Workers load an oil tanker bound for North Korea in 1995 before such shipments were halted last year. A North Korean statement today demanded a resumption of heavy fuel oil supplies as part of any deal which would freeze North Korea’s nuclear activities (AFP/Getty). North Korea Offers to Freeze Nuclear Development, for a Price North Korea offered today to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for a series of diplomatic and economic concessions from the United States, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Dec. 8). “In return for the freezing of our nuclear activities, the United States must remove our country’s name form the list of terrorism-sponsoring countries; lift its political, economic, military sanctions and blockade; and give us heavy oil, electricity and other energy assistance from the United States and neighboring countries,” a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said today...Full Story

Disarmament, Deterrence Debated 50 Years After Landmark Eisenhower Speech By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Convened to mark the 50th anniversary of former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower’s historic “atoms for peace” address, important players in the world of nuclear weapons yesterday laid out sharp differences as to the continuing merit of nuclear deterrence, the wisdom of disarmament and other matters (see GSN, Dec. 3)...Full Story

After 10-Year Effort, U.S. Has Much to Do to Improve WMD Defense, Conferees Say By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. military still has a great deal to do to prevent and defend against WMD attacks from terrorists or foreign governments, according to a gathering of officials and experts marking the 10th anniversary of the founding of the Defense Department’s Defense Counterproliferation Initiative...Full Story

	Tuesday, December 9, 2003

Former U.S. Officials Call for Domestic Intelligence Service Within FBI A group of former officials from the CIA, FBI and U.S. Defense Department have called for expanded FBI capabilities to conduct domestic intelligence operations, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 15). So far, the Bush administration has rejected proposals to create a new domestic intelligence agency and has instead conducted several small measures, such as creating a terrorist threat analysis center jointly operated by the CIA and FBI. Yesterday, former CIA senior official John MacGaffin and former Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre told a commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that a new domestic intelligence service should be established within the FBI and managed by the head of the CIA. The group of former officials has proposed that agents of the new FBI domestic intelligence service focus solely on intelligence and counterterrorism, and not be used for criminal investigations. That would represent a major cultural shift within the bureau, where agents consider themselves law enforcement officials first, the Times reported. “You need bureau officers who are not law enforcement officers, but are intelligence officers,” said former CIA counterterrorism chief and group member Paul Redmond, “They would come to work every day to penetrate organizations, not to arrest somebody,” he said (James Risen, New York Times, Dec. 9). Back to top

After 10-Year Effort, U.S. Has Much to Do to Improve WMD Defense, Conferees Say By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. military still has a great deal to do to prevent and defend against WMD attacks from terrorists or foreign governments, according to a gathering of officials and experts marking the 10th anniversary of the founding of the Defense Department’s Defense Counterproliferation Initiative. The initiative, an effort to better organize and increase military capabilities to deal with weapons of mass destruction, was created in December 1993 by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin following the discovery of large Iraqi WMD programs after the 1991 Gulf War. Today, the military still faces numerous technological challenges, such as rapid detection of a biological attack, vaccine development for preventing a variety of possible biological attacks, and a capability for detecting shielded nuclear materials. “There’s a question about whether we’ve made enough progress to keep pace with the adversary threat,” said Stephen Younger, who heads the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which oversees numerous counterproliferation activities. “We’ve had a lot of success, but we’ve got a long way to go,” said Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs Dale Klein. “I think our glass is half full, not empty,” he added, “because if we read the news every morning and only look at the bad side that does cause us to be depressed and demoralized.” Relative Budgets Shortcomings have resulted from insufficient congressional funding and executive attention, in addition to the many technical and technological difficulties and numerous potential adversaries, according to various experts. “We don’t have enough money, so we need to use our money more wisely,” Klein said. Ashton Carter, who was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Clinton administration, critiqued the Bush administration’s efforts. “President [George W.] Bush has said that the worst weapons in the hands of the worst people is the security threat of the 21st Century, [and that it is] his most solemn duty to confront that threat,” he said. “We’ve done a lot since 9/11 about the worst people, but I also want to suggest that we haven’t done nearly enough about the worst weapons,” said Carter, the keynote speaker yesterday. The administration has done “one thing, pre-emption, in one place, Iraq,” he said. “As we sit here today, North Korea and Iran are way out of the box, and essentially unimpeded effectively so far by our policies,” he said. The administration should have overhauled U.S. counterproliferation activities, including creating an international campaign to combat unconventional weapons proliferation, Carter said. He called the creation of DTRA in the late 1990s a success for bringing better managerial focus, but added, the “counterproliferation [effort] is still scattered and managerially inchoate” in the Pentagon. Klein said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had listed counterproliferation as one of the administration’s top 10 defense priorities. Technological Challenges “We’ve got to bring better science and technology to the warfighter,” Younger said. “Success in this difficult endeavor is going to require a national effort, we’re going to have to bring the smartest people in the country to bring bear on a really challenging program,” he said. Counterproliferation is distinguished from nonproliferation in that it emphasizes military rather than diplomatic approaches to addressing WMD threats. It includes pure military deterrence, efforts to discourage foreign governments from acquiring unconventional weapons, and using pre-emptive military force to strike weapons, but also includes cooperative threat reduction, troop defense and incident management. Technology is not the only answer for countering weapons of mass destruction, Younger said, nor necessarily the best, stressing also the importance of troop operations and tactics and intelligence. “Perhaps maybe the single most important thing for winning the battle against weapons of mass destruction is intelligence. If you know where a target is, if you know where a weapon of mass destruction is, we can develop a weapon to go and take that facility and weapon out. I have no doubt about that,” he said. “The problem is, we don’t know where they are. … We may think they’re some places where they’re not. DTRA spent a lot of time in Iraq going to school yards, building sites, a lot of places where not only were there not weapons of mass destruction, but we don’t think there ever were,” he said. “We got a lot of stuff wrong. We can’t afford to do that in the future,” he said. Concerns Younger said his greatest concern from a military perspective is nuclear weapons. “Our forces are trained to fight and win in a chemical and biological environment. …There’s not a lot you can do to protect yourself against a nuclear explosion except move away from it or move underground to some sort of hardened configuration,” he said. Chemical and biological terrorism pose more of a concern for domestic security, he said. “It’s hard to make a nuclear weapon,” he said. The technology to make and deliver chemical and biological weapons, however, is “widespread and relatively simple,” he said. “It may not be possible to keep the tools of weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of potential adversaries or irresponsible groups,” he said. Back to top       Bush Clears Way for U.S. Aid to Russian Chemical Weapons Disposal Plant U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday waived conditions placed on U.S. funding assistance for Russian WMD disposal efforts, eliminating a hurdle for Russia to receive U.S. support (see GSN, Nov. 20). In a memorandum sent to the secretary of state yesterday, Bush said that he had certified that waiving the funding conditions was “in the national interest of the United States.” The waiver applies to funding intended to assist the construction of a Russian chemical weapons disposal facility (White House release, Dec. 9). The United States helps to fund Russia’s efforts to dispose of its vast stockpile of Soviet-era weapons of mass destruction through the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. Before funding can be provided, however, the president must certify that Russia has met a set of congressionally mandated conditions, such as that Moscow is making a “substantial investment of its own resources” for destroying weapons of mass destruction and that it is complying with all relevant arms control agreements. Last year, Bush sought and obtained the authority to waive the conditions to continue to provide CTR funding to Russia, an authority that was expanded to 2005 though a provision in the fiscal 2004 defense authorization bill (Mike Nartker, GSN, Dec. 9). Back to top       Eight Iraqi Scientists Remain In U.S. Custody Eight Iraqi scientists who were previously involved in Iraqi WMD efforts remain in U.S. custody, with a large number of Iraqi scientists having been released, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Dec. 1). Out of the eight scientists still in U.S. hands, four are on the U.S. “Most Wanted” list, according to AP. Six were heavily involved in prewar Iraqi biological weapons programs and two are experts on delivery systems. All eight scientists maintain that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to U.S. officers involved in the search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Those scientists still in custody should be able to explain the extent of Iraq’s former biological program, what biological agents were produced and in what quantities and when and how they were destroyed, said former U.N. weapons inspectors. Several of the held scientists were members of the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate, said Alaa al-Saeed, an Iraqi scientist who previously oversaw VX stockpiles and who has now been placed in charge of the NMD. In addition, the rest of the directorate’s senior staff has been rehired to prevent them from leaving the country, AP reported (Associated Press/New York Times, Dec. 9). Back to top       Israel Builds WMD Bunker for Elected Officials Israel is constructing a command center outside of Jerusalem capable of withstanding a WMD attack for use by elected officials, officials said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 20). The center, which has been under construction since last year, would allow the Israeli prime minister and cabinet to continue to work in the event of an attack, AP reported. “Every country in the world has a bunker for emergency uses to keep functioning,” said Raanan Gissin, spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.  The planned center is set to be the second Israeli WMD commander bunker, AP reported. The Israeli military has operated such a bunker in Tel Aviv since the early 1970s (Associated Press/Scotsman, Dec. 9). Back to top

North Korea Offers to Freeze Nuclear Development, for a Price North Korea offered today to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for a series of diplomatic and economic concessions from the United States, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Dec. 8). “In return for the freezing of our nuclear activities, the United States must remove our country’s name form the list of terrorism-sponsoring countries; lift its political, economic, military sanctions and blockade; and give us heavy oil, electricity and other energy assistance from the United States and neighboring countries,” a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said today. The United States has insisted on the verifiable dismantlement of Pyongyang’s nuclear program. “Resumption of six-nation talks will entirely depend on whether there is an agreement on our proposal for these first-phase actions,” the spokesman said. “We make it clear that we will never freeze our nuclear program for nothing,” he added (Associated Press/Billings Gazette, Dec. 9). A recent joint proposal from Japan, South Korea and the United States attempts to bring North Korea to the bargaining table, but does not specifically address how Pyongyang should dismantle its nuclear weapons program or what form security assurances would take, South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Soo-hyuck said today. “These are matters of the biggest significance, and they are matters that should be discussed and resolved when talks resume,” Lee said. The joint proposal “contains only things that all six countries agree to” and was developed “in succinct and implicative wording aimed at avoiding disputes,” he added. China and Russia are the other nations involved in the six-nation talks (Sang-hun Choe, Associated Press, Dec. 9). The United States said yesterday that it is prepared to attend negotiations without any concessions or steps from North Korea. “It may be possible to hold six-party talks this month. We’ll have to see.  We are certainly ready to attend talks without any preconditions,” said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher (U.S. State Department transcript, Dec. 8). Some experts, however, called into question U.S. intelligence on North Korea. Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons progress has never been verified and the current negotiations could be taking place under false assumptions, the Los Angeles Times reported. “We don’t know what they’re doing,” said Charles Pritchard, who resigned this year as the State Department’s special envoy for negotiations with North Korea. A recently released CIA report on North Korean nuclear capabilities assessed that Pyongyang has “one or two simple fission-type nuclear weapons.” Some analysts suggested that the assessment was not motivated by evidence only. “Those are political judgments,” said Robert Gallucci, the top U.S. negotiator for the 1994 U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework, the recently dissolved pact which promised North Korea nuclear energy in exchange for a halt to all other nuclear activities. A former Bush administration official said the recent CIA assessment was “a case of pleasing the bosses by telling them what they want to hear or analysts covering their backsides” (Douglas Frantz, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 9). An Indonesian envoy, meanwhile, is in Pyongyang today to try and defuse the current nuclear standoff. Nana Sutresna was met at the airport in Pyongyang today by North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kung Sok Ung (Agence France-Presse/Jakarta Post, Dec. 9). Back to top       Disarmament, Deterrence Debated 50 Years After Landmark Eisenhower Speech By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Convened to mark the 50th anniversary of former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower’s historic “atoms for peace” address, important players in the world of nuclear weapons yesterday laid out sharp differences as to the continuing merit of nuclear deterrence, the wisdom of disarmament and other matters (see GSN, Dec. 3). In a speech delivered Dec. 8, 1953, at the U.N. General Assembly, Eisenhower linked combating the spread of nuclear weapons with the provision of peaceful nuclear technology to non-nuclear states. The address “laid the framework for the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT),” according to the organizers of a two-day conference that began yesterday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars here. Debate has been frequent in the IAEA era about the fundamental nature of the “bargain” represented by the NPT, and the polemic was a major feature of yesterday’s exchanges on the past and future of atoms for peace. Non-nuclear countries regularly take nuclear weapon states to task over the allegedly slow pace of nuclear disarmament, which many countries without nuclear weapons stress is the nuclear states’ part of the nonproliferation bargain. Former U.N. Undersecretary General for Disarmament Jayantha Dhanapala yesterday referred to disarmament, somewhat sarcastically, as “that horrible D-word that is nowhere to be found in the program.” “The speech,” Dhanapala said of Eisenhower’s 1953 address, “is very clear about the folly of relying on a nonproliferation strategy alone.” The former top U.N. official criticized nuclear weapon states for maintaining postures of deterrence and for failing to adequately reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles. Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs Chairman Mohamed Shaker added that recent concerns about proliferation in certain countries must be seen in the context of a failure by nuclear weapon states to disarm. “Why should we expect North Korea, Iran and Iraq to comply fully with their obligations,” Shaker asked, “and not expect the same full compliance of the nuclear weapons states? … If you want to curtail further proliferation, the nuclear weapons states have to embark on a serious process of disarmament, and in particular nuclear disarmament.” Former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission head James Schlesinger, though, rejected the claims of unfairness and defended the maintenance of a nuclear deterrent. “Those who protest loudly about the unfairness are countries who have the aspiration to acquire nuclear weapons,” said Schlesinger, who is chairman of MITRE Corp.’s Board of Trustees and has directed the U.S. Energy and Defense departments and the CIA. “We are not going to be able to remove from the mind of man the capacity to make nuclear weapons. … As long as that exists, we are going to have to have nuclear deterrence,” said Schlesinger. Apparently in response to such assertions, Dhanapala said those who oppose deterrence are “not talking about disinventing weapons of mass destruction; we are talking about delegitimization.” He cited successes in delegitimizing chemical and biological weapons. Top Israeli Atomic Energy Commission policy-maker Ariel Levite advanced the possibility of an altogether new bargain, under which non-nuclear weapon states would be required to provide “reassurance” of their peaceful intentions “as a condition of supply” of nuclear material. He cited the example of Iran’s Bushehr reactor, for which Russia has declined to provide fuel without Iranian agreement to send the spent fuel back to Russia, as a model case. Retired Pakistani Army Brig. Gen. Feroz Khan suggested that both the promotion of peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the pursuit of disarmament ― enshrined in the NPT as Articles IV and VI, respectively ― are unrealistic goals. “Both are something which was more in the utopian world than in the world of reality,” said Khan. Schlesinger Says Terrorist Attacks on Nuclear Sites Unlikely Much of yesterday’s discussion took as its context a new awareness of terrorist groups’ willingness and capacity to carry out large-scale attacks, potentially involving nuclear material or facilities. Officials such as Paul Longsworth, deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonproliferation in the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, cited renewed efforts following the September 2001 attacks on the United States to account for and secure nuclear weapon material in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. In a keynote address yesterday, Schlesinger lingered over the problem, asserting that the combination of active international terrorist groups and countries’ “rising appetites for nuclear capability” mean there is a ways to go “before we can be confident that the risks of the atom do not exceed the benefits.” Schlesinger added, though, that terrorists have been choosing soft targets since the 2001 attacks, most often striking not in the West but in countries such as Morocco, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia. He deemed an attack involving Western nuclear facilities or materials highly unlikely. “Al-Qaeda in its weakened condition has been going after these softer targets. … I do not expect to see attacks against those facilities that are heavily guarded. That includes nuclear storage sites.  It includes nuclear plants,” Schlesinger said. As to the possibility of an airplane attack against a nuclear facility, he said a 747 airliner “might be able to penetrate it, but the availability of such planes has gone down considerably since 9/11. … One worries, I think, somewhat more about the storage facilities for spent fuel, which are located near the plants, and the solution to that is to get the spent fuel out of those places.” Schlesinger said that if he was a terrorist, he “would not go after a nuclear storage site in the United States. … That would be prematurely suicidal on the part of any terrorists. … Chemical plants are probably a more attractive target for an intelligent terrorist.” After discussions yesterday on nonproliferation, arms control, nuclear security and materials control, the conference is focusing today on nuclear energy and the future of atoms for peace. Back to top       China Tries to Ease Concerns Over Planned Plutonium Processing Facility China today sought to reduce concerns over its planned purchase of a German plutonium processing facility, saying the facility would only be used for “peaceful purposes” (see GSN, Dec. 8). The unused facility, constructed by the German firm Siemens, is designed to convert plutonium into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for use in nuclear reactors, according to the Associated Press. “This fuel in China will be used for peaceful purposes I would like to emphasize that,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said.  China and Germany are currently “having discussions” on Chinese assurances over the planned use of the facility, Liu said. “I think the two sides will find a suitable way,” he added (Joe McDonald, Associated Press, Dec. 9). Back to top

Texas Inmate Gets Life Sentence for Anthrax Hoax A U.S. District judge in Dallas yesterday sentenced an already incarcerated man to life in prison for sending an anthrax hoax to another judge (see GSN, Dec. 4). Frank Guevara was convicted in August of threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction and mailing a threatening communication. He is slated to serve his life sentence concurrently with a 50-year term for aggravated robbery. Guevara was in a correctional facility near Amarillo, Texas, when he mailed the hoax to U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson. In the July 2002 letter, Guevara wrote that he was “sick and tired of your games. All Americans will die as well as you.  You have now been exposure to anthrax.” The letter contained an unknown substance — but not anthrax, and was signed “Mohammed Abdulah.” Guevara later admitted to sending the letter (Amarillo Globe-News, Dec. 9). Back to top       Anthrax-Tainted New Jersey Mail-Handling Facility Could Reopen Next Year A U.S. Postal Service mail-handling facility in Hamilton, N.J, that became contaminated with anthrax during the 2001 anthrax mail attacks could reopen by next fall, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Dec. 2). The facility has been fumigated with chlorine dioxide gas to kill lingering anthrax spores, and postal authorities have begun analyzing thousands of test strips to see if the effort was successful, according to the Post. Once that has been completed, air and surface tests for anthrax will be conducted, with positive results leading to further decontamination, said New Jersey Epidemiologist Eddy Bresnitz. As the building is renovated, which could begin by spring, additional sampling and testing will be conducted, he said. Bill Lewis, head of the postal workers union in the Trenton, N.J, area, said that only a few union members have said they will refuse to return to the Hamilton facility once it reopens. Meanwhile, administrative staff returned to work Friday at the Brentwood mail-handling facility in Washington, which had also been contaminated with anthrax and subsequently cleaned (Dale Russakoff, Washington Post, Dec. 9). Back to top

New Zealand Man Says U.S. Pressure Stopped His Missile Project A New Zealand Internet journalist has said that his amateur cruise missile development effort was stopped by the New Zealand government because of U.S. pressure, the BBC News reported today (see GSN, Dec. 8). “The New Zealand government at first said I had done nothing illegal. But then a U.S. official was quoted as saying it was ‘extremely unhelpful,’” Bruce Simpson said (see GSN, June 4). “The authorities here finally decided to bankrupt me over a tax debt and I have now had to give the missile to a friend for safekeeping,” he added. Simpson said, however, that he has proven his point “that by using off-the-shelf technology in a suburban garage a terrorist can create a weapon against which there is no effective defense” (BBC News, Dec. 9). Back to top       United States Opposes Taiwanese Referendum on Chinese Missiles The Bush administration yesterday warned Taiwan against holding a referendum next year on whether to ask China to remove its ballistic missiles targeting the island — a move seen as potentially provocative toward Beijing, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Nov. 8). “We don’t want such a referendum,” a senior Bush administration official said. “We’re not clear what logical purpose it would serve. I can tell you right now that 99.6 percent of the Taiwan people would love to see the mainland withdraw its missiles. Confirming that fact through a referendum … confirms the obvious,” the official said. The senior administration official said the White House has dropped its policy of “strategic ambiguity” — a lack of response on how the United States would react to changes in Taiwan’s status. As part of the new approach, the United States would not tolerate “coercion or the use of force” by China to reunite with Taiwan, the official said. At the same time, the White House also does not support full independence for Taiwan, the official added. “I will tell you that we are giving the Taiwanese the message very clearly and very authoritatively that we don’t want to see steps toward independence and we don’t want to see moves taken, proposals made, that a logical outsider would conclude are really geared primarily toward moving the island in that direction,” the official said (Kessler/Allen, Washington Post, Dec. 9). Taiwanese officials said today, however, that they would go on with the referendum as planned. The referendum “shouldn’t be considered as anything provocative,” said Joseph Wu, deputy chief of staff for foreign policy for Taiwanese President Chen Shui-ban. “The missile threat has been there and is increasing,” Wu said (New York Times, Dec. 9). Back to top

MDA Expected to Award Targets Contract This Week The U.S. Missile Defense Agency will this week announce the winner of a more than $1 billion contract for missile defense targets and countermeasures, a Defense Department spokesman said yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 4). Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon are competing for the contract, which will include the development and production of targets and countermeasures for missile defense testing. The initial four years of the program will be worth more than $1 billion, according to Aerospace Daily. The decision could come as early as today, according to the spokesman. Lockheed is also set to conduct the first test launch of its interceptor booster for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program next week, Aerospace Daily reported. The booster test, which has been delayed by accidents, will probably take place Dec. 15, the defense spokesman said. Orbital Sciences is producing the booster that will be used in the initial fielding of the national missile defense system. The Lockheed system could be fielded later (Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily, Dec. 9). Back to top

U.S. Court to Hear Anti-Yucca Mountain Lawsuits A U.S. federal court is scheduled next month to hear a number of lawsuits filed by opponents of a planned nuclear waste repository set to be built at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, USA Today reported today (see GSN, Nov. 17). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has scheduled Jan. 14 to hear nine lawsuits against the Yucca Mountain repository filed by Nevada, Las Vegas and Clark County, Nev. Last year, Nevada fought strenuously in Congress against a resolution approving Yucca Mountain as the site for the planned long-term nuclear waste repository, but the resolution passed. Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn “has said from the get-go he believes the legal arena is where this issue should be decided,” Guinn spokesman Greg Bortolin said. “He believes we’ll get a much fairer shake,” Bortolin said. In its lawsuits, Nevada has contended that the U.S. government violated the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which authorized a waste repository, by abandoning the geologic features of the Yucca Mountain site as the “primary” barrier against contamination, according to USA Today. Instead, U.S. officials are now relying on the waste storage casks and other “engineered” barriers, according to the Nevada suits. By using engineered barriers, the repository could be sited anywhere in the country, said senior Nevada Deputy Attorney General Marta Adams. Without a “rational, objective” geological standard for choosing a site in Nevada, “it’s like taking all the soldiers that are fighting in Iraq just from one state,” she said. The U.S. Energy Department, one of the defendants in the anti-Yucca Mountain lawsuits, has said that the congressional resolution approving Yucca Mountain as the repository site effectively negated much of the basis for the opposition lawsuits, according to USA Today. The resolution waived any failure by the government to observe prior laws, according to government legal briefs. They also charge that the 1982 act and subsequent amendments allow the use of a “total system performance” standard that can give geological features a secondary role. Nevada has also accused the other 49 states of violating the U.S. Constitution by arbitrarily imposing the “universally unwanted burden” of the planned repository, USA Today reported. In response, the Energy Department has said that the Constitution gives the federal government broad power over its own land and that Nevada was given a say in the political process leading to the selection of the Yucca Mountain site. Court rulings on the Nevada lawsuits are expected by the middle of next year, USA Today reported (Martin Kasindorf, USA Today, Dec. 9).  Back to top       Vermont Supplies Potassium Iodide for Nuclear Plant’s Neighbors The Vermont Department of Health is urging some state residents to apply for potassium iodide pills that would help prevent thyroid cancer if an accident occurred at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Dec. 5). In a mass mailing to thousands of Windham County residents, the department said that one dose would be available to each resident living within a 10-mile radius of the nuclear facility. That area has been designated a “emergency planning zone.” “This is just the next phase of our outreach,” said department spokeswoman Marilyn Lewis. “We’re also doing outreach to businesses, hotels and motels,” she added. The program has been in place for two years, but has received little response. State health officials are attempting to boost participation with the outreach program and by paring down the application form for the pill. “We’re seeing a really good response,” Lewis said (Associated Press/Salon.com, Dec. 9).   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.