SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statementserved metals concentrations from the soil investigation is just below the threshold of no furtheraction.” Table 2–3 shows an almost 50 percent increase in the amount of training ammunitionthat will be used at the various live-fire ranges. Please explain how, with a 50-percentincrease in ammunition use and existing metal contaminant concentrations in soils registeringjust below the threshold for no further action, a less than significant impact finding wasreached for the Soils and Hazardous Materials/Waste categories.Response: Section 8.12.2 of the 2004 FEIS describes the increased level of contaminationthat could occur because of SBCT training. It also indicates that there wouldbe very little human exposure to the contaminants and that regulatory and administrativemeasures would reduce significant impacts from contaminants associatedwith munitions to less than significant for our Soldiers. Therefore, theconclusion in the EIS is justified and no change was made.187. Page 3–8 states “Currently, Army policy prohibits the use of DU ammunition for trainingworldwide.” When did the Army adopt this policy? Does the Army or any other federalagency have policies and regulations that would require cleanup of soils contaminated withDU?Response: Army Regulation 385-63 Range Safety prohibits the use of DU ammunition fortraining. The policy has been in effect for over 20 years. In general clean up ofcontaminated soils would be governed by statutes such as the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or theResource Conservation Recovery Act (ACT).188. NPS is concerned with the DEIS statements that identify impacts to the air and sound qualitythrough training and construction activities. NPS remains concerned about dust and particulatematter that is generated by the movement of vehicles and equipment through Park andNHL property; creation of hazardous health conditions; and the lack of and need for monitoring.The identified method of dust suppression also is a concern. Dust suppression through the useof chemicals potentially can contaminate sensitive archeological and cultural sites such as Pelekaneand other cultural resources that occur along lands of the Park bisected by the highway.Response: The Army is coordinating with the NPS on a number of issues and will consultwith the NPS to understand better the concerns related to dust and particulatematter. With regards to NPS concerns about dust mitigation measures pleasesee the response to comment 178 for more information.189. Buildings constructed before 1978 are considered to be a risk for lead-based paint. Whatbuildings still have lead contamination? Has the military ever studied children who lived inlead-contaminated buildings?Response: The Proposed Action would not cause an increase in the number of childrenexposed to lead. Therefore, studies of this type are beyond the scope of thisEIS.190. What buildings on Schofield and PTA still have asbestos contamination? Has the militaryever studied children who lived in asbestos-contaminated buildings?February 2008 D–64 2/25th SBCT Final EIS