Berea Citizen
May 16, 2002

Meeting reveals most against incineration

Kathy Wyatt
Citizen Writer

DOWNTOWN - On Mondav night concerned citizens gathered at a community meeting at Union Church to discuss how to dispose of chemical weapons held at the Bluegrass Army Depot.

After all the speakers presented, it was the citizens turn to let their voice be heard. In the form of red stickers on three sheets of paper titled Incineration,
Electrochemical and Neutralization, the citizens said no to incineration, yes
to neutralization and were undecided on electrochemical processes in drastic
numbers. For incineration, eight people supported it, one person was undecided
and 91 people opposed, which added up to 100, the largest number of people voting on
one sheet. For the neutralization, 83 people supported it, 11 questioned it and one per-
son opposed it. For electrochemical destruction of chemicals, 42 people supported it, 47 people were undecided and zero people were in opposition.

Citizens decided how to vote by listening to three speakers, each representing on e of the disposal methods. Doug Hindman, co-chairman of the Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC), gave an introduction at the meeting and spoke briefly on the citizens''' involvement in the disposal decision. Re said the goal of the CAC is to give objective information to the public from the government and to create a dialogue between the two to help people understand.

The CAC plans to present to the Pentagon the viewpoints of Kentucky residents. Hindman briefly explained each process and said they have similar 20-acre plant construction, similar disassembly pro...[there is a typographical gap in the story here] gel agent in the chemical weapons.

Hindman explained incineration to involve separating materials and putting them into one of three incinerators. The gas output comes out of smokestacks and goes through scrubbers to clean it. The scrubbers go to a designated landfill. Neutralization has agent flushed in neutralant, water and sodium hydroxide. It produces a schedule two compound that is not permitted in a landfill because it could possibly be recombined into agent. Super Critical Water Oxidation (SCWO) process has neutralized material mixed with water at high temperature, which destroys the material. The electrochemical oxidation process has agent flushed to remove gel agent, then performs silver II process involving an electrical cell, nitric acid and silver. The output is liquid that goes to a landfill and solids that are made into scrap and sold.

Tim Thomas, a representative of Program Manager for AN Demilitarization (PMCD), spoke on incineration. The timeline for all technologies is about 10 years. Thomas said that for safety, the smokestacks are monitored for agents. For worker protection, Thomas said the suits do an excellent job.

"We have had no agent related fatalities, which shows positives of the protection," he said.

The maturity of the process was illustrated in a handout which reported the number of munitions that have been destroyed at other sites including 102,243 GB and VX rockets and over one million GB 8-inch projectiles. Thomas reported about other sites and said the stockpile in Utah has been destroyed and they have a plant under construction in Oregon. In Alabama, trial runs are complete.

"I'm confident and comfortable with the incineration process," Thomas said.

Darren Dalton, representative for Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA), presented on neutralization. The destruction process happens at low temperature and low pressure for worker safety. The process is automated so workers can perform tasks away from any risks. Another safety feature is the testing of the liquid after neutralization to make sure the material is agent free before continuing the process. For public safety, the neutralization happens in a batch mode, not a continuous mode, so it is contained and confined to the area. Gas output is scrubbed, run through catalytic converters and treated with carbon, and liquids are tested and released as processed water, while minerals are recycled. The maturity of this operation is evident as the Army has done extensive large scale testing. The testing shows an accepted level of maturity.

Speaking on behalf of the electrochemical oxidation process was ACWA representative Jim Richmond. On the topic of safety, he said this process is performed at a low temperature and ambient pressure and it is a liquid based operation.

"We feel it gives the control we desire in destroying chemical agent," Richmond said

Electrochemical process, like neutralization, is tested by the batch and if the batch fails it is run through the process again. For public safety the gases are at low volumes and the equipment has good containment. The process treats batches as quickly as possible, so they
are not accumulated and stored in large amounts, Richmond said though electrochemical process has not been used on any chemical weapons, it has been used in processing nuclear materials, which have similar regulations.

Dr. Clifford Kerby, Berea mayor, spoke about incineration. "[The chemical stockpile] is a festering wound in a growing county," he said.

He said that incineration has been proven and that it works. Kerby said the citizens should not have tunnel vision and only look for alternatives. He concluded that he is open to ail options.

"I am comfortable with incineration," Kerby said. "I will accept any others."

Representative of the Kentucky Environmental Foundation, Elizabeth Crowe, spoke in favor of the alternatives to incineration. She said in areas where incineration has been okayed, citizens have filed lawsuits, whistleblowers have addressed safety issues and people being demoted and workers have had second thoughts at other sites. She said citizens have good common sense and will make the right decision.

Afterward, attendants expressed their opinion about the chemical disposal. Craig Williams of the Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG) said I the meeting was well structured and went well.

"It was nearly a mission impossible to explain in detail the technical aspects, but it was a well done overview," he said.

He said he was disappointed about the misinformation by the incineration representatives.

Evangeline Goss, a member of Common Ground, could give five reasons she wanted neutralization. She liked that it was monitored continuously, it can be stopped at any point, it leaves a residue of salt and water, and afterward the building will be dismantled and taken out of the community.

Another supporter of the alternatives was John Capillo. He said the alternatives are much safer and are able to be tested for remaining agent.

"I am sure I do not want an incinerator in Madison County," he said.