|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
United States: Incineration Study Scope Was Limited, Chief Analyst Says A recently reported U.S. study that advocates burning stockpiled U.S. chemical weapons as soon as possible did not consider proposed new incineration methods that, according to critics, are potentially less safe, Alabama’s Birmingham News reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 5). “Unfortunately, we had a very specific statement of task that was negotiated with the sponsor, which was the Army,” said Charles Kolb, chairman of the committee that produced the report for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. “That restricted us to commenting on things that actually happened (at older incinerators). We were restricted from commenting on planned operations (in Anniston),” he added, referring to the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama. Critics have said the study ignored the U.S. Army’s proposal to hasten incineration of rockets containing sarin gas at the depot, according to the News. In defense of the committee, however, the study did not look into other incineration issues because it had not been tasked to do so, Kolb said. The report recommends that engineers thoroughly test any change in method, according to the News. The Army is seeking to alter its permit from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management to allow a new method for faster disposal of the sarin-filled rockets, according to the News. The new approach — burning munitions and poison gas together instead of separating them first — could increase the rate of rocket disposal from one every hour to 34 per hour. Critics, including Governor Don Siegelman, have opposed the method, saying it has not been tested sufficiently, according to the News. The National Academy of Sciences plans to release separate report examining the new approach in late spring, an academy official said. “It violates no laws of physics. Those furnaces are more than hot enough and it stays in there long enough,” Kolb said of the proposed new method. “But you still have to prove you can do it safely,” he added (Mary Orndorff, Birmingham News, Dec. 5).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
