ing in this country (Algeria to Everett, Mass.), only 
about one-twentieth of 1 percent of United States 
consumption came via LNG tanker. But it has been 
suggested that by 1985 as much as 5S to 15 percent 
of total American gas supplies may come from LNG 
imports.*7? 
Increased LNG imports are the product of rising 
energy prices, declining domestic production of 
natural gas, and the ample availability of gas in 
certain other regions of the world. The only prac- 
tical way to tap these distant sources is to convert 
the natural gas to liquid at the source, transport the 
liquid in special cryogenic tankers, and then regasify 
the liquid at a special receiving facility and distribute 
it to users. The cost of these LNG projects is 
enormous. 
As more and more large LNG projects are pro- 
posed and approved, public concern has grown 
about the safety of LNG transportation and the 
wisdom of importing large amounts of gas from a 
few suppliers, particularly Algeria and Indonesia. 
The safety question is a complicated one. Two major 
accidents have involved LNG since 1944. Experts 
have testified that one was due to poor design, inade- 
quate installation, faulty manufacturing, and inade- 
quate inspection of the onshore storage facility. 
While LNG ships and terminals are regarded as very 
well designed, the Office of Technology Assessment 
and others have suggested that questions about ship 
design, crew training, and vessel traffic control 
around LNG terminals be investigated further. Also, 
the Federal Government has yet to formulate a 
policy on the amount of LNG that.should be im- 
ported, whether sources should be diversified, or 
even how the gas will be priced once it arrives in 
this country. 
The Siting Process 
The process for siting LNG facilities is frag- 
mented, with agency jurisdictions unclear, and with 
basic policy questions about import policy, siting 
criteria, safety, and pricing yet to be resolved. LNG 
decisions continue to be made on a case-by-case 
basis, by agencies that are not now geared to resolv- 
ing larger issues. 
Several proposals to revise this regulatory phase 
of the LNG siting process are now being discussed 
in Congress. One is the Senate Commerce Com- 
mittee Staff Working Paper No. 1 of November 12, 
1976. Two others are Congressman Dingell’s H.R. 
6844 (May 3, 1977) and Senator Pell’s S. 2273 
(November 1, 1977). All three essentially would 
172 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Transpor- 
tation of Liquefied Natural Gas. Washington, D.C., Government 
Printing Office, September 1977, p. 5. This source provides an 
excellent recent summary of U.S. LNG policies and projects 
and is particularly useful in its identification of the major safety 
issues associated with LNG transportation. 
require the government to set safety standards and 
siting criteria and would require Federal licenses 
before construction or operation of an LNG facility. 
The first two proposals would give these responsi- 
bilities to the Secretary of Transportation; the Pell 
bill to the Secretary of Energy. All three also would 
give the States a strong say in the siting of LNG 
projects. 
In general, industry appears to oppose such bills, 
feeling that: (1) they would add an additional, un- 
necessary layer of bureaucracy to the licensing proc- 
ess and (2) by adding new ground rules would add 
uncertainty and hence delay into current LNG 
licensing proceedings. However, it is also clear that 
industry wants changes in the current process, par- 
ticularly streamlining the approval process and 
resolution of the pricing issue. 
Other Onshore Energy Facilities 
These include nuclear powerplants, fossil fuel 
powerplants, oil refineries, petrochemical facilities, 
and related facilities such as electrical transmission 
lines. State and local authorities play the largest 
role in the licensing phase of the siting process for 
these, though the Federal Government has a large 
role in licensing nuclear units. 
It is likely that there will be proposals to build 
many more of these various facilities in coastal areas, 
since, generally, population and need for energy 
are growing in these places and they have abundant 
cooling water and good transportation links. Yet it 
also is likely that the proposals will be controversial, 
given today’s concern about protecting the coastal 
environment and a desire to use coastal areas for 
other purposes, such as recreation. : 
States now want much more say in determining 
whether a facility is needed and where exactly it 
should be sited. This view is reflected in the new 
laws passed by a number of States, changing the 
way these units are sited. 
There is great concern about the issues associated 
with nuclear plants, issues such as management of 
radioactive waste, location near populated areas, and 
so forth. These policy issues, which many people feel 
are unresolved, have been brought up in hearings on 
individual applications and are a factor in the in- 
creasing development time for nuclear plants with 
land locations. 
There is now considerable discussion about how 
to change the nuclear siting process. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission has prepared a major study 
of the issue.* The Department of Energy also is 
concerned about delays in getting nuclear projects 
"473 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of State Pro- 
grams. Improving Regulatory Effectiveness in Federal/State 
Siting Actions. NUREG-—0195, Washington, D.C., May 1977. 
This is an excellent summary document from a series that has 
nine other volumes. 
IV-76 
