Study Finds Chemical Weapons Incineration Is Safe
The incineration technology the United States plans to use at three
new sites to destroy chemical weapons can be safe and effective,
despite some safety concerns, according to a report released December
3, 2002, by the National
Research Council (NRC), a branch of the National Academies.
The United States is in the process of destroying its entire chemical
weapons arsenal in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC).
The NRC report was motivated by concerns in Congress that “chemical
events” involving chemical warfare agents at two sites that
have already begun destroying the weapons—one at the Johnston
Atoll in the Pacific Ocean and one near Tooele, Utah—might
indicate that future facilities using similar technology and management
systems would also experience such incidents. The NRC report considered
a chemical event to be any unintended release or potential release
of chemical agent associated with demilitarization activities.
The report’s authors concluded that, despite some previous
problems at the two sites, there is no evidence indicating that
future facilities cannot operate safely. A 13-member NRC committee
concluded that “safe chemical weapons disposal operations are
feasible at the new facilities scheduled to begin operating at Anniston,
Alabama; Umatilla, Oregon; and Pine Bluff, Arkansas, if their management
is diligent in setting and enforcing rigorous operational procedures,
in providing comprehensive training, in establishing a strong safety
culture encompassing all plant personnel, and in absorbing programmatic
lessons learned from the first two operational facilities.”
All three new facilities are expected to use incineration to destroy
their stockpiles and are scheduled to begin full operations sometime
in 2003.
Storing chemical weapons poses a greater threat to public safety
than destroying them, according to the report. The NRC recommends
completing the destruction process “as quickly as possible”
because the most urgent threat is from an accidental or deliberate
release from stored chemical weapons. The report, however, also
recognizes that “it is almost certain that new problems will
continue to arise” in the incineration process, and it suggests
several measures that the Army, which is responsible for operating
the facilities, could implement to increase safety.
The report’s recommendations include ways to improve investigation
of chemical events at facilities, implementation of lessons learned,
communication between the Army and the public, and personnel training.
On December 17, citizens and scientists living in the Anniston
area held a press conference to criticize the NRC report, alleging
that it ignored the release of a “chemical plume” from
the Utah incinerator in 1998 and the Army’s imperfect record
of implementing recommendations. They demanded that the Army use
a process known as neutralization to destroy the weapons instead
of incineration, according to the Chemical Weapons Working Group,
an advocacy organization that opposes incineration. Four other chemical
weapons storage sites plan to use or are considering using alternative
technologies, according to a September 2002 report from the U.S.
General Accounting Office.
