Anniston Star
September 28, 2002

Army delays response on incineration alternatives report

By Matthew Creamer
Star Staff Writer

The Army Friday delayed its comment on a recent report that three technologies being considered to destroy chemical weapons in Kentucky are safe alternatives to incineration.

The National Research Council report, released Thursday, could have "far-reaching effects," said a spokesman for the chemical demilitarization program, noting that a coordinated response from the Army and Department of Defense will be forthcoming.

Critics of incineration, both in the Anniston area and nationwide, hailed the report as a scientific validation of a long-standing position: that chemical neutralization processes could replace incineration as a safe and effective means of destroying the weapons.

With the Army's silence on the report, it remains to be seen what practical effects it will have in Kentucky and at sites where incinerators are already built.

It's still up to the Pentagon to decide which one of four technological options - including
incineration - will be used in Kentucky. This decision is expected early next year.

Neither of Alabama's gubernatorial candidates, both of whom have been critical of the incineration program at the Anniston Army Depot, suggested that the report would change their minds on how the weapons at the Anniston Army Depot should be destroyed. Incinerator opponents here have demanded that the facility be retrofitted to handle a neutralization process.

"The incinerator is already built, and it would be pretty difficult to change paths at this point," said Dan Gans, chief of staff for Congressman Bob Riley, R-Ashland. "The incinerator has proven effective at other sites."

Aides for both Riley and Gov. Don Siegelman said the officials will monitor the development of the alternatives.

"Gov. Siegelman wants to look into alternative methods, if they are safe," said legal advisor Ted Hosp. "It may be that one of the options will be a combination approach, where some are destroyed through incineration and some through neutralization."

The NRC report did not compare any of the alternatives to incineration, nor did it make a
recommendation. It said all three alternative methods were capable of destroying the weapons, although further development is needed for the treatment of the waste that results from the processes.

"These technologies don't pose a safety risk to the surrounding communities," said Robert
Beaudet, chair of the committee that wrote the report, in a press release.

Two of the technologies use water or caustic solution to destroy the weapons. The third, which was deemed comparatively immature in the report, is an electrochemical method.

Though much smaller, the stockpile in Kentucky is similar to Anniston's in its diverse cache of weapons.

The three sites chosen for alternatives have marked differences from the Anniston Army Depot stockpile. Two of them, in Maryland and Indiana, are comprised of ton-containers of agent and no weapons. The third, in Pueblo, Colo., has weapons filled with mustard agent.

Incinerators are being built in Oregon and Arkansas. There is one in Utah and the prototype
incinerator, on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, is being retired after completing its mission.