SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement179. There remain unresolved issues with depleted uranium at PTA, chemical munitions off thecoast of Waianae, UXO on Kahoolawe, Waikoloa, and in some valleys on Oahu, and toxicwaters at Pearl Harbor.Response: UXO cleanup of Kahoolawe, Waikoloa, and non-Army owned lands on Oahuis beyond the scope of this EIS. Please refer to response to comment 176 foradditional details. Regarding the discovery of DU at PTA, please see the responseto comment 175.180. We cannot trust the military in general and the Army in particular to be accountable and responsiblefor their actions. The Army has not been candid in its disclosures about contaminationor its activities.Response: The Army has disclosed information regarding contamination as informationhas become available. Because of the nature and duration of Army activitieson the Hawaiian Islands, the discovery of potential contamination from activitiesof the past remains a possibility. Better science, modern spill preventionand response programs, and waste handling and disposal methods greatly reducethe potential for new contamination to occur. Information presented inSection 3.1.1 and 3.1.8 represents the most current results from contaminationinvestigations at the areas affected by the Proposed Action. Please refer tocomment 175 for additional information on depleted uranium.181. The DEIS fails to adequately disclose or consider potential effects caused by hazardous materials.The DEIS does not address hazardous materials that will be used and stored at PCMS,including gasoline, diesel fuel, oil and lubricants, pesticides, chemical agencies, and explosiveand pyrotechnic devices. Increases in field maneuver training increases the likelihoodthat wildlife habitats would be contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons during refuelingoperations and from leaking vehicles. Live fire exercises also would leave expended munitions,including unexploded ordnance, in training areas, which would pose a risk to troops,civilians who visit PCMS, and wildlife.Response: All the hazardous materials and their handling referenced above are coveredby standing regulations and education classes. There would be no UXO becauseonly inert (non-exploding) rounds (50 caliber and smaller and only onspecific range areas) are permitted to be used at PCMS. No new ranges wouldbe sited at PCMS as part of the Proposed Action.182. On page 5–18, the DEIS fails to consider potential human health impacts associated with contaminantstransported by surface or groundwater accumulating in plants or animals that peopleconsume (such as limu, shellfish, and fish). At MMR, the Army identified dozens ofchemicals in surface water flowing beyond the reservation boundaries, many with “high” or“very high” potential to accumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. The Army mustevaluate the potential for contaminants associated with implementing Alternative A to harmhuman health.Response: Section 5.2.3.3 of this EIS and Section 5.8.2 of the 2004 FEIS discuss the potentialimpacts from munitions and other contaminants. The Army has starteda field assessment of offsite potential for contaminants at SBMR and MMR underthe Operational Range Assessment Program (ORAP). While still in theearly stages of the assessment, preliminary results show no contamination ofFebruary 2008 D–62 2/25th SBCT Final EIS