Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09UNVIEVIENNA287
2009-06-19 07:32:00
UNCLASSIFIED
UNVIE
Cable title:  

NUCLEAR SAFETY: REPORT OF THE THIRD MEETING OF THE JOINT

Tags:  ENRG TRGY KNNP AORC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO3062
RR RUEHDBU RUEHSK RUEHSL
DE RUEHUNV #0287/01 1700732
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 190732Z JUN 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9644
INFO RHMCSUU/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC
RUEANFA/NRC WASHDC
RUEHUJA/AMEMBASSY ABUJA 0128
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0130
RUEHTH/AMEMBASSY ATHENS 0037
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0882
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0839
RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN 0170
RUEHEK/AMEMBASSY BISHKEK 0085
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 0265
RUEHSL/AMEMBASSY BRATISLAVA 0148
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 0266
RUEHBM/AMEMBASSY BUCHAREST 0123
RUEHUP/AMEMBASSY BUDAPEST 0165
RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 0258
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 0690
RUEHCP/AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN 0113
RUEHDK/AMEMBASSY DAKAR 0060
RUEHDL/AMEMBASSY DUBLIN 0116
RUEHDBU/AMEMBASSY DUSHANBE
RUEHHE/AMEMBASSY HELSINKI 0165
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0115
RUEHLJ/AMEMBASSY LJUBLJANA 0191
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1194
RUEHLE/AMEMBASSY LUXEMBOURG 0064
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID 0222
RUEHSK/AMEMBASSY MINSK 0084
RUEHMN/AMEMBASSY MONTEVIDEO 0067
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0946
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO 0146
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0691
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1052
RUEHPG/AMEMBASSY PRAGUE 0154
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 0240
RUEHRB/AMEMBASSY RABAT 0119
RUEHRK/AMEMBASSY REYKJAVIK 0059
RUEHRA/AMEMBASSY RIGA 0074
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 0495
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 0344
RUEHSF/AMEMBASSY SOFIA 0120
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM 0212
RUEHTL/AMEMBASSY TALLINN 0085
RUEHNT/AMEMBASSY TASHKENT 0081
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 0262
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 0732
RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 1396
RUEHVL/AMEMBASSY VILNIUS 0145
RUEHWR/AMEMBASSY WARSAW 0138
RUEHVB/AMEMBASSY ZAGREB 0077
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 37 UNVIE VIENNA 000287 

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: REPORT OF THE THIRD MEETING OF THE JOINT
CONVENTION ON SPENT FUEL AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE, MAY 11-20, 2009 -
SUCCESSFUL COUNTRY REVIEW GROUPS WITH CHANGES TO RULES OF PROCEDURE

REF: 08 UNVIE 663 (NOTAL)

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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 37 UNVIE VIENNA 000287

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: REPORT OF THE THIRD MEETING OF THE JOINT
CONVENTION ON SPENT FUEL AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE, MAY 11-20, 2009 -
SUCCESSFUL COUNTRY REVIEW GROUPS WITH CHANGES TO RULES OF PROCEDURE

REF: 08 UNVIE 663 (NOTAL)

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


1. The Third Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of
Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste
Management was broadly successful for U.S. interests. The meeting
was more widely attended than last time, and the quality of the
national reports and the discussions were much better than in the
past, indicating greater attention and focus on waste issues.
Interesting items raised at this meeting included: a desire for
regional repositories; increased attention to contamination from
uranium milling and mining sites; increased desire for clearance
levels; and positive steps by former Soviet Union countries to take
responsibility for legacy wastes.
-

2. Six Country Review Groups took place during the first week of the
conference. In general, reviews went very well, with Contracting
Parties providing well thought-out presentations, including often
candid and transparent interaction among the countries during the
question and answer period (paras 27-33). U.S. technical side
meetings with Contracting Parties resulted in Follow Up Action Items
(para 16).


3. Rapporteur Reports generally reflected the deliberations (paras
34-39). A number of cross-cutting trends emerged (paras 13-14).
Three Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) Sessions were held, to discuss
seven topics: (1) Policy Makers Topic Meeting; (2) Data Presentation
Tool for Joint Convention National Reports; (3) Improvements in
Selection of Conference Officers; (4) Joint Convention Leadership;

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 002 OF 037


(5) Knowledge Transfer and Continuity between Review Meetings; (6)
Improving Interaction Between Meetings, and (7) Clarification of
procedures for replacing officers if they are unable to perform
their duties (paras 16-19). Both the "Summary Report of the Third
Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties" and the "Report of the
President of the Third Review Meeting" were made publicly available.



4. Under the agenda item Other Business, a French proposal to take

up a debate on opening the Review Meetings to the public was blocked
by a U.S. Intervention(para 38).


5. The U.S. Representative participated in an interview, at the
request of reporter Ann MacLachlan, arranged by the UNVIE Mission
press officer. The interview appeared in the May 28, 2009
McGraw-Hill Platts publication "Nucleonics Week," along with
comments from the press conference held by the three Joint
Convention Officers.

--------------
Broad Participation
--------------


6. The Third Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of
Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste
Management (Joint Convention) took place on May 11-20, 2009, at the
IAEA, in Vienna, Austria. Janet Gorn, Senior Foreign Affairs
Officer, Department of State served as Head of Delegation for 16
U.S. attendees. Frank Marcinowski, DOE Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Regulatory Compliance, served as Joint Convention Vice President
and Chairman of the Open-ended Sessions, and Mary Bisesi, Program
Analyst, DOE Office of Disposal Operations, served as Joint

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 003 OF 037


Convention Coordinator for Country Group One.


7. Forty-four of the forty-eight Contracting Parties attended the
meeting. Countries not in attendance were: Kyrgyz Republic (no
report),Tajikistan (submitted report and answered questions),
Uruguay (no reports),and Uzbekistan (no report-recently ratified).
Portugal submitted its ratification credentials during the second
week of the conference, becoming the 49th Contracting Party.

--------------
Opening Plenary
--------------


8. IAEA DDG TANIGUCHI REMARKS: Tomihiro Taniguchi, IAEA Deputy
Director General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Safety and
Security noted the Review Meeting marked almost ten years of
implementation as an important element within the Global Nuclear
Safety and Security Regime. His opening remarks initially focused
on the importance of initiating a concerted effort to increase the
membership of the Contracting Parties in the Joint Convention, in
particular on identifying ways to better facilitate new membership.



9. REVIEW MEETING PRESIDENT'S REMARKS: Kunihisa Soda, the Joint
Convention President, welcomed seven new Contracting Parties:
China, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan. He then focused on the need to bring in new Contracting
Parties, noting that only one-third of IAEA Member States are
Parties to the Joint Convention. Mr. Soda urged Parties to provide
feedback on the review process for the 3rd Meeting and the
Open-ended Work Group discussion regarding knowledge transfer from
meeting to meeting. He then reviewed the summary report of Mr.

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 004 OF 037


Andre-Claude Lacoste, Chairman of the 3rd Organizational Meeting.



10. AGENDA ITEMS. The agenda was adopted with minor changes. There
were no late ratifiers. The IAEA legal counsel reported that not
all Parties had completed filing credentials. Invitations were
issued to the OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency and the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to attend the 3rd meeting as
Observers. The EBRD commented on its appreciation for the
invitation, which provided an opportunity to learn more about spent
fuel (SF) and radioactive waste (RW) management programs in support
of EBRD's management of six financial funds in this area.


11. The Joint Convention President announced, in addition to the
replacement of the Canadian Country Group Chairman, there were four
Contracting Parties not in attendance: Kyrgyzstan (no report),
Tajikistan (submitted report and answered questions),Uruguay (no
reports),and Uzbekistan (no report-recently ratified). Senegal
noted it had recently ratified the Joint Convention, but it did not
submit a National Report. Senegal's intention was to observe the
Country Group review process to draw guidance for preparation of its
National Report for the Fourth Meeting. Contracting Parties
supported Senegal's participation strategy, and suggested it would
be beneficial for Parties if Senegal could also give a brief oral
review of its program. (NOTE: Portugal submitted its ratification
instrument during the meeting, becoming the 49th Contracting
Party.)


12. The Parties agreed to seven Open-ended Working Group (OEWG)
topics: (1) Policy Makers Topic Meeting; (2) Data Presentation Tool
for Joint Convention National Reports; (3) Improvements in Officers'
Selection; (4) Joint Convention Leadership; (5) Knowledge Transfer

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 005 OF 037


and Continuity between Review Meetings; (6) Improve Interaction
Between Meetings and (7) Clarification of procedures for replacing
officers if they are unable to perform their duties. Frank
Marcinowski (USA) was confirmed as the OEWG chair.


13. Opening Remarks were presented in the OEWG by the United States
and Japan. U.S. remarks focused on strengthening the worldwide
safety culture through Contracting Party support for the Joint
Convention Regional Conference Initiative, noting the U.S. had
contributed $230,000 in the past three years and allocated another
$80,000 for 2009. Japan in its opening remarks focused on its
contribution in Asia by taking advantage of opportunities to provide
financial and human resources, in the area of nuclear safety, spent
fuel, and radioactive waste management, in particular activities in
the Forum for Nuclear Cooperation in Asia (FNCA) and the Asia
Nuclear Safety Network (ANSN).

--------------
Overview of Country Group Sessions
--------------


14. In general, Country Group National Report reviews went
remarkably well, with Contracting Parties providing well thought-out
presentations utilizing the Organizational Meeting agreed format.
Interaction among the countries during the question and answer
period was often candid and generally transparent.


15. Emerging Trends: The U.S. delegation noted the following
trends of interest to all Country Review Groups:

- Although a number of Contracting Parties are not formally planning
a permanent disposal strategy, they indicated a willingness to

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 006 OF 037


participate in a regional solution for the management of spent fuel
and radioactive waste. However, it was not apparent that any will
volunteer to host an international disposal facility in the near
term.
- In the past, the IAEA Secretariat has used "euphemisms" for a
concerted effort to have its International Safety Standards adopted
for global application. At this meeting, the popular term was
"linkages;" careful attention should be paid to the use of this term
in the context of discussions involving the IAEA Safety Standards.
- Recruitment of new workers and retention of current workers has
become a significant issue in trying to keep staff-level
competencies in the regulatory bodies; human resources to provide
technical expertise and fill skills gaps constitutes a critical
issue.
- Parties are emphasizing public involvement, and in particular
public acceptance, in making decisions regarding long-term waste
management.
- There has been a concerted effort to give the public and other
stakeholders a voice in the licensing process for siting and
selection of radioactive waste and spent fuel disposal and
centralized storage facilities.
- A number of Contracting Parties have indicated some difficulties
as a result of the current economic situation; they are seeking
financial and other assistance either bilaterally or from
international organizations such as the IAEA.
- A number of former Soviet Union countries are acknowledging that
the Russian Federation is not going to assist with legacy wastes
remaining in these countries in a timely fashion, so they are taking
responsibility to address these issues themselves.
- A number of Contracting Parties rely on energy tariffs to generate
liabilities funds; the need for energy keeps these funds well
endowed.

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 007 OF 037


- Parties are upgrading existing waste management facilities, either
to address deficiencies or to extend the facility capacity and
lifetime.
- Parties are putting more attention and resources into addressing
legacy contamination issues, such as those from uranium mining and
milling.
- Parties are implementing systems for tracking, controlling, and
managing sealed sources; most Parties have made significant strides
to account for and secure disused/orphaned sealed sources. A number
of Contracting Parties have focused greater efforts on the
disposition and management of disused radioactive sealed sources;
returning sources to the foreign manufacturers is the preferred
alternative. Many have developed electronic tracking systems and
software to better track these sources throughout their lifetime.
- Funding and preparation for repositories for both spent
fuel/high-level waste and Low and Intermediate Level Waste (LILW)
remain topics of interest.
- Most Parties with nuclear power plants have worked hard on
regulatory transparency and openness.
- Several countries are considering launching nuclear power
programs; the 3rd Review Meeting expressed a strong recommendation
that spent fuel and radioactive waste management be factored into
the initiative right from the beginning.
- Some Contracting Parties are facing near-term constraints in terms
of storage capacity for their spent fuel and radioactive waste;
additional storage, treatment, conditioning or disposal solutions
will be needed over the next decade.

--------------
Follow Up Action Items for U.S.
Delegation from Technical Side Meetings
--------------

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 008 OF 037




16. Seven Contracting Parties consulted with the U.S. Technical Team
during questions and answers on the U.S. presentation or on the
margins of the conference regarding USG assistance and/or contact
information. Follow Up actions resulting from the Review Meeting
are:

- R. Gray, Health and Safety Executive (UK) requested information on
safety metrics for safety and operational trends.
- K. Suyama, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology (Japan) requested additional information on the National
Source Tracking System and details on establishing a tracking
system.
- C. Ruiz, Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (Spain) requested the
Congressional Report on demonstration of interim storage of spent
fuel - Completed.
- O. Phillips, National Nuclear Regulator (S. Africa) requested
exchanges with NRC and DOE on the topic of remediation and
decommissioning by means of existing bilateral agreements - in
progress.
- P. Torbijn (Netherlands),Ministry of Housing, and Spatial
Environment, requested information and a NRC staff contact on U.S.
regulations regarding Financial Assurances.
- S. Nakayama, Japan Atomic Energy Agency (Japan) requested
information on U.S. procedures for clearing material from regulatory
control, particularly the release of metals for the purpose of
recycling.
- M. Yamada, Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (Japan),
requested information on U.S. regulatory requirments related to
mixed radioactive and hazardous waste.

--------------

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 009 OF 037


Open-ended Working Group Sessions
--------------


17. Frank Marcinowski chaired the OEWG on May 12-14, 2009.
Approximately half of the contracting parties participated. Six
proposals had been recommended for the OEWG's consideration and
action and agreed prior to the Review Meeting. In addition, Mr.
Koblinger (Hungary) made a seventh proposal that the OEWG evaluate
whether the Joint Convention operating procedures require revision
to clarify procedures for replacing officers if they are unable to
perform their duties. This was agreed and considered by the OEWG.
Five of the seven proposals affect changes to the Rules of
Procedures.


18. OEWG Session I: Topics (1) Policy Makers Topical Meeting and
(2) Data Presentation Tool for Joint Convention National Reports
(May 12, 2009);


19. TOPIC (1) POLICY MAKERS TOPICAL MEETING. The first proposal,
authored by the United Kingdom (UK) suggested a policy makers'
topical meeting at the Fourth Review Meeting of the Parties. The
proposal recognized that licensing decisions and policy making may
be handled by different entities within the governmental
organization of a given state. The regulatory body may not be the
decision maker for policy nor even for specific authorization. How
a given Contracting Party functions within the context of the Joint
Convention may, therefore, not be exactly consistent with the letter
of the Joint Convention provisions. There was a lengthy discussion
at the OEWG to understand the proposal. A suggestion was made to
select one or more challenges from this Review Meeting to provide a
tangible context for examining the role of policy makers in the
Joint Convention. The UK agreed to further develop this proposal

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 010 OF 037


and to present it by the time of the next Organizational Meeting.

RESULT: Proposal accepted as written. Adopted by consensus in the
Closing Plenary.


20. TOPIC (2) DATA PRESENTATION TOOL FOR JOINT CONVENTION NATIONAL
REPORTS. The second proposal, by the U.S., was developed in
conjunction with Netherlands, Spain, Czech Republic, Germany and
IAEA to allow voluntary use of an electronic data presentation tool
(the Net-Enabled Waste Management database, or NEWMDB) , to be
provided by the Secretariat to the Contracting Parties, for
development of portions of the Joint Convention National Reports.
The OEWG decided to have the IAEA Secretariat make it available to
contracting parties to use on a voluntary basis; no meeting is
needed to further develop or explain the tool. If a Contracting
Party opts to use the voluntary tool, it is the responsibility of
the Contracting Party to ensure the information provided to the
Secretariat and retrieved from the NEWMDB is accurate and of the
right time period for the National Report. Each Contracting Party
shall determine who has access to its information in the reporting
tool. The Secretariat will develop and make available guidance on
how to use and deploy the tool.

RESULT: Proposal was accepted with some clarifications. Adopted by
consensus in the Closing Plenary.


21. OEWG Session II: Topics (3) Improvements in Officers' Selection
and (4) Joint Convention Leadership (May 13, 2009)

-- TOPICS 3 AND 4. Proposals 3 and 4 as originally proposed
separately by the UK and the U.S. were combined into a single
proposal after considerable discussion, and treated as one proposal

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 011 OF 037


during the final OEWG session on May 14. Several amendments were
offered to provide additional clarity and improve the enhanced
process based on experience at the October 2008 Organizational
meeting. The resulting proposal recommends changes to INFCIRC/603
to (reftel) improve and clarify the selection process for Officers
of the Joint Convention. Not later than two months before the
Organizational Meeting, as part of such nomination, a Contracting
Party shall provide, in writing, relevant biographical information
on the candidate, the qualifications of the candidate, the issues
that should be addressed by the Contracting Parties during the next
three years and the position of the candidate on those issues. Each
candidate for the elective places, or their representative, shall
have the opportunity to make a short oral presentation to the
Contracting Parties at the Organizational Meeting that addresses the
items in the material supporting their candidacy and shall answer
questions from the Contracting Parties. Contracting Parties will
endeavor to reach consensus on the President and Vice President from
the candidates nominated in accordance with the above process.
Contracting Parties are encouraged to nominate candidates for
President, Vice-President, Chairs, Vice-Chairs, Rapporteur, or
Coordinator and to indicate the extent to which the candidates are
willing to be considered for other elective places in the event that
they are not elected to their first choice.


22. The U.S. provision folded into the proposal clarified that there
are no formal or informal requirements or restrictions in the Joint
Convention itself, its Rules of Procedures, or elsewhere treating
who may be an officer. The U.S. text provided that the Rules of
Procedure should encourage diversity in selection of officers, to
ensure a broad range of experiences and perspectives to achieve the
objective of the Joint Convention. Consensus was reached on the
combined proposal, by Contracting Parties, with the exception of

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 012 OF 037


France which did not agree with the language from the U.S. proposal.



23. Many contracting parties expressed support for the views that
there are no restrictions on who may be an officer; that officers
may be government officials with policy, regulatory, or management
responsibility for the safety of spent fuel management and/or
radioactive waste management; and, that diversity among Joint
Convention Officers results in a broad range of experiences and
perspectives, enhancing leadership skills in achieving the
objectives of the Joint Convention. However a number of contracting
parties expressed concerns that the language on diversity might be
viewed as mandating a mechanistic balancing formula and complicate
the already complex process to fill the officer positions. It was
noted that diversity could be encouraged by a more general
provision. There was general agreement that candidates should have
experience with the objectives of the Joint Convention, and that
participation in a prior meeting, although useful, is not essential.
The U.S. delegation expressed the view that preference should not
be accorded to individuals with a specific background. Text on
inclusion of a broad cross section of government officials was
adopted as part of the joint U.S.-UK proposal so there would be no
need for a separate proposal to revise the guidelines. Thus, a
combined proposal 3 and 4 was considered as discussed above.


24. TOPICS 3 AND 4 RESULT: The French delegation blocked consensus
in the Closing Plenary on including U.S.-proposed clarifying
language in the Rules of Procedure. There were two interventions,
from Estonia and Finland, in support of the French position that the
President of the Review Meeting must be a regulatory official.
Finland suggested that a regulator would foster public confidence.
Interventions from the U.K., Canada, Spain, Japan, and Switzerland

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 013 OF 037


supported the U.S. position. To find a path forward, the U.S.
proposed to remove the proposed clarifying clause in the main Rules
of Procedure, and insert clarifying text in the "Note on
Qualifications of Officers." Unable to reach an agreeable middle
ground on this important procedural matter, and to avoid a call for
a vote, the President called a recess to convene a side meeting of
the Representatives of the U.S. and French delegations and any other
interested Parties. After lengthy deliberations between the U.S.
and French Representatives, the U.S. suggested it was important to
consider the views of all Parties, and it would be agreeable to
remove the U.S. clarifying clause proposed for the Rules of
Procedure Note, if France would agree to include language in the
President's Report. France agreed to the U.S. recommendation, which
was supported by Contracting Parties' unanimous consensus during
review of the draft President's Report in the Closing Plenary. As a
result, the President's Report text stated that "other than the
qualifications of officers highlighted in the Annex if
INFCIR/603/Rev.3, there were no formal or informal restrictions on
who may serve as an officer of the Review Meeting. In addition, the
Meeting expressed the view that experience in a prior meeting may be
useful but not essential and that diversity among officers may
result in a broader range of experience and perspectives for
achieving the objectives of the Joint Convention. With regard to
the office of the President, some Contracting Parties felt that
preference should be given to regulators whereas others considered
that the emphasis should be on the individual's substantive
experience, it was the prerogative of each contracting Party to
decide whom to nominate to serve as President and that the
Contracting Parties were free to choose among the nominees for
President presented at the Review Meeting." (See paras 29-32, of
the "Report of the President of the Third Review Meeting.)


UNVIE VIEN 00000287 014 OF 037



25. OEWG SESSION III: Topics (5) Knowledge Transfer and Continuity
between Review Meetings, (6) Improve Interaction Between Meetings,
and (7) Clarification of procedures for replacing officers if they
are unable to perform their duties (May 14, 2009).


26. TOPIC (5) KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND CONTINUTIY BETWEEN REVIEW
MEETINGS. Proposal 5 by Canada suggested changes to INFCIRC/602 and
INFCIRC/603 to improve the peer review process by maintaining
institutional knowledge and continuity of officers between Review
Meetings. There was considerable support from the Parties, but they
felt that the details of the proposal needed additional scrutiny.
Canada worked with the IAEA Secretariat to bring a revised proposal
to the closing plenary. This recommendation included the following
provisions: Officers elected at one Organizational Meeting should
remain as Officers until they are replaced at the next
Organizational Meeting; elections of President and Vice-Presidents
be moved to the last agenda item of the Organizational Meeting. A
workshop, chaired by the outgoing President, of incoming and
outgoing Officers should be held following the Organizational
Meeting. The Secretariat should prepare a guidance document for the
incoming Officers. To allow more time for the preparation of
incoming Officers, the next Organizational Meeting should be held in
May 2011. The General Committees of the Joint Convention and
Convention on Nuclear Safety have a knowledge transfer meeting in

2010.


27. TOPIC 5 RESULT: The proposal by Canada was accepted with minor
editorial corrections; the United Kingdom's request that a joint
meeting of the General Committees of the Joint and Nuclear Safety
Conventions was not within the protocol of the President's Report
without prior mutual consent from the Nuclear Safety Convention.
Adopted by consensus in the Closing Plenary.

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 015 OF 037




28. TOPIC (6) IMPROVE INTERATION BETWEEN MEETINGS. Proposal 6 by
the United States suggested improved interaction of Contracting
Parties between review meetings. The proposal requests the
Secretariat to take actions which establish continuity and ongoing
dialogue between Review Meetings, supporting sustained momentum
toward meeting the objectives of the Joint Convention. France
suggested a possible complementary approach which by mutual
agreement was incorporated into the U.S. proposal. The Secretariat
should promptly investigate and initiate innovative means to
establish continuity and ongoing dialogue between Review Meetings
among the Contracting Parties and General Committee members. These
initiatives include, but are not limited to: an annual newsletter,
regular and more frequent meetings of the General Committee, and
innovative electronic communications methods, e.g., improvements to
the Joint Convention Website for web-based meetings and enhanced
sharing of information and lessons learned. The recommendation
requests the Secretariat to host a meeting for the Contracting
Parties to discuss recommendations to enhance continuity and ongoing
dialogue between meetings no later than June 2010.


29. France suggested that a complementary means to achieve this goal
could be to request the Secretariat to organize meetings, open to
all member States, between two review meetings to address specific
topics identified at the Review Meeting. Taking into account
discussions during the country sessions, the following specific
topics may be of mutual interest for example: definition and
implementation of a comprehensive plan for the management of spent
fuel and radioactive waste; management of very low level waste and
implementation of clearance thresholds; establishment of agencies in
charge of the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste; and
management of graphite waste coming from UNGG (old gas-cooled

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 016 OF 037


graphite) reactors


30. TOPIC 6 RESULT: The U.S. portion of this proposal was accepted
with minor clarification of the IAEA Secretariat's action to
undertake these continuity and ongoing dialogue initiatives. The
French portion was modified and was characterized as not
significantly affecting what the Secretariat could do within its
responsibilities and role in the context of the Joint Convention
Secretariat. Adopted by consensus in the Closing Plenary.


31. TOPIC (7) CLARIFICATION OF PROCEDURES FOR REPLACING OFFICERS IF
THEY ARE UNABLE TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES. Proposal 7 recommended
amendments to the duties of the Country Group Vice-Chair and was
introduced by Mr. Koblinger. It provides changes to INFCIRC/602 to
amend the duties of the Country Group Vice-Chair so as to allow
Vice-Chair to replace the Rapporteur should he/she become
unavailable. Should the Rapporteur become unavailable to attend the
Review Meeting, the Vice-Chair of the Country Group shall be
assigned the role of Rapporteur. He further proposed the amendment
of INFCIRC/602/Rev. 2 to avoid a Vice-Chair being assigned to
country groups of which his or her country is a member.


32. TOPIC 7 RESULT: Although acknowledging Brazil's observation
that the proposal would still present some concern regarding the
perception of a replacement for Chairperson in a Country Group
reviewing that Chairperson's Contracting Party, the President
indicated that this was the best that could be done under the
circumstances, when a Chairperson is unable to perform the duties of
that office. Adopted by consensus in the Closing Plenary.

--------------
Closing Plenary

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 017 OF 037


--------------


33. The first day of the Closing Plenary heard the reports of the
six Country Group Rapporteurs. There were few questions or
comments on any reports. Interventions were primarily clarification
of points - often a translation problem. Following these reports,
upon a recommendation intervention of Switzerland, it was agreed
that all individual Rapporteur reports would be made available to
the Parties by the Secretariat.


34. The second day of the Closing Plenary agenda opened with the
report of the OEWG and actions on the recommendations to the seven
proposals. Debate among the Contracting Parties took place, as each
proposal was called out and considered.


35. The second day also considered the draft Summary Report of the
Third Meeting. Of particular note was the approval of the Dates of
the 4th Review Meeting:

May 10-11, 2011 Organizational Meeting
(12 months before Review)
October 7, 2011 National Report Deadline
(7 months before Review)
February 7, 2012 Questions and Comments
(3 months before Review)
April 7, 2012 Answers to Questions Deadline
(1 Month before Review)
May 7-16, 2012 4th Review Meeting


36. On the third day of the Closing Plenary the Contracting Parties
finished adopting the text of the Summary Report and that of the
draft President's Report.

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 018 OF 037



--------------
Other Business
--------------


37. New Contracting Party. The President informed the Contracting
Parties that Portugal had submitted its ratification credentials and
was the 49th Contracting Party.


38. Opening the Review Meetings to the Public. France proposed the
Closing Plenary Session take up a debate on opening the Review
Meetings to the public. A U.S. intervention stated the United
States agreed with the French delegate in making our National Report
public as well as the questions and answers for this Review Meeting,
which is the practice of the U.S. However, that decision should be
up to each Contracting Party. Moreover, to open the meeting would
defeat the purpose of open and free exchanges between Contracting
Parties to learn from each other and was in direct conflict with the
Joint Convention itself (Paragraph 4). The U.S. Representative
stated the United States opposes taking up time to debate on an
issue that would require a Diplomatic Conference; blocking
consensus. An intervention by Russia and Brazil supported the U.S.
The President indicated the French proposal would be included in
the President's Report.

--------------
Side Meetings
--------------


39. The U.S. Representative participated in a 30-minute press
interview, at the request of reporter Ann MacLachlan, arranged by
the UNVIE Mission press officer. The interview appeared in the May

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 019 OF 037


28, 2009 (pages 13-15) McGraw-Hill Platts publication "Nucleonics
Week." The article also included comments from a May 20, 2009 press
conference held by the three Joint Convention Officers.

--------------
Country Review Group Sessions
--------------

COUNTRY REVIEW GROUP I


40. UNITED STATES

All members of Country Group 1 were in attendance throughout
the U.S. presentation. The discussion and question session following
the presentation was very informative. During the U.S. presentation,
16 questions were raised to the United States. The U.S. delegation
was represented by ten members, comprised of representatives from
the Department of State, Department of Energy, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Christine M. Gelles, Department of Energy, led the
presentation, and other delegates assisted with responses to the
very detailed questions posed by the other Contracting Parties.


41. Many countries commented on the organization and depth of both
the U.S. National Report and the presentation. The key topics of
interest were Yucca Mountain, clearance standards, regulatory
interfaces, and Greater-than-Class-C disposal.


42. Highlights of the U.S. activities included the current status of
the Yucca Mountain repository proposal, the establishment of a "Blue
Ribbon Panel" to evaluate alternatives to the proposed Yucca
Mountain repository for management of spent fuel and high level

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 020 OF 037


radioactive waste, beginning the preparation of the
Greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) low-level waste (LLW) Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) and finalization of the final EIS in 2010,
and obtaining regulatory approval for remote-handled transuranic
(TRU) waste.


43. The good practices that were recognized included public
involvement in the decision making process including transparency,
the Global Threat Reduction Initiative which improves international
safety, and increased focused on domestic disused sealed source
tracking, collection and disposition. In addition, NRC published
regulations that implement the National Source Tracking System, the
foreign research reactor program, continued success in
remote-handled TRU waste disposal at WIPP since 2007, and active
involvement, support, and promotion of the Joint Convention.
However, a few initiatives were identified as challenges which
included: disposal of spent fuel and high level waste, GTCC LLW
disposal, and LLW Class B & C access to disposal.


44. Planned measures to improve safety in the U.S. are spent fuel
and high level waste storage and disposal, commercial LLW disposal
and the Megaports initiative to provide radiation detection
equipment and training program at key international seaports to
screen cargo containers for nuclear and other radioactive materials
and GNEP follow up.

OTHER CONTRACTING PARTIES IN COUNTRY GROUP I


45. In addition to the United States, other members of Country Group
I included: Netherlands, Croatia, Romania, Denmark, Belgium,
Uzbekistan, and Spain. Uzbekistan, a new ratifier, did not prepare
a national report and did not participate in the review meeting.

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 021 OF 037




46. Netherlands has a policy of storing its waste for 100 years
before disposal. Continuity of knowledge and competencies for this
storage period remains a challenge. There is no specific schedule
or decision date for the repository. Public acceptance for geologic
disposal remains low despite good efforts to communicate safety.
The Borssele NPP lifetime has been extended to 2033, and the storage
facility (COVRA) capacity is being extended past 2015. The Dutch
and French governments continue to work on a new agreement for
return of HLW from reprocessing, which would allow transport to
continue. A dedicated hot cell to condition and repackage HLW from
past research is under construction and expected to begin operations
by the end of 2010.


47. Croatia has made significant progress in implementation of a
regulatory framework, radioactive waste management capabilities
including disused sealed source management, and cooperation with
neighboring Slovenia (Croatia shares a nuclear power plant that is
located in Slovenia). Continued progress is expected as Croatia
completes a national waste management strategy and continues to
develop a central storage facility for its limited amount of waste.
Croatia is exploring public participation/involvement in its
activities.


48. Romania has made excellent progress since the last review
meeting. It has taken full advantage of international opportunities
for assistance and cooperation, including using existing US,
Canadian, EU, IAEA, and ASME guides and standards to inform domestic
regulation. Romania enjoys strong government support of its nuclear
program. It has an evolving public participation program - new to
all parties. Some of the continuing challenges are licensing of a
new disposal facility (Saligny),funding for dismantling a research

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 022 OF 037


reactor, and closure of uranium mill tailing ponds and
rehabilitation of sites. Improving staff resources and improving
the organizational structure continue to be challenges.


49. Denmark is showing significant progress in decommissioning
research reactors as it phases out its nuclear facilities. A final
repository for low and intermediate level waste was unanimously
endorsed by all parties, and the next challenging steps are
selection of disposal options and sites. Denmark involves all
participants in planning, and takes full advantage of international
cooperation to help maintain competence and knowledge.


50. Belgium is continuing to phase out nuclear energy. The
Belgonucleare MOX fuel fabrication plant has ceased operation and
will soon be decommissioned. A National Waste Management Plan is
expected in 2010. A decision was made to develop a LILW SL
repository. Belgium has recently modified its regulatory structure
in accordance with EU directives. A regulatory framework for
licensing of future long-term storage and disposal facilities is a
challenge. A final disposal solution for historical uranium
materials also remains as a challenge.


51. Spain has not made a decision on the final option for spent fuel
and HLW, but continues to conduct research supporting disposal,
transmutation and separations. Spain plans on a central storage
facility for spent fuel, but no community has volunteered. Interim
storage at reactors is the fall-back. For financial purposes
Spanish authorities are assuming HLW disposal site selection
beginning in 2025 leading to construction in 2041. ENRESA is
currently being converted to a public company under administration.



UNVIE VIEN 00000287 023 OF 037


COUNTRY REVIEW GROUP II


52. Country Group II was composed of Belarus, China, Estonia,
France, Lithuania, Senegal, the Slovak Republic, and South Africa.
All members were represented at the review meeting. However, Senegal
entered the Joint Convention on March 24, 2009, and did not provide
a report or presentation. Countries of the Former Soviet block,
i.e., Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, and the Slovak Republic, asserted
responsibility for nuclear waste management and remediation of
materials abandoned following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Along with other countries in Country Group II, new legislation,
regulations, and organizations have been established to manage
radioactive waste activities in a safe and transparent manner. The
lack of adequate human resources and the preservation of knowledge
is an overall concern. France plans to develop a geologic
repository to dispose of high-level radioactive waste and is
conducting geological surveys and consulting with local communities.
South Africa and China presented the results of their first
National Reports. South Africa plans to visit with U.S. agencies
this year to obtain information on managing low- level radioactive
waste sites. China continues to seek international cooperation in
strengthening its regulatory standards and guidelines for managing
radioactive waste. For the purpose of long term spent fuel
management, Lithuania will continue to store spent fuel for the next
50 years while considering a regional repository, reprocessing,
and/or a national repository. The Country Group II was informed
that the U.S. continues to support China in nuclear related areas
under a cooperative Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Technology Agreement
and had urged China to become a participant in the Joint Convention.


COUNTRY REVIEW GROUP III

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 024 OF 037




53. The Slovenian situation is unique in that the country has one
nuclear power reactor, which is shared with Croatia, even though the
site is completely within Slovenian territory. Slovenia has
sufficient room in the spent fuel pool to store all their spent fuel
assemblies for the life of the reactor operations. Authorities plan
on putting spent fuel in dry storage starting in 2037 until the
repository is in operation in 2070. Slovenia is storing all LILW
created at the NPP on-site and is running out of capacity. It is in
the final stages of siting a LILW repository, which it plans on
opening in 2013. Slovenia has completed remediation of the Jazbec
mine and expects to have the Bort mill tailings site remediated in

2010.

54. Sweden has ten operating nuclear power plants that supply 45%
of the country's electricity) and two that have been shut down due
to the anti-nuclear referendum in the country. Sweden has a
comprehensive regulatory framework in place and has made good
progress on repository projects. Their policy of transparency and
openness has contributed to a high level of acceptance by the public
of the repositories. They have an established finance system for
decommissioning and disposal that provides funding for the
implementation of the Swedish waste management system.


55. Austria has no nuclear power plants and electricity generated by
nuclear sources is not allowed by law. However, Austrian law does
not prohibit building a repository in Austria. The country's
challenges include finding a solution for the ultimate disposal of
the small amount of radioactive waste. Austria has financial
requirements/instruments in place for radioactive waste management,
but Austria prefers an international or regional solution for waste
disposal. The Austrians may need to revisit their national approach

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 025 OF 037


if no international solutions are available.


56. Euratom is a regional organization consisting of the 27 European
Union member states, all of which are members of the Joint
Convention. While it does not have any nuclear power plants of its
own, Euratom is a large producer of radioactive waste from research
activities at the Joint Research Centre's (JRC) four locations.
Decommissioning at Euratom research sites is steered by the JRC but
implemented by the member states, except for Ispra, which is
currently managed by JRC. Disused sealed sources are collected and
stored at a third-party facility. Loans by Euratom are available
both to Member States and some non-member states. Euratom has spent
287M euros over a 5-year period for dose reduction efforts.


57. Bulgaria became a Member of the EU since the last report.
Bulgaria is exporting spent fuel to Russia for reprocessing.
Currently Russia is reprocessing VVER-440 fuel, but a contract is
not in place for reprocessing of the VVER-1000 fuel. Belgium has
instituted a "Polluter Pays" policy and is collecting funds for
nuclear facility decommissioning and a radioactive waste fund.
Bulgaria instituted a state enterprise in 1994 for remediation of
its three uranium mining and milling sites.


58. The 3rd Review Meeting was the first review of a National Report
submitted by Brazil. Brazil ratified the Joint Convention just
before the second Review Meeting and too late for a review at that
time. Brazil has two operating nuclear power plants, one under
construction, and others planned in the long term. The country also
uses radioactive materials, mines uranium, and has a number of
facilities in the nuclear fuel cycle. Good practices cited were the
disposal of waste from the Goiana sealed source accident in 1987,
the decommissioning and unrestricted release of a uranium/thorium

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 026 OF 037


site with widespread contamination and subsequent redevelopment of
the site, and the recovery of sealed sources by the National Nuclear
Energy Commission (CNEN). Challenges facing the country are
establishing a long-term policy for spent fuel (whether to dispose
of or reprocess),establishing a decommissioning policy for research
reactors, siting and construction of a LILW facility, establishment
of a separate regulatory body, and establishment of a robust funding
system for all waste management liabilities. With the exception of
the Goina wastes, Brazil stores all of its LILW and spent fuel at
this time.


59. Morocco has a small nuclear materials program, consisting of a
recently-licensed TRIGA research reactor, which has not yet started
operation, as well as sealed sources that are used in medicine,
research, and industry. Spent fuel will be returned to the U.S.
until 2019, and after that will be placed in long-term storage. The
other source of radioactive waste, disused sources, are centrally
stored. Morocco has plans to create one regulatory body for both
the research reactor and sealed sources in place of the two now in
existence. Challenges include developing decommissioning and
disposal plans for LILW, establishing financial provisions to
address disposal and decommissioning, and adoption and
implementation of a new law regarding radiation protection and
nuclear safety.


60. Japan has 53 operating NPPs and 4 under construction. Japan
took steps to establish the Asian Nuclear Safety Network with
cooperation through IAEA for information sharing. Wastes from
non-nuclear power plants are managed by a different regulator than
similar radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. The Japanese
are in the early stages of discussions with locales on a disposal
facility for the radioactive waste from non-nuclear power plants,

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 027 OF 037


but already have a disposal facility for radioactive waste from
their NPPs at Rokkasho.

COUNTRY REVIEW GROUP IV


61. United Kingdom has confirmed the use of the nuclear power
option. The UK's waste management policy is based on geologic
disposal. The regulatory organizations have recently been
reorganized. Obtaining additional expert waste management staff has
been a challenge. A site selection process for a geologic
repository is proceeding based of partnership with volunteer
communities. Three local authorities have expressed interest in
hosting a facility. Nine nuclear power reactors and 4 research
facilities will soon be undergoing decommissioning, generating large
volumes of low-level radioactive waste. Expansion of LLW disposal
capacity is planned.


62. This was Nigeria's first participation in the Joint Convention.
An independent regulatory body has been established. Additional
legislation and regulations for waste management are under
development. Additional regulatory staff is being trained on
radioactive waste management. There are currently no nuclear power
plants (NPP),but a decision has been made to operate a NPP by 2017.
The U.S. Department of Energy has provided assistance on the
disposition of unused radioactive sources. There are over 1,000
abandoned mine tailing sites with high thorium content in the
Central Plateau region, which need to be remediated.


63. Greece has no nuclear power plants. A small research reactor is
no longer in operation. There are no radioactive waste disposal
facilities in Greece, nor any intent to develop any. Sealed sources
are returned to the country of origin. Spent fuel from the research

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 028 OF 037


reactor is returned to the United States. Other waste is stored for
decay. Greece hopes to rely on a regional or bilateral facility for
eventual disposition of wastes, which will not decay to release
levels. However, there are no plans for such a facility and no
discussions have been initiated with other countries.


64. Argentina has two operating nuclear power plants and one in
construction. It has complete fuel cycle facilities - mining
through fuel element manufacture. It manufactures and exports
sealed sources. However, it will not accept import to return sealed
sources unless they are for reuse. No disposal facilities for
radioactive waste disposal are currently in operation. It is in the
process of establishing new storage facilities for spent fuel and
new disposal facilities for low-level waste. Research and
development activities on a deep geologic repository are planned.


65. Luxembourg has no nuclear power plant or any other facility
generating radioactive material. Radioactive wastes come from
medical applications and use of radioactive sources. There is a
completely developed regulatory organization and legislative and
regulatory framework. Waste is stored for decay. The small
quantities of waste which require disposal are transferred to
Belgium for disposal under an agreement.


66. The Czech Republic has six nuclear power reactors and three
research reactors. There is a completely developed regulatory
structure. It has spent fuel storage facilities and operational
low-level waste disposal facilities. Reconstruction of a disposal
chamber at the Bratstvi repository is planned. Investigation of
seven potential deep geologic repository sites is scheduled to start
in 2010, with the choice limited to at least two sites in 2015. The
commissioning of the deep geologic repository is planned for 2065.

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 029 OF 037





67. Ukraine has 15 operational nuclear power plants. At Chernobyl
the destroyed NPP has been covered with a shelter facility and the
other three units are permanently shut down. Eight urgent measures
to stabilize the shelter have been completed and the stabilization
project is complete. A contract has been issued for design and
construction of a New Safe Confinement. Spent fuel is reprocessed
abroad or in interim storage. Low-level waste is currently in
storage, but the first three disposal facilities at the Vector
Complex have been constructed and the license application is under
review.


68. Australia is a federation of six states and two territories,
each regulating radioactive materials. Progress continues to be
made in harmonizing the regulation of radioactive materials use in
these independent entities. The country has three research reactors
(one operating and two in decommissioning),uranium mines, and
sealed sources that are used in medicine, research, and industry.
Developments in uranium mining include the approval of remediation
funding for one existing mine, and the expansion of uranium mining,
including the fact that the new state government in Western
Australia has a policy to allow uranium mining. In general,
licensees are responsible for storing their waste. There is limited
storage by governments, however (the Commonwealth, e.g. has a
storage facility). Australia recognizes the need for a national
disposal facility and is committed to selecting a site before the
next national election, or before the end of 2010.

COUNTRY REVIEW GROUP V


69. Country Group V was composed of Italy, Iceland, Republic of

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 030 OF 037


Korea, Latvia, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, and Uruguay. Uruguay
submitted a National Report but did not attend this Review Meeting.
A number of these countries have recently enacted legislation to
update the legal and regulatory infrastructure directly affecting
the means and reporting for the Joint Convention. Korea, Italy, and
Germany are experiencing the effects the expected shakedown process
of dealing with the implementation of the revised system. Although
most of the countries are having a contentious process in selecting
and siting potential radioactive waste disposal repositories,
Germany is faced with remediation and possible refurbishment of its
three current repositories. Many of these countries have made
significant commitments to involving the localities and the public.
Italy and Korea have provided the public a more formal role in the
selection and siting process. For the purpose of long term
radioactive waste management, centralized storage for radioactive
waste or spent fuel seems to be the realistic path for most or the
participating Contracting Parties, although eventual disposal is
still maintained to be the most reliable disposition for radioactive
waste. The smaller countries in the Country Group, Iceland, Norway,
and Latvia, have no nuclear power plants; the current global
economic situation has led to some realistic strategies to optimize
their resources, they still indicated that there are continuing
funding challenges.

COUNTRY REVIEW GROUP VI


70. Country Group VI consisted of Canada, Finland, Hungary, Ireland,
the Kyrgyz Republic, Poland, Russia, and Tajikistan. The Republic
of Kyrgyz and Tajikistan became Contracting Parties after the Second
Review Meeting. The Republic of Kyrgyz did not prepare a National
Report and did not attend or give a presentation at the Third Review
Meeting. Tajikistan also did not give a presentation and did not

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 031 OF 037


attend the meeting; however, the rapporteur prepared a report based
on the National Report. The report emphasized Tajikistan's efforts
to address the legacy of uranium mining and milling, as well as the
tracking and collection of disused sealed sources.


71. Russia's presentation highlighted the extensive legal framework
being established for its spent fuel and radioactive waste
management program; since the Second Review Meeting, Russia has
passed or drafted several laws, transferred its regulatory body
(Rostechnadzor) to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment, and combined the Federal Atomic Energy
Agency with other organizations involved in nuclear applications
into a state corporation charged with control of atomic energy
(Rosatom). Discussions during the Third Review Meeting focused on
the relationship of these government bodies and the continuing
practice of injection of liquid radioactive wastes into deep
geologic formations.


72. Ireland is a non-nuclear country whose primary radioactive waste
is disused sealed sources from the medical, education, and
industrial sectors. The most pressing issue, which was the subject
of several questions, is the near-term development of long-term
centralized storage and a high-level group convened by the
government to examine alternative strategies, including disposal.


73. Finland described its extensive program to manage radioactive
wastes from all sources, including efforts to develop geologic
disposal of spent nuclear fuel, for which a license application is
expected in 2012. Finland's public participation process is
especially noteworthy in leading to community acceptance of the
existing and planned disposal facilities.


UNVIE VIEN 00000287 032 OF 037



74. Poland identified several major efforts underway, the most
significant of which is a government decision in January 2009 to
develop a nuclear power program, with the goal of at least two
plants operating by 2030. This will require development of
expertise by both regulators and operators that do not exist at
present.


75. Hungary is taking action on multiple fronts, including upgrading
its spent fuel storage, refurbishing its current near-surface
low-level waste disposal facility, constructing a new low- and
intermediate-level waste disposal facility, investigating sites for
a geologic repository for spent fuel, and remediating uranium mining
and milling facilities. Hungary was especially commended for its
extensive and effective public involvement programs leading to
community acceptance for the new LILW disposal facility.


76. Canada has made progress in several areas since the second
Review Meeting, most notably in the government's adoption of an
Adaptive Phased Management (APM) strategy for long-term management
of spent fuel from nuclear power plants. Canada's emphasis on
public consultation and community-based solutions is a central
element of the APM strategy.


77. Items of particular U.S. interest in Group 6 include:

- Ireland possesses a sub-critical uranium fuel assembly, which was
provided by the U.S. under the "Atoms for Peace" program. The
assembly is currently in secure storage and is subject to IAEA
inspection, but Ireland desires to have it removed. To this point,
no agreement has been reached to have the U.S. take possession of
the fuel.
- Tajikistan faces issues that appear to be common to many former

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 033 OF 037


Soviet republics in addressing legacy issues. Specifically,
Tajikistan noted in its National Report that many records from the
former uranium mining and milling sites were apparently taken back
to Russia by the site operators. The government believes these
records would be useful in characterizing the extent of
environmental contamination, but Tajikistan has, thus far, been
unable to obtain them. Tajikistan also has many sealed sources of
Soviet origin, including Radioisotope Thermal Generators (RTGs),
which it is attempting to return to Russia.
- Canada is developing a geologic disposal facility for low- and
intermediate-level waste from Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in
Kincardine, which is roughly 1.5 kilometres from Lake Huron. This
planned repository has prompted notice from members of the U.S.
Congress.
- Several countries highlighted assistance from the U.S. on
important issues related to safety and security of spent fuel and
radioactive waste management:

o Tajikistan is receiving assistance from NRC, DOE, and Sandia
National Laboratory in tracking and controlling sealed sources, as
well as in upgrading its existing waste management facility;

o Poland has received assistance through the Global Threat Reduction
Initiative in converting the Maria research reactor to the use of
low-enriched uranium fuel and in the disposal of HEU fuel from Maria
and the EWA research reactor within the scope of agreements with
Russia to take Soviet-origin research reactor spent fuel. (Poland is
also a signatory to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership).

o Hungary received assistance through a joint IAEA-U.S. effort to
reach agreement with Russia to take back highly-enriched
Soviet-origin research reactor fuel. The first shipment was in

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 034 OF 037


September 2008 following negotiations and preparation beginning in
2004; additional shipments of fresh HEU fuel are planned in 2009,
with shipments of spent HEU fuel scheduled for 2012.

o Russia is involved in partnerships with the U.S. and IAEA to
assist former Soviet republics in tracking, controlling, and
managing sealed sources (seven former republics have benefited from
this program); and

o Finland has received technical advice from U.S. experts in
developing its program for geologic disposal of spent fuel.

--------------
Reports of Country Group Rapporteurs
--------------


78. All Contracting Parties (CP) of CG 1 satisfied the obligations
under the Joint Convention. This country group found that the
process is working and provides
a constructive exchange. The Review Meeting process is improving,
allowing progress to be made with a noted increase in global safety.



79. The CG 2 identified several common issues: legal and management
infrastructures are in place for SF and RW management; including
independent regulatory bodies; CPs have identified responsible
organizations in charge of SF and RW; several CPs identified the
need to maintain and expand the knowledge and human resources; waste
classification is in place, but varies between CPs; all CPs have
recognized the need to solve the issue of legacy waste; several have
already initiated actions; CPs have decommissioning plans in place
where appropriate; disused sealed sources are a common concern to

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 035 OF 037


all CP's, and most of them have established a management plan; all
CPs recognize the importance of international cooperation; all CPs
are considering deep geological disposal for SF, HLW and, in some
cases, for LL-LILW; several CPs highlighted their policy of waste
minimization at source, and progress has been made in funding of RW
management, but CPs remain aware of the need to continue to pay
special attention to the subject.


80. The CG 3 noted that CPs have made significant progress since the
last Review Meeting both in the enhancement of safety of SF and
radioactive waste management. Nevertheless, much needs to be done
to achieve appropriate long-term solutions for SF and RW. CG 3 also
found most countries have a strong legislative and regulatory system
is already in place, although further improvements are planned in
some countries. Many CPs have adopted IAEA Safety Standards as a
basis for their own regulatory system. Most CPs have taken steps to
ensure the financing of liabilities from nuclear power generation
and other nuclear applications. Some needs for further action are
recognized. The main challenge remains the siting, construction,
and operation of SF and RW repositories. Regarding SF, the first
repository is currently planned to be available in the early 2020s.
For the disposal of LILW different options are considered. In most
cases, near-surface repositories or repositories at intermediate
depth are either already in operation or in the planning stage. Two
CPs in the group are interested in international or regional
solutions for SF or RW disposal. For CPs with no nuclear power
program, the final management of institutional RW wastes, including
disused sealed sources could be a major challenge. The assurance of
human resources and maintaining know-how has generally been
recognized as a challenging issue. Some CPs are increasing efforts
to recruit and train qualified staff. International information
exchange should be enhanced, especially to promote the transfer of

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 036 OF 037


knowledge between countries with advanced nuclear programs and
countries with no or only small nuclear programs. The experiences
of CG 3 demonstrate the value of the review process to CPs with
nuclear programs of all sizes and levels of complexity. CPs should
promote the benefits of the Joint Convention Review Process to other
countries and encourage them to become CPs.


81. The CG 4 found significant progress in the safety of SF and RW
management has been achieved since the Second Review Meeting, in
particular in the management of disused and orphan sources.
International cooperation and IAEA Safety Standards are playing an
important role (direct reference, incorporation in legislation,
benchmarking). CPs recognize the strong commitment of regulatory
authorities to self-assessments and peer reviews (IRRS missions).
Promoting the Joint Convention is on ongoing challenge. Nigeria and
Australia are good models of CPs committed to the promotion of the
Joint Convention within their regions. IAEA should continue its
support of such efforts.


82. The CG 5 found most CPs have defined a national action plan for
SF and RW management, and substantial progress is visible in
implementation of the plan.
Interim storage is an established and widespread predisposal
practice. The site selection process of repositories remains a
major challenge, in particular due to social-political factors,
while ad hoc Committees (local, regional or national) may facilitate
the process. Transparent processes and public participation are
key to a successful program implementation.


83. The CG 6 CPs are still developing regulatory framework for RW
and SF management - although at different stages. Application of
similar principles occurs with operators, licensees and other RW and

UNVIE VIEN 00000287 037 OF 037


SF management organizations. Recruitment and education of qualified
new people to replace aging people remains an issue in some CPs.
The importance of public involvement was highlighted. IAEA safety
standards are generally followed.