Canada becomes haven for toxic waste

By Martin Mittlestaedt

Toronto, Canada, June 18— Canada has become a North American trash can for hazardous waste, says a report that concludes that US companies are using this country to avoid the cost of complying with their own, more rigorous environmental rules.

The report, one of the first comprehensive efforts to track hazardous waste movements among Canada, the United States and Mexico, was prepared by the Texas Center for Policy Studies. It concludes that Canada has become a North American pollution haven for dangerous wastes.

Pollution havens are jurisdictions that try to gain short-term economic advantage by using weak environmental rules to attract industry.

The United States has the toughest hazardous waste rules in North America. Mexico bans imports of dangerous substances for disposal in dumps, although it does accept such material for recycling. That leaves Canada with the weakest rules, at least on paper.

“What we are seeing is a fairly classic pollution-haven effect,” said Mark Winfield, an Ottawa-based Canadian environmental expert and one of the report’s co-authors. “US wastes are being brought to Canada because they can be disposed more cheaply and more easily than is the case south of the border.”

The report says that Canadian hazardous waste imports, almost all of which are from the United States, have soared fivefold from 1993 to 1999, the latest year for which figures are available.

Most of the waste is destined either for Quebec, which at more than 330,000 tons in 1999 leads the other provinces, or Ontario, which follows closely behind with 324,000 tons.

Minor amounts were accepted by Alberta, BC, Manitoba, and New Brunswick.

Canada accepts more than twice as much US hazardous waste as does Mexico, according to the report.

The study investigated common theories for the boom in US shipments into Canada, such as the lower value of the Canadian dollar giving Canadian hazardous waste companies a currency price advantage.

It also checked whether US generation of hazardous wastes in the border region with Canada was growing, requiring more disposal of toxic material.

However, it found that shipments to Canada didn’t follow the value of the dollar and that the amount of hazardous waste created by companies in major border states is actually falling, indicating less need for disposal services in nearby Canada.

US shipments to Canada began to skyrocket in 1994 when the US introduced tough treatment standards for dumping hazardous waste.

Canada allows open-pit dumping of untreated hazardous waste, but the United States requires that such material be processed to reduce its toxicity before disposal.

Some Canadian companies that treat hazardous waste have lobbied the federal government for similar rules, but to no avail.

“It does lead us back very firmly to the conclusion that the reason that US hazardous wastes are being exported to Canada for disposal is because the standards here are weaker,” Mr. Winfield said.

The main type of hazardous wastes being imported into Canada are the dangerous compounds caught in US pollution control devices, such as heavy metals, solvents, and sludges. Hazardous wastes include materials that are toxic, cause cancer or may explode.

In the US, companies that generate hazardous waste may remain liable for them, even after they ship the material away for disposal.

Mr. Winfield speculated that some of the attraction of Canada as a US dumping ground may arise because companies believe their legal liability for hazardous waste stops at the border. He said that allowing big US hazardous waste imports could potentially be costly if these materials leak from dumps or are disposed of improperly. He added that clean-up costs, if they occur, will likely have to be shouldered by taxpayers because of the high expense of remediating contaminated sites.

When US companies want to ship hazardous waste to Canada, they seek clearance from the federal government, which in turn asks the province where the waste is destined to go if it is willing to accept the material.

The report notes that Ontario’s environment minister waived the province’s right of prior informed consent on waste shipments from 1997 to 1999. Ontario ended this lax practice after one landfill started accepting US hazardous waste in a dump not licensed for this material.

“Ontario said: ‘Don’t bother to ask us; we’ll accept anything,’” Mr. Winfield said of the province’s position.

Because Canada doesn’t require as much treatment of hazardous waste as would be required in the United States, Canadian disposal companies can offer attractive prices to US generators.

“Although specific data on waste disposal pricing is difficult to obtain, it has been suggested anecdotally that . . . costs in Canada may be between one-half and one-tenth those in the US. This is thought to be due to higher US treatment standards,” the report said.

The report says Mexico has tough environmental rules on paper, but expressed concern that the regulations are not well enforced. The report said all three countries could do a better job of tracking the hazardous waste they produce.

Source: Toronto Globe and Mail

Incendiary devices destroy buildings at tree nursery

Clatskanie, Oregon, May 22— A fire ignited by explosives destroyed two buildings and vehicles at a tree nursery on Monday, and the FBI is looking into whether it is the work of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).

Several pickups, all-terrain vehicles and a semitrailer at Jefferson Poplar Farms were destroyed along with an equipment storage building and a maintenance building, the Oregon State Police said.

Jefferson grows hybrid trees for paper production.

A neighbor heard explosions and saw flames at the tree nursery early Monday and notified authorities.

No one was injured in the fire.

A number of undetonated explosives were found by arson investigators near the nursery’s office building. Officials declined to say what the devices were made of.

The letters “ELF” were written on the side of a building, as was the phrase “You cannot control what is wild,” said FBI spokeswoman Beth Anne Steele.

The ELF is an underground group that, since 1996, has carried out direct actions against commercial entities which the activists say threaten or damage the environment.

The FBI considers the ELF one of the county’s leading domestic terrorist organizations. Millions of dollars in damages have been linked to its actions since 1997.

No one has been killed or injured in any of its claimed attacks. The FBI’s Steele said officials worry that it’s only a matter of time.

“These kinds of incidents are very scary, and there’s a very real concern that at some point it’s going to go beyond burning a building or burning a car. It’s going to take a human life,” she said.

The FBI’s Terrorism Task Force and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, along with the Oregon State Police, the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office and the Clatskanie Fire Dept. are investigating the attack.

The FBI was not immediately available to comment on whether there might be a link to another fire early Monday that gutted labs and offices at the University of Washington’s Center for Urban Horticulture.

No one was injured, but the fire destroyed decades of work and records for some teachers and researchers.

The previous owners of Jefferson Poplar Farm were affiliated with a University of Washington-based group called the Poplar Molecular Genetics Cooperative, according to Tony Bradshaw, a researcher at the school’s Center for Urban Horticulture.

The tree farm and cooperative traded genetics research with pollen and cutting, and the school reciprocated with pollen and seedlings.

A group calling itself the Washington Tree Improvement Association targeted Bradshaw’s research on Nov. 27, 1999, hacking down 200 trees. The action, aimed at research of genetically engineered trees, occurred three days before Seattle hosted the opening to meetings of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The ELF often claims responsibility for arson attacks through Craig Rosebraugh, a spokesman based in Portland.

“At this point, the ELF has not officially claimed responsibility,” he said of the Clatskanie fire on Monday afternoon. “But I wouldn’t be surprised if an official statement came out.”

Source: Associated Press

Bush’s trade ambitions face environmental backlash

By Danielle Knight

Washington, DC, June 20 (IPS)— After President George W. Bush’s repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol accord on climate change, environmental groups are forming a united front against the administration’s request for ‘fast-track’ trade negotiating authority.

“The administration’s rejection of the Kyoto accord on climate change cast legitimate doubts on the administration’s ability to ensure that global environmental protections are integrated into our globalizing markets,’’ said Fred Krupp, executive director of Environmental Defense, a Washington-based advocacy group.

The environmental movement has been split over support for trade liberalization. Environmental Defense has traditionally been supportive of free trade and in the early 1990s came out in support of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), in the process breaking ranks with allies like the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth.

The Kyoto Protocol, which requires industrialized nations to reduce their emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, is seen by many advocacy groups as one of the most important environmental treaties, and Krupp said Bush’s withdrawal from the accord has sent an alarming signal.

“The Bush administration’s continued unwillingness to build on this treaty and be a leader in solving global warming makes it impossible for Environmental Defense to support unfettered presidential authority on trade,’’ said Krupp, who sits on the President’s Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations.

Other ‘green’ groups that supported NAFTA have vowed to oppose granting Bush’s wish to be able to cement trade pacts without fear of Congressional amendment. These include the National Wildlife Federation and Defenders of Wildlife.

Pietro Nivola, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think tank, said that having more environmental groups against fast-track will make Congressional passage of Bush’s request even more difficult.

With Democrats outnumbering Bush’s Republican party by 51-49 in the US Senate, the debate on fast-track was already expected to be contentious and “any additional opposition certainly complicates the process,’’ Nivola said.

Bush has been anxious to get fast-track powers and urged lawmakers, during his first speech to Congress in February, to grant them as soon as possible.

Campaigns for and against fast-track are going into high gear amid expectations that legislators will vote on Bush’s request before leaving next month for their Summer recess.

Representative Phillip Crane, a Republican from Illinois, has put forward a legislative proposal to grant Bush’s wish. Crane, who chairs a key House of Representatives trade subcommittee, opposes attaching labor and environmental guidelines to trade matters.

In response, Representative Peter Stark of California has written to fellow Democrats urging them not to accept any fast-track proposal that does not adequately protect the environment and workers.

To press their case, businesses eager to see the administration pursue further market-opening initiatives have formed a new lobby group – USTrade — which includes such corporate giants as Boeing and Procter & Gamble.

“It isn’t going to be easy,’’ said Harold McGraw, chairman of the McGraw-Hill Co. ‘’We’re making sure we have a consensus to get things done.’’

Environmentalists, however, said excluding the environment would not help forge a new consensus on US trade policy.

“This approach is unlikely to earn the public support the administration needs to successfully negotiate future trade agreements,’’ said Jake Caldwell, trade and environment program manager at the National Wildlife Federation.

Daniel Seligman, trade program director at the Sierra Club, said Crane’s proposal would increase the ability of foreign corporations to attack environmental legislation.

“Under Crane’s proposal, Congress would give up the power to fix trade deals made by the President -- even if those deals threaten the environment and workers’ rights,’’ Seligman said.

Even some fast-track supporters agreed that labor and environmental standards would have to be included. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate finance committee, said that although he opposes including labor and environmental standards, these issues would have to be addressed in order for fast-track to be approved.

Every president since Gerald Ford had fast-track authority but Bill Clinton failed, repeatedly, to secure it.

Several environmental organizations began opposing free-trade deals after the passage of NAFTA, which they said weakened environmental and health regulations. Specifically, they have fought NAFTA’s investor provisions, known as Chapter 11.

The provisions were originally designed to protect companies from property expropriation but, activists said, multinational companies have used them to trump local health and environmental regulations.

US invites Europe to dump radioactive waste here

By James Ridgeway

Washington, DC, June 20— Yesterday the federal government dispatched a convoy of vehicles carrying European nuclear waste under armed guard from its Savannah River, South Carolina, nuclear facility across the country to the National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho. To reassure the public, the Department of Energy said it will have a satellite tracking the convoy every inch of the way as it moves west. The burned-out nuclear fuel comes from a reactor in Heidelberg, Germany.

The trip underscores a seldom noticed practice, begun as part of the Eisenhower Atoms for Peace program, in which the US acts as a nuclear dump for 41 other nations. Under Atoms for Peace, the US tried to spread atomic power for so-called peaceful uses to the rest of the world. To ensure other countries wouldn’t jump in and use the technology to build bombs, Ike promised to take back the radioactive waste and dump it somewhere here.

Atoms for Peace turned into a colossal failure and was abandoned long ago, but the dumping policy lives on, and indeed was reasserted under Clinton’s Foreign Research-Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel Acceptance Program, which was started as a way of preventing US-produced nuclear materials from getting into the hands of terrorists or foreign governments trying to build nuclear weapons.

Over the next decade, ships carrying nuclear waste will dock in California and South Carolina, unload the spent fuel, and haul it to storage sites in Idaho and elsewhere. Trouble is, the US has no disposal sites for its own nuclear waste, now piling up in temporary sites around the country and awaiting a decision from Congress on where to bury it. Even so, the Bush administration is touting nukes as a clean, safe source of energy.

Last summer, the government was blocked from sending a similar shipment through Missouri after intense public outcry and resistance from the state government. Now, however, Missouri wants to ship its own nuclear wastes to South Carolina and so is relenting and allowing the foreign waste to pass through. Opponents worry about it leaking into the environment on the trip west, or potentially contaminating people along the road, for example, harming a pregnant woman’s unborn baby.

“The thing that to me is so incredible is that we don’t have any location for our own irradiated fuel rods,” says Kay Drey of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment. “Underground isn’t safe. It could potentially get into the water people drink, animals drink, forever. So here we are taking away waste from 41 other countries with no other place to put it.”

The Energy Department insists the shipment is safe. “There’s no danger,” a spokesperson said. “The fuel is in containers called casks, made of stainless steel and lead, and it is safe to walk around them, and there is no harm to the environment.”

Said another spokesperson, “I’ve heard that you could spend the whole day hugging the thing and it would be less radiation than a dental X ray.”

Source: The Village Voice: www.villagevoice.com