912 

 26 



Meanwhile, since development of a new offshore petroluem field 

 can take up to 10 years, the nation's dependence on overseas supplies 

 will continue. This has served to set up another source of pressure on 

 coastal areas, namely from the desirability of having offshore ter- 

 minals to serve the increasingly large supertankers which can cut the 

 per-barrel cost of fuel transportation. 



Still another new pressure brought on by the energy crisis has been 

 the requirement to establish new facilities to handle liquefied natural 

 gas imports, another cost-effective method of meeting the country's 

 needs from overseas sources. 



These three examples of new or expanded energy-related develop- 

 ments have one thing in common : they each require intensive use of 

 the coasts. There are already numerous other energy installations in 

 the coasts — California's Coastal Zone Conservation Commission found 

 that 90 percent of the state's petroleum refining capacity is located 

 within 10 miles of the coast, for instance. 



The impacts which will stem from a greatly expanded offshore oil 

 and gas program, from deepwater port installations or added LNG 

 facilities, will take place in an area already bearing a disproportionate 

 share of the nation's energy facilities. 



A study released in December 1975, by the Congressional Research 

 Service working with the National Ocean Policy Study of the U.S. 

 Senate entitled "Energj^ Facility Siting in Coastal Areas" ^ declared 

 that 85 percent of 243 nuclear power plants in operation, under con- 

 struction or planned were in coastal states and that many, if not most, 

 were on the coasts or Great Lakes shores. With the prospective devel- 

 opment of floating nuclear power plants, this concentration will in- 

 crease in the future, the study found. 



The Committee's recommended solution is to provide amelioration 

 assistance to states tailored specifically to the types of energy facilities 

 which, by their nature, must be located in the coast. As is explained in 

 the section-by-section analysis which follows, the bill also provides 

 for planning assistance to deal with all of the various types of major 

 energy facilities which might be found in the coasts. 



It was felt desirable to restrict the coverage of the amelioration 

 assistance to the impacts stemming from OCS operations, LNG facili- 

 ties, deepwater port and coal and oil shipping facilities because they 

 clearlv must, by definition, be located along the ocean or Great Lakes 

 shores.^ To provide assistance to a broader range of energy-related 

 plants runs the risk, the Committee felt, of providing inducement to 

 locate such facilities in the coasts. 



If it is a close decision between an inland location and a coastal 

 site for a nuclear power plant, for example, the existence of an assist- 

 ance program to the local governments involved could provide the 

 difference in choosing where the plant should go. The Committee did 

 not want to run the risk of possibly encouraging the siting of addi- 

 tional enersrv facilities in the coasts not absolutely necessary to be 

 located in this alreadv burdened region. 



It is the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas program that has 

 caused the most widespread concern in coastal areas. Entire 



iTT.S. Spnatp Commlttep on Commerce and the National Ocean Policy Study, 94th Con- 

 pre«s. 1st Session. December 1975. Patre 17. 



' For a detailed discussion of the projected Impact of coal transportation on the Great 

 Lakes, see Appendix I. 



