# ”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41891

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** June 24, 2011
- **Citation:** R41891

## Text

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief
Jonathan Medalia
Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy
June 24, 2011

Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R41891

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

Summary
Congress has long sought, through legislation and oversight, to protect the United States against
terrorist threats, especially from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons.
Radiological dispersal devices (RDDs) are one type of CBRN weapon. Explosive-driven “dirty
bombs” are an often-discussed type of RDD, though radioactive material can also be dispersed in
other ways. This report provides background for understanding the RDD threat and responses,
and presents issues for Congress.
Radioactive material is the necessary ingredient for an RDD. This material is composed of atoms
that decay, emitting radiation. Some types and amounts of radiation are harmful to human health.
Terrorists have shown some interest in RDDs. They could use these weapons in an attempt to
cause panic, area denial, and economic dislocation. While RDDs would be far less harmful than
nuclear weapons, they are much simpler to build and the needed materials are used worldwide.
Accordingly, some believe terrorists would be more likely to use RDDs than nuclear weapons.
Key points include:
•

RDDs could contaminate areas with radioactive material, increasing long-term
cancer risks, but would probably kill few people promptly. Nuclear weapons
could destroy much of a city, kill tens of thousands of people, and contaminate
much larger areas with fallout.

•

Cleanup cost after an RDD attack could range from less than a billion dollars to
tens of billions of dollars, depending on area contaminated, decontamination
technologies used, and level of cleanup required.

•

Terrorists would face obstacles to using RDDs, such as obtaining materials,
designing an effective weapon, and avoiding detection.

Governments and organizations have taken steps to prevent an RDD attack. Domestically, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued regulations to secure radioactive sources. The
Department of Homeland Security develops and operates equipment to detect radioactive
material. The National Nuclear Security Administration has recovered thousands of disused or
abandoned sources. Some state and local governments have taken steps to prepare for an RDD
attack. Internationally, the International Atomic Energy Agency has led efforts to secure
radioactive sources. Its Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources offers
guidance for protecting sources. The G8 Global Partnership has secured sources in Russia and
elsewhere. Other nations have taken steps to secure sources as well. Key points include:
•

Nuclear Regulatory Commission actions have done much to instill a security
culture for U.S. licensees of radioactive sources post-9/11.

•

Many programs have sought to improve the security of radioactive sources
overseas, but some incidents raise questions about security.

Should prevention fail, federal, state, and local governments have taken many measures to
respond to and recover from an RDD attack. The National Response Framework “establishes a
comprehensive, national, all-hazards approach to domestic incident response.” The federal
government has expertise and equipment to use for recovery. Key points include:

Congressional Research Service

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

•

Government agencies have done much to prepare for and recover from an RDD
attack. This work would help cope with other disasters. Conversely, planning for
other disasters would help in the event of an RDD attack.

•

Response planning fell short in the wake of Katrina and the Gulf oil spill, raising
questions about the effectiveness of planning to respond to an RDD attack.

Issues for Congress include:
•

The priority for countering RDDs vs. other types of CBRN weapons.

•

The proper balance of effort for securing domestic vs. overseas radioactive
sources.

•

Whether to establish a radiation detection system in cities; how to dispose of
potentially large volumes of radioactive waste that could result from an RDD
attack.

•

Whether to modify the pace of a program for implementing certain security
enhancements for U.S. radioactive sources.

•

How to improve radiological forensics capability.

This report is an abridged version of CRS Report R41890, “Dirty Bombs”: Technical
Background, Attack Prevention and Response, Issues for Congress, by Jonathan Medalia.

Congressional Research Service

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

Contents
Radiation and Its Effects .............................................................................................................1
Threats and Impediments ............................................................................................................2
Preventing an Attack: Domestic Efforts .......................................................................................3
Securing Radioactive Sources ...............................................................................................3
How Secure Are Radioactive Sources in the United States? ...................................................5
Detecting Radioactive Sources ..............................................................................................6
Intelligence and Counterterrorism .........................................................................................6
Preventing an Attack: Global Efforts ...........................................................................................6
Securing Radioactive Sources ...............................................................................................6
International Organizations .............................................................................................6
U.S. Programs.................................................................................................................7
Programs of Other Nations ..............................................................................................8
How Secure Are Radioactive Sources in Other Nations?........................................................9
Attack Response, Recovery, and Attribution .............................................................................. 10
Organization and Planning for Response ............................................................................. 10
Response and Recovery ...................................................................................................... 11
Attribution .......................................................................................................................... 11
Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................... 13
Priority for Countering Radiological Terrorism.................................................................... 13
Domestic vs. Overseas Expenditures to Secure Radioactive Sources.................................... 13
Radiation Detection Networks............................................................................................. 13
Preparing for Decontamination............................................................................................ 13
Waste Disposition and RDDs .............................................................................................. 14
Materials Protection ............................................................................................................ 14
Radiological Forensics ........................................................................................................ 14

Figures
Figure 1. A Possible RDD Attack on Washington, DC .................................................................4

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 15

Congressional Research Service

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

Radiation and Its Effects
Radioactive materials are used worldwide for medical, industrial, research, and other purposes.
Yet their security is far from airtight, especially in foreign countries. Terrorists could create a
radiological dispersal device (RDD) by obtaining radioactive material and detonating an
explosive next to it. An attack could contaminate some square miles, disrupt the economy, cost
tens of billions of dollars to remediate, increase the long-term cancer rate, and cause panic in the
target area and beyond. While the press focuses on explosive-driven “dirty bombs,” terrorists
could also disperse radioactive material from aircraft or in other ways. This report examines
radiation and its effects, steps to prevent, respond to, and recover from an attack, and issues for
Congress.
Many atoms are stable: they remain in their current form indefinitely. Some are unstable, or
radioactive. They “decay,” often by emitting energetic particles. 1 Gamma rays, a form of
electromagnetic radiation, are often emitted by decay. Each radioactive atom, or “radionuclide,”
decays in a specific way. Some high-energy radiation is “ionizing.” Most atoms have no net
electrical charge because they have an equal number of positively-charged protons and
negatively-charged electrons. Ionizing radiation knocks electrons off atoms, turning atoms into
positively-charged ions that damage living cells. Very low doses of radiation produce few if any
effects, but progressively higher doses may increase the risk of cancer or may cause radiation
sickness or death. In the United States, dose is usually measured in units of rem. This unit takes
into account the amount of radiation absorbed and its biological effects. The average background
dose for the U.S. population is estimated at 620 millirem (mrem; 1,000 mrem = 1 rem) per year.2
About half is from natural sources, and half from exposure for medical purposes.
An RDD attack is likely to expose few people to a dose of more than a few rem per year. Views
differ on the harm from that dose. One view is that any amount of radiation increases cancer risk;
another is that there is no evidence that radiation of less than about 10 rem per year increases that
risk. Federal standards differ for low doses. For dose to the public resulting from the nuclear fuel
cycle (e.g., nuclear power plants), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses a standard of
25 mrem per year of whole-body dose.3 In contrast, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
has established an occupational dose limit of 5 rem per year.4 No single level marks the line
between an acceptable and unacceptable dose.
An RDD attack would elevate dose in the affected area beyond the background dose. The EPA
issued guidance for protective actions following nuclear and radiological incidents except nuclear
war, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued guidance for actions
following RDD and improvised nuclear device (IND, i.e., a terrorist-made nuclear weapon)
incidents.5 Both agencies recommended “protective action guides” (PAGs). A PAG is “the
1

The most common types of particles emitted in decay are alpha particles (two protons plus two neutrons), beta
particles (an electron or positron, with the latter being a positively-charged electron), and, for heavy elements, neutrons.
2
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the
United States, report 160 (2009), available via http://www.ncrppublications.org/Reports/160. The figure of 620 mrem is
from “NCRP Report No. 160 Section 1 Pie Chart,” http://www.ncrponline.org/Publications/160_Pie_charts-Sec1.html.
3
10 CFR 190.10(a).
4
20 CFR 1201(a)(1)(i).
5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Radiation Programs. Manual of Protective Action Guides and
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

1

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

projected dose to a reference individual, from an accidental or deliberate release of radioactive
material, at which a specific protective action to reduce or avoid that dose is recommended.”6
FEMA divides incident response into phases. For the early phase, which starts “at the beginning
of the incident,”7 the protective action recommended for a PAG of 1 to 5 rem is sheltering in
place or evacuation. The intermediate phase “is usually assumed to begin after the incident source
and releases have been brought under control.” For it, FEMA recommends “relocation of the
public” for a projected dose of 2 rem for the first year and 0.5 rem per year for any subsequent
year. The late phase starts when recovery and cleanup begin, and ends with their completion.
FEMA does not have a PAG for the late phase because authorities would need to optimize among
economic, land use, etc., in determining which areas need to be remediated to what levels.
As a guide to quantities of material that should be protected, in 2003 the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) revised its Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive
Sources. 8 The IAEA decided that the code “should serve as guidance to States for—inter alia—
the development and harmonization of policies, laws and regulations on the safety and security of
radioactive sources.”9 It lists 16 radionuclides that are in common use and could pose a threat. For
each radionuclide, the code lists three categories of radiation and the threshold radiation value for
each category based on potential to harm individuals. Category 1 sources are those that, if not
safely managed or securely protected, could cause permanent injury to someone who handled
them for a few minutes, and death to someone who handled them unshielded for a few minutes to
an hour. For Category 2 sources, the corresponding figures are minutes to hours and hours to
days. Category 3 sources could cause injury to someone handling them for some hours.10 Of the
16 radionuclides, cesium-137 chloride is of particular concern.11 Category 2 quantities are often a
fraction of a gram. Somewhat larger amounts can contaminate a substantial area. For example,
Figure 1 models a possible RDD attack on Washington, DC, using about 50 grams of cesium-137
chloride, which contaminates, to different levels, 0.81 to 5.10 square miles. The Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) mandates certain security measures for Category 1 and 2 sources. The
NRC considers Category 2 sources to be risk-significant.12 Since the NRC judges that Category 2
sources could cause significant economic effects, it uses Category 2 as the basis for mandating
security measures beyond those in the Energy Policy Act.

Threats and Impediments
An RDD could cause prompt casualties, which would most likely come only from the explosion
of a dirty bomb; panic; economic disruption, which might result if a port or city center were
(...continued)
Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents, revised 1991; and Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Planning
Guidance for Protection and Recovery Following Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD) and Improvised Nuclear
Device (IND) Incidents," 73 Federal Register 45029-45048, August 1, 2008.
6
Ibid., p. 45034.
7
Quotes in this paragraph are from ibid., pp. 45032 and 45035.
8

International Atomic Energy Agency, Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources, January
2004, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/RadioactiveSources/radioactivesource.pdf.
9
Ibid., p. 2.
10
Ibid., p. 15.
11
National Research Council. Radiation Source Use and Replacement, Abbreviated Version, p. 7.
12
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Physical Protection of Byproduct Material: Proposed Rule,” 75 Federal Register
33902, June 15, 2010.

Congressional Research Service

2

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

contaminated with radioactive material; asset denial, in which public concern over the presence of
radioactive material might lead people to abandon a subway system or an area of a city for
months to years; a requirement for decontamination, which would be costly; and long-term
casualties resulting from exposure to or inhalation of radioactive material. A study of the
economic impacts of an attack on the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach using two RDDs
placed total U.S. losses at $8.5 billion for exports and $26.0 billion for imports.13
While there have been thefts of radioactive material and attempts to use it for malevolent ends,14
there has not been a successful RDD attack, for reasons such as the following. Terrorists would
need to learn about radiation for self-protection. They would need to learn which radioactive
materials would be suitable for an RDD. They would have to obtain the material despite security
measures. They would have to move the material past detectors at U.S. ports and elsewhere. They
would have to acquire the other bomb components, assemble the bomb, and place it, steps that
law enforcement might detect. Forensic analysis might reveal the perpetrator of the attack,
possibly leading to retaliation and deterring state assistance. While no one reason presents an
insurmountable obstacle, the combination may help explain why an RDD attack has not occurred.

Preventing an Attack: Domestic Efforts
Before September 11, 2001, the main concern for radioactive sources was their safe handling.
They were used worldwide in many applications with varying levels of security. The ongoing
U.S. response to the attacks is based on “layered defense,” in which each layer increases the
likelihood of disrupting a possible attack. Layers includes protecting sources through licensing,
tracking, and physical security upgrades; removing sources that are outside the tracking system
because they are abandoned, lost, or stolen; and reducing the number of sources in use.

Securing Radioactive Sources
Since materials of greatest concern for use in an RDD are made in nuclear reactors, terrorists
could only obtain them through transfer from sympathetic insiders, theft, or purchase. Securing
radioactive sources therefore reduces the risk of an RDD attack. Many government agencies and
other entities have taken steps to secure these sources.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), an independent agency, “has the responsibility to
license and regulate the civilian use of radioactive materials for commercial, industrial, academic,
and medical purposes in a manner that protects public health and safety and promotes the
common defense and security. The NRC and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC), have regulated the use of radioactive materials since 1946.”15 Since 9/11, the NRC has
issued orders and regulations requiring its licensees to take various measures to enhance radiation
source security.
13

JiYoung Park, “The Economic Impacts of Dirty Bomb Attacks on the Los Angeles and Long Beach Ports: Applying
the Supply-Driven NIEMO (National Interstate Economic Model,” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, vol. 5, no. 1 (2008), article 21, p. 10, http://www.bepress.com/jhsem/vol5/iss1/21/.
14
See Nuclear Threat Initiative, Radiological Terrorism Tutorial, “History of Radiological Incidents.”
15
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Request for Comments on the Draft Policy Statement on the Protection of
Cesium-137 Chloride Sources and Notice of Public Meeting,” NRC-2010-0209, Federal Register, vol. 75, no. 124,
June 29, 2010, p. 37484.

Congressional Research Service

3

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

Figure 1. A Possible RDD Attack on Washington, DC
Using about 50 Grams of Cesium-137 Chloride

Source: William Rhodes III, Senior Manager, International Security Systems Group, Sandia National
Laboratories, September 2010; analysis by Heather Pennington; graphics by Mona Aragon.
Notes: (provided by William Rhodes): This map, based on an atmospheric dispersion model, shows where
individuals are projected to have an increased risk of developing cancers due to radiation exposure over a year
or more. The RDD in this scenario uses about 50 grams of cesium-137 chloride. The model assumes that all
material used is dispersed, but that it is not dispersed evenly over the area. Wind is assumed to be from west to
east at 7 mph. The model includes exposure from radioactive material both deposited on the surface and
resuspended into the air and inhaled. EPA and FEMA have developed Protective Action Guides (PAGs) to
indicate when long-term relocation of individuals should be considered. PAGs are primarily based on an
assessment of the increased risk of developing cancer over an exposed individual’s lifetime. They assume,
conservatively, that individuals are unsheltered and remain in the area during the entire period described for
each contour. Contours show where individuals, if not relocated per the PAG, are projected to receive at least a
specified dose in a specified time, as follows: inner contour (red), dose in first year post-attack, >2.00 rem;
middle contour (orange), dose in second year post-attack, >0.500 rem; and outer contour (yellow), cumulative
dose in the first 50 years post-attack. >5.00 rem. The cigar-shaped plumes often seen in models of atmospheric
dispersion occur for gases or very fine particles, which would be the case for chemical warfare agents or fallout
from a nuclear weapon but not in the case depicted. Whether such plumes would occur for an RDD depends on
such factors as wind speed, type of explosive, and particle size.

Congressional Research Service

4

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is a semiautonomous agency within
the Department of Energy. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) is a key NNSA
program to enhance the security of radioactive sources. GTRI’s Domestic Materials Protection
Program enhances security for domestic radioactive sources on a voluntary basis, and pays for
upgrades and initial maintenance. GTRI’s Off-site Source Recovery Project recovers sources in
the United States and abroad that have been lost, abandoned, or stolen, or are excess to a user’s
needs. As of March 28, 2011, OSRP had recovered 24,029 sources in the United States.16
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established the Radiation Source Protection and Security Task
Force with a mandate to “evaluate, and provide recommendations relating to, the security of
radiation sources in the United States from potential terrorist threats.” Its members represent
many federal agencies. Its 2010 report17 identified two major challenges, access to disposal
pathways for unused sources, and alternatives to several risk-significant radioactive sources.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “is seeking to reduce the number of sealed
radiation sources used in industrial devices and applications. Through its Alternative
Technologies Initiative, the Agency has been working with industry since 2001 to identify nonnuclear substitutes.”18 The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, a component of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), is supporting similar R&D through its Small Business Innovative
Research program. The Department of Defense (DOD) has some sealed sources in the United
States, such as at hospitals. The NRC grants DOD components one or more licenses, and they
protect the sources in accordance with NRC regulations.19

How Secure Are Radioactive Sources in the United States?
NRC notes such security violations as “inoperable or ineffective physical protection systems” and
“incomplete or inadequate plan with local law enforcement.”20 The Radiation Source Protection
and Security Task Force stated, “Every year, thousands of sources become disused and unwanted
in the United States. … the longer sources remain disused or unwanted the chances increase that
they will become unsecured or abandoned.”21 (Most of these sources have a very low level of
radioactivity and do not pose a significant risk.22) Nonetheless, there have been “no successful
thefts or sabotage” of higher-level sources,23 and there has never been a successful RDD attack.
NRC data show that from the third quarter of FY2006 through the second quarter of FY2010, no
Category 1 or 2 sources were lost, and 17 Category 3 sources were lost but all were recovered.24
16

Los Alamos National Laboratory, “OSRP Sources Recovered,” as of March 28, 2011, http://osrp.lanl.gov/images/
Maps/Recoveries_to_Date.pdf.
17
U.S. Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force. The 2010 Radiation Source Protection and Security Task
Force Report, August 2010, http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/2010-task-force-report.pdf.
18
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Alternative Technologies for Industrial Applications,” http://www.epa.gov/
radiation/source-reduction-management/alt-technologies.html.
19
Information provided by Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Directorate, Office of Homeland Defense
Integration and Defense Support of Civil Authorities, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense,
personal communication, September 15, 2010, and by Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 10, 2011.
20
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Security Inspections and Enforcement,” briefing slides 5-8, no date. NRC
provided these slides to CRS July 31, 2010.
21
U.S. Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force. The 2010 … Report, p. 31.
22
Personal communication, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 30, 2010.
23

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Security Inspections and Enforcement,” slide 19.
Idaho National Laboratory, “Nuclear Material Events Database: Quarterly Report, Second Quarter Fiscal Year
2010,” by Thomas Smith and Robert Sant, INL/EXT-10-18136 (FY 2010 Qtr 2), July 2010, p, 5.
24

Congressional Research Service

5

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

Detecting Radioactive Sources
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a DHS component, has deployed systems at ports and
border crossings to detect and identify radioactive material (and other contraband) entering the
United States. Other DHS components deploy radiation detection equipment at other sites inside
the United States, and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office has a cooperative program with
state and local agencies to deploy such equipment. These systems seek to detect terrorist nuclear
weapons or nuclear-weapon material while minimizing the impact on legitimate commerce, but
could detect RDD-suitable material as well. CRS Report R40154, Detection of Nuclear Weapons
and Materials: Science, Technologies, Observations, by Jonathan Medalia, discusses detection.

Intelligence and Counterterrorism
Many U.S. agencies contribute and analyze intelligence on potential CBRN terrorist threats. The
9/11 Commission noted shortcomings in the Intelligence Community.25 In response, Congress
passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA, P.L. 108-458).
This act established the position of Director of National Intelligence, who is to “serve as head of
the intelligence community.” Section 6905, “Radiological Dispersal Devices,” makes it unlawful
to acquire or possess RDDs. IRTPA established the National Counterterrorism Center to analyze
and integrate intelligence on terrorism, except that pertaining to domestic terrorists and domestic
counterterrorism. IRTPA directed the President to establish the National Counter Proliferation
Center to analyze proliferation-related intelligence. Within the United States, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation is the lead agency for counterterrorism intelligence. It “created a Directorate of
Intelligence in its headquarters to produce intelligence analysis.”26

Preventing an Attack: Global Efforts
Securing Radioactive Sources
Because an RDD attack might occur outside the United States, or material obtained abroad might
be used for an RDD attack on this nation, the United States and others—including international
organizations and foreign governments—are working to secure sources worldwide.

International Organizations
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
The IAEA, a U.N. organization, has responsibilities in such areas as nuclear energy, peaceful
applications of nuclear science and technology, nuclear nonproliferation, and nuclear safety and
security. It has the lead international role in efforts to secure radioactive sources. For example, it
25

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, New York, Norton,
2004, p. vii.
26
“A Ticking Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons from the U.S. Government’s Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood
Attack,” a special report by Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman, and Susan M. Collins, Ranking Member, United States
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, February 3, 2011, p. 53.

Congressional Research Service

6

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

issued a Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources, as discussed earlier.
Its 2010-2013 Nuclear Security Plan covers the global nuclear security framework, nuclear
security services, and security improvement.27 It helps countries remove orphan radioactive
sources; provides training in Asia, Africa, and South America “for regaining control over sealed
sources”; and trains customs authorities in radiation monitoring. 28 It maintains an International
Catalogue of Sealed Radioactive Sources and Devices to help identify sealed sources so they can
be handled safely.29

G8 Global Partnership
In June 2002, the G8 committed to “six principles to prevent terrorists or those that harbour them
from acquiring or developing” CBRN weapons, established the G8 Global Partnership Against
the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction to implement these principles, and
committed to raise “up to $20 billion” over ten years for projects supporting the partnership. 30
The partnership has many programs to reduce CBRN threats.31

Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism
This initiative was established in 2006 by 13 governments.32 Its principles include “develop, if
necessary, and improve accounting, control and physical protection systems for nuclear and other
radioactive materials and substances,” and “improve the ability to detect nuclear and other
radioactive materials and substances in order to prevent illicit trafficking in such materials and
substances, to include cooperation in the research and development of national detection
capabilities that would be interoperable.”

U.S. Programs
National Nuclear Security Administration
Some GTRI programs seek “to identify, secure, remove and/or facilitate the disposition of high
risk vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials around the world, as quickly as possible, that
pose a threat to the United States and the international community.”33 The Off-site Source
Recovery Project has removed 985 sources from 15 other nations as of September 2010.34
Another NNSA program, Second Line of Defense (SLD), “strengthens the capability of foreign

27
International Atomic Energy Agency. Board of Governors. General Conference. “Nuclear Security Plan 2010-2013.”
GOV/2009/54-GC(53)/18, August 17, 2009, pp. 8-12.
28
International Atomic Energy Agency, “Improving the Safety and Security of Sealed Radioactive Sources,” accessed
May 2, 2011, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/SealedRadioactiveSources/activities.html.
29
International Atomic Energy Agency, “International Catalogue of Sealed Radioactive Sources and Devices
(ICSRS),” http://nucleus.iaea.org/CIR/CIR/ICSRS.html, updated 2010.
30
G8, “The G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction,” June 27, 2002.
31
G8, “Report on the G-8 Global Partnership 2010,” last modified February 11, 2011.
32
For links to key documents on the Global Initiative, see U.S. Department of State. “The Global Initiative To Combat
Nuclear Terrorism,” http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c18406.htm.
33
U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. “GTRI: Reducing Nuclear Threats,” January
2009, http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/news/2330.htm.
34
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Off-site Source Recovery Program, “OSRP Operations Worldwide.”

Congressional Research Service

7

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

governments to deter, detect, and interdict illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive
materials across international borders and through the global maritime shipping system.”35

Nuclear Regulatory Commission
The NRC helps regulators in other nations implement the IAEA Code of Conduct, such as by
helping them develop national registries of radioactive sources, helping them with safety and
security regulatory oversight, and holding workshops that describe the NRC’s requirements for
physical protection of materials and the U.S. regulatory framework. 36

Department of State
The Export Control and Related Border Security (EXBS) program strengthens border security
and control of strategic exports, thereby “bolster[ing] partner countries’ capabilities to detect and
interdict illicit transfers of strategic items, radioactive materials, and other WMD components” It
assists 46 countries.37 The Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism program conducts projects to
counter a terrorist CBRN attack. The department supports the Global Initiative to Combat
Nuclear Terrorism.

Department of Defense
The U.S. Strategic Command coordinates global U.S. counter-CBRN efforts.38 The Defense
Threat Reduction Agency is DOD’s combat support agency in this effort.39 The two agencies
operate the U.S. Strategic Command Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction, which
“synchronizes Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction efforts across our military’s geographic
commands.”40

Programs of Other Nations
Other nations have taken steps to control their own radioactive material and to help secure such
material elsewhere. Canada, in cooperation with GTRI, provided funds for removing 59 Russian
radioisotopic thermoelectric generators (RTGs), which contain large amounts of radioactive
material and are typically deployed unattended in remote areas.41 Pakistan’s Nuclear Regulatory
Authority is implementing a National Nuclear Security Action Plan in coordination with the
IAEA that manages high-risk radioactive sources, provides detection equipment at key points, and

35

Department of Energy, FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request. volume 1, p. 371.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and National Nuclear Security Administration, Partnership for Securing
Nuclear and Radiological Materials, March 31, 2010, p. 2.
37
U.S. Department of State., Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Budget Justification: Volume 2, Foreign Operations,
2010, p. 176, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/137936.pdf.
38
U.S. Strategic Command. “USSTRATCOM Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (SCC-WMD),”
February 2011.
39
U.S. Department of Defense. Defense Threat Reduction Agency and USSTRATCOM Center for Combating WMD.
“About DTRA/SCC-WMD,” http://www.dtra.mil/About.aspx.
40
Ibid.
41
Canada. Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Personal communication, May 24, 2011.
36

Congressional Research Service

8

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

secures orphan sources.42 Poland’s state-owned Radioactive Waste Management Plant (RWMP)
has been involved in the GTRI program for securing radioactive sources in Poland that has
upgraded security in more than 70 institutions, including almost all oncology clinics and regional
blood banks.43 The Korean Institute for Nuclear Safety has developed a Radiation Safety
Information System to trace radioactive sources through their life cycle, and a system to track
misplaced or stolen industrial radiography sources in real time.44

How Secure Are Radioactive Sources in Other Nations?
Despite efforts to secure radioactive sources, vulnerabilities persist. The IAEA’s Illicit Trafficking
Database (ITDB) has data on the vulnerability of nuclear and other radioactive sources.
According to the agency, “From 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010, States reported 222 incidents to the
ITDB; 120 of these were reported to have occurred during this period and the remaining 102 were
reports of prior incidents. Twenty-one of the incidents reported involved such activities as
unauthorized possession and/or attempts to sell or smuggle nuclear material or radioactive
sources. …One-hundred and forty reported incidents involved unauthorized activities without
apparent relation to criminal activity.”45 According to the U.S. Department of State, “Of the 222
events reported to the IAEA from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 involving radiological and nuclear
materials outside legitimate control, most involved incidents overseas and roughly 10 percent
occurred in the U.S. All of the incidents the U.S. reported to the IAEA during this time involved
detections of radioactively contaminated materials coming into the U.S.”46
In 2009, the IAEA reported “a persistent problem with illicit trafficking in nuclear and other
radioactive materials, with thefts, losses and other unauthorized activities and events.” Of the
1,562 confirmed incidents in the ITDB for 1995-2008, 421 involved reports of theft or loss,
which IAEA called “indicative of vulnerabilities in security and control systems.” Another 336
involved unauthorized possession or related criminal activities, with the number possibly higher.
The 724 incidents of other unauthorized activities and events “have mainly involved radioactive
sources, including some … high-risk ‘dangerous’ sources, and radioactively contaminated
materials. Occurrence of such incidents is an indication of failures in systems to control, secure
and dispose of radioactive materials. They also show weaknesses of regulatory systems.” 47

42
43

Embassy of Pakistan, Washington, DC, personal communication, May 17, 2011.
Information provided to CRS by the National Atomic Energy Agency, Warsaw, Poland, May 16, 2011.

44
Republic of Korea, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, “Country Report on (RAS/9/042), ‘Sustainability of Regional
Radiation Protection Infrastructure,’” 2009, p. 22.
45
International Atomic Energy Agency, Board of Governors, Nuclear Security Report 2010: Measures to Protect
Against Nuclear Terrorism, Report by the Director General, GOV/2010/42-GC(54)/9, August 12, 2010, p. 4.
46
Personal communication, Department of State, May 6, 2011.
47
Material on ITDB in this paragraph is from International Atomic Energy Agency, “IAEA Illicit Trafficking Database
(ITDB),” September 2009, pp. 1-5, http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/security/itdb-fact-sheet-2009.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

9

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

Attack Response, Recovery, and Attribution
Organization and Planning for Response
If an RDD attack occurred, effective response could save lives and speed recovery. Accordingly,
the federal government has planned for a response. Key authorities for response include the
Stafford Act, P.L. 100-707, which authorizes the President to declare an event a disaster, thereby
allowing federal agencies to assist state and local governments, the Homeland Security Act of
2002, P.L. 107-295, which establishes the Department of Homeland Security; Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 5, “Management of Domestic Incidents,” 2003, which makes the Secretary
of Homeland Security “the principal Federal official for domestic incident management”; and the
National Response Framework (NRF), which “presents the guiding principles that enable all
response partners to prepare for and provide a unified national response to disasters and
emergencies—from the smallest incident to the largest catastrophe.”48
The NRF has various annexes. The Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex “describes the policies,
situations, concepts of operations, and responsibilities of the Federal departments and agencies
governing the immediate response and short-term recovery activities for incidents involving
release of radioactive materials.”49 It spells out which agency would have the lead or would
provide support in various incidents, and the capabilities and responsibilities of each. According
to the Framework, DHS would be the lead agency for “all deliberate attacks involving
nuclear/radiological facilities or materials, including RDDs or INDs.”50 In 2008, FEMA issued its
“Planning Guidance for Protection and Recovery Following Radiological Dispersal Device
(RDD) and Improvised Nuclear Device (IND) Incidents,” which provides detailed guidance on
response. 51 Some states and localities have developed response plans and held exercises.
An issue for any disaster plan is how well it would work in practice. An assessment of state
radiation emergency preparedness found, “in almost every measure of public health capacity and
capability, the public health system remains poorly prepared to adequately respond to a major
radiation emergency incident.”52 A 2011 press report raised similar concerns about national
preparedness. 53 Governments have planned responses to hurricanes, yet the overall response to
Hurricane Katrina was poor. The Deepwater Horizon disaster occurred despite the federal
government's National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.

48
For further information on the National Response Framework, see U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Federal
Emergency Management Agency. “NRF Resource Center,” http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf/.
49
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Nuclear/Radiological Incident
Annex,” June 2008, p. NUC-1, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf_nuclearradiologicalincidentannex.pdf.
50
Ibid., p. NUC-9.
51
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Planning Guidance for
Protection and Recovery Following Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD) and Improvised Nuclear Device (IND)
Incidents,” notice of final guidance, Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 149, August 1, 2008. pp. 45029-45048.
52
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, “The Status of State-Level Radiation Emergency Preparedness and
Response Capabilities, 2010,” October 6, 2010, p. 13, http://www.cste.org/webpdfs/2010raditionreport.pdf.
53
Sheri Fink, “U.S. Health-Care Systems Said to Be Unprepared for Nuclear Disaster” Washington Post, March 8,
2011, p. 3.

Congressional Research Service

10

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

Response and Recovery
As noted earlier, FEMA divides response into early, intermediate, and late phases. The source of
resources would shift with the phase. In the early phase, state and local first responders would be
the primary ones available. They would focus on minimizing deaths and injuries from radiation
and panic. The intermediate phase would involve higher-level care for those suffering from
radiation injuries, longer-term relocation of people from areas with dangerous levels of
radioactivity, and initial stages of recovery, such as decontamination. Many federal resources
could be brought to bear in this phase. Late-phase efforts would focus on recovery. The main
activity would be reduction of radiation hazards to an acceptable level, such as by
decontaminating streets and buildings, demolishing and replacing buildings that could not be
cost-effectively decontaminated, or declaring certain areas off-limits. The federal government
would presumably supply the specialized expertise, techniques, equipment, and supplies required.
In 2009, President Obama directed the establishment of the White House Long-Term Disaster
Recovery Working Group. It is preparing a framework document with a strategy for dealing with
recovery from all disasters and a report on long-term recovery from major disasters. As of June
2011, the former is in interagency review, and the latter is in the process of gaining concurrence
among the organizations drafting it. No date had been set for release of either document. 54
Researchers have studied various decontamination methods. One study found that for radioactive
materials like cesium that bond with concrete and tile, washing with water would have little
effect,55 but that a solution of water with ammonium oxalate or ammonium chloride is more
effective. 56 Idaho National Laboratory is investigating the use of lasers for decontamination. 57
Argonne National Laboratory is developing a “supergel” intended “to safely capture and dispose
of radioactive elements in porous structures outdoors, such as buildings and monuments, using a
spray-on, super-absorbent gel and engineered nanoparticles,” for use in the event of an RDD
attack.58 EPA’s National Homeland Security Research Center conducts decontamination
research.59

Attribution
If an attack occurred, the United States would surely want to retaliate against the perpetrators.
Retaliation would require attribution, i.e., identifying the attacker and the source of material.
Attribution relies on forensics, i.e., a fusion of evidence gathered from intelligence, law
enforcement, and scientific analysis of material from the weapon. Nuclear forensics has been
conducted for many decades. It matches samples of pre- or post-detonation weapon material to an
archive of samples from facilities producing such material, or against a library of information
from manufacturers. (Government agencies use “archive” to refer to a collection of physical
samples and “library” to refer to a collection of information.) It looks for clues that link to other
54

Personal communication, Federal Emergency Management Agency, June 14, 2011.

55

J. Real et al., “Mechanisms of Desorption of 134Cs [cesium-134] and 85Sr [strontium-85] Aerosols Deposited on
Urban Surfaces,” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 62 (2002), p. 1.
56
Ibid., p. 1.
57
Mike Wall, “INL Laser Research Could Help U.S. Respond to Terror Attack,” April 19, 2010.
58
Argonne National Laboratory. “’Supergel’ System for Cleaning Radioactively Contaminated Structures.”
59
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Homeland Security Research. http://www.epa.gov/nhsrc/. The center’s
reports on RDDs are available at http://tinyurl.com/3kfyntf.

Congressional Research Service

11

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

types of evidence, such as records of missing material. It identifies manufacturing processes, and
may use simulation to see if a certain process could have led to a certain sample. By providing
data on weapon materials and design, forensics could help determine the technical sophistication
of the group that launched a nuclear attack, and which nations provided technical support,
materials, or a weapon. To support this effort, the United States is developing a consolidated
library and archive of nuclear material:60 The potential to identify the source of material and the
perpetrator of an attack supports deterrence and, if deterrence failed, could support retaliation.
Radiological forensics uses many of these techniques. It might be able to determine the age of a
sample, perhaps eliminating some manufacturers as its source. Also, as DHS states, “nonrad[ioactive] evidence associated with the RDD will play an important role in the technical
forensics investigation.” Further, “Additional useful insights can be garnered from license
information, sales records, vendor catalogs, etc., and this information is being collected as
funding and accessibility allow.”61 The NRC and IAEA have libraries of information on sealed
radioactive sources 62 that, according to one report, were not intended for forensics.63 Since most
sealed sources are made in foreign countries, DHS is funding Argonne and Idaho National
Laboratories to gather data on these sources for forensics purposes.64 Based on communications
in 2011 between CRS and knowledgeable individuals at various government agencies and
laboratories, there does not appear to be an archive of radioactive sources or materials.
Radiological and nuclear forensics differ in various ways. A nuclear explosion produces hundreds
of radionuclides; materials that might be used in an RDD, excepting spent fuel, would likely have
one or a few radionuclides, providing fewer clues. RDD radionuclides have half-lives measured
in years, not hours or less, so collecting samples would not be as time-urgent as for a nuclear
explosion. Nuclear forensics could support retaliation, depending on the country of origin of the
material. In contrast, RDD material might be produced in one country, distributed by a second,
sold to a third, and perhaps resold to a fourth, where terrorists might steal it. Argentina, Canada,
several European countries, and Russia are the main producers of key radionuclides, 65 which they
sell in legitimate commercial transactions, so tracing material to the producer would not provide a
basis for retaliation. If terrorists obtained material through theft, illicit purchase, or an inside job,
it would be hard to assign malevolent intent to the country involved.

60

“Statement of Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, Director of the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, United States
Department of Energy, before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, United States Senate,
April 2, 2008,” in U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Hearings.
“Nuclear Terrorism: Assessing the Threat to the Homeland,” April 2, 2008.
61
Information provided by Department of Homeland Security, email, May 17, 2010.
62
See International Atomic Energy Agency, “International Catalogue of Sealed Radioactive Sources and Devices
(ICSRS)”; and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ”Sealed Source and Device Registry: Supplement for 10 CFR
Part 35 Uses.”
63
Margaret Goldberg and Martha Finck, “International Data on Radiological Sources,” Idaho National Laboratory,
INL/CON-10-18939, Preprint, July 2010, p. 3, http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/4633185.pdf.
64
Ibid.
65
National Research Council. Radiation Source Use and Replacement, Abbreviated Version, p. 41.

Congressional Research Service

12

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

Issues for Congress
Priority for Countering Radiological Terrorism
What priority should be given to countering radiological vs. other forms of terrorism? There are
many contending arguments. (1) Despite concerns about terrorist interest in RDDs, no successful
RDD attack has occurred. (2) Of nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, the
latter would arguably kill the fewest people. (3) Most planning, training, equipment, and supplies
that would help respond to an RDD attack would be of use in other disasters as well, so it is
difficult to determine the balance between funds to counter all hazards and those to counter RDDs
only. (4) Since costs resulting from an RDD attack could be tens of billions of dollars, some
measures directly relevant to an RDD attack, such as decontamination R&D and securing
radioactive sources, may be cost-effective.

Domestic vs. Overseas Expenditures to Secure Radioactive Sources
Where are U.S. funds to secure radioactive sources most effectively spent? One argument is that
it is better to spend money to secure domestic radiological sources because if they are illicitly
obtained they could be used promptly in an RDD, avoiding the risk of detection in other countries
and at U.S. ports of entry. This effort would be costly. Of course, it would also be costly to secure
radiological sources in countries that could not do so without international assistance. On the
other hand, funds spent securing sources overseas might offer a higher benefit-cost ratio in that
many sources overseas may be less secure than U.S. sources. Further, expenditures to counter the
RDD threat overseas could help safeguard U.S. facilities in other nations and could help avert
RDD attacks on critical facilities and infrastructure that could cause economic disruption.

Radiation Detection Networks
While attention has focused on explosive-driven “dirty bombs,” an unobtrusive RDD attack could
go undetected for hours, giving material time to spread and to irradiate people. A distributed
network of sensors to detect, locate, and identify radioactive material would address this issue.
Sensors could be mounted on buildings, police cars, or surveillance cameras. Work is underway
to develop radiation-detection chips to be incorporated into cell phones or other mobile devices.66
What would it cost to develop a detector network and deploy it in major metropolitan areas?
Would it be appropriate for the federal government to fund deployment of such networks, or
would deployment be a state or local responsibility?

Preparing for Decontamination
The main cost of an RDD attack would be decontamination. Proper methods depend on the RDD
material, its form, types of surfaces affected, and the required decontamination level.
66

Benjamin Sutherland, "My Blackberry as a Bomb Sniffer?," Newsweek, September 27, 2008; Emil Venere and
Elizabeth Gardner, “Cell Phone Sensors Detect Radiation to Thwart Nuclear Terrorism,” Purdue University news
release, January 22, 2008; and personal communication, Simon Labov, Associate Program Leader for Detection
Systems, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, February 14, 2011.

Congressional Research Service

13

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

Decontaminators should be aware of the best techniques. Prompt availability of relevant
information, such as through FEMA’s Lessons Learned Information Sharing,67 would help.
Decontamination would require the proper equipment and supplies. Has the government
stockpiled the needed resources or arranged to have them manufactured quickly? What areas
might future R&D pursue? What is the cost of decontamination vs. demolition and
reconstruction? Techniques to decontaminate areas struck by an RDD would help decontaminate
the much larger area struck by radioactive fallout from an IND.

Waste Disposition and RDDs
Many studies have considered how to dispose of nuclear waste. The possibility of an RDD attack
adds urgency to the disposition of radioactive waste. Most sealed sources have no disposition
pathway. Choosing a permanent disposition pathway would reduce the risk of terrorists obtaining
this material. On a larger scale, decontamination would generate chemicals, water, and
radioactive material. How would this waste be handled? If decontamination proved ineffective, an
alternative would be to demolish contaminated buildings, generating much rubble. Where would
it go? If buried, would it contaminate the water table? If it were to be buried out of state, would
another state accept it? How would it be transported? Would states along the proposed route try to
block transit? It would appear more efficient to plan in advance how to dispose of this rubble
rather than deciding on a rushed basis postattack.

Materials Protection
The GTRI Domestic Materials Protection Program visits facilities requesting its service,
examines the security situation, and installs security devices. It provides this service on a
voluntary basis at no initial cost to the facilities. As of February 2011, it had “identified more than
2,700 vulnerable buildings … with high-priority radioactive material in the United States,” had
completed security enhancements at 251 of the buildings, “with the remainder aiming to be
completed by 2025.”68 Other upgrades will take several years as well. Alternatives include
expanding this program to complete upgrades sooner, maintaining it at its current level,
eliminating it, or making it mandatory.

Radiological Forensics
Congress has given nuclear forensics strong support, so it may wish to strengthen radiological
forensics capability. Since radiological forensics is typically grouped with nuclear forensics,
Congress could establish a panel to examine the unique aspects and requirements of the former
and how its science and technology might be advanced. Congress could also support the buildout
of archives of samples relevant to RDDs.

67

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Lessons Learned Information
Sharing,” https://www.llis.dhs.gov/index.do.
68
U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. “NNSA: Securing Domestic Radioactive
Material,” fact sheet, February 1, 2011, p. 2.

Congressional Research Service

14

”Dirty Bombs”: Background in Brief

Author Contact Information
Jonathan Medalia
Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.g
ov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

15

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41891. Public record. Not legal advice.