This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

10,058 Members


Is Belgium's Nuclear Security Up to Scratch?

Nuclear plant at Doel, Belgium (photo Erik bij de Vaate)

Nuclear plant at Doel, Belgium (photo Erik bij de Vaate)

In recent months a series of unusual and suspicious occurrences have taken place in and around nuclear power facilities in Belgium, some of them involving individuals linked to Islamic State (IS), write Robert J Downes and Daniel Salisbury, researchers at the Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS), King’s College London. According to Downes and Salisbury, there are doubts whether Belgian authorities are taking the threat to their nuclear facilities seriously enough.

Belgium’s counter-terrorism efforts are once again being called into question following the recent tragedies in Brussels. The attacks were carried out against soft targets – the public check-in area of Brussels Airport and Maelbeek metro station – but a series of unusual and suspicious occurrences were also reported at nuclear facilities in the country.

Occurring a week before a major international summit on nuclear security, these events highlight the very real threat to nuclear facilities. For Belgium, this recent episode is one item on a long list of security concerns.

The US repeatedly has voiced concerns about Belgium’s nuclear security arrangements since 2003. That year, Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national and former professional footballer, planned to bomb the Belgian Kleine-Brogel airbase under the aegis of Al-Qaeda.

While strict processes are in place to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, there are far fewer shared rules on securing nuclear facilities and material

The airbase, which holds US nuclear weapons, has seen multiple incursions by anti-nuclear activists who have gained access to the site’s “protected area”, which surrounds hardened weapons storage bunkers.

Yet, Belgium only started using armed guards at its nuclear facilities weeks before the March 2016 attacks.

Beyond incursions, so-called “insider threats” have also cost Belgium dearly. The nation’s nuclear industry comprises two ageing power stations first commissioned in the 1970s (Doel and Tihange), and two research facilities, a research reactor facility in Mol, and a radioisotope production facility in Fleurus.

In 2014, an unidentified worker sabotaged a turbine at the Doel nuclear power station by draining its coolant. The plant had to be partially shut down, at a loss of €40 million per month.

Based on this history, the Belgian authorities should be primed to take nuclear security especially seriously. But there are serious questions about whether they are.

Islamic State is watching you

Islamic State is believed to have taken possession of radiological materials, including 40kg of uranium compounds in Iraq. This suggests a possible interest in fabricating a radiological dispersal device – or “dirty bomb” – that would spread dangerous radioactive materials over a wide area.

It had been assumed that IS was concentrating this activity in the Middle East. But that all changed in late 2015. A senior nuclear worker at the Mol research facility was found to have been placed under “hostile surveillance” by individuals linked to the Islamic State-sanctioned attacks in Paris. Reports suggested that the terrorist cell may have planned to blackmail or co-opt the worker to gain access to either the facility or radiological materials.

The future progress of nuclear security is uncertain. And as can be seen in Belgium, the threat remains as real as ever

Alongside the 2014 Doel sabotage incident, this raises the spectre of an “insider threat”. A worker could use their access, authority and knowledge to sabotage a nuclear plant or remove material for malicious purposes.

This concern is furthered by reports of a worker at the Doel plant, who was associated with the radical Salafist organisation Sharia4Belgium, joining Al-Qaeda-inspired militants in Syria in late 2012. Following his death in Syria, the Belgian nuclear regulator reported that “several people have … been refused access to a nuclear facility or removed from nuclear sites because they showed signs of extremism”.

And in the wake of the Brussels attacks, the authorities have temporarily revoked the security clearances of 11 nuclear workers at Tihange nuclear plant.

Tightening security worldwide

Meanwhile, the fourth and final meeting in a series of international nuclear security summits has just taken place in Washington. This brought together high-level decision makers, including heads of state, to try to improve the international nuclear security regime (which has been described as “a rather messy and complicated affair”).

While strict processes are in place to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, there are far fewer shared rules on securing nuclear facilities and materials. This summit has aimed to address this imbalance. The first summit was held in 2010, after US president Barack Obama described nuclear terrorism as the “most immediate and extreme threat” to global security.

So far, the summits have seen significant successes. They have led to the removal of highly enriched uranium from 14 jurisdictions and upgrades to security at 32 material storage facilities. Equipment to detect nuclear materials has also been installed at 328 international borders.

But no further summits are planned after the 2016 meeting and no mechanism has been identified to replace the summit process. That means the future progress of nuclear security is uncertain. And as can be seen in Belgium, the threat remains as real as ever.

by and

Editor’s Note

This article was first published on The Conversation and is republished here with permission.

Daniel Salisbury is a Research Associate at the Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS), Department of War Studies, King’s College London.

Rob Downes is MacArthur Fellow in Nuclear Security working at the Centre for Science and Security Studies, King’s College London.

Energy Post's picture

Thank Energy for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on April 7, 2016

Robert and Daniel, your article parallels one which appeared in the New York Times recently, titled Belgium Fears Nuclear Plants are Vulnerable. Because both are unsupported scaremongering, my response to the Times’s article is largely applicable here:

“A parade of neurotic hyperbole marches through the first two paragraphs – ‘fear’, ‘alarming’, ‘worries’, ‘worrying’. Yet scant weight is assigned to the scientists who play down the threat’s significance, who understand its scale and proportion. Who know that reactor fuel, at 12% enrichment, must be enriched to over 90% U-235 to make a bomb, and any terrorist organization with that capability would find buying raw material on the worldwide market a simple matter.

“The first new U.S. reactor in 15 years went online in Watts Bar, Tennessee this year. It will eliminate 9 million tons of CO2 emissions from southeastern coal plants – more than all solar panels in the eastern U.S. combined. ‘Some of these [threats in Belgium] are relatively minor?’ No, all of them are, compared to climate change. A threat more deserving of the Times’ worry would be the one which will likely render one out of six species extinct in less than a century.

“We can either fixate on 1970s-era ‘China Syndrome’ fantasies, or take a pill – and join other countries of the world (China, India, Russia) with the foresight to build out nuclear, and do so aggressively.”

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »