VZCZCXYZ0002
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKO #3432/01 3520727
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 170727Z DEC 08
FM AMEMBASSY TOKYO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9526
INFO RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN PRIORITY 1551
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 2291
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 2653
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 9761
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 6367
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 2219
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY
RHMCSUU/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA PRIORITY 0509
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 2971

UNCLAS TOKYO 003432 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR ISN/NESS, EAP/J 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM ENRG TRGY NRR MNUC PUNE JA
SUBJECT: 3-4 DECEMBER NUCLEAR SAFETY AND SECURITY GROUP 
MEETING 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:  During the third meeting of the G8 
Nuclear Safety and Security Group (NSSG) held in Tokyo 
December 3-4, NSSG members reviewed the status of ongoing 
projects, discussed the future of initiatives proposed during 
Japan's 2008 G8 presidency, and reviewed a draft plan of work 
for the 2009 Italian presidency.  Members agreed the 3S 
initiative proposed by Japan and adopted in the Hokkaido 
Summit Leaders' Statement will continue during the Italian 
presidency, with Japan serving as coordinator for 3S-related 
activities.  Regarding next year's meetings, Italy announced 
Germany has asked the NSSG to discuss approaches to and 
criteria for cooperation with emerging nuclear countries, and 
Germany will send out a draft paper to start discussion on 
that topic.  Finally, Italy noted it will distribute a 
detailed plan of work to NSSG members before the next 
meeting.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Delegations from the G8 countries plus 
representatives of the European Union, the European Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and the International 
Atomic Energy Agency met in Tokyo December 3 and 4 for the 
Third Nuclear Safety and Security Group (NSSG) meeting of 
¶2008.  The meeting was chaired by Japan and included 47 
representatives from the various parties. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director of 
International Nuclear Energy Cooperation Tsutomu Arai opened 
the meeting by noting several key objectives: discussing 
implementation of programs in Armenia and Ukraine, preparing 
for the upcoming EBRD Chernobyl Shelter Fund and Nuclear 
Safety Account meetings in London, and reviewing Italy's work 
plan for its upcoming presidency.  The draft agenda was 
adopted with one member comment:  The Russian delegation 
noted it was acceptable to discuss work being undertaken on 
the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, but 
substantive decision-making for the program should remain in 
those fora where it has been traditionally handled. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The first items discussed were ongoing programs in 
Armenia and Ukraine.  The IAEA presenter described the 
Agency's objectives and efforts for 2008 in Armenia, 
specifically noting several technical cooperation meetings it 
held on the subjects of design safety, seismic safety, and 
operational safety.  Regarding the Ukraine/IAEA/European 
Union joint project, the presenter noted the effort had 
fallen behind schedule.  However, the IAEA, he reported, 
hopes to gain lost time and meet the original deadline of 
¶2010.  He said that the IAEA is very satisfied with the 
project.  Representatives from Russia and the EU, as well the 
U.S. delegation, then described various support provided 
those projects. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) In response to a U.S. question about the ability of 
Armenia's regulatory body to obtain sufficient staff, the 
IAEA representative suggested several positive developments 
were occurring in Armenia:  regulatory body had been placed 
under the PM almost at ministry level, that organization's 
budget has been increased, its chairman was confirmed in 
September, and finally, it had agreed to work with the IAEA 
to conduct a comprehensive review of its legal and regulatory 
framework. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) On earthquakes and nuclear safety, the IAEA 
presenter noted the Agency has officials in Japan to learn 
from Japan's recent experience dealing with earthquakes and 
described several areas of IAEA focus.  First, he explained 
that safety guides for seismic safety have only been revised 
three times in the last 35 years and that the IAEA is now 
reexamining them.  Also, the presenter noted recent 
earthquakes in some cases have exceeded the design basis for 
some nuclear plants, and that this a serious problem that is 
now driving seismic safety work.  The IAEA is issuing a new 
guide on seismic evaluation to accompany existing guidelines 
on seismic hazard and design.  Finally, the IAEA noted it had 
launched an International Seismic Safety Center at its 
September general conference to enhance safety, develop 
standards, pool and share knowledge. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Turning to EBRD-administered Chernobyl projects, 
 
the chair noted there was still a financial gap between 
pledges and the estimated cost of the projects and invited 
the EBRD representative to give a presentation.  Regarding 
the Nuclear Safety Account project, the EBRD representative 
reported good progress was being made overall, but that 
required redesign of the transport cask would result in a 
five month extension to Work Release 1.  The presenter noted 
the overall schedule continues to experience delays and the 
current estimated completion date is October 2010.  The chair 
asked the EBRD to produce a document detailing the delays so 
that members could explain the costs involved to their 
financial authorities.  Responding to a U.S. question, the 
EBRD rep noted the hope to have members re-confirm their 
existing pledge and ask non-G8 members to pledge.  The rep 
stated the Bank hopes to have a better idea of the costs by 
February. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) On the Chernobyl Shelter Fund, the EBRD rep 
described several positive developments, e.g., the completion 
of roof repair, but commented the lack of sufficient local 
work force threatens to cause delays.  He went on to describe 
the New Safe Confinement (CDSD) effort, noting the builders 
have selected a design different from the original concept, 
but still hoped to have it approved by December.  He said the 
planners have not yet assessed the impact of CDSD-related 
delays, but noted current cost estimates show a possible 
increase of 50 million euros. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) The IAEA then gave a presentation describing its 
creation of a Code of Conduct and Guidance on Import & Export 
of Radioactive Sources.  The presenter noted the code is 
non-binding, but enjoys widespread support.  As of November, 
92 states had written to the Director General expressing 
support for the Code of Conduct.  The U.S. delegation 
followed by giving its presentation on the Global Initiative 
to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which described the plan of 
work, the exercise program, and the Information Portal. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) On the Global Nuclear Safety Network (GNSN), the 
IAEA presenter described the GNSN as a set of 
internationally-accessible networks and resources for 
information exchange and cooperation in nuclear safety 
matters.  The speaker noted that while initial development of 
the network occurred in Germany, the IAEA had agreed to take 
over hosting responsibilities and the network can now be 
accessed at gnsn-iaea.org.  Japan noted the Asian Nuclear 
Safety Network (ANSN) shares the same goal of information 
sharing, but adds encouraging regional cooperation to its 
objectives.  Like the GNSN, the ANSN relies on the IAEA for 
some hosting support, but also has hubs in China, Japan, and 
Korea. 
 
¶11.  (SBU) Regarding its International Initiative on 3S-based 
Nuclear Energy Infrastructure, which was adopted by consensus 
in the Hokkaido Summit Leaders' Statement, Japan proposed a 
framework covering the next five years.  Japan suggested NSSG 
members and the IAEA make voluntary reports on their 
activities during the first two years, related to the safety, 
security and safeguards.  At each regular NSSG meeting, 
members will also be able to make observations on challenges 
surfacing in infrastructure development and the IAEA could 
propose projects for consideration.  Delegations broadly 
agreed that considering all three issues (safety, security, 
and safeguards) together, rather than breaking them up for 
discussion, is the best plan of action, especially since the 
NSSG mandate is not well-suited to discussing safeguards by 
itself.  Following the initial two years of reports, the NSSG 
members could then discuss and decide on follow-on projects 
for the next three years. 
 
¶12.  (SBU) French, Canadian, EU, and U.S. delegations spoke 
in general support of Japan's proposal.  However, Canada's 
delegation noted asking the IAEA to suggest projects will 
create expectations; a different role for the IAEA might be 
better.  The U.S. delegation noted support for the Initiative 
and the plan, but said it cannot commit now to financial 
assistance to 3S projects.  The Russian delegation commented 
that safeguards, nominally a part of the 3S initiative, fall 
under the IAEA's purview and asked NSSG members to take into 
 
account the outcomes of upcoming IAEA events for 3S planning. 
 The IAEA representative noted the IAEA already covers 
safety, security, and safeguards as part of the broader issue 
set in which it works.  As such, it would be difficult for 
the IAEA to propose new standards in those areas.  However, 
he said the Agency supports the effort with that condition. 
Japan then volunteered to serve as organizer for ongoing 3S 
work during the upcoming Italian presidency. 
 
¶13.  (SBU) The U.S. delegation began the second day of 
meetings by giving a presentation on the Nuclear Regulatory 
Committee's education grant program.  In response, several 
delegations asked questions about the intent of the program, 
the IAEA noted several programs of its own and the Russian 
delegation offered to give a presentation at a future meeting 
on Russia's education efforts.  Japan, describing its 
concerns about maintaining a sufficient workforce in the face 
of population decline and upcoming retirements, noted that it 
has been subsidizing education in the field since 2007 as 
part of a Human Resources Development Program.  Related to 
this effort, the Japan Association of Nuclear Industry is 
working to draw up a roadmap for human resources development 
in Japan. 
 
¶14.  (SBU) The Italian delegation followed by describing a 
proposed program of work for its 2009 G8 presidency. In 
addition to ongoing Chernobyl projects, Italy noted it would 
work to focus efforts on improving the safety of plants in 
operation, strengthening safety and security related to 
earthquakes and radioactive source, the Global Initiative to 
Combat Nuclear Terrorism, Multilateral Approaches to the Fuel 
Cycle, the GNSN, and the 3S Initiative, with special emphasis 
on nuclear education and training.  The Italian delegation 
noted, based on a German request, that it may be useful for 
the NSSG to discuss different kinds of approaches to, and 
different criteria for, cooperating with emerging nuclear 
countries.  Italy proposed the topic for the first meeting of 
¶2009.  Responding to concerns it could be a sensitive topic, 
the Italian rep noted it does not intend for emerging nuclear 
countries to be a permanent part of the 2009 agenda, merely 
an additional topic for discussion at the first meeting. 
Italy noted it had asked Germany to prepare a non-paper to 
distribute to NSSG members to create a starting point for 
discussion.  After a comment by the EU on putting this 
discussion in the context of international cooperation, Italy 
noted it in no way wanted to diminish the rights of countries 
to go nuclear, but wanted to discuss the basis for 
cooperation with such countries.  The Japanese and Canadian 
delegations asked whether such a discussion would be 
constructive for the NPT.  Finally, Italy noted it is 
preparing a detailed work plan document that will be provided 
to members before the next meeting. 
 
¶15.  (U) This message has been cleared by ISN/NESS. 
SCHIEFFER