Canada/B.C.

’ By MARTHA DRESCHER
_ Solving our toxic waste problem is going
‘Obe a long, hard struggle. Opposing the
‘iting of an “integrated special waste facil-
ly" is just the first step. (Note the linguistic
Attoxification: “special” — just like a kid’s
birthday.) It is obvious why an immediate
‘Md ongoing public education and partici-
‘Pation process are fundamental to a mate-
‘Tals re-use and toxic waste management
Ystem. Zero waste is the ideal. How do we
| St there?
__ The toxic waste story in B.C. began with
the colonialists, but more recently two sig-
‘Uficant recommendations are made to the
‘Movincial government in 1982 by its
‘Hazardous Waste Management Advisory
| Mmittee. This committee recommended
“at an adequate public consultation and
Participation process be initiated in order to
‘Make an acceptable decision, and that a

town corporation be set up to implement

ls decision. Needless to say, the provincial
80vernment did neither.

Th 1982, the Ministry of Environment
lumed the problem over to the private sec-
lot. The ministry chose a dump site and
nounced that Genstar/IT would be
%Perating a toxic waste dump at McLean

ke on the traditional territory of the
| Bonaparte people. In 1984, Genstar/IT

STRACHAN CANCELS INCINERATOR

Environment Minister Bruce Stra-
chan gave in to community protests
Monday and announced the-scrapping
of the controversial toxic waste incinera-

tor project slated for Ashcroft-Cache-

Creek.

“The anxieties of dissenting opinion
cannot be overcome,” said Strachan in
acknowledging the effective opposition
mounted by the Thompson Watershed
Coalition, and area ranchers.

On Nov. 22 representatives from four
ranching organizations gave the Socred
cabinet minister an ultimatum: either
cancel the project or call a referendum.

pn 2a SN POE RN SE AE ET IS SES

withdrew their proposal, pleading eco-
nomic unfeasibility. Their retreat was really
due to public outcry over the company, the
lack of toxic regulations, and concern
regarding health and environmental effects.

The Special (!) Waste Advisory Commit-
tee was the provincial government’s most
recent attempt to disengage from the prob-
lem. On this committee, which, according

Saturday demonstration marches along Highway 3A.

‘No uranium exploration,’
Interior protest demands

Special to the Tribune
| Yellow Lake, on Highway 3A between
__“nticton and Keremeos, was the site of a
_ Tally Noy, 26 calling for the immediate ban
| ne exploration and mining of uranium in
Htish Columbia.
mere than 100 people from Kelowna,
_ ynticton, Oliver, Osoyoos, Rock Creek,
2 Sa and Princeton gathered on a
a Y, sunny afternoon marching with
_ “8nners and signs along the highway at this
| Popular fishing spot. .
ey were protesting exploration activity
Numerous existing uranium and thorium
ignated claims in the area.
tio © event was organized by various Inte-
kame ological groups, including The Simil-
Seed Ecological Society, Committee for
Es lean Kettle Valley, South Okanagan
vironmental Coalition and the Canadian
“alition for Nuclear Responsibility.
Ince February, 1987, when a provincial
antorium was lifted, new regulations
be € stipulated that uranium claims must
Worked by the claim holder. But these
ble tions are inadequate and unenforcea-

cu tanium has been discovered in high
Riyentrations in the Okanagan and Kettle
€r Valleys. It is feared that recent gold

and silver mining activity on these claims
will give the mining companies the oppor-
tunity to pursue exploration of uranium
without public knowledge.

The dangers from exploration are many.
Radioactivity from disturbed materials is
dispersed into the surface environment
through air and water courses. Watersheds
where drilling takes place are affected by the
introduction of freshly dislodged radioac-
tive materials which increased the overall
radiation level in the area.

Dr. John Hughes, member of the B.C.
Medical Association Environmental Health
Committee and chairperson of its Low-level
Radiation Sub-Committee, expressed con-
cern as to how the Free Trade Agreement
will guarantee further U.S. access to Cana-
dian uranium. He noted that close to 96 per
cent of uranium mined is used in the war
industry.

Lauren Sellars of the Similkameen
Environmental Education Society noted
that uranium cannot be mined safely: “We
may watch our beautiful rivers become
radioactive as radon gas escapes In to our
environment.” ‘

She encouraged everyone to be active in
this fight by writing letters to our politicians
and joining local environmental groups.

Failing that, ranchers would conduct
their own plebiscite before Christmas,
Strachan was told.

The environment minister promised.a
January referendum in meetings with the
ranchers and other opponents of the
facility.

The residents had demanded an
immediate referendum and a morato-
rium on the proposal.

Strachan said that the idea of a toxic
waste facility in British Columbia has not
been abandoned, and that he would
“accept and review interest proposals
from other communities.”

to its own report (May 31, 1988), was
“independent of government and indus-
try,” were Lael Hamilton, South Granville
Ratepayers Association; Dr. David Boyes,
chairman, and the gynecologist who
initiated the use of the Pap smear; and
Edward Jeffries, president of Cascade
Chemical Commodities and involved in
marketing industrial chemicals for 35 years.

This committee was the government’s
idea of public process. SWAC went around
to various communities hearing presenta-
tions and looking for a host community. In
the middle of its “mandate” it asked for
proposals for a toxic waste disposal facility
from garbage-for-profit corporations. The
committee chose a proponent — B.C. Spe-
cial Waste Services, Inc. — of which
ENSCO of El Dorado, Arkansas owns 75
per cent. ENSCO has over 40 U.S. Envir-
onmental Protection Agency violations,
and has just been bought by Browning Fer-
ris Industries, second largest dumper in the
U.S. The word from down there is: “They
stink.”

The committee sent letters soliciting
interest to every municipality and regional
district in B.C., looking for a community
which would buy the promise of economic
prosperity if they accepted this proposal.
The business associations and municipal
councils of Ashcroft and Cache Creek
invited the proponents to town for a few
meetings and organized a poll. Thirty-five
per cent of an incomplete voters listed voted
“tyes” (under the impression they were ask-
ing for more information) to the question

“Do you approve of siting and integrated —

special waste facility in the Ashcroft/Cache
Creek area?” Many residents were not
allowed to vote, including the Bonaparte
Indian Band.

On this basis Environment Minister
Bruce Strachan (whose credentials for the
job are two years of public relations at New
Caledonia College) placed a full-page open

We don’t need toxic waste facility

letter in the Ashcroft Journal, thanking the
people for their support and for agreeing to
“be the focus of a valuable industry long
overdue in British Columbia.” This “‘valua-
ble industry” includes some of the worst
corporate polluters in North America.

Since that poll on May 12, opposition to
locating a toxic waste incinerator, treatment
plant and dump near Cache Creek has
steadily grown, especially from the agricul-
tural community. The residents want an
immediate referendum and a moratorium
on this proposal. The minister is promising
a referendum in January, and then what?

What we need is a province-wide capac-
ity analysis for waste reduction and recy-
cling so these strategies can be implemented.
Why should a community be forced to
accept a toxic waste incinerator before
waste reduction and recycling are a reality?
Once an incinerator is built, there is not
much incentive to reduce toxic chemical
use, and incinerators work ‘best at full
capacity. The proponent has said in its
proposal that it intends to solicit business
from the U.S. and other provinces.

Incinerators create toxic waste and are an
unproven technology and a danger to the
ecology. Claims of 99.9 per cent destruction
of toxic chemicals are based on a few con-
trolled test burns which are never repeated.
It is not possible to monitor an incinerator
stack continuously for toxic emissions.

When toxic chemicals are burned, diox-
ins, furans and PICs (products of incom-
plete combustion) are formed. Dioxins
cause sterility, birth defects, and cancers.
They bio-accumulate, and according to the
State of California Air Resources Board,
“dioxins should be listed ... as toxic air
contaminants with no determined threshold
below which adverse health effects will not
occur.”

When toxic waste is burned, heavy
metals are not destroyed, but are vaporized
out the stack or remain as fly or bottom ash.
The ash itself is a toxic waste which must be
landfilled, creating additional environmen-
tal and health problems, since there is no
such thing as a “secure landfill.”

The solutions to our garbage problems
already exist — source reduction, recy-
cling, on-site treatment, redesign of indus-
trial processes and products. We must ban
the: production of toxic chemicals — for
every barrel of product, several more bar-
rels of toxic waste are created.

The planet is in crisis. The domination of
nature by the hierarchical military-industrial
mentality must stop. We now think of the
threat to life on earth in terms of sudden
nuclear disaster, but toxic substances are
working on us more insidiously, but with
the same effect — mutation, death, disease,
and species extermination.

Martha Drescher is a pseudonym for a
member of the Thompson Watershed Coali-
tion.

MONTREAL — The Quebec Peace
Council (CQP) has vigorously called for
anend to the continued NATO low-level
training flights in Labrador protested by
the region’s Native peoples.

In a strongly-worded letter to Prime
Minister Mulroney, the CQP points out
that the test flights were moved to Goose
Bay from Europe in 1979 after “vehe-
ment protests by the people of Europe.”

violent protests against the low-level
flights, putting up tents on the runways
to try and stop them. The land, the CQP
says, has belonged to the Native peoples
“since times immemorial. It does not
belong to either the Canadian govern-
ment or to NATO.

NATO manoeuvres hit

Native residents have conducted non- .-

“They have justly complained about
the violent treatment they have received
at the hands of the RCMP. The RCMP
have jailed their leaders, and without any
cause have laid charges against them fol-
lowing the protests.”

The CQP “supports the protests by
the Native peoples against the miserable
way they have been treated by the mil-
itary, police and political authorities.

“The CQP also supports their demands
for an end to the low-level flights, as well
as an end to the use of any of these lands
as training grounds for Canadian and
NATO forces. The land must be demilit-
arized and returned to its legitimate
inhabitants.”

Pacific Tribune, December 5, 1988 « 5

sata