Home      About Us      Press Releases      Reports      Events      Committees      Join FARE      Contact «Press Releases More and more lies: Cameco's clean-up branded 'deficient' CNSC documents show lots more may be wrong Cameco is like the little boy who couldn’t learn to tell the truth. The company’s latest statements to the community give the impression that the clean-up of a radioactive spill that has shut its UF6 plant since July, 2007, has the full blessing of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The company announced it has removed two feet of contaminated soil from under the building, and a new concrete floor has been poured after this was given a green light from the nuclear regulator. Nothing to worry about. All the uranium spilled is below background level. No possibility there’s any danger to the public or the environment. Documents FARE has received from the CNSC tell a very different story. A Significant Development Report on the 8-month-old incident, presented to a CNSC meeting in January (CMD 08-M4), said the spill of uranium, arsenic and other “chemically aggressive” fluids at the plant requires urgent action because of “impacts of contamination on the environment, including potential groundwater impacts on local surface waters (Port Hope Harbour, Lake Ontario)” and “concerns expressed by the local community in the vicinity of the plant.” This report concluded that “deficient operational practices” caused the spill, and the company’s reponse to the incident to reduce contamination levels in a timely manner “has also been deficient.” In other words, Cameco isn’t doing a very good job cleaning up after itself. The CNSC reduced its rating of the company’s Environmental Protection Program to C-minus (“below requirements”) and ordered Cameco to provide a shopping list of additional data, soil tests and justifications. The purpose, it said, is “to determine whether or not Cameco is meeting its obligations outlined in … the General Nuclear Safety Control Regulations.” In a Jan. 25 letter to the company, CNSC director general Barclay Howden said: “Investigations carried out by Cameco to date have raised CNSC staff concern about other possible subsurface contamination on the site that may be unrelated to the recent event, and with which the plume may be combining, or which may pose unreasonable environmental risk on their own.” Why haven’t we been told that? A week and a half later, on Feb. 5, Howden wrote to Cameco’s Andy Thorne again, saying the CNSC still hasn’t received any report from Cameco showing “the full extent of soil contamination associated with the uncontrolled release at concentrations greater than background.” Nor has it received anything showing how far the plume of contamination goes. Given that Cameco has found contamination as deep as 8 metres under its site, and its spokesman can’t guarantee that it hasn’t reached the lake, the CNSC’s diligence is well-placed. Perhaps more people in our community should question why Cameco doesn’t seem to be willing to tell us the truth. 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