RANGE RULE E.I.S. SCOPE

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

I am sending this today to the Range Rule office for consideration as
they scope the National Environmental Policy Act Process for the Range
Rule.

August 11, 1997

Range Rule PEIS Docket
c/o Range Rule Information Center
P.O. Box 3430
Gaithersburg, MD 20885-3430

Dear Sirs/Mmes:

I am writing with suggestions for issues to be addressed as part of the
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Department of
Defense Range Rule. My comments today are brief, but the substance of
the questions I raise are significant.

1. There needs to be an assessment of the number and size of closed
ranges on active domestic military installations. Not only is there
currently no program for characterizing and remediating such ranges, but
to be best of my knowledge, the category does not show up on base maps
or in military data bases, despite widespread reports of such areas. I
am particularly concerned about portions of military bases that may have
been used, without adequate documentation, as aerial free-fire zones by
military aircraft required to land elsewhere with empty explosive
payloads.

2. It is important to consider how the draft proposed Range Rule and
other forms of regulation would address the long term explosive safety
risks posed by the movement or uncovering of buried munitions. Assuming
that there are many situations in which unexploded ordnance will be left
in the ground after response actions, how will the response process deal
with recurring new exposures?

3. Most explosive compounds and many of their byproducts are toxic.
Through detonation, low-order combustion, and corrosion, they release
unknown quantities of toxic substances into the air, land, and water.
How will the draft proposed Range Rule or other forms of regulation aid
in the identification and remediation of hazards caused by those
releases? How will responses to the threat of unexploded ordnance be
coordinated with more traditional forms of environmental restoration?

4. Decisions to impose institutional controls - such as deed
restrictions limiting the use of land - as a part of range response may
restrict local land use jurisdictions' ability to exercise their rights
and prerogatives, particularly at formerly used defense sites already
subject to their control. How will the Range Rule or its alternatives
reinforce the fundamental right of local land use control yet still
provide for public safety?

5. Despite promising research, no one today has the technology to clear
large areas of sub-surface unexploded ordnance reliably and
cost-effectively. How would each of the regulatory alternatives promote
immediate responses necessary to protect public safety and health while
encouraging research and development and the subsequent use of new
technologies to complete remediation in the long run?

6. Under the Range Rule, to what degree will agencies with
responsibility for protecting public health and safety or the natural
environment be able to insist upon timely responses to identified range
hazards when decisions within the Defense Department of by Congress have
established other priorities for the use of Defense funds?

Sincerely,

Lenny Siegel
Director, SFSU CAREER/PRO

Lenny Siegel
Director, SFSU CAREER/PRO (and Pacific Studies Center)
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/968-1126
lsiegel@igc.org