IAEA/UNCOPUOUS: FIFTH JOINT EXPERTS GROUP MEETING ON THE

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000602


STATE IO/T FOR NEVILLE. VON BEHREN

UNCLAS STATE

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: TSPA UNGA UNPUOS AORC ENRG TRGY AORC KNNP OTRA AU

SUBJECT: IAEA/UNCOPUOUS: FIFTH JOINT EXPERTS GROUP MEETING ON THE
DRAFT SAFETY FRAMEWORK FOR NUCLEAR POWER SOURCE APPLICATIONS IN
OUTER SPACE

REF: A)UNVIE VIENNA07 000678
B)UNVIE VIENNA 000180
C)STATE07 122555


1. (U) SUMMARY: The UNCOPUOS Scientific and Technical Subcommittee
(STSC)/IAEA Joint Expert Group (JEG) met in Vienna during the week
of 20 October 2008 to review comments from IAEA Member States to the
revised draft Safety Framework for Nuclear Power Source (NPS)
Applications in Outer Space. JEG experts reviewed comments from
IAEA member states and STSC member states on the last draft version
of the safety Framework. The review process within the IAEA was
discussed as well as the options for publication of the finalized
safety Framework. A telephone conference was scheduled in November
to finalize the draft Framework for the February 2009 STSC meeting.
END SUMMARY.

--------------
THE JEG THUS FAR
--------------


2. (U) BACKGROUND: The JEG is an instrument of the STSC/IAEA work
plan for 2003-2007 for the development of an international
technically-based Framework of goals and recommendations for the
safety of NPS applications in outer space. The safety Framework is
meant to be analogous to an IAEA Safety Standard and would not be
legally binding. As a result of the June 2007 JEG meeting, U.S.
experts were tasked by JEG Chairman Sam Harbison (UK) with the
initial development of a draft Framework for the consideration of
the JEG. During the October 2007 JEG meeting (REF A),the draft
Framework was further developed and provided to STSC member States
for initial comment prior to the February 2008 STSC Session. At the
February 2008 STSC Session, the Framework was updated in light of
comments by STSC member states (Ref B). The revised draft Framework
was then sent to STSC member states and to the four IAEA Safety
Standards Committees (SSCs) and the Commission on Safety Standards
(CSS) for comment. Upon completion of the review by the SSCs and
the CSS, the JEG met in June to review comments and an updated draft
Framework was sent to IAEA Member States for comment. The purpose of
October 2008 JEG meeting was to review late STSC member state and
IAEA Member State comments to the draft Framework. END BACKGROUND.

--------------
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS
--------------


3. (U) Attending the Fifth STSC-IAEA JEG session on 21-23 October
2008 were experts from the U.S., UK, Germany, France, Russia, the
European Space Agency (ESA),and Japan. Members of the JEG who were
not present during this session were Algeria, Argentina, Brazil,
Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Nigeria, Canada, China, Hungary, Iran,
and Italy. The IAEA was represented by Dominique Delattre (Safety
Assessment Section, NSNI). While the Italian experts cancelled
their attendance at the last minute, they did submit comments
through the ESA expert. Other countries submitting comments as IAEA
Member States or as late STSC member state submissions were the
Russian Federation, Libya, ESA and Venezuela.


4. (U) Comments from the Russian Federation, Libya and ESA were
reviewed and resolved. Some were considered useful and adopted into
the draft Framework. Several of the ESA comments stemmed from the
unique aspects of that organization and its management of a space
mission. The comments from Venezuela and Italy were more
problematic, as seen in the following two paragraphs.


5. (U) VENEZUELA: The Venezuelans reiterated comments made in their
submission for the STSC comments review. From the onset of the
joint IAEA-STSC effort on the draft Framework, the Venezuelan STSC
delegation has repeatedly made comments on and objections to certain
aspects of the draft Framework. A few of their comments had merit,
but others were beyond the agreed scope of work for the safety
Framework. Other comments have been confusing and contradictory to
either the stated goals of the Venezuelan delegation or accepted
nuclear safety principles. The four main comments of the
Venezuelans that were not adopted were: (1) wanting to have the
safety Framework be legally binding; (2) limiting the organizations


that are authorized to conduct a space mission; (3) a prohibition on
NPS in low-earth orbit (LEO); and (4) elimination of the words
"reasonably achievable" from the ensuring that the risk of
employment of NPS is "acceptable and as low as reasonably
achievable." Venezuela had made similar comments in the STSC
sessions as well. All were either outside the previously-agreed
scope of the Framework or in the case of (4),were in opposition to
terminology understood and accepted by the IAEA and Member States.


6. (U) ITALY: Italy submitted two comments which had been submitted
previously and rejected. They suggested the inclusion of wording on
the "protection of humans in space and of other planets is
important." Both had been previously rejected because they are
beyond the agreed scope of the safety Framework. When the Italians
first raised these comments at the first JEG meeting (Ref C),those
comments were discussed at length and the reasons for their not
being included were explained at length. At the fourth JEG meeting
in June 2008, an Italian expert raised them again, but did not press
them. However, they were again raised in the Italian IAEA comments.
In the absence of any Italian experts, the ESA expert took up the
Italian cause. While the protection of other planets was agreed to
be beyond the scope of the Framework (and potentially covered by
another entity),the inclusion of the wording "the protection of
humans in space" was still pressed. The ESA expert ultimately
agreed to withdraw that wording, but it can be expected to be raised
again by the Italian expert(s).

--------------
NEXT STEPS: THE REVIEW PROCESS TOWARD A FINAL DRAFT
--------------


7. (U) The JEG reviewed the review process of the draft Framework
within the IAEA and the STSC, as well as the SSCs and the CSS. One
aspect that deserved special notice was that of configuration
control of the draft Framework; to ensure that each entity receives
the appropriate version of the draft Framework. The Comments
Disposition Table was updated in light of the resolution of comments
at the instant meeting.


8. (U) The JEG also reviewed the process of the IAEA and STSC
jointly printing the Framework, once approval is finally reached.
This involves resolving issues in editing styles by both the IAEA
and UN (for UNCOPUOS) editing staffs, as the Framework is intended
to be a joint publication. Different editing rules are employed by
each staff and the JEG is working with both to ensure that editorial
changes do not change the meaning and intent of any part of the
Framework. Further, the UNCOPUOS staff notified the JEG that the
STSC could not publish on its own without United Nations
authorization. That would mean being endorsed by the UN General
Assembly. One suggested course of action was to ask the STSC to
"endorse the procedure" of having the IAEA publish the Framework.
In this instance, the Framework would be sent to the IAEA
Publications Subcommittee after approval by the STSC and the CSS.
This course of action will be further explored by the JEG and IAEA
staff. The IAEA JEG member will provide as estimate of publishing
costs by the February meeting.


9. (U) The JEG scheduled a teleconference on 17 November to review
the results of the October meeting, and to allow JEG experts who did
not attend the meeting to participate in the formulation of a final
draft. The goal is to have an updated version of the safety
Framework provided to the UNCOPUOUS staff for provision to the STSC
membership in time for inclusion in the February 2009 STSC meeting.
Assuming STSC approval, the draft Framework would be then be
provided to the SSCs and the CSS for final approval.

--------------
COMMENT
--------------


10. (U) COMMENT: If the draft safety Framework on NPS Applications
in Outer Space can be approved by the STSC in February and the CSS
later that spring, a year can be cut from the original time estimate
for development of the Framework. The Venezuelan and Italian
comments that were not accepted could be problematical in reaching


consensus, however. The Italians should be able to be persuaded to
drop their insistence on wording regarding protection of humans in
space and planets; these had been excluded from consideration in the
Framework from the beginning. However, the Venezuelans have been
the most vocal in criticism of aspects of the safety Framework.
Members of the Venezuelan STSC delegation seem to have an
ideological bias against NPS applications in space under any
circumstances. The U.S. STSC delegation will have to work to ensure
that the Venezuelans are isolated in their opposition to parts of
the draft Framework and not bring other delegations on board. The
U.S. delegation could use the pressure of that isolation to obtain
consensus. Otherwise, at least one year could be lost in the
finalization of the Framework. END COMMENT.

SCHULTE