French Foreign Minister Dominique Villepin (left) and Hassan Rohani, secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, discuss the nuclear agreement they reached today in Tehran (AFP/Getty). Iran Agrees to Sign IAEA Additional Protocol, Suspend Uranium Enrichment Iran announced today that it would suspend uranium enrichment activities immediately and accept more intrusive international monitoring of its nuclear activities (see GSN, Oct. 20)...Full Story

United States Calls on China to Allow WMD Inspections By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A senior U.S. Commerce Department official yesterday called on China to allow on-site inspections to verify the end-use purposes of U.S. exports that could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Sept. 19)...Full Story

FDA Worried About “Round-Trip” Drug Imports From Canada By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Amid increasing controversy in the United States about high prescription drug prices and a related increase in illegal drug imports, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration believes there is a “real risk” of a terrorist attack on the country conducted through the drug supply, a top FDA official said this morning...Full Story

	Tuesday, October 21, 2003

FDA Worried About “Round-Trip” Drug Imports From Canada By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Amid increasing controversy in the United States about high prescription drug prices and a related increase in illegal drug imports, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration believes there is a “real risk” of a terrorist attack on the country conducted through the drug supply, a top FDA official said this morning. Delivering a keynote address at Harvard University’s BioSecurity 2003 conference here, FDA Deputy Commissioner Lester Crawford said that with Americans “madly scrambling” to obtain medicine at lower prices, terrorists are likely to consider attacking the United States by contaminating imported drugs, from Canada in particular. The battle over whether the United States should alter its laws and policies on importing drugs is now being played out in congressional talks on Medicare drug benefits and in other venues. States such as Minnesota, Illinois and Massachusetts have been seeking to import more drugs, and members of Congress including Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) have called on the FDA to set up safeguards for importing drugs from Canada. Crawford told Global Security Newswire after his speech that he is particularly concerned about U.S. drugs sold to Canadian firms and reimported into the United States, since Canada has limited regulatory authority over such drugs. Asked what the FDA hopes will result from the current flux in U.S. drug import policy, Crawford took a law-and-order approach. “What we’d like to see is that they [U.S. buyers] not reimport. It’s against the law … and we are actively cutting them off,” he said. Some U.S. lawmakers, however, are trying to change federal law in a bid to make less-expensive Canadian drugs available to their constituents and, ultimately, to use competition to bring down prices in the United States. “We get about 30 to 40 percent of our fruits and vegetables from other countries. When they talk about contaminated drugs, it would be far easier for terrorists or anyone else to contaminate our food supply,” Representative Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.), a leader in the effort, said earlier this month at a panel discussion on the controversy. Gutknecht alleged the FDA is more interested in propping up prices for U.S. drug firms than in furthering public health. “This is not about safety. It’s about money.  It’s about price,” he said. Despite his concern about “round-trip” medicines, Crawford played down one drug industry concern: the possibility that allegedly lax Canadian immigration procedures could encourage terrorists to mount an attack on the U.S. drug supply from Canada. “They have better border protection than they used to have,” Crawford said. Deputy FDA Head Outlines Post-Sept. 11 Reorientation Crawford said the FDA is in the process of reinventing itself in the wake of the September 2001 attacks on the United States, with a special focus on the potential for a bioterrorist attack on the country. He concurred with Gutknecht that the food supply is vulnerable. “After 9/11,” he said, “most of us believe that the next real possibility of a terrorist attack is through the food supply.” He said planning for terrorism is now part of many FDA activities from which it was previously absent. “We look at food safety events as being possible terrorist acts,” said Crawford, calling nonterrorism-related incidents useful “rehearsals” ahead of a potential attack. “We are very much in the business of terrorism, and in order to do that, we needed to change the culture of FDA,” he added, citing a “reorientation of not only the field force but the people at headquarters.” One thing the FDA has not succeeded in developing after the 2001 attacks is a costly new “research agenda” to counter terrorism, Crawford said. “The big thing that I can’t stand before you and tell you that we are ready for is a research agenda,” he said. The agency needs “some funding,” “the development of true experts” and “a body of scientific knowledge” in this regard, according to Crawford. “And if we don’t do it here in the United States, then nobody is going to do it,” he said. Back to top

United States Calls on China to Allow WMD Inspections By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A senior U.S. Commerce Department official yesterday called on China to allow on-site inspections to verify the end-use purposes of U.S. exports that could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Sept. 19). In a speech before the Update 2003 Export Controls and Policy Conference held here, Commerce Undersecretary for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster said that China’s performance regarding WMD nonproliferation and export control issues “has been less than fully satisfactory.” Over the past year, the United States has imposed sanctions on several Chinese companies, with some having been sanctioned multiple times, for alleged transfers that could aid WMD or ballistic missile programs operated by countries of concern such as Iran. Juster said yesterday that the United States is seeking the ability to conduct “routine end-use checks” in China to ensure that U.S. dual-use exports are being appropriately used and are not being covertly re-exported to other countries. While Commerce routinely conducts end-use verification visits in more than 85 countries, China has often restricted them, Juster said. Juster warned that China’s further reluctance to fully comply with end-use verification visits could have an impact on U.S.-Chinese trade relations.  “Although we have made some progress with the Chinese in this area, much more needs to be done in order to have an effective system in place. Without further progress, our ability to license exports to certain Chinese companies will decrease,” Juster said. China today expressed its willingness to continue to work with the United States on nonproliferation issues, but did not address the issue of end-use verification visits, according to Agence France-Presse. “The Chinese side has had good cooperation with the U.S. side (on nonproliferation),” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue was quoted by AFP as saying. “We are willing to continue this cooperation,” she said. Back to top       TOPOFF 2 Participants Recommend Narrower Drills, Better Dissemination of Results By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A major WMD drill conducted six months ago in the United States may have been hampered by an overly long planning period, officials involved in the drill said here yesterday (see GSN, May 16). The exercise, called “Top Officials 2” (TOPOFF 2) and conducted in and around Chicago and Seattle, was the second in a series that began with a simulated plague outbreak in 2000 in Denver. The Denver event was characterized by what some have called an excessive element of surprise, and the organizers of this year’s exercise provided participants with more advance information and gave them a year to plan. Speaking yesterday at Harvard University’s BioSecurity 2003 conference, officials from Illinois said their component of TOPOFF 2 ― primarily, a simulated pneumonic plague attack ― was generally a success but could have been better with a shorter planning period and fewer agencies involved. “The exercise cannot be everything to everyone,” said Justin Short of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency during a conference session on TOPOFF 2. State emergency medical services head Leslie Stein-Spencer told Global Security Newswire later that the drill could have benefited by limiting the yearlong planning period to six months, since the lengthy process allowed too many players to get bogged down in too many details. In what Illinois officials appeared to view as a needless distraction, it was decided to stage events unrelated to plague, such as an explosion at a building and an airplane crash, in order to involve agencies that would not otherwise have been relevant to the drill. “If we are going to be limited to the plague, which we were initially, that’s what we should play,” said Stein-Spencer. Lt. Martin Ryczek of the Chicago Police Department concurred, adding that future exercises should stick more narrowly their original concepts and thereby limit participation. “What’s the scenario? And if your agency can bring something to the table for this scenario, then you’re in,” Ryczek said. Added Short, “We needed to have a signed scope of work much earlier in the process. … The number of people who were involved in the exercise presented a logistical nightmare.” Although the Illinois officials suggested too much advance notice was given to too many players in TOPOFF 2, an official involved in TOPOFF 1 said yesterday in a telephone interview that a “play-as-you-are” system also poses problems. “It’s very important that you give people advance notice,” said Greg Moser, who was Colorado’s terrorism preparedness chief at the time of TOPOFF 1 and now works in emergency management for Jefferson County, Colo. “If it’s an exercise, and you didn’t tell me about it, then I’m not canceling my vacation at the last moment,” Moser said. Better Use of Lessons Learned Sought Officials involved in both TOPOFF exercises agreed that better use could have been made of the results of the first exercise, a shortcoming TOPOFF 2 participants vowed to correct. Ryczek said the Denver drill “set the bar pretty low,” and Moser all but repeated the charge. “It wasn’t done very well,” said the ex-Colorado official, “and I’m not quite sure what all the reasons were.” Moser said the U.S. Justice Department was supposed to produce a comprehensive “after-action report” on TOPOFF 1 but that he has not seen such a report, even though local reports and a General Accounting Office report have incorporated the lessons of the exercise. GSN inquiries yesterday with the Justice Department and the U.S. Homeland Security Department, which has taken over the TOPOFF program, yielded no information about the report. The Homeland Security Department responded to questions about the report by referring GSN to an overview of its exercise and evaluation program, which indicates after-action reports are expected after terrorism exercises. For whatever reason, lessons learned from TOPOFF 1 were not broadly communicated or integrated into public health training, said James Hagen, a health official in DuPage County, near Chicago. “We’re planning to make sure that doesn’t happen again,” said Hagen. Short said Illinois and Chicago-area officials will make themselves available to whatever jurisdictions become involved in TOPOFF 3, the locations of which have not yet been determined. “Your job is to take that [the TOPOFF 2 model] and build on it and improve on it, and we will help you do that. Just call us,” said Short. Illinois Agencies Honing Terrorism Response After TOPOFF 2  Despite its shortcomings, TOPOFF 2 was a successful exercise overall, according to the Illinois officials, because it generated important understandings about how to better prepare for a WMD attack. Short cited the development of a statewide bioterrorism emergency plan, a process that took place in conjunction with TOPOFF 2 planning, as one example of the usefulness of the exercise. The drill was also an important test of the state’s new Joint Operation Center, about which Short said, “The concept is good. The functionality of it right now needs improvement.” Several officials said TOPOFF 2 will help them to improve communications within and among jurisdictions and agencies, while Ryczek described how thorny problems of antibiotic distribution strategy ― “our greatest and biggest fight” during the drill, he said ― were elucidated by the exercise. “We are much more prepared than we were before TOPOFF 2,” summed up Short, adding, “The bottom line is if we had to do it for real today, we could [do it], and do it better.” Back to top       Experts Say U.S. Emergency Response Must Be Well Planned to Minimize Politics By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Areas responding to mass casualty disasters need a prearranged plan and command structure for organizing resources and efforts to meet specific challenges — rather than allowing the politics of competing responders to govern the response, experts said yesterday (see related GSN story, today). All mass casualty disasters, whether the result of weapons of mass destruction, weather or other causes, have similar response needs, said Susan Briggs, an assistant professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and an attending surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital. Experience shows that for every such disaster, responders are called upon to provide water, food, shelter, sanitation, safety, transportation and communication and what differs is the degree to which they are needed for any particular case, Briggs said. What is needed, therefore, is a prearranged plan for organizing response resources that involves establishing “core competencies” for addressing those various needs, she said. Traditional organizational and command structures of various participating agencies should be set aside to organize an effort around a central, generic incident command structure that can determine the level of resources needed and direct them, she said. Briggs chaired a panel discussing lessons learned from previous disasters at Harvard University’s three-day BioSecurity Conference 2003 here. What is needed is a temporary, flexible command structure that can be adapted for different scenarios, that will establish objectives, set priorities, and assign resources, said panelist Richard Zane, from the Department of Emergency Medicine of Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Impact of Responder “Politics” The approach is intended to provide an alternative to allowing response resources and efforts to be organized by the “politics” of various responding agencies and groups, which have caused mismanagement during previous disasters, Briggs said. “Politics, more than lack of personnel, supplies and equipment, limits the effectiveness of disaster preparedness and response to today’s complex disasters,” she said. “It’s a hierarchy, it’s not the loudest voice wins,” Zane said. Solving the political problem, even prior to a disaster, is a tough question, however, according to Kathryn Brinsfield, a physician with the Department of Emergency Medicine of the Boston Medical Center. Previous experience has shown “politics really governs disaster medical response,” she said. Brinsfield said responder contributions might be driven by four factors: organizational loyalty; as a basis for future funding; personal reputation; and personal responsibility. “At its worst,” she said, organization loyalty and funding politics “fosters a sense of internal competition” whereby entities compete for deployments with hope of attracting recognition and funding. She recounted an example in which a hospital administrator of a large urban city was told that to respond to a terrorist incident, he could receive all available resources from area military hospitals, but for a natural crisis, such as a flu outbreak or a flood, “he was pretty much on his own with the civilian resources available.” “And the reason they gave for that is because it really wasn’t a public notice event,” she said. “It probably wasn’t something that would give them the press. And the press, for better or worse, leads to funding,” she said. Brinsfield said the construction workers who worked the site of the World Trade Center attacks were models for selfless response. “They came because they were needed. None of them got any personal credit. … There really was just a pureness of personal response,” she said. The way to resolve the impact of politics on disaster response and get various contributors to follow a predetermined plan, said Zane, is to “solve the money problem.” “The way we’re going to make that happen is all the medical assets get balanced, even funding,” Brinsfield said, and proposed creating a national medical system. Back to top       APEC Agrees to Fight Terrorism, WMD Proliferation Leaders from 21 countries agreed today to work to dismantle terrorist organizations, to prevent bioterrorist attacks and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. “We agreed that transnational terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction pose direct and profound challenges to APEC’s vision of free, open and prosperous economies,” the leaders of the members of the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation forum said in a joint statement released at the end of a two-day summit held in Bangkok. The APEC leaders also agreed to work to prevent WMD proliferation by “strengthening international nonproliferation regimes, adopting and enforcing effective export controls and taking other legitimate and appropriate measures against proliferation,” the joint statement said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Oct. 21). In addition, the APEC leaders agreed to work to strengthen their countries’ respective public health systems to better defend against acts of bioterrorism, according to the Associated Press. In their statement, the APEC leaders agreed to monitor disease outbreaks, to ensure the physical security of pathogens, to create domestic codes of conduct for biological scientists and to enact new export control laws concerning dual-use biological items (Associated Press, Oct. 21). Back to top

Iran Agrees to Sign IAEA Additional Protocol, Suspend Uranium Enrichment Iran announced today that it would suspend uranium enrichment activities immediately and accept more intrusive international monitoring of its nuclear activities (see GSN, Oct. 20). Following meetings in Tehran with the British, French and German foreign ministers, Hassan Rohani, secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, said Iran would sign the Additional Protocol to its international nuclear safeguards agreement and would suspend all uranium enrichment activities. Although the suspensions of uranium enrichment would begin immediately, Rohani said other parts of the deal would require approval from the Iranian parliament (CNN.com, Oct. 21). The suspension would last for an “interim period” and was intended to express Iran’s “goodwill and create a new atmosphere of trust and confidence between Iran and the international community,” Rohani said (Associated Press/New York Times, Oct. 21). In exchange for the Iranian actions and the easing of international concerns, “Iran could expect easier access to modern technology and supplies in a range of areas,” according to joint declaration released after the talks (CNN.com, Oct. 21). European officials have said that France, Germany and the United Kingdom were prepared to sell Iran enough nuclear fuel to develop a civilian nuclear program, according to the Washington Post.  Currently, Russia is Iran’s main supplier of nuclear technology, but the International Atomic Energy Agency does not consider Moscow to be “100 percent reliable” in enforcing nonproliferation safeguards, a European official said. If European countries became Iran’s main supplier, however, the IAEA could be more assured that nuclear technology was not being diverted to military programs, the official said. “If we Europeans could be the supplier, that totally changes the equation,” the official said. A European diplomat said prior to today’s announcement that an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program would help to vindicate Europe’s policy of engagement with Tehran, rather than the more-confrontational approach of the United States. “We have diplomatic relations with Iran, which the Americans do not, so we can engage in all levels — politically, diplomatically, economically,” the diplomat said. “It’s a real success for our engagement policy instead of the American confrontation policy,” the diplomat added (Frankel/Richburg, Washington Post, Oct. 21). White House spokesman Scott McLellan offered tentative approval for the announcment. “If Iran does sign and implement the Additional Protocol, cooperate fully with the IAEA and end its uranium enrichment reprocessing activities, it would be a positive step in the right direction,” he said today (Associated Press/USA Today, Oct. 21). Pakistani Prime Minister Travels to Iran Meanwhile, Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali traveled to Iran today for economic and energy talks, according to the Associated Press. “I will discuss all major issues with Iranian leaders,” Jamali said, adding that Pakistan had “very good” relations with Iran. While Pakistan has been suspected of having aided Iran in developing its nuclear program, both countries have denied any such collaboration (Sadaqat Jan, Associated Press, Oct. 21). Back to top       Pakistan, Saudi Arabia Reach Secret Nuclear Weapons Deal, Pakistani Source Says Pakistan has reached an agreement with Saudi Arabia to help the kingdom develop nuclear weapons, a ranking Pakistani source said yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 18). “It will be vehemently denied by both countries, … but future events will confirm that Pakistan has agreed to provide KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) with the wherewithal for a nuclear deterrent,” the source said. Last week, a Saudi delegation led by Crown Prince Abdullah Abdulaziz traveled to Islamabad, according to United Press International. During the visit, Abdulaziz met with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.  According to the source, Pakistan has agreed to provide Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons-related expertise in exchange for low-cost or free oil. In addition, the two leaders also discussed Pakistan sending troops to Saudi Arabia, the source said. The deputy chief of the Pakistani mission in Washington, Mohammed Sadiq, yesterday denied that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had reached a nuclear agreement, calling such reports “totally wrong.” “This is against our policy,” Sadiq said. “Pakistan would never proliferate its nuclear technology. It’s a very clear policy.  This was not even discussed in the talks we held with the Saudis in Islamabad this week. It was not even on the agenda.  It is out of the question,” Sadiq added. The source said, however, that any denials by Pakistan or Saudi Arabia “must be seen in the same context as Iranian denials about its own nuclear weapons plans” (Arnaud de Borchgrave, United Press International, Oct. 20). Back to top       U.S. Proposal for North Korea Praised, but Washington, Other Capitals Still Need to Agree on Details At the end of a two-day summit of Asian-Pacific leaders in Bangkok, U.S. President George W. Bush received general support for his new plan to offer North Korea a written nonaggression pledge, but the final summit statement today did not specifically mention North Korea (see GSN, Oct. 20). In separate remarks, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said the 21 leaders were “committed to peace and stability on the (Korean) Peninsula and supported the continuation of six-party talks” to end the nuclear crisis. One round of such talks met last month in Beijing and included China, Japan, Russia, North and South Korea, and the United States (see GSN, Sept. 2). “We seek a peaceful resolution through dialogue while addressing all concerns of parties, including the security concerns expressed by the D.P.R.K.,” Thaksin added (CNN.com, Oct. 21). U.S. officials have said not to expect a final deal in the near future. The president’s proposal lacks specific measures so far, such as what assurances the United States would offer and how to verify the North Korean non-nuclear promises that would be demanded in exchange, according to the Washington Post. “This is going to take some time,” said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. On Sunday, Bush said he would be willing to sign a multilateral agreement, but not a treaty, pledging not to attack North Korea. In exchange, Pyongyang would have to show that it was tangibly dismantling its nuclear weapons program. Diplomats said Bush established a general goal and would now consult with U.S. allies to establish the specific measures of the agreement. “We are not going to go in, all guns blazing, say take it or leave it, this is it,” said Rice. North Korea’s neighbors praised the Bush proposal. “We’re making good progress on peacefully solving the issue with North Korea,” said South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, who thanked the United States for “making efforts to make progress.” Chinese President Hu Jintao said Beijing would “continue to strengthen our communication and consultations with various parties concerned, and we will continue to work to promote the Beijing six-party talks process.” While the United States and its Northeast Asian partners might successfully develop a proposal for a multilateral nonaggression agreement with North Korea, Pyongyang’s willingness to accept the deal is in doubt, the Post reported. North Korean officials have historically ruled out a multilateral pact, saying the nation already has defense treaties with Russia and China and does not need assurances from Japan or South Korea. Pyongyang has instead demanded a bilateral deal with the United States and has insisted that the agreement be approved by the U.S. Congress to ensure that subsequent presidents would adhere to it (Allen/Kessler, Washington Post, Oct. 21). On Sunday, however, Bush explicitly rejected giving Congress a say in the agreement.  “We will not have a treaty. … That’s off the table,” Bush told reporters (David Sanger, New York Times, Oct. 20). Devilish Details Bush administration officials said the United States and its partners still must agree how to address three essential issues in the nonaggression agreement, including the form of the agreement, how North Korean compliance would be monitored and what measures North Korea would need to take before it would received the promised assurances. Three styles of agreements are under consideration, according to one senior administration official. First, the president could simply issue a statement that would be jointly signed by its partners. Second, the agreement could be styled after four-way 1994 security assurance issued to Ukraine to encourage Kiev to give up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union. Finally, the agreement could be a more sophisticated pact, negotiated with North Korea, that would be formally signed by all parties, the official said. The lack of a plan on this issue reflects divisions within the Bush administration over what course to follow, U.S. officials said. Some question the wisdom of offering any agreement at all and others are debating the merits of different verification methods. One contingent is pushing for a compliance system that would deploy hundreds of inspectors in North Korea and others suggest that deal opponents are using the verification debate as a means to kill any agreement, the Post reported (Allen/Kessler, Washington Post). Back to top       U.S. Air Force Launches Last Titan 2 ICBM The U.S. Air Force Saturday used the last of its Titan 2 ICBMs to place a military weather satellite into space, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, Sept. 9). Saturday’s launch involved the 13th out of 14 Titan 2s that were converted to space launch use over the past 15 years, the Times reported. The 14th missile is expected to be placed on display in a museum (Washington Times, Oct. 21). Back to top

“Fundamental” Security Concerns Remain at Plum Island Facility, GAO Says By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Congressional auditors have found that, while security has improved at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, “fundamental concerns” still remain, according to a U.S. General Accounting Office report released yesterday (see GSN, June 13). The Plum Island facility, located off the coast of Long Island, N.Y, researches contagious animal diseases. According to the report, the facility maintains stockpiles of pathogens such as foot-and-mouth disease that could cause agricultural damage or illness to humans if released. In June, the U.S. Homeland Security Department announced that it would take control of the facility from the Agriculture Department through a four-month transition period. Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, Agriculture began security improvement measures at Plum Island, some of which Homeland Security has continued, the report says. It also says, however, that even with the improvements, congressional auditors still found a number of areas of concern at the facility. One area of concern is the “incomplete and limited” physical security at Plum Island, according to the report. For example, alarms and door sensors recommended for the biocontainment area where research is conducted with dangerous pathogens are not yet fully operational. In addition, the report says, the Agriculture Department did not provide sufficient physical security to sections of the facility considered to be “critical” to its continued operation. The GAO also found that Plum Island officials have not adequately controlled access to the pathogens used and stored at the facility, according to the report. It cites a lack of background checks conducted on students who attend classes within the biocontainment area and a lack of required escorts for individuals who enter the biocontainment area for nonlaboratory purposes, such as cleaning. “Controlling access to the pathogens is particularly important because no security device is currently capable of detecting a microgram of pathogenic material,” the report says. “Therefore, a scientist at Plum Island … could remove a tiny quantity of pathogen without being detected and potentially develop it into a weapon,” it says. In addition, the report cites concerns with Plum Island’s incident-response plan and response capabilities. For example, the facility’s guard force has been operating without authority from Agriculture to carry firearms or to make arrests, which has led to local law enforcement officials expressing reluctance to address criminal situations on the island, the report says. It also says that the Plum Island incident response plan does not address incidents that exceed the facility’s security system, such as an intentional terrorist attack. The GAO also said in its report that Agriculture did not adequately assess the risk of pathogen theft from Plum Island when the department conducted its post-Sept. 11 review of its research facilities. According to the report, the risk level at Plum Island has increased because of an August 2002 labor strike and “the hostility surrounding it” (see GSN, Oct. 10, 2002). For example, the report says, one striking worker was convicted of tampering with the island’s water distribution and treatment system on the day the strike began. “Although USDA did consider the possibility of a disgruntled worker when planning security for all of its laboratories, it did not re-evaluate the level of risk, the assets requiring protection or its incident-response plans for Plum Island in light of … the strike,” the report says. U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who requested the GAO report, said yesterday that he was concerned that Agriculture was not working more quickly to resolve security concerns at Plum Island. “It is alarming to me that USDA was not moving effectively to address many of the security shortfalls at Plum Island,” Harkin said in a press statement. Harkin, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, also criticized Agriculture for failing to resolve the labor-management dispute at Plum Island that resulted in the 2002 strike and the resultant security concerns identified by the GAO. “USDA should have stepped in to facilitate a resolution of this labor dispute that was causing clear security concerns. Instead, they took a hands-off approach and let the situation fester,” Harkin said. “This in no way excuses the criminal acts committed at Plum Island by employees, but USDA’s handling of labor-management disputes must help support the safe operation of secure research installations. I am concerned USDA still does not realize that,” he added. Back to top

Russia Welcomes Italian Chemical Weapons Disposal Aid Russia has welcomed an offer by Italy to help fund Russian chemical weapons disposal efforts, Gen. Andrei Nikolayev, chairman of the Russian Duma defense committee, said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 14). Italy has agreed to provide Russia with more than $1 billion to help Moscow destroy its stockpiles of Soviet-era chemical weapons, Nikolayev said yesterday. Nikolayev met yesterday with Italian Defense Minister Antonio Martino, who has been on an official visit to Russia since Oct. 18 (Sergei Ovsiyenko, ITAR-Tass, Oct. 20). Back to top       Pine Bluff Arsenal Scheduled to Continue Incinerator Tests Test burns of a chemical weapons incinerator at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas are scheduled to continue by next week, officials said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 20). The test, called a surrogate trial burn, would involve the second of the incinerator’s three furnaces and would be monitored by state environmental officials, according to the Associated Press. The test would use chemical compounds more difficult to destroy than chemical weapons, officials said.  Last month, a surrogate trial burn of the incinerator’s first furnace was completed and a report on the results of that test will be submitted to Alabama after it is reviewed by the Army, said Chris West, spokesman for the Washington Demilitarization Company, which built and operates the incinerator (see GSN, Sept. 3). A surrogate trial burn of the third incinerator furnace is scheduled to begin in January (Greg Giuffrida, Associated Press, Oct. 21). Back to top

Japan, South Korea Differ Over Possible Second North Korean Missile Test Japan and South Korea have disagreed over reports of a possible second North Korean missile test conducted today, according to the Financial Times (see GSN, Oct. 20). The Japanese Defense Agency has said that North Korea today conducted a second anti-ship cruise missile test following one conducted yesterday. The South Korean Defense Ministry, however, has said there is no evidence of a second missile test having been conducted today (Mallet/Harding, Financial Times, Oct. 21). “We believe that the report (from Japan) is wrong. We don’t believe there was a missile launch today by North Korea,” a South Korean Office of Joint Chiefs of Staff spokesman said (Kenji Hall, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 21). Meanwhile, the Washington Times reported today that yesterday’s test involved a modified Chinese-designed HY-2 Silkworm cruise missile (see GSN, March 12). The modified missile has range of about 100 miles, making it an “over-the-horizon” threat to U.S. ships, U.S. officials said. Silkworms typically have a range of about 60 miles, according to the Times. Yesterday’s modified Silkworm test was the third conducted so far this year, the Times reported. North Korea previously tested the missile in February and in March. Intelligence officials, however, considered the March test to have been a failure because of guidance system flaws (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, Oct. 21). Back to top

Expert Panel Finds Flaw in Yucca Mountain Design The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board is preparing to tell the U.S. Energy Department that its plan for storing nuclear waste at the planned Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada could lead to corrosion of the waste storage containers and possible leaks, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Aug. 15). Energy has planned to use the heat generated by nuclear waste to keep the containers dry by packing the storage containers close together, resulting in the tunnels heating to almost 300 degrees in the first decades of storage, according to the Times. The board has said in a drafted letter, however, that any water within the mountain would be mixed with salt, making the water harder to boil away as planned and thereby resulting in corrosion. “We basically raised a flag and said, ‘If you’re going to do this, you’ve decreased the possibility of your container being a real barrier,” said board member David Duquette, head of the materials science department at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Matthew Wald, New York Times, Oct. 21).   Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.