U.S. Response:  Anti-Terrorism Spending to Soar, Study Says

The United States has spent $37 billion in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and is set to spend over 10 times more on counterterrorism programs over the next 10 years, according to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office (see GSN, Aug. 2).

The findings of the study — which estimates additional spending at $443 billion over the next 10 years — correspond with earlier and less intensive cost estimates, the New York Times reported today.  The estimate is equivalent to 2 percent of the overall U.S. budget projected at $2 trillion per year and to 5 percent of the discretionary budget, the portion that excludes predetermined costs such as Social Security spending, the Times reported.

White House officials said the study helps support their argument that Congress must keep nondefense spending in check to prevent large deficits.

Democrats, however, said the study damages President George W. Bush’s claims that a poor economy and the war on terrorism — not tax cuts — account for a dwindling projected budget surplus.  According to study estimates, 10 percent of the drop in the surplus over the next 10 years would be directly related to counterterrorism spending, but tax cuts would account for 25 percent.

“The cost of 9-11 is a small fraction of the total deterioration of the surplus,” said Representative John Spratt (D-S.C.), who requested the study.  “It is not, however, a small number.  It will require tradeoffs, particularly in a budget where the administration left no cushion for the unexpected.”

White House officials said there are several factors that account for the decreased surplus.

“Sept. 11 and the recession and the war on terrorism were of course a big portion of what happened to the surplus,” said Amy Call, a spokeswoman for the White House Office of Management and Budget.  “What we are sure about is that if we don’t control spending, we will remain in deficit.”

The four fiscal years after 2003 are set to be one of the periods of highest spending in U.S. history and neither Republicans nor Democrats feel much pressure to reduce spending on social or defense programs, said Brian Riedl, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

“Republicans and Democrats basically make a deal with each other — ‘I’ll vote for your increase if you’ll vote for my increase,’” Riedl said.  “As long as voters don’t seem intent on punishing politicians for budget deficits, both parties feel they are in the clear” (Richard Stevenson, New York Times, Sept. 6).

Back to top

International Response:  G-8 Pledge Needs Organization, Lugar Says

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The Group of Eight economic powers must begin coordinating efforts to expand nonproliferation programs in the former Soviet Union, U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) said today.  Lugar, the senior Republican member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is an original co-sponsor of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the U.S. effort to support WMD reductions in former Soviet states.

Lugar, who just returned from a trip to Russia where he witnessed some U.S.-funded nonproliferation programs first-hand — but was prohibited from visiting Kirov 200, one of four military biological weapons facilities yet to be opened to the West — applauded a recent G-8 decision to dramatically expand the programs with an additional $10 billion from Washington and another $10 billion from other G-8 members over the next 10 years (see GSN, June 28).

The financing will go a long way in addressing remaining chemical, biological and nuclear proliferation threats in Russia, Lugar said.  He expressed dismay, however, that the effort remains disorganized and lacks a framework for moving ahead.

“Not much has happened since the G-8” meeting in June, Lugar said.  “There’s got to be some kind of organization.”

The Foreign Relations Committee plans to hold hearings “in the next few weeks” to begin debating how the money should be managed and prioritizing the many disarmament projects left to be completed, he said.

“This is not necessarily a congressional prerogative,” Lugar said, indicating that the leadership of U.S. President George W. Bush and other countries is a needed step, but there is “some sense of urgency” to get things moving.

The $20 billion pledge would build on funds already spent by the United States since 1991, when Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) first sponsored the CTR program.

Legislation Pending

Much remains to be done in the former Soviet Union, Lugar said, including destroying Russia’s chemical weapons, securing biological pathogens such as those believed to be at Kirov 200, eliminating Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons, engaging former weapon scientists in more peaceful projects, protecting nuclear materials, monitoring radioactive sources, shutting down plutonium producing reactors, disposing of leftover plutonium, dismantling nonstrategic nuclear submarines and enhancing nuclear reactor safety.

Bureaucratic delays continue to plague the release of U.S. funds for these and other related CTR projects.  For example, lawmakers are scheduled to deliberate this month on several measures to provide more spending flexibility for CTR funds.  The defense authorization bill in the Senate includes Lugar-sponsored legislation that would allow the CTR program to expand beyond the former Soviet Union, but the House of Representatives’ version of the bill prohibits such expansion (see GSN, March 20).

As Bush has requested, the Senate bill also seeks to permanently allow the president to waive the need to certify that Russia is complying with various requirements before CTR funds can be released.  The House bill, however, includes only a three-year waiver.  Lastly, the Senate is calling for another waiver that would allow CTR funds to begin destroying Russia’s chemical weapons, while the House bill has no such provision.

All of these differences will have to be ironed out in conference committee, and Lugar expressed confidence that Senate positions will prevail.

[EDITOR'S NOTE:  Richard Lugar is a board member and Sam Nunn is co-chairman and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.]

Back to top

Iraq:  Photographs Indicate Nuclear Site Construction

Examining satellite photographs, weapons inspectors have identified several nuclear-related sites in Iraq that have undergone new construction or other unexplained changes since they were last visited by international inspectors nearly four years ago, a U.N. official said today (see GSN, Aug. 13).

A team of about 15 experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency detected the new structures and other changes in photographs taken by a commercial satellite, said Jacques Baute, a French physicist who heads the team.  The photographs were compared to pictures and information gathered during the last inspections in Iraq.

“We are very curious to see what is under the roof,” Baute said, referring to the new structures.  “There are some activities that could be part of prohibited activities, but we have nothing now that allows us to draw a conclusion.”

U.N. inspectors are ready to travel to Iraq and begin inspections within weeks if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein were to give permission, said IAEA officials and a separate inspection team for chemical and biological weapons (see GSN, Sept. 3).  It would take a year to complete inspections if Iraq were to cooperate fully, they said.  Such a timetable is slower than what U.S. officials have previously supported, U.N. officials said (Julia Preston, New York Times, Sept. 6).

Bush to Consult With Security Council

U.S. President George W. Bush is expected to consult today with the leaders of France, China and Russia — three of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — in an attempt to build international support for U.S. policy (see GSN, Sept. 5).

“I will remind them that history has called us into action,” Bush said yesterday.  “We can’t let the world’s worst leaders blackmail, threaten, hold freedom-loving nations hostage with the world’s worst weapons.”

The United States is attempting to determine whether it could obtain a resolution by the U.N. Security Council for military action against Iraq if Hussein were to continue to refuse weapons inspections, the Baltimore Sun reported.  White House officials have said such a resolution would not be legally necessary for a U.S. attack on Iraq.  U.N. support was seen as instrumental, however, in obtaining congressional approval for the 1991 Gulf War, the Sun reported.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said yesterday that Bush should attempt to garner a U.N. resolution for the current situation (see GSN, Sept. 4).

“It would certainly be in the president’s best interest, our country’s best interest, for him to go to the Security Council, to the United Nations, to solicit their support and to encourage and to acquire their active engagement in this effort, just as his father did,” Daschle said (Mark Matthews, Baltimore Sun, Sept. 6).

Russia

Even though Russia has publicly maintained strong opposition to any military action against Iraq, recent comments indicate that Moscow might not go too far to support Baghdad, according to the Financial Times (see GSN, May 22).

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has repeatedly said that any concerns over Iraq should be resolved through diplomatic, and not military, means, the Times reported.  Officials also have said, however, that Russia has been in contact with anti-Hussein opposition groups within Iraq.  Ivanov has indicated that Russia does not want to be put in a position where it would have to use its U.N. Security Council veto, according to the Times.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is not likely to support a veto due to fears of antagonizing the United States, said Dmitry Trenin, deputy head of the Carnegie Moscow Center.

“Putin will not cast a veto because that would mean restarting a confrontation with the U.S., and the first principle of his foreign policy is to not mess with the U.S.,” Trenin said.

China

China is officially opposed to military actions against Iraq, but Chinese officials said yesterday that the country has begun discussions with the United States on such a possibility, the Times reported.

China’s official position might be more flexible than previously believed, according to Chinese foreign policy academics.  It might abstain from a U.N. Security Council vote on Iraq just as it did in 1991, an academic said.  China’s decision on the use of its veto in the council might depend on the wording of any U.N. resolution, with China more likely to support a resolution that links military action to a failure to abide by U.N. inspections, Chinese academics said.

France

In France, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin has taken a softer approach than past French governments in stating opposition to U.S. policy, according to the Times.  French President Jacques Chirac, however, has recently criticized the U.S. approach toward Iraq.

“We can see an emerging temptation to legitimize the unilateral and pre-emptive use of force,” Chirac told a gathering of French ambassadors a week ago.  “This is a worrying development and contrary to France’s vision of collective security, which rests on cooperation between states, the rule of law and the authority of the Security Council.”

Chirac is expected to tell Bush that France would insist on a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing any international action against Iraq, the Times reported (Financial Times, Sept. 6).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)

U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Iraqi Sanctions Revisions

IAEA Iraq Action Team

Back to top

International Response:  Officials to Move Uzbek Uranium to Secure Site

Uzbek, Russian and U.S. officials are planning a joint security operation to remove a large stockpile of highly enriched uranium from an Uzbek reactor site, the London Guardian reported today (see GSN, Sept. 3).

About 70 kilograms of highly enriched uranium are stored at the Institute of Nuclear Physics at Ulugbek, near the Uzbek capital of Tashkent.  The site is too close to Afghanistan and might have weak security, according to the Guardian.

“(The security at) most of these old reactors is pretty scary,” said Matthew Bunn, senior research associate at the Managing the Atom Project at Harvard University.

Officials plan to ship the uranium stockpile and spent fuel from the reactor to a secure Russian site.  The United States is expected to pay up to $4 million to cover the costs of the plan.

Meanwhile, three metric tons of weapon-grade nuclear materials were moved a few months ago from the Aktau nuclear reactor in western Kazakhstan to a more secure site on the eastern Kazakh-Russian border, the Guardian reported.  Local companies associated with the reactor moved the materials and a Washington foundation, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, funded the security costs of the operation (Nick Paton, London Guardian, Sept. 6).

[EDITOR'S NOTE:  The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group, Inc.]

Back to top

United States:  Energy Department to Accelerate Plutonium Shipments

The U.S. Energy Department plans to accelerate shipments of plutonium from the Rocky Flats former nuclear weapons plant to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, Inside Energy reported Aug. 26 (see GSN, Aug. 7).

The department wants to squeeze the timetable by several months to maintain a pledge to Colorado that all nuclear materials from the Rocky Flats site would be removed by Dec. 31, 2003, according to Inside Energy.  Energy plans to meet that pledge “regardless of any short-term impacts from delays on special nuclear materials,” Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham told Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) in an Aug. 12 letter.

Energy has estimated that it would cost an additional $4.5 million for each month that the closure of the secure area of the Rocky Flats site is delayed, Abraham said.  Allard and Senator Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) attached an amendment to the fiscal 2003 defense authorization bill providing $18 million to ensure that any delay costs would not come from funds allocated for the cleanup of the Rocky Flats site (Shawn Terry, Inside Energy, Aug. 26).

Back to top

Libya:  Tripoli “Working Hard” Toward Nuclear Weapons, Sharon Says

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said Libya is likely to be the first Arab state to develop nuclear weapons, the Sydney Morning Herald reported today (see GSN, June 27).

“Libya is working hard on developing an atom bomb and is apparently the Arab country furthest along in this,” Sharon told the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv.  “For a long time we suspected they were working on this, but a few months ago, we were given final confirmation of this.  They are progressing all the time.”

Several countries including Iraq and Pakistan might be providing assistance to Libya’s nuclear weapons program, Sharon said.

“Iraqi experts are running the show in Libya,” he said on Israeli television.  “There might be Saudi money involved and there is definitely an involvement of North Korea” (Ross Dunn, Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 6).

Libya yesterday denied that it is working to develop any types of weapons of mass destruction and called on Israel to dismantle its own suspected arsenal of nuclear weapons (see GSN, Aug. 19).

“Libya does not own weapons of mass destruction and it does not want these weapons and is seeking to remove weapons of mass destruction from the whole area,” said Libyan Minister for African Unity Ali al-Triki.  “If Sharon is sincere about (the removal of weapons of) mass destruction, let him agree to disarm his nuclear arsenal first, then he can talk about others.”

Libya does not have the money needed to develop weapons of mass destruction, Libyan Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassuna Shaush said.  Sharon has “presented Washington with false information to stir up bad feeling between Arabs and the United States,” Shaush said (Beirut Daily Star, Sept. 6).

Back to top

BWC:  With Threat, U.S. Pressures to End Review Conference Early

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States is pushing to cut short the Biological Weapons Convention review conference, now scheduled to meet for two weeks beginning Nov. 11. 

Senior U.S. diplomats attending preparatory meetings in Geneva this week threatened to publicly identify suspected treaty violators unless the conference is abbreviated, and discussions about amending the treaty by establishing a verification and monitoring regime are avoided.

Bush administration officials also said they would oppose any further treaty meetings until the next review conference scheduled for 2006.

The U.S. insistence is a further blow to efforts by other Western treaty parties to strengthen the pact in a number of ways, including by creating an on-site inspection mechanism for checking on suspected biological weapons activities worldwide, similar to that of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Observers say U.S. officials are hoping to shut down the conference to prevent any further discussion of an inspections protocol to the treaty.

“The U.S. seems to be very intent on wrapping this up,” said Michael Moodie, president of the Washington-based Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute.

“They want absolutely no possibility that there will be a return in any way of the protocol negotiations.  They don’t want anyone thinking in any way they have a back door to negotiations,” he said.  “So they’re taking this very hard line towards the closure of the review conference.”

Prior to the review conference last year, Bush administration officials announced they would not support creating a protocol for inspections and other changes, the subject of six years of mostly-U.S. led negotiations (see GSN, Nov. 21, 2001).  U.S. officials then said they opposed inspections, arguing they might expose legitimate U.S. military and commercial secrets but not illicit activities of rogue regimes. 

With other Western states unwilling to push for a protocol without U.S. support, the conference was suspended until this November in Geneva.

A number of close U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, have indicated they still favor creating a mandatory inspection mechanism, and also have indicated they would propose holding annual treaty meetings and scientific meetings for addressing technological changes to the threat.

U.S. officials said this week they do not favor any such follow-on meetings and remain opposed to further meetings of an ad hoc group to negotiate a protocol.

Who Might Be Named

U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton shook up the conference last November by naming Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and North Korea as nations suspected by the United States to have biological weapons programs.  Bolton said the U.S. authorities believe more than seven other countries are pursuing biological weapons, but did not name them.

At a Tokyo conference last week, Bolton again named the five countries and said the United States has spoken to other unidentified countries privately during the past year.

A Pentagon report released in April identified India, China, Pakistan and Russia as nations suspected of having biological weapons programs (see GSN, April 19).  A 1998 State Department report to Congress said Egypt might have a biological weapons capability.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson was quoted in the Washington Post Wednesday as speculating France may have a store of the smallpox virus.

Independent experts also widely suspect that Israel has a program.  “Politically, I’d find it very difficult to imagine they would name Israel in this context, especially since Israel is not a party to the BWC,” Moodie said.

Potential Problems With Naming Names

Bolton has presented the strategy of “naming names” of countries suspected by the United States — presumably based on evidence gathered by U.S. intelligence — as an alternative to a treaty mechanism for investigating and identifying suspected states.

“The United States seeks to put maximum political pressure on proliferators by naming state parties that are violators of the BWC,” he said last week.

Formal arms control inspections through the BWC to determine biological weapons activities could not be effective, he argued, because the components can be found in the everyday environment and can simultaneously have legitimate and illegitimate uses.

“They are used for many peaceful purposes such as routine studies against disease, the creation of vaccines, and the study of defensive measures against a biological attack,” Bolton said.

“Detecting violations is nearly impossible.  Proving a violation is impossible,” he said.

There is a problem in the U.S. “naming names” approach, however, with providing proof the international community will recognize.  Bolton and another U.S. official this year accused Cuba of having a limited, offensive biological warfare research and development “effort,” citing U.S. intelligence information.

The accusation provoked some controversy, with former President Jimmy Carter questioning its accuracy and Cuba issuing a denial.  Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research Carl Ford in congressional testimony in June acknowledged U.S. difficulties uncovering proof Cuba actually had a program (see GSN, June 6).

Naming names also can have harmful diplomatic consequences, said Moodie.

“Nobody in those kinds of forums likes to be singled out, and some people consider it a breach of diplomatic decorum to be that specific about it,” he said.

By naming additional names, Moodie said, the United States could run the risk of itself being accused of having a program forbidden by the treaty.

The New York Times reported last September that the United States has been running several classified biological weapons research programs, ostensibly for better understanding potential threats, which could be construed as violating the treaty.

“There are at least a couple of those programs that were reported that were, in the view of some people, close to the lines if not over the lines of compliance,” said Moodie.  “If the U.S. is sort of looking for a fight, I think that some people might try to take them up on it, on that basis.”

A Change of Position

The latest U.S. positions were not received warmly by other Western delegations, said Jenni Rissanen, who has followed the debate at the review conference from Geneva and written for the Acronym Institute’s Disarmament Diplomacy.

“Other countries were quite upset.  It puts U.S. allies in a very difficult position,” she said.

A British official told Global Security Newswire last month that British diplomats would not rule out pushing for a vote on a protocol or other recommendations in November despite opposition (see GSN, Aug. 6).

“U.S. officials announced to the Western group partners their position had ‘evolved.’  People said they should have used the word ‘regressed,’ Rissanen said.

Rissanen said U.S. officials have effectively withdrawn from pursuing even their own BWC-related proposals last year.

“Last year they said in order to agree to follow up meetings, [the parties] would have to kill the ad hoc group,” she said.  “Now they no longer support the whole concept of follow-up meetings.”

A State Department fact sheet on the BWC published in May said there was “widespread support” at the conference last November “for U.S. and allied initiatives intended to strengthen the convention through practical, national implementation measures and continuing expert meetings.” 

A State Department spokesman yesterday said U.S. officials would not be available for comment on the recommendations until they returned to Washington Monday.

Skepticism About Traditional Arms Control

Bush administration officials on a number of occasions have indicated strong skepticism about the usefulness of traditional arms control tools, such as detailed treaties, declarations of holdings and on-site inspections, and have said in particular they do not find them useful with respect to uncovering biological weapons (see GSN, March 27).

“While the BWC retains an important role, the U.S. believes we should also look beyond traditional arms control measures to deal with the complex and dangerous threat posed by BW,” the fact sheet said.

Countering the threat, it said, “will require a full range of measures  — tightened export controls, intensified nonproliferation dialogue, increased domestic preparedness and controls, enhanced biodefense and counterterrorism capabilities, and innovative measures against disease outbreaks, as well as the full compliance by all states parties with the global ban.”

Bolton listed a number of measures to combat biological weapons proliferation involving the United States over the past year, including laws to strengthen U.S. counterterrorism and biological defense capabilities (see GSN, May 3), a pledge to donate $10 billion over 10 years to enhance WMD security in the former Soviet Union (see GSN, June 14), a World Health Organization agreement to strengthen global health surveillance systems to detect an attack (see GSN, June 24) and an agreement by industrial states to strengthen export controls of certain equipment that could be used in biological weapons programs (see GSN, June 21).

With U.N. arms inspectors barred from Iraq since late 1998, the Bush administration currently is considering a military attack against Iraq to rid it of suspected biological and chemical weapons capabilities, and a suspected nuclear weapons programs.

Rissanen said she believes the U.S. approach to the treaty is effectively “making the convention obsolete.”

Bolton said the United States remains a “strong supporter of this treaty,” but indicated what is valued in it is the standard it creates against biological weapons.

“The United States strongly supports the global norm established by the BWC,” he said.

Back to top

United States:  Officials Sound Terrorist Alert at Utah Depot

Officials at the U.S. Army Deseret Chemical Depot in Tooele, Utah, sounded a terrorist alert yesterday after four soldiers reported seeing a potential intruder (Associated Press/Washington Times, Sept. 6).  Before it began incinerating its stores, the depot held more than 40 percent of the U.S. chemical weapons arsenal (see GSN, July 17; Globalsecurity.org).

During two separate patrols, soldiers spotted the potential intruder within the guarded perimeter of the depot, said Col. Peter Cooper, commander of the depot.  The person fled when soldiers approached, Cooper said.  It is unknown whether the individual was an intruder or a depot employee in an unauthorized area, he added.

“At this time, we cannot confirm an intruder,” he said.  “Right now we are pretty sure we’ve cleared the depot.  We’re not sure if it was an employee who was not in the right area.”

There is no evidence that anything has been stolen from the base or that the potential intruder was linked to terrorism, said a senior Bush administration official.  The security of the depot was never at issue, Cooper said.

“We’re talking about the outer boundary ... he never got close to the chemical storage area at all,” he said (Associated Press/Washington Times).

Officials have called off the search for the suspected intruder, Broadcast News reported today (Broadcast News, Sept. 6).

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Plans to Extend Test Moratorium

North Korea plans to announce later this month that it will maintain a moratorium on missile testing, Asahi Shimbun reported today (see GSN, Aug. 9).

The moratorium previously had been scheduled to end in 2003.  The continuation — one of six points in a joint declaration drafted for a scheduled Sept. 17 summit between the two countries’ leaders — is a major concession, analysts said.  By such an action, North Korea might also be attempting to send positive signals to the United States, observers said (Asahi Shimbun, Sept. 6).

For further information, see:

Carnegie Endowment World Missile Chart

Back to top

Iran:  Tehran Successfully Tests Surface-to-Surface Missile

Iran has successfully tested a solid-fueled surface-to-surface missile and advanced control systems, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported today (see GSN, May 28).

The Fateh A-110 missile is “the latest achievement” of Iran’s defense industry because it “is based on indigenous know-how in design and production,” said Ahmad Vahid, head of the Iranian Defense Ministry’s Aerospace Industry Organization (Islamic Republic News Agency, Sept. 6).

For further information, see:

Carnegie Endowment World Missile Chart

Back to top

Israel:  Air Force Calls Reservists to Operate Patriot Batteries

The Israel Air Force has called up reservists to operate Patriot missile batteries deployed around the country in anticipation of a possible Sept. 11 attack, Ha’aretz reported today (see GSN, Aug. 23).

Officials decided a few days ago to deploy the missiles at three sites — in Haifa, near Gedera and in the Eilat region — according to Ha’aretz.  Reservists mobilized on emergency orders are working at some of the batteries.

“A combination of intelligence information and assessments,” has led officials to believe that al-Qaeda, Hezbollah or Palestinian terror groups might try to mount a large air strike on major Israeli targets on the anniversary of last year’s Sept. 11 attacks, a senior defense source said.

In preparation for a possible U.S.-led offensive against Iraq, air force officials are considering maintaining the Patriot batteries even after the anniversary date, Ha’aretz reported (see GSN, Aug. 23; Ha’aretz, Sept. 6).

Back to top

Radiological Weapons:  First Responders Get Recycled Detection Equipment

The U.S. Energy and Justice departments yesterday kicked off a key part of a joint program to provide refurbished radiation-detection equipment to local first-responder units (see GSN, March 6).  Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham transferred the program’s first shipment of refurbished equipment to Washington emergency management officials.

Under the Homeland Defense Equipment Reuse program, state and local first-responder units can receive radiation detection equipment and other tools to increase domestic preparedness, Energy said in a press release.  The department plans to refurbish the equipment and provide it at no cost to users in local first-response units identified by Justice’s Office for Domestic Preparedness.

The Justice office plans to train local first responders how to use the equipment, the Energy press release said.  Local support and maintenance as well as follow-up training is to be provided in connection with the Health Physics Society, a 6,000-member organization of radiation safety professionals.

“We are proud to help ensure that our law enforcement and emergency personnel have the necessary equipment and training to prepare them to respond effectively and thoroughly to any emergency,” Abraham said.  “And, we are pleased to provide DOE resources to help ensure America’s homeland defense” (U.S. Energy Department release, Sept. 5).

Back to top