Natural Resources Committee on Aug. 21st, 2009

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

The reason I ask is that Minister Raitt stated yesterday, “We're continuing to press AECL for a quicker return to service”, as she was quoted in the newspapers. Given the extent of the repairs necessary at this point, how feasible is that? Is the implication of her assertion that you don't understand the urgency of this, or you might not have the resources or tools, or that she actually has some sort of alternative suggestion she provided to you? In your opening remarks, you indicated the urgency and necessity of this issue and that you have a plan, yet she's continued to press you for a quicker return. Does she have an alternative solution she's provided to you or given you direction on?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

There is no alternative solution. My interpretation of the minister's remarks is that they reflect the wishes and hopes of all Canadians and all people involved that we will be able to return this reactor to service as soon as humanly possible. She certainly has given us very clear direction that nothing is to stand in the way of, no other priority is to take precedence over, the return to service of the reactor into isotope production, and also that we are to be deploying our resources, to the extent possible, on a 7/24 basis. And that's been happening.

The range you're seeing from us now is a very real reflection, as Bill said, of the range of uncertainty that surrounds a project of this complexity and this nature at this particular stage in time. We've based our guidance on the evidence that we have. We have a firm timetable that we're managing to, but we have to reflect in some way, shape, or form where things stand. It's our job to be realistic and practical, and a precise deadline today would not be meaningful. We have a target and some contingency built into it, and we feel comfortable, as the CEO and the chief nuclear officer, committing to a timeframe of the first three months of next year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Bains.

We go now to Madame Brunelle for up to seven minutes.

Go ahead, please.

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

Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for being here on this beautiful late summer day. You will understand that, as a result of the current emergency, everyone is asking us parliamentarians to take action and shed a little more light on the matter.

Dr. McEwan is a special adviser on medical isotopes to the Minister of Health. He said one thing that surprised me somewhat. He talked about the possibility that the NRU might remain shut down. He isn't a nuclear reactor specialist, but every stage is extremely complex and, since May 14, the scheduled dates in your turn to service plan have changed a number of times. How can you be sure today that the reactor will really be restarted in spring 2010?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

As I said, we base the guidance we make public on the accumulation of the evidence available to us and the expertise we can bring to bear, both internally at AECL and externally. And the guidance we have provided successively over the past few months of this project has always reflected that very real uncertainty that exists at an early stage of a very technically demanding and complex project.

The most recent release we made does in fact reflect a very different tone in our projection, because we didn't just say that it's going to be at least this or that amount of time or by this date, but we put a bracket around it and said it's going to be within that three-month period of the first quarter of next year. That really reflects the business judgment that both Bill and I bring to the task, and also the support and advice of both internal and external experts who have been retained.

So there is always uncertainty, there is always risk; but to date, we feel comfortable making the commitment publicly that AECL is planning to return this reactor to service in the first quarter.

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

I've had the opportunity to see the explanatory model on your website. You can see there really is some corrosion and that a line has extended. If I remember correctly, there are now seven corrosion points. So I wonder whether the situation gets worse every time you examine the reactor a little further, or whether you have really looked at all those problems and can really assure us that you're beginning the second and third phases, that is to say repairing and restarting the reactor.

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

I'll let Mr. Pilkington respond.

[Bill Pilkington]

As we've progressed our inspection, we have covered more of the circumference of the vessel. Initially we were dealing with one leak, and as we increased our ability to inspect, we found other locations where there was corrosion. We now believe as many as nine areas on the vessel will require repair. They're all relatively small, very similar, and located at a similar height above the base of the vessel. So there is a band around a portion of the base of the vessel where this corrosion is present.

We have now completed the inspection of the full circumference through this band at that elevation, so we feel much more confident that we have the necessary information to specify the repair technology we need to apply and move forward to manufacture the tooling and implement that repair.

With the nine sites, it became apparent that there was little additional schedule time required to put a band of weld built up around the base of the vessel instead of simply repairing individual sites. So by applying a band of weld repair as the basis for our schedule, we essentially found that schedule. If we were to identify some additional sites within this general region, that would not further extend the schedule to repair the NRU.

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

How much do you estimate this rebuilding, these repairs and this outage will cost? We can consider that there are labour, evaluation, appraisal and other costs. Do you have any idea of the costs, and who will pay the bill?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

Certainly AECL will need to seek funding authorization from the Government of Canada to fully carry out this project. We expect that the government will impose a very serious requirement on us to justify the costs and demonstrate our confidence that the repairs will be carried out successfully.

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

During your presentation, you told us hoped to extend AECL's certification, that is to say its authorization. You would like that to be until 2016, I believe. Is that optimistic? Could that be possible? Isn't your reactor a little old?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

This is an initiative we have had under way since the decision was made to terminate the MAPLE project, which is now over a year ago. At that time it was clear that in order to fulfill our commitment to produce isotopes for the global marketplace we would have to renew the operating licence of the NRU and the Chalk River facility for the production of isotopes. It was on that basis that we developed an isotope supply reliability program, which is basically the sequenced phase set of activities we will undertake to successfully secure a licence renewal from the CNSC. We have a protocol signed with the CNSC for the conduct of that project, so we're certainly very intent on achieving that licence renewal. We're working very closely with the regulator to ensure that we take all the necessary steps to ensure that it will happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Merci, Madame Brunelle.

We'll go now to Mr. Cullen for up to seven minutes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Welcome back again. I hope we don't keep meeting in these circumstances.

You folks are obviously heavily involved in the medical isotope business. The government, through the Prime Minister, decided some months ago that Canada was getting out of the medical isotope business. The Prime Minister made it sort of a public declaration of policy. I asked the representative of the association of people who work in the industry in which you also work if they had ever been consulted. Did anyone ever ask you?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

The guidance I get from the Government of Canada is clear. As it stands right now, I am to continue to produce isotopes from the NRU reactor until I'm instructed otherwise.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Isn't that a bit strange, though, when you see--I don't know if he's your boss--the Prime Minister getting up one day and saying, “We're out of the business. We're not doing these isotope things anymore”, but he wants you folks to keep working as hard as you can to keep the duct tape on this really old reactor whose age we're being reminded of all the time? It seems a very contradictory message.

Does that affect the way you folks go about the repairs? You just put your heads down and do what you're told?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

My minister has been very clear as to what her direction is, and that has been for us to return this reactor to service as quickly as we can, and that's what we'll do.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Let me ask you about that. You talked about it earlier. The minister was quite definitive with you--and she has been with me as well--that MAPLE was a no-go. There was no chance; her government was not interested in pursuing the MAPLE project. Has that been her clear and definitive direction to you as well?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

We recommended to the government, and the government accepted that recommendation, so in that respect, the decision to terminate the MAPLEs project very much flowed from AECL, and based on our view that the project was not a wise pathway for us to follow going forward.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

So it's a little strange, then. I was just reading in the paper today, coming in from Halifax, that the expert panel is looking at the MAPLE as an option now. This expert panel that the government has convened has put MAPLE back on the table--I assume under the government's direction. I'm getting a bit confused.

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

I wouldn't assume that it's under the government's direction. I don't know, but I believe that the expert panel has been willing to entertain submissions from many different parties, and certainly any one of them is free to put ideas forward. We at AECL are very prepared to have our decision scrutinized, have it reviewed, because we want nothing other than the right answer and the best answer for the global supply chain of medical isotopes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

At the beginning of your testimony, you talked about understanding the effect and the concern within the public of what it means to not have these tests available, these tests for cancer and for heart conditions. I'm sensing you get it about timelines--not just intellectually, but you get it emotionally; you understand how worried people are.

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

You can imagine that there's nobody at AECL who feels comfortable seeing the coverage of this issue in the media. We all feel very keenly the pressures that exist and the intensity with which we have to tackle our challenge.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Along with that, there are the international obligations that we have. We've created this relationship and confidence with these other buyers, other countries that seek our product, whose confidence--I assume you would agree with me--has been shaken over these last number of months. I'm not sure if any of the folks we have traditionally supplied to are feeling all that thrilled with our performance.

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

Well, I would suggest that one of the indirect benefits out of the supply disruptions, not just of our reactor but of the Petten reactor and others, is the increased awareness globally of the fragility and the dependency of the supply chain on a small number of reactors. So we certainly can understand that there would naturally be a movement to bring on a more diverse set of supply sources and reduce the dependency that we all have worldwide on the Petten and NRU reactors.

By the way, I think it is important to note that we certainly did our fair share last year as a supplier to that world market by upping our production.