February 18, 2005
Mr. Don Metzler
Moab Federal Project Director
U.S. Department of Energy
2597 B 3/4 Road
Grand Junction, CO 81503
Re: Remediation of the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS–0355D).
Dear Mr. Metzler,
Living Rivers, Colorado Riverkeeper, Colorado Plateau River Guides, River Runners for Wilderness and Colorado Outward Bound West submit the following comments concerned with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings. Collectively our mission statements promote protection of the natural and cultural heritage of rivers. We would like to thank the Department of Energy (DOE) for their efforts to prepare this DEIS for public review and appreciate this opportunity to participate.
1. Summary
It is our position that the Moab Mill’s tailings pile be moved by the existing railroad to an off-site disposal area in the Mancos shale deposits north of Moab. We agree with the Environmental Protection Agency that the Off-Site Disposal Alternative at Crescent Junction is superior to the disposal alternative at Klondike Flats. The site at Crescent Junction is more isolated from human activity, has a thicker deposit of shale and is more protected from the agents of erosion.
It is also our position that the ground water pollution from the Moab Mill site should be remediated to successfully remove all jeopardy to the threatened and endangered species of the Colorado River downstream, including the wetlands of the Moab Sloughs. We are convinced that this can not be accomplished by leaving the pile capped on-site and adjacent to the Colorado River.
Our position also includes moving the pile off-site to eliminate future risks to human health for residents of developed areas along the Colorado River downstream, and to the visitors of federally protected public lands downstream. These public lands include the national parks at Canyonlands and Grand Canyon, the national recreation areas at Glen Canyon and Lake Mead, and the wildlife refuges of the Lower Colorado River Complex. This also includes the water users identified by the Colorado River Compact, specifically Arizona, Nevada, California and the Republic of Mexico.
It is also our position that the White Mesa Mill Alternative in San Juan County should be abandoned for the reasons stated by the Ute Nation from the White Mesa Reservation, as presented to the DOE at the public meeting held there on January 27, 2005. This alternative will affect the Ute Nation’s quality of life and their values concerning the protection of their cultural heritage and their sacred sites.
The DOE must also acknowledge the official position of the City Council of Moab and Grand County Council, which have identified the Off-Site Disposal Alternatives at either Klondike or Crescent Junction as superior. This alternative will meet the objectives and goals of the local citizens in order to remove them from environmental and social harm.
The members of our organizations that live in Grand County strongly object to moving the toxic contents of the Moab Mill site to any other county in Utah. This is a Grand County problem and the impacts from these toxic materials should not be passed on to our neighbors in San Juan County.
2. The DOE is unsuccessful in removing doubt concerning the compromise of the On-Site Disposal Alternative during a probable maximum flood
We are convinced that the tailings pile at the Moab Mill must be moved away from the Colorado River because the suggested reasons identified with the On-Site Disposal Alternative in the DEIS are, at best, speculative.
a. The Moab Mill site was originally chosen for reasons of convenience and not for reasons of providing long-term environmental protection from the consequences of historic flooding along the Colorado River.
b. The federal government has already moved uranium waste piles away from the floodplains of the Colorado River and its tributaries and it is reasonable to expect the federal government to remain consistent with this precedent.
c. Independent scientists have demonstrated that it is reasonable to suggest that Colorado River flooding may compromise the Moab Mill’s tailings pile during a probable maximum flood in the next 200 to 1000 years. That ground water remediation may not be geologically feasible with the pile capped in place. These scientists are associated with the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Geological Survey and academics from the state universities at Salt Lake City and Tucson.
d. The Bureau of Reclamation manages high dams, both concrete and earthen, on the Gunnison and Dolores rivers. These dams will likely be decommissioned in the next 200 to 1000 years. At some point in this time-period these dams will no longer provide flood control for the downstream environment. It is also possible that, as these dams age and fill with sediment, the spillway mechanisms will experience flood flows greater than the original design specifications, which could result in a possible catastrophic breach that could subsequently compromise a tailings pile capped in place at Moab Valley.
e. The threat of flooding that could compromise the On-Site Disposal Alternative is significant when considering the intent behind the legislation for protection of downstream resources. This legislation includes the National Park Service Organic Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act and the Endangered Species Act. This would also include Executive Orders such as #11990 (wetlands protection) and #13007 (sacred sites).
3. The DOE must ensure consultation with the work performed by the University of Utah at Salt Lake City and the University of Arizona at Tucson
We request that all findings from Mr. Phil Gardner and Mr. Kip Solomon, at the University of Utah at Salt Lake City, be included as a part of the public record for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). These studies indicate that ground water remediation at the Moab Mill site would best be served by moving the pile from the river.
We also request that all findings, pending the completion of work now being performed by Mr. John Dohrenwend and Mr. Victor Baker from the University of Arizona at Tucson, be considered as part of the public record for consideration by the FEIS. These studies will concern the effects of a probable maximum flood at the Moab Mill site and would serve as a valuable exercise in the peer-review process of DOE’s contractor-based science and engineering reports that are deemed speculative.
We would also request that the work already completed by Mr. Dohrenwend be submitted as part of the public record for the FEIS. Mr. Dohrenwend’s reports were recently published in the Times-Independent, the weekly paper of Grand County. By using existing photographic evidence from over-flight and satellite imagery, Mr. Dohrenwend has demonstrated that the findings of the DOE contractors concerning river migration are speculative and that a reasonable doubt does exist to conclude that the Moab Mill site could be compromised by a probable maximum flood.
4. The DOE must ensure consultation with applicable federal agencies
The DEIS is not thorough because consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) was not sought in an official capacity. This is an oversight on the part of the DOE that must be corrected. The Bureau is the federal regulatory agency that has jurisdiction over water quality for the Colorado River. The Bureau is also a partner in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. The Bureau has already produced publications analyzing and modeling a probable maximum flood in the Colorado River drainage and their expertise in this regard should be fully considered.
Some of the dams that the Bureau has designed have had engineering components that have become problematic. Some Bureau dams have failed entirely, such as Teton Dam. The Colorado River basin dams that have had design problems include Fontenelle, Flaming Gorge, Navajo, Glen Canyon and Hoover. The problems include seepage erosion at the earthen dams and river outlet and spillway failures at the concrete dams.
Living Rivers brought this oversight to the attention of the Bureau of Reclamation at Salt Lake City on January 27, 2005. We formally ask DOE that consultation with the Bureau is initiated and that their comments be included in the FEIS.
We also remind DOE that a full consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concerning the Endangered Species Act is required for the FEIS. This would include the reasonable and prudent alternatives of USFWS’s Biological Opinion.
We also request consultation with the U.S. Geological Survey in the FEIS concerning this agency’s recent analysis and modeling of a probable maximum flood in the Moab Valley; Report 2005-5022 became publicly available on February 11, 2005.
We also request that the State Department should be allowed to weigh in on FEIS concerning U.S. treaty obligations with the Republic of Mexico, and because the Colorado River delta has been designated as an International Biosphere Reserve.
IV. Global warming and climate change
The DOE sponsored the Accelerated Climate Prediction Initiative (Initiative), which was administered by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Much of the consequent analysis and modeling from this Initiative has been recently published and would be useful in the consideration of alternatives for the Moab Mill’s tailings pile. We request the DOE consult with the principle scientists of the Initiative for the FEIS concerning the effects of climate change on the Colorado River. The report of the Initiative acknowledges that extreme variables of climate are likely to occur and due to the impacts of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Examples of impacts from climate change would include reduced water quality as a result of diminished flows, increased sediment loads, channel narrowing of the river, and catastrophic flooding in local and regional watersheds.
V. Cost analysis
Human health, national parks, endangered species and cultural heritage are priceless things. We will support the DOE to save taxpayer money so that the savings could be applied to other worthwhile service projects to protect the general health and welfare of the American people. However, because it is reasonable to assume that the On-Site Disposal Alternative may fail and that subsequent clean-up costs would be astronomical, the On-Site Alternative should be abandoned for reasons that it would potentially save taxpayer’s money in the long-term. The Off-Site Disposal Alternative, though more expensive, provides greater economic and environmental security. The additional cost is therefore justified and potentially serves to be the most affordable alternative in the DEIS.
VI. The river community
People depend on the Colorado River for economic security and for the enrichment of their lives through visitation at Canyonlands National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Living Rivers, Colorado Riverkeeper, Colorado Plateau River Guides, River Runners for Wilderness and Colorado Outward Bound West represent various parts of a constituency we call the river community. The intent of this community is to partake in the organizing and participation of river trips through Canyonlands National Park and Glen Canyon NRA. The reasons include recreation, employment, education in the sciences and arts, and the monitoring of the Colorado River’s environmental quality and cultural heritage.
The professional river guides represent the day-to-day users of the Colorado River. Over 300 active professional river guides have hundreds of multiple-day river trips and thousands of one-day trips that have spanned a career, for some, as long as 40 years. Their clients (numbering in the thousands annually) include the general public, special populations, and educational and cultural institutions. Another large constituency of the Colorado River users that are represented by the thousands are the non-commercial river runners who come to enjoy the benefits of Canyonlands National Park for the same reasons as stated above, which includes employment through incidental support services.
The On-Site Disposal Alternative must be abandoned for the reasons that this river community would suffer economic and social hardships should the Moab Mill’s tailings pile fail in a probable maximum flood with the eventual outcome of irradiating the river corridor of Canyonlands National Park and Glen Canyon NRA. This could also affect the river community of Grand Canyon National Park and Lake Mead NRA.
In conclusion the risk to the downstream ecosystems and the health of millions of people is much to high to justify keeping the Moab Mill site along the shores of the Colorado River. The principle objective of the Final EIS must be the safe removal of the pile from the Colorado River, to stop the groundwater contamination of the Colorado River and the Moab Sloughs, and to contain these toxic materials at an off-site location in a responsible and efficient manner.
Thank you again for this opportunity to provide comments. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require assistance in regard to this letter.
Sincerely yours,
John Weisheit, Conservation Director
Living Rivers and Colorado Riverkeeper
On behalf of the following groups:
Colorado Plateau River Guides
PO Box 344
Moab, UT 84532
River Runners for Wilderness
PO Box 17301
Boulder, CO 80308
Colorado Outward Bound West
PO Box M
Moab, UT 84532
Detailed comments of Sarah Fields
Nuclear Waste Chair, Glen Canyon Group Sierra Club [95k PDF File]
