Process could take years

The pending sale of the CANDU division of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd to SNC Lavalin has once again raised hopes within the materials science and other nuclear research communities that the federal government may finally approve construction of a new reactor at Chalk River ON. That possibility has generated considerable private sector and academic interest in a process to be launched this fall.

At least two consortia have already informally thrown their hats into the ring in a bid to position themselves as operators of the massive AECL facility in the event that a government-owned, company-operated (GoCo) model is ultimately selected.

CH2M Hill Canada (a subsidiary of CH2M Hill, Englewood, CO) leads one partnership that includes the Battelle Memorial Institute and Babcock and Wilcox. The other consortium is CRNL Partners, led by Energy Solutions Canada (a subsidiary of Energy Solutions, Salt Lake City UT) and includes Houston TX-based AMEC NSS, Kinectric and Wardrop and SNC Lavalin.

"National Bank Financial found significant private sector interest in investing in AECL's commercial operations and thereby expanding opportunities for Canada's nuclear industry. It also found private sector interest in participating in the management of CRL, through alternative approaches such as a government owned/company-operated arrangement."—2009 NRCan Review of AECL

Academic groups are also coming forward to present their case for transforming AECL into a national laboratory open to researchers regardless of which sector they come from. This includes the National Research Council's Canadian Neutron Beam Centre which maintains a facility at Chalk River.

Proposals to replace the 54-year-old National Research Universal (NRU) reactor with a national nuclear facility go back at least 20 years, with the most serious proposals coming in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The most prominent of the academic groups is the Canadian Institute for Neutron Scattering (CINS) which sought to raise $10 million in 2009 for a business case and feasibility study for a multi-purpose research reactor following the government's release of a report recommending that AECL be restructured (see lead article).

While the fund raising initiative failed, CINS continues to press the case for a new reactor, arguing that decades of research and billions in funding could be squandered in Canada fails to re-commit to neutron-based research.

"AECL has not been profitable for the last five years as a consolidated entity, a situation that persists despite the commercial revenue it has generated and the infusion of significant government funding." — 2009 NRCan Review of AECL

"The Chalk River site is licensed as a nuclear facility and it's all contained and controlled. You can do things there as a researcher that you can't do anywhere else in Canada," says CINS president Dr Dominic Ryan. "All options centre around a new reactor. It has to be the centerpiece. If you take away the NRU and don't replace it, the purpose of AECL becomes waste management only."

Ryan says Canadian researchers are at a disadvantage compared to their European counterparts as several countries in the EU have research reactors which are open to researchers from throughout the union.

"The EU community is confident because they're not worried about their future. In Canada, the NRU is limping along although it has been rebuilt because it had to produce Mo-99 (molybdenum-99 used to produce medical isotopes)," says Ryan. "We're concerned about the 2016 date because that's the year the requirement to continue operations ends because there will be no more isotope production."

Even if the Canadian Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the NRU's continuing operation until 2021, Ryan says a decision on its replacement is urgently required due to the long lead time between project approval through to commissioning. Unfortunately, Ryan says the ability to mount an effective argument is constrained by Canada's funding environment and the absence of a mechanism devoted to major science facilities.

"We need to build a business case but there's no one place to go in government (for funding)," Ryan. "(Former national science advisor Dr Arthur) Carty tried to establish a process for bringing big projects forward. He wanted to develop a strategy."

In 2000, a major push to convince the Chrétien administration to fund the proposed Canadian Neutron Facility (CNF) ultimately fell on deaf eras, despite the government's healthy surplus position. At that time, the CNF was estimated to cost $200 million, plus $188 million more for a cold neutron source and CANDU-related equipment (R$, April 7/00).

"Given the wide-ranging impact a restructuring of AECL could have on the Canadian nuclear industry and others, it would need to be accompanied by a broad engagement strategy with AECL's many stakeholders. An important consideration would be the impact of any restructuring on AECL's employees, who are the Corporation's most valuable asset. Their interests, therefore, should be at the forefront throughout this process." — 2009 NRCan Review of AECL

The issue bubbled up the list of S&T priorities in 2003 when the CNF was again proposed by the NRC and AECL. With a price-tag of $466 million, the new reactor was endorsed by then Reform Party MP Cheryl Gallant, but once again the government let the initiative lapse.

Not surprisingly, there are reports of a bitter and cynical workforce and accusations of poor management, exemplified by the failure to develop the MAPLE reactor for isotope production. With the stage now clear for an NRU replacement, some optimism is returning and external groups are anxious to see the process move forward.

"The working environment at AECL is heavily structured so it's a battle to change that culture and attract a certain type of crazy, which is what you want," says Ryan. "At the Chalk River site, you can do things that you couldn't think of doing at other reactors. Change the mandate to serve the community."

R$