US embassy cable - 05NEWDELHI1076

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 001076 
 
SIPDIS 
 
PASS TO NRC 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/02/2015 
TAGS: KNNP, PGOV, PREL, TRGY, IN, Pol-Mil 
SUBJECT: GOI SAYS RECOVERED URANIUM IS DEPLETED, NOT HIGHLY 
ENRICHED 
 
Classified By: PolCouns Geoff Pyatt for Reasons 1.5 (B,D) 
 
1.  (SBU) Summary: On February 5, the "Times of India" ran a 
hysterical story that metal plates recovered from two 
"small-time drug peddlers" on December 8, 2004 were analyzed 
and found to be weapons-grade highly enriched uranium. 
Subsequent reporting, including a press release from India's 
Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), claimed the material 
was only depleted uranium (DU) with no significant radiation 
hazard.  The head of AERB's Operating Plants Safety Division 
(OPSD) assured SciOff that the material was DU, and described 
identifying markings on the plates.  Action request for DOE; 
paragraph 5.  End Summary. 
 
2.  (U) The "Times" article entitled "2 held with 
weapons-grade uranium in Bareilly" reported that metal plates 
recovered from two small time drug peddlers were sent to the 
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) for examination, and 
were determined to be 253.6 grams of HEU containing 99 
percent (weapons-grade) uranium-235.  The article further 
reported that senior police sources did not rule out the 
possibility that the uranium had come from an atomic facility 
at Narora in Bulandshahr district (Uttar Pradesh), and that 
the arrested persons were carrying a list of other substances 
with specific industrial uses including 92U, 26Fe, 14SI, 
28NI, and 29CU. 
 
3.  (SBU) In a February 5 conversation, R. Venkataraman, head 
of OPSD at India's AERB, asserted to SciOff that: 
 
- The material was not/not enriched uranium, but was DU meant 
to shield radiological sources; 
- It was not/not from the Indian atomic power station in 
Narora; 
- BARC believes it was imported; likely from a scrap yard; and 
- GOI would issue a detailed press release. 
 
4.  (U) On February 5, AERB released the following statement, 
which corroborates Mr. Venkataraman's comments: 
 
Begin text: 
 
Uranium Piece Does Not Pose Any Security Threat Or Health 
Hazard 
 
This is with reference to the news item titled "2 held with 
bomb-ready uranium" that has appeared in a section of the 
press on February 5, 2005.  In this connection, AERB would 
like to clarify the situation. 
 
Taking note of the media report about the recovery of a 
uranium bar that appeared in a Varanasi newspaper in 
mid-December, AERB contacted the Senior Superintendent of 
Police, Bareilly for details of the case.  He was also 
requested to send the piece to Bhabha Atomic Research Centre 
(BARC) for testing.  The report of the analysis carried out 
by BARC has confirmed that the piece is of depleted uranium. 
This material contains very low concentration of fissile 
uranium (about 0.21% of Uranium-235) and cannot be used for 
producing a bomb.  As such the piece does not pose any 
security threat. 
 
The piece also does not pose any significant radiation/health 
hazard as the radiation dose on the piece is negligible. 
 
Such pieces of depleted uranium, being a heavy material, are 
generally used as shielding material in imported industrial 
radiography cameras, radiotherapy units used in hospitals or 
as counterweight in aircraft.  There have been instances in 
the past when such pieces have been found in scrap yards. 
 
The piece is now in the custody of AERB. 
 
End text. 
 
5.  (C) In a February 9 conversation with Mr. Venkataraman, 
SciOff obtained a verbal description of the recovered 
material as follows: 
 
- Two metal pieces of aircraft balance weight with "holes for 
an allen wrench"; 
- Both had "NH Inc." and "Unauthorized Adjustment Prohibited" 
inscribed on them. 
 
AERB officials speculate that the material entered India as 
scrap, and would like to learn who the manufacturer was. 
Mission would be grateful for any DOE advice in this regard. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
6.  (C) Subsequent press reporting has mostly mirrored the 
AERB release, although the author of the original "Times" 
article asserted in a follow-up piece that Bareilly police 
are still concerned that "the seized metal piece is 
radiating."  At this stage we are confident this is a case 
where a journalist's lack of scientific understanding led to 
premature and inaccurate reporting. 
MULFORD