Anniston Star, November 05, 2002

Chemical weapons program could see changes; national leadership role is up for grabs

By Jason Landers
Star Staff Writer
11-05-2002

It appears the Army is playing musical chairs with the nation's chemical weapons destruction program. Washington insiders can only speculate who will grab the program's leadership seat. The rumor mill is grinding out names such as Maj. Gen. Claude Bolton Jr. and Undersecretary of Defense Pete Aldridge as likely candidates for replacing Mario Fiori in the job.

A presidential appointee, Fiori is assistant secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment. He became the reins-man of the chemical demilitarization program in December, 2002, after the Army shifted oversight to his department from the Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Department.

Circling winds of change may blow the program back under the control of the department of acquisitions, which Bolton heads. The Oregon Bureau of the Tri-City Herald quoted a source on Saturday as saying the change was a done deal.

"None of that, I can confirm at this point," said an Army spokesman in the Pentagon. He said there is no talk of replacing Fiori as head of Installations and Environment, but would not confirm if the Army plans to hand the reins of the chemical demilitarization program back to the department of acquisitions.

Fiori landed oversight duties during a turbulent time in the program. Cost and time overruns were grabbing headlines and the ire of lawmakers.

Sens. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscalloosa, and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., lambasted the program's shortcomings and demanded change. The Army answered by giving the program to Fiori, who was a former submarine commander, government nuclear safety expert and manager of the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site.

Fiori was billed as the man who could smooth over the rough spots, but under his watch more potholes have surfaced. The latest was a public-relations blunder, known as "E-mailgate."

It involved a series of e-mails that leaked to the press. The e-mails detailed how the Army planned a public relations attack on local officials who questioned the community's preparedness for chemical weapons incident. Fiori allegedly orchestrated the plan. His assistant who wrote the e-mails has since been reassigned.

Talk of restructuring the chemical demilitarization program began again last month, immediately following newspaper reports of the scandal. It was first mentioned in a meeting between high level Army officials and members of Alabama's congressional delegation.

Following that meeting with Under Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee, members of Alabama's congressional delegation said Brownlee was reviewing the current organization and considering leadership changes.

If a change is made, it would be the third time in three years that the Army has shuffled oversight of the program tasked with destroying the nation's aging chemical weapons stockpile.

"We have not officially heard anything yet," said Andrea Andrews, spokeswoman for Shelby.

"Under Secretary Brownlee told Shelby he would personally brief him when a decision was made," Andrews said, hinting in the statement that a leadership change is coming. She added Brownlee has not briefed the senator on a switch yet.

Critics of the program say problems will persist as long as the program's leadership remains entrenched in the past, defending decades-old policy decisions.

"PMCD (Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization) couldn't sell ice cream at a state fair," said Craig Williams, director of the Ky.-based Chemical Weapons Working Group. The group opposes incineration as a means of destroying the chemical weapons.

Williams said the program is "hell-bent" on technology that is not only decades behind schedule, but also hopelessly over budget. He advocates neutralization, a form of chemical weapons destruction that will be used in Colorado, Indiana, Maryland and perhaps Kentucky.

From Williams' viewpoint, incidents like "E-mailgate" show the program places image above public safety ­ a charge the Army has vehemently denied. He claims, "The program is fraught with a defense posture that prohibits it from achieving its objective in an open matter."