Peace and Environment News* July-August 1996
|
Peace and Environment News * July-August 1996 |
by Ole Hendrickson
Not all wastes are equal. Some are so toxic that dumping any amount is unacceptable. Most people put PCBs, dioxins, and nuclear wastes in this category. That is why a federal proposal to dump low-level radioactive wastes where they will leak into the Ottawa River is triggering negative public reaction.
A task force has asked the Minister of Natural Resources to approve dumping of over a million tonnes of radium and uranium refinery wastes into a giant underground cavern less than half a kilometer from the Ottawa River, just downstream from Deep River, Ontario, 150 kilometers north of Ottawa.
The Deep River Disposal Project originated with a 1984 election promise from Brian Mulroney to a resident of Port Hope, Ontario, the source of the wastes. In December 1986, the Mulroney government created an independent task force to find a "volunteer community" to accept Port Hope's wastes. Nine years (and a second Task Force) later, the only town left in the running was Deep River, the bedroom community for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL).
The town's residents voted 73 percent in favor of the proposal in a referendum last October. Their Council had negotiated a deal that would bring them $8.5 million in cash benefits plus 15-year job security for all AECL employees. Some AECL employees have since been laid off, but Deep River Mayor John Murphy has indicated that this is not a problem: any jobs will do.
The key technical study for the proposed dump shows clearly that toxic elements would reach the river in less than 100 years, with arsenic leading the way, followed by uranium, and then radium. But it does not contain simple calculations, such as: how much of the wastes would end up in the river after 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? Would exposure of the public to arsenic and radiation go up or down if the wastes were moved? Would it be better to contaminate Ottawa and Montreal, or Kingston and Toronto (wastes are currently leaking into Lake Ontario)?
Moving a giant pile of radioactive waste from one major body of water to another would cost nearly half a billion dollars. One wonders whether Cabinet will really approve further spending on this, and why over $20 million has already been spent.
Mainstream news media have shown little interest in this issue. Nuclear waste dumping is routinely given government approval. A "flood and walk away" plan for Ontario's closed uranium mines and their tailings wastes is about to be approved. In Saskatchewan, uranium companies will be allowed to drain, mine, and then reflood portions of giant northern lakes. Uranium, arsenic, and other toxic substances will then simply contaminate the lakes and the rivers that flow from them.
Another reason the Deep River project has gone this far is old-fashioned dishonesty. Conclusions that the bedrock would be suitable to contain wastes were falsified. The Task Force took out paid advertisements claiming that public health would be protected. The key technical study showing the potential for waste leaking into the river was released two weeks after the referendum vote.
So, a few public relations gimmicks, some dishonesty, media disinterest, an unwritten pro-nuclear dumping policy, and an election promise by Brian Mulroney have brought the government to the verge of creating a giant leaking nuclear dump on one of Canada's most important water resources.
But there is still time to act. Tell Minister of Natural Resources Anne McLellan and her Cabinet colleagues to stop the Deep River nuclear waste dumping scheme. Postage to the House of Commons is free.
Ole Hendrickson works with Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County.
Converted April 21, 2000 - Lg
To follow up on this article, contact the author or the organizations/individuals mentioned; do not contact the Peace and Environment Resource Centre - we cannot provide follow up or contact information. This article is an archival copy of the printed one in the Peace and Environment News (PEN). Viewpoints expressed should not be taken to represent the opinions of the Peace and Environment Resource Centre, the PEN, or our supporters.
