November 30, 1995

Dear Mr. Chrétien:

We would like to alert you to a serious environmental issue that is affecting relations between the federal government and people in Ontario and Quebec.

A "Siting Task Force" on low-level radioactive wastes, sponsored by the Department of Natural Resources (NRCan), has recently concluded an environmental screening of a proposed new low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. This federally-funded facility would be on land owned by Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (AECL) in Chalk River, Ontario.

The proposed facility would receive "historic" wastes from 50 years of radium and uranium refining in Port Hope, Ontario. The Atomic Energy Control Board has issued decommissioning orders for sites where these wastes are currently located, because toxic and radioactive substances are leaching into soil and water adjacent to Lake Ontario. NRCan proposes to excavate the wastes, place them on rail cars, ship them to Chalk River, and bury them in a mined cavern about 500 m from the Ottawa River.

Technical studies show that bedrock at the proposed site is highly faulted, fractured, and permeable. Groundwater moves through the bedrock directly to the Ottawa River. Arsenic, radium, and uranium in the wastes would dissolve, migrate through cracks in the bedrock, and contaminate an ever-widening portion of the river bottom. Levels of these elements seeping into the Ottawa River would eventually exceed those seeping into Lake Ontario if wastes remain where they are today.

Despite these findings, NRCan's screening concludes that the facility would be "safe" and would pose no danger to human health or the environment. It states that environmental impacts would be "insignificant". This is false. The potential adverse environmental effects that may be caused by the proposal are clearly unacceptable. It should be abandoned under the terms and conditions of the EARP Guidelines Order. The wastes should be moved to a location where, in the words of the Federal Policy on the Management of Low Level Radioactive Wastes, "current and future populations and their water supplies will be protected".

NRCan's screening report suggests that this proposal is the result of a voluntary site selection process. This is false. Although the town of Deep River recently approved a "Community Agreement in Principle" which includes $22 million in tipping fees, $8.75 million in direct benefits, and job security for current AECL employees until the year 2010, neighbouring communities have expressed strong opposition to the proposal. Resolutions opposing the facility have been passed by the Renfrew County Council (Ontario) and the Regional Municipal Council of Pontiac County (Quebec). These facts are omitted from the screening report, despite the requirement in the Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) Guidelines Order to take public concerns into account.

Much of the opposition has been prompted by the Siting Task Force's insistence that the concerned public is limited to residents of the town of Deep River. Whereas Deep River lies upstream of the proposed facility and will receive virtually all the "benefits", downstream municipalities, including Ottawa itself, are faced with having wastes transported through their area and eventual permanent contamination of their water supplies.

The Community Agreement in Principle would allow AECL to dump its own wastes in the cavern. AECL's reactor wastes are much more radioactive than the Port Hope refinery wastes, but they have been ignored in the technical studies. The initial screening also failed to examine health and safety of workers inside the facility, the potential for accumulation of radioactive substances in river sediments and aquatic food chains, and long term health effects on downstream residents.

The screening study fails to provide a detailed budget for the proposal. The Siting Task Force has published incomplete and contradictory estimates of total project costs. The screening report provides an absurdly low estimate of $253 million. A much smaller mined cavern facility in Sweden, holding only one eighth the volume of waste, cost $300 million. Cost overruns would be very high if this project were allowed to proceed.

A "Community Liaison Group", chosen by the Siting Task Force to inform Deep River residents concerning the proposal, resigned en masse in October 1994. The chair of this group characterized the process as one of "deceit and manipulation". We agree. Although Deep River residents voted 72% in favour of the project in the October 1995 referendum, this vote largely reflected the job security provision for AECL employees in the Community Agreement in Principle. Voters were misled by claims that the facility would be in "solid rock". The Siting Task Force misrepresented its own technical data, claiming that a site that is "fair to good" for engineering purposes would also be "fair to good" for containing nuclear waste. We stress that this has not been a fair and impartial environmental assessment.

We are concerned that the Minister of Natural Resources Canada may approve the proposal based upon the incomplete and biased screening report prepared by the Siting Task Force. This would waste further scarce federal resources in addition to the $25 million already spent on this proposal. At a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, a leaking pile of radioactive garbage would be moved from one major water body to another. This would burden generations with the health costs of irreversibly contaminated water supplies, contradicting the policy of sustainable development that your government is striving to promote.

This proposal originated with a 1984 campaign promise by Brian Mulroney that the wastes would be moved away from Port Hope. Tragically, the single minded focus of certain federal officials to accomplish this end has stalled cost-effective remedial actions, such as placing wastes in an aboveground engineered mound, that could be taken in the Port Hope area.

We urge you to investigate this matter for yourself. We are confident that, based on the facts, you will choose to act in the best interests of all Canadians. We would be glad to provide further information either in writing, or in a meeting with you or your officials.

We would also appreciate hearing your views on this matter at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely yours,

Lynn Jones, President

Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County

cc: The Hon. Anne McLellan

The Hon. Sheila Copps

back to examples / to home page / to history page