The possibility of nuclear terrorism has been capturing the headlines lately. Theories are circulating that the terrorists who attacked an airport and subway in Brussels, Belgium were originally planning an attack on a nuclear power plant or nuclear research facility. In my previous post, I blogged about several different types of nuclear terrorism. Yesterday, the international 2016 Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) was convened in Washington, D.C. hosted by the U.S. President. Members of the nuclear industry held their own conference on nuclear security the day before the NSS began. They drafted a joint statement to be presented at the NSS.
The nuclear industry representative opened their statement with a promise to continue their cooperation with national governments to secure radioactive materials, insure that the industry members followed regulatory standards, invest in training staff and to generally promote a culture of safety at nuclear installations. They continued with a long list of pledges that fleshed out their general statement of support for best security practices.
At the top of the list was a promise to “effectively secure all nuclear and radiological materials in industrial facilities and applications, at a minimum by complying with national regulations." They also promised to continuously improve their security practices, work to enhance public and stakeholder practices, promote a security culture including "encouraging employees to report suspicious behavior." They promised to work on improving security against cyberattacks, support the improvement of global nuclear security and improving radiological security.
The nuclear industry statement ended with the recognition that "highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium require special precautions and that it is of great importance that they be appropriately secured, consolidated and accounted for," and the comment that they "are encouraged by States to continue to minimize stocks of highly enriched uranium and to keep stockpiles of separated plutonium to the minimum level, both as consistent with national requirements."
It is nice to have this definitive statement on the part of the nuclear industry with respect to nuclear security. However, I have a problem with believing that the industry will follow through with their promises. Their record to date with respect to nuclear security is problematic to say the least. National regulatory agencies have often been tasked with both promoting nuclear power and regulating it. Regulatory capture has resulted in lax enforcement of regulations. National regulatory agencies and national governments have often been reluctant to tell their citizens about the accidental release of nuclear materials and threats to public health and the environment. In cases where accidents involved nuclear weapons, this lack of transparency has often been excused on national security grounds. Corporations are primarily focused on profits and when following security and safety regulations becomes expensive, they have been known to ignore regulations, fail to make mandated changes in their security, lie to regulatory agencies or fail to report problems altogether.
If the world is seriously concerned about nuclear security ( and it should be), then national governments are going to have to separate regulatory agencies from the promotion of nuclear power, give them more enforcement power and insure that they rigorously enforce security and safety regulations. If there is a major incident of nuclear terrorism, you can be sure that the public call for better nuclear security will put increasing pressure on the nuclear industry and regulatory agencies to improve security practices.
Training exercises at the U.S. Office of Defense Nuclear Security which develops and implements NNSA security programs to protect, control, and account for materials, information, and facilities across the nuclear security enterprise:
