NucNews November 1, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia Nuclear dump opponent urges health monitoring Wednesday, November 1, 2006 Agence France-Presse http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1778655.htm An Alice Springs alderman is starting a 30-year protest against a nuclear waste facility by asking people to track any impact on their health. Jane Clark is against the Federal Government's plans to place a nuclear facility in the Northern Territory. She says people should monitor their health over the next three decades, so any effects from the planned nuclear facility can be recorded. "What I'd like people to do is after they've sat down, and it takes about half an hour to record your family medical history, is then to take a photograph of your family and post that either through the website or deliver it into my office and if we get a large number of people who have done this then we'll put it together as an exhibition," she said. -------- business Westinghouse Subsidiary PaR Nuclear Wins Refueling Equipment Contract in Korea Nov. 1, 2006 /PRNewswire/ SOURCE Westinghouse Electric Company http://www.andhranews.net/intl/web/54-46.asp PITTSBURGH, -- Westinghouse Electric Company subsidiary PaR Nuclear Inc. has received a contract to provide refueling equipment upgrades for the units at Ulchin 3 & 4 in South Korea. The award successfully completes a two-year proposal effort. The contract award from Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Company, Ltd., owners of the plants includes modifications to the refueling machine, fuel transfer system, and spent fuel machine. Engineering design will begin immediately with manufacturing to start in early 2007. The first sets of equipment will be delivered in mid 2007 with field installation scheduled to start in the early fall of 2007. PaR Nuclear Inc. continues to be the premier supplier of fuel handling equipment to Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Company, Ltd., and the Korean market. PaR Nuclear is the original equipment manufacturer of fuel-handling equipment for 57 nuclear power plants in seven countries, including 35 in the United States. Additionally, PaR Nuclear has provided more than 85 automated refueling equipment control system upgrades. The PaR Nuclear workforce of approximately 125 employees is located primarily in suburban St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Westinghouse Electric Company is the world's pioneering nuclear power company and is a leading supplier of nuclear plant products and technologies to utilities throughout the world. Today, Westinghouse technology is the basis for approximately one-half of the world's operating nuclear plants. -------- canada Soldiers' Kuwait health complaints mishandled: ombudsman Last Updated: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/01/kuwait-cansoldiers.html Canada's armed forces were sharply criticized Wednesday by the military ombudsman for mishandling health complaints by Canadian soldiers exposed to burning oil wells in Kuwait in 1991. In his report released in Ottawa, Yves Coté said hundreds of Canadian troops were exposed to radiation from depleted uranium shells after coalition forces ejected occupying Iraqi troops. They also continually inhaled thick black smoke from burning oil wells set ablaze by retreating Iraqi forces. Yves Cote, Canada's national defence ombudsman, outlines his report at a news conference in Ottawa on Wednesday.Yves Cote, Canada's national defence ombudsman, outlines his report at a news conference in Ottawa on Wednesday. (Tom Hanson/Canadian Press) Many of the Canadians suffered from ill health almost immediately, Coté found. Others suffered from a variety of conditions, including liver failure, emphysema, constant headaches and brain tumours. In his report, entitled Heroism Exposed, Coté said neither the armed forces nor the Department of National Defence paid enough attention to the legitimate complaints of Canadian soldiers. "The legitimate health concerns of soldiers were not given the weight they deserved," Coté said during a news conference. "If we send our [soldiers] abroad healthy and they return sick, they need to know that Canada, their country, will take care of them." He said one senior non-commissioned officer who was sent to hospital in Kuwait City was treated upon his return to his regiment as "a disease, an outcast." Protective equipment lacking: ombudsman Nor were the troops adequately prepared for the environmental hazards of their mission, the ombudsman found. "The Canadian Forces were aware that burning oil wells posed air-quality issues and some provision was made to protect personnel," Coté's report said. "However, these measures were partial and not universally applied. Adequate supplies of protective equipment to guide personnel on the ground were also lacking." Coté also criticized the defence department for poor record keeping, saying Ottawa could not provide him with a full list of soldiers who had served in Kuwait, or even more recent operations in Afghanistan. However, the ombudsman said, there had been notable improvements in recent years to the armed forces' ability to prepare soldiers for environmental risks on the battlefield. Coté stressed that his report was not intended to establish a connection between soldiers' health problems and exposure to toxins, but was an examination of the response to those complaints by officials and superior officers. -------- depleted uranium Depleted uranium risk 'ignored' Both British and US troops have used depleted uranium in Iraq Wednesday, 1 November 2006 BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/middle_east/6105726.stm UK and US forces have continued to use depleted uranium weapons despite warnings they pose a cancer risk, a BBC investigation has found. Scientists have pointed to health statistics in Iraq, where the weapons were used in the 1991 and 2003 wars. A report by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2001 said they posed only a small contamination risk. But a senior UN scientist said research showing how depleted uranium could cause cancer was withheld. The UK Ministry of Defence said that there was no evidence linking depleted uranium use to ill health. Depleted uranium is extremely dense and hard, and is used for armour-piercing bullets or shells. Fears over health implications led to a study by the WHO in 2001. Dr Mike Repacholi, who oversaw work on the report, told Angus Stickler of BBC Radio Four's Today programme that depleted uranium was "basically safe". "You would have to ingest a huge amount of depleted uranium dust to cause any adverse health effect," he said. 'Risk from particles' But Dr Keith Baverstock, who worked on the project, said research conducted by the US Department of Defense suggested otherwise. He described a process known as genotoxicity, which begins when depleted uranium dust is inhaled. "The particles that dissolve pose a risk - part radioactive - and part from the chemical toxicity in the lung," he said. Later, he said, the material enters the body and the blood stream, potentially affecting bone marrow, the lymphatic system and the kidneys. The research was not included in the WHO report, and Dr Baverstock believes it was blocked. Mr Repacholi said the findings were not corroborated by other reports and it was not WHO policy to publish "speculative" data. He denied any pressure was brought to bear. But other senior scientists have pointed to worrying health statistics in Iraq, which show a rise in cancer and birth defects. Prof Randy Parrish of the Isotope Geosciences Laboratory in the UK said environmental and health assessments were needed in Iraq to establish the facts. Iraqi scientists trained by the UN are seeking to carry out such an assessment, but Henrik Slotte of the United Nations Environmental Programme said without clear information from the US on what was used and where, it was "like looking for a needle in a haystack". He said there was "no indication" this information was forthcoming from the US. A spokesman for the UK's Ministry of Defence, meanwhile, told the BBC that there was "no scientific or medical evidence" to link depleted uranium use to sickness in Iraq. He said the MOD was aware of recent research into the effects of depleted uranium at cellular level, but that it had to be guided by "the professional advice of the Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Radiological Protection". \ DEPLETED URANIUM Has a reduced proportion of isotope Uranium-235 Less radioactive than natural uranium and very dense Military uses include defensive armour plating, armour-penetrating ordnance Can be inhaled as dust or ingested in contaminated food and water near impact sites Used in Iraq, the former Yugoslavia ---- Head of research council declares battered South 'free of' radiation Lebanon Daily Star staff Wednesday, November 01, 2006 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=76552 Head of research council declares battered South 'free of' radiation BEIRUT: The president of the National Council for Scientific Research said on Tuesday that South Lebanon "is free of" signs of radiation resulting from the month-long Israeli bombardment of Lebanon. "We stick to the fact that uranium-based munitions were not used during the recent war; we have not detected any radiation proving the presence of depleted uranium," Mouin Hamzeh said. Speaking to Voice of Lebanon radio station, Hamzeh criticized recent media reports claiming the presence of depleted uranium. "But we have taken this information into consideration and we will survey the areas which are said to contain uranium, notably the southern region of Khiam," he said. However, an environmental research team affiliated with Environment and Development magazine said that analysis of samples taken from a bomb crater in Khiam have shown high radiation levels. The analysis was conducted in British laboratories, according to a statement issued by the group, Environmental Hotline, on Tuesday. The statement added that the magazine was the sole publisher of two photos taken from Khiam of holes in military equipment that could have resulted from the use of depleted-uranium ordnance. However, an expert from Environment Hotline said the group awaited the results of analysis being carried out by a United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) team at a laboratory in Spitz, Switzerland. Hamzeh criticized the group's stance, saying: "No expert or person is entitled to take samples and send them abroad to be analyzed ... This is illegal and harms people who might be victim of unfounded allegations." Around 20 experts from the UNEP had spent two weeks with Lebanese environmentalists from the beginning of October evaluating the impact on the environment of the July-August bombardment of Lebanon. The experts tested air, water and soil samples at some 75 heavily bombarded sites in South Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut, said Boutros Harb, UNEP director for Asia and the Middle East. "Their report will be made public on November 29 in Beirut," Hamzeh said. In light of the ongoing concern about the presence of uranium, British expert Dai Williams urged the Lebanese to take pre-emptive measures by, for instance, halting reconstruction works in suspected areas. Separately, the United Arab Emirates project to clear up mines and cluster bombs in South Lebanon kicked off on Tuesday, with Brigadier Seif Jaber Alili, the project's manager, saying the work would be done in 15 months. "The mission includes areas north the Litani River where around 26,550 mines have been planted and areas south the Litani where a huge number of cluster bombs was thrown," Alili said. - Additional reporting by Mohammed Zaatari -------- europe Czech Temelin nuclear reactor hit by fuel problem PRAGUE (AFP) Nov 01, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061101144409.a6u81x1m.html http://www.nineoclock.ro/index.php?page=detalii&categorie=business&id=20061102-508423 The relaunch of the second reactor of the controversial Czech nuclear power plant, Temelin, has been delayed owing to problems with its fuel, a spokesman for the plant said on Wednesday. "The delay so far totals a dozen days," plant spokesman Milan Nebesar told AFP, adding that he could not give a date when the reactor would resume the production of electricity. The second reactor was stopped in September for routine maintenance and changing of fuel rods. Problems have arisen connected with the water tightness of some fuel casings, Nebesar said. "The problem has occured at Temelin for the first time," he added. Temelin's fuel is supplied to Czech electricity giant CEZ by US-based Westinghouse. In the 1990's the same company installed security systems at Temelin's two reactors. According to one Czech newspaper, Lidove Noviny, the latest hitch constitutes "apparently the most serious problem in Temelin's history." But Nebesar said: "That is the opinion of Lidove Noviny. The same problem of watertighness also occurs in other nuclear power plants in the world. "We have carried out analysis to work out how the fuel will perform from now on. All the documents have been given to the State Office for Nuclear Security (SUJB), which alone will decide when the reactor can restart," he explained. The Temelin plant, which started service in 2000, has created fierce controversy in neighbouring Austria, which opted to close down its commercial nuclear power plants in 1978. Austrian protests centre on the safety of the plant, built according to an original Soviet design with Western security systems added on. Temelin is sited 60 kilometres (37 miles) from the Czech-Austrian border. Original plans for the plant counted on four reactors but this was scaled back to two. CEZ is currently considering the renewal of its existing power plants with one option being for an extra two nuclear reactors at Temelin to be built. CEZ is 67.7-percent owned by the Czech state. -------- india India won't accept outdated N-technology: Kakodkar November 01, 2006 Rediff http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/01ntech.htm Declaring there was no question of India accepting outdated technology under the proposed Indo-US nuclear energy cooperation agreement, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar on Wednesday said there will be no halting of the domestic nuclear energy research and development programme. Addressing a press conference in Kochi, Kakodkar, who is also secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, said there would be no halting of the domestic nuclear energy development programme even if the proposed deal came through. "We have a three-stage domestic programme. That will go on. The proposed deal with the US is to provide additional energy resources," he added. Asked about criticism from the Left that the US was planning to dump its obsolete reactors on India under the agreement, Kakodkar said India had the expertise to assess the technology that was to be imported and would not accept just anything. "There is no question of India accepting outdated technology. There will be no compromise on technical standards. We have the expertise to assess what is being imported and the imports would be made based on our technical and commercial assessment," he added. Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Chairman S K Sharma also said the board made an "end-to-end" review of every reactor design, be it from India, France, Russia or the US. The country had its own standards and regulations and any reactor being imported into the country would have to satisfy its requirements, he added. Asked if the ratification process of the deal in the US Congress was too slow, Kakodkar said the process was going to take time. While there was support for it at the leadership level, several issues had to be ironed out. On the willingness of the Nuclear Fuel Supply Group countries to supply fuel to India, Kakodar said the group had met last month and some discussions had taken place. All the issues were inter-linked and were progressing at different levels in the US Congress, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Fuel Supply Group, he added. Stating that in the long run, the world would realise that the greater use of nuclear energy in India was not only in the country's interest but also in the world's interest, Kakodkar said that by the middle of this century, India's energy requirements were expected to increase ten-fold. "By 2050, India is expected to consume 50 per cent of the world's coal and 10 per cent of oil. The impact of this on the global energy scenario can be guessed. It would be in the world's interest if a larger share of India's energy needs are met by nuclear power," he added. -------- iran Iran To Step-Up Sensitive Nuclear Activities by Staff Writers Tehran (AFP) Nov 01, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_To_Step_Up_Sensitive_Nuclear_Activities_999.html Iran is preparing new uranium enriching centrifuges less than a week after starting up its second such cascade despite the threat of UN Security Council sanctions, an influential MP said Wednesday. "Other cascades are underway and we have plans to build many centrifuges in order to supply our nuclear fuel," Kazem Jalai, parliament's national security commission rapporteur, was quoted as saying by student news agency ISNA. Iran on Saturday confirmed it had successfully enriched uranium from a new cascade of 164 centrifuges, the second to be installed at the Natanz nuclear plant in central Iran. Enriched uranium is at the core of the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme, as it can produce nuclear fuel and, in highly refined form of around 90 percent, be developed to a nuclear bomb. But Iran says it aims to reach only five percent enrichment in order to make fuel. Iran would need thousands more such centrifuges to enrich uranium on an industrial scale and its current uranium enrichment work is on a research level only. "Even if we make 10 164-centrifuge cascades, it still remains at the level of research and development and we want to reach a certain phase in this level and then start the industrial work," Jalali said. The UN Security Council's five veto-wielding members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- as well as from Germany have been discussing a draft UN resolution on sanctions put forward by European countries. Jalali said that Iran would "react to such unfair resolutions", adding that a bill was heading to parliament that would suspend inspections by the UN's the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the event of sanctions. The former head of Iran's nuclear dossier, Hassan Rowhani, who is a close aid to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also said that Tehran could suspend IAEA inspections if sanctions were applied. "Approval of such a resolution will not remain unanswered and it is possible that one of (Iran's) moves could be a reduction of cooperations with the IAEA," Rowhani was quoted as saying by the semi-official news agency Mehr. ---- Iran To Continue Expanding Nuclear Program-Report Dow Jones Newswires 11-01-06 http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20061101%5cACQDJON200611010948DOWJONESDJONLINE000631.htm& NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Iran is planning to continue expanding its controversial nuclear program by launching more centrifuge cascades, a semiofficial Iranian news agency reported Wednesday. The Iranian Students News Agency quoted the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign affairs council spokesman saying the country is preparing another centrifuge cascade "and we plan to continue this until we become capable of providing our own nuclear fuel." ISNA said the spokesman, Kazem Jalali, also said the centrifuge cascades being developed will be used for research and development before starting industrial scale production. United Nations Security Council members are deliberating a draft European resolution that would impose sanctions on Iran over its disputed nuclear program. Russia has indicated that it considers the measure is too tough, while the U.S. says it is not tough enough. ---- Iran plans Gulf war games Great Prophet Two will be Iran's third exercises this year Wednesday 01 November 2006 Aljazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E974E7AF-BC99-4543-93FB-9A2DB5EBF417.htm Iran has announced it will carry out war games in the Persian Gulf just days after six other nations, including the United States, held a series of exercises in the same area. Iranian state television said the military manoeuvres - named "Great Prophet Two" - would take place in the Gulf and the Sea of Oman from Thursday. "The war games are aimed at demonstrating the deterrent power of the [Iranian Revolutionary] guards against possible threats," General Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, was quoted as saying. Safavi stressed that the drills were not a threat to Iran's neighbouring countries, saying: "Our neighbours are our friends. The guards just want to prove that they ready to resist in any threatening situation." US exercises The announcement came two days after US-led warships finished a two days of exercises in the Gulf which were described by Iran as "adventurist". Iran plans to test ballistic missiles during the war games Iran said the drills involving Australia, Bahrain, Britain, France, Italy and the United States would not improve security in the waters of the Gulf, through which about 20 per cent of the world's oil passes. It also called on Gulf nations to set up their own regional security arrangements. The US-led manoeuvres focused on surveillance, with warships tracking a ship suspected of carrying components of illegal weapons. Missile tests Safavi also told state TV that the Iranian exercises would be used to test fire ballistic missiles. "Missiles Shahab-2 and Shahab-3 with cluster warheads and a range of over 1,000km will be shot as well as hundreds of rockets and other missiles such as Fateh and Zolfaghar," he said The Shahab-3 missile is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and has a range of more than 2,000km – enough to reach Israel and US forces based in the Middle East. These will be the country's third war games this year. In August, Iranian armed forces held a massive cross country military exercise called "Zolfaghar Blow" to test new weapons and tactics against a potential enemy. The first stage of the "Great Prophet" war games was held in April. -------- japan Japan policy chief likens N Korea threat to Cuban crisis TOKYO (AFP) Nov 01, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061101101554.ppp1qcpv.html Japan's ruling party policy chief on Wednesday likened the threat from North Korea to the 1960s Cuban Missile Crisis, warning that Japan and the United States would be Pyongyang's top missile targets. North Korea's nuclear program poses "a grave threat specifically targeted at Japan and the United States," said Shoichi Nakagawa, policy chief of the Liberal Democratic Party. "Now the country has the will and is beginning to have the capability (to launch nuclear weapons). And where they intend to launch them, that is not China nor Russia nor their brother South Korea. "It is, to my regret, Japan and the United States," he said. Nakagawa said that when he met several US politicians in Washington last week he suggested to them that the North Korean issue was quite similar to the 1962 confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States over the Soviet deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba. He also reiterated his view that Japan needs to discuss whether to go nuclear following Pyongyang's October 9 atom bomb test. "I'm saying the nuclear debate is necessary because the other side (North Korea) says they have nuclear weapons," he said. He said Pyongyang's announcement Wednesday that it would return to six-nation nuclear disarmament talks "could be a means of earning time". Nakagawa, who was given his influential post by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in September, is a tough-talking hawk known for not mincing his words. Abe strongly supports revising the constitution to give Japan a more active military role but has repeatedly ruled out discussing the nuclear option. The Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated by US nuclear bombs at the end of World War II that killed more than 210,000 people. US officials, including US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have said there is no need for Japan to arm itself with nuclear weapons because of the long-standing US commitment to provide security for Japan. ---- Abe to revise post-war constitution From correspondents in London November 01, 2006 Reuters http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20681409-5005961,00.html JAPANESE Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has said he wants to revise the postwar constitution to improve the country's ability to defend itself and make a greater military contribution to international security. "With 60 years past, there are provisions within the constitution that no longer befit the reality of the day," Mr Abe told the Financial Times in an interview published on its website overnight. "... one typical example would be Article 9," Mr Abe said. Japan's constitution was written during the American occupation after World War II. Article 9 bans the possession of armed forces, an attempt to prevent a resurgence of the militarism that led to Japan's wartime conquest of much of eastern Asia. Article 9 has been interpreted to allow the creation of military forces purely for self-defence, but Japan had to pass special laws to allow the dispatch of its military to the Indian Ocean off Afghanistan and to Iraq in support of US operations. Even then, its forces were allowed to operate only in non-combat zones and to take part only in activities such as reconstruction and logistical support. "I believe this article (Article 9) needs to be revised from the viewpoint of defending Japan, and also in order to comply with the international expectation that Japan make international contributions," Mr Abe said. Mr Abe, who took office late last month, had said previously that revising the constitution was a key long-term objective, but he was more specific in the interview. "My term of office is three years and the president of the Liberal Democratic party can sit for up to two terms. Within that term of office, I shall strive to achieve the revision," he said. Any changes to Article 9 would make many of Japan's largely pacifist population nervous. But North Korea's recent missile and nuclear tests have reinforced Mr Abe's view that Japan should play a more assertive role in international affairs. Speaking before news that North Korea had agreed to return to six-party talks on its nuclear program, Mr Abe said: "We are convinced that this problem needs to be resolved diplomatically and in a peaceful manner. And I think this is the consensus of the international community, including the United States. "But I also think Chairman Kim Jong-il and the regime are aware that, if they resort to force, that will spell the end of them. The end of them? Yes, the end of them. And they are fully aware of that, I think." ---- TEPCO restarts nuclear unit after unplanned checks Wednesday November 1, 2006 (Reuters) http://asia.news.yahoo.com/061101/3/2s6qd.html TOKYO, Nov 1 - Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) has restarted the 784,000-kilowatt No. 4 nuclear power generation unit at its Fukushima-Daiichi plant in northern Japan, the company said on Wednesday. TEPCO, Asia's biggest utility, shut the unit on Oct. 1 for unplanned checks after finding data irregularities. -------- korea Nuclear negotiations Wednesday, November 1, 2006 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/11/01/EDG6PKE0RM1.DTL&type=printable AFTER MONTHS of dismissing international efforts to get it to the negotiating table, it is welcome news that North Korea has finally agreed to participate in six-nation nuclear disarmament talks. Never missing an opportunity to politicize anything, the Bush administration crowed that North Korea's agreement to return to talks was a "vindication of the strategy the president has adopted." But there are too many unknowns before anyone -- least of all a White House that has been known to prematurely declare victory -- can conclude that this latest development will do anything to defuse a new and unpredictable nuclear threat. At this stage, it is hard to know exactly what North Korea's motivations are. Did the regime of Kim Jong Il agree to participate simply to buy time? Did it do so just to placate its former ally China? Or did it do so because it genuinely fears the potential impact of further economic sanctions? It's also impossible to know whether the multilateral strategy will yield results. So far, it has not. Many observers, including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., believe that the highest levels of the U.S. government should be negotiating directly with the North Koreans, rather than leaving talks to an assistant secretary of state such as Christopher Hill. "Anyone we don't like, we don't meet with," Feinstein told The Chronicle Editorial Board last week, referring to the Bush administration's refusal to talk directly to Syria, Iran or North Korea. "It's a big mistake in this world." But multilateral talks are better than no talks at all. To increase their effectiveness, it is time for all the governments involved to participate at the highest levels. It surely will take more diplomatic firepower from the United States than an assistant secretary to forestall a potential nuclear catastrophe. ---- Why North Korea loves the bomb Its nuclear weapons program plays a major role in propping up Kim Jong Il's repressive regime. By Bennett Ramberg November 1, 2006 Los Angeles Times http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes530.html ON ITS FACE, North Korea's announcement that it plans to return to the six-party nuclear talks marks a victory of sorts for diplomacy. Working with its allies, the United States fashioned a package of U.N. resolutions, economic sanctions and the threat of more to get Kim Jong Il back to the bargaining table. Ultimately, though, the talks will bear fruit only if North Korea concludes that eliminating its nuclear program better ensures regime survival. The history of nuclear disarmament, coupled with North Korea's unique strategic circumstance, suggest that the possibility remains a long shot. Compare the North Korean case with three countries that surrendered nuclear ambitions — South Africa, Libya and Ukraine — and one comes to the conclusion that Pyongyang has yet to reach the requisite underpinnings to do likewise. Under the veneer of a peaceful nuclear explosives program to dig harbors and oil storage facilities, South Africa — under President P.W. Botha — manufactured six atomic bombs. The true motivations included international isolation fed by apartheid and the belief that such weapons would deter a Soviet and Cuban threat along South Africa's borders. Libya never acquired nuclear weapons but spent decades trying. Its leader, Moammar Kadafi, sought to buy a weapon from China, enrichment equipment from France, reactors from the U.S., a nuclear-armed submarine from the Soviet Union and to annex uranium-laden land from Chad. Tripoli had some success in the 1990s when the smuggling network of Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan provided the rudiments of a nuclear centrifuge program and weapons designs, which added to Libya's other black-market acquisitions. Kiev did not strive for the bomb; the bomb fell into its lap when Ukraine became a nuclear-armed successor state to the Soviet Union. The arsenal included about 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons plus 1,240 strategic nuclear warheads mounted on 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles, making Ukraine the holder of the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal. What moved these three nations to disgorge their nuclear capital, and what are the implications for North Korea? In South Africa's case, the withdrawal of Soviet and Cuban forces lifted the bomb's raison d'être. Botha's successor, F.W. de Klerk, viewed nuclear weapons elimination as one requirement to end the country's international isolation. For Libya, such isolation, following the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, posed an increasing strategic burden. Oil revenue plummeted, leaving the economy in disarray. Tripoli, which had been a promoter of terrorism, found itself a target of the new breed of Islamic terrorism, which international assistance could help suppress. Then there was the threat of a preemptive U.S. strike, coupled with events in Iraq. Ending its program provided the lure to get the West to deal. Ukraine concluded that nuclear status would undermine national identity and security. It would tie Kiev to Moscow's atomic command-and-control system, keeping the newborn country within Russia's orbit. Maturation and upkeep would be a needless economic burden. A nuclear course also would jeopardize economic and political ties with the West. All three nations came to the conclusion that denuclearization would enhance security and prosperity. The roots of North Korea's program, coupled to the nature of the regime, promote a far different judgment in Pyongyang. Stirred by U.S. threats to use nuclear weapons to end the Korean War, Pyongyang's impulse to take the plunge gained traction during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. North Korea concluded that it would not suffer Cuba's fate — "abandonment" by its Soviet ally. Only juche — self reliance — would do. After getting a research reactor from Moscow in the 1960s, indigenous talent generated additional plants. For Kim Jong Il, nuclear weapons provide a means to preserve his fiefdom. They generate international tension that justifies the garrison state. They compensate for conventional military weaknesses, providing a hedge against perceived U.S. military designs. They furnish leverage to extract international humanitarian assistance and economic investment from a nervous South Korea. And they provide an economically failing regime a marquee to demonstrate strength, resolve and modernity. Unlike Libya, South Africa and Ukraine, North Korea has not arrived at the point necessary for abandoning its nuclear ways: a willingness to reduce self-imposed political isolation. Rather, it continues to view isolation and its nuclear buttress as the key to regime preservation. This is a fact we likely will have to live with, talks or no talks. BENNETT RAMBERG served in the State Department's Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. E-mail: Bennettramberg@aol.com ---- N Korea to rejoin talks on nuclear program by Simon Martin Wed Nov 1, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061101/wl_asia_afp/nkoreanuclearweapons_061101193644 SEOUL - North Korea confirmed it would return to six-nation nuclear disarmament talks after a year-long boycott, as the chief US envoy stressed that the world needed to see progress at the next round. The announcement came less than a month after the reclusive communist state stunned the world with its first atom bomb test. "The DPRK (North Korea) decided to return to the six-party talks on the premise that the issue of lifting financial sanctions will be discussed and settled between the DPRK and the US," the North Korean foreign ministry said. World leaders welcomed North Korea's decision to rejoin the talks, which it had boycotted since November 2005 in protest at US financial sanctions, but the breakthrough was also greeted with some skepticism. Christopher Hill, the lead US representative to the talks, said in Beijing he had told North Korean envoy Kim Kye-Gwan that Washington was willing to consider the matter. "I said we would be prepared to create a mechanism or working group and to address these financial issues," he said. He stressed that it was too soon to celebrate and warned further stalling from Pyongyang would not be acceptable. "We must achieve progress in these (next) sessions," he told reporters at Beijing's international airport, adding it "will be very difficult and we have a long way to go." The six-way talks, which began in 2003, bring together North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States. North Korea agreed in September 2005 to scrap its nuclear programs in exchange for energy and security guarantees, but later quit talks in protest at US sanctions aimed at barring it from the international banking system. Pyongyang angered the international community in July when it test-fired seven missiles, a move that prompted weapons-related UN sanctions. Last month's underground nuclear test earned the North further global censure and led the UN Security Council to slap another round of financial, trade and military sanctions on Pyongyang. US President George W. Bush led international praise of this week's diplomatic breakthrough, saying he was "very pleased with the progress made." North Korea's Asian neighbours, while welcoming the news, were more circumspect. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Japan would keep up its tough sanctions against North Korea -- which include a ban on all imports from the country. "Japan imposed sanctions because (North Korea) has not made a sincere response to the issue of its missile launch, nuclear test and abductions (of Japanese civilians)," Abe told reporters. South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun, under fire at home for his "sunshine" policy of engagement with the North, signalled he would pursue the policy by appointing close allies to handle foreign affairs and relations with Pyongyang. The new South Korean UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, in Russia for talks with President Vladimir Putin, called on North Korea to let UN nuclear inspectors back into the country and halt activities linked to weapons tests. He also said the United States and Japan must prepare for the "normalization of relations with North Korea" if Pyongyang meets these demands. The European Union also hailed North Korea's decision. A statement by the Finnish presidency of the bloc stressed its backing for peaceful efforts to resolve "security issues" with North Korea. Officials in Seoul said the talks on ending the North's nuclear programs would likely resume after a series of bilateral meetings among the key players on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific summit in Vietnam on November 18-19. -------- pakistan Pakistan urges criteria-based sharing of civilian N-tech 'IAEA's safeguards should not be used to serve partisan political objectives' November 1, 2006 Pakistan News International http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=30165 UNITED NATIONS: Pakistan has urged the international community to adopt a non-discriminatory and criteria-based approach in extending civil nuclear technology and cooperation to developing countries to enable them meet their growing energy needs. Speaking in the General Assembly on the annual report of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Pakistan's Acting Permanent Representative to the UN, Farukh Amil, underscored the "crucial" role of nuclear energy for the socio-economic development needs of the developing countries. Pakistan's economy was growing remarkably fast and, as a country with a population of some 150 million people and limited fossil fuel resources, the government considered nuclear power generation an indispensable element of its national energy security strategy, he said. The government had launched a 25-year energy security plan to respond to the high growth rate and rising demand for energy. "As we seek to operationalise our 'Energy Security Plan', we envisage the import of nuclear plants and other relevant civilian nuclear technology". Farukh Amil said Pakistan accorded the highest importance to the safety and security of its nuclear installations, particularly as it expanded its nuclear capacities. Among other things, it had strengthened security around its installations to avoid any possibility of sabotage, illicit acquisition or trafficking of nuclear material. The Pakistan representative said he agreed with the IAEA's assessment that the global need for energy was growing, in large part because of rising oil and natural gas prices. Pakistan also agreed with the Agency's identification of emerging and future trends, concerning, among others, environmental constraints on the use of fossil fuels, energy supply security and expansion plans for nuclear power. With that in mind, the role of nuclear energy would be crucial, particularly for developing countries. Amil said that Pakistan had long been a strong promoter of efforts to harness nuclear technology for peace, progress and prosperity for all. Towards that goal, Pakistan had established several training centres, including a full-fledged university for nuclear science and engineering, to help meet both its needs for technical manpower, as well as technical training requirements of other countries. Pakistan had also developed the entire range of nuclear fuel cycle facilities and now had two nuclear power plants in operation, with a third under construction, he said. Further, Pakistan had established four nuclear agricultural research centres which were being used to help farmers grow and harvest larger and better quality crops throughout the country. Pakistan also had 13 nuclear medicine and oncology centres, providing diagnostic and treatment facilities to several hundred thousand patients each year. The Pakistan representative stressed full compliance by all states with their respective safeguards obligations. But, he said, the Agency's safeguards should not be used to serve partisan political objectives. Finally, he acknowledged that the old consensus on disarmament and non-proliferation had broken down. He reiterated Pakistan's proposal to convene a special conference to set out a new consensus, which responded to current and emerging realities. Such a new consensus should eliminate the discrimination and double standards that characterised the present non-proliferation arrangements. Meanwhile, stating that the United Nations system of recruitment and selection was "flawed", Pakistan has called for the adequate representation of developing countries at the senior management and professional levels of the organization's service. "The continuous under representation of developing countries, especially Islamic countries, especially at the under-secretary-general and assistant secretary-general levels, including women, have been a major disappointment," Pakistan's delegate Imtiaz Hussain told the General Assembly's budget committee on Monday. Speaking in a debate on Human Resources Management Reforms, he also pointed out that the number of underrepresented and unrepresented countries had increased over the last one year. Imtiaz Hussain proposed that the General Assembly create a balance in the representation of developed and developing countries at the under-secretary-general and assistant secretary-general level positions and rotate them between the developed and developing countries, especially in important departments. -------- russia Russia says won't back draft text on Iran sanctions By Dmitry Solovyov Wed Nov 1, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061101/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_2 MOSCOW - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday Moscow would not support a draft U.N. sanctions resolution on Iran proposed by European states, Russian news agencies reported. Lavrov's comments, the bluntest so far from Russia regarding the proposed text, underscored the difficulties major world powers are experiencing as they try to agree on a response to Iran's defiance of U.N. calls to scale back its atomic work. Iran, which says its nuclear intentions are peaceful, has vowed not to be cowed by the threat of U.N. action. A senior official warned on Wednesday Tehran may further scale back co-operation with U.N. inspectors if any sanctions are imposed. The draft resolution drawn up for U.N. Security Council discussion by European states would outlaw most nuclear and missile cooperation with Iran and impose a travel ban on people responsible for and involved in its nuclear program. "We cannot support those measures which in fact aim to isolate Iran from the outside world, including the isolation of the people who are charged with leading negotiations on the nuclear program," news agencies quoted Lavrov as saying. The resolution was drafted after Iran rejected repeated U.N. demands to scrap uranium enrichment, which can be used to make material for power stations or warheads. Washington had hoped to toughen up the resolution, with a senior U.S. official on Tuesday describing it as a more serious security threat than North Korea. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he was optimistic Russia would support a U.N. sanctions resolution. "While there are still negotiations that will need to be had concerning the contents of the resolution, the process is moving forward and we hope that it will move forward with some speed," he said. UNDERSTANDABLE Asked specifically about Lavrov's comments that Moscow would not support the current draft resolution, he said: "All that means to me is that they have some changes to the draft on the table. Certainly that is understandable." Lavrov said Russia, one of five permanent U.N. Security Council members with veto powers, was "firmly determined" to help establish a dialogue with Iran on its nuclear program. "We are working on the text of a resolution on Iran and we will try to focus it on the issues highlighted in the report by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)," Lavrov said. Lavrov said the issues that had yet to be clarified included "first and foremost, the uranium enrichment program, chemical processing and a heavy-water reactor." "These are the issues we will concentrate on," he said. In Tehran, Hassan Rohani, a moderate politician who led Iran's nuclear negotiations until President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office last year, warned on Wednesday of consequences if the European text was approved. "Iran will give a proper answer if they pass such a tough and bad resolution," the students news agency ISNA quoted Rohani as saying. "One of the possible answers could be limiting our cooperation with the IAEA," said Rohani, a representative of Iran's most powerful figure, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on the Supreme National Security Council. Iran ended short-notice checks by IAEA inspectors in February after its case was sent back to the Security Council. (Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Tehran and Sue Pleming in Washington) -------- treaties The Growing Nuclear Fuel-Cycle Debate Oliver Meier reporting from Vienna November 2006 Arms Control Association http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_11/NAFuel.asp?print A series of nuclear-related crises and a growing interest by several countries in nuclear energy production has revived interest in ways to prevent the spread of nuclear technologies that can be easily misused for the production of nuclear weapons materials. Since the dawn of the nuclear age, governments have cast about for ways to manage the dual-use nature of nuclear technology. In the 1970s and 1980s, several proposals were discussed for creating an international framework to govern uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing, but none were implemented. However, these concerns have taken on a new life as fears have grown that Iran may misuse its nuclear fuel-cycle facilities to produce nuclear weapons materials and after Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan’s clandestine nuclear black market network was unmasked. Against this background, countries such as Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and nongovernmental organizations such as the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) and the World Nuclear Association (WNA) are offering novel suggestions on how to rein in this dual-use technology. Although they have yet to agree on a plan, a late September IAEA General Conference and Special Event on the subject indicated growing convergence about the way forward. Most proposals take a cue from IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei and offer various means to establish multilateral control over the nuclear fuel cycle. The Consensus First, the proposals generally agree that any fuel-supply mechanism should not disturb the international market for nuclear fuel services. Currently, four large commercial entities provide low-enriched uranium (LEU) for nuclear power: Urenco, managed jointly by Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom; Eurodif, a multinational company headquartered in France; the United States Enrichment Corporation; and Tenex, based in Russia. Together, these providers currently produce enough LEU to satisfy global demand. LEU can be manufactured into fuel for light-water reactors, by far the most common type of reactor in use globally. Many of the proposals seek to ensure the market neutrality of a future supply mechanism by designing it as a “reserve” that would be tapped only if supply is interrupted. Second, advocates concur that the establishment of multilateral fuel-cycle arrangements should be implemented step by step. The front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, that is, the supply of nuclear fuel and in particular LEU for power production, is seen as the most urgent issue to be addressed. How to deal with the back end—nuclear waste and reprocessing of spent fuel—should be addressed at a later stage. Third, there seems to be broad agreement that having a diverse set of complementary “fuel reserves” may be better than relying on a single source of supply. Fourth, setting up stockpiles of LEU is seen as more practical than establishing stockpiles of fabricated nuclear fuel. Fuel assemblies are manufactured to the specifications of every reactor type and sometimes specifically for each reactor, making a fuel bank containing nuclear fuel for all possible recipients impractical. Beyond these shared characteristics, a variety of unique proposals have been advanced. Global Visions: U.S. and Russian Proposals The United States and Russia have offered the most far-reaching visions for a global supply mechanism. Both have offered to provide a range of nuclear energy services ranging from fuel supply to fuel take-back and reprocessing. Under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), launched in January by the United States, countries that renounce fuel-cycle activities would become eligible to receive U.S. nuclear fuel. Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis R. Spurgeon explained Sept. 19 at the IAEA special event that “the purpose of GNEP is to facilitate the safe, secure, and economic expansion of nuclear energy.” It intends to accomplish this by developing and providing novel, proliferation-resistant nuclear technologies as well as fresh fuel and spent-fuel management, with a particular focus on developing countries. Spurgeon also provided additional details about a separate U.S. offer to down-blend 17.4 tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU) removed from the U.S. defense program and set the resulting LEU aside in a domestically held reserve, a proposal first announced a year ago. Such a stock, equivalent to six to eight core refuelings of an average light-water reactor, could complement reserves established under control of the IAEA, Spurgeon said. Gregory Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, said in a Sept. 20 interview with Arms Control Today that the United States is not willing to consider making this material part of an international stockpile because U.S. law requires national control over such material. Schulte conceded that, “for some countries, that will provide reassurance, but for others, perhaps it won’t.” Russian President Vladimir Putin on Jan. 25 announced the Global Nuclear Power Infrastructure (GNPI) to provide nuclear power services through a network of international nuclear fuel-cycle centers (INFCC). In an article in the September 2006 issue of the IAEA Bulletin, S. V. Ruchkin and Vladimir Loginov of Tenex said that GNPI-INFCC “is aimed primarily at countries who are developing nuclear power but not planning to establish indigenous uranium-enrichment and [spent nuclear fuel] reprocessing capabilities.” Access would be restricted to countries “meeting established non-proliferation requirements.” Russia, which apparently has huge surplus uranium-enrichment capacities, boasts that its proposal can be implemented quickly. In a presentation at the IAEA event, Ruchkin emphasized that “key preconditions” for setting up an international enrichment facility “are supposed to be provided by the end of the year.” An international uranium-enrichment center will be established at the Angarsk Electrolysis Chemical Complex, in the city of Angarsk in east Siberia, and could start operating in 2007, he said. As with GNEP, Russian officials also hope that the centers eventually house reactors with a new proliferation-resistant means of burning some of the elements in spent fuel for additional energy, according to other Russian experts. Although no decision has been made on the exact legal basis for such a center, membership in the consortium would clearly guarantee access to its services and products but not the technology itself. The center itself would be run by Russia. The Six-Parties Proposal In June, the six states that operate the largest, commercial enrichment facilities presented a joint Concept for a Multilateral Mechanism for Reliable Access to Nuclear Fuel (RANF). France, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States proposed to establish a “last resort safety net” to address potential supply problems. The initiative is vague on specifics but offers a “multi-tiered set of measures” to establish both basic assurances as well as a reserve of enriched uranium that could serve as a backup mechanism in case supplies were interrupted for nontechnical and noncommercial reasons. The IAEA would play the role of an arbiter and also be responsible for making technical judgments about the eligibility of access to the mechanism. The proposal has become a kind of umbrella under which more specific fuel-bank ideas have been advanced. Limited Proposals In May 2006, the WNA, a private-sector alliance of major nuclear power enterprises, issued an expert group report that recommended a layered approach to enrichment fuel services. At first, interruptions of supply would be addressed through normal market procedures. If these mechanisms fail and if the IAEA finds that an enrichment contract has been breached for bilateral political reasons unrelated to nonproliferation, it would intervene and invoke collective guarantees by enrichers and thus assure the supply of nuclear fuel from other sources. Should it still be impossible to solve the supply problem, nationally held stocks of enriched uranium product, such as that proposed by the United States, could be used to fill any possible gap. In order to be market neutral, such material could be produced by down-blending HEU stocks from former military stocks. The most novel offer under discussion in Vienna was the announcement by the privately funded NTI to donate $50 million, provided by NTI adviser and U.S. billionaire Warren Buffet, to create an LEU stockpile owned and managed by the IAEA. NTI would donate the money under two conditions: that within two years, one or several IAEA member states contribute an additional $100 million, and that the agency take “the necessary actions to approve establishment of this reserve,” former Senator and NTI Co-Chairman Sam Nunn said Sept. 19. “Every other element of the arrangement,” Nunn emphasized, “would be up to the IAEA and its member states to decide.” Still, Laura Holgate, vice president for the Russia/New Independent States Programs at NTI, offered some ideas “in order to advance the discussion of an IAEA fuel reserve.” According to Holgate, NTI believes that such a reserve should be in the form of uranium hexaflouride enriched to a level of 4.9 percent, which is a typical enrichment level for reactor fuel. The initial $150 million would be sufficient to purchase 50-60 metric tons of such materials, the equivalent of one loading of a standard power reactor. “In order to be seen as a true backup to an extant commercial fuel service contract,” the stockpile would have to be physically placed outside the current six supplier states, Holgate argued. NTI President Charles Curtis, who chaired the IAEA special event, emphasized in a Sept. 28 interview with Arms Control Today that NTI wanted to shift the discussion from setting conditions to providing assurances for states to dissuade countries from investing in domestic fuel-cycle capabilities. “You’re not going to have states trading away their rights to technology,” Curtis stated. On Sept. 12, Japan proposed an IAEA Standby Arrangements System for the Assurance of Nuclear Fuel Supply. The proposal is supposed to complement the six-party proposal in two ways. First, Japan’s proposal suggests addressing all front-end nuclear fuel-cycle activities, from uranium mining to fuel fabrication. Secondly, Japan suggests establishing an early warning mechanism operated by the IAEA. The agency would collect and analyze declarations of all participating supplier states and, based on those reports, alert member states of imminent market failures. In a different take on the idea of fuel-supply assurances, the United Kingdom suggested issuing ”enrichment bonds” as a means of guaranteeing enrichment services. These bonds would be legal arrangements between the supplier state and company, the recipient state and the IAEA that “would guarantee that, subject to compliance with international law and to meeting the nonproliferation commitments to be assessed by the IAEA, national enrichment providers will not be prevented from supplying the recipient state with enrichment services in the event the guarantee is invoked.” The thrust of the proposal is to increase the confidence that export approvals will be given by placing the final judgment on the export of LEU in the hands of the IAEA and that other issues or political considerations will not stand in the way of nuclear trade. According to notes on its policy that British officials distributed for the special IAEA meeting, such an approach would “significantly limit the criteria upon which export approvals are normally based (to include only nonproliferation considerations)” but argues that “governments must ultimately be prepared to relinquish some rights in exchange for a broader nonproliferation gain.” Germany also joined the debate with a late and ambitious proposal. In a Sept. 18 interview with the German daily Handelsblatt, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, noting that the IAEA statute provided for the agency to build and operate its own nuclear facilities, proposed to place “multilateral uranium enrichment under the auspices of the IAEA and its export controls.” Steinmeier suggested that a third country could provide an exterritorial area for a uranium-enrichment plant. The facility would be financed by recipient countries that would then have the right to acquire nuclear fuel. In a Sept. 19 press conference in Vienna, German Secretary of State of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology Joachim Würmeling placed the German proposal in the context of a midterm solution to the concerns about Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear programs. Würmeling explained that companies from established nuclear enrichment countries would construct the new facility, which would operate as a “black box.” Fuel recipients that currently do not enrich domestically would have no direct access to the facility. The German proposal is not market neutral because it would de facto establish a new competitor on the world market for nuclear fuel services. Würmeling announced that Berlin would forward its initiative during the first half of 2007, when Germany holds both the EU Presidency and the Group of Eight chair. In a statement to the German Parliament on Oct. 19, Steinmeier described international reactions to his proposal as “encouraging.” Mixed Reactions Many speakers, including ElBaradei, emphasized that assurance of supply mechanisms are “not an attempt to divide the nuclear community into suppliers and recipients.” However, it was notable that all proposals to establish fuel reserves or other supply mechanisms emerged from current or potential nuclear fuel suppliers. Many potential recipients, mostly from developing countries, remained either indifferent or voiced fears that a new “cartel” might be created. Many of them based their positions on the “inalienable right” of nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty states-parties to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Iranian Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh in his statement to the general conference echoed these sentiments by warning “that the developed countries are seeing to create a monopoly” on uranium enrichment. Malaysia was less critical. In a Sept. 20 statement to the IAEA general conference, Daud Mohamad, director-general of the Malaysian Institute for Nuclear Technology Research, cautioned that a multilateral approach to the nuclear fuel cycle should not be discriminatory. Nonetheless, he said that that it “should provide a more economically attractive option for developing countries embarking on a nuclear power generation program, particularly those countries with a relatively small nuclear program involving only a handful of nuclear power plants.” Malaysia currently does not operate nuclear power reactors but is studying the possibility of doing so. All proponents of a fuel-bank mechanism emphasize that participation in a multilateral mechanism should be voluntary although eligibility of access might depend on various conditions, such as first renouncing enrichment and reprocessing ambitions. It is not clear how such voluntary mechanisms would jibe with technology denial approaches, such as the one favored by the United States. The most recent round of the fuel-cycle debate was kicked off in February 2004, when President George W. Bush proposed an international agreement among nuclear supplier states to deny exports of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to countries that do not currently operate such facilities. Schulte confirmed this policy remains in place as far as the United States is concerned. “We still think that it is very important to prevent the further spread of enrichment technologies,” he said. Some argued that attempts to restrict access to critical nuclear technologies has had unintended side effects. The recent interest of some states in expanding the scope of their nuclear activities has been explained by a desire to join the club of states operating a nuclear fuel cycle before membership is closed. Schulte acknowledged the debate but denied a causal link between U.S. export control policies and the recent expression of interest by Argentina, Australia, South Africa, and South Korea in establishing fuel-cycle facilities. “I don’t buy that argument. I’ve spoken to representatives of all those countries, and these decisions have been in many cases in the works for a number of years,” he stated. The debate was further complicated by the unclear division between suppliers and recipients. For example, Japan currently enriches uranium only for domestic purposes but intends to export nuclear fuel in the future. It said it rejects the “dichotomy” inherent in the RANF proposal, which differentiates between suppliers and customer of nuclear services. Tokyo’s proposal for a standby arrangement is explicitly intended to bridge that gap. Canada and Australia currently export uranium ore and provide other fuel services but may not want to foreclose the possibility of enriching uranium in the future. South Africa said that “some might choose to pursue sensitive fuel cycle activities in a limited way or only for research activities.” Brazil presented itself in Vienna as a supplier rather than as a recipient of nuclear fuel services. There was also a notion that the discussion about fuel-supply arrangements is a solution looking for a problem. Historically, the “breakout” option has not played a large role in proliferation. States that developed nuclear weapons illegally or in a clandestine manner have preferred to set up dedicated military facilities to produce fissile material for the bomb instead of misusing civil facilities for that purpose. Because the international market provides for reliable access to nuclear fuel from a variety of sources, it is also not quite clear what the added economic value of participating in a fuel-bank proposal is. Existing arrangements already provide certain assurances of supply because standard supply contracts for reactor-grade fuel contain clauses that place the responsibility for uninterrupted services on the supplier. Historically, supplies have rarely been interrupted. In addition, any fuel-bank mechanism would have to overcome legal obstacles, including the practice of supplier states to maintain consent rights over any fissile material they deliver. The Way Forward Any multilateral fuel-supply assurance mechanism would have to overcome a variety of political, legal, and technical obstacles, but several speakers felt that discussions on such a model are already more specific and advanced than ever before. Richard J. K. Stratford, director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety and Security at the U.S. Department of State, pointed out that “today there are numerous suppliers who are willing to take specific steps, and to spend their own money, to implement fuel supply assurances, and for many of the same reasons as in the 1980s.” ElBaradei in his statement to the IAEA special event said that “the urgent need for such a scheme today may help us to succeed.” He warned that “[w]e will all share in the benefits if we succeed, and we will share the risks if we fail.” In the coming months, the IAEA secretariat will be preparing a “road map” for consideration by the IAEA Board of Governors in 2007. ElBaradei in his opening statement and Curtis in his chairman’s report agreed that establishment of a mechanism to ensure the supply of nuclear fuel should be considered first, starting with those proposals that are easiest to implement. Real “internationalization” of the fuel cycle, including the possible multilateralization of fuel-cycle facilities, is envisaged only in the long term, they said. IAEA spokesperson Peter Rickwood told Arms Control Today on Oct. 20 that no decisions had been made on when the secretariat would deliver such a report or what its format might be. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- connecticut DEP, Utility Talk About Preservation Of Connecticut Yankee Site Hartford Courant By GARY LIBOW November 01, 2006 http://www.topix.net/content/trb/0581589837080701007929685479272673665129 DEP has had preliminary discussions with Connecticut Yankee about this property The state Department of Environmental Protection has discussed obtaining hundreds of acres of land from the owners of the decommissioned Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant. DEP officials reportedly hope to preserve the 550-plus Haddam Neck acres, primarily forest, for open space and recreational uses. 'DEP has had preliminary discussions with Connecticut Yankee about this property,' DEP spokesman Dennis Schain confirmed Tuesday. 'It is a sizable tract, there is frontage along the Connecticut River and it has historical value as the location of the Venture Smith home,' Schain said. 'We would certainly want to have an opportunity to consider obtaining it after decommissioning of the plant and decontamination of the property are complete.' Transfer of a former nuclear power plant site is a 'complex and lengthy process' that could take years, Connecticut Yankee spokeswoman Kelley Smith said. 'The DEP expressed an interest last year and the company has met with the DEP to discuss its interest, but this discussion was exploratory in nature and no decisions have been made about the dispositions of' the property, Smith said. Connecticut Yankee representatives have accompanied DEP officials on a tour of the land. 'We have an obligation to demonstrate value to electric ratepayers who fund decommissioning,' Smith said. 'Since we have quite a bit of property, there are multiple paths of disposition which we will consider, including a combination of sale and donation.' Connecticut Yankee ceased producing electricity in 1996 after having produced 110 billion kilowatt-hours over 28 years. Utility officials expect that the physical decommissioning and removal of demolition debris will be complete by the end of this year, Smith said. After final radiological surveys are conducted to make sure any tainted land or water has been decontaminated, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission will review the data, Smith said. As part of any deal, Smith said, Connecticut Yankee will retain ownership and supervision of the 30 acres housing the dry cask storage facility, where 1,000 spent nuclear fuel rods are stored. It could be decades until the federal government removes that material. First Selectman Tony Bondi is pleased the DEP is interested in the land. 'My understanding is DEP would play the role of guardian of the property, so that it remains in its natural state,' Bondi said. 'I consider them welcome neighbors.' Contact Gary Libow at glibow@courant.com. -------- idaho INL to build hydrogen-producing nuclear reactor 01-November-2006 Greg Moore-Idaho Mountain Express http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage6339.html The Idaho National Laboratory has long-term plans to build a nuclear reactor that would produce hydrogen for use in fuel cells to power motor vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cells have been widely advocated as an alternative to petroleum to power cars and trucks, and thereby wean the nation from its oil dependence. However, such efforts face a technological obstacle in the production of a sufficient quantity of hydrogen. The U.S. Department of Energy has proposed the Very High Temperature Reactor as one answer to that challenge. Last month, the DOE announced awards of $8 million to three private companies to do initial engineering studies on the new design. Construction is scheduled to begin at INL, a DOE-managed facility near Arco, in 2016 and to be completed by 2021. In addition to producing hydrogen, the reactor is expected to generate commercial quantities of electricity and to recycle radioactive fuel, reducing the amount of nuclear waste compared to that produced by current reactors. The Very High Temperature Reactor would inaugurate a "fourth generation" of nuclear plants. Nuclear engineers describe prototype plants built in the 1950s and 1960s as the first generation of nuclear reactors, and the commercial reactors built primarily in the 1970s, and still operating, as the second generation. Generation III plants are under construction today, primarily in Asia, and are expected to be operating until about 2030. Construction of a hydrogen-producing reactor was directed by the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, and is part of the Bush administration's national energy policy, which calls for greater use of nuclear power and hydrogen. The reactor would operate at up to 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit—three times as hot as current reactors--and be cooled by helium gas rather than by water. The higher temperature would allow for the production of hydrogen, and the DOE claims that gas cooling is safer than water cooling. The DOE has estimated the cost of the initial plant to be $2.4 billion. The first of eight planned experiments to irradiate fuel and test how well it performs is scheduled to get underway in 2007. In a report issued last month, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated that "initial results are favorable, but DOE officials consider the (construction) schedule to be challenging, given the amount of R&D work that remains to be conducted." The GAO added that even that challenging pace may be too slow for the power industry, given that other advanced reactors may be available sooner. The other designs would not produce hydrogen, though, so the government would like its proposed design to become the standard. During a hearing on the project before a congressional subcommittee on Sept. 20, a DOE representative said that the department expects INL to become "the pre-eminent, internationally recognized nuclear energy research, development and demonstration laboratory" over the next 10 years. -------- massachusetts Appeal filed in Pilgrim relicensing: Reilly, advocacy group fight judges’ decision By JULIE JETTE The Patriot Ledger Wednesday, November 01, 2006 http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2006/11/01/business/biz01.txt PLYMOUTH - Attorney General Thomas Reilly and a citizens’ group that critiques the Pilgrim nuclear power plant have stepped up efforts to press for greater oversight of the plant’s nuclear waste storage. Entergy Corp., the New Orleans-based company that owns Pilgrim, is seeking to extend the plant’s life from 2012, when its license to operate currently expires, to 2032. Reilly’s office and Duxbury-based Pilgrim Watch are pressing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to require Entergy to examine the possible results of an accident in the plant’s spent-fuel pool as part of its application for a license extension. Both Pilgrim Watch and Reilly’s office filed appeals yesterday of a decision by a panel of administrative judges who rejected their request to force Entergy to address their spent-fuel pool concerns in its relicensing application. Waste storage is an issue for nuclear plants because all were built assuming that the federal government would build a permanent, centralized waste storage site. The planned building of a storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been delayed for years. Pilgrim currently stores its spent fuel in a pool inside the building that holds its reactor. That pool will be full by 2012, the year in which the plant’s license expires, and Entergy will have to come up with another storage plan if the plant continues to operate. But the relicensing process doesn’t specifically consider waste-storage issues. Pilgrim spokesman David Tarantino said regulators have repeatedly rejected attempts to bring spent-fuel concerns into the relicensing process. He said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has other opportunities for the public to raise concerns about waste storage. ‘‘It seems to me there are avenues available to them, so I don’t understand why they don’t take advantage of those other avenues,’’ Tarantino said of Reilly and Pilgrim Watch. The relicensing process requires plant operators to examine nonmoving parts of plants that could be affected by aging, as well as the environmental impact of running the plants for an additional 20 years. Molly Bartlett, a lawyer who is pressing Pilgrim Watch’s case on a voluntary basis, said the group believes the fact that the fuel is being stored in the pool for longer than intended - and at a higher density than expected - means Entergy should include discussion of the environmental impact of a potential fire in the pool as part of its environmental analysis. ‘‘We think that warrants a new look into the safety of these spent-fuel pools,’’ she said. Reilly’s office is trying to attack the issue on two fronts - by appealing the rejection of its contention by the panel of judges, and by asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to change its rules for the relicensing process to require a look at spent-fuel storage. ‘‘Attorney General Reilly believes that federal environmental law requires the NRC to address concerns about reactor fuel storage risk,’’ said Reilly spokeswoman Beth Stone. Reilly’s request to change the relicensing rules could take years, a spokeswoman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said. ‘‘It’s reviewed as expeditiously as possible, but it’s not a quick process,’’ said the spokeswoman, Diane Screnci. Julie Jette may be reached at jjette@ledger.com . -------- north dakota Siren test fails for Shearon Harris nuclear plant John Murawski, Staff Writer Charlotte News Observer Nov 01, 2006 http://www.newsobserver.com/104/story/504909.html All 81 emergency sirens within a 10-mile radius of the Shearon Harris nuclear plant were inoperable Monday morning and again Tuesday morning, according to Progress Energy, the plant's operator. The simultaneous failure of all sirens within the nuclear facility's emergency planning zone was a first in the 19-year-history of the plant in southwestern Wake County. The siren system at Shearon Harris is tested every 12 hours by a computer. The tests indicated that the device that signals all the sirens, called a "repeater," had failed to activate Monday and Tuesday, Progress Energy said in a notice to federal regulators. Progress Energy officials are repairing the malfunction. Plant operators can manually override the device to activate the sirens during an emergency. The malfunction comes while nuclear critics are intensifying scrutiny of nuclear plant safety as electric utilities planthe nation's first new nuclear reactors in three decades. "It's a key part of their safety and public protection system," said nuclear critic Jim Warren, director of Durham-based N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network. Progress Energy notified emergency preparedness officials in the four counties within the 10-mile emergency planning zone surrounding the Shearon Harris plant. The zone covers parts of Wake, Chatham, Harnett and Lee counties, and includes Jordan Lake as well as the towns of Apex, Holly Springs, Fuquay-Varina, Moncure and New Hill. In addition to the daily testing of the siren communications system, which does not sound the alarm, the sirens undergo a low-volume test every three months and a full-volume test once a year. Staff writer John Murawski can be reached at (919) 829-8932 or murawski@newsobserver.com. -------- ohio Environmental cleanup of uranium production plant complete 2006-11-01 Jobwerx http://www.jobwerx.com/news/flr_environmental_biz-id=948654_044.html Fluor advises the United States Department of Energy that environmental cleanup and restoration of the former Fernald uranium production plant is complete. The contractor responsible for the environmental cleanup and restoration of the 1,050-acre former Fernald uranium production plant, Fluor Fernald, presented the United States Department of Energy (DOE) with its declaration of physical completion on October 29, 2006. The DOE owns the site, which played a critical role in the U.S. nuclear weapons program, and is now reviewing the submittal to validate the reasonableness of Fluor Corporation's, that provides services on a global basis in the fields of engineering, procurement, construction, operations, maintenance and project management, Fluor Fernald's declaration. Find Information and Suppliers of environmental cleanup. The massive environmental cleanup was carried out in accordance with Records of Decision developed by U.S. and Ohio EPA, DOE and local communities. The Records of Decision are legally binding agreements that directed site cleanup and established final remediation standards for each part of the project. Fluor - Fernald Closure Project Cincinnati, OH. photo: Fluor Contamination from the Fernald uranium foundry and machining operations first made national headlines in the mid-1980s. Local citizens were outraged by the extent of off-site contamination, which worked its way into drinking water wells. Initial plans to tackle the cleanup came with a steep price tag. A 1992 government report forecast a projected completion date in 2019 at a cost of $12.2 billion. The announced completion reduces some 12 years off that schedule with a final cleanup cost for activities performed under Fluor's scope of work totaling approximately $4.4 billion. Major components of the work performed by Fluor Fernald and its teaming subcontractors - Jacobs Engineering, Nuclear Fuel Services and EnergySolutions included: -- Maintaining an exceptional safety record over the life of the entire cleanup project; -- Removing, treating and shipping off-site radioactive waste from three large concrete silos, eliminating the largest source of radon gas in the world; -- Dismantling 323 buildings including 10 major uranium production complexes and administrative structures; -- Excavating and shipping 1 million tons of waste from six waste pits; -- Building an on-site disposal facility to hold 3 million cubic yards of low-level contaminated dirt and debris from facility demolition; -- Treating a 225-acre plume of uranium contamination in the underlying Great Miami Aquifer; -- Removing more than 100,000 drums of waste and 31 million pounds of uranium product from the site; and -- Designing, building, operating and dismantling more than $300 million in waste treatment and handling infrastructure. Fernald is one of the largest environmental restoration projects ever completed. However, its legacy may be DOE's and Fluor's success in healing fractured communications channels with local citizens, workers and regulators after decades of secrecy during the Cold War. DOE and Fluor Fernald worked closely with U.S. and Ohio EPAs, the Fernald Citizens Advisory Board, the Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety & Health (FRESH), local elected officials and plant neighbors to determine the extent of contamination, develop cleanup plans and carry them through to the end of the project. Reminders of the cleanup operations that will remain after closure include a water treatment plant to pump and treat remaining levels of uranium contamination in the Great Miami Aquifer until the drinking water standard is met, likely to take 10 years, and a 110-acre on-site disposal facility which securely holds building debris and contaminated soil in between thick liners and caps consisting of strong synthetic material, clays, heavy rock and clean soil. "I thought this day would never come," said Lisa Crawford, who has served as president of Fernald's primary watchdog group FRESH for 22 years and co-chaired of the Fernald Citizens Advisory Board. "We were all very upset about what plant operations did to our community. But we saw that DOE and Fluor were just as committed to fixing what had happened as we were. Over time we came to trust each other. We didn't always agree, but they opened the process to us, they listened and even followed our guidance when we proposed a better way. Fluor and DOE delivered on their promise of site closure. Together, we made a difference!" Ohio EPA Director Joe Koncelik agrees, "The progress made at Fernald would not have been possible without the effective partnership of informed citizens, a committed contractor and strong regulatory oversight." Following soil cleanup, environmental engineers developed nearly 400 acres of woodlots, 327 acres of prairie, more than 140 acres of open water and wetlands and 33 acres of savanna to restore the property to an undeveloped park with an emphasis on wildlife and education. In late 2007, the DOE Office of Legacy Management plans to open an education center near where Fernald's infamous silos once stood. The center will offer a place for visitors to learn about the history of the Fernald property from its first inhabitants all the way through environmental restoration and beyond. "Fernald is unique compared to other DOE cleanup sites because we had to design and build huge radioactive waste handling and processing facilities and greatly expand site infrastructure before clearing the way for plant demolition.," said Fluor Fernald Project Director Con Murphy. "Our workers achieved what many thought impossible, safely finishing the cleanup in 2006. This is a good day for the DOE, Fluor and our team, and a great day for the community and environment." ---- Wulsin and Cranley Speak Out Against Nuclear Waste Dump Posted by Editor under Wulsin Wed 1 Nov 2006 Ohio 2nd Blog http://blog.oh02.com/2006/11/01/wulsin-and-cranley-speak-out-against-nuclear-waste-dump/ From the Wulsin for Congress Campaign: Chabot-Schmidt proposals would fast-track nuclear dump in Ohio (Cincinnati, OH) – At an 11:00 AM press conference today at the Hamilton County Democratic Party Headquarters, Democratic congressional candidates John Cranley and Dr. Victoria Wulsin will challenge proposals offered by Republicans Steve Chabot and Jean Schmidt that threaten Ohio neighborhoods. The Republican initiatives when paired together, would give energy companies unprecedented leverage to ship radioactive materials on Ohio highways and locate nuclear waste facilities in the towns and communities of southern Ohio. WHO: Democratic Congressional Candidates John Cranley and Dr. Vic Wulsin WHAT: To Challenge Chabot-Schmidt Initiatives that Threaten Ohio Communties WHEN: 11:00 AM, Wednesday, November 1 WHERE: Hamilton County Democratic Party Headquarters 6109 Webbland Place Cincinnati Chabot introduced legislation recently that would take power away from local elected officials and zoning boards to make decisions about how their communities are developed, and put it in the hands of the federal courts. This sweet-heart deal for wealthy developers encourages lawsuits against local communities and discourages valuable community protections. The potential dangers of this type of radical legislation were crystallized on Monday when the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that Schmidt is supporting an effort to store nuclear waste shipments from around the world at the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in southern Ohio. Such a plan would not only bring nuclear waste to Portsmouth, but would put the radioactive material on roads, bridges and highways across Ohio threatening the health and safety of communities. With the broad leverage given by the Chabot bill to developers, this kind of radioactive dump could be put on the fast and easy track for placement in any town in Ohio. ---- USEC Inc. signs $200M contract The Chillicothe Gazette Staff November 1, 2006 http://www.chillicothegazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006611010307 BETHESDA, Md. - USEC Inc. has signed a contract valued at more than $200 million with PPL Susquehanna, LLC, to supply uranium enrichment for the company's Susquehanna nuclear power plant in Luzerne County, Pa. "This new contract builds on USEC's long-standing relationship with PPL and reflects our commitment to provide customers with a reliable, competitive source of enriched uranium fuel for years to come," said John M.A. Donelson, vice president of marketing and sales for USEC."This innovative market-based agreement is also a great example of utility support for both the Megatons to Megawatts program and USEC's transition to the next-generation American Centrifuge uranium enrichment plant to be built in Piketon, Ohio." The Megatons to Megawatts program is the result of the 1993 nonproliferation agreement between the United States and Russia to convert highly enriched uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads into low-enriched uranium fuel.As U.S. executive agent for this program, USEC purchases this fuel for its customers' nuclear power plants. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Mubarak's shopping list on Moscow visit includes weapons, nuclear help By Agence France Presse (AFP) Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Olga Nedbayeva http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=76533 MOSCOW: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak arrives here in Moscow Wednesday for a three-day visit, with arms sales and nuclear power on the agenda for a trip likely to raise some eyebrows in the United States. "The upcoming visit is very important because Russia today plays an important role in the international arena," Egyptian ambassador to Russia Izzat Saad said on the eve of the visit. The ambassador said the questions of international security and Russian-Egyptian cooperation in civil nuclear power would be on the agenda when Mubarak meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Egyptian president "understands that you can't put all your eggs in one basket," analyst Vadim Kozyulin of the PIR Center think tank said, referring to Cairo's close relationship with Washington. Russia's interest is driven by "the hazy nature of Cairo's relations with the United States, which can exact a high price for the tyranny of ex-allies" such as Uzbekistan, which Washington dropped after Tashkent's bloody suppression of an uprising in Andijan in May 2005, Kozyulin said. Egypt's willingness to buy weapons from Russia rather than its traditional US suppliers has "surprised" Moscow, said Ruslan Pukhov, a weapons specialist at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies. Pukhov said Egypt may buy Mig-AT and Mig-29 fighters during the trip. Mubarak, who undertook military studies in Moscow in the 1960s, praised Russian anti-aircraft systems and fighter planes as "the best in the world" in a long interview this week with Russian daily Vremya Novostei. "The arms market is extremely politicized. It is very important who you buy from," Pukhov said. Cairo's apparent openness to considering purchase of Russian weaponry "shows that Russia's geopolitical weight has grown," he said. As for nuclear power, another touchy subject for Washington, Mubarak told Vremya Novostei that Egypt's revival of its civil nuclear program after a 20-year pause "does not take into account the position of one country or another." "The United States has its interests, Russia has its interests, and we have our own," he said. At the end of the 1970s, Egypt had wanted to build eight nuclear thermal power stations to produce electricity, but none was built. Its program fell cold following the nuclear disaster at Ukraine's Chernobyl power station in 1986. The situation in the Middle East will also loom large during this week's talks. "Mubarak will inform Putin of the position of the moderate leaders of the Arab world who are anxious about Hizbullah's rise to power in Lebanon with Iran's support, as well as Tehran's nuclear ambitions," said Alexander Shumilin, director of the Center for Middle East Conflict Analysis. Russian-Egyptian relations are based partly on the rapport of the leaders, who met in Moscow in 2004 and Cairo last year. "In the Arab countries they love strong leaders. Mubarak likes Putin," the PIR Center's Kozyulin said. Mubarak told the Russian press that he would advise Putin to remain in power when his second and last presidential mandate ended in 2008. -------- iraq Iraqi PM hands Sadr victory over US blockade AFP November 1, 2006 http://sg.news.yahoo.com/061031/1/44gbm.html Iraqi Shiite militants have won a major political victory when Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki ordered US and Iraqi units to lift a blockade around the flashpoint Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. American commanders believe Shiite gunmen may be holding a kidnapped US soldier in the east Baghdad slum and since last week their troops have been maintaining a cordon of checkpoints and roadblocks around the area. Iraqi and US forces have also launched raids inside the district, most recently on Tuesday morning, when they arrested three suspects. But US forces began lifting the blockade shortly before Maliki's 5.00 pm deadline, triggering a triumphant response from local youths who waved banners from racing trucks and mopeds in an impromptu victory rally. "I know that the checkpoints down Canal Street have been removed and that this is opening up, but the other specifics of what the forces are doing right now I can't comment on," said US spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Chris Garver. Canal Street runs along the entire southern flank of Sadr City, a Shiite district home to 2.5 million people, which has effectively been sealed off by US and Iraqi forces since the middle of last week. Anger at traffic jams and lost business had been growing inside Sadr City. On Tuesday militants loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered a general strike, shutting down shops, offices and schools. "Your patience and unity brought victory," rejoiced a statement from Sadr's office to the people of Sadr City after the checkpoints started coming down. The Shiite prime minister, who owes his job to the votes of pro-Sadr lawmakers, responded to the protest by ordering the US blockade lifted. "The prime minister, in his capacity as commander in chief of the armed forces, has decided to lift the blockade of the access roads to Sadr City and other areas of Baghdad," a statement from Maliki's office said. Maliki said the checkpoints should be lifted by 5:00 pm (1400 GMT), but added that it could be reimposed after dark during Baghdad's nightly curfew. Rescuing missing soldiers is a priority for US forces, but snubbing Maliki's command would risk reopening rifts in the Iraq-US alliance just days after a White House damage limitation exercise papered over an earlier spat. Sadr City decided to protest after suspected Sunni insurgents managed to get into the Shiite bastion on Monday despite the American security operation to set off a bomb attack that killed 26 civilians and wounded many more. Iraqi special forces backed by US military advisers carried out a raid into Sadr City on Tuesday and arrested three suspects. "The purpose of the mission was to search for the missing US soldier and to capture the leadership of a kidnapping cell reported to have knowledge of the soldier's location," the US military said in a statement. An American soldier of Iraqi descent was abducted on October 23 after he slipped out of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone in order to visit his secret Iraqi wife at the home of relatives in the city. The kidnap triggered a rescue operation by thousands of US infantry around Sadr City, home to several thousand gunmen from Sadr's Mahdi Army militia. The soldier's Iraqi relatives told AFP that they believe he is being held by a hardline faction of the Mahdi Army. Baghdad's bloodshed continued when a car bomb targeted Palestine Street in the heart of the city, near busy Beirut Square, killing three civilians including a woman and wounding seven passers-by, medics said. Later, police announced that between 30 and 40 Shiite bus passengers had been kidnapped at a false security checkpoint north of the city. And, as night fell, a car bomb ripped through a wedding party in northern Baghdad, killing 15 guests including four children, a security official said. The capital is in the grip of a brutal turf war between rival Shiite and Sunni factions, despite a massive security operation that has put 15,000 US troops and more than 40,000 Iraqi soldiers and police on the streets. There has been no let-up in the challenge facing US forces either. Two American soldiers were killed in Baghdad on Monday, bringing military deaths for October to 103, the fourth highest monthly toll since the US-led invasion of March 2003 overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein. With political progress towards national reconciliation achingly slow and the daily death toll showing no sign of diminishing, US President George W. Bush is facing intense domestic pressure to change course. Opponents of the war are set to make gains in next week's congressional midterm elections, but the White House is standing behind its strategy of building up Iraqi security forces to enable them to fight on their own. ---- The more-than-$2-trillion war COMMENTARY | November 01, 2006 Nieman Watchdog http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00138 By Linda Bilmes linda_bilmes@harvard.edu and Joseph E. Stiglitz jes322@columbia.edu Two scholars, one a Nobel Prize winner, revisit their estimate of the true cost of the Iraq war – and find that $2 trillion was too low. They consider not only the current and future budgetary costs, but the economic impact of lives lost, jobs interrupted and oil prices driven higher by political uncertainty in the Middle East. This article originally appeared in the December 2006 issue of the Milken Institute Review. In January, we estimated that the true cost of the Iraq war could reach $2 trillion, a figure that seemed shockingly high. But since that time, the cost of the war – in both blood and money – has risen even faster than our projections anticipated. More than 2,500 American troops have died and close to 20,000 have been wounded since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. And the $2 trillion number – the sum of the current and future budgetary costs along with the economic impact of lives lost, jobs interrupted and oil prices driven higher by political uncertainty in the Middle East – now seems low. One source of difficulty in getting an accurate picture of the direct cost of prosecuting the war is the way the government does its accounting. With “cash accounting,” income and expenses are recorded when payments are actually made – for example, what you pay off on your credit card today – not the amount outstanding. By contrast, with “accrual accounting,” income and expenses are recorded when the commitment is made. But, as Representative Jim Cooper, Democrat of Tennessee, notes, “The budget of the United States uses cash accounting, and only the tiniest businesses in America are even allowed to use cash accounting. Why? Because it gives you a very distorted picture.” The distortion is particularly acute in the case of the Iraq war. The cash costs of feeding, housing, transporting and equipping U.S. troops, paying for reconstruction costs, repairs and replacement parts and training Iraqi forces are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Costs incurred, but not yet paid, dwarf what is being spent now – even when future anticipated outlays are converted back into 2006 dollars. Our Debt to Veterans A major contributor to this long-term cost is the medical care and disability benefits provided to veterans. More than one million U.S. troops have now served in Iraq. And once they leave, each is entitled to a long list of benefits for the remainder of his or her life. Veterans can apply for compensation for any disabling injury or disease (physical or mental) that occurred on active duty or any existing condition that was made worse by military service. Benefits are based on the extent of the disability, ranging from 10 percent to 100 percent. And, because some medical problems do not become apparent right away, claims are likely to be filed for years after the war is over. There are 2.6 million veterans currently receiving disability pay, including a sobering 40 percent of the soldiers who served during the four-week-long Gulf War in 1991. Accrued liabilities for U.S. federal employees’ and veterans’ benefits now total $4.5 trillion. Indeed, our debt for veterans’ health and disability payments has risen by $228 billion in the past year alone. These numbers are unlikely to fall. More than half of the troops in Iraq have served two or three tours of duty under grueling conditions. Moreover, depleted uranium, used in armor-piercing artillery shells because it is hard, heavy and cheap, was implicated in many of the medical claims by soldiers from the first Gulf War. And the same radioactive material was used in the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Note, too, that improvements in body armor mean that an unusually high number of soldiers are surviving major injuries, but ending up disabled. About 20 percent of survivors have suffered major head or spinal injuries, 18 percent incurred serious wounds and an additional 6 percent are amputees. The estimated 7,000 veterans with severe brain, spinal, amputation and other serious injuries will require a lifetime of round-the-clock care. Government medical facilities are currently overwhelmed by the needs of soldiers injured in Iraq. Some 144,000 of them sought care from the VA in the first quarter of 2006 – 23 percent more than the Bush administration had estimated for the entire year! Similarly, the government projected that 18,000 returning soldiers would seek treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder in 2006 – but the VA treated 20,638 Iraqi war veterans for PTSD in the first quarter alone. All told, in the past year, the VA has added 250,000 new beneficiaries and still has a backlog of more than 400,000 pending claims. Rebuilding the Post-Iraq Military Another big future obligation is the cost to “reset” the military – that is, to restore U.S. forces to their strength and preparedness prior to Iraq. This will require a major capital investment to replace military equipment depleted or destroyed by the war. The capital cost is in addition to the operating costs for repairs, ammunition, spare parts and fuel. For example, the United States now has 37,000 light military trucks in Iraq accumulating mileage at up to six times the peacetime rate. And while there may be no good time to replace the weapons, vehicles, medical equipment and the like that will be used up, it’s clear the bill will come due at a particularly bad time – that is, in the decades during which Americans will be wrestling with the question of how to pay for the pensions and medical care of retired baby boomers. Budgetary Cost of the War Congress has already appropriated approximately $430 billion for military operations, reconstruction and related programs in Iraq and Afghanistan. And these cash outlays have been rising as the war has progressed. In fiscal year 2003, the average monthly cost of operations was $4.4 billion, while today operations are running about $10 billion a month. Of the million troops who have served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, some 400,000 are reservists or members of the National Guard – which adds an additional layer of costs. Reservists are expensive to activate because the military needs to start paying them full-time salaries (instead of paying for one weekend a month). By contrast, regular forces receive full-time salary in war or peace. Most reservists are older and have families, so they are paid additional compensation while on active duty. Moreover, if they are killed, their dependents are entitled to compensation and benefits including housing, education loans and job training. The escalating costs also reflect the vast sums that the Defense Department has been spending to recruit soldiers. In the past two years, the armed forces have nearly doubled the number of recruiters, increased bonuses to as much as $40,000 for new enlistees, and paid special bonuses and other benefits worth as much as $150,000 for members of the Special Forces who re-enlist. The Defense Department has also relied on contractors to support the war effort, which has proved to be a very expensive way to keep the troop count down. In many contracts, security costs represent 25 to 30 percent of the total outlay. The Pentagon has managed some savings – such as no longer needing to police the “no-fly” zone that protected the Kurds before Saddam was ousted. But on balance, the Defense Department has increased spending by several billion dollars annually for war-related expenses that are over and above the sums going directly to combat operations. While economists don’t generally include interest on extra budget deficits as a cost of the war – interest payments can be viewed as transfer payments to creditors – the budgetary reality is very different, and thus interest costs are worth considering here. With rising interest rates (themselves partly due to the war, as central banks around the world work to combat the inflation brought on by high oil prices), these costs are soaring. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the interest payments on the money borrowed to finance the Iraq war will total $264 billion to $308 billion. We have used the CBO’s two scenarios for expected troop deployment to make a reasonable projection of the likely underlying costs of operations, and then adjusted these numbers to an accrual basis in order to reflect future costs outlined above. Looking purely at direct costs to taxpayers, we estimate that the total cost of the Iraq war will be in the $1 billion to $1.4 billion range under the CBO’s core assumption that the U.S. maintains a small presence in Iraq through 2016. Even under a more optimistic scenario – that all U.S. troops are home by 2010, the budgetary cost of the Iraq operation will reach nearly $1 trillion. Economic Costs of the War Economic costs differ from budgetary costs in three ways. First, some costs are borne by individuals and families or by non-federal-government agencies, and thus do not show up in federal accounts. Second, the prices paid by the government do not reflect the market value of the services purchased. Third, economic costs do not include interest payments (which from an economic perspective can be viewed as transfer payments), but do include long-run impacts on the growth of the economy. Here, we have focused only on a few of these additional costs: the loss of productive capacity of the young Americans killed or seriously wounded in Iraq, the loss of civilian wages that would have been earned by those called back to duty in the Reserves, and the macroeconomic effects that reduce output. Military Fatalities, Serious Casualties and Reserves Wage Differential Although it is problematic to translate the value of a life into monetary terms, economists and private insurance firms commonly determine the “value of a statistical life” (VSL) by inferring how much workers demand to perform hazardous jobs (think mining or firefighting) or how much consumers are willing to pay to reduce risk (think mammograms or smoke alarms). In non-military areas, such as safety and environmental regulation, the federal government values the life of a young adult male at around $6.5 million. One could argue that the true cost of death and disability for an all-volunteer army is already reflected in military pay premiums for hazardous duty. But we think this greatly underestimates the real cost. First, recruits, many of whom are too young to buy a beer legally, have little information about the likelihood of being killed or injured, or how much they will come to value their own safety later in their lives. Second, many of the soldiers in Iraq are not really volunteers. The majority serving there are either reservists or Guard members who never expected to go to war, or regular army personnel ordered by the Pentagon to serve far beyond their scheduled length of deployment. Hence, we would argue that very little of the true cost of the deaths of American soldiers is reflected in the budget. Using a VSL estimate of $6.5 million, the economic cost of the American soldiers and contractors who have already lost their lives adds up to $16.9 billion. (We have not included the cost of the estimated 40,000 to 100,000 Iraqis killed in the conflict.) By the same reasoning, the budgetary expenditures also underestimate the true economic costs to the soldiers wounded because the outlays do not include adequate compensation for what tort law calls pain and suffering, or additional health care expenditures by the soldiers’ families and non-federal-government agencies. We believe veterans, and their families, receiving full disability payments bear costs equal to those who die in combat, and therefore we should assign each case a non-budgetary cost of $6.5 million (the value of a statistical life). We assign a modest 20 percent of that figure to those who are wounded less seriously. There is also an economic cost in the difference between civilian and military wages for reservists. This difference is a cost borne by the economy and shows up as lower productivity. In their study of the economic costs of the war published by the AEI/Brookings Joint Center in 2005, Scott Wallsten and Katrina Kosec calculated that the “opportunity cost” of using Reserve troops at current levels is $3.9 billion to date. Note, moreover, that a disproportionate number of these reservists work in critical “first-responder” jobs back home – as fire-fighters, police and emergency medical personnel. Nearly half the police forces in the United States now have some of their ranks deployed in Iraq, and the average length of Guard mobilization is 480 days. It is difficult to measure the cost of this deployment in purely economic terms because there is a large unquantifiable “insurance” value of having trained first responders available for domestic emergencies. Consider, for example, the losses associated with Hurricane Katrina that might have been avoided if the 7,000 Louisiana and Mississippi Guardsmen in Iraq had been home to help. Macroeconomic Effects of the War As large as the direct costs are, the indirect impact on total economic output may be several times larger. Consider just two sources of macroeconomic cost. Oil Prices The price of oil is significantly higher today than it was before the war in Iraq. But to even begin to assign a macroeconomic cost to this, we need to know what the price would have been if there had been no war. Commodity futures markets provide some insight. Before the war, they were implicitly forecasting that oil prices would remain in the range that they had been – $20 to $30 a barrel – in spite of other, more predictable factors affecting prices, such as strong economic growth in China and India. Today, by contrast, the oil futures markets predict prices will be in the mid-$60-per-barrel range during 2006 and 2007, and fall no earlier than the year 2008. One explanation is that the instability in the Middle East brought about by the Iraq war has increased the risk of investing in the region. But because costs of extraction are so much lower in the Middle East, high oil prices have not stimulated a commensurate supply response elsewhere. If political stability is restored, the reasoning goes, prices will fall and investments in high-cost liquid fuels elsewhere in the world – think heavy oil in Venezuela or tar sands in Canada – will prove to be losing ventures. We believe, accordingly, that the best estimate of the impact of Iraq on oil prices is a large proportion of the $45-a-barrel increase since the war began. Nonetheless, we offer a conservative calculation based on the assumption that only a small fraction of that amount – $5 to $10 – is due to Iraq. Given U.S. imports of roughly five billion barrels a year, a $10-per-barrel increase translates into an extra expenditure of approximately $50 billion. Americans are poorer by that amount. If merely a $5 price increase persists for five years, this generates a conservative estimate of $125 billion in costs. More plausibly, if we base our estimates on a $10 price increase, and assume (as futures markets believe) it extends for at least six years, the cost is $300 billion. Most macroanalyses assume that one must reckon with more than just these direct supply-side effects if the economy is prone to operating below full capacity. The increase in oil prices means Americans have that much less to spend on other goods – including goods made in the United States. This in turn leads to a reduction in aggregate demand, and the reduction leads to lower economic output. Standard macroeconomic models suggest an “oil multiplier” of around 1.5 (achieved over two years). Thus, assuming that the economy remains below its potential, our cost estimate rises to $450 billion. Budget Reallocation The macroeconomic costs associated with the increased expenditure on the war are more difficult to estimate. If we were not spending the money on Iraq, would we be spending it on something else? Would we have had the same deficit, but just more tax cuts? Would the Federal Reserve have stopped raising interest rates sooner if it wasn’t worried about the inflationary effects of higher oil prices – and thereby made recession in 2006 less likely? Here, we offer a very conservative estimate of these macroeconomic effects using an “expenditure-switching” model. Spending money to hire, say, Nepalese workers in Iraq provides little indirect stimulation to the American economy – far less than would have been provided if the money had been spent on investments in schools or roads (or, for that matter, on houses and cars) in the United States. In estimates presented last January, we put the cost of budgetary impacts (including expenditure switching and the impact on future productivity) at $450 billion. $2 Trillion and Counting The total costs of the war, including the budgetary, social and macroeconomic costs, are likely to exceed $2 trillion. As large as these costs are, an equally large set of costs have been omitted. We have not included the costs borne by other countries, either directly (as a result of military expenditures) or indirectly (as a result of the increase in the price of oil.) Then there are the intangible costs – the cost of our reduced capability to respond to national security threats elsewhere in the world, and the cost of rising anti-American sentiment in Europe and the Middle East. Americans have long taken pride in fighting for human rights. But our credentials have been badly tarnished by the Iraq war, leading to a sharp decline in America’s “soft power.” On issues from trade negotiations to global warming to the international criminal justice system, this decline will have a continuing impact on the United States’ ability to have its point of view prevail. Last Thoughts In responding to cost-based criticisms of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Bush Administration argues that one does not go to war on the basis of calculations by bean counters. After all, Franklin Roosevelt did not wait to respond to Pearl Harbor until his budget analysts could assay the costs and benefits. But, with Iraq, America had a choice of whether and when to attack. If there ever was a “project” that should have been subject to careful scrutiny from all perspectives – including the economics – this was it. Just as going to war was a matter of choice, staying in Iraq is also a matter of choice. There may be costs associated with leaving. But there will be costs associated with staying. Every day we stay in Iraq we accrue costs that will be reflected in budget outlays, lost productivity and individual pain and suffering for decades to come. We need to ask: are they outweighed by the benefits? Linda Bilmes teaches public finance at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. E-mail: linda_bilmes@harvard.edu Joseph Stiglitz, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors and chief economist at the World Bank, teaches at Columbia University. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001. E-mail: jes322@columbia.edu -------- latin america US Threatens Nicaragua With Sanctions Over Ortega Election Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/01/1456220 In Nicaragua, the Bush administration has issued one of its harshest warnings to date over the outcome of Sunday’s presidential elections. The administration is now threatening economic sanctions if Nicaraguans elect frontrunner and Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega. In an interview with the Nicuraguan newspaper La Prensa, embassy spokesperson Kristin Stewart says: "If a foreign government has a relationship with terrorist organizations, like the Sandinistas did in the past; U.S. law permits us to apply sanctions… Again, it will be necessary to revise our policies if Ortega wins." -------- mideast Mubarak denies more troops deployed on Gaza border By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent and Agencies November 01, 200 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/781500.html Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak yesterday denied reports in Egypt that its security forces had beefed up their presence on the border with the Gaza Strip. In a meeting of parliamentary members of the ruling National Democratic Party, Mubarak called the reports "totally baseless." An Egyptian security source said yesterday that Cairo had lowered the security alert at its border with the Gaza Strip, two days after officials said the area along the Philadelphi Route had been fortified in case of a possible Israel Defense Forces operation against tunnels used for arms smuggling. "The number of officers has been reduced after the Israeli threat has lessened," a source in the Egyptian border police said. "The border area was calm and no abnormal movement has been seen." Defense Minister Amir Peretz had also denied the reports on Sunday, saying Egypt would not deploy any more than the agreed upon addition of 750 troops at the Gaza border. Over the weekend, the official Middle East News Agency reported that 5,000 additional police were to deploy along the border in order to protect Egyptians living close to Gaza following newspaper reports that Israeli aircraft might bomb the border area in a bid to destroy tunnels used to smuggle weapons. Mubarak held the meeting with the lawmakers prior to his departure on a trip to Russia and China where he is to discuss Egypt's new nuclear energy project. A spokesman for the Egyptian president, Suleiman Awad, said Mubarak had told the lawmakers that Egypt did not need permission from any external body to resume its nuclear program. Awad said Egypt was a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and would continue to honor it. ---- Egyptian president arrives in Moscow for talks MOSCOW (AFP) Nov 01, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061101140058.ab0b9rr4.html Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak arrived in Moscow on Wednesday for a three-day visit during which he was set to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin and discuss arms sales and nuclear power. Mubarak landed at Vnukovo airport in southern Moscow. The visit "is of great importance given the situation in the Middle East, which unfortunately continues to deteriorate," said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov, who greeted Mubarak. Saltanov said Egypt was "a key partner for Russia in the region," the news agency ITAR-TASS reported. In an interview with the official daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta published on Wednesday, Mubarak said he and Putin had common ground on their views on democracy. "There is no universal democratic model, since each people can implement the democracy that corresponds to the nature of that people, its culture, its characteristics and its customs," Mubarak said. "I was very pleased when President Putin talked about Russia's democracy a few months ago. I am sure that Putin wanted to say the same thing," Mubarak added. Kremlin officials have called for a "sovereign democracy" for Russia. -------- nato I will build more and kill less, says Nato's Afghanistan general Winter campaign is to improve country rather than kill insurgents By Michael Evans and Anthony Loyd UK Times, November 01, 2006 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-2431423,00.html The general says 'armchair critics' in Britain fail to see the progress being made in Afghanistan (Musadeq Sadeq/AP) THE British general commanding all 31,000 Nato troops in Afghanistan has pledged to focus his winter campaign on development projects rather than killing Taleban fighters. Lieutenant-General David Richards conceded that significant improvements were needed over the next few months to persuade Afghans to “keep the faith” with the Nato mission. In an interview with The Times, General Richards said that he aimed to switch all the efforts of his 37-nation force towards protecting and enabling “visible” reconstruction projects. He was ready to “put a security cloak” around rebuilding programmes that would make an immediate difference to the people. The shift follows months of fighting in which hundreds of Afghans have been killed in some of the toughest fighting experienced by British troops facing a resurgent Taleban. While not playing down the threat still posed by the Taleban, General Richards said he hoped that the “kinetic energy” that marked the first six months of his command would ease through the winter. Forty-six Nato troops have died in Afghanistan this year. “Something that really hit me in the eye was just how important it was for the Afghan people for us to prove that we could fight and defend their areas. We did prove this but we don’t need to carry on doing this in the long term, and I hope the fighting element throughout the winter will be minimal compared with what our troops have had to face in the summer,” he said. Speaking from Kabul, he added: “The security situation has improved. The level of violence in the last few weeks has reduced considerably, although there are bound to be tactical blips and setbacks. In the last three days we have killed, wounded or captured 150 [insurgents], mostly in the southern provinces of Oruzgan and Zabul.” Now, under Operation Oqab (Eagle), General Richards, 54, intends to show critics of the mission that his troops can make a difference to the Afghan people and the economic future of the country. He said that it was easy for “armchair critics” in Britain to carp, but significant reconstruction work was being carried out and more road-building was planned for the winter. One road project is to link Highway 1, which runs across Afghanistan, with the crucial dam at Kajaki in Helmand, which is being guarded by troops from 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines. “I think in the last few months we have managed to stabilise the security situation and now I want to put a security cloak around the reconstruction programmes. Operation Oqab is the first pan-Afghanistan synchronised mission designed to facilitate more focused and visible reconstruction and governance,” General Richards said. He has recently intervened in one area of traditional concern among Afghans: the taking of illegal road tolls by police. Cars and lorries are stopped every day on Highway 1 by police demanding money. General Richards said that he had issued a directive to all troops under his command not just to “monitor” the illegal activities by the police but “to physically intervene to stop them”. It was, he said, another way of getting the message across to the Afghan people that life was better under Nato’s watchful eye. General Richards’s tactical switch away from killing Taleban comes as army officers, local officials and defence analysts gave warning that Nato’s daily “body count” of Afghan fighters could be fuelling the insurgency. The lessons of Vietnam suggested that body counts bore no relation to progress in the war, and more often signified the disaffection of the local population, they said. Colonel Christopher Langton, an analyst in the Afghan section of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “In Taleban culture death is victory, so the relevance of giving out body counts is doubtful, and may send out entirely the wrong message.” -------- us U.S. Soldier Killed Herself After Objecting to Interrogation Techniques The true stories of how American troops, killed in Iraq, actually died keep spilling out this week. Now we learn, thanks to a reporter's FOIA request, that one of the first women to die in Iraq shot and killed herself after objecting to harsh "interrogation techniques." By Greg Mitchell (November 01, 2006) Editor and Publisher http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003345862 The true stories of how American troops, killed in Iraq, actually died keep spilling out this week. On Tuesday, we explored the case of Kenny Stanton Jr., murdered last month by our allies, the Iraqi police, though the military didn’t make that known at the time. Now we learn that one of the first female soldiers killed in Iraq died by her own hand after objecting to interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She was Army specialist Alyssa Peterson, 27, a Flagstaff, Ariz., native serving with C Company, 311th Military Intelligence BN, 101st Airborne. Peterson was an Arabic-speaking interrogator assigned to the prison at our air base in troubled Tal-Afar in northwestern Iraq. According to official records, she died on Sept. 15, 2003, from a “non-hostile weapons discharge.” She was only the third American woman killed in Iraq, so her death drew wide press attention. A “non-hostile weapons discharge” leading to death is not unusual in Iraq, often quite accidental, so this one apparently raised few eyebrows. The Arizona Republic, three days after her death, reported that Army officials “said that a number of possible scenarios are being considered, including Peterson's own weapon discharging, the weapon of another soldier discharging, or the accidental shooting of Peterson by an Iraqi civilian.” But in this case, a longtime radio and newspaper reporter named Kevin Elston, unsatisfied with the public story, decided to probe deeper in 2005, "just on a hunch," he told E&P today. He made "hundreds of phone calls" to the military and couldn't get anywhere, so he filed a Freedom of Information Act request. When the documents of the official investigation of her death arrived, they contained bombshell revelations. Here’s what the Flagstaff public radio station, KNAU, where Elston now works, reported yesterday: “Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed. ... She was was then assigned to the base gate, where she monitored Iraqi guards, and sent to suicide prevention training. “But on the night of September 15th, 2003, Army investigators concluded she shot and killed herself with her service rifle,” the documents disclose. The Army talked to some of Peterson's colleagues. Asked to summarize their comments, Elston told E&P: "The reactions to the suicide were that she was having a difficult time separating her personal feelings from her professional duties. That was the consistent point in the testimonies, that she objected to the interrogation techniques, without describing what those techniques were." Elston said that the documents also refer to a suicide note found on her body, revealing that she found it ironic that suicide prevention training had taught her how to commit suicide. He has now filed another FOIA request for a copy of the actual note. Peterson's father, Rich Peterson, has said: “Alyssa volunteered to change assignments with someone who did not want to go to Iraq.” Peterson, a devout Mormon, had graduated from Flagstaff High School and earned a psychology degree from Northern Arizona University on a military scholarship. She was trained in interrogation techniques at Fort Huachuca in Arizona, and was sent to the Middle East in 2003. The Arizona Republic article had opened: “Friends say Army Spc. Alyssa R. Peterson of Flagstaff always had an amazing ability to learn foreign languages. “Peterson became fluent in Dutch even before she went on an 18-month Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints mission to the Netherlands in the late 1990s. Then, she cruised through her Arabic courses at the military's Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., shortly after enlisting in July 2001. “With that under her belt, she was off to Iraq to conduct interrogations and translate enemy documents.” On a “fallen heroes” message board on the Web, Mary W. Black of Flagstaff wrote, "The very day Alyssa died, her Father was talking to me at the Post Office where we both work, in Flagstaff, Ariz., telling me he had a premonition and was very worried about his daughter who was in the military on the other side of the world. The next day he was notified while on the job by two army officers. Never has a daughter been so missed or so loved than she was and has been by her Father since that fateful September day in 2003. He has been the most broken man I have ever seen.” An A.W. from Los Angeles wrote: "I met Alyssa only once during a weekend surfing trip while she was at DLI. Although our encounter was brief, she made a lasting impression. We did not know each other well, but I was blown away by her genuine, sincere, sweet nature. I don’t know how else to put it-- she was just nice. ... I was devastated to here of her death. I couldn’t understand why it had to happen to such a wonderful person.” Finally, Daryl K. Tabor of Ashland City, Tenn., who had met her as a journalist in Iraq for the Kentucky New Era paper in Hopkinsville: "Since learning of her death, I cannot get the image of the last time I saw her out of my mind. We were walking out of the tent in Kuwait to be briefed on our flights into Iraq as I stepped aside to let her out first. Her smile was brighter than the hot desert sun. Peterson was the only soldier I interacted with that I know died in Iraq. I am truly sorry I had to know any." UPDATED: Part II -- A Suicide in Iraq By Greg Mitchell (November 07, 2006) http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003352534 They served in the same battalion in Iraq at the same time. Kayla Williams spoke with Alyssa Peterson about the young woman's troubles a week before she died -- and afterward, attended her memorial service. Williams even has her own interrogation horror story to tell. So what, in Williams ' view, caused Alyssa Peterson to put a bullet in her head in September 2003 after just a few weeks in Iraq? T