GOVERNMENT & POLICY SCRAPPED The fate of plutonium in warheads from discarded Soviet missiles, such as this one in 1997, remains unclear in Bush's review.
BUSH TO BOOST AID TO RUSSIA Administration ends program review, plans to increase nuclear nonproliferation spending JEFF JOHNSON, C&EN WASHINGTON JEFF JOHNSON, C&EN WASHINGTON
N
UCLEAR WEAPONS NONPROLIF-
eration programs received a big boost last month in the form of more money from Congress and a ringing endorsement from President George W Bush. The White House released a statement on Dec. 27, 2001, announcing the completion of a nearly yearlong internal Administration review of these programs. The review found that "most U.S. programs to assist Russia in threat reduction and nonproliferation work well, are focused on priority tasks, and are well managed." In a statement, the President described Russia as a "crucial partner" and "a nation we are helping to dismantle strategic weapons, reduce nuclear material, and increase security at nuclear sites." The announcement also said the Administration would expand Russia-U.S. programs with antiterrorism implications—for instance, installing nuclear detection equipment at Russian border posts and providing employment for former Soviet weapons scientists. The review examined 30 programs with a combined budget of $750 million, the HTTP://PUBS.ACS.ORG/CEN
Administration said. The announcement appeared to be a 180-degree shift from Administration views of a year ago, reflected in its first budget that proposed an 11% or $100 million cut in nonproliferation programs as well as the internal review The review and proposed cuts put the nonproliferation program in stasis for the past year, claim former Clinton aides and some in Congress. Although buoyed by the President's announcement, they say the stall came at an unfortunate time—just when the program was poised to take off. They also complain that the Administration delay has blocked progress of U.S. and internationally funded programs to ensure that Russian plutonium and other weapons material remain secure from terrorists (C&EN, Dec. 17,2001, page 43). The cuts, however, have been restored by Congress and in some cases funding has been increased. First, Congress boosted the Department of Energy's 2002 nonproliferation appropriation by $80 million and then kicked in another $226 million infusion as part of a $20 billion emergency antiterrorism supplement passed on Dec. 12.
It was "Congress to the rescue," says William E. Hoehn I I I , director of the Washington, D.C., office of the nonprofit Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council. The Bush shift, Hoehn says, is "good news" and a reversal from where the Administration started out a year ago. "Now it seems that the Administration pretty much offers full support for the nonproliferation agenda." Indeed, in its Dec. 27 statement, the White House recommended expanding several programs it had proposed to trim. Among them is DOE's Material Protection, Control, & Accounting Program, which helps Russia physically secure and consolidate weapons-grade nuclear materials held at several locations in the country Originally Bush had sought to cut the $170 million program by $31 million. However, Congress pushed funding back to $170 million in DOE's 2002 appropriation bill, and then the antiterrorism supplement jacked it up another $ 120 million to $290 million, far above the Clinton Administration's level. THE ADMINISTRATION would also ex pand DOE's program to monitor the removal of Russian warheads andfissilematerials. And the Administration says it wants to accelerate the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program in order to construct a chemical weapons incineration facility at Shchuch'ye in the Kurgan region east of Moscow Also, the Administration says it will adjust, refocus, or reexamine several other programs. It plans to search for alternative approaches to the current plutonium disposition program in Russia, for instance, with the aim of making the program less costly and more effective, according to the statement. The Administration emphasized, however, that it remains committed to the overall agreement with Russia to dispose of excess plutonium. The first phase of the agreement calls for Russia and the U.S. to each dispose of 34 tons of plutonium. The original agreement set two disposition tracks: preparing plutonium to be burned as a mixed-oxide fuel in nuclear reactors or immobilizing it by vitrification. Russia had planned to burn its share as fuel in order to obtain some economic value; the Clinton Administration planned to C & E N / J A N U A R Y U , 2002
19
GOVERNMENT & POLICY try both. However, in last year's Bush budget proposal, the Administration proposed ending funding for the immobilizing project, and the recent statement makes it clear that the Administration is hunting for new alternatives. Details will not be forthcoming until the Administration presents its 2003 budget, D O E officials who were unwilling to expand upon the White House statement at this time, tell C&EN. But several Clinton-era officials say Bush is likely to consider alternatives such as advanced fast reactors that could burn plutonium directly and avoid the mixed-oxide fuel route as well as immobilization. "Rhetorically the Administration maybe laying the groundwork for such a new program through its energy plan's emphasis on nuclear power," notes Rose Gottemoeller, a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. YET TO BE SEEN, she adds, is whether more funds will be sought by the Administration in the 2003 budget for necessary nuclear research. The Administration also says it will consolidate and refocus two Clinton-era programs with the goal of reducing the size of the Russian nuclear weapons complex. The programs—the Nuclear Cities Initiative and the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention—are intended to provide alternative employment for former Russian nuclear weapons scientists and engineers and move them away from weapons work, either in Russia or elsewhere. The Bush budget originally proposed cutting these initiatives from $50 million to $28 million, but the congressional appropriation and antiterrorism supplement increased funding to $57 million. Now, rather than reducing the programs, the Administration in its December statement cited a presidential speech in which Bush pledged that "our two countries will expand efforts to provide peaceful employment for scientists who formerly worked in Soviet weapons facilities." With the review complete, Hoehn predicts the debate this year will shift to program implementation. "The story will not be a budget fight," Hoehn says, "but it will be whether or not these programs are producing solid results." He points to bureaucratic and political issues that must be resolved. Not least among them is access by U.S. officials to secret Russian cities and whether the international community will provide funding to Russia to implement the plutonium destruction program. • 20
C & E N / J A N U A R Y U , 2002
INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
WHO WILL ADVISE ON CHEMICAL COMMERCE? Precious-metals institute seeks spot on trade panel that environmental groups sued to get
F
IRST, ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
sued to join a committee advising the federal government on chemical trade issues. To settle the case, the government appointed an environmental attorney on an interim basis to the panel that had only industry representatives in the past. Now, national and regional environmental organizations are waiting for the government to appoint one of their own as a permanent member of the Industry Sector Advisory Committee for Chemicals & Allied Products. That panel, known as ISAC-3, provides advice on international commerce in chemicals to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). But the environmental groups' nominee is not a shoo-in. An association for precious-metal recycling, a group that provides technical advice but does not lobby, has submitted its own nominee for the position, too. The situation began in 1999 after a federal court ordered the government to appoint an environmental group representative to USTR's industry sector advisory committees on paper and wood products. Activists then sued to get a seat on the chemicals advisory panel as well. The government agreed to settle that case by appointing an environmental activist to the chemicals committee. Stephen J. Porter, senior attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law, has served as the interim environmental representative to ISAC-3 since April 2001. In December 2001, Porter gave notice that he would not remain on the committee beyond March. "When I agreed to serve in this capacity earlier this year, it was with the understanding that it was only until such time as a permanent environmental representative could be appointed," Porter said in a letter to federal officials. "I think the time has come for me to put an outer limit on my service in this interim capacity" Applying for the permanent environmental position on ISAC-3 is Rick Hind, legislative director for Greenpeace. He has broad support from major U.S. environ-
mental groups and the backing of a number of congressional representatives. The second nomination was submitted by the International Precious Metals Institute, an educational and technical association based in Pensacola, Fla. IPMI promotes efficient and environmentally sound use, reuse, and recycling of precious metals. John Bullock, an environmental consultant who worked as an attorney for the precious-metals industry for decades, is its nominee, according to I P M I Executive Director Larry Manziek. Bullock's focus is impacts of trade on solid waste and processing of precious metals. Patti Goldman is an attorney with Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund and represented the environmental groups in their case to get an activist appointed to ISAC-3. She tells C&EN that IPMFs nominee might bring an important perspective to the advisory panel but would not provide the expertise of environmental advocacy groups in areas such as trade in toxic materials. Filling Porter's seat with anyone other than an environmental advocate, she says, "would be unprecedented or irregular." FEDERAL OFFICIALS are reviewing the applications, but it remains unclear when they will make a decision on the permanent environmental representative for ISAC-3. Many in the chemical sector find it inappropriate to have those with no connection to the industry on the advisory committee. They hope the environmentalists' seat on ISAC-3 disappears in the wake of a congressional review of USTR's industry advisory panels (C&EN, Sept. 3, 2001, page 27). That report, requested last summer by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is expected to be completed and released by mid-2002. Findings or recommendations in that report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, may lead to legislation overhauling the statute that established industry sector advisory committees on trade.—CHERYL H0GUE HTTP://PUBS.ACS.ORG/CEN
