Is Shale the Answer to America’s Nuclear Waste Woes?

With the plans for a Yucca Mountain waste repository scrapped, scienti sts
suggest that clay-rich rocks could permanently house spent nuclear fuel

When plans were scrapped in 2009 for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, some
worried that expansion of American nuclear power might dissolve along with it. Without a
safe, permanent site to store the country’s 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste–currently
stored in temporary pools and dry casks at 75 sites around the country–it seemed that a
robust expansion of nuclear power might have to be put on the back burner.

But a viable option might be on the horizon; in an article (pdf) published this week in Eos, the
newspaper of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist
Christopher Neuzil suggests that shale–a mineral rock found in abundance in the United
States–could be the key to a future of safe disposal for nuclear waste.

Shale and other argillaceous formations (any clay-rich media such as mudrocks) possess certain
unique qualities which would make them prime candidates for the disposal of nuclear waste,
Neuzil argues. Argillaceous formations have extremely low permeability, meaning that risk for
toxic runoff from waste storage would be greatly reduced. Nuclear runoff is one of the greatest
concerns for waste storage, which comes from waste dissolving in groundwater flowing
through the storage area. Because water flows through shale at an extremely slow rate, Neuzil
says that the material would act as a distinct barrier between nuclear waste and potential
runoff. In fact, shale can act like a sponge, absorbing water without releasing any; this would
allow nuclear waste to be stored safely, keeping the waste materials inside the formations.

Moreover, Neuzil cites the natural abundance of shale in the United States as a clear
advantage. “The United States is in an enviable position with respect to the scale and sheer
diversity in age, history, composition, and thickness of argillaceous formations within its
borders,” Neuzil writes. “Geologically and geographically, potential choices for a repository are
many.” Moreover, the locations of these formations constitute another benefit to waste
storage; because the formations are often found in relatively old and geological stable areas,
the risk for tectonic disturbance would be greatly reduced.

The low permeability of shale is something that Americans are starting to be familiar with–its
what allows shale gas and oil, which forms when organic components within the rocks break
down, to collect without escaping. In fact, fracking to extract shale gas is conducted to
overcome shale’s impermeable nature. But rather than seeking to extract what may be inside
the shale to produce energy, scientists like Neuzil see shale as a medium to house the
byproducts of energy that has already been produced. And with nuclear energy responsible for
nearly 20 percent of the nation’s energy production, our need to permanently dispose spent
nuclear fuel grows every year.

The United States has only recently begun researching the potential for shale disposal, but
Neuzil cites multiple studies which have been conducted–or are underway–in Europe and
beyond, from the United Kingdom to Japan. France, Belgium and Switzerland have moved
beyond the research process, and are currently devising plans to implement shale-storage of
their nuclear waste (pdf). Though there is concern that emplacement would potentially disrupt
the integrity of shale as a barrier to waste, studies in Europe suggest that the formations, even
with cavities made for waste storage, maintain their ability to keep groundwater from carrying
contaminates any measurable distance.

Shale is not without its caveats, however. Neuzil notes that the research surrounding shale’s
potential for nuclear storage must be mostly extrapolated from other minerals, as shale’s low-
rate of water flow also makes studying the phenomenon difficult. Instead of studying shale’s
permeability in the long term, scientists use rocks with faster flow-rates, which are quicker and
easier to study in the short term, and apply the properties to shale. This could pose threats to
the long-term success of shale storage, as no data exists on its true ability to weather long-
term storage situations.

So how do you actually get spent nuclear fuel into these clayey rocks? Neuzil suggests that the
waste would be placed mostly in solid form. “Some waste may be vitrified, or mixed with
molten glass that then solidifies. This may make it more difficult for the waste to contaminate
any groundwater that contacts it,” he explained in an interview, adding that any waste would
also be placed in canisters (stainless steel or copper) to further impede contamination of the
ambient environment.

In April of this year, the Department of Energy announced plans to launch a new research and
development project led by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a 15.8 million dollar
investment that will center around design and implementation of dry cask storage for nuclear
waste. The initative mentions nothing about expanding research to other options–geological or
otherwise–though a spokesperson for the Department of Energy notes that they are currently
“analyzing the capabilities of various geologic media, including clay, salt, crystalline rock and
shale, for repository disposal in the United States,” as well as taking advantage of existing
research conducted by other countries.