Incineration critics call for improved monitors

By Nathan Solheim
Assistant Metro Editor
04-21-2004

Incineration critics on Tuesday called on the Army to build a supplemental air monitoring system around chemical weapons storage and disposal sites across the country. The Anniston Army Depot’s chemical weapons incinerator, which has been destroying a large cache of munitions off and on since Aug. 9, needs the monitors, critics said, because of its close proximity to heavily populated areas. While the incinerator already has chemical agent monitors, national and local incineration critics want the Army to install infrared agent monitors which they say can identify the type and quantity of leaking agent more quickly than what the Army now has. Rufus Kinney, speaking on behalf of Families Conerned About Nerve Gas Incineration, said a decision to install the extra layer of monitors is a no-brainer. “Do they want people to have confidence in what they’re doing or not?” Kinney said. “This would provide a great deal of confidence if they put those out there as an added layer of protection.” The Anniston incinerator has two main forms of detecting chemical agent based on gas chromatography. The first is called an ACAMS, which detects very small amounts of agent. The second is called DAMS, which confirms ACAMS readings. The Army has used the system in its operational chemical disposal facilities since 1986. Kinney and others said the systems can take too long to confirm whether agent has been detected. They want the infrared technology because it detects harmful levels of agent very close to real time. The Chemical Weapons Working Group, based in Berea, Ky., claims the infrared monitors can confirm the presence of agent in about 20 seconds. However, the Army said its current system is trusted by its workers and detects agent at smaller levels than the infrared technology. Tim Garrett, the Army’s site manager at the incinerator, said ACAMS readings and alarms are treated as real until the DAMS confirm them. Because of that, Garrett said, the current system is real-time and the confirmation takes 1.5 hours. Garrett said infrared technology would not be a good fit for Alabama because of the topography. The infrared monitors shoot a laser beam that needs to be straight for it to work. Garrett also said the incinerator is testing two new types of monitors. ADAM, which is an improved version of ACAMS and another called a pulse-flame mini-cams, which is a handheld monitor that detects agent. “The Army is always looking at evaluating monitoring technologies,” Garrett said. However, Congressional momentum currently is on the side of the infrared monitors. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, has added language to this year’s defense budget that secures $2 million for the installation of the infrared monitors at the Bluegrass Army Depot’s chemical disposal site. Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby also has asked the Army to look into the infrared technology. Craig Williams, director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, said the infrared monitors would be able to detect agent outside the incinerator and could be used in the facility’s smokestack. There, it could detect agent and other chemicals such as toxins and furans. Williams also said the infrared monitors are used in the field by soldiers in Iraq. Army officials have said they would know about an accident and would alert the proper authorities long before any loose agent got to any outside monitors. But, Williams said, the infrared monitors could be used to surround the chemical storage area, where there is less human surveillance. Williams equated the extra monitors, which he said would cost $25 million to install at all eight chemical disposal sites, to other common-sense safety measures. “Seat belts are good, but an airbag is additional layer of protection,” Williams said.

About Nathan Solheim

Assistant Metro Editor Nathan Solheim is Minnesota native and a University of Georgia graduate.