Time to bury Yucca Mountain

Suppose the Federal Government were to contract a leading Martian consultant to assist the United States in devising some means of disposing of its most toxic nuclear waste.  What might they conclude?

Our Martian consultant would first note that long term storage is really the only option to handle this material.   You can't burn it or otherwise change it; we're dealing with atomic isotopes here.  Our consultant might then decide that it is wisest to store this material:

•  in an out-of-the way, relatively unpopulated place
•  central to where the waste is being produced
•  not near a major population center, and 
• in a geological setting in which the material is likely to be undisturbed for a very long time. 

Doubtless, our Martian consultant would look at a map of nuclear reactor facilities to see where there material is coming from.  Here's one from Wikipedia in 2013.  The size of the dots is proportional to the amount of waste that would be produced:

Our consultant would likely conclude that any long term storage facility should be located in the eastern or central US.   The greatest risk of a nuclear discharge is when you are transporting the material to the plant so it makes sense to put is somewhere central to where it's coming from.

You're going to be moving a lot of stuff so you'd like it near some major transportation corridor along which it could be moved safely with other hazardous materials.   Our consultant might next look at a map of major railways and roads in America.  Here's another cool map from Wikipedia showing rail, highway and shipping corridors with the thickness of the lines proportional to the freight moved.  Highways in red, rail in brown and shipping in blue.

Our consultant might conclude that somewhere close to the Chicago - New York transportation corridor might be the best spot.

Next up, our Martian would look at population density.  Here's a look at population density by county in 2017 (vividmaps.com).

By this point our consultant might conclude that somewhere in the northern US (Dakotas, Wisconsin or Michigan) might be pretty good based on looking at all the maps we've seen so far.

Now our consultant would turn to the geological hazards associated with the site.   You don't want to be in an area with a lot of earthquakes (think San Francisco) or volcanic activity (think Yellowstone).  Earthquakes, volcanic activity and hot water (hydrothermal flows) associated with volcanic activity can breach your nice self-contained storage site and cause nuclear crap to leak out into the groundwater.  Finally, you'd like to put the storage site in  hard, unfractured, dry bedrock.  So where do you find such a place? 

Here's a USGS map of earthquake (seismicity) hazard for the US:

Looks like Texas, Florida and the northern states are the safest bet if you want to avoid the chance of an earthquake breaching your nuclear storage facility.  Here is another USGS derived map of volcanic hazards:

Our consultant would conclude the far west and west coast look like bad spots to site a nuclear storage facility.

Finally, our consultant would likely recommend that we put the storage facility in the toughest, most unfractured rocks we can find.  Generally, your best choice is older rocks.  They tend to have been formed at deeper depths and only been exposed through erosion over billions of years.  Deeper rocks, especially metamorphic and igneous rocks (think of your granite counter top) are good storage locations.  Geologists refer to the oldest rocks forming the core of North America as the Craton.  Here's a map (USGS / GSA):

While most of the really old, hard stable rocks are up in Canada, part of the craton dips down into the US, west of Lake Superior.  Finland is storing its high level nuclear waste in similar rocks at the only facility for final nuclear waste storage yet built anywhere in the world.

After considering all factors, I think our Martian consultant would likely recommend that the US put a long term nuclear storage facility in some shield rocks in Michigan or Wisconsin.  

For better or worse, the decision on where to store America's nuclear waste won't be made by a Martian consultant but by our fallible, pliable politicians, buttressed by thousands of detailed reports justifying a predetermined decision.

On the facts however, Yucca Mountain is bad for America and Nevada:

• The site is distant from most of the nuclear waste in the US - currently generated at power plants in the eastern US.   Siting a long term storage facility at Yucca Mountain creates unnecessary transportation and handling hazards.
• On a national scale, Yucca Mountain is not near major transportation corridors and this will create additional transportation hazards.
• Yucca Mountain is located near the most heavily populated area in Nevada.  Virtually all high level nuclear waste stored at the the site will come through Las Vegas.   
• Yucca Mountain is along the Walker Lane and in the Eastern Nevada Seismic Zone - areas of high earthquake hazard that should have disallowed the site from the get-go.
• There have been recent volcanic eruptions in the area of Yucca Mountain - as recent at 60,000 years ago which is a blink in geological time.   There are numerous hot springs in the area resulting from past and potentially future volcanic activity.  Hot spring activity directly associated with volcanic activity is acidic - a potential hazard to any storage facility.
• A breech in a facility at Yucca Mountain could potentially contaminate aquifers beneath Amargosa Valley.  Although not a population center now, it is close to Las Vegas and Pahrump - the fastest growing community in Nevada.  

 Most Nevadan's agree.  The Nevada Independent conducted the most recent poll on Yucca Mountain in 2017:

Voters were given the following information about the facility, including rotated statements of support and opposition to the facility:

“As you may know, there has been renewed discussion about government plans to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert. I am going to read you what some people are saying about this, and then ask whether you favor or oppose putting a nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain. Supporters say that the Yucca Mountain program can help develop Nevada’s economy and create thousands of new jobs. Opponents say that transporting and storing nuclear waste is dangerous, and Nevada shouldn’t be our country’s nuclear waste dumping ground.”

After hearing supporting and opposing arguments, 58 percent of voters said they opposed opening the facility including 51 percent “strongly” opposed.  opening the facility, compared to 23 percent “strongly” in favor of opening it. Only a third of poll respondents favor storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, with 23% strongly favoring the plan.”   Female voters were more likely to oppose the site (23 to 68 percent) than men (44 to 48 percent). Voters regardless of party identification opposed the site, but those who identified as Republican had a slightly more positive view (44 to 50 percent) than Democrats (23 to 68 percent.).

Mellman Group CEO Mark Mellman said in an email that Republican support could be explained by the economic argument for opening the site.  “It is possible that the economic development argument does blunt opposition to some extent among Republicans,” he said.

Nevada has already made an out-sized contribution to America's nuclear industry at the test site.  Large areas are still contaminated from hundred of nuclear bomb tests during the 1950's.  We needn't feel bad about opposing Yucca Mountain.  It is clearly the wish of the majority of Nevadans that Yucca Mountain never get built.

I think we might want to insert a plank in the Alliance Party of Nevada platform opposing the development of the Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility.

What do you think?

-- Mike Power

chair@nv.theallianceparty.com