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 submission to Port Hope Council Committee

Published on March 01, 2004 by Dylan Neild.

Dear Members of Council,

Residents of Port Hope asked Lake Ontario Waterkeeper to appear before your committee this evening to talk about ongoing environmental assessments in town. In 2001, Waterkeeper released a report about contamination from Port Granby polluting Lake Ontario. In 2002, we began participating in the environmental assessment dealing with legacy waste in Port Hope and at Port Granby. In 2003, Waterkeeper appeared before the CNSC regarding Cameco Corporations proposal to create Slightly Enriched Uranium on Lake Ontario.

It is Cameco's project we wish to talk about this evening. As many of you are aware, both Waterkeeper and members of the community have asked that Cameco's proposal undergo a complete environmental assessment with an independent panel review. The current process is called a screening. Cameco prepares a project proposal for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is then approved, approved with conditions, or rejected. The public is being given opportunities to comment on the proposal, but Cameco is not required to answer their questions or adopt their suggestions.

There is an alternative process, called a panel review.  In short, Waterkeeper has asked that Cameco's proposal to create Slightly Enriched Uranium on Lake Ontario undergo the careful scrutiny of a panel review. We believe that this process will unite the community, address concerns, and ensure that a project of this magnitude is undertaken with the utmost respect.

Only the Minister of Environment can order that a review panel be held. The Minister can do this at the request of the public or at the request of the project proponent. To date, both the project proponent Cameco and the responsible authority Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission have not requested this process.

There are two grounds for a full review: environmental effect and public concern. An environmental effect is any change in the physical environment, in health or socio-economic conditions, or in physical and cultural heritage. Port Hope is named after its waterfront. Its heritage is its waterfront the waterfront that was here long before industry made it one of the most contaminated sites on the Great Lakes. Any project that prevents public access to its waterfront has a significant environmental effect. Any project that preserves the status quo in Port Hope has a significant environmental effect.

There are also reasons for public concern. You have heard concerns from local residents about their property values. There is also concern from communities outside Port Hope. The uranium mining and refining facilities have been the subject of numerous panel reviews and court challenges. Our American neighbours have expressed concerns about the cumulative effects of operating this facility on a international waterbody. Once the Slightly Enriched Uranium leaves Port Hope, it will be used in reactors. Some new reactors may be built in Ontario. Some new reactors may be sold overseas. Fuel will be sold to keep these reactors operating. Waste from both the Port Hope facilities and these power generation facilities must be stored somewhere, and communities are very concerned about that.

The Slightly Enriched Uranium project is more than just a slight change in operations at the Cameco facility. It is the most crucial component of Cameco?s business plan. Cameco made $712 million dollars last year mining and refining uranium. They plan to build more nuclear reactors in Ontario that would consume fuel from Port Hope and boost those revenues further. They plan to sell more reactors and more fuel worldwide to expand their marketshare. Port Hope is their lynchpin.

This is simply a commercial venture. All Waterkeeper requests is that a private corporation with no public interest mandate be required to demonstrate that they are acting in the public interest. There are too many process and too many backroom meetings happening right now for any of us to be sure. There is an environmental assessment for the Bruce proposal. There is an environmental assessment for the Port Hope proposal. There may be assessments to deal with waste, transportation, and the construction of other reactors. Cameco is buying more nuclear plants in other countries. The province just issued a 10-year permit to take water, though Cameco?s operating licence is up for review this fall. This year, Cameco registered lobbyists in Ottawa and at Queen's Park. We want to know what important things they have to say.

We need the panel review so that we can have a chance to ask questions in an open, public forum where everyone including community members, politicians, and press can come and hear for themselves if this is a good deal for Port Hope. If we find that it is not, is there a way we can make it a good deal? That is all we want to know.

Thank you

Mark Mattson, President and Waterkeeper
Krystyn Tully, Executive Director

 

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.