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 calls for review panel to study Cameco proposal

Published on June 27, 2005 by Dylan Neild.

Preamble

1. Waterkeeper would like to express its disappointment that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (hereafter, "the CNSC") turned down our request for a one business-day extension to the public comment period. We feel that the additional day would have provided us with the opportunity to be of greater assistance to the CNSC during this environmental assessment process.

2. Waterkeeper respectfully disagrees with the suggestion made by Ms. Heather Jarrett on June 23, 2005 that this public comment period has been ?considerably longer? than the usual 30-day comment period. The document was officially released for public comment on May 11, 2005 (per CNSC web site).

3. Waterkeeper respectfully disagrees with the CNSC's position that extending the public comment period would ?not be wise.?

4. Furthermore, Waterkeeper would like the record to reflect our concerns that the CNSC would imply that a project of this magnitude does not warrant a one-day extension to facilitate public input.

Scope of the project

5. The Cameco proposal can best be described as the intent to make, move, burn, and bury enriched uranium fuel in Ontario.

6. Despite the magnitude of the project, every stage of this proposal is being subjected to separate environmental assessments. Each individual environmental assessment ? all screening level assessments bears little resemblance to the principals of natural justice.

7. Waterkeeper submits that the public deserves a fair, transparent, thorough, and sober examination of the proposal. Our position is consistent with the CNSC's January 8th, 2004 CNSC decision on Cameco's SEU blending proposal. In that decision, the CNSC felt that the transport, manufacture, handling, and long-term disposal of SEU ought not to be scoped components of the Cameco SEU blending project because the subsequent facilities for the fabrication and use of SEU fuels may vary depending upon market conditions and thus [could] only be considered on a generic or non-site specific basis.

8. In response to intervener requests to expand the definition of the regional study area for the Cameco SEU project to include transportation routes and reactor sites, the CNSC decided that without being able to identify a specific reactor and the corresponding transportation route, assessment would be theoretical, conceptual, and generic only, and sufficiently addressed as an incremental effect through the scope of the assessment.

9. Now, all facts are known and the conditions of the January 8th decision are satisfied. With the Bruce A and B reactors identified, the SEU project is no longer theoretical. It is now known where SEU will be produced, by what routes it will be transported, who will be using it, and where it will be disposed. Accordingly, it is now necessary to scope the project as the use of SEU Ontario throughout Ontario.

The Review Panel

17. Waterkeeper requests that the CNSC rule in favour of referring the use of SEU and all activities performed in connection to the use of SEU throughout Ontario to the Minister of the Environment for a review panel because there is public concern.

18. The Responsible Authority's Guide has identified what sorts of events qualify as 'public concern' within the meaning of the CEAA. It indicates that public concerns can be expressed in many ways, including:

a. correspondence and telephone calls to the Minister, local MPs, the Agency, or the department;
b. media coverage of public concerns;
c. community events, such as demonstrations or meetings about the project;
d. formal interventions, and
e. informal communication.

19. Lake Ontario Waterkeeper has filed affidavit evidence in support of its position that there exists significant public concern about SEU. Evidence in support of public concern is as follows:

20. At least 8 different federal or provincial Ministers and MP's have been contacted by at least 4 different citizen's groups in regards to their concerns about SEU use in Ontario.

21. At least 27 presentations have been made to at least 3 different Town Councils by 4 different citizen's groups in regards to their concerns about SEU use in Ontario.

22. More than 30 informal communications have been delivered to Town Councils in regards to citizens? concerns about SEU use in Ontario.

23. Close to 300 media articles about SEU in local and regional newspapers throughout Ontario.

24. There have been at least 75 informal meetings and/or public events hosted by citizen groups throughout the province in regards to their concerns about SEU use in Ontario. Attendance at these meetings ranged from 3 to 300 people.

25. There have been at least 34 formal written or oral submissions made to the CNSC by concerned citizens in regards to SEU use.

26. There have been more than 50 informal communications to the CNSC by concerned citizens in regards to SEU.

27. At least 7 formal requests have been made to federal and provincial Environment Ministers, MP's and to the CNSC by citizens' groups for a review panel on SEU use throughout Ontario.

28. At least 431 individual citizens directly affected by the use of SEU in Ontario have declared that they believe that a review panel on SEU is necessary.

29. On the basis of the affidavit evidence, the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper submits that there is sufficient public concern as defined within the Responsible Authority's Guide to warrant a reference to the Minister of the Environment by the CNSC.

Conclusion

30. Waterkeeper understands that these arguments are familiar to the CNSC. As one Cameco Corporation spokesperson recently stated, 'They [citizens] don't provide new information.' (Northumberland Today, June 21, 2005).

31. Waterkeeper argues that it is time for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Cameco Corporation to finally hear the desperation behind the public's consistent pleas for an informed decision-making process.

32. The environmental impacts of generations of nuclear industry operations in the town of Port Hope are real. They have been severe. As the draft report indicates, air, water, and soil are all contaminated. The community of Port Hope deserves a fair interpretation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in order to provide the public with the best protection that Canadian environmental laws offer.

33. In keeping with the principles of natural justice, the purposes of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, CEAA-related policies of the Government of Canada, and the general public interest, Waterkeeper submits that the SEU proposal must be referred to a review panel.

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.