From: | Career/Pro <cpro@igc.org> |
Date: | Mon, 29 Dec 1997 15:51:24 -0800 (PST) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | History of Struggle at Cape Impact Area |
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 | |
Prev by Date: Response on Mather Early Transfer Proposal Next by Date: Bogs Taken off Contract | |
Prev by Thread: Response on Mather Early Transfer Proposal Next by Thread: Bogs Taken off Contract |