India Nuclear News And Discussion

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Jul 2009 23:05

NRao wrote:India not concerned over G8 nuclear stance

India MEA: India rejects talks with Pakistan.

Pakistan FO: Pakistan rejects India's rejection of talks.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Jul 2009 00:47

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-n ... in/488710/

The nuclear games begin -- I told you so?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2009 01:08

Puttering around the web, found this 2007 article:

'Russia pact allows reprocessing of nuke fuel'

This is getting to be a little confusing.

The recent Indo-Russian agreement will facilitate the reprocessing of nuclear fuel by New Delhi for atomic power plants built with Moscow's assistance, top officials of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited have said.

India will not have any constraint to proceed with a ‘closed fuel cycle’ as Russia has recognised it as an equal partner and a responsible nuclear country, they said.

So is the Russian Kudankulam reactors "grandfathered" - from reproc PoV?

“The issue of spent fuel was never a problem with the Russians and they clearly said about the use of a closed fuel cycle with the Russian reactors which are already under construction and those reactors (at least four more) which will come up in the next decade," an official said.

The Indo-Russian joint statement said both countries will expand civil nuclear energy cooperation, with emphasis on nuclear power generation aimed at enabling India to realize its ‘goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving energy security in a self sustaining manner’.

The reference to a ‘self sustaining manner’ indicates the closed fuel cycle, the NPCIL officials said.

"Of course, the entire fuel cycle will be under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards," an official said.

Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar said, "the signing of the intent on January 25 with the Russian government was a way forward in the whole process of getting energy security for India".

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 14 Jul 2009 01:21

Gerard wrote:
what happens to the content after reprocessing, in the case of Japan?
Turned into MOX fuel and shipped back to Japan.

Most of the Pu is actually still in storage in the UK and France. The Japanese have 38 tons of reactor grade Pu in Europe and about 12 tons in Japan itself. They've started to fuel LWRs with MOX so the external stockpile will slowly come down as it is converted to MOX fuel.

IIRC from many years ago, the Japanese have ~50 tonne Pu.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Jul 2009 02:29

So is the Russian Kudankulam reactors "grandfathered" - from reproc PoV?

Russians have no problem with India reprocessing any spent fuel under IAEA safeguards.
That doesn't mean they will supply the reprocessing technology. What they have given is reprocessing rights for existing and future reactors.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Jul 2009 02:42

Arun_S wrote:IIRC from many years ago, the Japanese have ~50 tonne Pu.

Many sources give a figure of 43 tons in 2005

http://cnic.jp/english/topics/cycle/MOX ... mar09.html

2 March 2009 - Open Letter to Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, International Atomic Energy Agency

Since the 1970's when Japan, France and others were warned about the proliferation dangers inherent within commercial plutonium, the global stockpile of commercial plutonium has risen to in excess of 250 metric tons. Sufficient for tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. In the case of Japan, its stockpile of plutonium has increased from 6 metric tons in 1993 to over 43 tons today.

http://www.globalcollab.org/Nautilus/pr ... M47v51.pdf

If the Rokkasho plant starts operation as planned, Japan’s plutonium stockpile will likely to grow to more than 70t by 2020 from the current 43t in 2005.

. If the Rokkasho reprocessing plant operates at nominal capacity, about 8t of plutonium will be recovered annually. Japanese utilities plan to recycle all plutonium, including the 37.4t in Europe, into existing Light Water Reactors (LWRs), but no single reactor has been loaded with MOX fuel as of February 2006.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2009 03:33

Gerard wrote: Russians have no problem with India reprocessing any spent fuel under IAEA safeguards.
That doesn't mean they will supply the reprocessing technology. What they have given is reprocessing rights for existing and future reactors.

Which is what the French are also giving.

Guess India will have to settle for that scenario.

"clean waiver" means that in NSGspeak.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 14 Jul 2009 03:45

India may not be hit by G-8 raising bar on nuke tech transfer - Indrani Bagchi

As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh heads to France, a key element in India's civil nuclear agreement with that country should give the
government comfort when he sits down for talks on nuclear trade with President Nicholas Sarkozy. The agreement permits India to reprocess French-origin nuclear fuel on its own. France will offer to reprocess only if India asks it to.

Russia is also learnt to have agreed to let India reprocess fuel that it may supply.

The understanding with the two nuclear suppliers is one of the reasons why India is not overly concerned about the recent G-8 statement on non-proliferation where the grouping apparently raised the bar on transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies (ENR) to countries that don't have it. At this point, India is only looking to be able to reprocess foreign-origin fuel, which in principle has been granted by France and Russia in their civil nuclear agreements which are yet to be made public. The other reason for its being reassured is that since India already possesses ENR technology, it can argue that this does not apply to it.
...

However, it's true the US has been shifting goalposts on the issue. First, it said there should be "criteria-based" approach for ENR exports for countries that don't have it. Then it agreed to an approach that would decide on a case-by-case basis on the credentials of the country that applied. But this "subjective" argument was dismissed by Brazil and Argentina
, as was the argument that the IAEA additional protocol should be made a supply condition.

...
There are two bottomlines that have to be remembered. First, India has a huge ace -- that climate change negotiations cannot go anywhere unless India has a viable alternative to hydrocarbon use, and that is nuclear. This is an argument that will trump many others in the current race for a climate change deal.

Second, the real target of the G-8, or NSG, is not India, which is not a proliferation threat, but Iran, which is. If ENR technology was to be denied to non-NPT countries, it would leave Iran within the tent and keep India out. However much the world may dislike the Indian nuclear deal, that is really not anyone's intention.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2009 19:40

I guess ND water has something we at BR are not aware of:

No G8 worry as India and France discuss nuclear trade

PARIS/NEW DELHI: The G8 declaration on inhibiting the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies (ENR) to those countries who have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would have no effect on India, Indian officials said here ahead of the meeting between Prime Minsiter Manmohan Singh and French President Nicolas Sarkozy Tuesday.

"We are receiving no help from anybody," official sources said. It would have no practical effect for India, which had been enriching for long, they added.

Never mind. Telling the US no reactors without ENR was just a silly joke that none of understood.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Jul 2009 20:05

RaviBg wrote:India may not be hit by G-8 raising bar on nuke tech transfer - Indrani Bagchi

However, it's true the US has been shifting goalposts on the issue. First, it said there should be "criteria-based" approach for ENR exports for countries that don't have it. Then it agreed to an approach that would decide on a case-by-case basis on the credentials of the country that applied. But this "subjective" argument was dismissed by Brazil and Argentina, as was the argument that the IAEA additional protocol should be made a supply condition.

There are two bottomlines that have to be remembered. First, India has a huge ace -- that climate change negotiations cannot go anywhere unless India has a viable alternative to hydrocarbon use, and that is nuclear. This is an argument that will trump many others in the current race for a climate change deal.

Second, the real target of the G-8, or NSG, is not India, which is not a proliferation threat, but Iran, which is. If ENR technology was to be denied to non-NPT countries, it would leave Iran within the tent and keep India out. However much the world may dislike the Indian nuclear deal, that is really not anyone's intention.

Can somebody please translate the bold-marked portion? How is targeting Iran, not India, compatible with hitting India, not Iran?

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 14 Jul 2009 20:21

RajeshA wrote: Can somebody please translate the bold-marked portion? How is targeting Iran, not India, compatible with hitting India, not Iran?

China reveals Iran's nuclear secrets to UN

Iran had signed the NPT.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2009 20:23

Besides Iran is an NPT signatory.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 14 Jul 2009 20:35

RajeshA wrote:Can somebody please translate the bold-marked portion? How is targeting Iran, not India, compatible with hitting India, not Iran?

RajeshA
All that is said might be wishful statements, but my interpretation is as follows.

The nuclear deal not only allows nuclear commerce but also in high tech equipment and materials which are dual use (vis-a-vis the nuke program. Those related to missile tech might still have embargo). IMHO progress on allowing high tech commerce is far more important in the short term and an accurate indicator of Unkil's intentions. Now as far as ENR is concerned, nobody might be willing to export entire designs or design expertise for ENR but we might be allowed to import components which go into a ENR plant, like precision machinery and equipment.

I for one, am very confident that if you allow individual components, the SDRE engineers and scientists are more than capable of making a top of the line ENR plant all by themselves. Everybody wins. The west has not exported "ENR Technology", the SDREs benefit from import of say, precision machinery.

However as far as Iran is concerned, the export on high tech items as well as ENR would stay.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Jul 2009 20:44

Anujan ji, shravan ji,

I was merely confused by the statement.
Second, the real target of the G-8, or NSG, is not India, which is not a proliferation threat, but Iran, which is. If ENR technology was to be denied to non-NPT countries, it would leave Iran within the tent and keep India out. However much the world may dislike the Indian nuclear deal, that is really not anyone's intention.

The G-8 agreed on export curbs of ENR technology to non-NPT countries. Iran is a NPT signatory, so obviously those curbs are not applicable on Iran. The only countries that can be targeted under that formulation are India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea.

So how can the author argue, that India was not the intended target of these new curbs, but rather Iran?

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 14 Jul 2009 21:06

RajeshA wrote:Anujan ji, shravan ji,

I was merely confused by the statement....

This might help us understand the issue.
-------
http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralN ... Id=1003537

The Indian government Monday said that it is not worried by the G-8 countries' pledge to curb transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology and items to countries that have not signed the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), reports say.

Responding to the issue raised by Najma Heptulla of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee pointed out India had received country-specific clean waiver from the appropriate bodies--the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

"We have got a clean waiver and not concerned over the position of the G8 countries….so far as trade [is concerned] every individual country has the right to enter or not to enter… so far as the civil nuclear cooperation is concerned, the appropriate agency is the IAEA and the 45-member NSG. We have got a clean waiver. We are not deeply concerned [over the G8 stand]," he said.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 14 Jul 2009 22:21

What is the source of the ENR tech that India is supposedly out to seek. French? Russian? American? Japanese?

The French and the Russians are the ones who the US is afraid may pass on just about anything under the sky provided the price is right, hence this move at the G-8. But if the koondalulum reactors came in with enr tech as a package to the deal, maybe India has beaten this G-8 sanction. The deal with AREVA has not been finalized yet I think.

But negative marks to India for going slow on this. India should have gone in and snapped up watertight deals before anyone could play truant, everyone saw that the US was not eager to allow some specific ENR techs to fall into India's hands. This is a move by the US to cut off any chances by India to make those deals along with the multibillion dollar reactor deals.

It seems this blocking of ENR has a dual purpose,
1. To prevent India from increasing dramatically the stockpile of WG Pu.
2. To delay the 3 stage program. Since a mature nuclear power like India will sooner or later develop almost any tech on its own, the only purpose this will serve now is to delay as much as possible.

Now this intention is downright animosity. Not denial of tech, but hurting a nation's interests by delaying its development, and should be seen as such and conveyed as such. There is no proliferation advantage that the world is gaining by delaying the tech development by India, it is only being done with an intention to hurt India.
India needs to be clear on this, and convey this as such.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 14 Jul 2009 22:35

Now this intention is downright animosity. Not denial of tech, but hurting a nation's interests by delaying its development, and should be seen as such and conveyed as such. There is no proliferation advantage that the world is gaining by delaying the tech development by India, it is only being done with an intention to hurt India.
India needs to be clear on this, and convey this as such.

Very well put! It is just that.

negi · Post by **negi** » 14 Jul 2009 22:42

I agree with Anujan's pov ; specially when BARC has already made steady strides in the fabrication and operation of 4th Generation Gas Centrifuges (Iirc there was a report on fuel produced inhouse being used in Kalpakkam reactor) so the 'enrichment technology' is already there the deal imo provides us with opportunity to acquire high precision computerized machining tools which would help us improve the efficiency and the performance of the existing enrichment facilities to the next level.

So from Indian context it is these tools/machines which are a point of interest as a part of the deal (ofcourse the reactors and fuel are primary) .As long as India enjoys the RIGHT to re-process and enrich the nuclear fuel there is little reason for concern as far as security and sovereignty of nuclear programme is concerned.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jul 2009 22:51

p-Saggu et al, India has the tech and knowhow and will rely on that. However India has a greater goal of being treated as an equal, to make India a defacto NWS if not dejure NWS. India will pursue the ENR rights if that is denied to her to establish her rights. Simple as that. If any person or country deludes themselves into thinking that India doesn't have it (whatever) and is pursusing it than he is sadly mistaken.

BTW, the blueprint for this was in an old article by KS in 1993 timeframe in the BAS wher he advocated an amendment to the NPT. It was rejected in 1995 and extended in perpetuity by US pressure for they thought they had the keys to unravel India after collapse of FSU. The PRC interlocutors told KS that its only those who had the bum could talk about disarmament.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 Jul 2009 23:33

Was watching G Parthasarthy on TV today.

As per what he says ENR post the G-8 declaration is applicable only to US imports of reactors.

The french and russian deals with India are already "grandfathered" and the denial of ENR does not apply here.

With the amreki reactors, we can either not buy amreki or buy amreki and use Indian ENR if required.

The sheer size of the Indian nuclear market > $ 150 billion, has caused canada and brazil to oppose any amreki shenanigans on restrictions at this late stage, especially after the clean NSG waiver.

The G-8 declaration is not of much importance for India.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Jul 2009 23:46

The french and russian deals with India are already "grandfathered" and the denial of ENR does not apply here.

The French and Russian deals provide for (a) LWR reactors (b) a guaranteed supply of enriched Uranium fuel (c) reprocessing rights (under IAEA safeguards) for the spent fuel.

ENR tech is another matter. No deal so far has included either enrichment or reprocessing technology. Both Russia and France have strong economic reasons to restrict spread of commercial scale ENR.

Even without reprocessing rights, US LWRs might still be bought since they include supply of enriched fuel. The US companies would however have to take back all the spent fuel for disposal in the USA.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 15 Jul 2009 00:44

Agreed that India has now refined the gas centrifuge tech. But there are other enrichment techs out there we might be looking for.

I remember lasers being talked about. The wiki page on enrichment enumerates a dozen methods, some are able to give you the purest enrichment possible.

I feel that India will eventually develop any tech on its own, it is the right to be accepted as a mature nuclear power and have on one in the world ever dream of imposing restrictions on Indian trade and tech development that matters.

The issue is one of liberty, equality and of fast paced development that India seeks.

Reprocessing tech is another snake pit that is not being brought up as yet.

negi · Post by **negi** » 15 Jul 2009 01:00

^ Those are only limited to research purposes or in nascent stages of development but afaik the Gas centrifuges are the one's commercially viable and pretty much an Industry standard.

Re-processing the spent fuel has never been an issue for India; those NPA's don't cry about our PU stockpile for nothing

; what do you think we do with the spent fuel produced by those ...15 ?...CANDU derivatives which we have built in so many years ?

We have 3 processing plants operating in Trombay, Tarapur and Kalpakkam.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 15 Jul 2009 02:49

negi wrote:^ Those are only limited to research purposes or in nascent stages of development but afaik the Gas centrifuges are the one's commercially viable and pretty much an Industry standard.

Re-processing the spent fuel has never been an issue for India; those NPA's don't cry about our PU stockpile for nothing ; what do you think we do with the spent fuel produced by those ...15 ?...CANDU derivatives which we have built in so many years ?

We have 3 processing plants operating in Trombay, Tarapur and Kalpakkam.

CAN-DO (no pun intended) is no substitute for HAVE DONE.

WHEN FMTC shit hits the fan, all the stockpile of Pu in spend fuel rods awaiting reprocessing will mean Ziltch for India.

So CAN-DO will not fly, Just do it and be done with it.

negi · Post by **negi** » 15 Jul 2009 03:09

WHEN FMTC shit hits the fan, all the stockpile of Pu in spend fuel rods awaiting reprocessing will mean Ziltch for India.

Why ? Afaik FMCT curbs the use of fissile material for weaponisation purpose only ; it does not in anyway deny the signatory the right to re-process and use the processed fuel for Civilian applications .

And lastly FMCT of all the rags NPA have churned is the least verifiable and most ambiguous.Here India and impending FMCT .....Prof. R RajaRaman

A must read... as of now since India has not signed the rag...peace.

Btw last I read NPA's have pulled a new rabbit...aka GNEP it becomes more hillarious and chai-biskoot onlee from here on.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 15 Jul 2009 03:39

Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh chosen as sites for US nuclear reactors

Days before US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives here on her first official visit after taking charge, India is learnt to have firmed up a site each in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh that will be dedicated for the first US nuclear reactors after the nuclear deal.
...
It’s learnt that officials from both sides have also firmed up the Technology Safeguards Agreement which will allow India to launch satellites built with US-origin equipment. This is expected to be signed during the visit and is an important precursor to the Commercial Space Launch Agreement, which has been pending for a long time.

Another crucial agreement that is on the verge of being finalized over the next couple of days is the End-User Verification (EUV) Agreement, which would then permit US to sell defence products to India.

However, sources said, US is not keen to go public on this because exceptions have been made for India, deviating from the standard format of the EUV so as to accommodate Indian concerns over on-site inspections. This agreement was delayed due to Left opposition in the last UPA tenure. Another agreement on science & technology cooperation will also be concluded during the visit which will set up an endowment fund — with equal contributory partnership between the two countries — to facilitate exchange of people and projects.
...

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 15 Jul 2009 07:50

Location of the planned nuclear power projects in India.
The locations announced for the US for Ms clinton's visit are Mithirvirdi, Gujarat and Srikakulam, AP

PS: We all need to protest to google earth for showing Arunachal Pradesh as disputed in red lines.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 15 Jul 2009 08:23

Obama administration committed to fulfill N-deal obligations

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 Jul 2009 14:50

PS: We all need to protest to google earth for showing Arunachal Pradesh as disputed in red lines.

*I mentioned this here some time back. Shocking. We don't consider it disputed. Thats why i said then, using the same logic, lets claim Kashi, Mansarover, Tibet. Let the world see these areas marked in 'disputed red' too. Paki's and Pandas play the PR game well. Or is i because there are some people of Chinese origin in google at the top?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 Jul 2009 14:53

The locations announced for the US for Ms clinton's visit are Mithirvirdi, Gujarat and Srikakulam, AP

So she'll be meeting Modi? Good for her to get a first hand feel of what Modi has done for Gujarat.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 15 Jul 2009 15:02

I am confused:

Why do we need ENR tech for? What will we do with the enriched uranium? Wasnt the deal mainly to ensure a reliable supply of uranium to enable more power plants and energy security? Thats being achieved isnt it?

If its arguing for matter of principle, then its a different story.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jul 2009 17:06

negi wrote:
Btw last I read NPA's have pulled a new rabbit...aka GNEP it becomes more hillarious and chai-biskoot onlee from here on.

GNEP is a very, very, very old "rabbit".

It predates even the first meeting of Bush-MMS.

India being a part of GNEP was brought up just after the first meet between Bush-MMS. Then went totally silent.

BTW, both France and Russia signed on to GNEP, with India as a receiving country.

The G-8 announcement ties in perfectly with GNEP (if at all that is the plan).

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 15 Jul 2009 17:23

Tanaji wrote:I am confused:

Why do we need ENR tech for? What will we do with the enriched uranium? Wasnt the deal mainly to ensure a reliable supply of uranium to enable more power plants and energy security? Thats being achieved isnt it?

If its arguing for matter of principle, then its a different story.

Enriched Uranium contains 5% of U-235 which is the active fuel. Rest is U-238 which does not burn.
During the operation of the reactor some of U-238 gets converted into Plutonium Pu-239 and other Pu-isotopes.
Reprocessing basically extracts the plutonium and India has the technology to convert it into MOX fuel which can be used in reactors instead of enriched uranium. Alternatively the same reactor fuel can be reprocessed to make crude nuclear bombs(upto 10kT) with reactor grade plutonium.

The reason for opposition is
1. If India reprocesses fuel it will not require large quantities of enriched uranium(and thus fuel suppliers will loose a large amount of business.The energy content of 1kg of plutonium is equal to 1000 tonnes of gasoline. )
2. India can use the reprocessed plutonium for weapons use.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 15 Jul 2009 17:46

Thanks Rohiths

But, if I am not mistaken, shortage of Pu to make bums has never been our concern isn't it? For whatever size our arsenal has been deemed to be, we have always had the Pu to make them. Even after the segregation of military and non military reactors, we will have enough Pu for the forseeable future. So we aren't strictly dependant on ENR for Pu?

As for MOX, dont we reprocess and make MOX already? The deal already gives us the right to reprocess the imported fuel, what is it specifically that this ENR gives us that we dont have right now?

Just trying to learn, this thread is dangerous, so no brickbats please.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jul 2009 18:00

There is ENR for "civilian" use and then there is ENR for non-"civilian" use.

the ENR being sought via the Indo-US deal relates to ENR for imported reactors for civilian use ONLY. They will ALL be under IAEA safeguards. So, from an Indian PoV, there is no topic of nuclear bombs. For, IF they are used for nuclear bombs IAEA has failed.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 16 Jul 2009 02:17

Nuclear fuel arrives from Russia, France - T.S. Subramaniam

CHENNAI: India has already received natural uranium in the form of pellets from Russia and as yellowcake from Areva of France for use in its safeguarded reactors, according to S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL).
...
...
Mr. Jain said on Tuesday that India had also received clearance from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the fabrication of this imported fuel into fuel rods. The process was now underway at the Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC), Hyderabad.

“…I am happy to share with you that I flagged off on Saturday [July 11] the first consignment of fabricated fuel from the NFC for use in the second unit [already under safeguards] of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (RAPS),” Mr. Jain said.
...
The supply of indigenous natural uranium fuel had gone up with the mine and mill at Turamdih in Jharkhand adding to the supply from the mill at the nearby Jaduguda. This had led to the PHWRs operating between 60 per cent and 65 per cent capacity factor compared to less than 50 per cent earlier. “I plan to take them to 70 per cent,” Mr. Jain said.

The fourth reactor at Kaiga in Karnataka would reach criticality in six to eight months with the increased flow of indigenous natural uranium.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 16 Jul 2009 04:07

Singh scores despite nuke block

India is learnt to have made a few key bilateral breakthroughs in the direction of neutralising “any adverse consequences” of the recent G8 resolve to block enrichment and reprocessing technologies unless New Delhi signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).

Sources said France had indicated to India during the visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (at the NAM summit in picture on left) to Paris as guest of honour at the Bastille Day parade that “nothing” in the G8 resolution would be allowed to come in the way of civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries.

France was the first nation with which India signed a nuclear co-operation deal after the NSG safeguards clearance and the initialling of the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal last year. The sources also said the Russians, with whom too India has signed a co-operation agreement, have given similar assurances.

Thought to be a setback, India has not officially reacted to the G8 proliferation statement adopted at the recent L’Aquila summit in Italy — “We are studying the text of the statement” has been the only formal word.

Off record, however, senior officials have downplayed adverse implications of the G8 decision and maintained it will not impact India’s progress on the front, especially with regard to nuclear fuel. “In any event, we are not seeking ENR facilities from abroad,” officials have explained. “We have our own ENR facilities.”

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Jul 2009 06:36

Nuke deal’s first gains reach India

The Indo-US nuclear deal produced its first tangible results with consignments of nuclear fuel from France, Russia and Kazakhstan arriving at the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (RAPS) site in Rawatbhata on Wednesday

Since RAPS is a safeguarded facility, inspection officials from the IAEA will arrive after a week just before the bundles are loaded into the second unit.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 17 Jul 2009 09:02

A new challenge on the nuclear front
Not sure if this has been posted before
The G8 decision on enrichment and reprocessing-related trade is a wake-up call for the Indian establishment

Siddharth Varadarajan

It is one thing to try and spin one’s way out of domestic criticism but if the Manmohan Singh government really believes the recent G8 ban on sensitive nuclear technology sales is no big deal then the situation is much more alarming than I first thought.

Two weeks before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s scheduled arrival date in New Delhi, the State Department spokesman said that the U.S. hoped India would be in a position to identify the physical sites where American companies will get to locate their multi-billion dollar nuclear reactors. The final reprocessing arrangements and procedures have yet to be negotiated but the U.S. is keen to mark its territory. Yet, the Indian government baulks from publicly expressing its concern about the manner in which Washington is going about unilaterally seeking to alter the terms of the July 2005 Indo-U.S. agreement under which those reactors will be sold to us in the first place.

Not only that, senior officials who should know better have sought to downplay the significance of last week’s G8 statement on nonproliferation. When reporters sought a government reaction on the interim ban the eight countries announced on enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) items and technology sales to India, Pakistan and Israel, what they got were comforting but spurious arguments.

Prior to September 2008, the Nuclear Suppliers Group — the 45-nation cartel of nuclear exporters — had a blanket ban on all nuclear sales to these three countries, currently the only ones still outside the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. But on September 4, 2008, the NSG agreed to the U.S. proposal to exempt India from this ban. This U.S. proposal was part of the full civil nuclear energy cooperation commitments the White House made in exchange for getting India to agree to separate its military and civilian nuclear programmes and place the latter under international safeguards.

The letter and spirit of the July 2005 joint statement has since been reflected in three legally binding texts — the Indo-U.S. bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement (the ‘123 agreement’), India’s safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the NSG decision of 2008, all of which reflected a carefully-crafted balance of rights and obligations.

Even though the July 2005 agreement spoke of “full civil nuclear cooperation,” the U.S. was never keen to allow India access to sensitive nuclear items and technology. After a series of tough exchanges, however, Indian negotiators were able to secure restrictive but enabling language on ENR in the 123 agreement and Hyde Act, the U.S. domestic law to which bilateral nuclear commerce is wedded. The battle resumed in the run up to the NSG meetings last year but in the end India secured a clean exemption allowing it safeguarded access to every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle. This clean exemption has now been negated by the U.S.-instigated G8 ban on ENR. As have the restrictive but enabling clauses of the Hyde Act and the 123 agreement, neither of which spoke of NPT adherence as a condition of supply.

The government needs to realise the problem will not go away just because one pretends it does not exist. Nor will it get what it wants internationally by remaining silent in the hope that some benign invisible hand will deliver India what it wants. The kind of unilateralism and reversibility Washington has pushed at L’Aquila and is pushing in the NSG goes against the letter and spirit of the Indo-U.S. agreement. India should have strongly pressed its case last year itself, when the Bush administration publicly announced its intention of seeking NPT conditionality for ENR sales. It should have told the U.S. this was not acceptable. And it should have worked with NSG members like Russia, France, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, Turkey and Kazakhstan who have either strong commercial interests in nuclear commerce with India or are opposed to tighter ENR rules for their own specific reasons. None of this was done. In May 2009, the NSG troika visited New Delhi for consultations. One wonders how vigorously India’s views on the matter were put across.

After falling asleep at the wheel, official sources have begun floating a number of explanations for why there is no need for the country to be unduly concerned about what has happened at the G8. Let us consider each one in turn.

* The general U.S. push towards restricting ENR sales move was not unexpected.

Well, if it was not unexpected, the country would like to know what was done to deal with these well advertised American intentions. It is not as if India did not successfully handle rollback attempts during the negotiations from 2005 to 2008.

* India is not a part of G8 and could not have known about the contents of the declaration in advance.

India has strong friendships with several G8 countries, including some without a strong attachment to the U.S. position. Given Washington’s declared intention of getting the NSG to freeze India out of fuel cycle trade and the fact that the G8 tends to form a ginger group within the NSG whenever new rules are discussed, it should have been obvious that the matter would come up in L’Aquila. Some proactive lobbying with France or Russia might have ensured a less damaging decision.

* G8 decisions are not necessarily binding.

G8 statements promising tender, loving care for Africa may not be binding but the group takes its nonproliferation decisions extremely seriously.

* The G8 has been discussing tighter ENR rules since 2004. India is not a specific target.

True, but the July 2005 agreement was premised on a break with the world as it was up to 2004, with only two categories of states: NPT and non-NPT. First the U.S., and then the NSG, acknowledged that India could not be clubbed together with the two remaining non-NPT states. Its nonproliferation record, strategic weight, economic heft and political responsibility meant the world was better off with India inside the ‘regime’ than outside. L’Aquila has revived the notion of India being just another outlier. That is why the G8 Nonproliferation Statement actually begins with an explicit call for countries not party to the NPT to “accede without delay”. Not only was such a call not made at the Toyako summit last year but the G8 actually endorsed the need for a “more robust approach to civil nuclear cooperation with India.”

* India is only bound by what it has agreed with the NSG.

True, but the NSG is on the verge of changing its guidelines and India has also pledged to accept and abide by any changes. The time to actively engage is now, when the new rules are being debated, and not after they are adopted.

* India needs time to study the NSG proposal that the G8 has adopted before it jumps to conclusions.

When the NSG discussed the issue of new rules for ENR trade in November, consensus was established on a broad range of criteria even as some proposals — like the requirement that a state adhere to the Additional Protocol before it can buy ENR equipment — remained “bracketed.” The G8 has decided to implement the non-bracketed “clean text” as an interim measure. With the NSG consisting of 45 countries, it would be astonishing if India did not already know what was in this “clean text.”

L’Aquila is an unpleasant wake-up call, a reminder to India that it must remain vigilant as it moves forward to implement its agreements on civil nuclear cooperation with the U.S. and the rest of the world. Let us not pretend that a rollback on ENR isn’t being attempted. Let us acknowledge it and find ways to deal with the challenge. Though the rollback attempt began during the Bush administration, the new administration is clearly committed to it.

The time for resting on the laurels of last year’s victory at the NSG has long ended.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 17 Jul 2009 20:32

On eve of Clinton visit, 'denial' puts N-deal back in focus

To add to India's woes, on the eve of Clinton's arrival, the biggest dampener of all has come in the form of America's clever attempt at G-8 to insert a clause asking G-8 nations to ban transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies to countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

By all accounts, it seems that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [ Images ] and Indian diplomats did not even know about it, even though India had participated in the summit. America's action in this regard is considered the manifestation of President Barack Obama's [ Images ] desire for wide-ranging measures to control nuclear proliferation and free the world of nuclear arms.

Writing today in the Wall Street Journal, former envoy to the United Nations T P Sreenivasan, a staunch supporter of the Indo-US nuclear deal, stated, 'The latest G-8 decision to ban the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing items to non-NPT countries strikes at the very root of full civil nuclear cooperation. This move might jeopardise the talks scheduled for modalities of reprocessing. What would happen to the spent fuel from Tarapur (atomic power station) if reprocessing is not facilitated? This partnership may end up looking like a three-legged race in which two athletes are tethered together but incapable of deploying their collective strength.'

When asked about his response to the government's contention that India is solely guided by the NSG waiver, Siddhartha Varadarajan, senior journalist with The Hindu who broke the story about the G-8 ban, told rediff.com, "India may be guided solely by the NSG waiver but the G-8 will be guided by its decision and the NSG by whatever new rules they adopt in the future. If the government does not act now to prevent new rules from being adopted, it will eventually be faced with a difficult choice in the future, neither of which is good: Either it will have to accept the US-led unilateral reversal of the terms of the deal with the NSG, or will have to declare that it is no longer bound by its own commitments to the NSG, thereby ending nuclear imports from all the 45 countries, including reactors and fuel. Both of these outcomes will be bad for India."

Those who are against the deal also argue that the government can't say that since India has the technology for ENR, why bother.

"This is a ridiculous argument. Only those who have hands-on experience can appreciate the issues involved in coping with the denial of equipment and components, particularly in the ENR sector. While we have stuck our neck out by agreeing to set up a dedicated state-of-the-art reprocessing plant, we seem to accept the denial of any supplies related to this plant and at the same time, subject the design of the plant to external review to assess its safeguardability. This is a huge trap being laid out to deny us reprocessing rights and may ultimately prove suicidal," said Prasad.

When asked for further clarification on the issue, a source in the ministry said, "We have not seen the specifics of the G-8 document because it is not public, so I can't comment further." this Sheela Bhatt article came out on July 17!! Gerard: could you send GoI a copy of the G-8 statement you posted here on July 10!!!