5 options
India's nuclear separation plan : issues and views / Sharon Squassoni.
- Format:
- Book
- Author/Creator:
- Squassoni, Sharon A., author.
- Series:
- CRS report for Congress ; RL33292.
- CRS report for Congress ; RL33292
- Language:
- English
- Subjects (All):
- Nuclear energy--India.
- Nuclear energy.
- Nuclear nonproliferation.
- Physical Description:
- 1 online resource (27 pages).
- Place of Publication:
- Washington, District of Columbia : Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 2006.
- Summary:
- On July 18, 2005, President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced the creation of a "global partnership," which would include "full" civil nuclear cooperation between the United States and India. This is at odds with nearly three decades of U.S. nonproliferation policy and practice. President Bush promised India he would persuade Congress to amend the pertinent laws to approve the agreement, as well as persuade U.S. allies to create an exception to multilateral Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines for India. India committed to, among other things, separating its civilian nuclear facilities from its military nuclear facilities, declaring civilian facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and placing them under IAEA safeguards, and signing an Additional Protocol. See CRS Report RL33016, U.S. Nuclear Cooperation With India: Issues for Congress, by Sharon Squassoni, for further details on the agreement. The separation plan announced by Prime Minister Singh and President Bush on March 2, 2006, and further elaborated on May 11, 2006, would place 8 power reactors under inspection, bringing the total up to 14 out of a possible 22 under inspection. Several fuel fabrication and spent fuel storage facilities were declared, as well as 3 heavy water plants that were described as "safeguards-irrelevant." The plan excludes from international inspection 8 indigenous power reactors, enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing facilities (except as currently safeguarded), military production reactors and other military nuclear plants and 3 heavy water plants. Administration officials have defended the separation plan as credible and defensible because it covers more than just a token number of Indian facilities, provides for safeguards in perpetuity, and includes upstream and downstream facilities.
- Notes:
- Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.
The Penn Libraries is committed to describing library materials using current, accurate, and responsible language. If you discover outdated or inaccurate language, please fill out this feedback form to report it and suggest alternative language.