Iraq:  Czechs Stand by Reports Al-Qaeda Leader Met With Iraqi Spy

Czech officials have said they are standing by their report that suspected Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague last year, despite recent reports that U.S. officials have found no evidence of the meeting (see GSN, May 1).

Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross said in October that Atta met Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani — a suspected member of Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence agency — at least twice, including five months before the attacks.

Some U.S. officials have said that the meeting is evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime.  Last week, however, some U.S. officials said they have found no evidence to support the claim that the men met. 

“What's been said, we stick to it,” Czech spokesman Libor Roucek told the Prague Post in Tuesday's edition (Brian Whitmore, Boston Globe, May 8).

Alleged CIA Conspiracy

CIA and FBI officials want the U.S. public to believe Atta and al-Ani did not meet, William Safire wrote in a column in today's New York Times.  If evidence supports the report that the two men met, it would help give the United States a reason to take military action against Iraq.  CIA and Justice officials fear that such action would expose the intelligence agency's lack of success in conducting covert operations, Safire wrote.

CIA and Justice officials, therefore, have been telling journalists that CIA and FBI analysts have discovered no evidence to support an Atta-al-Ani link, Safire said.  A senior Bush administration official, however, told Safire otherwise.

“You cannot say the Czech report about a meeting in 2001 between Atta and the Iraqi is discredited or disproven in any way.  The Czechs stand by it, and we're still in the process of pursuing it and sorting out the timing and venue.  There's no doubt Atta was in Prague in 2000, and a subsequent meting is at least plausible,” the official said, according to Safire.

“I believe the counterintelligence services more than journalists,” Gross said, adding that Czech intelligence agents have no new information to suggest Atta and al-Ani did not meet.  “Therefore, I consider the matter closed,” he said, according to Safire (William Safire, New York Times, May 9).

Back to top

U.S. Response I:  Pentagon Increases Defenses

The U.S. Defense Department is creating a new police agency to better defend the Pentagon and its thousands of workers against terrorist attack, the Washington Post reported today.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz signed an order this week to create the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, which will incorporate all the functions of the Pentagon’s current Defense Protective Service and expand its security responsibilities, a defense official said yesterday.

The current protective service is mostly focused on building security, and the new agency will add anti-terrorism and other law enforcement activities to its duties.  The agency will have a larger budget and will probably expand its force from 250 to 300 officers, the Post reported.

The department is taking other steps to improve Pentagon security, including using CD-ROMs to train employees how to respond to a terrorist attack, installing an improved public address system and upgrading computer systems so warnings can appear on screens (Steve Vogel, Washington Post, May 9).

Authorities have also installed equipment to detect chemical or biological agents in and around the building, Pentagon police chief John Jester said (Jabeen Bhatti, Washington Times, May 9).

Some of the steps, such as improved communications, were planned before the Sept. 11 attacks, but the attacks accelerated the efforts, Jester said.

Pentagon Stages Chemical Attack

Military and local first responders staged Operation Misty Court — a mock sarin gas attack — in the Pentagon’s courtyard yesterday (see GSN, May 2).  A smoke plume of mock sarin gas erupted in the courtyard, and more than 300 people pretended to be victims or emergency responders in the exercise, funded by the Justice Department’s Domestic Preparedness Program.

Fire departments from Virginia cities Arlington, Fort Myer, Alexandria and Fairfax participated, along with FBI agents, Virginia State Police and local hospitals.  Pentagon police used new chemical detection devices (Vogel, Washington Post).

The exercise was planned before Sept. 11, and Pentagon officials said the drill does not mean there is an increased threat, the Washington Times reported.  The drill went well and the Pentagon police are more prepared to respond to threats than they were eight months ago, Jester said.

Arlington County Fire Department Battalion Chief Benjamin Barksdale agreed the drill went “very well,” adding that the fire department had practiced similar procedures before.  “This was our first chance to try it on a larger scale,” he said (Bhatti, Washington Times).

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  NORAD Commander to Head Northern Command

U.S. President George W. Bush has selected Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart to head the newly created Northern Command, the U.S. Defense Department said yesterday (see GSN, May 8).

Eberhart is a four-star general who currently commands the Northern Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).  The Senate must confirm his nomination before he takes charge of the Northern Command, which will be responsible for coordinating homeland defense (Associated Press/Chicago Tribune, May 9).

“It is an honor to be nominated as the first commander of U.S. Northern Command,” said Eberhart, who will retain command of NORAD.  “Our job will be to preserve the nation’s security by defending the American people where they live and work.”

Senior Canadian military officials praised the selection of Eberhart to head the new U.S. command but did not say whether Canada would join it as they had NORAD.

“We’re not at the stage” where that decision has to be made, NORAD Canadian Deputy Commander Lt. Gen. Ken Pennie said.  “But I think that the NORAD model is excellent.  It’s responsive to both governments.”

The Northern Command is to begin operations in October at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, according to the Globe and Mail (Paul Koring, Globe and Mail, May 9).

Back to top

U.S. Response III:  Pentagon Drops Research Restrictions

The Defense Department has dropped plans to create restrictions on the use and spread of unclassified research funded by the Pentagon, the Boston Globe reported today.

The Pentagon counterintelligence office created the draft regulations after the Sept. 11 attacks, one of which would have forced researchers funded by the Pentagon to obtain approval before publishing their research or face criminal penalties, the Globe reported.  The Pentagon cancelled the regulations after complaints from Congress, defense scientists and U.S. academic institutions, said Elaine McCusker, co-chair of the Coalition for National Security Research, a group that represents universities and scientific societies.

“The draft was written by the counterintelligence component in the Pentagon, and it never pretended to understand what the impact on science and technology would be,” McCusker said.  “I feel they are on the right track now, but it is something we will have to continue to watch.”

The restrictions would have crippled scientific studies and would have made it impossible for some scientists to continue to accept Pentagon funding, according to lobbyists for Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“It’s ludicrous.  Scientists are not about to submit to the Pentagon deciding if basic, scientific research should be classified or not,” said Eugene Skolnikoff, emeritus professor of political science at MIT.  “It’s all part of the climate I see now inside the Washington beltway, particularly in the Defense Department.  They are at war with a capital ‘W,’ and when you’re at war, all kinds of controls and restrictions become possible” (Mary Leonard, Boston Globe, May 9).

New Panel to Review Foreign Student Visa Requests

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has created a new panel that would screen some foreign students’ requests for visas to study sensitive subjects at U.S. universities, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, April 18).

Immigration and State Department officials will refer some student visa applications to the newly created Interagency Panel on Advanced Science and Security, which will issue opinions, according to AP.  State Department and immigration officials will make the final decision on applications.  The panel is expected to review up to 2,000 applications per year, AP reported.

The review will apply to foreign students and researchers who wish to come study in the United States and those already here who wish to do graduate and postgraduate work in areas of study with technologies only available in the United States, according to AP.  Areas of study that would fall under the review include studies involving lasers, navigation and guidance systems, missile propulsion and nuclear technology, among others, AP reported.

The point of the review is to make sure foreign students do not acquire unique knowledge at U.S. universities that could be put into the service of terrorism, said James Griffin, assistant director for social, behavioral and education sciences at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

“We’re not talking about all international students and all science areas, but rather, those who are going into advanced programs,” Griffin said (Pete Yost, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, May 8).

Back to top

U.S. Response IV:  New Homeland Security Center to Open

A new facility to help coordinate federal, state and local homeland security efforts will be operational in coming weeks, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, May 3).

“By the time we get done — this is still a work in progress — we’ll be able to connect with just about every conceivable public institution in the country,” Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said yesterday during a tour of the new Homeland Security Coordination Center in Washington.

The new facility includes the Threat Monitoring Center, which will be staffed with representatives from more than 12 federal agencies, including the CIA, FBI and the National Security Agency.  The center, which is four miles from the White House and its Situation Room, is designed to be an information clearinghouse, according to the Times.

“We needed to be within a strategic distance of the White House but not too far away,” said Carl Buchholz, executive secretary for the Homeland Security Council.  “We’re doing a lot of things that the Situation Room has not done to date, especially with state and local government.”

If necessary, the president and senior administration officials could evacuate the Situation Room and regroup at the Homeland Security Coordination Center, Buchholz said.

The facility also includes a Coordination Center, which would monitor potential terrorist incidents, the Times reported.  For example, after a train wreck in California last month, the center began looking for other accidents that might have indicated a terrorist attack, according to the Times.  No signs of such an attack were discovered (Joseph Curl, Washington Times, May 9).          

Back to top

U.S. Response I:  House to Vote on Bush Homeland Defense Requests

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives is to begin consideration today of a defense authorization bill that would sustain Bush administration funding requests for Pentagon nuclear nonproliferation programs in Russia and the administration’s broad missile defense effort.

The bill, however, would cut funding for Energy Department nonproliferation programs, in particular, for a program to eliminate weapon-grade plutonium in Russia.

The legislation also contains several nonbinding provisions supporting controversial aspects of the Bush administration’s nuclear weapons policies, which several legislators have said they will challenge (See related story today).

The House Armed Services Committee approved the bill, H.R. 4546, Friday in an overwhelming bipartisan 57-1 vote.

The bill is distinct, the committee said in a May 1 press release, for being fully written — along with a sister, supplemental appropriations bill — “within the context of the post-Sept. 11 environment.”

The committee also has begun work on an additional authorization bill, H.R. 4547, the proposed Cost of War Against Terrorism Authorization Act, which would authorize $10 billion of the $394 billion in the defense authorization bill for unspecified costs related to U.S. military activities in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Cuts for Energy Department Programs

The defense appropriations bill would authorize in full the $416.7 million requested by the Bush administration for the Defense Department-run Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which works to secure and destroy Russian nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

It would cut $83.6 million from $133.6 million requested funding for chemical weapons destruction activities in Russia.  The $83 million instead would be available for nuclear arms reduction, transportation and storage security in Russia.

The legislation would cut, though, $39 million from the administration’s $1.1 billion request for Energy Department nuclear nonproliferation programs, citing in part nearly $60 million in “unobligated balances” from the current fiscal year intended for eliminating weapon-grade plutonium in Russia.

It would cut $30 million for eliminating weapon-grade plutonium in Russia, from the $49.3 million requested by the administration and cut $3 million of the requested $14.6 million for Energy international nuclear safety programs.

The bill also would cut $10 million from general plutonium disposition in Russia and while adding $4 million for U.S. fissile material disposition, directing it for research into alternative technologies and fuel cycles for plutonium disposition.

The committee’s report cited concerns Russia is not living up to its Chemical Weapons Convention commitments.  It approved, however, a provision to allow the president to allow Cooperative Threat reduction funding to continue by waiving a requirement to certify Russia is complying with all relevant arms control agreements (See related GSN story, today).

The committee recommended a provision to express as the sense of Congress that Russian proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology, items and know-how to Iran and other countries of concern “represents a clear threat to U.S. national security and vital interests.”

Missile Defense Request Maintained

The bill would authorize the administration’s aggressive national missile defense development strategies in full.

“Today, the United States remains completely vulnerable to attack or intimidation by nations armed with ballistic missiles,” according to the committee press release issued following the vote. “The committee applauds the president’s commitment to missile defenses, and fully endorses his missile defense programs, including the layered ballistic missile defense system and realistic testing and experimentation program.”

The bill would sustain the administration’s $7.8 billion request, authorizing an additional $21 million.

The $7.8 billion figure includes:

*         $3.2 billion for ground-based and sea-based mid-course programs, adding $52 million over the budget request;

*         $1.1 billion, $20 million more than requested, for command, control and communication work, and test and evaluation efforts;

*         $1.1 billion, matching the president’s request, for the Theater High Altitude Air Defense and the Patriot Capability-3 systems.

The committee recommended $719.4 million, $78 million less than requested, for developmental work on “boost-phase” systems designed to destroy enemy warheads shortly after launch. 

It also recommended matching the administration’s $373.4 million request for sensor development work and $117.7 million for cooperative programs with Italy and Germany on the Medium Extended Air Defense System, Japan on sea-based high-altitude defenses, a Russian-American Observation Satellite program, and Israel’s Arrow terminal missile program.

Terminal defense research and development was boosted by $138 million to $308.7 million and other advanced technology development by $5.5 million to $127.3 million.

Terrorism Defense

The committee also voted to authorize the administration’s requests for funding various military counter-terrorism activities.

It approved $578 million for chemical and biological detection, protection and decontamination research and development and $382 million for procuring protection and decontamination equipment.

The supplemental authorization bill, H.R. 4547, also would approve money for those purposes.

The defense authorization bill also would authorize a slight increase in funding for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency biological warfare defense programs, Defense Threat Reduction Agency nonproliferation programs, and a program to build “an integrated capability for protection of urban areas, high value assets, and special events, and detect and respond to biological incidents.”

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  House Bill Would Free CTR Funds

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — House lawmakers are discussing legislation today to allow the United States to provide cooperative threat reduction funds to Russia even when U.S. officials doubt Russian commitment to arms control treaties (see related GSN story, today).

The House Armed Services Committee reported the fiscal 2003 defense authorization act out of committee last week with a provision for limited presidential authority to waive certification that former Soviet countries are demonstrating commitment to arms control treaties.

U.S. law now requires such certification for many funding programs designed to prevent proliferation and safeguard weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union.  The bill, however, would allow the president to waive the requirement if the administration determined that the funds are important to U.S. security interests.

The waiver authority would be limited.  It would expire at the end of 2005, and the president would have to submit a report to Congress within 30 days after issuing a waiver.  The report would detail to which arms control agreements commitment is in doubt, how the administration planned to promote commitment and why the waiver is important to national security.

The committee report on the bill also notes that while cooperative threat reduction programs in the former Soviet Union might be in U.S. security interests, Russian compliance with arms control agreements — especially those involving weapons of mass destruction — is “even more important to the nation’s security.”

Several nonproliferation programs have recently “ground to a halt,” Steve LaMontagne of the Council for a Livable World Education Fund said Tuesday.  Current U.S. law provides no waiver authority for several CTR programs, and the State Department said in March that it could not certify Russian compliance with biological and chemical weapons agreements.  The Bush administration told Russia last month that the United States would cut back funding for several CTR programs based on the inability to certify (see GSN, April 8).

Russia has said it is committed to its arms control agreements (see GSN, April 10).

Providing the waiver authority to the president is a “good idea,” Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, told Global Security Newswire yesterday.

“Congress should approve the waiver … without delay … so that the important work that CTR does can continue,” he said.

Kimball added that the Bush administration, which requested the waiver authority, created a “speed bump” to implementing CTR programs when it decided to signal to the Russians that the United States is unhappy with Russian progress on dismantling chemical and biological weapons.

The authorization bill will take months to pass through Congress and probably will not go to the president for signature until September at the earliest, he said.  By then, the suspension of funds will have already hurt CTR programs, Kimball added.

Meanwhile, two House members last week introduced the Nuclear Threat Reduction Act, legislation to provide a permanent waiver authority for the president (see GSN, May 2).

Back to top

Iraq:  Security Council Postpones Vote on Iraqi Sanctions Revisions

The U.N. Security Council did not vote yesterday as expected on a draft resolution to revise sanctions against Iraq, diplomats said yesterday.  The council may not vote on the resolution until early next week, they said (see GSN, May 7).

Russia asked to delay the vote to allow time for Russian President Vladimir Putin to review the final agreement, which the council's five permanent members introduced Monday, according to the Associated Press.  All substantive issues, however, have been resolved, diplomats said.  As a permanent Security Council member Russia can veto any resolution.

Syria also opposed an immediate vote, diplomats said.  Syrian officials said they had not received instructions from Damascus, but diplomats said Syria questioned voting on sanctions against Iraq while Israel refuses to comply with council resolutions related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Washington Post, May 8).

Some diplomats and analysts, however, have accused Syria of importing Iraqi oil in violation of U.N. sanctions and resolutions (Carola Hoyos, Financial Times, May 9).

The proposed revisions would allow Iraq to import most goods after only a quick check unless the items are on a “goods review list” of items with potential military applications.  Two U.N. agencies would have to review the export to Iraq of any goods on the list within 30 days.

Under the current system, a U.N. committee must approve most goods, but any council member can place a contract on hold.  U.S. officials have said the new system is designed to simplify the process and allow more civilian goods into the country.

“It will be absolutely clear, now that we have simplified this system, that the international community is not blocking civilian goods,” U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.

Iraq has opposed any revisions other than a complete end to sanctions (Serge Schmemann, New York Times, May 9).

Back to top

Iran:  U.S. to Sanction More Entities for Exports to Iran

The Bush administration is planning to impose new sanctions against Chinese, Armenian and Moldovan companies believed to assist Iran with technologies related to developing WMD, a senior U.S. official said yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 24).

The sanctions, provided for by the 2000 Iran Nonproliferation Act, will be against companies involved in activities prohibited under export control agreements such as the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Australia Group chemical and biological weapons control organization, according to Reuters.

The official refused to list the companies or describe their exact activities but said the number of penalties and sanctioned companies would be “going up.”  The administration’s decision shows “we’re paying increased attention to the Iran Nonproliferation Act,” the official said.

The Moldovan and Armenian companies and individuals to be placed on the sanctions list might be fronts for Russian entities, the official said.

The sanctions, which will be in force until January 2004, will ban the companies from signing contracts with the U.S. government, receiving U.S. assistance, obtaining U.S. licenses for items on export control lists and buying defense and other controlled items, Reuters reported.

The United States last applied sanctions under the Iran Nonproliferation Act in January when it imposed penalties on two Chinese companies — Liyang Chemical Equipment and China Machinery and Electric Import and Export Company — and one individual, Q.C. Chen.  The United States said the companies and Chen in January 1999 had transferred to Iran equipment and technology controlled by the Australia Group (Reuters/New York Times, May 9).

Back to top

United States I:  Lawmakers Challenge Nuclear Weapons Policies

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — For a second time, U.S. legislators are planning to challenge several proposed nuclear weapons provisions in legislation intended to support the Bush administration’s controversial nuclear weapons posture announced earlier this year.

Democratic Representatives Ike Skelton (Mo.), Ellen Tauscher (Calif.), John Spratt (S.C.) and Tom Allen (Maine) have said they are planning to introduce amendments — during today’s consideration of the fiscal 2003 national defense authorization bill in the House — to rewrite portions they say reflect an “aggressive nuclear stance.” The amendments were previously rejected in committee.

The representatives are members of the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee, which last week approved the bill in a 57-1 vote.  Skelton is the ranking Democrat.  They are planning to target several items contained in a nonbinding "sense of the Congress" resolution in the bill that call for:

*         maintaining no less than 1,700 "operationally deployed" nuclear warheads and a "responsive force" of nuclear weapons for contingencies;

*         developing nuclear weapons for destroying hard and deeply buried targets and enemy weapons of mass destruction facilities;

*         developing a plan for the United States to be able to resume underground testing on a year's notice and revitalize the nation's nuclear weapons industry "to facilitate the development and production of safer, more reliable, and more effective nuclear weapons.”

The language, the committee said in a report on the bill, addresses a “need for the United States to maintain a reliable, flexible and robust strategic deterrent in accordance with the national defense strategy, the Nuclear Posture Review, and the global strategic environment.”

The Bush administration has said it is planning nuclear warhead cuts down to between 1,700 to 2,000, and has requested money to study modifying a nuclear weapon for use against hard and deeply buried targets and to shorten the preparation time before nuclear testing.

The Democrats said in a statement yesterday that they are planning to “temper the aggressive nuclear positions outlined” in the bill.

“This is Cold War mentality that has no place in today's world," Tauscher said during a joint press conference with the other legislators Wednesday.

"I think that, frankly, hardliners in the president's own party in the Congress are jumping ahead of the president and the American people by initiating many of these moves in the defense bill," she said, as reported today in the San Jose Mercury News.

“There is no question that we stand with the president in the war against terrorism,” the paper reported Allen saying.  “But we cannot consent to a revitalization of nuclear arms.  Our concern is that ‘Dr. Strangelove’ is creeping back into American foreign policy.”

The Bush administration’s policies have drawn criticism from arms control organizations.

“What the committee is trying to do is move the most destructive weapons ever invented back into the mainstream of American security policy,” said John Isaacs, president of Council for a Livable World.

Proposed Changes

At the press conference, the legislators profiled changes in the legislation they said they would push for today, including:

*         an amendment to allow the president to cut nuclear warheads below 1,700 if it is deemed appropriate (Allen-Tauscher);

*         language requesting a report to Congress on administration plans to shorten the lead time prior to conducting a nuclear test (Allen-Tauscher);

*         a requirement for congressional notification 12 months prior to resuming testing (Spratt);

*         a statement of continued commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (Tauscher);

*         an amendment reaffirming that nuclear weapons not be used in missile defense interceptors and requiring that missile defense funding only be used for traditional “hit-to-kill” missile defense technologies (Allen-Spratt);

*         an amendment authorizing $10 million for an Energy Department program to strengthen civilian nuclear facilities outside of the former Soviet states targeted by the Pentagon’s Cooperation Threat Reduction program (Tauscher).

Amendments Already Approved

Allen successfully introduced two related amendments to the legislation when the committee marked up the bill last week.

One amendment calls for a National Academy of Sciences study of possible nuclear fallout effects of using nuclear-tipped interceptors in the U.S. missile defense program.

The Pentagon drew bipartisan Senate criticism last month when the Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had asked the Defense Science Board, a panel of civilian experts he appointed, to study potential for using nuclear-tipped interceptors (see GSN, April 11).

Following the Allen amendment, committee member Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) added a requirement to the study that it also address the impact on the population and the nation if a ballistic missile carrying a nuclear warhead is not intercepted and detonates directly above a major U.S. city.

Using a nuclear weapon has the advantage of destroying everything around it, including decoys and the missile, experts have said.  A possible disadvantage, in addition to the prospect of fallout, is that a nuclear blast in space could disrupt militarily and commercially significant satellites and affect equipment on the ground, they have said.

Earth Penetrator Study Requested

Allen also successfully introduced a requirement for an academy study of the possible effects on civilians and U.S. military personnel of using a nuclear weapon to destroy deeply buried and hardened enemy facilities.

The study would examine the collateral effects of using a nuclear earth-penetrating weapon — designed to burrow into the ground and then detonate — would have on civilian populations and U.S. military personnel in the target area.

The military is considering modifying a nuclear weapon to destroy leadership bunkers, such as the one Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is believed to use, and underground weapons of mass destruction facilities.

Weldon also added a provision to that amendment requiring that the study also examine the effects of using a high-explosive weapon to destroy an adversary’s weapons of mass destruction facilities, which would possibly contaminate the surrounding area with radioactive, nuclear, biological and chemical materials.

The committee also included a provision requiring the Defense and Energy secretaries to report specific numbers for projected U.S. nuclear weapons reductions, a “baseline nuclear force structure plan” and budget, to Congress by Jan. 1, 2003.

Back to top

United States II:  Savannah River MOX Plant Design Has Unresolved Issues, NRC Says

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said an Energy Department contractor hired to build a plutonium processing facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina has not addressed several safety issues in its construction application, Energy Daily reported Tuesday (see GSN, May 3).

An NRC draft safety evaluation report last week said Energy recently changed its plans for the mixed-oxide fuel (MOX) facility and that the commission is awaiting further information on those changes.  Energy has said it plans to increase the amount of plutonium being shipped to Savannah River because of cancellation of a program that would have converted some of the plutonium to solidified waste, according to Energy Daily.

In addition to the department’s changes, there are several unresolved issues in the design plans created by Duke Cogema Stone & Webster for the MOX facility, according to the report.

The NRC also has said it will delay an environmental review — which is separate from the safety evaluation — of the facility until Duke Cogema Stone & Webster gives the commission more information on changes to the MOX plan (George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, May 7).

Energy Might Ship Untested Containers

Meanwhile, to ship plutonium out of the Rocky Flats former nuclear weapons plant in Colorado, Energy allowed itself a national security exemption in 2000 to use containers that had not passed a “crush test,” the Denver Post reported Monday (see GSN, April 25).  Department engineers had argued against the exemption, saying that it was not for national security reasons, but to reduce costs and to allow the department to meet a 2006 deadline for closing Rocky Flats, according to the Post.

Most Rocky Flats plutonium will be shipped in what are known as 3013 containers, but the exemption allows the department to ship some of the waste in DT-22 containers, which are weaker and have not undergone testing involving a 1,100-pound weight dropped from 30 feet, the Post reported.  DT-22 cask designers have said the casks would not be able to withstand such an impact, according to Energy documents.

The department has made no decision on whether to use the weaker containers to ship plutonium from Rocky Flats to Savannah River, Energy spokesman Joe Davis said last week.  Information distributed at a Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board meeting, however, said the department is planning to use 400 of the containers for shipments, the Post reported (Mike Soraghan, Denver Post, May 6).

Back to top

Russian Response:  U.S.-Russian Energy Officials Discuss Nonproliferation Programs

Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev met Tuesday with U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to discuss progress on U.S.-Russian nuclear nonproliferation programs (see GSN, May 6).  The two officials discussed U.S.-Russian programs to protect Russian fissile materials, to create jobs for Russian nuclear scientists and to dispose of weapon-grade plutonium stockpiles (Ivan Lebedev, ITAR-Tass, May 8).

Back to top

Bulgaria:  Sofia Denies Charges of Chemical Weapons Possession

Bulgaria yesterday denied a report that it possesses chemical weapons, saying it has had an active role in preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The Foreign Ministry statements came as a response to media accounts this week — based on recovered traces of 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate (BZ) — that Bulgaria has chemical weapons, Bulgarian news agency BTA reported.

The quantity of BZ recovered, however, was far less than the one-kilogram amount that would have required notifying the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the Foreign Ministry said.  The BZ had been used to develop means of protection against chemical weapons, allowed under the Chemical Weapons Convention, the ministry said (BTA/BBC Worldwide Monitoring, May 8).

Back to top

Nuclear Waste:  House Votes to Support Yucca Mountain

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives yesterday voted overwhelmingly in favor of a proposed long-term nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada (see GSN, May 2).

Legislators voted 306-117 to pass a resolution to overturn Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn’s veto of the Yucca Mountain site.  While almost all Republican representatives supported the resolution, House Democrats were equally split on the issue.

“For the sake of long-term public health and safety and our national security interests, it is critically important that we move to develop Yucca Mountain,” Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-La.) said.  “Today’s vote is a giant step toward that goal.”

Representative Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), an ardent Yucca Mountain opponent, said she was disappointed at yesterday’s vote but encouraged at the amount of support Nevada received against the plan (see GSN, April 18).

“Nobody expected that we would win this vote in the House.  In fact, almost everyone expected we would lose by a landslide,” Berkley said.  “Naturally it is disappointing to lose such an important vote by a large margin, but by garnering more than 100 votes, we were able to defy expectations, deny the nuclear industry the huge win that they wanted and slow the momentum on the bill as it moves to the Senate.”

The nuclear energy industry yesterday praised House support of Yucca Mountain, and called on the Senate to support a similar resolution that has already been introduced.

“The House of Representatives today affirmed the future of a vital national energy and environmental project at Yucca Mountain,” said Joe Colvin, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry’s main lobbying group.  “The industry urges the leadership of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the full Senate to consider the Yucca Mountain resolution with similar resolve.”

On to the Senate

To approve the Yucca Mountain site for a permanent nuclear waste repository, both the House and Senate must pass joint resolutions to overturn Guinn’s veto within 90 legislative days of the veto’s issuance (see GSN, April 8).  The Energy and Natural Resources Committee is scheduled to hold hearings on the Senate override resolution in the next two weeks, and a full Senate vote is expected in July (see GSN, March 29).

It is still an uphill fight for Nevada in the Senate to defeat the Yucca Mountain plan, but there is “definitely a better opportunity,” according to Amy Spanbauer, press secretary for Representative Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.).

While it is easier to gang up on a state in the House, the Senate has a more level playing field, Spanbauer said.  The Senate Democratic leadership — including Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) — is on record as being opposed to Yucca Mountain, and Nevada’s two senators are examining parliamentary options and working to build support to defeat the plan, she said.

“[There is] no question the Senate is a challenge,” said NEI Media Relations Manager Mitch Singer.  Although the Senate vote on the resolution is expected to be closer than in the House, the nuclear industry is still optimistic the resolution will pass, he said.

Even though Nevada has lost its fight against Yucca Mountain in the House, the state is ready to continue its opposition, Berkley said.

“Considering the odds that were against us, we got off to a good start,” she said.  “This is just the first round in a very long fight.  And in the end, I am confident Nevadans will emerge victorious.”

Back to top