503 



Admiral Crawford. It says ; 



In tlie routine operation of Naval vessels maximum use is to be made of all 

 available port disposal facilities for all wastes prior to getting underway, and 

 upon returning. 



And then it goes on to put the prohibitions for the 50-mile and the 

 12-mile limits. 



Mr. IlooET>s. Wf^l, I iinderstfind that, but I don't thwk it is still 

 quite cleai'. ii I undersf and. you are saying that you nialce it if you are 

 returning to port. But I don't think it is quite clear, the point I was 

 trying to make, that if they are coming into port, say, within 2 days 

 or a reasonable time, they shouldn't be dumping out there, even though 

 it is 50 miles out. 



If they are going to come into port, where there is no operational 

 problem, when they could not dump outside the 50 miles, and just 

 deposit that in the facility at port. That's the point I was making. 



Admiral Crawford. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Rogers. And I wonder if it is possible to perhaps clarify that. I 

 think possibly that is what you are getting at, but I don't think it is 

 quite clear. Would you be willing to consider looking at that ? 



Admiral Crawford. Modifying our instructions? 



Mr. Rogers. Yes. 



Admiral Crawford. Yes, sir, we will. 



Mr. Rogers. Now let me conclude. General Hayes, have you issued 

 any instructions for the Department of Defense in all of the services to 

 check on filing statements, to have that responsibility ? I think we went 

 into this before, and you were going to consider it, and I wondered if 

 you had ever taken any action. 



General Hates. We didn't have to take the actions because the 

 services were so responsive. 



Mr. Rogers. I have only seen one response, and that was the Navy. 



General Hayes. No, the Air Force and the Army both. 



Mr. Rogers. Would you submit those ? 



General Hayes. We will, sir. 



(The documents follow :) 



Department of the Air Forge, 



Headquarters U.S. Air Force, 



Washington, D.C., May 6, 1970. 

 Reply to attention of : AFOCE 



Subject : Pollution Abatement (Our letter, 7 April 1970) 



To: AOIC, ADC, AFGS, AFI.C, AFRES, AFSC, ATO, AU, AAO, MAC, OAR, 

 SAC, TAG, USAFA, USAFSS, HQ COMD USAF, CINCPACAF (Commander). 



1. The referenced letter furnished copies of the recent Executive Orders, legis- 

 lation and a summary of Air Force actions in environmental enhancement. 



2. In order to carry out the Intent of the President's Executive Orders we must 

 view enA;4ronmental pollution on a much broader scale than in the past. Previ- 

 ously, the Civil Engineer and the Surgeon have been tasked with assuring that 

 our bases had potable water, adequate sewage treatment and solid waste dis- 

 posal and, along with our maintenance personnel, tried to control aircraft noise 

 to within safe levels. We have been successful within this limited sphere but now 

 must address the broader aspects of environmental enhancement and this involves 

 virtually a.11 functional elements of the Air Force. The Environmental Policy Act 

 of 1969 (copy provided with referenced correspondence) requires that we exam- 

 ine the environmental impact of all our actions. 



3. In order to carry out the expanded Air Force responsibilities and to insure 

 increased emphasis in support of announced national objectives, the Directorate 

 of Civil Engineering has been designated the OPR at Headquarters USAF for 



