Nerve gas incineration back on Congressional
front burner in light of base closure decision
By Glynn WilsonTUSCALOOSA, Ala. August, 1995 (UPI) — Problems with incinerating the U.S. Army's chemical weapons stockpiles are back on the front burner in congress after the defense base closure commission's vote late last week to shut the doors on Fort McClellan at Anniston, Alabama.
Representatives from the eight states targeted for chemical agent incinerators are expected to express their concerns when the Military Procurement Subcommittee of the House National Security Committee meets Thursday, July 13, at 9:30 a.m.
The commission's 8-0 vote to transfer the chemical weapons and military police training schools to Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. shocked Alabama's congressional delegation and the staunchly patriotic and pro-military population of the area.
A feeling of trust toward the Army and its incineration program went up in smoke overnight, according to Jim Harmon, president of Families Concerned About Nerve Gas Incineration. He said the phone calls and donations started pouring in this week from people who previously supported the Army's position.
"The Army has proven you can't trust it, and the people are turning around," Harmon said.
Rep. Glen Browder, D-Ala., expressed similar sentiment, although his press office insisted that he has not and will not take a position for or against the burning of nerve gas in the population center of Anniston. His chief concern involves the state hazardous waste, air pollution and water pollution permits that will be necessary. In the Army's permit applications, it pledges complete support in case of accident and the need for evacuation from a fully functional Fort MeClellan.
Presumably the permit applications, which were expected to meet fairly easy approval by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management based on its pro-industry record and reputation as a "one-stop permitting agency," will now have to be reworked. Without the military police and medical personnel and facilities now located at the base, the Army's ability to protect the health and safety of Calhoun County's 70,000 citizens is now in serious doubt.
The first of eight planned chemical weapons incinerators at Tooele, Utah is under construction and is expected to "go hot" in September. Little public opposition arose over the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, located miles from any major population center. Public officials from Utah have in fact asked the Army to consider transporting all its incineration needs to the economically depressed area, yet the Army has gagged any discussion of that as an option.
The base at Tooele contains about 42 percent of the Army's 30,000-ton chemical weapons stockpile. Another 7 percent is stored in metal drums at Fort McClellan.
Further long-term storage is not seen as a viable option by the Department of Defense due to the threat of leakage and possible explosions. Transportation of the chemicals, including nerve gas, is prohibited by current law, although there is an outside chance that congress may be faced with having to consider a change in the law, if the Army permits are denied by the state.
Questions of alternative technologies for long-term storage or disposal are expected to be addressed at the congressional hearing, as well as the cost of the program, which is now considered to be a procurement just like any weapons system. This is a recent major change in the public policy status of the incinerator program, and the primary reason the General Accounting Office will be represented on one of the panels at the hearing. Cost and risk must be considered heavily in determining the disposal method.
To date the DOD has maintained that the most cost effective method is on-site incineration. Those opposed to incineration tend to favor long-term storage or alternative technologies for disposal, such as neutralization, which also has the benefit of bringing high-tech jobs into communities. It is said that any private can throw the switch on an incinerator, while it takes teams of chemists and engineers to separate hazardous chemicals and treat them with neutralizing agents, rendering them harmless. It is also estimated to cost more in the short-run, discounting long-term health care costs.
Unfortunately for the people of Anniston, once the chemicals are combined for use in projectiles or missles, it is not easy to separate and neutralize them. The Anniston stockpiles are all assembled for offensive or defensive purposes, although U.S. policy since the Bush administration has been no first use or even retaliatory use of chemical weapons. The DOD's position is that they should be burned on-site at 26,000 degrees on the fastest track possible.
The problem with incineration in a population center, or anywhere near public water supplies, is that burning chemical agents does not destroy them 100 percent. Even when an incinerator is in perfect working order — no guarantee considering recent tests in the Pacific Ocean — the smoke plume from a chemical agent incinerator still contains hazardous chemicals. This includes a combination of chemical compounds commonly refered to as dioxin, a probable human carcinogen and a cause of birth defects and learning disabilities in children, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's latest report on the subject.
Incineration also leaves a small percentage of the waste as a highly toxic ash, which must be disposed of in a double-lined hazarous waste landfill such as the world's largest of its kind at Emelle, Ala.
Congressional sources say the subcommittee, the GAO and the DOD will take a hard look at the incineration problem at Anniston, in light of its estimated cost of betwen $600 million and $1 billion, at a time when congress and the president seem in the mood to get serious about cutting the federal budget.
The total cost to the taxpayers of destroying all the Army's chemical stockpiles, not counting cleanup of the polluted sites, is estimated at $12 billion, roughly the cost of a dozen B1 stealth bombers.
An Army spokeswoman said it is true that its state pollution permits will have to be modified since it appears Fort McClellan will now be closed. She said the Army will have to provide a contingency plan to protect the health and safety of Anniston's citizens in case of an accidental chemical release or explosion.
Unless the law is changed to allow for neutralization and transportation of the chemical weapons stockpiles, and the deadline is pushed back from the year 2004, the Army and DOD position will remain that the most cost-effective and timely disposal method is on-site incineration.
She said the Johnston Atoll incinerator in the Pacific has been working "beautifully" in recent months, is burning in compliance with current EPA specifications and regulations, and with no mandatory shut-downs. The September deadline for the Tooele site is still contingent on completion of the permitting process, and "may have to be moved back."
Provided the Tooele and Alabama incinerators are permitted, built and work properly, the Army's plan calls for more incinerators in Oregon and Arkansas next, then Colorado, Kentucky, Indiana and Maryland.
(At the time of this writing, Glynn Wilson was a stringer for UPI's Washington Bureau, Science and Technology Desk, and a Master's student at the University of Alabama).
Copyright 1995 Glynn R. Wilson. All rights reserved.
