Wolf River WI to be targeted by nuclear waste dump?

Report on nuclear waste in Wisconsin
Possible Nuclear Waste Sites and Routes .pdf
black and white version
download the free . pdf Reader


Sign on Highway 29 west of Shawano,
dating from 1985 US Department of Energy
identification of teh Wolf River Batholith's granite
bedrock as a "Proposed Potentially Acceptable Site"
for high-level radioactive waste storage.




The Problem:

In the mid 1980's, before designation of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as an underground nuclear waste repository site, Wisconsin's Wolf River Batholith received close scrutiny by the Department of Energy (DOE), and was ranked second for a national high-level radioactive waste site. The Wolf river Batholith underlies much of Waupaca, Portage, Shawano, Marathon, Menominee, Langlade and Oconto counties. Truck and/or rail shipment of radioactive waste to a site, and away from existing nuclear power plants at Point Beach and Kewaunee, would impact the entire state.

Federal law requires designation of a second national site, east of the Mississippi, by 2007, and Wisconsin's granite bedrock is likely to be reconsidered. Nuclear waste contains the byproducts of the splitting of atoms in a nuclear reactor: radioisotopes which remain cancer-causing for over 250,000 years. Despite designation of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a high-level waste dumpsite, no proven method of isolating these wastes from water and the environment for the necessary time span exists.

Whereas: Wisconsin is home to vital and vulnerable fresh water resources, and the Great Lakes area contains 20% of the world's freshwater resources, and

Whereas: Nuclear reactors enervate an average of 60,000 pounds of high-level radioactive waste each year, and,
Whereas: even under normal operation nuclear reactors release so-called "allowable" levels of radioactive isotopes into the environment through the release of water and steam, and,

Whereas: Studies of nuclear bomb-test fallout patterns show a correlation between low levels of dietary radiation and the incidence of leukemia and other cancers,

Now therefore be it resolved that_____________________________states its opposition to the production and storage of radioactive waste in Wisconsin, now and in the future, and hereby calls upon the Legislature and Wisconsin utilities to aggressively pursue a clean energy strategy to assure a clean and renewable energy future for Wisconsin, without future dependence on environmentally harmful and coal and nuclear plants.

And be it further resolved that no new nuclear plants be constructed in the state, that the current state statutes regarding nuclear plant siting, which specifically prohibit construction of new nuclear reactors without proof of financial competitiveness with alternatives, and without an operating and licensed federal repository, be upheld by the legislature


News Release

For Immediate Release February 24, 2004
Contacts:    Alfred Meyer, Madison Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility (608) 513-4354
Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Information and Resource Service (202) 328-0002 ext. 14
Claire Schmidt, Clean Wisconsin (608) 251-7020
Judy Miner, Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice (608) 250-9240

Citizens Rally to Oppose AB 555, Call for Clean, Safe Energy Solutions

Assembly Bill 555 Would Remove Consumer and Safety Protections

Madison--Citizens rallied today to oppose Assembly Bill 555, the bill that would remove common sense consumer and safety protections from the state's nuclear law.

"Nuclear power is not safe, not clean, and not cheap. We don't want new nuclear power in Wisconsin!" said Alfred Meyer, executive director of the Madison chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

According to State Representative Frank Boyle (Superior), "Assembly Bill 555 is a serious threat to Wisconsin."

Repeal of Wisconsin's nuclear law is being strongly opposed by state environmental and consumer organizations. AB 555 would take away two common sense requirements that must be met before a new nuclear reactor is built in Wisconsin. These requirements are:

  • there is a federal repository available to dispose of nuclear waste; and
  • the cost to construct and operate a new nuclear plant is economically advantageous for ratepayers.

"Nuclear power hasn't been taken off the table by decision makers. It continues to be discussed to this day. The only conditions that the nuclear industry has to meet are common sense requirements that protect our families and our future," said Caryl Terrell of the Sierra Club.

State Representative Spencer Black (Madison) told the crowd, "Wisconsin needs clean, safe, environmentally responsible energy."

Nuclear power plants generate a waste that is so toxic it must be isolated from the environment for thousands of years. More than a half-century after the nuclear power industry began, a solution for high level nuclear waste disposal has still not been found.

"The Bush Energy plan calls for 50 new nuclear reactors by 2020 but we still don't have a good place to safely store nuclear waste. Weakening our public protection laws puts our state in jeopardy," said Claire Schmidt of Clean Wisconsin.

By 2010, the volume of nuclear waste in the U.S. is expected to exceed storage capacity at the still unlicensed nuclear waste dump in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. If new reactors are constructed or if existing reactors are re-licensed, it is certain that the federal government will again investigate the granite underlying the Wolf River area in northern Wisconsin as a permanent storage site for the nation's nuclear waste, as it did in the 1980s.

"Building new reactors would add to the mountain of waste already in the country, and would make Wisconsin's Wolf River area the primary target for the U.S. Department of Energy's second national dump. The Yucca Mountain dump proposal would risk shipping high-level radioactive wastes on Lake Michigan and through downtown Milwaukee, only to bury the waste in a leaky earthquake zone above a drinking water supply on Native American land in Nevada," said Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Waste Specialist for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington, D.C.

Speakers congratulated Wisconsin for its long history of protecting the public from nuclear accidents. Long-time anti-nuclear activist Cassandra Dixon told the crowd, "Twenty years ago, citizen activists-farmers, retired teachers, homemakers and the like-defeated the proposed construction of nuclear plants, and the Department of Energy's plan to store thousands of tons of radioactive waste in Wisconsin. Our job is clear. As caring citizens we must let our elected leaders know that Wisconsin still demands safe, clean, affordable energy for our children's sake."

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has estimated that a severe nuclear accident at the Kewaunee nuclear plant near Green Bay could cause $47 billion in property damage. According to the NRC, a severe nuclear accident at Point Beach Unit 1 could cause $41 Billion in property damage, and $44 Billion in property damage could result from a severe accident at Point Beach Unit 2. The NRC has issued the operator of the Point Beach nuclear plant 2 RED findings, its most serious safety ranking, for violations involving reactor emergency cooling systems. Point Beach has received half of the RED findings the NRC has issued to the 104 licensed nuclear plants in the U.S.

"Only four "red" findings for the most serious safety failures have been issued in the U.S. Two of them went to Point Beach owners, Wisconsin Electric Power Co," warned John LaForge of Nukewatch.

Transporting nuclear waste in Wisconsin puts human health and the environment at risk. If the Yucca Mountain, Nevada federal dump opens, radioactive waste will be shipped through Wisconsin communities, including Milwaukee, Beloit, Sheboygan, Green Bay and LaCrosse. The federal Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that there will be more than 100,000 shipments of nuclear waste nation-wide over 38 years. During this time span the DOE estimates that there will be 66 truck accidents and 10 rail accidents. Independent transportation experts estimate even higher numbers. Increasing the amount of nuclear waste means increasing the potential for serious nuclear waste transportation accidents in Wisconsin communities and rural areas.

Speakers at the rally warned about the connections between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. "Expansion of nuclear power and waste is directly connected to the Bush administration's nuclear weapons strategy," said Don Kliese of Veterans for Peace Chapter 25.

Judy Miner of the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice told the crowd, "We are part of a coalition of groups here today to lobby and rally against the construction of new nuclear reactors in our beautiful state. We promote renewable, sustainable energy sources: wind, solar and energy conservation."

The legislature can act on this bill starting today until the end of the legislative session's last floor period, on March 11, 2004. For more information, go to www.wnwd.org, Wisconsin's Nuclear Watchdog.

Wednesday, August 6, 2002
(Hiroshima Day)

Contacts: Claire Schmidt, Clean Wisconsin, (608) 251-7020
Tammy Rauen, Geologist and Geophysicist, (608) 260-8011
Ann Behrman, Physicians for Social Responsibility, (608) 232-9945
Lisa Gue, Public Citizen, (202)-454-5130

New Report: Wisconsin Still at Risk from Becoming the Country's Next Nuclear Waste Dump

Madison--Today, Clean Wisconsin (formerly Wisconsin's Environmental Decade) released a report called Nuclear Waste and Wisconsin, which examines the environmental impacts of a high-level, large-scale nuclear waste facility in Wisconsin.

In February 2002, President Bush recommended Yucca Mountain as the site of the first potential high-level nuclear waste repository; experts are concerned there may already be too much waste to fill Yucca Mountain and that another site will have to be selected. In the 1980s, Wisconsin's Wolf River Batholith, a geological feature covering 5,800 square miles in northeastern Wisconsin, was proposed by the Department of Energy (DOE) as a potential site for large-scale nuclear waste disposal. Additionally, the Bush Administration is pushing for more nuclear power and new plants; creating more waste increases the chance that Wisconsin will be asked to host thousands of tons of our country's nuclear waste.

"Clean Wisconsin opposes nuclear power because of the unavoidable risks to public health, the environment and Wisconsin's tourism industry. Wisconsin may be asked to host the second permanent nuclear waste facility in the country, even though studies have shown that storing nuclear waste in the Batholith could expose our groundwater and Great Lakes to contamination," said Claire Schmidt, Local Issues Coordinator for Clean Wisconsin.

Wisconsin previously faced the threat of a nuclear repository in the Wolf River Batholith in the 1980s, when the site passed the DOE's screening criteria for acceptable sites. However, Clean Wisconsin's report uncovers that the Batholith contains many of the screening factors that should have disqualified the site. These factors include:

  • Proximity to populated areas in Shawano, Clintonville, and Waupaca;
  • Rivers, streams and wetlands within site boundaries; and
  • Contains protected lands such as the Nicolet National Forest and the Wolf National Wild and Scenic River.

When first proposed in the 1980's, public opposition was so great that an investigation into a Wisconsin repository was postponed until 2007 at which time the decision whether to build a second repository will be made.

Nuclear Waste and Wisconsin details the threats Wisconsin could face from a nuclear repository. In particular, the report examines the importance of the Wolf River Batholith, which includes land in Langlade, Shawano, Waupaca, Menomonee, Portage, Marathon, and Oconto Counties. The geological formation acts as a groundwater source under certain circumstances and, the report shows, has potential for radioactive leaks into groundwater. The groundwater in the Batholith discharges into the Wolf River. From the Wolf River, contaminated water could continue into the Fox River, and ultimately contaminate Green Bay and Lake Michigan.

"During the 5 months I investigated the possibility of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Wisconsin, I became increasingly concerned about our state's groundwater," says Tammy Rauen, author of the report and geology student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "Groundwater would be the number one path that would bring hazardous radioactive chemicals into our environment and communities. Since groundwater flows near the surface in Wisconsin, the waste repository would lie within the saturated zone of our groundwater, putting our water and health at risk."

Federal law limits the capacity of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository to 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. According to Physician's for Social Responsibility, 46,000 tons are currently being held in short-term storage at commercial nuclear facilities. However, by 2036, when Yucca is projected to be operational, an additional 68,000 tons of waste is projected to be produced, leaving an overflow of 46,000 tons of radioactive waste.

Also, these numbers do not account for any waste generated from new or re-commissioned power plants. The 2003 Energy Policy Act supported the building of new nuclear power plants. "Nuclear energy creates nuclear waste, and that's not good for Wisconsin," said Lisa Gue, senior energy analyst with Washington-based Public Citizen. "With no known way to safely dispose of deadly radioactive waste, the government's plan to build new reactors is sheer folly."

Transportation routes to Yucca Mountain already put Wisconsin at risk. If a major nuclear waste storage site is also opened in Wisconsin, waste from around the country would be transported through Madison, Milwaukee, and Green Bay to the Batholith. Transporting large quantities of nuclear waste can pose a target for domestic or international terrorism.

"Wisconsin again needs the strong voices of its residents to oppose becoming a nuclear dump," says Schmidt. "Nuclear power is not clean or safe and nuclear waste continues to threaten Wisconsin's way of life. The question to ask our legislators is, 'why do we continue to go down the nuclear energy path when there are safer and cleaner forms of energy available, like solar, wind, biomass and geothermal?'"

The U.S. Senate approved the high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, on July 9, 2002, by a 60-39 vote. (Sen. Kohl voted yes; Sen. Feingold voted no). The U.S. Department of Energy studied the Wolf River Batholith in northeastern Wisconsin for a similar underground high-level radioactive dump in the early 1980s (Dames & Moore report 1980). A batholith is a huge body of igneous (volcanic) rock that solidified under that Earth but now is exposed. The Wisconsin Radioactive Waste Review Board studied the issue for many years, and dump opponents focused on concerns about potential cracks in the granite bedrock, which would allow the area's plentiful water to leak onto the hot wastes.

If Yucca Mountain runs out of storage capacity in 2034, the Wolf River Batholith could be reconsidered as a secondary site. Many of the same Wolf River-area residents who opposed the dump in the 1980s are now fighting the proposed Crandon metallic mine in the river's headwaters. They have joined together sportfishing groups, Native American tribes, tourism interests and environmentalists. They would certainly reactivate their strong alliance to stop a new nuclear waste dump.

On July 2, President Bush appointed U.W.- Madison engineering physics professor Michael L. Corradini chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the body which oversees disposal of nuclear waste.


Group lobbies against nuclear waste site

July 2, 2002
La Crosse Tribune Newspaper
La Crosse, Wisconsin
By Steve Cahalan

At stops in La Crosse and Wausau, Wis., critics of the plan on Monday called for U.S. Sens. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to vote against a proposed federal nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles north of Las Vegas, Nev.

The House of Representatives recently voted to proceed with the Nevada site, and the Senate is expected to vote next week. The state of Nevada opposes the proposal.

Yucca Mountain is an inappropriate place to store nuclear waste because it is in an active earthquake zone and is above an aquifer that supplies drinking water to surrounding communities, members of Wisconsin's Environmental Decade and the Wisconsin chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility told reporters outside the La Crosse post office.

The group -- which also included Bob Halstead, an energy consultant who lives near Madison, and has been assisting the state of Nevada -- visited Feingold's office in Wausau on Monday morning and planned to visit Kohl's office in the La Crosse post office building after talking to reporters in the afternoon.

The Yucca Mountain site won't be large enough to handle all of the nation's nuclear waste, Halstead said in an interview. If the Nevada site is approved, he said, ``The industry is going to read this as a green light'' to develop more nuclear power plants.

Halstead said the Wolf River Batholith granite bedrock in north central Wisconsin might find itself being considered once again for a nuclear waste site, as it was in the 1980s. ``If Yucca Mountain is the first repository and it's in the West, then they may very likely look for a site that isn't in the West, both for regional equity and to cut down the transportation mileage,'' Halstead said.

Halstead said the nation should at least take another 10 years to re-examine what its nuclear power and nuclear waste policy will be. If the waste was kept at current sites for 50 years, it would lose much of its radioactivity and be safer to move, he said.

Existing waste storage sites should be made more secure, and the waste should stay there ``until we really come up with an adequate plan,'' said Alfred Meyer, executive director of the Madison based Wisconsin chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

``We are very concerned about transportation issues,'' Meyer said. If the nuclear waste is moved through cities on its way to Nevada, it would be ``a terrorist's dream,'' he said. ``They just need to know the trucking schedule and be on the right overpass,'' he said.

The Bush administration and the nuclear industry have tried to tout the Yucca Mountain project as the end of the nation's nuclear waste problem, ``but this is deceiving given their plans to build more plants and create more waste for generations to come,'' said Jennifer Jankowski of Wisconsin's Environ mental Decade.

Moving spent nuclear fuel to the Yucca Mountain repository is very important to Dairyland Power Cooperative of La Crosse, spokeswoman Deb Mirasola said later Monday. Until the spent fuel is removed, Dairyland cannot fully decommission the nuclear power station near Genoa, Wis., that it shut down in 1987.

If Congress increases the 70,000metric-ton storage limit for Yucca Mountain and future technologies make it possible to reduce the mass of the material, the repository could be the only one the nation would ever need, Mirasola said, citing information from the Nuclear Energy Institute.

It costs Dairyland members $4.5 million a year for security, maintenance and monitoring of the Genoa site, Mirasola said.

It is among 16 shutdown nuclear plants in 10 states, Mirasola said. ``Centralization of spent fuel management and security for these sites' spent fuel is clearly in the national interest and the best interest of our member cooperatives,'' she said.

About 45,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel is stored at 131 sites in 39 states, often in containers not designed for long-term storage, Mirasola said. ``It makes sense from an environmental, security and economic perspective to have one safe, secure, scientifically designed site in a remote area, rather than a patchwork of shortterm storage locations scattered throughout the nation,'' she said.

For information contact:
Physicians for Social Responsibility
PO Box 1712
Madison WI 53703-1712
ph 608.232.9945    fax 608.232.9464
E-mail: alfred@psrmadison.org
Nuclear Waste Project Office
2202 Woodcrest Drive
Portage, WI 53901
Phone 608/742-3973
Fax 608/742-0090
E-mail: bearhalstead@aol.com



From the Congressional Record, July 9, 2002

I want share my views on the Yucca Mountain resolution. Specifically, I want to review the issues that I have considered in examining this legislation that have led me to vote against the motion to proceed to this measure. In short, while I believe that Yucca Mountain ultimately may be the appropriate place to permanently store our country's nuclear waste, the Senate is considering proceeding to this resolution today without having addressed two key concerns: The Congress has not ensured that the Yucca Mountain site is of sufficient size to house our country's nuclear waste, and the Congress does not yet know the Administration's plans for ensuring that the transportation of waste to that site is safe and secure. In addition, considering this premature resolution does nothing to get the waste to Yucca Mountain more quickly because the federal government must complete a number of remaining regulatory steps and build the site.

Mr. President, let me first express my grave concern about the process by which this resolution has been brought to the floor. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, amended in 1987, establishes a process for the federal government to designate a site for a permanent repository for civilian nuclear waste. In February 2002, this process culminated in a presidential recommendation for a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. On April 8, 2002, the State of Nevada exercised its authority under the law to disapprove the site. As a result of this state disapproval, the site may be approved only if a joint resolution of repository siting approval, which we are now considering, becomes law.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act also establishes an expedited procedure for congressional consideration of the Yucca resolution. The purpose of an expedited procedure is to facilitate the ability of Congress to dispose of the matter specified in a timely and definitive way. To this end, it establishes a means for Congress to take up, and complete action on, the resolution of approval or disapproval within a limited period of time. Mr. President, I am concerned that we are taking this action today and we are still several years away from a final siting decision on Yucca. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is still several years away from

issuing a construction license for Yucca, there is no transportation plan, and the transportation containers to be used for waste shipments to a permanent storage site have also not been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Thus, while Yucca may be the right site, this is the wrong time to have Congress "approve" the site while so many regulatory questions are yet unanswered.

I have always felt that we should be certain that Yucca is the final site before we proceed with final Congressional approval. For those of us who represent states that are grappling with nuclear waste storage questions, the short time frame mandated in law for the consideration of this resolution has made it extremely difficult to analyze its full effects on behalf of our constituents. The issues raised by this resolution are serious policy issues. The Bush Administration knows the resolution approval process is designated by law and has statutorily defined deadlines for Congressional consideration. The Administration should not have jumped the gun and set the clock in motion while there is still a possibility that Yucca might not receive final siting approval in the regulatory process.

During my time in the Senate, I have consistently said that I would prefer that once nuclear waste leaves the state, it leaves permanently. Wisconsinites want nuclear waste removed from our state and stored in a permanent geologic repository out of state so that it has no chance of coming back to Wisconsin. I opposed nuclear waste legislation in the last Congress that sought to build large scale interim storage facilities before the permanent storage site was ready and would have jeopardized consideration of the permanent site. This resolution commits the federal government, at least for the near term, to build one such large scale permanent site.

I have heard concerns, however, from some constituents that this resolution to build at Yucca makes Wisconsin more likely to be the next permanent geologic storage site. I am concerned that Yucca, as currently authorized, will not be of sufficient size to take all of Wisconsin's waste. In

previous Congresses, though I did not ultimately support interim storage legislation for other reasons, I supported provisions in interim storage bills to expand the size and capacity of the Yucca site. At best, when Yucca is opened, it will leave nearly a quarter of the waste currently in Wisconsin still sitting at our plants. Moreover, if our nuclear plants in Southeast Wisconsin re-fuel in the next few years, the Yucca site is not currently expected to take any new waste.

Yucca's size is an important issue for Wisconsin because Congress is required under law to approve the study and construction of a second waste site, if one is needed. This resolution does nothing to change that provision of law, and it remains unclear whether the Department of Energy would look again at Wisconsin or the other sites considered in the 1970s and 1980s. If it needed more storage capacity, the Department of Energy could ask Congress to expand Yucca's size or recommend another alternative geologic site. As a Wisconsin Senator, I have serious concerns regarding the construction of a geologic storage site in Wisconsin. In the past I have opposed legislation opening up the possibility of a second site, and would express those concerns strongly in any discussion of a second permanent location.

One of my main concerns has always been the safety and security of shipping nuclear materials from their current locations to a permanent geologic storage site outside of the state. Obviously, there is a risk that, during the transportation, accidents may occur. While many have suggested

that waste has been shipped safely across the country during the history of nuclear power in this country, there has never been a coordinated efforts to ship waste to a centralized storage location. The opening of Yucca Mountain would initiate an unprecedented shipping program. I am concerned that the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Yucca Mountain now includes barge transport on the Great Lakes and extensive truck transport on highways as potential transportation routes in addition to rail transport.

This resolution does not enhance our transportation safety, and our current transportation regulatory program must be strengthened. In fact, I believe that additional legislation may be needed to address a number of transportation issues. I still feel that the Senate must act in the near term to ensure that state and local governments have the financial and equipment resources they need to respond to accidents and protect public safety. Congress must insist on a comprehensive safety program for nuclear waste transportation. We must require the waste containment casks to be tested to ensure they could withstand intense fires, high-speed collisions and other threats that may occur during transport. It is also essential that states be consulted on the selection of transportation routes and are given longer advance notification of waste shipments. Other measures that need to be addressed include banning both open water and inland waterway shipments of nuclear waste, requiring dedicated means of shipping, and establishing a minimum number of armed escorts to accompany each nuclear waste convoy.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I cannot support this proceeding to this legislation which purports to provide an interim fix to the country's nuclear waste problem. I realize that this action is not the final say on Yucca Mountain and that we have many more steps to go before Yucca is built. But this site cannot serve its national purpose if we cannot get the waste there safely or if it is too small to hold the waste. We should have addressed these important considerations before proceeding to this resolution.

Ojibway * Oneida * Potawatomi * Stockbridge-Munsee * Winnebago

Post Office Box 9, Lac du Flambeau, Wisconsin 54538



WHEREAS, the Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, Inc. is a consortium of ten (10) Federally recognized Tribes and Bands, incorporated in the State of Wisconsin to "preserve the rights of the Indian people under Treaties or agreements with the United States and with any political subdivision" and "to do all manner of things necessary to improve the education, economic status, living environments, and general welfare of American Indians, and particularly those Indians who reside in the State of Wisconsin," and

WHEREAS, the Government of the United States is presently considering the development of a high level nuclear waste repository in Northern Wisconsin rock formations which underlay lands which are occupied by Native Americans; or are adjacent to lands occupied by Native Americans who are members of the Tribes and Bands of the Great Lakes Inter- Tribal Council, and

WHEREAS, the development of a high level Nuclear Waste Repository within the sovereign borders of lands occupied by member Tribes and Bands, or on lands ceded to the Federal government by member Tribes, is contrary to those Tribes and Bands responsibility to preserve the health and welfare of their citizens and environments, and

WHEREAS, the member Tribes and Bands of the Great Lakes Inter- Tribal Council retain certain TREATY RIGHTS, and will not give the government of the United States of America the right to contaminate the lands of the subjects of these reserved rights, and

WHEREAS, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior have the statutory responsibility of Trusteeship over the recognized Tribes and Bands of Great Lakes Inter- Tribal Council; their lands, their people, and their environment, and have as a part of that Trusteeship the responsibility for the protection of the people, their environment, and their TREATY RIGHTS, and

WHEREAS, the Wisconsin Radioactive Waste Review Board is requesting responses from Tribes and Bands on how they will relate to Review Board activities.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the member Tribes and Bands of the Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council confirm the policies of:

  1. Total opposition to the development of any nuclear waste facility which falls within the sovereign borders of any member Tribe or Band; or within any lands ceded to the Federal government by any member Tribe.
  2. Total opposition to the sinking of test holes within the sovereign boundaries by any entity associated with the United States Department of Energy.
  3. Cooperation with the United States Department of Energy only to the extent that member Tribes and Bands are bound by the law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, Inc. and its member Tribes and Bands will work cooperatively with the Wisconsin Radioactive Waste Review Board through attendance at meetings, by providing written and oral comments and by requesting an agreement for the purposes of related information exchange.

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that certified copies of this Resolution will be forwarded to the United States Department of Energy, the Wisconsin Radioactive Waste Review Board, to the Governor of the State of Wisconsin, to the Secretary of the Interior and to the entire Wisconsin Congressional delegation.

I, the undersigned as Secretary of the Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, Inc., Board of Directors do hereby certify that the Board is comprised of ten (10) members of whom 8 were present, thus constituting a quorum, at a meeting duly called, noticed, convened and held on the 13th of July, 1984, and that the foregoing resolution was passed at said meeting by an affirmative vote of 8 members for, and 0 against, with 0 members abstaining.

Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, Inc., 1984

Resolution signed by...


Return to Midwest Treaty Contents Page