1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993 Page: 21 of 222
This legal document is part of the collection entitled: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
18
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67/
68forward the recommendat ion because of the
turbulence that relocation would have on the
training and doctrine command's ongoing
missions and its internal reorganization and
the potential for significant environmental
cleanup costs.
The staff is prepared to
answer any of your questions concerning this
installation prior to any motion.
CWMMISSIONER CCX: Ed, if I
could just ask a couple of questions. In this
case, high is good or bad? Six of 11 is --
MR. BROWN: In all cases, a
higher number is bad. The Army ranked its
installations from 1 to 10, 1 being the best
installation within each category.
COMMISSIONER COX: And this is
the base that one of the Defense -- Army,I
believe, testified that they would have closed
it except for the environmental cost?
MR. BROWN: That was one of
the reasons that they used in the testimony to
the Commission for not closing Fort Monroe,
the potential cleanup costs. And you see down
at the bottom, we have seen ranges of that
from about 28 million up to 600-plus million
dollars.
COMMISSIONER COX: Could you
tell us a little bit about what the
environmental problems are?
MR. BROWN: The potential
problem is unexploded ordinance that dates
back to the Civil War.
COMMISSIONER COX: These are
cannorntl Is?
MR. BALE: When the study was
done, the Navy did a check of the vicinity and
came up with a little over 6,000 positive hits
on the meter. These can range from an old
dmp area, which was a trash duep which has
mixed things, and there is a Lot that they
think possibly is excess munitions.
COMISSIONER STUART: But this
has been around as an argument for a Long
time. I wonder what action is being taken to
clean up in the meantime. We heard that in
'91. It seems to me it say be a very
comfortable device to protect the facility
which otherwise should go.
MR. BROWN: I would point out
to the commissioners that, as Commissioner
Stuart just mentioned, this potential has been
there for many, many years. The Army has
continued to operate at Fort Monroe. I don't
believe the Army would operate at that
installation if there were a life safety
hazard. Where it becomes a problem is when
the installation is excess, and you must
dispose of the installation.
COMMISSIONlER MCPHERSON: Wel,
this whole treatment of environmental cleanup
costs is very curious in our process. As we
have noted before, you've got a break even
year here at year six, which is terrific. But
you've got environmental cleanup costs ranging
from $21 mi tlion, which could certainly be
accommodated within six years, aid: you could
have a break even, to 5635 million, which
would certainly make it not a break even, ifyou went at the cleanup.
But we persist in this
fanciful belief that since cleanse is supeed
to be going on year to year anyway, the
ballooning of cleanup costs was something we
won't consider. But it could obviously mke a
big difference as to whether it's worth
Launching into this thing if it costs us half
a billion dollars to clean up Civil War
ordinance aind the rest of it.
MR. BROWN: The situation with
Fort Monroe is very similar to the Presidio of
San Francisco. The Presidio of San Francisco,
when it was closed by the 1988 Commission, ohad
to go to the Mationat Park Service by statute.
So the base closure account got no proceeds
from the excess ing of that property. Fort
Monroe is very similar. I believe statute or
agreements require that Fort Monroe revert to
the State of Virginia when it becomes excess
to the needs of the Department of Defense.
COMMISSIONER M4CPHERSON: Wilt
they clean up the ordinance?
MR. BRON: I carrot answer
that question, Mr. McPherson. But for reuse,
you would have to go in and see how the
property is going to be reused to determine to
what extent you would need to clean up.
COMMISSIONER STUART: But, Ed,
if we put this on the list, we could realty
take a harder look at the numbers and these
environmental costs that have been waved in
front of us for years.
MR. BROWN: Absolutely,
Commissioner Stuart. And these numbers were
generated in the early 1980s, when the Army
was considering doing something to Fort Monroe
at that time.
COMMISSIONER MCPHERSON: If we
should put this on the List and consider it in
Late June, will a month be enough time for us
to get a better picture of Fort Monroe and the
cleanup costs and the condition of the base if
we do close it?
MR. 9ROWN: I don't believe
there would be -sufficient time to do a
detailed study of what would be required;
however, we can attempt to get some better
indication for the Commission --
CHAIRMAN COURTER: If I can
interject there, I mean, you're absolutely
correct, but no one can do a detailed study
with regard to the requirements until you know
what the requirement's going to be used for.
The Army is one standard. If you're going to
use it for indctry, it's another standard.
If you're going to use it for a hospital, it's
another standard, or a school. And so I think
there's more i formation that we can get by
putting this -- not that I'm necessarily
pleased about i t, but pit t ing th is on our
review list.
Arnd Commi ss ioner McPherson
raises a very good~ point, and that is the cost
of closure is a cost we have to consider, rnd,
therefore, the Army is duity bord to clean
this tp. On the: other hard, there is a
countervailing pl: icy that we have, or w
don't want to get into, and that is we want to
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View 10 places within this document that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legal Document.
United States. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. 1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993, legal document, February 17, 2006; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc25520/m1/21/?q=food+rule+for+unt+students: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.