DIS-11-01 - Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Transcription
DIS-11-01 - Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Implementation of Financial Guarantees for Licensees DIS-11-01 Comments received through the electronic comment form during from public consultation from March 3 to November 30, 2011. They are posted in the official language in which they were submitted. 1. Section Name/Nom 1.0 N. Cumming Organization/Affiliation Mise en œuvre de garanties financières pour les titulaires de permis Ces commentaires ont été reçus par le biais du formulaire de commentaires en ligne dans le cadre du processus de consultation du 3 mars au 30 novembre 2011. Ils sont publiés dans la langue officielle dans laquelle ils ont été soumis. Comment/Commentaire I have carefully reviewed the discussion paper and find that a number of questions need to be answered and clarifications provided before I can provide a proper comment. Accordingly, I have set out the questions below. Please provide your responses to the email address I have provided. • 2. 1.0 Rick Scanlan Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority 3. 1.0 Jack Ramsey Metso Automation Canada, Ltd. The context of the Discussion Paper implies that the decision to impose financial guarantees has already been made and is irreversible. If this is correct, please clarify the purpose of this public consultation process. • It appears that a financial guarantee in the form of cash, letter of credit or bond is contemplated. Please explain how "CNSC is not imposing a new financial burden on licensees. I believe that provincial health care institutions that are publicly funded should be exempt from the financial guarantees. In the case of a hospital/licensed dept. closure the transfer/disposal of sealed and stored radioisotopes would occur under the conditions of the licence and decommissioning regulations. This has already occured in our legacy organization with the closure of the Grace General Hospital in 2000 with out incidence or cost to the CNSC and in compliance with the decommissioning requirements. The financial burden for the guarantees is significant and these funds would be best used to help provide services to our patients. I think that requiring all licensees to provide a financial guarantee in the manner proposed is too excessive. I understand the logic behind this proposal, but I just don't think it applies to everyone the same. Our company handles sealed sources, receiving them new for distribution to clients, and receiving them for disposal at the end of their lives. We have been doing this for years and have never had a problem. If we did have a capsule to rupture, we would certainly be able to clean it up for far less than the required guarantee amount. Page 1/26 Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire In addition, the majority of our sources are Kr-85, which, if ruptured, will not result in a contaminated facility. Therefore, we would be forced to bond hundreds of thousands of dollars for an event that would never happen. 4. 1.0 Jean Bellefleur Les Services exp inc. Finally, if we were to terminate our license and walk away without disposing of our sources, they are low energy sealed sources with a very low probably of contaminating the facility. The majority of our solid sources are Fe-55, which is a very low energy source, in a very robust capsule, and a half-life of only 2.5 years. This would result in a much cheaper clean-up than many higher energy sources. If a financial guarantee is going to be required, it should be based on the risk that is posed by the source, both in terms of the probability that a souce captual will fail, and the potential dose levels that would result. Nous comprenons le rôle de la CCSN au niveau de la règlementation afin de protéger la santé et la sûreté des Canadiens et de l’environnement. En tant que titulaire de permis responsable, nous sommes également conscient de notre rôle afin de nous assurer que nos installations et activités nucléaires soient conçues, construites et exploitées d’une manière protégeant la santé, la sûreté, la sécurité et l’environnement tout en respectant les obligations internationales du Canada. Du même coup, nous sommes conscients que chaque firme doit disposer d’un plan et de fonds nécessaires pour mettre un terme à nos opérations de manière sûre et que les sites et les activités soient délaissés dans un état sécuritaire. 5. 1.0 Vincent Vincelli Nondestructive Testing Management Association Vous dites ne pas imposer un nouveau fardeau financier aux titulaires de permis. Nous ne sommes pas en accord avec cet énoncé. Une garantie financière quel que soit sa forme est un fardeau supplémentaire à prendre en compte. Negative Impact on Employment of Financial Guarantee Implementation by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I am writing on behalf of the Non-destructive Testing Management Association of Canada (NDTMA) to express our serious concerns regarding the impact on jobs and our industry that we predict would result should a proposed “Financial Guarantee” system be implemented on us by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The NDTMA represents over 30 companies with over 3000 employees in the non destructive testing (NDT) industry. Our organizations and their respective employees carry out examination and testing for detrimental defects in components that if left uncorrected could result in serious failures. We work across Canada in all areas of industry including oil and gas (onshore and offshore), manufacturing, power production, air transportation, energy transmission (pipelines) and infrastructure Page 2/26 Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire including bridges, buildings, rail etc. These examinations insure the required design and safety standards are met for new fabrication and construction and they are also used extensively to monitor for defects that may occur through operation and use. Our work is crucial to the overall long term integrity of many critical components that make up the infrastructure of these industries. The NDT industry is at present experiencing a significant shortage of personnel. We see only a strong and continued demand for our services over at least the next 5 years, fuelled primarily by the energy sector and are investing heavily to attract, train, educate and retain employees. Our industry leans to the younger demographic and we provide long term, permanent and stable careers with significant and proven opportunities for continued growth along with a solid income base. However, the implementation of the above mentioned Guarantee will seriously affect our ability to invest in and implement our employment strategies. One of the most common techniques we use is radiographic examination and this is primarily used to examine welding, castings, forgings and a multitude of components for internal defects. Industrial radiography is very similar in nature to medical x-rays except we use very small radioactive capsules as the source of radiation rather than an x-rays tube. Our devices allow safe transportation and contain small, self contained and double sealed capsules of radioactive material (approximately 3mm in size) that allow us to work easily in almost any location. We are currently already licensed and heavily regulated by the CNSC within the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and Regulations. The Commission is now proposing in addition to current license requirements, the mandatory imposition of a “Financial Guarantee” system for all Industrial Radiography licensees. The stated intent of the Guarantee is to have funds available on the termination of a licensee’s activities to facilitate “decommissioning” of a company’s operating location(s) when they cease activities. This would be a predetermined sum of money directly under the Commission’s control and inaccessible for any other use except for the Guarantee mandate. The amount would relate specifically to the number of devices owned by each company and each fund would be established in full on implementation. While we understand the Commission’s aim is to insure the integrity of the environment and the long term safety of the Canadian public the proposed system and method of implementation is we find unreasonable and will inflict a serious financial burden on our member companies and disrupt jobs and job creation. The Commission presents a number of misguided arguments in an attempt to justify their position: Page 3/26 Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire A. They state they are not imposing a “new financial burden” on licensees. Effectively removing large sums of operating capital cash in the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars from any organization most definitely imparts a serious financial burden and translates into multi-millions of dollars of earned income needed to replace the lost monies. B. The Commission comments on the use of a Financial Guarantee system in the Nuclear Power and Uranium Mining industries. There is no relation in any way between those industries, their activities and potential impact on the environment and our own and this is a non-relevant argument. This would be akin to arguing for a gas guzzler tax on both an electric vehicle and a Hummer because they are both cars. C. They argue the need for the fund to cover decommissioning and clean up costs. The devices we use leave no contamination as the radioactive material is contained in double sealed capsules additionally contained within another transportation container approved by the Commission. Our radioactive materials are regularly cycled back to the original supplier and replaced as they decay. Where a cessation of activities occurred those materials would simply be returned to the original supplier as normal. The transportation devices may be either transported to a facility such as Chalk River for permanent storage at a minimal cost or alternately sold to other licensees in Canada or other users internationally. D. They have based cost determination they claim on “consultations with contractors who provide remediation services”. However they do not provide any of the methodology those contractors were instructed to use or ultimately did use to determine this cost. This money would ultimately still belong to the originator and would only be held under the supervision of the Commission. The loose financial process used with the money of others leaves many unanswered questions. It is also extremely important to understand that there is no statistical or historical data or evidence to justify a need for this fund in the “Industrial Radiography” sector. Implementation of the guarantee in its proposed form would result in a significant increase in operating costs and we would have no choice but to pass this on to our end users which would also impact demand and negatively affect growth and employment opportunities. The Commission’s paper is peppered with bureaucratic self justification with little or no evidence of any useful need. They have as usual in no way considered the “Socioeconomic Factors” of their proposal on our industry or our employees and their families. The world economic climate is in significant disarray at this time yet we have seen and continue to see that Canada shows a fragile hope for a return of economic stability and Page 4/26 Section 6. 1.0 Name/Nom Andrée Anne Hinse Organization/Affiliation Inspec Sol inc. Comment/Commentaire growth to the battered Western financial system. Within that fragile hope the NDT industry provides the opportunity of a solid, growing and fruitful life for many Canadians. We openly and unashamedly ask for your help and support to ensure that we can reach the goals of all involved parties but not at the expense of the lives and hopes of the many hard working Canadians that are part of our NDT family and make significant contributions to Canada and its economy. Inspec-Sol est titulaire de permis de substances nucléaires et appareils à rayonnement depuis près de 35 ans, nous regroupons 23 places d’affaires réparties au Québec, en Ontario et dans les Maritimes. Nous œuvrons dans le domaine du génie civil (type d’utilisation 811) et sommes propriétaire de plus de 135 jauges portables servant à l’évaluation du degré de compacité des matériaux de fondations de route, d’infrastructures et de chaussées. Inspec-Sol est en affaires depuis 1972 et supervise depuis des travaux de génie civil. Notre rôle, dans l’industrie de la construction, est de s’assurer que les travaux sont réalisés selon les règles de l’art, que les plans, devis et normes de construction soient respectés et ce afin d’assurer des infrastructures durables et sécuritaire pour le public. Nous sommes donc en mesure de comprendre vos engagements face aux Canadiens. 7. 1.0 J Richard Robichaud TISI Canada Inc. En tant que titulaire de permis responsable ; chose que vous avez pu vérifier lors de vos inspections de routine et confirmer par votre «Inspection de sécurité physique» du 05 décembre 2007 ou même lors de votre «Inspection de type I» menée du 12 au 14 novembre 2008 ; nous sommes aussi conscient du fait que nous devons disposer d’un plan et de fonds nécessaires pour mener à termes nos activités et ce de façon sécuritaire. Paragraph 4 states that the CNSC is not imposing a new financial burden on the licensee. This is untrue. By removing cash from a company that would otherwise be used for day-to-day operations is a financial burden. Consideration for end-of-life activities, including the disposal of assets and termination of licensed activities does not require funds to be permanently cashed in the unlikely event of a future uncontrolled cease in business operations. Paragraph 5. I disagree with the planned implementation of an expanded financial guarantee program that includes Industrial Radiography. Page 5/26 Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 8. 1.0 Jason Gasmo Clifton Associates Ltd. 9. 1.0 Neal Hewitt Golder Associates Ltd. 10. 1.0 Anne Scott Canadian Federation of Independent Business 11. 1.0 Tom O'Dwyer C.T. Soil & amp; Materials Testing Inc. Background: I represent a 35 year old civil engineering company. We have approximately 30 gauges located across 4 sites. The use of our gauges employs about 50 people seasonally in quality control of pavement and earthwork construction across western Canada. Our gauges are used to service the earthwork construction industry and therefore are used only 5 months of the year, and during that time used maybe 60% of the time in a highly competitive market. Pushing Financial guarantees down into small to medium enterprises (SME) will have a significant impact on business by tying up working capital for a guarantee that we are professionally obligated to take care of ourselves. Golder has reviewed the proposed policy and has a number of concerns which are set out in our comments. This policy has the stated goal of protecting the public from costs associated with the disposal of nuclear devices where licensees fail to satisfy their obligations. However, to date we are unaware of the CNSC being faced with such liability. The introduction of financial guarantees imposes a significant burden on licensees. These financial guarantees substantially reduce the capital that licensees have at their disposal to fund future growth, growth which benefits the Canadian public through job creation. The CNSC states that it is not imposing a new financial burden on licensees. It is our view that they are. Clearly setting aside what was working capital in a segregated financial guarantee, where it is unavailable to continue to build an enterprise at the time of start up or for all currently operating businesses over the phase in period, rather than providing the capital required for proper and safe decommissioning at the time of that decommissioning is a new financial burden. To declare otherwise demonstrates a lack of understanding of the financial operation of an enterprise. It escapes me as to the driving mechanism to include all sectors of the industry. In my specific sector, using protable nuclear gauges for msoisture and density testing, these guages are generally considered an asset except for the very old gauges which are often traded in to the manufacturer for newer gauges. I would be very interested to know the CNSC experience in the last 10 years or 15 years for engineering companies defaulting on their moral or financial obligation to dispose of portable gauges in a proper manner. Has CNSC experienced a cost to assume the disposal of such gauges? Has the CNSC expended personnel time to crack down on errant licencees intending to abandon or otherwise improperly dispose of the portable units? Would it not be better to impose on, perhaps, an organization that represents licencees such as the Canadian Council of Independent Laboratories (CCIL) to carry insurance Page 6/26 Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation 12. 2.0 N. Cumming 13. 2.0 J Richard Robichaud TISI Canada Inc. 14. 2.0 Andrée Anne Hinse Inspec-Sol inc 15. 2.0 Jean Bellefleur Les Services exp inc. Comment/Commentaire on behalf of theit members or commit to direct the portable gauges to a licensed member. If you have licencees not a memebr of CCIL, then impose the assurance requirements on them. • Please advise whether a typical industry standard Comprehensive General Liability insurance policy will be acceptable as a financial guarantee. • Please explain the activities contemplated by "activities required to remediate the licensed location, including decommissioning costs and the costs associated with the disposal of any associated nuclear substances." • Please provide details of all instances over the past ten years in which CNSC has incurred unrecovered costs associated with such activities. In particular, please advise how many such instances have occurred and the range of costs incurred for each one. • Please clarify the costs of disposal contemplated by CNSC. Has the fact that there is a market for sale of many instruments been considered? Paragraph 4 states that there are unreasonable risks to the health and safety of persons and the environment associated with a licensee who is unable to complete termination of the licensed activity. This is untrue. In the event of a termination in an industrial radiography business operation, the regulated devices are assets with value, and would be disposed of accordingly. • The licensee would be motivated to dispose of the devices in the event of a business wrap-up. • With respect to safety; the devices would remain in their secured storage location. • There are other methods to dispose of the assets of a defunct business operation. The former directors of the company would have responsibility to dispose of the assets in a safe and legal manner. Les jauges portables telles que celles que nous avons en notre possession contiennent des sources scellées. Ces sources scellées sont conçues pour offrir une résistance suffisante afin d’éviter la dispersion des substances nucléaires en cas d’accident. La comparaison de ce type d’équipement à des installations nucléaires majeures nous apparaît difficile. Nous possédons un permis radio-isotope depuis plus de 24 ans et nous avons compris depuis longtemps que la CCSN a le pouvoir de nous exiger le respect de la règlementation et des lois incluant, dans un futur prochain, les garanties financières afin d’assurer la restauration sécuritaire et l’évacuation de toutes substances nucléaires. Pour les installations nucléaires majeures, mines d’uranium et usines de concentration d’uranium au Canada, la CCSN veille à ce que le niveau de risque pour la santé et la Page 7/26 Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire sécurité des personnes et de l’environnement demeure acceptable à l’égard du risque associé à l’incapacité d’un titulaire de permis de mener à terme l’activité autorisé. Vous voulez élargir ce système à l’ensemble des titulaires de permis, soit les 2500 titulaires de permis qui ne sont pas assujettis aux garanties financières. Nous ne comprenons pas le lien que vous établissez entre les risques associés à des usines d’uranium versus l’utilisation les jauges portatives. Ces jauges sont des sources scellées conçues pour les allées et venues journaliers sur les chantiers de construction. Elles existent depuis plusieurs dizaines d’années et l’historique et les statistiques confirment que ce sont des instruments robustes et sécuritaires. Nous voulons, par le présent commentaire, vous proposer des procédures fiables et raisonnables afin de répondre aux conditions de permis et aux exigences des lois et de la règlementation qui soient en proportion avec les risques réels reliés à ce genre d’appareil. Risque qui, nous croyons, est de loin inférieur à une usine d'uranium ou autres installations majeures. 16. 3.0 Fred Moroz 17. 3.0 N. Cumming BFL Canada Insurance Services Inc 18. 3.0 Tom O'Dwyer C.T. Soil & amp; Materials Testing Inc. 19. 3.0 Jean Bellefleur Les Services exp inc. 20. 3.0 Andrée Anne Hinse Inspec-Sol inc I am a surety bond broker and I would like to help companies provide these financial guarantees in the best way for these companies and the CNSC. Does the CNSC accept surety bonds as an acceptable form of financial guarantee? Please explain the rationale for not paying interest on the financial guarantee. Please explain how this is consistent with the earlier statement that "the CNSC is not imposing a new financial burden on licensees." The policy appears to be based on the assumption that eventually each and every licensee will default on its obligations with respect to termination costs. Please explain the rationale for this assumption Are the proposed disposal costs related to disposing of the source at the Chalk River Facility? Has there been any consideration in that disposal could mean selling the Portable Gauge unit (resulting in a recovered cost rather than a cost)? Nous croyons que l’évacuation sûre de toutes substances nucléaires en fin de vie de la firme peut être préparée et organisée avec des procédures efficaces en prévoyant des réserves financières réalistes à la hauteur du risque réel relié aux jauges portatives. En tant que titulaire de permis responsable, nous croyons pouvoir organiser l’évacuation sécuritaire des jauges portatives restantes lors de la fin de nos activités autorisées et ce sans pour autant être assujetti des garanties financières. De plus, nous pouvons vous assurer qu’il y a un important marché de revente pour le type de jauge portative que nous utilisons. Page 8/26 Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 21. 3.0 Jason Gasmo Clifton Associates Ltd. 22. 3.0 Neal Hewitt Golder Associates Ltd. 23. 3.0 Anne Scott Canadian Federation of Independent Business We have recently decommissioned one site in Edmonton and in our experience, it required 1 hour of an inspectors time, and 1 day of our management time. The cost to remove the gauge was negligible as vendors were very interested to buy back the equipment for use as rental equipment. This is the level of efficiency and economy needed to maintain the margins in our highly competitive market. How were the amounts of the financial guarantee determined? We feel the amount per gauge for our industry is extremely high, and would recommend a much lower amount such as $500 to $1000. Section 3(c) states: “The intention of implementing this policy is to ensure that the CNSC – and by extension the public – is protected from significant costs following the termination of a licensed activity by any licensee.” The implication from this statement is that the CNSC has previously been faced with such “significant costs”. However, we are unaware of such a situation. Can the CNSC provide details of such “significant costs” that have previously arisen? Providing the CNSC with financial guarantees imposes a serious financial burden on Licensees. Whether these guarantees are in the form of cash or letters of credit, they reduce the capital that Licensees have at their disposal, thereby reducing their ability to further invest in their businesses. In light of today’s difficult economic climate, such a financial burden is not in the best interest of the Canadian public. How does the CNSC reconcile this potential harm to the Canadian public with its stated intention to protect the public? The CNSC has not contemplated any opportunity for licensees including our members to establish a pooled fund similar to insurance by risk sector as in government run worker’s compensation plans or access private insurance options. In addition, the CNSC is recommending that it be the administrator of many business individual financial guarantees while accepting no financial management responsibilities for the monies. In fact the CNSC could hold the licensees monies for more than 50 years without even a requirement to pay simple interest if the monies are to be refunded to the former licensee. This has the appearance of an income generation vehicle for CNSC and a significant administrative requirement lying out of the key operating talents of the CNSC. The CNSC has made no attempt to determine how this guarantee would be administered through the sale of a business. While this would not be an issue for a large business or a publicly held organization, this issue may have significant impact on small and start up businesses. Page 9/26 Section Name/Nom 24. 4.0 N. Cumming 25. 4.0 Gary Eaton Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire • Golder Associates Ltd Please explain the basis for the conclusion that "private companies using sealed sources or radiation devices represent the highest overall risk." • Please explain the perceived risk associated with "private companies using sealed sources or radiation devices." • The formula-based approach to assessing financial guarantees appears to be based on the assumption that it would be too much work to for CNSC to review and assess each licensee. Please explain the level of effort anticipated by CNSC in relation to such individual assessments. • Please explain how the cost of remediation ($4000 per room or laboratory), disposal ($3000 per instrument) and the $10,000 administrative fee were calculated. • When a licensee is in possession of only sealed sources, please explain how CNSC could incur remediation costs for the room or laboratory in which they are stored. • Please explain the rationale for the $75,000 threshold below which a specific form of financial guarantee would not be required. • Please explain how a non-profit organization is different than a private organization with respect to their ability to pay costs Whilst we propose to challenge this financial guarantee can you please clarify the 'Item count' requirement. We have 111 portable gauges. Does this quantity of gauges attract twice the amount of cost because each gauge contains two sources or is the 'Item count' for a portable gauge classed as one? Page 10/26 26. Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 4.0 Dave Duncan Baker Hughes Canada Company I understand that the CNSC has done extensive research and consultation to come up with the suggested formula for determining the level of Financial Guarantee required for most licensees but I am having a very hard time rationalizing why my calculation of what our company’s Financial Guarantee requirement would be relative to what our parent company’s guarantee to the NRC in the US is currently at. Currently our parent company has about 5 times the number of sealed well logging sources at field operations locations that we have in Canada and yet my calculation indicates our commitment would be about twice that of our US operations commitment to NRC. At the information session in Calgary on October 6th, I submitted a question as to whether or not the rate should be somewhat dependent on the activity of each sealed source but was informed that the cleanup and disposal cost was relatively the same for a Category 2 source and a Category 5 source. 27. 4.0 Roger Press 28. 4.0 Brian Barter U. S. Steel Canada Would you have any suggestions as to what would be causing such a disparity in the level of the guarantee? We are in the steel industry. We own several nuclear gauges. These are large devices which contain a sealed source. Does this type of equipment get classified as a radiation device and a sealed source. Is the item count 2 per unit for this type of device? When these devices are not in use for extended periods of time only the sealed source is removed and placed in a storage room. Does the building where the gauge device resides count as a room? One suggestion which might facilitate orderly decommissioning is to require all licencees using rented or leased premises to always negotiate a 3 month period of termination notice from their landlord in their lease, so as to provide adequate timelines for termination of licenced activities. Upon the landlord or the licensee giving notice to terminate, the licensee should be required to notify the CNSC in writing. This would allow adequate time for the wind-down of licenced activities. Page 11/26 29. Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 4.0 Sandu Sonoc University of Toronto • Replace $3000 for sealed sources and devices with a formula based on activity: $100 for sealed sources under EQ $500 for sealed sources between 1EQ to 100 EQ $5000 for sealed sources between 100EQ to 10,000EQ $50,000 for sealed sources more than 10,000 EQ • 30. 4.0 Cory Mullen Tulloch Engineering To avoid the need to revisit the financial guarantee too often, flexibility should be given in the spirit of G 206 (Appendix I) allowing for different grades A, B or C depending on the level of accuracy As stated by the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies, Canada (ACEC); "The size of the proposed financial guarantees is completely out of proportion to the risk. CSNC has never had a single case of incurring costs associated with the disposal of a portable gauge, due to insolvency. In fact, there is rarely a need to dispose of a working gauge, as the market for the resale of these units make them assets. Further, the proposed financial guarantee presumes that all firms with such equipment would cease operations simultaneously." We fundamentally disagree with the principle of this proposal, due primarily to the reasons noted in the ACEC quote above. As a medium-sized Consulting Engineering firm, we would at least encourage the threshold value to remain at $75,000 or above, to avoid significant extra costs to taxpayers directly from the administration of the guarantees and indirectly from the financial burden on small and medium-sized companies, which will be reflected in higher bid prices for municipal, provincial and federal government work, ultimately adding an increased and unnecessary financial burden to taxpayers. Page 12/26 31. Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 4.0 Leona Page University of Manitoba Fiscal responsibility is important and estimating the cost to decommission provides insight regarding the accountability of public sector institutions. Although the discussion paper is a good start, I have some concerns related to interpretation. Comments for consideration: • Specify what kinds of 'sealed sources' should be included in the formula-is the intention to include only all licensable (i.e. above EQ or above 10 EQ inside a Radiation Device), or what about calibration sources or limit to trackable sources. $3000 per source seems high if the licensee has several similar sources that are small volume (size of a loonie). • Define 'laboratory' or rooms - would a suite of rooms at the same address or bays of an open area lab cost $4000 each to decom? We report each room number or bay number separately on our internal permits to clearly delineate where the radioactive materials may be used, however, they would not cost $4000 to decommission each room/bay at the same street address. • Consider reducing the $4000 per lab or room if the longest lived half life is less than a day (or a week). • What would be the process for changes (increases or decreases) in the financial guarantee? Currently we are estimated at $498 000, so one more sealed source or one more room and would require an actual financial guarantee instead of an acknowledgement. (If I am interpreting the document correctly.) • 5. During the information session, the presenters indicated a form could be used for the financial acknowledgment - consider attaching an example as an appendix Page 13/26 32. Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 4.0 Patrick Harder University of Calgary Costs associated with remediation The actual remediation cost for short-lived materials is definitely not on the order of $4000 per room. The option of securing the area to allow for decay has to be available as a method of remediation. Suggestion that those areas and sources that use radioactive materials with a half life of less than 15 or even 30 days be excluded from requiring a financial guarantee. e. Recognition of public sector institutions and agencies: ONE FORM does not fit ALL public sector institutions across Canada, just like on application form does not fit every Licencee. The actual form that is proposed MUST be sent out for comment to the potentially affected institutions. Most of the institutions that fall into this medium risk group have very complex reporting structures and to get the acknowledgement of the applicant authority is not the only individual or group (budget committee) that needs to acknowledge that financial liability. Most if not all Universities and hospital applicant authority personnel report indirectly to a Board that directs the mandate for the institution. f. Flexibility: There are known costs for disposal of specific items (small sealed check sources - do not cost $3000 per unit to dispose some institutions have hundreds of this type of source [the radiological risk is extremely low, the financial is low], the disposal cost for a typical density gauges are known). Adjustments to the formula for the financial guarantee must be able to be made or considered when the actual disposal costs are known. Adjustments also need to be made (longer term) for changes in disposal costs in the future. This section on the estimated disposal costs needs to be reviewed at least every ten years. Page 14/26 33. Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 4.0 Mark Sevcik Healthcare/Medical Diagnostic Imaging Facility Please see below in bullet point form my rationale for a significant reduction or eradication of the fee of $4000/laboratory in a healthcare medical diagnostic imaging facility. I have also included the clean-up/decontamination protocol that we follow in the event of an incident so that you may see what a simple, inexpensive process it is when dealing with the isotopes that we use in routine medical diagnostic imaging examinations. For my purposes I am defining laboratory as any area where open sources are handled which does include the exam rooms themselves and dose preparation areas, but does NOT include the hot lab. The $4000 fee for a hot lab decommissioning is not being challenged, but $4000 for a $20 clean-up is extreme. I present the following facts for consideration during your Financial Guarantee deliberations. Private Clinic Medical Diagnostic Imaging Isotope Facts: • Technetium 99m: main isotope used in all 4 clinics; 100% of the tests o Half Life: 6 hours o Maximum activity in a syringe: 800 MBq • Thallium 201: rarely ordered isotope. Used when Moly generator supply is compromised o Half Life: 73 hours o Maximum activity in a syringe: 111 MBq • Bag all hot garbage and any contaminated clothing and store in a lead lined container for minimum of 72 hours. Material Cost for exam room decontamination: • Supplies used for decontamination would include absorbent blue pads, gloves, garbage bags and Radcon decontamination spray. Cost for all these items would be inconsequential (less than $20) • Bag all hot garbage and any contaminated clothing and store in a lead lined container for minimum of 72 hours. Material Cost for exam room decontamination: • Supplies used for decontamination would include absorbent blue pads, gloves, garbage bags and Radcon decontamination spray. Cost for all these items would be inconsequential (less than $20) Page 15/26 34. Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 4.0 Trevor Beniston Stuart Hunt & Associates Ltd. Re: Risk-Informed Principle Can more detail be provided regarding the parameters used to establish the risk levels used to establish the need for guarantees? How was the risk assessment matrix actually derived? Was there a level of risk (ie: probability of occurrence) that was used to determine if a guarantee As it is presented in the discussion paper, the ranking of high -medium-low risk seems very arbitrary. Re: Costs How was the $3000/device calculated? As a company that provides remediation and disposal services, the value seems high. It is understood that the value includes the labour, expenses, final disposal costs and interim storage. With respect to NSCA 34, what was the typical time frame used to estimate the interim storage? It is assumed that the value per device will increase over the years to account for inflation. How will this be addressed and what sort of time frame will licensees have to adjust to the new pricing? It is understood that if the guarantee is a licence condition then meeting the requirements of the guarantee is mandatory, but practically speaking there must be some time period to allow for change. Re: Flexibility Who will be assessing a decommissioning plan submitted by a licencee? 35. 4.0 Jack Ramsey Metso Automation Canada, Ltd Re: Monitoring Will monitoring and assessment of the guarantee be considered a recoverable activity with respect to the Cost Recovery Regulations? Will there be an impact on a new licence application fee and the annual fee? I agree that industrial users pose the highest threat of going bankrupt and not cleaning up their facilities, however I disagree that they necessarily pose the highest risk of leaving an expensive cleanup behind. Industrial sources are robust by design, and do not fail very often, and the fact that a company walks away leaving a number of sources behind does not translate into an expensive cleanup. If I calculate the cost of a financial guarantee for my operation right now, based on the formula provided by the CNSC, I would have enough money to dispose of almost 5,000 sources. Accumulating 50 sources per year, this would represent 100 years of operations. I believe that for the sources we use in our business, $3,000 per source is extravagant, especially when we might have 50 to 60 sources in inventory staging for a disposal. Page 16/26 Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 36. 4.0 R. Chris Williams Trent University 37. 4.0 Neal Hewitt Golder Associates Ltd. The question of the definition of sealed sources for determining the cost of the financial guarantees needs to be defined better. What size and type of sealed sources are to be included. Electron capture detectors (with Ni 63), small sealed check sources, This needs to be defined as universities may have large numbers of small sealed sources and certainly $ 3000 disposal / source is vastly overpriced. In addition with reference to permitted labs, I sincerely doubt that a basic lab using short lived open sources would require clean up to the extent discussed in the document. Perhaps the labs should be classified based on the isotopes in use in that space as well. The CNSC proposes that the unit disposal costs for radiation devices is $3,000 per device. However, in our experience the price is much lower. Has the CNSC conducted a thorough investigation into these costs and will evidence substantiating these costs be provided to licensees? And does this price take into account the value of such radiation devices as these devices are considered a tangible asset? The CNSC has proposed a fixed administrative fee of $10,000. This is in addition to the current administration fee that licensees pay and raises the question as to what additional administration activities are required in order to justify such a large fee. The threshold value is set at $75,000, below which licensees only have to acknowledge their obligations and assure the CNSC that they have sufficient financial resources available. This appears to be contrary to the CNSC’s risk approach as it is these smaller organizations that would appear to have the greatest risk of not being in a position to provide for such remediation costs. In addition, the $75,000 threshold does not differentiate between high risk and low risk nuclear materials and devices. It also raises the question as to whether these licensees that fall below the threshold will be required to provide evidence of such financial resources. Section 4(e) provides that “the CNSC recognizes that the financial risk is different with government-based, non-profit or other public institutions, because they are likely to be able to pay a significant portion, if not all, of the costs.” Would this same reasoning not apply to large, financially strong private companies? And further, aren’t these “government-based, non-profit or other public institutions” using public money to pay for these costs, thereby NOT protecting the Canadian public from incurring these costs? Page 17/26 38. 39. Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 4.0 Jason Gasmo Clifton Associates Ltd. The civil engineering industry is a non commodity, low margin, highly competitive market and requiring SME to permanently withdraw more than one hundred thousand dollars of working capital is a business killer and an employment killer, and those people being affected are recent young graduates of engineering colleges and technology programs. Existing inspection fees are more than adequate to ensure public safety. The extraction of additional fees is unwarranted. What costs have been assumed by the public to date, specifically from failed engineering companies? We have no knowledge of any orphaned or abandoned gauges resulting from failed businesses. 4.0 Chris Workman Thurber Engineering Ltd. Your report classifies our use of portable gauges as the High-risk group, and it unfairly lumps Civil Engineering companies together with industrial radiography uses, that continue year round in a high margin industry. There is a severe lack of transparency in the in developing the risk profiles. More information is required to explain how the risk matrix was developed. We request that you publish the risk assessment studies including the peer reviews of these studies. You are taking millions of dollars in public registry and these results just do not ring true in the civil engineering industry. What are the details of the risk assessment studies? What analyses were behind the risk profiles? Our company, Thurber Engineering Ltd., is a private consulting company specializing in geotechnical engineering. As part of our practice we have over 60 portable nuclear density gauges, in 5 main offices, used for field soil density testing. Our volume of equipment will clearly put us over the proposed threshold value, and hence a financial guarantee would be required. While we would clearly prefer not to have to provide the financial guarantee, as this will be an additional hard cost on our business, our primary objection is the provision of the threshold value, where smaller companies will not be subject to the same costs. As we compete against these companies, this cost difference will create an uneven playing field. Further we would also suggest that the smaller companies present a large risk of default than the larger, more established companies. Essentially we believe that the threshold value should not exist and the same provisions should apply to all licenses. Requiring smaller companies to have no additional costs is not equitable and is inconsistent with the stated "risk based approach" of the proposed policy. Page 18/26 40. Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 4.0 Anne Scott Canadian Federation of Independent Business To the best of our understanding, the CNSC has made no data available on the risk or the history of bankruptcies for different use-types It appears that the CNSC has not established a prima facie case for establishing financial guarantees as a solution to a problem it has not demonstrated exists. The CNSC has established three risk groups, but has chosen to treat all of these groups with the same high administration cost financial guarantee citing administrative difficulties in assessment. Then how were these three risk groups identified and why would the same costs be assigned to each? While we appreciate that the threshold value was set so that small operations would be exempted from this onerous financial requirement, it will establish an artificial business growth inhibitor where once the business grows past this limit there is a new immediate financial burden of $75,000 which will likely stifle growth at that level. The CNSC is holding to its own jurisdiction the power to increase the amount of the guarantee at any time, with no accountability to the license holders that it is managing in a way to reduce or make more effective its administrative costs and/or processes, merely the ability to download any choice in increasing those costs to the licensees. We recommend that these costs be reviewed and approved by a joint CNSC and business member advisory group with the ability to report to the licensees on a regular basis and be audited by an outside and independent audit body so that license holders are assured that they are receiving value for dollars. Page 19/26 41. Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 4.0 Andrée Anne Hinse Inspec Sol inc. Principe de connaissance du risque Les jauges portables telles que celles que nous possédons offrent des risques opérationnels presque nuls (sources scellées), des risques commerciaux plutôt faibles considérant que la plupart des jauges pourront être transférées à d’autres titulaires de permis œuvrant en génie civil et des risques financiers plutôt faibles car il n’y aura pas de frais associés au nettoyage du site et la disposition des jauges non transférées coûte entre $500 et $700. Il est certain que l’activité des sources scellées contenues dans nos jauges portables peut différer de celles contenues dans d’autres types de jauges portables et que les coûts de disposition associés peuvent variés. Il serait donc envisageable que vous soyez plus spécifiques dans l’évaluation des coûts reliés à la disposition des jauges et ce afin de refléter la réalité. Méthode fondée sur une formule Des frais administratifs fixes de 10,000$ qui visent à couvrir les coûts qu’engage la CCSN pour déclasser le site et clore le dossier nous semblent exagérés. Nous défrayons annuellement un important montant pour obtenir un permis de substances nucléaires et appareils à rayonnement, qui selon nous devrait être suffisant pour couvrir les frais administratifs encourus en fin d’activité. Page 20/26 42. Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 4.0 J Richard Robichaud TISI Canada Inc. b. The risk informed principal Operational risk has no correlation to the risk of a business ceasing operations in an unplanned manner. Stating operational issues, mobility of device, etc. as a reason to apply financial guarantees is flawed. Commercial risk is used out of context in this discussion paper. The history of bankruptcy among industrial radiography companies leaving orphaned nuclear substances for the CNSC to dispose of is zero. Financial risk is also a flawed argument. As stated above, there are no instances of industrial radiography licensees abandoning nuclear substances. Based on this industry performance, there is little to no financial risk to the CNSC. I submit that the risk-informed principal is incorrectly applied in this context and should be dismissed from the rational in establishing financial guarantees for industrial radiography licensees. c. Formula-based system The formula system assumes that every licensee in Canada will cease operation at the same time and that external disposal of the nuclear substances will be required. This is an unreasonable hypothesis and the result for this discussion paper is that industry is required to guarantee with financial instruments far more money than should be considered reasonable. The costs associated with remediation are grossly overstated in this discussion paper. A sealed source and device that is used in industrial radiography activities can be disposed of for $1000 or less. I submit that the requirement to guarantee $3000 per device is inflated and unfair, and should be removed from this discussion. Similarly, the fixed administrative fee for industrial radiography licensees is grossly inflated and unfair. If the devices have been disposed of, the CNSC can quickly verify this by review of the documentation similar to that used in the current sealed source tracking system. The effort required to conduct a paper audit verification of a device disposal would cost a fraction of the $10,000 stated in the discussion paper. Page 21/26 Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire I further submit that this verification would fall under the normal day-to-day regulatory activities of the CNSC, and would cost $0 additional regulatory effort for compliance verification. This fixed administration fee should be removed from this discussion. d. Threshold value Potential risk of an unplanned cease in licensed activities is greater in small companies than in larger companies. In addition to having greater financial resources, large companies are more diversified in location, services offered, etc., and are less affected by regional economic volatility than smaller single service industrial radiography companies. Applying the threshold to smaller companies is counter intuitive when risk is stated as the reason for implementing financial guarantees in the first place. By having a two tiered system where smaller companies need only acknowledge their financial obligations (as stated in paragraph 3), and larger companies must have in place a financial instrument, the CNSC is unfairly giving cost advantage to a group of licensees over another. I submit that by applying thresholds in this manner, the CNSC is unfairly penalizing large companies and are in fact applying a competitive cost advantage to smaller companies. This is unfair practice and should not be applied. Suggestions for the Implementation of Financial Guarantees for Licensees: 1. Apply the threshold rational to all licensees. All licensees would only have to acknowledge their financial obligations and assure the CNSC by letter that sufficient funds would be available, if needed, to fund site remediation activities. 2. Gave the Officers and Directors of each company acknowledge personal responsibility for the disposal of nuclear substances in the event of a termination in business and licensee activities. This would be similar to the Officers and Directors personal obligation to the Canada Revenue Agency in the event of a cease in business activities. Page 22/26 43. 44. Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 4.0 Carolin CattoiDemkiw University of Lethbridge The University of Lethbridge acknowledges the proposed Financial Guarantees for Licensees by the CNSC and has reviewed the material that has been submitted for the licensee’s review and commentary. It is understood that the licensee is financially responsible for any costs in respect of obtaining, handling and disposal of radioactive materials. It is further confirmed that the CNSC “recognizes that the financial risk for Universities as a public institution is different because they are likely to be able to pay a significant portion if not all, of the costs. “ The CNSC in their document states that Universities are in the medium risk category and represent a lower financial risk given their government backing and the nature of the use of radioactive materials within their institutions. 4.0 Ron Andreychuk Nanaimo Forest Products Ltd. Clarification is required in two areas: 1. The calculation formula as it relates to the size of the sealed sources. 2. The requirement for Universities to provide a “formal guarantee”. The CNSC responded during the webinar of November 24th, 2011 that it does not require Universities to provide a “formal guarantee” by way of a trust fund, bond, letter of credit or any combination thereof. Does the 10K admin fee calculate as part of the threshold value? We are part of the Pulp and Paper Industry in BC, I can appreciate there may be users that don't have retained value ( Assets ) to support proper disposal. However industry such as ours do have those assets. I believe the acknowledge of financial obligations is a better approach. In all cases with our industry receivers are appointed by the courts, these types of issues are on the top of the list to be dealt with. Page 23/26 45. Section Name/Nom 4.0 Bruce Walgren Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire I am a sole proprietor with a portable nuclear gauge. Would I be considered High risk or low risk? Your formula does not take into account how much an instrument is used. Asking for a $17,000 dollar guarantee is a lot of money for a Sole proprietor to put out. Does this have to be paid up front? I would bet that most sole proprietors do not even come close to making that in a year from the use of the instrument. Is the Cost a one time fee? 46. 5.0 N. Cumming 47. 5.0 Greg Goth EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd The sealed sources, would I have to pay $3,000 for the Cs-137 and the Am/Be 241 separately or would they be counted as one source? This would pretty much wipe out small business use of the instruments. • Given that the decision to implement a financial guarantee policy appears to have already been made, please explain the purpose of "a communication and consultation program with licensees and other stakeholders to identify concerns related to the implementation of the financial guarantees policy". • Given that the decision to implement a financial guarantee policy appears to have already been made, please explain what CNSC has in mind "to ensure that the implementation of the policy and framework is fair, open and transparent and meets the needs of all stakeholders". • Please explain how a policy decision such as this can be made if "additional documentation to support the implementation of financial guarantees for all licensees" is not yet available. Please provide this documentation or advise when it will be available. • Please advise the minimum sealed source size currently contemplated by CNSC for inclusion in the financial guarantees formula. As a Portable gauge user, I would suggest the following as a reasonable alternative. As a member of ACEC, like many of the portable gauge users, ACEC could administer a "group insurance fund" supplied by its members, to handle the disposal of any company that goes bankrupt. Page 24/26 Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 48. 5.0 Jean Bellefleur Les Services exp inc. 49. 5.0 Andrée Anne Hinse Inspec-Sol inc Nous croyons que des dispositions de fin de vie sont nécessaires et nous sommes d'accord avec le principe de s'assurer que les éléments radioactifs, entre autre les jauges portatives, soient disposées de façon adéquate advenant le cas d'un arrêt des activités de la firme détenteur du permis, toutefois, nous croyons qu'il est important de revoir le niveau de risque s'applicant aux activités reliés aux jauges portatives. Il doit y avoir des critères plus spécifiques afin de distinguer les différents titulaires de permis. La taille des sources (ou leur activité) et leur nature pourraient être des facteurs déterminant l’obligation ou l’exemption aux garanties financières sans compter les besoins du marché pour des jauges portatives scellées. En conclusion Nous sommes d’avis que les activités d’Inspec-Sol ne peuvent être comparées à celle d’une installation nucléaire majeure. Avant de mettre en œuvre des garanties financières, certains critères d’évaluation autres que le principe de connaissance du risque devront être étudiés (par exemple : type de source, activité de la source, coût réel relié à la disposition etc.). Selon nous, le principe de connaissance du risque n’est pas réaliste compte tenu de la nature de nos activités. 1. Aucun frais pour la restauration des sites d’entreposage 2. Frais d’au maximum $700 par appareil restant 3. Aucun frais administratifs fixes Nous croyons qu’il serait raisonnable de demander aux titulaires de permis un plan détaillé d’actions de fin de ses activités autorisées, sans pour autant avoir l’obligation de mettre des fonds en garantie. Nous vous demandons donc de revoir le risque et de faire de nos activités de titulaire de permis à risque faible et de nous soustraire à l’obligation des garanties financières. Page 25/26 50. Section Name/Nom Organization/Affiliation Comment/Commentaire 5.0 Anne Scott Canadian Federation of Independent Business In summary we do not believe that the CNSC has demonstrated a need to establish financial guarantees for individual licensees as identified in this document. Our members are small business owners who live in the communities in which they operate. Their customers, employees and neighbours are people they work with and who live next door. They care deeply about a safe, secure and environmentally sound community and take their responsibility to that community very seriously. We believe that other financial means of a licensee funded insurance program or private insurance program or other lower cost methods with lower administrative costs have not been explored and may meet the objectives in a far better manner than the one outlined here. In the absence of any alternate solution, we feel that with the recommended solution there is little or no financial oversight of a significant amount of money over an unspecified timeframe with no assessment of value for money provided by the CNSC. We recommend that this program be thought through more carefully prior to any implementation. We do not believe that this policy recommendation is required. Page 26/26