Southwestern Proving Ground Formerly Used Defense Site
Restoration Advisory Board
Meeting #2, Hope, Arkansas
December 12, 2001

RAB Members in attendance:  Margaret Morehead, Project Manager, Pat Rhoads, Stan James, Paul Henley, Ronnie Smith, Dan Woolfolk, Gale Temple, Shannon Miller,  Patricia Rowe, Danny Watson, Noel Bennett

Others:  Jennifer Wilson, Jan McLemore, Ted Brzinski, Toby Isbell, Aaron Stewart from the office of Congressman Mike Ross, Linda Joslin

RAB Meeting:  The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM.  As part of old business, Ms. Morehead furnished copies of the operating procedures that SWPG RAB members agreed upon at the September 12, 2001.  Members reviewed the procedures.  No changes or amendments were suggested, although Ms. Morehead reminded RAB members that changes can be made at any time.  

Ms. Morehead also reviewed other major items discussed at the September meeting, including the election of Pat Rhoads as community co-chair, new focus on the Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE / CA) study, the federal budget process and an overview of the Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) program in Arkansas. - especially constraints on the program because of funding levels. The current EE / CA is getting attention in light of new information that has been gathered at the site during cleanup actions.  

New business included a report by Ted Brzinski, Parsons Engineering Science, Atlanta, Georgia, on the ordnance removal actions that have been completed at Southwestern Proving Ground.  Surface clearance on 35,000 acres was conducted when the SWPG facility closed.  It is estimated that approximately half of the property contains unexploded ordnance ranging from small arms ammunition to grenades, artillery shells, rockets and bombs.  

Since 1994 when the Corps did the EE / CA study, more than $6 million dollars have been spent cleaning up portions of the area.  Initially (1994 – 1995), 511 ordnance items were removed.  Other ordnance removal actions took place between June 1997 and April 2000. All COE cleanup actions to date resulted in more that 6900 ordnance items being removed from about 500 acres near residences.  Recommendations at the end of the last recovery action called for soliciting input from the community, taking data from the removal actions and reevaluating the risk, completing additional clearance as requested by the government and the community and continuing educational and UXO management services to the community – basically institutional controls.

Next institutional controls – administrative or legal controls that minimize potential for human exposure to ordnance and explosives (OE) by limiting land or resource use - were discussed by Ms. Morehead.  Generally institutional controls are used in combination with engineering alternatives. Institutional controls work by using existing powers and authorities of government agencies.  They rely on access control strategies and behavior modification to reduce or eliminate OE risk and are often used as an interim measure until OE can be removed from the site.  

An example of an engineering control is a fence or sign, an institutional control may be the passing of a local regulation. Institutional controls encouraging safe behavior are always put in place.  At public meetings and through fact sheets proper procedures for responding to suspected ordnance discovery are always publicized.  Photos of ordnance at a site are shown, so citizens are familiar with what may be in their area.  Notices are always used in fact sheets and displays that advise citizens on safe procedure if ordnance is encountered, specifically, they should mark the location, get out of the area and call 911.  A military ordnance disposal team will respond.  No governmental controls or police powers which might restrict access exist at SWPG site.  

Local regulation examples include zoning restrictions, ordinances, statutes, building permits and traditional police powers used to restrict site use.  Proprietary controls are notices placed on deeds.  Enforcement and permit tools are unilateral administrative orders.  

Informational devices include:  (1) public information displays, (2) presentations to community groups, (3) videotapes, (4) fact sheets and (5) public records.  If a cleanup does not result in unrestricted use – such as at SWPG where cleanup will be ongoing for many years – institutional controls will likely be used to reduce exposure.  

Generally, several types of institutional controls are utilized and are carefully chosen for their enhancement of public safety and appropriateness to the investigation and remediation process. Input from the RAB or the general public for providing or expanding institutional controls is always sought.  

RAB members suggested that additional signs might be helpful at the SWPG site. After a question and answer period, the meeting adjourned.