Yucca Mountain

 

 

 

 

 

By,

 

Dr. Andrea Leigh Sitler, PhD

June 20, 2003

 

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

 

 

 

No one wants a radioactive waste dump in their backyard.  We all want the benefits of clean nuclear power but no one desires responsibility for the spent core.  People hear the work nuclear or radioactive and think of three legged children, two headed chickens, death and all the other media hype one can fathom.  But let us get real and take a scientific look at nuclear waste.

 

Yucca Mountain is being highly considered as the location for the largest proposed radioactive waste disposal site in the United States. The plan behind using Yucca Mt. is that the mountains form a natural barrier of protection.  The scientists have researched and developed advanced methods of disposal that works with the mountain to protect the general population. This area is located in a report part of Nevada, 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, with exposure to minimal population. As always, the population in these remote areas is primarily Native Americans. 

 

The chosen site, just as White Sands in NM, is one which has been used for years of weapons testing.  Radiation and such is nothing new in this area.  The disposal site is to be situated on the edges of Nellis Air Force Base and the Nevada Test Site.  Both sites are government properties.  The next neighbor is Death Valley.  With temperatures topping 140 degrees, the population there is minimal as well. Nevada is a hot, dry, desert climate.  There is little rain to be concerned with ground seepage and run off.   

 

“Yucca Mountain is a 1200 foot high flat topped volcanic ridge extending six miles north to south.  It is comprised of tuff, a rock made from compacted volcanic ash formed approx. 13 million years ago.  The nuclear waste repository would be built approx. 1000 ft. below the land surface and 1000 ft above the water table.  The repository would house 77,000 tons of highly radioactive material form 72 commercial and 43 research sites in 43 states.  The material would come from commercial nuclear power plants and government’s weapons programs.”  Source: Reno Gazette-Journal from http://www.rgj.com/news/files/2002/01/11/4186.jpg.php

 

The nuclear waste is to be stored in emplacement tunnels. These tunnels are bored into the mountain, sealed by doors and back filled with rock material.  Inside the tunnels, robotic observation gantries monitor waste packages for possible leaks or disturbances from natural occurrences.  According to government engineers, waste packages can be removed and the process reversed, in emergency situations.

 

“The design of the facility is such that waste materials will pose no significant risks for a period lasting beyond 10,000 years.  The bulk of the disposed material is to be 90% inactive within 100 years. Opponents are concerned by the area’s seismic and volcanic history, erosion and other natural geologic events.  They say that if a natural disaster were to happen in the area and compromise the repository’s design, water passing through Yucca Mt. and storage tunnels might pick up radioactive elements and carry them to the aquifer water table below.  This flows southeast into the Amargosa Valley where there are people and agriculture.”    Source: http://www.yuccamountain.org/photo/graphic0202.jpg

 

With earthquakes and volcanoes being a hot topic for discussion allow me to present two studies from the area in question. First bear in mind that possible damage to stored waste canisters and potential effects on the long-term storage barriers will be addressed by the DOE. The largest earthquake at the repository itself, as known from geologic evidence, had a slip of about 1 meter; earthquakes of this size appear to recur at intervals like tens of thousands of years there. The possibility of strong ground motion from faults outside the immediate area exists at a much smaller recurrence interval, but their ground motion is predicted to be less and is being considered in the seismic design.

 

Study 1 -“Analysis of the available data indicates that, since 1976, there have been 621 seismic events of magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain. Reported underground nuclear weapons tests at the Nevada Test Site have been excluded from this count.

 

The most notable event during this period was a magnitude 5.6 earthquake near Little Skull Mountain, about 8 miles southeast of the Yucca Mountain site, which occurred on June 29, 1992. This earthquake caused damage to a nearby Department of Energy field office building. This earthquake, and many after-shocks, occurred on a fault that had not previously been identified. The Little Skull Mountain earthquake and numerous others at about the same time in the western U.S. are considered to have been triggered by the magnitude 7.4 Landers earthquake, in California.

The only significant cluster of earthquake activity in the 50-mile radius area is in Rock Valley, about 12 miles southeast of Yucca Mountain. The data base also reveals that, in 1948, there was a magnitude 3.6 event on the southeast boundary of the Yucca Mountain site, in an area known to have a number of faults. Recently, there have been other events recorded beneath Yucca Mountain with magnitudes less than 2.5.

Earthquake activity is a safety concern both during operation, above and below ground, and after closure of a repository at Yucca Mountain.

The mountain ranges and valleys of the Basin and Range, including the Yucca Mountain area, are a result of millions of years of intense faulting and volcanism. Records of recent events indicate that faulting is an ongoing process in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain that is expected to continue long into the future. Thirty-three faults are known to exist within and adjacent to the Yucca Mountain site.”  Source:  http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/seismo01.htm

Study 2 -“PASADENA--Recent geodetic measurements using Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites show that the Yucca Mountain area in southern Nevada is straining roughly 10 to 100 times faster than expected on the basis of the geologic history of the area. And for the moment at least, geologists are at a loss to explain the anomaly.

In the March 28 issue of the journal Science, Brian Wernicke of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and his colleagues at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, report on Global Positioning System surveys they conducted from 1991 to 1997. Those surveys show that the Yucca Mountain area is stretching apart at about one millimeter per year east-southeastward.

"The question is why the predicted geological rates of stretching are so much lower than what we are measuring?" asks Wernicke. "That's something we need to think through and understand."

The answer is likely to be of interest to quite a few people, because Yucca Mountain has been proposed as a site for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Experts believe that the waste-disposal site can accommodate a certain amount of seismic activity, but they nonetheless would like for any site to have a certain amount of stability over the next 10,000 to 100,000 years.

Yucca Mountain was already known to have both seismic and volcanic activity, Wernicke says. An example of the former is the 5.4-magnitude "Little Skull Mountain" earthquake that occurred in 1992. And an example of the latter is the 80,000-year-old volcano to the south of the mountain. The volcano is inactive, but still must be studied according to Department of Energy regulations.

The problem the new study poses is that the strain is building up in the crust at a rate about one-fourth that of the most rapidly straining areas of the earth's crust, such as near the San Andreas fault, Wernicke says. But there could be other factors at work.

"There are three possibilities that we outline in the paper as to why the satellite data doesn't agree with the average predicted by the geological record," he says. "Either the average is wrong, or we are wrong, or there's some kind of pulse of activity going on and we just happened to take our data during the pulse."

The latter scenario, Wernicke believes, could turn out to be the case. But if Yucca Mountain is really as seismically active as the current data indicate at face value, the likelihood of magmatic and tectonic events could be 10 times higher than once believed.”

Source:  http://pr.caltech.edu/media/lead/032698YUCCA.html

Earthquakes are common on the San Andres fault.  This line runs to the west of the Yucca Mountains.  Yes when a large earthquake is experienced in Ca, there is ground motion felt at Yucca but nothing that can do damage.  The facility is designed to California earthquake standards or higher. This meaning that Ca standards say building must withstand an earthquake up to a magnitude of 7.  This facility is being constructed to withstand that and more.  It is to withstand earthquakes up to any currently conceivable level.  The issue of earthquakes during transport is also taken into consideration and provision being put into place. Only solid waste is proposed for storage, and so an earthquake would not result in any direct release of radioactivity to the air or ground water even if, in an extremely unlikely event, a canister were ruptured.

 

“Seismologists believe that the level of seismic activity in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain has stayed about the same, except for a few years following the 1992 Little Skull Mt. earthquake which had thousands of aftershocks, but confined to a relatively small area. The current level seems consistent with the historical level and probably with the level over the past few thousand years. Continued monitoring is important in verifying that this level stays nearly constant. The appearance of many earthquakes near Yucca Mountain on some NSL maps of seismic activity is, in large part, due to the dense and sensitive network that NSL operates there. In geologic time, it has been over 50,000 years since an event of at least M 6.5 has occurred within this range.” Source: http://www.seismo.unr.edu/quakes.html

The last active volcano in this part of the country was Mt. St. Helen’s located far to the north.  That was a one time occurrence back in the 1980’s.  As for this once volcanic mountain, Yucca Mountain’s last volcanic dates back over 80,000 years.

 

Earthquakes of any noticeable magnitude nor volcanoes have occurred in this area in recent history. Even the scientists can not concur as to why they think the ground may be shifting.  They themselves say their tests are inconclusive.  In my opinion these topics should not be a significant issue. I feel many a smoke screen is being sent up to gain attention.  Data is being produced to support the side that wishes to see such data.  One group raises red flags on possible earthquakes while failing to say that only a machine can even feel them.  Too much colored data is being presented.  That is why I stand by my opinion that volcanic activity and earthquakes are not a significant issue to this project.

 

Another main cause for alarm is the transportation issue.  People fear and panic when they hear that nuclear or radioactive products are being transported through their neighborhood.  This transportation is highly regulated and safe.  Bear in mind, the driver does not want to ‘glow’.  Drivers selected for this type of transport are highly trained professional with a long and safe driving record.  Rookies and new hires are not even considered for such work.  This highly regulated transport is conducted under the strictest of regulations and most cautious of drivers.  Many a load has gone by your house without your knowledge and without incident. 

 

The train load that caught fire inside a Baltimore tunnel is wide spread news.  This only promotes panic.  No one speaks of the fine job that hundreds of other trucker drivers and train engineers have preformed. 

 

The routes for entrance to this facility are being carefully thought out and designed.  This is to insure the least amount of access to people or natural disasters such as an earthquake enroute. 

 

To add to the transportation issue, another hot topic is the fact of Nellis Air Force Base’s flight plan.  Many people in power do not wish to see planes within 30 miles of a storage facility.  They also do not wish to draw red circle where pilots can not fly.  This is another hot topic few wish to discuss.

 

In short, anyone handling this material or material of the sort is a highly trained professional.  Specially equipped facilities and personal specifically trained in the handling of high-level radioactive waste will man this facility. This holds true for any personnel involved in any way with this facility, the transportation, packaging, handling at either end and so forth.  What people in general fail to realize is that the people working with this product are taught to respect the product.  They desire their own personal safety and will be subjecting themselves to great personal harm should they not be diligent in their work.

 

More federal hearings are scheduled for September 2003.

 

My personal recommendation is that Yucca Mountain continues to be considered for this site.  As I said, no one wants this in their back yard.  But if we think as a nation, this is in our backyard no matter where we place the facility.  Therefore Yucca Mountain is a fine site.  It is sparsely populated.  The traffic in general in that area is minimal.  Therefore transport of this product is going to see less resistance.  The high dense mountains are a safe place for storage and the area is primarily stable.

 

Traffic and population in the east is why too high to make a location there a practical consideration. Coastal states have no mountains and are primarily below sea level.  These are not adequate sites.  The only place I could think to place such a facility would be in NM or AZ mountains, CO, UT and ID mountains or here in Yucca.  The rest of our backyard’s are too populated, too crowed, too busy with traffic, unstable or to close to the water table.  Yucca Mountain is a prime location for such a facility. 

 

The only other alternative I wish to offer as well as a thought to the populace.  If you do not wish to have this waste in your backyard, then nuclear power will have to become a thing of the past.  What do we have to replace it?  Consider the alternatives?  Even if we do not have nuclear power, the other countries do.  The possibilities for contamination by air drift even at minute levels still can occur.  If you are going to reduce this site to such scrutiny consider that factor for a moment. 

Andrea Leigh Sitler

June 2003