History of Struggle at Cape Impact Area

[Career/Pro <cpro@igc.org>]

Dear Folks at Pacific Studies Center: Please send this to Recipients of
list "cpro.military". We welcome discussion of this article. Thank you.
Joel Feigenbaum
Richard Hugus

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE STRUGGLE AT THE MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY
RESERVATION

RECENT EVENTS: EXPLOSIVES POISON GROUNDWATER

The Army is in retreat again at the Massachusetts Military Reservation's
Camp Edwards. On December 16,1997 came another finding of the toxic
explosive RDX in the groundwater, this time two miles from the center of
the impact area, at Monitoring Well 23, 225 feet below ground surface.
The new finding appears to confirm the existence of at least one plume of
contamination spreading from the impact area toward remaining clean
water supplies on Upper Cape Cod.

Also on December 16 the Army reported uncovering over 500 81mm mortar
rounds that had been systematically buried at the edge of the base
impact area, at a site pointed out by activist Paul Zanis. Apparently
the Army had a lot of trouble in Vietnam with defective munitions--on
top of everything else. So they brought large samples to the Cape for
testing. Those they didn't test were buried. Since the rounds are old
and corroded, they may be unstable, so the Army is afraid to move them.
On the other hand, the rounds are less than a mile from an elementary
school, so they're afraid to demolish in place.

Data from the Upper Cape is now irrefutable: Artillery use causes
widespread toxic contamination. Our strategy has been to circumvent the
whole range rule debate over training vs waste disposal by concentrating
on the measurably harmful effect gun firing has on drinking water. On
the basis of the data gathered on Cape Cod, activists in other areas
should demand that the Army stop polluting local groundwater.

A DIFFERENCE IN STRATEGY

This approach is markedly more aggressive than that taken by Pacific
Studies Center spokesman Lenny Siegel. According to the December 21 Cape
Cod Times, Siegel said that the military is moving slowly in dealing with
contamination at artillery ranges across the country.

"It brings up conflicts within the military--between the environmental
military and the warrior military," Siegel said. "You're messing with
the heart of the war-fighting machine. It's one thing to mess with gas
stations and gold courses on military bases, but when you get into things
about military training, then the generals get involved."

Rather than dare to mess with the generals directly, Siegel puts the
burden on EPA saying that EPA ought "to force the military to test the
water in impact areas."

On Cape Cod, we don't mess with the military. They mess with us. And
mess up our precious land and water. The generals and the colonels use
every tactical device in their arsenal to divert public attention from
their abuse of our environment. They have tried to frighten people about
injuring U.S. fighting capability (as after Desert Storm), and then
accused us of interfering with their peace-keeping capability (as in
Bosnia).

For more than 14 years members of the Cape community have stood their
ground, citing abnormal cancer rates, unbearable noise pollution, and
the devastating loss of clean groundwater. We have used every opportunity
to hold military officers accountable. It is this persistence that finally
led local state and federal elected officials and the regulatory agencies to
demand a cease fire at Camp Edwards in the spring of 1997.

BURNING EXCESS PROPELLANT IS HALTED

The first victory occurred in 1987 when local activists convinced state
authorities to study high cancer rates around the base. The resulting
Boston University Cancer Study made a link between female lung cancer and
the location of sites where excess artillery propellant is burned. When
state health officials and the National Guard called for an on-site
test-burn of artillery propellant, that test, dangerous in itself, was
rigorously opposed by the local community.

Next the community called for a complete halt to open burning of
propellant. An Army artillery officer was brought in to tell the public
how important it was during Operation Desert Storm that troops "trained
like they fight." When asked whether the densely populated Upper Cape was
good place to simulate battlefield conditions, the officer, amazingly,
responded in the affirmative, saying that future war might well be fought
in an environment like ours.

Shortly thereafter, Gov. Weld, a Republican, ended the practice of
burning propellant.

REVERSAL OF FORTUNE: EXPANSION PLANS END IN A CEASE-FIRE

The next battle began with a skirmish over Army plans to modernize and
expand their training activities on Cape Cod. In January, 1997, The Army
submitted an environmental assessment that failed to include any data
about the 2,200 acre impact area. A cyclic conflict arose during the
following months in which the Army took strong-sounding stands, but then
fell back to defend "compromise" positions already under attack by the
activists who, at long last, were supported by EPA and elected officials.

In the end, the firing ranges, demolition areas, machine gun ranges and
pyrotechnic activities were completely shut down. Meanwhile a panel made
up of regulators, activists, consultants and the military oversees impact
area study activities.

Cape Cod Times headlines tell the part of the story:

- Jan. 15: GUARD HEAD DEFENDS BASE FIRING RANGE. Adjutant General
  dismisses  claims that military violated federal decree.
- Jan. 16: EXPANSION AT BASE OPPOSED. EPA: Address pollution first.
- Jan. 17: GENERAL STICKS TO HIS GUNS. Guard leader rejects EPA request
  to curb base expansion.
- Jan. 25: ABOUT-FACE: GUARD PUTS HOLD ON BASE TRAINING PLAN.
  Expansion activities will await report on environmental hazard.
- Jan. 31: EPA SEEKS DATA ON PAST PROPELLANT BURNING AT BASE
- Feb. 6 : (Gov) WELD MAY SUSPEND LIVE FIRING AT BASE. EPA requests
  halt in training pending ground-water study.
- Feb. 13: TNT TRACES DISCOVERED BELOW BASE.
- Feb. 15: GUARD PULLS U-TURN ON BASE STUDY. A top National Guard
  Bureau official wants construction projects to go ahead.
  EPA MIGHT FORCE GUARD TO SUSPEND FIRING AT BASE.
- Feb. 19: (U.S. Rep.) DELAHUNT SUPPORTS HALT IN BASE FIRING.
  Congressman calls for all environmental issues to be addressed before
  planned upgrade begins.
- Feb. 22: SHOWDOWN AT THE FIRING RANGE. EPA threatens to ban gunnery
  practice at Cape military base.
- Feb. 27: GUARD VOWS TO IMPROVE FIRING RANGE. General promises to
  prevent pollution by fall.
- Feb. 27: KERRY, MILITARY DISCUSS CLEANUP. The Senator urges the
  National Guard to conduct speedy research.
- Feb. 28: GUARD WILL ADD TO IMPACT STATEMENT. But, Guard will not
  withdraw environmental statement now out for public comment.
- March 7: GUARD HALTS SHOOTING AT 9 RANGES. National Guard promises
  bullet traps, plastic liners as part of an EPA-ordered cleanup
  plan.
- March 13: BASE TO STOP (Live) MORTAR FIRING. The state National Guard
  head seeks a balance between community concerns, military training.
- April 11: EPA HALTS ALL FIRING AT THE BASE. The ground-water pollution
  threat forces thousands to train off-Cape for at least a year.
- April 25: OPERATION ARROGANCE: The military's decision to ignore the
  EPA order and continue training with live ammunition insults
  concerns over continued contamination of the Upper Cape's ground
  water.
- May 9: PENTAGON ASKS EPA TO LIFT FIRING BAN. Officials involved in
  talks of possible compromise in military's appeal of cease-fire
  order.
- MAY 16: WELD SUPPORTS CEASE-FIRE ORDER. Activists cheer the Governor's
  letter to the federal EPA, which is considering a Pentagon appeal.
- May 17: WORDS FLY OVER BASE FIRING BAN. DeVillars decries stalling
  by Department of Defense
- May 19: EPA TELLS CAPE CITIZENS: 'WELL DONE'. Activists say
  vigilance still essential in fight against pollution from the military
  base.
- May 24: LOOKING FOR ANSWERS. Citizens tour base impact area.  Of course,
  the headlines barely allude to the massive grassroots organizing that
  drove these events. Nor was the battle over. The Army switched tactics.
  Trying to break the solidity of the cease-fire, Army officials claimed
  that use of pyrotechnics by a small group of soldiers was urgently
  and uniquely required to keep the peace in Bosnia. The community stood
  firm against this precedent, and then so did EPA.

THE CONFLICT CONTINUES: AGGRESIVE STRATEGY IS REQUIRED

At present, the Army would like to use "risk assessment" as a means of
undermining the current imopact area study, and of blocking follow-up
phase II investigations, so that training can begin again in May. However the
finding of contamination at Well 23, together with the tons of buried
mortar rounds, appear to set the Army back on its heels. The activists,
with likely support from EPA, have told the colonels that the new
findings make risk assessment irrelevant. The tasks for phase II are
already obvious.

We believe that the distinction which Lenny Siegel draws between the
generals and war fighting on one hand, and gas stations and golf courses
on the other, does not lead to productive conclusions. The generals are
supposed to be the servants of a government that must be called upon to
defend the vital interests of the American people, including the need for
clean air and water. It is on this ground that activists should face the
generals in debate. Of necessity, this debate is adversarial. None of
what we have accomplished on the Upper Cape could have been done without
frank and forceful opposition to the Pentagon's agenda. The "let's work together" attitude with which the Army now displays is usually a guise for
inaction. We would like to see strong advocacy for communities from the
Pacific Studies Center; not apologetics for the military.

War-fighting is too important an issue to be left to the generals.
Specifically, the importance of live artillery training in this era of
computer simulation should be challenged. In fact, the very importance of
extensive artillery deployment is itself an open question in a time when
naval and air units are able to rapidly project enormous fire-power toany
part of the world--laying aside the question of whether the cause is
legitimate. The benefits of artillery practice vs the demonstrable harm it
does to the environment should be laid before the generals, and before
their civilian superiors.

Joel Feigenbaum
Richard Hugus