Home: About Cameco Port Hope: Q&As

• Who regulates Cameco's operations in Port Hope?
  The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has lead responsibility for regulating activities at both the conversion facility and Zircatec.  The CNSC monitors Cameco's activities to ensure the company is in compliance with health and safety as well as certain environmental standards.  Both facilities provide a quarterly compliance report to the CNSC staff and appear before the commission for licensing.  For more information go to the CNSC's website.
  
  In addition, Transport Canada regulates the transportation of all hazardous materials and the Ontario government's Ministry of Environment plays a role in monitoring environmental impacts through Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement audits and Selected Targets for Air Compliance. 
  
  Cameco also complies with international standards. The Port Hope conversion facility is registered under the ISO 14001 program, an internationally recognized standard for environmental management systems which requires the development of a strategy to factor environmental considerations into all levels of the decision-making process.
• What products do you make at the Port Hope conversion facility?
  The facility produces two primary products:  uranium dioxide (UO₂) and uranium hexafluoride (UF₆).  UO₂ is the primary uranium component used in the fuel for the Canadian-designed Candu reactor.  UF₆ is an intermediate product that undergoes further processing outside of Canada before being converted into fuel for light water nuclear reactors around the world.  Approximately 80% of our licensed production capacity is for UF₆ and approximately 20% is for UO₂. The facility is also licensed to handle limited quantities of uranium as depleted or natural uranium metal and alloys.
• What products do you make at Zircatec?
  Zircatec is the largest Canadian-based supplier of reactor components to Candu operators in Canada and around the world.  It produces natural uranium dioxide (UO₂₎ fuel bundles that are used to generate electricity at Candu reactors.  Uranium dioxide powder from Cameco's Port Hope conversion facility is pressed into small pellets that are then placed in zirconium tubing, which is then sealed at each end.  A number of these tubes are bound together into the finished fuel bundle. The Cobourg plant processes the zirconium tubing. One fuel bundle can supply an average home with energy for 100 years. A reactor at Darlington contains over 6,000 bundles.
• Does Zircatec work with enriched uranium?
  Zircatec has been licensed and has safely worked with enriched uranium for more than 40 years. As part of the re-licensing process later this year, the company will be seeking approval from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for an increase in the amount of slightly enriched uranium that can be on site at any given time. The material will be used to create a new, more efficient fuel for Bruce Power. The new fuel offers enhanced safety margins as the bundle employs a mixture of dysprosium oxide with uranium oxide in the fuel pellets. The dysprosium enhances the safety of the reactor by serving as a brake to slow the nuclear chain reaction in the unlikely event of a loss of coolant. More (PDF 422 KB)
• Does Cameco intend to blend slightly enriched uranium dioxide (SEU) in Port Hope?
  Cameco will not be blending SEU in Port Hope. SEU will be blended in the United States at a licensed facility and transported to Zircatec for manufacture into fuel bundles for Bruce Power.

• Which operations at Cameco have been suspended as a result of discovering uranium and production-related chemicals beneath the UF₆ plant and which are continuing?

  Cameco has suspended uranium hexafluoride (UF₆) production until the company and its independent experts (Golder Associates) can complete a detailed, methodical assessment of the situation and develop the most appropriate long-term environmental management plan.

  Production of uranium dioxide (UO₂) and other activities at the conversion facility are continuing.

• How long will UF₆ production be suspended??
  Cameco does not have enough information to determine when UF₆ production can resume. We expect to be in a position to provide an update on the resumption of UF₆ production by early November.
• Have you found out where the uranium and production-related chemicals came from?

  The most likely source of contamination to the soil and ground water beneath building 50 is through leaks in joints in the concrete on the ground floor of the building. All in-ground structures such as floor trenches, sumps and pits were thoroughly cleaned to facility their inspection.

  As of September 24, Cameco and its consultants have confirmed the existence of two leak points near the original excavation area. Both identified leak points are in joints between walls and trenches. There are two other trenches in the area that have cracks that are suspected leak points

• Has the source been stopped?

  The plant has been shut down and Cameco has stopped generating production-related process effluent. Therefore, the leak paths from the two identified areas have been stopped. Other potential leak paths are being inspected.

  By suspending UF₆ production, Cameco's consultants can conduct a thorough inspection of all tanks, trenches and sumps. Suspending operations also safeguards against the possibility of making the contamination worse.

• What testing has been done to identify the material?

  Initial sampling of soil and groundwater focused on uranium and chemicals that are part of the UF₆ production process. Testing has confirmed the presence of uranium, potassium, arsenic and fluorides in the soil and groundwater beneath the UF₆ plant.

  Golder Associates, the hydrogeological consultants retained by Cameco to provide expert advice, has been taking ongoing samples from wells and submitting these samples to an external lab to analyze for metals, radium and major ions. This will include new and existing wells located outside the UF₆ plant, as well as new test wells within the plant.

  Results taken over the past several weeks from the eight monitoring wells surrounding the plant raise no concerns because they are consistent with historical measurements.

• What will be the process of approval before operations can re-start?

  Cameco must provide the CNSC with 24 hours notice of its intent to resume production. Written approval from the CNSC will be required before Cameco can resume UF₆ production.

  Cameco has been providing daily updates to the CNSC, the Ontario Ministry of Environment and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority since shortly after the contamination was discovered. Cameco provided a full update to members of the CNSC at a significant development report hearing on September 13.

• When was the contamination first discovered?

  A small amount of uranium was found in an excavation under the UF₆ production building on Friday, July 13, 2007. UF₆ operations in the area near the excavation were immediately suspended and regulatory agencies notified. At that time, Cameco began an investigation to determine the source of the uranium and retained geotechnical experts to assist in ascertaining the source and scope of the situation. Drilling test wells and laboratory analysis began on Monday, July 16, 2007.

• How do you explain the delay in informing the community?

  This situation developed over the course of the week following the July 13 discovery of a small amount of uranium in an excavation pit in the UF₆ plant. Initially, Cameco believed that it was a very localized event. Nevertheless, Cameco reported the discovery to the CNSC, the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Environment Canada.

  As the investigation got underway and information became available about groundwater quality under the UF₆ plant, Cameco realized that it was a bigger issue than it originally thought, although the evidence continued to indicate that this was an onsite challenge for the company and not an issue of public health and safety.

  On July 19, the company made the decision to suspend UF₆ production for a minimum of two months to conduct an investigation and provide time to develop long-term environmental management plans. Cameco announced the discovery of uranium and production-related chemicals beneath the UF₆ plant on July 20.

• If there is no danger to workers or citizens, why did the company suspend operations?

  Cameco suspended UF₆ production to provide time to fully investigate and resolve the situation. Cameco takes the discovery of soils containing uranium and production-related chemicals very seriously and want to ensure that we have a complete understanding of the situation before we resume production.

  The soils are in a contained, subsurface area. All evidence to date indicates this situation poses no health or safety risk for employees or the public.

• At what depth does groundwater occur at the site?

  Groundwater is found at variable depths but tends to range from five to six metres.

• What is the groundwater monitoring program at the site?

  On July 13, there were 13 groundwater monitoring wells in place at various locations on the site to monitor groundwater quality. Eight wells surrounded the UF₆ production plant. Groundwater quality from these wells has traditionally been tested on a quarterly basis but Cameco has increased testing to monthly since the discovery. Results of the groundwater quality testing are included in the quarterly environmental status reports to the Municipality of Port Hope. Copies of past reports can be found at http://www.cameco.com/port_hope/environment/environment_status.php.

  Since this discovery, more than 40 wells have been installed in and around the UF₆ production plant.

• What is groundwater?

  "When rain falls to the ground, the water does not stop moving. Some of it flows along the surface to streams or lakes, some of it is used by plants, some evaporates and returns to the atmosphere, and some sinks into the ground. Imagine pouring a glass of water onto a pile of sand. Where does the water go? The water moves into the spaces between the particles of sand.

  Groundwater is water that is found underground in the cracks and spaces in soil, sand and rock. Groundwater is stored in--and moves slowly through--layers of soil, sand and rocks called aquifers. Aquifers typically consist of gravel, sand, sandstone, or fractured rock, like limestone. These materials are permeable because they have large connected spaces that allow water to flow through. The speed at which groundwater flows depends on the size of the spaces in the soil or rock and how well the spaces are connected."

  Source: The Groundwater Foundation

• How quickly was the site inspected by the CNSC? Did the CNSC issue any order in connection with this spill? If so, what was it?

  Officials from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) were notified of the initial discovery on Friday, July 13 and visited the Port Hope conversion facility on Thursday, July 19. An official from Ontario's Ministry of the Environment visited the site on July 13. Weekly inspections have been conducted by the CNSC throughout August and into September.

  The CNSC has received regular updates from Cameco and these updates have also been provided to Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Environment and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority.

  Although Cameco made the decision to suspend UF₆ production on its own initiative, the CNSC has informed the company that written approval from the regulator must be received before production can resume.

• How radioactive is the uranium that spilled?

  Uranium levels in some of the samples taken to date are higher than normal but other samples are consistent with normal low levels for the site. The identified and potential leak points carry solutions containing low levels of uranium.

  Cameco monitors radiation levels at its facility and has not seen an increase in radiation exposures as a result of the discovery of these soils.

• What new equipment was being installed that necessitated the excavation?

  Cameco was installing a new tempered water tank for the cell room. This is considered a routine operation

• What quantities of each substance were found?

  Cameco is continuing to investigate the situation to ascertain the amount of soil that has been exposed to uranium and production-related chemicals.

• Do you have any explanation about why this happened?

  Cameco is conducting an investigation to determine how the soils were exposed to uranium and production-related chemicals. By suspending UF₆ production Cameco and its independent consultants have the opportunity to conduct a full and comprehensive investigation.

• What will be done to dispose of the contaminated soil and groundwater? Will it be excavated? Where will it be taken?

  An environmental management plan to address this situation will be developed when Cameco and its consultants have completed the investigation and determined the exact characteristics and volume of the soils. The plan will be based on the best technical advice we receive from our independent experts. Based on the information gathered to date, Golder Associates is recommending that the contaminated groundwater be pumped and treated onsite. If any contaminated soil is removed, it would be safely stored by Cameco and addressed in an appropriate manner at the time of final decommissioning of the facility.

  None of the contaminated material under building 50 will be transferred to the proposed long-term waste management facility on Baulch Road.

• Some critics of Cameco have suggested that serious structural problems are the real root of the problem with the UF₆ building. Are there structural problems with the building?

  Cameco is unaware of any structural issues with the UF₆ plant. Concrete experts from Golder Associates have not found any structural problems in the course of their investigation.

• How much longer can you continue to employ everyone? Will layoffs be necessary?

  We do not have enough information to provide a definitive answer. We will continue to do everything possible to avoid layoffs but it may be impossible to avoid them.

  We expect to have enough information by early November to estimate when UF₆ production will resume and this will help us to determine the employment situation.

• The UF₆ plant is reasonably close to the municipality's water treatment plant. Is there any risk to our municipal water supply?
  The available evidence indicates that the contamination is contained onsite at Cameco, primarily under the UF₆ plant. There is no evidence that it poses any risk to the municipal water supply.

• Why has Cameco started holding community liaison forums in Port Hope?
  Working together with Port Hope residents to ensure that we all have a common understanding of the impact of Cameco's operations in Port Hope is essential to building and maintaining trust in the community.  The ongoing community liaison forums are vehicles through which Cameco will share information and seek input from the community. The forums are open to participation by all members of the public and will deal with issues that relate to Cameco's relationship with Port Hope and its residents.  Issues including health and safety, the environment, corporate social responsibility and the impact of Cameco in the local economy are all items that will be addressed as issues arise or as new information become available.  Some items will be dealt with easily, others will take longer to resolve.  Cameco is committed to working with the entire community, through the ongoing community liaison forum process, to address any issues that have or may arise in the future. More
  
  More on how Cameco contributes to the community

• Are the nuclear fuel bundles produced by Zircatec dangerous? How do you handle them?
  Before being used in a nuclear reactor the fuel bundles produced by Zircatec are very safe to handle - in fact, they are handled every day by employees. Although employees wear cotton gloves when handling a bundle, the gloves are not required to protect the employee from the bundle, but instead to protect the bundle from halogen contamination in the natural oils in a person's skin. The fuel bundle contains natural uranium and the radiation it emits is very low. Only when the bundle gets used in a nuclear reactor, does it become very radioactive and pose a potential health risk to people. This, of course, does not happen in the Zircatec Port Hope facility, but only in the controlled environment of the nuclear reactor site designed for this purpose.
• Could a nuclear chain reaction (criticality) occur at Zircatec?
  It is extremely difficult to create the conditions required to cause a nuclear chain reaction (criticality).  Zircatec has been licensed for many years to handle sufficient amounts of enriched uranium to make a nuclear chain reaction theoretically possible.  However, safe engineering and handling procedures ensure that such an event will not occur.  Even though Zircatec is requesting permission from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to work with larger quantities of slightly enriched uranium than it has in the past, the likelihood of an inadvertent criticality occurring remains negligible.  It's important to remember that even if what Zircatec's scientists call "the near miracle" of a criticality did happen, there would not be an explosion.  An explosion is completely impossible with the enrichments and types of uranium materials used at Zircatec.  When a criticality occurs, the materials heat up and expand, and the conditions allowing the criticality to occur are lost.  In other words, the process is self-limiting. Individuals close to the event would be in great danger, but no one elsewhere in the facility or outside the plant would suffer harm.
  
  More on how Cameco protects the health and safety of its employees and the public
• Has the presence of the nuclear industry had an adverse impact on Port Hope residents?
  During the 1930s to the 1950s, control of contaminated building materials and soils was less stringent than required under the standards applied today.  As a result, Port Hope has a legacy of low-level radioactive waste.  The federal government has accepted responsibility for this legacy issue and has committed to addressing the situation through the Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI).
  
  While the PHAI progresses, Cameco has remained committed to working with the community, through the community liaison forum process, to review the health studies that have been conducted to date and to facilitate a process whereby experts can help the community decide whether further health studies are warranted.  It is known that over the last 20 years or so, there have been at least 10 health studies done that are either specific to the Port Hope area or included Port Hope as part of a larger research effort.  Specifically, because of community interest in the impact of historic and current nuclear operations in Port Hope, the CNSC engaged Health Canada to conduct studies into cancer incidence and cancer mortality rates in the community.  The results from Health Canada's study "Cancer Incidence in Port Hope:  1971 - 1996" showed that "compared to cancer incidence in the general population of Ontario, there was no overall evidence for an increased elevation of cancer in Port Hope."  A second Health Canada report, "Cancer and General Mortality in Port Hope:  1956 - 1997" found that "overall cancer mortality rates in the town of Port Hope are comparable to rates throughout the Province of Ontario."
• Has Zircatec done health studies?
  Although Zircatec regularly monitors the health of its employees, it has not conducted a mortality or morbidity study on its employees. The main reason for this is that the number of people involved is too low to produce a statistically reliable result. In addition, there has never been any indication of a concern from our employees (who work with the material every day) that would prompt Zircatec to believe such a study might be required. Instead, consistent with what is known as the "ALARA" principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable), Zircatec focuses its efforts on continual improvement in the work environment to improve the safety and health of its employees.
• Is the truck traffic coming and going to Zircatec dangerous to the public?
  There is approximately one truck carrying radioactive materials that comes in or out of Zircatec every other day.  Members of the public can safely drive behind or beside these trucks.  If one person drove all of Zircatec's truck shipments (which is not the case), the radiation dose the person would receive would be less than one third of the annual public dose limit.
• Is there any risk of an explosion at Zircatec?
  The uranium dioxide materials Zircatec works with in making Candu fuel bundles are not flammable or explosive.
• Why are some employees at Zircatec's Cobourg plant being tested for sensitivity to beryllium?
  Zircatec has used blood tests to assess employees for sensitivity to beryllium (Be) for the past three years. Some humans have a chemical sensitivity to this material, which is used at our Cobourg plant. Testing helps us to ensure that employees with the sensitivity are not assigned to work closely with Be. We have a comprehensive program in place to ensure that exposures to Be are minimized. Previous testing has indicated that exposure levels for employees are a small fraction of the recommended limit. There has never been an indication of either sensitivity to beryllium or any negative health impact on any Zircatec employee due to working with beryllium.
• Your employees work closely with uranium. What kind of measures do you take to ensure their health is protected?
  Our employees in Port Hope are tested regularly for uranium intake and the results are reported to both the individuals and responsible regulatory agencies. Test results are consistently below regulatory limits, which are based on the international scientific consensus on what is safe. Cameco is committed to ensuring that our safety practices and health and environmental monitoring programs are effective in protecting our employees.

• Do the uranium and other emissions from your plant meet both national and international standards of safety?
  Our emissions meet all regulatory standards set by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and/or Ontario's Ministry of Environment. In most cases, our emissions are a small fraction of the allowable limits. These emission standards are based on the international scientific consensus on what is safe. We are committed to ensuring that our safety practices and health and environmental monitoring programs are effective in protecting our employees and the people of Port Hope.
• Is Cameco working to reduce the amount of emissions from its Port Hope facilities?
  Cameco is committed to continual improvement in its environmental performance and this includes reducing emissions.  Most emissions from the Port Hope conversion facility have been greatly reduced in recent years.  Uranium and fluoride emissions from the UF₆ stack have been reduced by over 50% since 1998.  Emissions from the UO₂ plant have also been significantly reduced since 1999, with uranium down by over 60%.
• Shouldn't there be a buffer zone around the conversion facility?
  The facility has been designed and engineered to keep the public and employees safe through multiple containment systems and other environmental protection technology. It should be noted that the mandate of the nuclear industry's regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, includes consideration of safety of facilities and, as evidenced by its licensing of the conversion facility, the commission is satisfied with Cameco's containment systems and protection measures.
• Shouldn't there be a buffer zone around the Zircatec plant?
  The Zircatec facility is licensed on the basis of restricting impact on people and the environment to safe levels. The facility's containment systems and shielding ensure that the impact on people is negligible even if they live very close to the plant. The mandate of the nuclear industry's regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, includes consideration of safety of facilities and, as evidenced by its licensing of the Zircatec facility, the commission is satisfied with Zircatec's policies.
• What is being released into the atmosphere by the conversion facility?
  Cameco is committed to demonstrating continual improvement in its environmental performance. Both Cameco and government regulators closely monitor emissions from the facility, which at present include uranium, fluorides, nitrates and ammonia. With respect to oversight, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and/or Ontario's Ministry of the Environment regulate all emissions from the Port Hope conversion facility. All emissions are in compliance with regulatory limits and most are consistently well below those limits, with most in the vicinity of 10% of the allowable limit. In addition to its regulators, Cameco presents a summary of emissions to the Port Hope municipal council on a quarterly basis. Copies of the quarterly report are also available in the environment section of this website.
• What is Zircatec's impact on the environment?
  Zircatec holds a licence from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) that is conditional on the operation of our facility not having a significant impact on the environment. The CNSC implements this licence condition by setting very restrictive limits on emissions. The Zircatec facility's actual environmental performance is monitored both by the company and by the CNSC. Zircatec's emissions to the air during the year 2005 were 0.16% of the regulatory limit and our emissions to water were 0.0096% of the regulatory limit.

• What impact do Cameco's operations have on the economies of Port Hope and Northumberland County?
  A recently completed economic impact study (PDF 248 KB) shows direct and indirect spending in Port Hope by Cameco's uranium conversion facility and Zircatec Precision Industries totalled almost $63 million in 2005, accounting for 9% of the total economic activity in the Municipality of Port Hope during that year. The study, commissioned by Cameco and prepared by Professor Harry Kitchen of the department of economics at Trent University, also shows direct and indirect spending by Cameco on wages, salaries, purchases from local suppliers and contributions to local charities totalled over $117 million for all of Northumberland County in 2005, or 4% of regional economic activity. Cameco also has a significant employment impact in Port Hope.  The uranium conversion facility is the second largest employer in the municipality's manufacturing sector and Zircatec is the fourth largest.  Combined, they employed 526 people directly and 164 additional person years indirectly through secondary job creation in 2005.  Regionally, in 2005, Cameco created 648 jobs directly and 759 person years indirectly in Northumberland County.  The conversion facility and Zircatec's combined assessment accounted for 1.55% of Port Hope's taxable assessment in 2005 and 4.1% of the municipality's property tax revenue.  Last year, Cameco and Zircatec paid a total of over $1.2 million in property taxes to Port Hope, the county and local school boards.

• A letter from the CNSC letter states that "the material was originally found in an excavation inside the footprint of the building" and "the source is suspected to be a breach of a concrete floor" and "a concrete pad had been poured in preparation for the installation of a new tank...". Could you please explain how this information fits together - if uranium was found in soil during an excavation, why would a concrete floor be poured?
  The initial discovery of uranium was on a freshly-poured concrete slab at the bottom of an excavation pit. Cameco had excavated a pit to install a new tank. As part of that process, a concrete floor was installed at the bottom of the pit. Perched water (water in soil above groundwater) entered the pit and came into contact with the new concrete. The pH of the water was altered when it came into contact with the concrete and this resulted in uranium precipitating or separating from the water. When an employee spotted yellow staining on the concrete pad on Friday, July 13, 2007, Cameco immediately reported it to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Ontario's Ministry of the Environment and began to investigate.
  
  Uranium was not known to be in the soil under the UF₆ plant until the investigation began after the July 13 discovery of uranium on the concrete slab.
• Over what period of time does Cameco estimate this loss of containment has been occurring?
  In its initial report, which was provided to the CNSC on August 15, 2007, Golder Associates indicated that some leak points might have been present for many years.
• At the public forum on October 1st Cameco spokespersons stated that the UF₆ building is structurally sound but frankly, such a claim lacks credibility when there are cracks in the concrete, the cause(s) of the loss of containment are not yet identified, the building is located on a floodplain and sandy soil, there are fugitive emissions (loss of containment to the air) and now loss of containment through the floor of the building. Please provide the report(s) that substantiates this claim of stability.
  One of the statements included in the preamble to this question need to be addressed before it can be answered. The UF₆ plant is not located in the regulatory flood plain. Studies accepted by the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority confirm that Cameco's property largely lies outside the flood plain and the UF₆ plant is completely outside the flood plain. The flood plain map shows that a small section of the property along the inner harbour is within the flood plain and Cameco has committed to addressing this issue as part of the Vision 2010 project.
  
  With that being said, Golder Associates has performed a thorough inspection of all concrete structures in the UF₆ plant as part of the ongoing investigation. All testing to date, including compressive strength testing, has indicated the concrete to be in generally good condition, with some localized surface corrosion. Cracks in trenches and other in-ground structures are typically less than one millimetre wide and probably not full-depth through the concrete. The limited corrosion of separate structures within the building does not affect the stability of the building. There is no evidence that the building has structural problems.
• One of the items included in "Benchmarking environmental performance emissions report no.1" relates to the facility's waste management program, specifically the recycling of ammonium nitrate solution to a local fertilizer company. Please advise the following from 2000:
  

  -  the actual volume per year that has been recycled to a local firm
  -  the levels and isotopes of uranium contained in the solution
  -  a copy of or referral to the provincial or federal government regulations controlling such recycling and the uses
  Cameco's ammonium nitrate program was established many years ago with the approval of the Atomic Energy Control Board, now the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The program continues to operate with concurrence from the CNSC and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Annual results are submitted to CFIA and the CNSC for various elements, and all results are below established regulatory limits.
  
  Cameco is not required to perform uranium isotope determinations, but overall uranium values are well below batch and annual limits, with a multi-year weighted average of less than two parts per million, much lower than the uranium content in typical commercial fertilizers.
  
  The average annual amount of ammonium nitrate solution sold to a local firm since 2000 is 1,760 cubic metres.
  
  The CFIA administers the Fertilizer Act, which ensures the safe use of commercial fertilizers.
• How are the other components of the Cameco recycling program (combustibles, glass, concrete, scrap metal, etc.) regulated? Where is this material going?
  Although the federal government primarily regulates the conversion facility, Cameco endeavours to follow the 3Rs regulation of Ontario's Ministry of the Environment. Material is segregated onsite. Non-contaminated materials are sent to recycling facilities. The company has a rigorous source-separation program, which ensures that all materials are monitored for contamination before leaving the site. Examples of these materials include recyclable material (paper, cardboard, etc.), fluorescent light bulbs, scrap steel, and computer equipment. This material is sent to facilities locally, and elsewhere within the province of Ontario.
  
  Hazardous materials that are non-contaminated are disposed through licensed receivers in accordance with Ontario's hazardous waste regulations.
• I understand that you are now reporting that Cameco's emissions of uranium to air are currently 120 kg of uranium. However, you previously reported that uranium emissions totaled 60 kg. Can you explain why there is a discrepancy? Have emissions doubled in recent years?
  
  The change from the earlier reported figure is the result of modifications to the way that we gather, analyse and report emissions data at the Port Hope conversion facility. These modifications were made as part of an initiative of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment intended to produce a more comprehensive accounting of air emissions from the plant.  They also demonstrate our commitment to continual improvement in environmental performance and reporting, which is a requirement of our registration to the ISO 14001 program.
  
  Calculating total uranium emissions is complex as it includes both measured total stack emissions as well as estimates of emissions from other potential sources at the conversion facility. While uranium emissions from the stacks of our production buildings have been measured for many years, emissions from other sources, such as building ventilation systems, are estimated based on source testing and engineering calculations. Since 2002, we have been reviewing the methods we use to estimate emissions from other sources. The review resulted in a broadening of the potential sources considered in our estimates and adoption of more conservative calculations.
  
  In 2006, emissions from 2002 to the present were re-evaluated based on this work resulting in higher estimates. The new results were reported to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and are included in public documents supporting our application for renewal of the operating licence for the conversion facility.
  
  The data provided in 2003 was the best available at the time as the review was not yet complete. In retrospect, we should have advised at that time that we were in the process of improving our methods for estimating uranium emissions to air. We regret the oversight, though should note that our emissions are well within regulatory limits even at the higher estimated levels and that we are committed to reduce them in the future.
  
  Total emissions of uranium to air for the period range from 102.7 kg in 2002 to 117.3 kg in 2005. We anticipate uranium emissions will be approximately 120 kg in 2006. We consider the levels to have been flat over the past several years as the change in emissions in 2005 and 2006 can be directly linked to elimination of the summer shutdown, which adds approximately eight percent to the annual emissions.  The variation in emission levels over the past five years reflects a similar variance in production totals.  In considering this data, please keep in mind that the international scientific consensus considers these levels safe, and that they are not large when compared to other sources. A 1,000 MW coal-fired power plant burning 4 million tons of coal per year can release up to 5,000 kg of uranium to the atmosphere.
  
  It’s important to remember that source testing and calculations required to produce accurate estimates of total emissions are complex and time consuming. The new information was made available to the public as soon as we achieved the required level of scientific confidence in the results. 
  
• Are residents aware they have no home insurance coverage if there's damage from a nuclear accident? Why does the federal regulator let the companies off so lightly? (Cameco is only required to pay for $4 million in insurance, and Zircatec only $2 million. The rest of the liability for any nuclear accidents rests with taxpayers.)
  A major influence in setting any insurance rate is the level of risk that an event will occur. There has never been a nuclear accident in Canada. As a consequence, the risk that this insurance will have to be called on is extremely low and sheds some light on what the federally appointed regulator feels may be the exposure of Cameco in such an incident. Natural Resources Canada is looking at revising the Nuclear Liability Act, and although Cameco does not know what the outcome of this process will be, those who have any concerns about the provisions of this statute may contact this federal government department to provide input.
• Can you explain how standards for determining levels of exposure are determined? Are they based on current scientific evidence, or by assessing risk by asking members of the industry what standards are reasonably and financially achievable? (The ALARA Principle)
  The CNSC sets license limits in Canada on the basis of standards that are developed by international consensus using the latest scientific evidence of the levels of exposure that will not subject people to unreasonable risk. After setting these conservative license limits, the CNSC then asks its licensees to use the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle work towards further reducing emissions, exposures, etc. even though all regulatory requirements are already being met. ALARA is a continuous improvement principle; even things that are already very good and meet all regulatory requirements can be improved further. The CNSC does not use ALARA to set standards; it uses it to push licensees to go beyond standards that are already acceptably safe.
• Did an epidemiologist working for the Municipality of Port Hope's peer review team tell a council meeting that there have been more deaths in Port Hope from exposure to radiation than would normally be expected?
  Cameco cannot speak for the individual in question but the lead on the peer review team does not recall that statement being made. Dr. Murray Finkelstein of the peer review team has indicated verbally that there is more evidence now of a link between exposures to radon gas and lung cancer. Cameco does not emit radon gas.
• Don't we need a process that measures the cumulative exposure we face from all sources of radiation, not just hearings that look at each company in isolation?
  It is important to understand that Cameco closely monitors emissions at all of its operating sites and at present the emissions, when taken in isolation, are well below regulatory limits. In fact, the cumulative emissions from all the facilities in Port Hope are less than the prescribed limits for the facilities individually and substantially less than the exposure the public receives from natural sources.
• Has Cameco ever shipped depleted uranium to a US company called Aerojet Ordnance Tennessee?  How much depleted uranium is produced by the Port Hope facility and where does it go?
  A review of past shipping records indicates that Cameco has not shipped depleted uranium to Aerojet Ordnance Tennessee.  We believe that Eldorado Nuclear may have done so.  The Port Hope conversion facility is licensed to produce "not more than 2,000 tonnes as depleted or natural uranium metal and alloys from the Specialty Metals Plant".  Although we are licensed to produce depleted uranium metal, we have not engaged in this activity for a number of years.  We have however shipped depleted uranium metal in raw form to various customers around the world.  Depleted UO₂ is periodically processed at the facility for use in Candu fuel bundles.
• How do you propose to make the conversion facility better?
  Cameco has announced its Vision 2010 project, a multimillion-dollar initiative to renew, clean up and modernize the Port Hope conversion facility.  It involves the removal of obsolete buildings and contaminated soils that date back to a period when the federal government operated the facility as well as the construction of several new replacement buildings.
  
  The company is also striving to improve the appearance of the conversion facility through its ongoing clean up program, which has seen the removal of several small buildings over the past several years as well as the painting of older buildings.
  
  Although the conversion facility is in compliance with regulatory requirements on emissions to air and water, Cameco is committed to developing and implementing improved processes that further reduce the environmental impact of its operations.
• If there is no "buffer zone" around the conversion facility and Zircatec does that increase risk from things such as radiological contamination and other chemicals?
  No. Regardless of the location of a nuclear facility, the same radiation limits are in place to ensure that there is not a negative impact on the public. However, numerous safeguards are in place at both the Port Hope conversion facility and Zircatec to ensure that employee and public safety is maintained.
  
  One option for meeting regulatory requirements for impact of emissions on the public is locate the facility some distance away from where people live. Another option, and the one used by the Port Hope conversion facility and Zircatec, is to carefully control and try to reduce the amount of emissions.
• In the United States, testing of workers for beryllium exposure has been mandatory for 10 years. Are there Canadian regulations?
  The regulations for airborne beryllium exposure are the same in Canada as in the United States. Zircatec's testing program exceeds all regulatory requirements and employee exposure to airborne beryllium is well below the limits prescribed by Labour Canada. Zircatec is not aware of any regulations in either country requiring beryllium sensitivity testing but, when the technical capability became available, Zircatec began conducting the tests.
• Is Cameco in compliance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which calls for the "virtual elimination" of all substances, like uranium?
  Cameco is in compliance with CEPA: Uranium is not listed as a "toxic substance" in this legislation nor, as a naturally occurring element, is it targeted as a substance for "virtual elimination" in the list created pursuant to the relevant section of CEPA. Having said that, Cameco continues its efforts to prevent pollution, control and manage of the risk of any adverse effects of the use and release of substances, pollutants and wastes.
• Is Cameco using Zircatec as a "back door" to get a full SEU blending facility into Port Hope with having to undergo public scrutiny?
  No. Zircatec is applying to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for a licence amendment. Zircatec has, for more than four decades, had a licence to work with enriched uranium as well as with natural uranium.  However, in order to supply Bruce Power with a new product that will enhance reactor safety margins, Zircatec plans to increase the amount of slightly enriched uranium (SEU) on site, while maintaining current licence limits for total uranium. The CNSC makes decisions on the licensing of nuclear facilities through a public hearing process. The public hearing gives members of the public an opportunity to be heard before the commission. Hearings on the Zircatec application are scheduled for this fall.
  
  More on CNSC's role
  
  More on Zircatec's work with enriched uranium (PDF 422 KB)
• Is Cameco willing to move the conversion facility from its current location?
  Cameco has no plans to move from its current location. The company is committed to the community as well as its employees, many of whom live in the Municipality of Port Hope. Our commitment is demonstrated by our multimillion-dollar Vision 2010 project to renew, clean up and modernize the conversion facility. Cameco provides an important service in processing uranium products for electricity generators producing clean electricity both here in Ontario and around the world. Half of the electricity generated in Ontario uses uranium products processed in Port Hope. The facility has operated safely for many years at its current location.
• Is it safe to eat vegetables from home gardens in Port Hope? Has the CNSC assured that it is?
  It is safe to eat vegetables grown in Port Hope, provided that the ground has not been identified as being contaminated by historic industrial practices. At the Interim Licensing hearing for Zircatec, the CNSC Commission stated: "there is no health risk from consuming vegetables grown in these gardens."
• Is the allowable level of radiation exposure from Cameco's facilities in Port Hope the same as they are around a nuclear reactor?
  The CNSC is responsible for setting standards for allowable levels of radiation for employees at licensed nuclear facilities as well as for members of the public, which it does taking into account the best available scientific information and international standards. The allowable level of radiation exposure to the public is the same for all licensed facilities in Canada (1 mSv dose to a member of the public in a year), no matter what type of facility they are: refinery, conversion facility, fuel manufacturer, nuclear reactor, etc. In addition, the radiation emitted by Cameco and Zircatec is substantially lower than the licensed limit.
• Is there any plan in Vision 2010 to augment the rail spur line so UF₆ can be shipped by rail?  Have you ever shipped UF₆ by rail?  If not, why?
  There is no plan in Vision 2010 to alter or augment the rail spur line in order to ship uranium hexafluoride (UF₆) by rail and, in fact, this idea was not raised during the extensive public consultations on Vision 2010 conducted by Cameco.  Cameco has never shipped UF₆ out of the Port Hope conversion facility by rail.  Our UF₆ may be transported by rail in other parts of the world, but our facility is not set up to handle initial shipping by rail.
• Oshawa plans to expand its harbour.  Has Cameco ever shipped UF₆ or any other product from or to Oshawa?  Would it be considered if the Oshawa harbour is developed?
  Cameco has used the Port of Oshawa to ship our products and expects to do so again in the future.  We have worked closely with port officials to ensure that their employees have the knowledge and training necessary to safely handle our products.
• There was a deadline set for last summer by the CNSC on Cameco and Zircatec to secure proper fire protection. Has it been enforced?
  This issue was a the subject of what is know as a "Significant Development Report" for both facilities in February 2006 in which the Commission determined that the relevant companies were making adequate progress with respect to fire protection. Subsequently, both Cameco and Zircatec have addressed the remaining fire protection issues to the satisfaction of the CNSC as confirmed by their recent evaluation of the emergency response programs at Zircatec and Cameco.
• There were a lot of questions raised last year during the SEU debate. The municipality's own peer review team, from Jacques Whitford, identified 63 questions that it wanted answered. Has this happened?
  Cameco provided responses to hundreds of questions raised during the environmental assessment for the SEU blending project, which was withdrawn in September 2005. In a letter to Port Hope Council, the consultants who conducted the peer review of the SEU blending project indicated that there are no outstanding questions. The SEU project was withdrawn and Cameco determined that it would put its resources into satisfying some of the concerns expressed in this process and not merely responding to these questions that were provided in the context of a cancelled process.
• What is in that mound on the Centre Pier property?
  In 2002, the Municipality of Port Hope decided that it needed to construct a new potable water treatment plant to supply water for the municipality.  The selected site is just west of the existing water treatment plant and in an area that was slated for remediation under the Port Hope Area Initiative.  Prior to construction of the new facility, it was necessary for the federal government's Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) to remove all residual contaminated soil from the site.  Because this volume could not be accommodated in the existing LLRWMO temporary storage facilities in the municipality, Cameco offered, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission accepted, that this material could be temporarily stored on the Centre Pier property, placed on an existing concrete pad previously used in the 1970s for similar purposes, and managed appropriately until the new long-term waste management facility was ready to receive this material.  This avoided the creation of another pile of material at another location within the municipality.  Over the summer of 2003, approximately 17,500 cubic metres of remaining, marginally contaminated soil from the municipal waterworks project were transferred to the Centre Pier.  The material is covered and safely managed by the LLRWMO personnel with some assistance from Cameco as required.
• What would it cost to relocate the conversion facility?
  There are no plans to relocate the conversion facility and even if it occurred the cost would approach $1 billion. It would also take many years to get through the regulatory approval process as well as to design and construct a new facility.
• Why has the federal government been allowed to evade responsibility for health tests to measure the biological effects of long-time exposure to radioactivity in Port Hope, which it has promised to do several times in the last 25 years (starting in 1979)?
  Cameco cannot speak for the federal government. Health Canada was commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to conduct studies of cancer incidence and cancer mortality in Port Hope.
• Why is the CNSC allowing SEU at Zircatec, which is even closer to homes and public thoroughfares than Cameco?
  Zircatec has been licensed to handle SEU at its facility in Port Hope for more than 40 years and has done so without incident in that time frame. In addition to Zircatec's record, the CNSC continues to review the documentation filed in support of the re-licensing application to ensure that this process is conducted safely. Plant location does not change the allowable impact on the public. Regardless of the location of the facility, the same CNSC license requirements, which are based on limiting impact on the public, must be met.