COUNTRY STATUS REPORT #4: BELGIUM
 

HISTORY

Even before World War II, Belgium was already involved in uranium mining near Chinkolobwe in the Katanga province in what was formerly known as the 'Belgian Congo' (Zaire). In December 1921, the 'Société Générale Métallurgique de Hoboken' began radium production in Oolen, near Antwerp. After 1922 Belgium produced about 60 grams of radium/year. [1] 

The first uranium mine in the world was opened in the Congo in 1938 and provided the uranium for the first nuclear bomb, which was tested in the US in New Mexico, July 16 1945. [2]

Enriched uranium from the Congo was also used in the second bomb, which was dropped on Hiroshima. The third bomb, dropped on Nagasaki, contained plutonium also derived from uranium from the Congo. Until the mid-fifties, almost all of the uranium the US used for its bombs and reactors came from the 'Belgian Congo', an arrangement which helped the Belgian economy to flourish shortly after the war. [3]

In a 'deal' with the US, under the cover of 'Marshall Help', Belgium obtained in exchange of the uranium, facilities for nuclear enterprise. These facilities were built in Mol: SCK (Studie Centrum Kernenergie, Research Centre for Atomic Energy)(1952), with 3 testreactors: BR1 (1954), BR2 high flux reactor (1963) and BR3 'Vulcain' research-reactor for European use (1962). Mol became the site for the Euratom facilities (1957), Eurochemic=Belgoprocess (1958), FBFC International (a fuel rod factory built jointly with the French), and Belgonucléaire (a plutonium factory built in 1957). In addition, Mol is also the site for NIRAS (Belgium's nuclear waste storage organization) and CBNM (its nuclear measurements office).

The results of the research done at Mol were given directly (forfree) to private companies for use in profit making ventures, especially to the Belgian electricity producing companies. These companies then began a campaign to boost the use of electricity which in turn later made the use of nuclear power 'necessary'. [4]  By 1958 Belgium was planning to build about 50 (!) nuclear power reactors along the rivers Meuse and Schelde before the year 2000. [5]

Pakistani spy Abdul Quadar Khan was also able to take advantage of SCK's research and used it to build a nuclear industry at home.

The only 'commercial' center at Mol is the 'Franco-Belge de Fabrication de Combustible' (FBFC), a factory which produces fuelrods with the help of French and US money. The others are all subsidized by the Belgian state. [6]

Eurochemic's reprocessing plant was in operation from July 7, 1966 without an exploitation allowance which was first given in 1968. In its operational period (1966-1974), 200 tons of fission material was reprocessed and 678 kilos of plutonium was separated along with 2,000 cubic meters of medium-level waste and 865 cubic meters of highly radioactive liquid waste. Plans to reopen Eurochemic were canceled in 1984, and in 1986 the decision was made to tear the factory down, at expense of the Belgian taxpayer.

Belgium's civil nuclear power program started with the building of a 310 megawatt reactor as part of the Euratom project in Chooz (1966). This was followed by Tihange-1 (1975), a Franco-Belgian reactor (870 mW) in which Belgium has a 25% share.

Belgium has adopted the French (USA) concept of the PWR system. At this moment there are 7 reactors in operation, 4 at Doel and 3 at Tihange, with a total of 5500 megawatts. [7]  (The little 10 MW Vulcain - the BR3 - in Mol was closed down in 1987 and is presently being dismantled.)

Many accidents have been reported, especially at Doel-2 and Tihange-1, which have suffered a large number of leaks and 'incidents'. A real scandal in Doel was the message that homeless people were crimped for dangerous jobs as cleaning and repairing the nuclear parts of the reactors. Just to save 'body radiation' for domestic personnel. [8]

Using the USA as a mediator, Belgium became a supplier of enriched uranium to South Africa in 1982. Both Belgium and Switzerland had a surplus of enriched uranium at that time. It was this that was sold to South Africa. [9]

Belgium invested a lot of money in the Kalkar fastbreeder-reactor because of the 'needs' of a plutonium economy and the interests of the Belgian state as set out in 1982. [10]

On August 24, 1984 the ship Mont Louis, which was carrying 470 tons of uranium hexafluoride from France to the USSR, collided with the Olau Brittania and sank off the coast of Belgium. This news was unwelcome to the pro-nuclear lobby everywhere, but especially in Belgium because such transports were always kept secret. The French and Belgian governments made furious efforts to keep it that way through denial and the spreading of misinformation about the accident. However, newspaper-investigations uncovered the fact that nuclear materials were being transported across the world in order to have them processed as cheaply as possible. This was why the Mont Louis cargo was being transported to Riga in the former USSR, where, despite the long transport routes and the risks, reprocessing was cheaper. [11]

At the beginning of 1987 there was a strike at Doel which lasted two months (February 25 - April 24). The nuclear power plants were not shut down but went on producing with a minimum of personnel and safety, and without information being released to the public. It was only during the final week of the strike that Doel-1 and Doel-2 were stopped, because the personnel was 'exhausted'. [12]
 

CURRENT SITUATION

There is much political trouble surrounding the 'MOX' factory at Belgonucléaire and the contracts (UP-3 baseload contract) negotiated with Cogéma in 1978 when Synacom still was a private firm.

MOX is a type of fuel used for nuclear power which contains a mixture of plutonium and uranium derived from used fuel rods. The nuclear industry calls this process 'recycling'. In reality the process is very dangerous and causes an enormous amount of extra nuclear waste plus the danger of nuclear proliferation with plutonium. Since 1985 Belgian nuclear power has produced 135 to 163 metric tonnes of highly radioactive irradiated (used) fuel per year. Because Belgonucléaire needs work, there is a great urge to 'reprocess' this fuel and to use the recovered plutonium as fuel.

The Belgian parliament decided in December 1993 to use MOX in two nuclear reactors: Doel-3 and Tihange-2. At the same time, it decided to 'freeze' for 5 years a second contract negotiated in 1990 to reprocess fuel rods in Belgium while continuing the 1978 Synacom reprocessing contract with Cogéma with a limited amount of fuel rods. [13]  Greenpeace calls the last decision 'a decisive step away from the plutonium industry'. In fact, it is only the delay of a decision. [14]

On November 23, 1992 an accident occurred at FBFC. Eight workers were contaminated by the MOX fuel. [15]  In France, where MOX is also used as nuclear fuel, it contains 30% plutonium, and special measures are taken to prevent the plutonium contaminating the environment. In Belgium the amount of plutonium used in the MOX is 20%, but Electrobel, the operator of the nuclear reactors, claims no extra safety measures are needed. [16]  At the end of 1993, Greenpeace collected 33,000 signatures against MOX-fuel.

The MOX-debate in the Belgian parliament showed how the government decided to allow Belgonucléaire to double the MOX-production without parliamentary control. This MOX situation is also an example of how the Belgian parliament makes decisions about nuclear energy in general: in partial or complete secrecy and without parliamentary control under the umbrella called 'recycling', despite the fact that 15 times more radioactive waste is produced. [17]
 

NUCLEAR WASTE

The Transnuklear/Transnubel scandal
In August 1987, reports began appearing in the German press about corruption and blackmail involving nuclear waste. This was the beginning of the Transnuklear scandal which was to bring a lot of misery to the Belgian nuclear industry: the SCK in Mol was a regular customer, although other countries were also involved.

By the end of 1987 the Belgian green movement, AGALEV, had forced an investigation. What it uncovered was that high-levelwaste coming illegally from Germany was being mixed with low-level waste, also from Germany. In Mol the low level German waste was supposed to be packed in glass and concrete and sent back to Germany. Instead, Belgian nuclear waste was sent back to Germany and the German waste was kept at Mol.

The legal liquidation in 1993 of the affair in Belgium was very disappointing: the bulk of the dangerous nuclear waste is still stored in insufficient containers at Mol, although part of it was returned to Gorleben, where the convoy that was carrying it was blocked for eight hours by 500 people.

Nobody knows what to do with the nuclear waste at Mol. Everynow and then there are rumors that the waste will be stored in the clay layers at Boom which fortuitously just happen to be under SCK land as well as the best location in the world. The Belgian state also thinks the clay under Mol is the best storage place in Europe (1991). [18] 

In May 1988 a leak in a radioactive sludge storage tank on the SCK terrain was discovered: groundwater was contaminated with plutonium and other radioactive isotopes. [19]
 

Low- and Medium Radwaste

After opposing it for several years Belgium signed in February 1994 the London Dumping Convention (LDC) which prohibits the dumping of nuclear waste in the sea. [20]  By signing the LDC, Belgium had to find a permanent storage facility for it's low- and medium radioactive nuclear waste.

On April 28, 1994, the NIRAS (the National Cooperation for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissionproducts, as it is officially called), published a report in which 98 sites were mentioned as a possible location for the storage of low-and medium radwaste. [21]  These 98 sites are located in 47 municipalities. The government has to decide which location is the 'best' option for the storage facility. This decision is expected sometime during 1997. [22]  In the meantime NIRAS will continue research at several locations. According to the NIRAS-plan a total of 150,000 m3 (cubic-meters) radwaste will be stored by the year 2050 including waste form decommissioned nuclear reactors. [23]

As a result of the designation of those 98 sites a whole new anti-radwaste campaign has started, with large support at all the locations. Many local and regional groups are founded and demonstrations and manifestations being held. Also many local and regional governments and other authorities are protesting against the possible storage of radioactive waste in their neighbourhood. [24]

Plans for the storage of high-level waste in geological clay-layers are developed at Mol. But, as seen in other countries too, it's not at all clear if such a storage is safe for thousands of years.

At this moment there are 98 locations (in 47 municipalities) which have been officially designated by the Belgian government as possible sites for nuclear waste storage: the so-called NIRAS-plan. Many people and local governments are protesting against the siting of a waste dump in their areas. [25]
 

THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT

In 1972, when the plans for Tihange-1 and the first report of the "Club of Rome" were presented, there was some unrest among a few environmentalists associated with Bond voor een Beter Leefmilieu'(BBL - League for a Better Environment). A proposal was made to the Minister of Health to make - before construction began - an investigation into the biological consequences of radiation and nuclear emissions from nuclear power plants. Two years later the Minister replied: 'The people don't need to worry'. In this way he threw both participation and the investigation into the wastepaper basket. [26]

The BBL has written many brochures about atomic energy and its consequences and therefore had a substantial role in awakening Belgians to the problem. But before any substantial Belgian anti-nuclear movement existed, three big nuclear power plants, Doel-1, Doel-2 and Tihange-1, were already producing electricity.
The 'NV EBES', a private company owning the nuclear power plants at Doel, used the energy crisis of 1974 to accuse the few people opposed to nuclear power plants of being 'obstructors of Belgian prosperity'.  [27]
The village Beveren, to which the hamlet Doel belongs, received five million Belgian francs in 1977, as part of a profit-sharingdeal. Doel was sold to EBES. [28]

In 1974, VAKS (Verenigde Aktiegroepen voor KernStop, United Action Group to Stop Nuclear Energy) was established. At the beginning of 1975, construction began on Doel-3. When newspapers reported the construction had begun without any permission, it was stopped. However, within one week permission arrived from Brussels: the construction could continue. The local people and village councils who opposed it were given 14 days to prove what was wrong with building a 980 MW nuclear power plant just five kilometers from the Dutch border. From the Dutch government however, there was in 1975 no protest at all. In 1977, permission was given for Doel-4, a 1100 megawatt nuclear power plant. [29]  In that year the first street demonstrations were held in Hoei (March) and in Antwerp (October). In the same year 'Les Amis de la Terre' (Friends of the Earth) was founded.

In 1978 VAKS organized a day of study about Eurochemic. This received very little coverage in the Belgium press, [30]  but VAKS continued its work by writing a number of books, booklets and brochures against nuclear power and reprocessing. The first larger demonstration against nuclear energy in Belgium was June 2nd, 1979 at Doel. About 20,000 people were present at the demonstration. Doel was transformed into a fortress by the army and police.

Also in 1979 in Andenne there was a referendum on nuclear power plants. Almost 15 million Belgian francs were spent by the electricity companies for propaganda purposes in this village; in vain, however, because more than 70% of the Andenne residents were against nuclear power. [31]

The second demonstration against nuclear power was October 25-26 1980 in Mol and held jointly with the Dutch. The motto was: 'Radioactivity knows no borders'. [32]

A long-running debate in Belgium is the amount of tritium in the river Meuse being released by the nuclear power plants at Chooz, Tihange and Julich because the Meuse is an important source of drinking water for Brussels and Antwerp. Many Belgians are inspired by this debate to oppose nuclear power. [33]

Even the Flandrian government protested against the building of new nuclear power plants in 1983; not because of the dangers and the poisoning of the earth, but because Belgium at that time already had an overcapacity of electricity generation. [34]

1. AO-485, (NL), 20 Nov.1953, 'Jacht naar uranium', (Hunt for uranium)
2. The Spokesman Review, (US), 7 Aug.1945,
3. 'De nucleaire centra uit de Kempen' Verenigde Aktiegroepen voor Kern Stop, VAKS Antwerpen, Belgium 1980 (The nuclear centra out of the Kempen-region)
4. ibid.3
5. ibid.3
6. ibid.3
7. Der Atomatlas. Heyne Report, FRG 1986, Heyne Verlag p.190
8. De Waarheid (NL), 13 Oct.1980, 'Kerncentrale huurt daklozen', (Nuclear power plant rents homeless people)
9. Tubantia (NL), 14 Apr.1982, 'Zuid-Afrika koopt verrijkt uranium' (South Africa buys enriched uranium).
10. NRC (NL), 21 Aug.1982, 'België stopt meer geld in Kalkar', (Belgium puts more money in Kalkar)
11. Het Vrije Volk (BL), 30 Aug.1984, 'Helpt Westen Russen kern(wapen)industrie te moderniseren?' (Does the West help modernise the Russian nuclear(weapon)industry?)
12. De Volkskrant (NL), 3 Apr.1987, 'België laat kerncentrales ondanks staking draaien' (Belgium continues electricity produktion in nuclear powerplants despite strike)
13. WISE Newscommunique, 17 Dec.1993, 'Belgian commission freezes plutonium contract'.
14. WISE Newscommunique, 11 Febr.1994, 'Belgium: approval of MOX, moratorium on reprocessing'.
15. De Standaard (B), 10 febr.1993, 'SP vraagt juridisch onderzoek naar nucleair opwerkingscontract uit '78' (Socialist Party asks legal investigation 1978 reprocessing contract)
16. De Morgen (B), 21 Apr.1992, 'Regering doorbreekt nu-cleair moratorium'. (Government ignores nuclear moratorium)
17. De Morgen (B), 28 Apr.1992, 'Regering kan uitbreiding Belgonucléare tegenhouden' (Government is able to stop enlarging Belgonucléare)
18. Brabants Dagblad (NL), 25 Sept.1991, 'Vrees voor Mol als hét nucleair afvalvat Europa' (Fear for Mol as the European nuclear wastedump)
19. Vereniging Benegom Leefmilieu, VZW 1993
20. De Morgen (B), 12 Febr.1994 'België gaat akkoord met verbod dumping nucleair afval in zee' (Belgium agrees on sea dump moratorium nuclear waste)
21. Aktiekrant 'Onze Gemeente Geen Nucleaire Vuilnisbak!' (Actionpaper Our municipality no nuclear waste dump) Greenpeace Belgium, May 1994
22. Gazet van Antwerpen (B), 13 Jan.1995, 'Gemeenten met hun gat tegen de berrie' (Municipalities against nuclear waste dump)
23. De Standaard (B), 4 Nov.1994, 'Berging van nucleair afval ligt erg moeilijk'. (Storage nuclear waste very difficult)
24. De Morgen (B), 8 Sept.1994, 'Ludieke aktie AGALEV tegen Niras plan'. (Protest AGALEV against nuclear waste dump)
25. ibid.24
26. Nieuwe Revu (NL), 11 Febr.1977, H. Schoondergang 'Kent u deze al?' (Do you know this joke?)
27. ibid.26
28. ibid.26
29. NRC (NL), 28 Apr.1977 'Nieuwe kerncentrale in Belgische Doel' (New nuclear powerplant in Belgian village Doel)
30. 'Kernenergie in Belgie en Nederland' Strohalm (NL), 1981 (Nuclear power in Belgium and Netherlands)
31. ibid.30
32. ibid.29
33. Elseviers Weekblad (NL), 18 Sept.1994
34. De Volkskrant (NL), 5 Mar.1983 'Verzet tegen nieuwe kerncentrales in België' (Resistance against new atomic powerplants in Belgium).
 
 

Witten by the LAKA Foundation for Steps tpo a nuclear-free world
March 1995