Home      About Us      Press Releases      Reports      Events      Committees      Join FARE      Contact «Press Releases Too expensive to clean up all of our waste? We need explanations of delays, extra costs PORT HOPE -- The federal government needs to reassure Port Hope that it will follow through on its commitment to pay for the largest clean-up of low-level radioactive waste in Canadian history, F.A.R.E. says. The federal government committed in 2001 to remove more than 1.5 million cubic metres of uranium- and radium-contaminated soil from beneath neighbourhood houses, roads, schoolyards, farm fields and the bottom of the local harbour by 2011. Total cost was estimated at $260 million. However, documents recently obtained under the Access to Information Act cast doubt on how soon the project will be completed, and at what cost. F.A.R.E., a 1,500-member citizen’s group based in Port Hope, has told MP Rick Norlock (PC- Northumberland-Quinte West) that it is concerned about the project’s escalating costs and whether the federal government will still pay to clean up all the waste. “Similar projects in the United States have cost between $500 and $1,000 a cubic metre,” said John Miller, president of F.A.R.E. “If Port Hope ends up costing the taxpayers of Canada well over $1 billion, is that really going to happen?” The Natural Resources Canada report says the planning phase of the project is three years behind schedule and running 14 percent over budget, with $80 million already spent and only three of 10 tasks completed. It wants a realistic estimate of costs before it agrees to commit further funds. The second phase of the operation, budgeted at $170 million, will see the contaminated soil -- enough to fill 800 Olympic-sized swimming pools -- excavated and moved to a permanent underground tomb on the outskirts of Port Hope. But the report says those figures can be expected to grow “substantially,” since no comprehensive property survey has been done to determine exactly how much low-level waste needs to be cleaned up. It says the amount of confirmed waste has already grown by 33 percent to 2 million cubic metres since the agreement was signed. The waste was created over the past 70 years, mainly by a former Crown corporation, Eldorado Nuclear, which used the waterfront plant in downtown Port Hope to refine the uranium used in the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Contaminated waste from the plant was used as fill on properties and in ravines before it was known to be hazardous. Eldorado was privatized in 1988 as Cameco Corporation, but the federal government accepted responsibility for the historic waste. The NRCan report, obtained by Canadian Press, says the 2001 agreement signed by the government and three local communities may not be sufficient to do the job, and that the management of the project may need to change. The Port Hope clean-up has been managed by the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office, reporting to NRCan, but the report says “the LLRWMO does not currently have the in-house expertise to design and build Phase 2.” While the report does not break down areas of spending that went over budget, one initiative is well under budget – the Property Value Protection Program, which is designed to compensate homeowners for loss of value caused by the contaminated soil. It was supposed to cost $5.5 million for the first four years, but only $1.4 million has been spent, most of it for administration. Only $57,624 has actually been paid out in compensation to homeowners. Claims of $245,000 have been disallowed. “From this evidence,” said F.A.R.E.’s Miller, “the property protection program is an abject failure. The rest of it looks like a catastrophic bureaucratic balls-up.” Other highlights in the report: • There is no breakdown of the areas where spending ran over budget. The Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWNO) appears to have used a financial management system that did not allow it to effectively manage costs, and a new one is needed for Phase II. • The unexplained delay in resurveying all Ward One properties for the presence of radioactive waste means we will not know exactly how much needs to be cleaned up for some time. The 2001 agreement signed by the federal government and the municipalities only stipulates that 1.5 million cubic metres will be removed. Who will pay for the rest? • Clean-up of the Port Granby site in Clarington is even further behind schedule, and licensing is not expected until 2010, four years late. A clean-up of radioactive soil in Fernald, Ohio, which the CNSC cites as a precedent for the Port Hope project, took 14 years to complete and cost $4.4 billion. And that involved an abandoned weapons plant site in a rural area, not in the middle of a functioning community. Other such projects have cost between $500 and $1,000 a cubic metre, meaning the Port Hope operation, at 2 million cubic metres and counting, could certainly end up costing well over $1 billion. Will the federal government commit itself to cleaning it all up then? F.A.R.E. urges federal officials and Port Hope municipal council to support the following actions: 1. A full audit of the LLRWMO by the federal auditor-general. 2. Appointment of a public advisory committee for the LLRWMO with expertise in communications, financial management and engineering. 3. A joint public meeting between Port Hope and Clarington councils to discuss concerns with the low-level project. 4. Ask the federal government to make public the interim evaluation report and all supporting materials for Phase 1 of the Port Hope project. 5. Request a public explanation of cost overruns and delays from the LLRWMO. Ask it to document any actions by municipal council that incurred extra costs or caused delays. Public confidence has been lost; it must be restored. 6. Full public disclosure of property files and site locations of low-level waste. 7. A joint statement from signatories of the 2001 agreement that they remain committed to cleaning up all historic waste in Port Hope. Scary map shows how much Cameco pollutes harbour CNSC says it must stop before low-level clean-up Does the CNSC believe THIS?? It appears to go against new scientific wisdom CNSC mystery: Was it qualified to say we're safe? Refuses to release qualifications of experts East Beach park contaminated with uranium No one is concerned Cameco lied: CNSC orders it to fix pipe Treatment systems "do not conform" Mayor's views on W-FIVE show are inaccurate Why do Health Canada, CNSC refuse comment? Write in to stop Cameco reopening polluting plant Make them clean up huge uranium spill More and more lies: Cameco's clean-up branded 'deficient' CNSC documents show lots more may be wrong What we want regulator do do Full clean-up needed of leaking uranium Dust emissions top our concerns No targets or plan to curtail uranium Too expensive to clean up all of our waste? We need explanations of delays, extra costs FARE has issues with SEU plans at Zircatec Questions filed to CNSC concerning EA screening Zircatec gets blank cheque from CNSC No mention of concerns registered by FARE Rubber stamp for Zircatec and Cameco CNSC ignores concerns of nearly 300 intervenors Here we go again: CNSC fast-tracks SEU assessment CNSC changes rules to limit public input Evening Guide guilty on "sitting on sidelines" Panders to big advertiser instead of serving people FARE wins Canadian Environment Award Praised for stopping SEU and accurate research Uranium dioxide: We've found proof that it can burn Despite Cameco's claims, its own records don't lie How to register as an intervenor for Oct. 20 hearing CNSC coming to Port Hope and they'll hear an earful Poll: 78 percent of us want a panel review Council gets details of new public opinion poll: More oppose SEU than favour it "Reckless disregard" on fire protection Documents show how CNSC dropped the ball, and why we need a panel review FARE asks 44 questions about CNSC draft report Expects them to be answered before environmental hearings 3 groups demand independent review of SEU May 19 press conference held at Port Hope harbour 3 May 2005 - CNSC response to questions about neutron radiation Press Release 14 April 2005: Questions about Neutron Radiation 30 March 2005: Response from CNSC to FARE letter 26 March 2005: Letter from FARE to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 22 July 2004: Media Release (As read by John Morand) 22 July 2004: Research Sub Committee Statement - read by Patrick McNamara admin@ph-fare.com P.O. Box 202 Port Hope, Ontario L1A 3W3 Questions or problems regarding this web site should be directed to admin@ph-fare.com. Copyright © 2005 Families Against Radiation Exposure, Inc. All rights reserved. Last modified: 15 April 2005 Archived Information » top of this page « administration

About this issue: Frequently Asked Questions Port Hope Radiation Issues in the News Radiation and Health Effects FARE Newsletter Web Links External sites: Lake Ontario Waterkeeper Energy Probe