ML20197J469
| ML20197J469 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/23/1998 |
| From: | Stoiber C NRC OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS (OIP) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Mcgaffigan E, Merrifield J, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9812150099 | |
| Download: ML20197J469 (6) | |
Text
..
(3 m
f?t.
\\
m\\
l p
UNITED STATES
) C3 s
'}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\*****
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20MH001 November 23, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan c
Commissioner Merrifield I
FROM:
Carlton R. Stoiber, Director Office of International Programs l
SUBJECT:
U.S.-CANADIAN COOPERATION TO PRODUCE LOW ENRICHED URANIUM (LEU) TARGETS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL ISOTOPES (SECY-98-112)
The attached trip report from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) describes the status of cooperation between ANL and Canadian parties (MDS Nordion and Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited - AECL) to develop LEU targets and processes for the production of molybdenum-99 (Mo 99).
Section 134 of the Atomic Energy Act (known as the *Schumer Amendments") specifies three conditions which must be met before the Commission can authorize exports of HEU for use as targets or fuelin a research or test reactor. In the last HEU export case to come before the Commission (SECY-98112), involving two licenses for proposed shipments of some 30 kilograms of HEU target materials to Canada, the Nuclear ControlInstitute opposed approval and requested a public hearing. They asserted that the U.S. Government was not currently
- actively developing" an alternative LEU target for use in the Canadian reactors because, based I
on information " gleaned from informal contacts with officials of Argonne National Laboratory" (the laboratory doing such work for the U.S. Govemment), neither the Canadian government nor the commercial entities involved in producing medicalisotopes in the Canadian reactors had been providing ANL the requisite information and cooperation r.ecessary for it to adapt LEU t
l targets for use in Canada. Ultimately, the Commission received supplemental statements and
[
information from the Executive Branch which countered the NCI assertions, and, on the l
recommendation of the NRC staff, denied the request for a hearing and approved the export licenses.
j l
The attached trip report is not inconsistent with the Commission's finding in the recent case that "While the dialogue and exchanges toward this effort [ active cooperation] may be in the early stages, we believe that the U.S. and Canadian principals are acting in good faith toward concluding a formal agreement to complete the LEU target development program linked to the l
CONTACT:
Ronald Hauber, OlP 415-2344 9812150099 981123 PDR XPORT
}
XSNM-3060 PDR
,M-L l
/,f,
( yQ,
'I
+.
^
o ckt4 c x
mm.
1 O
)
^
v The Commissioners 2
November 23, 1998 Carudian reactors." On the other hand, the report identifies impediments to full cooperation between ANL and the Canadian parties and indicates very slow progress to this point in the further development, testing and use of alternative LEU targets and associated processes in Canada.
Additional Information Mo-99 is produced in several countries, but not in the U.S. The isotope is typically produced by irradiating high enriched uranium (HEU) targets in a nuclear research reactor, followed by chemical extraction in a processing facility.
Canada produces much of the world's supply of Mo-99. AECL produces the isotope at Chalk River, Ontario, exclusively for MDS Nordion which purifies the product and distributes it to Canadian and foreign users, primarily to generate technetium 99m, the most commonly used medicalisotope. More than 60 percent of MDS Nordion's product is supplied to markets in the U.S. AECL's production is currently taking place at the NRU reactor which uses LEU driver fuel and HEU targets. Two new production reactors, MAPLE 1 and MAPLE 2, are scheduled to come on line in 1999 and 2000. These reactors are also LEU-fueled and will use HEU production targets until alternate LEU targets are developed and can be used in those reactors.
In June 1998, in the case discussed above (SECY-98-112), the Commission reviewed and approved two export licenses to Transnuclear, Inc., authorizing shipments of some 30 kilograms of HEU targets to Canada for use and testing in the AECL NRU reactor. In October 1998, the staff received another application from Transnuclear, Inc., for a license to export an l
additional 13'.' kilograms of HEU targets for use in the AECL MAPLE reactors over a five year period. A decision paper will be prepared for Commission consideration after the staff receives the views of the Executive Branch and completes its own review. Copies of the application are in the Public Document Room and have been posted on the NRC externalintemet site. A Federal Reaister notice is being prepared and will be published shortly.
)
Attachment:
ANL Trip Report dated November 13,1998, l
cc:
SECY OGC OPA OCA EDO NMSS Distribution:
RHauber, OlP TRothshild. OGC BMoran, NMSS OlP r/f BWright, OIP License File XSNM3060 OIP Dir r/f SS-Hayes, OlP PDR Docket #11005070 Central Files
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\Exp v.m,w....m,u-,ouo
,a. orts \\ANL-HEU.wpd
////
, w e - con.,
-s-,
r - ce. mw, r - u.
OFFICE OIP l
OIP l
OGC l
OIP l
01(f91 NAME R Hauber B Wright T Rothschild J Dunn Lee CStoi6er DATE 11/ 20 /98
- 11/ 20 /98
- 11/ 20 /98
- 11/ 23 /98
- 11/M/98 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
l l 3, ARGONNE NATIC'. JAL LABORATORY
u c6303 u2-6363 9700 South Coss Av nue. Argonne, Illinois 60439-4841 Fox: (630) 252-5161 c mail; travelli@ ant. gov i
November 13,1998 l
l Cassandra N. Kincaid Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation, NN-42 i
Office.of Nonproliferation and National Security U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW
, Washington, D.C. 20585
Dear Cassandra:
Visit by ANL Personnel to MDS Nordion,11/05A98 Four RERTR personnel visited MDS Nordion on November 5,1998, to discuss potential cooperation in developing LEU targets and processes for "Mo production. A report on this visit is attached.
The visit followed in the spirit of the' interagency discussions held at the Department of State on April 9, 1998, which included representatives from MDS Nordion, AECL, ANL, and the Canadian Embassy.
Sincerely.
M ando Trave li Manager, RERTR Program AT:dr
Attachment:
Trip Report for a Visit by ANL Personnel to MDS Nordion on November 5,1998 cc:
T. Dedik (DOE)
S. Spector (DOE)
R. Stratford (DOS)
A. Krass (ACDA)
R. Hauber (NRC)
C. Stoiber (NRC) l Operated by The UNversity of CNeogo for The United States Deportrnent of Energy 1
.....C *.**. r -**--
--_..__,_.._.____.-____-,.,_,f~
" ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
- 3 I)
)
Trip Report for a Visit by ANL Personn;l to MDS Nordion on November 5,1998 November 13,1998 Summary Four RERTR personnel visited MDS Nordion on November 5,1998, to discuss potential cooperation in developing LEU targets and processes for "Mo production.
MDS Nordion personnel were very cooperative, but indicated that the main difficulties were to be found in chemical processing at AECL. General discussion of the AECL process appeared to indicate that uss of LEU targets is technically feasible. AECL expressed willingness to cooperate, but only if their effor1 was paid for. In addition, they insisted that even the information needed to assess what work needed to be done had to be paid for. The source of the funding was not identified. The meeting was concluded without any exchange of information that would allow the RERTR program to begin work on the development of an LEU target / process that could be used at AECL.
A later fax from Nordion informed the RERTR Program that such information would be forthcoming, but the information has not yet been received.
4 Detailed Report On November 5, 1998, four memberb of the RERTR Program visited MDS Nordion, in Kanata, Canada. The purpose of this visit was to discuss possible l
collaboration between MDS Nordion and the RERTR Program in the development of LEU targets and related chemical processes for the production of "Mo.
The visit occurred in response to an invitation by MDS Nordion.
The meeting was attended by:
i lain Trevena (MDS Nordion)
Christopher Critch (MDS Nordion)
Grant R. Malkoske (MDS Nordion)*
l Jean-Pierre Labrie (AECL)*
Armando Travelli(ANL)
James L. Snelgrove (ANL) l James E. Matos (ANL) l George F. Vandegrift (ANL)
- onlyin the aftemoon The visit was preceded by exchanges of separate confidentiality agreements between ANL and MDS Nordion and between ANL and AECL. The former agreement had been signed before the meeting and the latter was signed during the meeting.
In the morning, the ANL visitors toured MDS Nordion facilities which included, in addition to those devoted to "Mo production, facilities for the production of Co,Xe, 6
and ' 'i. The latter two isotopes are planned to be extracted in the future from the same targets as "Mo.
I 1 :.C. -.. -. n -,,,~~M w,___,_m" L.L*:%.~ '" i :,
n.
(. )
').
I S-Aftsr irradiation, 'tha targsts undsrgo a dissolution end initizi "Mo atxtraction l7 process at Chalk Rivsr, resulting in a' thick liquid ("like a black tar") that is sent by truck
'?
from Chalk River to Kanata. The final purification of the isotopes occurs in the Kanata L
facilities. According to lain Trevena, the effects of a conversion to LEU targets could be l-accommodated easily at Kanata, because their facilities are organized as chemical.
laboratories and not as automated factories. Therefore, any small change that might need to be introduced in the Kanata purification process because of the switch to LEU targets is not expected to present a problem. The main difficulties are expected to occur at Chalk River (AECL).
AECL has developed a patented UO2 HEU target for use in the MapleX reactors.
The target is planned to be tested soon in the NRU. The schedule for the first MapleX l
reactor contemplates operation to begin in July 1999, first target irradiation in September 1999, beginning of production in October 1999, and full power operation in May 2000. The second Maple X reactor will follow a similar but slightly later schedule, j
with irradiation of the first targets beginning in the summer of 2000.
LEU Target Concept Both AECL and ANL agreed that the same concept used for the HEU targets could be used also to implement the LEU option, with a thicker UO2 layer accommodating approximately five times more UO. No difficulties are envisioned 2
l either in fabricating or in cooling such target, but tests would need to be done to verify the ease of dissolving the targets. AECL and MDS Nordion stated strongly that using i
l this concept would greatly simplify the licensing process. The main difficulties to be l
resolved are due to the need to separate a uranium mass five times greater than in the HEU option, and in disposing of a similarly greater amount of wastes.
Waste Disposal Final disposal of the wastes is a Canadian government responsibility, not l
MDS Nordion's. MDS Nordion must provide for interim storage of the wastes. This storage consists of " cans" positioned in a criticality safe configuration inside a
" container" resembling a silo. When HEU is used, only a small fraction of the volume of each can is occupied by waste. In J.-P. Labrie's opinion, there is enough room in each can to accommodate the extra material due to LEU usage, if criticality requirements are met. Since LEU and HEU wastes are expected to contain the same amount of 8 'U, there is little doubt that criticality requirements that can be met when using HEU targets can be met also when using LEU targets. Therefore, the waste problem appears to be under control. However the calcination process that precedes waste storage must be j
demonstrated to be compatible with the greater amount of uranium in the waste solution.
~
)
Process The current HEU process is designed to handle a certain volume of uranium, which willincrease five fold if an LEU target is used. This could cause complications, j
especially if a radioactive production line using HEU had be switched to LEU. A new i
production line was estimated to cost $50 million (Canadian) in a previous AECL economic estimate.
2
. _.. n Z."
. _C'_- -.
C --- --
- -~- _ -- 3-- ;
?
O o
During the discussion, it was pointsd out thtt it would be v:ry importint to find a l .
solution to this problem and to determine if any equipment modifications are needed i
j before the line went " hot"(i.e., before it began operation with HEU). After that event, scheduled for the summer of 1999, every change would be more time consuming and l
l costly.
l l
AECL personnel are very much committed at this time to bringing the HEU option into operation, but would be willing to work at the LEU option "on a commercial basis." This means that they would need to be paid for their time, at an hourly rate that l
J.-P. Labrie estimated at $200 (Canadian). A contract, or a purchase order, could be l
set up between ANL and AECL to pay for this work. Better yet, ANL believes that the Canadian govemment might be persuaded to fund the LEU work at AECL.
It was suggested that information about the flow sheet of the HEU process be sent to ANL, to allow an evaluation of the feasibility of modifying the process and, if a contract were to be needed, to define the scope of work. However, J.-P. Labrie stated that also this preliminary information should be provided "on a commercial basis". In other words, he believed that work done in the past should also be paid for in the contract.
The meeting was concluded on this rather tense note, with I. Trevena expressing his hope that the information could be provided soon in one way or another, and A.Travelli noting that until that happened ANL could do no useful work to assist in the establishment of an LEU process at AECL.
On the next day, a fax from 1. Trevena informed A. Travelli that the information would be forthcoming.
END OF REPORT I
i l
3
. L *.: :..: L.
' ~._; - =__ __L~nm ' ---a~~ ~-- - - - - - ~ ' ~
L -- --