THEY DIDN'T GET IT: KEY CONFLICTS
BETWEEN FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PANEL REPORT (MARCH 1998) AND
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE (DECEMBER 1998):
the Nuclear Fuel Waste
agency will have only industry on its board; not the range of (public)
representatives recommended by panel
the Nuclear Fuel Waste agency
is not the "independent" and public body recommended by panel; it is the
"implementing" agency offered by Ontario Hydro in Phase I of the hearing
(March 1995)
the aboriginal framework will
be initiated by government and developed by the industry agency, not by
aboriginal people
the social and ethical framework
will be developed by the industry agency with "various segments of society",
not through the broad public participation recommended by the panel
the Panel recommended multiple
oversight mechanisms; the government response is that the "Policy Framework
for Radioactive Wastes" will ensure responsible management ( the government
developed this "policy" in consultation with the nuclear industries while
the federal hearing was underway)
the Panel report directs that
there should be no search for a site until after the evaluation and reviews
have been completed and there is broad public acceptance of the preferred
nuclear waste management approach; the government response directs that
consultations within "the proposed siting territories" be part of "building
acceptability" for the "preferred" option
the Panel report did not link
acceptance of a nuclear waste management option with the future of the
nuclear industry (in fact, the issue of future production was excluded
from the review); the government response states that such acceptance will
"support nuclear energy, and particularly the CANDU option, as a sustainable
supply option for electricity"
the Panel discussed the need
for "broad public support... to ensure the acceptability of a concept for
managing nuclear wastes"; the government response discusses "public consultation
and involvement to build acceptability for the preferred approach ..."