Hermiston Herald
April 9, 2002

Opinion Piece: Alternative technologies hit sour notes for some

Gov. Kitzhaber was right to hold off on introducing controversial
technologies to the Oregon's chemical demilitarization project just yet. The
time has come, however, to consider adding wise options.

For years, county commissioners and mayors have sung the theme song: "The
Army knows what it is doing." But now the Army has introduced a new score,
with lines about alternatives to incineration, and the same leaders are
reacting as if they heard sour notes.

Commissioners and mayors have long opposed neutralization and other
alternatives. "The Army knows what it is doing. Just leave the Army alone,
and they will get rid of the stuff," they said.

Not, however, since Mario Fiori, Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations and Environment, visited Hermiston just days ago.

Before then, the "unbelievers" were the folks with Chemical Weapons Working
Group. Who doubts the Army now? The commissioners and mayors.

What is the problem with neutralization? It's not the technology. Not the
cost. Not the time factor. Not the safety. Not the impact to the
environment. Not even the water used. The only real problem is politics.

Fiori, the new head of the country's chemical demilitarization program, says
alternatives (i.e. neutralization) do work, says they are safe, says the
technology is straightforward, says it can pare years off the schedule, and
says costs may be saved. The Army and, until now, community leaders, have
always said the biggest risk is storage, Fiori's recommendations are
supposed to make us "five years safer."

Our leaders do not want us to know they were duped with anti-neutralization
propaganda. For years, commissioners were holding the shovels, scooping the
"good" information our way, sweeping the "bad" information away as fast as
they could.

Fiori understands that. No wonder, during his recent visit, he said that if
the community does not want his plan, that's okay. The Army will not do it.
Community support is the key to anything government does, and community
support here seems to be mostly in favor of incineration.

Water not the Issue

Concerns about the amount of water required for alternative processing may
be as unfounded as all the former objections we heard to alternatives.
According to Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG), incineration at the
Umatilla site will use a water input of 17,366 pounds per day.

Here are the "water input facts" for proposed non-incineration technologies:
· General Atomics technologies: 12,337 pounds per day.
· Parsons/Honeywell: 15,155 pounds per day.
· AEA technology: zero pounds per day (uses Silver II Electromechanical
technology).
· Foster Wheeler/Eco Logic: 12, 345 pounds per day.

In addition, CWWG claims alternative technologies have the capability to
recycle significant amounts of the daily water "input" amounts. Recycled
amounts range from 50 percent to 95 percent they say, further reducing the
total water consumption throughout the operational period. And because of
the chemical process AEA uses, it would actually produce 2,944 pounds of
water per day.

Fear of Change

Fears, founded or unfounded, distrust of change, and unpredictable
consequences could create problems for Oregon, and cause unwanted
controversy and embarrassment for politicians. Many people would prefer a
known danger to an unknown one.

A "St. Louis Post-Dispatch" Article of March 29, 2002 illustrates how
problems would arise.

The Army may neutralize VX in Newport, Indiana. Problem is, they want to
ship the resulting chemical waste to Illiniois for further treatment - via
incineration.

An East St. Louis pastor, the Reverend Buck Jones, couldn't have that. He
led a small group of protesters, and they gathered outside the Onyz
Environmental Services incinerator which had been selected to further treat
the neutralized nerve gas.

Onyx regularly treats pesticides at the plant, but people are suspicious
because of the stigma attached to nerve gas. The waste product is less toxic
than insecticides regularly burned at Onyx, yet Jones promises a long
struggle to keep the Army from incinerating neutralized nerve gas.

The Army would try to contract out the storage and or treatment of
neutralization waste from Hermiston, if things ever got that far. "We will
find a company to do it," Fiori said.

Perhaps neither our leaders nor their critics are ready for fast, safe
destruction of chemical weapons. Incineration opponents fear even very small
amounts of air contaminantion.

They may be right. An asthma attack to even one child is one too many. We
should also limit the number of trips we take with the old fashioned,
gas-burning cars. And, for goodness sake, throw away that pack of
cigarettes. Will we do those things? No.

On the other hand, we should all give serious consideration to the claims
Fiori is making. Five years is five years. Fiori is suggesting a whole range
of changes, some of which might make the community safe, others of which
might not.

If the Army wants to burn fully loaded M-55 rockets, including chemical
agent, explosives, propellant, metal parts and dunnage, in a single furnace
not designed for this purpose, this might not be so good.

Opponents say it is dangerous and unproven and has been strongly advised
against by the National Research Council (NRC).

Critics say the Army proposes to force 30-34 undrained rockets per hour
through their incinerators in Alabama, Arkansas and Oregon and perhaps in
Kentucky, whereas Utah allowed only 1.5 rockets per hour after the Army did
not demonstrate a higher capability.

In any case, the Army should not ignore NRC advice and jeopardize the health
and safety of citizens by attempting to force incinerators to do what they
are not designed to do, if that is what is about to happen.

Perhaps the incinerators can be modified to do the above task, but with each
modification to the incinerator, the Army's argument, that the incineration
to be used here is a proven and tried technology, loses credibility.
Having said that, the key to a successful campaign may be to intelligently
add options for the Army, rather than reduce them. But before making
changes, the Army should settle issues about dealing with the resulting
waste.

As a parting shot: Perhaps the military should consider using this
opportunity to forge a compromise agreement with key environmental groups, much
as Threemile Canyon Farms did over a ground squirrel issue.