VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0360/01 2090617
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 280617Z JUL 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9887
INFO RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 0349
RHEBAAA/DOE WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEANFA/NRC WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000360 
 
SENSTIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR P, T, ISN, EEB, IO/T 
DOE FOR 
NRC FOR OIP - DOANE 
NSC FOR SCHEINMAN, CONNERY 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: ENRG PREL TRGY KNNP IN
SUBJECT:  US-India Meeting on Arrangements and Procedures for 
Reprocessing of US-obligated nuclear material, Day Two/ Conclusion 
 
REF:  UNVIE 350 
 
¶1.  (SBU) The second day of the U.S.-India discussions (Wednesday, 
July 22) on the agreement for arrangements and procedures for 
reprocessing saw only a relatively brief, but productive, afternoon 
meeting.   The Indian delegation first reported that it had met 
earlier in the day with the IAEA Deputy Director General (DDG) for 
Safeguards to discuss aspects of the draft text of Article 2 
(substance of safeguards).  Dr. Grover of the Indian delegation 
reported that the DDG had stated the same views to the Indian 
delegation that the IAEA Legal Affairs department had already voiced 
to the U.S. delegation; namely, that the draft agreement should 
avoid being prescriptive (thereby tying the hands of the IAEA) and 
instead be descriptive in the nature of the safeguards relationship 
between the IAEA and India, leaving the Agency to determine what it 
best needed.  The Indian side seemed to be accepting this advice. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Dr. Grover then noted that the two sides had gone through 
most of the text of the draft reprocessing agreement on July 21 
(reftel), leaving only the preamble (comments to be provided 
later)and the substance of Article 2 (the specific provisions 
regarding the nature of an effective reprocessing plant safeguards 
system.)  The two sides then worked through Article 2, with the 
Indian side providing some initial thoughts on wording changes to 
the draft text.  The U.S. delegation found that many of the proposed 
changes were acceptable on their face, although some of the changes 
would need to be further studied by experts in Washington.  In 
brief, the Indian side worried that such requirements as "shared 
instrumentation" compromised the ability of the operator to operate 
the plant efficiently, e.g. if process control changes could not be 
implemented without a lengthy IAEA review process.  The U.S. side 
noted that we were proposing the usual practice of sharing data, not 
allowing the IAEA to control the operator's instrumentation. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) The two sides completed their pass through Article 2 
(substance of safeguards) in relatively short order, with Grover 
accepting several paragraphs unchanged.  The framework of the U.S. 
text and safeguards concepts laid out in Article 2 was not commented 
upon by the GOI.  The two sides agreed that while some changes 
appeared acceptable to both sides, the entire text was ad referendum 
to capitals and that "nothing was agreed until everything was 
agreed." 
 
Next Steps 
---------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Although a follow-on meeting at the IAEA General 
Conference was discussed, schedules did not coincide.  The two sides 
agreed to exchange comments on the draft proposal by 22 September 
2009, following the General Conference.  The next general meeting 
was tentatively scheduled for October 8 and 9 at UNVIE Mission, a 
week in which Dr. Grover would already be in Europe. 
 
Assessment 
---------- 
 
¶5.  (SBU) As reported reftel, the U.S. delegation believes that 
substantial progress was made.  There are issues that require 
additional drafting, but so far there do not seem to be any deal 
breakers.  After a slow start, the GOI delegation clearly received 
instructions to proceed through the text apace.  Of particular note 
were (1) the Indian del did not try to table a competing text, (2) 
they accepted the substance and structure of Article 2 (substance of 
safeguards), and did not try to delete a single paragraph, (3) they 
sought their own appointment with the DDG (Safeguards) and 
acknowledged receiving the same advice as the U.S. had received from 
the IAEA lawyers (we acknowledged our consultations with the Legal 
Adviser), and  (4) they were at least initially favorable to a 
trilateral meeting with the IAEA to iron out a final text acceptable 
to the IAEA.  In closing, we reiterated our desire to finish by the 
end of this calendar year, well ahead of the one year deadline next 
July. 
 
Participants 
------------ 
 
¶6.  (U) Indian Delegation: 
Dr. R. B. Grover, Director, Knowledge Management Group, 
 Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) 
Shri S.Basu, Associate Director, NRG, BARC 
Dr. K.L.Ramakumar, Head RACD, BARC 
Shri A.Gitesh Sarma, JS(ER), DAE 
Shri Ranajit Kumar, SO/H, CnID, BARC 
 
U.S. Delegation: 
Dick Stratford, ISN/NESS 
Julie Herr, L/NPV 
Jonathan Sanborn, ISN/MNSA 
Rich Goorevich, DoE NA-24 
Sean Oehlbert, DoE NA-24 
David Jonas, NNSA General Counsel 
UNVIE A/DCM Mark Scheland 
Notetaker: Ben Heath 
 
¶7. (U) USDEL cleared this message. 
 
PYATT