(d)). We shall nevertheless make certain observations in answer to your additional questions. Comments have been received by the staff study group that the existing review and hearing procedures are unnecessarily formal and judicialized, that they discourage participation by scientific and technical witnesses, and that safety objectives might be achieved by more informal procedures, and still satisfy the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. It has been our observation that hearings have been conducted with little or no unnecessary formality and in a realistic, expeditious, and flexible manner. We believe that the public's right to know that the issues of safety are being dealt with deliberately and thoroughly, and the necessity of a thorough and orderly exploration of those issues as a basis for the required findings, justify a degree of formality in the conduct of the hearings. Study of the history of reactor licensing cases shows that the formality and judicial character of the hearings has not in fact been a major cause of delay or expense, but that the factors which have tended to lengthen the licensing process as a whole have been the early and fluid state of reactor designs, modifications in design made after the filing of an application, the process of the hazards evaluation conducted by the staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and resulting modifications, and delays on the part of applicants themselves. We have received no complaint that the mode of conduct of hearings discourages participation by scientific and technical witnesses. As we have indicated in my letter of November 30, we do not exclude the possibility of future modification of the method of conducting the hearings in the direction of greater informality; indeed, our regulations look toward such an objective. (a) Should the AEC, by rule or regulation, make it clear to possible applicants, intervenors, and the public, that the AEC hazards evaluation staff and the ACRS are available for informal discussions on possible sites and reactor safety questions, prior to selection of the site and the filing of the application, as well as after? The hazards evaluation staff if, of course, available for consultation with applicants prior to and after the submission of applications. We believe that its availability is well enough known in the industry and to the public so that we are not sure that there is a need of codifying it in the form of regulations, but we will give consideration to doing so or incorporating information on that subject in a manual or guide which would be made available to applicants and other interested parties and persons. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards is not freely available for consultation with applicants. Since participation in the work of that Committee is a part-time activity for its members who are principally engaged in other activities, the Committee acts largely on the basis of written submissions by applicants and the hazards evaluation staff and oral presentations at scheduled meetings. Such informal consultation as has occurred on the part of members of the Committee has been the exception rather than the rule. To the extent that the Committee desires information from applicants, it customarily requests that information from them through the hazards evaluation staff. It would be inaccurate to convey the impression that members of the Committee are readily available for informal consultation. Such a course would tend to bypass the hazards evaluation staff and impose on the committee burdens which it is not in a position to assume. (b) In an uncontested case, might the hearing be conducted as a round-table discussion, on the record and in an orderly manner, but by means of questions and answers among the participants, including the examiner, the applicant, and the AEC staff, in order to develop the information needed in the record, rather than by a succession of witnesses on the witness stand? Would such a procedure receive greater acceptance among scientific and technical persons? This question has largely been answered by our responses to previous questions. A round-table discussion does not lend itself to complete and detailed elaboration of factual and opinion evidence. Such a mode of conducting reactor licensing hearings might detract considerably from the coherence and clarity of the presentation of evidence, and tend to prejudice the adequate protection of public safety by inconclusiveness of the record and inadequate disclosure of the facts and the basis of opinions. Therefore, we question whether such a procedure would have greater acceptance among scientific and technical persons. The primary interest of such groups, we believe, is the same as ours; namely, the protection of the public health and safety and the necessity to develop an orderly record of the evidence which would support or negate a finding, as required by statute, that there is adequate protection of the health and safety of the public. Sincerely, LOREN K. OLSON, Commissioner. APPENDIX 10 Letter dated December 13, 1960, from Chairman, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, to Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, suggesting certain changes in AEC regulatory organization and procedures. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Subject: Regulation and safety of nuclear reactors. Chairman, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, DEAR MR. MCCONE: This is in response to a request for any suggestions contained in Commissioner Olson's letter of August 29, 1960. The Committee believes that there are general principles which can be stated. I. RESPONSIBILITY There should be a separation at the highest level practicable between the responsibility for promotion and the responsibiilty for regulatory and safety activities. This separation might be obtained by having two separate agencies in the executive branch of the Government, but the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards believes that at the present time the two separated groups should exist within the Commission itself. It is the view of the ACRS that a satisfactory solution could be obtained if— (a) a Commissioner were to concern himself with regulation and safety as his special sphere of interest; and (b) the line organization to implement safety review, inspection, licensing, and hearings were to be entirely separate from the promotional and developmental activities of the Commission. II. STAFF (a) Adequate review of reactor proposals requires the services of a large technical staff. This technical staff should be composed of highly competent technical persons representing all of the necessary disciplines. For the present, it seems certain that the existing staff will have to draw upon consultants in special areas. (b) This technical staff should have direct access to the information developed by and some influence on the AEC program of research in safety matters. The stature of this group will be enhanced in the atomic energy field by such a close relationship. III. ADVISORY COMMITTEE There is a continuing need for a technical committee, group, or organization free from self-interest and promotional pressure to give advice as to the policies and means by which the public is protected from radiation hazards in connection with reactors or other large nuclear facilities. This Committee should concern itself with the critical technical safety features of specific reactors; with safety in chemical nuclear processing plants; with aerospace nuclear problems in which there are significant health and safety problems affecting the public; and technical advice on safety criteria and standards. The Committee should give independent advice. However, in studying the problem the Committee should work closely with the full-time technical staff mentioned in II above. As time goes on, the staff should gradually assume the responsibility for review of all reactors except new and unique types, and the Committee should confine its duties more and more to safety policy matters and to unique nuclear safety problems. IV. IMPROVEMENTS IN PROCEDURES (a) The regulatory procedure should be responsive to the technical as well as to the legal requirements. The procedure should be designed to keep its necessary steps to a minimum. (b) Licenses should be written in sufficiently basic terms so that future amendments refer to major safety problems and not to minor details. Sincerely yours, LESLIE SILVERMAN, Chairman. APPENDIX 11 EXCERPT FROM JOINT COMMITTEE SUMMARY-ANALYSIS OF HEARINGS ON "RADIATION PROTECTION CRITERIA AND STANDARDS: THEIR BASIS AND USE" This appendix contains an excerpt from the summary-analysis of hearings held in the spring of 1960 by the Special Subcommittee on Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The excerpt pertains to the organization and functions of the Federal Radiation Council. Establishment of the Federal Radiation Council "On August 14, 1959, Executive Order No. 10831 was issued establishing the Federal Radiation Council with the following statement of duties: "The Council shall advise the President with respect to radiation matters directly or indirectly affecting health, including matters pertinent to the general guidance of executive agencies by the President with respect to the development by such agencies of criteria for the protection of humans against ionizing radiation applicable to the affairs of the respective agencies. The Council shall take steps designed to further the interagency coordination of measures for protecting humans against ionizing radiation. "At the same time the White House issued a press release discussing the Executive order and setting forth a series of related recommendations approved by the President. The following excerpts pertain to the Federal Radiation Council: "The President announced today organizational arrangements aimed at centralizing responsibility for providing general standards and guidance to executive agencies for their use in developing operating rules and regulations for radiological health protection. "In order to obtain assistance in the discharge of this function the President has issued an Executive order establishing a Federal Radiation Council. Members of the Council are the heads of the agencies most significantly involved with radiation-the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Commerce. The President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology will participate as an adviser in the discussions of the Council. "The Federal Radiation Council will also take steps designed to further the interagency coordination of measures for protection against radiation, and to that end will consult with all Federal agencies which have radiological health responsibilities. "On August 22, 1959, the White House issued another press release stating that Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Arthur S. Flemming had been designated Chairman of the FRC and setting |