Evidence of meeting #30 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 reactor.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Senior Vice-President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Yes, this is the second reactor vessel. The original one was replaced between 1972 and 1974.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
And what is the usual lifespan of this item?
3:50 p.m.
Senior Vice-President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
The vessel does not have a prescribed life. It's really based on the results of the aging management of the vessel. The first vessel was of a somewhat different aluminum material, alloy, from the current one and had a significantly shorter life. The current vessel has been inspected several times and has been deemed to be continuing to be fit for service for an extended period into the future.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
So it was not due at some point for a replacement; it has just been patched since 1972?
3:50 p.m.
Senior Vice-President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Actually, I think there was only repair made in about 1991-92, but other than that, it has been really only inspection.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Okay. Can you tell us how this item is going to be repaired? We've heard about welds, we've heard about patches and paints. Explain to us why it's taking so long.
3:50 p.m.
Senior Vice-President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
It's all about location. So the drawings that you were handed out are really images taken from 3-D CAD models, and if you look at the first one, it's a model of the complete reactor. And what's important to note is the holes at the top, on the deck of the reactor, which in fact are the access points. These are the 12-millimetre diameter access points, and then anything going into the reactor must go through the tubes that go down to the vessel. And then you have the cutaway, which shows the base of the vessel and shows the actual location of the leak. So the challenge here is that all of the inspection and repair tooling has to be operated and inserted through these small holes in the top and has to carry out automatic operations at the base of the vessel.
On the next slide, which I think is on the back of yours, is more detail of that area. So there is an area in the order of four centimetres in a band around the vessel where we see the corrosion, and so that is the location.
And then finally, the third picture depicts the two repair techniques that we're pursuing. So on the left you have the weld repair technology—and recognize that all of that equipment has to come through this 12-centimetre opening—and then we have to be able to actually do the weld at the base of the vessel, have cameras monitoring that, and then have inspection equipment to inspect it.
Then on the other image is a mechanical repair technology, which would appear relatively simplistic, but again, there's the tooling to implement that from the distance we're carrying out all of the operations.
So it's the location where we need to do the repair, in a high-radiation environment, remote, and accessed only through a very small opening, that makes this a very large technical challenge.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mrs. Gallant. Your time is up.
We only have a few minutes left with these witnesses. Could we have two minutes to each party, and just one question, pretty much. So it's two minutes, to include the question and the answer.
Go ahead, Mr. Bains, for the official opposition.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Yes, I just wanted a clarification on something, and this is what I wanted to ask last time as well. I know this was mentioned before, but I want further clarification on this here.
On one hand, you have the Prime Minister saying that we're no longer going to be in the isotope business; you have the minister saying that they want to seriously entertain the MAPLE reactor option; and then you've clearly indicated your position here.
Which one should Canadians believe? In a serious matter like this, people are trying to figure out a solution and they're getting mixed signals at a political level and from AECL. So how do people reconcile this? How does one go about saying what makes sense now? That's where I think a lot of the confusion lies.
3:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
It's certainly not my job to comment on government policy. I execute the directions I'm given.
The direction I have at this point in time is that we are to bring the isotope production capacity back online as quickly as we can, and we are to proceed with re-licensing or renewing the operating licence for the NRU facility from 2011 to 2016.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
I appreciate that, but I asked you a question earlier about the comment that Minister Lunn made about the future viability of isotope supplies, and he made that based on the recommendation you had given. You've made a very clear recommendation on the MAPLE reactor and the MAPLE as a viable option, yet the government tends to have a different viewpoint on it.
3:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
The MAPLE as a viable option?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
No, you've indicated that the MAPLEs are not a viable option.
3:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Correct.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
But the minister said she wants the expert panel to look at it. So isn't that clearly an opposite viewpoint to what you've presented?
3:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
I don't view it as opposing. I can imagine that in her position of responsibility she wants to ensure that no stone is left unturned and that an independent expert panel will have the opportunity to review and examine any and all options and any and all decisions that have been made. So I'm quite comfortable that the process will end up with the right decision, whatever that might be.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Bains.
We will go now to the government side, to Mr. Anderson, for up to two minutes.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There has been a push by some people, who really don't understand the situation around the MAPLEs, to suggest that they should just be started up, that we should get them up and running and get going. I wonder if you can go over again—because I think it's important—why that's not feasible, why that's not an option, and why you determined that it wasn't a reasonable option last year.
3:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
I'm very happy to do that.
First, when the decision was made just over a year ago, that was based upon third party advice and our own internal expertise, applied against a very challenging problem, which was to try to resolve a technical and licensing issue that up to that point in time had defied resolution.
When we looked forward at the pathway and asked, what do we need to spend, how long is it going to take, and what kinds of risks do we have to assume in order to go further and try to bring the MAPLEs to a position where they are able to be licensed, we made the decision that it was not the right way for us to go, it wasn't an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer money, and it was indeed chasing a possibility that had a relatively low probability of success. In our view, that decision and that judgment still holds.
As a result of that, we took steps to bring the reactor into an extended shutdown state, and that's where it resides today. It is, in our view, years away. Even if we decided tomorrow morning to restore the MAPLE reactors to some state whereby they could potentially produce isotopes for medical purposes, it is years away, hundreds of millions of dollars away, and entails very, very high technical risk. We don't believe those are appropriate pathways for us to follow, and there is no scenario we can imagine whereby the MAPLEs could be brought out of their current state and be any solution to the near-term isotope shortage.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Anderson, your time is up.
We will go now to the Bloc Québécois, to Madame Brunelle, for up to two minutes.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
One thing bothers me. When the Chalk River reactor shut down in May of this year, it wasn't the first time that had occurred. You're also telling us you want to extend the useful life of that reactor until 2016. Was the government able to anticipate the shutdown of that reactor when it happened the first time? Is it really worth the trouble to extend the useful life of that reactor? Between now and 2016, will there be another extended outage that will cause a crisis and as a result of which I'll be here, white-haired, asking you the same questions?
August 21st, 2009 / 4 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Well, if there is another crisis, I may not be here responding to your questions—sorry for that offhand remark.
We believe very, very much that the right decision has been made and the right direction has been taken to have the NRU as the isotope production environment for Canada and Canadians. That is based on all the evidence we have. Between the two of us, we have a lot of confidence that this reactor can serve out its useful life as a reliable production environment for isotopes.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
It seems to me you have a short-term vision of the matters. Shouldn't you have an action plan for the medium and long terms? We know that the useful life of this reactor is coming to an end. So someone should have thought of that 10 or 20 years ago. Why not take this opportunity now to try? Yes, you can extend its life and repair it, but we have to find other solutions. I don't understand this stubborn wish to capitalize on this reactor?
4 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
I believe that the minister's decision to appoint an expert panel is a very wise one, because it will bring to the fore all of the possibilities that can and should be examined. That will hopefully lead to a future direction on isotope production in Canada in both nuclear and non-nuclear ways.
In many respects, our role must be to follow the policy direction of the government as it exists. My interpretation of events is that there is a need for further evaluation and study of what possibilities exist. At the appropriate time, decisions will be made as to how the Government of Canada should give us direction and what AECL should do with respect to continued production.
In the meantime, we know what our job is.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Merci, Madame Brunelle.
We'll go back to Mr. Anderson for up to two minutes.