Attachment IV - Page 6 
PART I (Cont’d) 
Pago Two 
modification of the guidelines as well as the review of specific 
applications, and the establishment of public policy. This 
approach has proven to be successful, and should continue. 
There is a concern that meaningful p^hl iV fnout mav n ot 
be accomplished where there is a rienri to prpf-f ct proprietary 
i nformation from industrial applications before regulatory 
agencies . it would appear that such would not be subject to 
review in a public forum, but public members on advisory commit- 
tees could perhaps participate on policy issues pertaining to 
such proprietary applications. 
A question was raised as to whether meaningful public 
input is possible in the deliberations of regulatory agencies. 
This concern is based on the fact that regulatory agencies are 
required to respond within a limited time-frame. 
Also because the regulatory agencies must enforce 
specific statutory requirements, it is questionable that advisory 
committees could directly affect the review of such applications. 
Obviously, a regulatory agency cannot delegate this duty to 
advisory committees. 
Undoubtedly, approvals of proprietary applications 
would primarily be made by trained and experienced staff members. 
Therefore, it appears unrealistic to expect meaningful public 
input in the decision-making process in the regulatory agencies. 
Therefore, it is most important not to represent that there is 
significant public participation when, in fact, it could not 
properly function. 
Another concern was raised as to the extent to whic h 
there would meaningful public input on the supervising boar d. 
If the regulatory agencies have already made a specific decision 
on an application, there would appear to be little authority of 
the supervising board to review or alter. Public discussion 
would take place after the decision-making process was complete. 
If each regulatory agency established their own separa te 
IUVC, public" attentio n could well become diverted and fragmentized . 
This wouia cause contusion and' uncertainty among the general public 
as to which RAC is the most important, or which RAC is relevant to 
their particular interest. Under present policy, with one RAC, 
pvublic attention is focused on this one body. This simplifies the 
task of the public and interested observers in following the science 
and technology. 
[ 416 ] 
