IAEA RESPONSE TO USG PROPOSAL TO FORMALIZE NUCLEAR SECURITY

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000387 SENSITIVE SIPDIS State for IO/T, ISN/MNSA, ISN/NESS NRC FOR OIP - Nfragoyannis/Jholzman NA-243-RGoorevich, Mrupa, JHill; NA-212-IIliopulos, ACuthbertson; NA-25-DHuizenga, MBarlow; NA-46-VMcClelland DHS FOR DNDO - MWittrock DOD FOR OSD - Aprible JCS-JMiller E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: IAEA KNNP TRGY AFIN ABUD AORC SUBJECT: IAEA RESPONSE TO USG PROPOSAL TO FORMALIZE NUCLEAR SECURITY PROGRAM REVIEW AND PLANNING MEETINGS Reference: State 062491 -------------- Summary -------------- ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: The IAEA's Office of Nuclear Security (ONS)has accepted a USG proposal to formalize annual USG-IAEA/ONS nuclear security program review and planning meetings. ONS indicated that ONS top management would be available to participate in the first such meeting in October 2009, in Washington, D.C. In response to USG desire for full ONS management participation in the annual meetings, ONS suggested that some portion of the meeting could be conducted instead via video conference with ONS section heads and other appropriate ONS personnel. USG rep indicated the U.S. would develop a draft proposed agenda for the first annual meeting for ONS consideration. End Summary. -------------- Agreement on a Meeting -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Officials from ONS, DOS, NSA and UNVIE convened July 31 to discuss ONS response to setting up formalized USG-IAEA Nuclear Security Program Review and planning meetings in a manner that parallels, as appropriate, the existing annual USG-IAEA safeguards meetings (reftel). Janette Hill (NNSA) noted the USG preference to hold annual meetings in the June-July timeframe so as to allow USG nuclear security program managers to make funding requests and decisions based in part on data gathered from the meeting. ¶3. (SBU) Tim Andrews (ONS) supported the proposal and stated their wish to establish this structure as soon as possible. The USG reps and Andrews recognized that the June-July timeframe for the first meeting was not viable, and Andrews suggested that sometime after the General Conference would be the best time for the first meeting. When asked to specify potential dates, he stated that currently, the weeks of 5, 19 and 26 October were available. ¶4. (SBU) As for future annual meetings, Andrews noted that meetings in the June-July timeframe would be possible but the likelihood is that ONS does not complete its planning for the coming year until after the General Conference so some discussions might be limited. Andrews noted that ONS would be able to provide the USG with a clearer picture of ONS activities planned for the following year, particularly the training program, if future annual meetings were also held after the General Conference. No specific decision was made with regard to the timing of these meetings. ¶5. (SBU) Hill asked which ONS staff would attend consultations in Washington. Andrew replied that given the constraints under which ONS is operating at the moment (i.e., reduced staff travel requirements, budget, and need to keep some managers in the office), ONS would only be sending Anita Nilsson and himself. Andrews suggested that the USG consider using video conferencing for some portion of the meeting so as to allow ONS sections heads to participate. One suggestion is to have a plenary discussion in Washington, supplemented by video conferences for the respective technical level discussions. ¶6. (SBU) Andrews also mentioned that Nilsson would like to arrange some side consultations on the margins of the first meeting, and noted as examples a meeting with UNSCR 1540 Coordinator Tom Wuchte and follow-up meetings as necessary on the U.S. Nuclear Security Summit arrangements. -------------- Next Steps -------------- ¶7. (SBU) It was agreed that the next step will be for NNSA rep Hill to draft a proposed agenda for circulation among the interagency and ONS, and provide a response to ONS' proposed October dates.