213 
the Office of Science and Technology, the Atomic Energy Commission, 
the Department of the Interior, and any public or private organiza- 
tion with a vested interest in land use, environmental quality, and 
other issues related to powerplant siting. Such an effort could be in- 
strumental in eliminating a troublesome source of controversy from 
land use management and is certainly relevant to the concept of 
intergovernmental coordination that is fostered in the land use policy 
program. At the same time, this could be the all-important first step 
that would draw attention to the increasing need for the establishment 
of a formal governmental mechanism that can effectively deal with the 
formulation of a long-range, national energy policy. 
REFERENCES 
1. Sherman R. Knapp, Chairman of Northest Utilities; Statements in Panel 
Session on ‘““The Nuclear Controversy”, Annual Conference, Atomic 
Industrial Forum, December, 1969. 
. Gordon R. Corey, economist for Commonwealth Edison (Illinois); from 
nuclear engineering lectures given at M.I.T., April 7, 1970, entitled 
“Effects of Recent Changes in the Money Market?’. 
3. Estimate based on information assembled in connection with updating of 
the 1964 Federal Power Survey; reported in Considerations Affecting 
Steam Power Plant Section, a report sponsored by the Energy Policy Staff, 
Office of Science and Technology, December, 1968. 
4. U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, The Sources of Air 
Pollution and Their Control, 1966. 
5. Report of the Energy Policy Staff, Office of Science and Technology, Con- 
siderations Affecting Steam Power Plant Site Selection, USAEC Report 
TID-24936, December, 1968. 
6. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, testimony 
before J.C.A.E. hearings on ‘‘The Environmental Effects of Producing 
Electric Power’’. 
7. F.C. Olds, Nuclear Plants—Late and Later, Power: Engineering, March, 1969. 
8. Report of the Energy Policy Staff, Ibid. 
9. Senator Henry M. Jackson, “Introduction of the National Land Use Policy 
of 1970’, Congressional Record-Senate, January 29, 1970. 
10. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Environmental Effects of Producing 
Power, August, 1969. 
th. J.C.A.E., Lbid., Part 2, January—February, 1970. i 
12. Harris B. Stewart, Jr., ‘‘The Turkey Point Case, Power Development in 
South Florida-—a Study in Frustration”, Meeting of the Marine Tech- 
nology Society, November, 1970. 
13. J. A. Carver, Jr., statements in panel session on “The Nuclear Controversy,” 
Annual Conference, Atomie Industrial Forum, December 1969. 
14. General Dynamics, Quincy (Mass.) Division, pamphlet describing Proposed 
Fast Containerships as part of a Total Transportation System, 1968. 
15. Based on data presented by R. W. Marble (Reference 20) and projected 
demands for electric energy consumption. 
16. ‘‘Con Ed has taken the First Step Toward a Serious Look at Artificial Islands’’, 
_. Nucleonics Week, Vol. 11, No. 14, April, 1970. ; 
17. Bechtel Corporation, Engineering and Economic Feasibility Study Phases I, 
II, III for a Combination Nuclear Power and Desalting Plant, USAE C 
Report. TID—22330, Vols. 1 and 2, December, 1965. 
18. News items from Nuclear Engineering International, Vol. 15, No. 169, June, 
1970, and Ocean Indusiry, Vol..4; No. 12, December, 1969. 
19. “Undersea Sites Projected for Nuclear Power Plants’, New York Times, 
August. 19, 1970. 
20. R. W. Marble, ‘‘A Submerged. Commercial Power Generating Concept’, 
General Dynamics, Quincy Division, January, 1970 (unpublished). 
21. R. M. Bunker; ‘‘Deseription, Application, and Siting of the STURGIS 
(MH-1A) Floating Nuclear Power Plant’, Trans. Amer. Nuclear Society, 
Vol. 8, No. 1, June, 1965. ’ 
92. Staff of First Atomic Ship Transport, Inc., “Operating Experience of the U.S. 
Savannah in Commercial Service’, Nuclear Safety, Vol. 8, No. 1, Fall, 
1969. 
i) 
