Mr. KREGER. No, sir; it is done on a more informal basis.

Again this is in the future, but I would think as we really get under way with our Environmental Affairs Office these procedures would perhaps become more formalized or, if not more formalized, at least more of a strict instruction to the services: Please clear this with Interior, or HEW, or whatever agency might be concerned.

Mr. DINGELL. On page 4 of your statement you indicate statements are forwarded to the Governor of the State in which the project is located, the mayor or head of the local governmental body concerned, and Senators and Representatives of the district in which the project is located.

Do you have any provision for notice to the general public at this particular time?

Mr. KREGER. As I indicated earlier to Mr. Everett, we had thought that perhaps these officials would disseminate the statement to the general public. However, I have agreed and I think it is a good suggestion, that we will see what procedures can be worked out so that our regional offices can make these materials available to the general public.

Mr. DINGELL. I think that would be very helpful. One of the concerns of this procedure is that judgments of this kind should reach public hands at the earliest possible time so they may participate fully in the judgments made by their public servants with regard to environmental impact and how to minimize it, and what alternative actions might be less hurtful.

Do you submit statements to any other agencies, your State air pollution agencies, and agencies of this sort?

Mr. KREGER. Yes, we do. A statement was made on the Don-Ce-Sar Building down in Florida. This went to the Governor of Florida, the department of administration in Florida, the mayor of St. Petersburg, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, the board of county commissioners and the regional directors of HEW, HUD, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.

Mr. DINGELL. You did not mention the State game and fish, or the State water pollution control agency, or the State air pollution control agency. I hope you would give thought to considering them, even though you do communicate with local governmental units.

Mr. KREGER. There is certainly no intent not to communicate with them. The Governor, maybe, would consult with those officials, but there is no reason that we can't distribute more to local government or State governmental agencies.

Mr. DINGELL. I think you are doing a fine job of disseminating

statements.

You indicate at page 6 of your statement that 96 Federal buildings were found to be sources of pollution. All but one location will be corrected or is under contract to be corrected by the end of June 1972. What percentage of total number of Federal buildings was this? We have great numbers of Federal institutions.

Mr. KREGER. GSA controls approximately 10,000 buildings. This includes the Government-owned building and the buildings we lease. 2,700 of those are federally owned buildings.

Mr. DINGELL. Did you review buildings under lease as well as federally owned buildings in connection with the study?

Mr. KREGER. This study was directed at federally owned buildings. My first statement of 10,000 might have misled

you.

Mr. DINGELL. If it was only directed to those it goes to leased space? Mr. KREGER. Right.

Mr. DINGELL. Does it occur to you that maybe you ought to have lease space in this fashion, too?

Mr. KREGER. I think lease space will be reviewed under our Public Building procedures.

Mr. DINGELL. Do you know how long that will take to complete? Mr. KREGER. No, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. That is a difficult question, I know. We are talking about an awfully lot of of buildings.

Mr. KREGER. I could possibly get some statement on that which I might furnish to you for the record. Anything I say now would be merely a guess.

Mr. DINGELL. I think in fairness to you we should have you submit that.

(The information follows:)

INSPECTION OF LEASED BUILDINGS FOR SOURCES OF POLLUTION

The Public Building Service administered 7,027 lease contracts as of September 30, 1970, which is the date of the latest statistical report of this type currently available. These leases cover space situated in 6,830 buildings throughout the Nation. The general order of magnitude of the size of these leases may be recognized from the fact that only 76 of the total number of leases are for quantities of 100,000 square feet or more. The quantity of space occupied by the Government under each of these leases varies greatly from several hundred to several hundred thousand square feet; likewise, the ratio of Government occupied space to that occupied by the private sector varies from very small portions of the buildings to total occupancy. It is also important to note that all but 261 of the 6,830 buildings in question are operated (i.e., cleaned, heated, maintained, etc.) by owners or their agents.

It would require approximately six months to complete pollution inspections of the 6,830 buildings, and this would have to be accomplished by diverting a substantial number of technical personnel from regularly assigned duties.

This would involve a physical inspection of each building to ascertain if the leased space or the activity therein is contributing to or causing, air, water or noise pollution. It would also involve consultations with the lessors to determine methods used in disposal of waste and safeguarding against other pollutants, and consultation with city and county officials to review applicable ordinances and determine what facilities are available for waste disposal. The leverage which the Government will be in a position to exert to influence lessors to correct pollution violations will depend upon the circumstances attending each case. No funds have been appropriated for the inspections discussed above. Mr. DINGELL. Your comment on page 7 where you say:

A small repair and improvement project may have a significant environmental impact.

I think that that is a very worthwhile statement. I would like you to know the Chair is in full agreement with you on that, either alone or in concert with other matters. The Chair does wish to commend vou on page 8 for your concerted action with the Attorney General with regard to the hearings before the Illinois Commerce Commission. Mr. KREGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. You said something that kind of piqued my curiosity on page 9. It occurs to me that the average percentage of paper in

municipal waste runs around 52 percent. It occurs to me that the percentage of paper in Government waste runs a great deal higher. Is there any action being taken by GSA in its disposal of wastepaper to assure this could be recycled?

Mr. KREGER. Yes, sir, there is.

Mr. DINGELL. You mentioned 60 million canceled Treasury checks being recycled. In the Capitol we recycle the vast amount of wastepaper we generate around here. What about the Federal buildings and reports? These must generate a fantastic amount of wastepaper. Mr. KREGER. They do. With all kinds of paper we sold last year, 43.942 tons of paper came from various Federal installations.

Mr. DINGELL. Do you have a standard policy on this for encouraging recycling in every Government facility, or is it done on a hit-and-miss basis?

Mr. KREGER. Up until now it has been done on an ad hoc basis. Right now we are encouraging studies of separating wastes. For instance, we have a problem with wastepaper, with people throwing a coke bottle in the wastepaper. As soon as you get a certain percentage of this kind of debris you have problems with your buyer of the paper. We are looking into the possibility of maybe having two containers, one for the coke-bottle-type trash and the other for the paper. We are going to study whether or not they bring in this paper into a sorting area and have some people who would quickly go through and sort out the trash from it that would make the paper unusable. Mr. DINGELL. There are machines which will sort paper out. I notice in certain areas this is being done. Is utilization of this kind of device being considered?

Mr. KREGER. I cannot say it is being considered. We have instructed our people-this is only recently-to look into all possibilities for realizing more dollars for the Government, from all of the trash from the Government, paper, and everything else.

Also to find out what kind of machinery they would need to use. As I say, it is so new with us that I cannot tell you that we are doing more than looking into it and trying to get facts and figures right

now.

Mr. DINGELL. If you have any information on this at an early time, the committee would like to receive it. I believe that you set a very good example by encouraging recycling of Government waste to the maximum. The waste problem is largely a problem of not being able or not having mechanisms available for resuing our sundry and waste materials.

The committee wishes to commend you for a very fine statement and presentation before this body today. I think you and GSA deserve the commendation of this committee for what you are doing and have done, and the Chair persists in this highly desirable goal to the end and the degree to which you appear to be committed.

Mr. KREGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I assume that we shall. It has been a pleasure to be here.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you very much. I thank you and your two as sociates with you.

The Chair notes Mr. Moorman is present with us today.

Mr. Moorman, I want to hear you in gracious fashion. Do you prefer we go over and vote or do you want to try and be heard in that brief time?

Mr. MOORMAN. I am at your pleasure.

Mr. DINGELL. I think we shall consult together and arrive at this thing jointly.

What is the amount of time that you feel would be appropriate to your needs?

Mr. MOORMAN. It might take 30 minutes.

Mr. DINGELL. Then I believe it would be appropriate for the subcommittee to recess and we will return in about 20 to 30 minutes. Does that meet with your approval?

Mr. MOORMAN. Certainly?

Mr. DINGELL. If there is no further business, the committee stands adjourned until the members return from the call of the House. (Short recess taken.)

Mr. DINGELL. The subcommittee will come to order.

This is a continuation of the hearings of the Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife Conservation on the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. Our next witness will be Mr. James W. Moorman.

Mr. Moorman, we are happy to welcome you to the committee. Give your full name and address to the reporter, following which you may consider yourself recognized.

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. MOORMAN, PRACTICING ATTORNEY OF THE BAR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. MOORMAN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is James Moorman and I reside at 3415 Dent Place NW., Washington, D.C. I am a practicing attorney of the bar of the District of Columbia, specializing in environmental and conservation cases. I am here in response to your request that I testify as to my experience with regard to section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and, in that regard, to set out any problems I have had and any suggested remedies for those problems. You specifically asked me to direct my attention toward whether section 102(2) (C) requires the environmental impact statement to be made at an early date. Let me say, right away, with regard to this last matter, that I share Chairman Dingell's opinion that such statements are to be made available to the public at a very early date in the decisionmaking process. I would like to devote most of my remarks to one particular case in which I am the attorney for three conservation organizations suing the Secretary of the Interior. That case is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline case. My clients are the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, and the Environmental Defense Fund. Several issues have been raised in that case under the National Environmental Policy Act, including that of the section 102 (2) (C) environmental impact statement. (The case is officially styled Wilderness Society, et al. v. Hickel. It is No. 928-70 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.)

On April 13, 1970, Judge George L. Hart, Jr., enjoined the issuance of right-of-way permits and the sale of gravel for one aspect of the pipeline project, a 390-mile haul road across Federal lands from the Yukon River to the Arctic Ocean. (A copy of the judge's findings of fact, conclusions of law and order, dated April 23, 1970, may be found on p. 1026.)

In addition, the judge ordered the defendant to give the plaintiffs 14 days' notice of any permit for the pipeline proper. One of the grounds for the injunction was the failure of the Department of the Interior to comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, most prominently, section 102 (2) (C). (The second ground involved the failure of the Secretary to comply with section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C., S. 185. That section restricts rights-of-way across Federal lands for pipeline purposes to the width of the pipe and 25 feet on each side.)

In general, the actions of Interior relating to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline prior to the injunction failed to comply with NEPA. As for Interior's conduct following the injunction, I wish to be more restrictive in my remarks because the matter is still in litigation. I can, however, say two things: (1) Interior has not yet provided the statement on environmental impact for the pipeline as required by section 102 (2) (C); and (2) Interior has prevented my clients from gaining access to data and information on safety and on the ecological impact of the pipeline, data, and information which I think they are entitled to under NEPA.

I. INTERIOR'S ACTIONS PRIOR TO THE INJUNCTION OF APRIL 13, 1970

As I said, the Department of the Interior failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act prior to the injunction of April 13, 1970. I will illustrate that failure by referring to their original attempt to produce a statement pursuant to section 102 (2) (C) for a road related to the pipeline, a copy of which is attached to this testimony as appendix B, and which is entitled "Environmental Statement: Yukon River-North Slope Road."

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, Mr. Moorman, the committee will see to it that it is inserted at an appropriate point in the record, which I assume will be with your prepared statement.

Mr. MOORMAN. That is fine.

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, it will be done. (The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. MOORMAN

Chairman Dingell and members of the Committee, my name is James W. Moorman. I am a practicing attorney of the Bar of the District of Columbia specializing in environmental and conservation cases. I am here in response to your request that I testify as to my experience with regard to Section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and, in that regard, to set out any problems I have had and any suggested remedies for those problems. You specifically asked me to direct my attention toward whether Section 102 (2) (C) requires the environmental impact statement to be made at an early date. Let me say, right away, with regard to this last matter, that I share Chairman Dingell's opinion that such statements are to be made available to the public at a very early date in the decision-making process.

I would like to devote most of my remarks to one particular case in which I am the attorney for three conservation organizations suing the Secretary of the Interior. That case is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline case. My clients are the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth and the Environmental Defense Fund. Several issues have been raised in that case under the National Environmental Policy Act, including that of the Section 102(2)(C) environmental impact statement.1

1 The case is officially styled Wilderness Society, et al. v. Hickel. It is No. 928-70 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.