Contact

Store

About

Issues
News
Guides
Lake Ontario
Media
Get Involved
Donate Now

Search

Home
Issues
News
Guides
Lake Ontario
Media
Get Involved
About
Contact
Store
Donate Now
News

Waterkeeper's position on new uranium project

Published on November 26, 2003 by Dylan Neild.

Please be advised that Lake Ontario Waterkeeper would like to make a presentation to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on November 27, 2003. The presentation deals with the Cameco Corporation's Slightly Enriched Uranium project environmental assessment. An outline of the presentation is as follows.

 

Presentation Outline

Issue #1:
The project is a provincial issue, not just a Port Hope issue. Therefore, the boundaries of the assessment and public notice areas must be expanded.

[The scoping document describes the Regional Study Area as, the portion of Lake Ontario abutting, and used by, the community for such activities as recreation, water supply, and waste water discharge. The document indicates that the boundaries are flexible, which is why Waterkeeper is requesting they be expanded to include the entire province to protect all communities affected by the project: (mining), Port Hope (processing), Chalk River (waste disposal), Lake Huron/Bruce Peninsula (use at nuclear plant). The current reach for communications/ public information is limited to the Port Hope region (1.7.2 of the Project Proposal) so most of the province is still in the dark about this proposal.]

Issue #2:
Since the SEU is being manufactured for use at the Bruce Nuclear Plant and for use in new CANDU reactors, the proponent must a) prove that there is a demonstrable need for the product from these sources, and b) comprehensively assess the environmental impacts of these uses. This is the application of the independent utility principle.

[SEU- Slightly Enriched Uranium. a) The CNSC is using its discretion to require the proponent to demonstrate the need for the project and its potential benefits (s.16(1)(e) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act). The proponent has not, however, shown statistical data to prove that there is a market for this SEU and/or a market for CANDU reactors overseas (s. 1.5 of the project proposal). Without this need, there is no reason to process SEU (see next point).
b) The independent utility principle is used in US law. According to this principle, when determining the scope of an assessment, it is necessary to consider whether a work has any independent utility. In the case of Friends of the West Country Assn.v. Canada [2000] 2 F.C. 263, the construction of a bridge had to undergo an environmental assessment. Federal Court ruled that the logging and road-building activities the bridge was intended to facilitate had to be included in the environmental assessment because the bridge without a road was evidently of little utility. In the Port Hope case, we believe that the use of SEU in CANDU reactors must be included in the environmental assessment because the production of SEU without an end user is of little utility.

Issue #3:
The project must consider potential cumulative impacts of the ongoing Port Hope Project. Further, the project must consider the potential cumulative impacts of continuing and/or expanded uranium refining operations on the restoration of the Port Hope harbour and community.

[The Port Hope Project is an ongoing Environmental Assessment intended to clean up 6 old radioactive waste sites in the Port Hope area. The disposal sites are called storage sites and are designed to last 500 years. The Port Hope Project is a big project for the town, has been going on for years and will go on for the entire duration of this SEU Environmental Assessment. There is no mention in the scope of the fact that, at the same time Cameco is proposing to expand its uranium refining activities, the federal government is spending millions of dollars and struggling to deal with a serious legacy of pollution from the same source.

Port Hope Harbour, where Cameco is located, is also an internationally recognized Area of Concern. Canada and Ontario have made international commitments to the United States to clean this site up. There is no discussion of the clean up goals in the environmental assessment, and Cameco has not demonstrated that processing SEU at the facility will help all levels of government to achieve those clean-up obligations.]

Issue #4:
Any citizen should be encouraged to participate in the development of VECs. Where VECs established for the Port Hope Project are more comprehensive, this project should adopt those standards.

[VEC Valued Ecosystem Components environmental attributes identified as having legal, scientific, cultural, economic, or aesthetic value. These are used to evaluate the success/impacts of a project.]

Issue #5:
The RA should immediately request that the Minister of Environment refer this project to a panel review. While the EA guidelines are more comprehensive than most screenings, they still create far more questions than answers. Only the rigorous scrutiny of the panel review can facilitate legitimate public participation and responsibly and fairly address concerns regarding the nature of the project, the history of contamination in Port Hope, property values, health impacts, waterfront restoration, and the potential for policy and environmental impacts throughout the province.

[RA Responsible Authority in this case, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. RAs have the power to upgrade an environmental assessment from a screening (the most basic EA process consisting of ?notice and comment? to the most effective EA process, the independent panel review. (s. 25 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act)]

PortHope RadioactiveWaste blog

Newer Articles Older Articles
Featured
Gord Edgar Downie Pier T-shirt
Gord Edgar Downie Pier T-shirt

This shirt commemorates the Gord Edgar Downie Pier in Kingston, Ontario. The City of Kingston and Swim Drink Fish Canada unveiled the pier on July 26, 2018.

100% of our proceeds support our core initiatives so Canadian communities can prosper.

Blog Categories

  • Deloro (2)
  • Eastern Mainline Pipeline (2)
  • American Eel (3)
  • King's Mill Park (4)
  • Castonguay (5)
  • Gifford Hill (5)
  • Pickering (5)
  • Skip the Wash (5)
  • Swim Guide (6)
  • Enbridge-Line9 (9)
  • Events and Meetings (9)
  • GreatLakes Protection Act (10)
  • Waterkeeper Gala (10)
  • Press Releases (11)
  • TO Island Airport (14)
  • Microbeads (15)
  • WestonGreatLakesChallenge (15)
  • 2014 Challenge (16)
  • Microplastics (16)
  • Red Hill Valley Express (20)
  • PortHope RadioactiveWaste (25)
  • TorontoHarbour Monitoring (30)
  • Canadian rollbacks (34)
  • Darlington Refurbishment (46)
  • Toronto Sewage Bypasses (65)

Blog History

  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • February 2012
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • September 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • March 2007
  • October 2006
  • August 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • June 2005
  • April 2005
  • February 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • April 2003
  • December 2002
  • November 2002
  • August 2002
  • June 2002
  • May 2002
  • April 2002
  • March 2002
  • October 2001
  • September 2001
Donate Now
Lake Ontario
Cases
Blog
Events
Store
Contact
Guides
Great Lakes Guide
Swim Guide
Drink Guide
Media
Get Involved
Donate
Volunteer
Report Pollution
Events
Sponsor A Beach
About
History
Staff

Search

Waterkeeper, Swim Drink Fish, and the Swim Drink Fish design (icons) are registered trademarks of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper.