• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

Ukraine Places First in Terms of Waste

13 November, 2012 - 00:00

When preparing data for the National Report on the Environment in Ukraine for 1997, experts from the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety were shocked to discover that the influx of toxic wastes was almost a thousand million tons.

In 1996, however, this increment dropped by 125,000 tons, compared to previous periods under study, which fully corresponds with the situation in Ukrainian industry. But then the authors of the report heaved a sigh of relief. The heavy waste influx turned out to originate from Dnipropetrovsk oblast which had never been covered by such statistics previously. So what? This did not make the situation any better.

Even official statistics show that there are some 100 tons of hazardous waste per resident of Ukraine – or 8,340 tons per square kilometer. Add here the so-called "mildly hazardous wastes" and the figures rise to 495 and 41,400 tons respectively, placing Ukraine among the world's leading polluters.

As to the causes of this dramatic situation, The Day interviewed Yevhen Motorin, head of the Environment Ministry's wastes and secondary resources department and Prof. Ihor Krainov of Kharkiv University's Interdepartmental Ecology Center.

Q.: How could Ukraine become the world's leading polluter?

A.: It took decades and I would single out three factors: technological, economic, and political-psychological. Abuses in the industries should be mentioned in the first place. Almost two-thirds of GDP are provided by processing/manufacturing enterprises in the chemical, steel, and other industries. Raw materials are processed at a 50-60% ratio. In other words, every million tons of ore or oil produces 400,000 tons of waste.

We do have enterprises in Ukraine specializing in recycling and disposing of secondary raw materials – basically in the mining and steel industries. Even when the USSR was in it prime these enterprises handled 15-20% of such wastes. In 1993-94, all these enterprises stopped functioning for one reason or another.

The situation with household wastes is no better. Under the existing “sanitary-hygienic regulations” there ought to be one waste-incinerating plant per 150,000 residents. Ukraine has four in all, and each shows very poor performance, because each was allowed to start functioning with numerous technical and operational defects. In fact, each is now a source of what is termed “secondary pollution.” The only exception is Kyiv's Enerhiya Works where some steps have been taken of late to improve its functioning (most likely due to the fact that a number of “servants of the people” reside not far from this enterprise – O. B.).

Unsanctioned dumps constitute a very serious threat to people's health and the environment. However, providing a civilized waste storage site accommodating a city with 150,000 residents requires $10-15 million. Ukraine cannot afford this, of course.

Take pesticides. There are some 20,000 tons accumulated in Ukraine (some experts believe the actual amount should be increased five to eight-fold – O.B.). These substances are often stored on premises that are not properly equipped, or simple outdoors, meaning that these hazardous wastes can easily penetrate the surface, get in underground waters and the atmosphere. Even special storage sites leave much to be desired in terms of equipment and operation. One such storage site caved in at Zhurivka in Kyiv oblast and no one knows how much pesticide was released. A pesticide-recycling factory costs an average of $20-40 million, provided it is built in an area complete with power, water, and gas supplies, housing facilities, the works.

At present, Verkhovna Rada has a draft National Toxic Waste Management Program, envisaging Hr 77.6 million in government subsidies (unbelievable but true, and the program is to be implemented before 2005 – O.B.). There is another waste management program approved by the Cabinet, providing for their use in production, stipulating considerable budget allocations. Because of insufficient state budget returns, only 20% of the scheduled subsidies are provided. Thus, Hr 700,000 has been allocated for “specific measures” to destroy pesticides stored at Olshanytsia, Rokytne district, Kyiv oblast.

Hazardous wastes are a blight on the whole country. Thousands of tons of pesticides have accumulated in Vinnytsia, Zaporizhzhia, Kyiv, Kirovohrad, and Sumy oblasts. There are enterprises that could be converted to recycle this waste in Dnipropetrovsk, Luhansk, and Kharkiv oblasts. It is impossible to establish an environmental paradise in a single raion (district), or oblast.

In fact, a unique situation has arisen in Ukraine. We have amassed huge wastes and we also have efficient recycling capacities. The only obstacle in solving this problem is a political-psychological factor. There are two Ukrainian enterprises in Donetsk oblast that can do more than treat the natural resources: the Mykytivsky Mercury Combine (Horlivka) and Ukrtsynk in Kostiantynivka. To date, these are the only ones of their kind in the CIS. The one in Horlivka can recycle mercury-containing ore wastes. The one in Kostinatynivka is designed to extract nonferrous metals (lead, copper, cadmium, zinc) from automobile batteries and other products. Natural leaders in the field, aren't they? Probably, but the state cannot afford to operate them.

Russia faces similar problems, too. There are many enterprises producing mercury and they are all prepared to pay for recycling the product. But then the mentality factor steps in. Wastes are delivered to Ukraine, turning this country into a garbage heap. Formally everything is correct, except that Ukraine receives a lot of wastes which, when recycled, produced a great number of by-product wastes.

Take ore or oil. Here we have 40% waste output and no one objects to their import, saying we are polluting our native land. It is scientific and technological progress, our way, meaning that we are lagging behind industrial output. We are not outraged by the Cabinet's decision to ban the import of cars without catalytic converters, starting January 1, 1998.

Was this the right decision? It was. Can it be implemented? No, it cannot, because everything must be carried out as a system with its inherent components. Catalytic converters imply adequate highways, fuel, lubricants, the works. It is expensive, yet its presence does not solve the problem. After five minutes of use it starts producing poisonous wastes, giving the driver a headache. How is one to dispose of them? So the driver will simply throw it away.

Hence, the main task is to put together a team of experts who will try to find an optimum solution to this problem, regardless of their political, social or economic approaches to he environment in general and wastes in particular. This solution must be acceptable at the government level, stipulating further rigid measures. And of course, this will require heavy spending, for any revenues at the stage of extracting useful substances out of wastes are unthinkable.

Photo by Valery Miloserdov,The Day:

WHEN THE WAR WITH TRASH LEADS TO ITS BANAL RETENTION IN DUMPS

 

Rubric: