RAB Members in attendance: Max Frauenthal, Project Manager, Pat Rhoads, Community Co-Chair, Paul Henley, Patricia Rowe, Ronnie Smith, Gale Temple, Danny Watson, Noel Bennett (EPA).

Others: Chris Roberts (ADEQ), Brent Talley (Congressmen Mike Ross’s office), Jennifer Dalton, Rita Atkinson, Dan Plugge, Charles Erwin, Ava Nell Harris, Clint Ramsey, Pat Henry, James Thurman, William Smith, Sandra Rodgers, Monique Harsch (Court Reporter).

RAB Meeting: The meeting was called to order at 7:25 PM by Ms. Rhoads, Community Co-Chair. Mr. Frauenthal reviewed the minutes from the July 24, 2002 RAB meeting. Mr. Frauenthal reviewed the FUDS program. The main goal of the program is to reduce the hazard to human health from munitions from Department of Defense use of the site. Approximately 9,300 potentially contaminated FUDS properties exist, and over 4,000 of them will require some kind of removal action. An estimated $18 billion will be required to clean up these sites. The budget for remediating these sites is approximately 190 million per year. At this rate it will take about 80 years to clean up these known sites. Since Southwestern Proving Grounds is a large site, remediation will be an extended process.

Mr. Plugge presented information on the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Supplement. Before the original EE/CA, an Archives Search Report (ASR) was prepared that identified areas of the site that were the main target areas. After the ASR, the EE/CA was completed in 1997. The EE/CA consisted of investigating grids throughout the site to get a statistical overview of where the contamination existed and identify what types of munitions were on site. Clean up actions were also recommended. After the EE/CA, the action memorandum (AM) was prepared. The AM detailed the EE/CA's findings and described what the Government would do to render the site safe for public use on a daily basis. After the AM, four ordnance and explosive removal actions completed from 1997 to 2000.

Approximately every five years, the Corps reassesses the FUDS sites that require removal actions in a recurring review. The ASR, EE/CA, and all other documents associated with this project (including data from the removal actions) are reviewed. The report from this reassessment is the EE/CA Supplement. The draft final EE/CA Supplement should be completed soon and available for public review. A new Action Memorandum will be developed after the EE/CA Supplement is complete. It will contain the revised recommendations.

A site prioritization report that was prepared in 1994 recommended an immediate clearance of residential homes. When the original EE/CA was prepared, that recommendation was not incorporated into the Action Memorandum and was not funded. Another item that was omitted from the Institutional Controls portion of the EE/CA was signage. Posting signs on county roads and in the wildlife management area was omitted from the Action Memorandum. These omissions were discovered in the preparation of the EE/CA Supplement and have been put back into the EE/CA Supplement so they will be funded.

After the internal review by the Corps of Engineers and the review by the regulators of the Supplemental EE/CA, and any comments are incorporated, the next RAB meeting will be held. A 30 day public comment period will follow during which any public concerns can be submitted. Those comments will be considered and incorporated into the final EE/CA supplement.

Since Government buy-back of the land is not an option, the three viable alternatives are institutional controls, surface clearance, and clearance to depth. Some clearance depths have been revised either up or down depending on the use of the land. For the residential type sites, clearance to depth is recommended. A depth is not specified. It just means you dig until you don't find anything else that could be harmful. Four feet is usually more than enough.

Discussion: Questions were posed on obtaining construction support for projects such as installing water supply lines and constructing a watershed dam. The proper method to obtain such support is to locate the proposed project (water line, dam, etc.) on a map or provide the survey coordinates. The contractor will overlay the project plans on the GIS system and it can be determined if the proposed construction is in an area that is likely to contain ordnance. Construction support is proposed in the EE/CA, but it is not funded yet. Until the EE/CA Supplement is enacted and funded, Construction Support can always be obtained privately from one of the Unexploded Ordnance contractors. Government funding should be available for construction support in the near future. Individuals who still have souvenir munitions were encouraged to call the local sheriff to have them assessed and removed. The Institutional Controls portion in the EE/CA Supplement will provide public education such as brochures to instruct people what to do if they have ordnance in or around their house. Moving the Administrative Record from the library at Old Washington to the Sentimental Journey building was discussed. The RAB (Paul Henley) planned to check into moving copies of the Administrative Record to the Sentimental Journey museum. A copy machine or printer to print the files from CDs would be required. The RAB decided to leave the administrative record at the present location at this time since public access would be limited and files could not be accessed on a daily basis if they were moved. Mr. Frauenthal adjourned the meeting.