VZCZCXYZ0002
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0049/01 0430752
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 120752Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0569
INFO RUEHII/VIENNA IAEA POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000049 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR IO/GS, ISN/MNSA, ISN/RA, ISN/NESS 
NRC FOR OIP - DOANE 
DOE FOR NA-243-GOOREVICH/OEHLBERT, BRUNNS, 
NA-241 O'CONNOR,SIEMON; NA-21- CUMMINS, ILIOPULOS; 
NE- MCGINNIS, PERKO, CLAPPER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC PARM KNNP IAEA ENRG TRGY
SUBJECT:  IAEA/BOG: March Board Preview and Analysis 
 
Ref:  UNVIE 44 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) Although the March IAEA Board of Governors meeting is 
traditionally focused on nuclear safety and technology, Iran's 
nuclear brinksmanship and potential Syrian safeguards failures will 
likely dominate the debate.  This is particularly true as the Board 
meeting, expected to run March 1-4, takes place against the backdrop 
of Iran's decision to undertake enrichment to 20 percent and 
Iran-related developments in the UN Security Council.  The top U.S. 
objective for the March Board will be to highlight this escalatory 
step by Iran in the context of its refusal to accept the 
IAEA-brokered Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) proposal and failure to 
fully cooperate with the IAEA investigation.  The Board will also 
consider Syria's illicit activities and continued stonewalling of 
its safeguards investigation.  Should the Director General report to 
the Board on Syria confirm safeguards failures in light of 
previously undeclared experiments at its Miniature Neutron Source 
Reactor (MNSR), the Board will need to consider an appropriate 
response in support of the Agency's ongoing investigation.  Mission 
sees as a key question for this Board how we will want to balance 
Board focus between Iran and Syria, assuming that our priority is 
spotlighting Iran's escalatory measures.  Significantly, the March 
Board session will shepherd in a new era for the IAEA under the 
leadership of Director General Yukiya Amano.  This will mark Amano's 
first regular Board session since taking office on December 1, 2009. 
 His opening remarks, particularly on Iran and Syria, will be 
closely watched with inevitable comparisons drawn to those of his 
predecessor Mohamed ElBaradei.  Further complicating the 
atmospherics for this Board is the arrival of a new and untested 
Malaysian Chairman, following the unprecedented sacking of his 
predecessor (reftel). 
 
¶2. (SBU) Mission will preview Iran and Syria nuclear issues in 
septels upon the issuance of the respective DG reports, expected 
February 17.  All other agenda items are covered below: nuclear 
safety and technology reviews, Future of the Agency, safeguards 
agreements/ Additional Protocols, DPRK and personnel matters. 
Although not formally on the agenda, Mission recommends the U.S. 
statement under "Any Other Business" focus on assurance of nuclear 
fuel supply with reference to the Secretariat's non-paper (2010/Note 
1) on the subject and to cue up discussion of the International 
Nuclear Fuel Bank (INFB) proposal at the June Board meeting.  End 
Summary. 
 
--------------  --------------------------- 
Agenda Item 1:  DG's Introductory Statement 
--------------  --------------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) The March 1 opening session will mark Amano's debut in 
addressing the Board of Governors as Director General.  As is 
customary, the DG will cover all agenda items.  We would expect 
Amano to reflect his core vision as to the the dual mission of the 
Agency, nonproliferation and peaceful use, the latter with respect 
to the Nuclear Technology Review agenda item, in particular.  In 
keeping with his premise that the IAEA should advance the 
application of atomic energy to solve global issues, the DG is 
likely to highlight IAEA cancer initiatives, having made this an 
early centerpiece of his administration, and underline the 
importance of nuclear safety.  His scripted remarks on Iran and 
Syria will be the most closely watched as to both tone and content, 
with inevitable comparisons drawn to those of his predecessor.  We 
anticipate that Amano will be factual and cautious (particularly in 
these first opening remarks), likely to eschew headline-making 
descriptives of the state-of-play for which ElBaradei was 
well-known.   While we will encourage Amano to address fuel 
assurance, his predilection is to emphasize finding consensus among 
Member States on this issue.   We also would not expect off-the-cuff 
interjections or blandishments from the DG during the Board meeting. 
 This difference in style from ElBaradei could help lower the 
temperature in the Board room, though it may disappoint the press. 
 
--------------  --------------------------- 
Agenda Item 2:  Applications for Membership 
--------------  --------------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) The IAEA Secretariat has not received any new requests for 
membership and this item is likely to be dropped from the agenda. 
Mission will advise via email if any membership applications are 
received prior to the Board session. 
 
--------------  -------------- 
Agenda Item 3:  Nuclear Safety 
--------------  -------------- 
 
¶5. (U) The Board will be asked to take note of the 2009 Nuclear 
Safety Review, "Measures to Strengthen International Cooperation in 
Nuclear, Radiation and Transport Safety and Waste Management" 
(GOV/2010/4).  This report is supplemented by two Notes: "Safety 
related events and activities worldwide during 2009" (2010/Note 4) 
and "The Agency's safety standards: activities during 2009" 
(2010/Note 5).  The Board will also be asked to approve two other 
safety documents:  "Draft Safety Requirements: disposal of 
radioactive waste" and "Draft Safety Requirements: governmental, 
legal and regulatory framework for safety GSR-1." 
 
¶6. (SBU) Recommendation and Action Request:  The U.S. should take 
note of these documents and make a statement highlighting the 
ever-increasing demands related to nuclear safety on the IAEA 
Secretariat and the importance of safety, focusing on the following 
areas: 
 
-- Medical exposures: This is an area of significant growth over the 
past few years. More than half of workers exposed to radiation on 
the job are in the medical field.  As the use of radiological 
sources for medical imaging, diagnoses, and treatment increases, so 
does the importance of IAEA training in the safe use of these 
sources.  The U.S. should express support for IAEA's work in this 
area and encourage other Member States to also look for ways to 
support Agency activities.  This is especially relevant given DG 
Amano's focus on IAEA cancer treatment activities as a major theme 
for the coming year and the topic of the Scientific Forum during the 
General Conference in September.  IAEA programs providing more 
countries radioactive sources and medical exposure devices need to 
be accompanied by an increase in safety awareness and training in 
these countries. 
 
-- Global Networks:  The number of countries requesting safety 
training or assistance is increasing every year.  This is not 
limited to nuclear power newcomers but also involves countries using 
radioactive sources for medical, educational, and industrial uses, 
those embarking on new uranium mining and milling programs, and 
those seeking to build infrastructures and capacities for the 
future.  As the demand for safety training has surpassed what the 
IAEA is able to provide, the Agency has supported the establishment 
of global and regional networks so that countries can also learn 
from their neighbors.  The U.S. should express support for these 
types of networks as essential to the growth and strength of the 
Global Nuclear Safety Network.  The U.S. statement should welcome 
the recent establishment of the Forum of Nuclear Regulatory Bodies 
in Africa (FNRBA) and commend South Africa for hosting a conference 
on establishing and improving effective regulatory systems last 
December.  The conference stressed the responsibility all nuclear 
regulators, operators, and vendors have in maintaining a strong 
effective and efficient global safety and security network. 
 
-- Peer Reviews: Peer reviews are another way countries can help and 
learn from one other.  The Operational Safety Review Team (OSART), 
the Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS), and the recently 
established Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review missions allow 
participating Member States to learn from industry and safety 
experts and receive advice on program improvements.  The U.S. 
statement should support these peer reviews and encourage 
participation in the programs.  The U.S. should also note that it 
will host its first IRRS mission in October of this year. 
 
-- Response Assistance Network: Increased interest in nuclear power 
and use of radiological sources renders emergency preparedness ever 
more important, including the work of the Incident and Emergency 
Center (IEC).  The Response Assistance Network (RaNet) is a useful 
tool for mustering the response capabilities of Member States for 
use during an emergency.  The U.S. statement should note that we 
have volunteered some capabilities for use in the network and 
encourage others to participate. 
 
-- Convention on Supplementary Compensation: The U.S. should 
continue to underline the importance of the CSC and encourage Member 
States to accede. 
 
--------------  ------------------------- 
Agenda Item 4:  Nuclear Technology Review 
--------------  -------------------------- 
 
¶7.  (U)  The Board will be asked to consider and take note of the 
draft Nuclear Technology Review 2010 (GOV/2010/5) that covers both 
power and nonpower applications.  The power applications portion of 
the report covers:  the state of nuclear power today and future 
growth; the fuel cycle, advanced fission (INPRO/GNEP/GIF); fusion; 
and accelerators and research reactor applications.  The nonpower 
section focuses on cooperation and research in human health, food 
and agriculture, and the environment. 
 
¶8.  (U)  Nonpower Apps: The IAEA continues to assist member states 
in applying nuclear technology and techniques in the areas of food 
security, human health, environmental protection, and water resource 
management to benefit the socio-economic development both 
nationally, regionally, and inter-regionally.  In 2009 in the food 
and agriculture area, nuclear techniques were used to address a 
growing number of insect pests that threatened agricultural 
productivity.  The sterile insect technique (SIT) program benefited 
from continued U.S. monetary support, and advances were also made in 
the use of isotopes for studies on insect biology, behavior, 
biochemistry, etc.  Isotopic techniques for sequestering carbon in 
soils to stem carbon emission growth received renewed interest in 
¶2009.  The Agency also devoted many resources to human health 
issues, focusing on developing hybrid diagnostic imaging systems 
allowing for investigation of the anatomy and function of organs for 
cardiovascular disease and cancer.  In the run-up to the Copenhagen 
Climate Conference, the IAEA renewed its emphasis on environmental 
research using nuclear techniques, especially in natural resource 
and water management.  Nuclear techniques are being used to assess 
the amount of freshwater that is entering coastal areas via 
aquifers, thQeby assisting Member States in better water management 
especially in drought ridden regions.  With innovations comes the 
need for training, and the IAEA Technical Cooperation program 
ensured that Member State experts received training in new 
techniques either at a national or regional level. 
 
¶9.  (U)  Recommendation and Action Request: During the March Board 
the U.S. Delegation should take note of the draft Nuclear Technology 
Review 2010 Report (GOV/2010/5) in the text of its statement 
supporting the IAEA's continued work in nonpower applications that 
benefit the socio-economic development of member states in a 
responsible and results based manner. 
 
¶10.  (U)  Power Applications: The U.S. is very supportive of the 
Agency's achievements and activities as reported in the Nuclear 
Technology Review.  The Agency continued in 2009 to provide guidance 
in infrastructure development to Member States that are considering 
expansion or development of their nuclear programs.  To achieve 
this, the Agency conducted a series of infrastructure development 
related workshops in 2009 for each phase of nuclear power 
development, planning, and/or expansion. (NOTE: A robust 2010 
schedule is already under way and includes an international 
conference on human resources development in Abu Dhabi.  END NOTE.) 
The U.S. should support continued Agency efforts to address the 
needs of interested Member States in improving their national 
nuclear power programs and infrastructure based on the IAEA authored 
Milestones Document.  Regarding specific programs, the Agency 
contributed to GNEP Working Group meetings to ensure better 
coordination of activities, and INPRO activities were streamlined 
into five substantive areas and efforts were made to coordinate with 
the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) to avoid duplication of 
activities.  Of some concern to several Member States, including the 
U.S., is the methodology used to compute data for charts in the 
report.  Specifically, in sub-paragraph A.4.1 (pg. 10), FIG A-3 
Ranges for Overnight Cost Estimates by Region, from 2007-2009 is not 
cited for data sources and by the Agency's own admission (pg. 10) it 
used imported data components for Asia. Methodologically this means 
the range estimate is skewed because the sample size for each region 
and costs are not calculated the same way.  Without further 
clarification as to how the data in FIG A-3 were derived and what 
sample size was used, the chart may mislead countries looking to 
purchase reactors to believe American reactors are more expensive 
compared to other suppliers. 
 
¶11.  (U) Recommendation and Action Request: During the March Board 
the U.S. Delegation should take note of the draft Nuclear Technology 
Review 2010 Report (GOV/2010/5) during its statement supporting the 
IAEA's continued work in power applications.  Additionally, the U.S. 
should support continued Agency efforts to address the needs of 
interested Member States in improving their national nuclear power 
programs and infrastructure based on the IAEA authored Milestone 
Document.  The U.S. should also request clarification of the 
methodology and sources used for FIG A-3 and based upon Agency 
response request a recasting of data or deletion of FIG A-3 
altogether. 
 
--------------  --------------------- 
Agenda Item 5:  Future of the Agency 
--------------  --------------------- 
 
¶12.  (U) Mission expects the Board to receive a descriptive, not 
prescriptive, report on the 2009 Future of the Agency (FoA) meeting 
series from Brazilian Ambassador Guerreiro, who succeeded the 
original FoA chair (09 UNVIE 557 and previous).   The report will 
not offer any Chair's recommendations; rather, it will provide a 
summing up of the months of discussion as interpreted by Ambassador 
Guerreiro and his Finnish predecessor, Ambassador Kauppi.  Brazil's 
expectation is that the Board would take note of this report and 
that there should be no need or proposal to convene any further 
discussion of the report in draft.  USDEL should have a brief 
prepared statement thanking the two chairs, their delegations, and 
the Secretariat for the conduct of the process and commenting on the 
lessons of the FoA process and content of the resulting report. 
 
¶13.  (U)  Recommendation and Action Request: USDEL should advocate 
that the Board take note of the report with gratitude to those who 
produced it. 
 
--------------  ------------------------------ 
Agenda Item 6a:  Safeguards Agreements and APs 
--------------  ------------------------------ 
 
¶14.  (U)  The Board will be asked to approve an Additional Protocol 
(GOV/2010/6) for the Republic of Gambia.  The agreement conforms to 
the standard text contained in the Model Additional Protocol, 
GOV/INF/540 (Corr.), adopted by the Board on 15 May 1997.  Mission 
will advise if other safeguards agreements or Additional Protocols 
are submitted in advance of the March Board. 
 
¶15.  (U)  Recommendation and Action Request:  Mission recommends 
that USDEL join consensus in approving any safeguards agreements or 
Additional Protocols that conform to the standard models, and to 
deliver a short statement under this item urging all NPT states that 
have not yet done so to conclude and bring into force the required 
safeguards agreements and bring into force Additional Protocols, 
which represent the new safeguards standard. 
 
--------------  ------ 
Agenda Item 6b:  DPRK 
--------------  ------ 
 
¶16.  (SBU) DPRK will again be addressed by the Board under the 
"Nuclear Verification" agenda item, reversing former DG ElBaradei's 
decision to remove it from the Board's November agenda.  Director 
General Amano has expressed his support for addressing DPRK in the 
Board of Governors, as did 18 Board members in statements on this 
agenda item in November.  No report will be issued ahead of this 
Board meeting.  We anticipate DG Amano will include DPRK in his 
opening statement, possibly to note the importance of resolving this 
outstanding issue and recent diplomatic efforts.  However, Director 
of Safeguards Operations A, Marco Marzo, who is responsible for the 
DPRK issue, said he had no confirmation of this as of February 3. 
 
¶17.  (SBU) We anticipate the Six Party members will again speak, 
along with the EU, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and a few others 
to reaffirm their support to the Six Party process and to urge the 
DPRK to return to the talks and to IAEA safeguards.  Egypt may again 
raise the issue of adding Israel to the Board's agenda under 
verification, on the grounds that the 2009 General Conference said 
we should remain seized of the issue, as it did on DPRK. 
 
¶18.  (SBU) Recommendation and Action Request: Mission recommends 
delivering a brief statement on DPRK that would address developments 
in the Six Party process, as well as our commitment and support to 
that process.  We should note the importance of fully implementing 
UNSCRs 1718 and 1874.  The U.S. statement should also reaffirm that 
the IAEA has an important verification role to play in assuring 
North Korea is free of nuclear weapons and nuclear programs geared 
to providing such nuclear weapons. 
 
--------------  ----------------- 
Agenda Item 7:  Personnel Matters 
--------------  ----------------- 
 
¶19.  (U) GOV/2010/7, in accordance with Staff Regulations, proposes 
changes to the current net base salary scale for staff members in 
the Professional and higher categories. The increase, based on the 
2009 International Civil Service Commission report, is 3.04 
percent. 
 
¶20.  (U)  Recommendation and Action Request: Mission recommends the 
U.S. join consensus approval of GOV/2010/7. 
 
----  ----------------- 
AOB  Fuel Assurance 
----  ----------------- 
 
¶21.  (U)  Recommendation and Action Request:  Mission recommends 
that USDEL use the AOB debate to focus on the way forward with 
respect to nuclear fuel assurance proposals including the 
 
International Nuclear Fuel Bank (INFB).  The cancellation, at the 
request of the G-77, of the Secretariat's expected briefing on its 
long-awaited non-paper on Assurance of Supply (2010/Note 1) 
chagrined mainly Western supporters of fuel assurance proposals. 
This is particularly true as the Secretariat's non-paper had been 
produced in response to questions posed by G-77 skeptics at the June 
2009 Board session.  The contentious vote on the Russian fuel 
reserve at November Board meeting has further polarized Board 
divisions with G-77 hardliners intent on killing any further 
discussion of fuel assurance.  Especially if a Secretariat briefing 
is not rescheduled prior to March Board meeting, USDEL should be 
prepared to call the skeptics' bluff, and engineer similar 
statements among likeminded.  The U.S. statement should express 
disappointment at the cancellation of the briefing, which could be 
seen as an effort to stifle debate, and note the need for 
consultation and elaboration by the Secretariat of questions raised 
by the non-paper.  The U.S. should also note this issue been under 
consideration by Member States for years and that we expect a 
fulsome debate on the INFB proposal in June, particularly in light 
of the now twice-deferred deadline of the NTI challenge grant in 
September 2010.