Improving the Regulatory Process

From the safety standpoint, the important part of the formal application was the hazards-summary report. The applicant prepared an analysis that described the kinds of accidents that seemed credible for the particular reactor, the precautions devised to prevent such mishaps, and the possible consequences of the various calamities. Using this report, the Hazards Evaluation Branch in the Licensing and Regulation Division 

The Price-Anderson legislation, however, legally required the Safeguards Committee to review and prepare for the Commission a public report on each reactor application. Written in executive session after the committee had conducted its own extensive review of each project, the public reports generally were not intended to duplicate the ones pre- 

With the exception of the PRDC case, in which intervention occurred prior to the mandatory-hearing requirement, all reactor applications between September 1957 and the summer of 1962 were uncontested by members of the public. T5q)ically, any differences on major technical issues between the applicant and the regulatory staff or the Safeguards Committee had been ironed out in the informal review performed before a case came before the hearing examiner. An applicant would not go to a hearing if any outstanding safety question had not been resolved by the previous technical reviews. In other words, the parties at an uncon- 

In addition, the Commission in late 1959 approved an agency rule 

Committee reviews where the bulk of the agency s regulatory technical resources was located. 

---

That rationale drew sharp criticism from Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization. "Delaying a rule that is critical to the safety of mine workers does nothing to improve the regulatory process," said regulatory policy advocate Amit Narang. 

---