Panel Report

7.1 Jurisdictional Ambiguity

The administration of occupational health and safety in uranium mines comes under federal jurisdiction by virtue of provisions in the Atomic Energy Control Act. The enabling legislation for radiological protection is the Uranium and Thorium Mining Regulations (1988), soon to be revised under the recently passed Nuclear Safety and Control Act. This legislation is implemented by the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB). Conventional occupational health and safety is governed by the Canada Labour Code, and its regulations under Part II of the Code. The responsibility for its implementation lies with the Labour component of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC).

In practice, radiological protection is monitored by both federal and provincial regulators, whereas conventional worker health and safety is monitored only by Saskatchewan Labour. The provincial government acquires its authority through requirements attached to the surface lease agreements with the uranium mines. Specifically, the Saskatchewan Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 and The Radiation Health and Safety Act, 1985 and their attendant regulations are the legislative instruments applied in the uranium mines.

Monitoring of safe working conditions is done by the Mines Safety Unit and the Radiation Safety Unit inspectors from Saskatchewan Labour. The number of inspections is dependent on the safety performance at each site -- a mine with a good safety record is inspected less often. The frequency of inspection varies from once a month to once every three months:

In 1995-96, each operating uranium mine was inspected an average of 8 times...(and)...mines inspectors issued 114 Notices of Contravention to the 3 operating uranium mines, compared with 112 contraventions in the 1994-95 fiscal year. [Government of Saskatchewan, Submission to the Midwest Project Public Hearings, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 11, 1996, p. 24.]

The provincial reports of these inspections are not shared with the federal government. In fact, federal involvement in conventional occupational health and safety issues appears to occur only when federal authority is required to proceed with a prosecution. In the period 1994-1996, for example, only two HRDC site inspections took place, each following mine-related fatalities at the Cluff Lake and Eagle Point mines. Due to a significant shortage of qualified HRDC mine inspectors (there are none based in Saskatchewan), no regular inspections are done at uranium mine sites. Thus, HRDC staff must rely on provincial site inspection data for compliance monitoring:

Where necessary to enforce compliance, the Occupational Health and Safety Division may also seek prosecution through the federal system. Following investigation by the Division, a prosecution file is forwarded to Human Resources Development Canada for review. If both federal and provincial agencies agree that prosecution is warranted, the prosecution is initiated federally...this approach...avoids the application of two different sets of mining regulations within the same geographical area depending on whether or not the ore being mined is uranium.[Ibid, p. 21.]

This statement acknowledges provincial acceptance of a two-tiered system of uranium mine regulatory enforcement for conventional health and safety. Based on public hearing testimony, however, the panel is concerned that the ability of Human Resources Development Canada to assess and enforce compliance of its own regulations may be inadequate. Lack of staff severely hampers HRDC's effectiveness, and brings into question the wisdom of any federal involvement in the monitoring of occupational safety and health in uranium mines.

The existing regime, with the provincial government assuming de facto responsibility for areas theoretically within the federal jurisdiction, puts into practice one of the recommendations of the 1978 Bayda Commission Report [E.D. Bayda, A.J. Groome, K.J. McCallum, The Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry Final Report, 1978, p. 91.] -- that the Government of Saskatchewan accept full responsibility for ensuring that uranium mine safety and environmental standards are enforced.

While the avoidance of duplication of effort by provincial and federal regulators and inspectors is commendable, the panel is uncertain where the final accountability rests in cases such as the recent fatalities. Which jurisdiction ensures that mitigative measures are in place to prevent repetition of the fatalities? Questioning of federal and provincial officials at the public hearings did not give the panel confidence that a pro-active role was being adopted by either jurisdiction.

It is apparent that the provincial Mines and Radiation Safety Branch is the government body most active in providing conventional occupational health and safety inspections at the uranium mine sites. Accordingly, this organization should be provided with the authority for initiating prosecution to enforce compliance with regulations. There should be a formal clarification of jurisdictional accountability for conventional health and safety in uranium mines. Unless HRDC increases its involvement, provincial agencies should be given legislated authority and responsibility for the regulation and enforcement of conventional occupational health and safety standards in Saskatchewan uranium mines.

The panel raised this concern in its McArthur River Report. [D.G. Lee, J.F. Archibald, R. Neal, McArthur River Uranium Mine Project, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, 1997, p. 30.] In its response to that report, the Government of Canada indicated that the matter was being discussed as part of the Canada-Saskatchewan Efficiency of the Federation Initiative Action Plan. The panel encourages continued pursuit of a resolution for this issue.

7.2 Radiation Health Risks and Protection

...when you hire a worker, do they understand that as a uranium mine worker... they are indeed taking more risks with radiation than a non-mine worker and that in fact...the limits are higher for them?

M. Penna, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 27, 1996. p. 49.

Employment at uranium mines carries an additional risk, beyond the conventional health and safety concerns of other mines -- the possibility of exposure of workers to radiation. The Atomic Energy Control Board performs compliance and audit inspections to ensure implementation of acceptable measures for protection from radiation exposures. The objective of the AECB legislation is:

... to ensure that health, safety, security and environmental protection requirements have been recognized and met, so that workers, the public, and the environment are protected from exposure to radiation and the radioactive or toxic materials associated with the operations. [Atomic Energy Control Board, Submission to the Midwest Project Public Hearings, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 10, 1996, p. 6.]

The AECB practices a multi-phase strategy to ensure compliance; a review of the proponent's plans, modelling assessment, hazard analysis, site inspections, and audits for all proposed and operating uranium mines are included in its activities.

Because of the high grade ore, there are certain radiological protection challenges that the proponent must address in the mining and milling operations. The mining method (Section 6.1) has been designed specifically to avoid direct exposure of the miners to the ore. Worker safety will, however, be dependent on the successful containment of the ore during mining, during transport of the ore slurry to surface, during transport to the mill, during milling, and during deposition of the tailings. The Midwest EIS states, however, that the doses predicted for members of the public, Midwest mine workers and McClean Lake mill workers would comply with current and proposed regulatory standards.

Despite these predictions, the AECB identified several areas where problems could occur. These include ventilation and dust control, thawing of ground on the freeze level, inconsistencies in the modelling information on which the pump and water treatment capacities are based, incomplete emergency response plans, and high radiation risks (at the underground crusher, during jet boring, and at the surface storage facilities). The regulators must deal with these concerns when each operation is being licensed.

Operationally, most control of radiation will be achieved by:

...the prompt clean-up of spills; careful maintenance of ventilation systems; minimizing radon bearing water inflows underground; and minimizing the time workers spend near equipment containing ore during maintenance and repair. [Government of Saskatchewan, Opening Presentation (Written), Submission to the Midwest Project Public Hearings, Regina, June 11, 1996, p. 30.]

The AECB sets public and occupational radiation dose limits, based upon recommendations of the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP). Existing federal standards, based on the 1977 ICRP-26 recommendations, are under revision, with the proposed AECB Radiation Protection Regulations calling for a considerable reduction in dose limits. The current limit for workers is 50 mSv per year and, for the public, 5 mSv per year. The new occupational dose proposed by the AECB (based on ICRP-60) is 20 mSv per year averaged over a defined period of 5 years, with an additional proviso that the effective dose should not exceed 50 mSv in any single year. The dose limit proposed for the public is 1 mSv per year. [Atomic Energy Control Board, Dose Limits for Workers and Members of the Public in Canada, Submission to the Midwest Project Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 28, 1996, p. 2-6.]

The province is also involved in the regulation of radiation health risks through the Mines and Radiation Safety Branch of Saskatchewan Labour. The legislation regarding radiation is The Radiation Health and Safety Act, 1985 and regulations. Although the Act and regulations do not have provisions which apply to uranium mine workers, [Government of Saskatchewan, Opening Presentation (Written) at the Midwest Project Public Hearings, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 11, 1996, p. 25.] dose limits are specified in the surface lease agreements. The province has amended existing surface leases with the industry to incorporate the intent of ICRP-60 and ICRP-65 and has reached an agreement on the details for implementation of the new standards.

During the hearings, members of the public voiced concern about the continuing uncertainty in the assessment of radiological risks and the selection of appropriate, conservative standards for dose limits. Much of the concern seems to be related to the time it has taken for the recommendations of ICRP 60 and 65 to be implemented. Despite this delay, the panel concurs with the assessment that:

The majority of scientific opinion appears to be that the present occupational dose limits recommended by the ICRP are correct... They represent a broad and unprecedented international consensus on the appropriateness of the new radiation dose limits. [Government of Saskatchewan, Submission to the Midwest Project Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 28, 1996, p. 4.]

Both governments should move expeditiously to entrench the intent of ICRP publications 60 and 65 into regulations.

Another concern is related to the potential for synergistic effects associated with miner exposures to both radioactivity and various mineral elements, known to be lung carcinogens, particularly the exposure to radon progeny concurrently with arsenic and nickel:

Two recent epidemiological studies of uranium miners had suggested a possible interaction between exposure to radon progeny and exposure to arsenic.... These findings may imply that miners employed in mines with both high radon progeny and arsenic concentrations may be considerably more at risk of lung cancer than predicted from the sum of separate exposures. The effect of the exposure to multiple lung carcinogens on the risk of lung cancer is now well known. [Atomic Energy Control Board, A Cohort Mortality Study of Saskatchewan Uranium Mines, Submission to Midwest Project Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 28, 1996, p. 2.]

The panel noted this concern in a previous report, [D.G, Lee, J. F. Archibald, J. Dantouze, R. Neal and A. Yassi, Dominique-Janine Extension, McClean Lake Project, and Midwest Joint Venture, Supply and Services Canada, October, 1993, p. 19.] and is encouraged by the initiative taken to respond to this recommendation. The AECB, the mining companies and the Government of Saskatchewan have undertaken jointly to complete a cohort mortality study of Saskatchewan uranium miners, over two phases and lasting approximately thirty-five years. We strongly endorse this epidemiological study. It should be given priority status and appropriate funding should be made available to permit the long-term research goals to be achieved.

In addition to complying with regulations, the proponent is required to comply with the "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) principle. It is not permissible to use a particular approach if a comparable, but safer, approach exists. Unnecessary exposure is unacceptable, even if regulatory limits are not exceeded. ALARA is an important concept and it is essential that it be complied with as scrupulously as any of the regulations.

7.3 Conventional Health and Safety

Recent fatalities in Saskatchewan uranium mines have increased the panel's concern about the measures being taken to protect workers. This concern was substantiated by personal observations of what appeared to be unsafe working conditions while the panel was visiting another underground uranium mine operated by Cogema. [Panel site visit to Cluff Lake, August 22, 1995.]

Saskatchewan updated The Occupational Health and Safety Act in 1993, and The Occupational Health and Safety Regulations in 1996. [J. Parr, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Regina, Saskatchewan, September 5, 1996, p. 85.] Mining regulations, however, were last revised in 1978, with no plans for their review until after the enactment of the health and safety regulations. The continued reliance on outdated mining regulations is of concern.

Since 1978, the mining environment has changed dramatically. New developments in automated mining technology, communications systems, computerized process control and worker safety monitoring require corresponding changes in the legislation and regulations. For example, a new mining code should include regulated worker-to-worker and worker-to-surface communications systems to enhance emergency response capabilities. Underground lighting standards should be upgraded, using recent developments in high-efficiency portable lighting sources, and all regulations should be reviewed to ensure that they make the best use of available technologies. Saskatchewan Labour should upgrade its Mines Regulations to reflect current mining procedures and the use of modern technologies.

If this mine is allowed to proceed, Saskatchewan Labour will be there to ensure that the workers are protected.

E. Becker, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 28, 1996, p. 161.

The province submitted documentation to illustrate Saskatchewan Labour site inspection summaries for 1995 at two underground mines (Cluff Lake and Eagle Point) and one open pit operation (Key Lake). The stated Saskatchewan practice is to visit each mine site an average of eight times annually; however, it is evident from the documentation that certain open pit operations with good safety histories have been inspected less than eight times per year. This evidence, along with the information concerning the two fatal underground mining accidents, supports the conclusion that underground mines, relative to open pits, represent potentially more dangerous work sites. Since the underground workers depend on the regulators to ensure that safe work practices are being enforced, it is incumbent upon the regulators to exercise great diligence.

During the hearings, there was an indication that mine inspectors might not always have acted objectively and in the best interests of the miners. [M. Poissonnet, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 11, 1996, p. 111. See also J. Parr, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 12, 1996, p. 79.] The province should initiate an independent investigation of these inferences and take whatever action is appropriate. In view of recent events at mines in other provinces, Saskatchewan must not put its miners at risk by application of anything less than the highest standards with respect to the regulation of health and safety practices.

When a violation of a safety regulation is noted by a mine inspector, a Notice of Contravention is issued to the operator and posted at the mine site. However, the panel is not convinced that the inspectors are monitoring satisfactorily the operators' responses to these Notices of Contravention. Although the records submitted by Saskatchewan Labour showed that numerous notices had been issued in the past year, there was little documentation to substantiate that follow-up visits had been made to ensure compliance with the notices. The operators' responses to all Notices of Contravention should be diligently monitored and recorded.

Another area of concern to the panel is the apparent difference in the number of inspections occurring during the often more dangerous developmental phase of a mine, compared to its operating phase. The lower frequency of monitoring in the developmental stage, when most employees are contract workers and less likely to be involved in workplace health and safety committees, implies a diminished level of protection for the employees of contractors. It is important that all employees, contract or otherwise, receive full protection at the mine site. All new and existing underground uranium mines should receive frequent site inspections, during all phases of development and mining.

7.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

Mine workers, particularly those in underground developments, depend on mine regulators to ensure a safe workplace. It is, therefore, essential that the mine sites be inspected frequently and due care exercised to ensure that safe practices are being followed. Based on the information received during the public hearings, the panel wishes to make the following recommendations.

Jurisdictional ambiguities between the federal and provincial governments should be clarified. The department responsible for monitoring worker health and safety should also have the authority to prosecute violations.

Saskatchewan Labour should review and revise its Mine Regulations to ensure that they reflect current mining procedures and the use of modern technologies.

The province should initiate an independent review of inferences that mine inspectors have not acted objectively at all times.

All new and existing underground uranium mines should receive frequent site inspections, during all phases of development and mining. The operators' responses to all Notices of Contravention should be diligently monitored and recorded.