TL: Greenpeace Oral Statement to US Senate - Nuclear Weapons (GP) SO: Greenpeace USA DT: November 16, 1989 Keywords: nuclear weapons us doe production statements us greenpeace gp senate governments / ORAL STATEMENT OF ERIC M. FERSHT GREENPEACE USA Before the COMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE November 16, 1989 Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify today before the Committee on this critical nomination. I am Eric Fersht, Director of Nuclear Campaigns for Greenpeace USA. Accompanying me is Stephen Schwartz, Legislative Coordinator for Nuclear Campaigns. We testify today on behalf of the 1.7 million members of Greenpeace USA and our companion organization Greenpeace Action, over 640,000 of whom reside in the twelve states housing Department of Energy nuclear weapons facilities. I would like to request that my lengthier written testimony be submitted for the record along with two additional items: One is a report on Victor Stello, entitled "The Wrong Stuff; the other is a collection of recent editorials from major national newspapers opposing the nomination. Given the almost daily crises that rock the Department of Energy, there is clearly no nomination more important to the health and safety of United States citizens and the protection of the environment than that of Victor Stello. Because we see this as such a crucial government post, we have taken the step of opposing a Presidential nominee for the first time in our organization's history. There is absolutely no question that the urgent tasks facing the DOE at its nuclear weapons production facilities demand an individual of exceptional integrity and ability. Victor Stello is not that individual. Since mid-July, Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Action have led a nationwide coalition of over 30 local and national environmental groups in opposition to this nomination. While these organizations maintain differing viewpoints on the present and future course of DOE, they are united in their firm opposition to this nominee. Let me state emphatically that our reasons for opposing Victor Stello do not stem from his views OR OUR ORGANIZATION'S OPPOSING VIEWS on nuclear power. This debate is not about whether nuclear power is a good or bad idea. It is about Mr. Stello's disturbing record of promoting and in some cases implementing the views of the nuclear industry instead of regulating that industry by enforcing the law. While we had and continue to have serious disagreements with Secretary Watkins on the overall direction of the Department's nuclear weapons production complex, we did not oppose his nomination. And despite our differing views on nuclear weapons policy, we view Secretary Watkins as a man with whom we can agree to disagree. Mr. Stello's nomination is another matter. The true issue before the Committee is whether this nominee has the credibility and integrity to restore any semblance of public trust in the Department of Energy. The shocking revelations of this agency's flagrant disregard for health, safety and the environment at the DOE bomb factories, have made it essential that restoring public confidence must be the Secretary's and the President's highest priority. It is therefore incomprehensible why the President would nominate Mr. Stello, whose contentious record with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was certain to mire this critical appointment in unnecessary controversy. Yesterday, Secretary Watkins dismissed assertions that White House Chief of Staff John Sununu was responsible for Mr. Stello's selection, stating that he, the Secretary, recommended Mr. Stello to the White House as the only one of five candidates willing and able to assume the position. At a meeting I had on August 25 with Secretary Watkins, Undersecretary Tuck and Chief of Staff Polly Gault I was explicitly told that Mr. Stello had been selected by the White House. What is most troubling about Mr. Stello's twenty-three year record with the Atomic Energy Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is his consistent habit of siding with the nuclear industry on controversial issues. Taken together, these issues reflect a profound lack of judgement and integrity. We have enumerated a number of specific instances of Mr. Stello's questionable practices in his professional past. I would like to respond to a point that the nominee made yesterday. In referring to the `Stello-White' telephone conversation -- an incident also cited in the Voluminous Stello Factbook -- Mr. Stello noted yesterday that an April 22, 1988 General Accounting Office investigation stated, "GAO found insufficient evidence to support the OIA investigator's claims that NRC management interfered with the conduct of the OIA investigation or that results were incorrectly reported." What Mr. Stello neglected to mention was that the report also states: GAO concluded that OIA's investigation of the alleged improper conversation between Stello and White was not sufficiently thorough. OIA failed to determine what it was investigating. . . Furthermore, OIA failed to pursue the investigation in a timely and systematic manner. Mr. Stello has chosen to characterize the litany of charges against him as the result of doing an unpopular job and a reflection of disagreements between individuals within the NRC. He blames his aggressive management style as one reason why conflicts have arisen. Several congressional investigations have shown that in case after case he took actions with the effect of promoting industry positions and that he frequently stifled debate within NRC on critical safety matters. For Victor Stello, the NRC is really the NLC -- the Nuclear Licensing Commission -- a body whose purpose is to bring as many reactors into operation as possible at the least cost to the utilities. Anything that impedes that sacrosanct goal -- especially costly safety regulations -- is viewed as counterproductive. If this sounds familiar, it should, because it's the story of how DOE has run its bomb factories for over four decades. Secretary Watkins has pledged repeatedly to reverse past practices and turn around his Department. But what will confirmation of Victor Stello say to the public, DOE contractors and employees about that essential goal? It is difficult to see how employees and contractors will take the Secretary seriously if he installs the one individual who represents everything that is antithetical to what he wants to achieve. And what message will the Senate send to the concerned citizens living around DOE facilities if it confirms Mr. Stello? Given Mr. Stello's penchant to put PRODUCTION OVER SAFETY AND HEALTH at the NRC, it is unconscionable to put him in charge of seventeen nuclear weapons facilities that have already cracked at the seams with this kind of PRODUCTION FIRST mentality. Finally, I would like to comment on the nature of these hearings. As was evident yesterday, the White House is exerting considerable pressure on the Committee to complete its work and vote on Mr. Stello's nomination before the Thanksgiving recess, just a few working days from now. We are deeply troubled by the Committee's apparent willingness to cave in to the White House's demands. The Committee has made no attempt to contact opposition witnesses. Those of us who are here today are here only because we asked to be here. Despite the fact that we provided the Committee with a list of witnesses almost three months ago, we understand that none were contacted or offered the opportunity to testify. That some are here today is evidence of their perseverance and their commitment to airing all sides of this issue. This is all the more disturbing because this Committee has explicitly stated its intent, in the wake of DOE's MANAGEMENT MELTDOWN, to take a more aggressive oversight role on these issues. If this confirmation hearing is the best evidence of that new commitment, the U.S. public is being ill-served. But, Mr. Chairman, it is not too late. We urge you and your colleagues on the Committee to send the right message to the people of this country. We strongly urge you to reject this nomination. Thank you. [Greenbase Inventory April 22, 1991 ] =======##=======