![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article analyzes how US nonproliferation policies that sought to curtail US exports of highly enriched uranium (HEU) affected Canada’s medical-isotope industry and, particularly, the Canadian MAPLE (Multipurpose Applied Physics Lattice Experiment) reactors project. US HEU-export policies established between 1978 and 2012 highlight the “nuclear ambivalence” of the Canadian isotope industry’s flagship product, molybdenum-99 (Mo-99)—a life-saving commodity widely used by US hospitals but also a material whose production process, based on HEU, came to be perceived as a potential threat to US and world security. The ambivalent status of Mo-99 production was reinforced by a state of mutual dependence between the two countries: On the one hand, Canada depended entirely on US HEU exports to maintain its dominant position in the Mo-99 world market and could not turn to other sources of HEU supply. On the other hand, US hospitals relied mainly on Mo-99 of Canadian origin, which limited the US government’s ability to enforce its policy by suspending its HEU exports to Canada. As a result, US and Canadian efforts to convert the Canadian isotope facilities to low-enriched uranium were thwarted by tensions between global security, public health, and commercial stakes, which led ultimately to ending Canada’s Mo-99 production.
Notes
1 On the early production of medical isotopes in the US nuclear program and their political instrumentalization, see Angela Creager, “Nuclear Energy in the Service of Biomedicine: The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission’s Radioisotope Program, 1946–1950,” Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 39, No. 4 (2006), pp. 649–84; John Krige, “Atoms for Peace, Scientific Internationalism, and Scientific Intelligence,” Osiris, Vol. 21, No. 1 (2006), pp. 161–81. In the case of Europe, see, for instance, Jean-Paul Gaudillière, “Normal Pathways: Controlling Isotopes and Building Biomedical Research in Postwar France,” Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 39, No. 4 (2006), pp. 737–64; Francisco Barca-Salom, “Dreams and Needs: The Applications of Isotopes to Industry in Spain in the 1960s,” Dynamis, Vol. 29 (2009), pp. 317–36.
2 Jadin Nathwani and Donald Wallace, eds., Canada’s Isotope Crisis. What Next? (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010).
3 Frank von Hippel and Laura Kahn, “Feasibility of Eliminating the Use of Highly Enriched Uranium in the Production of Medical Radioisotopes,” Science and Global Security, Vol. 14, Nos. 2–3 (2006), p. 152.
4 Itty Abraham, “Who’s Next? Nuclear Ambivalence and the Contradictions of Non-Proliferation Policy,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45, No. 43 (2010), p. 48.
5 Abraham, p. 52.
6 Sonja Schmid, “A New ‘Nuclear Normalcy’?” Journal of International Political Theory, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2019), pp. 297–315; John Krige, “The Proliferation Risks of Gas Centrifuge Enrichment at the Dawn of the NPT,” Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 19, No. 2 (2012), pp. 219–27; Gabrielle Hecht, Being Nuclear: Africans and the Global Uranium Trade (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012).
7 Christina Hansell, “Nuclear Medicine’s Double Hazard: Imperiled Treatment and the Risk of Terrorism,” Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 15, No. 2 (2008), pp. 185–208.
8 Mahdi Khelfaoui, “Selling off the Crown Jewels: Socialization of Costs and Privatization of Profits in the Canadian Isotopes Industry,” Canadian Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 2 (2020), pp. 217–40.
9 See Richard Van Noorden, “Radioisotopes: The Medical Testing Crisis,” Nature, Vol. 504, No. 7479 (2013), pp. 202–4; Bernard Ponsard, “Mo-99 Supply Issues: Status Report and Lessons Learned,” paper presented at the international topical meeting on Research Reactor Fuel Management (RRFM), Marrakech, Morocco, March 21–25, 2010, <https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:41064193>.
10 Increasing the percentage of fissile uranium in a nuclear fuel makes it possible to obtain higher power levels without increasing the total mass of uranium in the reactor core. See Frank von Hippel, “A Comprehensive Approach to Elimination of Highly-Enriched-Uranium from all Nuclear-Reactor Fuel Cycles,” Science & Global Security, Vol. 12, No. 3 (2004), p. 138.
11 J.L. Snelgrove, G.L. Hofman, M.K. Meyer, C.L. Trybus, and T.C. Wiencek, “Development of Very-High-Density Low-Enriched-Uranium Fuels,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 178, No. 1 (1997), pp. 119–26.
12 John Krige, “Hybrid Knowledge: The Transnational Co-production of the Gas Centrifuge for Uranium Enrichment in the 1960s,” British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 45, No. 3 (2012), pp. 337–57; Susanna Schrafstetter and Stephen Twigge, “Spinning into Europe: Britain, West Germany and the Development of the Gas Centrifuge 1964–1970,” Contemporary European History, Vol. 11, No. 2 (2002), pp. 253–72.
13 Donald G. Hurst, ed., Canada Enters the Nuclear Age: A Technical History of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited as Seen from Its Research Laboratories (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997), pp. 52–55. Neutron flux is a “measure of the intensity of neutron radiation, determined by the rate of flow of neutrons.” NRC, “Neutron Flux,” last reviewed/updated March 9, 2021, <https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/neutron-flux.html>.
14 Anya Loukianova and Christina Hansell, “Leveraging U.S. Policy for a Global Commitment to HEU Elimination,” Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 15, No. 2 (2008), p. 161.
15 Armando Travelli et al., “Development and Transfer of Fuel Fabrication and Utilization Technology for Research Reactors,” paper delivered at the International Conference on Nuclear Technology Transfer, Buenos Aires, November 1–5, 1982, pp. 1–2, <https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6342778>.
16 John Krige and Jayita Sarkar, “US Technological Collaboration for Nonproliferation: Key Evidence from the Cold War,” Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 25, Nos. 3–4 (2018), p. 253.
17 Duane Bratt, The Politics of CANDU Exports (Montreal: McGill–Queens University Press, 2005), pp. 118–28.
18 Itty Abraham, The Making of the Indian Bomb: Science, Secrecy and the Postcolonial State (London: Zed Books, 1998).
19 Gene Rochlin, Plutonium, Power and Politics: International Arrangements for the Disposition of Spent Nuclear Fuel (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1979), p. 165.
20 Sharon Squassoni, “Looking Back: The 1978 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act,” Arms Control Today, December 2008, <https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_12/lookingback_NPT>.
21 Alexander Glaser, “About the Enrichment Limit for Research Reactor Conversion: Why 20%?” paper presented at the International Meeting on Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR), Boston, MA, November 6–10, 2005, p. 9, <https://www.rertr.anl.gov/RERTR27/Abstracts/S9-2_Glaser.html>.
22 A. Travelli, D. Stahl, and T. Shibata, “The U.S. RERTR Program, Its Fuel Development Activities, and Application in the KUHFR,” Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 36 (1981), p. 92.
23 Alan J. Kuperman, ed., Nuclear Terrorism and Global Security: The Challenge of Phasing out Highly Enriched Uranium (London: Routledge, 2014), p. 7.
24 George Bunn, “The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty: History and Current Problems,” Arms Control Today, December 2003, pp. 4-10, <https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_12/Bunn>.
25 Christina Hansell, “Practical Steps toward a World without Civilian HEU,” Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 15, No. 2 (2008), p. 289.
26 Karla Harby, “Enriched Uranium Embargo Risked Mo-99/Tc-99m Supply,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 29, No. 6 (1988), pp. 1003–5.
27 Harby, p. 1005.
28 D. F. Sears, M.D. Atfield, and I.C. Kennedy, “The Conversion of the NRU from HEU to LEU Fuel,” paper presented at the International Symposium on Research Reactor Safety, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, ON, October 23–27, 1989, p. 815, <https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:22047704>.
29 W. Heeds, “The MAPLE-X Concept Dedicated to the Production of Radio-Isotopes,” paper presented at the Canadian Nuclear Society 1985 Annual Conference, Ottawa, June 3–4, 1985, p. 3, <https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:17062899>.
30 K.A. Burrill and R.J. Harrison, “Development of the Mo-99 Process at CRNL,” paper presented at the IAEA Technical Committee meeting on “Fission Molybdenum for Medical Use,” Karlsruhe, Federal Republic of Germany, October 13–16, 1987, pp. 35–46, <https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_515_prn.pdf>.
31 D.F. Sears, L.C. Berthiaume, and L.N. Herbert, “Fabrication and Irradiation Testing of LEU Fuels at CRNL: Status as of 1987 September,” paper presented at the International Meeting on Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR), Buenos Aires, September 28 to October 2, 1987, p. 160, <https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/22/069/22069686.pdf>.
32 J. J. McGovern, Cintichem, to US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 31, 1990, p. 1, <https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1006/ML100630070.pdf>.
33 D.F. Sears and N. Wang, “AECL Research Reactor Fuel Development at AECL,” paper presented at the International Meeting on Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR), Las Vegas, NV, October 1-6, 2000, p. 1, <https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/20433011>.
34 J.B. Slater, “The Program on Future HEU Supply for AECL’s Radioisotope Production Operation,” presentation before the Joint Canada/US Committee on Nuclear Affairs, December 4, 1990, personal archives of Alan J. Kuperman.
35 Mark Hibbs, “Iraqi Revelations Justify RERTR and Remote Monitoring, Blix Says,” Nucleonics Week, September 28, 1995, p. 13.
36 Dave Airozo, “Nonproliferation Low-Enriched Fuel Program Faces Another Budget Crisis,” Nuclear Fuel, September 18, 1989), p. 4.
37 Congressional Record, House, “Conference Report on H.R. 776: Comprehensive National Energy Policy Act,” October 5, 1992, H12103, <https://www.rertr.anl.gov/REFDOCS/EPACT92.pdf>.
38 Joe Rojas-Burke, “Ban on Enriched Uranium Exports Intended against Bomb Builders Also Affects Radiopharmaceutical Makers,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 34, No. 3 (1993), p. 28N.
39 US Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, “Medical Isotopes Production Project: Molybdenum-99 and Related Isotopes: Environmental Impact Statement,” DOE/EIS-0249, Vol. I, April 1996, p. v.
40 Letter reproduced in the meeting minutes of AECL’s board of directors, A-2016-00027, accessed through the Canadian Access to Information Act, January 21, 1994, p. 2.
41 Iain Trevena (Nordion International Inc.), prepared statement for the Department of Energy’s Isotope Production and Distribution Program, “Hearing before the Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations House of Representatives,” 103rd Cong., 1st sess., December 6, 1993, p. 55.
42 Angela N.H. Creager, Life Atomic: A History of Radioisotopes in Science and Medicine (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2013), p. 217.
43 Ray Silver, “Nordion, AECL Want Speedy Approval for MAPLE Reactors, Isotope Plant,” Nucleonics Week, August 29, 1996, p. 4.
44 NRC, “Briefing on Proposed Export of High Enriched Uranium to Canada,” June 16, 1999, pp. 20–21, <https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1512/ML15127A051.pdf>.
45 The contract between AECL and Nordion stipulated that the first MAPLE reactor would start operating before May 2000 and the second reactor before November 2000. Meeting minutes of AECL’s board of directors, A-2016-00027, accessed through the Canadian Access to Information Act, September 6, 1996, p. 4.
46 See appendix (dated September 4, 1997) to the letter of D.G. Waddell, Canadian Embassy in Washington, to Richard Meserve, NRC, July 6, 2000, p. 4, <https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0037/ML003732628.pdf>.
47 Michael Knapik, “State Urges Export of HEU to Canada, but Cooperation with Argonne Not Set,” Nuclear Fuel, April 20, 1998, p. 2.
48 Knapik.
49 NCI, “NRC Approves Export of Bomb-Grade Uranium to Canada after Winning Canadian Pledge to Develop Safer Alternative,” June 10, 1998, <http://www.nci.org/pr/pr61098.htm>.
50 “In the Matter of Transnuclear, Inc. (Export of 93.3% Enriched Uranium),” CLI-98-10, June 5, 1998, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances, “Opinions and Decisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with Selected Orders,” Vol. 47, pp. 338–39, <https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0205/ML020560604.pdf>.
51 NRC, “High Enriched Uranium to Canada,” p. 29.
52 MDS Nordion, “Feasibility Study Report: Conversion from HEU to LEU for Mo-99 Production in the New Processing Facility (Annex),” A-2015-00151, report submitted to the NRC, April 2000, p. 3 (accessed through the Canadian Access to Information Act).
53 NRC, “High Enriched Uranium to Canada,” p. 132.
54 NRC, p. 118.
55 NRC, p. 28.
56 NRC, p. 55.
57 Appendix to the letter from D.G. Waddell to Richard Meserve, p. 4.
58 NRC, “High Enriched Uranium to Canada,” pp. 79–80.
59 NRC, p. 108.
60 Michael Knapik, “Commission Okays HEU Export to Canada but Requires Annual Reporting,” Inside NRC, July 5, 1999, p. 17.
61 NRC, “High Enriched Uranium to Canada,” p. 134.
62 MDS Nordion, “Yearly Status Report to the USNRC on the Progress of the Program and Canadian Cooperation in Developing LEU Targets for the MAPLE Reactors,” May 19, 2004, p. 11.
63 MDS Nordion, “Yearly Status Report,” p. 13.
64 Paul Leventhal, NCI, to Nils Diaz, US NRC, “Concerns Nordion Inc. Request Second Tranche of Highly Enriched Uranium,” LTR-04-0101, February 26, 2004, p. 2, <https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0406/ML040610160.pdf>.
65 Daniel Horner, “Nordion Headed for Showdown with U.S.?,” Nuclear Fuel, March 15, 2004, p. 1.
66 Daniel Horner, “NCI Knocks Nordion for Slow LEU Effort, but Others Question Basis for Charges,” Nuclear Fuel, October 28, 2002, p. 5.
67 Mohamed Zakzouk, “The 2009–2010 Medical Isotope Shortage: Cause, Effects and Future Considerations,” Parliamentary Information and Resource Service, 2009-04-E, November 17, 2010, p. 6, <http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/bdp-lop/bp/2009-04-eng.pdf>.
68 Edwin Lyman, “The Congressional Assault on RERTR,” paper presentated at the 25th Annual RERTR Meeting, Chicago, IL, October 10, 2003, p. 8, <https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/35/066/35066249.pdf>.
69 For a detailed account of the CORAR’s lobbying campaign, see Alan J. Kuperman, “Bomb-Grade Bazaar: How Industry, Lobbyists, and Congress Weakened Export Controls of Highly Enriched Uranium,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 62, No. 2 (2006), pp. 44–50, <https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2006.11460972>.
70 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58 (2005), p. 4, <https://www.congress.gov/109/crpt/srpt78/CRPT-109srpt78.pdf>.
71 Energy Policy Act of 2005, p. 200.
72 Energy Policy Act of 2005, p. 200.
73 Christina Hansell, “Practical Steps toward a World without Civilian HEU,” Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 15, No. 2 (2008), p. 289.
74 National Research Council, Medical Isotope Production without Highly Enriched Uranium (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009), p. 24, <https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12569/medical-isotope-production-without-highly-enriched-uranium>. See also G.F. Vandegrift, “Facts and Myths Concerning 99Mo Production with HEU and LEU Targets,” Abstracts of the 2005 RERTR Meeting, Boston, MA, October 6–10, 2005, p. 3, <https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:37107340 >.
75 MDS Nordion, “Yearly Status Report to the USNRC on the Progress of the Program and Canadian Cooperation in Developing LEU Targets for the MAPLE Reactors,” A-2015-00151, May 31, 2006, p. 2 (accessed through the Canadian Access to Information Act).
76 Daniel Horner, “Nordion Sees Conversion Progress, but Critics Don’t,” Nuclear Fuel, September 13, 2004, p. 1.
77 Natural Resources Canada, Division of Nuclear Energy, “Briefing Note: Maple Reactor Project,” November 2007, personal archives of Alison Motluk.
78 The MAPLE reactors were designed to have a negative PCR in order to minimize the consequences of abnormal or accident conditions. However, their measure was positive during the commissioning of the reactors and AECL wasn’t able to explain the reason for this discrepency. See Daniel Homer, “Maple Start-up Hitting New Bump: Positive Power Coefficient,” lnside NRC, September 22, 2003, p. 10.
79 Jean-Pierre Labrie, “Don’t Count on MAPLE to Deliver Medical Isotopes,” National Post, July 28, 2009, <http://www.pressreader.com/canada/national-post-latest-edition/20090728/281805689933634>.
80 Rennie MacKenzie, “Canada Bypasses Regulator, Allows NRU Isotope Production to Resume,” Nucleonics Week, December 13, 2007, p. 3.
81 National Research Council, Medical Isotope Production, p. 2.
82 National Research Council, p. 2.
83 National Research Council, p. 5.
84 Edwin S. Lyman, “Making Domestically Produced Medical Isotopes a National Priority,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, December 18, 2008, <https://thebulletin.org/2008/12/making-domestically-produced-medical-isotopes-a-national-priority-2/>.
85 Edwin Lyman, “Break the Isotope Monopoly,” Ottawa Citizen, February 12, 2009, p. A11; Ian McLeod, “U.S. Urged to Dump Canadian Isotopes,” Ottawa Citizen, January 8, 2009, p. A1.
86 Thomas Young and Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress, “The Nuclear Security Summit: Forging Consensus and Building Momentum,” James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, April 20, 2010, <https://nonproliferation.org/the-nuclear-security-summit/>.
87 Report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources (Canada), “The National Research Universal Reactor Shutdown and the Future of Medical Isotope Production and Research in Canada,” 40th Parl., 3rd sess., November 2010, p. 3, <https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/403/RNNR/Reports/RP4500827/rnnrrp02/rnnrrp02-e.pdf>.
88 David Akin, “Canada to Get out of Isotope Game,” Ottawa Citizen, June 11, 2009, p. A3.
89 Canada Stockwatch, “MDS Nordion Urges Government to Complete Maple Project,” June 1, 2009; David Akin, “Get Mothballed MAPLE Reactors Going, Tories Urged,” Ottawa Citizen, June 2, 2009, p. A3.
90 Mari Serebrov, “Canada to Scale Back Its Role in Global Isotope Production,” Devices & Diagnostics Letter, April 5, 2010 (retrieved from the Factiva database, DNDL000020100405e64500003).
91 Sarah Diehl and Paula Humphrey, “The April 2010 Nuclear Security Summit: One More Step toward the Mountaintop,” Nuclear Threat Initiative, April 19, 2010, <https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/april-2010-nuclear-security-summit/>.
92 Canadian Press, “MDS Nordion Enters Supply Agreement with Russian Firm to Secure Back up Isotopes,” September 23, 2010 (retrieved from the Factiva database, CPR0000020100924e69n000bg).
93 Lee Berthiaume, “Nordion’s Isotope Deal with Russia Raises Fears,” Ottawa Citizen, March 27, 2012, p. A7.
94 MDS Nordion, “Nordion Restructures Russian Mo-99 Supply Relationship,” Business Wire, October 29, 2012, <https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20121029005496/en/Nordion-Restructures-Russian-Mo-99-Supply-Relationship>.
95 Federal Register, Department of Health and Human Services (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services), Vol. 77, No. 221 (2012), p. 68316, <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-11-15/pdf/2012-26902.pdf>. The producers did not publicly release information on the costs; they shared the information with government agencies on the condition that it remained confidential.
96 Ian MacLeod, “Changes Could Hit Nordion’s U.S. Sales; Officials to Back Low-Enriched Uranium Procedure,” Ottawa Citizen, August 10, 2012, p. A3.
97 Seth Hoedl and Derek Updegraff, “The Production of Medical Isotopes without Nuclear Reactors or Uranium Enrichment,” Science & Global Security, Vol. 23, No. 2 (2015), p. 124, <https://doi.org/10.1080/08929882.2015.1037123>.
98 Krige and Sarkar, “US Technological Collaboration,” pp. 249–62.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Mahdi Khelfaoui
Mahdi Khelfaoui has been an assistant professor of history in the Department of Human Sciences at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (Canada) since 2021. Prior to that, he was a Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management postdoctoral researcher at the University of Ottawa from 2019 to 2020. He specializes in industrial history, energy history, and the history of nuclear technologies. He received a PhD in science and technology studies from the Université du Québec à Montréal in 2019. His thesis focused on the trajectory of the MAPLE reactors project and its effects on Canada’s medical-isotope industry. He has published articles on this topic in the Canadian Historical Review, Journal of Canadian Studies, and Artefact: Techniques, histoire et sciences humaines. From 2006 to 2013, he worked as a nuclear-safety analyst at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Candu Energy Inc.