VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0163/01 1041531
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 141531Z APR 09
FM USMISSION UNVIEVIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9296
RMCSUU/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEANFA/NRC WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO RUEHII/VIENNA IAEA POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000163 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR IO/T, E/CBA, ISN/MNSA, ISN/NESS - BURKART, HUMPHREY 
STATE FOR USAID 
NA-242-MCCLELLAND-KERR; NE - WELLING 
NRC FOR OIP - HENDERSON, SCHWARTZMAN, COMMERCE FOR ITA - SARAH LOPP 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC KNNP IAEA ENRG TRGY BEXP EAID
SUBJECT: IAEA: COORDINATION OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE TO MEMBER 
STATE NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURES 
 
This is an action request. 
 
------------------- 
 
Summary and Comment 
------------------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: On March 27, MsnOffs met with a group of senior 
IAEA managers to discuss coordination of infrastructure assistance 
activities related to the expansion of nuclear power.  Graham 
Andrew, S&T Advisor to Director General ElBaradei, requested the 
meeting in response to Mission's invitation to the IAEA to take part 
in a planned U.S. workshop among "donor" states to harmonize 
assistance on safeguards infrastructure.  The IAEA briefed MsnOffs 
on the structure and process the Secretariat is putting in place to 
ensure internal coordination of IAEA infrastructure assistance. 
IAEA officials appealed to the United States to look to the 
recipient states to take responsibility for driving international 
support efforts.  This would both ensure developing states' buy-in, 
as well as avoid any perception that the developed states were using 
"infrastructure assistance" as a Trojan horse to press for more 
non-proliferation measures.  After MsnOffs assured the IAEA 
management team of the U.S. intent to closely coordinate with the 
IAEA and to avoid the perception of a "Trojan horse," IAEA officials 
indicated their willingness to participate in the pending 
U.S.-sponsored workshop (DOE/NNSA's International Nuclear Safeguards 
Engagement Program (INSEP) plans to hold the workshop this Spring in 
Vienna).  In a follow-on discussion with MsnOffs on April 7, Andrew 
indicated interest in additional U.S.-sponsored cost-free expert 
(CFE) assistance to implement international coordination of 
infrastructure-building assistance.  Andrew reiterated several times 
during the discussion that the Director General has specified that 
effective coordination and provision of assistance in this regard is 
the Agency's top priority in the area of nuclear energy. 
 
¶2. (U) Comment:  The IAEA is clearly anxious to avoid being seen as 
part of any developed states' effort to define infrastructure 
support narrowly and primarily as a non-proliferation tool, vice a 
broader enabling of nuclear power-related capabilities.  The 
Secretariat wants to ensure consistency of message, and MsnOffs 
suggested they raise Member State awareness of the IAEA's 
coordination effort by briefing it at INSEP's planned workshop. 
Unless otherwise directed, Mission will seek to coordinate closely 
with the IAEA pursuant to its Nuclear Power Support Group (NPSG) 
procedures laid out in the IAEA briefing (emailed to 
Department/DOE/NRC).   Mission requests revised instructions should 
Washington desire any departure from our standing guidance to 
support and promote safe, secure, and well-safeguarded nuclear 
infrastructures in NPT states in good-standing who choose to develop 
nuclear power (see para. 10 action request).  End comment and 
summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
IAEA Coordination Effort Taking Shape 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶3. (U) Andrew began the meeting by welcoming the opportunity to 
discuss infrastructure coordination with the United States.  He 
noted that "one size does not fit all" in terms of the needs of 
recipient states and that the IAEA believed it was essential for 
recipient states to play a leading role in defining the pace and 
content of the assistance they would be receiving.  Drawing an 
analogy to IAEA Technical Cooperation projects, Andrew said the 
recipients should also make a financial contribution.  Andrew said 
recipient states should actively coordinate their own receipt of 
training over the long term, noting that it takes approximately 15 
years or so to build a first nuclear power plant.  Andrew summarized 
his opening comments by observing that "we don't want to rush 
support, we want to get it right."  (Comment:  Andrew's latter 
comment reflects concerns he shared privately with MsnOff that the 
planned INSEP workshop not/not be seen as "dictating" to recipient 
states what they need.  It was clearly implied by Andrew's comments 
that he would not be in favor of IAEA participation if that were the 
case.  He also hoped that the U.S. workshop would not inadvertently 
undercut the effort he is trying to drive within the IAEA to achieve 
internal IAEA coordination of infrastructure support, and then 
better IAEA coordination with the international community.  End 
comment.) 
 
¶4.  (U) Nuclear Power Division Director Omoto gave a presentation 
(REF A) describing the process the IAEA is developing for 
coordinating its infrastructure assistance programs.  The 
Secretariat believes this should be a demand-driven process, 
organized to meet the needs of the countries seeking assistance in 
capacity building for nuclear power.  A major component of the 
 
IAEA's plans is the Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) 
Mission, which states would request through the Technical 
Cooperation Program, with a pilot mission planned in 2009.  To 
support this effort, the Agency is also building Country Nuclear 
Power Profiles (public documents) and a Country Nuclear 
Infrastructure Profile database (for internal use, including 
assessments and country-specific support plans).  The Secretariat 
has established a senior inter-departmental Nuclear Power Support 
Group (NPSG) to develop the policy framework for this effort, many 
of whose members were in the meeting. (Note: TC Africa Division 
Director Ali Boussaha chairs the NPSG, but Omoto has been tasked to 
take the lead on implementation of internal coordination and 
outreach to Member States) 
 
¶5. (U) In discussion, the IAEA noted that an integrated approach to 
infrastructure, especially with countries in the early stages of 
planning a nuclear power program, is an effective way to present 
safety, security and safeguards in a broader context and to build a 
culture of transparency and openness around new nuclear power 
programs.  Director of the Office of Nuclear Security, Anita 
Nilsson, stressed the importance of engaging states early on good 
security and safety practices, and argued that doing so should be 
seen as a benefit that "enables" states nuclear power aspirations, 
not a burden that "suppresses" them.  The IAEA officials emphasized 
the importance of a demand-driven approach for both practical and 
political reasons:  Member States receiving support need to show 
commitment if they are serious about developing a nuclear power 
program.  A donor-driven process risks being seen as imposing 
conditions on developing countries.  In the IAEA's view it is 
important that states are committed to take all appropriate steps 
and are transparent. 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
Overcoming IAEA Wariness on Donor Meeting 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (U) MsnOff explained plans for the safeguards infrastructure 
donor harmonization workshop planned by INSEP.  The first part of 
the workshop would be a session to exchange information among 
current providers of safeguards assistance, including the IAEA, to 
ensure that these efforts are consistent in substance and do not 
duplicate one another, and to identify gaps in their coverage. 
Cooley endorsed this as a worthwhile effort in its own right.  While 
acknowledging and supporting the IAEA vision of a demand-driven, 
integrated approach to infrastructure support, Cooley noted that it 
was not too early for such donor harmonization so long as it is seen 
as being done within the context of the broader IAEA coordination 
effort.  She cited a recent series of overlapping safeguards-related 
training courses in Vietnam as an example of the inefficiencies and 
confusion that can arise from donors taking an uncoordinated 
approach.  MsnOff explained that the second part of the workshop 
would allow donor states and the IAEA to begin a dialogue on how 
they see safeguards assistance fitting into the context of broader 
infrastructure coordination efforts.  The states could underscore 
the central role safeguards -- and more broadly 3S (safety, security 
and safeguards/non-proliferation) -- should play in infrastructure. 
The IAEA could provide an update on its emerging infrastructure 
development coordination procedures, as described in the IAEA 
presentation. 
 
¶7. (U) The Secretariat raised the question of timing.  Most of the 
countries interested in nuclear power are in a very early phase of 
planning, with limited capacity to absorb assistance.  Boussaha 
noted that assistance should be provided in a strategic manner, 
since many of the countries lack adequate planning capacity, and 
should be timed appropriately to their stage of development.  In the 
case of safeguards, it may be 10 years or longer before they are 
ready for and need training in material accountancy. 
 
¶8. (U) In the end, IAEA participants indicated they would support 
the proposed workshop, both by participating and by helping to set 
the stage.  The Secretariat is organizing a consultancy meeting on 
infrastructure May 7-8 in Vienna, which could lay the groundwork for 
the INSEP workshop (and possibly others) by recommending follow-on 
topical workshops.  Agency participants hoped that endorsement by 
the May 7-8 meeting, in which "recipient" states will participate, 
will help avoid any misperception that the U.S. workshop is part of 
an effort by developed states to dictate to developing states what 
they need, or to place sole emphasis on safeguards and security 
issues, rather than the more general technical assistance developing 
states would like to receive. 
 
-------------------------- 
Comment and Action Request 
-------------------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) Comment:  Mission sees Andrew's effort to drive an internal 
IAEA coordination process as a sincere effort to bring together 
Safety, Security, Nuclear Power, and Safeguards components of the 
IAEA bureaucracy that have not been well-coordinated on 
infrastructure support to date.  We see this effort as dovetailing 
with USG efforts toward the same end.  In this regard, Mission is 
pursuing a strategic approach to placement of U.S.-funded CFE's 
within the Secretariat to help manage and implement coordination of 
infrastructure support.  We are pursuing discussions to replace one 
CFE within the Division of Nuclear Energy working with Omoto. 
(Note:  Anne Starz, Technical Secretary to the NSWG, has been 
supporting development of the IAEA's infrastructure support efforts, 
and has been offered a regular staff position, replacing her 
departing supervisor Ian Facer.  She will be key to the success of 
the Secretariat's coordination effort, and will be the Scientific 
Secretary for the upcoming workshop in May.)  Mission has heard from 
the French Mission that France may also seek to place a CFE in the 
same Division; Mission recommends having U.S. persons in position to 
help ensure that any activity undertaken by the French also serves 
U.S. interests.  Also, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
is planning to fund another CFE for infrastructure coordination. 
Given the lack of enthusiasm for the IAEA's infrastructure efforts 
Mission has observed in DDG Taniguchi and the IAEA's safety-related 
divisions over which he presides, Mission is working to place any 
NRC-sponsored CFE within the Department of Nuclear Safety and 
Security in order to help prompt and facilitate work across 
Department lines.  (Note:  The NRC is also funding a parallel CFE at 
the Nuclear Energy Agency in Paris.  These two CFEs will work 
together to share information and hopefully coordinate some of 
IAEA's and NEA's activities.  We have also heard interest from the 
Technical Cooperation Asia division in finding a U.S. private sector 
expert to replace the departing Japanese private sector cost free 
expert working on nuclear power infrastructure.  In an April 7 
meeting with MsnOffs, Andrew indicated clear interest in the 
provision of such U.S-sponsored CFEs, but referred MsnOffs to the 
line managers to work out details of their placement and role.  In 
the course of the conversation, Andrew reiterated several times that 
Director General ElBaradei has specified that provision of 
well-coordinated international assistance to member state's nuclear 
infrastructure-building efforts is the Agency's top priority in the 
nuclear energy area (IAEA Major Program 1). 
 
¶10. (SBU) Finally, Mission requests guidance as soon as possible for 
how to characterize to our Vienna interlocutors-including at the 
IAEA and within the "Friends of Nuclear Energy" group in which we 
participate--the status of and relationship among various U.S. 
infrastructure support activities, including those under the Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership, those undertaken with Russia, and those 
being undertaken by the NRC and INSEP. 
 
¶11. (U) Participants 
 
IAEA participants: 
Graham Andrew, S&T Advisor to the Director General 
Akira Omoto, Nuclear Power Division Director 
Ali Boussaha, Technical Cooperation Africa Division Director and 
Chairman of the NPSG 
Jill Cooley, Safeguards Concepts and Planning Director 
Frederic Claude, Advisor to the Deputy Director General for 
Safeguards 
Anita Nilsson, Nuclear Security Office Director 
Johan Rautenbach, Director, Office of Legal Affairs, 
Anne Starz, Nuclear Power Division, technical secretary to the NPSG 
 
U.S. Participants 
Kurt Kessler, Deputy IAEA counselor 
Mark Goodman, Science Attache 
Lisa Hilliard, Science Attache 
Heather Astwood, Nuclear Safety Attache 
 
SCHULTE