| HOME WISE Uranium Project > Enrichment & Fuel Fab. > Issues > Uranium Enrichment and Fuel Fabrication - Current Issues (Canada) > |
(last updated 14 Oct 2009)
page page
, June 2009 (7.4M PDF);
, June 2009 (9.1M PDF);
, June 3, 2009 (354k PDF); and,
, July 10, 2009 (58k PDF).
In a letter to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), Cameco Corporation (Cameco) proposed the "Vision 2010" project, which involves a comprehensive redevelopment of its Port Hope Conversion Facility located in Port Hope, Ontario.
The project consists of decommissioning and demolishing approximately 20 old or underutilized buildings, removing contaminated soils, building materials and stored historical wastes, and constructing new replacement buildings. On-site plant operations would be maintained while the works are being carried out.
> View "Vision 2010" website (Cameco)
> Download Project Description, June 2006 (1.9M PDF - Cameco)
> View Cameco Corporation Vision 2010 decommissioning project (CNSC)
> View Cameco Corporation Vision 2010 Decommissioning Project (CEAA)
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) invites public comment on the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) Guidelines for the project.
The public comment period closes on April 11, 2008.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) is making available $40,000 under its participant funding program to assist groups and/or individuals to take part in the environmental assessment of this proposed project.
Funding applications received by the Agency by April 11, 2008 will be considered.
> View Request for Public Comment on Draft Environmental Assessment Guidelines / Participant Funding Availability Proposed Cameco Corporation Vision 2010 Decommissioning Project, March 5, 2008 (CNSC)
> Download Draft EA Guidelines (Scope of Project and Assessment), March 5, 2008 (502k PDF - CEAA)
> Download Environmental Assessment Guidelines (Scope of Project and Assessment), May 2009 (729k PDF - CNSC)
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) will hold a one-day public hearing (November 6, 2008 - date revised) to consider the Environmental Assessment Track Report (Track Report) regarding Cameco Corporation's (Cameco) proposal for the Vision 2010 project, which involves a comprehensive redevelopment of its Port Hope Conversion Facility located in Port Hope, Ontario. The Commission will also consider the Proposed Environmental Assessment Guidelines (EA Guidelines).
Requests to intervene must be filed by September 8, 2008.
> Download Revised Notice of Public Hearing, Sep 25, 2008 (PDF)
On December 8, 2008, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) announced its decision to recommend to the federal Minister of the Environment that the environmental assessment of Cameco Corporation's proposed Vision 2010 Project to redevelop its Port Hope Conversion Facility located in Port Hope, Ontario be continued as a comprehensive study. The Minister of the Environment must now decide on this recommendation.
> View CNSC release Dec. 8, 2008
On Oct. 3, 2007, Cameco reported that groundwater test results from a new monitoring well indicate slightly elevated levels of uranium and arsenic at a location eight metres inside the fenceline south of the UF6 production building. This is the first indication that contamination may be present beyond the property line.
On Oct. 15, 2007, Cameco released a root cause report on the incident. The report identified the following causal factors:
(1.7M PDF) (1M PDF)
On Jan. 28, 2008, Cameco Corporation reported it has received regulatory approval to begin repairing and upgrading the Port Hope uranium hexafluoride (UF6) conversion plant following the discovery of soil contamination beneath the facility. UF6 plant operations have been suspended since the discovery in July 2007. Cameco has set a target of resuming UF6 production in the third quarter of 2008 at the earliest.
The estimate for the cleanup of the contaminated soil at Port Hope has been increased to C$15 to C$20 million from the C$3 million previously recorded due to an increase in the scope of work required to remediate the contaminated areas. In addition, Cameco expects to spend C$20 to C$25 million on plant improvements.
The leak from Cameco's uranium hexafluoride (UF6) plant has reached the harbour, federal nuclear regulators were told on May 14, 2008. (Northumberland News May 15, 2008)
On Sep. 16, 2008, Cameco announced that CNSC staff has accepted Cameco's plans to restart UF6 production. The restart is expected to happen within the next several days.
Cameco expects total remediation costs to be $50 to $55 million of which approximately $20 million (including $17 million incurred in 2007) will be expensed and the remainder capitalized. Cameco said the money was used to investigate the possibility that uranium, arsenic and fluorides may have seeped into Lake Ontario, rehabilitate the plant and install a system of wells that collect impacted groundwater. The company also made a number of improvements inside the plant, including replacement of large sections of the ground floor and application of chemical-resistant coatings to all floors, as well as removal of some contaminated soil from under the building. (Canadian Press 17 Sep 2008)
On September 30, 2008, Cameco Corporation announced that it has resumed production of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) at its Port Hope conversion facility. Cameco voluntarily halted production in July 2007 and indicated recently that the company had resolved the issues that led to the presence of uranium and other production-related chemicals beneath the plant.
> Download Final Golder report on UF6 subsurface investigation (September 2008) (11.2M PDF)
> Download Comprehensive risk assessment for UF6 plant (September 2008) (3.4M PDF)
In March, 2009, Cameco replaced the above reports by the following redacted image scan versions:
> Download: Report on subsurface investigation, Building 50 (UF6 plant), Cameco Corporation Port Hope conversion facility , Golder Associates, Aug. 2008 (38.7M PDF)
> Download: Port Hope conversion facility Building 50 risk assessment , Senes Consultants Ltd, Aug. 2008 (12.5M PDF)
> View Updates on subsurface contamination (Cameco)
> Download Notice of Public Hearing, July 13, 2007 (PDF)
> Download Hearing Transcript Sep. 13, 2007 (PDF)
> View CNSC release Oct. 25, 2007
> Download Record of Proceedings, Including Reasons for Decision (PDF)
> Download Hearing Notice, July 31, 2006 (PDF)
> Download Oct. 4, 2006, Hearing Transcript (corrected) (PDF)
> Download Nov. 28, 2006, Hearing Transcript (PDF)
> Download Nov. 29, 2006, Hearing Transcript (PDF)
> View CNSC release Feb. 26, 2007
> Download Record of Proceedings, Including Reasons for Decision, Nov. 29, 2006 (PDF)
> Download Hearing Notice Dec. 3, 2004 (PDF)
> Download Information from CNSC Staff, CMD 05-H5, Dec. 20, 2004 (PDF, Cameco)
> Download Feb. 23, 2005, Hearing Transcript (PDF)
> View CNSC release May 18, 2005
> Download Record of Proceedings, May 18, 2005 (PDF)
> Download Cameco Project Proposal January 2003 (12M PDF - Cameco)
> Download Cameco Updated Project Proposal June 2003 (12M PDF - Cameco)
> Download Draft environmental assessment study report, June 2003 (85MB PDF; split file - Cameco)
> Download Final Environmental Assessment Study Report, November 2004 (97MB PDF; split file - Cameco)
(PDF) (PDF)
> View CNSC Request for Comment May 11, 2005
opposes Cameco's Slightly Enriched Uranium (SEU) Blending Project, since the Cameco site at Port Hope were prone to flooding, and flooding of the enriched uranium could present a criticality hazard.
(Toronto Star Sep. 18, 2004)
(PDF) (PDF) (PDF)
> View CNSC Request for Public Comment (Aug. 15, 2003)
> View Project Description
(PDF) (PDF) (PDF) (PDF)
In a dissenting statement (made public on Feb. 22, 2002), unprecedented in the history of the commission and of its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Control Board, Commission Member Dr. C. R. Barnes"Commission Member Dr. C. R. Barnes concurred with the other Members that the licensee meets the requirements of section 24(4) of the NSCA and therefore that a licence should be issued.
Dr. Barnes, however, disagreed with the majority view on the duration of the licence term. In Dr. Barnes’ view, a maximum licence term of three years should be approved. Dr. Barnes held that a five-year licence should be reserved for facilities where the effects have been demonstrated to be well characterized and where public concerns about health and safety are not high. Dr. Barnes found that a five-year licence in this case would not adequately address the significant remaining concerns of the public about the health effects of the facility in combination with the past uranium contamination in the community. Furthermore, Dr. Barnes was also concerned about the current lack of environmental effects monitoring in the vicinity of the facility. Dr. Barnes is of the view that bringing the matter of the licence renewal before the Commission in three years time, as opposed to a status report, will have a greater influence on ensuring the licensee maintains close attention to the design and implementation of the environmental effects monitoring program and the need to continue to address the significant remaining concerns of the people potentially affected." (Record of Proceedings, Including Reasons for Decision, Feb. 18, 2002)
approved the license renewal for the Cameco Corporation uranium conversion facility in Port Hope, Ontario.
"In the production of UO2, an ammonium nitrate by-product solution is produced. The solution is treated to reduce uranium and radium to levels less than 10 mgU/L and 370 mBq/L respectively. Each batch of this by-product solution is analysed for uranium, radium and selected heavy metals to ensure compliance with the AECB limits, and then released to a local agricultural supply company for use as a fertilizer. Approximately two million litres of solution is transferred every year for this purpose." (AECB BMD 99-123, Cameco Corporation - Port Hope - Renewal of Fuel Facility Operating Licence AECB-FFOL-225-4, 1999-09-21)2 million litres of this solution contain up to 20 kg of uranium.
The current uranium deposition rate is being monitored at 5 test plots, at two of them by Ontario MOE and at three by Cameco. At the Cameco soil test plots, a maximum increase in soil uranium concentration of 0.58 ppm per year was observed for the first year 1998.
At MOE's Town Hall plot, the uranium concentration in soil dropped from initially 0.85 ppm to 0.56 ppm in 1997 and 0.58 ppm in 1998. At MOE's Marina plot, the uranium concentration increased from initially 0.85 ppm to 1.78 ppm in 1997 and further to 3.93 ppm in 1998. Normal background levels for uranium in soil in Ontario are up to 2 ppm. (AECB BMD 99-123, Sep. 21, 1999)
Respirable uranium particulate in air is being monitored at three locations around the Port Hope fuel facility since 1998. The highest average monitored at one of these stations was 0.0074 µg/m3 (AECB BMD 99-123, Sep. 21, 1999).
The corresponding radiation dose from inhalation can be calculated at 0.013 mSv/a.
At the request of the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee (PHCHCC), AECB has ordered a cancer incidence study in Port Hope from Health Canada.
PNCHCC has requested further studies by independent researchers. (AECB BMD 00-30, Jan. 31, 2000).
The Health Canada study was released on August 22, 2000. It has found that the overall cancer rates in the town of Port Hope, Ontario are comparable to rates throughout the Province of Ontario.
Copies may be requested from the CNSC (successor of AECB) by calling 1-800-668-5284 (in Canada) or e-mail to info@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca
(view CNSC News Release August 22, 2000)
On June 17, 2002, CNSC released Health Canada's Port Hope mortality report (Cancer and General Mortality in Port Hope, 1956–1997):
"The cancer findings are, on the whole, consistent with the earlier cancer incidence report and previous Port Hope studies. The patterns of cancer mortality in Port Hope are comparable to the province of Ontario as a whole. This pattern is consistent with existing knowledge of doseresponse relationships of radiation risk that an observable excess of cancer wound not be expected because the cumulative doses in Port Hope were low (Tracey 1995, ICRP-60, Boice 1996)."These findings were discussed at the Commission meeting on June 27, 2002.
(Information from Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Staff Regarding Cancer and General Mortality in Port Hope, 1956–1997, CMD 02-M47, June 10, 2002)
(PDF, see p. 30-44)
On April 15, 2009 , the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) released a synthesis report that indicates that the health of Port Hope residents is not at risk and is consistent with the health of the general population of Ontario and Canada.
> View CNSC release April 15, 2009
> Download Understanding Health Studies and Risk Assessments Conducted in the Port Hope Community from the 1950s to the Present, Information Document INFO-0781, April 2009 (490kB PDF - CNSC)
> View CNSC background info
(Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office - LLRWMO)
> View CNSC release Aug. 19, 2009
(PDF - CNSC)
raises concerns about toxic waste leaking from the Port Granby waste management facility into Lake Ontario. The Port Granby facility, located 15 km west of Port Hope, is holding wastes from the Port Hope uranium conversion plant.
> View Lake Ontario Keeper press release Aug. 27, 2001
> View report: Port Granby: Leaking radioactive hazardous waste site
| HOME WISE Uranium Project > Enrichment & Fuel Fab. > Issues > Uranium Enrichment and Fuel Fabrication - Current Issues (Canada) > |