From Friday, May 11, 2007 issue.
Russia and Kazakhstan signed an agreement yesterday advancing an effort to create an international nuclear fuel supply system that could permit developing nations to pursue nuclear energy without raising weapon concerns, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, May 9). Kazakhstan, home to 15 percent of the world’s uranium reserves, agreed to participate in a Russian uranium enrichment center the Siberian city of Angarsk. The site was previously part of Russia’s nuclear weapons complex, but has been opened to international monitoring, according to RIA Novosti. Russian nuclear agency head Sergei Kiriyenko and Kazakh Energy Minister Baktykozha Izmukhambetov signed the deal during a summit in Astana between the two nations’ presidents. “We consider this document the first step in the implementation of our initiative to create a global nuclear energy infrastructure,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday (RIA Novosti, May 10).
From Friday, May 11, 2007 issue.
Iran turned away international nuclear officials last month when they tried to conduct a surprise inspection of Iranian uranium enrichment centrifuges, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, March 20).
The International Atomic Energy Agency personnel were denied access April 21 to a room containing the centrifuges despite an earlier Iranian promise to cooperate with unannounced visits, diplomats said.
The attempted inspection was the first unannounced visit since Tehran and the agency brokered a deal to permit agency monitoring of the site at Natanz, where diplomats close to the agency have said technicians have installed more than 1,600 centrifuges in 10 “cascades” (see GSN, April 19). The agency had sought to install permanent cameras within the cascade hall, but Iran refused and instead agreed to allow frequent, unannounced visits by agency inspectors, AFP reported. The April 21 visit “was a total failure,” said one diplomat, adding that the agency has not yet attempted another surprise inspection. “The Iranians did not let the IAEA inspectors into the halls where the cascades of centrifuges are,” the diplomat said. “So they couldn't get details of what is going on there.” “An undeclared visit should be fast, uncomplicated, but the Iranians said they wanted to talk again about the terms of the visits,” the diplomat added (Michael Adler, Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, May 11).. Iran denied the AFP report today, saying the nation has cooperated with the agency. “There are no limitations regarding inspection and Iran as promised acts completely according to the [Nuclear Nonproliferation] Treaty and has opened its door to all inspections of its sites,” said Ali Asghar Soltanieh, head of the Iranian delegation to an NPT conference meeting this week in Vienna (see GSN, May 10). “Such news is only aimed to weaken Iran's placement in the final days of the Nonproliferation Treaty revision conference,” he added (Iranian Student News Agency, May 11). Tehran and the agency have been working for months to agree on inspection arrangements at the underground enrichment facility, where Iran has been adding about one cascade of 164 centrifuges every 10 days, said the diplomat. The machines are processing uranium gas, but only “in slow motion,” to prevent equipment failures, according to the diplomat. “The Iranians are working at having a large number of centrifuges running, rather than how efficient the process is,” the diplomat said (Adler, Agence France-Presse I). Meanwhile, the United States has backed a proposed “time out” compromise to enable a return to talks with Iran to reach a long-term resolution to the nuclear crisis, Reuters reported today (see GSN, May 7). The compromise would call for U.N. powers to suspend implementation of recently imposed Security Council sanctions and for Iran to simultaneously freeze its uranium enrichment activities. Officials from the five permanent council members and Germany met yesterday in Berlin, where U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns agreed to the dual suspension plan. “We are offering to negotiate. We are waiting for a response from Iran,” he said (Judy Dempsey, International Herald Tribune, May 10). Elsewhere, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney kept up rhetorical pressure on Iran today, addressing the nuclear crisis from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis in the Persian Gulf (see GSN, Feb. 12). “With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we’re sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike,” he said. The United States “will stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region” (Graham Bowley, New York Times, May 11). Last night, Iranian and North Korean officials signed an agreement to improve ties between the two nations, Reuters reported. by Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki and North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Yong Il signed the deal in Tehran (Reuters, May 11). “Tehran sees no limit in expanding ties and cooperation with Pyongyang,” said Iranian Vice President Parviz Davoudi. Iran was “ready to offer its achievements in different fields but especially the economy, infrastructure and technical services for the progress of North Korea” (Agence France-Presse II/Yahoo!News, May 10).
From Thursday, May 10, 2007 issue.
By Jon Fox
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — Tom D’Agostino, until recently the acting chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration, agreed yesterday with a recent recommendation from a scientific association urging the Bush administration to more clearly define its nuclear weapons plans (see GSN, April 25). While suggesting that such a policy discussion should take place, however, he said the Energy Department should forge ahead in its pursuit of a new nuclear warhead. The April report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science — authored by former national laboratory staffers and other experts — called for a presidential or Cabinet-level statement articulating what role nuclear weapons would play in U.S. policy and what the country’s stockpile needs are. “I agree,” D’Agostino said during a breakfast address here sponsored by the National Defense University. With the recent swearing in of Bill Ostendorff as NNSA deputy administrator, D’Agostino has returned to his role overseeing weapons programs at the agency. Questions of policy and the international effect of U.S. plans to develop its first new nuclear warhead design in more than 20 years should be explored but not at the expense of progress in developing the Reliable Replacement Warhead, he said. The Energy Department has selected a preliminary design from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and expects to further flesh out cost estimates and engineering and design plans in the coming year. The president requested more than $88 million for the project in fiscal 2008, tripling funding from the last approved budget request (see GSN, Feb. 6). A House defense authorization bill making its way through Congress cuts $20 million from the NNSA request and slices $25 million of $30 million requested by the Navy for RRW-related research. “We need not and should not defer our efforts over the next 12 months to develop a detailed project and cost plan for the Reliable Replacement Warhead,” D’Agostino said. “There are things that need to go on in parallel, and there are things that need to happen in series.” The AAAS report offered limited support for the RRW program, calling it a “prudent hedge” against a stockpile composed entirely of aging Cold War-era warheads. The authors of the report, however, struggled to completely assess the pros and cons of the administration’s proposed plans in the absence of details, they wrote. The Bush administration has offered no detailed description of the size or composition it foresees for the future U.S. nuclear stockpile. Nor is there a cost schedule or description of the scope of the planned transformation of the nuclear complex 20 to 25 years in the future, the report noted. Administration officials have said developing the new warhead would drive a transformation of an outdated nuclear weapons production complex. D’Agostino stressed that point, also suggesting that a new nuclear weapons project would help the national laboratories attract and retain a new generation of elite scientists. “We need to challenge our folks,” he said. “People work well when they have real work to do.” D’Agostino said he expects the nuclear weapons complex to be “fine” for the next five years but said he was “very uncomfortable with the long-term view.” “It’s going to be very difficult to attract top-notch folks 10 years from now,” he said. “How are we going to sustain people’s interest in coming to work at a national security laboratory? What’s going to draw them in?” The first Reliable Replacement Warhead would have the same yield as the submarine-launched W-76 warheads it is intended to replace. It is intended to enter the stockpile without underground explosive testing — a requirement stressed by some wary lawmakers (see GSN, March 21) — and would be easier to maintain than the current warhead, administration officials say (see GSN, March 30). The United States has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Since 1992 it has observed a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing. Energy Department officials have said the new design could be followed by new warheads for silo-based missiles or gravity bombs. (see GSN, March 21).
From Wednesday, May 9, 2007 issue.
The University of California will continue to have a role in the operation of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California under a management contract announced yesterday by the U.S. Energy Department (see GSN, Oct. 30, 2006). The university for decades was the sole manager of Livermore and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. However, it was required to submit new bids for both nuclear weapons laboratories following a series of safety and security breaches at Los Alamos. In both cases, the university joined teams that successfully pursued management contracts at the laboratories (see GSN, Dec. 22, 2005). The Energy Department said yesterday it would pay $297.5 million over seven years to the team consisting of the university, Bechtel National, BWX Technologies and other public and private entities, the Los Angeles Times reported. The group, operating under the name Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, is largely identical to the consortium that won the Los Alamos contract. The winning group put together an offer than was better and cheaper than the bid from a team led by defense contractor Northrop Grumman, according to Energy Department officials. The department said a third offer from two watchdog groups, which sought to convert Lawrence Livermore into a “center for civilian science,” was not a reasonable response to the bid request, the Times reported (Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times, May 9). “Livermore National Laboratory is a critical part of our nuclear weapons complex and has been for the last 55 years,” Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said in a press release. “For the first time since the beginning of the laboratory a new contractor is coming to Livermore. We look forward to working with LLNS as Livermore continues its vital national security work.” Management transfer activities began yesterday, and the new contract goes into effect on Oct. 1. It includes a provision for an extension of up to 13 years following the initial seven-year term, the department said. Priorities under the new contract are expected to include: — “demonstrating design and development capabilities to support the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) strategy.” The department selected Livermore to develop the first new nuclear warhead in decades (see GSN, May 3); — supporting the Complex 2030 program to update the U.S. nuclear complex, including through “improved integration among the [National Nuclear Security Administration] sites and increased enterprise-wide activities”; and — promoting deterrence, detection and response to proliferation of unconventional weapons (U.S. Energy Department release, May 8). Watchdog groups immediately blasted the announcement. “Obviously, past performance means nothing to the officials at the Department of Energy,” Peter Stockton, senior investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, said in a press release. “It is ridiculous that after years of security breaches and safety debacles DOE would decide that the best way to fix these problems is by hiring the same incompetent contractors. This decision truly fits the definition of ‘insanity’” (Project on Government Oversight release, May 8). “It’s DOE conducting business as usual,” said Marylia Kelley, head of Tri-Valley CAREs, in a press release. “The networks of nuclear weapons ‘good-old boys’ who have done so much damage to the nation’s budget, security and environment are in charge of both research labs.” Tri-Valley CAREs had joined with several entities to form the Livermore Lab GREEN team that unsuccessfully sought the management contract (Tri-Valley CAREs release, May 8).
From Friday, May 11, 2007 issue.
A U.S. bank has indicated its willingness to act as a transfer point for North Korean funds that the regime says it must collect before beginning the process of denuclearization, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, May 10). Financial institutions have been reluctant to touch the $25 million, now held in 52 accounts at Banco Delta Asia in Macau, for fear of being penalized for accepting money the United States had linked to illicit North Korean financial activities such as counterfeiting. Pyongyang says, though, that it would not start meeting its commitments under a February six-party talks agreement until it has the money in hand. Work is under way at the State and Treasury departments to find a strategy for moving the money without violating U.S. law, the Times reported. The U.S. bank has not been named, though it apparently is not among the major institutions. Transferring the funds through a U.S. bank could also meet Pyongyang’s stated demand that it have access to the international financial system. “I think we are getting to the point where we know how this is going to be solved,” said Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, lead U.S. negotiator at the six-party talks. “Currently, what we are doing is to assist in ways that we can allow the North Koreans to put those accounts into another bank, where they can make use of those accounts” (Nicholas Kralev, Washington Times, May 11). Japan and South Korea yesterday urged North Korea to take the first steps called for under the Feb. 13 deal — shutting down the Yongbyon nuclear reactor and letting international atomic inspectors back into the country. “We agreed that it is necessary for North Korea to take the initial phase steps as soon as possible,” Japan’s Foreign Ministry said following a meeting between foreign affairs officials from Seoul and Tokyo. “We also confirmed that the two countries will continue to closely work together” (Chisaki Watanabe, Associated Press/The China Post, May 10). However, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso today expressed doubt that North Korea would move quickly on denuclearization even after receiving its money, Kyodo News reported. “My sense is that there will be a mountain or two before we can move into initial steps,” he said (Kyodo News/Yahoo!News, May 11).
From Friday, May 11, 2007 issue.
Harkening a return to Cold War programs to prepare U.S. residents for nuclear war, a group of high-level experts plans to urge local communities to dig underground bomb shelters to protect them from the aftermath of a terrorist nuclear weapons attack, the San Francisco Chronicle reported today (see GSN, May 8). The 41-member group convened last month in Washington to discuss ways to improve the emergency response to such an attack, based on the premise that nuclear terror prevention efforts are inadequate. Sponsored by Stanford and Harvard universities, the meeting included directors of U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories, Homeland Security Department officials, and current and former top military officials, according to the Chronicle. Organizers have begun to prepare a summary paper that recommends several civil defense measures, including building bomb shelters, setting rules to strictly limit citizen movement after an attack to keep roadways open and lifting radiation safety rules for emergency responders, the Chronicle reported. “The public at large will expect that their government had thought through this possibility and to have planned for it,” said event organizer Ashton Carter of Harvard University. “This kind of an event would be unprecedented. We have had glimpses of something like this with Hiroshima, and glimpses with 9/11 and with Katrina. But those are only glimpses.” The group discussed a scenario in which terrorists detonate a 10- to 15-kiloton nuclear weapon, comparable to the U.S. bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Participants worked on the assumption, however, that terrorists would have more than one weapon. “If one bomb goes off, there are likely to be more to follow,” Carter said. “This fact, that nuclear terrorism will appear as a syndrome rather than a single episode, has major consequences.” Some participants argued that those consequences would be so enormous that greater efforts are needed to prevent such a scenario. “Your cities would empty and people would completely lose confidence in the ability of the government to protect them,” said University of Maryland professor Steve Fetter. “You'd have nothing that resembles our current social order. I'm not sure any preparation can be sufficient to deal with that.” “We have to hold current policy-makers more responsible” for preventing a nuclear attack in the first place, he added (James Sterngold, San Francisco Chronicle, May 11).
From Friday, May 11, 2007 issue.
The final day of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty conference was marred by disputes over the session’s final statement, Reuters reported today (see GSN, May 10). The annual session to plan for the treaty’s 2010 review conference was scheduled to end today, but Iran and other Nonaligned Movement nations objected to the chairman’s summary statement, according to Reuters Developing nations argued that the statement focused too much on treaty compliance concerns, notably regarding Iran, and not enough on provisions requiring nuclear-weapon states to move toward disarmament, Reuters reported. Some nations demanded that the summary statement be downgraded to a “working paper,” a status that would not require the approval of all the roughly 130 nations participating in the meeting. “There is a general objection to imbalance in the summary. But different NAM members are objecting to different things. NAM is not united,” said one Nonaligned Movement diplomat. “The end of this meeting has turned into a terrible mess” (Mark Heinrich, Reuters, May 11).
| 
Back to top
