Home Feature Story Breaking News

Historical Statement by Canada in 1986 regarding potential transboundary effects of nuclear waste from the USA

SHARE
Background:                                  June 11, 2015
 

The following public statement, made by Joe Clark on January 16, 1986, speaks for itself.  At one time Joe Clark was the Prime Minister of Canada, but in 1986 he was Minister of State for External Affairs in the Mulroney cabinet. 

The US Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required the Department of Energy (DOE) to issue guidelines for the selection of sites for the construction of two permanent, underground repositories for high-level nuclear waste (both civilian and military). The DOE was to study five potential sites in the western United States for the first repository, and then recommend three to the president by January 1, 1985. Five additional sites were to be studied as possible locations for a second repository in the eastern United States and three of them were to be recommended to the president by July 1, 1989.

The search for a second repository focused on crystalline rock in the northeastern states, not far from the Canadian border. Concerns over the possibility that radioactive pollutants could be carried into Canadian waters turned the search for a second repository into an international issue. 

Very early on, citizens from Quebec entered Vermont by the busload in a show of solidarity to express their joint opposition to the proposed nuclear waste dump. In both Quebec and Vermont, opposition grew by leaps and bounds, being widely reported in the mass media and reaching the highest political levels.

The Premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, famously proclaimed that his province would never allow a permanent nuclear waste repository within the territory of Quebec or on its borders. Jean Charest, then the Member of Parliament from Sherbrooke, Quebec — just a short distance from Vermont — successfully mobilized the Canadian government to become involved  through its embassy in Washington D.C.  

Meanwhile, growing opposition was being manifested by US citizens and politicians in the eastern United States, particularly in Vermont. At one public meeting that was broadcast live throughout the state, the lieutenant governor asked DOE officials a blunt question: “Whose decision is this, yours or ours?  Because if it is our decision, then we can keep this meeting very short indeed.  And if it’s your decision, then what exactly is the purpose of this meeting?” 

The choice of a site for a second repository was clearly becoming a major political liability.

In December 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to designate Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the only site to be characterized as a permanent repository for all of the nation’s nuclear waste.  The amendment repealed provisions in the 1982 law calling for a second repository in the eastern United States. 

—————–

The Age of Nuclear Waste is upon us. Ordinary citizens and their elected representatives must become involved. The stakes are too high to leave such decisions to the nuclear establishment, which includes the regulatory agency. What’s good for the survival of the nuclear enterprise is often in conflict with long-term human welfare.  

As Emilio Varanini, chair of the California Energy Resources Development and Conservation Commission, said back in 1978: 

Excessive optimism about the potential for safe disposal of nuclear wastes has caused backers of nuclear power to ignore scientific evidence pointing to its pitfalls.  That’s the real crux of what we found — that you have to weigh scientific evidence against essentially engineering euphoria.”

 

As Michael J. Keegan of Don’t Waste Michigan has said, “Delusion is not the solution to pollution.”

 

A policy of Rolling Stewardship, with Hardened On-Site Storage where appropriate, based on a societal commitment to provide for continuous monitoring and retrievability, with periodic recharacterization and repackaging of the wastes, is the only acceptable approach for the foreseeable future.  Those in charge of the nuclear waste should be independent of the nuclear industry, but they must have all the necessary information and resources to keep society and the environment safe from the radioactive legacy of the nuclear age. An official “changing of the guard” every 20 years or so will provide the opportunity for a complete and detailed review of what has been accomplished in the past and what improvements can be made for the future.  

The industry sees nuclear waste as a public relations problem.  Nuclear proponents want to be able to abandon the nuclear waste, limit the industry’s liability, and let amnesia slowly set in: “Let’s pretend it never happened”.  

Rolling Stewardship begins with the frank admission that getting rid of nuclear waste is impossible at the present time — it is an unsolved problem. The only approach that is justifiable on 

scientific and ethical grounds is, not to abandon these wastes that will remain dangerous for millions of years, but to safeguard them on an intergenerational basis in the interests of society as a whole.  We know how to do it safely, one generation at a time, as long as we stop adding to the problem.  

 

Gordon Edwards.

 
 
 

==============================

 
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
SECRÉTAIRE DÉTAT AUX AFFAIRES EXTÉRIEURES
 
86/02
 
Statement by the Right Honourable Joe Clark,
Secretary of State for External Affairs,
concerning the U .S . Nuclear Waste Repository Program
 
OTTAW A
January 16, 1986 
 
The United States Department of Energy has released a draft Area Recommendation Report as part of its program to locate a site for its second nuclear waste repository.
 
The draft report identified 20 areas for further study (12 will be actively studied; 8 will be held in reserve, if needed) from a list of 235 rock bodies located within the United States. The US Department of Energy has stated that it will receive comments on these 20 areas before the final report is issued in mid-1986. The areas on the final list will then be subject to field investigations, leading to a further narrowing, in 1991, to 3 sites for even more intensive study. A final selection of one
site will be made in 1998.
 
I am pleased to see that none of the potential areas listed in the draft report is within 25 miles of the border. However, one in Maine, known as the Bottle Lake complex, is just beyond this minimum distance from New Brunswick and may be at least partially in the St. Croix River watershed. Other areas of potential concern to Canada, because they are in drainage basins that eventually flow into Canada, are in Minnesota and WisconsinThe four potential areas of concern in Minnesota are in the Red River basin. Two areas in Wisconsin are at least partially in the Great Lakes basin. 
 
The Government of Canada is examining the detailed US Government information on these areas. The Canadian Government and adjacent provinces will assess this information for indications of potential effects to the health and property of this and future generations of CanadiansCanadian officials will also review the data available on all 20 areas to ascertain if any of them could pose any concern to Canadians due to the movement of groundwater or other factors.
 
The Government of Canada and the governments of the concerned provinces expect to present their concerns to United States representatives at an early meeting of the Canada/USA consultative group on this issue which will take place once the information available in the draft report has been fully assessed. These concerns will also be registered with the US Administration at the Cabinet level at the earliest appropriate opportunity.
 
I and several of my Cabinet colleagues have made it clear to our US counterparts that this Government opposes any development that could present a transboundary threat to the welfare of Canadians or the integrity of the Canadian
environment.
 
During consultations, the US agreed that no area would be selected if field work or sampling in Canada would be required or if it was adjacent to the border. One site in Maine, adjacent to the Quebec border near Lac Megantic, has been dropped specifically for those reasons.
 
The United States has also assured Canada that the 15-year screening process which it is conducting to select a site is intended to ensure that no site will be selected which will have harmful effects on either side of the border. The Government will monitor the US process carefully to ensure that the interests of this and future generations of Canadians are protected.
 
The Government will continue its consultations with the provinces and the citizen groups concerned with this issue.
 
– 30 –