Cameco Corporation: Application to revoke the. AECB-MFDL , and issue a new licence to. possess, manage and store nuclear substances at

Transcription

1 0 HEARING DAY TWO Cameco Corporation: Application to revoke the current decommissioning licence, AECB-MFDL-0-0., and issue a new licence to possess, manage and store nuclear substances at the Beaverlodge site. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ladies and gentlemen, if we could take our seats please. The next item on the agenda today is hearing Day on the matter of the application by Cameco Corporation to revoke the current decommissioning licence at the Beaverlodge site and to issue a new licence to possess, manage and store nuclear substances at the Beaverlodge site. I would like to welcome our participants from Saskatoon, who are participating, I believe, by video-conferencing. Is that correct? Yes, they are. Mr. Secretary. MR. LEBLANC: Thank you. This is Day of this public hearing. The revised Notice of Public Hearing 00-H- was published on October 0th, 00. The public was invited to participate either by oral presentation or written submission. January

2 , 00, was the deadline set for filing by intervenors. The Commission received four requests for intervention. February th was the deadline for filing of supplementary information. It is noted that supplementary information has been filed by the applicant and CNSC staff, as well as by an intervenor. 0 0-H.B Oral presentation by Cameco Corporation THE CHAIRPERSON: With this preamble, then, I would like to start the hearing by calling on the presentation from Cameco Corporation, as outlined in CMD Document 0-H.B. I will turn it over to Mr. John Jarrell. Welcome, Mr. Jarrell, and the floor is yours, sir. MR. JARRELL: Good morning, Madam Chair, Commission members, Commission staff, ladies and gentlemen. For the transcript record, my name is John Jarrell. I am vice-president of Safety, Health and Environment for Cameco Corporation.

3 0 Joining me today is Bob Phillips, who is Cameco's project manager for the Beaverlodge Project. Joining us by video-conference is Carl Paton, who is currently transitioning into Cameco's project manager, in light of Bob is phased into retirement over the next couple of years. A summary of the major purpose of this presentation is provided in this slide. You may recall that a detailed presentation was made at the Day hearings, as that hearing was the first time that the property had been brought before the Commission by Cameco. This Day presentation will provide the Commission with background on a concept which has not been articulated in the past, namely the differentiation between legacy historical impacts and current impacts over the -year history of the Beaverlodge Project. This will be done using background information on selenium, which is of current environmental interest. We will also provide additional thoughts and follow-up to a Commission member

4 0 question at the Day hearing related to lessons learned; and finally, a brief update on the issue of decommissioning financial assurances will be provided. During the early years of operation, the activities conducted at the Beaverlodge site were, like all other resource sectors, undertaken using what were considered acceptable procedures at the time. Those procedures incorporated fairly limited considerations for the chemical treatment of discharges from the mining, milling and tailings management areas. At Beaverlodge, prior to, decant liquids from the deposited tailings in Fookes Lake were allowed to be discharged after settling, but without chemical treatment, to Marie and Greer Lakes and to Fulton Bay of Beaverlodge Lake. In addition, during operations tailings spilt into Ace Creek, which flows into Ace Bay of Beaverlodge Lake. The historic mining and milling activities had a direct impact on the aquatic environment in Beaverlodge Lake, the residuals of which can still be measured today in such areas as

5 0 water quality and as sediments. It was not until the mid-s, some years after operations began in, that current practice effluent treatment processes were initiated at the Beaverlodge site. These included treatment of the TMF decant and mine waters with barium chloride and ferric sulphate for radium removal. This was done in response to changing federal and provincial regulatory expectations, such as the introduction of the federal Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations and Guidelines. Having said all that, it must also be noted that the overall impact to Beaverlodge Lake during the operating years was largely mitigated by the relatively clean, low-grade ore. The ore did not contain the nickel, arsenic and other metals commonly associated with the uranium ores further south in the Athabaska Basin. The ore was extracted using less aggressive carbonate leeching in lieu of what is more common now, sulphuric acid leeching. The uranium precipitation was also carried out using sodium hydroxide rather than the more conventional ammonia hydroxide. A 00 aquatic study of

6 0 Beaverlodge Lake assessed the current period health of the benthic invertebrate community and the lake chub population. Three areas were assessed: Fulton Bay of Beaverlodge Lake, where the formal tailings management facility discharged; Ace Bay of Beaverlodge Lake, where Ace Creek discharges, this being the watershed covering the mills site and most of the mine site; and finally, Keddy Bay, which was an in-lake reference point. Both Fulton and Ace Bays, which contain legacy contaminants in the sediments, they have a benthic population comparable to Keddy Bay and to other non-impacted reference sites in the areas, such as Schmoo Lake. The lake chub population, although showing some health effects, such as cataracts, appears to be a sustainable population. Since decommissioning of the Beaverlodge site in, a measurable and often significant reduction in the concentration of the majority of contaminants of concern in the water entering Beaverlodge Lake has been observed. The two locations that have been sampled on a regular basis are AC, which is the Ace Creek discharge

7 0 to Ace Bay, and a site called TL, which is the Greer Lake discharge, which is the former TMF discharge to Fulton Bay. Selenium concentrations over the past 0 years are of current interest, as fish selenium levels are elevated. It is known to cause abnormalities and potentially affects the viability of the fish community. It is selenium that we wish to focus our attention on in discussing legacy and current effects. Our purpose is to give you a bit of the background on the current issue and outline what steps are being taken to improve our understanding of this issue. I will now turn over the presentation to Bob Phillips to outline this in more detail, and to complete our presentation. MR. PHILLIPS: Thanks, John. To start off with, I would like to make the observation that there has been a measurable reduction in the loading of contaminants of concern from Ace Creek and Fulton Creek, Greer Lake to Beaverlodge Lake. The original contaminants of concern, radium, uranium and total dissolved

8 0 solids, were selected because they were above the close-out objectives at the time of reclamation, and were expected to remain so for some period of time. Selenium, the most recent parameter of concern, has also been selected because of its potential effects to fish, as noted previously. Loading reductions have occurred since when reclamation work was completed. When compared to the operational loadings prior to, the to 00 loadings are lower. The following slides will use selenium as an example to show legacy impacts. This figure provides a summary of the annual average selenium concentrations in the surface water in both Ace Creek, AC, in yellow, and Fulton Creek, TL, in red, and TL, in green, since mill stoppage in. A declining trend in selenium concentrations at TL, which was the former TMF, last point of control, and TL, the discharge to Beaverlodge Lake, is evident. Over the last four years, the concentrations have been around parts per billion or.00 milligrams per litre.

9 0 Ace Creek concentrations remain essentially unchanged over the period, with results generally less than.00 milligrams per litre. The results for the 00 period are not plotted on the graph, but were comparable to 00. TL and TL were about milligrams per litre -- I'm sorry, were.00 milligrams per litre, and AC was about. parts per billion. This figure presents the average annual selenium concentrations at two stations in Beaverlodge Lake, BL, in red, Fulton Bay, 0 metres from where TL discharges into the bay, and BL, in blue, in the centre of the lake. At BL, the concentration has remained relatively stable at.00 milligrams per litre since -. Very little selenium data exists for Beaverlodge Lake prior to this period; however, there was one result for - of 0.00 milligrams per litre. Selenium concentrations at BL have been less than 0.00 milligrams per litre. Note that all concentrations have been between the Saskatchewan surface water quality objective, in yellow, of 0.0 milligrams

10 0 per litre, or parts per billion, and the CCME guideline, in purple, of 0.00 milligrams per litre. Also shown on this plot is the British Columbia guidelines of 0.00 milligrams per litre. Sediment core samples were obtained from Fulton, Ace and Keddy Bays during the 00 study, with selenium concentrations measured at several depth intervals. Of the three bays, the concentrations were highest in Fulton Bay, confirming current data that the Fulton Creek system has likely, over time, measurably contributed to the selenium loadings to Beaverlodge Lake. This figures shows Fulton Bay's selenium concentrations and sediment profiles. The significant concentration differences between deeper sediment, to centimetres, and the sediment water column interface, 0 to centimetres, indicates a reduction in selenium concentrations in more recent years. The deepest sediment concentration, 0 to centimetres, represents sediment before the Beaverlodge operation.

11 0 In both the water quality and the sediment quality data, it is seen that there is a legacy of contaminant loadings from the former Beaverlodge facility to Beaverlodge Lake. Beaverlodge Lake is not only the receiving environment for the Beaverlodge site, but also for nine other non-eldorado abandoned uranium mine sites and one other uranium mill tailings area. This slide lists the nine abandoned mines and the one tailings area within the Beaverlodge Lake watershed. All of these former non-eldorado uranium facilities operated during the 0s and 0s. This figure shows the locations of these nine abandoned uranium mines, shown as red stars, and the one uranium mill tailings area, known as the Lorado site, shown as a brown star, and Nero Lake, shown as a light shade of blue. The decommissioned Beaverlodge sites, which are the subject of the current licence application, are shown as green dots. The former tailings management facility is shown as a light shade of blue. Water flow directions were shown

12 0 by the red arrows. Flows into Beaverlodge Lake consist of Ace Creek and Fulton Creek, over in this area, Nero Creek, and the remaining surrounding drainage area. Beaverlodge Lake flows to Martin Lake, and Martin Lake flows to Cracklingstone Creek, which flows to Bushell Bay, of Lake Athabaska. The minor non-eldorado satellite mine sites were largely abandoned without full decommissioning. Each site may be contributing some level of contamination, ultimately to Beaverlodge Lake. However, none of these potential loadings has been quantified, which makes it difficult to accurately predict environmental conditions. Having said that, there is currently no direct evidence that the more minor of the other sites is having a measurable impact on this watershed. Beaverlodge Lake has an estimated volume of. billion cubic metres, with a total drainage area of about 0 square kilometres. The lake's surface area is about 0 square kilometres. The lake is therefore regarded as a large and deep lake, with an average retention time of about 0 years. The challenge for Cameco is to separate

13 0 out the legacy from current Beaverlodge site impacts, particularly in conjunction with the additional assessment work ongoing at the Lorado site. Contaminant loadings, selenium and uranium, for example, between and, from the Beaverlodge mining and milling activities and from the non-eldorado sites, has had an impact on the Beaverlodge Lake and, to a lesser extent, to the downstream Martin Lake. Legacy impacts to Beaverlodge Lake sediments, due to the Beaverlodge operations, are best assessed in Ace and Fulton Bays. Cameco began current period assessments in and 00. The results and reports assessed various environmental components of the aquatic environment within the lake, such as the benthic invertebrates, fish and sediment. This legacy assessment is continuing, with follow-up work planned in 00 and 00. The future activities are to include geochemical modelling, to define the behaviour of key parameters from upstream sources on the decommissioned Beaverlodge site and determine how these influence water and sediment

14 0 quality within Fulton Bay of Beaverlodge Lake; acute toxicity testing to confirm no adverse toxic effects from water entering Beaverlodge Lake from the decommissioned Beaverlodge site outflows at Ace Creek and Fulton Creek; existing data review to assess conditions in Fulton Bay, Beaverlodge Lake, relative to other areas on the lake; spacial and temporal metal trends to define extent of metal concentrations and sediments in Fulton Bay of Beaverlodge Lake; spawning habitat assessment to determine presence of large bodies of fish spawning habitat at Fulton Bay; and fish health study to further assess the health of resident fish species within Fulton Bay. At the Day hearings, Dr. Dosman asked an insightful question concerning what lessons Cameco and its predecessor has learned over the 0-year decommissioning period. We felt the question worthy of some additional reflection. It particularly struck me, as I both managed the reclamation in the early eighties and have monitored the sites since. The Beaverlodge Project was active as an operating site for 0 years and, currently, as a decommissioned site for 0 years. During

15 0 this 0-year period, activities were conducted based on what I feel were the best practices of the day; however, when reflecting on the past activities, there are valuable lessons learned. While some of these lessons support the activities of the day, they also suggest that, if we were to do it again, the approach would be different. The following slides give a more complete answer to this important question. Flow data collected on the Ace Creek and Fulton Creek watersheds over the period to 00 have demonstrated that run-off rates estimated during the decommissioning phase, to, were seriously underestimated. This is because limited flow data were available at the time of my enclosure. As a result, the calculated operating phase contaminant loading estimate, which was to serve as the going-forward bench mark, was also underestimated. Comparison of revised higher operating phase contaminant loads with measured post-operating phase loads has shown that the total loads to Beaverlodge Lake have, in fact, decreased substantially, as originally predicted

16 0 during the decommissioning plan approval process. The experience gained in reanalysing contaminant loads has demonstrated the need to have good flow measurement instrumentation in place at key locations in local watersheds throughout the operating and post-operating phases. Concentrations of three key contaminants, uranium, radium and total dissolved solids, were predicted to decrease at all monitoring stations in the Ace Creek and Fulton Creek watersheds during the post-operating phase. These predictions were valid with the exception of radium on Fulton Creek, TL. In-depth field and laboratory investigations in Fulton Creek have shown that the observed increase in the radium levels in Fookes and Marie Lakes is attributable to radium released from calcite or calcium carbonate precipitates in the tailings and in Greer Lake from redissolution of barite or barium sulphate precipitates. The barite precipitate was formed after the affluent was treated with barium chloride, in the presence of sulphate, to form barium radium sulphate. Some of the barite was

17 0 released to Greer Lake. The geochemistry investigations have contributed significantly to an improved understanding of the lake sediments. With this knowledge, we are able to make better predictions of future performance. The lessons learned are: have a good understanding of the sediment geochemistry before decommissioning; an effective collection of after-treatment barium radium sulphate precipitates is necessary to minimize downstream impacts. Uranium concentration in Beaverlodge Lake has recently been identified to be of potential concern with respect to use of the lake as a drinking water source during the decommissioning recovery period. This was not anticipated at the time the decommissioning plans were being formulated. The identification of this particular issue, now rather than in the past, could be attributable to significant changes in drinking water guidelines for uranium with time. This is an example of a type of issue that is identified after the fact as a result of a change in the bench mark and the

18 0 difficulty in bringing closure to a site that is under evaluation for long periods of time. The lesson to be learned is that site closure becomes more difficult as a result of time and changing expectations. Risk assessments undertaken since closure to evaluate the risk to people and wildlife that may spend time at the Eldorado satellite mines has shown that the estimated doses were well below levels that could pose unacceptable risks. This observation confirms that the steps taken at closure to remediate these satellite mines were, in fact, adequate, as originally expected. The lesson learned is that there can be value in re-evaluating the basic premises of the original assessment once real data is available to replace model predictions. Relocation of tailings during the decommissioning phase in Marie Lake was done to minimize resuspension of tailings, as they were originally located in the inlets of a channel of the lake. Right here. The tailings were moved to a deeper part of the lake over the winter. Although the original objective

19 0 for moving the tailings was achieved, the relocation of the tailings released tailings-pore water and resuspended tailings into the water columns. The result of this activity was to set the lake back, with regards to recovery time. The lesson to be learned is that movement of material creates an immediate release of contaminants and would need to be included in the risk assessment. It also means that one should think long and hard before undertaking relocation work, if there are alternatives. Decommissioning activities were completed using existing manpower and equipment. This resulted in improved project performance from safety and time line appearance perspectives. The workforce understood the issues and many people wanted to be part of the project to bring a good closure to something they have worked so hard to make work well. The lesson to be learned is that, at least for remote sites, the first choice for the conducting of the decommissioning is to use the existing manpower and equipment, if it is available, and the timing supports this type of approach. This implies that decommissioning

20 0 0 planning and the acceptance of the plans by the regulators is required during the operating phase. Turning now to financial assurances, Cameco Corporation was created from the merger of the assets of the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, Eldorado Nuclear Limited and Eldorado Resources Limited. Under the terms of the agreement to transfer assets from Canada Eldor Incorporated, the federal successor to Eldorado, to Cameco, the parties, Canada Eldor Inc. and Cameco, along with the Government of Canada, agreed on a formula for sharing any future joint cost. The terms of the agreement that relate to financial assurances were: Cameco would be responsible for the management of the Beaverlodge site and Canada Eldor Inc., a federal Crown agent, would be responsible for costs in recognition of the site status at time of merger. Canada Eldor Incorporated is a subsidiary of the Canada Development and Investment Corporation and is therefore an agency of the Government of Canada. Early this month, Cameco received a letter from Canada Eldor Incorporated addressing

21 0 this financial assurance issue providing a third-party legal interpretation of the obligations of the government. This letter has been forwarded to the CNSC staff for their assessment. Canada Eldor is also in the process of getting concurrence on the interpretation from the federal Finance Department. If necessary, further meetings between Cameco, Canada Eldor and the CNSC will be organized to bring closure to this issue. But based upon current understanding, this issue is close to being resolved, at least in our view. This concludes our presentation. John, myself, and possibly Carl Paton, in Saskatoon, if necessary, are available to answer any questions you may have, either now or later in the proceedings. Thank you for this time and your attention. MR. JARRELL: Madam Chair, that completes our presentation. 0-H.A Oral presentation by CNSC staff

22 0 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I would like to, then, turn to the CNSC staff for their presentation. Mr. Barclay Howden will be doing the staff presentation, CMD 0-H.A. Mr. Howden, you have the floor, sir. MR. HOWDEN: Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, and members of the Commission. For the record, my name is Barclay Howden. I'm the director-general of the Directorate of Nuclear Cycle and Facilities Regulation. With me today are Mr. Kevin Scissons, director of the Uranium Mines and Lands Evaluation Division; Ron Stenson, project officer in the same division for this site; and the rest of our licensing team. Cameco Corporation has submitted an application for a licence to allow for the possession, management and storage of nuclear substances at its Beaverlodge decommissioned mine and mill site in northern Saskatchewan. This licence would replace the current decommissioning

23 0 licence, which is AECB-0-0., which would be revoked. The proposed licensing changes are essentially administrative in nature and do not involve any new physical works or changes to the substance of the existing licence or any other obligations under the existing licence or under the Nuclear Safety Control Act and its associated regulations. In this document, CNSC staff recommends that the Commission make a licensing decision on the application pursuant to section of the Nuclear Safety Control Act. I will now ask Mr. Stenson to present CMD 0-H.A. MR. STENSON: Thank you, Mr. Howden. Good morning. For the record, I'm Ron Stenson, project officer for the Beaverlodge site licensing and compliance. Today's presentation will provide supplemental information on financial guarantees, off-site environmental impacts of the site and confirm staff's previous CEAA assessment. We are also making recommendations for licensing.

24 0 Day for this public hearing was September th, 00. An adjournment of the public hearing was granted to allow CNSC staff additional time to address issues arising from the Day hearing, including potential off-site environmental issues and confirmation of financial guarantees arrangements. Staff has completed their work on all of these issues and is ready to proceed with the licensing of the Beaverlodge site. As discussed previously, Cameco currently manages the Beaverlodge site. Cameco has advised the CNSC the costs associated with the management of the site are reimbursed to Cameco by Eldorado...I'm sorry, by Canada Eldor Inc., CEI, an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada. CEI has agreed to provide a letter verifying that they will be responsible for future costs associated with the long-term monitoring and maintenance of the Beaverlodge site and that, as an agent of the Crown, CEI's liabilities are liabilities of the Crown. CEI has proposed that this letter would be supplemented by a letter of comfort from the Government of Canada confirming this.

25 0 As of this morning, CNSC staff has received a letter from CEI's legal counsel, but has not received the letter from the Government of Canada. In anticipation that the letters would not arrive before the public hearing Day, staff proposed a new licence condition in our CMD 0-H.A. The same licence condition would continue to be suitable after the letters are received. As a result of the proposed new licence condition, the last reference in Appendix B of the draft licence, WFOL-W-0.0/00 would be removed, as reference to the agreement would no longer be required. Staff proposes the following licence condition. be added: "The licensee shall establish and maintain a financial guarantee for long-term monitoring and maintenance acceptable to the Commission or a person authorized by the Commission. The financial guarantee shall, unless otherwise authorized by the

26 0 Commission or a person authorized by the Commission, be in place by June 0, 00. The licensee shall verify that the financial guarantee remains valid and in effect and sufficient to meet the long-term monitoring and maintenance needs." In accordance with CMD 00-M, staff is requesting the Commission to delegate to staff the acceptability of the letter and that it constitutes an acceptable financial guarantee arrangement. CNSC staff will inform the Commission through a significant development report if the licence condition is not met. Moving on to the environmental update. During the public hearing Day, on September, 00, CNSC staff informed the Commission that the off-site, downstream environmental effects from the Beaverlodge site were not well characterized and that an update would be provided at the public hearing Day. The unlicensed receiving environment of Beaverlodge Lake is seen in the

27 0 background of this slide. The picture also shows some of the Fulton Creek drainage system and the Fookes and Marie Lakes, both of which received mill tailings during the to period. The environmental behaviour of radium, uranium and selenium is not well characterized and, consequently, there is uncertainty about the long-term fate of these contaminants, particularly in Beaverlodge Lake, outside of the licensed area. At some locations, like the downstream area of Fulton Bay, high selenium levels have resulted in a high incidence of deformities in lake chub and selenium has accumulated in tissues of lake trout and white sucker to levels known to cause reproductive failure. However, the accumulation of contaminants in sediment outside of the licensed area, in Ace and Fulton Bays, has not resulted in severe impacts on benthic invertebrates. This conclusion is supported by the presence of metal-sensitive benthic invertebrates in Ace and Fulton Bays despite a reduction in diversity. Off-site, downstream in Beaverlodge Lake, it is anticipated that the risk

28 0 of reproductive failure of fish species due to selenium accumulation in tissue will remain high over the next several decades. This risk has not yet been properly assessed. As confirmed in recent meetings with the licensee, CNSC staff accepts that Cameco will make adequate provision for the protection of the environment based upon carrying out agreed-upon activities in 00 and 00 in order to address the environmental concerns related to the proposed licensed activity on Beaverlodge Lake. The proposed activities are provided in CMD 0-H.A and staff believes this level of commitment is fully satisfactory and does not require additional licence conditions Information gathered through these activities will be used to determine whether or not additional remediation of the licensed site is necessary. CNSC staff will take all appropriate actions and will report back to the Commission with its conclusions and recommendations. During the Day hearing, CNSC staff was requested to verify their CEAA determination. CNSC staff has reconfirmed that

29 0 construction and operation of physical works or the carrying out of physical activities was initiated before June nd,, and that the proposed licensing action does not entail a modification, decommissioning, abandonment or other alteration to the project in whole or in part. Therefore, in accordance with subsection.() of the CEAA, staff has determined that no EA is required in respect to the issuance of the proposed licence. CNSC staff's conclusions. The information contained within the CMD does not affect the conclusions and recommendations in CMD 0-H; however, as noted in section. of the CMD, CNSC staff is proposing an additional licence condition related to financial guarantees for the proposed waste facility operating licence. Staff also requests the Commission delegate to the designated officer the authority to determine the acceptability of the licensee's financial guarantee. As a result of the proposed new licence condition, the last reference in Appendix B of the draft licence WFOL-W-0.0/00 would be removed as reference to the agreement would no

30 0 0 longer be required. CNSC staff is also requesting a minor date change for proposed licence conditions. and.. The Beaverlodge annual report has normally been submitted by September 0 each year, reporting on the July to June 0 period. Due to our administrative oversight, the March 0 date was proposed by staff in the draft licence attached to CMD 0-H and, as noted during our Day discussions with the Commission, CNSC staff were to redress this issue. Unfortunately, we did not make that correction in the Day CMD, so we are proposing it now. The requested wording change for the dates in conditions. and. would now read, "The licensee shall submit by September 0 of each year...", and all other words in the proposed conditions remain unchanged. Staff apologizes for this oversight. Recommendations. CNSC staff recommends that the Commission accept the assessment of CNSC staff that an environmental assessment under the CEAA is not required to be carried out by CNSC staff for the issuance of the proposed waste facility operating licence and

31 0 accept the assessment of CNSC staff that Cameco Corporation is qualified to carry on the activities that the licence will authorize and will, in carrying on those activities, make adequate provisions for the protection of the environment, the health and safety of person and the maintenance of national security and measures required to implement international obligations to which Canada has agreed, and that the Commission, pursuant to section of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, issue to Cameco Corporation the waste facility operating licence, WFOL-W-0.0/00, for a two-year licence term, effective from the date of the reason for decision and concurrently with this licence coming into effect revoke licence AECB-MFDL Mr. Howden will provide any of the concluding remarks. MR. HOWDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. That concludes our presentation. We are ready to respond to questions. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I believe Mr. Jarrell mentioned that Mr. Paton is in the Saskatoon office, as

32 0 well. And there's a number of other people, but I think that's -- there is Saskatchewan Northern Affairs, I understand, there, but Saskatchewan Environment is not there. That's our understanding. Welcome to the people from Saskatoon. The floor is now open for questions. Dr. Dosman, would you like to start. MEMBER DOSMAN: Madam Chair, I have one question. Your view of where the bucks stops in the financial guarantee, notwithstanding negotiations and understandings that Cameco has with Government of Canada agencies for financial responsibility, where does the buck stop on the project? Does it stop with Cameco or does it stop with the Government of Canada? MR. JARRELL: John Jarrell, for the transcript record. You may recall in the Day hearing that we provided sort of a vision of how we saw this going forward. There was sort of a compound answer to that. There were parts of this property that we believe will be cleaved off as

33 0 remote satellites that will not require a lot of ongoing activity. The most complex property we have, of course, is the tailings facility. What we expect is that -- I can't give you a very definitive answer to that because I think it depends on the final end state of the property. As we indicated in our presentation, we think, at the end of the day, the financial liabilities or any remaining financial liabilities rest with the federal government. We expect at some point that there will be some sort of understanding between the federal government and the provincial government, who's the land owner, this being leased land, and I think our obvious stated objective would be not to be a long-term party of that arrangement. But that's a long way down the path. I think one of the reasons we asked for a two-year licence was to see if we could get some clarity on that question with respect to these satellite mines. So that's, I think, the first thing we are going to see. MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you. I'm not certain I -- I guess the licence relationship

34 0 is between -- Cameco is the licence holder at the moment, presumably, so then I take it that -- THE CHAIRPERSON: Not presumably, Dr. Dosman, they are. MEMBER DOSMAN: Right. Thank you. So pre -- I almost used the word again. The relationship between the Commission and the property is really with Cameco, so I guess the fact is the buck stops with Cameco, although Cameco is obviously in a relationship with the Government of Canada, in terms of financial assistance. Would you agree, roughly, with my statement? MR. JARRELL: John Jarrell, for the record. Yes, I was perhaps leaping ahead to the perhaps possible vision of a future where there is not a licence or there is something other than the current licence. So, yes, I probably remiss of just leaping way ahead of myself. But, yes, we are the licensee and responsible for managing the property. MEMBER DOSMAN: If I might, the nine additional mines that are scattered about,

35 0 who's responsible for those properties? MR. PHILLIPS: Currently, I believe that is a provincial responsibility. It's not a part of the current CNSC licence. MEMBER DOSMAN: Right. Well, although it's fair to say that the documentation would indicate that there is likely some contribution of substances into the watersheds from those areas, although I take it that they are not well defined. MR. PHILLIPS: That's correct. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Dosman, I wonder if perhaps the staff could help, as well, to clarify your question. MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you. I would appreciate, Madam Chair, the views of staff on these properties. MR. STENSON: Ron Stenson, for the record. The nine sites are part of the sites that we identified as idle mines without tailings. We believe that the risk at those sites is fairly low and that the contribution is fairly low. Those sites are all the

36 0 responsibility of the provincial government, under their legislation. To date, again, we haven't identified any high risk of either radiologic or conventional contaminants coming from the site, although there could be some. Certainly that characterization may be required in the future. MEMBER DOSMAN: Could I ask if there is a representative of the Government of Saskatchewan present in Saskatoon who might like to speak to the issue of responsibility for the other sites. THE CHAIRPERSON: I gather that there is someone from Saskatchewan Northern Development. Would you care to comment? It's your choice. MR. SINCLAIR: No, I don't think at this time. Leonard Sinclair, for the record, with Northern Affairs. Actually, no. We have characterized which sites have the highest risk and we are dealing with the number one and two sites at this time, and the other sites, the nine sites in that same area, will be addressed as we

37 proceed. 0 MEMBER DOSMAN: So Madam Chair, do I take it that -- so who is responsible for the other nine sites, then, if I might ask -- I'm sorry, I didn't note your name, sir, in Saskatoon. THE CHAIRPERSON: I believe that the staff already said that it's the responsibility of the Saskatchewan government, in a definitive fashion. Yes, Mr. Scissons. MR. SCISSONS: It's Kevin Scissons. We also should add another key facility in that same drainage basin of Beaverlodge Lake is called Lorado. Lorado and Gunner are, of course, key legacy mine with tailings areas in this same neighbourhood. Lorado does have drainage or seepages reporting from Nero Lake into Hanson Bay, at the south end of Beaverlodge Lake. So that's a very key area of drainage that reports there. The other nine mines we were speaking of did not have tailings, but there is clearly some potential from drainage from some low-level waste rock or operation of the mines

38 that may have drained towards Beaverlodge Lake. In the big picture, though, the significant impacts on Beaverlodge Lakes, and clearly in Fulton and Ace Bays, were from the operation of the historical Eldorado facility. MEMBER DOSMAN: Madam Chair, I have a question from CNSC staff relating to the length of the proposed licence. Why did you recommend two years? MR. STENSON: Ron Stenson, for the record. 0 The staff recognizes that a two-year term is unusual for this type of licence, but we considered three things in making our recommendation for a two-year term. The first was the licensing period aligns very well with major milestones in the site planning cycle. The second is that there are ongoing environmental characterization activities, which will be completed in about months, and they may lead to major changes in site requirements. And the third is that the Province of Saskatchewan's institutional controls policy

39 0 should be in place by then, and that may lead to recommendations for licence amendments. Having said that, staff is satisfied that Cameco has effective programs in place to maintain their safety and security over the two-year term. To reiterate, for the record, Cameco has effective compliance programs in place. CNSC staff verifies compliance through reviews and inspections. The licensee has shown consistent and good history in operating and compliance with licence requirements and the licensee is in compliance with all its cost-recovery regulations. So in recognizing that it is unusual, we feel that it's warranted under the circumstances, given the planning cycle. The two-year term will allow us to focus back on the site in two years, when certain issues have been resolved with regards to environmental investigations. MEMBER DOSMAN: That information, Madam Chair, I just wonder if I might ask Cameco, Mr. Jarrell, why did Cameco ask for a two-year licence? MR. JARRELL: John Jarrell, for

40 0 the record. 0 Our original thinking, as Mr. Stenson said, was sort of our business plan, if you will, going forward. Our vision is that there are certain minor satellite properties that we hope to cleave off the licence and our estimation was that would be about a two-year process to complete. MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Taylor. MEMBER TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the staff about the proposed licence condition. I recognize that the proposed licence is for a relatively short period, but are you satisfied in the final sentence: "The licensee shall verify that the financial guarantee remains valid and in effect and sufficient to meet the long-term monitoring needs" that it defines who shall determine what "long term" means and what the maintenance needs are, and that it's the long-term monitoring and maintenance needs for what? For the products from

41 0 the Cameco sites? For the whole system? I'm not clear that it adequately defines who's responsible for what? MR. SCISSONS: Kevin Scissons. In terms of this licence condition, and wrapped it in the whole context of the licence in the supporting documentation, we believe the information is specific to the Beaverlodge facility and the obligations of either Cameco or the federal government finances to ensure it's in place. So I'm not sure if you can specify a little more of what you are after on this, because it's all meant in terms of the Beaverlodge site. MEMBER TAYLOR: I'm not suggesting that the licensee would do this, but it seems to me, from a definitive point of view, it's possible that down the road someone might say, "Well, I'm doing monitoring that isn't interested in some of the selenium stuff because that was somebody else's problem. I'm doing maintenance that treats only the effluent that came out of this licence property". Maybe that's okay, but I'm not sure that this is definitive about that. THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps, and

42 0 maybe this isn't helpful, but I think it might be in terms of the definition of the "licence to possess, manage and store" and how one would define exactly how the obligations that could be imposed, for lack of a better word -- sorry, that's the wrong verb -- but imposed on the licensee with regards to, for example, the environmental program, etc., under this licence. Perhaps it doesn't help very much, but I think it's the degree to which one could have regulatory requirements under this licence and does this licence have the necessary teeth to allow that. Does that help to define that a bit? I don't know, Mr. Scissons, if that helps. It's not whether the company would do it. That's not the implication here. It's just does it have the sufficient teeth. MR. SCISSONS: Kevin Scissons. There is reference at the start that the condition, as well, it is looking for the guarantee of long-term monitoring maintenance acceptable to the Commission, so it's very clear to us and to the designated officer, if that is approved. We also have the powers under our

43 0 act and regulations under our compliance program to verify that they will comply, and we have powers to enforce that or ramp up our regulatory oversight on it if, in the event, they are not fulfilling these commitments, the long-term monitoring or maintenance in and around the property. So we believe we have the powers and the relationship with the licensee and feel it's a very low risk of this not being undertaken to the satisfaction of the Commission or a person authorized by the Commission. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Graham, do you have any questions? MEMBER GRAHAM: My questions were all around the guarantee, and I think they have been covered. The only thing that I wanted to clarify is that, irregardless of who may accept ownership down the road or who may accept responsibilities, the licence condition is right now that the guarantee has to be put in place by Cameco, is that correct, and has to be in place by June 0th? MR. SCISSONS: Kevin Scissons.

44 0 Yes, that is correct, and Cameco is looking for that other assurance with the Government of Canada letter, which we expect is under way. But this licence and licence condition is imposed on the licensee, yes. MR. GRAHAM: And irregardless of whether the letter comes today or on July nd, on June 0th you are looking for Cameco's guarantee, and the amounts will be established at that time, carrying out not only just for a two-year period but the monitoring and maintenance needs will be carried out for whatever indefinite time needs to be done? MR. SCISSONS: Kevin Scissons. Yes, that would be correct. The licence term, in fact, if it is for a two-year term, it has to be complied within the two years. What goes beyond two years will be another condition that may be imposed -- a very similar or additional wording. But for this licensing term, by June 0th, we are expecting this will be fully dealt with by Cameco. As we have committed, in the event this is not achieved, we will report, through a significant development report, to the

45 0 Commission of this issue. But I'm fully confident between ourselves and Cameco this will be addressed one way or the other by June 0th. MR. GRAHAM: I'm not maybe clear myself, but the amount of the guarantee will be not only the amount that will be needed for the next two-year period, it will be the amount required -- in this licensing will be for what you determine is long term? MR. SCISSONS: Yes, yes. I apologize, you are right. The commitment we are getting, we are getting from them. It will be for the long term. Yes, that is correct. THE CHAIRPERSON: Just before I go to Dr. McDill, because you are on the licensing, and perhaps I'm being too blunt here, but what worries me is if we get down the road -- I mean two years is a very short licence, as I have learned, and so we are really talking about months. I just am concerned that circumstances change. I just want to alert the licensee and the staff that extension of licences is not the first choice of the Commission. So I just want you to understand that what we are really

46 0 talking about is a very, very short period of time and one shouldn't tackle these things without clearly understanding the implications of that. I look aghast at extensions without a good reason. I don't particularly think it needs any comments. This is a very experienced licensee and experienced staff. I just want to make sure that you know that we know what this means. Dr. McDill. MEMBER McDILL: Thank you. My question is a follow-on to Mr. Taylor's. It's just a little bit more specific, and I think it maybe addresses a couple of the things raised by intervenors. What is the difference between the decommissioning licence and the waste management licence in the event that -- I will give an example -- sudden information becomes available on selenium or alpha-radiation or some other compound? Is there going to be a difference in how it is handled by Cameco and/or by the Commission? MR. SCISSONS: Kevin Scissons. The way of addressing a

47 0 decommissioning licence is a lot in the planning stage of the actual physical planning and activities taken to take a site through the end of operations, through the cessation of operations to the physical clean-up of all the surface facilities and putting to bed or to rest waste rock and tailings areas. That physical activity has been completed for this site. We are really at the call-in option, the fork in the road, as to which licence could be applied to this facility. Similar to what has been done in the Elliot Lake area of decommissioning uranium mines, we are looking at using a waste facility operating licence for the licensee to possess and manage these nuclear substances and the property, as it be decommissioned. This waste facility operating licence would fulfil that and meets our obligations, and we have powers under the regs for them to comply with it. Now in the event some situation arises, there is some additional monitoring, there is some maintenance or additional remediation that may be required in and around the property or on the property, per se, those activities would have

48 0 to be assessed and could be done under a waste facility operating licence. Once again, though, we would have to revisit the obligations under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and where that might fall into as far as activities and what is above and beyond maintenance and what would be actual physical remedial work, but waste facility operating licences, any of the CNSC waste facility operating licences, if it requires some physical work or activities on that site, there are powers under the regs to allow this to happen, if the Commission so approves it to happen under a licensing or under a designated officer approach for that. It can be done under a waste licence. It doesn't have to be done under a decommissioning licence, yes. MEMBER McDILL: Does Cameco care to comment? MR. JARRELL: John Jarrell for the record. I guess the only comment I would make is that I think our goal is, obviously, wholly compatible with CNSC staff requirements,

49 0 whether they be under a decommissioning licence or a waste management licence. MEMBER McDILL: Thank you. One other question, and this is one more of wording or wordsmithing in the proposed license condition of the lack of a comma or perhaps a misplaced modifier. Is it the financial guarantee that is acceptable to the Commission; is it the long-term monitoring and maintenance that are acceptable to the Commission, or is it the financial guarantee long-term monitoring and maintenance, all three, that are acceptable to the Commission? Thank you. MR. HOWDEN: Barclay Howden speaking. It is for the financial guarantee. Thank you. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Barnes...? MEMBER BARNES: I have questions in four areas. I would like to start with the selenium in sediments and perhaps as a basis for discussion refer to figure in Cameco CMD 0.H.A page to. Some of the discussion on selenium is on pages through and similarly on

50 0 0 the staff CMD and. Most of the information that we have really can be keyed into this figure where we see the increase in selenium going down in the sampled intervals, which are centimetre samples every centimetres down to an to centimetre depth. Then there is a significant drop off at the 0 to centimetre. If I was looking for a trend like this I might ask the question: Why wasn't the sampling continued down to 0 centimetres? Basically there is no sampling between and 0 centimetres, so we don't know if selenium concentrations continue to increase down and at what level they actually start to tail off. That is my first question. Why is the sampling -- having seen this result, and it appears particularly pertinent to Fulton Bay where most of our discussion is. Why is that sampling not continued in detail between and 0 centimetres? MR. PHILLIPS: Bob Phillips, for the record. It wasn't continued mainly just from a cost perspective. We went down to the

51 0 centimetres and then went down as far as we could with the core, which is down to. That was the main reason. But it is something that we can definitely consider for the additional work that is to be done in Fulton Bay in 00 and 00. MEMBER BARNES: What you are saying here is that selenium is the most serious element in terms of contamination and toxic effect on fish, particularly chub at Fulton. Fulton Bay here is perhaps the most acute area and you are concerned about the overall levels of selenium in the long-term in the larger lake, Beaverlodge Lake, and its impact on drinking water over the next few decades. This is what we read here. You also go on to say that part of the long-term strategy is to have a geochemical modelling through here. I would just challenge here that your sampling strategy is inadequate to show this. So let me pose the question: Why do we see this relative decline with depth? I could quote if you wish, I think it is staff that point out that selenium is -- let me quote this. This is page "