536 



Miller, the Chairman of our subcommittee on various compliance 

 issues by Alaska Pulp. It says, one, "APC is not in compliance with 

 the Clean Air Act or State Air Quality Control Regulations. The 

 Bureau requires AFC to achieve compliance by December, 1989." It 

 goes on to say on water pollution, "AFC is not in compliance with 

 NPDES effluent and discharge requirements." On solid waste dis- 

 posal, the Department says, "AFC has two separate permits, and 

 both have received notice of violation." On hazardous waste pro- 

 gram, it says, "AFC was issued a notice of violation on November 

 9, 1988 for being out of compliance with the state's hazardous 

 waste regulations." That would raise issue, it seems to me, as to 

 whether or not your side of the bargain has been kept. Are those 

 accurate? Are those statements by the Department of Environmen- 

 tal Conservation, State of Alaska, accurate? 



Mr. RoppEL. You notice a violation is a charge. It needs to be 

 proved. To the best of my knowledge, they have not been proved. 

 The state took an air action and they said we were in violation and 

 the Judge said the state was wrong. Interestingly enough, the 

 Sierra Club Legal Defense recently joined it. And I understand 

 after the Judge said the state was wrong about it, the state and the 

 Sierra Club jointly decided to appeal that. The purpose of that 

 cannot be to improve the environment; the purpose has got to be 

 harassment. 



Senator Wirth. This is harassment by the State of Alaska? 



Mr. RoppEL. No, by the Sierra Club defense counsel. 



Senator Wirth. How did the State of Alaska then make these 

 statements in a letter of April 5th? 



Mr. RoppEL. Well, we have a substantial amount of disagreement 

 with these people over whether or not we are in compliance with 

 our permits. 



Senator Wirth. For them to make a flat statement, is not in 

 compliance, is not in compliance, is not in compliance, notices of 

 violation, notices of violation, I raise the question as it relates to 

 the other question of compliance with the contract, and I bring 

 that up because the Federal Government can terminate a contract 

 at any time and also is more likely to do so with cause. It has been 

 suggested that there is significant cause for doing so. 



Let me ask you a couple of economic questions, if I might. In 

 your statement, you say or make a statement that the Wrangell 

 mill has been closed, "The sawmill at Wrangell has been closed for 

 three weeks this month because it cannot get enough logs." A good 

 deal of data has been made available to the committee about the 

 availability of timber to the Wrangell mill, and let me see if you 

 think that this is correct. 



The following statements were made, "The mill is not getting an 

 insufficient timber supply. During the year 1988 AFC harvested 94 

 million board feet of timber from their long-term timber sale, of 

 which 50 million was supplied to the Wrangell sawmill." Second, 

 "AFC had the opportunity to purchase some amount of timber 

 from two sources, i.e. from new short-term timber sales and from 

 independent loggers having a backlog of 438 million board feet of 

 uncut timber." Third, "There was a surplus of available Tongass 

 timber last year. In fiscal year 1988, the Forest Service sold only 62 

 million board feet of 82 million of timber offered in short term 



