Letter to the Mayor and Council of Port Hope

Below is a letter that our committee has sent to the Mayor and Council of Port Hope, Nov. 26, 2025.

 ℅ 2810 4th Line 

Port Hope, ON 

November 26, 2025 L1A 3V7 

The Mayor and Council 

Municipality of Port Hope 

56 Queen Street, 

Port Hope, Ontario L1A 3Z9 

Re: Nuclear Issues in Port Hope: Concerns, Questions and Requests 

________________________________________________________________________ 

As you are aware from our invitations, the volunteer Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee (PHCHCC, 1995) began hosting a series of Public Meetings on October 29.2025 with Guest Speaker Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) to provide information, encourage public awareness and discussion of current and proposed new and expanded nuclear operations in Port Hope. Last week, you received an invitation to our meeting this evening, Wednesday, November 26th, at the Canton Community Hub, 6:30 - 8:30 pm, with Guest Speaker Ralph Torrie, Energy and Environmental Systems Expert. The Committee has a new website, which will be updated frequently to post presentations, letters, documents, photos and new information at www.porthopehealthconcerns.com 

At the October 29th meeting I gave a power point presentation on behalf of the Committee based on relevant historical and new information available to us relating to the ongoing federal remediation of radioactive wastes in Port Hope, the operations and accountability of Cameco and the proposed new nuclear power plant for Port Hope at our historical, rural Wesleyville community, a plan we strongly oppose. 

We write today with a brief summary of key questions, concerns and requests which relate directly to the long-term welfare of Port Hope and your roles and shared responsibilities as elected municipal leaders which include protecting public health, the environment and upholding citizen’s rights. We will be submitting an official request shortly to give a presentation to Council which will provide more history and supporting documentation. If you have updates or corrections to our understanding on any of these issues we are pleased to receive them.

We are also sending similar correspondence to the Auditor General of Canada, the Prime Minister, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Minister of Health and the Premier of Ontario, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Atomic Energy of Canada as officials also with lead and/or shared responsibilities for our welfare. 

Key Context Considerations: 

1. Radiation: “There is no safe level of exposure and there is no dose of radiation so low that the risk of malignancy is zero” - Dr. Karl Morgan, Founder of Health Physics, Director of Health Physics at Oak Ridge 1943-1972. 

2. Uranium: “For a given uranium intake, the inhalation pathway gives doses 200 times greater than ingestion” - Ontario Ministry of the Environment Rational Document, Draft Uranium in Air Standard, 2010. 

3. Arsenic: “The group of inorganic arsenic compounds as a whole is therefore considered to be a non-threshold toxicant (i.e. a substance for which there is believed to be some chance of an adverse effect at any level)” -Canadian Soil Guidelines for the Protection of the Environment, 1997. 

4. Port Hope Health Data: Queen’s University Lung Cancer Study (Lees Report, 1983), Health Canada Reports (1997, 2000, 2002) and UMRC Radio-biogical Individual Test Results (2007) all indicate possible health impacts on people from daily exposure to radioactive, heavy metal and chemical contaminants to which nuclear workers and the public are exposed, inhalation being the primary pathway and the most biologically impactful according to Ontario MOEE. The UMRC biological testing reported for the first time the presence of recycled uranium in the form of U236 in nuclear operations in Port Hope and the body of a very ill former worker many years after employment. It also indicated elevated levels of industrial uranium U234 in several non-workers tested. 

5. No ongoing health monitoring is occurring of the people in Port Hope as they go through a $2.6 billion federal remediation of radioactive wastes while living with daily emissions to air, water and soil from two nuclear industries operating without buffer zones. 

6. Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel, May 1978: Did not approve the proposal of Crown Corporation Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. to build a new Uranium Hexafluoride refinery and associated waste management facility at Port Granby, 5 km from Wesleyville. 

Summary of Concerns, Questions and Requests: 

1. Urgent: Enforcing the Canada and Port Hope Legal Agreement (2001) 

a) From the information we have obtained it appears that some critical agreed upon conditions of the signed Legal Agreement (2001) between Canada and the Municipality of Port Hope (MPH) are not being followed by CNL practices/policies leading to many unanswered questions and concerns : i) Rather than actively engaged in approving, or not, each application of the Special Circumstances Protocol for both public and private properties with costs of the entire process being fully paid by Canada as described in the Legal Agreement, the MPH role has been significantly reduced with some cost-sharing required. The Municipal role and authority for each application should be restored with costs fully paid by Canada. 

ii) The current Special Circumstances Protocol allows a property owner to refuse property access and any investigations to determine if there is radioactive material on the property whether or not it is indicated to be present by earlier technical reports. This renders the current $2.6 billion federal remediation to be voluntary case by case regardless of contamination present which does not adhere to the spirit or letter of the Legal Agreement that “Canada shall cleanup properties contaminated with Historic Low-Level Radioactive Waste so that all such properties will be able to be used for all current and foreseeable unrestricted uses”. Exemptions were to occur and be agreed upon with MPH only in extraordinary situations which is not what is happening. When and how did this change begin? Where and how many properties have been exempted and why? Will they require signage into the future and notices on property records for future buyers and developers who change the land use? We need to know these answers. 

iii) The Special Circumstances Protocol allows contaminated material to remain on an unlimited number of properties that is above the cleanup criteria or contains sufficient radioactive material to require a CNSC license. Questions are not answered about liabilities and responsibilities for the federal, provincial or municipal governments or current and future property owners as well as impacted neighbours as wastes do not stay within property boundaries. They travel over time above and below ground as we know from our history and are disturbed when land use changes. 

iv) A Special Circumstances Protocol permitting such significant changes to the original understandings and agreements should have been subject to input from federal and provincial regulators, external peer reviewers and the public with any changes signed off and agreed upon officially with an amendment to the Legal Agreement signed by all parties. Details of how exactly this would work, liabilities and responsibilities now and in the future with waste left behind for future property owners should be clearly identified but none of this appears to have happened. It is important that the various revisions and applications of Special Circumstances be audited for the impact on properties and the Protocol be aligned with the Legal Agreement as intended in 2001. 

v) The proposal by CNL to change the current cleanup criteria for arsenic from 18 ppm to 50 -55 pm was agreed to by Council at a meeting on October 2, 2024. This vote happened unexpectedly, contrary to a public notice that there would be a later public meeting with opportunity for public input, presumably with access to all relevant reports, input and analysis pro and con. It appears that Health Canada is not in agreement with the proposed criteria change and that Council did not receive external peer review input. This request by CNL and approval by Council is a major concern with the proposal itself, lack of supporting evidence made public, lack of explanation of the many implications, as well as the process to date. All relevant documentation should be readily available, posted on websites for informed decision-making and public input.

vi) There appears to be no local Community Advisory Group (CAG) of non-politicians therefore the Municipality is required by the Legal Agreement to assume this role which includes receiving and disclosing to the public without charge all documents and reports related to the PHAI and remediation. Is the Municipality performing this role on behalf of the people? If so it is not following the requirements in our experience. Clarification is required on the CAG process. We recommend that residents have ongoing collective public opportunities for consultation, input and impact on remediation policies and practices with MPH and CN:/PHAI as described in the Agreement.

vii) We are seeing, hearing and reading of some residents’ experiences with the CNL and PHAI that are very unpleasant and disturbing to put it mildly. The Legal Agreement requires a formal complaint process and it is our understanding that the formal process and less formal written/verbal inquiries or complaints expressed are not working well or at all in some cases. It appears that the Municipality is not engaging with or assisting most people beyond referring them back to CNL and PHAI staff. Examples of some difficult homeowner situations include arbitrary or sudden decision-making about remediation on properties, changing timelines, unexplained delays from one stage to the next, lack of input, lack of responses to inquiries, confidentiality requirements, etc. It is clear that people need help in the form of access to independent advocacy to help them exercise their rights, navigate through the remediation process with understanding of the implications and liabilities of decisions already made and to be made. We recommend a federally funded Legal Ombudsman Office be established in Port Hope as soon as possible to provide that individual support. 

viii) The Municipality of Port Hope should have adequate funding restored by the federal government as in Phase 1 Planning to obtain expert advice from independent technical peer reviewers to assist decision-making regarding the many nuclear-related issues and concerns facing the community from Cameco operations, licensing hearings and decommissioning, the federal $2.6 billion remediation of more than 1300 external small site private and public locations including roadways and frontages. 

2. Financial Reparations for the People: 

a) Enact federal legislation similar to the United States for federal reparations for current and former families and nuclear workers in Port Hope and other communities and First Nations impacted by nuclear operations. The US has paid more than $30 billion to nuclear workers and community downwinders under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act. Canada needs similar legislation to legally recognize and compensate for harm caused by the nuclear industry. 

2. Greater Accountability for the Regulator and Nuclear Industry 

a) Establish a National Public Inquiry into past, current and future management of radioactive wastes in Canada starting in Port Hope with a comprehensive audit and operational review of what has happened, what has been done and what remains to be done to fulfill the Legal Agreement. 

b) Ensure that the plans of the Ontario Government and Ontario Power Generation to construct the largest nuclear plant in the world in the beautiful rural farming area of Port Hope on Lake Ontario shores at Wesleyville be subjected to a rigorous comprehensive independent environmental assessment process with opportunities for full public participation. 

c) Challenge the CNSC approval of Cameco’s request for secrecy in 2023 when Cameco submitted its Preliminary Decommissioning Plan (PDP). Order full disclosure of the PDPs for both Cameco facilities in Port Hope to ensure there is public scrutiny of the intentions, commitments made, and to ensure that Cameco is taking full financial responsibility to restore the lands in Port Hope they currently occupy in accordance with the current cleanup criteria. 

d) Cameco was required to file an updated Preliminary Decommissioning Plan (PDP) to the CNSC in 2023. When Cameco did so it requested secrecy for the key contents which was granted by CNSC over objections from some organizations including the PHCHCC. The Municipality of Port Hope does not appear to have filed any interventions to the CNSC during the review period on behalf of Port Hope either objecting to the secrecy of Cameco’s PDP nor commenting on what was available which has great potential impact for the future restoration of these properties including the waterfront including who will pay, where will the contaminated soil and buildings go etc. 

e) Cameco operates aging nuclear facilities dating back decades with daily radioactive and heavy metal emissions over the community and Lake Ontario including significant fugitive emissions that cannot be controlled or accurately reported. In spite of this reality, in 2023 Cameco’s Fuel Fabricating Facility, located in a neighbourhood with no buffer zone, was granted its request for a 20 year license extension by CNSC with approval for increased production by 24%. Cameco’s Conversion Facility, also in a neighbourhood with no buffer zone, on Lake Ontario shores with single road access, has a CNSC license renewal process coming up in 2026. Decommissioning of these aging facilities with safe storage of contaminated materials and restoration of the waterfront will take time and in our view should begin now while a federal remediation process is focused on restoring Port Hope. 

We will be in contact in the very near future to request time for a presentation to Council on these matters and look forward to future discussions and responses to address these questions and concerns. Thank you. 

Yours truly 

Faye More 

Chair, 

Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee