Anniston Star
December 6, 2002

NRC stands behind incineration report: Council refutes accusation its members are on Army's payroll

By Jason Landers
Star Staff Writer

The phone rang early Wednesday morning, the day the article was published, the day after the National Research Council's report on incineration was released.

On the other end of the line, a polite public relations officer asked if we wanted to speak with the man in charge of the committee whose report stirred reactions that ranged from praise to accusations of bias.

That report, conducted by an arm of the National Academies of Sciences, concluded that incineration of chemical weapons was safe and should begin as soon as possible in Anniston, Arkansas and Oregon, where tons of aging munitions are stored.

Continued storage far outweighed any risk posed by incineration, the report that reviewed some of the worst mishaps in the history of the Army's chemical demilitarization program said.

It wasn't the message Craig Williams, director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group and a vocal critic of incineration, wanted to hear. He called the findings whitewash and accused its authors of bias.

Dr. Charles Kolb, chair of the National Research Council committee that wrote the 134-page study, took exception to the remarks.

"None of us have a vested interest in this (incineration of chemical weapons). We all have jobs or are retired," said Kolb, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology grad with masters and doctorate degrees in physics from Princeton. He also is president and chief executive officer of Aerodyne Research Inc..

"Because our conclusion didn't fit with some people's agenda, to have them turn around and call it a whitewash, it's an insult," Kolb continued.

What would a group of highly acclaimed scientists, chemical and environmental engineers, toxicologists and biologists have to gain by writing a bogus report that could ruin their reputation, he asked.

Plenty, if you ask Williams.

Weeks before the NRC's incineration report, Williams heaped praises a separate NRC report that concluded an alternative to incineration, known as neutralization, was safe and mature to destroy chemical weapons stored in his home-based state of Kentucky.

The Army funded both studies. Williams made comments to some media outlets that the report which dealt with incineration was tainted because of the Army funded it. He made no such inference of the Kentucky neutralization study.

In an interview with The Star, the incineration opponent qualified his previous statements on the subject of funding. "That fact standing on its own is not meant to be an indictment," he said.

The problem, he said, is when you couple that fact with the knowledge that several of the NRC members conducting the investigation on chemical events at incinerators have financial ties to the facilities.

"If that ain't as close as you can get to a conflict of interest, then I don't know what is," Williams insisted. Then he named the members in question: Dennis Bley, W. Leigh Short, and William Rhyne, a risk analysis expert who was on a team that reviewed the final document and suggested changes.

The Star checked out, with Williams help, their backgrounds, interviewed each of the men, and questioned the NRC directly about its policies governing conflicts.

The NRC takes its credibility seriously, said Bruce Braun, director of the Board on Army Science and Technology. He explained the process of ensuring that conflicts among committee members don't arise.

Members are picked based on expertise and eliminated from consideration in cases where conflicts are discovered.

The process Braun described has one built-in safeguard after the next to detect conflicts.

First, a group of nominees for a committee are selected that is approved by two higher-level bodies within the NRC. After approval, the president of the National Academies of Sciences personally signs off on all of the selected names. Then, 20 days before the committee first convenes, the list of names is listed on the NRC's Web site for public comment, along with each perspective members' biography. At any time during the life of a committee, a person can object to a committee member on grounds of a conflict, and the NRC investigates it.

There was never a single question of prejudice raised about the committee that wrote the NRC's chemical events report on incineration, Braun said.

And the review process to insure objectivity doesn't stop once the committee meets, Braun said. At the first meeting, members relate their expertise, any bias they might have and any possible conflict. If a member has bias, the NRC either appoints an additional committee member who will balance out that position with other views or rejects the person with bias from the committee, Braun said.

"In this case (with the committee that wrote the report saying incineration is safe), we had nobody coming in with a bias that we had to balance out," Braun said.

Reviewers, like Rhyne, are selected virtually the same way, he added. "That is where we get our credibility."

When asked about business associations of Bley, Short and Rhyne that appeared to raise red flags, Braun offered to have each man personally explain their situations.

Bley called first. An Internet search of the company he works for had turned up a $350,000 contract with the Army.

"We have a contract with the (neutralization) program to do a comparative operational risk assessment of the three technolo-gies that (the Army) is looking at for Blue Grass (Ky.)," Bley said.

One of the points that Williams of the Chemical Weapons Working Group stressed was that the committee was full of members with ties to the Army and incineration. He said more balance was needed and that he would choose members with backgrounds in alternative technologies.

The Blue Grass facility that Bley's firm is working with is expected to be an alternative technology, neutralization facility.

Short called next. An Internet search of the company he retired from in 1999 showed that it is owned by the company that has the contract to operate a chemical weapons incinerator in Tooele, Utah ­ one of two incinerators the committee studied in its report.

Short said that he draws no income from the company and has not done so since 1999. When asked if he had any prejudice in favor of incineration, he replied, "No I do not."

Rhyne, who was on the team that reviewed and suggested changes to the document, called last. An Internet search of the company where he is employed, Informatics Corporation, revealed several connections to chemical weapons incineration operations. Informatics Corporation's Web site lists Westinghouse Anniston, the company the Army has contracted with to run its incinerator here, on its customers list.

"I was aware that they (Informatics) had done in the past some project management support for Umatilla (the Army's incinerator in Oregon)," Rhyne said. "I can only assume that that is what they are doing in Anniston."

But there was more. Rhyne, who joined Informatics six months ago and who is semi-retired, is much more in tune with neutralization technology.

"I am on the (alternative technology) committee for the NRC," he said. It is the same committee that issued the report that Williams praises, the committee that said neutralization is a safe and mature technology for the chemical weapons stockpile in Kentucky.

"Because of my specialty, that made me a reviewer," Rhyne said.

Attempts to reach Williams for additional comments were unsuccessful.

"There are some folks out there who the report didn't need their prejudices," Kolb said speaking of Williams. "I guess they are unhappy about that."