Chemical Weapons Disposal--Alternatives

[keftucke@acs.eku.edu (Melissa Tuckey)]

CHEMICAL WEAPONS WORKING GROUP
P.O. Box 467, Berea, Kentucky 40403
Phone: (606) 986-7565 Fax: (606) 986-2695
e-mail: kefwilli @ acs.eku.edu

for more information contact: Craig Williams (606)986-7565

First Dialogue Meeting on Incineration Alternatives for Chemical Weapons
Disposal Positive and Productive

Army, regulators, citizens give each other high marks for cooperation and
commitment to finding "a better way."

 In the past, meetings between the Army and citizens opposed to
incineration of chemical weapons have been anything but cooperative. At
times they've been downright hostile. But the May 29-31 meeting in
Colorado Springs between the opposing sides and regulators from the federal
government and states that store chemical weapons, is being heralded as a
new beginning towards solving the vexing problem of how to dispose of these
deadly weapons.

Under the 1997 Defense Appropriations Bill, the Pentagon was given $40
million to "...identify and demonstrate, not less than two alternatives to
the baseline incineration process for the demilitarization of assembled
chemical munitions." One of the primary ingredients needed to fulfill that
directive, agreed to by the Army and the anti-incineration coalition--the
Chemical Weapons Working Group--is direct participation by citizens in the
decision making process leading up to the selection of the technologies to
be demonstrated.

Historically, in the chemical weapons disposal process, the Army made
decisions, announced them, then asked for comments, as required by law.
The search for alternative technologies is following a different process.
It began with the Colorado meeting of the Dialogue for Assembled Chemical
Weapons Assessment, as the diverse group is called, and will continue into
July with meetings scheduled for June 16-17 in Lexington, Ky. and June
30-July 2 in Baltimore, Md.

"We're off to a good start," said Craig Williams, CWWG spokesperson and
Dialogue participant. "A cooperative dynamic in the Alternative Technology
process is what will be required to satisfy all the parties in this issue.
We have always been critical of the decision-making process, but the Army,
regulators and the citizens together have broken new ground in trying to
achieve consensus on how to safely dispose of these munitions."

Michael Parker, the Program Manager for the new Alternative Technology
Program, opened the Dialogue Meeting in Colorado Springs by stating, "This
is truly a new way of doing business for the Department of Defense." Parker
also indicated he was dedicated to the Dialogue Process and feels, " the
success of the program is dependent upon stakeholder involvement."
Williams points to the Canadian experience as an example of why cooperative
decision making must be continued. "In Canada, they took four years to
cooperatively develop the approach to be used to rid themselves of their
chemical weapons," said Williams. " Once agreement was reached by the
communities, the regulators and the military, it only took three years to
complete the disposal process. Compare that to the U.S. program and the
advantage of involvement by all the stakeholders from the outset is
obvious," he said.

The Army's incineration program is 13 years behind schedule, 800% over
budget and has managed to dispose of only about 4% of the national
stockpile since directed by Congress in 1985 to demilitarize the weapons.

"With the deadline for disposal being moved to 2007 as a result of the
ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, we feel we can work
together within the allotted time to find and implement solutions that fit
everyone's criteria", said Williams. "I think all parties were impressed
with the serious, intelligent and productive nature of this new process.
We're finally headed in the right direction."

Melissa Tuckey
Chemical Weapons Working Group
P.O. Box 467; Berea, KY 40403
(606)986-0868