YEAR No. of nuclear ship days in Greater Victoria
1980 29
1981 24
1982 23
1983 53
1984 41
1985 134
1986 77
1987 96
1988 58
1989 92
1990 18
"External Affairs Minister Joe Clark said Thursday he has no reliable information about the explosion of a dummy nuclear warhead off the B.C. coast in 1950."
"He made the comment to reporters only minutes after he told the Commons he was aware of the explosion on February 13, 1950, when a U.S. Air Force B-36 bomber developed engine problems between Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands and dumped its payload."
...
"Clark said: 'When there are nuclear weapons, there are going to be accidents.
There have been accidents at sea with respect to submarines carrying nuclear weapons. There have been other accidents. Those are recorded.' "
This Monday Magazine article features a photograph of the USS Peleliu, a nuclear-capable assault ship, docked at Ogden Point, a Victoria berthing facility operated by Transport Canada, just a ten minute walk from my home.
The August 23-29, 1990, article also features a photograph of the water-based "Sail-About" protest of 50 boats in Esquimalt Harbour against nuclear ships. The Sail-About took place on October 28, 1989. I helped organize it.
Concerning the nuclear weapon that in 1950 fell between Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands, the Monday Magazine article reads:
"Although the bomb didn't contain the plutonium required for a nuclear detonation, it was loaded with enriched uranium that was apparently dispersed when the bomb hit the sea, spreading low level radiation on the water."
Later on the writer, Tom Henry, reports on his 1990 conversations with Jason Jenson, a "23-year old former machinists' mate on the nuclear attack sub, the USS Finnback." He writes:
"A five-year Navy veteran, Jensen left his submarine in protest over lax safety standards. He gives a horrifying account of document falsification, cheating and incompetency. 'The Navy's philosophy for mistakes is to make a procedure for it and make paperwork for it.' he said. Jensen says last year he and a number of other workers with engine room duties were given new responsibilities without training. In this blanket promotion, sailors like Jensen were given authority for the whole engine room, a task he readily admits to being unqualified for. 'The whole navy program is not safety oriented. It is public opinion oriented.' he says. 'The whole idea is to keep the public happy about nuclear power.'"
"The Federal Government is sticking to its positions that a public environmental review of nuclear ship visits to Esquimalt is not needed.
But Esquimalt Member of Parliament Dave Barrett says that approach to a peace group's demands for a study simply isn't good enough."
...
"Barrett says he understands Collins position that studies have been done before but he says in this day and age that information must be made public."
...
"Barrett says the public needs to be 'reassured' about who is carrying out the studies, how they are being done, and what the results are.
'There is a public right to know,' Barrett said."
The news release states that the 1989 Annual General Meeting of Lawyers for Social Responsibility, which I attended as an observer, declared that "the manufacture, deployment or testing of nuclear weapons is ILLEGAL under International Law." [underlined and upper case in original]
The news release went on to quote Professor Edward McWhinney, Q.C., and distinguished Professor of International Law, on the significance of the declaration:
"This Historic declaration by a large body of Canadian lawyers and legal scholars is a significant large step in what has been a 30 year process of step by step evolution of principles of international law on nuclear weapons, in full accord with the U.N. Charter's specific Injunction, under Article 13 of the U.N. Charter, for the progressive development of international law."
Both P.C. 1991-2083 and P.C. 1991-2084 approve the visits of nuclear ships subject to conditions making it clear that the visits have a clear potential of harming the environment through radiation accidents. The conditions include:
"(a) written certification by the Governments of those countries that all safety precautions and procedures followed in connection with the operation of such warships in home ports will be strictly observed in visits to Canadian ports; and
(b) written assurance by the Governments of those countries that claims, except those covered by... that might arise out of a nuclear accident or incident will be dealt with through normal diplomatic channels."
By restricting in P.C. 1991-2084 the "visits of nuclear-propelled warships" only "to the ports of Halifax, Esquimalt, and Nanoose", the government clearly implying that there is a special danger associated with nuclear reactor visits.
*** PCDS ***
The reason why only these three ports are permitted to berth nuclear-powered ships is because of the presence of Canada's NERT Teams (Nuclear Emergency Response Teams) in close vicinity. The Canadian government requested several million dollars in 1992 for capital improvements to the NERT Teams as can be seen from the Federal Government Budget attached as Exhibit "x." to this my affidavit. This multi-million dollar expenditure is in addition to the ongoing maintenance and personnel costs of the NERT Teams. Clearly the government recognizes that nuclear accidents can happen aboard visiting ships, and that reactor accidents are potentially more hazardous than those involving "only" nuclear weapons.
"No fewer than ten municipalities in three provinces have supported a call by Victoria's Mayor Gretchen Brewin and by Operation Dismantle for a public inquiry into the safety of nuclear ship visits to Canada."
Gretchen Brewin, whom I personally know, remains committed to a public environmental review to this day, almost five years later, and is now the Member of the B.C. Legislature representing Victoria-Beacon Hill.
"Insurance companies have decided that nuclear power is too risky for their liking, and they won't insure you at any price against what they fear-- a Chernobyl-type accident in Canada."
A simple glance at any Canadian insurance policy, as I have done, will verify this. For example, attached as Exhibit "x." to this my affidavit, is a Factsheet produced by the Greater Victoria Disarmament Group which reproduces the nuclear liability exemption clause in Wawanesa's standard homeowner's insurance policy. It reads, in part:
"This policy does not cover:
...
(h) Loss or damage caused by contamination by radioactive material."
"The USS Gurnard (SSN-662) spills 30 gallons of water containing radioactive material into San Diego Bay, California." [July 20, 1980]
"The USS Ranger (CV-61) collides with the USS Wichita (AOR-1) during refuelling 100 miles off San Diego, California... The Wichita damages its refuelling capability. The port fuelling riggings are put out of commission, including the loss of all fuel hoses." [July 18, 1983]
"A fire breaks out aboard the USS Guitarro (SSN- 665) during a training exercise." [May 17, 1984]
"The USS Guitarro (SSN-665) reportedly suffers a minor mishap involving a shipboard valve while at sea." [July 31, 1986]
Other accidents are reported from 1980 to 1988 for the nuclear ships USS Francis Hammond, USS Fletcher, and the USS Texas, all of which berthed in Greater Victoria in 1989, according to information released by the Department of National Defence under an Access to Information Request, photocopied pages of which are attached as Exhibit "x." to this my affidavit.
With "safety" records like this, it is clear why the public is concerned about the environmental damage that could be caused by nuclear ships in Greater Victoria ports and waters.
"Each proposed visit requires prior notification and is dealt with by Canadian officials on a case- by-case basis through normal service to service channels." [emphasis added]
and again later:
"These Departments [National Defence, External Affairs, Transport Canada, and National Health and Welfare] continue to be notified in advance of any proposed visit by nuclear-powered vessels." [emphasis added]
From this Backgrounder it is clear that the National Defence, External Affairs, and Transport Canada share a responsibility for nuclear ship visits, and that each and every nuclear ship visit is a "proposal" to be dealt with on a "case-by-case basis".
In addition to these places, all of which have been visited by nuclear ships, or had nuclear ships transit Canadian waters near them, the environment and population of a 28-mile radius could potentially be affected by a severe nuclear accident.
Attached as Exhibit "x." to this my affidavit are several photocopied pages from Bill Robinson & Peter Brown's booklet "Unsafe Harbours: Nuclear Weapons in Canadian Ports", published by Operation Dismantle, in Ottawa, in 1986. These pages say, in part:
"An accidental fire or explosion of the conventional materials [in a nuclear warhead] can cause a fire which oxidizes plutonium. This plutonium oxide is carried into the atmosphere in the form of a radioactive cloud. The cloud would likely be about 28 miles long and two-and-one-half miles wide, according to a study done for the U.S. government by the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The cloud would move in unpredictable ways, as it follows the frequent shifts in wind direction that coastal cities experience. The map on page 17 illustrates the areas that could be contaminated in some west coast ports."
It is clear that millions of Canadians are potentially affected by accidents from nuclear-powered and nuclear- capable ships in Canadian waters and ports. Public concern is widespread.
Answering the question, "What happens in the unlikely event of an emergency?", the "Capable" brochure states:
"If required, this [emergency response measures] would include partial and temporary evacuation on instructions from the appropriate authority, based on information provided by DND emergency response teams on site."
National Defence thus acknowledges the real possibilty of accident, including one so severe as to require evacuation of the population. As is documented in the affidavit of Elizabeth Brightwell, no one, military or civilian, has any actual plans for evacuation. Nor, as documented in the affidavit of Dr. Paul Rosenberg, is the medical community of Greater Victoria able to cope with a major radiological incident. The public is not protected in the event of a major nuclear accident.
In referring to George Bush's announcement "that all tactical nuclear weapons would be removed from U.S. warships", the "Capable" brochure states that:
"However, strategic weapons will still be deployed in submarines, and in the case of a crisis the U.S. fleet may be rearmed with tactical nuclear weapons."
National Defence is making it clear that the off-loading of nuclear weapons is a measure that could be reversed during a crisis, and that the promised respite from the environmental hazards of nuclear-capable ships may only be temporary or illusory.
"Moving on to surface ships, the California, which spends time at Esquimalt, has twice spilled primary reactor coolant while docked at the Norfolk Naval Base in Virginia. And the Nimitz, powered by two nuclear reactors, has the most dismal record of all. So bad, in fact, that in August 1990, four sailors walked off the deck and into a Seattle TV station. With their faces and voices electronically altered during the broadcast to protect their identities, the sailors told of widespread cheating on nuclear qualification tests, faulty hardware, over-worked crews and reactor problems. In the event of a reactor accident 'we could not contain the radiation,' one sailor stated. "
On the following page, Kim Goldberg documents how it is part of U.S. policy to lie "deny or conceal" nuclear weapons accidents:
"The U.S. Department of Defense directive 5230.16 conveniently permits the U.S. Navy or other government representatives to deny or conceal a nuclear weapon accident: 'Unified Commanders... may confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons or radioactive nuclear weapon components at the scene of an accident or significant incident in the interest of public safety or to reduce public alarm." [emphasis added]
"The Liberal Party fully supports your efforts to secure a full public environmental review of nuclear ship visits to Greater Victoria, and we have made it clear to the Federal Government that the public interest would be served by the holding of such a review.
And again:
"The Liberal Party fully supports your efforts to make B.C. a Nuclear Free Zone. In the last national leadership contest all candidates declared at the Vancouver policy conference that they were opposed to nuclear-armed or -powered ship visits to B.C.'s territorial waters."
"I am writing on behalf of all members of the New Democratic Caucus in the British Columbia Legislature to request a full, public Federal Environmental Assessment Review concerning the continuing use of Esquimalt harbour and its Department of National Defence docks and infrastructure, as well as the continuing use of facilities at Ogden Point in Victoria, operated by Transport Canada, for the berthing of nuclear- powered or nuclear-armed ships."
John Brewin has been very active in supporting the call for a public environmental review of nuclear ship visits. He has spoken at meetings, addressed the issue many times in the House of Commons, done interviews with media reporters, written letters, made phonecalls, and provided myself and the Vancouver Island Peace Society with much help and advice in this issue.
THAT I have often heard John Brewin call for a moratorium on the visits of nuclear-capable and nuclear-powered ships from Canadian waters until a full independent public inquiry is held on the environmental implications of such visits and transits.
I have also called heard John Brewin call for a moratorium while a public review is held on the policy implications for Canada in accepting the visits of military vessels that refuse to reveal whether or not they are carrying nuclear weapons, and that are capable of carrying such weapons.
Attached as Exhibit "x." to this my affidavit, is a letter dated February 11, 1991, from John Brewin. He says, in part:
"I strongly believe that there should be a moratorium on such visits until a full independent public inquiry is held on the environmental and policy implications of such visits. I have long held this view and have expressed it in the 1984 and 1988 federal election campaigns. This policy has been endorsed by the Victoria Federal NDP Association in the past and has been adopted by the Federal Council of the NDP."
He goes on to say:
"This [environmental review of nuclear ship visits] is an important issue. No community would agree to a land-based nuclear power plant in its midst without a full review."
"While there is considerable international evidence of problems arising from the nuclear propulsion and from the nuclear weapons, it has been stoutly maintained by the Department of National Defence that the visits are safe. The basis for the Department's views have never been made public."
And later:
"The Federal Environmental Assessment Review process is the one developed to ensure the fullest possible examination of the environmental consequences of a federal action. There is no reason for neglecting the process in this case. The consequences of a mistake are too great.
If, as the Department suggests, there are no problems, then why not have the review so that [the] public is reassured?
Your attention to this urgent matter is appreciated."
"Even the [U.S.] Navy admits that a core meltdown involving a naval reactor is a conceivable accident and thus, 'In 1973, the Navy attempted to draw up a disaster control plan for the submarine base at Pearl Harbor. A study, entitled, Reactor Disaster Control Plan, looked at what would happen in the event of a shipboard core meltdown. The Navy found that the meltdown could go right down through the ship spilling hot radioactive materials to the bottom of the harbor. According to one of the study's authors, 'if this worst possible situtation should occur, absolutely nothing could be done about it.' ' "
Powered
by SunshineCommunications.ca
