From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 23 Jun 2002 18:02:15 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] Ft. Wingate Fires and UXO |
attribution: a usually reliable source within the federal government. Local Firefighters Will Refuse Further Response To Wildfires Located on Zuni Portion of Ft. Wingate A federal firefighting plan for Ft. Wingate, N.M. fell apart when local firefighters, citing concern over possible buried or unexploded ordnance, said they would no longer enter the former Army ordnance depot to provide the first attack on wildfires at the facility. Local firefighters left a meeting at mid-day June 20th in Gallup, NM held by the Dept of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management. The meeting continued without them. The Ft. Wingate fire dept had responded in early June to a wildfire on land sparked by lightning at the former military ordnance depot. The Ft. Wingate volunteer firefighters were the first on the scene and successfully prevented the destruction of one of the most pristine, untouched portions of public land left in the US. The land is intended by the BIA to go to the Zuni Pueblo. However, the Ft Wingate fire dept now says it will not return to fight fires on Ft. Wingate, leaving the only immediate response the relatively ineffective one of dropping fire retardents by aircraft. Firefighting specialists said that reliance on aerial fire retardants at Ft. Wingate would not have extinguished the blaze in early June. The local fire chief said he believes that not enough is known about past military activity on the land in question. He did not know until the meeting, for example, that a smoke grenade had been found earlier in a dried-up pond on the parcel of land (parcel no. 1) where the fire took place. Firefighters said that they were concerned that even small ordnance devices such as M-16 blanks, smoke grenades, and other infantry combat simulation devices pose a significant threat once a wildfire is present. For example, a firefighting specialist said that such devices could detonate and directly injure firefighters as they use tools such as shovels. The specialist also said that small ordnance simulators, as well as real unexploded ordnance, could detonate due to the wildfire's heat and start secondary fires in places not anticipated by the firefighting teams, thus making it impossible for the firefighters to follow their own strict safety guidelines requiring a secure and certain path of retreat from the flames. The Army, which is responsible for cleaning up Ft. Wingate before transferring parcels of land to Interior, has provided archival information about the likely or unlikely presence of ordnance throughout the former depot. No sampling, magnetometry or other UXO characterization activities were performed, the Army said, because such measures were deemed unnecessary. The firefighters were not present in the meeting's afternoon session when it was revealed that teams of Zuni and Navajo personnel had walked the parcel in question as part of an extensive cultural resource survey. The cultural resource survey teams walked shoulder to shoulder and looked for surface evidence of ancient and historic land use such as pot shards, or other small bits of metal or stone showing historic use of the land. No ordnance was found during these sweeps, it was reported. Nevertheless, a firefighting specialist said later that a surface sweep by eye of "every square foot" would not necessarily show buried caches of infantry simulators such as blanks or smoke grenades, any one of which could start a secondary fire behind a line of firefighters, thus cutting off their escape. The firefighters at the meeting, some of whom were Army veterans, said privately that in any event they did not feel "comfortable" relying on the Army's information. This development could signal a national problem of staggering proportions. Millions of acres of public land may contain unexploded ordnance from former military training activities. Firefighters need to know the risks. Can they rely on the Defense Dept. to provide accurate information on those risks? Should firefighters refuse to enter former military bases or training facilities on public land? What would the impact of such a policy be? How many millions of acres of public land are involved? What effect should this development have on UXO policy at DoD? -- Lenny Siegel Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/961-8918 <lsiegel@cpeo.org> http://www.cpeo.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] more on perchlorate Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Guardian Trust discussion | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] more on perchlorate Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Guardian Trust discussion |