But according to official filings of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the CNSC furnished “440 person days” of labour in “contribution” to the work of the [Canadian Standards Association] and another half million dollars in payments from the CNSC to subsequently access that work. In rough figures, the CNSC is transferring one million dollars per year to the CSA for the development of nuclear regulations. And the CNSC of course, isn’t a “major organization involved in that sector,” the CNSC is the Federal Government.
There’s actually quite a story behind this activity. It seems that the CNSC is legally accountable for its regulatory activity, whereas the Government has given the CSA broad immunities from litigation. In this context, the CNSC appears to be spending its “440 person days” developing nuclear regulations as they are mandated to, and then “contributing” the work of their own staff to the CSA in order to make the CSA responsible for that work. Then the CNSC pays money to the CSA to access the regulations that CNSC-come-CSA staff developed. This is what’s called an in-and-out process, though its more commonly known as “laundering”.
Ummmmmmmm.Funny thing is,I’ve never bothered with their piffle,and have never had a problem. Only a revolution can cure our problems now.
When the realization comes that regulators and bureaucrats become so corrupt that they will endanger millions of people so that their wives can get granite counter-tops, you understand that humanity is a failed species.
Dear Leftist trolls:
When we conservatives say “socialism”, the laundering practice discussed in this article is just one example of the rainbow of BS we are talking about.
Won’t one of you please step up and explain why we should all shut up because this is good for us and good for Canada? I’m dying to see what you come up with.
Criminally
Shameless
Assholes
You should shut the eff up because neither you nor anyone else who’s commented here has the slightest notion of the complexity of developing nuclear equipment performance standards. The entire premise of PSKnight’s drivel is blown to bits by one simple question. Ask any of the nuclear electric utilities in Canada whether or not they would prefer 1. standards to be written with the expertise of those who actually understand the physics, engineering and material science involved in the various standards, or 2. written by ignorant government bureaucrats. Then ask yourself which one is cheaper for the electricity ratepayer, route 1 or route 2.
And don’t give me any snivel about taxpayers money. The CNSC is on 100% cost recovery from the nuclear licensees. The above-mentioned nuclear electric utilities are the ones who are paying all the bills, NOT you.
Dear CGH,
In answer to your question, the CSA has no history of nuclear expertise or nuclear facility engineering or program design, nor has it any mandate from the Government to develop nuclear standards. The CNSC however, is specifically mandated by govt to develop and manage nuclear regulation. Actually, that’s all the CNSC was created to do. In other words, the CSA are the “ignorant government bureaucrats” that you mention, and the CNSC has the “expertise of those who actually understand the physics.” The question is therefore not whether nuclear standards should be drafted by experts, but why the nuclear experts have abrogated their responsibilities to the government bureaucrats.
With respect, your views are likely a lot more aligned with RestoreCSA than you think. Its just that some of your assumptions about CSA are perhaps not as accurate as you suppose.
-RestoreCSA
The above-mentioned nuclear electric utilities are the ones who are paying all the bills, NOT you.
Heh, how altruistic of them. They don’t pass on the cost to the consumer…actually, double the cost due to the CSA.
No, Gord, the CNSC doesn’t. Its attempts to build its own in-house experience in all aspects of materials science related to nuclear hardware proved a dismal and hugely expensive failure. That’s precisely why it agreed with industry to do this through the CSA. Of course the CSA has no expertise in these areas; it’s nothing more than a clearing house for the industry and the regulators to agree on what are appropriate standards.
Come back to me, Gord when you understand how a CSA expert committee works, how its composed and how its standards are drafted and how those drafts are reviewed, and then we can have a meaningful conversation.
Strad, no, it’s about half the cost compared to if the CNSC had to develop its own in-house expertise.
Strad, no, it’s about half the cost compared to if the CNSC had to develop its own in-house expertise.
Ah, furnishing 440 person days, then paying to to access their own work is cheaper…oookay.
cgh wrote:
“You should shut the eff up because neither you nor anyone else who’s commented here has the slightest notion of the complexity of developing nuclear equipment performance standards.”
Nothing has quite the afterglow of nuclear radiation, as some spokesman for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission telling others to “shut the eff up”.
Nothing has quite the same glow as that of invincible ignorance from dystopians. Hear the same thing from malignantly anti-nuclear Greens all the time, and here we have yet another of the tribe. Haven’t got a logical position on the subject at hand, so attack the motives of the speaker. Same tripe uttered by the catastrophist warmers and the rest of their ilk. You’ve outed yourself, DO.
And to Strad, yes it is cheaper, a lot cheaper. 440 person-days is peanuts compared to the cost of setting up a technically expert department
This is what’s called an in-and-out process, though its more commonly known as “laundering”.
To me its just being screwed over.
Who pays the CNSC? Canadian Taxpayers.
Why don’t they publish their own standards, since they provide the manpower and expertise to develop those standards? They don’t have the expertise to do it.
Why does the CSA need to be involved? They have expertise in publishing standards.
Who else was involved in the Expert Committee? Not answered in this article, however the utilities, the operators and the systems design/builders are likely on the list.
Who benefits? Looks like the CSA and the CNSC for the most part.
What is the problem? In this case it looks like (if you believe PS Knight) the CNSC doesn’t have the in-house expertise to properly assess the standards.
Now THAT is a problem.
Read my earlier posts. The CNSC is on 100% cost recovery from licensees. NOT the taxpayer. It comes directly out of the cost to produce nuclear electricity.
Read my earlier posts. The CSA is merely a clearing house. It has no expertise of its own in nuclear standards.
“Who else was involved in the Expert Committee? Not answered in this article, however the utilities, the operators and the systems design/builders are likely on the list.”
If the CNSC developed these standards, no one except government bureaucrats would be involved. This way, the standards result from unanimous agreement among government and industry experts jointly.
“Who benefits? Looks like the CSA and the CNSC for the most part.”
Principally who benefits is:
1. CNSC because this method allows development of standards at much lower costs than if they had to do it themselves, particularly if they get them wrong.
2. Industry benefits by having input into what standards are proposed.
3. Ratepayers benefit because this is the lowest cost method of developing standards for the nuclear industry.
“Now THAT is a problem.”
No it isn’t. The way good regulation works is NOT by having a regulator expert in all things. This always causes regulatory disaster. It works by the regulator saying, “We have specific levels of protection that must be met. You come to us and prove to our satisfaction that what you propose meets these requirements.”
Fuster Cluck !