Nuclear fuel bank in Kazakhstan: one step beyond the “sure thing”/“hell no” attitude

In December 2009 Kazakhstan proclaimed its readiness to host an International Nuclear Fuel Bank (INFB) on its territory and ensure its proper storage. Later, on the 29^th of July 2011 the Republic of Kazakhstan has submitted an official application to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for becoming a receiving party of the International Bank of low-enriched uranium.

It is planned to establish the INBF on the basis of the Ulbinsk Metallurgical Plan (Ust-Kamenogorsk city), which has the governmental license for handling nuclear materials, including their sale, processing, storage and transportation.

One of the blocks of the warehousing for the plant products (where low-enriched uranium is already stored) is supposed to be used for the INFB.  

The building that is supposed to be used for storage of low-enriched uranium

Moving of the cylinders by means of the crane

The room with cylinders that contain the fuel

Cylinder for storage of the fuel

Expectedly, the news about the planned establishment of the INFB on the territory of Kazakhstan have caused a major public reaction. However, when reading readers’ comment to the news, it is easy to notice an important tendency. Approximately 99% of opinions can be divided between the following categories: “we don’t need this” and “I cannot say that I object”. In one case out of 100 people go beyond the emotional reaction and try to evaluate the situation, to ask valid questions and to express reasoned opinions.

That is why when taking up this controversial topic I decided not to discuss advantages and disadvantages of the INFB for local ecology and population, but considers the matter from a slightly wider perspective.

Why did developed countries suggested to establish this nuclear fuel bank, which could be used by developing countries? Considering the fact that very few actions in the modern world are motivated by altruism it can be assumed that it was done to prevent the distribution of technologies for processing and enrichment of uranium (including for civilian purposes). It is likely that nuclear disarmament is the major reason for establishment of INFB.

In the face of it such motive from the countries that are not planning to get rid of nuclear weapon seems to be tainted with hypocrisy. However, if one looks at the situation from the point of view that takes into account the existing threat of nuclear terrorism, the idea of INFB does not seem so bad after all. The less countries possess the infrastructure for production of nuclear fuel, the less the chance for its usage for warfare. And low-enriched uranium for civilian purposes can be obtained from the bank.

Nevertheless apart from limiting the number of counties that possess the whole cycle of nuclear production and lowering the nuclear threat, there is another, somewhat less positive aspect related to the idea of the nuclear bank.

According to the idea of the IAEA, the bank is created for emergency cases and it has to be used in the cases when purchase of the fuel on the international market is impossible for some reason. This condition will surely become a guarantee for the producers of nuclear fuel, but it will also be a disappointment for those the intend to obtain relatively cheap fuel from the INFB resources.

In addition, a number of specialists claim that donor countries of the bank will be able to influence the political courses of the countries that are dependent on nuclear fuel supplies. Can developing countries be sure that their political freedom will not be exchanged for nuclear fuel? There is always a chance that INFB would be used as an instrument for political blackmail.

In such situation what consequences there might be for Kazakhstan which hosts the INFB? Is there a guarantee that Kazakhstan will not find itself between the hammer and the anvil? Hosting the INFB will undoubtedly help to change the status of Kazakhstan on the international arena. But the question is – for better or for worse? A considerable amount of efforts and resources has been directed at establishment of the INFB, but will all countries benefit from it from to the same extent?

Undoubtedly, all these questions were already addressed by the international community. We just have to hope that the citizens of Kazakhstan will also join the discussion and offer arguments that go beyond “sure thing” and “hell, no”.