Anniston Star
March 12, 2003

Lawsuit seeks to halt all incineration

By Jason Landers
Star Staff Writer
03-12-2003

Brenda Lindell and David Christian, of Families Concerned About Nerve Gas Incineration, discuss the lawsuit Tuesday at Anniston City Meeting Center. Photo: Bill Wilson/The Anniston Star

Incineration opponents are asking a federal judge to stop the Army from burning more chemical weapons.

Twenty-one organizations joined the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C.

The suit seeks an injunction against further incineration of chemical weapons anywhere in the United States. Plaintiffs also seek a head-to-head comparison between incineration and alternative neutralization technologies.

The plaintiffs argue that the Army should at least compare incineration with neutralization at stockpiles in Anniston, Umatilla, Ore., Pine Bluff, Ark., and Tooele, Utah.

"These sites never had an opportunity for alternatives," said Anniston activist Brenda Lindell.

Comparisons between rival technologies were made at stockpiles in Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland and Indiana. At each of these sites, the Army ultimately picked a form of neutralization over burning.

Communities, such as Anniston, where the Army chose incineration had fewer options: Leave the aging weapons where they lay, truck them to an incineration facility in Utah, or haul them to sister facilities in Utah and Alabama, or keep the weapons where they are and incinerate them on-site.

"The system was designed in such a way that it never really compared an alternative with incineration," Anniston activist and architect David Christian said during a press conference Tuesday announcing the lawsuit. "There have been significant changes over the time period that demand a second look."

Army records show the Department of Defense briefly considered Anniston as a pilot site for a neutralization facility. It tossed aside the idea after learning the incinerator, which is already constructed, could destroy the stockpile "before we could design and build a pilot (neutralization) facility in Anniston," said Mickey Morales, an Army spokesman for the provisional agency that oversees chemical weapons destruction.

The Army maintains that time drives the risk to communities living near stockpiles. The longer the stockpiles stay, the greater the risk.

But the Army hasn't ruled out comparing the rival technologies in places like Anniston.

Michael Parker, the new director of the provisional Army agency that oversees weapons destruction, said he would consider studying the benefits of alternative technologies in Anniston. But the community must ask for it first, Parker stressed.

Parker defines the community as elected officials and state regulators. To date, he said during the recent interview, those officials haven't asked for a comparative study.

"The community should be telling us, the Army, what their views are and how we should be approaching this," Parker said. He made the comments during an interview with The Anniston Star weeks before the plaintiffs filed suit. He was responding to a question about whether the Army would study retrofitting the chemical weapons incinerator here with neutralization technology.

Parker, who also heads the Army's leading alternative technology program, gave a ray of hope for supporters of the alternative. He said it is "possible that (neutralization) would be faster" than incineration at destroying the Anniston stockpile.

"Possible but not probable," Army spokesman Morales said, underscoring the theoretic context that Parker was making.

A source within the disposal program said "possible" and "probable" can be a solar system apart. "It is possible to colonize Pluto," the source said. "How probable is it?"

Incineration opponents are more optimistic. They say they are quite confident a comparison will leave no doubt that neutralization is the safest option for worker and public safety, as well as the environment.

When asked what he would say to a community if an environmental study showed incineration outshone the alternative, Craig Williams, a leading voice of the opposition, laughed.

"They must have made a mistake," was his reply.

For Williams, the conclusion of a comparative study, should a judge order it, will have only one outcome:. "We believe an honest comparison will show incineration comes in second," he said, then paused. "A distant second," he added.

Christian and Lindell also believe a comparison will give credence to arguments opposing incineration. But Christian indicated that an unfavorable neutralization finding would hurt the activists' cause. "I think you would see a diminishment of the opposition," he said.

Williams suggests the Army could complete a comparison study of the four incineration sites in as little as six months.

Army officials say similar studies have taken two or three years to complete. Parker suggests it could be done within a year.

Army officials would not comment on how the lawsuit will affect operations set to resume in Utah or proposed startup schedules at the other incineration sites.

Currently, the Army says it can incinerate the Anniston stockpile, which represents 7 percent of the national total, by 2009. Officials associated with the neutralization project in Kentucky, which holds about 1.6 percent of the national total, say they likely won't finish destroying the stockpile there until sometime between 2011 and 2015.

Officials could not estimate how much time it would take to destroy the stockpile in Anniston using the alternative technologies.