539 



now either here or in the record, because I think probably you all 

 take it as seriously as we do and would like to respond to it. 



Mr. RoppEL. We would appreciate the opportunity to respond on 

 that. You are aware perhaps — you read from the Majority Report 

 to the Justice Department part of that information. You are also 

 aware that the NLRB proceedings, from which some of this testi- 

 mony was taken, came to a conclusion in which the Judge made a 

 finding of fact that Mr. Sever was not fired because of his Congres- 

 sional testimony. I will make sure that you get a copy of that. I 

 think you will find it interesting reading. 



Senator Murkowski. I would ask that that be inserted in the 

 record. 



Senator Wirth. Anything else you want to add on that? 



Mr. RoppEL. I think that because of the number of people that 

 you have that are going to testify that you are going to find some 

 of those people are currently employees who do not agree with how 

 the management of this company views Tongass issues, and they 

 are going to be treated like anyone else. We encourage people to 

 make their views known. 



Senator Wirth. That is very important and very good and, as I 

 said yesterday, I admire people who are willing to come forward at 

 a controversial time and express their views. And that is thorough- 

 ly appropriate for citizens of this country. 



Finally, let me ask you, would APC close its mill here if the long- 

 term contract was cancelled? 



Mr. RoppEL. We testified at the House Interior Committee that it 

 was our opinion that the cancellation of the long-term contract 

 would result in a closure of the plant. We also testified that we are 

 going to do everything in our power to keep the plant in operation. 

 Just because the contract is cancelled does not mean that we are 

 going to roll over and go away. 



Our belief is that if this contract had been cancelled years ago, 

 this plant would not be operating today. Without the collateral pro- 

 vided by the long-term timber contract, we would not have been 

 put in the position to have the continued support of the financial 

 institution from which we had to borrow the money in order to put 

 in the $19 million worth of environmental equipment at our facto- 

 ry. Without putting that equipment in, in spite of what the state 

 says, we would not be in compliance with the consent decrees and 

 our agreements to put in certain anti-pollution facilities. I would 

 also offer that as a pretty strong evidence of what we say is prob- 

 ably true. 



Senator Wirth. Is there a difference? Now, I asked you if the 

 APC would close the mill if the long-term contract would be can- 

 celled, and your response was if the long-term contracts are can- 

 celled, it would result in the closure. Is there any difference be- 

 tween the meaning of those two statements? 



Mr. RopPEL. I think so. I think the meaning is that we are not 

 going to voluntarily close up this plant if there is any way to keep 

 it open, but if someone else puts us in a position where we can no 

 longer continue to operate, it is not our decision to shut the plant 

 down. I think there is a distinguishing difference between those 

 two. 



22-148 0-89-18 



