|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
United States: Academy Advocates Incineration A U.S. National Academy of Sciences report released yesterday advocates incinerating U.S. chemical weapons as soon as possible. According to Evaluation of Chemical Events at Army Chemical Agent Disposal Facilities, by a 13-member committee of experts, the chance of a chemical accident is lower if the United States incinerates its chemical weapons quickly than if it continues to store them. “The risk to the public and to the environment of continued storage overwhelms the potential risk of processing and destruction of stockpiled chemical agent,” the committee wrote. “The destruction of aging chemical munitions should proceed as quickly as possible,” it added. While the report acknowledges that there have been incineration accidents, it says that there have been many more chemical leaks from aging storage facilities. Forty accidents occurred during the first 12 years of operations at two military incinerators, according to the committee. None of the accidents spread dangerous agents beyond incinerator facilities, the report says. In contrast, two storage units experienced hundreds of leaks, one of which allowed 78 gallons of mustard agent to escape out of the facility, the committee wrote. The Army must take serious steps to ensure that incinerators are safe, but that is achievable, committee chairman Charles Kolb said. “There will be future chemical events,” Kolb said. “But we are saying it’s still possible to do this if we strictly observe procedures at the plants and make safety the highest priority,” he added. The Army should establish uniform criteria for reporting accidents, explore improving emissions sensors, establish review boards that include local civilian representatives and improve training for incinerator personnel, the report says (see GSN, Dec. 3). If these steps are taken, then “safe chemical weapons disposal operations are feasible at the new facilities scheduled to begin operations at Anniston, Ala.; Umatilla, Ore.; and Pine Bluff, Ark.,” the report says. At least one advocate of neutralization, an alternative destruction process, criticized the report. “The committee only examined selected incidents of leaks and other problems and ignored other significant incidents,” said Craig Williams, director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, a coalition of incineration opponents (see GSN, Nov. 21; Warren Leary, New York Times, Dec. 4).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
