In the Canadian political system, as well as in many other nations, the public ultimately decides what is to be done and what is to be stopped. In this sense the whole of the nuclear enterprise reports to them. Officially, this reporting is done through government agencies and elected officials. In recent years, however, the public has become much more directly involved — the system has become more participatory and less representative. We all can recall cases in which public discussion has directly influenced the deci­sions made by both the operating company and the safety standards author­ity. The safety management system has become a political system rather than a purely technical one. This subject is discussed in some detail in a recent report by INSAG (INSAG, 2006).

In the present-day climate, consider the position of the operating company when faced with a regulatory staff proposal with which they disagree, either on the basis of potential negative effect on safety or due to unfavourable cost-effectiveness. They can appeal this proposal to the safety standards authority in hopes that reason will prevail. The safety standards authority may rule against the operating company at least partly because of their heavy reliance on the regulatory staff for technical advice. Several means have been devised to ensure that regulatory decisions (which may have far-reaching consequences) are balanced. The first is to establish a senior advisory committee reporting to the head of the regulatory agency, whose duty is to advise the authority from a detached, third-party point of view. In some countries, formal appeals can be made to separate and unbiased bodies established for this purpose.