I am not, therefore, optimistic that, short of a major overhaul in the aec’s basic approach to licensing of nuclear power plants, the decisions on nuclear power licensing will reflect an appropriate balancing of real risks against real benefits. The licensing program has been studied and restud­ied, but these studies have all centered upon the single objective of stream­lining the process to benefit the license applicants. There has been no study of the program from the standpoint of the interests of potential in — tervenors. Indeed, although the nuclear power industry has been fully represented on these study groups, not a single person likely to represent the interests and views of conservationists or environmentalists has been appointed to any such group. Such a study is needed. Meanwhile, there are a number of small steps which would help to some extent. Most impor­tant would be the development of a more objective attitude on the part of the aec regulatory staff. The staff’s safety analysis should explicitly recog­nize the risks, what is being done to minimize them, and most important, the risks which remain despite the safeguards built into the plant. These factors should also be developed by the aec staff counsel at the hearing. It would help also if the aec adopted a more benign attitude toward inter — venors. Intervention should be permitted at any time after the license ap­plication has been filed. Hearings should be scheduled so as to give an in — tervenor at least two months to prepare between the time he is admitted as a party and commencement of the hearings. There should be some flexi­bility in the conduct of the hearings themselves so as to permit the inter­venor’s counsel, without prejudice to his client’s interest, to absent himself from portions not of particular interest to him, thereby enabling some cost-saving. And aec should make daily transcripts of the hearing avail­able to the intervenors without cost upon an appropriate showing of the intervenor’s poverty.

Such improvements would undoubtedly increase the elapsed time be­fore construction permits are issued, but it is extremely doubtful that in­terventions would result in denial of construction permits even under such

more liberal procedures. But more effective interventions would serve a salutary purpose in helping to focus public attention on the risk/benefit calculus and how it is performed. This might serve to bring about a more informed public opinion which could be reflected to Congress.