OCR Text |
Show Group ee MX base plan The SAC, according to Piepenburg, was also looking into some modular construction of base buildings, "how much depending on site selection." The official said this type of construction could reduce the work force by "up to 75 percent." Concluding his presentation, Piepenburg explained the "MX Master Schedule" to the working group. Present SAC plans have the "comprehensive" "com-prehensive" base plan beginning in February 1981, the site selection coming in May 1981, the actual design commencing in August 1981 and building construction starting in January 1983. The presentation drew a number of anxious questions from state and local officials, mostly revolving around the planned base's lack of integration with surrounding civilian communities. Ken Olsen, director of the Utah MX Task Force, stated it appeared the SAC was "locked into building a community, and utilizing only on-base housing." Piepenburg responded that though the "current plan" shows 100 percent housing on-base, "a lot of people support sup-port housing just young airmen and essential base personnal on-base." He added that SAC was planning on looking at what is available in surrounding communities, and that at least "1,000 or so civilians working on-base will need civilian developments." Though the planned base contains three separate living communities, Piepenburg continued, "one of those communities could be dropped off without any effect to the base." In response to another question, the lieutenant coloniel cited proposed cost and personnel figures for the operating bases. Overall base construction, he said, will cost $1.4-1.5 billion in 1978 dollars. The personnel force at the main base will be about 7,400, Piepenburg said, with 4,000 being married, military employees. Gil Moore, a vice president at Thiokol, told Piepenburg the SAC should "incorporate surrounding communities positively. You should go out and seek their help rather than challenging them to come and take away a certain cluster on the base." see WORK on page 2 By LEE WARNICK Record Editor The Stategic Air Command (SAC) has provided a glimpse at what the proposed MX main operating base might look like. That glimpse came in a slide presentation to the Utah MX Working Group, meeting Sept. 24 in Cedar City. Lt. Col. Duane Piepenburg, from SAC Headquarters in Omaha, Nebr., told the group three factors would be considered con-sidered in putting together the bases: 1 efficient planning and construction, energy savings and the quality of life or "human factor." The MX missile project, which appears ap-pears to be inching toward reality due to recent Congressional action, is considering sites near Delta, Milford are Beryl (Iron County) for main base location. Coyote-Kane Springs and Ely, Nev., are under consideration for a second, smaller operating base. The plan explained by Piepenburg would include three separate housing areas, an "open space for recreation" and a centrally-located community center. Housing areas would contain everything from dormitory-type facilities to single-family units. The community center would consist mainly of commercial facilities and a base hospital. Among other things, a golf course would likely be located in the recreation area. Piepenburg said the base would also probably have an indoor recreation building, one which "the multiple use of community schools and base personnel would be considered very appropriate." ap-propriate." The SAC officer also said the architecture ar-chitecture of base buildings would utilize a "solar design," one which "could reduce cooling and heating requirements by 75 percent." Water conservation was also being examined by base planners, Piepenburg Piepen-burg said, with methods to save 40-50 percent of consumption "likely". Work continued from page 1 Piepenburg's answer: "Maybe I didn't articulate well, but I was trying to say that." Olsen concluded the discussion by I asserting "we feel in a reactive mood. We're being constantly bombarded f with planning we're not a part of. Is there anything we can do to make this I proactive?" I Major Bob. McMains of the Utah MX Information Office responded, "The i purpose of this meeting is to get that kind of dialogue started." I Olsen then told the working group his , office had received some "backround, technical data" relating to the soon-to-be-released Environmental Impact Statement, and that he was "giving the data to staff personnel for review." The group also reviewed a rough breakdown of the proposed fiscal year 1981 budget for MX planning, calling for a total of $1.5 million. That breakdown ' called for $750,000 to go to the Four-County Four-County MX Policy Board, $500,000 to the state MX working group and $250,000 to be shared by the two entities. Olsen reported that a joint Senate-House Senate-House conference was to have met on I Monday to consider the planning allocation, and that "there was not a i serious controversy expected over the I amount of money to be allocated." I |