Evidence of meeting #28 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 problem.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Maybe Mr. Cullen should understand it was AECL that cancelled the project and shut it down. It was not the government.
Conservative
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Smith, did anyone call you from the federal Government of Canada, the Prime Minister's Office, or the natural resources minister's office to ask you what your opinions were as to this project or whether the technical problems...?
And that statement that the Prime Minister and the natural resources minister made, that it had to be shut down because it had never produced an isotope and was unlikely to ever produce an isotope--is that a factually correct statement?
As an Individual
No, it is not. Nobody tried to contact me. It was making isotopes at the time.
And there was another statement that it was not designed to be functional, which of course is not true.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Over to you, Dr. Nathwani. You mentioned the public aspect of this. There seems to be a political aspect as well, not so much in the politics that we deal with but within the very small community that is nuclear scientists. It doesn't seem to be a large community. Within the public sphere there's a certain level of concern and skepticism towards nuclear power in general, whether it was cost overruns or safety considerations from the public. Have the last 18 months improved that public perception of nuclear power, or lessened what people feel towards this technology?
Ontario Research Chair in Public Policy for Sustainable Energy Management, Executive Director, Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy, University of Waterloo
I'm not a pollster, so I read what's available. But if you were to ask me where people stand on this question of nuclear--certainly people in Ontario, and Canada in general--there seems to have been a reversal, if you wish, or a near acceptance of nuclear as one option in the larger mix. I'm thinking more of the power systems. Partly, all this is driven by issues around climate change and the carbon question. There is a large number of people who otherwise would not be entirely supportive of nuclear who are saying that maybe this is not as bad as we have made it out to be.
So there's a shift. And certainly you see in the Ontario situation that there's a government policy commitment to go down nuclear that's very open, very public, and there's not been much of a debate on that particular question.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Doctor, if I can, I wanted to get to the point that you made about Canada abandoning its position in the making of isotopes, because that's what we're here for. You talked about a national interest and that this question had to be framed in terms of the national interest. Why does it matter that the Prime Minister got up and said at the end of a press conference that, by the way, we're out of the isotope business? Why should Canadians be at all concerned about that? What's the big deal? We can just go on the open market and buy isotopes. Why should anyone be concerned?
Ontario Research Chair in Public Policy for Sustainable Energy Management, Executive Director, Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy, University of Waterloo
Well, as I said in my statement, this is not like buying any other commodity. It is such a critical resource and links so directly into the health and well-being of Canadians. This is through its need in the medical practice.
I shake my head when you say that it doesn't seem to make a business case, or you don't like the cost overruns, or it just doesn't look very pleasant, and it's causing nothing but political problems, and therefore we're out of it. It doesn't seem to take the very long-term view of the benefit that this particular technology delivers today and has the potential to deliver to our health system.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is my question then. You seem to have inferred or connected the political problems to the technical decision to get out of isotopes, that this was causing the government some grief so it's best to push it aside. You've talked about short-term thinking, as opposed to long-term national interest. I don't want to mischaracterize your words. Is this the connection you're making?
Ontario Research Chair in Public Policy for Sustainable Energy Management, Executive Director, Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy, University of Waterloo
I am, and again, it's my opinion. It's an observation I make. I have some sympathy for, in this case, policy-makers, the Prime Minister, politicians. When you have a situation where the broader climate is essentially anti-nuclear and you have a problem that people say they don't like to see in front of them, there is a natural tendency to ask why we don't just close the door and move on.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Back to you, Dr. Smith. Just to clarify, there were technical problems being faced at MAPLE that had been addressed by the regulator. You had a test scheduled for some months just after that. In between the time the technical problems were pointed out and the test was meant to be conducted, the entire project was cancelled. Am I getting my timeline correct?
As an Individual
Almost. We had the test program, which involved three tests, because the issue had arisen. We were trying to explain it and understand it. The first two tests had been executed in that series, and in fact we were being driven to work very hard to get the preparations ready for the third test. It was the middle or end of May, and the program was cut. The test was scheduled for October. So most of the preparations were already well under way.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Dr. Smith.
We go now to the government side. Mr. Allen, for up to seven minutes.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Chair, and thanks to our witnesses for being here today with some interesting comments.
Dr. Smith, I'd like to start with you. I found your comment kind of interesting that you don't know who these people were who suggested MAPLEs couldn't work. Between 2003 and 2008 there was plenty of testing done on this, and what seems strange to me is we had.... I agree with your factors; you get down to the 3 to 5 factors from 200. We had the Idaho National Laboratory involved, we had Brookhaven involved, we had international people involved for five years, yet all of a sudden it's now only a little mechanical thing that we can fix. I'm surprised, given your involvement in the MAPLEs project up to the commissioning time, that this testing program wasn't done a long time ago. What happened between 2003 and 2005, and how is it that we're saying right now that we can have this thing up and running in a matter of months?
You have to square that circle for me, because that was in some of the testimony we heard from Mr. Waddington, who has credible experience in this, although probably not the MAPLEs experience you have. At the same time, I would like to understand how you can square that circle for me. If this is fixable, maybe you should come up on a plane tomorrow.
As an Individual
Between 2003 and 2008, there was no testing. There was a lot of calculating. This is a fixation of the regulator, that you can calculate everything. Unfortunately, there becomes a limit beyond which you cannot calculate.
I could give technical details of why the calculations are very difficult, but I'm afraid that might entail too much technical detail.
We used BNL to be independent reviewers of what we had done, and then we asked BNL to do it independently. Again, this was to try to satisfy the regulator's request that it be demonstrated by calculation. In the end, we needed to do the tests, because you couldn't calculate some of these effects. You already have to know the answer to get the code to tell you the answer. That's the way it works with thermomechanical codes; that's the way it works with thermohydraulics codes. Neutronics is probably the closest to getting an independent answer, but with the thermohydraulics and the thermomechanical, you have to tell them the answer before the code will give you the right answer. So you already have to know what the answer is.
This fixation on a calculated solution--
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
The ability to predict, though.... Some of the issue is how the reactor function is part of how the control systems functioned as well. In your view, and I guess the view of all the folks here, is that an acceptable way to relax a regulatory and safety standard, that we would have a situation where a reactor is behaving differently from the control processes and mechanisms?
As an Individual
I don't agree with your statement. I stood in that control room for every test of the commissioning, through the low power and the high power tests. The reactor behaved extremely well. It was very stable. As Dr. Meneley pointed out, when a coefficient is small, it doesn't really matter.
The thing is, we have extremely conservative safety cases that say there isn't a problem. And when I say “extremely conservative“, we have essentially three shut-down systems. Two of them are fast, less than one second for insertion, and the other one takes two and a half seconds. We are forced by the regulatory process to credit only the very slow one. That's a point of difference between MAPLE and HANARO. HANARO does not have the slow system. Their regulator did not require them to put it in. They have only the two fast ones. When you can credit one of the fast systems, there is no safety issue. In fact, even with the slow system we can still make the safety case.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
One of the things we have heard here today—and I think it is pretty consistent in the testimony we've heard—is the importance of getting the NRU back running again, because that represents our best short-term case. I've had discussions with some folks, and I'd like you to comment. If you need to take that tack, do we have the resources within AECL, and within the right technical competencies, to be able to tackle that and be able to divert resources to the project when it has already been proven, after five years, that we're not sure how long it's going to take to bring it on? I don't think you can give me a definitive answer as to how long it will take us to bring MAPLEs back, so do we have the resources to chase two rabbits and get neither one?
As an Individual
I think it was in 2007 that AECL went on a very large hiring spree. It brought on board a lot of young people. I know that all the members of my commissioning team are still at Chalk River, and there's one down here at Sheridan Park. So we have the people to staff the requirements for MAPLE, and they have been bringing on new people, as I say, who could be used on the NRU.
Having said that, I'm not AECL, and whether they regard themselves as having the resources, I don't know. I just say that I think the people are there.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
You've all said you think we should look at the MAPLEs again. Can anybody here today give me an answer as to how long they think it would take to bring MAPLEs back on, considering what we've got? We've had some say it could be up to 2015 or 2018 to bring this back on. Can anybody give us some kind of indication as to what that is, including the licensing? And given that situation, does it make sense to pursue other technologies? For example, we could have home-grown regional solutions, like accelerators, which we could have up within two years.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Allen, your time is up. Do you want to choose maybe one witness to give a short answer?
Conservative
As an Individual
Excuse me for a second while I gather my thoughts. I thought it was over.
Okay. With MAPLE you have to put things back together and you have to certify the operators. You're probably looking at a year or a year and a half for that. But you could have your people getting all the tests and whatever ready at the same time, in parallel.
The other technologies you're talking about—accelerators—are experimental. They don't have a demonstrated capability to produce the vast quantities that are required.
I can't give you any guarantees. Having dealt with the regulator for a long time, there's just no estimating what is going to happen.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Dr. Smith. I appreciate your answer.
We go now to Mr. Bains, for up to five minutes, in the five-minute second round.