What's new

FBI arrested 2 Indian Origin

kvLin

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
710
Reaction score
0
Two Indicted and Arrested on Charges of Supplying Indian Government With Controlled Technology

Tue Apr 3, 6:06 PM ET

WASHINGTON, April 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/

A South Carolina man and woman have been indicted and arrested on charges of supplying the Government of India with controlled technology without the required licenses, Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, and Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, announced today.


Parthasarathy Sudarshan, 46 and Mythili Gopal, 36, both of Simpsonville, S.C., were arrested on Friday, March 23, 2007, and had their initial appearances in the U.S. District Court in Greenville, S.C. Today, Sudarshan had his first court appearance in the District of Columbia as he was arraigned on the charges before U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina, who has scheduled a status hearing for April 17, 2007, for both Sudarshan and Gopal.


The arrests were the result of a joint investigation by the FBI, the Department of Commerce, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). A15-count indictment, which was returned by a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia and unsealed on March 23, charges the defendants with violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Arms Export Control Act and with acting as illegal agents of a foreign government. The indictment also charges AKN Prasad of Bangalore, India, and Sampath Sundar, 47, of Singapore, for their roles in the offenses.


If convicted of the charges, Sudarshan faces a likely sentencing guideline range of 97-121 months in prison, while Gopal faces a likely sentencing guideline range of 63-78 months. Prasad and Sundar face likely sentencing guideline ranges of 78-97 months, if convicted of the charges.


"These arrests put a network of technology smugglers out of business and demonstrate that we have no tolerance for weapons proliferators who illegally supply entities with weapons technology that has applications in the development of aircraft, missile and aerospace systems," said Assistant Attorney General Wainstein.


"Networks that procure U.S. technology whose export is restricted to combat proliferation and then seek to evade U.S. export and licensing regulations undermine our national security," stated U.S. Attorney Taylor. "This case demonstrates the commitment of our government to combat such networks."


"The FBI wishes to thank the Department of Commerce and the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for their invaluable assistance in this investigation," stated Joseph Persichini, Jr., Assistant Director in Charge, FBI Washington Field Office. "This indictment would not have been possible without their team effort. In addition, the FBI remains committed to ensure the safety and security of our nation's technology."


"This case clearly demonstrates that the United States will aggressively investigate and prosecute those who illegally procure and export components for space launch vehicle and ballistic missile programs, even when they attempt to mask their illegal activities by diverting sensitive components through third countries," said Darryl W. Jackson, Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement at the Commerce Department.


"The illegal exportation of controlled U.S. technology is tantamount to breaching the border," said William Reid, Special Agent in Charge, ICE Washington, D.C. Office of Investigations. "We will locate, prosecute and jail those whose activities undermine our national security."


According to the indictment, Sudarshan and Gopal did business as Cirrus Electronics ("Cirrus"). Cirrus had offices in Simpsonville, South Carolina, Singapore, and Bangalore, India.


Among the foreign entities involved are the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre ("VSSC") and Bharat Dynamics, Ltd. ("BDL"). Exports of U.S. origin commodities subject to the Export Administration Regulations of the Department of Commerce to these entities are restricted and require prior authorization in the form of a license from the Department of Commerce.


The indictment alleges that, between 2002 and 2006, the defendants acquired in the United States for VSSC and BDL electrical components that could have applications in missile guidance and firing systems. According to the indictment, the defendants concealed from vendors the true end-users of the goods. In particular, the indictment alleges how, in the case of one vendor, Cirrus provided the company with fraudulent certificates that claimed that the end-user in India was a non-restricted entity, when, in fact, the items were for VSSC.


According to the indictment, there were no export licenses for any of the shipments to VSSC and BDL. The indictment alleges that, to further to conceal from the U.S. government that goods were going to entities in India on the Department of Commerce Entities List, Cirrus would route the products through its Singapore office and then send the packages on to India.


According to the indictment, in addition to supplying VSSC and BDL with components, the defendants acquired microprocessors for the Tejas, a fighter jet under development. The microprocessors were necessary for the navigation and weapons guidance systems of the Tejas. Because the microprocessors are defense articles on the US Munitions List, the State Department must license any export of the products. The indictment alleges that, on two occasions in 2004 and 2006, Cirrus caused the shipment of a total of 500 microprocessors to the Indian entity responsible for the development of the Tejas. There were no licenses for these shipments.


In announcing the arrest and unsealed indictment, Assistant Attorney General Wainstein, U.S. Attorney Taylor, FBI Assistant Director in Charge Persichini, Commerce Assistant Secretary Jackson, and ICE Special Agent in Charge Reid praised FBI Special Agents Russell Nimmo, Julie Hendrix, James Walker, Charles E. Price II, and Reed Wilson; FBI Supervisory Special Agents Raymond Lyons and Jennifer; Department of Commerce Special Agents Philip Kuhn, Jody Bankins, and Thalia Griffin-Thompson; and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agents David Hepler and Christopher Malone.

They also thanked Assistant U.S. Attorney Max Cauthen of the District of South Carolina and Senior Trial Attorney Clifford I. Rones of the Counterespionage Section of the Department of Justice's National Security Division for their assistance with the case. Lastly, they commended Assistant U.S. Jay I. Bratt, who is handling the prosecution.

An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has committed a criminal violation. All defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice
 
.
It's also happening in Europe, its just matter of time, more truths will come up of indegenous Indian developments.
It has also been indicated that Indian nuclear programme has its roots in black market.
 
.
Indicated? Lol, Musharraf's book does not indicate anything other than that he is completely delusional.
 
. . .
Dont we just love it, when an outdated chip is stolen for a person's personal gain, they try to make it the Indian Government official policies. Countries around the world respects India for its Non-proliferation and Weapon development stance. Or is someone telling me that RAW is really good. And their Incompetence throughout its existence is just an act.
 
.
A country indulges in Nuclear Proliferation in one or two ways, as a donor or as a recipient. As a donor it can export the nuclear technology to other nation -- called ‘Horizontal Proliferation’ -- or it can divert technologies from its Civilian Nuclear Program(s) to its Military Nuclear Program(s) -- called ‘Vertical Proliferation’. India is guilty of indulging in both, Vertical and Horizontal Nuclear Proliferation.

Horizontal Proliferation occurs when a country exports its indigenous resources (knowledge/items) and/or when it practices ‘Onward Proliferation’. Onward proliferation takes place when a country obtains a controlled item from overseas and retransfers it, or exports a reverse-engineered item without proper authorizations to a proliferant state or to a terrorist group. Proliferant states and smuggling networks use such tactics to avoid export controls in supplier states. Experts like David Albright, President of Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), believe proliferant states target Indian industries; consequently, Indian Onward Proliferation is expected be become a serious problem.

Vertical Nuclear Proliferation occurs when a country diverts knowledge and/or items from its safeguarded programs to its military programs. David Albright in an October 26, 2005 testimony before the US House Committee described the Indian Vertical Proliferation as, “India’s extensive military and civil nuclear programs are often connected, sharing personnel and infrastructure. In addition, some facilities currently have both a military and civilian purpose.” The Indian so-called “peaceful nuclear explosion” (detonated on May 18, 1974) is a prime example of the Vertical Proliferation (see Appendix - C). The fact is also confirmed by an Indian scientist Raja Ramanna who admitted that the radioactive core of India’s first nuclear device was the plutonium diverted from its American-Canadian supplied civilian nuclear reactor (CIRUS).

Since 1949, as a recipient, India has licitly and illicitly received nuclear technology from ‘Nuclear Supplier Group’ (NSG) countries like France, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, United States and Soviet Union/Russia(see Appendix - A). For its part, India effortlessly proliferates the nuclear technology to countries like Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Sudan and South Korea (see Appendix - B).

Exploiting the dual-use nature of civilian nuclear equipments and materials India had been using the cover of civilian programs to produce nuclear weapons. Experts believe, as in the case of 1974 nuclear blast, the plutonium for at least some of India’s nuclear devices tested in 1998 also originated from its American-Canadian supplied civilian nuclear reactor (CIRUS). In a June 15, 1998 Washington Post (p.A23) publication ‘India Cheated’, Victor Gilinsky and Paul Leventhal reported “You wouldn't know it from news reports, but most of the military plutonium stocks India dipped into for its recent nuclear tests came from a research project provided years ago by the United States and Canada. India had promised both countries it would not use this plutonium for bombs.” India boldly violates non-proliferation conventions and brazenly breaks bilateral agreements by transferring nuclear fuels and technology from its so-called civilian nuclear programs to its nuclear weapons programs.

The so-called "Atoms for Peace" CIRUS reactor was built by Canada and run by tons of heavy water supplied by the United States (see Appendix - A). In return for the reactor, India promised both suppliers in writing that the reactor would be reserved for "peaceful purposes" only. But in a display of barefaced defiance and belligerence, India broke its promise by diverting the plutonium from CIRUS to the manufacturing of nuclear weapons that were tested first in 1974 and then in 1998. The fact that neither Canada nor the United States has uttered a peep about India breaching the signed contract with contemptuous boldness is symptomatic of Western complicity in the building and modernization of Indian nuclear weapons arsenal through nuclear proliferation. Since it began operating in late 1950s the CIRUS reactor alone has produced well over 600 pounds plutonium which is enough to build over 50 nuclear weapons.

Strangely, despite Indian disposition to indulge in nuclear proliferation when or as they please, each new generation of American policymakers think that they will be able to gain Indian restraint and acceptance of nuclear controls by being a little more accommodating to them. The Indians long time ago learned of the American weaknesses that stem from a mix of an obsolete Cold War mentality and commercial greed. Hence, they effectively exploit the American weaknesses to build, expand and qualitatively improve their own nuclear arsenal.

Indian perseverance in the acquisition of latest nuclear technology through covert and overt means, and its practice of proliferation of nuclear technology in both vertical and horizontal manners worries peace and non-proliferation experts. In light of unscrupulous and unrestrained Indian proliferation record (see Appendix - B & C), experts openly question Bush Administration’s decision to transfer American nuclear secrets to India which can potentially compromise American national security due to Indian proliferation practices, including the ‘Onward’ proliferation (see Appendix - B). They argue that helping to ramp up India’s ability to import and export controlled nuclear items can neither be in the interests of the United States nor the global non-proliferation efforts.

Since the March 2, 2006 Indo-US Nuclear deal, the Bush Administration and Indian government officials have mounted a deceptive PR blitz in which they tirelessly champion India’s supposedly "impeccable" nonproliferation record. Factually, however, in order to buy into this sugarcoated propaganda, one would have to ignore and discount decades old Indian horizontal and vertical proliferation record (see Appendix - B & C) that started in 1960s when India decided to dip into irradiated Plutonium from its civilian CIRUS plant. Not withstanding the deceptive Indo-Bush Administration propaganda, experts point to mounting evidence of Indian proliferation record (see Appendix - A, B & C). Recently, ISIS unmasked a well-developed, active, and top secret Indian program to outfit its uranium enrichment program and circumvent export control efforts of other countries.

Essentially, the Indo-US Nuclear deal allows India to buy foreign-made nuclear reactors while allowing her to substantially ramp up her ability to produce materials for nuclear weapons. Understandably, the deal was widely criticized even within the Bush-Administration. In 2001, the, American ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill asked Washington to rethink its nuclear policy towards India. But Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, however, wanted a sensible incremental approach to increasing sensitive trade with India. In a 2003 interview Secretary Powell said, "We also have to protect certain red lines that we have with respect to proliferation."

Leading nonproliferation experts of Bush Administration, John D. Rood and Robert G. Joseph tirelessly lobbied for a deal in which India would have agreed to limit production of plutonium and to place all of its electricity-producing reactors under permanent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, which would have been in accordance with the US laws too. But the Bush Administration was so intent on hammering a deal with India that by the time Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh arrived in Washington, many of the key items on Mr. Rood’s list had been taken off the table. Nuclear specialists in the US government say their concerns about weapons proliferation were overridden in final talks with India.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice is believed to be the force behind the hurriedly concocted and potentially damaging Indo-US Nuclear deal, which will arguably compromise American nuclear secrets vis-à-vis its national security. Reportedly, the deal is a brainchild of Secretary Rice's counselor and longtime colleague Philip Zelikow and (a Bombay-born expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former aide to Blackwill) Ashley Tellis. On April 3, 2006, the Washington Post (p.A01) reported, “Upon Rice's return from Asia, Zelikow began exchanging memos with Tellis, resulting in a 50-page ‘action agenda’ for U.S.-Indian relations completed in mid-May.” While making a case for India, in a memo Tellis argued, US would have to “help New Delhi develop strategic capabilities such that India's nuclear weaponry and associated delivery systems” to deter growing Chinese influence.

Indians were quick to pick on American desperation to conclude a deal. They outfoxed the Americans on negotiation table. The Post quoted a senior American official involved in the negotiation, the “Indians were incredibly greedy that day. They were getting 99 percent of what they asked for and still they pushed for 100." It was as if Bush Administration’s sole goal was to please the Indians at any cost.

The Post also revealed Bush Administration’s maverick strategy of assisting India in developing nuclear weapons. It reported, “the Bush administration originally wanted a pact that would let India continue producing material for six to 10 weapons each year, [but the signed deal] would allow it enough fissile material for as many as 50 annually.”

Sadly, in past too, instead of forcing India to freeze its Vertical Proliferation, the US State Department had been helping India get around the laws by arranging for France and later China to continue the Tarapur radioactive fuel supply. Considering Indian proliferation record (see Appendix - B & C), instead of rewarding India by signing the deal, at a minimum, Bush Administration should have insisted that Indian plutonium covered by "peaceful purposes" agreements be unavailable for nuclear weapons, and that the Tarapur fuel is not reprocessed to extract weapon grade plutonium. Under the 1963 agreement, India was bound to get US approval to reprocess the nuclear fuel. However, in a blatant disregard to the signed agreement, India disputed this and insisted it was free to reprocess the used fuel at any time. Regrettably, the US government as usual bowed to Indian demands fearing an irritant in US-India relations and dispatched the disagreement to the wastebasket of oblivion. Currently, there is enough Tarapur plutonium to manufacture hundreds of unaccounted nuclear weapons.

In March 2006, another ISIS report revealed details of Indian illicit and secret nuclear procurement program. The report effectively busted the myth of so-called ‘indigenous’ Indian nuclear program. The report highlighted the indisputable dependencies of Indian nuclear program on the foreign sources (see Appendix - A). It stated, “India has a long history of illicitly acquiring items for its own unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. Many of India’s nuclear programs have depended on extensive foreign procurement for materials, equipment, and technology. Indian nuclear organizations use a system that hires domestic or foreign non-nuclear companies to acquire items for these nuclear organizations. Such procurement appears to continue for its secret gas centrifuge enrichment plant near Mysore.”

The report also cataloged the deceptive and illicit procurement network established by Indian Department of Atomic Energy. “In an attempt to hide its true purpose from suppliers and others when it started this project in the 1980s… Under the direction of India’s Department of Atomic Energy, Indian Rare Earths (IRE) Ltd. of Mumbai, a public-sector undertaking focused on recovering minerals and processing rare earths, procures sensitive materials and technology for a secret gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant codenamed the ‘Rare Materials Project' (RMP) outside Mysore, India. The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) operates the plant and appears to both coordinate procurements for this facility with IRE and pursue procurements for its own divisions through IRE. RMP itself is rarely acknowledged by the Indian government as a gas centrifuge plant.”

An impressive and resolute Indian proliferation record spans over five decades . The Indian nuclear program is developed, nourished and sustained by the Nuclear Supplier Group nations through direct and/or indirect assistance (see Appendix - A). Whenever Indian establishment failed to secure direct and/or indirect assistance from the NSG, it stole the nuclear technology through secret underground nuclear proliferation networks.

Each state that covertly or overtly paddles nuclear technology to India makes mockery of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that entered into force on March 5, 1970. Article III – 2 of NPT states, “Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this article.”

Even though, India is not a NPT signatory, it has constantly fought to undermine and weaken the NPT and IAEA charters. American and European nearsightedness and compliancy has directly resulted into Indian constancy in pursuing nuclear bomb-making and nuclear proliferation. It is not surprising that the Indians expect the game of proliferation to continue.

Practically every nuclear reactor running or planned in India is either provided and/or built by a foreign country or had been designed from foreign blueprints (see Appendix - A) -- stolen and otherwise. Every ounce for the radioactive cores of Indian nuclear weapons comes from the nuclear reactors that India deceptively, legally or illegally secured from foreign nations.

Pointing to the serious risks posed to the American national security, in his October 26, 2005, testimony before the House Committee on International Relations Hearing on the US-India David Albright warned, “This agreement could pose serious risks to the security of the United States. If fully implemented, it could catapult India into a position as a major supplier of both nuclear and nuclear-related materials, equipment, and technology. With a weak and poorly enforced export control system, [Indians] could become major suppliers to the nuclear weapon programs of adversaries of the United States, in some cases possibly using technology which the United Sates originally provided.” India also has a huge manpower trained in nuclear secrets, which inherently makes it a considerable knowledge transfer risk (see Appendix - B).

Non-proliferation experts insist that India should be sanctioned for its proliferation record. To support their argument, they quote statements of Indian statesmen who admitted that the fears of international sanctions kept the nuclear weapons program in low-gear. The former Indian President Venkataraman said, all "preparations for an underground nuclear test at Pokhran had been completed in 1983 when I was the Defense Minister. It was shelved because of international pressure, and the same thing happened in 1995." Another example cited is of former Indian Prime Minister Gujral, "the Americans got in touch with Mr. (Prime Minister) Rao and for some reasons it was felt expedient to postpone the tests... It was a major decision where all dimensions and aspects had to be calculated. No decision could be taken in a hurry ignoring all the political, economic and international relations dimensions."

When it comes to Nuclear Proliferation India suffers from credibility problems. In a May 13, 1998, testimony before the US Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs then Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth explained how Indian government can not be trusted with its mere assurances. "We were told privately and publicly that India would continue to show restraint in the non-proliferation field, and would do nothing to surprise us… As a direct result of India's decisions and actions, we are now compelled to look again at our approach to India,” said Mr. Inderfurth.

Stung from Indian deceptions, after the 1998 nuclear test at Pokhran, Secretary Inderfurth advised Congress to coarse India in parting ways with its shadowy proliferation practices and encouraged it to become a responsible nation that respects non-proliferation norms. He said, “Instead of highlighting our cooperative efforts with India... we will now need to put much of the cooperative side of our agenda on hold and deal with the consequences of India's actions. We must focus anew on seeking a meaningful Indian commitment to cease from further testing, to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty immediately and without qualifications, and to respect other international non-proliferation norms.” Emphasizing the difficulty in trusting India, Secretary Inderfurth also advised the Senate Subcommittee that due to dishonorable Indian practices the US should revaluate its relations with India, “We will need to assess how we will deal with India in accordance with Glenn Amendment and other U.S. laws, which require sanctions far more restrictive than those placed upon Pakistan under the Pressler Amendment… I must caution that India's actions have made [engagements] far more difficult.”

Indian culpability in every step of Nuclear Proliferation cannot be ignored anymore. Instead of rewarding it for proliferating nuclear secrets and technologies to other nations, and to build its nuclear weapons arsenal, IAEA and NSG will have to place sanctions on India to, at minimum, slow down its mad pursuit of becoming a nuclear superpower. On account of Indian hegemonic behavior towards its neighbors and its inherent domestic instability steaming from a society built on racial/communal discriminations, the World Community cannot afford lose nukes from an unreliable and potentially fractured nation, like it almost witnessed when the Soviet Union was fractured.


APPENDIX – A

Foreign Development of Indian Nuclear Program:

Practically every Indian nuclear facility directly or indirectly is designed, based, and/or built with the support of foreign nations. Following are some of most glaring examples of India benefacting from foreign Nuclear Proliferation:

Alwaye, Kerala (1949)
IRE and French entities Societe de Produits Chimique and Banque Marocaine de Credit agreed to construct a facility at Alwaye (Kerala) to extract thorium from monazite sand.

Apsara, Trombay (1956)
With British assistance construction began on India's first reactor, 1 MW Apsara research reactor. Apsara, fueled by (6 kg of fuel rods) enriched uranium from the UK, went critical on 4 August 1957. Dr. H. Bhabha bartered uranium fuel rods, as well technical data for a swimming pool-type research reactor in exchange for the Indian consideration to purchase a British reactor.

Canada-India Reactor, U.S(CIRUS)/Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Trombay (1955)
Canada supplied India a powerful research reactor - 40 MW Canada-India Reactor (CIR).

Nuclear Fuel for CIRUS reactor, Trombay (1956)
India and Canada signed an agreement to supply half of the initial nuclear fuel needed for the CIRUS reactor.

Heavy water for CIRUS reactor, Trombay (1956)
India and United States signed a contract for the US to sell heavy water for the CIRUS reactor. By June 1956, the US provided four shipments of heavy water. One of shipments of 18.9 tons of heavy water was provided without a safeguards mandate.

Plutonium Separation Plant, Trombay (1961)
PM Nehru authorized project Phoenix to build a plant with a capacity of 20 tons of fuel a year. A US company Vitro International supplied India with blueprints to build a PUREX (plutonium-uranium extraction) reprocessing plant. The reprocessing plant was commissioned in mid-1964.

Heavy Water Production Plant, Nangal (1962)
India received its first heavy water production plant from Germany in 1962 and then built additional seven heavy water plants with the help of Soviet Union, France and Switzerland.

CIRUS/BARC, Trombay (1965)
The UK Atomic Energy Authority helped India establish Gauribidnur Seismic Station at BARC, which was used to develop and calibrate fast-slow explosive lenses used in 1974 nuclear device.

French Nuclear Laboratory, Saclay/Paris (1965)
While seeking information on polonium technology used for -- first generation -- neutron initiators for weapons, Bhabha met French scientists at the nuclear laboratory at Saclay, Paris.

Pulsed Fast Reactor, USSR (1969)
In December 1968, three Indian nuclear scientists, including P.K. Iyengar, visited the Soviet Union to study the nuclear research facilities at Dubna.

Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS 1 & 2), Tarapur (1969)
US agreed to give $80 million in credit to India for the supply and construction of two Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) for the Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS). General Electric (GE), started construction of the BWRs in October 1964. The reactors went critical in October 1969.

Technical Assistance, France (1969)
30 Indian nuclear scientists, engineers, and technicians traveled to France for training and subsequent work on the designs for an Indian fast breeder reactor.

Technical Assistance, Spain, Sweden, and France (1970)
Spain, Sweden, and France hosted Indian scientists to train them in advances in uranium ore mining and exploration.

Baroda Heavy Water Plant, Gujarat (1971)
A French consortium (GELPRA) supervises the design, engineering, and import of equipment for a 67.2-ton capacity heavy water plant in Baroda.

Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (RAPS), Rajasthan (1974)
Canada agreed to provide India blueprints for its CANDU pressurized heavy water power reactor (PHWR). The blueprints enabled India to build its first reactor of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (RAPS). The Canadian Government also funded the project by extending a $37 million loan.

TAPS, Tarapur (1976)
Germany, Spain, Sweden, and other European countries further developed and sustained TAPS BWRs.

Dhruva, Trombay (1977)
USSR agreed to provide India 250 tons of heavy water out of which the first 50 tons without safeguards. First consignment of heavy water for Dhruva reactor arrived on May 28, 1980.

TAPS, Tarapur (1978)
United States arranged Enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) fuel for TAPS reactor.

Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR), Kalpakkam (1978)
France assisted India in building the FBTR in Kalpakkam.

TAPS, Tarapur (1980)
US supplied a 19 tons batch of enriched uranium to Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS).

TAPS, Tarapur (1983)
France supplied a 19.5 tons batch of enriched uranium to Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS).

MAPS-I, Madras (1983)
India clandestinely imported over 180 tons of heavy water from China (60 tons), Norway (15 tons), and the Soviet Union (4.7 tons) for MAPS-I reactor. A German exporter and a former Nazi, Alfred Hempel shipped tons of heavy water via Dubai to India.

Uranium Enrichment Plant/Rare Materials Project, Trombay/Mysore (1985)
India clandestinely acquired centrifuge technology from the USSR and built uranium enrichment plants at Trombay and Mysore.

West Germany (1989)
India imported 100 kg of high purity beryllium from West Germany. The supply was enough to provide the neutron reflecting tampers for a dozen or more weapons.

Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC), Trombay (1992)
UK exported nuclear and missile technology to India.

Kundankulam 1 & 2, Kundankulam (2002)
In a violation of Nuclear Suppliers Group ban, Russia agreed to construct two VVER-1000MW reactors in Koodankulam (Tamil Nadu). Nearly 300 Russian companies take part in the $1.5 billion project.


APPENDIX - B

Indian Horizontal Nuclear/WMD Proliferation:

India has a distinct record of WMD Proliferation to lot of countries. However proliferation to Iran and Iraq was most blatantly rampant. Although this collaboration can be traced as far back as 1970s, following is a list of most glaring examples of Indian WMD proliferation:

Tehran, Iran (1974)
Following Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s 1974 official visit to Tehran, Iran and India announced, contacts will be made "between the atomic energy organizations in the two countries in order to establish a basis for cooperation in this field."

Iraq (1974)
Saddam Hussein flew to India specifically to sign a nuclear cooperation treaty with the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The little known nuclear cooperation treaty involved the exchange of scientists, training, and technology. Iraqi scientists worked in India's plutonium separation labs. The same Iraqi scientists who gained valuable training and experience from working in Indian nuclear labs later took charge of the nuclear fuel reprocessing unit supplied to Iraq by the Italian company CNEN. An Indian scientist trained the Iraqi scientist at Atomic Energy Commission's computer center on the use of nuclear computer codes.

Iran (1975)
Iran hosted nuclear technical advisers from India who worked on its nuclear program.

Iraq (1979)
In 1979, Iraq sent engineers to visit India's nuclear establishments and scientists.

Bushehr, Iran (1980)
Iran requested Indian help in completing the Bushehr reactor after West Germany halted work on the project in 1980.

Bushehr, Iran (1982)
Indian radio and BBC World Broadcasts reported that India will send a group of nuclear engineers and scientists to Iran. They supposedly inspected the Bushehr nuclear power plant to study the problems.

Burma (1982)
Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) exported Gamma Chamber-4000 to Burma.

Singapore and Sudan (1983)
India exported gamma chambers Singapore and Sudan.

South Korea (1983)
Neutron polarization analysis spectrometer exported to the (South) Korean Atomic Energy
Research Institute.

Bulgaria (1985)
Seamless titanium tubes were produced by the Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) from ingots were supplied by Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (MIDHANI) to Bulgaria.

Iran (1989)
Officials from Indian State Trading Corporation in Bombay admitted that they sold about 60 tons of thionyl chloride (a mustard gas or nerve agent precursor) to Iran for approximately $50,000. The same year another Indian State Trading Company's supplier, Transpek Private Ltd., sold about 257 tons of the same chemical to Iran.

Egypt (1990)
India agreed to aid Egypt in increasing the capacity of the Egyptian research reactor from 2 to 5 megawatts.

Iran (1991)
Indian Atomic Energy Commission announced that India will seek to export its nuclear technology. Following the Indian announcement the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran negotiates to purchase nuclear technology or expertise from India. As a result, India and Iran exchanged nuclear scientists.

Iran (1991)
Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Alaeddin Borujerdi met Indian Prime Minister Narasimha Rao in New Delhi to discuss the purchase of 10MW reactor. Finally on November 11, 1991 the Indian Foreign Minister Sing Solanki signed a technical cooperation deal with Iran ensuring the delivery of reactor to Iran.

Moallem Kalayeh, Iran (1992)
Iran negotiated the purchase of a nuclear research reactor subsequently installed at the Moallem Kalayeh site. Though the construction on the site had already begun in 1987.

Iran (1994)
German Intelligence Agency (BND) reported that an Indian consortium was building a pesticide plant that could be linked to the production of chemical weapons in Iran.

Iran (1995)
On January 30, 1995, the German BND stated that Indian companies were aiding Iran in the development of tabun and sarin (nerve agents).

Iran (1995)
US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reported that Indian firms have provided equipment and raw materials to Iran, which aided the Iranian development of chemical weapons.

Iran (1996)
Another Indian company, Transpek Industry Ltd., in 1990, won an estimated $12.5 million bid to install and commission a turn-key chemical plant in Iran. By 1996 the company built the world's largest manufacturing facility for thionyl chloride outside of Europe.

South Korea (1996)
India shipped heavy water and nuclear grade zircaloy to South Korea.

Fallujah, Iraq (1998)
Between 1998 and 2001, an Indian company NEC Engineers Private Ltd. illegally shipped 10 consignments (worth $800,000) of highly sensitive equipment, including titanium vessels and centrifugal pumps, to Iraq. NEC reportedly built the chemical plant in the city of Fallujah. In a statement by NEC Engineers Private Ltd's project manager, N. Katturajan said the chemical facility was controlled by Iraqi military. According to CNN “official at NEC Engineers Private Ltd. said large amounts of chlorine were removed from the Fallujah chemical complex, which was constructed by Indian engineers. Experts say chlorine can be used in the production of chemical weapons like mustard gas and nerve agents.” For their services rendered the Indian managers from NEC Engineers' Private Limited demanded $1 million.

South Korea (1998)
India shipped 100 tons of heavy water to South Korea.

Bushehr, Iran (2000)
An Indian nuclear scientist Dr. Y.S.R. Prasad who retired in 2000 made at least two visits to Iran's Bushehr nuclear facility. Mr. Chidambaram, a former head of the Atomic Energy Commission, acknowledged Dr. Prasad’s work in Iran. He said Dr. Prasad "originally went to Iran as part of an IAEA assignment. Later, he went back to Bushehr under a private contract with the Iranians." The Hindustan Times, quoted a classified government document, which stated Dr. Prasad spent years working on India's atomic energy programs, and did not seek government permission to go to Iran.

South Korea (2000)
India shipped 16 metric tons of heavy water to South Korea.

Vietnam (2001)
India at its Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC), trained Vietnamese Scientists in uranium fuel production, zircaloy structural components, and analytical techniques.

Iran (2003)
The most damning admission of Indian nuclear proliferation to Iran came in December 2003. Indian external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha said "most certainly between Iran and India, there would be collaboration, there is collaboration".

Iran (2004)
In 2004, the US State Department blacklisted two Indian scientists. The Indian nuclear scientists were charged with nuclear proliferation to Iran. The US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher explained, "The cases reflected poor Indian commitment to non-proliferation."

In yet another instance, the US sanctioned two Indian firms for selling prohibited items to Iran.


APPENDIX - C

Indian Vertical Nuclear Proliferation:

Virtually every Indian nuclear facility directly or indirectly supports Indian nuclear weapons program. Following are some of most glaring examples the Vertical Nuclear Proliferation:

Canada-India Reactor, U.S(CIRUS)/Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Trombay (1955)
Canada supplied India a powerful research reactor which produced plutonium for India’s first nuclear weapon.

Power Reactor Fuel Reprocessing Plant (PREFRE), Anushakti Nagar (1969)
The facility reprocesses fuel from two unsafeguarded reactors at the Madres Atomic Power Station (MAPS).

Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC), Hyderabad (1974)
Hyderabad site facilities produce special materials to fabricate fissile material into atomic bomb cores. Plant is capable of manufacturing enough plutonium for one to two bombs a year.

Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR/ IGCAR), Kalpakkam (1978)
France assisted India in building the FBTR in Kalpakkam. It is based on the French "Rapsodie" model. The FBTR first reached criticality in 1985. Such Indian reactors produce more plutonium than they burn.

Variable Energy Cyclotron Center (VECC), Calcutta (1979)
Indian Government documents showed the facility's cyclotrons had been used for potential weapons-related research.

Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS), (1981)
The power station has supplied spent fuel to the Tarapur reprocessing plant. Another source of unsafeguarded plutonium is the spent fuel from the Madras Power Station which provides India with nuclear weapons. At the facility scientists are also able to produce tritium. Tritium is used in the construction of fusion bombs and to boost the fission yields of thermonuclear weapons.

Plutonium Reprocessing Plant, Trombay (1961/1984)
The facility is based on the (PUREX). India obtained blueprints for the US-developed plutonium-uranium extraction process plant from the US firm Vitro International. Extracted plutonium from the plutonium reprocessing plant can/possibly be used for India's nuclear weapons program. It is estimated, by 1997, some 400kg of plutonium had been extracted at this facility.

Uranium Enrichment Plant, Trombay (1985)
The facility is an ultracentrifuge plant. It supplies enriched uranium for the CIRUS and Dhruva nuclear reactors.

Supercomputer Education and Research Center (SERC), Bangalore (1987)
IBM RS/6000 SP supercomputer was purchased in 1994 from US. After May 1998 nuclear tests, several international organizations accused SERC of participating in the design of weapons.

Rattehali Enrichment Facility, Trombay (1990)
Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL) a subsidiary of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) operates the plant. The DAE confirmed the existence of the plant in 1992. The plant operates several hundred domestically produced sub-critical centrifuge rotor assemblies, making the plant capable of yielding several kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU) per year for nuclear weapons.

Center for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Pune University (1991)
C-DAC supercomputer models are said to have been used to design the nuclear weapons tested in May 1998.

Beryllium Machining Facility (BMF), Navi Mumbai (1994)
These facilities produce beryllium blocks and machines beryllium into components. Beryllium was used in India's 1974 nuclear explosion.

Kalpakkam Atomic Reprocessing Plant (KARP), Kalpakkam (1996)
KARP currently reprocesses spent fuel from MAPS and FBTR. KARP provides plutonium for India's nuclear weapons program.


Fast Reactor Fuel Reprocessing Plant (FRFRP), Kalpakkam (2001)
The plant reprocesses plutonium-uranium carbide fuel from the FBTR. FRFRP and the KARP are fast becoming India's largest plutonium producer. This plutonium can/may be used for India's nuclear weapons program.
 
.
India’s Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Program:

Growing Capacity for Military Purposes
David Albright and Susan Basu1
Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS)
January 18, 2007

Since the 1970s, India has pursued gas centrifuges to enrich uranium. The history and current status of India’s gas centrifuge program has been a long-held state secret. Nonetheless, ISIS sought to trace the history of India’s centrifuge enrichment program and assess its current and projected enrichment capacity based on open sources, information from interviews with Indian and other government officials, and publicly available procurement data.

The Indian Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) commissioned India’s main enrichment plant, codenamed the Rare Materials Project (RMP), around 1990. In addition to a gas centrifuge facility, this site, located about 19 kilometers from Mysore, may also contain a uranium hexafluoride production facility. By 1997, after several years of difficulty, India seems to have achieved a technical breakthrough at RMP. Although India has experienced difficulties in building centrifuges, it now appears to be competent at constructing centrifuges comparable to those common in Europe in the 1970s. Our conclusion is that India is currently operating between 2,000 and 3,000 centrifuges at the RMP. The DAE is currently attempting to expand the number of centrifuges at RMP by 3,000, increasing RMP’s capacity by at least 15,000 separative work units (SWU) per year, a common measure of the output of a uranium enrichment plant and more than double its current output. Further expansions in capacity are expected.

The Indian government has proposed to designate its gas centrifuge enrichment facilities, such as RMP, as military sites under the framework of US-India nuclear cooperation. Thus, India is unlikely to use these facilities to create fuel for the Tarapur boiling water reactors, which will be designated as civilian facilities. India is currently importing sufficient amounts of low enriched uranium (LEU) to fuel the Tarapur reactors. These reactors could have otherwise absorbed the RMP’s capacity.

As a result of its recently acquired ability to import LEU, India can devote the enrichment capacity of RMP to highly enriched uranium (HEU) for military applications. India would most likely use the HEU for fuel in submarine reactors and in thermonuclear weapons. The production of thermonuclear weapons may lead India to conduct additional underground nuclear tests as it seeks to make more deliverable, reliable, and efficient weapons.

1 Susan Basu is an ISIS consultant. During the preparation of this report, Basu was a full-time employee of ISIS.

Early Gas Centrifuge Effort

The Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) at Mumbai created India’s first gas centrifuge facility. By 1986, this facility reportedly contained about 100 centrifuges operating in a cascade and enriched uranium up to about two percent uranium 235.2 Centrifuge research activities at BARC are believed to continue.
In the early 1980s, India decided to build the larger facility near Mysore.3 The DAE’s original goal was reported to have about 5,000 operating centrifuges at RMP, but technical problems prevented them from reaching this goal.4

Construction of RMP, 1986

By 1986, the DAE began construction of the RMP at a remote site approximately 19 kilometers outside of Mysore.5 Figure 1 is a commercial satellite image of the RMP from April 25, 2005.6

By mid-1987, the DAE sought contractors to install electrical wiring, street lighting and lightning protection. The DAE has not revealed RMP’s official commission date, but it is believed to be about 1990.

Since 1984, India has procured for RMP through the DAE “front company” Indian Rare Earths (IRE) Ltd. IRE does not have the technical expertise to build or operate a gas centrifuge plant and is publicly responsible for mining and refining rare earths. In reality, BARC oversaw the personnel and operations of RMP. While IRE mentioned RMP in its public procurement advertisements from 1984 to 1985, it began omitting the phrase “RMP” from these advertisements after 1985. Except for an apparent mistake in 2004, IRE’s public advertisements to buy equipment did not make further reference to RMP or Mysore.

India depended extensively on foreign procurement of equipment and materials for the RMP. BARC personnel frequently traveled to Europe to arrange and oversee procurement of key items for RMP from suppliers. Senior BARC official, Shri

Bishweswar Bhattacharjee, arranged procurements for RMP and was the liaison between BARC, IRE and European suppliers. Another major BARC participant in the European purchases in the 1980s was T.K. Bera, who was a senior manager of RMP in the 1990s.

Beginning in 1985, RMP began to receive manufacturing equipment and materials from German, Swiss, and French companies. During this period, overseas procurements for RMP included a flow-forming machine from Leifeld, a currently defunct German firm that was capable of producing equipment to make maraging steel centrifuge rotors. India sought vacuum pumps, valves, vacuum measuring equipment, vacuum furnaces, a mass spectrometer, welding equipment, including an electron-beam welding machine, and small items that can be used as subcomponents for motor stators and centrifuge bearings. IRE ordered sufficient amounts and types of equipment for a plant containing thousands of centrifuges. This capacity is consistent with media reports at the time. BARC or Indian contractors and manufacturers may have made major centrifuge components in India, although the manufacturing equipment and some of the raw materials came from abroad.

India restricted foreign suppliers’ access to RMP facilities, probably to prevent the suppliers from gaining information about the centrifuges at RMP. In the late 1980s, for example, a foreign supplier’s technician went to India to fix equipment that his company had improperly manufactured. The Indians brought the equipment outside RMP to a guest house and the technician fixed the equipment there.

Available information about DAE centrifuges shows that its centrifuges are similar to centrifuges developed by the European gas centrifuge consortium Urenco. It is unknown whether India used only publicly available information about Urenco’s centrifuges or somehow obtained sensitive centrifuge design information.

European suppliers may have provided India with centrifuge designs or information about designing centrifuge cascades, in particular cascade piping arrangements and feed and withdrawal stations. Items sought by India in the 1980s appeared to be for auxiliary systems that looked similar to ones used in Urenco plants.

In at least one case, India procured through individuals who also played key roles in the illicit nuclear trading network led by the Pakistani A. Q. Khan. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, according to the 2005 South African indictment of Daniel Geiges and Gerhard Wisser issued by the Transvaal Provincial Division of the High Court of South Africa, Wisser, the founder and former head of Krisch Engineering, “commissioned one of his employees to produce flow meter units which were specifically designed for a uranium hexafluoride application” and had them delivered to India. The fact that the units were suitable for use with uranium hexafluoride strongly implies their intended use in the Indian gas centrifuge program. Because the customer encountered problems with the units, Wisser sent the employee to India to make adjustments. South African court documents also raise the possibility that Krisch Engineering arranged for the delivery of other sensitive items to the Indian centrifuge program, including vacuum measuring equipment and feed and withdrawal equipment for centrifuge cascades.

Problems in the RMP, Early 1990’s

Despite the extensive purchase of equipment in the 1980s and 1990s, India encountered serious technical difficulties in building and deploying centrifuges. In its early years, the RMP appears to have been plagued by technical problems.

Up until the mid-1990s, the plant experienced frequent breakdowns and many centrifuges are believed to have failed.7 In an interview with one of the authors in March 1992 at the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), P. K. Iyengar, then Chairman of the AEC, acknowledged that India had a centrifuge plant devoted to development of centrifuge technology. He downplayed its size and added that the plant operated intermittently. His comments implied that RMP had already produced enriched uranium.

US government publications also verify the RMP’s intermittent operation. An unclassified but confidential report on the Indian AEC, prepared in late 1992 or early 1993 by a knowledgeable US official based in Delhi, claimed that Iyengar had characterized the RMP as inefficient and troubled by frequent breakdowns. The report quoted other knowledgeable Indians as saying that the plant was plagued by frequent problems caused by corrosion and failure of parts. They point out that the facility was experimental, the centrifuges were developed and manufactured without direct external assistance and it was dependent on materials only marginally sufficient for use in centrifuges. The declassified and redacted July 1993 Report to Congress on Status of China, India, and Pakistan Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Programs also expressed these views and stated that the RMP had started “limited operations” but was “beset by technical difficulties.”

The unclassified US report on the Indian AEC quoted Iyengar as stating that the RMP could enrich uranium up to 30 percent. To have this level of enrichment, the plant either had at least two or three cascades in operation or was batch-recycling the product back into the cascades to bring the level of enrichment up to 30 percent. In either case, the plant would likely have been able to make only small amounts of HEU.
During the 1992 interview, Iyengar refused to divulge details of the centrifuge design. However, he said that the centrifuges at the plant did not have bellows, a specialized component developed by Urenco to permit a longer centrifuge with a higher separative output. Such a centrifuge is called supercritical. Iyengar’s comment about the bellows suggests that the centrifuges at RMP had relatively short rotor tubes and were subcritical centrifuges. Media reports stated that the centrifuge rotors used maraging steel produced domestically at the Ministry of Defense enterprise Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (MIDHANI) in Hyderabad. Based on the centrifuges being subcritical and having 7 D. Albright, Frans Berkhout, and William Walker, Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium, World Inventories, Capabilities, and Policies (Oxford University Press and SIPRI: Oxford, 1997), pp. 269-271.
maraging steel rotors, media reports stated that each centrifuge during this period likely had a separative capacity of less than three SWU per year.8

By the mid-1990s, the RMP was reported to have several hundred operating centrifuges.9 Assuming that each centrifuge was subcritical and had an output of about 2-3 SWU per year, the capacity of the RMP would have been about 600-1,500 SWU per year where several hundred centrifuges are taken as 300-500 centrifuges.

Iyengar’s comment did not mean that India was not developing supercritical centrifuges. In a March 1992 interview in New Delhi with one of the authors, former AEC chairman Raja Ramanna suggested that India was already working on supercritical centrifuges. In that interview, Ramana said that the supercritical centrifuges would suddenly shake and create “quite a noise” when passing through resonances. A recent design drawing of a key component of a supercritical centrifuge has an annotation that the more current drawing supersedes a 1992 drawing, implying that BARC was designing and possibly testing supercritical centrifuges at that time. IRE also requested specialized testing equipment in August 1992 associated with the construction of bellows in a centrifuge rotor.

Breakthrough and Expansion
Technical Breakthrough: 1997 to 2002

A sudden increase in procurements of centrifuge-related items in almost identical quantities occurred between 1997 and 1999, suggesting an intention to increase the quantity of centrifuges at RMP. IRE had previously sought several items in hundreds of quantities that appear to be parts of centrifuge subcomponents, such as stator motors, bottom bearings, and valves, and it began to seek them in quantities ranging from 1,500-2,000. These orders could mean that the program intended to build that many centrifuges, although the actual quantity of centrifuges built and successfully operated would be less.
This increase in procurements of centrifuge subcomponents corresponded with an announcement by Indian officials that the centrifuge program had overcome some of its technical problems. In December 1997, Nuclear Fuel, quoting a knowledgeable Indian official, reported that the centrifuge project would build and install improved rotor assemblies with design features aimed at overcoming mechanical limitations.10
It is difficult to determine the success of this effort. India has tried to give the impression of great success. BARC publications have showered credit on Bhattacharjee, former director of the RMP and director of the Chemical Engineering and Technology Group

(CETG), which handles the centrifuge program.11 After being promoted in 2001 to director of BARC, media reports and BARC publications stated that he led the team that designed, installed, commissioned and upgraded the “high speed rotor” project, better known as the gas centrifuge effort, required for producing “some of the materials of strategic importance.” In a 2001 Frontline interview, Bhattacharjee said that the Indian centrifuge program was advancing.12 He added: “We are developing more and more advanced models of gas centrifuges.” Typically, centrifuge programs focus on increasing enrichment output by developing centrifuge rotors that are longer and spin faster. As mentioned earlier, India has lengthened its centrifuges by adding bellows. In addition, an Indian media report from 2001 confirmed that RMP had produced “weapons grade fissile material.”13

A short biography of Bhattacharjee published in the May-June 2001 India Today stated that the development work associated with RMP enhanced the nation’s engineering capabilities in general and precision engineering in particular. In addition, this project led to the indigenous production of equipment and materials that had earlier been imported. Bhattacharjee’s statement suggested that the centrifuge program had successfully reverse-engineered several finished items originally obtained overseas. Despite denials by Indian officials, India continues to seek finished items and subcomponents of finished items from foreign suppliers for its gas centrifuge program.

Estimates of RMP’s capacity performed by M.V. Ramana support the view that the number of centrifuges at RMP, including supercritical centrifuges, increased in the late 1990’s. In 2004, M. V. Ramana published an estimate of RMP’s 1999 capacity.14 His estimate was based on open source information and an assumption that the main purpose of the RMP up to 1999 was to produce the first core of a naval reactor, estimated at 90 megawatts-thermal. In 1999, his estimate of RMP’s capacity was 3,000–7,000 SWU per year. Ramana’s estimate would be consistent with the operation of about 1,000-2,000.

Expansion: 2003 to 2006

An Indian media report from December 2004 stated that the capacity and performance of RMP had improved greatly in recent years.15 Interpreting this statement remains difficult, but it implies that BARC had added centrifuges to RMP and that the RMP had started to produce enriched uranium on a regular basis.

Procurements from 2003 to 2006 indicate that India planned a further expansion in the number of centrifuges at RMP. During this time, there was an increase of orders of centrifuge parts, including multiple orders of aluminum tubes, rotor tubes, bottom bearing subcomponents, and subcomponents for motor stators and valves. There were also efforts to buy vacuum pumps that are capable of handling uranium hexafluoride.

There is no sign of weakening government commitment to RMP. Indian government budgetary documents for 1999-2004 list the RMP as receiving continuing funding.

The site itself has continued to seek new employees and has undergone renovation and expansion. In December 2004, BARC publicly invited applications for forty-five scientific and engineering trainees at RMP. Ten of the selected applicants would need to be mechanical, chemical or electrical engineers with only Bachelor of Science degrees in Engineering. Thirty-five technicians would be required to have pre-existing training in chemical plant operation, instrumentation or electronics. BARC itself issued public advertisements from 2004 through 2006 to invite repairs, modifications, and extensions of several buildings and annexes at RMP. In late 2006, it invited offers to build a multipurpose hall and a class-1000 clean room.

Recent Orders of Supercritical Centrifuges

In late 2005 and early 2006, IRE ordered 3,000 maraging steel tubes with a single bellows in the middle of each tube. Several centrifuge experts in the United States and Europe determined that these tubes are most suitable as supercritical centrifuge rotor tubes. Although the manufacturer of these tubes is unidentified, these orders provide a window into the future expansion of RMP and the types of centrifuges India is building at this site.

These centrifuge parts have characteristics of centrifuges developed by Urenco, the European enrichment consortium. The shape of the Indian rotor tube and the bellows at the middle of the tube are prototypical of Urenco rotors. However, the dimensions and thicknesses of its newest centrifuge differ slightly from early Urenco centrifuges. It cannot be excluded that India may have obtained Urenco designs in the 1970s or 1980s and modified the designs to suit its needs and manufacturing capabilities. For example, India may have increased the thickness of a tube or bellows because of problems making thinner pieces. In any case, these tenders suggest that India has invested considerable resources over the last 10-15 years in developing rotors and bellows.

In one case, IRE solicited 2,000 rotors and bellows made from 350-grade maraging steel with exacting specifications typical of centrifuge rotors. These thin-walled tubes have a diameter of 150 millimeters, a wall thickness of less than one-half millimeter, and a finished length of 1,215 millimeters. This centrifuge rotor is similar to the rotor in a G2-type centrifuge which was built by Germany for Urenco in the early 1970s and has a diameter of 145 millimeters as well as a slightly thinner wall. The Indian bellows is similar to a Urenco bellows, but it has a thicker wall and has a slightly different shape. This rotor is likely to have a more difficult time passing through a key resonance and is likely to fail more frequently. The enrichment output of this design is about five SWU per year, implying that DAE plans to increase the capacity of RMP by about 10,000 SWU per year using this centrifuge.

In the second case, IRE solicited 1,000 350-grade maraging steel rotors, each with one bellows, but with a longer and wider rotor tube. These rotors have a diameter of 190 millimeters and a finished length of 1,500 millimeters. BARC may have selected this greater diameter to allow the final length to increase to 1,500 millimeters, which would result in a higher enrichment output for each centrifuge. Thus, the second order may represent an improved centrifuge, although the bellows design remains the same as in the first order. Its output is about seven SWU per year, implying that DAE plans to increase the capacity of RMP by about 7,000 SWU per year using this centrifuge.

In total, these two orders suggest that DAE is aiming to increase RMP’s capacity by about 17,000 SWU per year over the next few years. The failure rate of the Indian centrifuge is unknown, although the cumulative experience of the Indian centrifuge program would suggest that the failure rate is manageable but unlikely to match Urenco’s extremely low rate for similar centrifuges. As a result, the future deployed capacity implicit in these two orders for rotors is estimated to be about 15,000 SWU per year.

Other information suggests that RMP’s capacity would likely be increased even further. For example, the bellows are to be manufactured by machines and not by hand, another manufacturing approach acceptable when a relatively small number of bellows are needed. A company investing in such equipment and in mastering the production of bellows would likely do so only if additional orders were expected. In addition, IRE may have ordered more rotors with a diameter of 190 millimeters but not announced the tender publicly. This conclusion is based on a 2005 solicitation made by IRE for aluminum tubes with dimensions that could imply that they would be cut and made into molecular pumps for a centrifuge with a 190millimeter rotor. (A molecular pump is a non-rotating part which reduces the leakage of uranium hexafluoride gas from the rotor.) Assuming a standard length of a molecular pump, the tubing would be sufficient for about 2,000 centrifuges of this type. This suggests that IRE may have sought 2,000 rotors with a diameter of 190 millimeters, instead of only 1,000 such tubes.

Estimated Current and Future Capacity of RMP, 2006

India has provided limited public information on the current enrichment capacity of RMP, but a combination of previous estimates and fresh information sheds new light on its capacity and output.

This estimate of RMP’s current capacity is performed using Crystal Ball®, a software that permits a more transparent uncertainty analysis. The information compiled for this report allows us, with reasonable certainty, to assume that the RMP has between 2,000 and 3,000 operating centrifuges. In the calculation, this range is represented by a uniform distribution, meaning that each value between 2,000 and 3,000 has an equal probability of being true. Because the plant may contain both subcritical and supercritical centrifuges, the distribution of the capacity of each centrifuge is more complicated. This estimate assumes that the probability of a centrifuge having a capacity of 2-3 SWU per year is about 40 percent and the probability of a centrifuge having a capacity of 4-5 SWU per year is about 60 percent. This means that about 40 percent of the centrifuges are subcritical and about 60 percent are supercritical, with the latter being the type with a diameter of 150 millimeters. This distribution reflects that BARC has been installing supercritical centrifuges at RMP since the late 1990s. The estimated total capacity has a median of about 9,600 SWU per year, with 5th and 95th percentiles of about 5,000 and 13,000 SWU per year, respectively.

The two recent orders for 3,000 supercritical rotors imply that RMP will undergo a significant expansion over the next several years. The capacity implicit in these orders is 15,000 SWU per year. If added to RMP, the future total capacity of RMP is estimated to have a median of about 25,000 SWU per year, with 5th and 95th percentiles of about 20,000 and 30,000 SWU per year, respectively.

Enriched Uranium Needs

India has several political and technical motivations for making low and highly enriched uranium. Interviews with senior Indian officials show that they felt pressure to match Pakistan’s accomplishments with gas centrifuges. More importantly, Indian officials have expressed interest in having an indigenous source of enriched uranium for domestic research and power reactors, thermonuclear weapons, and naval reactors. The RMP does not appear large enough to provide enriched uranium for all of these requirements, particularly the Tarapur reactors. India’s recent actions to import low enriched uranium for the Tarapur reactors underscore this conclusion.

Naval Reactors

India’s interest in naval reactors for submarines goes back decades. More recently, it has concentrated on operating a naval propulsion prototype reactor near Kalpakkam and launching an indigenous nuclear-powered submarine that will use a miniaturized version of this reactor. The naval reactor program, codenamed the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV), is surrounded by secrecy. BARC is reported to be responsible for building the reactor, and military organizations and associated contractors are responsible for building everything else in the submarine.

In August 2006, The Hindu reported that the ATV’s naval prototype reactor at Kalpakkam was fully operational and running at its full capacity of 100 megawatts.16 Most media reports had stated that the naval prototype reactor would have a power of about 40-55 megawatts-thermal and would use HEU enriched to between 20 and 40 percent. Some reports, however, stated a greater power of between 90 and 150 megawatts-thermal. It is likely that the reactor started around 2004.17

Thermonuclear Weapons

Indian nuclear weapons have depended principally on plutonium. However, highly enriched uranium is desirable for thermonuclear weapons. Indian officials have stated that the 1998 full-scale nuclear tests included a thermonuclear device. In 2000, Dr. Anil Kakodkar, then Director of BARC, told The Nation that a thermonuclear device was tested at a relatively low yield, less than 45 kilotons, because of the proximity of a nearby village.22 He added that India could design a thermonuclear device of a higher yield. These discussions imply that India uses the RMP to make HEU for its thermonuclear weapons.

Civil Research Reactors

Submarine Project,” Bangalore Deccan Herald, June 7, 2004]. A late 2004 report stated that the “compact” reactor using 25 percent enriched fuel had recently gone critical [R. Ramachandran, “Fuel for TAPS,” The Hindu, December 18, 2004]. These reports contradicted a series of reports from the late 1990s and early 2000s that the reactor was already operating. The resume of a young mechanical engineer found on the internet tends to support the reports that the prototype reactor was under construction at least through late 2003. This person listed himself as a “supervisor” of various construction activities between mid-2000 and October 2003 at the prototype reactor project (submarine) at Kalpakkam under the Department of Atomic Energy.

In 1998, India stated that it planned to refurbish and convert the Apsara reactor to LEU fuel and operate the reactor regularly at one megawatt-thermal.23 As of 2003, work was continuing on the conversion.24 Indian officials have stated plans to build a 20 megawatt-thermal multi-purpose research reactor (MPRR) using LEU that would be enriched to slightly less than 20 percent. LEU for these reactors would likely be produced at RMP.

Tarapur Reactors

In the early 1990s, Indian officials stated that the two Tarapur boiling water reactors could be loaded with LEU indigenously produced. However, this option was not practical because the RMP was too small to produce enough LEU to fuel either of these reactors. Instead, India opted to obtain LEU from overseas. Bhattacharjee said in the 2001 interview that India intended to continue buying LEU from overseas for the Tarapur reactors.25 Based on recent events, this strategy has succeeded.

Domestic LEU production for the Tarapur reactors remains unlikely. The reactors would require roughly 15 tonnes of 2-3 percent enriched uranium per year. This amount of LEU would require about 25,000-51,000 SWU per year, assuming a tails assay of 0.3 percent.

Taking Stock

Table 1 lists the estimated annual requirements for naval reactors and research reactors over the next several years. This assumes that RMP will not make any LEU for the Tarapur reactors. In this case, the annual requirement is estimated to be about 9,400-14,800 SWU per year, where the Indian program produces fuel for one submarine reactor core every five years.

If the actual capacity of RMP is at the upper range of the estimate, RMP should be able to fulfill the requirement for enriched uranium for its reactors roughly on the schedule postulated in Table 1. If the actual capacity is at the lower end, India may not be able to produce enough HEU for its naval reactor program until it expands RMP.

India appears to need most of RMP’s capacity for the naval program and, unencumbered by the demands of the Tarapur reactors, can allocate more HEU to naval reactors and thermonuclear weapons. And, notwithstanding the HEU demands of the naval program, RMP could also have produced enough HEU for the thermonuclear test device used in 1998 and a more recent, small set of thermonuclear weapons. Assuming that India assigns 10,000 SWU per year to the production of HEU for thermonuclear weapons, RMP would need to make enough HEU for a few such weapons per year.

HEU Stock

The total amount of HEU produced is difficult to estimate. Most of the current stock of HEU has been produced for the naval reactor program.

Over the last decade, the RMP may have produced both LEU and HEU. RMP likely produced enough HEU for the submarine reactor, two to three years of operation of the prototype naval reactor and an unknown amount of nuclear weapons. These requirements are, respectively, about 200-600 kilograms of HEU (30% enriched), about 330 kilograms of HEU (30% enriched) and several tens of kilograms of HEU. Therefore, as of the end of 2006, the estimated Indian HEU stock is about 550-950 kilograms.

Conclusion

Great uncertainty surrounds India’s gas centrifuge enrichment program. After many years, India appears to have finally developed the capability to build and operate a centrifuge plant. It appears on the verge of adding at least 3,000 centrifuges to RMP in addition to about 2,000 – 3,000 existing centrifuges. This would significantly expand India’s ability to make HEU for its military nuclear programs and enable it to add thermonuclear weapons to its arsenal at a rate of at least a few per year.

Although the program has developed with the support of domestic suppliers, it is still seeking foreign suppliers for several key items. If the Nuclear Suppliers Group makes an exception for India, foreign suppliers of dual-use items will need to exercise extra care to ensure that RMP is not the ultimate end user or beneficiary of exports intended solely for peaceful, non-military uses.

Comments
* The enrichment level of HEU produced for naval reactors is believed to be about 30 percent. Thus, an annual requirement of 30-60 kilograms of uranium 235 corresponds to 100-200 kilograms of HEU enriched to 30 percent.

** The first nuclear powered submarine reactor is assumed to have a reactor with a total power of 90-100 megawatts-thermal. To increase the time between refuelings to 5 years, the submarine reactor is estimated to require on order of 100 kilograms of uranium 235 in HEU (30% enriched), or 330 kilograms of HEU. Production of this amount of HEU would require about 18,500 SWU. This HEU is assumed to be produced over five years, for an average annual requirement of about 3,700 SWU per year.

*** India plans to build the multi-purpose research reactor (MPRR), although construction is not believed to have started. Thus, the enriched uranium fuel has probably not yet been made for the first core. The reactor will require about 11 kg U-235 in LEU (19.9%) each year, which would correspond to a need of about 2,000 SWU per year.

Appendix. 1997 Accident

An accident in early 1997 may permit a crude check on the number of centrifuges operating at the plant in early to mid-1990s. Depleted uranium, containing 0.3-0.4 percent uranium 235, was shipped in mild steel drums from the plant to a disposal site at the Rakha Mines owned by the Uranium Corporation of India at Jakuguda in Bihar. The 1997 shipment of 56 drums had about a dozen corroded drums, and one of these drums gave way and leaked uranium.26

The maximum amount of enriched uranium product and the separative work units required to produce that depleted uranium can be crudely estimated. Based on information that the drums were made of mild steel and on the absence of any public mention of highly toxic fluorine, the drums are assumed to have contained uranium oxide. The drums are also assumed to have a capacity of 55 gallons, a standard-sized drum for depleted uranium not in a chemical form involving fluorine. Using nuclear industry standards, each drum is assumed to contain no more than about 175-350 kilograms of uranium, for a total of about 10-20 tonnes of uranium in all 56 drums. If only HEU had been produced, and the upper figure of 20 tonnes is used, then this amount of depleted uranium would correspond to about 80 kilograms of HEU enriched to 90 percent or 375 kilograms of HEU enriched to 20 percent.27 Production of this amount of HEU would have required 13,400 to 14,500 SWU for the 20 and 90 percent enriched uranium, respectively, or about 14,000 SWU. If three percent enriched uranium had been produced, this amount of depleted uranium would correspond to about three tonnes of LEU and about 10,000 SWU. Because the plant likely produced mostly LEU, the latter value of 10,000 SWU is used. If only 10 tonnes were in the drums, the values would be halved to 40-190 kilograms of HEU and about 5,000 SWU.

Assuming that the operators followed standard practice and loaded the depleted uranium into non-corroded drums, many of these drums would have been likely stored for years. If the drums had been stored for five to seven years, and the drums represented the bulk of the depleted uranium produced by RMP, the total output of the RMP during this period would have been about 5,000-10,000 SWU. The estimated average annual output during these 5-7 years would have been roughly 700-2,000 SWU per year. Assuming each centrifuge had a capacity of 2-3 SWU per year, such an annual output would imply that roughly 250-1,000 subcritical centrifuges were operating during this period. Because the amount of depleted uranium in each drum could have been significantly less than posited above, these values should be viewed as upper bounds. Nonetheless, this case suggests that the RMP had not managed to operate thousands of centrifuges by 1997.
 
. .
That is irrelevant. I ask again can you dissaprove the roots of India in the black market? Or dissaprove the points above. The article is well researched, and creditted if you ask me than some bolly sholly indian newspaper online.
 
.
No, it is relevent. Who wrote the article and link please
 
.
I wrote the article and i will publish it later on defence.pk. Let see if this makes it much more relevant and credible! huh!

This has been opened like always. Discuss the message not the messenger, and has been the policy.
 
.
Then no it is not credible enough for me, for the very fact there are countries who has made it their national agenda to discredit India. Therefore I cant take this report on its face value, since it citing reports on Newspapers and not cross-checking with another sources.
 
.
Credible or NOT. The points are valid until disapproved. India does have the roots to the black market. India is no gold. It would have supplied the nuclear weapons to the friendly countries if it had any.

Hell even the Soviets, Chinese all have links with stealing nuclear technology, and the only way for India to get this technology is either by the Russians or Black Market.
 
.
The points are not valid, unless and until we know who the writer is, It is the accuser to give the evidence.

I will take the word of Mohammed El- Baredi over yours any day.

Rethinking Nuclear Safeguards

By Mohamed ElBaradei
Wednesday, June 14, 2006; Page A23

In regard to nuclear proliferation and arms control, the fundamental problem is clear: Either we begin finding creative, outside-the-box solutions or the international nuclear safeguards regime will become obsolete.

For this reason, I have been calling for new approaches in a number of areas. First, a recommitment to disarmament -- a move away from national security strategies that rely on nuclear weapons, which serve as a constant stimulus for other nations to acquire them. Second, tightened controls on the proliferation-sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. By bringing multinational control to any operation that enriches uranium or separates plutonium, we can lower the risk of these materials being diverted to weapons. A parallel step would be to create a mechanism to ensure a reliable supply of reactor fuel to bona fide users, including a fuel bank under control of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The third area has been more problematic: how to deal creatively with the three countries that remain outside the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): Pakistan and India, both holders of nuclear arsenals, and Israel, which maintains an official policy of ambiguity but is believed to be nuclear-weapons-capable. However fervently we might wish it, none of these three is likely to give up its nuclear weapons or the nuclear weapons option outside of a global or regional arms control framework. Our traditional strategy -- of treating such states as outsiders -- is no longer a realistic method of bringing these last few countries into the fold.

Which brings us to a current controversy -- the recent agreement between President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh regarding the exchange of nuclear technology between the United States and India.

Some insist that the deal will primarily enable India to divert more uranium to produce more weapons -- that it rewards India for having developed nuclear weapons and legitimizes its status as a nuclear weapons state. By contrast, some in India argue that it will bring the downfall of India's nuclear weapons program, because of new restrictions on moving equipment and expertise between civilian and military facilities.

Clearly, this is a complex issue on which intelligent people can disagree. Ultimately, perhaps, it comes down to a balance of judgment. But to this array of opinions, I would offer the following:

First, under the NPT, there is no such thing as a "legitimate" or "illegitimate" nuclear weapons state. The fact that five states are recognized in the treaty as holders of nuclear weapons was regarded as a matter of transition; the treaty does not in any sense confer permanent status on those states as weapons holders. Moreover, the U.S.-India deal is neutral on this point -- it does not add to or detract from India's nuclear weapons program, nor does it confer any "status," legal or otherwise, on India as a possessor of nuclear weapons. India has never joined the NPT; it has therefore not violated any legal commitment, and it has never encouraged nuclear weapons proliferation.Also, it is important to consider the implications of denying this exchange of peaceful nuclear technology. As a country with one-sixth of the world's population, India has an enormous appetite for energy -- and the fastest-growing civilian nuclear energy program in the world. With this anticipated growth, it is important that India have access to the safest and most advanced technology.

India clearly enjoys close cooperation with the United States and many other countries in a number of areas of technology and security. It is treated as a valued partner, a trusted contributor to international peace and security. It is difficult to understand the logic that would continue to carve out civil nuclear energy as the single area for noncooperation.

Under the agreement, India commits to following the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an organization of states that regulates access to nuclear material and technology. India would bring its civilian nuclear facilities under international safeguards. India has voiced its support for the conclusion of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The strong support of both India and the United States -- as well as all other nuclear weapons states -- is sorely needed to make this treaty a reality.

The U.S.-India agreement is a creative break with the past that, handled properly, will be a first step forward for both India and the international community. India will get safe and modern technology to help lift more than 500 million people from poverty, and it will be part of the international effort to combat nuclear terrorism and rid our world of nuclear weapons.

As we face the future, other strategies must be found to enlist Pakistan and Israel as partners in nuclear arms control and nonproliferation. Whatever form those solutions take, they will need to address not only nuclear weapons but also the much broader range of security concerns facing each country. No one ever said controlling nuclear weapons was going to be easy. It will take courage and tenacity in large doses, a great deal more outside-of-the-box thinking, and a sense of realism. And it will be worth the effort.

The writer is director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He and the agency won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom