The EPA ordered a halt to live artillery training at Edwards in 1997 because munitions chemicals were leaching toward the aquifer that provides drinking water for all of Cape Cod — more than 500,000 people in summer.

Now the restrictions here are the Pentagon's Exhibit A in a controversial campaign for legislation that would exempt more than 20 million acres of military land from key facets of the Clean Air Act and the two federal laws governing hazardous-waste disposal and cleanup. (Related graphic: An in-depth look at military bases' cleanup efforts)

The top environmental officials of nearly every state oppose the legislation, as do 39 state attorneys general. And the Bush administration's own environmental officials have tried to limit the exemptions plan.

In a memo to White House officials last year on a draft of the legislation, the EPA complained that some provisions "could interfere with the ability of states to enforce air pollution and drinking water (rules) that protect public health."

The memo, obtained by USA TODAY, urged revisions so regulators could "address imminent and substantial endangerment" from military pollution. The White House refused, and the EPA had no choice but to endorse the legislation.

The Pentagon began its push for exemptions from environmental and conservation laws in 2002.

Since then, Congress has granted exemptions from five laws. For example, the armed services got leeway to train on military land that provides wildlife habitat protected by the Endangered Species Act. They also were freed to conduct sea exercises using equipment that might harm animals covered by the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Three remaining exemption requests govern hazardous-waste disposal, hazardous-waste cleanups and air pollution.

So far, Congress has balked at the remaining waiver requests. But Republican leaders say they are committed to passing them. And the Pentagon still is pushing hard — with White House support.

"There are immediate and unquestionable (military) readiness risks associated with how these three environmental statutes are being interpreted," says Paul Mayberry, deputy undersecretary of Defense for readiness.

Yet regulators have never used the laws to limit military activities. Even the restrictions at Edwards, while cited by the Pentagon, were ordered under a drinking-water statute not covered by the waiver proposal.

Last year, then-EPA administrator Christie Whitman complained to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Pentagon officials were misleading Congress in hearings on the exemptions legislation.

In a letter to Rumsfeld, obtained by USA TODAY, Whitman said she was "very concerned" that Defense officials were creating an "erroneous impression ... that EPA has prevented vital military training." (Related: Read Whitman's letter | Read Rumsfeld's response)

The three remaining requests for exemptions would reducestate and federal regulators' long-held power to force the military to deal with pollution on "operational" land — unless the contamination already had spread off site. That's too late, regulators say, to protect neighbors from health risks.

Pentagon officials say the exemptions are needed to ensure that regulators don't use hazardous-waste rules to demand cleanups on training ranges littered with used ordnance, which can leach chemicals such as TNT into soil and water. They also fear that clean-air rules could be used to block the transfer of aircraft to bases where air pollution from power plants and other sources already exceeds the Clean Air Act's emissions limits.

Even if environmental agencies continue to defer to military needs, Defense officials say, activists could sue to force regulatory action.

Regulators have a different concern: The military could use the exemptions to duck legitimate environmental orders.

Regulators also note that the president already can exempt military sites from the laws at issue. Last year, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz directed the armed services to "give greater consideration to requesting such exemptions" to the laws if they hinder training. But no requests have been submitted.

Meanwhile, the military still cites the live-fire restrictions at Camp Edwards as proof that it needs relief from the clean-air and hazardous-waste laws. As far back as 2001, Maj. Gen. Robert Van Antwerp, then an Army assistant chief of staff, told Congress that the Army was "very concerned" about the Edwards precedent. "If applied to a major training installation" he said, "the results could be catastrophic."

But officers at Edwards say they have adapted to the restrictions, using the howitzer simulators and sending troops to other bases a few times a year for live fire exercises.

"I wouldn't say training has been curtailed," Capt. Winfield Danielson says. "Most of the training the units did before, they can still do."