U.S. Response:  FBI Announces New Focus on Terrorism

The FBI yesterday announced a new reorganizing plan that will shift the bureau’s focus toward counterterrorism activities (see GSN, May 29).

“We have to take a management and a responsibility role for assuring that the investigations are going well and that we are gathering and getting the information we need to prevent additional attacks,” FBI Director Robert Mueller said.

Under the new plan, the bureau’s top priority is the prevention of future terrorist attacks against the United States, according to the Washington Times.  The bureau is expected to assign 3,000 of its 11,500 agents to counterterrorism units and to create new “flying squads” that can move agents around the world to coordinate international investigations into terrorist activities.

The reorganization plan also includes a goal to hire 900 new agents by September, with a focus on agents who have skills with computers, foreign languages, internal security, engineering and science.  The FBI will develop better ties to the CIA, and CIA analysts will come to work with the FBI, according to the Times.  The new plan will also create an office of Intelligence and a Security Division that will be led by a former CIA employee to improve internal FBI security.

The FBI is expected to hire a new executive assistant director for criminal investigations and a new assistant director, whose mission will be to develop better relationships between the FBI and state and local law enforcement, the Times reported.  The new reorganization plan will create a new cyber-crime division as well as units that will focus on examining bank records, documents and e-mails.  The plan also calls for the FBI to upgrade its computer system (Jerry Seper, Washington Times, May 30).

Oklahoma Memo

Meanwhile, a 1998 FBI memo from the bureau’s Oklahoma City Division said the chief pilot there observed several Middle Eastern men learning to fly at state airports, the Washington Post reported today.  The agent said in a memo titled “Weapons of Mass Destruction” that the increase in Middle Eastern men engaging in flight training was new and might be part of planned terrorist activity.  The FBI agent also said that light aircraft “would be an ideal means of spreading chemical or biological agents,” according to the memo (Eggen/Schmidt, Washington Post, May 30).

Back to top

Iraq:  New Oil-For-Food Program Under Way

U.N. Office of the Iraq Program Executive Director Benon Sevan told the U.N. Security Council in a closed session yesterday that his department has begun gradually implementing a revised “oil-for-food” program — approved this month by the council to allow easier import of nonmilitary items into Iraq — and plans to have the system fully in place by July 15 (see GSN, May 21).

The new program, called for under the council’s Resolution 1409, is expected to allow faster processing of contracts for items not directly subject to U.N. sanctions against Iraq, with applications to be processed by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency.  The two bodies have been recruiting extra staff for the program.

“We are sparing no effort in ensuring the prompt and effective implementation of all the tasks entrusted to us,” said Sevan.  “I remain fully confident that, together with UNMOVIC and the IAEA, we will meet the challenge.”

Sevan cautioned, however, that problems remain concerning what price to set for Iraqi oil.  “Unless the question of the pricing mechanism ... is resolved urgently, all other efforts and discussions taken to expedite the approval of humanitarian supplies for Iraq may unfortunately remain academic,” he said.  Sevan added that a plan will have to be worked out to allow Iraqi farmers to market what he predicted will be a bumper harvest this year (U.N. release, May 29).

In related news, the U.S. General Accounting Office released a report yesterday expressing reservations over the sanctions system, saying it does not address the unsolved problems of returning weapons inspectors to Iraq and curbing its oil smuggling industry (see GSN, May 15).

The report, prepared at the request of U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), highlights smuggling and the need for inspections, along with alleged illicit trade from the smuggled oil.  The office says that “until these issues are resolved, the sanctions cannot provide assurance that Iraq has stopped developing weapons of mass destruction.”  It adds that Iraq has violated the sanctions by exporting oil secretly through an illicit pipeline and railway to Syria, as well as across its borders with Turkey and Jordan and through its Persian Gulf port facilities.

“Iraq is able to buy unapproved goods with its illegal revenue,” the report said, “in part because some neighboring states are not fully enforcing the sanctions.”  It added that the problem of obtaining entry into Iraq for weapons inspectors is not linked to Resolution 1409 or past Security Council resolutions but stems from the fact that “Iraq is failing to comply” with resolutions (U.S. General Accounting Office release, May 29).

For further information, see:

Resolution 1409 (revisions to oil-for-food/ “smart sanctions”)

UNMOVIC

U.N. Office of the Iraq Program (responsible for oil-for-food)

Oil-for-Food Office Weekly Updates

State Department fact sheet on sanctions revisions 

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Nuclear Treaty Is Weak, Short-Lived, Officials Say

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control treaty language signed last week would confer requirements upon the two countries’ militaries for exactly one day, Dec. 31, 2012, U.S. officials and independent analysts said this week (see GSN, May 24).

According to the treaty language, until that time, neither country would be explicitly required to remove any warheads from active service, the experts said.  The following day, each country could begin returning thousands of warheads to active service.

“We could be at 2,200 on December 31, 2012 and be back up at 6,000 on Jan. 2, 2012,” said Thomas Graham, a former senior U.S. arms control negotiator. “The treaty doesn’t require compliance after the last day it is in force.”

Graham added the text contains no verification provision to check that the countries are moving toward the treaty goal up until that day, or had reached the goal.

Those are two of a number of several details analysts say could enable either party to easily avoid making any significant or lasting reductions of thousands of operationally deployed warheads, the purpose of the treaty stated by U.S. officials.

“Obviously it’s very thin gruel.  All it says is each party agrees they will do what their president said in a speech Nov. 13, 2001, with respect to strategic nuclear weapons,” said Graham.

A senior Bush administration official, while acknowledging the treaty allows for greater flexibility on how each party can pursue cuts and withdraw from the treaty, took issue with criticism the treaty is set up to be skirted easily.

“The analysts that are looking at it from that perspective are living in the past. That clearly is a Cold War analysis that presumes the relationship between the two parties is one of mistrust,” said the official, who asked not to be identified.

The senior official said if either country did not intend to move toward the treaty goal, it would be obligated by international law to declare that intention.

U.S. officials say they plan to begin to further negotiate details on definitions and a verification provision in coming months as they try to hammer out a “bilateral verification agreement” with Russia.

“START I didn’t need a bilateral verification agreement, because every detail was in the treaty,” said National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton.

Anton expressed uncertainty about what form that agreement would take. “I don’t envision it will be a treaty,” he said.

More Lenient Withdrawal

Another detail adding flexibility, experts said, is the fact that the accord does not contain a “supreme national interest” clause for withdrawing from the treaty, making it easier for either country to withdraw from this treaty than from previous U.S.-Russian arms control agreements.

In START I, for example, if a party wishes to withdraw, it is required to explain how “extraordinary events” have caused the treaty to jeopardize the country’s “supreme national interests.”  That notice must be delivered six months before the withdrawal can take effect.

Under the new treaty, signed by U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, either side may cite “its national sovereignty” and withdraw with only three months notice.

Either side can withdraw “for any reason,” said a U.S. official critical of the text, who also asked not to be identified.

What Will the Treaty Reduce?

The absence of the phrase “operationally deployed” in the treaty language also creates unprecedented ambiguity about what warheads will actually be reduced and how.  Senior U.S. officials had used that language repeatedly since Bush and Putin announced the proposed reductions last November (see GSN, Jan. 10).

Bush administration officials had negotiated for removing thousands of strategic nuclear warheads from active, operationally deployed status. The countries could then dispose of the warheads as they each saw fit, for instance, by putting them into storage or totally dismantling them.

The treaty language says instead each party shall “reduce and limit strategic nuclear warheads, as stated by the president of the United States of America on Nov. 13, 2001, and as stated by the president of the Russian Federation on Nov 13, 2001, and Dec. 13, 2001, respectively,” which was when the phrase “operationally deployed” was originally used by President Bush.

Russia’s senior negotiator of the treaty said last week Russia had insisted the “operationally deployed” phrase was not included in the treaty text because it opposed that plan.

“The Americans seem to have said that the missiles and the warheads must not be destroyed, they must be mothballed and be capable of swift redeployment on the carriers and be rapidly returned to the battle-ready forces,” said First Deputy Chief of the Armed Forces General Staff Yuri Baluyevsky in a May 24 interview with reporters.

“You understand that we could not accept such conditions and we did not accept them.  And today in the treaty neither directly nor between the lines on the pages of the test you will not see the words ‘operationally deployed warheads,’” he said.

The two countries apparently continue to disagree over the definition of the phrase used.  Baluyevsky suggested Russia interprets it to mean both countries must fully eliminate the capability to use all but 1,700 to 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads — by destroying the strategic delivery systems that would enable either country to deliver more than that.

“I wish to say that the juridical ‘truth’ and the juridical rules as laid down by the treaty is on our side.  It is not we who would have to explain to the world community the way we understand a particular article of the treaty,” he said.

For further information, see:

Moscow Treaty (U.S.-Russia Nuclear Reduction Treaty)

Bush Announces Treaty

State Department Fact Sheet on Arms Reduction Treaty

Treaty Text (State Department)

START I

Treaty Text

Pentagon Executive Summary

Back to top

India-Pakistan:  War Temporarily Averted But Tensions Remain

Pakistan has ordered its troops to prevent militants from crossing the line of control that divides the disputed Kashmir territory, possibly averting war with India, the London Financial Times reported today (see GSN, May 28).  Meanwhile, Pakistani officials defended their right to use nuclear weapons and called for increased U.N. presence in Kashmir, according to reports (see GSN, May 29).

Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf apparently instituted new measures last weekend to halt cross-border terrorism, the Times reported.  Pakistani officials yesterday emphasized their commitment to the measures.

“There are clear orders.  Nobody is to venture close to the line of control,” a Pakistani official said yesterday.

Islamic militants in Pakistani-held Kashmir also said the military is under orders to withdraw support for militant groups.

“Pakistan has told us to suspend our activities,” said a senior member of one of the groups.  “We feel very betrayed.”

“We believe that the threat of war has been sharply reduced — at least for the next couple weeks,” a Western diplomat said yesterday (Financial Times, May 30).

No Action Before Four to Six Weeks?

To avoid war, India says it must be able to verify that Pakistan is taking action to stop the militants, which will take time.

“The central and perhaps the only real issue now is whether infiltration across the LOC [line of control] has stopped,” said Uday Bhaskar, a senior official at an Indian defense think tank.  “At a guess, it will take at least four to six weeks to verify if any slow-down or cessation of infiltration is lasting or not.”

One senior Indian defense official said that, in addition to stopping militant infiltration, Pakistan must dismantle “the infrastructure of terrorism.”

Western Concern

Western officials also expressed concern that another high-profile attack, similar to the killing two weeks ago of 34 people on the Indian side of the line of control, could detract attention from a decrease in overall infiltration (Edward Luce, Financial Times, May 30).

Bush administration spokesmen said yesterday that the United States is worried that “irresponsible elements” might provoke the situation and fuel tensions.  The statement was directed at Islamic militants on the Pakistani side, a State Department spokesman said.

“There is a danger that as tensions escalate, the leaders could find themselves in a situation in which irresponsible elements can spark a conflict,” State spokesman Richard Boucher said (Associated Press/New York Times, May 30).

Nuclear Threat

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s new ambassador to the United Nations defended Pakistan’s refusal to commit to a nuclear no-first-use policy, AFX reported today.  The country has small conventional forces compared to India, Munir Akram said a day after presenting his credential to the U.N. Secretary General (see GSN, Jan. 24).

“We have to rely on our means to deter Indian aggression.  We have that means, and we will not neutralize it by any doctrine of no first use,” he said.

“If India reserves the right to use conventional weapons, how can Pakistan, a weaker power, be expected to rule out all means of deterrence,” he said.  “We have not said we will use nuclear weapons.  We have not said we will not use nuclear weapons.  We possess nuclear weapons.  So does India.  India has a larger army,” he said, adding that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization never declared a no-first-use doctrine (AFX European Focus, May 30).

“What we do subscribe to is no first use of force,” Akram said.  “We believe India should be committed to the non-use of force … So long as use of force is outlawed, we will accept no first use of nuclear weapons also, but India should not have the license to kill with conventional weapons while our hands are tied with regard to other means to defend ourselves” (Jim Wurst, GSN, May 30).

President Musharraf said yesterday Pakistan would respond “with full force” if Indian forces cross any part of the line of control, adding, “we will take the fight to the Indian territory.”

“We don’t just have a defensive strategy.  We also have offensive plans,” he said (Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, May 30).

Analysts said that tit-for-tat escalation might even lead to nuclear war (see GSN, May 22).  If India launched a conventional strike, Pakistan would probably strike back with conventional weapons, but if escalation continued, nuclear weapons might come into play, analyst Teresita Schaffer said.

“One side or another — probably Pakistan — says, ‘This last attack has put our country in severe danger.  We have no choice but to use nuclear weapons,” Schaffer said (Associated Press/New York Times).

Pakistan Calls for Expanded U.N. Role

Also yesterday, Pakistan repeated a call for the United Nations to take action regarding Kashmir, particularly calling for a U.N.-sponsored vote within the territory to determine its future, a process that has been stalled for decades.

“India reneged on that pledge after four or five years,” Akram said, “and it is because of that unfulfilled pledge that we are at the pass in which India and Pakistan find themselves today.”

If the U.N. Security Council renewed calls for a plebiscite, it would be more problematic today, according to the New York Times.  Diplomats said the council does not want to raise the issue again, but Kashmir’s future might come up on the agenda.

Akram also asked for an expansion to the international team of 43 military and 22 civilian observers monitoring the line of control.  India has refused to agree to any expansion and also opposes mediation in the conflict (see GSN, Feb. 13).

Straw Says War Is Not Inevitable

British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who has been visiting the region, said yesterday that his country stands with India on the issue of terrorism.  He called on Musharraf to end infiltration and cut off support to militants (Barbara Crossette, New York Times, May 30).

Straw said he believed Musharraf is serious about cracking down on militants but added that actions must back up words.

“The situation is dangerous, but war is not inevitable,” he said.  “Neither side wishes to see war” (Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, May 30).

For further information, see:

Stimson Center Background on Kashmir

Carnegie Endowment Nuclear Status Map

Government of Pakistan

Government of India

Back to top

Iran-Russia:  Officials Begin Nonproliferation Talks

Iranian and Russian Deputy Foreign Ministers Mohammed Jawad Zarif and Georgy Mamedov met today in Moscow to begin talks on nuclear nonproliferation issues (Associated Press, May 30).  The talks are also expected to focus on missile proliferation, export controls and bilateral cooperation on peaceful uses of nuclear power, ITAR-Tass reported, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency (see GSN, May 29).

The United States is concerned that Russian nuclear assistance to Iran, such as aid in constructing the Bushehr nuclear power plant, might help Iran develop nuclear weapons.  Russia and Iran, however, have dismissed such concerns, according to IRNA.

“Russia and Iran have sufficiently vast and concrete cooperation within the scope of the requirements set by the nonproliferation of missile and nuclear technologies (treaty),” a Russian Foreign Ministry official said (Islamic Republic News Agency, May 30).

A Step Away from the United States

Meanwhile, Iran should stop attempting to improve its relationship with the United States, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said yesterday before the Parliament.

“When a big power uses a militant, humiliating and threatening tone to speak to us, our nation will refuse to negotiate or show any flexibility,” he said.

Khatami told his supporters in the Parliament that they should give up efforts to build better ties with the United States and instead should follow Iran’s official position, according to Reuters.  Iran’s Supreme National Security Council recently decided not to hold talks with the United States regarding U.S. President George W. Bush’s accusation that Iran is part of an “axis of evil” (Reuters/Washington Post, May 30).

For further information, see:

NPT Text

NPT Parties

U.N. Background on NPT

Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference

2000 NPT Review Conference

Carnegie Endowment Nuclear Status Map

Back to top

Russia:  Japanese Lawmakers Consider Cutting Disarmament Funds

Japan’s Foreign Ministry is considering scrapping bilateral cooperation committees on nuclear disarmament with Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, senior ministry official Yuji Miyamoto said yesterday, speaking before a Japanese House of Representatives committee (see GSN, April 15).

The former Soviet countries are ill-equipped to construct facilities to dispose of radioactive waste and to implement other programs to dispose of nuclear arms, Miyamoto said.  Some of the funds Japan has provided for such programs were not used as intended, he said.

“There are some systematic problems regarding the implementation (of the planned disposal projects).  Although we have to see how Russia (and the three other countries) respond, we’d like to seriously consider abolishing the committees,” Miyamoto said.  He would like to end the committees “as soon as possible,” he added (Yomiuri Shimbun/Asia New Network/India Statesman, May 30).

Back to top

CTBT:  Kazakhstan Ratifies Treaty

Kazakhstan ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty May 14 (see GSN, May 20).  One primary seismological station, three auxiliary seismological stations and an infrasound station, all part of the treaty’s International Monitoring System, are located in Kazakhstan.  To date, 165 nations have signed the treaty and 93 have ratified it, including 31 of the 44 nations whose ratifications are necessary for the treaty to enter into force (CTBTO release, May 30).

For further information, see:

CTBT Text

CTBT Parties

CTBT Organization

U.N. Background on CTBT

Back to top

Smallpox:  U.S. Vaccination Might Trigger International Demand, Spector Says

A mass vaccination campaign against smallpox in the United States to counter an Iraqi biological weapons threat might prompt U.S. allies to call for a similar defense, said Leonard Spector of the Monterey Institute’s Center for Nonproliferation Studies in an essay published yesterday in the International Herald Tribune (see GSN, April 15).

“If inoculations are widely administered in advance of an actual outbreak of the disease, even on a voluntary basis, they would become ‘the shots heard around the world,’” Spector said.  “Other countries would urgently seek to follow America’s lead and some would feel highly vulnerable until they had done so.”

Although the United States and its allies do not know whether Iraq has weaponized smallpox, there have been several signs that it might, Spector said.  For example, Iraqi scientists are known to have conducted experiments with camelpox virus, a close cousin to smallpox that can be used for weaponizing research, he said.  Also, one of the last known natural outbreaks of smallpox in the world happened in Iraq in the early 1970s when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party was coming to power, he added.  There are also fears Soviet biological weapons scientists might have shared their research with Iraq in the 1970s and 1980s, Spector said.

Even though Iraq probably would not be able to launch an attack with smallpox-armed ballistic missiles, it could send tainted agents to spread the disease, Spector said.  The only reliable way to protect against such an attack would be for the United States to conduct a mass vaccination program, but such a move could also lead to demands from U.S. allies in the Middle East for similar inoculation programs, he said (see GSN, May 7).

“Washington would face a global outcry demanding that it halt its planned assault until states in the region, and perhaps beyond, were smallpox-safe,” Spector said.  “The invasion would become politically impossible.”

To develop a strategy that takes international response into account, U.S. President George W. Bush should include national security advisers in any discussions of a U.S. smallpox vaccination policy, according to Spector.  The United States also needs to realistically examine the true likelihood and risks of a potential Iraqi smallpox attack, Spector said.  Until that assessment is complete, the United States should maintain its current “ring” strategy of vaccination — under which only those near the site of an outbreak are vaccinated, he added (Leonard Spector, International Herald Tribune, May 29).

Back to top

Mexico:  Authorities Recover Most of Stolen Cyanide

Mexican law enforcement officials yesterday said that they have recovered most of the shipment of sodium cyanide stolen three weeks ago during a highway robbery (see GSN, May 23).

Authorities found at least 70 of the cyanide containers in a ravine in the state of Puebla in central Mexico that is not far from where the containers were first stolen, according to the Dallas Morning News.  A farmer found the containers first and alerted Mexican police as well as a nearby military base, according to authorities.  The Mexican military blocked off the area and called health care workers to the scene.  They later found no cases of accidental poisoning, according to the Morning News.

Puebla Police Chief Manuel Mendez Marin said the discovery of the containers confirms his theory that the people who stole the truck did not know what was inside and that there never had been any threat of the chemical being taken to the United States.  Marin added that it appears that the thieves tossed the containers off the truck.

“We have found 70 to 72 drums, two of which apparently broke open while being thrown off of a vehicle,” Marin said (Laurence Iliff, Dallas Morning News, May 30).

Some reports indicate that there might be up to six sodium cyanide containers sill missing, but one Mexican newscast reported that police have recovered the entire 76-container shipment, according to the Associated Press.  The containers are still being tested to determine that they contain sodium cyanide, but the Mexican Defense Department said they appeared to belong to the stolen shipment.

U.S. Customs Commissioner Robert Bonner yesterday praised Mexican efforts to find the stolen chemical containers.

“I am grateful to the government of Mexico for its diligent efforts to locate the drums of sodium cyanide ... and for their extraordinary assistance to help keep the U.S. Customs Service fully informed,” Bonner said in a press statement (Emilio Lopez, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, May 30).

Back to top

Russia:  Shchuchye Storage Facility Leaks, Official Says

Russia’s chemical weapons storage site at Shchuchye leaks deadly compounds several times a year, a Russian official said yesterday.

“We have three to five accidents a year” resulting from leaks caused by corrosion, said Yuri Mamontov, a local administration official in charge of chemical disarmament (see GSN, May 2).

“Many munitions have been stored for more than 50 years,” Mamontov said, adding that similar U.S. sites also leak (see GSN, March 25).  The accidents have not caused serious harm or injury and are quickly contained, he said.

The Shchuchye site stores 2 million shells, missile warheads and other munitions containing lethal chemicals, including sarin and VX gas, the Associated Press reported.  The site holds about 14 percent of Russia’s chemical arsenal, which is the world’s largest, according to AP.

Russia promised to destroy its weapons when it ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, but the pace has been slow.  The United States has pledged to help build a disposal facility at the Shchuchye site, and several European countries have offered to help with the financing.  U.S. officials, however, have suspended aid, and Europeans are waiting until the United States resumes funding (see GSN, May 3).

A U.S. congressional delegation led by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) visited Shchuchye yesterday following a conference where Lugar, former Senator Sam Nunn and other U.S. and Russian officials discussed new ways to accelerate disarmament and to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

The delegation, which witnessed the destruction of a strategic missile silo in the Chelyabinsk region earlier this week (see GSN, May 29), is also expected to visit a plutonium storage facility at the Mayak nuclear weapons plant, AP reported (Alexei Vladykin, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, May 29).

Meeting U.S. Demands

Russia has met U.S. demands related to funding for the Shchuchye site, including amending the law on chemical weapons and increasing funds, but the United States still refuses to store funding for the project, the Russian Ammunition Agency has said (see GSN, March 20).  Agency leaders said they hope that after the U.S. officials have seen that construction is taking place, the United States will resume financing (Interfax-AVN military news agency/BBC Monitoring, May 29).

Meanwhile, Russia has decided to build another chemical weapons destruction facility in Kambark in the Udmurtia Republic.  Freezing of U.S. funds for the Shchuchye facility prompted Russia to build the facility, said Alexandra Gorbovsky of the Ammunition Agency.

“In order to be able to fulfill our obligations in the conditions of acute shortages, we are forced to change our priorities in constructing facilities for the destruction of military-purpose poisonous substances and to launch the Kambark’s second facility, not the Shchuchye facility,” Gorbovsky said (Interfax news agency/BBC Monitoring, May 29).

For further information, see:

CWC Text

OPCW

CWC Parties

Pentagon Executive Summary

Federation of American Scientists List of Chemical Weapon Agents

Back to top

United States:  Worst-Case Scenarios Spark Accessibility Debate

The U.S. chemical industry is in the midst of a debate with environmental and right-to-know groups over whether information about accidental chemical releases should continue to be publicly available, the Wall Street Journal reported today (see GSN, March 12).

Some critics have argued that if the information is available, terrorists might be encouraged to attack a U.S. chemical plant.  Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the chemical industry has been able to limit some public access to information on chemical accidents, the Journal reported.  U.S. agencies have also begun removing such information from Web sites and public reading rooms.

Still, it is nearly impossible to completely block access to information once it has been released, according to the Journal.  The Right-to-Know Network, a group that advocates openness in governments, maintains a Web site that allows users to determine where an attack on a U.S. chemical plant would inflict the most casualties, the Journal reported.  Other groups have obtained U.S. Environmental Protection Agency descriptions of potential chemical releases at more than 15,000 chemical plants — information that remains available in its entirety at agency reading rooms throughout the country, the Journal reported.

The environmental activist group Greenpeace is expected in the next two months to release an online map illustrating that a terrorist attack on a Kuehne Chemical Co. bleach plant in New Jersey could release a cloud of chlorine gas across New York City that would kill and injure thousands, according to the Journal.

Kuehne Chemical Chief Operating Officer Peter Kuehne said that publishing such information increases the chance that his plant will become a target for a terrorist attack.

“I don’t think someone who wants to do us harm has a right to know this,” he said.  “In fact, we have a responsibility to make as little as possible available to them.”

Greenpeace has previously published information on worst-case scenarios and the number of people at risk for three Dow Corning Corp. chemical plants:  a Michigan plant with 330,000 people at risk, a Texas plant with 105,000 people at risk and a West Virginia plant with 155,000 people at risk.  Greenpeace has said it next plans to publish the worst-case scenarios for the Kuehne plant, as well as two DuPont chemical plants near Philadelphia and in Delaware, according to the Journal.  The group later plans to publish a list of 123 chemical plants in areas where a release would threaten 1 million people, the Journal reported.

Efforts to publish information on the potential consequences of releases from U.S. chemical plants “aren’t the way an adult would deal with a national security challenge,” said C.T. Howlett, executive director of the Chlorine Chemistry Council, which is part of the American Chemistry Council.

Environmental activists, however, said that even though such information could make a terrorist attack easier, the consequences of a potential industrial accidental release would be the same.

“You could hide the information, but the threat is still there,” said Gray Bass, head of the Right-to-Know Network.  “What’s shocking is how few people know about dangers in their own neighborhoods.”

Fight Moves to Congress

Senator Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) is expected to announce a bill today that would prohibit most public access to chemical accident scenarios — except for censored information that would keep the plant’s name and location secret.  The bill also would make it illegal for anyone who has access to the uncensored version of the scenarios to make the information public.  Bond has obtained the support of the Justice Department for his bill, according to the Journal.

Senator Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), however, is expected to submit a revised version of a bill that faced chemical industry opposition last fall, the Journal reported.  The bill would require chemical plants to study the use of alternative, less dangerous chemicals and technologies.  If the plants fail to use alternative measures, they must explain why the alternatives are not practical or else face penalties that could range up to closure.

Industry Views

The chemical industry opposes measures that would force companies to either reduce the amounts of dangerous chemicals they use, or to use less dangerous alternatives, according the Journal.

“We’re not doing research on different processes,” said Chlorine Institute President Robert Smerko.  “Whether companies can or should change is a business decision on their part.”

The chemical industry has made some concessions though, the Journal reported.  The American Chemistry Council has agreed to require companies to conduct assessments of their plants’ potential vulnerability to terrorist attacks in order to gain membership.  The council has also agreed to let an independent third party review the assessments to ensure that companies are making improvements to chemical plant security, according to the Journal.  The EPA is circulating a set of guidelines within U.S. agencies, including the Office of Homeland Security, that include guidelines for companies to examine the use of safer alternatives and a requirement that plants assess their vulnerability to attack.

While the EPA is still hesitant to force changes upon the chemical industry, the Sept. 11 attacks demonstrated a need to at least examine them, according to an EPA official.

“The world changed on Sept. 11, and everybody is looking at things in ways they may not have looked at them before,” the EPA official said (Ann Davis, Wall Street Journal, May 30).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  PAC-3 Test Has Mixed Results

The United States conducted Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile tests yesterday near the Kwajalein Atoll with mixed results.  One PAC-3 intercepted its target, but a second failed to fire, U.S. defense officials said (see GSN, May 15).

Officials said they have not yet determined why the second missile failed to fire.

Yesterday’s test was the fourth operational test of a PAC-3, an upgraded version of previous Patriot missiles, according to Reuters.  Built by U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin, the PAC-3 is designed to defend U.S. troops and military installations from short- and medium-range missiles.

The U.S. military is also testing an upgraded version of the PAC-2 to use in conjunction with the PAC-3 (Charles Aldinger, Reuters/Yahoo.com, May 29).

For further information, see:

MDA Basics of Missile Defense

PAC-3 Fact Sheet

Missile Defense 2002 Budget

Back to top