This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Radioactive contamination in Port Hope, Ontario

Petition

ENVIRONMENTAL PETITION
TO THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA:

"Accountability and Appropriate Action Required Regarding the Federal Government Radioactive and Industrial Contamination of Port Hope, Ontario."

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Submitted respectfully to the
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Attention: Petitions
Office of the Auditor General of Canada |
Bureau du vérificateur général du Canada
C.D. Howe Building, 240 Sparks Street, West Tower |
Édifice C.D. Howe, 240, rue Sparks, tour ouest
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0G6

Telephone | Téléphone 613-952-0213
Toll Free | Sans frais 1-888-761-5953
Facsimile | Télécopieur 613-941-8286
Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur 613-954-8042

To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you for forwarding me information regarding Canada's Environmental Petitions Process. Please accept the following pages as my official petition which I have titled "Accountability and Appropriate Action Required Regarding the Federal Government Radioactive and Industrial Contamination of Port Hope, Ontario."

It is my hope that the environmental petitions process may, as you say, provide answers to my questions related to this federal environmental issue. In particular I hope to have questions answered regarding contamination under a local elementary school, where I was Chair of the School Council prior to the school's closure in 2006. Port Hope parents and others have sought answers from local federal authorities for approximately the past three years, and hopefully I can obtain some through this process.

Most importantly, I hope the Office of the Auditor General will again take Parliament to task, to ensure appropriate action on the accrued federal responsibilities due to decades of radioactive and industrial waste and heavy metals contamination in Port Hope. I believe local political `solutions' being implemented currently are behind schedule, without sufficient budget, and solutions are sub-optimal.

The current initiative must give way to responsible federal action based upon technical considerations and science, human and environmental safety, international treaties and moral responsibility. This is imperative not only for this, but for future generations that also must guard themselves from these materials, some known to be dangerous for thousands of years, rather than the hundreds of years envisioned in the Port Hope project. I will also attempt to make the case for specific actions that could move things forward in a more positive manner.

Through you, I ask that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development administer this petition, submitting it to all relevant Ministers of Federal Departments or responsible agencies that could provide comprehensive formal written responses to my questions and concerns relating to the Federal Government's management of the Port Hope environment, and in particular the proposed remediation project to rectify decades of federal government contamination, caused by the federal government as operator of a facility engaged in radium and uranium processing activities. Questions to federal departments and agencies are sequential, numbered and bolded within the context of the report.

Relevant Ministries and Agencies to respond to this petition and questions would include, but may not be limited to, Natural Resources Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as the federal responsible authorities on the Environmental Assessment of the Port Hope Long-term Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Project (the Port Hope Project).

Relevant Ministries and Agencies for this petition would also include federal technical reviewers for the Port Hope Project, which include Health Canada, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Environment Canada and Transport Canada.

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) should also be included, as Canada's agent for the management of the low-level radioactive waste for which the federal government has accepted responsibility. The LLRWMO is operated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) through a cost-recovery agreement with Natural Resources Canada, the federal department that provides for funding and establishes national policy for LLRW management.

In providing this petition, I do so with the understanding that I will not forego any of my own rights to engage in future legal action against the federal government, or other parties, due to harm from environmental contamination and increased carcinogenic risks, which have and may continue to exist in Port Hope, where my family has lived for generations. It is my hope that responsible and immediate action by the federal government will preclude this possibility.

I hope that the following information is found to be useful to your Office, and to the federal departments and agencies with associated responsibilities.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by Sarah Clayton]

Sarah Clayton B.A. M.P.A.
Port Hope, Ontario

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Contamination Under the 1950 Addition of Dr. L.B. Powers Public School, Ward Street, Port Hope, Ontario

An important aspect of environmental accountability is transparency, as well as adherence to federal policies and the spirit and letter of guiding laws and regulations. Years of unsuccessful attempts by Port Hope parents and other community members, to determine whether their children were educated on a school property contaminated with federal government radioactive and/or associated industrial wastes, exemplify a significant shortcoming in the federal government's environmental responsibilities regarding the Port Hope Project.

Transparency around the Port Hope Project is a moral necessity. Given the impact of today's decisions on future generations, there is an ethical responsibility to consider their rights as authorities plan for, or decide not to plan for, the proper disposal of federal radioactive materials. Future generations have the same rights as we do now: to know about, and make decisions to protect ourselves and our environment from radioactive and associated contaminants. Only through knowledge and transparency can we, and those we leave behind, ensure proper monitoring, containment, containment repairs and the application of improved technologies as they become available.

When the Labine brothers selected Port Hope as the `Home of Radium' in the 1930s the flow of pitchblende from Port Radium on Great Bear Lake N.W.T. began. The production of radium led to contamination of the area with radium, uranium and wastes generated by the production process itself, and some of this may include radium needles. This is the first and higher radiation phase of the contamination of our area. Uranium production spurred by WWII (Manhattan Project) began the second phase. The high uranium wastes deposited around Port Hope from the failed radium processing plant provided initial stocks of uranium ore while Port Radium started up again and pitchblende again started to flow to Port Hope from Port Radium to produce uranium. This is the beginning of the second or uranium-processing phase of area contamination. The Federal Government took-over the Labine operations as Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited. Pitchblende is dirty stuff, compared to the processing of natural uranium mill precipitates or `Yellowcake.' It is worth noting that the flow of pitchblende to Port Hope continued into the 1950s.

The federal government, as operator and regulator of a nuclear facility, allowed Port Hope to become contaminated with approximately 3.8 million cubic metres (m³) of radioactive and industrial contaminated materials. It is proposed in the current environmental screening report that they clean up close to half of this, or 1.39 million m³, including:

- 620,000 m³ at the existing Welcome waste management facility on Highway 401 and Highway 2;

- Approximately 572,000 m³ of material intermixed with LLRW from a number of remediation sites in the Municipality of Port Hope including the Port Hope harbour, the Highland Drive Landfill Site and miscellaneous sites to be delineated as the project advances;

- Approximately 51,250 m³ of material from industrial waste-contaminated sites; and,

- 150,000 m³ of Cameco-owned-pre-1988 stored waste from demolished buildings.

I fear, given the contamination of Dr. L. B. Powers Public School in 1950, that some very dangerous materials, including pitchblende, may have been left for years unattended and unmonitored under the school addition, while children, parents and staff utilized the property. I would love to be proven wrong, however no recent sub-surface soil test results from beneath the school have been forthcoming, despite repeated requests. This is baffling given the history of remediation in the vicinity of the school, including remediation on the school property itself.

1. If authorities know the property is contaminated, why not admit it, and share the plan of action?
2. Of the estimated 250,000 m³ of miscellaneous and "yet to be delineated" wastes, what volume and which Port Hope sites are known to LLRWMO?
3. Is Dr. L.B. Powers School on the list of known sites in the Port Hope urban area where there is federal contaminated, `historical,' or LLRW wastes?
4. Is there an intention to remediate this property?
5. Are there other public properties on the list of miscellaneous sites? Where are they?
6. Are there homes on the list of sites to be remediated?
7. What are the known properties contaminated, but not anticipated to be remediated?
8. Will residents be asked to evacuate their homes, as was the case in the Dr. L.B. Power's area in the last attempt at large-scale federal government waste remediation?
9. Why is there limited communication with property owners (public and private)?
10. Why doesn't LLRWMO share this list of miscellaneous sites, particularly public sites, and communicate risks, as well as the timing and plans for remediation?

My Letter to CNSC

On September 26, 2007, following up on a similar request to LLRWMO in Port Hope approximately two weeks prior, I wrote a letter to the President and CAO, Commission Secretariat, and Special Advisor of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). I also copied the local public School Board Trustee and Project Director of the LLRWMO. My email was subsequently forwarded to the Executive Vice President, Operations Branch of CNSC by the Special Advisor, who was nearing retirement.

My correspondence to these parties provides background information for one aspect of this petition. My correspondence to CNSC was as follows:

"On June 15, 2004, the School Council, of the former Dr. L.B. Powers School in Port Hope, passed a resolution authorizing myself, as Chair, to seek additional information, as well as a better than proposed monitoring program, for the school diagnosed with contamination under its 1950 addition. Our letter to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWO) and the School Board Superintendent stated:

"If there is contaminated fill under a school or school addition, even if deemed safe, the federal government as the responsible party, should provide full disclosure, and implement an on-going monitoring program and retrieval plan, for any facility where this is the case. (LLRW) has confirmed that the federal government will take full responsibility for any contaminated fill determined to be from the former Eldorado facilities. This should be confirmed or denied, with responsibilities exercised as soon as possible."

Subsequently, through correspondence and meetings with LLRWO staff and a former Mayor…, parents received:

- More recent air test results from select school rooms (many results showed higher than `investigation levels' for radon, although we were told this was primarily a ventilation issue);

- (The former Mayor… subsequently ensured that, as part of the federal-municipal agreement, a resurvey would be done of all Port Hope schools within two years.

I should also note that our School Council was advised that we were restricted from excavating the playground for a proposed soccer pitch, due to elevated test results.

A Port Hope Evening Guide article at the time included interviews with LLRWO and with a gentleman with recollection of the site, and placement of fill at Dr. Powers. Although inconclusive, it was speculated that the contamination was industrial waste from the old Crane Factory (a facility which was adjacent to Eldorado Nuclear (now Cameco).

Recently, I sent additional emails to LLRWO and (the) public School Board Trustee... I noted therein that it was likely that sub-surface testing (which we have requested since 2004) had recently been conducted, since best business practice would be to define a contaminated site, prior to sale, so that risks can be assigned through the land transaction (the school has been for sale for some time). (The) Trustee …was expedient, met Board administration and LLRW, and recently delivered to me a copy of 2005 air test results for occupied areas of the school building.

However, air monitoring results change over time. Some parents remain concerned, despite the school's remediation and subsequent closure about what their kids may have been exposed to prior to remediation of the basement storage rooms. The only way to know the risk is to know what people were potentially exposed to, and for how long. To me the important question is not who's waste it is (e.g. Crane vs. Eldorado), but what are its components? How radioactive is it i.e. alpha, beta, or gamma etc.? What are the risks of each contaminant? What should parents worry about, or check for, as our kids grow up?  Prior to remediation of the building by LLRW and the school board, parents saw duct taped holes in the basement storage area of Dr. Powers. While duct tape is known to hold almost anything, radiation is not likely one of them. 

I have yet to get a response to my September 11, 2007 request to again meet with LLRWO staff. However my questions remain as follows: 

11. How is it that Cameco, upon suspicion of contamination under its Building 50, drills over 40 holes in just weeks, and yet sub-surface testing was avoided in and around Dr. Powers, a school which, at the time, was housing kids, staff, and parents?
12. Was Cameco exceeding necessary protocol, in immediately testing for groundwater or other sub-surface movement from their contaminated building?
13. Is it possible that the contamination under the Dr. Powers addition has migrated with groundwater or with soil, perhaps westward down towards the river?
14. Do neighbourhood residents need to worry about this?
15. Why was the school not tested further, particularly given high readings in the lower south west quadrant of the playground?

Lastly, I read recently that Cameco's contamination likely came through a concrete slab.

16. Does this mean that the Dr. Powers foundation offered no protection after all?
17. Why then were parents reassured by the promise of a quarterly check for cracks in the foundation of the school?

Port Hope needs to move forward to a bright future, which has been slowed over the years by the stigma of Federal Government radioactive contamination. We have great hopes as residents that the Federal Government is truly committed to a full 100% clean-up, after leaving us short during the botched 1970's attempt. My heart sinks when I worry that there may be secret plans for the Federal Government to again leave a portion of its waste behind in our community. A lack of transparency around the Dr. Power's contamination, or other sites, brings fears to the forefront. In the long-term, the stigma will only be resolved with full disclosure to residents of the extent of the problem, and a full federal government sponsored solution. If the job in Port Hope is bigger than the Federal Government bargained for (again), be straight about it, stay committed, and increase funding for both clean-up, and residential and business compensation, as required to get the job done.

If CNSC staff could comment, or provide answers or action as the regulating body, it would be appreciated."

The Federal LLRWMO Chronology of Dr. L.B. Powers Public School

In the days following distribution of this letter, I ran into the Public School Board Trustee on a downtown Port Hope Street, after he had just met with LLRWMO to discuss the issues I had raised. Our meeting was coincidental. While standing in the street, the Trustee passed me a 10-page "Summary of Events That Have Occurred at Dr. Powers School (1975 – Present)" that he had just obtained from the LLRWMO meeting, and had not yet had a chance to peruse. The chronology was much like one that we had received when we had met with LLRWMO during the 2004/05 school year, however some key data was absent from the earlier version we were previously given as parents.

Information provided to the School Board Trustee in 2007, but not provided previously to parents included details on a history of suspicions by authorities of "source material" under the school. `Source material' is a reference to federal radioactive waste materials. The 2007 chronology noted:

Also missing in the earlier 2004 chronology given to parents, but apparent in the 2007 chronology to the school board, was confirmation of an extremely high sub-surface test result taken under the school in 1978. This result had been alleged in a 2004 public announcement made by a former school parent and Dr. L.B. Power's Public School Council Playground Committee Chairman. He had volunteered to head the playground improvement plans for the School Council, which had just won a hard fought campaign to keep the school open, after it was targeted for closure by the school board.

As required, before any excavation in Port Hope (as far as I know the only community in Canada with this requirement), he had arranged with the federal LLRWMO to have the playground tested for radioactive contamination before the School Council could commence any work on playground improvements, which included a soccer pitch on the west side of the school.

Our playground Chairperson also sought permission to view the LLRWMO radiological files on the school. Accompanied by the Chair of the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee (who subsequently also made presentations to our School Council), he viewed the files on Dr. L.B. Powers Public School. Parents were upset by the subsequent story that unfolded, primarily within the local press.

Accusations by the parent were met with assurances of safety by LLRWMO, the Corporation of the Municipality of Port Hope, and the Kawartha PineRidge District School Board.

On Thursday, April 29, 2004, parents and guardians received the following in a newsletter from the School Board Superintendent of the public School Board:

"Dear Parents and Guardians,

Over the past day, you may have heard allegations regarding the possibility of radon gas at Dr. L.B. Powers Public School. The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board believes it is important that all parents know the facts.

Student safety is, and always has been, our first priority. We have taken every step possible to protect the well-being of our students at Dr. Powers, and at all our schools in the Port Hope area.

In fact, the Board has welcomed radiological monitoring in our facilities since 1976. We have worked closely with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) and the Construction Monitoring Program in Port Hope, and with other independent bodies to do testing.

For example, testing in 1993 showed that radon gas readings in the Dr. Powers gymnasium were above the normal range found in most buildings, but still well below levels identified by federal and provincial authorities as requiring action. Although it was not required to do so, the Board decided to go beyond the minimum requirements and complete remedial work to bring the radon levels down. Insulating foam was applied in the gym, and further monitoring was conducted in 1995 and 1996.

The results showed the Board would not have to take further action. In fact, the 1996 radon levels for all areas occupied by students were found to be well within the normal range.

We initiated further contact this week with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office, which invited independent expertise to review the situation. Just this morning, Dr. Mohan Rao, of Hardy Stevenson and Associates, independent consultants who work for the Municipality of Port Hope, determined, once again, that the health and safety of students and staff is well protected.

As always, the Board will continue to work with the authorities and experts in the field to monitor radiation levels at all schools in the Port Hope area. Student safety is our highest concern..."

Three years later, the chronology provided by the LLRWMO in 2007 to the Public School Board Trustee and passed on to me states on page two::

This is likely the result our former Playground Committee Chair referred to as being "…more than 125 times higher than the allowable level of radon." He had also alleged that on August 9, 1978, McLaren report to the AECB stated: "Samples at S-4 (sub-slab) and in store rooms (A-1 & A-2) would appear to indicate the presence of source material beneath the slab," which also is consistent with the recent chronology I acquired in 2007.

The 2007 LLRWMO chronology does go on to state:

While I was Chair of the School Council my mother shared with me an original yellowed copy of "Atomic Energy Control Board, Info Bulletin 77-2," which she had in her collectibles in the basement. According to this document an "investigation level" is set at 2pCi/L (defined by the Federal Provincial Task Force on Radioactivity or FPTFR). A `remediation level' is set at 4 pCi/L. The document states: "In addition to the primary criteria for radon daughters, a lower investigation level is specified. The investigation level is needed because the concentration of radon and its daughter products varies widely from time to time and place to place, and therefore a measurement that is close to the clean-up criterion is insufficient by itself to indicate whether remedial action is needed. The investigation involves repeating the measurements and looking for sources of contamination".

The test results conducted at Dr. L.B. Powers had readings consistently above the investigation level as defined by the FPTFR. The goal of the FPTFR, as expressed through the bulletin, was to locate federal contamination in the Port Hope community. This should still be the goal. Locate it! Manage it safely until it can be removed to a proper storage site.

The difficulty, I believe, became the dwindling disposal capacity in several federal `management sites,' both licenced and non-licenced. The federal philosophy seems to have changed over the years, so that rather than trying to locate all of the federal contamination for proper management, the goal became to identify what was "above the higher remediation level" as measured by "occupied areas" and "averaged readings." This change of philosophy, even though I believe the policy has yet to be formally changed, would come to the detriment of Port Hope and the health and safety of its people and environment. Occupied areas change over time, and buildings deteriorate and/or are eventually torn down. Contaminants migrate through air, soil and water over time. The focus should continue to be on finding the federal contaminants, full disclosure and proper management and disposal methodologies for the long term.

The following excerpt from the LLRWMO chronology provided to me, exemplifies the shift away from discovering the extent and composition of federal contamination to a focus on occupied areas:

This concerns me as a parent, given the doors to the store rooms are equipped with vents. The storage rooms are not sealed.

18. Does this not allow radon gas to enter hallways, the basement classroom, and the washrooms next to them?
19. What are the dangers to people entering the storage rooms to organize them or get equipment to be used by children?

Radon gas tests since June 2004 showed the basement computer room to be above the "investigation level" as mandated by FPTFR, yet still no `investigation' has taken place. For example the air samples taken from June 6 to June 10, 2005, from a monitor on the teacher's desk in the basement classroom, showed a radon concentration of 2.45 pCi/L.

20. Did the radon testing carried out at Dr. L.B. Powers follow the measurement techniques set out in the March 10, 2006 "Report of the Radon Working Group on a New Radon Guideline for Canada," as submitted to the Federal Provincial Territorial Radiation Protection Committee?

    Given that the report notes radon concentrations can change by a factor of two to three over a one day period, with seasonal variations even more dramatic, and the highest levels usually experienced in winter, it recommends: "A year-long measurement period will give a much better indication of average concentration exposure than a measurement of shorter duration."

21. Why was there never an investigation for source material under Dr. L.B. Powers as per FPTFR?
22. Why wasn't the recommended year-long measurement period utilized for radon testing by LLRWMO?
23. Given the history of soil remediation in the vicinity of the school and the concern expressed by parents with respect to the source of the radon below the school addition, why didn't LLRWMO have soils under the addition of the school tested for soil contamination with full disclosure to the public?

If our children attended school above a federal government `radioactive waste management site' then we had a right to know this, what we were dealing with, risk factors and plans for remediation.

Even more disturbing: if there is `source material' under the school, according to the LLRWMO chronology, the school was untested and unmonitored between 1980 and 1993 (13 years) and between 1997 and 2004 (seven years).

24. Did this present risks to people?
25. Why didn't the LLRWMO order further sub-slab testing in 1978, when the hole through the slab tested 506 pCi/L?

In the original 1950s addition (according to a Program from the addition opening ceremony passed on to me by an old friend), the cloakrooms of each classroom were connected to the heating and ventilation system, so that wet coats from recess play would be dry by the end of the school day. The high radon reading was apparently within a cloakroom.

26. Could the heating and ventilation system in the school have actually increased the dangers to students and staff at anytime since 1950?
27. Was there ever remediation of the school to address this heating/ventilation issue?
28. Why were the two storage rooms that consistently tested higher than the action level since 1976 not remediated (until 2004, prior to the final round of air testing in occupied areas)?
29. Why was there not ongoing monitoring of the school since 1978, when the readings above the action level were confirmed in the store rooms and the 506 pCi/L sub-slab reading were obtained?

The School Board did remediation work in the gymnasium. From the 2007 LLRWMO chronology::

Our Council was told that a fan was installed in the school for ventilation purposes, presumably to lower radon levels, and that it `must be kept on.' When I was involved in School Council, and once we had learned the purpose of the fan, our Council was occasionally concerned that the fan was left off while the school was occupied.

30. Why was the fan not constantly running?
31. Was there inadequate training and communication to staff of the school about the issue, and the importance of the fan being left on?
32. Did LLRWMO have any responsibilities to communicate the urgency of ventilation to staff and the School Board?
33. Why has there never been full disclosure made to the parents and the school board about the potential severity and consequences of the problem due to `source material?'
34. If it is unknown what is under the school, why did LLRWMO take no steps to determine what is under the school and the risks that whatever it is could migrate to the surrounding neighbourhood?

The LLRWMO 2007 chronology does admit contamination on the western side of the playground where small children played in the dirt. The dirt was exposed, and grass did not often grow down under the trees on the west side of the playground. Children on their hands and knees played in the dirt described by LLRWMO as having the following characteristics::

According to my calculation, this is close to 10 times the higher end of background (and in Port Hope where elevated levels are likely already anticipated).

The radioactive contaminant characteristics of remedial sites according to the December 2006 "Screening Report – Port Hope Project" include (page 168):

In addition to these radionuclides, the screening report named the following typical contaminants for remediation sites and their typical and maximum values: antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, vanadium, and zinc. The clean-up criteria (page 170 Screening Report) aims to bring Port Hope sites, without development constraints, to 0.24 Bq/g of Ra226 for surface soils.

35. Given the Dr. L.B. Powers playground appears to have volumes of Ra -226 consistent with a contaminated site, was there further testing to determine the source and/or the volume of potential associated contaminants? If not why? If so, what were the results?
36. If not, when will testing occur for radioactive and inorganic compounds, and to what risks have Dr. L.B. Powers Public School attendees already unknowingly been exposed to from all contaminants (individually and combined)?

I am not aware of the risks of the inorganic named contaminants that could accompany Ra 226, however, I do know that studies have been conducted on some. For example, from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, I understand that human activity accounts for most arsenic contamination in soil. Arsenic is apparently a key contaminant in the Port Hope area, used as a `marker' to find associated radioactive waste.

37. Is arsenic a likely contaminant with Ra 226 at remediation sites? Is Dr. L.B. Powers Public School playground contaminated with arsenic from man-made sources?

According to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment March 2001 Fact Sheet:

"Inorganic arsenic has been recognized as a human poison since ancient times, and very large doses can result in death. Lower levels of exposure may produce injury in a number of different body tissues or systems: these are called systemic effects. When taken by mouth a common effect is irritation of the digestive tract, leading to pain, nausea, vomiting or diarrhea. Other effects typical of exposure by mouth include decreased blood cells, abnormal heart function, blood vessel damage, liver and/or kidney injury and impaired nerve function causing a pins and needles feeling in the feet and hands…In addition, arsenic ingestion has been reported to increase the risk of internal cancer, especially in the liver, bladder, kidney and lungs…Of much greater concern is the ability of inhaled arsenic to increase the risk of lung cancer…There is no particular age group that is especially sensitive to arsenic, but children may have higher environmental exposure than adults because of their smaller body weight and because they play outside. Elevated levels of arsenic in soil…can lead to some exposure from ingesting soil. This is a particular exposure pathway for small children who swallow small amounts of soil while playing."

38. When will the Dr. L.B. Powers' property and surrounding area be tested for all federal contaminants, with full transparency and accountability to the public?
39. When will other sites (I have heard there are 200 to 400) be disclosed to the public along with timing and plans for safe remediation?
40. How many other sites are there, miscellaneous, known and yet to be delineated?
41. Has LLRWMO, CNSC and Natural Resources Canada completely excluded the possibility of an abnormal source of radon under Dr. L.B. Powers' school?

Response to my letter to the CNSC

On November 1, 2007, I received a 3-page letter from the Regulatory Operations Branch of the CNSC. After being thanked for my inquiry of September 26, 2007 (as detailed above), and noting that "…we regulate the nuclear industry in part by issuing licences…" the agency provided what I found to be disappointing responses to my questions. Each of my original questions, the CNSC response, and additional questions I have are detailed below. I would still appreciate answers to my questions, old and new, through this process:

My Sept 26, 2007 Question -"How is it that Cameco, upon suspicion of contamination under its Building 50, drills over 40 holes in just weeks, and yet sub-surface testing was avoided in and around Dr. Powers, a school which, at the time, was housing kids, staff and parents?

CNSC Response – "Cameco operates a nuclear conversion facility under a CNSC issued licence. Under the General Nuclear Safety and Control Regulations made under the NSCA, Cameco is required to "take all reasonable precautions to control the release of radioactive nuclear substances or hazardous substances within the site of the licensed activity and into the environment as a result of the licenced activity." When Cameco was conducting excavations within the facility to replace a process storage tank, it observed evidence of leakage in the sub-slab soil within the facility. Consequently, Cameco's response was to define both the amount and extent of leakage in relation to this new discovery. This was not a suspicion, but an observed condition. Cameco's response was to do what was required under their operating licence and the NSCA."

Additional Questions I have

42. The Port Hope Project is under the operation of the LLRWMO/AECL. Are these agencies operators of nuclear projects? If yes, which projects in Canada?
43. Do they not have licences to complete specific projects under their mandate? What are their mandates related to the Port Hope project?
44. Does AECL/LLRWMO not have requirements, like Cameco to `take all reasonable precautions to control the release of radioactive nuclear substances or hazardous substances' as part of the Port Hope Project, and previous operations since AECL was made responsible for Port Hope's contamination due to federal government operations?
45. Does section 30(3) of NSC Act, or perhaps other legislation or regulation, authorize CNSC to act on suspicion on reasonable grounds?
46. Was LLRWMO/AECL required to report the suspected contamination of Dr. L.B. Powers to CNSC, given the likely volume and characteristics of the material, and confirmation of contamination of Ra226 in the playground? Did they?
47. Although the old AEC Regulations contained an exemption from licencing for less than 10 kg of uranium or thorium, does the new NSC Regulation not eliminate this exemption, forcing licencing of all sites containing uranium or thorium?
48. Has thorium or uranium been confirmed or denied to exist under Dr. L.B. Powers or on the school property?

My Sept 26, 2007 Question -"Was Cameco exceeding necessary protocol, in immediately testing for groundwater or other sub-surface movement from their contaminated building?

CNSC Response – "No, Cameco was responding to the leak in accordance with the NSCA, CNSC regulations and CNSC operating licence conditions."

Additional Questions I have

49. What is the protocol for LLRWMO once it determines there is federal contamination under a public building (e.g. a school)?
50. What is the protocol for LLRWMO once it `suspects' there may be contamination under a public building (e.g. a school)?
51. What is the protocol for residential or other private properties?
52. Are there any requirements currently to ensure the spread of contamination has not occurred from specific sites, given the proximity of Port Hope contaminated sites to residential areas and water resources?
53. Is the Federal Provincial Task Force on Radioactivity (FPTFR) document "Atomic Energy Control Board, Info Bulletin 77-2" still a relevant policy document?
54. If FPTFR has been replaced, what is the current policy for investigation and remediation of radioactive and inorganic contaminants included in the Port Hope project?
55. If `source material' was suspected more than once, throughout the LLRWMO history of Dr. L.B. Powers Public School, then why is the regulator seemingly unaware or unconcerned about the problem, and the lack of transparency surrounding this and other `miscellaneous sites' in Port Hope?
56. Is the CNSC aware of any meetings of senior political and/or senior staff representatives of the Municipality of Port Hope and the LLRWMO to discuss a list of miscellaneous contaminated sites throughout the urban area? Is the Municipality privy to a list of miscellaneous sites, particularly public sites?
57. Are local municipal and federal representatives employed at LLRWMO/AECL making, or have they made, decisions on the management, remediation, disclosure, and transport of any federal radioactive contaminated wastes without the knowledge of the CNSC? Where local decisions are made, what is the reporting mechanism to CNSC?
58. If decisions are made locally without CNSC knowledge and approval, does this fail the mandate of CNSC, to establish and enforce national standards concerning the health, safety and environmental consequences of nuclear activities and given powers to order remedial action in hazardous situations?

My Sept 26, 2007 Question -"Is it possible that the contamination under the Dr. Powers addition has migrated with groundwater or with soil, perhaps westward towards the river? Do neighbourhood residents need to worry about this?

CNSC Response – "This is a technical question more suitable for answer by LLRWMO, who has characterized contaminated soils in the Port Hope area and their potential for environmental impact. Issues related to the existing state of environment are addressed in the environmental assessment study reports that were prepared in accordance with the environmental assessment conducted for the Port Hope Project of the PHAI."

Additional Questions I have

59. The environmental assessment study report is a screening document only. It does not characterize contaminated soils for individual properties with the exception of the licenced sites as far as I can tell. What is the methodology and how is it determined which contaminated sites in the Port Hope area should be licenced as well as `characterized' and shared with the public as part of the Port Hope Project?
60. Who determines whether sites should be licenced on an individual or collective basis and where is this information available to the public to make informed decisions about environmental and health risks?
61. LLRWMO was not forthcoming with answers or a response to my September 26, 2007 questions, so they were addressed to CNSC as well. Are there CNSC policies or mandates regarding transparency and accountability to the public? What are they?
62. Were my September 26, 2007 questions to CNSC (as noted above) considered unreasonable? If so, why?
63. The LLRWMO has reported that "All licences and owners of radioactive materials are now required to comply with the terms of the new (NSC) Act and regulations…Certain sites for which the Office has responsibility that are not currently licenced may now be subject to licencing. (LLRWMO) staff have accompanied CNSC staff on visits to such sites and have provided technical and other information so that the CNSC can carry out an objective assessment of each site." Was the CNSC aware of Dr. L.B. Powers as a potentially contaminated site?
64. When was the CNSC first made aware of the potential for radioactive contamination on the Dr. L.B. Powers' property?
65. Does the legal authority of the NSC Act include CNSC authority to order remediation of contaminated sites?

My Sept 26, 2007 Question -"Why was the school not tested further, particularly given high readings in the lower south west quadrant of the playground?"

CNSC Response – "Again this is a technical question more suitable for answer by the LLRWMO. The LLRWMO's administrative programs (the Construction Monitoring and Property Compliance Programs) were put in place many years ago to assure that any contaminated soils detected in the Town are managed appropriately until the process that has begun proceeds to a conclusion to consolidate and bring these materials under long-term controls where necessary."

Additional Questions I have

66. It was the Construction Monitoring Program that once again brought Dr. L.B. Powers to be tested, although no sub-surface tests under the 1950 school addition were conducted, to confirm or deny the extent of contamination. The school was restricted from digging to level a soccer pitch, although children were not restricted from playing in the soil confirmed by LLRWMO to be contaminated with Ra226 (and possibly other materials given the contaminants noted in the Port Hope Screening document). Does CNSC consider LLRWMO's management of the Dr. L.B. Powers Public School site between 1976 and 2007 to be proper management of contaminated soils, as regulator responsible for ensuring proper management of radioactive materials, and health and safety of people and environment?
67. In relation to the previous question, why or why not?

My Sept 26, 2007 Question -"Lastly, I read recently that Cameco's contamination likely came through a concrete slab. Does this mean that the Dr. L.B. Power's foundation offered no protection after all? Why then were parents reassured by the promise of a quarterly check for cracks in the foundation of the school?"

CNSC Response – "Again this is a technical question more suitable for answer by the LLRWMO. However in relation to the Cameco facility, we believe, since investigations are still on-going, that fluids leaked from a process tank through cracks in the foundation to the sub-surface soils. In the case of Dr. Powers School, the potential pathway would have been the emanation of radon gas from the sub-surface soils into the school through foundation cracks. Sealing of cracks would eliminate this pathway. We should note also that radon gas is generated from all soils, so the presence of radon in any structure is not unusual."

Additional Questions I have

The LLRWMO has had reasons to suspect source material under Dr. L.B. Powers School, since the 1970s according to their own documentation. Test results of over 506.9 pCi/L (sub-slab) and Ra226 quantities in the playground, consistent with federal contaminated sites, are also good indicators. There was close to two decades in total where there was no monitoring of foundation cracks. Storage areas, not sealed from the rest of the school, tested above the remediation levels with no remediation done until 2004.

68. Will CNSC investigate this situation, attributable to LLRWMO/AECL, as the agency provided for Cameco in Port Hope recently, to ensure any potential spread of contamination from the Dr. L.B. Powers site is controlled and properly remediated, with the goal of protecting our people and environment from further contamination or harm?

The Overall Issue and Possible Federal Actions to Set Port Hope on a More Positive Course

In Port Hope, Ontario, I believe the emotional battle, raging intermittently for decades amongst residents, and making its way (again) to the national stage, is clouding important issues. There must be a more objective way that passionate people from all sides can deal with the federal government's contamination in Port Hope, and the socio-economic fall-out which arises from it. I struggle with the dilemma of how, in the end, Port Hope can come out of the current debate, and subsequent near decade of federal `clean-up' still whole, to move forward to thrive as a community.

I offer three suggestions, which I believe will result in greater transparency, might shift the debate and outcome to the proper scientific and technical forum; will be acceptable, with little compromise to all sides; and, will produce a result with the greatest confidence and transparency at the end of the day (something Port Hope requires to market to the world that it is finally 100% clean).

The following three actions, I believe, should be implemented through the federal government, as the party that has already accepted the accrued liabilities for its contamination of Port Hope: 

1) Adequate Compensation - There needs to be a mechanism for delivery of adequate compensation to Port Hope's residents, commercial and industrial enterprises, as well as the municipal corporation, in lieu of a potential Class Proceeding against the Federal Government.

Current compensation, provided with conditions to the municipal corporation, and as outlined in the current Municipal-Federal agreement, is inadequate. The so-named `Property Value Protection' program is already failing residents, with its application only to the physical clean-up itself (losses due to the federal stigma have already, and will continue to occur). Compensation currently also excludes the business sector, which already feels the impacts of recent press, and is likely to incur additional losses through the physical clean-up-phase of the project.

The original ownership of the material, acceptance by the federal government of responsibility for historic low level radioactive waste, and the continued exercise of control through the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office, and the previous Siting Task Force process, forms sufficient basis upon which liability arising from the presence of low level radioactive waste can be attributed to the federal government.

The federal government needs to apply more reasonable compensation to off-set the following impacts, which arise out of the presence of its radioactive waste in Port Hope:

1. Potential health risks arising from low dose gamma radiation and other federal contaminants over time;
2. Psychological harm arising from the uncertainty of health risks;
3. Environmental damage to ground and surface water;
4. Impacts due to infiltration of leachate;
5. Hazards arising from the excavation of contaminated lands;
6. Negative impacts on property values;
7. Negative impacts on local businesses and tourism; and,
8. Negative impacts on the tax base of the municipality.

Without adequate compensation, citizens, businesses and the municipality could be forced to consider (once again) the formulation of legal claims against the federal government, possibly through a class action.

69. Do federal agencies believe that compensation to Port Hope (to date provided only to the municipal corporation) is adequate? Why or why not?
70. Is compensation a recognized component of any existing national policies, principles or International Treaties to which Canada is signatory, related to radioactive waste, or its management? If yes, please provide an explanation and/or source of information.
71. If the answer to the previous question is yes, does compensation to Port Hope meet all current national and international obligations, policies and/or principles?

2) A Federal Environmental Assessment Panel – An Environmental Assessment process conducive to the nature, magnitude and permanence of the issue is required for nuclear projects proposed within Port Hope, which is adjacent to the GTA, Great Lakes, and within the densely populated Highway 401 Corridor.

On page 8 of the screening document it is noted that a comprehensive study EA is not required because the proposed inventory of radioactive material to be accommodated for long-term management does not exceed the trigger level for a comprehensive study established under s. 19 (g)(ii)(B) of the Comprehensive Study List Regulations of the CEAA. The regulation requires that a comprehensive study be carried out for a proposed facility to store radioactive waste, if the inventory of radioactive materials with a half life greater than one year is 1000 TBq or above.

The limit that would trigger a Comprehensive Study was 100 TBq, until the comprehensive list was amended in 2003, when it was raised. The estimated overall radiological inventory of the Port Hope project has been estimated at 82 TBq.

72. Why was the limit raised from 100 TBq to 1000 TBq?

My late father, once a young engineer monitoring the Welcome waste facility, which constitutes much of the material in the Port Hope Project, stated publicly that he thought most of the old radium/pitchblende circuit was at the Welcome site (the Port Granby site allegedly contains much of the thorium/radium related materials). Radium decays to half its initial activity in 1,620 years. According to a textbook from my father's files, the isotope Plutonium 239 "…has been found in pitchblende in a concentration of one part in 10¹²."

Further, much of the urban area contamination, according to the screening report, has yet to be delineated (250,000 m³), or close to 20% of the material.

Based on previous statements by LLRWMO that there is an estimated approximate 3.8 million m³ of contaminated materials in Port Hope, it seems that someone has made a decision to leave over 2 million m³ in place in Port Hope, with development constraints to be put in place in some areas after the `clean-up.' The details of these specific areas and the development constraints are as yet unclear. This leaves the public unable to comment on contaminants, risks or constraints that will exist due to the materials that will be left in place under the Port Hope Project. This is unacceptable. This needs to be commented on through a suitable public EA process, with opportunity for peer review by experts.

The debate currently lacks scientific cross-examination to the detriment of public confidence. Without a proper forum to display scientific evidence and undergo cross-examination, the debate has been reduced to a media circus and harmful sensationalism. The current screening process underway is inadequate and will not be conducive to ending the current stigma, even when the clean-up is finalized. A full review will allow Port Hope to implement a more convincing and successful marketing strategy, as life returns to normal after the federal clean-up. It will also ensure proper technical solutions for low, medium and high level waste, all of which exist to some extent in Port Hope.

In Canada, a shortcoming, particularly for Port Hope, is that LLRW is defined by exclusion, rather than science or health, safety or environmental considerations. According to LLRWMO "If a waste is radioactive, but is neither nuclear fuel waste nor uranium mine and mill tailings, then it is classed as LLRW." This will ensure a sub-optimal solution. Further, there are allegedly uranium tailings in Port Hope as well, perhaps being forgotten in the overall volume.

Also, disturbing, the waste that contaminates our area has been categorized as `Historical Wastes.' This seems a construction to confuse and evade responsibility, sort of `it happened, was abandoned yesterday or last week, and we can't remember by whom or the details, so I guess you are stuck with it for the next 500 years.' What is interesting about Radioactive Waste is the level (in numbers) of a,b,g (alpha, beta and gamma) radiation it emits, not its history. If it has been let loose by the processors and emits higher than specific levels of abg, it is Radioactive Waste, and should be treated accordingly.

73. Have the contaminants in the Port Hope area sites been tested for levels of alpha, beta and gamma radiation and where can the public review these results?
74. How much of the waste contaminants by volume are estimated to be pitchblende?

The federal government has assumed all the accrued liabilities for both the Radium and Uranium operations. The waste should be deposited in a licensed `Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility' in accordance with the best technology available, and the generator of the waste should pay for this. The nuclear industry in Canada needs facilities for disposal of low, medium and high radioactive wastes. A licence for such a site will hopefully be granted one day, and I believe Port Hope should be negotiating to ensure the radioactive waste we have already lived with for too long, eventually gets to it. I am sure one of the criterion for the site will be that it be located in a remote unpopulated area and managed to perpetuity if necessary.

Currently in another process, a federal Environmental Assessment Panel is being utilized to review the safety and acceptability of AECL's concept to dispose of other nuclear fuel wastes in Canada, along with a broad range of nuclear fuel waste management issues.

The Scientific Review Group (SRG), appointed by and responsible to that Panel will, as part of the process, conduct a specific in-depth examination of the scientific and engineering aspects of the concept to dispose of high-level nuclear fuel wastes in igneous rock of the Canadian Shield. Members of the SRG will be independent and distinguished, and have relevant scientific backgrounds. Port Hope deserves no less for its process, considering the federal government will embark on the largest urban area radioactive and industrial waste clean-up in Canada's history. Port Hope deserves the same critical review and comments from scientists and engineers on the acceptability and applicability of the:

1. Waste management concept; and,
2. Choice of predictive techniques, underlying assumptions, and the validity of the results of the predictive techniques used to assess the long-term performance and safety of the management site concept.

75. What is the reasoning, from each federal department and agency, for a full panel EA for one radioactive waste management process, versus a Screening Report for the Port Hope Project?
76. Why was Atomic Energy of Canada Limited chosen to operate the Port Hope Project, given the agency is a nuclear `operator,' and waste generator itself?
77. Does this cause any perception of conflict which may harm public confidence in the process?

3) Up-to-date Health Studies are Required – Federal agencies, our municipal councillors and environmental groups, have made public statements regarding the need for up-to-date health studies, or follow-up to previous ecological studies, which by federal agencies' own admissions lacked the assignment of cumulative exposure levels over time. Given that the federal government defines the risk of radiation exposure by the amount of exposure over time, this seems a significant misgiving that future studies should rectify. Since there are many carcinogens contaminating the Port Hope community, the cumulative effects of all contaminants need to be considered, radioactive and inorganic. If effects are cumulative and long-term and studies need to reflect this.

CNSC recognized in a public document in 2000 that: "It is recognized that there are increased environmental levels of known carcinogens in Port Hope…thus additional follow-up may be appropriate."

The December 2006 Port Hope Initiative EA Screening document notes there are currently `…no levels of unacceptable risk (in Port Hope)…,' however the same document and the Auditor General of Canada have noted the current situation in Port Hope can not be maintained.

An old Atomic Energy Control Board document "Regulatory Objectives: Requirements and Guidelines for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste – Long-term Aspects" maintains that an accepted risk level is "one fatal cancer in a population of a million, in one year."

Port Hope's citizens need to know what the deemed `acceptable risk level' is for Port Hope, as well as how close we are to reaching or exceeding it. This health analysis should apply to radioactive materials and other contaminants, including combined exposure risks.

Also, if we are to be world leaders in contamination clean up, as I have read we aspire to, then we had better know the impacts to health prior to, during and after the clean-up, so that we can highlight our successes here as well.

78. Where can Port Hope residents access the full reports of health studies completed to date, including assumptions, methodologies, conclusions and study limitations?
79. Have health studies only been conducted on radioactive components of the Port Hope waste? If not, where can the public access the results of other studies?
80. Can the carcinogenic properties of associated inorganic compounds in Port Hope be as harmful as radioactive contaminants found in Port Hope? Why or why not?
81. What is the estimated cumulative effect on health or health risk in Port Hope of current nuclear operations, plus `historic' operations, plus previous plus anticipated future waste remediation measures?
82. What are the approved mandates of Natural Resources Canada and AECL in regards to radioactive waste and/or its management?
83. Is the Port Hope clean-up designed to fit within a specific budget range (i.e. in determining what to remediate and what wastes to leave in place, what is the methodology and how does the cost factor impact decisions)?
84. What is the budget for the project overall, for each year, for each component/phase of the Port Hope Project?
85. In meeting the ALARA principle for the Port Hope project, are there any trade-offs being contemplated or made, between optimal risk factors (health and environmental) and the project budget, so that Port Hope will move beyond optimal acceptable risk factors in order to remain under budget and/or save money? What are these tradeoffs, if any, and how much money is anticipated to be saved from them?
86. Please explain the socio-economic methodology utilized for the Port Hope Project and the logic and assumptions assigned? Were existing federal guidelines (approved and provided for federal government socio-economic cost benefit analyses) utilized? If not, why not?
87. Do federal agencies believe the focus should continue to be on finding the federal contaminants, with full disclosure and proper management and disposal methodologies for the long term?
88. If our children attend a school above a federal government `radioactive waste management site' then is it the philosophy of each responsible department that we have a right to know this, to know what we were dealing with, the risk factors and plans for remediation?
89. Why are Health Canada and Environment Canada not assuming more of a lead role in the Port Hope Project, a project which all Port Hope residents are relying on to ensure a healthy community, free of environmental contamination and carcinogenic risks from either short or long term exposure?
90. Would the Port Hope project be able to better protect health and environment if these agencies assumed lead roles – why or why not?
91. Are there any instances where compromises will be made to the Port Hope Project so that it does not meet current or anticipated (within 10 years) Health and Environment safety regulations or legislation?
92. Is the goal of the Port Hope project to locate all federal `source material' or has the focus been relaxed, ignoring the FPTFR "investigation" component in favour of the higher "remediation" value?
93. In 1978, when the hole through the slab at Dr. L.B. Powers tested at 506 pCi/L, was Health Canada consulted? Is 506 pCi/L possible, or likely, in a healthy community in the absence of an unusual source of radon or contamination?
94. On November 14, 2007 Health Canada reported there were "no uranium related health concerns in Port Hope" and on November 20, 2007, it was reported Port Hope was a "healthy community." Is this consistent with CNSC's assertion in an August 22, 2000 press release that "…it is recognized that there are increased environmental levels of known carcinogens in Port Hope." Are these Health Canada statements consistent with the December 2006 Port Hope Project screening report and if so, in what ways?
95. Is all of Port Hope healthy or are we healthy "on average" for the "short-term," unless the issue of federal government contamination continues to go unresolved? Please explain.
96. Have health studies included potential impacts from dangerous non-radioactive contaminants, including arsenic and other inorganic compounds associated with federal contaminants? Will the risks of each contaminant be assessed separately and combined as a cumulative risk, during the clean-up, so that we can monitor the success of the Port Hope Project?
97. Did Environment Canada or the Environmental Assessment Agency make the case, or any arguments, for a full comprehensive environmental assessment, prior to or as part of the decision making process for an EA Screening? If so, what were the arguments and counter arguments?
98. Was the unusual proximity of the radioactive and inorganic contaminants, to water resources and human population, given consideration in determining the appropriate type of EA process to utilize for the Port Hope project? Do the standard guidelines for radioactivity apply, given that the nuclear sites the guidelines were set for were probably in remote areas, as opposed to being situated in an urban area on a river, lake and major transportation corridor?

The nuclear debate in Port Hope has always been emotional, fought through media attacks from all sides, with many, including myself, left to wonder who to believe. One side seems to believe all information must come out in order to get to a solution, while the other side has preferred silence and hope, and has now decided to declare, just as loudly, that there is no problem at all. Both groups have good people, great passion, and a wish for the issue to be resolved. Both represent significant enough numbers within our populace to be taken seriously. Both groups will be required, once the Municipality is really `clean,' to shout out our successes and move forward.

The problem, unfortunately, is that we are just not there yet, and the next decade looks like it will be a tough one.

I hope that our local and national leaders can be inspired to set us on a more constructive path than I witness currently from the sidelines. A prudent course of action will include adequate compensation to the community, a more rigorous level of assessment for the cleanup, backed by comprehensive health studies to reassure Port Hope residents of their safety. It is a time of significant importance. Our decisions in regard to this issue will have implications for our residents for generations to come.

This concludes my petition and questions to departments and agencies.

Thank you for the opportunity to bring my thoughts and questions forward.

[Original signed by N. Sarah Clayton]

N. Sarah Clayton,
Port Hope, Ontario

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Environment Canada

15 May 2008

Ms. N. Sarah Clayton
34 Hope Street North
Port Hope, Ontario
L1A 2N5

Dear Ms. Clayton:

I am pleased to respond to your Environmental Petition No. 234, pursuant to section 22 of the Auditor General Act, regarding federal responsibility with respect to radioactive and industrial contamination in Port Hope, Ontario. The petition was received by Environment Canada on January 16.

In June 2001, Natural Resources Canada established the Port Hope Area Initiative to develop and implement long-term solutions for the management of low-level radioactive waste in Port Hope, and chose the Low‑Level Radioactive Waste Management Office of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited as the proponent for the project. Although Natural Resources Canada has the lead role for implementation of the project, you raise questions related to Environment Canada’s role in the project and the environmental assessment process.

The project must comply with several regulatory requirements for the protection of health, safety and environment. It is subject to regulatory licensing requirements of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and to environmental assessment in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

As per the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Natural Resources Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission have been identified as the Responsible Authorities for the Port Hope project. Responsible Authorities determine how the environmental assessment will be conducted, including what level of assessment is required. This determination must take into consideration various regulations under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act including the Inclusion List Regulations, Law List Regulations, Exclusion List Regulations and Comprehensive Study List Regulations.

A comprehensive study would only be required if the project was defined under the Comprehensive Study List Regulations; otherwise, it would follow a screening-level assessment. In the case of the Port Hope project, the Responsible Authorities determined that an environmental screening was required.

Although Environment Canada does not have a direct role in the implementation of the project, our regulatory mandate includes the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; Migratory Birds Convention Act; Species at Risk Act;and subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act. It is within the context of our mandate and related policies and expertise that Environment Canada—as Federal Authority (not as a Responsible Authority)—provides comments and advice on the environmental assessment, in accordance with subsection 12(3) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Your Question 72 (“Why was the limit raised from 100 TBq to 1000 TBq?”) relates to an amendment made in 2003 to clause 19(g)(ii)(B) of the Comprehensive Study List Regulations made under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The “limit” referred to is the maximum level of activity of the inventory of radioactive material associated with a proposed Class 1B nuclear facility. Above that level, the Comprehensive Study List Regulations require a comprehensive study environmental assessment of the facility. Below that level, a screening-type assessment would be required. Before the 2003 amendment, the limit set in the Regulations was one hundred terabecquerels (100 TBq).

In May 2000, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSC Act) came into effect, replacing the Atomic Energy Control Act and thereby implementing the first major overhaul of Canada’s nuclear regulatory regime in more than 50 years. Among the changes brought about by the NSC Act was a new definition of a Class 1B nuclear facility. That new definition includes a plant for the processing or use, in a quantity greater than one thousand terabecquerels (1000 TBq) per calendar year, of nuclear substances (other than uranium, thorium or plutonium). One of the purposes of the new classification scheme was to achieve greater consistency in licensing nuclear facilities, based on actual risk associated with those facilities.
 
In 2003, the Comprehensive Study List Regulations, as well as other regulations under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, were amended to establish a clearer functional link between the NSC Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Clause 19(g)(ii)(B) of the Regulations was amended to correspond with the new definition of a Class 1B nuclear facility as described above. Specifically, the threshold level for activity in stored radioactive material was increased to 1000 TBq. In the regulatory impact analysis statement that accompanied the amendments, it was predicted that the proposed new threshold would result in an insignificant change in the application of the Comprehensive Study List Regulations. Clause 19(g)(ii)(B) of the Regulations has not been the cause of any environmental assessment being conducted as a comprehensive study rather than as a screening assessment, either before or after the amendment of that clause in 2003.

I understand that the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Health will be responding separately to issues that fall under the mandate of their departments.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your petition, and I trust that you will find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by John Baird, Minister of the Environment]

John Baird, P.C., M.P.

c.c.:  The Honourable Gary Lunn, P.C., M.P.
The Honourable Tony Clement, P.C., M.P.
Mr. Ronald C. Thompson, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Health Canada

14 May 2008

Ms. Sarah Clayton, B.A., M.P.A.
34 Hope Street North
Port Hope, Ontario
L1A 2N5

Dear Ms. Clayton:

This is in response to your environmental petition no. 234 of January 2, 2008, addressed to Mr. Ronald Thompson, the Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD).

In your petition you raised concerns about radioactive and industrial contamination in Port Hope, Ontario.

I am pleased to provide you with the enclosed Health Canada response to your petition. I understand that the Ministers of the Environment and of Natural Resources will be responding separately to questions which come under the purview of their respective departments.

I appreciate your interest in this important matter, and I hope that you will find this information useful.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by Tony Clement, Minister of Health and the Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Tony Clement

Enclosure

c.c.: Mr. Ronald C. Thompson, Interim CESD
The Honourable Gary Lunn, P.C., M.P.
The Honourable John Baird, P.C., M.P.

Health Canada Response to Petition No. 234 – Petitioner: Ms. Sarah Clayton
Radioactive and Industrial Contamination of Port Hope, Ontario

Accountability and Appropriate Action Required Regarding the Federal Government Radioactive and Industrial Contamination of Port Hope, Ontario

May 2008

Health Canada has reviewed the above petition, and the questions raised by the Petitioner. Responses to the questions that pertain to Health Canada’s mandate and responsibilities are answered below.

Up-to-date Health Studies are Required

Question 78: Where can Port Hope residents access the full reports of health studies completed to date, including assumptions, methodologies, conclusions and study limitations?

Answer 78:Numerous health studies have been completed to assess the health status of the residents of Port Hope. Most studies do provide assumptions, methodologies, conclusions and any limitations.

The following comprehensive health studies have been undertaken by different agencies/departments of the Government of Canada since the early 1980s.

Standardized Mortality Ratios in Selected Urban Areas in Ontario, 1954-1978 (Kusiak and Howe, 1984; Ecosystems 1984)

 Mortality Atlas of Canada, Volume 3, 1973-1979 (Health and Welfare Canada, 1984)

 A Study of Childhood Leukemia Around Canadian Nuclear Facilities (Clarke et al, 1989, 1991)

 Birth Defects and Cancer Incidence Atlas of Ontario (Health Canada, 1993)

Great Lakes Health Effects Program: Port Hope Harbour Area of Concern: Health Data and Statistics for the Population of the Region (1986-1992) (Health Canada, 1998)

 Cancer Incidence in Port Hope 1971-1996 (Health Canada, 2000)

 Cancer and General Mortality in Port Hope, 1956-1997 (Health Canada, 2002)

Some of the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals, and can be accessed at a public library. Reports, particularly the cancer reports published in 2000 and 2002, were widely distributed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and Health Canada in Port Hope. If copies of any of those studies are required, they can be requested either from the CNSC and/or Health Canada.

Question 79: Have health studies only been conducted on radioactive components of the Port Hope waste? If not, where can the public access the results of other studies?

Answer 79: Since the mid-1970s, most studies concentrated on the radiological aspects of the waste in Port Hope. However, the Port Hope Area Initiative to clean up the contamination is currently underway in Port Hope, and information on all aspects of contamination can be obtained from the resident Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO).

Question 80: Can the carcinogenic properties of associated inorganic compounds in Port Hope be as harmful as radioactive contaminants found in Port Hope? Why or why not?

Answer 80:Exposure to both inorganic and radiological contaminants can have negative carcinogenic health effects. The magnitude of the hazard, including the initiation of cancer, depends upon the nature and the level of the contaminant exposure of an individual.

Question 81: What is the estimated cumulative effect on health or health risk in Port Hope of current nuclear operations, plus ‘historic’ operations, plus previous plus anticipated future waste remediation measures?

Answer 81: The wastes from “historic” operations are currently being planned for clean-up under the Port Hope Area Initiative. For present and future operations of the nuclear facilities, cumulative impacts on human health and the environment are considered from all sources when a licence to operate is reviewed.

Question 89: Why are Health Canada and Environment Canada not assuming more of a lead role in the Port Hope Project, a project which all Port Hope residents are relying on to ensure a healthy community, free of environmental contamination and carcinogenic risks from either short or long term exposure?

Answer 89: The Port Hope Project proposes to build a new long-term engineered waste management facility in Port Hope. The LLRWMO, acting as an agent of the Government, manages the project.

The LLRWMO was established in 1982 to carry out the responsibilities of the federal government for the management of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) in Canada. The Office is operated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited through an agreement with Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the federal department that provides the funding and establishes national policy for LLRW management. The mandate of the LLRWMO is to:

•  resolve historic waste problems that are a federal responsibility;
• establish, as required, a user-pay service for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste produced on an ongoing basis; and
• address public information needs about low-level radioactive waste.

NRCan develops policies to ensure that radioactive waste producers and owners meet their operational and funding responsibilities in accordance with waste plans.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is the independent federal nuclear regulator responsible for ensuring that the management of radioactive waste does not pose undue risks to workers, members of the public or the environment.

The CNSC ensures its licensees are aware of, and comply with, all requirements with respect to the protection of Canadians and the peaceful use of nuclear energy and materials. The CNSC also conducts environmental assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Health Canada works to promote and protect the health of Canadians by assessing and managing the risks posed by radiation exposure in living, working and recreational environments. Health Canada and Environment Canada assume lead roles in providing advice to the CNSC on health and environment-related matters.

Question 94: On November 14, 2007 Health Canada reported there were “no uranium related health concerns in Port Hope” and on November 20, 2007 it was reported Port Hope was a “healthy community.” Is this consistent with CNSC’s assertion in an August 22, 2000 press release that “…it is recognized that there are increased environmental levels of known carcinogens in Port Hope.” Are these Health Canada statements consistent with the December 2006 Port Hope Project screening report and if so, in what ways?

Answer 94: On November 14, 2007, Health Canada responded to the radiobiological testing study results released by the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee (PHCHCC) on November 13, 2007. On November 20, 2007, Dr. J. Cornett of Health Canada appeared at the Port Hope Municipal Council Meeting and provided comparative results from national and international studies on uranium excretion in urine. The PHCHCC study results were in the same range as those suggested by the national and international background data. There are no uranium-related health concerns based on these comparisons, and the health of Port Hope residents is considered to be very similar to other residents of Ontario. The CNSC released the results of a cancer study entitled, “Cancer Incidence in Port Hope, 1971-1996” in August 2000, and of a subsequent report which was completed in 2002. These studies suggest that the incidence of all kinds of cancers in Port Hope is similar to the rest of Ontario.

Health Canada’s statements are consistent with the December 2006 Port Hope Project screening report which indicates this project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. Further information on the environmental impact assessment under the Port Hope Area Initiative can be obtained from the LLRWO.

Question 95: Is all of Port Hope healthy or are we healthy “on average” for the “short-term” unless the issue of federal government contamination continues to go unresolved? Please explain.

Answer 95:All the health outcomes reported in these studies suggest that the health of Port Hope residents is very similar to other residents of Ontario. These studies addressed both short- and long-term health issues by examining the rates of cancer and mortality over periods greater than 20 years.

Question 96: Have health studies included potential impacts from dangerous non-radioactive contaminants, including arsenic and other inorganic compounds associated with federal contaminants? Will the risks of each contaminant be assessed separately and combined as a cumulative risk, during the clean-up, so that we can monitor the success of the Port Hope Project?

Answer 96: The epidemiology studies looked at total health effects including non-radioactive contaminants. Other health studies have mainly related to the radiological contaminants. The Port Hope Area Initiative will clean up both radiological and non-radiological (inorganic) contaminants to minimize the future risk to the residents of Port Hope. The clean-up will be based on the clean-up criteria developed by the Government of Canada and approved by the Municipality of Port Hope.

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Natural Resources Canada

2 May 2008

Ms. Sarah Clayton
34 Hope Street North
Port Hope, Ontario
L1A 2N5

Dear Ms. Clayton:

I am pleased to provide Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan) response to your Environmental Petition No. 234 entitled “Accountability and Appropriate Action Required Regarding the Federal Government Radioactive and Industrial Contamination of Port Hope, Ontario”, submitted to the Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on January 4, 2008. The petition was received at NRCan on January 16, 2008.

Many of your questions related to the operations of NRCan, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO). Consequently, my staff at NRCan has worked cooperatively with staff at the CNSC and LLRWMO in the development of my response.

NRCan is the Department responsible for developing and implementing Canadian government policy on radioactive waste management. The LLRWMO was established in 1982 to carry out the responsibilities of the federal government for the management of low-level radioactive waste in Canada. The LLRWMO is operated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited through a cost recovery agreement with NRCan.

The CNSC is responsible for regulating the development and use of nuclear energy and nuclear substances in order to protect Canadians, and their environment from the risks associated with nuclear facilities and nuclear substances. It is an independent, quasi-judicial administrative tribunal. As set out in the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the CNSC reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources.

I understand that my colleagues the Honourable John Baird, Minister of the Environment, and The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health, will be responding separately to questions that fall under their mandates.

I trust that you will find the information provided by these responses useful.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources]

The Honourable Gary Lunn, P.C., M.P.

Enclosure (1)

c.c.: Mr. Ronald C. Thompson
Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

The Honourable John Baird, P.C., M.P.
Minister of the Environment

The Honourable Tony Clement, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario

RESPONSE TO PETITION NO. 234
Questions directed to the Minister of Natural Resources

Accountability and Appropriate Action Required Regarding the Federal
Government Radioactive and Industrial Contamination of Port Hope, Ontario

Petitioner: Sarah Clayton

Some questions have been grouped together for the purposes of providing appropriate responses.

1. If authorities know the property is contaminated, why not admit it, and share the plan of action?

This questions relates to Dr. Powers School.

Investigations carried out since 1976 have not identified Dr. Powers School as a contaminated site. Under the resurvey program of the Port Hope Project it will be determined whether there is or is not historic LLRW on Dr. Powers School site.

2. Of the estimated 250 000 m³ of miscellaneous and “yet to be delineated” wastes, what volume and which Port Hope sites are known to LLRWMO?

The LLRWMO has not identified a “miscellaneous” volume of 250,000 m³.

3. Is Dr. L.B. Powers School on the list of known sites in the Port Hope urban area where there is federal contaminated, ‘historical’, or LLRW wastes?

Please see response to question 1.

Further, the Federal Assessment of Major Unlicensed Historic Waste Sites, Town of Port Hope, dated April 1994, concluded that exposures resulting from remaining contamination at these sites are well below regulatory dose limits, well within the variations in exposures to normal background radiation observed in Port Hope, and did not pose an urgent health risk.

4. Is there an intention to remediate this property?

This question relates to Dr. Powers School.

Under the resurvey program of the Port Hope Project, if historic LLRW is found on this site it will be remediated.

5. Are there other public properties on the list of miscellaneous sites? Where are they?
6. Are there homes on the list of sites to be remediated?

The LLRWMO does not maintain a “list of miscellaneous sites”. However, as part of the Port Hope Project a comprehensive resurvey of over 4000 properties in Port Hope will confirm volumes and locations to be remediated.

7. What are the known properties contaminated, but not anticipated to be remediated?

All properties found to exceed the Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI) Clean-up Criteria will be remediated to meet those criteria.

8. Will residents be asked to evacuate their homes, as was the case in the Dr. L.B. Power’s area in the last attempt at large-scale federal government waste remediation?

During the clean-up activities in Port Hope in the late 1970s, several property owners were given the opportunity to move to temporary accommodation during the more significant, and longer term, work projects. This was not an evacuation to escape unsafe conditions, but a mitigation measure made available to those who wished to avoid the inconvenience resulting from the excavation activities on their properties. A similar program will be part of the PHAI remediation of Port Hope.

9. Why is there limited communication with property owners (public and private)?

Property owners and the general public are invited to receive answers to their questions at the Project Information Exchange (open 5 days a week). In addition, radiological status letters on their property and, if necessary, a property survey is available to any property owner or their agent. Property owners are also encouraged to contact the LLRWMO for radiological monitoring during any excavation work.

10. Why doesn’t LLRWMO share this list of miscellaneous sites, particularly public sites, and communicate risks, as well as the timing and plans for remediation?

A map delineating large-scale sites to be remediated and the timing and plans for remediation is widely published and included in the Screening Report for the Port Hope Project. In addition, if a member of the public wishes to research risks associated with these large -scale sites they could read the 1994 Federal Assessment of Major Unlicensed Historic Sites in Port Hope—available at the public library and the Project Information Exchange.

11. How is it that Cameco, upon suspicion of contamination under its Building 50, drills over 40 holes in just weeks, and yet sub-surface testing was avoided in and around Dr. Powers, a school which, at the time, was housing kids, staff, and parents?

These two situations are not comparable. See response to questions 16 and 17.

Investigations at Dr. Powers School have been conducted over the past 30 years to ensure the safety of parents, students and staff. Cameco operates a nuclear conversion facility under a CNSC issued licence. Under the General Nuclear Safety and Control Regulations made under the NSCA, Cameco is required to “take all reasonable precautions to control the release of radioactive nuclear substances or hazardous substances within the site of the licensed activity. When Cameco was conducting excavations within the facility to replace a storage tank, it observed evidence of leakage in the sub-slab soil within the facility. Consequently, Cameco’s response was to define both the amount and extent of leakage in relation to this new discovery. This was not a suspicion, but an observed condition. Cameco’s response was to do what was required under its operating licence and the NSCA.

12. Was Cameco exceeding necessary protocol, in immediately testing for groundwater or other sub-surface movement from their contaminated building?

Cameco was responding to the leak in accordance with the NSCA, CNSC regulations and CNSC operating licence conditions.

13. Is it possible that the contamination under the Dr. Powers addition has migrated with groundwater or with soil, perhaps westward down towards the river?
14. Do neighbourhood residents need to worry about this?

Investigations carried out since 1976 have not identified Dr. Powers School as a contaminated site. In addition, regular environmental monitoring conducted by the LLRWMO has not indicated that there are any contaminants migrating away from the school site. Under the resurvey program of the Port Hope Project, the site will be tested and if historic LLRW is found on the site it will be remediated.

15. Why was the school not tested further, particularly given high readings in the lower south west quadrant of the playground?

Radon monitoring in the school has been conducted periodically since 1976 and quarterly from 2004 to 2006 to confirm the safety of students, staff and parents. Above background gamma radiation readings measured along the western fenceline were subsequently attributed to an adjacent property.

16. Does this mean that the Dr. Powers foundation offered no protection after all?
17. Why then were parents reassured by the promise of a quarterly check for cracks in the foundation of the school?

The question relates to contamination found under Cameco’s UF6 facility that appears to have originated in the building itself and leaked through cracks in the concrete floor.

The situations with Dr. Powers School and with Cameco’s UF6 facility are not comparable.

In relation to the Cameco facility, while investigations are still on-going, one possible explanation is that fluids leaked from a process tank through cracks in the foundation to the sub-surface soils.

In the case of Dr. Powers School, the potential pathway would have been the emanation of radon gas from the sub-surface soils into the school through foundation cracks. Sealing of cracks would eliminate this pathway. Radon gas is generated from all soils, so the presence of radon in any structure is not unusual.

18. Does this not allow radon gas to enter hallways, the basement classroom, and the washrooms next to them?

Radon gas is found everywhere. Vents in the storage room doors were installed to allow air exchange between the hallway and storage rooms. Assessment of radon measurement results in the basement classroom, study room and gym determined that radon levels were in compliance with the 1977 Federal Provincial Task Force Criteria and no remedial work was required.

19. What are the dangers to people entering the storage rooms to organize them or get equipment to be used by children?

Dr. Lesbia Smith, an environmental and occupational health specialist, has studied the records regarding Dr. L.B Powers School to determine the health effects on the school population. In regard to the storage rooms, she stated that closed up occupied spaces may show elevated levels of radon, as indoor levels are affected by poor ventilation and atmospheric pressure. If these areas are not occupied for extended periods, then they do not pose a health risk and they do not require remediation.

20. Did the radon testing carried out at Dr. L.B. Powers follow the measurement techniques set out in the March 10, 2006 “Report of the Radon Working Group on a New Radon Guideline for Canada”, as submitted to the Federal Provincial Territorial Radiation Protection Committee?
21. Why was there never an investigation for source material under Dr. L.B. Powers as per FPTFR?
22. Why wasn’t the recommended year-long measurement period utilized for radon testing by LLRWMO?
23. Given the history of soil remediation in the vicinity of the school and the concern expressed by parents with respect to the source of the radon below the school addition, why didn’t LLRWMO have soils under the addition of the school tested for soil contamination with full disclosure to the public?
24. Did this present risks to people?

Radon gas testing has been conducted at Dr. Powers school since 1976 under a variety of monthly and seasonal conditions and using a variety of suitable techniques including grab and integrated sampling systems. Radon daughter samples have also been collected in addition to radon gas samples. The results of this testing has determined that radon gas levels in the building were in compliance with the 1977 Federal Provincial Task Force Criteria and no remedial work or further investigations were required. These results were reported to the school board.

25. Why didn’t the LLRWMO order further sub-slab testing in 1978, when the hole through the slab tested 506 pCi/L?

It should be noted that the LLRWMO did not exist in 1978. However, records show that further testing was carried out throughout the building and the results of this testing determined that radon gas levels in the building were in compliance with the 1977 Federal Provincial Task Force Criteria and no remedial work or further investigations were required.       

26. Could the heating and ventilation system in the school have actually increased the dangers to students and staff at anytime since 1950?

Radon gas testing programs have been conducted in the building during the period of 1976 until the school’s closure in 2006 (some 30 years). The results of these testing programs have determined that radon gas levels in the building have been in compliance with the 1977 Federal Provincial Task Force Criteria over this period.

27. Was there ever remediation of the school to address this heating/ventilation issue?

This question should be directed to the school board, which is the building owner.

28. Why were the two storage rooms that consistently tested higher than the action level since 1976 not remediated (until 2004, prior to the final round of air testing in occupied areas)?

Dr. Lesbia Smith, an environmental and occupational health specialist, has studied the records regarding Dr. L.B Powers School to determine the health effects on the school population. In regard to the storage rooms, she stated that closed up occupied spaces may show elevated levels of radon, as indoor levels are affected by poor ventilation and atmospheric pressure. If these areas are not occupied for extended periods, then they do not pose a health risk and they do not require remediation.

29. Why was there not ongoing monitoring of the school since 1978, when the readings above the action level were confirmed in the store rooms and the 506 pCi/L sub-slab reading were obtained?

Radon gas testing conducted in the building during the period of 1976 to 1978 concluded that radon gas levels in the building were in compliance with the 1977 Federal Provincial Task Force Criteria and no remedial work was required. The results of several follow-up testing programs conducted since 1978 have supported this conclusion.

30. Why was the fan not constantly running?
31. Was there inadequate training and communication to staff of the school about the issue, and the importance of the fan being left on?

These questions should be directed to the school board, which is the building owner.

32. Did LLRWMO have any responsibilities to communicate the urgency of ventilation to staff and the School Board?

Until 1982 the LLRWMO did not exist and therefore did not have responsibility for management of LLRW in Port Hope. After that time communications between the school board, its consultants and the LLRWMO regarding radon levels in the school occurred periodically.

33. Why has there never been full disclosure made to the parents and the school board about the potential severity and consequences of the problem due to ‘source material’?
34. If it is unknown what is under the school, why did LLRWMO take no steps to determine what is under the school and the risks that whatever it is could migrate to the surrounding neighbourhood?
35. Given the Dr. L.B. Powers playground appears to have volumes of Ra-226 consistent with a contaminated site, was there further testing to determine the source and/or the volume of potential associated contaminants? If not why? If so what were the results?
36. If not, when will testing occur for radioactive and inorganic compounds, and to what risks have L.B. Powers Public School attendees already unknowingly been exposed to from all contaminants (individually and combined)?

There has been full disclosure of the consequences of occupying the school premises. In a public document given to the school board and parents, Dr. Lesbia Smith stated that “levels of radon comply with exposure levels set by various agencies.” The report by this environmental and occupational health specialist was prepared for the Kawartha Pine Ridge District Health Unit. Dr. Smith reviewed the testing results over the years and could find no indication that the elevated soil radon measured under the floor slab could be the result of radioactive fill. Moreover, the soil radon measured under the floor slab was not affecting the indoor measurements to a point of rendering the radon levels unacceptable for occupation of the premises.

To date there has been no indication of radon gas or gamma radiation levels at the school that are not in compliance with the 1977 Federal Provincial Task Force Criteria. Under the resurvey program for the Port Hope Project, the property will be tested and if historic LLRW is found on the site it will be remediated.

37. Is arsenic a likely contaminant with Ra-226 at remediation sites? Is Dr. L.B. Powers Public School playground contaminated with arsenic from man-made sources?

The signature contaminants of potential concern associated with historic LLRW in Port Hope include uranium, radium-226, thorium-230 and arsenic. Under the resurvey program for the Port Hope Project, the property will be tested and if historic LLRW is found on the site it will be remediated.

38. When will the Dr. L.B. Powers’ property and surrounding area be tested for all federal contaminants, with full transparency and accountability to the public?

Under the resurvey program of the Port Hope Project the site will be tested and if historic LLRW is found on the site it will be remediated.

39. When will other sites (I have heard there are 200 to 400) be disclosed to the public along with timing and plans for safe remediation?

The property resurvey will confirm which properties require remediation through the PHAI. This information will be communicated to the owners of the properties. Full public communication about the timing and plans for remediation will occur as the Project progresses.

40. How many other sites are there, miscellaneous, known and yet to be delineated?

The exact number of sites requiring remediation to the PHAI Clean-up Criteria will be determined during the property resurvey program.

41. Has LLRWMO, CNSC, and Natural Resources Canada completely excluded the possibility of an abnormal source of radon under Dr. L.B. Powers school?

Under the resurvey program of the Port Hope Project, the site will be tested and if historic LLRW is found on the site it will be remediated to meet the Port Hope Area Initiative Cleanup Criteria.

42. The Port Hope Project is under the operation of the LLRWMO/AECL. Are these agencies operators of nuclear projects? If yes, which projects in Canada?

The LLRWMO does not operate any “nuclear projects”. AECL is the operator of the Chalk River and Whiteshell Laboratories. It is also a contractor for the refurbishment of the Point Lepreau Generating Station in New Brunswick, but New Brunswick Power is the licensee.

43. Do they not have licences to complete specific projects under their mandate? What are their mandates related to the Port Hope project?

NRCan sets the policy and funding for activities conducted by the LLRWMO. AECL is the administrative body for the LLRWMO. Established in 1982, the LLRWMO operates as the agent of the federal government with a mandate to resolve historic LLRW problems.

44. Does AECL/LLRWMO not have requirements, like Cameco to ‘take all reasonable precautions to control the release of radioactive nuclear substances or hazardous substances’ as part of the Port Hope Project, and previous operations since AECL was made responsible for Port Hope’s contamination due to federal government operations?

Currently and during the Port Hope Project, all reasonable precautions to control radioactive releases are being and will be taken.

45. Does section 30(3) of NSC Act, or perhaps other legislation or regulation; authorize CNSC to act on suspicion on reasonable grounds?

The section quoted in the NSCA does provide for the CNSC to conduct an inspection of any building or facility when there are reasonable grounds for believing that contamination exists from a nuclear substance. The term “reasonable grounds” is interpreted as meaning that the information would be sufficient to obtain a search warrant.

46. Was LLRWMO/AECL required to report the suspected contamination of Dr. L.B. Powers to CNSC, given the likely volume and characteristics of the material, and confirmation of contamination of Ra226 in the playground? Did they?

Radon monitoring in the school has been conducted periodically since 1976 and quarterly from 2004 to 2006 to confirm the safety of students, staff and parents. During the period of 1976 to 1982 this monitoring was conducted under the direction of the AECB. Above-background gamma radiation readings measured along the western fenceline were attributed to an adjacent property.

As radon gas levels in the building were in compliance with the 1977 Federal Provincial Task Force Criteria and no remedial work or further investigations were required, reporting to the CNSC was not required.

47. Although the old AEC Regulations contained an exemption from licensing for less than 10 kg of uranium or thorium, does the new NSC Regulation not eliminate this exemption, forcing licensing of all sites containing uranium or thorium?

The regulations under the NSCA provide for the licensing of facilities processing uranium or thorium, and for how to deal with small quantities of nuclear substances.

48. Has thorium or uranium been confirmed or denied to exist under Dr. L.B. Powers or on the school property?

Results of testing conducted on the property were in compliance with the 1977 Federal Provincial Task Force Criteria, and no remedial work or further investigations were required. Therefore, no measurement of thorium or uranium has been made under the school. However, under the resurvey program of the Port Hope Project the site will be tested, and if historic LLRW is found on the site it will be remediated.

49. What is the protocol for LLRWMO once it determines there is federal contamination under a public building (e.g. a school)?
50. What is the protocol for LLRWMO once it ‘suspects’ there may be contamination under a public building (e.g. a school)?
51. What is the protocol for residential or other private properties?

To determine whether historic LLRW is present on a property, regardless of its location, an assessment is conducted based on potential exposure pathways. An interior and exterior exposure rate survey, interior exposure rate survey, indoor radon, surface contamination scans, and exterior soil sampling are completed to ensure that the potential dose to an occupant is below the annual limit for a member of the public of 1 mSv/a. The indoor radon survey is conducted to ensure that there is no additional radon potential from contaminated soils around a building.

52. Are there any requirements currently to ensure the spread of contamination has not occurred from specific sites, given the proximity of Port Hope contaminated sites to residential areas and water resources?

For licensed sites where the LLRWMO temporarily stores LLRW and contaminated soil, the CNSC requires ongoing environmental monitoring such as fence-line gamma radiation readings, radon measurements and groundwater and surface water monitoring. At non-licensed sites, through the Environmental Monitoring Program the LLRWMO conducts sampling and analysis of surface and groundwater and radon measurements at various locations throughout Port Hope. The LLRWMO, in conjunction with the Municipality of Port Hope, operates the Port Hope Construction Monitoring Program, which is designed to minimize the spread of historic waste as a result of construction activities in the community.

53. Is the Federal Provincial Task Force on Radioactivity (FPTFR) document “Atomic Energy Control Board, Info Bulletin 77-2” still a relevant policy document?

The FPTFR Info Bulletin 77-2 is still a relevant policy document, however the CNSC’s adopted reduction in the public dose limit from 5 mSv/a to 1 mSv/a is applied.

54. If FPTFR has been replaced, what is the current policy for investigation and remediation of radioactive and inorganic contaminants included in the Port Hope project?

Canada’s commitment to clean up historic LLRW in Port Hope is governed by An Agreement for the Cleanup and the Long-Term Safe Management of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Situate in the Town of Port Hope, the Township of Hope and the Municipality of Clarington, as amended (the Legal Agreement).

Specifically, by signing the Legal Agreement, Canada committed to:

• Proceed with the work necessary to submit the Project to the environmental assessment (EA) and regulatory review processes;
• Proceed with the cleanup and construction work provided for in the Agreement, upon the completion of the EA and the regulatory reviews of the proposals; the concurrence of the relevant Party or the Parties to continue; and, the acquisition of the sites for the facilities;
• Mitigate the effects on the municipalities and the property owners within the municipalities of the work to be undertaken within each community; and,
• Continue to support, either through the Low- Level Radioactive Waste Management Office or a successor organization, an Environmental Monitoring Program, a Construction Monitoring Program and a Property Compliance Program.

The FPTFR Info Bulletin 77-2 will be replaced for use in the Port Hope area on the development of a new guidance document specific to procedures for use at the final design detail level.

55. If ‘source material’ was suspected more than once, throughout the LLRWMO history of Dr. L.B. Powers Public School, then why is the regulator seemingly unaware or unconcerned about the problem, and the lack of transparency surrounding this and other ‘miscellaneous sites’ in Port Hope?

There is no evidence of “source material” that exceeded the criteria established by the Federal-Provincial Task Force on Radioactivity being present at the Dr. L.B. Powers school. Radon investigations and monitoring in the school have been conducted periodically since 1976 and quarterly from 2004 to 2006 to confirm the safety of students, staff and parents. During the period of 1976 to 1982 this monitoring was conducted under the direction of the AECB. To date, the site has been in compliance with FPTFR Info Bulletin 77-2 and there has been no indication of any conditions that pose an unreasonable risk to the environment or to the health and safety of persons; therefore, there has been no requirement for remedial work. Under the resurvey program of the Port Hope Project the site will be tested and if historic LLRW is found on the site it will be remediated to meet the PHAI Cleanup Criteria.

56. Is the CNSC aware of any meetings of senior political and/or senior staff representatives of the Municipality of Port Hope and the LLRWMO to discuss a list of miscellaneous contaminated sites throughout the urban area? Is the Municipality privy to a list of miscellaneous sites, particularly public sites?

The CNSC is kept aware of decisions being made at the local level, but its focus is on whatever activities the LLRWMO proposes for licensing by the CNSC.

57. Are local municipal and federal representatives employed at LLRWMO/AECL making, or have they made, decisions on the management, remediation, disclosure, and transport of any federal radioactive contaminated wastes without the knowledge of the CNSC? Where local decisions are made, what is the reporting mechanism to CNSC?

If and when the LLRWMO becomes a licensee, it would have to keep the CNSC apprised of progress and would have to obtain CNSC approval for any proposed activities that are deemed to be outside of the licence.

58. If decisions are made locally without CNSC knowledge and approval, does this fail the mandate of CNSC, to establish and enforce national standards concerning the health, safety and environmental consequences of nuclear activities and given powers to order remedial action in hazardous situations?

As per the NSCA, a licence would be granted only if the Commission is satisfied that the licensee is qualified to carry out the licensed activities, and to ensure that all health, safety, security and environmental requirements are met on a continuing basis.

59. The environmental assessment study report is a screening document only. It does not characterize contaminated soils for individual properties with the exception of the licensed sites as far as I can tell. What is the methodology and how is it determined which contaminated sites in the Port Hope area should be licensed as well as ‘characterized’ and shared with the public as part of the Port Hope Project?

The CNSC maintains the requirements for licensing of any property in Canada. Through the PHAI and the property resurvey, existing property information on file with the LLRWMO will be reviewed and followed up with interior and exterior gamma radiation and surface contamination surveys as well as indoor radon surveys. Additional site characterization activities will also include sampling of soils for the primary contaminants of concern. The completion of this program will allow for the implementation of remediation activities based on the site characterization data for potentially affected properties.

60. Who determines whether sites should be licensed on an individual or collective basis and where is this information available to the public to make informed decisions about environmental and health risks?
61. LLRWMO was not forthcoming with answers or a response to my September 26, 2007 questions, so they were addressed to the CNSC as well. Are there CNSC policies or mandates regarding transparency and accountability to the public? What are they?
62. Were my September 26, 2007 questions to CNSC (as noted above) considered unreasonable? If so, why?
63. The LLRWMO has reported that “All licences and owners of radioactive materials are now required to comply with the terms of the new (NSC) Act and regulations... Certain sites for which the Office has responsibility that are not currently licensed may now be subject to licensing. (LLRWMO) staff have accompanied CNSC staff on visits to such sites and have provided technical and other information so that the CNSC can carry out an objective assessment of each site.” Was the CNSC aware of Dr. L.B. Powers as a potentially contaminated site?
64. When was the CNSC first made aware of the potential for radioactive contamination on the Dr. L.B. Powers property?
65. Does the legal authority for the NSC Act include CNSC authority to order remediation of contaminated sites?
66. It was the Construction Monitoring Program that once again brought Dr. L.B. Powers to be tested, although no sub-surface tests under the 1950 school addition were conducted, to confirm or deny the extent of contamination. The school was restricted from digging to level a soccer pitch, although children were not restricted from playing in the soil confirmed by LLRWMO to be contaminated with Ra226 (and possibly other materials given the contaminants noted in the Port Hope Screening document). Does CNSC consider LLRWMO’s management of the Dr. L.B. Powers Public School site between 1976 and 2007 to be proper management of contaminated soils, as regulator responsible for ensuring proper management of radioactive materials, and health and safety of people and environment?
67. In relation to the previous question, why or why not?
68. Will CNSC investigate this situation, attributable to LLRWMO/AECL, as the agency provided for Cameco in Port Hope recently, to ensure any potential spread of contamination from the Dr. L.B. Powers site is controlled and properly remediated, with the goal of protecting our people and environment from further contamination or harm?

The CNSC determines whether sites should be licensed in regards to the presence of LLRW.

In 2001 following the NSCA coming into force, CNSC staff requested an exemption from licensing of the Port Hope unlicensed sites. This request was based on several factors:

• The proposed cleanup of the area by the federal government (the PHAI);
• The existing administrative programs that were put in place by the LLRWMO to control the distribution of unlicensed contaminated soils;
• The programs that were put into place by the LLRWMO to ensure that hazards from such soils were appropriately managed until the cleanup could commence.

The LLRWMO has submitted an application for a licence to cleanup these sites as part of the PHAI.

As noted in the letter from Mr. Ramzi Jammal responding to the petitioner’s questions in her letter of September 26, 2007, radiation surveys and radon testing have been conducted in the Dr. L.B. Powers school, beginning with the work conducted in the mid-1970s by the Federal-Provincial Task Force on Radioactivity and later by the LLRWMO. The CNSC, and previously the AECB, has long been aware of the concerns expressed about this site.

The PHAI, led by the LLRWMO, is designed to remediate any locations within the municipality that are identified with historic radioactive wastes for which the federal government assumed responsibility for long-term management. As has been stated, the CNSC does not have any regulatory concerns about the Dr. L.B. Powers school site as all surveys and tests have indicated no impacts on the health and safety of persons or on the environment.

69. Do federal agencies believe that compensation to Port Hope (to date provided only to the municipal corporation) is adequate? Why or why not?

The Legal Agreement describes the compensation that the Parties (Canada and the municipalities) determined to be adequate and appropriate. The compensation provided for in that Agreement are the hosting fees to the municipalities, the Property Value Protection Program, and the Protection for Diminished Municipal Tax Revenue.

Canada has already provided the hosting fees to the municipalities. In addition, the LLRWMO, on behalf of Canada, operates the latter two programs, and provides compensation to claimants on the basis of justified claims.

70. Is compensation a recognized component of any existing national policies, principles or International Treaties to which Canada is signatory, related to radioactive waste, or its management? If yes, please provide an explanation and/or source of information.
71. If the answer to the previous question is yes, does compensation to Port Hope meet all current national and international obligations, policies and/or principles?

Compensation such as that provided for under the Legal Agreement is not described in any national laws, regulations, policies or international treaties.

72. Why was the limit raised from 100 TBq to 1000 TBq?

This question refers to why the Port Hope Project underwent a screening pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) rather than a comprehensive study.

As stated in the Port Hope screening report, a comprehensive study EA was not required because the proposed inventory of radioactive material to be accommodated for long term management does not exceed the trigger level for a comprehensive study established under s.19(g)(ii)(B) of the Comprehensive Study List Regulations of the CEA Act. That regulation requires that a comprehensive study be carried out for a proposed facility to store radioactive waste if the inventory of radioactive materials with a half life greater than one year is 1000 TBq or above. The limit that would trigger a Comprehensive Study was 100 TBq until the Comprehensive Study List Regulations were amended in 2003, when it was raised to 1 Pbq (1000 TBq). The limit to be applied for the Port Hope LTWMF is the limit that will be in effect immediately before the licensing power is exercised; i.e. 1 PBq. However, the estimated overall radiological inventory of the Port Hope Project is 82 TBq; therefore, a comprehensive study would not have been required even before the change was made to the Comprehensive Study List Regulations.

Nevertheless, the responsible authorities (RAs) (NRCan, the CNSC and DFO) together decided to conduct the screening as if it were a comprehensive study, with all the additional requirements that entailed—including extensive public consultation.

73. Have the contaminants in the Port Hope area sites been tested for levels of alpha, beta and gamma radiation and where can the public review these results?

Investigation of environmental radioactivity in Port Hope can employ testing of alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Measurements of these radioactive emissions are used, as required, to identify the type and extent of historic radioactive waste present. LLRWMO characterization activities for historic LLRW also include soil sample analysis for specific associated radioactive materials and heavy metals.

The LLRWMO gathers radiological information on private properties and provides owners (or their agents) with summaries of this information upon request.

74. How much of the waste contaminants by volume are estimated to be pitchblende?

An indeterminately small fraction of the total volume of historic LLRW in the Port Hope area would be considered pitchblende, as this material was used as the feedstock for the radium and uranium refining processes. Very little of the pitchblende is expected to have remained after the refining process, resulting in its conversion to refinery product or waste material.

75. What is the reasoning, from each federal department and agency, for a full panel EA for one radioactive waste management process, versus a Screening Report for the Port Hope Project?

The provisions of the CEA Act stipulate that a screening was the appropriate form of assessment for the Port Hope Project, as the Project is not described in the Comprehensive Study List Regulations. Nevertheless, the responsible authorities (RAs) (NRCan, the CNSC and DFO) together decided to conduct the screening as if it were a comprehensive study, with all the additional requirements that entailed – including extensive public consultation.

The RAs concluded that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. In addition, the RAs did not consider that a recommendation to the Minister of the Environment to refer the Project to a review panel was warranted.

76. Why was Atomic Energy of Canada Limited chosen to operate the Port Hope Project, given the agency is a nuclear ‘operator’, and waste generator itself?
77. Does this cause any perception of conflict which may harm public confidence in the process?

The LLRWMO was established in 1982 to carry out the responsibilities of the federal government for the management of historic LLRW in Canada. Although the LLRWMO is a branch of AECL, it receives its funding and policy direction from NRCan. As a result, neither the LLRWMO nor AECL are in a conflict of interest.

The recently released results of the 2007 public attitude survey continue to show strong support for the LLRWMO and the PHAI which it manages.

82. What are the approved mandates of Natural Resources Canada and AECL in regards to radioactive waste and/or its management?

Canada has accepted responsibility for the clean-up of historic waste – that is, LLRW that is not being managed appropriately for the long-term, and for which the producer or owner cannot reasonably be held responsible.

The LLRWMO was established in 1982 to carry out the responsibilities of the federal government for the management of historic waste in Canada. Although the LLRWMO is a branch of AECL, it receives all of its funding and policy direction from NRCan.

83. Is the Port Hope clean-up designed to fit within a specific budget range? (i.e. in determining what to remediate and what wastes to leave in place, what is the methodology and how does the cost factor impact decisions)?
84. What is the budget for the project overall, for each year, for each component/phase of the Port Hope Project?
85. In meeting the ALARA principle for the Port Hope project, are there any trade-offs being contemplated or made, between optimal risk factors (health and environmental) and the project budget, so that Port Hope will move beyond optimal acceptable risk factors in order to remain under budget and/or save money? What are these tradeoffs, if any, and how much money is anticipated to be saved from them?

Cost considerations are always important in the planning for any large-scale project such as this. Regardless, the primary consideration for the Port Hope Project throughout its planning processes has been the requirement to achieve very stringent criteria for the contaminated sites clean-up and performance objectives of the long-term waste management facility.

Prior to the approval of the Port Hope and the Port Granby projects, costing studies will be carried out to determine whether the original budget estimate for Phases 2 and 3 of $180 million remains adequate. The new costing studies will address, among other things, commitments in the Legal Agreement, the evolution of the proposed projects from the time of the Legal Agreement, the greater understanding of the costs that would be associated with implementation, the requirements of the EA, and the time value of money.

In accordance with the Legal Agreement that established the PHAI, remediation of properties contaminated with historic LLRW will be conducted to allow for current and foreseeable unrestricted use. ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable, social and economic factors considered) is a guiding principle that will be used to ensure that the clean-up criteria are met, and even surpassed wherever reasonable to do so.

86. Please explain the socio-economic methodology utilized for the Port Hope Project and the logic and assumptions assigned? Were existing federal guidelines (approved and provided for federal government socio-economic cost benefit analyses) utilized? If not, why not?

Under the CEA Act, environmental effects are defined as direct changes to the biophysical environment caused by the project and the effects of these environmental changes on specific components of the environment, including: health and socio-economic conditions; physical and cultural heritage; current use of land and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons; and, any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance.

In its assessment, the LLRWMO considered socio-economic effects to occur, for the most part, as a result of biophysical effects related to a project work or activity. However, public attitudes were also considered pivotal in determining whether or not effects on socio-economic conditions will occur, and if so in establishing their nature and significance. Changes in people’s attitudes were considered intervening variables or “pathways” through which socio-economic effects could occur. Public attitudes are reflected in current behaviours, and behavioural intentions are seen as predictors of future behaviour.

With respect to the financial implications of implementing the Port Hope Project, the socio-economic assessment considered potential effects on business activity, economic development, and municipal finance and administration. Specifically, the assessment evaluated the potential for the Project to change business activity and employment in the Municipality of Port Hope. Also assessed was the potential for the Project to diminish property values and cause changes to the revenues and costs that the Municipality might experience. Potential changes were assessed in light of proposed mitigation and any remaining effects identified.

87. Do federal agencies believe the focus should continue to be on finding the federal contaminants, with full disclosure and proper management and disposal methodologies for the long term?

The principal objective of the Port Hope Project continues to be to relocate wastes from contaminated areas and licensed interim LLRW facilities to a suitably constructed, environmentally safe, socially acceptable and appropriately controlled long-term waste management facility.

88. If our children attend a school above a federal government ‘radioactive waste management site’ then is it the philosophy of each responsible department that we have a right to know this, to know what we were dealing with, the risk factors and plans for remediation?

 NRCan, the CNSC and the LLRWMO conduct their activities with the utmost consideration of the health and safety of Canadians. None of these agencies is aware of any school situation where the students are at risk due to LLRW. If such a risk were identified, the public would be informed.

90. Would the Port Hope project be able to better protect health and environment if these agencies assumed lead roles—why or why not?

Both Health Canada and Environment Canada continue to be active participants in the EA process for the Port Hope Project, including the ongoing development of the monitoring and follow-up program plan. Both departments have stated that they are satisfied with the measures that will be taken during Project implementation to protect human health and the environment.

91. Are there any instances where compromises will be made to the Port Hope Project so that it does not meet current or anticipated (within 10 years) Health and Environment safety regulations or legislation?

The Project is being planned and will be constructed in such a way that it will meet all applicable current and reasonably foreseeable legislation and regulations.

92. Is the goal of the Port Hope Project to locate all federal ‘source material’ or has the focus been relaxed, ignoring the FPTFR “investigation” component in favour of the higher “remediation” value?

As discussed in the response to question 40 and others above, the goal of the PHAI is to ensure the clean-up criteria are met for all contaminants of potential concern allowing for the current and future unrestricted use of all properties in the Port Hope area. Site characterization, or investigation, of all potentially contaminated properties in the Port Hope area will be completed as a precursor to verifying that the clean-up criteria have been met. Confirmation that a property can be used for current and future unrestricted use cannot be provided without proper characterization and, where required, subsequent remediation.

93. In 1978, when the hole through the slab at Dr. L.B. Powers tested at 506 pCi/L, was Health Canada consulted? Is 506 pCi/L possible, or likely, in a healthy community in the absence of an unusual source of radon or contamination?

Health and Welfare Canada was a member of the Federal Provincial Task Force on Radioactivity (FPTFR). The Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) coordinated investigations by the FPTFR. In this role the AECB concurred with the 1978 assessment that radon gas and gamma radiation levels on the property were in compliance with the FPTFR 77-2 criteria and that no remedial work was required on the Dr. Powers site. Elevated radon readings in a confined sub-slab air space are not unusual due to the fact that radon is produced in varying levels by radium in soil.

97. Did Environment Canada or the Environmental Assessment Agency make the case, or any arguments, for a full comprehensive environmental assessment, prior to or as part of the decision making process for an EA Screening? If so, what were the arguments and counter arguments?
98. Was the unusual proximity of the radioactive and inorganic contaminants, to water resources and human population, given consideration in determining the appropriate type of EA process to utilize for the Port Hope project? Do the standard guidelines for radioactivity apply, given that the nuclear sites the guidelines were set for were probably in remote areas, as opposed to being situated in an urban area on a river, lake and major transportation corridor?

The provisions of the CEA Act stipulate that a screening was the appropriate form of assessment for the Port Hope Project, as the Project is not described in the Comprehensive Study List Regulations. Nevertheless, because of the technical nature of the project, the long history of contamination in the community, and the degree of public interest, the responsible authorities (NRCan, the CNSC and DFO) together decided to conduct the screening as if it were a comprehensive study, with all the additional requirements that entailed – including extensive public consultation.

The CEA Act is prescriptive as to the form of EA that must be used. The location of the project does not form part of the basis of that determination.

In addition, the CNSC operates and enforces regulations under the NSCA. The NSCA has set a standard dose limit of 1 mSv per year to individual members of the public exposed to radiation from all sources licensed by the CNSC. This limit is applicable for all nuclear facilities in Canada regardless of their proximity to urban areas, rivers, lakes, transportation corridors and is deemed conservatively protective of the public. The Port Hope clean-up criteria for radionuclides are conservatively based on a dose constraint of 0.3 mSv per year to consider the potential for other contributing sources of exposure in Port Hope. Also, the Port Hope clean-up criteria were conservatively estimated for a subset of Port Hope residents (i.e. - the critical group) expected to receive the highest dose using all significant pathways from which they could be exposed to radiation. Under more realistic assumptions, post-remediation doses to Port Hope residents are expected to be significantly less than 0.1 mSv per year.