Natural Resources Committee on June 16th, 2009

[Dr. Nigel Lockyer]

The process we're talking about, which is photofission of U-238, should produce the same product as is produced in the NRU using U-235. So our demonstration that we're looking forward to in 2012 would actually show that to be true. Once you see that it's the same product, then you know that it could be part of the supply chain. So it's the demonstration that would show this.

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

McMaster, you said the same thing, right? Your product is similar, but you would have some issues in terms of the final approval of the product. Is that what you were saying?

[Christopher Heysel]

I think we've done it. We did in the 1970s; we can do it again. The product we made in the 1970s got into Canadian patients, so it's the exact same process that's done on the irradiation side at Chalk River; it's just a different geometry of target, so you'd have to recover the molybdenum in a different physical geometry.

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

Okay, and the reason you can't go 24/7 now I think you said was just because of people and resources. Is that the reason you're not able to go around the clock?

[Christopher Heysel]

That's correct. It's mostly people and fuel.

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

Okay. The 20% of North American demand, would that cover all of Canada? Our demand isn't 20% of North American demand, so could you supply enough to Canada?

[Christopher Heysel]

With these we could supply enough curies to address Canadian needs. The issue there is that the supply chain goes through the U.S., so the isotopes have to come back through that supply chain. But definitely, it's about four times the domestic need.

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

Okay. So in terms of quantity there's no issue at all.

You talked about $30 million, I think, that you thought you needed for your project. I'm just wondering if the other two gentlemen could talk about the kinds of resources they're asking for, and then I'd like all three of you to talk about how do you see government's role and how do you see private investment's role in the projects you're suggesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Actually, there are only about 10 seconds left. Who did you direct it to first, Mr. Anderson?

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

It was to all three of them, but maybe we can come back to that later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. Mr. Ryan, you look like you are prepared. Go ahead.

[Prof. Dominic Ryan]

I can quote the number that was quoted in the Senate 18 months ago, which was about $800 million to build a replacement research reactor that would be fully qualified to replace the functionality of NRU. That's a ballpark number. You need to do a proper engineering costing design before that would be possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

We go now to the second round, and we have from the Liberal Party, the official opposition, Mr. Tonks for up to five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much to all of you for being here. I have found this very enlightening, but please take the questions from a layperson. Other than Mr. Trost, I don't think there's anybody on this committee who has the degree of technological insight into the industry as you do.

So things past, things present, things future. Things past: the NRU was shut down and it appears, regardless of why or how, or whatever, on the basis of the inspections right now, it is leaking profusely around the core of the reactor. Is it possible to restart it or are we in a decommissioning mode?

Mr. Tucker, you were head of safety and security, and so on, at that particular time, so perhaps you'd be more inclined to respond to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Tucker, go ahead, please.

[Dave Tucker, Senior Health Physicist, Health Physics, McMaster University]

Just to clarify, I was the person in charge of radiation safety for several facilities, including NRU. I have a great deal of confidence in my former colleagues at AECL to find the right answer to that question, and I'm afraid I don't have detailed technical insight of exactly what the situation is. I'm very confident that AECL will come to the right conclusion about when and how they can fix that problem.

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

Okay, but it appears it's going to be out of commission for a period of time.

Ms. Keen, with respect to the situation now, it has been indicated that 75% of medical isotopes are being provided for. Do you think that's a realistic assessment based on your understanding of the supply and demand?

[Linda Keen]

Mr. Chairman, I think the committee had the benefit of the advice of the experts from the Society of Nuclear Medicine. You also hear of the reports now from their conference in Toronto, illustrating their concerns. I have a lot of respect for them. I think their assessment process of what is needed is probably correct.

I think it isn't the same across the country; it has depended on where the supply chain has been. So I think it could be that some communities are quite affected and others are not.

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

Thank you.

The scenario, Mr. Ryan, that you've developed is reminiscent of the Avro Arrow and the loss of our aerospace infrastructure. You know the rest of the story.

You say that what we really need to do is to build for the future through the Neutron Beam Centre and expand Canada's industrial economic research capacity. I don't think you'd find anybody who is in disagreement with that. However, we have the Prime Minister and the minister indicating that Canada should vacate that particular role. Would you like to comment on that? I don't mean this in a partisan way. I think we're being bumped and nudged away from a huge value-added opportunity, and I'm afraid that partisanship might be helping this become more than a bump and a nudge. I think the committee would be very interested in hearing your response.

Mr. Lockyer, you indicated there is an additional opportunity with respect to the accelerator, PET imaging, and the cyclotron accelerator technology. Is one at the expense of the other, or are those kinds of strategic plans inclusive of a combination of responses?

Mr. Ryan, perhaps you can answer first.

[Prof. Dominic Ryan]

First, to be a little clearer about what has been said, I don't think the Prime Minister said they want to get out of nuclear stuff entirely; they want to get away from the business of subsidizing medical isotope production. I think that's what has been said. I think this is getting tangled up, and the meaning of one is being turned into the other. I don't think there's any real reason these are not compatible.

I think what we need to do, as you said, is to invest in our future. We need to build new research reactors, because they have impacts on so many different aspects of Canadian society—industry, nuclear power, research, medicine, they are all impacted by this facility. We've had 50 years of history at NRU. The cost of building a new reactor is a large number, but remember, it will be spread over many years of construction and then will pay back over the next 40 or 50 years of its life. If it's built to the same standards as NRU, you would have a long-term investment here for something that's going to keep paying back to Canadians for a very, very long time.

When you asked about the compatibility with TRIUMF, there is no way this is exclusive, because you are looking at new technologies and new radioisotopes. Neutron-rich isotopes are produced in reactors, and if you want to go to proton-rich isotopes for PET scanning, and so on, they will be made in accelerators; there's no other place you're going to get those isotopes from.

So doing one does not mean you should not do the other. A research reactor is central and cannot be replaced by the accelerator technology at TRIUMF, but there are aspects of medical isotope production and other research projects that can only be done at TRIUMF.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Lockyer, go ahead, but as briefly as possible, please.

[Dr. Nigel Lockyer]

I was going to paint a bigger picture. The world relies on moly-99 now for most of its procedures, but there is growing interest in PET imaging, which Canada is already investing in. There are about a dozen medical centres around Canada that already have cyclotrons and PET imaging. They are going to double in the next couple of years. I'm just saying that's where the field is going. You are going to need moly-99 for a long time, but I see a crossover at some point where the newer technology will take over.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

We go now to Ms. Gallant for up to five minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to hear that NRU has played such an important role in the nuclear reactor at McMaster University as well.

Professor Ryan, we know that in the June 9 issue of the Ottawa Citizen you recommended that the time is right to engage the National Research Council and to provide the mandate and funding to lead an inter-agency group with a deadline of six months from today to come forward with a plan for implementation of the new Canadian Neutron Centre.

Why did you pinpoint NRC as a suitable agency to be mandated with a leadership role in this matter?

[Prof. Dominic Ryan]

I would start by saying that NRC built NRX and NRU, so they have a pretty good track record on this issue of successful reactor projects and a long-term commitment to Canada.

The second thing I would say is that the NRC is ideally placed. It has most of the experts it would need to call on or else it can find them. It has the contacts and it can bring in all the experts it would need in order to bring this project forward.

The third thing I would say is that it fits very well with its mandate, which is to sit between industry and research and try to bridge those gaps and bring one to the other. It allows industry to understand what research is doing; it allows research to be transferred to an industrial environment. A new research reactor is exactly what that does. It's applied research, understanding chunks of steel, or it's fundamental research, understanding what's going on at the most fundamental level in materials. Or it's nuclear engineering. These are all very valuable products within Canada and it's right along the way that NRC operates.