U.S. Response I:  Pentagon Ready to Recommend Domestic Command, Officials Say

The U.S. Defense Department is ready to recommend to President George W. Bush the creation of a new command to coordinate the military response to a terrorist attack within the United States, senior military officials said yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 28).

The new Northern Command would have a four-star general in charge of patrolling the air over U.S. cities, guarding coastlines and responding to terrorist attacks, the officials said.

The Northern Command would take control of at least two other existing military organizations, said Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.  It would incorporate the Joint Task Force Civil Support, a unit that responds to weapons of mass destruction attacks, and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), which controls air defense over the United States and Canada.

“We have started our discussions with our Canadian partners in this, and they understand that and are fine with it, Myers said (see GSN, Jan. 30).

The Sept. 11 attacks demonstrated the lack of coordination between various military units charged with responding to a terrorist attack, said U.S. Army Secretary Thomas White.

“There was no unity of command in the traditional sense that, if we were in Afghanistan, we would have had Central Command in charge,” White said.  “The intent of this plan would be that we’d treat North America like every other piece of ground in the world, and that is, we have unity of command for ground, air and naval forces.”

Civil liberties groups are opposing the new command, according to the New York Times.  They have charged that military troops are more likely to harm civilians and violate civil rights than police forces.

“We have very serious concerns about the military being involved in domestic security,” said Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.  “The military is not trained to follow, and its mission is not to respect, constitutional liberties.  Their mission is to use overwhelming force to defeat and kill the enemy” (James Dao, New York Times, Feb. 6).

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Officials Increase Bioterrorism Security at Winter Olympics

Federal and state officials have stepped up bioterrorism security measures at the upcoming Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Jan. 22).

“It’s almost a planned public health emergency,” said Patrick Meehan, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official in charge of Olympics preparations.  “You have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people descending on a city.”

The CDC has moved part of one of the eight “push packages” in the U.S. pharmaceutical stockpile to a secret location near the Olympics (see GSN, Jan. 29). Enough medication is being moved to treat a large number of people for a variety of diseases for hours until more medication can be sent, said Scott Williams, Utah’s Olympic health officer.

Utah and the CDC are also working together to increase surveillance for a bioterrorism attack, according to the AP.  Epidemiologists will monitor hospitals, pharmacies and Olympic facilities for any suspicious health problems to quickly detect such an attack.

“Once you start seeing cases, the amount of time you have left to respond is crushingly small,” said former CDC official C.J. Peters.  “So you’d better get the first case.”

About 500 Utah Health Department staff members will take part in the surveillance operation, the AP reported.  The CDC is sending several dozen of its staff, including some “disease detectives,” to assist in the effort.

“This is a much more intense level of surveillance than any state or local health department does regularly,” Williams said (Erin McClam, Associated Press, Feb. 6).

Back to top

Iran:  Tehran Says U.S. is Threatening Anti-Terror Coalition

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — Iran is taking strong exception to U.S. President George W. Bush’s characterization of Iran as part of “an axis of evil,” saying the United States is threatening “the cherished global momentum” against terrorism (see GSN, Jan. 30).  In a letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan on Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said his government “is disappointed about the overall approach” of the United States since it is “promoting a self-centered, unilateral and naive policy which focuses only on the threat or use of force against the United States.”

The United States and Iran have been tentative allies in the fight against the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, even to the point that Iran promised to rescue any U.S. pilots forced to crash land or eject from their aircraft over Iran.  A decisive change in the relationship came last month when Israel intercepted a ship loaded with weapons intended for the Palestinians.  Israel and the United States named Iran as the source of the weapons.

Kharrazi wrote, “A golden opportunity has presented itself to the international community to mobilize itself against violence and terrorism, which we shall seize with vision and foresight rather than unilateral, divisive, self-centered and provocative statements and actions.”

Turning Bush’s charge that Iran is seeking to produce weapons of mass destruction against the United States, Kharrazi wrote this accusation is “ironic” since the Bush administration “has systematically engaged in the dismantling and undermining of all international regimes against weapons of mass destruction.”  He said the United States had blocked consensus on a protocol to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention (see GSN, Dec. 10, 2001) and “is engaged in a systematic attempt to undermine the Chemical Weapons Convention.”

“It is this very administration that has made the unilateral withdrawal from the [Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty] and rejection of the [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty] as its most important crusade,” he said.  “This administration has made it abundantly clear that is does not seek transparent and rule-based multilateral regimes on weapons of mass destruction.”

He added that “unlike the United States, weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran’s defense doctrine.  Iran is fully committed to observing all relevant international instruments on prohibition of such weapons, and its compliance has been repeatedly verified by relevant international organizations.”

Kharrazi blamed “the sudden change in tone” in Bush’s State of the Union address last week on “the massive misinformation campaign of lies and deception by Israel against Iran … The public gloating of victory by various Israeli officials after the State of the Union address demonstrate the success of the current Israeli regime in high-jacking the anti-terrorism efforts and changing it to unconditional U.S. support for occupation, brutal suppression and unbridled state terrorism against Palestinian people.”

Although addressed to Annan, the letter asks nothing specific of the secretary general.  Annan’s spokesman said the secretary general had “no comment” on the letter.

Back to top

Iraq I:  U.S. Lacks Evidence of Iraqi Tie to Terrorism

Several U.S. intelligence officials have said the CIA has no evidence linking Iraq to anti-U.S. terrorist organizations, according to today’s New York Times.  There is also no evidence that Iraq has provided weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, although concerns remain about Iraq’s programs to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, the Times reported.

The Times article came after U.S. President George W. Bush’s State of the Union speech last week (see GSN, Jan. 30) in which he claimed that Iraq poses a threat to U.S. security due to its support for terrorism and attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction (James Risen, New York Times, Feb. 6).

“Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.  The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade,” Bush said (White House transcript, Jan. 29).

U.S. intelligence officials said, however, that the United States does not have enough information to prove Iraq has supported anti-U.S. terrorism (see GSN, Jan. 24).  The last known Iraqi attempt at terrorism was a failed operation to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush in 1993.

Some recent reports indicated that Iraq could have ties to terrorists, but intelligence officials said the information provided no substantial evidence.  U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Mohamed Atta, a leader of the terrorists who hijacked the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a mid-level Iraqi intelligence officer, in Prague, but the meeting does not necessarily tie Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks.  Iraqi President Saddam Hussein probably would not have trusted such important information to a mid-level officer, U.S. intelligence officials said.

Abu Nidal, a Palestinian terrorist who was active in the 1970s and early 1980s, moved to Iraq, intelligence agencies learned in 1998, but there is no evidence that Abu Nidal has participated in anti-U.S. activities since moving to Iraq, officials said (see GSN, Nov. 26, 2001).

Intelligence officials’ primary concern is Iraq’s attempt to develop weapons of mass destruction.  The country has worked to develop chemical and biological weapons since U.N. weapons inspectors left in 1998 (see related GSN story, today), and a CIA report released last week said Iraq is probably also pursuing nuclear weapons research (Risen, New York Times, Feb. 6).

International Reaction to Bush’s Statement and Potential U.S. Action

Much of the world has reacted with concern to speculation that the United States might increase pressure against Iraq and to Bush’s statement that Iraq, Iran, North Korea and terrorist groups form an “axis of evil” (see GSN, Jan. 31).

“The EU presidency, the EU commissioner for foreign affairs and the higher representative for the European foreign policy did not use the words stated by the U.S. and will not agree to this policy, rather refuse it, especially those [policies] pertaining to Iraq, Iran and [North] Korea,” said a spokesman for the European commissioner for foreign affairs.

“We, the Europeans, warn against threatening Iraq.  There is no evidence on that this country is involved in terrorism, but it seems that the U.S. wants to make Iraq pay bills,” said the German minister of state at the Foreign Ministry (ArabicNews.com, Feb. 5).

Saudi Prince Supports Assistance to Iraqi Opposition Groups

Meanwhile, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal said the United States should support Iraqi opposition groups’ attempts to overthrow Saddam Hussein during an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press.

“I think that any change in Iraq, with the Iraqi regime and toppling of Saddam Hussein, must come from inside Iraq.  And there are people inside Iraq who want to do that,” al-Faisal said.

“If you send invasion forces from outside, you will only rally people to Saddam Hussein, particularly in Iraq … We believe the way to go is from inside Iraq, and the U.S. can help in that, and we will work closely with you on that,” he said (Meet the Press transcript, Feb. 3).

Back to top

Iraq II:  U.S. Gives Cool Reception to Iraqi Offer for U.N. Talks

Iraq’s offer to resume talks with the United Nations “without preconditions” drew a cool response from the United States yesterday, while Russia considered the development in a positive light (see GSN, Feb. 5).

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said any U.N.-Iraq discussion should be short.

“The inspectors have to go back in under our terms, under no one else’s terms, under the terms of the Security Council resolution,” Powell said.  “The burden is on this evil regime to demonstrate to the world that they are not doing the kinds of things we suspect them of” (see related GSN story, today).

Some Arab countries also responded with caution.  “They [Iraq’s leaders] have to take steps, but they also have to have a clear picture of where to go from here,” said Arab League spokesman Hisham Youssef.

“They say they want to settle the problems with their neighbors, the problems with the U.N.  We’ve been there before,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher (Howard Schneider, Washington Post, Feb. 6).

Russia Hopeful

Meanwhile, Russia has proposed that Iraq allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return in exchange for a suspension of U.N. sanctions, said Russian official Yevgeny Yagupets yesterday — a day after the United Nations announced that Iraq offered to hold talks.

“It is a fairly realistic prospect.  It should happen before the end of May when the current sanctions regime ends,” he said (see GSN, Jan. 11).  “The signs are good.  They are ready to restore contact with the United Nations.”

Under Russia’s proposal, the United Nations would immediately suspend sanctions against Iraq once Iraq allows inspectors to return, and it would completely lift sanctions once inspections are finished (see GSN, Jan. 18).

Yagupets added that any inspection teams should not include U.S. or British personnel.

“There should be no U.S. or British inspectors.  There are qualified experts from other countries in the U.N. Security Council — Russia, China and France.  You have to appreciate Iraqi sensitivities,” he said.

Meanwhile, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said he opposes Russia’s proposal because it links lifting sanctions to a renewal of weapons inspections (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 5).

Back to top

U.S-Russia:  Arms Reduction Agreements Could be Legally Binding, Powell Says

The offensive strategic arms reduction agreements announced recently by U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2001) could be made “legally binding,” U.S. State Secretary Colin Powell said yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 16).

“It can be an executive agreement that both houses of Congress might wish to speak on, or it might be a treaty,” Powell said during testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  “And we’re exploring with Russia and we’re discussing within the administration the best way to make this a legally binding or codified agreement in some way” (Federal News Service transcript, Feb. 5).

The agreement could be codified in one of three possible ways, according to arms control experts.  One way would be through an executive agreement that would be signed by Bush and Putin.  In the agreement, each country would state its reduction targets.  The two sides could also draft a treaty that would include a verification process for the reductions, or Bush could issue a presidential proclamation that would reassure Russian concerns over U.S missile defense plans, the sources said (Slevin/Pincus, Washington Post, Feb. 6).

Powell’s testimony marks a shift in U.S. policy, said a senior U.S. official (Los Angeles Times, Feb. 6).

“You Want MIRV?  Go Ahead.”

The United States is considering carrying over the verification and transparency features of the START I arms reduction treaty into any new legally binding agreement, Powell said (see GSN, Dec. 10, 2001).  He also addressed Russia’s concerns over keeping its force of ICBMs armed with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), which are prohibited by the signed, but unratified START II.

Russia has cautioned that it might retain or increase its MIRVed ICBM forces in light of U.S. plans to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.  Russia conditioned its ratification of START II on the continued U.S. adherence to the ABM Treaty, and some officials have recently said Russia should contemplate not adhering to START II provisions.

“President Bush has said to President Putin:  ‘You want MIRV?  Go ahead,’” Powell said in his testimony.

The United States and Russia no longer need to be “in a lock-step symmetry” as they did during the Cold-War era, and each country can take what measures it feels are needed to defend itself, Powell said.

“And if the Russians had decided, ‘Well, we’re going to pick a different number [for warhead reductions] and we don’t want a legally binding agreement,’ that would have been fine with the president.  It would have been fine with me,” he said (Federal News Service transcript, Feb. 5).

Back to top

Iran:  Russian Nuclear Institute Aids Weapon Scientists

Russian sources have said Iranian scientists are acquiring nuclear weapons expertise in Russia to help accelerate Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the Australian reported today (see GSN, Jan. 31).

A handful of Iranian nuclear scientists were working last week at the Nikiet nuclear research institute outside of Moscow, according to the Australian (see GSN, Jan. 15).  The institute focuses on the development of Chernobyl-type nuclear reactors (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2001).

“They are here unofficially and have been told to keep as low a profile as possible,” a Russian intelligence source was quoted as saying.  “They are being taught and are gaining experience they cannot get at home.  It is hardly a secret that the Iranians are in a race to develop nuclear weapons” (Baxter/Franchetti, Australian, Feb. 6).

Back to top

U.S Response I:  Bush Aims to Boost Bioterrorism Preparedness

By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The unprecedented $6 billion that U.S. President George W. Bush wants to pump into bioterrorism protection in fiscal 2003 indicates how ill prepared the nation’s health system is to handle any biological attacks, health care officials said today.

The record funding levels are needed not only to boost the capabilities of hospitals and medical staffs around the country, but also to research and develop new vaccines and antidotes, the officials said (see GSN, Feb. 5).

The White House budget request includes $1.6 billion geared to increase the capacity of state and local health care systems to respond to a bioterrorism attack by building overflow facilities, providing equipment and training doctors and nurses.  Another $2.4 billion is slated to boost the research and development of vaccines and antidotes, and the final $2 billion is earmarked to boost current vaccine stockpiles and improve communication abilities.

“There are some facilities [across the country] that have the capabilities to handle a bioterrorism attack now, but many more do not,” Herbert Herscowitz, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Georgetown University Medical Center, told Global Security Newswire this morning.  “We also need money for training.  It’s sorely needed.”

“Our nation’s hospitals stand in the first line of defense against potential incidents that could involve large-scale casualties, including bioterrorism and chemical terrorism,” Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said yesterday in a news conference.  “They must be ready to respond effectively, and they need the nation’s assistance to become prepared.”

The federal government has already begun the process of bolstering the capabilities of hospitals nationwide with more than $2.2 billion allotted for bioterrorism preparedness in this year’s budget, but these resources and the additional funds requested for fiscal 2003 are simply a “down payment” for a long-term plan to dramatically improve the health care system, Thompson said.

“Some of that money is going to waste.  There’s no help for that,” Tara O’Toole, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies, said in November.  “We have got to get money to the local level very quickly in order to just get some raw capacity in there.”

State and Local Funds

Of the $1.6 billion requested for state and local health care systems, the largest share — $591 million — is earmarked for improving the infrastructure and response capabilities of hospitals, according to a White House budget release.  The funds would be used to build overflow annexes, decontamination facilities and communication systems.  They would also be used to devise training activities and coordination plans “that will help public health and emergency response communities work together better,” the release said.

The state and local health care section of the budget also includes $210 million for states to assess their existing capabilities to respond to biological attacks and to strengthen their abilities to do so, the release said.  An additional $200 million would boost state laboratory systems to speed up the collection and identification of biological or chemical agents, according to the release.

“Our first goal is to ensure that hospitals on the front lines have the capacity to identify the signs of biological attack and to be prepared to respond to biological and chemical incidents,” Thompson said.

“In addition, hospitals must be better prepared to control infection for communicable diseases,” he continued.  “We also want to help hospitals purchase the equipment they need, including personal protective equipment, to enable them to maintain service, control infection and decontaminate as needed.”

Vaccine and Antidote R&D

Of the $2.4 billion earmarked for aggressive research and development of vaccines and antidotes in the budget request, $1.75 billion would go to the National Institutes of Health.

“We know exactly what we’re going to spend our money on,” Anthony Fauci, director of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told GSN yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 4).

Basic research and development to study the fundamentals of pathogens such as anthrax or smallpox — and how the human body reacts to them — would take up $441 million, Fauci said.  The agency would spend $592 million on discovery and development of vaccines and drugs that would hopefully stem the effects of biological weapon agents, he said.

Clinical research would take up $195 million, with $520 million used to build special facilities to conduct research with the deadly agents, Fauci said.  “You can’t do this [research] in a regular lab,” Fauci said.

“It’s going to be a nice blend,” he said.  “We’ve been massaging this budget for some time.  I think we have an enormous opportunity, and we’re going to deliver” some promising results.

“Ring Containment”

If there is a biological weapons attack before the hospitals and state and local health care systems are fully prepared to respond, officials believe that doctors, nurses, paramedics and other first responders will rise to the challenge, even though they acknowledge they are currently poorly prepared.

“We do have the means at this point to contain and quarantine,” said Georgetown’s Herscowitz.

Currently the CDC advocates a “ring containment” strategy modeled after the World Health Organization method that successfully eradicated smallpox around the globe by 1980 (see GSN, Nov. 27, 2001).  If one person is exposed to a contagious, potentially lethal biological agent, local authorities quickly need to quarantine them and at least the last 20 people who had been in contact with them.  Sources said the crucial factor in such worrisome scenarios is rapidly identifying the outbreak, so it can be contained.  Hence, doctors, emergency crews and other local officials on the front lines need to have as much funding and training as possible, they said.

“I think it’s pretty apparent to people by now, following the anthrax attacks, that medicine and public health is at the heart of a response to bioweapons threats,” O’Toole said in November.  “In the search for [financial] efficiency we have eliminated all excess capability … the public health system is in even worse shape.”

“It’s important to be able to recognize what’s happening,” Bush said yesterday.  “Secondly, we’ve got to respond in a modern way, a way that will help the American people survive any [biological] attack if it were to come.”

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Bush Calls For Early Warning System

U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday called for developing an early warning system to protect against future biological warfare attacks, inspired by the Cold War-era Distant Early Warning System (see GSN, Jan. 14).

“Some of us remember that back in the ’50s we had what was called the DEW line on the Arctic Circle, to warn us if enemy bombers were coming over the North Pole to attack America,” Bush said during a speech in Pittsburgh.

The next DEW line for biological attacks would be based on the Realtime Outbreak and Disease Surveillance System (RODS) developed by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh, Bush said.  The system monitors, in real time, disease outbreaks at emergency rooms throughout western Pennsylvania.  A version of the system will be used at area hospitals near the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, according to the New York Times (see related GSN story, today).

“We’ve got to be able to talk to each other better,” Bush said.  “We were able to save lives during the anthrax outbreak, but some infections were identified too late, and some people were too badly infected to save” (David Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 6).

Since it first became operational in 1999, the RODS system has been used primarily to monitor spikes in influenza and diarrhea cases in western Pennsylvania, said Michael Wagner, director of the system.

The RODS system monitors 1,200 patient visits from 17 area-hospitals per day, Wagner said.  The system looks for suspicious increases in the number of patients with flu-like symptoms, respiratory problems, diarrhea, encephalitis and hemorrhaging, among other concerns.  The data used by the surveillance system do not identify individual patients.

When the system does detect something, it immediately pages a public health doctor, who then can alert the appropriate county health department.  This kind of immediate warning and response is important in the event of a bioterrorism attack, according to researchers.

“If you suddenly get 20 or 30 extra people coming in from across the region complaining of respiratory problems … and if you suddenly see that they’re all from one specific location or all from one occupation, then that raises a really big red flag,” said Andrew Moore, a computer sciences professor at Carnegie Mellon University (Christopher Snowbeck, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Feb. 6).

Back to top

Smallpox:  U.S. Could Dilute Vaccine Stockpile, Study Indicates

Early results from a U.S. National Institutes of Health study indicate the United States could dilute the 15 million smallpox vaccine doses it has to provide vaccines to at least 75 million people in the event of a biological attack (see GSN, Dec. 6, 2001).

The study, which began in October, compares results from 600 volunteers who tried full-strength, one-fifth strength and one-tenth strength vaccines.  So far, all the volunteers have developed sores where the vaccine was injected — a sign that the vaccine is working to trigger the immune system, said D.A. Henderson, director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness in the Health and Human Services Department.

The study is “going very well,” Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said.  The government will probably publish the study’s results later this month or in early March, Fauci said.

Scientists also intended to use the study to test the ability of the drug cidofovir to treat vaccine side effects, but there probably have been too few participants to adequately test such treatments, Henderson said (see GSN, Jan. 29).

“My understanding is we haven’t had complications in the dilution study,” he said.

Meanwhile, the United States has ordered 200 million new smallpox vaccine doses (see GSN, Nov. 29, 2001), scheduled to arrive by the end of the year (Marilyn Chase, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 6).

Back to top

Russia:  United States Will Release Funding For Disposal Plant, Powell Says

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday said that U.S. bureaucratic approval is nearly complete for Russia to receive $50 million in funding to aid chemical weapons disposal efforts (see GSN, Feb. 4).  Russia had to meet six criteria before the U.S. funding for the Shchuchye chemical weapons disposal plant would be released (see GSN, Feb. 1).

“On Shchuchye, I think we finally got the certification cleared up,” Powell said during testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“I assured [Russian chemical disarmament official Sergei Kiriyenko] that I think we’re almost there, and that will release $50 million, if my memory serves me correctly,” he said (Federal News Service transcript, Feb. 5).

Back to top

Nuclear Waste:  DOE Knows Yucca Mountain Will Leak, Expert Says

The U.S. Energy Department has known since 1995 that the geology of Yucca Mountain would make an insufficient defense against radioactive contamination, a former head of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project said yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 28).

The mountain’s rock formations were discovered to be “far inferior to that originally expected” for protecting air and groundwater from radioactive leaks, said John Bartlett, who headed the project from 1990 to 1993.

Instead, Energy is relying almost solely on the features of waste storage canisters for protection, a move that makes the need for an underground waste burial site, such as Yucca Mountain, obsolete, Bartlett said (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2001).

“Geographical isolation cannot and will not play any significant role whatsoever at the Yucca Mountain repository during the regulatory compliance period,” Bartlett said.  “The project has become simply an array of engineered waste packages that happen to be located 1,000 feet underground.”

In a 1982 order to the department, Congress required that the decision on a waste repository site should be based primarily on geologic characteristics, according to the Washington Post.  A review that began in 1992 aimed at bringing the rules in line with stricter Environmental Protection Agency standards.  In December, Energy changed to rules based on a combination of geologic factors and the manufactured storage canisters in order to meet new standards.

Energy officials denied Bartlett’s claims and said they continue to support a protection system based on both natural and manufactured barriers (see GSN, Jan. 11).  They added that Bartlett is a consultant for Nevada, which is opposed to the Yucca Mountain Project (see GSN, Feb. 4).

“DOE followed the intent of Congress, the regulations put forward by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the opinion of the scientific community as a whole in saying that man-made and natural barriers would ensure that we could protect the public if we built [the repository at] Yucca Mountain,” said Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis.  “Mr. Bartlett’s accusation … is wrong” (Eric Pianin, Washington Post, Feb. 6).

Back to top