OCR Text |
Show THE ZEPHYR OCTOBER 1995 PAGE 4 the true costs of any It seems to us that Atlas is trying to avoid having Atlas's interests, and to reclamation recognized. The results would be damaging more than unfair to Atlas, in our opinion. 457e of S60 million, S27 million, is allegedly We faith. have a in for good bargained and more than WORLD NEWS ROUND UP The ROUNDUP is compiled fry Jim Stiles except where noted. Atlas can afford, they the with changing the rules on a fully compliant government philosophical problem them financially. The NRC has a problem company after the fact, and thus punishing Atlas's original reclamation plan and with that, too. They don't want to cost estimates and drive Atlas into bankruptcy. Unfortunately, that reclamation plan and cost estimate were done before anybody had reclaimed a tailings pile and knew plan (1978-7- 9 work, approved how to do it and what it cost. Atlas' capping-in-plac- e 1982) just plain doesn't meet the criteria for reclamation which were finally adopted in August, 1990. The cost estimates are way off what equivalent reclamation projects vc actually cost. Atlas Tailings Reclamation Risks and Costs By Lance Christie We've heard a lot about what the SENES Consultants' risk analysis (that Atlas paid to have done) is supposed to say about the risks and costs of capping the uranium tailings pile in place versus moving it. I reviewed the SENES report at the and the two Grand County Library. Jhe article in the August 3 S. letters to the editor from Atlas engineer Robert Pattison, do not give a correct impression of the report's findings and limitations. The SENES report states that it is based on the contents of historical documents Atlas filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which are public record. The report does not include any of the results of new studies in which Atlas says they invested a million dollars. I suspect the SENES report is a good chunk of that recent investment. The central purpose of the report is to estimate the "cumulative population risk" from moving the pile by railroad to an ideal geophysical site on Klondike Flats west of the Grand County Airport, versus capping the pile in place. SENES assumed capping could start immediately, would take 5.5 years, and posed a risk of .00086 that one death would result from radiation exposure and .0062 of a death from construction accident per year. SENES did not consider the high transportation accident risk involved with hauling the capping rock from Round Mountain down the river road, Utah 128. SENES assumed moving the pile would commence after eight years delay (because Atlas will sue if the pile is ordered moved, and they estimate it will take eight years for the suit to be settled), and take 125 additional years to move. The cumulative population risk for moving the pile is .0044 that one death would result from radiation exposure and .092 probability of a death from construction accident per year. Thus, SENES concludes that moving the pile is eleven times riskier for radiation and fifteen times riskier for construction accidents than capping the pile in place is. This is like saying it is more likely you will be run over by a bicycle than hit by a meteor while attending the Grand County Fair - true, but not likely. Note SENES' two critical assumptions: (1) that there is no special accident risk in hauling capping rocks along the river road to the site, and (2) that radioactive material in the pile will remain perfectly isolated from population exposure if capped in place. Both assumptions are what should be examined in an EIS analysis of the Atlas reclamation. If either risk is higher than SENES assumed, it turns the becomes the safer alternative. figures upside down: the SENES The analysis did not cite the WestWatcr Engineering study of Colorado River biota and sediments. Instead, it presented the results of sampling the river for "uranium" above, at, and below the tailings. have two problems with the results. First, analysis of what is coming out of the pile into groundwater shows uranium is not the problem; uranium levels in leachate are below the EFA concentration limit. What runs 3,000 to 6,000 picoCuricslitcr versus the EPA limit of 33 pCi1 is a complex stew of radioactive materials. Testing for any single radioactive clement won't show much. Second, the studies show a moderate level of certain radioactive materials in the river above the pile, a very high level at the pile where the leachate hits the river, and a much lower level of radioactive materials in the river below the pile. Wait a minute. When I was doing research, if your instruments showed some more less, it was time to go find out what was wrong with your methodology. The SENES analysis uses the old, discredited seismic stability data for the pile site. Last year, NRC agreed wth us that the wrong seismic model had been used, and Smith Engineering (formerly Canonic) is currently analyzing a new model based on Paradox Formation subsidence and related earthquake swarms. SENES' analysis does not acknowledge that the old study they use for pile stability risk was discredited and the new study is being done. The largest issue, in my opinion, is that of the actual costs of reclamation. The SENES report cites Canonie (1993) estimates of $13-1- 6 million for capping in place, 4 and million to move the pile. If this kind of a cost spread were true, it would take proof of a probable disaster to justify moving the tailings pile. We did our own estimates by locating the project supervisors who actually capped and moved tailings piles, found out the problems they encountered and how they solved them, and how much it cost. These individuals helped us prepare cost estimates for the Atlas tailings. (The individuals arc Larry Anderson: Vitro tailings move from Salt Lake, capping of Green River tailings; and Galen Headley: moved Rifle and Grand Junction piles.) We have also received written validation of our capping cost estimates from EnviroCarc, Inc., the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Energy. Our estimates show a tic between the cost of capping and moving the pile: about $60 million cither way. Until we sec a credible analysis of why Atlas could cap their pile for one quarter as much as anyone else, but would have to spend twice as much to move each ton as others have paid for trucking (rail is cheaper and safer overall), we remain skeptical. Times-Independe- nt pile-movi- ng 1 $94-11- The Atlas mill and 11 million tons of waste where to put it? If the NRC approves Atlas's capping reclamation, and Atlas cuts all the criteria corners it must, given the site and cost limitations, then Atlas can do something called a reclamation and is off the hook. The taxpayers pay for 557 of that effort. If that reclamation is not successful (remember, the Blanding pile has been "reclaimed" twice by unsuccessful cappings and is now to be moved), then the taxpayers get to pay 1007c of the cost of doing the job over again, with about 1.5 million more tons to deal with from the capping than the 11 million tons of material we have now. It seems to be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers if Congress limited Atlas's liability to the costs of their original reclamation plan, and thus removed the from this issue. We could then fog political get real about costs and benefits of realistic reclamation alternatives instead of waltzing endlessly around the bureaucratic choice of screwing either Atlas or the citizens. NRC-approv- cd Research costs were paui through the Association for the Tree of Life (ATL), a local non-profindivuiual donations and support from the Hill Turk Memorial organization, from it Environmental Fund. ror Lease: The Sand Flats The State of Utah has proposed to lease three state school trust sections adjacent to or near the Slick Rock Bike Trail. Its sole purpose is to generate revenues for the State School Trust Fund in the form of fees and a percentage of the revenues produced by the developers. What kind of development comes to the Sand Flats is limited only by the resources available and an offer by Director Scott Hirschi to voluntarily abide by certain "parameters" set by the County. This year the Trust Lands Administration (TLA) allowed the Sand Flats Team to manage recreational use of its state lands; in exchange, the TLA will receive $10 to $15,000 compensation from revenues collected by recreational users on the Sand Flats (one dollar for every camper). But clearly, opportunities for more intense development and the generation of more money are there. One of the available sections is the land just across the road from the Slick Rock Bike Trail parking lot and currently a favorite camping area. If developed it could become a commercial campground with hardened sites, paved roads, and flush toilets, a diner, or a convenience store. Hirschi has even suggested the possibility of a mountain bike resort...the desert's version of a ski resort. But Hirschi has said he's interested in getting feedback from users, and according to Craig Bigler, director of the Sand Hats Team, every survey the BLM has sponsored strongly suggests that &ind Rats users prefer minimal development. "A continuous flow of unsolicited expressions of appreciations by users...indicate that the policies we arc implementing are what they want." What might happen if development proceeds Is haid to We might see the kinds of development hat have occunvd down the road predict. at the Lion's Back. Both the trailirdmor and the Lion s Back Campground seem to sit idle most of the year. Future investors would have to produce most of their revenues during the Spring months in order to survive. If someone with the financial resources chose to ovate a "biking resort we might expect to see many roctvationists lookelsewhom. But it might alsocrvatea now, more affluent clientele, rvcrcationists with a lot more money to this newspaper frequently identifies as "rich weasels." spend...a group of If successful investment would certainly generate more revenues for the State Schtml Trist but is kLof What seems logical Is to use the fee money generated by the Slick Rock fees to |