A Political Meltdown

For decades, Canada has been a world leader in the production of medical isotopes. So why did the government announce that it was dumping the entire program?

Worse, the reactors upon which this enterprise rested weren’t exactly in mint condition. At the time of the privatization, there were just two aged machines, both in Chalk River, producing all of Canada’s isotopes. The NRX began operating in 1947, and the NRU, or National Research Universal, started up a decade later. Although they were still chugging along nicely, both were nearing the end of their working lives.

No one in their right mind would buy a business that hinged on two old reactors on their last legs. The sale would require some kind of guarantee. In the end, the government provided one by offering an exclusive twenty-two-year supply of isotopes — this despite the fact that both reactors could likely expire before the contract ended.

Within two years, the government would be out of power. It was AECL — and its owners, you and I — who were left holding the bag.

Nordion international inc. was formally sold for $165 million on November 1, 1991. The buyers, MDS Health Group, a publicly traded (but mostly employee owned) company headquartered in Etobicoke, Ontario, took more than an 80 percent share; and Amersham International PLC, a British radiopharmaceutical company with a minority share, now had exclusive rights to the country’s isotope bounty. (MDS Health Group would eventually buy out Amersham.) MDS Health Group, founded in 1969, already operated clinical labs and distributed medical products internationally. The new entity was christened MDS Nordion.

It would be interesting to see the details of the sale, but although tax dollars funded the expertise that brought Nordion into existence, ordinary Canadians do not have this right. An access to information request uncovers a lengthy file on the sale but only twelve pages available for scrutiny: two title pages; six pages from the contracts, heavily redacted apart from the names of the parties to the agreement; and four pages of contemporaneous press releases.

Still, even these meagre offerings are illuminating. For instance, although bidding opened on November 1, 1990, and the winner was announced on June 11, 1991, something weird happened in between. The Isotope Supply and Revenue Sharing Amending Agreement, dated April 1, 1991, suggests that whatever the parting arrangements were between AECL and its isotope division in 1988, those arrangements were changed during the bidding process.

The alterations almost certainly had to do with buttressing the security of the isotope supply with more explicit guarantees. For instance, the buyer may have insisted that if one of the old reactors went out of service AECL would be obliged to build a new one to replace it. And on April 8, 1993, not even a year and a half after MDS Health Group bought Nordion, that scenario came true: the NRX was shut down for good. That left the NRU to produce all of the company’s — and a significant quantity of the world’s — medical isotopes.

For MDS Nordion, this was a business crisis. For the Canadian government, interestingly, it was seen as an opportunity to get out of the deal. After the NRX closed, AECL tried to invoke force majeure — a clause that would free it from obligations under the contract because of an extraordinary event or a circumstance beyond its control. But MDS Nordion wouldn’t have it. The company accused the government of misrepresentation and fraud.

According to MDS Health Group Ltd. v. Canada, dated October 28, 1993, “A dispute has now arisen as to whether AECL is obligated under its agreement with MDS and Nordion to maintain both of its reactors at all times, or whether it can take one of them permanently out of service without building a new replacement reactor…AECL has denied that it is obligated to maintain both old reactors and that it must build a replacement.” AECL, MDS Health Group claimed, was not living up to its agreement.

Then, just seven months after the NRX was shut down, there was a changing of the guard in Ottawa, when on November 4, 1993, Jean Chrétien came to power. Despite Mulroney’s promises, during his tenure the debt had swelled to $514 billion. To help hack it down, he brought in the hated Goods and Services Tax. Kim Campbell, his successor, led the Tories to a crushing defeat, losing all but two federal seats.

The new Liberal government inherited the dispute between MDS Nordion and AECL. It didn’t take long to conclude that there was no way out of the deal. “[The Liberals] realized they were in an untenable position,” a former government official told me. “The agreement was sufficiently clear that the government owed MDS Nordion security of supply,” he said. In other words, AECL was obliged to maintain two reactors so that the flow of isotopes would not be interrupted.

The negotiations culminated in the Isotope Production Facilities Agreement, known as “the 1996 agreement.” The result was that two small, ten-megawatt AECL-designed reactors, dubbed MAPLE 1 and MAPLE 2, would be built at the Chalk River site. They would be dedicated exclusively to isotope production, and would provide MDS Nordion with an ironclad supply guarantee.

In the end, the 1996 agreement was yet another head scratcher of a deal. It was agreed that AECL would build the two MAPLE reactors, operate and secure them, and dispose of their waste — but MDS Nordion would own them. The price was $140 million, but the federal government gave MDS Nordion a $100-million interest-free loan, plus a $5-million “non-repayable contribution,” to help offset the purchase cost.

Previous · Page 2 of 5 · Next

10 comment(s)

R.March 15, 2011 01:51 EST

Great article.
This entire ordeal is simply enraging.

sandyMarch 19, 2011 10:32 EST

puts me in mind of the Avro Arrow...
sadly

Bill MacCallumMarch 20, 2011 22:25 EST

All reactor isotopes are produced paraciticly, that is they use research reactors that are bankrolled by governments, and exist for other purposes. The Maple X reactor (originally estimated to cost ~$20 million) was to be the first designed and built specifically for the production of radioisotopes. The costs incurred by AECL would be incremental (operating, security, waste management, etc.) and this project should have been a profit center, contributing to, but not underwriting all AECL operating costs. This would be like adding strawberries to your produce department for incremental profit; no one should expect to operate a store profitably if you only sell strawberries.

MichelleMarch 23, 2011 23:20 EST

Great article! A refreshing look at how backroom deals made by a few impinge on us all. The art of illuson lives on thanks to Canadian beaurocrats.

BrucieBMarch 26, 2011 18:54 EST

This seems typical and sad nuclear science in canada like most things high tech are being discarded for the sake of political expediency driven by petro-dollars. Investments in R&D should be part of Canada's movement to market energy power plants for emerging economies, nuclear research and use of small modular reactors (SRM) technology like use of thorium-232 reactors. Politicians of liberal/conservative parties should educate themselves on real nuke science and not let anti-nuke flawed science in media pass for nuclear science.

JanetMarch 30, 2011 13:08 EST

The elephant in the middle of the room in this article is the extreme danger to all life, of nuclear reactors. That this article appeared for the April 2011 issue, when Japan is struggling to contain its nuclear accidents from earthquakes and a tsunami, is prescient. As a people, we Canadians have become so comfortable believing that radiation can diagnose and solve our medical problems, when it causes at least as many health problems as it solves. This does not even begin to discuss the total financial costs of nuclear energy, or the continual threats to the safety of the areas in which nuclear reactors exist. In the case of Japan, the winds carry water and air born radiation toward western Canada. We are being told that the radiation that is now found on the west coast from this accident, is so slight as to be non-harmful. I doubt this, and I must consider that this is only the beginning, as the problem has not yet been resolved at Japan's reactors. Japan is only one nation with reactors on large waters, and the affected reactors are only a few of Japan's total number of reactors.
Nuclear reactors require a lot of water to function at the best of times. When there are droughts, or high heat in summer, much more water is needed, such as occurred in France in 2003. The excessive need to channel water to the overheating reactors in France caused a lack of water available to people, resulting in deaths in the vulnerable, especially the old.
In diagnosing and treating medical conditions, the full life of radioactive substances is underestimated. The severe dangers and costs to create all the kinds of radiation used in the medical world are not included in understanding whether this is safe. The possibility of later health problems from having radiation diagnostics or treatment is not discussed, yet, a few scientists have warmed of this for years.
If we become caught in political reasons or health care reasons to champion nuclear reactors, we are blind to the horrible dangers of this technology. We need to decrease or stop its use completely. Even if all 404 known reactors in the world were shut down now, the cost in safely storing the present radioactive substances including the equipment that has become radioactive, the waste, and the substances themselves, is so costly, and will be so for thousands of years, that it shows how we cannot possibly afford to keep them running, as to do so is hugely compounding these costs in lives and finances.

Tom AdamsApril 01, 2011 15:05 EST

Thanks to Ms. Motluk for the very informative piece.

If we survey AECL's history in many lines of business, from historic heavy water production and organic cooled reactors all the way to present day retubing contracts, we see the same patterns — irrational confidence and blindness to risk. As the liabilities have mounted, the liabilities themselves became a guarantee of institutional continuity for AECL.

One of the craziest aspects of AECL's isotope business model is its reliance on weapons grade uranium. This reliance brought AECL into conflict with antiproliferation legislation in the US and resulted in the creation of vast quantities of heat generating, liquid nuke waste capable of criticality stored on the bank of the Ottawa River upstream of our capital city. As the whole world moved away from weapons grade uranium for research and isotopes, AECL fought a decades long rear guard action to keep the insanity going.

The circumstances surrounding the firing of Linda Keen deserve more investigation. Keen was pushing nuclear safety standards towards international norms, which started to freak out the Candu boys because they knew they couldn't measure up. Keen's initiative came just as the Harper government was looking to privatize AECL's Candu business line. In light of what we are seeing in Japan, it is worth remembering that the issue the government used as the excuse to decapitate the nuclear safety regulator was the security of back-up power to reactor cooling pumps. AECL lied to the regulator about having complied with an earlier order to upgrade the system. Keen's reaction — ordering a shutdown and full review — was exactly consistent with the CNSC's mandating legislation. Keen's replacement with a deputy minister seems to have been a big relief to the regulator's licensees.

Norm RubinApril 03, 2011 12:52 EST

Let me echo my former colleague\'s (Tom Adams\'s) appreciation for this thorough and carefully researched article!

Tom could have brought the parallel even closer, between the dispute that got Linda Keen fired, and ongoing events in Fukushima, Japan: What nuclear-regulator Keen was insisting on, before the NRU reactor could be licensed for operation, was the installation of a \"seismically qualified\" (=~ earthquake resistant) power supply to keep NRU\'s circulation pumps operating after an earthquake shut down the reactor! Instead, we got her dismissal, numerous government discussions behind closed doors, and a series of debates in Parliament, in one of which our PM famously promised \"There will be no earthquake!\" (In Japan, they\'re likely to find the corresponding official who decided there would be no 30\' tsunami, and I\'m betting he\'ll eventually be imprisoned for his obvious irresponsibility.)

But my main frustration with this remarkable article, is what I consider its failure to connect the financial dots. The \"profitability\" of AECL\'s \"Nordion\" radioisotope division was always mythical, since it included nothing — zero dollars — to reflect its biggest cost, the cost of building the NRU reactor that produced the isotopes! Indeed, late in the article, we learn that AECL did not even cover the OPERATING costs of producing the isotopes, but that\'s presented as if to prove that the government \"gave away the farm\" through over-generosity to MDS in the privatization of the division, rather than proving that NRU\'s isotopes were sold at a huge loss to everybody.

The simple fact is that it would have been easy for MDS and the feds to split the profits fairly, if there had been any profits to split, but there were only losses. Other short-lived medical isotopes are manufactured in linear accelerators at or near big hospitals, and their results are typically scanned with PET scanners. Both the accelerators and the PET scanners are typically supplied by large commercial companies, aka \"big pharma\". Those transactions ARE generally profitable to the suppliers (I am also assured by people far more expert in medical scanning than I that the images from these PET scans are far superior to those obtainable from Tc-99m scans.)

But the world has simultaneously been flooded with cheap below-cost Mo-99 (which \"breeds\" Tc-99m), produced in old government-owned reactors whose construction costs have literally been forgotten, operated by government agencies like AECL who naturally care much more about job security than about profits or risks. Not amazingly, the cheap \"drug\" has created a worldwide addiction, and Mo-99/Tc-99m has captured the lion\'s share of the diagnostic isotope market — not, apparently, because it is ACTUALLY more efficient or easier/cheaper than the competitors, and certainly not because it gives a better, more informative scan, but because government agencies managed to use Voodoo Economics to channel large amounts of taxpayers\' money into this money-losing foray into the world of medical products!

There is no easy way to determine what the market share of these isotopes WOULD be if they were sold the way prescription drugs and surgical tools are sold, rather than the way initial quantities of addictive drugs are sold. (In Ontario and much of Canada, it is just as difficult to determine how much electricity we would be using if it were produced and sold by businesses, the way natural gas is, instead of by agencies who are only accountable to the government in power, behind closed doors!)

But the fact that the sudden loss of a majority of the world\'s Mo-99/Tc-99m supply created so little apparent suffering suggests that their legitimate full-cost market share is only a small fraction of their recent market share.

Recent developments also suggest that accelerators can replace reactors to manufacture Mo-99, so we may be able to keep using it, when it makes sense to pay its production costs, without continuing to distort the world\'s use of medical diagnostic techniques by supplying it at silly prices — and without having to continue to build, operate, and decommission inherently hazardous reactors, operated by unaccountable and secretive government agencies like AECL.

AnonymousApril 04, 2011 14:04 EST

\"In mid-2009, AECL signed agreements with three Chinese entities to develop and demonstrate the use of thorium fuel in the Candu reactors at Qinshan in China.\" (source: world.nuclear.org). Thorium has been touted as a much safer alternative to uranium (source: \"Uranium is So Last Century\" wired magazine 2009/12). Wake up CANADA! With the right leadership, and political will, we can change the face of the nuclear industry forever. No more meltdowns, period! Selling AECL is shortsighted and fails to take into account intangible assets and benefits. The potential upside is obviously not being taken into consideration by the current government, which seems all too eager to sell out government assets for the short term benefit of covering the deficit.

allan ZMay 27, 2011 11:18 EST

Where is the accountability? To blame the Former Minister who has absolutely no culpability is absurd.There are men of vision buried in Deep River doing more for Chalk river than some of the current management.

Add a comment

  
I agree to walrusmagazine.com’s comments policy.

Canada & its place in the world. Published by
the non-profit charitable Walrus Foundation
TwitterFacebookRSS
On newsstands now
New Issue on Sale
June 2012
Subscribe online for as little as $2.49 an issue. Visit The Walrus Store
to buy prints of our covers
The Walrus Foundation National Event Guide

The Walrus HOOPP Pension Debate
Be It Resolved That Canadians Are Incapable
of Saving for Their Retirement Needs Alone

12 pm, Wednesday, May 30 at
Hart House Debate Room, Toronto

The Walrus Glenbow Debate
Calgary’s Cowboy Culture:
Living Legacy or Just History?

6:30 pm, Thursday, June 7 at
Epcor Centre: Max Bell Theatre, Calgary

The Walrus Laughs
The Walrus SoapBox