17 May 2020
Nevada Earthquake Raises More Doubts about Yucca Mountain
Posted by John Freeland
Approximate location of 2020 May 15 magnitude 6.5 Earthquake in western Nevada. Google Earth base aerial.
On Friday, May 15, 2020, a magnitude 6.5 earthquake rocked Nevada and portions of California. With the epicenter located about 22 miles west of Tonopah, NV, no serious damage was recorded aside from cracked highway pavement in the mostly remote surroundings, far from population centers. Reportedly, Nevada has not seen an earthquake of this size since 1954. Worth noting, the earthquake epicenter is about 100 miles away from the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, as depicted on the above aerial image.
The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository is, by authority of legislation passed in 1982 and 1987, currently the designated single facility for permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste. A time-line of the related events briefly describes the story of the Yucca Mountain Repository. Locals see the project as a source of jobs but state-wide there is strong opposition. After all, there are no nuclear power generating facilities in Nevada. According to Rep. Ruben Kihuen (D-Nev), “if you generate nuclear waste, you should keep it in your own backyard. Don’t send it to our backyard.”
The safety of Yucca Mountain has been debated for nearly forty years. I’ve previously posted on the topic here and here. An interesting analysis of political and other factors swirling around the project is “How Safe is Yucca Mountain?”
As the map to the right (USGS craton map) shows, the Yucca Mountain site is not in an ideal location in terms of tectonic activity. Located near the boundary of the “accretionary belt” and the “deformed craton” the region has a history of volcanic activity within the past 2 million years and Nevada is ranked third in the nation for earthquakes. As Dr. Cochran points out in his paper cited above, Nevada was selected largely for political reasons. The federal government already owned the Nevada Test Site property, which had been used for years for weapons testing. It is remote, however, remote areas of the United States are often found out west where there is higher seismicity. Whether we want to or not, we as a nation will have to figure out a solution to permanent nuclear waste disposal with some 90,000 tons now in temporary storage.
So where should it go? North or South Dakota? Eastern Montana? Predicting the long-term future of seismic events appears to be dicey. As Nevada Seismological Laboratory Director Graham Kent puts it “We like to think everything’s the way it is and it doesn’t change that much,” he said. “I think the last few months we’ve learned with the pandemic that that’s not the case.”
John Freeland earned a PhD in Soil Science (Pedology) at North Dakota State University and is a consultant working in the private sector. He has published soils research and taught at the high school and college levels. John is interested in wetlands, soil genesis, science communication, the intersection of art and science, and soil-water-landscape processes. John lives near the Ohio-Michigan border and plays bass in multiple music projects.
Dr. Freeland has to do a bit more homework. The nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain NV is “proposed,” that is not built and has not been funded since 2011. Also the quote from Ruben Kihuen dates from 2018 and Kilhuen is the “former” U.S. Rep. from Nevada. He served from 2017-2019.
Alex,
You are correct in that the Yucca Mtn site is “proposed” and will remain that way until it receives an operating license. Funding, as you say, has also been absent for a long time. However the issue isn’t “dead.” By Congressional statute, Yucca Mtn remains the designated long term waste repository for the nation. In 2015, a federal court ordered the licensing process to resume. In 2017 Energy secretary Rick Perry testified in a “House hearing that officials had a “moral obligation” to fund the site and continue with the nuclear waste proposal.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/23/us/politics/trump-yucca-mountain-nevada.html. The Trump administration has reversed course on its position on Yucca Mountain. It was for it, now it is against it. The site continues to have its proponents. The issue of needed storage remains and a lot of money has been spent on Yucca Mtn for studies and exploratory tunnels.
Maybe it’s working up to another volcano erupton next door the the Yucca Mtn proposed nuclear storage site.
Wendell,
Thanks for the comment. I hear you and increased earthquake activity is often a precursor to volcanic eruptions. The site was not selected for its geologic stability.
Take care,
jf
Why don’t we put waste into an active volcano crater – it’s then tied up in rock that would be mildly radioactive and away from habitation – to me it would appear more effective than synthetic glass.
Here’s 3 solid scientific reasons for placing long term disposal of all US nuclear waste within the 3 state triumvirate of Texas, Alabama & Tennessee, these 3 states are amongst the 4 top producers of all US nuclear waste, they physically lie well within the 600 million years stable North American Craton and safety considerations of transporting nuclear waste to disposal site(s) would be minimized.