U.S. Response:  CIA, FBI Developing Intelligence Supercomputer

By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — After months of criticism that they do not work well together, the CIA and FBI have begun jointly developing a new supercomputer system designed to improve their ability to both cull and share information, White House and other U.S. officials told Global Security Newswire yesterday.

Under a directive issued by President George W. Bush,  and overseen by Office of Homeland Security officials, CIA and FBI officials are “working like crazy” to create a comprehensive database that could used by various federal and, in some cases, state agencies, officials said.

“They’re trying to push more data and resources to the agencies and people in the field that otherwise wouldn’t have them,” a U.S. official told GSN, referring to a data-mining system that could be used by the 32 federal agencies that collect classified information.

“There are several communitywide data-mining architectures that are being looked at to allow information sharing among the intelligence and law enforcement communities,” the official continued.  “A lot of it is tied to the homeland security initiatives.”

The federal government is spending $155 million this year for “information and intelligence sharing,” with $722 million more requested in next year’s White House budget proposal, according to Homeland Security Office spokesman Gordon Johndroe (see GSN, Feb. 8).

“The goals are to tear down the information stovepipes,” Johndroe said yesterday, referring to the long-held practice of various agencies to keep data to themselves.  “Information stays in one pipe, and now we’re going to tear down those stovepipe walls.”

Key Move

The creation of a new data-mining base, one capable of collecting unprecedented amounts of information that could be distributed to an array of agencies, has been viewed as the key move needed to prod the CIA, FBI and other secretive organizations to truly open up and work more closely and effectively together, officials and analysts said.

The sharing of a single database by the various agencies could allow U.S. authorities to better monitor terrorists and their financial support structures — and the companies and countries that participate in the spread of weapons of mass destruction, they said.

“It’s not going to be easy to do this,” said L. Paul Bremer, a former ambassador at large for counterterrorism who co-chaired a January Heritage Foundation report, Defending the American Homeland, that deemed as “critical” more information sharing among intelligence agencies.  “It isn’t going to solve the problem, but it’s going to make it more difficult for [terrorists] to enter the country,” he said.

Prior to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed about 3,100 people, five of the 19 hijackers were on various government watch lists but were never detected prior to the airline attacks, Bremer said.

The creation of a database shared by various intelligence and law enforcement agencies is “the first step in the right direction,” said Bud DeFlaviis, spokesman for Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), who has been pushing for such a system.

“It will only improve the flow of information between the agencies,” the U.S. official said.  “In the post-Sept. 11 environment there’s greater desire for more information.”

Pooling Resources

The use of massive high-speed computers with cutting-edge software could allow a wide range of U.S. organizations to pool resources, enabling them to better monitor and prevent the movements of terrorists and those that participate in the proliferation of dangerous weapons, officials said.

Utilizing the types of supercomputers already used by private industry to conduct marketing research, the CIA, FBI and other investigative agencies should be able to move beyond Counterintelligence-21 — an information-sharing system now being used but already considered outdated, analysts said.  The new system would take advantage of a faster, more comprehensive database, they said.

The new system under development should “meet the needs of all the consumers,” the U.S. official said.  “A lot of it is driven by [Homeland Security Director] Tom Ridge’s office.  It’s something [CIA and FBI officials are] working on continuously.  They’re continuously meeting, discussing and designing the new database.”

“It’s been the topic of discussion” during meetings between Ridge and President Bush, Johndroe said.

Casting a Larger Net

A new supercomputer “will only help the information flow between the agencies, particularly between the federal agencies and the state and local authorities,” the U.S. official said.  “It’s going to help the people who need it the most — first responders, the military, whoever.”

The officials and analysts have said that it could be dangerous for too many people to get their hands on classified information during the war on terrorism, a concern balanced by the need to get information to all pertinent officials, including state and local authorities.

There are ways to safeguard the information on a single database, so that data is shared only on a “need to know” basis, they said.

Currently when intelligence agencies share information they do not provide raw data.  Instead they offer outside agencies their interpretations of such data, a slow, cumbersome and often incomplete process, analysts said. 

To make the most of scarce resources, intelligence officials need to make their raw data available to pertinent agencies or officials, analysts added.

FBI officials would not comment, but the U.S. official said the major challenge in devising a new supercomputer is making sure it has all the proper safeguards needed to protect the vital information it provides.

“Intelligence agencies are very reluctant to put a lot of information on a database that can be shared,” Bremer said.  “There are very few home runs in counterintelligence.  You win with a lot of bunts and singles.”

Back to top

Threat Assessment:  FBI Issues Alert For Possible Attack as Early as Today

Last night the FBI issued a terrorist threat alert warning of a possible attack by a Yemeni man and several associates as early as today (see GSN, Feb. 1).

“Recent information indicates a planned attack may occur in the United States or against U.S. interests on or around Feb. 12, 2002,” the FBI alert says.  “One or more operatives may be involved in the attack.”

The FBI alert identifies one potential attacker as Fawaz Yahya al-Rabeei, a Yemeni national.  The alert also lists a dozen other men including one from Tunisia and others from Yemen and Saudi Arabia, according to the Associated Press.  Police should “stop and detain” any of the people named in the alert and all of the suspects “should be considered extremely dangerous,” the alert says.

The alert indicates that information on the possible attacks came from interviews with captured al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan and at the Guantanamo naval base in Cuba, the AP reported.  The information is considered credible but lacks details on specific targets, officials said.

There is no evidence that al-Rabeei has entered the United States or that the ongoing Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City is a potential target, law enforcement officials said (see GSN, Jan. 22).

The FBI issued the last terrorism alert on Dec. 3 and it was expected to last only through the holiday season, according to the AP (see GSN, Dec. 4, 2001).  Officials later extended the alert through the Winter Olympics and it is now expected to end on March 11 (John Solomon, Associated Press/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Feb. 12).

Back to top

Iran:  United States Offers Talks

The United States said yesterday that it would welcome talks with Iran even though tensions between the two countries have increased since U.S. President George W. Bush harshly criticized Iran in his State of the Union address in January.

“If Iran wants to set a clear course toward the modern world, we’re happy to talk to them, work with them,” said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

The Bush administration is more concerned with Iran’s actions than with the militant rhetoric with which Iranian officials have replied to Bush’s comments, Boucher said (see GSN, Jan. 31).

“Our concerns about proliferation, our concerns about weapons of mass destruction, about contacts with terrorism that seemed to be ongoing by some elements in Iran — these are real concerns,” he said (see GSN, Feb. 8).

The United States would like “to be able to sit down with them for a serious discussion, to talk about Iran and the course it might go on — that it could be different from these things,” Boucher said (Barry Schweid, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Feb. 11).

Boucher said that despite comments by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell that recent Iranian gestures in Afghanistan are an attempt to improve U.S. relations, ties still remain cold (see GSN, Feb. 7).

“There’s been no significant improvement in [U.S.-Iranian] relations,” Boucher said.

“[Powell has] often talked about the possibilities, about exploring the possibilities, but we’ve continued to have our concerns about a variety of things,” Boucher said.  “There have been actions that Iran has taken that we have been able to appreciate, support, cooperate with.  At the same time, we’re not going to ignore reality” (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 11).

In Tehran yesterday, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators marked the 23^rd anniversary of Iran’s Islamic revolution with anti-American chants, including “Death to America,” according to the Associated Press.

“This year, despite insults to the great Iranian nation and the trumped-up charges against it, the Iranian nation has commemorated the anniversary of its revolt on a greater scale than before,” said Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.  He added that while there are differences between Iran’s leaders, the country is united in support of the Islamic revolution.

“Let’s not conceal that there are deficiencies and dissatisfaction, but undoubtedly the whole nation is united in supporting the revolution and the path it has chosen,” Khatami said (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Feb. 12).

Back to top

Iraq:  U.S. Preparing for Military Action, Sources Say

U.S. officials and diplomats from the Middle East believe the United States is preparing for military action against Iraq, USA Today reported today (see GSN, Jan. 31).

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney is expected to discuss efforts to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during visits to 10 Middle East countries in March, according to a White House official.  Also, last week Israeli and U.S. officials discussed how Israel might respond to a counterattack from Iraq in retaliation for a U.S. attack (see GSN, Feb. 8).

The U.S. military has been transferring Middle East experts to the Persian Gulf since late last year, USA Today reported.  The CIA has also reactivated a covert program to oust Hussein, according to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Slavin/Keen, USA Today, Feb. 12).

Statements by other U.S. officials have also indicated a hard-line stance on Iraq (see GSN, Feb. 7).

“Iraq is unfinished business, and we’re going to have to do something about it at a time, place and manner of our choosing,” said Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in a recent interview with USA Today.

No Attack Until After Sanctions Vote in May

The United States is unlikely to take military action until after May, when the U.N. Security Council is scheduled to vote on revising sanctions against Iraq.  If Iraq continues to refuse to allow U.N. arms inspectors to return, that could provide the United States with a reason to attack, according to USA Today.

Bush’s warnings against Iraq are part of a “psychological campaign” to frighten Hussein into allowing weapons inspectors to return, said Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA director of counterterrorism.

Possible Military Strategies

U.S. planners are considering several military options in Iraq, according to experts.  One possibility is a large military attack similar to the one in 1991.  The option, called “Desert Storm Lite,” could include 50,000 to 200,000 U.S. troops combined with U.S. air and logistical supports based in surrounding countries, such as Turkey and Kuwait (see GSN, Jan. 7).

Another possibility is directing U.S. air power against the main Iraqi security forces that keep Hussein in power, including three Republican Guard divisions around Baghdad.  A massive attack against the security forces would allow officers secretly opposed to Hussein to launch a coup, according to Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (see GSN, Nov. 14, 2001).

The United States could also take a more diplomatic route combined with specific military steps to revise U.N. sanctions and reduce oil smuggling that brings up to $2 million annually into Iraq.  Bombing an Iraqi oil terminal that allows Hussein to export oil through Syria is one possible military step.

The United States could also decide to try to overthrow Hussein by supporting Iraqi opposition groups, as in the campaign to overthrow the Taliban.

“Opposition forces have been fighting Saddam far longer than the Northern Alliance fought the Taliban,” said Ahmed Chalabi, head of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, Feb. 12).

The Bush administration has announced it would give the INC $2.4 million (Slavin/Keen, USA Today, Feb. 12).

Doubt About Opposition Groups

Some officials and analysts have expressed skepticism about the capabilities of Iraqi opposition groups.  The Iraqi military is much stronger than the Taliban, and Iraqi opposition groups lack the abilities of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, some experts said (see GSN, Feb. 8).

“The INC is worthless,” said Melvin Goodman, a former CIA analyst (see GSN, Dec. 19, 2001).  “The Kurds are split down the middle with some of them cutting deals with Saddam, and the Shiites are not well organized” (Ken Silverstein, American Prospect, Feb. 11).

The Iraqi military “remains capable of defeating more poorly armed internal opposition groups,” said CIA Director George Tenet last week (John Lumpkin, Associated Press, Feb. 8).

U.S. Allies Urge Against Attacking Iraq

Meanwhile, several U.S. allies and friends expressed concern and urged the United States not to attack Iraq (see GSN, Feb. 8).  Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday in a Wall Street Journal interview that Russia opposes any unilateral U.S. moves against Iraq (see GSN, Feb. 11).

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said in response to Putin’s comments that the Bush administration has not ruled out any options.  Working with allies, including Russia, is critical, he said, but “different coalitions will be formed among different nations for different objectives.”

Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit also urged the United States against expanding the war on terrorism to Iraq.  “We don’t want a military action against Iraq,” he said yesterday (Jordan Times, Feb. 12).

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer also urged the United States against unilateral action.  “The international coalition against terror does not provide the basis to conduct something against someone, especially not alone,” Fischer said (Islamic Republic News Agency, Feb. 12).

Arab Reaction

Several Middle East countries added their voices to a chorus of concern about impending U.S. action.  Attacking Iraq “would be a mistake, which would complicate things and divide the camp of those who belong to the consensus against terrorism,” Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 29, 2001).  “I do not see the reason that would call for a strike on Iraq,” he added (Jordan Times, Feb. 12).

After concluding a meeting involving 21 Arab countries, the Arab Parliamentary Union said a U.S. attack on any Arab country would be unacceptable.

“The Arab Parliamentary Union (APU) unequivocally rejects any threats of using force against any Arab country and considers this as an aggression on the entire Arab nation,” and APU statement said (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 11).

Possible Allied Support?

Meanwhile, some Iraqi neighbors appear to reluctantly accept U.S. action against Iraq, USA Today reported.  Jordanian King Abdallah II told members of the U.S. Congress recently that he could accept a U.S. confrontation with Iraq, a source said.

Saudi officials have privately said they would support a realistic plan to overthrow Hussein, according to a Western source, who added that Saudi Arabia might allow U.S. forces to use Saudi territory as a base for action against Iraq.

Turkish officials have also indicated they would support military action as long as the United States consults Turkey and does not support Iraqi Kurds’ attempts to gain an independent state, diplomats said (Slavin/Keen, USA Today, Feb. 12).

Iraqi Reaction

Iraqi Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan yesterday renewed Iraq’s recent offer for dialogue with the United Nations without preconditions (see GSN, Feb. 6).

“We have shown our readiness for a useful and positive dialogue with the secretary general and his organization without preconditions,” he said, adding, “The two parties are free to bring up what they judge to be useful.”

Iraq could defeat any U.S. attack, Ramadan said, but he expressed skepticism that the United States is planning such action.

“America has been saying that over the past 12 years, and those who defend their sovereignty and country will defeat the aggressors, such as the arrogant Americans,” he said (Xinhua News Agency/China Daily, Feb. 11).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Arms Control Not the Answer, Gaffney Says

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is turning “about-face” in his recent comments on crafting a legally binding arms control document with Russia, Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, said yesterday in a column for National Review Online (see GSN, Feb. 7).

The seeming turnabout in the Bush administration’s policy toward arms control treaties with Russia can be attributed to two factors, Gaffney wrote.  The first is U.S. President George W. Bush’s desire to reward Russian President Vladimir Putin for his aid in the war on terrorism and his lack of complaint on the U.S. decision to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2001).  Putin has told the United States he wants a formal accord on the strategic offensive arms reductions the two countries have proposed, Gaffney wrote (see GSN, Feb. 1).

Second, Bush fails to appreciate how far his policies will be set back if “having so forcefully rejected the siren’s song of arms control, he were now to authorize … Powell’s State Department to resume its favorite type of ‘business as usual,’” Gaffney said.  Such business consists of treaties made in the belief of rough equality between the United States and Russia and an “unwarranted belief” that Russia will fulfill its side of the obligations, Gaffney wrote.

“President Bush had it right to begin with:  Arms-control treaties are more likely to prove a hindrance to more normal relations with Russia, not a catalyst for them,” Gaffney wrote.  He added that Russia will use the negotiations of such treaties to reassert itself as an equal to the United States, and in turn use that to gain influence among U.S. elites.

This influence could lead to a formal obligation to destroy warheads, rather than removing them to storage, which could lead to “compromising some of this country’s most sensitive secrets,” Gaffney wrote.  It also could lead to congressional pressure to back away from the decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty.

“Mr. Bush needs to stay the course,” and should only consider unilateral changes to the U.S. nuclear arsenal, Gaffney wrote.  “He should pursue regime change, not negotiated arms control, to mitigate the danger posed to us by real or potential enemies who cynically ignore their commitments pursuant to such accords — and by those who naively still think we can rely on the latter” (Frank Gaffney, National Review Online, Feb. 11).

Back to top

Threat Assessment:  Small Nuclear Bomb Would Devastate New York, Say Scientists

Using an official U.S. modeling program, three scientists concluded recently that a Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapon exploding in New York City would kill hundreds of thousands of people.

The consequences of such an attack are so great that nuclear weapons must be abolished to eliminate the risk, wrote Ira Helfand, Lachlan Forrow and Jaya Tiwari, last week in the British Medical Journal.

All members of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the three conducted a simulation involving a 12.5-kiloton nuclear explosion in the port area of New York City.  Their simulator was the Consequences Assessment Tool Set software developed by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency and Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

The simulated blast killed 52,000 people immediately, and 10,000 people died later of direct radiation exposure.  Another 34,000 people had nonfatal radiation sickness from direct exposure.  Radioactive fallout killed another 200,000 people and created several hundred thousand cases of radiation sickness.

The ability to aid survivors was limited in the simulation because the blast destroyed 1,000 hospital beds and contaminated other facilities.  Other medical facilities were overwhelmed (see GSN, Feb. 5).

A terrorist attack with a “dirty bomb” — a conventional explosive that spreads radioactive material — could also be very lethal (see GSN, Feb. 7).  If terrorists were to disperse a cask of spent fuel rods in Manhattan in the middle of the day, it would likely kill more than 2,000 people, according to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimate.

Attacks on nuclear installations could also have severe consequences.  An attack on either a nuclear reactor or a spent fuel pool “could equal or exceed the effects of the 1986 Chernoybl disaster, which led to 30 acute deaths from radiation sickness, at least 1,800 excess cases of childhood thyroid cancer” and contamination of large amounts of land, the authors wrote.

Preventing Proliferation

To eliminate this risk, the United States and its allies must work to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear materials, the authors said (see GSN, Feb. 5).  They mentioned several cases of attempted nuclear smuggling, including recent attempts by terrorist groups to break into Russian nuclear storage sites and the arrest of two men in Turkey for trying to sell weapon-grade uranium (see GSN, Nov. 7, 2001).

Russia’s large nuclear stockpile is a potential source of tens of thousands of tactical nuclear bombs and 603 metric tons of weapon-grade nuclear material, the authors wrote.  The United States is spending more than $900 million each year to safeguard the Russian stockpile, but, the authors wrote, that amount is less than a seventh of the U.S. national missile defense budget (see GSN, Jan. 10).  They urged the United States and other countries to increase assistance to Russia to protect its nuclear arsenal.

Only Option is to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons

“As long as there are stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the world, the possibility of nuclear terrorism remains,” the authors wrote.  The only conclusive way to end the threat is to eliminate nuclear weapons and implement “strict international control of all fissile materials” with potential weapons use, the authors wrote (British Medical Journal, Feb. 9).

Back to top

China:  Multiple-Warhead Missiles Could Defeat U.S. Missile Defenses, Analysts Say

U.S. defense analysts have said China is close to being able to overwhelm any U.S. ballistic missile defense system, the London Times reported today (see GSN, Jan. 10).

China is working to equip its most advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles, with ranges up to 8,000 miles, with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, according to the Times (see GSN, Nov. 13, 2001).

“It looks like the Chinese are much further [ahead] than we originally thought,” said one U.S. analyst.

China is believed to have recently increased its MIRV tests, the Times reported.  Early this month, the Japanese media reported a test of a Dongfeng-31 missile, which has a range of more than 5,000 miles (see GSN, Nov. 6, 2001).  The missile completed the first half of its trajectory and released separate warheads before disintegrating.  China is also believed to be testing a naval version of the Dongfeng-31, according to the Times (see GSN, Feb. 1).

China currently has about 20 long-range ICBMs, according to the Times.  The proposed U.S. missile defenses are expected to be able to counter attacks of up to 24 missiles.

If China were to equip its missiles with MIRVs, “it could easily overwhelm the shield,” the U.S. analyst said.  “That would change the balance of power in Asia” (Oliver August, London Times, Feb. 12).

Back to top

Japan:  Prosecutors Seek Death Penalty For Aum Shinrikyo Member

Japanese prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for a former senior member of the Aum Shinrikyo cult who has been charged with five counts involving attacks with chemical weapons, the Japanese news agency Kyodo reported today (see GSN, Jan 23).

Prosecutors requested the sentence in the closing arguments of the trial of Seiichi Endo, who admitted to helping produce the sarin gas used in the 1995 subway attack that killed 12 people.  Endo had a major role in the attack.  He took part in the planning, made the sarin, put it into bags and distributed preventive medicine to the persons who carried out the attack, according to the indictment.

Endo has also been charged with taking part in a 1994 sarin attack in Matsumoto, Japan, that killed seven people; the attempted murder, using sarin, of an attorney who was assisting cult members that wanted to leave the group and the attempted murder, using VX gas, of another man who was helping people quit the cult, according to Kyodo.

Endo said he acted on the instructions of the cult’s founder, Shoko Asahara, in the 1995 subway attack, but denied any intention to kill and said he did not know the sarin he produced was to be used in the attack.  Endo also denied any intention to kill in the Matsumoto attack and said he was only put on standby at the site (Kyodo/BBC Monitoring, Feb. 12).

Back to top

International Response:  United States Supports Code of Conduct

The United States supports the draft proposal of an international code of conduct, approved during a recent conference in Paris, to slow the proliferation of ballistic missiles, U.S. State Department officials said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 11).  The code is meant to supplement, and not replace, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the officials said.

“The draft International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation is intended to create a widely subscribed international predisposition against ballistic missile proliferation,” the officials said in a statement.  “It contains a set of broad principles, general commitments and modest building measures.  It is intended to be a voluntary political commitment, not a treaty, and will be open to all countries” (U.S. State Department release, Feb. 11).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Official Calls for Investigation Into Raytheon Kill-Vehicle Contract

A California congressman has called for an investigation into how the defense contractor Raytheon won the contract to build the kill vehicle for a U.S. missile defense system, the New York Times reported Saturday (see GSN, Jan. 28).

Representative Howard Berman (D-Calif.) asked the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to examine the contest between Raytheon and defense contractor Boeing for the contract.

In a letter to the GAO, Berman said Raytheon won the contract in 1998 after an internal Raytheon design document was found in Boeing’s possession.  Berman said he had been told Boeing found the Raytheon document “under a chair in a conference room,” where it had been accidentally left behind.  Industrial espionage is prohibited by Defense Department regulations, and Boeing ultimately conceded the contract fearing that Raytheon would sue, Berman said.

“It is unimaginable that a decision of this magnitude with such enormous implications for our national security could have been made to protect the legal and financial interests of one contractor,” Berman wrote to GAO head David Walker.

Boeing withdrew from the contest for other reasons, said Lt. Col. Richard Lehner, spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency.  Lehner said Boeing felt it had an institutional conflict since another Boeing team was in charge of developing the entire missile shield and managing the kill-vehicle competition (see GSN, Jan. 11).

Raytheon spokeswoman Colleen Niccum said Raytheon won the kill-vehicle contest because of its superior design (see GSN, Jan. 18).

The alleged spying incident and Raytheon’s subsequent award of the contract, “could end up costing the American taxpayers hundreds of million of dollars, given the performance problems associated with the Raytheon kill vehicle,” Berman said in his letter to the GAO.  The Raytheon design has hit its target three times and missed twice in flight tests, according to the Times.

The incident would be even more disturbing if Defense Department officials were found to be “aware of these circumstances and took no action,” Berman wrote (William Broad, New York Times, Feb. 9).

Back to top

Nuclear Waste:  Tunnel Fire Would Have Ruptured Casks, Report Says

A new report prepared for the state of Nevada says the casks to be used to ship nuclear waste to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository could not have withstood a fire such as the one in a Baltimore railroad tunnel last summer, the Baltimore Sun reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 8).

The Baltimore rail tunnel fire burned for three days and that duration, along with the intense heat, would have been enough to rupture the two types of storage containers used to transport spent nuclear fuel, according to the report compiled by Radioactive Waste Management for Nevada’s Agency for Nuclear Projects (see GSN, Feb. 4).

“While these containers are strong … they are not designed to withstand everything that could happen on a transportation route,” said Matthew Lamb, a co-author of the report.  “People who live along these routes should know what the possible consequences are.  I don’t want to be a fear monger.  The probability of these accidents is small, but it is not zero.”

If such an accident had occurred in Baltimore’s Howard Street Tunnel more than 300,000 people would have been exposed to radioactive materials leaking from the casks, according to the Sun.  Officials would have been forced to destroy entire sections of Baltimore to reduce radiation to safe levels, Lamb said.

“It’s either that, or the risk of a serious cancer hazard for the people who live close to where the accident took place and downwind,” he said.

Nuclear power supporters dismissed the report, according to the Sun.  Mitch Singer of the Nuclear Energy Institute said spent fuel has been safely transported by highway and railroad for 35 years.

Eileen Supko, an Energy Resources International nuclear engineer, said the storage containers are subjected to a strenuous testing program that includes thermal tests.  The thermal test submits the container to a fire of more than 1,400 degrees for 30 minutes, conditions that go beyond a real-life scenario, Supko said.  She added that containers would be transported on a flatbed truck or rail car, and in the event of a fire, the heat would be transferred from the container to the flat surface.

“Truthfully, the purpose of that report from the state of Nevada and its contractors was to stir things up and to scare people,” Supko said.  “A lot of the rhetoric from the anti-nuclear groups is to generate fear.  If you look at the history of spent nuclear shipments, not just in the United States but internationally, there has never been a release of radioactive materials from the containers” (Mike Adams, Baltimore Sun, Feb. 11).

Back to top