Subscription Center
Mar 10, 2009 05:30 PM | 4
The generation-long debate surrounding the dumping of the nation’s radioactive nuclear waste under Nevada’s Yucca Mountain may finally be drawing to a close. As ScientificAmerican.com reported yesterday, the plan to turn the mountain – some 100 miles (160 kilometers) from Las Vegas – into a nuclear repository appears to be dead in the water: President Obama’s proposed 2010 budget removes major funding needed to complete the project – and it faces opposition from powerful Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, who doesn't want the country's spent nuclear fuel dumped in his state.
But is there really cause for concern?
"There is an earthquake hazard around Yucca Mountain that’s greater than, say, the northeastern United States, but much less than that faced by Los Angeles or San Francisco," says John Anderson, director of the Nevada Seismological Lab (NSL) based at the University of Nevada, Reno. The lab has monitored the Yucca Mountain region since 1992 when it received a grant from the Department of Energy (DOE) to help ascertain the site’s suitability as a nuclear waste graveyard.
The hazard of earthquakes stems from faults that scientists have detected around Yucca Mountain, Anderson says. Faults are fractures in the Earth’s rocky crust that allow movement between two masses of stone. When this slippage happens abruptly, presto, you’ve got an earthquake. Typically the longer a fault, the more earthquake potential it carries. For example, the infamous San Andreas fault that can produce devastating earthquakes of magnitude eight or nine on the Richter scale runs about 800 miles (1300 kilometers) under much of California's western shoreline.
The tectonics in southern Nevada where Yucca Mountain is located pale in comparison. “Hazard analyses of the faults close to Yucca Mountain indicate they could not produce more than a seven [on the Richter scale],” says Anderson. A seven can still do significant damage and qualifies as a major earthquake, though such a quake falls far short of, say, the apocalyptic magnitude 9.1 to 9.3 that triggered the Asian tsunami in 2004.
Tiny quakes near Yucca Mountain often shake things up a bit, however: NSL records about 10 micro-earthquakes of less than magnitude two or so daily within a 30 mile (50 kilometer) range of the once-slated nuclear repository, according to the lab’s website. Though it may look more alarming than it really is, check out this map (PDF) peppered with circles representing earthquakes recorded between 1992 and 2006 around Yucca Mountain by the NSL.
The only sizable quake that shook the region in recent history registered a magnitude 5.7, substantially damaging DOE buildings in the vicinity but not the fledging facilities at Yucca back in 1992. People who have worked in the Yucca environs, including at the Nevada Test Site in the desert at the mountain’s edge (where the U.S. detonated over 900 nuclear weapons above and below ground from 1951 to 1992), have reported feeling non-manmade tremors as well.
The DOE says this frequent, if low-level, seismic activity does not pose a threat to potential safe nuclear storage some five miles (eight kilometers) under Yucca Mountain. The DOE says on its Yucca Mountain web page (which remains the same as it was pre-President Obama and his Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who both oppose it as a nuke repository) in a posting that's been there since 2003:
"Experience with earthquakes throughout the world has shown that underground structures can withstand the ground motion generated by earthquakes. And, in actual tests at the Nevada Test Site mine tunnels have withstood ground motion from underground nuclear explosions that are greater than any ground motion anticipated at or near Yucca Mountain. Repository facilities at the surface also can be designed to safely withstand earthquake effects."
In other words, the proposed Yucca Mountain repository could withstand whatever earthquakes Mother Nature might muster – except, perhaps, the shifting of the political ground.
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Image Credit: USGS
Tags:
harry reid,
yucca mountain,
obama,
nuclear waste,
earthquake
More News Blog:
Next: Screens for ovarian cancer show promise in detecting tumors
Previous: How can you tell if coffee is really decaf?
See what we're tweeting about
BecCrew RT @screen_info Congratulations to @BadenPailthorpe! http://t.co/4gc6DfL1gN
BoraZ Fasting: The New Fad Diet? http://t.co/AzNQ2HlXno
sciammind #SciAmBlogs Wednesday - niche construction, cicadas, ageing, Moon, pirates' dodo, sick caecilians, hurricane f... http://t.co/sVtkJrmrg2
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
4 Comments
Add CommentSen Harry Reid ignored both scientific and economic interest to kill this site. The centralized housing of nuclear waste would allow efficient reprocessing (hampered by lack of scale to make it profitable), centralize access to such material in a climate of concern over terrorist access, and diversify the economy of one of the state's hardest hit by the recession. Thank you again for giving in to fear and misinformation to finally kill a lifeline to your own state. Best of luck in 2010, Harry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you consider the numerous dangers nuclear waste and nuclear power possess, nuclear power is not worth the effort or expense. All nuclear power should be banned from production, along with coal and oil. There are a lot of safer, cheaper, and cleaner forms of energy that must be sought. We do not need greedy people with "warlord" mentalities encouraging our own destruction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe so-called dangers of nuclear waste are the result of the linear-no threshold treatment of radioactivity, or the idea that any exposure is toxic, which is flat-out wrong. Combine that with the Most Terrifying Disease called cancer, and you have a recipe for hysteria that has been relentlessly hyped by the green movement for decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is, nuclear waste is less toxic than most chemicals we dispose of routinely today. Once the fuel is reprocessed, the remaining material can be safely sealed in concrete-filled drums and dropped into an ocean trench where it can be subducted back into the crust. The fact that the amount of waste produced is vanishingly small makes disposal even less of a problem. The entire nonusable waste from a typical nuclear power plant won't even fill a single oil drum after five years.
The earthquake issue is a sham. Earthquakes are found anyplace you put instruments to detect them. The important question is whether an earthquake would cause potentially harmful release of the buried material. The answer is a resounding "NO". frgough makes valid points, but Steven Spielberg would have a field day if ocean disposal were on the table. People like JamesDavis know absolutely nothing about nuclear power, fuel reprocessing, medical isotopes or waste disposal, but they are so terrified of nuclear weapons proliferation that they want anything nuclear banished from this planet. Instead of hysterical reactions like his, we should all be supporting the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) and stop trying to turn America into a second-rate nation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this