some new stuff.
In it. it's been reorganized a bit to make it a little bit clearer.
Add in some requirements on virtual profiles which We'll talk about later, and also add some more examples of Csms.
So look, look forward to that, coming soon to a bookstore near you.
Okay, So the conceptual site model the first step whenever we're planning a project is to ask what do we know about the site.
That's a basic question and it's very very important for us to understand that before we start the project and the answer to that question is basically the conceptual site model.
It's a it. The conceptor site model it shows our basic understanding of the site, as i'm sure many of you know, we often say it's a diet dynamic model, because, as the as the project moves forward and
is the various projects, and in the different phases move, move forward.
The Csm is constantly being changed and it's being updated with what we know, or maybe things that we found that we had in the Csm.
That aren't right we'll take them out it also supports project planning and communication throughout the project.
Because again, as We're trying to describe to people what's it situation we deal with at the site. and then what have we found?
Basically the Csm is how we do that if we don't have a good good preliminary Csm.
At the start of a project we don't know what our data gaps and data needs are, and therefore we can't plan the project well.
So you can see why the preliminary Csm.
Is so critical, and we'll go over that a little bit more later as well.
The Csm is also how we present the results of the project.
Basically how the Csm has changed, What data gaps have we filled?
All of that is critical information, and is essential the result of any project that we do.
Another reason, and this is one of the ways I think about the Csm.
It's really the core of the project it's the common element that runs through every single phase.
We start pulling it together during the site inspection, and then at every phase we update it we add more to it.
We find out more about the site throughout every single project phase until close out.
And basically through each phase. What should be happening is that the detail and the accuracy of that Csm should be getting greater as we advance through the project.
But it is. It really is the core of the project. The way that we describe the Csm.
Is using various we call them profiles these various profiles just summarize all of the various aspects of the can conceptual site model.
It's it's just a nice easy way. for us to try and break up the data that we that we that we have in the in in the conceptual side model, and these in general.
These are the facility, profile which addresses the site, history and boundaries, and so on, and so forth.
The physical profile, which is the net. Actual factors that may affect contaminant release, fade, transport or act accessibility.
The release profile, which is one of the ones we often focus on a lot which is the types of contaminants that we have at the site, and where those where those contaminants might be.
Then we have to land, use an exposure, profile that describes land uses and act activities and various exposure scenarios for our for our risk assessment.
And then the ecological and cultural resources profile that's kind of self-explanatory.
We're looking at cultural resources and natural resources that happen to be at the site, and then finally, these vertical profile.
This is something that we've typically called the vertical Csm.
In the past, But it's really just one other element of the Csm.
So it's It's just another profile now through the next few slides.
I'm going to go into each of these in a little bit more detail.
So we start with the facility profile. So this includes information such as the site location, the size of the site.
Who the various landowners are. It also includes the concise history of the site.
What was the site used for where we're contaminants stored?
Where were they used? Where might they be found based on based on the use of the site?
Now, also an important thing to note here is that the history of the site should be described before, during, and post.
Dod use the to the present day. Obviously, all of those land uses are going to have impact on on the conceptual side model.
They might all have impact on where where contaminants might be, where various receptors might be.
So it's important for us to cover that whole history of the site.
We also, in the facility, profile, typically identify the menu or hazardous substances that are now suspected to be present.
That's obviously linked to the history. of the site we know. so, James, we may have temporarily as far as we used to It'll sorry go on, so James. we had a brief pause in your audio there I just wanted to let
you know i'll keep an ear on it if it happens again.
We might swap you to the phone. Okay, if it happens again.
I can switch to the phone. Can you tell me? Okay, now I can.
I guess I can't ask which bit you lost because no one heard but anyway.
So. so yes, so it also should contain a concise summary of relevant findings from previous work.
That's been done so obviously the the csm presented in the Ri.
Should describe work that's been done during the site inspection, and maybe any end any other work that's been done at the site, because all of that work again contributes to our overall knowledge The site.
The Csm. physical profile. This is relatively self-explanatory and topography.
That education, what geology and hydrology do we have there?
The topography is obviously very important if we're going to be doing various surveys at the site. It's Why, it's important to understand that maybe there's going to be areas that are going to be harder to
get into than others. Same with the kind. of education. you have that's going to be an important planning element in terms of where we may need to be brush clearing.
So we'll of that information is very important geology and height hydrology. A groundwater depth may give us an indication of how likely it is that our contaminants might reach groundwater the bedrock
depths can be very important if we're doing a mech removal or an in investigation at a site where we have shallow bedrock, it's really important for us to try and present that information in the conception, site
model, because obviously we don't expect any map to be present beyond the depth of the bedrock.
Most sites, I guess at most sites i've encountered that doesn't end up being a factor.
But there are sites we have, which have very shallow bedrock that can actually really help us.
And when we come to plan a remedial action so that's another important part of the Csm.
Climate is often discussed. that's more useful maybe for work planning when might the good or bad times of the year be to do our work?
So that's another part of the csm that has it impact on the work we do.
Sensitive resources. we'll mention this here, we all virtually mention it in the ecological and cultural resources, profile as well.
But it's a good idea to get an initial indication of where the sensitive habitats might be.
And then, last, but not least, if there are any physical access limitations to the site, some of that may be due to topography.
Some of it may be due to landowners. various other things that things that are just going to make it hard for us to get into various locations at the site.
I'm sure you all understand because many of you may have gone through this before, when we try and do a project it's really important important for us to to understand where we can get and where we can't I would say to the people
on the line from from the core. it's important for us to find that information out when we're putting together the Csm.
That we attach to our rfps. it's good information to communicate what we know about that to the contractor rather than just leaving at all to be found out later.
So that's another reason for us to include that kind of in information in the physical profile as well.
The release profile that's where we describe where known or suspected areas of contamination are the the kinds of release that we might have had.
So whether or not it's a target or a maneuver area or an opioid area that's useful information to include in the release profile.
We also include a current understanding of the location and distribution.
The the contaminants that we have at a site.
Obviously this is current under understanding. So in the site inspection, our understanding is going to be much more limited than the understanding.
We have in an Ri versus the understanding we might present in an Rd.
And then, finally, obviously, as we get to the Ra, hopefully, our understanding is pretty well defined at that stage.
But this is going to include both the horizontal and the vertical extent.
The depth component is very important we'll touch the we'll touch on the vertical profile again a little bit later.
Also the infected environmental media. So is our contamination. just in soil.
Is it in sediment? Is there potential for mc to have got into surface water at the site? All groundwater.
It's important for all of those things to be reflected in the release profile.
If we know a normally dense sometimes after the ri we have an idea of that.
That's another important part of the release profile because those and not only densities can be indicative of areas where we may have more contamination, and then finally, this is sometimes hard to find out.
But if there's been any prior land disturbing activities or other processes that may have redistributed mech around the site such as this, maybe there was an area used for fill that where a bunch of soil was dug up and
moved moved somewhere else. it's important if We can find that out. Find that out and put it in the release profile land, use and exposure profile.
This includes our current and reasonably anticipated future site uses the includes land ownership and any zoning that we know about we can.
James also talk about Greenland uses same future receptors at the site, missing the same type. Apologies: Yeah.
If we could swap to the phone just to be on the safe side.
That'd be great and you know Yes, we can hear you sounds like there was a sound delay on it as well, because I just caught the end of me.
Speak very, very strange, anyway. Okay, i'm gonna start this slide from the beginning.
I don't I don't know where it cut out so The land use and exposure profile that addresses and recently anticipated to site uses, including also neighboring land uses current and recently
anticipated land uses. Bear in mind that for some land uses there may be more than one receptor.
So this very, very importantly, for those of you who've heard any of my recent training or presentations.
You'll be bored with hearing you say this but it also includes the related activities of what those receptors doing on the site.
We have been typically in the past describing that, and we really need as much as we can to find that when we come to do risk assessments to try and implement Emma is all to valuate remedies during the fs and
the because we really need to know know how best to protect all that doing it. again.
It talks about. it needs to and land use restriction, Because, again, those land use restrictions, have an impact on the land use of what those receptors, and finally, and probably most commonly because most of the site that
swimming talks about the potential exposure we'll talk a little bit more about exposure logical and cultural resources profile.
This is going be where we talk about the ecological and cultural uses of the area.
Just degree of disturbance, also any ethological reception.
Specifically the and species my gratory animals that may use the area.
So we need to. and any any other species, also any environments we have, such as web Wetlands, some any, any, any sensitive environments.
We have big B. they are where they are, what kind of quality they are also also cultural resource areas.
Now, one important thing to remember remember here is that we do not put maps of culture resource areas in any of our reports.
Because that information those hold but in terms of just the general details and area that needs to be included.
Plan for that. if we in the area we need to make sure being aware of it all at the same, maybe there this is why it's important to.
And also the relationship. Finally, the relationship of any of theological or cultural resource areas that we've shown.
And last, but definitely not least, this is something that we've been talking about for a long time.
But that Well, but the file is going to be talking.
Might find Mac Also, when we're doing doing our investing and when we're trying to profile that the conclusion of an investor, we want to be showing things well, where are we going to be putting this how deep did we put
them. We also want the vertical profile. We can discuss play instrument, reliable detection down, and also coming back to land.
Use again what the land you steps then, when we get to an Fs or a remedial action, we want to be showing the Rao depths, the removal and the remedial action, and i'll just put a like in
here. I don't think that we often think about doing this would like to start seeing both profiles. include we typically have them in theri.
And then, when we get to the end, when you think about what you're doing in the Fs remedial alternatives that are addressing or potentially addressing Mac and various land uses down to specific including the vertical profile in
that document and and incorporating it. Evaluation is actually very important.
The way do we get the data? other than the normally?
The starting point for our preliminary Csm. is preliminary assessment or site inspection, or the other reports that prior to our work
These are a good starting point, but it's really important for us to never mind that.
They should used year old data. So we really need to make verify for the greatest of store current.
In some cases theology it's probably likely that it's still current. but in other cases, in terms of land use, there's a good chance that in as the land uses of China that data essentially upgrade or or make it
seem like that. 15. Our current data, other additional sources so you can and there's various records searches.
Do. There are a number of online databases different provide information on a lot of the things that we've talked about here.
Some of that information. Is you Em: that the new concern model the end when it comes out, we can also use personnel and property as interviews.
Interviews with local if we're working on a military installation.
We can often talk to historian and the real problem Also, if we have any ground aerial photos, very informative about web various land users may have taken in quite importantly sometimes what features we before the land was was used as
a range, or maybe the things that when it was being used as a range, if you, whether or not Mac, may be underneath the building foundation, well, if you find out that the house out the actor, or but they in the area throughout the active life of
the range. it's unlikely that there's going to so you can use those photographs and update your Csm.
Way. We also have a common operations range of the government.
So for the for the various government Pd team. Those those available, I think, think, by the Fuds Portal. if you can't find them, then can do our best to get you what you need for contractors, you may need to try
and through the through your also, of course, site visits We have various site visits for the project that's another good good chance to gather, and last, but certainly not least, use the sp ppm.
We often forget about generally during spp perfect opportunity, find out in in weren't aware of prior to that, so use that of thinking about the information you need to find out.
Bring it up and talk about, but going on to exposure pathways, the C.
Does like, and the various to pathways it site, exposure, pathways have 4 components.
They have a source of release, of contemporary environmental transport, exposure, medium into contact with the contamination exposure point.
That's a whole bunch words i'm sorry but it's it's.
You can see a little bit example of some pathways here in this figure, and then on this slide here here's an example from Mac, an example for Mc: So we have a source over release of contaminant that's resulted in met being
present target area, the exposure soil at the former target area. The exposure point is that we've got a record hiking trail part through that area, and then the receptor, and likely root of exposure is
that Hiker might encounter an item and pick it up because they don't know.
So there's your there's your possible for Mc. it's kind of similar one of the big difference chemical contamination is more mobile or can be more mobile so you can box here you see that you and
soil, they migrate to groundwater, so they start out in the soil.
Exp then in the soil medium, and they end up in is actually, or at least I guess.
Then they're in 2 different exposing me and then in this, and water is used by drinking water.
So then see how that a pathway works. you could also think of exposure pathways in a Csm.
So we would start with, say our base map and then you'd look at where the mac contamination is.
Then you'd look at where you're exposure media are.
Look at what your land uses are, and where your receptors are at the and then you can look at where those different interact.
And that will essentially, that is, exposure, pathways.
This could also be well in a Bis so here's the figure that you probably many, many times in many many reports and often people refer to this as the Cf. them.
Well, that's not actually true. This is just one way of displaying the Csm.
But i'm. sure, many of you have seen this in one of the other things that the exposure pathways can do identify as sampled.
So, for example, in this example, here we see that we pathways, we have potentially good pathways and surface potentially complete pathways.
For ecological receptive, the soil none currently identified in subsurface.
We're defining that as being a and then we weight in groundwater. and then we so looking at that, we now know these are the these are the pathways that we need evaluate these pathways in order that we and find out whether
any of, and contamination as I said earlier ifm is good for our identifying data gaps, because when we identify what we know about the size this helps us to what we don't know about the site, then when we start looking at
the exposure pathways we have, and where those exposed that then identifies to us hopefully.
Most of you know That's what we identify in step can see how critical the Csm.
Is driving the Dq. rose, and how we perform, investigate.
There are multiple ways of deploying. The Csm.
Is, we contains an awful lot of in in information.
It varies in content and level of detail. the more complex societies, the more complex.
And there's multiple ways bigger or narrative that may be sufficient for simple but most sites are narrative, coupled with tables maps into diagrams.
And When we think about what's the best to communicate the Csm.
To people, all of them, basically the more ways that we can fine to present the well. I'm just going to go through a few examples, some pros and cons of them pretty much every css based on the various profiles that we talked summarize
all of the information on control. The advantages describe everything this advantage is the really have a space element where you can are in relation to, and in general it's because it's all text to follow with some of these the other mans we also
have a table. again. Many of you have probably used a table like this or seen a table like this.
This typically the various conception site, model elements or the main activities.
X. The advantages of this is that it really concentrates the disadvantages. all the disadvantages are.
It's like obviously not as detailed as all of the text, so we can't necessarily include all of the details we want in this table without making it unwieldy.
It also. Again, it has no spatial evidence scribe where things are, but we can't really see what we have to the pictorial Csn.
Location really shows us the location contaminants which sector activities, exposure, route.
The advantage of this is the very easy to understand so it shows where things and it's very useful advantages is that somewhat limited pictorial Csm.
Overleep you can see on this one actually we've got a couple of.
So this is a really really good way of communicating and we've got.
We talked about the exposure pathway diagram. This summarizes our contaminants.
Release mechanisms, exposure, media receptors, completely pathways.
This, again, is about a useful useful tool for us to use.
The advantage clearly shows us the complete exposure pathways also, as we find that maybe pathways.
You can display those as well you'll see on this particular example Pool.
There are actually little on this Cs. explaining why some of the pathways are incomplete, showing the reasons that they are in clarifying.
For example, often there I realized the textbook like small, but the the groundwater is only used by nearby.
Why those pathways are only shown as being potentially and rather than I think. This is a good way Actually, by putting the notes on these flow diagrams.
It's a good way to help communicate the disadvantages, though, while they really focus in on the complete exposure pathways, they're not titled in in ways they don't always show you the types common complaint there's.
No space element in here. The bicycle project file this as we covered a little bit earlier.
This will show your estimated distribution, maximum debt, seed, depth, intervals of items that you found showed land.
Use bedrock depth, and the remedial the advantages of this really does show all of the vertical help with you when you're developing the media action.
Object earlier in the areas remedial alternative, comparing them with each other to say, Well, what?
Well of a have at the side the disadvantage, which is kind of obvious.
Then we have other methods. Really, any other map that we in our report is public.
We have loads of maps i'm sure many of you have developed many
This one. for example, this is a This is a match showing the results of a deep, a related map that shows the and not only density, but then we have our intrusive results, and then finally, we have a look and we see where our
H. ways are based on what based on the world that so again, and all of these to bulk up the Csm.
And show all of the other data and the last bullet there else you can.
I'm sure there are people out there who have other other methods of any way that we could valid way to depict.
I'm not sure if i'm ending way early or but anyway, closing thoughts, the conceptual site model it describes what we currently know about the site.
Also, and very importantly, for the identifies the data going to remember. an important thing to maybe include in your conception site model is the color data gaps the Cfm is dot.
Can you all refinement at the very and revised Csm.
But as you be going back and going to ask is site model still valid because it can, has changed. That may have an impact objectives.
We could basically all of these things related together. Psm: data ways.
We reviewed the various ways or a whole number of ways it can be, and really presenting of those ways is the best way.
All of the data, but you have critical in supporting
And really, as I said, why it's so important core of the project, did any questions come in while I was talking and having sound problems?
Yes, James, we did have some questions. presentation. Thank you, really, really covered it well from an overview and made some really good points.
The one of the questions was, how frequently do you update a Csm.
I'm gonna give a really vague answer I mean i'll give my step Response answer, which is but then i'll be a bit more Clara i'll clarify a bit more.
Well as I. I think I said at minimum phase. but you should be now.
Does that mean you to the worksheet site? model? No.
But you can constantly at You're out in the field you should be constantly asking yourself we found anything because the minute you find something that update the Cs. some way, because you may then need or the approach to the to again and i'll try and get a
clear that's the answer. I was hoping that you would give
But another question is, How how do you share Csm and subsequent data with all the stakeholders, so that everyone accesses the current one and uses all relevant historical data. I would say, there are multiple I mean
obviously 1. one way to do that is through the decided that you wanted to put put it on a website.
If you felt that was that was a valid way to keep.
Stakeholders can informed you could I mean that that I don't think there's a specific formal way to do it.
I think it would be like anything else. I mean, be worthwhile.
For example, attack throughout the project, and you those to the various members of the project.
Some stakeholders, so I think that would be another way to do it.
Attaching our issuing that maybe 2 or 3 times during.
But really okay, on your on your project and the and what the needs hour of those.
Okay, Well, along those lines winner the tribes content.
During the Cfm process that I assume as stakeholders or as potential stakeholders, they should be contacted at the beginning.
I mean, I think that's maybe less of cs schedule project management project outreach issue.
I would assume the beyond the correct way to do that would be such as during the Sdp.
If you have tribes who are stakeholders.
Yes, add absolutely okay. And there was a little bit of conversation about Sdp.
You know. A few years we went from the vernacular of Ttp.
The Sdp. and I just wanted you to clarify that for everybody.
Just so we're all on the same page to define Stp.
So Spp is systematic systematic project planning. It was home, I think, came along with, and the core used to refer to technical projects.
We sent. we wish offered using and so you'll you'll see most of our documents.
Now, if you see Tpp older report I don't know you you may have something to add to that.
No, no, you covered it well. and then, finally, this is, I say, the tough one for the last out of section 106 or section 7 of the major species act informed the Css.
Well, i'm i'm not i'm not a natural resources, person, but I would I would I would say you.
You have to you. You have to ecological resources. You have at the site.
You have to make sure, employing with the the better laws, and so to to I mean, this is of the reasons that profile in the Csm.
Get out to the site and start to jump around and big holes and be brush going to be dealing with.
So I would say that your Csm. is going to inform your environmental protection.
That's how that's okay and before we had more down on.
Yeah, I think so. We have one come in sort of late and I think it's going to be covered.
But i'll go ahead and give you a shot at it to how does the Cfm.
Effectively identify data gaps. It seems to Cf: please, what is currently known about the site.
But how does this specific identify those data helps you to identify the data gaps when you, when you look at what your data needs are when you're when you're going through the data quality?
Objective program. you say these are these are Inform our project.
You can essentially look at that like pair it with the Csm, and see what you don't have.
I mean that May. That probably makes it sound a little bit easier, and then then then than it might be.
But I mean really, yeah, it's side by side in a table with what you know from the Csm.
You should see where all of the holes are those are going to be Your Okay?
Very good, and i'm gonna cover a little bit of that in my presentation, too.
So hopefully that question will be will be answered before we're done here today.
So with that we're going to take a short break just keep everybody fresh.
I know these these webinars can be tough sometimes, and we all spend a lot of time in front of a computer screen.
So we're gonna come back and get started on the next one at 2 o'clock sharp, So so take a few minutes.
Do what you need to do. Stretch out and be back at 2 o'clock.
Thanks welcome to the online meeting. we will get started shortly Okay, I believe we've reached the end of our scheduled break time.
So I wanted to check to make sure that Nick Dalty is back with us on the line.
Hi, And okay, I see your screen. So go ahead. and Okay,
So I'm going to talk about the conceptual site model in the context of the risk assessment and starting with the end in mind.
I'm going to go through here and you know interject Some of my overall philosophies about the conceptual site model, as I think it's really the thing that you know sort of ties everything that we do together.
And that is certainly true with regards to the risk assessment this won't be a talk on the
Or risk management methodology. But there is significant overlap, as there should be, because a well-developed.
Csm is certainly a critical component to having the ability to do a risk assessment.
So when I talk about the purpose of csm for munitions Response: I'm going to review those csm profiles that James just covered and in a little less detail because I think they are important we're talk about the
defining the assessment areas, identify receptor activities and defining interactive interaction zones.
So his last 3 bullets, if you have had the opportunity to review what is the the draft of the update to the risk management methodology?
Those those will look familiar to you and we're going to talk about those.
But again from the of a conceptual site model, and what our data needs.
So conceptual models. We deal with models every day in our lives.
Models are used for a variety of things oftentimes They're just a scale representation of something else like a kid building a model volcano or a model.
Train. we've got scientific models that we use Some are a computer generated that might predict the effects of climate change.
Sometimes we have scientific physical models such as down in in Vicksburg.
I'm not sure if that's still used today but
To model flooding of the mississippi river Delta and various other other types of models in our world.
But what we're going to focus on is the csm which is a scientific model that reflects the current understanding of a site supports essential planning and communication of critical site information provides input that supports identification
of data quality objectives, or Dqos and provides the basis of a risk assessment. So I've got 2 pictures there.
Why, didn't we look at before that's the Wikilea maneuver area.
And then one is, I think, a lot of times how we view the one on the left.
How we think about ammunition's response site is is some some guy dig in and hitting a bomb with his shovel.
And both of those are components. you know I kind of Think of the the digging that's sort of the the micro view of the Cfm.
And then the overall, you know, beautiful field with the ocean about the background, as the macro view, and and both of those are important, and we need to take the time to to zoom in and zoom out.
If you will, to really keep the the big picture in in context.
So what do we need to know for the Csm.
We need to know specifically about those profiles that James mentioned, and those are the facility, profile, physical profile, release, profile, land, use and exposure. profile, ecological and cultural resources.
Profile. Additionally, we need to get data anomaly density data, and we need to gather it make sure we're gathering enough data for remedial alternative development and cost estimating data.
So those those last 3 are are very important and there's been a number of presentations given on the subject.
They won't be covered in further detail in this talk but I did think it was worth mentioning here.
And again, our engineering manual, which is currently being updated 200 best.
One desk, 12. is your go-to for the conceptual?
So here's an example of a fitness presentation together I you know I kind of reflect him back.
You know, looking for some old flies that I could reuse and whatnot, and way back from 2,010.
I was on a detail as an intern I detail with the Emcx, and I was helping to put together some of the original Fuds training, and you know I put together this this slide for a Csm.
Were a class activity. Know I I barely knew what a Csm.
Was at the time I had only recently, like the definition of munitions response site.
But looking back on it, this thing really had all the components you know it's got the facility profile there, and the fudge property boundary, or the Mra. and where s boundary got components of the land use and
exposure profile with the with the development and hiking trails.
Of course it's got components of the suspected the release profile, which is the impact area, and it was suspected firing point. and then the physical profile is there, which is you know the land sea and air you know
it's it's all there and so it got me thinking, you know we We've always been doing this a lot of this is sort of just inherent to the work, we do, but we don't always recognize it for what it
is, and I think, one of the one of the useful things that we've learned recently over the past few years is to categorize things and use the conception flight model, and and put things in a familiar context that gives us a little
bit more consistency in our work, and provides for an effective means of communication.
So here's a recent example of a csm you know not too much different than the one I just showed you.
And so a threed still is drawing i'm one that prefers the drawings.
But there is utility certainly, to the wire diagrams one of the things that we've updated and James talked about.
This is the the depth, distribution, profile, that vertical component, you know.
Look looking at things in in 3 dimensions is especially important.
You'll see in some of the updates guidance you know.
We talk about volumes of soil so you know we're not just looking at things you know on flat ground from the aerials, but also look in terms of debt so what i've realized and hopefully, you do too, is
that all Csm. do have the same essential building blocks.
They have some commonalities. the facility profile you know in in its most simple term, and the munitions response world is the Mrs boundary, and that's that's going to be predefined.
We have a Ms. boundary, you know, as soon as we have have a project.
The physical profile also predefined you know that's the the land Air water.
The release profile known or potential categories of high use, area low use area, no evidence of use area.
So we can. We can more or less categorize that release profile.
And we know or suspect that they exist. However, the boundaries are are unknown, and then the land use and exposure profile somewhat predefined.
But we do need to gather data for for the specifics.
So this is kind of getting back to one of the questions that came in earlier.
How does Csm help you identify a data need Here's an example?
So I know that that yellow blob exists somewhere on an Ms: I know that there's a high east area because I know there was a range, and there was a target area.
What I don't know is where it is I don't know its location.
I don't know it's boundaries and I don't know a lot of things about it, you know, including the depth, the distribution.
And not only density, and so on so i'll design a study to to try to fill those data gaps, identify those needs.
Similarly the land use and exposure profile.
You know. I might know that there's some farmland and there's some developed areas, and there's some trails.
But I don't know specific activities that that occur within those areas, or I don't know if there are plans for for future development or construction.
That might that might impact my understanding of the conception site model.
So that's how a conceptual site model really helps inform your investment and help inform your your data gaps and your data needs.
We all have these built, essential building blocks. Every conceptual site model will will have these.
You know the the the values will will vary of course the shape will vary, but it's all kind of essentially the same.
So no one where we're going you know starting with the end in mind.
The end can be the end of a phase or or the big picture in, you know, after you've conducted a remedial action.
You need to consider all those things. But the one in particular that I want to focus on is the end endpoint of having a fully characterized site, and being able to conduct after risk assessment.
So you know we we have to understand you know what our risk model is, and you see the risk model on the left.
There's a there's a presence of the met guy there's something that happens that causes a person to encounter it.
And then the where there's an interaction and then risk of explosives incident, and then that model of course, depends on the combination of the likelihood of all those things happening, the likelihood of the presence and then the likelihood of
an counter and an interaction, and then the risk, and so on.
So again, without getting too far down the road of conducting the risk assessment.
We just need to understand sort of the basic concepts, the basic model.
So when you look at the risk management methodology you're going to see that it's broken down into 5 steps step one review and consensus on the Csm.
Talking a lot about that that do define assessment areas. i'm going to cover that identify receptor activities.
Cover that as well, and also cover. Step forward to find the interaction zone.
Step 5 I will not cover you know that's the last part, and that is to actually do the risk assessment.
So you see that when I say significant overlap, I mean overlap with Csm. the Cfm.
Is really the first 4 steps of the r and M. and and that's important, and that's important for us to realize and keep in mind that it is our guide that you know it feeds our our remedial. investigation.
If these are in regional action, it really is the the thing that ties it all together.
How it supports. i'm not going to read this to you This is that I would rather just show show you how it supports it.
So We'll go through each of these steps and I'll show you starting with review and consensus on the Csm.
So I'm going to use an example this is kind of an old example.
Some of you might have seen a version of this before but we're going to start with an artillery. range.
Okay, So right off the bat i've just got an aerial photo.
So i've got a lot of information for the physical profile.
You know, I know that there is forested. I can see a little road there.
I can see some development. Then, from my preliminary assessment, I probably got some historical data.
That was supposed to be a little video, but anyway. i've got historical data about them.
You know, firing how this, how this site was used i've even got information about the munitions that were used.
And this is all really pretty typical our program that we'll have a basic understanding, you know we've got a reason for staying an area is a munitions or spots site.
So that's that's that's the example that we're following here.
So We've got we've got the basics of a conceptual site model.
And then that will roll right into our facility. profile which, as I mentioned, and it's most simple form is simply the the Mrs boundary that includes the site.
History, the site boundaries, potential contamination sources. So we got the facility profile.
There as I mentioned. we've got we've got the physical profile.
That's that's the land aaron water but we also want to pay particular attention to natural factors that may affect release, fate and trans sport or accessibility.
Those factors might be erosion or fraught teas climate change, something that we're we're starting to to look at as well.
So I don't want as i'm going through these I don't want you to think that i'm oversimplifying it.
These profiles, but i'm just trying to kind of lay lay the ground work for it.
Then the release profile, as I mentioned and and munitions response to release pro file is more or less where we're expecting to find munitions.
So in this case we know that they are firing from a certain point, hitting some sort of target.
And then, if we understand you know the the mechanisms of munitions, we know that there's an explosion with fragmentary effects that diminish with disk, we know if they're firing continuously, or or
consistently at a target that there's going to be a high anomalies into the area, or an area out there that has, you know, a lot of metal in the ground.
And of course we've got geophysical sensors that can find that
And then, if it's munitions related we call it a high use area, so it really can be boiled down.
If you look at the marquess that's where these terms come from highest area and low you area, and then we've got no evidence of use.
Area which in this example is simply the area outside the mra you know it Doesn't meet the definition of being a munitions or so our release profile.
Is categorically high. use area and low use area.
Then we've got the csm land use and exposure profile, and we're going to talk about current and reasonably anticipated future land.
Use talking about exposure scenarios and receptors again.
I think it's helpful to categorize these So in this example, you know, the categories are, you know, developed area where where homes and roads and stores are.
There's trails that are highlighted then there's forest, and maybe some some agriculture.
So with that we've got a csm you know we've got the we've got the basics for it, and you know, and hopefully, in the real world you've got all the all the details as well you get a consensus on
that Now, with that we can move into defining assessment areas.
Now again I think it's important as you're going through your project. say, for example, you're you're doing an Ri.
It might be helpful to go at least for illustrative purposes, to go through all these steps to where you're headed, and then understand that the Ri is going to help you fill in the blanks.
So the Ri is going to tell you where that high use area is where the low use area is.
The Ri is going to give you some more information on the land.
Use activity, but it's it's certainly worthwhile to show what you intend to do with that information, and what that is follows.
So define the assessment areas in the Rmm.
Manual that soon to be published it's got a simple example here, where there's 2 different land uses, you know, going left to right, 2 different mech distributions, which is typical high, Us.
A low use area and then combining those gays that gives us 3 sessna areas.
That's an area for the one land use area and then the other land use area.
We've got it in the 2 to account for that the highest area that amounts.
Next. So applying that to our example, going back to our release profile, I use very low use area, and then looking at our land use and exposure profile, and and then just more or less overlapping those 2 layers and give us some assessment areas.
And they might look like the this. For example, we might have developed area trails and forests, for the I used the area developed area trails, forest and agriculture for the lowest low-use.
Areas. so 7 different assessment areas i'm not saying you have to do it this way.
But this is certainly one way. It can be done at the logical way you do whatever works for for your project.
But setting up those assessment areas is is certainly useful and really helpful, once you have that.
And now we're going to move in we're going to dig a little deeper, we're going to look a little closer and look at receptor activities specifically. we're interested in those activities that may
affects an outcome of an interaction with with Mac.
So you know anything that involves intrusive activities per per se farming, for example, or maybe there's a There's a playground there, or hiking hiking is a common one construction.
But we also want to consider if the area is you know already well developed.
If there's a lot of existing structures and pavement that's something that i've seen get overlooked in the development of the Csm and then sometimes you've got things like for our
underwater. ms's you know diving is something that comes up often.
So we really need to start digging down and see. Okay, what are what are people doing on this site?
How are they using the site? What activities are going on?
And then once we recognize the receptors and the activities. we're going to look list at the text.
You know the hiker walked in the trail and we're gonna take it a step further and and try to assess you know the frequency, the coverage.
And then, of course, the depth We want to know what the what the depth might might go to, and that's going to be.
That's going to be very important and i'll show you Why, i'm just setting so these interaction zones to now.
We've got a csm we define these assessment areas.
We've identified a handful of receptor activities.
And now we need to look at the interaction zones and That's when we're going to go vertical.
That's when we use that vertical csm that James talked about and the vertical profile.
And we look at the different activities receptor activity.
A, B, C and d and we we use the information that we gather to assign a depth to those activities.
Likewise we use the information to assign anticipated maximum next death.
So again, getting back to the you know how the Csm.
Can identify data gaps here's another example you know at every every munitions response site.
We should be able to develop a chart like this to show these depths.
We don't know what the activities are all the time but we know we need to find out. so data gaps and we don't know what the depths are, But we need No, we need to find out.
So it really becomes kind of a fill in the blank type of type of exercise.
But once we do have that, and you know we we arrive at some sort of consensus on you know where where to draw those lines for for the Mec depth and the and the mac activities.
Then we have these so-called interaction zones.
So this is where it gets complicated and and that that's okay, because, as I mentioned at the beginning, you know one of the points that I want to drive home is that we operate oftentimes in the margins you know if
we we're going into a high use area where we can detect and remove met.
You know that's that's pretty easy we we've got the equipment we know how to do that.
We're really good at it. with the no evidence of use areas. no brainer, no evidence of use.
Don't need doing things so it's really kind of in the margins.
And these low-use areas where I think historically we have not had the the fidelity that we need to to truly assess risk. There's been a lot of hand waving.
And what we're trying to get to now is a point where where we're looking at specific activities and depth.
So. Yes, it does get a little complicated. it won't always be this complicated.
But you you know I was talking James about this, and yeah, he told me.
Well, you know, complex complex sites are are complex, and I think this is a decent example of that.
So going back to our our review, and consistence. of the Csm. you know that's our Mrs.
And everything we know about it. Define the assessment areas.
You know, that led us to have 7 different assessment areas.
The receptor actor activities. We know, you know, some of the assessment activities had only activity.
A and B. some had a B, C, some had Abc.
And B. so once but that led us to have. I think this is 15 different interaction zones so 15 different.
What will be called risks scenarios so we'll have to do a risk assessment.
You know, for 15 different scenarios. in this example but that's. Okay, don't let that scare you because the risk assessment, if you're using the Rmm.
Is pretty straightforward it's pretty easy as long as you've done all the work up front with your Csm.
And going through, You know these first step 5 should be just kind of just kind of plug and chug.
So to kind of sum it up and pull it together. You know our conceptual site model. this.
I think this is one slide that that I could use to.
Take a new hire, a new training and sort of takes what a conceptual site model is, and how we use it.
You you know it's got it's got the 5 profiles.
We're even getting into the assessment areas and the depth profile.
And I could explain that. you know a lot of these things are unknown, but almost everyone, every Csm.
That you'll encounter will have these same fundamentals. So in summary, we need to recognize and use the Cfm.
To inform our data needs for the investigation if you're in the Ri and the risk assessment.
Or for the remedial design It doesn't change a whole lot in the remedial design.
It's just there are fewer unknowns hopefully a lot fewer.
We need to continue to use and develop the Csm.
Throughout the project. So James kind of answered this question you know It's the Csm.
Is continuously updated, but on paper it's more or less going to be updated at the beginning and the end of the phase.
You know using the ri as an example when we're developing those crap worksheets.
We're going to have worksheet 10 That's going to give everything that we know about the Csm.
Then at the end of it. we're going to have an ri report.
That's going to have a section that updates the Csm.
But again realizing that it gets updated you know throughout the process don't lose sight of the big picture.
Hopefully. I made that point, you know. Sometimes we get a little.
We get a little too close to the canvas and we sort of lose sight of what it is that we're trying to do, and where we're trying to go know the data you'll need and how it will be used you know
that's essentially just the the spp and data quality objectives. There's there's plenty of training and and information on that.
But always good to keep that in mind, and then gather enough data for development or media alternatives, and cost assessment.
Again I didn't cover this there's plenty of talks out there and presentation.
But it's always important to to point out that you've got to keep in mind also that you're going to be developing remedial alternatives in most cases.
And those remedy alternatives have costs associated with them.
So sometimes you need more data, you know, the data that's available to characterize the site.
Might be great, but you might need a little bit more to really refine those when you do alternative and developed good cost estimates.
So that is it? I'm Not sure I wasn't paying too close attention to time before I got time for questions, or if we need to move on to Amanda, you can, James.
I think we we only have a few questions to it, so I think we should probably just jump in on the question before we move on to it.
So. So the first one is, and i'm willing to help you with this one, if you could, you give an example of information used to define the anticipated Oh, well, sure you you can jump in but one thing that i've commonly
used in my experience. is if we were doing a remedial investigation, we decided up front, you know, before we went out in the field, and in those initial planning meetings that we were going to consider the the deepest munitions
debris, or Mec and or Mexic. you know the deepest munitions related.
Item that we found to be representative of the maximum anticipated.
Mecha. Okay, i'm gonna i'm i'm gonna have to step in and clarify that a bit.
Then I think we do. We probably also need to realize that depending on how much investigation we've done during the Ri
That may not be fully reflected. So we also need to modify that by saying or potentially modify that using what we know about potential potential therapy or all.
The but I mean used at that site, and and also I mean, this is maybe less on on the Mac.
Think you might have met down out to 2 feet. and you have land.
Use down to 3 feet it may. I mean, this is this is less a part of the Csm. Macdepth.
But you know. want to consider. sure that you're but I I think it is sometimes.
Sometimes I see in reports or in our eyes that we you know the deepest red detective piece of nd is 6 that doesn't stand to reason that the deep in
It may be a good initial indicator. to we have to use are best.
Judge and and be the other members of the Pdt.
Sorry Nixon people over your upset. no, no, no problem.
I think that the takeaway is there's not a specific formula for it.
There's many considerations that that have to be made and that should all be discussed with the project team and the stakeholders during the during the Fpp.
So the next one is during the receptor active because non-human receptors were not discussed, which is a big component that evaluating the environment for protecting human health in the environment which and needs to address so
I and there is when we were talking. think about risk yeah you know That's so.
That's not an omission that's more or less we is something that's not considered when we're looking at Max.
Certainly, if we're doing a risk assessment for munitions can stick.
Then we're looking at the ecological the the non-human.
But it's rare if ever i've not encountered it where we would be.
You know, looking at the risk to to animals from explosive incident.
That's not typically done. I would to follow this because one of the elements of the remedy meet me.
Obviously if we have sensitive environments in T, and and the remedy might address that in terms of would modify the remedy.
Order to make sure that we wanted in, say area, or you may even decide not to remediate.
You have t and e that may be a protected area where no one's going to be getting, and you just don't to go in there and chop all the rush down.
So I think those those things are addressed by the remedy that would not necessarily be addressed.
Yep, all right. Clarification, thank you let's see the next one says more.
Hello, you say? Yeah, I for archaeological or tribal fines.
I think that lost cut. Yes, and then lastly, and he anticipated, with the Csm.
Provided with the Pw. S. I. e. worksheet not reliably reliant upon him.
But data. Yeah, Well, if we're talking about and ri Then the anticipated mixed up this is one of those questions that we're trying to answer right.
If we're talking about a remedial action then I believe that should be specified, certainly could be specified in the Pws.
Okay, older questions. , Okay, great. Well, we're going to go to Mandya Awesome.
Can you all see my slides? We can awesome, Nick.
That was the the perfect tie-in talking about the Ri.
You know that we're looking for the depths and then going into the Ra.
That, you know, we should have those well-defined because we are going to look at the acquisition process and using the Csm.
As a mechanism for our systematic project planning the the acquisition from the Ri.
Through the ra we'll look at some best practices and data needs for characterization and contracting.
We'll look at some constraints we'll talk about details that matter, and early Spp involvement we'll do a continuous check on the Csl.
We we'll circle back to the pws and Talk about planning and details, and then we'll do a reality check, you know, as James and Nick constantly touched on Csm.
Is so integral to each piece of the project you know whether it's the performance work statement.
The systematic planning process. You know it ties into the field work, and each and every one of your deliverables.
You know We're constantly looking at that csm you know whether we are trying to to further refine it, or or get some more details from it, or just a continuous check. let's begin by looking at the elephant in the room and how
we adjust for that as a starting point in our acquisitions.
You know, our most comprehensive technical approach is maximizes.
Our Dgms acre surveyed as well as our intrusive investigations performed and our samples collected, and time's been in the field, right?
You know we need a robust investigation. but then, if you look at the other size, your most competitive technical approach, you know it minimizes our Dgm Acres survey during truth of investigations your samples collected in
your time spin in the field. So how do we get that to mesh, You know, Instead of using the lowest price technically acceptable, you say employees the best value trade-off analysis, the best trade-off value uses the
technical approach as the most important factor in, and this ties into far part 15 with, and of course, the Dod source, election procedure and the army source.
Selection supplement. So again, this best value trade-off analysis ties in for the technical approach.
If we're looking at starting an acquisition we realize there are a few constraints going in.
You know our expectations going into a project we know of the bat.
We want our high quality product with sufficient data, right? We know we want an audible trail using Agc.
We do realize that money is limited and you know your change orders and your requests for equitable adjustments.
You know they're undesirable and then we look on the other side.
In reality the technical approach requirements could be subject to broad interpretation, you know, once we put it out to the contractors for solicitation, you know, there's a limited time to develop that complex technical approach, to meet the
deadlines. There could be some unknowns before filled work, and the best technical approach could be subjective in your cost.
Proposals vary widely for field activities. So how do we get those those things to mess up a little bit more?
Looking at cost proposals. the technical approach you know where it could vary widely, or it's open to broad interpretation.
Well, the Pws details matter if we start with a vague Pws, and we say, Hey, we want a car.
Well you know that's that's open to interpretation right? and what kind of car is it is it?
A small car. Is it a luxury car, you know?
And then, with that, you're going to have a range of estimated costs, as it relates to your Pws.
So how do we? How do we help that? We look at, you know, making a more prescriptive Pws.
Say, Hey, we want an suv with air conditioning and for will drive, and so you've narrowed your scope a little bit, and because you've narrowed the scope you have a range of estimated costs as it
relates to your pw details you know it's shrunk a little bit. so you've got a better margin with that, you know again.
Don't ask for a car it's the minimum you want is an Suv.
Where air, conditioning and 4 will drive. You know it just.
It helps on those details. So to put those details into the Pws. we start with the systematic planning process. You know.
James brought up. It used to be called a technical process plan in Tpp.
And on the left hand side, you'll see a screenshot of the em, 215 that's getting ready to be re-released as being revised.
Right now. but this planning session one and 2 that's how I did right there.
You know that's before we release that out to the contractors.
But this is where we need all of our stakeholders.
Our regulators. We need you all to come to the table, because to get those better details into the Pws, or we want to have your involvement.
So you know we start with the current available data you know James discussed that you know you're starting with all you all your documentation.
You know whether it's an regardless of what phas are in.
You have some documentation on it, and then nicolated to you.
Want to look at the in goals at that phase. right?
So start with the end in mind. but then plan for that.
Along the way in the bottom portion on the the left hand columns. You can see the outputs that we're going to get so part of that is that the draft Pws: So we want your input on that to
help it more prescriptive and Then of course you're going to notate that in worksheet 9 of your quiet place, you know.
Just making sure we write down the the attendees, Your topic of discussions, you know, and the decisions that you make in the rationale to get to there.
And then we'll share that at the the rfp So how does the the Cslm components and these profiles to address tie into our acquisition?
Well, you know we have this facility profile talking about.
You know your man-made features any kind of physical profiles that's really inaccessible.
These all help us in our planning and and writing more so for worksheets.
10 and 11, as well as you know, putting in the Pws.
Your release profile. Your lanes use and exposure bright inputs for our acquisition, especially for this ecological and cultural resources.
So i'll share a simple story with you I was working on a project.
Dolly sods maneuver, area, and you know to begin with, we had really great involvement, and then there was some turnover with fish and wildlife.
You know, and we're in the project for 2 years we already have our quap approved.
Then we have some new personnels of the site and some new requirements that really weren't published just yet.
But they wanted us to have a cheap mountain salamander certified biologists.
So they had to go through the training and all of that stuff, even though the Requirements weren't published yet we needed to go through those.
If you know any of those kind of critical elements before you start, the the acquisition that you can put into the Pws.
Helps greatly looking at the vertical profile there's so much you can gain from that on the acquisition side you, know especially when you're looking at the the ra phase.
So you're making your seating depths you know if you look at your pictorial on the right hand side.
You know those account to your production rates right, and then your instrument, your text in depth, you know, that gives us what instruments that we can use on the side as well as your land.
Use steps. This is so applicable to to each phase, you know.
It helps us planning for the future as well as you know what you're currently in.
And then, of course, our remedial action, objective depths.
You know this speed straight into our feasibility, study as well as our rods, and then we have a continuous check on the Csl.
But it starts with our planning session. One, you know, Sp. P. meeting one.
You know it helps us to find the overall objectives and identify your data gaps.
And then, you know, planning session 2, we have that site visit.
We determine our data needs and our attended uses of data.
We award the contract, and then we have the Usp.
Clap or the M. R. Quad development. and then we have the detailed comprehensive investigations and our weight of evidence.
You know, I think Nick alluded to that a little bit.
Our weight of evidence. But make sure when you're going through that, even from planning session, one and 2 your Sdp. one and 2.
Don't forget to talk about that weight of evidence when you're looking, you know, at your in any U areas you know H.
Twoa and Elua areas. You know we typically do a really good job at defining that.
But don't wait until after the field works perform that you're looking at the Ri report, and you say there's no evidence of use.
We don't have enough information gathered on that to to really say that that is any use. So again.
Talk about that weight of evidence really early and our films work performed. You know we're doing a constant check on the Csm.
You know as well as making sure we have our Qa.
And Qcs. Then, with our reporting we're looking at the risk assessment reports and our institutional analysis plan.
Again. Csm is checked continuously. throughout the whole thing something that will help when we're starting.
The acquisition is, if we can structure the Pws with some flexibility.
So include lots of options for your field work, you know.
And look at, including a face approach for data gaps you know phase one on your removal action.
You might want to say, Hey, let's map the known areas and then a 100% of the site with dynamic Agc.
And then you would come in with phase 2, saying, Matt, the remaining data gaps and then dig in report.
You can also include additional Fu p, which is a fixed unit pricing task.
In addition to the base, but you know lessons learned if we want something prescriptive. Just make sure we ask for it in the Pws.
So it's not open to our interpretation and for the sake of time.
I know we're running short on it but I just want to say you know, if the end of the project make sure that they all match when you're looking at your performance work statement you you know and we're having these early conversations
with the regulators. You know. make sure that it all makes sense and then going to your proposals as well as you know what's actually done, You know.
Let's let's just do a sanity check and say hey?
Does this make sense because at the end of it you know we're looking at the conceptual site, model the end in mind.
But you know, you're starting at the beginning so this blue dotted line represents, you know, the estimated number of Meg below ground service. right?
So you have this nice bell curve, when actually you know what happens when you find more?
Does it make sense with what you all are thinking as Well, as you know what you've planned out on everything?
But then, what happens if our number shifts, you know deeper down?
Do you have things written in your in your Pws to account for that or your crap, and then, looking at your land, use steps, and then how that works into with your verify detection depths at all.
You know it starts at the beginning or at the end in mind, as Nick said. so, wrapping it up, you know, planning for the Pws details.
Play a site, Visit early ahead of your solicitation. forest plan, early and continuous for those rights of injury.
Very crucial, and you know, with our regulators since day colors, you know, to include our tribes. We need buying at our initial meetings.
You know everybody's welcome at the table it's a Pdt decision, and then, you know, as a shared on the Dali Saws project. Discuss those keepers personnel that will be needed for the project ahead of the award talk about
that coverage, terrain and sampling, and discuss the weight of evidence for no evidence of use areas.
And then plan that site, Is it for the contractor if you Don't plan to execute you could plan to fail but ensure those requirements are transcribed in the pws in the worksheet jason I
apologize, and though you're running short of time but we are, we can take some questions.
But I also want to put another plug in there if you have topics.
The 2 of like presented in this forum or if you're interested in presenting place. Feel free to email me, And that's my email on the screen right now, all right, nick questions.
We did have a question, I think it came up before your talk, so I'm going to save it in and and let Jason go ahead and interested. perfect.
So, Jason, at this time, if you'd like to begin your screen share.
We can confirm that your presentation materials are up and that your mic is on.
Yeah. Can you hear me? just a quick audio check? sound great. Okay.
1 s, please. And can you see the presentation? We can go ahead.
Okay, Thank you so much. Well, good afternoon to everyone, and thank you for joining the call today.
Thank you to Nick for inviting me to present the talk kick. i'm gonna discuss today is I think one that I'm quickly becoming familiar with, based on my experiences over the last year, or so on project management and that topic is the
true cost of a bad Csm. and the impact of a bad conceptual site model.
On reaching site closure i'll try and i'm gonna say i'm by no means an expert on conceptual site models.
However, as I say, that I'm. quickly getting better at understanding the importance of a good Csm.
As we collectively move forward, trying to achieve slight closure and our properties.
So over the course of my career as a geophysicist and project manager.
I've experienced firsthand the painful experience of fallout from an incomplete csm there's probably no worse feeling than investing a lot of time and energy on a project only to have to take a step
back and repeat a project phase due to issues that are identified with the Csm.
During the remedial action phase, want to jump right into the conclusion before getting too deep into the presentation.
So what is the cost of a true true cost of a bad csm? Well, I can tell you from my perspective that that true cost of a bad Csm is pretty much the dependent upon when the team realizes there's an
issue with the conceptual site model and whether the project phase You're executing can adapt to those changes in the Csm.
I guess I would argue, depending on the phase you're executing the true cost can actually be undefined.
To me it would seem that if a thorough and complete Csm.
Is developed by the time the team finishes the remedial investigation phase, the government and contractor teams can develop more reliable estimations of cleanup costs.
The, however, an incomplete Csm. at the conclusion of an Ri.
Can lead to underestimation of cleanup costs in the Fs.
Which will impact the development of a solid decision document, and should an incomplete Csm.
Be carried forward to the remedial action phase. Most likely the team will not meet the requirements of the rod, and potentially phases of the remediation process will have to be completed.
Again, we could be looking at an explanation of significant differences to the rod, potential modifications of the decision document.
The possibility of scope expansion, and most likely there will be costly ras to fill in data gaps.
And in some of the worst case examples a team may have to take multiple steps backwards in the circle process to address the changes in the conceptual side model.
Now, any one of these issues can disrupt program objectives for site closure.
Draw the cleanup process and possibly lead to completed phases being reopened, or the phrase that I like to use, which is, the beans are coming out of the jar.
So now that we've had that inter out of the way let's quickly take a dive into what the Csm.
Is, and very simplified terms. First, the Csm is the most current description of the site and environment to include the description of the sources of contamination already discussed in previous talks for our Mmrp.
World, though we're talking about mac and Mc the Csm should address future land, use potential receptors and exposure pathways for interaction with the contamination.
Basically, the Csm is the tool decision makers utilized to support the path forward to meet project objectives which often is you you when possible and ultimately site closure.
Here we have a slide that depicts the circle phase against the Csm.
Detail and accuracy. The point being is as we step through the circle process.
The Csm. should be more comprehensive and give a clearer depiction of the actual site.
Conditions believe an argument could be made that this is not necessarily a linear relationship as depicted on the graph, but would be better suited for depiction by a curve with an inflection point occurring after the Ri so that in the
initial phases of the Pa. S. A. R. When we are really characterizing the site based on all the various inputs in order to truly understand the nature and extent of contamination, that slope is much steeper so that by
the time we reach the Sf. that line should start to plateau out, meaning that all the work gone into those initial phases to develop a sound Csm is complete.
The Csm. is solid we can assume we've done our due diligence and the cost estimation we put together in the Fs.
Should be fairly accurate, for the overall cleanup costs to get to the team, to whatever alternative is selected and implemented by the decision makers.
Really, the Csm. gives us a basic understanding of the sites, such as types of Mac and Mc.
Land use receptors and those potential exposure scenarios.
Typically the Csm. has a narrative description that's supported by maps.
Figures and graphics very similar to what we see on the slide.
The Csm. forms the basis for communication with the stakeholders during the Svp.
And can be utilized to develop the investigation. strategy as well as data quality. objectives.
Elements of the Csm are easily categorized into the various profiles outlined in the Federal guidance, which we'll briefly touch on.
Here we have the facility, profile which addresses questions such as, What is the history of the property, and what were the land uses? Pre?
Do during and post Dod activities and or operations.
The physical profile should address what I refer to as the geomorphological conditions, also, including threatened and endangered species as well as cultural resources.
We have the release profile where the Csm. addresses locations of known or suspected contamination in the lateral and vertical extent of the various types of contamination, and we also have the land use and
exposure. profile that takes into consideration future and reasonably anticipated site, use current and future receptors as well as exposure, pathways, course all the data from the various.
Sam. Some profiles feed into the decision process on what we're trying to achieve. as the angle of a specific site.
This slide depicts the vertical Csm.
Which is critically important for a good estimation of the cost to clean up a site, especially if we're trying to reach the coveted.
Youu Ue designation for a property understanding. the vertical Csm can be dependent upon the profile history of a property, for example, was the site that we were characterizing formally an impact area a rifle range or a
target and maneuver area. The vertical csm is oftentimes controlled by the physical profile of a site, is the geologic setting of our site.
A thick, alluvial, depositional environment with aquifers near the surface?
Or do we have bedrock at the surface? that would limit the penetration depth of potential Mac?
Or is the bedrocket 2 feet below ground surface, or a 100 feet below ground surface?
The point being is that if we can limit the depth of investigation based on something as simple as bedrock at the surface, a team can make objective decisions on potential cleanup depths to reach our project goals with more informed decisions it's important
to understand penetration depth. but it's equally important to understand whether or not that depth of penetration can become controlled by the near surface conditions.
So now that we have the basics out of the way, I wanted to talk about how sometimes the Csm.
Can get overlooked, pushed aside as a team is moving full steam ahead, executing a project.
One of the biggest issues that I've noted recently is that during the Ri.
The Csm. is not iteratively updated as new information comes in and teams are not revising those inputs in decision logic that are dictating the processes and procedures of the field investigation.
Basically, i'm saying, as though we developed this great work plan assemble a quality team to complete the work.
But then we get Uber focused on just executing the plan, so that when our preconceived notions about site conditions change, we don't change the plan to adapt to those new conditions.
Really I kind of view this issue as a carryover issue from contracts that were awarded 3 to 4 years ago, where we didn't have the requirement to have spt meetings with all the decision makers prior to putting an
Rfp. out on the street for work. Hopefully, as more project teams implement the newest guidance.
The potential issues noted with poor Csms will start to be resolved.
So over the last year or so i've seen plenty of examples where an incomplete csm during the Ri phase was propagated through to the feasibility, study, and decision document, and ultimately impacted the
cost of complete estimates, as well as the actual implementation of that selected remedy.
I would say. In my opinion, this is often due to poor communication between the field teams, the technical leads and those decision makers regarding changes in the accepted Csm.
Being addressed in a timely manner with the basic understanding of the Csm.
I want to now discuss a couple example projects where an incomplete Csm.
Either impacted acceptance of the contractor work product or actually let a team having to take a couple steps backwards and circle due to the significant data gaps.
I know it's on the slide but i'm going to say it, Anyways, the intent is not to single out any contractor or government team.
But to get us all thinking about the overall implications of carrying a bad Csm.
Forward and the negative impact it can have on meeting program objectives.
And potentially, our working relationship is a government contractor team.
So first up we have what i'm referring to is the physical profile example we touched on most of these attributes earlier, but I want to draw your attention to the questions highlighted for consideration.
Bring these up, because, as you will see, if these simple questions, if addressed during the project, startup could have, or would have saved the team a few months of backtracking and scrambling to defend an analog word product
So when dealing with seed item placement, a critical question might be, How deep is the bedrock at the Mrs. and will the depth of bedrock limit potential penetration depth for the investigation of mac more importantly can
we get our standardsized Isos buried to an adequate depth to test the reliability of detection for our selected instruments, which, of course, is critical to increase in the defensibility of our work.
Products. Then our first example, we have a contractor that moved out with an approved crop for a remedial investigation of Montana.
All field investigation work was completed with either an Em.
61 or an analog instrument, and in the physical profile of the Csm.
The geologic setting of the site was characterized as quote, largely made up of quaternary alluvium, mainly valley fill, consisting of salt, sand and gravel, including some terrorist deposits and glacial
drift of pleistocene age in some areas Locally it would include hot spring tuffa.
So there's nothing really specific to our mrs and no maps showing the differentiation between the various deposits and outcrops across the Mrs.
Really the geologic setting reads just like a description off of a unit map of Usg Usgs map.
So at the site the Dgm. field crews went in.
Serve surveys went on as planned, with the basic steps and parameters listed on the slide.
I want to point out that at times, in an effort to increase the defensibility of our war products, we take what would seem like a good idea at the time, and by implementing it in the field, we actually create more issues for the project in the
long run. I see this because, as you see on the slide we're collecting Dgm transects for an Ri. but the contractor decided to imply seed items on the Dgm transects even though there was
no requirement to do so. The team was creative, and making sure the ced item was traversed by the instrument operator.
It Really, the C items were just utilized to test the functionality of the instrument and not the operator.
For our analog transects. It was a pretty textbook survey design.
There was an its for daily checks, and there were predefined transects along lines of equal elevation.
Operators worked in 5 foot sweep lines, and the decision logic to support the transsex spacing was sound.
And of course we had the seed items to test the process here's a snapshot of how quiet our field area was with respect to the anomalies Vsp.
Analysis was utilized to determine grid placement in areas where higher anomaly densities were noted, there were minimal anomalies at the site, and the assumed background density for the site was something like 5
anomalies per acre. So the good news for this project was that during field work there were no Macfines, and there were very limited munition debris recovered as part of the pre-planning the team decided that If
any Cmu areas or Huas were encountered, that up to 4, 100 by 100 foot grids would be in place, requiring a 100% investigation.
So due to the limited fines. During phase one, the team focused the 4 grids and areas where the most Md.
Was discovered during the analog investigations. Again, no Mac and Limited, Md.
Were covered from the grids, and the team was confident on a path forward for the site.
By the end of the field of investigation. But then we ran into a little issue here on this slide, where we see that the grid layout with grid anomaly densities.
So during government. Qa. Review of the Deliverables, it was noted by our lead Oss. that the contractor did not meet the expected burial depth for Qcc.
Items in analog areas to include the instrument test trip.
The deliverable was rejected by the Oss. and the contractor was informed that they would need to recollect the affected data in order for the work product.
To be defense well based on approved Qc. procedures.
Unfortunately, the seed items in the its and for the transects were not buried in accordance with the proved crop.
The ground was too hard to bury the Isos at the 95 to 100% detection depth in the proper orientations.
And this issue is not documented in daily quality control reports, and there was never a non-conformance report or a corrective action.
Report submitted to address the issue. also. Both the oss and the Uxo.
Qcs missed the Nonconformance while performing oversight of operations.
The The contractor's position was that the depth of bedrock was shallower than described in the Csm.
Provided. as government furnished information, therefore, seat items could not be buried to the proposed depth of detection.
The it's worthwhile to note. that in in field adjustment would have been to utilize a smaller iso which could have been buried at a shallower depth.
But this wasn't done, there was no field change request submitted to the Government team during field work explaining the change in the approved field procedures based on the change in the Csm.
The deliverable was rejected on the basis of improper burial.
That the Vicos, which clearly should have been identified or documented by the onsite uses oes, as well as the contractor Uxo.
Qc. manager. After weeks of discussion the proposed path forward was for the contractor to update the Csm.
In the report based on the geologic setting and detailed analysis of soils of the site, with field verification and documentation.
The there were definitely extra costs incurred by the contractor team, by having to mobilize back to the site, to document the near surface conditions at the its and on the transects as well as to provide the
graphic document in the actual site conditions that limited the depth of Ced item burial.
However, this cost was probably a lot less than comparing it to having to redo the entire field effort.
Really, in my opinion, the team went off course early on in the ri planning phase, by not clearly describing the near surface conditions of the site, but more relying on the Usgs quadrangle descriptions likely
developed and memorialized in the Pa Si phases of the project.
In the planning documents, the contractor outlining, using small and medium isos.
But when executing the field work, they were not able to bury.
These isos to the specified depths due to shallow bedrock over the majority of them.
Rs. If this issue would have been noticed and documented by the government and contractor oversight in the field, the team could have adapted and proposed using a different Sized Iso.
But what happened instead was the contractor Field leads change.
The metric on the fly in the field without concurrence from the larger Pdt.
And the actual decision makers. This particular example, a simple field Change Request or Ncr.
Car could have been developed during the Ri field work, and probably would have sufficed for the change in Iso burial depths.
But the team did not think it was important up to warrant documentation or reporting, because previous stated, after the Ri report was submitted and the seed item burial depth issue identified, the report was rejected and the
contractor had to spend a few months sorting out a path forward.
Luckily for everyone involved, this project had a happy ending, and we emerge from the Ri with the defensible data and a good Csm.
And path forward to meet the program objectives. The second example I want to discuss is a bit more fascinated in my mind because of the overall cost implications, and the current status of the project compared to where we were at project
startup. This particular project was implementation of an approved rod with an Ra.
In Pennsylvania. I use the word fascinating, because, as you will see, during the discussion of the project, all the information was right there in the project files.
But due to a few slip-ups along the way, the obvious was overlooked.
I would think that most would agree by the time we finish an Ri.
We'd better have a solid csm to assist in projecting good alternatives, and cost estimation for site cleanup as well as a path to protectiveness.
For this example, I would like to pose the following questions about the release profile.
Are we accounting for the potential? And is there something in the historical records that we should have considered when developing Ri objectives and transect spacings for this project we initially awarded an Ri Fs Ppdd
to a contractor, for there are I. The contractor executed it, and analog survey, using Vsp.
To determine an appropriate transact, spacing to detect 3 in Stokes mortars.
The team executed the Ri. as planned, and gained regulatory concurrence on the report, and then move forward to complete the Fs.
Pp. and Dd. The. Now during the Ri the team did encounter Mac and 52 munition debris items, and based on the Ri results.
The predicted Mac, Md. density was about point one per acre for 78 acres of the site, and the area was classified as a Mex source area.
This slide shows a graphic depiction of the Ri transects and intrusive results, with evidence of small arms, ammunition, 3, and Stokes mortars, and 37 projectiles based on
these fine needs, one might ask what would be the appropriate potential Mecha item that should be accounted for in the Ri transsex.
Spacing this slide shows a summary of the Ri.
Results with evidence of the small arms, ammunition, Stokes borders, and 37 projectiles, and based on the Ri results and data summary. The selective remedy for the mrs was surface and subsurface
removal of Mac to a depth of 16 inches.
There is also about a point 0 8 acre area of the site that was classified as a backstop berm for a small arms ammunition range where limited excavation for lead contamination would be required the
selected alternative was to provide the greatest effectiveness over the long term, to reduce potential hazards from Mac and Mc.
And to achieve Ue, and thus reduce the need for land use, controls, and long-term monitoring.
The Government then awarded a separate contract to the same company that completed the Riffs, Pdd.
For the remedial action. Now, during the remedial action, the contractor quickly ran into issues in the field due to a higher than expected anomaly.
Density. As a result, only 29 of the 78 acres were completed prior to a stop work, order being issued by the contracting officer to further complicate the situation.
The limited area designated for excavation for lead contaminated soils was actually littered with 37 Md.
As well as M. Pph. During the limited intrusive investigation completed at the site, the contractor recovered 20 Mec.
Mph. items, 9,600 munition debris items, and about 20,000 nominations related debris fines.
The team not only discovered the predicted threeistic Stokes mortar, but they also identified the 37 projectiles that were fused.
This slide shows a snapshot of the Mrs that was awarded for the Ra.
With the purple grids being the ones that the team completed prior to running out of budget in the stop work.
Order being issued. This slide shows the distribution of M. P. ph contamination.
It's worth noting that we definitely have anomalies popping out at the outer edges of the Mrs. which calls into question the adequacy of the Ri investigation to determine the extent of the
contamination this point it's important to know that there was mention of the 37 and the Si report, as well as 37 munition debris that was discovered it confirmed during the
Ri. Ultimately the Ri underestimated, The expected density and depth of Md.
In Nmrd is. as a result, the team did not clearly delineate the nature and extended contamination.
The Vsp. transects were based on detecting 3 in Stokes mortars to not on 37 projectiles.
The fact that during the Ri the transact station was initially based on detecting Soaks border.
The contractor and government team should have known that the transect spacing was inadequate in defense to the team.
They they did try to attempt to utilize a tighter transact, spacing for what i'm assuming to be was a conservative approach to look for the potential of the unknown.
Unfortunately, though even reducing the transit spacing didn't allow the team to adequately characterize the site with respect to what was documented as potentially being at the site during the previous phases needless to say
contractor, when executing the Ra. started to come across higher than predicted anomaly densities for Md.
And Nmrd. and they had to stop work on the project, and a summarizing statement from the site specific final report quote a substantially higher anomaly density at the Mrs and anticipated based on the current
Csm. and quote: So Mech was also discovered at the Mrs. boundary, indicating that they are, I did not adequately delineate the extent of contamination, keeping in mind that the same contractor that
confirmed the Csm. Ari is now stating that the Csm.
Was inadequate at capturing actual site conditions. The site specific final report also concluded that the selected remedial action alternative identified in the rod cannot be achieved based on the current site conditions of technology proposed
or utilized. The Ssfr. concluded that the project should take a few steps back to the Ri stage, and in addition to any transect work completed during the new Ri the team should utilize sampling grids
to more adequately measure anomaly. Density of the Mac.
Mp. Hmd. as well as the Nmrd.
Sometimes we think we know what the end state of a site should be, but reaching that insight is oftentimes, and in this case impossible.
The conclusion of the site-specific final report for path forward.
Basically said, the project site needs to go through further characterization to better understand the nature and extent of contamination with a recommendation to complete it and expanded.
Ri complete sample grids to better understand Meg density and to get a handle on the actual distribution of anomalies across the site with the overall goal of getting a better handle on an estimated cleanup
costs. So here we have a project where the Ri den not meet the objective capturing to an extent of contamination, which means we did not have a complete Csm.
Moving forward from the Ri to the Fs. which overall impacted the Fs.
Pdd. and led to an overall underestimation of the actual cleanup costs for the site.
The team did come across 37 projectiles in the field during the Ri.
But didn't think at the time to revise transex basings to account for the potential of a 37 impact area.
Now, had the transact spacings been revised to account for the 37 the team would have had a more robust day set, and a better depiction of anomaly densities as well as extended
contamination definitely by ignoring the potential 37 issue.
The team utilized incorrect inputs into Vsp and I'll go out on a limb to say that the team did not complete today at Dua or data usability analysis for the site of the our idea
Postfield surveys, and they also overlook the issue with the transect spacing not being adequate enough to capture the 37
In other words, we didn't update the csm and revise the assumptions.
Once new data was discovered, you know, it gets back to that whole iterative process.
We discussed earlier when we're viewing this psm that is critical, to develop any solid Csm.
This particular project we accomplished 25% of the Ra.
Before running out a budget. But I would argue we waste a significant time and effort.
Investigating the non-unalissions, related debris in one particular corner of the site.
When the team could have spent more time investing in clearing areas of potential met contamination guarantee you.
The team spent a lot of time effort and budget investigating cultural debris.
If we only cleared 25% of our grids.
Furthermore, all the funding expended to complete the Ri.
Fs. Ppd. will now have to be reallocated to redo the work.
So now here we are by now accounting for the 37 projectile that was documented in the Si, confirmed in the Ri.
The Ra. we will no longer be able to meet Rod.
Objectives of Ue realistically i'm not sure any regulator would or should accept you you e.
Where the entire site is cleared with an analog instrument and guess what?
That's exactly what the site specific final report statement said at the end and the conclusions.
So we have a couple other projects and we're in the first example of a bad physical profile in the Csm.
Leading to improperly buried seats. but the contractors In these cases weren't able to explain the way the issue, and one project a remedial action of Montana we recently had to reject an entire analog deliverable
because the field team did not follow the approved pop. The main issue again, was very similar to the Ri project in Montana, where both the core on-site oss as well as the Uxo Qcs.
Were not well versed in the quop requirements of detection, depths for analog instrumentation.
The same argument regarding shallower than anticipated.
Bedrock came up, but unfortunately the teams were unable to prove that shallow bedrock was in the analog work areas, and it was just an unfortunate oversight by the Uxo Qc.
Manager of the Quop requirements for seed. item, burial depths for other Ri project just won an item.
We had the same issue with analog seeds not being buried deep enough.
The same issues with Oh, yes, and you, exo Qcs manager, not knowing the requirements.
But in this contract the contractor was able to convince the government team that the analog data gaps would be verified under a separate expanded Ri, where a digital geophysical methods would be utilized to characterize the
same area and thus validate the analog results. So some final thoughts as just going in the limited examples, a bad Csm.
Can disrupt program objectives for schedule of completion, and it can actually cause a team to take multiple steps backwards in the circle process.
It's, which point the true cost becomes undefined the Csm.
If not complete during the Ri. can lead to an underestimation of the actual cleanup costs.
A bad Csm. can definitely impact the decisions captured in the rod and can lead to untimely project delays.
Esp's, potential modifications to the approved rod Now, when this occurs, we have to be prepared, probably for Ra's potential scope, expansion, or in worst case, scenario contract termination for convenience, but worst of
all beans will come out of that phase complete jar, and a project team may have to redo a project which require another investment to redo the work already paid for and completed, and could thus drag out the Ra.
Process for many more years which will and could impact work, scheduled for other high priority projects.
And with that what I would like to say is that concludes the presentation.
And I just wanted to say real quick. Thanks for your time this afternoon.
Thank you to Nick on everyone in attendance for asking me to participate and present.
And if I have any questions i'm available to answer them over all right.
Thank you so very much, Jason. I do appreciate that.
Unfortunately, we are significantly over our scheduled end time for today.
There were several questions that were entered into the Q. and A.
And our other co-speakers were in the background sort of typing replies to those questions.
So I'll encourage the audience to browse through the Q.
And a tab to see the written responses to some of those questions that came in earlier.
I do want to respect. everybody's time and i'll just go through a few quick closing reminders before we conclude today's live broadcast.
So first, we wanted to let everyone know that this is the first of several webinars that are scheduled throughout the remainder of this year as part of the M.
2 S. 2 fiscal year, 22 series. We hope that you can join us on May the 20 fifth, when the life of A.
S. Cm. continues to the conceptual site model Project Step will have registration open on the Kluen website for that.
So we encourage you to visit our calendar and register for that. And then the next topic will be on July the twentieth, when we're looking at risk assessment and Raos for munitions, response and
then we'll ask everybody to save the date for their October the nineteenth webinar, where our topic will be announced shortly.
We encourage you to visit us, as I said, on the clue and website, to find those future M. 2 Sd.
Webinars and sign up. you can find us at Clu.
I N. Org. and you may also want to sign up for our free monthly newsletter tech direct, so that you can get the information about our upcoming webinars sent right to you in your inbox on lex web our permit our
next tech direct will go out on april the first so I do encourage you to sign up for that free newsletter service as was highlighted at the start of today's webinar.
There is a seminar home page it's shown in red on this slide.
That home page will be available from today forward, and it has a series of buttons or tabs right along the middle of it, and one of the tabs is a webinar slides tab If you click that you can actually
download copies of the presentation material so for those of you who are looking for copies of the slides. We already have those posted.
If you're watching the recorded version of today's webinar, you can go to that url and still download the presentation materials, and there are related documents and websites that have also been posted on that related
links tab as well as information about our speakers.
And then last, but not least, very important is our seminar feedback form.
So for those of you who are looking to get credit or participation certificates.
I'll encourage you to visit that feedback form tab and fill that out, because I often times get asked for those types of certificates, and we can generate them for you but you need to fill out the feedback form So be careful.
When you fill out that feedback form, please be sure to check the box at the bottom of the feedback form, certifying you were here for the entire delivery, and then hit, submit.
When you hit, submit on that feedback form, You should then have access to a screen which will let you download a certificate, will also email, you a copy.
But I do encourage you to download the one from the confirmation screen.
You'll see, because sometimes the email versions can get up can get caught in your spam or junk folders.
If you don't receive that certificate feel free to send me an email, we'll go into the system and see if we can regenerate it for you if you happen to share the line with multiple people you can simply
share the link to the feedback form with those individuals and Each person can fill out the form on their own, even if they didn't register independently, and they can still get their own participation.
Certificate, then, for those of you who are lucky enough to be replaying the recorded version of today's webinar, you can still fill out that form.
Still access all of the materials, and get a certificate based off of your replay of the archive session.
So if you look in the far upper right in our online archive, you should see a button that will point you to that seminar feedback form.
Or again, you can manually type in the url shown in red and click on the tab to the feedback form to fill it out.
So with that. I want to thank all of the presenters and The organizers and I want to thank the nearly 150 attendees who joined us for today's live session.
We'll go ahead and formally conclude our broadcast We hope that you found this to be a valuable expenditure of your time, and you'll join us on a future seminar soon with that i'll go ahead
and formally conclude today's live broadcast thanks so very much for joining us