The central focus of the Task Force's efforts was to be the development for siting a disposal facility in Ontario for the existing, ongoing, and historic wastes in the Port Hope area and ,where advantageous, for the disposal of other existing and ongoing low-level radioactive wastes loacted elsewhere in the province. The main objective of the process was to be the voluntary identification of one or more host communities, each with a suitable disposal technology. The principles which are the foundation are listed together with an accompanying diagram outlining the five phase process in Appendix B.
The Siting Task Force defined radioactive waste as "[m]aterial which is a product of deliberate processing and which contains radionuclides (radioactive elements) in greater concentration than is considered safe for uncontrolled release into the environment."2 Naturally occurring uranium ore, therefore, is not radioactive waste, but uranium mine and mill tailings are. Spent fuel is radioactive waste in Canada because no further use is envisioned for it, whereas in countries where reprocessing is undertaken, it is not considered to be waste. The Siting Task Force definition of radioactive waste, however, begs the answer to the following question: What constitutes waste which contains radionuclides in a greater concentration than is considered "safe for uncontrolled release" into the environment? In Canada this judgment is made by the AECB for each individual radionuclide through its system of "scheduled quantities".
It is interesting, however, that the low-level radioactive wastes present in the Port Hope Harbour appear to constitute no immediate threat to human health or the environment.
Members [of the Siting Task Force] find it unusual that potential expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars to remove and house low-level radioactive wastes are being seriously contemplated, presumably because of the danger posed by the wastes, while the agencies responsible have not demonstrated that the existing low-level waste management sites pose a serious threat to human health or the environment.
Furthermore, no serious attempt has been made to restrict the public from access to some of the sites in the Port Hope area or, similarly, from locations housing mine and mill tailings elsewhere in the province. SUch an inconsistent approach to the management of low-level radioactive waste accumulations is likely to cause confusion. Additionally, it may unjustifiably reduce the credibility of waste prooducers and the regulators in the eyes of the public in cases where the management appraoch taken was entirely appropriate and responsible. In the final analysis, the Task Force must conclude that the prolonged debate over the perfect waste management solution has only been possible because there is currently no urgent threat to health or the environment.3
The historical wastes in Port Hope have relatively low concentrations of radioactivity (i.e. an average specific activity of less than or equal to 1.0 GBq/m3; the half life of the longest lived constituent radionuclide is greater than 500 years). Based on the responses of federal and provincial agencies with the responsiblity for ensuring the safe management of low-level radioactive wastes, there does not appear to be any serios threat to human health or the environment from existing low-level radioactive waste accumulations in Ontario. Further information on the nature of radioactivity and radiation can be found in Appendix C. It should be remembered, however, that the Port Hope Harbour sediments are also contaminated with heavy metals and PCBs which exceed Ontario's guidelines for the open-water disposal of dredge spoils.
Although radioactive wastes in the Port Hope Harbour sediments pose no immediate threat to human health or the environment, the harbour has been identified a as an area of concern due to the radioactive nature of the harbour sediments and the fact that they are also contaminated with heavy metals and PCBs. The development of a RAP for the Port Hope Harbour should be somewhat easier than for most other areas of concern since the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) of the AECL has already been designated to develop remedial options for the harbour cleanup. Indeed, in 1986 and 1987, the LLRWMO published two documents regarding a remedial programme for the Port Hope Harbour cleanup4. It is interesting that, although the LLRWMO has been charged with the responsiblity for low-level radioactive wastes and the cleanup of the Port Hope Harbour, a RAP was developed for the harbour. Given the above discussion, the necessity of developing a RAP for the Port Hope Harbour must be seriously questioned.
There are four main groups invloved in the Port Hope Harbour RAP:
A simplified diagram of the rather complicated interactions taking place in the creation of the RAP for Port Hope Harbour can be seen in Figure 1.
Source: LLRWMO, May 27, 1989.
The LLRWMO identified four options for the Port Hope Harbour in its reprts of 1986 and 1987.5 These are the same options being considered by the Port Hope Harbour RAP Team.6 The options include:
This Figure is not yet available.
Source: MacLaren Engineers, 1987.
Source: MacLaren Engineers, 1987.
The basic cleanup sequence common to all alternatives includes:
Option 1 listed above allows virtually any level of cleanup to be achieved. Options 2 and 3 will result in the deposition of a thin layer of contaminated sediment on the harbour floor. With option 4, a large inventory of contaminated material would be left in place below a stratum of relatively clean ovreburden. A list of the options, the volumes of the sediments which would be removed, a respective costs and timings can be seen in Table 1. Clearly, if there is truly a need to be concerned about the harbour sediments, the best option would be option 1. All approaches, however, would result in the destruction of benthic organisms and fish living in the harbour and some contaminants would still be present in the remaining sediments. As the LLRWMO points out:
Excavation work, whether by dredging or with the use of standard land based techniques, cannot be completed with precision.7
| Option | Description | Volume (m3) | Cost ($) | Time (wks) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dewatering and Excavation "In-the-Dry" | 88,840 | 5,801,880 | 51 |
| 2 | Mechanical Dredging | 71,364 | 2,028,487 | 28 |
| 3 | Mechanical Dredging with Hydraulic Cleanup | 85,430 | 4,150,643 | 57 |
| 4 | Mechanical Dredging with 160 CPM (Gamma) Cutoff Criterion | 42,700 | 1,469,827 | 20 |
Source: MacLaren Engineers, 1987.
Indeed, it appears that all of the suggested remedial options would be more environmentally damaging than managing the sediments in-situ. Additionally, it should be remembered that the accumulation of radioactive contaminants in the harbour sediments would continue (after any cleanup) through surface runoff, plant process upsets and water discharge, and, possibly, groundwater movement.
There is, however, another option for the Port Hope Harbour, and the RAP Team should be criticized for initially not considering such an approach. This option would involve filling in the turning basin and west slip and constructing a new harbour east of the Ganaraska River. The idea for capping the harbour originated at a meeting of the Port Hope Municipal Council held on March 28, 1989. The following resolution was passed at that meeting:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT this Council of the Town of Port Hope favours a remedial action plan for the management of Low Level Radioactive Wastes present in the turning basin of the Port Hope Harbour through filling in of the basin with uncontaminated fill leading to the in situ burial and isolation of the wastes along with low level wastes from other locations within the Town's boundaries to the extent which such waste might be accommodated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Siting Task Force on Low Level Radioactive Waste and the RAP Co-ordinator for the Port Hope Harbour for the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respective [sic] Great Lakes Water Quality be requested to advise what steps can be taken by their respective agencies and the Town to initiate consideration of in situ management of contaminated sediments located in the turning basin of Port Hope Habour [sic].8
The preferred RAP approach, which involves dredging, was overshadowed by this new proposal. The new proposal was endorsed by the PHHC, and the EAC and the Siting Task Force became invloved with the harbour plans. Indeed, Cameco representatives at an EAC meeting were supportive of the capping idea with the incorporation of sttling ponds for their purposes. The ponds would be relatively easy for Cameco to monitor, close off if spills occur, and recycle the spilled material.
The RAP Team responded to the above resolution inidcating that remedial options other than dredging (such as in situ containment) should be assessed. The option involving the placement of additional contaminated material into the harbour, however, does not meeet the RAP Team's nor the IJC's objectives. The RAP Team, therefore, would not consider such an option.
It remains unclear as to why the RAP Team would not support such an action. Reasons given for not supporting this appraoch were rather weak:
The RAP Team later stated, however, that the capping of the harbour with clean fill might be considered as an in situ management option. It is difficult to understand why this option might be considered, whereas filling in the harbour with additional low level radioactive wastes to the extent that such wastes might be accommodated and capping it with clean fill would not be supported. This is particularly confusing if it can be shown that the latter approach is environmentally sound.
The Siting Task Force, however, has not ruled out the option of capping the harbour and managing the radioactive waste in situ. Indeed, the LLRWMO has developed a harbour disposal concept map and cross-section (see Map 5 and Figure 4). If the harbour is to be capped, one cannot simply pour gravel onto the very soft sediment as the sediment would be disturbed and flow through the gravel to the top. A special fabric rolled over the sediments, however, could be used; this geotextile would allow water to seep out of the sediment as grvel was dumped on it, compacting the sediment in place. When completed, 2 metres of gravel would sit on the sediment with clean fill added to make the harbour level with the surrounding land. Once the site was filled, the grounds could be used for park purposes as long as nothing was dug deep into the soil.
Source: LLRWMO, 1990.
This Figure is not yet available.
Source: LLRWMO, 1990.
Indeed, instead of spending large sums of money to dredge the harbour, the harbour could be capped and the money used to develop a really beautiful and useful waterfront. The OMOE has pointed out that there are two types of benefits to be achieved through water quality objectives:
It can be concluded that these economic benefits can also be obtained in some sense through the capping of the Port Hope Harbour and its redevelopment into parkland.
Don Chalmers, the Mayor of Port Hope, has stated that the Town Council's original idea when it proposed the capping of the harbour was to secure a compensation package from RAP or the Siting Task Force for locating a site suitable for the waste. The compensation money was then to be used in the development of a new harbour.10
It now appears unlikely that any action will be taken with respect to the harbour for some time. Phase 3 of the siting process where community liaison groups gather information and consult the public has been completed. The federal government, however, has yet to decide whether or not the cooperative siting process will continue into Phase 4 which involves a more detailed investigation of site options. If a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility is not soon found, Port Hope Harbour may soon become inoperable as a small craft harbour and remain only to serve as an eyesore and a settling pond for Cameco.
The Town of Port Hope is tired of all the confusion and lengthly delays with respect to the RAP and the Siting process. The Town has decided to go ahead with a $10 million redvelopment of its waterfront and the construction of a new harbour, even though nothing has been decided with respect to the old harbour. An $80,000 planning study has already been completed and Port Hope hopes to have a newly developed waterfront within the next 5 years. The plan calls for a new 300 slip yacht basin and marina to the east of the existing harbour, and an open civic square and restaurant on the centre pier. Other commercial developments, such as inns and residential and recreational facilities to be located in the new harbour area and along the Ganaraska River, arfe part of the ovreall plan. A system of pedestrian trails complete with foot bridges is planned for the river, the lakefront, and the central pier. The Town of Port Hope hopes to obtain funding from the AECB in the form of compensation if the old harbour is closed down. Funding is also expected from the Small Craft Harbours branch of the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans as well as from the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.
The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has recently announced that up to $500,000 is available to waterside municipalities for the construstion and rehabilitation of facilities that will increase tourism and recreation. Such a new project could benefit the town's economy by increasing tourism in the area where trout and salmon fishing are popular pastimes.11
It is unfortunate that the Town of Port Hope cannot efectively incorporate the turning basin and west slip into its waterfront development. The Town would like to see the old habour capped and turned into a park. It makes sense to manage the sediments where they are (through environmentally sound, and technically and economically practical means) and build a new replacement harbour. Confusion, conflicts, and time and funding delays, however, have put plans for the Port Hope Harbour on hold.
In summary, it appears as though capping the Port Hope Harbour and turning it into a park is the best option if one is to consider the future vitality of Port Hope. It is obvious that the contaminated sediments in the harbour have to be removed or managed in situ. The duplication of efforts by the RAP Team and the LLRWMO is at the crux of the decision-making problems involved in solving the problems at hand. The harbour wastes are the responsibility of the LLRWMO and there does not appear to be any legitimate reason for a separate RAP Team to be involved.
The Town of Port Hope would like to see the harbour capped and perhaps turned into a park. The lack of a suitable low-level radioactive waste management facility is in itself an argument in favour of capping the harbour. It appears as though the harbour can be safely capped and fit into Port Hope's overall plans for the redevelopment of its waterfront. This option, therefore, should be closely considered as it provides an opportunity for Port Hope to both solve a long-time problem and to capitalize on a project which would help to bring greater economic prosperity and vitality to the town.
1. Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting Great Lakes Water Quality, Port Hope Remedial Action Plan, (Issue #2), Toronto: Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting Great Lakes Water Quality, Fall, 1989, p. 1.
2. Siting Task Force on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal, Opting for Cooperation: Report of the Siting Task Force on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal, Ottawa: Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, n.d., p. 13
3. Ibid.
4. Document #1: MacLaren Engineers in association with Canadian Dredge and Dock Inc. and Golder Associates, Port Hope Remedial Program - Engineering Design Brief for the Harbour Cleanup: Report No. 2, Ottawa: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office, Sept., 1986; Document #2: MacLaren Engineers in association with Canadian Dredge and Dock Inc. and Golder Associates, Port Hope Remedial Program - Engineering Design Brief for the Harbour Cleanup: Report No. 3, Ottawa: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office, July, 1987.
5. Ibid.
6. Sandra Weston, Port Hope Harbour RAP Coordinator, Environment Canada, interview in February, 1991.
7. MacLaren Engineers and Lavalin in association with Canadian Dredge and Dock Inc. and Golder Associates, Port Hope Remedial Program - Conceptual Engineering Design Report for the Harbour Cleanup: Report No. 3, Ottawa: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office, July, 1987, p. 4-3.
8. Sandra Weston, Port Hope Harbour Team, letter to Mr. Robling, Sept. 5, 1989.
9. Apogee Research International Ltd., and Peat Marwick S & K, and James F. Hickling Management Consultants Ltd., Overview Economic Assessment of Remedial Action Plans for the Great Lakes' Areas of Concern, (Report Prepared for Policy and Planning Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment), Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario, April, 1990, p.10.
10. Donald Chalmers, Mayor, Port Hope, interview in March, 1991.
11. Ibid.
This page was last updated on September 24, 2000.
© Copyright 1991, 1998-2000 Michael L. Robling. All rights reserved.
E-mail: mrobling@nctvcable.com
Back to Mike Robling's Home Page
Get your own Free Home Page