I am James H. Wright. I am Director of the Environmental Systems Department of Westinghouse Electric Corporation. My professional background, including a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, and 30 years of experience in the field of energy systems and related environmental effects, are detailed in the attached biographical information. The Environmental Systems Department, for which I am responsible, is charged with assisting industry and government regulatory agencies in quantifying and analyzing environmental and socioeconomical problems associated with electric power production and transmission and in assisting with the solutions to these problems. During the six years that the Department has been in operation, we have conducted environmental studies for industrial and governmental organizations in over half of the fifty states in the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and several foreign countries. Many of the members of my staff are internationally recognized experts in the field of environmental impact of electrical power plant location and operation. Beginning in 1970 my Department has conducted an annual International School for Environmental Management where we have trained government and industrial executives from all over the world. We have been in the trenches, so to speak, during the evolution of environmental regulations and are keenly sensitive to the social and resource implications of new regulations as well as the ecological and technological elements. Thank you for the opportunity of sharing these experiences with you today in these comments on S.984 entitled, "Land Resource Planning Assistance Act." The protection of both air and water resources has received considerable attention from the Congress in programs now underway programs which involve the commitment of billions of dollars to achieve the protection and enhancement of the environment. In contrast to the zealous effort in air and water, the land resource our only resource which is basically non-renewable has received but little attention at either the state or federal levels of government. A few of the states have limited legislation relating to general land use policy, and nearly half of the states have legislation relating to the siting of electrical power facilities. The experiences of these states reflect a wide variety of performance results in terms of successfully accomplishing the stated objectives. In some states the siting legislation has provided for solid cooperation between the government, the industry and the public sector and has resulted in an improved decision making process. In other cases, the siting act has been complicated beyond endurance, and judicial remedies offer the only recourse to the jumble of administrative interpretation. Common to all of these states is the problem of funding the siting program. In view of this history, it would seem most prudent that the United States Congress would explore in considerable detail the strengths and weaknesses of these various state programs before attempting to establish an all-pervading federal policy which may incorporate unworkable provisions unworkable provisions, which would constrain the energy resources of this nation at this time, would be a desperate blow from which our current social system might not survive. Furthermore, in most areas of technology development we like to test our ideas in a pilot plant to "get the bugs out" before committing the resources for full scale operation. This philosophy could, conceivably, be of value in getting the bugs out of new legislation. The federal government is the largest land owner in the United States. The composite use of this land constitutes one of the largest components of environmental, social and economic impacts upon our society. It would seem reasonable to develop, first, a coherent and meaningful Land Resource Policy for all federal land holdings under a single administrative agency. The stated purpose and intent of the Land Resource Planning Assistance Act are noble and worthy of our attention in that they show intent to enrichen the heritage for those who will follow us. The specific content of the Bill, however, does not appear to contain the legal direction for accomplishing these lofty objectives but, rather, seriously endangers the future energy supply which is already overly encumbered with multiple steps and multiple agencies' actions. I have some points with regard to the apparent failure of the provisions of the Bill to meet its stated intentions: 1. By title this Bill is intended to provide assistance to the law, and the temptation on the part of the Executive Branch forces each state to implement a NEPA-type action if it is to 2. The purpose of the Bill as identified in (b) (4), "expeditious planning and siting of energy facilities", is a worthy and necessary goal for this nation. It would seem, however, that this Bill actually causes a redundant overlay of enormous magnitude on the current NEPA and other legislative actions required for energy facilities, and it provides absolutely no relief from any part of existing laws and regulations. To say the least, "expeditious" appears to be a poor choice of words. 3. .... The purpose identifed in (b) (5), "....participation of .. the public .....," is, again, laudable. Yet the Bill provides essentially no definition of nor mechanism for achieving "meaningful public participation." Does this mean a proliferation of public hearings? In my experience attending a great many public hearings |