OCR Text |
Show 4 Vemal ExpreSS Wednesdoy, December 28, 1 983 -IIIMIllItltllltllllllltllIllllIlllIItlllllllllf Itllitltlll tlltlllltllltlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllltllllllltlllltllf lltlttlltlll Western Resources WRAP-UP IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIII Uranium mill tailings clean-up, part 2 By Helene C. Monberg Vernal Express Washington Correspondent Washington The Western based uranium industry claims it was shafted by the Environmental Protection Protec-tion Agency (EPA) with a double whammy when EPA issued its standards stan-dards to stabilize and clean-up active mill tailings piles at uranium mills. The industry is making two major charges against the agency, on procedural pro-cedural and substantive grounds. It claims officials within EPA tipped off the staff of the Environmental Policy Center here in advance of the official Sept. 30 announcement that the standards were being issued. This resulted in a race to the court house by both environmental groups and the industry in-dustry to challenge the standards, a race which the environmental groups appeared to win, at least momentarily. EPA does not take this charge lightly. light-ly. EPA filed a brief here on Dec. 19 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia asking the court to dismiss a suit filed by the Environmental En-vironmental Defense Fund (EDF) of Boulder, Colo., against the standards, or to transfer EDF's petition to review the EPA standards to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, Colum-bia, "was filed prematurely and the Tenth Circuit Court therefore was the court of first filing." Acting on behalf of several of its affiliates af-filiates in the uranium industry, the American Mining Congress (AMC) had filed a suit in the Tenth Circuit in Denver immediately after EPA announced an-nounced the issuance of the standards on Sept. 30. AMC on Oct. 19 filed a motion mo-tion asking the circuit court here to dismiss the EDF suit or to transfer the suit to the circuit court in Denver, and EPA has now filed a brief in support of the AMC motion. The Western-based uranium industry in-dustry also charges that the standards put into effect by EPA are so onerous to stabilize active uranium mill tailings tail-ings piles that "the accumulated burden.. .could well force segments of the uranium industry out of business." The implication is that EPA lined up with the environmental group which oppose nuclear power and several industry in-dustry sources voiced that concern to Western Resources Wrap-up (WRW) during the gathering of information for this WRW uranium mill tailings series during the past month. COSTS BOTTOM LINE EPA has estimated the cost of cleaning clean-ing up and stabilizing the 27 tailings piles at active or licensed uranium mills to range from between $310 million and $540 million. While expensive expen-sive to industry, it is not an undue burden, EPA maintains. The cost could be spread out over a period of 30 years, Dr. Stanley Lichtman, an EPA official who worked on the standards, told WRW on Dec. 6. But using the same EPA data, industry in-dustry is estimating the cost of cleanup clean-up of the tailings piles at the licensed and active mills at about a billion dollars for the current mills and new mills that may open in the future. "The new standards issued by EPA are an absolute abomination," Larry A. BoRSS, senior counsel for AMC, told WRW on Dec. 19. "EPA has wildly over-estimated the health hazards for mill tailings. They do not pose a significant health hazard to anyone a short distance from them." He noted, as the AMC stated In its suit over the tailings standards, EPA ha estimated "a potential lifetime rik of adverw health effect as high as 4 in loo to persons in the vicinity of tailings tail-ings piles, This Is based on an EPA analysts of a hypothetical, maximal' ly exposed individual living continuously con-tinuously at the edge of a tailings pile for an entire lifetime." Roggs told WRW, "The standards based on such an analysis are stupid. No one can live at the edge of a tailings pile, The law require that the piles be isolated from the public," As noted in the first W RW mainly on the inactive uranium tailings control program, the law hich required the uranium mill waste control program to get underway as pasted in 1978 Subneqiiently the Uranium Mill Tailings Tail-ings Radiation font ml Act of 1978 I P L. tYW. known as t'MTRCA, was emended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission t NRCI Aufbnruafkw Act of IW2 providing that the stabtlitalton. disposal and control of mill tailings must be "reasonable", and the costs should he weighed against significant risks in public health and safety. Industry constantly reminds all interested in-terested parties of the benefit risk provision pro-vision in the amended law because it must clean up the act ire failings at the tocenwd uranium mills and other processing; pro-cessing; plants. Under the 1!H1 law, uranium companies cannot walk away and abandon uranium sites at licensed licens-ed plants, NRC has the authority to require re-quire them to stabilize and clean up all mill tailings piles no longer in use. EPA has the authority to set the standards stan-dards for both the inactive and active tailings piles governing their stabilization, stabiliza-tion, disposal and control "for the protection pro-tection of the public health, safety and the environment." EPA's authority is broadly construed ; NRC's on a site-by-site basis. Generally speaking, the new EPA standards for tailing piles "require stabilization so that the health hazards associated with tailings will be controlled con-trolled and limited for at least 1,000 years. They require that disposal be designed to limit releases of radon (gas) to 20 picocuries per square meter per second" over the surface of the tailings. A picocurie is a trillionth of a curie, which is a measure of radioactive radioac-tive material. HEALTH OF PUBLIC VS. HEALTH OF INDUSTRY In a nutshell, the battle is over the risk or perceived risk to the public from the tailings in relation to the health of the uranium industry which is in the doldrums. Based on models for the cumulative risk of all exposed populations to the uranium tailings piles, there are 27 sites with 174,700,000 tons of tailings at licensed mill sites in seven states-Colorado, states-Colorado, New Mexico, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming EPA estimated the radon gas released from them "would cause about 500 lung cancer deaths per century.. cen-tury.. .without controls." "This figure does not account for any deaths from misuse or windblown tailings because their number is more difficult to predict, even though risk to individuals from such tailings may be somewhat greater than from direct radon emissions," EPA said. "By the year 2000, we estimate that, without controls, the amount of tailings existing ex-isting then would cause approximately approximate-ly 600 lung cancer deaths per century. Approximately one-half of these deaths are projected to occur less than 50 miles from the piles," EPA stated, , in explanation of its new standards. The standards require that passive controls through the imposition of a thick earth cover and other controls, such as posting and fencing be taken by industry to assure maximum public health and safety. The Solid Waste Disposal Act rules are incorporated in the standards to protect ground water, and liners are required to be used for ground water protection. EPA has exceeded both its authority authori-ty and its goals with such tough standards, stan-dards, according to AMC and to Kerr-McGee, Kerr-McGee, Homestake and United Nuclear, all three of which have licensed licens-ed mills in the West and are challenging challeng-ing the standards. "The average cost per health effect averted per century is at least $300 million far above the range of $250,000-$300.000 previously considered appropriate by EPA," AMC said in its comments on the new EPA standards. Such comments are ridiculous, David Berick of the Environmental Policy Center told WRW here on Dec. 6. "The Surgeon General warned us more than 20 years ago about the health hazards posed by uranium mill tailings. The Industry was crying the economic blues then too. Have you noticed any time it has been told to shape up, it claims it doesn't have the money to take health and safety precautions?" he observed. Nevertheless, the industry is in a period of slow demand. The EPA impact im-pact analysis on the new standards noted that of the active mills, "During I'.wl and lsR2. 10 mills accounting for capacity of about 19.000 metric tons of ore per day ceased operations, while the average capacity utilization rate for the industry as of September 1W2 was only 60 percent. Some mills are operating at as little as 30 percent capacity," No new nuclear plants have been ordered since 1978. according to an annual an-nual survey at the industry by the Department of Energy (DOE). Many orders have been cancelled it is said. 103 cancellations since 1972. and 51 of them since 1978. The figures were in the September 1983 EPA impact analysis. Uranium mills provide yellow cake, the fuel supply for nuclear power plants. When a new one goes on line il has to have an assured fuel supply for W years. At least one new plant is scheduled to go on line in July IWthe sole surviving nuclear plant at 11 million kilowatts of the five planned by the troubled Washington Public Power Supply System NRC granted the new plant near Richland. Wash . on Dec. 20 a license lo start testing up to percent of capacity. Looking back at '83 By Andy Noble 1983 will be remembered as the year of Mr. T. "MASH" and the miniseries. "The A-Team" was the surprise series hit of the year, which some critics said was excessively violent. The NBC show about four mercenaries, a combination of "The Dirty Dozen," "Mission: Impossible" and Saturday morning cartoons, made a superstar of Mr. T, a gruff, gold-laden former bodyguard. When "MASH, left the air in February after 11 seasons, its two-and-a-half-hour finale became the highest-rated show in TV history. The 4077th may have folded its tents, but fans of the CBS series weien't abandoned. A sequel, "AfterMASH," was one of the fall season's few new successes. As the quality and longevity of series diminished, miniseries min-iseries became more important to the networks. ABC's "Winds of War" and "Thorn Birds" were among the most successful. NBC's "Princess Daisy," based on Judith Krantz's potboiler, was high-gloss fantasy. Not all specials were escapist. ABC's TV movie "The Day After," a graphic account of a nuclear war's effects on the residents of Lawrence, Kan., was among the most controversial events in TV history and a ratings success. Many of the new fall series merely recycled old plots ghosts ("Jennifer Slept Here"), talking animals ("Mr. Smith"), genies ('Just Our Luck") and landed at the bottom of the ratings heap. One new show based on an old idea, however, was successful Aaron Spelling's adaptation of "Hotel," Arthur Hailey's book and film. "Dynasty," another Spelling Spell-ing property, continued to draw big ratings. Archrivals Krystle (Linda Evans) and Alexis (Joan Collins) began the season trapped in a burning cabin but both survived sur-vived to face a new season of scheming. More wholesome activities occurred on "Cheers," where Sam (Ted Danson) and Diane (Shelley Long) finally became lovers, although some say this development develop-ment has drained some of the series' suspense. "Cheers" was a classic example of a slow-starting show being supported sup-ported by the network until its popularity increased. Many series weren't as lucky and were given the hook after only a few episodes. Who recalls "Condo," "Foot in the Door" or "At Ease"? Trying to keep viewers, the networks introduced several limited-run series during the summer, usually a time for reruns. All were failures except NBC's "Buffalo Bill," starring star-ring Dabney Coleman as a crabby, arrogant talk-show host. After a fall hiatus, it returned in December. 1984 Compulog Money Hers B ByRayKier Taxes Continued It's the last week in the year and you have your income and expenses allocated to 1983 or 1984 as best you can in order to reduce your taxes. You now may be saying to yourself that you've done all you can for 1983 and now you're waiting to see what 1984 brings. But have you done all you can for 1983? Have you set up your IRA (Individual (In-dividual Retirement Account) for 1983? Or have you looked into it but for one reason or another, decided against it? Or have you heard about it but not "had the time" to look into it? The IRA was set up some years ago by Uncle Sam to allow you to put money you earned away for retirement. retire-ment. You put this money away before it is taxed. That is, if you invest $2,000 and you've paid taxes on that through payroll withholding, let's say, then you file for a refund of whatever taxes were withheld on that $2,000 because your IRA money is invested before (without) taxes. So, for example, if your tax bracket is 30 percent and you've had 30 percent withheld all year, then you've paid the IRS $600 taxes on the $2,000 you earned and put into your IRA. That's $600 taxes you don't owe! So you ask the IRS to refund re-fund it to you. In addition, Uncle Sam says you don't have to pay taxes on any of the earnings you make on your IRA investment. in-vestment. Thus, if you earn 12 percent on your investment, the $240 (12 of $2,000) is completely tax free. Whereas, if you are earning 12 percent on say a regular money market fund, you are paying $72 ( 30 ) to the IRS in taxes. Are you beginning to see the picture? pic-ture? If you invested $2,000 on January 1 in an IRA earning 12 percent per year, how much would you have at the end of the year? The $2,000 invested plus $240 earnings right? What about taxes? There are none! But if you had invested that $2,000 in a regular money market fund paying 12 percent, you would have $2,000 plus $240 also, BEFORE TAXES. After taxes you'd have what? You would have paid $600 (assuming 30 percent bracket again) on the $2,000 and $72 on the $240. That's $672 in taxes. Or, another way to look at it, at the end of the year, after taxes, in the IRA you would have $2,250, in the other account, $1,568. That's what you can do in one year! As was mentioned, the IRA is a retirement account. So whatever you're investing in this account you expect ex-pect to leave there for a few years. Here are some numbers that show the effect of years on the above comparison: v AFTER-TAX BALANCE $2,000 invested At 12 At 12 each year for without IRA with IRA Difference 5 years $8,279 $12,706 $ 4,427 ;. 10 years 20,671 35,007 14,426 15 years 39,217 74,559 35,342 17 years 49,000 97,767 48,767 20 years 66,977 144,105 77,128 Assuming a 30 tax bracket Mongolia is more than twice as large as the state of Texas. However, the city of Houston has more people than live in all of Mongolia. $ . ;. . . . As you can see, the differences are enormous. In 17 years you double your return simply by putting your money in an IRA rather than not. There are a number of things we haven't discussed concerning the IRA, including the disadvantages of this investment. in-vestment. The point of this all is that the IRA is a very important tax shelter, perhaps the most important. If you haven't seriously considered it, you should. If you have and have decided against it, then you've missed miss-ed perhaps the most important step you can make to winning the money game and you'd better take another hard look. I won't be discussing this further for some time. If you'd like to learn more now, let me know at Money Matters, Vernal Express, P.O. Box 1010, Vernal, Ver-nal, Utah 84078. In the meantime, keep the following facts in mind about the IRA: 1. You can start your IRA anytime up until the date you file your tax return; e.g., April 15, 1984 for your 1983 taxes. 2. You can invest your money at the bank, with insurance Companies, in mutual funds, in stock's and bonds, almost anywhere, and as we've said before; compare them; look at your options. Capital Ideas ...ft.. iu Promoting Economic Recovery President Reagan's fiscal year 1981 budget proposal is considered another stop toward economic recovery. The budget is considered fair, prudent, realistic and has won bipartisan support as the starting point for the budget debnle-the criteria cri-teria the President set forth in his 19H3 Stale of the Union message. Prendent Reagan hat done much to turn tht economy round, and hopei to do tven mote in the future. The budget ensure the continuation of the nalion'i uncial programs, strengthens the national (Men? and work to reduce the federal deficit" deficit problem the President, strontf lead' ef, ha railed " rleaf and present danger to the basic health of oof Republic." The budct proposal rnti' tinues an economic recovery that will li" sustained and long term. This recovery could tie especially importanCrint only on-ly to merchants and professional profes-sional people, but to mHimiI teat hers, hospital workers and the like Acrordmg to experts on emmmr, if inflation in-flation and national las.es rise tery rapidly, thefe maybe may-be less money available tot local eernmnt set-tires. If inflate and federal Government Govern-ment spending: tan b (""pi under control, ritd servan's and Americans f-rm all ttgilis of life Could benefit "New Disco" Party Favors 3 Free Setups New Years Eve Bash Live Music by T.E.D. for a night to remember Large Darice Floor computerized Liqht Show Hors d'oeuvres Video Games 95nn Watt Storon Sficuritv W V WIWI WW w w. y Refreshments Life Size TV $15.00 per Person $25.00 per Couple Sat. New Years Eve 8pm to 2am BYOB must be 21 with picture ID Limited Seating so make Reservations now! 789-7181 or 789-9790 Imago 450 East 100 So. Vernal's Newest Entertainment Center |