Yevhen Makarchuk,

an expert of the international initiative iSANS (International Strategic Action Network for Security), told Reform.by about why the waste will not go to Russia, and whether it can be used to create nuclear weapons .

"As a result of the operation of nuclear power plants, two different groups of waste are formed - spent fuel and radioactive waste. The fuel is precisely the nuclear materials that were inside the reactor. This is a very active material and should be stored in the station for a long time until it cools down. Even after it is removed from the reactor, the decay continues and it takes another 10 years to cool down in a pool in the reactor hall. This fuel still contains uranium, plutonium and other fissile materials - they will be returned to Russia for processing, because their potential can be used to create nuclear weapons, "says the expert.

According to the expert, radioactive waste will remain in Belarus, and the remains of spent reactor fuel, which cannot be used to make nuclear weapons, will be returned to Russia after processing.

"Radioactive waste is a completely different category. These can be, for example, pumps, fittings, pipes, filters, even the clothing of personnel who came into contact with the water of the first circuit, or on which radioactive particles settled for some reason. They are not radioactive in themselves - it is impossible to make fuel from them, but they have a certain level of radioactivity, so they need to be stored in a special repository. Thus, the spent nuclear fuel will be exported to Russia, processed, and returned to the part that is not used to make new fuel or nuclear weapons.

But the radioactive waste will immediately remain in Belarus. We already have a repository for such waste because it occurs all the time in medicine and other industries. This shelter is near Minsk, near the village of Sosny. Simply, after the start of the nuclear power plant, the volume of the existing storage will be insufficient, and a new, larger one will have to be built. Of course, this is bad, as is the storage of any hazardous materials that increase the background. But we can't do without it," Makarchuk explains.

The iSANS expert considers the choice of waste storage sites to be logical, but sees a problem in the lack of an opportunity to independently monitor standards and quality of work performed during the construction of the storage facility.

"On the one hand, if, as a result of the operation of the nuclear power plant, there is a need to build a shelter in any case, then the Polesky reserve is a logical choice of place. With a significant radiation background after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the additional background from the repository may have much less negative consequences. But this is only on the condition that the technologies will be implemented and the materials from the storage will not enter the groundwater.

On the other hand, with such a choice of location, it will be more difficult to organize the maintenance of the storage, since the personnel will receive an additional dose due to the fact that they will be in the contamination zone. In addition, in the current conditions, there is no possibility of independent quality control and standards according to which the storage facility will be built," says the expert.