To whom it may concern;

This submission is being made as a response to the publication of DIS 1101, Implementation of

Financial Guarantees for Licensees.

In general, I agree with the concept of a need to plan and pay for end of life activities for CNSC

licensees. The currently proposed model is, however, excessive with regard to the amount of

monies to be amassed by licensees given the infrequency with which events happen compared

the size of the industries represented.

As you know, the concept of risk can be defined as the product of the probability of a hazard

resulting in an adverse event, times the severity of the event. In the past 65 years that the

AECB/CNSC has regulated the use of nuclear substances in Canada, the number of times that such

a business collapse and loss of control over licensed activities with Nuclear Substance and

Radiation Devices licensees has happened has been rare and the number of times that the public

health and safety, the environment and security has been impacted negatively has also been rare.

Given these facts, risk of a NSRD licensees business collapsing and that businesss licensable

activities causing a risk to public health and safety, the environment and security can be said to be

negligible.

The CNSC regulates firmly and its regulatory activities can be shown to have had a net positive

effect on the affected industries with regard to preventing such collapse/abandonment as would

need to be remediated using the Financial Guarantee model as currently proposed. If the CNSC

continues its work as it has done in the past, it is HIGHLY unlikely that most licensees will need to

be subject to the Financial Guarantee proposal as presented in DIS 1101. The good

#14 900 VILLAGE LANE, SUITE 217 OKOTOKS, ALBERTA T1S 1Z6

PH 403.464.6378

CORIE.DOYLE@RADIOGRAPHY.CA

mailto:CORIE.DOYLE@RADIOGRAPHY.CA

2/5

communication lines that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has been building with its

licensees have worked to ensure that, in most cases, devices and sources that will no longer be

needed at the end of the licensees life will be disposed of before the licensees operations and

sources end up the subject of a court order. This positive action has not been mentioned in the

Discussion Paper, which is unfortunate, but not the point of the paper. A licensee`s end of

licensed life actions are not, however, independent of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

regulation and regulatory history with that licensee and so the CNSCs current regulatory strategy

bears mentioning in any discussion on Financial Guarantees.

In descending order of preference, the following are plans which I feel would be more practical

and effective in protecting the public health and safety, the environment and security as a result

of the need to remediate the licensed location, including decommissioning costs and the costs

associated with the disposal of any associated nuclear substances.

1. Maintain the status quo Action requested: Allow for the continuation of the exemption provided to NSRD licensees that has existed for the past 11 years under section 7 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

The risk to the public, the environment and security has not historically been proven to be worth the estimated $44 million that the proposed Financial Guarantee proposal would cost, nor should it if CNSC continues to do its job. The few instances where the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has had to become involved in wrapping up a licensees operations were few and the circumstances were unusual. Subjecting all other industries to preventive measures as a result of the missteps of a few is excessive.

Absolute Radiation Consulting Ltd | Okotoks, Alberta

3/5

2. Require that usetype groups contribute to a pool of funds specific to that usetype Action requested: consider the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission administering a fund that would be paid into by all licensees on a risk basis based on historical performance and not theoretical probability.

This solution would have all licensees pay into a fund that would be administered and held in trust by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in order to remediate any end of licence issues that would arise. It would be administered by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and not by individual licensees. Overall, the total sum of monies that would be required to be held would be small, due to the overall stability of the industries regulated.

The actual amount of money to be set aside would be calculated based on historical data that takes into account the past number of remediations required, their costs and the current size of the industry. According to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission staff, there have been few such incidents historically. The total sum of money would be substantially less than the $44 million currently proposed. Also, given that only a very few licensees will not be able to correctly manage radiation source disposal, the fund should not have to cover disposal and remediation costs for EVERY licensee. The actual fee to be paid by individual licensees should be calculated based on more public consultation and not published as part of a Discussion Paper with no detailed supporting documentation.

Since the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is willing to bear the responsibility of putting out for tender and managing the proper disposal process as indicated by the currently proposed plan, this is effectively the same plan, but centralized and proportioned for probability and usetype. The currently proposed plan, as described in DIS 1101, is overly simplistic. It does not allow for the differences between industries, which this proposal does. This plan also takes into account the probability of actual licensee failures that would necessitate the use of Financial Guarantees.

Absolute Radiation Consulting Ltd | Okotoks, Alberta

4/5

3. Use the proposed DIS 1101 proposal, but with the required funding amount a fraction of the cost, as the currently proposed amounts have not been justified.

Action requested: provide justification for the currently proposed amounts and rereview their accuracy after publication.

The justification for the currently proposed amounts should be made public, including the sources used for the estimates. The current proposal seems to hide the estimated costs, which is in stark contrast to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commissions stated goal to have transparent motives that can withstand public scrutiny (CNSC website; Values and Ethics). The justification of the $10,000 administrative fee should also be more detailed and the basis for it should be provided, as well as why the proposed administrative fee is the same for ALL Nuclear Substances and Radiation Devices licensees.

It is furthermore highly unlikely that every licensees operations will fall into a state where the CNSC will need to step in, including the bid process and management of contractors to store and dispose of nuclear substances, which is the assumption that underpins the current proposal.

4. Use the proposed DIS 1101, as is, even though it is unclear and needs more detail. Action requested: provide more detail prior to adopting the current plan and resubmit the plan for public review and comment again

As one example, in my consultation with industry experts in the field of bonds and insurance policies, these are not viable options for the types of financial guarantees being discussed. The only financial guarantee that will be realistically implementable appears to be cash. Many of the companies involved in these industries are not bondable or insurable for these types of businesses, nor would they normally be expected to be. Further, should their businesses deteriorate to the point where they would need to avail themselves of the bond or insurance policy, they would not be eligible for a bond which therefore renders any financial guarantee based on such a model moot.

Absolute Radiation Consulting Ltd | Okotoks, Alberta

5/5

Conclusion:

At best, the current proposal is noble in its goal to meet the CNSCs mandate to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians and the environment; and to implement Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

At worst, the current DIS 1101 is overly simplistic, lacks transparency and is not based on a realistic assessment of risk of the types of licences that it proposes to impact.

My request is to rewrite the Discussion Paper using a revised model, possibly as discussed in this response, and with more public consultation.

A costed remediation plan for those licensees who would prefer to propose an alternative due to a unique business situation should remain in any Financial Guarantee plan. The ability of individual licensees to propose alternatives to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is a hallmark of the regulatory process that is in place in Canada and should continue.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Corie Doyle Radiation Safety Consultant

Absolute Radiation Consulting Ltd | Okotoks, Alberta

Acuren Group Inc. 7450 18 Street Edmonton, AB, Canada T6P 1N8

Phone: (780) 440-2131 Fax: (780) 440-1167

Materials Engineering and Testing A Rockwood Company

November 24, 2011 Page 1 of 3

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Fax: 1-613-995-5086 280 Slater Street, P.O. Box 1046 Station B Ottawa, Ontario. K1P 5S9

Attention: Peter Fundarek

Re: Proposed Implementation of Financial Guarantees for Licensees

Acuren Group Inc., disagrees that proposed financial guarantees should be expanded to all licensees. The industrial radiography industry should be an exception. The following are reasons that we disagree with the proposal:

1. There are no prior incidents within the Industrial Radiography industry that support the need for disposal of radioactive materials.

2. CNSC states in the discussion paper DIS-11-01 that the implementation of financial guarantees will not impose a new financial burden on licensees. We cant understand the basis for such a comment as the costs are extremely high. Financial guarantees are real money which can no longer be invested in capital and other revenue generating and job creating activities. Any bank covenant for loan levels would include letters of credit or other forms of commitment that would come ahead of the bank if a company were insolvent. The 1999 Government of Canada regulatory policy states that federal authorities must ensure economic and social well being are considered. Federal authorities must ensure that adverse impacts on the capacity of the economy to generate wealth and employment are minimized and no unnecessary regulatory burden is imposed.

See attached excerpts from policy in Appendix A and a link to policy http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/att_0024aa_e_10971.html

3. The CNSC has not thoroughly considered the economies of scale for the end-of-life costs for the safe remediation of licensed locations or the safe disposal of any remaining nuclear substances. The threshold values are not accurately represented for either a small or large companies. In addition, we are of the opinion that the threshold value is counter to any risk based concept. It is far more likely that small companies will go bankrupt compared to larger companies yet small companies have no requirement for a financial guarantee. The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada 2010 report indicates the assets employed at the time of bankruptcy was less than $500k.

See - http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/bsf-osb.nsf/eng/br02539.html. Given the higher risk profile there is absolutely no rationale for small companies to be except this is simply a tax against larger companies.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/bsf-osb.nsf/eng/br02539.htmlhttp://www.oag

4. The formula based system shows calculations of fees demonstrated based on the $4000 per

location, $3000 per device and a $10,000 fixed administrative fee. These calculations are exorbitant and the costs have not been substantiated nor have they considered cost recovery. In reality the devices and nuclear substances have a positive value that has not been considered. For example each combination of device and a safely stored nuclear substance is valued at approximately $10,000. A large company with 100 devices would have an asset value of one million dollars which would certainly no go unnoticed in the event of bankruptcy. If a company had to dispose of these devices at termination of the company, it would simply sell the devices with the nuclear substance to another licensee or a manufacturer and there would be no clean up or disposal required by CNSC. The full financial guarantee value of all 2500 affected licensees has also not been calculated or considered. If the average guarantee were $100,000 then the total value of the fund held by CNSC would be $250 million dollars. This is totally unreasonable based on past costs for clean up and disposal for all licensees a pooled approach is far more palatable to industry. The CNSC proposal is similar to selling fire insurance for the full cost of a fire.

5. The CNSC implies that the nature of the end-of-life activities and the degree of planning for those activities would be risk-informed that is commensurate with the potential risk to the environment and to the health and safety of persons. However the Risk based Principle does not account for the low risk associated with the disposal of the nuclear substances and devices associated with our industry. The devices and radioactive materials are safely stored and maintained in compliance with the CNSC Act and its regulations. These are sealed sources that are housed within a safe exposure device and stored in a locked and secure facility. At the end of life cycle the devices and sources can be very safely disposed of through a sale for profit. Risk is defined as the chance of loss (abandonment) times the consequence of loss. In this case the probability of risk during disposal is highly unlikely in our industry for two reasons: 1) The devises have value so they would be sold prior and 2) In the history of industrial radiography in Canada this has never happened. The severity of loss is very low since the device is properly stored and is not being operated during disposal.

6. DIS-11-01 does not provide enough details within the policy framework regarding flexibility to propose an alternative amount where warranted by the specifics of the application. This would not be fair or consistent with all licensees. It is also very unclear on whether there is an expectation that actual money or a payment is required from the licensee to the CNSC after the implementation of a financial guarantee.

Proposed Solutions:

1. Charge a simple one time additional fee (Insurance fund) for all licensees of $100.00 per year. This equates to 2500 x $100 to equal $250,000 which is a sufficient pool to allow for disposal in the event a company becomes insolvent and does not properly deal with its isotopes in advance.

2. Only apply the financial guarantees to those industry licensees that have demonstrated a past direct need for disposal and clean up of Nuclear Substances and Radiation Devices. This would apply to those licensees who have abandoned or have not applied responsibility to properly maintain regulatory compliance.

3. Allow the Industrial Radiography industry to create their own joint fund to accommodate for a financial guarantee. This fund would be used in the event of any contributing licensee member was unable to implement the end of life cycle for the Nuclear Substances and Devices owned by them. Specifically, the NDTMA (Nondestructive Testing Management Association) is prepared to self insure to provide clean-up of a member company. In reality, the surviving companies

Page 2 of 3

_________________________

will benefit from the sale of assets as all member companies that fail to properly dispose of isotopes will assign them to the NDTMA.

If you have any questions or concerns you can contact us at 780-440-2131. Thank-you

Sincerely,

Talman Pizzey Thomas A. Levey General Manager, Canada Corporate Radiation Safety Director Acuren Group Inc. Acuren Group Inc.

Page 3 of 3

OAG Appendix A-Government of Canada Regulatory Policy, November 1999 Page 1 of2

2000 December Report of the Auditor General of Canada

December 2000 RepOli-Chapter 24

Appendix A- Government of Canada Regulatory Policy, Noventber 1999

Policy objective

To ensure that use of the government's regulatory powers results in the greatest net benefit to Canadian society.

Policy statement

Canadians view health, safety, the quality of the environment, and economic and social well-being as important concerns. The government's regulatory activity in these areas is part of its responsibility to serve the public interest.

Ensuring that the public's money is spent wisely is also in the public interest. The government will weigh the benefits of alternatives to regulation, and of alternative regulations, against their cost, and focus resources where they can do the most good.

To these ends, the federal government is committed to working in patinership with industry, labour, interest groups, professional organizations, other governments and interested individuals.

Application

This policy applies to federal regulatory authorities.

Policy requirements

When regulating, regulatory authorities must ensure the following:

Canadians are consulted and have an opportunity to participate in developing or modifying regulations and regulatory programs.

Authorities can demonstrate that a problem or risk exists, federal government intervention is justified and regulation is the best alternative.

.. The benefits outweigh the costs to Canadians, their governments and businesses. In particular, when managing risks on behalf of Canadians, regulatory authorities must ensure that the limited resources available to government are used where they do the most good.

* Adverse im acts on the ca acity of the economy to generate wealth and employment are minimized and no unnecessary regulatory burden is Imposed. In particular, regu atory aut onties must ensure t at infonnation and administrative requirements are limited to what is absolutely necessary and that they impose the least possible cost; the special circumstances of small businesses are addressed; and patiies proposing equivalent means to conform to regulatory requirements are given positive consideration.

11/2812011

OAG Appendix A-Government of Canada Regulatory Policy, November 1999

International and intergovernmental agreements are respected, and full advantage is taken of opportunities for co-ordination with other governments and agencies.

Systems are in place to manage regulatory resources effectively. In particular, regulatory authorities must ensure the following:

o the regulatory process management standards are followed; o compliance and enforcement policies are articulated, as appropriate; and o resources have been approved and are adequate to discharge enforcement responsibilities

effectively and to ensure compliance where the regulation binds the government. Other directives from Cabinet concerning policy and law making are followed such as the Cabinet

Directive on Law-Making and the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals and the Cost Recovery and Charging Policy.

Page 2 of 2

Date Issued: 2007-11-15

1112812011

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Regulatory Framework Division

RE Financial Guarantees November 14, 2011

Comments

I have the following comments concerning financial guarantees.

Banks or other lending institutions will have registered leans against property of licensees including RAM devices. They are considered assets of the entity that holds the license. This could affect the CNSCs ability to dispose of RAM and the ability of the Licensee to raise operating capital. Lending institutions may not be willing to differentiate between assets that are liquid and those that are not. They may also appeal to the courts to protect what they see as their property.

The fact that the CNSC cant offer for resale, but must dispose of working exposure devices adds an environmental cost that impacts the economic benefit derived from those devices.

Thresholds can have an adverse effect on business growth as businesses reach a size that requires considerable capital to take the next step. This gives an unfair advantage to larger businesses especially those that are already in business when the threshold is implemented. This seems to be the case with the current proposal.

Financial Instruments to satisfy the guarantee, especially those for below the threshold have not been clearly identified. This clouds the ability to clearly identify what may be the exact impact to all licensees.

Devices and sources that are rented or on assignment, such as source transport devices (changers) will be deemed to fall under the financial guarantee of the licensee in possession of these devices. All equipment consigned by rental or other agreements allows for the owner of these devices to take possession of these devices upon default of the agreements and because of their inherent value, they will be quickly reacquired. There should be little or no remedial cost to the CNSC for these devices and so should be exempt from this initiative.

From dealer perspective, our vendor will not let their business fail and will not abandon their customers or equipment. I have made inquiries about international obligations that QSA Global may have but I am sure that such obligations are required. If they are, then does this not already cover the disposition of these devices and sources?

The estimated cost of disposition of devices should closely reflect the cost. Many companies have a varying array of devices with different associated costs of disposal. For instance the disposal of a cobalt device and source could be 15 times that of an Iridium 192 device and source.

Holding funds in any way retards the flow of money and puts a hindrance on business. To reduce the burden it makes more sense for a fund to be formed that would consist of a onetime payment from each licensee and a charge per device based on the cost of disposition of that particular device to be adjusted for inflation/deflation every 5 years. An administration fee would be added to license renewals. The size of the fund would reflect whatever was assumed to be needed and may be separated into a number of funds as required for each industry such as Medical, Industrial Radiography & well logging, fixed and portable gauges and so on. This does not need to be administered by the CNSC or government but should be encouraged using experts to find workable solutions that help small businesses to succeed.

I have done some minimal research and it seems that few RT companies will be insurable or bondable so vehicles may be limited to administer the guarantees required.

Most cases where tax payers footed the bill for disposal of RAM are aged facilities that have a life expectancy that were no longer profitable and caused there owners to abandon the site or storage facilities that had accumulated large amounts of RAM that the shear cost of disposal or poor storage caused a situation in which the CNSC had to take control. These types of businesses are arguably different than service companies that use RAM for a specific purpose. Businesses that own Facilities that have a life expectancy and storage facilities should be identified and separated from businesses that have RAM and devices that contain RAM that can be classified as an asset. A radiography company can continue indefinably, devices being continually upgraded are an asset and add value to the company. Large facilities that contain fixed gauges that are expected to last the life of the facility and then be disposed of, become a liability. The same is true of a storage facility where RAM is kept for long periods either not disposed of or kept on speculation; this becomes a liability at some point and must be treated differently than an asset.

It is imperative that government impair the efforts of small business in the least amount possible but it is also governments responsibility to ensure the accountability of business as well. Every effort should be made to find ways to encourage small business as it is the leading manufacturer of jobs and the base in which our economy is founded. The financial guarantee initiative should be brought back to the drawing board with business professionals involved to find a suitable solution; there are too many questions and unknowns for this plan to work in its present form.

Regards

Brian Sargent Industrial Radiography Supplies and Services Inc. 14705 116 Ave Edmonton AB. T5M 3E8 7804524761 brian@irss.ca www.irss.ca

http:www.irss.camailto:brian@irss.ca

ALCO E3GAS & OIL PRODUCTION EaUIPMENT LTD.

'GP Of the ALeo GAS t. OIL PRODUCTION EOUIPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Canadian Nuclear Safety CommisSion Regulatory Framework Division P.O.Box 1046. Station B 280 Slater Street Ottawa. Ontario K1P 5S9

Reference Implementation of Financial Guarantees for Licensees licence No : 14460-1-150 Discussion Paper DIS-11-0 1

To Whom It May Concern

This letter represents our response and comments as a Canadian Industrial Radiography Licencee. to the implementation of Financial Guarantees, as presented at the Meeting at Delta Hotel in Edmonton which I attended.

Aleo Gas & Oil is of the understanding that the document may be revised or amended to take Into consideration comments submitted to CSNC by ourselves and other licencees who may respond, to thiS very objectionable implementation.

ALeo Gas & Oil completely disagrees with the need to impose this program and feels there should be an exempt status for the Industrial Radiography industry. Industrial Radiography uses sealed sources that are locked and secured.

The proposed implementation as proposed may result in financial hardship for some companies. It is a criminal offence to not be in care and control of these devices. The penalty should be adequate to avoid any possibility of careless handling of sealed sources, tor Government (Taxpayer) cleanup.

The $10,000 registration and the $3,000 per unit is very high. Where can there be evidence to justify this value. I do not feel this is a true cost of disposal. How could an evaluation be done when there is no history where the tax payer has had to pay for clean-up of a private corporation holding a licence. It has not happened'

There is a cost to purchasing a letter of credit or any other means of security The funds will be a liability on the books of the company. This may not be in-line with par 3 and 4 of the Government of Canada Regulatory Policy dated November 1999.

The Industrial Radiography Industry should be exempt from this implementation.

This process should be slowed down there needs to be more consultation with the CNSC. We need to see the industry risk assessments that created this concept.

Rasmussen RSO & Chief Inspector for AleO Gas & Oil Production Equipment ltd. 5203-75 St. Edmonton, Alberta T6E 5S5

PLANT & HEAD OFFICE 5203 - 75 STREET. EDMONTON, ALBERTA mE 5S5 TELEPHONE (780) 465-9061 FAX (780) 466-8110

SALES OFFICE #310.4014 MACLEOD TRAIL S E CALGARY. ALBERTA T2G 2R7 TELEPHONE (403) 243-5055 FAX (40:3) 2871562

All can inspection services (2011) inc.

9323 37th AVENUE NW, EDMONTON, AB. T6E5N4

RESPONSE to DIS1101 IMPLEMENTATION of FINANCAIL GUARANTEES for LICENSEES

This letter represents my concerns on the upcoming implementation of Financial Guarantees the Industrial Radiography industry is soon to be subjected to. I was at the information meeting held in downtown Edmonton at the Delta Hotel on October 5, 2011.

For an information meeting bearing such importance and impact on the Industrial RT industry of which my company and I are current License holders very little information was presented to our segment of the industry regarding this event. Example. I, All Can Inspection, received notification of this meeting through a third party NDE company located in the Maritimes of Canada. Fact is myself, the RSO and All Can Inspection (licensed corp) was notified of the cross country information meetings sometime after the event passed through Edmonton. If the CNSC cannot adequately inform stakeholders of such impacting events, perhaps the program needs to be re visited with satisfactory time lines required to allow our industry time to respond.

I am a forty plus year in the industry and to date I only know of one bankrupt issue in all of Canada. Not to say there wasnt more, I dont know. I do know that the incident did not require taxpayer funds to resolve Radioactive Materials to be cleaned up.

I feel an exemption to our industry is mandatory and here is why.

If a company does go bankrupt the resolution to protect public and environment is made so very simple. What I do, and I assume all other members of our Industry do, is when I no longer require a sealed source in any of our Devices I simply give it back to the supplier who readily accepts them and ships back to the reactor for recycle. These sources will never be left unwanted.

The Radiation Safety Officer is personally named and legally liable for the total care of Radioactive sealed sources in Canada. This alone limits the likelihood of a recovery using taxpayer resources and speaks volumes to our industries exemption case.

Among the first steps taken by an RSO would be to transfer this equipment to another license, in all likelihood a supplier, thus removing his or her liabilities and the consequences of fines and or jail time. Exemption and or reduced financial guarantees should be considered based on this scenario alone.

The likelihood of a bidding war or offers to purchase from members of our industry on the now available equipment/Devices capable of housing sealed sources in my estimation is close to the 100% mark. I can speak only for All Can Inspection but I would find it very difficult to pass on the purchase of equipment vital to my business for pennies on the dollar. Consideration of this scenario should, in my opinion allow for a reduction or even exemption from the proposed financial guarantees.

Consider for a moment the Radiography Industry in Canada and the ownership of these corps. I dont know of a more regulated industry in Canada. One only has to look at licensing requirements, the regulations that govern this license, federal, provincial and local authorities, we train our people, quite often above and beyond. Ie; RSO, Source Retrieval, Device Maintenance Course, CGSB CEDO, Level 1 and 2 certification, ASNT/ACCP/SNTTC1A certification, First Aid, TDG, H2S Alive, IRP 16, Accident Investigation, etc, etc. We abide by various codes and procedures and the laws that govern us. The investment is considerable and demonstrates our commitment to being responsible corporate citizens. While not a legal bind the credibility of our industry ownership should play some role regarding how corps are wound down.

Whereas some of the larger RT corps are foreign owned the licensing is strictly regulated in Canada, the possibility of these foreign owned corps walking away leaving their Radioactive Materials behind for cleanup is highly unlikely given most of the above scenarios. The higher risk in my opinion may come from companies that facilitate the use of radioactive gauges that may have less stringent guidelines and controls on their responsibilities. Foreign companies have been known to shut down mills and other operations and leave their facilities in various states in hope of reopening at a later date or selling. Perhaps the burden of financial guarantees should be weighted toward these companies and make sections of industry that have a proven track record such as Industrial Radiography exempt, or at the very least considered for significant reduction.

Enough has been said about the CNSC mandate during its inception regarding the financial and economic impact on private industry. What seems to be not addressed enough is the impact on the smaller corps. Being a small company and a startup company the impact of a $30,000 hit, the amount that would be applied to All Can Inspection at this date, could very well be devastating. The money sidelined would go a long way toward training and hiring people that would add significantly to our bottom line. This could easily be the deciding factor that allows our company to provide people to supply the services our company desperately needs in order to succeed in business. Ironically, these types of tax burdens on private industry could contribute significantly toward the exact scenario the current implementation of financial guarantees are being designed to prevent. At the very least the imposed guarantees will undoubtedly set back the needed expansion to grow by in all likelihood one year. Most companies are much larger than ours but it doesnt mean the economic impact is much less. A startup company in this business needs to invest between $500k and $700k to begin. Sales need to be $1 million annually just to make a profit never mind returns on investment. Already the cost of entering into the Industrial Radiography business pretty much eliminates the mom and pop scenario, adding more financial burdens almost guarantees it. We are moving in a direction where Canadian citizens can only enter the Industrial RT business if they are part of a large corporation. Small business contributes significantly to employment in Canada, please keep this in mind.

An exemption or scaled back version of the financial guarantees wouldnt necessarily guarantee small corp investment but it may be a deciding factor.

There may be several ways to implement the financial guarantees. There would still be a significant cost to any guarantee method. An estimated $100 million or more may be removed from the Canadian economy just in our Industry alone, essentially forever. At a time in our economic history it doesnt make sense to impact business in this manner. I only hope that the CNSC and the Commission can accept their part in the fallout these financial guarantees may cost to the Canadian economy, both financially and politically, especially when history tells us there has never been a need in the Industrial Radiography sector and cannot foresee this event happening in the future. On the outside chance that a recovery procedure has to be implemented sometime in the future I would think the Government of Canada would be happy to contribute the $10k or $20k (high estimate) based on simple math. $100 million would generate how much in tax revenues if left in the economy and allowed to grow??? Exemption in my mind is the only practical scenario.

In summary, while the above items expressed contain vent they are very legitimate concerns that I hope do not get ignored. I dont feel this plan has been well thought out and stakeholders were not properly considered in the discussion process. At the very least we need to have adequate time to respond and hear replies from the governing bodies. We have no idea where the CNSC gets its information from as this is never disclosed at these meetings.

Sincerely,

Brian Wuilleme

RSO/CEO/ manager

All Can Inspection Services (2011) Inc.

932337th Avenue, NW

Edmonton AB T6E5N4

Off. 7804629797 cell 7806689729 fax 7804626664

email brian@allcaninspection.com

mailto:brian@allcaninspection.com

AM Inspection Ltd . ... Your Non-Destructive Testing Specialists

501 Railway Avenue NOl1h * Box 463 * Cahri SK SOl 010

Toll Free: 18006676747 Cabri ornce: 3065872620 Cabri Fnx: 3065872805

E-mail: am.inspection@sasktcl.net

November 30, 20 II

TO WHOM IT MA Y CONCERN:

RE: CNSC Discussion Paper DIS 1101

I am writing this leiter in opposition to Financial Guarantees for Industrial Radiography companies who use sealed sources housed in exposure devices of depleted uranium.

The administration fee of $10,000.00 is just another form of licensing fee as far as I can see. The CNSC has people in place that will be paid regardless of any bankruptcies.

Most companies have suppliers who would gladly take our devices for nothing if we were in the highly unlikely situation where we were going bankrupt and couldn't do anything with our exposure devices.

Disposal of the source is included in the price when we purchase sources.

II's unclear at this time what form of financial guarantee would be appropriate. II's my understanding that insurance or a letter of credit would not work. That might mean a large amount of cash may have to be put away, this could hamper our ability to finance as we usually do at the bank.

II seems to me more thought and study of the impact this could have on our industry should be done and alternate plans to a financial guarantee be explored.

Best regar

15 June 2011

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Regulatory Framework Division 280 Slater Street PO Box 1046, Station B Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9

By email: consultation@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca

Subject: Discussion Paper DIS-11-01 Implementation of Financial Guarantees

This letter has been prepared by AMEC Earth & Environmental (AMEC) to provide comments to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) regarding the proposed implementation of financial guarantees for additional licensees. AMEC currently possesses 205 portable moisture density nuclear gauges under NSRD Licence 08330-1-15.0 (User Type 811) and operates 39 declared storage locations throughout Canada.

The document states that the financial guarantee is not imposing a new financial burden on a licensee. For established licensees provision of a financial guarantee could be a burden since such a requirement was not part of the original licensing process. Although the gauges are relatively inexpensive the revenue generated is limited therefore any additional costs associated with possessing the devices would be a significant deterrent to the business.

It is also noted that the CNSC will not be paying interest on any money or other securities set aside. Since the financial guarantee will be quite large for some licensees the placing of a considerable sum of money or other securities into a holding that does not offer a return would appear unacceptable.

The formula as it appears in the discussion paper appears to be too general and certain of the financial figures utilized in determining the amount of the financial guarantee appear to be grossly overstated. When the formula is applied to user types such as portable moisture density gauges it results in costs that are not realistic as evidenced by the following:

The portable gauges utilize two sources therefore under the proposal the financial guarantee cost per gauge will exceed the actual cost of the gauge.

Current disposal costs for a portable moisture density gauge are approximately $500.00 per device excluding the shipping fees.

The activity and amount of radioactive materials in the gauges are relatively small and contained in sealed sources therefore the possibility of residual contamination of a

AMEC Earth & Environmental a division of AMEC Americas Limited Bay 1, 5506 50 Avenue Bonnyville, Alberta Canada T9N 2K8 Tel +1 (780) 826-4759 Fax +1 (780) 826-7044

www.amec.com

http:www.amec.commailto:consultation@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca

Discussion paper DS-11-01 Implementation of Financial Guarantees Page 2 of 2

storage facility is virtually non-existent.

AMEC recognizes the need for financial obligations for industries involved in uranium mining, milling and processing, reactor operations and storage of radioactive wastes since these operations have a significant impact on the physical and human environment. Such activities typically have an end-of-life cycle associated with them.

In the opinion of AMEC the application of a financial guarantee is unwarranted for licensees who confine their activity to possession and utilization of devices containing sealed sources that are not considered high risk by the CNSC. Even though the flexibility option is available significant refinement of the proposed fees, based on specific user types, should be considered prior to implementing the policy.

Respectfully submitted,

= David B. Brown, C.E.T. Corporate Radiation Safety Officer AMEC earth & Environmental a Division of Americas Limited

21 November 2011

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Regulatory Framework Division 280 Slater Street PO Box 1046, Station B Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9

By email: consultation@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca

Subject: Supplementary Response Discussion Paper DIS-11-01 Implementation of Financial Guarantees

This letter has been prepared by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, a division of AMEC Americas Limited (AMEC) to provide supplementary comments regarding the proposed implementation of financial guarantees. AMEC currently possess 211 portable moisture density gauges under a User Type 811 NSRD Licence therefore is directly affected by and concerned about the proposal.

Initial comments were provided to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) in a letter dated 15 June 2011 prior to AMEC representatives attending the information session held in Edmonton on 05 October 2011. Although the information session was informative AMEC is disappointed that information regarding the concerns of licensees was not recorded during the session.

It is the understanding of AMEC, based on presentations and comments provided at the information session, that financial guarantees would be implemented for essentially all remaining licensees of whom approximately 200 licensees (less than 10%) would be required to provide a deposit or similar financial instrument meeting the requirements of Regulatory Guide G-206.

To meet the financial guarantee the licensees noted above will either have to tie up a substantial amount of funds or incur additional operational costs through insurance and surety bonds. As stated in the letter of 15 June 2011 the revenue generated by the devices is limited therefore any additional costs associated with possessing the devices would be a significant deterrent to the business.

It is estimated by the Canadian Council of Independent Laboratories, of which many of the member firms use the portable moisture density gauges, that the financial guarantees proposal, if applied to portable moisture density gauge users, could remove approximately $14 million from the Canadian economy. These funds would otherwise be reinvested and used to create additional value for the public.

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure a division of AMEC Americas Limited PO Box 11606 2B, 5803- 63 Avenue Lloydminster, Alberta Canada T9V 3B8 Tel +1 (780) 875-8975 Fax +1 (780) 875-1970

www.amec.com

http:www.amec.commailto:consultation@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca

Supplemental Response Discussion Paper DS-11-01 Implementation of Financial guarantees

AMEC would like to bring your attention to the work of the Federal Government Red Tape Reduction Commission and the recently released What Was Heard Report. The first statements in the opening message, provided by the Honourable Maxime Bernier, current chair of the Red Tape Reduction Commission, read as follows: Red tape" frustrates entrepreneurship, raises prices and reduces choices for consumers. By impeding growth, red tape lowers people's incomes and standards of living. It is a hidden tax on all Canadians.

Further to the opening remarks the report goes on to state:

Reducing red tape is good for everyone. It helps our businesses compete and creates jobs for Canadians. It represents a low-cost way to stimulate the economy and boost productivity as Canada emerges from the global recession.

AMEC requests that the CNSC utilize the findings contained in the What Was Heard Report in conjunction with the Government of Canada Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulations to review the need for the implementation of a financial guarantee for all licensees. Further to this the report and directive should also be consulted in the context of potential administrative duplication within the CNSC and the implications of an expanding bureaucracy.

The discussion paper notes that the CNSC based their risk assessment of various user types on several factors and decided that private firms using sealed source devices are in the high risk group. The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) released document TECDOC 1344 Categorization of Radioactive Sources to foster uniformity in the categorization of sealed sources. Similar to the CNSC the IAEA not only determined the radiological risk of the radionuclide but also examined other factors. The IAEA document assigns portable moisture density gauges to Category 4 Unlikely to be dangerous and indicates, in Annex II of the document, that the sources would be unlikely to injure someone.

Since the CNSC does not consider the sources contained in portable moisture density gauges to be high risk, as evidenced in their exclusion from the Sealed Source Tracking Registry, it appears that portable gauge users would be in the high risk group based primarily on the commercial risks factors. AMEC contends that the actual radiological risk of the source should be the determining the factor.

Further to the above the discussion document states that further actions by the CNSC would include the determination of a minimum sealed source size. AMEC suggests that the IAEA TECDOC 1344 be utilized and that the minimum source size to be included in the proposal have a risk greater than the risk associated with sources in Category 4.

Based on the information presented at the aforementioned CNSC information session AMEC wishes to quantify the following statements contained in the letter dated the 15 June 2011.

The portable gauges utilize two sources therefore under the proposal the financial guarantee cost per gauge will exceed the actual cost of the gauge. (The formula used in the discussion paper states number of sources and devices however it is now understood that the fee would be $3000.00 per device and not per source and device).

Page | 2

Supplemental Response Discussion Paper DS-11-01 Implementation of Financial guarantees

Current disposal costs for a portable moisture density gauge are approximately $500.00 per device excluding the shipping fees. (This statement did not take into account the intervention of the CNSC and the implications involved in such an occurrence. It is a reflection of the approximate cost to users who voluntarily dispose of a portable moisture density gauge).

The activity and amount of radioactive materials in the gauges are relatively small and contained in sealed sources therefore the possibility of residual contamination of a storage facility is virtually non-existent. (It was stated at the information session that the remediation costs would only apply to rooms or laboratories that contain open sources).

As stated in the letter dated 15 June 2011 AMEC is of the opinion that the application of a financial guarantee is unwarranted for licensees who confine their activity to possession and utilization of devices containing sealed sources that are not considered high risk. Given the nature and activity of the radioactive elements contained in portable moisture density gauges coupled with the assumption that firms typically seek a means to avoid bankruptcy it is felt that the risk referred to in Section 3 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act is at a reasonable level thereby negating the need for a financial guarantee.

AMEC therefore requests that the CNSC exercise its authority by choosing not to include portable moisture density gauge users in the financial guarantee requirement.

Respectfully submitted,

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure A Division of AMEC Americas Limited

David B. Brown, C.E.T. Brian A. Ross, P.Eng. Corporate Radiation Safety Officer Executive Vice President

Western Canada / South America

Page | 3

From: Wuilleme, Nathan [Nathan.Wuilleme@applusrtd.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 2:22 PM To: Consultation Subject: Financial Guarantee To whom it may concern,

I have attended one of your financial guarantee sessions in the Edmonton area and through the session I believe there are a few changes that would be required. I fully agree that a financial guarantee is necessary when it comes to decommissioning and material disposal however it is in my opinion that the lumping of different industries into one category with set (rates) for all is not a proper solution.

I am from industrial radiography and I have been a part of the industry for roughly 18 years and while I agree there is a price to decommissioning and disposal (when necessary) most exposure devices in our industry retain a high value and are quite easily sold to other licensees. I strongly suggest that the financial guarantee itself is structured towards each industry with input from those industries rather than being lumped together by those that may not be knowledgeable to the each industry. I believe the rates from the proposed financial guarantee are beyond realistic and need to be adjusted.

I understand that there will be a compilation of emails into a document to be posted on the CNSC website for suggestions however I would also like to see a copy and/or a email link sent directly to either licensees or to their acting radiation safety officers for review.

Thank you,

Nathan Wuilleme Western Regional Radiation Safety Officer Applus RTD Canada

T +1 780 395 2240 F +1 780 440 2538 M +1 780 995 7022 E nathan.wuilleme@applusrtd.com I www.ApplusRTD.com

Applus RTD Quality Services 5504 36 Street Edmonton, Alberta, T6B 3P3 Canada

This email is privileged, confidential and contains private information. Any reading, retention, distribution or copy of this communication by any person other than its intended recipient, is prohibited.

2011-12-05

http:www.ApplusRTD.commailto:nathan.wuilleme@applusrtd.commailto:Nathan.Wuilleme@applusrtd.com

SUBMISSION TO: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Regulatory Framework Division 280 Slater Street PO Box 1046 Station B Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9

FROM: Canadian Council of Independent Laboratories (CCIL) Canadian Construction Association (CCA) Association of Consulting Engineering Companies - Canada (ACEC)

RE: Proposed Financial Guarantees

DATE: November 29, 2011

Introduction

This is a joint submission from the Canadian Council of Independent Laboratories, the Canadian Construction Association, and the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies - Canada (described further below) which represent virtually all companies and organizations that use portable sealed nuclear densometers.

The members of the Canadian Council of Independent Laboratories (CCIL) operate 334 laboratory facilities across the country. These labs carry out a broad array of testing services on construction materials, manufactured goods, minerals, oil and gas, crops, food, air, water and soil and more. They play a vital role in helping to protect the health and safety of Canadians and safeguard the environment.

The Canadian Construction Association (CCA) represents more than 17,000 member firms drawn from 70 local and provincial integrated partner associations. Its members are the contractors, suppliers and allied business professionals working in, or with, Canadas non-residential construction industry. The sector employs 1.26 million Canadians or approximately 7 per cent of Canadas total workforce. Annually, construction is responsible for nearly $90 billion in economic activity or 6 per cent of Canadas overall Gross Domestic Product.

http://www.cca-acc.com/en/membership/search-partner-associations

The Association of Consulting Engineering Companies - Canada (ACEC) represents nearly 500 independent consulting engineering companies and 12 provincial and territorial member organizations. Consulting engineering in Canada is a $21.8 billion a year industry that employs over 100,000 Canadians.

Together, these associations represent many thousands of companies, employing hundreds of thousands of Canadians, in industry sectors that are vital to our economy, our standard of living, our infrastructure, our health and safety, and our environment. These businesses make Canada more competitive, drive innovation and new technology, and support the high-end jobs of the future.

Background

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is proposing to require financial guarantees of all licensees. Currently, financial guarantees are required of major nuclear power plants, uranium mines and mills, research reactors and major research facilities. Now, however, the Commission proposes to extend this requirement to all users of nuclear substances and radiation devices some 2,500 licensees across Canada.

We understand from the Commission that a total of almost $100 million will have to be guaranteed by these licensees. In our case, many of our members use portable nuclear densometers that are sealed devices used to test soil density and levels of aggregate compaction at construction sites. The Commission estimates that users of portable gauges will be subject to financial guarantees totalling some $14 million.

The proposed guarantees will impose an additional $10,000 administrative fee on each license as well as an additional $3,000 for each device. The cost for many of our members could be anywhere in the range of $100,000 to $300,000, and for larger firms, $500,000 or more.

The Issue

CNSC has invited stakeholders to comment on a very specific issue that is, the proposed financial guarantees that it maintains are necessary to offset any financial risk to taxpayers associated with a licensee going out of business. Our submission focuses squarely on this issue.

In its Discussion Paper, CNSC does not identify safety concerns as the impetus for its proposal, and quite rightly so. Safety is an altogether different matter that is fully addressed through existing requirements such as CNSC inspections and licensees insurance policies covering damaged equipment.

2

What CNSC very clearly states is that its objective is to ensure taxpayers are not left having to pay disposal or remediation costs in the event that a license holder declares bankruptcy. This issue is about financial exposure, not safety risks.

Our main point is that the size of the CNSCs proposed financial guarantees is out of all proportion to the financial risk. We are at a loss to understand why the Commission is taking such a draconian approach. The fact is, there has never been a case where the Commission has had to expend financial resources to manage nuclear substances or radiation devices associated with portable gauges. Moreover, in the presentations made by the CNSC across the country, there was no evidence presented of a proper financial risk assessment despite repeated questioning by our members. Without a proper financial risk assessment, we simply cannot see the justification for the extent of the financial guarantees.

The Commission claims that this new requirement will not impose a financial burden, but we beg to differ. Financial guarantees will tie up the capital of our companies depriving us of access to these funds as well as any interest or investment return that might have been earned thereon. These guarantees amount to a significant lost opportunity for us reducing our capacity to invest in our businesses, expand R&D, purchase new equipment and technology, and hire more people.

We understand the importance of ensuring that any needed remediation and/or disposal takes place, and that the costs do not fall on taxpayers. But based on a realistic analysis of the number of likely incidents and the probable cost of each incident, a set-aside of $14 million by users of portage gauges is totally unrealistic and unjustified.

Given the potentially devastating impact of the CNSCs proposed financial guarantees, our organizations and the members we represent have serious concerns with the way CNSC has communicated its plans and its lack of meaningful consultation with industry.

The notifications were intially emailed ONLY to the licensees who, in many cases, are the safety officers within the firms. Such individuals would not necessarily identify the seriousness of the proposal in terms of financial impact. Moreover, the manner in which the emails were sent caused some to be rejected by spam filters. There was no attempt to communicate with senior officers of the organizations nor consult with the professional associations such as CCIL, ACEC, and CCA. The CNSC web site provided dates of the various information sessions but without times or venues.

In summary, the CNSCs communications plan was extremely inept and had all organizations scrambling to respond. One can only conclude that CNSC is less than sincere about truly consulting with industry, and intends to push ahead with its proposal regardless of our serious objections.

3

Federal Government Policy

Such a massive loss of productive capital seems contrary to the federal Governments commitment to support private-sector investment, foster business growth, and help make Canada more competitive in the global economy.

The Commissions proposed requirement runs counter the governments Economic Action Plan. And it is at odds with the governments policy of minimizing unnecessary regulatory burden.

The Government of Canada Regulatory Policy 1999 states that the policy objective is to ensure adverse impacts on the capacity of the economy to generate wealth and employment are minimized and no unnecessary regulatory burden is imposed. In particular, regulatory authorities must ensure that information and administrative requirements are limited to what is absolutely necessary and that they impose the least possible cost; the special circumstances of small businesses are addressed; and parties proposing equivalent means to conform to regulatory requirements are given positive consideration. We submit that CNSCs proposal is inconsistent with this policy.

The Problem

The core problem with the CNSCs proposal is that the financial risk is grossly overstated. As noted earlier, there have been no incidents to date with portable gauges. In cases where licenses were to be terminated or companies were to go out of business, these gauges would have a market value they would be an asset, not a liability and would be sold to other users. It would be highly unlikely that CNSC would find itself liable for any disposal or remediation costs.

A requirement tying up $14 million of our members capital, for a financial risk that is so negligible, seems a heavy-handed policy response. It is premised on the irrational assumption that every licensee in our sector will go bankrupt at the same time.

Solutions

We are not making this submission to merely to voice our concern, but also to offer constructive solutions. First, we believe CNSCs timeline for implementation precludes any meaningful discussion, especially given the poor communications of the CNSC in notifying our industry. Our recommendation, therefore, is to:

Extend the dealdline for written submissions to February 29th, 2012 Extend the deadline for formal submssions to the tribunal to October 31st, 2012

4

Second, we are recommending that a proper, independent third-party financial risk assessment be carried out for each category of license holder. Without this analysis, we cannot see how the CNSC can proceed further. We request that industry be consulted on who might conduct such an assessment and the methodology to be used. It is critical that a fair and unbiased evaluation of risk be carried out.

Please also note that CCIL is willing to share the cost of the financial risk assessment for users of portable nuclear gauges. This is a generous and sincere offer that should be accepted.

Our third recommendation is that CNSC undertake to go back to the drawing board and examine other ways to protect taxpayers from financial liability while avoiding unnecessary regulatory burden on industry.

For example, we believe than an insurance product might meet what the Commission is striving to achieve, but at a far more reasonable cost that will not damage the financial viability of testing laboratories, construction companies or engineering firms across Canada.

We are confident that, working together, we CAN come up with a far better way to meet the objectives of the Commission and, at the same time, avoid burdensome regulation that will act as a financial drag on our members businesses. To this end, we will be providing more detailed suggestions in the near future.

Alnoor Nathoo Michael Atkinson John Gamble President, CCIL President, CCA President, ACEC

5

FILE DOSSIER

. 5

l,oL6?-

/ -t-7-31 REFI;R81;OTO At'\A." /'" RER:RE A " Iv . . \......-

SC CCSN

11111111111111111111111 3849224

CN

11

AUCC11Q,Q 600-350 Albert St., Ottawa, ON, K1R 1B1 350, rue Albert, 6" etage, Ottawa (Ontario) K1R 1B1

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada 613 563-1236 Association des universites et colleges du Canada www.aucc.ca

November 30, 2011

Mr. Colin Moses Acting Director, Regulatory Framework Division Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission P.O. Box 1046, Station B 280 Slater Street Ottawa, ON K 1 P 5S9

Dear Mr. Moses,

I am writing to provide the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission with feedback on the implementation of its plans to expand the use of financial guarantees as it directly relates to the member institutions of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. AUCC represents 95 public and private not-for-profit universities and university degree-level colleges, several of which use nuclear facilities and material. Individual members of our association may also submit responses to the discussion paper.

As an association whose members educate more than 1.2 million students, we appreciate the work CNSC takes to protect the health and safety and security of Canadians and the environment. Canada's university students will become our innovators and leaders of tomorrow. We are very mindful of our role in educating students while ensuring their safety as we provide them hands-on research experiences, particularly in facilities that use and store nuclear materials. We would be pleased to provide the CNSC with an inventory of our members' laboratories, sealed and unsealed sources and devices.

With regard to the proposals contained in the discussion papers, our members appreciate the need for the administrative levy of $1 0,000 per institution to support the work of the CNSC in maintaining its high safety standards. However, a detailed examination of the proposed financial guarantees indicates that a significant financial burden would be imposed on our member institutions if they were required to provide the CNSC with a financial guarantee for each individual laboratory, sealed and unsealed sources and devices. These proposed levies are based on the assumption that our universities would have to decommission their facilities and dispense their nuclear substances all at the same time. This only could happen in one of two circumstances: a complete financial failure of our universities or a catastrophic accident. In the case of the latter, universities are fully insured; the former is unimaginable for in addition to AUCC members receiving strong funding from both provincial and federal governments, universities have a sound track record of management.

Ip a survey of AUCC members that use and store nuclear materials, there has not been a case of the institution passing on decommissioning or waste disposal costs to CSNC. Furthermore our membership has repeatedly expressed to me how the proposed financial guarantees unfairly target larger public institutions, as they are more likely to have specialized radiation safety and hazardous waste disposal services than the smal1er users that fall below th.e proposed financial threshold.

The consequences of these proposed changes will result in a number of AUCC's research intensive members facing fees that would far exceed $1 million. This represents an unnecessary financial hardship upon our member institutions, especially since it appears the proposed regulations fail to recognize that universities already possess substantial insurance agreements that provide for the decommissioning of these facilities. In other words, the new levy duplicates the pre-existing financial security that guarantees a complete decommissioning of nuclear facilities by universities.

.

1 ... 2

Mr. Colin Moses November 30, 2011 Page 2

Recognizing the track record of Canada's universities as reliable public institutions that have without exception successfully decommissioned many laboratories and other facilities in which nuclear materials were present and for the other reasons outlined above, AVCC recommends that Canada's public and private not-for-profit universities be exempt from providing a financial guarantee, pending proof of insurance that covers the full cost of decommissioning the total number of nuclear facilities, laboratories, sealed and unsealed sources housed or used by these universities. Furthermore, we implore CNSC to classifY AUCC members as low-risk.

I look forward to learning the results of this consultation process. If you require clarification or further elaboration from AUCC, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Paul Davidson President

AQPMC (omite d'assurance qualite etAssociation quebecoise des

de radioprotection physiciens medicaux cliniques

30 novembre 2011

Commission canadienne de surete nucleaire

Objet: Commentaires sur Ie document de travail DIS-II-Ol portant sur les garanties financieres

Nous vous soumettons quelques commentaires sur votre document de travail concernant la mise en reuvre de garanties financieres pour Ies titulaires de permis. Nous appnScions la gestion des projets a Ia CCSN qui offre aux titulaires de permis et a la population canadienne un temps pour soumettre ses commentaires. La CCSN a demontre son ecoute en apportant, dans Ie passe, des changements aux projets initiaux afin d'optimiser leur mise en reuvre. Nous sommes persuades que nos commentaires auront de nouveau une bonne ecoute.

Les presents commentaires sont ceux du Comite d'assurance de la qualite et de la radioprotection (CAQRDP) de l'Association quebecoise des physiciens medicaux cliniques (AQPMC). Le CAQRDP conseille l'AQPMC pour les sujets ayant trait it I' assurance qualite et it la radioprotection. Generalement, lorsqu'un physicien medical est employe par une institution de la sante, il assume Ie role de responsable de la radioprotection. C'est done en connaissance de cause que nous vous soumettons nos commentaires.

D' entree de jeux, nous reconnaissons que la fin des activites autorisees engendre la plupart du temps des depenses et qu'il faut s'assurer de la disponibilite des fonds. La philosophie de la garantie financiere est d'empecher une situation OU la charge financiere des activites entourant la fin d'une activite autorisee revient au peuple canadien (gouvernement canadien) a defaut d'une disponibilite financiere du titulaire de permls.

En milieu hospitalier public, Ia garantie financiere provient des fonds publics des Ministeres de la sante provinciaux. La CCSN reconnalt la faible probabilite d'insolvabilite d'une province ou d'un territoire en levant historiquement I'exigence d'une garantie financiere tangible pour tout centre hospitalier public.

La CCSN desire elargir Ie recours aux garanties financieres, a quelques exceptions pres, a tous les titulaires de permis, incluant Ie milieu hospitalier public. Une garantie financiere tangible serait exigee pour tout titulaire de permis ayant un cout de restauration securitaire des lieux superieur a 75 000$, basee selon des baremes predetermines de couts de restauration. Pour une installation nucleaire, Ie seuil propose est de 500000$ et aucun bareme predetermine n 'est presente.

De fac;on generale, nous appuyons I'utilisation d'un seuil en dec;a duquel une garantie financiere ne serait pas exigee. Nous nous interrogeons cependant sur la simplicite des baremes predetermines de couts de restauration. Le modele propose nous parait simpliste, car il ne tient pas compte des risques pour la sante et la securite des personnes et de I'environnement en proportion des caracteristiques physiques des radioisotopes (demi-vie, energies et activite). Bien qu'un plan de remise en etat chiffre soit la voie proposee par Ia CCSN pour personnaliser les couts de restauration, un modele plus elabore encadrerait mieux I'exercice du calcul de Ia valeur estimative. Pour les installations nucleaires de categorie II, aucun modele n'est propose pour Ie calcul de la valeur estimative, pourtant non estimee a ce jour par les titulaires de permis.

Page 1 sur 2

AQPMC Comite d'assurance qualite et Association quebecoise des

de radioprotection physiciens medicaux cliniques

Nous recommandons a la CCSN de promulguer la reconnaissance que les gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux constituent la garantie financiere des titulaires de permis issus du milieu hospitalier public. De ce fait, nous suggerons que la CCSN obtienne des gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux la reconnaissance de leurs responsabilites financieres envers la fin des activites autorisees des institutions publiques, si une telle confirmation est jugee necessaire par la CCSN. Cette recommandation est basee sur une utilisation efficace des fonds publics provinciaux en centralisant les demarches administratives, de reconnaissance de I'engagement financier aassumer pour mettre fin aux activites autorisees, au niveau des gouvernements au lieu de repeter les memes demarches administratives dans chacune des centaines d' etablissements.

Nous recommandons au tribunal de la Commission d'etendre Ie principe d'exemption des droits de permis pour les etablissements publics aune exemption de garantie financiere pour les etablissements de sante pUblics.

Soyez assure de notre entiere collaboration,

Sincerement,

Normand Freniere, MCCPM Conseiller a I'assurance qualite et ala radioprotection Association quebecoise des physiciens medicaux cliniques 819-697-3333 #63085 caqr(i/aqpmc.ca

Membres du comite d~ assurance qualite et de radioprotection:

Normand Freniere Centre hospitalier regional de Trois-Rivieres Trois-Rivieres Michael Evans Centre universitaire de sante McGill Montreal Christophe Furstoss H6pital Maisonneuve-Rosemont Montreal Marie-Joelle Bertrand Centre de sante et services sociaux de Chicoutimi Chicoutimi Lysanne Normandeau Centre hospitalier universitaire de Montreal Montreal Philippe Leblanc H6pital Charles Lemoyne Greenfield Park Alain Gauvin Centre universitaire de sante McGill Montreal

C C : Fran

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Regulatory Framework Division

P.O. Box 1046, Station B

280 Slater Street

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1P 5S9

consultation@cnscccsn.gc.ca

November 30, 2011

RE: FINANCIAL GUARANTEES

I would like to express my concern with the CNSC's plan to implement financial

guarantees on the industrial radiography industry. It has been recognized that this

industries use of radioactive isotopes in the form of sealed sources poses a minute risk

of financial hardship to the CNSC. In fact industry cannot identify any industrial

radiography companies that have gone out of business and left a negative financial

burden to the CNSC.

I believe that the implementation of the program as it is proposed in its current form

will result in undue financial hardship to industrial radiography companies, thus causing

the very financial problems that the CNSC is trying to avoid. Alarmingly, these financial

hardship are being proposed in very uncertain global economic times.

I would like to refer you to many reasonable points offered by the Canadian Industrial

Radiography Safety Association found below.

Considering the nature of the end life activities, the risk to the environment and health/safety of persons is low since if devices and sources were not sold to other licensed users, devices and active sources would be locked in storage and labeled/signed as required by the CNSC regulations until a qualified competent person and/or company safely disposes of them.

Contrary to what is stated as the risk informed principle taking place per section 4b of the DIS1101, there have been no issues of this kind reported to

mailto:consultation@cnscccsn.gc.ca

have occurred involving the Industrial Radiography industry. This means that we do not believe that this proposal meets the policy statement and policy par 2 requirements as stated in the Government of Canada Regulatory Policy dated November 1999.

Although the secured funds will not be used unless required and that the funds will be returned at the close of a business, the intention of the average business is to remain open as a business for an indefinite period of time. i.e., as long as the business is viable and there is an acceptable profit to be made. This means that these funds would be tied up forever. Useless capital/funds that may or may not be making interest. Is this inline with par 4 of the Government of Canada Regulatory Policy dated November 1999? The additional cost of purchasing the form in which the funds are secured is yet another cost of doing business. It is a cost since it would be removed in the accounting books from a companys capital. Not exactly good in these economic times and may not be inline with par 3 and 4 of the Government of Canada Regulatory Policy dated November 1999. The cost number per unit of $3000 appears to be very high. The industry would like to see this amount justified. Is this the true cost to dispose? We feel that the formula is flawed. There appears to have been no risk assessment performed.

With the above concerns in mind I believe it sensible and fair to grant exclusion to the industrial radiography industry of providing financial guarantees.

Sincerely,

Rick DeBruyn

President,

Aztec Inspection Inc

Bakos (NDT) Inspection (1989) Ltd. To whom it may concern; This submission is being made as a response to the publication of DIS 1101, Implementation of Financial Guarantees for Licensees. In general, I agree with the concept of a need to plan and pay for end of life activities for CNSC licensees. The currently proposed model is, however, excessive with regard to the amount of monies to be amassed by licensees given the infrequency with which events happen compared the size of the industries represented.

As you know, the concept of risk can be defined as the product of the probability of a hazard resulting in an adverse event, times the severity of the event. In the past 65 years that the AECB/CNSC has regulated the use of nuclear substances in Canada, the number of times that such a business collapse and loss of control over licensed activities with Nuclear Substance and Radiation Devices licensees has happened has been rare and the number of times that the public health and safety, the environment and security has been impacted negatively has also been rare. Given these facts, risk of a NSRD licensees business collapsing and that businesss licensable activities causing a risk to public health and safety, the environment and security can be said to be negligible.

The CNSC regulates firmly and its regulatory activities can be shown to have had a net positive effect on the affected industries with regard to preventing such collapse/abandonment as would need to be remediated using the Financial Guarantee model as currently proposed. If the CNSC continues its work as it has done in the past, it is HIGHLY unlikely that most licensees will need to be subject to the Financial Guarantee proposal as presented in DIS 1101. The good communication lines that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has been building with its licensees have worked to ensure that, in most cases, devices and sources that will no longer be needed at the end of the licensees life will be disposed of before the licensees operations and sources end up the subject of a court order. This positive action has not been mentioned in the Discussion Paper, which is unfortunate, but not the point of the paper. A licensee`s end of licensed life actions are not, however, independent of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulation and regulatory history with that licensee and so the CNSCs current regulatory strategy bears mentioning in any discussion on Financial Guarantees.

In descending order of preference, the following are plans which I feel would be more practical and effective in protecting the public health and safety, the environment and security as a result of the need to remediate the licensed location, including decommissioning costs and the costs associated with the disposal of any associated nuclear substances.

1. Maintain the status quo Action requested: Allow for the continuation of the exemption provided to NSRD licensees that has existed for the past 11 years under section 7 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

The risk to the public, the environment and security has not historically been proven to be worth the estimated $44 million that the proposed Financial Guarantee proposal would cost, nor should it if CNSC continues to do its job. The few instances where the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has had to become involved in wrapping up a licensees operations were few and the circumstances were unusual. Subjecting all other industries to preventive measures as a result

Bakos (NDT) Inspection (1989) Ltd. of the missteps of a few is excessive.

2. Require that use type groups contribute to a pool of funds specific to that use type Action requested: consider the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission administering a fund that would be paid into by all licensees on a risk basis based on historical performance and not theoretical probability.

This solution would have all licensees pay into a fund that would be administered and held in trust by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in order to remediate any end of licence issues that would arise. It would be administered by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and not by individual licensees. Overall, the total sum of monies that would be required to be held would be small, due to the overall stability of the industries regulated.

The actual amount of money to be set aside would be calculated based on historical data that takes into account the past number of remediations required, their costs and the current size of the industry. According to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission staff, there have been few such incidents historically. The total sum of money would be substantially less than the $44 million currently proposed. Also, given that only a very few licensees will not be able to correctly manage radiation source disposal, the fund should not have to cover disposal and remediation costs for EVERY licensee. The actual fee to be paid by individual licensees should be calculated based on more public consultation and not published as part of a Discussion Paper with no detailed supporting documentation.

Since the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is willing to bear the responsibility of putting out for tender and managing the proper disposal process as indicated by the currently proposed plan, this is effectively the same plan, but centralized and proportioned for probability and use type. The currently proposed plan, as described in DIS 1101, is overly simplistic. It does not allow for the differences between industries, which this proposal does. This plan also takes into account the probability of actual licensee failures that would necessitate the use of Financial Guarantees.

Bakos (NDT) Inspection (1989) Ltd.

3. Use the proposed DIS 1101 proposal, but with the required funding amount a fraction of the cost, as the currently proposed amounts have not been justified.

Action requested: provide justification for the currently proposed amounts and rereview their accuracy after publication.

The justification for the currently proposed amounts should be made public, including the sources used for the estimates. The current proposal seems to hide the estimated costs, which is in stark contrast to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commissions stated goal to have transparent motives that can withstand public scrutiny (CNSC website; Values and Ethics). The justification of the $10,000 administrative fee should also be more detailed and the basis for it should be provided, as well as why the proposed administrative fee is the same for ALL `Nuclear Substances and Radiation Devices licensees.

It is furthermore highly unlikely that every licensees operations will fall into a state where the CNSC will need to step in, including the bid process and management of contractors to store and dispose of nuclear substances, which is the assumption that underpins the current proposal.

4. Use the proposed DIS 1101, as is, even though it is unclear and needs more detail. Action requested: provide more detail prior to adopting the current plan and resubmit the plan for public review and comment again

As one example, in my consultation with industry experts in the field of bonds and insurance policies, these are not viable options for the types of financial guarantees being discussed. The only financial guarantee that will be realistically implementable appears to be cash. Many of the companies involved in these industries are not bondable or insurable for these types of businesses, nor would they normally be expected to be. Further, should their businesses deteriorate to the point where they would need to avail themselves of the bond or insurance policy, they would not be eligible for a bond which therefore renders any financial guarantee based on such a model moot.

Bakos (NDT) Inspection (1989) Ltd.

Conclusion:

At best, the current proposal is noble in its goal to meet the CNSCs mandate to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians and the environment; and to implement Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

At worst, the current DIS 1101 is overly simplistic, lacks transparency and is not based on a realistic assessment of risk of the types of licences that it proposes to impact.

My request is to rewrite the Discussion Paper using a revised model, possibly as discussed in this response, and with more public consultation.

A costed remediation plan for those licensees who would prefer to propose an alternative due to a unique business situation should remain in any Financial Guarantee plan. The ability of individual licensees to propose alternatives to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is a hallmark of the regulatory process that is in place in Canada and should continue.

I look forward to your response.

Steve Austin

Bakos NDT

____________________________________________________________________________________

P.O. Box 285 Oil Springs, Ontario CAN NON 1PO blackcreek@ciaccess.com

* Office: 519-834-2941 * Fax: 519-834-2466 * Shop: 519-882-4732 * Cellular: 519-383-4645

November 24, 2011 Responses/Discussion regarding CNSC proposed Financial Guarantees for Licensees DIS-11-01 As per my participation in Thursdays Webinar presentation of your proposed Financial Guarantees for Licensees, I am submitting the following information for your consideration and response.

1. We (Black Creek Well Service Inc.) should not be lumped together with all businesses that possess nuclear licenses. Our operations are specific and unique, and we believe that we should be treated individually as such. We can only be accountable and responsible for our own actions and responsibilities; not those of others.

2. We carry $2,000,000 liability insurance for accidents/incidents involving our company operations ($1,000,000 over and above industry requirements) with $5,000 deductible. It is a heavy expense that we take seriously and secures even more-so our firm commitment to health and safety in all aspects of our company operations. Your proposed guarantee formula-based system is extravagant, redundant and not applicable to our company risk-formula.

3. Risk analysis by our insurance company has resulted in a low-risk classification.

During slow years such as this, our equipment (truck with mounted gauge, classed as a fixed/portable source by your definitions) is utilized less than 4 times per month, therefore our risk considering limited exposure is reduced even further.

4. In the 17 years of our operations, we have never had any incident, accident or near-miss involving our equipment or services. (reducing our risk even further, and establishing our safety credibility) The fact that we have been an established Canadian small business for that amount of time confirms our credibility and

mailto:blackcreek@ciaccess.com

eliminates your fears of our insolvency (thus leaving CNSC to incur costs related to the acquisition and transfer of our gauge.)

5. If our company was to cease performance in some unforeseen manner, the sale of the gauge itself would cover the cost estimates we have received to transfer it to another business via third-party contractor.

6. Through correspondence with the company contracted to perform any necessary removal, disposal and emergency procedures involving our gauge, it has been determined that it would cost less than $10,000 for any and all expenses incurred during a worst-case-scenario (considering total gauge disposal). It would be much less than that if the gauge was salvageable. Based on the cost formula presented on page 13, your Remediation Specialists are over-priced and your administrative costs are exaggerated (you are proposing a $13,000 to $17,000 Financial Guarantee for these expenses as opposed to actual received proposals of $2,000 cost for removal of our gauge and $2,000 for packaging/shipping).

7. Our gauge was purchased 17 years ago for the approximate price of $10,000. This gauge itself is individually insured for $15,000. We can easily sell it to any Western Alberta company for the same purchase price, eliminating any need for a Financial Guarantee; however, it would limit the extent of operations performed by our Company and expected by established customers.

8. We are a Small Canadian Business, and, as such, we work within a tight financial budget. Your request of a financial guarantee is limiting our