Panel Report

13.1 Government Response to Previous Reports

In October, 1993, the panel completed reviews of proposals for three Saskatchewan uranium mines - the Midwest Joint Venture, the McClean Lake Project and the Dominique-Janine Extension. In its report, the panel recommended the approval of the Dominique-Janine Extension, subject to certain conditions; the approval of the McClean Lake project, also subject to certain conditions, including a delay of 5 years to permit time for education, training and research prior to the start of mining; and the rejection of the Midwest Joint Venture proposal. These recommendations and attendant conditions were submitted to the provincial and federal governments to assist in their decision-making. The governments responded in December, 1993.⁸³ The provincial government recently presented a status report on the commitments it had made in 1993.⁸⁴ The AECB, the agency responsible for the implementation of most of the recommendations and conditions directed to the federal government, dealt with many of the panel’s concerns in licensing reports for the Dominique-Janine Extension and the McClean Lake project.⁸⁵

The provincial and federal governments accepted the panel’s advice on approving the Dominique-Janine Extension, and the majority of the attached conditions. The governments accepted the panel’s recommendation that the Midwest Joint Venture not be approved. The governments also accepted the panel’s advice for the approval of the McClean Lake Project, and implemented most of the attached conditions. While the recommended 5-year delay in start-up was not accepted, the government indicated that the “licensing process is a staged process, providing sufficient time to address all of the issues raised by the Joint Panel before the McClean lake Project would come in to operation in several years”.⁸⁶

Although the governments did not accept the panel’s recommended 5-year delay of approval, the reality of the phased licensing process is that the panel’s intent of a structured multi-year development at McClean Lake has been substantially achieved. At the close of hearings on the McArthur River Project, three years after recommending the 5-year delay, licences to mine and mill ore from the McClean Lake site had yet to be issued.

The panel also recommended delayed licensing of the JEB tailings management facility at McClean Lake to permit cautious evaluation of the Rabbit Lake pervious surround tailings disposal technique upon which it was modelled. The governments did not agree with the need for this delay, in view of strong support for the method by the Rabbit Lake Panel,⁸⁷ by provincial regulators and by independent consultants hired by the province to assess the technology. The consensus of these reviewers was that the pervious surround technology was the most appropriate tailings disposal option available.

The most significant divergence by the federal and provincial governments from the panel’s advice concerned a recommendation for the introduction of a form of revenue sharing. The federal government’s response stated only that, “The Government of Canada encourages the Province of Saskatchewan to carefully consider this proposal.”⁸⁸ In making this statement, the federal government seemed to imply that revenue sharing was entirely a provincial matter. However, the Government of Canada also derives significant benefits from these mines, and has fiduciary responsibility for most of the people living in the impacted communities. In responding to the panel, the federal government should have addressed these realities in the context of the panel’s recommendation. An effective program of revenue sharing in northern Saskatchewan would require a commitment from, and the participation of, both levels of government.

Although the Government of Saskatchewan rejected revenue sharing per se, it has, however, undertaken, “...to address the desires of Northerners for greater northern benefits from mining and for greater economic self-sufficient...” .⁸⁹ The province’s initiatives include the Multi-Party Training Plan, establishment of the Northern Municipal Round Table, amendment of the Northern Revenue Sharing Trust Account, establishment of the Northern Development Fund and redeployment of infrastructure funds to northern municipalities and First Nations communities. Many of the policies and programs which have been developed derive from ongoing consultations with northerners.

The panel agrees with the province that certain expenditures of mining revenues are being invested in support of the future of northerners. Revenues which can be spent in the present, while resources exist, to enhance employment, education, training and economic development are seen as an investment for the future, when non-renewable resources may be depleted. This approach encourages long-term, structured growth in the north.

However, the panel stated in 1993 that northerners should share more generously in any benefits derived from mines because they bear the greatest risk of environmental damage or social disruption by these velopments. The panel’s opinion has not altered.

Our traditional lands have been used by the mines. The Government of Saskatchewan derives mega financial benefits. We are the people of this land. Where are our benefits?

Caroline Isadore, Chief of the Fond du Lac Band, Transcript of McArthur River Public Hearings, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, October 1, 1996, p. 32.

The fact that the report was not placed on a back shelf to gather dust is an indication of the commitment both levels of government have to the environmental review process. Of particular satisfaction to the panel are the positive actions taken on the following issues:

• provision of a financial guarantee to cover decommissioning and postdecommissioning costs. In Saskatchewan, the requirement to provide such a guarantee became law on March 5, 1996, as part of changes to the Mineral Industry Environmental Protection Regulations. Federally, the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) has accomplished the same thing by an amendment to the Uranium and Thorium Mining Regulations;
• establishment of cumulative effects monitoring programs to monitor regional environmental effects resulting from multiple mining operations. The lead provincial and federal regulatory agencies, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management (SERM) and the AECB, have established a joint cumulative effects monitoring program, and act as joint chairs of a scientific steering group, the Cumulative Effects Monitoring Working Group;
• establishment of a research fund to support the search for innovative ways to reduce the volume of effluent, and the quantity of chemicals required to treat contaminated water, and to examine innovative techniques for tailings management. SERM reports that formal discussions have taken place between the Industrial Branch and the presidents of Cameco, Cogema and Uranium Saskatchewan. An agreement in principle has been reached for the companies to provide funding for research;
• establishment of a monitoring committee. Environmental Quality Committees, described in Section 11.2, have been instituted and the Northern Mines Monitoring Secretariat has been established to provide them with funding and administrative, professional, technical and communication support;
• establishment of mechanisms for conducting an epidemiological study on current and former miners. The AECB, the mining companies and the Saskatchewan government are collaborating to carry out such a cohort study; and
• initiation of a comprehensive health study of northern people as a baseline against which any future impact of uranium mining can be assessed. A feasibility study for such a program has been completed.⁹⁰

13.2 Environmental Assessment Review Process

The process of public environmental assessment reviews in Canada is well established. The various stages - scoping, preparation of guidelines, EIS submission and examination, provision of required additional information, public hearings, report-writing and decision-making - have proven effective for the assessment and mitigation of potential environmental, socio-economic and health impacts. The transparency of the process, whereby public participation and scrutiny are sought at every stage, adds extra weight to the panel recommendations. The panel wishes to emphasize the positive value added to its deliberations by contributions from the public, both written and oral.

l am very grateful for this process and I have supported it.

Maisie Shiell, Transcript of McArthur River Public Hearings, La Range, Saskatchewan, October 1, 1996, p. 81.

For the current review, the panel modified the general process to include a panel-proponent information meeting after the EIS had been received and examined. The meeting assisted the panel in its determination of the adequacy of the EIS. The information meeting took the form of a structured, but informal, round table discussion of the project by the panel and the proponents. The meeting, its agenda and procedures were announced in advance. Members of the public, representatives from governments, media people and other interested persons attended as observers. During the course of the one-and-a-half day meeting, the proponent described its project under a set of preselected topics and answered questions from the panel mem hers. The result was a lively discussion in which the panel members obtained a clearer understanding of the proposal and the proponent had an opportunity to explain its EIS while learning of the panel’s concerns.

As a consequence of the information meeting, it was easier to accommodate greater public participation in the subsequent public hearings. Because the panel members had been able to receive responses to many of their concerns during the information meeting, most of the time during hearings was dedicated to concerns raised by the public and representatives of the governments. Although this approach introduced an additional step into the review process, the consensus from the panel and the proponent⁹¹ was that it improved the overall efficiency of the hearings.

...when you elected to organize the technical sessions last spring to identify early in the review process issues which required clarification in order to facilitate these subsequent meetings. This was an innovative and effective approach, and frankly we believe it has paved the way for better communications during the hearings, and in turn, we believe that it helped make the public process participatory.

Bernard Michel, President, Cameco Corporation, Transcript of Public Hearings, Pinehouse, Saskatchewan, October 7, 1996, p. 142.

13.3 Revenue Sharing

It is evident from their words and actions that northern leaders wish to have the issue of revenue sharing resolved in a political forum rather than as part of the environmental review process. We agree with that approach and urge both levels of government to become involved in a multipartite discussion of revenue sharing with northern leaders.

The issue of revenue sharing is broader than most others dealt with in this review and it should not be resolved at the expense of any single industry and its employees and contractors. It is clear, however, that uranium mining would likely receive wider acceptance by the residents of northern Saskatchewan if a comprehensive program of revenue sharing were in place. We, therefore, recommend that both levels of government give serious consideration to the initiation of a program of revenue sharing at the earliest possible date.

We are aware that the concept of revenue sharing will be difficult to implement because of the many levels of government involved and the numerous overlapping issues indicated in figure 5. Despite these complexities, it should be possible for people of good will to find a compromise that is equitable to all. We urge that the process begin.

Figure 5: Some Factors Affecting Revenue-Sharing Negotiations

13.4 Regulation

13.4.1 Public Participation

Many of the environmental impacts of this project cannot be predicted with certainty in advance. It is conceivable that unexpected developments, large and small, could occur with the potential to cause environmental damage. It is for this reason that the public must have a great deal of trust in the mine regulators. It is they who have the responsibility to ensure that the project is completed in accordance with the commitments made by the proponents and the decisions taken by the ministers responsible for approving this project. And it is they who will have to approve or reject any proposed modifications If there is public mistrust of the regulators, the uranium mining industry will never be accepted by northern people who fear that their air, water and/or food might be contaminated.

One way to foster greater trust is to provide the public with an opportunity to participate in the regulatory process. Such participation should be at an early enough stage to influence decisions. It is not sufficient to explain why a decision was taken, after the fact. It is clear that northerners wish to be involved at a much earlier stage in the decision-making process.

The Environmental Quality Committees provide a forum through which public participation can be solicited on a routine basis. Meaningful communication between the regulators and the Environmental Quality Committees is essential, as is the need for periodic community meetings.

...we seem to be making it easier or that it is easier for the ones who are mining uranium to get permits to dump toxic waste -- radioactive waste in to lakes, to dig up lakes, to dam lakes. It is easier to get permission to do that it seems than it was for me to get permission to build my outhouse 500 metres from the edge of the lake. l find this very curious.

Joys Dancer, Transcript of McArthur River Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, September 19, 1996, p. 10.

13.4.2 Cooperation/Harmonization

Both the provincial and federal governments have responsibilities for licensing and regulating uranium mining, a fact which the public and the industry find confusing and inefficient. Although each government department has a specific mandate, it often appears that there is overlap between departments, and between governments. The South Central Environmental Quality Committee stated its perception:

...there is presently a somewhat noncoordinated approach to uranium mining regulation in northern Saskatchewan, and... The multiplicity of federal and provincial regulatory and advisory agencies often work at cross purposes to each other and with much duplication of effort...⁹²

It would be simplistic to suggest that only one department and one government be responsible; in fact, the panel heard the fear that restricting regulation and licensing to the province alone would be risky.

...provincial authorities could be unduly influenced by industry, being smaller and more in a position to be influenced, ...whereas the federal government being larger and a national force would not be put...in that compromising position.

Neil Sinclair, Transcript of the McArthur River Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, September 9, 1996, p. 7.

The public demands assurance that there is adequate protection in place to safeguard health and protect the environment; the industry and its employees require clear direction:

Companies, working people and unions need clear, strong, up-to-date and enforceable regulations . . . (and) need to enforce legislation and . . . Governments legislation and regulations in a fair and unequivocal manner.⁹³

In Sections 9.1 and 9.2, the panel commented about the need for clarifying responsibility in the area of conventional health and safety, and for harmonizing efforts for radiation monitoring. During the review, several comments were made concerning the need for cooperation on other matters between the federal and provincial regulators. At a time of scarce public resources, cooperation is a practice that governments cannot afford to neglect. It would not only reduce red tape for the operators of the mine but also make it easier for interested members of the public to research mine impacts.

Harmonization of federal and provincial regulations would reduce confusion and increase efficiency; it is an appropriate long-term goal. Initiatives presently being undertaken by federal and provincial officials to eliminate overlap and regulatory duplication, under the Efficiency of the Federation Initiative, are encouraging.

13.5 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, therefore, fails to provide assurance to the public that Canadian uranium will not be used in weaponry.

While both levels of government proclaim concern for non-proliferation in their rhetoric and their press releases, they do not practise what they preach if there are economic benefits to be gained from making uranium and reactor sales.

Peter Prebble, Saskatchewan Environmental Society, Transcript of McArthur River Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, September 16, 1996, p.157.

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 expressed 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.⁹⁴ Such a measure could prove to be a powerful incentive for governments to comply with international agreements to which they and Canada are signatories.

13.6 The Key Lake Tailings Management Facility

The existing above-ground tailings management facility contains tailings produced from the milling of Key Lake ore over the past two decades. Cameco indicated in the EIS that it might wish to process these tailings for their nickel content, using the reserve capacity of the DTMF to dispose of tailings produced from the process. This appears to be an attractive possibility because it would result in the transfer of above-ground tailings into the pit and reduce the amount of nickel that might eventually be released as a serious contaminant. One site of long-term environmental liability would thereby be eliminated. Although not part of the current review, the panel supports this option, conditional on careful study of the possible impacts and a separate environmental review.

13.7 Conclusions and Recommendations

The panel wishes to acknowledge the positive responses that the federal and provincial governments have made to recommendations in its previous reports. Their obvious attention to the contents of the reports and their efforts to implement the recommendations are an indication of their commitment to the environmental assessment process.

It is recommended that the federal and provincial governments enter into a multipartite discussion with northern leaders to design and implement a comprehensive program of revenue sharing for northern Saskatchewan.

The panel recognizes that issues related to nuclear weapons proliferation are outside of its mandate, but wishes to bring concerns expressed by some members of the public over the possible use of Saskatchewan uranium for military purposes to the attention of the federal government. Serious consideration should be given by the government to the measures proposed by the public.

Cooperation between provincial and federal agencies that regulate uranium mining could reduce the costs for these services, simplify compliance for the operators and make it easier for interested members of the public to research mine impacts.

JOINT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL PANEL ON URANIUM MINING DEVELOPMENTS IN NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN
-- MCARTHUR RIVER PROJECT --

• Dr. Donald Lee, Chairperson
• Dr. James Archibald
• Dr. Richard Neal

---

⁸³ The Government’s Position on Proposed Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan, Government of Saskatchewan, December, 1993.
McLellan Announces Federal Response to Panel Report on Uranium Mining Proposals in Northern Saskatchewan, News Release, Government of Canada, December 23, 1993.

⁸⁴ Govemment of Saskatchewan, Opening Presentation, Submission to Midwest Project Public Hearings, Appendix 1, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 11, 1996.

⁸⁵ Cogema Resources Inc., Amendment of Mining Facility Operating License AECB-MFOL-743-5, Atomic Energy Control Board, May, 1994.
Minatco Limited, McClean Lake Facility Construction License AECB-MFCL-769-0, Atomic Energy Control Board, May, 1994.

⁸⁶ McLellan Announces Federal Response to Panel Report on Uranium Mining Proposals in Northern Saskatchewan, News Release, Government of Canada, December 23, 1993.

⁸⁷ K.W. Hindmarsh, D. Lehmkuhl and R. Martin, Rabbit lake Uranium Mining A-Zone, D-Zone, Eagle Point, Supply and Services Canada, 1993.

⁸⁸ McLellan Announces Federal Response to Panel Report on Uranium Mining Proposals in Northern Saskatchewan, News Release, Government of Canada, December 23, 1993.

⁸⁹ The Government’s Position on Proposed Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan, Government of Saskatchewan, December, 1993, p. 33.

⁹⁰ J.D. O’Neil, T.K. Young, C.A. Mustard, J. lrvine and B.D. Elias, Monitoring the Health Impact of Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan: Conceptual Issues and Design Options, Northern Health Research Unit, The University of Manitoba, 1995.

⁹¹ B. Michel, Transcript of Public Hearings for McArthur River and Cigar Lake, Pinehouse, Saskatchewan, October 7, 1996, p. 142.

⁹² South-Central Environmental Quality Committee, Submission to the McArthur River Pubic Hearings, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, October 1, 1996, p. 3.

⁹³ United Steelworkers of America, Submission to the McArthur River and Cigar Lake Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, September 9, 1996, p. 4.

⁹⁴ P. Prebble, Transcript of McArthur River Pubic Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, September 16, 1996, p. 156.