NUCLEAR SAFETY: U.S. DEL REPORT ON THE THIRD ORGANIZATIONAL

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 22 UNVIE VIENNA 000663

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR ISN/NESS AND IO/T
DOE FOR EM-1 TRIAY
NRC MDOANE AND JSCHWARTZMAN

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ENRG TRGY KNNP AORC
SUBJECT: NUCLEAR SAFETY: U.S. DEL REPORT ON THE THIRD ORGANIZATIONAL
MEETING OF THE JOINT CONVENTION ON THE
SAFETY OF SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT AND ON THE SAFETY OF
RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, OCTOBER 13-14, 2008

REF: (A) STATE 101834 (B) STATE 021717 (C) UNVIE 000336
(D) STATE 083792 (E) STATE 089182 (F) STATE 078514
(G) STATE 115372 (H) STATE 108911

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


1. (SBU) Confrontation and procedural machinations marred the
October 2008 Organizational Meeting on the Joint Convention. The
meeting's main purpose was to elect officers for the May 2009 Third
Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties. The U.S. candidate for
presidency of the Third Review Meeting had plurality support in the
first round of voting but fell short of the required
50-percent-plus-one. The past Review president orchestrated the
blocking of the U.S. candidate. USDEL opted to accept a vice
presidency. End summary.

--------------
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
--------------


2. (U) The Third Organizational Meeting of the Joint Convention on
the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive
Waste Management (Joint Convention) took place October 13-14, 2008
in Vienna. Janet Gorn, Department of State (ISN/NESS),headed the
Delegation. USDEL included Alternate Delegate Ben McRae, Assistant
General Counsel for Civilian Nuclear Programs, Department of Energy,
and Advisors Patrice Bubar and Catherine Haney, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Accompanying the Delegation were Dr. Ines
Triay, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Environmental
Management Program, Department of Energy, and the U.S. candidate for
President of the Joint Convention Third Review Meeting; Frank

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 002 OF 022


Marcinowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory compliance,
Department of Energy; Douglas Tonkay LLW/MLLW Team Leader, DOE
Office of Disposal Operations; and Heather Astwood, Nuclear Safety
Attache, U.S. Mission to International Organizations, Vienna
(UNVIE).


3. (SBU) The preparatory meeting was called to elect officers,
establish country groups, recommend a budget, and establish a
Provisional Agenda for the May 11-20, 2009, Third Review Meeting of
the Contracting Parties. For all Parties, the meeting was
particularly challenging in seeking to chart a consensus course
despite the Organizational Chairman's efforts to impose
operationally his views on agenda items, including in particular
election of Organizational and Review Meeting Officers. The U.S.,
Canada, and the U.K. set forth recommendations for an open-ended
topical session to focus on suggestions and recommendations for
improving the process. U.S. representatives were elected to Review
Meeting offices, as Vice President of the Peer Review Meeting and as
Coordinator of a Country Review Group. Noteworthy was a special
presentation by the President of the Joint Convention Second Meeting
of the Parties, Andre-Claude Lacoste, and his innovative views on
making public all National Reports, encouraging interviews with
journalists and the media, and introducing the media into the
process by opening the Joint Convention process to the Press.


--------------
Opening of the Meeting (Agenda Item 1)
--------------


4. (U) Mr. Tomihiro Taniguchi, IAEA Deputy Director General heading
the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security, opened the meeting.
His opening remarks spoke to the current expansion of nuclear power

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 003 OF 022


programs to meet the increasing energy demands in many parts of the
world, making spent fuel management and disposal, decommissioning,
and radioactive waste disposal key concerns for many policy makers,
the public, and the news media. He noted that plans for new and
reinvigorated nuclear power development worldwide needed to be
complemented by equally ambitious plans for the establishment and
enhancement of sustainable spent fuel and radioactive waste
management. He commented on the need for a global waste safety
regime and the maturing of international safety standards, noted the
progress and challenges identified in the past two Joint Convention
Review Meetings, welcomed the five new Parties (China, Kyrgyzstan,
Nigeria, South Africa and Tajikistan),and stressed the need to
increase Joint Convention membership in particular for those
non-nuclear power countries with disused sealed source disposal,
including via IAEA promotional efforts and those of Contracting
Parties.

--------------
Election of the Organizational President and Vice President (Agenda
Item 2)
--------------


5. (SBU) Mr. Andre-Claude Lacoste/France was nominated for President
of the Joint Convention Organizational Meeting. There being no
other nominations, Mr. Lacoste was elected by consensus. For the
office of Vice President no candidates were proposed. From the dais
and without prior consultation with USDEL, Lacoste nominated Ms.
Patrice Bubar of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Vice
President. A U.S. intervention thanked Mr. Lacoste but declined the
nomination. There being no other Vice President nominations this
agenda item was postponed until the IAEA Secretariat could confer
with delegations. Subsequently, Mr. Luc Baekelandt/Belgium was
proposed and elected by consensus.

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 004 OF 022



--------------
Adoption of the Agenda (Agenda Item 3) and Consideration of
Credentials of Participants (Agenda Item 4)
--------------


6. (U) The Organizational Meeting Agenda was adopted by consensus
as presented. There were no credential challenges or requests for
participation by any new Parties whose ratification instruments had
been submitted to the IAEA, but had not yet entered into force.

--------------
Establishment of country Groups (Agenda Item 5.1)
--------------


7. (U) Since the Second Meeting of the Parties in 2006, five new
Contracting Parties submitted their instruments of ratification. As
a result there are now forty-six (46) Contracting Parties (45
countries plus EURATOM). To accommodate the number of current
national reports to be reviewed and a reasonable timetable, the
number of country Review Groups was expanded from five (5) to six
(6). The IAEA Secretariat announced all National Reports had not
been submitted and requested those countries with delinquent reports
to promptly forward their reports both electronically and in hard
copy.

--------------
Election of the President and two vice-Presidents of the Review
Meeting (Agenda Item 5.2)
--------------


8. (SBU) Election of officers for the Joint Convention Third Review
Meeting became complicated first with a two-week extension of the

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 005 OF 022


deadline for nomination of officers at the request of Andre-Claude
Lacoste, President of the Second Meeting of the Parties. Lacoste
made clear to all his view that the President of the Joint
Convention should be a regulator, and he lobbied governments to that
end. Prior to the extension there was one candidate (U.S.) for
President and one candidate for each of the two Vice-Chairman
positions. As a result of the extension and recruitment of others,
for the first time in corporate memory an election of officers was
conducted. The election took up the entire morning session. Three
candidates were formally nominated for the Office of President: Dr.
Ines Triay, US/Department of Energy Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Environmental Management; Dr. Kunihisa Soda, Commissioner, Japan
Nuclear Safety Commission; and Mr. Abel Gonzalez, Argentine
Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear (who did not attend the Organizational
Meeting). Three candidates were nominated for the two Vice
President positions (Japan, Hungary, Ukraine).


9. (U) Prior to the start of the Organizational Meeting, Dr. Triay
and her DOE team along with the U.S. Head of Delegation had met with
Joint Convention delegates to discuss Dr. Triay's vision statement
"21st Century Challenges for the Joint Convention on the Safety of
Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste
Management." Dr. Triay pointed out that twelve years after the
Convention was opened for signature the global nuclear village had
dramatically changed. There was a reemergence of interest in
expanding the benefits of nuclear power and more then forty (40)
developing and transitional nations were considering adding nuclear
power to their energy portfolios, while advanced nuclear nations
were expanding their nuclear fleets, she said. To meet the
challenges of this renaissance, Parties needed to reinvigorate a
Joint Convention leadership that would seek to better achieve its
goals and objectives as the use of nuclear power increases over the
coming years.

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 006 OF 022




10. (SBU) Before the election of officers for the Organizational
Meeting, the IAEA Secretariat (Office of the Legal Advisor) called a
meeting of the three Presidential candidates and the meeting
president, Mr. Lacoste. The Secretariat noted that it was not in
the best interest of the Joint Convention process to hold an
election and suggested candidates reconsider their candidacies. All
candidates declined to withdraw their names. Outgoing President
Lacoste offered to support the United States as the next President
of the Meeting of the Parties of the Convention on Nuclear Safety
(CNS) if Dr. Triay would withdraw her current candidacy. The U.S.
responded neither Dr. Triay nor the U.S. delegation had the
authority to accept such an offer, moreover the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission was the lead agency for the CNS, not the U.S.
Department of Energy. Dr. Triay also met separately in private with
each of the candidates prior to the Organizational Meeting.


11. (U) With the announcement of the need for a secret ballot, the
IAEA Secretariat outlined the process for the Parties. The U.K. and
the Canadian delegations were designated ballot counters. The U.S.
delegation requested that Dr. Triay be recognized to make a
statement regarding her views on the Joint Convention. President
Lacoste declined to accept a statement from the candidate; however
he stated he would entertain statements by the delegations. The
U.S. delegation presented Dr. Triay's Vision Statement. Prior to
commencing with the distribution of ballots, the Argentine
delegation withdrew Mr. Gonzales's name as a candidate, because the
election was by vote and not by consensus.


12. (U) Forty ballots were passed out. The vote result favored Dr.
Triay, who received 19 votes; Dr. Soda had 18 votes, there were two
abstentions; although not a candidate, Mr. Gonzalez received 1 vote.
The IAEA Secretariat declared a second secret ballot would be

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 007 OF 022


distributed, because the first ballot was an "unrestricted ballot"
(requiring an absolute majority),which had not been made clear
prior to the vote. Dr. Triay requested the U.S. delegation seek a
recess for the candidates, which was granted, and proposed a meeting
between the U.S. and the Japanese.


13. (U) During the lunch break the Secretariat convened a short
meeting regarding an election irregularity with the abstention
ballots cast. One of the two ballots cast was by the EURATOM
delegate; EURATOM has no voting rights and the vote was declared
invalid.


14. (SBU) During the lunch break a number of discussions took place
between the IAEA Secretariat, the U.S. and Japan, in which the
Secretariat Office of the Legal Advisor proposed, with USDEL
concurrence, that Dr. Soda withdraw given the U.S. candidate had
received the most votes. President Lacoste also met with the
Japanese candidate and urged him not to withdraw.


15. (SBU) During the lunch period President Lacoste also called a
European Union (EU) meeting for the purpose of drafting an EU
demarche to the U.S. In an oral demarche made to the U.S. Mission
representative by a French Mission official, the EU stated it was
supporting Dr. Soda and would support the U.S. for a Vice President
position. While the U.S. was considering the EU demarche, President
Lacoste reconvened the Organizational Meeting and attempted to move
forward with a vote for the President, necessitating a U.S.
intervention for a short recess to complete consideration of the EU
demarche.


16. (SBU) After USDEL internal deliberations, Dr. Triay decided in
the best interest of the Joint Convention process she would withdraw
her candidacy for President rather than prolong the election with

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 008 OF 022


further negotiations. Dr. Triay declined the offer of submitting
her name for a Vice President position and requested Mr. Frank
Marcinowski be nominated as the U.S. candidate.


17. (U) The Organizational Meeting was reconvened once again to
take up the agenda item to elect a President for the Review Meeting.
Dr. Soda was elected by consensus. A secret ballot was distributed
to Parties for the election of the two Vice Presidents. The
Japanese candidate dropped out of the VP election, because one
country cannot have two executive officers. The French delegation
nominated Mr. Marcinowski for Vice President. The other candidates
remained on the ballot. The U.S. received 33 votes, Dr. Laszio
Koblinger the Hungarian candidate received 25 votes, and the Ukraine
candidate Ms. Olena Mykolaichuk received 14 votes.

--------------
Election of Country Group Officers: Coordinators (Agenda Item 5.3),
Rapporteurs and Chairpersons (Agenda Item 5.4),Election of Vice
Chairpersons (Agenda Item 5.5)
--------------


18. (U) With the two-week extension of the deadline for nomination
of candidates for the Country Review Group Officers (Chairman, Vice
Chairman, Coordinator, and Rapporteur),the number of formally
nominated candidates increased with multiple nominations for each
office in each Group. The election of officers followed Joint
Convention Guidelines, whereby each Country Review Group elected its
officers. With no exception, all of the Groups stipulated all
candidates were well qualified and opted not to vote by secret
ballot. The two criteria used to measure the most suitable
candidate were: 1) Equity among nations, in particular providing a
leadership opportunity to smaller nations, and 2) Whether or not the
candidate could read, write, and speak fluent English. Selection of

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 009 OF 022


officers was by consensus. The U.S. assigned group selected Ms.
Mary Biesi, Program Analyst, Office of Disposal Operations, DOE
Office of Environmental Management, for the office of Coordinator.


--------------
Adoption of a Budget for the Review Meeting (Agenda Item 5.6)
--------------


19. (U) The budget was adopted by consensus as presented, at 106,500
Euros. This represents an increase of 378 Euros from the 2006
budget.

--------------
Open-ended Topic Session (Agenda Item 5.7)
--------------


20. (U) Interventions were made by the U.S., Canadian, and U.K.
delegations for topical proposals for two Open-Ended Sessions; one
on the Voluntary Data Presentation Tool (U.S.) and one on a
collection of proposals to improve the Joint Convention Process
(U.S., Canada, U.K.).


21. (U) The U.S. proposal for the Voluntary Data Presentation Tool
was adopted by consensus without comment. The Canadian and U.K.
delegations supported the U.S. five-point proposal to improve the
Joint Convention process and added four additional topics.
Additional interventions were made by other delegates supporting the
U.S. proposal and those of Canada and the United Kingdom. Several
Parties commented on the importance of increasing membership in the
Joint Convention, in particular with the increased interest by
approximately 40 non-nuclear power countries in adding nuclear power
to their energy mix. The U.S. five-point proposal, the Canadian

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 010 OF 022


additional point proposal, and the U.K. three-point proposal for an
open-ended topical meeting were adopted by consensus as follows:


BEGIN ADOPTED TEXTS

(1) The Voluntary Data Presentation Tool for Joint Convention
national reports Based on Net-Enabled Waste Management Data Base.

The first topical proposal was developed by the Working Group of the
country Coordinators for the Net-enabled Waste management Database
(NEWMDB). Contributors to the proposal included the Untied States,
the Netherlands, Spain, the Czech Republic, and Germany.

Contracting Parties and other IAEA Member States already provide
detailed information regarding radioactive waste and spent fuel
facilities, inventories, and ongoing decommissioning activities,
into such IAEA databases as the Net Enabled Waste Management
Database (NEWMDB),Nuclear Fuel cycles Information System (NFCIS)
the Research Reactor Database (RRDB),and the Power Reactor
Information System (PRIS). The information provided to these
databases is a useful resource for reporting according to Article
32, Section 2, of the Joint Convention. Contracting Parties could
use their information already provided in these databases (if
current) for their National Reports, thus reducing the burden for
the preparation of the reports and also promoting consistency
between the data provided in National reports and these databases.
The Topical Session proposal is to explore the voluntary use of the
new data presentation tool to commence with the Fourth Review
Meeting. The data tool would not replace preparation of the whole
National Report, but would facilitate the development and review of
tables and annexes that are now provided in various formats. The
proposal was adopted by consensus with little comment. NOTE: The

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 011 OF 022


U.S. supported the use of the data tool and volunteered to use the
U.S. National Report data as a model to demonstrate the value and
benefits.

(2) Five Recommendations to Improve the Joint Convention Process.

The second topical Open-ended Session was proposed by the United
States to discuss the five (5) topics as reflected in Dr. Ines
Triay's nomination vision statement, "21st Century Challenges for
the Joint Convention"

BEGIN U.S. TOPICAL SESSION POINTS:

-- Continuity Between Meetings. We need to establish continuity and
an ongoing dialogue between Review Meetings to support sustained
momentum toward meeting the objectives of the Joint convention.
Through efficient communication, Parties can communicate important
and real-time lessons learned and discuss and even resolve emerging
issues related to the Joint Convention. Initiatives to consider
include: (1) Reinstating the Joint convention newsletter; (2)
scheduling regular and more frequent meetings of the General
committee (for example, meetings every six months); and (3)
exploring innovative use of electronic communication methods, such
as web-based meetings, web-exchanges and blogs, and development of
CDs.

-- Robust Peer Review Process. We need to ensure the peer review
process remains a strong and transparent process that encourages
frank and open discussion of issues that arise in national programs
so that all Parties can exchange experiences and learn from one
another and thereby enhance their national programs. In addition,
as the number of Parties increases, we need to explore mechanisms to
increase the efficiency of the peer review process without

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 012 OF 022


diminishing its effectiveness.

-- Increased Membership in Joint Convention. We need to
reinvigorate efforts to increase the number of Parties to the Joint
convention. As countries consider starting or expanding nuclear
power programs, it is essential that they participate in the Joint
convention and gain a better understanding of the importance of the
back-end of the fuel cycle - waste management and disposal. Efforts
should be undertaken to make the Joint Convention more relevant to
these countries, as well as countries engaged in uranium mining and
industrial uses of radioactive materials, including sealed sources.

-- Greater Public Acceptance. We need to consider mechanisms to
foster greater public acceptance of spent fuel and radioactive
management activities. We must explore how to reach out to members
of the public, local governments, community and environmental groups
and others, to communicate why spent fuel and radioactive waste
management activities are safe and secure, and to explain in simple
and understandable terms what ate the actual risks associated with
these activities and what is the level of protection afforded by
safety standards, radiological protection measures and concepts such
as "defense in depth."

-- Inclusive Joint Convention Leadership. We need to ensure the
leadership of the Joint convention includes a broad cross section of
these persons involved in spent fuel and radioactive waste
management activities, including government officials responsible
for making spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy,
implementing regulatory requirements, and making management
decisions that affect the level of safety and security in spent fuel
and radioactive waste management activities. We should consider
formalizing the informal guidelines outlined by the President of the
Organizational Meeting for the Second Meeting of the Parties to

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 013 OF 022


facilitate selection of the President, Vice-Presidents, and other
officials for the Review Meetings. These informal guidelines
include factors such as: gender, rotation of leadership positions
among countries, mixture of operators and regulators, representation
from large and small countries, and geographic variability. (See
paragraph 8 of the Report of the President of the Organizational
Meeting for the Second Review Meeting of the Parties.)

END U.S. TOPICAL POINTS AND ADOPTED TEXTS

(3) Permanent Subcommittee on Continuity of Review Officer Knowledge
Transfer.

The third topical proposal was proposed by Canadian delegation to be
added to the U.S. proposed Open-ended session, which was the
establishment of a permanent Sub-Committee on Continuity of Review
Officer Knowledge Transfer.

(4) Special Session for Policy-makers and Perspective New Parties
and Guidelines for Election of Officers.

An intervention by the U.K. delegate supported the U.S. five-point
proposal and the Canadian proposal, noting the U.K. would submit
several other points to be added, including consideration for
convening a Special Session in conjunction with the Review Meeting
for Policy-makers and one for perspective new Parties, as well as
the need to establish guidelines for election of leadership
candidates that would include among other factors oral statements by
the candidates before a vote and no restrictions on whether a
candidate should be a regulator, operator, or policy-maker.

--------------
Invitation of Observers to the Review Meeting

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 014 OF 022


(Agenda Item 6)
--------------


22. (U) By consensus agreement an invitation will be extended to
the OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the European Bank for
Reconstruction (EBRD) to participate in the Review Meeting as an
observer.

--------------
Languages for Plenary Sessions (Agenda Item 7),Interpretation
during Country Review Group Sessions (Agenda Item 8),and Document
Languages (Agenda Item 9)
--------------


23. (U) Languages for the Plenary Sessions will be English,
Russian, Spanish, Chinese and French. The Russian delegation
requested an interpreter on the day of their National Report
presentation.

--------------
Perspectives from the President of the Second Review Meeting,
Andre-Claude Lacoste (Agenda Item 10)
--------------


24. (U) Andre-Claude Lacoste provided an overview of his views
regarding the Joint Convention, much of which had already been
expressed throughout the Organizational meeting, including
continuity of leadership, reducing the number of days for the Review
Meeting, Country Review Group timetable, openness and transparency,
and increasing the number of Parties. Of particular note were his
innovative views on making public all National Reports, encouraging
interviews with journalists and the media and introducing the media
into the peer review process. There were several interventions,

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 015 OF 022


such as that of Spain, noting President Lacoste's views were
contradictory to Convention objectives; Parties required sufficient
time for a peer review of National Reports. Other delegations
including the U.S. rejected opening the peer review process to the
press, which would result in a deterioration of the intent and
objectives of the Joint Convention. The U.S. delegation also noted
the Rules of Procedure already provided for continuity of leadership
and strongly recommended these provisions be reenergized.

--------------
Provisional Agenda and Time Table (Agenda Item 11)
--------------


25. (U) President Lacoste proposed the agenda be considerably
condensed, including the Opening and Closing Plenary as well as the
amount of time allotted for National Report presentations in Country
Review Groups. His very firm view centered on refocusing the
National Report Country Review Group process to what was new since
the last meeting of the Parties and answers to the questions posed
by Party reviews. Intervention responses by Parties to his proposal
were not favorable, in particular on shortening the Country Review
Group schedules and a refocusing of purpose. Some delegations
suggested innovative approaches such as that proposed by the
Swedish, Hungarian, and U.S. delegations to shorten the schedule by
utilizing the weekend and evenings, including holding the Opening
Plenary on Sunday.


26. (U) The Belgian, Italian, Spanish and U.S. interventions noted
the time proposed to be allotted for Country Review Groups was too
short and scheduling should be in relation to the size of the
program, not to fit an artificial schedule. Belgian and Canadian
interventions also pointed out that, with the number of countries
anticipated to become new Joint Convention Parties, an abbreviated

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 016 OF 022


National Report presentation schedule would short-change the
benefits for them. Parties needed to mindful of the importance of
the process in relation to bringing new countries into the process
and the interest of smaller programs of current Parties. The
Canadian and U.S. delegations' very strong interventions stressed
that Parties do not want to sacrifice a frank and open discussion to
satisfy a reduced time schedule. The U.S. also pointed out National
Reports already included as a prefix what was new since the last
Review Meeting.


27. (U) Delegate consensus supported the Provisional Agenda
including the Opening Plenary be limited to one-half day on Monday.
It was pointed out by one delegate that the proposed Agenda was
"Provisional" and the Parties could further discuss it in the
Opening Plenary.

--------------
Proposed National Report Schedule Matrix
(Agenda Item 11)
--------------


28. (U) The IAEA Secretariat provided the Parties a proposed
day-by-day schedule for National Report presentations. A number of
interventions were made similar to those for the Provisional Agenda,
objecting to the time allotted to review National Reports. Of
particular interest were Interventions by Canada and Russia. Among
a number of points by the Canadian delegation was their objection to
a split session for any country's National Report presentation,
which in their view was not a good idea and made the process
unwieldy. Canada requested all split session be rescheduled. The
Russian intervention requested the time for its National Report
review be reduced, because they did not anticipate a longer period
would be needed. Other delegations did not appear to agree.

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 017 OF 022




29. (U) The U.S. intervention firmly restated that there needs to be
a full and open discussion of National Reports and that the United
States did not support sacrificing such a discussion by compressing
the schedule in the interest of time as laid out in the matrix. The
U.S. joined other Party interventions objecting to the proposed
matrix, which would schedule those countries with large programs at
the same time on the same day. There was general support that the
National Reports of the U.S., UK, Japan, Canada, Korea and Russia
(who all have programs of great interest to smaller countries as
well as to all Parties),not be scheduled simultaneously. In
addition it was noted China will be presenting its report for the
first time and many delegates will want to hear its presentation.
The U.S. as well as other delegations commented that the main
objective of the Country Review Groups is to provide a robust peer
review, not to fit the process into an artificial schedule. The
U.S. attached great importance to the oral presentations and did not
want to see the value of the peer process diminished.


30. (U) The IAEA Secretariat was initially less than accommodating
to the suggested rearrangement of the schedule by the Parties.
NOTE: The Head of the U.S. Delegation was approached by several
delegations after the Organizational Meeting urging the U.S. to
press for a revised matrix more in line with interventions. The
Italian and Slovak delegations also conferred with the Head of the
U.S. Delegation on the margins of OECD/EA Steering Committee meeting
in Paris, to again press the IAEA Secretariat to schedule the
National Report presentations of the larger countries on different
days. Both noted that while the larger countries could afford to
send enough delegation members to Vienna to cover all six Country
Review groups for the full two weeks, many smaller countries did not
have the funds or a large enough staff to do likewise. Their appeal
to the U.S. to support staggering the scheduling reflected that

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 018 OF 022


these countries received peer review comments in their assigned
Country Review Groups, but also a better understanding of larger
programs that simply reading a National Report does not convey, and
these lessons could apply to their national programs. Moreover,
smaller countries do not have the staff or the resources to review
46 National Reports. In addition, perspective new Parties need to
feel comfortable with the process and not overwhelmed. End Note.
After the meeting, the U.S. Head of Delegation followed up with the
Secretariat on the need to rearrange the National Report matrix to
better reflect Contracting Party consensus. After several exchanges
on how best to accomplish this, the IAEA Secretariat responded that
it had given more thought to the matter and had come up with a new
matrix and welcomed U.S. comments. After reviewing the new matrix,
the U.S. responded we found it to be more in keeping with the
recommendations of Parties and an improvement to the peer review
process.

--------------
Other Relevant Matters (Agenda Item 12)
--------------


31. (U) Other relevant matters considered by the Contracting Parties
were:


A. Dates for Fourth Review meeting

Consensus supported the Joint Convention Organizational Meeting be
convened October 18-19, 2011 and the Review Meeting be convened May
14-15, 2012.


B. President Lacoste Request to Provide a Special Presentation on
the IAEA Safety Standards, including a history of evolution and
current status

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 019 OF 022



President Lacoste requested the Contracting Parties support a
special presentation by him at the Opening Plenary on IAEA Safety
Standards, including a history of evolution and current status, in
his capacity as Chairman of the IAEA Working Group on IAEA Safety
Standards. After a very long pause, an intervention by the Spanish
delegation in explicit terms summed up the general feeling of
delegations, which was that the Opening Plenary had been condensed
in the interest of time at the suggestion of Lacoste and they saw no
need to extend it for such a presentation. Moreover, for several
years, in just about every IAEA fora, there has already been an
ample review. Mr. Lacoste replied that it was clear the Parties did
not want to hear a briefing and withdrew his proposal.


C. Next General Committee Meeting

President Lacoste provided his views on the need for continuity
between Review Meetings and recommended the General Committee set a
planning meeting date well before the Third Meeting of the Parties.
He commented there should be follow-up regarding Joint Convention
outcomes and initiatives. Several delegations, including the U.S.,
noted that since the Second Meeting of the Parties there had been no
General Committee meetings scheduled and recommended the IAEA
Secretariat provide assistance in scheduling regular and more
frequent meetings of the General Committee (for example, meetings
every six months) as already explicitly incorporated in the Rules of
Procedure; exploring innovative use of electronic communication
methods, such as web-based meetings, web-exchanges and blogs, and
development of CDs; and reinstating the Joint convention newsletter.
(NOTE: Subsequently a General Committee meeting of Joint Convention
Officers - President, Vice Presidents, Country Review Group Chairmen
- and Coordinators was scheduled for March 10-11, 2009 in Vienna).


UNVIE VIEN 00000663 020 OF 022



D. Suggestions for National Report Oral Presentations

The U.S. intervention responded the presentation format of the
Second Meeting of the Parties worked well, with an oral presentation
followed by a discussion. A Canadian intervention spoke to the need
to include responses to questions. The Belgium delegation
intervention raised concern with new questions that were not
previously submitted prior to the Review Meeting.

--------------
Discussions on the Margins of the Meeting
--------------


32. (SBU) Subsequent to the closing of the Organizational Meeting,
several delegations conferred with the Head of the U.S. Delegation
regarding among a number of points their concern with how the
meeting was conducted and the need for reform and refocus on the
objectives and purpose of the Joint Convention. The U.K. expressed
its view that the Organizational Meeting Chairman was more involved
with leveraging his personal views then in conducting a fair and
level playing field for agenda items, which "must never ever happen
again." Canada expressed similar sentiments and that it will work
to reverse this situation through the Open-ended Topical Session
process.


33. (SBU) The Italian, Slovakian, Finnish and the UK delegations'
discussions with U.S. Head of Del were concerned with the European
Union (EU) demarche to the U.S. regarding voting for the President
of the Review Meeting. Concern focused on their understanding it
was a verbal demarche and not written as agreed by EU members, which
could leave room for a less than clear intent. Of fundamental
concern to these four delegations was whether or not the demarche
had stipulated the EU would vote as a block (Note: As it had. End

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 021 OF 022


Note.) These dels informed USDEL the EU coordination meeting called
by Lacoste had firmly declined to vote as a block. They further
stressed that the EU meeting had been chaired by Organizational
President Lacoste and not the Head of the French delegation.



34. (SBU) Organizational Meeting President Lacoste stopped to talk
with the Head of the U.S. delegation after the meeting. He recalled
DOE Secretary Bodman's sidebar meeting with him September 29 on the
margins of the IAEA General Conference, in which the Secretary
expressed support for Dr. Triay's candidacy for President. Lacoste
asserted that was the first time any Ministerial level official had
sought him out to criticize his actions (meaning, his actions in
opposition to Dr. Triay's candidacy). Lacoste reiterated to USDEL
Head his view that it was best for the President of the Review
Meeting to be a regulator, and he was pleased with the outcome of
the Organizational Meeting election.


35. (SBU) Cyril-Pierre Pinel, Head of the French Delegation noting
privately he looked forward to working with the U.S. delegation at
the Review Meeting in May. (Comment: During the entire
Organizational Meeting deliberations, the French delegation took a
passive posture with no interventions or comments on deliberations.
End Comment.)


36. (U) And lastly, Dr. Soda, the new President of the Third Review
Meeting, expressed his support for the points in Dr. Triay's Vision
Statement and his interest in working closely with the U.S.
delegation.

--------------
Going Forward Constructively
--------------

UNVIE VIEN 00000663 022 OF 022




37. (SBU) Comment: Weeks after the event, the Argentine candidate
for the Third Review meeting presidency, Abel Gonzales, related to
Msnoff his admiration for U.S. candidate Triay's qualifications and
acknowledged that he had personally favored her over the Japanese
candidate, Dr. Soda. NRC HQ notes that Lacoste has substantial
political influence, as demonstrated by his ability to coalesce the
European Union countries. His influence has been useful to push
ahead many joint U.S.-French initiatives that have significantly
enhanced nuclear safety world-wide. In this regard, although the
U.S. put up Dr. Triay, a highly qualified candidate, Lacoste's
efforts to put forward Dr. Soda has promoted a solid candidate on
whom the U.S. will be able to depend for a successful meeting of the
parties. Dr. Soda has extensive international experience and is
recognized world-wide for his leadership and technical expertise.
U.S. Mission will provide full support to Dr. Triay, whom we
understand will deliver USG remarks, and to the State/DoE/NRC
delegation to the Third Review Meeting in May 2009. End Comment.



38. (U) This UNVIE-coordinated report was prepared substantially by
USDEL head and cleared by DoE and NRC.

SCHULTE