Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 28 Jul 2007

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Aug 2007 03:50

language here as i understood.. first of all, from the existing facilities, unkil wants a clear separation. second of all, if we build FBRs or any type of reactor for "civilian purpose", it has to be in the safeguards. thirdly, if I am reading the reports correct, any future FBR (no time mentioned) will be eventually in safeguards.

if we are doing something for mil.. its not mentioned. it should be classified is our (my understanding

).. may be from unkil's point of view, not mentioned means, we should not build any type of military reactors since its not mentioned.

and they are happy since the inclusion of the word (any future breeders).

/interpretation.

Hence, both sides are satisfied.. and we can proceed per our interpretations.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 01 Aug 2007 03:53

Sparsh wrote:How many bloody times does someone have to keep repeating this:

The GoI will decide which future DAE facilities including future FBRs are civilian and which ones are not.

Why is it so hard for people to understand such a simple thing?

Would certainly like to believe this. But why so many contradictory reports? WHo is sowing this confusion?
Burns says India's future FBR will be under safeguards. Then contradicts with we won't interfere in their strategic program. Is he saying the FBR and the strategic program are separate issues? And the less said about Mulford's big mouth, the better.
MKN gets asked this epcifically in the media breif. Note that MKN says FBR 'at the moment' is not under int'l obligations. Why don't MKN or AK state this in uncertain terms that FUTURE FBRs are at India's discretion in the separation plan. Why this tip-toeing around a clear-cut answer on this score?

JMTPs and IMVHOs etc.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Aug 2007 03:59

Prefixing where ever possible with "civilian" word is important for this deal. That's all I think, our babooze need to wake up to. If they don't prefix it, then they are lying, cheating, SoBs.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 01 Aug 2007 04:13

SaiK wrote:language here as i understood.. first of all, from the existing facilities, unkil wants a clear separation. second of all, if we build FBRs or any type of reactor for "civilian purpose", it has to be in the safeguards. thirdly, if I am reading the reports correct, any future FBR (no time mentioned) will be eventually in safeguards.

if we are doing something for mil.. its not mentioned. it should be classified is our (my understanding ).. may be from unkil's point of view, not mentioned means, we should not build any type of military reactors since its not mentioned. and they are happy since the inclusion of the word (any future breeders).

/interpretation.

Hence, both sides are satisfied.. and we can proceed per our interpretations.

I want to know if they can cut off our supplies and invoke "Law of Return" over our building something they didn't like. I'm not talking about an N-Test here, I'm just talking about our building reactors, facilities, etc that US Congress or a hostile future admin might try to pick a fight over.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Aug 2007 04:19

They didn't want the Tarapur spent fuel, do you think they'll accept hundreds of tons of radioactive concrete, steel, and fissile material?

Which port in the USA will allow such things to enter ?
Which communities will allow such things in their backyard?

And who will pay for it all?

Return of material is a bluff that can be called at any time.

And which Federal court marshall will enforce the Hyde Act inside India

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Aug 2007 04:21

Non testing related cut-off or right to return means, we have literally idiots sitting and writing these documents. I sincerely hope that is not the case. Until the texts are out.. you are free to think.

Let alone, the reality that nuclear and its waste material return can cause hazards etc.. but having it said in the document is all that needs attention. We don't want to fool nor we want to be fooled.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Aug 2007 04:27

What is problematic is an NSG rule that mimics the 123... an NSG wide cutoff of fuel from all suppliers in the event of a test (nobody will really want tons of radioactive waste of a dismantled reactor).

But as it is now, India can't get fuel or reactors from NSG members anyway (with the sole exception of fuel provided to maintain reactor safety - ala Russian Tarapur shipment).

So what would really change in the event of a test? Return to 2007 status quo? Not very likely.
I suspect the possession ICBMs and SSBNs will make all the difference in reactions to a nuclear test.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Aug 2007 04:33

Well.. yeah! generally speaking, but since the agreement is bi-party imho, the word "nobody" has no meaning. Hence, America must take back the fuel if such a foolish argument is documented.

I am sure our ICBMs and SLBMs will precede nuclear test in the future. If not, then our strategic community has a big hole in their brains.

I understand, America might not supply us the fuel once they feel that we possess something can hit them (like Russians), but if that is documented again, we have a poor negotiating team.

Documents apart, American and its poodle nations, can decide out of politics and outside this document and still prevent fuel supplies for any reason they might sight. Perhaps, each fuel supply agreement must be contracted such that supplier pays penalty or will amount to confiscation of the supplied fuel and defaulting clause etc. No payments till reactor go critical or something like that.

Strategic reserves should also act as backup up plan.

And IAEA has no authority on processes, methods and usage of fuel. Their only job is to ensure security of these facility and make sure no proliferation happens outside these listed facilities, including the security services provided to transport fuel from one facility to the other.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Aug 2007 05:34

Bad Company
Before the U.S. makes a nuclear deal with India, it should insist on an end to ties with Iran.

India and Iran: New Delhiâ€™s Balancing Act

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Aug 2007 05:38

India, France hold talks on nuclear cooperation

williams · Post by **williams** » 01 Aug 2007 05:46

My opinion to avoid blood pressure is to read the 123 text. I read that FM promised that it will be put on the website by 1st or 2nd. We just have to read it before judging anything. I really hope left and BJP will make their biggest noise if anything is not in our national interest. It is also mysterious that AK says he is satisfied but based on GOI's position.

Sparsh · Post by **Sparsh** » 01 Aug 2007 05:59

Vsudhir,

MKN gets asked this epcifically in the media breif. Note that MKN says FBR 'at the moment' is not under int'l obligations.

Read his reply again and think about it for just a moment. The FBR program is entirely on the non-civilian side at the moment. In the future some parts of it, i.e. some FBRs, might be on the civilian side.

Why don't MKN or AK state this in uncertain terms that FUTURE FBRs are at India's discretion in the separation plan. Why this tip-toeing around a clear-cut answer on this score?

The tip-toeing is entirely a figment of your ignorance. They have explicitly stated that in black and white. From the horse's mouth:

http://www.dae.gov.in/press/sepplan.pdf

"iii) Future Reactors: India has decided to place under safeguards all future civilian
thermal power reactors and civilian breeder reactors, and the Government of India
retains the sole right to determine such reactors as civilian."

And yet on a regular basis we have people driven by their insecurity complexes rake up the FBR issue and whine and moan and bitch about it. This is starting to get really tiresome now.

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 01 Aug 2007 06:12

AllahoAkbar! I have decided to correct the errors of my ways.

Here is my latest understanding of the India-US Nookulear Sellout:

1. India has lost its freedom to test nuclear bombs whenever the PM needed to make a TV broadcast. All these years we had this freedom, and have been testing nukes every week. No more.

2. All Indian universities, research institutes and public restrooms (all 3 of them) will now be opened to IAEA Intrusive Inspection. We need to put up a sign:

To Stop Train Pull Chain. Penalty for Improper Use Rs. 500. Please look in b4 pulling da flush. Avoid drowning IAEA Inspector.

This is terrible, because until now everything done at our universities, and places like Tata Institute of Fundamental Research has been top secret. They have been researching Fundaments aka Musharrafs, which is Top Secret, which is why they don't produce any PhDs or research publications. No more.

3. All the fuel that India was going to buy from Nigeria and Rwanda will now be added to the fuel rented from the US, and put in this Fuel Prison. Spoilsports!

Otherwise, we were just going to go on a shopping spree and buy megatons of Pu from all over the world. Every country that has any Pu has been dying to sell it to us.

4. More later.. this is all shattering, and I just feel like

Glad there are so many others likewise

rocky · Post by **rocky** » 01 Aug 2007 07:07

Manne wrote:People here would remember the report published by a wet-behind-the-ears bong PIO from Stanford under the guidance of David the NPA. If you recall the gist of that report, and read kgoan's post again, you will see what US is fast realising as slipping out of their hands.

Are you referring to the Basu report along with Halfbright about Ratehalli?

When AK had talked of India helping out US nuclear industry it was not taken very seriously - or, rather, was taken seriously without understanding what he was getting at.

Ok, India can recycle American spent fuel ...

Now, put that in perspective with the fact that India is looking at specific reactors from overseas. Now, piece that puzzle together.

Which specific reactors is India seeking from overseas? This is new information for me ... so apologize if I appear ignorant.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 01 Aug 2007 07:13

ramdas wrote:What about the FMCT issue ? Are we bound to support the future FMCT as and when it comes up ?

It is important to focus on this issue.

Also, Arunji: How can we guess that 4000kg of WgPu already exists in our spent fuel ? Wont that require ~4000t Uranium that has undergone low burnup - i.e, if full burn-up would have led to around 5600t spent fuel, wont this mean that we have around 9000t of spent fuel ? Has our annual production of uranium not been around 250t ? For how long has it been at this rate ? Has there been a conscious effort to build up a stockpile of WgPu using unsafeguarded PHWR's even before 1998 ?

9000 tonne approximately yes. Pls read: http://www.indiaresearch.org/Indo-USStrategicDeal.pdf

3. Indian PHWR reactors that are outside IAEA safeguard when operated for efficient power generation would have cumulatively required just 5,842 tonnes. India is estimated to have mined about 9,200 tonnes I of natural-uranium, indicating that about 55% II of the fuel and 8% of its reactor capacity was used in low fuel burn mode, generally associated with operating the reactors in mode optimized to generate weapon grade Plutonium. This corresponds to about 2,400Kg weapon grade Plutonium enough for 800 strategic nuclear weapon.

.... ... . .

I WEC Survey of Energy Resources 2001 - Uranium Resources : http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/pub ... ranium.asp
II Assuming 650 tonne fuel is set aside for inventory and fuel fabrication WIP. Also factors in reduced plant load factor and fuel for weapon grade Pu stays in reactor only 15% of the normal time.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Aug 2007 07:19

Sparsh wrote:"iii) Future Reactors: India has decided to place under safeguards all future civilian
thermal power reactors and civilian breeder reactors, and the Government of India
retains the sole right to determine such reactors as civilian."

Sparsh - Evaluate the above in the context of FMCT and the time it will take for PFBR to be cooking in full steam. i.e: By the time the next FBR comes in, there will be no more hiding being a strategic program to have the "freedom" to declare reactors as non-civilian. That choice to declare new future FBR's as "Civilian" have a high probablity of being the case by default.

In an FMCT world and the way the separation agreement is drafted, it seems almost all future reactors will be civilian and hence under perpetual safegurds - without choice - even if, they are fueled from domestic sources and/or technology.

PS: I am presuming that the opposite of Civilian is Military and since military uses of reactors would be barred in an FMCT world, they automatically become civilian.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Aug 2007 07:24

Arun: There was this one general, who said, we have enough Pu that bombs could come out of our ears! I was personally thrilled to get some validation for your analysis.

Are there any alternative explanations for the difference in Uranium mined and used for energy?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 01 Aug 2007 07:27

Arun_S wrote:
ramdas wrote:What about the FMCT issue ? Are we bound to support the future FMCT as and when it comes up ?

It is important to focus on this issue.

Also, Arunji: How can we guess that 4000kg of WgPu already exists in our spent fuel ? Wont that require ~4000t Uranium that has undergone low burnup - i.e, if full burn-up would have led to around 5600t spent fuel, wont this mean that we have around 9000t of spent fuel ? Has our annual production of uranium not been around 250t ? For how long has it been at this rate ? Has there been a conscious effort to build up a stockpile of WgPu using unsafeguarded PHWR's even before 1998 ?
9000 tonne approximately yes. Pls read: http://www.indiaresearch.org/Indo-USStrategicDeal.pdf
3. Indian PHWR reactors that are outside IAEA safeguard when operated for efficient power generation would have cumulatively required just 5,842 tonnes. India is estimated to have mined about 9,200 tonnes I of natural-uranium, indicating that about 55% II of the fuel and 8% of its reactor capacity was used in low fuel burn mode, generally associated with operating the reactors in mode optimized to generate weapon grade Plutonium. This corresponds to about 2,400Kg weapon grade Plutonium enough for 800 strategic nuclear weapon.

.... ... . .

I WEC Survey of Energy Resources 2001 - Uranium Resources : http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/pub ... ranium.asp
II Assuming 650 tonne fuel is set aside for inventory and fuel fabrication WIP. Also factors in reduced plant load factor and fuel for weapon grade Pu stays in reactor only 15% of the normal time.

Oh BTW that was a once through cycyle assumption. There is still the very likely possiblity of recycyling. I.e. after reprocessing low burn fuel rods to recover WgPu the spent fuel rod is very low on redioactivity and can be easily re-constituted into fuel rod to burn and use the balance ~85% of fissile fuel to reach full 7500MWd/T burn level. This will only push up higher the Indian WgPu estimate.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 01 Aug 2007 07:36

ShauryaT wrote:Arun: There was this one general, who said, we have enough Pu that bombs could come out of our ears! I was personally thrilled to get some validation for your analysis.

I met brahama rishi of shakti recently it is confirmed that we have enough material for strategic weapons. So folks who love diwali you can chill.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 01 Aug 2007 07:44

self-deleted

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Aug 2007 07:44

Self Del.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 01 Aug 2007 08:05

Arun_S wrote:I met brahama rishi of shakti recently it is confirmed that we have enough material for strategic weapons. So folks who love diwali you can chill.

The issue isn't whether we have enough for now, it's whether we'll have enough for the future. If you put all current and future breeders under safeguards, then we won't.

The key test of this agreement is whether we'll be able to keep building more unsafeguarded breeders in the future. As for N-test, well, I never thought there was any chance of getting them to accept that one. But hopefully a fuel reserve would cover that part.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 01 Aug 2007 08:05

I'm still upset that India was a party to the PTBT of 1963. As Arun said, I would love to see Diwali fireworks off an India ocean island in the range of 100+MT.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 01 Aug 2007 08:16

ShauryaT wrote:Arun: There was this one general, who said, we have enough Pu that bombs could come out of our ears! I was personally thrilled to get some validation for your analysis.

Glad to hear that. I hope many people here on BRF need to open their ear and attention to this.

Are there any alternative explanations ... or energy? What else but stockpile, work in progress at NFC and research reactors. As for stockpile, last year they finsihed it all and they had to reduce power generation to tide over short supply, before DAE gets to reactivate the Uranium mines closed by Finance Minister Dr MM Singh ~1992 when there was much yellow cake in stock and GOI was cutting budget left and right if he can get a wiff of Rupees.

A reasonable WIP level at NFC/ mine pit will be fuel for 1 years comsumption rate corresponding to ~460 tonnes. Although I have heard of 6 months run rate as WIP level being the norm.

I cant think of where else Uranium will go but the reactors and the nabhakiya pandubbee.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Aug 2007 08:18

Sanjay M wrote:The issue isn't whether we have enough for now, it's whether we'll have enough for the future. If you put all current and future breeders under safeguards, then we won't..

Atoms for War?
U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India's Nuclear Arsenal
By Ashley J. Tellis

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/ ... final4.pdf

Indiaâ€™s capacity to produce a huge nuclear arsenal is not affected by prospective U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation. A few facts underscore this conclusion clearly. India is widely acknowledged to possess reserves of 78,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU). The forthcoming Carnegie study concludes that the total inventory of natural uranium required to sustain all the reactors associated with the current power program (both those operational and those under construction) and the weapons program over the entire notional lifetime of these plants runs into some 14,640-14,790 MTUâ€”or, in other words, requirements that are well within even the most conservative valuations of Indiaâ€™s reasonably assured uranium reserves. If the eight reactors that India has retained outside of safeguards were to allocate 1/4 of their cores for the production of weapons-grade materialsâ€”the most realistic possibility for the technical reasons discussed at length in the forthcoming reportâ€”the total amount of natural uranium required to run these facilities for the remaining duration of their notional lives would be somewhere between 19,965-29,124 MTU. If this total is added to the entire natural uranium fuel load required to run Indiaâ€™s two research reactors dedicated to the production of weapons-grade plutonium over their entire life cycleâ€”some 938-1088 MTUâ€”the total amount of natural uranium required by Indiaâ€™s dedicated weapons reactors and all its unsafeguarded PHWRs does not exceed 20,903-30,212 MTU over the remaining lifetime of these facilities. Operating Indiaâ€™s eight unsafeguarded PHWRs in this way would bequeath New Delhi with some 12,135-13,370 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, which is sufficient to produce between 2,023-2,228 nuclear weapons over and above those already existing in the Indian arsenal.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Aug 2007 08:21

Bet on India

IN large part, modern US nuclear non-proliferation policy began with India. India received US aid under the "Atoms for Peace" programme of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its US fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. Decades of US non-cooperation with India's civilian atomic energy programme were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.

Friday marked another step toward the end of that policy -- also with India. The Bush administration and New Delhi announced the principles by which the United States will resume sales of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, as promised by President Bush in July 2005.

The fine print of the agreement, which must still be approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and by Congress, has not yet been released. But the big picture is clear:

The administration is betting that the benefits to the United States and the world of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of a giant exception to the old rules of the non-proliferation game.

There are good reasons to make the bet. India is a booming democracy of more than one billion people, clearly destined to play a growing role on the world stage. It can help the United States as a trading partner and as a strategic counterweight to China and Islamic extremists.

If India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less greenhouse gas. Perhaps most important, India has developed its own nuclear arsenal without selling materials or know-how to other potentially dangerous states. This is more than can be said for Pakistan, home of the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear network.

You can call this a double standard, as some of the agreement's critics do: one set of rules for countries we like, another for those we don't. Or you can call it realism: The agreement provides for more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it.

For example, it allows India to reprocess atomic fuel but at a new facility under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, to protect against its diversion into weapons.

â€“â€“The Washington Post

http://www.dawn.com/2007/08/01/op.htm

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 01 Aug 2007 08:29

Sanjay M wrote:
Arun_S wrote:I met brahama rishi of shakti recently it is confirmed that we have enough material for strategic weapons. So folks who love diwali you can chill.
The issue isn't whether we have enough for now, it's whether we'll have enough for the future. If you put all current and future breeders under safeguards, then we won't.

The key test of this agreement is whether we'll be able to keep building more unsafeguarded breeders in the future.

I do not understand your reaction. What makes you think that 1,250Kg WgPu/year for future weapons program is not enough? And what does that have to do with FBR? FBR will at best convert 220Kg/year RgPu to WgPu, whereas the Tarapur3 & 4 will generate 800Kg/yr.

We have the village well, draw the water when needed in future rathur than draw it all today and build sailos to store it. In fact the Indian approach to US negotiation in last 10 years have been right, do not commit for a number because it needs to be responsive to future needs, yet do not throw good money to create a problem. Draw from the village well when assessment changes.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 01 Aug 2007 08:51

Speed is Key to Passing 123 Through Congress

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Aug 2007 09:36

SanjayM, Do you have an argument or just being a lahori?

Even Tellisbhai is confirming Arun_S tabulation. So whats up?
BTW, FBR isnt needed for the fissile material.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Aug 2007 09:42

The issue isn't whether we have enough for now, it's whether we'll have enough for the future

The Hyde Act is rather clear in its statement that the first step is to stop any FM, then rollback.

So, the US will hold India on moratorium of anything first. Testing is only the very first step, only because India happened to mention it.

Manne · Post by **Manne** » 01 Aug 2007 11:22

rocky,

Yes, I meant the Basu report. Wasn't sure about the name though I remembered the photo ramana snip-snipped.
Why just recycle amreekee maal? What have our techies done in US? Vinod Khosla et al? Think big, boss.
AK has mentioned in few of his interviews that India will pick up what fits in her overall plan. That means they already know what they want and will look at specific things - components, subsystems and reactor designs. I personally do not have the details but this much is easy to surmise.

Sparsh · Post by **Sparsh** » 01 Aug 2007 12:08

Vsudhir,

The GoI's policy on future nuclear facilities is spelled out in writing and is as crystal clear and unambiguous as it can be. It was made explicitly so from day one and has been reiterated since then whenever it has been asked about it. And as far as the differing statements go, could you please point out just one single occasion in the last two years since the separation plan was announced when anyone in the GoI has publicly said anything that contradicts this policy? Just one.

Where are all those differing statements that you talk about? And don't point me to what Burns or someone else might have said. I don't care what the Americans say. They may want the GoI to do this and to do that but that does not mean they will get what they want and that the GoI will cave in on what it perceives to be critical national security interests. And by publicly opening their mouths like this they only end up looking like fools or worse. Their ambassador to India is the most prominent example of this sort of bad behaviour.

To repeat myself, where is the tip-toeing that you talk about? Was calling it a figment of your ignorance wrong?

And please, you are not raising polite questions about the FBR program. You are taking the NSA's relatively straightforward statement and twisting his words. Here we have a situation where for nearly two years now the GoI has articulated an unambiguous policy in writing no less and has reiterated it whenever it has been asked about it. No public statement by any GoI official, including the one made by the NSA that you refer to, has contradicted it.

Yet, in spite of all this evidence to the contrary you and others on this thread cling on to the view that the GoI has been misleading us with its public stance and is secretly doing the opposite. Isn't that evidence of you not trusting the GoI to look after India's security interests or feeling that the GoI is made up of modern day treasonous Jaichands wanting to sellout India's security interests or a mixture of both? This FBR issue isn't a one time occurance. It is part of a pattern. Isn't that evidence of some sort of insecurity complex?

I don't claim to be an expert on anything field of knowledge. Never have. I do claim, however, that on the things that I am interested in I take the effort to educate myself and keep myself informed enough to call out uninformed writings when I see them which is what you have been doing with your cry-wolf kind of posts. If you think that is being pompous then that is your problem. If you do want want to entertain what you think is my pomposity then fine, do not expect me to entertain your crying wolf as well on a periodic basis.

The attitude that I have here is not one of pomposity but one of irritation. Irritation that people keep raking up non-issues on a periodic basis just because someone in the US is shooting his mouth off. Irritation at the umpteen number of time you and others on this thread have cried wolf with no credible reason. If you think this irritation is being pompous then again that is your problem.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 02 Aug 2007 00:34

SaiK wrote:

it was "Glenn-Symington amendment" for 1998.

And there could be a "Amritraj-Boxer" amendment to make up for any absence of language in the Hyde act right now no?