Studies: On-site treatment of depot waste less costly

By Cassondra Kirby
CENTRAL KENTUCKY BUREAU

RICHMOND - Transporting waste that will be produced when chemical weapons stored at the Blue Grass Army Depot are destroyed will likely cost more than treating the waste on-site, according to results of two separate studies released yesterday.

At the Blue Grass Army Depot, 523 tons of nerve and blister agent will be chemically decomposed and neutralized, which will produce some 6 million gallons of waste called hydrolysates -- a mix of water, the industrial chemical thiodiglycol, salts, metals and organic compounds. Plans call for the hydrolysates to be broken down further by supercritical water oxidation, a process akin to a pressure cooker.

Instead, the Army has asked that officials consider shipping the hydrolysate to other facilities, despite opposition from citizens groups and some elected officials who cite, among other things, environmental concerns. The Army has maintained that off-site shipment would save millions of dollars and speed up the destruction process.

But yesterday, results from studies conducted by Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives, the agency overseeing chemical destruction in Richmond and in Pueblo, Colo., and Mitretek, an independent organization hired in January 2006 by ACWA, concluded that shipping the waste elsewhere would likely lead to long delays associated with public opposition and construction permit changes.

Under perfect conditions, Mitretek concluded that off-site shipment could save up to $52 million at the Blue Grass Depot. But public opposition, possible lawsuits and the need to change regulatory permits -- which could take up to three years -- would likely cause delays and wipe out the potential savings, the Mitretek report concluded. There's also the problem of finding a community that will accept the waste. In the worst-case scenario, transporting the waste wound up costing much more money, Mitretek found.

"Based on our analysis, there doesn't appear to be any significant cost advantages to off-site hydrolysate treatment," Mitretek spokesman George Bizzigotti said last night.

The ACWA study also predicted delays because of oppostion and likely required construction permit changes. It said shipping the waste would probably delay the project by 66 months and cost about $147.46 million more than treating the waste on site.

Both studies were presented to the Chemical Destruction Community Advisory Board at its meeting last night. That board, which is seeking public input, is set to draft a recommendation on the issue of off-site shipment for the Defense Department at its next meeting on March 13.