Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Independent Environmental Monitoring Program: Port Hope Conversion Facility and Cameco Fuel Manufacturing

Site name Port Hope Conversion Facility (PHCF) and Cameco Fuel Manufacturing (CFM)
Licensee Cameco Corporation (Cameco)
Facility name Port Hope Conversion Facility and Cameco Fuel Manufacturing
Facility location Municipality of Port Hope, Ontario
Land acknowledgement The CNSC acknowledges that the Port Hope Conversion Facility and Cameco Fuel Manufacturing are located within the traditional lands and waters of the Michi Saagiig Anishinaabeg, the Gunshot Treaty (1877–88), the Williams Treaties (1923), and the Williams Treaties Settlement Agreement (2018).
Facility description The PHCF converts uranium trioxide (UO3) powder into uranium dioxide (UO2) and uranium hexafluoride (UF6). UF6 is further processed elsewhere into fuel for light-water reactors, while the UO2 powder is further processed elsewhere into fuel for CANDU reactors.

The CFM facility manufactures fuel pellets from UO2 powder and assembles nuclear reactor fuel bundles. The finished fuel bundles are primarily shipped to Canadian nuclear power reactors.
Environmental protection requirements In accordance with regulatory requirements under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, all licensees of Class I nuclear facilities and uranium mines and mills must maintain a comprehensive environmental protection program to monitor and control nuclear and hazardous substances released from the facilities they own and operate. As part of every licensee’s environmental protection program, concentrations of contaminants in the environment must be determined and the potential exposure pathways to the public must be assessed and mitigated.

Our IEMP results from 2024, 2020, 2017, 2015 and 2014 are consistent with the results submitted by Cameco, supporting our assessment that the licensee’s environmental protection program is effective. The results add to the body of evidence that people and the environment in the vicinity of the PHCF and CFM are protected and that there are no anticipated health impacts from the operation of the facilities on the site.

Legend

Results Table

1 The < symbol indicates that a result is below the provided laboratory analytical detection limit.

2 N/A – not available.

3 For water samples, the results for non-radiological parameters are compared to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Where no CCME guidelines exist, the Health Canada Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality are used.

4 For ammonia, the results for total ammonia are compared to the CCME Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life for fresh water based on a pH of 8.5 and temperature of 15ºC.

5 For soil samples, the CNSC laboratory began using the partial digestion method as opposed to the total digestion method that was used before 2020. This change was made in order for the results to be comparable to the CCME guidelines. As a result, soil concentrations are lower than previous years.

6 2020 sampling locations PH08, PH17 and PH20 were no longer accessible due to harbour remediation activities.

2024 results

The 2024 IEMP sampling plan for the Port Hope Conversion Facility and Cameco Fuel Manufacturing focused on hazardous substances. A site-specific sampling plan was developed based on the licensee’s approved environmental monitoring program and our regulatory experience with the site. We endeavour to incorporate traditional Indigenous land use, values and knowledge by engaging with Indigenous Nations and communities on the sampling plan. More information on this engagement is provided in the “Indigenous Nations and communities’ participation” section.

In May 2024, we collected air, water, soil and food samples in publicly accessible areas outside the perimeter of both facilities.

Port Hope Conversion Facility

Around the PHCF, the concentrations of uranium, nitrate and ammonia measured in air, water and soil in 2024 were all below the available guideline levels. These results are similar to IEMP measurements from previous years. One fluoride concentration measured in lake-water samples was equal to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) freshwater quality guideline for the protection of aquatic life (0.12 mg/L), but was below Health Canada's guidelines for drinking water quality (1.5 mg/L) and well below the CCME toxicity benchmark (11.5 mg/L) for sensitive aquatic biota. Adverse effects are not expected because the CCME freshwater quality guidelines were derived on the basis of conservative assumptions and with the aim of protecting the most sensitive species over the long term. Adverse effects to human health and aquatic life, including fish and benthic invertebrates, are not likely to occur at these levels of fluoride in water.

Cameco Fuel Manufacturing

Around the CFM facility, the concentrations of uranium in air, water and soil in 2024 were all below the available guideline levels. These results are similar to IEMP measurements from previous years.

In 2024, for the first time, we collected samples of mixed wild berries and jewelweed in proximity to the PHCF and CFM. The concentration of uranium in the mixed wild berries sample was below the screening level. The concentration of uranium in the jewelweed sample at the exposure station was similar to the concentration at the reference station Footnote 1.

2020 results

The 2020 IEMP sampling plan for PHCF and CFM focused on the measurement of relevant facility releases into the air, soil and water environment. A site-specific sampling plan was developed based on the licensee’s approved environmental monitoring programs and the CNSC’s regulatory experience with the sites. In October 2020, CNSC staff collected air, soil and water samples in publicly accessible areas outside the PHCF and CFM site perimeters.

Port Hope Conversion Facility

Around PHCF, the concentrations of uranium, nitrate and ammonia measured in air, water and soil in 2020 were all below the available guideline levels. These results are similar to IEMP measurements from previous years. Three fluoride concentrations measured in lake water samples were slightly above the CCME freshwater quality guideline for the protection of aquatic life (0.12 mg/L), but were below Health Canada's guidelines for drinking water quality (1.5 mg/L), and well below the CCME toxicity benchmark (11.5 mg/L) for sensitive aquatic biota. Even though the fluoride results are above the CCME guideline, adverse effects are not expected because the guidelines were derived with conservative assumptions and were derived to protect the most sensitive species over the long term. Adverse effects to human health and aquatic life including fish and benthic invertebrates are not likely to occur at these levels of fluoride in water.

Cameco Fuel Manufacturing

Around CFM, the concentrations of uranium in air, water and soil in 2020 were all below the available guideline levels. For air and water, these results are similar to IEMP measurements from previous years. However, for soil this year the CNSC laboratory analyzed the soil results using the same methodology as that used to establish the CCME guidelines. As a result, soil concentrations are more accurately comparable to the CCME guidelines and as a result lower than IEMP measurements from previous years.

View detailed sampling data.

2017 results

CNSC staff taking a soil sample in the vicinity of the Port Hope Conversion Facility, 2017

CNSC staff taking a soil sample in the vicinity of the Port Hope Conversion Facility, 2017.

The 2017 IEMP sampling plan for PHCF and CFM focused on uranium as a hazardous substance. The IEMP assesses uranium against its more sensitive (that is, more restrictive) chemical toxicity thresholds as a potentially toxic metal (hazardous substance). A site-specific sampling plan was developed based on the licensee's approved environmental monitoring program and the CNSC's regulatory experience with the site. In May 2017, CNSC staff collected air, soil and water samples in publicly accessible areas outside the PHCF and CFM site perimeters.

The concentrations of uranium in air, water and soil, as well as of fluoride, nitrate and ammonia in water were all below the available guideline levels, with the exception of two fluoride concentrations measured in lake water samples obtained near the PHCF. The water sample results (0.16 mg/L) were slightly above the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) freshwater quality guideline for the protection of aquatic life (0.12 mg/L), but were below Health Canada's guidelines for drinking water quality (1.5 mg/L), and well below the CCME toxicity benchmark (11.5 mg/L) for sensitive aquatic biota. Adverse effects to human health and aquatic life including fish and benthic invertebrates are not likely to occur at these levels of fluoride in water.

The measured concentrations of uranium in soil were above the urban parkland and rural parkland background level for Ontario of 1.9 to 2.1 µg of uranium per g of soil (µg/g) at three sampling locations and below the CCME soil quality guideline for residential and parkland use (23 µg/g) at all locations sampled. No adverse health or environmental impacts are expected at these levels of uranium in soil.

The results for 2017 were similar to those obtained for 2015 and 2014 for the concentrations of uranium in air, water and soil as well as fluoride, nitrate and ammonia in water. Since the IEMP results represent a snapshot in time, the small differences between sample results can be attributed to slight differences in the sampling locations, seasonal variations, facility operations, meteorological conditions, and/or natural variations in background radiation. Over time, CNSC staff will have sufficient data to establish baseline and monitor trends. View detailed sampling data.

2015 and 2014 results

The 2015 and 2014 IEMP sampling plans for the PHCF and CFM sites were very similar to the 2017 plan and focused on uranium. CNSC staff collected air, soil and water samples in publicly accessible areas outside the site perimeters for both sampling campaigns. View detailed sampling data.

The 2015 and 2014 IEMP results confirmed that the public and the environment in the vicinity of the PHCF and CFM sites were protected from the releases from the facility and that there were no health or environmental impacts expected at these levels.

Indigenous Nations and communities’ participation

We have made it a priority to ensure that IEMP sampling reflects Indigenous traditional knowledge, land use and values, where possible. In addition to routine IEMP sampling activities, we seek input from local Indigenous Nations and communities on IEMP sampling plans, in addition to their participation in routine IEMP sampling activities. In advance of the 2024 IEMP sampling campaign around the PHCF and CFM, CNSC staff notified Indigenous Nations and communities near the facilities of the planned sampling campaign, sought their input on the sampling plan and invited them to join CNSC staff in the field for sampling activities.

Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation

The Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN) reviewed the sampling plan in early 2024 and provided comments on species and locations of importance. CNSC staff considered MSIFN’s comments in the IEMP sampling plan; however, some of the specific vegetation samples MSIFN had identified for study were not in season at the time of the campaign. CNSC staff and MSIFN discussed MSIFN’s vegetation sampling suggestions and located and collected jewelweed together. CNSC staff and MSIFN also located chokecherry plants within the sampling area that could be harvested once ripe. CNSC staff collected chokecherries in August 2024, when they were in season. Since there were not enough chokecherries available for a full sample, the sampling team added other nearby berries to complete the sample. The results for this sample (PH15-F15) are therefore listed as "mixed wild berries". Two representatives from MSIFN joined the CNSC sampling team at Port Hope to collect water, air, soil and vegetation samples. The sampling team and the MSIFN representatives discussed the IEMP and walked through techniques for sampling air, water and soil, as well as packaging and chain of custody procedures. The CNSC is committed to working with MSIFN to ensure that the IEMP reflects their Indigenous knowledge, land use and values, where possible.

Curve Lake First Nation

Curve Lake First Nation (CLFN) joined the CNSC field team to collect both soil and water samples. CLFN was an active participant during the sampling and appreciated that CNSC staff took care to explain each step of the program and process, including the chain of custody procedures for the collected samples. CNSC staff also walked CLFN through the air sampling process and equipment. Overall, the field work was well received and productive for both teams. The CNSC is committed to working with CLFN to ensure that the IEMP reflects their Indigenous knowledge, land use and values, where possible.

Focus on health

We review the results of public health reports and data, international publications, and at times conduct our own health studies to provide additional confidence that the health of people living near the PHCF and CFM sites is protected. Port Hope is in Northumberland County, which is within the Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge (HKPR) District Health Unit. The HKPR District Health Unit and Cancer Care Ontario monitor the health of populations around Port Hope. Disease rates are compared to rates in other similar populations or larger reference populations, such as Ontario, to detect any potential health outcomes that may be of concern.

Health data often varies by region, and the opportunity to be healthy is not the same for everyone; it is affected by personal, lifestyle, social, economic, environmental and systemic factors.

The HKPR District Health Unit reported mortality rates (i.e., number of deaths each year per 100,000-person population, for males and females and all age groups) from 2017 to 2022. Over that 6-year period, the all-cause mortality rate decreased from 748 deaths/100,000 people to 619 deaths/100,000 people. For that same period, the mortality rate in HKPR for all cancers decreased from 219 deaths/100,000 people to 148 deaths/100,000 people. This contrasted with the rest of Ontario, excluding HKPR where the mortality rates for all causes and all cancers tended to be higher than in HKPR and where the trends increased or stayed the same, rather than decreasing over the same period.

Cancer Care Ontario reported cancer incidence rates (i.e., number of new cancers diagnosed each year for males and females and all age groups per 100,000-person population) for the period of 2016 to 2020. HKPR had cancer incidence rates statistically significantly higher than the Ontario average for all cancers combined, bladder, esophagus (males only), lung, oral cavity and pharynx cancer, and melanoma, whereas incidence rates for myeloma and for stomach (females only) and prostate cancer (males) were lower in HKPR. HKPR is not unique in having incidence rates higher than Ontario for those cancer types; Hastings and Prince Edward counties, Peterborough and the Simcoe Muskoka District also have incidence rates statistically significantly higher than Ontario for those same cancer types. Cancer of the esophagus, lung, oral cavity and pharynx, and melanoma are considered preventable according to Public Health Ontario.

Health status data for Indigenous people is not reported separately by HKPR.

In 2011, the CNSC used a weight-of-evidence approach to summarize the many environmental and health studies conducted in the area due to the historical and current presence of the nuclear industry in Port Hope, Ontario, where the radium and uranium refining, processing and fabrication industry has existed since 1932. These studies showed that the levels of exposure to radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants were below levels known to cause adverse health effects. Based on these studies, there was no evidence to suggest that the past and present existence of nuclear facilities in the Port Hope area contributed to adverse health outcomes. These findings were consistent with research studies conducted in other countries.

A 2013 Health Canada study examined cancer incidence from 1992 to 2007 in the Port Hope area. When compared to Ontario, there were no significant differences in childhood cancer incidence. Compared to Ontario, female lung cancer incidence was elevated, though the significance was reduced when compared to health units with similar population characteristics and socio-economic status.

A 2013 CNSC study examined mortality (1950–1999) and cancer incidence (1969–1999) among uranium and radium processing workers in Port Hope. Overall, workers had lower mortality and cancer incidence compared to the general Canadian population.

Based on past and current levels of radionuclides in the environment; exposures to people living in the area; the current scientific knowledge about the sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation; and relevant local and provincial health data, CNSC staff concluded that the observed health outcomes are unlikely to be related to the presence of the PHCF and CFM sites.

This information has been reviewed by the HKPR District Health Unit.

For additional information, please visit the following websites:

Conclusions

Our IEMP results from 2024, 2020, 2017, 2015 and 2014 are consistent with the results submitted by Cameco, supporting our assessment that the licensee’s environmental protection program is effective. The results add to the body of evidence that people and the environment in the vicinity of the PHCF and CFM are protected and that there are no anticipated health impacts from the operation of the facilities on the site.

Page details

Date modified: