Wait for EA findings on Centre Pier
Posted By
Posted 2 months ago
Re: "About that tea party", letter to the editor, November 23
The author speaks admiringly of some wonderful brownfield restoration projects, but fails to mention the fact these sites started out even more polluted than the Centre Pier in Port Hope.
A couple more facts he should consider:
* There is pollution on the pier. No argument there.
* A small percentage of this pollution is radiological, in the form of airborne particulates, or dusting. This nuclear pollution must be cleaned, as it has been cleaned on most buildings in town, by washing it.
* The bulk of pollution on the site is non-radiological, i. e. old industrial heavy-metal pollution. It is to remediate this pollution that much of the soil on the pier must be removed and replaced. In brownfield work, this is a routine procedure.
* The head of Atomic Energy Canada's deputation to the recent Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) hearings stated quite categorically that the pier buildings do not have to come down to facilitate the cleanup of Port Hope's harbour and waterfront.
The letter's author is free to verify these facts for himself. The problem, of course is that I'm not a nuclear engineer, and neither is he. So, who's right?
We now know that a new Environmental Assessment (EA) will be required before the buildings can be removed. We in the Pier Group are willing to abide by the CNSC's ruling on that EA if they determine the pier buildings are too polluted to save. We don't think it's unreasonable to ask the letter's author to wait for their ruling as well, before declaring that this community will be better off if they are demolished.
Chris Wallace, co-chair, The Pier Group Port Hope.
