Natural Resources Committee on June 5th, 2008

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. MacDiarmid and Mr. Hawryluk for being here.

You have at least this member at a decided disadvantage. You've listed a number of issues as to why the MAPLE reactor is being abandoned, and you used the term “deficiencies”. You said it was improbable--not impossible, but improbable--that these deficiencies could be accommodated.

The one you've selected is the one I have the most difficulty understanding. That's the PCR. PCR, for the members of the committee--and I think Mr. Trost would understand this--is the power coefficient of reactivity.

In other words, you have decided to abandon the MAPLE project, notwithstanding consumer and international issues with respect to other facilities coming on board, because it's improbable that the PCR issue could be accommodated.

Is that the conclusion you reached in the April 2008 study that the minister referred to? Is that the major part of the study?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

No, sir.

My reference to “improbable” predated mid-April, in the sense that the mid-April tests were specifically designed to test a hypothesis that we could move the PCR coefficient closer to the acceptable range for which it could be licensed. Unfortunately, the results of that test showed absolutely no movement. It really was a situation in which we had mixed views within our own technical team. We had optimists, pessimists, and those from Missouri, but frankly, at the end of the test it was very clearly the view of all that we did not achieve the indications that would give us any confidence about licensability based on PCR.

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

All right.

I'm going back now. My memory may be incorrect or vague, but other members of the committee might be able to fill in some of the gaps.

When the isotope shortage.... The discontinuation of the NRU reactor for a period of time was made on the basis of two assumptions: one was the safety assumption and the other was certification.

In your overview you indicated that AECL will be going ahead with at least one of those issues--certification--and you've indicated that you're doing that now. What is the status of that particular issue?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

We are engaging in discussions with the CNSC with the goal of establishing a very clear process that will determine the licensability requirements and conditions that we need to meet in order to successfully apply for a new licence effective 2011.

In that process with them we are subject to their final determination, but our goal, as you can imagine, is to achieve the greatest certainty and the greatest transparency we can with respect to what those conditions will be and our ability to meet them, and to do so on a timely basis so that we can raise the confidence level of everybody that the licensing extension application will be successful. We don't want to wait until the last minute. We want to establish it as quickly as we can.

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

What about the safety issues that were cited at the time? What is happening with respect to those issues as we speak?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

Sir, basically the issues that resulted in the NRU shutdown were ones that in our view really revolved around the licensing basis and licensability, as opposed to safety. That having been said, the decision made by both sides--by CNSC and AECL--was that we needed an independent review to be conducted to ascertain what happened, why it happened, and how we could avoid it in the future.

As I believe you know, we did co-sponsor an independent research study that is coming close to the point of being ready for public release. Once that public release occurs, we, on both sides--AECL and CNSC--will be in a position to respond to the findings and to give reassurances that we are implementing the lessons learned and steps that will avoid any further occurrence along the lines that took place last fall.

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

Do I have just one minute?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You have two minutes.

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

I have one last question. You will recall, Mr. MacDiarmid, although you weren't in that position at the time, the trauma that was created with respect to the shutdown of the NRU. I understand and appreciate that your analysis vis-à-vis the MAPLE is based on there being other facilities coming onstream that will be able to meet the medical isotope need—that is, eventually.

Are you satisfied, from a business plan perspective, that those events will not occur again and that we won't be right back in the same position: that the NRU facility will not be able to meet national and international needs?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

I honestly am quite convinced that we have dramatically improved the working relationships and communications with the CNSC. We respect their role as the regulator, and they respect ours as the licensee and the operator. I think we have today an interchange with them that is open and clear, and clearly we both share the desire that there never be a reoccurrence of an unplanned shutdown such as that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe this committee asked, as a result of deputants whom we heard during that particular phase, that there be a strategic plan presented to the committee with respect to matching the needs, both nationally and internationally, and I would just like to clarify whether that was ever received. If it was, that's fine. If it wasn't, I'd like an assurance from Mr. MacDiarmid that it is in process of being submitted to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I chatted with the clerk earlier, based on some comments Madame DeBellefeuille made during her first round of questioning, about information that hadn't been received, and the clerk indicated to me that in fact all of the information asked for had been received.

We will check into that specifically. I'll have the clerk ask you directly specifically what you are looking for, and if you still have a question at the end of the meeting, you can bring it back to my attention. I will find that out.

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

It was on the medical isotope issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Tonks, and thank you for your questions.

We now go to Madame DeBellefeuille, for up to seven minutes.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MacDiarmid, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission...

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We are resolving a technical problem facing the interpreters. We certainly will start the time over.

Now the interpreters are connected. Go ahead, please.

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

My French is not good enough to talk about such complex issues.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission assessed the ACR in 2005. Two problems were identified—positive reactivity, which was compensated for by using enriched uranium, and a design problem. In the text, we read that, as a result of these two problems, the negative reactivity objectives established by AECL were not attained.

Changes were supposed to be made, to the design among other things. As you were saying earlier, it is a complex issue. As members, we don't have university degrees in nuclear energy. Earlier, I asked the minister whether we could compare the MAPLE reactor to the ACR reactor, but I found his answer more confusing than enlightening. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission finds that the ACR has positive reactivity problems and design problems, something that would run counter to the objectives set by AECL.

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

Maybe before I do that I should just say a good thank you to Mr. Wallace for handing off the technical explanations to me, drawing deeply on my five months of experience in the industry.

With respect to the ACR you mentioned—and I'm not talking based on first-hand knowledge, but more recounting what my colleagues have briefed me on—the machine that was being evaluated at that time was the ACR-700, as opposed to the ACR-1000. So it was indeed an earlier generation of the current product.

At that time, the NRC said there were no fundamental barriers to the licensability of the machine, but it was clear from a marketing point of view that we needed to make changes that would result in a power reactor, the ACR-1000, that had a negative PCR design. That is in fact the case today; the ACR-1000 is indeed designed to that basis.

The other thing I should point out, though, is that although these measures are cousins of each other, they are not the same. So the PCR coefficient and the way it's measured and applied and interpreted, as it relates to the MAPLE reactor, is not the same, and you can't draw a direct conclusion between one and the other.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

You say that the reactions are similar and different. Could you please be more precise?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

That's where I run out of depth, to be perfectly honest. My staff have done their best to brief me and to put me in a position where I can carry on a reasonably superficial conversation about it. But basically, the message I want to leave is that the design of the ACR, as it's currently being put forward and currently being developed for introduction to the marketplace, is one that was soundly researched and validated to have a negative PCR or value on this dimension. It is not the same measure.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

So you are telling me that the ACR-1000 has no positive reactivity problems at the moment because it is not on the market yet.

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

Again, I'm not the right person to answer that question; however, I will say that based on all of the briefings I've had from all of my senior technical staff, the answer to that is—you're correct—yes. We don't believe we have any issues whatsoever on that score. One of the significant adjustments that was made in the design was in the fuel; the fuel that's used in the reactor has a very significant impact on the coefficient of reactivity.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Are you talking about enriched uranium?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

Yes, it's slightly enriched uranium.