VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0602/01 3191548
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 141548Z NOV 08
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8680
INFO RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 1262
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 0068
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1023
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0785
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0881
RUEANAT/NASA WASHDC
RHEBAAA/DOE WASHDC
RUEANFA/NRC WASHDC
RUEKJCS/DOD WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0852

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000602 
 
 
STATE IO/T FOR NEVILLE. VON BEHREN 
 
UNCLAS STATE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: TSPA UNGA UNPUOS AORC ENRG TRGY AORC KNNP OTRA AU
 
SUBJECT: IAEA/UNCOPUOUS: FIFTH JOINT EXPERTS GROUP MEETING ON THE 
DRAFT SAFETY FRAMEWORK FOR NUCLEAR POWER SOURCE APPLICATIONS IN 
OUTER SPACE 
 
REF: A)UNVIE VIENNA07 000678 
     B)UNVIE VIENNA 000180 
     C)STATE07 122555 
 
¶1.  (U) SUMMARY:  The UNCOPUOS Scientific and Technical Subcommittee 
(STSC)/IAEA Joint Expert Group (JEG) met in Vienna during the week 
of 20 October 2008 to review comments from IAEA Member States to the 
revised draft Safety Framework for Nuclear Power Source (NPS) 
Applications in Outer Space.  JEG experts reviewed comments from 
IAEA member states and STSC member states on the last draft version 
of the safety Framework.  The review process within the IAEA was 
discussed as well as the options for publication of the finalized 
safety Framework.  A telephone conference was scheduled in November 
to finalize the draft Framework for the February 2009 STSC meeting. 
END SUMMARY. 
 
----------- 
THE JEG THUS FAR 
----------- 
 
¶2.  (U) BACKGROUND: The JEG is an instrument of the STSC/IAEA work 
plan for 2003-2007 for the development of an international 
technically-based Framework of goals and recommendations for the 
safety of NPS applications in outer space.  The safety Framework is 
meant to be analogous to an IAEA Safety Standard and would not be 
legally binding.  As a result of the June 2007 JEG meeting, U.S. 
experts were tasked by JEG Chairman Sam Harbison (UK) with the 
initial development of a draft Framework for the consideration of 
the JEG.  During the October 2007 JEG meeting (REF A), the draft 
Framework was further developed and provided to STSC member States 
for initial comment prior to the February 2008 STSC Session.  At the 
February 2008 STSC Session, the Framework was updated in light of 
comments by STSC member states (Ref B). The revised draft Framework 
was then sent to STSC member states and to the four IAEA Safety 
Standards Committees (SSCs) and the Commission on Safety Standards 
(CSS) for comment.  Upon completion of the review by the SSCs and 
the CSS, the JEG met in June to review comments and an updated draft 
Framework was sent to IAEA Member States for comment. The purpose of 
October 2008 JEG meeting was to review late STSC member state and 
IAEA Member State comments to the draft Framework.  END BACKGROUND. 
 
------------- 
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS 
------------- 
 
¶3.  (U) Attending the Fifth STSC-IAEA JEG session on 21-23 October 
2008 were experts from the U.S., UK, Germany, France, Russia, the 
European Space Agency (ESA), and Japan. Members of the JEG who were 
not present during this session were Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, 
Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Nigeria, Canada, China, Hungary, Iran, 
and Italy.  The IAEA was represented by Dominique Delattre (Safety 
Assessment Section, NSNI).  While the Italian experts cancelled 
their attendance at the last minute, they did submit comments 
through the ESA expert.  Other countries submitting comments as IAEA 
Member States or as late STSC member state submissions were the 
Russian Federation, Libya, ESA and Venezuela. 
 
¶4.  (U) Comments from the Russian Federation, Libya and ESA were 
reviewed and resolved. Some were considered useful and adopted into 
the draft Framework.  Several of the ESA comments stemmed from the 
unique aspects of that organization and its management of a space 
mission. The comments from Venezuela and Italy were more 
problematic, as seen in the following two paragraphs. 
 
¶5.  (U) VENEZUELA: The Venezuelans reiterated comments made in their 
submission for the STSC comments review.  From the onset of the 
joint IAEA-STSC effort on the draft Framework, the Venezuelan STSC 
delegation has repeatedly made comments on and objections to certain 
aspects of the draft Framework. A few of their comments had merit, 
but others were beyond the agreed scope of work for the safety 
Framework.  Other comments have been confusing and contradictory to 
either the stated goals of the Venezuelan delegation or accepted 
nuclear safety principles.  The four main comments of the 
Venezuelans that were not adopted were: (1) wanting to have the 
safety Framework be legally binding; (2) limiting the organizations 
 
 
that are authorized to conduct a space mission; (3) a prohibition on 
NPS in low-earth orbit (LEO); and (4) elimination of the words 
"reasonably achievable" from the ensuring that the risk of 
employment of NPS is "acceptable and as low as reasonably 
achievable."  Venezuela had made similar comments in the STSC 
sessions as well.  All were either outside the previously-agreed 
scope of the Framework or in the case of (4), were in opposition to 
terminology understood and accepted by the IAEA and Member States. 
 
¶6.  (U) ITALY: Italy submitted two comments which had been submitted 
previously and rejected.  They suggested the inclusion of wording on 
the "protection of humans in space and of other planets is 
important."  Both had been previously rejected because they are 
beyond the agreed scope of the safety Framework. When the Italians 
first raised these comments at the first JEG meeting (Ref C), those 
comments were discussed at length and the reasons for their not 
being included were explained at length.  At the fourth JEG meeting 
in June 2008, an Italian expert raised them again, but did not press 
them. However, they were again raised in the Italian IAEA comments. 
In the absence of any Italian experts, the ESA expert took up the 
Italian cause.  While the protection of other planets was agreed to 
be beyond the scope of the Framework (and potentially covered by 
another entity), the inclusion of the wording "the protection of 
humans in space" was still pressed.  The ESA expert ultimately 
agreed to withdraw that wording, but it can be expected to be raised 
again by the Italian expert(s). 
 
--------- 
NEXT STEPS: THE REVIEW PROCESS TOWARD A FINAL DRAFT 
--------- 
 
¶7.  (U) The JEG reviewed the review process of the draft Framework 
within the IAEA and the STSC, as well as the SSCs and the CSS.  One 
aspect that deserved special notice was that of configuration 
control of the draft Framework; to ensure that each entity receives 
the appropriate version of the draft Framework.  The Comments 
Disposition Table was updated in light of the resolution of comments 
at the instant meeting. 
 
¶8.  (U) The JEG also reviewed the process of the IAEA and STSC 
jointly printing the Framework, once approval is finally reached. 
This involves resolving issues in editing styles by both the IAEA 
and UN (for UNCOPUOS) editing staffs, as the Framework is intended 
to be a joint publication.  Different editing rules are employed by 
each staff and the JEG is working with both to ensure that editorial 
changes do not change the meaning and intent of any part of the 
Framework. Further, the UNCOPUOS staff notified the JEG that the 
STSC could not publish on its own without United Nations 
authorization.  That would mean being endorsed by the UN General 
Assembly. One suggested course of action was to ask the STSC to 
"endorse the procedure" of having the IAEA publish the Framework. 
In this instance, the Framework would be sent to the IAEA 
Publications Subcommittee after approval by the STSC and the CSS. 
This course of action will be further explored by the JEG and IAEA 
staff.  The IAEA JEG member will provide as estimate of publishing 
costs by the February meeting. 
 
¶9.  (U) The JEG scheduled a teleconference on 17 November to review 
the results of the October meeting, and to allow JEG experts who did 
not attend the meeting to participate in the formulation of a final 
draft.  The goal is to have an updated version of the safety 
Framework provided to the UNCOPUOUS staff for provision to the STSC 
membership in time for inclusion in the February 2009 STSC meeting. 
Assuming STSC approval, the draft Framework would be then be 
provided to the SSCs and the CSS for final approval. 
 
-------- 
COMMENT 
-------- 
 
¶10.  (U) COMMENT: If the draft safety Framework on NPS Applications 
in Outer Space can be approved by the STSC in February and the CSS 
later that spring, a year can be cut from the original time estimate 
for development of the Framework.  The Venezuelan and Italian 
comments that were not accepted could be problematical in reaching 
 
 
consensus, however.  The Italians should be able to be persuaded to 
drop their insistence on wording regarding protection of humans in 
space and planets; these had been excluded from consideration in the 
Framework from the beginning.  However, the Venezuelans have been 
the most vocal in criticism of aspects of the safety Framework. 
Members of the Venezuelan STSC delegation seem to have an 
ideological bias against NPS applications in space under any 
circumstances. The U.S. STSC delegation will have to work to ensure 
that the Venezuelans are isolated in their opposition to parts of 
the draft Framework and not bring other delegations on board.  The 
U.S. delegation could use the pressure of that isolation to obtain 
consensus.  Otherwise, at least one year could be lost in the 
finalization of the Framework. END COMMENT. 
 
SCHULTE