Natural Resources Committee on June 11th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. West.

[Steve West]

I think fixing NRU is essential. I don't think it's the final solution, but it's essential in the short to medium term. If you look at all the options, bearing in mind the time it takes to bring on new infrastructure to create medical isotopes, the best option is to complete the MAPLE project. Maybe we ought to complete it under slightly different circumstances, or under a slightly different design parameter. That will take some creativity. That's why we're recommending bringing in a consortium of experts who can look at the options and pursue them in parallel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

We go now to Mr. Anderson, for up to seven minutes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

I've been a bit disappointed in what I've heard today, because some of us were on the committee last year and spent a fair amount of time on this issue.

Mr. West, I believe you know better than some of the things you're saying, because we've only heard part of the issues here. We really haven't heard anything about your financial interest in this whole matter, which is substantial. We have heard very little about the actual problem with the reactor.

Last year Mr. Waddington went through the actual functioning of the reactor. If you take a look at the testimony from June 10, 2008, there's an excellent explanation of how this whole thing works and how it doesn't work. It's very clear there are substantial problems that cannot be fixed. I hope we'll get back to that.

I just want to read into the testimony what a couple of our colleagues said during our conversation last year, because we'd spent a little bit more time on this.

Ms. DeBellefeuille from the Bloc said:

Mr. West, this has more or less been a horror story from the outset. Half a billion dollars were invested in the MAPLE venture—we could actually talk about the MAPLE failure. And yet you continue to tell us that it would have been in the interest of the government, of taxpayers, and of your company to continue to invest in the MAPLE reactor. From what I understand, you do not agree with the government's decision to put an end to the MAPLE project. It is rather surprising that you should maintain this position. It seems obvious to me that this was not a good thing.

She said later:

Mr. West, we are talking about a multi-million-dollar investment. Mr. Waddington told us that millions more would have to be invested by your company and by taxpayers in order to make the reactor work. At some point in time, you have to give up. It was a bad deal from the outset.

Mr. Alghabra, who was the Liberal critic at the time and was probably the member of the committee who was most familiar with nuclear reactors, said:

Now, facing the difficulties at the MAPLE reactor--and I don't think we can deny that there are technical problems with the MAPLE reactor--I'm at a loss.

I think the government members at that time would have agreed with those statements as well.

Mr. West, I want to challenge your statement that you said at the beginning here, “The reason for the current supply shortage is Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.'s decision to cancel the MAPLE project”. Are you actually suggesting that if this project hadn't been cancelled last year it would now be up and running, in spite of the fact there were problems that had no apparent solution at that time? Is that what you're saying?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. West, please.

[Steve West]

Thank you.

Yes, if you recall what I said last time, it was that we were surprised that the MAPLE project was cancelled, because AECL had never indicated to us that they would be unable to complete the project. My opening comments--

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

You knew there were problems, because in the testimony it talked about the fact that you were aware from 2003 to 2006 to 2007 that there were problems with that. I think you've used this as an excuse that AECL didn't tell you they were going to shut this down, but the reality is you knew there were problems.

Are you telling me those problems would have been fixed by now and that it would have been up and running at this time and would have been taking care of the supply? That's what your statement says. That's what Canadians have heard. If that's not accurate, I think you need to withdraw that statement.

[Steve West]

Sir, we were very clearly informed by AECL that they would meet their contractual obligations to bring the MAPLEs online. The original target date was October 2008. We expected them to complete the project and meet their contractual obligations.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I think that actually, probably, what you did say last time is more accurate. That is, you said, “Part of your question is about the technicalities of operating reactors, and I would probably say that we are not the experts....”, and I think you've indicated that. The reality is this thing would not have been up and running, because there was no apparent solution.

I'd like to go back to Mr. Waddington's testimony, where he talked at length about the number of people who had been committed to trying to find a solution to this problem. He talked about AECL “using a panel of their most experienced staff and outside help”, finding 200 potential factors that could have been causing the problem. He said, “They also asked the Idaho National Laboratory in the U.S. to do an independent prediction of the behaviour....”, that it “employs some of the very best reactor physicists in the world, and they also have access to the most up-to-date calculational methods”. He talked about how AECL carried out a whole series of tests and had been doing this for two years on the reactor itself, with CNSC monitoring every step, and then he talked about the fact that

AECL's management, as far as I can see, were left with a technical problem for which a solution was not immediately apparent. They had put several hundred skilled engineers and scientists on the task, as well as many external reviewers, without finding the specific cause of the problem.

Actually, it was interesting to read that, because the last few days Mr. McGuinty in particular, but also Mr. Regan, said that no one outside AECL reviewed what was going on there. Clearly, many people were working on this. They weren't able to find the solution. Why would you say we would be able to be up and running now when that was, from my information, fairly common knowledge within the nuclear community?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. West, go ahead.

[Steve West]

I stand by my statement. We believed AECL was going to complete the reactor. They told us they were going to do it. We expected AECL to meet its contractual obligations.

We are also urging the government to reconsider the project, because we believe there are ways to complete these reactors--as I said, potentially looking at other options, maybe running the reactors at half power. For example, one MAPLE reactor can provide all the world's medical isotope needs.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We all know that, Mr. West.

[Steve West]

Therefore, what about having half a MAPLE reactor running at half power? Has that been examined? We would like a panel of experts to look at all of those options, to say “Maybe we should run these reactors at 50% capacity, and that will at least replace NRU until we find a technical solution”.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

So you've had experts, you've had staff from inside and outside, you've had labs from outside the country, and you're still not willing to accept that hundreds of skilled engineers and scientists on the task and external reviewers haven't been able to do their job properly, that they've been incompetent while they've been doing it.

Actually, on that subject, I'd like to ask you a question. Why would the title of a Canadian Medical Association Journal article in March last year call the AECL “A black sheep in the nuclear family”? The article talked about your failure to work with the international community in setting up a backup plan to mitigate the effects of a disruption to the world's medical isotope supply. Basically, the gist of the article was that the European suppliers, the stakeholders, and some of the ones from South Africa were very concerned about the fact they couldn't get MDS Nordion to work with them to set up a global backup plan, because you wanted to put all of your eggs into NRU and MAPLEs, and they could not get you to work with them.

Do you have any reaction to that article, with which I'm sure you're familiar?

[Steve West]

Actually, we've always been in contact with all of the providers and have worked with them. We are actually part of that group that provides that information through the AIPES organization. So we do provide that information. We're not looking for confrontation; we're looking for collaboration. And in fact I believe the Society of Nuclear Medicine has actually said that the best option available is to complete the MAPLE project.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson.

And thank you very much to all of you. Our time is up, unfortunately, but thank you for being here today and helping this committee with its study of this issue.

We will suspend the meeting for about two minutes to allow the witnesses to leave, and then we'll come back in camera and hopefully complete our review of the report on integrated energy systems.

[Proceedings continue in camera]