Panel Report

In August, 1991, the governments of Canada and Saskatchewan appointed a joint federal-provincial environmental assessment panel to review several proposed uranium mining developments in northern Saskatchewan. Membership of the joint panel is summarized in Section 1.2.1 and its mandate is found in Section 1.2.2 and Appendix B. This is the fourth report submitted by the joint panel.

In December, 1993, the respective governments accepted a recommendation contained in the joint panel report of October 1993 not to approve a proposal for mining the Midwest ore body with Denison Mines Limited as operator. Subsequently, a new proposal to develop the same ore body, using a different mining method that appeared to respond to several deficiencies in the previous proposal, was referred to the joint panel. The new majority owner and operator, Cogema Resources Inc., submitted an Environmental Impact Statement for the new Midwest Project on August 31, 1995, with addenda on March 4, 1996; May 13, 1996; October 31, 1997 and May 2, 1997. It is the new proposal that is the subject of this report.

This report has been delayed for over one year by the company's decision, in August of 1996, to change its approach to tailings management. That decision, which required us to reopen the public hearings, delayed submission of the report from October 1, 1996, until today.

The report is based on information that was obtained from reading the entire Environmental Impact Statement; from an information meeting with Cogema in La Ronge on November 15 and 16, 1995; from nineteen days of public hearings in Wollaston Lake, Black Lake, Fond du Lac, La Ronge, Saskatoon and Regina; and from written reports submitted by individuals, organizations and government departments or agencies. The major recommendations are identified in Chapter 4. The rationale for the recommendations and the attendant conditions may be found in Chapters 5 - 12.

Because it is the people living in northern Saskatchewan who will experience the greatest impacts of this and other uranium mining projects, the panel has paid particular attention to their concerns, and to ensuring that northern residents will be protected from adverse environmental impacts in the long term.

We conclude that the current proposal to develop the Midwest ore body is substantially better than the one rejected in 1993 and are, therefore, recommending approval for mining of the Midwest ore body as proposed in the Environmental Impact Statement. By the use of a combination of innovative mining methods, Cogema has shown that it should be possible to recover the high-grade ore without subjecting miners to excessive radioactivity or exposing them to high concentrations of toxic heavy metals such as arsenic or nickel. Modelling also indicates that it will be possible to contain terrestrial and aquatic environmental damage within acceptable levels.

With respect to mining, three conditions are attached. First, all special waste should be placed underground or in mined-out pits at McClean Lake. Secondly, Cogema should commit to a long-term monitoring program for the waste rock pile that is proposed for the west side of Mink Arm. If acid mine rock drainage is observed to occur over time, the situation should be mitigated by removal of the waste rock to one of the mined-out Sue pits at the McClean Lake site. Thirdly, Cogema should commit to a continuing study of the fish, macrophytes and sediments of Mink Arm, the proposed site for effluent discharge. Since Mink Arm is separated from the rest of South McMahon Lake by a dam, it provides a natural laboratory for a study of the impacts of uranium mine effluent on the biota.

We recommend approval of the concept for tailings disposal represented by the JEB Tailings Management Facility (TMF) proposal, but with major site-specific reservations. The proposed JEB TMF, to be constructed using natural surround technology, is an attractive option for tailings disposal because it provides an opportunity to realize several environmental benefits relative to other methods for tailings disposal. Among these benefits are an increase in worker protection through the use of subaqueous deposition; reduction of the number of locations undergoing environmental disruption, as a result of combining deposition of tailings from many ore bodies at one site; the avoidance of engineered barriers; the minimization of weathering problems; and the protection of the contents of the pit from scarification by glaciers during the next ice age. Because of these potential advantages, the concept for tailings disposal represented by the JEB TMF proposal is recommended. However, there are critical site-specific technical and managerial concerns that must be resolved before application of the concept can be recommended for this particular tailings management facility. Chief among the technical concerns is the need for convincing evidence that operation of the TMF would not result in the contamination of Fox Lake in the long term. There is also concern about the managerial and scientific competence of the proponent and its attitude toward the regulators.

We are aware that resolution of these concerns, likely to cause a long delay in the licensing process, would have fiscal implications. The wish to maximize immediate economic benefits from the development of these resources does not, however, justify the approval of this facility until it has been demonstrated that all reasonable environmental safeguards are in place.

We are recommending that long-term monitoring be introduced to protect future generations from unacceptable impacts. This is particularly important if approval is eventually given for the tailings management facility. It is unrealistic to expect that it might be possible in the foreseeable future to walk away from sites containing millions of tonnes of material that is both radioactive and toxic. Such sites must be monitored in perpetuity, and resources must be retained to mitigate any undesirable impacts. It is for this reason that we reiterate our previous recommendation for the establishment of the Uranium Mining Contingency Fund, and an authority to oversee it.

Local participation in the monitoring protocols is essential. Without local participation, distrust of the monitoring data is likely to result in a continued misunderstanding of the state of the environment. It is for this purpose that the Environmental Quality Committees were established pursuant to this panel's previous recommendation. We urge that their participation be enhanced by the provision of adequate financial support for the education and training of committee members in the various issues related to uranium mining.

We also recommend that mine health and safety regulations be revised to reflect current mining practices and the use of modern technologies. In addition, as a result of comments at the public hearings implying that mine health and safety inspectors might not have acted with complete objectivity at all times, the panel recommends that the province arrange for an independent review of those inferences. Saskatchewan miners must not be exposed to unsafe workplaces because of a lack of due diligence on the part of the regulators. We also note certain federal/provincial jurisdictional ambiguities that should be corrected. The jurisdiction actively monitoring health and safety practices at the mines should also have the authority to prosecute infractions.

The Midwest Project, if approved, will provide much-needed opportunities for some northern people to find employment and to benefit from business contracts. However, because the economy of northern Saskatchewan fails to redistribute wealth in the way that most other economies do, only a small fraction of northerners will benefit from these opportunities. The general population of the north will not experience a noticeable improvement in its standard of living unless some form of revenue sharing is introduced. We are, therefore, pleased to note the progress that has been made by the Province of Saskatchewan on the development of a Northern Strategy, which is intended to reflect the social and economic priorities of northern people, and on the formation of a Fiscal Table that will permit a tripartite negotiation between Saskatchewan, Canada and FSIN of fiscal matters which impact on northern development.

1.1 Review Process

In April, 1991, the governments of Canada and Saskatchewan announced a joint federal-provincial environmental review of proposed uranium mine developments in northern Saskatchewan. Included in the review was a proposal to mine the Midwest ore body at South McMahon Lake with Denison Mines Limited as operator. The Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan was appointed in August, 1991, to conduct a public review of this and other proposals.

At the completion of the review, the panel recommended to the federal Ministers of Environment, and Natural Resources, to the provincial Minister of Environment and Resource Management, and to the Secretary General of the Atomic Energy Control Board, that permission to proceed not be granted, due to a number of specific concerns. In December of 1993, the respective governments accepted our recommendation, and did not approve the proposal for development of the Midwest ore body.

In July of 1994, Cogema Resources Inc., a different operator for the project, submitted a new proposal to mine the Midwest ore body. This new proposal, involving the use of an entirely different mining method, attempted to respond to some of the concerns noted in the panel's previous review. The governments of Saskatchewan and Canada asked the joint panel to add the review of the new Midwest Project to its mandate, and referred it to the panel on November 9, 1994. [The federal referral was made by the AECB citing Section 11(b) of the Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order (EARPGO); the provincial referral was made by Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, citing the Environmental Assessment Act and the Public Enquiries Act .]

In accordance with the provincial Environmental Assessment Act, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management drafted guidelines to direct Cogema in its preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Cogema submitted its EIS on August 31, 1995. The panel conducted an information meeting with the proponent in November of 1995 to discuss the adequacy of the information submitted in the EIS. This meeting supplemented the EIS review comments received from members of the public, from organizations and from provincial and federal government departments and agencies. To facilitate a complete understanding of the proposal, the panel requested additional information from Cogema on December 8, and, again, on April 12, 1996.

As required by its terms of reference, the panel conducted public hearings in May and June of 1996. The sessions were held in Regina, Saskatoon, La Ronge, Fond du Lac, Black Lake and Wollaston Lake.

Due to a decision by the proponent in August of 1996 to change its proposal for tailings disposal, the panel reopened the review for specific consideration of the revised JEB TMF proposal. Supplementary hearings were held on August 26-28, 1997, in La Ronge. After the public hearings, the panel prepared the following report.

The governments of Saskatchewan and Canada made $75,000 available for participant funding to help the public take part effectively in the review. The funds were intended to assist recipients in reviewing the EIS and in preparing for and participating in the public hearings. The allocation of funding was done by an independent committee, with no involvement of the panel. A summary of the participant funding allocations is found in Appendix F.

1.2 Panel

1.2.1 Membership

The Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan was appointed on August 22, 1991. Donald Lee, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Regina, is Chairperson of the panel. Other panel members are:

• James Archibald, Professor and Acting Head of Mining Engineering at Queen's University; and
• Richard Neal, Professor of Biology and Associate Dean (Academic) of the College of Arts and Science, University of Saskatchewan.

Annalee Yassi, Associate Professor and Director of the Occupational and Environmental Health Unit, University of Manitoba, did not participate in the Midwest public hearings, but remained a member of the panel until her official resignation on August 15, 1996. John Dantouze, Vice-Chief of the Prince Albert Grand Council, participated in the 1996 Midwest public hearings and served on the panel until his resignation on October 1, 1996.

1.2.2 Mandate

The mandate of the panel is three-fold: to review the environmental, health, safety and socio-economic impacts of the proposed Midwest Project; to determine from its review whether the project is acceptable or unacceptable; and to provide full opportunities for public consultation and review. Complete terms of reference for the panel are contained in Appendix B.

2.1 Proposal

The Midwest uranium deposit is located about 60 km west of the nearest community, Wollaston Lake, and approximately 700 km north of Saskatoon. It is close to Points North and connected to Provincial Road 905 by a 2-km access road. See Figure 1.

The ore body was discovered in 1978 beneath the Mink Arm of South McMahon Lake. An Environmental Impact Statement was submitted in 1981 for a proposal that included open pit mining and on-site milling of the ore. Due to a corporate decision to defer development of the project, a formal review was not initiated in 1981.

Ownership changed in 1987, with the Midwest Joint Venture acquiring the property. After obtaining approvals to proceed with an exploration program assessing underground conditions and gathering data to evaluate potential mining methods, the Midwest Joint Venture constructed a test mine at the site in 1988.

Upon completion of test mining, the Midwest Joint Venture applied in 1991 for approval to construct and develop an underground mine, a mill and a tailings disposal area. This proposal was amended in 1992 to reflect a decision to develop the Midwest and McClean Lake ore bodies on a complementary basis.

The joint panel reviewed the 1992 Midwest proposal, and recommended that permission to proceed not be granted because "the benefits that could be obtained are insufficient to balance the perceived risks." [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. 35.] The federal and provincial governments concurred with the panel's recommendation.

In 1994, Cogema Resources Inc., the new operator for the project, submitted a proposal to develop the Midwest Project using a different mining method that appeared to respond to many of the deficiencies that the panel had identified in its review of the 1992 Midwest Joint Venture proposal. Environmental assessment approval was sought from the federal and provincial governments.

The ore body which Cogema proposes to develop is approximately 200 m beneath the Mink Arm of South McMahon Lake, in a geologic formation where the Athabasca sandstone meets the underlying basement rock. The ore, expected to have an average grade of 3.8 per cent U₃0₈, is concentrated in an area 100 m wide by 250 m long and varying in thickness from 2 to 30 m. The proponent estimates that the mineral reserves will yield 13,200 tonnes of uranium.

Cogema proposes to freeze the deposit before mining, thus avoiding the need to drain Mink Arm and the accompanying environmental damage. Ore would be mined from a production gallery beneath the frozen deposit by a non-entry, jet-boring method that would minimize the exposure of miners to radioactive material. The resulting ore slurry would be hoisted hydraulically to the surface, and stored in air-agitated tanks. The cavities remaining underground after jet boring would be backfilled with special concrete.

In preparation for mining, access to the development area underneath the ore body would be through the existing test mine shaft, extended deeper by about 60 m. Parallel freeze galleries would be excavated in the basement rock approximately 20 m below the ore body. A brine solution, cooled to -35^oC, would then be circulated through vertical holes drilled upward and extending through the ore body, freezing the entire area from the freeze galleries to about 5 m above the deposit. The production gallery would then be developed between, and about 10 m above, the freeze galleries.

From the production gallery, holes would be drilled completely through the frozen ore body. Casing would be installed and the head of a jet-boring machine, introduced through the holes, would cut the surrounding ore with high-pressure water jets. The slurry produced would be contained within shielded pipes and vessels at all times. After crushing and grinding, it would be hydraulically hoisted to the surface in a dedicated pipeline.

After thickening, the ore slurry would be pumped into transportation vessels and trucked to the McClean Lake mill for processing. The tailings resulting from the milling of the Midwest ore would be thickened to paste consistency, and then disposed of subaqueously in the JEB pit at the McClean Lake site.

Mine water inflows in the Midwest development are predicted to be approximately 50 m³/hour. Some of the inflow would be used in the drilling and jet-boring processes; the remainder would be pumped to the water treatment plant on surface, with effluent from the plant being released to Mink Arm.

Figure 1: Location of the Proposed Midwest Project as outlined in Section 1.1

Waste rock from mining would be either stockpiled on surface, or transported to the McClean Lake site for disposal in a mined-out pit, depending on the concentrations of uranium, arsenic, nickel and sulphur in the waste. As much as possible of the stockpiled, clean waste would be used as aggregate in the preparation of the concrete for backfilling the jet-bored cavities. Similarly, much of the special waste with its higher concentrations of uranium, arsenic, nickel and sulphur would be used as backfill for abandoned freeze and production galleries underground.

The surface facilities needed at the South McMahon Lake site to support the Midwest proposal would include a freeze plant; a concrete mix plant; a power substation; office, change room, maintenance shop and warehouse space; a water treatment plant; and ore storage and loading facilities. See Figure 2.

The Midwest Project would provide approximately 300 person-years of work during the 2-year development phase and employ about 122 workers for the 6-year operational phase. It is estimated that 77 of these workers would be transfers from the McClean Lake Project and that the remainder, 45, would be new hires. [The Midwest Project, Supplementary Information, Cogema Resources Inc., May, 1996, S.3, Attachment A, Table 1.]

2.2 Ownership

Cogema Resources Inc. is the proponent of the Midwest proposal on behalf of the four partners which have equity positions in the Midwest Joint Venture: Minatco Ltd., a subsidiary of Cogema Resources Inc. (56.0 per cent); Uranerz Exploration and Mining Ltd. (20.0 per cent); Tenwest Uranium Ltd., a subsidiary of Denison Mines Ltd. (19.5 per cent); and OURD (Canada) Ltd. (4.5 per cent).

2.3 Comparison of the 1992 and 1995 Midwest Proposals

When the panel recommended that the 1992 Midwest proposal not be approved, it identified several significant project-specific concerns. The new proposal addressed many of these concerns by describing different mining methods or new technologies. Table 1 summarizes how the mining, transport and tailings management approaches described in the new proposal differ from those of the previous proposal.

Figre 2: Midwest Mine Site - Surface Facilities Layout

The Midwest Project proponent, Cogema Resources Inc., is a wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary of COGEMA (Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires) of France.

The proponent, formerly Cogema Canada Ltd. and, before that, Amok Ltd., has been mining uranium in Saskatchewan at the Cluff Lake site since the early 1980's. Currently, Cogema owns 100 per cent of the Cluff Lake mine and mill complex, 70 per cent of the McClean Lake mine and mill complex, 36 per cent of the proposed Cigar Lake Project and 16 per cent of the McArthur River Project.

Cogema Resources Inc. operates the Cluff Lake and McClean Lake projects and manages uranium production facilities in Wyoming and Texas. It is also decommissioning and reclaiming two open pit mines and mills in Wyoming. The company is involved in exploration activities for uranium in Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories, and for gold in Nevada, and is considered a dominant player in the world uranium market.

3.1 Royalties, Taxes and Fees

In Saskatchewan, The Crown Mineral Royalty Schedule sets the rate at which royalties are paid to the province and ensures that the value of uranium sold represents fair market value for Crown royalty purposes. The total royalties paid consist of a basic royalty (5 per cent of the gross sales revenue) and graduated royalties (tied to profit), less the Saskatchewan Resources Credit (1 per cent of gross sales revenue).

Uranium mining companies, including Cogema Resources Inc., are also required to pay various taxes to both the federal and provincial governments. These include property taxes, surface lease fees, corporate capital taxes and surcharges, federal and provincial sales taxes and large corporations taxes. In addition, the proponent would pay the employer's portion of payroll taxes, such as employment insurance premiums, Canada pension plan payments, and workers' compensation premiums.

3.2 Benefits to Northern Saskatchewan

In 1983, northern people comprised 45 per cent of the Cogema Resources Inc. work force. Today, northerners make up 59 per cent of the total work force at the Cluff Lake mine site and 61 per cent at the McClean Lake site.

In April 1994, in response to the 1993 approval of the McClean Lake Project, Cogema Resources Inc. opened a Northern Affairs Office in La Ronge. The mandate of this office is to maintain a corporate presence in the North, promote northern business, coordinate the hiring of northerners for the McClean Lake Project, and establish a recruitment program for residents of the impact communities.

In the area of education, Cogema Resources Inc. is also an active participant in the Multi-Party Training Plan. In addition, since 1979, the proponent has awarded 174 scholarships totalling more than $550,000. Most of the scholarship recipients have completed their study programs, and the majority have returned to work in the north.

In its Environmental Impact Statement for the Midwest Project, the proponent stated: "Our goal now is to encourage more Aboriginal people to pursue education and training paths towards employment in the professional areas of our operations." [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Additional Information, Cogema Resources Inc., February, 1996, pp. 1.1-42.] This initiative should be encouraged.

There also has to be a spiritual side to any kind of development and that should be respected.

I. Campbell, Vice Chief, Meadow Lake Tribal Council, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, June 5, 1996, p. 103.

In the areas of northern expenditure and business opportunities, Cogema spent over $65-million on the purchase of northern goods and services in 1995. These purchases were made from approximately 40 different northern vendors.

Cogema has signed contracts with northern-based companies for specialty services, such as security and catering. In addition, all of Cogema's trucking requirements are supplied under contract by Northern Resources Trucking, a northern-based trucking firm owned 30 per cent by the Kitsaki Development Corporation; 29 per cent by Trimac Transportation Services; and 20 per cent by the Denesuline Development Corporation. The remaining 21 per cent of the company is owned by seven different First Nations organizations in northern Saskatchewan, with the majority of the truck owner/operators being from northern Saskatchewan, each operating his/her own unit.

In a more recent initiative, Cogema Resources Inc. has been working closely with Northern Employment Services, a northern recruiting agency, to maximize recruitment of northern aboriginal people from the Athabasca Basin for employment at the McClean Lake mine and mill site.

The proponent has donated approximately $80,000 to community development programs in various northern communities and contributed $100,000 to support the La Ronge Regional Health Care Centre in 1996.

3.3 Experience at the Cluff Lake Site

Cogema has operated a uranium mine and mill at Cluff Lake, Saskatchewan, for many years. This operation has been a leader in the industry with respect to the employment of northern people and the provision of business opportunities for northern contractors.

During the hearings, members of the public expressed concerns about the tailings management practices at Cluff Lake. It was stated that initial methods for disposal had failed, that a sizable spill had occurred, and that the current tailings management facility was of insufficient size and relied on an engineered barrier to provide environmental security in the long term.

Three fatalities have occurred recently at Saskatchewan underground uranium mines, including one at Cluff Lake. During an underground tour of the Cluff Lake mine in August 1995, the panel also observed questionable working conditions with respect to radiological protection and conventional health and safety practices. It was not obvious that the proponent, government regulators, union leadership and employees had been as diligent as possible in the implementation of stringent worker health and safety principles and practices.

The major recommendations are summarized in this section. The rationale behind these recommendations, along with other findings, conclusions and secondary recommendations, are presented in Chapters 5 - 12. On the basis of its review of the Midwest Project, we wish to make five primary recommendations, two of them with conditions attached.

4.1 The Midwest Mine

Approval to develop the Midwest ore body as proposed in the Environmental Impact Statement is recommended, provided the following conditions are met:

• that all special waste rock be placed underground or in mined-out pits at the McClean Lake site;
• that the waste rock pile proposed for the west side of Mink Arm be monitored for several decades. If acid mine drainage is observed to occur, the waste rock should be removed to one of the mined-out Sue pits; and
• that Cogema be required to study the fish, macrophytes and sediments in Mink Arm continuously from the present time until after mining ceases and contaminant concentrations in the biota, water and sediments reach acceptable levels.

4.2 The JEB Tailings Management Facility (TMF)

It is recommended that permission be given to use the JEB pit as a disposal facility for tailings produced from the milling of Midwest ore, provided that the following conditions are met:

• the proponent must demonstrate experimentally that porewater contaminant concentrations can be maintained at acceptable levels in aged tailings;
• if approval is eventually given to construct a TMF in the JEB pit, the chemical and physical properties of the deposited tailings must be monitored carefully, including periodic assessment of porewater quality;
• Fox Lake must not be used as a mixing zone;
• sediments in Fox Lake must be monitored;
• the more stringent of the Saskatchewan Surface Water Quality Objectives (SSWQO) or the recently amended Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (CWQG) must be used when modelling the expected contamination of Fox Lake;
• a better geotechnical assessment of the underdrain portal should be provided, and design improvements made if required;
• tailings, after consolidation, should not be above the top of the sandstone formation;
• procedures for mitigating all potential unacceptable impacts must be identified before deposition begins. The construction of a hydraulic cage or raising the water level in Fox Lake should be more completely described and approved in principle by appropriate federal and provincial departments before deposition begins;
• the operator should be required to demonstrate that it possesses adequate managerial and scientific competence before responsibility to construct and operate this highly dangerous facility is approved;
• the operator should demonstrate that it is capable of, and intent upon, giving thoughtful, sincere and professional attention to the concerns of the regulators, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management (SERM) and the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB); and
• arrangements should be made to provide for perpetual monitoring of this and other tailings management facilities if approval is given. Financial arrangements should be made, prior to approval, for such monitoring. Monitoring should include the participation of local people as described in Section 4.4.

4.3 Health and Safety

The provincial government should review regulations regarding the health and safety of mine workers to ensure that they reflect current mining practices and are based on the incorporation of modern technologies.

The Province should initiate an independent review of inferences that mine inspectors may not have acted with complete objectivity at all times.

4.4 Environmental Monitoring

The impacts of the various components of this project -- mining, transporting and milling of the ore, and disposal of the tailings -- will require monitoring, in some cases for much longer than suggested in the Environmental Impact Statement.

To be effective, monitoring must include the participation of local people. We favour the use of the Environmental Quality Committees for community stakeholder involvement. These committees should be provided with adequate financial support to educate and train committee members in the various issues related to uranium mining.

Tailings management facilities, in particular, will require monitoring in perpetuity, and possible mitigative activities at some time in the future. For this reason, it is recommended that a Uranium Mining Contingency Fund be established to provide for the continuing costs of long-term monitoring and possible mitigation, after the responsibility for the sites is returned to the province.

4.5 Northern Economic Development Strategy

The federal and provincial governments, together with northern representatives, should continue joint discussions on an economic development strategy that ensures the people of northern Saskatchewan, and of the Athabasca Basin in particular, will be major beneficiaries of this and other uranium mining projects. Agreement on this strategy should be in place before the resource is further depleted.

...a lot of money comes out of our land and doesn't come to us but it goes in the south.

E. Adam, Elder, Fond du Lac First Nation, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Fond du Lac, Saskatchewan, June 6, 1996, p. 62.

5.1 Royalties, Fees and Taxes

The primary benefits of the Midwest Project to the people of Canada, and of Saskatchewan in particular, would be from the royalties and taxes paid to governments. The other major benefits -- increased employment and business opportunities -- would accrue more locally. In the absence of such direct benefits, it would be difficult to justify the environmental damage and long-term risks that accompany this project.

For the Midwest Project, Cogema has estimated that the basic royalties [Basic royalties, at a rate of 5 per cent of sales, are reduced by a 1 per cent Saskatchewan Resource Credit to give a net rate of 4 per cent on sales.] payable to the province of Saskatchewan would be from $25.3- to $40.5-million, while the Corporate Capital Taxes, also payable to the province, have been estimated to be between $25.1- and $38.8-million. [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Supplementary Information, Cogema Resources Inc., May, 1996, pp. 1-5.] Provincial sales taxes (at 9 per cent) on a wide range of goods and services would provide approximately $22.5-million [With the new sales tax rate of 7 per cent, the amount would be approximately $17.5-million.] and surface lease fees would be approximately $2.4-million. The province, therefore, could realize from $75- to $100-million in royalties, fees and taxes over the lifetime of the project. These projections would rise if favourable market conditions were to increase the profitability of the owner companies sufficiently to trigger the payment of graduated royalties. [Graduated royalties, calculated on the basis of operating profit as a percentage of capital investment, are collected only when the operating profit exceeds 15 per cent of the capital investment. For details, see: Final Report, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, May, 1996, Section 2, pp. 74-75.]

In addition, it is estimated that municipal and business taxes amounting to approximately $800,000 would be paid into the Northern Revenue Sharing Trust Account [The Northern Revenue Sharing Trust Account collects school and municipal property taxes on behalf of all but the northern towns and villages and remits these revenues to school boards or hamlets for their use and control. See Final Report, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, May, 1996, Section 2, p. 81.] and that the province would receive about $10.2-million from payroll taxes.¹ [0 The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Supplementary Information, Cogema Resources Inc., May, 1996, Table 1.1, p. 1-5.]

It is more difficult to predict the income of the federal government from this project because Corporate Income Taxes would be paid by the owner companies on their overall profits from this and other projects. However, it is estimated that the Government of Canada would receive about $2.6-million in the form of Large Corporations Tax and $27.2-million from payroll taxes.¹ [1 Ibid.]

The Midwest Project would also pay an estimated $3.9-million for regulatory services provided by the Atomic Energy Control Board.¹ [2 Ibid.] However, this amount, based on cost recovery, would not contribute any net benefit to the public treasury.

In summary, it therefore appears that the Midwest Project has the potential for providing substantial net benefits to the two levels of government. If the estimates prove to be correct, the additional public income due to this project could range from $115- to $145-million.¹ [3 Ibid.]

5.2 Employment and Business Opportunities

The Uranium mining in northern Saskatchewan has had a major impact on the success of the Prince Albert Development Corporation, and the Corporation fully supports the efforts of Comega Resources in relation to the Midwest mine project.

T. Ives, Prince Albert Development Corporation, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 31, 1996, p. 35.

Employment and business opportunities have a direct impact on the local communities from which the employees and contractors come. During public hearings in northern Saskatchewan, it was evident that employment for northern residents is an issue of almost universal interest. Cogema indicated that the Midwest Project would provide a total of approximately 300 person-years of work¹ [4 Ibid, Section 3, Attachment A, Table 1.] during the development of the mine and the construction of surface facilities. At full production, work would be provided for 122 employees over a six-year period. Of these 122 workers, it is estimated that 77 would be transfers from McClean Lake and that the remaining 45 would be new hires.¹ [5 The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Supplementary Information, Cogema Resources Inc., May, 1996, Section 3, Table 1, p. 2.]

Midwest is really an extension of the McClean Lake project and, in essence, extends the benefits of McClean Lake for an additional six years.

D. Martz, InterGroup Consultants, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 29, 1996, p. 28.

During the hearings, Cogema made a commitment to maximize the employment of northern people, with priority to be given to residents of the Athabasca region. The total salaries and benefits are estimated to be about $100-million, with $16-million going to Athabasca residents and $24-million to other residents of Northern Saskatchewan.¹ [6 A. Marvy, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 27, 1996, p. 9.]

As members of the Fond du Lac First Nation have been identified as living in one of the primary impact communities our people expect to receive first priority ... with respect to available jobs, training and business that will necessarily come with the Midwest development.

C. Isadore, Chief, Fond du Lac First Nation, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Fond du Lac, Saskatchewan, June 6, 1996, p. 10.

In addition to direct employment, there would be an opportunity for businesses to provide a wide range of goods and services. The amount to be spent on the purchase of goods and services in the north is estimated to be $30- to 45-million, or about 15 per cent of the total expected expenditures. Although this is a substantial amount, efforts should be made by Cogema to increase the business it does with northern companies. As northern business expertise increases, it would not be unreasonable to establish a goal of obtaining at least 35 per cent of all required goods and services from northern companies.

The targets for northern employment in these projects are established by the human resource development agreements which are part of the surface lease agreements signed between the mining companies and the province. During the hearings, a former personnel officer from Cogema's mine at Cluff Lake reported that the target of 50 per cent northern employees was initially considered to be an almost impossible goal to achieve.¹ [7 C. Gitzel, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, June 15, 1996, p. 32.] Despite this, the company accepted the challenge and it was not too long before its workforce was over 50 per cent northerners, a situation which still persists. In fact, the current workforce at Cluff Lake is close to 60 per cent northerners. In recent times, however, the population of northern Saskatchewan has increased and the level of education is improving because of new high schools in several communities and the introduction of initiatives such as the Multi-Party Training Plan. [The Multi-Party Training Plan is described in The Government's Position on Proposed Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan, Government of Saskatchewan, December, 1993, p. 31.] With an increase in educational levels and an increase in the available labour force, it is appropriate to expect a corresponding increase in the participation of northerners, both as employees and as providers of goods and services. The panel is of the opinion that the target for northern participation expressed in the human resources development agreement for the Midwest Project should be 67 per cent and that this requirement should also apply to all contractors.

And the trades that we identified, all of our apprenticeship training, will be offered first to Northerners.

L. Bear, Comega Resources, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 29, 1996, p. 33.

There are at least two reasons to believe that a goal of 67 per cent northern participation is attainable for the Midwest Project:

• since mine development will not begin until the year 2000, there is ample time to provide training for prospective employees; and
• the President of Cogema Resources Inc. reported that one of its parent company's mines in Niger has a workforce consisting of almost 100 per cent local people. [M. Poissonnet, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 29, 1996, p. 54.] If it can be done in Niger, it should also be possible to do it in Saskatchewan.

So, whether the threshold is officially increased or not we will try - we will always try to do better. Now, if there were officially a threshold of 60, 75 (%), whatever, we would not necessarily be able to achieve that or it may take some time.

M. Poissonnet, President, Comega Resources, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Fond du Lac, Saskatchewan, June 6, 1996. p. 86.

During hearings in the Athabasca Region, concerns were expressed about the way in which some employees had been dismissed from their jobs. For example, in one case, it was alleged that an aboriginal worker had been fired for a particular offence, while a non-aboriginal worker had been given only a warning for a similar offence. It is not the panel's function to serve as arbitrator for individual grievances, but it is apparent that northern participation in the workforce is more likely to increase if potential employees believe that they will be treated fairly and not experience discrimination in the workplace.

In one community, an elder noted that most of the people from the Athabasca Basin are Catholics, but that no recognition is given to their wish to observe Sunday as a day of rest. [L. Benoanie, Elder, Hatchet Lake Band, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Wollaston Lake, Saskatchewan, June 8, 1996, p. 66.] While the seven-day-in, seven-day-out schedule might not allow much flexibility for religious practices, employers should be sensitive to the religious and cultural customs of their employees. Attempts should be made to decrease, whenever possible, workplace conflicts with personal religious or cultural practices.

We have noted with approval that Cogema has begun to employ counsellors from the northern communities who can speak aboriginal languages and who are familiar with northern culture. We also are of the opinion that all employees, including contractors, should be given cross-cultural sensitivity training at fairly frequent intervals.

Counselling is provided in family problems, money management, drug and alcohol counselling, court appearances, education pursuits, job-related matters, absenteeism, career focusing, staffing action.

J. Whitehawk, Comega Resources Inc., Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 29, 1996, p. 19.

5.3 Benefits to Northern Saskatchewan

During public hearings in both the northern and the southern parts of the province, many presenters commented on the potential benefits of this project to the people of northern Saskatchewan. There seemed to be universal consensus that the project, if approved, should bring some special benefits to the people of northern Saskatchewan. It was clear that many presenters meant that these benefits should go beyond enhanced employment and business opportunities.

It has been said that in our treaties we gave up our ownership right to a larger portion of our land, but we did not give up either our right to govern ourselves or the right to make our living from the resources that the land can provide.

C. Isadore, Chief, Fond du Lac First Nation, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Fond du Lac, Saskatchewan, June 6, 1996, p. 9

In response to our report on the McArthur River Project, released in February, 1997, the Premier of Saskatchewan and six provincial cabinet ministers met with northern leaders on May 12, 1997, to initiate a discussion of revenue sharing and other related issues. [Government and northern leaders meet to discuss issues, News Release, Executive Council, Government of Saskatchewan, May 12, 1997.] Following this initial meeting, the Provincial Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and the Chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations signed a tripartite Fiscal Table agreement on August 5, 1997. The purpose of this agreement is to negotiate arrangements on several related financial issues including off-loading, taxation, self-government financing and revenue sharing.

The Province sees this dialogue with northern leaders process as leading to a northern strategy that fully reflects the social and economic priorities of northern people.

T. Penikett, Province of Saskatchewan, Transcript of Supplementary Public Hearings for Midwest and Cigar Lake, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, August 28, 1997, p. 93.

We realize that these discussions will be complicated by the several levels of government involved and by the variety of interrelated issues that will require attention. Despite these complexities, two facts are clear: the region contains mineral deposits that are capable of producing great wealth; and the people of the region are living in impoverished conditions. This dichotomy must be resolved by governments acting together. There is a need for the federal and provincial governments, in cooperation with leaders from the northern communities, to jointly develop a program of revenue sharing, which would ensure that economic benefits derived from the uranium mines are used to improve the lot of northern people.

We are pleased to note the progress that has been made by the Province of Saskatchewan to develop a Northern Strategy, which is intended to reflect the social and economic priorities of northern people. This initiative, along with the previously mentioned Fiscal Table negotiations, should be encouraged and brought to fruition as quickly as possible. [T. Penikett, Submission of the Government of Saskatchewan to the Federal-Provincial Review Panel on Proposed Cigar Lake and Midwest Uranium Mine Developments, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, August 28, 1997.] Many northerners expressed the opinion that no more uranium ore should be removed from the region until programs such as these have been implemented. We are in substantial agreement with this sentiment.

5.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

It is estimated that the Midwest Project will produce additional public income in the form of taxes and royalties of $115- to $145-million. The development phase of the project would provide approximately 300 person years of work. At full production, the project would require 122 employees over a six-year period. In addition to direct employment, there will be an opportunity for businesses to provide a substantial range of goods and services.

It is recommended that the target for northern participation in the workforce for this project, if it is approved, be set at 67 per cent, and that a goal of obtaining at least 35 per cent of all goods and services from northern companies be established.

It is also recommended that the federal and provincial governments, in conjunction with representatives of the northern people, develop an economic strategy for the north to ensure that the people of northern Saskatchewan, and of the Athabasca Basin in particular, are major beneficiaries of this project. Agreement on the strategy should be in place before the resource is further depleted.

6.1 Mining Method

Cogema proposes to use a non-entry mining method that was developed at the Cigar Lake test mine under conditions similar to those expected at the Midwest mine. [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Executive Summary, Cogema Resources Inc., August, 1995, p. 4.] This method involves the combination of two proven technologies -- ground freezing and jet boring -- to recover highly radioactive ore that is surrounded by very wet and incompetent ground. [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Main Document, Cogema Resources Inc., August, 1995, pp. 2-10.]

6.1.1 Ground Freezing

To freeze the ore-bearing formation, sets of parallel freeze galleries would be mined in basement rock approximately 20 m below the ore body. From these galleries vertical holes would be drilled upward, extending to about 5 m above the ore body. Each hole would contain tubes through which brine, cooled to - 35^oC, could be circulated. After several months, the ground from the freeze galleries up to and above the ore body would be frozen. Entry to the freeze galleries would be via the existing Midwest test mine shaft, extended downward by some 60 m.

Freezing of the saturated and weak rock formations in which the ore is found should improve mine stability. Freezing should also limit the flow of radon-laden ground water into mine excavations. A portion of the remaining mine water inflow would be recycled for use in drilling and boring operations, thereby reducing the volume of water to be handled in the water treatment plant.

Approximately 650 exploration bore holes exist in the area where mining would take place. Many of these were drilled from Mink Arm into or through the Midwest ore body during exploration. Freezing of the ground around the ore body would prevent the inflow of water when bore holes are intersected during mining. Without the protection that freezing provides, it would be necessary to drain Mink Arm and dewater the area above the ore body. Ground freezing would therefore diminish the environmental damage that would have occurred if Mink Arm and the surrounding area were dewatered. It would also improve mine water management and increase radiation protection for the underground employees.

One of the reasons for the developing of this new mining method is that we cannot plug those bore holes.

V. Martin, Comega Resources Inc., Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 29, 1996, p. 93.

6.1.2 Jet Boring

Once the ground is frozen, a production gallery would be mined between, and about 10 m above, the freeze galleries. Although this gallery would be closer to the ore body, there would still be several metres of barren rock remaining to shield the workers from the radiation emanating from above. Casing holes would be drilled from the production gallery up into the ore body and the head of the jet-boring machine, extended above the casing, would cut up the frozen ore using high pressure water jets. The resulting ore-containing slurry, enclosed completely in piping, would be conducted under the force of gravity to a crusher/ grinder. This slurry would be thickened and hydraulically hoisted to the surface from where it would be transported to the JEB mill for processing. Use of shielded conduits throughout the mine would ensure that workers experience minimum exposure to the highly radioactive ore.

The combination of several metres of basement rock between the occupied production galleries and the ore body; the use of a non-entry mining method; and the use of sealed, ore-slurry transport methods to remove ore from the mine should shield underground workers adequately from exposure to radioactive ore. The use of automated mining procedures follows the current trends in mining technology used to improve protection for workers in dangerous underground mining environments. Jet boring, used in conjunction with ground freezing, is technically sound and appropriately designed to facilitate safe recovery of the high-grade Midwest ore.

6.2 Liquid Effluent and Discharge Location

The mining method described in Section 6.1 has positive implications when compared with the proposal reviewed by the panel in 1993. Mink Arm would no longer require draining, and there would be a considerable reduction in mine water inflow. Overall, Cogema predicts a volume of treated effluent that would total about 11 per cent of that predicted in the earlier proposal. [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Main Document, Cogema Resources Inc., August, 1995, Table 2.1.5.3.] The volume of effluent would also be small relative to other Saskatchewan uranium mining operations, being less than half that released by Cluff Lake, which discharges the least effluent of the mines currently operating. Thus, the total environmental loading [Total environmental loading = concentration of contaminant in effluent x volume of effluent released.] of contaminants released to the environment would be small relative to the discharges from other uranium mines.

The question of whether the effluent should be discharged into North McMahon Lake or the Mink Arm of South McMahon Lake must be resolved before mining begins. Of the two locations, North McMahon Lake has the greater volume and greater water flow, permitting faster dilution of the effluent and a correspondingly quicker reduction in contaminant concentrations. However, this discharge location, which is farther from the mine than Mink Arm, would require the consideration of the impacts of a pipeline on the terrestrial environment, and increase the probability of treated water spills. Also, if an upset were to occur in the water treatment plant, any release of undesirable effluent could be mitigated more easily if it were discharged into Mink Arm rather than North McMahon Lake. Mink Arm is separated from the rest of South McMahon Lake by an earth dam, and the high placement of the culvert linking the two water bodies reduces the normal flow of water between Mink Arm and South McMahon Lake. Thus, although the release of undesirable effluent into Mink Arm would create a greater local impact compared to North McMahon Lake, the dam would provide more protection to water bodies downstream.

The panel supports the proposed choice of a discharge location at Mink Arm, but encourages Cogema to seek ways of reducing possible impacts in the discharge area. The location and method of discharge into Mink Arm should be selected in consultation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, and the provincial department of Environment and Resource Management. If the impacts to Mink Arm prove to be unacceptable, mitigation would be required.

6.3 Waste Rock Disposal

Cogema proposes to dispose of mine waste rock at various locations. Depending on its potential to release contaminants, waste rock would be classified as either clean waste or special waste. Clean waste rock is characterized as containing less than 0.03 per cent uranium and concentrations of other elements below recommended limits. Special waste would be comprised of waste rock containing between 0.03 per cent and 0.09 per cent uranium, or elevated levels of arsenic, nickel or sulphur, either singly or in combination.

Some of the special waste, estimated to be approximately 204,000 tonnes in total, [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Main Document, Cogema Resources Inc., August, 1995, pp. 2-47.] would be used to backfill mine galleries on the freeze and production levels when underground mining ceases. The remaining special waste about 116,000 tonnes [8 Ibid.] 8 would be transported to the McClean Lake property for disposal in the Sue C pit. Sludge materials resulting from the water treatment process would also be trucked to the McClean Lake site where they would be combined with mill tailings for disposal within the JEB pit.

Some of the clean waste would be used to prepare concrete for backfilling underground jet-bored cavities. The proposed method for disposal of the remaining clean waste, estimated to be 101,000 tonnes, [Ibid.] is as a 6-metre high by 100-metre square stockpile located approximately 200 m west of the Mink Arm shoreline. The proponent proposes to contour this stockpile, with slopes graded to less than 28^o, in order to minimize erosion and encourage revegetation. [Ibid, pp. 2-136.] Although this stockpile would occupy only a limited surface area, the mounded structure would be a new topographic feature along the western shore of Mink Arm.

There is concern that unintentional mixing of clean and special waste rock materials could occur in the surface stockpile. The EIS describes no procedures to guarantee the effective segregation of clean and special waste materials in a timely fashion. Should mixing occur, there might be increased discharge of contaminated leachate, which could affect surface water quality detrimentally. [L.M. Broughton, R.W. Chambers, A. MacG. Robertson, Mine Rock Guidelines, Saskatchewan Environment and Public Safety, April, 1992, p. 4-4 - 4-13.] It is, therefore, imperative that the proponent demonstrate a satisfactory method for differentiating between mineralized and non-mineralized waste rock before mining starts.

We agree with Environment Canada that Cogema should maximize the quantities of waste rock materials to be disposed of within the underground workings of the Midwest mine. Where quantities of clean or potentially contaminated waste cannot be disposed of in this fashion, an option other than the proposed stockpiling should be considered:

Environment Canada advocates the pit disposal of the entire remaining volume of Midwest waste rock and special waste at the McClean Lake site ... completely filling the Sue C pit....[Environment Canada, Prairie and Northern Region, Submission to the Midwest Project Public Hearings, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 10, 1996, p. 43.]

The panel endorses Environment Canada's advice that the proponent consider alternative disposal plans for mine waste rock. Clean and special waste rock that cannot be used as backfill in underground excavations should be disposed of in pits at the McClean Lake site. If this condition is not accepted and the stockpile proposed for the west side of Mink Arm is permitted, arrangements should be made to monitor it for several decades. A financial guarantee should be provided to ensure that any acid mine rock drainage from the stockpile can be mitigated. This could include eventual removal of the waste rock to one of the mined-out pits at McClean Lake. Monitoring of the site should involve the participation of local people as described in Section 4.4.

6.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

By creative use of a combination of mining techniques -- ground freezing and jet boring -- Cogema has proposed an acceptable plan for recovery of ore from the Midwest deposit.

The location of the discharge for liquid effluent should be in Mink Arm, with the method of discharge being determined in consultation with the Department of Fisheries, Environment Canada and Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management.

The proponent should demonstrate an effective method for differentiating between clean and special wastes before mining starts.

All special waste rock and as much clean waste as possible should be disposed of underground in the Midwest mine, or in a mined-out pit on the McClean Lake site. The waste rock pile proposed for the west side of Mink Arm should be monitored for several decades. A financial guarantee should be provided to ensure that any acid mine rock drainage from the stockpile can be mitigated. This guarantee would be part of the Uranium Mine Contingency Fund described in Section 12.4. If acid-mine drainage is observed to occur, the waste rock should be removed to one of the mined-out Sue pits at the McClean Lake site.

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.

8.1 Environmental Impacts

The residents of northern Saskatchewan expressed concern over the possibility of spills along the proposed ore transportation corridor from the Midwest mine site to the McClean Lake mill. The impacts that might result from ore spills into waterways crossed by the road were of particular concern, as was the need for compensation for any long-term damage caused by such spills. Other issues brought to the attention of the panel included the possibility of ground fires which might result from road accidents and the impacts of dust generated by the trucks.

8.2 Ore Transport Vessels

In spite of the strictest precautions, road accidents do occur, and for many reasons. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that the ore transport vessels be designed to ensure that no release of radioactive material will occur in the event of an accident during ore transportation.

The design of the vessel must also anticipate difficulties which could occur during the loading and unloading of the ore slurry. For example, the vessels should be designed to ensure that blockages due to freezing or segregation of the ore will not require manual mitigation which could expose workers to high levels of radiation.

As part of its licensing responsibilities, the AECB must address the safe packaging and transport of the Midwest ore. The panel was informed that the regulations administered by the AECB require the packaging standards for radioactive material to match the hazards posed by the material being transported and that these regulations are based on evolving international standards. [B. Johnston, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, June 5, 1996, p. 41. ] As uncertainty may be created for the public and the proponent by changes in standards, it is important for the AECB to clearly communicate future licensing requirements for the transport of Midwest ore. This process should include public meetings in the communities most likely to be impacted by the transportation of ore and supplies.

8.3 Contingency Plans

Effective emergency spill response and contingency plans are essential for the safe transport of radioactive ore and other related hazardous material. Such plans must be developed in consultation with the communities which might suffer transportation-related impacts. The final plans, acceptable to the communities and to both the federal and provincial authorities, must be in place before transportation of Midwest ore is permitted to begin.

The potential burden that an increase in multi-axle and other traffic associated with mine- and mill-related activity could pose for municipal emergency response services in the north was reported to the panel. Municipal governments, given their limited available resources, are especially concerned with their ability to respond to road accidents and possible hazardous material spills, especially if coincident emergencies were to occur in the communities they serve. Other challenges they face include long travel times to access accident sites and a lack of specialized equipment, such as helicopter-supported rescue equipment.

8.4 Safety

Concerns were expressed over public safety on Highway 102 and Provincial Road 905. The panel heard that the roads contain sections that are narrow, have limited visibility, and for which road maintenance activity has not kept pace with traffic volumes. For these reasons, an increase in mine- and mill-related traffic, particularly in the number of multi-axle vehicles and ore transport trucks, is expected to produce an increase in road accidents. In addition, the opening of the proposed Athabasca road to Black Lake will likely further increase local traffic on the highways.

The panel was informed that an extensive road improvement program has been initiated for Highway 102 and Provincial Road 905 [R. McKay, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 11, 1996, p. 119.] A timely completion of this program is essential.

8.5 Recommendations

The public should be consulted by federal and provincial authorities on several transportation-related decisions: on the development of accident contingency plans; on the licensing of transportation vessels and vehicles; and on the implementation of road improvements on Highway 102 and Provincial Road 905. These consultations should include public meetings held in the northern communities impacted significantly by transportation-related activities.

9.1 The JEB Mill

Following an extensive public review in 1993, [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.] Cogema was given ministerial approval to construct a mill for refining ore from the JEB, Sue A, Sue B, Sue C and McClean Lake mines at the McClean Lake site about 20 km east of the Midwest mine. This approval contained a requirement to conduct research into methods that could be employed to reduce process chemicals and optimize contaminated water treatment, with the overall objective of reducing environmental loadings. As a consequence of this research, Cogema proposed changing from strong acid stripping to ammonium sulphate stripping. Test work showed that by use of this approach the volume of tailings produced could be reduced by 28 per cent, while holding ammonia concentrations in the effluent at an acceptable level.

The EIS submitted by Cogema [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Main Document, Cogema Resources Inc., August, 1995, p. 3-15 to 3-22.] contains a description of the various processes that will occur in the mill: receiving solid mine ore, grinding, two-stage atmospheric leaching, counter current decantation, pregnant solution clarification, solvent extraction, stripping with ammonium sulphate, molybdenum removal, precipitation and calcination of ammonium diuranate to give U₃0₈ (yellowcake), packaging of the yellowcake, barren strip solution clarification, crystallization of ammonium sulphate, and neutralization of the tailings. This process produces two commercial products, yellowcake and ammonium sulphate.

In order to accommodate slurried Midwest ore, produced as described in Section 6.1, the mill design would require three main modifications: the building of a new facility to receive and unload ore slurry; the introduction of a nickel/cobalt recovery system, if economically justified; and the modification of the tailings preparation circuit to produce neutralized paste tailings.[Ibid, pp. 3-38 to 3-60.] The new receiving facility would be required because ore produced from the Midwest mine would be transported as a slurry, whereas the currently approved mill is equipped to receive only solid ore. The nickel/cobalt recovery system would be desirable because the Midwest ore contains substantial quantities of these metals, particularly nickel. Since nickel is a toxic heavy metal, it is important to recover some of it during the refining process; any not removed would be incorporated into the tailings, causing an increased environmental load. Paste tailings must be produced because Cogema proposes to use subaqueous disposal in the JEB pit. Highly radioactive tailings, such as those produced from the Midwest ore, can more safely be placed in the pit under a layer of water.

9.2 The Tailings Management Facility (TMF)

The greatest environmental risks associated with the Midwest project are related to the method selected for tailings disposal. Because of the large volume of tailings produced, it is not practical for mines to consider deep geological deposition, as recently proposed for high-level nuclear reactor wastes. [Environmental Impact Statement on the Concept for Disposal of Canada's Nuclear Fuel Waste, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report, C.O.G.-93-1, 1994.] It is of interest, therefore, to note a report which indicates that mill tailings are more toxic in the long term than are high-level wastes.[J.D. Bredehoeft, A.W. England, D.B. Stewart, N.J. Trask and I.J. Winograd, Geologic Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes -- Earth-Science Perspectives: A summary of factors and processes that must be understood for the safe containment of high-level radioactive waste, Geological Survey Circular 779, 1978, p. 10.] For this reason, it is essential that the method proposed for tailings disposal be subjected to careful scrutiny before implementation is approved.

...the hazard from uranium mill tailings which although more than an order of magnitude more toxic than high level waste, have customarily been treated in a much more cursory fashion.

G. Edwards, Transcript of Supplementary Public Hearings for Midwest and Cigar Lake, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, August 28, 1997, p. 69.

Cogema proposes to use the mined-out JEB pit at McClean Lake for a disposal facility. Various configurations (engineered pervious surround, partial engineered pervious surround and natural surround) were considered for the conversion of this pit into a storage facility. After modelling the impacts associated with each configuration, both the proponents and the Atomic Energy Control Board have concluded that the natural surround would provide the best environmental protection.

Successful application of this technology requires that the tailings be produced and deposited in such a way that they consolidate over time to give a material that has a hydraulic conductivity at least ten times less than that of the surrounding host rock. The essential difference between this approach and the technology pioneered at the Rabbit Lake in-pit TMF is that it is the tailings, rather than the surround, which would be engineered to produce the required difference in hydraulic conductivity. Several potential advantages of this approach, as noted by the proponents, are described in the following paragraphs:

• Natural surround technology allows the tailings to be deposited under water. The ability to use subaqueous deposition is important for tailings produced from high grade ore because it provides for greater worker protection. As described in the EIS, [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Main Document, Cogema Resources Inc., February, 1996, pp. 3-60 to 3 - 81.] deposition of the tailings under a few metres of water protects the people working around the pit from exposure to radiation. It is, therefore, proposed that the tailings would be laid down, using a tremie pipe, [See Figure 3.] under a cover of water that would be deep enough to absorb most of the radiation emanating from the deposit.
• Subaqueous deposition would also prevent the formation of ice in the tailings before they had consolidated.
• The approach proposed for the JEB pit would allow the tailings produced from the milling of the ore from several mines (JEB, McClean, Sue A, Sue B, Sue C, Midwest and Cigar Lake) to be deposited in a single pit, thereby decreasing the number of sites requiring long-term monitoring.
• The use of a natural surround would permit the maximum quantity of tailings to be placed in the pit; i.e., the amount of environmental disturbance associated with pit construction, per tonne of tailings stored, would be minimized.
• The use of natural surround technology would avoid the use of engineered barriers, such as dams or liners, which might fail in the long term.
• Eventual capping of the pit with several metres of rock and till would avoid the weathering problems that are likely to compromise aboveground storage facilities in the long term. Capping the pit would also protect wildlife and humans from direct exposure in the postdecommissioning era.
• Tailings deposited in a pit, below ground level, would be protected when glaciers from the next ice age scarify the landscape of northern Saskatchewan.

Despite these potential advantages, many concerns associated with the use of the proposed tailings management facility were raised during the hearings. Among these are the closeness of the JEB pit to Fox Lake (about 125 m) and the failure of the proponent to provide convincing evidence that the lake is not likely to become contaminated in the long term. Modelling studies indicate a good possibility that arsenic levels, for example, could eventually exceed both Saskatchewan Surface Water Quality Objectives (SSWQO) and Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (CWQG) in Fox Lake.

Part of the uncertainty relates to the predicted concentrations of arsenic in the porewater of aged tailings. Estimates for the arsenic source term ranged from as low as 1 mg/L or less, to as high as 100 mg/L or more. Company-employed consultants with distinguished credentials suggested theoretical ways of reducing porewater concentrations by creating conditions in the tailings pit that would result in the formation of secondary minerals.[D. Langmuir, Transcript of Supplementary Public Hearings for Midwest and Cigar Lake, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, August 26, 1997, p. 39-47.] On the other hand, an engineering firm reviewed published data and experimental results from existing tailings facilities which indicated that arsenic concentrations in the porewater, instead of decreasing with time, have actually increased at a rate of about 500 per cent per year. [R. Swider, The Cigar Lake and Midwest Projects Tailings Disposal, Richard C. Swider Consulting Engineers Limited, Toronto, Ontario, August 21, 1997, p. 23.] When the hearings closed on August 28, 1997, the issue of the value to be assigned to the arsenic source term remained unresolved.

Figure 3: JEB TMF - Subaqueous Tailings Disposal

It is clear, however, that the proponent should not be given a licence to use the JEB pit as a TMF until it can demonstrate that arsenic and other contaminants in the porewater can be maintained at levels sufficiently low to minimize the chance that Fox Lake would be polluted in the long term.

It is at this point that the regulatory process must take over from the panel process. We find the concept of in-pit tailings disposal using a natural surround to be acceptable, but we are not able to assess all of the required site-specific conditions. In fact, we believe that our involvement at that level would be inappropriate. We are, therefore, making a favourable recommendation with respect to the concept of using the JEB pit as a TMF, but wish to temper that recommendation by attaching the following list of site-specific conditions that must be dealt with satisfactorily before a licence is given:[As mentioned elsewhere in this report, we have confidence in the regulators' ability to undertake this task, provided they are given adequate resources to do so.]

• Before the JEB pit is approved for deposition of tailings from Midwest ore, the proponents should demonstrate, using actual experimental data from aged tailings, that porewater contaminant concentrations can be controlled at acceptable levels. Theoretical solutions should not be accepted in lieu of experimental data for these purposes. The chemistry of tailings depositories is so complex that theories can be used only as a rough guide for the design of processes.

Well, in fact, we did not carry out leaching tests because when you have to carry out some tests, you have to be very cautious, you know.

M. Roche, Cogema Resources Inc., Transcript of Supplementary Public Hearings for Midwest and Cigar Lake, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, August 28, 1997, p. 23.

• If approval is given subsequent to the completion of the specified research, the contents of the pit should be monitored carefully to determine if the concentration of contaminants in the porewater is increasing or decreasing over time. We suggest a detailed survey every five years to examine porewater chemistry and to check for the development of secondary minerals. If conditions can be found which promote formation of secondary minerals, as suggested during the hearings, the pit would gradually begin to resemble a thermodynamically stable geological deposit. On the other hand, if porewater contaminant concentrations are found to increase with time, as predicted by the data presented by Richard Swider, deposition should cease. Licence approvals should continue to be for a limited time only. Renewal of approvals should be conditional on the ability of the operator of the TMF to prepare tailings that do not result in highly contaminated porewater.
• Procedures for mitigating all potential unacceptable impacts should be identified before deposition begins.
• New Canadian Water Quality Guidelines with lower arsenic levels have recently been introduced. Modelling should acknowledge the adoption of these more stringent levels. For the purposes of Fox Lake contamination, these levels should be treated as requirements, not merely as targets that may or may not be achieved.

The panel should be aware that the CWQG for arsenic has recently been revised to 0.005 mg/L (10 times lower than the SSWQO).

B. Fallis, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Transcript of Supplementary Public Hearings for Midwest and Cigar Lake, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, August 27, 1997, p. 87.

• Fox Lake should not be considered to be a mixing zone. The discharge from the pit should meet the more stringent of the SSWQO and CWQG, as it enters the lake. Use of the concentrations of contaminants that would be present upon complete dilution in the entire lake allows for the existence of small localized zones of highly polluted water that could endanger the health of wildlife and humans.
• The sediments in the bottom of Fox Lake should be monitored periodically to assess their condition and the need for any possible mitigative measures. Sediment monitoring methodologies were discussed in a previous panel report. [D.G. Lee, J. Archibald and R. Neal, McArthur River Uranium Mine Project, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, February, 1997, p. 35.]
• Control of contaminants during deposition will require the use of a well-functioning underdrain. However, one rock fall has already occurred in the area where the construction of the portal to this drain is proposed. A detailed geotechnical assessment should, therefore, be undertaken to ensure that the drain can be properly constructed and that it will function adequately for as long as it is required. This geotechnical review should utilize the most current geologic mapping, rock mass characterization and rock physical property data in its assessment of portal and underdrain stability conditions.
• The tailings, when consolidated, should not be above the top of the sandstone formation.
• The migration of contaminants in the ground water should be carefully monitored and mitigation procedures deployed if necessary. Establishment of a hydraulic cage should be used as the initial mitigative procedure if contaminant migration exceeds acceptable levels; raising the water level in Fox Lake could be considered as a secondary mitigative procedure. Both of these procedures should be defined in greater detail and subjected to the scrutiny of SERM, AECB, DFO and Environment Canada before deposition begins.
• In light of recent problems at Ontario Hydro's nuclear generating stations, which seem to have been caused more by poor management than by inferior technology, the regulators should make a careful assessment of Cogema's ability to manage the potentially dangerous JEB tailings management facility. The current management of this company appears to be chaotic. News releases have reported numerous resignations and changes at the senior management level; one of the Midwest partners has been openly contemptuous of Cogema's competence; [Correspondence to Alain Marvy, President, Cogema Resources Inc., from Dr. Hikmet Akin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Uranerz Exploration and Mining Limited, June 4, 1997.] most of Cogema's technical assessment has been done by consultants, some of whom fly in only to make a presentation and then depart without contributing to or learning from other presentations; [For example, Dr. Langmuir left the public hearings almost immediately after his presentation on August 26, 1997, and was not present to discuss the contradictory information presented by Richard Swider on August 28, 1997.] and the chairman of Cogema Resources Inc. admitted that the company did not have the scientific staff required to critically assess the advice given to it by consultants. [M. Poissonnet, Transcript of Supplementary Public Hearings for Midwest and Cigar Lake, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, August 26, 1997, p. 110.] A company that proposes to operate a waste dump, among the potentially most dangerous in Canada, should have greater competence and stability than Cogema has demonstrated. Before a licence to operate the JEB TMF is given to Cogema, the public and the regulators must be confident that the company has sufficient managerial and scientific strength and integrity within Saskatchewan to provide assurance that environmental damage would not result from incompetent operation of the facility.
• At times during the review, we observed that Cogema had a dismissive attitude toward the regulators and their concerns. They did not always appear to take seriously the issues raised by SERM and the AECB.

Neither the federal nor the provincial government should permit a company displaying such an attitude to be in charge of constructing and operating a radioactive waste disposal facility. Without a major attitudinal adjustment on the part of the proponent, there is a risk to the environment that supersedes the ability of scientists and engineers to design and construct a safe facility. Before approval is given, Cogema should be required to give more than superficial attention to the concerns of the regulators. It is, after all, the regulators who have been charged with the responsibility, on behalf of the people of Canada, to ensure that this facility would, if approved, be properly constructed and operated.

While fulfilling their responsibilities as regulators, AECB and SERM should be strongly supported by the federal and provincial governments and should not be subjected to undue pressure from conflicting government interests.

The panel is aware that an adequate response to many of these concerns will take considerable time. To reassure the public that this facility can be operated properly may therefore mean a substantial delay in the licensing process. Such a delay is the price the proponent must pay for its failure to provide convincing evidence that the facility can be operated safely and without adverse impacts on the environment. The regulators should not allow the fiscal consequences of such a delay to compromise their responsibility to ensure that the facility is properly designed and that there is a high probability it can be operated in such a way that the environment will be protected now and in the future.

I find myself totally amazed at the narrow view that suggests that we should ravage our northlands, contaminate its waters, only to produce even more deadly waste which we still haven't figured out how to handle.

K. Weingeist, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 29, 1996, p. 85.

9.3 Conclusions and Recommendations

The proposed JEB TMF, constructed using natural surround technology, provides an opportunity to realize several potential environmental benefits. Among these are the ability to use subaqueous deposition, to store tailings from several mines in one site, to avoid the use of engineered barriers, to minimize weathering problems that are likely to compromise aboveground facilities, and to protect the contents of the pit from scarification by glaciers during the next ice age. Because of these potential advantages, the concept for tailings disposal represented by the JEB TMF proposal is recommended. However, there are also a large number of site-specific concerns associated with this particular site. The closeness of the JEB pit to Fox Lake, the failure of the proponent to provide convincing evidence that the lake will not become contaminated over time, and a lack of confidence in Cogema's ability to manage this facility must be taken into consideration. Consequently, it is necessary to attach several critical conditions to this recommendation. In summary, these conditions are:

• the proponent must demonstrate experimentally that porewater contaminant concentrations can be maintained at acceptable levels in aged tailings;
• if approval is eventually given, the chemical and physical properties of the deposited tailings must receive careful monitoring and the porewater quality must be periodically assessed;
• Fox Lake should not be used as a mixing zone;
• sediments in Fox Lake should be monitored;
• the more stringent of the SSWQO or the recently amended CWQG should be used when modelling the expected contamination of Fox Lake;
• a better geotechnical assessment of the underdrain portal should be provided, and design improvements made if required;
• tailings, after consolidation, should not be above the top of the sandstone formation;
• procedures for mitigating all potential unacceptable impacts should be identified before deposition begins. The construction of a hydraulic cage or raising the water level in Fox Lake should be more completely described and approved in principle by appropriate federal and provincial departments before deposition begins;
• the operator should be required to demonstrate that it possesses adequate managerial and scientific competence before responsibility to construct and operate this highly dangerous facility is approved;
• the operator should demonstrate that it is capable of, and intent upon, giving thoughtful, sincere and professional attention to the concerns of the regulators, SERM and AECB; and
• arrangements should be made to provide for perpetual monitoring of this and other tailings management facilities, if approval is given.

10.1 Baseline Data and Impact Assessment

Concerns were raised about certain baseline data which were inadequate or missing in the original EIS, and about the proposed monitoring program. Most of these concerns were, however, addressed in a satisfactory manner by Cogema in its responses to the panel's requests for additional information. [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Additional Information, Cogema Resources Inc., February, 1996, Parts 4.1 and 4.4. The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Supplementary Information, Response to Department of Fisheries and Oceans Comments, Cogema Resources, Inc., May, 1996.] Cogema has also committed to completion of the gathering of all required additional baseline information prior to construction of the mine.

Information presented at public hearings suggested that fish may have survived in Mink Arm when it was incompletely drained during the test mine phase of operations. [L. Quarshie, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, June 15, 1996, p. 66.] This information requires confirmation. If fish are present in Mink Arm, the proponent must collect baseline information on them. Because of its isolation from the rest of South McMahon Lake, the presence of a fish population in Mink Arm would offer an ideal situation for monitoring the impacts of mine water effluent on the biota. Potential impacts would not be masked by fish migrating in or out of the area. If no impacts could be detected on the health or population dynamics of the fish in Mink Arm, it is unlikely that such effects could be detected further downstream. This could influence how fish populations are monitored in the long term.

A similar comment is relevant to the McClean Lake site where mill effluent will be released into Sink Lake over a longer time. Sink Lake and the adjacent Vulture Lake, like Mink Arm, contain fish populations isolated from the rest of the watershed. Thus, fish in this area would also provide ideal populations to assess for the potential impacts of mill effluent. The panel was concerned to learn that the fish in Sink Lake were to be poisoned. If this is true, the rationale for this decision should be re-examined.

More emphasis should be placed on assessing impacts close to the point of effluent release, where one might anticipate maximum effects. If impacts cannot be detected where effects are likely to be greatest, there is little point in looking for more subtle effects farther away from the main point of release.

Even when monitoring takes place at the most sensitive location, it may not be possible to detect impacts, either because there are no impacts, or because there is little statistical power in the analyses.[Statistical power refers to the ability of a particular statistical test to detect a given change in a population.] A study may be unable to detect a change in a population because of small sample size and a large variation between samples. [R.M. Peterman, Statistical Power Analysis Can Improve Fisheries Research and Management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 47, 1990, pp. 2-15.] Baseline and monitoring data should be subjected to power analysis at each sample site. As a general rule, it should be possible to detect a 50 per cent reduction in a population at each site with a high degree of power or probability (>95 per cent). If there is little chance of detecting such a magnitude of change, the sampling or monitoring programme should be modified. This may require taking a larger number of samples at each sample site. To compensate for increased costs, it may be necessary to decrease the number of sample sites or increase the time interval between samples. However, it is better to sample a few things well, than many things poorly.

Another area of concern about the proposed monitoring programme is the confusion about the purpose of monitoring aquatic macrophytes. According to Cogema:

A wide variation in aquatic macrophyte data have made it difficult to assess the impacts from operations. Problems associated with contamination of water are usually observed first and corrected prior to any evidence from macrophyte data. [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Main Document, Cogema Resources Inc., August, 1996, Part 3, p. 171.]

Cogema, therefore, does not propose to monitor aquatic macrophytes although baseline data will be collected. We do not agree with this approach. The purpose of environmental effects monitoring is to assess the impacts of contaminant release and to determine contaminant loads and transfer coefficients for specific biota. It is then possible to assess the reliability of the models which have been used to predict environmental impacts. This cannot be done in the absence of monitoring. Aquatic macrophytes are important Valued Ecosystem Components and should not be ignored.

Where possible, the mine operators should monitor the same Valued Ecosystem Components as the government agencies are monitoring in their assessments of cumulative effects distant from the mines.

Finally, the proponent should reassess its method of monitoring sediments, as discussed in our McArthur River report. [D.G. Lee, J. Archibald and R. Neal, McArthur River Uranium Mine Project, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, February, 1997, p. 35.] In areas of compacted sediment, contaminants will accumulate at the surface by adsorption and by deposition of new sediment. Because deposition rates of new sediments would be very low, the impacts from the mine are likely to be observed only in the top 1-2 cm of the sediment. Cogema proposes to take sediment cores every three years and divide them into two strata: 0-5 cm, and 5-15 cm. The monitoring would be more useful if sediment samples, taken less frequently, were divided into 1 cm strata, particularly in the top 5 cm. Similar reasoning should be applied to the sampling of soils where contaminant inputs also occur at the surface.

10.2 Monitoring at the Midwest Site

Mink Arm, the recommended site for release of effluent from the water treatment plant, is separated from the rest of South McMahon Lake by an earth dam with a culvert near its top, as described in Section 6.2. Since it is possible that upsets could cause the quality of the water in Mink Arm to exceed Saskatchewan Surface Water Quality Objectives, controls should be placed on the culvert to allow for containment and gradual release of contaminated water, if necessary. Also, as described in Section 10.1, Mink Arm would provide a natural laboratory for the study of the effects of uranium mine effluent on fish, macrophytes and sediments. To make use of this opportunity, a monitoring program should be carefully designed, instituted well before mining starts again, and continued until after mining has ceased and concentrations of contaminants in the biota, water and sediments reach acceptable levels.

10.3 Monitoring of the JEB Tailings Management Facility

As described in Section 9.2, the proposed method for disposal of tailings from the McClean Lake mill involves placing them in the JEB pit, where it is predicted that they will consolidate until their permeability eventually becomes much less than that of the surrounding rock. If consolidation occurs as predicted, ground water would flow preferentially around the tailings, decreasing the risk of contamination of the surrounding lakes. However, evidence was presented which suggested that the source terms used in arriving at these predictions may not have been conservative. If this is so, Fox Lake, in particular, would be subjected to unacceptable impacts.

The premise for calculating the environmental impact was the source term for the concentration of arsenic in tailings porewater remains constant or is depleted. We believe that the premise, based on information that's available, is invalid.

R. Swider, Transcript of Supplementary Public Hearings for Midwest and Cigar Lake, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, August 28, 1997, p. 7.

If the JEB TMF is approved, these predictions would need to be confirmed by detailed field observations during the operating, decommissioning and postdecommissioning phases, as prescribed by the licensing procedures. The construction licence for the JEB tailings management facility required the operator to measure the characteristics, including the permeability, of the overburden and various layers of rock forming the pit wall. Similarly, the operating licence for the tailings management facility would prescribe how the tailings, groundwater, the water in the pond overlying the tailings, and the water collected in the drainage sump beneath the tailings would be monitored. Subsequently, the licence for the decommissioning phase would require the final consolidation of the tailings and restoration of the groundwater to be monitored. The proposed monitoring program for the various phases has been described by the proponent [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Supplemental Information, Cogema Resources Inc., May, 1996, Part 6, Appendix 1, Section 3.3.] and the panel is confident that the regulatory agencies will enforce an appropriate monitoring program for the facility.

The main outstanding issue to be addressed is the length of time the facility should be monitored after the pumps are shut off and the water table is restored. Local people deserve to know that contaminants are being contained within the facility and to be assured that, in the long term, any leakage of contaminants will be mitigated before organisms are harmed. Since modelling predicts that it would take about 10,000 years for the maximum concentration of contaminants to reach the nearest water body, Fox Lake, monitoring would have to continue at some level for the foreseeable future. The only way in which the people of the region can be assured of environmental protection is to monitor the facility indefinitely; it is not possible to guarantee a walk-away, zero-risk storage facility. The details of the monitoring program, possible maintenance of the facility, and ability to respond to any contingencies will require careful thought and appropriate funding.

It is apparent that the environmental risks associated with uranium tailings disposal areas will require periodic monitoring for as long as can be foreseen. Although these monitoring programs need not be expensive, the idea that it might be possible in a few years to completely walk away from a site that contains millions of tonnes of material that is both toxic and radioactive is not realistic. Instead, provisions should be made for continual monitoring of all Saskatchewan tailings disposal areas, including the aboveground facilities at Eldorado, Lorado, Gunner, Cluff Lake, Key Lake and Rabbit Lake, as well as the underground excavations that will eventually be filled. The term "decommissioned", when used in connection with uranium tailings management facilities, describes a site that is left in a condition that will require only infrequent monitoring and the lowest possible amount of maintenance; it does not mean that the site can be abandoned and forgotten about.

Previous reports by this and other panels have called for perpetual monitoring of tailings disposal facilities, and during the hearings the possible meaning of the word "perpetual" was debated. Modelling predicts that the maximum concentration of contaminants emanating from the JEB TMF may not reach Fox Lake for about 10,000 years. It will, therefore, be necessary to keep an eye on this facility for a very long time -- longer than the recorded history of humankind. In response to this observation, we are recommending that mechanisms be established which will permit us and our immediate descendants to monitor the site. If it is found that contaminant migration is at acceptable levels and that secondary mineralization is occurring, future generations might decide that continued monitoring is no longer necessary or, if contaminant migration is at unacceptable levels, they might decide to apply mitigative measures using technology available to them at that time. The best that we can do at this time is to proceed in a way that we believe will provide protection of the environment in the long term, by arranging for monitoring for the foreseeable future.

An authority should be established to oversee the monitoring and maintenance of the tailings management facilities, in perpetuity. Dedicated financial resources should be made available to cover the cost of these operations, as well as possible contingencies. The authority, which should include residents of the Athabasca region, could be given the task of overseeing all decommissioned tailings management facilities in the region.

The panel envisions a system whereby decommissioning costs will be covered by financial guarantees, from the mining companies, that have been legislated by the federal and provincial governments (see Section 12.3). However, postdecommissioning costs for the perpetual maintenance and monitoring of tailings management facilities, as well as for dealing with any contingencies which might arise, will require a dedicated permanent fund as well as an authority to oversee these activities. The fund might be called the Uranium Mining Contingency Fund (see Section 12.4).

10.4 Pathways Modelling

The proponent presented a comprehensive program for predicting potential environmental impacts through modelling of conditions locally and regionally. Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) were used as indicators of potential impacts on pathways modelling for human dose response assessment. However, Environment Canada expressed concern that current human dose modelling is not conservative, largely due to a substitution of southern foods for country foods. [Environment Canada, Prairie and Northern Region, Submission to the Midwest Project Public Hearings, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 10, 1996, p. 2.]

Dose calculations obtained from pathways models may be inaccurate because of errors in estimating the contaminant source terms or transfer coefficients used in the models. For example, in estimating the doses for humans, the models use the radionuclide concentrations in muscle meat of caribou or moose; however, northerners also consume large quantities of organ meats, such as liver and kidney, that have significantly higher radionuclide concentrations.

A more realistic dose assessment would incorporate conditions during active mining, as well as those present after decommissioning, and scenarios which would include ingestion of larger percentages of local country foods, including food-chain transfer coefficients obtained from local sources. [P. Thomas, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 30, 1996, p. 87.] The pathways modelling should be repeated taking these concerns into consideration and the proponent should be required to commit to a program of continual assessment to ensure that the pathways model is current.

10.5 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative impacts have been assessed for two situations. First, regional cumulative effects due to all existing and proposed uranium mines have been assessed for humans residing at Wollaston Lake, Hatchet Lake and Black Lake. [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Main Document, Cogema Resources Inc., August, 1995, Part 5.] The largest dose during mining operations was calculated for the Wollaston Lake receptor and was estimated to be approximately 1 per cent of the natural background radiation. A similar estimate has been made by the Cumulative Effects Monitoring Working Group (CEMWG). [T. Gates and L. Chamney, Uranium Mining Cumulative Effects Monitoring and Assessment, Submission to the Midwest Project Public Hearings, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 10, 1996.]

Secondly, Cogema has assessed the effects on humans living on the mine site after decommissioning, and obtaining much of their food and water from the local area. [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Additional Information, Cogema Resources Inc., February, 1996, Part 4.6.] This considers the cumulative effects of the mining and milling operation on the local environment. Two locations were studied: South McMahon Lake at the Midwest site and Vulture Lake at the McClean Lake site. Peak doses are predicted to occur immediately after decommissioning and to decline slowly with time at both sites. The peak radiological dose predicted initially at South McMahon Lake is just over 1 per cent and, at Vulture Lake, is approximately 6 per cent of that received from natural background radiation. Estimates were revised to consider the situation where all of a person's food and water were obtained from the local area. [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Supplementary Information - Response to Environment Canada Review Comments, Cogema Resources Inc., May, 1996, p. 5.] This increased the doses by, at most, a quarter of the original estimates. Consequently, it may be concluded that the potential radiological impact of the Midwest and McClean Lake developments is acceptably low. There is, however, a potential for arsenic to be an unacceptable risk to human health at the Vulture Lake site. If field observations of water and sediment concentrations of arsenic or any other contaminants at Vulture Lake are unacceptable, remedial action would be required.

All predictions need to be confirmed by the use of a well-defined monitoring program. Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management (SERM) and the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) agreed to establish such a program [The Atomic Energy Control Board, Memo to Board Members from the Directorate of Fuel Cycle and Materials Regulation, May 10, 1994.] in response to an earlier recommendation of the panel. [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. 16.] They formed a working group (the CEMWG, noted previously) in 1994 with technical advice from representatives of Saskatchewan Health, Environment Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Saskatchewan Research Council, University of Saskatchewan Toxicology Centre, Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre, Saskatchewan Northern Mines Monitoring Secretariat, and Terrestrial and Aquatic Environmental Managers Ltd. (TAEM). [T. Gates and L. Chamney, Uranium Mining Cumulative Effects Monitoring and Assessment, Submission to the Midwest Project Public Hearings, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 10, 1996.] This working group continues to improve the IMPACT/AECB model, which evaluates cumulative environmental effects. It has also established a cumulative effects monitoring program for all of the mines to test the reliability of the model's predictions using field observations. A total of 63 sample stations have been established. Valued ecosystem components to be monitored on a 3-year cycle include air, soil, lichen, blueberry, spruce needles, caribou, spruce grouse, water, depositional sediments, macrophytes, benthos, and fish. Each VEC is assessed for concentrations of radionuclides and metals, as well as other physical and chemical parameters. The panel endorses this initiative and notes that it should reassure Athabasca residents and other northerners about the safety of country foods, particularly if the residents are involved in the collection of this information and have representation on the monitoring committees (see Sections 11.2 and 11.3).

...I think that you'll gain public trust by involving people in that monitoring...

P. Thomas, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 30, 1996, p. 94

10.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

The presence of isolated populations of fish in Mink Arm, Sink Lake, and Vulture Lake provides an opportunity to study the effect of uranium mining and milling on fish. Aquatic macrophytes and sediments should also be studied.

Modelling results indicate that the environmental impacts of this project may not be within acceptable limits. There is a potential for arsenic to be an unacceptable health risk at Vulture Lake and Fox Lake. Therefore, careful monitoring using actual field observations, combined with appropriate mitigation, will be required to ensure that the environment is protected and that the decommissioned site will not present unacceptable risks to human health.

Monitoring will be required over a much longer time span than that suggested in the Environmental Impact Statement; the JEB tailings management facility, if approved, would require perpetual monitoring.

Local residents should be involved in all monitoring activities.

11.1 Contamination of Air, Water and the Food Web

As we have noted previously, [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. 21.] a fundamental concern of many northerners is the possibility that uranium mining and milling operations are poisoning the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the country foods they eat. Some of the attempts to quantify these risks have been described in Sections 10.4 and 10.5.

A food chain study, involving the Cumulative Effects Monitoring Working Group, [T. Gates and L. Chamney, Uranium Mining Cumulative Effects Monitoring and Assessment, Submission to Midwest Project Public Hearings, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 10, 1996.] was done on caribou harvested by local hunters in the Wollaston Lake area.[P.A. Thomas, Radionuclide Analyses of Saskatchewan Caribou - 1995, Final Report for Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management and Saskatchewan Health.] The objective of this study was to measure radionuclide body-burdens and to assess transfers of radionuclides from lichen to caribou, and potentially to humans. The data obtained indicated that the radiation dose from eating Wollaston area caribou meat is similar to the dose received from eating caribou meat harvested in the Northwest Territories, where there is no uranium mining. We encourage government agencies to continue the involvement of local area residents in such monitoring programs.

There is no indication from available information that there has been regional contamination of the food web in northern Saskatchewan. It appears that there is no danger, at this time, associated with the consumption of locally grown plants, meat or fish. This is a fortunate situation because locally harvested foods continue to be an important contribution to the diet of many people in northern Saskatchewan. It is important, however, that precautions be taken to eliminate the possibility of future contamination of the food web. Protection of the food web by continuous monitoring and mitigation would be far more acceptable (and less expensive) than would the efforts required to restore a clean environment, should contamination become extensive.

11.2 Environmental Quality Committees

The Government of Saskatchewan established three Environmental Quality Committees (EQCs) in 1995 in response to a recommendation from the panel. [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. 11.] Our impression is that Cogema and the various government departments are taking these committees seriously and trying to involve them in monitoring activities. This is a welcome step because the effectiveness of the EQCs depends on the opportunities provided for them to work in concert with both the mine operators and the government regulatory agencies.

We endorse the establishment of these committees and commend Cogema and government departments for their willingness to work with, and support, the three EQCs. We do, however, have two concerns specific to the EQCs. The first is that adequate financial support be provided to educate and train committee members in the various issues related to uranium mining and milling. Committee members do not have to be experts, but they do need to understand the different issues and this will require ongoing training. The second concern is that the committees should not become dependent on the mining companies for revenue. Such a situation could compromise the apparent objectivity of the EQCs.

11.3 Community Vitality

Community vitality, defined as the social well-being and quality of life experienced by community residents, [D.G. Lee, J.F. Archibald, J. Dantouze, R. Neal and A. Yassi, Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements and Government Information Requests for the Cigar Lake and McArthur River Projects, September, 1992, p. 53.] is subject to both positive and negative impacts from uranium mining.

On the positive side, enhanced employment and business opportunities in northern communities may provide a better standard of living and be a source of optimism and hope for community members. Mine employees may also provide good role models, encouraging students to stay in school and others to upgrade their education. The seven-day-in, seven-day-out rotation may provide an opportunity for wage earners to remain active in traditional pursuits and to have quality time to spend with their families. In addition, the presence of mines in the region often results in an improved infrastructure (roads, electrical power lines, water and sewer, etc.) that contributes to the viability and vitality of the community.

On the negative side, uranium mining may cause a deterioration in the traditional way of life that is valued by many northerners. In addition, employment at a mine can cause family stress because of the periodic absence from home of the mother or father. Fear that environmental pollution may have an impact on existing or unborn children can create anxiety in communities that share the same watershed as the mines. Tensions may develop between community members because of income differences and conflicts may arise between those who oppose mine development and those who favour it. Some employees may decide to move to southern cities, thus depriving northern communities of potential leadership. In addition, improved infrastructure may result in concerns about traffic accidents and possible spills of toxic materials.

Although this description of possible impacts is far from exhaustive, it does indicate that uranium mining has the potential for causing both positive and negative impacts on the vitality of northern communities. Therefore, if uranium mining is to remain a feature of the northern economy, it is as important to monitor its impacts on community vitality as it is to monitor its impacts on the environment. At least as much attention should be directed toward maintaining the well-being of the people of the region as is devoted to preserving the biota. In order to do this, it will be necessary to identify a set of indicators that can be used to assess the impact of uranium mining on the quality of life experienced by residents of northern communities.

There is a need for baseline health studies to be done in the North to address the incidence rates of cancers and the relation, if any, to the uranium mining.

J. MacDonald, Chairperson, Athabasca EQC, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Black Lake, Saskatchewan, June 7, 1996, p. 47.

Cogema has acknowledged the value of monitoring community vitality and noted "the need for improved socio-economic databases for northern Saskatchewan and the Athabasca communities in particular". [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Supplemental Information, Cogema Resources Inc., May, 1996, Part 3, Attachment 4, p. 7.] Recognizing the limitations of existing data, the company has suggested that the Athabasca Working Group address any community vitality impacts directly. While the concept of local participation (by the Athabasca Working Group or the Environmental Quality Committees, for example) is sound, the task of identifying indicators that can be used to monitor the impacts of uranium mining on community vitality will require professional assistance. Because many factors play a role in the life of modern northern communities, development of an appropriate protocol for monitoring the impacts of uranium mining will likely prove to be a challenging undertaking.

11.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

The information currently available indicates that there has been no regional contamination of the food web in northern Saskatchewan. Continuous monitoring and mitigation are necessary to protect it from deterioration as the region experiences development activities.

The Environmental Quality Committees provide a good avenue for incorporating local participation in decisions related to uranium mining activities in northern Saskatchewan. Adequate financial support should be provided to educate and train committee members in the various issues related to uranium mining and milling.

Just as the monitoring of biophysical impacts requires the participation of professional biologists and chemists, the monitoring of community vitality impacts will require assistance from social scientists. Cogema should cooperate with other uranium mining companies and northern leaders to set up a system that can be used to monitor the impacts of uranium mining on community vitality and all of the companies should jointly commit to mitigate any identified negative impacts.

12.1 The Midwest Site

The decommissioning and reclamation of uranium mines and their associated tailings facilities is intended to return areas disturbed by mine development to their natural state, or as close to it as possible. For the Midwest project, decommissioning proposed in the EIS includes dismantling surface buildings and their associated infrastructure; sealing shafts and underground raises; cleaning up waste; salvaging and decontaminating usable material; disposing of non-salvageable material underground; eliminating or contouring waste rock piles; installing a cover over the JEB tailings management facility; pumping at the pit site until consolidation levels are acceptable; revegetating all sites disturbed by the project, including the JEB tailings management facility; and monitoring of environmental impacts for at least five years after mining ceases.

The mining regulations administered by both the federal and provincial governments require that a site-specific conceptual decommissioning plan, which includes proposed reclamation activities, be submitted and approved before operating licences can be issued. Mining companies are encouraged to conduct decommissioning and reclamation activities as soon as possible and the conceptual plans are reviewed regularly to keep them current. When the time arrives for a mining operation to cease, government approval of a final decommissioning plan, based on existing mine conditions and the best available knowledge at that time, is required. After decommissioning has been completed, the mining company is required to monitor the site for a number of years. Only after it has been proven that decommissioning has been successful is a release granted from further requirements.

The physical condition of the Midwest mine and JEB tailings management facility after the departure of the mining company is a primary concern of the public. Many residents of northern Saskatchewan spoke about the need for local communities to be consulted on conceptual and final decommissioning plans, including periodic reviews of these plans. Local residents should also be involved in reclamation and monitoring activities. The panel considers that the Environmental Quality Committees, now established in northern Saskatchewan, provide an ideal vehicle through which to consult northern communities on decommissioning issues.

The decommission that's going to be done, is it the people, the local people that ... will be involved in the whole decommission?

E. Benoanie, Transcript of Midwest Public Hearings, Wollaston Lake, Saskatchewan, June 8, 1996, p. 9.

Other concerns expressed during the hearings include the need for decommissioning plans to address the potential rehabilitation of Mink Arm, the possible elimination of waste rock piles at the mine site, the need to treat contaminated water and the safe disposal of resultant sludge from the water treatment plant. Regarding waste rock piles, it was suggested thatmaximum use be made of disposal areas underground and at mined-out pits on the McClean Lake site.

The fate of the existing abandoned uranium mine and tailings areas situated in northern Saskatchewan was also raised as an issue by the public. It was suggested that resources be identified to clean up these sites.

12.2 The JEB Tailings Management Facility

If the JEB TMF is approved for disposal of mill tailings, the proponents propose to decommission it by covering the tailings with a cap consisting of about 20 m of sand, waste rock and till. [The Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Tailings Management - Additional Information, Cogema Resources Inc., April, 1997, pp. 13-1 to 13-6.] The purposes of the cap would be to prevent plants, animals, birds and people from accidentally coming in direct contact with tailings, and to drain surfacewater away from the pit.

Once the tailings reach a predetermined level, they would be covered by two meters of sand. The water cover would then be reduced to about 1 m and, during the following winter, 2 m of clean waste rock would be placed on the ice. When the ice melts during the subsequent summer, a leachate collection system would be installed to dewater the sand layer.

Temperature and pressure transducers would be installed in the tailings and, when instrumentation has indicated that all of the ice has melted, the remainder of the pit would be filled with sufficient waste rock to create a mound over the site. It is anticipated that the weight of this mound would cause approximately 14 m of settling due to consolidation of the tailings. This consolidation process would expel porewater into the sand layer where it would be recovered by the leachate collection system and sent to the water treatment plant.

During the consolidation stage, occasional recontouring of the mound would be necessary to maintain a well-drained surface. When consolidation is complete, a final cover of till would be placed to bring the top of the mound above the artesian water level in that area. The mound would then be graded and revegetated.

Do you have some examples of other mine sites that have used the solid cap and was it effective?

G. Ross, Mayor of Pinehouse, Transcript of Supplementary Public Hearings for Midwest and Cigar Lake, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, August 26, 1997, p. 153.

At the hearings, members of the public questioned the ability of Cogema to place waste rock on top of a pit filled with semi-solid tailings. In particular, it was suggested that, over time, the rock cover might sink into the pit and the tailings, instead of consolidating, might ooze up over the edges of the pit. When asked directly for examples of other places where this approach had been successfully applied, the company's reply was evasive.

In our opinion, the method proposed for decommissioning the JEB TMF is conceptually acceptable. Theoretical indications are that capping of the pit in the manner proposed would provide for the greatest environmental security in the long term. However, experimental verification of the effectiveness of the proposed approach should be sought before deposition begins. Experiments designed to test the response of aged paste tailings to pressure should, therefore, be undertaken. If the application of pressure causes them to flow rather than to consolidate, a more acceptable method for decommissioning the pit should be developed. Until experimental evidence indicating that it can be successfully decommissioned has been provided, the JEB pit should not be licensed as a tailings management facility.

12.3 Financial Guarantees

The federal and provincial governments have introduced legislation requiring mining companies to provide financial guarantees, prior to mine start-up, that will be available to cover the costs of decommissioning activities. This financial security is intended to ensure that uranium mine and mill sites can be decommissioned at no cost to Canadian taxpayers even if a mining company is unable to meet its commitments because of financial difficulties. The amount of financial guarantee requested is based on the needs outlined in the conceptual decommissioning plan, which is subject to regular review and updating to ensure that it reflects existing site conditions.

12.4 Uranium Mining Contingency Fund

The financial guarantees for decommissioning costs outlined in Section 12.3 cover a period of, at most, a few decades after mining ceases. When contaminant concentrations have been reduced to acceptable levels, and the leakage of contaminants from tailings management areas, etc., have stabilized and are acceptable, the proponent can apply to abandon the site.

The decommissioned JEB Tailings Management Facility would be required to contain contaminants for millennia, during which time many aspects of both the biophysical and institutional environments will change. Some mechanism must be established to provide for regular investigation of the integrity of contaminant containment and the performance of mitigative measures, should they be required, in the period after institutional responsibility for the area has been transferred from the mining company back to the province.

For this reason, our report on the McArthur River Project [D.G. Lee, J.F. Archibald and R. Neal, McArthur River Uranium Mine Project, Minister of Public Works and Government and Services, 1997, p. 48.] recommended that a fund be established to provide for monitoring and any required mitigation after the responsibility for the sites is returned to the province. The Province of Saskatchewan, in its response, stated:

Recognizing its responsibility for long-term management of the site, the Province is investigating options, including a contingency fund as proposed by the Panel, for implementation of monitoring and the funding of possible mitigation, should it be required. [The Government's Position on Proposed Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan, McArthur River Project, Government of Saskatchewan, May 1997, p.21.]

It is recommended that Saskatchewan move as expeditiously as possible to implement this recommendation.

The value of the contingency fund should be sufficiently large to cover the full costs of long-term maintenance and monitoring of the JEB tailings management facility and the potential implementation of contingencies. Rather than establishing such a fund for each mine independently, there may be merit in considering the establishment of an industry-wide fund. Such a fund might provide better overall fiscal protection to future generations and cost the mining companies less in total. There could also be a single authority to manage and oversee the maintenance, monitoring, and mitigation activities at all mine sites.

12.5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Decommissioning, since it will take place in the future, is only described conceptually at this stage; the scrutiny and acceptance of specific details must be entrusted to the government regulatory agencies. These agencies should, however, ensure that they receive advice from local residents at each stage of the decommissioning process.

This project, and in particular the JEB tailings management facility, will require long-term monitoring and possible mitigative activities for some time in the future. Arrangements should be made to guarantee that monitoring and any required mitigation can occur without placing a financial burden on future generations.

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

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

DONALD LEE (Chairperson)

Dr. Lee is Professor of Chemistry at the University of Regina and past President of Luther College. A native of Saskatchewan, he has a Master of Arts degree from the University of Saskatchewan, a Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of British Columbia and has completed postdoctoral studies at Harvard University. Dr. Lee has been a member of the faculty at the University of Regina since 1967 and has served as a visiting professor at the University of North Carolina, Stanford University and the University of Oslo. He has published over ninety scientific papers and numerous non-scientific articles.

Active in community affairs for many years, Dr. Lee has been Chairman of the Saskatchewan section of the Chemical Institute of Canada, Executive Member of the Saskatchewan Association of Independent Schools, a national official of the Canadian Amateur Swimming Association, and President of the Regina Optimist Dolphin Swim Club.

JAMES F. ARCHIBALD

Dr. Archibald received his Ph.D. in Mining Engineering at Queen's University and is a Professor and Acting Head of the Department of Mining Engineering at Queen's. His work experience is primarily in the academic field and includes associated private consultation with national and international mining organizations. Dr. Archibald is a member of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (CIM), the CIM Backfill Sub-Committee (Rock Mechanics Group) and the American Institute of Mining Engineers.

Dr. Archibald's research interests include measurement and control of radiation hazards in underground mines, mine ventilation systems, in-situ stress analysis, rock burst prediction and structural mine design evaluation. Dr. Archibald is a member of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Scientific Review Group examining the concept of deep geologic disposal of nuclear fuel waste.

RICHARD NEAL

Dr. Neal is Professor of Biology and Associate Dean (Academic) of the College of Arts and Science, University of Saskatchewan. He received both his Bachelor of Science and Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Southampton, U.K. Dr. Neal has been a member of the Department of Biology at the University of Saskatchewan since 1968, and has taught extensively in the field of biology.

Dr. Neal's research interests include population ecology and a broad range of environmental issues, including impacts of uranium, potash and molybdenum mines and effects of pesticides on prairie ponds and duck populations. Dr. Neal is actively involved in a number of professional organizations and has been the Chairman of the Environmental Advisory Committee of the City of Saskatoon.

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF A URANIUM MINING DEVELOPMENT AT SOUTH MCMAHON LAKE

MANDATE

1. The panel shall review the environmental, health, safety and socio-economic impacts (hereinafter referred to as "impacts") of the proposed uranium mine development (listed in Schedule A) in northern Saskatchewan and assess its acceptability.

In assessing the acceptability of the proposed development, the panel will include in its review and consider:

1. the historical experience with past and existing uranium mining operations in Saskatchewan;
2. the cumulative impacts of existing operations and the proposed development;
3. the short and long term impacts of the proposed project, spanning its construction phase, operating period, decommissioning phase and postdecommissioning phase;
4. the impact of employment and socio-economic opportunities afforded northern residents by the proponent and the measures necessary for the implementation of those opportunities;
5. the adequacy of measures proposed by the project proponent to protect environmental quality and to safeguard worker health and safety, and whether the measures can be expected to meet the requirements of Canadian and Saskatchewan law, regulations and policies applicable to uranium mine developments;
6. the adequacy of monitoring, enforcement and compliance systems to ensure that measures necessary for mitigating adverse impacts can be implemented; and
7. the benefits afforded by the proposal.

2. The panel shall determine from its review whether the project is acceptable or unacceptable.

In concluding that the project is acceptable, the panel may recommend that specified minimum terms and conditions, including any mitigative measures or any other measures relating to the impacts under the panel's review, be implemented where it considers these necessary for the protection of health, safety and the environment or for dealing responsibly with socio-economic concerns. The panel may also suggest measures that it considers would enhance the acceptability of the proposal.

If the panel concludes the project is unacceptable, it shall provide its reasons for this conclusion.

3. In fulfilling its mandate, the panel shall provide full opportunities for public consultation and review.

REVIEW PROCEDURES

Detailed written procedures for conducting the review established by the panel and made available to the public pursuant to the review of other projects in its mandate shall apply to the review of this project.

TECHNICAL EXPERTS

The panel may secure the services of independent technical experts to assist and advise on complex technical and/or socio-economic issues related to its mandate. Such experts will also be available to respond to inquiries from review participants.

STAGES OF THE REVIEW

Schedule A lists the proposal to be reviewed by the panel, which is a different proposal for the mining of an ore body of one of the projects on which the panel has already reported. The proposal in Appendix A has been referred due to potentially significant or unknown adverse environmental effects and public concern.

The panel will seek public comment on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and determine its adequacy before proceeding to public hearings. When the panel is satisfied with the information provided, including that with respect to the cumulative impacts, it may report on the project to the Ministers as described in the following stages of the review.

In reviewing the EIS for the proposal listed in Appendix A, the panel shall include among its considerations:

• its earlier review and report on the initial proposal to mine this orebody;
• concerns raised by governments in decisions and responses to the initial proposal;
• the adequacy of the proponent's response to project specific guidelines issued by government to the proponent for use in preparation of the EIS; and
• the type of information requested in the Guidelines prepared for the remaining two proposals under panel review (Cigar Lake and McArthur River Projects), where relevant to the proposal.

The cumulative impacts of the proposal in Appendix A will be considered when the EIS document has been submitted. The stages of the review following submission of this document to the panel are outlined below. The panel shall submit its final report on the proposal within 18 months of receipt of the proponent's EIS.

1. Review of Information

1. Review of the available information on the environmental, health, safety and socio-economic impacts of the uranium mining industry in Saskatchewan to date. The information and any related reports prepared will be made available to the public.
2. Review of the past performance of the uranium mining industry in providing employment and socio-economic opportunities to northern residents. The information and any related reports prepared will be made available to the public.
3. Review by the panel of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by the proponent. The EIS will also be made available to the public for review and written comment.
4. The panel may draw on the proponent, technical agencies from within federal or provincial governments, independent experts and the public for available information.

2. Should the panel, after reviewing the above information and considering public comments, deem the EIS deficient, it may request additional information from the project proponent.

3. Once the panel is satisfied with the information provided, it will announce public hearings for the project. If appropriate, the hearings may be structured to address at the same time any other of the projects still under review by the panel (Cigar Lake or McArthur River Projects).

For the purpose of promoting public awareness and facilitating public comment, the panel will hold meetings and/or hearings in the appropriate northern communities, Regina, Saskatoon and in such other Saskatchewan communities as the panel may think necessary.

4. When the panel is in a position, following the completion of public hearings, to provide a report on its findings, conclusions and recommendations relevant to the specific project, it will submit the report to the federal Ministers of Environment and of Natural Resources and to the Saskatchewan Minister of Environment and Resource Management.

The panel should, to the extent possible, ensure that the timely review of the project is not jeopardized by delays in the review of any other project included in its mandate.

LINKAGE TO OTHER POLICY PROCESSES

The panel is not expected to interpret its mandate so as to duplicate the work of other public inquiries and policy processes or to focus on national or international issues which are not directly related to the impacts of the proposal.

However, concerns may be raised by the public which extend beyond the impacts of direct concern to the panel, and in such cases the panel will ensure that the public is provided a reasonable opportunity to express these concerns.

SCHEDULE A

1. South McMahon Lake Project
   Midwest Joint Venture (Minatco Ltd.)

Joint public review announced and terms of reference issued by Robert deCotret, Minister of the Environment, and Grant Hodgins, Minister of Saskatchewan and Public Safety, April 18, 1991

Joint review panel members appointed by Beattie Martin, Minister of Saskatchewan Environment and Public Safety, and Jean Charest, Minister of the Environment, August 22, 1991

Panel toured all proposed mine development sites, October 1-6, 1991

Panel's operational procedures released, December 19, 1991

EISs received and released for 90-day public review as follows:

• Midwest Joint Venture, December 19, 1991 (deadline date for submissions --March 20, 1992)
• McClean Lake Project, January 13, 1992 (deadline date for submissions -- April 13, 1992)
• Dominique-Janine Extension at Cluff Lake, March 31, 1992 (deadline date for submissions -- June 30, 1992)

Deadline date for public submissions for MJV and McClean Lake extended to May 29, 1992

Scoping meetings for Cigar Lake and McArthur River announced January 7, 1992, to begin February 7, 1992

Dates and locations of scoping meetings announced January 22, 1991, as follows:

• February 7, 1992 Ben McIntyre School, Uranium City
• February 8, 1992 Fond du Lac Band Hall, Fond du Lac
• February 10, 1992 Community Hall, Stony Rapids
• February 10, 1992 Community Hall, Black Lake
• February 11, 1992 Hatchet Lake Band Hall, Wollaston Lake
• February 12, 1992 Arena Hall, La Loche
• February 13, 1992 Complex Hall, Buffalo Narrows
• February 14, 1992 Community Hall, Ile-à-la-Crosse
• March 2, 1992 Ramada Renaissance, Regina
• March 3, 1992 Holiday Inn, Saskatoon
• March 4, 1992 Marlboro Inn, Prince Albert
• March 5, 1992 Kikinahk Centre, La Ronge

Modifications to the Midwest Joint Venture and McClean Lake projects issued May 6, 1992

Technical reviews of Midwest Joint Venture and McClean Lake projects, as prepared by Ecologistics Limited, released by the panel May 29, 1992

Draft guidelines for EIS preparation and government information requests for Cigar Lake and McArthur River issued June 1, 1992, for public review until July 3, 1992

Summary report on scoping meetings for Cigar Lake and McArthur River, prepared by Quadra Planning Consultants Ltd., released by the panel, August 19, 1992

Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements and Government Information Requests for the Cigar Lake and McArthur Projects, issued September 11, 1992

Request for Additional Information issued to Amok Ltd. on October 7, 1992

Amendments for Midwest Joint Venture and McClean Lake EIS issued October 30, 1992, for a public review period ending November 30, 1992

EIS on McArthur River Project Underground Exploration Program, July 1992, and Addendum, October, 1992, referred to Joint Panel for public review on October 29, 1992, with review period ending December 2, 1992

Dates and locations for Public Hearings on McArthur River Underground Exploration Project announced November 1, 1992, as follows:

• December 3, 1992 Hotel Saskatchewan, Regina
• December 4-5, 1992 Holiday Inn, Saskatoon
• December 6, 1992 Community Hall, Fond du Lac
• December 7, 1992 Community Hall, Black Lake
• December 8, 1992 Hatchet Lake Band Hall, Wollaston Lake
• December 9, 1992 Community Hall, Pinehouse
• December 10, 1992 Kikinahk Centre, La Ronge

Total Minatco's response to panel's Request for Additional Information on the McClean Lake project released on December 15, 1992, for a public review period ending January 15, 1993

Panel released commissioned reports December 15, 1992, as follows:

• Health in the Context of Uranium Mining in Northern Saskatchewan, Ed Weick, ESAS
• An Overview of the Biophysical Environmental Impact of Existing Uranium Mining Operations in Northern Saskatchewan, Dr. Herman Dirschl, ESAS
• A Brief Historical Review of the Beaverlodge Mining Area of Northern Saskatchewan, R. Barsi and Dr. A.W. Ashbrook
• A Socio-Economic Overview of Uranium Mining in Northern Saskatchewan, Ed Weick, ESAS
• Review of the Cluff Lake and Key Lake Reports, L. Vigrass

Panel released Midwest Joint Venture's response to its Request for Additional Information on December 23, 1992, for a public review period ending, January 22, 1993

Panel released specialists' report, Assessing Cumulative Effects of Saskatchewan Uranium Mines Development, on January 8, 1993

Panel submitted McArthur River Underground Exploration Program report to federal and provincial governments on January 15, 1993

Cogema's (formerly AMOK) response to the panel's Request for Additional Information released February 8, 1993, for a public review period ending March 5, 1993

Public hearings dates and locations for Dominique-Janine, McClean Lake and Midwest Joint Venture proposals announced on February 19, 1993, with changes announced on March 26 and April 26, 1993. Hearings were held as follows:

• March 22-24, 1993 Hotel Saskatchewan, Regina
• April 13, 1993 Community Hall, Black Lake
• April 14, 1993 Hatchet Lake Band Hall, Wollaston Lake
• April 15-16, 1993 Kikinahk Centre, La Ronge
• April 16, 1993 Friendship Centre, Ile-à-la-Crosse
• April 19, 1993 Complex Hall, Buffalo Narrows
• April 20, 1993 Arena Hall, La Loche
• April 21, 1993 John M. Cuelenaere Library, Prince Albert
• May 3-5, 1993 Holiday Inn, Saskatoon
• May 7-8, 1993 Holiday Inn, Saskatoon
• May 17-20, 1993 Holiday Inn, Saskatoon

Panel submitted Dominique-Janine Extension, McClean Lake Project and Midwest Joint Venture, its report on those proposals, to federal and provincial governments on October 15, 1993

New proposal for development of the Midwest orebody, proposed by Cogema Resources Inc., referred by Sheila Copps, Minister of the Environment, and Berny Wiens, Minister of Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, November 9, 1994, to the joint panel

EIS on Midwest Project released for a 60-day public review August 31, 1995

EIS for the Cigar Lake proposal released October 4, 1995, for a 90-day public review

Public panel-proponent information meeting for the Midwest Project convened November 15-16, 1995, at the Legion Hall, La Ronge

Request for Additional Information on the Midwest Project issued to Cogema Resources Inc. by the panel on December 8, 1995

EIS for Cameco Corporation's McArthur River proposal released December 11, 1995, for a 90-day public review

Public panel-proponent information meeting for the Cigar Lake proposal held January 23-24, 1996, Legion Hall, La Ronge

Request for Additional Information issued to Cigar Lake Mining Corporation by the panel, February 20, 1996

Response to the panel's Request for Additional Information on the Midwest Project released on March 4, 1996, for a public review period ending March 18, 1996

Public panel-proponent information meeting for the McArthur River project held March 21-22, 1996, Legion Hall, La Ronge

Response to panel's Request for Additional Information from Cigar Lake Mining Corporation released on April 1, 1996, for a public review period ending May 1, 1996

Panel issued a second request for information on the Midwest Project to Cogema Resources Inc. on April 12, 1996 and received the supplementary information on May 13, 1996

Request for Additional Information issued to Cameco Corporation on the McArthur River proposal on April 17, 1996

Dates and locations for public hearings on the Midwest Project announced on April 25, 1996, as follows:

• May 27-31, 1996 Ramada Hotel, Saskatoon
• June 4-5, 1996 Kikinahk Centre, La Ronge
• June 6, 1996 Fond du Lac Band Hall, Fond du Lac
• June 7, 1996 Black Lake Band Hall, Black Lake
• June 8, 1996 Father Megret School, Wollaston Lake
• June 10-12, 1996 Regina Inn, Regina
• June 13-15, 1996 Ramada Hotel, Saskatoon

Response to panel's Request for Additional Information from Cameco Corporation on the McArthur River proposal released on June 18, 1996, for a public review period ending July 18, 1996

Panel issued a second request for information on the Cigar Lake Mining Corporation on May 11, 1996 and received the supplementary information on July 18, 1996, for a 30-day public review period ending August 18, 1996

Dates and locations for public hearings on the Cigar Lake and McArthur River projects announced on July 18, 1996, as follows:

• September 4- 6,1996 Regina Inn, Regina
• September 9-18, 1996 Ramada Hotel, Saskatoon
• October 1-2, 1996 Kikinahk Centre, La Ronge
• October 3, 1996 Father Megret School, Wollaston Lake
• October 4, 1996 Community Hall, Stony Rapids
• October 5, 1996 Fond du Lac Band Hall, Fond du Lac
• October 7, 1996 Kateri Hall, Sandy Bay
• October 8, 1996 Band Hall Gymnasium, Montreal Lake
• October 9, 1996 Community Hall, La Loche
• October 10, 1996 Mezzanine, Beauval Arena, Beauval
• October 11, 1996 Community Hall, Patuanak

Additional public hearing session, September 19 in Saskatoon, announced on August 16

Panel announces reopening of Midwest review, and postponing of Cigar Lake technical sessions on tailings disposal, to permit public review of changed proposal for tailings disposal, August 26, 1996

Change to schedule for public hearings for the McArthur River and Cigar Lake proposals announced October 3; hearings held as follows:

• September 4-6, 1996 Regina Inn, Regina
• September 9-19, 1996 Ramada Hotel, Saskatoon
• October 1-5, 1996 Kikinahk Centre, La Ronge
• October 7, 1996 Community Hall, Pinehouse

Panel receives supplemental information on tailings disposal on October 31, 1996, and releases it for 30-day public review

Panel requests additional information on tailings disposal on December 12, 1996

Panel receives additional information from Midwest and Cigar Lake, and releases it for 30-day public review, on May 2, 1997

Public hearings on Midwest and Cigar Lake tailings disposal announced on June 16, 1997

Public hearings held on August 26-28, 1997, at the Kikinahk Centre, La Ronge, Saskatchewan

D.1 Oral Presentations Made at Public Hearings

• Adam, Elder Eli
• Adamson, W.R.*
• Alphonse, Daniel
• Araujo, Fernando
• Atomic Energy Control Board (Fred Ashley, Dalsu Baris, Ken Bragg, Larry Chamney, Robi Chatterjee, Blair Johnston, Shiz hong Lei, Rick McCabe, Mary Measures, Denis Schryer, Kevin Scissons, Patsy Thompson, Tom Viglasky, Ken Wagstaff)*
• Benoanie, Ed
• Benoanie, Louis
• Benoanie, Marie
• Boneleye, Edwin
• Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (Gordon Edwards)*
• Canadian Nuclear Association (Murray Stewart)*
• Canadian Nuclear Workers Council (Dave Shier)*
• Can Am Construction Inc. (Jean Poirier)*
• Citizens Concerned About Free Trade (David Orchard)*
• Cogema Resources Inc. (Ron Barsi, Lyle Bear, Adrian Brown, Doug Chambers, Wayne Clifton, Jeff Combs, Bruce Halbert, Kai Kaletsch, Dennis Krochak, Donald Langmuir, John Mahoney, Vincent Martin, Deana Martz, Alain Marvy, Al Morrish, Cam Osler, Michel Poissonnet, Liz Quarshie, Lena May Seegerts, Fritz Steinhäusler, Joe Whitehawk)*
• Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union (John Case)*
• CUSO (Don Kossick)
• Deranger, Don
• Dzeylion, A.
• Dzeylion, Bart
• Disain, Alphonse
• Echodh, Victor
• English River First Nation (Chief Archie Campbell, Jim McPherson)*
• Environment Canada (Bill Howard, Dennis Lawson)*
• Environmental Quality Committees (Athabasca -- James Augier, Victor Echodh, Jeanne Lepine, June MacDonald, Felix McDonald, Alfred Naldzil, Shelley Powder, George Tsannie; South-Central -- Mayor Ina Fietz Ray, Bill Layman, Mayor Syd Nelson, Angus Pratt, Joe Roberts, Mayor Greg Ross, Mayor Gordon Stomp; West Side -- Chief Archie Campbell, Georgina Deschambault, Jim Favel, John Janvier, Mayor Ernie Laliberte, Elaine Malbeuf, Mayor Max Morin, Clifford Ray, Norman Wolverine, Mayor Bobby Woods)*
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Bruce Fallis, Ray Hesslein)*
• Fond du Lac First Nation (Chief Caroline Isadore)*
• Gitzel, Clare*
• Greenfield, David*
• Government of Saskatchewan (Jane Forster, Ray McKay, Tony Penikett)*
• Haiven, Judy*
• Hanson, Jason*
• Hanson, Jody*
• Hatchet Lake Band (Rick Bell, Jack Bell, Jonathan Taylor)*
• Human Resources Development Canada (Bob Jones)
• Inter-Church Uranium Committee (Marion Penna, Phillip Penna)*
• International Uranium Congress (Parrott, Dan)*
• Josie, Louis
• Josie, Martin
• Kitsaki Development (Dave McIlmoyl)
• Lafleur, Jim
• La Ronge/Air Ronge Economic Development (Angus Pratt)*
• Leger, Jules
• MacDonald, Georgina
• McDonald, Darryl
• Meadow Lake Tribal Council (Vice Chief Isadore Campbell)*
• Megret, Father
• Mercredi, Georges
• Mercredi, John James
• Murphy, Lara*
• Murphy, Linda*
• Natural Resources Canada (Grant Feasby, Rennie Tupper, Richard M. Williams)*
• New North (Mayor Ina Fietz Ray and Mayor Max Morin)*
• Nguyen, Trung*
• Northern Resource Trucking (Chief Harry Cook, Dwayne Hounsell, Roger Olyowsky)*
• O'Shea, Kerry
• PCL Construction Management Inc. (Anibal Valente)*
• Penna, James*
• Penna, Marion*
• Penna, Phillip*
• Plowshares Saskatoon (Linda Murphy)*
• Points North Freight Forwarding Inc. (George Eikel)*
• Poellet, Michael*
• Prebble, Peter*
• Prince Albert Development Corporation (Trevor Ives)*
• ProCon Mining and Tunnelling (Ed Yurkowski)*
• Regnier, Bob*
• Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management (Tom Gates, Malcolm Ross, John Schisler, Randy Sentis, Len Sinclair, Ron Zukowsky)*
• Saskatchewan Indigenous Coalition (Ken Noskiye)
• Saskatchewan Labour (Ernest Becker, Jeff Parr)*
• Saskatchewan Mining Association (Bob Cunningham)*
• Saskatchewan Northern Mines Monitoring Secretariat (Pam Schwann)
• Saskatchewan Risk Assessment Society (Ralph Cheesman)
• Saskatchewan Uranium Coalition (Marvin Resnikoff)*
• Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Agency (John Hyshka)*
• Sayazie, Chief Donald
• Sayazie, Joe
• Shiell, Maisie*
• Sinclair, Neil*
• Southwest Research and Information Centre (Paul Robinson)*
• Strnad, George*
• Swider, Richard*
• Taylor, A.S.*
• Thomas, Dr. Patricia*
• Throassie, John
• Transport Canada (Karen Plourde)*
• Tsannie, Rosalie
• Uranerz Exploration and Mining Ltd. (Gerhard Ruhrmann, Al Shpyth)*
• Weingeist, Karen*

* A written submission was supplied to accompany the oral presentation, and is available for public review.

D.2 Written Submissions

• Barbour, S. Lee
• Carle, Gordon
• Government of the Northwest Territories (Andrew Gamble)
• Harding, Jim
• Health Canada (David Grogan)
• Malloy, Sheila
• Nature Saskatchewan (Garth Nelson)
• Points North Construction Ltd. (Bob Westgard)

Project-Specific Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, November, 1994.

Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement, Cogema Resources Inc., August 1995.

Request for Additional Information on the Midwest Project, requested by the Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan, December 1995.

The Midwest Project, Additional Information, Cogema Resources Inc., February 1996.

Additional Request for Information for The Midwest Project, requested by the Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan, April 1996.

The Midwest Project, Supplementary Information, Cogema Resources Inc., May 1996.

The Midwest Project Addendum, Cogema Resources Inc., October 31, 1996

Request for Additional Information, requested by the Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan, December 12, 1996.

The Midwest Project, Tailings Management -- Additional Information, Cogema ResourceFs Inc., April 1997.