ANSWERING THE MAIL ON SUPPORT TO IAEA SAMPLE

S E C R E T UNVIE VIENNA 000590 NOFORN IO/T, ISN/MNSA COCKERHAM, IO/UNP, ISN CTR CURRY; NA-243 GOOREVICH, LOCKWOOD, OEHLBERT, BRUNS; NA-241 SIEMON, O'CONNOR, LAMONTAGNE; NRC FOR OIP - DUNN LEE, HENDERSON, SCHWARTZMAN; USDOC PASS NIST FOR DAVE SIMONS; AFTAC FOR CHARLES BRENNAN E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/07/2033 TAGS: AORC KNNP IAEA ENRG TRGY SUBJECT: ANSWERING THE MAIL ON SUPPORT TO IAEA SAMPLE ANALYSIS CAPABILITIES/SEIBERSDORF ANALYTIC LABORATORY REF: UNVIE 00455 Classified By: AMBASSADOR GREGORY L. SCHULTE FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D) ¶1. (S) Summary and Recommendation: The IAEA is proceeding toward expansion of the Clean Laboratory at the Safeguards Analytical Laboratories (SAL) in Seibersdorf to house an Ultra-High Sensitivity (UHS-SIMS) mass spectrometer. The Japanese Government has agreed to fund the UHS-SIMS machine, and will release the money once commitments are made to fund the clean lab extension. The IAEA is keen for other member states, especially the United States, to reply positively to its requests for funding the Clean Laboratory expansion. In addition to the specific letters seeking funding and assistance, IAEA sources advise the 2010-2011 budget proposal to the Board of Governors will include SAL expansion as a Core Activity Unfunded in the Regular Budget (CAURB). Secretariat officials continue to stress that clean lab expansion is essential for the IAEA to have an "independent" analytic capability, and that such a capability is a high priority for Director General ElBaradei. Secretariat officials (including DDG Safeguards Heinonen) with the best understanding of past, current, and anticipated IAEA practices on environmental sampling, however, describe "independence" as ensuring the integrity, and in some cases timeliness, of results. They confirmed that in their view "independence" does not/not mean that the IAEA would alter its current practices vis--vis sending samples to the IAEA's Network of Analytical Laboratories (NWAL),including (and especially) to labs in the U.S. (Comment: Given the DG's views, however, we doubt IAEA staff would be willing to put that in writing. End Comment.) ¶2. (SBU) The future of the nuclear laboratory portion of Seibersdorf that conducts destructive analysis of small samples of nuclear material (vice analysis of environmental samples),continues to be a lower priority for Secretariat officials. However, the Secretariat still hopes Member States will provide the estimated EURO 25 million to build a new nuclear laboratory as well. Details continue to unfold on the precise nature of a recent Czech offer of assistance, but it appears to be for joint use of a Clean Lab to be constructed in Rez. The EU-funded Rez lab already plans to obtain UHS-SIMS of its own. The Secretariat will meet with the Czechs to explore the offer, and the Government of Austria has reportedly expressed a renewed interest in possible assistance to Seibersdorf -- apparently prompted by the possibility IAEA analytic activities could leave Austria. ¶3. (S) UNVIE recommends Washington provide EURO 500,000 to assist in the conceptual design and engineering phases of the clean lab extension. Given verbal assurances that the IAEA will continue to submit environmental samples to the NWAL, we should to also consider providing the additional necessary EURO 3.4 million for expansion of the Clean Lab at Seibersdorf, but only after full consideration of the Czech offer, and on the condition that the IAEA also confirm that moving ahead now on the Clean Lab/UHS-SIMS does not prejudice a subsequent decision on where to locate the Nuclear Lab (i.e., does not pre-judge that the Nuclear Lab must be co-located at Seibersdorf). We remain concerned about the Secretariat's lack of transparency and ElBaradei's emphasis on the need for independence. UNVIE will continue to work with the "friends of SAL" group, who agree that the Secretariat must undertake an even-handed evaluation of all options for the nuclear laboratory, including relocation, and that the Secretariat should/can never be completely dependent on its own lab. The Friends of SAL will brief the Geneva Group on November 5 on the status of Secretariat activities vis--vis SAL. End summary and recommendation. -------------- Clean Laboratory -------------- ¶4. (SBU) In a meeting with MsnOffs, IAEA Safeguards officials Andy Hamilton and Michio Hosoya advised on next steps with regard to requested assistance at SAL. Hosoya indicted the Secretariat was able to find EURO 500,000 from regular budget funds and is proceeding with a conceptual design to extend the Clean Lab and would appreciate contribution from the U.S. of EURO 500,000 to do the engineering designs for the extension. MsnOffs expressed surprise that the Secretariat had made the decision to proceed with the extension without Board agreement and without specifically identifying a source for the additional EURO 3.4 million that will be necessary for construction of the extension. Hosoya and Hamilton indicated they were following instructions from senior IAEA leadership, and that the additional funds would be identified in the 2010-2011 budget request as a CAURB - (Core Activity Unfunded in the Regular Budget). Note: CAURBs are activities the Secretariat feels should either be part of the Agency's regular budget program if funding permitted, or which involve a degree of uncertainty as to whether they will be implemented and were therefore not included in the regular budget. CAURBs can include extrabudgetary CAURBs (extrabudgetary funding is expected),and unfunded CAURBs (for which no funding is yet foreseen). ¶5. (SBU) Hosoya further stated that he hopes to let an engineering design contract in November 2008, for a March 2009 delivery date for the design. He indicated that the delivery of the UHS-SIMS machine itself will take 18-24 months once ordered. As for support from Austria for this extension, Hosoya indicated the IAEA already has access to the land next to the clean lab to build the extension through existing arrangements with the Government of Austria. SAL officials told us that given the high water table in the area the extension will require a pad of concrete 3-4 meters deep to ensure the foundation remains stable. -------------- Board Decision -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Hamilton was careful to add that the final decision on whether to proceed with the Clean Lab project would indeed be made by the Board via eventual Board approval of the 2010-2011 budget at its June 2009 meeting. Hamilton said the Secretariat does not plan to submit to the Board either an additional decision or information document other than the budget proposal. Hamilton argued that document GOV/2007/59 the Secretariat issued on SAL prior to the November 2007 Board was sufficient for purposes of informing the Board. MsnOffs laid down a clear marker that the U.S. may request further specific reporting/dialogue with the Board on SAL, aside from the coming budget process. In particular, MsnOffs stressed that the U.S., and likely others, will want to be integral to any decision process regarding the future of IAEA sample analysis, especially when we are being asked to foot a significant bill. In a subsequent meeting on October 29, the Friends of SAL were very concerned about the Secretariat's path, and suggested we find a way to force the Secretariat to provide a new written update/report specific to its SAL activities. -------------- - Independence Really Means Integrity of Results -------------- - ¶7. (S) In preparation for the above meeting with Hosoya and Hamilton, MsnOffs called on AMCIT Diane Fischer separately to discuss the issue of "independence" of environmental samples. Fischer, formerly of AFTAC, is a Cost Free Expert in the Division of Safeguards Information Management, where she evaluates data results from environmental samples. MsnOffs raised the issue of "independence," noting that we found the IAEA's discussion on this front confusing given that the NWAL operation was already constructed to give the Agency such independence (via provision of "blind" samples to NWAL). MsnOffs asked whether the Secretariat believes it could construct a sampling analysis regime that is "independent" of the NWAL. Moreover, given that basic analytic quality control dictates that at least two labs must analyze every sample, wouldn't over-reliance on any single IAEA-owned laboratory" actually undercut the integrity of the IAEA sample analysis process? ¶8. (S) Fischer responded in strong agreement with MsnOff's characterization and said she sees no prospect that acquisition of a UHS-SIMS capability would significantly change the standing procedures for handling environmental samples within the IAEA and NWAL. She added that two-lab analysis is part of the quality control of the sampling system and good lab practices will continue to be followed. MsnOff raised the case of the Iranian-related IAEA investigation in which a participating member state asked that centrifuge components it was providing be tested only by SAL. Fischer, in the strictest of confidence (strictly protect),noted that even though such confidentiality assurances were given, samples from the components were still sent to the NWAL for purposes of quality assurance. ¶9. (S) Fischer added that once operational, the UHS-SIMS would have a capacity of approximately 120 samples per year, which is not nearly enough capacity to see all environmental samples collected by the Agency. In addition, the Secretariat will have a steep learning curve in the use of this machine and in evaluating the results, as the IAEA will be new to using a UHS-SIMS. Fischer expects the UHS-SIMS will improve data quality over the current SIMS. In the end, however, Fischer thought the IAEA would never achieve a level of expertise comparable to AFTAC, for example, because the IAEA is not in position to re-create the system of expert/personnel longevity that makes AFTAC so skillful. ¶10. (S) Fischer passed MsnOffs a draft internal document entitled "Assessment of the International Atomic Energy Agency Environmental Sampling Process." (Mission is forwarding the document to IO, ISN, and NNSA/DOE.) Commenting in confidence on the internal IAEA dynamic with regard to the IAEA's handling of the SAL issue, Fischer expressed firm agreement that some in the Secretariat are misusing and mischaracterizing the term "independence." Fischer said she and other safeguards Department experts have had a long-running battle with officials from SAL and the Department of Nuclear Applications (which manages SAL) trying to persuade them to stop using the term in a way that implies the process on sample analysis heretofore has not been "independent." She expressed frustration that some of the non-experts seemed to have seized on the "independence" rationale because they think it appeals to the Director General and might therefore help them win bureaucratic battles as to the future of SAL. MsnOffs encouraged Fischer to keep up her efforts to set the record straight on "independence." Comment: It is important to recall that until now, the Secretariat has not provided a complete answer to a specific question from the Geneva Group in regard to "independence." End comment. ¶11. (C) In a subsequent lunch meeting with DDG Heinonen, MsnOff reiterated the questions above regarding "independence" and noted the confusion the Secretariat has caused vis--vis its plans for how it would use any upgraded SAL. Heinonen said that for him "independence" meant that he would have the capability to set priorities for a "quick first look" at select high interest samples without having to compete with other, national, non-NWAL priorities that non-IAEA NWAL labs must also necessarily juggle. He noted the ongoing case of samples from Syria as an example. He did not foresee any change in the "two lab rule" for analyzing samples, or any less reliance on NWAL generally, but clearly was interested in a UHS-SIMS capability being at his own disposal for those samples on which he wanted a "first look" quickly. MsnOff reiterated U.S. support for strong and timely sample analysis procedures, so long as the integrity of the analysis was maintained, i.e., speed was not allowed to trump quality in the end. Heinonen did not disagree. ¶12. (S) MsnOffs also spoke with DG Special Advisor Graham Andrew and expressed concerns that some of the DG's recent statements, including in his speech to the UN General Assembly, could be read to imply that the IAEA's sample analysis procedures were somehow compromised. Andrew (strictly protect) agreed that the "interpretation" of the DG's comments on "independence" are being misinterpreted/misused by some. He stressed that his own view, and in the view of the technical staff, "independence" meant having at least "some" capability of its own to conduct the sort of work for which the IAEA currently must rely solely on the NWAL. Andrew also explained at length the DG's concern-which Andrew said he shared-about the possible optics that could be exploited by the likes of Iran and Syria so long as the Agency relies solely on the NWAL-especially if the NWAL labs are in U.S. or other western states. In response to MsnOffs' concerns that the IAEA keep the Board apprised of its plans on SAL, Andrew said the Secretariat would be issuing a 2-page "GOV/INF" doc on SAL before the November 27 IAEA Board meeting. MsnOffs said that was welcome news and urged Andrew to use that document to make clear what is meant by the IAEA's reference to "independence." Finally, in a brainstorming session on next steps, Andrew said he would welcome consideration of the U.S. funding a consultant who could help take forward appropriate planning and implementation of the desired UHS-SIMs and clean lab and help the Secretariat coordinate the next steps for the nuclear lab, Czech offer, Austrian Government, etc. -------------- The Czech Connection -------------- ¶13. (SBU) In the meeting with Hosoya and Hamilton, they admitted there is much work yet to be done to determine the best course of action for the Nuclear Laboratory. They agreed that the recent offer by the Czech Republic was an additional factor for consideration. They also noted that the SAL staff had been ready to dismiss any notion of relocating any portion of SAL, but with a serious offer now on the table, they would have to reconsider their options. ¶14. (SBU) Specifically, the Czech Republic has recently shown renewed interest in assisting the Agency's environmental and nuclear sampling capabilities. The Czech statement at the 2008 IAEA General Conference offered Czech "premises and capacities for analyzing samples in the near future." The Czech Republic has subsequently followed up with a note verbale to the IAEA, which it may circulate as an INFCIRC, clarifying its intentions; text of the note is repeated below in para 18. A Czech Mission official has raised with UNVIE MsnOff on several occasions Czech concern about the wisdom of the IAEA asking Member States to make a large investment to build a new laboratory in Austria - a country that is not positively inclined toward nuclear energy, etc. Moreover, according to the Czech official, the Rez facility already has a research reactor on the premises. In a recent discussion in the Friends of SAL (which now includes the Czech Republic),Czech officials from Rez and the Mission described plans to expand Rez, including a clean lab with a UHS-SIMS. Prague is reportedly prepared to offer the IAEA use of its laboratories once completed - although the offer is focused on the clean lab at this time, vice the nuclear lab. At this time it is not entirely clear whether the Czech Republic could actually allow the IAEA to have full use of a portion of the lab, or if it would have to be shared, but it seems to be the latter. The Czechs will put together a more detailed package of information on their plans. Part of the funding for this expanded capability in Czech will come from EU infrastructure monies set aside for newly admitted Eastern European partners as part of the EU accession process. ¶15. (SBU) We understand Czech motivation for making the offer to be the following: -- Czech Republic has a nuclear capability and supports expansion of the Secretariat's safeguards analytical capabilities; -- GOCR is slated to receive $8 million from the European Union for infrastructure upgrade that it intends to use at Rez (which could help underwrite infrastructure development for an IAEA lab); and -- The need for upgrades at SAL and the recent accident there involving plutonium brought a realization in Czech that their laboratory at Rez may be a better option, even if it needs some improvements to accommodate the IAEA. ¶16. (C) Speaking with the Czech Ambassador and DCM, DCM encouraged Prague to use the November 10-11 visit of DG ElBaradei and EXPO Director Vilmos Cserveny to lay out a clear concept of what the Czech Republic can offer-and to address the IAEA desire for a proprietary laboratory capability. -------------- Comment and Recommendation -------------- ¶17. (S) The IAEA is attempting to move ahead now -- with or without a U.S. funding commitment -- on the Clean Laboratory extension that would house the Japanese funded UHS-SIMS. While Mission questions the Agency's priority in focusing on the Clean Laboratory first (rather than the Nuclear Laboratory),we are reassured by the fact that the Clean Lab extension will not affect the environmental samples sent to the NWAL. Support for high quality and timely UHS-SIMS sample analysis of the sort described by Fischer and Heinonen above seems consistent with U.S. support for a strong safeguards regime. In that light, as a follow-on to reftel, and to help maintain continued U.S. influence and leverage on IAEA sample analysis practices, UNVIE recommends Washington support in principle the IAEA's plans for the UHS-SIMS and the accompanying Clean Lab. UNVIE recommends Washington provide EURO 500,000 to assist in the conceptual design and engineering phases of the clean lab extension. Given verbal assurances that the IAEA will continue to provide environmental samples to the NWAL, we would also recommend serious consideration of the additional EURO 3.4 million for expansion of the Clean Lab at Seibersdorf, after full consideration of the Czech offer, and on the condition that the IAEA also confirm that moving ahead now on the Clean Lab/UHS-SIMS does not prejudice a subsequent decision on where to locate the Nuclear Lab (i.e., does not pre-judge that the Nuclear Lab must be collocated at Seibersdorf). ¶18. (S) With respect to the Nuclear Lab, UNVIE recommends we work with the friends of SAL to keep the Secretariat focused on a serious evaluation of the options for the nuclear laboratory including relocation. At the very least, the Czechs' offer will force the Secretariat to give serious consideration to alternate locations for the nuclear laboratory, if not for SAL itself -- something staff have thus far been reluctant to do. This will be an important piece of the puzzle in deciding how to answer the Secretariat's broader request for funds for both the Clean Lab extension and the Nuclear Lab. We would also welcome views from Embassy Prague on Rez, and may wish to consider adding this issue of IAEA support to our bilateral agenda with the Czech government. -------------- Czech Note Verbale -------------- ¶19. (SBU) Begin text of Czech note verbale 1616/2008, dated 26 September 2008: The Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations, OSCE and other International Organizations in Vienna presents its compliments to the International Atomic Energy Agency and has the honor to refer to the report of the Director General on Safeguards Analytical Laboratory: Sustaining Credible Safeguards. Recognizing the need for strengthening the Agency's analytical capabilities and in reaction to urgent calls for modernization of the Safeguards Analytical Laboratory (SAL) in Seibersdorf, the Czech Republic would like to announce its intention to offer the Agency its own premises and capacities for safeguards purposes. The Czech Nuclear Research Institute at Rez near Prague (NRI),a member of the Network of Analytical Laboratories, has launched a large structural project entitled "Sustainable Energy" in cooperation with the European Union. One of its parts is devoted to the upgrading of the NRI Central Analytical Laboratory (CAL). Its aim is to extend CAL activities also to the analysis of environmental samples in order to enable control over non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and misuse of dangerous materials. The Czech Republic strongly believes that cooperation with the Agency in this field will enhance the Agency's ability to ensure independent and timely analysis of safeguards samples. Furthermore, a certain degree of decentralization in terms of use of and investment in adequate capacities of the countries in the vicinity of the Agency's Headquarters could help the Agency solve the problem with the aging of SAL in a cost effective way. The Czech Republic fully supports the Agency's efforts to strengthen its analytical capabilities while implementing the safeguards and looks forward to further dialogue with the Secretariat in this regard. Complementary closing. SCHULTE