| Also Noted: Rand Beers selected as acting DHS deputy secretary; Immigration reform supporters rally in more than 100 cities; and much more...  Follow @fiercehs on Twitter
More News From the FierceGovernment Network:
1. Federal air marshal wins appeal in whistleblower case
2. Q&A: NIST's Ron Ross on the fourth revision of SP 800-53
3. Supreme Court rules Virginia freedom of information law is for state residents only
| This week's sponsor is Coveo. |  | eBook:
How to Get a Return on Knowledge in a Big Data World
Learn how to get put your organization's collective knowledge in the hands of your service reps using advanced enterprise search technology - and watch your service performance improve and customer satisfaction soar. Download Now! |
Today's Top News 1. Coast Guard acquisition dollars plummet under 5 year capital investment plan
 The Coast Guard projects annual acquisition will never total more than $1.2 billion annually over the next 5 years, and will more often hover close to $1 billion annually, and sometimes below it, the service's 5 year capital investment plan (.pdf) shows.
The Coast Guard received $1.4 billion for acquisition in fiscal 2012, an amount that Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp said in 2011 wasn't enough, telling a congressional committee, "It would really take close to about $2.5 billion a year if we were to do all the things that we would like to do to sustain our capital plan." The plan shows the Coast Guard plans to request $710 million in the fiscal 2015 budget request to fund the eighth National Security Cutter, fulfilling the program of record planned number of NSCs. Funding for Offshore Patrol Cutters would also increase, with the Coast Guard to request $65 million in fiscal 2015, $200 million in fiscal 2016, $530 million in fiscal 2017 and $430 million in fiscal 2018. But funding for Fast Response Cutters would be substantially reduced, with planned requested amounts never amounting to more than $110 million annually--far less than the $358 million received in fiscal 2012. Funding for other recapitalization and acquisition efforts would also go down, with funding for HH-60 helicopter conversion to remain at zero dollars until fiscal 2017, when the Coast Guard says it will ask for $1.7 million--also a far cry from the $56.1 million it received for that project in fiscal 2012. Money to buy long range surveillance C-130H/J aircraft would also remain low, with the Coast Guard projecting budget requests of $15 million for each year starting in fiscal 2015 and $16 million in fiscal 2014--again, a contrast from the $62 million it received in fiscal 2012. Funding for major shore construction, aids to navigation, and military housing, for which the Coast Guard received $112.9 million in fiscal 2012 and requested $2 million in fiscal 2014, would oscillate in levels between $10 million and $30 million. Money for direct personnel costs would remain stable across the 5 year plan, going slightly up each year so that the fiscal 2014 request of $114.75 million would become $118.7 million by fiscal 2018. For more:
- download the fiscal 2014-2018 Coast Guard 5 year capital investment plan (.pdf) Related Articles:
Coast Guard 5-year plan funds 8th National Security Cutter, says Napolitano
Coast Guard budget reflects 'tough decisions,' Papp says
2014 Budget Request: Coast Guard Read more about: Fast Response Cutter
back to top |
| This week's sponsor is Oracle. |  | eBook: Smarter Service: The Contact Center of the Future
This eBook explores the challenges facing traditional contact centers and the benefits of deploying the contact center of the future. You'll find links to further resources on the final page. Download today.
|
2. Emergency evacuation plans around nuclear plants may rest on faulty assumption
 Auditors say the prospect of scared residents from outside of the 10 mile radius of a nuclear plant undertaking a self-initiated evacuation in the event of an incident--whether necessary or not--at a rate greater than projected by a flawed estimate could undermine implementation of emergency measures within the 10 mile radius.
Under regulations in place since the 1980s, nuclear power plant operators must keep residents and others within a 10 mile radius aware of emergency preparedness procedures, and state, local and power plant licensees must have public safety emergency response plans in place. The 10 mile radius comes from an assumption that the principal direct health risks to the public in the event of an incident would come from direct exposure to the pathway of a radioactive plume. From between a 10 and 50 mile radius, the planning assumption is that the principal health risk would come from ingesting radioactively contaminated water or food. In a March 11 report (.pdf) released earlier this month, auditors note that fallout from the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster caused the Japanese government to first evacuate people within 12 miles of the plant, and then within 19 miles of the plant, while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended about a week after the incident that U.S. citizens located within 50 miles of the plant evacuate the area. They also say NRC officials told them that the 10 mile and 50 mile planning zones around American nuclear power plants are still adequate, an assertion that auditors don't treat further. Auditors do raise the possibility that residents outside of the 10 mile radius--people who aren't annually provided with emergency planning information--might undertake a shadow evacuation, i.e., they would hear of a radioactive incident at the not-very-far-away nuclear power plant and take to the highways without being told to do so. A 2008 Nuclear Regulatory Commission study found that about 20 percent of survey respondents within the 10 mile radius said they would undertake a shadow evacuation, and that 20 percent figure has become a base emergency planning assumption for the populace extending out to about 15 miles from nuclear power plants. But because that survey was conducted among a population systematically made more aware of the need to follow emergency planning procedures, that 20 percent figure may not be valid beyond the 10 mile radius, auditors say. That, in turn, means that emergency plans based on the 20 percent shadow evacuation figure may not accurately capture the level to which roadways would become occupied following an incident. If the rate of shadow evacuations is greater than 20 percent, that would possibly delay the evacuation of the public from within the 10 mile zone, "potentially increasing the risk to public health and safety." For more:
- download the report, GAO-13-243 (.pdf) Related Articles:
NRC 'tolerating the intolerable' at nuclear plants, says Union of Concerned Scientists
Piling up spent nuclear fuel presents future disposal challenge
NRC notes water damage potential to dry cask storage Read more about: GAO report, radioactivity
back to top |
3. Senators propose independent Nuclear Waste Administration
 A new, independent agency would manage nuclear waste instead of the Energy Department under a bipartisan Senate bill, a draft of which was released April 25.
The bill (.pdf) would implement the recommendations that the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future issued in January 2012. The new agency, dubbed the Nuclear Waste Administration, would create a consent-based process to site nuclear waste facilities. A single administrator, appointed by the president and subject to Senate approval, would lead the agency. A board composed of the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, the chief engineer of the Army Corps of Engineers, and the deputy energy secretary would oversee it. The siting process would focus on input from state and local communities, or tribal communities if on an Indian reservation. The agency would have to ask communities to volunteer sites, obtain consent to study them, and obtain consent to site them. It would also have to hold multiple public meetings before it studies or selects a site. The agency would have to establish technical guidelines to evaluate sites, too. Construction or operation would be contingent on obtaining a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Additionally, Congress would have to ratify any consent agreement for a site. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)--respectively, the chairwoman and ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development and the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--collaborated on the bill. "We need to act, and we need to act soon," Murkowski said in the group's announcement of the draft. "While I continue to support Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository site, I also recognize the current realities that make that outcome unlikely at this time." In 1987, Congress designated Nevada's Yucca Mountain as the country's site for nuclear waste, while also precluding consideration of other sites. In 2002, President George W. Bush approved the site, but by 2009, the energy secretary had abandoned the project. A Rand Corp. report from earlier this year, produced at the Energy Department's request, said the failure of the Yucca Mountain site could largely be traced to Congress' mandate that it be the only site up for consideration. That decision "set the program at odds with a basic sense of fairness, due process, and accountability," the report said, echoing the findings of the Blue Ribbon Commission. With no single repository for nuclear waste, fuel rods are currently stored at dozens of commercial nuclear facilities around the country, and millions of gallons of radioactive waste from nuclear weapons programs are stored at DOE sites. At DOE's Hanford nuclear site in Washington state, six underground storage tanks were found to be leaking radioactive waste in February. Related Articles:
Nuclear waste management needs new agency, says commission
Insisting on Yucca Mountain won't fix nuclear waste problem, says Hamilton
Rand: New agency or federal corporation could manage nuclear waste Read more about: Nevada, Ron Wyden
back to top |
4. Expectations of terrorism rose after Boston, but few are very worried
In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings, three-fourths of American adults said they expected occasional terrorism in the United States, though only 23 percent said they were very worried another attack would occur soon, a Pew Research Center survey found. The survey (.pdf) was conducted after the April 15 bombings, from April 18-21. The percentage of American adults who said they anticipate occasional terrorism was 75 percent, up from 64 percent said they did in April 2012. The previous high was 74 percent in 2003, Pew said. But the percentage who said they were very worried about another attack soon has remained steady for years and is much lower than expectation levels. In surveys conducted in 2010, 2007 and 2006, that percentage ranged from 20 to 23 percent. One month after the September 11, 2001 attacks, 29 percent said they were very worried about another terrorist attack. The post-Boston Marathon bombings change in expectations of occasional attacks was most dramatic among young adults. The percentage of those who said they expect occasional terrorism rose from 54 percent to 74 percent between April 2012 and April 2013. But expectations jumped in all age groups. Among Americans age 65 or older, 79 percent now expect occasional terrorism, up from 74 percent last April. Differences between Republicans and Democrats shrank between the two surveys. Last year, 74 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Democrats expected occasional terrorism. After the Boston bombings, 78 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of Democrats did. The views of political independents changed even more than those of Democrats. This year, 80 percent of independents said they expected occasional terrorism, up from 63 percent last year. Sixty-three percent of Americans said they followed the story of the Boston bombings in the news. No terrorist event has captured that much interest since the September 11 attacks, which 78 percent of Americans reported following about a month later. 
For more:
- download the report, "Most Expect 'Occasional Acts of Terrorism' in the Future" (.pdf) Related Articles:
Shelter-in-place usually applies to hazardous air, not fugitives
Napolitano: Boston Marathon attack response showed value of DHS grants
Pew: Tweets not a reliable indicator of public opinion Read more about: Boston Marathon bombing, terrorism
back to top |
5. Report: Afghan opium trade likely to grow as troops withdraw
 Opium production and trade in Afghanistan is likely to grow after the United States and allied troops draw down the Afghanistan War, a report from the EastWest Institute says.
Afghanistan already provides 80-90 percent of the world's opium production. Armed conflict limits the ability of the Afghan government to reach areas where poppy plants are grown, making it difficult to implement any enforcement or alternative-development strategies, says the report (.pdf), released in April. Security must improve for counternarcotics efforts to succeed, the report says, but that may require a political solution to the armed conflict in the country. "Currently, this remains a remote prospect," the report says. But there is an opportunity for the United States and Russia to collaborate in support of counternarcotics efforts, which they share an interest in, the report says. The United States has a stake in combating the drug trade in Afghanistan because it helps to finance terrorism, insurgency and political corruption. Russia has an interest in countering terrorism too, plus it's one of the main markets for Afghan heroin, and Russia faces health and law-enforcement challenges as a result. The Afghan drug trade is also linked to transnational organized crime, the report notes. No single strategy will sufficiently weaken the drug trade, the report says. Crop eradication, interdiction, and support for alternative crops or other means of income generation will all be useful, depending on the local situation, the report says. For more:
- download the report, "Afghan Narcotrafficking: A Joint Threat Assessment" (.pdf) Related Articles:
UNODC: Drug markets are regional, not global
UNODC: Less drug trafficking often means more violence
Opium cultivation on the rise in Southeast Asia Read more about: counternarcotics, drug trafficking
back to top |
Also Noted > Rand Beers selected as acting DHS deputy secretary. Article (HS Today)
> Immigration reform supporters rally in more than 100 cities. Article (NYT)
> Key issues on Obama's Mexico trip: Trade, immigration and drug war. Article (CNN)
> Who's who in the Boston Marathon bombing investigation. Article (NBC News)
> Guantanamo hunger strike renews debates over indefinite detention, ethics of force-feeding. Article (WaPo) And Finally... TSA under fire again, this time for checkmark symbol and trademark symbol in URL. Article (Slate) > Emergency Management: Are you prepared to make a difference? - Patrick Jessee, MSc, NREMT-P, CCEMT-P - Chicago Fire Department - Sponsored by: University of Chicago Employers seek individuals with knowledge of threat mitigation and response. In an increasingly hazardous environment, professionals must continue to sharpen their skills. The Master of Science in Threat and Response Management at the University of Chicago is designed to enhance your knowledge. RSVP here. | ©2013 FierceMarkets This email was sent to ignoble.experiment@arconati.us as part of the FierceHomelandSecurity email list which is administered by FierceMarkets, 1900 L Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 628-8778.
Refer FierceHomelandSecurity to a Colleague Contact Us Editor: David Perera
VP Sales & Business Development: Jack Fordi
Publisher: Ron Lichtinger Advertise Advertising Information: contact Jack Fordi. Request a media kit.
Email Management Manage your subscription Change your email address Unsubscribe from FierceHomelandSecurity Explore our network of publications: |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.