ALPAC: A Community Perspective
By Diana Keith
To many, Athabasca County is an occupied territory. It has been divided and conquered by a
well-organized, highly mechanized, government-subsidized corporate army. Accordingly, once-cohesive
communities now are in conflict. Residents fearing environmental devastation, a lost way of life,
and foreign control, also anticipate economic opportunity and job creation. Feelings
of bitterness, despair, and disempowerment ferment in many communities.
It's a story of which books are made. The ALPAC story is a story that transcends economics and
goes well beyond the clearing of a forest and the poisoning of a river. It is a story that entails
an assault on the very soul of our communities.
In short, we in ALPAC County have been shaken from our innocence. Firsthand, we've seen that the
will of the people is no match for the wealth of transnational corporations. Firsthand, we've seen
the power of greed.
With each truckload of trees, thinking people in Athabasca Country now contemplate how money sways
politicians, businessmen, neighbours, and friends. We watch as the line between government and big
business blurs. And we ask: Is Democracy just another commodity to be sold to the highest bidder?
The Unofficial Story
In spring 1988 rumours of a pulp mill first surface in Athabasca, Alberta. It's jobs and
economic growth versus environmental health and community vitality. The community divides and
people take sides. In Athabasca, Alberta, Friends of the Athabasca is created to fight the
Japanese development that is owned primarily by Mitsubishi.
On December 13, 1988 in Athabasca, Alberta, Premier Don Getty announces that the
Mitsubishi-ALPAC pulp mill will be built in the County of Athabasca.
Prosperity Environmental Association is created in the community of Prosperity, Alberta to
fight the ALPAC project. It is the community of Prosperity that is slated for decimation by the
development: residents refer to it as "Ground Zero."
Approximately twelve-thousand Albertans sign a petition opposing the ALPAC project. The
petition is tabled in the Alberta Legislature in the summer of 1989. The Getty Government ignores
the petition.
On July 3, 1989 the County of Athabasca Development Officer issues ALPAC a development
permit, formally approving construction of the Mitsubishi development. The County of Athabasca
Development Officer fails to issue the necessary accompanying development agreement, however,
which details the terms and conditions of the development permit. ALPAC's legal council offers
to help the County draft such a document.
In July 11, 1989 in response to public pressure but determined to push the project through,
the Alberta Government creates the Alberta-Pacific Environmental Impact Assessment Review Board
(the ALPAC EIA Review Board), a panel of eight scientists and lay people. It instructs the panel
to ignore the impacts of industrial clearcutting on the larger than 12 million-acre forest
management area and, instead, to focus only on the impacts of the pulp mill.
Approximately twelve-thousand Albertans sign a petition opposing the ALPAC project. The
petition is tabled in the Alberta Legislature in the summer of 1989. The Getty Government ignores
the petition.
On July 27, 1989 Prosperity Environmental Association and Friends of the Athabasca appeal
the validity of ALPAC's development permit to the County of Athabasca Development Appeal Board,
claiming approval was premature without Alberta Environment's prior approval of the ALPAC project.
The Development Appeal Board dismisses their arguments, and issues ALPAC a development permit on
August 9, 1989.
From October 30, 1989 to December 15, 1989 the ALPAC EIA Review Board holds public hearings
in northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories to review data and listen to the people. Total
attendance is more than 5,000.
On March 2, 1990 at the Athabasca Community Centre, the ALPAC EIA Review Board releases its
report that recommends the ALPAC project as planned "not be approved." The review has cost Alberta
tax-payers approximately two million dollars.
At the same March 2,1990 meeting, Alberta's Minister of Environment Ralph Klein accepts the
recommendation of the EIA Review Board and agrees to halt the ALPAC project as planned pending
further study.
Later in March 1990 Premier Don Getty overrules the Minister of Environment's decision. He
now calls the EIA Review Board report "unbalanced, "flawed," and a mirror that reflected public
sentiment but no deep investigation.
In April 1990 Premier Getty instigates an independent review of the ALPAC EIA Review Board
report, hiring the Finnish forestry-consulting-firm, Jaakko Poyry.
On June 15, 1990 the report of the second review is released, endorsing the results of the
first. This review cost Alberta taxpayers almost a half-million dollars.
On December 21 1990, four days before Christmas at Athabasca's Nancy Appleby Theatre,
Premier Getty announces his government's approval of the ALPAC project. A near-riot ensures.
ALPAC later proclaims that it has undergone "two years of exhaustive government review and public
input the most intensive ever undertaken in Canada for a forestry project..."
In July 12, 1990 the Alberta Government instigates yet a third review a three person
"ALPAC Scientific Review Panel" to address the feasibility of ALPAC's revised technical design.
With each review, the terms of reference narrow.
On September 12, 1990 Prosperity Environmental Association, Friends of the Athabasca, and
Edmonton Friends of the North file motion with Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench, requesting the
original EIA Review Board be reconvened to review ALPAC's mitigative proposal. The motion is heard
November 9, 1990, and denied November 23, 1990.
On September 12, 13, 14, 1990 the third review panel holds its only public hearing a
three-day public hearing at Athabasca's Nancy Appleby Theatre.
In October 1990 the third review panel submits its report to the Alberta government,
approving the ALPAC mitigative design as feasible in theory. The government releases the report
in December.
On December 21 1990 four days before Christmas at Athabasca's Nancy Appleby Theatre,
Premier Getty announces his government's approval of the ALPAC project. A near-riot ensures.
ALPAC later proclaims that it has undergone "two years of exhaustive government review and public
input--the most intensive ever undertaken in Canada for a forestry project..."
On December 21, 1990 the Director of Standards and Approval issues the necessary permit to
construct the ALPAC pulp mill under the Clean Air Act. On January 10, 1991, the Director of
Standards and Approval issues the necessary permit to construct under the Clean Water Act. These
permits are issued after Cabinet has approved mill-construction.
On January 14, 1991 Prosperity Environmental Association and Friends of the Athabasca file
motion with Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench, requesting that the courts review the
ALPAC construction-permitting process. They contend that the decision of the Director of Standards
and Approval was "fettered" that Cabinet had pre-empted the power of the Director of Standards
and Approval when it granted prior approval of construction, and, consequently, it had given the
director little choice but to approve the permits. The community groups lose the case and
subsequent appeal and are ordered to pay ALPAC's court costs.
In April 3, 1991 Prosperity Environmental Association seeks judicial review in the Court of
Queen's Bench to revoke or suspend the ALPAC development permit issued by the County of Athabasca
and its development officer. The court upholds the development permit.
Community cohension in the peaceful community of Prosperity shatters as residents sell land
to ALPAC. There is outrage toward those who take ALPAC money and run, and compassion for those
who leave disgusted and broken-hearted. It is Prosperity on which ALPAC now lies the community
as it was is dead.
ALPAC promises to hire local people, but fewer locals than expected are hired to fill the
fewer than anticipated positions. ALPAC's elusive definition of "local" enrages many. While
Prosperity community members consider local to be anything within 10 kilometres of their
community, ALPAC defines local first as anyone within 80 kilometres of the mill-site, later as
anyone within its forest management area and eventually as anyone within its "sphere of influence."
With international tentacles, ALPAC's definition of local seems to mean the world. Today, the mix
of permanent employees hail from all over the world.
Later, local job-loss extends beyond employment with the ALPAC project to employment
throughout the community as locals compete with spouses of ALPAC employees for jobs.
In Spring 1991 nearly three thousand construction workers come to Athabasca County to build
the pulp mill and about two years later, mission accomplished they leave. Another thousand
arrive to build highways and an ALPAC railroad and then they leave.
Three construction workers die in the race to build ALPAC. Another ALPAC employee dies during early ALPAC operations.
Approximately three kilometres upstream from Poachers Landing, ALPAC effluent pours into the Athabasca River. Community members claim Poachers
Landing is a sewer for the ALPAC pulp mill.
Children collect as much as $300 per week from liquor containers discarded by off-shift ALPAC construction-workers. Community members expected economic gains but not of this nature.
Prosperity community members discontinue their annual Poachers' Dance in 1991 when ALPAC employees threaten to "mop up the floor" with community members.
ALPAC construction workers party at Poachers Landing a campsite on the Athabasca River established by community members. Community members are uncomfortable at their campsite and cancel family outings.
Approximately three kilometres upstream from Poachers Landing, ALPAC effluent pours into the Athabasca River. Community members claim Poachers Landing is a sewer for the ALPAC pulp mill.
Local farmers move equipment, herd live-stock, and haul feed at night and on Sundays to avoid ALPAC's construction traffic, "skulking like thieves in our own community."
Approximately 40 kilometres west of the ALPAC mill, Athabasca is transformed from a picturesque community with a rich history and flourishing university into an industrial company town.
A race for trees on private lands transpires. In local newspapers, ALPAC and other timber companies solicit trees from cash-poor farmers, thus encouraging indiscriminate clearing of marginal farmland. Community members watch truckloads of trees swarm to the ALPAC mill-site as ALPAC stockpiles trees for mill start-up.
The Alberta Forest Service acknowledges that "a crisis" exists on Alberta's private lands but Environmental Protection Minister Brian Evans refuses to regulate timber clearing on private lands.
In Rochester, Alberta, approximately 80 kilometres southwest of the ALPAC mill, The Voice of The Valley is created to combat irresponsible timber clearing, especially that by ALPAC.
Community members learn that in addition to aspen spruce, pine, tamarack and birch in ALPAC's forest management area will be cut. ALPAC calls these trees "incidental timber." Incidental timber is sold to the highest bidder through a tender process, thus highlighting ALPAC's profit-driven motives and creating local concern for small companies that must compete for timber with huge corporations.
Frustrated and angry, many community members decry ALPAC's grip on Athabasca County Council,
saying councilors rubber-stamp ALPAC requests, first holding public meetings and then acquiescing to the corporation.
Some refer to the County of Athabasca as "The County of ALPAC."
Unable to compete with huge corporations, local sawmills close and sawmill employees are laid off. For example, Spruce Valley Mills closes, laying off 17 full-time employees and 40 seasonal workers.
Community members voice concern about log trucks on roads during schoolbus hours. Despite initial proclamations from ALPAC that log trucks would refrain from public roads during schoolbus hours, Athabasca County Council decides no danger exists.
Frustrated and angry, many community members decry ALPAC's grip on Athabasca County Council, saying councilors rubber-stamp ALPAC requests, first holding public meetings and then acquiescing to the corporation. Some refer to the County of Athabasca as "The County of ALPAC."
Despite public appeals, the Athabasca County Development Appeal Board (County Council) approves development permits for ALPAC's dry-waste landfill and its 80-acre "non-hazardous" industrial waste-site. The Athabasca Health Unit -- which oversees landfill regulations -- issues permits to operate both landfills.
Community members appeal the permits to the provincial Public Health Advisory and Appeal Board. The Board rules that only people with property immediately adjacent to ALPAC's industrial-waste-site are "directly affected" by the ALPAC waste-site -- and thus limits who can appeal. Community members declare the definition too restrictive and turn to the courts for judicial review.
One year later, community members still await resolution of their appeal as operations at the ALPAC landfill continue.
ALPAC threatens legal action and recovery of lost revenue to anyone who might stop its landfill construction.
Required by law to have a 450-metre buffer zone around its waste-site, ALPAC lays claim to property of neighbouring landowners without compensation or due process of expropriation.
When a landowner is issued a permit to build a home on his own property as permitted by County land-use bylaws, ALPAC appeals to the County Development Appeal Board because the landowner's proposed residence will lie within 450 metres of its waste-site.
The County Development Appeal Board revokes the permit. The landowner appeals the decision to the Provincial Court of Appeal. Resolution of the issue is pending.
In late spring 1993 ALPAC first presents its doctrine in the Athabasca County school system without objection from the school board that includes Athabasca County Council members.
At Athabasca, grade-five students write ALPAC to voice concerns about clear cuts. Soon after, an ALPAC representative meets with teachers to discuss "hate mail." According to teachers, he scorns their science-knowledge, baits one to near blows, and demands to present the ALPAC story to students.
Community members later hear that ALPAC has threatened school administrators with legal action if barred from presenting its viewpoint.
At Rochester School, to the surprise of most staff, three ALPAC representatives arrive and assure students that the ALPAC project is environmentally safe.
People who complain that students received a one-sided presentation are dismissed by the school superintendent as simply "environmentalists."
Weeks later, a balancing viewpoint about forestry is presented at the insistence of community members.
On July 6, 1993 the local newspaper The Athabasca Advocate presents a hard-hitting editorial about ALPAC poisoning the Athabasca River. A team of ALPAC officials soon meets with the publisher to discuss "negative reports," and threatens retaliation.
September 1993, ALPAC the self-proclaimed world's largest
single-line bleached kraft pulp mill begins production.
It's "them versus us" in ALPAC County. When ALPAC officials claim that "negative reports have affected the morale of staff and their family members," a letter-to-the-editor states flatly, "Too bad... It's time that ALPAC realized there was a community here long before ALPAC came... a community that will be here long after ALPAC is gone."
On June 21, 1993 at the Midsummer Night Scream a community dance in Rochester, an ALPAC worker and friends break ashtrays and burn holes in the community hall's new carpet.
On August 4, 1993 the government of Premier Ralph Klein issues ALPAC a three-year operating license, less than one month before Alberta's stricter Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act is to take effect.
September 1993 ALPAC the self-proclaimed world's largest single-line bleached kraft pulp mill begins production.
Community members witness ALPAC in action: a "sickly red glow" under the aurora borealis, a relentless roar and clamour, and a stench that wafts for miles.
ALPAC's public relation efforts escalate: a name-the-pulp-machine contest; a Forest Management Area photo contest; a four-month token logging effort with horses that allows ALPAC to cut environmentally-sensitive areas;
an effluent-filled fish tank complete with goldfish; and an announcement that ALPAC offers the benefit of a tourist attraction. Furthermore, ALPAC propaganda teems with politically-correct words like "public participation," "community," "sustainable," and "ecosystem management" twisted,
many say into misrepresentations and half-truths.
Community members complain that ALPAC sponsors "bias-free" academic research to placate the public while it continues cutting as usual.
Concerns about ALPAC's control over academic research arise.
ALPAC threatens to withhold research funding unless the University of Alberta Environmental Research Centre fires its associate director John McInnis, a former Member of Legislative Assembly and, as such, the official opposition's environment and forestry spokesman.
The University of Alberta acquiesces. McInnis files lawsuit against ALPAC. ALPAC presses to oversee a
proposed research project at the University of Alberta Forest Science Department that would examine
ALPAC's social impacts.
In June 1994 in The Athabasca Advocate's letter-to-the-editor,
a disgruntled ALPAC employee on maternity-leave writes, "...the way in which the company promotes itself as
'family' oriented and 'community' minded is nothing but propaganda."
News from and about ALPAC permeates The Athabasca Advocate.
The list is endless, the story goes on; tale after tale of government arrogance, corporate intimidation, and industry propaganda that a decade ago would have been dismissed as outrageous.
To people in third-world nations, it's commonplace Mitsubishi has operated like this for years. But to thinking people in Athabasca County, it's inconceivable.
Diana Keith is from Rochester, Alberta
