VZCZCXRO9803
RR RUEHTRO
DE RUEHBI #2075/01 3541110
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 201110Z DEC 06
FM AMCONSUL MUMBAI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4987
INFO RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI 9845
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 6144
RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI 1291
RUEHCI/AMCONSUL CALCUTTA 1178
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD 0689
RUEHLM/AMEMBASSY COLOMBO 0693
RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA 0685
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0076
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 0060
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0066
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0091
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0186
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHMFIUU/HQ USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
RUEHII/VIENNA IAEA POSTS COLLECTIVE
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 MUMBAI 002075 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
DEPT. OF ENERGY FOR U/S GARMAN, S. JOHNSON, T. CUTLER, A. SCHEINEMAN 
DEPT OF COMMERCE FOR U/S F. LAVIN, A/S VINEYARD,J.NEUHOF 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PARM TSPL KNNP ETTC ENRG TRGY PGOV ECON
BEXP, IN 
SUBJECT: NPCIL TELLS SEN. SPECTER THAT IT APPLAUDS NUCLEAR LAW, YET 
CITES SCIENTISTS' CONCERNS 
 
REF: MUMBAI 2064 
 
MUMBAI 00002075  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
Summary 
 
------- 
 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) S.K. Agrawal, director of projects at the Nuclear Power 
Corporation of India (NPCIL), told Senator Arlen Specter on 
December 16 that the civil nuclear law passed by Congress would 
not restrict the company's expansion plans.  Without the 
agreement, the NPCIL's growth would even be slower and limited 
in the near to mid-term, he said.  Agrawal was reacting to 
public statements, made a day earlier by retired Indian nuclear 
scientists, that the law prevented "full nuclear cooperation" 
with the U.S.  The scientists' concerns were real but did not 
affect the NPCIL because the company was not involved in the 
enrichment or reprocessing of fuel, he said.  Agrawal urged the 
U.S. to take the scientists' concerns seriously since they 
reflected widespread public sentiment and would influence the 
domestic debate on the agreement.  The scientists were mainly 
concerned about the restrictions on enrichment and nuclear 
testing, and on Iran, Agrawal said.  Specter said the U.S. 
supported India's emergence as a world power, and saw civil 
nuclear cooperation as a tool to strengthen the bilateral 
relationship.  Diversion of imported fuel to military purposes 
remained a concern for the U.S., as did India's relationship 
with Iran, Specter said.  End summary. 
 
 
 
NPCIL "Euphoric", But Others Are Concerned 
 
------------------------------------------ 
 
 
 
¶2. (SBU) Agrawal told Senator Arlen Specter on December 16 that 
the NPCIL was "euphoric" at the passage of the civil nuclear 
legislation.  The final version of the bill would "in no way" 
restrict the expansion plans of the NPCIL, Agrawal emphasized. 
Anil Kakodkar, secretary of the Department of Atomic Energy 
(DAE) and chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, shared these 
views, Agrawal added. 
 
 
 
¶3. (SBU) While the NPCIL had no issues with the legislation, 
others within the country's nuclear establishment clearly did, 
Agrawal said.  He referred to local press reports of a December 
15 meeting between retired nuclear scientists and Kakodkar. 
According to press reports, the scientists told Kakodkar that 
the bill would prevent "full nuclear cooperation."  The 
scientists' were concerned with the restrictions the law placed 
on India's ability to reprocess any fuel it imports, Agrawal 
told Specter.  Many felt that the agreement would give India far 
less flexibility than it has today.  However, the NPCIL was not 
involved in either the enrichment or reprocessing of nuclear 
fuel, he said, and hence it had no issues with the legislation. 
It leased all its fuel from other DAE-controlled companies and 
returned the spent fuel back to the DAE for further use, he 
added. 
 
 
 
Scientists' Concerns Reflect Public Sentiment, Agrawal Argues 
 
MUMBAI 00002075  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
 
------ 
 
 
 
¶4. (SBU) Agrawal said the scientists' statements were a 
reflection of a domestic sentiment.  There was continued general 
concern among the "people" about what the agreement meant for 
India, Agrawal said.  Many were fearful that the deal would tie 
India down, prevent it from protecting itself, or bring the 
country too closely into the orbit of the U.S., he added.   The 
U.S. should take the scientists' concerns seriously, as they 
would play a role in the further domestic debate on the 
legislation.  In addition to the restrictions on reprocessing of 
fuel, the scientists were mainly concerned with the provisions 
on further nuclear testing and on Iran, he said. 
 
 
 
¶5. (SBU) On Iran, Specter told Agrawal that the U.S. continued 
to expect Indian support of the worldwide effort to prevent Iran 
from acquiring nuclear weapons.  Agrawal said India agreed that 
Iran should not acquire nuclear weapons, but the provisions of 
the nuclear deal "were not necessary."  India had always been a 
responsible state with regard to non-proliferation, and many in 
India did not understand why the U.S. was insistent on linking 
Iran to the civil nuclear deal.  Many people asked why the U.S. 
was not as insistent that Pakistan stop manufacturing nuclear 
weapons.  Specter replied that, if it could, the U.S. would get 
Pakistan to eliminate its nuclear arsenal.  Like Iran, Pakistan 
did not have a good non-proliferation record, Specter said, but 
unlike Iran it was not a state sponsor of terrorism, it did not 
advocate the destruction of Israel and it did not support groups 
like Hezbollah. 
 
 
 
Specter: Law Important Milestone 
 
-------------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶6. (SBU) Specter told Agrawal that the agreement marked a 
historic milestone in U.S.-Indian relations.  The U.S. greeted 
India's emergence as a world power.  The U.S. understood India's 
energy needs.  For the U.S., the agreement was a tool to help 
meet those needs, but it was also an instrument to create closer 
ties as a whole.  The U.S. understood the potential for 
commercial nuclear ties between the two countries.  At the same 
time, the U.S. wanted continued assurances that civil nuclear 
technology and fuel would not be used for military purposes. 
 
 
 
NPCIL: Without Deal, Growth Limited in Short Term 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
 
 
¶7. (SBU) Agrawal gave Specter an overview of the NPCIL's 
expansion plans (see reftel).  Specter asked Agrawal whether 
India needed the civil nuclear agreement to meet its ambitious 
expansion plans.  Agrawal said the agreement would allow the 
NPCIL to grow faster, because it would allow the company to 
 
MUMBAI 00002075  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
augment its indigenous program with foreign technology.  Without 
the agreement, growth would be slower and limited in the short 
term, since the country had only finite reserves of natural 
uranium to fuel its indigenously built reactors, and because the 
planned establishment of a closed fuel cycle with its fast 
breeders and thorium reactors would still take many years to 
become reality. (Note: In earlier discussions, the NPCIL 
admitted that it needed to import roughly 6-8 reactors to reach 
its goal, formulated before the July 18 joint statement, of 
creating 20 gigawatts of generation capacity by 2020.  End 
note).  Agrawal said India's vision of a closed fuel cycle was 
"very clear."  India had a concrete policy to reprocess spent 
fuel from its pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWR) for the 
planned fast breeders.  The more PHWRs and light water reactors 
it had, the more fuel it could channel to its planned fast 
breeders, he said. 
 
 
 
¶8. (U) Senator Specter's staff cleared this cable. 
KAUFFMAN