Alabama. Arkansas of different minds about transporting weapons

By JEFFREY McMURRAY
Associated Press Writer
January 29, 2005


One idea. Two Southern communities. Two entirely different reactions.

The Army's recent announcement that it would study the possibility of shipping additional chemical weapons to existing destruction sites created quite the buzz in Anniston, Ala., and Pine Bluff, Ark. - both potential destinations.

While neither state's lawmakers were exactly celebrating the prospect of adding a few more deadly substances to their incinerator's repertoire, opposition from Alabama was far more resounding and immediate. In fact, the two Arkansas senators and the congressman who represents Pine Bluff say they haven't yet decided if they're for or against the idea.

"The threshold question for me is could we do it safely? I have an open mind on that," said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. "We have a very good arsenal, very good people there. There's just a comfort level around that arsenal that it's going to be right and going to be done safely."

But for Alabama's delegation, the question seemed to be less about whether the concept was justified and more about whether Army officials had lost their minds.

"I'm surprised they're even suggesting this," said Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican who represents Anniston. "I don't know how in the world the Army thinks they can get from point A to point B with those weapons because every jurisdiction in between would object."

Some already have.

Officials in Richmond, Ky. - home of one storage site - approved an ordinance that would criminalize the hauling of weapons-related chemicals on city streets.

Last week, Colorado's two U.S. senators drafted legislation quickly endorsed by the Alabama delegation that would ban the Pentagon from even studying the transport of chemicals. In a statement, Sens. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., and Ken Salazar, D-Colo., called the idea a "meaningless intellectual exercise."

While there are critics in Arkansas too - including dozens of concerned residents who quizzed Army officials at a meeting last week - there's also an economic reality about the jobs tied to the military, if not the incinerator itself. Compared with Anniston, local opposition was far more muted when Pine Bluff's incinerator first opened.

LeRoy LeNarz lives less than three miles from the Arkansas incinerator, yet as a retired Army worker he says he trusts the decisions made at the site and thinks most residents of the area do too. What he doesn't understand is the uproar he hears coming from Anniston about a mere feasibility study.

"I think maybe somebody stirred them up and got them overreacting a little bit," LeNarz said. "They dwell on all the little things they can create and point fingers at."

The idea of transporting more chemicals to Anniston certainly has few fans in that community. Even the Calhoun Chamber of Commerce is fiercely opposed, regardless of the fact more weapons would mean more jobs over a longer period of time.

"This doesn't even seem practical," said Nathan Hill, the chamber's military liaison.

Pentagon officials have insisted the review is only preliminary and one of numerous options it is considering as a way to get its chemical weapons stockpile destroyed by 2012 to comply with an international treaty. So far almost 11,000 tons - or 34 percent - has been destroyed.

But Craig Williams, director of the Kentucky-based Chemical Weapons Working Group that fiercely opposes incineration, says he is skeptical of the Pentagon's motives in calling for a study.

Lawmakers representing concerned states should try to nip this idea in the bud as Alabama's are, says Williams, who doesn't hide his frustration with the way Arkansas' delegation has handled it.

"There's not a community in this country interested in receiving more chemical weapons - even Pine Bluff," Williams said. "I think you'll see them looking out their window and seeing which way the parade is going, then they'll go out in front of it and say they organized it."

Rep. Mike Ross, a Democrat who represents Pine Bluff, says there is nothing to gain by a rushed verdict.

"This is not a decision that will be made overnight and I will monitor it closely to make sure that any decisions made are in the best interest of Pine Bluff," Ross said.

One Arkansas critic, White Hall resident Sam Mayhew, says his congressman should be more vocally opposed.

"If my leadership of this state has any intentions of any weapons being moved in, I find that very disturbing," Mayhew said. "Their initial response should be a resounding no."

Alabama's lawmakers aren't questioning Arkansas' approach, but nor are they backing away from their own.

"What's the old saying?" said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. "Silence can be construed as acquiescence."