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.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Okay. It's highly sensitive information, I suppose, and that's why you're cautious.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I understand. That's your responsibility. I appreciate that. I'm sure we all do.
Dr. Koclas, in your remarks in the document you distributed, you say:
We see in these events the typical problem of first of series design. This sort of difficulties happen also in the domain of large power reactors, even when only a change in dimensions can bring unforeseen engineering problems, the Darlington reactors in Canada being a case in point.
You're saying that it is not unusual when you have the first of a new design type to have a series of problems. Would you like to elaborate on that?
4:25 p.m.
Professor, Nuclear Engineering Institute, Engineering Physics Department, École polytechnique Montréal
I've given the example of the Darlington reactor. The Darlington reactor is a standard CANDU reactor with essentially more and longer pressure tubes, but basically the same technology. Yet when it was put into service, there were unforeseen vibrations in the primary circuit, which produced long delays in starting up the reactor and commercial service.
The European power reactor of Areva, for example, has its first series built in Finland. It is way behind schedule and way behind budget. For me, it's not actually a law that it is like this, but you can just infer it from many such things that have happened. Also, in the United States, in the early eighties or so, I think some things like that happened.
I've never had the design of the MAPLE in my hands, but consider that one MAPLE was already working, and that is the HANARO reactor in Korea. It's a 30-megawatt reactor, which tells me that it has more fuel bundles, maybe longer ones, but certainly a larger number, so the dimensions of the core are different. So to have surprises when you go to similar technology but just have a reduction in size is not really surprising.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Doctor.
We go now to Madame Brunelle. You have up to seven minutes.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for being here today. My first question is addressed to all of you.
I have heard from your presentations as well as from other witnesses that to cease our production of isotopes would not be a good idea, because of medical needs, among others. This is an urgent problem that affects many areas. We have also been told that it is important not to lose our scientific expertise, that we in Canada have a significant advantage, and that our country's reputation, in the eyes of the world, is an important consideration. So we need isotopes and, as some of you have said, we will need them in greater and greater quantity. So we need to look to the future.
We have two choices: temporarily extend the life of the NRU reactor, which appears to be a temporary solution; or go back to the MAPLE reactors. Several witnesses have said that AECL should seek international assistance to complete the development of the MAPLE reactors. Representatives of AECL, as well as other witnesses, have said that this has already been done, that experts have already been consulted. What is your opinion on that?
Some witnesses also mentioned the HANARO reactor. If I understand correctly, the technology on which it is based is the same as that used for the MAPLE reactor. I would like to know why the authorization required for its startup was issued, whereas in the case of the MAPLE reactors, AECL did not give its authorization.
4:30 p.m.
Professor, Nuclear Engineering Institute, Engineering Physics Department, École polytechnique Montréal
There are several facets to your question. I believe that the HANARO reactor experienced a few problems during startup, but that mechanical modifications to its fuel solved these problems. In addition, this reactor has a negative power coefficient, which is not the case for the MAPLE reactors at this time.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
4:30 p.m.
Professor, Nuclear Engineering Institute, Engineering Physics Department, École polytechnique Montréal
Without having studied them in detail, I would say—and even Mr. Smith confirmed this—that the technologies are essentially the same, except for their dimension.
4:30 p.m.
Ontario Research Chair in Public Policy for Sustainable Energy Management, Executive Director, Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy, University of Waterloo
If I may comment on your question, my opinion is that we have a relatively small technical problem in terms of resolving some of the issues around the power coefficient of reactivity.
When I alluded to what I call the regulatory dimension to this problem, that related to a degree of inflexibility in acceptance of the notion of how one deals with a positive power coefficient in a reactor. When that regulatory inflexibility became a big issue, it left a lot of people in a situation of being under the threat of not being able to license this reactor. That downstream consequence set in motion a whole series of decisions, which may well have led the policy-makers to come to the conclusion that they would pull the plug on the MAPLE. It's an unfortunate set of historical circumstances around what is partly a technical problem and also a degree of inflexibility in being able to say it's something we can solve in time.
That said, I would go on to insist that there is sufficient capacity in the nuclear science and technology community within Canada to resolve this problem, but we still have to take a more flexible attitude, and it may turn out that we need to draw in expertise from outside Canada to resolve this specific technical issue around the power coefficient and so on. Dr. Harold Smith is indeed an expert and can speak to the point better than I can.
I consider it an entirely resolvable issue. Whether it's six months, twelve months, or eighteen months until you actually get into it, time will tell. I'm fully confident that this problem can be resolved, but it will require clear direction.
4:35 p.m.
Acting Dean, Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology
On the point of why HANARO was licensed and MAPLE had difficulties licensing, HANARO is a larger reactor, so following Dr. Smith's comment, flux gradients in the bigger reactor are less important to the reactivity. So it's quite possible, even with identical fuel, that one coefficient could be positive in MAPLE and the other coefficient could be negative in HANARO. But both of them are relatively small, and small coefficients, whether positive or negative, really are not important to safety.
I referenced the first comment on this point to W.B. Lewis, the father of CANDU, who said in 1960 that the important thing was to have small coefficients so that they were easily controllable, and whether the coefficient was positive or negative was relatively unimportant. That's an extremely important point to make. So the positive power coefficient in MAPLE is not really a safety issue; it's a regulatory issue.
I think it was Dr. Nathwani who mentioned that regulatory inflexibility--in fact, extreme inflexibility--on this point was counter to both operation and to safety.
4:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you.
I support the comments on the regulator made by Dr. Meneley and Dr. Nathwani. It would be dangerous for me to say more. But yes, Dr. Meneley's point is very correct.
Do we need external help? I don't think so. I think we had the answer. We've used external contractors, and they didn't come up with any new ideas. We deciphered what the solution was ourselves.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Doctor.
We go now to the New Democrat Party, to Mr. Cullen.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.
I have to say we've been sitting through a number of days of this testimony, and I don't think any of us on this committee are nuclear scientists. I don't have a degree anywhere close to nuclear level. I'm shocked by the testimony I'm hearing today concerning what the reality was around the MAPLE project.
Let me start with you, Dr. Smith. This is obviously--I don't know if personal is the right word--a personal issue for you. You spent a great deal of your career around this project. Is that correct?
4:40 p.m.
As an Individual
That's correct--about 25 years of my life.
I was asked if I was bitter, and I said no. I'm sad and disappointed with what's happened. I did my grieving when they terminated the project. But if somebody wanted to restart it, I know many of the team members who would jump back on to get this thing on the road.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a question for you then. Does anyone know more about the MAPLE reactors and how they work than you do? Would you consider yourself one of the most informed people about this?
4:40 p.m.
As an Individual
I consider myself one of the most informed. There are aspects in which I'm not expert. There are certain engineering aspects. I'm a physicist, and I know how the neutrons are supposed to behave, but if you want me to do thermohydraulics then I call in a specialist for that. There is one other physicist--but unfortunately he wouldn't be accessible to you--who I consider knows as much as I do. Maybe he even knows a little more from the theoretical point.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The reason I ask this is you mentioned earlier in your testimony that no one phoned you before this decision was made by government, and I'm curious why. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources both said that MAPLE had to be cancelled because of cost overruns and said that it had never produced an isotope and was unlikely to ever produce an isotope.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
