203 
ing on the Pacific coast and 50 percent on the Atlantic coast will be 
saline. Even if the ecological ana esthetic effects of these plants on 
the fragile marine environment can be demonstrated as negligible, 
the use of large blocks of coastal acreage for powerplant siting 
constitutes an irretrievable loss which cannot be regained for use by 
future generations. Careful consideration of this issue is of crucial 
importance in the formulation of long-range planning for land use 
management. 
In addition to market factors, the utilities are likely to encounter 
inereasingly stringent constraints on site selection imposed by public 
agencies, such as the conservative site standards set by the Atomic 
Energy Commission with regard to areas of potential earthquake 
hazards. All these factors are further compounded by the fact that 
the greatest percentage of future sites are likely to be required in 
the regions of heaviest concentration of population and existing 
plantsites, especially in the northeast corridor. It is here that land 
is the scarcest, especially at the seacoast. 
The problem of public acceptance is primarily one of an overriding 
concern for the quality of the environment. The areas of most 
coneern are: (1) the air pollution caused by fossil-fired plants; (2) the 
thermal pollution caused by nuclear plants; (3) potential radiation 
hazards related to nuclear plant accidents; and (4) the visual intrusion 
of generating facilities on the beauty of the natural landscape and other 
esthetic considerations. Presently, political action has led to the situ- 
ation whereby 20 percent of new plants are delayed by actual litiga- 
tion, while 40 percent are delayed by general conservation and environ- 
mental considerations. (11) It is reasonable to expect that problems 
of this general nature will occur more and more frequently, causing 
delays of increasing consequence when considered together with the 
delays in construction scheduling. 
A most recent manifestation of these multiple problems associated 
with powerplant siting can be found in a report entitled “The Turkey 
Point Case, Power Development in South Florida—a Study in 
Frustration.’’ (19) In this article, Harris B. Stewart, Jr., Director of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Atlantic Oceano- 
graphic and Meteorological Laboratory in Miami, documents an 
extraordinary chronology of events (covering a 7 year time span) 
concerning the location of a new nuclear powerplant to satisfy the 
increasing demands for power of the residents of Dade County, 
Florida. Turkey Point was about the last remaining section of water- 
front in Dade County available for the needed expansion, a site which 
was relatively remote from population (25 miles south of Miami and 
5 miles from the nearest dwelling), was accessible to cooling water 
(Card Sound to Biscayne Bay) and the transportation necessary to 
supply fuel for the units. Yet for the last 7 years the Florida Power 
and Light Company, despite clear evidence of good faith on environ- 
mental issues, has been frustrated at every turn in its attempts to 
secure approval of its expansionary plans, with the most intense 
pressures coming from conservationists who feared that the thermal 
effects of discharged cooling water might be detrimental to the eco- 
logical systems of the area. The issue has risen to national prominence, 
while at present construction is at a standstill while the fight goes 
on in the Federal courts. In concluding his examination of the con- 
flict, Stewart reflected on the dilemma: 
57-242—71_—_14 
