one day hearing - amendment of the particle accelerator … · 12 mr. benmerrouche is with us...
Post on 13-Apr-2018
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
StenoTran
ONE-DAY HEARING1
Canadian Light Source Inc.:2
Amendment of the Particle Accelerator Operating3
Licence issued to the Canadian Light Source4
Incorporated at the University of Saskatchewan5
THE CHAIRPERSON: We now move to6
Item 5, the one-day hearing on the matter of the7
application by Canadian Light Source for amendment8
to its particle accelerator operating licence to9
authorize the start of Phase II of the10
commissioning.11
With reference, on May 2, 2001,12
the Commission had directed that applications for13
future phases in the construction and operation of14
the facility be brought forward for the15
Commission's consideration. Also the Commission16
noted that applications for approval to proceed to17
future phases will be considered at one-day18
hearings subject to the Commission maintaining at19
all times the right to adjourn a hearing to another20
day.21
October 15th was the deadline for22
filing for the applicant and CNSC staff. Canadian23
Light Source's request for appearance was received24
on October 24th. The public has been invited to25
2
StenoTran
participate by either oral presentation or written1
submission at this time. October 15th was the2
deadline set for filing by the intervenors and no3
requests for intervention were filed.4
However, I would like to note that5
Rule 18 of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission6
Rules of Procedure provides that:7
"A party who intends to appear8
at a public hearing shall file9
with the Commission at least10
30 days before the start of11
the hearing a notice that12
includes the party's intention13
to appear and a copy of their14
written presentation."15
(As read)16
As I noted, Canadian Light17
Source's request for appearance and written18
submission was received on October 24th19
acknowledging missing the deadline of the 15th. 20
Pursuant to Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure, the21
Commission agreed on November 7th to vary the rules22
to accept the late submission by the applicant and23
to grant permission to intervene.24
I would like to remind the25
3
StenoTran
applicant that these rules exist, not as a1
bureaucratic constraint, but to allow the2
Commission, parties and any intervenors adequate3
time to prepare for the hearing. The Commission4
maintains the right to adjourn the hearing to5
another day if upon hearing the submission it6
determines that further information is needed or7
more time is required to consider the application.8
On that basis, I would like to9
call on Canadian Light Source as noted in10
CMD Document 01-H29.1 to take the floor and11
Mr. Benmerrouche is with us today.12
Good morning. The floor is yours.13
14
01-H29.115
Oral presentation by16
Canadian Light Source Inc.17
MR. BENMERROUCHE: Madam President18
and Chair, Members of the Commission, CNSC staff,19
ladies and gentlemen, good morning.20
My name is Mohamed Benmerrouche. 21
I am the manager of Health, Safety and Environment22
at the Canadian Light Source Inc. or CLSI. 23
Accompanying today is Mark de Jong on my left here24
who is the Acting Executive Director of the CLSI;25
4
StenoTran
Tony Whitworth who is behind me here who is the1
Vice President of Finance and Administration at the2
University of Saskatchewan or (UofS); and Les3
Dallin who is the commissioning team leader of CLSI4
who is on my right here.5
The first slide shown here is a6
northeast view of the Canadian Light Source7
Facility. This picture was taken last month.8
The purpose of this presentation9
is to provide members of the Commission with a10
summary of the information that was submitted to11
CNSC staff in support for an amendment to the12
operating licence to authorize Phase II13
commissioning of the Canadian Light Source.14
The proposed commissioning of the15
CLS will proceed in three phases. Phase I16
commissioning was approved by the Commission on May17
28, 2001 and was completed on September 23, 2001. 18
Today's application deals with the second phase of19
commissioning the CLS. The presentation is20
organized as follows.21
First I would like to start with22
an introduction. I will briefly describe the23
various phases required for commissioning the CLS24
facility. A status report on Phase I commissioning25
5
StenoTran
will be given followed by an overview of Phase II1
commissioning. I will then give an update on the2
issues raised during the last public hearing which3
was held in Saskatoon on May 2, 2001. Finally, I4
will present a summary and conclusions.5
The CLS facility includes a6
2.9 GeV high energy electron accelerator, which is7
considered a Class 1B electron accelerator. It is,8
however, a low power electron accelerator in the9
few watts range. The accelerator includes three10
major components: 300 MeV Linear accelerator or11
linac, a 2.9 GeV booster synchrotron and 2.9 GeV12
storage-ring.13
The CLS facility will be used for14
the synchrotron light which is emitted in the15
tangential direction of the electron orbit in the16
storage-ring. The synchrotron light is very17
intense and ranges from infrared to hard x-rays,18
typically in the energy range of 0.01 eV to19
100 keV. The light is directed toward the20
experimental stations using synchrotron light21
beamlines. The synchrotron light is a powerful22
tool for basic and applied studies in biology,23
chemistry, medicine, physics and environmental, as24
well as applications to technologies such as x-ray25
6
StenoTran
lithography, micro-machines, material1
characterization and trace element analysis.2
The proposed commissioning of the3
CLS will proceed under three phases, which will be4
described in the next few slides.5
The CNSC authorized Phase I6
commissioning on May 28, 2001. The commissioning7
of Phase I is completed and we are seeking today8
the Commission's approval to proceed to the next9
phase of commissioning or Phase II.10
As I mentioned, the proposed11
commissioning of the CLS will proceed under three12
distinct phases. The commissioning of the CLS will13
be carried out under the same operating licence,14
PA1OL-02.00/2006.15
Currently the operating licence16
limits the operation of the accelerator to Phase I17
only as indicated in licence condition C2. The CLS18
will seek Commission approval prior to proceeding19
with subsequent commissioning phases. This will20
require the amendment of the operating licence and21
submission of supporting documentation.22
Phase I is the re-commissioning of23
the existing linear accelerator, or linac, and part24
of the linac to booster transfer line, or LTB, up25
7
StenoTran
to the beam dump BST004-01. The linac and this1
part of the LTB are located in the sub-basement of2
the facility.3
Phase II involves the4
commissioning of the booster ring, including the5
remainder of the LTB transfer line and part of the6
booster to storage-ring transfer line, or BTS, up7
to the beam dump BST14000-01. The LTB brings the8
electron beam from the sub-basement level to the9
main level where the booster ring and the10
storage-ring are located.11
Phase III involves the12
commissioning of the storage-ring, including the13
remainder of the BTS transfer line. This phase14
will include some beamlines, in particular the15
diagnostic synchrotron beamline, which will be used16
to study the characteristics of the stored electron17
beam. It is expected that this phase will be ready18
for beam commissioning in January 2003.19
At the completion of Phase III, a20
request will be submitted to amend the licence to21
authorize routine or normal operation. The CLS22
facility is projected to begin routine or normal23
operation on January 2004.24
The drawing shown here depicts the25
8
StenoTran
start and end points of the three commissioning1
phases. Phase I is shown in red; Phase II is shown2
in green and Phase III is shown in blue.3
Phase I commissioning included re-4
commissioning of the linear accelerator (linac),5
re-commissioning of the Energy Compression System,6
or ECS, commissioning of the new Energy7
Spectrometer System (ESS), and commissioning of the8
Linac-to-Booster transfer line to Beam Dump9
BST0004-01, which is located after optical point 2.10
Commissioning for the purpose of11
testing all systems up to optical point 2 and for12
the purpose of determining the radiation levels13
began on June 29, 2001 and continued until 200114
September 23.15
The commissioning proceeded as16
planned with all necessary precautions in place,17
such as carrying out the commissioning outside18
normal working hours and weekends only.19
The preliminary analysis of the20
Radiological Survey data indicated that the prompt21
radiation levels in the Public Access Zone were22
within the fluctuations of natural background,23
while the levels in the occupied areas within the24
Free Access Zone were below design levels. Two25
9
StenoTran
locations within the Restricted Access Zone showed1
levels higher than the acceptable levels. Two2
Active Area Monitors have been placed at these two3
locations and will shut down the source of4
electrons or radiation if preset trip levels are5
exceeded.6
In conclusion, the commissioning7
of the linac and subsequent systems was8
satisfactory. Beam suitable for making9
measurements of beam induced radiation were10
delivered for several weeks and extensive radiation11
monitoring carried out. Sufficient information was12
obtained to fulfil the requirements of this aspect13
of Phase I commissioning. The full radiological14
data under various beam loss scenarios is currently15
being analyzed. Beam commissioning will resume16
again to better characterize the beam quality and17
prepare the beam for the onset of Phase II18
commissioning. It is anticipated that the target19
operating energy of between 200 and 250 MeV will be20
achieved at this point.21
Phase II commissioning approval22
allows us to bend the beam beyond the dipole magnet23
B0004-01 as shown in the drawing.24
The end point for Phase II25
10
StenoTran
commissioning is the beam dump BST1400-01 as1
illustrated in the drawing. The beam dump is2
located inside the Booster tunnel. The electron3
beam lines during this phase of commissioning are4
enclosed within the booster tunnel.5
The analyses of radiation hazards6
for Phase II operation are described in Chapter 57
of the Safety Report. The design criteria as well8
as the radiation shielding calculations have been9
reviewed, and accepted by the CNSC staff.10
The shielding for the LTB, Booster11
and storage-ring has been constructed as per the12
design and was completed on April 24, 2001.13
The conventional and technical14
construction report pertinent to Phase II15
commissioning has been incorporated in Chapter 7 of16
the Safety Report. The report includes timelines17
for installing, verifying and validating the18
booster access control interlock system, which is19
expected to be completed in November 2001. The20
installation and testing of the LTB transfer line21
required for Phase II commissioning should be22
completed in November 2001. The Booster ring23
components and services should be completed by24
January 2002.25
11
StenoTran
The Phase II commissioning plan is1
summarized in Chapter 8 of the Safety Report. The2
detailed plan is described in a separate document3
which includes various layout drawings and process4
flow diagrams of optics, vacuum, water, pneumatics5
and RF for the LTB, Booster and Booster to Storage-6
ring transfer line.7
The composition of the Phase II8
commissioning team has been provided to CNSC staff9
including their qualifications and mandatory10
radiological training. The team includes11
Danfysik's personnel who have extensive experience12
in designing, installing and commissioning a13
booster for the ANKA project in Germany. The CLS14
staff have many years experience in designing,15
installing and commissioning the linac as well as16
the plus stretcher ring. The latter is no longer17
required for the CLS. The radiological training18
program is described in Section 9.6.5 of the Safety19
Report.20
The CLSI staff have been21
conducting frequent presentations and tours of the22
facility. Since February 2001, approximately 15023
people tour the facility per month. Individuals24
are often given a handout or a brochure, shown a25
12
StenoTran
promotional video and/or slide presentation. 1
Background information includes a facility2
overview, some scientific research applications and3
some items of general interest such as an4
introduction to HSE programs. An HSE poster is5
displayed prominently at the CLS facility.6
CLSI has also instituted a first-7
come-first-served public tour event on the second8
Tuesday of each month. Due to the volume of9
requests, it has become necessary to limit the10
number of group bookings to approximately three per11
week.12
A new brochure has been produced13
since February 2001 entitled "Progress and14
Opportunity," and is accessible via CLS web site. 15
It is aimed at the public at large and contains16
information on the many science applications, the17
facility itself and the many levels of involvement18
and financial contribution by government agencies19
and educational institutions. CLSI is also20
producing a number of one-page companion21
promotional leaflets that will focus on the22
expanding science application.23
The next few slides illustrates24
progress on the construction for Phase II.25
13
StenoTran
This picture shows the dipole1
magnet that will bend the electron beam upward2
toward the LTB tunnel.3
This picture depicts part of the4
LTB transfer line located at the basement level. 5
At the back of the line the first beam dump is6
shown. This is where the beam will be directed7
during the initial stage of Phase II commissioning.8
You see here the inside of the9
booster tunnel.10
There could be some misordering of11
the slides here so I apologize for that.12
So this is inside the booster13
tunnel. The stands shown here will support the14
girders on which the accelerator components, such15
as magnets and vacuum pipes will sit. Two CLS16
technicians are shown here performing alignment17
measurements.18
Here you see the piping required19
for cooling the accelerator components.20
And in this slide, the racks and21
cable trays for the accelerator controls and22
electrical systems are shown.23
The document entitled "Record of24
Proceedings, Including Reasons for Decisions" on25
14
StenoTran
the subject of application for a class I Particle1
Accelerator Operating licence raised various issues2
for which the Commission expects to receive3
progress before future licensing phases could be4
considered. More precisely, the following items5
were mentioned.6
Under section 4.1 of the document7
"Facility Management and Ownership," the Commission8
asked to receive details of the responsibilities of9
persons in the organizational structure. Section10
9.3 of the Safety Report describes the authority11
and responsibilities for HSE duties as well as an12
updated organizational chart which is shown in the13
next slide.14
The Health Safety and15
Environmental Advisory Committee has been created16
and its terms of reference established. The HSEAC,17
the Health Safety and Environmental Advisory18
Committee, report its activities through its19
chairperson to the CLSI Board of Directors. The20
terms of reference describe membership and21
appointments, authority of the committee, its22
functions and procedures such as meetings and23
reportings. The Terms of Reference were submitted24
to CNSC staff and were found acceptable.25
15
StenoTran
A preliminary decommissioning1
plan, or PDP, was completed and submitted to the2
CNSC staff for review. The PDP has been prepared3
following the guidance and format outlined in the4
CNSC regulatory guides G206 entitled5
"Decommissioning Planning for Licensed Activities,"6
and G219, "Financial Guarantees for the7
Decommissioning of Licensed Activities."8
It includes decommissioning9
alternative selected for CLS decommissioning,10
decommissioning planning envelopes and work11
packages, financial guarantee, type and quantity12
and disposition of hazardous wastes, conceptual13
schedule and cost estimate breakdown. Comments14
from the CNSC staff review have just been received15
and are being addressed.16
As mentioned earlier, the CLS17
keeps the public fully informed as the project18
develops. A variety of communications vehicles are19
routinely used -- news, conferences, news releases,20
media interviews, videos, brochures, newspaper21
supplements, advertisements, tours, public lectures22
and community open houses.23
Audiences include the general24
public -- I apologize for the Greek working --25
16
StenoTran
including the general public, media, Canadian's1
science community (prospective academic users --2
researchers, graduate students), federal and3
provincial politicians, federal granting councils4
that fund the CLS, prospective corporate partners5
(investors, users, customers and suppliers) and6
high school students from Saskatchewan and across7
Canada. One recent event included commissioning of8
linac, which was attended by local media.9
The CLSI organizational chart was10
discussed during the last public hearing. The only11
change from the last submission is that the Health12
Safety and Environment Committees have been added13
to the organizational structures as shown here. 14
The HSEAC was discussed in the previous slide and15
in section 2.3.8 of the CMD.16
The Occupational Health and17
Safety, or OHS, is established under the18
Saskatchewan Occupational Health and Safety Act,19
1993. The committee is active and meets on a20
regular basis. The main objective of the OHS21
committee is to identify workplace hazards through22
regular inspections and to make recommendations23
regarding their resolutions. Any CLS employee can24
bring safety matters to the OHSC.25
17
StenoTran
Currently the CLSI holds an1
accelerator operating licence which was approved by2
the Commission shortly after Day Two public hearing3
of May 2, 2001.4
In closing, we believe that we5
have met all requirements for Phase II6
commissioning and respectfully request the7
Commission to approve an amendment to the operating8
licence authorizing us to proceed to Phase II9
commissioning of the CLS. The CNSC staff have also10
recommended the amendment in Commission Member11
Document 01-H29.12
Thank you for your attention and13
we are ready to answer any questions the Commission14
members may have. Thank you.15
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very16
much.17
With the permission of the18
Commission members I would like to have the19
presentation by CNSC staff before we open the floor20
to questions.21
On that regard I call for the oral22
presentation by CNSC staff as outlined in documents23
CMD 01-H29 and CMD 01-H29.A and, Mr. Pereira, you24
have the floor.25
18
StenoTran
01-H291
01-H29.A2
Oral presentation by CNSC staff3
MR. PEREIRA: Thank you,4
Madam Chair.5
For the record my name is6
Ken Pereira.7
CMD 01-H29 recommends the8
amendment of the particle accelerator licence to9
allow Canadian Light Source Inc. to commission10
Phase II of the Canadian Light Source particle11
accelerator facility at the University of12
Saskatchewan. A supplementary CMD 01-H29.A13
provides information on work completed recently by14
the licensee.15
Dr. Aly and Mr. James will now16
provide an outline of the rationale for the CNSC17
staff recommendation.18
MR. ALY: Good morning, Madam19
Chair, Members of the Commission.20
For the record, my name is21
Aly Aly. I'm the Director of the Research and22
Production Facilities Division.23
To outline our presentation I will24
start first with a brief introduction and then a25
19
StenoTran
review of the application. This will be followed1
by Mr. James giving a brief description about2
standing issues from the last public hearing held3
on May 2, 2001 and then CNSC staff's position and4
finally, CNSC staff's conclusions and5
recommendations.6
The CLS facility is a Class 1B7
electron accelerator with an energy of 2.9 GeV. 8
The facility contains three major parts as9
explained by CLS staff: a 300 MeV Linear10
accelerator or linac, a 2.9 GeV booster and a11
storage-ring. The light resulting from the bending12
of high energy electrons called synchrotron13
radiation will be used to perform experiments in14
diverse fields.15
CLS Inc. was issued a particle16
accelerator operating licence to operate the17
facility on May 28, 2001. The licence limits the18
operation to commissioning Phase I. The various19
phases are detailed on the next two slides.20
CLS Inc. has applied for an21
amendment to an operating licence to allow the22
commissioning of the second phase of the facility.23
CLS has proposed to commission the24
facility in three phases, i.e. -- I'm not going to25
20
StenoTran
repeat the information as CLS staff gave that in1
detail so I'm going to skip the next overhead also2
and I will start on the application.3
CLS Inc. has applied to amend the4
licence to include commissioning Phase II. 5
Radiation safety features for this phase includes6
shielding and personnel exclusion interlocks. The7
shielding for class 2 and 3 -- for Phases II and8
III has been completed in April 2001.9
A safety feature for Phase II is a10
system to limit personnel access to the beam line11
areas, called the access control and interlock12
system. It is presently being installed. It will13
be verified and validated and as CLS staff14
mentioned this should be completed in November this15
month.16
CLS Inc. has recently submitted17
the lock-up procedure which CNSC staff have18
reviewed and accepted.19
As the access control and20
interlock system is not yet complete, a hold point21
is proposed to be added to the licence to ensure22
that CLS Inc. satisfactorily completes the testing23
of the access control and interlock system before24
the remainder of the Phase II commissioning has25
21
StenoTran
commenced. This means that CLS Inc. will have to1
get CNSC staff permission to bring the beam into2
the booster ring.3
I now ask Mr. James to continue4
the presentation.5
MR. JAMES: Good morning,6
Madam Chair, members of the Commission.7
For the record, my name is8
Mike James, Head of the Accelerator Licensing9
Section.10
After the previous public hearings11
on the CLS application in May of 2001, there12
remains several items that needed clarification and13
follow-up by the CLS. The submission of a14
preliminary decommissioning plan, information on15
how human factors will be addressed in the16
operation of the facility and the clarification of17
the roles, responsibilities and operation of the18
Safety Advisory Committee.19
Regarding the first issue, CLS has20
submitted a preliminary decommissioning plan which21
staff reviewed. CLS has properly demonstrated the22
basic planning for decommissioning, however, the23
plan does require further refinement. The24
deficiencies in the plan were communicated to CLS25
22
StenoTran
in mid-October.1
Once the plan is satisfactory to2
CNSC staff, the cost estimates for decommissioning3
will be reviewed for acceptance by CNSC staff.4
Following acceptance of the cost estimates by CNSC5
staff, a recommendation regarding a financial6
guarantee will be presented to the Commission.7
Regarding the second issue, CLS8
has submitted a human factors work scope for the9
CLS project, which the staff found acceptable. CLS10
has fully embraced a need for human factors11
considerations and is making an effort to address12
all the issues raised by CNSC staff.13
Regarding the third issue, CLSI14
clarified and presented to CNSC staff the Health15
Safety and Environmental Advisory Committee's Terms16
of Reference that included the authority,17
responsibility and accountability. The18
organizational structure, including this advisory19
committee, is shown on this slide, which you have20
seen before.21
The CNSC staff review included an22
interim report on Phase I commissioning including23
information on the radiation surveys taken, the24
updated commissioning plan for Phase II, radiation25
23
StenoTran
safety during Phase II commissioning including the1
lock-up procedure for that phase, qualifications of2
staff for Phase II commissioning, terms of3
reference for the Health Safety and Environmental4
Advisory Committee and the human factors work5
scope. Commission staff found these items6
acceptable.7
As previously indicated, the8
decommissioning plan, the preliminary9
decommissioning plan needs some further refinement. 10
Staff concluded that the minor deficiencies should11
not affect the recommendation for the licence12
amendment since there will be no short-term impact13
on safety.14
CLS Inc. is in compliance with the15
cost recovery fees regulations. The Environmental16
Assessment Screening Report assessed all aspects17
and stages of the licensing of the CLS facility and18
concluded that the project is not likely to cause19
significant adverse environmental affects. This20
conclusion was accepted by the Commission in June21
of 2000. The screening report remains valid for22
the proposed operation of the CLS facility pursuant23
to the current licensing amendment.24
CNSC staff conclude that the25
24
StenoTran
application for the amendment of the particle1
accelerator operating licence to include Phase II2
commissioning is acceptable. The acceptance is3
conditional on the satisfactory completion by CLS4
Inc. of testing the access control and interlock5
system before bringing the beam beyond the beam6
dump known as BST0108-01 in the beam line.7
CNSC staff conclude that CLS Inc.8
is qualified to carry on the commissioning of Phase9
II and will make adequate provision for the10
protection of the environment, the health and11
safety of persons and the maintenance of national12
security.13
CNSC staff recommends that the14
Commission amend the particle accelerator operating15
licence issued to CLS Inc. to allow commissioning16
of Phase II, delegate to the CNSC staff the17
approval of releasing the hold point to allow CLS18
to bring the beam beyond point BST0108-01 in the19
beam line. This is conditional on satisfactory20
completion by CLS Inc. of testing the access21
control and interlock system and accept the CNSC22
staff assessment that an environmental assessment23
is not required.24
MR. PEREIRA: That concludes the25
25
StenoTran
staff presentation, Madam Chair.1
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,2
Mr. Pereira.3
The floor is now open for4
questions from the Commission members.5
Dr. Giroux.6
MEMBER GIROUX: Thank you.7
I will start with CLS.8
On page 6 of your presentation you9
mention that indicating radiation measurements you10
had two locations which showed levels higher than11
acceptable, and then you say that you have added12
monitors there.13
But my question is, have you14
understood the reasons for these higher levels than15
anticipated and can you do something to prevent the16
recurrence?17
MR. BENMERROUCHE: The higher18
levels that we measured were under -- were only19
obtained under worse case scenarios when the beam20
is taken into missteering or other purposes. These21
radiation levels will not happen under normal22
operations. So to ensure that if the beam is23
missteered and to prevent any high radiation levels24
than the design levels, we put two area monitors so25
26
StenoTran
that if those levels are exceeded, the machine just1
shuts down. But under normal operation those2
levels are under the design levels. Those are only3
under worse case scenarios.4
MEMBER GIROUX: Okay. Thank you.5
The other question I have does not6
relate immediately to what we heard here but to the7
first time we met you -- was it in May of -- last8
spring. When we were discussing the agreement9
between the University of Saskatchewan and CLS, I10
remember asking a question about one clause dealing11
with the residual responsibility if the agreement12
ceases to be in force and there was something which13
was not quite clear in my view in the agreement.14
The question is, has this been15
reviewed? Have you revisited the agreement?16
MR. BENMERROUCHE: With the17
permission of the Commission I want to direct this18
question to Mark.19
MR. de JONG: For the record, I'm20
Mark de Jong, Acting Executive Director.21
No, there has not been -- I can't22
even particularly exactly remember the issue. 23
There certainly has been no change in the current24
agreement with the university. We are in25
27
StenoTran
preparation that over the next two months to put in1
place a licensing arrangement with the university2
so that CLS Inc. will be the licensee to be the3
operator for the facility.4
Under the current circumstances,5
the structure itself is being turned -- is in the6
act of being turned over to the university formally7
from the construction management firm that is8
looking after the building. Once it is in the9
university's hands, then we will be setting in10
place a licence arrangement for CLS to operate it.11
MEMBER GIROUX: I'm sorry. The12
applicant right now is CLS.13
MR. de JONG: Yes.14
MEMBER GIROUX: Okay. Are you15
saying that after construction, the University of16
Saskatchewan will take over the licence or will ask17
for a transfer of licence?18
MR. de JONG: The structure itself19
under -- the physical building is under the current20
construction contract the University of21
Saskatchewan building and will become a University22
of Saskatchewan building when the responsibility23
for the construction is handed over. At that24
point, CLS will become a licence -- have a licence25
28
StenoTran
to operate the facility inside.1
THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. I2
believe that the University of Saskatchewan is3
represented and perhaps would like to comment at4
this time.5
MR. WHITWORTH: Thank you,6
Madam Chair. Tony Whitworth, Vice President,7
Finance and Resources at the university.8
Just to add to what Dr. de Jong9
has said, the university will own the building as10
soon as it is transferred from the construction11
contractor, which is going to happen very soon. 12
The university will retain ownership of the13
building and the facilities, but will through a14
licence arrangement, as mentioned, transfer15
responsibility for operations and management to16
CLSI, CLS Inc.17
In that context, the university18
has a direct interest in any decommissioning plan19
and arrangements and we have had discussions with20
CLSI on decommissioning preparation.21
MEMBER GIROUX: I'm sorry, I22
cannot pursue this too much because we don't have23
documents here and I realize the situation. But I24
think I would like to ask staff to review maybe the25
29
StenoTran
transcript or whatever notes we have from the first1
meeting on the Phase I commissioning and review the2
agreement and maybe get in touch with me and we3
might report back to the Commission when you4
present the Phase III commissioning.5
I think there was something that6
needed clearing up in my recollection about exactly7
the point of who is responsible for managing the8
operation and has full responsibility towards the9
Commission and any radiation program if the10
agreement falls through and if something goes wrong11
with CLSI. That was the issue if I remember, so I12
won't push it any further.13
And I might come back with other14
questions later. I will let the other Commission15
members --16
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Graham.17
MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you.18
In the original documentation that19
we had before us, I couldn't find it but I do20
understand this morning from the presentation of21
CNSC that the decommissioning plan when it is22
completed and so on will come before the23
Commission. Before it was vague whether it would24
or not, but it will come. That is a fact, is it?25
30
StenoTran
MR. PEREIRA: Ken Pereira1
responding.2
Our intention is when we have3
completed the review of the decommissioning plan,4
the revised decommissioning plan, we will report to5
the Commission and we expect to do that when we6
seek -- recommend, make a recommendation with7
respect to Phase III commissioning.8
MEMBER GRAHAM: As a follow up to9
Dr. Giroux, that will include whether it is just10
CLS or whether it is the decommissioning and the11
guarantees are submitted both by CLS and the12
University of Saskatchewan and so on, that will all13
be incorporated in that decommissioning and14
guarantees, will it?15
MR. PEREIRA: Clearly we need to16
look at that carefully.17
MEMBER GRAHAM: Yes. Well, that18
was going to be my line of questioning and then in19
Mr. James' presentation it showed you are coming20
back but we will have to have both. Who is putting21
up the financial guarantees.22
My other question is with regard23
to fire protection and not -- I'm talking fire24
protection in general and the training of fire25
31
StenoTran
fighters and so on within the context of whether I1
don't know if it's the university fire department2
or the city fire department and so on.3
In case of a fire and so on in4
there, what training -- and I guess this is to CLS5
-- what training have you done in conjunction with6
fire fighters and so on to deal with a disaster if7
something ever happened?8
MR. BENMERROUCHE: We had six9
groups of fire fighters to come for an orientation. 10
As part of the orientation, there is a tour of the11
facility and also some of the upgrades that we made12
to the fire protection systems and fire alarm13
systems. So we did have -- that training took14
place for the fire fighters and we expect to have15
this on a regular basis as we move toward future16
phases and as we move towards more commissioning,17
toward the future phases of commissioning. So they18
did have training.19
MEMBER GRAHAM: Question to CNSC20
staff.21
Is the type of training to fire22
fighters and so on, is that similar to that of a23
nuclear facility, like a power plant, and are you24
satisfied or have you put certain guidelines in25
32
StenoTran
place that must be followed?1
MR. PEREIRA: Ken Pereira2
responding.3
The risks and the nature of the4
hazards for this facility are very different from a5
nuclear power plant. What we have here is a more 6
conventional type of fire protection. We will7
review the plan once CLS comes to us with a8
submission for operation of the facility, the final9
operation. At the moment, they are in a10
construction phase and so there are interim11
arrangements but the final fire protection plan is12
something that we will review in due course.13
MEMBER GRAHAM: So what you are14
saying is in Phase III application or in Phase III15
approval when it is done there will certainly be16
conditions to the licence with regard to fire and17
safety?18
MR. PEREIRA: We will consider19
that for Phase III or for the final phase which is20
operation, post-commissioning. Phase III21
commissioning is an interim stage prior to eventual22
operation.23
MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you. The24
only other question I have for CNSC staff is with25
33
StenoTran
regard to security.1
Could you explain the -- I don't2
want to get into a lot of detail -- but for this3
type of facility are all the necessary security4
measures in place in light of what has been done in5
other nuclear facilities and so on or other6
facilities? I don't want to go into this. I don't7
want to get into anything that can't be discussed. 8
But has there been security measures put in place?9
MR. PEREIRA: Ken Pereira10
responding again.11
CNSC staff have over the past few12
weeks been reviewing security requirements for13
Class 1A and Class 1B facilities after the initial14
effort on the nuclear power plants. We have ranked15
the different facilities according to the risks16
they pose and based on that we have -- close to the17
point where we will be issuing orders and also18
requests under section 12C of the General Regs with19
respect to security. CLS is in that population of20
facilities that has been reviewed and is ranked21
according to risk. It is one of the lower risk in22
that group.23
MEMBER GRAHAM: Nevertheless, what24
you are saying is there will be increased security25
34
StenoTran
measures taken even with this rank -- even with1
this type of facility?2
MR. PEREIRA: Yes, there will be3
certain requirements conveyed to the licensee.4
THE CHAIRPERSON: Before we move5
on to the other Commission members, I would just6
like to clarify, when you talked about fire7
protection measures necessary for the operations, I8
just wish to clarify that there are fire protection9
measures in place now and that the CNSC staff10
consider those acceptable?11
MR. PEREIRA: That is correct.12
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.13
MR. PEREIRA: What I was14
commenting on was a comprehensive review of fire15
protection for operation of the facilities.16
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very17
much.18
Ms MacLachlan.19
MEMBER MacLACHLAN: A question for20
staff and it has to do with the hold point being21
recommended for inclusion in the licence.22
I understand that the total access23
control and interlock system for Phase II hasn't24
been constructed yet. Is that correct? So that is25
35
StenoTran
why you are looking for a hold point.1
MR. PEREIRA: That is correct. It2
is under construction at the moment.3
MEMBER MacLACHLAN: Right.4
My question is what is the5
significance of BST0108-01? Why not 03-02 or 1300-6
1 or 2 or even 1400-01?7
MR. PEREIRA: I will ask Mr. James8
to provide the clarification you seek.9
MR. JAMES: That location is the10
farthest location that they can bring the beam to11
under the existing interlock system. It also is12
one floor below the rest of the system that will be13
commissioned after the hold point is released.14
So it's a safe location to bring15
the beam to under the existing system.16
MEMBER MacLACHLAN: Thank you.17
There is a method to stop the beam18
at that point?19
MR. JAMES: Yes. There is a beam20
dump at that location and it's a matter of ensuring21
that the magnet in front of it is just not turned22
on.23
MEMBER MacLACHLAN: Okay. Thank24
you.25
36
StenoTran
THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Barnes.1
MEMBER BARNES: Could you give me2
some information on insurance for this facility? 3
How is it insured?4
MR. de JONG: During the5
construction phase we have obtained insurance, a6
broad coverage insurance for the entire facility7
covering essentially all of the contractors that8
are in there, covering of various aspects, covering9
errors and omissions by various contractors,10
liability on behalf of -- third party liability for11
any of the staff and other persons in the place. 12
It was thoroughly reviewed at the start of the13
project with the university and put in place as14
part of the project.15
THE CHAIRPERSON: I believe your16
colleague from the University of Saskatchewan would17
like to add to that.18
MR. WHITWORTH: Thank you,19
Madam Chair.20
Just to add to that, we do have21
specific insurance on this. The university carries22
specific insurance on this particular facility for23
the construction period. But overall, the24
university is part of a reciprocal insurance25
37
StenoTran
exchange with all universities in Canada. So1
property and liability insurance is carried as part2
of that arrangement. The insurance issue was3
looked at very thoroughly during the initial start4
up of construction.5
MEMBER BARNES: So who holds the6
insurance? Is it the university or is it CLS?7
MR. WHITWORTH: The university8
carries the insurance for the facility, the9
building and the facility. The university.10
MEMBER BARNES: But not the11
licence?12
MR. WHITWORTH: The licence to13
operate will be held by CLS Inc.14
THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me for15
just a moment.16
--- Pause17
THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Barnes,18
would you like to add --19
MEMBER BARNES: No, I mean it is20
still an issue that it is CLS that is coming for21
the licence today.22
MR. WHITWORTH: Yes.23
MEMBER BARNES: Right. But you24
are telling me that the actual licence for the25
38
StenoTran
insurance is held by the university, not CLS?1
MR. WHITWORTH: That is the2
situation at the moment during the construction3
phase.4
MEMBER BARNES: Yes, let's take it5
to the operational phase then. What will be the6
situation then?7
MR. WHITWORTH: This being a8
university building, the university will continue9
to carry insurance on the building. Any special10
insurance that will be needed as a result of11
operational issues would, I assume, eventually --12
and we haven't got that far yet -- would be part of13
a licence with CLSI. So as part of the operating14
responsibilities, CLS would have to carry that15
operating insurance.16
MEMBER BARNES: Okay. You17
provided in attachment 2, an eight-page report that18
deals with the conduct of operations and so on.19
Could I ask, is this just a20
partial description of terms of reference of the21
various committees? You gave an organizational22
chart, for example, at page 2. Are you with me?23
This was entitled "Extract from24
CLS Safety Report: Conduct of Operations,25
39
StenoTran
October 2, 2001." On page 2 you had the1
organizational chart that we have seen illustrated2
with four or five of the components in bold.3
MR. WHITWORTH: Right.4
MEMBER BARNES: Then it goes on5
for about -- up to page 8 which outlines the terms6
of reference, and so on, for various components.7
Is this a description of the full8
operation or are these just components?9
MR. BENMERROUCHE: These are just10
components pertinent to HSE duties. We do have the11
responsibility for operations developed, but they12
were not included in the safety report. I believe13
that they were only interested in the HSE duties14
for responsible authorities.15
MEMBER BARNES: The information on16
the board of directors, this is just a brief17
component of it.18
MR. BENMERROUCHE: Yes.19
MEMBER BARNES: On the20
Occupational Health and Safety Committee, it21
states:22
"The Committee will meet23
quarterly."24
Why would you define it so25
40
StenoTran
precisely in a sentence; or at least quarterly? I1
thought they might well have wished to meet more2
than quarterly.3
MR. BENMERROUCHE: Could you4
repeat the question, please.5
MEMBER BARNES: This is on page 76
of the report, 2.3.7, Occupational Health and7
Safety Committee, which is one of the items we were8
trying to seek.9
The second-last line of that on10
page 7 of that section is:11
"The Committee meets12
quarterly."13
That is a firm statement, that it14
will meet quarterly. Wouldn't you be a little bit15
more loose than that? It seems to me that you16
might well, particularly in early times, wish to17
meet more frequently than that.18
MR. BENMERROUCHE: I think what we19
meant there is that the Committee should meet at20
least quarterly.21
MR. de JONG: If I may, the22
Occupational Health and Safety Committee in23
Saskatchewan that is set up for each company must24
meet at least quarterly. So we do. That is the25
41
StenoTran
legal requirement.1
We have certainly had more2
frequent meetings when it was felt appropriate.3
THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Giroux.4
MEMBER GIROUX: I would like to5
come back to the question that Dr. Barnes raised6
about the organizational chart.7
Could we have it up on the screen? 8
Staff have it as no. 8 of its presentation.9
The first question is: Is there a10
relationship between the board of directors which11
appears on the top of the chart and the board of12
governors of the university?13
My question is: What are the14
links between the board of governors of the15
university and the board of directors of CLS? Is16
there a member of the board of governors chairing17
the board of directors of CLSI? What are the18
arrangements?19
MR. WHITWORTH: The University of20
Saskatchewan, as I mentioned, is the owner of this21
facility and responsible for its operation and has22
set up a structure whereby the actual operations23
are handled through a CLS board of directors.24
The CLS board reports annually to25
42
StenoTran
the University of Saskatachewan board to keep the1
university informed of progress and meeting of the2
responsibilities.3
There are no members of the4
university's board on the CLS board. However,5
there are two senior officers of the university,6
myself and the Vice-President Research, who serve7
on the CLS board of directors.8
It is our responsibility to ensure9
that items of interest and of concern to the10
university's board are brought to the attention of11
the board.12
MEMBER GIROUX: Thank you. That13
clarifies it.14
Who reports from CLS to the board15
of governors? Is that done by one of the two vice-16
presidents?17
MR. WHITWORTH: The formal annual18
report to the board is presented by the Executive19
Director of CLS or, as in this case right now, the20
Acting Executive Director, Dr. de Jong.21
MEMBER GIROUX: Thank you. That22
clarifies it.23
The second question, again24
referring to the chart, it says in the text -- and25
43
StenoTran
I am addressing myself more to the applicant now --1
that the Quality Assurance Manager reports to the2
Executive Director.3
You have in your statement a list4
of people reporting to him. He does not appear in5
the chart here. Where would he be located in that6
chart, the QA Manager?7
MR. de JONG: He would be another8
box along with the Health Safety Environment9
Manager. He was on the earlier one, basically10
reporting directly to the Executive Director.11
MEMBER GIROUX: Is there any12
reason why he doesn't appear in this chart here?13
MR. BENMERROUCHE: The reason is14
because we don't have any person right now in that15
position. That position is vacant.16
We used to have it in the old org17
chart. I thought that while the position is18
vacant, we just don't put it in there. There is no19
person right now.20
MEMBER GIROUX: That answers my21
question. I may not agree with your approach.22
I have two technical questions, if23
I may. The first one might be trivial.24
What is a beam dump and how does25
44
StenoTran
it work?1
MR. DALLIN: Les Dallin,2
Commissioning Leader and Operations Manager. The3
beam dump is just a block of tungsten which4
contains the electron beam when we direct it into5
that block. It is just a way of terminating the6
beam.7
MEMBER GIROUX: Does it do8
anything with the beam, just absorb it?9
MR. DALLIN: It absorbs the beam10
and contains the radiation produced by stopping the11
beam.12
MEMBER GIROUX: Thank you. My13
second question concerns the main elements of14
commissioning.15
I understand that you have a16
number of things to do before the beam can be17
activated and sent over to the booster ring.18
How about the beam itself when it19
is activated? Is that done at different levels of20
power? Do you start low and raise it as we do for21
reactors, or is there a single energy level that22
you use?23
I would like to have a clearer24
picture of that.25
45
StenoTran
MR. DALLIN: The linear1
accelerator which accelerates the beam to 300 MeV,2
we plan at running at one energy level. So for3
future operations we can just set up all the4
subsequent beam lines and the booster to have one5
energy.6
It could be run from any energy,7
from 100 MeV to 300 MeV. We will decide, based on8
the operational experience, which level is most9
satisfactory for our purposes.10
MEMBER GIROUX: Does the choice11
have implications, in terms of safety, whether you12
go to a lower or higher energy level?13
MR. DALLIN: In terms of safety,14
certain quantum steps of energy levels are more15
favourable for the accelerator operations. So we16
will choose one that has the cleanest operation and17
that impacts on safety, because it will produce the18
least radiation.19
THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Barnes.20
MEMBER BARNES: I will come back21
to some of my latent either curiosities or concerns22
here.23
Who chairs the board of directors?24
MR. WHITWORTH: The chair is the25
46
StenoTran
President of NRC, Dr. Arthur Carty. He is the1
chair of the CLS board.2
MEMBER BARNES: Is it intended3
that whoever is the President of NRC would have4
that? Or does that just happen to be Dr. Carty at5
the moment?6
MR. WHITWORTH: It was set up that7
ex officio the President of NRC, if he or she so8
chose, would be the chair of the CLS board.9
MEMBER BARNES: In terms of fiscal10
responsibility, again because we only have part of11
the terms of reference in this document, is the12
university in a sense fiscally responsible for CLS? 13
Or is it, as a wholly owned company, corporation14
within the university, in a sense put at arm's15
length fiscally as well?16
MR. WHITWORTH: The commitment17
that the university made to the Canada Foundation18
for Innovation, CFI, was that given the capital19
amount the university would be responsible for20
building the facility within the prescribed capital21
budget and would be responsible for securing22
operating funds for the first five years after23
commissioning.24
In that sense, the university is25
47
StenoTran
responsible for building it and the initial1
operation.2
Projections of commitments after3
the first five years still need to be resolved.4
MEMBER BARNES: Yes, I remember5
all those details now that you are saying it.6
In terms of the fiscal assurance7
for decommissioning, where does the responsibility8
for that lie? Is it with the university or with9
CLS?10
MR. WHITWORTH: The university has11
accepted the responsibility to make sure there are12
funds available for decommissioning of the13
facility. We have set up within the budget for CLS14
an amount to be set aside each year to build up a15
trust account, a trust fund, that hopefully will16
have sufficient resources in that trust fund to17
undertake decommissioning.18
MEMBER BARNES: Roughly how many19
years of operation would it require to build up the20
estimated cost of decommissioning?21
MR. WHITWORTH: We forecast as a22
group that commissioning costs will be in the order23
of $3.7 million. We are planning to set aside24
about $250,000 for each of the next 20 years.25
48
StenoTran
That will, as I say, be put in an1
interest-bearing trust account and should grow to2
meet that $3.7 million requirement.3
MEMBER BARNES: I am not sure if I4
am trespassing beyond the limits of today's5
meeting, because it is stated that the6
decommissioning issues are not yet resolved. 7
Clearly you are indicating that you have some8
commitment for five years, and obviously beyond9
that you would like CLS to essentially generate10
enough revenues to run as a profitable operation,11
and so on.12
If that failed, you would have a13
significant shortfall in the decommissioning costs. 14
Is the university prepared to pick up that15
potential liability?16
MR. WHITWORTH: In the event that17
there are not sufficient revenues coming in, we18
haven't addressed it at our board level but I would19
expect our board of governors to assume20
responsibility for the decommissioning costs.21
MEMBER BARNES: I have another22
question for staff.23
Coming back to the issue of CLS24
holding the licence with this Commission versus the25
49
StenoTran
university, could you give us some information on1
other parallels with other accelerators, and so on?2
I see we have Triumf coming up in3
the next few months for consideration. That is4
perhaps more complex, because it involves much more5
of a consortium than NRC.6
That, presumably, is owned by UBC7
and is a licence held by UBC, or by Triumf Inc.?8
MR. PEREIRA: Ken Pereira9
responding.10
We do have other examples of11
operators who apply for licences. In this case,12
CLS is applying to operate the facility. Their13
owner is the University of Saskatchewan.14
We have the MAPLE reactor at Chalk15
River where MDS Nordion will be the owner and AECL16
operating. So we do have parallels of owners and17
operators being different entities.18
All our deliberations here are19
with respect to CLS Inc., because that is the20
applicant or the licensee.21
I will have Dr. Aly to comment on22
the situation with UBC and Triumf.23
DR. ALY: I will just make it24
clear again that our licensee is CLS Inc. We have25
50
StenoTran
secured agreements between the University of1
Saskatchewan and CLS before the May hearing. This2
was a requirement.3
CLS is the operator. They are4
accountable in terms of being the licensee5
responsible for safety and operation.6
Ultimate accountability still7
rests with the university today, according to the8
current agreement.9
In terms of Triumf, Triumf is a10
consortium of five universities. I believe there11
is a sixth one to be added soon, Carleton12
University.13
I will ask Mike James to clarify14
this point.15
MR. JAMES: Could you repeat the16
question, please.17
MEMBER BARNES: The question is18
who holds the licence there? Is it Triumf Inc. or19
is it UBC?20
DR. ALY: It is Triumf. Triumf21
holds the licence, yes.22
THE CHAIRPERSON: I will leave the23
questioning just a little bit. I don't think we24
want to get into a Triumf licence.25
51
StenoTran
If we go back to Dr. Barnes'1
question, it is an understanding of whether this2
agreement that we have now before us is typical, or3
not. I think we are leading to some questions that4
we will want covered in further discussions.5
This is helpful to give you an6
indication of some of the concerns that the7
Commission has.8
Mr. James, do you have a short9
comment to make with regard to Triumf?10
MR. JAMES: No, I didn't have a11
comment to make.12
THE CHAIRPERSON: Any further13
questions?14
What I am hearing -- so I am15
speaking from the chair -- is that there are some16
issues still to be resolved that came up in May and17
that have been raised here with regard to18
liabilities, responsibilities, insurance and those19
types of things.20
I would ask that the licensee and21
the staff turn their attention to this, at least22
for the operating licence. Perhaps in Phase III23
there might be some further delineation of this.24
There are a series of issues which25
52
StenoTran
you will note in the transcripts. There were also1
some issues raised by Dr. Giroux from the May2
transcripts that I think we will want to make sure3
are rolled up into those broader considerations of4
liability and responsibility which relate to our5
safety mandate.6
With that, that is the end of the7
question period.8
The Commission will confer with9
regard to the information that we have heard today10
and determine if further information is needed or11
if the Commission is ready to proceed with a12
decision.13
We will advise the parties14
accordingly. Thank you very much.15
With that, that ends this one-day16
hearing with regard to Triumf -- now you have me on17
Triumf -- with regard to the Canadian Light Source,18
excuse me.19
We will be making a decision20
later.21
I would like to call a 15-minute22
break, but I will call on the Secretary to roll23
this up first.24
--- Pause25
53
StenoTran
THE CHAIRPERSON: This will1
conclude the one-day hearing. We will have a2
15-minute break and come back at 10:45. Thank you.3
--- Upon recessing at 10:30 a.m.4
top related