Knox's environmental impact, costs to clean will figure into BRAC

[CPEO Moderator <cpeo@cpeo.org>]

Kentucky
NEWS ENTERPRISE
Knox's environmental impact, costs to clean will figure into BRAC
By Erica Walsh
January 21, 2004

There are still everyday environmental concerns at Fort Knox, but
nothing out of the ordinary, officials say.

But when it comes to the 2005 round of Base Realignment and Closure, not
a lot is ordinary.

The environmental impact, including costs related to potential
restoration, waste management and environmental compliance, is yet
another criteria for officials to consider in the face of BRAC.

And while the post may be in a good position for environmental impact,
it's still too soon to say how much of a role the environment will play
in the BRAC big picture.

Al Freeland, chief of the environmental management division at Fort
Knox, said the post is in solid shape, from an environmental standpoint,
compared to other bases.

"We're probably one of the best, as far as I'm concerned," he said.

Freeland's division serves as a watchdog to ensure Fort Knox meets all
environmental requirements. It is involved with every aspect of
environmental issues, ranging from water treatment to waste cleanup to
dealing with endangered species.

Bill Barron, executive director of the Fort Knox Association of the
United State's Army's CORE Committee, said Fort Knox fared well from an
environmental standpoint in the 1995 BRAC round. He expects the same
sort of outcome this time around.

To understand the environmental implications for Fort Knox in the event
of a base closure or realignment, Barron said it's important to know
there are several options for closure. First, if the post were to close,
land could be sold for civilian use.

If the Department of Defense chooses to convert portions of Fort Knox
for civilian use, there would have to be environmental cleanup for
artillery ranges, Barron said. But he also said the cleanup could be the
responsibility of whoever receives the land, depending on the terms of a
deal.

A second option is mothballing the post, said Don Williams, vice
chairman of the Kentucky Commission on Military Affairs. The land would
still be owned by the government, but would not be used.

"Our greatest concern is that if the Department of Defense and the
Department of the Army wanted to execute a ?big hit' in terms of a
larger installation instead of several smaller installations, Knox could
be threatened, especially with Congress allowing the Department of
Defense to mothball installations into a caretaker's status to meet
future mobilization and troop rotation requirements," he said.
"Mothballing an installation would also preclude the Department of
Defense from meeting the required and costly environmental cleanup."

This article can be viewed at:
http://www.newsenterpriseonline.com/articles/2004/01/21/news/news02.txt

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CPEO: A DECADE OF SUCCESS.  Your generous support will ensure that our
important work on military and environmental issues will continue.
Please consider one of our donation options.  Thank you.
http://www.groundspring.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2086-0|721-0