REPORT OF THE 119TH NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY STEERING

UNCLAS PARIS 000111

SIPDIS

SENT FROM USOECD

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC ENRG KNNP TRGY ISCA IEA OECD
SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE 119TH NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY STEERING
COMMITTEE MEETING, OCTOBER 29-30, 2009

REF: (09) SECSTATE 110381


1. SUMMARY: The OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Steering Committee
met October 29-30, 2009 at OECD headquarters in Paris. Chairman
Richard Stratford (U.S.) was reelected as Chair of the Steering
Committee. The meeting took place against a backdrop of
developments which indicate heightened interest in nuclear power:
these include Belgium's recent announcement to postpone its nuclear
phase-out, the German government's announcement that it is committed
to allow its NPP to operate longer and Italy's renewed interest in
nuclear energy. Faced with the prospect of a second biennium of
zero nominal growth (ZNG) and rising demands on the agency, the
Steering Committee agreed to set up an Advisory Group on a
Sustainable NEA budget to provide options to the Steering Committee
at its next session for the 2011-2012 budget. In addition to
routine business, the Steering Committee agreed to the participation
of Indian experts on an ad hoc basis in a selected number of nuclear
safety-related committees and working groups would be of mutual
benefit. The Steering Committee also agreed to permit Poland to
participate as an ad hoc participant in 10 NEA Working Parties. The
High-Level Group on the Security of Supply of Medical Radioisotopes
reported that it will study whether there has been market failure in
the supply chain. If this proves to be the case, the study will
provide recommendations on how to address this failure in order to
create an environment that encourages sufficient investment in
medical radioisotope production and related infrastructure. End
Summary.

--------------
Agenda Item 1: Adoption of the Agenda (NEA/NE/A(2009)2)
--------------


2. The Agenda was adopted without comment.

--------------
Agenda Item 2: Minutes (NEA/NE/M(2009)1
--------------


3. The Minutes of the April 28-29, 2009 meeting were approved
without comment.

--------------
Agenda Item 3: Report of the Director-General (Oral)
--------------


4. The Director-General's opening oral comments provided a general
review of emerging interest in nuclear energy, including the many
"New Entrant" countries discussed at the September IAEA General
Conference, in particular that these included NEA member Turkey and
OECD member Poland. He commented on Belgium's recent announcement
to postpone its nuclear phase-out, the new German government's
announcement it is committed to allow its NPP to operate longer and
Italy's renewed interest in nuclear energy. The Director-General
highlighted that the EU recently adopted a multibillion Euro plan
for new energy investment, including the objective that the first
prototype of a Generation-IV (GEN-IV) nuclear reactor should be in
operation by 2020. Of particular note was his comment that
according to the 2009 IEA "World Energy Outlook," the IEA is now
explicitly considering that the development of nuclear power
technology must be accelerated, promoted and relied upon if the
world is to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions at an acceptable
level.


5. The Director-General provided an overview of the June 2009 OECD
Ministerial Meeting which endorsed a Declaration on Green Growth and
whose attendees included the five accession countries (Chile,
Estonia, Israel, Russia, and Slovenia). The October 2009 IEA
Ministerial focused on "Responding to Energy Challenges in
Partnership" (Public-Private) and included participation of China,
India, Russia and energy industries. The Director-General covered
the status of NEA relations with China, Russia and the IAEA. He
informed the Steering Committee that Romania has requested to become
a formal observer in a number of OECD bodies, including the NEA. His
remarks also included a review of activities in the areas of nuclear
safety and regulation, radioactive waste management and
decommissioning, radiological protection, nuclear science, nuclear
development, legal affairs and the Data Bank.


6. Lastly the Director-General commented on the status of three
important reference publications:

-- The Red Book. The publication of the "Uranium: Resources,
Production and Demand" is released biennially in cooperation with
the IAEA. The last edition was published in 2008 and the next
edition is anticipated to be published in June 2010. Preliminary
results indicate that the financial crisis continues to have a
moderating effect on exploration expenditures and mine development.
Nonetheless, resources continue to increase and production is also

increasing, albeit less rapidly, at least in part because lengthy
mine development in many jurisdictions remains an issue.

-- The Brown Book. The 2009 edition of "Nuclear Energy Data" is
now available. A timely source of NPP data, the book reports that
in addition to the 15 reactors currently under construction in the
OECD area (14 in 2008),the number of firmly committed reactors has
jumped from 13 in 2008 to 23 in 2009, many due to the U.S.
government considering that 9 reactors now fall in this category.

-- The Yellow Book. The Decommissioning Cost Estimation Book is
currently undergoing revision in collaboration with the IAEA and the
European commission. It is scheduled for completion in 2010 and
will include a) a revision of the listing of cost items to take
account of experience gained from 10 years of using the current cost
structure, and b) the development of a Users Manual to guide users
in applying the cost structure and to ensure greater harmonization
of approaches to cost reporting.


7. The Director-General's report was followed by general comments
from Belgium, Germany (clarifying the German government's views on
continued operation of its nuclear power plant),Iceland, Japan
(HGTR status),Netherlands, and Switzerland (both the Netherlands
and Switzerland requested a report at the April 2010 Steering
Committee meeting on the work of the High-level Group on the
Security of Medical Isotopes). USDEL expressed its support for the
High-level Group, noting the importance of its work when there is a
critical shortage of isotopes worldwide.

--------------
Agenda Item 4: Program of Work (POW) and Budget for 2009-2010
(NEA/NE(2009)8
--------------


8. Deputy-Director Janice Dunn Lee provided a recap of the April
2009 Steering Committee meeting, including an overview of the budget
challenges in relation to the significant down-sizing affect on the
Program of Work (POW). In this process 6 Secretariat posts were
frozen. Ms. Dunn Lee announced two donor Cost-Free Project Posts
were added; one in the area of radioisotopes and the second nuclear
safety coordinator to develop a program for New Entrant Countries.
She pointed out the Steering Committee at its October meeting is
invited to approve the adoption of a zero nominal growth (ZNG)
budgetary envelope for 2010 and down-sizing adjustments to the
Program of Work for 2009-2010. The Deputy Director-General stressed
that the current budget impasse on reaching a stable and sustainable
core budget consensus is beyond the Secretariat's ability to resolve
therefore the Steering Committee must solve the problem.
Interventions by Korea and Switzerland noted the importance of
effectively using resources given the state of the global economy.
The U.S. intervention noted the need for a clarification of what the
Nuclear Safety Coordinator Cost-Free Expert for Entrant Countries
would be doing, also noting that the Steering Committee had not
approved any Entrant Country activities


9. The Deputy Director commented that Member Countries should be
mindful of members' expressed desire to fulfill the original POW,
noting the Secretariat proposed that members who wish to do so
should consider voluntary contribution to be used to make up the
short-fall in areas of the POW that were being curtailed through the
imposition of ZNG and the down-sized POW. She noted that to date
only one member country had offered a voluntary contribution in the
area of radioactive waste management. Her comments were followed
by a number of interventions. The South Korean Delegate stated
Korea was unclear as to the meaning and definition of voluntary
contributions and cost-free experts. Austria raised the issue of
transparency as to what projects and activities were being supported
by the voluntary contributions and cost-free experts, the Steering
Committee needs to be knowledgeable on what is financed by voluntary
contributions. The Austrian Delegate stated he was at a loss as to
why there was a need to discuss the importance of voluntary
contributions on the basis of one contribution. He also raised the
issue of outsourcing Secretariat services for the Generation IV
consortium (GEN-IV). The Director General stated that a POW agreed
by the Steering Committee was not distorted by a single voluntary
contribution; voluntary contributions were only accepted which are
consistent with the Program of Work (in line with OECD practices)
and after member approval. Interventions by Australia, Germany and
Sweden supported the Chair's view on the potential affect of
voluntary contributions. The Swedish Delegate raised the issue as
to what do Member States want the NEA to do. The Deputy-Director
noting the concerned interventions raised by delegates and pledged
to improve the transparency of voluntary contributions and cost-free
experts contributions to the POW.

--------------
Agenda Item 5: Steering Committee Advisory Group for a Sustainable
NEA Budget: Options Paper (NEA/NE(2009)11

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


10. After an overview by the Secretariat of the proposed three
options for establishing an advisory group, the Chairman provided
his view that there should be clear direction to the Secretariat, as
well as a clear idea of what is to be the product and what the
Steering Committee wants or needs. The Steering Committee
delegations took note of the Chairman's introductory comments and
after considerable debate on the merits of a budget advisory group
delegations supported its creation with a suggested mandate. There
was consensus that the Steering Committee should be kept informed in
a timely manner of the Group's deliberations, both via reports at
Steering Committee meetings and electronically between sessions.
After delegate discussion and revisions to the draft mandate text,
the US DEL joined consensus in approving the mandate as below:

BEGIN MANDATE TEXT:

Steering Committee Mandate Directive for Steering Committee Budget
Advisory Group for a Sustainable NEA Budget

-- Mandate: Assist and advise the Steering Committee on how best to
provide the NEA with a sustainable budget to complete its Program of
Work for 2011-2012

-- Specific Terms of Reference: to be considered by the group and
notified to the Steering Committee

-- Open-ended for the group itself; a smaller drafting group will
likely be needed

-- Desired Composition: technical and budget experts from a
representative range of member countries (small, medium and large;
broad geographical coverage)

-- Structure: Chair to be elected; no Bureau; NEA Secretariat to
provide staff support; quorum not an issue

-- Number and frequency of meetings: to be determined by the group,
with a first meeting suggested to take place before the end of 2009,
and one of the other meetings possibly during the days preceding the
April 2010 session of the Steering Committee

-- Relationship to the Steering Committee: to report to the Steering
Committee formally at its April 2010 session; interim reports to be
provided electronically as appropriate; the group does not have
decision-making powers itself

-- Product: written recommendations to be presented to the Steering
Committee at its April 2010 session and October 2010 session as
appropriate

-- Nominations: Member countries will be asked to nominate experts
by November 30, 2009

END MANDATE TEXT

--------------
Agenda Item 6: Participation of Poland in NEA Committees and Working
Parties (NEA/NE(2009)9
--------------


11. At its 115th Session, the Steering Committee approved the
request by Poland to participate as an ad hoc OECD Member
Participant in the activities of the Committee on Radiation
Protection and Public Health (CRPPH),the Radioactive Waste
Management Committee (RWMC),and the Nuclear Development Committee
(NSC) and the NSC Working Party on Scientific Issues of the Fuel
Cycle and the Working Party on Scientific Issues of Reactor Systems.
On August 3, 2009, Poland requested renewal of participation in
these committees and expressed interest in ad hoc participation in
the Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI),the
Committee on Nuclear Regulatory Activities (CNRA),CNRA Working
Group on Regulation of New Reactors (WGRN),the Committee on
Radiation Protection and Public Health (CRPPH) Working Party on
Nuclear Energy Matters (WPNEM),and the Nuclear Law Committee (NLC).
After affirmative interventions by France, Germany, Korea, the
Slovak Republic, and Sweden, the Steering Committee by unanimous
consensus approved Poland's request.

--------------
Agenda Item 7: NEA Committee Mandates and Structures - Update
(NEA/NE(2009)10
--------------


12. There was no discussion on the Standing Technical Committee
(STC) Mandates and Structures document, because the document was not
available to delegations until the first day of the Steering

Committee Meeting.

NOTE: The U.S. brief review found a number of changes to the
mandates, in particular non-government participants, which raised
concern and need for further review and discussion.

--------------
Agenda Item 8: Status Report on GIF Activities and NEA Involvement
(Oral Report)
--------------


13. The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) is not a NEA core
program under the oversight of the NEA Steering Committee nor a
cooperative arrangement. The GIF concept originated in the United
States and has expanded with the assistance of the NEA Secretariat.
The United States/DOE and Japan are the primary funders. GIF is a
consortium of interested countries (without independent offices or
permanent staff) consisting of: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China,
France, Japan, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland, UK, USA,
and EURATOM. The IAEA is an observer. Argentina, Brazil and the UK
are non-active members. The NEA functions as the technical
secretariat and provides offices, and staff assistance. Thierry
Dujardin, NEA Deputy Director, Science and Development, provided an
overview of 2008 activities regarding project arrangements, policy
group meetings, and the 2009 Symposium, September 9-10, 2009 in
Paris, He reported on NEA Technical Secretariat Activities,
including 50 meetings; 30 teleconferences; organizational
preparation, preparation of agenda, drafting of minutes, and
follow-up, editing documents, etc.; and the IT website and public
website. He noted that the NEA Secretariat staff is well integrated
in all technical activities, however it is more time consuming than
first anticipated.

--------------
Agenda Item 9: NEA Relations with India: Proposals for Cooperation
(NEA/NE(2009)12)
--------------


14. Following exchanges with delegations on the proposed ad hoc
participation of India prior to the Steering Committee meeting,
"Actions by the Steering Committee" were amended as follows:

"The Steering Committee shall be invited to:

1) Note the recent Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol
concluded between India and the IAEA and the conclusion of bilateral
agreements with India in the field of non-proliferation and the
peaceful use of nuclear energy;

2) The willingness of India to align with international best
practices in regulating and operating its nuclear power plants for
civil use;

3) Note the significant experience of Indian experts in nuclear
energy based on past and present autonomous development in research,
and the operation and regulation of nuclear power plants; and agree
that the participation of Indian experts on an ad hoc basis in a
selected number of nuclear safety-related committees and working
groups is meaningful and would be of mutual benefit;

4) Agree that Indian technical experts could be invited on an ad
hoc basis to the meetings of the standing technical committees and
working groups listed in PARA 13 (NA/NE(2009)12),except for the
Expert Group on Integral Experiments for Minor Actinide Management
and the Working Party on Multi-scale Modeling of fuels and
Structural Materials for Nuclear Systems (WPMM) of the Nuclear
Science committee (NSC);

5) Note that India could be participating in the future in nuclear
safety-related OECD/NEA Joint Projects and the MDEP; and

6) Reconfirm the step-by-step approach for cooperation within the
scope of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Statement on Civil
Nuclear cooperation with India of September 6, 2008 and with
potential applications in Indian Facilities under IAEA safeguards,
and request the Director General to report annually to the Steering
Committee on NEA cooperation with India.

Minor interventions were made by Canada, Japan, Korea, and Sweden.
Consensus supported an interest to have India participate in
standing technical committees on an ad hoc case-by-case basis.

--------------
Agenda Item 10: Status Report by the Chair of the Nuclear Law
Committee (Oral Report)
--------------


15. Mr. Dussart Desart, Chairman of the Nuclear Law Committee (NLC)

presented an overview of the status of the Committee's Program of
Work, including impacts of environmental law, the Protocols amending
the Paris and Brussels Supplementary Conventions, the new topical
approach and further themes under consideration for study. Of
particular interest was the New Policy related to observers from
NGOs. NGOs and industry must submit an application for participation
pursuant to OECD Council guidelines. The new policy does not affect
a National Delegation's ability to determine the composition of its
delegation.

--------------
Agenda Item 11: Status Report by the Chair of the CRPPH (Oral
Report)
--------------


16. Dr. Ann McGarry, Chairman of the Committee on Radiation
Protection and Public Health (CRPPH) presented an overview of
"Radiation Protection in Today's World: Contributions of the CRPPH.
She noted the Committee's approach is to: 1) identify topics of
common or international interest; 2) Address agreed issues, and 3)
survey the horizon for possible emerging issues. Her presentation
addressed principles areas of current interest, the current context
of radiological protection, the new ICRP Recommendations, new
nuclear build, the stakeholder roles in decision making, science and
values, radiological protection of the environment, nuclear
emergency management and the forthcoming 2010 INEX-4 which will
explore national and international issues in management of
consequences in an urban environment, and occupational exposure at
NPPs.

--------------
Agenda Item 12: Report on the MDEP Conference Held in Paris
9/10-11/2009 (Oral Report)
--------------






17. The
Multinational Design Evaluation Program (MDEP) is not a NEA core
program under the oversight of the NEA Steering Committee nor a
cooperative arrangement. Like the GIF, it is funded by voluntary
contributions (primarily from the United States/NRC and Japan). The
MDEP concept originated in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
and expanded with the support of the NEA Secretariat. MDEP is now a
consortium of regulatory authorities, from Canada, China, Finland,
France, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa,
U.S. and the U.S. MDEP does not have independent offices, permanent
staff, or an operational budget. The NEA functions as the technical
secretariat and provides offices, and staff assistance. Javier
Reig, Head of the NEA Nuclear Safety Division, reported on the MDEP
Conference on New Reactor Design Activities, September 10-11, 2009.
The goal of the conference was to share results obtained with
industry and non-MDEP regulators. Held at the OECD headquarters in
Paris, the Conference had approximately 170 attendees from 23
different countries, 11 national/international organizations (IAEA,
EC, WENRA, EURELECTRIC, EUR, WNA/CORDEL, INSAG, ASME, AFCEN, and
FORATOM),and vendors, licensees/operators, and component
manufacturers. The conference conclusions included among a number
of points: 1) great expectations from MDEP for worldwide
certification of new designs, 2) standardization and harmonization,
3) convergence of regulatory practices will finally lead to
convergence of regulatory requirements and standardization within
the present MDEP framework, and 4) certification and approval of
components. It was announced that Sweden and India have requested
to join. Korea raised an intervention regarding harmonization,
noting it would be difficult to harmonize standards when there are
different standards from country-to-country. The Secretariat
responded that it could be similar practices and that it all depends
on what factors are included. Slovakia's intervention noted that
MDEP provides reports periodically to the CNRA and the CSNI Standing
Technical Committees.

--------------
Agenda Item 13: Report on the Financing of Nuclear Power Plants
(Oral Report)
--------------


18. A report by the Secretariat Nuclear Development Division, on
the Nuclear Development Committee (NDC) Ad Hoc Experts Group on
Financing Nuclear Power Plants (FNPP) study (2007-2008 POW),for the
purpose of publishing an 18-month study, Report on Financing NPPS.
He highlighted that the participants were a mix of government and
industry representatives, including 7 member states, plus the EC,
the IEA, the IAEA, World Nuclear Association (WNA). (NOTE: The Ad
Hoc Group was chaired by the Chief Investment Counsel, Bechtel Power
Corporation, and published in November 2009). The only intervention


was by the Austria delegate on the difficulty of financial market
regulation. However, in corridor discussions several delegations
again raised sensitivities over the merits of publishing this study
when the format, objectives, and summary, are closely similar to an
IAEA study and report done some time ago. (Comment: Turkey raised
the duplication issue in the April NEA Steering Committee April 2009
session as to why the NEA did not approach the IAEA to do a joint
report. The Secretariat responded at that time that the NEA
participated in many IAEA studies and that in turn IAEA had been an
active participant in the NEA study on financing of Nuclear Power
Plants. Director General Echavarri described the NEA/IAEA
relationship as professional and collaborative. End comment)

--------------
Agenda Item 14: Activities of Other Parts of the OECD (Oral
Reports)
--------------

OECD/International Energy Agency (IEA):


19. Mr. Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director, International Energy
Agency (IEA) presented an overview of world-wide climate change
interests and the linkage between energy and climate change. The
OECD is preparing an "OECD Policy Brief" for the COP-15 in
Copenhagen Conference and the need to reach CO2 emission target
reductions. A main focus of his presentation was the role of energy
technology roadmaps and the inclusion of technology development
milestones. The IEA and the NEA are cooperating on developing a
Nuclear Energy Roadmap for the new edition of the "IEA Energy
Technology Perspectives (ETP)." The aim is to set out the necessary
steps to achieve the nuclear expansion envisaged in the ETP 2008
"Blue Map" scenario, covering technology development, policy
measures and resources. This will be published as part of a series
of roadmaps being prepared by the IEA in response to a request from
the G-8 summit. He further pointed out there is a need for a clear
definition of the role of nuclear power in a clean energy future.

OECD Environment Directorate:


20. Rob Visser, Acting Director, Environment Directorate, presented
an overview of the OECD Council Ministerial "Green Growth
Declaration, adopted on June 25, 2009. The Declaration was agreed
by the Ministers of Finance, Economy, Trade, foreign Affairs, and
Environment. The Declaration involves expanding green markets,
price pollution and natural resource use properly, manages
transition to green growth at level of employment, foster green
technology and innovation, and investment in green infrastructures.


OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate (EX-IM Credits):


21. Julian Paisey, of the OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate,
Export Credits Division, (www.oecd.org/trade/xcred) presented an
overview on New OECD Disciplines on Export Credits for Nuclear Power
Plants, focusing on the more favorable EM-IM financial terms and
credit/repayment terms. The New Sector Understanding took on July
1, 2009 and is anticipated to have a positive affect in both the
near and long-term.

--------------
Agenda Item 15: Election of the Bureau
--------------


22. The Steering Committee elected the following Bureau Members for
2010:

-- Richard Stratford/U.S. Chairman
-- Mr. Frederic Mondolini/France Vice-Chairman
(new member)
-- Dr. Jozef Ronaky/Hungary Vice-Chairman
-- Mr. Takayuki Shirao/Japan Vice-Chairman
-- Mr. Kjell Bendiksen/Norway Vice-Chairman

--------------
Agenda Item 16: Dates of the Next Meeting
--------------


23. Member States consensus approved the meetings dates of April
21-22, 2010 for the spring session and October 28-29, 2010 for the
fall session.

--------------
Agenda Item 17: Other Business
--------------


24. Room Document on NEA Co-sponsored Conferences and Symposia
2010-2012. Delegates took note of the Room Document on NEA
Co-sponsored Conferences and Symposia 2010-2012 without comment.



25. Room Document Fact Sheet on Helium-3 Shortage: The Chair
introduced and provided a short background overview on the Worldwide
Helium-3 shortage. He suggested that this issue could be considered
as a discussion topic at a future NEA Steering Committee meeting.


26. Report of the High-Level Group on the Security of Supply of
Medical Radioisotopes: Sylvana Guindon, of the Canadian Delegation,
reported on the first meeting of the High-Level Group held in Canada
in June 2009. A second meeting is planned for December 14-15, 2009
in Paris. The Group as currently comprised has 20 experts from 11
countries, the European Commission, and the IAEA. As planned, the
Group developed its mandate. At its first meeting, the group
focused on ensuring that supply and demand information is available
and shared amongst all stakeholders. It then began assessing
options to increase short-, medium- and long-term production. As
part of the Terms of Reference, the NEA is undertaking an economic
analysis of the upstream Molybdenum-99 and Technetium-99m supply
chain. This study will develop a solid factual basis to determine
whether there has been a market failure in the supply chain. If so,
the study will provide recommendations on how to address this
failure in order to create an environment that encourages sufficient
investment in medical radioisotope production and related
infrastructure. This effort is funded through voluntary
contributions. Ms. Guindon also noted the Canadian NRU reactor,
unexpectedly shut down in May 2009, is still off line, and shutdown
is anticipated to continue until the first quarter of 2010. She
further noted that supplier countries have stepped up production to
help meet the shortage.

--------------
Suggested Topics for Policy Debates in 2010
--------------


27. There was a short discussion of suggested topics for the 2010
Policy debates. Consensus supported:

April: Cost of Generating Electricity through 2009
October: Small and Medium Size Reactors

(NOTE: The NEA "Small ad Medium Size Reactors Report" will not be
available in time for April Meeting)

--------------
Policy Debate: NEA Strategic Plan
--------------


28. In October 2008 the Steering Committee agreed to extend the
2005-2009 NEA Strategic Plan by one year, until December 2010, to
align the Strategic Plan with the OECD biennial budgetary system.
It also would accommodate the time needed to draft and publish an
update to the 2008 Nuclear Energy Outlook." In April 2009 the
Steering Committee agreed to a five step plan: 1) Assessment of the
implementation of the current Strategic Plan, 2) Preparation of a
first draft of the next Strategic Plan (July-December 2009),3)
Steering Committee Policy Debate (October 2009),4) Collection and
integration of comments from member countries (January-March 2010),
and finalization of the draft for discussion and approval by the
Steering committee (April 2010). For the most part, member
countries indicated that the plan was fine as is and did not
envision a substantive rewrite. The Director-General convened a
5-member High-Level Advisory Group (HLAG)Dr. Peter Lyons, US/DOE
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy; Dr. Ann
McGarry, Chief Executive, Ireland Radiological Protection Institute;
Dr. David Torgerson, Senior Technical Advisor, Atomic Energy of
Canada, Ltd.; Mr. Toru Ogawa, Director-General, Japan Atomic Energy
Agency; and Mr. Philippe Pradel, Director, International
Developments, Commissariat a l Energie Atomique, France.


29. The Policy debate opened with remarks from Director General
Echavarri, at which time he took the opportunity to comment on ZNG
v. ZRG issues and the $1 million Euro shortfall; the need to
maintain the level of the POW as in the past; the questionnaire
results, issues that differed from the past, in particular the
inclusion of "New Entrant Countries" and developing new leadership
role tools, current objectives and priorities and the OECD Counsel
on mission organizational priorities and that output should
correspond to POW expectations. The Deputy Director General
presented the results of the NEA Questionnaire, followed by Summary
views of the HLAG presented by Dr. Ann McGarry and Mr. Philippe
Pradel.


30. Nearly every delegation made interventions focusing on what
Member Countries want the NEA to be doing. Interventions spoke to
issues that extended beyond the purely technical, e.g. transparency;
limiting the expansion of non-member countries and avoiding
duplication with other international organizations; questions
regarding NGO dialogue or interactions; concern over activities

promoting nuclear energy; NEA-IAEA relationship, leaving to the IAEA
or others what is not unique to the NEA; establishing a
cross-cutting issue inter-agency group (other international
organizations); joint publications (other international
organizations); closer working relationship with the IEA; concern
about adding New Entrant Countries; policy v. technical activities;
cross-cutting issues of common interest and the formulation of a NEA
topical crosscutting working group; joint sessions of Standing
Technical Committees; scheduling of meetings; and adopting a
Strategic Plan based on sustainable resources.


31. An extended dialogue over the function and purpose of the Data
Bank focused on whether or not it should continue as a separate
entity within the NEA. Data coordination between the NEA and the
IAEA and the possibility of a joint data bank was of interest. Two
NEA Member Countries are not members of the Data Bank (including the
U.S.),however the IAEA is a member and any member of the IAEA can
request data. Concern was raised over protecting intellectual
property rights, developing restriction of codes and experimental
data, and sensitive data. The Secretariat was requested to provide
the Steering Committee a report on the Data Bank addressing issues
raised by the NEA Member Countries. Kornbluh