Intervenors make their cases for and against Port Hope cleanup
LLRW: Project called 'essential to this community'
Posted By VALERIE MACDONALD VMACDONALD@NORTHUMBERLANDTODAY.COM
Posted 1 year ago
There was a tense atmosphere within the converted gymnasium at Port Hope's Town Park Recreation Centre Wednesday evening as people on both sides of the low-level radioactive waste cleanup hearing made their cases.
People sharing like opinions sat in groups on chairs and watched video screens of the speakers and panel members. An audio system broadcast their words but they echoed off the hard walls and floor.
The first group of five, accountant Tim Haynes, Port Hope harbour commissioner Liz Stewart, long-time Garden Hill resident Cal Morgan, former council member and developer, John Floyd and local lawyer Wilfred Day, all urged the seven-member Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission board panel to grant a licence to the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to move forward with the longtime- coming project.
Others, like Faye More of the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee and journalism instructor John Miller, said a lot more must be done before such a cleanup can take place. Their views came later in the evening, while those pushing the process forward came first.
"We've got to get started right now," Haynes said.
The "radioactive stigma" is responsible for Port Hope's lack of growth at 1.3% over the past 40 years, he said.
"I know many valuable initiatives for the community depend on this cleanup going forward," said Stewart.
In her position as harbour commissioner, she noted both the municipal waterfront redevelopment proposal and plans to create recreational facilities at the long-term waste management site.
(The dredging of Port Hope's harbour is part of Phase 2 of the cleanup. The first phase includes remediation of contaminated sites in Port Hope and integration of existing waste into the new facility. Construction and development of the new long-term waste management facility will take place at the current Welcome waste management facility near Port Hope. Waste will be trucked along dedicated routes.)
Stewart asked the commission members to consider her as a representative of the "silent majority" in favour of proceeding with cleaning up the town's environment and reputation.
"Until we put shovels in the ground and clean up the remnants of our sloppy past, we will be forever plagued with double and uncertainty," Morgan said about the historic waste that came from the former Eldorado Nuclear plant (now Cameco) and the contaminated soil that has been stored in short-term facilities.
"I'm confident the caretakers of the Port Hope Long- Term Waste Management Facility will do a reliable job of babysitting or caretaking," Morgan said.
Floyd called the cleanup "essential to this community" and recalled his fact-finding visit in the mid-1990s to France, Finland and Sweden as a local council member to see how those countries handled this same situation.
Commission member Dan Tolgyesi asked about the "incentives" provided to people located near such international disposal sites and was told they included tax rebates for property owners based on how close they were located.
"An entire generation has been waiting," Day said. "How old will our daughter be when this cleanup, underway as long as she can remember, is finally completed?"
While saying that as a lawyer he takes "very little on trust," Day said he is satisfied the facility is the "right project in the right location" and "has been fully reviewed".
The whole process of cleanup dates back to 1976, he said. The agreement between the municipality and federal government took effect more than eight years ago.
"Like most Port Hope residents, I view this project as long overdue," Day said.
Anita Blackwood, wife of artist David Blackwood whom she mentioned during her presentation, is a trustee of Trinity College School, in operation in Port Hope since the 1860s and which attracts international students among its body of 600.
"The nuclear industry has, and will always have, both supporters and detractors," she said.
Blackwood said she cannot understand the "mistrust of the proposed cleanup process.
"How can they not see that this is a valid, honourable solution to deal with the management of historic low-level waste?"
But there is doubt out there, as expressed by the next series of speakers Wednesday night.
John Rainbird pressed for a "comprehensive health study" and expressed concerns for stirring things up when contaminated soils is transported to the proposed Welcome storage facility.
"Any attempt at a cleanup should not be even considered until there is no possibility for further contamination from any Port Hope uranium facility," he also wrote in his written presentation.
Louise Barraclough, representing Families Against Radiation Exposure (FARE), said no amount of exposure to low-level radioactive waste is safe. She raised concerns about the absence of a promised radioactive "dust" study and the lack of details before an application for the licence is granted. The organization wants a citizens' advisory committee to be part of the process and that it have weight and "not be ignored," she said.
The organization also called for a full-panel review with environmental hearings at every stages of this huge, unprecedented setting radioactive waste clean-up in Canada.
She also asked commission members to listen closely to Port Hope resident John Miller, who spoke next.
Like FARE, Miller called for a formal citizens' advisory committee. He asked that a three-year, not 10-year, licence be granted, but that additional information come forward first, such as why alternatives (like evaporation) to allowing (and doubling the amount) of treated runoff to go back into Lake Ontario.
"You're writing a book on low-level radioactive waste cleanup.... Please get it right," Miller said.
Ward 2 resident Karen Colvin called the present long-term storage facility "a long-term drainage facility" and, like Miller, questioned endangering Lake Ontario and the millions of people who use this source of drinking water.
"This site will be forever a visible reminder, an enormous carbuncle on the face of our community, that the waste from the uranium refining industry resides here," she said.
Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee spokesperson Faye More said the project is not ready to proceed because all of the preparatory work is not done and the public not fully informed.
"The project scope definitions are too limited, the compensation for property owners too restrictive, the cleanup budget too small, the site too small and of questionable suitability -- and the cleanup criteria too high, leaving problems for future generations," she told the panel.
Holly Blefgen of Ward 2 also raised concerns about who would pay for cost overruns she predicts will take place. She alleged the project is already three years behind and $5 million to $7 million over budget. The public needs full disclosure, she said, pointing to various areas including a promised dust report.
One commissioner asked about the status of the dust report and was told AECL had promised it when it was ready but it now would not be until the detail plan stage.
Commissioner J. M. McDill asked whether the "hold points" within the project's process would not provide time for additional information and was told information would be sought from all parties before going forward. The community was assured, if there was not adequate community input, it would it be sent back for more at each stage.
The hearing resumed at 8:30 a. m. Thursday morning.
