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.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
So you did have a design that had some flaws in it.
Are you telling me that the CNSC wasn't aware ahead of time that experts were being brought in from around the world to try to deal with the problems that you said...? You said you weren't aware of them in 2001; you thought there were other problems.
But are you saying that you didn't know there were problems in the design prior to 2006, when they came into commission?
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
I think in terms of technological areas, the reactor is safe until it's started. The job at the CNSC is to make sure that whatever happens on that site is safe and that there's training, etc. The issue of the safety of a reactor becomes paramount for the CNSC when it starts to operate. We don't get involved in.... For example, these gentlemen here were also licensees when I was there, and I wouldn't have any idea if McMaster brought in specialists or not, or others, in terms of what was going on.
It was when it was commissioned. It's when it's at power that it's a serious safety and security issue.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
So you were authorizing them to do tests. And from the testimony of other witnesses, it's clear that when they began doing those tests, they found there was a serious design flaw within the reactor. And you're telling me that you didn't know about that until it came time to commission?
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
You test a reactor when it's commissioned. There is not a separation of the two. When we talk about testing the reactor, we're talking about the commissioning phase. Until that time when it was being commissioned, it was really in a safe state.
We looked at the licensing of the reactor--and this is all public information, in terms of those licences--and we were looking at giving a licence to AECL in terms of their ability to continue to design the reactor.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
How did those folks, then, know through 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 that there were problems in the reactor, if you're saying that none of that showed up until they went to commission in 2006? There is something not adding up here.
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
Well, it probably is a definition of trying to figure out exactly what looking at the reactor design.... I'll give you an example. At the very beginning, when I got there, there was an issue that the shut-off rods weren't falling all the time. Now, the shut-off rods are absolutely critical to the safety of the reactor. That wasn't because the reactor was operating; that was testing one component of the reactor, which was the shut-off rods. In that case it was what the nuclear community calls “housekeeping”--there was grime and whatever in the shut-off rods that prevented them from falling.
So when you're testing a component, you could be testing the staffing, you could be testing the ability of the components, or you could be testing the quality control systems. But it wasn't until the reactor was commissioned that, in my view, these issues became quite serious, and that was the positive coefficient.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
So the reactor was first fired up in 2006. Is that what you're saying? It was up to the point that they understood there was a problem. It wasn't until 2006 that they fired the reactor up?
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
I think you'd have to go back and look at the experiments that happened, but in terms of the licences that we gave, which were these very specific licences to look at bringing it up to power.... I don't have the schedule in front of me; they were the licences at the very end. That's why there was this optimism that the problems could be solved. It wasn't until it really hit the fan that we knew it wouldn't work.
I'd like to emphasize that this positive coefficient of reactivity, and the fact that it doesn't correspond with the projected performance of the reactor, is extremely serious. And it was treated seriously by everyone, including AECL.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Anderson. I'm sorry, your time is up.
Mr. Regan, for just two or three minutes.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Keen, we know that AECL is taking the fuel rods out of the reactor and they're draining the reactor vessel. In view of that, is it your sense, based on your experience, that it is at all possible they could have it up and running again within three months of the shutdown beginning?
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
From listening to the meeting of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on June 11, I think there was no projected change. AECL was saying at least three months, but I think they agreed they were behind in terms of their initial work and hoped to make that up.
So I couldn't say how long.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Let me ask Dr. Ryan. What is your sense? Is it at all possible that could be up and running after a period of only three months?
Prof. Dominic Ryan
I honestly don't know. That's a technical issue for the interior of the reactor and the engineers who are working on it, so I really can't speak to that.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Sorry about that. I'll ask someone who's done safety there.
Mr. Tucker.
Senior Health Physicist, Health Physics, McMaster University
I just don't have the information to make an intelligent judgment. I'm sorry.
Liberal
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I'll ask Mr. Tonks if he would like to fill in for the last minute.
Liberal
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
I have just one last question, and it's an open-ended question. We were told that 100% of the NRU isotope production went down to Lantheus in the States and 10% came up for Canadian consumption.
If there were to be a crisis--and let's not use the term “crisis”--is part of the policy strategy for the future for Canada to develop its own national responsibility to meet that, or do you see the vision of the future as being much broader than that?
Mr. Lockyer.
Director, TRIUMF
I'll just make a comment. Canada has that capability now. MDS Nordion used to make generators for moly-99. So even though it goes to the U.S. now, that was a business decision, not a technology decision. They could start making them tomorrow, if you wanted.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I have a question of clarification. I just want to ask Ms. Keen a question. Does she know that the positive power coefficient issue was an issue in 2003 and was known in 2003, because...?
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Anderson had his questions, and I think the time has expired. I know he's trying to advance his interests, Chair--
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm confused by her testimony, because she seemed to indicate that it wasn't until 2006. Can she clarify that for us?