Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 01 Aug 2007

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Postby sunilUpa » 03 Aug 2007 21:58

Mort Walker wrote:
Also, the agreement does not explicitly say that we can terminate the IAEA safeguard arrangement IF US terminates the agreement.


Much will depend on how the India specific IAEA safeguards are written and implemented. That is now up to MMS and company if they can get it done in the next few months. The Bush administration wants Congress to vote this agreement in by end of year.


Burns in his interview to CFR yesterday mentioned a time frame of next 30-35 days for IAEA negotiations. November-December is the timeframe he mentioned for final vote in Congress.

Do you see enough movement in Congress that there might be a vote this autumn?

We hope so. Two things have to happen before it goes back for a final vote in Congress. First, India has to conclude a safeguards agreement with the IAEA, which I expect will happen in the next thirty to thirty-five days. Secondly, the Indians will need to convince the nuclear suppliers group—this is the group of forty-five nuclear energy powers in the world—that it should give the same kind of international treatment in terms of civil nuclear trade to India that the United States would have just given bilaterally :wink: . Once those two steps are taken, then perhaps by November or December we’ll be ready to formally send this agreement to Capitol Hill for a final vote. We hope that vote will mirror the Hyde Act vote which was, of course, an overwhelming vote in favor of India and the United States by Congress

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 03 Aug 2007 21:59

Here's how it looks to me:

2(1): The US shall implement this Agreement in accordance with HYDE. Burns has repeatedly said that and it is known that Hyde is in contradiction to PM's solemn assurances to the august house of the Indian Parliament.

2(4) The US acknowledges India's right to carry on with its strategic program or its 3-stage program...big deal!
( note the distinction in activities is written as “safeguardedâ€
Last edited by samuel on 03 Aug 2007 22:38, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 03 Aug 2007 22:25

Well this agreement is indeed with full of 123 and Hyde Act controls.. Everything starts from basing it on American laws for the supplier and Indian laws for the consumer. Hence, it is necessary to view the Hyde Act completely. How did AK accept this notion., that we would not be sanctioned or denied under hyde act?

Questions remains that did Hyde act change? nope!@... there ends the matter. IMHO, this agreement is NOTHING!..


Q:

Article 6:

Onlee upto 20% of 235 isotope can be enriched.. !?


Is this well within the Pu238 or it could be the 239?
> does our AThWR and ADS work with this condition? The plutonium used in our advanced reactors agree to this condition????

By keeping this 20%, means they may be putting a restriction that Indian designs may exceed this condition since it could interfere with our 3 stage design parameters? Are they saying, by this only unkil type of reactors accept this condition and there by forcing us to buy only westinghouse reactors?

Otoh, if the 20% is acceptable to our plans and civilian designs, then we are ok!

--
Are we going to import U233. If not, then we are in trouble using our U233 designs into IAEA safeguards. Our fuels in safeguards can't be subject to this agreement. Still this agreement does not answer if BARC reactors can only enrich up to 20%, etc.. no clear clarification there.

--

Article 14:

return of materials. conflicts with termination clause.. that seeks one year advanced notification term. return should also have similar terms. but acceptable.

--

And anybody says that American laws are not applicable to this agreement, shoot your mouth off.. and I want see & count that many voices who have not read the basics of this agreement.
ARTICLE-2:
Each Party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations, and license reqs, concerning the use of nu energy for peaceful purpose.

------

this is a no brainer agreement! it will fail HYDE ACT!.. or it does not deny hyde any way possible.

Our scientists are nodding to this!!!


:roll: :shock:
Last edited by SaiK on 03 Aug 2007 22:57, edited 4 times in total.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 03 Aug 2007 22:37

Samuel wrote:
All derived material will remain under IAEA. So, even if we get lucky and can put our equipment there, the IP issue remains. The only way this reprocessing will work is if we import cotton. Accelerating our 3-stage we are, are we?


By IP issue, do you mean the fact that AHWRs under international supervision will result in IP leakage?

I read "Accelerating the 3-stage program" as meaning "advancing the three stage program so that AHWRs have the fuel to reprocess sooner than they would have been without nuke waste to reprocess --- this deal pushes for nucllear plants based on tech that will generate nuclear waste, doesn't it? How are you interpreting it, if I may ask?

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 03 Aug 2007 22:39

Article 5: 6(b)(iv) If despite these arrangements, a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries to include countries such as Russia, France and the United Kingdom to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India


This is interesting and revealing at the same time. Note amongst the P5 China is conspicuously absent from the list. What does that say about the India US nuclear deal - both nations do not trust China to be forthcoming in the agreement and a bilateral agreement that selectively references other nations.
Last edited by bala on 03 Aug 2007 22:41, edited 1 time in total.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7893
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 03 Aug 2007 22:40

The New Republic Magazine is opposed to this deal, looks like an NPA supporter was the writer and this deal is causing the NPAs heartburn. A good thing.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070730&s=squassoni080307

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 03 Aug 2007 22:49

bala wrote:
Article 5: 6(b)(iv) If despite these arrangements, a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries to include countries such as Russia, France and the United Kingdom to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India


This is interesting and revealing at the same time. Note amongst the P5 China is conspicuously absent from the list. What does that say about the India US nuclear deal - both nations do not trust China to be forthcoming in the agreement and a bilateral agreement that selectively references other nations.


Interesting. But it could also be that China has always been a net recepient...never a provider.

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 03 Aug 2007 22:58

SaiK wrote:ARTICLE-2:
Each Party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations, and license reqs, concerning the use of nu energy for peaceful purpose.

------

this is a no brainer agreement! it will fail HYDE ACT!.. or it does not deny hyde any way possible.

Our scientists are nodding to this!!! :oops: :x


:roll: :shock:[/quote]

SaiK, what do we expect it to say. That each party would implement this breaking each countries national laws, regulations, and license reqs. It doesnt limit it to laws already in place. So GOI can make its own new laws. I actually think its a good thing it didn't refer to Hyde, even to assert the supremacy of this agreement over it. This is bi-lateral. No reference should ever be made to any specific internal matters.

Hyde is a different headache - for which the right Zandu Balm concoction will need to be formulated.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 03 Aug 2007 23:01

pradeepe, then we have to come up fast our own hyde act. to counter hyde act. that way, we can say, you follow yours. we follow ours. .. and this is the reason I am contending that its either a non-workable agreement or an agreement that is bound towards an abyss even under slightest pulling one strand of hair.

we have spent too much on these folks (GoI) to come up with this document!!!. huh!~.

It din't mention "hyde" but it is safely "hid" under "national laws"!. hyde is all this document wants. mr hyde is very happy now.

plus.. you don't make generic statements like this, and claim an agreement has been made. who is asking to break laws here. you are misunderstanding me. I am saying, this agreement will fail us more than it would help us.

there is nothing in this agreement that we can be happy about or there is something still needs to be worked.

this is insane after spending so much time!.

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 03 Aug 2007 23:08

I agree. And theres no mention of limting compliance ONLY to laws "already" in place. So GOI gets tyo make up its own Jekyll to counter Hyde. I assume it clear when Hyde can be invoked. So if GOI gets close to that it can pass a Jekyll to make the cost of Hyde coming out too high.

Added:
I agree the wording seems to be vague enough for both parties to do whatever they want to do. So maybe it doesnt qualify to be an "agreement", but so what - that doesnt seem like such a bad thing...
Last edited by pradeepe on 03 Aug 2007 23:14, edited 1 time in total.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 03 Aug 2007 23:11

Why should India codify its response to US shenanigans right now into law? Wouldn't it be better to leave it open-ended so that our response can be maximally effective given the future scenario under which such a response is required? IOW, the Indian response to Jekyl can be tailored to the circumstance in the future where such a response is required.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 03 Aug 2007 23:14

you can keep it open ended.. but keeping it that way, no business transaction can start. we need codifications, for the business to begin.

maximizations of effect can be seen by amendments to laws. this is where we are failing .. right from our constitution to even simple laws like hindu divided family acts.

open ended acts are very dangerous for intl business. its ok if we can live like that within our country.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 03 Aug 2007 23:23

Few observations:
1. The Agreement text is now in the open. Many people are tyring to get clarification on some statements there.
2. Between the two governments the teams that negotiated not only has the agreement but also supporting documents (notes) that are exchanged and signed upon but never make public. These have all kinds of clarifications on line items that could be interpreted differently by other party, or to make sure important point are elaborated with specific examples). These signed notes are kept secret and they are instruments to keep detractors/enemies confused about the exact nature of the deal.
3. The Leaders of the Opposition need to be taken in confidence with these notes, if they want this agreement not abrogated in future.


Now on the text of the agreement:
4. On the right to return. There is no definition of identifying the exact material that need be returned. Machinery etc is understandable, fuel material is NOT. The imported fuel may be mixed with indigenous (other countries) fuel to make a fuel rod, or the fuel may have been reprocessed and formulated with other people's fuel. The closest that is possible is get back equivalent (from IAEA books) amount of various kinds of nuclear material in weight. Reminds me of my grandmother on rules and procedures to determine what is kosher or not after I touch an end of a stick whose other end was in the hand of an unwashed Bahman.

5. Some people have asked if 20% enrichment will impact Thorium driven reactors. I am sure AK/DAE would have raised hell if that was any close to affecting the engineering choices. Enrichment is for U235 not Pu. {BTW depending on spent fuel the reprocessing will yield off the first bat >99% fissile enrichment of Pu). Not sure if applicability of enrichment has been defined in the public text. Surely it would have been clarified in the exchanged notes. Current Th design calls for average fissile fuel pin fissile density of ~3 to 3.5%. In case of U235+U238 fuel pin that is enrichment density, in case of Pu+Th fuel pin it is fissile density.

6. Many sections of the agreement that need to be strictly legal phrases do not look legal, but glib hope talk politicians pan out to electorates in West Bengal. Those statements have no legal standing and the GOTUS legal team must be very happy, while the Indian Govt legal team and DAE must be very UNHAPPY. Better remove all the useless horse manure from those sections.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 03 Aug 2007 23:28

cool Arun, regarding your "high 5". I guessed so but was keeping it as no harm in questioning from layman's perspective. if the nook gurus are happy, then we all are happy.

So, I can conclude that if we use "our fuel" into a safeguarded facility, these 20% or any american act does not apply, but only IAEA safeguard rules apply. If this is true, we are happy.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 03 Aug 2007 23:35

Time to close and lock and ban this thread. I am TOTALLY opposed to this whole thing, and I think India got a ROTTEN deal.

Until there is a Jekyll Act in US Congress, I am going to stand on my head to make it easier to pout. :evil: :oops: :x :P :( :((

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 03 Aug 2007 23:41

I know yesterday it was hot contentious debate, but now see this. In Hindi: "Haath Kangan, Tou Aarshi Kya?"

Recall that Kalpakkam farm will be outside IAEA. Thus of teh 4 new FBRs two FBRs will be in non-IAEA scope.

Hindu: IGCAR innovating nuclear fuel cycles
[quote]Special Correspondent
CHENNAI: The Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) is innovating nuclear fuel cycles to lower the cost of energy, even as it prepares to commission the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor by 2010, according to IGCAR Director Baldev Raj.

Addressing reporters on the sidelines of a lecture series launched on Thursday in connection with the diamond jubilee celebrations of Ethiraj College, he said the Rs. 3400-crore prototype reactor envisaged supplying electricity at Rs. 3.22 a unit to the Southern Grid.

“We’re trying to lower the price further and provide power at around Rs. 2 per unit when additional breeder reactors go on stream.â€

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 04 Aug 2007 00:02

Rye wrote:Samuel wrote:
All derived material will remain under IAEA. So, even if we get lucky and can put our equipment there, the IP issue remains. The only way this reprocessing will work is if we import cotton. Accelerating our 3-stage we are, are we?


By IP issue, do you mean the fact that AHWRs under international supervision will result in IP leakage?

I read "Accelerating the 3-stage program" as meaning "advancing the three stage program so that AHWRs have the fuel to reprocess sooner than they would have been without nuke waste to reprocess --- this deal pushes for nucllear plants based on tech that will generate nuclear waste, doesn't it? How are you interpreting it, if I may ask?


Hi Rye,

The way I see it, this deal is most concrete, if that can be said, in supplying India with fuel. The import of nuclear technology and facilities require an amendment, which may or may not already have been negotiated for. It does not however show up in the document.

So, lets say then that we use foreign sourced fuel on India's civilian-list reactors for starters. I must say up-front that if we are talking about Indian fuel on Indian reactors, then this whole thing is moot because we really do not need to separate them out from our strategic program. We are allowed to connect our strategic reactors to the community grid.

It may well be that the spent-fuel from foreign-sourced fuel with Indian or foreign reactors is just to be waste. But we did argue for reprocessing rights, which would be moot if that were to be the case.

Now lets see how this reprocessing right appears to me as being straight-jacketed.

First, before we even actually reprocess, we need to come to an agreement with them about procedures and arrangements beyond 123. There is upto an 18 month hold, in the worst case. What's a kicker is that this renegotiating applies even after we have agreed to do the reprocessing under the IAEA umbrella already! What is the impact of the finger implicit in such a clause.

Second, now suppose that there is no agreement at the end on reprocessing procedures and arrangements. Then whether or not we use our technology, there is no way we can reprocess the spent-fuel that was foreign sourced. We can be optimistic here, but the leverage that the US can assert in terms of benefiting its commerce, to say the least, is obvious. We cannot therefore simply start using spent foreign-sourced fuel with our technology and get on with it. Not going to happen.

Third, there is no way for us to not put our reprocessing technology or future reactors that will actually benefit from that reprocessed fuel outside of IAEA. If we use a Th-Pu system this is certainly the case. It may be possible for us to embed our Thoria along with a U-Pu driver, where the U is foreign-sourced and Pu is derived from foreign fuel, and thus get Th-U out. In such a case one could argue that the thoria doesn't belong under the IAEA regime; the rods are separate, the thorex is separate. All such discussions are nonsensical it would appear. What stays under safeguard is pretty solid. So that Th-U in my view is under IAEA as is the AHwR that uses it.

To my mind this implies that they can assert control in the manner in which we reprocess, and get to pull out elements of our three-stage program, if not in its entirety, out into IAEA, when we used foreign sourced fuel to drive the 3-stage program.

If indeed the acceleration of our 3-stage was to be based on the wind-fall this foreign fuel was supposed to give us, that cannot happen outside IAEA. This appears to be OK, but no one here has said there are no IP issues involved with it. The constraints on using foreign fuel with our technology of course, as discussed above, also exist.


Please correct as you see it.

S

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 04 Aug 2007 00:11

Hi Arun,
yes, amazing!
Just keep making more non-civilian FBRs and chug away.
For every 8 FBRs, 2 on civil list! And, further, correct Burns' claim at the right point in time. The separation agreement (unless there is a secret agreement somewhere else, which cannot be following your statement) did leave us with defining civil as not-strategic and strategic on-grid, a-ok.

Not to put words in your mouth, but from my point of view, hmm, yeah, way to go!

S
[quote="Arun_S"]I know yesterday it was hot contentious debate, but now see this. In Hindi: "Haath Kangan, Tou Aarshi Kya?"

Recall that Kalpakkam farm will be outside IAEA. Thus of teh 4 new FBRs two FBRs will be in non-IAEA scope.

Hindu: IGCAR innovating nuclear fuel cycles
[quote]Special Correspondent
CHENNAI: The Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) is innovating nuclear fuel cycles to lower the cost of energy, even as it prepares to commission the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor by 2010, according to IGCAR Director Baldev Raj.

Addressing reporters on the sidelines of a lecture series launched on Thursday in connection with the diamond jubilee celebrations of Ethiraj College, he said the Rs. 3400-crore prototype reactor envisaged supplying electricity at Rs. 3.22 a unit to the Southern Grid.

“We’re trying to lower the price further and provide power at around Rs. 2 per unit when additional breeder reactors go on stream.â€

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 04 Aug 2007 00:38

enqyoob wrote:Time to close and lock and ban this thread. I am TOTALLY opposed to this whole thing, and I think India got a ROTTEN deal.

Until there is a Jekyll Act in US Congress, I am going to stand on my head to make it easier to pout. :evil: :oops: :x :P :( :((


Hi enqyoob,

Could I request you to tell us how this deal has fallen apart for you?
Your arguments for the common-good, for the benefit of our people as opposed to some ego and H&D, really gave me much pause. That's a tough argument to counter. and makes it reasonable to say, ok, we'll swallow this, our people will move ahead and then things will be ok.

You must've measured that goal, practicality, against what this deal is offering. I still harbour doubts that maybe we should take the deal, maybe it is the best we can get from others (however fleeting that thought is, now).

How did it fall short in relation to that goal? I'd much appreciate it, if only for my peace of mind.
S
Last edited by samuel on 04 Aug 2007 00:42, edited 1 time in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7610
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 04 Aug 2007 00:38

Two more unsafeguarded FBRs... and not "prototype" either...

Gawd... the Ayatollahs will go beserk...

BSR Murthy
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 02 Apr 2003 12:31
Location: Texas

Don't look the gift horse in the mouth!

Postby BSR Murthy » 04 Aug 2007 00:47

Don't look the gift horse in the mouth!

The 123 looks fine to me. God forbid if India needs a writtten contract to be a nuke power or super power. At this juncture of our geopolitical status, this agreement is a huge plus and there is very little in there that hinders our future. Keeping the economy chugging along and developing strategic muscle is of utter importance to India.

This agreement is a very reasonable one and frankly, I was pleasantly surprised.
Last edited by BSR Murthy on 04 Aug 2007 09:17, edited 2 times in total.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 04 Aug 2007 00:48

Gerard wrote:Two more unsafeguarded FBRs... and not "prototype" either...

Gawd... the Ayatollahs will go beserk...


Yeah there is no way the DAE scientific community can hold back now. They have got to push ahead on a war footing, or be relegated to the background. We are starting to hear -- the ATBR coming out, Thorium reactors by 2037, more FBRs -- and maybe this is their campaign, who knows.

I still don't understand whether we have the capacity to get to the sustainable-u233 stage, i.e. complete the 3-stage dream without help. It would be great to be enlightened because that would really help say why losing a nuclear-deal (but not necessarily this one), is really a loss.

S

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Don't look the gift horse in the mouth!

Postby NRao » 04 Aug 2007 00:53

BSR Murthy wrote:The 123 looks fine to me. God forbid if India needs a writtten contract to be a nuke power or super power. At this juncture of our geopolitical status, this agreement is a huge plus and very little that hinders our future. Keeping the economy chugging along and developing strategic muscle is of utter importance to India.

This agreement is a very reasonable one and frankly, I was pleasantly surprised.


A point to ponder about.

How much would this deal help the civilian economy?

As an example: India’s Installed Capacity (2002–2030) (The graph has a typo - it says 2090)

Image

Sparsh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 30 Jan 2007 12:57

Postby Sparsh » 04 Aug 2007 01:04

NRao,

Whats all this Indian text and American text that you keep talking about?

Its a bilateral agreement. There is just one text.

BSR Murthy
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 02 Apr 2003 12:31
Location: Texas

Postby BSR Murthy » 04 Aug 2007 01:05

"A point to ponder about.

How much would this deal help the civilian economy?

As an example: India’s Installed Capacity (2002–2030) (The graph has a typo - it says 2090)"


I am not talking about nuke power enriching India's economy in by itself. Maintaining excellent trade relations and importantly having unfettered access to Western technologies (not nuke related) is essential to sustain our growth. A plotted graph projecting the future is just that - a projection and is not infallible. More than likely it does not take into account the India-US nuke agreement or our Thorium future, for example. To me, this agreement is a groundbraking development that gets India out of many decades of isolation. This has far reaching consequences beyond just producing electricity.
Last edited by BSR Murthy on 04 Aug 2007 08:38, edited 2 times in total.

Sparsh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 30 Jan 2007 12:57

Postby Sparsh » 04 Aug 2007 01:11

Samuel,

The size of the fuel reserve is implicit in the phrase "supply over the lifetime of India's reactors". Specifying the size of the reserve to be X tons would be a stupid thing to do.

And India's reactors includes foreign reactors that we buy. Once you buy a car, it becomes your car is no longer the dealership's car.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 04 Aug 2007 10:41

You missed the 'national laws' clause.


No I did not miss it. I saw this but then look at the clause once again. Its scope is about cooperation and implementation by each party. So let us assume that. US is bound by hyde. Yes. Is India bound by Hyde. No. That is a major distinction. Even if the US is bound by Hyde what can they do about it in practical terms. The other clauses in the treaty are enough of a deterrent for any US President to comtemplate any drastic action. Net result nothing can be done as far as the scenario: India tests nukes. The US can take back all of its uranium, its material but needs to comply with ensuring that India has alternate supplies for civilian nuke power. Just think about the logistics of all of this and the counter effort of US obtaining alternate sources for India. Too much hoopla for a US president to be bothered with.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest