Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 51122 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 08MOSCOW1624, ANNUAL OECD/NEA MULTILATERAL NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #08MOSCOW1624.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
08MOSCOW1624 2008-06-06 12:46 2011-08-24 01:00 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Embassy Moscow
VZCZCXYZ0002
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHMO #1624/01 1581246
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 061246Z JUN 08
FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8471
INFO RHMFIUU/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1905
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0523
UNCLAS MOSCOW 001624 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
PARIS FOR OECD 
STATE FOR EUR/ERA 
STATE FOR ISN/NESS 
STATE FOR L/NP 
 
E.O. 12958: NA 
TAGS: ENRG OTRA TRGY TECH FR RS
SUBJECT:  ANNUAL OECD/NEA MULTILATERAL NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM 
IN RUSSIA (MNEPR) COMMITTEE MEETING 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
1. (SBU) The annual OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Multilateral 
Nuclear Environment Program in Russia (MNEPR) Committee Meeting took 
place May 13 in Moscow.  Russian officials reviewed the status of 
the new Rosatom State Corporation.  Participants also reviewed the 
Strategic Master Plan for Northwest Russia and the status of MNEPR 
projects.  Italy accepted the invitation for membership.  As 
projects in Northwest Russia near completion, the focus of MNEPR may 
shift to the Russian Far East.  End Summary. 
 
Donors Pre-Meeting 
------------------ 
 
2. (SBU) The annual OECD NEA MNEPR Committee Meeting was held at the 
President Hotel in Moscow on 13 May.  A donors pre-meeting was held 
the evening before at the Swedish Embassy, hosted by the donors' 
Co-Chairperson, Anders Nystrom.  Donors noted no major problems with 
the Russian side; in previous meetings, donors had raised issues 
related to access to sites and documents.  Julia Schwartz, Head of 
NEA Legal Affairs, noted that the MNEPR Secretariat was running out 
of funding.  Norway had provided most of the funding for the 
Secretariat during MNEPR's decade in existence, and the Norwegians 
had recently notified the Secretariat that they were no longer in 
the position of being able to do so.  MNEPR members were asked to 
respond; and Russia would also be requested to donate during the 
Committee Meeting. 
 
3. (SBU) The tenth annual MNEPR Committee meeting opened with the 
election of the Co-Chairpersons for the coming year.  Elected was 
Nystrom of Sweden for the donors and Evgeniy Evstratov, Rosatom 
Deputy General Director, for the Russian side. 
 
Status of Rosatom State Corporation 
----------------------------------- 
 
4. (SBU) Evstratov provided a status report on the reorganization of 
Rosatom, the former Russian Atomic Energy Agency which is being 
transformed into Rosatom State Corporation.  A Presidential Decree 
had established Rosatom State Corporation, but the Agency Rosatom 
will not entirely stand down until the end of 2008.  Former head of 
Agency Rosatom Kiriyenko had moved over to Rosatom State 
Corporation, as had many of the senior leadership.  The remainder of 
the organization would move over through the coming year, although 
not all Rosatom employees would be guaranteed a position in the new 
State Corporation. 
 
5. (SBU) The legal status of the new State Corporation is still 
evolving, according to Evstratov.  President Putin had signed a law 
in December 2007 converting Rosatom from a federal agency to a State 
corporation, but there is still  considerable work to be 
accomplished in the restructuring.  In particular, the EU 
representative and legal counsel were concerned regarding the 
transition, as they were expecting to finalize three assistance 
agreements in the near future. 
 
International Agreements 
------------------------ 
 
6.  (SBU) Evstratov noted that the Russian Government was conducting 
a review of all international agreements before the diplomatic notes 
regarding Rosatom civil international agreements could be issued by 
the MFA.  He stated that it was expected that all international 
civil nuclear agreements now in place with the Agency Rosatom would 
remain in place with Rosatom State Corporation.  He provided further 
details on the reorganization - not only would Rosatom State 
Corporation take over the duties of the federal agency, but it would 
also take over the Russian nuclear icebreaker fleet.  He offered 
that the new entity would be composed of three main categories: 
nuclear fuel cycle and electricity generation; the nuclear weapons 
complex; and nuclear radiation safety. 
 
7.  (SBU)  Evstratov stated that the Russian nuclear regulatory 
agency, Rostechnadzor, would remain separate from the new Rosatom 
State Corporation.  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs would have the 
same responsibilities in regard to the MNEPR Agreement as it did in 
the past. 
 
Relations among Nuclear Risk Programs in Russia 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
8.  (SBU) Simon Evans, the UK Representative, provided an analysis 
of the relationship among nuclear risk programs in the Russian 
 
Federation.  He characterized the G8 Global Partnership as being the 
"political framework" for nuclear safety, security and 
non-proliferation.  MNEPR is the "legal framework" and while it 
applies to nuclear safety, it could be expanded to security.  It 
sets a sound standard, and is limited to the Russian Federation. 
The IAEA Contact Expert Group (CEG) was characterized as being the 
"technical framework" that promotes co-operation in Northwest Russia 
and the Far East regions.  The CEG facilitates co-operation and 
helps avoid duplication of tasks.  He noted that the role in 
Northwest Russia was becoming "mature" and that the CEG was not 
limited to that region but to the entire Russian Federation.  The G8 
Global Partnership, MNEPR and the CEG are interrelated to some 
degree and share similar goals. 
 
Nuclear Submarine Decommissioning 
--------------------------------- 
 
9. (SBU) Ashot Sarkisov (Russian Institute for Nuclear Energy 
Safety) provided a review of the "Strategic Master Plan (SMP) for 
Decommissioning the Retired Russian Nuclear Submarine Fleet and 
Environmental Rehabilitation of its Supporting Infrastructure in 
Northwest Russia."  This is the guideline, funded by the EBRD, for 
the Russian Federation to follow in decommissioning its submarines 
and reducing the radiation hazard posed by the retired facilities 
and waste.  The SMP development was a step toward the implementation 
of the Global Partnership Program approved at the Kananaskis Summit 
in 2002.  He indicated that a similar, but different SMP would be 
required for the Far East.  (Note: At a CEG Meeting in June 2007 in 
Vladivostok, Sarkisov and other Russian officials had opined that 
the Northwest Russia SMP would be employed as a basis for a SMP for 
the Far East.  It now appears that the Russians will develop an 
entirely separate SMP for the Far East.) 
 
Membership 
---------- 
 
10. (SBU) The MNEPR Secretariat reviewed the status of potential 
membership.  Italy and Canada had been invited to join as full 
members and Australia, Japan and South Korea had been invited to 
observer status.  Italy had accepted the invitation, and a member of 
the Italian Embassy in Moscow attended the meeting.  Canada had 
declined to join, citing its present extensive bilateral agreements 
in the field with Russia.  Nothing had yet been heard from 
Australia, though it was noted that its CEG assistance to Russia has 
been provided through Japan.  South Korea also had yet to respond 
and Japan had declined, also citing its own mechanisms.  However, it 
was revealed during the meeting that Japan had indicated through 
channels that it would become a member of the CEG (it had been an 
observer until this point). 
 
Shift to Russian Far East 
------------------------- 
 
11. (U) A tour de table on assistance projects revealed that the UK, 
France, Germany, Norway and the EU still had ongoing projects in 
Northwest Russia.  The Netherlands, Italy, Denmark had no further 
ongoing projects and Sweden had a few small projects related to 
nuclear waste.  Alain Mathiot, the CEG Representative noted that by 
the 2010/2012 period, CEG-sponsored projects in Northwest Russia 
would be completed.  This would lead to a renewed focus on the 
Russian Far East; he also emphasized that there was no geographical 
limit within Russia for CEG projects.  For both MNEPR and the CEG, 
it appeared that projects for Northwest Russia were gradually 
winding down to completion, with relatively fewer new start-ups, and 
that the focus of international co-operation in the area of spent 
nuclear fuel and radioactive waste management would be shifting to 
the Russian Far East. 
 
12. (U) The United States noted the pending (21 May 2008) deposit of 
its instrument of ratification to the Convention on Supplementary 
Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC).  While the U.S. has not been 
able to sign the MNEPR Protocol on Claims, Legal Proceedings and 
Indemnification, the ratification of the CSC was a significant step 
regarding liability.  Russia was encouraged to follow the U.S. in 
ratifying the CSC. 
 
13. (U) The meeting adjourned with the note that the next MNEPR 
Committee Meeting would be held in Paris during the April/May 
period. 
 
RUSSELL