Participant Funding Program Evaluation Final Report

Efficiency and economy

• Question 10(a): Is the PFP delivered efficiently in comparison with similar programs?
• Question 10(b): Are there ways to improve program delivery?
• Question 11: Are the program resources (dedicated staff and the Funding Review Committee) appropriate/ adequate to deliver the program?

3 Evaluation approach and methodology

The PFP evaluation is mandatory, and the evaluation issues and questions are specified by the TBS Policy on Evaluation (April 2009). However, to support the use of findings and recommendations, the evaluation included specific areas of interest to management and decision-makers. Most of the management information needs are within the parameters of the evaluation issues/questions.

A PFP logic model (Appendix C) was developed specifically for the PFP evaluation in consultation with internal stakeholders. The logic model development was supported by: 

• the Treasury Board submission approving the CNSC PFP terms and conditions (approved June 24, 2010)
• the CNSC PFP management review (February 28, 2013)
• the CNSC management response and implementation plan (August 8, 2013 e-Doc 4175191), December 6, 2013 (e-Doc 413006)
• the previous version of the CNSC PFP logic model (e-Doc 4203568) 
• the CNSC PFP Guide (February 2011)

The logic model covers the mandatory performance measures and reflects the PFP terms and conditions and program maturity (e.g., newly implemented program, impact of CEAA 2012). The evaluation focused on design and delivery and immediate outcomes. Typically, a well-designed program achieves its immediate outcomes within three years of implementation. Intermediate outcomes are usually achieved between three to five years, and the ultimate outcome is what the program is striving to achieve in the long term.

The PFP was implemented just three years ago and has undergone one management review since implementation. The evaluation developed lines of evidence focusing on program design and delivery, as well as achievement of immediate outcomes (e.g., does program design support the expected results?).

The PFP Evaluation issues are based on the TBS policy requirement. To address effectiveness, the evaluation questions are derived from the logic model and management information needs. Evaluation questions were not all weighted equally. Questions related to management information and decision‑making needs raised during the pre-evaluation planning were given priority.

The PFP is a relatively modest program in terms of expenditure and resource use. The evaluation was conducted to reflect the program’s size; the relative weight also guided the level of effort that evaluation staff use in developing lines of evidence to support the evaluation.

The program evaluation matrix (see Appendix D) outlines which methods were used to capture data for each of the evaluation indicators. The evaluation matrix includes the use of multiple lines of evidence and complementary research methods to ensure the reliability of the information and data collected. Six main lines of inquiry were employed in this evaluation, including both quantitative and qualitative methods: a literature review, a document review, data analysis, interviews, surveys and benchmarking data. A description of the data sources is described below by line of inquiry.

3.1 Data sources

3.1.1  Document review

An extensive document review (see Appendix G for the detailed document list) was conducted for the purposes of describing the program and its activities, outputs and mandate; assessing relevance; establishing production of outputs leading to achievement of outcomes, and; collecting data on the value‑added aspects of the PFP. The documents reviewed were:

• PFP survey reports
• Funding Review Committee recommendation reports
• intervener reports
• program area reports
• briefing notes to senior managers
• CNSC hearing manuscripts
• CNSC record of proceedings, including reasons for decision
• CNSC Participant Funding Program decisions    

3.1.2 Literature review

The purpose of the literature reviewwas to examine similar programs^{Footnote 14} and the strategies used to achieve similar goals. The reviewfocused on communication, targeting and marketing approaches used by other organizations, to assess lessons learned and best practices the PFP can build on.

3.1.3 Interviews

Interviews [24] were conducted with key stakeholders by the evaluation function. The key groups of stakeholders selected were:

• CNSC staff and management directly involved in the PFP (e.g., staff from Strategic Planning, Communications, and Finance directorates)
• directors-general and directors of regulatory programs relevant to the PFP
• senior CNSC management (vice-presidents, Commission secretary, president)
• Funding Review Committee (past and current members)

Evidence indicating that the PFP addresses a continued need is demonstrated by the following:

• All stakeholder groups (applicants, CNSC staff, managers and senior managers) were supportive of the program and consistent in their views that the program was needed.
• Efforts of program staff to improve the program “reach” have been successful. There is some support for program expansion, but under defined conditions and at a gradual pace.
• While similar participant programs do not exist worldwide, citizen engagement and outreach are increasingly recognized as key regulatory activities. The existence of the PFP positions the CNSC to set the example in many respects. 

The PFP was responsive to the needs of target groups (Aboriginals, NGOs and the public):

• Aboriginal Groups, NGOs and individuals participating in the program have been provided with the opportunity to express their views about effective participation through a survey conducted by staff; program staff responded in a timely manner to applicant questions and reacted to their feedback.
• Generally, applicant views are highly positive about the program’s ability to respond to their concerns.
• There is a low take-up rate among scientists and researchers (which is acknowledged by the program). There is some evidence from surveys of this group and other reviews that take-up could be improved; however, this would require that critical management decisions be made about program parameters (funding levels, timing, and many more).

Figure 1 displays the percentage share of funds awarded by the CNSC PFP by recipient class; Aboriginal groups have the highest number of recipients [54] participating, while “individuals” have the lowest number [2].

Data Source: Freebalance

Table 8 lists the number of contributions issued over the evaluation period (partial data for 2014–15 is included). In 2011–12, 11 applicants were approved to receive PFP contributions, while there were 31 in 2014–15, indicating a sizeable increase in takeup.

Since inception, there has been a gradual increase in program spending over the three‑year program evaluation period. The spending for fiscal year 2011–12 was $91,818, increasing to $297,740 in 2013–14. As the number of hearings per fiscal year can be variable, spending amounts can also be variable.

5.2 Effectiveness

Evaluation questions explored in this section include the following:

• Question 4: Does the current design and delivery of the program support effectiveness?

• Question 5: Are the internal program stakeholders aligned on the objectives and priorities of the program? 

• Question 6(a): Is the process for selecting projects fair and accessible to participants?

• Question 6(b): Are there barriers or obstacles to enhancing participation?

• Question 7: Are the program’s communications and outreach efforts effective at reaching the desired participant groups?

• Question 8: Is the Commission provided with value-added submissions for decision making?

• Question 9: To what extent has the PFP enhanced participation of public, Aboriginal groups and other non-traditional stakeholders in CNSC public hearings?

Findings and supporting evidence

CNSC management has made continual progress in adapting and modifying the program, and all major processes and components of the program are contributing to its effective operation. There is sufficient flexibility in the existing program terms and conditions to meet anticipated needs because:

• PFP projects have clear objectives and are generally implemented as planned
• 90% of PFP recipients [35/39] responded that their applications were processed in a timely manner and that the PFP enabled them to prepare effectively
• baseline service standard (45 days from the time of the funding decision to the release of funding) was met in all cases

There is strong internal understanding of the program’s objectives and priorities. This is supported by the following:

• Interviews indicate that there is a general understanding and agreement on the objectives of the program by major stakeholders (directors general/directors/program-related staff). However, many of those interviewed [16/20] expressed a concern that working level staff do not fully support the PFP objectives – there is a perception that the program results in additional “non-value added” workload. A majority of these interviewees [15/19] suggested increased awareness/communications would be beneficial internally.

• There is a high degree of collaboration between the Regulatory Affairs Branch, Secretariat, and Regulatory Operations Branch staff in setting priorities for the PFP.

The process for selecting projects is fair and accessible to participants, although a small number of PFP applicants have raised concerns about the process.

• Most CNSC staff, managers and senior managers interviewed [17/23] consider that the process for selecting PFP applicants is fair. A majority of interviewees [16/20] consider that theFunding Review Committee is a necessary component of the PFP.

• CNSC management accepted most FRC recommendations without change over the evaluation. While CNSC management communicates the outcome of its decision clearly, the rationale is not provided to recipients. However, FRC members have suggested that increased feedback on the reasons for changing their recommendation would help improve their recommendations in the future. FRC member interviews also suggested that they could use increased guidance on the appropriateness of professional service fees, which would allow them to ensure applicants are dealt with consistently.
• Applicants surveyed for this evaluation provided mixed views on whether the PFP application and selection process is transparent and fair; [4/11] stated that the requirements were clear and fair, while [4/11] said that there was lack of clarity on the selection process, and/or a lack of consistency by the panels that make funding decisions. It is worth noting that the response rate to the survey was low, and that previous surveys conducted by program staff generally indicated satisfaction with the process.

The CNSC has been proactive in implementing program enhancements to increase participation. While no existing major barriers or obstacles to participation have been identified, there are some opportunities to “fine tune” the program. This is supported by the following: 

• Program take-up has improved over time. Most internal interviewees [18/24], includingFunding Review Committee members, believe program management has been successful at improving both the number and quality of submissions. Previous barriers, such as time to prepare submissions, have been addressed through program changes. The program meets or exceeds the service standards set for reviewing and approving applications.

• Participants themselves reported general satisfaction with the program, both through program- and evaluation- administered surveys. For example, [7/11] respondents to the evaluation survey [see Q17] reported no obstacles with their PFP application. Participants were very satisfied with the response of program staff to their questions and concerns.

• Internal interviewees suggested that the number of applications from academics and research communities should be increased. The majority of internal views argued for more flexibility and customization in program delivery (longer opening periods and open to other regulatory activities). Interviewees did caution about the increase in administrative burden associated with such changes.

• There is some evidence that a more flexible approach will increase take‑up. Over a third of the respondents to the academic target group  [18/48] said they might be more interested in applying to the PFP if there were changes to the subject matter or activities for which the PFP offers funding. In general, respondents to the target group survey considered the funding levels low and the timelines too short to conduct adequate research. Changes to the program terms and conditions may be necessary to increase uptake by academics (e.g., professional fees vs. salary costs). 

PFP opportunities are well advertised with a wide variety of initiatives created along the communication and media routes. This is supported by the following:

• Most CNSC staff, managers and senior managers [17/23] considered that PFP opportunities are advertised sufficiently; they indicated that a great deal is being done to ensure the program is well advertised (although they have suggestions for improvement).

• Applicants agreed that it was clear what information was required for their PFP application, and that the PFP eligibility requirements were also clear. Though a limited sample, applicants suggested that a wide range of communication vehicles is still necessary to reach intended audiences.

Overall, the Commission appears to be provided with value-added submissions for decision making. This is reflected by multiple lines of evidence:

• Most CNSC staff, managers and senior managers, includingFunding Review Committee members [20/24], considered that the PFP is on the right path to achieve its outcomes. The impact of the submissions on the individual hearings added value, improved dialogue, and built bridges with people and organizations.

• Successful applicants in both the program- and evaluation- administered surveys responded that they were able to present their concerns effectively at the CNSC hearing.

• The number of questions raised by Commission members was used as a proxy indicator for the “value-added” by submissions. Seven of twelve hearings at which PFP-funded interventions occurred were used to compare the number of questions asked of PFP versus non-PFP interveners, and whether those questions were directed back to the intervener, proponent or CNSC staff. The following hearings were used: the Gunnar Remediation, Darlington, Key Lake/Rabbit Lake/McArthur River, Beaver Lodge, Pickering G Station, Cigar Lake and Chalk River.  The raw data for these cases are listed in Appendix I.

PFP-funded interventions, on average, resulted in numbers of Commission member questions that were comparable to, or greater than, non-PFP funded interventions. Figure 2 shows the data in terms of the numbers of Commission members’ questions asked in response to an intervention (The Commission members may reply with questions to the intervener, applicant/licensee, or CNSC staff). The data shows that PFP-funded interventions, on average, result in greater numbers of Commission member questions than for non-PFP funded interventions. For PFP-funded groups, the intervener, licensee and staff group asked an average of 6.4, 7.6 and 5.7 questions respectively, while for non‑funded groups, the intervener, licensee and staff group asked an average of 2.5, 1.4 and 1.4 questions respectively.

Another view of the data is shown in Figure 3, which displays the percentages of questions asked by Commission members in response to PFP and non-PFP funded interventions. Although there were 31 PFP interventions in the seven cases studied compared to 156 non-funded interventions, PFP‑funded interventions comprised 44% of the total number of questions asked by Commission members (1,467 in total).

Note that in many cases the quality of the interventions is not similar. CNSC staff noted during interviews that some interventions contain technical errors or inaccurate statements. Nonetheless, the data showed that interventions sparked dialogue among Commission members, which also allowed proponents/licensees and CNSC staff to clarify or correct information so that Commission members were provided with additional information for decision making.

Case study: Intervention by the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) at Ontario Power Generation’s Pickering Nuclear Generating Station 5‑year licence renewal (hearing held May 29–31, 2013)

To illustrate how an intervention can influence Commission decision-making, the evaluation referred to the intervention by the Canadian Environmental Law Association at the license renewal hearing for Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) Pickering Nuclear Generating Station in 2012. This case had been cited by staff as an example of an effective intervention during interviews.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association applied for, and received PFP funding in the amount of $4,500. In its review of the submission, the Funding Review Committee (FRC) noted that “it was an excellent application at reasonable rates”. The Association did most of the work itself, and only asked for additional help in the form of junior law clerks. The FRC assessed that the application, which focused on emergency planning for severe accidents, would be of significant community benefit.

OPG had applied to the Commission for a one-site licence covering both Pickering A and Pickering B, for a period of five years, prior to expiry on August 30, 2013. In its intervention, CELA expressed concern about OPG’s application and provided the following grounds of objection, among others:

• Lack of demonstration of emergency preparedness with available and actionable emergency plans, frameworks and strategies to deal with a nuclear incident.
• Lack of evidence to show that Pickering management worked cooperatively with municipalities and stakeholders to ensure 100% pre‑distribution of potassium iodine to all residents in the 10- to 100‑kilometre zones around Pickering, both within the Region of Durham and within the City of Toronto.
• In the opinion of CELA, evidence showed that neither OPG nor Emergency Management Ontario and Durham Emergency Management had evacuation plans or a communication strategy in place to deal with a nuclear incident.
• There were insufficient protective actions in place (including sheltering, family reunification and emergency drilling measures).

A number of fact-finding and issue-specific questions (12 in total) were generated by the Commission to better understand the matter at hand in response to the intervention. The nature and quality of questions were as follows:

• Commission members asked factual questions that required action‑oriented responses to address concerns raised by CELA, including an ageing nuclear station, insufficient emergency preparedness, lack of an evacuation plan, availability of potassium iodine, insufficient protective actions including sheltering and emergency drills.
• The intervention added value to the Commission hearing and generated further in-depth discussion, as evidenced by the breadth and depth of questions and responses.
• In its decision, the Commission specifically noted that CELA’s intervention “presented a thorough review of emergency management in Ontario”; much of the Commission’s subsequent direction in the area of off-site emergency management reflects the discussion that was initiated by CELA’s intervention.^{Footnote 17}

Overall, PFP interventions do bring value to decision making, and evidence from program operation to date shows that the program is meeting this objective. As previously mentioned, interviewees consistently expressed that increased take-up from scientific or academic researchers will bring further benefit. The principal means suggested by interviewees to increase reach/take-up is adopting a more strategic, long-term focus for the program; this will allow potential applicants to identify opportunities further in advance and to secure research funding (either through the PFP or elsewhere) in enough time to contribute meaningfully to the hearing or other need.

In examining other programs, the National Energy Board (NEB) was found to be open for longer periods than the CNSC’s program. The NEB also creates an “issues list” that is approved by the Board when the hearing opens – the list specifies the nature of interventions that may be of interest to the Board to guide the selection and funding of interventions. Such a list could be extremely valuable in helping identify and guide experts/academics who may be interested in appearing before the Commission; it would also allow CNSC outreach activity to be targeted at communities of interest (academic conferences, workshops, etc.) that might generate PFP submissions.

The PFP has considerably enhanced participation of the public, Aboriginal groups and other non-traditional stakeholders in CNSC public hearings since its inception. This was shown by multiple sources and is supported by:

• a growth of participation in the program by applicants (mainly Aboriginal people, NGOs and individuals) and an increase in the number of PFP recipients over time

• agreement among interviewees and survey respondents, across a broad range of stakeholders, that the PFP has enhanced the participation of public, Aboriginal groups and other non-traditional stakeholders in CNSC public hearings (with the exception of research academics and institutions)

5.3 Efficiency and economy

Under the Treasury Board 2009 Policy on Evaluation, efficiency is defined as maximizing the outputs produced with a fixed level of inputs or minimizing the inputs used to produce a fixed level of outputs; and economy is defined as “minimizing the use of resources […] to achieve expected outcomes.”^{Footnote 18} These elements of performance are demonstrated when:

1. outputs are produced at minimum cost (efficiency)
2. outcomes are produced at minimum cost (economy)

Evaluation questions explored in this section include:

• Question 10(a): Is the PFP delivered efficiently in comparison with similar programs?
• Question 10(b): Are there ways to improve program delivery?
• Question 11: Are the program resources (dedicated staff and the Funding Review Committee) appropriate/ adequate to deliver the program?

Findings and supporting evidence

Efforts to increase program uptake over the past three years have resulted in comparable levels of efficiency with other similar programs (NEB, CEAA). Given the program’s resource use is low (~1 FTE) and the attention paid to funding applications, it can be concluded that the program is delivered efficiently. This is supported by the following:

• The NEB and CNSC programs are comparable to the CEAA (on which they were modelled). An international literature review revealed that there are no similar international programs to the CNSC PFP;
• Most [7/13] CNSC staff and managers considered that the PFP is delivered efficiently, although ways of delivering the program more efficiently were suggested [see Q10(b)]. The PFP was described as well planned; it delivered its outputs expeditiously and met its timelines. Efforts by program staff to improve delivery were also noted (including increased use of electronic documents).
• In terms of output/input indicators (funds awarded per FTE and recipients funded per FTE), the CNSC has improved over time and in comparison to the NEB and CEAA (it processes more recipients per FTE than the NEB). See figures 4 to 6 for further details.
• Role of the CNSC Funding Review Committee: The Funding Review Committee played a significant role in reducing the amount of funding awarded to recipients. This reduction offset administrative costs due to the Funding Review Committee operation. The CNSC’s Funding Review Committee recommended only 43% of the requested funds and paid 94% of the recommended funds.  The estimated saving is well over their cost of $42,000. In comparison, NEB’s Funding Review Committee recommended 10% of requested funds and paid only 39% of the recommended funds. Note that many NEB applicants asked for much larger amounts of money than CNSC applicants. The CNSC does not experience similar amounts of pressure.
• The total funds awarded by the CNSC for the three evaluation years are lower than the total funds awarded for either of the NEB or CEAA (see figure 4). The range of cost types in comparing the CNSC and NEB programs is about the same. See Table 9 for more details on the selected comparators of CNSC/ NEB/ CEAA.

• In comparison to the NEB, applicants for the CNSC program requested smaller amounts of the total offered, but were paid a higher percentage of the amount requested and eventually offered to applicants. This may suggest that the CNSC’s program has a clearer articulation of expectations (although the NEB’s program may be more complex). In both cases, the data shows efforts made to scrutinize and reduce the amounts awarded (offered) and eventually approved for payment. 

• Figure 4 displays the total funds paid by the PFP programs of CNSC, NEB and CEAA for fiscal years 2011–12 to 2013–14. The CNSC shows the lowest level of funding. The NEB shows the next largest level of funding, and the highest level of funding is for the CEAA.

• Figures 5 and 6 display the total amounts awarded and the total number of recipients per program staff member, respectively. Generally speaking, the CNSC’s newer program processes relatively less output than the longer standing CEAA program.  Discussions with program staff indicate that it is the number of recipients (essentially the number of contribution agreements) that drives effort and not dollar amounts (complexity). While data is limited, it does appear that the CNSC is improving with time, and is nearing the output ratio achieved by the longer-standing CEAA program.  Since the average dollar value of agreements processed by the CNSC is smaller than the other organizations, this also suggests that some expansion of the program is possible and higher dollar value agreements (such as research related ones) can be undertaken without impairing efficiency.

CNSC staff and applicants made a variety of suggestions to improve program delivery. Suggestions included:

• creating a champion for the PFP at a high executive level in combination with a five‑year plan on PFP hearings
• providing better direction (e.g., more guidelines) to its independent panels making funding decisions (it is not clear to applicants that they approach similar hearings consistently)

All the collected information indicates that the program’s resources - FTE, Funding Review Committee members, and modest PFP budget is adequate and appropriate to deliver the program. This is supported by:

• information that indicates that the PFP’s 1 FTE and modest budget is adequate to deliver the program
• information that shows the increasing efficiency of the CNSC PFP (high efficiency of the number of recipients per FTE in contrast to the similar NEB PFP program)
• some support for PFP program expansion (depending on future demand, and at a gradual pace)

5.4 Conclusions

Relevance

Both internal and external stakeholders agree that the program continues to meet a demonstrated need. Program management has taken effective steps in increasing the reach of the program; while more can be done, resources allocated to the program should be considered in any potential expansion. Recipients of the program are satisfied that the program is responsive to their needs and is delivered in a timely manner.

Document reviews indicate that the program is aligned with government direction, roles and responsibilities, as well as with the mandate and outcomes of the CNSC.

Effectiveness - achievement of outcomes

There is general agreement between internal stakeholder groups that the value of public participation is recognized within program objectives and priorities.

Program communication efforts are extensive, and management has revamped the program to attract more applicants. Participants generally agree that the program is accessible, responsive and fair.

Interventions have improved in quality over time. There are views that greater scientific/ academic input is needed, but in general there is consensus that the program is value-added for Commission members. Quantitatively, PFP-funded interventions foster equal or greater dialogue at hearings than do non-funded interventions.

Effectiveness - design and delivery

The program is designed and delivered effectively; program outputs are well connected to outcomes. While some suggestions for improvement were offered, no significant barriers exist to delivery that would require major changes to the TBS approved terms and conditions.

There is some evidentiary support for expansion to improve uptake particularly for scientific experts. There is also support for increased customization/flexibility for opening the PFP. This would likely require increased program administrative costs.

Demonstration of efficiency and economy

The program operates with modest resources - the equivalent of 1 FTE and a relatively small fiscal amount to compensate Funding Review Committee members. Further reductions in effort would likely impact effectiveness.

The program is generally comparable to other similar programs (NEB, CEAA) in terms of efficiency indicators (unit of output/unit of input), with some expansion possible.

There is evidentiary support that the program achieves economy through the Funding Review Committee and approval processes (reductions in the amount of funding applied for and received).

6 Summary and recommendations

The Participant Funding Program is a relatively new program for the CNSC and is therefore limited in the amount of operational data it has collected. Although new, the program has received significant internal attention, most notably the conduct of a comprehensive management review completed in 2013 (for which a detailed action plan was developed and completed).The program has also been the subject of four presentations to the CNSC’s Management Committee in its short period of implementation. These efforts, taken together, point to a program that has been subject to a relatively high degree of scrutiny (for a program of its size) to ensure it is achieving its objectives (note: at the time this evaluation report was being written, the program was also undergoing an internal audit).

Combined with evaluation evidence, this amount of attention suggests that the CNSC and program management are committed to adapting and continually improving the program. The program is solidly designed and delivered, and it is expected to achieve its long-term outcomes.

The program also pays significant attention to ensuring economy in the disbursement of funds through the efforts of the Funding Review Committee. Overall, the program is run efficiently.

The most significant issue for the program is assessing the benefits and costs of further increasing the take-up of the program (e.g., by scientific and technical experts) to bring additional informed interventions to the Commission for decision making. While the evaluation evidence provides support that the Commission receives better “value-added” submissions from PFP-funded interveners than from non-funded interveners, many stakeholders felt that it was feasible to attract additional interventions that offered higher value-added information.

Appendix A – Management action plan

Appendix C – PFP logic model

Logic model component definitions

Inputs

Resources dedicated to or consumed by the program (e.g., money, staff and staff time, facilities)

Activities

What the program does with the inputs to fulfill its mission (e.g., educate the public, provide job training)

Outputs

The direct products of program activities

Outcomes

Benefits for participants during and after program activities

Appendix D – Participant Funding Program evaluation matrix

Appendix E – Matrix of interview questions

PFP interview questions

1. What is your overall view of the PFP program? Has it been successful?
2. What would be your criterion for judging the program’s success?
3. What do you see as the future need for this program? Should it expand, remain constant, or reduce in size and scope? Why?
4. Are you aware of the Wright report (PFP management review)? If yes: Do you feel the recommendations of the report were successful in improving the program? How so?
5. Has program management been successful in increasing the quality and quantity of submissions since the launch of the PFP?
6. Are the criteria for selecting applicant proposals correct? Should other criteria be added or examined?
7. Are applicants notified of projects well enough in advance of the application deadline to get meaningful submissions?  
8. Is the amount of funding provided to applicants correct?
9. Are there groups of applicants not currently targeted by the program that should be targeted in the future?
10. What other changes, in your view, would bring improvements to the number and type of applications received by the program?
11. Should the CNSC’s program always be open, or should it be open only for specific hearings or regulatory activities?
12. Should the types of activities funded by the program (meetings, hearings, environmental assessments) change?
13. What is your understanding of the program objectives?
14. Do you feel the roles and responsibilities of CNSC stakeholders were well defined?
15. Do you believe that all internal stakeholders agree on the objectives? If not, why?
16. Do you believe there is support for the program at the working level? Does staff see its value?  
17. What should be done, if anything, to communicate or build awareness and support of the program internally?
18. Is the reporting by program staff sufficient to understand the program’s status, achievements and forward-looking plans?
19. Does the program result in value-added submissions to the Commission? Does the benefit exceed the cost?
20. Do you feel that the process for selecting applicants is fair? Are changes needed?
21. Is the external Funding Review Committee a necessary component of the program?
22. Are there risks in the program that are not being adequately addressed?
23. In your view, are there things which are preventing the program from getting more/better submissions? What can be done to improve the take-up of the program?
24. Are there better ways to create awareness of the Program in the desired participant groups?
25. Is the PFP program on the right path to achieving its desired outcomes (e.g., enhancing the participation of interveners in CNSC regulatory processes, bringing value-added information to the Commission and helping recipients gain a better understanding of CNSC regulated projects and regulatory processes)?
26. To what extent do the applicant’s submissions match the program objectives? 
27. In your experience, are there any mismatches of the goals of an applicant submission versus the final product?  
28. In your experience, what is the impact of the submissions on the individual hearings (by submission type)?
29. 1. What is the feedback to the Funding Review Committee on the quantity or quality of value-added submissions?
    2. Is the Funding Review Committee receiving enough information regarding the project and each applicant, including the performance/value-added of repeat applicants, in order to make informed decisions?  
30. Is the PFP delivered efficiently in your view? Why or why not?
31. How much effort (time) do you estimate the program requires from you (or your staff)?
32. When you think of the funding application and review process, do you believe the review process brings value to the program? Is it efficient?
33. Are there ways of delivering the program more efficiently?
34. Is the program adequately resourced?
35. If the program shows increasing uptake or is opened up further and a higher rate of applicants is expected, what would the program require in terms of added resources to efficiently handle the extra work?
36. Are the program and funding opportunities advertised sufficiently and to the proper audiences? Are there any changes that you would make to the advertising and communications strategy for the program?

Appendix F – Results from PFP applicant and target group survey

Participant Funding Program Evaluation (CNSC)

Survey report

March 9, 2015

Prepared for:

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Introduction

This report summarizes the methods and results of two online surveys conducted as part of the evaluation of the Participant Funding Program (PFP). The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) undertook the evaluation, which examines the relevance, design, delivery, and performance (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy) of the PFP. The CNSC hired PRA Inc., an independent research company, to conduct the surveys, and they delivered the final report on March 9, 2015.

The Applicant survey was designed for those who have applied for funding under the PFP at least once since its inception in 2011. Having participated in the program, respondents provided opinions on the transparency and fairness of the application and selection processes, the clarity of program documentation and communications, the accessibility of the program, and potential improvements to the program.

The target group survey was intended for individuals whom the CNSC targets as potential applicants to the PFP, but who have never applied for funding under the program. The target group includes academics, researchers, Aboriginal groups, associations, unions, and other experts and stakeholders. The survey assessed to what extent the target groups are aware of the PFP; what target groups see as the barriers to their participation in the program; and what communications methods or tools would improve awareness of, and participation in, the PFP.

Methodology

Table 1 summarizes the methodology of the surveys.

Questionnaires were developed for the applicant and target group surveys in consultation with the CNSC. The questions were aligned with the evaluation matrix for the overall PFP evaluation, with emphasis on relevance (the extent to which the PFP is responsive to the needs of target groups) and effectiveness (awareness and accessibility of the program). The CNSC also provided French versions of the questionnaires. The questionnaires, including all survey questions and skip logic, were programmed using computer-assisted web interviewing (CAWI) software. PRA conducted internal tests of the surveys to ensure the skip logic worked properly. Each survey contained a mix of fixed-response questions (multiple choice) and open-ended questions (free response). Both surveys were hosted on PRA’s website.

The CNSC provided both survey samples, including 50 applicants and 269 from the target group. On January 30, the CNSC emailed an announcement letter to both groups to inform them of the survey. The letter described the goals of the surveys, and indicated that the respondents would receive an invitation to the survey within a few days. On February 3, 2015, PRA emailed survey invitations, which contained personalized links to the surveys for both groups. PRA sent three subsequent reminders over the next few weeks to help increase response rates. Also, when the invitations received “bounce backs” (automatic responses from inactive email accounts), web searches and telephone calls were used to attempt to get updated email addresses for the respondents.

Both the applicant and target group surveys closed on February 26, 2015. Afterward, PRA generated the frequencies for each question, and reviewed the open-ended responses. Although the sample sizes were not sufficient for more in-depth analyses (e.g., cross-tabulations), the results of the surveys are summarized in this report.

Note

While respondents provided many insightful comments, the number of responses for each survey (11 applicants and 48 for the target group) suggests that caution should be used when interpreting the results.

Summary of results

The following subsections contain frequencies (tables) and open-ended responses (if applicable) for each survey question. Summaries are provided in point form. The open‑ended responses have been edited to ensure that respondents are not identified. The first survey summarizes the results of the applicant survey, while the second covers the target group survey.

Applicant survey

Status of funding application

Just under half (5) of the respondents applied to the PFP only once.

Three respondents applied twice, and three applied three or more times.

Only one applicant had their PFP application denied.

Six respondents (55%) had approved PFP applications, but only received partial funding.

Three others (27%) received full funding, while one was uncertain about the status of their application.

All (11) respondents applied for funding for professional fees, while seven also applied for travel expenses.

Five out of nine respondents indicated that they were not able to undertake all the activities for which they sought funding. The types of activities that participants could not undertake, even with funding, were varied. Such activities include hiring a consultant, travelling, conducting interviews, and miscellaneous activities.

Three respondents said the types of eligible activities for PFP funding should change, while four said they should not change.

Awareness of CNSC hearings and the PFP

Applicants reported finding out about a CNSC hearing through various means, including from the CNSC website (4 respondents), from a CNSC representative (4), from a colleague (3), from personal communications (2), and from a mailing list (1).

No applicants reported hearing about a CNSC hearing through other websites, radio, newspaper (print or online), social media (Facebook, Twitter) or posters.

Applicants reported finding out about the PFP through various means, including from a CNSC representative (4 respondents), from the CNSC website (3), from a colleague (3), and from a mailing list (1). One respondent knew about the PFP when it was created.

No respondents reported hearing about the PFP through other websites, radio, newspaper (print or online), social media (Facebook, Twitter), posters or personal communications (telephone call, email, or letter).

PFP documentation and requirements

The majority of the applicants (9) either agreed or strongly agreed that it was clear what information was required for their PFP application.

Only one respondent strongly disagreed that this information was clear. One other respondent neither agreed nor disagreed.

Most participants (10) either agreed or strongly agreed that the eligibility requirements of the PFP are clear. Only one respondent neither agreed nor disagreed. No respondents disagreed on this point.

Communication with the CNSC

The majority of participants (9) asked the CNSC at least one question during their application process. Three respondents raised at least one concern during this process.

Of the nine respondents who asked the CNSC a question, eight said they felt listened to, while one said they felt only somewhat listened to.

All three participants who raised a concern said that the CNSC was timely in responding to their concern.

Of the three respondents who raised a concern with the CNSC during their application process, none said they were satisfied with how the CNSC addressed their concern. One said they were very unsatisfied, while two said they were neither satisfied nor unsatisfied.

The majority of participants (8) who asked the CNSC a question indicated that the CNSC was either timely or very timely in its response. One was uncertain.

Most respondents (7) said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the way in which the CNSC addressed their questions. Two said they were neither satisfied nor unsatisfied.

Of the nine successful applicants, six stated that they received the decision on their application with enough time to prepare for the hearing, while two mentioned they would have liked more time to prepare. One was uncertain.

Of the seven applicants who did not receive the amount of funding they requested, three indicated that they received an explanation, three indicated that they did not receive an explanation, and one was uncertain.

Of the three applicants who indicated that they received an explanation as to why they did not receive the amount of funding they requested, two stated that the explanation was not sufficiently justified, while one was uncertain.

Challenges with the PFP application and selection process

Seven out of eleven respondents reported no challenges with their PFP application, while three reported some challenges. One person gave no response.

Respondents provided mixed views on whether the PFP application and selection process is transparent and fair.

Those who stated the process was fair (4) expressed that the requirements were clear and fair, and contact information was available, should questions arise.

Those who did not agree that the process was fair (4) stated that there was a lack of clarity on the selection process, and/or a lack of consistency by the panels that make funding decisions.

Out of nine applicants, six said that they would not have been able to participate in the CNSC hearing without funding from the PFP. Three others were uncertain.

Of the nine successful applicants in the survey, six said that they were able to present their concerns at the CNSC hearing either somewhat effectively (4) or very effectively (2).

Only one respondent could think of any other programs that are similar to the PFP: previous funding programs through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA).

Only one respondent reported that they previously received funding from another program for similar activities.

Background questions

Of all the applicants who responded to the survey, eight were interested in a hearing about a project in Ontario, while three were interested in a project in Saskatchewan. No other provinces or territories were mentioned.

Participants were asked to select one response that best describes how they became interested in CNSC hearings. About a third (4) mentioned they were a member of a non‑profit organization, while another third (4) said they were a member of an Aboriginal organization or community. Two were community association members, and one lived near a nuclear facility.

No respondent mentioned being a subject matter expert, a union member, a member of an academic institution, or an interested stakeholder in the general public.

Conclusion

Three respondents provided additional comments about the PFP (please see Table 25).

Target group survey

Awareness of the PFP

Among the target group respondents, only about one quarter (23%, or 11 respondents) had heard of the PFP before they received the survey invitation.

Interest in the PFP

Half of the respondents (24) said they might consider applying to the PFP in the future, while about a third (16) did not know if they would apply. Only two said they would definitely consider applying, while six said they would definitely not apply.

Barriers and changes to the PFP

The reasons the targeted individuals gave for not applying to the PFP in the past were mixed. Among the open-ended responses, some were not participating in any hearings or had seen no hearings of interest, while another indicated they would need help with other kinds of expenses. Some indicated that they already had other sources of funding, while one respondent was unsure if they were eligible to apply as a government employee.

Among those who provided reasons they might not apply to the PFP in the future, seven respondents said it was not clear whether they were eligible for funding, while six said that they did not have the time to prepare for Commission hearings. Three said they were not interested in participating in Commission hearings.

Others said that they did not have the expertise, or were unsure whether they had the expertise, to attend Commission hearings.

If they were to apply to the PFP in the future, many respondents (19) stated that they would be likely to apply for travel expenses under the PFP, while some (8) stated they would apply for professional fees. Seven said they would not apply, while two said they would apply for other types of costs (please see Table 30).

Seven respondents provided suggestions for other fees or expenses that the PFP should cover, including legal fees for Aboriginal groups, student funding, and preparation costs (researching and developing briefs).

Respondents indicated many different ways of discovering opportunities similar to the PFP, most commonly from the program website (21), from colleagues (21), and from personal communication such as telephone calls, emails, or letters (16). Twelve, or 25%, stated they find out about these opportunities through newspapers (print or online).

Only three people (6%) stated they find out about similar opportunities through social media (Facebook, Twitter).

Respondents provided many suggestions for increasing awareness of the PFP among the targeted groups. The most common suggestions were emails, advertisements or public announcements, and targeted information to those who are likely to be interested (e.g., non-profit organizations, universities, communities, and other interest groups).

Several respondents mentioned that awareness of the PFP could be improved through proactively notifying communities when there is a project that might affect or concern them, and by explaining to the communities that funding is available through the PFP.

A few respondents mentioned that a larger social media presence could help raise awareness of the PFP.

Over a third of respondents (18) stated they might be more interested in applying to the PFP if there were changes to the subject matter or activities for which the PFP offers funding. Also, nine respondents mentioned that they might be more interested if the communications strategy changed. However, eight respondents stated that no changes to the PFP could make them more interested in applying for funding.

Background

Of the 48 respondents, 31 reported never having attended a regulatory hearing before. The other 17 respondents had attended at least one hearing before, with nine having attended a CNSC hearing, and 10 having attended a hearing by another regulatory organization.

Among the 17 respondents who stated they had attended a regulatory hearing in the past—either a CNSC hearing or another hearing—10 (59%) said they did not receive external funding to attend the hearing. Others received funding from an academic institution (3), a provincial government (3), or the federal government (2).

From the 17 respondents who had attended at least one hearing in the past, 16 said they would consider attending a CNSC hearing, while one was uncertain.

Respondents identified themselves as part of several different groups, most commonly academic institutions (43), not-for-profit organizations (14), and subject matter experts (14).

Other groups included interested stakeholders in the general public (10), unions (8), community associations (4) and Aboriginal organizations or communities (3).

Conclusion

No respondents provided additional comments about the PFP.

Appendix G – Document list

• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission public meeting transcript on utilizing the resources of the Participant Funding Program to meet with the Mississauga First Nation Community to discuss Cameco’s Blind River refinery, October 1, 2014.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program decision on meeting with Mississauga First Nation regarding Cameco’s Blind River refinery, December 19, 2014.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission briefing note to Director, PAIRD, on Ontario Power Generation’s application to renew the power reactor operating licence for the Darlington Nuclear Generating licence for the Darlington Nuclear Generation Station, October 15, 2013. e-Doc 4199126.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission briefing note to VP, Regulatory Affairs Branch, from DG, SPD, in the matter of Ontario Power Generation’s application to renew the power reactor operating licence for the Darlington Nuclear Generating licence, Darlington Nuclear Generation Station; May 23, 2014. e-Doc 4436897.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission record of proceedings, including reasons for decision in the matter of Ontario Power Generation’s application to renew the power reactor operating licence for the Darlington Nuclear Generating licence for the Darlington Nuclear Generation Station.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program decision in the matter of Ontario Power Generation’s application to renew the power reactor operating licence for the Darlington Nuclear Generating licence for the Darlington Nuclear Generation Station.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program decision in the matter of Meeting with Kineepik Métis Local Inc. #9 Regarding the Environmental Assessment for Cameco’s Key Lake Extension Project, May 2, 2014.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission public hearing transcript on the application on meeting with Kineepik Métis Local Inc. #9 regarding the environmental assessment for Cameco’s Key Lake Extension Project, October 2, 2013.
• CNSC staff meeting with Kineepik Metis Local Inc. #9 regarding the environmental assessment for Cameco’s Key Lake Extension Project, July 16, 2014.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, licence, Cameco’s proposed Millennium Mine Project licence application.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program Finance Review Committee recommendations in the matter of Cameco’s proposed Millennium Mine Project licence application, March 14, 2014. e-Doc 4383718.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program Finance Review Committee recommendations report, VP-RAB briefing, April 4, 2014. e-Doc 4409830.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission briefing note to VP, Regulatory Affairs Branch, from DG, SPD, in the matter of Cameco’s proposed Millennium Mine Project licence application, May 7, 2014. e-Doc 4428545.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program decision in the matter of Cameco’s proposed Millennium Mine Project licence application.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, licence, Saskatchewan Research Council’s licence application for the Gunnar Remediation Project.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program Finance Review Committee recommendations in the matter of the Saskatchewan Research Council’s licence application for the Gunnar Remediation Project, e-Docs 4319623, 4328939, 4319640, 4319344 and 4319371.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission briefing note to Director, PAIRD, on the Saskatchewan Research Council’s licence application for the Gunnar Remediation Project, November 18, 2014. e-Doc 4579471.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission briefing note to VP, Regulatory Affairs Branch, from DG, SPD, in the matter of the Saskatchewan Research Council’s licence application for the Gunnar Remediation Project, April 15, 2014. e-Doc 4417112.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program decision in the matter of the Saskatchewan Research Council’s licence application for the Gunnar Remediation Project, May 2, 2014.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission record of proceedings, including reasons for decision in the matter of the Saskatchewan Research Council’s licence application for the Gunnar Remediation Project, November 6, 2014.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission public hearing transcript on the application of Cameco Corporation’s application for the renewal of Class IB Nuclear Fuel facility operating licence for Blind River refinery. Hearing date: October 6, 2011.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission public hearing transcript on the application of Cameco Corporation’s application for the renewal of Class IB Nuclear Fuel facility operating licence for Blind River refinery. Hearing date: January 19, 2012. 
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission record of proceedings, including reasons for decision in the matter of Cameco Corporation application to renew its nuclear fuel facility
• operating licence for Blind River refinery. Public hearing dates: November 3, 2011 and January 19, 2012.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program decision in the matter of Cameco Corporation licence renewal for the Blind River refinery, December 14, 2011.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, licence, Bruce Nuclear Generating Station A and B.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program Finance Review Committee recommendations in the matter of Bruce Power’s applications to renew the power reactor operating licence for Bruce Nuclear generation Stations A and B; February 17, 2014. e-Doc 4310869.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission briefing note to Director, PAIRD, on the Bruce Power’s applications to renew the power reactor operating licence for Bruce Nuclear generation Stations A and B, October 15, 2013. e-Doc 4199086.
• Canadian Nuclear safety Commission briefing note to Director, PAIRD, on the Bruce Power’s applications to renew the power reactor operating licence for Bruce Nuclear generation Stations A and B, February 12, 2014. e-Doc 4329195.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Finance Review Committee recommendations and funding rationale report, February 2014. e-Doc 4310869.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission record of proceedings, including reasons for decision in the matter of the Bruce Power’s applications to renew the power reactor operating licence for Bruce Nuclear generation Stations A and B, April 24, 2014. e‑Doc 4423908.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program decision in the matter of the Bruce Power’s applications to renew the power reactor operating licence for Bruce Nuclear generation Stations A and B, December 11, 2014.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission record of proceedings, including reasons for decision in the matter of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited application to renew its nuclear research and test establishment operating licence for the Chalk River Laboratories. Public hearing dates: June 8 and October 4, 2011.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program decision on AECL’s proposed 5-year licence renewal for its Chalk River Laboratories, July 21, 2011. File No.: PFP 2011-CRL01-FRCREP.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission public hearing transcript on the application by AECL’s proposed 5-year licence renewal for its Chalk River Laboratories. Hearing date:  October 4, 2011.
• Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) application for operating licence renewal – 2011, 2010 September 30. File No.: CRL·ACNO·I0·0048·L. 
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program decision on Cameco Corporation’s licence renewal for the Cigar Lake Uranium Mine in Northern Saskatchewan, February 2013.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, licence, Darlington Nuclear Generating Station proposed refurbishment and continued operation.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program Finance Review Committee recommendations in the matter of the environmental assessment of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station refurbishment and continued operation, April 27, 2012. File No.: PFP 2012-DRL02-FRC REC. e-Doc 3910390.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission briefing note to Director, PAIRD, on the environmental assessment of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station refurbishment and continued operation, July 26, 2012. e-Doc 4055369.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission briefing note to Director, PAIRD, on the environmental assessment of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station refurbishment and continued operation, December 19, 2012. e-Doc 4055369.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission public hearing transcript on the environmental assessment of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station refurbishment and continued operation. Public hearing dates: December 3–6, 2012.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission record of proceedings, including reasons for decision in the matter of the environmental assessment of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station refurbishment and continued operation. Public hearing dates: December 3–6, 2012
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program decision in the matter of the environmental assessment of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station refurbishment and continued operation, May 2012.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, licence, Cameco’s licence renewals for Key Lake, Rabbit Lake uranium mine and mill, and McArthur River uranium mine.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program Finance Review Committee recommendations in the matter of Cameco’s licence renewals for Key Lake, Rabbit Lake uranium mine and mill, and McArthur River uranium mine, April 29, 2013. e‑Doc 4112385.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission briefing note to Director, PAIRD, in the matter of Cameco’s licence renewals for Key Lake, Rabbit Lake uranium mine and mill, and McArthur River uranium mine, July 2013. e-Doc 4165656.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission briefing note to VP, Regulatory Affairs Branch, from DG, SPD, in the matter of Cameco’s licence renewals for Key Lake, Rabbit Lake uranium mine and mill, and McArthur River uranium mine, e-Doc 4131199.
• Draft Qs & As relating to Participant Funding for re-licensing hearing for Key Lake, Rabbit Lake and McArthur River uranium mine, September 11, 2013. e-Doc 4196588.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission public hearing transcript in the matter of Cameco Corporation’s application for a 10-year licence renewal for: Key Lake Uranium Mill, Rabbit Lake Uranium Mine and Mill, and McArthur River Uranium Mine. Public hearing date: October 1–3, 2013 public hearing.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission summary record of proceedings, including reasons for decision in the matter of Cameco Corporation - application for the renewal of the licence for Rabbit Lake Operation, public hearing dates October 1-3, 2013. 
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission summary record of proceedings, including reasons for decision in the matter of Cameco Corporation - application for the renewal of the licence for Key Lake Operation. Public hearing dates: October 1-3, 2013.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission summary record of proceedings, including reasons for decision in the matter of Cameco Corporation - application for the renewal of the licence for McArthur River Operation. Public hearing dates: October 1-3, 2013.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program decision on Cameco Corporation’s application for a 10-year licence renewal for: Key Lake Uranium Mill, Rabbit Lake Uranium Mine and Mill, and McArthur River Uranium Mine, July 2013.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence, Cameco’s application to renew waste facility operating licence at decommissioned Beaverlodge mine and mill, April 3-4, 2013.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission public hearing transcript in the matter of Cameco Corporation’s 10-year licence renewal application for the decommissioned Beaverlodge mine and mill site, April 3, 2013. 
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission summary record of proceedings, including reasons for decision in the matter of Cameco Corporation’s 10-year licence renewal application for the decommissioned Beaverlodge mine and mill site. Public hearing dates: April 3-4, 2013.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission briefing note to VP-Regulatory Affairs Branch from DG, SPD in the matter of Cameco’s 10-year licence renewal application for the decommissioned Beaverlodge mine and mill site. e-Doc 4061130.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission decision on the allocation of participant funding for Cameco Corporation’s 10-year licence renewal application for the decommissioned Beaverlodge mine and mill site, February 2013.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, licence, Cameco’s application for a licence to allow operation of the uranium mine at Cigar lake project, 2012.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program Finance Review Committee recommendations in the matter of Cameco’s licence renewal for the Cigar Lake uranium mine, December 17, 2012. File No.: PFP2012-CGL01-FRC REC. e‑Doc 4051107.
• Canadian Nuclear safety Commission briefing note to VP-Regulatory Affairs Branch from DG, SPD in the matter of Cameco’s licence renewal for the Cigar Lake uranium mine. e‑Doc 4083184.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission public hearing transcript in the matter of Cameco Corporation’s licence renewal for the Cigar Lake uranium mine. Public hearing date: April 3, 2013.     
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission summary record of proceedings, including reasons for decision in the matter of Cameco Corporation’s licence renewal for the Cigar Lake uranium mine, April 3, 2013.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission decision on the allocation of participant funding for Cameco Corporation’s licence renewal for the Cigar Lake uranium mine.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, licence, Pickering Nuclear Generating Station A and B.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission public hearing transcript of public hearing on the application by Ontario Power Generation for the renewal of the licence for the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (day one). February 20 and May 29–31, 2013.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission record of proceedings, including reasons for decision in the matter of Ontario Power Generation application to renew the power reactor operating licence for the Pickering Nuclear generating Station. Public hearing dates: February 20 and May 29–31, 2013.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program decision on Ontario Power Generation’s licence renewal of the Pickering Nuclear Power Reactor operating licence, February 2013.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program Finance Review Committee recommendations in the matter of the Pickering Nuclear Power Reactor operating licence, December 17, 2012. e-Doc 4051301.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, licence, Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station.
• Canadian Nuclear safety Commission briefing note to Director, PAIRD, on Point Lepreau 5-year renewal of operating licence, December 12, 2011. e-Doc 3866430.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program decision on New Brunswick Power Nuclear Corporation’s licence renewal for the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station, September 30 and October 14, 2011.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission public hearing transcript on the application of NB Power Nuclear Corporation’s request for approval to reload fuel and restart the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station, Public Hearing date: October 6 and December 1–2, 2011. 
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission record of proceedings, including reasons for decision in the matter of New Brunswick Power Nuclear Corporation’s request for approval to reload fuel and restart the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station, and application to renew the power reactor operating licence for the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station. Public Hearing Date: October 6, 2011 and December 1 and 2, 2011.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, licence, Cameco Fuel Manufacturing Inc. in Port Hope.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence, Cameco Corporation licence renewal: Conversion facility in Port Hope, Ontario, October 27, 2011.  File No.: PFP2011-PHCF01-FRCREP. e-Doc 3821347.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission briefing note to Director, PAIRD, on Cameco Port Hope Conversion Facility, January 23, 2012. e-Doc 3867771.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program summary record of proceedings and decision in the matter of Cameco Corporation application for the renewal of the operating licence for Port Hope, Ontario Public. Hearing dates: November 3, 2011 and January 18-19, 2012.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program decision on Cameco Corporation application for the renewal of the operating licence for Port Hope, Ontario, December 14, 2011.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission public hearing transcript in the matter of Cameco Corporation application for the renewal of Class IB Nuclear Fuel Facility operating licence in Port Hope. Hearing date: November 3, 2011. 
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission public hearing transcript in the matter of Cameco Corporation application for the renewal of Class IB Nuclear Fuel Facility operating licence for Port Hope Conversion Facility. Hearing date: January 18-19, 2012.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence Conditions Handbook, Bruce Nuclear Generating Station A and B.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence Conditions Handbook, Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, 2014.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence Conditions Handbook, Cameco’s Millennium project uranium mine licence. e-Doc 4406211 (Word) and 4413126 (PDF).
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, licence application for Cameco’s Millennium uranium mine project. e-Doc 4315539 (Word) and 4412049 (PDF).
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence Conditions Handbook, Gunnar Remediation Project.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence Conditions Handbook, Key Lake Uranium Mill, Rabbit Lake Uranium Mine and Mill, and McArthur Uranium Mine.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence Conditions Handbook, Beaverlodge Mine/Mill.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence Conditions Handbook, Cigar Lake Uranium Mine.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence Conditions Handbook, Pickering Nuclear Generating Station A.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence Conditions Handbook, Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, 2012.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence Conditions Handbook, Port Hope Conversion Facility.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence Conditions Handbook, Blind River Refinery.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence Conditions Handbook, Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Licence Conditions Handbook, Chalk River Laboratories.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Guide, February 2011.

Appendix H - Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s Participant Funding Program recipient survey covering fiscal years 2011–12 to 2013–14

Summary

1. Number of PFP recipients from 2011–14 = 69
2. Number of Survey Respondents (sample) = 39
3. % Response  = 56.52%

Appendix I – Data for seven CNSC hearing cases

List of acronyms

CEAA

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

CELA

Canadian Environmental Law Association

CNSC

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

EA

Environmental assessment

FTE

Full-time equivalent

FY

Fiscal year

GC

Government of Canada

MRRS

Management, resources, and results structure

NEB

National Energy Board

NGO

Non-governmental organization

PAA

Program alignment architecture

PAIRD

Policy, Aboriginal and International Relations Division

PFP

Participant Funding Program

PRA

Prairie Research Associates Inc.

RAB

Regulatory Affairs Branch

ROB  

Regulatory Operations Branch

RRED

Regulatory Research and Evaluation Division

TBS 

Treasury Board Secretariat

TOR

Terms of reference