Feature: Surviving on nuclear waste

By SAM VAKNIN, UPI Senior Business Correspondent

SKOPJE, Macedonia, Nov. 22 (UPI) -- Nuclear waste is both an environmental problem and an economic solution in the countries of east Europe and central Asia. Kazakhstan announced on Wednesday that it plans to import other countries' nuclear waste -- and get paid for its shoddy disposal-by-burial, a method contrary to international conventions.

Ironically, the money generated is earmarked for ridding of Kazakhstan of its own pile of fissionable trash. This emulates a similar scheme floated two years ago in Russia. The Atomic Energy Ministry planned to import 20,000 tons of nuclear waste to earn $21 billion in the process.


The collapse of the Warsaw Pact left many countries in the former Soviet bloc with an aging and prohibitively expensive to maintain nuclear arsenal. Dismantling the warheads -- often with American and EU Euratom funding -- yielded mounds of lethal radioactive materials.


Abandoned nuclear test sites -- such as the USSR's central facility in Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan -- contain thousands of tons of radioactive leftovers. Add to this the network of decrepit, Chernobyl-like, reactors strewn throughout the region and their refuse and the gargantuan dimensions of the threat emerge.

Take, again, Kazakhstan. According to Mukhtar Dzakishev, president of Kazatomprom, the country's national nuclear agency, the country is immersed

in 230,000 tons of waste. It would cost more than $1 billion to clean. The country should earn this amount in a single year of imports of nuclear litter.

The going rate in Europe is about $3,000-$5,000 per 200-liter barrel, only a fifth of which is spent on its burial in old mines or specially constructed

depositories. This translates to a profit of $80-$140 per cubic meter of uranium buried -- compared to less than $10 per cubic meter of uranium extracted. The countries of east Europe have entered the fray with relish.

Last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin rushed through the State Duma a much-debated law that allows for the importation and disposal of nuclear waste.

Getting rid of nuclear waste and dismantling nuclear facilities -- both military and peacetime -- do not come cheap.


According to the ELTA news agency, Lithuania's decommissioning of the Ignalina nuclear power plant would require 30 years and should cost $90 million in 2008 alone. Last month, Russia's Atomic Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov pegged the cost of a U.S.-Russian agreement to dispose of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium at $750 million. Russia plans to resell the end product, mixed oxide, to various countries in Europe and to Japan. MOX can be used to fuel specially fitted power plants.

The European Commission, alarmed by these developments in its backyard, announced, according to, that it "gives priority to geological burial of dangerous material as the safest disposal method to date. Member states will be required to establish national burial sites for the disposal of radioactive waste by 2018. Research for waste management will also be stepped up."

Even private non-governmental organizations got into the act. In August, Russia reclaimed from the Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, 99 pounds of highly enriched uranium. The Nuclear Threat Initiative, a Washington-based NGO established by Ted Turner of CNN fame and former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn, was instrumental in arranging the air transport of the sensitive substance. According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Vinca Institute conditioned its surrender of the uranium rods on financial aid to


dispose of 2.5 tons of spent nuclear fuel. NTI provided the $5 million needed to accomplish the cleanup.

A donor conference, in the framework of the Northern Dimension Environmental partnership pledged last week about $110 million to tackle environmental and nuclear waste in northwest Russia. This fund will supplement loans from international financial institutions. Yet, according to the BBC, of the 12 priority projects worth $1.3 billion that have been agreed, not one concerns atomic trash.

The NDEP, set up in 1997, is a partnership of the European Commission, Russia, the European Regional Development Bank, the European Investment Bank, the Nordic Bank and the World Bank. But it is predicated on a crucial document -- the Multilateral Nuclear Environment Program in Russia -- which Russia has hitherto evaded signing.

The sorry state of under-funded efforts to cope with the aftermath of nuclear power and weaponry and the blatant venality that often accompanies shady waste deals provoked a green backlash throughout the otherwise docile region. The Guardian quoted courageous Kazakh environmental activists as

saying: "The same is repeated again and again. It is just another money-making venture ... The World Bank is worried about corruption in Kazakhstan. In our

current situation there is no guarantee of public safety, no system for compensation, no confidence in the ability of customs to deal with these cargoes. Everyone has a human right to a safe environment -- but apparently not here."


Similar sentiments are expressed by groups in Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Poland and elsewhere. Being

"environmentally correct" is so important that Tanjug, the Yugoslav news agency, in its relentless campaign against NATO, implausibly accused Germany

of storing its waste in the mines of Kosovo.

A prime example of activism involved a Russian scientific expedition which recently found a nuclear submarine dumped, with spent radioactive fuel, in

the northern Kara Sea. According to news agencies, quoting environmental groups, dumping nuclear waste, hundreds of submarines and decommissioned nuclear reactors into Arctic waters was common practice in the Soviet Union.

The governor of the Murmansk region, bordering on Norway, has announced a 6-year cleansing program of the Kola peninsula, designed to assuage the

worried Scandinavians. The Norwegians built a waste recycling facility in the area, constructed a special train to ferry the waste away and invested in renovating a storage dump.

Many east European countries do not store nuclear waste but serve merely as transit routes. The waste the Kazakhs plan to dispose of, for instance, should cross Russian territory. Yet, the Russians are the easy part. In 1998, they agreed to continue to store in east Siberia fission by-products from Bulgaria's controversial Soviet-built Kozloduy nuclear power plant. Russia also stores waste from Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Lithuania. Waste disposal was part of the standard construction contracts of Soviet reactors abroad.


But getting the waste to Russia often requires permission from other, much less forthcoming, countries such as Moldova, Ukraine and Romania. By the

beginning of 2003, according to the Bulgarian reactor's management, the old storage pits will be exhausted and the plant will have to close down.

According to the Regional Environmental Center, the transit countries cite ill-equipped railways, antiquated containers and other environmental

concerns as the reasons for their reluctance. In reality, they are under pressure by the European Union and the United States to collaborate with waste

transport and disposal companies in the West, such as British Nuclear Fuels or Cogema. In the wastelands that constitute large swathes of the

post-communist world, nuclear waste, it seems, is a growth industry.

(Send your comments to: [email protected].)

Latest Headlines


Trending Stories


Follow Us