REPATRIATION OF U.S. ORIGIN NUCLEAR MATERIAL FROM

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000614 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR ISN/MNSA: RCOCKERHAM; ISN/NESS: DFENSTERMACHER; IO/T: HVONBEHREN; IO/T: GDMATHIEU; AF/C:CLAMORA DEPARTMENT PASS TO DOE FOR NA-21; NA-243; NA-25 NRC FOR OIP - HENDERSON E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: AORC ENRG IAEA KNNP MNUC PTER TRGY SUBJECT: REPATRIATION OF U.S. ORIGIN NUCLEAR MATERIAL FROM DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (DRC) Q READOUT OF VIENNA MEETINGS NOVEMBER 4-5, 2008 REF: A)STATE 3687, B)KINSHASA 146, C)STATE 15626, D)KINSHASA 189, E)UNVIE VIENNA 132, F)KINSHASA 247 ¶1. (SBU) Summary. On November 4-5, a DRC delegation met in Vienna with IAEA officials and a U.S. delegation from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and U.S. Department of State (DOS). The NNSA Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) and the Democratic Republic of Congo, in coordination with the IAEA, have been working jointly over the past several months to reinvigorate and enhance cooperation on a range of nuclear and radiological security projects in the DRC. Efforts are focused on examining options to revitalize scientific cooperation with the CREN-K nuclear research center in exchange for DRC's agreeing to repatriate all of the center's U.S.-origin nuclear fuel. Key points from the meeting included GTRI reiterating to the DRC that any incentive package will only be offered in exchange for all nuclear fuel elements, including TRIGA I fuel, TRIGA II fuel, and the nine fresh fuel rods and that approximately $3 million of total funding would be made available from the GRTI program for follow-through on projects that agreed upon feasibility studies identified for implementation. In addition, the US and DRC agreed to continue discussing the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that the U.S. side had tabled in Kinshasa in March and possible paths forward for the fuel return and the process of developing technical cooperation projects. The IAEA provided technical presentations on a variety of technologies that could potentially replace the functionality of the center's research reactor, which is almost inoperable. End Summary. GDRC Finally Sends Delegation to IAEA -------------- ¶2. (SBU) The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposed the Vienna meeting during a joint DOE/ and U.S. Department of State (DOS) visit to Kinshasa in March 2008 (Refs A, B, C). (The DOE's Office of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) had secured the long sought-after invitation from the GDRC on January 30 to meet for bilateral discussions in Kinshasa and tour the Regional Center for Nuclear Research Q Kinshasa (CREN-K) facilities.) Subsequent to that visit, logistical obstacles and GDRC bureaucracy led to several postponements of the Vienna meetings, which finally occurred November 4-5. The U.S. Delegation included; Andrew Bieniawski, Director of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI); Carolyn MacKenzie, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Yousry Gohar, Argonne National Laboratory; Dan Fenstermacher, DOS; and Chris Corkey, U.S. Embassy Kinshasa. The meeting, requested by the GDRC, was hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Office of Technical Cooperation Africa Section and facilitated by its Director, Ali Boussaha. The GDRC delegation included: Ambassador Franck Buhendwa, Special Advisor to the Minister of Scientific Research; Taba Kalulu, Representative from the Office of the Prime Minister; Albert Ongendangenda, Presidential Advisor for Mines, Land and Energy; and Vincent Lukanda, General Commissioner of the DRC Atomic Energy Commission and Director of CREN-K. The primary objective of the meeting was examine, with the help of the IAEA Technical Cooperation Department and others, technical options for replacing the functionality of the CREN-K research reactor in exchange for DRC agreeing to repatriate all of the center's U.S.-origin nuclear fuel. What are the Replacement Options? -------------- -- ¶3. (SBU) On November 4, after opening remarks by Ambassador Franck Buhendwa, Andrew Bieniawski, and Ali Boussaha (IAEA Technical Cooperation, Africa section),the day was dedicated to technical presentations on possible alternative technologies for the CREN-K facilities. The first presentation focused on a new Cancer Therapy Center, including typical assistance from the IAEA Programme of Action for Cancer Therapy (PACT) to assess the feasibility and mobilize resources for radiotherapy treatment centers in various countries. The IAEA noted that 28 countries in Africa, including the DRC, are without radiotherapy centers. The DRC has started Phase I planning for a radiotherapy center at the Kinshasa University Teaching Hospital (KUTH). The DRC is experiencing approximately 60,000 new cases of cancer per year out of a population of over 60 million, and about 60 percent of these cancer patients could benefit from radiotherapy. The total cost over five years for a new cancer therapy center, which could treat up to 15,000 people per year, is approximately USD 5.4 million. Boussaha mentioned the importance the UNDP Director in the DRC placed on healthcare, and pointed to the need for the technical and management experience of the U.S. for a viable and sustainable cancer treatment program. Boussaha also stressed the importance of the DRC's first undertaking a feasibility study, for which Bieniawski noted the GTRI program could offer USD 100,000 in USG funding for such a study. ¶4. (SBU) The next topic, requested by the DRC, included discussion of a new research reactor for the DRC, potentially provided through the IAEA. It was noted that approximately 245 research reactors are currently operating in the world out of a total of 671 that have been built. Most are in the range of 1-10 Megawatts. It was noted that 241 have been shut down, another 170 completely decommissioned, and only 9 are under construction, and 4 newly planned. The South Africa SAFARI-1 20-MW reactor currently produces 20 percent of the worldQs Mo-99 for use in nuclear medicine. The IAEA noted that a Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (from China) currently costs approximately USD 5 million and a new TRIGA is approximately USD 75 million. A large research reactor is on the order of USD 200 million to USD 1 billion (i.e., France and Australia). ¶5. (SBU) The discussion then moved to the different types and uses of particle accelerators. The IAEA placed emphasis on the need to know the purpose of the machine, specifically whether it would be for research, medical, or industrial uses, in order to determine the type of machine needed. Currently, there are approximately 15,000 accelerators worldwide, the majority of which are used for ion implantation and radiotherapy. The accelerators currently found in Africa are in South Africa, Egypt, Algeria and Nigeria. New accelerators are planned for Ghana and Tunisia. The infrastructure requirements and costs can vary from USD 3-5 million for smaller machines to USD 20-100+ million for large facilities. ¶6. (SBU) Kalulu expressed interest by asking about accelerator-driven mass spectrometers in particular. The IAEA noted that these tend to be complex, delicate instruments that can typically analyze samples about five times faster than they can be prepared in the requisite "clean lab" (thus emphasizing the additional infrastructure and technical capacity needed to operate them successfully). Buhendwa asked for some clarification of the costs and reliability, but also asked if any other Central African country had put in a request for an accelerator. (Note: The DRC was the first country in Africa to have a nuclear reactor, and the national source of pride has been a key sticking point during the negotiations. End note.) Lukanda noted that many countries operate both accelerators and reactors for complementary purposes, indicating his long-standing interest in retaining reactor functionality even in the presence of other technologies. Ongendangenda expressed the GDRC's interest in commercial application of accelerators, specifically asking about geological applications for the DRC's mining industry. ¶7. (SBU) There was a short talk on non-destructive testing facilities and the different types of technologies that support this objective. The prices for these facilities ranged from USD 25,000Q100,000 or higher depending on whether the equipment is using sources or high powered flash x-rays, etc. The next topic included a National Source Storage Facility and Radiation Protection facility. The technical needs for the facilities were outlined and references provided. The costs for these facilities can range from USD 50,000-400,000+ depending on the size and complexity. The different types of industrial irradiators were also presented along with the use and purpose of these machines, e.g., for food or medical-equipment sterilization or polymer modification. Both electron accelerators and radioactive source irradiators were reviewed. The cost range is very large depending on the type of facility needed, and was estimated at USD 50,000 to millions of dollars. ¶8. (SBU) On November 5, the discussions continued with a final technical presentation by Dr. Yousry Gohar of Argonne National Laboratory on a modern type of neutron-source facility that can generate relatively high neutron fluxes for a variety of research, teaching, and practical applications. Gohar proposed a 40-50 MeV, 25-50 KW electron accelerator with a water-cooled tungsten or natural uranium target. This facility could generate both thermal and higher-energy neutron fluxes on the order of 1011-1012 neutrons per square centimeter per second. The facility would have significant advantages over a research reactor in that the risks associated with radioactive nuclear fuel and decommissioning costs are practically eliminated. It can be constructed in approximately one year at a cost of USD 3-5 million. Gohar stressed the relative safety, low costs, consistent performance, and ease of operation. Unlike with a research reactor, the functionality of a neutron source accelerator can be modified (i.e. to find impurities in mineral samples, to produce radioisotopes, and to do radiography). Other Incentives Offered -------------- ¶9. (SBU) The meeting then turned to GTRI-sponsored options for developing cooperative regional and/or bilateral scientific research programs to support DRC scientific interests. These options included: establishing bilateral cooperative research and training for DRC personnel; constructing a secure national radiological source storage site; training and providing equipment and technical support to the DRC to perform a verified inventory and search for orphan sources; and establishing a Technical Cooperation (TC) Project through the IAEA to address reinvigorating the technical program at CREN-K in agreed upon areas of emphasis. ¶10. (SBU) Bieniawski stated that GTRI is willing to provide funding in the range of USD 1-3 million to reinvigorate CREN-K as part of package that includes returning all U.S.-origin fuel. The U.S. could also provide CREN-K with collaborative scientific assistance utilizing US DOE National Laboratory personnel, including a possible scientific exchange program with US national laboratories at a cost of approximately USD 100,000. GDRC Response Limited by Instructions from Kinshasa -------------- -------------- ¶11. (SBU) As a result of the discussions with their government, the DRC delegation brought to the table the following proposals for bilateral cooperation with the US: 1) U.S. assistance in training university personnel in the field of nuclear science; 2) U.S. funding for the acquisition of a cancer therapy center, a new accelerator, a storage facility, and infrastructure for radiological protection; 3) U.S. assistance in defining the terms of reference for a new research reactor in cooperation with the IAEA; and 4) U.S. and the DRC to launch a joint effort for the exploration and exploitation of uranium mining in the DRC. ¶12. (SBU) The DRC delegation also announced that they had met with the Prime Minister and that key members of his staff had amendments to the MOU proposed by GTRI in March 2008. The DRC amendments included limiting the repatriation of fuel to TRIGA-I only, and US assistance in final decommissioning the TRIGA-I facility (which primarily consists of just the pool and underwater storage racks holding the spent fuel). The U.S. delegation clarified that the offers for assistance could only be in the context of the return of ALL of the fuel from TRIGA 1 & 2 Q spent, unspent and fresh fuel - in one shipment, and that decommissioning efforts are not within the scope of GTRI's authority. In light of the technical discussions given during the meetings, the U.S. delegation suggested that the draft MOU might usefully be updated for further GDRC review so as to reflect the new alternatives proposed during the meeting and the technical options that would best meet the needs of the DRC, as well as the amount of potential GTRI funding that could be made available for these options. But the US side stressed that the package had to involve a single shipment of all the CREN-K fuel. A Glimmer of Convergence -------------- ¶13. (SBU) The DRC delegation again expressed concern about the social and economic effects of removing all of the fuel from the facility. The DRC delegation noted that the loss of jobs at CREN-K would have a significant impact on many at the facility. The U.S. delegation noted that all participants in the meeting seemed to share an interest in further examining the new technologies, some of which could replace some of the functionality and employment-potential of the aging reactor. Furthermore, it would take about 18 months to prepare and arrange for shipment of the fuel as well as to plan, build, and implement a functional new technology at CREN-K (such as a neutron source facility); thus, it might be possible to complete such a new facility in the same time-frame as removal of the fuel. Fenstermacher emphasized that "timing" was a key part of the DRC concerns and that this angle deserved to be considered in more detail as the sides continued to seek a viable compromise; i.e., the sequencing of the envisioned process could allow for the facility to remain viable through this transition to other technologies. ¶14. (SBU) The DRC delegation then mentioned that the fuel in TRIGA 2 would be removed from the water pool and placed in secure storage in late November with the assistance of the IAEA, so that the condition of the fuel rods and the integrity of the pool vessel could be studied, and a technical report generated. Based on this information, the GDRC will make decisions on the next steps for that facility. Lukanda said if the IAEA finds the vessel or fuel to be damaged or unusable, the GDRC would have to factor that into its decisions about TRIGA II. Lukanda again mentioned the political problem (national heritage of the reactors) and the social problem (unemployment) as obstacles to reaching an agreement based on repatriation of all nuclear fuel elements. The Path Forward -------------- ¶15. (SBU) Bieniawski reiterated that the GTRI incentive package will only be offered in exchange for all nuclear fuel elements, including TRIGA I fuel, TRIGA II fuel, and the nine fresh fuel rods. In response to GDRC concern about the significant follow-on costs of decommissioning the two reactors, Bieniawski responded that it is beyond the scope of the GTRI program. The US delegation proposed a draft plan for a path forward that would expand scientific and technical cooperation in the context of an MOU of the type discussed in Kinshasa in March 2008 as follows: - Upon request from DRC, support through the TC mechanism a feasibility study to establish a Cancer Radiotherapy Center (RTC) in the DRC. (Treatment could be provided to 15,000 Q 20,000 people a year with this facility. DRC currently does not have a radiation therapy program) - Congo needs to first send a letter to the IAEA to officially request the IAEA to provide this assistance - GTRI would provide up to approximately $100,000 in funding for this feasibility study and provide such funding to the IAEA - Estimated cost: $5.4 million over a 5 year period with the option of funding from OPEC and BADEA such as was done in Ghana - Sign statement of work for contract to conduct a search and secure workshop in Kinshasa the week of December 8 - Need approval from the Minister of Scientific Research to sign the contract -- Consider building a new National Secure Storage Facility and Radiation Protection facility at CREN-K - A secure national storage facility is needed and could be built at the CREN-K facility for approximately $200,000. -- Work with the IAEA and other Member States to identify appropriate and mutually agreed scientific research projects, training and fellowships for DRC personnel and nuclear experts, including in particular at facilities outside the DRC. Candidates include Belgium (BR-2),GhanaQs Nuclear Research Center, and South Africa (Safari-1). -- Initiate a joint feasibility study for a 30-50 MeV electron-accelerator-based Neutron Source facility (DRC, USA) - Feasibility study would take approximately 6-9 months. - Clearly identify the national socio-economic needs that would be addressed as well as the number of people employed at CREN-K under this option. - GTRI would provide funding for up to approximately $100,000 for this study. - Site visit to University of Idaho, Argonne National Laboratory and Washington, D.C. starting the week of February 23rd. - Upon request by either the U.S. or DRC, the IAEA could carry out a review of the study. The estimated cost for such a facility is approximately $3-5 million. -- Determine needs for any Industrial Irradiators that could be used for sterilization or food irradiators. -- Make clear in the signed MOU that upon successful completion of the feasibility studies mentioned above and of concrete preparations and agreed schedule for repatriation of all the TRIGA I and TRIGA II fuel, that approximately $3 million of total funding would be made available from the GRTI program for follow-through on the projects that the feasibility studies identified for implementation. -- DOE will provide comments back to the DRC on a revised MOU. ¶16. (SBU) Buhendwa accepted the U.S. delegation's offer to prepare a new draft MOU, which he will share with the GDRC. The IAEA team will be in Kinshasa to assist with the inspection of TRIGA II at the end of November, and the GDRC will then respond to the new MOU. The NNSA will also be sponsoring a radiological search and secure training workshop the week of December 8, including the provision of USD 150,000 of equipment, separate and not conditional on the efforts underway to repatriate the nuclear fuel. ¶17. (SBU) Comment: The DRC delegation seemed interested and enthusiastic about the capabilities of a neutron source facility for the DRC, probably due to its output (an intense source of neutrons at various energies) most closely replacing that of a research reactor. They also, however, invoked the national source of pride the reactor itself represents and said the GDRC had recently sent a letter to the IAEA requesting assistance in purchasing a new reactor, though the IAEA delegation present was unaware of such a request. (Note: Although the IAEA is likely disinclined to support the idea of DRC's acquiring a third reactor after the DRC was unable to maintain the first two, there is some concern that China or another partner may step in to fund a new reactor. End note.) On the margins of the meeting, the DRC delegation expressed somewhat more flexibility than they had in the formal sessions, and an understanding that the GTRI proposal may be the correct path for the DRC. In particular, during an evening discussion on November 5, 2008, both Ambassador Buhendwa and Taba Kalulu expressed interest in the neutron source approach because it provides a good and fast solution to obtaining neutrons for training young specialists and for the production of medical isotopes. In addition, they stated that this option will enable them to keep their technical staff working and provide services to the community. They added that Congolese experts will be able to participate in the development and customization of the facility for their need, which will in turn enable their experts to obtain new skills and interact with U.S. technical experts in this customization process. It should also be noted that a recent GDRC reshuffle has brought in a new Minister of Scientific Research, Joseph Lititiyo, and a new Council of Ministers that would eventually need to sign any future MOU. The GDRC relies heavily upon the opinions of Lukanda and the rest of the DRC delegation, and this process, albeit quite slow, seems to have a chance of success sometime in mid-2009. ¶18. (SBU) Comment continued: The U.S. Mission has provided details of the meeting to the following Missions to the IAEA in Vienna; South Africa, Belgium, United Kingdom, and France. Belgium, in particular, reiterated its commitment and support for technical exchanges with the DRC and commented that the meeting occurring as planned in Vienna is a positive step in the right direction for any cooperation with the DRC. The Mission recommends using the IAEA Technical Cooperation Department and others within the Agency as a key element to help promote the alternatives to a new research reactor represented at the meeting. The DRC delegation listened closely to the IAEA experts during the meeting and emphasized the need for Qexpert advice.Q Working with the IAEA, the GTRI program may be able to move DRCQs focus away from receiving a new research reactor towards more proliferation resistant technologies like the neutron source accelerator. End comment. SCHULTE