Pine Bluff Commercial
March 28, 2003

Alternatives to incineration are safer

By Craig Williams
GUEST COLUMNIST

I write in the interest of clarifying certain facts surrounding the chemical weapons disposal issue in Pine Bluff recently written about in The Commercial.

In the story "Army: Incineration best option for stock at Rine Bluff Arsenal" (Cornmercial, 13 March, 2003), Army spokesperson, Greg Mahall, stated that the neutralization technology, "works best with bulk agents, which are" stored in Maryland (mustard) and Indiana (VX)." Mahall went on to say, "But, in Oregon, Alabama, Arkansas and Utah chemicals are contained mostly in individual weapons, making the incineration method more effective."

Well, the fact is that the Pine Bluff Arsenal stockpile houses 3,849.71 tons of chemical warfare agents. Of this, 3,124.55 tons are bulk agent (mustard to be specific). That means 81 percent of the entire stockpile at PBA is identical to what's stored in Maryland (bulk mustard). The Maryland stockpile will not be burned, reducing the chances of agent releases and eliminating the toxic emissions associated with incineration.

The bottom line here is that Mahall either didn't know the basic facts associated with the PBA stockpile, or chose to have your readers believe incineration was the only option for PBA. Either way, it's simply not accurat. I'll leave it to the reader to decide Mr. Mahall's motives.

In another story, "Portable Incineration Part of Arsenal Plan" (Commercial, 14 March 2003) the focus was the mobile treatment systems for non-stockpile weapons treatment at PBA. Both the Rapid Response Systm and the Explosive Destrudion System are clearly explained in the story as non-incineration, neutralization technologies, designed to handle these types of munitions. The author of the piece, Mr. Whitsett, got it right, but the headline was as far off the mark as could possibly be. I can only hope the your readers took the time to read the article and noticed the important difference.

The Chemical Weapons Working Groups' "Non-Stockpile Chemical Weapons Citizen's Coalition" applauds the Army's development of these safer approaches for dealing with non-stockpile weapons. Workers, the community and the environment are all better served through the use of these neutralization-based technologies.

It is our opinion that these benefits should also be realized for the stockpile material stored there, as is being done at four of the eight stockpile sites across the country (Maryland, Indiana, Colorado and Kentucky).

At the very least, community folks should know what they have stored in their neighborhood. They also deserve to know these safer options are being used for nonstockpile disposal and are available to them for stockpile disposal as well.

In order to have this happen however, the Army spokespeople need to be honest and accurate with their information, something long overdue. The headline writers might also wish to read the content of the articles before making up the headlines.

For more information on safe technologies and recent decisions to abandon incineration please visit our web site at cwwg.org

(Craig Williams is director of the ChemicalWeapons Working Group, which is based in Berea, Kentucky.)