BRITISH COLUMBIA

Build-up to Ap

The first of 20 billboards
advertising the Apr. 27 Walk for
Peace — paid for the Trade
Union Peace Committee — went
Up on 6th Avenue in Vancouver
Mar. 29, as End the Arms Race
Kicked off its campaign for the
Walk.

Frank Kennedy, president of
the 200-member-organization
peace coalition unveiled the pro-
gram for the rally following the
walk, announcing that New Zea-
land Labor Party MP Jim Ander-
ton would be the keynote
Speaker, Anderton, president of
the NZLP from 1979 until last
year, was chairman of the party’s
Policy committee which recom-
mended New Zealand’s current
nuclear-free policy.

_Dr. Dorothy Goresky, Cana-
dian president of Physicians for
Social Responsibility and the
former Vancouver chapter presi-
dent, and Dr. George Ignatieff,
former United Nations Associa-
tion president and currently Uni-

eace walk begins

also be headline speakers for this
year’s walk and rally. 2e

Kennedy noted that Ignatieff is
well-known for his. outspoken
opposition to the U.S. Strategic
Defence Initiative — Star Wars
— program. The 1985 Walk will
focus on opposition to Canadian
participation in the program and
will reiterate its support for a
bilateral, verifiable nuclear wea-
pons freeze resolution in the UN.
It will also call for an end to cruise
missile testing in Canada.

As in 1984, the Walk for Peace
is co-sponsored by the city of
Vancouver and this year, the
Vancouver School Board has
added its name to the list of spon-
sors. However, in neither case, is
there financial support for EAR
which does its fundraising directly.

Assembly for the Vancouver
walk begins at 11:30.a.m. at Kitsi-
lano Beach. In Victoria, where
this year’s walk will wind up at
the provincial legislature, assem-
bly is set for 12 noon at Centen-

r.2/p

versity of Toronto chancellor will

nial Square.

Sign workers Bill Townsend and

Glenn Hunt put finishing touches on billboard Mar. 29.

Hazardous cargo fight not finished yet

By MIGUEL FIGUEROA

Recent hearings in Vancouver on the
transport of hazardous goods have been
Viewed by many as a positive step leading
towards the ultimate removal of this hazard
from the heavily populated downtown core
Of the city. Unfortunately, it now appears a
Solution acceptable to. the city..and the

affected neighborhoods, is atill a long way

off, thanks to some fancy footwork by the
Tail corporations involved.

The movement of hazardous goods
through the downtown Vancouver water-
front has long been an issue for residents
and workers in the downtown eastside and
West end communities. More than 1,700 rail
carloads of propane, explosives, and other
dangerous chemicals enter the downtown
Corridor for transshipment through Bur-
Tard Inlet to Vancouver Island and other
Coastal locations annually.

€ hazardous goods are neither pro-
duced nor utilized in the Vancouver area,
yet their presence poses a constant threat to
tens of thousands of people living and work-

‘Ing in the immediate area. City of Van-

Couver studies show that a major derailment,
spillage or explosion of these cargoes would
affect Virtually the entire west end, the
downtown eastside and Strathcona.

Last year Canadian Pacific shipped 13
hazardous commodities through Vancouver,
Including 693 cars of propane, 307 cars of

Sulphuric acid, 59 cars of ammonium —

nitrate, and several other chemicals includ-
Ng Caustic soda, sodium chlorate and
explosives,

Is “disaster waiting to happen”
Prompted Vancouver. city council, trade
hives and community groups to demand
— dangerous goods be prohibited form

‘ Vancouver waterfront and that an
ternative route through the Lower Main-
and be found.

Nder increasing public pressure, the
ae Transport Commission (CTC)
(RTC) Railway Transport Committee
To commissioned a study on the
Gr “ment of hazardous goods through
in “ater Vancouver and released the find-
cae May, 1982. The report by RTC
Ea nal manager J.J. Eisler concurred with
;_-l0us studies on the growing dangers

7 :
‘Volved and concluded that there “is now

ale @ question of whether the move-
Own Of dangerous goods through the
‘©wntown area should be prohibited but

rather mS
arranged" such prohibiton should be

The report went on to recommend that
both Canadian Pacific (which operates a
major ferry slip in Coal Harbor at the foot
of Thurlow Street) and Burlington North-
ern (whiclrhas a ferry slip further east at the
foot of Campbell Avenue) should be asked
to “show cause” why these cargoes could
not be rerouted through less populated cen-
tres for transshipment.

The RTC upheld the recommendations
and demanded that the companies involved
either justify their present policies or devise
alternatives for the handling of hazardous
goods. ;

After meeting with the companies
involved, the RTC, in December, 1983,
ordered that Burlington Northern (BNI),
which handles only about 80-100 carloads
of dangerous goods, would be allowed to
continue but not increase the number of
shipments without prior approval.

‘Highly explosive cargoes
will continue to travel
through and be stored in
Vancouver East, threaten-
ing the neighborhoods of
the Downtown Eastside,
Strathcona and Grandview-
Woodlands.’

It also ordered Canadian Pacific, the
major carrier, to draw up a plan to remove
all hazardous goods from its slip by Jan. if
1986. The CP plan was presented to the
RTC last June, and the public hearings
which began two weeks ago in Vancouver
were called to receive community input on
the Canadian Pacific proposal.

From the very outset it was clear that the
CP plan was problematic. According to
CP’s plan, rail cars would be transferred to
CN rail lines at Mission and shipped via
Tilbury Island on the south arm of the
Fraser River to Victoria harbor. It proposed
to remove hazardous goods from the Van-
couver waterfront, but it created a host of

lems.
eee the move would overload
their facilities at Tilbury, and increase their
costs. Environment Canada feared the
increased traffic on the Fraser would

\

increase the possibilities of accidents and
spillages, endangering the salmon and other
fish stock.

Technical engingeering problems also

loomed, the most notable being that the rail °

and bulk barges servicing the present CP
ferry slip are incompatible with the loading
and unloading structure at Tilbury.

Finally, there is strong and growing pub-
lic opposition in Victoria to any move that
would increase the volume of hazardous
goods moving through their harbor. (Pres-
ently, CP shipments are barged to Nanaimo
and upper Island locations.)

Yet there was almost total agreement
among intervenors that this hazard must be
removed from the Vancouver waterfront.
Vancouver Mayor Mike Harcourt restated
city council’s unequivocal stand that all
hazardous cargoes be immediately barred
from the waterfront.

The Vancouver and District Labor
Council’s committee on the transportation
of dangerous commodities cited the com-
plete prohibition of hazardous goods from
the downtown core as the “utmost prior-
ity.’ The labor council said the Tilbury
Island plan could only be supported “as a
temporary solution, providing this traffic
would take a more direct route (i.e. avoiding
Victoria — M.F.) to Vancouver Island.”
The committee also noted that ‘“‘a long term
plan” is needed which would allow for the
standardization of ferry slips and the min-
imization of danger to the community and
the environment.

The Communist Party warned in its brief
that Canadian Pacific and the corporate
users of the present ferry service (namely the
large forest companies) “have a material
interest in delaying the resolution of this
problem,” noting that the companies’ main
concern was avoiding any increased costs
and maintaining profits. The Communist
Party called on the RTC to “act resolutely
to ensure that any such manoeuvres to
further delay this vital process are effectively
frustrated.”

Other organizations, including Create a
Real Available Beach (CRAB), Carnegie
Centre and Greenpeace, also submitted
briefs calling for the removal of this “ticking
time bomb” from the Vancouver water-
front.

At this point it appeared an impasse had
been reached — CP had to move its
hazardous cargo out of the downtown ferry
slip. But there were seemingly insurmoun-
table problems with rerouting this traffic

CP FERRY SLIP TRAFFIC
IN HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
(over six months)
Liquified Petroleum Gas 281
Sulphuric Acid 187
Mixed Merchandise 164
Sulphur Dioxide 135
Chlorine 7
Explosives 61
Anhydrous ammonia 752
Fertilizer 56 |
Caustic Soda 21
Others 21.
Total six month traffic 1051 |
cars

through Tilbury, and the construction of a
new facility (perhaps at Roberts Bank) was
dismissed as “too expensive.”

Then, as if struck by a brillant idea, CP
lawyer Norman Mullins asked the RTC
commissioners whether it would be possible
to reroute hazardous traffic through the
Burlington Northern slip, located in the
heart of east Vancouver. The commissioner
immediately adjourned to consider the mat-
ter and returned to note that CP’s “‘observa-
tion is quite timely” and that if BNI was
willing to consider the matter, CP could
proceed with appropriate studies and report
back at a later date.

The RTC hearings are now over (includ-
ing those held last week in Victoria) and
many of the intervenors have concluded
that the RTC will shortly issue an order
directing Canadian Pacific to shift hazard-
ous goods operations over to the BNI ferry
slip. This will satisfy business concerns
about removing the danger as well as
unsightly traffic from the downtown, west
end core in time for Expo 86 as well as CP’s
desire to free up the land over the tracks,
owned by its subsidiary Marathon Realty,
for office and commercial development.

But it will also mean that these danger-
ous, highly explosive cargoes will continue
to travel through and be stored in Van-
couver East, threatening the neighborhoods
of the downtown eastside, Strathcona, and
Grandview Woodlands.

Several organizations have already indi-
cated that such an “arrangement” is unac-
ceptable and will be resisted by the
communities involved. Clearly the fight to
rid these hazardous goods from Vancouver
is far from over.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, APRIL 3, 1985 e 3