Evidence of meeting #26 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was isotopes.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
President, MDS Nordion
Thank you.
We also share the same opinion as Mr. Duguay that the fission project has a good potential outcome to it. In fact, we ourselves are partnering with TRIUMF on that project. When the government and AECL announced the cancellation of the MAPLE project, clearly we had to look at other options that would be available to us. We continue to investigate other options, and that is one of the stronger options. We don't think it's the best option. We think that restarting the MAPLE project and finishing MAPLE is the best option. But certainly we're excited by the photofission opportunity, and from our discussions with TRIUMF we think this is a project that certainly merits further support.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Waddington, you were asked earlier as well to respond on the issue of whether any medical isotopes had been produced by the MAPLE reactors. Could you answer that first, and then go on to the next question?
4:15 p.m.
Nuclear Safety Consultant, As an Individual
Certainly.
On the first question, you've already had an accurate answer from Ms. Chitra that the reactor had operated as part of its commissioning, and some of the commissioning tests were with targets in. But those targets were not processed, which is why I said it didn't produce any radioisotopes in terms of output. Obviously when you run a piece of fuel and you must take fuel critical in the reactor, isotopes are produced, and that is correct.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Just for clarity for the committee, were there medical isotopes produced by the MAPLE reactors?
4:15 p.m.
Nuclear Safety Consultant, As an Individual
There would have been moly-99 as a fission product in the fuel in the reactor.
4:15 p.m.
Nuclear Safety Consultant, As an Individual
In terms of milking that fuel and getting the moly out so that it would then go in to become a technetium-99 generator, that was not done.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you. I just wanted clarity there.
And on the other question?
4:15 p.m.
Nuclear Safety Consultant, As an Individual
On the other question, you asked about safety, which is clearly of concern to you. The MAPLE reactors were safe throughout their operating history in terms of the commissioning tests. If they were not, they would not have been licensed, and they would not have been allowed to operate either by AECL or the CNSC.
There's a very high level of safety in those reactors, which was maintained throughout their operation, and I have absolutely no doubt that would be maintained throughout the rest of any further commissioning and any further operation. I have absolutely no question at all that the reactors are safe. I'd be quite happy to live next to them with my children and my grandchildren without a qualm, and that goes for any other major reactor today.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Brunelle.
We go now to the New Democrats, to Mr. Hyer, for up to seven minutes.
June 11th, 2009 / 4:15 p.m.
NDP
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me review what I think I've heard today. It's the opinion of Mr. West that without Canadian production of isotopes, there is no reliable production of isotopes globally, so if Canada doesn't stay in the game, somebody has to move quickly. I have a follow-up question on that in a minute.
Then I've heard opinions by three people on how we should produce those isotopes. Mr. West says fix MAPLE and get it going. Mr. Duguay says a much better method is to use linear accelerators, and Mr. Waddington says fix NRU. So we have disagreement on the answer to the question.
I'm not going to seek clarification on which of you is correct, but I would like to ask a question not only of Mr. West but anybody else who has information to bring to bear on the supply, because I'm not hearing a clear answer on the supply question. Just how short are we worldwide? What are the implications of what's occurring? What is the supply now? What is the potential for various timeframes in the future? And particularly, the minister has talked about a five-point plan to ensure the isotope supply. Do any of you know what that five-point plan is, and does anyone have an opinion on whether it can or will be effective?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
4:20 p.m.
President, MDS Nordion
We currently do not have any isotopes that we can process. NRU supplies 30% to 40% of world demand. There are four other reactors, and they don't necessarily operate all at the same time. For example, the Petten reactor, which has this water leak, will be down for the month of July.
Our estimate of the shortage is that it is around 30%. That shortage will vary by country or region. There may be less shortage, for example, in Europe. There is a much larger shortage, I imagine, in Japan, which relies primarily on Canada, and in Brazil. In North America we would estimate the shortage to be higher than 30%, probably around 50%. We have heard that there could be some potential increase in the supply. We've heard publicly from the government that the Petten reactor is going to increase output somewhat. That won't make up the difference. The Australians are talking about bringing their reactor on line. That's about 4% of world supply.
So when you add all those figures up, we're going to be in that 20% to 30% range for a long time, and we don't really have a strategy to deal with that.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
That's worrisome. My interest in this is not just academic or legislative. This week I had a critical medical test using several medical isotopes, so I'm one of those Canadians who is dependent, for health answers and health treatment, on medical isotopes.
Where do we go here? Does anybody want to add one more opinion—mild, strong, or otherwise? If you were the government, what path would take us to a sustainable and safe supply of isotopes?
4:20 p.m.
Nuclear Safety Consultant, As an Individual
The shortest route to getting the supply back is to fix MAPLE. Any of the other routes, whether it's restarting MAPLE or getting the Australian reactor producing more, is likely to take a significantly longer time than getting NRU back on line.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
As a point of clarification, did Mr. Waddington say “fix MAPLE”?
4:20 p.m.
Nuclear Safety Consultant, As an Individual
I beg your pardon. I meant “fix NRU”. Thank you very much for clarifying.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I think we all knew what was being said, but thank you, Mr. Calkins.
4:20 p.m.
Nuclear Safety Consultant, As an Individual
Yes, fix the corrosion in NRU, because fixing MAPLE will take some significant time and we don't know how long that will be.
4:20 p.m.
Prof. Michel Duguay
My colleague Mr. Waddington spoke eloquently about Canada's contribution to modern science in developing the medical isotopes, which is a very healthy business in several Canadian provinces. I think it would be a blow to the Canadian reputation, especially our scientific and engineering reputation, and even to the nuclear people in Canada, if we were to just drop the whole thing. It would be disastrous in every respect. So I tend to agree with Mr. Waddington that we should fix the NRU, because it has worked and can be fixed, and then look at other options, like the accelerator.