 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Issue Brief
Margarita Sevcik, Program Coordinator/Research
Associate
NIS Nonproliferation Program
Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS)
Monterey Institute of International Studies
January
2003
Issue Introduction
The proposal to turn Kazakhstan into a commercial importer of radioactive waste has been on the nation’s agenda since the summer of 2001. It is believed that such imports would generate significant profits and allow the country to solve the problem of its own accumulated radioactive waste. The ongoing debates focus on the import, storage, and subsequent disposal of low- and medium-level radioactive waste on the republic’s territory—debates that have revealed the divisive and controversial nature of this issue. Opposition comes from the country’s environmental organizations, general population, and a group of Mazhlis (lower house of Kazakhstan’s Parliament) deputies who have recently announced their intention to block such imports. The radioactive waste import proposal is supported by representatives of the country’s nuclear industry, officials and scientists of the National Nuclear Center, and members of the government at the ministerial level. A draft bill to amend the existing legislative base on the use of atomic energy and environmental protection that would allow imports of radioactive waste has been submitted to the country’s Parliament for further consideration.
Kazakhstani Facilities Map:
Click here to enlarge the
map.
Issue Brief
The proposal to
import radioactive waste to Kazakhstan emerged from the report “On the
Radioecological Situation on the Territory of Kazakhstan” delivered by
Mukthar Dzhakishev, President of the National Atomic Company Kazatomprom,
to the Parliament on June 18, 2001. In his report, Mr. Dzhakishev drew
parliamentarians’ attention to the huge amounts of radioactive waste
accumulated on the territory of Kazakhstan as a result of 40 years of
Soviet nuclear testing, waste produced by research and commercial
reactors, and the operation of industrial sectors including uranium and
non-uranium mining. According to the official data, Kazakhstan has about
237.2 million metric tons of radioactive waste, with a total
radioactivity level of 15.5 million curie (Ci). The report estimates
that approximately $1.1 billion would be needed to re-cultivate
contaminated territories, dispose of all radioactive waste, and enhance
Kazakhstan’s overall radiation safety. Since only about $1 million was
allocated from the federal budget for these purposes in 2001, it is
clear that the country will need to find external sources of funding to
cope with the problem of its radioactive waste.
This report provided the impetus for the proposal to allow the
commercial import of radioactive waste to be buried along with
Kazakhstan’s own waste. This initiative was backed by several Mazhlis
deputies who lobbied for amendments to existing Kazakhstani legislation
to allow the import of foreign radioactive waste for subsequent
disposal. Proponents of this plan believe that, by allowing imports of
radioactive waste, Kazakhstan will earn the funds necessary to deal with
its own enormous quantities of waste. Furthermore, they argue that
Kazakhstan has the resources, expertise, and technologies necessary for
radioactive waste management.
Critics of the initiative point to
concerns about the safety and security of the radioactive materials to
be brought to Kazakhstan, and the transparency in the distribution of
profits earned from such imports. Certain details of the proposal are
especially contentious.
Types of Radioactive Waste to be
Imported to Kazakhstan
The question of the types of
radioactive waste to be imported to Kazakhstan is among the most
controversial issues because of the vague definitions of radioactive
waste categories. Although there are five categories of waste proposed
by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), many nations have
developed their own classification systems. Kazakhstani experts who
favor the disposal of foreign radioactive waste in their country propose
the import of low- and medium-level radioactive waste. They claim that
this waste will not include nuclear spent fuel that contains plutonium.
British experts, however, argue that medium- (or intermediate-) level
waste could contain plutonium that has a half-life of 24,000 years and,
thus, require special treatment. This lack of international standards
for the classification of radioactive waste raises concern among
project’s opponents that some importers could send plutonium to
Kazakhstan categorized as medium-level waste.
Economic
Viability of the Proposal
It is anticipated that Kazakhstan
could earn from $30 to $40 billion over a 30-year period by allowing
commercial imports of radioactive waste. Potential clients include
countries with small territories and nations with a heightened sense of
awareness and sensitivity toward radioactivity. Such countries could be
charged approximately $4,800 to dispose of each barrel of waste. This
will bring Kazakhstan a profit of $3,900 per barrel. Another advantage
of the project is that depositories built for these purposes would
contain only 1% foreign radioactive waste and 99% domestic waste; the
extra radioactivity would hardly register, but the profits would be
enormous. However, there is a certain degree of skepticism and doubt
directed towards the ambitions and the estimates provided by proposal
initiators. For instance, some experts argue that Kazakhstan needs to
build a reprocessing facility and depositories for its own radioactive
waste before accepting foreign waste. There is also a need for a
developed and reliable infrastructure in the geographic region where
waste will be buried. Only after the completion of these preparatory
measures should possible profits and gains be calculated.
Location of the Radioactive Waste Depositories
It has been
suggested that radioactive waste may be deposited in the exhausted
open-cast uranium mines of the Open Joint Stock Company Kaskor located
in Mangistau Province in western Kazakhstan. This site is about 30 km
from the city of Aktau, a sea port on the Caspian Sea. Kazakhstani
experts believe that this location is most suitable for the burial of
low- and medium-level radioactive waste, which they plan to bury in
trenches dug in a deep clay layer. The suggested site is a semi-desert
region whose dry climate would prevent the migration of radionuclides.
There is a network of railroads and highways that lead to the site. This
site, however, is found inadequate by critics who consider the
possibility that imported radioactive waste may contain plutonium. They
refer to IAEA standards that require long-lived waste, such as
plutonium, be deposited in deep, stable rock formations. The plan to use
former uranium mines near Aktau for radioactive waste disposal was also
met with strong opposition from the population of the nearby area. Some
residents threatened to resort to such radical measures as laying
themselves across the railroad tracks or disassembling the railway to
stop trains from delivering dangerous cargoes to their region.
Moral Issues
Opposition to the import of radioactive waste to
Kazakhstan has been voiced by environmental groups and other
nongovernmental organizations. They claim that this proposal is immoral,
since it further burdens a nation whose people and ecology have already
suffered greatly from the effects of 40 years of Soviet nuclear testing.
They say that it will lead to the continued deterioration of the
country’s environment. These groups argue that the Kazakhstani
government has done very little to improve the lives of people who live
in ecologically devastated areas, and they believe that the import of
radioactive waste is simply another money-making venture that will not
benefit the country’s population. Advocates of the proposal, however,
maintain that the conclusions of certain environmental groups are
morally tainted, since their real motivation is to attract grants from
foreign organizations interested in blocking such a project.
Nevertheless, a number of polls have demonstrated that the majority of
the population of Kazakhstan is against the commercial import of
radioactive waste.
Conclusion
It was reported
recently that a draft bill allowing the import of low- and medium-level
radioactive waste has been submitted to the country’s Parliament.
According to the Minister of Environmental Protection, neither the
Parliament nor the government has yet arrived at a unanimous opinion on
the issue. However, Kazakhstani officials have held talks with the IAEA
about their plans to bring foreign waste to their country. IAEA
spokesperson Mark Gwozdecky was quoted by
The Guardian newspaper as saying the agency is prepared to play an
advisory role in the execution of this plan, if asked. The Kazakhstani
side has made assurances that all measures in the execution of this plan
will be carried out in full compliance with IAEA standards and
regulations. Proponents of turning Kazakhstan into a commercial importer
of the radioactive waste are optimistic and expect that their initiative
will receive official support. In this case, Kazakhstan will become the
first and only nation in the world willing to accept foreign radioactive
waste for disposal on its territory.
Relevant Resources
 |
Muktar Dzhakishev, On the Radioecological Situation on the Territory of Kazakhstan. |
|
|
Classification of Radioactive Waste: A Safety Guide. A Publication in the Radwass Programme. Safety Series No. 111-G-1.1, IAEA, 1994. |
|
|
Paul Brown, “Kazakhstan Reveals Solution to its Nuclear Waste Crisis: Import More,” The Guardian, November 21, 2001. |
|
|
Ken Bragg, and Ferruccio Gera, “Safety Issues in the Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste; Assessing Approaches,” IAEA Bulletin, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2000. |
|
|
John Cooper et al., “What Waste Is “Radioactive”? Defining the Scope of the Regulatory System,” IAEA Bulletin, Vol. 42, No. 3, March 2000. |
|
|
The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Use of Atomic Energy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This
material is produced independently for NTI by the James
Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the
Monterey Institute of International Studies and does not
necessarily reflect the opinions of and has not been
independently verified by NTI or its directors,
officers, employees, agents. Copyright © 2007 by MIIS.
