A Chinese ballistic missile (shown in a 1999 photo). The U.S. intelligence community is reassessing its estimates of countries’ WMD capabilities (AFP/Getty). U.S. Intelligence Downgrades WMD Threats Several U.S. officials have said that a major reassessment of intelligence about WMD programs around the world has resulted in reduced assessments of the WMD capabilities of some countries, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Nov. 11). The intelligence reassessment is being conducted in two classified reviews by the National Intelligence Council, which reports to CIA Director George Tenet, according to the Times. When the reviews are completed, which is expected to occur this month, they will become formal national intelligence estimates...Full Story

U.S. Still Seeking Security Council Action on Iran as IAEA Meeting Nears By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States is “disappointed” in a European strategy for addressing Iran’s nuclear program and will work this week to have the issue taken up by the U.N. Security Council, a Western diplomat said today (see GSN, Nov. 17)...Full Story

Biological Weapons Convention Meeting Ends Without Recommendations By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The latest annual meeting of parties to the Biological Weapons Convention ended Friday in Geneva with a one-page report urging nations to adopt better measures to implement the treaty (see GSN, Nov. 11)...Full Story

CDC Director Denies Existence of U.S. Smallpox Immunization Program By David McGlinchey Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — In a sharp departure from previous public comments by senior U.S. officials, the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday that the United States never launched a smallpox vaccination program this year, but instead worked toward an overall preparedness campaign (see GSN, Oct. 28)...Full Story

	Tuesday, November 18, 2003

U.S. Intelligence Downgrades WMD Threats Several U.S. officials have said that a major reassessment of intelligence about WMD programs around the world has resulted in reduced assessments of the WMD capabilities of some countries, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Nov. 11). The intelligence reassessment is being conducted in two classified reviews by the National Intelligence Council, which reports to CIA Director George Tenet, according to the Times. When the reviews are completed, which is expected to occur this month, they will become formal national intelligence estimates. The officials said that one new judgment is reduced certainty about the status of China’s chemical weapons program. While China is still believed to possess chemical weapons, the new review has determined that current U.S. intelligence cannot conclude that such weapons have been deployed to Chinese military units, they said. The officials refused to say which other judgments were being revised, but did say that with regard to a number of countries, the new assessments would reflect greater uncertainty than previous estimates.  “The analysts are insisting that the judgments be backed up by hard evidence, not supposition,” an official said. Some key judgments, such as assessments of Iran’s and North Korea’s biological and chemical weapons capabilities, were unlikely to be changed, the officials said. One senior intelligence official said the reviews were not being conducted because of the experience regarding prewar intelligence on Iraq. “We’ve asked them to re-examine what we’ve said, and make sure they’re signing up for what we say, make sure that the information is good,” the senior intelligence official said (Douglas Jehl, New York Times, Nov. 18). Back to top       Intelligence Officials Suspect North Korean WMD Exports to Myanmar North Korea might be exporting nuclear and missile technology to Myanmar as the two countries develop closer military ties, the Wall Street Journal reported today (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2002). “Regimes like North Korea’s … obviously look upon the sale of (weapons of mass destruction) as just a neat way to gain hard currency,” a U.S. administration official said. “And almost automatically they have a fairly limited market — terrorist groups, rogue states and pariah states.” Myanmar has already begun negotiating the purchase of surface-to-surface missiles from North Korea, U.S. and Asian officials said. About 20 North Korean technicians are currently working at the Monkey Point naval base near Yangon, possibly to install the missiles on Myanmar’s naval ships, the Journal reported. Intelligence agents have also seen North Korean workers unloading large crates and construction equipment near the central Myanmar town of Natmauk, where the country wants to build a nuclear research reactor. North Korean planes have been seen flying into central Myanmar as well, diplomats said. Russia agreed last year to build a research reactor but abandoned the project after Yangon could not come up with the money for it (see GSN, May 16, 2002). “We are watching the situation at Natmauk very, very closely,” said a Bangkok-based Western diplomat. The U.S. State Department and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have both expressed concerns about ties between the two countries. “The linkup of these two pariah states can only spell trouble,” said Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). “North Korea’s main export is dangerous weapons technology. These developments are the seeds of a major threat to Asian security and stability,” he added. Myanmar denied any interest in weapons of mass destruction. “Logically, why would (Myanmar) want to develop weapons of mass destruction when the country needs all her strength and resources” to pursue a “transition to multiparty democracy and an open-market economy,” said Hla Min, a spokesman for Myanmar’s State Peace and Development Council. He did not answer questions on the missile sales (Lintner/Crispin, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 18). “Myanmar is a country which is everybody’s friend and nobody’s ally or enemy. The country is living peacefully with her neighbors and does not have any ambition to arm itself with nuclear weapons,” Myanmar’s ruling military junta said in a statement (Agency France-Presse/Brunei Bulletin, Nov. 18). Back to top       U.N. Experts Warn of Al-Qaeda Desire for WMD A U.N. Security Council expert panel has warned that the al-Qaeda terrorist network is prevented from launching biological and chemical attacks only by the technical challenges in doing so, the Associated Press reported Saturday (see GSN, July 30). “The risk of al-Qaeda acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction also continues to grow,” according to the panel, which monitors sanctions imposed against al-Qaeda and the former Taliban. “Undoubtedly al-Qaeda is still considering the use of chemical or bio-weapons to perpetrate its terrorist actions,” a panel report says. What prevents al-Qaeda from conducting biological and chemical attacks, the report says, “is the technical complexity to operate them properly and effectively” (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Washington Post, Nov. 15). Back to top

U.S. Still Seeking Security Council Action on Iran as IAEA Meeting Nears By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States is “disappointed” in a European strategy for addressing Iran’s nuclear program and will work this week to have the issue taken up by the U.N. Security Council, a Western diplomat said today (see GSN, Nov. 17). France, Germany and the United Kingdom have drafted a resolution on Iran for approval by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors, which is due to begin discussing Iran in Vienna Thursday, and U.S. and European negotiators met in closed-door talks today at the IAEA on the measure. The board’s meeting comes one month after Tehran told visiting European foreign ministers it was willing to accept more intrusive international inspections of its nuclear programs and to suspend uranium enrichment efforts (see GSN, Oct. 21). According to the diplomat, who is familiar with U.S. objectives, Washington is “disappointed” by the European text, under which the board would not find Iran in noncompliance with international agreements. Nevertheless, U.S. negotiators are trying to use the European draft as a basis for a final agreement and will not table a competing resolution unless it becomes “absolutely certain that [the United States] can’t work with the European resolution as it stands,” the diplomat said. The 35 board members passed a U.S.-driven resolution at their last meeting that set an Oct. 31 deadline for increased Iranian cooperation with the U.N. nuclear agency. This time, they are expected to discuss options that include a formal finding that Iran is in noncompliance with its IAEA safeguards agreement and a referral of the matter to the Security Council. Such measures appeared less likely following Iran’s Oct. 21 promise to step up cooperation. The outlook has been clouded, though, by an IAEA report to the board last week indicating that Tehran has for years systematically concealed nuclear activities such as small-scale plutonium production and uranium enrichment (see GSN, Nov. 11). The United States and European countries have disagreed about the significance of the report, with Washington stressing the IAEA’s documentation of a litany of Iranian concealments and the Europeans focusing on Iran’s apparent new frankness and the report’s lack of a definitive finding that Iran has been seeking a nuclear weapon. A second Western diplomat in Vienna said the “Europeans have taken the high road in this; to some extent, they’ve stolen the agenda” with their Tehran trip and subsequent draft resolution. “They don’t want to take a harsh line at the moment. … If the U.S. [seeks a finding of] noncompliance or breach that would then lead to this going to the Security Council … I don’t think they’ll get it,” said the second diplomat. Summing up the U.S. position, the first diplomat said, “It’s great to recognize Iranian progress in the last month and to have a forward outlook but … it’s … pretty important to at least reference” Iran’s secret nuclear activities. Although the United States is working toward a referral of Iran to the Security Council as an “end goal,” the diplomat said, it could also accept other measures, in part because “everyone wants to avoid a vote, including the United States.” One possible outcome is a finding of noncompliance without a referral to the council. In such a case, the diplomat said, the board could issue a “stiffly worded note” or a “stiffly worded resolution” using the term “noncompliance” and telling Iran, “We’re watching you.” Reacting to such sentiments, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told Reuters today that the “members of the board should not allow a country to impose its views on them and should act independently. … America should abandon useless pressures and stop imposing its ideas on the agency.” The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rohani, added yesterday in Brussels after meeting with top French, German and British diplomats that “there is no justification, no reason, to refer Iran’s peaceful nuclear program to the U.N.S.C.” U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher refused yesterday under intense questioning by reporters to articulate a public U.S. position on whether Iran should be referred to the Security Council, but he stressed Iran’s alleged noncompliance with its obligations. “We want the board to focus seriously on … Iran’s history. We have something like, I think, 18 years now documented where Iran has been conducting programs that were not in compliance with the requirements of the IAEA. They say that they have provided … full information with regard to those programs. We’re going to have make sure that’s true,” said Boucher. He added that the IAEA “needs to verify the information. It needs to see them perform on the promises and, above all, needs to take a realistic attitude towards Iran’s past behavior, as well as the promises that Iran has made about its future behavior.” EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana yesterday highlighted the “honest data” Iran has now provided to the IAEA on its past nuclear activities, prompting U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to reply, after meeting with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, “I wouldn’t have gone quite as far. The Iranians have provided us a great deal of information. It confirms what the United States has been saying for some time and which we believe, that the Iranian nuclear development program was for more than just the production of power, that it had an intent to producing a nuclear weapon.” U.S. Experts Criticize Europeans, IAEA Members of an expert panel gathered yesterday at the American Enterprise Institute here largely agreed that the board is not likely to refer the Iran problem to the Security Council ― a development most appeared to find unwelcome, terming Iran’s concessions to the Europeans a bad bargain. Washington Institute for Near East Policy Deputy Director Patrick Clawson said the United States will press hard for the board to find Iran in noncompliance ― “If the Iranians are scared of it, then, well, we’re going to want it” ― but that it is unlikely the IAEA board will adopt that decision. Nixon Center Regional Strategic Programs Director Geoffrey Kemp agreed that the board is not likely to find Iran in noncompliance, adding that Iran will not “do anything extreme,” such as withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, “at this time.” European countries, said AEI Resident Fellow Reuel Gerecht, appear prepared to reject any significant sanction against Iran and to continue trying to convince Iran’s leaders that it is in their interest not to develop a nuclear weapon. Gerecht called the approach a flawed one because, he said, Iranian officials have already heard the European arguments and are not likely to deviate from whatever course of action they think will protect Iran’s security. “These are responsible, serious men who have been raised on a diet of realpolitik,” Gerecht said of Iran’s ruling clerics. He added that he does not believe a “serious internal debate” about the desirability of nuclear weapons is being conducted in Iran. Debate among various ruling factions, he said, centers on whether the consequences of nuclear weapon development, such as international isolation, would be bearable. Iranian leaders in favor of developing a weapon appear likely to convince others that “they can bluff us out,” Gerecht added. Several panelists stressed the importance of delaying Iranian nuclear efforts amid a dearth of other options. Clawson said the United States is likely to keep the pressure on Iran by highlighting the possible consequences of nuclear weapon development without being “very precise about what those consequences could be.” Meanwhile, he said, Washington will continue to reject the European “deal” with Iran, “remind” European countries of Iran’s alleged noncompliance and apply pressure to Russia, which is building a major nuclear power plant in Bushehr, Iran. Nonproliferation Policy Education Center Executive Director Henry Sokolski, a U.S. Defense Department nonproliferation official under former President George Bush, criticized both European countries and the IAEA over their handling of Iran. Sokolski, who is about to leave for Europe with a high-level U.S. delegation to discuss Iran with European defense officials, expressed opposition to the “European view that you can just talk about putting off some of the technical problems, but not all of them.” Bargaining with Iran, he said, would tell would-be nuclear proliferators, “You’re not going to get caught, and you might get rewarded.” Sokolski added that he has no confidence in safeguards as a way of detecting Iranian nuclear weapon development and that some IAEA officials share his view. IAEA safeguards officials, he said, have told him the language in last week’s report on Iran is insufficiently tough to express what has been learned about the country’s nuclear programs. The IAEA, according to Sokolski, has chosen to employ weaker language in describing Iran’s programs because it is loath to find the country in violation of its commitments. “From here on out, we need to all act as though, if the IAEA cannot find somebody in full compliance, they’re in violation,” he said. Back to top       United States and Japan Agree to Pressure North Korea U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly and Japanese defense chief Shigeru Ishiba agreed to use “dialogue and pressure” to persuade North Korea to stop developing nuclear weapons, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Nov. 17). The meeting in Tokyo came as Kelly finished a three-nation Asian tour to prepare for multilateral talks on the North Korean nuclear crisis. South Korean officials expect the next round of nuclear talks to take place Dec. 17 and 18 in Beijing, AP reported. “Resolving the matter diplomatically and peacefully does not mean accepting everything (North Korea) says,” Ishiba said. “If it tries to benefit from nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, missiles or threats … that is not acceptable,” he added (Natalie Obiko Pearson, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Nov. 18). Meanwhile, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Seoul yesterday, where he said that Washington is committed to defending South Korea from a North Korean attack, and that the United States would use nuclear weapons if necessary. The explicit statement was in line with existing U.S. policy but was unusual in its directness, the Washington Times reported. The move might have been intended both to pressure Pyongyang and to dissuade Seoul from developing its own nuclear arsenal (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, Nov. 18). The top U.S. military official in South Korea said yesterday that North Korea’s primary threat to peace is as a provider of WMD material and technology. “North Korea is a known proliferator of military technology,” said U.S. Army Gen. Leon LaPorte. “We believe that nothing would prevent them from selling weapons-grade nuclear material to other countries, rogue nations or terrorist organizations,” he added (Bill Gertz, Washington Times II, Nov. 18). The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, meanwhile, must cooperate closely with North Korea to efficiently suspend the construction of two nuclear reactors there, according to a South Korean official. The site must also be kept intact so that work can be resumed after a year if the suspension is lifted, the official added. KEDO is expected to formally announce the suspension Friday (Yonhap News Agency/BBC Monitoring, Nov. 18). Back to top

Biological Weapons Convention Meeting Ends Without Recommendations By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The latest annual meeting of parties to the Biological Weapons Convention ended Friday in Geneva with a one-page report urging nations to adopt better measures to implement the treaty (see GSN, Nov. 11). The final text calls on treaty participants to better implement the treaty and to strengthen security over sensitive pathogens, but offers no guidance on exactly how to achieve those goals. “We’re very disappointed. [They get] an F for effort,” said Angela Woodward, legal researcher at VERTIC, a London arms control organization. “It was a fairly minimalist outcome,” said Richard Lennane, a political affairs officer at the U.N. Department for Disarmament Affairs in Geneva. Although some nations pushed for the meeting to recommend measures that treaty parties would find helpful in implementing the pact, no consensus was possible. “Some countries were concerned about what they viewed was taking on additional obligations. But it was a storm in the teacup, because [the recommendations under consideration] would have involved taking on measures they’ve already agreed to,” Lennane said. The Bush administration viewed the outcome positively. “The meeting ended by reinforcing at a political level the need for states to pass criminal legislation and to provide security for dangerous pathogens,” said one U.S. official, requesting anonymity. The official called the report a “relatively brief but very positive political statement.” Three Points In the report, the parties agreed: *         “to review, and where necessary, enact or update national legal, including regulatory and penal, measures which ensure effective implementation of the prohibition of the BTWC, and which enhance effective security of pathogens and toxins;” *         on a “need for comprehensive and concrete national measures to secure pathogen collections and the control of their use for peaceful purposes;” and *         to provide assistance to each other to accomplish these goals. Diplomats and experts agree that 31 years after the treaty was opened for signature, a large number of the 151 parties have not adopted adequate legislation, including criminal laws, to implement treaty requirements effectively.  In August, experts from 83 nations gathered in Geneva to exchange information on exactly what measures have been taken so far to implement the treaty’s ban against the research, development and possession of biological weapons. They also reported on the steps countries have taken to secure potentially dangerous research activities conducted for legitimate purposes. Some nations, including South Africa and Germany, hoped that last week’s meeting would produce a final report that would summarize lessons from the experts meetings and would offer more specific recommendations that treaty parties could use to craft domestic legislation. On the first day of the meeting, however, U.S. delegation leader Donald Mahley said the United States would oppose that idea, saying it would provide a distraction from taking action. Later, India’s representative said the meeting lacked the necessary mandate for negotiating recommendations (see GSN, Nov. 10). The final report does include the uncollated documents exchanged at the August meeting, and experts said the annex could be useful as a reference for countries formulating implementing legislation.  Critics say, though, that general guidance is needed on which examples should be heeded, and which avoided, so that implementation is strong and consistent around the world. “People have been saying all along the measure of success is to what extent there are common understandings and effective action, and if you don’t get either of those you have to ask yourself how useful is it,” said Graham Pearson of the University of Bradford in the United Kingdom. “The most that we’ve got is the fact that about a dozen states have offered to help others through bilaterals or regional workshops, or something like that, where they will provide practical assistance at a level that is aimed at the officials who will actually have to do all this stuff,” said Woodward. A Limited Process This year’s treaty meetings were negotiated in a compromise last year after the United States pressured the fifth treaty review conference into abandoning an effort to create a mechanism for verifying treaty compliance.  U.S. officials said they opposed such a protocol, arguing it would be ineffective because biological weapons development is easy to conceal and because it might allow U.S. commercial biotechnology and government biological defense activities to be singled out for inspection, potentially compromising proprietary and secret information. Faced with the lack of agreement on a verification protocol, treaty parties agreed to meet annually to discuss prearranged topics until the next review conference in 2006. The compromise meetings were intended to be a “limiting process,” said meeting chairman Tibor Toth, the Hungarian diplomat who has led the effort to improve the treaty for the past nine years.  Some observers criticized the narrow agenda for proscribing discussion on more important issues. “The real problem is proliferation … how do you stop states’ programs,” said Malcom Dando, also with the University of Bradford. Next to that problem, he said, the subjects discussed this year were “minor issues.” Last week’s meeting was the final one chaired by Toth, who will probably be replaced by a South African diplomat under a new rotation system established last year. Next year’s meetings are scheduled to address enhancing international capabilities for detecting, investigating and mitigating cases of biological weapons use or suspicious disease outbreaks. The discussions are expected to be more contentious than this year’s, said Woodward. “Next year’s going to be all fun and games,” she said. Back to top       CDC Director Denies Existence of U.S. Smallpox Immunization Program By David McGlinchey Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — In a sharp departure from previous public comments by senior U.S. officials, the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday that the United States never launched a smallpox vaccination program this year, but instead worked toward an overall preparedness campaign (see GSN, Oct. 28). Almost a year ago, CDC Director Julie Gerberding and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson appeared to lay out the details of the nationwide smallpox vaccination program. In January, Gerberding prepared testimony for a Senate Health Committee hearing entitled “The Smallpox Vaccination Plan: Challenges and Next Steps.” In that hearing, she said health officials were planning to establish 1,500 clinics to deliver the vaccine and state authorities had identified “over 3,300 health care facilities that will participate in the program.” Last week, however, Gerberding said that the United States “didn’t actually have a vaccination program, we had a comprehensive smallpox preparedness program.” She acknowledged that the United States “needed to have some pre-event vaccination of the people who would be most necessary to investigate smallpox cases and to treat the initial cases.” “In some states the immunization and all of the other comprehensive preparedness efforts have been successfully completed,” she said. Although the difference between an immunization program and a preparedness program might seem small, the CDC has been trying to play down expectations for the nationwide vaccinations after far fewer health care workers than expected volunteered to receive the smallpox vaccine. Officials expected to immunize as many as 450,000 health workers, but fewer than 40,000 have been inoculated. Several senior health officials have recently acknowledged that the program has fallen short of its goals, but no U.S. official has ever denied the existence of the immunization effort. Friday, Gerberding said the United States “had a comprehensive smallpox preparedness program, and the goal of the smallpox preparedness program, at President Bush’s direction, was to ensure that every jurisdiction in our country would be able to vaccinate their population within a 10-day time frame.” After U.S. President George W. Bush announced the military smallpox immunization program last December, he said “we do recommend vaccinations for one other group of Americans that could be on the front lines of a biological attack. We will make the vaccine available, on a voluntary basis, to medical professionals and emergency personnel in response teams that would provide vaccine and treatment to Americans in a crisis.” Speaking later that day, Thompson said that 439,000 emergency medical workers were designated for vaccination in the program’s first phase. Gerberding said that CDC officials were hoping to complete the initial phase quickly. “In our planning guidance, we recommended that they try to accomplish this in 30 days from the point at which they actually open the clinics and begin the immunization,” she said. Experts and health officials have said that a key focus of the initial phase was to immunize health care workers who could then vaccinate others in the event of an attack. The ability to immunize every resident of the United States in 10 days — which Gerberding cited Friday as a key benchmark of the preparedness program — would require far more than 40,000 immunized health care workers, a public health expert said today. An immunization effort on that scale and time frame would require 1.25 million immunized health care workers, according to Edward Kaplan, a Yale University professor who has been a vocal critic of the CDC’s smallpox vaccination plans. He also rejected Gerberding’s claims that the CDC never launched a vaccination program or laid out specific goals for the number of health care workers to vaccinate. “This is kind of like a fantasy land,” he said. Back to top       Canada to Receive Smallpox Vaccine Next Month Canadian authorities are set to begin receiving their order for a national smallpox vaccine stockpile in December, the Ottawa Citizen reported today (see GSN, Sept. 9). Canadian company Aventis Pasteur is scheduled to deliver 10 million doses of the vaccine at a cost of $6.6 million. Almost $30 million will be spent over the next two years on associated vaccine costs, including storage and immunization equipment. The smallpox stockpiles will be included in the National Emergency Services Stockpile of field medical equipment, medicines and emergency supplies by early spring of 2004. The exact locations of the smallpox vaccine stockpiles is not being released. “The information is considered confidential. There’ll be one stockpile in the east and one in the west,” said Catherine Saunders, a spokeswoman for Health Canada (Ian MacLeod, Ottawa Citizen, Nov. 18). Back to top

Russian Facility Completes Mustard Gas Destruction The Russian chemical weapons disposal facility in Gorny last week completed the destruction of mustard gas stockpiles, according to GatewayToRussia.com (see GSN, Nov. 13). The facility has destroyed more than 620 metric tons of mustard, and specialists Friday began deactivating the disposal line, GatewayToRussia.com reported. The Gorny facility will next be used to destroy lewisite stockpiles (GatwayToRussia.com, Nov. 17). Back to top       U.S. Chemical Weapons Depot Completes Rocket Destruction Workers at the U.S. Army’s Deseret Chemical Depot in Utah last night completed destruction of all M-55 rockets stored there, according to KSL.com (see GSN, Sept. 3). The destruction of the VX nerve agent remaining at the site is expected to be completed by summer of next year (KSL.com, Nov. 18). Back to top

EPA Considering Storing Low-Level Nuclear Waste in Landfills The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected today to formally begin a public comment period on a proposed rule change to allow low-level nuclear waste to be disposed of in landfills, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Nov. 17). The EPA plan, intended to “promote a consistent framework” for radioactive waste disposal, would apply to low-level wastes that contain materials such as cesium, plutonium and strontium, the Post reported. Currently, such waste must be stored at nuclear waste sites subjected to heavy federal and state oversight. “No decisions have been made, and at the end of this (review), we may decide no change is necessary,” EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said. A number of governmental watchdog and environmental organizations, however, oppose the potential rule change, the Post reported. “The EPA’s proposal is to deregulate radioactive waste, pure and simple,” said Diane D’Arrigo of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (Eric Pianin, Washington Post, Nov. 18).   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.