Former top U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, pictured last year, said yesterday in Washington that the U.S. security guarantees to Tehran could help resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis (Mario Tama/Getty Images). Iran Should Receive Security Guarantee, Blix Says By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States should join negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program by adding a U.S. security guarantee to other carrots offered Tehran in exchange for limiting its nuclear program, former top U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said yesterday in a speech here (see GSN, Jan. 25)...Full Story

U.S. Confident of Iran Referral to Security Council The United States said yesterday that there continue to be sufficient votes at the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran’s nuclear dossier to the U.N. Security Council, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Jan. 25)...Full Story

Hurricane Holds Lessons for Terrorism, Nagin Says By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin yesterday said the heavily criticized government response to Hurricane Katrina illustrates the need for a faster and reorganized national system for responding to all large-scale disasters, including terrorist attacks (see GSN, Oct. 25, 2005)...Full Story

	Thursday, January 26, 2006

Hurricane Holds Lessons for Terrorism, Nagin Says By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin yesterday said the heavily criticized government response to Hurricane Katrina illustrates the need for a faster and reorganized national system for responding to all large-scale disasters, including terrorist attacks (see GSN, Oct. 25, 2005). Nagin told reporters at a U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting here that he is increasingly satisfied with the amount of resources flowing into his city in the wake of the late-August hurricane but not with the speed of their delivery. “We need to figure out ways to move faster. The amount of support that’s coming out of the federal government is looking a lot better, but it’s not moving fast enough,” Nagin said. The widely reported miscommunications and poor coordination among levels of government in responding to Katrina should lead to a revamped response system, the mayor said. “We need to reorient, redesign, reorganize our national response to these types of disasters,” he said. “The circumstances and conditions of this disaster could happen in another way. It could be a terrorist attack.” U.S. Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson was to address the mayors late this morning, and other department officials are scheduled to participate tomorrow. In advance of the security discussions, the Conference of Mayors today circulated a formalized version of a security plan first drafted and released in October, during Washington meetings with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. In the plan, the mayors call for more federal funding for local-level emergency responders and increased federal support to back up mutual-aid agreements among municipalities in a region. Such agreements, they say, become useless if a catastrophe requires each municipality to deploy all its resources in its own jurisdiction. The mayors also ask that the U.S. military no longer be viewed as a “resource of last resort” in disasters, but rather be allowed to intervene immediately in catastrophes. They call for more federal funding for transportation security measures such as WMD detectors, and they urge the federal government to create a system whereby local emergency responders would be notified before highly toxic materials such as chlorine were shipped through their cities. U.S. Conference of Mayors Vice President Michael Guido said yesterday that cities need more federal funds for responding to events that could outstrip any local capacity. “We need to have the resources necessary in order for us to respond,” said Guido, the mayor of Dearborn, Mich. During plenary talks this morning, Seattle’s Greg Nickels told fellow mayors that anthrax attacks and smallpox fears have given cities a leg up on planning for a potential avian flu epidemic. “We’ve all had a lot of opportunity to work on the idea of preparedness,” Nickels said. He called on cities to step up education and planning efforts for large-scale disease outbreaks. Back to top

Former Iraqi General Alleges WMD Transfers to Syria A former top Iraqi military commander has claimed that the regime of deposed President Saddam Hussein transferred weapons of mass destruction to Syria ahead of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the New York Sun reported today (see GSN, Jan. 18). Gen. Georges Sada, formerly second in command of the Iraqi air force, made the allegations in “Saddam’s Secrets,” a book released this week. “There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,” Sada told the Sun yesterday. Two Iraqi Airlines pilots told Sada in mid-2004 that they had transported the arms in passenger planes whose seats had been removed. They said they witnessed Iraqi Republican Guard brigades placing materials, including “yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel” onto the converted cargo planes. “I know (the pilots) very well. They are very good friends of mine.  We trust each other. We are friends as pilots,” he said. He said the two men are now employed by airlines outside Iraq and would not come forward because they fear for their safety. The pilots said the 56 flights they made to Syria were widely believed to be relief efforts in the wake of a flood caused by a June 2002 dam collapse in that country. “Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming,” Sada said. “They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians” (Ira Stoll, New York Sun, Jan. 26). Back to top

Iran Should Receive Security Guarantee, Blix Says By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States should join negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program by adding a U.S. security guarantee to other carrots offered Tehran in exchange for limiting its nuclear program, former top U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said yesterday in a speech here (see GSN, Jan. 25). “There have been some carrots,” the Swedish diplomat said at an event hosted by the Arms Control Association. “But what has been missing, I think, in this package has been the security aspect of it,” Blix said, noting a guarantee against attack and full diplomatic relations the United States has offered to North Korea in an attempt to eliminate its suspected capability. He noted that the United States in support of European negotiations has offered support for Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization and spare parts for aging civil airliners.  The United Kingdom, Germany and France reportedly have offered Iran recognition of a right to produce civil nuclear power, improved trade, and guaranteed nuclear fuel supplies. Iran late last year ended an agreement with the European negotiators by resuming uranium conversion activities following a voluntary suspension. The European countries this month joined the United States in pressuring the International Atomic Energy Agency in February to refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council possibly for sanctions. Last month, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei also said the United States should propose a security guarantee. Iran’s top negotiator reportedly responded that Iran did not need a guarantee to ensure its security.  European negotiators in November 2004 originally proposed economic incentives and security guarantees in exchange for a verifiable guarantee that Iranian nuclear activities are directed for peaceful purposes. The security component was dropped when the United States proved unwilling to cooperate, according to Selig Harrison, director of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy, who wrote in a Financial Times commentary last week. Blix is the former head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which conducted the prewar search for Iraqi unconventional weapons, and of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He now heads the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission created by Sweden in December 2003 to analyze and report on ways to reduce the dangers posed by unconventional weapons and terrorism. U.S. Policies Critiqued Blix criticized U.S. arms control and nonproliferation policies developed by the Bush administration and its predecessor. He described as “casualties” failed efforts in the late 1990s to negotiate a follow-on pact to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties, the Antiballistic Missile Treaty abandoned by the United States in 2001, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that remains unratified by the United States, and multilateral efforts to negotiate a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. Blix also criticized the terms of the 2002 U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty that calls for reducing nuclear arms deployments, but contains no verification provision.  “It seems to me that the United States has become less keen on arms control and less keen on verification, at least for itself. The very term ‘arms control’ seems to have disappeared in the latest reorganization of the State Department, which only talks about nonproliferation and security,” he said. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, had a “tremendous influence” on such polices, he said. Rather than creating arms control, he said, “perhaps we’re going in reverse.” The administration’s pursuit of a national missile defense system is “new, problematic in the international context,” Blix said, as is military discussion of stationing weapons in outer space. Such actions combined with British discussion of replacing its submarine-based nuclear weapons, French President Jacques Chirac’s suggestion that nuclear weapons could be used in response to terrorism (see GSN, Jan. 19), “widened” options for nuclear use in doctrines developed by Russia and other nations, and Bush administration study of an improved earth penetrating nuclear weapon, he said, “has the feeling of expanded militarization by the big states.” Some countries “feel cheated” by the agreed nuclear powers’ alleged failure to honor some commitments made in the 1995 agreement to indefinitely extend the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. “We’ve had a reverse, I think, in the field of arms control and disarmament,” Blix said, but added that he though that such trends would only provide some encouragement to nuclear proliferation worldwide. Proliferation, he said, would chiefly be driven by countries’ assessments of their particular security needs. Blix added though, “If the U.S. would seek to extend its domination to become what the French call the ‘hyper-power,’ I fear there will be increasing” tensions with other countries, China in particular. Blix questioned supposed successes of the administration’s Proliferation Security Initiative, a program designed to intercept WMD-related shipments on the high seas. He said the administration has claimed 11 interdictions, but “I’ve only seen one case.” Blix said the initiative should be more international and more transparent. ‘Spin and Hype’ Blix complained of government “hyping and spinning that takes place in international affairs,” conducted by “public relations gurus” who manage the media. He noted that there was little U.S. reporting on ElBaradei’s claims before the invasion of Iraq that a document alleging an Iraqi attempt to buy uranium was forged. The Bush administration used the document to make its case against Iraq, but after the war conceded that ElBaradei was correct. There was substantial information contradicting U.S. assertions about Iraqi weapons, Blix said. “We carried out 700 inspections at 500 different sites … and said to the Security Council, and said to the United States and the Brits that we find no weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “Out of these places that we visited, there were about three dozen places or sites that were given to us by intelligence agencies in different countries and in none of them could we find any weapons of mass destruction.” “My belief is that if we had been allowed to continue to carry out inspections for a couple of months more, we would then have been able to go to all the sites which were given by intelligence, and since there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction we would have reported that there weren’t any,” he said. Even with such a report, though, he said, war probably would not have been averted as “there was a certain momentum behind it.” “Today, I think I worry about the spin and momentum on Iran,” he said. U.S. officials have insisted that evidence uncovered so far of Iranian nuclear activities, including some not reported as required to the ElBaradei’s agency, indicates Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Blix said the U.N. nuclear watchdog has not yet concluded that Iran at this time intends to develop nuclear weapons, but said the question is not particularly important. What is, he said, is “to induce Iran to forgo enrichment” in the event it has decided to build the weapons. Inducement, Blix said, requires stronger incentives. “I think that the packages, the offers that have been made on the Western side have been very meager, particularly compared to the offers that have been made vis-…-vis the North Koreans,” he said. Economic and military threats against Iran could strengthen hard-liners there and reduce any prospects for agreement, he said. Debating Iran’s nuclear program at the U.N. Security Council, which the administration has pushed for, could make compromise more difficult, he said. “It’s very much a matter of prestige” for Iran, Blix said. Back to top       U.S. Confident of Iran Referral to Security Council The United States said yesterday that there continue to be sufficient votes at the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran’s nuclear dossier to the U.N. Security Council, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Jan. 25). “We believe it’s time. Many other members of the international community believe it’s time, as well,” said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said the Bush administration believes referral might lead Tehran to halt its sensitive nuclear work. “It changes the dynamic to have the Iranian weapons program in the spotlight in the Security Council rather than considered at a technical agency in the U.N.,” Bolton said. However, key IAEA governing board members China, India and Russia remain reluctant to refer Iran to the council for possible sanctions at the Feb. 2 emergency board meeting, according to AP (Anne Gearan, Associated Press I/Yahoo!News, Jan. 26). U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan yesterday expressed doubt about whether the agency could make a decision on referral by next week, Reuters reported. Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei is not expected to have a key report on Iran prepared until late next month, Annan said. “I am not sure that they will be ready to refer (Iran) to the Security Council if the official report of the board has not been released,” he said. Annan said he found positive comments from Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani on a Russian compromise proposal encouraging. “It is … encouraging to hear the Iranians say they are considering the Russian offer very seriously. It is a solution that the international community is ready to accept,” he said (Evelyn Leopold, Reuters, Jan. 25). U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday told the Wall Street Journal that he also supports Moscow’s offer to enrich uranium in Russia for use in Iranian nuclear energy reactors (Cooper/McKinnon, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 26). British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said yesterday that the Russian compromise proposal “may provide a solution” to the standoff, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, Jan. 25). Chinese officials today also announced support for the plan, AFP reported. “We think the suggestion would be a good attempt at breaking the stalemate,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan. “We are opposed to the use of sanctions or the threat of sanctions to resolve problems, as this will often complicate issues,” he said (Agence France-Presse II/Yahoo!News, Jan. 26). The State Department, however, expressed skepticism about whether Iran would ultimately accept Moscow’s plan, Agence France-Presse reported. “Over the years, (Iran has) made every effort to try to avoid being referred to the Security Council,” McCormack said. “I think this is just one more move that they are making” (Agence France-Presse III/IranMania.com, Jan. 25). Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday proposed that all countries be granted access to nuclear energy, RIA Novosti reported. Russia is prepared “to offer nuclear fuel cycle services, including [uranium] enrichment under the control of the IAEA,” Putin said. “We will propose this approach to [Group of Eight] member states during our presidency,” he said (RIA Novosti/MosNews.com, Jan. 26). Iran’s nuclear negotiator met with officials in Beijing today, AP reported. “We agreed members of the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] have [the] right to peaceful nuclear technology,” Larijani said (Audra Ang, Associated Press II/Pravda, Jan. 26). China and the United States both oppose a nuclear-armed Iran, but their approach to the issue “may differ,” said Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, who is also traveling in China this week. “It would not surprise me that China would not want to take exactly the same course as the (European powers) and the U.S.,” Zoellick said. Chinese analysts have seen indications from Beijing that it would be more willing to impose sanctions on Iran than on North Korea for its nuclear work, the New York Times reported today (Joseph Kahn, New York Times, Jan. 26). Meanwhile, experts said the United States has military options in Iran even though it is presently concentrating on diplomatic efforts, AFP reported. GlobalSecurity.org has said that the Bushehr reactor and the nuclear installations at Natanz and Arak would be prime targets for a U.S. strike. The United States could also carry out a “more comprehensive set of strikes” against military targets “that might be used to counterattack against U.S. forces in Iraq,” according to GlobalSecurity.org. However, Heritage Foundation national security expert Peter Brookes warned that “flattening Iran’s nuclear infrastructure isn’t easy or risk-free.” “Iran burrowed many sites deep below the soil, making them much tougher targets (it also put some sites near populated areas to make civilian casualties a certainty if attacked),” Brookes wrote in a report. He also warned of potential Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the region. “The Iranian regime is already up to its neck in the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. It could certainly increase its financial/material support to the Sunni insurgents, Shia militants, al-Qaeda and the Taliban to destabilize the new Baghdad and Kabul governments,” he said. A U.S. attack could “rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular government,” said Joseph Cirincione, nonproliferation director at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The strike would not, as is often said, delay the Iranian program. It would almost certainly speed it up,” he said (Jerome Bernard, Agence France-Presse IV/Yahoo!News, Jan. 25). Back to top       Nuclear Deal Could Die if India Fails to Back U.S. Position on Iran, Ambassador Says U.S. Ambassador to India David Mulford said yesterday that if India does not support Iran’s referral to the U.N. Security Council, a nuclear technology sharing agreement between Washington and New Delhi could stall, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Jan. 25). “The effect on members of the U.S. Congress ... will be devastating” if India does not back the U.S. position, Mulford said. “I think the Congress will simply stop considering” the deal, he said. The agreement “will die in the Congress, not because the administration would want it.” Embassy spokesman David Kennedy originally backed the comments, saying Mulford “just wanted to give his honest opinion.” The embassy later said the comments were taken in the improper context. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack in Washington said that Mulford was speaking for himself but that his comments echoed lawmakers’ “very strongly held feelings” on the deal (Matthew Rosenberg, Associated Press, Jan. 26). McCormack added that the agreement and India’s stance on Iran are not linked, according to Agence France-Presse. “We deal with the Indian government on these two issues as separate issues,” he said. “Certainly, they come up in the same conversations, I'll tell you that.” McCormack said that the United States has encouraged India to back Washington’s position but that “ultimately, that is going to be their decision” (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Jan. 25). India has argued that Iran should not have nuclear weapons but that negotiations are the best way to persuade Tehran to comply. “We categorically reject any attempt to link (Iran) to the proposed Indo-U.S. agreement on civil nuclear energy cooperation," Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna said in statement following Mulford’s comments. “The position that India will take on this issue at the [International Atomic Energy Agency] will be based on India's own independent judgment” (Rosenberg, Associated Press). Meanwhile, former Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha said yesterday that the Indian parliament has to take a close look at the deal to avoid “permanent damage” to New Delhi’s nuclear program, the Press Trust of India reported. “The manner in which these negotiations are carried out raises serious doubts about intentions of the government,” said Sinha, who now serves in India’s upper house of parliament. The Bhartiya Janta Party leader accused to United Progressive Alliance government of clandestinely pursuing the deal. He said a committee with members from both parties should monitor the agreement as it is finalized. “This will ensure that the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal does not do any permanent damage to our sovereign and independent nuclear program,” he said. Sinha claimed the United States was attempting to pressure India to place its fast breeder programs under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. “The thorium-based fast breeder program is entirely indigenous ... and under no circumstances be subject to intrusive inspections at this stage of its development,” he said (Press Trust of India, Jan. 26). Back to top       Germany Should Consider Nuclear Arms, Ex-Official Says A former top German official said yesterday that his country should consider building a nuclear arsenal in response to the threat of nuclear terrorism, Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported today. “We need a serious discussion over how we can react to a nuclear threat by a terrorist state in an appropriate manner — and in extreme cases with our own nuclear weapons,” said former Defense Minister Rupert Scholz. A member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union party, Scholz said Berlin should first seek binding guarantees from NATO that the alliance would protect Germany in the event of a nuclear threat (Deutsche Presse-Agentur/MonstersandCritics.com, Jan. 26). Back to top       U.S. Urges North Korea to Resume Nuclear Talks North Korea seems willing to resume multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 25). “I think there have been some indications about North Korea wanting to get back to the talks,” he said. “We urge North Korea to come back to the talks as soon as possible without precondition so that we can move forward on the principles that we agreed to,” McClellan added. Japanese, South Korean and U.S. diplomats have been consulting on resumption of the talks, the Yonhap News Agency reported today (Yonhap, Jan. 26). Seoul has requested that Indonesia host three-nation talks with North Korea in order to pave the way for Pyongyang’s return to the nuclear negotiations, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday. The meeting is hoped to occur “as soon as possible” in Jakarta or on the resort island of Bali, said Indonesian Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Jan. 25). Back to top       New Device Could Assist in Plutonium Monitoring An upcoming report in New Scientist states that U.S. scientists are working on a device that could detect whether a country is stockpiling plutonium for a nuclear weapon, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 11). New Scientist said the device could play a key role in preventing weapons proliferation as more countries use nuclear energy to meet power demands. However, the device is still in the test phase and cannot be used to determine if Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon. States’ refusal to allow weapons inspections would not matter if this device proves effective, according to AFP. The International Atomic Energy Agency calculates a reactor’s plutonium production by overseeing the amount of uranium placed into the core, how long the reactor is on and how much power it produces.  However, using different types of fuel rods or altering the rate at which neutrons penetrate the reactor’s core can boost the amount of plutonium produced. The new device, created by researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, monitors antineutrinos — “ghostly” subatomic particles created during the fission process. The patterns of these particles can be predicted, as production of high-energy antineutrinos decreases as uranium runs out. If plutonium production is higher than expected, production of these particles would drop as more uranium is destroyed. The new device would allow for comparison with IAEA numbers and would show whether excess plutonium has been produced. The device is being tested at the San Onofre nuclear power plant in California. Similar devices are being built in France and Brazil, according to New Scientist. To be effective, the monitors would have to be installed close to the reactor being monitored. They could be effective in IAEA monitoring efforts, according to AFP (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Jan. 25). Back to top       U.S. to Reduce Nuclear Bomber Count The United States is expected to reduce its number of strategic nuclear bombers, Kyodo News reported today (see GSN, Dec. 2, 2005). The bombers are part of the nuclear triad that also includes land- and sea-based nuclear weapons. However, the Quadrennial Defense Review expected Feb. 6 calls for a significant cut in the bomber fleet, according to Kyodo. The review indicates an integration of nuclear capability with conventional forces. Some critics object to this integration, arguing it lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear arms. “You will see a change in bombers,” said military strategist Peter Huessy.  A defense source said a draft version of the review calls for the reduction of “the B-52 force to 56 aircraft and use savings to fully modernize B-52s, B-1s and B-2s to support global strike operations.” The U.S. Air Force has approximately 90 B-52s at bases in Missouri, North Dakota and Louisiana. “In the next QDR, bomber reduction will be a major issue in Congress,” said a congressional source, who predicted a fight between the Defense Department and lawmakers over which states would lose the bombers. Congressional sources and military strategist Huessy said the review also would address implementation of the “New Triad,” which consists of conventional and nuclear forces, responsive infrastructure and missile shields, along with the ability to produce new nuclear weapons. The draft report recommends development of “conventional warheads using long-range Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles,” according to the defense source. Also suggested is the conversion of four of 18 strategic nuclear submarines for conventional weapons use. Those four submarines are due to be ready for use by 2007. “They are considering a combination between nuclear and conventional forces on Trident submarines,” said the congressional source (Kyodo News, Jan. 26). Back to top       Containers with Potential Leaks Used at Los Alamos A member of an independent safety board that oversees the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico said containers similar to one that leaked plutonium last month are still in use at the facility, the Albuquerque Journal reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 24). The container that leaked was sealed recently.  Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board site representative C.H. Keilers Jr. wrote in a memorandum earlier this month that a plastic jar with the plutonium enclosed in a plastic bag inside appears to be the source of contamination.   This jar and bag at the time were contained in a can. “The inner jar and bag failed, releasing powder into the can; the vinyl tape around the lid circumference then possibly failed, causing the release,” Keilers wrote. A laboratory spokesman called the Dec. 19 incident a “minor event.” Five workers were exposed to radiation below federal limits. The safety board in 1994 said that materials left over from the U.S. weapons program could be hazardous if they were not correctly stored. Plutonium has the potential to rupture plastic holding bags in older containers. Dozens of other jars containing plutonium are stored in cans, the Journal reported. Los Alamos is scheduled to repackage the material by 2010. The laboratory said it is ahead of schedule. Workers there “triplebagged” the container in which the leak occurred as well as similar containers. “We have a full recovery plan that we're executing,” said laboratory Nuclear Materials Technology division chief Steve Yarbro. “We meet with (safety board representatives) daily on our status and where we're at, and we're moving ahead in a very diligent, methodical fashion.” However, watchdogs claim the laboratory has been too slow on implementing recommendations made by the safety board.  “It was to avoid this kind of accident that the recommendation was made,” said Greg Mello, executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group. “The longer plutonium is in contact with plastic, the worse the problem becomes” (John Arnold, Albuquerque Journal, Jan. 25). Meanwhile, the Energy Department’s inspector general found inadequate control over security badges at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, the Associated Press reported yesterday. According to a report, 373 of the 1,261 employees who left the laboratory from 2002 to 2004 failed to return their badges. Eleven badges were also considered “accounted for” despite being lost or stolen. In addition, 36 of 140 employees kept security clearance for 10 to 60 days after leaving, and others did not follow protocol for terminating clearance. None of these employees took advantage of the security lapses, according to the inspector general’s report. “Nonetheless, any failure to properly control security badges and clearance terminations for departing Livermore employees has the potential to degrade the department's security posture,” the report said. It recommended improved internal controls for badge retrieval and Energy Department notification of security clearance termination. National Nuclear Security Administration Associate Administrator Michael Kane vowed to implement the recommended changes. “We are also aware that this inspection, and the subsequent results, are similar to results identified previously by the IG at Los Alamos National Laboratory,” Kane wrote in a response letter. “It is important to emphasize that the report does not cite any instances of inappropriate access to the laboratory or of any compromise of classified materials” (Associated Press/North County Times, Jan. 25). Back to top

Security at Pine Bluff Arsenal Breached Three people breached security and entered a restricted zone Tuesday night at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Jan. 25). Security at the chemical weapons depot was beefed up after a guard noticed the individuals near chemical weapons storage igloos, according to site spokeswoman Cheryl Avery. It is not clear whether the individuals were intruders or Pine Bluff employees who had wandered outside of their permitted area.  “We do know that the weapons are safely stored and accounted for,” Avery said. Guards checked every vehicle leaving the area on Wednesday. Avery would not discuss other security measures put in place after the incident (Daniel Connolly, Associated Press/Forbes.com, Jan. 25).   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.