for more information contact:
Brenda Lindell: (256) 236-1496
Elizabeth Crowe: (859) 986-0868
for immediate release, Tuesday, December 17, 2002
At a press conference in Anniston today, local citizens and scientists publicly addressed shortcomings in a recent report by the National Research Council (NRC), which supported incineration of chemical weapons in Anniston and other chemical weapons sites. The group demanded that elected officials hold the Army to providing "maximum protection" as directed by Congress, by immediately deploying safer neutralization-based technologies for disposal of chemical weapons. The press conference was held just before a meeting of the Alabama Citizens Advisory Commission, at which NRC Committee Chair William Kolb was scheduled to discuss the report.
Brenda Lindell, of the group Families Concerned About Nerve Gas Incineration said, "The NRC has released a flawed report about a flawed and dangerous technology. We in Anniston are going to pay the price for their refusal to look objectively at the facts and their callous recommendation that incineration should continue here. The four most recent disposal technology recommendations by the Department of Defense have been for neutralization. Yet Anniston is stuck with an incinerator that will emit the very same poisons into our air and water that have already afflicted our community for decades. Whatever happened to maximum protection?"
Lindell noted that the NRC report did not evaluate some of the most serious chemical events such as a March 30, 1998 incident in which a chemical plume was emitted from the Utah incinerator. This is the very event which prompted Representive Bob Riley to call for the NRC investigation. Although the NRC was presented with 1000s of pages of documents on the incident, it was completely ignored in their report. Calling the March 30, 1998 event a dramatic example of the flawed incineration process, Lindell said, "The NRC has no right to recommend incineration for our community because they didn't look at the right events and didn't ask the right questions."
Dr. Ed Passerini, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Alabama, said a major weakness in the NRC Committee's incineration recommendation is the Committee's assumption that the Army is capable of establishing a "safety culture" at its incinerator facilities. Passerini, who has a background in Nuclear Physics and is familiar with safety procedures at nuclear facilities, said "If that was true, many of the incidents reviewed by the NRC would never have occurred in the first place." He added, "The best way to prevent chemical agent events is to deploy the safest possible technology."
David Christian, of Serving Alabama's Future Environment, agreed. "For years, NRC Committees, the GAO, Congressional Committees and Army Inspector Generals have made similar recommendations on how the Army needs to improve, yet those changes never come." Christian asked, "Where does the NRC get its confidence in either the technology or the Army's ability to operate an incinerator safely, based on such a record?"
"Science shouldn't take place in a vacuum," said Dr. Kelly Gregg, an expert in PCB contamination in Anniston. "This community is already drenched with PCBs, mercury and other toxic compounds. To recommend a technology that will emit additional contaminants into this community is simply irresponsible."
Last month, the Department of Defense recommended neutralization
and supercritical water oxidation as its preferred technology
for assembled chemical weapons in Kentucky, a step which drew
praise and support from the local community and state and federal
officials. The Army is moving ahead with neutralization technologies
in Indiana, Maryland and Colorado as well. Meanwhile, the Pacific
incinerator continues with years' worth of incinerating agent-contaminated
waste; the Utah incinerator remains shut down after workers were
exposed to nerve agent GB in July 2002; and the Oregon weapons
incinerator twice failed heavy metals trial burns.
 CWWG Home Page |
Contact us: |