Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

The Canadian government’s financial support for a proposed reprocessing facility for nuclear waste in New Brunswick undermines global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, a group of U.S. nuclear non-proliferation experts and former government officials says.

Moltex Energy, a small, privately held company based in Saint John, plans to build a nuclear power plant in New Brunswick by the early 2030s. It would recycle spent fuel from Canada’s CANDU reactors (including NB Power’s Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station), and reprocess the waste in a 300-megawatt reactor called the Stable Salt Reactor-Wasteburner (SSR-W). Moltex received a combined $50.5-million from the federal Strategic Innovation Fund and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) in March.

An open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sent on Tuesday said the plutonium recovered by Moltex’s reprocessing plant would present high proliferation and environmental risks. France, Russia, China and India (all of which have nuclear weapons programs) reprocess spent nuclear fuel to recover plutonium. Japan is currently the only country without a weapons program to do so. The authors worried that other countries could point to Canada’s support of the Moltex program to help justify their own attempts to produce plutonium that could be redirected to nuclear weapons.

Story continues below advertisement

How Canada can lead amid the global energy transition

Planet’s pathway to net-zero means no new oil and gas spending, IEA says

The letter’s nine signatories included physicist Frank von Hippel of Princeton University; Alan Kuperman, co-ordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project; and Thomas Countryman, who was U.S. assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation between 2011 and 2017.

The letter to the Prime Minister also said that “like other reprocessing efforts, Moltex, even in the [research and development] stage, would create a costly legacy of contaminated facilities and radioactive waste streams and require substantial additional government funding for cleanup and stabilization prior to disposal.”

Dr. von Hippel, the letter’s lead author, said in an interview: “I would hope that Prime Minister Trudeau and his government will commission a review of the broader implications of Moltex, as well as other companies that are promoting reprocessing, to develop a policy which takes these non-proliferation and environmental considerations into account.”

In its presentations and promotional materials, Moltex says the SSR-W’s ability to burn spent fuel would be an unambiguously desirable trait: The SSR-W could consume approximately one-twentieth of Canada’s spent fuel inventory over more than half a century in operation, the company said, while producing clean electricity. New Brunswick Power has said it partnered with Moltex in part because of this waste-burning capability.

And while Moltex acknowledges that most reprocessing techniques can present a serious nuclear proliferation risk, it added that its proposed reprocessing facility would produce highly impure plutonium that is completely unsuitable for use in weapons.

“If you wanted to make a bomb, you’d still need a multibillion-dollar separation facility,” Rory O’Sullivan, Moltex’s chief executive officer, said in an interview.

The letter said Moltex appears to rely on a technique called pyroprocessing, which involves recycling reactor wastes using high temperatures. Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said during a webinar in April that the only industrial experience with pyroprocessing began in Idaho 25 years ago, after a reactor was shut down in 1994.

Story continues below advertisement

The reactor left behind 60 tonnes of waste that was incompatible with the United States’ proposed disposal facility, so a project was commenced to reprocess the entire stockpile in eight years.

“The experience with this system has not been a success, to put it mildly,” Dr. Lyman said. The production rate “was 30 times slower than projected, and the cost also ballooned.” The resulting hazardous waste has never been disposed of, he said, and nobody knows what to do with it.

Spent CANDU fuel is in a solid form, and if undamaged is fairly robust. “What reprocessing does is, it dissolves that material and separates it out into various constituents and generates all sorts of different waste forms,” Dr. Lyman said. Moltex’s pyroprocessing would produce new wastes including salts contaminated with fission products, leftover radioactive uranium – all of which would need to be disposed of in some manner. If unused, the plutonium would also constitute waste, he added.

Mr. O’Sullivan said the waste would contain less longer-lived radioactive material than CANDU fuel -- and that it can be reprocessed repeatedly.

“We never say we can get rid of all wastes,” Mr. O’Sullivan said. “We’re reducing the long-lived waste, but it’s not magic. We can’t get rid of material.”

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), an industry-funded body charged with handling radioactive spent fuel from Canadian reactors, has shortlisted two sites in Ontario (Ignace and South Bruce County) for a proposed deep geological repository, an underground burial site.

Story continues below advertisement

In a statement, the NWMO said it had no arrangement with Moltex to handle the wastes it would produce in New Brunswick, but is in discussions with the company to determine how this could be done. The NWMO requires that used fuel be a durable, solid material that will not react chemically or contaminate groundwater.

On Tuesday, The Globe and Mail asked the two bodies that provided the federal funding (ACOA and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada) what due diligence they performed regarding the proliferation and environmental risks associated with Moltex’s reprocessing process.

ISED spokesperson Sophy Lambert-Racine said the department conducts due diligence, but the results are considered confidential and not disclosed.

ACOA had not responded by late Tuesday.

Your time is valuable. Have the Top Business Headlines newsletter conveniently delivered to your inbox in the morning or evening. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies