Evidence of meeting #27 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 nru.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Director, Isotope Research, McMaster Nuclear Reactor, McMaster University
I believe that the talent of Canadians' health care and scientists who are able to help has improved our reputation, yes.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Cullen and Mr. Valliant.
Mr. Anderson, for up to seven minutes.
June 16th, 2009 / 4:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's good to have some presenters here with some alternatives and some options, and I want to come to that in a minute or two. But we talked a little bit about the MAPLEs and I'd like to go back to that for a second.
Ms. Keen, it's my understanding that the MAPLEs were authorized for testing. Were they ever licensed?
4:30 p.m.
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
This is going to be a bit of a technical answer, but what has to happen is that they have to be licensed to start the commissioning process. When they're in a safe state, they have one kind of licence that is really for while they're being built. Then they came back for six-month licences to allow them to start commissioning. So they would wrap up, percentage-wise, in terms of the power level.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
And they could never get that licence to commission, is that right?
4:30 p.m.
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
I was fired before I know what happened to them in that area. They never asked for a final licence when I was there. They were still in the commissioning phase but having problems, in terms of that.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Okay. So there were technological problems with it. Were those problems being overcome, in your opinion?
We've heard from Dr. Waddington that there was a ton of issues with those things. They took a whole host of different approaches to try to solve that, including bringing in Idaho, including, I think, another national lab from the States, dozens of experts from around the world, all the AECL people, and they could not solve those problems even though they were trying some different things. Were those technological challenges being addressed and were they being dealt with, do you think, or were they at a stalemate?
4:30 p.m.
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
I heard Mr. Waddington's presentation, and certainly he was in the AECL advisory group at that time so he would have some sense of that.
From the viewpoint of the commission, Mr. Waddington was absolutely correct: there were lots of options being looked at, and the commission would hear that there are this many alternatives, we're down to X or Y, and we're looking at various kinds of issues.
When I was fired, there was still a sense that they were moving toward an alternative. There could have been a lot of international advisers; I don't know that. I do know that Idaho was part of that. Idaho was very much involved.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Those challenges hadn't been met at any point when you were there, is that right?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Okay.
I actually want to challenge you a bit on something you said. You left the impression that it was from 2006 on that these issues became clear, but three weeks ago, in an article in the Globe and Mail, you said:
Ms. Keen said she was told the Maples had problems in 2001, when she arrived at the CNSC.
A quote from you:
“One of my staff who has since retired said, ‘You know, we are going to be bringing out the cement machines to fill that in,'” she said.
And this is a quote again:
“The fact that it took seven years to decide [to scrap it] and many millions of dollars is because the AECL engineers tried their hardest to make it work. But the CNSC had really great physicists–and still has, I believe–and the CNSC said, ‘No, it is an inherently flawed design.'”
When did you say that?
4:35 p.m.
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
Well, I'll explain.
When I arrived in 2001, as I answered the earlier question, there were really serious problems with the MAPLEs, in terms of housekeeping and—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
Can I answer? There were two questions.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, I'd appreciate it if you would allow the.... Certainly when I ask questions, if I interrupt, you cut me off, and I appreciate that, and you should, so I'd appreciate if it you'd not allow Mr. Anderson to interrupt the witnesses.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Regan, it all depends on how it's done and whether there's been an answer given.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Well, I think you did say that it was commissioning issues of poor quality, management, contractors' lack of focus, but what you said here is “...it is an inherently flawed design”. That has not to do with contracting; that's a design that apparently CNSC had made a decision would not function.
4:35 p.m.
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
That is the view of my staff in the last year. The person who retired was in the last year. That was their view. When I asked what happened to the MAPLE reactor in the end, they said it was an inherently flawed design and that it was going to be finished. It was going to be finished at that time. So those last two comments were in the last year.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I actually think you're stretching that a little bit, because I think clearly there were a number--
4:35 p.m.
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
Sir, I'm here as a private citizen. You could put me under oath and I would say exactly the same thing.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm sure you would. Thank you.
I want to go on to the other witnesses, actually, and talk about some of the positive things we've heard today. I want to go to Mr. Lockyer.
You said your product that you were talking about bringing online is similar to what's produced in the NRU. Is the product that you hope to produce at the end the same as what's being produced in the NRU right now?