Food Safety:  U.S. Cancels Public Meetings on Biological Agent Controls

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A U.S. Agriculture Department agency canceled a series of public meetings this month on possible changes to a list of biological toxins and agents that could damage plants and agicultural products.  The move was criticized by some in the biological research community.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service had scheduled three meetings in North Carolina, Maryland and California to specifically discuss revising the U.S. criteria for determining “whether an agent has the potential to pose a severe threat to plant health or products,” according to a notice in the Federal Register.

An official from the service said Monday that one reason for the cancellations was that there was a concern that the meetings would tip terrorists to potentially destructive agents.

“It was prudent to cancel,” said Assistant Director for Plant Health Programs Michael Firko, who added that the meetings “would have been too much of a public forum.”

Firko also said the meetings might have been used for off-topic or premature criticism of the congressionally mandated update of the list, which is expected to occur next year.

“They were turning into a lot more than we expected them to be,” he said.  “We don’t want to get into the position of defending something we haven’t even proposed yet. … A public meeting like that would have been a very freewheeling environment,” the official added.

Questions Over Criteria

Biological security expert Ronald Atlas, a University of Louisville biology professor, questioned the service’s explanations for the cancellations.

“We were given an explanation that the information was too sensitive to discuss, but it’s not clear what the real explanation was,” said Atlas, who recently served a term as president of the American Society of Microbiology.

Atlas said there has been disagreement among plant pathologists over exactly how restrictive the list should be — whether it should restrict entire species or target specific subtypes of pathogens.

Differing from criteria used for a similar list for animals, Atlas said, “The nomenclature of what we call an organism or what’s really the pathogen of concern is really more complicated. …  If you use just the genus and species name, you capture a whole lot of things you’re not really concerned about.”

He said while some serovars — or subcategories — of pathogens might be harmful to economically useful plants, others would not.

The lists and accompanying restrictions were required by the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2002 Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act with the purpose of better controlling materials that could be used to attack U.S. food sources, such as plants and animals, as well as associated products (see GSN, Dec. 12, 2002).

Researchers have criticized the laws for, among other things, mandating costly laboratory security upgrades, intrusive federal background checks for researchers and destruction of surplus, allegedly in some cases for toxins and agents that might not pose a health or economic threat.

Public Dialogue

Atlas criticized the decision to cancel the meetings, saying that researchers have questioned how the inspection service will make sound regulation changes “if they don’t talk to the community.”

Michelle Bjerkness, a spokesperson for the American Phytopathological Society, said service officials, however, were available to interact with the public by staffing a booth during the society’s annual conference, which was being held in Charlotte at the same time as the cancelled meeting.

Firko said the canceled gatherings were simply preliminary meetings and were not required by law.  He noted, though, that officials would continue to solicit written public comments that might have been delivered by meeting attendees. 

Public meetings will be held at a later date, and in the meantime, the service will seek independent advice on the criteria directly from experts, Firko said.

Back to top

Radiological Weapons:  Thieves Steal Containers of Cobalt 60 from Indian Plant

Three metal containers of radioactive cobalt 60 have been stolen from a steel plant in eastern India, a company official said yesterday (see GSN, July 14).

The containers were stolen Friday from the Tata Steel factory in Jamshedpur, an official said.  Police investigating the incident have detained three men and are investigating whether factory staff had any involvement, a senior police official said.  Jamshedpur Police Superintendent Arun Oraon said “there’s reason to believe” that the containers will soon be recovered (Gulf Daily News, Aug. 18).

Back to top

NGO Funding:  MacArthur Foundation Announces New Funding Initiative

A Chicago-based foundation announced last week that it will donate more than $50 million over six years to fund new research into reducing the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction.

Officials at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation said they plan to create 110 new jobs at universities, laboratories and think tanks.

“With the retirement or passing of the scientists who were involved in the early development of nuclear weapons in the United States, the number of specialists conducting independent research and analysis on weapons of mass destruction has decreased markedly, even as the threat of terrorism has grown,” said foundation President Jonathan Fanton.  “At the same time, the nature of the threat from weapons of mass destruction has changed. … To address these new challenges, there is a need for specialists from many fields of science who are willing to engage the security policy agenda,” he added.

The money will be donated to nine U.S. universities, six international research centers and numerous foundations and think tanks worldwide.

The funding is intended to create new faculty positions, support midcareer scientists and establish fellowships and stipends to encourage research on terrorism.

Among the biggest recipients is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which will receive $2.1 million over three years to expand its Technical Working Group program. The Technical Working Group researches and trains students in ballistic missile defenses, nuclear arms reduction and other issues pertaining to fissile materials (MacArthur Foundation release, Aug. 14).

Back to top

Nuclear Waste:  U.S. Energy Department Could Further Improve Security of Spent-Fuel Shipments, GAO Says

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — While studies indicate that the transportation of spent nuclear fuel is generally safe, the U.S. Energy Department can do more to further reduce the risk of an accidental release, either through a transportation accident or intentional attack, according to a U.S. General Accounting Office report released yesterday (see GSN, July 29).

Currently, there are more than 50,000 tons of spent fuel stored at more than 70 sites located at, or near, nuclear power plants in 33 states.  This spent fuel is to be shipped to a long-term nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which the Energy Department plans to have constructed and operational by 2010.  The department has estimated that it will require 175 shipments annually for 23 years by both road and rail to move the 50,000 tons to the Yucca repository, according to the report.

Studies conducted by the Energy Department and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission indicate a low risk of public harm from an transportation accident or terrorist attack on a spent-fuel shipment, the report says.  The spent fuel itself is neither explosive nor volatile and it cannot be easily dispersed to contaminate an area with radiation.  In addition, the casks used to transport the spent fuel have been found to allow little release of material if penetrated.

Some experts, however, have argued that the release of spent fuel could put the public at risk.  During the congressional debate last year over whether to approve the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository, Nevada officials, who strenuously oppose the project, warned that studies conducted on their behalf indicated that a successful attack on a spent fuel shipment could result in latent cancer deaths in the surrounding population (see GSN, May 24, 2002).

Congressional auditors found that while spent-fuel shipments may be relatively safe, the Energy Department could do more to further improve security, according to the report.  For example, Energy could choose to reduce the overall number of spent-fuel shipments by moving more of the material per shipment, the report says.  The department is required under contract with the spent fuel owners, mostly nuclear power plants, to transport spent fuel to a repository based on when the fuel was removed from a nuclear reactor.  If Energy maintained that schedule for the 12 largest nuclear plants, more than 575 shipments would be needed.  If Energy was allowed to move larger quantities of spent fuel from each site, however, about 300 shipments could be eliminated, according to the report.

Energy could also improve the security of spent-fuel shipments by transporting older stockpiles first since they are less radioactive, the report says.  Spent-fuel owners, however, have the authority to determine which material will be transported to a repository, which could result in owners choosing to move more radioactive material out of wet storage pools to free up additional storage space, it adds.

Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas), who requested the report, said the GAO’s findings helps to dispel security concerns raised by Yucca Mountain opponents, who he said wanted to shut down the nuclear power industry.

“Spent nuclear fuel belongs at Yucca Mountain when that facility is licensed,” Barton said yesterday in a press statement.  “Opponents of nuclear power exploited fears of terrorist activity and said waste should not be moved off-site.  Not only is that a backdoor way to try and stop nuclear power, but that argument is also wrong, as this GAO report indicates,” he said.

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP