Natural Resources Committee on June 16th, 2009

[Christopher Heysel]

It was a local member of government who asked the university what they could do to help, in fact, in 2007. It was as a result of that inquiry that we brought the proposal forward to the government. So when the decision came about the MAPLEs, we were already in contact with the government and were working back and forth on questions about our proposal.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Given that this happened about a year ago, I would like to know why nothing was done.

[Christopher Heysel]

I think there has been a lot done since late 2007 or early 2008. We've been working with a number of different agencies in the government--NRCan, Health Canada, and the Department of Foreign Affairs--on moving the technical issues of our proposal forward.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Are you producing more medical isotopes? Are you already producing molybdenum 99, for example?

[Christopher Heysel]

We're not making moly-99 yet. We haven't produced that. Certainly we're producing a lot more I-125 to help Canadian and international prostate cancer sufferers. Again, we've been working with the government for 18 months on this. We're waiting for the call to put this into high gear. We think we're ready. We just need the team, the leadership, and the mandate to take it forward.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Ms. Keen, since the NRU reactor is old, I would like to know if, in your opinion, every effort has been made to ensure that it won't shut down all of a sudden and whether it could all be coordinated internationally.

[Linda Keen]

I think one of the problems that AECL management had was that the NRU wasn't top of mind. It was the new reactors that were top of mind. There was a lot of focus on what had to be done with the ACR-700 and then the ACR-1000, etc.

I think there was a feeling--I feel, and I can't point to a paper or whatever--that they just thought it would run forever, that it would just never break down. There was a lot of confidence in it.

I went to the hearing that AECL had on June 11 with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. There was a sense of, well, we looked at the vessel in 2000, we looked at it, we looked at it this way, and there was nothing wrong so we didn't think we ever would need a new vessel.

I think there was a sense that it would go on forever and there would never be a problem. The MAPLEs were being looked at, but I don't think they ever thought it would break down.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Was that line of thinking appropriate?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Merci, Monsieur Malo. Your time is up.

Mr. Trost, for up to five minutes, please.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to let Mr. Heysel finish up on what Cheryl was asking at the end of her questioning on what we need to do to speed up the process--or what you need to do--to get the Hamilton reactor going more quickly. Could you just finish elaborating on that? Are there things that we in government--I'm using that as sort of a broad term--could do to facilitate speeding that up? What do we need to do? Because who knows when the NRU is going to be back up, so the sooner Hamilton is running, the better, I guess.

[Christopher Heysel]

Certainly, I agree. I think if the NRU was back up, operating, and supplying the isotopes it does, it would be good for Canadians, for North America, and for the international community.

Because it's such a diverse group of people and stakeholders that have to come together, both within the federal government and crown corporations and within private industry, I think what we really need from the government on this is a leadership role. That is what is required. The government is elected to perform that leadership role. For this project, which would require multi-stakeholders coming together with a clear mandate, that's the first step I think we need to hear from the government.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Specifically, do we need to get the CNSC to prioritize this? Do we need to get engineers moved from Chalk River to Hamilton, or who knows where else in the world? Give me some specifics.

[Christopher Heysel]

I think we need the government to tell CNSC, AECL, McMaster, and the Department of Foreign Affairs to start looking at this, because up to now there have been technical questions back and forth. These are all very busy organizations. CNSC people are very busy. The Department of Foreign Affairs and AECL both have their priorities. Those priorities are not going to be displaced to look at this until someone asks them to do that. To this point in time, no one has really asked them to take hold of this and get a handle on it.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

My personal view as an individual member of this committee is that we're largely in this mess because of a lack of foresight and because we have put all of our proverbial eggs in one basket; we have bet the farm on MAPLE and have not diversified our sources. We've had essentially NRU and then eventually MAPLE. We haven't diversified for the future.

I'm curious, has there been any other commentary about any other multiple sources? I'm really happy to hear about the TRIUMF proposal. We're hearing about a potential for a new reactor, but what else is there out there? I'm anticipating that the Japanese and the Americans are waking up to this problem too and realizing that they have no domestic supply. What other options are being looked at, both in Canada and abroad?

I see nodding over there, so you may as well take the first crack at answering.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Valliant, go ahead.

[Dr. John Valliant]

The international community is certainly looking at positron emission tomography and PET isotopes, which tend to be produced regionally. In fact, Canada has come together. The institutions have created a pan-Canadian network to begin doing just that. I think the comment was made earlier that you can't make an immediate transition from one technology to another. They have to be properly evaluated. I think what you're going to see is a blending of the current approaches to isotope supply and then newer technologies as time goes on. That certainly was a theme that came across at the meeting we just came from. I think you're going to see a blending of positron emission tomography and the type of imaging using moly-99 and technetium.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Does anyone else want to comment before I follow up on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Lockyer.

[Dr. Nigel Lockyer]

I just want to say that there are ideas out there other than the one I just described. The National Research Council, along with the small company Mevex, for example, has proposed using moly-100 targets from which you can remove a neutron and make moly-99. There's another proposal by Advanced Applied Physics Solutions, which is a spinoff of TRIUMF, to add a neutron to moly-98 to make moly-99. You can put moly-98, which is the natural molybdenum, inside a reactor--this is done around the world now--but then you need to purify it. They're working on purifying it after it's been irradiated.

There are a number of ideas out there.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

I have a follow-up question for each of the gentlemen here, if I can get it in.

My long-term concern is that if the technology begins to change and we rebuild essentially the same old structure, will we be going where the puck was and not where the puck is going to be? Is that a concern in that respect?

The follow-up question to Dr. Lockyer, which he can take afterwards, is this: what sorts of timelines are we looking at? Are these conceptual or are these timeline ideas that would be even more long term than your TRIUMF proposals?

[Dr. John Valliant]

I'll try to be quite quick.

I think that is something we have to be concerned about. We have to be very cognizant of it. I think Dr. Sandy McEwan, who is appointed to be involved and to sort of coordinate this effort, will be able to provide a lot of feedback as to where the field is going on that side. I think your point is well taken in that we do have to be concerned. The impact of the current technology on medicine is very significant and will be for some time. We have to look at today and three years from now. As a community, we have to look out for the next 25 years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Lockyer.

[Dr. Nigel Lockyer]

I would say we're focused on the medium term, not on tomorrow but on four to five years.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Would that be the same for the moly-100 and the other?

[Dr. Nigel Lockyer]

The moly-98-plus neutrons process is done already in the world. There's a lot of that made, but the generators are not of the quality that we use in North America. That's the purification scheme. I think the time scale for that is similar. For the moly-100, the removing of a neutron, I think that's on a similar time scale also. The technology for that is a little more in hand, but there are always things that take time.

Everything I mentioned is for the medium term. The other area I'd like to mention is that there will have to be a new generation of cyclotrons, I think, for PET imaging. I see smaller compact cyclotrons being designed and put in, say, every hospital in Canada, along with PET scanners on a five- to ten-year basis. That's yet another direction to go.