U.S. Response:  NRC Creates New Nuclear Plant Security Office

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week said its new Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response will work with the Office of Homeland Security to protect U.S. nuclear power plants from terrorist attack (see GSN, March 29).

“The NRC has concluded that a centralized security organization is a more effective and efficient way of organizing security activities,” the agency said in a press statement.

Previously, two NRC offices have been responsible for the safety and security of U.S. nuclear power plants and fuel materials, according to Reuters.  The NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards has been responsible for protecting U.S. nuclear fuel facilities and materials.  The NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has overseen nuclear power plants and spent fuel facilities.

The new NRC Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response will combine the responsibilities of the two separate offices, according to Reuters.  The new office also will develop contingency plans in the event of an emergency, conduct threat assessments to U.S. nuclear facilities and oversee NRC counterintelligence efforts and classified information, the agency said (Reuters/Planet Ark, April 8).

Back to top

International Response:  Firms Form New Terrorism Insurance Company

Swiss Radio International today reported that several Swiss insurance and reinsurance firms are creating a new insurance company to provide coverage against terrorism, according to the Chinese Xinhua news agency (see GSN, Feb. 28).

The company, Special Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Luxembourg (SRIR), will provide coverage for physical loss or property damage resulting directly from acts of terrorism, according to the report.  The company will cover commercial and industrial clients for losses up to $240 million.

SRIR investors said the company would help address the shortage of terrorism insurance available after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

“The events of [the] Sept. 11 attacks showed losses of an unprecedented magnitude in this area and puts a whole different dimension in the area of terror-related risk,” said Claudia Stulten, spokeswoman for Zurich Financial Services.  “But now there is a need for special coverage” (Xinhua.net, April  8).

Back to top

U.S. Response I:  Post-Sept. 11 Relations Helping Nonproliferation, Officials Say

By Kerry Boyd

Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Improved U.S.-Russian relations since the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States have helped accelerate and ease cooperative efforts to secure and destroy Russian weapons of mass destruction, U.S. and Russian officials said Friday (see GSN, Feb. 5).

At a workshop sponsored by the Monterey Institute of International Studies and the Center for Policy Studies in Russia, U.S. Energy official Linton Brooks, U.S. Defense official Thomas Kuenning and Russian diplomat Oleg Novikov said that warmer relations between the two former Cold War rivals have benefited nonproliferation programs.

The status of U.S. Energy Department programs dedicated to securing Russian nuclear weapon materials “is very good,” Brooks said.

Energy’s nuclear nonproliferation programs in Russia, which have been functioning since the early 1990s, also provide a model for a new strategic relationship because the programs have been based on cooperation since their beginning, Brooks said.

Kuenning said he is optimistic about the Pentagon’s Cooperative Threat Reduction programs, which are similar to Energy Department programs but cover different specific projects and generally focus on dismantling weapons.

Nonproliferation programs have become a cornerstone of U.S.-Russian cooperation, Novikov said.  Russia greatly appreciates U.S. assistance to secure nuclear weapons, dismantle weapons of mass destruction and help former Soviet weapon scientists, he said.

Cooperative Threat Reduction programs will continue, Novikov predicted, because the programs suit the national interests of both the United States and Russia.

The Bush administration, however, has told Russia that the United States is concerned about Russian compliance with treaties addressing chemical and biological weapons, and the United States may reduce funding for some projects, the New York Times reported today (see related GSN story, today).

Strong Relationships

Meanwhile, good relations between U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Russian Atomic Minister Alexander Rumyantsev have been an “unexpected bonus” to the programs, Brooks said.

After November’s Crawford summit between U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, Abraham and Rumyantsev agreed to accelerate nonproliferation efforts, and Energy officials now have access to Russian sites that previously were closed, Brooks said.

The Bush administration has been helpful to promoting cooperative efforts, and Congress has provided “extraordinary” support, Brooks said.

Good Progress, but Work Remains

The officials outlined specific areas where nonproliferation experts have improved conditions.  Russia and the United States signed a new agreement earlier this month that should allow more U.S. access to certain sites to begin installing security enhancements, Kuenning said.

Energy officials have been able to enhance security of transportation systems for nuclear material and have consolidated nuclear material in more secure locations, Brooks said.

Russia has increased its budget for destroying chemical weapons several times and has drawn up plans, said Novikov.

More work remains, however, Brooks said.

Russia needs continued international support and U.S. funds for Shchuchye, according to Novikov.  The Pentagon is waiting for the status of fiscal 2002 funds related to the Shchuchye project, Kuenning said (see GSN, April 3).

Meanwhile, the Energy Department plans to start securing devices that could be used to create radiological weapons, something not under consideration before Sept. 11, Brooks said (see GSN, Feb. 12).  Pentagon officials are also helping collect radiological material, Kuenning said.

At Vozrozhdeniya Island in the Aral Sea, the Defense Department plans to ensure that any remaining anthrax is eliminated (see GSN, Jan. 22).

In the Ukraine, Pentagon nonproliferation experts plan to eliminate SS-24 intercontinental ballistic missiles — a project that was delayed but is now back on track, Kuenning said (see GSN, Dec. 5, 2001).

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Bush Administration Suspends Disarmament Programs

The Bush administration has told Russia that the United States will cut back several disarmament projects due to concern that Russia is not complying with treaties banning chemical and biological weapons, senior administration officials said (see GSN, March 20).

The State Department last week issued a cable saying it could not certify that Russia is committed to complying with the treaties, the New York Times reported.  U.S. law requires such certification, so the Bush administration will be unable to start certain new programs and will reduce funding for some projects.

The decision not to certify Russian compliance does not mean the United States is accusing Russia of violating any treaties, nor does it mean the United States cannot certify compliance in the future.

Refusing to certify Russian commitment, however, sends a message to Moscow that the United States demands more cooperation and honesty related to WMD issues, officials said.

“This is a signal of our seriousness about compliance on arms control and the need to meet all obligations under the chemical and biological weapons conventions,” said a senior administration official.

The decision not to certify will affect several cooperative programs to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction in Russia, according to the Times.  Pentagon Cooperative Threat Reduction programs worth $450 million, and State Department programs worth $70 million will probably be affected, officials said (see related GSN story, today).

Programs likely to be affected include military exchanges and efforts to ensure against theft of nuclear materials.  Authorities have already canceled several planned visits to discuss new projects, officials said.  Several State Department programs will also run out of funds soon.

The law establishing the Cooperative Threat Reduction program does not allow the president to waive the certification requirement.  The Bush administration asked Congress to provide the president with such authority in the emergency supplemental spending bills for the State Department.

Congressional aides said Congress will probably grant the waiver authority but not in time for U.S. President George W. Bush’s May meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin (see GSN, March 28).

The Energy Department programs, worth $500 million, do not require certification and will not be affected.

Insufficient Cooperation

The decision not to certify Russian commitment was prompted by U.S. concerns about Russian refusal to provide accurate information and to send a strain of anthrax to U.S. scientists, the Times reported.

According to the Times, the United States has approved plans to help Russian destroy its chemical weapons stockpile, but Russia has not said that the Soviet Union produced “fourth generation” chemical weapons — far more lethal that the most advanced U.S. chemical weapons (see GSN, March 20).

Russia has also said the Soviet Union never developed certain pathogens, including some genetically modified strains capable of resisting vaccines and antibiotics.  Russian defectors previously involved with the biological weapons program, however, have said the Soviet Union did have such pathogens (see GSN, Nov. 30, 2001).  The Russian denials are absurd, said one U.S. official.

U.S. officials also want to be able to visit four biological laboratories under Russian military control where Russia has denied access.  Russia has said the United States also does not allow access to U.S. military laboratories.

Finally, Russia has refused to allow Russian scientists to send the United States a genetically modified strain of anthrax that reportedly can defeat Russia’s anthrax vaccine, although the two countries signed a scientific strain exchange agreement that requires Russia to send a sample.

Russia has said it has not violated the biological or chemical weapons treaties.

National Security

The Bush administration has said that cooperative nonproliferation and disarmament programs suit U.S. national security interests, but the administration also wants Russia to cooperate more.

“What we’re trying to do,” said one senior official, “is send a signal that we require full compliance with the chemical and biological weapons.”

“But we’ve also made clear in the review of our assistance programs to Russia and the record size of our budget requests that these programs are very much in our own national security interests,” the official said.  “We’re trying to find a way to bring these two goals together.”

Several arms control advocates said the decision not to certify and therefore to cut back on some programs is unwise.

“It’s in our country’s interest to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction from leaking out of Russia in any way we can,” said Rose Gottemoeller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  “So undercutting these programs is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot” (Judith Miller, New York Times, April 8).

Back to top

Iraq:  Bush and Blair Say All Options Open to Dealing With Iraq

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said yesterday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein must allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq or face consequences (see GSN, April 5).

Hussein “has to let the inspectors back in — anyone, any time, any place the international community demands,” Blair said.  Hussein has blocked U.N. inspections since 1998.

“To allow weapons of mass destruction to be developed by a state like Iraq ... would be grossly to ignore the lessons of Sept. 11, and we will not do it,” Blair said, adding that Hussein's regime is “detestable.”

Blair did not threaten to use military force against Iraq, but speaking of fighting terrorism more generally, he said the international community must take military action “if necessary” to end terrorism.  “If necessary and justified, it should involve regime change,” he added.

Blair made the comments at the end of his weekend meetings with U.S. President George W. Bush (Ron Fournier, Associated Press/Philadelphia Inquirer, April 8).

All Options Open

Bush and Blair said they would consider “all options” to end the threat Hussein poses.

“We must be prepared to act where terrorism or weapons of mass destruction threaten us,” Blair said, although he added there would be no “precipitive action” against Iraq (Olivier Knox, Agence France-Presse, April 8).

Hussein has violated U.N. resolutions and refuses to allow inspectors to return to verify Iraq is no longer pursuing weapons of mass destruction programs, Blair said Saturday.

“Doing nothing in those circumstances is not an option, so we consider all options available,” he said.

Will U.S. Attack?

Bush repeatedly refused Friday to articulate any plans to use military force against Iraq.

“I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go,” he said.  “That's about all I'm willing to share with you,” he told a reporter (Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, April 6).

U.S. Postpones Evidence to Security Council

Meanwhile, the United States postponed plans last week to share information with the U.N. Security Council about Iraqi attempts to develop banned missile technology, the Washington Post reported.  The U.S. decision followed an earlier British decision to delay publishing similar information (see GSN, April 2).

U.S. officials had planned to provide information to council members alleging Iraq is developing missiles that could carry weapons of mass destruction farther than the 93-mile range allowed under U.N. resolutions (see GSN, April 5).  It would have been the first time for the United States to supply the council with classified intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs since inspectors left Iraq in 1998.

Increased violence in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and Arab criticism of U.S. support for Israel's military offensive, however, led U.S. diplomats to delay meetings to share such intelligence, according to the Post (see GSN, April 4).  Officials plan to present the information in the future, but the date is unclear, the Post reported.

U.S. officials refused to say what type of information they plan to present to the council, but officials said it includes photographs and other information showing Iraqi attempts to build banned missiles.

“We believe that Iraq is taking steps to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction capability, to develop new and longer missiles and to increase its conventional capability,” said a senior U.S. official.

Inspectors Have Photos, Need Access

Hans Blix, head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, the organization responsible for inspections in Iraq, said he has seen satellite photos showing new construction on facilities the United States destroyed in 1998 and has received information from some governments about Iraqi efforts to rebuild weapons of mass destruction programs.  He said he cannot prove Iraq has such programs until UNMOVIC inspectors can conduct inspections in the country.

“We cannot exclude the possibility that they retained something from the past or that they have produced something new,” Blix said.  “But if I had clear-cut evidence of Iraq still possessing or producing weapons, I would go to the Security Council with that evidence” (Colum Lynch, Washington Post, April 7).

Meanwhile, UNMOVIC is preparing to conduct inspections in case Iraq agrees to allow inspectors to return (see GSN, Feb. 21).

Under UNMOVIC's plan, more than 50 inspectors would be based in Baghdad the New York Times reported.  There would be 230 inspectors available to allow inspectors to rotate in and out of Iraq.  Inspectors have already received training, including cultural-sensitivity training.

The inspectors would have unlimited access to suspected weapons sites, and Iraqi officials would be required to provide documents.  Iraqi officials “will have to help by coming up with the evidence,” said Blix.  “They have the archives, the bills of lading and budget documents.”

The first stage of inspections would include establishing what Iraq must do to address concerns about its weapons programs, and the process would last several months.  If Iraq provides full cooperation, UNMOVIC might be able to report progress within a year, Blix said.

“If we have the kind of cooperation the Security Council has requested, we can get a high level of assurance,” he said.  “We would not get certainty.  Nor do I think you can do it with occupation” (Michael Gordon, New York Times, April 7).

Back to top

Pakistan:  Musharraf Says Nuclear Weapons Are an Option

If threatened with an extreme crisis, Pakistan might use nuclear weapons against India, Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said yesterday in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, according to the London Times (see GSN, March 19).

“If Pakistan is threatened with extinction, then the pressure of our countrymen would be so big that this option, too, would have to be considered,” he said, referring to nuclear weapons.

“Nuclear weapons are the last resort,” Musharraf said.  “I am optimistic and confident that we can defend ourselves with conventional means, even though the Indians are buying up the most modern weapons in a megalomaniac frenzy” (Roger Boyes, London Times, April 8).

India called Musharraf’s remarks “irresponsible,” and pledged to continue its “no-first-use” policy for nuclear weapons, said an Indian foreign ministry official (Rahul Bedi, Irish Times, April 8).

International Cooperation

Meanwhile, Pakistan is engaged in an “elaborate dialogue” with the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency, a senior Pakistani foreign ministry official told Japan’s Kyodo news agency Saturday, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency.

The dialogue, which began in November, is designed to strengthen Pakistan’s command and control system over its nuclear arsenal and to prevent proliferation of Pakistan’s nuclear material and technology, the official said (Islamic Republic News Agency, April 7).

Back to top

Japan:  Country Could Make Thousands of Warheads, Official Says

The leader of Japan’s opposition Liberal Democratic Party last weekend said Japan has enough plutonium to build thousands of nuclear weapons, the London Guardian reported today.

“It would be so easy for us to produce nuclear warheads,” said Ichiro Ozawa.  “We have enough plutonium at nuclear power plants in Japan to make several thousand such warheads.”

Japan could need a nuclear deterrent to counter the threat of China’s increasing military strength, according to Ozawa.

“China is applying itself to expand its military power in the hope of becoming a superpower,” he said.  “If China gets too inflated, the Japanese people will get hysterical.”

Japan officially has a policy against developing nuclear weapons, according to the Guardian.  In 1999, a member of Ozawa’s Liberal Democratic party was forced to resign his post as junior defense minister after calling for parliamentary debate on developing a nuclear deterrent in Japan.

In response to Ozawa’s statement, anti-nuclear weapon activists said that Japan’s stockpile of 38 metric tons of plutonium is part of an undeclared nuclear weapons program.

“(Ozawa) has exposed the myths of it being a peaceful energy program for a resource-poor country,” said Shaun Bernie of Greenpeace International (Jonathan Watts, London Guardian, April 8).

Japan today confirmed its non-nuclear weapons policy, in response to Ozawa’s statements.

“Our nation’s policy since World War II is not to hold any nuclear weapons,” said Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda during a press conference.  “There will be no changes to the fact that we faithfully abide by the policy and that we wish all nuclear weapons will disappear from the world” (Agence France-Presse, April 8).

In a meeting with visiting Chinese legislator Li Peng, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said China’s rapid development does not pose a threat to Japan, the Chinese People’s Daily newspaper reported.  China’s development benefits Japan and other countries, Koizumi said (Li Yan, People’s Daily/BBC Monitoring, April 8).

Back to top

United States:  Missile Tests Successfully; Navy Converts Submarines

The U.S. Air Force today successfully launched an unarmed Minuteman III ICBM from Vandenberg Air Force Base (see GSN, March 14).  The intercontinental ballistic missile successfully hit pre-determined targets in the western chain of the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean as part of the Force Development Evaluation Program, which tests missile launching systems, the Air Force said in a statement (Associated Press, April 8).

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy has begun converting four Trident submarines from carrying nuclear missiles to conventional weapons, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Feb. 22).  Congress last year approved $4 billion to convert the four Tridents. 

The Navy is proud of the fact that the Tridents have never conducted a nuclear attack, according to Capt. Howard Trost, commander of the Trident Training Facility in Washington.

“Imagine that America is a beautiful girlfriend and you’re Bill Gates, a skinny guy with glasses.  Well, a big guy with muscles could come over and kick sand in your face and take your girlfriend,” said Trost.  “But he probably wouldn’t do it if Arnold Schwarzenegger was standing behind you, would he?  We’re America’s Arnold” (Associated Press, April 8).

Back to top

Anthrax:  Spores Are More Sophisticated Than Previously Thought, Analysis Says

A new government analysis has found that the person responsible for last fall’s anthrax attacks might have succeeded in creating a more sophisticated form of weaponized anthrax than any previously seen, Newsweek reported this week (see GSN, April 3).

U.S. officials said that the anthrax spores found in the letter mailed to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) were ground more finely than U.S. biological weapons scientists have achieved (see GSN, Nov. 27, 2001).  The spores also were coated in a chemical compound unknown to biological weapons experts and matched no coatings on anthrax samples ever found, including those taken from Iraq and the former Soviet Union, they said.

The extremely fine milling and unique chemical coating produced particles so small and fluffy that investigators detected individually coated spores in the Leahy letter envelope — something never before seen by experts, according to Newsweek.

Meanwhile, it is now less likely that the genetic code of the anthrax used in the attacks might provide a clue as to the person responsible, Newsweek reported  (see GSN, Feb. 13).  The strain of anthrax used in the Leahy letter can be traced back to an anthrax outbreak in Texas cattle during the 1970s (see GSN, Jan. 29), whose samples were widely distributed, according to insiders (see GSN, Dec. 12, 2001).

Investigators also have questioned the FBI profile of the suspect, which describes a scientist once involved with the U.S. biological weapons research program (see GSN, Feb. 26).  It appears unlikely that any former U.S. government scientist had the ability, or access to the needed equipment, to produce the sophisticated spores found in the Leahy letter, they said (Newsweek, April 15).

Lack of Samples Cited

Researchers working on new anthrax detection technologies have said they are making slow progress because of a lack of anthrax samples with which to conduct tests, according to Newhouse News Service.

“This has been a constant frustration,” said David Perlin, science director for the Public Health Research Institute in New Jersey.  Researchers there are developing a new technology that could confirm exposure to anthrax in less than an hour.

Since last fall’s anthrax attacks, applications for anthrax samples for research have come under increased scrutiny, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which oversees the transfer of pathogens such as anthrax (see GSN, Feb. 20).

“Applications are more scrutinized than ever before,” said CDC spokesman Llelwyn Grant.

Perlin said he has tried to obtain anthrax DNA samples from both the CDC and the New York state and municipal health departments.  The DNA is needed to make modifications on a detection technology originally intended for use with tuberculosis and HIV, he said, adding that the modifications would only take a few weeks to complete.

Perlin has accused the CDC of playing favorites with its transfers of pathogen samples, according to Newhouse.  In November, Roche Diagnostics and the Mayo Clinic announced they had developed a new anthrax detection system created with the aid of anthrax samples from the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“They won’t make materials available to anyone with a competing technology,” Perlin said.  The CDC has denied any bias in its transfer of samples, according to Grant.

Before a 1996 law increased CDC oversight, transferring pathogen samples was easy, scientists said.

“There was a time when you could just meet somebody at some scientific meeting and say, ‘I’d like to use some of this,’ and you’d put it in a vial and they’d drive down and you’d give it to them,” said Richard Crosland, a former scientist at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md.  “I’d do it myself.”

After the anthrax attacks, though, some researchers have said they are not concerned with increased restrictions on pathogen transfers, even if research progress does slow, said Ronald Atlas, president-elect of the American Society for Microbiology (Kevin Coughlin, Newhouse News Service, March 2002).

New Vaccines in Development

Meanwhile, pharmaceutical company BioPort, the sole U.S. producer of anthrax vaccine, has been developing a new and improved vaccine over the past year, according to NewsRx.com (see GSN, Feb. 1).

“Based on the experience of the past three years, we’re in a unique position,” BioPort spokeswoman Kim Brennen Root told the Lansing State Journal.  “We have every intention of moving forward with a next-generation vaccine candidate.”

The new BioPort anthrax vaccine could be administered through a nasal spray instead of through injection, according to NewsRx.com.  The new vaccine also would only need three doses over a two- to three-month period instead of six doses in an 18-month period.

“It’s only logical to pursue something that would work more quickly, said Brian Strom, chairman of a National Academy of Sciences committee that researched the safety of the current anthrax vaccine (see GSN, March 7).

The U.S. National Institutes of Health is expected to start human clinical trials by this fall on its own new anthrax vaccine, according to NewsRx.com (see GSN, March 15).  The trials will examine the safety of the vaccine, including any potential side effects.  The NIH project to develop a new vaccine began five years ago (NewsRx.com, April 8).

Back to top

Syria:  Explosion Kills 35 at Scud Factory

An explosion at a weapons complex in Northern Syria killed 35 people in late March, according to World Tribune.com.  Located in the city of Homs, the complex produced Scud ballistic missiles.  The explosion is the latest in a series of accidents in Syria’s ballistic missile program, according to sources (World Tribune.com, April 4).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Pentagon Scrutinizes SBIRS-High Development

The U.S. Defense Department is expected to decide early next month whether to continue developing the Space-Based Infrared System-High (SBIRS-High) satellites, a proposed U.S. missile defense component, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported this week (see GSN, March 14).

Contending with cost overruns and management problems, defense contractor Lockheed Martin must persuade Pentagon acquisition chief Pete Aldridge to continue backing SBIRS-High, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology.  Aldridge must determine how badly the United States needs to replace the current Defense Support Program satellite system (DSP) and whether SBRIS-High offers is advanced enough to continue development, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology.

A review conducted by the U.S. Air Force’s Joint Requirement Oversight Council last October found that Lockheed Martin’s initial assumptions on the SBIRS-High program were too optimistic, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported.  The review criticized the company’s management of the program and said that some of the operational requirements had changed since the contract was awarded in 1996.

The requirements for SBIRS-High were revalidated last January and cover aspects of the system’s capabilities ranging from sensitivity and early warning ability to ability to provide technical intelligence, said U.S. Space Command chief Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart.

“While DSP has served us well, we need the improved detection capabilities of the Space-Based Infrared System to counter emerging strategic and theater ballistic missile threats,” Eberhart said.

The U.S. Air Force is working to alter its contract to better ensure there are no problems in the future, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology.  Air Force Undersecretary Peter Teets has said the Air Force is taking back total system responsibility for SBRIS-High.

Even with Aldridge’s backing, Lockheed Martin might not be able to turn a profit on SBRIS-High, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology.  The cost has now risen to $4.5 billion, up from the original $1.8 billion contract.  Continued support, however, could help Lockheed Martin retain its credibility as a manager of complex satellite systems, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported.

“There is no more important program in the Lockheed Martin space portfolio now than SBIRS,” said company Executive Vice President Albert Smith.

The Pentagon also is developing replacements for SBIRS-High, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology.  The National Reconnaissance Office, overseen by Teets, is conducting the research.  Two DSP satellites, built by defense contractor TRW, are currently scheduled for launch (see GSN, March 14).  Any launch failures or further delays with SBIRS-High or its replacement option could cause a coverage gap in a U.S. defense satellite system, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported.

A 1996 Air Force schedule slated the first SBIRS-High satellite launch in the later half of this year, with further launches annually, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology.  The latest schedule places the first satellite launch in 2006 at the earliest.  A gap in the satellite system was allowable “based on the status of our existing capacity,” in the DSP system, said an Air Force Space Command official (Mecham/Wall, Aviation Week & Space Technology, April 8).

Back to top

Nuclear Waste:  Nevada Governor Vetoes Yucca Mountain

Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn is leaving for Washington today to veto U.S. President George W. Bush’s recommendation to designate Yucca Mountain as the site of a long-term nuclear waste repository (see GSN, March 29).

The action will be the first state veto of a U.S. president, according to a press release from Guinn’s office (Nevada Governor’s Office release, April 2).

Under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the issue will then go to Congress, which needs a simple majority in both houses to override the veto.  A congressional vote on Guinn’s veto of Yucca Mountain is expected before August, the Associated Press reported.

Former White House Chiefs of Staff John Podesta and Kenneth Duberstein are heading the Yucca Mountain opposition effort (see GSN, March 19).  The campaign will focus on safety concerns over both the repository site and thousands of shipments of nuclear waste to the site (see GSN, March 14).

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been handing out miniature toy trucks to illustrate the point that full-scale models of the canister that would be used to ship the nuclear waste to site have not been tested, according to the AP.

Yucca Mountain opponents, however, have not been able to raise the $10 million that they say they need to conduct an adequate television advertising campaign to garner support, especially in states where senators facing re-election have not said how they will vote on the veto, the AP reported.  In past votes, the Senate has voted to support the Yucca Mountain site, according to the AP.

“We have had bipartisan support in the past and we think it will be there in the future,” said Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the main lobbying group for the nuclear power industry (Associated Press/New York Times, April 7).

Back to top

Radiological Weapons:  IAEA Secures Radiation Sources in Kabul

A team of U.N. experts and authorities has secured several sources of radiation in Kabul, Afghanistan, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Thursday (see GSN, March 20).

The sources, including an old radiotherapy machine in a Kabul hospital that contained cobalt-60, were discovered late last month during a U.N. environmental monitoring mission.  Experts secured the cobalt-60 source within days of its discovery, according to the IAEA.

“The major concern was the cobalt source,” said Khammar Mrabit, head of the IAEA Radiation Monitoring and Protection Services Section.  “Fortunately the radiotherapy machine was intact.  Measurements taken showed low levels of radiation, indicating that the cobalt source was in its shielded position and undamaged.”

IAEA General Director Mohamed ElBaradei sent the team at the request of the Afghan interim government and the U.N. Special Mission to Afghanistan.  The experts measured dose rates of the radiation sources and advised authorities how to store them safely and securely. They also discussed follow-up measures with U.N. and Afghan officials, including measures to improve the Afghan infrastructure for radiation and waste safety (International Atomic Energy Agency release, April 4).

Back to top