for more information:
Elizabeth Crowe (859) 986-0868
for immediate release: Friday, April 13, 2001
A report by a National Research Council committee finds there are technologies for disposal of "non-stockpile" chemical weapons wastes that pose low risk to workers and communities, compared to incineration. Community watchdog groups say the report strengthens their call on the Army to halt the use of incinerators.
Non-stockpile chemical weapons are a category of warfare materials leftover from chemical weapons production, testing and training. Non-stockpile containers, bombs, rockets and glass vial testing kits are known or suspected to exist at more than 200 sites in 38 states. Though the Army has already developed non-incineration technologies for treatment of these materials, the residual wastes from the treatment processes have been shipped to commercial hazardous waste incinerators.
Citing numerous health hazards and worker safety issues associated with incineration, the Non-Stockpile Chemical Weapons Citizens Coalition (Coalition), a grassroots coalition of citizens living near non-stockpile sites, advocates use of cleaner non-incineration technologies for waste disposal. Incinerators are known to release toxic chemicals into the air; chemicals which are linked to cancer, reproductive disorders and many other serious health problems.
Coalition Coordinator Elizabeth Crowe said, "When it comes to the health of our communities, incineration is unacceptable. With safer, cleaner technologies available, incineration is unnecessary. There is simply no reason for the Army to burn its wastes."
Coalition member Janet Daniels from Anchorage, Alaska said, "We know that safer technologies exist. The Army should drop use of military and commercial incinerators before the non-stockpile disposal program goes any farther." Daniels noted that non-stockpile items stored at Fort Richardson in Alaska may be slated for disposal in the next year or two. "Even if the non-stockpile treatment technology here is safe, we don't want to have the residual wastes sent to another community for incineration."
The NRC committee's report, "Disposal of Neutralent Wastes," examined eight non-incineration disposal processes and ranked them by criteria such as safety, technical effectiveness and pollution prevention. The committee found that "the benefits of [some non-incineration] technologies over incineration include low worker risk, public acceptance, low risk to the surrounding community, and simplicity of operation."
The committee also recommended that the Army "expand its public involvement program regarding disposal of non-stockpile materials," and that "[e]nough time should be scheduled and enough resources allocated to ensure that the decision-making process is open...."
Coalition member Rosemary Holt of Women Concerned/Utahns United said "The NRC committee's recommendations for greater public involvement is good. Now its up to the Army and local officials to respond to these recommendations by working cooperatively with communities and use "low risk" technologies for non-stockpile wastes."
 CWWG Home Page |
Contact us: |