Representative Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) has sponsored legislation to support an IAEA effort to create an international nuclear fuel bank (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images). Nuclear Fuel Bank Awaits Congressional Action By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers are planning to consider six bills that address an international nuclear fuel bank proposal that experts say could be a useful tool to stem the spread of uranium enrichment technology (see GSN, Aug. 3). ..Full Story

North Korea Shows Flexibility on Disarmament North Korea might not wait for delivery of oil supplies before continuing ahead with its pledge of nuclear disarmament, a South Korean official said today.  That would be a break from Pyongyang’s previous requirement of “action for action” in the denuclearization process, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Aug. 7)...Full Story

“Dirty Bomb” Unlikely, But Costly, Researchers Say Terrorists attempting a “dirty bomb” attack on the Los Angeles-Long Beach port would probably fail, but the economic consequences of a successful strike could climb into the tens of billions of dollars, according to a June study by two University of Southern California researchers (see GSN, Feb. 20)...Full Story

	Wednesday, August 8, 2007

States Criticize Revised U.S. Disaster Plan State and local emergency response officials have accused high-level Bush administration officials of ignoring their input in planning revisions to the nation’s disaster response framework, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, July 25). Congressional investigators and other critics of the 427-page National Response Plan, created in late 2004, have charged that federal planning produced a cumbersome document that focused on preventing terrorist attacks over preparing for natural disasters. State and local officials worked earlier this year with the Homeland Security Department and Federal Emergency Management Agency to draft a revised version of the plan, which is intended to guide cooperation between federal, state and local governments together with private companies and nonprofit organizations during a national emergency. The draft was completed in May, but the Homeland Security Department last week circulated a changed 71-page version to state and federal officials renamed the “National Response Framework.” Homeland Security spokeswoman Laura Keehner said the initial draft “did not meet expectations.”  Federal officials close to the planning process said that bureaucratic infighting in the collaboration had produced an unnecessarily complicated plan designed to please too many parties, the Post reported. “In my 19 years in emergency management, I have never experienced a more polarized environment between state and federal government,” said Albert Ashwood, Oklahoma’s emergency management chief and president of the National Emergency Management Association, an organization of state emergency managers. In testimony to a House panel last week, Ashwood questioned why federal officials reworked the original draft of the plan in secret and accused the federal government of trying to minimize its future responsibilities in disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans in 2005. “It seems that the Katrina federal legacy is one of minimizing exposure for the next event and ensuring future focus is centered on state and local preparedness,” he said. Bruce Baughman, Alabama's emergency management chief and a 32-year veteran of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, also criticized the new response plan. “Where's the beef?" he asked.  “I don't have any problems with a framework … but it's not a plan … and it's not national.  Who are we fooling here?” The authors of the revised plan failed to mandate standards or consult with field operators who would use the document to train emergency response workers, request federal aid and adjust state and local disaster plans, Baughman said (Spencer Hsu, Washington Post, Aug. 8). Back to top

U.K. Export Laws Remain Ineffective, Lawmakers Say A group of senior British lawmakers charged Monday that the country’s export laws could not yet prevent foreign agents from buying dual-use equipment for use in weapons of mass destruction, the London Times reported (see GSN, Aug. 1). Those looking for weapons parts know how to camouflage their objective in an extensive list of harmless products, according to a report from the Quadripartite Committee, which consists of top members from four House of Commons committees.  The panel called for more stringent export regulations. Existing rules address situations in which an exporter reasonably suspects or the government has intelligence that a product being shipped is intended for use in a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon, the lawmakers said. The British Revenue and Customs department is now authorized to seize material in two situations:  when evidence indicates that an exporter believes it would be used to produce unconventional weapons, or if the exporter attempted to ship the equipment without obtaining the necessary license. Exporters are not required to “make attempts to check that a proposed recipient of technology did not intend to use information in a WMD program,” the committee said.   They also do not have large amounts of time to scrutinize each export request, experts told the panel.  “The proliferators are aware of this, and often bury their desired items in a long list of innocuous products,” they said. Exporters cannot reasonably yet be expected to determine the end use of every product they ship, the committee said.  However, it called for rules that allow for seizure of products “where there is good intelligence that they are likely to be used for a WMD end-use, irrespective of the knowledge and intentions of the exporter” (Michael Evans, London Times, Aug. 7). Back to top

Nuclear Fuel Bank Awaits Congressional Action By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers are planning to consider six bills that address an international nuclear fuel bank proposal that experts say could be a useful tool to stem the spread of uranium enrichment technology (see GSN, Aug. 3). Article 4 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty affords nations the “inalienable right” to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but as nations pursue fuel enrichment and reprocessing technology they can crawl up to the brink of nuclear weaponization. This seeming loophole in the treaty is at the heart of standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.  Tehran contends its uranium enrichment research is for civilian, energy production purposes, but the United States and others contend it is a bid for a nuclear weapons capability (see related GSN story, today). While some in the nonproliferation community have argued that a multilateral nuclear fuel supplier would do little to address the Iranian issue at this point, it could dissuade other countries from pursuing their own indigenous fuel cycle technology.  Exactly what form this fuel bank would take remains up in the air but it would be under international control and provide low-enriched reactor fuel. Domestic enrichment “facilities are inherently a proliferation risk, allowing their possessor to be just months away from the production of a nuclear explosive device,” according to the “International Nuclear Fuel for Peace and Nonproliferation Act of 2007.” The bill, sponsored by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) applauds the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s offer of $50 million in private donations toward the international fuel bank project pending a $100 million contribution from other sources. The Lantos bill, which the House passed in June, calls for the United States and other member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency to provide the $100 million in matching funds. It would authorize $50 million to be directed toward the initiative in fiscal 2008.  The funds would be released only once the U.N. nuclear watchdog has received $100 million in pledges and actually received at least 75 percent of that money. The bill also delineates a number of conditions that must be met before a nation would be able to receive supplies from the fuel bank, such as requiring the country be in full compliance with IAEA safeguards and not be a state sponsor of terrorism.  An identical bill sponsored by Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) has been introduced in the Senate and is now under consideration by the Foreign Relations Committee. Also introduced in the Senate is a bill sponsored by Senators Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) titled the “Nuclear Safeguards and Supply Act of 2007.” The bill authorizes the president to undertake bilateral and multilateral steps to ensure a reliable fuel supply to nonproliferation-conscious countries once they decide to “forgo” enrichment and reprocessing technologies. Within six months of the passage of the bill the president would be required to submit a report on the feasibility of creating a fuel bank.  The Lugar bill also includes a statement commending the same NTI pledge to contribute $50 million toward a low-enriched uranium stockpile managed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. A bill introduced by Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), the “Iran Counterproliferation Act of 2007,” in addition to calling for tightened unilateral U.S. sanctions on Iran and countries seen to be engaged in nuclear cooperation with Iran, supports an international fuel bank initiative.  It also authorizes $50 million to be available in the upcoming fiscal year to support such a project. As part of the appropriations process for fiscal 2008, the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill calls for $50 million to support an IAEA managed fuel bank and the House version earmarks $100 million to the same end (see GSN, May 24).  The difference in funding would be worked out when the two bills are reconciled during a conference committee, likely to take place later this year. Lawmakers are expected to resume discussion on the slate of bills when they return from their summer recess in early September. [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       North Korea Shows Flexibility on Disarmament North Korea might not wait for delivery of oil supplies before continuing ahead with its pledge of nuclear disarmament, a South Korean official said today.  That would be a break from Pyongyang’s previous requirement of “action for action” in the denuclearization process, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Aug. 7). “Even if North Korea’s denuclearization proceeds faster than the reciprocating economic and energy aid measures, North Korea is willing to agree, based on the principle of mutual trust,” said deputy South Korean nuclear negotiator Lim Sung-nam. Representatives from the six-party talks nations met yesterday and today at the border of the Koreas to discuss plans on providing energy assistance to the North for carrying out a February agreement to fully shutter its nuclear program. South Korea has already shipped 50,000 tons of fuel to Pyongyang, which stands to collect another 950,000 tons of oil or equivalent assistance. Pyongyang is looking for ongoing shipments of 50,000 tons of oil, AP reported.  There has also been talk that some support might take the form of upgrades to North Korea’s deteriorating infrastructure. North Korea today asked for equipment and material that would be used for power plant repairs, according to Lim (Associated Press/NDTV.com, Aug. 8). “We cannot reveal everything North Korea brought to the table this time, but we can say they did have concepts for what can be called consumption-based assistance and investment-based assistance,” one South Korean official said yesterday, according to the Yonhap News Agency (Yonhap News Agency, Aug. 7). Pyongyang has said that its immediate steps toward denuclearization would not include removing 8,000 spent fuel rods from its nuclear reactor site at Yongbyon, Kyodo News reported yesterday. North Korea indicated its willingness to discuss the matter and other nuclear materials issues at the next round of six-party talks, expected in September (Kyodo News, Aug. 7). Meanwhile, the leaders of North and South Korea are scheduled to meet at the end of this month, Reuters reported. The Aug. 28-30 session would be the second ever meeting between the two nations’ leaders. “The summit is not going to contribute to the resolution of the nuclear issue in any way.  But be prepared for another wave of unification euphoria in the South,” said North Korea expert Brian Myers of Dongseo University. “The summit appears to have more to do with South Korea’s presidential election in December.  Whether the left-wing government in South Korea is surviving is a key concern for North Korea too,” said Lee Dong-bok, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Seoul (Jack Kim, Reuters/Washington Post, Aug. 8). Back to top       Iran Rejects Direct Nuclear Talks With U.S. Iran yesterday said it would not conduct direct discussions with the United States over its nuclear program, the Xinhua News Agency reported (see GSN, Aug. 7). “Minor talks can, however, be held within the G-5+1 framework with the United States as a member of the U.N. Security Council so as to solve the nuclear issue speedily,” Abdolreza Rahman Fazli, deputy head of Iran's supreme national security council, told the Islamic Republic News Agency. Fazli was referring to the five permanent nations of the U.N. Security Council — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — plus Germany. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei had proposed that Iran hold direct talks with the United States on the nuclear standoff. Fazli said Iran is cooperating fully with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, although it has not halted its nuclear program. Fazli said Tehran expects goodwill efforts from the international community in return for its cooperation with IAEA inspectors (see GSN, July 23). “This can be helpful in preventing issuance of another (anti-Iran) resolution and sanctions,” he said (Xinhua News Agency/China View, Aug. 8). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday that Tehran would refuse to hold discussions with any country that did not concede Iran’s right to pursue a civilian nuclear program, the Associated Press reported. “Iran cannot hold discussions with countries that do not recognize this right,” he said at a news conference in Algiers.  “The Iranian people will … continue their efforts toward acquiring nuclear energy for peaceful ends” (Aomar Ouali, Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Aug. 7). Back to top       Indian Leaders See Wider Opposition to Nuclear Deal Indian leaders faced criticism this week from political friends and foes over the recently completed nuclear trade deal with the United States, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Aug. 6). “Our party has stated very clearly that the accord contains provisions that cannot be accepted by any country that loves its sovereignty,” said Prakash Karat, chief of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), a member of the ruling coalition in parliament.  A group of communist parties has asked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to refrain from implementing the deal. Under the agreement officially announced Friday, India could purchase U.S. nuclear materials and technology in exchange for submitting the nation’s civilian nuclear sector to international oversight.  Legislatures from both nations must approve the deal. Singh has also drawn fire from the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, a nationalist group that ordered nuclear weapon tests in 1998 after the party won control of the government. BJP leader Yashwant Sinha, once the nation’s foreign minister, said the deal would restrict India’s nuclear weapons program. “Such a long-term decision should be decided with a consensus,” he said. While opposition from the right was not unexpected, the criticism from the left could threaten Singh’s government, according to one political analyst. “A lot of hard work had gone into this and now when it is nearly done, the government’s allies are opposing it,” said analyst Rasheed Kidwai.  A decision by the communist parties to stick to their position “will make it untenable for the government to continue in office,” he added (Elizabeth Roche, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Aug. 7). Back to top

Pfirter Gives Update on Global CW Disposal Russia and the United States continue to make progress in eliminating their world’s-largest stockpiles of chemical weapons, the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said yesterday (see GSN, June 21). One-third of all known chemical weapons around the world have been destroyed, along with 94 percent of identified production plants, Agence France-Presse reported. The United States has eliminated 46 percent of its chemical stockpile, which stood at nearly 30,000 U.S. tons when the Chemical Weapons Convention entered into force in 1997, said OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter. Russia has destroyed 22 percent of its stockpile of more than 44,000 U.S. tons, Pfirter said during a speech to the Conference on Disarmament. Both countries are required under the treaty to finish off their weapons by April 2012.  Washington has acknowledged that it cannot meet that deadline and experts question Moscow’s ability to complete work in the next five years. “The clock is ticking and formidable technical and financial as well as safety, health and environmental hurdles remain ahead,” Pfirter said (Agence France-Presse, Aug. 7). Back to top       VX Waste Shipments to Resume This Week A Texas waste management company expects this week to begin receiving shipments of VX disposal waste from Indiana, after a federal judge on Friday rejected an injunction request, the Port Arthur News reported (see GSN, Aug. 6). “We are going to resume transport this week of the VX hydrolysate,” said Dan Duncan, health and safety manager for Veolia Environmental Services in Port Arthur.  “We are expecting 12 shipments of wastewater and they should start arriving about midweek.” Veolia has a $49 million U.S. Army contract to incinerate hydrolysate produced by chemical neutralization of VX nerve agent stored at the Newport Chemical Depot in Indiana.  The company to date has “safely managed 103 shipments of hydrolysate,” about one-quarter of the contracted amount. The Army halted shipments in June while it waited for the judge’s decision. Environmental and community groups seeking the injunction argued unsuccessfully that the waste contained higher levels of VX and the byproduct EA2192 than acknowledged by the Army and that moving the material constituted a threat to public health and the environment. “We anticipated the ruling to come down as it did,” Duncan said.  “We believed that once the judge heard all the facts and scientific proof that this hydrolysate is not dangerous, he would come to the conclusion that we should resume transport.” “Our hope now is that the project can go off without another hitch,” he said.  “I think this project is not only beneficial for our employees, but also beneficial to the community” (Ashley Sanders, Port Arthur News, Aug. 8). Back to top

Japan Buys New Aegis Defense System Japan has awarded Lockheed Martin a $33 million contract to install an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system on the destroyer JDS Chokai, United Press International reported yesterday (see GSN, July 10). “JDS Chokai is the second of four Japanese destroyers to be outfitted with the Aegis BMD Weapon System.  Aegis BMD is currently being installed on JDS Kongo, which is scheduled to return to sea and conduct its first BMD missile firing in late 2007,” Lockheed Martin said in a press release. “The Aegis BMD Weapon System seamlessly integrates the SPY-1 radar, the MK 41 Vertical Launching System, the SM-3 missile and the Aegis Weapon System's command and control system.  The Aegis BMD Weapon System also integrates with the [U.S.] Missile Defense Agency's BMDS, receiving cues from and providing cueing information to other BMDS elements,” the company said. Eighty-three ships around the world already use Aegis, “with more than 20 additional ships planned or under contract,” according to the Lockheed Martin release (Martin Sieff, United Press International, Aug. 7). Back to top       Russia to Deploy 20 Air-Defense Systems by 2015 Russia expects to deploy 20 more S-400 Triumph air-defense systems throughout the country by 2015, the Qatar News Agency reported yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 6). “Such a system is so far unique in the world,” said Russian Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky. The first S-400 Triumph system, capable of providing protection against some ballistic missiles, was activated Monday in Moscow (Qatar News Agency, Aug. 7). Back to top

“Dirty Bomb” Unlikely, But Costly, Researchers Say Terrorists attempting a “dirty bomb” attack on the Los Angeles-Long Beach port would probably fail, but the economic consequences of a successful strike could climb into the tens of billions of dollars, according to a June study by two University of Southern California researchers (see GSN, Feb. 20). For terrorists to conduct a radiological weapon attack, they would need to achieve several challenging intermediate tasks, making final success unlikely, said Heather Rosoff and Detloff von Winterfeldt of the university’s Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events. “Considering the difficulties associated with obtaining and transporting radioactive material, building the dirty bomb, and detonating the device successfully, our preliminary analyses suggest that the chances of a successful attempt are no better than 15-40 percent” for a scenario in which terrorists dispersed a medium amount of radioactive material through a bomb at the port.  Attempts to use larger amounts of material would reduce the chances of success, they said, and terrorists would probably attack different targets if they were only able to acquire smaller amounts. Aside from a small number of possible blast victims, the bomb could trigger radiation-caused illnesses, such as cancers, in only “tens or at most hundreds” of people. While the human damage would probably be low, the economic effects could be large if the port were forced to shut down for a significant period of time.  If the site could be decontaminated within two weeks while waiting cargo ships simply remained outside the port, the cost could be limited to about $130 million.  However, if the port were closed for a year, the economic effects could climb to $100 billion, the study found. The researchers suggest that “ongoing programs to install radiation detection technology around the harbor” are worthwhile (see GSN, Jan. 10), and they also recommend “preventing terrorism by interdicting the vulnerable activities during the planning and preparing stages of an attack scenario” (Rosoff/von Winterfeldt, Risk Analysis, June 2007). 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.