The licensing process is basically a two-step affair. A utility must first obtain a construction permit before it may commence construction of the plant. After construction is completed, the utility must obtain an operating license before it may begin operation of the plant. There is a thorough review of the health and safety implications at each of these stages, and there is no guarantee that even if the plant is constructed in strict accordance with the construction permit, operation will be licensed. As a practical matter, however, an operating license is unlikely to be de­nied under such circumstances, so that, realistically, issuance of the con­struction permit is the critical element in the licensing process. It is vir­tually a certainty once the construction permit is issued that aec will li­cense operation of a nuclear power plant at that site and that only tech­nical and operating details, if even these, will remain to be argued about at the operating license stage.

I focus, therefore, on the construction permit phase of the licensing process. This is initiated by the applicant’s filing of the license application, which includes a multi-volume preliminary safety analysis report. The ap­plication is studied at great length and in truly amazing detail by the aec regulatory staff. Voluminous correspondence flows back and forth, and the preliminary safety analysis report is amended and supplemented as a result of the staff’s searching inquiries and suggestions. While the staff is studying the application, a parallel study by the aec’s Advisory Commit­tee on Reactor Safeguards is under way. The acrs is a prestigious and conservative committee composed of scientists and engineers from outside the aec, representing several disciplines, who are asked to review and pass on the safety of each proposed nuclear power plant. Both groups are concerned with one principal, ultimate issue, Does the application meet the aec’s safety criterion for issuance of a construction permit? That is, is there “reasonable assurance that. . . the proposed facility can be con­structed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public?”

When these two groups are satisfied as to the “reasonable assurance” test, which usually is at about the same time since their efforts are to some degree coordinated, each issues a report. Typically, the acrs report is terse and frequently includes suggestions for additional research and de­velopment or invites attention to safety aspects which the acrs believes warrant further thought or action. But the regulatory staff’s report, known as the safety analysis report, is long and comprehensive. Both reports are available for public inspection; indeed, a principal purpose of these re­ports is to inform the public about the health and safety aspects of the proposed facility.

Both reports invariably conclude with the judgment that there is “reasonable assurance that the proposed facility can be constructed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.” I say “invariably” because ordinarily neither of these bodies will submit its report until it is satisfied as to “reasonable assur­ance.” In the light of experience, it appears that, if either body would emerge with a negative conclusion, the utility would undoubtedly with­draw its application.* Accordingly, this phase of the licensing process does not come to an end until the prestige of the acrs supports the appli­cation and the aec staff has been committed to the proposition that all health and safety standards have been met.

The next phase of the licensing process is a hearing before a three- man Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Each Board is designated ad hoc and consists of three members drawn from a panel. Membership on the panel, except for the panel’s chairman and vice chairman, is a part­time avocation; two members of each board are “technically qualified,” and the third member, the chairman, is a lawyer. The principal function of the board is to determine whether the “reasonable assurance” test has been met.