IAEA/BOG: September Board Preview and Analysis

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000397 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR IO/T, ISN/MNSA, ISN/RA NRC FOR OIP - DOANE DOE FOR NA-243-GOOREVICH/OEHLBERT, BRUNNS, NA-241 O'CONNOR,SIEMON; NA-21- CUMMINS, ILIOPULOS; NE- MCGINNIS, PERKO, CLAPPER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: AORC KNNP IAEA ENRG TRGY SUBJECT: IAEA/BOG: September Board Preview and Analysis Ref: a) UNVIE 377 b) STATE 76708 c) STATE 80019 d) STATE 83455 e) STATE 85122 f) UNVIE 301 -------------- Summary -------------- ¶1. (SBU) The traditional focus of the September 7-11 Board of Governors meeting is preparation for the IAEA General Conference (GC) the following week. The Board approves DG reports in core programmatic areas: nuclear safety, security and nuclear applications. However, we expect this will largely be "the Iran Board" with deliberations on Iran anticipated to overshadow the rest of the agenda, especially given Iran's eleventh-hour gambit to be seen as cooperating with technical safeguards requirements it had been shirking, and given the timing of the Board just before the September P5+1 stock-taking exercise on the margins of the UNGA. In addition, consideration of the DG's report on Middle East Safeguards will help set the stage for the contentious GC debate on that issue. Although assured supply of nuclear fuel has once again been relegated to "Any Other Business" (after being a formal agenda item in June),USDEL will use this Board discussion as a further opportunity to address G-77 concerns and steer the fuel banks issue. Our primary objectives for this Board session will be to: -- Spotlight Iran's repeated failures to comply with its obligations, including with respect to possible military dimensions, and consign any last-minute Iranian gestures toward the IAEA to their proper context. -- Use the debate on the Nuclear Security Plan to highlight nuclear security as a core IAEA function in furtherance of President Obama's goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear material within four years. -- Advance practical dialogue with the G-77 on fuel banks. -- Continue to focus on the Syria investigation as an issue affecting the credibility of the NPT and IAEA safeguards. Iran and Syria will be previewed septel upon the issuance of the respective DG reports. We expect only a formulaic Board debate on DPRK given the lack of new developments, as previewed ref a. All other agenda items are covered below. End Summary. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 1: DG's Introductory Statement -------------- -------------- ¶2. (SBU) The Director General's statement will cover all issues on the agenda and frame the Iran report. We have been told that ElBaradei plans to use his General Conference opening address for a major overview of global issues, and expect the Board remarks to be comparatively low-key. USDEL will be particularly attuned to how the DG characterizes Iranian cooperation and what emphasis he gives issues related to possible military dimensions. In the aftermath of recent budget discussions, constructive comments by the Director General on the importance of nuclear security could reinforce this as a core IAEA function. Although fuel banks are not on the agenda, whether and how much ElBaradei engages this issue in his penultimate statement to the Board (and his remarks to the GC the following week) will be indicative of how much he still views it as part of his "legacy." Lastly, ElBaradei may wade into the Middle East Safeguards issue and refer to his proposal to convene a Forum after the General Conference, noting that Egypt has accepted the revised agenda (thus implying that Israel is the stumbling block.) No U.S. statement is necessary or appropriate. USDEL should address these issues under the corresponding agenda item. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 2: Applications for Membership -------------- -------------- ¶3. (U) The IAEA Secretariat does not expect any applications for membership and this item is likely to be dropped from the agenda. Mission will advise if any applications are received prior to the Board. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 3: Nuclear Safety -------------- -------------- ¶4. (U) The Board is asked to take note of the report by the Director General, "Measures to strengthen international cooperation in nuclear, radiation, transport and waste safety". (GOV/2009/48) The report, issued pursuant to last year's GC safety resolution, is an update of the IAEA's safety-related activities. ¶5. (U) Recommendation and Action Request: The U.S. should join consensus in taking note of GOV/2009/48 and make a strong statement highlighting the following important areas of IAEA activity: -- Opening by Ambassador: The safety statement is the first U.S. statement on the agenda and will be the first time Ambassador Davies speaks to the Board in his official capacity. The remarks therefore should open with an introduction and a personal statement from the Ambassador concerning his new position and the direction given to him by the Obama administration. --Conventions: The U.S. should congratulate the IAEA for hosting the third review meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. The Joint Convention review process is a crucial mechanism for recognizing and disseminating best practices. The U.S. should encourage all nations planning or currently operating nuclear energy programs to ratify the entire range of nuclear safety instruments. --Nuclear Liability: The U.S. should stress the importance of the global nuclear liability regime, and remind member states of the DG's recent exhortation "to give due consideration to adhering to the CSC". Universal membership of the CSC will send a clear, confidence-building signal about responsible use of nuclear energy. (The U.S. should also recognize a strong liability regime as a foundational underpinning of any proposal for the reliable access to nuclear fuel.) -- New Entrant Countries: Countries using nuclear power for the first time will comprise a significant portion of nuclear industry growth in the near future. These countries must be supported and encouraged to develop strong safety infrastructures. The U.S. should stress that countries developing nuclear power must have a strong independent regulator and that this regulatory body must be set up and functioning early in the process. Regulatory infrastructures should not be limited to nuclear power generation, but should apply to the safety and security of all nuclear material used in the country. The U.S. should encourage the IAEA to continue and expand its capacity-building and review services. Programs such as Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) missions and the Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) are critical to ensuring safety standards compliance. -- Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources: The U.S. should note that successful implementation of safety and security regimes will require an integrated approach. To this end, U.S. should welcome the IAEA's use of a mobile hot cell to remove disused high activity sources and process them locally. -- Safety in Uranium Mining: The U.S. should complement the IAEA on the development of Uranium Production Site Appraisal Team (UPSAT) review missions. This service helps Member States plan their mining programs in a safe and environmentally friendly way. -- Emergency Preparedness: In the unlikely event of a radiological emergency, the IAEA has developed the capacity to quickly marshal specialized response resources from around the world. The U.S. should note the coordination role of the IAEA Incident and Emergency Centre (IEC) and encourage states to register their capabilities with the Response Assistance Network (RANET). -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 4: Nuclear Security -------------- -------------- ¶6. (U) The Board will have before it two documents: the Nuclear Security Report 2009 (GOV/2009/53) and the Nuclear Security Plan 2010-1013 (GOV/2009/54). The Board will also review a third, much longer document intended for publication on the internet, titled, "Implementation of the IAEA Nuclear Security Plan 2006-2009: Progress Report". ¶7. (U) The Secretariat has worked hard to ensure there is no overlap between the three documents, shortening the 2009 Nuclear Security Report by two-thirds and shifting the focus of the Nuclear Security Plan 2010-2013 away from scene-setting information. Much of the background, judgments, and cooperative activities pruned from these two reports will be subsumed in the longer internet publication. In particular, the internet publication will contain references to initiatives such as the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT) and World Institute for Nuclear Security (WINS), which were previously removed from the Nuclear Security Plan at the behest of strong-minded Member States. The fact that this longer document will be posted to the internet rather than formally approved by the Board allows the Agency to use more discretionary language. ¶8. (SBU) All three documents reflect sensitivities about the role of nuclear security at the Agency. For example, countries that receive security training and equipment are often only identified by region, if at all. This practice impedes Agency efforts to achieve general acceptance of the nuclear security culture. Washington should consider using the U.S. statement to invite all States to openly share their experiences with the IAEA's Office of Nuclear Security and embrace the benefits that a transparent and cooperative security culture can bring to all Member States. ¶9. (SBU) Recommendation and Action Request: The U.S. should join consensus in welcoming and taking note of these reports, transmitting them to the GC with a recommendation that Member States contribute to the Nuclear Security Fund (NSF). The U.S. should also support adherence to the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) and urge States to participate in the Illicit Trafficking Database Programme (ITDB). (Note: The U.S. is a signatory to the CPPNM but not the Amendment. End Note.) USDEL should make a strong statement underlining the importance of security programs and highlighting the following activities: -- Physical Protection: The U.S. should support progress on the fifth revision of INFCIRC 225. Revision five will greatly increase the international community's ability to interpret, develop, and implement a physical protection regime. -- Security Culture: Institutionalizing security best practices stems from a strong security culture. The U.S. should continue to support education and training programs, Integrated Nuclear Security Support Plans (INSSPs),and nuclear security missions. -- Border Controls and Coordination: The U.S. should strongly support agency work on border monitoring systems and encourage member states to join coalitions such as GICNT. States should make full use of the Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB). -- Waste Repatriation: U.S. should stress the importance of accounting for all nuclear materials and highlight the work of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI). In particular, U.S. should note a 2009 contribution was recently increased to a total of USD 7 million toward the clean-up and repatriation of spent fuel stored at the Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences. -- Budget: The U.S. statement should welcome the 3.1 million Euros in regular budget funding allocated to the Office of Nuclear Security for 2010. Despite this progress, there are indications that voluntary funds may be in decline. While the U.S. should welcome stability for nuclear security through regular budget funding, we should recognize that nuclear security is a large program, and the demands for services far exceed current funding. -- Nuclear Security Summit: The U.S. statement should preview the March 2010 Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, D.C. and the preparatory meetings during the IAEA General Conference in September. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 5: Nuclear Applications -------------- -------------- ¶10. (U) The Board is asked to take note of a report by the Director General, "Strengthening the Agency's Activities related to Nuclear Science, Technology, and Applications" (GOV/2009/49),and authorize the Director General to submit it to the GC. This document is a compilation of eight annexes, the first four of which provide updates on the IAEA's work in non-power applications of nuclear energy, including insect pest management, cancer therapy, isotope hydrology, and environmental protection. The African Union's Pan African Tsetse and Trypanosomosis Eradication Campaign (AU-PATTEC) reported progress on the six "list-I" countries' projects and continues to develop and disseminate SIT technology. The Programme of Action for Cancer Therapy (PACT) stressed its support of cancer-control capacity building and has set a five year goal of delivering concrete benefits to patients. In isotope hydrology, the IAEA continues to raise awareness and develop new techniques. The agency also underlined its role in combating climate change, citing its recent document "Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2008" and its attendance at the Commission on Sustainable Development. ¶11. (U) Regarding nuclear power applications, the report provides an overview of the IAEA's activities in the areas of nuclear energy, potable water production using nuclear reactors, infrastructure development, Small and Medium-sized Reactors (SMRs) development and deployment, and activities under the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO). The report notes that the Agency has revised high and low projections upwards in 2009. The IAEA projects that 10 new countries will operate nuclear power plants by 2020 and additional 15 countries will do so by 2030. In the last three years, the number of Member States requesting Agency's assistance and considering introduction of nuclear power has grown to more than 60. Among key events and activities, the report notes the April 2009 Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Energy in Beijing. The IAEA also released special publication, Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2008. ¶12. (U) Regarding INPRO, the report notes that INPRO structures have been streamlined to increase flexibility and activities were consolidated into five major areas, which form the basis for action plan for 2010-2011. Since the 52nd GC, the Agency published two documents in 2009: "Lessons Learned from Nuclear Energy System Assessments (NESA) using the INPRO Methodology" and "Common User Considerations (CUC) by Developing Countries for Future Nuclear Energy Systems: Report of Stage 1." ¶13. (U) In the area of infrastructure development, the IAEA formed the Nuclear Power Support Group (NPSG) to facilitate cross-developmental coordination. In late 2008, the Agency published "Evaluation of the Status of National Nuclear Infrastructure Development" which is closely related to the "Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure Development for Nuclear Power" published in 2007. The Agency also created a new service, "Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR)" Missions. INIR missions are IAEA-coordinated peer reviews conducted by teams of international experts on the basis of Evaluation of the Status of National Nuclear Infrastructure Development. They are intended to help a country identify gaps between milestones and the current level of development of nuclear programs. Finally, the report notes that the IAEA continues to encourage the development and deployment of safe, secure, economically viable and proliferation resistant SMRs to interested developing countries. ¶14. (U) Recommendation and Action Request: The U.S. should join consensus in authorizing the DG to submit GOV/2009/49 to the GC. USDEL should deliver a strong statement highlighting our support for IAEA assistance to developing countries on nuclear techniques, in particular, highly successful programs such as PACT. The IAEA should be encouraged to foster meaningful partnerships in these areas which leverage its unique capabilities. The U.S. statement should highlight nuclear energy as a clean, safe and competitive technology that makes important contributions to sustainable energy development, health, prosperity, and climate change. The U.S. statement should welcome the formation of the Nuclear Power Support Group to facilitate internal and external coordination and support INIR missions, which will give positive and constructive feedback to countries embarking on nuclear power. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 6a: Safeguards Agreements and APs -------------- -------------- ¶15. (U) The Board will be asked to approve a Safeguards Agreement (GOV/2009/60) and Additional Protocol (AP) (GOV/2009/61) with the Republic of Congo and an Additional Protocol with the Republic of Vanuatu (GOV/2009/47). Mission will advise if any other agreements are submitted prior to the Board meeting. Recommendation and Action Request: Mission recommends that USDEL join consensus in approving any safeguards agreements or Additional Protocols that conform with the models. USDEL may deliver a brief optional statement in support of universalization of the Additional Protocol and noting the entry into force of the U.S. AP. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 6b: Agency Staff as Inspectors -------------- -------------- ¶16. (U) The Board will be asked to approve the designation of Agency staff as safeguards inspectors, some of whom will be new staff and others existing staff taking on inspection responsibilities. Mission will provide the relevant curriculum vitae of the individuals to Washington agencies for appropriate background checks. As the United States agreed to the modified designation procedure, the individuals will be automatically designated 60 days after the Board meeting unless we raise an objection. No action is required at this Board meeting. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 7a: Middle East Safeguards -------------- -------------- ¶17. (SBU) The Board will take note of the Director General's annual report on the "Application of Safeguards in the Middle East" (GOV/2009/44) prepared pursuant to the 2008 GC Middle East Safeguards (MES) resolution (GC(52)/RES/15.) The structure of this year's report differs markedly from previous years in selectively citing paragraphs of the 2008 MES resolution. The most glaring omission is the Israeli-authored amendment on compliance, which "Calls upon all States in the region of the Middle East to comply with their international obligations relating to safeguards and to cooperate fully with the IAEA." Since the resolution requests the Director General to report on "implementation of this resolution," compliance should have been addressed. The only reference to compliance in the report relates to regional mechanisms in other NWFZs. Appended to the report are the Secretariat's proposal to hold a Forum on September 23-25 and the revised agenda, along with responses received from Egypt and Israel. Egypt indicates its preliminary acceptance of the revised agenda (which incorporates its requested revisions) and trumpets its flexibility. In so doing, Egypt will likely seek to portray Israel as the recalcitrant party in blocking the Forum. In its response, Israel supports the 2004 Forum agenda and objects to the deletion of references to the Forum not being "a forum for negotiation" and the experience of other NWFZs, as well as to the proposed date. Israel's response also highlights compliance and underlines a consensual outcome on Middle East issues in the General Conference as "indispensible." Despite the failure to agree on the agenda, the DG report is more forward-leaning than previous reports in citing "a convergence of views" on convening a Forum. It notes that the DG will continue consultations with a view to holding a Forum as soon as practicable. ¶18. (SBU) Recommendation and Action Request: USDEL should be prepared to deliver a statement seconding the view that compliance, as called for in the 2008 MES text, is a necessary element for a Middle East NWFZ. The U.S. statement should deflect likely Arab Group efforts to ascribe blame to Israel. However, the emphasis of any U.S. statement should be on finding consensus and common ground on Middle East issues in the General Conference. USDEL should have flexibility as to delivering this statement, in particular, if it would be counterproductive in the context of ongoing negotiations for a new consensus approach on the Middle East in the General Conference. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 7b: Personnel Matters -------------- -------------- ¶19. (U) The Board will have before it two documents: Staffing of the Agency's Secretariat (GOV/2009/14) and Women in the Secretariat (GOV/2009/15). The first document is a candid assessment of the IAEA's challenges on the personnel front, including the important notification that 44 percent of regular posts will become vacant between now and 2016. The Agency's rotation policy, mandatory retirement age and highly specialized work all contribute to the looming problem of vacancies. The Secretariat rightly views this challenge as a potential opportunity for improving overall excellence of staff through the recruitment process. The U.S. welcomes the Secretariat's expansion of long-term recruitment programs, such as the Junior Professional Officer (JPO),Fellowship, and Intern programs. More immediately, the Secretariat needs to speed up the hiring process to improve its reputation as an elite employer. That said, the problem sometimes has more to do with the slow-paced style of individual managers than bureaucratic processes. The situation of Americans employed at the IAEA has improved incrementally but we are still underrepresented: Out of 782 regular staff members in the professional and higher categories, the IAEA employs 91 Americans. This represents only 11.6 percent, a proportion less than half of out 25 percent assessed contribution. ¶20. (SBU) The Agency deserves credit for the genuine efforts exerted to promote and recruit women in a field where they are traditionally underrepresented. The Secretariat has taken a creative and aggressive approach and the issue has received the public, high-level attention of DDG David Waller. U.S. Mission has assigned a "Point of Contact" for womens' issues per the Secretariat's recommendation, and encourages other Missions to do the same. ¶21. (SBU) Recommendation and Action Request: The United States should join consensus in taking note of these reports and recommending their submission to the General Conference. Statements are welcome, particular on item (i). -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 8: Tribute to Director General -------------- -------------- ¶22. (U) The Board is asked to recommend a "Tribute to Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei" resolution to the General Conference. This hortatory resolution recognizes ElBaradei's contributions, recalling the award of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize to the IAEA and Director General, and confers on ElBaradei the title "Director General Emeritus of the International Atomic Energy Agency." Previous DGs Eklund (in 1981) and Blix (in 1997) also received the title. ¶23. (SBU) Recommendation and Action Request: USDEL should join consensus on recommending the resolution to the GC and may deliver a short optional statement expressing appreciation for the Director General's service to the IAEA, should other delegations do the same. -------------- AOB: Assured Supply of Nuclear Fuel -------------- ¶24. (SBU) Mission is supporting the outreach and "listening campaign" instituted through instructions (refs b-e). IAEA Secretariat confirmed August 13 that its paper commenting on the issues raised in the June Board discussion under "Assurance of Supply" (ref f) would be released in time for discussion at the September board. We requested of the Secretariat that the paper be indicated as a topic of discussion by inclusion of a tick with its title and document number under the AOB entry in a revised agenda. Mission has encouraged supportive parties - Philippines, Kuwait, U.A.E., UK, EU Presidency Sweden - to endorse this procedural step. We were told by the Secretariat a UK paper on the UK/URENCO concept for guaranteed export licensing as an assurance of supply will be so noted on the agenda. ¶25. (SBU) USDEL should have a prepared statement on this topic, which may draw on the themes and talking points in refs b-e and could state, inter alia: -- practical means by which fuel assurance mechanisms would help increase access to civil nuclear power by lowering the cost, liability, and technical hurdles to be overcome in a nation's planning and progress toward operating safe, reliable nuclear power plants; -- U.S. thoughts on political triggering scenarios - partially in reply to the sanctions issue raised by Brazil in the June Board (ref f, para 25) and question from Argentina in bilateral civil nuclear talks two weeks later; -- U.S. interest in hearing from leading nuclear states among the G-77 and intending nuclear newcomers about implementation issues of concern to them and their proposed solutions; and -- that commercial and state-to-state transfers of low enriched uranium (LEU) occur under a prevailing regime of supplier-state national nonproliferation laws and regulations. Consistent with Statue Article IX C., criteria for transfer of LEU from an IAEA-administered "last resort" mechanism should respect and not circumvent Member State laws. -- that the Russian proposal, in particular, appears ready for formal consideration and should be presented to the Board as a decision item as soon as possible. PYATT