REPORT OF THE SECOND GNEP STEERING GROUP MEETING

UNCLAS STATE 060269

SENSITIVE, SIPDIS

C O R R E C T E D C O P Y (ADDED CAPTION SENSITIVE)

UNVIE FOR IAEA: CWELLING; PARIS FOR USOECD: MCLAPPER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ENRG TRGY KNNP IAEA
SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE SECOND GNEP STEERING GROUP MEETING

A) UNVIE Vienna 000647 (Report of the September 2007 GNEP Ministerial)
B) STATE 168362 (Report of the December 2007 Steering Group meeting)
C) UNVIE VIENNA 00183 (Completion of First Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP) Infrastructure Development Working Group Meeting)
D): State 7716 (Report of the First GNEP Reliable Nuclear Fuel
Services Working Group Meeting)

1. (U) SUMMARY. The Second Steering Group Meeting of the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) was held in Jordan on May 14-15,
2008, hosted by the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission and chaired by
the United States. The meeting was attended by approximately 105
representatives of 28 countries (19 Partners and 9 candidate
Partners) and three observer organizations, including the
International Atomic Energy Agency (see list para 11). GNEP Partners
agreed ad referendum to a list of 25 new countries to invite to join
GNEP (see para 7),received reports from and agreed on next steps for
the two working groups on infrastructure development and reliable
fuel services and agreed to support a Japanese proposal that the
Steering Group develop a joint statement to be issued by the
Executive Committee at the next ministerial meeting. The Steering
Group also discussed the draft terms of reference for a working group
on grid appropriate reactors and the possible establishment of a
nonproliferation working group, and discussed mechanisms for engaging
with outside groups including industry and academia. Based on the
progress being made by the working groups, the strengthened
interactions at the Steering Group meeting, increased engagement by
several participants and the new concepts discussed during the
meeting, GNEP appears to have taken an important step in firmly
establishing itself as a viable, dynamic and relevant global
partnership. END SUMMARY


2. (U) Opening Remarks. Jordan's Prime Minister Nader Dahabi opened
the meeting and expressed strong support for GNEP. GNEP Steering
Group Chairman Ed McGinnis and Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
Chairman Khaled Toukan also provided opening remarks. Ambassadors to
Jordan from Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Japan,
South Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, United
Kingdom and United States attended the opening remarks. Several news
agencies and print and television media also attended the opening
statements and the Jordan Times newspaper and local television
reported on Prime Minister Dahabi's remarks. News coverage following
the meeting was positive.


3. (U) New Partners. The first session began with introductions,
statements by the Steering Group vice chairs and a statement by the
United Kingdom, which was welcomed as a new partner, having joined
GNEP since the last Steering Group meeting. The UK stated regarding
its GNEP membership: "We believe that by sharing good practice there
are real potentials for streamlining the methods for introducing
nuclear power in a safe, secure and economic way, and seeking the
best solutions for the management of nuclear waste." Then the U.S.
Chair presented a summary of GNEP activities to date and the meeting
objectives. The December 2007 Steering Group meeting minutes were
formally adopted.


4. (SBU) The Infrastructure Development Working Group (IDWG). The
IDWG presented the results of its first meeting (REF C) and its
planned next steps. It identified the principal infrastructure
development needs as human resource development, regulatory
structures, financial mechanisms and business planning. Feasibility
studies were recognized as a specific type of partnership resource
that can be provided both bilaterally and multilaterally. The United
States reported on its initial efforts in conducting a feasibility
study for nuclear power in Jordan and indicated readiness to consider
conducting one or two more feasibility studies this year. The IDWG
recommended involving industry as part of its activities. This was
also recognized as an issue for the Reliable Nuclear Fuel Services
Working Group. As a result, the Steering Group asked a drafting
committee of partners to develop a guidance document on how GNEP
should approach including outside groups, including academia as well
as industry, in its activities. The draft that was presented to the
Steering Group the next day was recognized as a very good basis for
external engagement and it will be distributed to the Steering Group
for approval with a view to presenting it to the GNEP Executive
Committee for approval at the next Executive Committee meeting. The
representative from the Generation IV International Forum offered the
Steering Group assistance on the legal aspects of involving industry,
such as intellectual property considerations. The IDWG presented its
idea for an online resource library that would list resources such as
education and training programs, assessment tools, conference and
event information, model legislation, best practice references, etc.
The IDWG was recognized as having identified important, specific
activities that effectively tap the unique capabilities offered by
the partnership. Partner and observer countries took an active role
in the discussion of the IDWG's next steps and reiterated the great
need for IDWG efforts. Countries expressed the importance of human
resource development, government institution building/strengthening,
and sharing experiences. The IAEA representative indicated a need
for support in the area of assessments and that multilateral
assessments could be beneficial to bring a wider range of viewpoints
and experience to the assessment. He also stated the value of GNEP
in bringing infrastructure development issues to the ministerial
level.


5. (SBU) The Reliable Nuclear Fuel Services Working Group (RNFSWG).
The RNFSWG presented a summary report of its first meeting and
initial activities. (REF D) During the first meeting, the RNFSWG
discussed front-end fuel cycle issues and concluded that the markets
have performed reliably and that steps to improve reliability should
emphasize market neutrality. Working group members agree that the
lead time for installing new front-end fuel cycle production capacity
would likely be shorter than the time required to build new nuclear
power plants, and thus fuel would be available to meet growing
demand. In addition, the RNFSWG agreed on a survey for GNEP partners
to collect information from Partners on existing laws, regulations
and policies for fuel cycle elements and features. Above all, each
country would provide its views on how "reliable fuels services"
should be defined. The survey was designed to follow the key GNEP
principle of inclusiveness by seeking input from countries with all
stages of involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle (full fuel cycle,
uranium suppliers, and nuclear power plants but no fuel cycle
facilities),as well as from countries contemplating nuclear power.
Results of the survey will be analyzed to identify common practices
and gaps needed to be addressed for moving towards comprehensive
reliable fuel service arrangements as well as to develop a common
view on reliable fuel services and next steps for the working group.
One partner expressed interest in expanding the survey beyond GNEP
partners to collect more data. The Steering Group decided that
expanding the survey would not be consistent with GNEP operating
procedures and recommended the RNFSWG consider relevant information
from other sources, including the IAEA's efforts under INPRO to
identify Common User Considerations, in developing its analysis.
However, the Steering Group recognized this initial step as very
important to lay the foundation for addressing what is a challenging
area. The Steering Group also encouraged the RNFSWG to look at
regional fuel center approaches. Like the IDWG, the RNFSWG has
considered operating procedures for industry participation. The
RNFSWG initially agreed to hold its next meeting during the margins
of the IAEA General Conference in late September 2008. The Steering
Group responded by recommending that the RNFSWG hold the meeting a
few weeks earlier to allow sufficient time to prepare a status report
in advance of the next Steering Group meeting.


6. (SBU) Grid Appropriate Reactors Working Group (GARWG). The United
States proposed the creation of the GARWG with specific Terms of
Reference to define its objectives, scope, activities and next steps.
A number of partners expressed support for establishment of the
working group, but others asked that the Terms of Reference be
revised to incorporate comments offered by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) to prevent duplication of efforts. It was
agreed that, once revised, the Steering Group Chair will distribute
the new Terms of Reference to the Steering Group members for final
consideration as a working group to be established by the Executive
Committee at the next GNEP ministerial-level meeting.


7. (SBU) New Invitees. The Steering Group agreed by consensus to
invite 23 countries and one international organization, the Gulf
Cooperation Council, to join GNEP this year. The countries are:
Algeria, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Croatia, Estonia,
Georgia, Greece, Indonesia, Kuwait, Latvia, Malaysia, Nigeria,
Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab
Emirates (UAE),Uruguay, Vietnam and Yemen. Invitations will be sent
to the countries to attend the next GNEP ministerial meeting in
October. It was agreed that two of those countries would be invited
as observers until they have comprehensive safeguards agreements in
force with the IAEA (Saudi Arabia and Bahrain). Partners agreed ad
referendum to invite two additional countries proposed during the
Steering Group meeting (Qatar and Oman),upon approval of two partner
countries that requested additional time to have their governments
review the proposal. By the end of May, the two countries requesting
extra time expressed approval for inviting Qatar and Oman to join
GNEP. Qatar will be invited only as an observer until it has a
comprehensive safeguards agreement in force. China again blocked
consensus on inviting the Nuclear Energy Agency as an observer
organization. [Comment: It was understood that China's position was
political, based on Taiwan's role either in the NEA or in its parent
organization the OECD.]


8. (SBU) Next GNEP Ministerial Meeting. France announced it would
host the next GNEP Executive Committee Meeting in Paris on October 1,

2008. There were no objections from any Steering Group members.
France will look into whether the facility would also be available
the day before (September 30) to hold a brief Steering Group meeting.
As the chair of the next Executive Committee Meeting, France will
send invitation letters to the GNEP partners, candidate partners and
observers on behalf of the GNEP partners.


9. (SBU) GNEP Ministerial Statement. Japan proposed a joint
statement, "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Joint Statement on the
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy as a Measure against Global Warming,"
that could be made by the GNEP Executive Committee after its October
1 meeting. There was consensus to issue a statement though it was
agreed to expand the statement to reflect the progress made by GNEP
since the last Executive Committee Meeting in September 2007 and the
partnership's next steps. It was also agreed that the Steering Group
chair would harmonize comments and distribute the joint statement to
the Steering Group for final consideration.


10. (SBU) Nonproliferation Working Group. Canada proposed
establishing a nonproliferation working group (NPWG) to address the
objective of reducing proliferation risk in the expansion of nuclear
energy. Australia seconded this proposal, but France and Russia
argued that nonproliferation issues could be addressed in the context
of the three existing and proposed working groups. [Note: Australia,
which had initially proposed the NPWG, did not otherwise participate
in the meeting pending a decision by the Rudd government on whether
to continue its participation in GNEP, and indicated that the
establishment of a NPWG could be an important factor in that
decision.


11. (SBU) Participants. The following countries participated as GNEP
Partners: Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, China, France, Ghana, Hungary,
Italy, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Lithuania, Poland, Romania,
Russian Federation, Slovenia, Ukraine, and the United States. The
following countries participated as Observers and Candidate Partners:
Argentina, Belgium, Egypt, Germany, Mexico, Netherlands, Slovak
Republic, Spain and South Africa. The following intergovernmental
organizations participated as Observers: Euratom, the Generation IV
International Forum (GIF) and the IAEA.
RICE