Anniston Star
January 5, 2003

Politicians weigh in on incineration: All but one elected official surveyed OK with process, but preparedness a concern

By Jason Landers
Star Staff Writer
01-05-2003

From the Calhoun County Commission offices on Noble Street to the Statehouse in Montgomery, to Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., a chorus of officials are singing virtually the same song: Delay startup of the Army's chemical weapons incinerator until preparedness concerns are answered, then burn the weapons.

Politicians with constituents living near the Army's chemical weapons stockpile in Anniston agree, almost unanimously, on the two issues.
In a solid endorsement of the Army's method of disposal, all but one of the elected officials say burning the aging weapons in the Army's state-of-the-art incinerator is the best available method of destruction. But, by that same margin, they say the Army should postpone incineration until the community is better prepared.

The Anniston Star polled 15 elected officials following a four-day series that ran from Dec. 29 ­ Jan. 1, with an introduction on Dec. 28.

That series compared incineration with other destruction alternatives and reported the lack of adequate protective measures in place for area homes, schools, first responders and motorists should an accident occur at the Army's chemical weapons stockpile.

Army officials anticipate that within the next few months, possibly mid-January, workers will start moving the weapons for destruction. For now, the munitions slumber in sturdy concrete bunkers at the Anniston Army Depot.

The Star asked the officials whether they support incineration and whether they support delaying startup of the incinerator until the community is better prepared.

Gov.-elect Bob Riley, U.S. Sens. Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions, state Sen. Jim Preuitt, state Reps. Barbara Boyd, Steve Hurst, Randy Wood and Lea Fite, along with Calhoun County Commissioners Pappy Dunn, Rudy Abbott, J.D. Hess, Eli Henderson and Robert Downing gave responses that suggest they support delaying operations until the community is better prepared.

"Safety has always been Senator Shelby's first priority," said Shelby spokeswoman Andrea Andrews.

"He would not support incineration until proper safety measures are in place," she said, adding that the senator is convinced those measures are not in place at this time.

"I support incineration of chemical weapons at the depot," said Sessions, who sits on the Senate's Armed Services Committee. "However, I have said repeatedly that safety is my primary concern, and I will not agree to an incineration program that is unsafe. I oppose going forward if questions of safety are not addressed."

In her support of the incinerator, state Rep. Boyd said, "We are sitting on a time-bomb, and at this time do we have time for other options? I do support it (incineration). I want it (the stockpile) destroyed as soon as possible."
But, she added, the community must first be prepared.

Sen. Preuitt said, "I don't know if we will ever know if we are ready."
Preuitt said he would only support a short delay that would give the community a little more time to ready itself, "within the next 12 months or so, then it's time to move on."

Similarly, former Calhoun County Commissioner Lea Fite, who was recently elected as a state representative, said, "If we delay, I hope it's not for a year or two. I want the Army to do the right thing and get the resources in here real quick because we can get this community prepared quickly if the Army says that's what we want to do."

Compared with other communities that have chemical weapons stockpiles, Calhoun County is found wanting in almost every preparedness aspect.

The Army and Federal Emergency Management Agency are tasked with readying the stockpile communities, but local and federal officials have sparred for years over who's to blame for the lack of preparedness. Money was appropriated last year to fund various protective measures for homes, residents and first responders, but the items it will purchase likely won't be distributed until summer 2003.

Of the politicians polled, only U.S. Rep.-elect Mike Rogers of Anniston suggested startup should not be delayed. He conditioned the stance by adding that if moving the weapons substantially increased community risk, then he would want additional safety measures in place before startup.

Moving the weapons from the concrete-reinforced igloos they now sit in to the incinerator does pose some danger to the community, conceded an Army spokesman with the program that oversees destruction.

"It's a risk. There is no denying it," Army spokesman Greg Mahall said, "but there are degrees of risk."

The Army maintains that the greatest risk is continued storage of the aging munitions. Ultimately, the danger posed by the weapons remains until the last of the nerve and blister agents are destroyed.

All of the politicians interviewed except Commissioner Robert Downing support burning the weapons. Downing, citing environmental concerns, has said he supports alternatives to incineration. He hasn't concluded which alternative would be the safest.

Numerous attempts to reach state Sen. Del Marsh for comment were unsuccessful. Marsh's business associate said he relayed The Star's questions to the senator. The associate said Marsh replied that he was on vacation with family and would not answer political inquiries until his return.