• 3 minutes e-car sales collapse
  • 6 minutes America Is Exceptional in Its Political Divide
  • 11 minutes Perovskites, a ‘dirt cheap’ alternative to silicon, just got a lot more efficient
  • 2 days How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy
  • 2 hours The United States produced more crude oil than any nation, at any time.
  • 4 days Bad news for e-cars keeps coming
RFE/RL staff

RFE/RL staff

RFE/RL journalists report the news in 21 countries where a free press is banned by the government or not fully established. We provide what many…

More Info

Premium Content

Environmentalists Fear Nuclear Waste Treaty Could Turn Russia into a Nuclear Wasteland

What should countries do with their nuclear waste?

This question has been tormenting scientists and politicians since the early days of nuclear energy. Proposals have ranged from storing radioactive material in polar ice sheets, burying it in the ocean floor, or even blasting it into space.

Although such ideas can sound amusing today, the amount of nuclear waste building up around the world is no laughing matter.

A pending treaty between Russia and the United States could provide a solution but faces resistance in both countries.

The agreement, which could go into effect this month, would enable the two nations to cooperate on civilian nuclear energy by removing Cold War restrictions in that sector.

It would allow the United States to transfer its spent nuclear fuel to Russia -- an idea that has been under discussion for more than a decade. U.S. fuel that was used in power plants in third countries and remains under U.S. control could also be sent to Russia. Altogether, as much as 80 percent of all spent nuclear fuel scattered across the globe is U.S.-obligated.

Russian environmentalists have fiercely opposed the pact, which they say will turn their country into a nuclear wasteland.
Formally, this fuel would be reprocessed, but in practice it would simply be buried.

"If this agreement comes into effect, it will lift the last hurdle to the transfer of spent nuclear fuel from countries such as Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea to Russia," says Aleksei Yablokov, one of Russia's top experts on nuclear safety who once served as an adviser on environmental issues to late President Boris Yeltsin. "Formally, this fuel would be reprocessed, but in practice it would simply be buried."

Yablokov, along with dozens of prominent Russian nongovernmental groups, sent an open letter to U.S. legislators in July urging them to block the agreement and prevent Russia from becoming "an international radioactive waste dump."

The Nuclear Waste Dilemma

Supporters say the 123 Agreement, so-called because it falls under Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, is a win-win deal potentially worth billions of dollars in trade. If it comes into force, the United States will gain access to Russia's vast uranium fields while Russia will be able to offer its uranium-enrichment services to the lucrative U.S. market.

In terms of nuclear waste, Russian authorities estimate that spent-fuel-management services could generate $20 billion over a 10-year period. Russia's willingness to take over foreign spent nuclear fuel, in turn, would be a boon to countries lacking permanent reprocessing and storage facilities.

These include the United States, where spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste are stored at more than 120 temporary locations across the country.

U.S. President Barack Obama last month effectively scrapped a decades-old project to store the country's millions of kilograms of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel inside isolated Yucca Mountain in southern Nevada. By writing the project out of his 2011 budget as too costly, Obama effectively left the United States without any long-term strategy for its growing nuclear-waste stockpile.

Russian opposition party Yabloko picket near the German embassy in Moscow to protest nuclear waste traffic in Russia.Concerns nonetheless remain in the United States about Russia's ability to safely handle such vast amounts of nuclear material. Russian environmentalists have long warned that their country lacks the technology and infrastructure to operate a global disposal center.

"There certainly is a hope that, before the United States enters these long-term contracts, Russia would have the ability and the infrastructure to manage the waste in a responsible way," says Steve Pifer, the director of the Brookings Arms Control Initiative and an advocate of the 123 agreement. "But it's hard to make the investment in infrastructure until you understand what possibility there is. You don't just go ahead and build the infrastructure and then negotiate the contracts. It's a process that is being worked out currently."

Lingering Distrust

In Washington, a small group of Republican and Democrat members of Congress has rallied against the 123 Agreement with Russia. They fear Moscow could share the fruits of nuclear cooperation with traditional U.S. foes such as Venezuela, Syria, and particularly, Iran, where Russia helped build the Bushehr nuclear plant.

The agreement had been stalled on political grounds before U.S. President Barack Obama submitted it to Congress in May. His predecessor George W. Bush had initially signed the deal in May 2008 but withdrew it from Congress following Moscow's brief war with Georgia three months later.

Since then, the U.S.-Russian "reset" has re-energized bilateral ties. Russia's support for recent UN sanctions on Iran and its refusal to sell Tehran S-300 air-defense systems have also helped restore trust in Moscow. Many U.S. foreign policy experts predict the deal will pass without much difficulty.

U.S. Senator John Kerry (left) and Senator Richard Lugar (right) and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meet to speak about the New START nuclear treaty -- a nuclear disarmament treaty between the United States and Russia.It will automatically go into effect after 90 consecutive days in Congress unless lawmakers adopt a joint resolution of disapproval, which requires majority votes in both houses. If lawmakers sit for three more weeks this year the agreement could become law in December, otherwise it will have to be resubmitted next year to the newly elected Congress.

The idea to set up an international nuclear reprocessing and storage center in Russia is not new. The Russian Federal Nuclear Agency, Rosatom, has been promoting it for more than a decade. One of its arguments is that Russia, with its extensive uranium enrichment facilities left over from its Cold War nuclear program, is well placed to build and operate such a facility. Rosatom has also said it would use some of the revenues to upgrade its ageing nuclear facilities.

Despite a 2001 Russian law allowing the import of foreign spent nuclear fuel, Russia has so far been unable to access U.S.-controlled fuel due to the lack of a 123 Agreement.

Strong domestic opposition has also made Rosatom more cautious about publicly endorsing such plans in recent years.

"There is no word in the 123 Agreement about waste, spent nuclear fuel from the United States or American fuel sent to third countries," Rosatom spokesman Sergei Novikov told RFE/RL. "Today, our stance is not to import any spent fuel of foreign origin to Russia as long as the economics of such deals are not fully calculated."

100 Chornobyls

But Russian environmentalists say they are not duped.


Besides, the text of the 123 Agreement clearly cites "radioactive waste handling" as one of the areas in which Russia and the United States would be able to cooperate under the deal.

"What we are talking about here is chiefly irradiated, spent nuclear fuel, which is the world's most dangerous radioactive high-level waste," says Vladimir Chuprov, a nuclear expert with Greenpeace Russia. "Nuclear lobbyists have come up with all kinds of schemes to prove this will not constitute trade in nuclear waste. And according to the documents, to the law, it will not. But what is really taking place in Russia's nuclear sites is the storage of foreign nuclear waste, in other words -- trade in nuclear waste."

Greenpeace says Russia is already home to some 10,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel inherited from the Soviet era. Some of it has been reprocessed, but the bulk remains buried at a facility close to the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk, one of the country's six main burial sites.

Some experts estimate that in terms of radioactivity, the spent fuel currently stored in Russia is equivalent to at least 100 Chornobyls.

Then there's depleted uranium, a byproduct of uranium enrichment also found in reprocessed nuclear reactor fuel. Russia has imported more than 100,000 tons of depleted uranium from Western Europe for reprocessing over the past 15 years.

If the 123 Agreement comes into force, Russians are likely to see nuclear facilities mushroom across their country, as Rosatom seeks to take pressure off its already overloaded existing sites.

According to environmentalists, the northern Murmansk region, the Siberian Krasnoyarsk region, the arctic Novaya Zemlya archipelago, and the Pacific Ocean's Kuril Islands are among the Russian regions that could soon become new repositories for the world's nuclear waste.

By. Claire Bigg

Source: RFE/RL 

Copyright (c) 2010. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.

Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on December 04 2010 said:
    Russia is a huge country, filled with plenty of brilliant scientists and engineers, and if they ease up on the vodka before, during and after breakfast, they should have no problem solving this waste problem.You see, if you read French, and spend time in e.g. Paris, you don't hear very much about nuclear 'dechet', because for the French decision makers - who do not start their heavy vodka intake until around dinner time - that waste is actually fuel.It is fuel and as a result is valuable, and will become even more valuable when the Gen 4 reactors are ready. I can't comment on President Obama's decision on this topic, but since as Michael Moore pointed out, he's obviously not going to do what we Democrats wanted him to do, I couldn't care less.
  • Anonymous on December 04 2010 said:
    2 things: Russia is run by the mafias (thank you wikileaks for confirming what we already knew)The mafia in Italy have been running very profitable waste businesses, pretending to reprocess hazardous and nuclear waste but actually sinking it in the med (you can google mafia and waste to read unbelievable stories).So this treaty is basically a green light for nuclear polution. What a waste!
  • Anonymous on December 04 2010 said:
    Fred points out a crucial point in this debate -- "nuclear waste" from Gen 2 and Gen 3 reactors can be valuable fissile startup material for Gen 4 reactors. For some Gen 4 reactors, 8 tonnes of fissile material will be used for each 1 GW of power -- to get the reactor started. See:http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/06/10/ifr-fad-5/Other advanced designs like the PRISM fast reactor or the "Traveling Wave" reactor will also use previously used nuclear fuel.Sure the Russians would take it off your hands -- for a price -- and may dump it in the tundra when no one is looking. Or they may sell it back to you later for a substantial profit, without making any significant changes to the material.Can you say "sucker!" in Russian?
  • Anonymous on December 05 2010 said:
    Any kind of lie and nonsense sells these days. The gentleman above with his fairy tale about Italy evidently forgot that they went out of the nuclear business a few decades ago. As it happens, Italy is a wonderful country, and if they want to enjoy that country to the fullest Italians will have to join the nuclear parade. And sooner or later they are going to join it.
  • Anonymous on December 06 2010 said:
    That's funny, I thought that I commented on the not-so-brilliant observation of Mr Dip- Italy is not in the nuclear business any longer. If you want to know about Italy and nuclear read my forthcoming book ENERGY AND ECONOMIC THEORY.
  • Anonymous on March 09 2011 said:
    First, when we talk about nuclear "waste" we have to distinguish fission products (for which we can assume there is no further use) and transuranic by-products. The latter category includes plutonium but also other elements such as Americium, Curium, Berkelium and Californium. All of those, will eventually fission if we recycle them back into a nuclear reactor. Hence they are not really "waste". Regarding fission products: If we Americans are not willing to utilize Yucca as a repository, we should be willing to pay Russia (or, China) a fair and reasonable fee to take said substances off our hands.

Leave a comment

EXXON Mobil -0.35
Open57.81 Trading Vol.6.96M Previous Vol.241.7B
BUY 57.15
Sell 57.00
Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News