Report says government needs to decide on fate of AECL's aging nuclear reactor

Action required to reverse sector's decline

Canada's nuclear sector and its long history of technological and market accomplishments could be squandered unless its R&D capacity is enhanced and the aging reactor used for research is either replaced or further refurbished. The findings are contained in a new report — entitled Canada's Nuclear Energy Sector: Where to from here? — that calls for political champions, clear medium- and long-term strategies to reverse declines in R&D investment and a foreign investment framework that attracts foreign capital and operations.

The report is the culmination of the Public Policy Forum's (PPF) Future of Canada's Nuclear Energy Sector project which was launched in 2013 with workshops in Toronto and Saskatoon. The project culminated in an Ottawa summit last September attended by 60 senior leaders representing all aspects of the industry.

The fate of the 57-year-old National Research Universal (NRU) reactor — owned and operated by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL) — comes as the federal government restructures the crown agency as a government-owned, company-operated (GoCo) facility and reviews the future of nuclear power in Canada (R$, July 11/13). The review includes an examination of further investment in longer-term nuclear innovation, including a decision on the whether the NRU will be renewed, refurbished or replaced.

"It is clear that no medium or long-term plan or strategy currently exists that can help the sector achieve its potential or, for that matter, avert further decline." — Public Policy Forum report

"Our country is already a respected leader in uranium mining, reactor technology, plant manufacturing and operation, R&D, and environmental and safety standards and regulations. These strengths give us an edge to take advantage of opportunities outside our borders," states the report. "Governments and the private sector need to work together to carefully considering (sic) the business case for the reactor's continued existence."

The NRU is largely used to support AECL's mandate but it also serves industry and the academic research community through the Canadian Neutron Beam Centre which was recently transferred to AECL from the National Research Council (R$, July 30/13). For academic researchers — which play a major role in training the next generation of nuclear researchers — a refurbished NRU or a new reactor is indispensable.

Replacing the NRU is an estimated $1-billion proposition that will take 10 years from conception to completion. The existing reactor is licensed until 2016 and AECL has applied to extend its ability to operate until 2021, leaving the potential for a multi-year "neutron gap".

"Over the past two decades, declining R&D funding, combined with an absence of new domestic nuclear power plant construction, has pushed the sector into a period of stagnation. Political and public support, once a source of strength and pride for the nuclear industry, has waned to such an extent that it is one of the greatest contributors to nuclear energy's decline." — Public Policy Forum report

For one research group that uses the NRU for experiments and training, replacement is the preferred option. Given the advances in materials research and manufacturing and engineering techniques, it makes sense to ground Canada's nuclear sector with a 21st Century reactor.

"It's coming up on 60 years old. You don't drive a 60-year-old car … The original engineers never expected the NRU to go this long," says Dr Dominic Ryan, president of the Canadian Institute for Neutron Scattering (CINS) and a regular NRU user. "There's a limit to how much you can retrofit so at some point you'd be better off starting new."

Ryan says the lack of clarity on the future of nuclear research in Canada hasn't yet manifested itself in an exodus of research talent. He says researchers and students currently have access to both the NRU and foreign facilities. But if the government decides not to replace the NRU, the situation could change rapidly. He points to the disastrous experience in the UK when it stopped funding nuclear research in the 1980s, which is outlined in an appendix to the PPF report by Dr David Hill, deputy director emeritus of the Idaho National Laboratory.

UK experience instructive

Hill says reaction to the UK government's actions was the closure 0f academic departments devoted to nuclear research and the vanishing of nuclear trained professionals and trades. When the government decided to re-enter the nuclear field, it had to start from scratch. But it did so with a coherent strategy moving the UK towards what's being described as a nuclear renaissance.

"Lack of government support can be very expensive," says Ryan, pointing out that the NRU is a hybrid facility used by government, academic and industry.

The PPF report examines all aspects of the Canadian nuclear energy sector which it characterizes as being at a crossroads. It says new investment strategies may have to be explored. But without political champions and a clear plan going forward, the sector will experience further shrinkage.

Several recommendations are made, including:

* build a strong business case for investment;

* clarify foreign investment rules;

* pursue the potential of developing small modular reactors;

* identify champions for nuclear energy;

* strengthen national laboratory capabilities; and,

* enhance engagement and transparency of the regulatory regime.

Read the report at www.ppforum.ca

R$