VZCZCXRO3848
RR RUEHDBU RUEHSK RUEHSL
DE RUEHUNV #0285/01 1691313
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 181313Z JUN 09 ZDK MANY SVCS
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9604
INFO RHMCSUU/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC
RUEANFA/NRC WASHDC
RUEHUJA/AMEMBASSY ABUJA 0092
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0094
RUEHTH/AMEMBASSY ATHENS 0001
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0846
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0803
RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN 0134
RUEHEK/AMEMBASSY BISHKEK 0049
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 0229
RUEHSL/AMEMBASSY BRATISLAVA 0112
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 0230
RUEHBM/AMEMBASSY BUCHAREST 0087
RUEHUP/AMEMBASSY BUDAPEST 0129
RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 0222
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 0654
RUEHCP/AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN 0077
RUEHDK/AMEMBASSY DAKAR 0024
RUEHDL/AMEMBASSY DUBLIN 0080
RUEHDBU/AMEMBASSY DUSHANBE
RUEHHE/AMEMBASSY HELSINKI 0129
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0079
RUEHLJ/AMEMBASSY LJUBLJANA 0155
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1158
RUEHLE/AMEMBASSY LUXEMBOURG 0028
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID 0186
RUEHSK/AMEMBASSY MINSK 0048
RUEHMN/AMEMBASSY MONTEVIDEO 0031
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0910
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO 0110
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0655
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1016
RUEHPG/AMEMBASSY PRAGUE 0118
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 0204
RUEHRB/AMEMBASSY RABAT 0083
RUEHRK/AMEMBASSY REYKJAVIK 0023
RUEHRA/AMEMBASSY RIGA 0038
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 0459
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 0308
RUEHSF/AMEMBASSY SOFIA 0084
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM 0176
RUEHTL/AMEMBASSY TALLINN 0049
RUEHNT/AMEMBASSY TASHKENT 0045
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 0226
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 0696
RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 1360
RUEHVL/AMEMBASSY VILNIUS 0109
RUEHWR/AMEMBASSY WARSAW 0102
RUEHVB/AMEMBASSY ZAGREB 0041

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 36 UNVIE VIENNA 000285 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR ISN/NESS AND IO/T 
DOE FOR EM-1 TRIAY 
NRC MDOANE AND JSCHWARTZMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ENRG TRGY KNNP AORC
SUBJECT: NUCLEAR SAFETY: REPORT OF THE THIRD MEETING OF THE JOINT 
CONVENTION ON SPENT FUEL AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE, MAY 11-20, 2009 - 
SUCCESSFUL COUNTRY REVIEW GROUPS WITH CHANGES TO RULES OF PROCEDURE 
 
REF: 08 UNVIE 663 (NOTAL) 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  001.2 OF 036 
 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. The Third Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of 
Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste 
Management was broadly successful for U.S. interests.  The meeting 
was more widely attended than last time, and the quality of the 
national reports and the discussions were much better than in the 
past, indicating greater attention and focus on waste issues. 
Interesting items raised at this meeting included: a desire for 
regional repositories; increased attention to contamination from 
uranium milling and mining sites; increased desire for clearance 
levels; and positive steps by former Soviet Union countries to take 
responsibility for legacy wastes. 
- 
¶2. Six Country Review Groups took place during the first week of the 
conference.  In general, reviews went very well, with Contracting 
Parties providing well thought-out presentations, including often 
candid and transparent interaction among the countries during the 
question and answer period (paras 27-33).  U.S. technical side 
meetings with Contracting Parties resulted in Follow Up Action Items 
(para 16). 
 
¶3. Rapporteur Reports generally reflected the deliberations (paras 
34-39).   A number of cross-cutting trends emerged (paras 13-14). 
Three Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) Sessions were held, to discuss 
seven topics: (1) Policy Makers Topic Meeting; (2) Data Presentation 
Tool for Joint Convention National Reports; (3) Improvements in 
Selection of Conference Officers; (4) Joint Convention Leadership; 
(5) Knowledge Transfer and Continuity between Review Meetings; (6) 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  002.2 OF 036 
 
 
Improving Interaction Between Meetings, and (7) Clarification of 
procedures for replacing officers if they are unable to perform 
their duties (paras 16-19).  Both the "Summary Report of the Third 
Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties" and the "Report of the 
President of the Third Review Meeting" were made publicly available. 
 
 
¶4. Under the agenda item Other Business, a French proposal to take 
up a debate on opening the Review Meetings to the public was blocked 
by a U.S. Intervention(para 38). 
 
¶5. The U.S. Representative participated in an interview, at the 
request of reporter Ann MacLachlan, arranged by the UNVIE Mission 
press officer.  The interview appeared in the May 28, 2009 
McGraw-Hill Platts publication "Nucleonics Week," along with 
comments from the press conference held by the three Joint 
Convention Officers. 
 
------------------- 
Broad Participation 
------------------- 
 
¶6. The Third Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of 
Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste 
Management (Joint Convention) took place on May 11-20, 2009, at the 
IAEA, in Vienna, Austria.  Janet Gorn, Senior Foreign Affairs 
Officer, Department of State served as Head of Delegation for 16 
U.S. attendees.  Frank Marcinowski, DOE Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Regulatory Compliance, served as Joint Convention Vice President 
and Chairman of the Open-ended Sessions, and Mary Bisesi, Program 
Analyst, DOE Office of Disposal Operations, served as Joint 
Convention Coordinator for Country Group One. 
 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  003.2 OF 036 
 
 
¶7. Forty-four of the forty-eight Contracting Parties attended the 
meeting.  Countries not in attendance were: Kyrgyz Republic (no 
report), Tajikistan (submitted report and answered questions), 
Uruguay (no reports), and Uzbekistan (no report-recently ratified). 
  Portugal submitted its ratification credentials during the second 
week of the conference, becoming the 49th Contracting Party. 
 
--------------- 
Opening Plenary 
--------------- 
 
¶8. IAEA DDG TANIGUCHI REMARKS:  Tomihiro Taniguchi, IAEA Deputy 
Director General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Safety and 
Security noted the Review Meeting marked almost ten years of 
implementation as an important element within the Global Nuclear 
Safety and Security Regime.  His opening remarks initially focused 
on the importance of initiating a concerted effort to increase the 
membership of the Contracting Parties in the Joint Convention, in 
particular on identifying ways to better facilitate new membership. 
 
 
¶9. REVIEW MEETING PRESIDENT'S REMARKS: Kunihisa Soda, the Joint 
Convention President, welcomed seven new Contracting Parties: 
China, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tajikistan and 
Uzbekistan.  He then focused on the need to bring in new Contracting 
Parties, noting that only one-third of IAEA Member States are 
Parties to the Joint Convention.  Mr. Soda urged Parties to provide 
feedback on the review process for the 3rd Meeting and the 
Open-ended Work Group discussion regarding knowledge transfer from 
meeting to meeting.  He then reviewed the summary report of Mr. 
Andre-Claude Lacoste, Chairman of the 3rd Organizational Meeting. 
 
 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  004.2 OF 036 
 
 
¶10. AGENDA ITEMS.  The agenda was adopted with minor changes.  There 
were no late ratifiers.  The IAEA legal counsel reported that not 
all Parties had completed filing credentials.  Invitations were 
issued to the OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency and the European Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to attend the 3rd meeting as 
Observers.   The EBRD commented on its appreciation for the 
invitation, which provided an opportunity to learn more about spent 
fuel (SF) and radioactive waste (RW) management programs in support 
of EBRD's management of six financial funds in this area. 
 
¶11. The Joint Convention President announced, in addition to the 
replacement of the Canadian Country Group Chairman, there were four 
Contracting Parties not in attendance: Kyrgyzstan (no report), 
Tajikistan (submitted report and answered questions), Uruguay (no 
reports), and Uzbekistan (no report-recently ratified).   Senegal 
noted it had recently ratified the Joint Convention, but it did not 
submit a National Report.  Senegal's intention was to observe the 
Country Group review process to draw guidance for preparation of its 
National Report for the Fourth Meeting.  Contracting Parties 
supported Senegal's participation strategy, and suggested it would 
be beneficial for Parties if Senegal could also give a brief oral 
review of its program.   (NOTE: Portugal submitted its ratification 
instrument during the meeting, becoming the 49th Contracting 
Party.) 
 
¶12. The Parties agreed to seven Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) 
topics: (1) Policy Makers Topic Meeting; (2) Data Presentation Tool 
for Joint Convention National Reports; (3) Improvements in Officers' 
Selection; (4) Joint Convention Leadership; (5) Knowledge Transfer 
and Continuity between Review Meetings; (6) Improve Interaction 
Between Meetings and (7) Clarification of procedures for replacing 
officers if they are unable to perform their duties.  Frank 
Marcinowski (USA) was confirmed as the OEWG chair. 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  005.2 OF 036 
 
 
 
¶13. Opening Remarks were presented in the OEWG by the United States 
and Japan.  U.S. remarks focused on strengthening the worldwide 
safety culture through Contracting Party support for the Joint 
Convention Regional Conference Initiative, noting the U.S. had 
contributed $230,000 in the past three years and allocated another 
$80,000 for 2009.  Japan in its opening remarks focused on its 
contribution in Asia by taking advantage of opportunities to provide 
financial and human resources, in the area of nuclear safety, spent 
fuel, and radioactive waste management, in particular activities in 
the Forum for Nuclear Cooperation in Asia (FNCA) and the Asia 
Nuclear Safety Network (ANSN). 
 
---------------------------------- 
Overview of Country Group Sessions 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶14. In general, Country Group National Report reviews went 
remarkably well, with Contracting Parties providing well thought-out 
presentations utilizing the Organizational Meeting agreed format. 
Interaction among the countries during the question and answer 
period was often candid and generally transparent. 
 
¶15.  Emerging Trends:  The U.S. delegation noted the following 
trends of interest to all Country Review Groups: 
 
- Although a number of Contracting Parties are not formally planning 
a permanent disposal strategy, they indicated a willingness to 
participate in a regional solution for the management of spent fuel 
and radioactive waste.  However, it was not apparent that any will 
volunteer to host an international disposal facility in the near 
term. 
- In the past, the IAEA Secretariat has used "euphemisms" for a 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  006.2 OF 036 
 
 
concerted effort to have its International Safety Standards adopted 
for global application.  At this meeting, the popular term was 
"linkages;" careful attention should be paid to the use of this term 
in the context of discussions involving the IAEA Safety Standards. 
- Recruitment of new workers and retention of current workers has 
become a significant issue in trying to keep staff-level 
competencies in the regulatory bodies; human resources to provide 
technical expertise and fill skills gaps constitutes a critical 
issue. 
- Parties are emphasizing public involvement, and in particular 
public acceptance, in making decisions regarding long-term waste 
management. 
- There has been a concerted effort to give the public and other 
stakeholders a voice in the licensing process for siting and 
selection of radioactive waste and spent fuel disposal and 
centralized storage facilities. 
- A number of Contracting Parties have indicated some difficulties 
as a result of the current economic situation; they are seeking 
financial and other assistance either bilaterally or from 
international organizations such as the IAEA. 
- A number of former Soviet Union countries are acknowledging that 
the Russian Federation is not going to assist with legacy wastes 
remaining in these countries in a timely fashion, so they are taking 
responsibility to address these issues themselves. 
- A number of Contracting Parties rely on energy tariffs to generate 
liabilities funds; the need for energy keeps these funds well 
endowed. 
- Parties are upgrading existing waste management facilities, either 
to address deficiencies or to extend the facility capacity and 
lifetime. 
- Parties are putting more attention and resources into addressing 
legacy contamination issues, such as those from uranium mining and 
milling. 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  007.2 OF 036 
 
 
- Parties are implementing systems for tracking, controlling, and 
managing sealed sources; most Parties have made significant strides 
to account for and secure disused/orphaned sealed sources. A number 
of Contracting Parties have focused greater efforts on the 
disposition and management of disused radioactive sealed sources; 
returning sources to the foreign manufacturers is the preferred 
alternative. Many have developed electronic tracking systems and 
software to better track these sources throughout their lifetime. 
- Funding and preparation for repositories for both spent 
fuel/high-level waste and Low and Intermediate Level Waste (LILW) 
remain topics of interest. 
- Most Parties with nuclear power plants have worked hard on 
regulatory transparency and openness. 
- Several countries are considering launching nuclear power 
programs; the 3rd Review Meeting expressed a strong recommendation 
that spent fuel and radioactive waste management be factored into 
the initiative right from the beginning. 
- Some Contracting Parties are facing near-term constraints in terms 
of storage capacity for their spent fuel and radioactive waste; 
additional storage, treatment, conditioning or disposal solutions 
will be needed over the next decade. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
Follow Up Action Items for U.S. 
Delegation from Technical Side Meetings 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶16. Seven Contracting Parties consulted with the U.S. Technical Team 
during questions and answers on the U.S. presentation or on the 
margins of the conference regarding USG assistance and/or contact 
information.   Follow Up actions resulting from the Review Meeting 
are: 
 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  008.2 OF 036 
 
 
- R. Gray, Health and Safety Executive (UK) requested information on 
safety metrics for safety and operational trends. 
- K. Suyama, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and 
Technology (Japan) requested additional information on the National 
Source Tracking System and details on establishing a tracking 
system. 
- C. Ruiz, Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (Spain) requested the 
Congressional Report on demonstration of interim storage of spent 
fuel - Completed. 
- O. Phillips, National Nuclear Regulator (S. Africa) requested 
exchanges with NRC and DOE on the topic of remediation and 
decommissioning by means of existing bilateral agreements - in 
progress. 
- P. Torbijn (Netherlands), Ministry of Housing, and Spatial 
Environment, requested information and a NRC staff contact on U.S. 
regulations regarding Financial Assurances. 
- S. Nakayama, Japan Atomic Energy Agency (Japan) requested 
information on U.S. procedures for clearing material from regulatory 
control, particularly the release of metals for the purpose of 
recycling. 
- M. Yamada, Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (Japan), 
requested information on U.S. regulatory requirments related to 
mixed radioactive and hazardous waste. 
 
--------------------------------- 
Open-ended Working Group Sessions 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶17. Frank Marcinowski chaired the OEWG on May 12-14, 2009. 
Approximately half of the contracting parties participated.  Six 
proposals had been recommended for the OEWG's consideration and 
action and agreed prior to the Review Meeting.  In addition, Mr. 
Koblinger (Hungary) made a seventh proposal that the OEWG evaluate 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  009.3 OF 036 
 
 
whether the Joint Convention operating procedures require revision 
to clarify procedures for replacing officers if they are unable to 
perform their duties.  This was agreed and considered by the OEWG. 
 Five of the seven proposals affect changes to the Rules of 
Procedures. 
 
¶18. OEWG Session I:  Topics (1) Policy Makers Topical Meeting and 
(2) Data Presentation Tool for Joint Convention National Reports 
(May 12, 2009); 
 
¶19. TOPIC (1) POLICY MAKERS TOPICAL MEETING.   The first proposal, 
authored by the United Kingdom (UK) suggested a policy makers' 
topical meeting at the Fourth Review Meeting of the Parties.  The 
proposal recognized that licensing decisions and policy making may 
be handled by different entities within the governmental 
organization of a given state. The regulatory body may not be the 
decision maker for policy nor even for specific authorization.  How 
a given Contracting Party functions within the context of the Joint 
Convention may, therefore, not be exactly consistent with the letter 
of the Joint Convention provisions. There was a lengthy discussion 
at the OEWG to understand the proposal.  A suggestion was made to 
select one or more challenges from this Review Meeting to provide a 
tangible context for examining the role of policy makers in the 
Joint Convention.  The UK agreed to further develop this proposal 
and to present it by the time of the next Organizational Meeting. 
 
RESULT:  Proposal accepted as written.  Adopted by consensus in the 
Closing Plenary. 
 
¶20. TOPIC (2) DATA PRESENTATION TOOL FOR JOINT CONVENTION NATIONAL 
REPORTS. The second proposal, by the U.S., was developed in 
conjunction with Netherlands, Spain, Czech Republic, Germany and 
IAEA to allow voluntary use of an electronic data presentation tool 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  010.2 OF 036 
 
 
(the Net-Enabled Waste Management database, or NEWMDB) , to be 
provided by the Secretariat to the Contracting Parties, for 
development of portions of the Joint Convention National Reports. 
The OEWG decided to have the IAEA Secretariat make it available to 
contracting parties to use on a voluntary basis; no meeting is 
needed to further develop or explain the tool.  If a Contracting 
Party opts to use the voluntary tool, it is the responsibility of 
the Contracting Party to ensure the information provided to the 
Secretariat and retrieved from the NEWMDB is accurate and of the 
right time period for the National Report.  Each Contracting Party 
shall determine who has access to its information in the reporting 
tool.  The Secretariat will develop and make available guidance on 
how to use and deploy the tool. 
 
RESULT:  Proposal was accepted with some clarifications.  Adopted by 
consensus in the Closing Plenary. 
 
¶21. OEWG Session II:  Topics (3) Improvements in Officers' Selection 
and (4) Joint Convention Leadership (May 13, 2009) 
 
-- TOPICS 3 AND 4.  Proposals 3 and 4 as originally proposed 
separately by the UK and the U.S. were combined into a single 
proposal after considerable discussion, and treated as one proposal 
during the final OEWG session on May 14.  Several amendments were 
offered to provide additional clarity and improve the enhanced 
process based on experience at the October 2008 Organizational 
meeting.  The resulting proposal recommends changes to INFCIRC/603 
to (reftel) improve and clarify the selection process for Officers 
of the Joint Convention.  Not later than two months before the 
Organizational Meeting, as part of such nomination, a Contracting 
Party shall provide, in writing, relevant biographical information 
on the candidate, the qualifications of the candidate, the issues 
that should be addressed by the Contracting Parties during the next 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  011.2 OF 036 
 
 
three years and the position of the candidate on those issues. Each 
candidate for the elective places, or their representative, shall 
have the opportunity to make a short oral presentation to the 
Contracting Parties at the Organizational Meeting that addresses the 
items in the material supporting their candidacy and shall answer 
questions from the Contracting Parties.  Contracting Parties will 
endeavor to reach consensus on the President and Vice President from 
the candidates nominated in accordance with the above process. 
Contracting Parties are encouraged to nominate candidates for 
President, Vice-President, Chairs, Vice-Chairs, Rapporteur, or 
Coordinator and to indicate the extent to which the candidates are 
willing to be considered for other elective places in the event that 
they are not elected to their first choice. 
 
¶22. The U.S. provision folded into the proposal clarified that there 
are no formal or informal requirements or restrictions in the Joint 
Convention itself, its Rules of Procedures, or elsewhere treating 
who may be an officer.  The U.S. text provided that the Rules of 
Procedure should encourage diversity in selection of officers, to 
ensure a broad range of experiences and perspectives to achieve the 
objective of the Joint Convention.  Consensus was reached on the 
combined proposal, by Contracting Parties, with the exception of 
France which did not agree with the language from the U.S. proposal. 
 
 
¶23. Many contracting parties expressed support for the views that 
there are no restrictions on who may be an officer; that officers 
may be government officials with policy, regulatory, or management 
responsibility for the safety of spent fuel management and/or 
radioactive waste management; and, that diversity among Joint 
Convention Officers results in a broad range of experiences and 
perspectives, enhancing leadership skills in achieving the 
objectives of the Joint Convention.  However a number of contracting 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  012.2 OF 036 
 
 
parties expressed concerns that the language on diversity might be 
viewed as mandating a mechanistic balancing formula and complicate 
the already complex process to fill the officer positions.  It was 
noted that diversity could be encouraged by a more general 
provision.  There was general agreement that candidates should have 
experience with the objectives of the Joint Convention, and that 
participation in a prior meeting, although useful, is not essential. 
 The U.S. delegation expressed the view that preference should not 
be accorded to individuals with a specific background.  Text on 
inclusion of a broad cross section of government officials was 
adopted as part of the joint U.S.-UK proposal so there would be no 
need for a separate proposal to revise the guidelines.  Thus, a 
combined proposal 3 and 4 was considered as discussed above. 
 
¶24. TOPICS 3 AND 4 RESULT:  The French delegation blocked consensus 
in the Closing Plenary on including U.S.-proposed clarifying 
language in the Rules of Procedure.  There were two interventions, 
from Estonia and Finland, in support of the French position that the 
President of the Review Meeting must be a regulatory official. 
Finland suggested that a regulator would foster public confidence. 
Interventions from the U.K., Canada, Spain, Japan, and Switzerland 
supported the U.S. position.  To find a path forward, the U.S. 
proposed to remove the proposed clarifying clause in the main Rules 
of Procedure, and insert clarifying text in the "Note on 
Qualifications of Officers."  Unable to reach an agreeable middle 
ground on this important procedural matter, and to avoid a call for 
a vote, the President called a recess to convene a side meeting of 
the Representatives of the U.S. and French delegations and any other 
interested Parties.  After lengthy deliberations between the U.S. 
and French Representatives, the U.S. suggested it was important to 
consider the views of all Parties, and it would be agreeable to 
remove the U.S. clarifying clause proposed for the Rules of 
Procedure Note, if France would agree to include language in the 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  013.3 OF 036 
 
 
President's Report.  France agreed to the U.S. recommendation, which 
was supported by Contracting Parties' unanimous consensus during 
review of the draft President's Report in the Closing Plenary.  As a 
result, the President's Report text stated that "other than the 
qualifications of officers highlighted in the Annex if 
INFCIR/603/Rev.3, there were no formal or informal restrictions on 
who may serve as an officer of the Review Meeting.  In addition, the 
Meeting expressed the view that experience in a prior meeting may be 
useful but not essential and that diversity among officers may 
result in a broader range of experience and perspectives for 
achieving the objectives of the Joint Convention.  With regard to 
the office of the President, some Contracting Parties felt that 
preference should be given to regulators whereas others considered 
that the emphasis should be on the individual's substantive 
experience, it was the prerogative of each contracting Party to 
decide whom to nominate to serve as President and that the 
Contracting Parties were free to choose among the nominees for 
President presented at the Review Meeting."   (See paras 29-32, of 
the "Report of the President of the Third Review Meeting.) 
 
¶25. OEWG SESSION III: Topics (5) Knowledge Transfer and Continuity 
between Review Meetings, (6) Improve Interaction Between Meetings, 
and (7) Clarification of procedures for replacing officers if they 
are unable to perform their duties (May 14, 2009). 
 
¶26. TOPIC (5) KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND CONTINUTIY BETWEEN REVIEW 
MEETINGS.  Proposal 5 by Canada suggested changes to INFCIRC/602 and 
INFCIRC/603 to improve the peer review process by maintaining 
institutional knowledge and continuity of officers between Review 
Meetings.  There was considerable support from the Parties, but they 
felt that the details of the proposal needed additional scrutiny. 
Canada worked with the IAEA Secretariat to bring a revised proposal 
to the closing plenary.  This recommendation included the following 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  014.2 OF 036 
 
 
provisions:  Officers elected at one Organizational Meeting should 
remain as Officers until they are replaced at the next 
Organizational Meeting; elections of President and Vice-Presidents 
be moved to the last agenda item of the Organizational Meeting.   A 
workshop, chaired by the outgoing President, of incoming and 
outgoing Officers should be held following the Organizational 
Meeting.  The Secretariat should prepare a guidance document for the 
incoming Officers. To allow more time for the preparation of 
incoming Officers, the next Organizational Meeting should be held in 
May 2011.  The General Committees of the Joint Convention and 
Convention on Nuclear Safety have a knowledge transfer meeting in 
¶2010. 
 
¶27. TOPIC 5 RESULT:  The proposal by Canada was accepted with minor 
editorial corrections; the United Kingdom's request that a joint 
meeting of the General Committees of the Joint and Nuclear Safety 
Conventions was not within the protocol of the President's Report 
without prior mutual consent from the Nuclear Safety Convention. 
Adopted by consensus in the Closing Plenary. 
 
¶28. TOPIC (6) IMPROVE INTERATION BETWEEN MEETINGS.  Proposal 6 by 
the United States suggested improved interaction of Contracting 
Parties between review meetings.  The proposal requests the 
Secretariat to take actions which establish continuity and ongoing 
dialogue between Review Meetings, supporting sustained momentum 
toward meeting the objectives of the Joint Convention.   France 
suggested a possible complementary approach which by mutual 
agreement was incorporated into the U.S. proposal.  The Secretariat 
should promptly investigate and initiate innovative means to 
establish continuity and ongoing dialogue between Review Meetings 
among the Contracting Parties and General Committee members. These 
initiatives include, but are not limited to: an annual newsletter, 
regular and more frequent meetings of the General Committee, and 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  015.2 OF 036 
 
 
innovative electronic communications methods, e.g., improvements to 
the Joint Convention Website for web-based meetings and enhanced 
sharing of information and lessons learned.  The recommendation 
requests the Secretariat to host a meeting for the Contracting 
Parties to discuss recommendations to enhance continuity and ongoing 
dialogue between meetings no later than June 2010. 
 
¶29. France suggested that a complementary means to achieve this goal 
could be to request the Secretariat to organize meetings, open to 
all member States, between two review meetings to address specific 
topics identified at the Review Meeting.  Taking into account 
discussions during the country sessions, the following specific 
topics may be of mutual interest for example: definition and 
implementation of a comprehensive plan for the management of spent 
fuel and radioactive waste; management of very low level waste and 
implementation of clearance thresholds; establishment of agencies in 
charge of the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste; and 
management of graphite waste coming from UNGG (old gas-cooled 
graphite) reactors 
 
¶30. TOPIC 6 RESULT:  The U.S. portion of this proposal was accepted 
with minor clarification of the IAEA Secretariat's action to 
undertake these continuity and ongoing dialogue initiatives.  The 
French portion was modified and was characterized as not 
significantly affecting what the Secretariat could do within its 
responsibilities and role in the context of the Joint Convention 
Secretariat.  Adopted by consensus in the Closing Plenary. 
 
¶31. TOPIC (7) CLARIFICATION OF PROCEDURES FOR REPLACING OFFICERS IF 
THEY ARE UNABLE TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES.  Proposal 7 recommended 
amendments to the duties of the Country Group Vice-Chair and was 
introduced by Mr. Koblinger.  It provides changes to INFCIRC/602 to 
amend the duties of the Country Group Vice-Chair so as to allow 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  016.2 OF 036 
 
 
Vice-Chair to replace the Rapporteur should he/she become 
unavailable.  Should the Rapporteur become unavailable to attend the 
Review Meeting, the Vice-Chair of the Country Group shall be 
assigned the role of Rapporteur.  He further proposed the amendment 
of INFCIRC/602/Rev. 2 to avoid a Vice-Chair being assigned to 
country groups of which his or her country is a member. 
 
¶32. TOPIC 7 RESULT:  Although acknowledging Brazil's observation 
that the proposal would still present some concern regarding the 
perception of a replacement for Chairperson in a Country Group 
reviewing that Chairperson's Contracting Party, the President 
indicated that this was the best that could be done under the 
circumstances, when a Chairperson is unable to perform the duties of 
that office.  Adopted by consensus in the Closing Plenary. 
 
------------------- 
Closing Plenary 
------------------- 
 
¶33.  The first day of the Closing Plenary heard the reports of the 
six Country Group Rapporteurs.   There were few questions or 
comments on any reports.  Interventions were primarily clarification 
of points - often a translation problem.  Following these reports, 
upon a recommendation intervention of Switzerland, it was agreed 
that all individual Rapporteur reports would be made available to 
the Parties by the Secretariat. 
 
¶34. The second day of the Closing Plenary agenda opened with the 
report of the OEWG and actions on the recommendations to the seven 
proposals.  Debate among the Contracting Parties took place, as each 
proposal was called out and considered. 
 
¶35. The second day also considered the draft Summary Report of the 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  017.2 OF 036 
 
 
Third Meeting.  Of particular note was the approval of the Dates of 
the 4th Review Meeting: 
 
      May 10-11, 2011 Organizational Meeting 
      (12 months before Review) 
      October 7, 2011 National Report Deadline 
      (7 months before Review) 
      February 7, 2012 Questions and Comments 
      (3 months before Review) 
 April 7, 2012  Answers to Questions Deadline 
      (1 Month before Review) 
 May 7-16, 2012  4th Review Meeting 
 
¶36. On the third day of the Closing Plenary the Contracting Parties 
finished adopting the text of the Summary Report and that of the 
draft President's Report. 
 
-------------- 
Other Business 
-------------- 
 
¶37. New Contracting Party.  The President informed the Contracting 
Parties that Portugal had submitted its ratification credentials and 
was the 49th Contracting Party. 
 
¶38. Opening the Review Meetings to the Public.  France proposed the 
Closing Plenary Session take up a debate on opening the Review 
Meetings to the public.  A U.S. intervention stated the United 
States agreed with the French delegate in making our National Report 
public as well as the questions and answers for this Review Meeting, 
which is the practice of the U.S.  However, that decision should be 
up to each Contracting Party.  Moreover,  to open the meeting would 
defeat the purpose of open and free exchanges between Contracting 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  018.2 OF 036 
 
 
Parties to learn from each other and was in direct conflict with the 
Joint Convention itself (Paragraph 4).   The U.S. Representative 
stated the United States opposes taking up time to debate on an 
issue that would require a Diplomatic Conference; blocking 
consensus.  An intervention by Russia and Brazil supported the U.S. 
 The President indicated the French proposal would be included in 
the President's Report. 
 
------------------ 
Side Meetings 
------------------ 
 
¶39. The U.S. Representative participated in a 30-minute press 
interview, at the request of reporter Ann MacLachlan, arranged by 
the UNVIE Mission press officer.  The interview appeared in the May 
28, 2009 (pages 13-15) McGraw-Hill Platts publication "Nucleonics 
Week."  The article also included comments from a May 20, 2009 press 
conference held by the three Joint Convention Officers. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
Country Review Group Sessions 
--------------------------------------- 
 
COUNTRY REVIEW GROUP I 
 
¶40. UNITED STATES 
 
      All members of Country Group 1 were in attendance throughout 
the U.S. presentation. The discussion and question session following 
the presentation was very informative. During the U.S. presentation, 
16 questions were raised to the United States. The U.S. delegation 
was represented by ten members, comprised of representatives from 
the Department of State, Department of Energy, the Nuclear 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  019.2 OF 036 
 
 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA).   Christine M. Gelles, Department of Energy, led the 
presentation, and other delegates assisted with responses to the 
very detailed questions posed by the other Contracting Parties. 
 
¶41.  Many countries commented on the organization and depth of both 
the U.S. National Report and the presentation. The key topics of 
interest were Yucca Mountain, clearance standards, regulatory 
interfaces, and Greater-than-Class-C disposal. 
 
¶42. Highlights of the U.S. activities included the current status of 
the Yucca Mountain repository proposal, the establishment of a "Blue 
Ribbon Panel" to evaluate alternatives to the proposed Yucca 
Mountain repository for management of spent fuel and high level 
radioactive waste, beginning the preparation of the 
Greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) low-level waste (LLW) Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) and finalization of the final EIS in 2010, 
and obtaining regulatory approval for remote-handled transuranic 
(TRU) waste. 
 
¶43. The good practices that were recognized included public 
involvement in the decision making process including transparency, 
the Global Threat Reduction Initiative which improves international 
safety, and increased focused on domestic disused sealed source 
tracking, collection and disposition.  In addition, NRC published 
regulations that implement the National Source Tracking System, the 
foreign research reactor program, continued success in 
remote-handled TRU waste disposal at WIPP since 2007, and active 
involvement, support, and promotion of the Joint Convention. 
However, a few initiatives were identified as challenges which 
included: disposal of spent fuel and high level waste, GTCC LLW 
disposal, and LLW Class B & C access to disposal. 
 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  020.2 OF 036 
 
 
¶44. Planned measures to improve safety in the U.S. are spent fuel 
and high level waste storage and disposal, commercial LLW disposal 
and the Megaports initiative to provide radiation detection 
equipment and training program at key international seaports to 
screen cargo containers for nuclear and other radioactive materials 
and GNEP follow up. 
 
OTHER CONTRACTING PARTIES IN COUNTRY GROUP I 
 
¶45. In addition to the United States, other members of Country Group 
I included:  Netherlands, Croatia, Romania, Denmark, Belgium, 
Uzbekistan, and Spain.  Uzbekistan, a new ratifier, did not prepare 
a national report and did not participate in the review meeting. 
 
¶46. Netherlands has a policy of storing its waste for 100 years 
before disposal.  Continuity of knowledge and competencies for this 
storage period remains a challenge.  There is no specific schedule 
or decision date for the repository.  Public acceptance for geologic 
disposal remains low despite good efforts to communicate safety. 
The Borssele NPP lifetime has been extended to 2033, and the storage 
facility (COVRA) capacity is being extended past 2015.  The Dutch 
and French governments continue to work on a new agreement for 
return of HLW from reprocessing, which would allow transport to 
continue.  A dedicated hot cell to condition and repackage HLW from 
past research is under construction and expected to begin operations 
by the end of 2010. 
 
¶47. Croatia has made significant progress in implementation of a 
regulatory framework, radioactive waste management capabilities 
including disused sealed source management, and cooperation with 
neighboring Slovenia (Croatia shares a nuclear power plant that is 
located in Slovenia).  Continued progress is expected as Croatia 
completes a national waste management strategy and continues to 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  021.2 OF 036 
 
 
develop a central storage facility for its limited amount of waste. 
Croatia is exploring public participation/involvement in its 
activities. 
 
¶48. Romania has made excellent progress since the last review 
meeting.  It has taken full advantage of international opportunities 
for assistance and cooperation, including using existing US, 
Canadian, EU, IAEA, and ASME guides and standards to inform domestic 
regulation.  Romania enjoys strong government support of its nuclear 
program.  It has an evolving public participation program - new to 
all parties.  Some of the continuing challenges are licensing of a 
new disposal facility (Saligny), funding for dismantling a research 
reactor, and closure of uranium mill tailing ponds and 
rehabilitation of sites.  Improving staff resources and improving 
the organizational structure continue to be challenges. 
 
¶49. Denmark is showing significant progress in decommissioning 
research reactors as it phases out its nuclear facilities.  A final 
repository for low and intermediate level waste was unanimously 
endorsed by all parties, and the next challenging steps are 
selection of disposal options and sites.  Denmark involves all 
participants in planning, and takes full advantage of international 
cooperation to help maintain competence and knowledge. 
 
¶50. Belgium is continuing to phase out nuclear energy.  The 
Belgonucleare MOX fuel fabrication plant has ceased operation and 
will soon be decommissioned.   A National Waste Management Plan is 
expected in 2010.  A decision was made to develop a LILW SL 
repository.  Belgium has recently modified its regulatory structure 
in accordance with EU directives.  A regulatory framework for 
licensing of future long-term storage and disposal facilities is a 
challenge.  A final disposal solution for historical uranium 
materials also remains as a challenge. 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  022.2 OF 036 
 
 
 
¶51. Spain has not made a decision on the final option for spent fuel 
and HLW, but continues to conduct research supporting disposal, 
transmutation and separations.  Spain plans on a central storage 
facility for spent fuel, but no community has volunteered.  Interim 
storage at reactors is the fall-back.  For financial purposes 
Spanish authorities are assuming HLW disposal site selection 
beginning in 2025 leading to construction in 2041.  ENRESA is 
currently being converted to a public company under administration. 
 
 
COUNTRY REVIEW GROUP II 
 
¶52. Country Group II was composed of Belarus, China, Estonia, 
France, Lithuania, Senegal, the Slovak Republic, and South Africa. 
All members were represented at the review meeting. However, Senegal 
entered the Joint Convention on March 24, 2009, and did not provide 
a report or presentation.  Countries of the Former Soviet block, 
i.e., Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, and the Slovak Republic, asserted 
responsibility for nuclear waste management and remediation of 
materials abandoned following the collapse of the Soviet Union. 
Along with other countries in Country Group II, new legislation, 
regulations, and organizations have been established to manage 
radioactive waste activities in a safe and transparent manner.  The 
lack of adequate human resources and the preservation of knowledge 
is an overall concern.  France plans to develop a geologic 
repository to dispose of high-level radioactive waste and is 
conducting geological surveys and consulting with local communities. 
 South Africa and China presented the results of their first 
National Reports.  South Africa plans to visit with U.S. agencies 
this year to obtain information on managing low- level radioactive 
waste sites.  China continues to seek international cooperation in 
strengthening its regulatory standards and guidelines for managing 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  023.2 OF 036 
 
 
radioactive waste. For the purpose of long term spent fuel 
management, Lithuania will continue to store spent fuel for the next 
50 years while considering a regional repository, reprocessing, 
and/or a national repository.  The Country Group II was informed 
that the U.S. continues to support China in nuclear related areas 
under a cooperative Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Technology Agreement 
and had urged China to become a participant in the Joint Convention. 
 
 
COUNTRY REVIEW GROUP III 
 
¶53. The Slovenian situation is unique in that the country has one 
nuclear power reactor, which is shared with Croatia, even though the 
site is completely within Slovenian territory.  Slovenia has 
sufficient room in the spent fuel pool to store all their spent fuel 
assemblies for the life of the reactor operations.  Authorities plan 
on putting spent fuel in dry storage starting in 2037 until the 
repository is in operation in 2070.  Slovenia is storing all LILW 
created at the NPP on-site and is running out of capacity.  It is in 
the final stages of siting a LILW repository, which it plans on 
opening in 2013.  Slovenia has completed remediation of the Jazbec 
mine and expects to have the Bort mill tailings site remediated in 
¶2010. 
 
¶54. Sweden has ten operating nuclear power plants (that supply 45% 
of the country's electricity) and two that have been shut down due 
to the anti-nuclear referendum in the country.  Sweden has a 
comprehensive regulatory framework in place and has made good 
progress on repository projects.  Their policy of transparency and 
openness has contributed to a high level of acceptance by the public 
of the repositories.  They have an established finance system for 
decommissioning and disposal that provides funding for the 
implementation of the Swedish waste management system. 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  024.2 OF 036 
 
 
 
¶55. Austria has no nuclear power plants and electricity generated by 
nuclear sources is not allowed by law.  However, Austrian law does 
not prohibit building a repository in Austria.  The country's 
challenges include finding a solution for the ultimate disposal of 
the small amount of radioactive waste.  Austria has financial 
requirements/instruments in place for radioactive waste management, 
but Austria prefers an international or regional solution for waste 
disposal.  The Austrians may need to revisit their national approach 
if no international solutions are available. 
 
¶56. Euratom is a regional organization consisting of the 27 European 
Union member states, all of which are members of the Joint 
Convention.  While it does not have any nuclear power plants of its 
own, Euratom is a large producer of radioactive waste from research 
activities at the Joint Research Centre's (JRC) four locations. 
Decommissioning at Euratom research sites is steered by the JRC but 
implemented by the member states, except for Ispra, which is 
currently managed by JRC.  Disused sealed sources are collected and 
stored at a third-party facility.  Loans by Euratom are available 
both to Member States and some non-member states.  Euratom has spent 
287M euros over a 5-year period for dose reduction efforts. 
 
¶57. Bulgaria became a Member of the EU since the last report. 
Bulgaria is exporting spent fuel to Russia for reprocessing. 
Currently Russia is reprocessing VVER-440 fuel, but a contract is 
not in place for reprocessing of the VVER-1000 fuel.  Belgium has 
instituted a "Polluter Pays" policy and is collecting funds for 
nuclear facility decommissioning and a radioactive waste fund. 
Bulgaria instituted a state enterprise in 1994 for remediation of 
its three uranium mining and milling sites. 
 
¶58. The 3rd Review Meeting was the first review of a National Report 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  025.2 OF 036 
 
 
submitted by Brazil.  Brazil ratified the Joint Convention just 
before the second Review Meeting and too late for a review at that 
time.   Brazil has two operating nuclear power plants, one under 
construction, and others planned in the long term.  The country also 
uses radioactive materials, mines uranium, and has a number of 
facilities in the nuclear fuel cycle.  Good practices cited were the 
disposal of waste from the Goiana sealed source accident in 1987, 
the decommissioning and unrestricted release of a uranium/thorium 
site with widespread contamination and subsequent redevelopment of 
the site, and the recovery of sealed sources by the National Nuclear 
Energy Commission (CNEN).   Challenges facing the country are 
establishing a long-term policy for spent fuel (whether to dispose 
of or reprocess), establishing a decommissioning policy for research 
reactors, siting and construction of a LILW facility, establishment 
of a separate regulatory body, and establishment of a robust funding 
system for all waste management liabilities.  With the exception of 
the Goina wastes, Brazil stores all of its LILW and spent fuel at 
this time. 
 
¶59. Morocco has a small nuclear materials program, consisting of a 
recently-licensed TRIGA research reactor, which has not yet started 
operation, as well as sealed sources that are used in medicine, 
research, and industry.  Spent fuel will be returned to the U.S. 
until 2019, and after that will be placed in long-term storage.  The 
other source of radioactive waste, disused sources, are centrally 
stored.  Morocco has plans to create one regulatory body for both 
the research reactor and sealed sources in place of the two now in 
existence.  Challenges include developing decommissioning and 
disposal plans for LILW, establishing financial provisions to 
address disposal and decommissioning, and adoption and 
implementation of a new law regarding radiation protection and 
nuclear safety. 
 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  026.2 OF 036 
 
 
¶60. Japan has 53 operating NPPs and 4 under construction.  Japan 
took steps to establish the Asian Nuclear Safety Network with 
cooperation through IAEA for information sharing.  Wastes from 
non-nuclear power plants are managed by a different regulator than 
similar radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.  The Japanese 
are in the early stages of discussions with locales on a disposal 
facility for the radioactive waste from non-nuclear power plants, 
but already have a disposal facility for radioactive waste from 
their NPPs at Rokkasho. 
 
COUNTRY REVIEW GROUP IV 
 
¶61. United Kingdom has confirmed the use of the nuclear power 
option.  The UK's waste management policy is based on geologic 
disposal.  The regulatory organizations have recently been 
reorganized.  Obtaining additional expert waste management staff has 
been a challenge.  A site selection process for a geologic 
repository is proceeding based of partnership with volunteer 
communities.  Three local authorities have expressed interest in 
hosting a facility.  Nine nuclear power reactors and 4 research 
facilities will soon be undergoing decommissioning, generating large 
volumes of low-level radioactive waste.  Expansion of LLW disposal 
capacity is planned. 
 
¶62. This was Nigeria's first participation in the Joint Convention. 
An independent regulatory body has been established.  Additional 
legislation and regulations for waste management are under 
development.  Additional regulatory staff is being trained on 
radioactive waste management.  There are currently no nuclear power 
plants (NPP), but a decision has been made to operate a NPP by 2017. 
 The U.S. Department of Energy has provided assistance on the 
disposition of unused radioactive sources.  There are over 1,000 
abandoned mine tailing sites with high thorium content in the 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  027.2 OF 036 
 
 
Central Plateau region, which need to be remediated. 
 
¶63. Greece has no nuclear power plants.  A small research reactor is 
no longer in operation.  There are no radioactive waste disposal 
facilities in Greece, nor any intent to develop any.  Sealed sources 
are returned to the country of origin.  Spent fuel from the research 
reactor is returned to the United States.  Other waste is stored for 
decay.  Greece hopes to rely on a regional or bilateral facility for 
eventual disposition of wastes, which will not decay to release 
levels.  However, there are no plans for such a facility and no 
discussions have been initiated with other countries. 
 
¶64. Argentina has two operating nuclear power plants and one in 
construction.  It has complete fuel cycle facilities - mining 
through fuel element manufacture.  It manufactures and exports 
sealed sources.  However, it will not accept import to return sealed 
sources unless they are for reuse.  No disposal facilities for 
radioactive waste disposal are currently in operation.  It is in the 
process of establishing new storage facilities for spent fuel and 
new disposal facilities for low-level waste.  Research and 
development activities on a deep geologic repository are planned. 
 
¶65. Luxembourg has no nuclear power plant or any other facility 
generating radioactive material.  Radioactive wastes come from 
medical applications and use of radioactive sources.  There is a 
completely developed regulatory organization and legislative and 
regulatory framework.  Waste is stored for decay.  The small 
quantities of waste which require disposal are transferred to 
Belgium for disposal under an agreement. 
 
¶66. The Czech Republic has six nuclear power reactors and three 
research reactors.  There is a completely developed regulatory 
structure.  It has spent fuel storage facilities and operational 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  028.2 OF 036 
 
 
low-level waste disposal facilities.  Reconstruction of a disposal 
chamber at the Bratstvi repository is planned.  Investigation of 
seven potential deep geologic repository sites is scheduled to start 
in 2010, with the choice limited to at least two sites in 2015.  The 
commissioning of the deep geologic repository is planned for 2065. 
 
 
¶67. Ukraine has 15 operational nuclear power plants.  At Chernobyl 
the destroyed NPP has been covered with a shelter facility and the 
other three units are permanently shut down.  Eight urgent measures 
to stabilize the shelter have been completed and the stabilization 
project is complete.  A contract has been issued for design and 
construction of a New Safe Confinement.  Spent fuel is reprocessed 
abroad or in interim storage.  Low-level waste is currently in 
storage, but the first three disposal facilities at the Vector 
Complex have been constructed and the license application is under 
review. 
 
¶68. Australia is a federation of six states and two territories, 
each regulating radioactive materials.  Progress continues to be 
made in harmonizing the regulation of radioactive materials use in 
these independent entities.  The country has three research reactors 
(one operating and two in decommissioning), uranium mines, and 
sealed sources that are used in medicine, research, and industry. 
Developments in uranium mining include the approval of remediation 
funding for one existing mine, and the expansion of uranium mining, 
including the fact that the new state government in Western 
Australia has a policy to allow uranium mining.  In general, 
licensees are responsible for storing their waste.  There is limited 
storage by governments, however (the Commonwealth, e.g. has a 
storage facility).  Australia recognizes the need for a national 
disposal facility and is committed to selecting a site before the 
next national election, or before the end of 2010. 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  029.2 OF 036 
 
 
 
COUNTRY REVIEW GROUP V 
 
¶69. Country Group V was composed of Italy, Iceland, Republic of 
Korea, Latvia, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, and Uruguay.  Uruguay 
submitted a National Report but did not attend this Review Meeting. 
A number of these countries have recently enacted legislation to 
update the legal and regulatory infrastructure directly affecting 
the means and reporting for the Joint Convention.  Korea, Italy, and 
Germany are experiencing the effects the expected shakedown process 
of dealing with the implementation of the revised system.  Although 
most of the countries are having a contentious process in selecting 
and siting potential radioactive waste disposal repositories, 
Germany is faced with remediation and possible refurbishment of its 
three current repositories.  Many of these countries have made 
significant commitments to involving the localities and the public. 
Italy and Korea have provided the public a more formal role in the 
selection and siting process.  For the purpose of long term 
radioactive waste management, centralized storage for radioactive 
waste or spent fuel seems to be the realistic path for  most or the 
participating Contracting Parties, although eventual disposal is 
still maintained to be the most reliable disposition for radioactive 
waste.  The smaller countries in the Country Group, Iceland, Norway, 
and Latvia, have no nuclear power plants; the current global 
economic situation has led to some realistic strategies to optimize 
their resources, they still indicated that there are continuing 
funding challenges. 
 
COUNTRY REVIEW GROUP VI 
 
¶70. Country Group VI consisted of Canada, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, 
the Kyrgyz Republic, Poland, Russia, and Tajikistan.  The Republic 
of Kyrgyz and Tajikistan became Contracting Parties after the Second 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  030.2 OF 036 
 
 
Review Meeting.  The Republic of Kyrgyz did not prepare a National 
Report and did not attend or give a presentation at the Third Review 
Meeting.  Tajikistan also did not give a presentation and did not 
attend the meeting; however, the rapporteur prepared a report based 
on the National Report.  The report emphasized Tajikistan's efforts 
to address the legacy of uranium mining and milling, as well as the 
tracking and collection of disused sealed sources. 
 
¶71. Russia's presentation highlighted the extensive legal framework 
being established for its spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management program; since the Second Review Meeting, Russia has 
passed or drafted several laws, transferred its regulatory body 
(Rostechnadzor) to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural 
Resources and Environment, and combined the Federal Atomic Energy 
Agency with other organizations involved in nuclear applications 
into a state corporation charged with control of atomic energy 
(Rosatom).  Discussions during the Third Review Meeting focused on 
the relationship of these government bodies and the continuing 
practice of injection of liquid radioactive wastes into deep 
geologic formations. 
 
¶72. Ireland is a non-nuclear country whose primary radioactive waste 
is disused sealed sources from the medical, education, and 
industrial sectors.  The most pressing issue, which was the subject 
of several questions, is the near-term development of long-term 
centralized storage and a high-level group convened by the 
government to examine alternative strategies, including disposal. 
 
¶73. Finland described its extensive program to manage radioactive 
wastes from all sources, including efforts to develop geologic 
disposal of spent nuclear fuel, for which a license application is 
expected in 2012.  Finland's public participation process is 
especially noteworthy in leading to community acceptance of the 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  031.2 OF 036 
 
 
existing and planned disposal facilities. 
 
¶74. Poland identified several major efforts underway, the most 
significant of which is a government decision in January 2009 to 
develop a nuclear power program, with the goal of at least two 
plants operating by 2030.  This will require development of 
expertise by both regulators and operators that do not exist at 
present. 
 
¶75. Hungary is taking action on multiple fronts, including upgrading 
its spent fuel storage, refurbishing its current near-surface 
low-level waste disposal facility, constructing a new low- and 
intermediate-level waste disposal facility, investigating sites for 
a geologic repository for spent fuel, and remediating uranium mining 
and milling facilities.  Hungary was especially commended for its 
extensive and effective public involvement programs leading to 
community acceptance for the new LILW disposal facility. 
 
¶76. Canada has made progress in several areas since the second 
Review Meeting, most notably in the government's adoption of an 
Adaptive Phased Management (APM) strategy for long-term management 
of spent fuel from nuclear power plants.  Canada's emphasis on 
public consultation and community-based solutions is a central 
element of the APM strategy. 
 
¶77. Items of particular U.S. interest in Group 6 include: 
 
- Ireland possesses a sub-critical uranium fuel assembly, which was 
provided by the U.S. under the "Atoms for Peace" program.  The 
assembly is currently in secure storage and is subject to IAEA 
inspection, but Ireland desires to have it removed.  To this point, 
no agreement has been reached to have the U.S. take possession of 
the fuel. 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  032.2 OF 036 
 
 
- Tajikistan faces issues that appear to be common to many former 
Soviet republics in addressing legacy issues.  Specifically, 
Tajikistan noted in its National Report that many records from the 
former uranium mining and milling sites were apparently taken back 
to Russia by the site operators.  The government believes these 
records would be useful in characterizing the extent of 
environmental contamination, but Tajikistan has, thus far, been 
unable to obtain them.  Tajikistan also has many sealed sources of 
Soviet origin, including Radioisotope Thermal Generators (RTGs), 
which it is attempting to return to Russia. 
- Canada is developing a geologic disposal facility for low- and 
intermediate-level waste from Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in 
Kincardine, which is roughly 1.5 kilometres from Lake Huron.  This 
planned repository has prompted notice from members of the U.S. 
Congress. 
- Several countries highlighted assistance from the U.S. on 
important issues related to safety and security of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste management: 
 
o Tajikistan is receiving assistance from NRC, DOE, and Sandia 
National Laboratory in tracking and controlling sealed sources, as 
well as in upgrading its existing waste management facility; 
 
o Poland has received assistance through the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative in converting the Maria research reactor to the use of 
low-enriched uranium fuel and in the disposal of HEU fuel from Maria 
and the EWA research reactor within the scope of agreements with 
Russia to take Soviet-origin research reactor spent fuel. (Poland is 
also a signatory to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership). 
 
o Hungary received assistance through a joint IAEA-U.S. effort to 
reach agreement with Russia to take back highly-enriched 
Soviet-origin research reactor fuel. The first shipment was in 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  033.2 OF 036 
 
 
September 2008 following negotiations and preparation beginning in 
2004; additional shipments of fresh HEU fuel are planned in 2009, 
with shipments of spent HEU fuel scheduled for 2012. 
 
o Russia is involved in partnerships with the U.S. and IAEA to 
assist former Soviet republics in tracking, controlling, and 
managing sealed sources (seven former republics have benefited from 
this program); and 
 
o Finland has received technical advice from U.S. experts in 
developing its program for geologic disposal of spent fuel. 
 
------------------------------------- 
 Reports of Country Group Rapporteurs 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶78. All Contracting Parties (CP) of CG 1 satisfied the obligations 
under the Joint Convention.  This country group found that the 
process is working and provides 
a constructive exchange.  The Review Meeting process is improving, 
allowing progress to be made with a noted increase in global safety. 
 
 
¶79. The CG 2 identified several common issues:  legal and management 
infrastructures are in place for SF and RW management; including 
independent regulatory bodies; CPs have identified responsible 
organizations in charge of SF and RW; several CPs identified the 
need to maintain and expand the knowledge and human resources; waste 
classification is in place, but varies between CPs; all CPs have 
recognized the need to solve the issue of legacy waste; several have 
already initiated actions; CPs have decommissioning plans  in place 
where appropriate; disused sealed sources are a common concern to 
all CP's, and most of them have established a management plan; all 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  034.2 OF 036 
 
 
CPs recognize the importance of international cooperation; all CPs 
are considering deep geological disposal for SF, HLW and, in some 
cases, for LL-LILW; several CPs highlighted their policy of waste 
minimization at source, and progress has been made in funding of RW 
management, but CPs remain aware of the need to continue to pay 
special attention to the subject. 
 
¶80. The CG 3 noted that CPs have made significant progress since the 
last Review Meeting both in the enhancement of safety of SF and 
radioactive waste management.  Nevertheless, much needs to be done 
to achieve appropriate long-term solutions for SF and RW.  CG 3 also 
found most countries have a strong legislative and regulatory system 
is already in place, although further improvements are planned in 
some countries.  Many CPs have adopted IAEA Safety Standards as a 
basis for their own regulatory system.  Most CPs have taken steps to 
ensure the financing of liabilities from nuclear power generation 
and other nuclear applications.  Some needs for further action are 
recognized.  The main challenge remains the siting, construction, 
and operation of SF and RW repositories.  Regarding SF, the first 
repository is currently planned to be available in the early 2020s. 
For the disposal of LILW different options are considered.  In most 
cases, near-surface repositories or repositories at intermediate 
depth are either already in operation or in the planning stage. Two 
CPs in the group are interested in international or regional 
solutions for SF or RW disposal.  For CPs with no nuclear power 
program, the final management of institutional RW wastes, including 
disused sealed sources could be a major challenge.  The assurance of 
human resources and maintaining know-how has generally been 
recognized as a challenging issue.  Some CPs are increasing efforts 
to recruit and train qualified staff.  International information 
exchange should be enhanced, especially to promote the transfer of 
knowledge between countries with advanced nuclear programs and 
countries with no or only small nuclear programs.  The experiences 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  035 OF 036 
 
 
of CG 3 demonstrate the value of the review process to CPs with 
nuclear programs of all sizes and levels of complexity.  CPs should 
promote the benefits of the Joint Convention Review Process to other 
countries and encourage them to become CPs. 
 
¶81. The CG 4 found significant progress in the safety of SF and RW 
management has been achieved since the Second Review Meeting, in 
particular in the management of disused and orphan sources. 
International cooperation and IAEA Safety Standards are playing an 
important role (direct reference, incorporation in legislation, 
benchmarking).  CPs recognize the strong commitment of regulatory 
authorities to self-assessments and peer reviews (IRRS missions). 
Promoting the Joint Convention is on ongoing challenge.  Nigeria and 
Australia are good models of CPs committed to the promotion of the 
Joint Convention within their regions.  IAEA should continue its 
support of such efforts. 
 
¶82. The CG 5 found most CPs have defined a national action plan for 
SF and RW management, and substantial progress is visible in 
implementation of the plan. 
Interim storage is an established and widespread predisposal 
practice.  The site selection process of repositories remains a 
major challenge, in particular due to social-political factors, 
while ad hoc Committees (local, regional or national) may facilitate 
the process.  Transparent processes and public participation are 
key to a successful program implementation. 
 
¶83. The CG 6 CPs are still developing regulatory framework for RW 
and SF management - although at different stages.  Application of 
similar principles occurs with operators, licensees and other RW and 
SF management organizations.  Recruitment and education of qualified 
new people to replace aging people remains an issue in some CPs. 
The importance of public involvement was highlighted.  IAEA safety 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000285  036.2 OF 036 
 
 
standards are generally followed.