CITIZENS URGE CONGRESS TO INVEST IN SAFE TECHNOLOGIES.

In the May 1995 issue of Chemistry and Industry magazine, Dr. Yu-Chu Yang, a member
of the Directorate of Research and Technology for the U.S. Army Edgewood Research,
Development and Engineering Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland states,
"Neutralizing chemical weapons by simple chemical reactions may be a convenient and
cost effective way of disposing of these toxic compounds." In the strongest language to
date from within the Army, Dr. Yang writes, "Chemical warfare agents can either be
destroyed by incineration or 'neutralized' by chemical reaction under mild conditions."

Dr. Yang's article explains that 100 pounds of VX agent can be neutralized by adding only
7 pounds of water and allowing the mixture to sit for 40-50 days. This could be done in
situ (without the agent being removed from its current container), at room temperature.
Dr. Yang says, "this in situ approach may be a uniquely simple and safe method to
detoxify VX in its original container."

In just a few short months since Congress funded research of alternative technologies,
neutralization has shown great potential for being safer, faster and cheaper than the Army's
13 year old incineration approach. Just last week researchers from the same center
announced an equally simple treatment for mustard agents through exposure to boiling
water followed by the addition of common sewage sludge.

Citizens across the nation are encouraged by the rapid advances in the laboratory research
with neutralization and biological treatments. Communities with stockpiles of chemical
weapons are even more convinced that these non-incineration methods could be
implemented for safe disposal. Citizens have long contested the Army's incineration
program which is now over 10 years behind schedule and more than 500% over budget.

Craig Williams, Spokesperson of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, an international
coalition of citizens living near proposed chemical weapons incinerators said "For years
citizens have been urging the research and development of safe disposal alternatives. We
have been told that neutralization is an unreasonable approach, which produces a large
amount of hazardous waste. Now we know that argument is untrue."

Neutralization is supported by citizens because it is a close-looped process which does not
release toxic chemicals and live warfare agents into the air, as incineration does. Moreover,
because it s a low pressure technology, there is less risk of accidents, leaks, explosions,
and fires such as those experienced at the Army's incinerators. There have been at least
sixteen confirmed live agent releases at the Army's incinerators so far.

The Chemistry and Industry article explains that Russia plans to use neutralization to
dispose of all chemical agent. Williams said "The Russian government is abandoning its
earlier incineration approach due to citizen concerns over safety, cost and protection of
public health. Meanwhile the U.S. Army plans to spend at least $11 billion on its
incineration scheme. The ultimate irony is that the American taxpayer is going to be
subsidizing the safer Russian program while being forced to tolerate unsafe disposal
processes in the U.S. The time has come for Congress to get serious about safe disposal
and invest in safer technologies."

Copies of the Chemistry and Industry article are available from the Chemical Weapons
Working Group by calling (606) 986-7565.

------- 30 -------

CWWG Home Page

Contact us: Chemical Weapons Working Group Kentucky Environmental Foundation P.O. Box 467 Berea, KY 40403 phone: 859-986-7565 fax: 859-986-2695 For comments about this WWW page contact Lois Kleffman.