Last October, the Massachusetts Army National Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academies of Science, and a range of independent subject-matter experts met to review the environmental impacts of the Guard’s controversial proposal for a machine gun range on Joint Base Cape Cod.
That day-long meeting was held behind closed doors. Afterward, no post-mortem report or any public statement was issued, nor would participants answer questions about what was discussed.
But a public records request, submitted by the Association to Preserve Cape Cod, has led to the release of a 65-page meeting transcript, along with several financial documents, that together offer a clearer window into the day-long review.
Although the range project was effectively killed at the end of September by Gov. Maura Healey in a dramatic last-minute decision, the meeting transcript provides insights into the Guard’s tense, evolving relationship with the EPA, outstanding concerns that the range poses, and more.
Here are key takeaways:
1. More than two dozen experts attended the meeting, which featured presentations by the Guard and the EPA, several rounds of Q&A, and a tour of Joint Base Cape Cod.
According to financial documents, the Guard spent roughly $53,000 on a contract with the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) to facilitate the meeting. NAS, in turn, provided a moderator, Greg Baecher, who works at the University of Maryland in the civil engineering department.
Representatives from the Army National Guard included installation commander Col. John Bagaglio; deputy base operations manager Major Alex McDonough; natural resources manager Jake McCumber, and several others.
EPA employees delivered remarks, as well. Ken Moraff, director of the water program for EPA's New England office, came with a group that included: Denise Springborg, a civil engineer who leads the Drinking Water Quality and Protection section; Bryan Olson, director of the Superfund and Emergency Response program for EPA’s New England office; two soil scientists, and a hydrogeologist.
In addition, NAS brought in independent scientists. Present were hydrogeologists and experts in contaminant transport from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); an environmental chemist from the Army Corps of Engineers; a groundwater remediation expert from Brown University; and an environmental toxicologist from Texas A&M.
2. Debates persist over the quality of the Guard’s scientific process and conclusions as they relate to the range’s potential environmental impact.
In April, 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency released a draft finding that a proposed machine gun range at Joint Base Cape Cod could contaminate the region’s drinking water. That report was partially responsible for dooming the project. EPA officials specifically criticized the Guard’s findings about whether copper from the machine gun fire could make its way through groundwater and into the Cape’s drinking water. The EPA described part of the Guard’s copper study as “inconclusive,” “missing samples,” and having “incomplete analyses of contaminants of concern.”
At a public meeting two months later, Guard officials defended their process. “We're asking, ‘If you have concerns about how we did the test, let's go back and redo the test, or let's go back and redo the study, or add some of your input on how you want to do the study,’” Bagaglio said at the time.
At the NAS-moderated meeting in October 2024, both groups largely maintained their original positions, while independent experts voiced their own concerns.
"I wasn't too thrilled with the lab studies to be honest with you,” said Kurt Pennell, a groundwater remediation expert from Brown University. “And you can say, ‘Okay, we're going to remove so much. When we get to this number, we think we're safe.’ But right now, from what I've seen, I don't have that confidence, and I can appreciate why EPA is like, ‘Well, I have to make a judgment about whether this will contaminate the aquifer,’ which is a low bar basically.”
The copper studies were a recurring theme.
“I would treat the copper study like a report that needs major revisions,” said Chris Griggs, who studies environmental chemistry for the Army Corps of Engineers.
Lynn Katz, a geochemist from the University of Texas, agreed.
“I'm just going to state my opinion on the copper study,” Katz said. “It had a lot of areas that raised concerns. It could have been reviewed more carefully in terms of what the data show, whether the data were collected in a manner that actually provides the information that we want.”
Then she batted around an idea that others wondered about, as well.
“I guess my question is, if there were some sort of consensus study done, is there a way to do another short study, or something experimentally that could really resolve some of the issues?”
3. Could the EPA and Guard work together on a consensus study to fill in scientific gaps? It’s unclear.
Several times throughout the meeting, Guard officials pushed for an opportunity to work with the EPA to resolve key disputes over the environmental impacts of the proposed machine gun range.
“We, as the Guard, are open to any kind of collaboration or further discussion. Or whatever that is, I know we have had one meeting since (two, actually). But we received some input. We gave some back. I don't know how collaborative that whole process was, but we are more than willing to keep engaging,” said Bagaglio, the installation commander. Later, the EPA’s Ken Moraff indicated that his agency’s findings — that the range could contaminate Cape Cod drinking water — are a preliminary determination, and a consensus study could move the needle, helping the agency to complete its review.
“We thought this would be a good opportunity, this panel, and then follow up, towards including possibly a consensus study,” Moraff said. “We're a little unclear on where the project itself stands and what may follow or not follow in this panel. We're very open to finding a positive and collaborative path to work through these issues, but aren't quite sure what it is.”
Marcel Belaval, a hydrogeologist with USGS, urged the creation of a study that would answer many of the outstanding questions at once.
“When we talk about getting public buy-in and giving EPA confidence that they can approve the project so that it won't pose a risk, there is not one scientific study that has been done that puts all of this together in one package,” he said.
“And I think right now we're pulling things from different places. We're pulling a study from something that was done in a different range. There's a copper fate and transport study that people around this table and EPA had concerns with… It seems like this is not an insurmountable problem. What we need to put into this understanding is not really that mysterious. It just has to be put together in an intentional way, and then put forth for review. Maybe that's a consensus study.”
Brown University’s Kurt Pennell offered more specific suggestions for a path forward.
“One thing that needs to be done is to figure out the contaminant loading, and this idea of being able to refurbish the berms every so often, when that cycle is, if you're going to have, say, 600,000 rounds [a year],” he said. “Once you figure out the loading, then you might have a chance to do predictive modeling.”
“Things like that would go a long way to satisfying the EPA mandate, which really comes down to, ‘Is there a risk that this may contaminate the aquifer?’” Pennell added. “That's what they're up against. None of the information I've seen to date will give you the confidence to make that ruling.”
No official decision was reflected in the transcript about whether a consensus study would actually be taken on.
4. The Guard is still frustrated by the loss of the range — and worried about how future projects will be received.
After the range project drew skepticism from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Bill Keating, and hundreds of Cape Codders, it met its final act of resistance at the hands of the governor.
In September, 2024, using her authority as commander in chief of the Massachusetts Army National Guard, Healey blocked the Guard from signing a building contract for the proposed range. That effectively ended the project under current leadership. One key rationale for Healey’s decision, according to a statement from her office, was the fact that the EPA’s environmental review remained incomplete. That point worries Guard officials.
“Now people are going to already say, ‘Well, the EPA didn't think that machine gun range should be built, so let's get rid of the other ranges,’” said Col. Shawn Cody, program manager for the impact area groundwater study program. “So this is an existential threat. This isn't just about the engineering. This is about the active ranges that are currently going, and we hope to train soldiers on them for another 100 years and be the best environmental stewards on the Cape.”
5. The EPA draft report and range project are, respectively, shelved, collecting dust. But a turbulent political period makes the future more murky.
Neither the Guard nor the EPA has released any public statements about what’s happened since last October’s meeting. But in the last two months, the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the EPA could make it even less certain that the public will ever see a final report about the impacts of the proposed range.
The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) sees it this way: “Unless the Guard tries to revive the [range] project, this meeting transcript is an interesting final chapter to a long story that proves that questions remained unanswered about the project’s risks and impacts,” APCC Executive Director Andrew Gottlieb, wrote in a statement.
“If the Guard tries to revive the project, then the proceedings are a starting point for what additional studies are needed to come to a technically defensible position on the impact of the project. The proceedings are also important in independently documenting data and analytic deficiencies if the new EPA leadership throws out the draft finding of significant impact. The NAS discussion provides and important backstop to a politically motivated reversal of EPA’s position.”
CAI reached out to Guard officials, who did not comment for this story.
Click this link for a pdf of the full transcript of the October 30, 2024, Meeting of Experts
