Natural Resources Committee on June 18th, 2009

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

First of all, thank you very much for your testimony. It's very informative.

I want to say that the core issue we're dealing with and discussing here today is really the reliable and secure source of medical isotopes. There are many converging issues that come into play. This issue has been described as a matter of life and death, in certain instances.

I'm very glad to hear today, from all of you, that the MAPLE reactors are a viable option that the government should seriously consider. Even though the government, on numerous occasions, has put the onus back on AECL, saying it was their decision, the buck really stops with the government. It has a responsibility, in light of the crisis we're dealing with.

The question I have—and it's really a continuation of some of the questions that have been posed in the past, just for further clarification—is with respect to the Prime Minister's comments about the fact that he thinks we should no longer be in the isotope business, basically that we should walk away from this.

Why would we walk away? Why would Canada walk away from this? Why would we want to walk away from this? From what I've heard today, clearly, I don't see any upside to this. Specifically, this question is directed at Mr. Nathwani, because you talked about this in your presentation. Could you elaborate on what you think, what feedback you're getting, what you're reading, what you're hearing? Why would the government walk away from such an important critical component of the production of isotopes in relation to our health care system?

[Dr. Jatin Nathwani]

It remains a puzzle, in my mind--unsolvable, in that sense. It doesn't make sense to me that we would take a position to walk away.

It's not because we just somehow were late in this business and found that it wasn't successful. This has been 50 to 60 years of fantastic achievement in Canada in both nuclear medicine and nuclear engineering technology. Yes, there is a problem here around NRU, obviously, and MAPLE, with some technical issues and problems, but the depth of expertise exists within Canada.

In response to the earlier question, if we were at the stage where we said, “Okay, NRU is a problem, and now we're beginning to think of designing some new reactor and hope that will work”, if that were the MAPLE, that would be one thing. But MAPLE has been thought through, built, and commissioned. Results have been obtainable, but some problems exist. You are into the last 20% of the resolution of the problem, if you wish. As to whether it is 20%, 15%, or 30%, the people who work on it should be able to tell you that. But we are not that far away.

So it is a question of some cost, first, but also, in my view, the expertise is available to be able to bring it on. If that is the case, it just makes no sense to walk away from this phenomenal achievement.

Whether you accept the fact that the achievement is good or not, think of it as a national strategic perspective. Would you really want the prescription in price of these isotopes to be left to world markets, whether it's the Australians, the Dutch, or the South Africans, or wherever they come from? What would be our situation in that scenario, if you assume that isotopes will continue to be required in medical treatment?

It's too critical a resource, and we have the expertise within the country to be able to bring it home. As well, we're not starting from ground base, with just about 80% of it done. It makes eminent sense to revisit this question.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I believe there's another witness who wants to speak to this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Meneley, go ahead with a short answer, please.

[Dr. Daniel Meneley]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to close off a point about the time taken for a start-up of MAPLE.

It is my firm opinion that both NRU and MAPLE should be restarted, and as quickly as possible. I believe the time schedule for NRU is some three months. At the end of that three months, we will still be on a very tender point in isotope production. We need MAPLE.

We will be able to hopefully get through the short period between NRU start-up and MAPLE start-up without another NRU shutdown. MAPLE must come in addition to NRU; both of them must be.

On the point of resources, NRU resources are in place. They're the operating and maintenance crew. They are quite different people from the people who would be involved in restarting MAPLE.

So yes, we have the resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Bains.

Ms. Gallant, you have up to five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Who was the head of the CNSC at the time you were required by the regulator to stop commissioning the MAPLEs?

[Dr. Harold J. Smith]

Linda Keen was the chairman.

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

At what point in time, which year, was the positive power coefficient of reactivity first observed?

[Dr. Harold J. Smith]

I think it was back around 2002 or 2003.

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

Now, there were about 200 potential factors identified as contributing to the positive coefficient. It was mentioned previously that the Idaho National Laboratory in the U.S. also observed this, and came out with the exact calculations.

We were told that the last set of tests was in April of 2008. That was the last set. We were told of no future set, in September of that year, being tested, and that last set of tests showed that the factor was not contributing at all to the anomaly that had been seen. There's where things really ground to a halt.

Now, to solve the problem, it would likely need the development of a new fuel, which would have to be designed. How long would it take to design a new fuel for the MAPLEs? We were going to have to go to that anyhow, as the international community wants us to use something other than highly enriched uranium.

[Dr. Harold J. Smith]

I realize that.

Could I correct a couple of points? Did I hear you say 200 factors? It's only 20. We identified about 20 possible contributors, but some were very small.

We finished the main body of our commissioning in 2002. Then it was five years of calculate, calculate, calculate, before we could get approval to do a test that we could as easily have done in 2004, quite right, if we had not been pushed into this path of calculation.

When it comes to new fuel development, if you're talking about starting the search for brand-new fuel and qualification thereof, I think you're looking at ten years. The modification to the MAPLE fuel bundle can be done in a matter of months. There's nothing wrong with it; it's the same kind of fuel that is in HANARO. It has been working fine since the mid-nineties.

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

Has the processing facility for the MAPLEs, the moly extraction equipment, been used and known to function properly at the MAPLE site?

[Dr. Harold J. Smith]

I wasn't in charge of commissioning the NPF. Perhaps Dr. Meneley knows more about it.

[Daniel Meneley]

I don't know much more. It's somewhat speculative on my part, but I've heard from senior people at Chalk River that the original design, which was defective, had been fixed by Chalk River staff and could now be operated. That's only a speculative statement, I'm sure you understand.

On the second point, even if the material were produced in MAPLE, it could still be processed in the old NRU processing facility, temporarily, until the MAPLE thing was finished. It's quite possible to do that.

That's all I know.

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

If everything went perfectly, with zero further technical difficulty, how long would it take to produce the amount of medical radioisotopes required to supply Canada?

[Dr. Harold J. Smith]

It would take 15 days, if given approval to start operating. That's how long it takes to breed in what you need. It takes about 15 days.

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

But how long before we get it commissioned?

[Dr. Harold J. Smith]

That is a strong function of the regulator. I'm saying that from personal efforts you could put the people and the required behaviour back in in a year or a year and a half. But will the regulator let you go? I don't know. I have no control over that, no idea.

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

That's a fair statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Gallant. Your time is up.

We'll go to Madame Brunelle, for up to five minutes.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

As concerns the MAPLE reactors, there is the issue of cost. We have been told that there are minor technical problems. There are also time and money problems. As a citizen, I wonder whether we can afford to do without isotopes, given the problems we will be experiencing as a result of the aging population. Do we have the means to cover costs that may balloon out of control if we do indeed opt for the international solution? Can we be sure of the supply?

It would seem to me, according to what I have observed, that the decision to go ahead or not with the MAPLE reactors is a political one. In the end, it is up to us, the politicians—and this is not a question I am asking you, it is a statement—to determine whether these reactors can be recommissioned.

Mr. Nathwani, you said that you suggested amending the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. According to what Mr. Smith has just said, it would appear that nuclear safety authorization is complex. And you say that this must provide a net benefit for Canada. What do you mean by that?

Mr. Koclas, do you have an opinion on that as well?

[Dr. Jean Koclas]

Maybe to answer so everyone understands, since we are the producers of molybdenum-99 and technetium-99m, we can serve ourselves first. When we are no longer producers, we will have to go on the international market.

Our neighbours, the Americans, rely on us to feed them with technetium. They will no longer have us to supply them, so what can you expect? You will probably be faced with a spot market on technetium, and our American friends will take everything at prices we will probably not be able to afford—or very few of us will be able to afford—and our health system will collapse, essentially. This is one aspect.

The other aspect I would like to comment on is the regulator. It is a fact that throughout the world the research reactors are subjected to the same regulations as the large power reactors. Canada is not different from other countries in that respect.

It is also my point of view that certainly we can operate a reactor with a positive coefficient of reactivitiy. Certainly the safety of the installation relies not on performing accidents in the core and establishing the failure probabilities; the safety case is based on simulations and is consigned in a safety report. If you cannot predict how a simple coefficient is behaving, you probably cannot assure the public that your installation is working as it should. And you are saying to the public, “Here is the risk; it is consigned in my safety report”. But I cannot be certain my power coefficient is right, so can I be sure my complex safety analysis is right or not? These are all done on a calculation basis. They are not done on commissioning tests.

So I concur with the point of view of the safety commission that it is not too rigid to operate the MAPLE. I think the regulator is concerned that because you cannot correctly predict these coefficients, you cannot properly predict how the reactor is going to behave in even more complicated situations involving the coupling together of all these effects.

I do not think in this case we were facing too rigid a regulator. We are facing the simple fact that there are physical effects we are not able to predict at this time, so there are probably other effects we cannot be sure we will be simulating for the safety analysis, which has an impact on how the safety systems work and how the regulating systems also work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Merci, Madame Brunelle. Your time is up.

We'll go now to Mr. Anderson for up to five minutes.

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

I actually would like to follow up on that point, then, because earlier you had talked about wanting regulatory inflexibility removed. Did I hear that wrong? I think both you and Mr. Nathwani said you wanted the regulatory inflexibility removed. Mr. Nathwani said the only thing holding us up is a small technical problem. But what you've just said seems to me to be the opposite side, and I would say a more reasonable opinion to take: if you can't get reliable predictions at one area, how do you know you have them at any other area?