No Surprise: AECL Officially on the Auction Bloc

Shorter Lisa Raitt:

“Nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance around the world that will reap huge profits for the industry, and our government is committed to ensuring that the Canadian public won't see a penny of it."

Spanish Highways, French Reactors. Welcome to Canada.

Government of Canada Moves Forward on Restructuring Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

“Our Government is acting now to inject strength into Canada’s nuclear industry by enhancing the culture of growth; the culture of efficiency; and the culture of leadership,” said the Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Natural Resources. “The ultimate objective of this restructuring is to leverage Canada’s long-term investment in nuclear energy and strengthen Canada’s nuclear industry at a time of global expansion.”

I don't think I've ever heard so many corporate weasel words come out of somebody's mouth since Enron, but the upshot is this: The government is planning to split AECL, sell off its ownership stake in the profit-making reactor sales division (probably to a foreign entity like France's AREVA), and keep the leaky, expensive, isotope-producing NRU and all the financial and environmental liabilities that go with it on the public books.

Not only that, but they'll be selling AECL before it officially wins the expected multi-billion dollar Ontario reactor contract, but after the price has been driven down by the recession, the failure of the Maple reactors and a fresh new isotope crisis.

Private wealth and public squalor.

None of comes as a surprise to anyone, of course. The minute the government initiated its "strategic review" of AECL back in 2007, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that the review would tell Jimmy P.E. ("Privatize Everything") Flaherty exactly what he wanted to hear. And it's not like we haven't seen all this before. Those of us who suffered through his buddy Mike Harris' 'Common Sense Revolution' will recall their bargain-basement sale of the income-generating 407 toll highway to a Spanish consortium, as well as the (thankfully failed) attempts to privatize the LCBO and Ontario Hydro after carving the latter up in a very similar way to what's being proposed for AECL.

I would love to be able to blame Lisa Raitt for all this. I really would. But really, now that all the renegades have been culled from the Conservative herd, you know that none of this was actually her idea. Besides, she is just doing what is in her reptilian corporate nature to do. Maximize profits. Divest toxic assets. And above all, don't think beyond the numbers to fuzzy, human considerations like quality of life or a national strategy or the long-term benefit to the nation. In fact, this situation is perfectly suited to her skills. You can tell when words like "restructuring" and "leveraged investment" drip so effortlessly from her lips - she's in her element.

Hear now the words of John Ralston Saul, from "A Fair Country". He's talking about the private sector, but he could just as easily be talking about AECL:

When you look at how Canada came to lose its entire complex and successful steel industry through a series of takeovers squeezed into little more than two years, ending in 2007, you conclude with the same answer. The industry leaders, financial market potential investors, regulators, civil service leaders and politicians all saw themselves as followers, as temporary holders of wealth. And since others wanted control of our industry in order to shape it to their own interests, it was our duty to hand it over as rapidly as possible. Why? In order that the new owners should derive downstream, complex, long-term benefits. Our reward for such passivity? Some handsome payouts to short-term, first-tier managers. And with luck the new owners would allow the second-tier and below employees to continue as their employees.


... [speaking of the owners and CEOs of Barrick Gold, Bombardier and other major Canadian businesses] All of them would agree that the statistics showing our legal corporate headquarters to be growing in number are nonsense. "A head office of a subsidiary is not a head office." Why? Because it is missing the leadership jobs, the key ser vice jobs, the research and development jobs.

These five men represent some of the most powerful business leaders in contemporary Canada. Yet Conference Board of Canada economists, who do not earn their living in the marketplace, accuse these most successful of our corporate leaders of "sentiment and emotion," of being "commercially xenophobic." These protected employees, who rarely leave their cloistered offices in Ottawa, hide behind the Conference Board to accuse a few Canadian businesses leaders who do well around the world of suffering from "fear of foreigners." They argue with a certain glee that foreign owners are better for Canada than Canadian owners.

... The economists in the Ministry of Finance use almost the same numbers and makes reassuring sounds about head offices, without analyzing the type of head office and what they do or do not contain. They reveal no understanding of economic strategy - the sort of strategy used by other countries. They use the old concept of foreign direct investment, which does not differentiate between real investment - that which works to create wealth - versus buying out fully developed corporations - or entire sectors - in which the purchase implies no investment in wealth creation. In fact, the buyer usually uses the wealth of the company bought out to finance his taking control. Often the buyers then treat the company like a car wrecking yard - they cut it up and sell off the pieces that can make them quick money. When you read the assertions of the finance ministry thinkers over foreign investment or corporate headquarters growth, it is as if you are dealing with the brain dead. Strong words? Not at all. The strong words are those of economists in positions of influence who refuse to think. For example, although the figures are available, they make nothing of the difference between takeovers and new investment. Approximately 97 percent of what they call foreign investment is for takeovers; approximately 3 percent is for real new investment.

What is frightening is that Canada's economic policies are largely shaped from the ideas and advice of Ministry of Finance economists.

Here endeth the lesson. God help us all.

Lisa Raitt's Nuclear Yard Sale

My husband studied physics engineering at McMaster University, and worked at the accelerator lab there as a nuclear safety technician. So he knows his nukes.

He's yelling at the TV right now.

(more later)

The Plan for AECL: Private Profit, Public Liability

Those of us following the Chalk river / AECL saga have been anxiously awaiting a report from the National Bank of Canada regarding the crown corporation's disposition.

Actually, 'anxiously' might be an overstatement, since the report's recommendations were pretty much a foregone conclusion.

Ottawa urged to sell controlling interest in AECL

TORONTO, OTTAWA — The federal government should relinquish control of its flagship nuclear energy company but retain its problem-plagued Chalk River research facility, says a report commissioned by Ottawa.

The report by National Bank of Canada recommends that the federal government sell off at least a 51-per-cent interest in Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.'s commercial operations, according to sources who have been briefed on its contents.

Ottawa has refused to divulge the report's recommendations and has left the fate of AECL in limbo until the Ontario government decides whether to buy the Crown corporation's Candu technology or opt for its main rival, France's Areva Group.

...But even if AECL succeeds in winning the bid, the federal government, which has been heavily subsidizing the business since the 1950s, plans to restructure the company to make it more competitive.

The National Bank report recommends the government break up AECL, sources confirmed yesterday. The commercial venture, with new investors as majority owners, would handle reactor sales and service, while the government would retain ownership of the research and technology division, which runs AECL's Chalk River laboratories and the NRU reactor.

... National Bank recommends that the Chalk River site be excluded because AECL – and its government shareholder – face liabilities totalling about $7-billion to clean up waste at the Chalk River site.

“No company would want to buy that,” said Greenpeace energy campaigner and nuclear opponent Shawn-Patrick Stensil.

In other words, they're selling the store and keeping the dumpster out back.

I shouldn't be surprised, though. This is exactly what the government wanted to hear. When you don't believe in public ownership, it's easy to find ways to make public assets unprofitable so you can justify selling them off to your corporate buddies - and then call it being 'competitive'.

Welcome to Canada's new Free Market Nuclear Industry.

Meanwhile, Back in Chalk River... (UPDATED)

... things continue to come apart at the seams.

Canada's nuclear agency misled the Prime Minister's Office about the nature and extent of a radioactive spill at the troubled Chalk River reactor west of the capital in December, a senior government official said yesterday.

"We are as upset as anyone," the official said.

The official was responding to an exclusive Sun Media story yesterday, detailing the reactor leak on Dec. 5 that released radioactive tritium into the air.

...After a brief shutdown, Atomic Energy has continued to operate the reactor even though officials there say they have not found the source of the leak and it may reoccur at any time.

In an unrelated mechanical failure, the same reactor has been leaking as much as 7,000 litres of water a day for more than a month from a crack in a weld.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission says the water spewing from the weld has "a very low level of radioactivity" and is not a safety concern.

The water is being dumped into the Ottawa River.

One clarification: that 'unrelated' leak was reported more than a month ago, but at that point it had already been leaking for "several months".

Lisa Raitt, the natural resources minister responsible for the leaky reactor, told Sun Media yesterday that she has ordered a full written report on the radioactive spill from the nuclear safety commission.

Raitt said she and her departmental officials received an "e-mail briefing" on the leak the day after it occurred.

"There are some aspects that came out today that we weren't fully aware of," the minister said yesterday.

I'm guessing she's referring to the whole tritium thing.

Let's be clear about something. AECL, operating as it does on a for-profit basis, can to some extent be expected to downplay such an incident and even cover it up. That's what businesses do, whether they are privately or publicly owned. Which is precisely why we have a non-partisan, impartial nuclear regulator in the form of the CNSC to keep an eye on them and keep us safe.

Or we did, until Linda Keene was fired for doing her job last year. Since then, one can't help but wonder if perhaps her successor might be somewhat hesitant to examine activity at AECL too closely, or to step in and shut it down in any but the most dire circumstances.

Certainly not in today's job market.

Whether this is what happened in this case, or whether AECL really did manage to pull the wool completely over the CNSC's eyes as well as the government's, remains to be seen.

I'll be emailing our Minister of Leaky Reactors Natural Resources and see if I can get some answers - specifically, was that December email briefing from AECL or from the regulator? And, what exactly is CNSC's justification for not shutting down the reactor in order to find the source of this second leak?

It would have been nice to hear something from her today when CTV did a brief story about this on 'On The Hill', but apparently she was 'unavailable'. I guess she was busy with more important things.



(crossposted from HaltonWatch)

UPDATE: CNSC has issued a press release clarifying and on some points disputing the Sun article. Specifically, they report:

- At no time was the public or the environment at risk. There is no radioactive material leaking into the Ottawa River associated with these leaks. CNSC has on-site staff that monitors the NRU and ensures that it operates safely and is in compliance with its licence conditions. Any water released into the Ottawa River is treated and monitored by AECL according to environmental standards.

- The second leak referred to in the media reports involves light water leaking from the NRU reflector system. This water is collected by AECL and purified in the Waste Treatment Centre. Therefore, there is no leak into the Ottawa River and there is no risk to the public or the environment.

- Contrary to media reports, it did not take four days for AECL to inform the CNSC of the leak. The CNSC was made aware within hours of the leak and verified that it did not pose any significant risk to the public, workers or the environment.

None of which is good enough for the NDP, who are very keen to have a word with Ms. Raitt at the upcoming Natural Resources Committee meetings.

“Minister Raitt has some serious explaining to do,” said New Democratic Natural Resources Critic Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley), “Minister Raitt either knew about the leak and didn’t bother informing the public, or, didn’t know about the leak – I’m not sure which is worse. Either way, the Minister has let the people of Canada down.”

Chalk River: AECL Giving Up on Maple Reactors

Well, isn't THIS interesting...

AECL scraps development of isotope reactors

MISSISSAUGA, Ont. -- Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is scrapping development of its two new MAPLE medical-isotope reactors at its Chalk River, Ont., laboratories.

The decision "is based on a series of reviews that considered, among other things, the costs of further development, as well as the time frame and risks involved with continuing the project," the federal Crown corporation said Friday.

The MAPLE reactors, described as the first in the world dedicated entirely to medical isotope production, were intended to be capable of supplying the entire global demand for molybdenum-99, iodine-131, iodine-125 and xenon-133.

AECL said the decision to abort them "will not impact the current supply of medical isotopes."

It said contracts with MDS Nordion (TSX:MDS) provide for production to continue at AECL's existing National Research Universal reactor in Chalk River.

Wow. It's the right decision, of course. Aside from these reactors being years overdue and millions over budget, the fact is that they simply don't work and never will. Still, AECL had dug in its heels so deeply over the Maples that their admission of defeat now is pretty surprising. Conventional wisdom is that they want to focus all their efforts on getting the contract for the new Ontario power reactors.

Now we're back to square one, because the NRU still needs hundreds of millions of dollars worth of upgrades if it is to continue to function and produce medical isotopes.

12:10 - Gary Lunn is talking. A couple of reporters are asking him whether the government would be willing to cough up the 600 million the AG says the NRU needs, but he's dodging. Ah, there we go - he just brought up possible 'private sector funding options'. Sigh.

Chalk River: And One More Thing...

In my previous post, commenter shun mentioned something that I hadn't noticed before. It has to do with the timing of a statement Gary Lunn made on Thursday, November 29th, 2007:

Lunn announced Thursday, in concert with the decision to join GNEP, that AECL's future is up for grabs.

"It is time to consider whether the existing structure of AECL is appropriate to the changing marketplace," Lunn said in the government release.

He announced a review of the Crown corporation.

Hmm... wait a minute... that date rings a bell. Oh, yeah:

"I sent an e-mail on Nov. 29 or 30 ... which said this is serious, we need to get on this," the source said.

But of course that's just a coincidence. Riiiiight...

Chalk River: The "Holy F!@#$ing S$#@t!" Edition

This story is starting to take on almost Watergate-like dimensions. Except, you know, on that way smaller, 1/10th Canadian scale.

Yesterday, the Washington Post Globe & Mail ran a story illustrating just how much better and more profitable the world has become for AECL since Linda Keen was replaced by a more... cooperative regulator.

Today the Globe & Mail ran two more stories that pretty much blow the government's spin on Chalk River out of the water, as well as exposing Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn as a lousy, stinking liar.

You really need to read them both.

The first article dispels any remaining notion that any of this ever had anything to do with isotopes or public safety. Even after following this story rather closely over the past few months, this particular section caused my jaw to drop to the floor (emphasis mine):

Ms. Keen's suggestion that her overstretched commission would no longer prioritize prelicensing was seen as obstructionist.

AECL's private-sector partners, including SNC-Lavalin, GE Canada and Hitachi Canada, hired some of the best-connected lobbyists in Ottawa to carry that message forward; other industry members complained directly to the Prime Minister's Office, sources said.

"We've tried to communicate however we could to whomever we could, to make this point," said Patrick Lamarre, president of SNC-Lavalin's nuclear division.

Michael Burns, the B.C.-based wind power executive who Mr. Lunn appointed as chairman of AECL, began to lobby the minister, whom he said he spoke with once a week during his chairmanship, about addressing the problems with Ms. Keen and her commission.

"I told [Mr. Lunn] then the dysfunctional relationship was going to cause serious trouble for commercial operations at the company. I told him we were going to have a train wreck. And I gave him a plan to fix it," Mr. Burns said.

The goal, he said, was to induce the government to legislate an overhaul at the CNSC, including Ms. Keen's position.

Mr. Lunn refused to discuss whether he attempted to push that reform in Ottawa, saying he is "not at liberty to talk about … discussions with cabinet colleagues."

No. Of course he isn't. But since the guy he appointed as chairman claims that Lunn was making a serious effort to bring this suggested overhaul to pass, I think it's pretty safe to assume that such discussions did, in fact, take place. Which means that even then, a government minister was attempting to interfere with the operation of a quasi-judicial tribunal at the behest of a Crown corporation for purely commercial reasons.

Another jaw-dropper is the revelation that the reactor would probably have been allowed to re-start anyway on December 18th, just two days after it actually did. Seems the AECL had screwed up some paperwork justifying a re-start with just one back-up powered pump, which was all the CNSC had asked for to give its approval. If they hadn't screwed up the paperwork (known as a 'safety case'), the reactor could have been re-started as much as a week earlier.

The second article reveals the existence of emails and at least one witness who can prove that Gary Lunn lied to a parliamentary committee when he claimed that he knew nothing about anything until Dec 3rd:

"I sent an e-mail on Nov. 29 or 30 ... which said this is serious, we need to get on this," the source said.

Mr. Lunn took a break from skiing in British Columbia on Dec. 1 to respond to the e-mail, the source said, adding that Mr. Lunn confirmed he "knew it was a situation he needed to work on."

"He certainly knew there was a situation and he was going to get on it Monday morning," the source said. "I assumed in my conversation he had ingested all the data in the [e-mail]. My assumption may be wrong, but when he said to me he'd received my message and acted on it, as far as I could tell he knew everything there was to know."

When confronted with this evidence, Mr. Lunn sputtered, looked around nervously, repeated his claims of ignorance, then suddenly tore off all his clothes and ran screaming into the snow.

And then he exploded.



H/T to Dave, Lord Kitchener's Own, Impolitical, and all you other bastards who found time to blog on this today while I was at work. Hmph.

Linda Keen's Testimony

Linda Keen finally appeared before the Commons Committee today, and essentially shredded every single argument the government had raised to justify her removal as president of the CNSC.

Here is her testimony.

Some important points she clarified:

1) It was AECL and NOT the CNSC who decided to extend the shutdown of the Chalk River facility once it was discovered that the required safety upgrades had not been made. Just like I've been saying. This point has been consistently misrepresented by the media and the government, and even by Gary Lunn who should have known better. Yes, she said the CNSC would have extended the shutdown anyway, but the point is that AECL recognized that there was a serious problem and that the extended shutdown was absolutely necessary.

2) The risks to the health and safety of Canadians as a result of continuing to run the reactor without the safety upgrades were NOT negligible, as the government has repeatedly implied. They were, in fact, 1,000 times greater than the level of risk recognized by international standards as being the minimum acceptable for a nuclear facility.

3) The impact on health and safety of a shortage of medical isotopes that may (or may not) have resulted from the shutdown of Chalk River was NOT taken into consideration because such considerations are NOT, repeat NOT covered under the mandate of the CNSC. Her proof? The fact that the government found it necessary to add the consideration of these consequences to the CNSC's mandate after the 'crisis'.

(my take on this is that it would be like requiring a health inspector to consider the risk of neighbourhood kids going hungry when deciding whether or not to shut down a rat-infested grocery store.)

4) Despite this, the CNSC was NOT oblivious to the effects of a potential medical isotope shortage. Which is why it took a VERY pro-active approach in expediting both the re-start of the Chalk River reactor and the approval of alternate isotopes for its licensees. As she put it, she and the panel were "available 24-7" to facilitate the resumption of normal operations and isotope availability.

5) Neither Ms. Keen nor the CNSC had any issue with Parliament passing Bill C-38 mandating the restart of the Chalk River reactor. Parliament had a duty to balance the risk of a nuclear accident against the risks to those affected by the shortage of medical isotopes because that is their job. It is NOT the job of the AECL. The AECL is there specifically to assess the risks associated with the operation of nuclear facilities - NOT their shutdown.

I didn't catch Two Tier Tony's testimony, but I can only assume it precisely mirrored Lunn's and the Party line.

The worst part of all this is not Keen's dismissal, nor the blatant interference of a minister with an independent quasi-judicial body, although these are disturbing enough. The REALLY disturbing part is that this is just part of an ongoing, systematic purge of the civil service by the Harper government. Remember when he said that we didn't have to be afraid because there were enough Liberal-appointed judges and career bureaucrats in place to keep the Cons in check? Well, not so much any more.

Linda Keen - CNSC president.
Arthur Carty - science adviser.
Jean-Pierre Kingsley - chief electoral officer.
Marc Mayrand - chief electoral officer.
Johanne Gelinas - environment commissioner.
Bernard Shapiro - ethics commissioner.
Adrian Measner - wheat board president

All senior bureaucrats. All appointed by a Liberal government. All either fired, 'encouraged to resign', marginalized or on the chopping block.

(I'm sure this list is incomplete - feel free to fill it out.)

(UPDATE: Oh dear. We might just have to add Information Commissioner Robert Marleau to that list pretty soon.)

I keep thinking about that movie, 'Pacific Heights'. Michael Keaton plays a somewhat psychotic but seemingly trustworthy con man who rents a ground floor apartment from a young Yuppie couple, and then proceeds to dismantle and destroy the place. He never pays any rent, he ends up suing them when the hubby loses it - and all the while he convincingly feigns complete innocence.

I wonder - even if the Liberals win the next election, who will be left of those who actually keep the country running?

Thursday News Round-Up

Those pesky Conservatives have sure been busy busy busy over the past couple of days. Where to begin...

CANADA: LEADING THE WAY IN FOLLOWING GEORGE BUSH

Here we go. Remember a couple of days ago when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty inexplicably took it upon himself to criticize Quebec for trying to bring in tough new California-style greenhouse gas emission standards?

Now we know why:

Ottawa moves to emulate U.S. on new fuel mileage standards

OTTAWA — Canada's auto makers as well as consumers are keen to see new fuel economy standards applied on a national basis, says federal Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon.

"Industry and the average Canadian, they all want to have a national standard," Mr. Cannon said this morning at the unveiling of a 60-day consultation process aimed at developing a fuel-economy target by 2020.

The goal is a target that "achieves at a minimum" recently enacted legislation in the U.S. Congress calling for auto makers' fleets to average 35 miles per gallon, or 6.7 litres per 100 kilometres, by the year 2020.

Mr. Cannon conceded that some provinces have struck out with their own fuel-economy programs but said he believes a common standard can be worked out in the talks.

Quebec, for example, has said it wants to move to more stringent standards such as those being proposed in California

But Mr. Cannon pointed out that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has launched a court challenge against the California measures and that it makes more sense to use the U.S. Congress legislation as the benchmark. The new U.S. standard falls well short of the regulations proposed by California.

One would hope that Harper wouldn't take it any further than simply suggesting that provinces stick with the federal standards, but given his recent fondness for draconian, bully-boy measures whenever his will is defied, I wouldn't put it past him to try to force the issue.

In which case Quebec can do what Arnie and the State of California are doing: sue the bastards.


MORE CNSC FALLOUT

The National Post (The National Post?!?) has published an op-ed piece that soundly criticizes Harper and Lunn and suggests what we bloggers have been saying all along - that this has nothing to do with the 'health and safety of Canadians' and everything to do with getting Keen out of the way of the government's plans to privatize AECL.

We also have op-eds in the Star and the Globe and Mail saying essentially the same thing. But of course most people don't read newspapers or blogs and there's nothing about the privatization scheme or a profit motive in any of the 30 second news 'stories' on the TV, so chances are nobody will notice.

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but it occurs to me that 11:00 p.m. is the optimal time to put out a press release if one wants to ensure that it does NOT make it onto the front page of the paper the next morning. Funny, that.


NEW WRINKLE IN CANADARM SALE

Last week's story about MacDonald, Dettwiler's sale of its satellite and space technology division to U.S. firm Alliant Techsystems (ATK) managed to leave out this little nugget:

The company they sold this stuff to makes, among other things, LANDMINES.

Aside from the obvious ethical problems with having technology funded by Canadian tax dollars being sold to a major arms manufacturer, there's the little matter of that anti-land mine treaty Canada signed on to that might just make the whole deal illegal.

ATK derives more than half of its $4 billion US in annual revenue from military contracts, including cluster bombs, depleted uranium rounds and landmines.

In December 1997, a total of 122 governments signed the Mine Ban Treaty in Ottawa — the most comprehensive international instrument for ridding the world of anti-personnel mines.

Lloyd Axworthy, the foreign minister when Canada signed the Ottawa protocol, said he believes the sale contravenes the provisions of that treaty.

"It [ATK] is a major arms merchant that is creating some of the dirtiest weapons in the world," Axworthy said Wednesday.

"The transfer of public money into a company making landmines is clearly banned under the treaty so this would be a clear case of non-compliance," he said.

And the government's response is... about what you'd expect:

Federal Industry Minister Jim Prentice, who will have to review the sale, declined an interview with CBC News. His spokesperson said Prentice will review the sale based on whether it's good for Canada.

"Good for Canada" means "Good for Canadian shareholders and corporate profits", of course. Time to give Scott Brison a call.

(H/T to Blast Furnace Canada Blog)

Chalk River Fallout

Gary Lunn is currently testifying before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources about why he has taken such a personal interest in crucifying Linda Keen for doing her job.

David McGuinty just finished a blistering attack on Lunn, Harper, and the Conservatives' systematic efforts since coming to power to rid themselves of every senior bureaucrat in Ottawa who wasn't appointed by Harper. Ooh, snap!

And apparently Bradley Trost (CON) has the same speech impediment as Dubya when it comes to pronouncing 'nu-cu-ler'.

Sigh. I know what I'm going to be doing for the rest of the day.

While I monitor the proceedings, here's a bit of light reading for you, starting with my three previous posts on the situation:

Nah... it'll be fine. Really.
Chalk River Timeline
Chalk River: It's All Becoming Clear

Here's the article on Linda Keen's firing last night, and here's Garth Turner's take on it all.

Later!

Chalk River: It's All Becoming Clear

What seemed like a suspicious but confusing sequence of events when I posted about Chalk River yesterday has now come sharply into focus, thanks to bloggers at The Galloping Beaver and Politics & Poetry who are much, much better at this than I.

Go read.

What I failed to understand yesterday was this: that AECL has wanted to shut down the NRU reactor at Chalk River (the 50 year-old one) for some time now and replace it with their new Maple 1 and 2 reactors (also at Chalk River). This explains why they have been so reluctant to make the required safety upgrades to the NRU. Why bother if they're just going to mothball it?

The problem? Maple 1 and 2 were supposed to have gone online back in 1999, but cost overruns and bureaucratic bungling put them years behind schedule, and now the CNSC has refused to sign off on them because, frankly, they aren't working properly and nobody can seem to figure out why. One CNSC official described it as "a problem with the reactor physics in the core" - a phrase which caused all the blood to drain from my husband's face (he used to work at the accelerator lab at McMaster University).

Dave at the Beaver put it best:

When the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission demanded a safety upgrade it probably ran afoul of AECL's plans - and the plans of the Harper government to sell off AECL. The CNSC was calling for a fairly expensive upgrade to a reactor AECL would rather not be operating. The same regulator will not issue licenses for the MAPLE reactors until safety concerns with them are rectified.

How do you reassure a prospective buyer that the regulator will not be a problem? Push the regulator out of the way.

Aside from the potential sale of AECL, there is another reason why the government is so anxious to switch over to their new reactors. The NRU reactor uses high-enriched uranium (HEU) which AECL buys from the U.S. and then sells back to them after they're done with it for use in their bomb program. The problem is, not only has the market for nuclear weapons taken a bit of a dive lately, but the U.S. has all but banned the transport and trade of HEU under non-proliferation regulations.

While the Maple 1 and 2 reactors were originally designed to use HEU, and AECL was actually stockpiling the stuff at one point in case their supply was cut off, it now appears that these new reactors will be using low-enriched uranium instead - at least according to AECL's website.

I suspect the odds of the CNSC signing off on these reactors in the next few months just improved significantly. And if they don't, well, Harper can just do another end-run.

Meanwhile, Canadian TV news continues to broadcast the over simplified and inaccurate sound bites spouted by the Conservatives with no attempt at analysis or investigation, while devoting half their newscasts to the Mulroney/Schreiber show.

Oh, look, a bunny...

Chalk River Timeline

I've been trying to untangle the sequence of events that led to the current mess at Chalk River and ran across this interesting tidbit from November 30th - less than a week before the 'isotope crisis' story broke:

Nuclear agency review may trigger privatization

The federal government is launching a strategy review of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to determine whether the maker of the Candu nuclear reactor needs to be restructured, a move industry observers say will likely lead to a partial privatization of the heavily subsidized Crown corporation.

"It is time to consider whether the existing structure of AECL is appropriate in a changing marketplace," Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said yesterday.

"This review will give us the information we need to make the right decisions for AECL and the right decisions for Canadians."

Lunn's ministry will lead the review with help from the Department of Finance and "with assistance of outside expertise."

The Toronto Star, citing industry sources, reported in July that the federal government has been in talks to sell the commercial business of AECL and has already held informal meetings with U.S.-based General Electric Co. and France's Areva SA – both of which have expressed an interest in AECL.

This was followed in October by an internal reorganization at AECL, which saw five business groups broken into two distinct divisions – one devoted to commercial reactor sales and the other focused on research and development, and nuclear waste management.

I can hear Naomi Klein chattering in my ear again. I can't quite make out what she's saying yet (shut up, will ya?!), but it doesn't sound good.

Just so we've got this straight, the sequence of events runs something like this:

July 2007 - Conservative government starts investigating the possibility of privatizing AECL.

October 2007 - AECL splits itself into two distinct divisions, presumably to facilitate the sale of it's reactor sales division.

October 25 - The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) announces decision to renew the license for the Dedicated Isotope Facilities at Chalk River, due to expire Nov. 30: "Considering that the DIF is not yet fully operational and that AECL must complete a substantial amount of outstanding commissioning activities before the facility can be declared in service, CNSC staff will carry out enhanced monitoring of the facility throughout the licence period."

November 18 - AECL shuts down Chalk River reactor for scheduled maintenance.

November 29 - Tories announce a review to determine if AECL should be restructured and partially privatized, and in the same breath announce Canada's participation in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

December 4 - AECL announces that it is voluntarily extending the shutdown so that it can comply with safety upgrades required by its license. The CNSC indicates that it would have insisted on having the reactor shut down if AECL had not already done so.

December 5 - All hell breaks loose in the media.

December 12 - Harper pushes through legislation to get Chalk River running again despite the remaining safety issues.

December 13 - Harper slams both AECL and the CNSC, and forbids CNSC lawyers from advising or working on the Chalk River file.

What does it all mean? For starters, I think we can expect an announcement concerning the sale of part or all of AECL to a (probably foreign) corporation within the next couple of months. The government will use words like 'efficiency' and 'accountability', but really it's just a convenient excuse to do what they've been planning all along: privatize Canada's nuclear industry and simultaneously de-fang our regulatory commission so private enterprise can be free to do for nuclear energy what they've been doing for the oil sands out in Alberta.

As for how this all fits into the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, your guess is as good as mine. I'm quite sure the connection will become apparent soon.

(And for the record, I approve of nuclear energy. In principle.)

Nah... it'll be fine. Really.

Ottawa thwarts nuclear watchdog

A Three-Mile-Island-type of nuclear accident could occur at Canada's Chalk River reactor unless a backup power supply system, capable of withstanding natural disasters such as earthquakes, is installed, according to an assessment by the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

It is “essential” that the safety equipment be installed on two crucial pumps before the reactor, which makes more than half the world's nuclear medicines, is restarted, Linda Keen wrote in a blunt letter to two federal government ministers.

... AECL had shut the reactor for routine maintenance in November and then voluntarily kept it shuttered after discovering it wasn't in compliance with a long-standing CNSC licence condition requiring the backup power system. The equipment, known as motor starters, is designed to ensure pumps continue operating during earthquakes, floods, tornados and fires, among other disasters.

Hmm... water pumps... backup systems... addressing safety concerns before a reactor is re-started... Why am I having flashbacks to "The China Syndrome"?

But Uncle Stevie knows better, of course.

“There will be no nuclear accident,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper asserted in the House of Commons, saying the government has received independent advice indicating there is no safety concern.

“On the contrary, what we do know is that the continuing actions of the Liberal-appointed Nuclear Safety Commission will jeopardize the health and safety and lives of tens of thousands of Canadians. We do have the responsibility to demand that Parliament step in and fix this situation before the health of more people is put in jeopardy.”

Hey, at least he can pronounce 'nuclear'!

And BTW, that 'independent advice' Stevie chose to listen to? That would be from a couple of former employees of AECL which, while technically a Crown Corporation, sounds an awful lot like a private one in it's stated mandate.

I guess we should all just keep our fingers crossed for the next 120 days.

(edit - Garth Turner posted this gem. Thanks, Garth!)