A recent act by Pentagon officials could change public communication practices and funding regarding weapon destruction at the Blue Grass Army Depot, according to Craig Williams, director of the Berea-based Chemical Weapons Working Group.

Pentagon official Patrick Wakefield recently prepared a resolution requesting that the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program, created by Congress in 1997, be put under the authority of the Army rather than the Department of Defense.

"This jeopardizes ACWA's independence," Williams said. "We have a very good outreach office that's very open and serves the best interest of the community. ECW (Office for the Elimination of Chemical Weapons for the Army) folks don't do things that way. It's a different mindset."

ACWA is a program of the U.S. Department of Defense and was created to test and demonstrate alternate ways to destroy chemical weapons. The program was originally designated as being independent from the Army in order to ensure objectivity in its mission.

"The Army program (previously) in charge of disposal, then called the Office of the Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization (PMCD), had been resistant to anything but incineration," Williams said. "So in order to get an impartial look at alternatives, a separate chain of command was established for ACWA, reporting directly to the undersecretary of defense for acquisition."

Williams is not bothered that the ACWA program may be put into the hands of the Army, he just wants to make sure they are the hands of the proper officials therein, he said.

"We have a solution to the issue at hand, and that is to put (ACWA) in the Army," he said. "We need to streamline it and get it all under one roof, but don't put it in the office that has historically fought ACWA tooth and nail. Their idea of public involvement is to put out a monthly press release telling you how great it is. We're opposed to that."

U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler, D-6th District, agrees that streamlining the program is not a bad idea; however, the Army should be cautious as to what entity will be overseeing the program.

"While we understand there may be benefits to moving the program, we are concerned about how this may impact the future of the two facilities (in Kentucky and Colorado)," Chandler and Rep. John T. Salazar, D-Colorado, wrote in a letter to Kenneth Krieg, undersecretary of defense dated May 4.

Krieg responded in a letter dated June 24 that read: "The proposed change does not impact existing or future appropriations processes, the office of the Secretary of Defense has and will retain budgetary authority over the chemical demilitarization program and will retain the program oversight responsibility."

If members of the ECW tamper with the budget, this has the potential to affect the schedule of weapon destruction, Williams said.

"My two main concerns are: Will ACWA get knocked out of money if this happens? And what will happen to public participation? They need to have ACWA report directly to the (Army's) chemical materials agency and not through the ECW."

The foiled relationship between the two entities was sparked in 1997 when ACWA was formed. The responsibilities of two chemical stockpile sites in Kentucky and Colorado were taken from the ECW and given to ACWA.

"Their hostility toward ACWA is well known," Williams said. "They don't like the way we operate and their approach is not citizen-involved. If it goes under the ECW, all of the benefits we've seen come from the ACWA program will be jeopardized. They will be making decisions as to who gets funding and ACWA is going to get the short end of the stick."

Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives will have to agree on the language of the resolution before it can be adopted.

Ronica Brandenburg can be reached at rbrandenburg@ richmondregister.com or 623-1669, Ext. 234.