Panel Report

The comments previously made in this report have directly addressed issues contained in our terms of reference; i.e., environmental, safety, health and socio-economic concerns. There are, however, a number of important concerns that were raised during the reviews which do not fit neatly into any one of the previous sections. An attempt has been made to summarize some of these issues in this section.

6.1 Industry Regulation

To be effective, regulators require the support of the industry and the public. The industry is looking for elimination of duplication between federal and provincial regulators, and streamlining of the regulatory process. The public is looking for assurance that these projects can be operated safely and without adverse environmental impacts.

The level of public confidence, although satisfactory with regard to the provincial regulation of conventional health and safety, is less strong regarding the federal regulation of nuclear undertakings. This lack of confidence is due, in part, to the apprehension often attached to nuclear issues. Efforts should be made to enhance the confidence of the Saskatchewan public, through education regarding nuclear and mining issues, and through the increased involvement of northerners in monitoring and regulatory activities.

Although members of the public occasionally expressed a lack of confidence in the regulatory process, our conclusion, after careful study of the system, is that the industry has been well regulated in the Province of Saskatchewan. In our estimation, workers and the public have been protected without subjecting the operators to excessive requirements. There does appear, however, to be room for a better definition of responsibilities between the two levels of government and, where overlap of jurisdiction cannot be avoided, for greater cooperation and efficiency.

6.2 Industry Viability

The environmental damage caused by development of mines cannot be justified unless the projects produce compensating benefits. The economic benefits that will flow from mine development will be directly dependent on the price of uranium, which will, in turn, be governed by the laws of supply and demand. Therefore, an environmental review should also assess the likely future demand for uranium.

Assessments concerning the economic benefits of uranium mining made by the Cluff Lake and Key Lake Boards of Inquiry were altogether too optimistic. [E.D. Bayda, A.J. Groome, K.J. McCallum, Final Report, Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry, 1978, p. 165. R.W. Mitchell, D. Smyth, M.M. Tomilin, J.P. Roberts and W.N. Riese, Key Lake Board of Inquiry Report, 1981, pp. 21-22.] The promise of high prices that existed in the late seventies and early eighties encouraged an over-production of uranium which consequently forced prices down. In fact, some of the resultant surplus inventories still exist. However, since current global production is only about one-half of the world-wide demand, the surplus inventories are rapidly being diminished and the demand for uranium is predicted to increase modestly over the next two decades. Therefore, the price is also likely to increase somewhat over the next decade.

Evidence received by the panel from various sources agreed with the prediction that the increased demand for uranium in the next decade would contribute to making the industry profitable and result in substantial benefits for the federal and provincial governments. For example, a joint report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency states that:

World electrical energy use will continue to expand over the next several decades to meet the needs of rising population and sustained economic growth. After the turn of the century, electricity demand in the developing countries will likely grow at two or three times the rate in the developed countries. Most new nuclear capacity is forecast for these regions. Globally, over the thirty year term from 1990 to 2020, nuclear electricity generation (and the corresponding uranium requirements) are expected by many experts to grow by about a factor of two. [URANIUM, 1993 Resources, Production and Demand, Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 1994, p. 14.]

In addition, the Province completed independent assessments of each of the projects which, as discussed in each of the individual reports, predict positive cash flows and a good rate of return on investment. All indications at this time, therefore, are that the industry will be economically viable.

6.3 Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Although the Government of Canada prohibits the use of Canadian uranium in nuclear explosive devices, it permits the sale of uranium to foreign buyers in accordance with its policy of fungibility. This policy requires that, for all Canadian uranium sold, an equivalent quantity must be accounted for in non-military applications. However, no process exists to separate Canadian uranium from uranium acquired from other sources; the policy of fungibility fails to provide assurances to the public that Canadian uranium will not be used in weaponry.

One suggestion made to address this shortcoming was the implementation of a coordinated international application of the fungibility concept with governments of other uranium-producing nations; i.e., a cumulative international fungibility policy.

Also at issue is the continued sale of Canadian uranium to countries which have recently tested nuclear weapons or otherwise violated the intent of internationally ratified agreements, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Canada is a signatory. Further, some members of the public stressed their concern over ongoing uranium mining activities in Canada by companies owned by the governments of these same countries.

A participant suggested that Canada might address these concerns by revoking the licence of companies owned by foreign governments that test nuclear weapons and/or by prohibiting, for a period of five years, sales of uranium to countries that have violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. [P. Prebble, Transcript of Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, June 14, 1996, p. 145.] Such a measure could prove to be a powerful incentive for governments to comply with international agreements to which Canada is a signatory.

6.4 Genetic Effects of Ionizing Radiation

One concern of the general public is that increases in ionizing radiation, particularly from the alpha radiation emitted from particles ingested by organisms, will lead to genetic problems in the biota. Although not stated explicitly, the fear seems to be that increases in ionizing radiation will cause an increase in the mutation rate and that harmful mutations will build up in the biota until the organisms are no longer viable. This is not a trivial concern; however, based on a knowledge of the genetic effects of radiation and the study of population genetics, scientists have concluded that there is little risk.

First, it is acknowledged that increases in ionizing radiation lead to an increase in the mutation rates of organisms; [This effect was first observed about 70 years ago in experiments by H.J Muller, using X-rays on fruit flies, and by L.J. Stadler, using X-rays on barley. Subsequently, this was shown to be a general response of organisms.] however, large doses of radiation are required to make an appreciable change in mutation rates. For example, with mice, it has been estimated that each additional dose of 10 mSv would induce about 1.5 x 0-7 mutations at each gene locus. [A.P. Mange and E.J. Mange, Genetics: Human Aspects, 2 nd Edition, Sinauer Associates, Sutherland, Massachusetts, 1990, p. 265.] It would take a dose of about 1000 mSv to double the normal mutation rate for this species. For human populations, it has been estimated that a radiation dose of 500 to 2500 mSv would be required to double the natural mutation rate. [Ibid.] Other organisms may be more or less sensitive in their response to ionizing radiation, but all require large doses of radiation to appreciably change their mutation rates.

Secondly, the mutations induced in organisms by ionizing radiation are no different than natural spontaneous mutations. While a few may be beneficial, most will be either neutral (i.e. seemingly no better or worse than the original gene), or harmful. The new mutations, whether they be spontaneous or induced by mutagenic agents such as ionizing radiation, occur at a very low frequency ranging between about 1 in 100,000, to 1 in 100,000,000 per gene, per generation. Thus, even with many thousands of genes in each germ cell, there will be few new mutations in each generation. It has been estimated that each human being carries about two new mutations; [F.J. Ayala and J.W. Valentine, Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, The Benjamin/Cummins Publishing Company, Menlo Park, California, 1979, p.93.] most organisms other than humans will carry far fewer new mutations because they have fewer genes.

Increasing the mutation rate would have surprisingly little effect on the genetic structure of the population. This is because any new variation arising in each generation by mutation is only a minute fraction of the total amount of genetic variation already present in the population. Most organisms carry thousands of mutations as a result of their accumulation in the population over many thousands of generations; humans are no exception. In general, it is estimated that any new variation being added through mutation to the population each generation is less than one-thousandth of the existing variation in that population. [Ibid, p. 94.] In addition, most new mutations will not survive in the population because they will be eliminated either by selection, or by chance. Scientists have concluded, therefore, that mutation pressure has little effect on the genetic structure of populations. What changes do occur, tend to occur slowly.

In conclusion, the hazards posed by the genetic effects resulting from increases in ionizing radiation from uranium mining are likely to be small or insignificant. Natural spontaneous mutation rates occur at very low frequencies and it requires large doses of radiation to change these rates substantially. To increase the mutation rates to levels where they could dramatically change the genetic structure of populations in a harmful way would require doses of ionizing radiation, where we would be more concerned with the direct lethal effects of radiation rather than the genetic effects.

6.5 The Environmental Assessment Review Process

This panel received its mandate jointly from the federal and provincial governments in 1991 and has conducted independent public environmental assessment reviews of seven different uranium mining proposals. In conducting the public reviews, certain precedents occurred which merit comment.

This review was the first environmental assessment review undertaken jointly by the Governments of Canada and Saskatchewan. By using one process to address the legislative and regulatory needs of both governments, it was possible to eliminate duplication and reduce the costs and time required.

The mandate given the panel was the first to include the consideration of the regional cumulative impacts resulting from development of several projects within the same timeframe and geographic area. The panel reviewed the mining of nine ore bodies, the construction of one mill, the design of two tailings management facilities and the expansion of associated transportation infrastructure. Because the review period was lengthy, panel members were able to acquire a comprehensive knowledge of the technical aspects of the proposals, while at the same time assimilating the economic and social climate of the region for which the developments are proposed. This is significant; no development occurs in isolation, either from the physical environment or from socio-economic conditions. By reviewing several projects under a single mandate, it was possible to consider the cumulative environmental and socio-economic impacts of all of the proposed developments.

Another advantage of consolidating seven proposals under one review process was that it allowed for the investigation of options to reduce the overall impact of the developments by combining some aspects of their operations. A good example of this is the decision to custom mill ores from several mines at a few sites, thus reducing the number of mills and tailings management facilities to be built and decommissioned.

The fact that this review panel was convened for more than six years did present some difficulties. The logistical problem of maintaining the involvement of panel members for the duration became apparent when two of the panel members resigned before all of the reviews had been completed. For all members, panel responsibilities were an addition to their primary employment, and the demands on their time were often difficult, or impossible, to reconcile. This would likely be a consideration for any future panel with multiple reviews in its mandate.

Another significant problem relates to the fact that the environmental assessment process, designed as a planning tool, reviews the concept of any proposed developments to enable decisions to be made before irrevocable actions are taken. For a conceptual review, the proponent must choose a point in time at which sufficient information is available to prepare an environmental impact statement and must base its predictions on the amount of information available at that time. This confers a static nature on the environmental assessment process. This is particularly difficult to reconcile when an EIS for one proposal is based on information common to another, previously approved, project that is generating site-specific information for licensing approvals. This was the case in the Midwest and Cigar Lake reviews: The static nature of the environmental assessment of their tailings management facility proposal was in conflict with the dynamic nature of the licensing process ongoing for the same facility, the JEB TMF. In the future, if similar reviews are undertaken, careful consideration must be given to coping with the possible interaction of conceptual information from one proposal and site-specific data from another.

Throughout this review, the panel and secretariat heard a certain amount of criticism regarding the public environmental assessment review process. Some of the concerns related to the duration of the reviews; to the amount of time permitted for the public to assess the complex technical details of the proposals; and to the scope of the panel's mandate. As with any legislated process, environmental assessment tries to respond to the varied interests of all participants, while achieving its objectives. We are comfortable with the balance achieved by the processes of the Governments of Canada and Saskatchewan and suggest, in response to the criticisms heard, that careful consideration be given to what alternatives might be instituted if the process were to be changed.

The projects under review were extremely technical in nature. As a result, both governments provided intervenor funding to assist members of the public in conducting their reviews of the EISs. We appreciate the efforts made, and emphasize the value of the contributions of the public in assisting us to formulate recommendations. The public nature of the environmental assessment process is its most important feature. Above all else, it must be encouraged and protected.

During the six-year lifetime of the review, it was occasionally suggested that the panel might not have been completely free of political interference. [See, for example, M. Penna, Transcript of Supplementary Public Hearings for Midwest and Cigar Lake, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, August 27, 1997, p. 149.] Some participants alleged that officials from the federal and provincial governments might somehow have applied pressure on the panel to make recommendations which they favoured. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Representatives from both levels of government scrupulously avoided interference in the panel's work in any way. In fact, the only people who attempted to corrupt the process by using their influence to effect political interference in the environmental assessment reviews were the Saskatchewan Bishops. [Star Phoenix Uranium hearings not working, bishops say, November 27, 1996, p. 3.]

The public process conducted on these projects took place in a manner that was independent of both government and industry. All review activities were made as transparent as possible and all documentation was open to public scrutiny. An attempt was made to conduct the hearings in a non-judicial manner, allowing full comment by members of the public, industry and government. These were among the most extensive hearings ever undertaken in Canada. As shown by their responses to panel recommendations, both the Governments of Canada and Saskatchewan gave careful consideration to our reports before making decisions regarding the projects under review. We are satisfied with their responses to our work.