Richmond Register
February 11, 2002

Maryland trip has local impact

by LUKE BRADSHAW
Register News Writer

When choosing a technology to eradicate the chemical weapons stored at the Blue Grass Army Depot, there are a number of factors to consider. This assures that the decision is not quite as simple as fire versus water.

That was only one of the lessons learned at a question-and-answer session conducted by members of the U.S. Army's Chemical Demilitarization Program at the Aberdeen Chemical
Agent Neutralization Facility in Maryland and Citizen's Advisory Committee members.
Attending were Charles Douglas Hindman, Amanda Stafford and Diane Kerby, Richmond
city commissioners Mike Brewer and Bill Strong, BGAD and Blue Grass Chemical Activity personnel Dave Easter and Maj. John Riley, Amy Conner of the Blue Grass Outreach Office and ACWA dialogue member Elizabeth Crowe.

But from a scientific standpoint, it is a little more cut and dry. Dr. Yu Chu Yang, a scientist at the ACANF, is one of the fore-runners in the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment, which seeks out alternatives to incineration.

"I believe all four technologies, incineration plus the three ACWA technologies, have proven they can destroy weapons," Yang said. "The ACWA technology, I think, has an advantage because while the agents are, being processed it's under lower temperature and lower pressure than the incineration technology, especially for GB."

Yang said the nerve agent-- is destroyed in milder conditions than burning it. These mild conditions would be more advantageous than choosing a process with severe conditions.

"There is no perfect destruction facility but incineration cannot contain and cannot fully characterize what comes out of the other end," Crowe said. "The ACWA technology can."

Jim Richmond, a representative of the program manager for ACWA, said a direct comparison between baseline incineration and the alternatives has not materialized.

"We haven't had the luxury to take time to do a direct comparison," Richmond said. "We have been trying to put enough information out there so that the people that are doing the comparisons and all have the appropriate information to do a fair comparison."

Local impact

The officials from Madison County gathered a lot of information on the trip. Brewer said there were many questions left unanswered, though, and the most important was the schedule.

"Our constituents at home are looking for, one way or the other, getting rid of the chemical weapons," he said. "Their main priority is to get in line so a decision can be reached We are at a crossroads now. We must make that decision. We have gone on long enough. We have the least amount of chemical weapons stored there at the BGAD, but we have a duty to the people that live in Richmond, Berea and Madison County to destroy it."

Kerby said she learned a lot about the alternative technologies on the trip, It helped her to see the process, model and hear .narratives, rather than read about it.

Another CAC member concurred. Hindman said the issue is a complex one, but one that must be dealt with, in the interest of those "in Madison County. He said that all the technologies have proven to destroy the chemical weapons, now it is "time to look at which options of destruction are least detrimental to people and the environment, then use that information as a basis for a technology decision.

Local facility

The Blue Grass Chemical Activity is in a sustainment period. The personnel includes a Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness program coordinator, a CSEPP systems administrator, a CSEPP public affairs officer and 10 Emergency Operation Center technicians.

CSEPP has several protection projects on track off the post of the BGAD. The only one that has been solidified is the shelter in place program for Eastern Kentucky University, said Paula Lantzer, a representative for the CSEPP program. Other programs in the works pertain to ClarkMoores Middle School, Waco Elementary and 40 other facilities that are under construction. The equipment that is used for warning procedures are the EMIS 3.1, the Blue Grass Alert and Notification System, 800 MHz radios, 29 sirens, 17,000 tone alert radios and eight meteorological towers.

One practice that is being judged as dangerous is the use of gas masks. People in Israel have died from misuse of the masks and hence, shelter in place is being encouraged.

PMCD engineer Kevin Gildner spoke to the group from Madison County on Friday about the BGAD and issues specific to the area. There are three different chemicals stored in the igloos, and they are in five different containment, vessels.

When a technology is chosen for the GAD, then a six-step process would ensue. After the PMCSD reaches a technology decision, then environmental permits must be obtained.
Construction would be the next step. Following that is systemization, actual operations and finally closure procedure.

Timeline

According to Gildner, in December of 2000 a notice of intent was published for the BGAD. The following year, public scoping meetings were conducted, and a preliminary draft of the environmental impact statement was published.

This year should yield a finalized EIS and comment resolution. In May a record of decision will be made available.

The BGAD EIS decision has been greatly affected by the events that took place on Sept. 11. Besides security being beefed up at the Depot, a decision to produce two different EIS versions was reached. One was released to the public, while the other was issued for official use only. Essentially there was limited information on the public use edition and no maps. In December, legal counsel advised against doing this and by January, a meeting was conducted to resolve the dilemma. A revised EIS was received earlier this month, Gildner said.

A final security review and publishing of a notice of intent in the federal register is set for Feb, 23. Following that, a 45-day comment period will ensue. A finalized EIS and com-
ment resolution will follow and should be available by the end of July. A 30-day holding period follows and in September an EIS will be completed, as well as a record of decision.

Costs

Based on recent Anniston, Ala., and Pine Bluff, Ark. figures, the construction of a facility would employ 1,100 people at most, with an average of 500. The actual operations of the destruction facility would average 720 employees. The state would withhold $500,000 to $600,000 per year. The sales and use tax would range from $150,000 to $600,000 per year, with a local procurement of $120 million.

However, a recent economic study showed that the city of Pueblo, Colo. could possibly lose money, considering the significant increase in services it will have to provide. The same study projected that the bulk of the money would go to the state instead.

"The allocation money when it comes from, (the Federal Emergency Management Agency), is handled a little differently in each state," Col. Christopher Lesniak said. "It would probably be prudent to have discussions as soon as you can with those state agencies to insure there is an agreement between (the city and the state) on how your needs are going to be met."