Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin chat earlier this month in Maine, where they agreed to a nuclear cooperation deal that includes nonproliferation measures (Saul Loeb/Getty Images). Fuel-Cycle Technology Must Be Constrained, U.S. Says By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — With a growing number of nations expressing interest in nuclear power, the United States is preparing to quickly provide incentives for nations to forgo their own fuel-cycle technology, a senior U.S. arms control official said yesterday (see GSN, June 27)...Full Story

Investigators Easily Ran “Dirty Bomb” Sting A recent U.S. sting to illicitly purchase radioactive materials that could be used in a radiological “dirty bomb” was accomplished with disturbing ease, an investigator told Newsweek (see GSN, July 12)...Full Story

U.S-Indian Deal Compromises on Former Disputes India has received U.S. permission to separate plutonium from reactor fuel purchased as part of a nuclear trade deal finalized last week, but the agreement bars the U.S. sale of reprocessing or enrichment equipment, The Hindu reported today (see GSN, July 23)...Full Story

	Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Fuel-Cycle Technology Must Be Constrained, U.S. Says By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — With a growing number of nations expressing interest in nuclear power, the United States is preparing to quickly provide incentives for nations to forgo their own fuel-cycle technology, a senior U.S. arms control official said yesterday (see GSN, June 27). Nations belonging to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty have the right to peaceful nuclear technology.  However, the expected expansion of nuclear energy carries the possible spread of technologies that could put a nation on the brink of nuclear weaponization, which could produce extreme stresses on the current nonproliferation regime.  It is precisely this dual-use aspect of uranium enrichment technology that has raised questions about Iran’s nuclear ambitions as the nation builds a large centrifuge facility at Natanz. The challenge is balancing the expansion of nuclear power with nonproliferation concerns, James Timbie, senior arms control and international security adviser at the State Department, said during a discussion organized here by the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia. “Many countries are expressing an interest in nuclear energy and we think that makes sense,” he said.  That expansion, however, must be managed in a way that leads countries away from developing their own fuel-cycle technologies. In light of this concern, the International Atomic Energy Agency has taken steps to assure fuel supplies to nations considering nuclear programs; the United States has advanced its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, an initiative to spread proliferation-resistant nuclear energy plants globally; and Russia is developing a nuclear fuel center to supply foreign nations (see GSN, June 5). “Notwithstanding these efforts, interest in enrichment and reprocessing is not receding, and this is putting great pressure on the nuclear nonproliferation regime,” Timbie said.  This reality has been recognized at “very high levels” both in Russia and the United States, he said. If nations have domestic fuel cycle capabilities, they have the “inherent ability” to make weaponizable fissile material, Timbie noted.  The primary obstacle on the way to nuclear weapons has, in effect, been surmounted. Considering that countries such as Egypt and Indonesia are ready to go nuclear in the near future, the United States is working with Russia “to be in a position in the near term to make a multilateral approach to such countries.” An “attractive offer,” as Timbie put it, to dissuade countries from developing fuel-cycle technologies could include “a range of modern, safe, more proliferation resistant power reactors,” reliable access to fuel, and fuel services including spent fuel management. Advanced countries could also provide infrastructure support and assistance with regulatory frameworks as well as safety and security “cultures.”  Assistance in financing electrical grid development could also be an enticement. “This type of package would offer an attractive alternative to the acquisition of indigenous fuel-cycle facilities,” Timbie said. On July 3, presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin announced a joint U.S.–Russian initiative to address nonproliferation concerns in the face of what some have called a “nuclear renaissance.” The statement outlined additional steps beyond U.S. GNEP program and the recently established Russian fuel production center near Lake Baikal that could be taken to make indigenous fuel technology less attractive. “We can see that both these proposals are compatible and complementary since they pursue the same goal, ensuring unimpeded access to nuclear energy to every country under strict compliance with nonproliferation regime,” Vladimir Rybachenkov, an arms control expert with the Russian Embassy, said at the event. Rybachenkov, stressed the importance of economic incentives to control fuel-cycle technologies.   A simple ban of dual-use technologies would be seen by some as discriminatory, he said. Back to top       U.S-Indian Deal Compromises on Former Disputes India has received U.S. permission to separate plutonium from reactor fuel purchased as part of a nuclear trade deal finalized last week, but the agreement bars the U.S. sale of reprocessing or enrichment equipment, The Hindu reported today (see GSN, July 23). Negotiators completed the so-called “123 agreement” Friday after months of a logjam created by Indian objections to U.S. nuclear nonproliferation provisions. One key dispute was the U.S. right to demand the return of nuclear materials and technology if India were to conduct additional nuclear weapons tests.  The final deal keeps the “right of return” clause, but promises a U.S. commitment to keep Indian nuclear facilities operating, presumably by finding alternative suppliers, the Hindu reported. The reprocessing question had been the other major point of contention.  Under the agreement, India would establish a dedicated reprocessing facility with a special monitoring arrangement to be administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to The Hindu. The U.S. and Indian legislatures must approve the deal for it to take effect, and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group must also agree to change its export rules that currently deny nuclear trade to nations, such as India, that have refused to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.  In addition, India must reach a safeguards agreement with IAEA officials to establish international monitoring of the nation’s civilian nuclear program. Indian officials expressed optimism that that the Nuclear Suppliers Group would approve the deal and would not bar the sale of reprocessing equipment to India (Siddharth Varadarajan, The Hindu, July 24). Germany’s ambassador to India said yesterday that Berlin would try to “forge a consensus” within the group on rules for selling of nuclear fuel and equipment to New Delhi. “It's not an easy task (to forge a consensus) given India's consistent refusal to join [the] NPT regime.  But we also understand India's security situation in which it has to operate,” Bernd Muetzelburg told reporters. “The deal has ended India's nuclear isolation and has brought it to the mainstream,” he added, while saying that bolstering the international nonproliferation regime is “the only way to move forward” (Press Trust of India/Hindustan Times, July 23). Back to top       Iran and IAEA Resume Talks The International Atomic Energy Agency planned to continue talks with Iranian officials today in hopes of resolving questions on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, Reuters reported (see GSN, July 23). In discussions that began July 13, the U.N. nuclear watchdog has won a promise that agency inspectors can visit an Iranian heavy-water reactor and receive better access to the Natanz uranium enrichment site. Agency officials also want to investigate traces of highly enriched uranium found on some equipment in Iranian facilities, as well as Iranian research experiments into plutonium and centrifuges able to enrich uranium three times as fast as the model Iran is now using. Iran nuclear negotiator Javad Vaidi was expected to meet this morning with IAEA nuclear safeguards head Olli Heinonen at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna, said Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the agency. “The second round [of talks] will be held, continuing the discussions of the modalities on how to deal with the outstanding issues, at the same level as in Tehran, and will go on all day,” said Soltanieh, who planned to participate in the talks.  “The agenda is clear, a work plan to deal with these issues. I don't know (if there will be a breakthrough)” (Mark Heinrich, Reuters/Washington Post, July 23). New British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said yesterday that Iran was likely to face additional sanctions because they appeared effective in slowing the country’s nuclear program.  He refused to eliminate the option of taking military action against Iran, the Associated Press reported. “I’m not one who is going forward to say we rule out any particular form of action,” he said.  “But I firmly believe that the sanctions we are imposing on Iran are sanctions that are having an effect already,'' Brown added.  “There will probably be a further [U.N. Security Council] resolution in relation to Iran soon, and I believe that is a way forward that is working and will work.” Brown added that the United Kingdom would “take whatever measures are necessary to strengthen the sanctions regime in the future” (Associated Press/The Guardian, July 24). Back to top       U.S. Wants North Korean Deal Finished Before 2009 The Bush administration would like to see North Korea dismantle its nuclear program before the president’s term expires in early 2009, Agence France-Press reported today (see GSN, July 23). “It would be in 2008 we would really want to wrap this up,” Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, lead U.S. negotiator to the six-party talks, said yesterday in Washington. “The sooner the better, I mean, from my humble perspective.  But in 2008 we would hope to wrap this up.  I hope it wouldn’t take 12 months,” he added. North Korea has shut down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, but negotiators last week were unable to set a schedule for Pyongyang to declare and disable its nuclear weapons program under the February denuclearization deal.  “Realistically speaking, if we can’t get that (second phase) going by the end of ’07, it’s going to be tough to complete it by the end of ’08, which would be target time,” Hill said. Completion of the second phase of work could open the door for negotiations on formally ending the Korean War and on a Northeast Asia security body. Hill indicated that North Korea could completely dismantle its weapons program in 2007, even if work begins following the next planned round of talks in September, AFP reported. “If they want to get it done, it can be done.  I think disabling activities are not a matter of months; they’re a matter of weeks,” Hill said. The Stalinist state’s reward — a total of 1 million tons of fuel oil or equivalent economic aid — is linked to inoperable nuclear weapons, Hill added.  Some “eleventh-hour negotiations” might be necessary to agree upon a timeline for fully disabling the North Korean nuclear weapons program, he acknowledged (P. Parameswaran, Agence France-Presse/The Raw Story, July 24). Hill also repeated the U.S. stance that North Korea must eliminate its nuclear program and rejoin the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty before there can be discussion of delivering light-water power reactors to Pyongyang, Kyodo News reported. “At an appropriate time, we are prepared to discuss the subject of a provision of a light-water reactor,” he said. “We have explained that the appropriate time is when [North Korea] gets out of this dirty nuclear business that they’ve been in and returns to the NPT,” Hill added (Kyodo News/Yahoo!News, July 23). Back to top       Minute Uranium Deposit Must Be Checked, NRC Says The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ordered a New York nuclear power plant to catalog a minute amount of uranium that has been locked away for almost two decades, the New York Journal News reported today (see GSN, June 20, 2005). The Indian Point nuclear plant has stored eight reactor power level gauges containing uranium 235 since 1988-89, agency records indicate.  The devices contain .025 percent of a gram of uranium 235 combined, said Jim Steets, a spokesman for plant owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast.  The amount is far less than needed to build a nuclear weapon.  The uranium has been bolted in a secure but not tamper-proof storage container since before Entergy took over the Indian Point plant, Steets said.  Entergy management learned only recently that the nuclear agency required yearly inspections of containers lacking tamper-proof seals, he added. “We’re especially concerned about any material that’s in a spent fuel pool,” said NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan.  “This material needs to be tightly controlled” (Greg Clary, Journal News, July 24). Back to top

Officials Warned CDC of Possible Power Outages Engineers had warned of potential power outages at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 2001, presaging last month’s failure of a backup power system to maintain safety systems at a laboratory handling dangerous materials, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported today (see GSN, July 20). Designers opted to use a remote backup power system when building a new infectious disease laboratory that was struck by lightning last month.  The strike knocked out power and tripped circuit breakers that prevented backup power from entering the facility, according to the Journal-Constitution. “I've been saying this for over three years now, but having the generators in this configuration gives us no protection whatsoever from many types of failures," CDC mechanical engineer Johnnie West wrote in an August 2003 e-mail to agency officials. Earlier, similar concerns were expressed by Rita Oberle, former director of the CDC Facilities, Planning and Management Office. “Given all the outages we've had, I think we should go with individual generators at the critical buildings, especially lab buildings.  For general campus backup a central yard is OK.  At this point perception is overriding because we are not projecting confidence in reliability!” she wrote in a March 2002 e-mail. The decision to use a centralized backup system was based on the belief that such a design would prove more reliable than deploying separate generators at individual buildings, said one architect who led the design effort on the lightning-struck building. “I think it's a very valid configuration for CDC's needs.  If I felt there was any issue whatsoever about safety, I'd be the first one to point it out," said Jon Crane, of CUH2A Inc., an Atlanta firm that specializes in scientific facilities (Alison Young, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 24). Back to top       Planned Biological Defense Site Raises Concerns While officials in San Antonio, Texas, have sought to have their city become home to a new biological defense laboratory, some residents of other communities considered during the selection process have been less enthusiastic, the San Antonio Business Journal reported Friday (see GSN, July 12). The Homeland Security Department is considering locations in Texas, Kansas, Mississippi, Georgia and North Carolina as potential sites for the $450 million National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility.  The facility’s Biosafety Level 4 security rating would allow workers to handle deadly biological agents in studying agricultural security risks and biological threats to humans and animals.  Officials are expected to choose the site for the facility by October 2008. Representative Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas) said the laboratory, a joint project of the Homeland Security, Agriculture and Health and Human Services departments, would make a “great addition to San Antonio’s robust research economy.”  He added that it “will support the development of new biological and agricultural safeguards and will enhance our ability to respond to new and emerging bioterrorism threats.” The public in San Antonio has largely expressed enthusiasm about the laboratory — although the Texas Research Park site being considered there is close to residential and commercial areas — but community activists in other candidate regions have contested the project.  Citizens staged a rally to protest the planned facility in Dunn, Wis., one of 18 sites considered. County Commissioner Skip Elkin said he was urged to support the laboratory in Boone County, Mo.  However, he became concerned about the laboratory’s safety after learning about problems at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center built in 1954 off of Long Island, N.Y., which the new facility would replace. “At first glance, it made sense,” he said.  “Then after learning more about the project and about Plum Island, the questions started coming,” he said.  “The more questions that were asked, the more were raised.” Community worries about the facility might have played a role in eliminating Columbia from consideration for the project, Elkin said.  “I would say they (site selection committee members) are looking for a place that will not ask any questions,” he said (Bailey/Dominguez, San Antonio Business Journal, July 20). Back to top

Nerve Agent Maker Appeals to Japanese Supreme Court A member of the Aum Shinrikyo cult today petitioned the Japanese Supreme Court to overturn the death sentence he received for his role in the lethal 1995 sarin attack in Tokyo, Kyodo News reported (see GSN, July 13). Medical doctor Tomomasa Nakagawa was convicted of helping to produce the nerve agent that killed 12 people in the Tokyo subway system and seven in an earlier attack.  Nakagawa lost his penultimate appeal on July 13. In denying his appeal, the Tokyo High Court said there was “no particular reason to refrain from giving the death penalty even though [Nakagawa] has shown remorse and offered an apology,” Kyodo reported. Only two of 13 cult members sentenced to death have exhausted their appeals options (Kyodo News/Yahoo!News, July 24). Back to top

U.S. Navy Might Drop Large Missile Interceptor The next generation of U.S. Navy missile defense cruisers might forgo a revamped ballistic missile interceptor in favor of a smaller weapon, the Navy Times reported yesterday (see GSN, April 27). The Navy is considering the change as part of a long-range building plan, part of which considers two new cruiser designs.  One 14,000-ton cruiser would serve as an aircraft carrier escort, replacing aging Aegis cruisers, while a flare-bowed, 25,000-ton ship would operate as a dedicated missile defense platform. The Navy’s analysis of the design and armaments alternatives is expected to recommend that the new Kinetic Energy Interceptor, developed by Northrop Grumman, be sidelined for a smaller Raytheon-built Standard Missile 3 that is currently being tested. The Kinetic Energy Interceptor is much larger than the Standard Missile 3 and was designed for sea- and land-based missions.  The Northrop Grumman missile has a 40-inch diameter and is almost 39 feet long while the Raytheon version has a 21-inch diameter and is roughly 21 feet long, the Times reported. One kinetic interceptor would displace six standard missiles on board a cruiser, experts said.  “That’s a poor exchange ratio,” said one analyst. Both interceptors are “hit to kill” weapons, meaning they collide directly with the target and do not employ explosives.  Missile defense doctrine calls for two interceptors to be launched for each incoming ballistic missile but it is unclear how many missiles each proposed cruiser would carry, the Times reported. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency budgeted for the naval kinetic interceptor this year but Northrop concentrated on first developing the ground-based version.  The initial flight test of the kinetic interceptor is scheduled for next year (Christopher Cavas, Navy Times, July 23). Back to top

Investigators Easily Ran “Dirty Bomb” Sting A recent U.S. sting to illicitly purchase radioactive materials that could be used in a radiological “dirty bomb” was accomplished with disturbing ease, an investigator told Newsweek (see GSN, July 12). To test U.S. controls over the sale of equipment containing radioactive substances, the Government Accountability Office conducted an operation in which it successfully received a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license and ordered enough equipment to craft a bomb. Using a false Social Security number, a team led by investigator Gregory Kutz established fake businesses, used online assistance to receive an NRC safety certification and license, altered the license to allow the sale of even greater quantities of materials, and successfully ordered equipment from two small companies. “These are small businesses.  They were very excited about our order,” Kutz said.  “From one company we ordered 20 of the machines and they offered us 40.  And they gave us a nice discount.  They were very, very excited about the big order.  And they were very, very crushed when we called and told them it was a sting.” Altering the NRC license was simple, he said. “Because you had to fax the license, we could have just done a cut-and-paste with glue and it would have worked.  They accept faxed copies of your license. We did much more elaborate counterfeiting than we actually had to do,” Kutz said, describing how the team had altered its NRC license using common word processing software. “We just scanned it in and removed two paragraphs that limited how much of the materials we could actually get. We removed those and wrote two paragraphs in that basically gave us more of an unlimited quantity of cesium 137 and americium 241 that we could buy,” he said. Commission authorities responded quickly when they learned of the GAO sting. “They haven’t always been quite so responsive.  But this time, right after we told them, I think the same day they suspended the licensing program,” Kutz said.  “They took it very seriously” (Jeffrey Bartholet, Newsweek, July 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.