Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08UNVIEVIENNA614
2008-11-20 07:32:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNVIE
Cable title:  

REPATRIATION OF U.S. ORIGIN NUCLEAR MATERIAL FROM

Tags:  AORC ENRG IAEA KNNP MNUC PTER TRGY 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0013
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0614/01 3250732
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 200732Z NOV 08
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8705
RUEHKI/AMEMBASSY KINSHASA 0014
RHMCSUU/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC
RUEANFA/NRC WASHDC
RUEKJCS/DOD WASHDC
INFO RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 0158
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1029
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0887
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 0154
RUCHSAD/SADC COLLECTIVE
RUEHXR/RWANDA COLLECTIVE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC
RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK
RUFGNOA/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE 0001
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

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