Back to Media page

Click here to view Plutonium Fuel Transport Map

Media Release
For release September 12, 1997

PUBLIC NOT CONSULTED ON US WEAPONS PLUTONIUM SHIPMENTS

While the US lays the groundwork for the export of weapons plutonium to Canada, the Chrétien government is refusing to allow input from the Canadian public and to examine the environmental consequences of the decision.

The US Department of Energy (DoE), which wraps up its environmental assessment on the fabrication and transportion of plutonium fuel on September 17, has stated that "activities conducted in Canada would be the responsibility of the Canadian government". An experimental plutonium fuel "test burn" is scheduled for December at Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories. This is the first step in a 25 year plan that could see up to 100 tonnes of plutonium, from dismantled US and Russian warheads imported into Canada for use in CANDU reactors.

Public interest groups are condemning the fact that Canadian citizens have had no opportunity to comment on this project except through the US environmental asessment process. They concur with an independent study that recommends the plutonium fuel initiative "be consigned to oblivion". (MOX Experience: The Disposition of Excess Russian and U.S. Weapons Plutonium in Canada, Franklin Griffiths, George Ignatieff Chair of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto, July 1997)

"The DoE assessment literally stops at the border," says Kristen Ostling, the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout's national coordinator. "While US cities along the plutonium fuel transportation route are identified, Canadian communities are not." She notes these communities are not being given any say as to whether plutonium, one of the most carcinogenic substances known, should be shipped through their towns. "The Canadian government is shirking its responsibility," says Ostling.

The Chrétien government has stated that an environmental assessment of the plutonium import plan would be "several years away". Critics of the scheme, such as Nuclear Awareness Project's Irene Kock, point out that this would be too little too late and does not address the fundamental question of whether or not Canadians even want to embark upon this process.

"The government's position is unfortunately consistent," says Elizabeth May, executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "We only need to remember how the government circumvented its own laws and poured over $1.5 billion into the sale of CANDU reactors to China."

Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, says "there has been no democratic process to determine whether or not the import of plutonium fuel is acceptable to Canadians. We ask the Canadian government to take this offer off the table now before we are locked into an irreversible decision."

In spite of the recent Ontario Hydro safety scandal, the federal government and the nuclear industry continue to support the plutonium fuel imports, notes Marc Chénier, president of Centre d'analyse des politiques énergétiques. An AECL spokesperson has indicated that regardless of reactor shutdowns, the "test burn" will proceed. "AECL's long-term plan was to use the plutonium in the Bruce "A" reactors which have now been shutdown due to substandard safety practices," says Chénier. "With all the safety problems at Ontario Hydro they should not waste public funds re-engineering reactors to accomodate plutonium fuel."

Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout