U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke to the press yesterday following a summit in the Slovak capital of Bratislava (AFP photo/Paul Richards). Experts Praise U.S.-Russian Nuclear Security Enhancements, Say More Must Be Done By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — While praising the nuclear security measures agreed to yesterday by U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, nonproliferation experts said the two leaders failed to make progress on a number of important bilateral nonproliferation issues (see GSN, Feb. 24)...Full Story

Countries Discuss Aiding Efforts to Shut Down Three Russian Plutonium-Producing Reactors By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States and Russia are seeking international aid for efforts to shut down three Russian nuclear reactors that produce weapon-grade plutonium, a U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration official said today (see GSN, Jan. 28)...Full Story

Iran and Russia Could Sign Fuel Agreement Tomorrow Russia’s top nuclear energy official is scheduled to leave for Iran today to sign an agreement on the return of spent fuel from a nuclear reactor it is building for Tehran, ITAR-Tass reported (see GSN, Feb. 24)...Full Story

	Friday, February 25, 2005

Former Weapons Experts Fight Terrorism By Terrence Henry National Journal WASHINGTON — In the first years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. officials and nuclear security experts worried about what would happen to the large number of nuclear-, chemical-, and biological-weapons scientists from the old state, an intellectual work force estimated at 35,000 to 60,000. As the Russian ruble fell in value, weapons labs and study centers that had benefited from steady wages and strong state support under communism now stood on their own. In the first three years after the Soviet collapse, state funding for science dropped 75 percent. Soon, for many scientists in the former Soviet Union, better money could be found outside the country, perhaps by working on weapons programs for countries such as Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan. A Russian television documentary this winter claims that in the first half of the 1990s, thousands of Soviet specialists in the fields of nuclear and missile technology left for the Middle East, some of them going to Iran, Iraq, and Libya. “Our scientists are willing to work anywhere they are paid,” the program alleged. Even before 9/11, the destructive potential of these unemployed scientists was easily imagined: In the spy thriller The Sum of All Fears, terrorists fashion a nuclear weapon with the help of rogue Russian nuclear scientists. But with the establishment of several grant programs in the mid-1990s, and a decade of partnerships between these former weapons scientists and American companies and the U.S. government (which provided funding), the possible brain drain of weapons scientists from the former Soviet Union to countries or terrorist groups seeking weapons seems largely to have been averted. In fact, a growing number of former Soviet weapons scientists today are working on programs to better protect against, detect, and treat the victims of potential terrorist attacks. One group helping to make such programs possible is the U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation, a nonprofit organization that coordinates grants and projects between weapons scientists in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and U.S. research institutions and companies. It was authorized by Congress in 1992 as part of the Freedom Support Act and was established in 1995 by the National Science Foundation. CRDF, whose goal is to employ the scientists in their hometowns and at their original facilities, has helped to find work on civilian projects for almost 12,000 scientists — 2,200 of whom are former weapons scientists. The group is based in the Rosslyn section of Arlington, Va., and is led by former State Department and National Science Foundation official Charles T. Owens. Owens describes CRDF's mission as more than simply charitable: “We felt that if we took a science project proposed by the scientists, gave it a rigorous technical review, and then provided support, in the end they would have done something worthy of support from their own government or other sources.” Funding for CRDF comes from several government agencies and private institutions: the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the State Department, and the MacArthur Foundation, among others. Responsibility for the projects lies with the former weapons scientists themselves: They propose a project with a U.S. partner and apply for a grant through CRDF; if the project is approved, the scientists use their own staff and facilities in Russia or the other countries of the former Soviet Union to complete it. As part of the agreement, the scientists receive 80 percent of the grant funding, ensuring that they are gainfully employed. Of its many projects, CRDF has 17 that focus on antiterrorism: nine to detect weapons; three to better protect against attacks; and five to better treat victims of terrorist attacks. Twelve of these projects employ scientists who used to work on weapons. More than $1.5 million has been committed to antiterrorism projects in the past year. Vladimir Ryzhikov of the Ukrainian Institute of Single Crystals and Craig Smith of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California jointly led a successful project to create the next generation of X-ray technology using radiation detection crystals. The device will allow baggage screeners at airports and border crossings to determine whether material inside is organic or inorganic. Smith describes the technology as a smarter way to look inside luggage: Under the old system, “if something comes up that looks questionable, we open up the bag and inspect it,” Smith says. “What looked like dynamite on the screen might turn out to be a stick of salami, i.e., something with similar density and shape. What this device allows is for different types of chemical materials to be discriminated, one from the other. So you would have different colors for different types of materials — you might have a bright red color to indicate the presence of a chemical in an explosive.” A Ukrainian team did the bulk of the research on the project. Now that a system has been developed, the team has received additional funding from the Ukrainian customs agency to incorporate the device into luggage screening there. The device should speed up screening, result in far fewer baggage inspections, and be harder for terrorists to foil. For Ryzhikov, the transition from working on military weapons to peaceful civilian programs was fairly easy. “It wasn't a big change for us, because we knew it was one we had to make,” he says. “Once the Soviet Union fell, there was no longer a need for much of the military science work our institute had been doing. So we've had to adapt; but now our work is being used for both medical benefits as well as protecting our borders.” A project to improve defenses against terrorist attacks is being led by Edgar Mataradze of the Institute of Mining Mechanics in Tbilisi, Georgia, and Ted Krauthammer at Pennsylvania State University. The two scientists and their staffs are working on a system that responds to explosions in underground structures by activating a set of protective measures. These measures would help control the blast pressure and reduce the impact of an explosion. Such technology could have reduced the level from the 1993 terrorist attack at the World Trade Center, and it may have applications to buildings above ground as well. “I think it was a very rewarding experience, working with colleagues overseas,” Krauthammer says. “These kinds of programs give not just the Russians but also us the opportunity to work on projects that perhaps otherwise we couldn't have done here in the United States. Because they have different regulations over there ... you [can] do things that otherwise would have been impossible.” To find better ways to treat victims of terrorist attacks, scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences in Chernogolovka, Russia, are working with a team from the University of Michigan on a device that can rapidly detect the level of chemical agents that have entered a person's bloodstream following a chemical attack. Although these programs are enjoying success, the possibility remains that some scientists will go to work for other countries, or worse yet, for terrorist groups. A 2002-2003 survey of 602 Russian scientists in weapons-related fields by Deborah Yarsike Ball, an analyst in the Nonproliferation, Arms Control, and International Security Directorate at Livermore, found that those who received foreign grants were considerably less likely to work in another country such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, or North Korea. An alarming 21 percent said they were “willing” to consider relocating to these countries — the most popular of the options. CRDF President Owens noted, “If the scientists decided to try for a grant, they've got a good shot. There are opportunities all around.  But we still don't capture all of the people that have weapons experience.” Ryzhikov, the Ukrainian scientist working on luggage screening, believes the programs are effective: “Here in the Ukraine, there are at least 5,000 former weapons scientists. But for the most part, many of them are working on a number of projects now. And I can say that for my institute, at least, no one has left for somewhere like North Korea or Iran.” Ryzhikov's counterpart, Craig Smith, agrees that the former weapons scientists would rather work in their own countries with help from the United States: “I know that there are a lot of scientists and institutes out there [in the former Soviet Union] that are very hungry for work and continue to try and break in to get additional grants. So I think it's very important to make sure that, with these programs, you're not just giving them a fish, you're teaching them how to fish.” An earlier group that Smith had worked with in Ukraine had been recruited by the Iranian government to staff an aerospace factory; grants from the United States kept them afloat and working in Ukraine. It is, however, easy for these scientists to slip through the cracks: No public database exists to track former weapons scientists; it is unknown if such monitoring takes place secretly within the U.S. or Russian governments. Experts in the field say that more funding and attention to these projects would continue to ensure that many of the scientists are employed in worthwhile (and potentially profitable) pursuits. That success, in turn, would encourage other former weapons scientists to seek the funding and support available from the United States and Europe. Indeed, the projects could be expanded to include not just the former weapons scientists, but the security personnel who guard the former weapons sites. Currently, several sites holding fissile materials that could be used in nuclear weapons have inadequate security and accounting. Charles Curtis, president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit group dedicated to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, advocates expanding these joint programs to pay guards at the nuclear sites in the countries of the former Soviet Union. Speaking recently at a meeting of the International Science and Technology Center, a group that coordinates grants and work between the U.S. and Russia, Curtis cautioned, “Today, when we also must fight the terrorist threat of nuclear materials, it is not only the recruitment of scientists that presents a worry; it is also the recruitment of security personnel. These individuals may be more susceptible to terrorist offers — because of lower pay, less oversight, or, possibly, a lack of understanding of the proliferation danger.” [EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by the National Journal Group.] Back to top

Experts Praise U.S.-Russian Nuclear Security Enhancements, Say More Must Be Done By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — While praising the nuclear security measures agreed to yesterday by U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, nonproliferation experts said the two leaders failed to make progress on a number of important bilateral nonproliferation issues (see GSN, Feb. 24). During a summit yesterday in the Slovak capital of Bratislava, Bush and Putin approved a number of measures designed to enhance U.S.-Russian efforts against nuclear terrorism. They include efforts to improve the nuclear “security culture” in both countries and to share best practices information on improving security at nuclear sites, the establishment of a senior-level bilateral interagency group, improving capabilities to respond to acts of nuclear or radiological terrorism, and continuing efforts to repatriate U.S.- and Russian-origin fresh and spent highly enriched uranium fuel from research reactors around the world and develop new low-enriched uranium for use as replacement fuel. “We bear a special responsibility for the security of nuclear weapons and fissile material, in order to ensure that there is no possibility such weapons or materials would fall into terrorist hands,” Bush and Putin said in a joint statement. The so-called “Bratislava Initiatives” were announced amid increasing concerns about the security of Russian nuclear facilities and materials. Earlier this month, CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate intelligence committee that enough Russian nuclear material was unaccounted to develop a nuclear weapon, and that he could not be certain that terrorists had not obtained some of the material. Goss’s warnings followed a CIA report prepared late last year that expressed concern over the likelihood of undetected nuclear smuggling of Russian nuclear materials. Senior Russian officials, however, have repeatedly denied allegations that Russian nuclear weapons or weapon-grade materials have been lost. The measures agreed to by Bush and Putin are “a potentially historic step to reduce the danger of nuclear terrorism,” said Matthew Bunn, senior research analyst at Harvard University’s Managing the Atom project. “If each of them follows through with the needed commitment, by May, when they meet again in Moscow, we can expect real progress toward forging a fast-paced global effort to lock down the world's nuclear stockpiles and keep them out of terrorist hands,” he said in a statement. Among the “key” developments stemming from yesterday’s meeting was the creation of the Senior Interagency Group and the new emphasis on developing a nuclear security culture, said Ken Luongo, executive director of the Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council. “The true test,” though, “is whether they [Bush and Putin] can make good on the commitments and promises in the obligatory post-summit statement,” Arms Control Association Executive Director Daryl Kimball said today. Experts, however, also decried the lack of progress made at yesterday’s summit on several bilateral issues, including increased access to Russian facilities and the resolution of a lingering dispute centering on liability protections for U.S. nonproliferation work conducted in Russia. “It is unfortunate that there were no major breakthroughs on the impediments that are hobbling the realization of their nuclear security goals,” Luongo said in a statement. “Deadly terrorists are seeking WMD and they are not waiting,” he added. While saying it was a “positive sign” that Bush and Putin discussed the need to improve nuclear security efforts, Kimball described the summit as an “opportunity for serious progress that was not fulfilled.” U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) on Feb. 14 that the United States had recently sent a proposal to Moscow to resolve the liability dispute. The Washington Post reported yesterday, though, that despite last-minute meetings in Moscow and London, U.S. and Russian officials could not reach a final agreement on the issue, which has blocked a U.S.-Russian project to jointly eliminate 68 metric tons of weapon-grade plutonium. Yesterday’s summit could help the United States and Russia move forward on several other nonproliferation issues, said Nuclear Threat Initiative Co-Chairman Sam Nunn. They include removing U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert status, increased transparency for U.S. and Russian tactical nuclear weapons, accelerated destruction of Russian chemical weapons and increased cooperation against biological terrorism, he said. “There must be an increased measure of reciprocal transparency on both the U.S. and Russian side and an enhanced effort to foster a true partnership to achieve this imperative security agenda,” Nunn said in a statement. [EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by the National Journal Group.] Back to top       Countries Discuss Aiding Efforts to Shut Down Three Russian Plutonium-Producing Reactors By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States and Russia are seeking international aid for efforts to shut down three Russian nuclear reactors that produce weapon-grade plutonium, a U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration official said today (see GSN, Jan. 28). The topic was the focus of a conference held Feb. 7-8 in Switzerland, which was attended by representatives from 11 countries, as well as the European Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The three Russian reactors — two located in the closed city of Seversk and one in the closed city of Zheleznogorsk — have been estimated to produce more than 1 metric ton of weapon-grade plutonium per year. To reduce proliferation concerns, the United States is assisting the shutdown of the three reactors by constructing a new fossil-fuel electricity plant at Zheleznogorsk and by refurbishing an existing fossil-fuel facility at Seversk to replace the electricity and heat provided by the reactors. Construction of the new fossil-fuel plant at Zheleznogorsk is expected to be completed by the end of 2011. The Seversk refurbishment project is set to be fully completed by 2009. In its fiscal 2006 budget request, the Bush administration requested a net 200-percent increase in funding for the reactor shutdown project, from $44 million to $132 million. The Energy Department has requested the increased funding ahead of expected increased construction activities at Seversk, according to an analysis prepared by the Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council. During this month’s conference, officials discussed finding international funding for a number of proposals put forth by Russia to aid in restoring the environment around the reactors and to provide jobs for the “highly skilled scientists and technicians that will be displaced” when the reactors are closed, according to a National Nuclear Security Administration press release. “This conference is an historic call to action for the international community to support our collective global nonproliferation objectives,” the agency’s principal deputy administrator, Jerry Paul, said in the release. “Continued funding and support will be critical to our joint efforts to shut down these deteriorating reactors and provide replacement facilities for the two closed cities and their inhabitants.” The National Nuclear Security Administration official said there had been “concrete interest” in the projects proposed by Russia, especially concerning proposals related to the decommissioning of the reactors, transport of spent fuel away from the sites and environmental remediation of open nuclear waste storage reservoirs. During the conference, four potential donor countries expressed interest in aiding the Russian proposals and plan to further discuss the issue with Moscow bilaterally, the official said. The official declined to identify the potential donor nations. Representatives from the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, South Korea, Italy, Slovak Republic, Canada, Russia, Switzerland and the United States attended the conference. The agency official also said that discussions are under way between the United States and other countries to solicit aid for the construction of the planned Zheleznogorsk fossil-fuel plant. Last month, the United Kingdom announced it would provide $20 million for the project. Back to top       Iran and Russia Could Sign Fuel Agreement Tomorrow Russia’s top nuclear energy official is scheduled to leave for Iran today to sign an agreement on the return of spent fuel from a nuclear reactor it is building for Tehran, ITAR-Tass reported (see GSN, Feb. 24). Alexander Rumyantsev and Iranian Atomic Energy Organization head Gholam Reza Agazadeh are expected to meet tomorrow for final negotiations and signing of the agreement. Rumyantsev and Iranian officials will discuss “issues of expanding Russian-Iranian cooperation in the sphere of peaceful use of atomic energy,” according to a spokesman for the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency. Rumyantsev is expected to visit the Bushehr reactor construction site Sunday, according to ITAR-Tass (ITAR-Tass, Feb. 25). Meanwhile, Iran is offering a new proposal under which it would maintain civilian nuclear development, Agence France-Presse reported. “The idea is to seek technical assistance from the [International Atomic Energy Agency], which is responsible for guaranteeing that countries do not deviate towards building an atomic bomb,” negotiator Hossein Mousavian told Iranian state television today, adding that the offer was “widely welcomed” during talks in Paris and Berlin. “If the three countries [France, Germany and the United Kingdom] agree, I have high hopes that our work will get somewhere more quickly,” added Mousavian. Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rohani, gave French and German officials “very concrete guarantees that Iran will not seek in any way to produce nuclear armaments,” Mousavian added. “On this point, Iran is ready to be fully flexible on all points of cooperation to create trust” (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Feb. 24). Rohani said today he would support U.S. involvement in the talks, AFP reported. “The negotiating partners are the three European nations,” but “Iran would welcome it if the United States helped,” he said after a meeting with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Feb. 25). German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is expected to travel to several Persian Gulf nations this weekend to seek political and economic support for European efforts to resolve the disagreement over Iran’s nuclear program, the Associated Press reported (Michael Fischer, Associated Press, Feb. 24). Elsewhere, a former top U.S. diplomatic specialist on Iran said yesterday he does not believe Tehran is secretly developing a nuclear weapon and that the United States ought to re-establish diplomatic relations with the country, the Associated Press reported. “I don’t think they are really looking for nuclear weapons,” said Henry Precht, who directed the Iran desk at the State Department during the 1979 Islamic revolution. “They realize they would be smashed by Israel or by us.” The United States should negotiate with Iran, but “we should not sit at the same table with the Europeans” to avoid having conflicting policies undermine the negotiations, he added (Barry Schweid, Associated Press, Feb. 24). Back to top       North Korea Ready to Resume Six-Party Nuclear Negotiations, Chinese Foreign Minister Says The North Korean leadership has expressed its readiness to return to six-nation talks on its nuclear program, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said today (see GSN, Feb. 24). Li said Chinese leader Hu Jintao conveyed a request to the North Koreans that they resume negotiations, according to the Interfax-Kazakhstan news agency. “It was noted in the message that it was necessary to maintain the process of talks so that the Korean Peninsula was free of nuclear weapons,” said Li (Interfax-Kazakhstan/BBC Monitoring, Feb. 25). South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun said today his country was committed to a peaceful resolution of the standoff, despite North Korea’s declaration earlier this month that it has a nuclear arsenal, Agence France-Presse reported. “Some unexpected situation took place, but the fundamental issue has not changed greatly,” Roh said, in his first public statement on the announcement by Pyongyang (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Feb. 25). Meanwhile, among the more creative proposals for putting pressure on Pyongyang, a Japanese lawmaker yesterday suggested Japan stop exporting sweet, delicious melons to North Korea. “We could stop the melon trade,” said Ichita Yamamoto, of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. “Then Kim Jong Il wouldn’t be able to eat delicious melons and he would be furious.” “He would ask, ‘Where are my melons?’” (Audrey McAvoy, Associated Press/ Yahoo!News, Feb. 24). Back to top       Proposed Sandia National Laboratories Budget Cuts Will Not Affect Work, Director Says Federal budget cuts will not affect the operation of Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, the facility’s director said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 16). “We’ll have as good a year this year as we did last year,” said C. Paul Robinson. Sandia officials anticipate a small reduction in weapons research funding for fiscal 2006, according to the Associated Press. Robinson also said Sandia may become involved in developing a new earth-penetrating nuclear weapon. “It’s what a firecracker is to a stick of dynamite,” Robinson said of the weapon, adding that terrorists and others are hardening bunkers to make them more difficult to destroy with conventional weapons (Peter Barnes, Associated Press, Feb. 25). Over the past year, Sandia has developed and improved technologies that could help defend against attacks using weapons of mass destruction, the Albuquerque Tribune reported. The lab-on-a-chip technology is being tested on Washington’s Metro subway system to scan the air for chemical agents, Robinson said. Researchers have also designed devices to detect radiological bomb-making materials in airports or U.S. ports, he said. “The big concern in most of the work we’re doing is extending the life of our [nuclear] weapons,” Robinson said. “Electronics is a big part of that and what we do a lot of work in here. Some of the electronics on those bombs are 20 years old. Imagine a TV set with 20-year-old technology. You probably wouldn’t want that” (Sue Vorenberg, Albuquerque Tribune, Feb. 24). Back to top       U.S. Senator Expresses Concern Over Lack of Interest in Los Alamos Management Contract U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) said earlier this week that he had doubts that anyone would offer a bid for the U.S. Energy Department’s contract to manage the Los Alamos National Laboratory (see GSN, Feb. 11). “With the passage of time, I began to wonder and I wonder if the DOE has been wondering, too,” Domenici said Wednesday. Since the Energy Department announced that the contract was up for bid in 2003, there have been no announcements of firm plans to seek the contract by any company or university, according to the Albuquerque Journal. The department this week amended an earlier draft request for proposals to make the contract more attractive, including by doubling the proposed management fee, the Journal reported (Adam Rankin, Albuquerque Journal, Feb. 24).  Back to top

NIAID Director Endorses Boston Hot Lab The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases yesterday backed Boston University’s plan to construct a Biosafety Level 4 laboratory, indicating the Bush administration’s commitment to building the facility, the Boston Globe reported (see GSN, Feb. 4). Anthony Fauci said the project should continue despite recent disclosures that three university researchers last year contracted tularemia while working with the pathogen. The infectious disease institute is the only government agency whose approval is still necessary for the continuation of the project, though state environmental regulators have indicated they might reopen their review of the planned facility, according to the Globe. The laboratory would handle research on dangerous pathogens, such as anthrax, that could be used in a bioterror attack. The tularemia exposures occurred last May and September in a Biosafety Level 2 laboratory, where safety rules are not as tight. “Things like that happen when people are not trained well,” Fauci said. He disputed criticism alleging that the tularemia exposures indicate the university’s inability to work with dangerous agents. “I think that they’re being unfair by saying ‘they’ can’t handle this at BU,” Fauci said. “‘They’ in this case is an investigator who did not follow protocol, who did not go under the training, who was not working in a BSL-4” (Stephen Smith, Boston Globe, Feb. 24). Back to top       Anthrax Vaccine Manufacturer Challenges Court Ruling The manufacturer of the anthrax vaccine used by the U.S. Defense Department for inoculating service members has filed an appeal of a court order that rejected its status as a “safe and effective” treatment under Food and Drug Administration standards, the Frederick News-Post reported this week (see GSN, Feb. 17). “We were licensed as a protection from anthrax, all forms of anthrax,” said Kim Brennan Root of BioPort, the Frederick, Md.-based maker of Biothrax. “But because we weren’t specific as to the types, the judge saw a problem.” Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan barred mandatory anthrax vaccinations and ordered the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its category 1 classification for Biothrax. The Pentagon this month invoked emergency provisions in the Project Bioshield Act to restart the program. The public comment period on the BioPort case is expected to close at the end of next month, according to the News-Post. Once that information has been examined, the Food and Drug Administration could restore the vaccine’s category 1 classification as a “safe and effective” drug. With Pentagon approval, BioPort is simultaneously seeking emergency-use authorization, and Sullivan is scheduled to hear that argument on March 28. A third option would be to continue the military immunization program on a voluntary basis, Root said. “We could deliver it in a voluntary way,” she said. “Right now it’s mandatory.  It has always been mandatory” (James Rada, Frederick News-Post, Feb. 23). Back to top

U.S. Sea-Based Missile Defense Test Succeeds The United States yesterday conducted a successful test of its sea-based missile defense system off the coast of Hawaii, Reuters reported (see GSN, Feb. 24). The Aegis-equipped U.S. Navy cruiser Lake Erie tracked the missile target and brought it down with a Standard Missile 3 interceptor. “We had a successful hit-to-kill intercept,” Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner said. Five of six tests of the sea-based missile defense system have succeeded. The Missile Defense Agency plans to deploy about 30 SM-3 interceptors on Aegis-equipped ships by 2007, Reuters reported (Jim Wolf, Reuters, Feb. 24). Back to top

U.S. Utility Reports Possible Discovery of Nuclear Fuel Rods Missing From California Power Plant The U.S. utility Pacific Gas & Electric Co. has said that it may have discovered the remains of three fuel-rod segments missing from a nuclear power plant in California, the Sacramento Business Journal reported Wednesday (see GSN, July 22, 2004). The search for the rods began last summer after the company informed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that there were conflicting records over the location of the fuel rods. In a written statement, Pacific Gas & Electric Senior Vice President for Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer Greg Rueger said the rods have been at the plant’s spent fuel pool since the 1960s. “Based on an independent expert analysis of the fuel fragments we have recovered from the used fuel pool, it is most likely that we have the cut fuel rod segments in our possession. Unfortunately, their condition after 40 years of being stored under other components in the pool makes positive identification extremely difficult,” Rueger said. The utility also reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that there were adequate safeguards at the plant against theft of the fuel rods. “Successful theft or diversion of the fuel rod segments would present challenges to the party responsible that are technically complex, risky, expensive, and potentially life-threatening because the fuel is highly radioactive,” the company said in its report. “In addition, the fuel rod segments are of insufficient quality and quantity to construct an effective radiological dispersion device (dirty bomb) or a nuclear weapon” (Sacramento Business Journal, Feb. 23).   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.