Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 5th, 2008

[Brian McGee]

The correspondence back and forth between us and the commission, as I've mentioned earlier, clearly articulated that the connections were not made. The discussions of concern, where they started to express concern, started in mid-November.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

We have talked about all reactors experiencing fuel failures from time to time and that there are no safety consequences to the public, the employees, or the reactor. Now, in this situation, should there be a fuel failure as a consequence of a seismic event.... It's my understanding that a severe earthquake would have to occur with its epicentre directly under the NRU reactor at Chalk River, and there's no record of that ever happening. The provincial power grid would have to fail. Backup diesel power and backup battery power supplies would have to be knocked out. There would have to be no NRU operating staff available to take any action. After about half an hour, the reactor coolant would begin to boil. After about an hour, the reactor coolant would be boiled away, and we would have the onset of fuel failure. If all these situations arose in order, the radiation exposure to the workers would be less than half the radiation exposure received from a CT scan.

So why was it so critical to the CNSC to keep AECL in shutdown indefinitely and deprive the cancer patients of their treatments?

[Brian McGee]

We believe this did not have to happen. It's a matter of record that CNSC staff have acknowledged the improvements that have been going on at the site. It's a matter of record that the facility was operated safely up until the time of this situation. We believe that if the CNSC had concerns, we could have addressed the concerns without having to force a shutdown of the facility.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Why was it so important at this particular juncture in time that they decided they were going to keep you shut down until these connections were made?

[Brian McGee]

Thank you for the question, but you know, I'm in a position where I can't enlighten you because I don't fully understand it.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Okay. The reason they wanted to keep you in shutdown was because you were in violation of licence. It's my understanding that there's a process involved to determine whether or not someone is in violation of their licence.

Was this process the normal process followed in this situation?

[Brian McGee]

No, the process was not followed. We were not given an opportunity to present our case, to properly research our case, and to put our case in front of the commission.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

One of the reasons it became necessary for Parliament to act is that the MAPLEs are not done. Aside from the coefficient issue, I understand there are other serious problems with the physical plant. Now, I'm told that you work well with all the unions and the operators, and they said that never before had they seen a person in your role take such a hands-on approach to the situation in the plant. So if we don't have a problem with the tradespeople, the operators, where is this resistance or obstruction coming from around being able to go forth with the physical aspects of the MAPLE reactor as opposed to the scientific aspects, which are being worked on with respect to the coefficient?

[Brian McGee]

Thank you for the question.

I have said a number of times that the people who are part of my team are among the very best in this industry. I have great respect for them and try to give them strong leadership.

On the MAPLE reactors, there is a lot of history there. We want to undertake a series-400 test to help us understand why the power coefficient of reactivity exists and its nature. We're working with CNSC staff to get approval to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Gallant. Your time is up.

We'll go now to the third round, starting with the official opposition and then going to the government.

Mr. Tonks is next for five minutes, please.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have three questions. To Mr. McGee, you've indicated that the upgrades have been completed. What was the cost?

Dr. Gulenchyn indicated there was a lack of information supplied. I think the committee would be interested in the result of that, in your estimation. Who was responsible for giving you that information? Was it the Ministry of Health? The minister indicated he had put information forward, so I think the committee would like to know about that.

To Mr. McGee, I think it's critical, if there is a recurrence of anything close to what has occurred, that it is absolutely clear where the responsibility lies to share information with those who are part of the international isotope supply group in advance. On the basis of our experience now, who is responsible for doing that? Is it AECL or, in this particular case, MDS Nordion? We know what happened, but what would happen again as a result of what we've learned?

Those are my three questions, Mr. Chair. Perhaps Mr. McGee could begin on the cost.

[Brian McGee]

Let me start with the question on the cost of the upgrades. I think it's important to note that the genesis of these upgrades was in the early 1990s. Through the 1990s these upgrades were being worked on. The site was chronically underfunded during that period of time--that's a matter of record as well.

On the timing of the upgrades, although the dollar figure was roughly $10 million--I can get you the exact number, but I'm working from memory here--it may not seem like a lot of money, given the current situation, but you have to understand it in the context of funding to AECL through that period of time. That was a factor in staging the work--not that it wasn't being slowed down because of that, from what I can tell. I don't have firsthand knowledge of it, but the staging of the work was done based on the funding available at the time.

On communication, we have a communication protocol in place now. We normally communicate with Nordion; we don't communicate further down the supply chain than Nordion. We had some interaction with businesses further down the supply chain as a result of this situation, but that was very unusual. In fact, until they contacted us we didn't even know they existed, frankly.

Our relationship is with Nordion. We've enhanced our communications with them, although I think it was pretty strong. We have communications with NRCan, and we also have communications protocols in place now with the minister's office, which did not exist before.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you.

Dr. Gulenchyn, you have the final question.

[Dr. Karen Gulenchyn]

First of all, I think it's fair to say that there was no formal channel of communication in place when all of this began. I first learned that there was an issue on November 30, which was a Friday, sitting in my office, when my charge technologist came in and said, “We're not going to have any isotope to do the lymphocentigraphy on Monday.” Now we fixed that problem with a phone call, but we had not been told what the problem was. We had simply been told, from our supplier--because we deal directly with a radiopharmacy--that they had not received their generators from Bristol-Myers Squibb and that it had something to do, and this was the information I got, with earthquakes in the Ottawa Valley, and I just sort of took that in passing.

It was only later in the subsequent week, probably Wednesday, that I realized there was actually a more serious shortage. Again, that information came from our radiopharmacy, which was operated by Bristol-Myers Squibb. So there really was no formal channel of communication.

Because we were looking for an alternative to the bone scan agent in Ontario and because my facility actually had the capacity to produce an alternative, I called Health Canada and asked if we could look at using this alternative, because in order to use it, there needed to be a formal protocol put into place. That was when my communications with Health Canada began.

We have identified, as part of the ad hoc working group, that this communication issue does need to be worked on. It's my understanding that there is a protocol in place now, which I believe Mr. McGee has referred to. The advisory panel is currently working on a report that we will be presenting to the Minister of Health, stressing the need for good communication when these issues occur.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Just pursuant to those—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you Dr. Gulenchyn.

Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Could we have copies of those—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Your time is up.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

—provided to the committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Could we have copies of the document you referred to?

[Dr. Karen Gulenchyn]

You mean the communication protocol currently in place? I'll ask the people at the Ministry of Health, or perhaps you can. It's a Ministry of Health document with NRCan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much. The clerk will be in touch with you, or perhaps you could get it to the clerk, if it is available.

We'll go now to Mr. Allen for five minutes, please.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I would like to just ask a few questions, focusing on the health side of this. I was interested to hear Mr. Perry's comments--they had kind of a narrow focus--on being concerned about B.C.

I'm from eastern Canada. It was very acute out there. We had hundreds of procedures cancelled in Nova Scotia. We had our Moncton hospital, which is very well known for cancer care and heart care, cancelling procedures. River Valley Health services, a predominant portion of which is in my riding of Tobique--Mactaquac, does 70 diagnostics a week, and these were all going to be put off. So I suggest that there's been quite an impact from that standpoint.

Dr. Gulenchyn, I wanted to ask you a question. You are part of this ad hoc working group and an advisory panel. Who were the major players? When I say “who”, I mean what types of people were part of that advisory panel? Seeing as you are the medical chief in the department of nuclear medicine—

[Dr. Karen Gulenchyn]

Yes.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

—is it typically people like that?