 |
We’ve been finding stuff that’s far more potent and dangerous than even ‘dirty bombs.’
—Capt. James Cameron, head of the British military WMD team in Afghanistan, on the discovery of radioactive and other materials that had been successfully hidden from the Taliban by Afghan scientists.
By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — A national strategy to prepare the United States for terrorist or WMD attacks is scheduled to be presented to President George W. Bush in June by Office of Homeland Security officials, a Bush administration official said yesterday...Full Story 
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has asked a scientific advisory board to study the potential for using nuclear-tipped interceptors to destroy enemy missiles, the Washington Post reported today...Full Story
Two Afghan nuclear scientists showed British soldiers last week a cache of radioactive equipment that they had concealed from the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, March 25)...Full Story
Wouter Basson, the former head of apartheid-era South Africa’s chemical and biological weapons program, was found not guilty today of 46 criminal charges, including the murder and attempted murder of anti-apartheid activists (see GSN, April 10)...Full Story
 |
By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — A national strategy to prepare the United States for terrorist or WMD attacks is scheduled to be presented to President George W. Bush in June by Office of Homeland Security officials, a Bush administration official said yesterday.
If approved by Bush, the strategy would provide a roadmap for the multitude of federal, state and local agencies involved in homeland defense, many of which have been competing against each other for the same roles and resources, the official said during a wide-ranging speech sponsored by the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
Although the speech was off the record, an OHS spokeswoman gave Global Security Newswire permission to report the official’s remarks.
“It tries to be a national strategy, not just a federal strategy. We try to speak not just for the federal executive branch but for everyone in America,” the official said.
“We need to distribute it across many different actors,” he said, referring to the plethora of “different, disconnected, variously located and sized” federal, state and local organizations that participate in homeland security.
“It will at least lay out a plan, a sort of format that people can see, hopefully agree to, accept and then use to organize their own activities.”
Any strategy put forth by OHS Director Tom Ridge will not have executive power because Ridge does not hold a Cabinet position, but if Bush backs the plan, as analysts expect, it will likely carry a lot of influence.
Money Big Issue
Bush administration officials have proposed spending $38 billion on homeland security in fiscal 2003, including $6 billion for bioterrorism, $2 billion for border security and $3.5 billion for first responders (see GSN, Feb. 6).
First responders, including International Association of Firefighters officials scheduled to testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee today, have been clamoring for the proposed funds — and demanding some sort of national guidance on how to best prepare for terrorist and weapons of mass destruction attacks (see GSN, March 19).
Before the fiscal 2003 funds are distributed, OHS officials want to make sure there is a national strategy in place that tries to avoid the current overlaps, oversights or redundancies among the various federal, state and local players, the official said.
“Right now what we’re seeing is confusion about who’s supposed to do what,” the official said.
“We have an argument between the federal government and the states and the local governments on who should pay for different and new activities under homeland security, and of course everyone wants the other guy to pay.”
The competition, the official said, includes not only struggles between different agencies within the “federal family” but also among various offices within agencies.
In Congress there are varied committees that “oversee the exact same thing,” and there are competitions within the state, municipal and county governments across the country, the official said.
White House officials, he said, “have an argument with the private sector about who’s supposed to kick in and incur this cost. Should it be borne by the general revenue or should it be borne by a customer base for a product?
“I’ve been astonished at how much of my time is spent on resource issues — who’s going to pay what?” the official added. “After about a month or two, post-Sept. 11, all of a sudden these sort of green eyeshades came out and took over the debate.”
U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill is facing private disagreement from European allies over which terrorist finances to block and how, the Wall Street Journal reported today (see GSN, April 9).
U.S. officials have said European countries have not blocked the assets of many entities and people on a U.S.-sponsored list of 192 terrorist financiers and have added few names (see GSN, March 8).
The United States has identified 165 entities and people it believes sponsor terrorists and has asked its allies to freeze their assets. Spain has provided 21 entities allegedly related to Basque extremists, and the United Kingdom has added six entities allegedly involved with extremists in Northern Ireland.
Germany and France have moved to block the assets of 140 names on the list but have provided no additional names. The two countries have refused to block assets of several organizations, including the Palestinian group Hamas.
Despite disagreements over certain names, the United States has blocked $34 million in assets it believes are tied to terrorism while Europeans have blocked $35 million and other countries have blocked another $35 million, according to the Journal.
Although it is unclear what percentage of total terrorist funding that blocks, U.S. intelligence reports have indicated al-Qaeda has had difficulty accessing its money. Terrorists are “finding it very difficult to secure and move funds,” O’Neill said, but the work is “a long way from complete.”
Resistance
The United States has not provided evidence to prove certain entities and people it placed on the financiers’ list are connected to terrorism, said some European officials.
“Before we can take action, we have to have evidence that will stand up in court,” said one German financial investigator. “The U.S. attitude seems to be accuse first and stir up a great fuss but not actually provide evidence … We have other standards.”
Also, the European Union permits freezing accounts only when the United Nations agrees the group with the account is related to al-Qaeda or the Taliban, according to the Journal. O’Neill has asked Germany and France to push the EU to change those rules quickly.
Some European countries are also less willing to meet U.S. demands on freezing assets due to certain U.S. foreign policies. The United States is concerned its support for Israel could damage European attempts to crack down on Islamist extremist groups, according to the Journal.
O’Neill has also had difficulty focusing discussions on terrorist financing because Europeans strongly oppose U.S. tariffs on imported steel.
Germany has also said the United States should take action against tax havens in the Caribbean and elsewhere that do not monitor money transfers and therefore ease the process of transferring money to potentially dangerous organizations. Some U.S. politicians have expressed concerns about a campaign against tax havens.
Middle East
Meanwhile, the United States has also been pressuring other allies to crack down on terrorist financing. U.S. officials will attend a May conference in the United Arab Emirates to discuss the hawala system, a traditional money transfer system that maintains few records of financial transactions (see GSN, Nov. 8, 2001).
A U.S. Treasury team is currently in Bahrain this week to observe discussions on how Persian Gulf countries should regulate Islamic charities. The United States has placed several such charities on the list of alleged terrorist financiers (Phillips/Johnson, Wall Street Journal, April 11).
|
 |
Two Afghan nuclear scientists showed British soldiers last week a cache of radioactive equipment that they had concealed from the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, March 25).
Mohammed Jan Naziri and Jora Mohammed Korbani led a team from the British Joint Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Regiment to the ruins of the Aliabad mental hospital in Kabul and the basement of the Kabul University’s nuclear physics department. Naziri, Korbani and other scientists moved several radioactive items from the university’s laboratories into the two hiding places when the Taliban entered Kabul in 1996, they said.
The items included a broken radiotheraphy machine containing enough cobalt-60 to kill a person instantly, chemical warfare agents, instruments emitting radiation and containers of solid and liquid radioactive material, some broken or without lids, the Times reported.
“We’ve been finding stuff that’s far more potent and dangerous than even ‘dirty bombs,’” said Capt. James Cameron, head of the British team (see GSN, March 20). Much of the equipment was from the Soviets “who used far higher doses of radiation than we would,” said Cameron, adding that the Afghan mujahideen had damaged some of the containers in the early 1990s.
Al-Qaeda might have been able to construct several dirty bombs — conventional explosives laced with radioactive material — with the materials in the two caches, he said.
“But al-Qaeda and the Taliban never knew about it. The atomic scientists tore up their papers and never said a word,” Cameron said.
The scientists hid the equipment and materials in the two locations and stored them between lead sheets without using any protective clothing. “We didn’t really know how radioactive some of the sources were,” Naziri said. “We just tried to protect them.”
They also destroyed their research and papers on nuclear physics.
Recruitment Efforts
The Taliban registered the professors’ names but did little else.
“They didn’t understand anything about physics or what we were doing, but we knew they were looking for physics and chemistry experts,” Korbani said.
Later “an Arab who spoke Pashtu and Farsi poorly,” according to Naziri, tried to talk with the scientists, but Naziri refused and said he could not do anything without permission from the Atomic Energy Authority. The man never returned.
An aid organization called “Chand Groupi,” or “Multi Group,” contacted Korbani and asked him for assistance. The organization was linked to the Ummah Tameer-e-Nau charity, which was run by Pakistani scientist Sultan Bashiru-din Mehmood, who later came under suspicion for passing nuclear information to al-Qaeda (see GSN, March 4).
“They said to me, ‘We know you’re working for the faculty of nuclear science, and we need you,’” Korbani said. “They offered me a lot of money and said that they wanted me to find 100 other nuclear scientists and technicians and come to Karachi.”
“They told me, ‘Pakistan has a very powerful atomic bomb, and we are very keen on bringing such a power to Afghanistan,’” Korbani said. “They kept calling me, but I never returned (the calls). I knew it was too dangerous” (Julian West, Washington Times, April 11).
Unclear guidelines could cause military technology leaks from U.S. Army scientists who work with civilian and non-U.S. partners, a congressional investigator said Monday.
“There is a need for the Army to clarify its guidance on technology transfers,” said Katherine Schinasi — director of acquisition and sourcing management at the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress — in a letter to Claude Bolton, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology.
From August 2001 through February 2002, GAO investigators reviewed technology control procedures for 25 agreements between nonfederal partners and two Army laboratories — the Army Research Laboratory at Adelphi, Maryland and the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Ft. Detrick, Maryland.
According to Schinasi, the investigators could not determine to what extent Army officials had ensured that the agreements comply with U.S. export control regulations. There is no “documentary evidence” to indicate that officials had reviewed the agreements for such compliance, Schinasi said.
“Each Army laboratory needs to ensure that the results of [export control] reviews are documented,” she said.
Currently laboratories must consult with the U.S. Trade Representative when forming partnerships with nonfederal entities, but the Trade Representative said its expertise in export controls is insufficient, Schinasi said. The office has referred the laboratories to the State and Commerce departments, “which are the government agencies involved in export control,” she said.
Recommendations
The GAO suggested that the Army, which is already working to revise related regulations, should include procedures for ensuring that technology transfers from Army laboratories comply with U.S. export control regulations.
“At a minimum, those procedures should require that appropriate laboratory officials determine if the Department of State’s international traffic in arms regulations, the Department of Commerce’s export administration regulations, or other appropriate Department of Defense guidance require control of the technology to be transferred,” Schinasi said.
She added that the new regulations should also require laboratory officials to “document the results of such determinations in the official … files” (General Accounting Office release, April 9).
The U.N. Disarmament Commission plans to meet next week to decide whether the busy U.N. schedule warrants a delay in the commission’s 2002 substantive session, the United Nations said yesterday.
Yesterday the commission debated a proposal to cancel the 2002 session, which would delay consideration of two items on its agenda until next year, including ways to achieve nuclear disarmament, the United Nations said in a press release.
One commission delegate proposed holding the 2002 session in July and the commission is scheduled to meet on April 17 to consider that proposal (U.N. release, April 10).
|
 |
U.S. envoy Jack Pritchard said today that he hopes to visit North Korea next month to resume dialogue between Pyongyang and Washington. U.S. and North Korean officials will meet in New York next week to discuss a date for the visit, Pritchard said (see GSN, April 10).
South Korean envoy Lim Dong-won, who visited North Korean leader Kim Jong Il last week in a move to restart North-South talks, said North Korea has expressed willingness to meet with Pritchard (C.W. Lim, Agence France-Presse, April 11).
Before Lim’s meeting, officials had refused to allow Pritchard to visit North Korea, saying his position was too low in the official hierarchy (Howard French, New York Times, April 11).
Pritchard met with Lim and other South Korean officials today (Lim, Agence France-Presse).
South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, who was hospitalized yesterday for leg pain and loss of appetite, has been concerned his policy of engagement with North Korea is failing as his presidential term winds down and the United States insists North Korea deal with U.S. concerns about weapons of mass destruction, according to the New York Times. Kim has been using secret diplomatic channels through China since January to try to resume talks with North Korea, the Times reported.
Lim tried to convince North Korean leaders that the United States is serious about dealing with concerns related to North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction.
“Lim spent five hours with Chairman Kim trying to persuade him that the United States he is dealing with has really changed and that this goes way beyond rhetoric,” said a South Korean with knowledge of Lim’s discussions in North Korea.
“His most important message was that brinkmanship no longer works. Another round of that would create a major military crisis on the Korean peninsula. On the other hand, he said that [U.S. President George W. Bush] is willing to engage with Pyongyang if it shows sincerity on some of the major issues,” the South Korean said (French, New York Times).
Pakistan has created an Army Strategic Force Command led by Lt. Gen. Ghulam Mustafa, the Pakistani army said, according to the Press Trust of India (see GSN, Nov. 12, 2001).
The army announcement provided few details on the purpose and operational role of the strategic command, but Indian experts said the command’s creation is a sign that Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is working to keep the nuclear arsenal firmly under control (see GSN, March 18).
Assigning Mustafa to lead the command is part of a major recent reshuffling of Pakistani military commanders, PTI reported.
The Indian military also is considering creating a strategic forces command for its nuclear weapons (Press Trust of India, April 10).
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, which oversees the CTBT, has enlisted the aid of the International Seismological Center in London to help detect covert nuclear weapons testing by better analyzing seismological data, CTBTO Executive Secretary Wolfgang Hoffmann said yesterday.
The organization will share information collected in 2000 and 2001 with the center, he said. The data will help the center improve its research and help develop new ways to detect testing, said Raymond Willemann, who directs the center.
“In the long run, it will help us develop new better methods for locating both earthquakes and explosions that might be (potential) treaty violations, Willemann said (Susanna Loof, Associated Press, April 11).
Meanwhile in Australia, officials plan to open a listening station next week in Western Australia that will be capable of detecting nuclear testing.
The station will be part of a system of 321 listening stations worldwide that monitor compliance with the CTBT. It is expected to be the first of 20 to be built in Australia, said Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. The station will monitor for evidence of underwater nuclear testing in the Indian and South Pacific Oceans, he said (AAP Newsfeed, April 10).
Iran’s Silence Worries CTBT Organization
Since the end of January, Iran has stopped submitting data to the CTBT Organization to verify it has been abiding by the proposed ban on nuclear testing, Hoffmann said (see GSN, March 8).
“This worries us. We are talking to the Iranians and the Iranians have told us that their parliament has raised questions about the legal obligations of Iran in connection with sending data,” Hoffmann said. “The government is working with parliament to clear this question. So I hope they will start sending data again” (Loof, Associated Press).
|
 |
The U.S. Army and the National Institutes of Health plan to build new biological defense research facilities at Fort Detrick, Md., the current home of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, officials said yesterday (see GSN, April 10).
USAMRIID will add a facility to expand the unit’s research capabilities, said Fort Detrick commander Maj. Gen. Lester Martinez-Lopez, and NIH plans to build its own facility at Fort Detrick that will have a biosafety level-4 rating. Such a level of protection will permit researchers to work with the most dangerous pathogens, according to the Associated Press.
Funds for the $105 million NIH facility will come from the $1.5 billion President George W. Bush has proposed giving NIH for bioterrorism defense research in fiscal 2003, said Jack Killen, assistant director for biological defense research at the NIH National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (see GSN, March 15).
“This is a new need for us, to be moving into biodefense research,” Killen said (David Dishneau, Associated Press, April 11).
|
 |
Wouter Basson, the former head of apartheid-era South Africa’s chemical and biological weapons program, was found not guilty today of 46 criminal charges, including the murder and attempted murder of anti-apartheid activists (see GSN, April 10).
“I find the accused not guilty on all the charges,” said Judge Willie Hartzenberg before the crowded Pretoria courtroom.
Whites in the audience applauded at the judge’s decision to acquit Basson, dubbed “Dr. Death,” according to Reuters. State prosecutors said they would go to court on April 29 to obtain permission to appeal the verdict.
The audience at Basson’s trial included both prominent former officials from South Africa’s apartheid government and residents of a nearby township, Reuters reported.
“It seems very unfair to me,” said Sidney Maladzhi. “Many people died and the judge did nothing about it. There was so much evidence against him.”
“Justice has been done and the judge was very fair,” said Constand Viljoen, a former general in apartheid-era South Africa’s military (Sue Thomas, Reuters/Yahoo.com, April 11).
|
 |
|
 |
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has asked a scientific advisory board to study the potential for using nuclear-tipped interceptors to destroy enemy missiles, the Washington Post reported today.
William Schneider, chairman of the Defense Science Board, said yesterday that Rumsfeld had encouraged him to begin studying the idea.
“We’ve talked about it as something that he’s interested in looking at,” Schneider told the Post. He said he plans this summer to begin a review of the nuclear option and other alternatives to current hit-to-kill tactics.
A Pentagon review of missile defense options during the first months of U.S. President George W. Bush’s term considered nuclear interceptors but did not suggest funding programs to develop such interceptors, according to two officials.
The Pentagon experimented with nuclear-tipped interceptors and deployed an anti-missile system with them for a short period in the mid-1970s but later abandoned the idea due to public concerns about nuclear explosions overhead and questions about ionized clouds and electromagnetic shock waves, according to the Post. Missile defense plans since then have focused on destroying targets using a hit-to-kill system in which the interceptor destroys the target by slamming into it.
An anti-missile system around Moscow that was built in the 1960s and remains today relies on nuclear-armed interceptors. Russian officials are concerned the United Sates will decide to use nuclear explosions in its missile defense plans, said Pavel Podvig, editor of a book on Russian strategic nuclear forces (see related GSN story, today).
“They believe strongly that you cannot get an effective missile defense using hit-to-kill,” he said.
Advantages
Possessing a missile defense system that uses interceptors with nuclear explosives to destroy missiles has some potential advantages over the hit-to-kill tactic, according to Schneider.
A hit-to-kill interceptor must distinguish between an enemy missile and decoys (see GSN, April 10). An interceptor that sets off a nuclear explosion, however, could destroy everything around it — including decoys and the missile, Schneider said.
Nuclear interceptors might also be able to destroy biological warfare agents carried in a missile, he added.
Disadvantages
If an enemy missile is carrying a biological agent, however, destroying all of the agent could require “a very large warhead — more than a megaton — to destroy anthrax spores in bomblets that may be spread over a distance of five kilometers or more,” said Richard Garwin of the Council on Foreign Relations.
More importantly, a nuclear interceptor could emit an electromagnetic pulse that would pose a serious threat to a technologically integrated society like the United States that relies on radar and electronic equipment, Garwin said.
A nuclear explosion in space could also endanger many U.S. civilian and military satellites, he added (Bradley Graham, Washington Post, April 11).
Russia plans to have several components of a missile defense system modernized by this fall, the Russian newspaper Izvestiya reported Tuesday (see GSN, Feb. 11).
Officials have not discussed the idea of a concerted effort to develop a national missile defense program, said Vladimir Simonov, general director of the Russian Agency for Control Systems. There have been concerns, however, that Russia’s scientific and technical knowledge in the field are being wasted, prompting the modernization program, he said.
“The main task today is to get the stagnating enterprises and scientific research institutes involved in anti-missile defense ‘back on their feet,’” Simonov said.
The modernization work on the A-135 System facility — Moscow’s missile defense system — and a radar station near Baranavichi in Belarus are expected to be completed by fall, according to Russian Defense Ministry documents. The A-135 system is comprised of a radar station, computer control center and six launch silos for A-350 long-range anti-missile missiles around Moscow, according to Izvestiya.
Russia also plans to increase the space component of an anti-ballistic missile early warning system, Izvestiya reported. Crews have rebuilt and upgraded the Serpukhovo spacecraft control system, which was destroyed in a fire last year, and the Serpukhovo center has reestablished control over three Russian early warning satellites. Officials plan to launch a fourth satellite in the near future to complete the Russian system for monitoring ballistic missile launches, according to Simonov.
Russia also has made improvements in tactical missile defense systems, according to Izvestiya. Designers have already completed tests on an upgraded S-400 Triumf surface-to-air missile system, said Aleksandr Lemanskiy, chief designer at the Almaz Science and Production Association.
Russia’s efforts to develop and modernize its anti-missile defense systems are hindered only by low funding, according to Simonov.
“Mark my words,” Simonov said. “If the country had more money, this work would possibly become a top priority of the arms program. You see, as with the United States, expenditure on a national missile defense program means investment in high-tech sectors of the economy and the development of areas of science which will determine the country’s future” (Izvestiya, April 9 in FBIS-SOV, April 9).
U.S. Air Force officials said the airborne laser component of a missile defense system will be ready for its first test flight by midsummer, Defense Daily reported Tuesday (see GSN, March 25).
A team consisting of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and TRW is developing the laser, which will be installed on a Boeing 747. It is designed to shoot down enemy ballistic missiles during their boost phase, according to Defense Daily (see GSN, March 11).
The first tests of the laser-equipped Boeing 747 will consist of short flights to determine only the performance of the aircraft, Defense Daily reported. After about five such tests, further tests will evaluate the aircraft’s battle management systems and then the laser’s detection and tracking of test rockets. The first round of tests is designed to ensure the aircraft “still performs like a 747,” said Air Force spokesman Ken Englade.
Even though the laser will not be test-fired until 2004 under a revised program schedule, flight tests are proceeding as planned, Englade said. The delay of about a year in the laser test firing allows time for additional risk modification work, he said.
“It gives us more time in case we run into something we hadn’t anticipated,” Englade said. “It builds more room in to maneuver. We were on a really tight schedule.”
The funding for the laser program appears to be stable, despite past congressional threats of cuts, Defense Daily reported (see GSN, Feb. 5). The proposed fiscal 2003 missile defense budget includes $598 million for the laser program, Englade said. About $75 million of that funding comes from the canceled Navy Area missile defense system, he added (see GSN, Feb. 27).
“That increase will be used for increased testing and to build in more risk reduction,” Englade said (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, April 9).
A failed test of a TRW-made laser module for the laser program last year led to test delays and increased safety procedures, Air Force officials said yesterday. Neither the Air Force nor the defense contractors involved in the laser program reported the test failure at the time it occurred, according to Defense Daily.
Preparations for a test of the laser last September were stopped when a pipe ruptured. There were no injuries and no damage except to the ruptured pipe, Englade said.
As a result of the pipe rupture incident, officials have made modifications and improved procedures, Englade said. There have been no further accidents since the new measures were enacted, he said (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, April 10).
The U.S. Missile Defense Agency is seeking industry proposals for better boost-phase missile defense systems, Aerospace Daily reported last week (see GSN, March 11).
MDA Director Gen. Ronald Kadish last November created the Advanced Concepts Office to function as “a clearing house” for soliciting and processing industry technology proposals, said MDA Chief Scientist Charles Infosino. The MDA probably will begin requesting industry technology proposals annually, he said.
From the time of launch, there are only about two minutes to intercept an incoming enemy ballistic missile during its boost phase, Infosino said. Currently, the MDA is examining using an airborne laser to shoot down missiles during this phase, according to Aerospace Daily (see related GSN story, today).
“We clearly need ideas across the board,” Infosino said, adding, “We’d like to see more ideas, certainly from the rocket people, as to how do you (intercept boost-phase missiles), besides directed energy.”
Midcourse Needs Sensors
For midcourse ground-based missile defense, future developments should focus on better sensors that can distinguish actual missiles from decoys, Infosino said.
“I don’t think we need more midcourse hit-to-kill vehicles as much as we need better sensors to do the discrimination and to really come to grips with how the rockets that we’re going to need … can be put on ships,” he said (Jefferson Morris, Aerospace Daily, April 5).
|
 |
By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire
In anticipation of a congressional vote, several U.S. members of the U.S. House of Representatives announced yesterday that they have formed the Nuclear Fuel Safety Caucus to support choosing Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the site for the nation’s high-level nuclear waste repository (see GSN, April 10).
The purpose of the 15-member, bipartisan caucus is to protect the interests of places outside of Nevada affected by Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn’s recent veto of the site, said Representative Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) during a press conference.
“The real issue is not so much trying to sell this project. I mean, none of us are gung-ho about pressing this thing on Nevada when they don’t want it,” said Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.). “The purpose of the caucus is not to acquire votes. We’re primarily just educational, I would say.”
The Yucca Mountain waste repository is needed to move spent nuclear fuel out of temporary storage sites at nuclear power plants throughout the United States, according to Kirk (see GSN, Feb. 13). More than 161 million people live within 75 miles of temporary storage sites at U.S. nuclear plants, he added.
Even though there are concerns that terrorists could hijack an airliner and crash it into a nuclear reactor, there is much higher risk of a terrorist attack against a temporary waste storage site, Ehlers said.
“So if we’re really serious about ensuring nuclear security, we ought to get that waste away from those plants and into secure storage as soon as possible.”
Safe to Transport and Store
Ehlers also attacked the argument offered by Yucca Mountain opponents that spent fuel shipments to the site could suffer a transportation accident or be the target of a terrorist attack themselves (see GSN, March 14).
“I find it amusing that we as a nation have transported nuclear weapons all over the country without any incident, and yet people are worried about transporting much lesser amounts of radioactivity in the form of nuclear waste,” Ehlers said. “I have looked at the canisters that are being used to transport the nuclear waste. I have seen movies of the tests there have been … and I think they’ve got as safe a transportation system as one could ever want.”
In addition to routes on highways and railroads, shippers could transport waste via barges to reduce shipments through densely populated areas, said Representative Rob Simmons (R-Conn.). Japanese waste shipments to Europe and a nuclear reactor vessel removed from a decommissioned Connecticut nuclear plant have been shipped on water, Simmons said. Boats could be used to take spent fuel from New England nuclear power plants to Texas, thereby shortening the route to Yucca Mountain and keeping it away from East Coast cities, he added.
“Safe transportation is a nonissue,” Ehlers said. “Anyone who tries to use that as an issue is simply trying to stop Yucca Mountain or trying to stop nuclear power, because, as I say, it’s been transported all over not only this country but the globe basically without accident, certainly without serious accident.”
To make sure the nuclear waste is stored safely at the repository and to reassure the residents of Nevada, the facility should be a monitored and retrievable site, Ehlers said. Waste canisters should be inspected regularly, and if damage is detected, should be removed and repaired before being placed back into storage, he said, adding that a perpetual care trust fund could also be established to ensure funds for such repairs.
“Probably some young scientist, in a few years, … is going to say ‘Eureka! You know what we can use this stuff for? We have another use for this stuff.’ We can bring it out,” said Simmons. “It’s not going to be put in a hole and buried, it’s going to be placed and monitored and observed and overseen, because, you know, we don’t want a problem with this stuff.”
House Vote Expected Soon
Kirk said Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) told him yesterday that a vote on a resolution to overturn Guinn’s veto would occur within 30 days. Under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, to overturn Guinn’s veto, both houses of Congress must vote by a simple majority within 90 days of continuous session.
Hastert also told him that there would be hearings before the vote in the House committees on Energy and Commerce and Transportation and Infrastructure, Kirk said. A hearing is scheduled for April 25 in the Energy and Commerce Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee. It will include testimony from Guinn, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard Meserve.
“I expect that the vote would be an overwhelming majority and bipartisan, and — especially because of Sept. 11 — that if we delay, we offer the terrorist 131 different targets to choose from, and they will, of course, do their site selection and pick the weakest link and then attack it,” Kirk said. “And because of Sept. 11 and homeland defense, this is, I think, going to be a vote that we’re going to win overwhelmingly in the House.”
|
About Newswire | Contact National Journal | Re-Use Guidelines
© Copyright 2002 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by the 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.
HOME | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
|
|
Back to top
