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