Hermiston Herald
April 23, 2002

Opinion Piece:
Oregon doggedly refuses to consider alternative technologies

Frank Lockwood

In Oregon, chemical weapons incineration has been chosen, blessed and
canonized, while in other places it was criticized, and condemned. The waves
of change have recently shaken the hull of baseline technology here, but the
anchor holds in Eastern Oregon's desert sands.

Despite lawsuits by GASP and others to try to halt incineration, public
opinion here seems strongly in favor of incineration.

In 1982, the Army unilaterally selected incineration as the baseline
technology as the safest, fastest, most economical way to be rid of chemical
weapons, and the National Research Council and the Center for Disease
control added their blessings.

Encouraged by what critics now call "an Army sales staff for incineration,"
Hermiston leaders welcomed incineration, and a plan was locked in place. By
contrast, according to Chemical Weapons Working Group's Craig Williams, "The
Army was all but run out of town in Kentucky," over the same issue.

Hermiston leaders largely ignored subsequent changes in technology, but they
were forced to reconsider that when Dr. Mario Fiori came to town in late
March.

Even today, it may surprise some people that incineration is not the only
process "approved" by the National Research Council. At least four new
technologies have been developed, and the term, "alternative technologies,"
is used to refer to them. They are:

· Cyrofracture. General Atomics, uses "Cyrofracture," which involves cooling
weapons in liquid nitrogen and fracturing munitions to access agent, which
is then neutralized.
· Eco Logic. Foster Wheeler/Eco Logic, uses water to neutralize mustard and
"caustics" to neutralize other agents.
·Parsons-Honeywell. Parsons-Honeywell uses caustics to neutralize mustard.
· SILVER IITM. The SILVER IITM proposed by AEA Technology and Ch2mHill, uses
a set of patented processes to oxidize and destroy the agents.

According to Chemical Weapons Working Group, all four technologies have been
demonstrated and deemed viable by the Department of Defense and the National
Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences for the treatment of
all chemical warfare agents. Three have been deemed viable for all
associated explosives and munitions parts stored at any of the U.S. chemical
stockpiles, while the fourth applies to mustard agents.

Until very recently, community leaders here have said they want no part of
any of those. Now that alternatives are being considered nationwide, those
leaders say they are fearful the newer technologies could complicate weapons
destruction here and create delays. They are skeptical that the technology
will work, and they wonder what will be done with potentially large amounts
of bi-products, mostly water.

But there have been problems with incineration, too. Among them, in January
1992, an M55 rocket detonated in the Johnston Atoll (JACADS) incinerator
furnace, punching a hole in the furnace. The same year, an Office of
Technological Assessment (OTA) report was issued, which said there was a
need for alternative technologies, and Kentucky passed a state law imposing
stricter incineration permitting requirements. There were reported
accidental releases of agent into the environment.

While incineration was said to be proven technology, thousands of permit
modifications were found necessary. Much of the following historical data
was taken from a CWWG web page:

• In March, 1994, live agent released out of JACADS smokestack at 18 times
  the acceptable Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits; the island-wide
  alert was one of some 16 live agent releases that have been documented at
  Army incinerators.
  
• In August, 1994, Steve Jones, chief of safety at Utah's Tooele Chemical
  Agent Disposal Facility (TOCDF) was fired, allegedly for refusing to ignore
  over 3,000 safety violations at the plant. Jones said plant was unsafe and
  should be shut down immediately. He later recanted.
  
• In 1995, at JACADS, a 700-pound bomb released its contents (GB) on the
  floor after being loaded improperly onto conveyer, despite supervisors being
  present to ensure correct loading and control room cameras monitoring
  procedure.
  
• Also in 1995, at the CWWG called attention to 600-percent cost overruns,
  delays, technical failures and the existence of safer, more cost-effective
  approaches.

In September 1999, Dr. Ted Prociv, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army,
called by critics a "die-hard incineration proponent and a major stumbling
block in the implementation of advanced technologies," was accused of hiding
funds and announced he would resign his post to work in the private sector.
In April 2001, a National Research Council (NRC) report found new
technologies were better for disposal of "non-stockpile" Chemical Weapons
wastes. Compared to incineration, the method posed lower risk to workers
and communities, and featured simplicity of operation.

Other Folks, Different Strokes

In several states, the push for alternatives has gained momentum, and the
"heretics," those promoting alternative technologies, have taken the field,
with communities opting for new technologies or fighting for "higher safety
standards."

• Maryland and Indiana: Neutralization technology was chosen for Indiana and
  Maryland bulk sites. CWWG and the Indiana and Maryland Citizens Advisory
  Commissions endorsed this alternative approach in favor of incineration
  which had been planned.
• Alabama: The governor of Alabama filed a suit to block the startup of
  incineration of chemical weapons in his state, claiming the federal
  government had failed to provide the maximum protection necessary.
  Oregon's Gov. Kitzhaber, on the other hand, said he would not "blackmail"
  the Army to get more funding.
• Colorado: The Army recently announced mustard agent munitions stored at
  Pueblo will be destroyed using a water-based neutralization process, rather
  than incineration. The Sierra Club reported the decision came after a
  "14-year battle" resisting incineration.
• Kentucky: At the April 25, 2001, Senate Defense Appropriations Hearing,
  Director Craig Williams of Chemical Weapons Working Group out of Kentucky
  challenged the Army's Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization (PMCD)
  when the Army testified that incineration of chemical weapons could be
  completed by 2007 at a cost of $15.4 billion. Williams showed that the
  incineration program will extend more than seven years beyond the 2007 date
  and cost $24 billion. The Army denied Williams' report, but a
  Congressional Research Service (CRS) review later substantiated Williams'
  testimony. Later, the Army came out with new schedules which looked more
  like those Williams had predicted, and the cost matched Williams'
  predictions as well.
• Nationwide: In December 2001, there was a "major shake-up" of the chemical
  weapons disposal program, when responsibility for the Chemical
  Demilitarization Program (CDP) was taken out of the Army's Acquisitions
  Office and moved to the Army's Environmental Office. This shift had placed
  oversight of the CDP in the hands of Mario Fiori, Assistant Secretary of the
  Army for Installations and Environment.

Oregon Stays the Course

The above is in contrast to Oregon, where community leaders are openly
skeptical of alternatives, and eager to start up the incinerator, which has
already been built. The governor has said he will not sign up for anything
the community and emergency program leaders are not comfortable with, and
they have shown little enthusiasm for "changing horses in midstream," as
Kitzhaber put it in his visit to Hermiston in late March.

Leaders cited concerns about how new technology might affect the
environment, budgets, safety and health, and - the incineration schedule.

Frank Lockwood covers the Umatilla Chemical Depot for The Hermiston
Herald. He may be reached at 567-6457 or by e-mail at
flockwood@hermistonherald.com..