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.