Massive tome lists benefits, impacts of proposed Nunavut uranium mine

This map, from Areva’s Kiggavik FEIS documents, shows the location of the proposed uranium mine in the Kivalliq (red star) and other uranium mines in northern Saskatchewan.

If you can believe all that’s written in 11 volumes of material contained in Areva Resources Inc.’s final environmental impact assessment report, the proposed Kiggavik uranium mine, 80 kilometres west of Baker Lake, will bring jobs, training, money and hope to a region in need of those things.

But there will be costs during three to four years of construction, 14 years of proposed operation and 10 years of decommissioning the mine, says the report.

The lengthy final EIS, submitted to the Nunavut Impact Review Board Oct. 2 and made available online Oct. 17, outlines how the company hopes to cut those costs to people, animals, the land and air while taking into account the current, and changing, northern climate.

Areva attempts to show, in this report, how the company will comply with all existing laws and regulations, how it has incorporated “best practices” into infrastructure design and that it’s considered all possible environmental scenarios.

But Areva admits that certain circumstances — and outcomes — cannot be predicted.

For example: “because the project is located in the zone of continuous permafrost, the assessment of the long-term effects of the project is dependent on climate change scenarios and their impact on permafrost,” the final EIS report says.

One of the most commonly repeated words in this report is “monitor.”

And Areva will need a whole team of monitors to do all the monitoring it promises in this report.

The company says that the date of project construction will be influenced by a number of things, including “favourable market conditions,” but adds later, “the market price for uranium concentrate over the last five years has been within the range needed for reasonable return on investment to owners.”

That’s important because the capital cost of the project is estimated at $2.1 billion, with operating costs at about $240 million per year.

Areva says about 750 construction jobs and 600 operational jobs will be created, with a potential for hundreds more indirect jobs to flow from the mine.

And that’s not all Areva promises— “the total taxes and royalties to be paid on the Kiggavik Project would be approximately $1 billion payable to Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Government of Nunavut, and the Government of Canada,” reads the final EIS.

The company plans to mine and process uranium ore from two sites to annually produce 3,200 to 3,800 tonnes of uranium concentrate, also known as yellowcake.

The site will be accessed by a winter road between Baker Lake and Kiggavik and by an on-site airstrip. An all-season road will be considered, “should the winter road be unable to adequately support the project.”

Supplies for the mine will be shipped into a dock facility at Baker Lake during the summer barge season. The yellowcake will be transported by air.

Areva is planning to organize dozens of barge trips annually, thousands of truck trips down the winter road, and about 350 flights per year to transport the yellowcake.

Northern Saskatchewan Dene groups have been vocal in their opposition to yellowcake flights that will pass over their communities.

As is typical for these kinds of environmental reports, there are plain language summaries for each topic area covered — aquatic environment, terrestrial environment, marine environment, human health, for example — as well as technical analyses and baseline data with which to later compare the impact of the mine.

For example, if people are concerned about toxins and heavy metals finding their way into the sediment of Judge Sissons Lake right beside the mine as a result of dust, run-off, or treated wastewater, it’s too late: it’s already there.

Sediment samples from the lake already show elevated levels of arsenic and chromium, and to a lesser degree mercury and cadmium, as a result of the surrounding geology.

But Areva says that discharge from the mine site’s water treatment facilities could affect surface water quality and therefore impact fish habitat.

Public consultations held in various Kivalliq communities over the years have identified what Kivallirmiut are worried about most.

Other than jobs, use of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and training, especially for youth, their most frequent questions focused on the impact the mine will have on the land and the animals, in particular, the caribou that roam by the thousands across Nunavut’s interior.

Kiggavik’s site, with its estimated 1,000-hectare footprint, is located at the intersection of four different barrenland caribou herds. Caribou will be crossing the road, drinking from the lakes and eating the lichen and mosses around the mine.

Areva makes no attempt to hide this fact. Whole sections of the final EIS are devoted to potential impacts on caribou near the mine and further afield, and how the company plans to minimize them.

These examined potential vehicle collisions, increased harvesting as a result of better road access for hunters, reduced habitat and loss of foraging areas, sensory disturbances, change in migratory patterns because of built structures (roads, buildings, etc.) and health impact as result of contaminants.

Collisions are expected to be low on the winter road because by winter, the caribou have moved away from the area, the EIS says.

An all-weather road, if built, would impact herd numbers more significantly, the EIS says, by increasing hunter access to the herds in summer.

The project could impede caribou migration between the calving grounds and the winter range, the EIS says, so Areva plans to design roads and use materials that help to facilitate animal movement.

In terms of how much toxins and heavy metals the animals will eat — nasty radioactive byproducts such as thorium-230, lead-210, radium-226 and polonium-210 as well as arsenic and cadmium — it just depends how long the animals hang around close to the mine site.

Areva’s report says there’s nothing to worry about there.

“The results show that exposure to caribou or muskox is not expected to exceed exposure levels associated with adverse health effects,” the EIS says. “Therefore no adverse effects on caribou or muskox health are expected.”

The report does mention the potential cumulative impacts on caribou habitat and health from all the mining activity in the area including Agnico Eagle’s Meadowbank and Meliadine gold mines and the Kitikmeot region’s proposed Back River gold project.

You can access Areva’s final EIS by going here and clicking on the final EIS link. From there, you can choose which portions of the report you want to read.

If you have a dedicated FTP client, just go to ftp.nirb.ca, open the directory called 02-REVIEWS, then ACTIVE REVIEWS, where you’ll find a directory for the Areva-Kiggavik application.

Those interested in commenting on this report have until Jan. 16, 2015 to make a written submission to the NIRB.

This map from Areva’s Kiggavik project FEIS shows a close up of the mine site and the winter and all-season road options.