EDITORIALS

---

Which deal to honor? The incinerator agreement

In our opinion

07-05-08

In 1997, the United States signed a treaty that called for the destruction of all chemical weapons by 2012. Congress later extended that deadline to 2017. To accomplish this, chemical disposal units were built at a number of sites around the country.

One of these is the incinerator in Anniston.

Part of the legislation that authorized the incinerator was that once the chemical weapons stored at the Anniston Army Depot were destroyed, the incinerator would be dismantled. People who warned that the Army was not about to spend $1 billion on the facility and then take it apart were called fear mongers who would like to prevent the disposal of the dangerous Cold War-era weapons that were growing more dangerous every day.

In most cases, these concerns were addressed. The incinerator was built. It began burning weapons in 2003. Safely and efficiently, a sizeable portion of Anniston's stockpile has been destroyed. Today, the task is almost half done.

Now comes the news of an "unpublicized report" that the Pentagon sent to lawmakers, telling them that it will never be able to meet its 2017 deadline if the nerve agents and other chemical weapons scattered at sites about the country were not transferred to existing incinerators.

That caveat was not part of the agreement with this community.

Moreover, the law prohibits these agents and weapons from being transferred from one site to another.

Consider: To bring these dangerous chemical weapons to Anniston, they would have to travel along interstates and highways that would pass through or close to major metropolitan areas. One accident, one spill, and scores, hundreds, even thousands would be affected.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, was not impressed with the idea. He called it risky, and in a prepared statement said that "we cannot sacrifice safety and security for expediency."

This page wholeheartedly agrees.

To ask Congress to change the law to put so many Americans at risk — just to make up for the fact that the Army has not built enough incinerators at other locations — is simply unacceptable. The Department of Defense has put itself in a bind, and now it is suggesting that citizens accept the dangers that this new plan would involve.

Congress should not allow these weapons to be transported to the existing incinerators. Instead, Congress should press the Army to build the additional disposal facilities where other chemical agents are stored. Anniston has proved that incineration works. Others can profit from our example.