OCR Text |
Show PAGE 31 THE ZEPHYRDECEMBER 1995 Whoa Jim: What's with the "computer chip" on your shoulder! Good thing we weren't the first on the plateau to install telephones, you'd have really had something to gripe about. Is there something we're missing in your piece besides the Orwellian campfire future-shoc- k talk? While one of my ciders told me to never get into a literary exchange with anybody that buys ink by the barrel, I guess you just took too big a "byte" out of my backside on this one! Listen, when you get a chance, come out of the bunker and fix your literary gaze onto that part of southcentral Utah west of "New Moab". In this part of the state, which remains philosophically unchanged, you'll see a wild and beautiful National Park whose resource preservation and visitor experience protection needs could benefit tremendously by a larger constituency. If the Internet can serve as another medium to inspire and enlist such support, I would think your readership would not only be interested in the premise, but probably be as perplexed as we were at the "anti-web- " spin. Then again, I suppose we really should have looked a lot closer at the downside of providing visitors the opportunity to do some pretty comprehensive pre-vis- it planning from the comfort of homes in Germany, Japan, California, etc., (you the point) at no cost to the taxpayer. get Hey Zephyr, maybe you hadn't heard but the folks are still coming (3000,000 in 1984 and now 750,000 in 1993 at Capitol Reef), and our responsibility to preserve and provide for visitor enjoyment continues. Problem is, the NPS still lives pretty near the bottom of the federal funding chain. Since going on the web with this information, we have received thanks from school teachers and kids from around the country who can learn about Capitol Reef and its story. And, you know what? Along the way they just might learn something about stewardship responsibilities in their own backyards. And, of course, sharing scientific information, CIS data bases and important planning documents according to you is another big mistake. Whew! We really must have been lightheaded that day! This stuff should be under lock and key. Who do those pesky taxpayers think they are! Jim, if the terminology of the computer world as applied to learning about our nation's parks is uncomfortable for ya, sorry bout that, but lets be dear about one thing - any "caving in" the NPS has done at Capitol Reef is collapsing the barrier to vastly expand constituent information access. In all seriousness, I'm extremely proud of the NPS employees at Capitol Reef who used their expertise, imagination, and determination to find a way for us to use this emerging technology. Additionally, you needn't be too concerned about not receiving future press releases from us. Although, based on your Cyber Park piece, maybe we should offer to write a few guest columns. What do you think. Zephyr? Would it be too risky or wildly innovative to deliver such bureaucratic and centrist perspectives without your special treatment and shaping of the message and actually let your readers form their own opinions? Well, we won't hold our breath on that one. I hope that someday you actually do take a look at the Capitol Reef National Park Homepage. Some of the "virtual fears" you expressed might then look just a bit silly. The public service and resource protection potential we can provide looks pretty solid from here and also helps the NPS save scarce dollars and time. Anyway, Jim, happy trails be they real, virtual, or otherwise. threat to health or the environment. In fact, the principal investigator for WestWater Engineering recently wrote to the Salt Lake Tribune (copy enclosed) saying: "The constituent levels observed are similar to naturally occurring levels in other Colorado Plateau streams, including the Animas River, the Dolores River and the Upper Colorado River. It is inappropriate to assume that the levels of analytical constituents observed could be hazardous either to fish or humans." The second key point addressed by Mr. Christie is that of the costs of reclamation. He has apparently prepared cost estimates for the two options, but has used the wrong sources for information. By his own admission, he used government agencies or government agency contractors as sources of information, undoubtedly for Title I sites. The state or federal government manages the cleanup according to the Uranium at such sites. However, Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (P.L. Atlas' site is a Title II site, wherein the private sector manages the reclamation. As such, the best costs he can use for comparison purposes are in a report entitled " February Decommissioning of U. S. Uranium Production Facilities" (DOEEIA-0592- , 1995). This document reports the decommissioning and reclamation costs of nineteen conventional production facilities. The average cost of reclaiming a Title II facility is 97 cents per ton of tailings. The average unit cost for piles (5) of 8 to 12 million tons is 96 cents and for piles from 100 to 170 acres is $154 per ton of tailings. Multiplying these unit costs by the documented 10.5 million tons for the Atlas tailings pile gives SI 0,080,000 to reclamation. Not surprisingly, this is very close to the range $16,170,000 for calculated by Smith Environmental (formerly Canonic Environmental). By similarly using the recently announced cost for the relocation of the Monticello tailings pile one can arrive at $133,269,230 for the relocation of the Atlas tailings pile. It will cost 33 million dollars to move the 2.6 million ton Monticello pile a mere half-milthat is $12.69 per ton of tailings! This figure is even greater than that reported by Atlas and Smith Environmental for moving Atlas' tailings. Another example is the Sharon Steel tailings pile in Midvale, where the bid cost of moving the 10 million ton pile is almost six times more than the bid cost for capping it in place. If anything, the public should be demanding to know why the Title I sites cost so much. Need I say more? I think we arc all aware-tha- t it costs more to get things done by the government than by private enterprise. However, in this case, Atlas will do the reclamation economically; that is, unless outside factors prevent it. The last point raised by Mr. Christie: who pays the extra cost for the relocated pile? He suggested a solution of getting Congress to limit Atlas' liability to the cost of their reclamation plan and, presumably, having the taxpayers foot original the remainder. This proposal is not fair to the American taxpayer. As admitted by Mr. Christie, risks arc comparable to something between being run over by a bicycle and being hit by a meteor while attending the Grand County Fair. Is it fair to ask the American taxpayer to pay $50,000,000 to SI 00,000,000, or more, to protect against such slight risks? As a taxpayer, I think not. If that is the extent of the risk presented by leaving the pile where it is, I say cap it in place. 95-60- 4) in-pla- ce e; NRC-approv- ed Yours sincerely, Robert S. Pattison. Moab Sincerely, Charles V. Lundy Superintendent Capitol Reef N.P. Dear Jim P.S. Not to worry, that old head injury wasn't too bad and fortunately me from wearing my smoky proudly for the last 20 years. didn't prevent Sign me up -- 1 just passed through Moab after being away for 6 years, and The Zephyr to help me understand what the hell happened. Thanks, Ed Gimbini Chuck! Now I get it.Jts not that you were dropped on your head; it's that damn Smokey Bear hat. When a hats too tight it cuts off circulation to the train. And when that happens...weU, then people get on the Internet or something. argument over coffee at Southys in Torrey. YU be over soon and we can have a good Dear Mr. Stiles: In your October 1995 edition (Volume 7, Number 7) Mr. Lance Christie authored an article in the ROUNDUP titled " Atlas Tailings Reclamation Risks and Costs." Mr. Christie focuses on three key points in his article: 1) The SENES risk assessment; 2) reclamation cost estimates; and 3) who pays? Your readers deserve to hear from another source on the subject. While clearly important to Atlas, it should also be of interest to all since it could result in a cost to taxpayers (including your readers) that is unwarranted. For those who read the SENES risk assessment documents, it should be clear that SENES calculated the risks on two different schedules. They compared the shorter schedules for each option and they compared the longer schedules for each option. They did not compare the shorter schedule for capping in place against the longer schedule for moving the pile. To imply that they did is simply misleading. Thus, the fact remains that moving the pile results in greater health and safety risks than capping in place. 1 would like to explain SENES' two critical assumptions that Mr. Christie addressed. First, SENES did not include an accident risk for hauling cap rock along the river road to the site because the risk exists for both options; the Klondike Flats site also requires cap rock. Moreover, the risks could be somewhat greater for the moving option because of the greater haul distance to Klondike Flats. Second, SENES was in contact with the scientists and engineers performing the updated seismic stability analyses during the preparation of its report. It also bases its "assumption" that the radioactive material in the pile will remain isolated from population exposure, if capped in place, on direct communication with the experts performing the analyses. With respect to the Colorado River sampling, the SENES data and WestWater do not present a Engineering results show radionuclide levels near the tailings site Letters to Feedback should be received by the Zephyr by the 20th of the month to be considered for publication. Winners of the Tetter of the Month" receive a one year subscription. Write: The Zephyr, POB 327, Moab, UT 84532 I need |