IAEA/BOG: March Board Preview and Analysis

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000049 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR IO/GS, ISN/MNSA, ISN/RA, ISN/NESS 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 PARM KNNP IAEA ENRG TRGY SUBJECT: IAEA/BOG: March Board Preview and Analysis Ref: UNVIE 44 Summary -------------- ¶1. (SBU) Although the March IAEA Board of Governors meeting is traditionally focused on nuclear safety and technology, Iran's nuclear brinksmanship and potential Syrian safeguards failures will likely dominate the debate. This is particularly true as the Board meeting, expected to run March 1-4, takes place against the backdrop of Iran's decision to undertake enrichment to 20 percent and Iran-related developments in the UN Security Council. The top U.S. objective for the March Board will be to highlight this escalatory step by Iran in the context of its refusal to accept the IAEA-brokered Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) proposal and failure to fully cooperate with the IAEA investigation. The Board will also consider Syria's illicit activities and continued stonewalling of its safeguards investigation. Should the Director General report to the Board on Syria confirm safeguards failures in light of previously undeclared experiments at its Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MNSR),the Board will need to consider an appropriate response in support of the Agency's ongoing investigation. Mission sees as a key question for this Board how we will want to balance Board focus between Iran and Syria, assuming that our priority is spotlighting Iran's escalatory measures. Significantly, the March Board session will shepherd in a new era for the IAEA under the leadership of Director General Yukiya Amano. This will mark Amano's first regular Board session since taking office on December 1, 2009. His opening remarks, particularly on Iran and Syria, will be closely watched with inevitable comparisons drawn to those of his predecessor Mohamed ElBaradei. Further complicating the atmospherics for this Board is the arrival of a new and untested Malaysian Chairman, following the unprecedented sacking of his predecessor (reftel). ¶2. (SBU) Mission will preview Iran and Syria nuclear issues in septels upon the issuance of the respective DG reports, expected February 17. All other agenda items are covered below: nuclear safety and technology reviews, Future of the Agency, safeguards agreements/ Additional Protocols, DPRK and personnel matters. Although not formally on the agenda, Mission recommends the U.S. statement under "Any Other Business" focus on assurance of nuclear fuel supply with reference to the Secretariat's non-paper (2010/Note 1) on the subject and to cue up discussion of the International Nuclear Fuel Bank (INFB) proposal at the June Board meeting. End Summary. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 1: DG's Introductory Statement -------------- -------------- ¶3. (SBU) The March 1 opening session will mark Amano's debut in addressing the Board of Governors as Director General. As is customary, the DG will cover all agenda items. We would expect Amano to reflect his core vision as to the the dual mission of the Agency, nonproliferation and peaceful use, the latter with respect to the Nuclear Technology Review agenda item, in particular. In keeping with his premise that the IAEA should advance the application of atomic energy to solve global issues, the DG is likely to highlight IAEA cancer initiatives, having made this an early centerpiece of his administration, and underline the importance of nuclear safety. His scripted remarks on Iran and Syria will be the most closely watched as to both tone and content, with inevitable comparisons drawn to those of his predecessor. We anticipate that Amano will be factual and cautious (particularly in these first opening remarks),likely to eschew headline-making descriptives of the state-of-play for which ElBaradei was well-known. While we will encourage Amano to address fuel assurance, his predilection is to emphasize finding consensus among Member States on this issue. We also would not expect off-the-cuff interjections or blandishments from the DG during the Board meeting. This difference in style from ElBaradei could help lower the temperature in the Board room, though it may disappoint the press. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 2: Applications for Membership -------------- -------------- ¶4. (U) The IAEA Secretariat has not received any new requests for membership and this item is likely to be dropped from the agenda. Mission will advise via email if any membership applications are received prior to the Board session. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 3: Nuclear Safety -------------- -------------- ¶5. (U) The Board will be asked to take note of the 2009 Nuclear Safety Review, "Measures to Strengthen International Cooperation in Nuclear, Radiation and Transport Safety and Waste Management" (GOV/2010/4). This report is supplemented by two Notes: "Safety related events and activities worldwide during 2009" (2010/Note 4) and "The Agency's safety standards: activities during 2009" (2010/Note 5). The Board will also be asked to approve two other safety documents: "Draft Safety Requirements: disposal of radioactive waste" and "Draft Safety Requirements: governmental, legal and regulatory framework for safety GSR-1." ¶6. (SBU) Recommendation and Action Request: The U.S. should take note of these documents and make a statement highlighting the ever-increasing demands related to nuclear safety on the IAEA Secretariat and the importance of safety, focusing on the following areas: -- Medical exposures: This is an area of significant growth over the past few years. More than half of workers exposed to radiation on the job are in the medical field. As the use of radiological sources for medical imaging, diagnoses, and treatment increases, so does the importance of IAEA training in the safe use of these sources. The U.S. should express support for IAEA's work in this area and encourage other Member States to also look for ways to support Agency activities. This is especially relevant given DG Amano's focus on IAEA cancer treatment activities as a major theme for the coming year and the topic of the Scientific Forum during the General Conference in September. IAEA programs providing more countries radioactive sources and medical exposure devices need to be accompanied by an increase in safety awareness and training in these countries. -- Global Networks: The number of countries requesting safety training or assistance is increasing every year. This is not limited to nuclear power newcomers but also involves countries using radioactive sources for medical, educational, and industrial uses, those embarking on new uranium mining and milling programs, and those seeking to build infrastructures and capacities for the future. As the demand for safety training has surpassed what the IAEA is able to provide, the Agency has supported the establishment of global and regional networks so that countries can also learn from their neighbors. The U.S. should express support for these types of networks as essential to the growth and strength of the Global Nuclear Safety Network. The U.S. statement should welcome the recent establishment of the Forum of Nuclear Regulatory Bodies in Africa (FNRBA) and commend South Africa for hosting a conference on establishing and improving effective regulatory systems last December. The conference stressed the responsibility all nuclear regulators, operators, and vendors have in maintaining a strong effective and efficient global safety and security network. -- Peer Reviews: Peer reviews are another way countries can help and learn from one other. The Operational Safety Review Team (OSART), the Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS),and the recently established Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review missions allow participating Member States to learn from industry and safety experts and receive advice on program improvements. The U.S. statement should support these peer reviews and encourage participation in the programs. The U.S. should also note that it will host its first IRRS mission in October of this year. -- Response Assistance Network: Increased interest in nuclear power and use of radiological sources renders emergency preparedness ever more important, including the work of the Incident and Emergency Center (IEC). The Response Assistance Network (RaNet) is a useful tool for mustering the response capabilities of Member States for use during an emergency. The U.S. statement should note that we have volunteered some capabilities for use in the network and encourage others to participate. -- Convention on Supplementary Compensation: The U.S. should continue to underline the importance of the CSC and encourage Member States to accede. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 4: Nuclear Technology Review -------------- -------------- ¶7. (U) The Board will be asked to consider and take note of the draft Nuclear Technology Review 2010 (GOV/2010/5) that covers both power and nonpower applications. The power applications portion of the report covers: the state of nuclear power today and future growth; the fuel cycle, advanced fission (INPRO/GNEP/GIF); fusion; and accelerators and research reactor applications. The nonpower section focuses on cooperation and research in human health, food and agriculture, and the environment. ¶8. (U) Nonpower Apps: The IAEA continues to assist member states in applying nuclear technology and techniques in the areas of food security, human health, environmental protection, and water resource management to benefit the socio-economic development both nationally, regionally, and inter-regionally. In 2009 in the food and agriculture area, nuclear techniques were used to address a growing number of insect pests that threatened agricultural productivity. The sterile insect technique (SIT) program benefited from continued U.S. monetary support, and advances were also made in the use of isotopes for studies on insect biology, behavior, biochemistry, etc. Isotopic techniques for sequestering carbon in soils to stem carbon emission growth received renewed interest in ¶2009. The Agency also devoted many resources to human health issues, focusing on developing hybrid diagnostic imaging systems allowing for investigation of the anatomy and function of organs for cardiovascular disease and cancer. In the run-up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference, the IAEA renewed its emphasis on environmental research using nuclear techniques, especially in natural resource and water management. Nuclear techniques are being used to assess the amount of freshwater that is entering coastal areas via aquifers, thQeby assisting Member States in better water management especially in drought ridden regions. With innovations comes the need for training, and the IAEA Technical Cooperation program ensured that Member State experts received training in new techniques either at a national or regional level. ¶9. (U) Recommendation and Action Request: During the March Board the U.S. Delegation should take note of the draft Nuclear Technology Review 2010 Report (GOV/2010/5) in the text of its statement supporting the IAEA's continued work in nonpower applications that benefit the socio-economic development of member states in a responsible and results based manner. ¶10. (U) Power Applications: The U.S. is very supportive of the Agency's achievements and activities as reported in the Nuclear Technology Review. The Agency continued in 2009 to provide guidance in infrastructure development to Member States that are considering expansion or development of their nuclear programs. To achieve this, the Agency conducted a series of infrastructure development related workshops in 2009 for each phase of nuclear power development, planning, and/or expansion. (NOTE: A robust 2010 schedule is already under way and includes an international conference on human resources development in Abu Dhabi. END NOTE.) The U.S. should support continued Agency efforts to address the needs of interested Member States in improving their national nuclear power programs and infrastructure based on the IAEA authored Milestones Document. Regarding specific programs, the Agency contributed to GNEP Working Group meetings to ensure better coordination of activities, and INPRO activities were streamlined into five substantive areas and efforts were made to coordinate with the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) to avoid duplication of activities. Of some concern to several Member States, including the U.S., is the methodology used to compute data for charts in the report. Specifically, in sub-paragraph A.4.1 (pg. 10),FIG A-3 Ranges for Overnight Cost Estimates by Region, from 2007-2009 is not cited for data sources and by the Agency's own admission (pg. 10) it used imported data components for Asia. Methodologically this means the range estimate is skewed because the sample size for each region and costs are not calculated the same way. Without further clarification as to how the data in FIG A-3 were derived and what sample size was used, the chart may mislead countries looking to purchase reactors to believe American reactors are more expensive compared to other suppliers. ¶11. (U) Recommendation and Action Request: During the March Board the U.S. Delegation should take note of the draft Nuclear Technology Review 2010 Report (GOV/2010/5) during its statement supporting the IAEA's continued work in power applications. Additionally, the U.S. should support continued Agency efforts to address the needs of interested Member States in improving their national nuclear power programs and infrastructure based on the IAEA authored Milestone Document. The U.S. should also request clarification of the methodology and sources used for FIG A-3 and based upon Agency response request a recasting of data or deletion of FIG A-3 altogether. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 5: Future of the Agency -------------- -------------- ¶12. (U) Mission expects the Board to receive a descriptive, not prescriptive, report on the 2009 Future of the Agency (FoA) meeting series from Brazilian Ambassador Guerreiro, who succeeded the original FoA chair (09 UNVIE 557 and previous). The report will not offer any Chair's recommendations; rather, it will provide a summing up of the months of discussion as interpreted by Ambassador Guerreiro and his Finnish predecessor, Ambassador Kauppi. Brazil's expectation is that the Board would take note of this report and that there should be no need or proposal to convene any further discussion of the report in draft. USDEL should have a brief prepared statement thanking the two chairs, their delegations, and the Secretariat for the conduct of the process and commenting on the lessons of the FoA process and content of the resulting report. ¶13. (U) Recommendation and Action Request: USDEL should advocate that the Board take note of the report with gratitude to those who produced it. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 6a: Safeguards Agreements and APs -------------- -------------- ¶14. (U) The Board will be asked to approve an Additional Protocol (GOV/2010/6) for the Republic of Gambia. The agreement conforms to the standard text contained in the Model Additional Protocol, GOV/INF/540 (Corr.),adopted by the Board on 15 May 1997. Mission will advise if other safeguards agreements or Additional Protocols are submitted in advance of the March Board. ¶15. (U) Recommendation and Action Request: Mission recommends that USDEL join consensus in approving any safeguards agreements or Additional Protocols that conform to the standard models, and to deliver a short statement under this item urging all NPT states that have not yet done so to conclude and bring into force the required safeguards agreements and bring into force Additional Protocols, which represent the new safeguards standard. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 6b: DPRK -------------- -------------- ¶16. (SBU) DPRK will again be addressed by the Board under the "Nuclear Verification" agenda item, reversing former DG ElBaradei's decision to remove it from the Board's November agenda. Director General Amano has expressed his support for addressing DPRK in the Board of Governors, as did 18 Board members in statements on this agenda item in November. No report will be issued ahead of this Board meeting. We anticipate DG Amano will include DPRK in his opening statement, possibly to note the importance of resolving this outstanding issue and recent diplomatic efforts. However, Director of Safeguards Operations A, Marco Marzo, who is responsible for the DPRK issue, said he had no confirmation of this as of February 3. ¶17. (SBU) We anticipate the Six Party members will again speak, along with the EU, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and a few others to reaffirm their support to the Six Party process and to urge the DPRK to return to the talks and to IAEA safeguards. Egypt may again raise the issue of adding Israel to the Board's agenda under verification, on the grounds that the 2009 General Conference said we should remain seized of the issue, as it did on DPRK. ¶18. (SBU) Recommendation and Action Request: Mission recommends delivering a brief statement on DPRK that would address developments in the Six Party process, as well as our commitment and support to that process. We should note the importance of fully implementing UNSCRs 1718 and 1874. The U.S. statement should also reaffirm that the IAEA has an important verification role to play in assuring North Korea is free of nuclear weapons and nuclear programs geared to providing such nuclear weapons. -------------- -------------- Agenda Item 7: Personnel Matters -------------- -------------- ¶19. (U) GOV/2010/7, in accordance with Staff Regulations, proposes changes to the current net base salary scale for staff members in the Professional and higher categories. The increase, based on the 2009 International Civil Service Commission report, is 3.04 percent. ¶20. (U) Recommendation and Action Request: Mission recommends the U.S. join consensus approval of GOV/2010/7. -------------- -------------- AOB Fuel Assurance -------------- -------------- ¶21. (U) Recommendation and Action Request: Mission recommends that USDEL use the AOB debate to focus on the way forward with respect to nuclear fuel assurance proposals including the International Nuclear Fuel Bank (INFB). The cancellation, at the request of the G-77, of the Secretariat's expected briefing on its long-awaited non-paper on Assurance of Supply (2010/Note 1) chagrined mainly Western supporters of fuel assurance proposals. This is particularly true as the Secretariat's non-paper had been produced in response to questions posed by G-77 skeptics at the June 2009 Board session. The contentious vote on the Russian fuel reserve at November Board meeting has further polarized Board divisions with G-77 hardliners intent on killing any further discussion of fuel assurance. Especially if a Secretariat briefing is not rescheduled prior to March Board meeting, USDEL should be prepared to call the skeptics' bluff, and engineer similar statements among likeminded. The U.S. statement should express disappointment at the cancellation of the briefing, which could be seen as an effort to stifle debate, and note the need for consultation and elaboration by the Secretariat of questions raised by the non-paper. The U.S. should also note this issue been under consideration by Member States for years and that we expect a fulsome debate on the INFB proposal in June, particularly in light of the now twice-deferred deadline of the NTI challenge grant in September 2010.