IAEA/U.S. SAFEGUARDS: IMPLEMENTATION OF U.S.

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000059 SIPDIS STATE FOR IO/T GOLDSTEIN; ISN/MNSA: ADAMS/COCKERHAM; CA/VO DOE FOR NA-20; NA-24-243 OSD FOR GROSS NSC FOR CONNERY NRC FOR OIP: HENDERSON E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ENGR IAEA KNNP CVIS TRGY SUBJECT: IAEA/U.S. SAFEGUARDS: IMPLEMENTATION OF U.S. ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL, U.S. VISAS REF: A. 07 UNVIE VIENNA 0665 ¶B. STATE 7490 ¶C. CONNERY/GROSS/HILLIARD EMAIL EXCHANGES 5 AND 6 FEB 2009 ¶1. (SBU) IAEA Safeguards Department Operations B Director Herman Nackaerts and Section Head Chris Charlier are anxious to schedule discussions with the USG in advance of the U.S. submitting our Additional Protocol (AP) declaration, due on the 4th of July, 2009. The Safeguards Department had requested a meeting in the past (reftel A),but it did not take place. Imminent implementation of the AP in the U.S. has brought the issue to the forefront. In addition, delays in processing IAEA inspector visas, due to mandatory Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) rules and incomplete travel schedules, are causing concern in Operations B, and they want to clarify U.S. intentions with respect to issuance of inspector visas. ¶2. (SBU) The Safeguards officials would like to discuss AP implementation, begining with a scoping meeting in Vienna with a few appropriate individuals with the goal of framing the subjects to be discussed and reviewing the Additional Protocol article by article to lay out responsibilities, information flow, etc. This Vienna meeting could take place on the margins of the March Board that begins March 2 if appropriate individuals are available to come to Vienna. IAEA proposes this initial discussion would be followed by a Spring meeting in the U.S., with the full interagency team that will be involved in AP implementation. The best dates for IAEA travel to the U.S. would be for a meeting the week of 20 April or the week of 4 May. Such a meeting would provide a good basis on which to convene a constructive follow-on meeting in the U.S. in the Spring. ¶3. (SBU) Mission has also scheduled a 26 February meeting between Ops B officials and U.S. DOD officials who will be in Vienna the week of 23 February for CTBT Working Group B meetings; the IAEA meeting will be to discuss arrangements for complementary access equipment for use in the U.S. ¶4. (SBU) Assuming the above proposed scheduling is acceptable, Nackaerts suggests the Spring meeting in the U.S. also include a full U.S. safeguards coordination meeting, which he sees as long overdue. He would like to continue discussions on the MOX plant under construction at the Savannah River Site (SRS),U.S. enrichment plants under construction, and other regular safeguards implementation issues that have been on hold for some time now. ¶5. (SBU) Inter-agency should be alert to the likelihood that IAEA officials would use these discussions on AP Implementons to discuss expectations about the issuance of inspector visas. Several IAEA inspectors have experienced delays in visa issuance to inspect U.S. facilities, sometimes due to mandatory SAO procedures. According to IAEA officials, inspectors are being advised not to apply for visas without an inspection schedule, which is often difficult, but may become even more difficult with the AP coming into force. It is important for the IAEA and USG to understand the obligations and impediments to timely visa issuance, and agree on a path forward before a problem arises. ¶6. (SBU) Mission has briefed the IAEA on the worldwide SAO backlog (reftel B). Nonetheless, the particular treaty obligations in this instance may justify a special process for handling IAEA visas related to AP implementation. Mission would welcome guidance from ISN, CA and IO in this regard. ¶7. (SBU) ACTION REQUEST: Nackaerts and his team are available to come to the U.S. the week of 20 April (preferred) or the week of 4 May. Please advise. PYATT