202 
which must be designed to meet stringent radiation containment 
standards, even in the event of severe seismic disturbances. Although 
factory-type construction techniques have been utilized -in\ other 
types of large-scale construction, power stations are still built, using 
traditional methods. As a result, we are witnessing inordinate delays 
in construction schedules: Nuclear: plants now take from 5 to 7 years 
for completion. (7) These setbacks in construction scheduling are 
extremely costly and could wipe out any cost advantage that one 
particular type of plant might have over another. Also, power com- 
panies may be-forced to anticipate delays by increasing construction 
leadtimes, running the risk of premature retirement | of existing 
facilities if the construction schedules are met. 
Also, if nuclear power is to be increasingly relied upon in the future, 
the installation of nuclear stations must proceed even faster than net 
power demand. The doubling time for nuclear plant capacity would 
then be on the order of 7 years, since new demands must be satisfied 
while old fossil plants are phased out. Hence, the combination of short 
doubling time and long construction time could be a major plisiiale 
in the way of increased reliance on nuclear power. 
Difficulties in securing approval of site selections 
The most severe problems facing the utilities of late have arisen 
from difficulties associated with the selection of sites for new generating 
facilities. The situation is accurately described as follows: 
Everyone agrees that electric power supply is vital to the Nation and that we 
must find sites for the powerplants needed to meet the Nation’s rapidly expanding 
use of electricity. Nevertheless, ‘‘Don’t Put It Here’”’ is increasingly becoming the 
publie’s reaction to particular sites selected by the utilities. Furthermore, the 
electric utilities are facing increasing competition for sites because our land re- 
sources are limited, and the ingredients of a prime site for electric generation also 
make it attractive ‘to many other expanding industries.(8) 
This statement points out the two major difficulties related to site 
selection and approval: Competition from a wide range of prospective 
users, and the multiple pressures of public opinion. 
Competition for prime sites is not restricted to mpdnetiagl develop- 
ment. The site that is ideal for electric power generation is often very 
well suited for various forms ‘of residential development, the location 
of transportation corridors, commercial development, or. recreation. 
This competition becomes especially intense as the utility companies 
move to acquire coastal locations to assure adequate supplies of cooling 
water. Yet many of these areas, as Senator Jackson pointed out in 
his introduction of the National Land Use Policy Act, ‘‘with the 
benefit of planning and foresight, should have been reserved for other 
uses,’’(9) such as recreation, parks, or wildlife preservation. Strong 
arguments of this kind have been made (see reference 35) asito the 
need for preserving coastal resources in recognition of their extremely 
high intrinsic value for recreation, conservation, and wildlife preser- 
vation. The esas trends toward: locating powerplants at coastal 
and estuarine sites is in direct and irreversible conflict with considera- 
tions of this sort. The State of California has already located 85 
percent of its power stations on tidal waters. Of large nuclear units 
now planned, built, or operated in the United States, 18 percent use 
ocean or bay water as condenser cooling water, and another 12 percent 
are sited on estuaries.(10) If this trend is allowed to continue for the 
next 20 to 30 years, 80 percent of the cooling water for States border- 
