May
3, 2000
Ms.
Carmen Ellyson
Board Operations Officer
Atomic Energy Control Board
280 Slater Street
P.O. Box 1046, Station B
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9
CANADA
Dear Ms. Ellyson,
We are writing in regard to the impending start-up of a major new Canadian
nuclear facility, which has significant implications for global efforts to stop
the spread of nuclear-weapons materials.
It appears that the operating license for this facility has yet to be
listed for discussion on the agenda of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada
a very troubling situation, given the circumstances described below.
We urge you to take up this matter promptly and to consider the recommendations
we make at the close of this letter.
According to reports in the international trade press, Atomic Energy
Canada Ltd. (AECL) and Nordion, Inc. plan to commence operation in June 2000
of their New Processing Facility (NPF) for medical radioisotopes.
[1]
As you may know,
this facility was the object of considerable scrutiny at a special public meeting
of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) last spring.
As we testified at that meeting, current plans for the NPF threaten to
undermine two decades of progress in the international non-proliferation effort
to eliminate civilian commerce in bomb-grade, highly enriched uranium (HEU).
Since 1978, the international Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test
Reactors (RERTR) program has worked to eliminate commerce in HEU to reduce risks
of this material being stolen or diverted for nuclear weapons.
Annual trade has been slashed drastically from several tons annually
to less than a few hundred kilograms, en route to zero.
Dozens of research reactors have been converted from HEU fuel to low
enriched uranium (LEU) fuel, which is unsuitable for weapons, and no new high-power
Western research reactors have been built to use HEU fuel and started operations
since 1978.
Recently, the RERTR
program has been expanded to include phasing out HEU commerce arising from production
of medical radioisotopes. Australia
already produces such isotopes with LEU, Indonesia soon will join it, and others
are researching this safer option. Helping
to facilitate this initiative, a 1992 U.S. statute, known as the Schumer Amendment,
prohibits export of HEU for use as targets in isotope production unless all
of three conditions are met: the recipient cannot yet use LEU targets; the recipient
has formally committed to convert to LEU targets as soon as possible; and there
is an active LEU target development program to enable such conversion. NCI has communicated with all of the worlds current and
prospective producers of medical isotopes, urging them to follow Australias
example, and many are pursuing this option.
(For further information on the progress of the RERTR program and NCIs
strategy for facilitating the complete phase out of HEU commerce for isotope
production, please see A Level Playing Field for Medical Isotope Production
How to Phase Out Reliance on HEU, presented last year at the 22nd
International Meeting on RERTR in Budapest, Hungary, available from NCI upon request or on NCIs website at http://www.nci.org/rertr99.htm.)
In the face of the prevailing international norm and U.S. nonproliferation
law, AECL and Nordion still propose to commence operations using HEU targets
in their new MAPLE reactors and NPF. If
such production were to commence and then continue for the life of the new facilities,
it would generate commerce of a ton or more of bomb-grade uranium.
Canada would soon be responsible for more civilian HEU commerce than
any other country in the world hardly consistent with Canadas commendable
international leadership role in nuclear non-proliferation.
AECL, Nordion and Canada
can avoid so undermining the international nonproliferation regime by converting
from HEU to LEU targets as soon as possible.
No modifications would be required to the MAPLE reactors.
However, some modifications might be necessary to the NPF.
As we testified before the NRC last spring, such modifications to the
NPF would be much more feasible if carried out prior to starting up the facility,
because after start-up the NPF will be radioactive and therefore much more expensive
to modify. In addition, modifying
the NPF prior to start-up would ensure against any interruption in the worlds
supply of vital medical isotopes. While
necessary modifications were being made to the NPF, isotopes could continue
to be produced in Canadas NRU reactor and its associated processing facility.
Following these modifications, the NPF could start-up using LEU targets
or, if necessary, start with HEU targets and then convert to LEU targets
when they became available without any interruption in the supply of
isotopes.
The NRC agreed with
our analysis in its order of June 2000, expressing the expectation that Atomic
Energy Canada, Ltd. will cooperate fully with [the U.S. Department of Energys]
Argonne National Laboratory to complete a feasibility study within three
months to consider whether minor modifications could be made prior to
the MAPLE reactors and their processing facility coming on line that would permit
the use of LEU targets, or take other reasonable measures that would at least
preserve the opportunity to move to LEU targets in the future.
The NRC expected the study to be submitted within three months by
September 2000 based on the testimony of AECL and Nordion that the study
could be prepared in this period.
In addition, as we urged
in our testimony, the NRC imposed conditions on its approval of AECL and Nordions
license application for the export of HEU targets.
The NRC directed AECL and Nordion, as well as the U.S. executive branch,
to submit a yearly status report detailing the progress
of the program and Canadian cooperation in developing LEU targets.
Moreover, the NRC warned that, If the Commission should make a
finding, following review of these periodic status reports and a public meeting
if necessary, that the requirements of the Schumer Amendment are not being met,
the Commission may modify, suspend, or revoke the license pursuant to Section
186 of the AEA and 10 CFR 110.52.
The Commission also stated that the Executive Branch Reports should
include assurances that the funds necessary to develop the LEU targets in a
timely manner have been made available to Argonne National Laboratory.
(We can provide you with copies of our testimony and the NRC order upon
request. Also, the testimony is
available on NCIs website at http://www.nci.org/pl-nrc-61699.htm, and
the order at http://www.nci.org/nrc62999.txt.)
Recent troubling developments suggest that the applicant already is violating
the terms of the NRCs order and does not intend to modify the NPF prior
to start-up. First, the applicant
has refused to cooperate with Argonne National Laboratory in conducting its
feasibility study, so that there can be no independent check of the studys
progress and conclusions. Second,
the three-month study is already seven months overdue.
Even if it were completed and submitted immediately, it does not appear
there would be sufficient time to make modifications to the NPF prior to its
planned start-up in June 2000. If
the NPF does indeed start up prior to completion of the feasibility study and
implementation of any necessary modifications to enable it to process LEU targets,
AECL and Nordion are likely to argue against future modifications as prohibitively
expensive because the NPF will be radioactive.
A clear indication of this is provided by a recent press report, in which
a Nordion representative was characterized as calling into question whether
conversion to LEU ever would occur, because switching to safer, low-enriched
uranium fuel would be too costly and too troublesome.
[2]
In addition,
neither the Canadian companies nor the Canadian government has provided any
hint of funding for the modifications necessary to convert to LEU targets. It thus appears that AECL and Nordion have little, if any,
actual intention to convert to LEU targets.
Furthermore, AECL and Nordion already have inquired about modifying the terms of the license in two ways that would undermine the intent of the Schumer Amendment and the NRCs order. First, they sought to have the HEU exported in one or two large shipments, rather than conventional smaller annual shipments, to avoid annual NRC review of their progress on conversion. Second, they sought permission to have the HEU exported as metal rather than as fabricated targets. If this change were approved and a target-fabrication capacity were established in Canada, AECL and Nordion could arrange for the original batch of HEU to be recycled repeatedly, avoiding future license applications and thereby perpetuating commerce in U.S.-origin HEU for decades to come.
All of this
strongly suggests a blatant attempt by AECL and Nordion to evade the requirements of U.S.
non-proliferation law and the NRCs order, which condition exports of HEU targets to
Canada on the existence of an active program to convert to LEU targets. If AECL and Nordion start up the NPF prior to
modification or pursue other strategies that make conversion to LEU less feasible or less
likely, the NRC would be compelled by U.S. law to terminate exports of HEU to these
companies. Since 1992, the United States has
refused to export HEU to several European research reactors because their operators
refused to agree to the requirements of the Schumer Amendment. If AECL and Nordion pursue a strategy that results
in termination of HEU supply from the United States, they could well be responsible for
endangering the worlds supply of medical isotopes.
Such an unfortunate outcome would be in no ones interest and can easily be
avoided if the AECB exercises responsible oversight.
Accordingly, we urge you to take the following steps. First, the NPF should be placed on the agenda of
the AECBs next meeting. Discussion
should include the refusal of AECL and Nordion to abide by their commitments to the U.S.
NRC and to support international non-proliferation efforts. Discussion also should address the possible
consequences of such intransigence, such as termination of U.S. HEU exports to Canada, and
the resulting impact on global supply of medical isotopes.
Second, we urge you not to grant the NPFs operating license -- or if that
license already has been granted, to suspend it -- pending completion of the
aforementioned feasibility study and implementation by AECL and Nordion of any
modifications determined by the study to be necessary to permit the NPF to process LEU
targets as soon as they are developed.
If the AECB
proceeds in this prudent manner, Canada can eliminate its commerce in bomb-grade uranium
within five years, without any adverse impact on the supply of medical isotopes. However, if the AECB permits and facilitates
irresponsible actions by AECL and Nordion, the result will be either an interruption in
the global supply of medical isotopes or if Canada can find an HEU supplier willing
to evade international nonproliferation norms the perpetuation by Canada of
large-scale commerce in bomb-grade uranium. We
urge you to take prompt action to avert either of these dangerous outcomes.
Sincerely,
Alan J.
Kuperman
Paul L. Leventhal
Senior Policy
Analyst
President
Cc:
Lloyd
Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada
Christopher Westdal, Ambassador to the United Nations for Disarmament, Canada
Donald W.
Campbell, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada
Paul
Heinbecker, Assistant Deputy Minister for Global and Security Policy, Canada
Paul Meyer,
Director General, International Security Bureau, Canada
Mark
Gwozdecky, Director, Nuclear and Chemical Disarmament Implementation Agency, Canada
Eric
Hoskins, Senior Policy Advisor to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada
Richard
Meserve, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Richard
Stratford, Non-Proliferation Bureau, U.S. Department of State
Leonard
Spector, Office of Arms Control & Nonproliferation, U.S. Department of Energy