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.