Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2016

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Sorry, Mr. Koclas, it's the end of the seven minutes. You may have time to continue with your answer in another question.

Now we go to Mr. Strahl, for seven minutes, please.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses as well.

We heard in the previous panel about a need to focus our research and development. I think Mr. Lemieux just mentioned that in his question.

My question is for Dr. Turcotte. He's talking about the Sherbrooke cyclotron. We have a world-leading facility as well in British Columbia, the TRIUMF laboratory. We heard from some witnesses today about the need for an NRU replacement, and we've seen that there is a possibility. You talked about the commercialization in 2018 of Tc-99m medical isotopes being created in a non-nuclear facility such as yours.

Given that there is a scarcity of resources, where do you believe the government should be focusing its funding going forward? Is it in the new technologies? Do we need to have both? I don't expect you to be able to say whether the government can afford that, but I imagine it would be very expensive to maintain both at a world-leading capacity.

If you could talk about your perspective on that first, then I'll go to the panel that's here in Ottawa.

[Dr. Eric Turcotte]

Thank you.

As for the production of medical isotopes by a nuclear reactor, the panel of medical experts created in 2009 and I have always felt that this was the secondary mission and not the primary mission of a nuclear reactor. I think we need to properly establish the principle whereby a nuclear reactor is a device used mainly for research. Earlier, Mr. Koclas and other witnesses talked about the role of neutrons that come from those nuclear reactors.

Should the industry stop producing isotopes in nuclear reactors, there would still be other devices, such as cyclotrons and linear accelerators, that are used regularly to produce medical isotopes. It is certain that the production scale is totally different from that of a nuclear reactor. Let's take the example of a cyclotron. The cyclotron production of technetium is done on a provincial scale in Canada. The devices in Sherbrooke could produce enough isotopes to cover a maximum of 50% of the use and needs in Quebec. In comparison with a nuclear reactor, a paltry 20% of the NRU reactor would be used on a global scale.

Medical isotopes can shift toward those new less expensive and in-demand technologies. Should we some day need them, we only have to activate those devices to obtain isotopes. It's as easy as that. By comparison, when nuclear reactors are used, the process has to be started two weeks in advance to produce isotopes.

I feel that the nuclear reactor must be seen as a device for conducting research; that is its main purpose. The production of medical isotopes by a nuclear reactor is a secondary mission. Accelerators could help in that area.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you.

To the panel here, Mr. Koclas and Mr. Heysel—doctors, I'm sure, pardon me—what is the figure talked about in NRU replacement? What is the figure that you understand we're talking about in terms of investment required to refurbish or replace the current NRU, which is scheduled to wind down?

[Christopher Heysel]

I think there are a number of numbers out there. It depends on the size and scale and the purpose that the reactor is designed to serve.

We have to remember that there's more than one medical isotope. There are dozens of medical isotopes. Some can be produced on cyclotrons, like the ones at Sherbrooke or McMaster, but some can only be produced at nuclear reactors. On the cost for replacement energy, I've heard hundreds of millions of dollars to a billion dollars. I've looked at the cost to upgrade the McMaster nuclear reactor, and it's closer to $200 million. There's a range of possibilities. It depends on whether you want the Volkswagen or the Cadillac, I guess.

The researchers in Canada flock to nuclear reactors because of the intense neutron fluxes that are available. We're there to produce neutrons, whether they are for research or for producing medical isotopes. We're multi-purpose; therefore, investment in that type of facility benefits Canadians on a number of different levels for the same investment. I believe that nuclear reactors, as well as cyclotrons, need to be part of the mix going forward.

[Dr. Jean Koclas]

I'm of the opinion that we can leave the production of radioactive isotopes to other means of production. That seems to be the way to go.

I think it would be about a billion dollars to design and build the equivalent of a modern NRU. A research reactor such as the NRU is essential because if you want to refurbish your CANDU in 40 years instead of in 20 years, you need to test material behaviour in accelerated time in a high-flux environment like that provided by the research reactor.

You're not going to have a lot of co-operation from your international competitors to help your technology compete with their own, so you have to do that for just your materials. You also need to study your new fuel behaviour, as well. On a strictly technological basis, a replacement for the NRU, or an extension of its life, is needed.

When I was in front of this panel in 2009, I said that the life of the NRU could be extended way above 2010 or 2012. Nobody believed me, but now we're in 2016, looking at 2018, which is like tomorrow. I think the life of this reactor could be extended to provide the neutron sources that we need in the meantime.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Dr. Koclas. I appreciate your time.

Mr. Cannings, you have seven minutes, please.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here or speaking here.

I would like to start with Dr. Turcotte.

You talked about the challenges facing Canada and the world in the production of medical isotopes—the rising costs, the coordination needed—and the challenges around production if something shut down. There might be shortages. Could you expand on what you think is the best system or the best program that Canada can move forward with to provide a stable supply of isotopes for our country and, perhaps, for the world, which is a role we used to play?

[Dr. Eric Turcotte]

I will reiterate the recommendation issued in 2009 by the expert panel. It was to build a new nuclear reactor on Canadian soil to replace the NRU reactor. That was the main recommendation of the report. That reactor would be used for research on neutrons and for developing new CANDU reactors, with a secondary mission of manufacturing medical isotopes. It would also be used for numerous research projects. I think that Canada needs a functional nuclear reactor for all those reasons.

More specifically, when it comes to medical isotopes, it is certain that having a reactor on our soil is a guarantee of global supply and renown in the production of isotopes. That would also be added to the participation of other countries and would reduce the global burden of the need to produce isotopes. One country should not be the only producer for the entire world. My dream is for us to have a new nuclear reactor. Without such a reactor, Canada would become a buyer of isotopes just like other countries without a reactor.

Should that happen, we would not be immune to the market. We would have to follow the availability and the cost of obtaining isotopes, and the market could fluctuate based on the stability of nuclear reactors in the world. The mechanics are relatively complex when it comes to the final cost that could lead to, and when it comes to what we would think the final cost may be.

How could replacement technologies be a part of that large supply chain? I think that those other techniques exist to address the shortcomings of nuclear reactors. For example, the nuclear reactor of Petten, in the Netherlands, may have to undergo extensive maintenance, and Canada would experience a shortage of isotopes, let's say of 30%. So we would receive 30% less isotopes.

When it comes to accelerators—as we heard earlier—there is one in British Columbia, one at McMaster University in Ontario and another one in Sherbrooke. Those accelerators could be activated and cover the shortfall of 20% to 30% of isotopes in Canada. Once the Petten nuclear reactor returned to service, the production of cyclotrons could be reduced. So there could be such a dynamic in terms of global supply, where accelerators would cover the shortfall.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you. I'm going to turn to Dr. Heysel.

Could you expand on McMaster's possible role? I know you touched on this, obviously, in your presentation. With NRU closing down, would you like to see McMaster being involved in a nuclear program of research and isotope production in Canada, where McMaster would work with another facility with a nuclear reactor?

[Christopher Heysel]

The key to supply chain stability is working with your competitors. Indeed, there are about two other large-scale producers of I-125, which is used all over the planet to treat prostate cancer. We're in regular communication with our competitors to ensure that, at the end of the day, a patient has a treatment available.

With the shutdown of NRU, what we're planning on doing, or what we've been reviewing, is increasing our power and increasing our operating time. That'll allow us to not only produce more isotopes, but it'll also help us sustain a number of the researchers and industries that currently use NRU.

That's a medium-term solution, and a viable solution to keep Canada through a neutron gap until we have another large neutron source. We will look at how we can refurbish our facility to be that large neutron source, but it'll be a wider discussion with a number of parties involved.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Dr. Koclas, you've made a really strong plea to keep NRU going. I was wondering if you could continue on that theme, perhaps talking about the economics of the investment—I think you mentioned a billion dollars to keep it going—over the next couple of generations of CANDU reactors.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

You only have about 30 seconds. I know it's really tough. Maybe Mr. Serré will give you some time.

[Dr. Jean Koclas]

I don't think we have much of a choice in that. Still, the end user of this specialty is the nuclear industry, the CANDU power industry, which is a very large and a very rich industry, although they claim they're not large and they're not rich.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

I'm sorry, Dr. Koclas, and I apologize, but we're very—

[Dr. Jean Koclas]

They should provide part of the financing for this.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

We're very tight for time.

Mr. Whalen, are you going to...?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I'll share my time with Mr. Whalen.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Okay. You only have about three minutes.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Stephenson, thank you very much for coming today. We heard some interesting testimony earlier from Dr. Heysel that your facility operates “break even” through the revenues generated from your commercial operations. As you are manager of commercial operations, I'm going to give you the credit for that.

In that vein, do you see a role for a refurbished, extended, or replaced NRU in the global supply chain to generate revenues sufficient to meet its operating capacity and to be self-sustaining in the way McMaster is?

[Dr. Karin Stephenson, Manager, Commercial Operations, McMaster Nuclear Reactor, McMaster University]

I think there needs to be some investment in the refurbishment, but I think that even when we wrote our MSI application for CFI, the goal was to become sustainable at some point. I do think there's a trade-off. There will need to be some underlying support for operating costs, because it supports the research community as well. Ultimately, the goal in the long term is for it to be a sustainable entity and to reinvest in the McMaster nuclear reactor.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Do you see a global market for it to participate in to generate those revenues long term?

[Dr. Karin Stephenson]

I think so, yes. We talked a lot about technetium today, but we haven't talked about all the other medical isotopes that go into nuclear medicine, radiology, and treatment.

A nuclear reactor makes a lot of those other isotopes as well. Those markets are growing, and that's probably what's going to help sustain it long term.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

In terms of the neutron shortage that might happen in Canada, where would Canada be acquiring other isotopes for research across the country if the NRU shuts down? What markets will we be looking to? What countries will we be buying the isotopes from?

[Dr. Karin Stephenson]

South Africa, Belgium, and the Netherlands have the other big research reactors in the world. Russia also has one. The U.S. as well is certainly involved in molybdenum-99, but for those other isotopes, they're all involved in all of them.