Home      About Us      Press Releases      Reports      Events      Committees      Join FARE      Contact Frequently Asked Questions 1. Why are we called FARE and how is it connected to SEU? 2. Who is behind this group? 3. What is the group's mandate? 4. What is the $1 membership fee for? 5. Why are we trying to sign up so many members? 6. What is the rush to sign up members? 7. Why does FARE want a comprehensive panel review? 8. To what pollution are we exposed as a result of nuclear fuel production in Port Hope? 9. What degree of radioactive pollution is permitted? 10. What have recent Federal health studies in Port Hope told us? 11. What is “enriched uranium” and how does it differ from natural uranium? 12. What is SEU and how does it relate to “advanced fuel cycles”? 13. What are some specific land-use issues affecting the SEU proposal? 14. What is MOX? 15. What is a criticality? 16. What can happen if a criticality occurs? 17. Who is the CNSC? 18. What about property values? 19. What about loss of jobs? 20. What about the loss of tax base? ---------- 1. Why are we called FARE and how is it connected to SEU? We are called Families Against Radioactive Exposure because we are concerned about the damage radiation can do to our health and that of future generations. We have to deal with the current situation now and do all we can to improve the conditions for the future. We do not intend to let our children down. SEU is central to this discussion because it is the first effort by the CANDU industry to implement an “advanced fuel cycle”. If their license is granted, Cameco will begin processing enriched uranium on a mass scale and may eventually be processing plutonium and weapons grade material (such as MOX) from Russia and the United States for the next 30-50 years in Port Hope. These “advanced fuels” represent a level of toxicity and danger which is greater than anything we have previously been exposed to in Port Hope. Our community is currently involved in Low Level Radioactive Waste cleanup; after spending $260 million on this monumental task, why should we allow any industry to keep polluting the town with radioactive materials? ---------- 2. Who is behind this group? FARE was started by citizens from all walks of life who are concerned about the health effects resulting from radioactive pollution in Port Hope. The future health of our families is the common factor that brought us together. Some members of FARE have been dealing with radioactive pollution issues for decades. Others became concerned by Cameco's proposal to import large amounts of enriched uranium into our town when they discovered, at public meetings or by researching the subject in-depth, that SEU (enriched uranium) and other “advanced fuels” are more toxic and hazardous than anything produced here until now. There is growing recognition of the problem and the responsibility of elected officials to call for the highest level of scrutiny. We want the Port Hope Municipal Council to demand a Comprehensive Panel Review. ---------- 3. What is the group's mandate? FARE's mandate is to stop radioactive pollution in Port Hope. Our focus is to stop the project to produce SEU – or other dangerous products – especially in the flood plain of the Ganaraska River1. 1See Cameco leaflet “Fuel for the Future” ---------- 4. What is the $1 membership fee for? The membership fee contributes to the cost of membership forms and educational material and is meant as a tangible commitment from the person signing up. ---------- 5. Why are we trying to sign up so many members? There is widespread public support for the goals of FARE. We need to see this reflected in the size of our membership. Evidence of this support will give our message more weight and focus in the minds of elected officials, regulators and the public. It will raise our cause to one of regional or even national importance. A large membership of concerned residents puts FARE in a position to demand the highest level of review of Cameco's Environmental Assessment. An independent panel review will make it possible for the public as well as outside experts to voice their concerns about enriched uranium processing in Port Hope. FARE would become eligible for intervenor funding, allowing us to retain top legal advice and consultants to question the proposal in detail at a Comprehensive Panel Review. ---------- 6. What is the rush to sign up members? Over the next six months, Municipal Council, the CNSC, other Federal Agencies and Ministries, as well as the Ontario Ministry of Environment and the County of Northumberland are all going to be looking at the Cameco SEU application and making decisions that will impact the quality of life of residents of Northumberland County and more specifically Port Hope. Paul Macklin, M.P., during the recent Federal election commented that he would only support a call for a comprehensive panel review if there was "significant public interest" in a full and comprehensive review of the Cameco application. FARE wants to provide one indication of public interest through its growing membership and time is critical. So please join FARE so your voice can be heard. ---------- 7. Why does FARE want a comprehensive panel review? The present screening process means that the company does its own environmental assessment, and there is no opportunity for the public to challenge Cameco's scientists and experts. A Comprehensive Panel Review allows for an open, public process where Federal funding is available to community groups to hire their own experts and where scientists and experts from Cameco and other parts of the nuclear industry can be questioned before an independent environmental panel. ---------- 8. To what pollution are we exposed as a result of nuclear fuel production in Port Hope? Last year about 60 kg of fine uranium dust was released into the atmosphere over Port Hope. The amount of radioactive dust in the air will probably increase if SEU is processed here. But even if the amount doesn't increase, the toxicity certainly will since enriched uranium is up to five times more toxic than the current product, which is un-enriched uranium. In addition to the radioactive releases, 113 tons of nitrous oxide, 9 tons of ammonia and 500 kg of fluorides were also released into the air over Port Hope last year1. 1Figure 4.3-3: Predicted Annual Average Uranium in Air Concentration (?g/m3) – Future Conditions (Cameco) ---------- 9. What degree of radioactive pollution is permitted? After 70 years of exposure to radioactive contaminants, background levels in Port Hope are elevated. However, when CNSC calculates allowable exposures, they deduct these background exposures1. With no buffer zone and a historic burden of contamination, Port Hope residents are subject to over six times the allowable radioactive exposure, compared to a family living near a nuclear power generating plant such as Darlington or Pickering2. 1CNSC (letter ref. 36-3-1-0, January 22, 2004) 2Energy Probe (e-mail from Norman Rubin, Director of Nuclear Research, March 14, 2004) ---------- 10. What have recent federal health studies on Port Hope told us? Two health studies released by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC, the government-appointed regulator for the nuclear industry) have been independently analyzed and found to have serious flaws. The data in the two CNSC reports ranged over 41 and 25 years respectively1, actually show disturbing disease trends. FARE supports that a series of comprehensive, independent health studies, both historical and current, must be done on Port Hope residents in order for the health impacts on our citizens and our children to be made fully known to us. 1"Cancer and General Mortality in Port Hope, 1957-1997" data covering 41 years, and "Cancer Incidence in Port Hope 1971-1996" data covering 25 years ---------- 11. What is “enriched uranium” and how does it differ from natural uranium? Natural uranium is mined directly from the earth. It contains two types of uranium called U-235 and U-238. The concentration of U-235 in natural uranium is always 0.7 percent. The other 99.3 percent is U-238. U-235 is responsible for the energy released in nuclear reactors and atomic bombs. For this reason, bomb-makers and reactor-owners want to increase the concentration of U-235 using a process called “uranium enrichment”. The result is “enriched uranium”. U-235 is more radioactive than U-238; therefore, the greater the enrichment of the uranium, the greater the radiation levels, and the greater the toxicity to humans and other living things. Moreover, because U-235 is more energetic than U-238, enriched uranium can sometimes undergo a spontaneous “chain reaction”, releasing a sudden burst of energy and a shower of “neutron radiation” – the deadliest type of atomic radiation. The effect can be catastrophic. In the jargon of the industry, this kind of unplanned chain reaction is called a “criticality accident”. Such an accident is simply not possible with natural (un-enriched) uranium. Finally, because of its potential use in a nuclear bomb programme, enriched uranium is a greater security risk than natural uranium. The greater the enrichment level, the greater the security risk. ---------- 12. What is SEU and how does it relate to “advanced fuel cycles”? Natural uranium has a U-235 content of only 0.7 percent. By contrast, SEU – Slightly Enriched Uranium – has a U-235 content between 0.9 and 2.5 percent1. Cameco wants to import enriched uranium with an even higher concentration of U-235 – from 3 to 5 percent – and blend it with natural uranium to produce large quantities of SEU. Cameco says it needs to produce SEU because Bruce Power plans to run its nuclear reactors on SEU fuel. But Cameco is also a major shareholder in Bruce Power. Thus Cameco (at Port Hope) has to produce SEU because Cameco (at Bruce) wants to use it as a fuel. This is strange since all existing CANDU reactors were designed to use natural uranium as a fuel. In particular, the Bruce reactors have always used natural uranium, and there is absolutely no need for SEU to keep those reactors running. So what is going on? The answer is contained in three words: Advanced Fuel Cycles. The CANDU industry is turning its back on natural uranium in favour of new nuclear fuels for the future, such as SEU (Slightly Enriched Uranium), RU (Recycled Uranium), DUPIC (re-using irradiated LWR fuel in CANDUs) and MOX (Mixed Oxide fuel utilizing plutonium). These "advanced" fuels are all more toxic and pose far greater security risks than natural uranium. Advanced fuels are also vulnerable to criticality accidents, unlike natural uranium. Once it starts processing SEU at Port Hope, Cameco will likely want to produce other advanced fuels here later – including plutonium-based MOX fuel. We believe all these advanced fuels should be relegated to a less populated, more secure area, far from the waterfront and from downtown Port Hope. 1See Cameco leaflet “Fuel for the Future” ---------- 13. What are some specific land-use issues affecting the SEU proposal? There is a serious concern about the lack of adequate perimeter security. The presence of advanced fuels such as enriched uranium or plutonium could make Port Hope a target for terrorist activities, not least because of the potential for enormous physical and psychological damage inherent in any attack on nuclear facilities. Security is difficult to provide in Port Hope where you can drive a vehicle or boat to within 100 feet (about 30 metres) of the proposed SEU processing facility. This provides an easy target for malicious individuals or organizations. By contrast, nuclear power stations such as Darlington and Pickering are buffered by sizable exclusion zones, and SWAT teams are posted on-site to prevent any unauthorized persons from coming too close and to provide a rapid response team of highly trained paramilitary officers to deal with any threat. The proposed facility is shown in the current Ganaraska River flood plains map. The Municipal Official Plan does not allow for this kind of manufacturing activity within the flood plains. Long-time residents can remember water many feet deep flowing over the proposed site. A criticality accident can occur if a sufficient quantity of enriched uranium comes into contact with water. (See Q.15) Cameco has asked that their facility be declared an island above the flood plain. The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority has asked for additional studies on the advice of their legal counsel and no action to change the Official Plan should be taken by the municipality or the proponent of the flood plain change without the required Conservation Authority studies. Indeed, the Draft Study should be kept open until those studies are completed. However, since the proposed SEU processing site is on Federal Land in a Federally regulated industry, we have to be ready to mobilize ourselves to take on the Federal government in the event of any attempt to ignore or override local planning constraints. ---------- 14. What is MOX? MOX stands for "Mixed Oxide" fuel; it is obtained by blending the man-made substance plutonium with non-enriched uranium. Plutonium is a strategic nuclear material requiring extraordinary security measures because, if stolen, it can readily be used as a nuclear explosive. Plutonium is also far more toxic than any type of natural or enriched uranium; it is known as one of the most toxic substances on earth. Stolen plutonium can be used in a so-called "dirty bomb" – a conventional explosive device that scatters deadly radioactive materials into the environment. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) is currently testing a small MOX fuel element in a reactor at Chalk River, using plutonium extracted from Russian and American nuclear warheads. AECL has proposed that Canada import tons of weapons-grade plutonium from Russia and America to be fabricated into MOX fuel for CANDU reactors in Ontario. Although it has been greeted with enormous opposition from organizations and communities all over Canada, the MOX proposal still stands. ---------- 15. What is a criticality? Cameco describes criticality in the following words: "Under certain conditions, a sufficient mass of U-235 can trigger a chain reaction called ‘criticality'. Criticality is a sustained nuclear reaction. The products of criticality are heat and radiation." The heat energy released by a spontaneous nuclear chain reaction (a "criticality") is sufficient to vaporize metals and other materials. The radiation given off is an intense burst of "neutron radiation", more penetrating and/or damaging than any other type of atomic radiation. Natural uranium cannot undergo such a spontaneous chain reaction, but the advanced fuels mentioned above (from SEU to MOX) can suffer criticality accidents if they come in contact with water. This makes the floodplain issue more significant, because if the area were inundated and Cameco was unable to keep the materials away from water, a criticality could occur. ---------- 16. What are the greatest risks in Port Hope? The risk of a criticality accident increases with the concentration of U-235 or of plutonium. The higher the enrichment levels (i.e. the concentration of U-235), the less is the "critical mass" – the amount of material needed to cause a criticality. In the case of MOX fuel, the critical mass is even smaller than for enriched uranium, and so the risk of accidental criticality is that much greater. Those closest to the accident may easily receive lethal doses of neutron radiation. Radioactive contamination may occur due to the spontaneous creation of intensely radioactive materials called "fission products" and "neutron activation products". The criticality accident that occurred at the Tokomurai facility in Japan in 1999 resulted in radiation levels 10,000 times higher than normal two kilometres from the site of the accident. If an accident of comparable severity were to occur at Port Hope, large portions of our town could be exposed to high radiation levels. On the other hand, if massive shielding is deployed and the criticality accident is terminated promptly, the off-site consequences may be slight. One of the greatest hazards to Port Hope residents comes from the trucking of highly toxic, radioactive material through our streets. Besides long-term radioactive contamination caused by radiation from the trucks, a criticality could occur if enriched uranium came into contact with water in a serious road accident. In any event, your insurance policy will not cover any losses you may suffer as a result of radiation exposure to your property. No insurance company in the world will provide coverage in the event of a nuclear accident. ---------- 17. Who is the CNSC? The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is a government-appointed regulator for the nuclear industry. Since the CNSC reports to the Minister of Natural Resources – the same Minister that promotes nuclear activities at home and abroad – many have criticized the CNSC for its apparent lack of independence from the industry it regulates. This impression is underscored by the number of CNSC employees who have come from the nuclear industry, and the relative lack of expertise of CNSC staff in medical matters of human health and ecological aspects of radioactive pollution – despite the fact that CNSC's specific mandate is to protect the health of workers and the public and to safeguard the integrity of the environment, besides safeguarding nuclear materials against malicious misuse. The CNSC holds licensing hearings and every five years issues Cameco a license to operate under specified conditions. In November 2004, the CNSC will hold a mid-term licensing review in Port Hope at which time the SEU project will also be discussed. Members of the public may submit their views in writing or verbally at the hearing. FARE is encouraging public participation in this process in Port Hope to express our serious concerns. ---------- 18. What about property values? Port Hope has long been negatively affected by the stigma of radioactive pollution. Property values and the public's confidence would increase if radioactive pollution were no longer being generated in Port Hope. ---------- 19. What about loss of jobs? Firstly, we believe that the SEU process and its sister project, MOX (see Q. 14) and plutonium mixing are dangerous to the community. With three accidents in the last month at Cameco, we are concerned about the future possibility of a criticality which, unlike a fluorine leak, cannot be shut down by turning a valve. We are not trying to shut down Cameco, but we do suggest that there are more appropriate locations for their facility where there are adequate buffer zones to protect the public. While a buffer zone of 1500 meters between the facility and any residential area has often been suggested, the criticality accident in 1999 at Tokaimura in Japan, where two died and many were injured1, indicated that even 3000 meters may not be enough. In Port Hope, we who live here ARE the buffer zone. Locations such as the proposed ITER site and the Darlington complex would provide more adequate protection for the public. The job situation in Port Hope would not change since local Cameco employees could easily commute to work. Moreover, as communities all over the world are reclaiming their waterfronts from manufacturing, the time has come to take a serious look at regaining ours in Port Hope. This in itself would draw businesses and job opportunities to Port Hope. 1Go to: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/tokai.html ---------- 20. What about the loss of tax base? A recent report by the Municipality of Port Hope's Director of Finance indicated that the tax impact of Cameco relocating to a safer location out of the community would be about $38 per year per $ 100,000 of assessment. For the average homeowner, the additional tax would be well below a hundred dollars per year. However, the loss of taxes paid by Cameco would be more than made up by subsequent redevelopment of the waterfront. This has been demonstrated around the world – in Barcelona, the Docklands in London, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and closer to home in Cobourg. There would also be further gains from economic activity once the stigma of the nuclear industry is removed from Port Hope. Ask yourself: when did a major industry last locate to Port Hope? Then ask yourself, why not others? If you want a glimpse of our potential future, look to Cobourg, Windsor, Saskatoon or Vancouver for economic development enhancing waterfront redevelopment. We would also be eligible for Government redevelopment grants as opportunities arise. ---------- 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