Nuclear Nonproliferation
U.S. and International Assistance Efforts to Control Sealed Radioactive Sources Need Strengthening Gao ID: GAO-03-638 May 16, 2003Sealed radioactive sources, radioactive material encapsulated in stainless steel or other metal, are used worldwide in medicine, industry, and research. These sealed sources pose a threat to national security because terrorists could use them to make "dirty bombs." GAO was asked to determine (1) the number of sealed sources worldwide and how many have been reported lost, stolen, or abandoned; (2) the controls, both legislative and regulatory, used by countries that possess sealed sources; and (3) the assistance provided by the Department of Energy (DOE) and other U.S. federal agencies to strengthen other countries' control over sealed sources and the extent to which these efforts are believed to be effectively implemented.
The precise number of sealed sources in use is unknown because many countries do not systematically account for them. However, nearly 10 million sealed sources exist in the United States and the 49 countries responding to a GAO survey. There is also limited information about the number of sealed sources that have been lost, stolen, or abandoned, but it is estimated to be in the thousands worldwide. Many of the most vulnerable sealed sources that could pose a security risk are located in the countries of the former Soviet Union. All of the 49 countries that responded to GAO's survey reported that they have established legislative or regulatory controls over sealed sources. However, nuclear safety and security experts from DOE, the Departments of State and Defense, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the European Commission told GAO that countries' controls over sealed sources vary greatly and are weakest among less developed countries. In fiscal year 2002, DOE established a program focusing on improving the security of sealed sources in the former Soviet Union and has started to fund security upgrades in Russia and other former Soviet countries. The Departments of Defense and State and NRC also have programs to help countries strengthen controls over sealed sources. DOE plans to expand its program to other countries and regions in 2003 and is developing a plan to guide its efforts. However, the department has not fully coordinated its efforts with NRC and the Department of State to ensure that a government-wide strategy is established. In addition, as of January 2003, the majority of DOE's program expenditures totaling $8.9 million were spent by DOE's national laboratories in the United States.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-638, Nuclear Nonproliferation: U.S. and International Assistance Efforts to Control Sealed Radioactive Sources Need Strengthening
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-638
entitled 'Nuclear Nonproliferation: U.S. and International Assistance
Efforts to Control Sealed Radioactive Sources Need Strengthening' which
was released on June 16, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Financial
Management, the Budget, and International Security, Committee on
Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
May 2003:
Nuclear Nonproliferation:
U.S. and International Assistance Efforts to Control Sealed Radioactive
Sources Need Strengthening:
GAO-03-638:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-638, a report to the Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International
Security, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
Sealed radioactive sources, radioactive material encapsulated in
stainless steel or other metal, are used worldwide in medicine,
industry, and research. These sealed sources pose a threat to
national security because terrorists could use them to make ’dirty
bombs.“ GAO was asked to determine (1) the number of sealed sources
worldwide and how many have been reported lost, stolen, or abandoned;
(2) the controls, both legislative and regulatory, used by countries
that possess sealed sources; and (3) the assistance provided by the
Department of Energy (DOE) and other U.S. federal agencies to
strengthen other countries‘ control over sealed sources and the extent
to which these efforts are believed to be effectively implemented.
What GAO Found:
The precise number of sealed sources in use is unknown because many
countries do not systematically account for them. However, nearly
10 million sealed sources exist in the United States and the 49
countries responding to a GAO survey. There is also limited
information about the number of sealed sources that have been lost,
stolen, or abandoned, but it is estimated to be in the thousands
worldwide. Many of the most vulnerable sealed sources that could pose
a security risk are located in the countries of the former Soviet
Union.
All of the 49 countries that responded to GAO‘s survey reported that
they have established legislative or regulatory controls over sealed
sources. However, nuclear safety and security experts from DOE, the
Departments of State and Defense, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the European
Commission told GAO that countries‘ controls over sealed sources vary
greatly and are weakest among less developed countries.
In fiscal year 2002, DOE established a program focusing on improving
the security of sealed sources in the former Soviet Union and has
started to fund security upgrades in Russia and other former Soviet
countries. The Departments of Defense and State and NRC also have
programs to help countries strengthen controls over sealed sources.
DOE plans to expand its program to other countries and regions in 2003
and is developing a plan to guide its efforts. However, the
department has not fully coordinated its efforts with NRC and the
Department of State to ensure that a governmentwide strategy is
established. In addition, as of January 2003, the majority of DOE‘s
program expenditures totaling $8.9 million were spent by DOE‘s
national laboratories in the United States.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Energy (1) develop a
comprehensive plan for DOE to guide its future efforts, (2) take the
lead in developing a governmentwide plan to strengthen controls over
other countries‘ sealed sources; and (3) strengthen efforts to
increase program expenditures in the countries requiring assistance.
DOE agreed with our recommendations to strengthen the program but
believes it has fully coordinated with other federal agencies. DOE‘s
contention is contrary to other agencies‘ views.
[End of section]
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Number of Sealed Sources in Use and Lost, Stolen, or Abandoned
Worldwide Is Unknown:
Countries Have Established Legislative and Regulatory Controls over
Sealed Sources, but Adequacy of Controls Varies:
DOE Has a Program to Help Other Countries Secure Sealed Sources, but
Strengthened Coordination and Planning Are Needed:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Results of Survey of IAEA Member Countries:
Appendix III: List of Countries Surveyed by GAO and Responses:
Appendix IV: Information on Trafficking Incidents Involving Sealed
Sources:
Appendix V: Information About Accidents Involving Sealed Sources:
Appendix VI: Information on Producers and Distributors of Radioactive
Material:
Appendix VII: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission‘s Policy on Exports of
Sealed Sources:
Appendix VIII: Results of the International Conference on the Security of
Radioactive Sources:
Appendix IX: Information on IAEA‘s Revised Categorization of Radioactive
Sources:
Appendix X: Countries Participating in IAEA‘s Model Project Program:
Appendix XI: France‘s System for Controlling Sealed Sources:
Appendix XII: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Appendix XIII: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix XIV: Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Appendix XV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Regional Distribution of Sealed Sources in Countries Responding
to GAO's Survey on the Security of Radioactive Sealed Sources:
Table 2: Reported Lost or Stolen and Recovered Sealed Sources:
Table 3: Estimated Number of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators in
the Former Soviet Union:
Table 4: Assistance to Improve Controls over Radioactive Sources through
January 31, 2003:
Table 5: Radiological Threat Reduction Program Expenditures by DOE's
National Laboratories as of January 31, 2003:
Table 6: Countries Surveyed and Surveys Received:
Table 7: Significant Seizures of Illicitly Trafficked Sealed Sources
Since 1993:
Table 8: Selected Accidents Involving Sealed Sources Since 1983:
Table 9: Estimated Costs Related to the Accident in Mexico:
Table 10: Major Producers and Distributors of Radioactive Material Used
to Manufacture Sealed Sources:
Table 11: Countries Participating in IAEA's Model Project Program:
Figures:
Figure 1: Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators Manufactured in the
Former Soviet Union:
Figure 2: Abandoned Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator in Russia:
Figure 3: Seed Irradiators Used in the Former Soviet Union:
Figure 4: Moscow Radon Building Scheduled for DOE-Funded Security
Upgrades:
Figure 5: DOE-Funded Physical Security Upgrades in the Former Soviet
Union:
Figure 6: Reported International Trafficking Incidents Involving
Radioactive Sources, 1993-2002:
Figure 7: Illicit Trafficking Incidents by Type of Radioactive Source,
1993-2002:
Figure 8: Contaminated Radioactive Debris from Demolished Residences in
Goiania:
Figure 9: Location Where Sealed Sources Were Found, Lilo, Georgia:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOE: Department of Energy:
GAO: General Accounting Office:
IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency:
MINATOM: Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy:
NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
Letter May 16, 2003:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International
Security
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Akaka:
Since September 11, 2001, U.S. and international nuclear safety and
security experts have raised concerns that terrorists could obtain
radioactive material used in medicine, research, agriculture, and
industry to construct a radiological dispersion device, or "dirty
bomb." This radioactive material is encapsulated, or sealed, in metal,
such as stainless steel, titanium, or platinum, to prevent its
dispersal and is commonly called a sealed radioactive source. These
sealed sources are used throughout the United States and other
countries in equipment designed to, among other things, diagnose and
treat illnesses, preserve food, detect flaws and other failures in
pipeline welds, and determine the moisture content of soil. Depending
on their use, sealed sources contain different types of radioactive
material, such as strontium-90, cobalt-60, cesium-137, plutonium-238,
and plutonium-239. If these sealed sources fell into the hands of
terrorists, they could use them to produce a simple and crude, but
potentially dangerous, weapon by packaging explosives, such as
dynamite, with the radioactive material, which would be dispersed when
the bomb went off. Depending on the type, amount, and form (powder or
solid), the dispersed radioactive material could cause radiation
sickness for people nearby and produce serious economic costs and
psychological and social disruption associated with the evacuation and
subsequent cleanup of the contaminated area.
Given the concerns about the security of sealed sources worldwide, you
asked us to determine, to the extent possible (1) the number of sealed
sources worldwide and how many are reported lost, stolen, or abandoned;
(2) the controls, both legislative and regulatory, used by countries
that possess sealed sources; and (3) the assistance provided by the
Department of Energy (DOE) and other U.S. federal agencies to
strengthen other countries' control over sealed sources and the extent
to which these efforts are believed to be effectively implemented. To
address these objectives, we distributed a survey to 127 International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)[Footnote 1] member states to determine,
among other things, how countries control sealed sources. Appendix I
presents our scope and methodology, appendix II presents the results of
the survey, and appendix III contains a list of the countries we sent
the survey to, including those that responded to it. We also met with
or had discussions with officials from several countries to learn more
about how they regulate and control sealed sources and met with
officials from international organizations, such as IAEA and the
European Commission,[Footnote 2] to obtain their views on the problem
of uncontrolled sealed sources. A forthcoming report will address
controls over sealed sources in the United States. We conducted our
review from May 2002 through May 2003 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The precise number of sealed sources that is in use today or that has
been lost, stolen, or abandoned is unknown because many countries do
not systematically account for them. Some estimates are available,
however. For example, about 2 million licensed sealed sources are
currently being used in the United States, according to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the 49 countries that responded to our
survey reported that 7.8 million sealed sources are in use. Limited
information exists about the number of sealed sources that has been
lost, stolen, or abandoned--commonly referred to as "orphan sources"--
but it is estimated to be in the thousands worldwide. In the United
States, about 250 sealed sources or devices containing sealed sources
are reported lost or stolen annually, but the majority of these sources
are recovered. The countries that responded to our survey said that a
total of 612 sealed sources had been reported lost or stolen since
1995, 254 of which had not been recovered. U.S. and international
nuclear safety and security experts told us that the largest number of
lost, stolen, or abandoned sealed sources is located in the former
Soviet Union. Of particular concern are as many as 12 electrical
generators that were abandoned in the Republic of Georgia. These
generators are powered by high activity levels (ranging from 40,000 to
150,000 curies) of strontium-90--a destructive radioactive material.
Recently, the United States and other countries--and IAEA--located and
secured most of these generators believed to exist in Georgia. However,
more than 1,000 additional generators that are not adequately protected
and pose a significant security risk are spread throughout the former
Soviet Union.
All of the countries that responded to our survey reported that they
have established legislative or regulatory controls over sealed
sources. However, nuclear safety and security experts from DOE, the
Department of State, the Department of Defense (DOD), NRC, IAEA, and
the European Commission told us that controls on radioactive sources
vary greatly between countries and focus primarily on protecting public
health and safety rather than on securing sealed sources from theft or
destructive use. These experts also told us that controls over sealed
sources are weakest among less developed countries. For example,
representatives from several countries of the former Soviet Union told
us that their national systems of control need improvement,
particularly regarding inventorying, consolidating and securing, and
transporting sealed sources. Because of concerns about many countries'
inability to control radioactive materials--IAEA has estimated that as
many as 110 countries worldwide do not have adequate controls over
sealed sources--IAEA established a program to help 88 countries enhance
their regulatory infrastructures. Although the program has helped
countries improve their regulatory controls, many participating
countries continue to have numerous regulatory deficiencies. In the
absence of regulatory controls, radioactive sources have been
inadequately protected or secured; little or no attention has been paid
to the export or import controls of sources; and basic record keeping
has been lacking. Finally, officials from the Department of State, the
European Commission, and IAEA told us that France has implemented a
system for controlling sealed sources that could serve as a model for
other countries. France's system requires distributors of sealed
sources to assume financial responsibility for recovering and disposing
of them.
DOE and other U.S. agencies have funded programs to strengthen controls
over sealed sources in other countries. DOE, which has the largest
program, received about $37 million since fiscal year 2002 to initiate
a program to assist other countries in controlling their sealed
sources. According to DOE officials, the program is expected to receive
an additional $22 million in supplemental appropriations in fiscal year
2003, including $5 million for securing nuclear material in Iraq. DOE
established a program focusing on improving the security of sites
containing sealed sources in the former Soviet Union because that is
where DOE believed the greatest threat exists. DOE has begun funding
site assessments and security upgrades at several locations in Russia,
Uzbekistan, the Republic of Georgia, Moldova, and Tajikistan. In
Russia, for example, DOE has focused on securing sources at several
large nuclear waste repositories scattered around the country.
Furthermore, the Secretary of Energy recently announced that the
program will expand to other regions of the world. Other U.S. federal
agencies have begun efforts to help countries strengthen controls over
sealed sources as well. Since fiscal year 2001, DOD has obligated about
$1.7 million to inventory, secure, and dispose of sealed sources in
Kazakhstan. In fiscal year 2002, the State Department received
appropriations totaling about $1.2 million primarily to support IAEA
projects on the safety and security of sealed sources. Finally, the NRC
received about $250,000 from the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) to help Armenia develop a registry of sealed
sources and improve Armenia's legislative and regulatory framework for
controlling sources.
DOE's initial efforts to secure sealed sources have lacked adequate
planning and coordination, and the majority of the program funds were
spent in the United States rather than in the countries of the former
Soviet Union. DOE is in the process of developing a plan to guide its
efforts. However, DOE officials told us that more detailed planning and
analysis will be needed to, among other things, (1) determine which
countries outside the former Soviet Union present the greatest security
risk and most urgently require assistance, (2) identify future funding
requirements, and (3) develop performance measures to gauge program
success. In addition, Department of State and NRC officials told us
that DOE has not fully coordinated its efforts with their agencies. In
their view, DOE needs their input to ensure that a comprehensive
governmentwide strategy is taken to, among other things, leverage
program resources, maximize available expertise, avoid possible
duplication of effort, and help ensure future program success. DOE has
not systematically undertaken the kind of comprehensive planning that
would foster better coordination with the other agencies and could also
lead to better coordination with other countries' nuclear
organizations. For example, officials from Russia's nuclear regulatory
organization, Gosatomnadzor, told us that DOE did not adequately
consult them when it initially selected sites in Russia for security
improvements. Regarding DOE's effort to secure sealed sources in the
former Soviet Union, as of January 31, 2003, DOE had spent about $8.9
million, including $3 million transferred to IAEA. Of the remaining
$5.9 million in expenditures, 93 percent was spent in the United States
by DOE's national laboratories. DOE officials told us that the program
is still in its early stages and that the objective of the program is
to place a significant percentage of funds in the recipient countries
to improve security.
This report makes recommendations designed to improve the management of
DOE's efforts to help improve controls over sealed sources.
Specifically, it recommends that DOE (1) develop a comprehensive plan
that identifies those countries that most urgently require assistance,
establish realistic time frames and resources necessary to accomplish
program goals, and establish meaningful performance measures; (2) take
the lead in developing a governmentwide plan designed to, among other
things, improve interagency coordination; and (3) strengthen its
efforts to increase program expenditures in the countries requiring
assistance.
Background:
Sealed sources are used throughout the world for a variety of peaceful
purposes. Until the 1950s, only naturally occurring radioactive
materials, such as radium-226, were available to be used in sealed
sources. Since then, sealed sources containing radioactive material
produced artificially in nuclear reactors and accelerators have become
widely available, including cobalt-60, strontium-90, cesium-137, and
iridium-192. Radioactive material can be found in various forms. For
example, cobalt-60 is a metal, while the cesium-137 in many sealed
sources is in a powdery form closely resembling talc. Radioactive
materials are measured by their level of activity. The greater the
activity level--measured in units called curies[Footnote 3]--the more
radiation emitted, which increases the potential risk to public health
and safety if improperly used or controlled. The intensity of
radioactive materials decays over time at various rates. The term
"half-life" is used to indicate the period during which the
radioactivity decreases by half as a result of decay.
Usually, radioactive material with high radioactivity is placed in a
sealed container to prevent leakage of the material itself. Because of
the varied characteristics of the radioactive material--physical
structure (metal, ceramic, or powder), activity level, half-life, and
type of radiation emitted,[Footnote 4] some materials pose a greater
risk to people, property, and the environment than others. According to
IAEA, the level of protection provided to users of the radioactive
material should be commensurate with the safety and security risks that
it presents if improperly used. For example, radioactive materials used
for certain diagnostic purposes have low levels of activity and do not
present a significant safety or security risk. However, powerful sealed
sources, such as those used in radiotherapy (cancer treatment) that use
cobalt-60, cesium-137, or iridium-192, could pose a greater threat to
the public and the environment and would also pose a potentially more
significant security risk, particularly if acquired to produce a dirty
bomb.
The small size, portability, and potential value of sealed sources make
them vulnerable to misuse, improper disposal, and theft. According to
IAEA, illicit trafficking in or smuggling of nuclear material,
including sealed sources, has increased worldwide in recent years: IAEA
reported 272 cases of illicit trafficking in these sources from 1993 to
the end of 2002. (See app. IV for more information about illicit
trafficking incidents.) While no dirty bombs have been detonated, in
the mid-1990s Chechen separatists placed a canister containing cesium-
137 in a Moscow park. Although the device was not detonated and no
radioactive material was dispersed, the incident demonstrated that
terrorists have the capability and willingness to use sealed sources as
weapons of terror.
U.S. and international experts have noted that some accidents involving
sealed sources can provide a measure of understanding of what the
possible impacts of a dirty bomb might be. In 1987, an accident
involving a cesium-137 sealed source in Brazil killed four people,
injured many more, and caused about $36 million in damages to the local
economy. This accident had such an enormous psychological impact on the
local population that the atomic symbol was added to the region's flag
as a lasting reminder of the accident's consequences. Appendix V
contains more information about worldwide accidents involving sealed
sources.
The Number of Sealed Sources in Use and Lost, Stolen, or Abandoned
Worldwide Is Unknown:
The precise number of sealed sources that is in use worldwide is
unknown because many countries do not systematically account for them.
The lack of a full accounting of sealed sources makes it equally
difficult to determine the number that has been lost, stolen, or
abandoned--referred to as "orphan sources." Orphan sources, which are
estimated to number in the thousands worldwide, are considered by U.S.
and international officials to pose significant health, safety, and
security risks because they are outside of regulatory control.
According to U.S. and international safety and security experts, one of
the most urgent problems is locating and securing orphan sources in the
former Soviet Union because they pose a significant security risk.
The Number of Sealed Sources in Use Worldwide Is Unknown Because
Countries Do Not Systematically Account for Them:
The number of sealed sources in use worldwide is unknown, but some
estimates are available. According to IAEA, millions of sealed
radioactive sources have been distributed worldwide over the past 50
years. Approximately 2 million licensed sealed sources are in use in
the United States, according to the NRC. In addition, according to the
European Commission, approximately 500,000 sealed sources have been
supplied to operators in the 15 member states of the European Union, of
which about 110,000 are currently in use. The European Commission also
estimated in 1999 that approximately 840,000 sealed sources exist in
Russia, although Russian officials believe the total number is
significantly higher.
The 49 countries that responded to our survey reported a total of about
7.8 million sealed sources that are in use within their countries.
These sealed sources are used in various applications, such as
industrial radiography and therapeutic medicine. Table 1 summarizes the
responses received from the countries surveyed regarding the number of
sealed sources in use and their major applications.
Table 1: Regional Distribution of Sealed Sources in Countries
Responding to GAO's Survey on the Security of Radioactive Sealed
Sources:
Region: Africa; Number of sealed sources in use: 834; Major
applications: Smoke detectors, academic/research, and fixed gauges.
Region: Asia; Number of sealed sources in use: 18,420; Major
applications: Fixed gauges, analytical instruments, and academic/
research.
Region: Europe; Number of sealed sources in use: 4,866,024;
Major applications: Smoke detectors, fixed gauges, and academic/
research.
Region: Former Soviet Union; Number of sealed sources in use: 20,344;
Major applications: Smoke detectors, irradiation, and
academic/research.
Region: Middle East; Number of sealed sources in use: 6,545;
Major applications: Medical-diagnostic, academic/research, and
portable gauges.
Region: North America[A] and Central America; Number of sealed sources
in use: 2,887,025; Major applications: Smoke detectors, fixed
gauges, and academic/research.
Region: South America; Number of sealed sources in use: 2,836;
Major applications: Smoke detectors, fixed gauges, and medical-
diagnostic.
Region: South Pacific; Number of sealed sources in use: 1,854;
Major applications: Industrial radiography, smoke detectors, and
irradiation.
Region: Total; Number of sealed sources in use: 7,803,882.
Source: GAO.
[A] The United States was not surveyed for this report.
[End of table]
Several factors contribute to the lack of comprehensive information
about the number of sealed sources worldwide. According to IAEA, many
countries do not maintain accurate or complete inventories of sealed
sources in use or registries of users of sources. In response to our
survey, 28 of the 49 countries said they had an inventory of sealed
sources. In addition, 17 countries said they were in the process of
developing an inventory. However, several countries that reported they
had inventories indicated that the number of sources was estimated
rather than actual. A few countries, including a European nation,
indicated that they did not have the resources necessary to develop a
national registry of sources and users.
An additional factor contributing to countries' limited or incomplete
inventories is that sealed sources have been imported and exported by
distributors and governments without consistent monitoring or tracking
by the suppliers, the recipients of the sources, or the appropriate
regulatory authority. Appendix VI provides information on the major
producers of sealed sources worldwide.
The Chairman of NRC noted in March 2003 that international commerce in
these sources is extensive and that existing controls on imports and
exports are minimal. For example, most U.S.-origin sealed sources are
exported under a general license.[Footnote 5] This means that in most
instances, sealed sources are exported without NRC knowing the type,
amount, or activity level of the sources, or their destination. (See
app. VII for more information about NRC's export regulations.):
Sealed sources have also been distributed worldwide by a variety of
means other than commercial trade without adequate monitoring and
oversight. As a result, the sealed sources have not always been
properly accounted for and accurately inventoried. For example, sealed
sources have been (1) distributed by corporations working in developing
countries without formal clearance from or approval by the recipient
country's regulatory authority, (2) donated by medical practitioners
and nonprofit organizations, and (3) provided through international
technical cooperation programs. IAEA has reported that international
corporations--such as oil companies--have brought sealed sources used
in oil exploration into developing countries. In some cases, there was
no competent authority in the country to register or license the sealed
sources, and existing national rules were regarded as too complicated
or difficult for the corporations to follow. One African country
reported in response to our survey that its inventory of sealed sources
was incomplete because foreign construction companies had not notified
the country's regulatory authority when it imported sealed sources.
According to IAEA, medical practitioners have brought sealed sources
into developing countries for the purpose of establishing health
clinics and hospitals and a number of sources were not properly
accounted for. IAEA reported that hospitals in many developed countries
donated large amounts of surplus radium-226 to hospitals in developing
countries in the 1960s. One African country responding to our survey
noted that according to old records, radium had been imported into the
country but could not be located. Nonprofit organizations have also
provided medical equipment using sealed sources to foreign countries.
For example, the American International Health Alliance, operating
under a series of cooperative agreements with USAID and DOE, has
donated medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, and equipment, including
those containing sealed sources, to countries in the former Soviet
Union and Central and Eastern Europe since 1992.[Footnote 6] According
to an official from the American International Health Alliance, DOD
also donated medical equipment containing sealed sources from field
facilities to several countries in the former Soviet Union under the
auspices of Operation Provide Hope. Since 1992, over 500 airlift
deliveries by DOD to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Ukraine, and Uzbekistan occurred, but the exact number of sealed source
devices donated is unknown.
IAEA has supplied sealed sources to many countries through its
technical cooperation program.[Footnote 7] In 1991, IAEA estimated that
it had provided many developing countries with 565 sources since 1957.
IAEA officials told us that IAEA had provided developing member states
with over 1,000 devices containing sealed sources since 1996. Most of
these sealed sources are not considered a security risk by IAEA because
of their low radioactivity. However, officials did note that about 125
of the 1,000 devices contained sources that could pose security risks
if acquired by terrorists. These include (1) teletherapy machines with
cobalt-60 sources of activity between 5,000 and 7,000 curies, (2)
brachytherapy machines with cesium-137 sources of activity between 0.5
and 1 curie and iridium-192 sources of 10 curies, (3) irradiators with
cobalt-60 sources with activity in the range of 12,000 to 200,000
curies, and (4) calibrators with activity around 4,000 curies. IAEA
officials said that they were uncertain, however, the extent to which
the sealed sources have been included in countries' inventories.
While it is the responsibility of each country--and not IAEA--to
maintain accurate inventories of the sources, IAEA has encouraged many
of its member states to establish and/or strengthen their radiation and
waste safety infrastructures via the model project program. In
addition, IAEA policy does not allow for the approval of any technical
cooperation projects involving the use of significant sealed sources
unless the member state in question has, among other things, an
effective regulatory framework that includes a system of notification,
authorization, and control of sealed sources together with an inventory
of sources. IAEA's model project program is discussed on pages 22 and
23 of this report.
DOE has provided countries with sealed sources under the Atoms for
Peace Program. According to a March 2002 DOE Inspector General report,
Accounting for Sealed Sources of Nuclear Material Provided to Foreign
Countries, DOE could not fully account for sealed sources loaned to
foreign countries and no longer maintained an accounting and tracking
system for sealed sources. The report noted that DOE and its
predecessor agencies provided 33 countries, including Iran, Pakistan,
India, Malaysia, and Vietnam, with 536 sealed sources, which contained
plutonium, from the 1950s through the 1970s. Initially, these materials
were loaned to foreign facilities, and the U.S. government maintained
ownership. However, in the 1960s, the U.S. government began
transferring ownership through direct sale or donation, but it still
retained title to much of the sealed sources provided to foreign
entities. The report concluded that (1) the oversight of sealed sources
was inadequate and that inaccurate inventory records limit DOE's
ability to protect nuclear materials from loss, theft, or other
diversion, and (2) DOE should work with IAEA to establish adequate
regulatory oversight of sealed sources in foreign countries. In its
response to the report, DOE stated that it is not the current policy of
the U.S. government to track sealed sources once they are in the
control of foreign entities and that to track loaned sealed sources
would require a change in policy and international agreements.
Limited Information Exists about the Number of Lost, Stolen, or
Abandoned Sealed Sources:
Because many countries cannot account for their sealed sources, there
is limited information on the number of sealed sources that are lost,
stolen, or abandoned--referred to as "orphan sources." According to the
Director General of IAEA, orphan sources are a widespread phenomenon,
and 34 of the 49 countries responding to our survey indicated that
orphan sources pose problems in their country. In the European Union,
up to 70 sealed sources are lost among its member states annually.
According to NRC, about 250 sealed sources or devices are lost or
stolen in the United States annually, but the majority of the sources
have been recovered. NRC said that the European Union does not report
sources as being lost unless they are at a certain activity level that
exceeds the NRC threshold for tracking purposes. As a result, NRC
typically reports a greater number of lost sealed sources than the
European Union does.
The problem of orphan sources is most significant in the countries of
the former Soviet Union, where the collapse of the centralized Soviet
government structure over a decade ago led to a loss of records and
regulatory oversight over sealed sources. According to Russia's nuclear
regulatory agency, Gosatomnadzor, 51 sealed sources were reported lost
in 2002 and 245 were lost in 2000. No information was made available to
us for 2001. In the Republic of Georgia, over 280 orphan sources have
been recovered since the mid-1990s. Survey respondents reported that
612 sources had been lost or stolen since 1995. Of the 612 reported
orphan sources, 254 had not yet been recovered. Table 2 summarizes the
number of lost, stolen, and recovered sources reported.
Table 2: Reported Lost or Stolen and Recovered Sealed Sources:
Region: Africa; Reported lost or stolen sealed sources: 8; Recovered
sealed sources: 0.
Region: Asia; Reported lost or stolen sealed sources: 93; Recovered
sealed sources: 11.
Region: Europe; Reported lost or stolen sealed sources: 298; Recovered
sealed sources: 213.
Region: Former Soviet Union; Reported lost or stolen sealed sources:
35; Recovered sealed sources: 14.
Region: Middle East; Reported lost or stolen sealed sources: 41;
Recovered sealed sources: 24.
Region: North America[A] and Central America; Reported lost or stolen
sealed sources: 72; Recovered sealed sources: 65.
Region: South America; Reported lost or stolen sealed sources: 21;
Recovered sealed sources: 10.
Region: South Pacific; Reported lost or stolen sealed sources: 44;
Recovered sealed sources: 21.
Region: Total; Reported lost or stolen sealed sources: 612; Recovered
sealed sources: 358.
Source: GAO.
[A] The United States was not included in this survey.
[End of table]
Thirty-five of the 49 countries we surveyed indicated that they had an
organized process to search for orphan sources, and several of these
countries listed one or more organizations that are responsible for
removing the sources once they have been found. However, the remaining
14 countries, spread across different regions, reported that they did
not have a similar process to search for orphaned sources. Four of the
14 countries were located in Africa.
Six countries indicated that there were disincentives to finding
orphaned sources. In particular, they noted that an individual who
reports finding a source might be held responsible for paying for its
disposal. Russian officials told us that facilities possessing sealed
sources that are no longer used are responsible for disposal costs. The
disposal fees are very high and, as a result, the users are reluctant
to notify authorities about them and frequently opt to dispose of them
illegally.
Certain Lost, Stolen, or Abandoned Sealed Sources Pose a Significant
Security Risk:
According to U.S. and international safety and security experts, among
the most urgent problems are the security risks posed by the
approximately 1,000 radioisotope thermoelectric generators located in
the former Soviet Union. These generators were designed to provide
electric power and are ideally suited for remote locations to power
navigational facilities, such as lighthouses, radio beacons, and
meteorological stations.[Footnote 8] Each has activity levels ranging
from 40,000 to 150,000 curies of strontium-90--similar to the amount of
strontium-90 released from the Chernobyl accident in 1986. These
generators pose a security risk because they may not be adequately
protected or secured. An international effort was initiated about 2
years ago to recover and secure these generators in remote locations in
the Republic of Georgia. Although the exact number of generators in
Georgia is unknown, IAEA and Georgian officials told us that at least
six generators have been recovered.
Figure 1: Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators Manufactured in the
Former Soviet Union:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We met with the Russian organization that developed the radioisotope
thermoelectric generators--the Russian National Technical Physics and
Automation Research Institute. Institute officials told us that the
generators pose a serious security and safety threat and should all be
taken out of service. They noted that the units have a design service
life of 10 to 15 years and that no repair or maintenance has been done
on any of these units since 1991. However, Russian Ministry of Atomic
Energy (MINATOM) officials said that the generators are technically
sound and should not be completely removed from service without
adequate replacement power. MINATOM officials said they are considering
extending the life of the generators in order to keep them in service
significantly longer than originally planned. Table 3 shows the
estimated number of radioisotope thermoelectric generators located in
the countries of the former Soviet Union.
Table 3: Estimated Number of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators in
the Former Soviet Union:
Country: Armenia; Radioisotope thermoelectric generators: 1.
Country: Azerbaijan; Radioisotope thermoelectric generators: 1.
Country: Belarus; Radioisotope thermoelectric generators: 3.
Country: Georgia; Radioisotope thermoelectric generators: 12[A].
Country: Kazakhstan; Radioisotope thermoelectric generators: 3.
Country: Russia; Radioisotope thermoelectric generators: 998[B].
Country: Tajikistan; Radioisotope thermoelectric generators: 1.
Country: Ukraine; Radioisotope thermoelectric generators: 12.
Country: Total; Radioisotope thermoelectric generators: 1,031.
Sources: NRC, MINATOM, and Russian National Technical Physics
Automation Research Institute.
[A] The estimated number of generators in Georgia ranges from 6 to 12.
[B] Includes 829 that are operational and 169 that are in storage.
[End of table]
There have been numerous attempts to steal the sealed sources from
these generators. For example, in recent years there have been six
attempts to disassemble the generators in Kazakhstan and a number of
similar events in Georgia and Russia. Some of the strontium-90 sealed
sources from the generators have been found in residential areas. In a
few instances, people who have stolen the sealed sources have used them
for heating and cooking, and officials have speculated that the metal
shielding might have been used to make bullets. In 2001, three woodsmen
in Georgia who found the strontium-90 sealed source from an abandoned
and dismantled generator used it as a heat source and suffered severe
radiation burns. IAEA and DOE officials told us that other devices
containing sealed sources, such as seed irradiators that were used in
the former Soviet Union, pose significant security risks. Seed
irradiators were mounted on trucks and used to irradiate seeds in order
to kill fungus and inhibit germination. According to IAEA and DOE, each
irradiator has activity levels of over 1,000 curies of cesium-137 in
powdery form (cesium chloride).
Figure 2: Abandoned Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator in Russia:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 3: Seed Irradiators Used in the Former Soviet Union:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
IAEA's Director of the Division of Radiation and Waste Safety told us
that no one knows the total number of orphan sources or their location
in the former Soviet Union. IAEA is continuously obtaining new
information about previously unknown devices using sealed sources. This
makes it extremely difficult for the agency to develop strategies to
locate and recover these sources in a systematic way. The Director also
told us that the problem of orphan sources is not unique to the former
Soviet Union and that similar problems exist in other parts of the
world.
Countries Have Established Legislative and Regulatory Controls over
Sealed Sources, but Adequacy of Controls Varies:
All of the countries responding to our survey said they have
established legislative or regulatory controls over sealed sources.
However, U.S. and international nuclear safety and security experts
told us that controls placed on radioactive sources vary greatly
between countries and focus primarily on protecting public health and
safety and not on securing sealed sources from theft or destructive
use. According to IAEA, as many as 110 countries worldwide do not have
adequate controls over sealed sources and the agency has established a
program to help 88 countries upgrade their regulatory infrastructures.
Countries Responding to Our Survey Reported That They Have Established
Controls over Sealed Sources:
All of the countries that responded to our survey reported that they
have established legislative or regulatory controls over sealed
sources. The countries that responded to our survey identified various
controls over sealed sources, including (1) licensing and inspection;
(2) tracking the import and export of sources; (3) maintaining national
registries of sources' users; (4) maintaining national inventories of
sources; (5) searching for and recovering lost, stolen, or abandoned
sources; (6) securing sources; and (7) regulating their safe transport.
According to IAEA, controls over sealed sources are based on countries'
development of a framework of laws and regulations. Twenty-five of the
49 countries reported that they had established a strong legislative
framework to control sealed sources and most of these same countries
indicated that they had a strong regulatory framework as well. Several
countries characterized their legislative or regulatory framework as
weak. The countries that reported having a strong legislative or
regulatory framework were spread across many regions, including the
former Soviet Union, Europe, Africa, and the South Pacific. Countries
reporting that they had weak or nonexistent regulatory frameworks were
located primarily in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Europe,
Africa, and South America.
Countries reported using various guidelines to develop their laws or
regulations that serve as the basis for controls over sealed sources.
Forty-four of the 49 countries said they used either one or both IAEA
guidelines--(1) the International Basic Safety Standards for Protection
against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources and
(2) the Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive
Sources.[Footnote 9] Twelve of the countries responding to our survey
indicated that they base their regulatory controls, in part, on
European Union regulations. European Commission officials told us that
efforts are under way to strengthen controls over sealed sources,
including harmonizing measures among member states for the recovery of
orphan sources. These efforts began prior to September 11, 2001, in
response to accidents where orphan sources were melted with scrap
metal, resulting in significant economic damages. In 2002, the
commission adopted a proposed directive to improve controls over sealed
sources that emit large amounts of radiation. The proposal urges that
necessary measures be taken to protect public health from orphan source
exposure. More recently, a commission committee proposed that users of
radioactive sources in the European Union be charged a refundable
deposit before acquiring sealed sources.
All of the countries responding to our survey identified one or more
organizations responsible for regulating sealed sources. Forty-five of
the 49 countries reported that regulatory organizations inspect
facilities where sealed sources are stored or in use. Regarding
enforcement, three countries failed to list any actions that inspectors
could take to ensure compliance with laws and regulations. Many of the
countries identified more than one enforcement mechanism available,
including levying fines, suspending or terminating licenses, and
closing a facility. Enforcement mechanisms, however, are not always
used. Representatives from one European country--that did not respond
to our survey but discussed these matters with us--told us that imposed
fines tend to be so low that many users of sealed sources may find it
cheaper to pay the fines rather than comply with the regulations.
All of the countries responding to our survey reported that users of
sealed sources are required to secure radioactive materials in their
possession. In addition, 39 of the respondents reported that they had
facilities to store disused sources. However, only 18 countries
indicated that they have a facility to permanently dispose of the
sealed sources. Those countries that did not have any storage
facilities were primarily located in Africa. Representatives from four
former Soviet Union countries told us that the absence of secure
storage poses a serious security problem, and an official from the
Republic of Georgia told us that a well-protected centralized storage
facility was urgently needed.
All but four of the countries responding to our survey said they had
regulations covering the safe transport of sealed sources. The
countries that did not have such regulations were located in Africa,
South America, and the Middle East. Although Russia did not respond to
our survey, Russian officials told us that they were concerned about
moving sealed sources safely and securely. They said that sources that
were no longer being used are moved great distances by trucks and are
vulnerable to theft because the operators of the vehicles must stop to
rest or lose communications owing to the remoteness of the locations
where they are traveling.
Countries' Controls over Sealed Sources Vary and Are Weakest among
Developing Countries:
Nuclear safety and security experts from the Departments of Energy,
State, and Defense; NRC; IAEA; and the European Commission told us that
controls placed on sealed sources vary greatly between countries and
have focused primarily on protecting public health and safety and not
on securing the sources from potential terrorists threats. According to
IAEA, as many as 110 countries worldwide lack the regulatory
infrastructure to adequately protect or control sealed sources. Many of
these countries are considered less developed and are confronted with
social, political, and economic problems that divert attention from
imposing controls on the many thousands of radioactive sources used in
hospitals, research facilities, industries, or universities. In many
cases, these countries' regulatory organizations have a limited number
of trained personnel. In the absence of regulatory controls,
radioactive sources have been inadequately protected or secured; little
or no attention has been paid to export or import controls of sources;
and there has been a lack of basic record keeping. IAEA's Director of
the Division of Radiation and Waste Safety told us that many countries
also lack the commitment or political will to exercise controls over
sealed sources.
In March 2003 over 700 delegates from more than 120 countries met in
Vienna, Austria, to participate in an international conference on the
security of radioactive sources. The conference, sponsored by the
governments of the United States and the Russian Federation, emphasized
that all users of sealed sources share a responsibility for managing
them in a safe and secure manner and that the manufacturers of sources
and regulators have important roles to play. The conference also noted
that high-risk radioactive sources that are not under secure and
regulated control, including orphan sources, raise serious security and
safety concerns. U.S. and international experts are in the process of
developing a systematic approach to identifying the highest-risk
sources. In 2000 IAEA established a categorization of sealed sources
to, among other things, determine the level of oversight that should be
applied to the safety and security of a particular type of source. In
response to growing concerns about sealed sources being used as a
terror weapon, IAEA has revised the categorization. The categorization,
which is still in draft, provides a relative numerical ranking of
sealed sources and practices for which they are used. Appendix VIII
provides more information about the conference, and appendix IX
contains additional details about IAEA's revised categorization of
sources.
IAEA Has Implemented a Program to Help Many Countries Improve
Regulatory Controls:
In 1994 IAEA established a model project program to enhance countries'
regulatory infrastructure. This program is available to any IAEA member
state upon request. (See app. X for a list of countries participating
in the program.) The program has expanded and includes 88 countries. As
of December 2002, IAEA had spent $27.7 million to help these countries.
Each country's progress is measured through five milestones, including
the establishment of a regulatory framework.[Footnote 10] This
milestone is considered the most time-consuming and requires that the
country draft and implement radiation protection laws and regulations;
designate and empower a national regulatory authority; and establish a
system for the notification, authorization, and control of radioactive
sources, including the preparation of an inventory of sources and
installations. According to IAEA, about 77 percent of the countries
participating in the program as of September 2001 had promulgated the
necessary laws and established regulatory authorities. In addition,
about 42 percent of the countries had adopted the necessary
regulations; about 50 percent had systems for the notification,
authorization, and control of radioactive sources in place and
operational; and about 80 percent had systems in place to inventory
sources. Considering that the program had been under way since the mid-
1990s, the level of achievement was much lower than expected, and the
time necessary to overcome some of the difficulties faced by the
countries was underestimated. The reasons that many of the countries
had not fully implemented this milestone included (1) time-consuming
legislative and regulatory procedures; (2) institutional instability;
(3) budgetary constraints, resulting in, among other things, a high
turnover of qualified staff; (4) unfocused regulatory structures,
resulting in overlapping responsibilities; (5) limited regulatory
independence and empowerment; and (6) insufficient financial and
technical resources, trained staff, and support services. Several
countries responding to our survey indicated that additional assistance
is needed to improve controls over sealed sources, including radiation
detection equipment and training for regulatory staff.
U.S. and international officials told us that there are about 50
additional countries needing assistance that are not member states of
IAEA and are not eligible for assistance under the model project
program. According to IAEA, many of these countries have sealed sources
that are being used without adequate controls. These officials are
concerned that without appropriate regulatory oversight, sources in
these countries pose a particularly serious threat because they are not
adequately protected.
Officials from the Department of State, IAEA, and the European
Commission told us that France has implemented a system for controlling
sealed sources that could serve as a model for other countries,
including many developing nations. France's system requires
distributors of sealed sources to assume financial responsibility for
recovering and disposing of these sources at the end of their 10-year
life. According to French officials, this system has significantly
reduced the number of orphan sources. France's system for controlling
sources is discussed in more detail in appendix XI.
DOE Has a Program to Help Other Countries Secure Sealed Sources, but
Strengthened Coordination and Planning Are Needed:
DOE has the primary U.S. government responsibility for helping other
countries strengthen controls over sealed sources. Since fiscal year
2002, DOE has received $36.9 million to, among other things, secure
sources at several large nuclear waste repositories in Russia and other
countries of the former Soviet Union. Other U.S. federal agencies,
including the Departments of Defense and State, and NRC have efforts
under way to help countries strengthen controls over sealed sources as
well. DOE's initial efforts to secure sealed sources have lacked
adequate planning and coordination, and the majority of program
expenditures have been in the United States. According to DOE
officials, efforts are under way to improve the management of the
program, including the development of a plan and better coordination
with other agencies.
DOE Is Leading the U.S. Effort to Help Other Countries Secure Sealed
Sources:
DOE is leading U.S. government efforts to help other countries
strengthen controls over sealed sources. DOE's effort is part of the
overall U.S. national strategy to reduce the risk that terrorist groups
could use these materials in a dirty bomb attack against the United
States. A congressional report instructs DOE to use a portion of its
fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriation to address the threat posed
by dirty bombs.[Footnote 11] In response to the congressional
requirement, the National Nuclear Security Administration's Office of
International Material Protection and Cooperation established the
Radiological Threat Reduction program in January 2002, budgeting $20.6
million for the program in fiscal year 2002, and received an additional
$16.3 million appropriation in fiscal year 2003. The program is
expected to receive an additional $22 million in supplemental
appropriations in fiscal year 2003, including $5 million to secure
nuclear material in Iraq.
Initially, DOE evaluated the threat to national security from
radioactive materials and determined that sealed sources pose a greater
threat than other radioactive materials, such as radioactive waste and
nuclear fuel, because of their availability; radioactivity; and other
physical characteristics, such as half-life. DOE did further studies of
the dirty bomb threat, including (1) narrowing the list of sealed
sources that are a high priority because of their characteristics and
availability, (2) analyzing possible scenarios in which a radiological
dispersion device could be used, and (3) determining what the economic
consequences of a dirty bomb attack in the United States would be. The
former assistant deputy administrator of the Office of International
Material Protection and Cooperation told us that it would be impossible
to secure all sealed sources but that by determining which sources pose
the greatest risk, DOE could prioritize its efforts.
DOE has focused on securing sealed sources in the countries of the
former Soviet Union because DOE officials have determined that is where
the greatest number of vulnerable sealed sources is located. In April
2002 the Radiological Threat Reduction program initiated its first
security upgrade project at the Moscow Radon, a regional facility
involved with collecting, transporting, processing, and disposing of
sealed sources and low-and intermediate-level radioactive waste. There
are 35 Radon facilities in the former Soviet Union, but the Moscow
Radon is by far the largest and collects almost 80 percent of the
institutional, industrial, and medical radioactive wastes in Russia
from almost 2,000 enterprises in the city of Moscow, the Moscow region,
and nine neighboring regions. During our visit to the Moscow Radon in
October 2002, Radon officials showed us the building for which most of
the DOE-funded upgrades are planned. (See fig. 4.) Planned upgrades at
the site include surveillance cameras, motion detectors, vehicles,
building upgrades, and a security facility where guards can monitor the
building where most high-activity sources are stored. Although there
have been no known attempts at theft of materials at the site, Radon
officials told us that upgrades are needed because existing security is
inadequate.
Figure 4: Moscow Radon Building Scheduled for DOE-Funded Security
Upgrades:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The program has also secured sealed sources in Uzbekistan and the
Republic of Georgia. In Uzbekistan, DOE has funded security upgrades at
research and irradiation facilities and the construction of a national
repository for sealed sources, and plans to fund increased physical
security upgrades at a dozen regional cancer treatment facilities. In
the Republic of Georgia, DOE funded security upgrades at a facility
where radioisotope thermoelectric generators and other high-activity
sealed sources are stored. Upgrades in both countries included bricking
up windows; reinforcing doors; improving or replacing roofs; upgrading
storage vaults; installing motion detectors and alarm systems; and
other low-cost, "low-tech" measures. Figure 5 shows an example of the
security upgrades funded by DOE.
Figure 5: DOE-Funded Physical Security Upgrades in the Former Soviet
Union:
[See PDF for image]
(Top) before: Weak doors and windows; door locked with a simple
padlock; and gaps/holes in roof.
(Bottom) after: Reinforced steel doors with double locks that cannot be
cut; bricked-up windows; alarm system; patched, reinforced roof.
[End of figure]
In June 2002 DOE launched two additional efforts--a bilateral
initiative with MINATOM to secure sealed sources at Russian facilities
identified by MINATOM, and a Tripartite Initiative with MINATOM and
IAEA. The objective of the Tripartite Initiative is to improve the
security of sealed sources in former Soviet states by developing
inventories of sealed sources, locating the sealed sources, recovering
the sealed sources, storing recovered sealed sources in a secure
manner, and disposing of the sources.
Ultimately, DOE hopes that Russia will play a key role in recovering
sealed sources in other former Soviet states because many of these
sealed sources were manufactured in and distributed from Russia. In
July 2002 MINATOM provided DOE with a number of priority projects for
funding in Russia. These projects included recovering and securing
radioisotope thermoelectric generators, and recovering orphan sources
at 45 sites in Russia. According to DOE, the sites will be prioritized
according to the type and activity level of the radioactive material
present.
DOE has completed site assessments at four Radon sites in Russia.
Upgrades at these facilities are expected to be completed by the end of
fiscal year 2004. A key criterion for deciding if the site requires
upgrades is an inventory of the sealed sources stored there--if the
inventory includes sealed sources that DOE has determined to be high
risk, security upgrades will be implemented.
Under the Tripartite Initiative, 19 additional Radon sites in other
former Soviet states will be assessed. These Radon sites are located in
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,[Footnote 12] Estonia, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. DOE also plans to perform site assessments and
security upgrades at medical, industrial, and research facilities
throughout the former Soviet Union, similar to those done in Uzbekistan
and Georgia. DOE, IAEA, and MINATOM officials visited Moldova in the
fall of 2002 to conduct a physical security evaluation, implement the
upgrades at the Moldova Radon, and identify other sites where further
work is needed to improve security. DOE and IAEA officials conducted a
similar trip to Tajikistan in December 2002. Work in both countries is
expected to be complete in the summer of 2003, and DOE plans to
initiate projects in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, the Baltics, and possibly
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Kyrgyzstan in fiscal year 2003.
In March 2003 the Secretary of Energy announced a new initiative to
broaden the Tripartite Initiative to other countries needing assistance
to secure high-risk vulnerable sources. The emphasis of the expanded
initiative will be on developing countries outside of the former Soviet
Union. As part of this expanded effort, DOE expects to initiate work in
Serbia and Indonesia this year.
Finally, DOE also has a program designed to strengthen other countries'
controls over sealed sources managed by the Office of International
Nuclear Safety within the National Nuclear Security Administration. The
office is working with IAEA, other international organizations, NRC,
and the State Department to develop a management program for sealed
sources. The purpose of this program is to protect the health and
safety of the public and people who work with sealed sources by
developing literature and training programs. The program also
contributed assistance for the international effort to recover orphan
sources in the Republic of Georgia, including providing technical
assistance, detection and personnel protection equipment, training, and
software. In Armenia, this program is providing training, equipment,
and other technical assistance to enhance the safety and security of
sealed sources. As of September 30, 2002, DOE had spent about $330,000
for these activities.
DOD, State, and NRC Also Have Programs to Strengthen Other Countries'
Controls over Sealed Sources:
DOD, through its Cooperative Threat Reduction program,[Footnote 13] is
helping Kazakhstan to inventory, secure, and dispose of about 2,000
sealed sources, primarily cesium-137 and cobalt-60, from an out-of-
service industrial facility, and identify other facilities with sealed
sources. The manager of the program told us that although sealed
sources are not traditionally considered to be weapons of mass
destruction, DOD undertook this project because the Kazakhstan
government asked for assistance and the quantity and types of sealed
sources posed a security threat. The program began in fiscal year 2001,
prior to the establishment of DOE's program to secure sealed sources,
and DOD does not expect to engage in any further projects to secure
sources in the former Soviet Union countries. The $1.7 million project
is expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2003.
The State Department is also funding various projects to strengthen
controls. For example, State provided IAEA with $1 million in fiscal
year 2002 to support the agency's projects related to the safety and
security of radioactive sources. Additionally, State allocated $120,000
in fiscal year 2002 from the Nonproliferation and Disarmament
Fund[Footnote 14] for a pilot project to develop and improve radiation
safety programs in developing countries, including controls over sealed
sources. The project was initially developed by the Health Physics
Society[Footnote 15] and proposed by State's Office of the Senior
Coordinator for Nuclear Safety. Health Physics Society members
volunteer their time, and State Department funding is used for travel,
per diem, the cost of shipping donated equipment to the host countries,
and evaluation of the project--about $3,000 spent to date. Four
countries--Costa Rica, Ecuador, Jamaica, and Panama--were chosen for
the pilot; however, work has been initiated in only two countries. The
project was recently reactivated after a suspension of several months
because of State Department concerns about program management,
security, and liability issues.
The State Department has also contracted with Sandia National
Laboratory for a $100,000 study to assess the current laws and
procedures governing intercountry transfers of sealed sources.
Specifically, the study is looking at six countries that are either
major exporters or importers of sealed sources and will provide
information on, among other things, the number of sources that is
imported and exported, and whether exporters are required to verify
whether the countries they are exporting to have controls in place to
ensure the safety and security of sealed sources.
In addition, NRC has a program to strengthen controls that focuses on
Armenia. NRC has spent $62,000 in Freedom Support Act funds transferred
from USAID to assist Armenia. Initially, NRC will help Armenia develop
a registry of sealed sources, including identifying the information
required; develop the database; and help Armenia gather, assess,
develop, and verify existing data on sources. Currently, Armenian
regulations on sealed sources and other radioactive materials are
spread across different ministries and departments, and many have not
been changed since the fall of the Soviet Union. NRC plans to assist
Armenia with reviewing existing regulations and developing consolidated
regulations on, among other things, licensing and inspections of
radioactive sources, which will apply governmentwide and meet
international standards. In addition, NRC provided Russia and Ukraine
with guidance and training on the licensing and regulation of sealed
sources in the mid-1990s. NRC has also started working with Canada and
Mexico to share information about controls over sealed sources in each
country and improve cross-border controls and has provided cost-free
experts to help IAEA update its Categorization of Radioactive Sources
and Code of Conduct.
Finally, DOE and State are providing funds to support IAEA efforts to
strengthen controls over sealed sources. DOE and State have pledged a
total of $8.2 million--67 percent of the total $12.2 million pledged--
to IAEA's Nuclear Security Fund.[Footnote 16] This fund was established
after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in conjunction with
IAEA's action plan to improve nuclear security worldwide. The State
Department has directed $1 million of its contribution specifically
toward activities to improve the controls over sealed sources, and
DOE's $3 million contribution is entirely directed to these efforts.
Planned activities to improve the security of sealed sources in member
states include, among other things, enhancing ongoing activities to
improve controls of sealed sources; developing standards, guidelines,
and recommendations on the security of radioactive sources;
establishing security standards for the transport of radioactive
material; and locating and securing orphan sources.
Table 4 summarizes the amounts that the Departments of Energy, State,
and Defense, and NRC have received, obligated, and spent to help other
countries strengthen their controls over sealed sources as of January
31, 2003.
Table 4: Assistance to Improve Controls over Radioactive Sources
through January 31, 2003:
Program/Activity: DOE Radiological Threat Reduction program;
Description: Assisting Russia and other former Soviet Republics to
secure sealed sources. Includes $3 million for IAEA activities.;
Received: $36,900,000; Obligated: $11,426,600; Spent: $8,934,000.
Program/Activity: DOE International Emergency Management program;
Description: Training program for control and management of radioactive
materials. Also provides assistance to help locate, handle, and safely
remove high-risk sources.; Received: 430,000; Obligated: 430,000;
Spent: 330,000.
Program/Activity: DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction program[A];
Description: Securing, inventorying, and disposing of sources in
Kazakhstan.; Received: 1,703,884; Obligated: 1,699,214; Spent:
975,140.
Program/Activity: State Department Radiation Safety without Borders
Pilot project; Description: Assisting to build radiation safety
infrastructures in developing countries participating in the IAEA model
project.; Received: 120,020; Obligated: 120,020; Spent: 3,094.
Program/Activity: State Department study conducted by Sandia National
Laboratory; Description: Studying protocols on international transfers
of sealed sources in several countries.; Received: 100,000; Obligated:
100,000; Spent: 49,300.
Program/Activity: State Department Nuclear Safety; Description:
Funding to IAEA.; Received: 1,000,000; Obligated: 1,000,000; Spent:
1,000,000.
Program/Activity: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Description:
Designing and developing a registry of sources, and assistance to
assess and develop regulations related to radioactive materials in
Armenia.; Received: 250,000; Obligated: 250,000; Spent: 62,000.
Program/Activity: Total; Description: Received: $40,503,904;
Obligated: $15,025,834; Spent: $11,353,534.
Sources: DOE, DOD, Department of State, and NRC.
[A] DOD figures are through April 1, 2003.
[End of table]
DOE Efforts Have Not Been Well Planned and Coordinated with Those of
Other U.S. Agencies:
DOE is in the process of developing a plan to guide its efforts to help
other countries secure sealed sources. According to DOE officials,
initial attempts to develop a plan were stopped in May 2002 because the
former administrator of the Office of International Material Protection
and Cooperation felt that the program needed to show tangible results
quickly. In the absence of a plan, DOE officials told us that the
program has modeled its work in Russia on previous DOE projects to
secure fissile materials in Russia through its Material Protection,
Control, and Accounting program. The director of the program told us
that while the initial approach to securing sealed sources in Russia--
focusing on improving physical security at Radon sites--was a good
idea, it hindered DOE from setting priorities among other sites in
Russia. He further noted that the program is now focusing on improving
the security of the most vulnerable high-risk sources first.
DOE officials told us that they recognize that the development of a
plan is essential. DOE's draft plan has established short-and long-term
program elements, including consolidating and securing dangerous
materials in vulnerable locations; leveraging critical partnerships,
such as continuing to work with IAEA on key efforts such as the model
projects program and the code of conduct; and continuing to help
countries detect smuggled radioactive materials through its Second Line
of Defense program.[Footnote 17] In addition to the plan, DOE officials
said they are also developing a more detailed action plan;
radioactivity thresholds for vulnerable high-risk radioactive
materials; and guidelines for describing the actions that should be
taken by DOE when sources are found to exceed those radioactivity
thresholds. As part of its overall effort, DOE officials told us that
more detailed planning and analysis will be needed to, among other
things, (1) determine which countries present the greatest security
risk and most urgently require assistance, (2) identify future funding
requirements, and (3) develop performance measures to gauge program
success.
Despite these recent initiatives to improve program planning, officials
from Gosatomnadzor, the Russian agency responsible for regulating
sealed sources in use at almost 8,000 facilities in Russia, told us
that beyond an initial meeting, DOE had not consulted with them in the
selection or prioritization of sites for physical security upgrades. In
particular, Gosatomnadzor officials were surprised that DOE was
focusing so much attention on improving security at the Radon
facilities in Russia where they believed the probability that sealed
sources will be stolen is low. They said that it would be preferable to
begin securing sealed sources from other vulnerable sites near Moscow,
for example, out-of-service irradiation and research facilities. A
systematic approach is required to assess needs, identify priorities,
and develop a comprehensive approach to securing sealed sources. In
their view, DOE's initial approach had the potential to be superficial.
DOE officials told us that they are now working more closely with
Gosatomnadzor. In a March 31, 2003, letter from DOE's Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary for International Material Protection and
Cooperation to Gosatomnadzor's First Deputy Chairman, the DOE official
noted the need for regulatory oversight of the Russian radiological
industry and suggested that a proposal be formulated jointly with NRC
to work cooperatively in this area.
DOE is also seeking to improve planning and coordination of the
Tripartite Initiative. According to an IAEA official, DOE coordinated
its efforts with IAEA and Russia on the Moldova visit that contributed
to a successful start of the Tripartite Initiative. The participants
jointly developed and implemented a common approach for securing some
vulnerable sealed sources, and arrangements were made to construct a
facility to store these sources. However, the IAEA official told us
that the Tajikistan assessment was not well coordinated. He noted that
DOE was not flexible in scheduling the preliminary assessment visit and
that Russia did not participate in the visit. Because of the timing of
the visit, IAEA's representative to the Tripartite Initiative was
unable to participate in the visit, however, an official from IAEA's
Department of Technical Cooperation did accompany the DOE team.
DOE officials told us that they were unable to make changes to their
existing itinerary because they would have incurred significant delays
if travel dates were changed due to country clearance restrictions for
U.S. government travel in Tajikistan. Furthermore, they noted that
because of the different roles that DOE, MINATOM, and IAEA play under
the Tripartite Initiative, it is not necessary that representatives of
each organization be present on each visit. As currently envisioned,
the Russian and IAEA participants will act as an advance team,
gathering information about which sealed sources exist in a given
country and their current level of vulnerability. Subsequently, the
U.S. team will visit the country and negotiate contracts to improve
security at the vulnerable sites.
IAEA's official also told us that, overall, the Tripartite Initiative
has not been well planned. Initial efforts have been ad-hoc, and a more
systematic approach is needed as the program continues. He said that
improved planning is essential particularly because the Tripartite
Initiative will be used as a model to guide future efforts as the
program expands worldwide. DOE officials agreed that improved
coordination is needed. DOE, MINATOM, and IAEA are working to finalize
a "Terms of Reference" document that defines the objectives, scope,
roles, operational framework, and procedures to be followed for
implementing projects under the Initiative. Furthermore, preliminary
schedules for missions to several countries have been jointly developed
through August 2003.
Department of State and NRC officials told us that DOE has not fully
coordinated its efforts with their agencies, although they noted that
efforts were recently under way to improve coordination. These
officials told us that DOE needs their input to ensure that a
comprehensive governmentwide strategy is taken to, among other things,
leverage program resources, maximize available expertise, avoid
possible duplication of effort, and help ensure long-term success. DOE
has not systematically undertaken the kind of comprehensive planning
that would foster better coordination with the other agencies and could
also lead to better coordination with other countries' nuclear
organizations. For example, DOE did not adequately consult NRC or State
when developing the Radiological Threat Reduction program or developing
the Tripartite Initiative with MINATOM and IAEA. Officials from NRC and
the State Department expressed interest in sharing information and
working with DOE to plan and execute the Radiological Threat Reduction
program, but told us that there had been limited information sharing
between agencies.
Both NRC and the State Department have extensive experience in nuclear
regulatory and safety-related issues in the former Soviet Union. NRC
has received approximately $50 million from fiscal year 1991 through
fiscal year 2002 to support regulatory strengthening efforts in the
countries of central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
These efforts have included training other countries' regulators in all
aspects of licensing and inspection procedures, advising on how to
establish a legal basis for nuclear regulations, and developing a
control and accounting system for nuclear materials. The State
Department's Office of the Senior Coordinator for Nuclear Safety, which
was established about 10 years ago, provides overall policy guidance
for efforts to improve the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear power
reactors. Since then, the office's mandate has expanded to include the
safety of other foreign civilian nuclear facilities, including research
reactors and waste facilities. In addition, State Department officials
said that more recently, State has been leading U.S. negotiations to
revise IAEA's Code of Conduct and leading consultations within the U.S.
government with large exporters of sealed sources to strengthen export
controls on international transfers of them.
Several officials also told us that DOE was focusing too narrowly on
rapid physical security upgrades and not taking into account long-term
needs to develop better regulatory infrastructures in host countries.
These officials also said that a coordinated, targeted effort to
identify and secure the most vulnerable and high-risk sealed sources
could eliminate the greatest risks, and that developing regulatory
frameworks in host countries would significantly improve the safety and
security of sealed sources. DOE noted that part of the program's
strategy is to support IAEA initiatives to leverage resources of member
states to improve the security of sealed sources in their countries.
They are hoping to build on the work IAEA has done in this area,
particularly on the development of regulatory infrastructure.
The Majority of DOE's Program Expenditures Have Been in the United
States:
DOE budgeted $20.6 million for the Radiological Threat Reduction
program in fiscal year 2002 and received an additional $16.3 million in
fiscal year 2003. DOE had spent about $8.9 million of the total $36.9
million received as of January 31, 2003, including $3 million
transferred to IAEA's Nuclear Security Fund. Of the remaining $5.9
million in expenditures, 93 percent was spent in the United States by
DOE's national laboratories for labor, travel, equipment, and overhead.
Only $407,900 had been spent by the national laboratories in the
countries receiving assistance. Table 5 shows expenditures by the
laboratories by component of cost as of January 31, 2003.
Table 5: Radiological Threat Reduction Program Expenditures by DOE's
National Laboratories as of January 31, 2003:
Dollars in thousands.
Argonne National Laboratory; Program activities in the United
States: Labor[A]: $707; Program activities in the United States:
Travel[B]: $82.7; Program activities in the United States: Equipment:
$3.1; Program activities in the United States: Overhead: $0.4;
Program activities in the former Soviet Union: Travel[C]: 0; Program
activities in the former Soviet Union: Services and equipment: $3.0;
Total: $796.2.
Los Alamos National Laboratory; Program activities in the
United States: Labor[A]: 1,263.9; Program activities in the United
States: Travel[B]: 114.4; Program activities in the United States:
Equipment: 103.2; Program activities in the United States: Overhead: 0;
Program activities in the former Soviet Union: Travel[C]:
29.5; Program activities in the former Soviet Union: Services and
equipment: 0; Total: 1,511.0.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Program activities in
the United States: Labor[A]: 65.3; Program activities in the United
States: Travel[B]: 8.4; Program activities in the United States:
Equipment: 0.6; Program activities in the United States: Overhead: -
0.1[D]; Program activities in the former Soviet Union:
Travel[C]: 0; Program activities in the former Soviet Union: Services
and equipment: 0; Total: 74.2.
Nonproliferation and National Security Institute; Program
activities in the United States: Labor[A]: 142.9; Program activities in
the United States: Travel[B]: 3.5; Program activities in the United
States: Equipment: 0; Program activities in the United States:
Overhead: 0; Program activities in the former Soviet Union:
Travel[C]: 0; Program activities in the former Soviet Union: Services
and equipment: 0; Total: 146.4.
Nevada Operations Office; Program activities in the United
States: Labor[A]: 65.4; Program activities in the United States:
Travel[B]: 6.0; Program activities in the United States: Equipment: 0;
Program activities in the United States: Overhead: 9.1;
Program activities in the former Soviet Union: Travel[C]: 15.7; Program
activities in the former Soviet Union: Services and equipment: 10.0;
Total: 106.2.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Program activities in the
United States: Labor[A]: 208.5; Program activities in the United
States: Travel[B]: 0; Program activities in the United States:
Equipment: 1.3; Program activities in the United States: Overhead: 0;
Program activities in the former Soviet Union: Travel[C]: 0;
Program activities in the former Soviet Union: Services and equipment:
0; Total: 209.8.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Program activities in
the United States: Labor[A]: 2,316.2; Program activities in the United
States: Travel[B]: 132.3; Program activities in the United States:
Equipment: 45.8; Program activities in the United States: Overhead:
12.5; Program activities in the former Soviet Union:
Travel[C]: 0; Program activities in the former Soviet Union: Services
and equipment: 327.9; Total: 2,834.7.
Remote Sensing Laboratory; Program activities in the United
States: Labor[A]: 175.2; Program activities in the United States:
Travel[B]: 38.5; Program activities in the United States: Equipment:
1.9; Program activities in the United States: Overhead: 7.6;
Program activities in the former Soviet Union: Travel[C]: 11.8; Program
activities in the former Soviet Union: Services and equipment: 10.0;
Total: 245.0.
Sandia National Laboratory; Program activities in the United
States: Labor[A]: 10.5; Program activities in the United States:
Travel[B]: 0; Program activities in the United States: Equipment: 0;
Program activities in the United States: Overhead: 0; Program
activities in the former Soviet Union: Travel[C]: 0; Program activities
in the former Soviet Union: Services and equipment: 0; Total:
10.5.
Total; Program activities in the United States: Labor[A]:
$4,954.9; Program activities in the United States: Travel[B]: $385.8;
Program activities in the United States: Equipment: $155.9; Program
activities in the United States: Overhead: $29.5; Program
activities in the former Soviet Union: Travel[C]: $57.0; Program
activities in the former Soviet Union: Services and equipment: $350.9;
Total: $5,934.0.
Source: DOE.
[A] Includes salaries, wages, fringe benefits, and pensions that are
directly chargeable to the Radiological Threat Reduction program. DOE's
headquarters employees' salaries are not charged directly to the
program but are funded through DOE's Office of International Material
Protection and Cooperation.
[B] Includes both travel and per diem costs--foreign and domestic--for
laboratory officials and subcontractors.
[C] Includes travel costs for officials from other countries.
[D] The negative amount reflects funds from a prior fiscal year that
were returned to the Radiological Threat Reduction program by the
laboratory.
[End of table]
DOE officials cited several reasons why only a small percentage of the
funds allocated to the program since fiscal year 2002 had been spent as
of January 31, 2003, including the following:
* The new program required significant start-up effort to assess the
threat posed by sealed sources, determine the potential impacts from
the detonation of a dirty bomb, and categorize and prioritize the types
of sources that pose the greatest security risk.
* Difficulties and other unforeseen delays are frequently associated
with doing work in the former Soviet Union. For example, the Russian
Ministry of Construction, which maintains the Radon sites in Russia,
raised concerns, after work had already started, that it had to
authorize any work performed at those sites. Consequently, work was
stopped at the Radon sites for several months. Initially, this Ministry
had not been consulted by DOE and MINATOM in discussions about
performing work at the Radon sites.
* It took DOE a significant amount of time to establish appropriate
contacts in the countries of the former Soviet Union where DOE plans to
provide assistance. While DOE has a long history of working with Russia
to secure fissile materials through its Material Protection, Control,
and Accounting program, DOE was required to identify and work with a
different set of organizations responsible for regulating sealed
sources.
DOE officials told us that expenditures in countries of the former
Soviet Union and other regions of the world are expected to increase as
the program evolves. According to DOE, as the program matures security
upgrades will be followed by comprehensive and costly consolidation and
disposition activities, all of which will take place in foreign
countries. DOE has requested an additional $36 million for the program
in fiscal year 2004. The director of the program said that the amount
requested was an estimate based on anticipated future funding
requirements. He expects that the funds will be allocated for, among
other things, continued work in Russia, including securing large
numbers of radioisotope thermoelectric generators, additional
contributions to IAEA's Nuclear Security Fund, and expanded efforts to
secure sources in countries outside of the former Soviet Union. The
director also noted that plans to secure sources in other parts of the
world are still being developed and that DOE wants to ensure that it
has a sound basis for determining which countries to select for
assistance.
Conclusions:
The attacks that occurred in September 2001 widened the array of
potential scenarios and challenges that U.S. decision makers must
confront concerning terrorist threats. Sealed sources containing
radioactive material, which have many beneficial industrial, medical,
and research applications, must now be considered possible terrorist
weapons. These sealed sources are in virtually every country of the
world and are often inadequately secured or accounted for. The central
question is, What can the United States and the world community do to
confront this problem, given the likely vast and unknown number of
sources that exist and continue to be manufactured and distributed
globally?
DOE appears to be well suited to help countries secure sealed sources
because of its long history in securing weapons grade material in the
former Soviet Union. Further, DOE's efforts to develop a plan to guide
its efforts is a step in the right direction. However, additional
planning and detailed analyses will be needed to, among other things,
systematically identify and prioritize countries that require
assistance, establish realistic time frames and resources necessary to
accomplish these tasks, and develop meaningful performance
measurements. The elements of such a plan assumed greater importance in
light of the Secretary of Energy's recent announcement that DOE's
program will expand beyond the countries of the former Soviet Union.
For this reason alone, it is imperative that a comprehensive plan be
established and implemented before significant amounts of appropriated
funds are spent to improve international controls over sealed sources.
Regarding program expenditures, we agree with DOE's objective to
maximize program resources in the recipient countries. To date, the
national laboratories have spent the majority of the program funds in
United States and we believe that this trend needs to be reversed as
the program evolves. We would expect that in the future, a markedly
smaller percentage of program funds will be directed toward the
national laboratories and the greatest percentage will go to the
countries that need the assistance to strengthen controls over sealed
sources.
We share the views of Department of State and NRC officials who
expressed their concerns that DOE was not adequately coordinating its
efforts with the other agencies. The Department of State and NRC have a
long history of working on international nuclear safety issues, and
their expertise and insights would be valuable, we believe, in crafting
an overall governmentwide plan for strengthening controls over sealed
sources. In particular, NRC has experience in working closely with many
countries of the former Soviet Union to develop and strengthen national
regulatory infrastructures. Clearly, any long-term plan requires that
countries have a competent regulatory authority that can place
appropriate levels of controls on sealed sources.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Energy (working with the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration):
* Develop a comprehensive program plan for helping other countries
secure sealed sources that includes (1) a unified set of program goals
and priorities, including a well-defined plan for meeting these goals
in the countries to be included; (2) program cost estimates; (3) time
frames for effectively spending program funds; (4) performance
measures; (5) ways to sustain upgrades to the facilities and equipment
financed, including cost estimates; and (6) an exit strategy for each
country, including a plan for transferring responsibilities to the host
country for building and equipment maintenance. The plan should be
flexible and updated periodically to ensure that long-term efforts are
sustainable.
* Take the lead in developing a comprehensive governmentwide plan to
strengthen controls over other countries' sealed sources. The plan
should be developed in conjunction with the Secretaries of State,
Defense, and Homeland Security, and the Chairman of NRC. In addition,
this plan should be coordinated with the International Atomic Energy
Agency to avoid overlap or duplication of effort.
* Strengthen efforts to increase program expenditures in the countries
requiring the assistance.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided the Departments of Energy, State, and Defense, and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission with draft copies of this report for
their review and comment. We also provided IAEA with pertinent sections
of the report for review. DOD had no comments on the draft report.
DOE's, State's, and NRC's written comments are presented as appendixes
XII, XIII, and XIV, respectively. The three agencies and IAEA also
provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as
appropriate.
DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration agreed with our
recommendations that the program needs strengthening and noted that the
Secretary and the Administrator are actively involved with the
international community to address the security of other countries'
sealed sources. However, DOE disagreed with our finding that it had not
coordinated its efforts with NRC and the Department of State to ensure
that a governmentwide strategy is established. Further, DOE believes
that it is important to place the report's findings in context since
the program is in its startup phase. Regarding DOE's point about
coordination, we had been told several times during the course of our
review by NRC and State Department officials that DOE had not
systematically included these agencies in the development of a
comprehensive strategy to strengthen other countries' controls over
sealed sources. In fact, we raised this issue with DOE program
officials during our review and these officials acknowledged that DOE
needed to do a better job in coordinating its program with other U.S.
agencies. Although NRC and State Department officials told us that
coordination has improved recently, they endorsed the need for the
development of a governmentwide strategy to ensure that they fully
participate in future U.S. efforts. Regarding DOE's concern about
putting the report's findings in context, we noted in the draft report
that the program required a significant start-up effort to, among other
things, assess the threat posed by sealed sources, determine the
potential impacts from the detonation of a dirty bomb, and prioritize
the types of sources that pose the greatest threat.
State agreed with the facts presented in our report and noted that a
comprehensive approach to controlling sources will require a concerted
diplomatic effort that should be combined with the technical expertise
possessed by DOE in recovering and securing sealed sources in other
countries. State said that it possesses a unique perspective that is
crucial to the success of the program and hoped that we would clarify
our recommendation to delineate between DOE's technical programmatic
responsibilities and State's overall diplomatic role in guiding
international strategies for securing radiation sources. Regarding
State's point, we acknowledge State's responsibility to develop and
implement international strategies on behalf of the U.S. government.
However, we believe, as noted in the report, that DOE is well suited to
help other countries secure sealed sources because of its long history
in securing weapons grade material in the former Soviet Union and that
it should take the lead in developing a comprehensive plan to
strengthen controls of other countries' sealed sources.
NRC made several points. First, NRC believed that our report should
have focused more attention on high-risk radioactive sources rather
than on radioactive sources of all types. NRC stated that the vast
majority of radioactive sources in use in the United States and abroad
are not useful to a terrorist and that it has been working with DOE and
IAEA to finalize IAEA's revised Code of Conduct on Safety and Security
of Radioactive Sources and the revised Categorization of Sources. In
addition, NRC noted that only a few of the radioactive sources that are
lost or stolen in the United States are high-risk and that a majority
of the sources reported lost or stolen involve small or short-lived
sources which are not useful as a radiological dispersion device.
Second, NRC identified various efforts that it has undertaken to
improve the security of high-risk sources in the United States. Third,
NRC pointed out that we should consider including the Department of
Homeland Security in our recommendation that calls for the development
of a governmentwide plan to help other countries secure sealed sources.
Regarding NRC's comments, one of the objectives of our report was to
specifically determine the number of sealed sources worldwide, and we
believe that it is important to develop information, to the extent
possible, regarding the number of all sealed radioactive sources that
are in use. In fact, IAEA has placed great emphasis, particularly among
developing countries, on the importance of developing and maintaining
inventories of sources for safety and security purposes. As we noted in
our report, current IAEA policy does not allow for the approval of any
Technical Co-operation project involving the use of significant
radiation sources, unless the member state in question, among other
things, complies with the requirements to maintain an effective
regulatory framework that includes an inventory of sources.
While we agree with NRC that the highest-risk sources present the
greatest concern as desirable material for a "dirty bomb," other sealed
radioactive sources could also be used as a terrorist weapon. No one
can say with certainty what the psychological, social, or economic
costs of a dirty bomb--regardless of the radioactive material used to
construct it--would be. In addition, it is important to note that work
by NRC, IAEA, and others to characterize sources is still ongoing.
Regarding NRC's comments about its activities to increase the security
of the highest-risk sources, we will address these matters in our
forthcoming report on U.S. efforts to strengthen controls over sealed
sources in the United States. Finally, during the course of our review,
no agency we met with was aware of or told us of a role being played by
the Department of Homeland Security in securing sealed sources in other
countries. However, we agree with NRC that it makes sense to coordinate
the development of a governmentwide plan for this activity with the
Department of Homeland Security and we have revised our recommendation
to include the department.
:
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter. We will send copies of this report to
the Secretary of Energy; the Administrator, National Nuclear Security
Administration; the Secretary of State; the Secretary of Defense; the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; the Chairman, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission; the Director, Office of Management and Budget;
and interested congressional committees. We will make copies available
to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions concerning this report, I can be reached at
202-512-3841 or robinsonr@gao.gov. Major contributors to this report
are included in appendix XV.
Sincerely yours,
Robert A. Robinson
Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by Robert A. Robinson:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To answer our objectives related to (1) number of sealed sources
worldwide and how many sources are lost, stolen, or abandoned and (2)
the legislative and regulatory controls that countries that possess
sealed sources use, we distributed a questionnaire to 127 member
countries of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), including 3
countries whose IAEA membership had been approved but had not yet taken
effect at the time of our survey. We did not, however, survey all IAEA
member states. Specifically, we did not distribute questionnaires to
Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Libya, Sudan, Syria, and
the Holy See. The State Department recommended that we not correspond
with the first eight countries listed. We determined from discussions
with IAEA that the Holy See did not have any sealed sources. We did not
include the United States because it is being treated separately in
another GAO report.
IAEA provided us with a list of the appropriate contacts for most of
the countries we planned to survey. These officials were primarily from
member countries' regulatory authorities. We pretested the survey with
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and with representatives
from Brazil, Poland, the United Kingdom, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. After
revising the survey to reflect the comments of these officials, we
distributed it in December 2002 via E-mail and fax, and through
countries' embassies in Washington, D.C., and Vienna, Austria, where
IAEA is located. As a follow-up for nonrespondents, we also distributed
questionnaires directly to many countries' representatives who were
attending an international conference in Vienna, Austria, on the
security of radioactive sources. We also sent out periodic reminders to
the countries from January through March 2003 requesting their
assistance to complete the survey in a timely fashion. We received
responses from 49 IAEA member states (39 percent), including countries
from Asia, North and South America, the former Soviet Union, Europe,
the Middle East, and Africa. According to IAEA officials, the response
rate was consistent with the rate it achieves when it sends out similar
types of questionnaires to member states. In addition we were told by
IAEA officials and others that there is an inherent difficulty
associated with trying to obtain these types of data from countries
owing to the sensitive nature of some of the questions and countries'
concerns about ensuring the confidentiality of their responses. Our
survey results were used without attempting to project the information
to the universe of IAEA members. We did not assume that nonrespondent
countries would have had similar answers to our survey. Regarding the
matter of confidentiality, we notified the countries that the results
from the survey would be reported in aggregate and that individual
responses would not be disclosed.
We supplemented the results obtained from the survey with interviews
with officials from several countries, including Brazil, France,
Kazakhstan, the Republic of Georgia, Russia, the United Kingdom, and
Uzbekistan to learn more about how they regulate and control sealed
sources. We also met with officials from IAEA and the European
Commission to obtain their views on the security problems and
challenges associated with sealed sources. In addition, we also
interviewed and obtained pertinent documents from officials of several
U.S. government agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Energy,
and State, and NRC.
We attended two DOE-sponsored conferences related to the security of
sealed sources. The first conference, held in London, United Kingdom,
during September-October 2002, focused on international approaches to
nuclear and radiological security. The second conference, which was
held in Vienna, Austria, in March 2003, focused on the security of
radioactive sources and was attended by representatives from more than
120 countries.
To determine what assistance has been provided by the United States to
other countries to strengthen their controls over sealed sources, we
obtained budget, obligation, and expenditure data from the four
agencies providing assistance--the Departments of Energy, State, and
Defense, and NRC. To assess how well the programs were being
implemented, we interviewed program officials from each agency and
reviewed pertinent documents, including agency plans as available. We
also obtained information about these programs through interviews with
representatives of IAEA and officials from some of the countries
receiving U.S. assistance.
Finally, we visited Russia to obtain a first-hand look at a waste
facility that contains sealed sources. Specifically, we traveled to the
Moscow Radon site at Sergiyev Posad, located about 90 kilometers from
Moscow. While in Russia we also interviewed officials from the Ministry
of Atomic Energy, the Ministry of Health, the Kurchatov Institute,
Gosatomnadzor (Russia's nuclear regulatory organization), the Russian
Academy of Sciences, and the Russian National Technical Physics and
Automation Research Institute.
We performed our review from May 2002 through May 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Results of Survey of IAEA Member Countries:
This appendix presents a copy of the survey sent to 127 IAEA member
countries and the results of that survey.
:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: List of Countries Surveyed by GAO and Responses:
Table 6 lists all of the countries that we sent surveys to and
identifies whether or not they completed the survey when this report
was being written.
Table 6: Countries Surveyed and Surveys Received:
Country: Albania; Completed the survey.
Country: Algeria; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Angola; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Argentina; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Armenia; Completed the survey.
Country: Australia; Completed the survey.
Country: Austria; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Azerbaijan; Completed the survey.
Country: Bangladesh; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Belarus; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Belgium; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Benin; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Bolivia; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Botswana; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Brazil; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Bulgaria; Completed the survey.
Country: Burkina Faso; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Cambodia; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Cameroon; Completed the survey.
Country: Canada; Completed the survey.
Country: Central African Republic; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Chile; Did not complete the survey.
Country: China; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Colombia; Completed the survey.
Country: Costa Rica; Completed the survey.
Country: Croatia; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Cyprus; Completed the survey. survey:
Country: Czech Republic; Completed the survey.
Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo; Completed the survey.
Country: Denmark; Completed the survey.
Country: Dominican Republic; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Ecuador; Completed the survey.
Country: Egypt; Did not complete the survey.
Country: El Salvador; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Eritrea[A]; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Estonia; Completed the survey.
Country: Ethiopia; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Finland; Completed the survey.
Country: France; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Gabon; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Georgia; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Germany; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Ghana; Completed the survey.
Country: Greece; Completed the survey.
Country: Guatemala; Completed the survey.
Country: Haiti; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Honduras[B]; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Hungary; Completed the survey.
Country: Iceland; Completed the survey.
Country: India; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Indonesia; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Ireland; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Israel; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Italy; Completed the survey.
Country: Jamaica; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Japan; Completed the survey.
Country: Jordan; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Kazakhstan; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Kenya; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Korea (Republic of); Did not complete the survey.
Country: Kuwait; Completed the survey.
Country: Kyrgyzstan[A]; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Latvia; Completed the survey.
Country: Lebanon; Completed the survey.
Country: Liberia; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Liechtenstein; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Lithuania; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Luxembourg; Completed the survey.
Country: Macedonia; Completed the survey.
Country: Madagascar; Completed the survey.
Country: Malaysia; Did not complete the survey
Country: Mali; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Malta; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Marshall Islands; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Mauritius; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Mexico; Completed the survey.
Country: Moldova; Completed the survey.
Country: Monaco; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Mongolia; Completed the survey.
Country: Morocco; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Myanmar; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Namibia; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Netherlands; Did not complete the survey.
Country: New Zealand; Completed the survey.
Country: Nicaragua; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Niger; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Nigeria; Completed the survey.
Country: Norway; Completed the survey.
Country: Pakistan; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Panama; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Paraguay; Completed the survey.
Country: Peru; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Philippines; Completed the survey.
Country: Poland; Completed the survey.
Country: Portugal; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Qatar; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Romania; Completed the survey.
Country: Russian Federation; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Saudi Arabia; Completed the survey.
Country: Senegal; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Sierra Leone; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Singapore; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Slovakia; Completed the survey.
Country: Slovenia; Did not complete the survey.
Country: South Africa; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Spain; Completed the survey.
Country: Sri Lanka; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Sweden; Completed the survey.
Country: Switzerland; Completed the survey.
Country: Tajikistan; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Tanzania; Completed the survey.
Country: Thailand; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Tunisia; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Turkey; Completed the survey.
Country: Uganda; Completed the survey.
Country: Ukraine; Completed the survey.
Country: United Arab Emirates; Did not complete the survey.
Country: United Kingdom; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Uruguay; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Uzbekistan; Completed the survey.
Country: Venezuela; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Vietnam; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Yemen; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Yugoslavia; Completed the survey.
Country: Zambia; Did not complete the survey.
Country: Zimbabwe; Did not complete the survey.
Source: GAO.
[A] IAEA membership has been approved by the IAEA General Conference and
will take effect once the necessary legal instruments are deposited.
[B] IAEA member state as of March 17, 2003.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Information on Trafficking Incidents Involving Sealed
Sources:
This appendix provides information about the illicit trafficking in, or
smuggling of, radioactive material over the past decade and focuses
primarily on 17 incidents involving sealed radioactive sources. There
is sketchy--and sometimes contradictory--information about many of
these cases for a number of reasons, including (1) many trafficking
incidents are never detected by authorities; (2) some may be known but
not reported because the country does not participate in IAEA's Illicit
Trafficking Database program; (3) details about these incidents may be
considered sensitive by the countries where they occur; and (4) until
recently, trafficking of radioactive materials was not considered by
U.S. and international nonproliferation experts to be as great a
concern as the trafficking of weapons-grade nuclear material. IAEA is
encouraging countries to provide more details about all trafficking
incidents involving radioactive materials so that better information
can be developed and more accurate assessments and analysis can be
performed.
Since the early 1990s, there have been numerous reports of illicit
trafficking in, or smuggling of, radioactive material worldwide,
including sealed sources. According to IAEA, sealed sources, such as
cesium-137, cobalt-60, strontium-90, and iridium-192 are considered to
pose the greatest security risk. In 1993, IAEA established a database
to record incidents involving illicit trafficking in nuclear and
radioactive materials. Seventy countries, or about one-half of IAEA's
member states, currently participate in the database. As of December
31, 2002, IAEA listed 272 confirmed incidents involving the illicit
trafficking of radioactive materials, including sealed
sources.[Footnote 18] According to IAEA, a confirmed incident is one in
which the information has been verified to IAEA through official points
of contact from the reporting country. Of the 272 confirmed illicit
trafficking incidents reported by IAEA, there were 179 incidents with
potentially high risk sealed sources that pose the greatest security
risks. More than two-thirds of the 179 incidents involving these
sources occurred after 1997. Figure 6 depicts the frequency of reported
international trafficking incidents involving sealed sources since
1993. Figure 7 provides information on types of sealed sources and
other radioactive materials involved in international trafficking
incidents.
Figure 6: Reported International Trafficking Incidents Involving
Radioactive Sources, 1993-2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 7: Illicit Trafficking Incidents by Type of Radioactive Source,
1993-2002:
[See PDF for image]
Sources: IAEA (data); GAO (presentation).
[End of figure]
Trafficking Incidents Involving Sealed Sources:
Several observations can be made based on the incidents involving the
illicit trafficking of sealed sources.
* The majority of the incidents involved deliberate intent to illegally
acquire, smuggle, or sell radioactive material. Several other incidents
reported, however, do not reflect criminal intent but have resulted
from, among other things, the inadvertent transportation of
contaminated scrap metal. The unregulated scrap metal industry
throughout the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe poses potential
security and safety risks nonetheless because many radioactive sources
are stolen for the metal shielding, leaving the source exposed and
potentially very dangerous.
* Since the mid-1990s, the trafficking of radioactive materials has
generally increased. The increase in illicit trafficking cases may be
due, in part, to the increased reporting of these incidents by
countries and/or improved radiation detection systems placed at
countries' border crossings.
* From 1993 through 1998, trafficking incidents involving radioactive
material were primarily reported in Russia, Germany, and Estonia. In
the past few years, there appears to have been an increase in
trafficking through Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Romania.
* According to the illicit trafficking incidents reported by IAEA,
high-risk sealed sources are more likely to be trafficked than weapons-
grade fissile material, such as highly-enriched uranium. This is
because such sources have numerous beneficial applications and are not
as tightly controlled as fissile materials.
IAEA and DOE officials told us that the actual number of trafficking
cases involving sealed sources is larger than what is currently being
reported because many trafficking incidents are never detected by
authorities and many countries are not always willing to share
sensitive trafficking information. Another factor that affects the
number of confirmed cases reported is the credibility of the
information. According to DOE, a significant amount of time and
expertise is required to assess a particular incident before it can be
deemed credible. Despite difficulties in drawing conclusions from
illicit trafficking data, the threat posed by illicit trafficking is a
real and growing problem. The Director of IAEA's Office of Nuclear
Security also told us that every reported case should be taken
seriously. Furthermore, she noted that countries need to report their
smuggling incidents more systematically so that better assessments can
be performed.
Table 7 provides information about 17 significant cases of illicit
trafficking identified by IAEA and others since 1993. A brief
discussion of each case follows the table.
Table 7: Significant Seizures of Illicitly Trafficked Sealed Sources
Since 1993:
Date: April 1993; Country where material was seized: Estonia;
Material: Cesium-137; How material was found: Interdiction by police.
Date: July 1993; Country where material was seized: Germany; Material:
Strontium-90; How material was found: Discovered by police
investigation.
Date: September 1994; Country where material was seized: Bulgaria;
Material: Multiple sources; How material was found: Discovered by
police investigation.
Date: October 1994; Country where material was seized: Romania;
Material: Strontium-90; How material was found: Discovered by police
investigation.
Date: July 1995; Country where material was seized: Estonia; Material:
Radium-226; How material was found: Discovered by police investigation.
Date: November 1995; Country where material was seized: Russia;
Material: Cesium-137; How material was found: Tip provided to news
reporter.
Date: October 1998; Country where material was seized: Ukraine;
Material: Multiple sources; How material was found: Discovered by
customs officials at airport.
Date: July 1999; Country where material was seized: Russia; Material:
Californium-252; How material was found: Discovered by police
investigation.
Date: August 1999; Country where material was seized: Turkey;
Material: Cesium-137; How material was found: Discovered by police
investigation.
Date: September 1999; Country where material was seized: Ukraine;
Material: Strontium-90; How material was found: Discovered by police
investigation.
Date: August 1999; Country where material was seized: Russia;
Material: Cesium-137; How material was found: Discovered by police
investigation.
Date: February 2000; Country where material was seized: Ukraine;
Material: Strontium-90; How material was found: Discovered by police
investigation.
Date: March 2000; Country where material was seized: Uzbekistan;
Material: Radioactively contaminated material; How material was found:
Interdiction at border by customs officials.
Date: December 2000; Country where material was seized: Romania;
Material: Multiple sources; How material was found: Discovered by
police investigation.
Date: January 2001; Country where material was seized: Greece;
Material: Multiple sources; How material was found: Discovered by
police investigation.
Date: January 2002; Country where material was seized: Belarus;
Material: Strontium-90; How material was found: Discovered by police
investigation.
Date: May 2002; Country where material was seized: Bulgaria; Material:
Multiple sources; How material was found: Interdiction by police.
Sources: IAEA, Monterey Institute of International Studies Center for
Nonproliferation Studies, and Ridgway Center for International Security
Studies.
[End of table]
Khohtla-Jarve, Estonia, 1993:
This incident involved two men who worked as assistants to an "engine"
driver at a mineral fertilizer plant, which is located in Khohtla-
Jarve, Estonia. The two men stole a device containing 2.8 grams of
cesium-137 and were arrested. According to available information, the
suspects intended to sell the cesium to an unspecified buyer.
Saarbrucken, Germany, 1993:
In July 1993, German police recovered an unidentified amount of
strontium-90 that had been transported from Ukraine. The material,
which was packed in small containers, was found by police from
information provided by Ukrainian security services. Reportedly, the
containers were discovered in three plastic bags after Ukrainian police
had told the German police where to find them. Police in Kiev, Ukraine,
arrested 17 people in connection with the operation.
Sofia, Bulgaria, 1994:
In September 1994, following a 5-day undercover operation, Bulgarian
authorities arrested six Bulgarians and confiscated 19 containers of
radioactive substances, including plutonium, cesium-137, strontium-90,
plutonium-beryllium sources, and thallium-204 that had been stolen from
the Izotop Enterprise near the capital, Sofia. According to available
information, the theft was made possible by poor security at the
laboratory.
Urechesti, Romania, 1994:
In October 1994, Romanian authorities arrested three Moldovans, two
Jordanians, and two Romanians for trying to sell 7 kilograms of
strontium in a lead pipe. One suspect, a former military officer, had
smuggled the strontium to Moldova. The material was then passed to
intermediaries in the Romanian province of Transylvania, where it was
offered to the Jordanians for $400,000.
Tallinn, Estonia, 1995:
In July 1995, Estonian security police arrested two Estonians who had
radium-226 in their car. According to available information, it was
thought that the radium was smuggled into Estonia via middlemen in St.
Petersburg, Russia, indicating that more people were probably involved.
Moscow, Russia, 1995:
In November 1995, acting on a tip, Russian television reporters
discovered a 32-kilogram container, containing cesium-137 and wrapped
with explosives, in a Moscow park. According to available information,
Chechen separatists were responsible for this incident and had
reportedly obtained the radioactive material from either cancer-
treatment equipment or an instrument calibration device used in flaw
detection equipment. The Chechens threatened to detonate the device if
Russia decided to resume combat operations in the region.
Kiev, Ukraine, 1998:
In October 1998, a radiation health specialist at a German company that
consults on reactor safety was arrested by customs police at Kiev
airport in possession of a container of radioactive material from
Chernobyl. According to available information, a Russian scientist
asked the health specialist to take a metal container holding a small
amount of radioactive material out of the country for analysis. Russian
officials were unsure of the exact type of material involved, but
suspected it contained cesium, strontium, and zirconium.
St. Petersburg, Russia, 1999:
In July 1999 Russian law enforcement officials arrested two men who
attempted to sell 5 grams of californium-252. One of those arrested, a
technician from Murmansk, was approached by a criminal group who
enlisted his help to procure californium-252. The technician, who was
responsible for removing spent nuclear components from a nuclear-
powered icebreaker, smuggled the radioactive material off the
icebreaker. Along with an accomplice, the technician packed the
californium-252 into a container filled with paraffin, which they
placed within a canister of water. After the initial offer from the
criminal group fell through, the technician and his accomplice traveled
to St. Petersburg in search of another buyer, where they were arrested.
Istanbul, Turkey, 1999:
In a joint operation, the Istanbul Organized Crime and Arms Smuggling
Office and the National Intelligence Organization arrested five people,
one of whom was from the Republic of Georgia, as they tried to sell
cesium-137 to policemen acting as buyers in Istanbul in August 1999.
The cesium, which was in two separate steel tubes and weighed 49 grams,
was smuggled into Turkey from an unknown location.
Uzhgorod, Ukraine, 1999:
In September 1999, a Russian citizen was arrested after police officers
discovered that he was carrying two containers of strontium-90. The
material was discovered on the suspect during a document check by
Ukrainian police. It is believed that the suspect was taking the
radioactive materials from Russia to Western Europe. The suspect was in
possession of a number of forged documents, including a forged
diplomatic identification card.
Volgograd, Russia, 1999:
In August 1999, Russian security police recovered six containers of
cesium-137, which were stolen from a Volgograd oil refinery in May
1998. Earlier efforts to locate the stolen containers, including the
establishment of checkpoints with radiation monitors on local roads,
had proven fruitless. According to reports, the thieves had hidden the
stolen cesium containers to avoid this police dragnet and hoped to sell
the material after the search for it had finally been abandoned.
Donetsk, Ukraine, 2000:
In February 2000, A Ukrainian law enforcement unit confiscated 27
containers of strontium-90. Five individuals were reportedly involved
in the illegal trafficking of this material. The group allegedly tried
to contact foreign buyers, who were in fact members of the law
enforcement unit. The radioactive material was reportedly stolen from a
military unit deployed in the region and was stored in an apartment.
Reports stated that the individuals were attempting to sell the 27
containers for $168,000.
Beshkoprik, Uzbekistan, 2000:
In March 2000, Uzbekistan customs officers seized an Iranian-registered
truck on the Kazakhstan-Uzbekistan border about 20 kilometers from
Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, after discovering it contained
highly radioactive material. Kazakhstan customs officials had cleared
the truck and issued a certificate indicating that it had passed
radiation screening. Uzbekistan officials determined that the level of
gamma radiation emitted by the cargo was 100 times over the acceptable
level. Uzbekistan customs officials then returned the truck to their
Kazakhstani counterparts. The destination listed on the truck's
manifest was Quetta, Pakistan, and some reports speculated that the
incident involved efforts to smuggle radioactive material intended for
use by terrorist groups to build a radiological weapon.
Piatra Neamt City, Romania, 2000:
In December 2000, five suspects were arrested while trying to sell 1
kilogram of radioactive material (strontium, plutonium, and cobalt), to
undercover police officers posing as prospective buyers of radioactive
material. The suspects included a former officer of an antiorganized
crime police unit in Moldova and four Romanians who were bodyguards in
charge of protecting the shipments and who were responsible for
organizing the sale of the materials.
Thessaloniki, Greece, 2001:
In January 2001, Greek law enforcement officials uncovered several
hundred metal "wafers" of commercially available alpha-emitting
ionization sources, containing a total of 3 grams of plutonium and
americium. The cache was found buried in a forest 12 kilometers from
Thessalonki. The sources were believed to be smuggled from Eastern
Europe, and there was speculation about organized criminal involvement
in the smuggling of these sources. An investigation was launched, but
to date, there have been no publicly released results.
Minsk, Belarus, 2002:
In January 2002, police in Minsk, Belarus, arrested two persons in
connection with an attempt to sell four sealed sources of strontium-90
that one of the suspects had been storing in his apartment. One of the
suspects had stolen the sources 4 years earlier during his military
service, and the other was arrested while trying to sell them.
Veliko Tarnova, Bulgaria, 2002:
In May 2002, Bulgarian authorities seized 101 plutonium sources and an
americium-beryllium source from a vehicle near Veliko Tarnova. The
sources were detected when police officers stopped a taxi with four
individuals during a routine inspection. Thirty-nine of the plutonium
sources had certificates indicating that they had been manufactured in
1990 by Izotop-Moscow and had been ordered for a ferryboat station in
Varna. Because the 10-year guaranteed service life of the sources had
expired, it is possible that the sources were diverted after they had
been removed from service for disposal.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Information About Accidents Involving Sealed Sources:
According to IAEA and the World Health Organization, there have been
more than 100 accidents involving sealed sources over the past 50
years. Many of these accidents have been small and resulted in few
injuries. The actual number of accidents worldwide is unknown because
many countries do not report or record such events. This appendix
describes 10 accidents that occurred since the early 1980s. Although
these accidents were not the result of malevolent actions, they are
useful in gaining a better understanding of the potential consequences
following the loss of control of sealed sources.
We have included, to the extent that it was available, information on
the economic impacts of the accidents. The costs associated with lost
equipment, damage to property, and the disposal of radioactive waste
can be very significant. The cost components associated with
radiological accidents include:
* medical treatment of exposed individuals;
* radiation surveillance, including searching for lost sealed sources
and contaminated areas;
* decontamination and dismantling of contaminated buildings and
property,
* loss of production capacity;
* radioactive waste management and disposal;
* monetary compensation to individuals who received excessive doses of
radiation;
* rebuilding or possible relocation costs; and:
* effects on international trade.
Nonmonetary impacts may include:
* loss of public confidence and credibility in the government, and:
* public questions about all uses of ionizing radiation.
:
Table 8 provides information about 10 significant cases of accidents
identified by IAEA and the World Health Organization since 1983. A
brief discussion of each case follows the table.
Table 8: Selected Accidents Involving Sealed Sources Since 1983:
Year: 1983; Location: Juarez, Mexico; Type of sealed source involved:
Cobalt-60; Number of significant exposures: 80; Number of related:
deaths: 0; Associated costs: $34 million.
Year: 1984; Location: Morocco; Type of sealed source involved: Iridium-
192; Number of significant exposures: 11; Number of related: deaths: 8;
Associated costs: Unknown.
Year: 1987; Location: Goiania, Brazil; Type of sealed source involved:
Cesium-137; Number of significant exposures: 50; Number of related:
deaths: 4; Associated costs: $36 million.
Year: 1994; Location: Tammiku, Estonia; Type of sealed source involved:
Cesium-137; Number of significant exposures: 3; Number of related:
deaths: 1; Associated costs: Unknown.
Year: 1996; Location: Gilan, Iran; Type of sealed source involved:
Iridium-192; Number of significant exposures: 1; Number of related:
deaths: 0; Associated costs: Unknown.
Year: 1997; Location: Lilo, Georgia; Type of sealed source involved:
Cesium-137; Number of significant exposures: 11; Number of related:
deaths: 0; Associated costs: Unknown.
Year: 1998; Location: Los Barrios, Spain; Type of sealed source
involved: Cesium-137; Number of significant exposures: 6; Number of
related: deaths: 0; Associated costs: $28 million.
Year: 1999; Location: Yanango, Peru; Type of sealed source involved:
Iridium-192; Number of significant exposures: 1; Number of related:
deaths: 0; Associated costs: Unknown.
Year: 2000; Location: Samut Prakarn, Thailand; Type of sealed source
involved: Cobalt-60; Number of significant exposures: 10; Number of
related: deaths: 3; Associated costs: Unknown.
Year: 2001; Location: Lja, Georgia; Type of sealed source involved:
Cesium-137; Number of significant exposures: 2; Number of related:
deaths: 0; Associated costs: Unknown.
Sources: IAEA and the World Health Organization.
[End of table]
Juarez, Mexico, 1983:
A teletherapy unit containing a cobalt-60 source was purchased and
imported by a Mexican hospital without compliance with existing import
requirements. After the unit was stored for 6 years in a warehouse, its
scrap value attracted the attention of a maintenance technician. The
technician dismantled the unit and removed the cylinder containing the
sources and other metal parts. He then loaded them into a pickup truck,
drove to a junkyard, and sold the parts as scrap. Before arriving at
the junkyard, he ruptured the sealed cobalt source, dispersing about
6,000 tiny pellets of cobalt-60 in the truck bed.
When cranes moved the ruptured cylinder, the cobalt-60 pellets were
spread over the junkyard and mixed with other metal materials.
Consequently, pellets and pellet fragments were transferred to vehicles
used for transporting the scrap to various foundries. The technician's
pickup truck remained parked on the street for 40 days and was then
moved to another street, where it remained for an additional 10 days.
An unknown number of people passed by the truck each day and children
used it as a play area. It was later discovered that contaminated scrap
metal from the junkyard had been used to manufacture reinforcing rods
and metal table bases. A truck transporting contaminated rods passed
near a DOE national laboratory, where radiation detectors indicated the
presence of radioactivity. Two days later, the authorities ascertained
the origin of the contaminated rods.
U.S. and Mexican officials spent an estimated $34 million to track,
recover, and secure these radioactive products. An extensive
investigation showed that 30,000 tables and 6,000 tons of reinforcing
rods had been made from the contaminated material. In addition, 814
buildings were partly or completely demolished because the
radioactivity in the reinforcing rods resulted in higher-than-
acceptable levels of radiation. The accident exposed 4,000 people to
radiation, and 80 people received significant doses. Table 9 provides a
breakdown of the estimated costs associated with the accident.
Table 9: Estimated Costs Related to the Accident in Mexico:
Dollars in thousands.
Transport and disposal of contaminated material; Cost: $15,640.
Demolition and reconstruction to remove contaminated reinforcement bars
in buildings; Cost: 8,500.
Loss of production capacity; Cost: 3,740.
Value of contaminated material; Cost: 2,040.
Technical and operational personnel and equipment; Cost: 680.
Security and surveillance by police and army forces, and legal or
political problems; Cost: 3,400.
Total; Cost: $34,000.
Source: IAEA.
[End of table]
Morocco, 1984:
In 1984, iridium-192 sources were being used to radiograph welds in a
fossil-fuel power plant under construction. One of these sources
dropped to the ground from a radiography camera, where a passerby
picked it up and took it home. The source was lost from March to June
1984 and, as a result, eight persons died from overexposure to
radiation. In addition, three others suffered severe injuries from
overexposure that required hospitalization. It was initially assumed
that the deaths were from poisoning. Only after the last family member
died was it suspected that the deaths might have been caused by
radiation.
Goiania, Brazil, 1987:
A private radiography institute moved to new premises and left behind a
cesium-137 teletherapy unit without notifying the licensing authority.
Because the building was partially demolished, the teletherapy unit was
unsecured. Two people entered the building and removed the source
assembly. They dismantled the source assembly at home and ruptured the
sealed source. After the sealed source was ruptured, remnants of the
source assembly were sold for scrap to a junkyard owner. He noticed
that the material had a blue glow in the dark. Over a period of days,
friends and relatives came to witness the phenomenon. Fragments of the
source, the size of rice grains, were distributed to several families.
Five days later, a number of persons started to show gastrointestinal
distress.
Because the sealed source contained cesium chloride, which is highly
soluble and easily dispersed, there was considerable contamination of
the environment, resulting in external irradiation and internal
contamination of several persons. Some individuals suffered very high
internal and external contamination because of the way they had handled
the cesium chloride powder, such as rubbing it on their skin, eating
with contaminated hands, and handling various objects. Consequently,
four people died within 4 weeks of being hospitalized. In total, 249
people were contaminated, and 112,000 people were screened for
contamination.
The environment was also severely contaminated. Eighty-five houses were
significantly contaminated, and 41 of these had to be evacuated. The
decontamination process required the demolition of seven residences and
various other buildings and generated 3,500 cubic meters of radioactive
waste.
The accident had a great psychological impact on the whole region. Many
people feared contamination, irradiation, and incurable diseases. Over
8,000 persons requested monitoring for contamination in order to obtain
certificates stating that they were not contaminated. These were needed
because operators of commercial airplanes and buses refused to allow
people from the region to board and hotels refused to register them.
The social and psychological impact of the accident was so great that
an outlying region to Goiania, where the waste repository was
established, has incorporated the trifoil symbol of radioactivity into
the region's flag.
Economically, there was discrimination against products from Goiania,
resulting in a 20 percent decrease in the sales of cattle, grains, and
other agricultural products from the region. Tourism decreased
virtually to zero and the gross domestic product for the region
decreased by 15 percent. It took 5 years for the gross domestic product
to return to preaccident levels. In total, the direct and indirect
costs for emergency response and remedial action are estimated to be
$36 million.
Figure 8: Contaminated Radioactive Debris from Demolished Residences in
Goiania:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Tammiku, Estonia, 1994:
In October 1994 a sealed source that was discovered in scrap metal was
recovered and transferred to a radioactive waste repository under the
supervision of the national government. Three brothers entered the
repository without authorization and removed a metal container
enclosing a cesium-137 source and the source fell out of the container.
One of the men placed the source in his pocket and took it home. The
source remained in the house for 27 days, resulting in the overexposure
of five individuals, including one fatality. The sealed source was
thought to be part of a gamma irradiator, but none had ever been used
or registered in Estonia. According to available information, it is
possible that the source was brought into Estonia from the Russian
Federation with miscellaneous scrap metals for export to Western
Europe.
Gilan, Iran, 1996:
At a combined cycle fossil fuel power plant in Iran, radiography
equipment with an iridium-192 sealed source was used to examine welds
from a boiler. At the end of the radiographer's shift, the source
became detached from its drive cable and fell to the floor unnoticed.
Later, a worker moving thermal insulation materials around the plant
noticed a shiny, pencil-sized metal object in a trench and put it in
his pocket. The source was in his chest pocket for approximately two
hours, resulting in a high radiation dose. As a result of this
exposure, the worker had abnormal redness of the skin, severe bone
marrow depression, and an unusually extended radiation injury requiring
plastic surgery.
Lilo, Georgia, 1997:
Eleven border frontier guards became ill owing to exposure from
multiple radioactive sources, including 12 cesium-137 sources, one
cobalt-60 source, and 200 radium-226 sources. These sources were
abandoned when the military site was transferred from the Soviet Union
to the Republic of Georgia. All individuals suffered from skin
ulcerations and chronic radiation sickness. No deaths were associated
with this accident.
Figure 9: Location Where Sealed Sources Were Found, Lilo, Georgia:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Los Barrios, Spain, 1998:
In May 1998, a cesium-137 source was accidentally melted at a stainless
steel factory. As a result of the periodic maintenance and cleaning of
the filter system at the factory, the dust was removed, and much of it
was sent to two different factories several hundred kilometers from the
factory. The dust was contaminated with cesium-137, and about 400
people were monitored for contamination. Measurements of a large number
of water, air, and soil samples were obtained from nearby towns and at
locations several hundred kilometers away. Traces of cesium-137 were
found but considered negligible. In countries outside of Spain, the
environmental impact was minimal. The economic consequences of the
accident, including temporary suspension of factory operations,
decontamination operations, and management of the resulting radioactive
waste, were estimated to be over $25 million.
Yanango, Peru, 1999:
In February 1999 an iridium-192 source fell out of a radiography camera
being used at a hydroelectric power plant. Later that day, a welder
picked up the iridium-192 source and placed it in the right back pocket
of his trousers. For the next several hours, the welder continued his
work and later took a minibus home with 15 other people onboard. Once
home, the welder's wife fed their 18-month-old child while she was
sitting on the welder's trousers, and two other children were 2-3
meters from the iridium source for approximately 2 hours. The welder
received extensive radiation burns that required the amputation of his
right leg. The wife suffered lesions on her lower back after her brief
exposure to the sealed source. No radiation effects were reported for
the children.:
Samut Prakarn, Thailand, 2000:
A company in Bangkok, Thailand, possessed several teletherapy devices
containing cobalt-60 without authorization from the Thailand Office of
Atomic Energy for Peace. The teletherapy device was originally
installed at a hospital in Bangkok, Thailand, in 1969. In 1981, a new
source was installed, and the hospital received no further maintenance
from the manufacturer of the teletherapy unit and source. When the
teletherapy unit was removed from service in 1994, the maintenance
contractor had gone bankrupt and the manufacturer was no longer
producing cobalt-60 units. As a result, the hospital was left with the
disused source to manage and control. Since the hospital did not have
sufficient storage space, it sold the device and source to a new
supplier without the authorization of the regulatory authority. In 1999
the new supplier was notified that its lease of the warehouse was to be
terminated and relocated the device to a parking lot that was owned by
its parent company.
In the autumn of 1999, the company relocated the teletherapy devices to
an unsecured storage location without the authorization of the national
regulatory authority. In late January 2000, several individuals
obtained access to the unsecured storage location and partially
disassembled the teletherapy device. The individuals took the unit to a
residence and attempted to disassemble it further.
In early February 2000, two individuals took the disassembled device to
a junkyard in Samut Prakarn, Thailand, to segregate component metals
and sell them separately as scrap. While a junkyard worker was
disassembling the device, the cobalt-60 source fell out of its housing
unobserved by the junkyard workers or the individuals. By the middle of
February 2000, several of the people involved, including the finders of
the source and junkyard workers, had begun to feel ill and sought
medical assistance. Physicians at the hospital suspected the
possibility of radiation exposure and reported their suspicions to the
regulatory authority. Altogether, 10 people received high doses of
radiation from the source. Three of those people, all workers at the
junkyard, died within 2 months of their exposure.
Lja, Georgia, 2001:
In December 2001 three woodsmen found two heat-emanating metallic
containers near their campsite in a forest near the village of Lja in
western Georgia. This village is in the Abkhazia region of the
Caucasus. This region is subject to political unrest and has sought its
independence from the Republic of Georgia. As a result, during the past
decade, the region has been largely inaccessible to Georgian and
international authorities. The woodsmen involved in the accident used
the containers as a heat source and experienced nausea, vomiting, and
dizziness within hours of exposure to the containers. At a local
hospital in Tbilisi, Georgia, the woodsmen were diagnosed with
radiation sickness and severe radiation burns, and at least two of the
three were in serious condition. In February 2002, an IAEA-sponsored
search and recovery team found the containers and discovered that each
one was previously used in Soviet-era radioisotope thermoelectric
generators.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Information on Producers and Distributors of Radioactive
Material:
This appendix provides information about the major producers and
distributors of radioactive material used to manufacture sealed
sources. Six countries are the major suppliers of the radioactive
material: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Russia, and
South Africa. Canada is the largest exporter of radioactive material
and has provided over half of all radioactive material used in medical
applications worldwide. Table 10 lists the major producers and
distributors of radioactive material used to manufacture sealed
sources.
Table 10: Major Producers and Distributors of Radioactive Material Used
to Manufacture Sealed Sources:
Country: Argentina; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: National Atomic Energy Commission and INVAP S.E..
Country: Australia; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: Australian Nuclear Science and; Technology Organization.
Country: Belgium; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: National Institute for Radio Elements and Belgian Nuclear
Research Centre.
Country: Brazil; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: Instituto de Pasquisas Energeticas Nucleares.
Country: Bulgaria; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy.
Country: Canada; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., and MDS Nordion.
Country: China; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: China Isotope Corporation and Nuclear Power Institute of
China.
Country: Czech Republic; Major organizations producing and/or
distributing sources: Nuclear Research Institute.
Country: Denmark; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: Risoe National Laboratory.
Country: France; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: CIS Bio International; Commissariat A L'Energie Atomique
Centre D'Etudes De Valduc.
Country: Germany; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: AEA Technology QSA, GmbH., Chemotrade,; Isotope Products
Europe Blaseg, GmbH., and; STS--Steuerungstechnik & Strahlesnschutz
GmbH.
Country: Hungary; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: Atomic Energy Research Institute and Institute of Isotopes
Co., Ltd..
Country: India; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: Bhabha Atomic Research Centre.
Country: Indonesia; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: National Nuclear Energy Agency.
Country: Japan; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute and Institute for
Atomic Energy Rikkyo University.
Country: Malaysia; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: Malaysian Institute for Nuclear Technology Research.
Country: Netherlands; Major organizations producing and/or
distributing sources: I.D.B. Holland B.V..
Country: Russia; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: Atomenergoexport, Institute of Physics and Power Engineering,
Kurchatov Institute, Mayak Production Association, Scientific and
Research Institute of Atomic Reactors, and St. Petersburg Institute of
Nuclear Physics.
Country: South Africa; Major organizations producing and/or
distributing sources: South African Nuclear Energy Corporation.
Country: South Korea; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute.
Country: Sweden; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: Studsvik AB.
Country: United Kingdom; Major organizations producing and/or
distributing sources: Ametek Advanced Measurement Technology, Nycomed
Amersham, and Reviss Services Limited.
Country: United States; Major organizations producing and/or
distributing sources: Department of Energy.
Country: Uzbekistan; Major organizations producing and/or distributing
sources: Institute of Nuclear Physics.
Sources: IAEA and Monterey Institute of International Studies Center
for Nonproliferation Studies.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Policy on Exports of
Sealed Sources:
In most cases, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants a general
license for the export of sealed sources to all countries containing
byproduct material except certain proscribed countries: Cuba, Iran,
Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan. Byproduct material is (1) any
radioactive material (except special nuclear material) yielded in, or
made radioactive by, exposure to the radiation incident to the process
of producing or using special nuclear material (as in a reactor) and
(2) the tailings, or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration
of uranium or thorium from ore.
According to NRC, limited quantities of sealed sources can also be
exported under a general license to "restricted" countries:
Afghanistan, Andorra, Angola, Burma, Djibouti, India, Israel, Oman,
Pakistan, and Syria. A general license, provided by regulation, grants
authority to a person for certain activities, in this case, the export
of sealed sources, and is effective without filing an application with
NRC or the issuance of a licensing document to the person or
organization exporting the sealed source. NRC has placed most sealed
sources for export under a general license for several reasons,
including the following: (1) subject to NRC or Agreement State[Footnote
19] oversight, the United States is responsible only for ensuring the
safe use and control of radioactive materials used to manufacture
sealed sources within U.S. territory; (2) foreign countries have the
sovereign responsibility for ensuring appropriate regulatory controls
over radioactive material, including such material imported from other
countries; and (3) control over radioactive material would not be
enhanced by requiring specific licenses for material exported from the
United States. A specific license would not ensure that the exported
materials would be subject to controls and regulatory oversight in a
foreign country because the license does not ensure that the recipient
country has adequate regulatory controls over the material that is
exported from the United States. Under a specific license, the export
request must be reviewed and approved by NRC in consultation with other
appropriate agencies, including the Departments of Commerce, State,
Defense, and Energy.
NRC officials told us that they are required only to maintain a
database of exports of sealed sources that are issued under a specific
license and certain other exports of concern, such as americium-241 and
neptunium-237. The United States, as a nuclear weapon state, has agreed
to report all exports of americium and neptunium to IAEA. With regard
to shipments of sealed sources, NRC officials told us that the
Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection maintains a database of all transactions, identified by
tariff number, including those including sealed sources that are
exported under a general license. However, these officials also said
that it would be very difficult for the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection to track these specific shipments of sealed sources because
the information on manifests is general in nature.
NRC officials told us that they were not aware of any sealed sources
that were exported under a general license from the United States that
have been used for malicious purposes. They noted that there have been
thousands of such exports, most of which involve material in forms or
quantities that pose minimal safety or health risks if properly used
and controlled. However, there have been a few cases where lax local
regulatory oversight over high-risk materials resulted in instances
where sealed sources were eventually lost or improperly disposed of,
resulting in harmful exposure to individuals.
Specific licenses are required to export radioactive material in waste
and tritium for recovery and recycling purposes. This is because a
final NRC rule (59 F.R. 48994), effective November 10, 1994, revoked
the general license for bulk tritium and alpha-emitting radionuclides
having an alpha half-life of 10 days or greater but less than 200 years
to conform NRC's regulations to the export control guidelines of the
Nuclear Suppliers' Group[Footnote 20] for nuclear-related, dual-use
items. Tritium and reactor-produced alpha-emitting radionuclides are
two commodities on the Nuclear Suppliers' Groups dual-use list whose
exports are regulated by NRC. In addition, tritium and alpha-emitting
radionucliedes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers' Group because
of their potential application in the production of weapons of mass
destruction.
Another final rule on the import and export of radioactive material (60
F.R. 37556), effective August 21, 1995, established specific licensing
requirements for the import and export of radioactive material in the
form of waste coming into or leaving the United States to conform with
NRC's regulations to the guidelines of the IAEA Code of Practice on the
International Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste.
In view of increased post-September 11 terrorism concerns, NRC is
considering changes to its general license provisions to improve
controls over exports. Possible changes include (1) ensuring that the
exporter confirm that the customer in the foreign country is authorized
by the recipient country to possess the material; (2) requiring prior
notification to NRC for risk-significant shipments; and (3) as
appropriate, providing national or international source registries with
data for risk-significant shipments. Changes under consideration are
expected to be implemented in fiscal year 2004 by orders with
compensatory measures and in fiscal years 2004-2005 by a rule change as
part of a broader NRC plan to improve controls over the imports and
exports of sealed sources. Other possible and more restrictive controls
for exports include a requirement for a specific export license for
high-risk material such as high-activity cobalt-60 sources or imposing
a specific prohibition on such exports to countries that do not have
acceptable sealed source security, control, and accountability
requirements. The United States is coordinating these efforts with
other countries that export sealed sources to ensure consistent,
adequate controls. In addition, in conjunction with the change of the
national threat level to "orange" in March 2003, NRC issued a security
advisory to licensees concerning certain quantities of certain high-
risk sources, which included exports and imports.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Results of the International Conference on the Security
of Radioactive Sources:
This appendix provides information concerning several key findings and
recommendations from the international conference on the security of
radioactive sources held in Vienna, Austria, in March 2003. The
conference was sponsored by the governments of the United States and
the Russian Federation and hosted by the government of Austria. It was
organized by IAEA in cooperation with the European Commission, the
World Customs Organization, the International Criminal Police
Organization, and the European Police Office. Over 700 delegates from
more than 120 countries attended the conference.
The conference produced key findings in the following areas: (1)
identifying, searching for, recovering, and securing high-risk
radioactive sources; (2) strengthening long-term control over
radioactive sources; (3) interdicting illicit trafficking; (4) planning
the response to radiological emergencies arising from the malevolent
use of radioactive sources; and (5) recognizing the role of the media/
public education, communication, and outreach.
Regarding identifying and searching for sources, the conference
encouraged countries to:
* develop and implement national action plans, on the basis of their
own specific conditions, for locating, searching for, recovering, and
securing high-risk radioactive sources;
* accelerate the establishment of a coherent and transparent scheme for
the categorization of radioactive sources in order to provide for the
safety and security of sources; and:
* assist other countries, as appropriate, in identifying, searching
for, recovering, and securing high-risk sources.
Concerning strengthening long-term control over radioactive sources,
the conference encouraged countries to:
* formulate and implement national plans for the management of sources
throughout their life cycle;
* develop, to the extent practical, standards for the design of sealed
sources and associated devices that are less suitable for malevolent
use (e.g., alternative technologies and less-dispersible forms of high-
risk sources); and:
* establish arrangements for the safe and secure disposal of disused
high-risk sources, including the development of disposal facilities.
Regarding illicit trafficking, the conference recognized the need for
greater international efforts to detect and interdict the illicit
trafficking of high-risk sources and to take appropriate enforcement
actions. In support of this objective, the conference encouraged
countries to:
* further develop and strengthen measures to detect, interdict, and
respond to the illicit trafficking of high-risk radioactive sources;
* deploy and widely use technologies for detecting high-risk
radioactive sources, with emphasis on ensuring the sustainability of
monitoring and detection equipment;
* undertake further research on and development of detection
technologies for use at borders and elsewhere;
* enhance cooperation between government agencies responsible for
preventing, detecting, and responding to illicit trafficking incidents,
especially in the fields of information sharing, communications, and
training;
* pool resources through, for example, the sharing of monitoring and
detection equipment on common borders; and:
* continue support for and development of IAEA's illicit trafficking
database.
The conference recommended that countries develop comprehensive plans
to prepare for and respond to radiological emergencies involving
radioactive sources. In support of this recommendation, the conference
encouraged countries to, among other things,
* enhance current national and international response arrangements,
taking into account the need to respond both proactively and reactively
to the new scenarios presented by the possibility of the malevolent use
of high-risk radioactive sources and:
* consider establishing mechanisms to facilitate effective coordination
in the event of a radiological emergency.
Finally, the conference recognized that the public's understanding of
the nature and consequences of radiological emergencies will largely
determine how the public reacts to such emergencies. As a result, the
conference encouraged countries to:
* conduct public outreach and awareness programs to foster a better
understanding of radiological threats and the appropriate response in
the event of a radiological emergency in order to minimize social and
economic disruption;
* educate the public regarding the nature of radioactivity, the
consequences of the malevolent uses of high-risk radioactive sources,
and the procedures for mitigating those consequences in order to reduce
the psychological impact of radiological terrorism;
* strengthen their education and training programs as a means to
promote confidence building within the public; and:
* assume greater responsibility for gaining the trust of the media and
informing them about the potential threat of radiological terrorism to
help ensure that the media will communicate information accurately in a
nonsensational manner to avoid fueling public fear and panic.
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Information on IAEA's Revised Categorization of
Radioactive Sources:
The purpose of IAEA's Categorization of Radioactive Sources is to
provide a fundamental and internationally harmonized basis for risk-
informed decision making. The draft document provides a categorization
for radioactive sources used in industry, medicine, agriculture,
research, and education. The principles of the categorization can be
equally applied to radioactive sources, such as radioisotope
thermoelectric generators that may be under military control. The
categorization does not apply to radiation-generating devices such as
X-ray machines and particle accelerators, although it may be applied to
radioactive sources produced by, or used as, target material in such
devices. The revised categorization divides sources into five
categories, according to their potential to cause harmful health
effects, should the source not be managed safely and securely. The
categories are defined as follows:
* Category 1 sources are considered extremely dangerous. If not safely
managed safely, the radioactive material would likely cause permanent
injury to a person who handled it or were otherwise in contact with it
for more than a few minutes. It would probably be fatal to be close to
this amount of unshielded material for a period of a few minutes to an
hour. Furthermore, the amount of radioactive material, if dispersed by
fire or explosion, could possibly--but would be unlikely to--
permanently injure persons in the immediate vicinity or be life
threatening to them. There would be little or no risk of immediate
heath effects to persons beyond a few hundred meters. It would be
highly unlikely for a category 1 source to contaminate a public water
supply to dangerous levels, even if the radioactive material were
highly soluble in water.
* Category 2 sources are also considered personally dangerous. If not
safely managed or securely protected, the radioactive material could
cause permanent injury to a person who handled it or were otherwise in
contact with it for a short time (minutes to hours). It could possibly
be fatal to be close to this amount of unshielded radioactive material
for a period of hours to days. The amount of radioactive material, if
dispersed by fire or explosion, could possibly--but would be very
unlikely to--permanently injure or be life threatening to persons in
the immediate vicinity. It would be virtually impossible for a category
2 source to contaminate a public water supply to dangerous levels, even
if the radioactive material were highly soluble in water.
* Category 3 sources are also considered to be dangerous. If not safely
managed or securely protected, the radioactive material could cause
permanent injury to a person who handled it or were otherwise in
contact with it, for some hours. It could possibly--although it is
unlikely--be fatal to be in close contact to this amount of unshielded
radioactive material for a period of days to weeks. The amount of
radioactive material, if dispersed by fire or explosion, could
possibly--but is extremely unlikely to--permanently injure or be life
threatening to persons in the immediate vicinity. It would be virtually
impossible for a category 3 source to contaminate a public water supply
to dangerous levels, even if the radioactive material were highly
soluble in water.
* Category 4 sources are unlikely to be dangerous. It is very unlikely
that anyone would be permanently injured by this amount of radioactive
material. This amount of radioactive material, if dispersed by fire or
explosion, could not permanently injure persons.
* Category 5 sources are not considered dangerous. No one could be
permanently injured by this amount of radioactive material.
Furthermore, this amount of radioactive material, if dispersed by fire
or explosion, could not permanently injure persons.
IAEA has developed a list on the basis of practices (such as
irradiators, industrial radiography, and teletherapy) as part of its
relative ranking of sealed sources. Examples of the most dangerous
(category 1) include radioisotope thermoelectric generators,
sterilization and food preservation facilities containing cobalt-60 or
cesium-137, and medical equipment containing cobalt-60. The least
dangerous (category 5) include low-dose-rate brachytherapy devices and
lightning detectors containing americium-241.
[End of section]
Appendix X: Countries Participating in IAEA's Model Project Program:
Table 11 provides a list of the countries participating in IAEA's model
project program and the year they joined the program.
Table 11: Countries Participating in IAEA's Model Project Program:
Country: Albania; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Algeria; Year joined the program: 2002.
Country: Angola[A]; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Armenia; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Azerbaijan; Year joined the program: 2003.
Country: Bangladesh; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Belarus[B]; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Benin[A]; Year joined the program: 2003.
Country: Bolivia; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Bulgaria; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Burkina Faso[A]; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Cameroon[A]; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Central African Republic[A]; Year joined the program: 2003.
Country: China; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Columbia; Year joined the program: 1998.
Country: Costa Rica; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Croatia; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Cyprus; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo[A]; Year joined the program:
1996.
Country: Dominican Republic; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Ecuador; Year joined the program: 2000.
Country: Egypt; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: El Salvador; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Ethiopia; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Estonia; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Gabon[A]; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Georgia; Year joined the program: 1997.
Country: Ghana; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Guatemala; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Haiti; Year joined the program: 1999.
Country: Hungary; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Indonesia; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Iran; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Ivory Coast[A]; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Jamaica; Year joined the program: 1997.
Country: Jordan; Year joined the program: 1997.
Country: Kazakhstan; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Kenya; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Kuwait; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Latvia; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Lebanon; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Libya; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Lithuania; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Macedonia; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Madagascar; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Malaysia; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Mali[A]; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Malta; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Mauritius[A]; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Moldova; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Mongolia; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Morocco; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Myanmar; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Namibia[A]; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Nicaragua; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Niger[A]; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Nigeria[A]; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Pakistan; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Panama; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Paraguay; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Philippines; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Portugal; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Qatar; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Romania; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Saudi Arabia; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Senegal[A]; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Sierra Leone[A]; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Singapore; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Slovenia; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: South Africa; Year joined the program: 2002.
Country: Sri Lanka; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Sudan; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Syria; Year joined the program: 1997.
Country: Tajikistan; Year joined the program: 2002.
Country: Tanzania; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Thailand; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Tunisia; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Turkey; Year joined the program: 2001.
Country: Uganda[A]; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: United Arab Emirates; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Uruguay; Year joined the program: 2000.
Country: Uzbekistan; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Venezuela; Year joined the program: 2002.
Country: Vietnam; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Yemen; Year joined the program: 1996.
Country: Yugoslavia; Year joined the program: 2003.
Country: Zambia; Year joined the program: 2002.
Country: Zimbabwe[A]; Year joined the program: 1996.
Source: IAEA.
[A] These countries are participating only in milestones 1 and 2 of the
model project program.
[B] Belarus completed the program in 2000.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix XI: France's System for Controlling Sealed Sources:
French officials told us that their system for controlling sealed
sources has several key components, including stringent controls on the
licensing and tracking of the sources. Distributors of devices
containing sealed sources must be authorized to market such devices and
must send monthly accounts of the movement of sources to the French
government agency responsible for regulating sealed sources. End users
must have a license covering each site where the sources are used, and
the maximum duration of a license is 5 years. For items such as smoke
detectors, the end user is not required to have a license, but the
distributor must be licensed. Approximately 30,000 sources in use in
France are tracked by the government, and there are nearly 5,000
licensees. This number does not include very small sources like iodine
grains used for medical purposes (there are about 80,000 such sources)
and smoke detectors (for 400,000 buildings), which are exempt from
licensing requirements for end users.
Sealed sources are subject to an annual inspection, and the end user
pays for the inspections. The fee is a function of the number of sealed
sources owned by the licensee. The inspection is designed to confirm
that the sealed sources are properly accounted for, adequately secured,
and safely used. In order to renew a license, the licensing agency must
be provided with documentation of the annual inspections. If the end
user is not inspected, it is subject to fines and may also be fined if
the inspection shows that it is not adequately protecting devices
containing sealed sources. Fines are based on health and safety
infractions--not security violations--and the fines can be as high as
about $15,000.
France has also established a system to control orphan sources that has
three main components.
* End users are required to remove any source from service not more
than 10 years after it was purchased.
* The company supplying the source to the end user is required to
include disposal costs within the purchase price.
* All other companies in the supply chain agree contractually to take
back the source after 10 years.
Under France's system, the company supplying--or distributing--the
sealed source is required to ensure, through a financial guarantee,
that funds will be available to pay for the disposal of the source in
case the distributor goes out of business or files for bankruptcy. The
financial guarantee is made either through an annual fee paid to an
association of source distributors or by providing France's national
waste management agency with a deposit. The association represents 99
percent of all distributors of devices containing sealed sources in
France. About 50 distributors are members of the association.
Typically, the distributor makes an initial deposit of about $1,000 and
then pays an annual fee on the basis of the total activity of sources
it has distributed, the technology that the sealed sources are used
for, and the value of the source. French officials responsible for
administering the system told us that, initially, distributors did not
like it because of the excessive amount of paper work involved.
However, companies now see the value of the system.
Distributors also have the option of contracting with France's
radioactive waste management agency for disposal of the sources if they
do not want to join the association. Typically, the smaller
distributors who choose this option do so because they may only supply
one or two sources per year and do not want to share the risk of
joining the larger association, where costs are spread among many
distributors. Distributors who choose this option are required to
deposit funds with the agency to guarantee that disposal costs will be
covered. The deposit ranges from about $1,000 to several thousand
dollars. When a source is returned, the agency returns the deposit
(less an administrative fee) to the distributor. According to French
officials, only 1 percent of the distributors of sources in France use
this option because they believe it is more expensive than belonging to
the association, which spreads the financial risk among all of its
members. In addition, the cost determined by the waste management
agency is based on the entire cost of disposal and takes into account
inflation and other economic factors. To date, the waste management
agency has not had to use the fund to dispose of any disused sealed
sources. The agency has always been able to locate a source's
manufacturer to take back the source or find another manufacturer
willing to accept it.
According to French officials, when the system was first put into
place, it posed a difficulty for distributors, who had to pass the cost
of the financial guarantee to the end user. However, now that the
system has been in place for many years, the additional costs are
accepted, and users are pleased not to have to deal with disposing of
the sources on their own. We were told that the process works well and
has contributed to the reduction in the number of lost, stolen, or
abandoned sealed sources. Currently, about one sealed source per year
is orphaned in France.
[End of section]
Appendix XII: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Department of Energy
National Nuclear Security Administration
Washington, DC 20585
MAY 06 2003:
Mr. Bob Robinson:
Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Robinson:
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) appreciates the
opportunity to review the draft report, Nuclear Nonproliferation: U.S.
and International Efforts to Control Sealed Radioactive Sources Need
Strengthening (GAO-03-638). GAO was requested to determine (1) the
number of sealed sources worldwide and how many have been reported
lost, stolen, or abandoned; (2) the controls, both legislative and
regulatory, used by countries that possess sealed sources; and (3) the
assistance provided by the Department of Energy and other U.S. Federal
agencies to strengthen other countries' control over sealed sources and
the extent to which these efforts are believed to be effectively
implemented.
NNSA has reviewed the draft report, and disagrees with GAO that "the
department has not coordinated its efforts with NRC and the Department
of State to ensure that a governmentwide strategy is established."
NNSA, however does agree with GAO's recommendations that the program
does need strengthening. NNSA further believes that placing the
findings of the report in context is extremely important particularly
since this program is in its "startup" phase. Therefore, we have
enclosed specific technical comments and recommended revisions to the
report. The Secretary and NNSA's Administrator are actively involved
with the international community to address security of other
countries' sealed sources as you recommend in your report.
If you have any questions, please contact Richard Speidel of my staff
at 202-586-5009.
Sincerely,
Michael C. Kane:
Acting Associate Administrator for Management and Administration:
Signed by Michael C. Kane:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix XIII: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State
Washington, D. C. 20520:
APR 30 2003:
Dear Ms. Westin:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "NUCLEAR
NONPROLIFERATION: U.S. and International Assistance Efforts to Control
Sealed Radioactive," GAO-03-638, GAO Job Code 360199.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Ron
Burrows, Bureau of Nonproliferation, at (202) 647-6425.
Christopher B . Burnham:
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer:
Signed by Christopher B . Burnham:
Enclosure:
As stated.
cc: GAO/IAT - Glen Levis State/OIG - Luther Atkins State/NP/SC - Warren
Stern:
Ms. Susan S. Westin, Managing Director, International Affairs and
Trade, U.S. General Accounting Office.
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION: U.S. and International Assistance Efforts to
Control Sealed Radioactive Sources Need Strengthening (GAO 03-638, GAO
Job Code 360199):
The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
GAO's draft report on U.S. and International Assistance Efforts to
Control Sealed Radioactive Sources. Since September 11, 2001, the need
to ensure that radioactive material is kept out of the hands of
potential terrorists is critical and improving the security of high-
risk radioactive sources that could be used in "dirty bombs" is a top
priority for our nation.
Overall, we agree with the facts as presented in the report. Despite
the early problems with interagency coordination noted in your report,
we are currently working cooperatively with the Department of Energy.
However, we are concerned that your recommendation to give DOE the
responsibility of developing and coordinating a comprehensive U.S.
government-wide effort to strengthen international controls over sealed
sources could be interpreted as conflicting with our diplomatic
responsibilities. The Department of Energy (DOE) is technically
qualified and experienced in recovering and securing sealed sources and
can assist other countries in achieving the same. However, the State
Department is responsible for developing and implementing international
strategies.
As noted in your report, the Department of State has been addressing
the problem of unsecured sources for some time. For example, for many
years, we have nurtured and funded IAEA programs in this regard. This
includes aiding in the development of the IAEA Code of Conduct on the
Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources and funding so-called Model
Project, which helps countries to develop legal and regulatory
infrastructures to control sources. In addition, despite the limited
resources available to us for these purposes, we provided the first
funding for DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission efforts to
enhance the security of sources (in Georgia and Armenia) through
Freedom Support Act funds.
A comprehensive approach to controlling sources, will require a
concerted diplomatic effort. It is imperative in this process that this
be coordinated with our technical efforts. The security of radioactive
sources depends on convincing states to change the fundamental ways
that they manage and secure sources. While we can and should secure
high-risk sources, we need to recognize that this is only a small part
of the problem. We need to ensure those receiving assistance are
themselves committed to securing sources as these sources continue to
be used widely in commercial activities. Given the overall broader
concerns behind this program, the Department of State has a unique
perspective that is crucial to its success.
We hope that you will clarify your recommendation to delineate between
DOE's technical programmatic responsibilities and State's overall
diplomatic role in guiding international strategies for securing
radiation sources. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of
further assistance.
[End of section]
Appendix XIV: Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
UNITED STATES:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001:
May 1, 2003:
Mr. Bob Robinson:
Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment United States
General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Robinson:
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review and submit
comments on the draft report, "NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION: U.S. and
International Assistance Efforts to Control Sealed Radioactive Sources
Need Strengthening" (GAO-03-638). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) appreciates the time and effort that you and your
staff have taken to review this important topic.
Overall, this report contains a wealth of information, however, it
should have focused more on high-risk radioactive sources, rather than
on all radioactive sources. It is important to note that the vast
majority of radioactive sources in use in the U.S. and abroad are not
useful to a terrorist. Additional security measures are not needed for
such sources. Too often in the report very large numbers are used, for
example, the number of sources lost in a year or the total number of
sources in use in the U.S, or in Europe. Although these numbers are
accurate, they can be misleading without the proper context.
The NRC, Department of Energy (DOE), and the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) all recognize the need to focus security efforts
on the sources of highest risk, those that would be most useful to a
terrorist. In this regard, the NRC and DOE have recently identified the
handful of radionuclides that are of greatest concern for potential
misuse by terrorists and have identified action levels (activity
thresholds) for these radionuclides. The NRC and DOE intend to apply
additional security measures, such as national inventory controls and
export/import controls, to those high-risk sources above the action
thresholds. The NRC and DOE also continue to work aggressively with the
IAEA in finalizing the IAEA's revised Code of Conduct on Safety and
Security of Radioactive Sources and revised Categorization of Sources
(TECDOC-1344). The Commission believes that Category I and Category II
sources need to be the focus of additional security measures
internationally. The report should make it clear that very few of the
sources which are lost or stolen in the U.S. are high-risk sources. A
large majority of those reported lost or stolen involve small or short-
lived radioactive sources which are not useful as a radiological
dispersal device (RDD). In the U.S., only one high-risk source has been
lost and not recovered in the last 5 years. However, this source
(Iridium-192) would no longer be considered a high-risk source because
much of the radioactivity has decayed away since it was reported stolen
in 1999. In fact, the combined total of all unrecovered sources over a
5-year time span would barely reach the NRC/DOE threshold for one high-
risk radioactive source.
We believe that the report should also note that NRC is continuing to
move ahead with activities to increase the security of high-risk
radioactive sources. For example, on March 17, 2003, as part of
Operation Liberty Shield the NRC, with full coordination with the
Department of Homeland Security, the Homeland Security Council, and
other agencies, sent an advisory to all NRC and Agreement State
licensees who were authorized to possess radionuclides of concern above
the action levels. This advisory contained additional security measures
which these licensees should implement to further protect the high-risk
material at their facilities. NRC will soon issue an Order to large
panoramic irradiators requiring additional security measures at those
facilities. The NRC and Department of Transportation are working
together to develop security measures for the transportation of large
quantities of radioactive material and, as mentioned above, the NRC and
the DOE are working in conjunction with the IAEA to finalize the Code
of Conduct and Categorization of Sources documents.
We would also like to note that the report is written retrospectively,
and although the recommendations presumably apply to future actions,
there is no reference to the need for coordination with the Department
of Homeland Security regarding future international activities. We
believe that such coordination is important and recommend that the GAO
consider integrating this into the report section on Recommendations
for Executive Action. The enclosure provides additional specific
comments on areas of the report we feel should receive clarification.
Should you have any questions or about the NRC's comments, please
contact either:
Mr. William Dean, at (301) 415-1703, or Ms. Melinda Malloy, at (301)
415-1785, of my staff.
Sincerely,
William D. Travers
Executive Director for Operations:
Signed by William D. Travers:
Enclosure: Specific Comments on Draft Report GAO-03-638:
cc: Glen Levis, GAO:
[End of section]
Appendix XV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Gene Aloise (202) 512-3841:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Kerry Dugan Hawranek,
Preston S. Heard, Glen Levis, Judy K. Pagano, Terry L. Richardson, and
Rebecca Shea also made key contributions to this report.
(360199):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Affiliated with the United Nations, IAEA's aims are to promote the
peaceful use of nuclear energy and to verify that nuclear material
under its supervision or control is not used to further any military
purpose.
[2] As the European Union's executive body, the European Commission has
three main tasks: to serve as the sole initiator of policy, to act as
guardian of the European Union treaties by investigating treaty
breaches, and to supervise the implementation of European Union law in
the member states.
[3] The curie is a unit of measurement of radioactivity. In modern
nuclear physics, it is precisely defined as the amount of substance in
which 37 billion atoms per second undergo radioactive disintegration.
In the international system of units, the becquerel is the preferred
unit of radioactivity. One curie equals 3.7 x 1010 becquerels.
[4] Radioactive material emits alpha and beta particles, gamma rays,
neutrons, or a combination thereof. For example, americium-241 emits
alpha particles and gamma rays; cobalt-60 emits beta particles and
gamma rays; and strontium-90 emits only beta particles. Alpha particles
are not a hazard outside of the body; beta particles can be more
penetrating and cause radiation damage. Both, however, are generally
most hazardous when ingested or inhaled. Gamma rays are an external
hazard because they can easily pass through clothing and skin. Neutron
particles are less common but can also cause damage.
[5] Under NRC regulations sealed sources may not be exported to certain
countries and may only be exported to certain other countries in
limited quantities. Sealed sources may not be exported to Cuba, Iran,
Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan. 10 C.F.R. § 110.28. Sealed sources
may be exported only in limited quantities to Afghanistan, Andorra,
Angola, Burma, Djibouti, India, Israel, Oman, Pakistan, and Syria. 10
C.F.R.§ 110.29.
[6] The American International Health Alliance and its partners
identify the health needs of local populations, develop strategies for
meeting those needs, and implement programs and services to help local
populations attain their goals. The equipment supplements voluntary and
in-kind commitments of individual health care professionals, partner
hospitals, and universities.
[7] IAEA's technical cooperation program is designed to provide its
member states with technical assistance by providing equipment, expert
services, and training that support the upgrading and establishment of
nuclear techniques and facilities.
[8] The United States had also deployed a small number of radioistope
thermoelectric generators in Alaska.
[9] The International Basic Safety Standards are intended to ensure (1)
the protection of individuals and the population against radiation
exposure, (2) the safety of radiation sources in order to prevent
accidents, and (3) the security of sources to prevent the relinquishing
of control over their use. IAEA's Code of Conduct is a nonbinding
document that applies to all radioactive sources that may pose a
significant risk to health and the environment. It does not cover
fissile materials used to construct weapons of mass destruction and
sources within military or defense programs. The code is currently
being revised to reflect member states' increased concerns about the
security risks posed by sealed sources.
[10] The five milestones are (1) the establishment of a regulatory
framework, (2) the establishment of occupational exposure control, (3)
the establishment of medical exposure control, (4) the establishment of
public exposure control, and (5) the establishment of emergency
preparedness and response capabilities.
[11] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-350, at 431 (2001).
[12] Current U.S. policy is to restrict assistance in Belarus to
humanitarian assistance and exchange programs with state-run
educational institutions; Russia and IAEA will likely carry out any
work to secure sealed sources in Belarus under the Tripartite
Initiative.
[13] The Cooperative Threat Reduction program is designed to help the
countries of the former Soviet Union destroy and prevent the
proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass
destruction.
[14] The mission of the Nonproliferation and Disarmament fund is to
undertake high-priority, rapid response projects to halt the
proliferation of and destroy or neutralize weapons of mass destruction,
and limit the spread of advanced conventional weapons.
[15] The Health Physics Society is a scientific and professional
organization whose members specialize in occupational and environmental
radiation safety.
[16] Other countries that have pledged voluntary contributions to the
Nuclear Security Fund include Australia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
France, Greece, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Romania, Slovenia, South Korea, Sweden, and the United
Kingdom. The Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nongovernmental organization,
has also pledged to contribute to the fund.
[17] See Nuclear Nonproliferation: U.S. Efforts to Help Other Countries
Combat Nuclear Smuggling Need Strengthened Coordination and Planning
(GAO-02-426, May 16, 2002).
[18] The IAEA database includes incidents since January 1, 1993, that
involved radioactive material other than nuclear material. In most
cases, the radioactive material was in the form of sealed sources, but
some incidents involving unsealed radioactive sources or radioactively
contaminated materials, such as contaminated scrap metal, have also
been reported to the illicit trafficking database and are included in
the statistics.
[19] A U.S. state that has signed an agreement with NRC under which the
state regulates the use of by-product and other materials within that
state. Currently, there are 32 U.S. Agreement States.
[20] The Nuclear Suppliers' Group consists of 30 nuclear supplier
countries and seeks to control exports of nuclear materials, equipment,
and technology, both dual-use and specially designed and prepared.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
