OCR Text |
Show PAGE 24 THE ZEPHYROCTOBER 1993 a $523 million estimate. A tailings pile by truck to a new location, to Atlas's volume, yielded scheme for moving the Atlas pile by rail has been worked out which would be safer and cheaper than trucking it up to the Klondike Flats. In short, actual experience with reclaiming piles in suggests it might be cheaper to move the Atlas pile than cap it place. criteria. Region VIII reclamation own to NRCs of Then there is the issue "exemptions" of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wrote the NRC about their Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Atlas's capping plan. Here's what they had to say about it (all verbatim): "The alternative disposal options appear to be reasonable for disposal alternatives DOE for the designated US. since these costs are comparable to those developed by the Adas Mill site's extensive ground water UMTRA program sites. However, restoration protection costs are not factored into the estimates for the proposed dismiss the disposal. Without factoring that cost into this analysis, it is certainly premature to Mill are Moab alternative due to excessive costs. The stabilized tailings pile at the Adas to remain in the flood plain of Moab Wash and the Colorado River well after the Intended control period. EPA's primary concern is whether the stabilized pile could withstand the erosive force of a Colorado River channel migration west into the pile. Consequentiy, an off-sidisposal area, without these flood risks is die environmentally-preferre- d alternative." It is incorrect to assume, as die EA does, that the time involved in moving the tailings would be inconsistent with the MOU with EPA. EPA would not consider the failure to meet the December 31, 1996, closure date to be a action if progress were being made toward an disposal alternative since there would environmental risk with a site removed from the Colorado be substantially less long-terRiver valley. Further, the proposed action does not meet NRC criteria. The EA states that appears to be the best option to provide allowing the tailings to be disposed reasonable socioeconomic, radiological, and environmental impacts pursuant to Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40. However, Criterion 1 of Appendix A states that the objectives for a reclamation site should indude: remoteness from populated areas, isolation from groundwater, minimization of erosion, no active maintenance!, that remote siting should be considered rather titan engineering controls, and emphasis should be placed on long-terisolation. The proposed action fails to meet any of these criterion. 3 of Appendix A states that the primary option for tailings disposal is placement Criterion Zero out of eight isn't good enough for government work. Or..What the EPA says about reclaiming the Atlas Tailings site . in-pla- off-si- te By Lance Christie on-si- te The reclamation proposal for the Atlas Uranium Mill site at the north end of the Moab Uranium Valley was approved in 1977, in response to the requirements of the newly-passe-d Mill Tailings Reclamation Act (UMTRA). At die time, nobody had reclaimed a uranium tailings pile. Atlas Minerals did a study which considered nine alternatives, most involving moving the pile to another location. They estimated it would cost $3.6 million to reclaim the pile in place by capping it, and $183 million to move the pile to the nearest, cheapest location. According to their analysis, the environmental advantages of moving the pile over capping it in place did not justify a 5:1 cost difference. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) signed off cm it. Since 1977, some 26 tailings piles have been reclaimed under UMTRA, most by moving and a few by capping in place. However, Atlas and the NRC have never gone ' back and applied this experience to the original decision. decision as environmentally harmless by Hie NRC continues to justify their capping-in-plac- e extension 1976 Atlas asked for approval of an was This done when a study. dting study of the tailings pond, which was then about 74 feet high (it is now 110 feet high). The study examined what would happen if the tailings embankment failed and the radioactive "slimes" all dumped into the Colorado River. The conclusion: "no violation of any environmental standards would occur." The NRC still dtes this study to prove there are no environmental consequences to anything that happens with the pile left in place, as long as they can keep tailings dust from blowing off the top and carrying radon into Arches or Moab. Mining engineer Mel Swanson calls them on this one. Mel says, "If you believe this, then save off-si- te te off-si- te ce off-si- te m in-pla-ce 18-fo- ot The Atlas Mill everybody a lot of money and confusion by making a decision to push the tailings into the river, instead of hauling in a lot of expensive rocks." According to the NRC, the recent process they've been going through with Atlas did not consider whether to cap the tailings pile in place, only how - the NRC finally came out with the technical standards for reclamation of tailings piles in August, 1990. Atlas modified their reclamation plan to take these into account. I had claimed this plan didn't meet those technical standards in the Case of the Piles scries published by the Association for the Tree of Life. In the May 25th meeting in Moab with the Grand County Council, the NRC It representatives daimed "no exemptions" were necessary to approve the Atlas plan. seemed to me this daim would make excellent fertilizer if composted; the Utah Director of Radiation Control agreed. It was also obvious that the cost analysis from 1977 was worthless in 1993: the Atlas pile had been extended by 18 feet twice since 1977, and the new plan involved expensive of the pile against erosion which the 1977 plan did not The Green River tailings to the same standard recently; extrapolating the cost to fit the larger was pile Atlas pile generated an estimate of $54 million for reclamation, not the $8.6 million estimate the NRC is using currently. Extrapolating the cost of moving the Rifle, Colorado, (1988-199- 3) rock-armori- ng rock-armor- ed in-pla- ce I feel awful. wonder. This ad is directly beneath the Atlas Tailings No Pond story.J'm beginning to feel a bit queasy myself. m & Tailings Pond below grade and this criterion will not be met with disposal in place. Criteria 4 of Appendix A limits design to 5:1 dopes, but the proposed design is steeper than this criterion. Criterion 5 of Appendix A establishes groundwater protection standards, but the EA fails to address the ongoing groundwater CAP." (Editors Note: An MOlI is "Memorandum of Understanding" - a bureaucratic contract between NRC and EPA where the NRC promises to have the Atlas tailings "reclaimed " by the end of 1996. A "CAP" is "Corrective Action Plan.") The EPA then discusses the "undesirable features of the reclamation plan," particularly "proximity to a population center; Moab, Utah;" "proximity to a national recreation area administered by the National Park Service" (noting any pollutant discharge immediately arrives in Canyonlands National Park); and "location in a flood plain." The EPA concludes: "...the NRC should prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) acknowledges that where the proposal has not yet been implemented and where EIS's on-si- te |