The Nuclear Deal

Discussion in 'Indian Defence Forum' started by Contrarian, Aug 4, 2007.

Share This Page

  1. Contrarian
    Offline

    Contrarian ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    11,373
    Ratings:
    +18 / 10,197 / -13
    123 shows US met Indian concerns


    WASHINGTON: India and the United States are all set to begin exceptional civilian nuclear cooperation-overturning three decades of mistrust, heartburn and antipathy - under the terms of a landmark agreement released simultaneously in the two capitals on Friday.

    Unique and far-reaching in its scope and latitude, the so-called 123 Agreement, kept under wraps since its finalisation last week, carves out a special place for New Delhi in the international nuclear architecture.

    Its execution is subject to a few more steps, including Congressional approval, over the next few weeks.

    An initial reading of the fine print reveals Washington has met almost every Indian doubt and apprehension, many arising from the trauma of perceived US betrayal (in response to what Washington saw as Indian perfidy) in the Tarapur episode, when US cut off fuel supplies.

    The 22-page text deals extensively with uninterrupted and reliable fuel supply for India’s nuclear reactors, including US help in developing a strategic reserve of fuel for India in the event of a disruption.

    That disruption could occur because of an Indian nuclear test under mitigating circumstances, a possibility that while implicit, does not find an explicit mention in the agreement.

    The unwritten understanding seems to be that India can exercise its right to test under extenuating circumstances (like a provocative Pakistani or Chinese test), in which case the US will invoke its punitive laws (sanctions) against India but still help New Delhi secure fuel supplies if it finds the tests justified.


    The assurances are codified in Article 5 of the agreement dealing with transfer of nuclear material and assurance of uninterrupted supply.

    Article 5 (6) (a) says the United States has not only conveyed it commitment to reliable supply of fuel to India but that it has also ''reaffirmed its assurance to create the necessary conditions for India to have assured and full access to fuel for its reactors.''

    Article 5(6) (b) states that to guard against disruption, the US will support India’s effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel

    ''If in spite of 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 UK to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India,'' the agreement states.

    Under the terms of the agreement, the US will also have the right to seek return of nuclear fuel and technology but it will compensate India promptly for the ''fair market value thereof'' and the costs incurred as a consequence of such removal.

    Overall, the 123 text appears to broadly conform to the mutual assurances contained in the July 18, 2005 agreement between President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a document Indian negotiators held as sacrosanct during 300 hours of subsequent talks.

    While some analysts in both countries have been crowing or moaning about victory and capitulation by either side depending on their reading of the deal, officials on both sides described the agreement as a ''win-win.''

    Once it is approved by the Congress, which will take it up after India signs a safeguards agreement with the IAEA and US clears the deal with the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the agreement will reverse three decades of sanctions on India’s nuclear programme and bring India into the international system.

    But even here, India will be in a unique category all on its own.

    Once approved, the civil nuclear deal will remain in force for a 40-year period (subject to agreed terms of cancellation) and can be extended by an additional 10 years. In those decades, India is expected to spend more than $ 150 billion to refurbish its civilian nuclear power programme, with US firms expecting to gain extensively from supply contracts.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2253730.cms

    ------------------------------------------

    Posted in a new thread as the other thread has become a jumbled up version of everything. This explains the nuclear deal in layman terms. I hope it helps a bit here.
  2. Contrarian
    Offline

    Contrarian ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    11,373
    Ratings:
    +18 / 10,197 / -13
    Text of Indo-US civilian nuke deal unveiled


    NEW DELHI: India and the US released the text of the 123 Agreement simultaneously on Friday, in a pre-arranged understanding between the two countries.

    The 123 agreement says India and the US will engage in full civil nuclear cooperation activities covering nuclear reactors and aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycle including technology transfer on an industrial or commercial scale between the governments or authorised persons.

    The agreement will be implemented in a manner that does not hinder or interfere with India's nuclear programme for military purposes developed independent of the civil nuclear deal.

    Under the agreement, India can develop strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of its reactors.

    The 22-page agreement provides for termination of the nuclear cooperation with one-year notice period but prior to that the two sides will hold consultations on the circumstances, including changed security environment, that may lead to the cessation.

    The US is committed to engage with the Nuclear Suppliers Group to help India to obtain full access to the international fuel market, including reliable, un-interrupted and continual access to fuel supplies from firms in several nations.

    The US will have the right to seek return of nuclear fuel and technology but it will compensate India promptly for the "fair market value thereof" and the costs incurred as a consequence of such removal.

    The US will join India in seeking to negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency an India-specific fuel supply agreement.

    The US will support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India's reactors.

    The civil nuclear deal will remain in force for a 40-year period and can be extended by an additional 10 years.

    In case of disruption of fuel supplies, the US and India would jointly convene a group of friendly nations such as Russia, France and the United Kingdom to pursue measures to restore fuel supply.

    India to establish a new national facility dedicated to reprocessing safeguarded nuclear material under IAEA safeguards.

    The agreement allows enrichment of 20 per cent of isotope 235 of Uranium transferred under the pact. India agrees that nuclear material and equipment transferred to it by the US would be subject to safeguards in perpetuity.
  3. joey
    Offline

    joey SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,163
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    Why dont you post this in the Indian thread? There are 3 threads on this and its hard keeping a discussion going based on all.
  4. joey
    Offline

    joey SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,163
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    okay okay just saw your first post, you posted this in a new thread, k nevermind.
  5. Neo
    Offline

    Neo RETIRED

    New Recruit

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,889 / -0
    Indian opposition attacks nuke deal with US


    NEW DELHI, Aug 3: India's main opposition dismissed the Indo-US nuclear deal on Friday as “unsatisfactory” but atomic scientists gave it the thumbs up, saying the country's strategic interests had been safeguarded.

    The communists, key allies of the ruling Congress party, said they wanted time to study the landmark civilian nuclear agreement before reacting.

    Key defence scientist K. Santhanam said the deal was “historic” paving the way for India to meet its energy demands.

    But J.P. Mathur, senior leader of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), whose last government staged nuclear tests in 1998, told newsmen: “It is an unsatisfactory deal.

    “Washington could pull out of the deal if India tested a nuclear device.” Former BJP foreign minister Yashwant Sinha said Washington had offered no firm commitment to New Delhi regarding fuel supply, reprocessing and return of equipment as part of the nuclear deal.

    “There are a lot of unenforceable commitments from the US in lieu of enforceable commitments from India,” he said.

    The deal, clinched in Washington last month, wrapped up two years of negotiations and aims to bring New Delhi into the loop of global nuclear commerce after a gap of three decades.

    Top nuclear scientist M.R Srinivasan said most of India's demands had been accommodated though some remained.

    “As part of the full nuclear cooperation, we expected the US to give us enrichment technology, reprocessing and heavy water technology,” said Srinivasan.

    But security analyst G. Balachandran hailed the accord as “exceptional.” Though Washington had not agreed to share these technologies “India has secured the right to reprocess spent fuel, a key demand from our side,” he said.

    “The language of the text and the handling of various subjects have been exceptional and very, very distinct from the agreements the US has had with other countries.” The communists said they needed time to study the details of the 22-page accord.

    “The text has just been released. We will not say anything before studying it thoroughly,” Prakash Karat, general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) told the Press Trust of India news agency.

    The agreement spells out how a plan for Washington to share nuclear technology with New Delhi will work, including thorny issues like reprocessing rights and the creation of a fuel reserve for India.

    One of the trickiest issues — whether India's unilateral decision not to test nuclear weapons would be made binding — appeared to have been sidestepped.

    “Seeking the return of nuclear material from the US in the event of India testing a nuclear device, that power rests with the US president. But the demand to return is hedged by many conditions that includes talks,” Balachandran said.

    The Indian government hailed the agreement last Friday after concluding talks in Washington, and before its publication.

    National Security Advisor M.K. Narayananan described the deal as “excellent”.

    “This is an agreement for cooperation in civil nuclear energy. It is not about the balance of power in the region,” he said with a nod to traditional enemy Pakistan.

    However, Islamabad warned on Thursday the accord threatens regional stability, saying it would allow India to produce more atomic bombs.

    The deal tries to address Pakistan's concerns, ruling out the use of any transferred nuclear material for nuclear explosive devices or for military purposes.

    India's parliament is expected to debate the agreement in the new monsoon session starting August 10.

    The deal must win approval of the US Congress and India's parliament but Balachandran said he did not forsee any problems.—AFP

    http://www.dawn.com/2007/08/04/int2.htm
  6. joey
    Offline

    joey SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,163
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    neo the article messes things up, nor we need rerocessing technology nor we need heavy water tech thats just the media.. we exported heavy water to US just few months ago heck we can extract tritium from heavy water reactors.

    though BJP has opposed the deal, but it isnt clear is it because just party politics or true national interest, I need more time to read what they wants.
  7. Neo
    Offline

    Neo RETIRED

    New Recruit

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,889 / -0
    Joey,

    The reporter might have reflected his own thoughts but he's also quoting your top nuclear scientist, Mr M.R. Srinivasan.
    I expect top scientists to know what they're talking about. :confused:
  8. joey
    Offline

    joey SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,163
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    I'm afraid Dawn does not have access to him nor he ever spoke publicly, It has been picked up from other various media outselts, To begin with Heavy Water was NEVER in the deal to begin with and If the Reprocessing Plant S then it will have US specific safeguards and will be under GNEP, none of wehich applies, pelase read the whole document, its a Indian reprocessing facility with Indian Specific IAEA safeguards. If HEavy waters are needed in LWR's it can be imported but then again we produce one of worlds largest heavy waters so why would we import them? Problem i think is what media confused is when scientists asking will the need of Indian heasvy water facility also have to go under safeguards if heavy water from them are to be used in LWR's, rationally thinking it wont asnd should not be so because if it was the reverse safeguards would be needed.
  9. Neo
    Offline

    Neo RETIRED

    New Recruit

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,889 / -0
    Point taken Joey, but please read another report from a respected Indian sourse:

  10. joey
    Offline

    joey SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,163
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    yup the article is crystal clear, As I was telling you regarding dual use of technology here is how thing stands, It is precisely related to seperation and dual use of technology, the seperation may look simple in actuality it isnt.

    1. Our 3 stage FBR initially needs Enriched plutonium input till a cycle is sustained.
    2. That can be done only by reprocessing spent Uranium fuel.
    3. LWR will produce the spent fuel quickly which we can reprocess quickly to make plutonium which can be used in 3 staged FBR reactors quickly to get the 3 stage a head start.
    4. Thus as I was once telling this deal is NEEDED in one way to start our 3 stage programme programme quicker.

    THIS IS PRECISELY what he means when he talks about India needs international technology to add up to its 3 stage nuke programme, via the LWR's in form of processing.

    Problem arises is here,

    We will not put the 3 stage FBR under safeguard BECAUSE the developement is NOT YET FINISHED and putting them under safeguard in the middle of developement will cause EROSION OF IPR. If your FBR's are not under safeguards then you WONT BE ABLE TO (is not clear whether we will be or not) use the REPROCESSED FUEL IN INDIA FROM THESE LWR'S (READ : DUAL USE IS WHAT WE WANTED) as they will be imported, thus our programme will STAY WHERE IT IS (Read : th 3 stage programme) rather than bureaucracy will curtle the funding of the 3 stage r&d after this deal (which is one of the fear).

    Regarding Reprocessing plant being of US origin there is no question in this Neo, Either The Hindu misquoted something, till you get the whole parts of what he said.

    1. US Burns has made it CLEAR that reprocessing will be INDIAS HEADEACHE and will be INDIAS REACTOR, we can reprocess only 20% of the spent fuel (NOTE THE FUEL FROM FOREIGN ORIGIN ONLY) and ALSO the safeguards will be INDIA-IAEA SPECIFIC.

    2. If the reprocessing facility is to be US build IT WILL HAVE US SPECIFIC SAFEGUARDS AND NOT IAEA-INDIA specificand it will come under GNEP which it isnt going to happenn.

    Regarding Heavy Waters, It is used as moderators in times in LWR's, the ehavy water WE PRODUCE is DEFINITELY NOT ENOUGH to feed 1600 MW LWR's in massive scale, because IF we cannot use dual use of the reprocessed material we would need our HEAVY WATER to run many reactors which will be unsafeguarded, thus we might need a dedicated heavy water facility as well, but I think as I have said we are now one of worlds biggest heavy water producers thus it is unlikely to have any issue. The one reason hes asking for having a heavy water facility built from international is because of LEAK OF IPR (recebntly brazil created a special screen around its one of heavy water facilities from IAEA), We produce highly enriched Tritium from our heavy water facilities and such facilities can by no meas be subjected to safeguards.


    I hope I'm clear.
  11. joey
    Offline

    joey SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,163
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    This is precisely what was the summary, He obviously wont be explaining technicalities in a report as I said the seperation and dual use of items is a critical enough task, We have to take care we dont loose our facilities under safeguards which we would need for different purpose.
  12. joey
    Offline

    joey SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,163
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    From The Daily Pioneer
    http://www.dailypioneer.com
    2007/08/03

    Scientists have mixed reaction

    Nuclear scientists and experts have expressed mixed reactions over the nuclear deal between India and the US.

    Placcid Rodrigues, president, Indian Nuclear Society and former director of the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research said that although the draft agreement meets almost all concerns, "In actual practice it is not full civilian nuclear cooperation, as enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water technology are excluded."

    "The agreement refers to dual use items which only showed that embargo or the nuclear technology control regime will continue ( PS : voila They on one hand wont built a safeguarded reprocessing facility but is asking India to built one itself yet asking it to stop its dual use and also put it under safeguards, this is ridiculous from Indias POV because it dones not aids to thre 3 stage programme and our Reprocessing facilities are tuned with different drivers to specially cater to TH programme, not to mention the huge IPR issues) even if the ultimate use is non-nuclear. There is no positive statement that the conclusion will be favourable and that is a cause of concern," he said.

    "From Washington, US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns has pointed out that once India applies for consent ... the conclusion is possible only on Congressional approval and in the 123 agreement draft it is kept vague," Rodrigues added.

    Upset about a clause for verification measures for atomic facilities in case of an IAEA decision on non-applicability of safeguards, Rodrigues said, "this is totally opposed to what Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, that India will not allow American inspectors to roam around in India's reactor sites."

    Appreciating the 123 draft agreement, S Thakur, Executive Director (Corporate Planning), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, said both US and Indian negotiating and drafting teams have shown high level of professionalism and long-term vision.

    "The document is very good and all aspects are covered comprehensively and adequately," Thakur said, adding as a whole the agreement showed mutual respect and maintained the sovereignty of both nations.

    Objections to N-deal serious, says SC

    The Supreme Court on Friday noted that the objections to the Indo-US nuclear deal were "serious" but refused to interfere at this stage since the matter is to come up in Parliament next week.

    The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Anil Chawla, who cited how the deal, which is based on the US Hyde Act, tends to weaken the country's sovereignty and legislative abilities.

    Taking note of the concerns raised by the petition, the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan said, "We don't say these (objections) are minor things. These are serious matters." Adopting a wait and watch policy, the court said, "You (petitioner) wait till the matter is placed before Parliament," and allowed the petition to be withdrawn at this stage.

    Before the Bench arrived at this order the petitioner who was represented by senior advocate PS Mishra and advocate CD Singh argued on why the court's interference is called for at this stage.

    The court formed the view that an order directing the deal to be placed before Parliament was not possible since it is a matter of Parliamentary proceeding which is to be regulated by the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs.

    But the petitioner's counsel urged the court to consider the ramifications of such a deal which compromises India's sovereign interests to test its nuclear weapons, possess nuclear arsenal and to enter into foreign relations with Iran. "We are not aware of what is contained in the 123 Agreement. The nation is entitled to know the Act as the same is yet to be placed in public domain," Mishra said.

    The criticism of the deal also emerges from the moratorium it seeks to declare on any further nuclear tests by India, the petitioner said. "We are not remotely suggesting the court to place the matter before Parliament, but judicial review can be called for if there is an attempt to surrender the law making powers of a country as sovereign and independent as India. The Hyde Act 2006 is such it will compromise India's law making power."

    Finding strength in the petitioner's contentions the Bench said, "There are constitutional luminaries like the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, the Prime Minister, the Speaker. It is for them to decide to place the matter in Parliament. they are ably advised by many scientists."

    Mishra even viewed the issue at hand considering the scope of Article 73 which grants sweeping powers to the executive to enter into any treaty. In the light of a previous judgement of the Supreme Court any treaty which compromises the sovereignty of the country or violates the constitutional provisions is amenable to judicial review.

    The Bench, though keen to examine the issue, expressed its helplessness to interfere at this stage. In the same breath, before parting with the matter it added, "We don't want to give an impression that the Supreme Court has considered and rejected the petition. You may wait till the mater is placed before Parliament."
  13. joey
    Offline

    joey SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,163
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    This reprocessing right appears to me as being straight-jacketed and needs much intrinsic analysis.

    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.

    We want DUAL USE OF REPROCESSSED FUEL in our 3 stage cycle without leak if IPR that we painstrkainly developed for half a century. We are already building a very advanced heavy water reactor for reprocessing but that will stay out of safeguards and that has been designed to reprocess Thorium and not U-235 IIRC.

    For now I'll put my hat on and wait and see how the reprocessing thing evolves.
  14. joey
    Offline

    joey SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,163
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    This agreement doesn't prevent us from pursing 3-stage program or nor does it force us to expose our IP as long as the fuel source is indigenous, but that is not what we want if we are to expose our IP in reprocessing through a Indian facility we want to use it in our FBR's as well.
  15. joey
    Offline

    joey SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,163
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    US might get chance to inspect India N-sites
    http://www.asianage.com/presentatio...ight-get-chance-to-inspect-india-n-sites.aspx

    By Olga Tellis

    Mumbai, Aug. 4: Dr Placid Rodriguez, former director, Indira Gandhi Research Centre and Dr M.R. Srinivasan, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, whilst saying that the 123 agreement has addressed most of India’s concerns, felt that India had to make compromises on its expectations of full civilian nuclear cooperation.

    Dr Placid Rodriguez also observed that the Prime Minister had assured the nation that the US inspectors will not be allowed to walk all round the nuclear facilities. However Article 10 of the agreement in para 4 says that if the International Atomic Energy Agency decides that the application of IAEA safeguards is no longer possible, the supplier and recipient should consult and agree on appropriate verification measures. This provides space for the US inspectors to walk into India’s nuclear establishments.

    Dr Rodriguez said that the final 123 agreement was not a full civilian nuclear agreement in terms of Article 5(2). It excludes the transfer of nuclear technology, heavy water production technology and sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities and major critical components of such facilities. The agreement says that they may be transferred only after an amendment to this agreement. Transfers of dual-use items that could be used in enrichment and reprocessing of heavy water production facilities will be subject to the parties’ respective applicable laws, regulations and licence policies. Dr Rodriguez, who is currently visiting professor at IIT Madras and president of the India Nuclear Society, said: "This is sensitive nuclear technology as it is essential for our closed fuel cycle and heavy water reactors. Our representative said that the US has given prior consent for reprocessing safeguarded nuclear material, but nowhere in the actual draft is there mention of the word prior. They have not given their consent for reprocessing. Getting this consent will take a year."

    The agreement says "consultations on arrangements and procedures will begin within six months of a request by either party and will be concluded within one year. US undersecretary of state for political affairs Nicholas Burns said that they will have to go to Congress for the final consent. "So there is just a play of words. There is no indication that the end will be positive or favourable to India. There are a lot of loopholes," said Dr Rodriguez.

    He is of the view that the US administration will find it more difficult to sell the agreement to the US Congress than Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will have selling it to the Opposition. He said 22 US congressmen already have come out against the agreement saying it’s a violation of the Hyde Act. Mr Burns says that their (the US) national laws will be binding above all else in the agreement.

    Dr Srinivasan, who is a member of the National Security Advisory Board, said that he does not believe that the 123 draft will effect our own nuclear power programme — namely the three-stage programme of producing electricity through the heavy water, fast breeder reactor and use of thorium.

    On the fact that the agreement did not provide for transfer of technology for enriching uranium, heavy water and reprocessing of spent uranium, Dr Srinvasan said the US maintains that it has not given the technology to anyone else. He said: "We had interpreted the agreement to include the transfer of these technologies. We have our own technologies in these areas but we wanted their technology for industrial purposes to build commercial size plants." In heavy water, he said, India had technology for commercial-sized plants but in reprocessing and enrichment India has technology for semi-commercial-sized plants.

    Dr Srinivasan said "we can get the technology from France or Russia but we hope that they will use their own principles for exports and don’t go by what the US says and does." The Nuclear Suppliers’ Group is currently toeing the US line.

    ******************************

    Most of our reprocessing plants are to reprocss Thorium and under 3 stage plant and not LWR specific, plus to stop IPR flow, create clear position about dual use of items and ofcourse use system seamlessly incase we need reprocesing in massive scale which we might not have or may take time as our Reprocessing facility is not upto massive commercial scale (read : TO PUT UNDER SAFEGUARDS as well which is not possible), we asked for full cooperation in all three fields, 1600 MW LWR's might need massive Reprocessing facilities. But the deal does not includes them so we have to do with our relatively-smaller reprocessing plants as start incase we dont have massive ones ready anyway. We need to take care of IPR issues as well.

    btw some good news, Recall that Kalpakkam farm will be outside IAEA. Thus of the 4 new FBRs two FBRs will be in non-IAEA scope.